The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Volume 1 of 2 1996) 1 \~ ~ ,,r \ \ ' Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project Appendices MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11393 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MAJOR UNCONSTRUCTED PROJECT APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I A Geology and Soils Report B Erosion and Sediment Control Plan C Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Report D Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Report E ISER-Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell, AJaska: 1~2010 F W efland Analysis G Recreational Resources Study H Economic and Financial Feasibility Assessment of the Swan/Tyee lakes Intertie Project I Permit/Certification Applications J Cultural Resources Report VOLUMEll K May 1996 Agency Consultation Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Appendix A Previous and Current Studies MAHONEY LAKE GEOLOGY AND SOIT..S REPORT The Mahoney Lake area, shown on Figure 1, has been studied previously for hydroelectric development. R.W. Beck considered Mahoney Lake in 1977 in a report, titled "Swan Lake, Lake Grace and Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, Appraisal Report" for Ketchikan Public Utilities. This evaluation was based on a literature search and brief helicopter reconnaissance, and only a small portion of the report was devoted to the geotechnical aspects of the site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published two studies in 1978 that contained information regarding Mahoney Lake. In 1981, Harding-Lawson Associates completed a geologic study of the subject site and submitted a report titled "Geologic Reconnaissance for Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, Ketchikan, Al.aska"; however, we have not obtained a copy of the report. The purpose of the present studies is to research and present existing geologic information in support of a hydropower project license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The basis of our geologic information is a review of existing literature (including published and unpublished material), conversations with public_agency and Cape Fox Corporation representatives, and a 2-day site visit on June 21 and 22, 1993. General Geologic Southeastern Alaska has been tectonically active since the early Paleozoic Era and has a complex geologic and structural history. It is divided into several geologic tenanes, each of which has a unique geologic history and is bounded by faults. Those faults are generally major lineaments that follow the valleys, coast lines and inlets of southeastern Alaska. This portion of Alaska was glaciated during the most recent glacial episode that ended about 10,000 years ago. At that time, continental ice thicknesses were in the range of 3,000 feet. The ice depressed the land and smoothed the topography, but after deglaciation, the land rebounded, elevating some marine deposits several hundred feet above sea level. Alpine glaciation also affected the higher mountains of the region, carving U-shaped valleys, cirques, aretes and hanging valleys. 1 In the proximity of Revillagigedo Island, the geology is dominated by the Cretaceous Wrangell-Revillagigedo metamorphic belt. Within this larger geologic unit is the Taku terrane in which the project is located. It is comprised of upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic volcanic and sedimentary rocks that are intruded by upper Cretaceous dikes, sills and stocks of granodiorite, a batholith of Cretaceous quartz diorite and other minor plutons ranging in age from Late Jurassic to Miocene. The terrane is characterized by metamorphism increasing northeastward from greenschist to amphibolite facies of upper Cretaceous age and older. Locally, contact metamorphism has baked the country rock on the edges of the plutons, resulting in hornblende-hornfels facies. In some areas, the intrusions have been emplaced along weak shear zones. The stratified rocks are commonly folded into sharp and overturned folds. Surficial Holocene deposits include glacial drift, elevated marine terraces, stream alluvium, fan/delta deposits, beach deposits, talus/scree and landslide/colluvium deposits. Project Area Geology Geologic conditions, as shown on Figure 2, in the project area are dominated by two bedrock formations. The most widespread rock in the area is a schist. Where this Paleozoic to Mesozoic formation has not been affected by igneous intrusions, it is relatively weak and slope instability is common. However, heat from a large Tertiary intrusion of gabbro baked these rocks in an aureole around the perimeter of the intrusion. The heat transformed the schist to a much harder, more competent rock. The unconfined strength of the rock increased by perhaps as much as 2 to 10 times. It was classified as a sericite schist by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. COB), based on thin-section analysis. One of its distinguishing characteristics is the presence of large pyrite crystals, most of which have disappeared owing to weathering, leaving voids in the surface of the rock. The schist is very thinly foliated and dips very steeply to the west in the vicinity of the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake, but to the north near the powerhouse, thus indicating the possibility of a fault between the two sites. The rock is orthogonally jointed in close to moderately close spacing. Another pervasive bedrock unit closest to the project area is a very large gabbro intrusion just west of the west end of Upper Mahoney Lake. This unit extends westward to the city of 2 f Ketchikan. None of this rock was observed within the project area during reconnaissance. Within the project area are smaller intrusions of quartz diorite and granodiorite, based on reports by others and the observation of quartz diorite cobbles and gravel in the creek. The number, size and location of these small intrusions are unknown. A dashed line on Figure 2 indicates the COB's postulated contact between schist and granodiorite. No karst features were observed in the area and none is mentioned in the geologic literature. No carbonate or evaporite rocks are shown on the geologic maps in the vicinity of the project. Unconsolidated D<ax>sits In general, soils are quite thin over bedrock in this area because of extensive erosion following glaciation. Although the area is known to have been glaciated, no glacial deposits were observed during site reconnaissance. Holocene deposits are colluvium, stream alluvium, and muskeg. Colluvium includes talus/scree, avalanche deposits and landslide deposits. Talus is large angular rock that is found at the toe of a steep bedrock cliff. The rock accumulates by individual rock falls or small rock slides. Scree is formed in the same manner, but is smaller material, generally in the range of 1-to 3-inch diameter. Talus is particularly abundant on the left bank of the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake, where it forms high steep slopes at the toe of a precipitous bedrock cliff, as shown on Figure 2. Avalanche deposits are comprised of rock, soil and woody debris at the toes of avalanche chutes. They are emplaced by winter or spring snow avalanches. The impact of these events can destroy most anything in their paths. Alluvium includes active stream deposits and alluvial fans. The stream deposits, consisting of sand and sandy gravel with cobbles, are found along the main stem of Mahoney Creek and its major tributary. Except for the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake, where previous reports speculated that the bottom of the buried channel was very deep, the thickness of alluvium is expected to relatively thin; on the order of a few feet. Much of Mahoney Creek is very steep gradient and bedrock is exposed in the channel. A significant delta has developed in the area. between the proposed powerhouse site and the mouth of the creek, where it empties into Mahoney Lake. Based on limited reconnaissance, it appears that the deltaic channel shifts frequently, probably in an avulsive manner. The sediment consists mostly of gravelly 3 sand, but also includes large and small organic debris carried during flooding and avalanches. Muskeg is fragmented remains of decayed vegetable matter accumulating in bogs; it can range from nearly all vegetation (peat) to organic silt with peat (muck). No significant deposits are located in the upland portions of the project, but some large muskeg areas were noted along the southern shore of Mahoney Lake. The powerhouse access road will pass over these organic soils. Slope Conditions The project area is very rugged, and steep to precipitous slopes are common. The slopes are controlled by the steep angle of the bedding of the schist, the orthogonal joint pattern, shear zones and faults. This topography was formed by a combination of four factors: (1) the original shaley sediments, (2) doming by the large intrusive batholith, (3) physical weathering by glacial ice and (4) mass wasting events. Since deglaciation, the dominant landscape-altering process has been mass wasting, including rock fall, rock slides, avalanches, landslides and debris torrents. Rock fall is common from bedrock cliffs, most notably from the cliffs along the left bank of Mahoney Creek, as indicated on Figure 2. Because the dip of bedding is 36 to 58 degrees into the slope, the potential for large rock slides there is low, but small to medium rock falls are common. The only large rock slide obsetved was at the southeastern comer of Upper Mahoney Lake. Based on long-distance obsetvation only, the scar of this rock slide appeared to be on the order of 60,000 cubic yards. Such a slide probably created a large seiche in the lake. Other such rock slides are possible where the planar bedding daylights on the slope. Avalanche chutes are primarily oriented north/south, aligned with the prominent geologic structure. The weaker lineaments are more easily weathered and eroded and then become natural chutes for mass wasting. During winter and spring, the dominant method of transportation is snow avalanche, but debris torrents or debris flows also occur. Debris torrents and flows carry much more solid material than do snow avalanches. These events commonly scour sediment and sometimes riparian vegetation. Once scoured, their channels then slowly fill again by rock fall, landslides and creep of the colluvial soils. The major avalanche chutes are shown on Figure 2, Site Geologic Map. Although not recognized on 4 the limited reconnaissance, this stream system with its confined channels and high angle intersections of tributaries with the main channel is conducive to dam-break :floods. Only one landslide was observed in the project area, just southeast of the right angle bend in Mahoney Creek, as shown on Figure 2. This appears to be an old chronic slide that lies along a fault that was identified by the U.S. COB. Because the soil cover is not thick, landsliding does not appear to be a widespread form of mass wasting in the general vicinity. Economic Mineral De.,posits Only one economic mineral deposit was identified in the vicinity of the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The Mahoney Zinc Mine is located north of the outlet from Mahoney Lake to George Inlet, as indicated on Figure 1. The ore body was discovered before 1900 and first visited by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1901. By 1907 a tunnel into the vein had reached 35 feet. The property was bought by Joe Mahoney and Ed McGann and was worked without any financial success until 1940. Elmer Perkins claimed the property in 1942 and worked the mine until1947; assays were completed but no ore was processed. The mine was expanded with the addition of a crusher, mill and concentrator in 1947 by the Big Four Mining Company. They removed 400 to 500 tons of ore and sent concentrate to Idaho and Montana smelters in the summer of 1947. In the summer of 1948, 18 tons of concentrate were shipped for refining; however, by the summer of 1949, mining operations ceased and the mine bas been inactive since. Only the adit opening remains as evidence of the mine (Roppel, 1991). The Mahoney Mine was the first commercial producer of zinc concentrate in Alaska. Its products, in order of weight, were zinc, lead, copper, silver and gold. The vein of sphalerite, the principal ore of zinc, was about 4 feet wide and the length of the adit, as recently measured by the U.S. Geological Survey was 633 feet. The mine was reportedly about another 100 feet longer during its operation (Maas, 1994). The mineralized vein was within the schist bedrock that is found throughout southern Revillagigedo Island. 5 Faults. Shear Zones and Joints The Geologic Map of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert Quadrangles, Southeastern Alaska, (Berg and others, 1988) indicates that there are faults with 3 to 4 miles to the northeast of the Mahoney Lake project; however, these structures do not appear to be active. The U.S. COB (1978) map for their Mahoney Lakes project study showed two faults running through the project area, as indicated on Figure 2. Other lineaments, based on linearity of topographic features, are shown on Figure 2. There is no indication of recent movement along these faults and no seismic activity is recorded anywhere for the area. The faults and lineaments are of interest, because the rock in these areas is weaker than the surrounding rock and can affect the construction of the project, particularly the driving and support of the tunnel. While faults and shear zones are large-scale rock discontinuities, joints are small-scale discontinuities. They are the small cracks in the rock that determine how the rock will break and sometimes slide. The sericite schist is orthogonally jointed in closely to moderately closely spacing, resulting in slabby, angular schist fragments. Soils The distribution of soil units in the vicinity of the proposed project is presented on Figure 3. This infonnation was obtained from the U.S. Forest Service Tongass National Forest office in Ketchikan, Alaska. The map was taken from a large scale map of the soils on Revillagigedo Island supplied by the U.S. Forest Service (U.S. Forest Service, 1993). Soil mapping was available for the public lands around Upper Mahoney Lake and extending eastward to within about 500 feet of the proposed powerhouse site; however, no soil mapping has been accomplished on the land owned by the Cape Fox Corporation. Because of the shallow soil cover in the Mahoney Lake area, the soils are considered to be representative of the underlying geologic units. Six map units are described below that are in proximity to features of the proposed projects. Three units surround the higher-elevation portion of the project: Calamity (246E), Shakan (14EF) and Rock Outcrop (81). Calamity soils are shallow, acidic soils 16 to 20 inches thick on slopes ranging from 5 to 75 percent. The profile is: 6 ' 0-2 inches 2-6 inches 6-16 inches 16-20 inches sandy loam very cobbly, sandy loam extremely cobbly, sandy loam metamorphic bedrock Calamity soils have a very high permeability, are well drained and have a low to moderate landslide hazard potential. They form in the residuum of metamorphic rock. Shakan soils are moderately deep, acidic soils 25 to 29 inches thick on slopes ranging from 60 to 150 percent. The profile is: 0-3 inches 3-25 inches 25-29 inches sandy loam very gravelly, sandy loam metamorphic bedrock Shakan soils have a moderately rapid permeability, are moderately to well drained, and have a high to very high landslide hazard potential. They form in the colluvium that collects in snow avalanche chutes. Rock outcrops comprise alpine summits and mountain slopes. They also include rock rubble, such as talus, and have a low landslide hazard potential. Three other soil units are located closer to Mahoney Lake and the lower portion of the project: McGilvery (29EF), Helm (19F) and Kaikli (25). McGilvery soils are shallow, acidic soils 15 to 19 inches deep on slopes ranging from 5 to 140 percent. The soil profile is: o-11 inches 11-15 inches 15-19 inches peat very gravelly, silt loam metamorphic bedrock McGilvery soils have rapid permeability, are well drained and have low landslide hazard potential. The surficial layer forms from organic matter and the subsoil forms from metamorphic rock residuum. Helm soils are shallow, acidic soils 21 to 25 inches thick on slopes ranging from 75 to 100 percent. The soil profile is: 7 0-10 inches 10-14 inches 14-21 inches 21-25 inches muck silt loam gravelly, silt loam granitic bedrock Helm soils have moderate permeability, are poorly drained and have very high landslide hazard potential. They form in granitic colluvium and residuum. Kaildi soils are moderately deep, acidic soils about 32 inches thick on slope ranging from 0 to 75 percent. The soil profile is: 0-30 inches 3Q-32 inches 32 inches muck and peat silt loam schist bedrock Kaildi soils have moderately rapid permeability, are very poorly drained and have a low landslide hazard potential. The parent material of the upper 30 inches is organic matter and the subsoil is derived from metamorphic bedrock. Seismicity Regional seismicity appears to be primarily controlled by north-south strike-slip motion between the North American and Pacific Plates of the west coast of the Alexander Archipelago. While there are low angle thrust and high angle normal faults mapped within 3 to 4 miles northeast of the site (Berg and others, 1988), these do not appear to be active at this time. Rather, these and similar structures on the island are commonly cut by unfaulted intrusions of Eocene to Cretaceous ages, indicating no movement has occurred on these faults since these times. Additionally, the mapped length of these nearby structures are relatively short, ranging from 1 to 4 miles. Faults on the order of 17 to 30 miles are mapped 7 to 9 miles southeast and southwest of the project. Historic earthquakes greater than magnitude 3. 0 within 100 miles of the site are listed and located on Figure 4. The listing of historic earthquakes was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Geophysical Data Center Catalog. While the historic record is very short (the earliest earthquake listed was in 1949), it does show that most of the seismicity in the region is along the west edge of the Alexander Archipelago. The nearest historic earthquake to the site was a magnitude 5.0 event located 8 45 miles to the southwest. The largest event in the listing on Figure 4 is a magnitude 6.4 event located 100 miles southwest of the site. Other large earthquakes in the region include the August 21, 1949 Queen Charlotte Islands and July 30, 1972 Sitka events. The 1949 magnitude 8.1 (Rogers, 1983) earthquake was located approximately 160 miles southwest of the site. The 1972, magnitude (MJ 7.6 event was located about 180 miles northwest of the site (Coffman and von Hake, 1974). While no information was found indicating the intensity of ground shaking felt from the 1949 event in the site area, reports from the 1972 event indicate that Ketchikan experienced Modified Mercalli Intensity V ground shaking. This intensity is generally consistent with measured peak ground accelerations on the order of 0.03g to 0.04g. Probabilistic ground motion studies by Algermissen and others (1990) indicate that a peak ground acceleration (pga) of 0.025g at the site would have a 90 percent chance of non- exceedence in a 50 year time interval (that is, about a 50Q-year recurrence interval at the site). By contrast, the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design provisions, which are also based on a 500-year event, requires a 0.20g pga for design in this area. The American Petroleum Institute 1993 guidelines implicity assume a pga of 0.25g in this area for a return interval of 200 years. In the relatively brief, 45-year historic record, pga's on the order of 0. 03 to 0. 04g have occurred at the site. Because it is likely that the design of the facility will be in accordance with the UBC, the use of the 0.20 pga is a reasonable basis for the design of the facility. Volcanic and Geothermal Activity No volcanic or geothermal activity has been identified in the vicinity of the proposed hydroelectric project. Impacts During Construction During construction, there will be impacts of the project on the environment and of the environment on the project. Turbidity may be temporarily increased in the northeast portion of Upper Mahoney Lake during final blasting activities for construction of the lake tap. Temporary sediment production will be increased during the construction of the Upper Mahoney laydown area and excavation of overburden soils for the powerhouse, staging area, 9 tailrace and powerhouse access road. This sediment can be delivered to streams directly or by ephemeral tributaries. There is a moderate potential for blasted rock to reach Mahoney Creek during powerhouse excavation. This blasting may also have an effect on the wildlife in the vicinity of the powerhouse. Tunnel, powerhouse and tailrace construction will generate approximately 18,000 cubic yards of rock and soil. Vegetation removal will be necessary at the stockpile area and there will be a risk of sediment being entrained into the stream system from the stockpile. Nearly all of the impacts of the natural environment have been eliminated or reduced to a minimum by the prudent placement of project facilities; however, one unavoidable impact will be that of the faults and shear zones on the tunnel construction. The rock will be weak and seepage may be significant in these zones. Impacts During Operation During operation, the powerhouse access road may be in the path of avalanches that are generated from the chutes to the west and southwest, thereby interrupting the nonnal flow of sediment to Mahoney Lake. Relatedly, this access road could be damaged or destroyed by such an avalanche, cutting off vehicular access to the powerhouse. Rock falls or a rock slide could foul the lake tap intake opening. Snow avalanches could damage the penstock where it is exposed at the ground surface between the upper tunnel and the shaft. The powerhouse tailrace could be blocked or damaged by debris torrent material. Mitigation of Impacts During Construction An increase in turbidity in Upper Mahoney lake during final blasting activities for the lake tap is unavoidable; however, because the material is hard bedrock, little sediment will be created. Temporary sediment production created by disturbance of overburden soil in the Upper Mahoney laydown area, powerhouse, staging area, tailrace and powerhouse access road will be mitigated by fonnulating and implementing an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that will use Best Management Practices (BMP's) to control runoff and prevent delivery of construction sediment to streams (see Appendix B of the license Application). Where blasting is perfonned for the powerhouse in close proximity to Mahoney Creek, controlled blasting techniques will be used to prevent :flyrock from reaching the creek, including the use of blast mats, if necessary. If surface blasting is to be performed at times 10 that will be disruptive to mating and rearing of nearby threatened and or endangered species, blasting schedules will be arranged to minimize disturbance. Construction spoils will be placed in areas away from running water and will be protected from rain by employing BMP's and including such activities in the BSCP. The weak rock in shear zones will be mitigated in the penstock tunnel by placing steel sets for support. Drainage measures may need to be implemented if seepage is excessive. Mitigation of Impacts During Operation It would be prudent to construct a helicopter pad at the powerhouse staging area for emergency situations. To reduce the risk of rock debris falling into the lake tap intake, at-risk rock above the water line will be rockbolted. Rock traps are also included in the design of the upper tunnel to intercept rock debris. Snow avalanches above the exposed portion of the penstock between the upper tunnel and the shaft could be diverted by a berm and energy dissipater upbill of the penstock and the penstock could be protected with a concrete housing. As part of the maintenance and operation plan, the operator should always check for rock and organic debris at the end of the tailrace, particu1arly after storms and rain-on-snow events. 11 Infonnation Sources Algennissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P.C. Thenhaus, S.L. Hanson, and B.L. Bender, 1990, Probabilistic Earthquake Acceleration and Velocity Maps for the United States and Puerto Rico, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, 1:7,500,000 Beck, R.W., 1977, Swan I11ke. Grace Lake and Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Projects Am>raisal Re,port, submitted to Ketchikan Public Utilities, Ketchikan, AK Berg, H. C., R.L. Elliott and R.D. Koch, 1988, Geologic Map of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert Quadrangles. Southeastern Alaska, Miscellaneous Investigations Series, 1-1897, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, 1:250,000 Coffman, J.L. and C.A. von Hake, 1974, United States Earthquakes. 1972, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO HDR Engineering, Inc., 1993, Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility RQ>ort, submitted to Cape Fox Cmporation, Ketchikan, AK Kerwin, C.M., 1984, Guidance for Completion of Exhibit B for J\m?lications Submitted Under Regulations Governing Licenses for Major Unconstrocted Hydroelectric PrQjects and Major Modified Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Maas, K., 1994, U.S. Geological Survey, Juneau, AK, Personal Communication. Rogers, G.C., 1983, Seismotectonics of British Columbia, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Victoria, BC Roppel, P., 1991, Fortunes from the Earth: An Histoty of the Base and Industrial Minerals of Southeast Alaska, Sunflower University Press, Manhattan, KS Shannon & Wilson, 1993, Mahoney Lake Hydro,power PrQject Trip Report and Geotechnical Pre-Feasibility of the Proposed Thnnel Alignment, submitted to HDR Engineering, Inc., Bellevue, WA 12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978, River and Harbors in Alaska Interim Feasibility Report on Hydroelectric Power and Related Pumoses For Ketchikan Area. Alaska. Anchorage, AK U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978, Proposed Environmental Impact Statement Pro,posed Mahoney Lakes Project Ketchikan. Alaska, Anchorage, AK U.S. Forest Service, 1993, Soil Survey Ketchikan Area. Alaska, U.S. Forest Service, Ketchikan, AK, text and map, 1:31680 13 I I ~ I~ .., a: X I I I I: -.;,; ..... I~ I I 10 ~ I ~ I I i GRAVINA ~ ISLAND 0 I I~ "' \() R .E V 1·L lAc I G E D o c i-i A N N E l "' .~ .., ~ r < VICINITY MAP ::::E / I; z , J , I J ~ I I SCAI...E IN Wll£5 ..., ..... ;;: I I I (s ~ ' q. ~ ~ ~ " ~ c, ARCTIC OCEAN ALASKA \ PACIFIC OCEAN LOCATION MAP CJTY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICA liON FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PRO.ECT NO. 11393 PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS Figure 1 I I I I I I I I II .I I I I I I I I I I ~--,··' ,',·/,' __ .~--~~::::/~///. -:/~); 'l' I })}/lf(JI [. ------"" ,/ _............--, ;· I f('li I\,·, I --/ --~ , ,I I ' ! : . . --..:-.,...,.-/-~ J : -= _.//~();;I; I ,t/1/ r'/1/ .. ' -. _ __/ / /.---; ll// J !;' lj' I I _ ___..-r ,/ / I / / /'"/ / I • --~-... jf ' /, -~-:--( -_,/ '/' I'!' ';' ,I,/ I I ----.' • I I /---1,-~ I ---..., )ti'\r)i/ " i j/,r:/l''i. ..... 1 t ,:_....-Lx J-/ I / I ., '1' / I .-L\. .' ( / I 1-(, I / ) ,/ ~; // j ) ) f ll I I /)l/1 1 { \ l I , :-.J--1/ r )1 1 / I -/ ( )!!K I /! ( i 1 "(IJ) tf-d"'"' -·--., ~ I /h _ , -: .! . . I ' I lj /.4:. { ,1-;r-) J . ! ~~~~ ~"" '~~--!-+-++ ~ \2:_ \ ' \ '· r ~.-0_':~:-'· --· Lake Tap-··· ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ 1950 ', \\ ~\, ~\ . . . . '' v·· _,-\\ • ·;, ft.;M' . ['" .... ('>--· \ , f / . : _, .. ~· -' i : ' ~-• J W j_l--·f-1-~-:::r-- .' r ') r·· ' i; / { / r,:, P$; l · \ .. ! ., : ; ~-' , I ! t • : f 'I 'l I '! ',.', I \ \ \ I : ' ' '}\I \' \• r lfi\1\;\l 11 \~' "' !.. I 'WI'; -). '?::-;. :r-7> /,l ; j I . ; /lj ! ~ (!/rljt [ ( / ( ( :IJ ,/MPs . ) i \ \( ti.l I Xi;' I~\ \ 1. I I : ' I I (i I I I ; . I ! : • I I !I I i I II i i \ i . f I 1~ \ \ \ ; i \ f\ 1 i _ • i ! 1 I i : : : \ . I I Ill : I ' ' ' I l \I\ l i \ ,! \ f ~ \\l~l l\\\ ! , I ( ). \\\\.-d ·1·1 r • / · \.\\·1 II / \\·.\~}1 l l i!Jt i/ \ \ . I ! ' . \!. / // //. // ,/ /// // --- ! , / / I I '// / L~GENO Alluvium ; stream and alluvial fan deposits Talus; including scree Avalanche debris; snow avalanche, I Oavtl debris avalanche, and debris torrent chutes and deposits ~ Landslide bodies and deposits Metamorphosed biotite -hornblende granodiorite ~ Ear~y Mesozoic/late Paleozoic sericite l::!:.!.J SChiSt - -Fault or shear zone - -Lineament ----Postulated schist/granodiorite contact / / / / /// / ,/ / ,"" t..CW£!1 , ,,""_,,"" t,f..t..HONrt L~.•:[ N NOTES 1. Geology on this map was taken from Site Geology map in 1981, U.S. COE report and minor revisions based on brief field reconnaissance in 1993. 2. All contacts are approximate; actual conditions may vary from those shown on map . ' / -.--L--- .... --- ···"' .. . ,/- /Kg ,-., / ' 0 500 1000 H H Ed I Scale in Feet Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Ketchikan, Alaska SITE GEOLOGIC MAP September 1994 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geoleclv1caJ and E.nvtronrrenlll ea.utanls W-6527-01 FIG. 2 -- ---- - N "T1 p (.,) --- Powerhouse Site ... ... .1 [?:~~ [$,1?1 ~ LEGEND Calamity Bedrock Outcrop (metamorphic) Shakan ---- - --- Cape Fox Corporation Land SGi I:B;f::J McGilvery (1~fJ Helm ~ Kaikli PVT 1/8 1/4 1/2 t l I Scale in Miles NOTE Base map adapted from ??? . Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Ketchikan, Alaska SITE SOILS MAP September 1994 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geol&chnlcal and Environmental Constitants W-6527-01 FIG. 3 - I I I I I I SOtrRC!: DATE DOP lr.R MO D'! DNA 1949 08 22 l••E?B HU 08 22 E?ll au o8 23 I l••DNA au o8 u DNA aa os 12 l .. El'B UH 09 12 !'lOT 1956 11 17 E?B 19E3 l2 02 1• •DNA 19£3 12 02 I £PB UE3 12 02 ISC 1964 08 03 1 .. £?3 lSU 08 03 2••DNA 1964 08 03 £?!1 19€5 05 15 l••ONA 1965 OS 15 I £?!1 1965 OS OS 1 .. DNA 1965 Of OS l..AO 1968 01 04 £?3 19&8 06 28 l .. DNA 1968 06 28 £?1\1 197l 07 15 1 .. DNA 1971 07 15 ~ ISC 1976 10 15 POE l9Sl 01 20 ISC l9el 12 01 DNA 1!183 11 30 1 .. ISC 1983 11 30 DNA lUl l2 05 I l• •C'1"1' 1Se3 12 OS OTT l9S4 01 29 1 .. DAA 1984 01 29 DNA 1584 01 H 1••on 1984 01 29 D!lA 1584 04 29 1••on HH 04 H I OTT ass 11 30 l••ONA 1985 l1 30 OTT 1986 03 21 I I I I I I I SEISMICITY (M>=3 OR I>=IV) 'WITHIN 100 MILES . t>~ t:'i:~'~2>' ll1W1!,1' W.dAll91711:57:S91994 ~rono1o9ical Sear~ IIG:X: EAR'Xl!QO.IJ'l: CArA FILE TIM:: LOCATION O£PTB ------------MAGNITODES------------- !!RIO! SEC LATITOOE LOIIGITOO£ li:M !!1:> lb O'!'li:!:R LOCAL 09 15 21.44 54.96011 133.43011 0 4.50 lao £?5 09 15 21.4 54.96 II l33.U II 4.5 Y.L. £?!1 02 5S 06.1 55,08 II 134.01 II 5. Y.L. £?!1 02 !9 06.14 55.08011 134.01011 0 5.00 !!!. £?3 14 37 48.64 55.16011 132.51011 0 5.00 Y.L. £?3 14 37 48.6 55.16 II 132.51 II 5. Y.L. £:?3 20 27 11.0 54.60011 133.60011 33 6.40 ROT 06 52 20. 54.4 II 132.9 II 3.9 06 52 20.04 54.40011 132.90011 0 3.SO IG DNG 06 51 20. 54.4 II 132.9 II 3.6 18 54 54.1 54.20011 131.SOOII 33 3. 90 ISC 18 54 ss. 54.1 II 132.1 II 4.2 18 54 55.04 54.10011 132.10011 0 4.20 IG EP!I 03 l( 32. 55. II 133.5 II Ll Y.L EP!I 03 14 32.04 55.00011 133.50011 0 4.10!!!. £?3 10 04 11. 55. II 130.6 II 4.5 Y.L. £?3 10 C4 17.04 55.00011 130.60011 0 4. so Y.L. £?3 11 08 45.0 56.00011 133.00011 0 3.40 LAO 18 04 u. 56. II 133.6 II 18G 3.9 Y.L. £?!1 18 04 42.04 56.00011 133.60011 18 3.SO Y.L. £P3 00 H 02. 54.6 N 133.6 II 18G 4.9 5.3 Y.L. £?a 00 24 02.04 54.60011 133.60011 18 5.30 Y.L £?!!. 20 2!1 31.2 54.65511 l33. 50511 0 3.80 Y-L on 15 36 54.7* 55.36111 134.06 II 1SG 3.8 17 41 H.4 54.0S211 132.57911 0 3.10 Y-L on 16 46 56.04 54.05011 132.09011 18 3.00 Y.L E?ll 16 H 58.3 54.27011 132.13111 18 3.oo Y.L. on 06 27 08.04 54.14011 132.56011 18 3.00 !!!. £?!!. 06 27 08.0 54.10011 132.56011 18 3. 00 l!l. CIT OS 10 21.0 55.10011 133.16011 18 3.oo Y.L. on 08 10 21.04 55.10011 133.16011 l8 3.00 Y.L. EPB 08 12 25.04 55.10011 l33.20011' 18 3.30 Y.L. EPB 08 12 25.0 55.10011 133.200W 18 3,30 Y.L OIT 00 06 23.04 55.08011 133.00011 18 3. 70 Y.L E?!!. 00 06 23.0 55.00011 133.00011 l8 3 • 1 o Y-L o:r:r 17 55 u.o 56.700N 131.15011 18 3 • 3 o Y-L o:r:r 17 55 13.04 56.76011 l31 .1 sow 18 3.30 Y.L E?B 22 u u.o 54.20011 132.89011 10 3 • 2 0 !!!. OTT NOTE Data are from the National Geophysical Data Center Catalog. I liT INT F-£ C!: Q/11 DISTANCE MAl' l'.l.X DTSVNW'OI K!l 022 0 131 022 131 019 162 019 0 162 019 0 72 019 72 022 160 022 H3 022 8 H3 022 H3 022 21 l37 022 151 022 21 151 on 134 ou 0 134 01!1 74 019 0 H 019 2 113 019 3 HS CH 3 145 022 8 160 022 8 160 022 10 152 ou 9 160 022 5 162 022 4 156 022 4 133 022 0 156 022 H1 019 lOS 019 0 lOS 019 0 112 ou 112 019 0 101 019 104 019 1H 019 0 151 022 r 161 Ql ""0 ~ "iii ....1 134.0W - SEISMICITY (M>=3 OR l>=lV) WITHIN 100 MILES OF 55N25' 131W31' 133.0W I ® I. 132.0W Longitude 131.0W I 130.0W 57.0N 56. 0N 55.0N 54. 0N r ---\SBI;ti:l:,::::t J-m::::r --L ---§'0-X;w·~,:.:'ffii'·i~:.~:::'::~,m 54.0N 134.0W 133.0W 132.0W 131.0W 22 Earthquakes Plotted National Geophysical Data Center I NOAA LEGEND Magnitudes 0.1 -1.9 0 4.0 • 4.4 ElY 2.0-2.9 0 4.5-4.9 3.o -3.4 e 5.0-5.4 3.5-3.9 ® > 5.4 a • ~ ~ - 130.0W 129.0W NOTE Map adapted from figure developed by the National Geophysical Data Center. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Ketchikan, Alaska EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 100 MILES OF THE SITE September 1994 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geoteehneat and Environmental Consullall!S W-6527-01 FIG. 4 AppendixB MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 11393 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN MAY1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan TABLEOFCONfENTS Otapter Page 1.0 IN1'R.ODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Descriptionfl.ocation ............................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PROPC>SED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 2-1 21 Lake Tap of Upper Mahoney Lake ...................................................................... 2-1 22 Upper Tunnel .......................................................................................................... 2-1 23 Vertical Sh.aft ........................................................................................................... 2-2 24 Lower Tunnel. ......................................................................................................... 2-2 25 Powerhouse ............................................................................................................. 2-2 26 Turbine/Generator ................................................................................................ 2-2 2.7 Tailrace ..................................................................................................................... 2-3 28 Access Road ............................................................................................................. 2-3 29 Transmission line/Switchyard ........................................................................... 2-3 210 Other Mechanical, Electrical, and Transmission Equipment .......................... 2-3 3.0 EXI.S11N'G SirE CONDIDONS ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Climate ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Topography ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Geology-.................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.4 Soils ........................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.5 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 3-11 3.6 Surface Water Drainage ...................................................................................... 3-11 4.0 PROJECT CONS'IRUCTION ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Construction Scheduling ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Min:im.:izing Areas of Disturbance ....................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Construction Equipment ....................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................... 4-2 5.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONI'ROL MEASURES ................................................ 5-1 5.1 General Guidelines ................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Implementation of General Guidelines ............................................................... 5-3 5.3 Site Specific Provisions .......................................................................................... 5-4 5.4 Revegetation Following Construction ................................................................. 5-7 5.5 Preservation, Restoration and Oeanup .............................................................. 5-9 5.6 Maintenance, Monitoring and Plan Modifications ......................................... 5-10 May 1996 i Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Chapter Page 6.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATNFS .......................................... 6-1 7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 7-1 ATTACHMENTS A EROSION CONTROL DRAWING (ECD) EXHIBITS ................................................. A-1 B SITE SPECIFIC EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DRAWINGS 1-3 ............ B-1 USTOFHGURES R~ p~ 1 Project I..ocation and Vicinity Maps ................................................................................. 1-2 2 Site Plan, Sheet 1 . .. . . . . ... .. . . .. ... . . . ... . .. . .. . . . ..... ..... ... . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .. .. 1-3 3 Site Plan, Sheet 2 . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . ... . .. . . . . .. ... . . ...... ... .. . .. .. .. . . ...... ........ ....... .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ..... .. .. ... . . .. 1-4 4 Site Geologic Map ............................................................................................................... 3-3 5 Earthquakes Within 100 Wles of th.e Site ........................................................................ 3--8 6 Site Soils Map ...................................................................................................................... 3-9 7 Proposed. Construction Schedule ..................................................................................... 4-3 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Tongass National Forest Erosion Control Seed Mix ...................................................... 5-9 Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Projea FERC No. 11393 ii May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 1.0 INrRODUCIION 1.1 PROJECf DESCRIPTION/LOCATION The City of Saxman, Alaska, (Saxman) is applying for a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERQ for the development of a 9.6 megawatt (MW) hydroelectric generating plant located at Mahoney Lake near Ketchikan, Alaska. Cape Fox Corporation, an Alaskan Native corporation established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as the village corporation for the Native village of Saxman, has been retained by Saxman as the development agent for the project This Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) is required for the FERC license application. Federal rules require a Final ESCP to be prepared during final design of the project What is presented here is a conceptual plan and it should be accepted as such. The U.S. Forest Service (FS), the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife, and the National Marine Fisheries Service will be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the final ESCP when it becomes available. The proposed project would use a "lake tap", which would tunnel into Upper Mahoney Lake about 75 feet (ft.) below its surface and then use a series of tunnels to convey water from Upper Mahoney Lake to the powerhouse located near Lower Mahoney Lake at the base of a large waterfall. No dam would be constructed. The normal water surface elevation of Upper Mahoney Lake is El. 1959 ft. The centerline of the turbine runner in the powerhouse would be set at El. 150 ft., thereby, providing a gross head differential of 1,809 ft. The project site is located in Alaska on Revillagigedo Island (Figure 1). This island is located at the south end of the Alexander Archipelago, which is a belt of mountainous islands off the Alaskan coastal mainland. The proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project is located five air miles (mi.) northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska, and is located on National Forest System lands and lands claimed by the Cape Fox Corporation (Figures 2 and 3, Site Plans). May1996 1-1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Projea FERC No. 11393 I I I!! I~ I I I .... .... "' X I: .~ I I Ia ~ .... 0 li I a~ ~ I ~ 5 :i 3-1; ~ I I· I GRAVINA ISLAND VICINITY MAP 1 9 1 ---. ____L_ ___ , -~ [ -------· -==:J SCALE IN lolllES ~ ~ ' q. ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ " ARCTIC 0 C E AN ALASKA \ PACIFIC OCEAN LOCATION MAP . ~ OTY Of SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCA liON F.OR LICENSE t.AAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 PROJECT LOCA llON AND VICINITY MAPS Figure 1 ... / u ,.. ~ w i <bjs:,., ... ~z~~ N :r ~ tj~;: ~ :Jf:3o ZLL. •25-'Z ::sON ~ ..... ~ ... a.. .... ~ a~~~ ~w§ ~ :5 < w!f -w Ullo: Ul:r: ~~~~ (/) \-0~~~ ~ :1: < 2 ... .... > ,..: :.: + GO N )... ~ ~ ~ crl ; '<I: IIi l: -.1 § iii a -.1 1•1 •31\IJS •D3H01d 3!\ID o.-.a'H6S9\IIO!l•3H\IN311.:1 -- ---- ------- ----- - !)I'\Q.dl3liS1H 'JJ'\0.291-1H•S/ JJMX N •J1V~S •a3H01d J1va !)J'\Q.H659i!lS•JHIIHJ11..l --------------.. --- - Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 LAKE TAP OF UPPER MAHONEY lAKE Existing Upper Mahoney Lake would serve as the reservoir for the project A natural outlet from the lake maintains the lake water surface elevation at about El. 1959. Surface area of the lake is 74 acres. The proposed project involves construction of a lake tap near the natural outlet and about 75 feet below the normal water surface elevation. A lake tap deeper than this level would provide more drawdown capability, but a deeper lake tap would require a much different and more costly, tunnel and shaft arrangement with only a marginal increase in energy production. Preliminary surface investigations indicate the general rock quality in the vicinity to be competent for lake tap construction. Usable storage for power generating purposes is about 4,000 acre-feet based on the proposed lake tap elevation. 2.2 UPPER TUNNEL Construction of the lake tap would first require construction of a 1,700-foot long tunnel to access the tap. The tunnel would be used as a pressure tunnel in the final project The alignment and profile of the lake tap and upper tunnel section are shown on Exhibits F-1, F- 2, and F-3 of the License Application. A 4-foot diameter, 20-foot long, pipe would be encased in concrete about 200 feet downstream of the lake tap. The pipe would be closed off with a valve just prior to blasting out the last portion of the tunnel that would create the lake tap, to contain the immediate in-rush of flow and rock from the blast The valve would be opened once the upper tunnel pipeline is installed and is ready to be pressurized. Tunnel walls would be left unlined except in areas requiring additional support Three rock traps would be excavated in the tunnel invert to capture and retain rock debris from lake tap blasting operations, and from any future loose rock entering the ungated intake area. A 4-foot diameter steel pipe would be installed from the lake tap pipeline valve to convey water from the upper tunnel to the vertical shaft A 300-square-foot (approximately) concrete valve house would be constructed immediately above the beginning of the vertical shaft containing two 48-inch diameter butterfly valves and a vent pipe. One valve would act as the primary intake shut-off valve and the other as an emergency shut-off. Both valves would be motor-operated and connected by power and communication lines to the powerhouse. A 12-inch diameter bypass pipeline would be constructed from the valve house back to Upper Mahoney Creek to provide flow continuation under certain plant shutdown conditions described in Exhibit B of the License Application. Maximum discharge velocity in the 8-foot horseshoe section of the upper tunnel would be 1.4 feet per second. May 1996 2-1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion &: Sediment Control Plan 23 VERTICAL SHAFf A 1,370-foot long partially lined vertical shaft would be constructed to connect the upper tunnel to the lower tunnel. Preliminary studies indicate the preferred method for excavating the shaft to be the Alimak raise climber method. This is a mining method that would excavate the shaft from the bottom up. A cross section of the shaft would be about 5 feet by 7 feet in unlined sections and 4-foot diameter in concrete lined sections. It is assumed that half the shaft length can be left unlined. tntimately, the shaft construction technique used by the construction contractor will dictate the size of the final shaft cross section. 24 LOWER TUNNEL Construction of the vertical shaft would initially require access to the lower end of the shaft Such access would be provided by constructing an 8-foot horseshoe-shaped tunnel, 3,350 feet long from the powerhouse portal area. The tunnel would be constructed at a 10% grade to shorten the required length of shaft and to provide positive drainage from the tunnel. The tunnel would provide access during construction and post-construction. Portions of the tunnel would be lined with shotcrete, and supported by rock bolts and steel sets as required. Roof drains and a floor gutter would be constructed to collect and contain tunnel drainage and/ or seepage. Turbine flow would be conveyed in a 32-inch diameter welded steel pipe supported on concrete saddles inside of the tunnel, as shown on Exhibit F-4 of the license Application. A concrete plug would be constructed at the upstream end of the tunnel (bottom of the vertical shaft) in order to pressurize the shaft A 48-inch diameter steel pipe would be embedded in the plug to convey flow to the 32-inch pipe and to provide permanent access to the bottom of the shaft for future inspection and maintenance. Permanent access to the lower tunnel would be provided from the powerhouse. 25 POWERHOUSE The powerhouse would be a semi-underground concrete structure constructed at the portal entrance to the lower tunnel. It would be essentially an over-excavated tunnel portal providing approximately 1,600 square feet of space for powerhouse equipment Because the powerhouse would be set back into the surrounding rock formation, it would be protected from any potential avalanche hazards. Its location is near the base of the first waterfall on Upper Mahoney Creek, upstream of Lower Mahoney Lake, about 1,100 feet upstream from the lakeshore from Lower Mahoney Lake. 26 TURBINF/GENERATOR The powerhouse would contain a single twin-jet horizontal Pelton turbine. The turbine would be rated at 12,900 horsepower at a discharge of 78 cfs and rated net head of 1,730 feet Minimum operating discharge would be 8 cfs. Centerline of the turbine shaft would Mahoney 1Ak:e Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 2-2 May1996 t Erosion & Sediment Control Plan be at El. 150. The turbine would be coupled to a 13.2 kV synchronous generator capable of continuous operation at 9,600 kW. 27 TAILRACE Discharges from the powerhouse would be conveyed back to Upper Mahoney Creek in a 200-foot long tailrace channel. The channel would be comprised of pre-cast concrete box culvert or corrugated metal pipe for approximately 70 feet immediately downstream of the powerhouse. The remaining channel length would be rip-rap lined earthen channel. The discharge would enter Upper Mahoney Creek at a large pool at the base of the waterfall. 28 ACCESS ROAD A new 26 mile-long access road would be constructed between the end of the existing access road northeast of Lower Mahoney Lake and the powerhouse. The new access road would be routed to the south and east of Lower Mahoney Lake. The new road would be a single-lane gravel surfaced road with turnouts. The new access road would require construction of two bridges. An approximate SO-foot- long, single-lane bridge would span Lower Mahoney Creek. A second single-lane bridge would span approximately 30 feet across South Creek, a major drainage on the south side of Lower Mahoney Lake. 29 TRANSMISSION UNF/SWITCHYARD The transmission line route would follow essentially the same route as the new access road between the powerhouse and switchyard. The switchyard would be located approximately one mile from the powerhouse in a low avalanche hazard area on the east side of Mahoney Lake adjacent to the access road. The transmission line would be buried 13.2 kV conductor following the access road from the powerhouse to the switchyard. A power transformer would be located in the switchyard to step the voltage up to 34.5 kV transmission voltage. From the switchyard, the 3.6-mile-long, 34.5 kV transmission line would be constructed south as a combination of buried and overhead lines to the proposed intertie point with KPU's Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1922) transmission line, located adjacent to that project's powerhouse. This line would be buried for the first one-half mile to minimize impacts to an existing eagle nesting site. After the first one-half mile, the line would move overhead onto poles. Pole-mounted transmission lines would be designed to minimize the risk of raptor collisions or electrocutions. 210 OTHER MECHANICAL, ELECfRICAL, AND TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT Electrical accessory equipment would include medium voltage switchgear, station service equipment, d.c. power supply, ventilation equipment, and lighting. Instrumentation would include continuous readout of upper reservoir pool elevation.. valve status indicators, drain sump level controls, and ventilation·controls. Mily 1996 2-3 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan A battery back-up system with an on-line charger would be provided to supply control power sufficient to shutdown the plant in the event of a power outage. Battery backups would be at both the powerhouse and the valve house. Power and communications cables for instrument signals would be run in conduit from the powerhouse to the valve house through the lower tunnel and shaft Level signals from Upper Mahoney Lake, and signals to open and close the pipeline shutoff valves would be sent over the communication cable. The power line would provide power to operate the instruments, valve motor operators, and small space heaters in the valve house. A computer-based plant control panel located in the powerhouse would monitor all plant functions and would shutdown the turbine if any problems arise. A telephone autodialer would then call out to the plant operator to report the problem. The fail-safe operation mode would be to shut down the project in the event of an emergency. Remote monitoring of all plant functions and equipment condition would be performed via a SCADA system over telephone lines. May 1996 2-4 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDIDONS 3.1 CUMATE The Ketchikan area experiences a maritime climate with relatively mild, wet winters, cool summers, and heavy precipitation. The average annual precipitation for Ketchikan is approximately 155 inches (in.), including 33 in. of snow. October is the wettest month with an average '12.7 in. of precipitation and July is the driest with 5.7 in. Average monthly temperature ranges from 35°F in January to 58°F in August (N.CC., 1982-1992). Prevailing winds in the Ketchikan area are from the southeast Local climatic patterns are strongly influenced by the mountainous topography of the region. 3.2 TOPOGRAPHY The project site is located on Revillagigedo Island. This island is located at the south end of the Alexander Archipelago, which is a belt of mountainous islands off the Alaskan coastal mainland. The island is roughly oval in shape, about 56 mi. long and 42 mi. wide. It has an area of 2,352 square miles (sq. mi.). The highest peak on the island is 4,560 ft above sea level. In most places, the mountains rise sharply from the water's edge, although there a few areas of coastal lowlands along the southern shore of the island. Numerous lakes are distributed over the island, and countless short, swift streams flow down to the ocean, such as the Mahoney Lake system. The proposed project would utilize runoff from a 20 sq. mi. drainage area supplying Upper Mahoney Lake. Elevations in the drainage basin range from 3,350 ft near Mahoney Mountain to sea level at George Inlet The drainage basin is generally underlain with a metamorphic schist 3.3 GEOLOGY 3.3.1 General Geology Southeastern Alaska has been tectonically active since the early Paleozoic Era and has a complex geologic and structural history. It is divided into several geologic terranes, each of which has a unique geologic history and is bounded by faults. Those faults are generally major lineaments that follow the valleys, coast lines and inlets of southeastern Alaska. This portion of Alaska was glaciated during the most recent ice age that ended about 10,000 years ago. At that time, continental ice thicknesses were in the range of 3,000 ft The ice depressed the land and smoothed the topography The land then rebounded, elevating some marine deposits several hundred feet above sea level. Alpine glaciation also affected the higher mountains of the region, carving U-shaped valleys, cirques, aretes and hanging valleys. May1996 3-1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan fu the proximity of Revillagigedo Island, the geology is dominated by the Cretaceous Wrangell-Revillagigedo metamorphic belt Within this larger geologic unit is the Taku terrane in which the proposed project is located. It is comprised of upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic volcanic and sedimentary rocks that are intruded by upper Cretaceous dikes, sills and stocks of granodiorite, a batholith of Cretaceous quartz diorite, and other minor plutons ranging in age from Late Jurassic to Miocene. The terrane is characterized by metamorphism increasing northeastward from greenschist to amphibolite facies of upper Cretaceous age and older. Locally, contact metamorphism has baked the country rock on the edges of the plutons, resulting in hornblende-hornfels facies. fu some areas, the intrusions have been emplaced along weak shear zones. The stratified rocks are commonly folded into sharp and overturned folds. Surficial Holocene deposits include glacial drift;. elevated marine terraces, stream alluvium, fan/ delta deposits, beach deposits, talus/ scree and landslide/ colluvium deposits. 3.3.2 Project Area Geology Geologic conditions in the project area are dominated by two bedrock formations (Figure 4). The most widespread rock in the area is a schist Where this Paleozoic to Mesozoic formation has not been affected by igneous intrusions, it is relatively weak and slope instability is common. However, heat from a large Tertiary intrusion of gabbro baked these rocks around the perimeter of the intrusion. The heat transformed the schist to a much harder, more competent rock. The unconfined strength of the rock increased by perhaps as much as 2 to 10 times. It was classified as a sericite schist by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), based on thin-section analysis. One of its distinguishing characteristics is the presence of large pyrite crystals, most of which have disappeared owing to weathering, leaving voids in the surface of the rock. The schist is very thinly foliated and dips very steeply to the west in the vicinity of the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake. However, near the powerhouse, the schist dips to the north, indicating the possibility of a fault between the two sites. The rock is orthogonally jointed in close to moderately close spacing. Another pervasive bedrock unit closest to the project area is a very large gabbro intrusion just west of Upper Mahoney Lake. This unit extends westward to the city of Ketchikan. None of this rock was observed within the project area during reconnaissance. Within the project area are smaller intrusions of quartz diorite and granodiorite, based on reports by others and the observation of quartz diorite cobbles and gravel in the creek. The number, size and location of these small intrusions are unknown. A dashed line on Figure 4 indicates the COE•s postulated contact between schist and granodiorite. No karst features were observed in the area and none are mentioned in the geologic literature. No carbonate or evaporite rocks are shown on the geologic maps in the vicinity of the proposed project Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 3-2 May1996 ! I I I . I I I I I I I J. I I I I I I I I --_;::------/,. --------; r·; \ ,1~,-·r ,. '/ .-___.-•I' '"·f __ ..... _,• / / ------I I I • ; • _..,.... ./ ,---.,......... ' . . ~ -----I / / _,.-· I • ( ·• ~>·:/ /---:-;,---] ; ? J I I (t ;f J I I /~~,1 ====-_.:.._-,."" I I //-// // 1 %/1,.)1 , ;, ---------/ ~---7 ///.~:/)/I i _.., / I /.'/ I" /.1 I -----_,. i l j"l; -··--/,-/ I . I ' ,._., ·--. -----/ (, I I ~--::.-~ I . ) '' J)' I. -·--....... ! f ! , ' ) / J '-I ' I ,_-;-J , ); , / L--~-:)'? r)· )'/-. I :-.. 1 I ) j I /; l)} . I /;j ·f ;/t~fl ,. , , _, I , I I • ··'!/)!,\ / I . I I I \ ~.._,. i I /fl{-/..c -' I I I I)] } j \ (' . ... _, ; I I J .. 1-:t-t.~-r---r \ j'''t': ---I '. : , ._ '\ ' I ' ... , . I ! J , ' \. I <.'~ ..... '·,,~~ ·, I I I~~.._ ~'.:~--~----~~---, ...... 'I ~-\.__.::_ \ : I ' \ \ / I r , ) \ ·-, i / ,· : : ; ; L--,..L -1117 ~t..:J..-~+-:·· ·rr :--~-, \, ___ .. -- ',, ' \ i . ~,\ \\\:\ Lake Tap-··· ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ t ~ ·:S 1950 . . . !.' !./ .\ I I,.. . ' 1 'MP~ l . I ! ' . ' I I I i ! :1. ( I l , \l I • I I • • I I \ ~ \ • i 1~ • , il h \ \' ,. r 1 V\1\;'} 1 1 ~~~I 1/ { l. ·• 1 1 • \._,, ... ' ·.! r ... ) ??-n·r>r>': ! ·;·r !;t·(!"r \·,'·, . I I I I I I /!'; l '{,I : ; / i • : I(,'J! .: I t :'/ \ o { ' 1/ I j • I ·I·!\ .,t 1,1, ,( _;/ / I . I I ...• I ( . I i i I i i : I tl / \I \1: I :. I ,. "i ( I ; I l (' '. \\ ;\i ! I f i ~i~ \ \~ \\\ \\\\l !~\\\'1 l \\ \ '\ I •; \\ \ ~ 1'1 I• -\ • \\..\'11 1\i \ I • \ I • • I ' I '\ i : '1 I ! I i !I \ 1 I ' • ! I I. t ' I I I I i I I i I ~~'--, ~:~--~==·=_::::::~~:~: '·, -:~·>,' ........ _______ ,--~~ ~ -. -,~·..-..~: ..... .. -....... /" --.::::: ............. , ":'\""· I ·.. _,/ ~-.,.._ '· '·' ·~ --, "· -..;:. \ '~"'-.-, // ,.r' / ,· /' /,., I/ -- ' I ~ : I . I I / 'j/ / ,. • Alluvium; stream and alluvial fan deposits Talus; including scree Avalanche debris; snow avalanche, debris avalanche, and debris torrent chutes and deposits ~ Landslide bodies and deposits "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' ... ...... ,,.. "' ... ... ,. ... ...... ,..,""· N NOTES L(,Wi!? :.tl..riCWrt J..~i(( 1. Geology on this map was taken from Site Geology map in 198 1, U.S. COE report and minor revisions based on brief field reconnaissance in 1993. 2 . A ll co ntacts are approxi mate; actual co nd it ions may vary fro m those s hown on map . ' '· . _ _,./ -', "-, \ ' ' ~-··, .... - '-, · .. ~gl~s 'p> \ -~ \ ..... '\ \ '\ . ' , I ·. . ,.. .. \'\ '.\; /: \\\\\\\\_I ','.. ., \1·· \' ~ . \ ·. ; \ ., .. , ., ' ' ' \ \ ' \ , ., I "-·, , ' •. ' . '-I \, \. \ .. \ \ \ j \ -.. _ "'" <~~,~~:. \'--,~ '\ \·, f-·· \\" :-.. ~~;~-/ \ , '· \ \ , , -, , , I ... \ ' ... , ....\ ..... · .. \" \ •\ \.~ '\ ·,... -.... \ ...... \ \ \. \ \ . ".:' ·, \ . ·...__ ...... .. "\ '\, \ >'I. ' \, \ • \ ' \., 1 ' \ • I \ ··.\\ ·. ':0 \ \\ \ ' \ '· f'--::·· \' --, .... ,\\."\.\\' \'\\\ \. '\ \\1 "\ \ \~-40------,\\\\ ;i \\\~·\ \\\ '\., ·,,.., " -........ ' "' \ ·, 'I\. \ \ \ ' I \, \ .... .... . : () '. \ • \ • ! \ . ' \ ' • \ \ ', . i / · \ \ \ ; ~ 1 I \ \ ,, \ \ }., \ -~ J \ l l \' '. I\ '\ \\ \ ''· \I \ ... \ \' ' \\ \I ' . \ \, \ \ ' \ --, \ I. t : i . ~ I : \ ) \ . ' ._ , ; ---:<1 \~;·l , l \ i' : 1 111 \ ,pr. j I 1 ) l''k ; I li I I ,, . I \l :;'I I I I J ; j l 1 I • I 1 ; I ! 1 ! !I ! I ,1 I i i ; iJ /, II J I / I l~; I L / ' 0 500 1000 Metamorphosed b iotite -hornblende granodiorite H H Ed I Scale in Feet r.;.;:1 Early Mesozoic/late Paleozoic sericite t..=:.!..1 schist --Fault o r shear zone - -Lineament ----Postulated schist/granodiorite contact Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Ketch ikan, A las ka SITE GEOLOGIC MAP FIGUE4 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geolechrlcal lllld EswtronrrenaJ Calstilanl& Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 3.3.3 Unconsolidated Deposits In general, soils are quite thin over bedrock in this area because of extensive erosion following glaciation. Although the area is known to have been glaciated, no glacial deposits were observed during site reconnaissance. Holocene deposits are colluvium, stream alluvium, and muskeg. Colluvium includes talus/scree, avalanche deposits and landslide deposits. Talus is large angular rock that is found at the toe of steep bedrock cliffs. The rock accumulates by individual rock falls or small rock slides. Scree is formed in the same manner, but is smaller material, generally in the range of 1-to 3-in. diameter. Talus is particularly abundant on the left bank of the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake, where it forms high steep slopes at the toe of a precipitous bedrock cliff, as shown on Figure 4. Avalanche deposits are comprised of rock, soil and woody debris at the toes of avalanche chutes, and are emplaced by winter or spring snow avalanches. Alluvium includes active stream deposits and alluvial fans. The stream deposits, consisting of sand and sandy gravel with cobbles, are found along the main stem of Mahoney Creek and its major tributary. Except for the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake, where previous reports speculated that the bottom of the buried channel was very deep, the thickness of alluvium is expected to be relatively thin (on the order of a few feet). Much of Mahoney Creek is very steep gradient and bedrock is exposed in the channel. A significant delta has developed in the area between the proposed powerhouse site and the mouth of the creek, where it empties into Mahoney Lake. Based on limited reconnaissance, it appears that the deltaic channel shifts frequently, probably in an avulsive manner. The sediment consists mostly of gravelly sand, but also includes large and small organic debris carried during flooding and avalanches. Muskeg is fragmented remains of decayed vegetable matter accumulating in bogs; it can range from nearly all vegetation (peat) to organic silt with peat (muck). No significant deposits are located in the upland portions of the project, but some large muskeg areas were noted along the southern shore of Mahoney Lake. The powerhouse access road would pass over these organic soils. 3.3.4 Slope Conditions The project area is very rugged, and steep to precipitous slopes are common. The slopes are controlled by the steep angle of the bedding of the schist, the orthogonal joint pattern, shear zones and faults. This topography was formed by a combination of four factors: (1) the original shaley sediments, (2) doming by the large intrusive batholith, (3) physical weathering by glacial ice and (4) mass wasting events. Since deglaciation, the dominant landscape-altering process has been mass wasting, including rock falls, rock slides, avalanches, landslides and debris torrents. Rock fall is common from bedrock cliffs, most notably from the cliffs along the left bank of Mahoney Creek, as indicated on Figure 4. Because the dip of bedding is 36 to 58 degrees into the slope, the potential for large rock slides there is low, but small to medium rock falls May 1996 3-4 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan are common. The only large rock slide observed was at the southeastern comer of Upper Mahoney Lake. Based on long-distance observation only, the scar of this rock slide appeared to be on the order of 60,000 cubic yards. Other similar rock slides are possible where. the planar bedding daylights on the slope. Avalanche chutes are primarily oriented north/ south, aligned with the prominent geologic structure. The weaker lineaments are more easily weathered and eroded and then become natural chutes for mass wasting. During winter and spring, the dominant method of mass wasting is snow avalanche, but debris torrents and flows also occur. Debris torrents and flows carry much more solid material than do snow avalanches. These even~ commonly. scour sediment and sometimes riparian vegetation. Once scoured, their channels then slowly fill again by rock fall, landslides and creep of the colluvial soils.. The major avalanche chutes are __ shown on Figure 4, Site Geologic Map. One landslide was observed in the project area, just southeast of the right angle bend in Mahoney Creek, as shown on Figure 4. This appears to be an old chronic slide that lies along a fault that was identified by the COE. Because the soil cover is not thick, landsliding does not appear to be a widespread form of mass wasting in the general vicinity. 3.3.5 Economic Mineral Deposits Only one economic mineral deposit was identified in the vicinity of the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project The Mahoney Zinc Mine is located north of the outlet from Mahoney Lake to George Inlet The ore body was discovered before 1900 and first visited by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1901. By 1907 a tunnel into the vein had reached 35ft The property was bought by Joe Mahoney and Ed McGann and was worked without any financial success uritil 1940. Elmer Perkins claimed the property in 1942 and worked the mine until1947; assays were completed but no ore was processed. The mine was e)cpanded with the addition of a crusher, mill and concentrator in 1947 by the Big Four Mining Company. They removed 400 to 500 tons of ore and sent concentrate to Idaho and Montana smelters in the summer of 1947. In the summer of 1948, 18 tons of concentrate were shipped for refining; however, by the summer of 1949, mining operations ceased and the mine has been inactive since. Only the adit opening remains as evidence of the mine (Roppel, 1991). The Mahoney Mine was the first commercial producer of zinc concentrate 'in Alaska. Its products:, in order of weight, were zinc, lead, copper, silver and gold. The vein of sphalerite, the principal ore of zinc, was about 4ft wide and t4e length of the adit, as recently measured by the USGS was 633 ft The mine was reportedly about another 100 ft longer during its operation (Maas, 1994). The mineralized vein was within the schist bedrock that is found throughout southern Revillagigedo Island. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 3.3.6 Faults, Shear Zones and Joints The Geologic Map of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert Quadrangles, Southeastern Alaska, (Berg and others 1988) indicates that there are faults within 3 to 4 mi. to the northeast of the Mahoney Lake project; however, these structures do not appear to be active. The COE (1978) map for their Mahoney Lakes project study showed two faults running through the project area, as indicated on Figure 4. Other lineaments, based on linearity of topographic features, are shown on Figure 4. There is no indication of recent movement along these faults and no seismic activity is recorded for the area. The faults and lineaments are of interest because the rock in these areas is weaker than the surrounding rock and can affect the construction of the project, particularly the driving and support of the tunnel. While faults and shear zones are large-scale rock discontinuities, joints are small-scale discontinuities. They are the small cracks in the rock that determine how the rock would break and sometimes slide. The sericite schist is orthogonally jointed in closely to moderately closely spacing, resulting in slabby, angular schist fragments. 3.3.7 Seismicity Regional seismicity appears to be primarily controlled by north-south strike-slip motion between the North American and Pacific Plates of the west coast of the Alexander Archipelago. While there are low angle thrust and high angle normal faults mapped within 3 to 4 mi. northeast of the site (Berg and others 1988), these do not appear to be active at this time. Rather, these and similar structures on the island are commonly cut by unfaulted intrusions of Eocene to Cretaceous ages, indicating no movement has occurred on these faults since these times. Additionally, the mapped lengths of these nearby structures are relatively short.. ranging from 1 to 4 mi. Faults on the order of 17 to 30 mi. are mapped 7 to 9 mi. southeast and southwest of the project Historic earthquakes greater than magnitude 3.0 within 100 mi. of the site are listed and located on Figure 5. The listing of historic earthquakes was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Geophysical Data Center Catalog. While the historic record is very short (the earliest earthquake listed was in 1949), it does show that most of the seismicity in the region is along the west edge of the Alexander Archipelago. The nearest historic earthquake to the site was a magnitude 5.0 event located 45 mi. to the southwest The largest event in the listing on Figure 4 is a magnitude 6.4 event located 100 mi. southwest of the site. Other large earthquakes in the region include the August 21, 1949 Queen Charlotte Islands and July 30, 1972 Sitka events. The 1949 magnitude 8.1 (Rogers, 1983) earthquake was located approximately 160 mi. southwest of the site. The 1972, magnitude 7.6 event was located about 180 mi. northwest of the site (Coffman and von Hake 1974). While no information was found indicating the intensity of ground shaking felt from the 1949 event in the site area, reports from the 1972 event indicate that Ketchikan experienced Modified May1996 3-6 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Mercalli Intensity V ground shaking. This intensity is generally consistent with measured peak ground accelerations (pga) o~ the order of 0.03g to 0.04g. Probabilistic ground motion studies by Algermissen and others (1990) indicate that a pga of 0.025g at the site would have a 90% chance of non-exceedence in a 50 year time interval (that is, about a 500-year recurrence interval at the site). By contrast, the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBq seismic design provisions, which are also based on a 500-year event, require a 0.20g pga for design in this area. The American Petroleum Institute 1993 guidelines implicitly assume a pga of 0.25g in this area for a return interval of 200 years. In the relatively brief, 45-year historic record, pga•s on the order of 0.03 to 0.04g have occurred at the site. Because it is likely that the design of the facility would be in accordance with the UBC, the use of the 0.20 pga is a reasonable basis for the design of the proposed project 3.3.8 Volcanic and Geothermal Activity No volcanic or geothermal activity has been identified in the vicinity of the proposed project 3.4 SOILS The distribution of soil units in the vicinity of the proposed project is presented on Figure 6. This information was obtained from the FS Tongass National Forest office in Ketchikan, Alaska. The map was taken from a large scale map of the soils on Revillagigedo Island supplied by the FS (USDA Forest Service 1993). Soil mapping was available for the public lands around Upper Mahoney Lake and extending eastward to within about 500 ft of the proposed powerhouse site; however, no soil mapping has been accomplished on the land owned by the Cape Fox Corporation. Because of the shallow soil cover in the Mahoney Lake area, the soils are considered to be representative of the underlying geologic units. Six map units are described below that are in proximity to features of the proposed projects. Three units surround the higher-elevation portion of the project_ Calamity (246E), Shakan (14EF) and Rock Outcrop (81). Calamity soils are shallow, acidic soils 16 to 20 in. thick on slopes ranging from 5 to 75%. The profile is: 0-2in. 2-6 in. 6-16 in. 16-20 in. sandy loam very cobbly, sandy loam extremely cobbly, sandy loam metamorphic bedrock Calamity .soils have a very high permeability, are well drained and have a low to moderate landslide hazard potential. They form in the residuum of metamorphic rock. Shakan soils are moderately deep, acidic soils 25 to 29 in. thick on slopes ranging from 60 to 150%. The profile is: Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 3-7 May1996 I I !!? I ~ ... w a: "' I I I I I I ., I, ~ 0 -' II ~ I <:> I ; 0 0 ~ II i ~ ::l I ~ ... I I I SEISMICITY (M>=3 ORI>=IV) WITHIN 100 MILES : of I'\""' :It' J~IW ?,1' Wee! Auq 17 11:57:59 1994 Chrono1oqical Search NG::X: !:.AA'!'IIQOl,l!(.£ llA TA FILE SOURCE DA'l"E 'l'!M::t LOc.I.TIOII Dt.PTH -----------I'.AGliiTOOES-----------INT I~"T F-E ct 0/11 OIS7ANCE DO? 1fR MO OY J-:R Y.N SEC UTI'l"ODE LONGITOOE 1QI I!!> K~ Onu:R LOc1.L HAP I'J.X DTSVNW'IJI lQo! 01'1. au oa 22 09 15 21.44 54.960N 1••E?B 1H9 08 22 09 15 21.4 54.96 II Ei'B uu 08 23 02 59 06.1 55.08 II 1• •ORA 19(9 08 23 02 59 06.14 55.08011 01'1. 1949 09 12 14 37 (8.64 55.16011 l••EPB 1H9 09 12 14 37 U.6 55.16 II P.OT 1956 11 17 20 27 17 .o 54.60011 Ei'3 1903 12 02 06 52 20. 54.4 II l••ONA 1903 12 02 06 52 20.04 54.40011 Ei'B 1903 12 02 06 57 20. 54.4 II ISC 1964 08 03 18 5C 54.1 54.20011 1••ua 1964 08 03 18 5C 55. 54.1 II 2••DSA uu 08 03 18 sc 55.04 54.10011 E?B 1905 OS 15 03 H 32. 55. II 1• •01'1. 1965 OS 15 03 14 32.04 55.00011 E?B 1965 09 05 10 04 17. 55. N l••Ot;.A 1HS 09 OS 10 04 17.04 55.00011 LAO 1H8 Ol 04 11 08 cs.o 56.00011 EP!l 1968 06 28 18 04 (2. 56. N l••Ot;A 1968 06 28 18 04 42.04 56.00011 Ei'B H71 07 15 00 24 02. 54.6 N 1••01'1. Hil 07 15 00 24 C2.04 54.60011 ISC 1916 10 lS 20 29 31.2 54.65511 POE 1981 Ol 20 15 36 54.7• 55.3E111 lSC 19el 12 01 l7 41 C6.4 54.09211 Ot.:A 1983 ll 30 16 46 56.04 54.05011 t••lSC 19!3 11 30 l6 H 58.3 54.270N DNA 1963 12 OS 06 27 08.04 5(.14011 t••O!T ue3 u os 06 27 08.0 5(.10011 O"l'T 1964 01 29 08 10 21.0 55.1 CCII 1••oRA 15'!4 01 29 08 10 21.04 55.10011 DAA 1U4 01 29 08 12 25.04 55.10011 1••on 1984 01 29 08 12 25 .o 55.100N Ot:A HS4 04 29 00 06 23.04 5S.OBON 1••orr 1984 04 29 00 06 23.0 SS.OOON O"l'T uss 11 30 17 55 13.0 56.70011 l•"•O!Vt. 1985 11 30 17 5S 13.04 56.76011 OTT 1966 03 21 22 (l u.o 54.20011 1J3.(30W 0 4.50!!!. Ei'S 133.(3 w 4.5 !!!. £?5 134.01 w 5. Y.L £?3 134 .OlOW 0 s.oo!!!. £?5 l32.570W 0 5.00 Y.L EPll 132.57 w 5. Y.L Ei'B 133.600W 33 ,,(0 ROT 132.9 w 3.9 132.900W 0 3.90 ~ DNG 132.9 w 3.6 131.900W 33 3. 90 ISC 132.1 w 4.2 132.100W 0 4.20 ~ EPS 133.5 w 4.1 Y.L EP3 133.SOOW 0 4.10 1!!. Ei'3 130.6 w 4.5 1!!. £?3 130.600W 0 4.50 !a. £?!1 133.000W 0 3.40 l.AO 133.6 w lSG 3.9 !!!. E?il 133.600W 18 3.90!!!. EP!l 133,6 w 18G 4.9 5.3 !a. El'!l 133.600W 18 5.30 !a. El'!l 133.SOSW 0 3.80 !a. O"l'T 134.06 w 1SG 3.8 132.5HW 0 3.10 Y.L O"l'T 132.090W l8 3.00 Y.L £l'3 132 .131W 18 3.00 !!!. O"l'T 132.HOW l8 3.00 !!!. £?3 132.560W 18 3. 00 Y.L O"l'T 133.160W l8 3.00 !a. O"l'T 133.HOW lS 3.00 Y.L Ei'll 133.200W' 19 3.30!!!. EP!l l33.200W 18 3.30 Y.L O"l'T 133.000W 18 3.10 Y.L £?!1 133.000W l8 3. 70 Y.L O"l'T 131.150W 18 3.30 Y.L O"l'T 131.15011 18 3.30 Y.L EPB 132.89011 10 3.20 Y.L OTT NOTE Data are from the National Geophysical Data Center Catalog. 022 0 131 022 131 Ol9 1£2 Ol9 0 162 Ol9 0 72 Ol9 72 C22 HO 022 H3 022 a H3 022 H3 022 21 137 022 151 022 21 151 Ol9 134 Ol9 0 134 019 14 Cl9 0 H 019 2 113 019 3 HS ou 3 HS 022 8 160 022 8 160 022 10 152 0!9 9 160 022 5 162 C22 4 156 022 4 133 022 0 156 022 1€1 019 109 019 0 109 ou 0 112 019 112 Ol9 0 101 Ol9 104 019 H4 019 0 151 022 F 161 Q) '0 @ j 134.0W 56.0N 55.0N VI SEISMICITY {M>=3 OR I>=IV) WITHIN 100 MILES OF 55N2s• 131W31 1 133.0W 132.0W Longitude 131.0W 130.0W 129.0W 57.0N 54.0N r ---l,§·,',:,etKil'j·t T-E.i:::q---L :Cs~u-~'''i''fDH::GS:':r;m::M 134.0W 133.0W 132.0W 131.0W 22 Earthquakes Plotted National Geophysical Data Center I NOAA LEGEND Magnitudes 0.1 • 1.9 0 4.0 -4.4 ® 2.0-2.9 0 3.0-3.4 @ 3.5-3.9 @ 4.5-4.9 5.0-5.4 >5.4 • - 130.0W 129.0W NOTE Map adapted from figure developed by the National Geophysical Data Center. HOREn ClTY OF' SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCAnON F'OR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT F'ERC PROJECT NO. 1 1.393 EARTHQUAKES WITHN 100 MILES OF.JHE SITE RGliES fiLE: MAHBXllL.DWG PLOT SCALE: 1=1 N DATE: 10/27/95 TIME: 09: 28om PATH: H: \MAHONEY\ LEGEND t?~~~ Calamity r1i'V) Bedrock Outcrop t1lliJ {metamorphic) ~ Shakan l1~fl ~ Cape Fox Corporation Land PVT $'Gi McGilvery Helm Kaikli 1/8 1/4 1/2 t l j Scale in Miles NOTE Base map adapted from ???. CITY OF SAXMAN. ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT F'ERC PROJECT NO. 11393 SITE SOILS MAP FIGUE6 0-3 in. 3-25 in. 25-29 in. sandy loam very gravelly, sandy loam metamorphic bedrock Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Shakan soils have a moderately rapid permeability, are moderately to well drained, and have a high to very high landslide hazard potential. They form in the colluvium that collects in snow avalanche chutes. Rock outcrops comprise alpine summits and mountain slopes. They also include rock rubble, such as talus, and have a low landslide hazard potential. Three other soil units are located closer to Mahoney Lake and the lower portion of the project McGilvery (29EF), Helm (19F) and Kaik1i (25). McGilvery soils are shallow, acidic soils 15 to 19 in. deep on slopes ranging from 5 to 140%. The soil profile is: 0-11 in. 11-15 in. 15-19 in. peat very gravelly, silt loam metamorphic bedrock McGilvery soils have rapid permeability, are well drained and have low landslide hazard potential The surficial layer forms from organic matter and the subsoil forms from metamorphic rock residuum. Helm soils are shallow, acidic soils 21 to 25 in. thick on slopes ranging from 75 to 100%. The soil profile is: 0-10 in. 10-14 in. 14-21 in. 21-25 in. muck silt loam gravelly, silt loam granitic bedrock Helm soils have moderate permeability, are poorly drained and have very high landslide hazard potential. They form in granitic colluvium and residuum. Kaikli soils are moderately deep, acidic soils about 32 in. thick on slopes ranging from 0 to 75% . The soil profile is: 0-30 in. 30-32 in. 32in. muck and peat silt loam schist bedrock Kaikli soils have moderately rapid permeability, are very poorly drained and have a low landslide hazard potential. The parent material of the upper 30 in. is organic matter and the subsoil is derived from metamorphic bedrock. May 1996 3-10 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 3.5 VEGETATION The proposed project site is an undeveloped, forested area located on National Forest System lands and lands owned by the Cape Fox Corporation. The forest around the project area is predominantly a mixed stand of western hemlock and Sitka spruce (COE 1983). Western red cedar and Alaska cedar are also present in lesser percentages. In addition to these tree species, the forested areas support smaller growths of red alder, cottonwood, mountain hemlock, alpine fir, Pacific fir, and lodgepole pine. Forests have very dense canopy and understory layers blocking out most direct sunlight Small bush saplings of shade-resistant hemlock and cedar, with blueberry, devilsclub, and other shrubs form a dense understory. Huckleberry, copper bush, Sitka alder, juniper, skunk cabbage, ferns, mosses, and grasses also contribute to this understory. Intermediate plant communities that combine elements of forest and bog grow near the forest edge. Characteristic plants of this vegetative type are shore pine, Alaska cedar, mountain hemlock, rusty menziesia, sedges, mosses, and rooted aquatics. Alpine tundra occurs in open terrain above the treeline where barren rocks and rubble are interspersed with low plants including cassiopes, mountain-heath, dwarf blueberry, dwarf willow, avens, alpine azalea, lichens, and mosses. Although Upper Mahoney Lake is below the treeline, this type of vegetation is found in the area above the lake due to the rocky, steep terrain. Bogs are the only type of wetland found near the project area. They are located along the south shore of the Lower Mahoney Lake, which is part of the access road route. 3.6 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE The proposed project would utilize runoff from a 2.0 sq. mi. drainage area supplying Upper Mahoney Lake. Water from Upper Mahoney Lake, at approximate El. 1,959 ft MSL, flows easterly down a cascade (Upper Mahoney Creek) to the lower lake (El. 85 ft MSL) and then into George Inlet by way of Mahoney Creek. Upper Mahoney Creek is supplemented by numerous tributaries between the location of the proposed lake tap and its outlet into Lower Mahoney Lake. In addition to Upper Mahoney Creek, Lower Mahoney Lake is fed by six creeks. One of these, South Creek, would be crossed with a bridge for the access road. Lower Mahoney Creek, the outlet from the lake, would also be a bridged crossing for the access road. Only two of the remaining drainages would be crossed by the access road, and these would be handled with appropriately sized culverts. There are numerous seasonally wet areas along the access road route, and several bog areas. These areas would be addressed during final design so that the drainages from these areas do not impact the access road. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 3-11 May 1996 i Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 4.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCIION 4.1 CONSTRUCIION SCHEDULING The proposed cons1ruction schedule is presented on Figure 7. The schedule is based on FERC issuing the license by June 1997. Issuance after this date could significantly impact the schedule because it is anticipated that two full construction seasons would be required to cons1ruct the project Final design would begin shortly before the anticipated issuance of the license. The turbine and generator supply contract would be awarded about 6 months after receipt of the License. Preliminary estimates by turbine vendors indicate that delivery may take at least 12 months, and as much as 20 months, from contract award. Although considered conservative, 18 months is assumed for turbine and generator manufacturing and delivery. Approximately one month after the issuance of the license, early design efforts would be concentrated on the access road. A separate contract may be awarded for this work prior to the award of the general construction contract Excavation of the lower tunnel portal and construction of the transmission line could begin in April 1998. The transmission line construction is scheduled for a winter shutdown in December 1998 if it is not completed when winter conditions begin to make field construction difficult Work would be resumed the following April. Completion of the transmission line is scheduled for mid- summer 1999. It has been assumed that construction of the lower tunnel and shaft would continue throughout the winter season, thereby saving time the following spring to concentrate on upper tunnel cons1ruction. The lower tunnel excavation would be completed and, if needed, the tunnel would be lined during the 1998 construction season. For better access, installation of the pipeline in the lower tunnel could be delayed until after the upper tunnel and valve house are completed. The shaft would be completed by the spring of 1999. Beginning the 1999 construction season, laborers would begin excavating the upper tunnel by accessing it from the lower tunnel and unlined shaft The Alimak elevator system used to construct the shaft would remain in place for transporting laborers, material and equipment to the Upper Mahoney Lake area. Construction of the upper tunnel and powerhouse would begin in the Spring of 1999 together with completion of the transmission line route and switchyard. Final blasting for the lake tap would take place after the upper tunnel and valve house have been completed. A temporary bulkhead upstream of the valves would contain water pressure in the upstream portion of the upper tunnel, and the valves in the valve house would be closed to provide additional safeguards during final lake tap blasting. The 1emporary bulkhead would be blasted or otherwise removed just prior to turbine tests. If any logging and yarding of timber on National Forest System lands is necessary for construction of the project it would be performed to USFS standards. Any logging that May1996 4-1 Mllhoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan takes place on land owned by the Cape Fox Corporation for this same purpose, would be done in accordance with state law. Any trees of merchantable size which need to be cleared from National Forest System lands will be addressed in a timber sale agreement with the USFS. Commencement of commercial operation is presently planned to occur by December 1999. 4.2 MINIMIZING AREAS OF DISTURBANCE Soil mobilization and transport would be reduced by limiting clearing and construction activities to the minimum necessary for construction. An area of approximately 99.6 acres would be disturbed by the project elements. limited clearing would reduce the potential for increased erosion, sedimentation, and slope instability. Some of the project vicinity has already been disturbed by logging operations. 4.3 CONSTRUCilON EQUIPMENT The proper selection of equipment can help reduce erosion and sedimentation. Equipment would be proportionally sized for the job. Use of smooth trac:ks on equipment when possible reduces soil disturbance. Wide track or low ground pressure equipment (in areas which do not need compaction) would avoid over-compacting soil to be revegetated. The sizing and selection of construction equipment would be determined by the contractor. However, the contractor would be required to comply with forest practices and other regulations applicable to the use of construction equipment 4.4 RISK ASSESSMENT 4.4.1 Impacts During Construction During construction, there would be impacts of the project on the environment and of the environment on the project Turbidity may be temporarily increased in the northeast portion of Upper Mahoney Lake during final blasting activities for construction of the lake tap. Temporary sediment production would be increased during the construction of the Upper Mahoney laydown area and excavation of overburden soils for the powerhouse, staging area, tailrace and powerhouse access road This sediment can be delivered to streams directly or by ephemeral tributaries. There is a moderate potential for blasted rock to reach Mahoney Creek during powerhouse excavation. This blasting may also have an effect on the wildlife in the vicinity of the powerhouse. Tunnel, powerhouse and tailrace construction would generate approximately 18,000 cubic yards of rock and soil. Vegetation removal would be necessary at the stockpile area and there would be a risk of sediment being entrained into the stream system from the stockpile. Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 4-2 May1996 ID Task Name 1 Submit FERC Llcenu Appllcetion 2 FERC Application Processing 3 Receive FERC ll<*lM (est) 4 I Final Design Engineering 5 I Final Sutvey and Geoteclt Work 8 I Bid & Award Turblne/Oen Contract 7 I Turbine/Generator Manufacture 8 I Turbine/Generator Delivery 9 I Access Road Constnretion 10 Upper Like Winter Shutdown 12 T-Une Constnrclion 15 Lower Tunnel Construction 18 Sllaft Constnrction 17 UpparTunneland Like Tap 18 PowerhOUM Constnrction 19 I Turbine/Generator Installation 20 I Slart·UP and Tasting 21 I Begin Commercial Operation 6/2197 613197 613197 12/4197 2/111981 8/19199 7/1/97 12/1198 4111981 4111981 12/1198 411199 411199 8118/99 1111199 1211/99 FIGURE 7 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 612197 ! 612. i 6/2198 1013197 2/10198 6/18199 10/6199 9130197 ! -3131199 7/1199 11130/98 3131199 11/15199 6/18199 11/1/99 12/1199 12/1199 Page 4-3 --• 1211. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Nearly all of the impacts of the natural environment on the project have been eliminated or reduced to a minimum by the prudent placement of project facilities; however, one unavoidable impact would be that of the faults and shear zones on the tunnel construction. The rock would be weak and seepage may be significant in these zones. 4.4.2 Mitigation of Impacts During Construction An increase in turbidity in Upper Mahoney Lake during final blasting activities for the lake tap is unavoidable; however, because the material is hard bedrock, little sediment would be created. Temporary sediment production created by disturbance of overburden soil in the Upper Mahoney laydown area, powerhouse, staging area, tailrace and powerhouse access road would be mitigated by use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) to control runoff and prevent delivery of construction sediment to streams. Where blasting is performed for the powerhouse in close proximity to Mahoney Creek, controlled blasting techniques would be used to prevent flyrock from reaching the creek, including the use of blast mats, if necessary. If surface blasting is to be performed at times that would be disruptive to mating and rearing of nearby threatened and or endangered species, blasting would be scheduled to minimize disturbance. Construction spoils would be placed in areas away from running water and would be protected from rain by employing BMP's. The weak rock in shear zones would be reinforced in the penstock tunnel by placing steel sets for support Drainage measures may be necessary if seepage is excessive. 4.4.3 Impacts During Operation During operation, the powerhouse access road may be in the path. of avalanches that are generated from the chutes to the west and southwest, thereby interrupting the normal flow of sediment to Mahoney Lake. Similarly, this access road could be damaged or destroyed by such an avalanche, cutting off vehicular access to the powerhouse. Rock falls or a rock slide could foul the lake tap intake opening. Snow avalanches could damage the penstock where it is exposed at the ground surface between the upper tunnel and the shaft The powerhouse tailrace could be blocked or damaged by debris torrent material. 4.4.4 Mitigation of Impacts During Operation To reduce the risk of rock debris falling into the lake tap intake, at-risk rock above the water line would be rockbolted. Rock traps are also included in the design of the upper tunnel to intercept rock debris. Snow avalanches above the exposed portion of the penstock between the upper tunnel and the shaft could be diverted by a berm and energy dissipater uphill of the penstock and the penstock could be protected with. a concrete housing. As part of the maintenance and operation plan, the operator should always check for rock and organic debris at the end of the tailrace, particularly after storms and rain-on-snow events. Routine maintenance will also include periodic cleaning of accumulated debris behind the rock traps. May1996 4-4 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 5.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES 5.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES The goal of this ESCP is to capture sediment before it reaches Upper Mahoney Lake, Lower Mahoney Lake or any of the several creeks within the project area. A geotechnical engineer would assess all problem areas during final design. The Final FSCP would indicate sensitive areas, and detailed mitigation would be presented at that time. The probability of sediment reaching surface waters would be very low when erosion control measures are installed. The ESCP would show types and locations of sediment barriers or traps specifically designed for installation in these areas. All excavation would be done under controlled conditions. Blasting, when necessary, would use mats and controlled blasting to m:i.nimize fly rock. Contractors would not be allowed to let excavation materials reach surface waters. The Contractor would follow the guidelines outlined in this ESCP while designing and constructing all erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures. These measures would be part of the construction contracts. Continuous on-site monitoring would ensure the following principles are implemented during all construction activities. • Implement ESC measures prior to clearing or grading, throughout and after construction. • Minimize the area and duration of the construction disturbance. • Protect bare soil from rainfall and overland flow and revegetate as soon after final grading as permitted by seasonal conditions. • Reduce the velocity of run-off from construction areas with proper control measures and minimize the volume of construction run-off flowing across bare soil areas through the use of planned diversions. • Provide temporary or permanent drainage facilities to control the run-off released from the construction area with an emphasis on source isolation. • Trap or filter out sediment before it leaves the construction area with an emphasis on source isolation. • Intercept water drainages and divert water away from the construction areas whenever possible:" • Oear only those areas which would be graded and stabilized in the current season. May 1996 5-1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERCNo. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan • Schedule major land disturbing activities during the dry season. • Construct with equipment appropriately sized for the job. • Exercise care to preserve the natural landscape; conduct all operations to prevent any unnecessary destruction, scarring, or defacing of the natural surroundings throughout the project area. • Conduct all operations in a manner causing the least disturbance to the topsoil outside of the construction area. Indiscriminate bulldozing, scraping, movement of equipment, and other operations which would result in unwarranted erosion and damage to the natural vegetation would not be permitted. Material from construction work would be deposited where it would be protected from erosion or transport into surface waters by surface run-off or high stream flows. • Prevent mass movement of soils by removing topsoils under all major construction features and by laying back permanent cuts and other excavations to stable slopes. • Stockpile topsoil for use during revegetation of the construction area. • Perform all work by methods which prevent entrance or accidental spillage of solid matter, contaminants, debris, and other objectionable pollutants and wastes into any streams or watercourses, such as sediment ponds, sediment traps, oil/water separators, collection sumps, etc. • Maintain all temporary erosion/ sediment controls in a satisfactory condition until such time that dearing and/ or construction is completed, permanent drainage facilities are operational, and there is no longer the potential for construction induced erosion. ESC measures for equipment and material lay down areas would include: • Grade areas to drain to sedimentation ponds equipped with oil/water separators. • Size sedimentation ponds to provide storage requirements as outlined in Section 6.A. • Temporarily divert overland flow to bypass disturbed areas. • Direct sediment pond discharge to established drainage courses that previously received the run-off (maintain existing flow patterns). Mahoney LAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 5-2 Mayl996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan • Place check dams along all ditches before and after the sediment ponds. • Place crushed rock swfacing on actively traveled areas. • Store oils, fuels, concrete curing compounds and other toxic materials in a bermed area with an impervious liner. Equipment would be fueled in an area to catch spilled materials. • Chemicals and petroleum products would be isolated in one or two laydown areas selected by the contractor to best suit his construction needs. These areas would be designed to meet statE standards for hazardous matErials storage and properly controlled. Containment areas would be constructed using berms and impermeable (PVQ membranes. Stockpiles for matErials such as topsoil, excavated sediments (spoils), gravel, etc. would incorporatE ESC measures for each stockpile site. Measures would include: • Locate stockpiles so that natural drainages and swales are not blocked. • Divert overland flow to bypass stockpile areas. • Install filter fabric fencing to intercept all run-off leaving the stockpile area. See Exhibit Erosion Control Drawing (ECD) 4 for filter fabric fencing detail (refer to Attachment A). • ProtEct erodible materials from wind and rain by seeding and mulching, or by covering with matting, plastic sheeting, etc., until sitE restoration activities are complete. 5.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL GUIDELINES The following is a list of ESC measures (A through F) which would be used to implement the basic principles of ESC at the project A. DetEntion pond runoff control from larger areas B. Prevention of erosion from localized areas C. Prevention of erosion on disturbed slopes D. Roadway traffic erosion control E. Prevention of erosion in drainage channels F. Stabilization of stream channel banks A more detailed explanation of the methods used to implement these control measures and functional design diagrams can be found in Section 6.0-Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Narratives, and Attachment A-ECD Exhibits. May 1996 5-3 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion &: Sediment Control Pkm Additional measures may be required through the following agencies and permit processes: Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Forest Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination/Ketchikan Gateway Borough Alaska Department of Fish & Game Ketchikan Gateway Borough Permit Section 404, Oean Water Act Special Use Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - Construction Section 401, Oean Water Act Water Rights Coastal Zone Consistency Fish Habitat Zoning Where applicable, any additional agency requirements for ESC measures would be incorporated into this plan by reference. The Final ESCP would be made available to the agencies for review and comment 5.3 SITE SPEOFIC PROVISIONS The following sections describe major construction activities and the site-specific ESC measures for those areas or project features. It is anticipated that major construction activities would proceed along the following described sequence of events. However, alternate methods may be employed if appropriate. The proposed project facilities and proposed locations for the referenced ESC measures are located in Attachment B, ESC Drawings 1 through 3. It is anticipated that contractors would use the ESC measures and locations as shown on these drawings. However, the locations, sizes and types of measures shown are advisory. Alternatives may be used so long as the intent of this plan is met The contractor would be required to take additional measures, as directed, to meet the objectives of the ESCP. The contractor would be responsible for replacing or repairing erosion control structures which are damaged or non-functional, and restoring all construction sites to pre-construction conditions. The contractor would also be required to Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 54 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan stockpile additional materials such as straw bales, silt fencing, sandbags, and absorbent pads near the construction site in order to immediately deal with unanticipated erosion or spill problems. Following construction, inspection would be made of the new project facilities to determine remedial or maintenance needs. In addition to ESC measures, the clearing limits are shown on ESC Drawings 2 and 3, the Powerhouse Site Plan, and the Upper Construction Area Site Plan, respectively. The clearing limits are the outer boundaries to which vegetation removal would be required for construction related activities. The dearing limit shown for the portion of the access road at the powerhouse would be the same for the entire length of the access road. Temporary staging areas are also called out on the ESC Drawings. The staging areas would be surrounded with silt fencing and the ground covered with impermeable liners where fuel and other toxic materials are stored. The two major staging areas are located at the upper end of the vertical shaft and at the powerhouse. Another staging area may be required at the beginning of the new access road if the contractor deems it necessary. 5.3.1 Access Road and Transmission Line (ESC Drawing 1) Where the new access road begins, there would be a crushed rock pad entrance to help remove clods of soil from construction vehicle tires when leaving the construction site. There may be a need for an additional staging area at this end of the new access road. There is some space available on the existing road to store some materials which may be used while constructing the new access road. The development of this staging area would be at the discretion of the contractor. The clearing width for the roads generally would be 50 ft In areas where some fill would be required to pass over local depressions, the width of the road fill footprint could be up to 80 ft The road would be 16ft wide with turnouts approximately every 1,000 ft The new access road would first be cleared of timber. Timber which is saleable would be sold. Any vegetation which cannot be sold would be stockpiled and burned in accordance with state and local regulations. Stockpile areas for waste vegetation would be located at the beginning of the timber access road and in the clear areas between Stations AR 30+00 and AR 50+00 on the hydro access road. There are numerous wet areas along the new access road, most of which are small seeps and intermittent drainages. These areas would be individually addressed in final design and fitted with culverts or other drainage control methods. The new access road would require construction of two bridges. An approximate 80-foot long single-lane bridge would span Lower Mahoney Creek at Station AR 0+00. A second single-lane bridge would span approximately 30 feet across South Creek, a major drainage on the south side of Mahoney Lake at Station AR 50+ 10. When the bridges are designed, site specific erosion control measures would be determined for the areas. It is likely that silt May1996 5-5 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan fencing or straw bales would be utilized to prevent any disturbed sediment from entering the waterways, particularly during abutment construction. Approximately 18,000 yards of hard shotrock spoils which would be blasted out of the lower tunnel and removed at the powerhouse. To the extent possible, the blast rock excavated from the bottom of the tunnel at the powerhouse would be used as ballast on the access road. H the quantity of rock exceeds what is needed on the access road, the rock would be hauled to existing borrow areas on the existing timber access road on lands owned by the Cape Fox Corporation. It is anticipated that retaining walls in steep areas would limit excavation quantities, particularly in steep areas not underlain with rock Excavated topsoil would be stockpiled and stored separately from other excavated material. Although topsoil cannot be used as backfill for structural reasons, the topsoil would be applied to areas which would be revegetated throughout the project area. The transmission line route would follow essentially the same route as the new access road between the powerhouse and switchyard. The switchyard would be located approximately one mile from the powerhouse in a low avalanche hazard area on the east side of Mahoney Lake adjacent to the access road. The transmission line would be buried 13.2 kV conductor following the access road from the powerhouse to the switchyard. A power transformer would be located in the switchyard to step the voltage up to 34.5 kV transmission voltage. From the switchyard, the 3.6-mile-long, 34.5 kV transmission line would be constructed f south as a combination of buried and overhead lines to the proposed intertie point with · I<PU's Beaver Falls Project (FERC No. 1922) transmission line, located adjacent to that projeds powerhouse. This line would be buried for the first one-half mile to minimize impacts to an existing eagle nesting site. After the first one-half mile, the line would move overhead onto poles. Pole-mounted transmission lines would be designed to minimize the risk of raptor collisions or electrocutions. Additional measures would be taken if the poles come within 100 feet of a drainage course. These measures would be determined during final design and location of the transmission line. 5.3.2 Powerhouse and Tailrace (ESC Drawing 2) The powerhouse would be excavated out of bedrock at the base of the tunnel There would be a 400 ft. x 230 ft. area cleared for the powerhouse and staging area. All tunnel, powerhouse, and tailrace construction activity would be based in the cleared area. The staging area would be surrounded with silt fence to intercept any sediment before it reaches Mahoney Creek It is estimated that approximately 18,000 yards of shotrock would be excavated from the bottom end of the tunnel at the powerhouse. As much of this rock as possible would be used as ballast the access road. Whatever rock cannot be used on the road would be disposed of at existing borrow areas on the existing timber access road owned by the Cape Fox Corporation. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 5-6 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan There would be a bermed and lined fuel storage area within the staging area. There would be a separate concrete truck washout area which would be bermed to prevent escape of contaminated water. The staging area would be sloped to drain to a sediment pond, the outflow from which would spread out through natural vegetation. No outflow from the fuel storage or concrete washout areas would drain to the sediment pond. There would be a separate spoils area located adjacent to the staging area. Riparian areas can and would be protected during construction, and these areas would be fully restored and enhanced following construction. (Riparian areas are identified in the botanical resources section of the Application, as well as in the wetlands delineation section.) Only a small area of riparian vegetation should be impacted near the tailrace channel, as most of the access road is well away from the stream course. A sediment pond would be constructed downslope of the staging area. Stormwater would outflow across native vegetation, seeping back into the ground. 5.3.3 Upper Construction Area (ESC Drawing 3) There would be a construction staging and spoils area near Upper Mahoney Lake at the valve house at the top of the vertical shaft This staging area would be used for drilling equipment used for the lake tap and for a spoils area for approximately 7,500 cubic yards of shot rock to be excavated from the tunnel. The existing condition at the proposed staging area is flat with grass and low scrub vegetation. This is the only suitable location for a staging area, as the rest of the terrane is steep and rugged. The staging area would be completely surrounded with silt fence. Some clearing of low scrub and bushes may be necessary. Any clearing vegetation would be spoiled at the northeast end of the staging area as shown on ESC 3. There are numerous wet areas within the upper construction area, most of which are small seeps and intermittent drainages. These areas would be individually addressed in final design and fitted with culverts or other drainage control methods. A sediment pond would be constructed downslope of the staging area. Stormwater would outflow across native vegetation, seeping back into the ground. 5.4 REVEGETATION FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION 5.4.1 General Only the areas necessary for construction activities and project facilities would be disturbed during project construction. All existing vegetation would be maintained wherever possible to minimize soil movement Oearing activities would be limited to only those areas which can be graded and stabilized during that season. All disturbed areas would be revegetated after construction is completed, or stabilized between construction seasons if such a situation should arise. May 1996 5-7 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan The primary revegetation method would be reseeding with native grasses, forbs and legumes. The fibrous root systems of grasses and legumes quickly stabilize soils and reduce surface erosion. fu additio~ legumes are nitrogen "fixers" and provide soil with nitrogen for other plants. Additional revegetation with special plantings of trees, shrubs or other herbaceous plants, or the use of other specialized revegetation techniques (e.g., matting) may be necessary for additional erosion control on steep slopes, aesthetic concerns, or mitigative measures. fu areas where vegetative cover alone cannot control erosio~ riprap, geofabrics or special structural measures would be implemented. Seed bed preparation can determine the success or failure of revegetation efforts. Therefore, soils to be revegetated would not be compacted nor have a cemented hardp~ as neither would allow adequate root penetration or aeration. Soils to be seeded should be left in a roughened condition to allow the retention and germination of the seed and prevent washing of the seed from the disturbed area. The soils would be evaluated prior to revegetation. Replacement of topsoil from spoils areas would be required where practical, e.g.; along the sides of the access road and around the powerhouse. Erosion control specifications would require that no fertilizer enters any water body following revegetation. Jute matting (ECD-15), straw mulch or a similar material would be utilized in addition to seeding on all steep cut and fill roadbed areas. As the construction would take place during the drier spring and summer months, application of the seed would generally occur in late summer and early autumn. Early fall planting typically allows for adequate temperatures and soil moisture necessary for seed germinatio~ and also allows for germination during the same season as application. The window for suitable fall planting conditions would vary from year to year with variable weather conditions. If suitable fall planting conditions exist (e.g., adequate moisture) prior to September, grasses would be planted at this earlier date if construction has been completed. Seed application would be delayed until after the first fall rains if possible. Stabilization of soils on slopes would need to take place immediately after construction is completed regardless of the time of completion. If soil moisture conditions are not conducive for seeding, slopes would be mulched with loose straw or covered with jute matting or plastic until such a time as soil moisture conditions would provide for successful seed germination. 5.4.2 Grass Seed Mix, Fertilizer, Mulches and Tacldfiers The erosion control seed mix presently recommended by the Tongass National Forest on forest lands to stabilize skid trails, fire lanes, roads, etc. is presented in Table 1. The recommended seed application is in hydromulch at a rate of 50 pounds per acre. Fertilizer (20-20-10, 22-13-6, or similar with high N, P) should be applied at a rate of 200 pounds per acre. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 5-8 May1996 TABLE 1 TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 1\iGfil!\fii~iiJ!!!i .. lfillf~\ ~ · 'tiii!);j:i;~8i:f !~i! Norcoast bering hairgrass 40 20 Arctared red fescue I 20 I 10 Odamagrostis canadensis I 30 I 15 annual rye I 10 I 5 TOTAlS I 100 I 50 Mulch provides favorable moisture and temperature conditions for seed germination and protects bare soil surfaces from rainfall, minimizing soil loss before revegetation. Wood fiber mulch applied in a slurry mix with a tackifier would be applied when feasible, as it is more stable on steep slopes than straw mulches applied with tackifiers. Tackifiers would be utilized with all hydroseeding applications at a rate of 45 pounds per acre on slopes less than 25H:1V; the application rate would be doubled to 90 pounds per acre on slopes 25H:1V and steeper. 5.5 PRESERVATION, RESTORATION AND CLEANUP No trees would be removed except those required to be removed for construction. Trees, brush, and roots removed would be disposed of in a manner conforming to local government requirements or by burning if permits are obtained from appropriate local and state agencies. It must also be documented that burning was accomplished in accordance with these permits. Vegetation not designated to be removed would be protected from damage during construction operations. Deleterious material such as dirt, silt, cement, or petroleum products would not be allowed to enter stream channels, nor would such contaminants be placed where they may later enter these areas. Rubbish and construction debris including cans, bottles, paper, stumps, and slash would not be deposited within 150 ft of the high water mark of any stream. All rubbish would ultimately be removed from the site. All disturbed areas would be properly cleared of temporary structures, rubbish, and waste materials upon completion of the project. Disturbed areas would be properly graded to drain and revegetate, in order to blend with the surrounding terrain. Sediments trapped behind straw bale barriers and silt fences would be removed and distributed over the areas to be reseeded. When disturbed areas have been restored and reseeded, straw bale barriers, silt fences and sediment ponds would be removed, rehabilitated, and revegetated. The spoils areas would be graded to properly drain and then be revegetated. May 1996 5-9 Mtzhoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 5.6 MAINTENANCE, MONITORING AND PLAN MODIFICATIONS The implementation of the measures described in this ESCP would be the responsibility of the contractors. The requirements for erosion control would be written into the contracts, and would be enforced by Saxman through the Resident Engineer (engineer). During construction, culverts, sedimentation ponds, check dams, and other sediment traps would be cleaned on an as-needed basis. Extra straw bales, silt fences, and posts would be stored on-site and would be available if required. The contracts would contain provisions whereby, if the contractor fails to observe any of the requirements for erosion control so that environmental contamination occurs, the engineer would have the right to stop the work where it is contributing to the contamination. The contractor would then be required to take the necessary steps to stop the contamination before continuing with the work Frequent inspections conducted throughout project construction would ensure maintenance and monitoring of the erosion control measures and installations. The work would also be inspected following major storm events, particularly in areas under active construction. Repairs and modifications would be made as required. Following construction, all revegetated areas would be inspected once a year for two consecutive years to ensure that the planting and habitat programs are successful. Areas seeded to grass would be replanted where growth is unsuccessful or sparse at least two additional times to attempt to establish growth. The replanting would include application of fertilizer and mulch. Annual inspection of areas seeded to grass would continue for either two years or until a permanent vegetative cover is established. A two-year monitoring period for revegetated sites is believed to be sufficient However, if the agencies agree that after two years the regrowth is not sufficient, the monitoring can be extended for a third year. ESC measures would be monitored by the engineer and his assistants, and would require ongoing effort as the project plans are finalized and modified for unanticipated field conditions. There may be situations where erosion control measures, thought to be necessary during planning, are either not needed, not working effectively, or need modifications due to unforeseen conditions. Project modifications during the final design stages and construction phases would require that modifications be made to the ESC measures. Improvements and changes to the ESCP would be implemented as needed to meet specific construction and weather conditions as they are encountered. These changes and additions to the ESCP would be noted in the construction log book Field drawings and/ or photographs with a discussion on the erosion control problem and the proposed solution would be included in regular reports. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 5-10 May1996 i Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 6.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVES Narrative Page A. Detention Pond Run-Off Control from Larger Areas Temporary Settling Pond 6-2 B. Prevention of Erosion from Localized Areas Silt Fence Barrier 6-4 Straw Bale Barrier 6-7 c. Prevention of Erosion on Disturbed Slopes Soil Erosion Matting and Mulches 6-9 Gabion Walls 6-11 Interceptor Dike and Swale 6-12 Subsurface Drains 6-14 Pipe Slope Drains 6-16 D. Roadway Traffic Erosion Control Construction Road Stabilization 6-18 Stabilized Construction Entrance 6-20 Vehicle Turnouts 6-22 E. Prevention of Erosion in Drainage Channels Culvert Outfall Protection 6-23 F. Stabilization of Stream Channel Banks Riprap Bank and Slope Stabilization 6-24 NOTE: All narratives are based in whole or in part on the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin Technicnl Manual, published by the Washington State Department of Ecology in February of 1992. May 1996 6-1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Projed FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE A: Detention Pond Run-off Control from Larger Areas REFERENCE EXIDBITS: ECD-1, 2, 3, and 4 TYPE: Temporary Sediment Pond DEFINffiON: A temporary basin with a controlled water release structure formed by constructing an embankment of compacted soil or by excavation, or by constructing an above-ground basin with concrete ecology blocks. PURPOSE: To control and retain seepage and run-off pumped from construction areas such that sediment-laden waters do not enter existing surface waters. Sediment ponds are a temporary measure and are intended to be maintained until the site is permanently protected against erosion. LOCATION: At least two temporary sediment ponds would be constructed for the project One sediment pond would be located near the intake structure location at Upper Mahoney Lake and would be constructed on concrete ecology blocks. The second sediment pond would be located near the tailrace outlet and would be excavated. Both sediment ponds would receive water only via pumping from those portions of the construction area which need to be dewatered. DESIGN CRITERIA: The sediment pond may be formed by partial excavation or by construction of a compacted embankment or constructed of ecology blocks lined with an impermeable membrane. It may have one or more inflow points carrying polluted water. Baffles to spread the flow throughout the basin should be included. A securely anchored riser pipe is the principal discharge mechanism. The top of the riser pipe is left open to act as an emergency overflow. The riser pipe would be solid for its lower section, with two l- inch diameter dewatering holes located at the top of the sediment storage volume on opposite sides of the riser pipe. The upper section would be perforated and wrapped with geotextile fabric. Outlet protection is provided to reduce erosion at the pipe outlet Sediment ponds would be designed according to the following general specifications, the details of which are subject to change during final design: 1. The sediment pond would have a sediment storage volume of at least 18 in. in depth plus a settling volume of not less than 2ft in depth. 2. The basin length is defined as the average distance from the inlet to the outlet of the pond. Generally, the basin length to width ratio would be 4. 3. futerior sides of the earth embankment would be no steeper than 2ft horizontal to 1 ft vertical. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-2 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 4. An outfall consisting of a vertical pipe or box type perforated riser joined by a water tight connection to a pipe which extends through the barrier or dam forming the pond would be provided. a. The crest elevation of the riser would be a minimum of 6 in. below the lowest elevation of the barrier or dam forming the temporary pond providing a minimum 6 in. of free board. b. The bottom of the riser would be attached to a minimum 1 ft. high base of sufficient mass so as to prevent riser floatation. c. A gravel filter consisting of washed gravel or quarry rock would be placed around the perforated riser. d. Discharge from the sediment pond would be to a rock lined ditch to prevent scour at the pipe outlet and would pass through a filter fabric fence immediately prior to discharge from the site. MAINTENANCE: It is important to understand that sizing is perhaps less important for sediment ponds than is constant maintenance. Inspections must be made and sediment removed regularly for sediment ponds to function well. 1. Inspections should be made regularly, especially after large storm events. Sediment should be removed when it fills one half of the pond's total sediment storage area. 2 All temporary and permanent ESC practices shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. All maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with an approved manual. 3. All temporary ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary controls are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. May 1996 6-3 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE B: Prevention of Erosion from Localized Areas REFERENCE EXIDBIT: ECD-4 TYPE: Silt Fence Barrier DEFINITION: A temporaty sediment barrier consisting of a filter fabric stretched across and attached to supporting posts and entrenched. The filter fence is constructed of stakes and synthetic filter fabric with a rigid wire fence backing where necessaty for support PURPOSE: To intercept and detain small amounts of sediment under sheet flow conditions from disturbed areas during construction operations in order to prevent sediment from leaving the site, and to decrease the velocity of sheet flows. LOCATION: Filter fences must be provided immediately upstream of the point(s) of discharge of run-off from a site, before the flow becomes concentrated. They may also be required below disturbed areas where run-off may occur in the form of sheet and rill erosion or wherever runoff has the potential to impact downstream resources. Silt fences would be installed along drainageways downslope of disturbed areas prior to any upslope grading. Silt fences would be installed around spoils and stockpile areas, immediately following disposal of excavated material. DESIGN CRITERIA: A silt fence is a temporary barrier made of one of four types of water permeable filter fabric: 1) woven silt-film fabric; 2) woven monofilament fabrics; 3) woven composites; or 4) non-woven heat-treated or needle punched fabrics. Non-woven and regular strength slit film fabrics shall be supported with wire mesh. Filter fabric material shall contain ultraviolet ray inhibitors and stabilizers to provide a minimum of six months of expected usable construction life at a temperature range of 00 to 120°F. Selection of a filter fabric is based on soil conditions at the construction site (which affect the apparent opening size (AOS) fabric specification) and characteristics of the support fence (which affect the choice of tensile strength). The designer shall specify a filter fabric that retains the soil found on the construction site yet would have openings large enough to permit drainage and prevent clogging. The larger the AOS number, the smaller the AOS size of the opening in the fabric. The material used in a filter fabric fence must have sufficient strength to withstand various stress conditions and it also must have the ability to allow passage of water while retaining soil particles. The ability to pass flow through must be balanced with the material's ability to trap sediments. Silt fences shall meet the following criteria: 1. The filter fabric shall be purchased in a continuous roll cut to the length of the barrier to avoid use of joints. When joints are necessary, filter cloth shall be spliced together Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-4 Mayl996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan only at a support post with a minimum 6-in. overlap, and both ends securely fastened to the post 2 Posts shall be spaced a maximum of 6 ft apart and driven securely into the ground a minimum of 30 in., (where physically possible). Where solid rock is encountered, steel posts would be used and would be securely grouted into the rock Posts shall be installed on a slight angle toward the expected run-off source. 3. A trench shall be excavated approximately 8 in. wide and 12 in. deep along the line of posts and upslope from the barrier. The trench shall be constructed to follow the contour. 4. When slit film filter fabric is used, a wire mesh support fence shall be fastened securely to the upslope side of the posts using heavy-duty wire staples at least 1 in. long, tie wires or hog rings. The wire shall extend into the trench a minimum of 4 in. and shall not extend more than 36 in. above the original ground surface. 5. Slit film filter fabric shall be wired to the fence, and 20 in. of the fabric shall extend into the trench. The fabric shall not extend more than 36 in. above the original ground surface. Filter fabric shall not be stapled to existing trees. Other types of fabric may be stapled to the fence on the upstream side. 6. When extra-strength or monofilament fabric and closer post spacing are used, the wire mesh support fence may be eliminated. In such a case, the filter fabric is stapled or wired directly to the posts with all other provisions of number 5 above applying. Extra care should be used when joining or overlapping these stiffer fabrics. 7. The height of the silt fence shall be a minimum of 2 ft, measured from the existing or graded ground. 8. Maximum slope steepness perpendicular to the fence line shall be 1:1. 9. Maximum sheet or overland flow path length to the fence shall be 100ft 10. Filter fabric fences shall be removed when they have served their useful purpose, but not before the upslope area has been permanently stabilized. Retained sediment must be removed and properly disposed of, or mulched and seeded. MAINTENANCE: 1. Inspect immediately after each rainfall, and at least daily during prolonged rainfall. Repair as necessary. 2 Sediment must be removed when it reaches approximately one third the height of the fence, especially if heavy rains are expected. May1996 6-5 Maiwney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion &: Sediment Control Plan 3. Any sediment deposits remaining in place after the filter fence is no longer required shall be dressed to conform with the existing grade, prepared and seeded. 4. All temporary ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary measures are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-6 May1996 * Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE B: Prevention of Erosion from Localized Areas REFERENCE EXHIBIT: ECD-8 TYPE: Straw Bale Barrier DEFINffiON: A temporary sediment barrier consisting of a row of entrenched and anchored straw bales. PURPOSE: To intercept and detain small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas of limited extent to prevent sediment from leaving the site, and to decrease the velocity of sheet flows and low level channel flows. LOCATION: Straw bale barriers may be temporarily installed: 1) below disturbed areas subject to sheet and rill erosion; 2) where the size of the drainage area is no greater than 1/4 acre per 100 ft of barrier length; 3) where the maximum slope length behind the barrier is 100 ft, and the maximum slope gradient behind the barrier is 50%; and, 4) in minor swales or ditch lines where the maximum contributing drainage area is no greater than 2 acres. DESIGN CRITERIA: A formal design is not required. Straw bale barriers would be constructed to the following general specifications. 1. For channel low level flow applications, bales shall be placed in a single row, lengthwise, oriented perpendicular to the contour, with ends of adjacent bales tightly abutting one another. Straw bales would not be used in areas of continuously flowing water, except possibly in the outflow from sediment ponds. 2 All bales shall be either wire-bound or string-tied. Straw bales shall be installed so that bindings are oriented around the sides rather than along the tops and bottoms of the bales in order to prevent deterioration of the bindings. 3. The barrier shall be entrenched and backfilled. A trench shall be excavated the width of a bale and the length of the proposed barrier to a minimum depth of 4 in. The trench must be deep enough to remove all grass and other material which might allow underflow. After the bales are staked and chinked (filled by wedging), the excavated soil shall be backfilled against the barrier. Backfill soil shall conform to the ground level on the downhill side and shall be built up to 4 in. against the uphill side of the barrier. 4. Each bale shall be securely anchored by at least two stakes or re-bars driven through the bale. The first stake in each bale shall be driven toward the previously laid bale to May1996 6-7 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion &: Sediment Control Plan force the bales together. Stakes or re-bars shall be driven deep enough into the gronnd to securely anchor the bales. Stakes should not extend above the bales but instead should be driven in flush with the top of the bale for safety reasons. 5. The gaps between the bales shall be chinked with straw to prevent water from escaping between the bales. Loose straw scattered over the area immediately uphill from a straw bale barrier tends to increase barrier efficiency. Wedging must be done carefully in order not to separate the bales. 6. Inspection shall be frequent and repair or replacement shall be made promptly as needed. 7. The barrier shall be extended to such a length that the bottoms of the end bales are higher in elevation than the top of the lowest middle bale to assure that sediment- laden rnnoff would flow either through or over the barrier but not around it 8. Straw bale barriers shall be removed when they have served their usefulness, but not before the upslope areas have been permanently stabilized. MAINTENANCE: 1. Straw bale barriers shall be inspected immediately after each rnnoff-producing rainfall and at least daily during prolonged rainfall. 2. Oose attention shall be paid to the repair of damaged bales, end rnns, and nndercutti.ng beneath bales. 3. Necessary repairs to barriers or replacement of bales shall be accomplished promptly. 4. Sediment deposits should be removed after each rnnoff-producing rainfall. They must be removed when the level of deposition reaches approximately one-half the height of the barrier. 5. Any sediment deposits remaining in place after the straw bale barrier is no longer required shall be dressed to conform to the existing grade, prepared and seeded. 6. All temporary and permanent ESC practices shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. All maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with an approved manual. 7. All temporary ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary controls are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERCNo. 11393 6-8 May 1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE C: Prevention of Erosion on Disturbed Slopes REFERENCE EXHIBIT: ECD-15 TYPE: Soil Erosion Matting and Mulches DEFINffiON: Application of geotextiles or plant residues to the soil surface. PURPOSE: To provide immediate protection to exposed soils during the period of short construction delays, or over winter months through the application of plant residues, or other suitable materials, to exposed soil areas. Mulches also enhance plant establishment by conserving moisture and moderating soil temperatures. Mulch helps hold fertilizer, seed, and topsoil in place in the presence of wind, rain, and runoff and maintains moisture near the soil surface. LOCATION: Mulching and matting can be used in areas which have been seeded either for temporary or permanent cover; mulching should immediately follow seeding. Mulching and matting can also be used in areas which cannot be seeded because of the season, or are otherwise unfavorable for plant growth. Matting is also effective as a temporary cover, either due to delays in construction or during periods, (such as winter) when no construction would be taking place. DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. The engineered fabric shall be placed on the uphill slope and across the top of placed riprap to help prevent migration of fine materials down through the riprap. The fabric shall be carefully placed making sure that a minimum overlap of 24 in. be maintained at all seams. 2 The fabric shall be placed on riprap taking care to prevent tearing of the fabric. In the event that the fabric is torn, the fabric shall be replaced or additional fabric shall be placed to provide a minimum overlap of 24 in. adjacent to the tear. 3. When placing backfill over the fabric care shall be taken to minimize dropping of the backfill material directly on the fabric. Careful observation shall be made to ensure that all damaged areas are identified and properly repaired as indicated above. 4. Soils under soil erosion fabrics shall be prepared by properly grading and preparing soils for seeding prior to placement of fabric. Preparation includes removal of all trash and large stones, and removal of footprints, tracks and ruts providing a smooth even surface. May 1996 6-9 Mahaney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 5. Fabric shall then be rolled into place and stapled to secure it into position., as recommended by the manufacturer. Fabric joints shall overlap a minimum of 4 in. from side to side. When joining two rolls, the second roll shall overlap the first roll a minimum of18 in. 6. Avoid stretching fabric as it is rolled and stapled into place. Fabric must be in complete contact with the ground to prevent water from flowing under fabric. 7. Mulch materials, matting materials, and application rates are to be defined in construction specifications. 8. Erosion blankets (nets and mats), may be used on level areas, on slopes up to 50%, and in waterways. Where soil is highly erodible, nets shall only be used in connection with an organic mulch such as straw and wood fiber. Jute mats shall be heavy, uniform doth woven of single jute yarn, which if 36 to 48 in. wide shall weigh an average of 1.2 lbsflinear yard. It must be so applied that it is in complete contact with the soil. Hit is not, erosion would occur beneath it Netting shall be securely anchored to the soil with No. 11 gauge wire staples at least 6 in. long, with an overlap of 3 in. 9. Excelsior blankets are considered protective mulches and may be used alone on erodible soils and during all times of the year. MAINTENANCE: 1. Mulched areas should be checked periodically, especially following severe storms, when damaged areas of mulch or tie-down material should be repaired. 2 All temporary ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary controls are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-10 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE C: Prevention of Erosion on Disturbed Slopes REFERENCE EXHIBITS: ECD-5, ECD-7 TYPE: Gabion Walls PURPOSE: To reduce extensive backslopes where full bench cuts are required to construct the access road. In landslide areas, gabion walls would be used to stabilize the steep, but short. backslopes. GENERAL: Gabions are rock-filled, galvanized steel wire cages which when wired together form flexible retaining walls. The flexibility of gabions allows them to withstand differential settlement without fracturing. The permeability of gabions prevents hydrostatic pressure from developing behind the structure. The rock fill is clean stone ranging from 4" to 8" in size. General design criteria is as follows: Gabion walls would be designed as mass gravity structures. The walls would be battered at 1H:4V. The coefficient of friction would be based on recommendations of the geotechnical report The unit weight of the gabions would be assumed to be 100 pcf. A factor of safety of 1.5 against overturning or sliding would be used for sizing the walls. May1996 6-11 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE C: Prevention of Erosion on Disturbed Slopes REFERENCE EXHIBITS: ECD-6, ECD-9 TYPE: Interceptor Dike and Swale DEFINmON: A ridge of compacted soil or a swale with vegetative lining located at the top or base of a sloping disturbed area. PURPOSE: To intercept storm runoff from drainage areas above unprotected slopes and direct it to a stabilized outlet LOCATION: Interceptor dikes and swales can be used where the volume and velocity of runoff from exposed or disturbed slopes must be reduced. When an interceptor dike or swale is placed above a disturbed slope, it reduces the volume of water reaching the disturbed area by intercepting runoff from above; they are also used in conjunction with pipe slope drains at the top of slopes. When dikes or swales are placed horizontally across a disturbed slope, they reduce the velocity of runoff flowing down the slope by reducing the distance that the runoff can flow directly downhill. DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. Interceptor Dikes: Construction traffic over temporary dikes shall be minimized. a. Top width shall be 2ft minimum. b. Height shall be 18 in. minimum, measured from upslope toe and at a compaction of 90% ASTM D698 standard proctor. c. Side slopes shall be 2:1 or flatter. d. The grade shall be topographically dependent, except that the dike shall be limited to grades between 0.5% and 1%. e. Stabilization of slopes less than 5% shall be achieved by seeding and mulching within five days of dike construction. Stabilization of slopes greater than 5% shall be dependent on runoff velocities and dike materials. Stabilization should be done immediately using either sod or riprap to avoid erosion. f. The upslope side of the dike shall provide positive drainage to the dike outlet No erosion shall occur at the outlet Provide energy dissipation measures as Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-12 May 1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan necessary. Sediment-laden runoff must be released through a sediment trapping facility. 2. Interceptor Swales: a. The bottom width of the swale shall be 2 ft minimum, and the bottom shall be level. b. The depth shall be 1 ft minimum. c. Side slopes shall be 2:1 or flatter. d. The grade shall be a maximum of 5%, with positive drainage to a suitable outlet e. Stabilization shall be achieved by temporary seeding or by riprap 12 in. thick pressed into the bank and extending at least 8 in. vertically from the bottom. f. If the slope of the disturbed area is less than 5%, swales shall be spaced every 300 ft If the slope of the disturbed area is between 5% and 10%, swales shall be spaced every 200ft If the slope is greater than 10%, swales shall be placed every 100ft g. The outlet shall be a level spreader or riprapped leading to a stabilized outlet or sedimentation pond. MAINTENANCE: 1. The measure should be inspected after every major storm and repairs made as necessary. Damage caused by construction traffic or other activity must be repaired before the end of each working day. 2 All temporary ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary controls are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. May 1996 6-13 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE C: Prevention of Erosion on Disturbed Slopes REFERENCE EXIDBIT: ECD-5 'IYPE: Subsurlace Drains DEFINIT10N: A perforated conduit such as a pipe, tubing, or tile installed beneath the ground to intercept and convey ground water. PURPOSE: To proVide a dewatering mechanism for draining excessively wet, sloping soils-usually consisting of an underground perforated pipe that would intercept and convey ground water. LOCATION: Subsurlace drains can be used wherever excessive water must be removed from the soiL The soil must be deep and permeable enough to allow an effective system to be installed. Relief drains are used either to lower the water table in order to improve the growth of vegetation, or to remove surlace water. Relief drains are installed along a slope and drain in the direction of the slope in a gridiron, herringbone, or random pattern. Interceptor drains are used to remove water as it seeps down a slope to prevent the soil from becoming saturated and subject to slippage. Interceptor drains are installed across a slope and drain to the side of the slope. Interceptor drains usually consist of a single pipe or series of single pipes instead of a patterned layout DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. Subsurlace drains shall be sized for the required capacity. The minimum diameter for a subsurlace drain shall be 4 in. 2. The minimum velocity required to prevent silting is 1.4 ftjsec. The line shall be graded to achieve at least this velocity. 3. Filter material and fabric shall be used around all drains for proper bedding and filtration of fine materials. 4. The outlet of the subsurface drain shall empty into a settling pond. If free of sediment, it shall empty into a receiving channel, swale, or stable vegetated area adequately protected from erosion and undermining. 5. The strength and durability of the pipe shall meet the requirements of the site in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-14 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: 1. The trench shall be constructed on a continuous grade with no reverse grades or low spots. 2 Soft or yielding soils under the drain shall be stabilized with gravel or other suitable material. 3. Deformed, warped, or otherwise unsuitable pipe shall not be used. 4. Filter material shall be placed as specified with at least 3 in. of material on all sides of the pipe. 5. Backfilling shall be done immediately after placement of the pipe. No sections of pipe shall remain uncovered overnight or during a rainstorm. Backfill material shall be placed in the trench in such a manner that the drain pipe is not displaced or damaged. MAINTENANCE: 1. Subsurface drains shall be checked periodically to ensure that they are free-flowing and not clogged with sediment 2. The outlet shall be kept clean and free of debris. 3. Surface inlets shall be kept open and free of sediment and other debris. 4. Trees located too close to a subsurface drain often clog the system with their roots. If a drain becomes clogged, relocate the drain or remove the trees as a last resort Drain placement should be planned to minimize this problem. 5. Where drains are crossed by heavy vehicles, the line shall be checked to ensure that it is not crushed. 6. All temporary ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary controls are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. May1996 6-15 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENI CONIROL MEASURE C: Prevention of Erosion on Disturbed Slopes REFERENCE EXIHBITS: ECD-6, ECD-9 lYPE: Pipe Slope Drains DEFINmON: A pipe extending from the top to the bottom of a cut or fill slope and discharging into a stabilized water course or a sediment trapping device or onto a stabilization area. PURPOSE: To cany concentrated runoff down steep slopes without causing gullies, channel erosion, or saturation of slide-prone soils. LOCATION: Pipe slope drains can be used on any steep slope where a temporary or permanent measure is needed for conveying runoff without causing erosion. DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. The capacity for temporary drains shall be sufficient to handle a 10-year, 24-hour peak flow. Permanent pipe slope drains shall be sized for the 25-year, 24-hour peak flow. 2. The maximum drainage area allowed per pipe is 10 acres. 3. The entrance shall consist of a standard flared end section for culverts 12 in. and larger with a minimum 6-in. metal toe plate to prevent runoff from undercutting the pipe inlet the slope entrance shall be at least 3%. 4. The soil around and under the pipe and entrance section shall be thoroughly compacted to prevent undercutting. 5. The flared inlet section shall be securely connected to the slope drain and have watertight connecting bands. 6. Interceptor dikes shall be used to direct runoff into a slope drain. The height of the dike shall be at least 1 ft higher at all points than the top of the inlet pipe. 7. The area below the outlet must be stabilized with a riprap apron. 8. If the pipe slope drain is conveying sediment-laden water, direct all flows into the sediment trapping facility. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-16 May 1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan MAINTENANCE: 1. Check inlet and outlet points regularly, especially after heavy storms. The inlet should be free of undercutting, and no water should be going around the point of entry. If there are problems, the headwall should be reinforced with compacted earth or sand bags. The outlet point should be free of erosion and installed with appropriate outlet protection. 2 All temporaty ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporaty controls are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. May 1996 6-17 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE D: Roadway Traffic Erosion Control REFERENCE EXIDBIT: ECD-11 TYPE: Construction Road Stabilization DEHNmON: The temporary stabilization with stone of access roads, parking areas, and other on-site vehicle transportation routes immediately after grading. PURPOSE: The purpose of construction road stabilization is to reduce erosion of temporary road beds by construction traffic during wet weather. This stabilization also reduces regrading of permanent road beds between the time of initial grading and final stabilization. LOCATION: Construction road stabilization applies wherever rock-base roads or parking areas are constructed, whether permanent or temporary, for use by construction traffic. Exceptions may be granted in areas with gravelly soils as approved by the local government Efficiently constructed road stabilization not only reduces on-site erosion but can significantly speed on-site work, avoid instances of immobilized machinery and delivery vehicles, and generally improve site efficiency and working conditions during adverse weather. DESIGN CRITERIA: 1. A 6-in. course of 2 to 4-in. crushed rock, gravel base, or crushed surfacing base course shall be applied immediately after grading or the completion of utility installation within the right-of-way. A 4-in. course of asphalt treated base {A TB) may be used in lieu of the crushed rock, or as advised by the local government 2 Where feasible, alternative routes should be made for construction traffic; one for use in dry condition, the other for wet conditions which incorporate the measures listed below. 3. Temporary roads should follow the contour of the natural terrain to the maximum extent possible. Slope should not exceed 15%. Roadways should be carefully graded to drain transversely. Provide drainage swales on each side of the roadway in the case of a crowned section, or one side in the case of a super-elevated section. 4. Installed inlets shall be protected to prevent sediment-laden water entering the drain sewer system. 5. Simple gravel berms without a trench can be used for less traveled roads. Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-18 Mayl996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 6. Undisturbed buffer areas should be maintained at all stream crossings. 7. Areas adjacent to culvert crossings and steep slopes should be seeded and mulched and/ or covered. 8. Dust control should be used when necessary. MAINTENANCE: 1. Inspect stabilized areas regularly, especially after large storm events. Add crushed rock if necessary and restabilize any areas found to be eroding. 2 All temporary ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary controls are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. May 1996 6-19 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE D: Roadway Traffic Erosion Control REFERENCE EXIDBIT: ECD-11 TYPE: Stabilized Construction Entrance DEHNmON: A temporary stone-stabilized pad located at points of vehicular ingress and egress on a construction site. PURPOSE: To reduce the amount of mud, dirt, rocks, etc. transported onto public roads by motor vehicles or runoff by constructing a stabilized pad of rock spalls at entrances to construction sites, and washing of tires during egress. LOCATION: Wherever traffic would be leaving a construction site and moving directly onto a public road or other paved areas. DESIGN CRITERIA: If the action of the vehicle travelling over the gravel pad is not sufficient to remove the majority of the mud, then the tires must be washed before the vehicle enters a public road. If washing is used, provisions must be made to intercept the wash water and trap the sediment before it is carried off-site. Stabilized construction entrances shall be designed according to the following standards: 1. Material should be quarry spalls (where feasible), 4 in. to 8 in. in size. 2. The rock pad shall be at least 12 in. thick and 100 ft in length for sites more than 1 acre. For sites less than 1 acre, the length may be decreased to 50 ft 3. A filter fabric fence should be installed down-gradient from the construction entrance in order to filter any sediment-laden runoff before leaving the entrance. 4. The width shall be the full width of the vehicle ingress and egress area, with a minimum of 20ft 5. Additional rock shall be added periodically to maintain proper function of the pad. 6. Tire washing shall be done before the vehicle enters a paved street Washing should be done on an area covered with crushed rock, and the wash water should be drained to a sediment retention facility, such as a settling basin. 7. The volume of wash water produced by tire washing shall be included when calculating the settling basin size. Mahoney lAke Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-20 Mayl996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan l\1AINTENANCE: 1. The entrance shall be maintained in a condition which would prevent tracking or flow of mud onto public rights-of-way. This may require periodic top dressing with 2-in. stone, as conditions demand, and repair and/ or cleanout of any structures used to trap sediment All materials spilled, dropped, washed, or tracked from vehicles onto roadways or into storm drains must be removed immediately. 2. All temporary ESC measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary controls are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil areas resulting from removal shall be permanently stabilized. May 1996 6-21 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURED: Roadway Traffic Erosion Conb.'ol REFERENCE EXHIBIT: ECD-12 TYPE: Vehicle Turnouts PURPOSE: This measure is a stabilized turnout area located at designated areas along the access road to provide vehicles a place to pull over to allow passage of other vehicles along the narrow portions of the roadway. GENERAL: Vehicle turnouts are surfaced areas adjacent to the roadway to allow vehicles to pass. The pullout would be of sufficient size to allow construction vehicles space to safely pull out of traffic. Construction would meet the following standards: 1. The surfacing material would be the same type and thickness as that used on the roadway surface. 2. The turnout surface would be graded to slope toward the roadway. 3. All cut and fill slopes would have ESC measures as outlined in Measures B and C. 4 Flow in existing roadside ditches would be maintained throughout construction by lining the ditch with quarry spalls; or for deeper ditches, installing a culvert 5. Turnouts would not be installed in the bottom of sag vertical curves, and would not be installed to interfere with any natural drainages. 6. A sediment trap would be installed immediately downstream of the vehicle turnout Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-22 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE E: Prevention of Erosion in Drainage Channels REFERENCE EXHIBIT: ECD-10 TYPE: Culvert Outfall Protection PURPOSE: The velocity of flow is nearly always speeded during passage through a culvert and always when passing down a chute. To prevent the formation of a scour hole or plunge pool, the end of the culvert or chute would be protected by the placement of a 1-ft thick blanket of quarry spalls tapering from a width of twice the culvert diameter at the outfall to four times the culvert diameter at a length of four culvert diameters. GENERAL: The velocity of water flowing through a culvert or down a chute would usually increase and, therefore, would tend to form a plunge pool where it flows into an unlined channel. To minimize this potential, the velocity of the water shall be dissipated with the use of riprap. The typical outfall shall include the following provisions. This type of detail is temporary or permanent 1. The riprap blanket shall be a minimum of 12-in. in thickness. Material may be dumped or hand placed. 2. The lateral extent of the rock shall be at least one-half culvert diameter on each side of the chute or pipe. 3. The length of the apron beyond the end of the chute or pipe shall be four diameters. May 1996 6-23 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE F: Stabilization of Stream Channel Banks REFERENCE EXIDBIT: ECD-13 1YPE: Riprap Bank Stabilization PURPOSE: Bank erosion is a natural phenomenon, but can become a problem during storm events and higher water. Riprap sections would be utilized to provide additional scour protEction and stabilization of the stream bank particularly in sensitive areas. GENERAL: Most failures of revehnents or linings are due to an inadequate extent of the lining. The upper limit should generally be above design high water level. Bank protEction should be terminated at bedrock or at the maximum depth of scour. Where lining cannot be extended to the desired depth, place riprap at the toe, and it would fall into the scour hole as it develops. Revehnents may consist singly of stone, piling, etc. or in combination with vegetation. Dumped riprap as shown in Exhibit ECD-13, forms a flexible lining which is, therefore, resistant to settlement and would not be so susceptible to undercutting as concrete lines, since stone would gradually slump into the scour hole. Its other major advantage is that it has a very rough surface which results in dissipation of the stream's energy, minimizing scouring problems at the ends of the revehnent or lining. In designing stone linings, it must be remembered that ability to resist erosion depends principally on the size of stone used rather than the thickness of the lining. Mahoney U:ike Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 6-24 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 7.0 REFERENCES Algermissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P.C. Thenhaus, S.L. Hanson, and B.L. Bender, 1990, Probabilistic Earthquake Acceleration and Velocity Maps for the United States and Puerto Rico, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, 1:7,500,000. Beck, R.W., 1977, Swan Lake, Grace Lake and Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Projects Appraisal Report, submitted to Ketchikan Public Utilities, Ketchikan, AK Berg, H.C., R.L. Elliott and R.D. Koch, 1988, Geologic Map of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert Quadrangles, Southeastern Alaska, Miscellaneous Investigations Series, I- 1897, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, 1:250,000. Coffman, J.L. and C.A. von Hake, 1974, United States Earthquakes/ 1972, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO. HDR Engineering, Inc., 1993, Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Report, submitted to Cape Fox Corporation, Ketchikan, AK. Kerwin, C.M., 1984, Guidance for Completion of Exhibit E for Applications Submitted Under Regulations Governing Licenses for Major Unconstructed Hydroelectric Projects and Major Modified Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Maas, K., 1994, U.S. Geological Survey, Juneau, AK, Personal Communication. Rogers, G.C., 1983, Seismotectonics of British Columbia, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Victoria, BC. Roppel, P., 1991, Fortunes from the Earth: An History of the Base and Industrial Minerals of Southeast Alaska, Sunflower University Press, Manhattan, KS. Shannon & Wilson, 1993, Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project Trip Report and Geotechnical Pre-Feasibility of the Proposed Tunnel Alignment, submitted to HDR Engineering, Inc., Bellevue, W A. Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (The Technical Manual). Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978, River and Harbors in Alaska Interim Feasibility Report on Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes For Ketchikan Area, Alaska, Anchorage, AK. May1996 7-1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978, Proposed Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Mahoney Lakes Project Ketchikan, Alaska, Anchorage, AK. U.S. Forest Service, 1993, Soil Survey Ketchikan Area, Alaska, U.S. Forest Service, Ketchikan, AK, text and map, 1:31680. Mahoney I.ake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 7-2 May1996 May 1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan ATIACHMENf A EROSION CONTROL DRAWING (ECD) EXlllBITS Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Exhibit ECD-1 ECD-2 ECD-3 ECD-4 ECD-5 ECD-6 ECD-7 ECD-8 ECD-9 ECD-10 ECD-11 ECD-12 ECD-13 ECD-14 ECD-15 May1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan ATTACHMENT A EROSION CONTROL DRAWING (ECD) EXHIBITS ESC Structural Practices Sediment Pond Sediment Pond Baftles Filter Fabric Fence Detail Subswface Drains Tem}Xlrary Interceptor Dike/Swale Gabion Walls Straw Bale Baniers Pipe Slope Drains Culvert Outfall Protection Stabilized Construction Entrance Vehicle Thmouts Riprap Bank and Slope Stabilization Cofferdam Section Erosion Control Netting A-1 ~ A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-ll A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 Sediment Trap, Drainage Area :S 3 Ac:. / :,~~ ' :II ' Filter Fence A-2 Sediment Pond Drainage Area 5 10 Ac. Riser Rock Protection Outfall --- CITY Of" SAXMAN, ALAS!< A APPLICA liON FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYOROEL.ECTFIIC PROJECT F"ERC PROJECT NO. 11393 PRACTICES ESC~ EX1E1T ECD-1 Lev~~ flerlbt?:~..fed D(Qi" Pt~ Anfi -~ tl:Jf/a 1'5 ifl qtlA.v'el . filiad 71i!!;1c.h for ~;If-~feri~. Trc?r'ch u..J0.p~ tJ,~ nl~ Ptlbl"tc.. roN~· ~;c?~ ~~ fla::J.fitm ?EcT!o"-! A-A Po11d L.~-~15/A ;?; g X rbhd J<0pll.( rer/:n~W .Or11"h P,!Jc ~ t/1 !Jr'~Y'e!-lll/u/ /;-eAelt nlk fabr i (., fU.tL \ ~J(/ole 5~i1r~r tletOofer,~ M.y ;e ,u: . .eo~~rl"llr.h~ pq~ ~T'Dnde4 ~/~ ,orj.:Je. "~ ~e./r ~~~ s-A-.., .2,1:;_ > &~nl:i.. a ;7er:IDrr:rled' n!"er ,otioc. ~rere# ~,r,;, ,L;#rl~ .;;,h,..,c. PHd ..!f,...Ye/ ~cane". /f:rer flpe,.. ~l~~l;fed .8#S"e. A-3 CITY OF SAXUAN, ALASKA APPUCA llON FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 SEDIMENT PON> EXtiBIT~2 Oep in ba Riserjoutlet) ~n~ ~~~~~~==~~==~~ ~ ..... ~ = "" M' If riser is placed here no baffle is required Nonnal Pool In lhis case it is important to place baffle so that L1 = L2 / ., '-' / / / t.~t I ........ BAFFLE lnfi~A i Sheets of PlYwoOd 4ft ... 8 It X Y, in exterior plywoOd or eQuiv. r -~ ~ h of water sin when lull I :·Max. I . .,, --.,_ ·••• ,,r 11/~ 1 I Elevation of J basin bottom r- r • m I I I I I I I I I I I~ ~I 8 It centers A-4 We ......... ~ ""' .... ..... Elevalic.-n of riser crest r I I : A. we~ L,""= L2 We• effective wiClth of basin A • surface area of basin when filled to crest L • shortest trevoel distances around the baffle from inlet to outlet Riser here is in very poor location: baffle is reQuired J: Posts 4 in SQuare or 5 in rouna minimum set at least 3 ft into ground CITY OF" SAXt.AAN, ALASKA APPUCA TION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PRQ.J::CT NO. 11393 SEDIENT PON> BAFFLES EXItBIT ECD-3 0 ' C\.1 _ I 1 0 i:n II. ~ C\.1 Filter Fabric Material 60" wide roUs. Use staples or wire rings to attalch fabric to wire _______________________________ , ___ ... _.. . 6'Max. 2" by 4" wood posts. standard or better or equal alternate: Steellenc:e posts Provide 314" -1.5" washed gravel backfill in trench and on both sides of filter fence fabric on !he surface A-5 9 C\1 C\1 ! 9 i:n CITY Or SAXII.IAN, ALASKA APPLICATION rOR LICENSE II.IAHONEY LAKE HYOROELEClRIC PROJECT rERC PROJECT NO. 11393 FIJCR FABRIC FENCE DETAL EXI-EIT ECD-4 Lateral--.... RANDOM PATTERN HERRINGBONE PATTERN PARALLEL PATTERN Outlet Filter Fabric TYPICAL SECTION A-6 CITY Of SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRO,£CT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 Sli3SlAiACE DRAI\IS EXtEIT EC0-5 '/~; ~~ ... 2min. Dike Material compacted !00% Standard Proctor A 'h II"· 'IJi/ --.~.! __ _ •l-. - 1 ftmin. interceplor dike spacing " 1 oo·. 200' Or 300' dcpcnd.ng on grade INTERCEPTOR DIKE I; ftlmi~.l Spacing .. 100', 200', or 300' - I~-__ ~epending_on Slo;,..pe ________ , INTERCEPTOR SWALE A-7 CITY Of' SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCA 110N FOR LICENSE UAHONEY LAKE HYOROELEClRIC PROJECT F'ERC PROJECT NO. 11393 TEIFORARY' N I &lCEPTOR DI<E/SWALE ElQEIT ECD-6 t TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPE COMMUNICATION & POWER CABLES ZONE 1 BACKFILL 90" / APPROXIMATE EXISTING GROUND LINE ~ ~ FINAL GROUND LINE GABION WALL ~ 14' 6" DRAIN PIPE TYPICAL GABION WALL NTS CITY Of" SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 GABIOH WALLS EXHBIT ECD-7 SECllON PLAN RIP RAP APRON TO PREVENT FORMATION OF SCOUR HOLE S'TRAW BALES YIIRED TO WIRE ~ESH FENCE & STAKED 2' INTO TiiE GROUND. STRAW BALE CHECKS N.T.S. SECTION ~! 0 DO STRAW BALE BARRIERS N.T.S. A-9 CITY OF" SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION F"OR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT F"ERC PROJECT NO. 11:39:3 STRAW BALE BARRER EXtBT ECD-8 4' min. at less than 1% slope Discharge into a stabilized watercourse or a sediment trapping device or onto a stabilized area pii!:JM\17..% ,k Slope 3%or ' 6' " 91'lllli" ___ __ t \" steeper 6"min Standared flared Cutoff Wall entrance section Diameter 0 (lor pipe~ 12") ' .Dr L ~ 7 Rip rop shall be in occordance with section 9-13.1 of the WSDOT/ APWA Stondard Specifications. Rip rop to be reasonably well graded with rock gradation cs follows: Passing 8 inch square sieve 100:.. Passing 6 inch square sieve 40-607. Passing 2 inch square sieve D-107. Depth of opron shell be equal to pipe diometer Corrugated metal orCPEP pipe A-10 CITY Of' SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCATION FOR UCENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11393 PFE SLOPE DRAIIS ExtaTECD-9 ROAD SURF ACE 18" CULVERT FLOW )' 1 FLOW_ 18. DIA. CULVERT c:i 0 (MIN. SIZE UNDER ROADS) PLAN TYPICAL SECTION CULVERT 1' -Oft THICK LAYER OF RIPRAP 1'-0ft THICK LAYER OF RIPRAP EXTEND 2' -o· EAQ-i SIDE OF CULVERT FOR CULVERTS BENEATH ROADS A-11 CITY OF SAXIolAN, AlASKA APPUCA TION FOR LICENSE lolAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. ll 393 ClLVERT OUTFALL PROTECTION ElUEIT ECD-10 /' 12" min. 4''-s· Quarry Spalls A-12 Provide Full Width of lngrf:ss/Egress Area CITY OF SAXUAN, ALASKA APPUCA TION FOR LICENSE IAAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11:593 STAAl JZB) CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EXHBIT ECD-11 ! I I . A l i I 1; i t I l I uti ! I :1: s iS i ~ ~ ~ a: (!) z j:: en x w PLAN ~ SECTION WISEDIMENT TRAP / CHECK DAM c,;~o IN EXISTING ()OQOO ~A DITCH v :1: s iS (!! z la X w t FILTER FABRIC FENCE (FILL SECTIONS 0NLY) CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 5I a·- QUARRY SPALLS PROPOSED VEHICLE TURNOUT 1 -------FILTER FABRIC FENCE ~~EXISTING GROUND ----- A-13 CITY OF SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCA TION F'OR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYOROELEC1RIC PRO..ECT F'ERC PRO..ECT NO. 11393 VBICLE 1l.IINOUT EXtiBrr EC0-12 ol:z: 1--.:::E TOE OF ENBANKMENT RIPRAP A-14 EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED FINISH GRAOE 1.5 (MAX) CITY OF" SAXIAAN, ALASKA APPUCA nON F'OR LICENSE IAAHONEY LAKE HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT F'ERC PROJECT NO, 11393 FFRAP BANK AN> SLOPE STABLIZATION EXtiBIT ECD-13 .----SUMPS OR SANDBAG DIKES PUMP TO SEDIMENT POND PUMP OR PIPE SEEPAGE TO RIVER EXISTING DAM hi\\=-~\\¥?11\\~Jl\~ ECOLOGY BLOCK SECTlON v .~ /1\,-:::: It~-/\~ F ASRIC MatBRANE hl\\-="i'l\\-:2"i'l\\~)l\\ 2' X 2' X 5' CONCRETE ECOLOGY BLOO<S OR ROCKFlU.. 11~\VIt\'- YARDBAG(SANDBAG)SECTlON TYPICAL COFFERDAM SECTIONS (NO SCALE) A-15 CITY OF" SAXMAN, ALASKA APPLICATION FOR LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC PROJECT NO. 11 :>93 COFFERDAM SECTION ElOEIT ECD-14 Shallow Slope On shallow slopes. strips of netting may be applied ~ across the slope. (Slopes up to 1:1) Where there is a berm at the top of the slope, bring the netting over the berm and anchor it '· "==-~ behind the berm. Bring netting down to a level area before terminating the installation. Turn the end under 6" and staple at 12'~ intervals. A-16 On steep slopes, apply strips of netting parallel to the direction of flow and anchor securely. (Slopes greater than 1 :1) ~ -~ :---"=' -~ ----=-"" In ditches, apply netting parallel to the direction of flow. Use check slots every 15 feet. Do not join strips in the center of the ditch. CITY Of' SAXMAN, ALASKA APPUCA TION f'Ofl LICENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROEL£C1RIC PROJECT rERC PROJECT NO. 1139! EROSION CONTROL f£TDIG EXIEIT ECD-15 MflY 1996 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan ATTACHMENT B EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DRAWINGS 1 THROUGH3 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 11393 NOTES: 1. CONSTi!UCT EROSION ANO SEDIMENT CONTi!Q.. SYSTEMS THAT CONFORM TO AU APPUCABI..E REGULATIONS. THE FAOUTIES ON THIS DRAWNG ARE TO BE CONSIDERED A MINIMUM. 2. PROVDE SILT FENaNC AND/OR Sli!AW BALES AROUND CONS1l!UC110N AREA FOR lRANSMISSION UNE SlRUCTURES PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EXCAVATION IN THE AREA. EMPLOY ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AS NECESSARY. 3. U11UZE SILT FENONG AND/OR Sli!AW BALES AT BRIDGE CROSSINGS TO PREVENT DISTURBED SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE WATERWAYS. 4. PROVIDE CULVERTS AND GASIONS ALONG ACCESS ROAD WHERE REQUIRED TO STAEIIUZE THE SLOPES AND PREVENT DISTURBED SEOIWENTS FROM ENTERING SEEPS AND INTERt.AITIENT DRAINAGES. LEGEND = = = = ACCESS ROAD --• • --lRANSMISSION UNE ~I LOWER MAHONEY LAKE W.S. EL 88 GEORGE INLET H-wd__ I 1 -800' ~600 F£ET CITY <F SAXMAN. ALASKA APPUCA TICIN FOR UCENSE MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PRo.ECT FERC P~CT NO. 11393 ACCESS ROAD &: TRANSMISSION LINE SITE PLAN ESC 1 Fil.E:ESC-t.DWC PlOT SCAlE: 1;1 DAlE: 1/15/95 nilE: 1:41pm PAntH:\Ito\HON['f\NDl\ / ,., •·"'I" .~ ... ·· "•-· ···----" ·-.. · .. ···~···· I I I ' ' ~ ~ I ·-'•""\ ,...., \ ' ) l I i \ \ ' I I I I r I I I I I ! I I \ I \ I I \ J \ > \ I ; ) I I / J / I r"""'' .I / \ \ \ i ' I ) I ' l \ \ \ ' \ I § l r I I / I ; I ( ) ( I I ! I \ \ l I I ', I l \ I, \ \ \ I f I I I I l ,./ .-~ / ~ \ I \ I l ( I \ \\ I I <, '\ \ \ ~., I \ I~ l : ) \ ( \ \\ \ \ \ \,, __ '-.. '·•:-. ,, \ '! l I I ( i j I l f i I \ \ \ I t u I ' I I I L ( \ \ \ I \ I \ ) \ / \ (' ........... -, i l I \ I \, ' ;'/ / I I \ ' '-.......... J ··.,\ \ \rJ0) \ \ \ ., '\ I ) ( '·, I I I I ,. ,. ,. ~ ~-.. /'· ~ -...... / .......... I '•. { I 1 ) ( \ ~· \ \ I ./ \ \ i l \ \ \ I l \ ( i \, I ! § \ ... ~·--·· r / ' j 1-1:! § ~ ~ I ·~ ~ • 0 I 0 It') ~II _J~ a_ w ...J oc( ~ .... 0 ~ <(IHR:.., ~zgg tJj!:;: <(::JO • "t5 !j~ ~"-~t; ~~~~ ~ lS WCL ::J~o ~fl. ...Jffi 0~~11.. ~ ~ :::1 <( LL.I ~ 0::: <( i 5 ill FZ ~ g~, : ~a.~ l (I) ~w ! ~ Z-o<n cJ 0 ~ £ 0::: s. LL.I ~ a. .. Q a. :::> :! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AppendixC Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Water Quality and Temperature Monitoring Report Februaruy 1996 Introduction The Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project will follow a lake tap design. Water will be diverted from an alpine lake, Upper Mahoney Lake at 1959 feet elevation, and piped through a tunnel system to a powerhouse at 150 feet elevation (Figure 1). The resulting drop in head is approximately 1,800 feet. Water discharged to the tailrace from the powerhouse will flow into Upper Mahoney Creek at the base of a waterfall and then to Lower Mahoney Lake. The large waterfall above the powerhouse site is the last in a series of waterfalls that form the stream channel from the Upper Mahoney Lake outlet to the valley floor at the west end of Lower Mahoney Lake. From the tailrace site the water flows approximately 800 ft to Lower Mahoney Lake. The alluvial deposits of the valley floor are coarse and during dry periods Upper Mahoney Creek exists only as isolated pools and subsurface flow. Because of the waterfalls and the ephemeral nature of Upper Mahoney Creek below the falls, there are no salmon present in Upper Mahoney Lake or Upper Mahoney Creek. During the study period, small numbers of resident Dolly Varden were collected in stretches of Upper Mahoney Creek not subject to dewatering (Northern Ecological Services, 1994). Lower Mahoney Lake and Lower Mahoney Creek are habitat for both resident and anadromous fish. The west end of Lower Mahoney Lake along the gravel delta at the mouth of Upper Mahoney Creek is known to be a sockeye salmon spawning location (COE, 1983). The Mahoney Lake area remains pristine and has experienced only infrequent human activity. Methods The Final Consultation Document outlines study plans to respond to agency and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission information requirements on baseline water quality at the proposed tailrace site and temperatures and dissolved oxygen concentrations in Upper Mahoney Lake, Upper Mahoney Creek, and Lower Mahoney Lake at salmon spawning locations (HDR, 1994). This information will be used to determine potential project impacts to water quality and to temperatures and dissolved oxygen concentrations in salmon spawning areas. In June 1994, HDR initiated monthly monitoring of several water quality parameters at the proposed tailrace site and monitoring of temperature and dissolved oxygen in Upper Mahoney Lake at the intake site and in Lower Mahoney Lake in the spawning gravels at the mouth of Upper Mahoney Creek. A pressure transducer was installed in Lower Mahoney Creek in July 1995 at the site of a former US Geological Survey gauging station. Flow information from this site will help determine conditions necessary for sockeye salmon migration beyond barriers in Lower Mahoney Creek. 1 Water samples from the tailrace site were collected monthly (bimonthly in winter during inclement weather) and shipped to Anchorage for analysis. Field measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and flows were also collected. During ice free sampling visits, field measurements of dissolved oxygen and temperature were collected at the spawning gravel surface at the temperature probe sites in Lower Mahoney Lake. Temperature and dissolved oxygen profile measurements have been collected in Upper Mahoney Lake on five occasions: 6/14/94, when the temperature probes were installed; 7/28/94, at maximum summer stratification; 9/23/94, coinciding with sockeye salmon spawning; 3/2/95, after maximum ice development and before spring break-up, and 7/12/95 when the temperature probes were removed. HDR installed instruments at four monitoring locations (Figure 1 ). Installed at the tailrace site were a staff gage to develop a flow rating curve, a pressure transducer for continuous stream depth measurements, and temperature probes for continuous monitoring of temperature in the water of Upper Mahoney Creek and air temperature near the creek channel. Continuous reading temperature probes were also installed in Upper Mahoney Lake and in Lower Mahoney Lake. Temperature probes in Upper Mahoney Lake were at 0 ft, 14 ft, 34 ft, 54 ft, 74 ft, and 94 ft depths to obtain temperature gradient profiles. Monitoring in Upper Mahoney Lake ended in July 1995. In Lower Mahoney Lake the temperature probes are located at two known salmon spawning areas, at approximately 12ft depths, along the delta at the mouth of Upper Mahoney Creek. Spawning locations were detennined visually during site visits. At each location, A and B, one probe is 10 inches below the substrate and one is 4 inches above the substrate. Data collection is incomplete at site B. The probe was installed on August 30, 1994 and recorded data until September 29, 1994 when it was damaged. It has been damaged and repaired again, most recently in September 1995. Monitoring of temperatures in the spawning area will continue indefinitely. A pressure transducer was installed at the former US Geological Survey gauging station site on Lower Mahoney Creek in July 1995. All continuous monitoring instruments recorded every 2 hours. Records were stored by data loggers which were down loaded when the site was visited, monthly or bimonthly, depending on weather conditions. Data was over written from late September 1994-January 1995 at Upper Mahoney Lake because deep snow prevented locating the data logger. Data from continuous monitoring instruments were reduced by averaging on a daily basis (see appendix). Simple linear regressions were used to test correlation between sets of temperature 2 data (Spawning gravels vs. Upper Mahoney Creek at tailrace site and Lower Mahoney Lake; air temperature at the tailrace site vs. Upper Mahoney Creek, Upper Mahoney Lake surface, Lower Mahoney Lake, and spawning gravels). To make predictions of post-project temperature conditions it was necessary to relate 1994-1995 data to normal expected temperatures. Monthly average air and water temperatures at the project site and air temperatures at Ketchikan for 1994 -199 5 were compared to calculate a correction factor (difference) for each month. Monthly temperature data for Ketchikan for the last 39 -40 years were obtained from the Alaska State Climate Center (see appendix). Correction factors were applied to historical Ketchikan air temperature records to estimate expected normal air, stream water, and spawning gravel temperatures at the project site (see appendix). These expected normal temperatures were then used to calculate predicted post-project spawning gravel temperatures. Because the ground water flow patterns have not been determined, the predicted post-project temperatures in the spawning gravels were estimated as a range from complete anthropogenic influence, where the ground water maintains the average temperature of water from the intake depth in Upper Mahoney Lake (-2 -5°C), to ground water temperatures that reflect complete mixing within the aquifer of tailrace water and Upper Mahoney Creek watershed runoff. These two extremes will bracket the possible high and low ends of project influence on the natural system. Runoff from the Upper Mahoney Creek watershed was estimated from flow data in a 1983 Army Corps of Engineers hydrology study of the Mahoney Lake area (see appendix). Flow data were reported for the Upper Mahoney Lake watershed and for the watershed below the Upper Mahoney Lake Basin which includes Upper Mahoney Creek and Lower Mahoney Lake. By measuring the area of the Upper Mahoney Creek watershed draining into the aquifer at the west end of Lower Mahoney Lake and comparing it to the area of the rest of the watershed below the Upper Mahoney Lake Basin, average monthly flows can be estimated for the watershed of Upper Mahoney Creek below the Upper Mahoney Lake basin but not including Lower Mahoney Lake. These flows and estimated average monthly post-project flows at the tailrace (Appendix) were used to estimate post-project spawning gravel temperatures after mixing using the following formula: T3 = (Q1T1 + <b.T2)/Q3, where T =temperature and Q =flow. The estimated temperatures were used to predict the cumulative degree days (CDD) that would possibly be experienced by salmon eggs and fry in the spawning gravels. A cumulative degree day is the sum of the number of degrees above 0°C per day for a designated period. 3 Results and Discussion Field measurements and analysis of water samples from Upper Mahoney Creek have established baseline water quality conditions at the proposed tailrace site .. Table I lists averages and ranges measured to date for temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, conductivity, turbidity, and total suspended sediment (TSS). TABLEt Water Quality at the Tailrace Site Dissolved Total Suspended Date Temperature Oxygen pH Conductivity Turbidity (NTU) Sediment (ppm) IT)_ ___ (ppm) (JlS/cm) Range 0.5-14.0 10.0-17.0 5.46-7.68 6.6-14.8 <0.10-0.35 0.4-3.8 Average 6.3 12.4 6.63 11.1 0.18 1.5 Dissolved oxygen concentrations in Upper Mahoney Creek were high or near saturation. Values measured for pH were generally near neutral or slightly acidic which would be expected in a rainforest watershed. Conductivity, turbidity, and TSS were low and often near detection limits. The lakes and vegetated slopes of the watershed act as catchments and filters for any natural sediment. Temperature and DO were monitored in Upper Mahoney Lake, Upper Mahoney Creek, and Lower Mahoney Lake because of the potential for impacts to sockeye salmon egg incubation at the mouth of Upper Mahoney Creek in Lower Mahoney Lake. Salmon spawn at the west end of Lower Mahoney Lake where Upper Mahoney Creek and two other small streams have formed gravel deltas. Stream deltas are attractive to spawning salmon because they are frequently sites of upwelling groundwater. Changes in the temperature or DO concentration of interstitial water in the spawning gravel could impact the development of eggs and fry. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the results of temperature and DO profile monitoring in Upper Mahoney Lake. The temperature variations in Upper Mahoney Lake are typical for an alpine lake. Surface temperatures fluctuate between approximately 0°C and l4°C, while temperatures at 80 feet, the depth of the proposed lake tap, remain approximately 4°C. However, projected maximum 4 Jun Jul 14.53 15.54 11.23 11.45 13.13 Aug 14.79 16.87 14.50 14.43 15.35 Sep 12.15 12.40 10.46 10.93 10.53 Oct 8.06 8.42 6.72 7.93 6.50 1.70 0.49 Nov 4.37 3.11 1.47 3.84 0.76 1.64 -0.73 Dec 2.18 1.91 0.59 1.12 -0.28 1.32 0.79 Jan 0.72 3.3 1.05 1.28 -0.03 2.25 2.02 Feb 2.66 2.7 1.14 1.84 0.38 1.56 0.86 Mar 3.63 3.9 0.74 1.12 0.22 3.16 2.78 Apr 6.23 6.3 2.64 2.47 3.96 3.66 3.83 May 9.54 11.1 4.4 4.77 8.31 6.7 6.33 ::-•.O:r,'-..:::.:::;:,;:::-·:?1::? Hf< :<t-=-iTUF:t-=-iL r£F: F'FD1~ :3'":':? F'CC. r·1HF' 2l' ·?'::• lt:·:.....: STATION NUMBER 504590 EL!~ENT : DAILY MEAk TEMPERATURE QUANTITY : MONTHLY AVERAGE STATION : Ketchikan FROM DATA ~ITH UNITS: DEGREES F a= 1 day missing, b = 2 days missing, e = 3 days, •• etc •• , ~ • 26 or more days miss;ng, A = Accumulations present ~ong·term means based on eotumns; thus, tne monthly row may not sum (or average> to the tong·term annuaL vaLue. MAXIMUM ALLO~lE NUMBER OF MlSSING DAYS : 20 YEAR JAN ~EB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT ~<OV :lEC ANN 1949 9999.0Cz9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.0019999.00z9999.00z9999.00z 56.43 46. 73g 47.33a 31.92 45.60h 1950 20.73 37.25 40.05 42.ii!3 47.05c 58.48 56.81 58.97 55.57 4S.77 34.95 3!.76t t.4.72 1951 32.71 34.77 33.66 43.07 49.02 56.45 60.69 60.21 55.48 45.29 40.65 33.27 ... 5.4.:. 1952 28.301'1 36.52a 37.35 4~ .37 1.9.16 52.52 59.48 58.92 53.52 51.03 42.22 38.97 ~5.78 1953 29.45 39.29 39.23 44.77 52.18 56.42 59.85 59.06 54.09c 48.67d 41. ~ 2 39.18 .. 6.94 1954 30.60 34.95 37.95 38.47 5,. 07h 52.65 55.29 61.05 56.47 47.53 46.83 37.39 45.65 :955 38.94 36.68 35. 12e 42.02 46.62c 52.87 56.81 54.95 52.93 45.2?' 32.32 29.15 43.64 1956 34.58 32.86 36.98 44.45 50.97 52.73 58.S4 57.81 52.92 43.82c 40.37 36.52 45.24 1957 30.15 33.71 39.69 43.05 51.58 54.55 56.92 60.55 58.27 47.71 43.00 37.18 46.36 1958 41.79 40.00 40.68 47.02 5ii!.76 62.18 63.S1 58.37 53.15 47.15 38.48 39.58 48.75 1959 33. 7'9 36.11 38.69 43.97 50.40 S5.60 56.90 57.23 53.87 48.0& 40.15 40.31 46.1.2 1960 37.18 9999.001 39.59b 45.45 50.05 51. 10 56.47 58.10 53.37 48.69 41.60 .:.0.69 47.&.aa ~961 39.87 3S.41 40.81 44.38 51.00 54.78 61.05 61.27 54.23 46.44 38.63 3s.n 47.22 1962 37.61 36.77 36.19 43.05 48.02 52.73 59.16 58.73 54.23 48.24 44.47 38.94 46.51 ~963 35.89 43.50 39.55 44.17 50.98 52.55 58.81 61.74 56.68 47.56 36.02 39.06 47.21 1964 35.46Cl 40.05 37.15 41.07 47.03 55.45 55.69 )4.85 52.63 45.89 38.33 26.61 44.19 1965 32.60 36.73 39.91. 43.22 46.18 51.87 58.94 59.58 56.55 47.95 38.87 35.92 45.69 i966 30.58 37.70 39.87 43.12 46.73 53.88 60.87 57.21 53.38 44.94 38.73 38.76 45.48 1967 36.1, 38.86 35.32 43.32 49.16 58.92 57.26 60.85 55.60 47.71 40.77 36.44 46.69 1968 32.45 38.47 41.92 41 .oa 52.63 54.50 59.16 57.97 52.62 46.56 42.38 31.27 45.91 1969 21.73 35.91 39.18 43.77 51.92 60.02 55.45 54.71 54.42 48.56 43.47 '1. 92 45.92 1970 33.21 42.84 41.97 42.50 46.56 54.48 55.61 56.45 50.47 46.08 38.23 32.06 45.04 1971 28.48 36.05 35.13 39.35 44.00 49.93 58.32 57.08 51.33 42.87 38.83 29.08a 42.54 1972 25.02 32.48 37.34 37.85 48.03 sz.n 58.47 57.55 51.57 45.21 40.97 33.87 43.42 ' 1973 33.03 36.48 39.66 44.95 47.35 50.17 53.85 54.47 52.15 42.89 30.52 36.06 43.47 1974 ii!7.95 36.29 35.37 45.22 46.87 50.38 55.40 59.76 57.60 46.13 40.48 40.73 45.18 . 1975 33.26 29.95 36.61 43.08 48.53 52.67 57.29 56.73 54.23 45.15 36.22 35.15 44.07 J 1976 35.47 33.16 35.48 42.86a 46.37 53.55 56.35 57.61 53.87 45.26 41.43 37.60 44.92 1977 35.79 41.95 38.58 43.75 50.03 54.23 58.02 63.55 53.25 45.42 34.15 27.77 45.54 l 1978 31.05 9999.00z9999.00t9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z 47.63 38.17 33.47 37.581'1 ! 1979 29.90a 30.20a 40.1, 1.3.88 47.52 52.45i 59.19 6l.55a 55.38a 49.00a 41.81f 36.43a 45.62 1980 29.91b 38.53 37.62c 43.47 50.24b 57.60a9999.00z 58.23a9999.oo, 48.88a 43.65 33.23a 44.14b 1981 43.69 9999.00z 41.17k 44.00u9999.00z 52.95b 60. 13a 60.30a 53.28e 46.00 42.86a 35.00c 48.3& 1982 26.47b9999.00z9999.00z 39.66b9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z 54.07c 45.4Sa9999.00z9999.00:z 41.41 n 1983 38.34 41.30 40.55e 45.35 49.73a 54.52e 57.23c 56.58a 50.98 ~5.85 9999.00z9999.00z 48.04b 1984 38.65 38.85b 42.53 42.98 47.22b 52.32 55.85 57.21 52.42 44.95 36.38 31.00 45.03 1985 9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.00~ 58.65 56.44 9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z 57.56j 1986 9999.00z9999.00z9999.0019999.00z9999.0Dz9999.00:z9999.00z9999.00z 53.08 49.50b 38.69a 39.45 4S. 181'1 1987 37.91b 40.43a9999.00z 43.27 t.9.038 53.35 59.65 60.18 53.53 1.7.58 <.2.52 38.25a 47,79a 1988 9999.00z9999.00z9999.00z 43.28 49.03 53.32 55.89 58.19 52.27 48.15 41.85 35.92 48. 65c ~989 33.59b 31.52 36.40 :.4 .48 1.9.68 55.98 58.79 59.18 54.98 45.58 39.87 42.10 46.01 1990 34.26 32.16 40. 12a 45.25 50.85 54.83 60.21 59.94 53.70 43.26 34.57 31.68 45.07 1991 29.56 39.8l 35.56 43.05 48.61 )4.37 56.26 57.77 53.02 42.68 42.42 £.0.06 45.27 1992 39.89 38.52 1.0.21 43.05 48.85 55.68 58.44 58.24 49.00 43.58 41. 7'J 32.50 45.81 1993 32.13 38.66 38.10 44.60 53.45 55.65 60.08 61.,, 55.38 49.15 40.37 '-0. 74 47.1.5 1994 40.23 30.25 41.27 46.93 50.1.8 56.15 59.98 62.37 54.32 47.15 37.60 35.44 46.85 MEAN 33.29 36.79 38.53 43.21 49.17 54.33 58.15 58.63 53.87 46.51 39.86 35.93 45.58 S.D. 5.08 3.49 2.26 1.97 2.14 2.59 2.03 2.14 1.88 1.94 3.48 3.94 1.27 SICE'ol ·0.31 ·0.26 . ·0.26 ·0. 76 ·0.07 0.85 0.20 0.05 0.03 ·0. iO -0.44 ·0.51 ·0. 16 MAX 43.69 43.50 42.53 47.02 53.45 62.18 63.81 63.55 58.27 51.03 47.33 42.10 48.75 i MIN 20.73 29.95 33.66 37.85 44.00 49.93 53.85 54.47 49.00 42.68 30.52 2¢..61 42.54 YRS 42 38 39 41 40 41 41 42 43 45 t.3 t.3 35 1 I ! i 8.5 12 6.23 < 10(2) <0.20 <0.20 7/28194 14 10.2 6.31 10 0.14 0.15 8/29/94 12.5 10 6.8 10.5 0.11 0.11 0.6 1 9/23/94 9.9 11.2 6.44 8.7 0.1 0.1 3.3 1 10/19/94 7 11.8 6.52 6.6 0.35 0.32 1 1.2 12114/94 1.2 12.9 5.46 10.9 0.16 0.18 0.8 1.2 2/23/95 1 17 6.9 14.7 0.15 0.18 3.3 0.8 3/21/95 0.5 13.7 7.68 12.3 <0.10 <0.10 1 3.8 4/20/95 2.3 12.7 7.29 14.8 0.2 0.2 1 1 5/18/95 3.7 12.8 7.1 9.1 0.17 0.14 0.6 0.4 6/28/95 8.1 11.9 6.81 8.4 -0.16 2.4 3.6 8/1/95 11.5 10.8 7.26 7.1 0.12 0.16 0.6 1.6 8/24/95 12 10.3 5.5 8.2 <0.20 <0.20 1 <1.0 9/21195 11.3 10.45 6.71 12 0.11 0.14 0.4 0.6 (1) Replicate samples collected (2) < indicates below method detection limit; after 6/16/94 samples were analyzed by different laboratory except for 8/24/95 Mahone Lakes Flows (cfs) 35 Year Average Up. Mah. Lk. Basin Up. Mah. Ck. Basin 35 Year Average 35 Year Average Post Project Post Project U . Mah. Lk. Basin % of Total Flows % of Total Flows U . Mah. Ck. Basin Total Flows -Lower Mahone at Tailrace Tailrace % ofTotal Oct 69.8 46% 14% 20.5 151.7 44.8 30% Nov 44.8 30% 18% 26.1 149.3 48.1 32% Dec 18.6 28% 18% 12.0 66.4 47.9 72% Jan 30.6 25% 19% 23.0 122.4 45 37% Feb 24.4 22% 20% 21.6 110.9 35.7 32% Mar 17.3 24% 19% 13.7 72.1 15.3 21% Apr 25 30% 18% 14.6 83.3 23 28% May 61.1 40% 15% 22.9 152.8 39.3 26% Jun 82.4 55% 11% 16.9 149.8 36.7 24% Jul 61.2 65% 9% 8.2 94.2 35.1 37% Aug 44.6 60% 10% 7.4 74.3 35.3 47% Sep 52.7 55% 11% 10.8 95.8 42 44% MAY 24 '96 05:21PM HDR SEATTLE P.3 f I l -.... . ' Jl CDD I I I I ---I • I f I J . •. r If .. I . ' ' .. f ). II i. l fl '-' J tl r I ' l f r -· ... ' t I 1· r-.· rl I •• f i! . !f J --1 I , . J l I I f· J \ '· \ .l \ i f· \, .. \ '\ ~ ... ,. .. -r ·· ... I -····~-··--··-· -' z ·• zt.~'' •"' ·•z•;e ·~HI'~Nt•I!NI9H3 ¥OM WC~~ MRY-24-1996 17:27 2064537107 94% P.03 (\J 0.. w ...J I- I- CI Ill 8 IJep'a DaJ Am•••,... .DuriDJ •mDDIDtuiJelilll ~-t-Jaae 31): r..e.a-atPedeiDtaw4uwrl l.Ur------------------------------------------------------------------ ·- IOIID -- 480 - o. • ... Od ""' ,_ ....... __ ........., ,_.,.... ~----·-~-PatjllciMiud . . . . MinP!um._........,.,._.-N-..aA-.· .., N "' (S) 0 ::J: a_ :J: g • ... X Gl ... X ... Ill "' ... :z: &nX • l{) ;0'1 n .. .. .. .. N I..D N .. ['- ...-1 -~ .... -il u -~ ~ ""' & ~ E-4 12 10 8 4 2 Estimated Post-Project Spawning Gravel Temperatures Showing the Effects of Draw down 0+------+------~----~------~----4-----~------4------+------+------+------1 Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Month --Avg. 4 Degree C Post-Project ------Avg. Post-Project Mixed Avg. Max. Post-Project Mixed ---Avg. Min. Post-Project Mixed--Est. Nonnal Avg. Figure 10. Estimated monthly average post-project and natural spawning gravel temperatures assuming drawdown is greater than 60 feet. Estimated Post-Project Spawning Gravel Temperatures without Drawdown Effects 14 -----------~------------------------------- 12 10 i .... i 8 u -~ !d ~ ~ E-4 6 4 2 0+-----+-----~----~----~----~-----r----~-----+-----+----~----~ Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Month --Avg. 4 Degree C Post-Project -----·Avg. Post-Project Mixed Avg. Max. Post-Project Mixed ·-·----Avg. Min. Post-Project Mixed ---Est. Normal Avg. Figure 9. Estimated monthly average post-project and natural spawning gravel temperatures assuming drawdown is less than 60 feet. Estimated Range of Natural Spawning Gravel Temperatures 16.00~----------------------------------------------------------------~ 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 / / / 6.00 / 4.00 2.00 / / ,, , ' ' ' ' ' \ \ ........... ~-.......... ' 0.00+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----~=------~ 1un lui Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ian Feb Mar Apr May Month --Est. Avg. Gravel----·---Gravel Avg. Max. • Gravel Avg. Min. Figure 8. Natural spawning gravel temperature range, estimated from historical Ketchikan temperature records. 'Tl a;· = (i 'I ~ ~ g = (i 0 ...... ~ ..... ~ s. ~ ::r s· ~ '"0 a =· a ~ ~ ....... = a! -VI 1.0 'f Cl:! .g ~ g" ..., N ..... -1.0 1.0 VI 0 ,;,. c: a '0 '0 Ol "' l!!l .... :: "' < "' ~ ::1' 0 !!!. = ~ "' > '< !:' a ~ ('!> en 0:: .... o;> (') "' > en =;· ~ 3 Temperature (Celsius) 0 6/28/94 I 7/11/94 7/24/94 8/6/94 8/19/94 9/1/94 9/14/94 9/27/94 10/10/94 10/23/94 6/13/95 6/26/95 7/9/95 7/22/95 814195 8/17/95 8/30/95 9/12/95 ..,. 0 ~ { •m ••• e=:: ..,. ~ I ~ ('!) "1 ~ a > ... "1 i "0 ('!) "1 ~ "1 ('!) Temperature (Celsius) ~ -----~ 0 N ~ 0\ 00 0 N ~ 0\ 00 (i ?' 6/18/94 ~ 6/21194 s ~ ... 6/24/94 I 6127/94 ~ iii 6130/94 ""' c ;3 (i 713/94 D> .... 7/6/94 a b 7/9/94 "C ~ ~ G ... 7/12194 ~ a:: ~ 7/15/94 = 7/18/94 t: ~ i 7121/94 a 7124/94 C:...CP"f" ~ 7127/94 = =-= fD 0 fD ~ > = 7/30/94 Ill -. e. p. ! 8/2194 t/'..:1- "' ... ~ ""' -~ 8/5/94 "C ~ ... c m a. = 8/8/94 ~ fD e -e > t'l) 8/11/94 a ~ "0 a I 8/14/94 ~~ 'g ""' = 1 8/17/94 ..... = e. C/) 8!20/94 \CQ. ~ \C ... -5 ~ 8123/94 ~ = G ~ "' 8126/94 ..... .? 8/29/94 fD i:' t/'..:1 8 9/1/94 i -:-" 9/4/94 ~ -~ 917194 e· I 9/10/94 !JQ .g 9/13/94 ~ !"" 1M 9/16/94 "" ~0 ~ -9/19/94 ~ fD 9122/94 e;r '!"" .. 9125194 9128194 t Temperature (Celsius) ---- -0 t-.) .,. 0\ 00 0 t-.) .,. 0\ 00 ~ ~· a 6127/94 !""' 7/9/94 ~ 7121/94 ~ ;" "' 812/94 ;" ;-i 8/14/94 .., i 8126/94 ;3 (il 9nt94 a 11:1 ... 9/19/94 ~ i 10/1/94 i ~ ~ 10/13/94 8-10125/94 ~ = 1116/94 = ~ """' ~ ll/18/94 """' 11130/94 =-~ ~ 12/12/94 ~ ...... ~ C" G > 12124/94 -· l 5' 115195 r.:r -~ "' i 1/17/95 ~ ~ t= ~ I;) 1129195 \l.l 13 ~ ;--· = 11:1 2110195 ;-... -"'0 > .g 21'12195 = 0 I 315/95 = "' Q.-a E. 3/17/95 -· Cll = r i 3129/95 i !!!. 4110195 ~ 5120195 \l.l .... 1 g 611195 -6/13/95 !.II -6125195 -· ! = 1nt95 (JQ I ~ .g 1119195 .., ~ 1131/95 ~ C" 8/12/95 ~ ~ Gf N 8124195 --915195 ~ 9111195 ":r1 .... ~ (2 '!'-<;;' ~ ~ (2 a b ~ a:: g. = ~ &: I 0 ~ a g-&: ? 0 a' ~ ~ Sl ....... $10 1.1\ .... '=' . > ....... ;. ~ I .f S" S' ~ i .... ~ N ....... 2. ....... a 10 > 10 1.1\ 0 N 6/15/94 6/27/94 7/9/94 7/21/94 812194 8/14/94 8/26/94 9n/94 9/19/94 10/1/94 10/13/94 10/25/94 11/6/94 ll/18/94 11/30/94 12/12/94 12124/94 1/5/95 1/17/95 1/29/95 2/10/95 2122195 3/5195 3/17/95 3/29/95 4110195 4122195 514195 5/16/95 5128195 619195 6/21/95 7/3/95 7/15/95 7/27/95 818195 8/20/95 9/1/95 9/13/95 Temperature (Daily Average Celsius) .a:.. C/'1 ---00 0 N .a:.. ~~~~ ? ___ :-:;;·- ' J ' -C/'1 i .., i nJ a t""" = ~ .., ~ =-! i ~ g. > - 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 4: 34 -..c:l 38 -t 42 ~ 46 50 54 58 70 90 110 130 150 Dissolved Oxygen Profiles in Upper Mahoney Lake 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) --...-... June 14,1994 _._ July 28,1994 .........._ Sept 23, 1994 -e-Mar 2, 1995 -fll!-July 12, 1995 Figure 3. Dissolved oxygen profiles of Upper Mahoney Lake on five sampling dates. 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 -30 ~ 34 ..= 38 Q. 42 ~ 46 50 54 58 70 90 110 130 150 0 Temperature Profiles in Upper Mahoney Lake 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Temperature (Celsius) ~June 14,1994 -¥--July28,1994 ---Sept23, 1994 .....-e-Mar2, 1995 -!il-July 12,1995 Figure 2. Temperature profiles in Upper Mahoney Lake on five sampling dates. References: HDR Engineering, Inc. 1995. Project operations and flow regimes comparison of pre-and post- project flows at Upper and Lower Mahoney Lake. HDR Engineering, Inc. 1995 b. Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project FERC no. 11393: erosion and sediment control plan, appendix L. HDR Engineering, Inc. 1995. Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project FERC no. 11393: scopmg document two. Northern Ecological Services, Inc. 1995. Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project: fisheries technical report Rivers and Harbors in Alaska: draft interim feasibility report and environmental impact statement, hydroelectric power for Sitka, Petersburg/Wrangell, and Ketchikan, Alaska. 1983. Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. x:\sally\mahoney\watqual.ea 9 Conclusions The Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project will essentially eliminate overflow from Upper Mahoney Lake. Water from the 80 foot depth of Upper Mahoney Lake will bypass the steep channel of Upper Mahoney Creek and be discharged approximately 800 feet upstream of Lower Mahoney Lake. This will change the temperature regime in Upper Mahoney Creek and in the salmon spawning sites among the stream delta gravels at the west end of Lower Mahoney Lake. Projected cumulative degree days calculated for the spawning gravels during the period of sockeye salmon egg incubation are near estimated natural values. The amount of maximum drawdown in Upper Mahoney Lake experienced during salmon egg incubation could affect the rate of heat accumulation. Operation of the project should not cause impacts to other water quality parameters. 8 the intake. In that case the tailrace water temperature would correspond more closely to natural temperature fluctuations seen in Upper Mahoney Creek and the salmon spawning gravels. Water temperature variations at all sampling locations are driven by changes in air temperature (e.g. r=0.95, p<O.OOl -stream water T vs. air Tat the tailrace site) (Figure 7). Because water temperatures, both surface and groundwater, are strongly correlated to air temperatures, estimates of normal monthly average, average maximum, and average minimum temperatures were made based on Ketchikan air temperature data. Figure 8 illustrates the range of expected natural spawning gravel temperatures. To predict the range of possible temperatures in the spawning gravels after the project is in place, we assumed the actual groundwater temperature would fall between two conditions. In one scenario the project would overwhelm natural conditions and the ground water would be the same temperature as water at the intake in Upper Mahoney Lake. In the second scenario there would be mixing in the aquifer of post-project flows with runoff from the lower drainage basin in proportion to their volume. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the range of temperatures expected in the spawning gravels after the project is operating based on these two conditions and the amount of drawdown in Upper Mahoney Lake. Critical to salmon egg development is the amount of heat to which they are exposed. This is calculated as cumulative degree days (CDD) or the number of degrees above 0°C per day per a designated time period. Estimates were made based on an average water temperature at the intake of 4°C and of zo-3°C during March and April in the case of drawdown in excess of 60 feet. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate these results. Table 3 lists estimates of natural, unmixed post- project and mixed post-project degree day accumulations TABLE3 Estimated CDD in the Lower Mahoney Lake Spawning Gravels for the Incubation Period, September 1 -June 30 Spring Drawdown <60ft. Spring Drawdown >60ft. (I) Range Estimated Natural CDD 1266 (2260-637) (I) 1266 (2260-637) 7 Estimated Unmixed CDD 1212 1112 Estimated Mixed CDD 1172 (1488-1004) 983 (1405-922) TABLE2 Degrees of Temperature Moderation within the Aquifer Per Month Month De8!ees C June 1994 0.25 July 1994 0.29 August 1994 0.73 September 1994 0.74 October 1994 1.37 November 1994 2.54 December 1994 0.61 January 1995 0.67 February 1995 1.16 March 1995 1.06 Apri11995 0.46 May 1995 1.19 June 1995 1.29 July 1995 1.14 August 1995 0.32 September 1995 0.21 Spawning gravel temperature fluctuations may have moderated either because a high flow event that occurred at that time changed the stream channel and consequently the subsurface flow patterns or rising lake levels could potentially affect the amount of upwelling in the gravels by decreasing the difference in head between the aquifer and the lake. Lower Mahoney Lake levels were reported to have risen approximately one meter from August 30, 1994-September 22, 1994 (Northern Ecological Services, 1994). The Mahoney Lake area is subject to rapidly changing water levels due to storm runoff. From the upper lake to the lower lake stream water cascades over many waterfalls, thoroughly mixing the water with surrounding air. This action causes the stream water temperature at the tailrace site to closely correspond to the air temperature at the tailrace site. This effect will cease, for that portion of the runoff that would normally originate from Upper Mahoney Lake, when drawdown of the lake eliminates overflow. When the project is in operation, water returned to the creek via the tailrace will be at the temperature of the water at the intake in Upper Mahoney Lake. Residence time in the penstock is not expected to change the water temperature. Projected maximum drawdown of Upper Mahoney Lake is 70 feet, which will be to within 10 feet of the intake (HDR, 1995). As described above, temperatures of the tailrace waters maybe 2° to 3°C for the period of maximum drawdown if drawdown exceeds 60 feet. Water temperatures at the intake could fluctuate seasonally if drawdown keeps the lake level within approximately 10 feet of 6 drawdown of the lake is 70 feet, which will be to within 10 feet of the intake (HDR, 1995). According to projections for operating year 2000, the lowest lake levels are predicted to be in the spring ( March 1 -May 1) before significant increases occur in the temperature of water above approximately 20 feet. Therefore, temperatures of the tailrace waters maybe 2° to 3°C for this period if drawdown exceeds 60 feet. DO concentrations in Upper Mahoney Lake, at the lake tap depth (80ft) and at approximate drawdown depths, range from 10.5 ppm to 12 ppm. This compares favorably with average DO concentrations, 12.4 ppm, measured in Upper Mahoney Creek at the tailrace site. In addition, turbulence in released water should restore natural levels of DO. Continuous temperature measurements at the three monitoring locations (Upper Mahoney Lake, Upper Mahoney Creek tailrace site, and Lower Mahoney Lake spawning gravels) were used to verify upwelling of groundwater in the gravel delta at the mouth of Upper Mahoney Creek and to determine if spawning gravel water temperatures correlated to the temperatures of air, water in the stream channel, and water in Upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes. From June 1994 to September 1995, temperature differences were calculated between the temperature probes below and above the spawning gravel substrate (Figure 4). During this period the average absolute temperature difference was 0.59°C per day and ranged as high as 2.25°C per day. This temperature difference indicates upwelling groundwater in the spawning gravels (Table 2). In addition, fluctuations in interstitial water temperatures correlate closely (r=O. 95, p<O. 001) with those measured in the stream channel at the proposed tailrace site (Figure 5). Therefore, data collected support a fairly direct connection between Upper Mahoney Creek water and upwelling water in the spawning gravels. This correlation was especially evident from June -September 1994. There appears to be a residence time in the aquifer of about 24 hours, indicated by a time lag between temperature changes in the stream and the spawning gravels. This is illustrated best by data from the period June -September 1994 (Figure 6). After approximately mid-September 1994 the temperature fluctuations seen in both the stream at the tailrace site in the spawning gravels moderated in the spawning gravels. The temperature difference between the stream and the spawning gravels in fall 1994 was possibly due to heat transfer from the aquifer substrate. The summer of 1994 averaged 1.5° C above normal, based on Ketchikan temperature records. 5 ! I 12 12 I 12 ;! I 12 ;! I Iii ;! 1 Est. Normal Av12 • Jun 4 5.01 6.44 4.30 1.54 Jut 4 6.19 7.29 5.35 10.43 Aug 4 5.68 6.23 5.22 12.35 Sep 4 6.10 6.92 5.18 10.68 Oct 4 4.89 5.84 4.09 1.51 Nov 4 3.40 5.36 2.11 5.10 Dec 4 2.78 4.11 2.45 1.39 Jan 4 2.53 4.09 2.53 1.30 Feb 4 3.09 4.26 2.74 1.80 Mar 4 3.33 3.15 3.24 0.85 Apr 4 3.15 4.12 3.30 2.40 May 4 3.76 4.25 3.18 3.21 Gravel Temperature with More Than 60 ft of Drawdown (degrees Celsius) Date IAvs. 4 Desree C I Avs. Post-Project Mixed I Avs. Max. Post-Project Mixed I Avs. Min. Post-Project Mixed I Est. Normal Avs. Jun 4 5.07 6.44 4.30 7.54 Jut 4 6.19 7.29 5.35 10.43 Aug 4 5.68 6.23 5.22 12.35 Sep 4 6.10 6.92 5.18 10.68 Oct 4 4.89 5.84 4.09 1.51 Nov 4 3.40 5.36 2.11 5.10 Dec 4 2.78 4.11 2.45 1.39 Jan 4 2.53 4.09 2.53 1.30 Feb 4 3.09 4.26 2.74 1.80 Mar 2.5 2.11 2.54 2.02 0.85 Apr 2.2 2.27 2.63 1.82 2.40 May 4 3.76 4.25 3.18 3.21 Estimated CDD During Salmon Incubation: Drawdown Less than 60 Feet Natural Gravel Tern Date Maximum Mixed Minimum Mixed Avera e Sep 208 155 320 Oct 244 334 389 282 555 706 408 Nov 364 436 549 346 708 984 408 Dec 488 523 677 421 751 1133 408 Jan 612 601 804 500 792 1272 408 Feb 724 687 923 576 842 1427 408 Mar 848 791 1039 677 868 1522 408 Apr 968 903 1163 776 940 1657 408 May 1092 1020 1294 875 1040 1903 484 June 1212 1172 1488 1004 1266 2260 637 Date Minimum Mixed Sep 155 Oct 244 334 389 282 706 408 Nov 364 436 549 346 708 984 408 Dec 488 523 677 421 751 1133 408 Jan 612 601 804 500 792 1272 408 Feb 724 687 923 576 842 1427 408 Mar 802 753 1001 639 868 1522 408 Apr 868 821 1080 694 940 1657 408 May 992 938 1212 792 1040 1903 484 June 1112 1090 1405 922 1266 2260 637 Continuous Monitoring Data I I I I I Daily Averages l I Probe A ProbeD Tailrace Site ' Date Lake Water lntragravel Lake Water vel Stream Air Depth 6/15/94 7.70 10.70 2.10 6/16/94 8.42 7.70 7.53 10.48 2.08 6/17/94 8.26 7.58 7.36 9.71 2.07 6/18/94 8.46 7.53 7.25 10.02 2.02 6/19/94 8.39 7.39 7.24 9.99 1.95 6/20/94 8.57 7.34 7.48 10.01 1.91 6/21194 8.62 7.43 8.44 12.12 1.89 6/22/94 8.91 8.18 9.93 13.92 1.92 6/23/94 9.48 9.61 10.83 14.48 2.02 6/24/94 9.82 10.60 9.42 11.82 2.10 6/25/94 9.93 10.12 9.33 12.13 2.03 6/26/94 10.03 9.28 8.86 11.65 1.95 6/27/94 10.20 9.25 8.71 9.95 1.90 6/28/94 10.45 8.88 8.32 9.51 2.26 6/29/94 10.13 8.73 7.93 9.03 2.53 6/30/94 8.68 8.61 7.33 8.74 2.91 7/1/94 9.32 8.65 8.50 10.98 2.11 7/2/94 9.09 8.50 9.05 11.55 2.03 i 7/3/94 9.38 8.79 8.70 10.32 1.98 I 7/4/94 9.58 8.88 9.18 12.02 1.99 7/5/94 9.37 8.98 9.52 11.48 1.96 7/6/94 10.23 9.49 9.73 11.30 2.28 717/94 9.23 9.61 8.40 9.76 3.02 7/8/94 9.45 9.38 8.69 10.58 2.24 7/9/94 9.53 9.35 9.15 11.48 1.99 7/10/94 9.48 9.21 9.29 11.81 1.90 7/11/94 9.56 9.28 10.10 13.57 1.84 7/12/94 9.95 9.76 11.68 14.65 1.83 7/13/94 10.54 11.23 12.48 14.89 1.84 7/14/94 11.03 12.37 12.94 15.23 1.86 7/15/94 11.24 12.89 12.93 14.88 1.86 7/16/94 11.33 13.04 12.38 13.32 1.86 7/17/94 11.49 12.58 12.33 12.92 2.21 7/18/94 11.70 12.48 11.65 12.47 2.37 7/19/94 12.46 12.21 11.53 12.71 2.15 7/20/94 11.90 11.77 11.86 13.61 1.99 7/21194 12.05 11.76 11.69 14.54 1.88 7/22/94 12.13 11.70 12.83 15.91 1.81 7/23/94 12.48 12.38 13.66 17.03 1.77 7/24/94 12.99 13.31 14.34 17.44 1.75 7/25/94 13.25 14.01 I 13.57 14.83 1.77 7/26/94 13.18 13.83 12.97 13.66 1.88 7/27/94 13.01 13.10 13.38 14.66 2.09 7/28/94 13.33 13.14 13.69 14.51 1.94 7/29/94 13.41 13.68 12.50 13.34 1.88 7/30/94 13.54 13.13 12.06 12.82 1.82 Page 1 Probe A ProbeB Tailrace Site Date Lake Water lntragravel Lake Water Intrauavel Stream Air ~th 7/31194 13.18 12.43 12.78 14.30 1.78 8/1194 13.29 12.56 13.10 14.67 1.73 8/2/94 13.38 12.78 14.48 16.34 1.70 8/3/94 13.69 13.35 15.60 16.90 1.70 8/4/94 14.14 14.25 15.07 15.90 1.73 8/5/94 14.30 14.82 14.35 15.38 2.09 8/6/94 14.32 14.45 13.78 14.35 2.02 817/94 14.27 14.10 14.60 15.75 1.88 8/8/94 14.32 13.98 16.13 18.14 1.77 8/9/94 14.72 14.73 16.01 17.25 1.71 8/10/94 15.18 15.63 i 15.73 17.22 1.67 8/11/94 15.22 15.38 16.65 17.63 1.64 8/12/94 15.23 14.95 17.52 18.86 1.62 8/13/94 15.21 15.08 16.19 16.04 1.61 8/14/94 15.31 15.14 14.66 15.12 1.61 8/15/94 15.35 15.50 14.84 15.18 1.71 8/16/94 15.66 15.69 15.18 15.85 1.69 8/17/94 15.48 15.40 15.50 16.69 1.63 8/18/94 15.53 15.40 16.05 17.42 1.59 8/19/94 15.84 15.33 15.63 16.08 1.57 8/20/94 15.59 15.30 14.78 15.26 1.56 8/21/94 15.49 15.22 13.62 13.55 1.76 8/22/94 14.83 14.19 13.09 12.24 2.30 8/23/94 15.39 15.22 15.31 15.83 1.69 8/24/94 14.84 14.97 12.73 12.84 1.97 8/25/94 14.88 14.80 12.54 13.24 1.78 8/26/94 14.58 13.78 12.56 13.49 1.67 8/27/94 14.52 13.20 13.00 13.66 1.61 8/28/94 14.60 13.04 12.72 13.60 1.56 8/29/94 14.89 12.84 12.84 14.11 1.52 8/30/94 14.78 12.90 14.79 12.90 12.57 13.09 1.52 8/31194 14.62 12.90 14.66 12.90 11.15 10.93 1.55 9/1194 14.33 12.98 14.53 12.75 10.39 10.39 1.67 9/2/94 12.99 11.56 13.54 11.88 10.85 10.00 2.35 9/3/94 13.07 10.85 12.82 11.25 11.10 10.38 2.01 9/4/94 12.70 11.10 12.68 11.19 11.10 11.08 2.61 9/5/94 12.08 11.47 12.32 11.33 11.51 11.85 2.74 9/6/94 11.93 12.02 12.00 11.38 10.88 11.28 2.72 917/94 11.93 12.15 11.66 11.13 11.17 11.70 2.51 9/8/94 11.85 11.83 11.63 11.09 11.39 11.66 1.95 9/9/94 11.54 11.47 11.72 11.22 11.26 11.85 1.74 9/10/94 11.63 11.50 11.80 11.31 10.90 11.53 1.65 9/11/94 11.69 11.46 12.20 11.12 11.02 11.63 1.59 9/12/94 11.51 11.34 12.05 11.10 11.59 12.27 2.16 9/13/94 11.75 11.41 11.90 11.32 11.36 11.78 2.63 9/14/94 11.68 11.53 11.82 11.41 11.11 11.68 2.93 9/15/94 11.09 11.35 11.52 11.27 10.93 11.61 3.08 9/16/94 11.29 11.40 11.33 11.05 10.96 11.84 2.84 9/17/94 11.14 11.34 11.24 11.03 11.04 12.14 2.95 Page2 Probe A ProbeD Tailrace Site Date Lake Water lntragravel Lake Water Intragravel Stream Air Depth 9/18/94 11.37 11.40 11.32 11.07 10.64 11.18 2.42 9/19/94 11.30 11.40 11.02 10.84 9.70 9.29 2.13 9/20/94 11.28 11.38 10.73 10.28 9.17 8.84 1.82 9/21194 10.37 10.24 10.47 9.78 11.43 12.38 2.02 9/22/94 10.53 10.13 10.84 10.49 9.93 9.59 2.73 9/23/94 10.66 10.48 10.76 10.46 9.08 8.04 2.02 9/24/94 10.78 10.73 10.50 9.73 10.53 11.19 2.35 9/25/94 10.87 10.80 10.55 10.08 9.93 10.21 2.31 9/26/94 10.71 10.63 10.59 10.16 9.07 8.92 2.05 9/27/94 10.51 10.30 10.26 9.71 9.16 8.45 2.60 9/28/94 10.46 10.40 9.94 9.43 7.86 5.91 1.98 9/29/94 9.91 9.85 9.49 8.73 7.48 6.30 1.75 9/30/94 8.73 8.47 7.98 7.85 1.65 10/1194 8.25 7.88 7.60 7.10 1.59 10/2/94 8.51 7.92 7.28 7.28 1.53 10/3/94 8.73 8.02 8.33 9.96 1.49 10/4/94 8.72 8.13 9.60 10.48 1.57 10/5/94 8.35 8.22 8.23 8.67 1.62 10/6/94 8.55 8.45 8.49 8.43 1.73 1017/94 8.46 8.43 7.54 7.16 1.75 10/8/94 8.60 7.89 8.20 7.67 2.58 10/9/94 8.88 8.22 7.58 6.64 2.09 10/10/94 8.68 8.48 7.06 6.21 1.83 10/11/94 8.56 8.56 6.44 5.54 1.84 10/12/94 8.78 8.54 7.59 7.42 2.64 10/13/94 8.63 8.60 7.38 7.12 2.67 10/14/94 8.67 8.60 7.03 6.39 2.13 10/15/94 8.63 8.56 6.79 6.57 1.89 10/16/94 8.58 8.50 7.75 8.38 3.47 10/17/94 8.43 8.45 6.95 7.07 2.27 10/18/94 8.43 8.33 6.77 6.83 2.63 10/19/94 8.31 8.20 6.56 6.49 2.62 10/20/94 8.18 8.10 6.18 5.76 2.12 10/21194 7.98 7.97 5.36 4.58 1.86 10/22/94 7.90 7.86 4.53 3.72 1.76 10/23/94 7.82 7.75 6.23 6.64 2.87 10/24/94 7.72 7.63 6.73 7.42 3.62 10/25/94 7.53 7.56 5.78 5.78 2.65 10/26/94 7.48 7.48 5.37 5.18 2.26 10/27/94 7.38 7.37 4.95 4.53 1.93 10/28/94 7.28 7.16 4.80 4.67 2.45 10/29/94 7.03 6.94 3.89 2.51 2.05 10/30/94 6.85 6.76 3.24 1.42 1.82 10/31194 6.76 6.65 1.93 -0.21 1.71 1111194 6.65 6.54 1.31 -0.23 1.64 1112/94 6.52 6.38 3.05 2.82 1.99 1113/94 6.26 6.23 3.09 2.46 1.88 1114/94 6.18 6.13 2.68 1.76 1.79 1115/94 6.10 5.95 2.75 2.22 1.71 Page3 Probe A Probe B Tailrace Site Date Lake Water lntnw"avel Lake Water Intragravel Stream Air Depth 11/6/94 6.00 5.77 2.98 2.68 1.71 1117/94 5.81 5.49 3.08 2.63 1.69 1118/94 5.55 5.16 2.45 1.65 1.61 1119/94 5.32 4.88 2.15 2.09 1.79 11/10/94 5.16 4.68 3.02 2.93 2.07 11/11/94 5.07 4.59 2.93 2.63 1.89 11/12/94 4.91 4.46 2.39 1.78 1.76 11113/94 4.71 4.28 1.42 0.36 1.70 11/14/94 4.51 4.10 0.41 -0.43 1.67 11/15/94 4.35 3.93 0.63 -0.02 1.64 11/16/94 4.23 3.81 0.16 -1.94 1.59 11/17/94 4.17 3.76 0.27 -0.21 1.60 11/18/94 4.08 3.79 0.58 -0.08 1.58 11/19/94 4.18 3.98 0.15 -1.74 1.55 11/20/94 3.93 3.68 0.73 1.25 1.81 11/21/94 3.24 2.93 1.45 0.55 1.84 11/22/94 3.08 2.48 ; 0.51 -0.08 1.71 11/23/94 3.03 2.60 0.06 0.00 1.88 11/24/94 3.14 2.58 0.48 -0.05 1.70 11/25/94 2.89 2.38 0.65 0.10 1.65 ' 11126/94 2.73 2.17 1.09 0.83 1.74 11/27/94 2.74 2.06 0.93 0.27 1.68 11128/94 2.58 1.97 0.61 -0.48 1.67 11129/94 2.42 1.83 0.13 -0.88 1.63 11/30/94 2.39 1.71 0.02 -3.91 1.70 12/1/94 2.19 1.58 0.00 -6.73 1.78 12/2/94 2.12 1.50 0.00 -6.89 1.91 12/3/94 1.88 1.41 0.00 -2.85 1.91 12/4/94 1.93 1.60 0.00 0.01 2.27 12/5/94 1.96 1.68 0.00 -0.04 2.26 12/6/94 1.43 1.04 0.00 0.03 2.32 1217/94 1.23 0.83 0.04 -0.03 1.92 12/8/94 0.90 0.59 0.10 -0.20 1.57 12/9/94 0.94 0.50 0.23 0.08 1.57 12/10/94 0.86 0.48 0.58 0.73 1.68 12/11194 0.68 0.36 0.80 0.74 1.65 12/12/94 1.13 0.53 0.94 1.71 1.75 12/13/94 1.52 0.88 0.93 0.94 1.82 12114/94 1.80 0.99 0.53 -0.44 1.63 12/15/94 2.02 1.10 0.68 -0.05 1.57 12/16/94 2.03 1.10 1.13 1.62 1.69 12/17/94 1.92 1.08 1.33 1.48 1.89 12/18/94 1.91 1.01 1.16 1.93 1.98 12/19/94 2.11 1.13 1.25 1.80 1.90 12/20/94 2.14 1.20 1.33 3.21 1.26 1.60 1.93 12/21194 2.16 1.28 1.80 2.80 1.16 1.64 2.05 12/22/94 2.20 1.30 1.88 2.66 0.94 -0.06 1.79 12/23/94 2.10 1.30 1.18 2.93 1.02 0.25 1.69 12/24/94 2.03 1.30 1.05 2.72 0.79 0.28 1.64 ·····---· ----------- Page4 Probe A ProbeD Tailrace Site Date Lake Water lntragravel Lake Water Intragravel Stream Air Depth 12/25/94 1.97 1.30 1.02 2.65 1.26 1.01 1.69 12/26/94 1.90 1.30 0.97 2.69 0.85 0.34 1.62 12/27/94 1.91 1.38 1.03 2.53 0.21 -1.82 1.56 12/28/94 1.93 1.40 1.09 2.55 0.19 -0.73 1.53 12/29/94 1.90 1.40 0.94 2.38 0.48 0.60 1.50 12/30/94 1.70 1.30 0.73 2.35 0.33 -1.59 1.47 12/31194 1.64 1.30 0.63 2.37 0.03 -2.95 1.46 • 111195 1.60 1.30 0.60 2.30 0.02 -3.15 1.53 i 112/95 1.63 1.30 0.60 2.37 0.22 -3.13 1.44 113/95 1.60 1.22 0.53 2.37 0.08 -3.77 1.48 114/95 1.66 1.20 0.50 2.36 0.00 -4.82 1.78 115195 1.72 1.27 0.50 2.37 0.00 -3.10 1.80 116/95 1.80 1.30 0.40 2.40 0.00 -3.81 1.72 117/95 1.84 1.39 0.40 2.43 0.01 -1.27 1.76 118/95 1.90 1.40 0.40 2.41 0.29 0.63 1.39 119/95 1.90 1.40 0.40 2.38 0.45 1.14 1.45 1110/95 1.86 1.39 0.40 2.39 1.26 1.00 1.60 1111/95 1.35 1.11 0.31 2.30 1.68 1.90 1.61 1112/95 1.00 0.90 0.55 2.33 1.77 1.62 1.62 1113/95 1.00 0.90 0.98 2.48 1.63 0.71 1.57 1114/95 1.00 0.90 1.28 2.59 1.08 0.18 1.52 1115/95 1.08 0.90 1.40 2.55 0.98 0.17 1.48 1116/95 1.25 0.98 1.38 2.55 0.51 0.23 1.49 1117/95 1.37 1.05 1.30 2.54 1.00 1.32 1.60 1118/95 1.25 1.10 1.18 2.36 1.63 1.89 1.72 1119/95 1.38 1.19 1.05 2.38 1.80 1.43 1.68 1120/95 1.71 1.28 1.33 2.41 2.12 1.72 1.62 1121195 1.80 1.30 1.52 2.43 1.64 -0.28 1.58 1122/95 1.80 1.37 1.71 2.47 1.23 -0.55 1.54 1123/95 1.83 1.40 1.75 2.50 0.76 -0.91 1.49 1124/95 1.87 1.40 1.67 2.52 1.15 -0.28 1.46 1125195 1.76 1.39 1.54 2.44 1.32 0.20 1.44 1126195 1.70 1.30 1.41 2.58 2.00 2.45 1.49 1127/95 1.67 1.28 1.30 2.49 2.39 3.50 1.73 1128/95 1.46 1.27 1.35 2.45 1.88 2.84 2.07 1129/95 1.94 1.63 1.81 2.50 1.68 1.83 1.98 1130/95 2.17 1.70 1.90 2.51 1.87 2.47 1.88 1131195 2.10 1.70 1.73 2.44 2.41 2.81 1.87 2/1195 2.07 1.70 1.78 2.41 2.42 3.12 1.93 2/2/95 2.10 1.70 2.11 2.49 2.61 4.48 2.14 2/3/95 2.23 1.74 2.30 2.55 2.51 2.57 2.00 2/4/95 2.23 1.80 2.39 2.59 3.20 5.13 2.00 215195 2.20 1.80 2.53 2.61 2.59 3.93 2.16 2/6/95 2.33 1.88 2.84 2.71 2.58 2.69 2.03 217/95 2.33 2.00 2.72 2.70 2.40 1.34 1.87 2/8/95 2.30 2.04 2.62 2.69 2.67 2.79 1.78 2/9/95 2.30 2.10 2.51 2.67 2.29 2.31 1.72 2/10/95 2.30 2.19 2.58 2.68 1.93 1.35 1.67 2/11195 2.39 2.28 2.51 2.66 0.06 -2.28 __ L__- 1.65 Page 5 Probe A ProbeB Tailrace Site Date Lake Water lntragravel Lake Water Intragravel Stream Air Deptb 2112195 2.40 2.32 2.34 2.59 0.00 -2.68 1.87 2113/95 2.41 2.40 1.80 2.59 0.00 -2.11 1.89 2114/95 2.41 2.39 1.20 2.62 0.00 -4.61 2.02 2115195 2.36 2.22 0.94 2.55 0.00 -5.26 2.11 2116/95 2.30 2.10 0.79 2.55 0.00 -3.88 2.06 2/17/95 2.22 2.03 0.70 2.62 0.00 0.80 2.39 2/18/95 2.12 1.88 0.63 2.62 0.65 2.58 2.14 2119/95 1.76 1.23 0.47 2.49 1.88 2.81 2.24 2120/95 2.18 1.53 0.53 2.47 1.17 0.83 1.99 2121195 2.30 1.78 1.19 2.53 0.83 0.22 1.80 2122/95 2.21 1.79 1.28 2.39 0.66 0.60 1.84 2/22/95 2.18 1.76 1.23 2.38 0.61 0.23 2.06 2/23/95 2.04 1.61 1.00 2.38 0.19 -o.11 1.87 . 2124195 2.14 1.50 0.86 2.30 0.00 -2.82 1.81 2125/95 2.04 1.48 0.83 2.26 0.00 -2.31 1.78 2126/95 1.83 1.40 0.54 2.18 0.00 -o.73 1.79 2/27/95 1.80 1.30 0.33 2.27 0.00 -1.02 1.76 2128/95 1.78 1.30 0.20 2.28 0.00 -o.81 1.63 3/1195 1.69 1.21 0.20 2.25 0.08 -o.23 1.54 3/2195 1.57 1.12 0.20 2.34 0.00 -2.60 1.62 3/3/95 1.45 1.03 0.15 2.34 0.00 -3.53 1.80 3/4/95 1.57 1.10 0.20 2.42 0.00 -1.73 1.70 I 3/5/95 1.65 1.10 0.20 2.43 0.00 -2.03 1.54 ! "3/6/95 1.60 1.03 0.20 2.49 0.00 -1.97 1.53 i 3/7/95 1.60 1.00 0.20 2.46 0.00 -o.so 1.50 : 3/8/95 1.60 0.93 0.20 2.62 0.01 0.87 1.68 3/9/95 1.60 0.90 0.20 2.55 0.53 2.12 1.98 3/10/95 1.47 0.86 0.17 2.60 0.69 0.63 1.78 3/11/95 0.33 0.04 0.10 2.45 1.33 1.73 1.69 3/12/95 1.08 0.28 0.28 2.56 2.41 3.68 1.92 3/13/95 1.39 0.56 0.53 2.53 2.23 2.54 1.90 3/14/95 1.47 0.60 0.88 2.58 1.94 2.60 1.87 3/15/95 1.64 0.69 1.63 i 2.71 2.41 3.17 1.93 3/16/95 1.70 0.70 1.94 2.78 2.45 3.09 2.01 3/17/95 1.71 0.77 1.85 2.73 0.68 -o.26 1.91 3/18/95 1.82 0.90 2.09 2.67 0.39 -o.54 1.77 3/19/95 1.93 1.06 2.24 2.76 0.40 -o.31 1.73 3/20/95 1.87 1.21 1.48 2.63 0.59 0.30 1.70 3/21195 1.93 1.35 0.96 2.54 1.18 0.93 1.65 3122195 2.03 1.53 0.82 2.61 0.51 -0.38 1.62 3/23/95 2.10 1.66 0.95 2.69 0.19 -o.06 1.58 3/24/95 2.10 1.70 0.98 2.76 0.48 0.88 1.62 3/25/95 2.07 1.68 0.74 2.53 1.93 3.08 1.84 3/26/95 2.12 1.60 0.63 2.73 2.72 4.27 2.07 3/27/95 2.29 1.60 1.22 2.76 2.93 4.90 2.36 3/28/95 2.57 1.60 1.97 2.91 2.96 4.88 2.42 3/29/95 2.68 1.70 2.40 3.05 3.16 4.83 2.27 3/30/95 2.70 1.66 2.64 3.16 2.96 4.71 2.28 3/31195 2.72 --__ 1.69 ----·-2.83 3.22 2.68 4.38 2.32 Page6 Probe A ProbeD Tailrace Site Date Lake Water lntragravel Lake Water lntragravel Stream Air Depth 4/1195 2.80 1.75 2.88 3.30 2.52 3.60 2.28 4/2/95 2.80 1.87 2.73 3.17 2.83 5.08 2.65 4/3/95 3.04 2.08 2.57 3.31 2.28 3.49 2.43 4/4/95 3.11 2.28 2.67 3.33 2.40 3.67 2.07 415195 3.04 2.39 2.47 3.18 2.71 4.15 1.88 4/6/95 2.91 2.41 2.41 3.25 3.31 4.78 1.80 417/95 2.83 2.50 2.57 3.23 3.48 5.05 1.89 4/8/95 2.83 2.50 2.88 3.33 2.72 3.95 1.94 4/9/95 2.94 2.53 3.23 3.42 2.11 3.17 1.93 4/10/95 2.98 2.60 3.00 3.43 2.28 3.47 1.95 4/11/95 3.10 2.60 2.58 3.42 2.74 3.78 1.86 4/12/95 3.06 2.60 2.40 3.33 2.93 4.82 1.77 4/13/95 2.99 2.70 2.53 3.35 2.68 3.93 1.72 4/14/95 2.92 2.70 2.73 3.38 2.71 4.04 1.69 4/15/95 2.90 2.70 2.81 3.48 2.47 3.77 1.68 4/16/95 3.00 2.70 2.69 3.77 2.60 3.96 1.72 4/17/95 2.96 2.64 2.71 3.58 2.52 3.36 1.69 4/18/95 2.82 2.60 2.61 3.52 2.70 4.37 1.65 4/19/95 2.88 2.60 2.61 3.58 2.23 2.42 1.62 4/19/95 2.88 2.60 2.61 3.58 2.23 2.42 1.62 4/20/95 2.85 2.60 2.63 3.66 3.24 5.02 1.62 4/21195 2.77 2.60 2.80 3.83 3.91 5.88 1.63 4/22/95 2.64 2.48 3.23 3.98 4.46 7.57 1.67 4/23/95 2.53 2.46 3.80 4.32 3.98 6.30 1.79 4/24/95 2.70 2.66 3.91 4.61 4.13 8.08 1.90 4/25/95 2.90 2.78 3.90 4.68 4.20 8.49 1.96 4/26/95 3.07 2.80 4.01 4.93 4.62 9.20 2.01 4/27/95 3.62 2.95 4.28 5.33 4.20 9.74 2.10 4/28/95 4.22 3.28 4.28 5.14 4.09 10.08 2.12 4/29/95 4.43 3.53 4.14 5.28 4.50 10.15 2.09 4/30/95 4.64 3.70 4.23 5.39 3.96 9.54 2.11 511195 4.77 3.88 4.19 5.32 3.88 8.61 2.07 5/2/95 4.69 3.94 3.98 5.10 4.26 8.55 2.01 5/3/95 4.70 4.00 4.10 5.35 4.28 7.45 2.00 5/4/95 4.70 4.01 4.24 5.37 4.71 8.67 2.05 515195 5.19 4.17 4.42 5.73 4.03 7.08 2.15 516195 5.39 4.31 4.30 5.67 4.37 8.78 2.10 517195 5.32 4.37 4.26 5.54 4.60 9.61 2.07 5/8/95 5.43 4.40 4.42 5.71 4.96 10.86 2.16 5/9/95 5.89 4.50 4.68 6.20 4.61 9.18 2.24 5/10/95 6.20 4.73 4.68 6.08 4.08 6.88 2.32 5/11/95 6.21 4.86 4.44 5.66 3.77 6.18 2.29 5/12/95 5.89 4.83 4.12 5.63 4.77 8.43 2.12 5/13/95 5.85 4.77 4.32 5.51 4.80 8.37 2.22 5/14/95 6.23 4.88 4.61 5.60 4.21 7.03 2.41 5/15/95 6.30 5.00 4.52 5.68 4.13 7.39 2.30 5/16/95 6.22 5.02 4.32 5.65 3.97 7.73 2.23 5/17/95 6.25 5.05 4.23 5.74 3.26 6.27 2.15 5/18/95 5.98 4.94 3.79 5.72 3.54 6.39 1.99 Page7 Probe A ProbeD Tailrace Site Date Lake Water In~ vel Lake Water Intrauavel Stream Air Depth 5/19/95 5.61 4.77 3.68 5.48 3.92 6.10 1.93 5/20/95 5.28 4.58 3.81 5.51 4.62 8.67 1.96 5/21195 5.25 4.48 4.14 5.60 4.88 10.09 2.00 5/22/95 5.49 4.50 4.53 6.02 4.94 10.34 2.03 5/23/95 6.07 4.60 4.72 6.86 5.27 11.03 2.11 5/24/95 6.46 4.81 4.94 6.53 5.39 12.04 2.19 5125/95 6.58 4.90 5.13 6.52 5.39 11.89 2.21 5/26/95 6.76 4.96 5.28 7.32 5.22 11.12 2.26 5/27/95 7.47 5.22 5.25 7.98 4.63 7.85 2.39 5/28/95 7.72 5.78 4.98 6.92 4.25 6.86 2.56 5/29/95 7.43 5.90 4.68 6.42 3.96 6.43 2.37 5/30/95 7.39 5.83 4.35 6.48 3.88 5.98 2.50 5/31195 7.27 6.00 4.17 6.02 3.83 5.83 2.77 6/1195 6.98 5.93 4.00 5.67 4.08 6.33 2.55 6/2/95 6.78 5.81 4.07 5.61 3.76 6.34 2.43 6/3/95 6.68 5.65 4.01 5.76 4.63 8.18 2.23 6/4/95 7.04 5.69 4.25 6.03 4.04 7.39 2.60 6/5/95 6.75 5.64 4.30 5.93 4.10 7.48 2.25 6/6/95 6.54 5.43 4.14 5.88 4.75 7.97 2.13 6/7/95 6.36 5.25 4.41 5.83 5.53 10.90 2.11 6/8/95 6.22 5.08 4.88 5.95 6.27 12.13 2.15 6/9/95 6.39 5.00 5.56 6.62 6.48 12.13 2.29 6/10/95 6.79 5.16 6.03 7.24 5.62 9.88 2.36 6/11195 7.02 5.37 5.85 7.18 4.84 7.63 2.33 6/12/95 6.94 5.40 5.35 6.88 5.45 10.05 2.17 6/13/95 6.86 5.40 5.27 6.95 5.33 9.18 2.09 6/14/95 6.81 5.49 5.38 6.94 5.70 9.69 2.08 6/15/95 6.83 5.60 5.49 6.93 5.17 8.46 2.04 6/16/95 6.70 5.60 5.41 7.03 5.48 8.36 2.01 6/17/95 6.82 5.61 5.39 6.86 5.22 7.64 2.11 6/18/95 7.08 5.71 5.38 6.78 5.74 9.63 2.14 6/19/95 7.05 5.72 5.45 6.70 6.83 12.08 2.11 6/20/95 7.11 5.70 6.07 7.29 5.68 9.26 2.13 6/21195 7.13 5.78 6.01 7.67 6.12 10.13 2.07 6/22/95 7.74 6.00 5.95 7.88 5.22 8.04 2.58 6/23/95 7.88 6.30 5.69 7.56 4.73 6.97 2.53 6/24/95 7.69 6.40 5.20 6.92 4.66 6.83 2.42 6/25/95 7.43 6.35 4.98 6.73 4.93 7.47 2.20 6/26/95 7.20 6.16 4.95 6.80 6.33 10.98 2.05 6/27/95 7.22 6.13 5.52 6.88 7.17 12.88 2.06 6/28/95 7.30 6.21 6.29 7.35 7.99 14.18 2.11 6/29/95 7.60 6.31 7.00 7.88 7.99 14.83 2.20 6/30/95 7.83 6.38 7.47 8.47 8.15 15.12 2.23 7/1195 8.05 6.49 7.68 8.73 7.09 10.77 2.16 7/2/95 8.03 6.65 7.47 8.31 7.39 10.90 2.04 7/3/95 8.03 6.78 7.26 8.52 7.52 10.35 2.03 7/4/95 8.13 6.88 7.38 8.29 7.39 10.96 2.03 7/5/95 8.01 6.90 7.36 8.54 7.97 11.98 1.97 7/6/95 7.85 6.83 7.54 8.70 8.71 13.39 1.95 Page 8 Probe A ProbeD Tailrace Site Date Lake Water lntragravel Lake Water lntragravel Stream Air Depth 717/95 7.81 6.80 7.99 8.96 9.36 14.33 1.98 7/8/95 7.91 6.83 8.58 9.36 8.76 12.58 2.00 7/9/95 8.30 7.13 8.68 9.53 8.73 12.64 1.99 7/10/95 8.53 7.44 8.56 10.33 9.88 14.03 2.00 7/11195 9.02 7.81 9.13 10.43 8.61 11.49 2.03 7/12/95 9.37 8.20 8.94 10.95 8.82 11.08 2.00 I 7/13/95 9.78 8.49 8.78 10.31 8.93 10.90 2.28 7/14/95 9.95 8.76 8.80 9.88 9.08 11.43 2.12 I 7/15/95 9.78 8.78 8.84 9.88 9.61 12.03 1.94 7/16/95 9.15 8.78 9.11 10.37 10.00 11.63 2.03 7/17/95 10.05 8.92 9.53 10.38 10.92 12.99 2.11 7118/95 10.03 8.97 9.99 10.63 12.17 16.20 2.03 7/19/95 10.06 8.93 10.81 11.37 12.63 17.85 2.07 1/20195 10.43 9.13 11.64 12.05 12.54 18.78 2.12 1121195 10.74 9.42 11.92 12.48 13.52 18.08 2.04 7/22/95 10.95 9.74 12.41 12.77 12.69 15.33 1.98 7/23/95 11.01 9.98 12.62 13.04 11.29 13.25 1.89 1124195 11.50 10.16 11.92 13.12 11.00 11.88 2.21 7/25/95 11.78 10.50 11.34 12.14 10.94 12.08 2.43 1/26/95 11.51 10.60 11.10 11.74 10.43 11.25 2.05 7/27/95 11.28 10.60 10.83 11.63 10.23 11.08 1.92 1128195 11.36 10.63 10.54 11.41 10.22 11.39 2.12 1129195 11.41 10.79 10.39 11.61 10.85 13.09 1.93 7/30/95 11.58 10.82 10.52 11.77 11.03 12.05 2.25 7/31/95 11.68 10.90 10.83 11.46 10.55 11.61 2.08 8/1/95 11.52 10.90 10.72 11.53 10.77 12.33 1.86 8/2/95 11.60 10.95 10.68 12.14 10.68 11.49 2.04 8/3/95 11.94 11.05 10.68 11.89 10.92 11.85 2.47 8/4/95 11.82 11.11 10.82 11.54 10.21 11.24 2.33 8/5195 11.47 10.88 10.53 10.96 10.38 11.38 1.96 816/95 11.23 10.80 10.38 7.78 10.88 12.23 1.81 817/95 11.08 10.80 10.47 7.24 11.64 13.68 1.74 818195 10.92 10.64 10.44 6.08 11.30 12.40 1.70 819195 10.74 10.53 10.65 6.58 12.14 13.88 1.66 8/10/95 10.65 10.52 10.81 6.10 12.83 14.53 1.64 8/11195 10.83 10.78 11.53 17.24 11.90 12.35 1.66 8/12/95 11.22 11.20 11.63 11.31 10.65 11.38 1.65 8/13/95 11.88 11.70 10.97 20.42 11.26 11.83 2.24 8114195 12.25 11.73 10.83 39.95 10.54 10.72 2.27 8115195 11.99 11.48 10.43 12.66 10.28 10.60 2.02 8/16/95 11.78 11.31 10.03 6.01 10.41 11.13 1.86 8117/95 11.64 11.30 9.93 5.38 10.93 11.91 1.74 8/18/95 11.60 11.43 10.12 5.83 10.87 11.97 1.68 8/19/95 11.55 11.44 10.21 11.34 11.47 12.64 1.64 8/20195 11.28 11.16 10.35 8.66 12.05 13.19 1.64 8121195 10.96 10.86 10.78 20.93 12.13 13.09 1.63 8/22/95 10.97 10.95 11.13 40.03 12.01 13.06 1.63 8123195 11.36 11.36 11.19 41.08 11.73 12.41 2.00 8/24/95 11.58 11.50 10.92 35.87 11.84 12.31 1.90 Page9 Probe A ProbeB Tailrace Site Date Lake Water lntragravel Lake Water Intragravel Stream Air Depth 8/25/95 11.66 11.50 10.73 6.03 11.43 11.59 1.84 8/26/95 11.70 11.50 10.73 6.81 11.05 11.51 1.72 8/27/95 11.70 11.50 10.23 5.16 11.06 11.58 1.65 8/28/95 11.63 11.50 10.30 5.68 11.03 11.68 1.60 8/29/95 11.53 11.45 10.42 5.51 11.23 11.97 1.55 8/30/95 11.45 11.33 10.46 6.61 11.20 12.13 1.52 8/31195 11.38 11.23 10.54 4.91 11.22 11.57 1.53 9/1195 11.26 11.18 10.76 18.76 11.13 11.73 1.62 . 9/2/95 11.13 11.10 10.68 26.48 11.71 12.08 1.69 9/3/95 11.23 11.23 10.76 15.43 11.32 11.51 1.66 9/4/95 11.31 11.30 10.55 6.14 11.82 12.29 1.60 9/5195 11.40 11.30 10.75 5.51 11.94 13.23 1.55 9/6/95 11.40 11.30 10.83 5.28 13.06 14.10 1.53 917/95 11.43 11.30 10.90 5.76 13.26 13.58 1.52 9/8/95 11.53 11.31 10.81 4.04 12.66 13.27 1.53 9/9/95 12.14 11.82 10.82 0.95 13.12 13.81 2.42 9/10/95 12.83 12.15 10.13 -3.19 12.44 13.20 3.01 9/11195 12.44 11.93 11.42 10.13 11.90 12.53 2.11 9/12/95 12.14 11.73 11.63 7.28 11.65 11.83 1.81 9/13/95 11.94 11.70 11.35 6.95 12.03 12.92 1.69 9/14/95 11.92 11.78 11.40 6.41 11.68 12.53 1.63 9/15/95 11.95 11.80 11.31 6.32 11.98 12.37 1.57 9/16/95 11.90 11.80 11.18 5.15 12.48 12.85 1.53 9/17/95 11.90 11.88 11.33 10.04 12.66 13.08 1.51 9/18/95 11.90 11.90 11.42 19.91 12.04 12.36 1.53 9/19/95 11.90 11.90 11.50 6.80 11.69 12.27 1.51 _'1/_20/95 11.90 -11.90 _ __1!.55 --6.46 11.53 11.59 1.49 ------------ Page 10 AppendixD ~ ~ rl.l ~ u ~ ~ rl.l ~ ra u 1-4 8: ~ ~ ~ ~ rl.l I rl.l s FINAL REPORT MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FISHERIES AliD AQUATIC RESOURCES STUDIES By John W. Morsel! Northern Ecological Services Anchorage, Alaska Prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc. Bellevue, Washington November 1995 TABLE OF COHTEN'l'S INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND :INFORMATION METHODS STUDY AREA FISH POPULATION AND HABITAT UTILIZATION SURVEYS SALMON SPAWNING SURVEYS 1995 SALMON MOVEMENT STUDIES RESULTS UPPER MAHONEY CREEK Physical conditions Resident Fish Adult Salmon LOWER MAHONEY LAKE Physical Conditions Resident Fish Adult Salmon LOWER MAHONEY CREEK Physical Conditions Resident Fish Adult Salmon SOUTH CREEK Physical Description Resident Fish Adult Salmon SALMON MOVEMENTS VS. LOWER CONDITIONS DISCUSSION HABITAT VALUE SUMMARIES Upper Mahoney Creek Lower Mahoney Lake Lower Mahoney creek South Creek • . . . MAHONEY CREEK • FLOW ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE MAHONEY LAKE PROJECT HYDROELECTRIC REFERENCES Sockeye Salmon Egg Incubation Lower Mahoney Creek Fish Passage 1 • 1 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 12 12 13 15 18 18 20 20 22 22 22 22 23 25 25 25 26 28 29 29 29 30 33 Drl'RODUCT:IOH The City of Saxman, Alaska is investigating the development of a 9.6 megawatt hydroelectric generating plant at Mahoney Lake.near Ketchikan, Alaska (Figure 1). Cape Fox Corporation, established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as the village corporation for the native village of Saxman, has been retained by the City of Saxman as the development agent for the project. Application procedures for a project license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have been initiated (FERC Project No. 11393-000). Initial review of potential project impacts and comment received during the FERC Initial Consultation phase indicated that additional information regarding fish use and aquatic resource potential of the Mahoney Lake drainage would be desirable. Consequently, a study progralll was designed to provide the kinds of information necessary for full assessment of potential project effects and to provide a basis for mitigation planning. This report provides the results of aquatic habitat studies that were conducted in 1994 per the study plan presented in the Final Consultation Document as required by Stage I of the FERC consultation process. This report also provides the results of supplemental studies that were conducted in 1995 to address specific issues identified during the 1994 study program. BACKGROUND :IHFORIIATIOH Hydroelectric development in the Mahoney Lakes drainage was initially considered in the late 1970's. Environmental impact statements associated with these proposals (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978 and 1983) indicated that a variety of fish species were present in Lower Mahoney Lake (Figure 2) as well as its tributaries and outlet stream (Lower Mahoney creek). Pink, chum and sockeye salmon were known to be present as well as resident Dolly Varden and kokanee. It was also speculated that coho salmon, cutthroat trout, rainbow troutjsteelhead, sculpins and sticklebacks 1 GRAV'INA ISLAND REVILLAGIGEOO ISLAND ;·~ ~ REVILLACICEOO CHANNEL VICINITY MAP· 1..-Y J-' ~ CIW'H I I SCM.£ • MUS PJ:GDRB 1. Project location up. 2 • va.zy A:pn~s • ~ miClf>Id J.a'INI could be present. Actual field study of the fish of Lower Mahoney Lake and its tributaries has been limited. Osborn (1982) documented that 200-300 sockeye salmon spawned on the western shore of Lower Mahoney Lake near the mouth of Upper Mahoney Creek and suggested that upwelling ground water originating from the creek was the primary attraction for the salmon. He indicated that Upper Mahoney Creek itself was not valuable habitat because of unstable flow. Intermittent surveys of Lower Mahoney creek by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and others from 1943 to 1991 have indicated the presence of up to 6000 pink salmon, 1000 sockeye salmon (except 1953 when 10,000-15,000 were reported), 1000 chum salmon, and very small numbers of coho salmon (ADF&G, File Data). The areas covered and the methods used during these surveys were extremely varied. IIE'l'BODS STUDY AREA The study area included Upper Mahoney Creek between Lower Mahoney Lake and the first major waterfall, Lower Mahoney Lake, South creek, unnamed tributaries to Lower Mahoney Lake, and Lower Mahoney creek between the lake and tidewater (Figure 2). FISH POPULATION AND HABITAT UTILIZATION SURVEYS Two field investigations were conducted in 1994, June 14-17 and August 29 -September 1. Because of the varying physical characteristics within the drainage and the variety of fish species using the area, several different techniques were used to sample andjor observe fish. Sampling techniques included backpack electroshocker, minnow traps baited with preserved salmon eggs, beach seine, and angling. Ground and boat-based visual observations supplemented the active sampling techniques. The shocker that was employed was a Smith-Root Model 12 with programmable wave form. The beach seine was 18.3 m long and 1.8 4 m deep with 1/4 inch mesh wings and 1/8 inch mesh bag. The seine was deployed from shore either by wading or by boat. Fish captured during the study were identified to species and returned alive to the place of capture. Most fish were measured; however, because of the abundance of Dolly Varden and time constraints I only a subsample of these fish was measured. SAIJIOH SPAWNING SURVEYS Visual surveys of spawning salmon were conducted on August 29 - September 1 and September 22-24. Upper and Lower Mahoney creeks were surveyed on foot. Beach spawning within Lower Mahoney Lake was surveyed by boat. Good results were obtained in observing lake spawners during calm sunny periods by standing on the bow of the boat and slowly paddling along the lake shore. Polarized sunglasses were used during all observations. 1995 SADlON KOVEIIEHT STUDIES Supplemental observations of salmon movements and numbers within Lower Mahoney Creek and Lower Mahoney Lake were conducted in 1995 to specifically address the issue of potential fish blockage during some flow conditions in Lower Mahoney Creek. A stream discharge gaging station was established on Lower Mahoney Creek by HDR Engineering in July, 1995 and an observer from the Cape Fox Corporation monitored the presence of salmon in the creek by surveying the creek aproximately twice per week beginning in early August and continuing until late September. Detailed observations by a biologist were conducted during the periods 1 August 29- September 1 and September 25-27. Tasks accomplished during the above periods included fish counts on Lower Mahoney Creek, surveys of sockeye salmon spawning areas in Lower Mahoney Lake 1 observations of salmon movement behavior in relation to stream barriers, surveys of lower South Creek, and other incidental observations. 5 RESULTS OPPER MAHONEY CREEK Physical condirions Upper Mahoney Creek between the falls and the lake is characterized by a relatively high gradient and unstable bed. Flow is turbulent in most areas and substrate consists of various combinations of gravel, cobble, and boulders. At the time of observation there were three major log jams within this short segment of creek causing the creek to have three falls of 1-2 m in height. Logs and woody debris were common and caused substantial variation in depth with scour pools to 2 m. At the lower end the stream splits into two distributaries, each about 100 m long. These distributaries have a lower gradient and gravel is the dominant substrate. A gravel delta is present at the mouths of the distributaries. The south distributary also receives some flow from a minor drainage to the south of Upper Mahoney creek. During the June observations, flow in Upper Mahoney Creek was continuous between the falls and the lake with substantial turbulence. During the August observations in both 1994 and 1995, Upper Mahoney Creek within the study area had no surface flow through most of its length. It was dry from the lake to the middle log jam. Water coming over the falls disappeared into the substrate within about 150 m of the falls between the first and second log jams. Several isolated pools were present in low spots within the river bed near the lake. In late September, 1994, following a period of heavy rain, flow was again continuous and turbulent. However, in late september, 1995 the creek was predominately dry. Residenr Fish . During the June survey, 14 minnow traps were set within Upper 6 l f Mahoney Creek (Fiqure 3) and allowed to fish overnight. Trap results along with a description of the trap station are presented in Table 1 (Traps 19-32). A few Dolly Varden were captured at the upstream end of the study area just downstream from the falls. No fish were captured in the unstable log jam area. Larger numbers of Dolly Varden were caught in the two distributaries at the downstream end of the stream in areas where direct lake access was possible. In addition to the trap survey, both branches of the lower stream were sampled using the backpack shocker up to the downstream log jam; one Dolly Varden was caught in the south branch. Shocking was not practical upstream from the log jam because of stream depth and turbulence. No other fish were caught or observed in Upper Mahoney Creek in June. A discussion of Dolly Varden length and age composition is presented below in the Lower Mahoney Lake section. During the late August-early September survey most of the stream was dry. Two minnow traps were set downstream from the falls near the proposed powerhouse site and one was set downstream from the first log jam. Traps were also set in each of two isolated downstream pools within the dry riverbed (Figure 4). The traps were allowed to fish overnight. Only one Dolly Varden (100 mm) was caught in the three traps within the isolated flowing water section below the falls (Table 2) • Within the two isolated downstream pools Traps 4 and 5 caught 22 and 11 Dolly Varden, respectively. Most of these fish were a small cohort, probably young-of-the- year. Adult Salmon No adult salmon were observed within Upper Mahoney Creek during either the August or late September study periods in either 1994 or 1995. On September 23, 1994 a school of 7 sockeye salmon were observed at the mouth of the creek on the lake delta. It is likely that these fish were holding prior to spawning at nearby sites in the lake. 7 TABLE 2. AESULT8 OF A MINNOWlw.P 8URVEY OF THE LOWER MAHONEY LAKE DRAINAGE. AIJGUS1'29·8EPT. 1, 1184. TRAP DEPTH GENERAL TOTAL DOLLY VARDEN RAINBOW TROUT NO. DATE (FT.) SUBSTRATE DESCRIPTION TRAPHRS. NUMBER I NOJHR. NUMBER I NOJHR. UPPER MAHONEY CREEK 1 08/30 2.5 bouldera llbove ,_mcx-17 1 0.06 0 2 08/30 8 boulder8 below poweltloiM 17 0 0 a 08/30 2.5 oobble below log lam 17 0 0 4 06130 2.1 tnMII leolaled pool 18 22 1.37 0 & 08130 1.8 tnMII leolaled pool 18.1 11 0.08 0 LOWER MAHONEY LAKE e 06/31 1.5 tnMII lakelhore 1l7 14 0.8lil 0 7 06/31 0.& woody debris lakelhore IS.t 0 0 8 06/31 2.5 • biMMirpond 24.3 7 G.29 0 I 06/31 2 .. It biMMirpond 14.3 a 0.12 0 80UTHCREEK 10 06/31 1.2 gravel 14.5 5 0,2 0 11 06/31 1.5 tnMII 24.& 23 OJM 0 12 06/31 1.7 gravel 14.4 22 G.9 0 13 06/31 2.2 tnMII 14.3 8 0,25 0 LOWER MAHONEY CREEK 14 08/01 2 oobble pool 17.1 0 0 115 08/01 1.2 GObble llreamedge 18 0 , 0.05 18 08/01 1.4 bouldera llreamedge 18 0 1 0.05 17 08/01 1.8 cobble llreamedge 18 0 1 0.05 18 08/01 1.5 oobble lllnlam edge 18.1 0 1 0.05 11 08/01 1.5 boulclenl lllnlam edge 18.1 0 0 TOTAL 124 4 LOWER MAHONEY LAKE \0 GEORGE INLET FIGURE 4. Minnow trap and seine stations- Auq. 29 -Sept. 1 study period. • • 0 • • • • 0 • 0 • • 0 • • • • • • • 0 • • 0 0 • • • ' • • 0 • • • • • • 0 • 0 0 • 0 • 0 • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • 0 • 0 • • • 0 • 0 0 • • 0 • • • • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • • • 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 • n -... - .... .... .. , Ill • • 0 0 • • • 0 0 I • '' • .. • .. .. .. • • • I • II. • 0 0 • lSIIIIIII I \llltQt I_ ISIMH I 1IWOM I ll3lftM I 11111 <Mil. IAIMOOI( NCirMt OHOOI ~ J.l10a( W.LO.L ..,.._ ..,.._ ...,.. ... _ ......... .,....._ .... .,....._ ...--...--.,....._,.. ...---......... ... _ --- ....... ... 1YJ.OJ. ..... ..... ..... ~ ~ ~ .., ....... ~ .., ....... ~ ~ .......... -.......... • • • • • • • I • I ... .., ' ... . ... .... .... .... .... .... . ... .... . ... .... . ... . ... . ... . ... • II • • • ll • • .. • • II • • • ,... " n ,.._ " ' ,... " :!IDIO AIIIOIMIISNIQt • I I n .., ' • I ... • • • n , ... , ... . ... . ... .... .... , ... .... .... . ... .... .... .... .... " .. " u Ol • • ' • • • • • 0 ..... ~ ~ LOWER MAHONEY LAKE GEORGE INLET FIGURE 3. Minnow trap and seine statiops- June 12-17 study period. IDWER DBOHEY LAKB Physical Conditions Lower Mahoney Lake has a surface area of 64.8 ha ( 160 acres) • Bathymetric studies have not been conducted but maximum depth is at least 67 m (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978). The water is very clear with visibility under calm conditions to at least 6 m. Two major tributaries enter the lake, Upper Mahoney Creek and South Creek, as well as several minor streams (Fiqure 2). The single outlet stream, Lower Mahoney Creek, flows into George Inlet. The north and east shores of the lake are steep with little littoral zone, whereas the south shore drops off more gradually and contains extensive littoral area. Dense aquatic vegetation covers portions of the lake bottom in the southwest corner of the lake at depths of 1-4 m. The bay at the southeast corner of the lake protected by the single island is very shallow with silty bottom and woody debris. The deltaic deposits of Upper Mahoney and South Creeks are prominent features on the lake shore. Large boulders and sunken logs are conspicuously present at some locations especially at the northeast corner near the outlet. Lake water level varied substantially over the three 1994 survey periods. During the June 13-17 period water level appeared to be moderate or near average based on various indicators such as elevation of bank vegetation vs. elevation of lake water. During the August 30-September 1 period, lake level was substantially lower with Upper Mahoney Creek delta gravel deposits totally exposed and substantial lake shore margin dewatered. In contrast, during the September 22-24 field trip water level was about 1 m higher than the previous visit. The Upper Mahoney Creek delta was completely flooded and lake level extended above normal bank vegetation height by about 0.3 m. Water clarity was reduced somewhat during late September. Water level dropped noticeably between September 22 and September 24 with decreasing rainfall. 12 Resident Fish During the June survey 14 minnow traps were set within a variety of habitat types in or immediately adjacent to the lake (Figure 3). Most traps were allowed to fish overnight for 18-20 hours. Descriptions of the trap sites and catch results are presented in Table 1. A total of 477 Dolly Varden were caught in Traps 1-14 in June with as many as 91 fish in a single trap. The length- frequency distribution for all Dolly Varden caught in June (including fish from Upper Mahoney Creek) is presented in Figure 5. Because of the close clustering, the age distribution of these fish is hard to determine. Several age groups were probably represented; young-of-the-year were conspicuously absent. The maximum size fish that can be caught in a minnow trap is determined by the diameter of the trap funnel opening; Dolly Varden larger than about 160 mm were excluded from the catch by the trap design. The density of small Dolly Varden was obviously high in IDwer Mahoney Lake; the average catch-per-hour was 1.8. Only 3 fish of other species were caught in the traps in June: a juvenile coho salmon in the beaver pond at Trap 7, a juvenile rainbow trout at Trap 3, and a sockeye salmon fry gilled in the mesh of Trap 5. Juvenile sockeye salmon are not normally attracted to baited traps because of their site-oriented planktonic feeding habits, while coho salmon, rainbow trout, and Dolly Varden are strongly attracted to the scent of salmon egg bait. Three rough- skinned newts, Alaska's only common salamander, were caught in Traps 6 and 7. Four hauls with the fine mesh seine were completed in June at the west end of the lake (Figure 3). These hauls resulted in the capture of 24 sockeye salmon fry ranging in length from 36 to 47 mm (mean length=41.6 mm). The haul at seine site Sl caught 13 fry. Four Dolly Varden were also caught at site 83. 13 * - .... - X , u: ,- LL .... 0 ~ a: w m :E 1.- :l z -... ""' I FIGURE 5. LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION DOLLY VARDEN-LOWER MAHONEY L DRAINAGE .J ~-~~ I ~'lk-1!.8 1~111-'lkl-1b 1~.1~ 40-44 10-14 eo-e4 70-74 80-84 80-84 1 OC>-1 04 11 G-114 120-1 M 130-1 M 1-.144 110-114 1 to-184 170-17-4 LENGTH INTERVAL (MM) I• JUNE 13-17-AUG. 29-3~ Four minnow traps were set in Lower Mahoney Lake during the August survey period (Figure 4 and Table 2). These traps (Traps 6-9) caught a total of 34 Dolly Varden and no other species. Some of the larger Dolly Varden (greater than 150 mm) showed sigris of spawning coloration, e.g. bright orange spots on a darker background. Seine hauls were made at 7 locations around the lake (Figure 4) on August 30 and September 1. Eleven Dolly Varden were caught in the 4 hauls with most caught at the west end of the lake. Most of the Dolly Varden were small, probably young-of-the-year. This small cohort was not observed in June and, as shown on Figure 5 represents a separate age group. In addition to Dolly Varden, two juvenile coho salmon (103 and 100 mm) were caught at site 53. Angling was not successful at catching fish in either June or August. A total of 4 hours using a variety of small spinners resulted only in two follow-ups by Dolly Varden in the 150-170 mm size range. Electroshocking was also attempted along the lakeshore with little success due to the low conductivity of the water and limited area suitable for wading. Adult Salmon Boat-based visual observations of the lake shoreline were conducted during the August and late September surveys in both 1994 and 1995. Emphasis was on those areas where beach spawning sockeye salmon were expected to occur based on past reports. Rainy and windy weather conditions during the survey periods tended to reduce visibility into the water. However, brief periods of sun and calm conditions allowed reasonably complete surveys during both study periods in 1994; conditions during the 1995 observations were generally poor. On August 31, 1994, 35 sockeye salmon were observed in the process of spawning on the slope of the Upper Mahoney Creek alluvial fan at depths ranging from 2-6 m with most spawning occurring at 3.5- 15 4.5 m depths. No spawners were observed at other lake locations. During the September 22-24, 1994 period several visual lake shore surveys were conducted as conditions permitted. The best conditions for observation occurred at mid-day on September 23. During that time, 159 sockeye salmon were observed at the west end of the lake on the Upper Mahoney Creek alluvial fan area and 42 sockeyes were observed on the slope and shoulders of the South creek delta. All of these salmon were associated with conspicuous redds and appeared to be actively spawning except for a school of 7 sockeyes that were holding at the mouth of Upper Mahoney creek. Spawning areas were very conspicuous because of the contrast between the cleaned gravels in the redd areas and the dark, silt covered bottom elsewhere. Some unoccupied redds were present suggesting that fish had completed spawning prior to the survey. The depth of spawning ranged from 0. 5 m to about 7 m with most redds occurring at depths between 2 and 5 m. Water clarity during the late September survey was somewhat less than in August limiting clear visibility to depths of 5-6 m. It is likely that additional fish were present at greater depths but unseen. On August 29, 1995, 58 sockeye salmon were observed in the Upper Mahoney creek delta area. Most of these fish were contained in two schools of 28 and 12 fish respectively and were evidently not yet associated with specific redds. No fish were observed elsewhere in the lake. During several surveys on September 25-26, 7 live and 5 dead sockeye salmon were observed in the Upper Mahoney Creek alluvial fan area and 4 sockeyes were observed associated with a single redd on the South Creek delta. All the fish observed were in various stages of decomposition. Schools of up to 10 Dolly Varden ranging in size from 120-170 mm were observed intermingled with the spawning sockeye salmon and were presumably attracted by the availability of salmon eggs. The distribution of spawning areas is illustrated in Figure 6. It is evident from the elevation contours on Figure 6 that the 16 .... ...J High Density ~~~ Low Density ::::;:;:::~ :;:=:=::::: GEORGE INLET LOWER MAHONEY UKE FIGURE 6. Sockeye salmon spawning areas in lower Mahoney Lake. spawning areas correspond very closely with the zone of alluvial deposits from Upper Mahoney and South Creeks. Selected spawning areas almost certainly correspond with areas of upwelling water caused by subsurface flow from the respective creeks "daylighting" on the slope of the lakeshore alluvial deposits. LOWER IIABOHEY CREEK Pbysical Conditions Lower Mahoney Creek is a short, high gradient stream that connects Lower Mahoney Lake to tidewater in George Inlet. Bedrock walls 3- 10 m high adjoin the stream on one or both sides along much of its length. Very large instream boulders or outcroppings create intermittent cascades and turbulent flow. A few shallow plunge pools are present below cascade areas. The banks are heavily wooded with large spruce and cedar. Substrate is primarily boulders and large cobbles. The lowermost end of the stream within or just above the intertidal zone has a lower gradient and substrate primarily consists of flat cobbles (shingles) with interspersed boulders. At least four major cascades create fast, turbulent flow and may be blocks to fish passage for some species and under some flow conditions. The steepest cascade is at the upper end of the stream about 50 m downstream from the lake. The water falls about 3 m through a 45 degree chute between boulders. A diagrammatic representation of the stream is presented in Figure 7. During the August survey periods in 1994 and 1995, flow was relatively low and the stream consisted of a series of alternating rapids and runs with turbulent flow occurring in the rapids and smooth flow in the runs between rapids. The downstream end of the stream consisted of a shallow riffle about 200 m long. During the late September survey in 1994, flow was much higher and most of the stream length was characterized by uniformly turbulent whitewater. 18 Di&gr&ID Bourcea [ADI'r.G I' ilea I ICe'tclat Jc•ra, u. ..... • • •• • • • • • ~· tiiiiWNaY LMB ........ 384 sa •k 86 JS c • GaaU&,· •ce_\iM , , .. • , ; ·,:ao.. .... lap tAN ""- .. """* .. 7 (:n.lr, ,... -te.l-:4.,...16 t-18-75 ...... SPltUCI CIII'P. , • .. • I'OCk alaaa' ,. ..... &mris-" ....... !" 1 C8 c.rd~ • .,.._r 1/2 of •'"-· Harrowe roruc a.ntc. Rapid• . .. "' Sceep ballkll • llorb 11~ crdl co lau Oft left bat. 6 ss_. ., .. 3 ss t ... ci----:2, ,s 80 ••. 258 JS -~:J 2~g : /. I I I ~ A!aMcioaN t~,-:ttrse · 80t DRA!IJ TO SCAI.I FIGURE 7. Distribution of adult salmon in Lower Mahoney Creek, August 31, 1994. 19 Resident Fish The physical characteristics of Lower Mahoney Creek limited the kinds of fish sampling techniques that could be used. Seining and backpack shocking were not feasible because of the rapid current and turbulence, and visibility was generally poor. During the June survey period 4 minnow traps were set in the creek - 2 near its lake outlet origin and 2 downstream from the first major cascade (Figure 3). The results are presented in Table 1 (Traps 15-18). The traps near the lake caught 22 and 17 Dolly Varden respectively, whereas the traps downstream from the cascade caught one Dolly Varden and one juvenile rainbow trout (91 mm). Six minnow traps were set in the middle reaches of the stream during the August survey period (Table 2; Traps 14-19) • Four of the traps each caught one rainbow trout juvenile varying in length from 42 to 110 mm. On August 31 a dead subadult rainbow trout ( 200 mm) was observed in the middle reaches of the creek. Adult Salmon A careful foot survey of Lower Mahoney Creek was conducted on August 31, 1994 with additional observations of selected portions on September 1. An estimated 470 sockeye salmon and 1215 pink salmon were present in the stream. Light conditions were generally good and water level was low, minimizing turbulence and allowing access along the stream. Nevertheless, shading caused by large trees, intermittent glare, and stream turbulence limited the effectiveness of visual surveys along portions of the stream. The above estimates probably represent minimum numbers. The locations of these fish within the stream are indicated on Figure 7. Most of the sockeye salmon were observed in three pool areas downstream from the last and most formidable cascade before entering the lake. These fish appeared fully mature and many had abrasions due to the difficult passage conditions. It is likely that these fish were unable to proceed farther upstream because of the low water 20 conditions and very steep terrain. Substantial numbers of pink salmon were also observed in these upstream pools. The largest number of pink salmon was observed within the riffle at the downstream end of the stream in or near the intertidal zone. some pinks were actively spawning in this reach at the time of survey. Lower Mahoney Creek was surveyed again on September 23, 1994. Light conditions were good, however turbulence and poor streamside access due to high water limited visibility of fish within the stream. No fish were observed in the upper portion of the creek. About 300 pink salmon were observed in the latter stages of spawning in the lower riffle area and an addi tiona! 200 pink salmon carcasses were observed on the bank and adjoining intertidal wetlands, evidently scattered by tides and black bear activity. Three chum salmon were also seen in the intertidal portion of the creek. sockeye salmon that had been present in late August had either moved upstream into Lower Mahoney Lake or had been washed downstream to tidewater. In 1995 Lower Mahoney Creek was surveyed in detail by two biologists on August 30 and september 26. During the earlier survey 1 approximately 1040 sockeye salmon and 3600 pink salmon were present in the stream. Water was low and visibility was good; however 1 the density of salmon in some areas made counting difficult. Sockeye and pink salmon were often mixed necessitating that the species be counted together. Numbers of each species were estimated in mixed schools by using an estimate of the species ratio. Independent counts by the two observers were averaged. The distribution of salmon in the stream in 1995 was similar to that observed in 1994 (Figure 7). Two coho salmon were also observed on August 30 attempting to jump the falls. below Lower Mahoney Lake. During the September 26 survey, 3055 pink salmon and 6 chum salmon were observed. No sockeyes were present. Stream flow was again low and visibility was good. 21 SOUTH CREEK Physical Description south Creek is a major tributary to Lower Mahoney Lake entering the lake on its south side (Figure 2) . Only the lower portion of the creek extending from the lake upstream for about 2000 m was observed. The surveyed portion of the creek is characterized by very clear water 1 predominantly fine gravel substrate 1 and moderate gradient. Two distributaries currently enter the lake with the western channel carrying most of the water. The distributaries join about 100 m upstream from the lake. Proceeding upstream the creek consists of runs and pools with logs and woody debris affecting channel configuration. About 2000 m upstream from the lake is a steep cascade where the stream drops about 10 m over a series of steps punctuated by very large boulders into a gravel bottom pool. It is likely that this cascade limits passage of most fish to upstream areas. Much of the surveyed portion of the stream appeared to be excellent salmonid spawning habitat provided that water level is maintained through the winter. Resident Fish Four minnow traps were set in South creek on August 30 and allowed to fish overnight (Figure 4 and Table 2). These traps caught 56 Dolly Varden; no other species were caught or observed in spite of excellent water clarity. Adult Salmon Foot surveys were conducted up to the steep cascade area on August 30 and September 23 1 1994 and again in 1995 on August 31 and September 26. No salmon or other adult fish were observed in spite of favorable spawning conditions. 22 SAUION MOVEMENTS VS.. IDWER lfABOHEY CJ.UmK FIDW COHDri'IONS The 1995 salmon and stream discharge observations in Lower Mahoney creek were intended to provide insight into the threshhold flow conditions that allow sockeye salmon to move into Lower Mahoney Lake. A hydrograph for the period July 13 to october 1 is presented in Fiqure 8. It can be seen that during the August and September period, flow was generally low except for a couple of brief periods of higher flow that occurred in mid-August and mid- September. Sockeye salmon were first observed in Lower Mahoney Creek on August 1 when several hundred sockeyes were seen in the middle reaches of the creek. The numbers increased gradually until late August and were probably at a maximum at the time of the detailed surveys on August 30-31 when more than 1000 sockeyes were present in the stream. During the late August study period, about 8 hours were spent observing movements of sockeye and other salmon species within Lower Mahoney Creek with the emphasis on observing the most difficult barrier that exists just below Lower Mahoney Lake. The salmon were highly motivated and over 400 attempts to jump the falls were observed. No attempts were successful! and all species of salmon were clearly blocked from upstream movement at flows of 25-30 cfs (Fiqure 8). Most sockeye salmon had abrasions due to continued attempts to breach the falls. It was the intent of the biological team to observe salmon movements under intermediate flow conditions; however, September remained dry with the exception of a rain storm in the middle of the month that raised flow in the creek abruptly and briefly on september 10 and 11. The biological observation team was not able to be present on the stream during this brief high flow event. Observations in late September indicated that no sockeyes remained in Lower Mahoney Creek and very few fish were present in Lower Mahoney Lake. Therefore, nearly 1000 sockeye salmon that were present in Lower Mahoney Creek in late August were not accounted 23 Lower Mahoney Creek Flows During the Period July 13 -October 2, 1995 600 soo 400 August 30 -1040 sockeye salmon and September 26 -No sockeye '-3600 pink salmon in Lower Mahoney salmon and 3060 pink salmon in r-Creek. SB sockeyes in Lower Mahoney Lower Mahoney Creek. 13 r-August I -3S0-400 sockeye Lake sock.eyes in Lower Mahoney Lake salmon present in middle reaches r--of Lower Mahoney Creek - 1\.) '5 -.. ~ 300 c ;:: J 200 I A 1\ \ 1\ !'\ \ ~--\ \ \ 1\'V \ 1---I \A I \ l \ \ 100 v '' ... v \ J \ "' \ \.lJ ' I ' ~ \. • ____, ---""'-J 0 • _.._____~ --············· •••••••• ' 0 0 0 0 0 L ..... ..... ..... .,., .,., .,., .,., .,., ..... ..... ..... ..... .,., ..... .,., ..... .... .... .,., ..... ..... ..... ..... .......... ..... ..... .,., .,., ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... '" "' ..... '" ..... ~ !\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ s; ~ ~ ~ ~ s; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !S ~ .... ~ ~ ..... 'oD ~ ~ ~ ~ ... -~ -~ -~ ~ ~ ~ 0!1 ~ ~ --~ s s s s s ~ --.... -.... ~ "' ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ t:: t:: 00 00 "' 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0; Date Figure 8. for on the lake spawning grounds. General observations of sockeye salmon movements within the creek indicated that the fish were able to swim up slopes of 45 degrees or more provided that the flow was smooth or laminar. Turbulence greatly inhibited swimming ability requiring the fish to jump over turbulent areas. They are able to successfully jump falls that are 1.0-1.5 m high provided that there is smooth flow at the top that allows them to continue upstream rather than being swept back downstream. DISCUSSION BAB:rl'AT VAU1E stJIIM'ARl:ES Upper Mahoney creek Upper Mahoney creek between the lower falls and Lower Mahoney Lake is a high gradient stream with an unstable channel and unstable flow. Three large log jams currently create significant falls which limit fish access to upper portions. Surface flow is known to cease throughout much of this portion of the stream in late summer in at least some years and probably most years. The early study conducted by u.s. Fish and Wildlife (Osborn, 1982) observed dewatering in August as was seen in this study. The portion of the stream immediately below the falls provides some year-round habitat for small numbers of resident, slow-growing Dolly Varden. The lower portion of the stream, between the last log jam and the lake, has direct access to the lake and provides rearing and feeding habitat for Dolly Varden during those periods when flow is present. A small segment of the stream, from the lake upstream for about 100 m, has the characteristics of suitable salmonid spawning habitat. However, unstable flow probably prevents consistent use of this area by spawning fish and no evidence of spawning was seen during 25 the study. Lower Mahoney Lake Lower Mahoney Lake is a small, deep lake with a variety of habitat conditions and substantial littoral area on its south side. The lake is generally infertile based on the very clear water, low conductivity, and lack of aquatic insects. The annual influx of sockeye salmon carcasses is probably an important source of nutrients and organic carbon to the lake ecosystem. Impassable barriers in Lower Mahoney Creek prevent passage by all but the strongest swimming fish; consequently, from the standpoint of resident fish, the lake is essentially isolated from tidewater. The lake contains a dense population of resident slow-growing Dolly Varden. Although minnow traps only catch small fish, other observations suggest that maximum size is not much larger than seen in the trap-caught fish. No Dolly Varden larger than about 170 mm were seen in schools associated with spawning salmon, and the presence of spawning coloration on some trap-caught fish in August suggests these small fish were approaching maturity. It is unlikely that larger, anadromous Dolly Varden would be able to access Lower Mahoney Lake. This study clearly indicates that Lower Mahoney Lake provides significant beach spawning habitat for modest numbers of sockeye salmon. Taking into consideration both the lake and stream observations, a reasonable estimate of sockeye escapement to the lake in 1994 would be 300-600 fish. About 75 percent of these fish spawned on the Upper Mahoney Creek delta shoreline. Intermittent surveys of Lower Mahoney creek have suggested numbers of sockeye ranging from less than 100 up to 1000 fish with an unusual record from 1956 of 10,000-15,000 fish (ADF&G File Information). It is likely that numbers of sockeye are limited by several factors including limited spawning area, low fertility leading to poor rearing conditions, and poor lake accessibility in some years 26 depending on the flow conditions in Lower Mahoney Creek. The lake obviously provides rearing habitat for juvenile sockeye salmon as evidenced by the presence of a self-sustaining spawning population as well as the presence of sockeye fry in seine hauls in June. The lack of juvenile sockeyes in shoreline seine hauls during Auqust is probably explained by the fact that larger juveniles are pelagic, feeding on plankton throughout the lake. None of the sample methods used were capable of sampling open waters. Three juvenile coho salmon were caught in or adjacent to the lake. Since velocity barriers would prevent juvenile fish from reaching Lower Mahoney Lake from downstream, some spawning of coho salmon must have occurred in the lake or its tributaries. Juvenile coho salmon are readily attracted to minnow traps suggesting that the abundance of these fish was very low. one rainbow troutjsteelhead juvenile was also caught in the lake indicating that spawning by this species must have occurred in the lake drainage. The abundant Dolly Varden likely compete heavily with juvenile coho salmon and trout, possibly limiting the value of the lake as rearing habitat for these species. Juvenile sockeye salmon generally occupy a different niche and may not be heavily impacted by the Dolly Varden population. The study by Osborn ( 1982) indicated that kokanee (landlocked sockeye salmon) were also present in the Lower Mahoney Lake. No kokanee were observed during this study. However, none of the sample methods were desiqned to sample kokanee and these fish could have easily been missed. Earlier studies also suggested the presence of cutthroat trout. No cutthroat trout were observed despite efforts to sample appropriate habitats. If cutthroat trout are present, the numbers are probably small. 27 Lower Mahoney creek Lower Mahoney Creek provides a migratory corridor for adult sockeye salmon on route to Lower Mahoney Lake. Because of several steep sections, the stream is marginally passable. During the low water conditions present in late August in 1994, it appeared that most of the fish were unable to negotiate the last barrier before entering the lake. However, the presence of some sockeyes in the lake indicated that a few fish were able to make it. Following a period of heavy rainfall in September, water levels increased dramatically and most of the stranded salmon evidently made it into the lake. In 1995, low flow continued into September and fish passage was evidently blocked for an extended time. The creek also provides limited spawning habitat for pink salmon. All of the observed spawning in 1994 was at the lower end of the stream within 300 m of tidewater and mostly within the intertidal zone. Bottom substrate in this reach is not optimum, consisting of flat cobbles and boulders. Spawning behavior was observed throughout the stream during the high density conditions that occurred in 1995. Because of the very coarse substrate, it is likely that pink salmon spawning in upstream areas was mostly unsuccessful! since the fish were unable to bury their eggs. Loose salmon eggs were abundant between the boulders in some upstream areas. Pink salmon were observed as far upstream as the pool below the final cascade. However, no pinks were observed in Mahoney Lake and it is likely that this barrier prevents pink salmon from entering the lake. The steep character of Lower Mahoney Creek limits habitat value to resident fish. However, juvenile rainbow troutjsteelhead were caught in 4 out of 6 minnow traps set in middle sections of the stream indicating that trout rear in the stream. A dead subadult trout was also observed suggesting that adult fish may also be present. In contrast to Lower Mahoney Lake and its tributaries, 28 no Dolly Varden were caught suggesting that competitive exclusion may be occurring with trout dominating the limited available habitat areas. South Creek South Creek provides habitat for Dolly Varden at its lower end. Velocity barriers probably prevent most fish from exploiting upstream areas. Portions of the downstream end of the stream appear to be excellent spawning habitat, however no spawning fish or evidence of past spawning was observed. No anadromous species were caught or observed in South Creek. Flow from this creek provides upwelling water along its delta edge in Lower Mahoney Lake contributing to the value of spawning habitat for sockeye salmon beach spawners that utilize the area. l:SSUBS RBLA.'l'l:VE TO THE IIABOHEY LAKE BYDROBLEC'l'.RIC PROJECT Sockeye Salmon Egg Incubation Significant numbers of sockeye salmon spawn in Lower Mahoney Lake on the edge of the Upper Mahoney Creek alluvial fan. Field temperature measurements have confirmed the presence of upwelling ground water in these locations. Upwelling areas are actively selected by lake-spawning sockeye salmon and explain the distribution of spawning areas. Most of the groundwater originates from Upper Mahoney creek water which percolates into the coarse deposits of the Upper Mahoney Creek alluvial fan and then re- emerges within the lake at the edge of the fan. successful incubation of salmon eggs and timing of fry emergence from the gravel depends on the temperature and volume of this upwelling water. Incubation time is a function of cumulative degree days over a period of several months. Consequently, rather small changes in temperature can have significant effects on the time of hatching and fry emergence. Emergence timing may effect fry survival with optimum emergence time occurring when food supplies 29 (zooplankton) in the lake are reasonably abundant. Possible impact of a Mahoney Lake hydroelectric development on the volume and temperature of upwelling water at the spawning grounds was identified as a potential issue when the project was considered in the early 1980's. The current project concept was designed with protection of salmon spawning habitat in mind. The results of the current study have helped to define the locations of spawning areas and have confirmed that concerns about the quality and quantity of upwelling water are genuine. Lower Mahoney Creek Fish Passage Another potential issue concerns blockage of lake access to sockeye salmon during some flow conditions in Lower Mahoney creek. Very low flows prevent access and, presumably, extremely high flows would also create blockage conditions due to high velocity. Some range of moderate flow probably provides optimum hydraulic conditions so that salmon are able to climb the last cascade prior to entering the lake. supplemental observations of sockeye salmon movements in Lower Mahoney Creek were conducted in 1995 and a stream gaging station was established on Lower Mahoney Creek in July 1995. It was hoped that this information would provide insight into the flow conditions required for fish passage with emphasis on the threshhold low flow required. In addition, an estimated flow analysis was done for Lower Mahoney creek in 1994 to allow comparison with fish passage success. It is evident from observations in both 1994 and 1995 that stream flow of less than 50 cfs prevents movement of fish over the barriers in Lower Mahoney Creek. The most formidable falls area consists of a drop of about 3 m. Under low flow conditions all the flow is turbulent as water drops over the edge of a bedrock outcrop providing no feasible route for the fish. On the south side of the 30 stream adjacent to the falls is a trouqh sculptured in the rock wall which is confiqured almost like a fish ladder and might allow fish to bypass the falls under flow conditions that submerge the trouqh. At flows of less than 50 cfs only a trickle of water enters the trouqh area. Speculation based on lenqthy observation of this area suggests that a minimum flow of 120-150 cfs might increase the overall depth enough to provide 6-8 inches of laminar flow throuqh the trouqh area and, thus, allow fish to bypass the turbulent falls. The chronoloqy of stream flow and salmon presence in the stream and lake in 1995 and 1994 (Figures 9 and 8) provides some insiqht into miqratory flow requirements. In 1994 most sockeyes remained in the stream in late Auqust and were clearly blocked by low flow conditions. However, some salmon were also present in the lake at this same time. It is likely that these fish entered the lake durinq the increased flows that occurred durinq the Auqust 22-24 period. Maximum flow durinq this period was about 130 cfs. Conditions were qenerally dryer in 1995. More than 1000 sockeye salmon were present in Lower Mahoney creek in late Auqust and actively attemptinq to move upstream but aqain were blocked by low flow. At this same time at least 58 sockeyes were present in the lake. It seems likely that these fish entered the lake durinq the increased flow that occurred on Auqust 14-16. Maximum flow durinq this period was about 160 cfs. The larqe number of sockeyes that were present in the creek in late Auqust appeared to have disappeared from the system by late september. These fish may have been washed out of the stream by the very hiqh flow that occurred on September 11 or they may have entered the lake, spawned and died prior to the September 25-27 field trip. The former explanation is considered much more likely because of the lack of evidence of extensive spawninq on known spawninq areas and the lack of fish in the lake in late september. The very dry conditions combined with a very abrupt flushinq flow probably prevented most sockeye salmon from reachinq Lower Mahoney Lake in 1995. 31 w N liOO.OO 450.00 4)0.00 350.00 300.00 I I 250.00 ------Mahoney Lake Project Flows From Lower Mahoney Lake, August and September 1994 (Correlated from Mahoney Creek actual gage data) I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ iii iii iii il i ;a I s I I ~ I i ~ ! I I I ~ ! ~ ,I ~ ~ .~ I I I Dale Fiqure 9. Northrop Devine Tarbell The evidence to date suggests that intermediate flow in the 130- 200 cfs range may be optimal for sockeye salmon movement. The somewhat more moderate and stable flow conditions that would be created by the proposed hydroelectric development would probably fall within the range of conditions suitable for salmon migration. Monitoring of salmon movements in Lower Mahoney Creek during the early years of project operation would easily determine the success of fish passage. Some adjustment of flow to accommodate fish passage would be possible during project operation. RBFBRBRCBS Osborn, c.E., 1.982. Mahoney Lakes proposed hydropower development coordination act report. Prepared by the u.s. Fish and Wildl. Service, SE Alaska Ecological Services, Juneau, Alaska. u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Mahoney Lakes Hydropower Project, Ketchikan, Alaska. COE Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1983. Draft Interim Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for Hydroelectric Power for Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan, Alaska. COE Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. 33 AppendixE APPENDIXE ISER -ELECTRIC LOAD FORECAST FOR KETCHIKAN, METLAKATLA, PETERSBURG AND WRANGELL, ALASKA: 1990-2010 :r: ~ LLI LLI (.f) ~ C) ~ u ........ ~ :r: 0 u z ~ 0 u < Ul ~ Q (.f) z :5 < <( ......J ::; u. 0 ~ ~' Cl) u. ~ 0 1-l~ t: .._ ,.> ........ j, z :::::> ' ..... ...,... __ _ Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010 FINAL REPORT Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority PO Box 190869 Anchorage Alaska 99519-0869 Prepared by Steve Colt Scott Goldsmith Teresa Hull Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage 3211 Providence Drive Anchorage, AK 99508 907-786-7710 ./ June 25 1990 TIIU Pllbllcalio• II prilrlal 1111 m:,cled JIIIPn'· -........... .., Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010 Contents 1 EXECtmVE SUMMARy . . . . . . • . • . . • • . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA . . . . . • . • . • . . • . • . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Outlook for Basic Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 8 3 COMMUNITY LoAD FORECASTS . • . . . . . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 17 3.1 Forecast Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2 Ketchikan Load Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 33 Metlakatla Load Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.4 Petersburg Load Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.5 Wrangell Load Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4 REGIONAL LoAD FORECAST . • . • . . . • • • . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . 67 APPENDIX A: MAP MODEL INPur AssUMPTIONS APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL EQUATIONS APPENDIX C: MAP MODEL RESULTS ---.,., List of Tables Table 1: Lower Southeast Alaska Historical Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 2: Fish Processing Employment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 3: Logging and Sawmill Employment Scenarios (excludes pulp mills) . . . . . . . 13 Table 4: Historical Economic Data: Ketchikan . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 5: Ketchikan Historical Utility Data . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 6: Individual Large Loads in KPU Forecast . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 7: Ketchikan Low Case Forecast . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 8: Ketchikan Base Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 9: Ketchikan High Case Forecast . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 10: Historical Economic Data: Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 11: Metlakatla Historical Utility Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table 12: Metlakatla Low Case Forecast . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Table 13: Metlakatla Base Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 14: Metlakatla High Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table 15: Historical Economic Data: Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area . . . . . . . . . 47 Table 16: Petersburg Historical Utility Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Table 17: Petersburg Low Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table 18: Petersburg Base Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Table 19: Petersburg High Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Table 20: Wrangell Historical Utility Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table 21: Wrangell Low Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Table 22: Wrangell Base case forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table 23: Wrangell High case forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Table 24: Regional Low Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Table 25: Regional Base Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Table 26: Regional High Case Forecast . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 ---... List of Figures Figure 1: Regional Total Electric Sales by Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 2: Energy Sales by Region and Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 3: Base Case Regional Energy Requirements by Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 4: Lower Southeast Alaska Historical Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 5: Historical Employment: Ketchikan Borough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 6: 1988 Ketchikan Employment by Industry and Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 7: Historical Residential Use per Customer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 8: Ketchikan Sales and Peak Load Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 9: Ketchikan Base Case Forecast by Oass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 10: Historical Employment: Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 11: Metlakatla Sales and Peak Load Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Figure 12: Metlakatla Base Case Forecast by Oass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 13: Historical Employment: Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure 14: 1988 Petersburg Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure 15: Petersburg Sales and Peak Load Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 16: Petersburg Base Case Forecast by Oass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 17: 1988 Wrangell Employment by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure 18: Wrangell Sales and Peak Load Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 19: Wrangell Base Case Forecast by Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Figure 20: Regional Total Electric Sale by Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 21: Base Case Regional Energy Requirements by Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 ,_ --., 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Utility electric energy requirements in the study area1 are projected to grow at an average annual rate of between -.3 and +4.0 percent per year between 1990 and 2010, from a 1988 level of 198,000 Megawatt hours (MWb}. The sum of noncoincident utility peak loads is projected to grow at an annual rate of between +.2 and +4.0 percent.l These growth rates take account of the economic effects of the Quartz Hill mine and the Bradfield intertie, but do not include the mine loads themselves. The text presents these loads along with projected utility sales. Regional Total Sales Thousand MWh .500.---------------------------------------------~ 400 3001-······-----------·---..''----- 200 r .. --· ------~~ I I I I I I I I I I "-+=! -1 rT·rJ 100 !"""" _ • .,.........,.,--11ft I~ tl II ll'tf tf 14 II t•'9f It 1 .. ·------···------.-------, 0 ltJIIIflJJIIIIJFIIIIJIIIlllflliiiB!lJIIIIIIIIJJIUIIIIIJ I t l I I J I I I I I I t I 1 I I I I I I II 1970 1975 1880 1885 1988 1885 2000 2005 2010 c:J Actual -+-LOW ~ BASE -a-HIGH Exclude• Mine Loada Figure 1: Regional Total Electric Sales by Case Lrhe study area consius of the service territories of Ketchikan Public Utilities, Metlakatla Power and Light, Petersburg Power and Light, and Wrangell Power and Light. 2Peak loads are projected under the assumption of constant load factors for each utility. Ketchikan has a lower load factor and higher load growth than Wrangell or Petersburg. Its low load factor becomes relatively more important in contributing to the regional sum of peak loads. Hence the regional sum of peak loads grows faster than regional energy requirements. 1 ..... -·- In the Base case, the major causes of changes in load are: Stable employment in fishing, fish processing, sawmills and pulp. • Continuing growth of tourist visits at 3% annually. •. Addition of several large loads in Ketchikan including the naval test facility, Cape Fox Lodge phase one, Coast Guard upper campus, and the Spruce Mill complex. Declining employment in logging as Native timber supply is exhausted. • Continued growth of commercial consumption per employee at 1.6% per year. The major differences between cases, in approximate order of importance, are: Commercial/Industrial Class Sales: Low Case: Ketchikan Public Utilities' sales to the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) pulp mill decline to 5,000 MWh/yr and drop to near zero in 2005 when the mill closes. The historical trend of growth in commercial consumption per employee falls from Base Case level of 1.6% per year to 0% per year. Several Ketchikan fish processors stay off the grid. • High Case: Significant sales to Alaska Pulp Co./ Wrangell (Wrangell Forest Products) resume in 1992. Annual growth in consumption per employee continues at historical rate of 32%, higher than base case. Ketchikan adds Coast Guard LORAN station and the Cape Fox Lodge and Spruce Mill sites are developed to full planned capacity. All communities except Wrangell add fish processing capacity and Wrangell experiences continued growth as a mining staging area. Residential Sales: Low Case: Residential sales per customer fall by .2% per year except in Wrangell3• The KPC mill closes in 2005. • High Case: Residential sales per customer rise by .4% per year except in Wrangell. The Quartz Hill mining project begins operation in 1995, adding over 900 households to Ketchikan. Basic Industry: Low Case: Logging employment declines 25% from Base case levels due to 25% decrease in timber produced from the Tongass forest Government employment declines at .5% per year as oil revenues decline. • High Case: Logging increases 10% from Base case levels due to strong foreign demand for cants (minimally processed logs) as Native exports of round logs decline. Tourist visits increase 5% per year, vs 3% in the Base case. ~n Wrangell an econometric equation based on price and income is used to project residential sales. See text. 2 p "11 .... ~ ~ w .. w tS C/) e. (JJ n (I) ~ ::0 n ~· = ~ 0. w Ketchikan Public Utilities Forecast Total Sales Thou11nd NWh 360.---------------------------------------------, 300 260 .,......._./ 200 160 ~-l-+-~~-1-H-+-i 100 ""' 1110 till .... 1110 aooo 1001 1010 0 Actual -+-LOW --BASE -e-HIGH I!ICIUdtl Quatll Hill Petersburg Power & Light Forecast Total Sales Thouaand MWh eo..-------------------------------------------, 60 40 30 20 1171 1110 1111 , ... 1111 1000 1001 1010 CJ Actual -+-LOW _.,._ BASE -e-HIGH Metlakatla Power & Light Forecast Total Sales Thouaand NWh 36..-------- 30 26 20 .... :~· 1t10 ,.,. 11110 , ••• till , ... 1000 1001 0 Actual -+-LOW --BASE -<>-HIGH Wrangell Power & Light Forecast Total Sales Thou11nd MWh 1010 40 , 30 20 ·::mnmoomii·"·'"'""Jhl"· .................... ·' 1170 1111 1110 1111 1111 ,... 1000 1001 1010 CJ Actual -+-LOW --BASE -e-HIGH Regional Energy Requirements Base Case Projection Thousands of MWh 350~------------------------------------------~ 300 Actual Base Case Forecast 250 200 150 100 o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 2010 c:r.=J Res D Comm/lnd -Other -Losses I SEA FCST _9. WK1 ..... -.. 2 ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA 2.1 Historical Background The study area is composed of the Alaskan communities of Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell. In this report we call the area Lower Southeast Alaska (I.SE). Economic data for these communities are generally available for the census areas which encompass them: the Ketchikan Borough Census Area (Ketchikan), Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area (Metlakatla), and Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area (Wrangell and Petersburg), respectively. Like that of Southeast Alaska as a whole~ the LSE economy is built on timber (logging, lumber, and pulp)~ fishing, and tourism. Hard rock mining is an emerging but still relatively unimportant basic sector. Rogers (1989) emphasizes the importance of the forest products industry in stabilizing the regional economy during the past 40 years. He notes that while in 1950 the highly seasonal fishing industry generated nine times the product value of the timber industry, by 1983 the two sectors produced roughly the same amount. Since 1980, total employment in the Lower Southeast Alaska economy has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5%, as shown in table 1. Figure 4 shows that this overall growth has been driven by a continuing expansion in the trade and services sector and in state and local government, tempered by a cyclical downturn in the timber industry during the mid 1980s. Although the region has felt the positive effects of the statewide oil boom through increased construction of public buildings and government employment at all levels, it is far less reliant on the petroleum industry than is the rest of the state. Instead, the people of Southeast Alaska are heavily exposed to swings in the world market prices of wood and fish products. The tourism industry has been growing steadily. Rogers (1985) estimates that tourism employment has grown at an annual rate of 42% since 1973 to the point where it now provides two thirds as many jobs as either the timber or fishing industry. Because of the way in which the trade and services sector serves both tourist and local demand, however, there are no direct data by which to measure the output of this increasingly important basic industry. Further descriptions of community economies are provided later in the text with each community's load forecast assumptions and results. 5 p lower Southeast Alaska Historical Employment (1) Avg annual EMPlOYMENT by SECTOR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Manufacturing/Mining (2) 3,163 2,621 2,430 2,047 1,714 1,960 2,496 2,735 3,158 Infrastructure 1,451 1,383 1,261 1,556 1,400 1,427 1,227 1,320 1,486 Trade/Service/finance 2,738 2,939 3,118 3,408 3,383 3,409 3,433 3,507 3,803 fed Govt 855 830 864 804 760 737 775 837 758 State/local Govt 2,025 2,210 2,317 2,488 2,644 2,794 2,662 2,592 2,646 Proprietors (3) 1,858 1,878 2,321 2,454 2,580 2,724 2,964 2,905 2,976 Mise/Stat Discrepancy (4) 81 115 102 74 86 88 92 72 56 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 12,170 11,975 12,413 12,831 12,566 13,138 13,648 13,966 14,882 Notes: (1) lower Southeast Alaska Is defined as the sUM of Ketchikan Borough Census Area, Prince of Wales-OUter Ketchikan Census Area, and Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area. (2) Manufacturing sector Includes logging, lumber, and pulp Industries. (3) Proprietors• sector Includes fish harvesting employment (4) Mise/Stat Discrepancy Is used to reconcile the SUM of sectoral employment figures with the separately published total. Reconciliation Is needed because some Individual sector data Is undisclosed. Sources: Employment by Industry from Ak. Dept. of Labor, Statfstfcal Quarterly. Number of Military from At. Dept. of Labor, Population OVerview; Econo.lc Trends, Nov. 1987; and faxed sheet from Neal Frfed dated 3/5/1990. Number of proprietors from u.s. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, fiche dated April 1988, and printout dated April 1990. Personal Income from u.s. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysts, Printouts of Table CA5, dated Nov. 1, 1989 (ISER) and April 1990 (SEA). growth 1980·88 ·O.OX o.u 4.2X ·1.51 3.41 6.11 ·4.51 2.51 SEMPINC3.WK1 Printed 09·Jul·90 ~ ff .... .. H ::!1 ~ .c:.. .. i C1> "1 Cll g s- C1> ~ ....... ~ ~ tr ~ s ::t e!. tr1 .tJ ...... ] C1> ~ Historical Employment Growth Lower Southeast Alaska ( *) Thousands 16~--~--~~--------~---------~----~--~ :: J I I I I I - 10 8 6 4 2 0 1880 1881 -t.4trg/Minlnv llillll) 8 I L Govt 1182 1183 ~ lntra1truoture D Proprleton (•) Ketchikan, POW-Outer Ketchikan, Wrangell-Petersburg Census Areas 1884 1188 1881 1887 Trade/Svoi/Finanoe -Fed Govt -Milo 1188 .... -.... 2.2 Outlook for Basic Industries 2. 2.1 Fish Harvesting Commercial fish harvesting employment in the LSE area is expected to remain constant throughout the study period at a level of about 1200 average annual jobs. The underlying resource base is essentially fully utilized. 2.2.2 Fish Processing Table 2 summarizes our assumed levels of projected employment in fish processing. Activity is expected to increase slightly throughout the area as existing processors attempt to exploit emerging specialty markets.4 This increase is generally expected to be expressed as greater capacity utilization of existing facilities, rather than construction of new facilities. Since the underlying resource base is essentially fully utilized, Alaskan processors must find new ways to add value to the product before it leaves the region. For example, until recendy one company-5 was "backhauling" fish originally caught in Alaska from a Seattle freezer plant to Ketchikan in order to smoke them. This company has now expanded its freezer operations to eliminate the need for backhauls. Some local officials feel that major expansion of fish processing capacity is probable in Petersburg and Metlakatla. The Petersburg project depends, first of all, on the successful sale of the Chatham Straits cannery by Sealaska Corporation6, while the plans for a shellfish cannery in Metlakada are not well-developed. Regional observers caution that shore-based processors will be coming under increasing competitive pressure from floating operations, some of which can deliver fresh Alaska product to the Seattle market without using air transportation. There is some chance that a finfish farming industry could be launched in the protected coves of Prince of Wales Island H finfish fanning were to begin in the l.SE area, it is likely that a fish food industry would also arise to provide food for the farms. According to some observers,7 a fish feed plant could be supponed by as few as two farms each operating on 2 acres of water and producing 1 million pounds of farmed fish per year. This possibility is incorporated into our High case scenario. ~nterviews: Brian Rae, ADOL Regional Economist, 2/13/90; C.L. Cheshire, Assistant Professor of Economic Development, U of AK Southeast, 2/14/90. 5Silver Lining Seafoods. John Sund, owner, 6/15/90. 6:In early July, Sealaska announced the sale of its subsidiary Ocean Beauty Seafoods, which operates the Chatham Plant. No expansion plans for the plant were mentioned. 7Rick Harris, VP Resource Planning, Sealaska Corp., 2/19/90. 8 ft Fish Processing Employment Scenarios (Average Annual Jobs) Outer Ketchikan Ketchikan Census Sub-Area Wrangell-Petersburg 1·----Census Area ·······I I·· (Includes Metlakatla) ··I I····· Census Area· ····-··1 Low Base High Low Base High Low Base High --.... ............ .............. .............. ··----· -.............. 1988 300 300 300 10 70 10 154 154 154 1989 300 312 312 70 70 10 154 154 154 ~ 1990 300 325 (1) 325 10 10 70 154 154 154 cr -1991 300 338 ]]8 10 70 70 154 154 154 ft N 1992 300 338 338 10 70 10 154 154 118 (4) .. 1993 300 338 388 (2) 70 70 120 (3) 154 154 178 "T1 &;' 1994 300 ]]8 388 70 70 120 154 154 118 t:r' 1995 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 ., "'1 1996 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 0 1997 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 § 1998 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 118 ci' \0 1999 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 2000 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 i 2001 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 118 2002 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 f 2003 300 338 388 10 70 120 154 154 178 2004 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 a 2005 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 118 2006 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 rr 2007 300 ]]8 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 ~-2008 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 2009 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 178 0 til 2010 300 338 388 70 70 120 154 154 118 Notes: (1) Silver Lining Seafoods blast freezer expansion (2) Ketchikan General expansion, perhaps Including flsh·feed plant (3) New shellfish processing plant In Metlakatla (4) Chatham Straits Cannery doubles In size ISER FISHJOBS.W1 Printed 09·Jul·90 ..... 2.2.3 Logging, Lumber and Pulp 8 The health of the LSE forest products industry depends fundamentally on world market demand for its final outputs (logs, lumber, and dissolving pulp) and on the supply and quality of its basic input, raw timber. While the industry is quite complex, it is useful to keep the following in mind: The industry produces three distinct products: raw and semi-processed logs, dimensional lumber, and dissolving pulp. The world prices for these products are substantially independent of one another. Almost all of the output of the Alaska timber industry is expo ned to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries. It never pays a timber operator to log for pulpwood alone. Only the higher values obtained from sawtimber sold as logs or lumber can justify the expense of the logging operation. If the world price of pulp is low enou~ as it was during the mid 1980s, substantial amounts of pulp-grade timber will be left unharvested. Timber cut on the federally owned Tongass National Forest must be processed in some way before it can be exponed. However, timber cut on Native lands is not subject to this requirement and is generally exponed directly in the form of round logs. Final Demand. Factors affecting the demand for final products cause changes in the world price of exponed products over which Alaska producers have little control. These exogenous influences include exchange rates, foreign income levels and tastes, and fluctuations in world pulp manufacturing capacity. Almost all of Alaska's timber-based products are exponed to Pacific Rim countries, and we will always be a relatively hlgh cost producer. This puts Alaska in a "last in, first out" position in the product markets, with the notable exception of old growth Sitka Spruce logs and lumber, for which Southeast producers enjoy a quality advantage over British Columbia and dwindling supplies in the Pacific Nonhwest. World prices for pulp are in a long-term slow decline as synthetic substitutes crowd out rayon (the chief end product requiring SE Alaska's dissolving pulp) and new mills continue to show productivity gains over old ones. However, during the past few years there has been a leveling in these trends (Dubak, 1989) and current markets for Alaskan pulp are strong. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that the Ketchikan Pulp Company has been successful in positioning itself to weather the next worldwide downturn in markets. It has significantly improved productivity, diversified its markets away from reliance on Japan, added a modern sawmill at the mill site to take full advantage of the lumber value of incoming wood supply, and diversified its wood supply sources to include Canadian suppliers. 8.rhls section is based on interviews with: R Michael Martin, USFS Regional Economist., Juneau, 2/5/90; Joseph Mehrkens, Forest Economist, Southeast A.taska Resource Center, Juneau, 2/5/90; C.L. Cheshire, Economic Development Specialist, Ketchikan, 2/14/90; Steven Hagan, Pulp Mill Manager, Ketchikan Pulp Co., 2/16/90; Martin Pihl, KPC General Manager, 2/16/90. General use is also made of Dubak 1989, Haynes and Brooks 1990, Knapp 1989, Merhkens 1989, and Stevens and Adams 1988. 10 ..... -~ Native lands timber supply. The amount of timber haJVested from Native lands grew rapidly in the 1980s and reached 400 million board feet (MMbf) in 1988, compared with 396 MMbf taken from the Tongass National Forest (USFS 1988). The Native haJVest levels will soon decline: "There is a general consensus among industry observers that Native timber harvests will decline sharply in the 1990s, due to declining inventory. Nine of the twelve village corporations are likely to have cut nearly all of their economically operable timber by 1991 [and] only one village corporation is likely to be able to sustain haJVests at current levels for more than eight years into the future • .Jn contrast, Sealaska Corporation still has substantial volumes of timber and has stated that haJVests can continue at current levels for 10-12 years if current market conditions continue. "A 'best guess' projection [under current market conditions] is that Native harvests will decline sharply over the next three years to between 150 and 250 million board feet per year. Harvests will then gradually decline further to between 100 and 150 million board feet per year until the late 1990s." (Knapp 1989, p.49) No one with whom we talked disagreed with this general assessment, and it has been incorporated into our Base case assumptions. Since logs from Native lands are exponed directly, the reductions in haJVests from Native lands will be felt in the logging industry rather than the lumber or pulp industries. Both pulp mills have purchased some pulp logs from Native (and Canadian) sources during the past few years at favorable prices; however, the mills can operate solely on their Tongass contract resources if necessary. The details of the resulting decline in logging employment are shown in table 3. Tongass National Forest supply. Although the congressional debate over management of the Tongass National Forest is not yet resolve~ it is unlikely that any significant changes in haJVest volume will occur during the next five years as a result of the legislation. Legislation passed by the House and Senate removes 1.8 million and 700,000 acres of land, respectively, from the timber base. These withdrawals reduce the sustainable annual yield from the forest from 450 MMbf to between 390 MMbf (House version) and 420 MMbf (Senate versiont However, in recent yea.rs. the Forest Service has been unable to sell more than about 400 MMbf of timber. Lack of demand has therefore put a ceiling on Tongass timber output roughly equal to that resulting from proposed legislation. It is also imponant to remember that the sustainable yield from the forest depends on the amount of money invested in road construction, precommercial thinning, and advanced logging techniques. Both versions of pending legislation repeal the automatic appropriation of $40 million per year for the Tongass TliD.ber Supply Fund. However, during the past several years, the Forest Service has sought and received funding for preparation of timber sales through the normal appropriations process. While it is impossible to predict future budgets, most observers agree that funding for roads and other subsidies seems secure at 9U.S. Forest Service, Steve Ambrose, 6/18/90, and USFS mimeo titled •HR 987, Tongass T"unber Reform Act", dated 13 June 1990. 11 ....... ----~ current levels of approximately $40 million per year, regardless of whether the appropriations are required by law. Both Forest Service10 and KPC 11 personnel also feel strongly that the existing 50 year timber contracts will not be cancelled: even if Congress directed this step, an effective legal delay could be mounted at low cost until scheduled contract expiration in 2004. In addition, Frank Seymour of the Alaska Department of Commerce points out12 that the scheduled expiration of the Ketchikan Pulp Corporation's long term contract is now little more than ten years away. Seymour feels that the onset of this event has been forgotten in the heat of the Tongass debate; its nearness may soon exert considerable drag on further investment by the company. While Tongass legislation itself is therefore unlikely to affect harvest levels in the next five years, there is a concern expressed by some observers that the Tongass is currently being "high-graded," such that the marginal cost of stumpage will rise rapidly in the future. Mehrkens (1989) is the most articulate exponent of this view. He argues two points. First, the high volume stands have been disproportionately harvested, leaving lower volume stands remaining to be harvested. This legacy shows up as a greatly increased road cost per board foot harvested during the second entry into a management area. Second, historical harvests on the forest have averaged 50% Sitka spruce, a much higher-valued tree, while the average volume of spruce throughout Southeast is less than 33% of commercial volume. This legacy shows up as reduced value per average board foot harvested. We have incorporated the Mebrkens concepts into the Low projection case by assuming that economically operable harvest volume falls from 400 to 300 MMbf between 1995 and 2000, with a corresponding decrease in logging and sawmill employment. See table 3. This Low case is also broadly consistent13 with a continuing public appropriation of 40 million nominal dollars, which equates to a reduction in real spending of 5% per year. Based on the above considerations, we feel it is extremely unlikely that the Ketchikan Pulp Company will reduce or curtail its operations before its 50 year contract with the Forest Service expires in 2004. Several observers, however, felt that a shutdown was possible at the end of the contract period, and we have incorporated this event into the Low case scenario. Even in this Low case, however, we assume that the sawmills at Ketchikan, Metlakatla, and Wrangell will continue to operate through the study period, using Tongass timber obtained through the normal timber sale process if necessary. 1 ~e Martin. USFS Regional Economist, 2/5/CJfJ. 11Martin P~ General Manager, 2/16/CJfJ. 12Personal communication, 11 June 1990. 1 ~ased on the only published source of estimates of the ·supply c:urve• relating public funding to sustainable harvest levels. This source is USPS 1979, the final environmental impact statement prepared with the original Tongass Land Management Plan. 12 p Timber Harvesting and Sawmill Employment Scenarios (Average Annual Jobs: Excludes Pulp Mill Employment) Prince of Wales· ~ Ketchikan OUter Ketchikan Wrangell-Petersburg cr -I····· Census Area ·······I J······ Census Area ····-·1 I····· Census Area········! ftl ~ Low Base High Low Base High Low Base High .. b 1988 445 445 445 600 600 600 800 800 800 ~-1989 445 445 445 600 600 600 800 800 800 1990 445 445 445 600 600 600 800 800 800 OQ 1991 445 445 445 540 540 540 740 740 740 ~ 1992 445 445 445 480 480 480 680 680 680 p.. Cl:l 1993 445 445 445 420 420 420 620 620 620 l 1994 445 445 445 360 360 360 560 560 560 1995 445 445 445 300 300 300 500 500 500 1996 421 445 454 285 300 306 415 500 510 tt1 1997 401 445 463 270 300 112 450 500 520 .f} 1998 318 445 472 255 300 3111 425 500 530 -...... 1999 356 445 481 240 300 324 400 500 540 i w 2000 334 445 490 225 300 330 115 500 550 n 2001 334 445 490 225 300 330 115 500 550 a 2002 334 445 490 225 300 330 315 500 550 Cl:l 2003 334 445 490 225 300 330 315 500 550 R 2004 334 445 490 225 300 330 315 500 550 ~-2005 334 445 490 225 300 330 315 500 550 0 2006 334 445 490 225 300 330 315 500 550 {A -2007 334 445 490 225 300 330 315 500 550 ~ 2008 334 445 490 225 300 330 315 500 550 0. s::: 2009 334 445 490 225 300 330 315 500 550 Q. 2010 334 300 330 B 445 490 225 315 500 550 {A "0 s::: -"0 Notes: BASE Case reflects decline In timber harvest from Native lands. [ LOW Case reflects decline In Tongass National Forest timber harvest from 1990 level of fii 400 HMBF to 300 HMBF, due to some cod>lnatton of low pbtfc funding for road building, -reduced availability of hlgh·value spruce, or low world prices In end use markets. HIGH Case reflects Increased Pacific Rim demand for aeml·processed logs (cants) which are close substitutes for the reduced round-log exports from Native lands. ISER LOGJOIS.WK1 Printed 09-Jul-90 ..... -... Finally, there is some chance that Tongass·based timber employment will increase from the levels associated with the Base case harvest of 400 MMbf. Under this scenario, adopted for the High case, the demand for minimaHy processed logs ("cants") increases as the supply of Native round log exports dwindles. This surge in demand for cants is controversial and depends on the substitutability of cants for raw logs in foreign manufacturing processes, as well as a lack of round log supplies from other parts of the world which might replace the supplies from Alaskan Native lands. In the High scenario, the high price for cants increases the economic harvest by 10% above the Base case level 2.2.4 Tourism The summer of 1990 promises to be a banner year for cruise ship visits to Southeast Alaska14 , with 287 sailings to Juneau planned, up from 127 in 1989. Although benhing capacity is significantly higher on several of the major vessels that visit Southeast, the cruise industry appears to be suffering from an excess of berths, 15 resulting in the need for aggressive marketing and price cuts. Regional economist Brian Rae feels that while Alaska can expect to hold its share of the U.S.-bound U.S. tourist market, the size of that market may be declining with the opening of Eastern Europe, rising incomes, and decreased concern over terrorism. We have chosen two scenarios for tourism industry growth. In the Low and Base cases, tourist volume increases at 3% annually, while in the High case tourist volume increases at 5%. These increases are consistent with historical trends in visitor arrivals since 1964 (avg annual increase of 10.2%) and since 1980 (avg annual increase of 4.2%).16 2.2.5 Mining Southeast Alaska as a whole is enjoying a resurgence of the mining industry, but most of the activity is concentrated north of the study area. Newly opened deposits at the canadian Johnny Mountain and Snip mines near Wrangell have stimulated new activity in Wrangell in the air transport business. Some local observers believe that this area could become a major minerals center during the next decade, if transport costs are reduced by building a road to the site. In 1990, the Alaska legislature approved State revenue bonding for a supply road to be built from the head of the Bradfield canal to the Canadian border. The world class Molybdenum mine planned for Quartz Hill near Ketchikan is still on indefinite hold pending improvement in the world price of Molybdenum. Quartz Hill development with operation beginning in 1995 is incorporated into the High case scenario. 14-rourism Rides Currents of Change, • AK Bus. Monthly, April 1990, pp.30-35. 15 WaJJ Street JounwJ, 4/3/90, p.Bl 16:lSER Tourism and Travel SeClor Repon, 1989, p. 15. Reported arrival trends are statewide, through 1988. 14 i ---~ Sealaska Corporation has stepped up mineral exploration activity on its lands on Prince of Wales Island. Although no major prospects have been publicly identified, the corporation is panicularly interested in the possibilities for limestone mining, given the increased demand for limestone products caused by the pollution control (scrubber) industry. 15 ..... --•. 3 COMMUNITY LoAD FORECASTS 3.1 Forecast Methodology The load forecasts which follow were produced using a combination of econometric and scenario-building approaches involving the following steps: 3.1.1 Estimate Historical Relationships We gathered annual data on electricity consumption and explanatory economic and weather variables from the utilities and various published and internal agency sources. We then attempted to estimate simple econometric relationships for the residential and commercial/industrial customer classes. First, we used the pooled sample of data from all four study · communities. This procedure yielded a good statistical model of commercial/industrial use based on employment and an underlying time trend. This model is presented in Appendix B. With the residential data the pooled sample did not yield a defensible model. We discovered potential problems with the data, such as the shifting of harbor customers into and out of the residential class and inconsistent reporting of some measures of customer counts. We therefore estimated time trends in use per customer and for Wrangell and Metlakatla were able to estimate acceptable equations based on either price and income (Wrangell) or heating degree days (Metlakatla)(see Appendix B). 3.1.2 Develop Statewide and Regional Economic Forecasts Although the lSE economy is somewhat insulated from the rest of the Alaska economy, it is still intimately connected with Alaska's fortunes as an oil producer through the flow of state dollars for local aid and state government employment. We therefore based our estimates of future economic growth in the study area on three complete forecasts of Alaska economic activity produced with the MAP econometric model. The MAP forecasts have the advantage of depending explicitly on a detailed set of assumptions about future economic activity in local basic industry and the fiscal effects of future oil production and state revenues. These assumptions are presented in detail in Appendix A For this study, the useful output of the MAP model is a set of forecasts of households, employment, and personal income for each of the census areas containing the study communities. These forecasts are presented in Appendix C. 3.1.3 Specify Discrete Changes in Large Loads Several of the customers in the study area are large enough to have a significant effect on total load should their plans for expansion or self-generation change. We considered these loads, both current and future, with the help of utility staff and other knowledgeable individuals. A set of prospects for these large loads was developed consistent with the Low, Base, and High case economic scenarios. 17 ..... -·· There is a potential for double counting the load associated with a discrete project. This problem arises because the employment associated with a single large load "produces" load through the commercial class econometric equation. We avoided this problem by subtracting the employment associated with a discrete large load from the amount of employment driving the econometric load forecasting equation. By subtracting only the direct employment, we correctly account for the additional support sector jobs and residential consmption which are induced by the direct jobs associated with the project. These support jobs do create loads in addition to the direct load from the project. 3.1. 4 Forecast We developed Low, Base, and High case load forecasts for each community using a spreadsheet model and making use of the available econometric relationships to forecast residential and baseline commercial/industrial sales. To these we added discrete large loads appropriate to the scenario. We projected miscellaneous sales (public authorities, street lights, harbor sales) rising with population based on an "elasticity" which was generally less than one, indicating that a one percent increase in population would cause less than a one percent increase in miscellaneous sales. These low elasticities reflect our judgment that the ftshing fleet is stable {harbor consumption is unlikely to rise proportionately with population) and that the public building boom is over (sales to public authorities are unlikely to rise proportionately with population). Losses and utility use were projected by examining historical data on losses. The assumed loss/use percentage is presented below for each community. The resulting energy requirements figure corresponds with the historical data for net generation. Station service is not included in the forecast. We estimated peak load based on historical load factors which are assumed to remain constant and are presented below. In the case of Metlakatla, which has a significant heating load, we used a conservatively low estimated load factor because of the need to account for the "certain uncertainty" of the weather. Just as an engineer designs a heating system for a minimum winter design temperature substantially lower than the average expected temperature, we feel it is only prudent to base a weather-sensitive peak load forecast on a load factor at the lower end of the historical range. Finally, we present the expected loads for major mining projects in the High case forecast for completeness. These loads are not reflected in any other aggregate figures for sales, requirements, or peak load, although the economic effects of the projects have been considered in projecting utility electricity demand in the affected communities. 18 ... -.... 3.2 Ketchikan Load Forecast 3. 2.1 Economy Ketchikan is Alaska's fourth largest city, with a 1988 estimated population of 12,630 people in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. As shown in table 4 and figure 5, the economy is supported by the timber, fishing, and tourist industries. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard is a major basic industry, providing a consistent 200 jobs during the period 1980 through 1988. Since its construction in 1954, the mainstay of the economy has always been the pulp mill at Ward Cove owned and operated by the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC), a division of Louisiana Pacific, Inc. In 1988 KPC opened a new sawmill to handle larger logs arriving at Ward Cove. The sawmill employs about 150 people in addition to the 465 employees at the pulp mill.The city also serves as a support and trade center for logging activity on Prince of Wales island. Figure 5 presents historical employment by industry while figure 6 shows the distribution of 1988 employment for both a winter and a summer quarter. Total summer employment of 7847 was 1.5 times the measured winter level of 5286.17 Fish processing activity continues slowly to increase. Newer companies such as Silver Lining Seafoods are exploring specialty markets and the ever more important trade in fresh fish. Several small expansions are planned in the waterfront district. For years Ketchikan has been awaiting the development of the world class molybdenum deposit at Quartz Hill. This project is currently on indefinite hold due to low molybdenum prices. If Quartz Hill is developed, it would bring over 1000 new jobs to Ketchikan and cause a major economic boom. 17In presenting these figures we include our estimates of fish harvesting employment based on a number of secondary data sources, no one of which is totally accurate or comprehensive. FISh harvesters arc gcncra1ly self-employed proprietors; hence their employment is not reported through the Alaska Department of Labor ES· 202 reports. Statewide total figures arc difficult to estimate, and regional allocalion is even more problematic. Ow-regional alloc:ations arc based on an analysis of fishiDg permit files maintained by the Alaska Commercial FISheries Entry Commission. In light of these difficulties, we have presented the fish harvesting employment data as if the employment were constant year round. 19 Historical Economic Data for KETCHIKAN BOROUGH Census Area KETCHIKAN BOROUGH EMPLOYMENT (thousands) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Avg Annual Growth 1988 1989 (1) 1980-88 Mining C2> Construct ton Manufacturing (3) Transp/Commun/Utll Wholesale Trade Retell Trade fln/lnsur/R Estate Services federal Civilian State Government Local Government Subtotal; Uage & Salary Mil ftery Proprietors (4) TOTAL EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT by SECTOR Manufacturing/Mining (!) Infrastructure Trade/Service/finance Fed Govt (Incl. Military) State/Local Govt Proprietors (4) TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 29 392 1,239 627 114 856 229 872 359 431 695 5,841 203 847 6,891 1,268 1,019 2,070 562 1,125 847 6,891 REAL PERSONAL INCOME and POPULATION 1980 Real Pars. Inc., Million 1988S 222.88 Population (BEA eat.) 11,369 Real Per Capita Income, 1988S 19,604 49 258 959 630 81 899 234 947 321 445 776 5,598 204 900 6,702 1,008 888 2,161 525 1,221 900 6,702 1981 213.03 11,555 18,435 24 270 973 499 96 965 212 1,036 342 531 768 5,714 215 1,033 6,962 991 168 2,309 557 1,299 1,033 6,962 1982 228.94 12,011 19,061 41 424 822 488 192 991 202 1,094 309 561 896 6,024 182 1,002 7,208 862 912 2,485 491 1,457 1,002 7,208 1983 251.65 12,712 19,796 33 435 560 430 150 941 210 1,146 313 587 919 5,723 163 1,051 6,937 593 865 2,441 476 1,506 1,051 6,937 1984 233.70 12,886 18,135 31 336 937 441 138 975 216 1,129 282 542 945 5,911 152 1,049 1,172 968 m 2,458 434 1,487 1,049 1,1n 1985 242.53 12,238 19,817 44 268 1,197 509 142 963 231 1,108 269 556 an 6,158 211 1,096 7,465 1,241 777 2,444 480 1,428 1,096 7,465 1986 249.18 12,027 20,718 Notes: (1) 1989 Data Ia average of first two quarters only 38 366 1,282 584 154 979 230 1,121 262 510 910 6,434 276 1,110 7,820 1,320 950 2,484 538 1,419 1,110 7,820 1987 263.35 11,957 22,025 31 375 1,378 675 177 1,048 209 1,265 251 523 921 6,852 205 1,139 a, 196 1,409 1,049 2,700 456 1,444 1,139 8,196 1988 281.84 12,796 22,025 C2) Data not available: estimated 11 residual from other categories and total NA 295 1,381 517 183 1,042 229 1,255 263 524 1,004 (3) Manufacturing Sector Includes logging, Sawmills, Pulp Mills, and Fish Processing (4) Proprietors employment Includes fish harvesting Sources: Employment by Industry from Ak. Oept. of Labor, Statistical Quarterly. Number of military from Ak. Oept. of Labor, Population Overview; Economic Trends, Nov. 1987; end faxed sheet from Neal fried dated 3/5/1990. Number of proprietors from U.S. Oept. of Commerce, Bureau of Econ. Analysis, fiche 4/88 end printout 4/90 Personal Income from u.s. Dept. of Commerce, BEA, Table CAS Printouts of 11/89 and 4/90 NA -0.61 1.31 0.91 5.71 2.61 -1.11 4.81 -4.4X 2.51 3.61 2.01 o. 1X 3.U 2.21 1.31 0.4X 3.41 -2.6X 3.21 3.81 2.21 Avg ArnJal Growth 1980-88 3.01 1.51 1.51 ISER SEHPINC3.\IK1 Printed 09-Jul-90 p t ~ ~ ~ ~ a ::1. g. tr:1 ~ -N ~ ...... n a .. ~ t t::C ~ ~ Historical Employment Growth Ketchikan Borough Thousands 10~----~----------------~----------------------~ 8 6 4 2 0 1880 1881 -M hg/Minlng fiiilllJ S l L Oovt 11182 1083 ~ lnlraelruoture D Proprletore 1DU 1185 1181 1187 D Trade/Svoa/F Ina not B Fed Oovt -MilO 1188 ...... --- 1988 Ketchikan Employment First and Third Quarters Fish Harvest Construction Est. Fish Processing Est. Lumber & Pulp Est. Othr Mfrg Trans. Comm. Utiliti Trade Services Fed Govt State & local Govt Other ISER:WS88-K.WK1 r---1 l <<<< < < I ~ I I I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Employment during Otr CJ Winter (01) ~ Summer (Q3) Figure 6: 1988 Ketchikan Employment by Indusuy and Season 22 t ..... -~ 3.2.2 Residential and Commercial Consumption Table 5 presents historical statistics for Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). Figure 7 shows the historical trend in residential use per customer for the four utilities in the study area. Residential use per KPU customer bas been increasing at an average annual rate of .4% per year from 1969 through 1987. This nearly constant use per customer may reflect a reduction in the use of electric space heating coupled with increasing numbers of appliances due to a growth in real per capita income. Unfortunately there are no data to suppon or rebut this hypothesis. KPU staff believes that the current levels of electric heat are now quite low, less than 10 percent of customers. H this is true, then future use per customer may grow with income. However, trends in appliance efficiency and saturation derived from our Railbelt end use studies suggest a decrease in residential use per customer is possible even with / increasing income. Commercial Use has grown faster than residential, reflecting a "broadening and deepening" of the local economy. For example, the community's first large enclosed shopping mall was constructed on Tongass Avenue in the mid 1980s. An excellent fish processing season is believed by K.PU staff to be largely responsible for a surge in commercial consumption in 1989. 23 p ~ 1-----· Residential tl Cust Use/Cust YEAR kWh 1970 3,067 8,845 1971 3,193 9,159 1972 3,281 9,387 1973 3,569 8,674 1974 3,754 8,292 1975 3,837 8,558 1976 4,019 8,723 19n 4,173 8,407 1971 4,312 8,524 1979 4,393 8,528 1980 4,459 a,m 1981 4,561 9,]91 1982 4,769 9,051 1983 5,053 11,898 1984 5,149 9,962 1985 5,0]6 9,m 1986 5,010 9,340 1987 5,047 9,29] 1988 5,062 9,733 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1970-1988 1970·1980 1980·1988 ISE~ - 2.8X 0.5X 3.8X ·0.1X 1.6X 1.3X --····1 Sales Mllh 27,128 29,246 30,797 30,958 31,128 32,838 35,059 35,082 36,754 37,462 39,135 42,834 43,164 44,961 51,292 49,236 46,795 46,904 49,269 3.4X 3.7X 2.~ Ketchikan Public Utilities Historical load Data COillllercial Street lndust. KPC Mise Total Loss/ Total Peak Sates Sates Sales Sales Use Reqts Demand Load MWh MWh Mlolh Mlolh MWh Ml#l YEAR M\1 Factor 25,381 0 1,384 53,893 7,228 61,121 1970 10.0 0.70 26,067 0 1,521 56,834 6,418 63,252 1971 12.4 0.58 26,975 0 1,572 59,344 7,833 67,1n 1972 12.5 0.61 29,250 0 1,549 61,757 10,221 71,978 1973 13.9 0.59 27,460 0 1,385 59,973 12,512 72,485 1974 13.4 0.62 ~ 29,847 0 1,431 64,116 11,941 76,057 1975 13.7 0.63 E 30,654 0 1,259 66,972 12,360 79,332 1976 14.0 0.65 til 30,501 0 1,109 66,692 13,829 80,521 19n 16.3 0.56 ~ 33,235 0 1,136 71,125 13,586 84,711 1978 15.1 0.64 ~ 33,702 0 1,050 72,214 12,868 85,082 1979 16.1 0.60 -33,285 0 1,328 73,7411 16,350 90,0911 1980 17.7 0.511 t ]6,76] 0 1,866 111,463 12,035 93,498 19111 16.9 0.63 ]9,213 0 1,998 84,375 19,834 104,209 1982 19.1 0.62 39,060 0 1,676 115,697 16,197 101,894 1983 20.8 0.56 ff 41,117 0 1,970 94,379 15,4111 109,1157 1984 21.6 0.511 -0 45,618 0 1,938 96,792 NA NA 1985 25.1 NA :::1. 48,640 0 1,907 97,342 9,818 107,160 1986 20.4 0.60 [ 49,958 3,449 1,857 98,686 12,917 111,603 1987 22.0 0.511 c::: 57,174 15,565 2,061 124,069 11,355 135,424 19811 23.11 0.65 5: ~ 0 s 4.6X NA 2.2X 4.7X 2.5X 4.5X 4.~ ·0.41 2.7X NA ·0.4X 3.2X 8.5X 4.0X 5.~ ·1.8X 7.0X NA 5.6X 6.7X ·4.5X 5.2X 3.8X f ·"' XHIST.WK1 PRINTED 09·Jul·90 --··· Res. Use per Customer kVVh/yr (Thousands) 25~-----------------------------------------------, 20 15 10L---------------------------------~~---------4 5~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q a-8 Q Q u a--"" ~~70;-~-L--L--L~~-L--~-L--L-:::-~~--~~--~--L--L_j 1975 1980 1985 1988 -Ketchikan -1-Metlakatla -+-Petersburg -e--VVrangell Figure 7: Historical Residential Use per Customer 3.2.3 Major Single Electric Loads Ketchikan Pulp Corporation (KPC) self-generates most of its power; otherwise it would be the major firm industrial load on the Ketchikan Public Utilities system. The company is expected to continue to self-generate for two reasons. First, it can produce power for 2.5 cents/kWh average cost using waste wood from its chipping operations mixed with some diesel. Second, it has no alternative means of disposing of the wood waste. KPC began buying power from KPU on a surplus basis in October 1987: 1988 sales were 15,565 MWh. These sales allow KPC to shut down its turbines for occasional maintenance. As of February 1990, KPC and KPU had not reached agreement on a renegotiated power sales agreement to replace the current agreement which is now formally expired but has been informally extended through June 1990. Other major connected loads include several fish processors and the Ferry maintenance facility. Sales to the latter totaled 3403 MWh in 1988 and are forecast to continue at that level. 25 ...... --- 3.2.4 Prospects for New Large Loads Table 6 shows the individual additions to the KPU load which we incorporated into the various forecast scenarios. The table shows three rows of ones and zeros which indicate whether a particular load was (1} or was not (0) incorporated into the Low, Base. or High forecasts. Specific comments on these loads follow. Table 6: Individual Large Loads in KPU Forecast Navy Spruce Capt cape USCG USCG Silver-Fish Fish Tut Mill Fox I Fox II c..-Lor-an Lin. Frz Rejoin Expand .......... ................... ··---------·-· ------ Peak MW 2.5 1.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.0 2.5 Load Fact NA 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 o.a 0.5 0.4 0.4 Include? (1=Y, O•N) LOW 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 SASE 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 HIGH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 Navy Spruce Cape Cape USCG USCG Siher Fish Fish YEAR Test Mill Fox I Fox 11 CalllllUI Loran Lin. Frz Rejoin Expand ......... ............... -------............... ---·--· ·--·--· .................. ............. ... ............... . .......... 1988 1989 1990 2,628 2,190 2,190 1991 2,628 7,008 2,190 2,190 7,008 1992 932 2,628 7,008 2,190 2,190 7,008 1993 988 3,942 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 1994 1,048 5,913 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 1995 1,111 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 1996 1,177 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 1997 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 1998 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 1999 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2000 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2001 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2002 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2003 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2004 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2005 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2006 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8;760 2007 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2008 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2009 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,520 2,190 7,008 8,760 2010 1,248 7,884 2,628 7,008 2,190 17,521) 2,190 7,008 8,760 Navy Test Facility. The US Navy is currently completing the permitting process for a submarine testing facility in the Tongass Narrows which would draw between 25 and 4.5 MW of power when running a test and use about 1,248 MWh annually. The testing cycles are shon ( < 20 minutes) and presumably would be timed to avoid contributing to the KPU system peak load Spruce Mill. The Spruce Mill site is a prime piece of downtown property which is awaiting development as a public lands information center and historical museum with associated retail space. According to the U.S. Forest Service project manager for the information 26 l i ..... -., center18, the lands center is on a national list of interagency projects awaiting a priority ranking for federal funding and should be under construction by 1992 at the latest. Once construction starts on this building, private funds should be forthcoming from the cruise ship industry, among others, for the museum project. Finally, Oty officials19 repon that the City of Ketchikan will be offering the retail portion of the property for lease on about July 1 1990. Cape Fox Lodge Projects. A major lodge ("Cape Fox I") is now under construction by Cape Fox Native Corporation and will be opening for business in september 199()20. This site may eventually house a convention and civic center ("Cape Fox II") funded by the city and the federal government. The City of Ketchikan has received $350,000 in design funds as well as a commiunent by the Economic: Development Administration to provide $600,000 in construction funds. USCG Upper Campus. This is a certain load which will commence later this year when expansion of the Coast Guard upper campus is completed. USCG Loran. KPU is planning to sell significant amounts of power to the Coast Guard Loran station at Shoal Cove once a road is built to the site, which currently uses diesel. There appear to be no firm plans to build such a road at this time, so this substantial load is only included in the High case. Silver Lining Freezer Plant. Silver Uning Seafoods will be consolidating its company-wide freezer operations into additional capacity in Ketchikan. n This capacity is currently under construction and is expected to suppon 12 full time equivalent jobs. Fish Rejoin. This load represents several processing loads which left the KPU system for a period of time between 1987 and 1989 due to a high demand charge. Now that the demand charge has been reduced they are expected to rejoin the grid or have already done so. KPU staff indicate that most of these processors maintained some diesel capacity before they left the grid in 1987. At least one major fir:m. Phillips, added additional diesel capacity when it began self~generating. Fish Expand. Expansion by several fish processors is envisioned by KPU personnel. This expansion activity is consistent with the employment increases in fish processing assumed for the High case economic scenario. Because fish processing is a highly energy intensive industry, the additional load is included explicitly. 1 ~cbael Tcrzicb, personal communication, 13 June 19 AMV>tant City Manager Bill Jones. personal communication, 22 June 1990 ~en Wolfred, Historic Ketchikan, Inc., personal communi.ca.tion 12 June 1990 21John Sund, owner, personal communication, 12 June 1990. 27 .... ~-- 3.25 Projection Scenario Assumptions: All Cases • Load Factor: • Loss/Use Factor: • KPC sales: Base Case • Employment growth: • Residential kWb/cust growth: • Commercial MWh/ employee: • KPC sales: 56 8.0% of sales 15,565 MWb/yr (1988 level) .6% 0.0% 1.6% per year increase (half historical trend) 15,565 MWH (1988 level) The KPC mill runs at capacity through the study period. Logging, Fishing and Fish processing employment remains essentially flat. Tourism expands. See table 6 for a list of large individual loads. Low Case • Employment growth: -.3% • Residential kWh/cust growth: -.2% • Commercial MWh/ employee: 0% per year increase • KPC sales: drops to 5,000 MWh by 1994 The KPC pulp mill closes in 2005, but the sawmill at Ward Cove remains open. Logging declines 25% from Base case due to lower output from Tongass National Forest. Several flsh processors stay off the grid. See table 6 for individual large loads. High C~se • Employment growth: • Residential kWh/cust growth: • Commercial MWh/ employee: • KPC Sales: 2.6% .4% (trend value 1970-87) 3.2% per year increase (1970-87 trend value) 15,565 MWh (1988 level) In the High case logging expands 10% over Base case levels due to a strong market for cants (minimaHy processed logs) which are substitutes for declining round log exports from Native lands. The Quartz Hill mine comes on line in 1995. Fish processing expands with the addition of a fish-food plant to serve a new fish farming industry which develops on Outer Prince of Wales Island, or some other combination of processor expansion yielding 50 jobs and 25 MW of load. Large loads include 2.5 MW Coast Guard Loran station (see table 6). 28 ~ ! p Ketchikan Public Utilities Load forecast: L~ Case Comnerclal Street, Total Firm forecast J-····· Residential ······I lndust. ICPC Mise Total loSS/ Energy Energy Peak I Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Use ReqU Reqts load Demand YEAR kWh MWh MWh Mllh MWh MWh MWh MWh YEAR MWh factor Mil ............. ........... _ .. . ............ _ ................... --..... --... ... ............ ... ............. .. .............. ............. ............. ... ............. ............ .. ............. ................. 1988 5,055 9,513 48,085 57,174 15,565 2,061 122,885 9,831 132,716 1988 117,151 0.56 23.9 1989 5,105 9,494 48,4n 59,665 15,565 2,082 125,784 10,063 135,846 1989 120,211 0.56 24.5 1990 5,301 9,475 50,232 67,036 15,565 2,093 134,927 10,794 145,721 1990 130,156 0.56 26.5 1991 5,311 9,456 50,224 66,594 12,000 2,080 130,899 10,4n 141,370 1991 129,370 0.56 26.4 1992 5,297 9,437 49,991 66,847 10,000 2,060 128,198 10,312 139,210 1992 128,278 0.56 26.1 ~ 1993 5,321 9,419 50,115 70,939 7,500 2,063 130,617 10,449 141,067 1993 132,579 0.56 27.0 Cl"' -1994 5,412 9,400 50,870 73,831 5,000 2,088 131,790 10,543 142,333 1994 136,285 0.56 27.8 n> ..... 1995 5,492 9,381 51,520 76,244 5,000 2,099 134,863 10,789 145,652 1995 139,541 0.56 28.4 .. 1996 5,554 9,362 51,995 76,522 s,ooo 2,105 135,622 10,850 146,472 1996 140,295 0.56 28.6 ~ 1997 5,556 9,343 51,911 76,137 5,000 2,092 135,141 10,811 145,952 1997 139,704 0.56 28.5 .... I 1998 5,554 9,325 51,787 75,929 5,000 2,086 134,103 10,784 145,587 1998 139,339 0.56 28.4 1999 5,564 9,306 51,775 75,167 5,000 2,084 134,n6 10,771 145,504 1999 139,256 0.56 28.4 ~ 2000 5,609 9,287 52,093 76,096 5,000 2,091 135,280 10,122 146,103 2000 139,155 0.56 28.5 i 2001 5,651 9,269 52,381 76,215 5,000 2,094 135,690 10,855 146,545 2001 140,297 0.56 28.6 2002 5,688 9,250 52,617 76,303 5,000 2,097 136,017 10,881 146,898 2002 140,650 0.56 28.7 w 2003 5,719 9,232 52,101 76,376 5,000 2,099 136,276 10,902 147,178 2003 140,930 0.56 28.7 2004 5,755 9,213 53,025 76,490 5,000 2,102 136,617 10,929 147,546 2004 141,298 0.56 21.8 2005 5,2$5 9,195 48,318 75,178 100 2,065 125,661 10,053 135,714 2005 134,366 0.56 27.4 tort 0 2006 5,277 9,177 48,420 75,439 100 2,072 126,032 10,083 136,115 2006 134,767 0.56 27.5 ~ 2007 5,338 9,158 48,889 75,758 100 2,082 126,128 10,146 136,974 2007 135,626 0.56 27.6 ~ 2008 5,400 9,140 49,355 76,044 100 2,090 127,589 10,207 137,796 2008 136,448 0.56 27.8 2009 5,449 9,122 49,701 76,194 100 2,094 128,090 10,247 138,337 2009 136,989 0.56 27.9 2010 5,499 9,103 50,055 76,391 100 2,100 128,646 10,292 138,938 2010 137,590 0.56 28.0 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 0.2X ·0.2X ·O.OX o.n ·22.ll o.ox ·0.2X ·0.2X ·0.2X 0.3X 0.3X 1990·2000 0.6X ·0.2X 0.4X 1.3X ·10.7X ·O.OX o.ox o.ox o.ox O.Tl O.Tl 2000·2010 ·0.2X ·0.2X ·0.4X o.ox ·32.4X o.ox ·0.5X ·0.5X ·0.5X ·0.2X ·0.2X ' ISER FCSJ_IC Printed 09·Jul·90 r r Ketchikan Public Utilities load Forecast: BASE Case C Ol!llle ref a l Street, Total Firm Forecast I······ Residential ······I lndust. KPC Mise Total loSS/ Energy Energy Peak tl Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Use Reqts Reqh load Demand YEAR k\.lh M\.lh M\.lh MWh Mllh HWh Hllh """' YEAR H\.lh factor "" 1988 5,055 9,513 48,085 57,174 15,56~ 2,061 122,885 9,831 132,716 1988 117,151 0.56 23.9 1989 5,116 9,513 48,672 59,763 15,565 2,085 126,086 10,087 136,172 1989 120,607 0.56 24.6 1990 5,329 9,513 50,692 68,184 15,565 2,099 136,540 10,923 147,463 1990 131,898 0.56 26.9 1991 5,405 9,513 51,423 83,466 15,565 2,108 152,562 12,205 164,767 1991 149,202 0.56 30.4 1992 5,465 9,513 51,990 85,445 15,565 2,111 155,111 12,409 167,520 1992 151,023 0.56 30.8 ~ 1993 5,535 9,513 52,659 90,887 15,565 2,123 161,235 12,899 174,134 1993 157,581 0.56 32.1 c::r -1994 5,624 9,513 53,504 94,475 15,565 2,138 165,682 13,255 178,937 1994 162,324 0.56 33.1 " 1995 5,660 9,513 53,844 97,141 15,565 2,128 168,678 13,494 182,172 1995 165,496 0.56 33.7 ~ 1996 5,689 9,513 54,123 98,289 15,565 2,129 170,106 13,608 183,714 1996 166,972 0.56 34.0 ~ 1997 5,722 9,513 54,432 99,450 15,565 2,130 171,576 13,726 185,302 1997 168,489 0.56 34.3 t 1998 5,808 9,513 55,256 101,089 15,565 2,144 174,054 13,924 187,978 1998 171,165 0.56 34.9 1999 5,814 9,513 55,307 102,050 15,565 2,141 175,063 14,005 189,068 1999 172,255 0.56 35.1 (JJ 2000 5,869 9,513 55,833 103,487 15,565 2,148 177,033 14,163 191,196 2000 174,383 0.56 35.5 0 I:Jj 2001 5,917 9,513 56,286 104,749 15,565 2,151 178,751 14,300 193,051 2001 176,238 0.56 35.9 ~ 2002 5,940 9,513 56,513 105,788 15,565 2,149 180,014 14,401 194,415 2002 177,602 0.56 36.2 2003 5,956 9,513 56,657 106,829 15,565 2,146 181,196 14,496 195,692 2003 171,179 0.56 36.5 w 2004 5,982 9,513 56,904 108,099 15,565 2,147 182,715 14,617 197,333 2004 180,520 0.56 36.1 2005 6,030 9,513 57,368 109,674 15,565 2,155 184,762 14,781 199,543 2005 182,730 0.56 37.2 "r1 2006 6,099 9,513 58,017 111,426 15,565 2,167 187,174 14,974 202,148 2006 185,335 0.56 37.8 0 ri 2007 6,181 9,513 58,800 113,341 15,565 2,180 189,886 15,191 205,077 2007 185,264 0.56 38.4 a 2008 6,276 9,513 59,707 115,383 15,565 2,196 192,851 15,428 208,279 2008 191,466 0.56 39.0 ... 2009 6,373 9,513 60,624 117,412 15,565 2,211 195,811 15,665 211,476 2009 194,663 0.56 39.7 2010 6,460 9,513 61,458 119,349 15,565 2,222 198,594 15,888 214,482 2010 197,669 0.56 40.3 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990-2010 t.OX o.ox 1.0X 2.8X o.ox 0.3X 1.9X 1.9X 1.9X 2.0X 2.0X 1990·2000 t.OX o.ox 1.0X 4.3X o.ox 0.2X 2.6X 2.6X 2.6X 2.8X 2.8x 2000·2010 1.ox o.ox , .ox 1.4X o.ox 0.3X 1.2X 1.2X 1.2X t.lX 1 .3X ISER FCST_IC: Printed 09·Jul·90 tt i Ketchikan Public Uti! ities Load forecast: HIGH Case Coomerc let Street, KPU Quartz KPU firm Forecast Quartz J······ Residential ······I lndust. ICPC Mise Total Loss/ Total Hltt Energy KPU Peak Hill I Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Use Reqts Reqts Reqts Load Demand Peek YEAR kUh HUh HUh H14h HIJh HUh Mutt HUh MIJh YEAR MWh Factor "" "" --····· 1988 5,055 9,513 48,085 57,174 15,565 2,061 122,885 9,831 132,716 0 1988 117,151 0.56 23.9 1989 5,122 9,551 48,919 59,826 15,565 2,087 126,396 10,112 136,508 0 1989 120,943 0.56 24.7 1990 5,365 9,590 51,451 69,317 15,565 2,105 138,437 11,075 149,512 0 1990 133,947 0.56 27.3 1991 5,520 9,628 53,148 86,553 15,565 2,140 157,405 12,592 169,998 0 1991 154,433 0.56 31.5 ~ 1992 5,670 9,666 54,805 90,397 15,565 2,163 162,930 13,034 175,964 0 1992 159,467 0.56 32.5 1993 5,816 9,705 56,443 123,108 15,565 2,188 198,004 15,840 213,845 0 1993 197,292 0.56 40.2 c::r -~ 1994 6,095 9,744 59,392 130,103 15,565 2,237 207,297 16,584 223,881 14,400 1994 207,261 0.56 42.3 ...0 1995 7,046 9,783 61,932 142,913 15,565 2,440 229,850 18,388 248,238 199,800 1995 231,562 0.56 47.2 47.5 .. 1996 7,054 9,822 69,282 145,118 15,565 2,427 232,392 18,591 250,983 250,300 1996 234,241 0.56 47.7 47.5 ~ r+ 1997 6,956 9,861 68,598 146,291 15,565 2,391 232,844 18,628 251,472 250,300 1997 234' 659 0.56 47.8 47.5 0 1998 7,235 9,901 71,628 151,417 15,565 2,439 241,049 19,284 260,333 453,200 1998 243,520 0.56 49.6 47.5 f 1999 7,303 9,940 n,593 154,608 15,565 2,443 245,209 19,617 264,825 475,600 1999 248,012 0.56 50.6 88.0 ~ 2000 7,646 9,980 76,310 160,973 15,565 2,507 255,355 20,428 275,783 476,100 2000 258,970 0.56 52.8 88.0 e; 2001 7,683 10,020 76,984 164,183 15,565 2,505 259,237 20,739 279,976 476,100 2001 263,163 0.56 53.6 88.0 '§. 2002 7,805 10,060 78,523 168,550 15,565 2,522 265,160 21,213 286,373 476,300 2002 269' 560 0.56 54.9 88.0 2003 7,899 10,100 79,778 1n,609 15,565 2,531 270,482 21,639 292,121 476,300 2003 275,308 0.56 56.1 88.0 ~ 2004 7,991 10,141 81,031 1n,095 15,565 2,544 276,234 22,099 298,333 476,300 2004 281,520 0.56 57.4 88.0 Q 2005 8,130 10,181 az, m 182,429 15,565 2, 568 283,340 22,667 . 306,007 478,200 2005 289,194 0.56 59.0 88.0 61 2006 8,303 10,222 84,868 188,224 15,565 2,597 291,254 23,300 314,554 478,200 2006 297. 741 0.56 60.1 88.0 (i 2007 8,486 10,263 87,086 194,403 15,565 2,627 299,681 23,974 323,655 478,200 2007 306,842 0.56 62.5 88.0 a 2oo8 8,703 10,304 89,678 201,236 15,565 2,663 309,142 24,131 333,873 478,200 2008 317,060 0.56 64.6 88.0 r+ 2009 8,940 10,345 92,490 208,457 15,565 2,700 319,212 25,537 344,749 478,200 2009 327,936 0.56 66.8 118.0 2010 9,173 10,387 95,279 215,6n 15,565 2,132 329,253 26,340 355,594 478,200 2010 338,181 0.56 69.1 118.0 Ava Annual Growth Rates 1990-2010 2.7X 0.4X 3. 1X 5.8X o.ox 1.3X 4.4X 4.4X 4.4X 4.7X 4.7X 1990·2000 3.6X 0.4X 4.0X 8.8X o.ox 1.8X 6.3X 6.3X 6.3X 6.8X 6.8X 2000·2010 1.8X 0.4X 2.2X :S.OX o.ox 0.9X 2.6X 2.6X 2.6X 2.7X 2.7X ISER FCST_IC Printed 09·Jul·90 .- -·~ Ketchikan Public Utilities Forecast Total Sales Thousand MWh 350r---------------------------------------------~ 300 250 -I 2001 z: ........... ~ 150 100------·~-·-.. ·--·····. 50 0 lflll!llfll!llllJHIII!IIJIIIJ!ItlltlfiiJ!Uflll!liiU!f! I ! I I I t I I ! I I t I I I ! I l I ! ! ! I 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 20015 2010 c:J Actual -I-LOW ....._ BASE -e-HIGH Excludea Quartz Hill Ketchikan Public Utilities Forecast Peak Load Peak Load. MW 80.---------------------------~ 70 60 50 ::E . . ;;G:;;;:::::;-:=J 20 m~ ~l 10 .r:· :.; ilWHt----------t o Ul.lw;umrmn.u.umm!ll!llmmm.n.l I • I I I I I I I I • , , , , , I , , , , , I 1 1970 1975 1980 1985 1188 1915 2000 20015 2010 c:J Actual -I-LOW -BASE -e-HIGH Excludea Quartz Hill Figure 8: Ketchikan Sales and Peale Load Forecast 32 p ~ "'%1 ~· ~ ~ R [ t:lj Coil e: Coil CD ~ CD 6' c: ~ -~ 0 ~ Ketchikan Public Utilities Requirements: Base Case Thousand MWh 250.-------------------------------------------------~ Actual Base Case Forecast 200 150 100 50 0 t····.:r::::::;T::-:-:-I·.;.:,I·--:-1 :·:::-:-1 .. ;.:-:I ·<·-t: I I I I I I.' I I <·.··I ··t <I :-1 · .. -.... I I I I I I· I I >t· ... ·.·t I ·-1 I "·I 'I· I I I I 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 2010 I : I Res c=J Comm/lnd .. Other .,. KPC economy ~Losses ISER FCST _K.WK1 ---~ 3.3 Metlakatla Load Forecast 3.3.1 Economy Metlakatla is located on Annette Island, about 15 miles southwest of Ketchikan. The community of approximately 1,500 people is within the Annette Islands Indian Reservation. Table 10 and figure 10 display historical data for the entire Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Census Area. These data cover the smallest possible unit for which economic statistics are compiled. However, the data include the volatile logging sector which makes up a large part of the Prince of Wales Island economy; Metlakatla's economy is more stable. The Metlakatla economy is primarily supported by the timber and fishing industries. Although little local employment is derived from the direct harvesting of timber, royalty payments to. the community from harvesting firms totalled S5 million from 1967 through 1987. The remaining timber resource is expected to net the community an additional $3 million of revenue, if the entire resource is harvested In addition to the harvesting revenue, a community-owned sawmill operated by the Ketchikan Pulp Company under a long term lease is a major employer. 110 year-round full-time jobs are provided by the mill, and an additional 30 jobs are associated with longshoreing activities. Major expansion of lumber operations is not expected in light of KPCs recent opening of a second company sawmill at their Ward Cove pulp mill. On the other hand, decreases in operating time are not likely to be induced by a lower timber harvest from Native lands: the sawmill can operate on the supply of timber provided through KPCs long term contract for Tongass timber. The KPC-Annette Island sawmill lease ends in 2004. Even if the KPC pulp mill shuts down at the expiration of its 50 year contract period in 2004, we assume that the sawmill will remain operational through the study period using timber obtained through the normal Forest Service timber sale process, perhaps with a new operator. Fisheries activities support the economy through harvesting jobs, fish processing jobs, and hatchery jobs. Salmon and herring are the primary species harvested. Harvesting provides approximately 13 jobs on an annual average basis. Fish processing at the community-owned Annette Island Packing Company provides 70 jobs (annual average) and contributes approximately $300,000 per year to the community governmenL The Tamgas Creek Hatchery provides about 10 jobs. Salmon and herring fishery activity is expected to remain stable in the future. Growth depends on future strength of the salmon runs. There is the future prospect of a shellfish cannery on Annette Island. 34 H i Historical Economic Data for PRINCE of UAlES-OUTER kETCHIKAN Census Area Avg Am. PRINCE OF UAlES·OUTER KETCHIKAN Growth EMPLOYMENT (thousands) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 (1) 1980·88 Mining NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ~ Construction 18 17 NA 50 35 49 45 28 71 76 19.01 Jl) Manufacturing (2) 534 572 589 554 634 527 647 515 150 585 4.31 c:::r -Transp/Commun/Util 87 101 80 NA 52 93 84 96 100 161 1.81 "' Wholesale Trade NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA """" Retail Trade 67 10] 102 118 150 158 166 190 207 227 15.21 !=? Fin/lnsur/R Estate 17 31 37 61 45 50 45 39 40 47 11.21 ~ Services 53 76 61 96 105 110 120 132 138 155 12.91 Federal Government 51 62 71 85 86 111 114 110 110 110 10.21 .... 0 State Government 15 21 24 25 26 31 30 29 31 31 9.41 ::t local Government 412 477 452 455 515 654 574 545 541 529 3.51 e!. ···-·······-·············-···--···-·················-··--·-··········-··-············--·-·····-······························-···· Subtotal: Uage & Salary 1,278 1,502 1,510 1,544 1,684 1,818 1,844 1,697 2,005 s.8x w Military 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR Proprietors (]) 123 112 139 136 142 148 145 146 149 2.41 8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••z••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••=•••• TOTAL EMPlOYMENT 1,401 1,614 1,649 1,680 1,126 1,966 1,989 1,143 2,154 5.51 ~. n EMPLOYMENT by SECTOR tj w Manufacturlng/~lnlngJ (2,4) 534 572 589 554 634 527 647 515 750 4.31 F. ....,. Infrastructure 104 117 113 116 87 142 129 124 171 6.31 Trade/Service/Finance (4) 137 210 206 281 300 318 330 361 386 u.ax '"C fed Govt 51 62 71 as 86 111 114 110 110 10.21 5· State/local Govt 427 497 476 479 541 685 604 574 572 3.71 R Proprietors (3) 123 112 139 136 142 148 145 146 149 2.41 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1,401 1,614 1,649 1,680 1,126 1,966 1,989 1,143 2,154 5.5X 0 ...., REAL PERSONAl INCOME (Million 1988 $)and POPULATION ~ 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 £1: 6 Real Pers. Inc., million 1988$ 55.14 57.99 61.92 68.44 67.37 71.51 n.14 76.25 83.26 5.31 c: -Population (BEA eat.) 3,838 3,894 4,032 4,301 4,560 4,817 5,289 5,190 5,385 4.31 (11 .., Real Per Capita Income, 1988$ 14,366 14,892 15,356 15,913 14,715 14,845 14,584 14,691 15,462 0.91 ~ Notes: (1) 1989 Data Is average of first two quarters only i (2) Manufacturing Sector Includes Logging, Sawmills, Pulp Mills, and Fish Processing (3) Proprietors employment Includes fish harvesting (4) Manufacturing/Mining excludes Mining: Trade excludes Uholesale Trade (data not available) Sources: Employment by Industry from Ak. Dept. of labor, Statistical Quarterly. Number of Military from Ak. Dept. of labor, Population Overview: Econo.lc Trends, Nov. 1987; and fued sheet from Neal Fried dated 3/5/1990. Number of proprietors from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Econ. ~nalysla, fiche 4/88 and printout 4/90 Personal Income from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, BEA, Table CAS Printouts of 11/89 and 4/90 ISER SEMPINC3.WK1 Printed 09·Jul·90 ~ i """' ~ ~ .,.. 0 ::t et ('1j ~ -~ n w g 0'\ g. a 0 ...., ~ n (ll ~ c; "1 ~ .,.. n f 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Historical Employment Growth POW -Outer Ketchikan Census Area 1180 1181 -Mfrg/Minlng liiiiill S l L Oovl 1182 1183 ~ lnfratlruoture 0 Proprietors 1185 1187 CJ Tnde/Svoe/Finanoe Ill hd Oovl -MilO 1188 ...... ...... ... 3.3.2 Residential and Commercial Use Table 11 presents historical data on Metlakatla electricity use. Residential use per customer in Metlakatla is very high, averaging 17,250 kWh in 1988 (see figure 7). This high usage is primarily due to use of electricity for space heating and water heating in conjunction with poorly insulated homes. Wood, propane, and fuel oil are available as substitute space heating fuels. Use per customer declined substantially between 1970 and 1979, providing evidence that some fuel switching occurred during this period. Further declines since 1980 are not statistically significant, however, when fluctuations in the weather are taken into account. The Metlakatla data on residential use per customer can be described by a regression on time and weather which takes special account of the apparent fuel switching activity during the 1970-79 period. See Appendix B for details. The equation implies that for forecasting purposes, constant use per customer (after normaHzing the 1987 data for weather factors) makes the most sense for the Base case. For consistency with the other areas of the study region, a growth rate of .4% per year is used in the High case. To allow for the fact that substantial declines are still possible should fuel switching accelerate again, the low case assumes a .4% annual decline in use per customer. 3.3.3 Major Single Electrical Loads The KPC sawmill consumes about 6000 MWh/year (1989 data), or about 40% of Metlakatla Power & Light's (MPL) annual sales. The mill operates year round, 16-20 hours per day for typically 5 days per week, although 7 day per week operation sometimes occurs. The sawmilrs load fluctuates substantially on a second-by-second basis. The MPL hydroelectric plants cannot respond quickly enough to this variation in load. Thus, MPL is forced to a run a 3,500 kW diesel generator loaded to 1,000 kW in order to respond to the sawmill load and maintain system stability. Although large amounts of wood waste are generated at the mill, it is required by contract to buy electricity from MPL instead of generating its own power. Wood waste is currently disposed of in the community land fill. According to Metlakatla utility staff, 22 the power sales agreement is an integral part of the operating lease agreement. The contract rates are designed to recover the average variable cost of producing power, including capital payments for the diesel generators. Staff also indicated that they have looked into installing generating equipment in the mill, but found it unpromising, partly because of the large surges in load which can accompany stan-up or a particularly bad knot in a log. To allow for these surges, diesels would presumably have to be sized substantially larger than necessary to cover the "average" peak demand. 22 Gordon Thompson, personal communication, 19 June 1990. 37 I • Metlakatla Power and Light Historical Load Data Small Ind. & Street Total 1·--·--Residential -·····1 COnm. Special Pub Auth Total loss/ Energy Peak I Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Use Reqts Demand Load YEAR k\lh M\lh M\lh Hllh Mllh Mllh Hllh Hllh YEAR MWh Factor 1970 282 22,626 6,380 443 6,231 403 13,458 1,664 15,122 1970 3.8 0.45 1971 294 23,897 7,026 522 6,387 488 14,423 1,758 16,181 1971 5.3 0.35 1972 297 23,919 7,104 719 7,535 412 15,no 2,440 18,210 1972 5.5 0.38 1973 315 22,038 6,942 1,080 8,292 863 11,1n 2,540 19,717 1973 4.4 0.51 ;' 1974 345 19,946 6,881 1,172 7,704 665 16,422 3,604 20,026 1974 5.4 0.42 c:r 1975 329 20,711 6,814 1,350 5,565 368 14,097 2,748 16,845 1975 5.3 0.36 -I'D 1976 339 18,735 6,351 1,408 5,089 748 13,596 1,544 15,140 1976 NA ItA """' 19n 363 17,463 6,339 1,330 6,280 886 14,835 421 15,256 19n ItA ItA ~ 1978 355 17,980 6,383 1,316 6,018 847 14,564 380 14,944 1978 NA NA a: 1979 359 15,198 5,456 1,149 5,213 790 12,608 2,200 14,808 1979 NA IIA n ! 1980 369 17,626 6,504 1,465 6,095 883 14,947 2,229 17,176 1980 4.0 0.49 1981 388 15,969 6,196 1,610 4,691 959 13,456 2,322 15,n8 1981 4.2 0.43 1982 397 17,071 6,m 1,973 3,822 1,038 13,610 1,873 15,483 1982 3.6 0.49 ~ 1983 430 15,074 6,482 1,865 4,639 1,602 14,588 2,001 16,589 1983 3.9 0.49 g; 00 1984 467 16,054 7,497 1,879 7,647 1,474 18,497 1,169 19,666 1984 5.7 0.39 s 1985 440 17,186 7,562 1,934 6,214 1,536 17,246 2,316 19,562 1985 s.o 0.45 :::1. 1986 460 16,609 7,640 1,992 7,794 2,067 19,493 1,252 20,745 1986 6.2 0.38 a. 1987 450 17,151 7,718 2,215 7,730 2,3]9 20,062 1,832 21,894 1987 6.6 0.38 c:: 1988 460 17,250 7,935 ],229 8,071 2,503 21,738 2,224 23,962 19U 4.8 0.57 ~ ~ 0 Avg Annual Growth Retea e 1970·1988 2.81 ·1.51 1.21 11.71 1.41 10.71 2.71 1.61 2.6X t.:SI 1.31 1970-1980 2.71 ·2.51 0.21 12.71 ·0.21 8.21 1.11 3.01 1.31 0.51 0.81 1980-1988 2.81 ·0.31 2.51 10.41 ].61 13.91 4.81 -0.01 4.21 2.]1 1.91 ISER XHISl .IJK1 PRINTED 10·Jul-90 .... --... The Annette Island Packing Company, consumes approximately 1200 MWhfyear. The refrigeration equipment associated with this fish processing operation consumes substantial electricity from April through September. The Metlakatla school system is also a large electticity consumer. The school currently heats a swimming pool with electricity. MPL has waived the demand charge for the school to make the heating method more attractive to the school. All of these individual large loads are treated separately from the commercial forecast using the econometric equation. 39 .... -·~ 3.3.4 Scenario Assumptions All Cases • Load Factor: .40 • Loss/Use Factor: 10.8% of sales • Sawmill/ Industrial sales: 8071 MWh/yr (1988level) Base Case • Employment growth: .6% • Residential kWh/cust growth: 0.0% (1979-88 Trend) • Commercial MWh/ employee: 1.6% per year increase (half historical trend) The KPC mill runs at capacity through the study period. Logging on Prince of Wales Island declines as Native !Imber Inventories are exhausted. Fishing and Fish processing employment remains essentially flat. Low Case • Employment grm~·th: -.4% • Residential kWh/cust growth: -.4% • Commercial MWh/employee: 0% per year increase Logging employment declines by 25% relative to Base case as sustainable yield from the Tongass National Forest is reduced from 400 MMbf to 300 MMbf. High Case • Employment growth: 1.8% • Residential kWh/cust growth: .4% (trend value 1970-87) • Commercial MWh/ employee: 3.2% per year increase ( 1970-87 trend value) A shellfish cannery is built on the island by 1993 which consumes 1,200 MWh annually, the level of the existing packing plant. The plant adds 50 jobs to the economy. Logging employment is 10% higher than Base case, reflecting strong markets for minimalJy processed logs as Native round log exports decline. 40 H i Metlakatla Power and Light load Forecast: LOY Case Small Ind. & Street, Total Firm Forecast J------Residential ·---··1 COIIIII. Special Pub Auth Total loss/ Energy Energy Peak I cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Use Reqts Reqts load Demand YEAR kWh MWh MWh MWh HUh MWh MWh MWh YEAR MWh Factor "" .................. -····-· ... ........... ................... . .............. ... ............. ... ............... ... ............... ............. .. .............. ............. .............. . ....... 1988 460 17,178 7,902 3,229 8,146 2,427 21,704 2,344 24,048 1988 24,048 0.40 6.9 1989 484 17,204 8,323 3,349 8,146 2,477 22,295 2,408 24,703 1989 24,703 0.40 7.1 1990 509 17,135 8,716 3,352 8,146 2,528 22,742 2,456 25,198 1990 25,198 0.40 7.2 1991 516 17,067 8,800 3,334 8,416 2,542 23,092 2,494 25,586 1991 25,586 0.40 7.3 ~ 1992 515 16,999 8,747 3,298 8,416 2,540 23,001 2,484 25,485 1992 25,485 0.40 7.3 E 1993 511 16,931 8,648 3,331 8,416 2,532 22,928 2,476 25,404 1993 25,404 0.40 7.3 ~ 1994 506 16,863 8,533 3,390 8,416 2,523 22,862 2,469 25,331 1994 25,331 0.40 7.2 r;; 1995 502 16,796 8,427 3,381 8,416 2,514 22,739 2,456 25,194 1995 25,194 0.40 7.2 1996 506 16,729 8,469 3,361 8,416 2,524 22,769 2,459 25,229 1996 25,229 0.40 7.2 a: n 1997 511 16,662 8,520 3,292 8,416 2,534 22,762 2,458 25,220 1997 25,220 0.40 7.2 c 1998 515 16,595 8,544 3,234 8,416 2,541 22,735 2,455 25,190 1998 25,190 0.40 7.2 i 1999 517 16,529 8,549 3,185 8,416 2,545 22,696 2,451 25,147 1999 25,147 0.40 7.2 .Jlo. 2000 520 16,463 8,559 3,191 8,416 2,551 22,717 2,453 25,171 2000 25,171 0.40 7.2 ...... i 2001 523 16,398 8,573 3,191 8,416 2,556 22,737 2,456 25,193 2001 25,193 0.40 7.2 2002 525 16,332 8,579 3,185 8,416 2,561 22,741 2,456 25,197 2002 25,197 0.40 7.2 2003 528 16,267 8,583 3,185 8,416 2,566 22,750 2,457 25,208 2003 25,208 0.40 7.2 w 2004 531 16,202 8,597 3,185 8,416 2,571 22,770 2,459 25,229 2004 25,229 0.40 7.2 2005 5]5 16,137 8,627 3,188 8,416 2,579 22,811 2,464 25,274 2005 25,274 0.40 7.2 .,., 2006 539 16,073 8,657 3,195 8,416 2,587 22,855 2,468 25,323 2006 25,323 0.40 7.2 ~ 2007 54] 16,009 8,696 3,204 8,416 2,596 22,911 2,474 25,385 2007 25,385 0.40 7.2 a 2008 549 15,945 8,746 3,210 8,416 2,606 22,978 2,482 25,460 2008 25,460 0.40 7.3 ~ ... 2009 554 15,881 8,792 3,210 8,416 2,616 23,033 2,488 25,521 2009 25,521 0.40 7.3 2010 558 15,818 8,833 3,210 8,416 2,625 23,084 2,493 25,577 2010 25,577 0.40 7.3 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990-2010 0.5X -0.4X 0.1X -o.2x 0.2X 0.2X 0.1X 0.1X 0.1X 0. tX 0. tX 1990-2000 0.2X -0.4X ·0.2X ·0.5X 0.3X 0. tX -o.ox -o.ox -o.ox -o.ox -o.ox 2000-2010 0.7X ·0.4X 0.3X 0. tX o.ox 0.3X 0.2X 0.2X 0.2X 0.2X 0.2X ISER FCST_M Printed 09·Jul·90 p Metlakatla Power and light load Forecast: SASE tase Small ·Ind. & Street, Total Firm Forecast 1······ Residential ······J C011111. Special Pub Auth Jot at loss/ Energy Energy Peak II Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sates Sales Sales Use Reqts Reqts load Demand YEAR kWh Mlo'h MWh M\lh Ml.lh Milt! Mlo'h MWh YEAR Mlo'h factor "" ............. 1988 460 17,178 7,902 3,229 8,146 2,427 21,704 2,344 24,048 1988 24,048 0.40 6.9 1989 484 17,273 8,357 3,352 8,146 2,477 22,332 2,412 24,743 1989 24,743 0.40 7.1 1990 509 17,273 8,786 3,402 8,146 2,528 22,862 2,469 25,331 1990 25,331 0.40 7.2 1991 516 11,273 8,920 3,467 8,416 2,544 23,347 2,521 25,869 1991 25,869 0.40 7.4 ~ 1992 517 17,273 8,929 3,513 8,416 2,545 23,403 2,528 25,931 1992 25,931 0.40 7.4 E 1993 514 17,273 8,874 3,591 8,416 2,538 23,419 2,529 25,948 1993 25,948 0.40 7.4 til 1994 511 17,273 8,819 3,679 8,416 2,532 23,446 2,532 25,978 1994 25,978 0.40 7.4 ~ 1995 508 17,273 8,777 3,725 8,416 2,527 23,445 2,532 25,978 1995 25,978 0.40 7.4 ::: 1996 512 17,273 8,837 3,785 8,416 2,534 23,572 2,546 26,118 1996 26,118 0.40 7.5 ('0 1997 518 17,273 8,943 3,845 8,416 2,546 23,751 2,565 26,316 1997 26,316 0.40 7.5 r::. 1998 524 17,273 9,045 3,904 8,416 2,558 23,923 2,584 26,506 1998 26,506 0.40 1.6 g 1999 530 17,273 9,151 3,967 8,416 2,570 24,104 2,603 26,707 1999 26,707 0.40 7.6 .J>. 2000 536 17,273 9,257 4,034 8,416 2,582 24,289 2,623 26,913 2000 26,913 0.40 7.7 ~ N ttf 2001 542 17,273 9,354 4,085 8,416 2,593 24,448 2,640 27,089 2001 27,089 0.40 7.7 ~ 2002 547 17,273 9,447 4,130 8,416 2,603 24,596 2,656 27,252 2002 27,252 0.40 7.8 ('0 2003 551 11,273 9,525 4,176 8,416 2,612 24,729 2,671 27,399 2003 27,399 0.40 7.8 w 2004 556 17,273 9,599 4,236 8,416 2,620 24,871 2,686 27,557 2004 27,557 0.40 7.9 2005 560 17,273 9,673 4,309 8,416 2,628 25,026 2,703 27,729 2005 27,729 0.40 1.9 6' 2006 566 17,273 9,770 4,392 ' 8,416 2,638 25,216 2,723 27,939 2006 27,939 0.40 8.0 ... 2007 572 17,273 9,881 4,479 8,416 2,650 25,426 2,746 28,172 2007 28,172 0.40 8.0 i 2008 579 17,273 10,006 4,572 8,416 2,664 25,658 2,771 28,429 2008 28,429 0.40 8.1 2009 587 17,273 10,144 4,659 8,416 2,678 25,898 2,797 28,695 2009 28,695 0.40 8.2 2010 595 17,273 10,278 4,736 8,416 2,693 26,123 2,821 28,944 2010 28,944 0.40 8.3 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 o.ax o.ox 0.8X 1. TX 0.2X 0.3X o.rx O.TX O.TX O.TX O.TX 1990·2000 0.5X o.ox 0.5X 1.7X O.lX 0.2X 0.6X 0.6X 0.6X 0.6X 0.6X 2000·2010 1.1X o.ox 1.1X 1.6X o.ox 0.4X O.TX O.TX o.n o.n O.TX lSER FCST_M Printed 09·Jul·90 t Metlakatla Power and light load Forecast: HIGH Case Small Ind. & Street, Total firm Forecast 1······ Residential ······I Comn. Special Pub Auth Total loss/ Energy Energy Peak I Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sales Sales Sales Use Reqts Reqts load Demand YEAR kl.'h Ml.'h INh M\lh M\lh M\lh M\lh Ml.'h YEAR Hl.'h Factor ""' -........... 1988 460 17,178 7,902 3,229 8,146 2,427 21,704 2,344 24,048 1988 24,048 0.40 6.9 1989 484 17,342 8,385 3,352 8,146 2,477 22,360 2,415 24,775 1989 24,775 0.40 7.1 1990 509 17,411 8,866 3,474 8,146 2,529 23,015 2,486 25,500 1990 25,500 0.40 7.3 1991 518 17,481 9,051 3,662 8,416 2,546 23,676 2,557 26,233 1991 26,233 0.40 7.5 1-:J 1992 520 17,551 9,125 3,805 8,416 2,550 23,897 2,581 26,477 1992 26,477 0.40 7.6 = c::r 1993 520 17,622 9,171 3,963 9,616 2,552 25,302 2,733 28,034 1993 28,034 0.40 8.0 -tl> 1994 520 17,692 9,198 4,091 9,616 2,550 25,456 2, 749 28,206 1994 28,206 0.40 8.0 ..... ~ 1995 513 17,763 9,107 4,214 9,616 2,536 25,473 2,751 28,224 1995 28,224 0.40 8.1 a: 1996 515 17,834 9,191 4,348 9,616 2,542 25,697 2,775 28,4n 1996 28,4n 0.40 8.1 n 1997 526 17,906 9,415 4,483 9,616 2,562 26,076 2,816 28,893 1997 28,893 0,40 8.2 &::. 1998 538 17,978 9,674 4,642 9,616 2,586 26,518 2,864 29,382 1998 29,382 0.40 8.4 [ 1999 551 18,050 9,954 4,819 9,616 2,612 27,001 2,916 29,917 1999 29,917 0.40 8.5 ,J:o. 2000 560 18,122 10,154 4,967 9,616 2,629 27,365 2,955 30,321 2000 30,321 0.40 8.7 to' w e:; 2001 570 18,195 10,370 5,145 9,616 2,647 27,m 3,000 3o,m 2001 3o,m 0.40 8.8 2002 578 18,268 10,563 5,300 9,616 2,662 28,141 3,039 31,180 2002 31,180 0.40 8.9 ~ 2003 585 18,341 10,737 5,452 9,616 2,675 28,481 3,076 31,557 2003 31,557 0.40 9.0 w 2004 593 18,414 10,913 5,645 9,616 2,689 28,863 3,117 31,980 2004 31,980 0.40 9.1 2005 601 18,488 111105 5,868 9,616 2,703 29,293 3,164 32,456 2005 32,456 0,40 9.3 61 2006 610 18,562 11,314 6,095 9,616 2, 719 29,744 3,212 32,957 2006 32,957 0.40 9.4 2007 619 18,637 11,533 6,341 9,616 2,736 30,227 3,264 33,491 2007 33,491 0.40 9.6 ~ 2008 629 18,711 11,775 6,612 9,616 2,754 30,757 3,322 34,079 2008 34,079 0.40 9.7 8 9.9 .... 2009 641 18,786 12,033 6,884 9,616 2,774 31,306 3,381 34,688 2009 34,688 0.40 2010 652 18,862 12,303 7,145 9,616 2,794 31,858 3,441 35,299 2010 35,299 0.40 10.1 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 1.2X 0.4X 1.7X 3.7X o.ax 0.5X 1.6X 1.6X 1.6X 1.6X 1.6X 1990·2000 1.0X 0.4X 1.4X 3.6X 1.7X 0.4X 1. 7X 1.7X 1.7X 1. 7X 1.7X 2000·2010 1.5X 0.4X 1.9X 3.7X o.ox 0.6X 1.5X 1.5X 1.5X 1.5X 1.5X ISER FCST .. H Printed 09·Jul·90 ---- Metlakatla Power & Light Forecast Total Sales Thousand MWh 35.-----------------------------------------------~ 30 r--~ 25 -...... ~~;:=::::':::1 201--·--·-· -lltl------------- 151-:-4Hllltt.,·· 10 5 0 IIJUUI.IUI.II.II.IUUI.II.II.H.II.II.II.II.II.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2006 2010 0 Actual --LOW --. BASE -e-HIGH Metlakatla Power & Light Forecast Peak Load Peak Load, MW 12~--------------------------------------------------~ 10 r--· 8 r----~~=-----------=~=~ 61------····-·-------· mn 4 ---.-.n--...t:IF 1---------------------- :11:41:: 2 I dl;:tki!Jf:H:JtiHtl--·------------ ::, 0 H(JBIU11F!lfllt! I I J I llJIIIfUIUUttllrtlllliii I J i I I 1 I I 1 I I I ! 1 I I f I I ! I J I 1970 1975 1UO 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 2010 c::J Actual --LOW -BASE -e-HIGH Figure 11: Metlakatla Sales and Peak Load Forecast 44 Metlakatla Power & Light Requirements: Base Case Thousand MWh 30~------------------------------------------------~ 25 Actual 20 15 10 5 0 Lill~LL~~~-L~~LL~LL~~~~~~LL~LL~LL~-L~ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 2010 E±J Res CJ Comm .. Other ~Industrial ~Losses ISER FCST _MID.WK1 ...... -·~ 3.4 Petersburg Load Forecast 3. 4.1 Economy With a fishing fleet of perhaps 400 boats and several of Alaska's largest fish processing plants, Petersburg (1988 population: 3178) has historically relied on the ocean to support itself. Table 15 and figure 13 show historical employment and population data for the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area. Figure 14 shows 1988 employment by industry and season for the City of Petersburg, and illustrates the seasonal nature of the fish processing industry. (Fish processing employment is classified under manufacturing). Petersburg Power and Light peaks in the summer from the fish plants' demand for motor power, refrigeration, and freezing. 3.4.2 Residential Use Historical data for Petersburg Municipal Power and light (PMPL) is shown in table 16. Petersburg residential use per customer has been declining at an average annual rate of 1.0 percent from 1970 through 1986 (see figure 7). This average reflects a relatively significant decline between 1970 and 1979, followed by an average decline of only 2 percent from 1979 through 1986. Analysis of Petersburg residential use is complicated by the changing status of sales to individual boat harbor customers. Prior to 1987n9 these customers were treated as part of the residential class. They were removed and placed in a separate class beginning in 1987. It appears that calendar year 1987 statistics are inaccurate due to this movement. We therefore obtained fiscal year and monthly data for 1987 and 1988. These data show that the effect of removing harbor customers from the residential class is to increase use per customer by 21 percent, from 6553 (FY87) to 7919 (FY88). The calendar year 1988 figure, 8036, suggests that this higher number is stable. Because of the complications introduced by the harbor statistics, it is inappropriate to base a forecast on a simple time trend fitted to historical data. Instead, we assume per customer growth consistent with Ketchikan: .4, 0 and -.2 percent annual increases in use per customer for the High, Base, and Low cases, respectively. Petersburg's load factor has been relatively constant at an average of .584 between 1980 and 1988. This is due largely to the fact that the Petersburg system peaks in the summer when fish processing is in full swing. At this time the random factor of weather is minimized. We have projected peak load for Petersburg using a load factor of .58. 23 According to Don Schmidt of PMPL, harbor customers were always included in the residential class prior to 1987. However, sales data compiled by the Federal Alaska Power Administration and now maintained by the AEA show some separate ·Harbor" sales statistics for some of the early 1970s. This exclusion of harbor sales from the residential totals at this time might provide an explanation for the drop in use per customer seen at the end of the 1970s . 46 H i Historical Economic Data for WRANGELL-PETERSBURG Census Area Avg Annual WRANGELL-PETERSBURG Growth EMPLOYMENT (000) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 (1) 1980·88 Mining 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR ~ I» Construct ton 164 243 221 352 265 323 172 104 92 66 ·7.0X c:r Manufacturing (2) 1,361 1,042 844 631 488 466 608 9b0 999 641 ·3.8X -~ Transp/Commun/Utll 164 135 158 178 183 185 150 142 174 162 0.7X 1-l Wholesale Trade NA NA 4 10 9 8 7 5 4 4 NA tl1 Retell Trade 312 343 357 375 359 359 365 375 389 382 2.8X ~ fln/lnsur/R Estate 33 44 45 45 58 55 64 61 56 67 7.0X Services 187 181 198 213 210 211 224 222 269 275 4.6X .... Federal Government 222 223 215 207 186 172 162 166 164 164 ·:S.7X 0 State Government 74 82 96 106 106 111 107 96 94 85 3.0X ::::1. Local Government 399 410 446 446 491 511 524 503 537 562 :S.8X el -------------------------------·-···----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal: Uege & Salary 2,970 2,772 2,631 2,605 2,403 2,452 2,451 2,631 2,816 ·0.7X tr1 0 Military 20 21 22 22 13 21 20 23 28 4.3X 0 Proprietors (3) 888 866 1,149 1,316 1,387 1,527 1, 723 1,649 1,688 8.4X I:S 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••c•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••=••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• §. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3,878 3,659 3,802 3,943 3,803 4,000 4,194 4,303 4,532 2.0X 0 EMPLOYMENT by SECTOR 0 cu ~ Henufecturlng/Hinlng (2) 1,361 1,042 844 631 488 466 608 900 999 ·3.8X F. -...J Infrastructure 328 378 379 529 448 508 322 247 266 ·2.6X ~ Trede/Servlce/Finence (4) 531 568 604 642 636 633 659 663 717 3.8X Fed Govt 242 244 237 229 199 193 182 189 192 ·2.9X .... State/Local Govt 473 492 542 552 597 622 631 599 631 3.7X ~ Proprietors (3) 888 866 1,149 1,316 1,387 1,527 1, 723 1,649 1,688 8.4X C1l TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3,878 3,659 3,802 3,943 3,803 4,000 4,194 4,303 4,532 2.0X = I '"d C1l Avg ArnJBl .... REAL PERSONAL INCOME (Million 1988 S) end POPULATION C1l Growth Ci1 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1980·88 c:r c:: Reel Pers. Inc., ~tilton 1988$ 113.13 108.25 106.66 123.09 101.95 125.91 134.36 146.87 158.09 4.3X ~ Population (SEA est.) 6,198 6,305 6,395 6,651 6,544 6,265 6,484 6,737 6,874 1.3X () Reel Per Capite Income, 1988S 18,252 17,168 16,678 18,507 15,579 20,097 20,721 21,801 22,998 2.9X C1l ~ Notes: (1) 1989 Date Is average of first two quarters only ~ (2) Manufacturing Sector Includes Logging, Sawmills, Pulp Hills, end Fish Processing (3) Proprietors employment Includes fish harvesting C1l (4) Excludes wholesale trade (date not evelleble) cu Sources: Employment by Industry from Ak. Dept. of Labor, Statistical Quarterly. Number of ~llltery from Ak. Dept. of Labor, Population Overview; Economic Trends, Nov. 1987; end faxed sheet from Neal Fried dated 3/5/1990. Number of proprietors from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Econ. Analysis, fiche 4/88 end printout 4/90 Personal Income from u.s. Dept. of Commerce, BEA, Table CAS Printouts of 11/89 end 4/90 ISER SEMPINC3.1JK1 Printed 09·Jul·90 p i :!1 ~ ~ g; -0 ::J. e!. tr1 ~ -~ n ~ a .. ~ ! n = t 1,;1 n -a [ ()q () () ~ ~ n .CI' Historical Employment Growth Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area Thousands UJ80 1881 -Mlro/Minlno liiil!IJ 8 & L GOY I 1882 1183 ~ lnrrulruoaure 0 Proprlelort 1184 11J8S 1181 1187 c:J Trade/Svoe/Finanoe Iii Fed Govt -MilO 1888 p t ~ i ~ ~ ...... \0 gg 1 n Ul = 00 i -~ n fl ~ ~ ~ ~ 1988 Employment: Wrangell F·ull Time Equivalent Mfrg/Const . 337 Fed Govt 42 S&L Govt 190 Trade 137 Winter ( 01) Total 1059 ISER estimates from ADOL Data M f rg/Cons t. 560 Fish Harvest 160 Other 106 Fed Govt 49 S&L Govt 167 Trade 170 Summer (03) Total 1309 Fish Harvest 160 Other 118 Petersburg Power and light Historical load Data COII1llerci a I Hisc. & 1·-----Residential -·-·-·1 lndust. Harbor Total Loss/ Total Peak II Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sales Sales Use Reqts Demand Load YEAR kUh Hlolh Hlolh Hllh HUh Hlolh Hlolh YEAR Hlol Factor 1970 767 7,366 5,649 5,206 685 11,540 2,133 13,673 1970 NA NA 1971 744 7,718 5, 742 6,756 599 13,097 3,217 16,314 1971 2.9 0.65 1972 801 6,531 5,231 7;316 701 13,338 3,014 16,352 1972 3.0 0.62 1973 836 5,408 4,521 7,570 694 13,999 2,315 16,314 1973 3.2 0.58 1974 812 7,248 5,886 7,816 1,300 15,002 3, 733 18,735 1974 3.5 0.61 ~ 1975 846 7,359 6,226 9,101 625 15,952 2,248 18,200 1975 3.3 0.64 c:r -1976 858 7,489 6,426 9,825 572 16,823 1,279 18,102 1976 3.7 0.56 tD 19n 922 7,172 6,613 11,392 418 18,423 920 19,343 t9n 3.8 0.59 ""' ~ 1978 985 7,179 7,071 11,645 431 19,147 (80) 19,067 1978 4.0 0.54 '"C:J 1979 1,096 6,361 6,972 11,532 153 18,657 1,831 20,488 1979 4.2 0.56 tD R' 1980 1,147 6,355 7,289 11,232 0 18,522 1,949 20,471 1980 4.2 0.56 rl 1981 . 1,155 6,148 7,101 10,913 0 18,014 2,068 20,082 1981 4.2 0.55 i 1982 1,160 6,450 7,482 12,139 0 19,621 1,693 21,314 1982 4.3 0.57 Vl 0 1983 1,206 6,302 7,600 12,228 19,829 2,129 21,958 1913 4.7 0.53 ~ 1984 1,268 6,420 a, 140 13,857 (0) 21,997 283 22,280 1984 4.8 0.53 1985 1,378 6,414 8,839 14,723 (0) 23,562 3,013 26,575 1985 5.6 0.54 s 1986 1,394 6,270 1,740 17,175 (0) 25,915 4,754 30,669 1916 5.7 0.61 ::t. 1987 1,399 6,673 9,336 15,710 216 25,048 1,880 26,928 1987 s.a 0.5:S R. 1988 1,145 8,036 9,201 16,105 521 25,825 3,873 29,698 1911 s.a 0.59 c:: ~ ~ 0 Avg Annual Growth Rates e 1970·1988 2.31 0.51 2.7X 6.51 ·1.51 4.61 3.41 4.41 1971·1988 4.21 -0.61 1970-1980 4.11 ·1.51 2.61 8.ox ·52.5X 4.8X -0.9X 4.11 1971·1980 4.41 ·1.8X 1980·1988 ·0.01 3.0X 3.0X 4.6X 145.11 4.2X 9.0X 4.81 1980·1988 4.0X o.n ISER XHIST.W1 PRINTED 10-Jul-90 ... ----.... 3.4.3 Major Single Electric Loads The Pacific Fisheries International cold storage plant is the largest single user, consuming 3504 MWh in 1988, equal to about 20% of total commercial/industrial consumption. Other large users include PFI's cannery, several other smaller fish processors, the Blind Slough fish hatchery, and the larger public buildings. None of these facilities is likely to generate their own power in the foreseeable future. 3. 4. 4 Scenario Assumptions All Cases • Load Factor: .58 • Loss/Use Factor: 14.2% of sales Base Case • Employment growth: ·.2% • Residential kWh/cust growth: 0.0% (1979-88 Trend) • Commercial MWb/employee: 1.6% per year increase (half historical trend) Total employment is driven down by a decline in logging jobs on Native lands. Low Case • Employment growth: -.8% • Residential kWh/cust growth: -.2% • Commercial MWb/employee: 0% per year increase Total employment drops due to a decline in logging jobs on both Native and Tongass National Forest lands. High Case • Employment growth: .8% • Residential kWh/cust growth: .4% • Commercial MWb/ employee: 3.2% per year increase ( 1970-87 trend value) The Chatham Cannery (owned by Ocean Beauty Seafoods/ Sealaska) is successfully sold and the buyer expands operations by a factor of two, adding 1050 MWb to annual energy sales beginning in 1992, and adding 24 jobs to the economy. Tourist visits increase 5% annually, vs 3% in the Base case. Logging employment is 10% higher than Base case due to strong demand for minimally processed logs from the Tongass forest to replace Native round log exports. 51 I' Petersburg Municipal Power and light load forecast: LOY Case Cam~erciat Firm forecast J····-· Residential ...... , lrtciJst. Harbor Total loaa/ Total Energy Peak I Cuat Uae/Cuat Sa tea sa tea Sales Sales Use Reqta Reqta load Demand YEAR kUh HUh HUh MUll MUh HUh HUh YEAR HUh factor "" 1988 1,145 8,036 9,201 16,106 446 25, 75] ],657 29,410 1988 29,410 0.58 5.8 1989 1,151 8,020 9,233 16,1S88 446 26,568 1,m 30,341 1989 30,341 0.58 6.0 1990 1,188 1,004 9,508 16,961 449 26,918 3,822 30,741 1990 30,741 0.58 6.1 1991 1,190 7,988 9,504 16,120 449 26,613 ],781 30,461 1991 30,461 0.58 6.0 ~ 1992 1,179 1,912 9,396 16,402 449 26,246 1,127 29,913 1992 29,913 0.58 5.9 1993 1,162 7,956 9,241 16,412 447 26,101 3,706 29,807 1993 29,807 0.58 5.9 " 1994 1,143 7,940 9,076 16,635 446 26,157 3,714 29,871 1994 29,171 0.58 5.9 ..... 1995 1,126 7,924 8,926 16,614 445 25,985 3,690 29,675 1995 29,675 0.58 5.1 ~ 1996 1,126 7,908 8,901 16,130 445 26,076 3,103 29,m 1996 29,7111 0.58 5.9 "'tS B 1997 1,125 7,892 8,879 16,588 444 25,911 3,679 29,591 1997 29,591 0.58 5.8 8 1998 1,121 7,177 8,830 16,508 444 25,783 1,661 29,444 1998 29,444 0.51 5.8 ~ cr 1999 1,115 7,1561 1,767 16,482 444 25,692 3,641 29,340 1999 29,340 0.58 5.1 Ja VI 2000 1, t17 7,845 1,765 16,651 444 25,1560 3,672 29,532 2000 29,532 0.58 5.8 N 2001 1,123 7,829 8,789 16,612 444 25,906 3,619 29,584 2001 29,584 0.58 5.8 i 2002 1,121 7,114 1,817 16,612 445 25,934 3,683 29,617 2002 29,617 0.58 5.8 2003 t,tl4 7,798 1,845 16,683 445 25,913 3,681 29,662 2003 29,662 0.58 5.8 w 2004 1,141 7,782 1,881 16,709 446 26,036 3,697 29,133 2004 29,113 0.51 5.9 2005 1,149 7,767 8,923 16,751 446 26,121 3,709 29,830 2005 29,830 0.51 5.9 .,., 2006 1,156 7,751 8,958 16,804 447 26,209 3,122 29,931 2006 29,931 0.58 5.9 ~ 2007 1,164 7,736 9,001 16,878 448 26,326 3,138 30,064 2007 30,064 0.58 5.9 i 2008 1,172 7,120 9,051 16,930 448 26,429 3,753 30,182 2008 30,182 0.51 5.9 2009 1,180 7,705 9,089 16,940 449 26,478 1,760 10,231 2009 30,238 0.51 6.0 2010 1,187 7,690 9,127 16,961 449 26,538 3,768 30,106 2010 30,306 0.58 6.0 Avg Annual Growth Ratea 1990·2010 ·O.OX ·0.2X ·0.2X o.ox ·O.OX ·0.1X ·0.1X ·0.1X ·0.1X ·0.1X 1990·2000 ·0.6X ·0.2X ·O.BX ·0.2X ·0.1X ·0.4X ·0.4X ·0.4X ·0.4X ·0.4X 2000·2010 0.6X ·0.2X 0.4X 0.2X 0.1X O.lX O.lX O.lX O.lX O.lX JSER fCST_P,\IIC1 Printed 10·Jut·90 n .. Petersburg Hunicipel Power and Light load Forecast: BASE Case Comnerclal Firm Forecast !······ Residential ······I lndust. Harbor Total Loss/ Total Energy Peak I Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sales Sales Use Reqta Reqts Load Demand YEAR kUh MUh MUh Mutt MUh MUh MUh YEAR MUh Factor Ill .......... 1988 1,145 8,036 9,201 16, 106 446 25,753 3,657 29,410 1988 Z9,410 0.58 5.8 1989 1,151 8,036 9,252 16,893 446 26,592 3,716 30,368 1989 30,368 0.58 6.0 1990 1,188 8,036 9,546 17,256 449 27,251 3,870 31,121 1990 31,121 0.58 6.1 1991 1,193 8,036 9,585 17,513 450 27,548 3,912 31,460 1991 31,460 0.58 6.2 ~ 1992 1,187 8,036 9,538 17,576 449 27,563 3,914 31,471 1992 31,477 0.58 6.2 1993 1,174 8,036 9,432 17,927 448 27,807 -3,949 31,756 1993 31,756 0.58 6.3 ftl 1994 1,162 8,036 9,334 18,342 447 28,123 3,994 32,117 1994 32,117 0.58 6.3 .... 9!> 1995 1,153 8,036 9,268 18,482 447 28,196 4,004 32,200 1995 32,200 0.58 6.3 .., 1996 1,154 1,036 9,275 18,122 447 28,544 4,053 32,597 1996 32,597 0.58 6.4 0 .... 1997 1,160 8,036 9,322 19,174 447 28,943 4,110 33,053 1997 33,053 0.58 6.5 n t1 1998 1,166 8,036 9,373 19,526 448 Z9,347 4,167 33,514 1998 33,514 0.58 6.6 [ 1999 1,174 8,036 9,432 19,927 448 Z9,808 4,233 34,041 1999 34,041 0.58 6.7 ~ CJQ 2000 1,182 8,036 9,499 20,331 449 30,278 4,300 34,578 2000 34,578 0.58 6.8 t:D 2001 1,191 8,036 9,569 20,678 450 30,697 4,359 35,056 2001 35,056 0.58 6.9 e! 2002 1,199 8,036 9,632 20,955 450 31,037 4,407 35,444 2002 35,444 0.58 7.0 n 2003 1,205 8,036 9,687 21,254 451 31,392 4,458 35,849 2003 35,849 0.58 7.1 w 2004 1,211 8,036 9,734 21,618 451 11,803 4,516 36,119 2004 36,119 0.58 7.1 2005 1,217 8,036 9,781 22,075 452 32,308 4,588 36,895 2005 36,895 0.58 7.1 6' 2006 1,226 8,036 9,851 22,590 452 32,893 4,671 37,564 2006 37,564 0.58 7.4 ~ 2007 1,237 8,036 9,937 23,142 453 33,532 4,762 38,Z94 2007 38,294 0.58 7.5 a 2008 1,249 8,036 10,039 23,719 454 34,212 4,858 39,071 2008 39,071 0.58 7.7 .... 2009 1,262 8,036 10,145 24,280 455 34,880 4,953 39,833 2009 39,833 0.58 7.8 2010 1,276 8,036 10,255 24,795 456 35,505 5,042 40,547 2010 40,547 0.58 8.0 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 0.41 o.ox 0.4X 1.8X 0.1X 1.3X 1.3X 1.3X 1.3X 1.3X 1990·2000 ·O.OX o.ox ·O.OX 1.7X -o.ox 1.1X 1.1X 1.1X 1.1X 1.1X 2000·2010 O.BX o.ox 0.8X 2.0X o.zx 1.6X 1.6X 1.6X 1.6X 1.6X ISER FCST_P.UK1 Prfnted 09·Jul·90 Petersburg Municipal Power and Light Load Forecast: HIGH Case C011111erctal firm Forecast 1··-·-· Realdentlal ...... , lnctlst. Harbor Total LOU/ Total Energy Peak II Cust Uae/Cust Sa lea Sales Sales Sa lea Use Reqtl Reqta Load Demand YEAR klo'tt """ Mlo'tt Mlo'tt """ """ """' YEAR """ Factor "" 1988 1,145 8,036 9,201 16,106 446 25,753 3,657 29,410 1988 29,410 0.58 5.8 1989 1,151 8,068 9,289 16,909 446 26,M4 3,784 30,428 1989 30,428 0.58 6.0 1990 1,190 8,100 9,638 17,680 449 27,768 3,943 31,711 1990 31,711 0.58 6.2 1991 1,207 8,133 9,819 18,774 451 29,044 4,124 33,168 1991 33,168 0.58 6.5 ~ 1992 1,224 8,165 9,998 20,700 452 31,150 4,423 35,574 1992 35,574 0.58 7.0 0" -1993 1,225 8,191 10,046 21,456 452 31,954 4,537 36,491 1993 36,491 0.58 7.2 til 1994 1,221 8,231 10,046 22,127 452 32,625 4,6!3 37,257 1994 37,257 0.58 7.3 ~ 1995 1,203 8,264 9,941 22,145 450 33,236 4,720 37,956 1995 37,956 0.58 7.5 ""d 1996 1,207 8,297 10,013 23,695 451 34,159 4,851 39,009 1996 39,009 0.58 7.7 B 1997 1,228 8,330 10,228 24,531 452 35,211 5,000 40,211 1997 40,211 0.58 7.9 (j U1 1998 1,250 8,363 10,456 25,485 454 36,395 5,168 41,563 1998 41,56! 0.58 8.2 0" 1999 1,272 8,397 10,678 26,468 456 37,602 5,339 42,942 1999 42,942 0.58 8.5 JJ Ut .,.. 2000 1,283 8,430 10,820 27,355 456 38,6!1 5,486 44,116 2000 44,116 0.58 8.7 t;; 2001 1,299 8,464 10,995 28,455 458 39,907 5,667 45,574 2001 45,574 0.58 9.0 2002 1,313 8,491 11,159 29,492 459 41,110 5,838 46,947 2002 46,947 0.58 9.2 ~ 2003 1,332 8,532 11,362 30,669 460 42,490 6,034 48,524 2003 48,524 0.58 9.6 w 2004 1,350 8,566 11,566 31,978 461 44,005 6,249 50,254 2004 50,254 0.58 9.9 2005 1,368 1,600 11,76! 33,421 462 45,646 6,482 52,128 2005 52,128 0.58 10.3 i 2006 1,387 8,634 11,974 34,913 464 47,351 6,724 54,075 2006 54,075 0.58 10.6 2007 1,407 8,669 12,199 36,534 465 49,198 6,986 56,185 2007 56,185 0.58 11.1 a 2008 1,431 8,704 12,452 38,308 466 51,226 7,274 58,500 2008 58,500 0.58 11.5 .... 2009 1,456 8,739 12,727 40,145 468 53,341 7,574 60,915 2009 60,915 0.58 12.0 2010 1,484 a,m 13,018 41,929 410 55,417 7,869 63,286 2010 63,286 0.51 12.5 Ava Annual Growth Ratea 1990·2010 1.11 0.41 1.51 4.41 0.21 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 1990·2000 o.81 0.41 1.21 4.51 0.21 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 2000-2010 1.51 0.4X 1.91 4.41 0.31 3.7X 3.7X 3.7X 3.7X 3.7X ISER FCST_P.WK1 Printed 09-Jut ·90 ~ -·· Petersburg Power & Light Forecast Total Sales Thousand MWh 60.-----------------------------------------------~ 50[_ ____________ ~~~~::~ 40[_--------------------~~~~~~::==~~~::~~ ~ n- 20 -M'rrl··H'~· 10 ·--· -·----···-··-· -·-· ·-· 0 IIIIII!IIIBIIIIII!!II!'Ifl!lllt'I!IIIIIJUU!JIIII!IIJIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 Actual ......,_ LOW .......,_ BASE -e-HIGH Petersburg Power & Light Forecast Peak Load Peak Load, MW 14.-----------------------------------------------~ 12 -q 10 l ar------------------------------=~~~------~~~ 6 -~m 41 ,,nnnf ;.1( 2H ·:; 0 I I llltll!llf"!lliUJ!IIUIII!tlllllliii'Utii!IH!Jitl'll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 Actual ......,_ LOW .......,_ BASE -e-HIGH Figure 15: Petersburg Sales and Peak Load Forecast 55 :!1 ~ ...... ~ '"a () ... () ~ r:::r ~ t:xt 0. ~ 01 ~ () 61 .... () e ... ~ 0 ~ Petersburg Power & Light Requirements: Base Case Thousand MWh 60 ~--------------------------------------------~ Actual Base Case Forecast 30 20 10 O WE~~~~ddLLL£lliWLLEL~2LLLld~LL±d~Ehl£ill~LL~ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 2010 L::,:\=/·.=1 Res D Comm -Other/Harbor -Losses ISER FCST _P .WK1 -...... -.... 3.5 Wrangell Load Forecast 3.5.1 Economy Figure 17 shows estimated 1988 employment by industry and season for Wrangell. (Refer also to historical data for the Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area presented with the Petersburg forecast). like Petersb\11& Wrangell is dependent on fishing and tourism for the much of its economic base. Unlike its northern neighbor, however, Wrangell also benefits from a sawmill and is enjoying a new life as a staging area for mining activity just across the Canadian border, at the Johnny Mountain and Snip deposits. This activity has been felt in Wrangell largely as a demand for airport and logistical services. City economic development director Jim Gove estimates that support activity related to mining generated 24 direct new jobs during the last two years as international flight operations have soared from 3,600 (1987) to 7,372 (1989). Gove does not expect an actual influx of miners as a result of this new development; they commute from Canadian cities such as Vancouver. The Wrangell Forest Products lumber mill has recently been purchased by the Alaska Pulp Company, owners of the Sitka pulp mill. WFP currently operates a sawmill and a planer on one concurrent shift, according to plant manager Rick Klinke. WFP may split shifts when they begin self-generating this spring, but overall output is expected to remain constant for the foreseeable future. The WFP mill employs about 150 people, and is not expected to reduce operations significantly due to the decline in timber harvests from Native lands. Its timber supply is primarily derived from APC's long term contract for Tongass timber, which does not expire until 2011. 3. 5. 2 Residential Use Table 20 shows historical data for Wrangell Power and light. Wrangell residential use per customer was constant between 1971 and 1985, but has increased 31% between 1985 and 1988. These data are consistent with a decrease in the real price of residential electricity caused by a drop in diesel prices and the substitution of Tyee hydropower for diesel. The Wrangell residential use per customer data are consistent with a regression equation using the average real price of electricity and real per capita personal income as explanatory variables. The equation is presented in Appendix B. 57 p i ~ i """ ~ ..... \() ~ ~ j rt 1.1\ = 00 i -~ rt a ~ i ~ 1988 Employment: Wrangell Full Time Equivalent Mfrg/Const. 337 Fed Govt 42 S&L Govt 190 Trade 137 Winter ( 01) Total 1059 ISER estimates from ADOL Data Mfrg/Const. 560 Fish Harvest 160 Other 106 Fed Govt 49 S&L Govt 167 Trade 170 Summer (03) Total 1309 Fish Harvest 160 Other 118 p I Wrangell Power and Light Historical Load Data Industrial Firm (1) !·········· Residential ·---·······!Commercial WFP City Total Loss/ Total Peak Firm fl Cutt Use/Cutt Sales Avg Price Sales Sales Sales Sales Use Reqts Demand Lood YEAR k"'*' tNh 1988S!k"'*' tNh tNh MWh tNh MIJh """ YEAR Mlolh Factor ........ . ....... ,.. ...... ·---··-····-·---··· 1970 536 5,192 2,783 0.126 3,231 56 461 6,537 662 7,199 1910 1.7 0.48 1971 543 5,468 2,969 0.127 3,595 42 546 7,152 1,123 8,215 1911 2.1 0.45 1972 106 4,559 3,219 0.127 3,844 24 158 7,245 1,153 8,998 1972 2.3 0.45 1973 115 4,792 3,426 0.123 3,978 24 291 7,719 2,005 9,724 1973 2.3 0.48 1974 750 4,796 3,597 0.135 4,392 58] 333 8,906 1,399 10,305 1974 2.2 0.50 ;I 1915 115 4,937 3,826 0.147 4,085 584 455 8,957 1,796 10,153 1915 2.6 0.45 ~ 1976 169 5,035 3,872 0.146 3,980 500 460 8,813 2,860 11,673 1976 2.7 0.47 1977 804 4,871 3,916 0.144 4,143 660 446 9,165 3,569 12,734 1977 3.0 0.46 w Ct 1918 785 4,855 3,811 0.145 5,113 676 197 10,457 3,628 14,085 1918 3.0 0.51 .. 1979 780 4,728 3,688 0.146 5,363 744 131 10,527 3,714 14,241 1979 3.1 0.50 1 1980 794 4,691 3,725 0.196 6,054 157 733 11,266 2,037 13,303 1980 3.0 0.41 1981 729 5,218 3,804 0.183 5,440 1,223 742 11,208 1,984 13,192 1981 2.8 0.49 ~ 1.11 1982 839 5,125 4,300 0.113 4,471 1,785 814 11,310 2,131 13,501 1982 3.0 0.45 '0 1983 893 5,105 4,559 0.172 4,645 1,392 822 11,418 1,478 12,896 1983 2.6 0.51 ~ 1984 890 5,294 4,712 0.165 5,245 981 910 11,855 689 12,544 1984 3.0 0.44 s 1985 984 5,098 5,016 0.158 5,874 793 992 12,679 NA NA 1985 3.6 NA :!. 1986 936 5,529 5,115 0.141 NA IIA 1,992 13,238 IIA IIA 1986 2.5 NA e. 1987 846 6,413 5,476 o. 103 6,378 4,638 1,926 18,417 1,588 20,005 1987 2.6 0.67 c:: 1988 846 6,669 5,642 0.106 6,558 12,902 1,859 26,961 1,087 28,048 1988 2.8 0.62 g: ~ tJ Avg Arn.~~l Gr·owth Rates s 1910·1988 2.61 1.41 4.01 ·0.91 4.01 35.31 8.01 8.21 2.81 7.81 2.81 1.41 1910-1980 4.01 ·1.01 3.01 4.51 6.51 29.71 4.61 5.61 11.91 6.31 5.81 ·0.01 1980·1988 o.81 4.51 5.31 ·7.41 1.01 42.51 12.31 11.51 ·7.61 9.81 ·0.91 3.31 - Note: (1) Peak demands presented here do not reflect non·fln1 11lea .edt to Wrangell Forest Product• et time of systea peak. ISER XHIST.IIC1 PRINTED 10·Jul·90 ..... --- 3.5.3 Major Electric Loads and Prospects for Load Growth Wrangell Forest Products, which purchased almost 13,000 MWh of interruptible energy in 1988, will begin generating its own power beginning in October 1990, according to plant manager Rick Klinke and Wrangell Utilities Manager Frank Fields. The WFP mill used to generate its own power prior to 1987, but had to stop due to environmental problems associated with burning wood waste. Self-generation by WFP will reduce industrial and special interruptible rate sales to an assumed "emergency" level of 500 MWh for the foreseeable future. like Ketchikan Pulp Co. in Ketchikan, WFP will be generating power partly as a means of disposing of its sawmill wood waste. The company has installed extensive de-watering equipment to ensure that its wood waste will be burnable with a minimal amount of added fossil fuel and is now awaiting a permit from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Once the permit is granted, generation will begin. For the High case we assume that because of mechanical problems or favorable rates, the sawmill begins purchasing 9,000 MWh of economy energy again beginning in 1992. In interpreting the historical data and load forecast, it is important to keep in mind that WFP's contribution to system peak load is not measured by Wrangell Power and Ught. The peak loads forecast here and the data for 1987 and 1988 reflect only the peak demand associated with firm power sales. Utility staff suggest that the probable level of WFP load at the time the system peaks is between 4 and 5 MW. Wrangell Utility staff foresee no major facility growth in the near future. A private company, Bradfield Electric, has been planning for several years to construct a power line to connect the Tyee Lake hydro project to the mining sites at Johnny Mountain and Snip. According to company spokesman Gary F1oyd, 24 the company is awaiting the opening of a third deposit which would have a load comparable to the Johnny Mountain and Snip sites (11.500 MWh/yr each). Until this additional load materializes, the line remains only marginally economic. Bradfield line sales of 33,000 MWh are presented with the High case results for the Wrangell area. 2-ipersona.l Com.munic:ation 3/7/90 60 ..... -.. 3.5.4 Scenario Assumptions: All Cases • Load Factor: • Loss/Use Factor: Base Case • Employment growth: • Residential kWh/cust growth: • Commercial MWh/employee: • WFP sales: .55 10.0% of sales -.2% -.1% (determined economettically) 1.6% per year increase (half historical trend) 500 MWh/year after 1991 Total employment is driven down by a decline in logging jobs on Native lands. Low Case • Employment growth: -.8% • Residential kWh/cust growth: -.1% (determined economettically) • Commercial MWh/employee: 0% per year increase • WFP sales: 500 MWh/year after 1991 Total employment drops due to a decline in logging jobs on both Native and Tongass National Forest lands. High Case • Employment growth: • Residential kWh/cust growth: • Commercial MWb/ employee: • WFP sales: .8% 0.0% (determined economettically) 3.2% per year increase (1970-87 trend value) 9,500 MWb/year after 1991 In the high case we assume that a third feasible mineral deposit is opened for mining in the Johnny Mountain area. The Bradfield power line is constructed and delivers 33,000 MWb per year to the mines. Construction of the Bradfield road and dock at the head of Bradfield Canal reduces the logistical support operations conducted through the Wrangell airport, but these losses of economic activity are more than offset by general support sector activity in support of the new mines. The additional mining activity generates a net increase of the equivalent of 50 full time jobs held by Wrangell residents. Logging employment increases 10% from Base case levels due to a strong market for minimaUy processed logs from Tongass Forest lands to replace declining round log exports from Native lands. 61 f' Yrangell Municipal Power and Light load Forecast: ·LOY Case Conmerclal Firm Firm f······ Residential ·-·-·1 lndust. WFP City Total loll/ Total Energy Peak Use/CUlt Sales Sales Sales Sates Sales Use Reqts Reqta load Demand YEAR I Cust kWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh YEAR MWh factor "" ........ · ... 1988 846 6,511 5,559 6,558 13,353 1,857 27,327 2,733 30,060 1988 16,707 0.55 3.5 1989 851 6,611 5,624 6,907 13,853 1,862 28,247 2,825 31,071 1989 17,218 0.55 3.6 1990 878 6,607 5,799 6,940 6,951 1,892 21,581 2,158 23,740 1990 16,789 0.55 3.5 1991 879 6,536 5,746 6,832 1,500 1,893 15,972 1,597 17,569 1991 16,069 0.55 3.3 ~ 1992 871 6,507 5,667 6,690 500 1,884 14,741 1,474 16,215 1992 15,715 0.55 3.3 1993 858 6,498 5,577 6,695 500 1,871 14,642 1,464 16,107 1993 15,607 0.55 3.2 0' -C'D 1994 845 6,510 5,498 6,794 500 1,856 14,648 1,465 16,113 1994 15,613 0.55 3.2 N 1995 832 6,462 5,378 6,785 500 1,842 14,506 1,451 15,956 1995 15,456 0.55 3.2 .... .. 1996 832 6,466 5,377 6,837 500 1,842 14,556 1,456 16,012 1996 15,512 0.55 3.2 ~ 1997 831 6,455 5,366 6,m 500 1,841 14,480 1,448 15,928 1997 15,428 0.55 3.2 1998 828 6,454 5,346 6,738 500 1,838 14,421 1,442 15,864 1998 15,364 0.55 3.2 OQ 1999 824 6,454 5,318 6,726 500 1,833 14,377 1,438 15,815 1999 15,315 0.55 3.2 R == R) 2000 825 6,467 5,331 6,802 500 1,835 14,474 1,447 15,922 2000 15,422 0.55 3.2 ~ 2001 829 6,465 5,362 6,811 500 1,839 14,513 1,451 15,964 2001 15,464 0.55 3.2 2002 834 6,471 5,395 6,811 500 1,844 14,550 1,455 16,005 2002 15,505 0.55 3.2 w 2003 838 6,467 5,420 6,816 500 1,849 14,584 1,458 16,043 2003 15,543 0.55 3.2 2004 843 6,468 5,453 6,827 500 1,854 14,635 1,463 16,098 2004 15,598 0.55 3.2 2005 849 6,471 5,493 6,846 500 1,861 14,700 1,470 16,170 2005 15,670 0.55 3.3 ~ 2006 854 6,477 5,531 6,870 500 1,866 14,767 1,477 16,244 2006 15,744 0.55 3.3 2007 860 6,480 5,570 6,903 500 1,872 14,846 1,485 16,330 2007 15,830 0.55 3.3 8 2008 866 6,481 5,614 6,926 500 1,880 14,919 1,492 16,411 2008 15,911 0.55 3.3 ... 2009 872 6,481 5,649 6,931 500 1,885 14,965 1,496 16,461 2009 15,961 0.55 3.3 2010 877 6,482 5,685 6,940 500 1,891 15,016 1,502 16,517 2010 16,017 0.55 3.3 Avs Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 -o.ox -o.1x ·0,1X o.ox ·12.3X -o.ox ·1.8X ·1.81 ·1.81 -0.21 -o.zx 1990·2000 ·0.6X ·0.2X -o.8x -o.zx ·23.11 ·0.3X -3.9l -3.9l ·3.9l ·0.8X -o.8x 2000·2010 0.6X o.ox 0.6X 0.2X 0.01 0.3X 0.4X 0.41 0.4X 0.41 0.4X ISER FCST_W.WK1 Printed 10·Jul·90 't i Yrangell Municipal Power end Light Load Forecast: BASE Case Conmercial Firm Firm I····· Residential ·····I lnduat. UFP City Total LOIS/ Total Energy Peak Use/Cuat Sales Sales Sales Sales Sa lea Use Reqta Reqta load Demand YEAR I Cuat k)lh tNh tNh M)lh M)lh HUh tNh tNh YEAR tNh factor "" ...................... 1988 846 6,571 5,559 6,558 13,353 1,857 27,327 2,133 30,060 1988 16,707 0.55 3.5 1989 1151 6,611 5,624 6,910 13,853 1,862 28,249 2,1125 31,074 19119 17,221 0.55 3.6 1990 878 6,607 5,799 1,on 6,951 1,892 21,114 2,111 23,885 1990 16,934 0.55 3.5 1991 881 6,549 5,m 7,187 1,500 1,896 16,354 1,635 17,989 1991 16,489 0.55 3.4 ~ 1992 871 6,521 5,719 7,215 500 1,891 15,324 1,532 16,857 1992 16,357 0.55 3.4 cr 1993 867 6,520 5,654 7,371 500 1,880 15,406 1,541 16,947 1993 16,447 0.55 3.4 -fD 1994 858 6,522 5,597 7,557 500 1,871 15,525 1,552 17,071 1994 16,577 0.55 3.4 ~ 1995 852 6,507 5,545 7,619 500 1,864 15,528 1,553 17,081 1995 16,511 0.55 3.4 .. 1996 853 6,516 5,557 7,771 500 1,865 15,693 1,569 17,263 1996 16,763 0.55 3.5 l 1997 157 6,479 5,553 7,921 500 1,870 15,851 1,585 17,436 1997 16,936 0.55 3.5 1998 862 6,482 5,586 8,086 500 1,875 16,047 1,605 17,651 1998 17,151 0.55 3.6 ~ 1999 867 6,491 5,629 8,265 500 1,881 16,275 1,627 17,902 1999 17,402 0.55 3.6 &::: m 2000 813 6,494 5,6n 8,445 500 1,887 16,504 1,650 18,154 2000 17,654 0.55 3.7 to 2001 880 6,494 5,714 8,600 500 1,894 16,709 1,671 18,379 2001 17,879 0.55 3.7 ~ 2002 886 6,487 5,745 8,n4 500 1,900 16,170 1,687 11,557 2002 11,057 0.55 3.7 ~ 2003 891 6,486 5,m 1,158 500 1,906 17,040 1,104 18,744 2003 18,244 0.55 3.8 2004 195 6,487 5,805 9,020 500 1,910 17,236 1,n4 111,959 2004 18,459 0.55 3.8 n 2005 199 6,495 5,841 9,225 500 1,915 17,480 1,748 19,228 2005 11,na 0.55 3.9 ~ 0 2006 906 6,499 5,886 9,454 500 1,922 17,763 1,716 19,539 2006 19,039 0.55 4.0 "'1 n 2007 914 6,502 5,941 9,701 500 1,930 18,on 1,807 19,880 2007 19,580 0.55 4.0 g 2008 923 6,506 6,005 9,959 500 1,940 11,404 1,840 20,245 2008 19,145 0.55 4.1 2009 933 6,508 6,070 10,209 500 1,950 18,130 1,813 20,603 2009 20,103 0.55 4.2 2010 943 6,509 6,137 10,439 500 1,961 19,037 1,904 20,941 2010 20,441 0.55 4.2 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 0.4X ·0.1X 0.3X 2.0l ·12.3l 0.2X ·0.71 ·0.71 ·0.71 0.9X 0.9X 1990·2000 ·O.OX ·0.2X ·0.2X 1.8X ·23. 1l -o.ox ·2.71 ·2.71 ·2.71 0.4X 0.4X 2000·2010 0.8X o.ox 0.8X 2.1X o.ox 0.4l 1.4X 1.4X 1.4X 1.5l 1.5l ISER FCST_U.UIC1 Printed 10·Jul·90 Comnerclal I······ Realdentlal ·····I lnduat. Uae/Cuat Sales Sales YEAR I tuat k!.lh M!.lh M\lh 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 846 851 879 892 905 905 902 889 892 907 924 940 948 960 970 984 998 1.011 1,025 1,040 1,057 1,076 1,096 6,571 6,612 6,612 6,574 6,568 6,561 6,562 6,556 6,577 6,582 6,615 6,613 6,614 6,584 6,590 6,597 6,604 6,612 6,621 6,631 6,642 6,653 6,652 Ava Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 1.1X O.OX 1990·2000 0.8X O.OX 2000·2010 1.51 0.1X ISER 5,559 5,624 5,813 5,864 5,942 5,940 5,918 5,828 5,865 5,971 6,111 6,214 6,2n 6,320 6,394 6,491 6,588 6,682 6,784 6,895 7,021 7,160 7,292 1.1X o.ex 1.5X 6,558 6,917 7,261 7,750 a, 141 8,471 8,771 9,099 9,478 9,852 10,278 10,717 11,113 11,605 12,068 12,594 13,179 13,823 14,490 15,214 16,006 16,127 17,624 4.5X 4.lX 4.7X Wrangell Municipal Power and Light Load forecast: HIGH Case WFP sates """ 13,353 13,853 6,951 1,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1.6X 3.2X o.ox City Sales Mlolh 1,857 1,862 1,193 1,907 1,921 1,921 1,911 1,904 1,907 1,924 1,941 1,958 1,967 1,979 1,989 2,003 2,017 2,011 2,045 2,060 2,077 2,096 2,115 0.6X 0.4X 0.7X Total Sales """ 27,127 28,256 21,918 17,021 25,503 25,840 26,114 26,330 26,750 27,247 27,830 28,388 28,852 29,403 29,951 30,588 31,284 32,036 32,819 11,668 34,604 35,582 36,531 2.6X 2.8X 2.4X lou/ Use """ 2,186 2,260 1,753 1,362 2,040 2,067 2,089 2,106 2,140 2,180 2,226 2,271 2,108 2,152 2,396 2,447 2,503 2,563 2,625 2,693 2,768 2,847 2,923 2.6X 2.8x 2.4X t.IHPL Total Bradfield Reqta Sales MWh MWh YEAR 29,513 30,517 23,6n 11,313 27,543 27,907 21,203 21,437 21,890 29,427 30,056 30,660 31,160 !1,755 32,3411 33,035 33,787 34,599 35,444 36,362 37,3n 31,428 39,454 2.6X 2.ax 2.4X 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000 13,000 33,000 33,000 31,000 11,000 33,000 13,000 33,000 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0.1X 0, 1X o.ox FCSTJUIK1 Finn Energy Reqts """ 16160 16664 16721 16883 18043 18407 18703 18931 19390 19927 20556 21160 21660 22255 228411 23535 24287 25099 25944 26862 2ran 28921 29954 load Factor 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 firm Peak Demand M\1 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.1 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 ].OX 2.6X 3.3X Bradfld Bradfield Load Peak factor MW 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Printed 10·Jut·90 .--~· Wrangell Power & Light Forecast Total Sales Thousand MWh 40.-----------------------------------------------~ 30r---------------~------~~~~~_j 20 ': --1 i:::Jf';= 10 I nnt ':WI-------------· i'''ll='· '·> •. :;· ·:= 0 llJIIfii!IIIIUJIIIUIJIIIIJIIItlfii!UJIIlUIIIJU(JIUII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1i70 1875 1880 1i85 1888 1885 2000 2006 2010 Q Actual ---+-LOW -BASE ~ HIGH Wrangell Power & Light Forecast Peak Load Peak Load, MW 7~--------------------------------------------------~ 61----------------------------- 51----------------------------------~~~----_, :c===~~~~ 1 0 ~.U.lUI.IIJf.ll.iUtn:iii\U;]I~li;II;HUII.HJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1870 ii75 1i80 ii85 ii88 1ii5 2000 2005 2010 0 Actual --+--LOW -BASE ~ HIGH FJ.gUI"e 18: Wrangell Sales and Peak Load Forecast 65 p i ~ ~ ft1 ~ ~ O'Q () c::: t:l:f 0\ ~ 0\ () w 6' c: ~ ... ~ Q ~ Wrangell Power & Light Requirements: Base Case Thousand MWh ' 35~--------------------------------------------~ 30 --···· .... --·············· -----. 25 20 15 ~--·····-····-··-····· 10 5 0 1970 1975 Actual Base Case Foree as t 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 L:L:,J Res C::=l Comm -Other ~ lnd (WFP) ~Losses ISER FCST _W.WK1 2010 ..... ...... . -.. ~ 4 REGIONAL LoAD FORECAST The following tables and figures present a forecast for the combined study area load center. It is important to keep in mind that community peak load estimates are simply added together in the presentation that follows without making any allowance for coincidence. The sum of noncoincident peaks may not be too far from the coincident regional peak, however, since all communities with the exception of Petersburg peak in the winter during a cold spell. Petersburg tends to peak in the summer, but monthly peak data show that its winter peak is quite close to its summer peak. Mining loads for Quartz Hill and the Johnny Mountain area are presented as separate items in the High case results. They have been incorporated into the detennination of community economic growth for this case, but do not form a part of any aggregate sales or peak load figure. Regional Total Sales Thousand MWh 500 400 300 200 0 ]~~~~~00 .. ' .• t I 1 I t I I f I I t I l f I I t I I I t I I 100 1170 11715 1it80 1885 1188 11815 2000 2005 2010 0 Actual -+-LOW __._BASE -e-HIGH Excludea Mine Loada Figure 20: Regional Total Electtic Sale by Case 67 (. lower Southeast Alaska Regional Utility load forecast: LOU Case Noncolnc:ident Conmercial Total Utility Mine Mine I······ Residential ······J lndust. Other Totel Loat/ Energy Peak Energy Peak I Cust Use/Cust Sales Sales Sa lea Sa lea Use Reqta Demand Reqta Demand YEAR kWh M\o'h M\o'h M\o'h M\o'h M\o'h ""' "" ""' "" 1988 7,506 9,426 70,747 120,131 6, 791 197,669 18,564 216,233 40.0 0 0 1989 7,591 9,439 71,653 124,373 6,868 202,893 19,068 221,961 41.1 0 0 1990 7,876 9,428 74,255 124,952 6,962 206,168 19,231 225,399 43.3 0 0 1991 7,896 9,407 74,275 115,396 6,965 196,636 18,351 214,986 43.0 0 0 ~ 1992 7,861 9,388 73,aoo 112, 153 6,933 192,886 17,997 210,883 42.6 0 0 ...,. rr 1993 7,852 9,3n 73,582 113,793 6,914 194,289 18,096 212,385 43.4 0 0 ~ 1994 7,906 9,358 73,9n 114,567 6,913 195,457 Ul,191 213,648 44.1 0 0 1995 7,953 9,337 74,251 116,941 6,901 198,093 18,385 216,478 44.7 0 0 ~ 1996 8,017 9,323 74,742 117,366 6,915 199,023 18,467 217,491 44.9 0 0 0 'G. 1997 8,024 9,307 74,676 116,706 6,911 198,294 18,397 216,691 44.7 0 0 0 1998 8,018 9,292 74,507 116,326 6,909 197,742 18,343 216,0115 44.6 0 0 [ 1999 8,020 9 ,271!1 74,409 116,176 6,907 197,491 18,315 215,807 44.5 0 0 i 2000 a,on 9,262 74,756 116,656 6,920 198,332 18,395 216,n7 44.7 0 0 2001 8,126 9,243 75,106 116,806 6,934 198,846 18,441 217,287 44.8 0 0 w 2002 a, 176 9,224 75,407 116,888 6,947 199,242 18,475 217,717 44.9 0 0 2003 8,219 9,204 75,650 116,976 6,959 199,584 18,506 218,090 45.0 0 0 2004 8,270 9,184 75,955 117,128 6,974 200,057 18,549 218,606 45.1 0 0 61 2005 7,787 9,164 71,362 110,980 6,951 189,292 17,696 206,988 43.7 0 0 ~ 2006 7,825 9,146 71,567 111,324 6,9n 189,863 17,749 207,613 43.9 0 0 2007 7,905 9,128 n,156 111,758 6,997 190,911 17,843 2011,754 44.1 0 0 .... 20011 7,987 9,111 n,766 112,126 7,024 191,915 17,934 209,848 44.3 0 0 2009 8,054 9,093 73,231 112,291 7,044 192,566 17,991 210,557 44.5 0 0 2010 8,121 9,075 73,700 112,519 7,065 193,283 18,055 211,338 44.6 0 0 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 o.zx ·0.2X ·O.OX ·0.5X o.1x ·0.3X ·0.3X ·0.3X o.zx 1990·2000 o.zx -o.zx o.1x ·0.7X ·0.1X ·0.4X ·0.4X ·0.4X O.lX 2000·2010 o.1x ·0.2X ·0.1X ·0.4X o.zx ·0.3X ·0.2X ·0.3X ·O.OX ISER FCSJ_9.W1 Printed 09·Jul·90 7t lower Southeast Alaska Regional Utility Load Forecast: BASE Case Noncoincldent Comnerclal Total Utlt lty Mine Mine I······ Residential ······I lndust. Other Total Loss/ Energy Peek Energy Peak II Cus t Use/CUI t Sales Sales Sa lea sales Use Reqts Demand Reqta Demand YEAR kWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh "" MWh "" .......... _ .............. ............ ............. .................. ------· . ................ -------............... .................. ........... .. ............. 1988 7,506 9,426 10,747 120,131 6,791 197,669 18,564 216,233 40.0 0 0 1919 7,602 9,459 71,905 124,412 6,871 203,251 19,100 222,158 41.2 0 0 1990 7,903 9,468 74,822 126,576 6,968 201,367 19,43] 227,100 43.1 0 0 1991 7,996 9,467 75,700 137,115 6,997 219,112 20,274 240,015 47.4 0 0 ;1 1992 1,046 9,468 76,176 131,230 6,996 221,401 20,383 241,784 47.1 0 0 ~ 1993 1,090 9,471 76,620 144,251 6,990 227,868 20,917 241,785 49.2 0 0 N 1994 8,155 9,474 77,254 141,514 6,988 232,776 21,331 254,109 50.] 0 0 til .. 1995 8,173 9,474 77,434 151,448 6,966 235,848 21,583 257,431 50.9 0 0 !X1 1996 1,201 9,478 77,792 153,141 6,975 237,915 21,m 259,692 !:1.4 0 0 0 <e. 1997 1,257 9,477 78,251 154,171 6,993 240,122 21,986 262, 101 51.9 0 0 0 1998 8,360 9,411 79,261 157,015 7,024 243,170 22,280 265,650 52.6 0 0 ~ $ 1999 8,385 9,414 79,520 158,690 7,039 245,250 22,468 267,718 51.0 0 0 ttl 2000 1,460 9,487 80,260 160,778 7,066 248,105 22,736 270,141 53.7 0 0 ~ 2001 1,529 9,488 80,924 162,594 7,011 250,605 22,970 273,575 54.3 0 0 2002 1,sn 9,419 11,337 164,077 7,102 252,516 21,152 275,661 54.7 0 0 w 2003 8,60] 9,490 81,646 165,597 7,114 254,356 23,321 277,614 55.1 0 0 2004 1,644 9,492 82,043 167,454 7,121 256,625 21,543 280,168 55.6 0 0 t-r1 2005 1,707 9,494 82,66] 169,764 7,150 259,576 23,120 283,396 56.3 0 0 0 .... 0 2006 8,796 9,496 83,525 1n,342 7,179 263,046 24,144 287.190 57.1 0 0 g 2007 8,903 9,491 14,560 175,144 7,214 266,917 24,506 291,421 58.0 0 0 2001 9,021 9,499 15,757 171,115 7,197 271,268 24,909 296,178 59.0 0 0 2009 9,155 9,501 16,914 111,042 7,438 275,461 25,299 ]00,761 59.9 0 0 2010 9,274 9,502 88,121 183,801 7,476 279,405 25,666 305,071 60.1 0 0 Avg Annual Growth Rates 1990·2010 o.ax o.ox o.ax 1.9X 0.4X 1.5X 1.4X 1.5X 1.71 1990·2000 0.71 o.ox 0.71 2.4X 0.1X 1.8X 1.6X 1.71 2.1X 2000·2010 o.tx o.ox o.tx 1.3X 0.6X 1.2X 1.2X 1.2X 1.3X ISER FCST_9.W1 Printed 09·Jul·90 r, Lower Southeast Alaska Regional Utility Load Forecast: HIGH Case Noncolncldent Comnerclal Total Utility Mine Mine 1··-··-Realdentlal ...... , lrd.tst. Other Total LOll/ Energy Peak Energy Peak 'Clat Uae/Cust Sa lea Sa lea Sales Sa lea Use Reqts Demand Reqta Demand YEAR kWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh ""' MWh ""' 1988 7,506 9,426 10,747 120,131 6,791 197,669 18,018 215,687 39.9 0 0.0 1989 7,607 9,493 72,217 124,567 6,872 203,657 18,571 222,227 41.2 0 0.0 1990 7,944 9,538 75,768 128,394 6,977 211,138 19,257 230,395 44.3 0 o.o 1991 8,137 9,571 77,883 142,219 7,044 227,146 20,635 247,781 49.0 0 o.o ~ 1992 8,319 9,601 79,810 156,524 7,086 243,480 22,079 265,559 50.8 0 0.0 0' 1993 8,467 9,637 81,601 192,387 7,113 281,100 25,178 306,278 59.2 25,000 5.0 ;- 1994 8,738 9,677 84,554 199,780 7,157 291,491 26,055 317,546 61.5 41,400 6.6 N ~ 1995 9,651 9,720 93,808 213,751 7,331 314,890 27,965 342,855 66.7 232,800 54.1 ~ 1996 9,668 9,759 94,351 217,320 7,326 318,997 28,357 347,355 67.6 283,300 54.1 (11 1997 9,617 9,796 94,212 219,838 7,329 321,379 28,624 350,002 68.1 283,300 54.1 qg, 0 1998 9,947 9,139 97,869 226,503 7,420 331,792 29,542 361,335 10.5 486,200 54.1 [ c:J 1999 10,066 9,879 99,.438 231,294 7,468 338,200 30,143 368,343 71.9 508,600 94.6 2000 10,438 9,921 103,555 239,089 7,558 350,203 31,178 381,380 74.6 509,100 94.6 i 2001 10,512 9,957 104,668 244,068 7,588 356,324 31,758 388,082 76.0 509,100 94.6 2002 10,667 9,997 106,638 250,092 7,632 364,362 32,486 396,847 77.8 509,300 94.6 w 2003 10,800 10,034 108,367 256,004 7,669 372,041 31,195 405,236 79.6 509,300 94.6 2004 10,931 10,072 110,097 262,577 7,711 380,386 33,967 414,353 81.4 509,300 94.6 2005 11,109 10,111 112,328 210,222 7,764 390,314 34,875 425,189 83.7 511,200 94.6 6' 2006 11,323 10,151 114,941 278,403 7,824 401,167 35,862 437,029 86.1 511,200 94.6 (i 2007 11,551 10,190 117,714 287,173 7,887 412,774 36,919 449,693 88.7 511,200 94.6 ~ zoos 11,820 10,230 120,926 296,843 7,960 425,729 38,096 463,825 91.7 511,200 94.6 2009 12,114 10,210 124,410 ]06,994 8,037 439,441 39,339 478,780 94.7 511,200 94.6 2010 12,406 10,309 127,892 ]17,056 8,112 453,060 40,573 493,633 97.8 511,200 94.6 Avg Annual Growth Ratea 1990·2010 Z.]X 0.41 2.7X 4.6X 0.81 3.91 3.8X ].9X 4.0X 1990·2000 2.81 0.4X 3.2X 6.41 0.8X 5.2X 4.9X 5.2X 5.4X 2000·2010 1.7X 0.4X 2. 1X 2.9X O.TX 2.6X 2.7X 2.6X 2.7X ISER FCST_9.UK1 Printed 09·Jul·90 Regional Energy Requirements Base Case Projection Thousands ofMWh 350~------------------------------------------~ 300 --· ... ·····-······· . ·Actual Base Case Forecast · 250 200 150 1---·-··---······-·-······-·············-.... ·--·· ··-·······--···-- 100 o~~~E~~BLLLW±dti~Wti~~~LCLL±d~lliELW±Uddu 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 1995 2000 2005 2010 1:::::/?==1 Res D Comm/lnd .. Other l\\11 Losses ISER FCST _9.WK1 ---.. REFERENCES Cheshire, C.L 1989. "Analysis of Impacts and the Potential Reparations Due to Ketchikan Pulp Corporation Oosure." University of Alaska Southeast. (Mimeographed) Colt, Steve. 1989. "Forecast of Electricity Demand in the Alaska Railbelt Region." Prepared for Alaska Power Authority (now Alaska Energy Authority). University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research. Dubak, Irene. 1989. "Analysis of Market Trends and Prospects for Dissolving Pulp." (Draft Report). Haynes, Richard W., and David J. Brooks. 1990. "An Analysis of the Timber Situation in Alaska: 1970-2010." Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Portland, Oregon. (Draft Report) Kim, Dr. John Choon. 1989. "End-Use Markets for Tongass Forest Products in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan" in Cheshire, C.L, ed. 1989. The Future of the Timber Industry in Southeast Alaska. Conference Proceedings. University of Alaska Southeast. Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Alaska. Knapp, Gunnar. 1989. "Native Tunber Harvests in Southeast Alaska." Prepared for U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research. Anchorage, Alaska. Loescher, Robert W. 1989. "Perspectives on the Southeast TlDlber Industry and Regional Economic Diversification" in Cheshire, C.L, ed. 1989. Mehrkens, Joseph R. 1989. "Future TlDlber Management Issues for Southeast Alaska" in Cheshire, C.L, ed. 1989. Pihl, Martin. 1989. "lbe Future for Dissolving Pulp at Ketchikan Pulp Company" in Cheshire, c.L, ed. 1989. R.W. Beck and Associates, Inc. 1987. "Southeast Alaska Electric Load Forecast." Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. Seattle, Washington. Rogers, George W. 1989. "The Impact of the Long Term Contracts on the Economy of Southeast Alaska: 1954-1988" in Cheshire, c.L, ed. 1989. Rogers, George W. 1985. "The Southeast Alaska Regional Economy and Communities: Evolution and Structure." Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture. University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research. Anchorage, Alaska. Shallau, Con H.; Wilbur R. Maki; and Doug Olson. 1989. "Some Economic Implications of a Change in Timber Harvesting on the Tongass National Forest" in Cheshire, C.L, ed. 1989. 73 ...... ---~ StevellSy James A., and Darius M. Adams. 1988. "Opportunities for Expansion of Alaska's Market Pulp Exports." College of Forest Resources, Center for International Trade in Forest Products, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Thomas, Kathleen. 1986. Alaska Seafood Harvesting and Processing Employment. State of Alaska Department of Labor. Juneau, Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region. 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement to accompany the Tongass Land Management Plan. Washington DC: U.S. Forest Service. Yang, Xi Wei. 1989. "Regression Analysis of Rural Alaska Electric Demand," unpublished spreadsheet. 74 er s- El 0 i i I I ... I I~ .... 1980 .ALASrA EHEliGf AlJIBCiaTY SOtJtiiEASt ALASKA ELECmiCITY D:DWUJ STUDY ASS!JHPTlORS USED IN !Ct!!Q1IC PROJECilORS BASE CASE LIJf CAS! Institute of Social and Ecoacmic Research June 1990 BIGB CASE A. P!!ROLEIJH PRICE ASSUHPTICRS 1. Averase Expected OPEC Price B. INDUSTRY ASS!J1PTIORS 1. TraM-Alaska Pipeline 2. Pipeline Co:rrosicm 3. Oil.apill Opuat.lD& ~t r..U. coat.mt. at. 885 thJ:ou&h 2010 wit.b 390 at. headquart.en in ADcborqe Cld t.be r-umter alai& t.be pipeline co:r:rldor. [Source: peraoual C-=ica- t.iaa wit.b Al.yeaka Pipeline ~J (tAP.S90). Coftaaion-nlat.ad repairs mel .aint.allalce reaul.t.a 1n caut.xuct.iaa ~t. peakJD& at 1200 1n 1SISI1 Cld 1882, fall1D& t.o a c:aaat.mt. J..ftl of 150 1D 1884 (CXIL.SSIOB). Tile !ZmD Valda oil.aplll a-nt.ad ~t. of z,eso 1n 1818 .ad S7oo lllilllcm 1n additional panODal iDc:aDe t.o Al.ukma (SI'L.SIIO). ~ .. alt.uu.t.ives are c:cmsidered for t.he world oil price (Saudi Li&ht. deliv.:red t.o t.be U.S. Gul.t) • lJl real 1988 dollan, t.bey are llS follows: Law Hid Bi&h 1990 $18 18 18 ~ $14 19 26 .ill!! $14 21 35 $18 Saudi Lit.e delivered t.o t.be U.S. Gul! cor:re- spoaa. t.o $17 AHS exude delivered to t.b4l U.S. GUlf. ($17 1n 1989$ is $18.75 in 1991$.) NotE: Codes in parent.besaa lndi~at.e ISEll ~s for MAP Hodal SCER_ cue fila, md codes 1D brackets iDdlcat.e HAP variable niiii&S. -.. A-1 ..... -.... 4 . North Slope P•t.rob1111 Dw•lo~t. md Production • 5. ANWR 6. Upper Cook Inbt.-- P•t.=Le-P=ciuct.ion 7. Oil Induat.ry B•adquu:t.era 8. TAGS Pipelln• BASE CASE lhia cu• (NSO.S~B) ia baaed. upca Ul a:pczaian of prociuctiCII1 t.o incl.ud• W.at. Salt or a caaparahle Jlllljor new field in the 1;aoa. Expl.arat.ion but. no dwalopiiClt. in ANWR (AIIWR. s;OL). Elllp.LDyment. in uplorat.ion md d-l.opDmt. of oil and su in tha Upper Coak Inlet. aru d•clinaa sradually (1 percent. umually) aa the lllljor oil fialda ar• daplat..C (UPC.S90). lhil CUI (~. SgQ) is uaociat.ad with additional dwalopiiClt. of North Slope fialdl. LCIJ CASE Thia caaa (RSQ.SSIOL) ia bu.C upm m e:cp~D~icm of product.icm t.o ilacl.ude Wut. Sak or a cc:aparal:llA n• ~or field aft.ar 2000. s-uBua. s-u Bua. A -2 Institute of: Social and Econgmic Research HIGU CASE s-•• Baae. Dev.lopDant. of a major field in ANWR. with pJ:OCiuct.ion commancins aft.ar 2000 (ANWR..S90B). Tbia cue (0BQ.S90B) is uaociat.ed with davalcp11mt. of fialda in n• rasiona. Tb• "TAGS" pipeline t.o t.riiDaport. North Slop• aatural su t.o market. in Japan ia constructed ovar a 5-yaar pariod. Ccmat.ruct.ion basins in 1993. Oparat.ions ba&iD in 1998. Th• lina ut.anda frCIII l'rudhoa Bay t.o · Valdez and include• compr•a- sor at.at.ions, cODdit.ionin& faciUtiaa, end a llqua- fact.ion plant. IIDd marina t.aminal. Con~t.ruct.iCID .apl.oymmt. paw at. 7,202. Operations ampl..o7mct. ia 1,130. CCIDIUUCt.ion and operations empl.D,mmt. occun all alon& tha pipallna cor- ridor. The pip• lin• pz:oducaa 200 llliWon (DCIIIinal S) iii at.at.• rav.DU• in it.a first year of oparat.ion <T.AG.s;o-2>. 9. Balusa Coal Product.icm · 10. U.S. Baraz 11. Graana C:raak Hina i, I ' 12. Red Das HiDe 13. WiabboDe Bill 14. AJ MINE --·., BASE CAS! DewlapMDt. at a 3.5 lllilllOD taD/yaaz: IDiDe tar aport. baai=iDI ill 1aa3 :raault.e ill . ~ a! 375 ill 1885 cui ba7CIIId (l!CL.SQ0-3). P:rodw:t.iOQ frail tbe Cii:'HU Creak HiDa an Admiralty Ialazld bqilla at. tbe aZid of 1&11. lliaplGJalaat. 1D tha ad.De ia COQ&t.IIDt. at. 250 tbrauab 2010. [Source: penana1 c~cat.1an, G~ Creak HiDiDs Cclapa)-J (GC21.SSIO). 'Dle Reel Dol HiDa ill the W.at.eru llroab llclae basilla operat.ian ill 160 with product.10D lllllpl.oJmat. of 3!50 (DD.SIIO). 'Dlia coal ld.DII 1D the Hat.mmaka-Saaitzaa Vallq bqiDa opent.10D ill lllid- 1881, CIPlaJilla 250 ill the atract.lOD aZid azport o! coal t.a Jape (WI.S.SIIO), lebo 187 IUIWI& CalipciT bqiDa ptOduct.ian fl:'al tbia aold IDiDe ill J•-m llid- 1883. Oparat.ioaa ~t. ia 4!50 (AJH.UD). A-3 IDf CAS! luat.it.ut.e a! Social and ES9J19P!ic Research BIGB CAS! 'Dla U.S. Bol:a: .U.ybciama 111iJ1e Dll&z: ~t.cbikaa ia bnluabt. illt.a pzocluct.ian ill 1&&5. Opaz:at.J.Da ~t. 1a init.1al.q &85 Cld s=- t.a 1,020 over tbe nezt. 15 yaaz:a. [Saw:ca: USDA Faraat. Sazvica, Draft. EIS, pancmal caamqgicat.ian with ·U.S. Fo:raat. Sazvtca " U.S. Baraz panoanal) (JIXH.SQO). -. -.... · 16. Other Hinin& Act.ivit.y 17. ~icult.ura 18. Lo&&iua and S-tlla 19. Pulp Hilla 20. c-rcial Fillh Berv .. t.tna-- Hcmbot.t.omfillh 21. c-rcial Fillh Proceaatna-- HOIIbot.t.oaafillh Ecbo B.,. H1Din& Caa!plmy basiDia product.iem ~liD thia llliu IIOrth of J=eca iD lllid- 1&1113. Operations -.pl,gymclt ia 340 (IZK.SGO). HiDiD& -.p~t. Det of apecificallJ identified project.& iDcreuea from 650 iD 1GIG b)" 3 percent. .aaaall1 (CHN.S90). Elll:pl.DJmeut. iD qricult.w:e ia conat.aut at. 1&8& level of SZS (AGil..SGO). Louin& ~t iD the Solltheut decliD• iD the 1GQOa b1 800 u the Dative Corp. barvut ·falls t.o • auataiDable level. ~t &rowth iD Solltl!c'mt.:al reflect.& - llat.ive Corp. activitiea (FftL.SGO). .Ut.ar 1&&1 eap.l.D7mmt decliD• at. a rate of 1 percct per yeer bee-• of productivity &aiDa (IHP.SGO). ~ level& iD t.ra- cl1t.10Dal fiaheriea harveat r...ta coaat.aDt at. 8,200 tJarouah 2010 (SFB.S88). ~t iD procn•iDa of t.r.U.t.1c1Dal. fiaheriea ~t iDcreuea t.o 7, 500 md the r.aiD& CCII18t.aDt (SFP.SGO). s-u Bue. Loqizl& a.p,U,.Ct. drop& 25 percent. relative t.o bue cue be~ 1&&5 aDd 2000 u t.ialber hllrveat from pubUc laDd dropa from 400 tHJf t.o 300 tftlf (i'HL.SGOL--odd oa to bue). ZOOS wbc curr.ut. USFS coatract .zpUea (iMP .SIIOL --add em to bue). Emp~t iD LcMer Scutheut Alull:a r_.iDa caaat.aut (Sft' .L80). A-4 Inat.itllt.e o~ Social and Ecoposac Res•arch ~of adcUtiODal depoait.a 1D CmJad.a Dear Jobzmy HtD reault.a in 50 new joba iD Wrauaall h•&inniD& iD 1&92. Increued axpl.ora- t.1em activity em Prince of Wale• Island adda 20 joba in X.t.chik-be&izlniD& iD 1992 (~.SSO--add em t.o baaa). Loaama ~t 1a 10 percmt hilber t.b.n baae cue due to •t.roza& d-d for c-t.a u Native round los axport.a decline (FHL.S90B--add OD t.o baaa). s-•• Baaa. A Dew X.t.chikau fillh-faed plclt md macell..aDeaua illduat.ry a:pauioa add 50 joba in X.t.chikaD, 24 iD Pet.arabqq, mel 50 iD Hat.lakatla beai.DDiD& iD 1992 or 19&3 (FlR.SSIOlt--add em t.o baaa). t::. ., ' A-5 Inat.itut.e of Social and Economic Research C. FISCAL ASS!f:IPIIONS #>-__ ..,.. C . l. Revenue! (Rl'TS] 2.. R.ayalt.i .. [R!'RY] 3. Bcmua•• [RPBS] 4. Property tu: .. [RPPS] 5. Pat.roleUIII Corporate Incama To: [li.TCSl'X] 7. Hiscallan-Pat.rolAUIII Set.t.lamaat. a.v.nue• [RPSX:l [EXPF2.] Ho cbcla.. %rca currmt. t.az st:zuctura (RE9JII. 80) • Curraat. %03'al.t.y suuctura CcC~DtiJNes. "rbaaa ravw~~Uas are distributed betwaaD tba General. Fund Uld P-t. Fund (JlEVR .110) • Baaed an projactiou pub- llllhad by Alaska Daparbllclt. of Rweue (REVII.90). Ro chan&• in raaulatillll!. Baaed em projactiODII pub- llllhad by Alaaka D~t. of RwClU (I!EVK.IIO) •us- -tad by t.aaa c:a anabar• facilltl .. ralatad to CCS dev.lopiiClt.. (Sea CCS cas a. ) Baaed em projact.iODII pub- lillhad by Alaaka Dapar=et. af RWElua (REVII.IIO) • Ro chcl&• in t.az rasulat.illll!. Ccmatalt iD real t-at currmt awl of sa llli.Won. Alaska rac•i-• S2 bllllcm C1IIIIOS> Clll'ar t.ba period n 111111 to 2000 ln satt~t of ctlsput.ed offllhora 1••••• ln t.ba Beaufort Sea GIDCl 1n ••tt~t of awault! aDd t.az disput... ~aaardlD& the val.llatlcm of lortb Slope all. tbaaa r~• are ~.,. cUat.rilNtad bat.waaa t.ha Gaaral l1md aDd tba l'aZIIIClaat. Fund CWIR.SIIO). Calculated ulna low prlca (UW.IIOL). Calculated ulna low price. Calculated uln& low prlca. Calculatacl uiq low prlca. CalculAted ulna low prlca. A-G luat.itut.e of Social BIGB CAS!: Cal.cul.atad uaina hi&h price (UVJI.IIOB) • Cal.culat.ad uains bi&b prica. Calcul.at.ad uain& bi&b price. Calculat.ad usins hi&h price. Calculated usins hi&h price. I ,..._ -· .. a. Fecleral-St.et.e Petroleum-Related ~•d llnwauu [llSFDNl'X] 9. Peraonal Inc~ Tu: [EXPITl 10. Lars• Project Corporat-e Incan Tu:ea [RTCSX] 11. Hiac:ellmeoua Local Rwenue Source• [RLD:l [lii.PrX] [RL'IFPX] 12. 11-Fecleral-St.et.e 'Shared Rav.maea [RS!'DIIX] C.2. State Appropriations 13. A&&resat.e Appropriat.iana [EXWIHDl 14. Capital/Operat.iana Split [EXSPLID:l 15. Gclaral Obllsat.ion Boada Incr ... ill& $1 million --.lly fraal c:urrmt l.,.l of W lllilllc:a. Rat..poaed at. previous ~l tlbm at.at.a appropriat.iaaa fall be~ the FY 1988 lwel iD real t.ama. lDC:CDe tax 1a reilllpoaed prior to el.imiDa- tic:a of the diviclezld but. cal.)-aftar Pe-t. Fuad umtns• ~ been appro- priated to the senaral fuad. H1ace11m-at.at.rlocal t.rmafara, luae project property t.a:ea. petrol-- related federal t.rmafara all aet. to zero. Zero. Azlnual appropriat.ic:a equal& c:ar%Ct --pl.laa 50 percent. of a-ral fund balmce availabla for appropriat.icma. 110 percent. operat.iana: 10 percent. capital. llolld aalu for capital apendit.uru occw: at. a rata tlbic:b ll&iDt.aina -.1. debt. nrrice ..,_t.a at. a ~l DO more then S percent. of c:ar%Cit at.at.a rev.mau. A-7 Inatit.ut.e o:t Social and Ec9P9!dc Research <#--..... 16. Federal Grant.a-iD- Aid for Capit.al ~turaa UW'DJICAXI 17. St.at.e Loan Proar- [EXmllXJ [EXLQAH2] [EXCPSIUI 18. Municipal Capit.al Grant.a [RLlK:AP] 19. St.at.e-Local Jl.eveaue Shari~~& [RL'IRSI 20. St.at.e-Local Hlmicipal Aaaiat.anca [RLtw.l 21. ParmaDaDt. Fund/Other Appropriat.icma iD Ezcana of Spaudin& Limit. [EXGFOl'Srl [ElCSPCAP] C. 3 . Permanent. Fund 22. ParmaDmt. F~md Principal [:ala'Fl] 23. PUIIIIQieDt. Flmd Diviclead [EXl'FDIST] BAS! CASE Cout.ant. at. 875 llliWem. Apprapriat.icma ~ t.ba s-ral flmd for p=sr- capi.tallaat.icm t.eminat.ed att.er FY 1987. P=sr- c~ fuact.i.DD:lDs cm uiat.in& capit.ali&at.icm iDcl.udin& ABFC &lid ~A r.-a bcmcl expcdituraa. Fuadia& t.ermiaat.ed aft.ar FY 1887. Ccmt.iDU&t.icm proport.icDal. t.o t.ot.al at.at.a ap&Ddit.uraa. Ccmt.iDuat.icm pJ:OpOrt.icmal. t.o t.ot.al at.at.a ap&Ddituraa. Spacial appropriat.iaa t.o Peza. FIDid of 8150 llli.Wcm iD 1881. Special capit.al. appropriat.ioD troJD ll.ailbalt. EDerv F~md iD 1991. Depoait.a frail pat.rol.Ma --ccmt.illua at. currat rat.ea: iD!l&t.icm-proofiD& alJ&dDat.ecl wha:a CCIIIIIlat.a withdr•al. of -u.al. e•mt"l' CQIIIDe'DCU. CoDt.iDueci at. t.ba rat.a of 50 parc:at. of aamin&a avuqad owr t.ba prcrioua 5 ,..an UDt.il rawauu f%'0111 all ot.bar aourc:aa era iDauaici-t. t.o maiDt.aiD at.at.a appropriat.icma at. real lSIH lwel. WbaD that. lild.laat.cma ia raached, tha dividGd ia pbaaed out.. LQf CASE A-e InatJ.tut.e of Social and Ecgnom4c Resear5h BIGB CASE .. , J a.· tf ....... A.. - 24. Femanent. Fund EamiDp [EXPll\XiF] 25. Real R.at.e of R.at.um [RCRPF] C,4, Miscellaneous 26. St.at.e-Lacel Wase R.at.es [!'XWR] D. NATIONAL VARIABLE A§SUHPTIORS 1. U.S. lnflat.i011 Rate [GaUSCPI] 2. Real Avuesa Weakly Eaminss [GRRWEUSJ 3. R.aal Par Capit.a Incc:aa [c;u)IRPU]. 4. Unamp~t. Rate [UUS] BASE CASE After PQMDt. of the cliviclcld, tb• r-tnins FIDXI Mmtnl• aJ:tl added to tbe · coz:paa of tba PaDIIII!lmt. hlld-in.!lat.i= p:taafins &lid lmCiiatJ:ibuted in-. WMn at.at.a app:tap:tiat.iOD.a bqin t.o fall below tba rael 1988 1.81rel, auniqa a:a clivell:'t.eci t.o the ••a:el fuad t.o maint.ain the 1988 lewl. 3 pell:'C•t. Wqaa held COI1St.ant. in ~ S far a 2-yaa: period in auly 1SI;Qa. CoaaUDell: p:tices riaa at. m -u rat.a of S pall:'C-t. cuv .sao>. G:tcllrtb in rael averqa ~ •Ullin&• cvell:'qaa .05 pell:'CIIDt. -~, G:tcllrtb in reel pall:' c.pit.a in-awrq.. .5 perc-t. .,.. •• 1 1,. in acaaa of -as• .....u,. •am.ina•. Laaa-raa rata of G.5 pell:'C•t.. IDI CAS!: Wes•• bald four yaa:s. s-.. bane. A-SI Inst.itute of Social and Economic Research BlGB CASE No cap or was••· Gr-eb in rael avarqa -altly •a:tnins• avares•• 1 percant. mnually. #--·- l. Fopul.at.ion 2. Emplaymclt. F . Dm::lGRAPHICS 1. L.Dor Force Fart.1c1pat.1an Rat.• [ LAFl'Rl'l] R.a&imial poplll&t.ion ar~ allocat.ecl -t.ba baaia of uiat.i!l& popW.at.ion and ~t.-~. Ho ai&Dificmt. ahift.a iD t.ha locat.ica of: aupport. illdust.daa. St.&bilizaa at. 69 percent.. Inat.itutA o! Social agd Ecgnom4c Research HIGB CASE A-10 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I l I I I I 1 I l:: .. ISER: DRAFT SE Alaska Load Forecast Appendix B: Statistical Equations Residential Forecasting Equations We were able to develop reasonable econometric equations for Metlakatla and Wrangell only. The Metlakatla data can be described by the following regression equation: log(USE) = 5.655 + .oo7•11ME + .448 • log(HDD) • .043•(D7079•TIME) + .480•07079 (1.09) (3.55) (3.64) (3.51) (coefficient t-statistics in parentheses) where USE= TIME= HOD= 07079= Nobs = R2= residential kWh per customer TJ.IDe trend (1970= 1, 1971 =2, etc.) Area Heating degree days (Anette Island Station) Dummy variable for the period 1970-79 18 (1970-87) .947 The graph below shows the fit obtained. The formulation suggests that use is increasing at an underlying rate of .7% per year, while during the period 1970-79 use decreased at a rate of (.043-.007) = 3.6% per year. The underlying time trend is insignifican~ however. Metlakatla Equation Fit Res. Use per Cust. Thousand k Wh/yr 25.---------~----------------------------------~ 20 15 10 5 o~._~~~~~~~--~~~~--L-~~~--~~_J ~ro 1975 1980 1985 1987 -actual mtk --+-fitted mtk B-1 --. .., ISER: DRAFT SE Alaska Load Forecast 1 , Wrangell. The Wrangell data are reasonably described by the following regression equation: log(USE) = 9.105-.225*log(PRICE) + .183 • log(INCOME) (1.99) (1.70) (coefficient t-statistics in parentheses) where USE = residential kWh per customer PRICE = average residential revenue per kWh INCOME =. real percapita personal income (Wrangell/Petersburg Census Area) Nabs= R2 = 18 (1970-87) .274 This model is particularly satisfying because it is structural and does not rely on an ad hoc I I time trend. The elasticity coefficients are · consistent with the range obtained in the ' econometric literature and with income elasticity estimates obtained from a large cross sectional sample of Alaskan Villages (XiWei Yang, 1989). The graph below shows actual and fitted values obtained with this regression equation: Wrangell Res use I cust actual vs fitted kWh/yr 7000~~-----------------------------------------, 6000 4000 3000 2000 1000 oL-~-L~--~~~~----~~~--~~~~--._~~ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1987 -actual .........__ fitted B-2 I_ ' ; ' ?' I-1, \ ' r . ' v i ! ··-- j ) r--. . I· jl : ' I l ,, Commercial Sector Forecasting Equation This section describes the forecasting equation which was derived from pooled data and hence is the same for all four communities. . . The so-called commercial customer class is more accurately described as the noresidential buildings class. This distinction iS especially important in smaller communities throughout Alaska, where government and school buildings make up a proportionately larger pan of the building stock than in a larger trade and service center such as Anchorage. We have no direct data on the distribution of floorstock to support this contention, but we are convinced by casual observation and a limited analysis of utility billing records for Metlakatla and Petersburg. ' . Because of the amount of institutional building space served as commercial class customers, a moqel based on wage and salary employment makes more sense than one built on personal income. Employment figures captur~ the disproportionate size of the government sector in Alaska in general and in small communities in particular. We use wage and salary employment data as reported to the Alaska Department of Labor without adding in estimates of proprietors' employment. While the omission of proprietors' employment may neglect some small businesses, it properly excludes fishermen and women, who do not work in buildings. ' . We tried several models of commercial class consumption using the pooled data from all . four communities. We selected the following regression equation as the best representation of the data for forecasting purposes: Log(CMWH) = 6.467336 + .032274 • TIME+ .638381 • Log(EMPLOYMENT) ( 4.49) (8.22) + 2.2S8938• D K + 1.613665 • D P + .8ffT7'J7 • D W . (13.46) -(9.70) -(8.78) - . Where: CMWH TIME EMPLOYMENT DK DP DW R2 = .9905 N=68 . = Commercial Class consumption = T"DDe Trend (1960 = ~ 1961 = 2, etc.) = Wage and Salary Employment = Dummy variable for Ketchikan = Dummy variable for Petersburg = Dummy variable for Wrangell The equation can be interpreted as follows: First, commercial use has been growing at a trend rate of 3.2 percent per year independent B-3 .--.... of employment growth. This trend may reflect any of the following changes to the economy: • Addition of relatively energy intensive industries (fish freezing). Addition of large buildings (gyms, swimming poo~ enclosed malls). • Increased lighting and refrigeration per worker in retail and supermarket space. Second, a 1 percent change in employment, all other things being equal, causes a . 78 percent increase in consumption. The fact that this elasticity measure is less than one may reflect the fact that lower employment levels do not imply one for one reductions in electric use since the building stock cannot be adjusted in the short run. Also, to the extent that the more volatile components of the wage and salary economy are outside the traditional trade and service sectors, employment swings in these industries would not be reflected in short term changes in consumption. We are thinking here especially of the mineral exploration and timber employees who work outdoors. Third, the dummy variables capture regional differences in both the structure of the economy and the way the available data is measured: • Ketchikan consumption data includes large commercial customers such as fish processors. • Metlakatla employment is measured for the entire Prince of Wales -Outer Ketchikan census area, so a given amount of consumption is related to a much larger employment base (in the data) than in the other areas. Similarly» employment data used for Wrangell and Petersburg is the combined total for the Wrangell-Petersburg census area. While the chosen equation exhibits good statistical properties, we believe it is imprudent to base all forecasts on the continuation of the relatively strong time trend variable. This trend probably reflects structural factors in the economy and the stock of institutional buildings which are likely to change in the future for several reasons. With state revenues declining, we are not likely to see a continuation of the building boom of the 1980s. In addition, new laws and new technology may cause a decline in use per employee during the next two decades. These include the recently enacted federal ballast standards for fluorescent lighting and the availability of more efficient lighting. and refrigeration devices. Detailed end use modelling for the Railbelt (Colt, 1989) suggests that use per square foot in new commercial buildings is declining in Alaska,. and that federal ballast standards alone will eventually reduce lighting consumption per square foot by about 9 percent. In addition, Mitchell (1989) concluded that the end use forecasts for the rural Railbelt implied average decreases of between. 56 and 1 percent per year in commercial consumption per capita. Because of this evidence that commercial use per capita may decline over the next two decades, we have set the trend rate of growth to zero for the Low case, and cut the trend in half in the MID case. The computed trend is employed in the High case. The following figures show actual and fitted values obtained with the commercial sector equation. B-4 I ' , I I I 'I ( I I I ) ,_ -···· 50 I 40t 30t 20 t- I I 10 t- I I 0 1970 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 ISER: DRAFT SE Alaska Load Forecast Commercial Equation Fit Ketchikan MWh 1975 1980 1985 1987 -actual --+-fitted Commercial Equation Fit Metlakatla (Industrial Excluded) 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 -actual --+-fitted B-5 ---- ISER: DRAF'f SE Alaska Load Forecast Commercial Equation Fit Petersburg (includes Lg Comm) Thousands of MWh 20~----------------------------------------------- 15 10 5 ~~70~--~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~ 1975 1980 1985 1987 -actual --+-fitted Commercial Equation Fit Wrangell (excludes WFP) 7000~--------------------------------------------~ 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 oL-~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~ 1970 1975 1980 1985 1987 -actual --+-fitted B-6 .. 1 I I I I r J , I I J I r ' t r l J l --•. Appendix C: MAP Model Results These results from MAP econometric model runs are organized by region and within each region by case, from UJW to IDGH. Employment projections are presented separately for each of the Outer Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Census sub-areas. Projections of number households and personal income are presented for the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan census area, consistent with available data on these quantities. MAP REGIONAL MOOEL PROJECTIONS: PART I SEA F I MAL LOW KETCHIKAN EMPLOYMENT CTHCJJSAIIDS) WAGE AND BASIC SUPPORT GOVERIIMEIIT TOTAL SAUlT POPULA T tON -----·--·· -··----··· --··----·---------------------·----~-·-- 1988 3.034 2.714 1.929 7.677 6.771 12.752 1989 3.020 2.817 2.002 7.839 6.910 12.842 1990 3.059 2.877 1.98.1 7.919 6.992 13.276 1991 3.085 2.811 1.945 7.841 6.907 13.247 1992 3.096 2.745 1.869 7.710 6.m 13.154 1993 3.112 2.676 1.948 1.736 6.795 13.160 1994 3.156 2.700 2.055 7.911 6.960 13.346 1995 3.141 2.695 2.146 7.982 7.033 13.504 1996 3.096 2.706 2.221 8.024 7.074 13.618 1997 3.053 2.692 2.192 7.936 6.986 13.583 1998 3.038 2.684 2.176 7.891 6.946 13.540 1999 3.032 2.682 2.175 7.890 6.934 13.527 2000 3.050 2.709 2.17'9 7.938 6.978 13.608 2001 3.012 2.729 2.162 7.963 7.001 13.679 2002 3.094 2.754 2.132 7.910 7.018 13.740 2003 3.108 2.773 2.114 7.994 7.032 13.792 2004 3.117 2.795 2.105 8.018 7.054 13.853 2005 2.600 2.568 2.102 7.270 6.302 12.657 2006 2.628 2.598 2.101 7.327 6.352 12.694 2007 2.660 2.632 2.104 7.396 6.413 12.827 2008 2.698 2.664 2.097 7.459 6.468 12.964 2009 2.132 2.687 2.077 7.497 6.497 13.066 2010 2.769 2.714 2.059 7.541 6.535 13.171 SOURCE: DSET SEAZLR OATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: 8.13, 5.13, G.13, M.13, M97.13 P.13 ..... C-1 ---·- MAP REGIONAL MalEL PROJECTIONS: PAIIT II SEA fiNAL La.l KETCH lOll POPULA T I Cll ( TKCIUSANDS) POPULATION HaJSEtiCXJ)S -----------------------------------·-----·-----------STATE U.S.BEA BOROUGH NUMBER SIZE ------------------------------------------------·-1988 12.752 12.752 12.'752 4.667 2.661 1989 12.842 12.842. 12.842 4.714 2.654 1990 13.276 13.276 13.276 4.895 2.644 1991 13.247 13.247 13.247 4.904 2.633 1992 13.154 13.154 13.154 4.891 2.622 1993 13.160 13.160 13.160 4.913 2.611 1994 13.346 13.346 13.346 4.997 2.604 1995 13.504 13.504 13.504 5.on 2.597 1996 13.618 13.618 13.6115 5.1za 2.591 1997 13.583 13.583 13.5&1 5.130 2.583 1998 13.540 13.540 13.540 5.128 2.575 1999 13.527 13.521 13.527 5.137 2.569 2000 13.608 13.608 13.608 5.179 2.563 2001 13.679 13.679 13.679 5.218 2.558 2002 13.740 13.740 13.740 5.252 2.553 2003 13.792 13.792 13.792 5.281 2.549 2004 13.853 13.853 13.853 5.314 2.545 2005 12.657 12.657 12.657 4.852 2.540 2006 12.694 12.694 12.694 4.872 2.537 2007 12.827 12.827 12.827 4.929 2.535 20015 12.964 12.964 12.964 4.9156 2.533 2009 13.066 13.066 13.066 5.031 2.531 2010 13.171 13.171 11.1n 5.077 2.529 SCJJRC£: DSET SEA2LR DATE OF CIEATICII: 6/90 VAlUABLES: PCEJI.23, PBEA.23, PBCIR.23, KHCEJ1.23, HSIZ£.23 ..... C-2 --- MAP REGIONAL IQ)EL PRO.IECTIOMS: PART Jl I SEA FINAL LOW KETCHIKAN PERSCIIAL INCOE NOMINAL S 1989 s -------------·--------------·-----------------------------------------------------0 I SPOSAIL.E D l SPOSAIL.E PERSOIIAL. PERSCJIAL PER CAPITA PER CAPITA PERSQIW. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA I MallE INaiME lllaiME ($) D ISPOSUL.E IJlCDCE INCDCE <S> DISPOSASLE (MILLION S> (MILLION S) IIICDME (S) (MILLION S) INCCME (S) ---------------------------------------------------------------·------------· 1988 s 281 s 240 122057 SUIBZO s 247 S2Z668 $19342 1989 . s 306 s 260 S23823 SZ0278 I 2.56 S23418 S19933 1990 s 328 I 279 S24671 121025 s 262 123198 $19770 1991 s 333 s 283 $2.5101 121369 s 253 S2Z478 S19136 1992 s 344 I 292 126124 122199 I 249 122210 S18933 1993 s 361 s 301 127420 122!36 s 244 122272 S18549 1994 s 388 s 323 S29060 124175 I 250 122480 S18701 1995 s 396 I 329 129311 124342 s 243 121691 118013 1996 s 416 I 346 Sl0569 125380 s 245 121640 117967 1997 I 432 s 358 131789 S26lU s 243 121528 117870 1998 s 451 s 375 133317 S276BO s 243 121584 117932 1999 s 472 s 393 134913 129016 s 243 121638 117984 2000 s 500 s 415 136715 S30492 s 246 121770 118080 2001 s 524 s 435 138292 131119 s 247 121723 $18050 2002 I 552 s 459 S40209 $33384 s 249 121823 118119 2003 s 578 s 480 S41919 S34124 s 249 121767 S1808l 2004 s 607 s 505 S43853 136427 s 251 121788 118098 2005 s 572 s 475 S4511S2 137523 s 226 121478 S178l7 2006 s 606 s 503 S47747 139630 s 229 121717 118025 2007 s 642 I 532 S50037 141500 s 232 121777 S18061 2008 s 679 s 563 S52414 S43467 s 235 121828 118102 2009 I 717 s 595 $54896 145549 s 237 121876 118151 2010 s 757 s 628 S57497 S47705 s 240 121925 S18191 SCliRCE: DSET SWLR DATE OF CREATJOII: 6/90 VARIABLES: Pl.23, DPI.23, P.Pt.Z3, P.DI.23, OF.DI.23, DP.P1.23, DP.DI.23 .... C-3 ... •.,\ ., ··' 2": ;, r .. : I ... I• ,_, -· -·' I, 'I ·-r== -- "------,;' , __ ) ( i!\ : ~ • I \, • 'o• ,~J ~-- •• ,)! J 1.'· ~ I u MAP REGIONAL MODEL PROJECTIONS: PART 1 SEA FINAL BASE KETCHIKAII EMPLOYMENT (TKCl.lSANDSl WAGE AND BASIC SUPPORT GOVERNMENT TOTAL SALAaT POPULATION ---·--------·----------·----·--------------·-----· -·-·------ 1988 3.034 2.714 1.929 7.677 6.771 12.752 1989 3.032 2.822 2.003 7.158 6.929 12.869 1990 3.084 2.819 1.989 7.963 7.035 13.342 1991 3.129 2.879 2.021 8.029 7.096 13.483 1992 3.169 2.874 2.002 8.045 7.112 13.579 1993. 3.204 2.891 2.044 8.138 7.197 13.710 1994 3.213 2.918 2.116 8.247 7.297 13.889 1995 3.176 2.874 2.125 8.175 7.227 13.928 1996 3.161 2.885 2.139 8.184 7.235 13.951 1997 3.163 2.872 2.155 8.191 7.241 13.986 1998 3.228 2.907 2.154 8.289 7.337 14.152 1999 3.203 2.912 2.155 8.270 7.314 14.132 2000 3.231 2.941 2.154 8.327 7.367 14.235 2001 3.256 2.963 2.131 8.350 7.387 14.316 2002 3.264 2.972 2.094 8.330 7.368 14.342 2003 3.261 2.978 2.071 8.309 7.347 14.348 2004 3.269 2.992 2.062 8.323 7.359 14.381 2005 3.290 3.023 2.070 8.383 7.414 14.475 2006 3.314 3.063 2.089 8.466 7.491 14.620 2007 3.346 3.113 2.111 8.569 7.587 14.805 2008 3.316 3.171 2.130 8.687 7.696 15.024 2009 3.429 3.231 2.136 8.797 7.797 15.245 2010 3.472 3.288 2.126 8.185 7.879 15.445 SOURCE: OSET SEA2BR OATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: 8.13, S.13, G.13, M.13, 1497.13 P.13 -C-5 --.. MAP REGIONAL MCXIEL PROJECTIONS: PART I 1 SEA fiNAL SASE KETCHIIWI POPULATION <THC1IS.UIDS) POPULATION HCIUSI:HOL.DS ·-·-··-···-···-·--····----·-·--· -----·--------------- STATE U.S.BEA a.oRQJGH NI..MIER SIZE ~--·------··--·----· -----·--·· -------------------- 1988 12.752 12.752 12.752 4.667 2.661 1989 12.869 12.869 12.869 4.724 2.654 1990 13.342 13.342 13.342 4.920 2.645 1991 13.483 13.483 13.483 4.991 2.635 1992 13.57'9 13.57'9 13.57'9 5.046 2.625 1993 13.710 13.710 13.710 5.111 2.617 1994 13.889 13.889 13.889 5.193 2.610 1995 13.928 13.928 13.928 5.226 2.601 1996 13.951 13.951 13.951 5.253 2.593 1997 13.986 13.986 13.986 5.283 2.584 19915 14.152 14.152 14.152 5.363 2.577 1999 14.132 14.132 14.132 5.368 2.571 2000 14.235 14.235 14.235 5.419 2.565 2001 14.316 14.316 14.316 5.463 2.560 2002 14.342 14.342 14.342 5.485 2.554 2003 14.348 14.34& 14.348 5.499 2.549 2004 14.381 14.381 14.381 5.523 2.544 2005 14.475 14.475. 14.475 5.568 2.540 200t! 14.620 14.620 14.620 5.631 2.538 2007 14.105 14.805 14.805 5.707 2.536 2008 15.024 15.024 15.024 5.7'95 2.535 2009 15.245 15.245 15.245 5.884 2.534 2010 15.445 15.445 15.445 5.965 2.533 SOURCE: DSET SEA2U DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VAlUABLES: PC£1.23, PIEA.23, PBC11.23, HHCE1.23, HSil.E.23 .... C-6 -·- HAP REGIONAL MODEL PROJEtTlONS: PART III SEA fiNAL USE (ETCIIJKAJI PERSONAL INt:CIE NOMINAL I 1989 I -----------------·-·---·------------------------------------------------------·-·· DISPOSABLE 0 l $$lOSABLE PERSONAL PERSONAL PER CAPITA PEl CAPITA PERSONAL PEl CAPITA PER CAPITA INCOME l NCQME UICQME ( $) DISPOSAILE INCQME INCOME (I) OISPOSAaLE <MILLION I) <MILLION I) INCOME ($) (MILLION S) INCCI4£ (I) ----------------------------------------------------·-----------------------· 1988 s 281 s 240 SZ2057 118820 s 247 122668 $19342 1989 s 307 I 261 S23a33 SZ02a6 I 257 123428 $19941 1990 s 329 $ 281 S24688 S21041 s 264 $23214 $19784 1991 s 341 $ 290 125278 S21499 $ 260 $22637 $19253 1992 s 355 s 302 $2.6135 S2ZZ32 $ 259 122388 $19045 1993 s 376 $ 320 S2743Z SZ3311 I 262 $22480 $19109 1994 s 400 $ 340 S2l77l 124455 I 266 S22561 s191n 1995 $ 417 s 347 129954 124191 s 260 122465 $18667 1996 $ 440 s 366 131527 SZ622S s 261 S22519 $18732 1997 I 446 I 370 13117! 126475 I 253 121779 $18091 1998 s 476 I 395 133599 127912 I 257 121165 118164 1999 I 499 s 414 135291 S29292 s 258 1219n $18237 2000 s 526 I 437 136984 130694 $ 260 122030 S18283 2001 s 554 s 460 131712 132121 s 262 122061 $18305 2002 $ 578 s 480 140333 133469 s 262 121991 $18248 2003 $ 605 s 502 142173 134989 $ 26Z 122000 $18253 2004 s 635 I 527 144141 136636 s 263 122032 $18286 2005 s 6n s 557 146409 s:sasoz $ 266 122164 $18388 2006 $ 711 s 519 141607 140295 s 269 S22212 $18414 2007 I 7'54 $ 625 150915 142203 $ 273 122264 $18454 2008 $ 801 I 664 153340 144207 s 278 122319 $18497 2009 $ 852 $ 706 155870 S46297 s 283 122371 $18538 2010 s 904 s 749 158507 148476 $ 287 122418 118574 Sa.JRC!: DSET SEA28R DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: PI.Zl, DPI.23, P.PJ.Zl, P.DI.23, DF.DI.23, DP.PI.Z3, DP.Dl.Zl ..... C-7 ..,._ .... ·:. .-:- ; -~ - ..... (_", .. -- ··l __ ., ,- _.:, '· ,···, ,' --~~ co I tJ IW' REGIONAL M(J)EL PROJECTIONS: PART I SEA FINAL IUiill KETCHUCAM EMPLOTJIENT CTHOUSAJIDS) !.WOE MID BASIC SUPPORT COVERIIMENT TOTAL SALARY POPULATION ----------··-----··· ----------------------·----------------· 198S 3.034 2.714 1.929 7.677 6.m 12.752 1989 3.041 2.825 2.003 7.!70 6.941 12.882 1990 3.103 2.914 2.031 8.048 7.121 13.438 1991 3.193 2.989 2.110 8.292 7.356 13.782 1992 3.291 3.067 2.091 8.449 7.512 14.120 1993 3.405 3.164 2.064 8.633 7.686 14.450 1994 3.614 3.318 2.058 8.990 8.032 15.096 1995 4.507 3.877. 2.050 10.434 9.475 17.376 1996 4.354 3.939 2.044 10.336 9.374 17.373 1997 4.116 3.914 2.030 10.060 9.095 17.105 1998 4.282 4.088 2.059 10.429 9.460 17.725 1999 4.271 4.071 2.123 10.464 9.4a9 17.841 2000 4.581 4.274 2.109 10.965 9.984 18.627 2001 4.552 4.282 2.121 10.954 9.968 18.678 2002 4.620 4.313 2.099 11.092 10.104 18.936 2003 4.642 4.445 2.077 11.164 10.113 19.123 2004 4.650 4.525 2.099 11.274 10.280 19.313 2005 4.696 4.640 2.142 11.478 10.477 19.623 2006 4.76Q 4.783 2.174 11.717 10.706 20.021 2007 4.826 4.937 2.212 11.975 10.954 20.448 2008 4.910 5.123 2.251 12.284 11.ZS2 20.966 2009 5.003 5.327 2.275 12.6Q5 11.563 21.535 2010 5.088 5.517 2.285 12.890 11.839 22.087 SClJRC!: DSET SEAZHR DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: 8.13, S.13, G.13, M.13, M97.13 P.13 -C-9 -~ MAP REGIONAl. MQ)El PROJECTIONS: PART II SEA FliiAL HIGH ICETCKlDII POPULATION CTKa.ISAIIDS) POPULA T I ClN IICIJSEKOLDS -----------------------------------------------------STATE U.S.BEA SQRCIJGH NUMIER SIZE ------------------------------·------------------- 1988 12.752 12.752 12.752 4.667 2.661 1989 12.882 12.882. 12.81!12 4.729 2.654 1990 13.438 13.438 13.438 4.954 2.646 1991 13.782 13.782 13.782 5.097 2.639 1992 14.120 14.120 14.120 5.235 2.634 1993 14.450 14.450 14.450 5.370 2.629 1994 15.096 15.096 15.096 5.628 2.623 1995 17.376 17.376 17.376 6.506 2.620 1996 17.373 17.373 17.373 6.513 2.616 1997 17.105 17.105 17.105 6.423 2.612 1991 17.725 17.725 17.725 6.680 2.604 1999 17.841 17.841 17.841 6.743 2.597 2000 18.627 11.627 11.627 7.060 2.591 2001 18.678 11.678 11.678 7.094 2.586 2002 18.936 11.936 11.936 7.207 2.511 2003 19.123 19.123 19.123 7.293 2.577 2004 19.313 19.313 19.313 7.378 2.572 2005 19.623 19.623 19.623 7.507 2.570 2006 20.021 20.021 20.021 1.666 2.561 2007 20.448 20.448 20.448 7.135 2.567 2001 20.966 20.966 20.966 8.036 2.561 2009 21.535 21.535 21.535 8.255 2.561 2010 22.087 Z%.087 Z%.087 8.470 2.561 saJRa:: DSET SEA2HR DATE OF CIEATlOII: 6/90 VARIAIUS: PC£11.23, PBEA.Z3, Pac..23, HKCD.23, KSIZE.23 -c-~o -·- MAP REGIONAL MODEL PROJECTIONS: PART III SEA filiAL HIGH n!TCHIUII PERSOIW. I NIXIE NCIUNAL $ 1989 $ -·--·----·-----------·-----------------------------------------------------··--··· DISPOSABLE DISPOSABLE PERSCIIAL. PERSCIIAL. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA PERSCIW. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA I NIXIE IIIIXIE INIXIE (S) DISPOSABLE IIICCIME IIICCitE C S) DISPOSABLE (MILLION S) CMILLIDI $) INIXIE CS) CMILLIDN S) INCOME (S) --------------------------·-------------------------------------------------- 1988 s za1 s 240 S22057 $18820 s 247 $22668 $19342 1989 s 307 s 261 SZ3835 S2028IS s 257 $23430 S19943 1990 s 333 s 284 SV.744 $21100 s 267 SZ3267 $19841 1991 s 350 s 298 S25369 S21597 s 268 S22!21 $19427 1992 s 374 s 318. $26493 S22S30 s 274 S22799 $19389 1993 s 402 s 342 S27820 $23652 $ 281 S22904 $19473 1994 s 444 s 377 129417 S24997 s 297 SZ3170 $19689 1995 s 541 $460 S31150 $26484 s 347 $23475 S19958 1996 s 563 s 471 S3Z389 $27507 s 345 SZ3353 $19833 1997 s 577 s 489 S33140 S28604 $ 331 SZ3276 $19732 1998 s 647 s 549 S36521 S30958 S362 S24104 $20432 1999 s 681 s 564 S38145 S31636 s 356 $24088 S19977 2000 s 775 s 642 141586 $34465 s 375 $24300 $20139 2001 s 789 s 653 $42220 134939 s 365 SZ3602 $19532 2002 s 841 s 696 144405 S36738 s 372 SZ3749 S19648 2003 s 891 s 737 146596 S31!1541 s 377 SZ3842 S19720 2004 s 945 s 712 $48943 140479 s 383 SZ3959 $19816 2005 s 1010 S836 S51491 S4Z582 s 391 S24117 S19945 2006 s 1084 S897 S54161 144780 s 402 S24272 S20068 2007 s 1165 s 964 S56979 S47156 s 413 $24433 S20220 2008 S1257 s 1040. S59973 S496Z7 s 427 $24607 S20362 2009 s 1360 s 1125 $63143 S52236 s 442 $24790 $20508 2010 s 1457 s 1207 165988 S546Z6 s 453 $24791 $20522 sa.C£: DSET SEA2KR DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: Pl.23, DPI.23, P.P1.23, P.OI.23, OF.DI.Zl, DP.PI.Zl, DP.01.23 -C-11 n I .... ~ MAP REGIONAL MODEL PROJECTIONS: PART I SU FINAL LOW WTEA KETCHitAN EMPLOYMENT CTHtlJSAIIOS) WAGE AJID BASIC SUPPOitT GOVERIMEJIT TOTAL SAUlT POPULATION ·--·-····--------------------------------------------------- 1988 0.22.6 0.107 0.313 0.646 0.564 1.833 1959 0.225 0.111 0.323 0.660 0.576 1.196 1990 o.m 0.113 0.321 0.661 0.577 1.992 1991 0.230 0.110 0.315 0.655 0.571 2.076 1992 0.231 o. 107 0.305 0.643 0.559 2.154 1993 0.233 0.106 0.316 0.654 0.570 2.221 1994 0.236 0.109 0.330 0.675 0.590 2.273 1995 0.222 0.107 0.343 0.672 0.587 2.319 1996 0.206 0.106 0.353 0.665 0.580 2.358 1997 0.190 o. 103 0.349 0.642 0.557 2.390 1998 0.176 0.100 0.347 0.623 0.538 2.406 1999 0.162 0.091 0.347 0.607 0.522 2.408 2000 0.164 0.099 0.347 0.610 0.524 2.412 2001 0.166 0.099 0.345 0.610 0.524 2.420 2002 0.168 0.099 0.341 0.60& 0.522 2.431 2003 0.169 0.100 o.m 0.60& 0.522 2.444 2004 0.170 0.100 0.337 0.60& 0.522 2.458 zoos 0.172 0.101 0.337 0.610 0.523 2.476 2006 0.174 0.102 0.337 0.612 0.525 2.494 2007 0.176 0.103 0.337 0.616 0.528 2.515 2008 0.179 0.103 0.336 0.618 0.530 2.539 2009 0.181 0.104 o.m 0.618 0.530 2.565 2010 0.183 0.104 0.331 0.619 0.530 2.59Z saJRCE: OS£1' SWLR OAT£ Of CREATIOM: 6/90 VARIABLES: 1.19, S.19, G.19, M.19, M97.19 P.19 -C-13 -... KAP REGIONAL MCI)Et, PRO.IECTlOIIIS: PART It S£A F lilA&. LOW PRINCE OF WAUS/CIJTE'I CETCHII:AII POPUU T I 0111 CTHaJSAIIIS) POPUL.A T 10111 IICIJUHCUS ····-·----------------------·--· ---···--·---·-····-·- STATE U.S.BEA aat<IJGM NllfiU SIZE -----------------------------------------------·-- 1988 5.567 5.567 5.567 1.720 3.134 1989 5.829 5.829 5.829 1.809 3.125 1990 6.099 6.099 6.099 1.902 3.114 1991 6.155 6.155 6.155 1.928 3.101 1992 6.114 6.114 6.114 1.924 3.057 1993 6.050 6.050 6.050 1.910 3.075 1994 5.978 5.978 5.978 1.192 3.067 1995 5.915 5.915 5.915 1.176 3.059 1996 5.950 5.950 5.950 1.193 3.051 1997 5.992 5.992 5.992 1.912 3.042 1998 6.013 6.013 6.013 1.925 3.033 1999 6.024 6.024 6.024 1.934 3.025 2000 6.043 6.043 6.043 1.944 3.011 2001 6.064 6.064 6.064 1.955 3.012 2002 6.011 6.051 6.011 1.964 3.006 2003 6.098 6.098 6.098 1.973 3.001 2004 6.121 6.121 6.121 1.984 2.996 2005 6.156 6.156. 6.156 1.999 2.991 2006 6.192 6.192 6.192 2.014 2.911 2007 6.240 6.240 6.240 2.031 2.915 2001 6.294 6.294 6.294 2.051 2.9&1 2009 6.345 6.345 6.345 2.01D 2.910 2010 6.395 6.395 6.395 2.oaa 2.978 SClaCE: DSET SEA2Ll DATE OF CREATICII: 6/90 VARIAIUS: PCEJI.22, PBEA.22, PIIOR.22, HIICEII.22, HSIZE.22 -C-14 -·~ ~P REGIDNAL MeDEL PROJECTIONS: PART Ill SEA FIIW. LOW PRIMa OF WALES/QJTEI ICETCHIDJI PEISCIW. llla:IE NCJUIIAL S 1989 s ·--------·-------·····-------·------------·--------------------------------------- DISPOSABLE 0 1 SPOSABL.E PERSCIW. PERSCIW. PER CAPITA PEl CAPITA PERSONAL PER CAPITA PER CAPITA lNCXIME INtDIE liiCDIE (S) OISPOSAILE IIICEJIIE INtDIE (S) DISPOSA8LE (MILLJOI S) (MILLION S) INCOME (S) (MILLION S) INC04E ($) --------------------------------· ---------------·----------------· ·---------· 1988 s 80 s 68 S14330 $12227 s 70 $14727 $12566 1989 s 87 s 74 $14948 S127Z3 s 73 $14694 $12507 1990 s 93 s 80 $15304 113043 s 75 $14391 $12264 1991 s 91 s 78 $14804 S12603 s 69 $13257 S112S6 1992 s 91 s 77 S14851 S12620 s 66 $12666 $10763 1993 s 92 s 77 $151156 112647 s 62 112335 $10273 1994 s 95 s 19 115142 113179 I 61 S12255 110195 1995 s 92 s 76 115526 S12893 s 56 111489 s 9541 1996 s 96 I 80 S16135 113396 s 56 S11422 I 9483 1997 I 99 I 82 S16512 S13707 s 56 111182 s 9282 1998 I 103 I as 117073 S14114 s 55 111061 I 9189 1999 s 107 I 89 117719 114726 s 55 S10982 I 9127 2000 s 113 s 94 1116156 S15519 s 56 S11080 s 9202 2001 s 118 s 91 $19492 116197 s 56 111058 s 9188 2002 s 125 I 103 120477 S17001 s 56 $11114 s 9227 2003 s 130 s 108 121325 117715 I 56 S11073 s 9199 2004 s 137 s 113 smoz 118525 I 56 111080 s 9204 2005 s 144 I 120 SZ3386 119422 s 57 111117 s 9232 2006 s 152 I 126 124609 120425 I 58 111193 $9290 2007 s 161 s 134 S25804 121402 I 58 111230 s 9314 2008 I 170 I 141 S27032 122417 s 59 $11257 s 9n6 2009 I 17'9 I 149 SZI272 123458 I 59 S11266 s 9348 2010 I 189 s 157 129564 124529 I 60 S11273 s 9353 SCIJRa: DS!T SWUt DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: Pl.22, DPI.22, P.PI.22, P.DI.22, OF.DJ.ZZ, DP.PI.22, DP.DI.22 -C-15 -~ n I ~ 0\ MAP REGlOHAL MCJ)EL PROJECTIONS: PART I SEA FINAL BASE aJTER KETCHIKAN EMPLOYMENT (THCIJSAJIDS) WAGE AKD BASIC SUPPORT GOVERNICEIIT TOTAL SALARY PCIPULA T lOll -------·-· ---------· -----------------·-· -------------------- 1988 0.226 0.107 0.313 0.646 0.564 1.8.13 1989 0.225 0.111 0.324 0.660 0.577 1.896 1990 0.228 0.113 0.322 0.663 0.579 1.993 1991 0.230 a. 113 0.327 0.670 0.586 2.076 1992 0.233 0.113 0.325 0.670 0.586 2.154 1993 0.236 0.114 0.331 0.681 0.596 2.220 1994 0.237 0.116 0.341 0.694 0.609 2.2!3 1995 0.235 0.115 0.343 0.693 0.608 2.357 1996 0.235 0.116 0.345 0.696 0.611 2.420 1997 0.235 0.116 0.341 0.699 0.614 2.478 1998 0.237 0.117 0.341 0.701 0.616 2.527 1999 0.239 0.111 0.341 0.705 0.619 2.570 2000 0.241 0.111 0.349 0.7'CIS 0.623 2.610 2001 0.243 0.119 0.346 o.7'CIS 0.622 2.649 2002 0.244 0.119 0.341 0.705 0.619 2.689 2003 0.245 0.119 0.338 0.702 0.616 2.727 2004 0.246 0.120 0.338 0.703 0.617 2.760 2005 0.247 o. 121 0.339 0.707 0.621 2.790 2006 0.249 0.122 0.342 0.714 0.627 2.820 2007 0.252 0.124 0.346 0.722 0.634 2.852 2008 0.255 0.126 0.349 0.730 0.642 2.888 2009 0.251 0.121 0.350 0.736 0.648 2.921 2010 0.262. 0.130 0.349 0.740 0.651 2.972 SCIJRCE: DSET SEA28I DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: 8.19, $.19, G.19, M.19, M97.19 P.19 -C-17 MAP REGIOMAL Ma)EL PRO.IECTIOIIS: PAIT I I SEA Ft MAL BASE PRINCC OF WALESIC1fTD rETCIIIUII POPUI.A T I 011 CTHCIISAIIDI) POPULA T lOll IICIJSEIICI.DS -~--------------------------·--------·-·--·····------ STATE U.S.BEA BORCUGH ....... SIZE ··------------------------------------------------ 1988 5.567 5.567 5.567 1.720 3.134 1989 5.828 5.828 5.82.1 1.809 3.125 1990 6.100 6.100 6.100 1.902 3.114 1991 6.170 6.170 6.170 1.931 3.103 1992 6.152 6.152 6.152 1.933 3.091 1993 6.097 6.097 6.097 1.921 3.012 1994 6.045 6.045 6.045 1.9011 3.074 1995 5.997 5.997 5.997 1.900 3.063 1996 6.016 6.016 6.016 1.913 3.053 1997 6.067 6.067 6.067 1.936 3.043 1998 6.118 6.118 6.118 1.958 3.035 1999 6.172 6.172 6.172 1.981 3.027 2000 6.22.8 6.228 6.228 2.004 3.021 2001 6.Z82 6.282 6.282 2.025 3.015 2002 6.326 6.326 6.326 2.045 3.008 2003 6.365 6.365 6.365 2.062 3.001 2004 6.400 6.400 6.400 2.078 2.995 2005 6.440 6.440 6.440 2.094 2.991 2006 6.496 6.496 6.496 z. 115 2.988 2007 6.563 6.563 6.563 2.139 2.986 zoos 6.643 6.643 6.643 2.166 2.915 2009 6.728 6.728 6.728 2.196 2.984 2010 6.814 6.814 6.814 2.225 2.983 S'OJRCC: DSET SEA28I DATE OF CR!ATlOII: 6/90 VARIABLES: PC0.22. P8EA.22. PBOR.22. HHCE11.22. HSIZ£.22 ...... C-18 --.. IUP REGIOIIAL. IUIEL PROJECTIONS: PART III SEA F I MAL BASE PRINCE OF WALES/CIJTEI KETCHIL\11 PERSCIKAL I NCCIME NCIUNAL. I 1989 s ·---------------------------·-···------------------------------------------·-----· DISPOSAILE DISPOSABLE PERSCUL. PERSCIKAL PER CAPITA PEl CAPITA PERSQIW. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA IIICCIE IIICCIME INCIJE (S) DISPOSAILE IIICCIE IIICOME <Sl DISPOSABLE (MILLION S) (MILLION I) IICDME Cl) (MILLIDII S) INa»E ($) -·------------------------·------···------------------------------·----------1988 s 80 I 68 114330 112227 I 10 S14727 $12566 1989 s 87 s 74 114951 11272.6 I 73 114696 112509 1990 s 93 s 80 S15310 113048 s 75 114396 S12269 1991 s 92 I 79 $14962 112725 I 70 $13399 S11395 1992 s 92 s 78 S14968 S12733 I 67 112822 $10907 1993 s 94 s 80 S15381 S13075 I 65 S12605 $10715 1994 s 96 s 81 S15150 113469 I 64 112426 S10559 1995 s 96 I 80 S16011 S13304 I 60 112008 s 9978 1996 s 101 I 84 1161S31 114001 I 60 112022 $10000 1997 s 103 I as S16930 114063 I sa 111568 I 9609 1998 I 108 I 90 111728 114727 s 59 111537 I 9584 1999 s 115 I 95 $11605 115442 I 59 111583 s 9614 2000 s 121 I 100 119«o41 116134 I 60 111580 I 9610 2001 s 127 s 106 S20270 116819 I 60 111552 s 9585 2002 s 133 s 110 SZ1I9S3 S17412 I 60 111440 s 9493 2003 s 139 I 115 SZ1810 118095 I 60 S113T7 I 9439 2004 s 146 s 121 szzm 111872 I 60 111349 s 9419 zoos s 154 I 121 SZ3a9a 119827 I 61 111413 s 9469 2006 s 163 I 135 SZ5042 120759 I 62 S11443 s 9486 2007 s 172 s 143 S26251 SZ1759 I 62 S11479 s 9515 2008 s 183 I 152 SZ752S SZ2112 I 63 111517 s 9545 2009 s 194 I 161 szaaza SZ38a9 s 64 111543 s 9565 2010 I 205 s 110 S30142 $24974 s 65 111549 s 9569 SCURCE: DSET SU28R DATE OF CltElTIDII: 6/90 VARIABLES: Pl.22, DPI.22, P.PI.22, P.DI.22, DF.DI.22, DP.PI.22, DP.DI.ZZ -C-19 -- 0 I N 0 MAP REGICIIA!. M(J)EL PROJECTIONS: PART I SEA F I MAL K lloll CIJTER KETCKIKAJI EMPLOYMENT (THQJSAMOS) WAGE AIID BASIC SUPPORT GOVERMMEIIT TOTAL SALAIY POPULA T I 011 ··------------------·------------------------------------·-- 1988 0.226 0.107 0.313 0.646 0.564 1.833 1989 0.226 0.111 0.32, 0.661 0.577 1.896 1990 0.229 0.114 0.328 0.671 0.588 1.992 1991 0.245 0.119 0.339 0.703 0.619 2.081 1992 o.zsa 0.123 0.336 0.716 0.633 2.172 1993 0.317 0.136 o.m 0.7!5 0.700 2.298 1994 0.321 0.139 0.332 0.7'92 0.706 2.412 1995 0.321 0.142 0.331 0.794 0.709 2.497 1996 0.322 o. 147 0.330 O.i'W 0.714 2.574 1997 0.324 0.150 0.328 o.so:s 0.718 2.666 1998 0.326 0.153 0.332 0.812 0.727 2.752 1999 0.329 o. 154 0.341 0.825 0.739 2.836 2000 o.m 0.156 0.340 o.aza 0.7,2 2.901 2001 o.m 0.158 0.341 0.837 0.751 2.965 2002 0.341 o. 160 o.m 0.839 0.753 3.024 2003 0.343 0.161 0.335 0.839 0.753 3.081 2004 0.344 0.164 0.339 0.847 0.761 3.134 2005 0.348 0.168 0.344 0.860 0.774 3.181 2006 0.352 0.172 0.349 0.173 0.786 3.228 2007 0.356 0.177 0.354 0.888 0.800 3.276 2008 0.362 0.183 0.360 0.905 0.817 3.326 2009 0.369 0.189 0.363 0.921 0.832 3.382 2010 0.37' 0.194 0.365 0.932 0.843 3.445 SCIJICE: DSET SEA211R DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: 8.19, S.19, G.19, M.19, M97.19 P.19 -C-21 -~ .... -... MAP REGIONAl MCI)EL PRO.IECTU:WS: PART t I SEA FUW. HIGII PRIJICE OF WAI.ESICUTD kETCIIlrAII POPUI.ATlQII (THCILISAIIDS) POPU1.A T lOll NQJSEMOLDS --~----·--·----------------·-··· -----·-·------------- STATE u.s.BEA 8CIICUGJl IUtiEI SIZE -----------------------------------·-------------- 1988 5.567 5.567 5.567 1.72t:l 3.134 1989 5.827 5.827 5.827 1.8 3.125 1990 6.106 6.106 6.106 1.904 3.115 1991 6.191 6.191 6.191 1.936 3.107 1992 6.204 6.204 6.204 1.944 3.101 1993 6.201 6.201 6.201 1.946 3.096 1994 6.180 6.180 6.180 1.944 3.019 1995 6.0119 6.019 6.0119 1.917 3.015 1996 6.113 6.113 6.113 1.9Z7 3.011 1997 6.22% 6.222 6.222 1.966 3.075 1998 6.345 6.345 6.345 2.012 3.066 1999 6.411 6.411 6.411 2.062 3.058 2000 6.570 6.570 6.570 2.095 3.051 2001 6.667 6.667 6.667 2.131 3.045 2002 6.747 6.747 6.747 2.162 3.040 20a3 6.!17 6.!17 6.!17 2.189 3.034 2004 6.190 6.890 6.890 2.216 3.029 2005 6.973 6.973 6.973 2.246 3.026 2006 1.061 1.061 7.067 2.279 3.024 2007 7.171 7.171 7.171 2.314 3.023 2008 7.289 7.289 7.289 2.m 3.023 2009 7.419 7.419 7.419 2.395 3.024 2010 7.553 7.553 7.553 2.439 3.024 SQJRCE: DSET SEA2HR OATE OF CREATICIII: 6/90 VARIABLES: PCEI.22, PBEA.22, P8CIR.22, HHC£11.22, HSIZE.22 C-22 MAP REGICNAL MCIDEL PROJECTICIIS: PART I I I SEA FIIW. HIGH PIIINC£ OF WALES/CIJTER CETCHII:AN PERSCIW. liCDE IIQMUIAL I 1989 $ ····----·-·------------------~-----------------------------·---------------------· DISPOSAILE DISPOSAILE PERSCIW. PERSCIW.. PER CAPITA PEl CAPITA PERSCIW.. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA INaJCE INCOIE IICOIE Cl) DJSPOSAILE IICOIE IICXICE ($) DISPOSABLE (MILLICII I) (MILLICII I) INCCME (I) (MlLLICII I) INCCME (S) -------------------------------·--·---------------------------------------·-- 1988 s 80 s 68 114330 112227 $ 70 114727 $12566 1989 ·s 87 s 74 $14952 112727 s 73 $14698 S12510 1990 s 94 s 80 115359 113097 s 75 $14442 $12315 1991 s 94 s 80 S15180 S12922 s 72 113655 S11624 1992 s 96 s 82 S1~1 113165 s 70 S13322 S11l29 1993 s 101 s 86 116331 113884 s 71 S13445 S114l1 1994 $ 104 s 88 1161108 114283 s 70 113239 S11250 1995 s 104 I 89 117134 114567 I 67 S12912 S10978 1996 s 111 I 94 111156 S15419 s 68 113091 S11 117 1997 s 118 I 100 11!962 116075 s 69 113011 $11090 1998 s 121 s 109 S2D20I 117130 s 72 113338 S11l06 1999 s 136 s 113 S209'.'S9 117366 I 71 113222 S10966 2000 s 141 s 12l 122550 S18689 s 72 113177 110921 2001 s 153 I 126 SZ2!94 111946 I 71 112798 S10591 2002 s 162 s 134 SZ3941 119807 s 71 S12804 $10593 2003 s 170 s 141 $24970 120654 I 72 112776 $10568 2004 s 180 s 149 $26147 $21626 s 73 112800 S10587 2005 s 192 I 159 127514 122754 I 74 112187 110657 2006 s 205 s 169 S2!976 123958 $ 76 S12986 S107l6 2007 s 219 s 181 S30556 125211 s 78 113102 S1084l 2008 s 2l5 s 195 S3Z281 $26712 s 80 S13245 S10960 2009 s 253 s 209 134102 121212 s 82 S13389 $11076 2010 I 269 $ 22l 135619 SZ9486 s 84 S13381 $11077 SCl.IRCE: DSET SWHR DATE OF c:REATICII: 6/90 VARIABLES: P1.22. 0Pl.22. P.PI.22. P.OI.22. OF.D1.22. DP.PI.22. DP.D1.22 -C-23 --~ 0 I IV ,.. MAP REGIONAL MCIIEL PRO.IECTIOIS: PART I SEA F I NlL LIJI PRJ ICE OF VAL£$ EMPLOYMEIIT (TMWSAND$) WAGE MD BASIC SUPPOIU GOVERNMEIT TOTAL SALARY POPULATION -----·-----------------------------------------·-----------· 1988 1.029 0.278 0.378 1.6&5 1.371 3.734 1989 1.036 0.291 0.396 1.723 1.397 3.933 1990 1.040 0.294 0.392 1.725 1.399 4.107 1991 0.985 0.276 O.JaZ 1.643 1.313 4.079 1992 0.926 0.258 0.362 1.546 1.217 3.960 1993 0.871 0.243 0.383 1.497 1.161 3.830 1994 0.821 0.236 0.410 1.466 1.127 3.705 1995 0.760 0.227 0.413 1.421 1.083 3.596 1996 0.758 0.230 0.453 1.441 1.102 3.592 1997 0.755 0.230 0.445 1.430 1.091 3.602 1998 0.757 0.230 0.441 1.428 1.0SIS 3.607 1999 0.760 0.230 0.441 1.431 1.019 3.616 2000 0.764 0.232 0.442 1.431 1.093 3.610 2001 0.767 0.233 0.437 1.438 1.092 3.643 2002 0.770 0.234 0.430 1.434 1.0SIS 3.650 2003 0.771 0.235 0.42.5 1.431 1.085 3.655 2004 0.772 0.236 0.423 1.431 1.085 3.663 2005 0.775 0.238 0.4Z2 1.435 1.086 3.680 2006 0.780 0.240 0.422 1.442 1.019 3.699 2007 0.786 0.242 0.423 1.451 1.094 3.725 2ooa o.m 0.244 0.421 1.451 1.097 3.755 2009 o.aoo 0.245 0.416 1.461 1.094 3.781 2010 0.806 0.247 0.411 1.464 1.093 3.103 saJRCE: DSET SWLI DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: 8.20, $.20, G.20, M.ZO, M97.20 P.20 -C-25 ........ .., MAP REGIONAL NODEL PROJECT lOllS: PMT T 1 SEA F J IW. LCil PRIIIICI OF WALESICIJTEI I:ETt1UIICAII PCIPULAT I Cll CTIIQISAIDI) PCIPULA TICII MCIJSEHOlDS ···-------------------·--·-------------·------------- .STATE u.s.BEA BCJtaJGH NI.ICIEJt SIZE ·------------------------------------------------- 1988 5.567 5.567 5.567 1.720 3.134 1989 5.829 5.829 s.m 1.809 3.125 1990 6.099 6.099 6.099 1.902 3.114 1991 6.155 6.155 6.155 1.928 3.101 1992 6.114 6.114 6.114 1.924 3.087 1993 6.050 6.050 6.050 1.910 3.075 1994 5.971 5.971 5.971 1.892 3.067 1995 5.915 5.915 5.915 1.176 3.059 1996 5.950 5.950 5.950 1.193 3.051 1997 5.992 5.992 5.992 1.912 3.042 1998 6.013 6.013 6.013 1.925 3.033 1999 6.024 6.024 6.024 1.934 3.025 2000 6.043 6.043 6.0G 1.944 3.011 2001 6.064 6.064 6.064 1.955 3.012 2002 6.081 6.081 6.011 1.964 3.006 20Q3 6.098 6.091 6.091 1.973 3.001 2004 6.121 6.121 6.121 1.984 2.996 2005 6.156 6.156. 6.156 1.999 2.991 2006 6.192 6.192 6.192 2.014 2.911 2007 6.240 6.240 6.240 2.031 2.m 2008 6.294 6.294 6.2.94 2.051 2.913 2009 6.345 6.345 6.345 2.070 2.980 2010 6.395 6.395 6.395 2.oaa 2.971 SCIJICE: DS£T SEA21I DATE OF CI!ATICII: 6/90 YAIIAII.ES: PCEI.ZZ, PBEA.ZZ, PICIR.ZZ, HKCEII.ZZ, HSIZE.ZZ ---~ C-26 NAP REGIONAL MCIJEL PROJECTIONS: PART II I SEA F I MAL La.! PRINCE Of WAlES/OUTER ~TCKIKAM PERSCIW. INCDME llCMINAL S 1989 s ---·-··---------------------------------------------------------------------------DlSPOSQU 01 SPOSAII..E PEISCIIW. PEISCIIW. PEl CAPITA PEl C.APltl PEISI:IW. PEl CAPITA PER CAPITA lllc::oE IIICQME I II&:XIIIIE (S) DlSPOSAIU IIICOE IIICQME (S) DISPOSABLE CMILLIOI I) (MILLIOI I) INCDME (I) CMILLIOI I) UICDME (I) ·-----------------------------·-· --------------------------------------------1988 $ 80 s 68 114330 11ZZ27 I 70 114727 112566 1989 s 87 I 74 114941 112723 I 73 114694 S12507 1990 $ 93 I BO 115304 113043 I 75 S14391 1122.64 1991 s 91 I 78 S14804 112603 s 69 113257 Sl12B6 1992 $ 91 I 77 114851 S126ZO I 66 112666 S10763 1993 $ 92 s 77 1151!6 S12647 s 6Z S12335 S10Z73 1994 s 95 I 79 115842 113179 s 61 112255 110195 1995 s 92 s 76 115526 112893 I 56 111489 s 9541 1996 s 96 s 80 116135 113396 s 56 111422 I 9483 1997 s 99 I az 116512 113107 s 56 111182 s 92SZ 1998 I 103 I IS5 117073 114114 s 55 111061 I 9189 1999 I 107 I 89 11m9 114726 I 55 110982 I 9127 2000 I 113 I 94 1186116 115519 s 56 111080 I 9202 2001 s 118 I 91 119492 116197 I 56 111058 I 9188 2002 s 125 I 103 120477 117001 I 56 111114 I 9227 2003 I 130 I 101 121325 117715 I 56 111073 I 9199 2004 I 137 I 113 SZ2302 118525 I 56 111080 I 9204 2005 I 144 I 120 SZ33&6 119422 I 57 111117 I 9232 2006 s 152 I 126 124609 SZ042S I sa S11193 s 9290 2007 s 161 s 134 SZ5804 121402 I sa 111230 I 9314 2001 I 170 I 141 S27U32 122417 I 59 111257 s 9336 2009 s 17'9 s 149 S2I27Z SZS4SI s 59 111266 s 9348 2010 s 189 I 157 129564 124529 s 60 111273 s 9353 SCIJRCE: DSET SWU DATE OF CIEATIOI: 6/90 VARIAILES: Pl.2Z, DPl.Z2, P.Pl.ZZ, P.Dl.Z2, DF.DI.Z2, DP.Pl.Z2, DP.Dl.22 .. C-27 -- n I N 0) MAP REGIONAL MOOEL PROJECTIONS: PART I SEA F I IIAL BASE PR I liCE CF WALES EMPLOYMENT ( TKaJSAJfDS) WAI& All) BASIC SUPPORT GOVERIIMEIIT TOTAL SALARY POPULATION ····------·-------------------··---------------------------- 1988 1.029 0.278 0.371 1.685 1.371 3.734 1989 1.036 0.291 0.396 1.7Z5 1.396 3.932 1990 1.040 0.294 0.392 1.7Z6 1.400 4.107 1991 0.986 o.za1 0.400 1.667 1.337 4.093 1992 0.930 0.267 0.395 1.593 1.261 3.998 1993 0.878 0.258 0.~ 1.541 , .207 3.877 1994 0.823 0.250 0.424 1.497 1.158 3.762 1995 0.757 0.236 0.426 1.419 1.081 3.640 1996 0.756 0.237 0.429 1.422 1.083 3.596 1997 0.756 0.237 0.433 1.425 1.087 3.589 1998 0.758 0.237 0.432 1.428 1.088 3.591 1999 0.163 0.239 0.432 1.434 1.092 3.602 2000 0.768 0.241 0.432 1.440 1.096 3.619 2001 o.m 0.242 0.425 1.438 1.093 3.632 2002 o.m 0.241 0.415 1.429 1.083 3.637 2003 0.771 0.241 0.409 1.422 1.076 3.638 2004 o.m 0.242 0.407 1.421 1.074 3.640 zoos 0.776 0.244 0.408 1.428 1.07'9 3.650 2006 0.782 0.247 0.413 1.441 1.01!18 3.675 2007 0.788 0.250 0.418 1.457 1.100 3.111 2008 0.7'96 0.255 0.423 1.473 1.112 3.755 :2009 0.805 0.258 0.424 1.487 1.120 3.801 :2010 0.812 0.262 0.421 1.494 1.124 3.842 SQJRCE: DSET SEA21R DATE CF CREATIOII: 6/90 VARIABLES: 8.20, S.20, G.20, M.20, M91.20 P.20 ..... C-29 .. --~ MAP REGIONAL MCI)EL PROJECTIDNS: PAIT 1 I SEA F IIW. lASE PRINCE OF WALES/CUTEI IETCHIIAII POPULATIDN CTHa ISAIIDS) POPUI.ATICII IIQlSEIICX.DS ··-·-·--·----------------------· --------·----------·-STATE U.S.BEA IUIUIUCK NUMIEI SIZE ---------· ··--------------------------·----------- 1988 5.567 5.567 5.567 1.720 3.134 1989 s.aza s.m s.m 1.!09 3.125 1990 6.100 6.100 6.100 1.902 3.114 1991 6.170 6.170 6.170 1.931 3.103 1992 6.152 6.152 6.152 1.933 3.091 1993 6.097 6.097 6.097 1.921 3.012 1994 6.045 6.045 6.045 1.909 3.014 1995 5.997 5.997 5.997 1.900 3.063 1996 6.016 6.016 6.016 1.913 3.053 1997 6.067 6.067 6.067 1.936 3.043 1998 6. 111S 6. 111S 6.111S 1.951 s.m 1999 6.172 6.172 6.172 1.911 S.DZ'T 2000 6.221 6.221 6.221 2.004 3.021 2001 6.212. 6.212. 6.212. 2.025 3.015 2002 6.326 6.326 6.326 2.045 s.ooa 2003 6.365 6.365 6.365 2.06Z s.ocn 2004 6.400 6.400 6.400 2.071 2.995 2005 6.440 6.440 6.440 2.094 2.991 2006 6.496 6.496 6.496 2.115 2.988 2007 6.563 6.563 6.5&'5 2.139 2.916 200& 6.643 6.643 6.643 2.166 2.985 2009 6.721 6.721 6.72.1S 2.196 2.9154 2010 6.114 6.114 6.114 2.225 2.913 SCURCE: DSET SEA2II DATE OF CUATICIIC: 6/90 VARIAIL£S: Pall.22. P8EA.Z2, PIICIR.ZZ. HHCEI.ZZ, KSIZ£.22 C-30 14AP REGIONAL ICJ)EL PROJECT lOIS: PART I II SEA FINAL BASE PRINCE OF WALES/OUTER lETCHICAN PERSQIW. I MCCME NaiiiNAL S 1989 $ -·----·-----··-··----·-··--------------------------------------------------------· DISPOSAIU OISPOSAILE PERSQIW. PERSCIW. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA PEISCIW. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA lMCCME IMCDJIE INCDJIE ($) 0 I SPOSAII.£ lllc:DJIE IIICCME ($) DISPOSABLE CMILLIOI Sl (MILLIQI S) IICCME (S) (MILLIQI S) INCCME ($) --------------------------------------------------------------------------·-· 19158 s 80 $ 68 S14330 S1ZZ21 $ 7'0 $147'27 $12566 1989 ., 87 s 74 $14951 $12726 s 73 $14696 S12509 1990 s 93 s 80 $15310 S1304& $ 75 S14396 S12269 1991 s 92 s 79 S14962 112725 $ 7'0 S13399 S11395 1992 s 92 s 78 $14968 S12733 s 67 S12822 S10907 1993 s 94 s 80 S153a1 $13075 s 65 S12605 S10715 1994 s 96 s 81 S15!50 S13469 s 64 $12426 $10559 1995 s 96 s 80 S16011 S13304 s 60 $12008 s 9978 1996 s 101 s 84 1161131 S14001 s 60 $12022 $10000 199'1 s 103 $ 85 116930 S14063 s 51 S115615 S9609 1991 s 108 s 90 117728 S14721 I 59 S11537 S9584 1999 s 115 s 95 1111605 S15442 s 59 S11513 s 9614 2000 s 121 s 100 S19441 116134 s 60 S11580 s 9610 2001 s 127 s 106 SZ0270 1161119 s 60 S11552 s 9585 2002 s 133 s 110 S209a3 S17412 s 60 $11440 s 9493 2003 s 139 s 115 SZ1110 S11095 s 60 111371 s 9439 2004 s 146 s 121 SZ2738 susan s 60 111349 s 9419 2005 s 154 s 12! S23l98 S19127 s 61 $11413 s 9469 2.006 s 163 s 135 $25042 SZ0759 s 62 111443 s 9486 2.007 s 172 s 143 SZ6251 SZ1759 s 62 S11479 s 9515 2ooa s 181 s 152 SZ75ZS SZ2112 s 63 S11517 s 9545 2009 s 194 s 161 S2U2I SZ3aiS9 s 64 S11543 s 9565 2010 s 205 I 170 S:S0142 SZ4974 s 65 S11549 s 9569 SCURCE: DSET SEA2BR DATE OF CREATIOM: 6/90 VARIABLES: Pl.22, DPI.22, P.PI.22, P.OI.22, DF.DI.22, DP.P1.22, DP.D1.22 ... C-31 -~ .,_. 0 I w N .... -·-, HAP REGIONAL Ma)EL PROJECTIONS: PART I SEA F JIIAL KlGK PRINCE OF WALES EMPLO'YilEIIT C TIIClJSAJID$) WAGE AND BASIC SUPPORT GOVERNMEJIT TOTAl SALARY POPULATION ···-·-----------------·------------··----------------·------ 1988 1.029 0.278 0.378 1.685 1.371 3.734 1989 1.037 0.291 0.396 1.724 1.391 3.932 1990 , .041 0.296 0.4G3 1.740 1.414 4.114 1991 0.991 0.289 0.423 1.702 1.372 4.110 1992 0.938 0.280 0.417 1.635 1.305 4.Q32 1993 O.IS85 0.271 0.409 1.565 1.231 3.904 1994 0.828 0.262 0.407 1.497 1.158 3.768 1995 0.764 0.255 0.404 1.422 1.084 3.592 1996 0.765 0.262 0.401 1.428 , .090 3.538 1997 0.767 0.267 0.397 1.431 1.092 3.557 1998 0.770 0.272 0.4G3 1.445 1.105 3.593 1999 0.774 0.274 0.419 1.467 , .125 3.646 2000 0.781 0.277 0.415 1.472 1.121 3.669 2001 0.788 0.280 0.416 1.484 1.139 3.702 2002 0.7'93 0.2.83 0.410 1.485 1.140 3.723 2003 o.m· 0.215 0.4G3 1.480 1.135 3.736 2004 0.794 0.219 0.408 1.491 1.144 3.756 2005 0.7'99 0.296 0.418 1.513 1.164 3.7'92 2006 0.807 0.303 0.425 1.535 1.183 3.839 2007 0.816 0.312 0.434 1.562 1.205 3.895 2008 o.az8 0.322 0.443 1.593 1.231 3.963 2009 0.841 0.332 0.448 1.621 1.255 4.037 2010 0.850 0.341 0.450 1.641 1.271 4.108 sOURa:: DSET SEA2KR DATE Of tREATIOII: 6/90 VARIABLES: 8.20, S.20, G.20, 11.20, M97.20 P.20 C-33 MAP REGIONAL MIJ)EL PROJECTIONS: PART ll SEA F IIW. tllGK PRINCE OF WAUS/CIJTEJl UTCHIOJI PC:lPULA T ICII CTIIQISAICI) PCIPULAT ICII HCJ.IS(IQ.DS -----------------------------------·-----------------STATE u.s.BEA BORaJGit NUMII:I SIZ£ --------------------------------------------------1988 5.567 5.567 5.567 1.720 3.134 1989 5.827 5.827 5.827 1.801 3.125 1990 6.106 6.106 6.106 t.904 3.115 1991 6.191 6.191 6.191 t.936 3.107 1992 6.204 6.204 6.204 1.944 3.101 1993 6.201 6.201 6.201 1.946 3.096 1994 6.180 6.180 6.180 1.944 3.019 1995 6.019 6.019 6.019 1.917 3.015 1996 6.113 6.113 6.113 1.927 3.011 1997 6.222 6.222 6.222 1.966 3.075 1998 6.345 6.345 6.345 2.012 3.066 1999 6.481 6.481 6.481 2.062 3.05& 2000 6.570 6.570 6.57'0 2.095 3.051 2001 6.667 6.667 6.667 2.131 3.045 2002 6.747 6.747 6.747 2.162 3.040 2003 6.817 6.817 6.817 2.189 3.034 2004 6.890 6.890 6.890 2.216 3.029 2005 6.973 6.973 6.973 2.246 3.026 2006 7.067 7.067 7.067 2.27'9 3.024 2007 7.171 7.171 7.171 2.314 3.023 2008 7.219 7.219 7.2a9 2.353 3.023 2009 7.419 7.419 7.419 2.395 3.024 2010 7.553 7.553 7.553 2.419 3.024 sa.JICE: DS&T SEA2H.l DATE OF CIUTlCII: 6190 VARIABLES: PC£11.22. PBEA.ZZ. PIOI.22. HNC£11.22. KSIZE.ZZ ---. C-34 MAP REGlCIIIAL MeDEL PROJECT lOllS: PART 1 I I SEA FINAL KlGK PRINCE OF WALES/CUTER lETCKIKAM PEISOIIAL. IMCtiCE NOMINAL S 1989 5 -----------------------------·------------------·----·----------------------------OlSPOSAILE OISPOSAILE PER SOW. PERSCIW. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA PERSDW. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA I llc:aME. IIICDE IIICDE (S) D lSPC:IIiMU Illa:ICE IIICXIIE (5) DISPOSABLE CMILLIDI S) (MILLION I) IMCDME (I) CMILllDI I) INCtiCE ($) -----------------·--------------------·------------------------------------·- 1988 5 80 5 68 514330 S1ZZZ7 I 70 $14727 S12566 1989 s 87 s 74 S149'52 112727 I 73 S14098 S12510 1990 s 94 s sa S15359 S13097 s ~ $14442 S12315 1991 s 94 s 80 $15180 S129ZZ s n S13655 $11624 1992 s 96 s 8Z 515431 $13165 5 70 513322 $11329 1993 s 101 s 86 S16331 S13U4 s 71 513445 511431 1994 s 104 5 88 516805 S142!3 s 70 513239 511250 199'5 s 104 5 89 517134 S14567 5 67 512912 510978 1996 5 111 5 94 111156 S15419 5 61 513091 511117 1997 5 118 I 100 511'962 116075 5 69 113081 511090 1991 5 128 5 109 SZ020I 117130 I n 11ma 511306 1999 5 136 5 113 S20939 S17366 5 71 513222. 510966 2000 I 141 5 123 122550 111619 I 72 S131T7 510921 2001 s 153 5 126 SZ2I94 S11946 I 71 1127'98 510591 2002 5 162 s 134 $23941 S19107 I 71 512104 510593 2D03 5 170 I 141 124970 SZD654 I n 512776 510568 2004 s 110 5 149 126147 SZ1626 I 73 512100 510587 2005 s 192 I 159 SZ7514 SZZ754 I 74 512887 510657 2006 s 205 5 169 SZI976 SZ395I 5 76 512986 S107J6 2007 5 219 I 181 S30556 SZ52U s 78 513102 510843 2001 5 235 I 195 sml1 126712 I ao 513245 S10960 2009 5 253 5 209 134102 121212 I 8Z 513389 511076 2010 5 269 s 223 l15619 SZ9486 I 84 S13381 511077 SClJRCE: DSET SU211R DATE OF CIEATIDI: 6/90 VARIABLES: Pl.22, DPI.22, P.P1.22, P.DI.ZZ, DF.DI.ZZ, DP.P1.22, DP.Dl.22 ---C-35 n I w 0\ HAP REGIONAL MIXlEl PROJECTIONS: PAaT I SEA F I MAL L.CW ~ANGELL-PETERSBURG EMPLOYMENT (TKCIJSAMDS) WAGE AND BASIC SUPPORT GOVERJIMEIT TOTAL SALARY POPULATION ------·----------------·-----· --------------·-----·-·------- 1988 1.829 0.811 o.m 3.432 2.795 6.718 1989 1.821 0.839 0.121 3.411 2.844 6.737 1990 1.831 0.851 0.514 3.495 2.asa 6.920 1991 1.776 0.815 0.791 3.3!9 2.752 6.903 1992 1. 720 0.781 0.767 3.269 2.632 6.812 1993 1.664 0.747 0.7'99 3.211 2.574 6.687 1994 1.615 0.735 0.843 3.193 2.556 6.568 1995 1.533 0.716 0.880 3.129 2.492 6.459 1996 1.505 0.716 0.910 3.131 2.494 6.436 1997 1.477 0.709 0.599 3.084 2.447 6.416 1998 1.455 0.703 0.192 3.049 2.412 6.375 1999 1.435 0.697 0.192 3.024 2.3&7 6.328 2000 1.440 0.703 o.m 3.036 2.399 6.325 2001 1.447 0.704 0.186 3.040 2.403 6.341 2002 1.454 0.712 0.874 3.040 2.403 6.362 2003 1.459 0.716 0.867 3.042 2.405 6.384 2004 1.463 0.721 0.863 3.047 2.410 6.409 2005 , .467 0.725 0.162 3.055 2.418 6.443 2006 1.473 0.730 0.862 3.065 2.428 6.472 2007 1.480 0.736 0.863 3.07'9 2.442 6.511 2008 1.487 0.741 0.860 3.089 2.452 6.552 2009 1.495 0.744 0.852 3.091 2.454 6.588 2010 1.502 0.748 0.145 3.095 2.458 6.621 SCIJRCE: DSET SE.lZLR DATE OF CREATJCII: 6/90 VARIABLES: B.28, S.28, G.28, M.28, M97.28 P.28 -C-37 -"' HAP REGIONAL MCllEL PROJECTIONS: PART I I SEA FiliAL LOW t.IIWIGELL ·PETERSBURG POPUU.TICN (TIIQ ISJIIDS) POPULATION HOUSEIIOLDS ····-------------------·-··-----------------------·--STATE U.S.BEA BORCIJGH NUMBER SIZE ·-----------------------------·-------------·----- 1988 6.718 6.718 6.718 2.349 2.786 1989 6.737 6.737 6.737 2.362 2.719 1990 6.920 6.920 6.920 2.437 2.769 1991 6.903 6.903 6.903 2.441 2.758 1992 6.812 6.812 6.112 2.418 2.745 1993 6.687 6.687 6.687 2.383 2.7'34 1994 6.568 6.568 6.568 2.345 2.m 1995 6.459 6.459 6.459 2.311 2.720 1996 6.436 6.436 6.436 2.309 2.713 1997 6.416 6.416 6.416 2.301 2.705 1991 6.375 6.375 6.375 2.300 2.697 1999 6.328 6.328 6.328 2.211 2.690 2000 6.325 6.325 6.325 2.m 2.6&4 2001 6.341 6.341 6.341 2.303 2.678 2002 6.362 6.362 6.362 2.315 2.673 2003 6.384 6.384 6.384 2.327 2.669 2004 6.409 6.409 6.409 2.341 2.664 2005 6.443 6.443 6.443 2.357 2.660 2006 6.472 6.472 6.472 2.371 2.657 2007 6.511 6.511 6.511 2.387 2.655 2001 6.552 6.552 6.552 2.405 2.653 2009 6.588 6.588 6.511 2.420 2.650 2010 6.621 6.621 6.621 2.435 2.641 SCJJRCE: OUT SEA2LR DATE OF c:u:ATIOII: 6/90 VARIABLES: PCEN.21, PBEA.21, P90R.21, HHCEN.21, HSIZE.21 ----. •• * C-38 HAP REGIONAL MODEL PROJECTIONS: PART Ill SEA fl~ LOW ~GELL·PETERSBURG PERSONAL INCXICE NCI4111AL S 1989 s ·-------------------------------------------------------------------------·-----·· DISPOSABLE DISPOSABLE PERSOIW. PERSOIW. PER CAPITA PER CAPITA PERSCIIIAL PER CAPITA PER CAPITA INCXICE UICCIIE IIICCIIE (S) DISPOSAIL£ INCD4E IMCCME (S) DISPOSABLE (MILLION S) (MILLION S) INCOME (I) (MILLION S) INCCI4E (S) ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------· 1988 $ 159 s 136 123649 SZ0179 s 139 S24304 120738 1989 $ 112 $ 147 S25565 S21760 s 144 S25130 121390 1990 $ 184 s 157 $26624 S22689 s 148 S25035 121335 1991 I 182 I 155 S26365 122445 s 139 123610 120100 1992 $ 184 I 156" S27012 S22953 s 133 S23038 119576 1993 I 188 s 157 S28150 123444 s 127 122865 119043 1994 I 196 I 163 129861 S24841 s 126 123100 119217 1995 I 194 I 161 129967 S24U6 s 119 122176 118416 1996 I 202 I 168 131452 S26113 s 119 S2226S 118486 1997 I 209 s 173 SlZ563 SZ7031 s 117 S22052 S18305 1998 s 217 s 1!0 S33993 121241 s 117 S22022 S18296 1999 s 225 s 187 135549 129545 s 116 S22033 S18312 2000 s 238 s 191 S37'562. 131196 s 117 122212 S18497 2001 s 249 s 207 139206 S3ZS79 s 111 S22241 S18481 2002 s 262. s 217 141178 S341U s 118 S22349 S18555 2003 s 274 s 228 S42a96 135635 s 118 S22275 118504 2004 s 288 s 239 144862. 137265 s 119 122289 S18514 2005 s 303 s 251 147001 139034 s 120 122343 118555 2006 s 320 s 265 149392 140995 s 121 122465 S18646 2007 s 337 s 27'9 S51730 142904 s 122 S22514 S18612 2008 s 355 s 294-154123 Slo4884 s 122 SZZ539 118692 2009 s 373 s 309 S56512 146939 s 123 SZZ544 118705 2010 I 392 s 325 159159 149084 s 124 S22559 118117 stlJRCE: DSET SEAZLR DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: P1.21, DPI.21, P.PI.21, P.D1.21, DF.DI.21, DP.PI.21, DP.DI.21 .... C-39 -~ n I ~ 0 MAP REGIONAL MCI)EI. PROJECTIC*S: PMT SEA FINAL lASE WRAIG£l..L •PETERSIIUIG EMPI.OTMEIIT (TIIOOSANDS) WAGE MD BASIC SUPPOftT GOVERNMENT TOTAL SALARY POPULATION -----------------------------· ------------·····------------- 1988 1.829 0.811 0.7'92 3.432 2.7'95 6.718 1989 1.821 0.139 o.azz 3.482 2.145 6.737 1990 1.131 0.151 0.817 3.499 2.16Z 6.922 1991 1.778 0.828 0.130 3.435 2.798 6.924 1992 1.729 0.808 0.823 3.359 2.722 6.1566 1993 1.678 0.7'94 0.840 3.3t1 2.674 6.773 1994 1.620 0.783 0.870 3.273 2.636 6.688 1995 1.553 0.759 0.874 3.186 2.549 6.617 1996 1.551 0.763 0.87'9 3.193 2.556 6.601 1997 1.553 0.761 0.187 3.201 2.564 6.614 1998 1.558 0.763 0.186 3.208 2.571 6.631 1999 1.566 0.769 0.187 3.2Z2 2.585 6.655 2000 1.573 0.775 O.aa7 3.235 2.591 6.617 2001 1.581 0.77'9 0.871 3.ZS8 2.601 6.722 2002 1.514 0.781 0.163 3.229 2.592 6.750 2003 1.586 0.783 0.154 3.223 2.586 6.773 2004 1.589 0.716 0.151 3.226 2.519 6.7'91 2005 1.595 0.7'93 0.155 3.242 2.605 6.816 2006 1.601 0.101 0.16Z 3.265 2.621 6.156 2007 1.609 0.811 0.872 3.292 2.655 6.910 2008 1.619 0.822 o.aao 3.321 2.614 6.975 2009 1.629 0.834 0.1583 3.346 2.709 7.047 2010 1.640 0.144 0.87'9 3.363 2.726 7.118 SC11RCE: DSET SEA28R DATE OF CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: &.28, S.28, G.28, M.28, M97.28 P.28 -C-41 ....... ~ .... .,_ ,..._, ... MAP REGIOIIAI. MODEL PROJECT I CIS: PART I I SEA F I MAL lASE WIWIGELL ·PETEISSJRG POPULATICII C THCIJSAIIDS) POPULATICII IICIJSlKOLDS -------------------·-···-······· ------------------··· STATE u.S.BEA BCIIa.IGII N1.1411ER SIZE ·-··------·--------------------------------------· 1988 6.718 6.718 6.718 Z.349 2.786 1989 6.737 6.73T' 6.737 Z.l62 2.m 1990 6.922 6.922 6.922 Z.437 2.769 1991 6.924 6.924 6.924 2.447 2.759 1992 6.866 6.866 6.866 2.435 2.749 1993 6.773 6.773 6.773 2.408 2.740 1994 6.688 6.688 6.688 2.3&1 2.m 1995 6.617 6.617 6.617 2.366 2.724 1996 6.601 6.601 6.601 2.361 2.715 1997 6.614 6.614 6.614 2.380 2.706 1998 6.631 6.631 6.631 2.393 2.691 1999 6.655 6.655 6.655 2.408 2.692 2000 6.6&7 6.6&7 6.6&7 2.425 2.686 zoot 6.722 6.722 6.722 2.443 2.681 2002 6.750 6.750 6.750 2.459 2.675 2003 6.773 6.773 6.773 2.473 2.669 2004 6.791 6.791 6.791 2.485 2.664 2005 6.116 6.816. 6.116 2.497 2.660 2006 6.156 6.156 6.156 2.515 2.657 2007 6.910 6.910 6.910 2.537 2.655 zooa 6.975 6.975 6.975 2.563 2.654 2009 7.047 7.047 7.047 2.590 2.654 2010 7.111 7.111 7.111 2.611 2.653 sa.JRCE: DSET SEA28R DATE Of CREATICIII: 6/90 VARIABLES: PCEI.21, PBEA.21, PBOR.21, HHCEM.21, HSIZ£.21 C-42 HAP REGIOIIAL MCIIEL PROJECT lOllS: PART Ill SU F IIW. BASE WRAMGELL*PETERSIUIG PERSCIW. liiCDE NCJUIIAL I 1989 I ------·--··-···---·----·-------·----------------------·-------------·------------- DISPOSABLE DISPOSAILE PER SOMAL PERSOIAL PER CAPITA PER CAPITA PEISDIW. PEl CAPITA PER CAPITA UlcaE INCOME INCIJCE (S) DlSPOSAILE liiCDME IIICOME (I) DISPOSABLE (MILLION S) (MILLION $) IIICDME (S) (MILLIOII S) INCOME (I) -------------------------------------------· ---------------------------------1988 I 159 I 136 S23649 120179 I 139 124304 $20738 1989 I 172 I 147 125570 121764 I 144 $25135 121394 1990 I 184 I 157 126634 $22699 I 148 125044 121344 1991 s 185 s 157 526651 $22666 s 141 $23866 S20298 1992 s 187 s 159 127210 123147 I 136 $23309 S19829 1993 s 192 s 164 S21412 124151 I 134 123284 S19792 1994 s 199 I 169 129751 1252!3 I 133 $23324 119821 1995 s 203 I 169 S30723 SZS529 s 127 123042 119146 1996 s 215 s 179 132512 127045 I 12! 123222 119317 1997 I 218 I 181 $32923 S27348 s 124 $22497 118687 1998 s 230 s 191 $34664 121797 s 124 122558 S18740 1999 s 243 s 202 S36507 130S01 s 126 SZ2729 S18865 2000 s 256 I 212 S38Z53 131747 I 126 S227B6 $18910 2001 s 269 I 223 S:S9998 S33188 ' 127 1227'94 $18913 2002 s 281 s 233 141567 134493 s 127 SZ2663 $18807 2003 s 294 s 244 $43383 135993 s 127 122631 $18776 2004 s 308 s 256 145372 137657 $ 128 SZ2646 1187'96 2005 s 3Z5 s 270 147751 139615 s 129 S2Z805 S18919 2006 $ 343 s 285 $50063 141502 s 130 $22877 St8965 2007 $ 363 $ 301 S52480 S4lSOO s 131 $22948 119021 2ooa s 384 s 318 $54998 S45581 s 133 123013 $19072 2009 s 406 1336 $57578 S47713 s 135 123055 $19104 2010 s 429 $ 355 160211 S498U s 136 123071 S19115 SCIJI.CE: DSET S!A2BR DATE OF CIEATtDN: 6/90 VARIABLES: PI.Zt, DPI.21, P.Pl.21, P.OI.21, DF.Dl.Zt, DP.P1.21, DP.Ol.21 -C-43 ---.... n I ,. ,. MAP IIEGlOIW. MCI)EL PIIOJECTICKS: PAIIT 1 SEA FINAL HIGH ~GELL·PETERSIUIG EMPLOTMEIIT (T IICIJSAIIDS) WAGE MID BASIC: SUPPORT GOVERIIMEMT TOTAL SAL.M.T PCFUU. TlOII --···----· --------------------------···--------------------- 1988 1.129 0.!11 o.m 3.432 2.795 6.7115 1989 1.15Z3 0.839 o.m 3.485 2.848 6.737 1990 1.!36 0.856 0.834 3.526 2.889 6.934 1991 1.!32 0.863 0.866 3.560 2.923 7.017 1992 1.840 0.!74 0.858 3.571 2.934 7.100 1993 1.1511 0.874 0.846 3.532 2.!94 7.095 1994 1.7'59 0.1570 0.1144 3.47.3 2.835 7.051 1995 1.703 0.876 0.840 3.418 2.780 6.943 1996 1.708 0.906 0.837 3.451 2.812 6.955 1997 1.716 0.929 0.832 3.476 2.837 7.062 1998 1.724 0.947 0.843 3.514 2.875 7.166 1999 1.7.33 0.950 0.169 3.552 2.912 7.266 2000 1.747 0.960 0.863 3.570 2.930 7.317 2001 1.764 0.971 0.167 3.603 2.963 7.389 2002 1.779 0.986 o.asa 3.623 2.982 7.456 2003 1.801 1.004 0.849 3.654 3.014 7.544 2004 1.816 1.025 o.asa 3.699 3.057 7.635 2005 1.129 1.047 0.175 3.751 3.110 7.724 2006 1.843 1.073 o.aaa 3.104 3.162 7.1524 2007 1.860 1.102 0.903 3.164 3.222 7.934 2001 1.181 1.135 0.918 3.935 3.292 8.063 2009 1.905 1.172 0.928 4.004 3.361 8.210 2010 1.924 1.204 0.931 4.060 3.416 8.360 SOURCE: DSET SEAZHII DATE OF CREATICK: 6190 VARIABLES: 8.28, $.28, G.28, M.28, M97.28 P.za -C-45 -·- J i r t MAP REGIONAL MCI)EL PROJECTIONS: PART II SEA fltw. HIGH WRMGELL•PETtRSILRG POPULA T lOll (THC1JSAIIDS) POPULATION IICIJSEHOLDS ----------------------------·------------------------ STATE U.S.BEA BCRCIJGII II.N£1 SIZE ·------------------- -------------------· ---------- 1988 6.718 6.718 6.718 2.349 2.786 1989 6.737 6.131" 6.737 2.362 2.779 1990 6.934 6.934 6.934 2.441 2.770 1991 7.017 7.017 7.017 2.477 2.763 1992 7.100 7.100 7.100 2.512 2.158 1993 7.095 7.095 7.095 2.514 2.153 1994 7.051 7.051 7.051 2.504 2.747 1995 6.943 6.943 6.943 2.465 2.743 1996 6.955 6.955 6.955 2.476 2.740 1997 7.062 7.062 7.062 2.519 2.735 1998 7.166 1.166 7.166 2.565 2.726 1999 7.266 7.266 7.266 2.609 2.119 2000 7.317 7.317 7.317 2.6'33 2.113 2001 7.389 7.389 7.389 2.665 2.708 200Z 7.456 7.456 7.456 2.694 2.703 2003 7.544 7.544 7.544 2.732 2.698 2004 7.635 7.635 7.635 2.770 2.694 2005 7.724 7.724 7.724 2.806 2.691 2006 7.824 7.824 7.824 2.1145 2.689 2007 7.934 7.934 7.934 2.887 2.6815 2ooa 8.063 8.063 8.063 2.935 2.689 2009 8.210 8.210 8.210 2.988 2.689 2010 8.360 8.360 8.360 3.044 2.689 SOURCE: OSET SEAZHR DATE Of CREATION: 6/90 VARIABLES: PCEM.21, PBEA.21, PBOR.21, HHC£1.21, HSIZE.21 ~ ' -C-46 -, .. MAP REGIOIIAL MCilEL PROJECTIONS: PART Ill SEA FINAL HIGH WRAMGELL·PETERSBUIG PERSONAL I NCCIE NCJUIIAL S 1989 s ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISPOSABLE DISPOSMLE PERSOIIAL PERSONAL PER CAPITA PER CAPITA PERSONAL PER CAPITA PER CAPITA INCCIE INCOME INCOME (S) DISPOSMLE IIICCIE INCOME ($) DISPOSABLE (MILLIDII S) (MILLIOII S) IIICOME (S) (MILLIDII S) INCOME (S) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1988 s 159 s 136 $23649 SZ0179 s 139 $24304 S20738 1989 s 172 s 147 S25572 SZ1767 s 144 S25138 S21397 1990 s 1!5 s 158 SZ6735 SZZ7'9a s 149 S25139 S21437 1991 s 190 s 162 S27079 SZl052 s 146 S24358 S20736 1992 s 200 s 170 S28162 $23950 s 146 $24235 S20610 1993 s 208 s 177 S29277 S24892 s 145 S24104 S20493 1994 s 216 s 184 Sl0634 S260l2 s 145 $24129 S20504 1995 s 221 s 188 Sl1862 SZ7089 s 142 $24011 S20414 1996 s 236 s 200 Sll872 SZ8766 s 144 $24423 S20741 1997 s 251 s 213 Sl5560 130146 s 147 124531 $20797 1998 s 274 s 232 Sl8190 S3Z373 s 153 $25206 $21366 1999 s 290 s 240 S39844 133045 s 152 $25160 $20867 2000 s 315 s 261 $43117 Sl5733 s 153 S25195 $20881 2001 s 325 s 269 $43960 136379 s 150 S24575 $20337 2002 s l44 s 285 $46165 Sl8194 s 152 $24690 S20427 2003 s 366 s 303 148521 140140 s 155 S24830 S20538 2004 s 389 s 322 SS1011 142190 s 158 $24972 $20654 2005 s 415 s 343 SS3698 144408 s 161 S25151 S20800 2006 s 442 s 366 S56543 $46749 s 164 $25339 S20951 2007 s 473 s 391 S59582 S49l09 s 168 S25549 S21144 2008 s 507 s 419. $62839 S51999 s 172 S2578l S21335 2009 s 544 s 450 S6625Z SS4809 s 177 $26011 S21519 2010 s 578 s 479 $69169 157259 s 180 $25986 $21512 SClJRCE: DSET SEAZHR DATE OF CIEATIDII: 6/90 VARIABLES: Pl.21, DPI.21, P.PI.21, P.DI.21, DF.D1.21, DP.PI.21, DP.Dl.21 #-C-47 -·~ n I ~ 0) - AppendixF Wetlands Analysis Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project HDR Engineering, Inc. October 1995 Introduction The Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project cannot be constructed without affecting wetlands and other waterbodies. Wetlands are generally recognized as being capable of performing a number of important ecosystem functions. Their importance to protection of water quality has been recognized by their receiving protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Work that degrades wetlands by soil-disturbing activities requires permission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through a permit acquisition process that allows involvement of other federal resource agencies, state and local agencies, and the public. Therefore, before undertaking a project such as the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, it is important to know where wetlands exist in the project area, to consider the functions those wetlands may perform in the ecosystem, and to design the project to protect those natural processes to the extent practical. This report describes the wetlands in the project area and their functions. The project's impacts on wetlands and recommendations for avoiding and minimizing those impacts are presented in the Terrestrial Resources section of the Environmental Assessment. Wetland Identification Prior to visiting the project area to identify wetlands, pertinent information sources were reviewed, including aerial photographs, soils mapping, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. The project area was visited three times: in mid-June 1994, late September 1994, and July 1995. On these visits, data were collected on vegetation, soils, and hydrologic characteristics, and wetland determinations were made based on this information. Virtually all of the access road and most of the transmission lirie route are located in wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. These wetlands include the wet forest and muskeg types described below. Part of Upper Mahoney Lake is bordered by wetlands and wetlands occur on a slope above the tunnel construction site near the upper lake. Wetland boundaries are shown on Figures 1 and 2. Muskegs and Shore Pine Forests. The more commonly recognized wetland type in the project area is a complex of muskeg and open shore pine forest. This is found south and east of Lower Mahoney Lake and adjacent to the transmission line route. Muskegs are an open habitat dominated by mosses, low shrubs, sedges, and other herbs. On their edges they grade into forests that have an open canopy of shore pine and cedars, and slightly drier "islands" of these trees usually occur throughout the muskeg. Muskegs and shore pine forests usually occur on areas 1 (- PF048"--FORESTED ~llANOS (~STERN HEMLOCK/RED CEDAR) PF04/Et.l19 -MUSKEG/OPEN SHORE PINE FORESTED WEllANDS PEM2/19--HERB AND SEDGE WETLANDS V-----NON-~llANDS GEORGE INLET OTY Of" SAXIIAN, AI.ASIIA ~liON FOR UCOIS[ IIAHON£Y lo\K[ H'IOIIOf1!CTIIIC PROJ£CT F£RC PROJECT NO. IIJ!IJ FIGURE I PROJECT AREA WETLANDS. LEGEND Pf048·--FORESTED WETLANDS (WESTERN 1iEMLOCK/RED CEDAR) Pf04/Et.I1B -MUSKEG/OPEN SHORE PINE FORESTED WETLANDS PEM2/1B--HERB AND SEDGE WETLANDS v·----NON-WETLANDS • Alphanumeric S)f'llbols ore from N~Uonal Wetlands lnvP.ntory classification system. --- QlY OF SAXIIAH, AlASICA APPUCA 11011 FOR IJCENS[ IIAHON[Y LAK£ H~CIRIC PAOJ[CT FERC PAOJ[CT NO. 113U FIGURE 2 HDA En Inc. PROJECT AREA WETLANDS Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Wetlands Analysis with relatively shallow slopes. Drainage from these sites is impeded by bedrock or a glacial till substrate (DeMeo et aL 1992). They include many tiny ponds and small channels draining down the slope through the moss. The peat soils are saturated. The vegetation of these wetlands is characterized by scattered trees and shrubs of shore pine (Pinus contorta), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis). The understory is dominated by low shrubs and sedges, with a thick continuous moss carpet dominated by sphagnum species. Common understory plants include: Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum ), blueberry (V accinium uliginosum), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), bog cranberry (Oxycoccus microcarpus), bog laurel (Kalmia polifolia), sedges (including Carex spp., Rhynchospora alba, and Trichophorom caespitosum), burnet (Sanguisorba sp.), sundews (Drosera spp.), sticky asphodel (Toffieldia glutinosa), cloudberry (Rubus chamaemoros), bunchberry (Comus canadensis), deer cabbage (Fauria crista-galli), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), and salal (Gaultheria shallon). In the National Wetlands Inventory classification scheme, these would be labelled "PSS4/EMIB" or "PF04/EMIB", indicating that they are saturated (B), palustrine (P; freshwater), with vegetation that is dominated by evergreen shrubs or short trees (SS4) or evergreen trees (F04) and erect herbs (EMI; e.g., sedges). (The NWI system does not allow for indicating the prominence of sphagnum moss cover under the shrub and sedge covers.) Wet Hemlock/Cedar Forests. The other wetland type prominent in the project area is hillside hemlock-cedar forest. These forested wetlands occur along much of the access road route and most of the transmission line route. These sites are kept wet by downslope drainage that is prevented from infiltrating by shallow bedrock or till. In the wetter forests, small pools appear in depressions and tiny streams flow down the slopes. Soils observed were saturated peats, mucks, or mucky peats about a foot deep, sometimes over silt loam, over rock. These forests have a slightly open overstory of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western red cedar. Understory shrubs include salal, rusty menziesia (Menziesia jerruginea), blueberries (Vaccinium alaskaense and V. ovalifolium ), and western hemlock saplings. Prominent herbs observed include: bunchberry, deerberry (Maianthemum dilitatum), deer fern (Blechnum spicant), skunk cabbage, twayblade (Listera spp.), five-leaved bramble (Rubus pedatus), and fernleaf goldthread (Coptis aspleniifolia). In the NWI system, these wetlands are labelled "PF04B": saturated (B), palustrine (P; freshwater) wetlands with evergreen forest (F04) vegetation. Subalpine Wet Meadows. These sites are watered by seepage from upslope and by rivulets running through them. Vegetation is primarily herbaceous, dominated by sedges ( Carex species), deer cabbage, leutkea (Leutkea pectinata), shooting star (Dodecatheon jeffreyi), burnet, coltsfoot (Petasites hyperboreus), and marsh marigold (Caltha palustris). In the NWI system, these would be classified as PEM2/IB: freshwater wetlands (P), saturated throughout the year (B), with vegetation dominated by herbs that both fall to the ground after frost (2) and stand through the winter (1). Wetland Functions The functions of wetlands are generally not well known; little research has been done to help us understand the biological, chemical, and physical processes that occur in wetlands. Therefore, the following discussion is based on commonly accepted principles that have been derived from the 2 10195 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Wetlands Analysis study of wetlands elsewhere. Wetland functions considered included: groundwater recharge, flood storage and conveyance, erosion control, sediment and pollutant trapping, food web support; provision of wildlife and fish habitat, recreation opportunities, and aesthetic qualities; and support of biodiversity. Muskegs and Shore Pine Forests. Water is received by the muskeg and shore pine forest areas both directly as rain and snowfall, and as runoff from adjacent upslope areas. These wetlands may slow runoff of water to Lower Mahoney Lake and creeks in the project area by storing it in small ponds and in their peaty soils, and slow the water simply by the resistance of the vegetation it runs through on its route downhill. These wetlands' ability to detain water, though, is limited by their typically high degree of saturation. To the extent the muskegs detain runoff, they reduce the peak flow in creeks, thus lowering the potential for scour and habitat damage in the creeks. The muskegs may release water gradually, contributing base flow to creeks. The muskegs and shore pine forests of the project area serve little direct water quality improvement function as the quality of water they receive is probably high. The vegetation binds underlying soils against erosion that would occur if the vegetation were removed. In the event of upslope logging, debris flow, or other type of disturbance, these wetlands would retain much of the particulate matter that might reach them. During the life of the hydropower project, they would retain some of the sediments or other pollutants that might accidentally be discharged to them by access road construction or operation. Nutrients in muskegs are scarce. Many of the nutrients delivered to the site essentially become permanently stored in the site's peats. Primary productivity of these sites is low, so they probably neither provide a rich food source within the wetland nor does water running through them carry away much organic material that would support downstream food webs. Shore pine forests have among the highest vascular plant species diversity of any forest community type in the southern Tongass Forest, likely attributable to the relatively high light availability. These wetland types, however, have a low structural diversity, meaning the vertical arrangement of plants is relatively simple. A more complex vertical arrangement often indicates greater wildlife value (DeMeo et al. 1992). Muskegs may provide valuable deer forage early in spring before snow cover leaves open forested sites, as well as during the summer. Deer fawns may be born on muskeg edges. Waterbirds such as yellowlegs and common snipe use muskegs for nesting and foraging, but usually in low numbers. The muskeg edges and tree islands may be valuable habitats for songbirds, because of the taller shrubs that grow there. Black bears also frequent muskegs and wolves tend to den near muskegs. Muskegs may serve as travel corridors during winter for wolves and other predators when the snowpack is firm, making point to point travel easier. The muskegs probably serve little direct social function. While they provide open space suitable for hiking, cross-coutry skiing, hunting, and for viewing surrounding scenery, the project area's wetlands are probably seldom used by people for recreational purposes. 3 10/95 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Wetlands Analysis In summary, these wetlands' important functions include slowing of runoff and providing open and edge habitat for wildlife, and they have the potential to help protect water quality in the event of project development. Hemlock/Cedar Forests. Water inputs to the project area's forested hemlock-cedar wetlands comes from rainfall and snowfall on the site and runoff from upslope areas. These sites' soils are so wet because shallow glacial till or bedrock impedes drainage. Within the project area, these forests are on fairly steep slopes and they probably do not slow runoff to a significant degree. Certainly, if vegetation were removed from these sites, the total runoff from them would increase and runoff would occur immediately upon rainfall or snowmelt. If unprotected by vegetation, the fine organic soils of these forested wetlands would be easily eroded by rainfall and running water, thus causing instream turbidity and sedimentation. These wetlands probably would not be effective for retention of sediments or pollutants; however, no source of pollutants has been identified upstream of these wetlands. Forested wetlands have relatively low primary productivity compared to other forest types, although some produce trees large enough for commercial use. They probably export nutrients and organic material important to downstream ecosystems in the form of detritus carried away in runoff or dropped directly into creeks or Lower Mahoney Lake. These forests may provide moderate value habitat for wildlife. The more closed stands may provide critical thermal cover for deer in the winter as well as winter forage. The more open stands support a diversity of forbs, such as skunk cabbage, bunchberry, five-leaved bramble, and fernleaf goldthread, that provide important food for deer except during winter. Blueberry shrubs are more abundant in these open forests than in the drier, closed forests (DeMeo et al. 1992). These are critical to deer and black bear rely on their fruits. Black bears also forage on skunk cabbage tubers (DeMeo et al.l992). These forested wetlands are not known to support a high diversity of songbirds. Many of the snags in these forests are cedar, which has low value for cavity nesters (DeMeo et al. 1992). The forests along Lower Mahoney Creek and other streams along the transmission line route maintain fish habitat by shading the creek and providing a source of large woody debris and detrital matter. Like the muskegs, the open forests tend to harbor a high diversity of plant species (DeMeo et al. 1992). In summary, the wet forests' most important function is providing wildlife habitat and protecting stream habitats. Subalpine wet meadows. The important functions of these wetlands include providing wildlife habitat and supporting biodiversity by harboring rare plants. Two plants classified as sensitive species by the Forest Service have been documented in wetlands near the upper lake and the upper tunnel construction site: Platanthera chorisiana and Carex lenticularis var. dolia. Herbs such as deer cabbage provide summer deer forage. 4 10195 AppendixG MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RECREATIONAL RESOURCES STUDY May 1996 Recreational Resources Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paa:e Int:roducti.on ...................................................................................................... 1 Nationally I>esignated Lands ................................................................................. 1 • National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems ........................................................ 1 • National Trails System ............................................................................... 1 • WildellleSS Areas ...................................................................................... 1 Existin~ ~on~~ ............................................................................... ~ • Existin~ Regional Recreation ........................................................................ ~ ~.....:......:-Pro' v· . . n--..:. 7 • .c.A.ll)Ull~ ~ect lCllUty ~.tt:<~.UOn .............................................................. . Recreation Supply, Demand and Future Recreational Use .............................................. 8 • Alaska Department of Natural Resouices SCORP 1992-1996 ................................. 8 • 1NF Land and Resource Management Plan.................................................... 11 • Ketchikan Gateway Borough Pdiks and Recreation Plan . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 14 • Ketchikan Trails Plan ............................................................................... 16 Project hnpacts on Recreation.. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. 16 Proposed Recreation Plan . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. 17 Agency Consultation . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 17 References . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . 18 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 Existin~ Recreation Facilities .............................................................. 4 Table ~ Existin~ Forest Service Cabins and Shelters, Ketchikan Ran~er District ........... 5 Table 3 Southeast Regional and Statewide Recreation Participation Rates • • • • . • • • • . . . . • • . . 10 Table 4Distribution of Public Lands in Southeast Alaska Available for Outdoor Recreation . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 11 Table 5 ROS Opportunities in Ton~ National Forest ....................................... 13 Table 60utdoor Recreation Activity Demand, Current Participation and Future ])emand ....................................................................... 15 Table 7 Summacy of Consultation for Recreation ~urces . . . • • . .. . . . . .. .. • . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 17 Figure 1 Existin. Rec . Facili' . 3 ~ Ieati.on ties ............................................................ .. Pa~ei Recreational Resources Study RECREATIONAL RESOURCES STUDY INTRODUCTION This section provides infonnation regarding recreation resources at the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project (project) and surrounding areas. This section also identifies nationally- designated lands in the project vicinity, includes an inventory of existing recreation resources and uses, and provides descriptions of future recreation demand and opportunities. Lastly, the project impacts are discussed and agency consultations concerning recreational resources are summarized. The project is located approximately S air miles northeast of Ketchikan in southeast Alaska. Approximately 113.97 acres of the project lies within the jurisdiction of the Ketchikan Ranger District of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Tongass National Forest (TNF) (Figure 1). The TNF is the 1argest National Forest in the United States at over 17 million acres in size. This area supports developed and dispersed types of recreation. Dispersed recreation is the most common because most of the TNF is undeveloped. NATIONALLY DESIGNATED LANDS National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems The Mahoney Lake System flows into George Inlet. The system has not been designated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems located on the TNF or within Southeast Alaska. The Situk River near the community of Yakutat has been designated as a "study river" (USFS, 1990). National Trails System There are no National Trail Systems located in the project area. Deer Mountain Trail, near Ketchikan, and the Naha Trail, located north of Ketchikan within the Naha River drainage, have been designated as National Recreation Trails (USFS, 1991). Wddemess Areas The project is not located within wilderness area boundaries. The nearest wilderness area is Misty Fiords National Monument, located approximately 22 miles east of Ketchikan. This wilderness area is 2,142,907 acres in size. Of that area, 664 acres are in non-National Forest lands and the rest, or 2,142,243 acres are within the TNF. Page 1 Recreation Resources Study EXISTING RECREATION RESOURCES Project lands are managed by the USFS and Cape Fox Co:rpo.ration. The following sections describe the existing regional and project vicinity recreation opportunities. Existing Regional Recreation People are drawn to A1aska because of the remote, uncrowded wildlands and marine areas. Fishing, hiking, lx>ating, hunting, camping, and picnicking are popular among residents and tourists of Ketchikan. Sport fishing, mostly for sahnon and halibut, is very popular. Many miles of shoreline in the area afford extensive opportunities for beachcombing. Hunting is a major recreational activity. Sitka B1ack:-tail deer are the most frequently hunted game animal, with bears also attracting hunters. The USFS has constructed and maintains numerous hiking trails with cabins for public use in southeast A1aska. These cabins are usually located on lakes with fishing opportunities. Sightseeing is also popular since the area has spectacular scenery produced by the mountains, waters and forests. Recreation use is heaviest in the summer months, but occurs throughout the year. Major recreation activities include camping, picnicking, scenic driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, hiking and walking, fishing, and lx>atinglkayaldng. Cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and ice skating occur in the winter as conditions permit. Cross-country skiing has become increasingly popular; skiers take advantage of USFS roads as well as trails. Snowmobiling is favored on snowbound USPS roads, alpine routes, and areas of open terrain. East and southeast of the project area is the Misty Fionls National Monument (refer to Figure 1). Misty Fiords consists of 2,142,907 acres that occupy the eastern block of land between the southern tip of A1aska and British Columbia. Opportunities abound for camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, kayaking, and sightseeing. Existing recreation sites on Revillagigedo Island are shown on Figure 1 with the types of activities at each site described on Tables 1 and 2. Because of the difficult geography of the area, developed facilities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, etc. are found only near population centers, such as Ketchikan. Several picnic and camping areas occur throughout the area, as shown on Figure 1. Most of these are located near saltwater access points. A few Jakes and streams on Revillagigedo Is1and are developed that offer hiking, fishing, swimming, and picnicking. The Ward Lake Recreation Area, off North Tongass Highway, offers three campgrounds among four scenic lakes and three trails. The Deer Mountain trail system, which starts in downtown Ketchikan, leads to Upper Silvis Lake where it becomes a primitive and difficult trail traversing the alpine ridge above Upper Mahoney Lake and to Mahoney Mountain. Mining claims exist on Mahoney Mountain and in Lower Mahoney Creek. Page2 1 t"J ~ i ~ ~ Ill II (j ~~ ... J REVILLAGIGEDO ISLAND ~NNETTE · ~LAND~ I Project Tide MAHONEY LAKE ~ . . . HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ... I EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES A 1 I PI'Oject M.....,. Recreation Resources Study TABLEt EXISTING RECREATION FAcn.ITIES A I Signal Creek I • I • I • Campground* B I Three C's I • I • I • Campground* c I Grassy Point Picnic I I • I • I • Area* D I Ward lake Picnic I I • I I • Area* I I I E I Last Chance • I • • Campground* F I Harriet Hunt lake I I I • Recreation Site G I Refuge Cove State I I I I • I • Recreation Site I I I I I H I Totem Bight State I I • Historic Park I I Clover Pass Resort I • I I • ] • • • I Settlers Cove State Park I I I I I K 1 Saxman Totem Paik I • *Recreation facilities managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Page4 Recreation Resources Study 1 Anchor Pass • 2 Blind Pass • 3 Fish Creek • 4 Heckman Lake • 5 Helm Bay • 6 Jordan Lake • 7 McDonald Lake • 8 Phocena Bay • 9 Patching Lake • 10 Plenty Cutthroat • 11 Rainbow Lake • 12 Reflection Lake • 13 Helm Creek • 14 Deer Mountain • 15 Lake Shelokum TABLE2 EXISTING FOREST SERVICE CABINS AND SHELTERS KETCIDKAN RANGER DISTRICT Floatplane/Boat Wood No Deer/Bear S/K/P/C Floatplane/Boat Wood No Deer/Bear S/K/P/C Floatplane/Boat Oil No Deer/Bear CT/DV/RT/ST/S/K/RJC Floatplane/Trail Wood Yes Moose/ CT/DV/RT/ST/S/R Deer/Bear F1oatplane/Boat Wood No Deer/Goat/Bear CT/DV/RT/S/K/RJP/C Trail/Helicopter Wood Yes Deer/Bear CT/DV/RT/S/R/P/C Floatplane/Trail Wood Yes Deer/Goat/Bear CT/RT/ST/S/R/P/C Floatplane/Boat Wood No Deer/Bear S/K/P Floatplane Wood Yes Deer/Bear CT/DV/AG Floatplane Oil Yes Deer/Bear CT/DV/AG/KO Floatplane Wood Yes Deer/Goat/Bear RT Floatplane/Boat Wood Yes Deer/Goat/Bear CT/DV/RT/KO/S Floatplane/Boat Wood No Deer/Goat/Bear CT/DV/S/R/P/C Trail/Helicopter None No Deer/Bear • Floatplane/Trail None No Deer/Goat CT Page 5 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No 16 I Long Lake I I 17 I McDonald Lake 18 I Reflection Lake 19 I WolfLake I I Legend: CT -Cutthroat Trout K -King Salmon DV -Dolly Varden P -Pink Salmon RT-Rainbow Trout R -Red Salmon ST -Steelhead Trout S -Silver Salmon TABLE2 EXISTING FOREST SERVICE CABINS AND SHELTERS KETCIDKAN RANGER DISTRICT • I Floatplane/Boat/ I None I No I Deer/Bear Trail • Trail None No Deer/Bear • Floatplane/Trail None No Deer/Goat/Bear • I Floatplane/Trail I None I No I Deer/Bear KO-Kokanee AG-Arctic Grayling C -Chum Salmon Page 6 Recreation Resources Study I CT/DVIRT I No I CT/DV /RT/SH/ST I No CT/DV IRT/STIR/ I No s - I CTIRT I No Recreation Resources Study Backcountry a:reas contain opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, skiing, and snowmobiling. Most backcountcy areas are accessible only by floatplane or boat. The Ketchikan area has over 20 USFS cabins and shelters accessible by floatplanelboat or tnrl1 (!'able 2). There are fishing resorts at George Inlet, Yes Bay, Cover Pass, and at the entrance to Behm Canal. Only Clover Pass is accessible from a highway. Tourism is an important industry in Ketchikan. The ma.rlreting of Alaska's scenery, fish, wildlife, outdoor recreation, and cultural resources to visitors is a major component of the Alaskan economy. In 1995, more than 400,000 tourists visited Ketchikan. Tourism is now the state's second largest private sector employer (ADNR, 1993). The majority of tourists reach Ketchikan by Alaska state ferries, cruise ships, and airlines. Being the southernmost major city in Alaska, Ketchikan is Alaska's first port of call for Alaska Marine Highway vessels and cruise ships. Alaska Marine Highway vessels connect Ketchikan with all mainline southeastern Alaska port cities, Prince Rupert, BC and Bellingham, W A. There are also state feny connections from Ketchikan to Metlakatla on Annette Island, Hollis on Prince of Wales Island, and to Hyder in the summer. Cruise ships from U.S. west coast ports and Vancouver, BC stop at Ketchikan and two cruise lines depart from Ketchikan. About 40 boats operate out of Ketchikan for ha1f-day, ali-day or overnight sightseeing or fishing trips, transport to USFS public-use cabins and outlying communities. Charter planes are available from Ketchikan and are available for fly-in fishing, flightseeing, or service to lodges and USFS cabins. Existing Project Vicinity Recreation No developed recreation facilities are located near the project. Currently there is minimal recreational use of Lower and Upper Mahoney lakes. Access to Lower Mahoney lake is generally by salt water (from George Inlet). A dirt road (Ward Lake Road) extends from Ketchikan through National Forest system lands to the Cape Fox Corporation boundary, where it is gated. This logging road continues past the gate through lands owned by Cape Fox CoipOration to near Lower Mahoney lake. This road will be used as the access road to the proposed powerllouse. Limited sport fishing occurs in Lower Mahoney Lake. Fishing pressure is considered to be low because of limited access to the site and small population of fish. According to studies conducted in the early 1980's and by the USFS, Lower Mahoney Lake fish include pink, chum, and sockeye salmon and resident Dolly Varden. Other species that may be present are coho salmon, kokanee (land-locked sockeye salmon), cutthroat trout, rainbow trout/steelhead, scuJpins, and sticklebacks. According to the USFWS, Upper Mahoney Lake does not have any fish. Grayling were stocked in the upper 1ake in 1966; stocking was apparently not successful. (COE, 1978). Recreation use also occurs in the upper Mahoney Basin. The number of recreation users of the upper Mahoney Basin is small, estimated to be less than 50 people per year (KASPAB, 1996). Alpine access to upper Mahoney Basin is possible from the White River and the Silvis Lakes/John Mountain/Deer Mountain trail system. Most of the users, however, hike the trail system to Deer Mountain rather than the upper Mahoney Basin. The trail to the upper Mahoney Basin is long, Page7 Recreation Resources Study primitive, and difficult. Minimal deer hunting is reported to occur on the ridge to the south of lower Mahoney Lake. The Ketchikan Snowmobile Club has accessed the upper Mahoney Basin from a logging spur off the Ward Lake road. Snowmobilers report expansive and excellent snowmobiling opportunities in this area. A Ketchikan ski group once proposed a ski lift to the upper Mahoney Basin; but this proposal was abandoned (KASPAB, 1995). Recreation users are not known to access Upper Mahoney lake or the project area from the upper Mahoney Basin due to extremely difficult terrain. RECREATION SUPPLY, DEMAND AND FUTURE RECREATIONAL USE Several plans have evaluated the recreation supply, demand and future recreational use and/or needs in the area: the Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), the TNF Land and Resource Management Plan, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Pa.tks and Recreation Plan, and the Ketchikan Trails Plan. The following summarizes the findings. Alaska Department of Natural Resotiret5 SCORP 1992 -1996 The Alaska Departm~ of Natural Resources, Division of Pa.tks and Outdoor Recreation, is the state agency responsible for the preparation and five-year updates of the SCORP. The SCORP presents data on recreational supply, demand, and existing and future recreational needs. Recreation demand in the 1992-1996 Plan was based, in part, on a survey that was conducted in 1992 comprised of recreationists, recreation facility providers, and planning agencies. The State of Alaska is broken into three geographical regions in the SCORP; the Southeast (Alaska Panhandle), the Railbelt (communities along the state's major road and rail systems), and the Bush (western and northern Alaska, off the road and rail systems). Southeast Alaska is characterized by lush, temperate rain forests of Sitka spruce at the base of rugged, glaciated peaks and thousands of miles of coastline convoluted by fjords, inlets, and islands. Areas suitable for community recreation development are limited and confined to narrow strips of coastal plains and lowlands. Most of Alaska's Southeast region is encompassed by Tongass National Forest, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Other smaller areas in southeast Alaska are managed by the National Park Service, Alaska State Pa.tks, and Department of Fish and Game. Southeast Alaska is home to approximately 12% of Alaska's population. In the statewide survey, Alaskans were asked about their participation in outdoor recreation experiences and about their favorite outdoor activities. Table 3 shows recreation participation rates for Southeast Alaska and for the state. Although they may not generally participate in these activities as much as others, Alaskans favorite recreation activities are sportfishing, hiking, hunting, camping and winter sports. Many of the prime recreation opportunities in southeast Alaska are accessible only by plane or boat and, therefore, receive low use. This results is heavy pressure on existing campgrounds, boat launches, and other facilities accessible by roads. According to the SCORP, southeast Alaska's community outdoor recreation facilities are concentiated in its larger communities and urban areas. Outside these areas, the region is characterized by a shortage of facilities. The most common reported recreation facilities in Page 8 Recreation Resources Study southeast Alaska are boat 1aunches, outdoor courts, picnic areas, and p1ay fields. Campsites tend to cater to visitors. 1be number and miles of trails, winter facilities, target shooting areas, and golf courses were very low. In the statewide survey, southeast Alaska residents are strong supporters of development of more non-motorized tiails, trails located near roads, boat launches, and an expanded public-use cabin system. Outdoor recreation facility providers were asked to identify needs in their community. It was detennined that for the Southeast region, trails are the most nee.ded facility. Development proposals that received the greatest support were barrier-free facilities for disabled populations, public use cabins, tent campgrounds, picnic areas, park road upgrades, and RV dump stations. According to the SCORP, the tourism industry has grown significantly over the years especially in the demand for small Alaskan businesses offering customized tours and adventure based travel. Due to the aging baby boom generation, the demand for physically demanding activities such as backpacking is decreasing, while the demand for road-oriented opportunities and resort facilities, is increasing. Page9 ~' ; Recreation Resources Study TABLE3 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE RECREATION PARTICIPATION RATES (Mean nwnber of times in year-1992) ••••••••·••·•••••••••••••> a.>•••· ·"·/·••·•• ••·•••-~=-L~ci~······• .• <<· ..•• :?, .... ~~ .. .:r··· :7::':::7:~.·· Walking for Fitness 43 30 Driving for Pleasure 22 22 Sportfishing 20 IS Birdwatching!Wildlife Viewing 20 14 Bicycling/Mountain Biking 19 22 Hiking 13 10 Jogging/Running 12 14 Picnicking 11 9 Clamming/Beachcombing 9 4 Field Games 8 8 Playgrounds/Open Space Activities 8 7 Power Boating 8 s Target Shooting 7 6 Outside Court Games 6 4 Berry Picking 4 4 Sport Hunting 4 3 Swimming 3 4 OR! ATV Riding 2 6 Sledding 2 s Tent Camping in Campground 2 3 Tent Camping in Backcountry 2 3 Alpine Skiing 2 3 Horseback Riding 2 2 RV Camping 1 3 River Canoeing/Rafting/Floating 1 2 Backcountry Skiing 1 2 Motocross 1 2 Rock/Ice Climbing 1 1 Sailing/Windsurfing 1 <1 Sea Kayaking 1 <1 Ice Skating/Hockey <1 2 Golf <1 2 Dog Mushing!Skijoring <1 2 Source: ADNR, 1993 Page 10 Recreation Resources Study As Alaska's popu1ation increases and the tourism industry expands, the demand for more trails, boat ramps, and banier-free access to recreation facilities increases. While many people desire to recreate in an uncrowded natuia1. setting, the shortage of access to recreation resources has led to overuse and resource damage in high-demand areas. Trail use is high throughout the state and developing more trail opportunities is a high priority for many A]askans (ADNR, 1993). TNF Land and Resource Management Plan Recreation Supply The USFS manages approximately 80% of lands in southeast Alaska. The National Park Service, administers the second largest unit of public lands in southeast Alaska. Table 4 shows the amount of available recreation lands in public ownership. Although there are large acreages of Fedetallands available for recreation, the difficult and steep tenain, wetlands, icefields and glaciers, and heavy vegetation confine most recreation activities to accessible shorelines, river and stream bottoms, and around the many Jakes. Federal: State: Municipal: Private: TABLE4 DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA A V All..ABLE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION Tongass National Forest National park System State Park System State Forests State Wildlife Refuges/Critical Habitats Municipal Parks Commercial Recreation Areas 16,997,258 3,238,604 65,463 247,000 8,588 3,140 4 Source: USPS, 1991 According to the TNF Plan, the majority of the Forest is undeveloped and is primarily used for dispersed recreation activities such as viewing scenery and wildlife, boating, fishing, beachcombing, hiking and hunting. Near communities, residents and visitors use the developed camp and picnic grounds, beaches and visitor centers. Road systems are limited, but heavily used for access to recreation sites. These roads systems are primarily located near the larger communities of Ketchikan, Juneau, Sitka, Petersburg and Wrangell. Within the Ketchikan Area of the TNF a total of 491 recreation places were inventoried, totaling 1,355,000 acres with an estimated capacity of 1,091,000. Nearly 33 percent of the recreation places are important due to the presence of recreation facilities of some type, and around 44 percent of Page 11 Recreation Resources Study the places are important for the tourism industry which includes outfitters and guides as well as other tourism operations. Over 42 percent of the recreation places are important to the unique marine recreation opportunities found on the TNF. Recreation Opportunities The USFS has developed a plan to encourage recreational use of its lands that offer a broad spectrum of opportunities. The USFS "Recreation Opportunity Spectrum" (ROS), classifies recreational surroundings in tenns of their physical, social, and managerial settings. The ROS is intended to be a utility in land management planning and to also assist recreationists by defining recreation opportunities. Each setting may include several recreational opportunities such as hiking and biking on the same trail. The ROS classes include Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Modified, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban. The following summarizes each of these ROS classes. Primitive -is a setting that is natural and remote with little or no people presence. Recreation structures are rarely present and if present are rustic in natural setting such as USFS cabins. Alterations to the landscape are not evident. Motorized use within this area is prohibited. Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized -is a setting that is mainly natural where you will occasionally meet other people. Few recreation facilities are provided and are rustic in nature, harmonizing with the natural setting. Alterations to the landscape are few and are not evident. Motorized use is generally prohibited in this setting. Semi-Primitive Motorized -is a setting that is mainly natural where you will occasionally meet other people. Recreation facilities and structures may be present but are generally rustic and hannonize with natural setting. Alterations are few and designed and located to be subordinate to the landscape. Motorized use is generally allowed. · Roaded Modified -is a setting noticeably altered by logging, mining and grazing practices. Alternations dominate the landscape and structures are evident. People contact is more frequent, some recreation facilities are provided, and motorized use is allowed. Roaded Natural -includes forest, range, or coastal setting that looks natural or is slightly altered. There are moderate concentrations of people, especially on trails and in dispersed areas. Developed recreation facilities are common. However, there are opportunities to camp away from others with no facilities. Motorized vehicles are permitted. Rural -includes fanns, forests and other managed land that provide a sense of open space but not necessarily with a natural appearance. Alterations to landform and vegetation dominate landscape and there are moderate to high concentrations of people. Page 12 Recreation Resources Study Recreation structures and facilities are designed mainly for high use levels. Motorized and non-motorized access is allowed. Urban -consists of cities, towns, resorts, major ski areas with buildings, paved roads, and lots of people. Many recreation facilities exist and access is easy for vehicles. Table 5 lists the amount of land available within the TNF for each ROS setting. TABLES ROS OPPORTUNITIES IN TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST Primitive 11,382783 Semi-Primitive, Non-motorized 2,997,126 Semi-Primitive, Motorized 1,124,493 Roaded Natural 218,048 Roaded Modified 1,176,504 Rural 11,602 Urban 819 Source: USPS, 1991 According to the 1NF land and Resource Management Plan, the upper portion of the project area, around Upper Mahoney Lake, is on National Forest system lands within a Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized ROS class. South of the Lower Mahoney Lake, the majority of the transmission line route is located on National Forest system lands designated a Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class. The proposed project powerhouse and most of the access road and a portion of the transmission line route are sited on lands owned by the Cape Fox C01poration, therefore, ROS classifications are not applicable. Recreation Use and Demand Most tourist visitation is directly related to cruise ship schedules which run from May through September. Local residents in southeast Alaska use coastal areas year-round during periods of favorable weather, but the majority of their recreation activity occurs around the mild spring, summer and fall seasons and the concurrent fishing seasons. As discussed in previous sections, many local residents cross-country ski and snowmobile during winter months. Tourism and recreation use has increased from 1984 to 1994 by over 300 percent in southeast Alaska. Visitors travel primarily by ship and by air. Cruise ship visitation increased by almost 400 percent, ferry system usage and airline passengers at Juneau both increased by over 100 Page 13 Recrea.tWn Resources Study percent. In a sutvey conducted during the summer of 1988, approximately 87 percent of arrivals to southeast Alaska were visitors (defined as those arriving for other than work or business) and 98 percent of those visitors came from outside Alaska. Southeast Alaska drew an estimated 70 percent of the entire state's pleasure visitors in the summer of 1988. In comparison with resident recreation users, visitors are generally older, often purchase package tours, utilize many expensive setvices, and spend relatively little time in remote settings while in southeast Alaska. Increased tourism has resulted in increased demand for road oriented opportunities, resort facilities, inte.tpretive setvices, and walking and hiking opportunities near the major communities. A slow but steady increase in visitors to southeast Alaska is expected to continue. Resident recreation is expected to increase with population increases. The population of southeast Alaska is expected to show a slow increase, and a similar increase is expected for resident recreation use. Recreation demand also reflects the changes in people's recreation patterns. For instance, more dispersed recreation non-consumptive activities such as snowmobiling, canoeing, cross-country skiing, motor boating, downhill skiing, camping and bicycling have experienced a more rapid increase than other types of recreation activities. There has also been a general increase in recreation participation and a desire from many people for more hiking trails and other dispersed recreation opportunities made available close to communities. Many residents in communities do not have the financial capability to travel beyond the range of local road system for outdoor recreation purposes. Increases in USFS recreation cabins, visitor setvices, roads, and other facilities and tourism marketing have increased. Increased opportunities for roaded access and activities have also induced demands for fishing, parking, dispersed campsites, picnic sites, trails to scenic attractions and additional short access routes to cabin sites and previously inaccessible beaches. (USFS, 1991) Ketchikan Gateway Borough Parks and Recreation Plan The Ketchikan Gateway Borough is comprised of Revillagigedo, Gravina, and Pennock Islands and other smaller islands. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Parks and Recreation Plan consists of a complete inventory of all parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces. Sutveys, interviews and meetings concerning recreation needs were conducted from 1990 through 1993 and a needs assessment was prepared in 1993. The plan includes a demand analysis, an assessment of issues and alternatives, and goals, objectives and policies for implementing the Plan. Sutveys indicate the current capacity and range of both outdoor and indoor facilities in the Ketchikan area do not meet demand. The Outdoor Recreation Sutvey identified demand and strong community interest in roaded recreation opportunities. Although abundant opportunities are available to local residents, access often requires travel by boat or plane. Hiking trails are also in high demand. Table 6 summarizes the outdoor recreation activity demand for the Ketchikan Area. Page 14 Recreation Resources Study TABLE6 OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITY DEMAND CURRENT PARTICIPATION AND FUTURE DEMAND r.-~~~~: 1 Bicycling 25 77 1 2 I Hiking/walking 3 Fishing 65 1 62 1 60/34 72 - 4 I Picnicking 51 61 1 - 5 I Cabin Camping 16 60 2 6 I Wildlife Viewing 7 RV/Car Camping 55 2 52 2 18 8 I Driving for Pleasure 27 51 2 - 9 Backpacking 12 48 3 10 Boating 37 45 3 11 Hunting 24 42 4 - 12 I Cross-country Skiing 13 Kayaking, Canoeing 39 4 32 5 5 8 14 I Snowmobiling ** Baseball/Softball 22 5 High* 1 2 19 - ** 1 Football/Soccer 8 High* 1 ** Scuba Diving 4 ** ** ** Sledding 17 ** ** ** Ice-Skating 9 High* 1 - ** Shellfish Gathering ** Downhill Skiing ** I ** ** ** 9 ** * These activities have a high development interest based on other studies, user group interviews, and analysis of current facility use. ** These activities were not measured in any of the available recreation research. Demand Scale: 1 = Very Strong, 2=Strong, 3=Moderate to Strong, 4=Moderate, 5=Less but Solid Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 1994 and McDowell, 1993 Page 15 l • ~ 1 j 1 Recreation Resources Study A coordinated effort between government and the private sector is recommended to insure that residents retain access to the community's traditional recreation areas while developing new areas to meet the future recreation needs (Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 1994). Several parks and trails near Ketchikan are proposed in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Parks and Recreation Plan. No facilities are proposed in the proposed project area since the project area is not located on lands owned by the Borough. Ketchikan Trails Plan The Ketchikan Trails Plan was a cooperative effort between the State of Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, USFS Ketchikan Ranger District, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Park-Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough-Parks and Recreation Department. The pwpose of the plan is to coordinate trail development and activities throughout the Borough. The Trails Plan was developed through an extensive planning and public involvement effort during 1992 and 1993. The Trails Plan includes an inventory of existing trails and associated facilities, and identifies twenty priority actions in the plan. Priority actions include a mix of new trails, trail improvements, and cabin development. The 20 priority actions are further divided into the "top ten" actions and the "second ten" actions. Under the "second ten" actions, two actions are proposed in upper Mahoney Basin, near the proposed project area. The first proposal involves building a new road or trail to the Mahoney Basin, most likely off the Ward Lake Road, to provide winter access to the Mahoney Basin. The second proposal involves improving the existing primitive trail leading from Upper Silvis Lake to the Mahoney Basin. Several cabins and shelters, not listed in the 20 priority actions, were recommended during the "outreach" part of the planning process. This list of other cabin/shelter development actions includes a cabin/a-frame built somewhere in the Mahoney Basin if access trails are improved. The USFS would be the lead agency. PROJECT IMPACTS ON RECREATION The proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project is not expected to negatively impact existing or planned recreational activities near the project. Impacts to fisheries resources at Upper and Lower Mahoney Lake are expected to be negligible. The access road to Lower Mahoney Lake will be improved, but the existing gate at the Cape Fox Corporation boundary will remain. Saltwater access to Lower Mahoney Lake from George Inlet and to upper Mahoney Basin from existing trails and logging roads will remain the same. Visual impacts will occur from reducing the flows in the waterfall between upper and Lower Mahoney Lakes. This waterfall, however, can only be viewed by air, from portions of the proposed access road south of Lower Mahoney Lake, and from the east side of George Inlet. Page 16 ' Recreation Resources Study PROPOSED RECREATION PLAN Since no negative impacts to recreation are expected from the proposed Mahoney Lake 1 Project, there are no recreational facilities proposed as part of the hydroelectric project. Existing and future recreation demands do not indicate a need for recreation facilities at the proposed project site. Recreation demand in the region is primarily for facilities close to Ketchikan. Because the proposed project site is within an area that is currently isolated, and much of which is on private land, encouraging recreation use could cause potential vandalism, operational and management problems. Additionally, timber harvesting in the area could create safety hazards if increased recreation is encouraged in the area. AGENCY CONSULTATION Table 7 lists in chronological order agency consultation that has been conducted to date regarding recreation resources for the project. All of the referenced letters, documents, and meeting notes are presented in Appendix K of the License Application. TABLE7 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION FOR RECREATION RESOURCES 3-16-94 I HDR I Agencies I Initial Consultation Document Distributed 4-26-94 I I I Initial Consultation Meetings Held in Ketchikan I 8-8-94 I HDR I Agencies Final Consultation Document Distributed 3-9-95 I HDR I Agencies Scoping Document I (SD1) Distributed 4-12-95 Scoping Meetings Held in 4-13-95 Ketchikan 5-14-95 KASPAB HDR Comments re: SDl 9-26-95 HDR Agencies Scoping Document 2 2-7-96 Howe KASPAB Recreation usage information Lea end: HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. Howe Deborah A. Howe KASPAB Ketchikan Area State Parks Advisory Board Page 17 i Recreation Resources Study REFERENCES A1aska Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 1992-1996. Ketchikan Area State Parks Advisory Board. February 7, 1996. Personal communication. Telephone conversation between Craig Moore (chair) and Deborah Howe. Ketchikan Area State Parks Advisory Board. May 14, 1995. Letter to Mike Stimac, HDR Engineering, from Craig Moore. Ketchikan Gateway Borough. 1994. Ketchikan Gateway Borough Parks and Recreation Plan. Ketchikan, A1aska. September 6, 1994. Ketchikan Ttails Coalition. 1995. Ketchikan Ttails Plan, A Cooperative Effort to Improve Ketchikan's Trail System. McDowell Group. 1993. A1aska Visitor Patterns, Opinions and Planning. USFS. 1991. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision. Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed Revised Forest Plan. Page 18 Appendix.H APPENDIXH ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FEASmiLITY ASSESSMENT OF THE SWAN/TYEE LAKES INTERTIE PROJECT HDR Engineering, Inc. Economic and Financial Feasibility Assessment of the Swan/Tyee Lakes lntertie Project December 1994 Prepared by: Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. Bellevue, WA • Olympia, WA • Portland, OR Washington D.C. • Vancouver, B.C. El~ ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. P.O. Box 1989 • 12011 Bel-Red Rd. • Swte 201 Bellevue, Washington 98009 (206) 451-8015 • FAX (206) 451-8096 Mr. Jack Snyder, Vice President HDR Engineering, Inc. 500 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 1200 Bellevue,WA 98004 December 15, 1994 File#: Re: Economic and Financial Feasibility of Swantryee lntertie Analysis Dear Mr. Snyder: Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) is pleased to issue 5 copies of an economic and financial feasibility analysis of the proposed Swanfl'yee Intertie Project (Project). We have incorporated your comments after review and offer the attached final report as a summary of our findings. Thank you for this additional opportunity to assist HDR Engineering and Cape Fox Corporation in its pursuits. Please call Steve Igoe or me directly with any questions or comments you may have regarding this report. We appreciate this opportunity to serve you on this project. GSS:smn Enclosure cc: Steve Igoe Olympia. WA Bellevue. WA Very truly yours, ~IC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. GacyS.S~~~ Senior Vice President Vancouver. BC Portland.OR Wash•ngton. DC Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Objective of this Report ......................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Report Organization .............................................................................. 1-1 2 Review of Project and Economic Assumptions 2.1 General Description of Electric Market ................................................ 2-1 2.2 Proposed Intertie Description and Use ................................................. 2-1 2.3 Discussion of Resource Alternatives ..................................................... 2-2 8 Economic Parameters and Analysis 3.1 Load and Resource Analysis ................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Intertie Financing Alternatives and Discussion .................................. 3-1 3.3 Resource Cost Analysis Overview ......................................................... 3-3 3.4 Principal Assumptions .......................................................................... 3-6 3.5 The Resource Model and Its Dynamics ................................................ 3-7 4 Results of Economic Analyses 4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Economic Findings-Cases 1 to 6 ........................................................ .4-1 4.3 Sensitivity Analysis-Financing, Surplus Sales and Load Growth .. .4-3 4.4 New Resource Compatibility ................................................................. 4-4 5 Conclusions 5.1 Economic and Financial Conclusions ................................................... 5-1 5.2 Other Conclusions and Observations ...... , ............................................ 5-2 Bibliography Appendix A-KPU's Load and Resource Balance Appendix B-Resource Cost Analysis Model: Cases One to Six Appendix C-Mahoney Hydroelectric Economic Summary Contents Tables ES-1 Preferred Resources ...................................................................................... ES-3 2-1 Existing Hydro Resources ................................................................................ 2-2 2-2 Existing Diesel Resources ................................................................................ 2-3 2-3 Resource Characteristics Summary ................................................................ 2-5 3-1 Intertie Financing Options .............................................................................. 3-3 3-2 Intertie Energy Cost Scenarios ........................................................................ 3-4 3-3 Mahoney Power Purchase Scenarios ............................................................... 3-5 3-4 Proposed New Resource Stack ......................................................................... 3-7 4-1 Base Case Resource Costs ................................................................................ 4-2 4-2 Economic Base Case Resource Costs Under ISER's High Growth Forecast ............................................................................................................. 4-4 4-3 Economic Base Case Resource Costs for ISER's High Growth Forecast ............................................................................................... 4-4 5-1 Resource Analysis Roadmap ............................................................................ 5-1 5-2 Preferred Resources ......................................................................................... 5-1 Contents n Executive Summary Introduction The City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation of Ketchikan Alaska (Owner) are in the process of filing a FERC License Application Exhibit E in accordance with 18 CFR 4.41 for its Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. This proposed project is characterized by a hydroelectric project with a lake tap configuration from the Mahoney Lake. This resource is intended as capacity and energy sales to Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). Based on the ability to offset diesel-fired generation and proposed interconnection facilities in currently isolated load centers, the Mahoney Lake Project offers several unique benefits. Background An analysis was developed to assess the Mahoney project and its alternatives, including the proposed Swan/Tyee Lakes Intertie Project and new oil-fired diesel generation. The analysis is based upon information collected from published studies and analyses, public record, and interviews with key individuals. The analysis included a load/resource balance of KPU's system including future load growth of Ketchikan and energy available from the proposed Swan/Tyee Lakes Intertie project. A resource cost model utilized power systems engineering and economic principles to predict the total cost of energy from the proposed generation facilities. The final analysis focused on an overall assessment of the economic and financial feasibility assessment of the new generation res3urces available to KPU. Given the uncertain economic and financial environment of power resource development in and around Southeast Alaska, this analysis accounted for several parameters in a conservative manner so as to provide a reliable and accurate economic assessment. The analysis included varying one or all of the following parameters: KPU's electric load growth, surplus energy sales to Ketchikan Pulp Company, alternative financing sources and energy costs for the Intertie Project, Alaska State grant funding availability, power purchase rate by KPU for the Mahoney Project, and finally resource technology. Economic Analysis The economic analysis performed determines the cumulative present value of the costs related to the various KPU power supply scenarios. Three power supply scenarios were analyzed-the Mahoney Lake Project, the Swan/Tyee Intertie Project, and new diesel oil-fired generation. With the Intertie, the amount of Lake Tyee power surplus to the needs of WML&P and PMP&L is determined based on Executive Summary ES-1 the average capability of the Lake Tyee Project less the requirements of these two utilities. This derived surplus is assumed to be available for delivery to KPU. The actual amount of power to be delivered to KPU is dependent on KPU's load requirement less the capability of KPU's existing hydroelectric resources. New diesel generation was brought on-line in 4,000 kW increments as needed. Existing diesel generation was excluded from serving future base load energy since it was determined they do not offer a continuos and reliable power supply over the long term. For the Base Case, KPU's power requirements are first met with KPU hydroelectric resources and the capability of the Swan Lake Project. To meet KPU's future load growth, five scenarios were developed to explore all possible mixes of new generation strategies. The associated economics for each resource scenario was evaluated to understand the first year and levelized cost of electricity. Next, the analysis focused on the available financing sources for the proposed Intertie Project. Sources included a state bond, state loan, market bond, and finally a state grant. Specific information on the financing options was provided by the State of Alaska's Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA). According to the DCRA, it is unclear whether grants for the Swanfi'yee Intertie in FY96 and beyond will require specific appropriations from the State Legislature. Therefore, the analysis accounted for both possibilities by assuming no State grant funding and an annual $4 million appropriation over the life of the Intertie Project. Finally, the analysis focused on the cost of energy from the proposed Intertie Project and Mahoney Lake Project. The four State-owned hydroelectric facilities of Solomon Gulch, Swan Lake, Lake Tyee, and Terror Lake hydroelectric facilities are collectively known as the Four Dam Pool. Given the Intertie energy is drawn from one of the Four Dam Pool's facilities (Lake Tyee), the price of energy for the Intertie Project will likely fall under their jurisdiction. Since this determination has not been made, the analysis has to rely upon a range of reasonable possibilities. Four Intertie energy cost approaches were utilized ranging from free energy to the Four Dam Pool wholesale rate. The cost of power from the Mahoney Lake Project likewise relied upon two possibilities, with the most likely being KPU's avoided cost. In absence of any Integrated Resource Plans from KPU, this analysis utilized both Mahoney's real cost of power and KPU's wholesale rate from Swan Lake. Economic Environment Given the economic parameters and assumptions described above, the analysis established six cases or "economic environments" of significance as defined below. Each case relies upon a base of economic assumptions as follows. The base case assumes the medium growth forecast, no surplus energy sales from KPU to Ketchikan Pulp Company, no State grant funding, Intertie financing via state Executive Summary ES-2 sources (state loan, state bond, and market bond), and energy costs starting in 1999 at 6.5 cents per kWh for the Intertie Project and 8.7 cents per kWh for the Mahoney Lakes Project. The analysis continued with additional economic environments (Cases 2 to 6). They are: Cl Case 1-Base Case Cl Case 2-Base Case with Intertie energy at no cost Cl Case. 3-Base Case with Intertie energy at 2.6 cents/kWh in 1994 Cl Case 4-Base Case with Intertie energy at 6.6 cents/kWh in 1994 Cl Case 5-Base Case with $4 million State grant Cl Case 6-Base Case with Mahoney power purchase price at KPU's wholesale rate Results and Conclusions Assuming the resources were able to produce the rated energy capability upon demand, the resulting levelized cost of electricity are shown below. Each of the three resources were analyzed under the six economic environments described above. Table Es-1 Preferred Resources Mahoney @KPU's Intertie at Intertie at lntertie at State Wholesale Base Case No Cost 2.6¢/k.Wh 6.6¢/k.Wh Grant Rate Case! Case2 Case3 Case4 CaseS Case6 Preferred Resource Mahoney Mahoney Mahoney Mahoney Mahoney Mahoney Resulting Levelized Cost (cents/kWh) 6.4 7.6 8.2 8.5 6.7 6.1 Resulting First Year Cost (cents/kWh) 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 7.2 These six economic environments were selected based on their likelihood of occurrence. Among the three new resource strategies, the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project is the preferred resource under all six economic environments. Only the Mahoney Project offers the lowest cost, rate impact and risk exposure to KPU's ratepayers. The nature of Mahoney lends itself toward avoidance of diesel fuel risk and high capital requirements. The situation in which the Intertie Project is the preferred resource occurs only with a combination of parameters. If the State grant is available each year of the project and the Intertie energy is either no cost or the Four Dam Pool variable rate (starting at 2.6 cents/kWh in 1994), then the Tyee/Swan Lake Intertie project becomes the preferred resource. Executive Summary ES-3 1.1 Overview Section 1 Introduction The City of Saxman and the Cape Fox Corporation of Ketchikan Alaska (Owner) is in the process of filing a FERC License Application Exhibit E in accordance with 18 CFR 4.41 for its Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. The Owner retained HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to provide engineering, environmental and licensing services for the Project. A Phase II Feasibility Study was provided by HDR to the Owner in November 1993. Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) has subsequently been retained to develop an economic and financial feasibility assessment of the proposed alternative resource, the Swan/Tyee Lakes Intertie (the Project). This report contains these economic findings of EES, including additional information from background research and interviews with key individuals. 1.2 Objective of this Report The overall objectives of this report are to provide input in the Owner's FERC license application. To this end, there are several issues addressed in this report. Items specifically reviewed include: D The value of Tyee/Swan Intertie energy to Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). D Identify resource generation and transmission costs and develop relative ranking. D Sensitivity of the Project's economic feasibility to changing conditions. D Impact of economics when considering the compatibility of the Intertie Project and the Mahoney Lake Hydro Project. 1.3 Report Organization This report is organized into five sections. This section provides a background and overview of the report. Section 2 describes the Intertie Project and discussion of three resource alternatives. The economic analysis conducted by EES including discussion of assumptions is provided in Section 3. Section 4 includes the results of the economic analysis including the methodology and economic findings of Cases 1 through 6. EES' initial findings are summarized in Section 5. Introduction 1-1 Section 2 Review of Project and Economic Assumptions 2.1 General Description of Electric Market The power market considered in this analysis consists of the municipally-owned electric utility systems of Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg, located in Southeast Alaska. The completion of the Lake Tyee project in 1984 interconnected the systems of Wrangell Municipal Light & Power and Petersburg Municipal Power & Light. Ketchikan Public Utilities is currently an isolated system from Wrangell and Petersburg. KPU is interconnected with Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC), a large industrial operation that generates its own electricity. The Swan Lake Hydro Project currently serves only KPU, whereas Lake Tyee Project serves WML&P and PMP&L.m Both facilities are owned by the Alaska Energy Authority as a part of the Four Dam Pool. As part of the Four Dam Pool, these hydro resources are operated by the utilities they serve.00 ) In the case of Lake Tyee, PMP&L and WML&P purchase the majority of their power requirements from Lake Tyee through the Thomas Bay Power Authority, a jointly operated utility agency. Thomas Bay purchases the power generated from Lake Tyee and sells it to PMP&L and WML&P. KPU and PMP&L both own and operate hydroelectric facilities in addition to Swan and Tyee. Power from these other resources is considered a priority resource over purchases from the Four Dam Pool. In addition to the hydro, all three utilities own diesel oil-fired generation capacity within their respective communities. 2.2 Proposed lntertie Description and Use The lntertie is intended to transmit power from the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project to KPU. The interconnection of the currently isolated electric system of Ketchikan through a transmission interconnection would offset reliance upon diesel-oil fired generation and draw upon underutilized hydroelectric facilities.<2 l This notion spawned the proposed Swan/Tyee Lakes Intertie (the "Project" or the "lntertie") to connect the hydroelectric facilities of Lake Tyee and Swan Lake. The lntertie has taken on several different routing alternatives over the years. For the purpose of performing economic comparisons within this report, we have chosen R.W. Beck's preferred route as representative. This routing is characterized by a Review of Project and Economic Assumptions 2-1 57.5 mile long, 115-kV transmission line with wood pole H-frame construction and a 200-ft-wide cleared right-of-way.<l) The Swan/Tyee Lakes Intertie, as proposed, would deliver surplus power from the Lake Tyee project to KPU's electrical system. Through this proposed transmission connection, the electric systems of Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg would be interconnected. KPU will only purchase power from the Lake Tyee Project when it has requirements in excess of the combined capability of its own hydroelectric facilities and Swan Lake Project. According to the Four Dam Pool Contract, which governs sales of hydro power from Lake Tyee and Swan Lake, PMP&L and WML&P will always have first right to the generation capability of the Lake Tyee Pr . t (10) OJeC. 2.3 Discussion of Resource Alternatives This report will focus on three resource alternatives -Swan/Lake Tyee Intertie, Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, and diesel-oil fired generation. These three resources were analyzed to offer numerous "what if' scenarios. Each scenario offered represents a possible condition in which KPU may add new resources. 2.3.1 Existing Hydro The existing hydroelectric resources owned and operated by KPU are Silvis Lake, Beaver Falls, and Ketchikan Falls. The combined energy capability and capacity based on actual experience are 62,700 MWh (average water years) and 11,700 kW. The actual energy generation is directly related to weather conditions and fluctuates annually. KPU also enjoys interconnection with Swan Lake, an Alaska Energy Authority-owned facility. The full energy production capability of the state-owned Lake Tyee and Swan Lake projects has never been achieved because utility loads have not been large enough. The energy production for these two projects is estimated based on the design characteristics of the projects and assumed hydrologic conditions. Generating capacity in kW and annual energy production in MWh for both average and low water conditions are shown below on Table 2-1. Hydro Resource Silvis, Beaver, Ketchikan Swan Lake Lake Tyee Table 2-1 Existing Hydro Resources Owner Capacity (kW) KPU 11,700 AEA 22,500 AEA 20,000 Review of Project and Economic Assumptions Energy Capability (MWh) Average Low 62,700 56,000 82,000 64,000 134,400 129,900 2-2 2.3.2 Existing Diesel Existing diesel-oil fired facilities primarily serve as backup to the hydroelectric resources and are typically run only for emergency and testing purposes. KPU has indicated their existing diesels have not been run for any significant extended period of time for several years with the exception of a 6 month span during 1989. Operator staffing levels have been reduced to reflect the low level of diesel dependency. KPU's existing diesel facilities are shown below on Table 2-2. Diesel Resource Totem Bight #1 S.W. Bailey #1 S.W. Bailey #2 S.W. Bailey #3 Total Table2-2 Existing Diesel Resources Capacity Owner (kW) KPU 2,000 KPU 3,500 KPU 3,500 KPU 6,450 15,050 Energy Capability (MWb) Fairbanks Morse Worthington Worthington Colt Discussions with KPU indicate the Totem Bight station is in process of being sold to an undisclosed third party. Given this anticipated early 1995 completion date, Totem Bight will most likely be out of the existing resource stack. Further, the Bailey station was installed during the late 1960's.c3 > Given an estimated 30 year design life, the useful life of this station is nearly exhausted. Finally, KPU confirms that Bailey is not a long term, continuous power source for the utility. In fact, both Worthington and Colt no longer manufacturer diesel engines, which makes a major failure nearly catastrophic. 2.3.3 Mahoney Lake Project The Mahoney Lake Project site is to be located approximately 8 miles northeast of Ketchikan on land owned by the Cape Fox Corporation and U.S. Forest Service. The proposed project consists of a lake tap of Upper Mahoney Lake at a depth of about 7 5 feet below the natural lake level. This configuration eliminates the need for constructing a dam since it draws available water in the lake regardless of inflow. The proposed powerhouse would contain a single hydroturbine generator unit capable of generating 9,600 kW of power and 41,740 MWh of energy during an average water year Review of Project and Economic Assumptions 2-3 excluding any transmission and station load requirements. This proposed project would intertie with KPU through the existing Swan Lake transmission line.<12 > Characteristics of the Mahoney Lake Hydro Project are based upon HDR's November 1993 Feasibility Report. The lake tap design alternative was recommended, and hence selected as the basis for this analysis. 2.3.4 New Resource Timing KPU indicates the Intertie energized date is scheduled for November 1998.(8 ' 9 ) Review of their schedule indicates that KPU has slipped some of the early milestones, forcing the completion to either slip or necessitating schedule compression. KPU confirms that they have not abandoned the November 1998 completion date. Discussions with Cape Fox Corporation suggest plans to complete the Mahoney Project are centered around early-1998. It appears this date represents an accelerated schedule resulting from development and permitting advances. However, due to the negligible impact on project economics, this analysis assumes project commercial operation for both the Intertie and Mahoney Projects in 1999. 2.3.5 Resource Costs Resource costs used herein are believed to represent the most accurate figures available. This analysis assumes project costs of (1) $55.6 million in 1992$ for the Intertie based on R.W. Beck's Feasibility Study and (2) $1000/k:W for new diesel-oil fired generation and (3) $23.4 million 1993 dollars for Mahoney based on HDR's Feasibility Study.<1 • 12 ) 2.3.6 Current Activity Current activity for the Intertie may be segregated into environmental and engineering activities. On October 17, 1994, KPU awarded Enserch Environmental a contract to finalize the route, prepare a Federal Environmental Impact Statement, necessary federal and state permits, and applications.(9 ) Further, KPU is expected to award an engineering contract to one of 38 bidders next month for all engineering and contracting activities related to the Intertie. They include developing a general procedures manual, a detailed cost estimate and project schedule, and monthly reports d . t t (S) an proJeC managemen . Table 2-3 below represents a summary of the resource characteristics used in this analysis. Review of Project and Economic Assumptions 2-4 Table 2-3 Resource Characteristics Summary Resource Mahoney Lake Lake Tyee Intertie New Diesel Type Lake Tap Hydro Transmission Diesel Energy (MWh) 40,905 87,367 24,528 Capacity (kW) 9,600 20,000 4,000 increments Cost (OOO's in period $23,442 $55,600 $1,000 per kW dollars) Period Dollars 1993 1992 1998 Year Energized 1999 1999 When Needed Review of Project and Economic Assumptions 2-5 Section 3 Economic Parameters and Analysis 3.1 Load and Resource Analysis A 30 year energy horizon was developed for this analysis. In June 1990, the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) of the University of Alaska developed a 20 year electricity forecast for KPU, WML&P and PMP&L.m> Although several forecasts including CH2M Hill, KPU and AEA were reviewed, ISER was chosen as the basis of this analysis because it most closely reflects actual load growth, contains low, medium and high projections, and offers the longest time horizon. Based on the level of future electricity requirements presented in ISER, a load and resource analysis was performed to estimate the utilization of existing generation resources, and the need for future resources by KPU. A primary focus of the load and resource analysis was to determine the amount of Lake Tyee Project power available to KPU. This analysis evaluated resource needs to meet both peak demand and annual energy requirements of KPU. The time horizon for the loads and resource analysis was extended from 2010 to 2028 at the same rate in which loads from year 2000 to 2010 grew in the ISER forecast. ISER developed a Low, Base, and High case load forecasts for each community which utilized available econometric relationships. In order to examine as many conditions as possible, this analysis incorporates all three load forecasts. Further, the Alaska Pulp Company sawmill (formerly Wrangell Forest Products), recently announced mill shutdown effective December 1, 1994. After discussions with the Thomas Bay Power Authority, it was assumed that WML&P's load is reduced by 8,550 MWh on an average annual basis. Actual energy sales of KPU from 1990 to present were obtained to better understand the probability of tracking ISER's forecast. Comparison indicates KPU's actual demand has tracked closely the medium or base growth ISER projection. As such, this analysis places more emphasis on ISER's medium growth projection. 3.2 lntertie Financing Alternatives and Discussion The economic analysis developed herein is based upon an understanding of the following financing mechanisms and alternatives. This understanding is based Economic Parameters and Analysis 3-1 upon discussions with and documentation from KPU, Division of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA), and the Alaska Energy Authority. The Alaska State Legislature has created power project funds for issuance by DCRA. The funds are supplied by revenues from the Four Dam Pool Contract, and intended for utilities that send or receives power over certain power transmission interties. In particular, Chapter 18 of the Laws of Alaska establish the Southeast Energy Fund, which is available to utilities participating in the power transmission intertie between the Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric project. This fund receives 40% of the balance in the Four Dam Pool Transfer Fund, and is subject to appropriation from the Alaska legislature every year.<s) This same Chapter 18 also permits the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to issue revenue bonds for certain plants or facilities for energy resources or power transmission interties. This revenue bond is capped at $40 million and extends over 20 years, at least 10 years less than the expected Intertie design life. Lastly, Chapter 19 of the Laws of Alaska make appropriations for grants and loans for hydroelectric projects including power transmission interties. Specifically, Section 5 outlines a $20 million loan for design and construction of a power transmission intertie of at least 115 kV between the Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric projects. The agreement offers this loan at three percent (3%) for a term of 15 years. Section 12 outlines a grant to KPU for expenses relating to the Intertie.<Gl KPU have received two grants to date, $4.5 million in FY94 and $4 million in FY95.<7l Since the estimated Intertie project cost exceeds the sum of the State bond and loan, a 30 year market bond at eight percent (8%) will account for the difference. An assessment of financing sources for the proposed Intertie may be summarized as: a State of Alaska bond with $40 million cap, 20 year term, at 6.5%. a State of Alaska loan with $20 million cap, 15 year term, at 3%. a Market bond with 30 year term at 8%. a State of Alaska grant with Legislature appropriated amount and term. In order to model every possible scenario to account for the numerous uncertainties associated with financing, this analysis established eight possible scenarios for the above sources. Provisions were made to account for the uncertainty associated with the availability of State grants to fund the Intertie. Options included either covering Intertie debt service with $4.0 million per year over the life of the Intertie or no grants funding. Economic Parameters and Analysis 3-2 Upon determination of four likely financing sources, the following financing options emerged as shown below in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 lntertie Financing Options Financing Option Financing Option 1 Financing Option 2 Financing Option 3 Financing Option 4 State Loan X X 3.3 Resource Cost Analysis Overview State Bond X X Market Bond X X X X The economic analysis performed determines the total value of alternative KPU power supply options over the expected life of the Tyee Intertie. Unless otherwise defined costs generally escalate annually with "inflation", where inflation is defined as the average rise prices for all goods and services in the United States' economy in any given year. Total costs are "discounted" to account for the "time value of money," the notion that a dollar spent today is worth more than a dollar spent tomorrow or next year. To account for the time value of money, a discount rate of 2.4 percent per year above the rate of inflation is assumed. The relative costs used for each case vary in magnitude according to the specifics of the case. Each case is defined to provide similar levels of electrical energy and capacity to KPU over the analysis period. The analysis period used in this economic model is the assumed life of the Intertie, or 30 years beginning in 1999. Costs included in the analysis are the annual costs of new generation and transmission additions, operation and maintenance costs of the Intertie and operation, maintenance and fuel costs of new and existing diesel generators. Excluded costs include certain fixed operating and capital recovery costs related to KPU's existing generation plant, both diesel and hydroelectric. These existing fixed costs do not affect the outcome of the economic analysis because they will be incurred regardless of the case being considered. The economic analysis is related to the costs of power supply additions to and operation of the KPU electric system. According to the Four Dam Pool Contract, WML&P and PMP&L have priority to the energy available from Lake Tyee facility. Therefore, their respective systems will not be affected and no cost impacts to them are included in this analysis. The cost of power from the Intertie will ultimately be set by the Four Dam Pool's Project Management Committee.0°> Since this price determination has not been made, the analysis relies upon four possibilities for the Intertie energy cost that range from no cost to KPU's wholesale rate of 6.6 cents/kWh in 1994 dollars. The cost of power from the Mahoney Lake Project in theory is based on KPU's avoided cost, or the price of power available to KPU were Economic Parameters and Analysis 3-3 the Mahoney Lake project not available. However, since KPU has not provided such costs, the model has again accounted for two cases. First, Mahoney's actual cost of power production, including an additional 15 percent margin, based on the capital and O&M costs provided in HDR's November 1993 feasibility report.<12 l Secondly the purchase price of Mahoney power is based upon KPU's current wholesale rate from Swan Lake, or 6.6 cents per kWh in 1994 dollars. Both the Intertie Energy Cost scenarios and Mahoney Power Purchase scenarios are shown below in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. Table3-2 lntertie Energy Cost Scenarios No Cost Wholesale Melded Variable Totallntertie Totallntertie Totallntertie Totallntertie Purchase Rate Purchase Rate Purchase Rate Purchase Rate Year (cents/kWh) (cents/kWh) ( centslk Wh) (cents/kWh) 1999 0.0 7.2 6.5 3.2 2000 0.0 7.3 6.6 3.3 2001 0.0 7.4 6.7 3.4 2002 0.0 7.6 6.8 3.6 2003 0.0 7.7 6.9 3.7 2004 0.0 7.8 7.0 3.8 2005 0.0 8.0 7.1 4.0 2006 0.0 8.2 7.2 4.2 2007 0.0 8.3 7.3 4.3 2008 0.0 8.5 7.5 4.5 2009 0.0 8.7 7.6 4.7 2010 0.0 8.9 7.7 4.9 2011 0.0 9.1 7.9 5.1 2012 0.0 9.3 8.0 5.3 2013 0.0 9.5 8.2 5.5 2014 0.0 9.7 8.4 5.7 2015 0.0 9.9 8.6 5.9 2016 0.0 10.2 8.8 6.2 2017 0.0 10.4 9.0 6.4 2018 0.0 10.7 9.2 6.7 2019 0.0 10.9 9.5 6.9 2020 0.0 11.2 9.8 7.2 2021 0.0 11.5 10.1 7.5 2022 0.0 11.8 10.4 7.8 2023 0.0 12.1 10.8 8.1 2024 0.0 12.4 11.1 8.4 2025 0.0 12.8 11.4 8.8 2026 0.0 13.1 11.8 9.1 2027 0.0 13.5 12.2 9.5 2028 0.0 13.9 12.6 9.9 Net Present 0 117 103 64 Value($) Real1994 0.0 4.5 4.0 2.5 Levelized Cost (cents/kWh) Economic Parameters and Analysis 3-4 Table 3-3 Mahoney Power Purchase Scenarios Mahoney Project Cost K.PU Wholesale Year (cents/kWh) Rate (cents/kWh) 1999 8.7 7.2 2000 8.7 7.3 2001 8.8 7.4 2002 8.8 7.6 2003 8.9 7.7 2004 9.0 7.8 2005 9.0 8.0 2006 9.1 8.2 2007 9.2 8.3 2008 9.2 8.5 2009 9.3 8.7 2010 9.4 8.9 2011 9.5 9.1 2012 9.6 9.3 2013 9.7 9.5 2014 9.8 9.7 2015 9.9 9.9 2016 10.0 10.2 2017 10.1 10.4 2018 10.2 10.7 2019 10.3 10.9 2020 10.4 11.2 2021 10.5 11.5 2022 10.7 11.8 2023 10.8 12.1 2024 10.9 12.4 2025 11.1 12.8 2026 11.2 13.1 2027 11.4 13.5 2028 11.5 13.9 Net Present Value($) 117 117 Real 1994 Levelized Cost 4.8 4.5 (cents/kWh) In addition, the economic analysis has been performed with alternative load growth forecasts in accordance with ISER's report. Three growth rates are used-low, medium or base, and high. Economic Parameters and Analysis 3-5 In total, the analysis varies seven parameters: resource mix, load growth, surplus energy sales to Ketchikan Pulp Company, availability of the State grant funding, Intertie energy cost, and the Mahoney power purchase price. Given the complexity of this resource environment, inclusion of all these parameters resulted in the most accurate assessment of KPU's costs. However, certain parameters such as load growth, financing, and surplus sales have less of an impact than others. Therefore, a base case was established in order to run sensitivity analyses. 3.4 Principal Assumptions The economic parameters discussed herein form the basis of this analysis and associated resource option analysis model. Financing parameters were provided by the DCRA. Four Dam Pool costs were provided by the Alaska Energy Authority. Diesel costs were consistent with R.W. Beck's Intertie feasibility study. Other key analytical assumptions follow: 0 All costs are stated in current period dollars unless otherwise stated. The analysis period is the economic lifetime of the Intertie, or 30 years with operation beginning in 1999. 0 Estimated future nominal or current period costs are discounted to 1994 dollars using a 2.4% real (above the rate of inflation) discount rate. 0 The fixed costs of e:xisting hydroelectric and diesel generation are not included in this analysis. 0 New diesel generation capacity is estimated to cost $1,000 per installed kW and is added as needed in 4,000 kW increments with a 70 percent capacity factor. These capital costs are assumed to be recovered over a 20 year period at an assumed annual market bond interest rate of 8 percent. 0 The capital costs of the Intertie are assumed to be $55.6 million in 1992 dollars. This cost is escalated to 1997 dollars assuming an annual 4 percent inflation rate. Recovery is over 30 years at a rate associated with each financing option as described in Section 3.2. 0 The operations and maintenance costs of diesel generation are 1.0 cents per kWh variable and $12.50 annually per kW fixed. Diesel-oil fuel is $1 per gallon in 1997 dollars escalating at inflation plus 1 percent real. Diesel generation fuel consumption is estimated at 14 kWh per gallon. 0 The value of surplus hydroelectric energy sold to Ketchikan Pulp Company is assumed to be 3.5 cents per kWh in 1992 dollars. This sale of surplus hydro Economic Parameters and Analysis 3-6 to Ketchikan Pulp from KPU is only in the event of the Intertie case with surplus energy. KPC's maximum purchase will not exceed 15,500 MWh. 0 The energy production of the existing Swan Lake and Lake Tyee hydroelectric facilities are represented by capabilities based on average water years. 0 Energy losses over the Intertie and Mahoney Project are 2% of the total transmitted. An additional 2% between Swan Lake and KPU is also included for the Intertie. 3.5 The Resource Model and Its Dynamics The economic analysis is based upon a resource cost analysis model developed to better understand KPU's future generation and transmission costs under numerous scenarios. The model integrates KPU's load/resource balance with an economic model to determine the first year and ''levelized cost" of electricity under different options or scenarios. Levelized cost is an economic method of "levelizing" the playing field for resources with different useful lives and capital/operating cost mixes. To levelize the costs of a resource, its total costs (e.g. capital investment, operations and maintenance, etc.) are divided by its benefits (energy produced in kWh). A total of five resource scenarios are shown below in Table 3-4. They represent KPU's options for new generation. It has been assumed existing diesel has proven not to be a long-term, reliable power source due to reasons discussed earlier. Therefore, existing diesel is not considered a viable resource option for future planning purposes. Table 3-4 Proposed New Resource Stack (in order of development) Resource Scenario 1st 2nd 3rd 1 Mahoney lntertie Diesel 2 Intertie Mahoney Diesel 3 Mahoney Diesel ** 4 Intertie Diesel ** 5 Diesel ** ** Within the load/resource balance model, it is assumed that KPU's power requirements are first met with KPU hydroelectric resources and the capability of the Swan Lake Project. Power requirements in excess of this supply are then met with new generation in the fashion outlined above. Economic Parameters and Analysis 3-7 Automatically within the model, the resources are added as needed in the order as shown above. When the first resource is exhausted, then the second resource fills, and so on. In the scenarios in which new diesel is added, no subsequent resource is necessary since new diesel may be added indefinitely. After assessing the sources and amounts of power from each source, the analysis derives the estimated cost of power to KPU in each year of the analysis. The costs include capital recovery, operation and maintenance, and fuel. After projection over the analysis period, these annual costs are discounted back to 1994. The summation of these total costs provide the cumulative net present value and levelized cost of each option. This first year and levelized cost were used for comparing the relative costs of the options, and are shown in Section 4. The levelized cost served as a barometer for comparing options, while the first year cost offered insight into the potential rate impact. Seven parameters were changed within the resource cost model to develop numerous cases. By varying these parameters, conclusions and insights were drawn. These conclusions and insights are described in the following section. Economic Parameters and Analysis 3-8 Section 4 Results of Economic Analysis 4.1 Methodology This analysis relies upon comparison to a base case. Definition of this base case is offered below. Economic Base Case Definition Load Growth= medium or base No Surplus Sales to KPC Intertie Energy Cost = Melded rate per Table 3-2 Financing Option #2 No State Grant Available Mahoney Purchase Price = Actual Cost per Table 3-3 Any variance for sensitivity analysis relies upon this base case. The base case represents an anchor point for comparison purposes. Through careful evaluation of all possible scenarios, it became evident six cases were key to understanding the results. These six cases were chosen due to their significant impact on the results. These six cases are described below. Q Case 1-Base Case Q Case 2-Base Case with Intertie energy at no cost Q Case 3-Base Case with Intertie energy at 2.6 cents/kWh Q Case 4--Base Case with Intertie energy at 6.6 cents/kWh Q Case 5-Base Case with State grant available Q Case 6-Base Case with Mahoney power purchase price at KPU's wholesale rate In addition to the above, sensitivity studies were run on load growth, financing options, and surplus energy sales to Ketchikan Pulp Company. 4.2 Economic Findings-Cases 1 to 6 Criteria for the selection of the preferred resource option included two elements. First, the resource must offer a low levelized cost of electricity. Second, the first year cost of electricity must be reasonable to address the issue of rate impact versus current KPU retail rates. This analysis is based on annualized energy and capacity capabilities. Based on the operational characteristics of the resources analyzed, it may be prudent to understand the energy variances on a monthly basis. Results of Economic Analysis 4-1 The following results are presented below for each of the six cases defined earlier. Results of each of the six cases are attached in Appendix B. 4.2.1 Base Case or Case 1 The base case rankings indicate that Mahoney offers essentially the lowest levelized and first year cost of electricity over all other resource options. This result is driven by Mahoney's power purchase price which is based upon actual project cost methodology. The resulting cost in cents per kWh for levelized and first year cost are shown below in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Base Case Resource Costs (M = Mahoney; I = Swan/Tyee lntertie; D = New Diesel) Cost of Electricity (cents/kWh) Resource Scenario Resource Stack 1994 Levelized First Year 1 M,I,D 8.5 8.7 2 I,M,D 11.0 30.5 3 M,D 6.4 8.7 4 I,D 11.5 30.5 5 D 9.4 11.5 4.2.2 Case 2-lntertie Energy at No Cost When the Intertie energy cost from the Four Dam Pool is zero, Mahoney becomes the preferred resource. The Mahoney resource offers the lowest levelized cost at 7.6 cents. The Intertie resource yields a 100 percent rate impact over KPU's existing retail rates with 24.1 cents per kWh in the first year, although the levelized cost is near Mahoney at 7. 7 cents. 4.2.3 Case 3-lntertie Energy Cost at Variable Rate When the Intertie energy cost is tied to the Four Dam Pool's variable power production cost, currently at 2.6 cents per kWh, Mahoney becomes the preferred resource. The resulting levelized cost for the Intertie is 10.1 cents per kWh with significant rate impacts compared to Mahoney's 8.2 cents per kWh without significant rate impacts. Results of Economic Analysis 4·2 4.2.4 Case 4-lntertie Energy Cost at Wholesale Rate When the Intertie energy cost is tied to the Four Dam Pool's total wholesale rate, currently at 6.6 cents per kWh, Mahoney becomes the preferred resource. Both Mahoney/Intertie (resource scenario 1) and Intertie/Diesel (resource scenario 4) have high rate impacts with first year costs exceeding 31 cents per kWh. Compare this to Mahoney's levelized cost of9.7 cents/kWh with first year cost at 11.5 cents per kWh, and Mahoney's advantage is evident. 4.2.5 Case 5-State Grant Funding When the State grant is available at $4 million each year over the Intertie life (30 years), the preferred resource becomes the Mahoney Project. In this case, Mahoney's levelized cost is 6.7 cents per kWh with first year cost of 8.7 cents per kWh. It is important to note that the Intertie/Mahoney scenario (resource scenario 2) yields a levelized cost of 6.5 cents per kWh when Intertie is first, then Mahoney is built when needed in year 2018. Although an attractive levelized cost, this scenario presents significant rate impact issues to KPU due to first year costs of 15.1 cents per kWh (near 100 percent rate increase to KPU's ratepayers). 4.2.6 Case 6--Mahoney's Power Purchase Price at KPU's Wholesale Rate Lastly when Mahoney's power purchase price is set by the current Four Dam Pool's total wholesale rate, then Mahoney followed by diesel (resource option 3) becomes the preferred scenario. This case results in 6.1 cents per kWh levelized and 7.2 cents per kWh first year cost. 4.3 Sensitivity Analysis-Financing, Surplus Sales and Load Growth A sensitivity analysis was performed to understand the impact on results under the four financing options noted above. This sensitivity analysis resulted in two conclusions. First, option 2 yielded the lowest levelized cost of electricity. This option utilizes the $20 million of a state loan, $40 million of a state bond, and the remainder in a market bond. Second, the variance across all four financing options was marginal as it did not exceed 0.6 cents per kWh in the base case. Therefore, KPU will likely take advantage of the State financing if it is available as other financing options will not significantly effect the rankings. The surplus energy sales to Ketchikan Pulp Company was treated as an incremental condition. In the event surplus energy existed from the Intertie and provided KPC needed this energy, the sale of up to 15,500 MWh occurred at KPU's Results of Economic Analysis 4-3 existing surplus energy rate. As an incremental condition, this parameter also had marginal impact on the economics, and no impact on relative project rankings. This analysis relied upon ISER's medium growth forecast as the basis. As discussed earlier, KPU's actual sales from 1990 to present have closely tracked this forecast. However, a sensitivity study examined the impact on the results and ranking when changing KPU's demand to ISER's low and high growth projections. KPU's current hydroelectric energy resources generates 14 7,650 MWh. Assuming this supply over the 30 year time horizon, it appears KPU's net energy and capacity requirement are in surplus based on ISER's low growth forecast. During the high growth case, KPU will need significant amounts of energy and capacity to meet future projected growth. The load/resource balance shown in Appendix B defines these specific values. In fact, given similar new resource characteristics, both the Mahoney and Intertie Project will be fully utilized concurrently as early as the second year of operation. In all others cases where either hydro is followed by new diesel or new diesel alone, new diesel based generation acts as a filler. New diesel capacity is added as before in 4,000 kW increments up to as much as 68 MWs in resource option 5. The levelized cost and first year costs in cents per kWh shown below in Table 4-2, represent the high growth forecast for the base case. Values confirm consistent rank.ings as the medium growth scenario, including the state financing option edging out other financing options. Table4-2 Economic Base Case Resource Costs Under ISER's High Growth Forecast (M = Mahoney; I = Swan/Tyee lntertie; 0 = New Diesel) Cost of Electricity (cents/kWh) Resource Scenario Resource Stack 1994 Levelized First Year 1 M,I,D 9.1 13.1 2 I,M,D 9.1 12.9 3 M,D 8.2 9.5 4 I, D 9.8 13.7 5 D 8.9 9.5 4.4 New Resource Compatibility Given the five resource scenarios outlined earlier, new resource timing issues are readily addressed by examining the 30 year energy horizon. Several conclusions pertaining to resource compatibility were drawn from the base case. First, the year in which the Mahoney project and the Intertie are fully utilized by KPU Results of Economic Analysis 4-4 independent of each other is 2007 and 2018 respectively. Secondly, when Mahoney is followed by the Intertie (and vice versa) as defined in resource scenario 1 and 2, then the Intertie (or Mahoney) is not fully realized till the last year, or 2028. This suggests KPU's net requirements allow little room for both resources concurrently. Further, consideration should be paid to capital recovery of either the Mahoney or Intertie projects in the unfavorable, yet likely event either resource is not fully utilized until several years after being energized. Lastly, economic results favor the notion there is little room for the Mahoney Project if followed by the Intertie Project. Given this occurrence in year 2018, future realities are likely to change the capital cost, load growth and bond rate. Results of Economic Analysis 4-5 5.1 Economic and Financial Conclusions Section 5 Conclusions Ultimately the lowest cost resource is a function of what assumptions are made about future conditions. After applying discretion to over 900 possible cases, certain cases should be analyzed further. Actual resource cost models were run for all conditions as shown below. This "road map" of analysis shown below in Table 5-l depicts the resource scenario analyzed as it relates to the six economic environments or cases described earlier. Table 5-1 Resource Analysis Roadmap Mahoney @KPU's Intertie at Intertie at Intertieat State Wholesale Resource Base Case No Cost 2.6¢/kWh 6.6¢/kWh Grant Bate Scenario Casel Case2 Case3 Case4 Case5 Case6 1 X X X X X X 2 X X X 3 X X 4 X X X X X 5 X Economic results of the base case are shown in Table 4-1. The preferred resource for each of the six cases are shown below in Table 5-2. The analyses indicate that the Mahoney Project is preferred in all cases. Table 5-2 Preferred Resources Casel Case2 Case3 Case4 Case5 Case6 Mahoney Mahoney Mahoney Mahoney Mahoney Mahoney Resulting Level Cost (cents/kWh) 6.4 7.6 8.2 8.5 6.7 6.1 Resulting First Year Cost (cents/kWh) 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 7.2 Conclusions 5·1 Economically speaking, Mahoney offers the lowest costs when conditions surrounding cases 1 through 6 exist. In these cases, only the Mahoney project offers the smallest rate impact and lowest cost to KPU's ratepayers. Given the nature of locking into a power purchase agreement with Mahoney, KPU avoids any diesel fuel risk in the future and thus offers less exposure to KPU. Although this same benefit applies to any hydro resource including the Intertie, the significant difference with the Intertie is the high capital intensive nature of the project and its high rate impact in the initial years of operation. When the Mahoney and Intertie Projects are both done together, results yield the highest levelized cost of power. This is indicative of high capital cost spread over a relatively small KPU energy requirement. Only in the high growth forecast does this double resource addition have merit to KPU's system. Further, economic results add value to the argument that Mahoney is not cost-effective if done after the Intertie in year 2018. Ultimately, the economic analysis suggest the Intertie is lower cost only in the following combination of conditions: receiving a State grant and obtaining free power from the Four Dam Pool. This combination of events seems unlikely. Regarding the State grant, DCRA indicates that no assurance exists within current State laws that the legislature will appropriate grant funding each and every year given the State's decreasing oil revenues. The attached Tyee-Swan Intertie Funding letter dated May 24, 1994, by DCRA provides additional information. Regarding energy cost for Lake Tyee Intertie from the Four Dam Pool, the Project Management Committee's decision will likely impact the outcome of these economics. Most indications from Thomas Bay Power Authority, WML&P, and PMP&L suggest the likelihood of free energy is very remote. Since variable costs do exist for production of this power, it seems likely that the minimum cost would be at least 2.6 cents per kWh. A more reasonable approach would be the melded rate in which the Four Dam Pool total wholesale rate will likely decrease slightly as fixed cost is spread over more kWh sales (see Table 3-1). 5.2 Other Conclusions and Observations Non-economic conclusions are best summarized as all other. For instance, adding new diesel generation in 4 MW blocks as suggested in resource scenario 5 may involve understanding environmental, siting, interconnection, and fuel associated implications. Further, the running of existing diesel may be prudent in delaying the short term purchasing of new diesel only if technically feasible. The expected high cost impacts of replacement parts and nearly exhausted facility life will likely be a major limiting factor. Further information regarding KPU adding new generation resources may be contained in any Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) or Least Cost Plan (LCP) that may exist. Conclusions 5-2 Bibliography (1) Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie by R.W. Beck and Associates. Inc., June 1992, for the Alaska Energy Authority (2) Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study by Harza Engineering Company, October 1987. for the Alaska Power Authority (3) Data for Tyee/Swan Lake Intertie Letter dated November 22, 1994 by Ketchikan Public Utilities to Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (4) Analysis of KPU Avoided Costs Letter dated May 18, 1994 by HDR Engineering, Inc. to the Cape Fox Corporation (5) Chapter 18 of 1993 Laws of Alaska by the Legislature of the State of Alaska, dated May 13, 1993 (6) Chapter 19 of 1993 Laws of Alaska by the Legislature of the State of Alaska, dated May 13, 1993 (7) Tyee-Swan Intertie Funding Memorandum dated May 24, 1994 by Department of Community and Regional Affairs for the Division of Energy (8) Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Engineering Contract RFP Contract No. 94-51 by Ketchikan Public Utilities, September 1994 (9) Swan Lake-Lake Tyee EIS RFP Contract No. 94-41 by Ketchikan Public Utilities, October 17, 1994 (10) Long-Term Power Sales Agreement Four Dam Pool of the Alaska Power Authority (11) Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010 by the Institute of Social and Economic Research dated June 25, 1990 for the Alaska Energy Authority (12) Mahoney Lake Feasibility Report by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated November 1993 for the Cape Fox Corporation Bibliography KPU'S EXISTING ELECTRIC RESOURCES ENERGY SUPPLY CAPACI1Y SUPPLY KPU-Owned Swan Total w/oExisting Total w/ KPU-Owned Swan Total w/oExisting Total w/ .Ys:.at lbdm Lake ~ Di.c.sd. Di.e.sel lbdm 1m ~~~ (MWb) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MW) (MWh) (MW) (MW) (MW) 1999 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2000 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2001 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2002 65,650 82,000 14 7,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2003 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2004 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2005 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2006 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2007 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2008 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2009 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2010 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2011 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2012 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2013 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2014 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2015 65,650 82,000 14 7,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2016 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2017 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2018 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2019 65,650 82,000 14 7,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2020 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2021 65,650 82,000 14 7,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2022 65,650 82,000 14 7,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2023 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2024 65,650 82,000 14 7,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2025 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2026 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2027 65,650 82,000 147,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 2028 65,650 82,000 14 7,650 0 147,650 11.9 22.5 34.4 0.0 34.4 I 1123/94 02:57 PM SAl Appendix A KPU's LAKE TYEE AVAILABILITY-ENERGY AND CAPACITY Low Growth Forecast Available Lake WML&P Available Energy Lake WML&P Available Year ~ WML&P Mm Adj PMP&L ~ w/ Trans Losses ~ WML&P Mm Adj PMP&L Capacity (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) 1999 134,400 15,815 (8,550) 29,340 97,795 93,883 15.3 3.2 (0.7) 5.8 7.0 2000 134,400 15,922 (8,550) 29,532 97,496 93,596 15.3 3.2 (0.7) 5.8 7.0 2001 134,400 15,964 (8,550) 29,584 97,402 93,506 15.3 3.2 (0.7) 5.8 7.0 2002 134,400 16,005 (8,550) 29,617 97,328 93,435 15.3 3.2 (0.7) 5.8 7.0 2003 134,400 16,043 (8,550) 29,662 97,245 93,355 15.3 3.2 (0.7) 5.8 7.0 2004 134,400 16,098 (8,550) 29,733 97,119 93,234 15.3 3.2 (0.7) 5.9 6.9 2005 134,400 16,170 (8,550) 29,830 96,950 93,072 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 5.9 6.8 2006 134,400 16,244 (8,550) 29,931 96,775 92,904 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 5.9 6.8 2007 134,400 16,330 (8,550) 30,064 96,556 92,694 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 5.9 6.8 2008 134,400 16,411 (8,550) 30,182 96,357 92,503 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 5.9 6.8 2009 134,400 16,461 (8,550) 30,238 96,251 92,401 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 6.0 6.7 2010 134,400 16,517 (8,550) 30,306 96,127 92,282 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 6.0 6.7 2011 134,400 16,583 (8,550) 30,397 95,970 92,131 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 6.0 6.7 2012 134,400 16,649 (8,550) 30,488 95,812 91,980 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 6.0 6.7 2013 134,400 16,716 (8,550) 30,580 95,654 91,828 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 6.1 6.7 2014 134,400 16,783 (8,550) 30,671 95,496 91,676 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 6.1 6.6 2015 134,400 16,850 (8,550) 30,763 95,337 91,523 15.3 3.3 (0.7) 6.1 6.6 2016 134,400 16,917 (8,550) 30,856 95,177 91,370 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 6.1 6.6 2017 134,400 16,985 (8,550) 30,948 95,017 91,216 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 6.1 6.5 2018 134,400 17,053 (8,550) 31,041 94,856 91,062 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 6.1 6.5 2019 134,400 17,121 (8,550) 31,134 94,695 90,907 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 6.2 6.5 2020 134,400 17,190 (8,550) 31,228 94,533 90,751 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 6.2 6.5 2021 134,400 17,258 (8,550) 31,321 94,370 90,595 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 62 6.4 2022 134,400 17,327 (8,550) 31,415 94,207 90,439 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 6.2 6.4 2023 134,400 17,397 (8,550) 31,509 94,044 90,282 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 6.2 6.4 2024 134,400 17,466 (8,550) 31,604 93,880 90,124 15.3 3.4 (0.7) 6.3 6.3 2025 134,400 17,536 (8,550) 31,699 93,715 89,966 15.3 3.5 (0.7) 6.3 6.3 2026 134,400 17,606 (8,550) 31,794 93,550 89,808 15.3 3.5 (0.7) 6.3 6.3 2027 134,400 17,677 (8,550) 31,889 93,384 89,649 15.3 3.5 (0.7) 6.3 6.3 2028 134,400 17,748 (8,550) 31,985 93,218 89,489 15.3 3.5 (0.7) 6.3 6.2 f 11123/94 i Appendix A KPU's LAKE TYEE AVAILABILITY-ENERGY AND CAPACITY Base Case-Medium Growth Forecast Available Lake WML&P Available Energy Lake WML&P Available Y.c.a.r ~ WML&P Mm Adj PMP&L .Ell.ew: wl Trans Losses ~ WML&P Mm Adj PMP&L Capacity (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) 1999 134,400 17,902 (8,550) 34,041 91,007 87,367 15.3 3.6 (0.7) 6.7 5.7 2000 134,400 18,154 (8,550) 34,578 90,218 86,609 15.3 3.7 (0.7) 6.8 5.5 2001 134,400 18,379 (8,550) 35,056 89,515 85,934 15.3 3.7 (0.7) 6.9 5.4 2002 134,400 18,557 (8,550) 35,444 88,949 85,391 15.3 3.7 (0.7) 7.0 5.3 2003 134,400 18,744 (8,550) 35,849 88,357 84,823 15.3 3.8 (0.7) 7.1 5.1 2004 134,400 18,959 (8,550) 36,319 87,672 84,165 15.3 3.8 (0.7) 7.1 5.1 2005 134,400 19,228 (8,550) 36,895 86,827 83,354 15.3 3.9 (0.7) 7.3 4.8 2006 134,400 19,539 (8,550) 37,564 85,847 82,413 15.3 4.0 (0.7) 7.4 4.6 2007 134,400 19,880 (8,550) 38,294 84,776 81,385 15.3 4.0 (0.7) 7.5 4.5 2008 134,400 20,245 (8,550) 39,071 83,634 80,289 15.3 4.1 (0.7) 7.7 4.2 2009 134,400 20,603 (8,550) 39,833 82,514 79,213 15.3 4.2 (0.7) 7.8 4.0 2010 134,400 20,941 (8,550) 40,54 7 81 ,462 78,204 15.3 4.2 (0.7) 8.0 3.8 2011 134,400 21,234 (8,550) 41,196 80,520 77,299 15.3 4.3 (0.7) 8.1 3.7 2012 134,400 21,531 (8,550) 41,855 79,564 76,381 15.3 4.3 (0.7) 8.3 3.5 2013 134,400 21,833 (8,550) 42,525 78,593 75,449 15.3 4.4 (0.7) 8.4 3.3 2014 134,400 22,139 (8,550) 43,205 77,606 74,502 15.3 4.4 (0.7) 8.5 3.1 2015 134,400 22,448 (8,550) 43,896 76,605 73,541 15.3 4.5 (0.7) 8.6 2.9 2016 134,400 22,763 (8,550) 44,599 75,589 72,565 15.3 4.5 (0.7) 8.8 2.7 2017 134,400 23,081 (8,550) 45,312 74,556 71,574 15.3 4.6 (0.7) 8.9 2.6 2018 134,400 23,405 (8,550) 46,037 73,508 70,568 15.3 4.6 (0.7) 9.0 2.4 2019 134,400 23,732 (8,550) 46,774 72,444 69,546 15.3 4.7 (0.7) 9.2 2.2 2020 134,400 24,065 (8,550) 47,522 71,363 68,509 15.3 4.7 (0.7) 9.3 2.0 2021 134,400 24,401 (8,550) 48,282 70,266 67,455 15.3 4.8 (0.7) 9.4 1.8 2022 134,400 24,743 (8,550) 49,055 69,152 66,386 15.3 4.9 (0.7) 9.5 1.7 2023 134,400 25,089 (8,550) 49,840 68,021 65,300 15.3 4.9 (0.7) 9.7 1.5 2024 134,400 25,441 (8,550) 50,637 66,872 64,197 15.3 5.0 (0.7) 9.8 1.3 2025 134,400 25,797 (8,550) 51,448 65,706 63,077 15.3 5.0 (0.7) 9.9 1.1 2026 134,400 26,158 (8,550) 52,271 64,521 61,940 15.3 5.1 (0.7) 10.0 0.9 2027 134,400 26,524 (8,550) 53,107 63,319 60,786 15.3 5.1 (0.7) 10.2 0.7 2028 134,400 26,896 (8,550) 53,957 62,098 59,614 15.3 5.2 (0.7) 10.3 0.6 11/23/94 Appendix A PROJECTED TOTAL ENERGY AND PEAK DEMAND REQUIREMENTS High Growth Forecast KPU Supply Supply Net req. Net req. KPU Supply Supply Net req. Net req. ~ Demand w/o diesel w/ diesel w/o diesel w/ diesel Demand Yt..lo diesel w/ die!.icl w/o diesel w/ diesel (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) 1999 249,260 147,650 147,650 101,610 101,610 50.6 34.4 34.4 -16.2 16.2 2000 260,218 147,650 147,650 112,568 112,568 52.8 34.4 34.4 -18.4 18.4 2001 264,411 147,650 147,650 116,761 116,761 53.6 34.4 34.4 -19.2 19.2 2002 270,808 147,650 147,650 123,158 123,158 54.9 34.4 34.4 -20.5 20.5 2003 276,556 147,650 147,650 128,906 128,906 56.1 34.4 34.4 -21.7 21.7 2004 282,768 147,650 147,650 135,118 135,118 57.4 34.4 34.4 -23.0 23.0 2005 290,442 147,650 147,650 142,792 142,792 59.0 34.4 34.4 -24.6 24.6 2006 298,989 147,650 147,650 151,339 151,339 60.7 34.4 34.4 -26.3 26.3 2007 308,090 147,650 147,650 160,440 160,440 62.5 34.4 34.4 -28.1 28.1 2008 318,308 147,650 147,650 170,658 170,658 64.6 34.4 34.4 -30.2 30.2 2009 329,184 147,650 147,650 181,534 181,534 66.8 34.4 34.4 -32.4 32.4 2010 340,029 147,650 147,650 192,379 192,379 69.1 34.4 34.4 -34.7 34.7 2011 349,210 147,650 147,650 201,560 201,560 71.0 34.4 34.4 -36.6 36.6 2012 358,638 147,650 147,650 210,988 210,988 72.9 34.4 34.4 -38.5 38.5 2013 368,322 147,650 147,650 220,672 220,672 74.8 34.4 34.4 -40.4 40.4 2014 378,266 147,650 147,650 230,616 230,616 76.9 34.4 34.4 -42.5 42.5 2015 388,480 147,650 147,650 240,830 240,830 78.9 34.4 34.4 -44.5 44.5 2016 398,969 147,650 147,650 251,319 251,319 81.1 34.4 34.4 -46.7 46.7 2017 409,741 147,650 147,650 262,091 262,091 83.3 34.4 34.4 -48.9 48.9 2018 420,804 147,650 147,650 273,154 273,154 85.5 34.4 34.4 -51.1 51.1 2019 432,165 147,650 147,650 284,515 284,515 87.8 34.4 34.4 -53.4 53.4 2020 443,834 147,650 147,650 296,184 296,184 90.2 34.4 34.4 -55.8 55.8 2021 455,817 147,650 147,650 308,167 308,167 92.6 34.4 34.4 -58.2 58.2 2022 468,124 147,650 147,650 320,474 320,474 95.1 34.4 34.4 -60.7 60.7 2023 480,764 147,650 147,650 333,114 333,114 97.7 34.4 34.4 -63.3 63.3 2024 493,744 147,650 147,650 346,094 346,094 100.3 34.4 34.4 -65.9 65.9 2025 507,075 147,650 147,650 359,425 359,425 103.0 34.4 34.4 -68.6 68.6 2026 520,767 147,650 147,650 373,117 373,117 105.8 34.4 34.4 -71.4 71.4 2027 534,827 147,650 147,650 387,177 387,177 108.7 34.4 34.4 -74.3 74.3 2028 549,268 147,650 147,650 401,618 401,618 111.6 34.4 34.4 -77.2 77.2 i 11/23/94 Appendix A PROJECTED TOTAL ENERGY AND PEAK DEMAND REQUIREMENTS Low Growth Forecast KPU Supply Supply Net req. Net req. KPU Supply Supply Net req. Net req. ~ Demand w/o diesel w/ diesel w/o djesel w/ djese! Demand w/o diesel w/ diesel wlo diesel w/ djesel (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) 1999 140,504 147,650 147,650 (7,146) (7,146) 28.4 34.4 34.4 6.0 -6.0 2000 141,103 147,650 147,650 (6,547) (6,547) 28.5 34.4 34.4 5.9 -5.9 2001 141,545 147,650 147,650 (6,105) (6,105) 28.6 34.4 34.4 5.8 -5.8 2002 141,898 147,650 147,650 (5,752) (5,752) 28.7 34.4 34.4 5.7 -5.7 2003 142,178 147,650 147,650 (5,472) (5,472) 28.7 34.4 34.4 5.7 -5.7 2004 142,546 147,650 147,650 (5,104) (5,104) 28.8 34.4 34.4 5.6 -5.6 2005 135,614 147,650 147,650 (12,036) (12,036) 27.4 34.4 34.4 7.0 -7.0 2006 136,015 147,650 147,650 (11,635) (11,635) 27.5 34.4 34.4 6.9 -6.9 2007 136,874 147,650 147,650 (10,776)(10,776) 27.6 34.4 34.4 6.8 -6.8 2008 137,696 147,650 147,650 (9,954) (9,954) 27.8 34.4 34.4 6.6 -6.6 2009 138,237 147,650 147,650 (9,413) (9,413) 27.9 34.4 34.4 6.5 -6.5 2010 138,838 147,650 147,650 (8,812) (8,812) 28.0 34.4 34.4 6.4 -6.4 2011 138,560 147,650 147,650 (9,090) (9,090) 27.9 34.4 34.4 6.5 -6.5 2012 138,283 147,650 147,650 (9,367) (9,367) 27.9 34.4 34.4 6.5 -6.5 2013 138,007 147,650 147,650 (9,643) (9,643) 27.8 34.4 34.4 6.6 -6.6 2014 137,731 147,650 147,650 (9,919) (9,919) 27.8 34.4 34.4 6.6 -6.6 2015 137,455 147,650 147,650 (10,195)(10,195) 27.7 34.4 34.4 6.7 -6.7 2016 137,180 147,650 147,650 (10,470) (10,470) 27.7 34.4 34.4 6.7 -6.7 2017 136,906 147,650 147,650 (10,744) (10,744) 27.6 34.4 34.4 6.8 -6.8 2018 136,632 147,650 147,650 (11,018) (11,018) 27.6 34.4 34.4 6.8 -6.8 2019 136,359 147,650 147,650 (11,291) (11,291) 27.5 34.4 34.4 6.9 -6.9 2020 136,086 147,650 147,650 (11,564) (11,564) 27.4 34.4 34.4 7.0 -7.0 2021 135,814 147,650 147,650 (11,836) (11,836) 27.4 34.4 34.4 7.0 -7.0 2022 135,542 147,650 147,650 (12,108) (12,108) 27.3 34.4 34.4 7.1 -7.1 2023 135,271 147,650 147,650 (12,379) (12,379) 27.3 34.4 34.4 7.1 -7.1 2024 135,001 147,650 147,650 (12,649) (12,649) 27.2 34.4 34.4 7.2 -7.2 2025 134,731 147,650 147,650 (12,919) (12,919) 27.2 34.4 34.4 7.2 -7.2 2026 134,461 147,650 147,650 (13,189) (13,189) 27.1 34.4 34.4 7.3 -7.3 2027 134,192 147,650 147,650 (13.458) (13,458) 27.1 34.4 34.4 7.3 -7.3 2028 133,924 147,650 147,650 (13,726) (13,726) 27.0 34.4 34.4 7.4 -7.4 11/23/94 KPU PROJECTED TOTAL ENERGY AND PEAK DEMAND REQUIREMENTS Base Case-Medium Growth Forecast Supply Supply Net req. Net req. KPU Supply Supply Net req. Net req. Year. Demand w/o djese1 w/ djesel w/o djese! w/ djesel Demand Yi.lo. diC$cl Yil diesel w/o. dies:l w/ diesel (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) 1999 173,503 147,650 147,650 25,853 25,853 34.9 34.4 34.4 -0.5 0.5 2000 175,631 147,650 147,650 27,981 27,981 35.1 34.4 34.4 -0.7 0.7 2001 177,486 147,650 147,650 29,836 29,836 35.5 34.4 34.4 -1.1 1.1 2002 178,850 147,650 147,650 31,200 31,200 35.9 34.4 34.4 -1.5 1.5 2003 180,127 147,650 147,650 32,477 32,477 36.2 34.4 34.4 -1.8 1.8 2004 181,768 147,650 147,650 34,118 34,118 36.5 34.4 34.4 -2.1 2.1 2005 183,978 147,650 147,650 36,328 36,328 36.8 34.4 34.4 -2.4 2.4 2006 186,583 147,650 147,650 38,933 38,933 37.2 34.4 34.4 -2.8 2.8 2007 189,512 147,650 147,650 41,862 41,862 37.8 34.4 34.4 -3.4 3.4 2008 192,714 147,650 147,650 45,064 45,064 38.4 34.4 34.4 -4.0 4.0 2009 195,911 147,650 147,650 48,261 48,261 39.0 34.4 34.4 -4.6 4.6 2010 198,917 147,650 147,650 51,267 51,267 40.3 34.4 34.4 -5.9 5.9 2011 201,503 147,650 147,650 53,853 53,853 40.9 34.4 34.4 -6.5 6.5 2012 204,122 147,650 147,650 56,472 56,472 41.4 34.4 34.4 -7.0 7.0 2013 206,776 147,650 147,650 59,126 59,126 42.0 34.4 34.4 -7.6 7.6 2014 209,464 147,650 147,650 61,814 61,814 42.6 34.4 34.4 -8.2 8.2 2015 212,187 147,650 147,650 64,537 64,537 43.2 34.4 34.4 -8.8 8.8 2016 214,946 147,650 147,650 67,296 67,296 43.8 34.4 34.4 -9.4 9.4 2017 217,740 147,650 147,650 70,090 70,090 44.4 34.4 34.4 -10.0 10.0 2018 220,571 147,650 147,650 72,921 72,921 45.0 34.4 34.4 -10.6 10.6 2019 223,438 147,650 147,650 75,788 75,788 45.7 34.4 34.4 -11.3 11.3 2020 226,343 147,650 147,650 78,693 78,693 46.3 34.4 34.4 -11.9 11.9 2021 229,285 147,650 147,650 81,635 81,635 47.0 34.4 34.4 -12.6 12.6 2022 232,266 147,650 147,650 84,616 84,616 47.6 34.4 34.4 -13.2 13.2 2023 235,285 147,650 147,650 87,635 87,635 48.3 34.4 34.4 -13.9 13.9 2024 238,344 147,650 147,650 90,694 90,694 49.0 34.4 34.4 -14.6 14.6 2025 241,442 147,650 147,650 93,792 93,792 49.6 34.4 34.4 -15.2 15.2 2026 244,581 147,650 147,650 96,931 96,931 50.3 34.4 34.4 -15.9 15.9 2027 247,761 147,650 147,650 100,111 100,111 51.0 34.4 34.4 -16.6 16.6 2028 250,982 147,650 147,650 103,332 103,332 51.8 34.4 34.4 -17.4 17.4 Appendix A j 11/23/94 Appendix A KPU's LAKE TYEE AVAILABILITY-ENERGY AND CAPACITY High Growth Forecast Available Lake WML&P Available Energy Lake WML&P Available ~ ~ WML&P Mill Adj PMP&L :En.au wl Trans Losses ~ WML&P Mm Adj PMP&L Capacity (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) {MWh) {MWh) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) 1999 134,400 30,660 {8,550) 42,942 69,348 66,574 15.3 4.4 (0.7) 8.5 3.1 2000 134,400 31,160 (8,550) 44,116 67,674 64,967 15.3 4.5 (0.7) 8.7 2.8 2001 134,400 31,755 {8,550) 45,574 65,621 62,996 15.3 4.6 (0.7) 9.0 2.4 2002 134,400 32,348 {8,550) 46,947 63,655 61,109 15.3 4.7 (0.7) 9.2 2.1 2003 134,400 33,035 {8,550) 48,524 61,391 58,935 15.3 4.9 (0.7) 9.6 1.5 2004 134,400 33,787 {8,550) 50,254 58,909 56,553 15.3 5.0 (0.7) 9.9 l.l 2005 134,400 34,599 (8,550) 52,128 56,223 53,974 15.3 5.2 (0.7) 10.3 0.5 2006 134,400 35,444 (8,550) 54,075 53,431 51,294 15.3 5.4 (0.7) 10.6 0.0 2007 134,400 36,362 (8,550) 56,185 50,403 48,387 15.3 5.6 (0.7) 1l.l -0.7 2008 134,400 37,372 {8,550) 58,500 47,078 45,195 15.3 5.8 (0.7) 11.5 -1.3 2009 134,400 38,428 (8,550) 60,915 43,607 41,863 15.3 6.0 (0.7) 12.0 -2.0 2010 134,400 39,454 {8,550) 63,286 40,210 38,602 15.3 6.2 (0.7) 12.5 -2.7 2011 134,400 40,401 (8,550) 65,628 36,922 35,445 15.3 6.4 (0.7) 13.0 -3.3 2012 134,400 41,371 {8,550) 68,056 33,524 32,183 15.3 6.6 (0.7) 13.4 -4.0 2013 134,400 42,363 {8,550) 70,574 30,013 28,812 15.3 6.8 (0.7) 13.9 -4.7 2014 134,400 43,380 {8,550) 73,185 26,385 25,329 15.3 7.1 (0.7) 14.5 -5.5 2015 134,400 44,421 (8,550) 75,893 22,636 21,730 15.3 7.3 (0.7) 15.0 -6.2 2016 134,400 45,487 {8,550) 78,70 I 18,762 18,011 15.3 7.5 (0.7) 15.5 -7.0 2017 134,400 46,579 {8,550) 81,613 14,758 14,168 15.3 7.8 (0.7) 16.1 -7.9 2018 134,400 47,697 (8,550) 84,633 10,620 10,196 15.3 8.0 (0.7) 16.7 -8.7 2019 134,400 48,842 (8,550) 87,764 6,344 6,091 15.3 8.3 (0.7) 17.3 -9.6 2020 134,400 50,014 (8,550) 91,011 1,925 1,848 15.3 8.6 (0.7) 18.0 -10.5 2021 134,400 51,214 {8,550) 94,379 0 0 15.3 8.9 (0.7) 18.6 -11.5 2022 134,400 52,443 {8,550) 97,871 0 0 15.3 9.2 (0.7) 19.3 -12.4 2023 134,400 53,702 (8,550)101,492 0 0 15.3 9.5 (0.7) 20.0 -13.5 2024 134,400 54,991 {8,550)105,247 0 0 15.3 9.8 (0.7) 20.8 -14.5 2025 134,400 56,311 (8,550) 109,141 0 0 15.3 10.1 (0.7) 21.6 -15.6 2026 134,400 57,662 {8,550) 113,179 0 0 15.3 10.4 (0.7) 22.4 -16.7 2027 134,400 59,046 {8,550) 117,367 0 0 15.3 10.8 (0.7) 23.2 -17.9 2028 134,400 60,463 (8,550)121,710 0 0 15.3 ll.l (0.7) 24.0 -19.1 11123/94 CD c 0 Q) 0 ca 0 .... 0 CD 0 ca 0 () ·-E 0 c 0 () w CD 0 ca m Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan J Tyee Lakes Intertie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel f=iuau' iu1 · lnt~llit Eu~[ell !.:!!Sl -ISER I oad uC!!l!llb S!:ena.do -MediWII or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ Interne Energy Cost at Melded Rate KI.!C SuQ!III.i Sal'5 • No Capital Cost $55.6 1nillion 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lntenie Proj eel Life 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC Suq>lus Energy Rate 3.8 cents per kWh in$1994 lnllation 4.0% per year Variable l'un:hase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximwn KI'C Purchase 0 MWh.r's Real DiscOWII 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year Slate loan tenn 15 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ Slate loan rate 3.0% per year MaiUlllC): e~:n!it[ ~ln;ba~~ .. New Diesel Capilal Cost $1,000 per I:W in $1992 Slate Bond tenn 20 years New Diesel Overhead $15,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power @ Actual Cost Diesellixed O&M cost $12.50 pertW in$1992 Market bond term 30 years Four Darn Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost 1 cents per kWh in $1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year Four Darn Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel conswnption 14 kWh per gallon 2 0 0 Switch 0 I 2 0 Existing New lntertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resource Mahoney Tyee Existing New Slate Stale Market Grant New Diesel Tolal Interne O&M O&M Po wee Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total Y.w lieJ:d lY.l.a..llil:W lixllm ~ Il.iw:l Il.iw:l LIWl llwl.d llwl.d !:.Uf.W Ulililil.l Ulililil.l Q&M Cll~l QlU Qru Qru Qru Qru lll1ii...CIW !J.t'ful Qru Qru (MWh) (MWII) (MWb) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (SOOOa) ($000.) ($000.) ($000•) (SOOOs) (SOOO•J ($000o) ($000.) (SOOOs) (SOOOa) ($000.) (c:<nlllkWb) (SOOOa) (SOOOs) ($0001) (c<niAII<Wh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2,249 0 2,249 8.7 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2,434 0 2.434 8.7 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,626 0 2,626 8.8 2002 178,850 147,650 3!,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,746 0 2,746 8.8 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 2,890 0 2,890 8.9 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,071 0 3,071 9.0 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,270 0 3,270 9.0 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 3,543 0 3,543 9.1 2007 189.512 147,650 40,905 957 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,89~ 0 0 8,199 320 0 0 79 0 9.2 3,763 0 12,362 29.5 2008 192,714 147,650 40,905 4,159 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 333 0 0 348 0 9.2 3,763 0 12,644 28.1 2009 195,911 147,650 40,905 7,356 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 346 0 0 623 0 9.3 3,804 0 12,973 26.9 2010 198,917 147,650 40,905 10,362 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 360 0 0 888 0 9.4 3,845 0 13,293 25.9 2011 201,503 147,650 40,905 12,948 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 375 0 0 1,126 0 9.5 3,886 0 13,586 25.2 2012 204,122 147,650 40,905 15,567 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 390 0 0 1,375 0 9.6 3,927 0 13,891 24.6 2013 206,776 147,650 40,905 18,221 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 405 0 0 1,636 0 9.7 3,968 0 14,208 24.0 2014 209,464 147,650 40,905 20,909 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 421 0 0 1,910 0 9.8 4,009 0 14,540 23.5 2015 212,187 147,650 40,905 23,632 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 438 0 0 2,198 0 9.9 4,050 0 14,885 23.1 2016 214,946 147,650 40,905 26,390 0 0 1,675 3,630 2.894 0 0 8,199 456 0 0 2,501 0 10.0 4,091 0 !5,247 22.7 2017 217,740 147,650 40,905 29,185 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 474 0 0 2,821 0 10.1 4,l31 0 15,626 22.3 2018 220,571 147,650 40,905 32,015 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 493 0 0 3,158 0 10.2 4,172 0 16,023 22.0 2019 223,438 147,650 40,905 34,883 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 513 0 0 3,514 0 10.3 4,213 0 16,440 21.1 2020 226,343 147,650 40,905 37,787 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 533 0 0 3,891 0 10.4 4,254 0 16,878 21.4 2021 229,285 147,650 40,905 40.730 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 554 0 0 4,289 0 10.5 4,295 0 17,338 21.2 2022 232,266 147,650 40,905 43,711 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 517 0 0 4,711 0 10.7 4,377 0 16,189 19.1 2023 235,285 147,650 40,905 46,730 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 600 0 0 5,158 0 10.8 4,418 0 16,700 !9.1 2024 238,344 147,650 40,905 49,789 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 624 0 0 5,632 0 10.9 4,459 0 17,239 19.0 2025 241,442 147,650 40,905 52,887 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 649 0 0 6,135 0 ILl 4,540 0 J7,S48 19.0 2026 244,581 147,650 40,905 56,026 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 615 0 0 6,669 0 11.2 4,581 0 18,449 19.0 2027 247,761 147,650 40,905 59,206 0 0 0 0 2,894 0 0 2,894 702 0 0 7,235 0 I 1.4 4,663 0 15,494 15.5 2028 250,982 147,650 40,905 59,614 0 2,813 0 0 2,894 0 1,612 4,566 730 0 386 7,508 912 ll.5 4,704 0 18,805 18.2 Net Present Value 9,518 24,169 20,170 0 253 54,110 3,150 0 58 17,351 138 123 45,378 0 120,186 219 Real 1994 Levelized Cost 369 937 782 0 10 2,098 122 0 2 673 5 4.8 1,759 0 4,659 8.5 12109194 Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lntertie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro ProJect, Diesel Ein11ncioe-lnltllie Ener&ll Cast • ISEB I aad Growth Si:enaria • Medium or Base Capital Cost $67.6 millionl997$ lntertie Energy Cost at Melded Rate K~c Sw:plw; Sales · No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lntertie Project Life 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc· 0.0% nominal per year KPC Surplus Energy Rate 3.8 centsperkWhin$1994 Inflation 4. 0% per year Variable PI.IR:hase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximum KPC Purchase 0 MWlu's Real DiscoWJl 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year State loan tenn IS years Fixed O&M cost $200,1)00 per year 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year Ma.baoey fl!lnr fun:base • New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 per kW in $1992 State Bond tenn 20 years New Diesel Overhead $75,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 perkW in $1992 Market bond terin 30 years Four Darn .Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents per kWh in $1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $199~ State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4. 0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel consumption 14 kWh per gallon 2 0 0 Switch 0 2 2 0 Existing New lntertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resource Tyee Mahoney Existing New State State Market Grant· New Diesel Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Totai Total Yw Nw1 m.di.wl lnltllie ll)llWl I:lliW I:lliW L!wl Band Band Q.[fW Capi!al Cl!p.i!al Q&MCilsl ~ ~ l:!W ClW Cll.sl. . Ll1a.l...!:li.S nt:fW ClW ClW (MWh) (M\\b) (MWh) (MWh) (M\\b) (MWh) ($000s) ($000.) ($000&) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($000.) ($000.) ($000•) ($000s) (cents/kWh) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) (cents/kWh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 1,615 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 234 0 0 1,678 0 8.7 0 0 7,897 30.5 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 243 0 0 1,839 0 8.7 0 0 8,067 28.8 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 253 0 0 1,989 0 8.8 0 0 8,226 27.6 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 1,615 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 263 0 0 2,114 0 8.8 0 0 8,362 26.8 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 274 0 0 2,238 0 8.9 0 0 8,496 26.2 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 1,615 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 285 0 0 2,391 0 9.0 ·0 0 8,660 25.4 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 296 0 0 2,586 0 9.0 0 0 8,867 24.4 2006 186,583 147,650 38,()33 0 0 0 1,67.5 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 308 .0 0 2,815 0 9.1 0 0 9,11)7 23.4 2007 189,512 147,650 41,862 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 320 0 0 3,074 0 9.2 0 0 9,379 22.4 2008 192,714 147,650 45,064 0 0 0 1,615 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 333 0 0 3,362 0 9.2 0 0 9,680 21.5 2009 195,911 147,650 48,261 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 346 0 0 3,662 0 9.3 0 0 9,993 20.7 2010 198,911 147,650 51,267 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5;985 360 0 0 3,961 0 9.4 0 0 10,306 20.1 2011 201,503 147,650 53,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 375 0 0 4,244 0 9.5 0 0 10,603 19.1' 2012 204,122 147,650 56,412 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 390 0 0 4,542 0 9.6 0 0 10,916 19.3 2013 206,776 147,650 59,126 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 405 0 0 4,857 0 9.7 0 0 11,246 19.0 2014 209,464 147,650 61,814 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 ·o 4,309 421 0 0 5,189 0 9.8 0 0 9,920 16.0 2015 212,187 147,650 64,537 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 438 0 0 5,540 0 9.9 0 0 10,288 15.9 . 2016 214,946 147,650 67,296 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 456 0 0 5,911 0 10.0 0 0 10,676 15.9 2017 211,740 147,650 _70,090 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 474 0 0 6;303 0 10.1 0 0 11,087 15.8 2018 220,571 147,650 70,568 2,353 0 ·o 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 493 0 0 6,523 (j 10.2 240 0 11,565 15.9 2019 223,438 147,650 69,546 6,242 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 513 0 0 6,623 0 10.3 643 0 8,458 11.2 2020 226,343 147,650 68,509 10,184 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 533 0 0 6,723 0 10.4 1,059 0 8,995 11.4 2021 229,285 147,650 67,455 14,180 0 0 0 0 619 0 0 619 554 0 0 6,824 0 10.5 1,489 0 9,547 11.7 20i2 232,266 147,650 66,386 18,230 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 571 0 0 6,924 0 10.7 1,951 0 10,131 12.0 2023 235,285 147,650 65,300 22,335 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 600 0 0 7,024 0 10.8 2,412 0 10,716 12.2 2024 238,344 141,650 64,197 26,497 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 624 0 0 7,124 0 10.9 2,888 0 11,315 12.5 2025 241,442 147,650 63,077 30,715 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 ·649 0 0 7,222 0 11.1 3,409 0 11,959 12.8 2026 244,581 147,650 61,940 34,991' 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 675 0 0 7,319 0 11.2 3,919 0 12,592 13.0 2027 247,761 147,650 60,786 39,325 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 619 702 0 0 7,415 0 11.4 4,483 0 13,278 13.3 2028 250,982 147,650 59,614 40,905 0 2,813 0 0 679 0 1,672 2,351 730 0 386 7,508 912 11.5 4,704 0 16,590 16.1 Net Present Value 15,153 40,000 8,869 0 253 64,874 4,770 0 58 49,765 138 123 5,074 0 124,679 283 Real1994 Levelized Cost 611 1,551 344 0 10 2,515 185 0 2 1,929 s 4.8 197 0 4,834 -11.0 12109/94 FjnaJacin& .. Capital Cost Capital Cost Intertie Project Lire lnOation Real Disco Wit State loan tenn Stale loan rate State Bond tenn St..te Bond Rate Market bond tenn Market bond rate Stale Grant Switch fiai 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 KPU Energy tie.ed (MWh) 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,503 204,122 206.776 209,464 212,187 214,946 217,740 220,571 223,438 226,343 229,285 232,266 235,285 238,344 241,442 244,581 247,761 250,982 0 $67.6 million 1997$ $55.6 million 1992$ 30 years 4. o~ per year 2.40% per year 15 years 3.0% per year 20 years 6.5% per year 30 years 8.0% per year $0.0 million per year Existing Resource Mahoney ~~ (MWh) 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147.650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 (MWh) 25,853 27,981 29,836 31,200 32,477 34,118 36,328 38,933 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 Existing Dru.e.l (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Present Value Reall994levelized Cost EES Analysis for IIDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cosl Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lnterlie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Jmeaie Eneray Cost .. lntertie Energy Cost at Variable Purchase Power Rate Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc Variable Purchase Power Rate Esc Mabpuey Power Purchase • KPU Purchasing Power ® Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate Four Dan1 Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. Tyee ~ (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Dru.e.l (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 957 4,159 7,356 10,362 12,948 15,567 18,221 20,909 23,632 26,390 29,185 32,015 34,883 37,787 40,730 43,711 46,730 49,789 52,887 56,026 59,206 62,426 State Llwl ($000t) 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State llPIIll (SOOOa) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melded Rate 2.6 cenls per kWh 1994$ 0.0% nominal per year 4.0% nominal per year Actual Cost 4.0 ceuls per kWh 1994$ 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ 4.0% nominal per year Market llPIIll (SOO<la) 0· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grant D.t:W:l ($000•) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel Cipilal ($000.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 1,778 1,778 1,778 1,778 1,778 1,718 1,778 1,778 3,207 3,207 3,207 2,474 2,474 9,194 356 Tyee Total lntertie Cipilal u&M..!:l!.U (SOO<ls) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 734 1,778 1,778 1,778 1,778 1,778 1.778 1,778 1,778 3,207 3,207 3,207 2,474 2,474 9,194 356 ($000o) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ISER Load Growth Sceuarip. KPC Sutpl!!$ Sales • KPC Surpl!!$ Energy Rate Maximwn KPC PW'Chase Project energized date Fixed O&M cost New Diesel Capital Cost New Diesel OVerhead Diesel fixed O&M C05l Diesel variable O&M cost Diesel fuel in 1997 KPU diesel fuel conswnption Existing Diesel O&M QW (SOOOa) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel O&M QW ($000.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 232 270 306 337 370 403 437 471 556 592 628 665 703 741 780 820 911 953 995 1,038 1,082 3,550 138 lntertie Purchase Power QW ($000t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Mediwn or Base No 3.8 cenls per kWh in $1994 0 MWlu's 1999 year $200,000 per year 1995$ $1,000 per kW in $1992 $75,000 per year 1992$ $12.50 perkW in$1992 I cenls per tWb in $1992 $1 pergallonin$1997 14 kWh per gallon 0 0 Mahoney Mahoney Diesel Purchase PW'Cbase Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total QW QW QW ~ D.t:W:l (too0t) (oenllll<Wh) 0 8.7 0 8.7 0 8.8 0 8.8 0 8.9 0 9.0 0 9.0 0 9.1 Ill 9.2 508 9.2 944 9.3 1,396 9.4 1,831 9.5 2,312 9.6 2,841 9.7 3.423 9.8 4,062 9.!> 4,763 10.0 5,531 10.1 6,371 10.2 7,289 10.3 8,290 10,4 9,383 10.5 10,573 10.7 11,868 10.8 13,277 10.9 14,809 11.1 16,472 11.2 18,277 11.4 20,235 11.5 37,112 1,439 123 4.8 (SOOO.J 2,249 2.434 2,626 2,746 2,890 3,071 3,270 3,543 3,763 3,763 3,804 3,845 3,886 3,927 3,968 4,009 4,050 4,091 4,131 4,172 4,213 4,254 4,295 4,377 4,418 4,459 4,540 4,581 4,663 4,704 45,378 1,7.59 ($000t) ($000.) 0 0 0 2,249 0 2,434 0 2,626 0 2,746 0 2,890 0 3,071 0 3,270 0 3,543 0 4,803 0 5,237 0 5,151 0 6,280 0 6,788 0 7,342 0 7,946 0 8,602 0 9,317 0 11,188 0 12,032 0 12,949 0 13,945 0 15,025 0 16,197 0 17,508 0 18,884 0 21,854 0 23,509 0 25,256 0 26,452 0 28,495 9.5,234 3,692 Appendix B Total QW (e<nllll<Wh) 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 11.5 11.6 11.9 12.2 12.6 13.0 13.4 13.9 14.4 16.6 11.2 17.8 18.4 19.1 19.8 20.7 21.5 24.1 25.1 26.1 26.4 27.6 166 6.4 12/09194 AppendixB EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lntertie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Eilliiiii<UIK-IDI~llill Eilll[KX C11~1 -ISEB l.a~d Q[ll~lb S!<~uada -Medium or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ lntertie Energy Cost at Melded Rate K ~c Sm:plus Sal~s -No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lntertie Project Lire 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC Surplus Energy Rate 3.8 cents per kWh in $1994 lnnation 4.0% per year Variable Purchase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximum KPC Purchase 0 MWhr's Real Discount 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year State loan term IS years FiXed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year Mabao~ ~li~i:c ~111tba~ -New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 perkW in$1992 State Bond term 20 years New Diesel Overhead $75,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per kW in $1992 Market bond term 30 years Four Darn Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable b&M cost 1 cents per kWh in $1992 Market bond rate li.O% per year Four Darn Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel consumption 14 kWh per gallon 2 0 0 Switch 0 4 2 0 Existing New lntertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resource Tyee Existing Mahoney New State State Market . Grant New Diesel Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total Yw: Nl:l:d lYlll..di.rul l.o1!:1lill lliml Hxdm. lliml Laao. Blllll1 Blllll1 illt'W Capil.il.l Capil.il.l Q&:MCa~l C!!s1 C!!s1 C!!s1 C!!s1 C!!s1 Ill1il.QW illt'W C!!s1 C!!s1 (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (~tWh) ($0008) ($000o) ($000s) (SOOOs) (SOOOs) ($000s) ($000s) (SOOOs) ($0001) ($000o) ($000a) (ccniBikWh) ($000a) ($009•> ($000a) (ccniBikWh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 234 0 0 1,678 0 8.7 0 0 7,897 30.5 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 243 0 0 1,839 0 8.7 0 0 8,067 28.8 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 253 0 0 1,989 0 8.8 0 0 8,226 27.6 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 ·o 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 263 0 0 2,114 0 8.8 0 0 8,362 26.8 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 1,675• 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 274 0 0 2,238 0 8.9 0 0 8,496 26.2 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 285 0 0 2,391 0 9.0 0 0 8,660 25.4 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 296 0 0 2,586 0 9.0 0 0 8,867 24.4 2006 186,583 147,650 38;933 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 308 0 0 2,815 0 9.1 0 0 9,107 23.4 2007 189,512 147,650 41,862 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 320 0 0 3,074 0 9.2 0 0 9,379 22.4 2008 192,714 147,650 45,064 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 333 0 0 3,362 0 9.2 0 0 9,680 21.5 2009 195,911 147,650 48,261 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 346 0 -0 3,662 0 9.3 0 0 9,993 20.7 2010 198,917 147,650 51,267 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 360 0 0 3,961 0 9.4 0 0 10,306 20.1 2011 201,503 147,650 53,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 6'l9 0 0 5,985 375 0 0 4,244 0 9.5 0 0 10,603 19.7 2012 204,122 147,650 56;472 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 390 0 0 4,542 0 9.6 0 0 10,916 19.3 2013 206,776 147,650 59,126 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 405 0 0 4,857 0 9.7 0 0 11,246 19.0 2014 209,464 147,650 61,814 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 421 0 0 5,189 0 9.8 0 0 9,920 16.0 2015 212,187 147,650 64,537 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 438 0 0 5,540 -0 9.9 0 0 10,288 15.9 2016 214,946 147,650 67,296 0 0 6 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 456 0 0 5,911 0 10.0 0 0 10,676 15.9 2017 217,740 147,650 70,090 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 474 0 0 6,303 0 10.1 0 0 11,087 15.8 2018 220,571 147,650 . 70,568 0 0 2,353 0 3,630 679 0 1,130 5,439 493 0 281 6,523 468 10.2 0 0 13,204 18.1 2019 223,438 147,650 69,546 0 0 6,242 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 513 .o 329 6,623 1,304 10.3 0 0 10,577 14.0 2020 226,343 147,650 68,509 0 0 10,184 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 533 0 377 6,723 2,234 10.4 0 0 11,676 14.8 2021 229,285 147,650 67,455 0 0 14,180 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 554 0 426 6,824 3,266 10.5 0 0 12,879 15.8 2022 232,266 147,650 66,386 0 0 18,230 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 577 0 476 6,924 4,409 10.7 0 0 14,195 16.8 2023 235,285 147,650 65,300 0 0 22,335, 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 600 0 526 7,024 5,673 10.8 0 0 15,632 17.8 2024 238,344 147,650 64,197 0 0 26,497 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 624 0 628 7,124 7,066 10.9 0 0 18,680 20.6 2025 241,442 147,650 63,077 0 0 30,715 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 649 0 681 7,222 8,600 11.1 0 0 20,390 21.7 2026 244,581 147,650 61,940 0 0 -34,991 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 675 0 734 7,319 10,288 11.2 0 0 22,254 23.0 2027 247,761 147,650 60,786 0 0 39,325 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 702 0 789 7,415 12,140 11.4 0 0 24,283 24.3 2028 250,982 147,650 59,614 0 0 43,718 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 730 0 845 7,508 14,171 11.5 0 0 26,491 25.6 Net Present Value 15,753 40,000 8,869 0 3,855 68,477 4,770 0 1,203 49,765 12,761 123 0 0 136,975 297 Rea I 1994 Levelized Cost 611 1,551 344 0 149 2,655 ISS 0 47 1,929 495 4.8 0 0 5,310 11.5 12/09/94 ~ ' (j AppendixB EES Analysis for IIDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lnlerlie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Fiuancjna. lnlenje Eneray Cost -!SER I oad Growlb Scenario -Mediwn or Base Capi!al Cost $67.6 million 1997$ lntertie Energy Cost at Melded Rate KfC Sw:plu.s Sales • No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lntertie Project Life 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0. 0% nominal per year KPC Surplus Energy Rate 3.8 cents per kWh in $1994 Inflation 4.0% per year Variable Pun:hase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximwn KPC Purchase 0 MWiu's Real DiscoWJt 2.40% per year Projeo;t energized date 1999 year State loan term 15 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year t.hllgll'll fllli:C[ fll!l;bl~t · New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 perkWin$1992 State Bond term 20 years New Diesel Overnead $7S,OOO per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per li:W in $1992 Market bond term 30 years Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents per I!.Wh in $1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWb 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Darn Pool Variable W11olesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel conswnption 14 li:Wh per gallon 2 0 0 Switch 0 5 2 0 Existing New lntertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Pwd1ase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resource Existing Mahoney Tyee New State State Market Grant New Diesel Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total Y.w Nwl ~ l:lliW lWim ~ l:lliW Wwl llliW1 llliW1 illf.W Gajl.il.ill Gajl.il.ill~ c.on c.on c.on c.on c.on ~ illl.lCl. cw cw (MWh) {MWh) (MWh) (MWh) {MWh) (MWh) ($0001) ($0001) ($000.) ($0{10.) {$000a) (1000.) ($0001) ($000a) ($000•) ($0001) ($000.) («n!&ikWh) ($0001) ($000a} ($0001} (cen!&ikWb) 1999 173,503 147,650 0 0 0 25,853 0 0 0 0 536 536 0 0 407 0 2,036 8.7 0 0 2,979 11.5 2000 175,631 147,650 0 0 0 27,981 0 0 0 0 1,094 1,094 0 0 482 0 2,314 8.7 0 0 3,890 13.9 2001 177,486 147,650 0 0 0 29,836 0 0 0 0 l,o94 1.094 0 0 505 0 2,590 8.8 0 0 4,189 14.0 2002 178,850 147,650 0 0 0 31,200 0 0 0 0 l,o94 1.094 0 0 523 0 2,844 8.8 0 0 4,461 14.3 2003 180,127 147,650 0 0 0 32,471 0 0 0 0 1,094 1.094 0 0 540 0 3,109 8.9 0 0 4,743 14.6 2004 181,768 147,650 0 0 0 34,118 0 0 0 0 1,094 1.094 0 0 561 0 3,429 9.0 0 0 5,084 14.9 2005 183,978 147,650 0 0 0 36,328 0 0 0 0 1,094 1.094 0 0 588 0 3,834 9.0 0 0 5,516 15.2 2006 186,583 147,650 0 0 0 38,933 0 0 0 0 1,094 1,094 0 0 619 0 4,314 9.1 0 0 6,027 15.5 2007 189,512 147,650 0 0 0 41,862 0 0 0 0 1,094 1,094 0 0 654 0 4,871 9.2 0 0 6,618 15.8 2008 192,714 147,650 0 0 0 45,064 0 0 0 0 1,094 1,094 0 0 691 0 5,505 9.2 0 0 7,290 16.2 2009 195,911 147,650 0 0 0 48,261 0 0 0 0 1,094 1,094 0 0 729 0 6,191 9.3 0 0 8,013 16.6 2010 198,917 147,650 0 0 0 51.267 0 0 0 0 1,919 1,919 0 0 815 0 6,905 9.4 0 0 9,639 18.8 2011 201,503 147,650 0 0 0 53,853 0 0 0 0 1,919 1,919 0 0 847 0 7,616 9.5 0 0 10,382 19.3 2012 204.122 147,650 0 0 0 56,472 0 0 0 0 1,919 1,919 0 0 879 0 8,)86 9.6 0 0 11,184 19.8 2013 206,176 147,650 0 0 0 59,126 0 0 0 0 1,919 1,919 0 0 912 0 9,219 9.7 0 0 12,050 20.4 2014 209,464 147,650 0 0 0 61,814 0 0 0 0 1.919 1,919 0 0 946 0 10,120 9.8 0 0 12,985 21.0 2015 212,187 147,650 0 0 0 64,537 0 () 0 0 1,919 1,919 0 0 980 0 11,094 9.9 0 0 13,993 21.7 2016 214,946 147,650 0 0 0 67,296 0 0 0 0 1,919 1,919 0 0 1,015 0 12,147 10.0 0 0 15,081 22.4 2017 217,740 147,650 0 0 0 70,090 0 0 0 0 1,919 1,919 0 0 1,051 0 13,284 10.1 0 0 16,253 23.2 2018 220,571 147,650 0 0 0 72,921 0 0 0 0 1,919 1,919 0 0 1,087 0 14,511 10.2 0 0 17,517 24.0 2019 223,438 147,650 0 0 0 75,788 0 0 0 0 2,558 2,558 0 0 1,174 0 15,836 10.3 0 0 19,567 25.8 2020 226,343 147,650 0 0 0 78,693 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 1,212 0 17,265 10.4 0 0 20,417 26.0 2021 229,285 147,650 0 0 0 81,635 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 1,250 0 18,806 10.5 0 0 22,056 27.0 2022 232,266 147,650 0 0 0 84,616 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 1,289 0 20,467 10.7 0 0 23,757 28.1 2023 235,285 147,650 0 0 0 87,635 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 1,329 0 22,257 10.8 0 0 25,587 29.2 2024 238,344 147,650 0 0 0 90,694 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 1,370 0 24,186 10.9 0 0 27,556 3!l.4 202.5 241,442 147,650 0 0 0 93,792 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 1.412 0 26,263 11.1 0 0 29,674 31.6 2026 244,.581 147,6.50 0 0 0 96,931 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 1,4.54 0 28,499 11.2 0 0 31,953 33.0 2027 247,761 147,650 0 0 0 100,111 0 0 0 0 3,608 3,608 () 0 1,547 0 30,905 11.4 0 0 36,060 36.0 2028 250,982 147,6.50 0 0 0 103,332 0 0 0 0 3,608 3,608 0 0 1,591 0 33,494 11.5 0 0 38,693 37.4 Net Present Value 0 0 0 0 19,006 19,006 0 0 10.109 0 106,503 123 0 0 135,619 242 Real 1994 Levelized Cost 0 0 0 0 737 737 0 0 392 0 4,129 4.8 0 0 5,258 9.4 12109194 Case Two-lntertie Energy at No Cost Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lntertie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Einilll~;iua-lob:ctie Eoctull Ca~l -ISEB I 11ad Q[l!:!Ylh S;;coaria-Mediwn or Base Capital Cost .$67.6 million 1997$ lnteltie Energy Cost at No Cost KfC Sllll!IWi Sales., No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992.$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 0 cents per kWh 1994.$ lnten.ie Project Life 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC Surplus Energy Rate 3.8 cems per kWh in $1994 Inflation 4.0% per year Variable Purchase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximwn KPC Pwchase 0 MWhr's Real Discount 2.40% per year Project energized elate 1999 year State loan term 15 years fixed O&.M cost $200,000 per year 199U State loan rate 3.0% per year Milh!llltll fllwct ~base -New Diesel Capital Cost .$1,000 perkW in.$1992 State Bond term 20 years New Diesel OVerhead $75,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power @ Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 perkW in.$1992 Market bond term 30 years Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents per k.Wh in $1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per II. Wit 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gaUon in $1997 State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wltolesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel con.swnptlon 14 kWh per gaUon 0 0 0 Switch 0 I 2 0 Existing New lnteltie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purcbase Diesel Pwchase Putcbase Energy Resowce Mahoney Tyee Existing New State State Market Grant New Diesel Total lnten.ie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total Yw: HW ~ lb:llm lllll:l1.i4 lliml lliml LlliiD IlliW1 IlliW1 ~ UiWa1 UiWa1 Q&;M Coil ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ll1ai..CW ~ ~ ~ (M\\'h) (MWh) (MWb) (MWh) (MWh) (MWb) ($000.) ($000&) ($0001) ($000.) ($000•) ($0001) ($000.) ($000.) (SOOO.) (SOOO.) (SOOOs) (ccnwtWh) ($000o) (SOOOs) (SOOO.) («nwtWh) 1999 173.503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2,249 0 2,249 8.7 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2,434 0 2,434 8.7 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,626 0 2,626 8.8 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,746 0 2,746 8.8 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 2,890 0 2,890 8.9 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,071 0 3,071 9.0 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,270 0 3,270 9.0 2006 t86,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 3,543 0 3,543 9.1 2007 189,512 147,650 40,905 957 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 320 0 0 0 0 9.2 3,763 0 12.283 29.3 2008 192,714 147,650 40,905 4,159 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 333 0 0 0 0 9.2 3,763 0 12,296 27.3 2009 195,911 147,650 40,905 7,356 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 346 0 0 0 0 9.3 3,804 0 12,350 25.6 2010 198,917 147,650 40,905 10,362 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 360 0 0 0 0 9.4 3,845 0 12,405 24.2 2011 201,503 147,650 40,905 12,948 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 375 0 0 0 0 9.5 3,886 0 12,460 23.1 2012 204,122 147.650 40,905 15.567 0 0 1.675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 390 0 0 0 0 9.6 3,927 0 12,516 22.2 2013 206,776 147,650 40,905 18,221 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 405 0 0 0 0 9.7 3,968 0 12,572 21.3 2014 209,464 147,650 40,905 20,909 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 421 0 0 0 0 9.8 4,009 0 12,629 20.4 2015 212,187 147,650 40,905 23,632 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 438 0 0 0 0 9.9 4,050 0 12,687 19.7 2016 214,946 147,650 40.905 26,390 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 456 0 0 0 0 10.0 4,091 0 12,746 18.9 2017 217,740 147,650 40,905 29,185 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 474 0 0 0 0 10.1 4,131 0 12,805 18.3 2018 220,571 147,650 40,905 32,015 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 493 0 0 0 0 10.2 4,172 0 12.865 17.6 2019 223.438 147,650 40,905 34,883 0 0 1.675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 513 0 0 0 0 10.3 4,213 0 12,925 17.1 2020 226,343 147,650 40,905 37,787 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 533 0 0 0 0 10.4 4,254 0 12,987 16.5 2021 229,285 147,650 40,905 40,730 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 554 0 0 0 0 10.5 4,295 0 13,049 16.0 2022 232.266 147,650 40,905 43,711 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 577 0 0 0 0 10.7 4,377 0 11,478 13.6 2023 235,285 147,650 40,905 46,730 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 600 0 0 0 0 10.8 4,418 0 11,542 13.2 2024 238,344 147,650 40,905 49,789 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 624 0 0 0 0 10.9 4,459 0 11,606 12.8 2025 241,442 147,650 40,905 52,887 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 649 0 0 0 0 11.1 4,540 0 11,713 12.5 2026 244,581 147,650 40,905 56,026 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 615 0 0 0 0 11.2 4,581 0 11,780 12.2 2027 247,761 147,650 40,905 59,206 0 0 0 0 2,894 0 0 2,894 702 0 0 0 0 11.4 4,663 0 8,259 8.2 2028 250,982 147,650 40,905 59,614 0 2,813 0 0 2,894 0 1,672 4,566 730 0 386 0 912 11.5 4,704 0 11,297 10.9 Net Present Value 9,518 24,169 20,170 0 253 54,110 3,150 0 58 0 138 123 45,378 0 102,835 196 Real 1994 Levelized Cost 369 937 782 0 10 2,098 122 0 2 0 5 4.8 1,759 0 3,987 7.6 12109194 AppendixB EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lntertie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Fioancins-lntertje Eneray Cost • JSER I oad Grow!h Scenario • Medium or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ Intertie Energy Cost at No Cost K~C Surplus Sales • No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 0 cents per kWh 1994$ Iritertie Project Life 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC Swplus Energy Rate 3.8 cents per kWh in $1994 Inflation 4.0% per year Variable Purchase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximum KPC l'lirchase 0 MWhr's Real Discow1t 2.40% pery~ Project energized date 1999 year Slate loan tenn 15 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ Slate loan rate 3.0% per year Mabaot:)! ~awe[ Etm;basi: -New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 perkWin$1992 Slate Bond tenn 20 years New Diesel Overhead $75,000 per year 1992$ Slate Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 perkWin$1992 Market bond tenn 30 years Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents per kWh in $1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year Four Dam Pool Variable wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh I 994$ Diesel fuel in I 997 $I per gallon in $I 997 Slate Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel conswnption 14 kWh per gallon 0 0 ·o Switch 0 4 2 0 Existing New Inlertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resource Tyee Existing Mahoney New State Slate Market Grant New Diesel· Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Tolal Yllill: Nwl lYiluliw.l Ini.C.!1ie llliW Hydm DmJ. Lllilll Blwd Blwd Q!W:1 QlpjJal QlpjJal Q&MC!!SI Q!s.l QW C!!n C!!n C!!n I!!!.al.QW ru.rw . -C!lS1 C!lS1 (MWil) (MWil) (MWh) (MWil) (MWil) (MWh) ($000s) ($000a) ($000s) (SOOOs) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($0008) ($oo0o) ($000.) (ccniBikWh) ($000s) ($000s) ($000a) (ceniBikWh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 234 0 0 0 0 8.7 0 0 6,219 24.1 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 1,675 . 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 243 0 0 0 0 8.7 0 0 6,228 22.3 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 -679 0 0 5,985 253 0 0 0 0 8.8 0 0 6,238 20.9 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 ·o 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 263 0 0 0 0 8.8 0 0 6,248 20.0 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 1,615 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 274 0 0 0 0 8.9 0 0 6,258 19.3 2004 lli1,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 1;675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 285 0 0 0 0 9.0 0 0 6,269 111.4 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 296 0 0 0 0 9.0 0 0 6,281 17.3 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 . 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 308 0 o· 0 0 9.1 0 0 6,293 16.2 2007 189,512 147,650 41,862 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 320 0 0 0 0 9.2 0 0 6,305 . 15.1 2008 192,714 147,650 45,064 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 333 0 0 0 0 9.2 0 0 6,318 14;0 2009 195,911 147,650 48,261 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 346 0 0 0 0 9.3 0 0 6,331 13.1 2010 198,917 147,650 51,267 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 360 0 0 0 0 9.4 0 0 6,345 12.4 2011 201,503 147,650 53,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 375 0 0 0 0 9.5 0 0 6,359 11.8 2012 204,122 147,650 56,472 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 390 0 0 0 0 9.6 0 0 6,374 11.3 2013 206,776 147,650 59,126 0 0 0 1,615 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 405 0 0 0 0 9.7 0 0 6,390 10.8 2014 209,'l64 147,650 61,814 0 0 0 0 ·3,630 619 0 0 4,309 421 0 0 0 0 9.8 0 0 4,731 7.7 2015 212,187 147,650 64,537 0 0, 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 438 0 0 0 0 9.9 0 0 4,748 7.4 2016 214,946 147,650 67,296 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 456 0 0 0 0 10.0 0 0 4,765 7.1 2017 217,740 147,650 70,090 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 474 0 0 0 0 10.1 0 0 4,'783 6.8 2018 220,571 147,650 70,568 0 0 2,353 0 3,630 679 0 1,130 5,439 493 0 281 0 468 10.2 0 0 6,682 9.2 2019 223,438 147,650 69,546 0 0 6,242 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 513 0 329 0 1,304 10.3 0 0 3,954 5.2 2020 226,343 147,650 68,509 0 0 10,184 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 533 0 377 0 2,234 10.4 0 0 4,953 6.3 ·2021 229,285 147,650 67,455 0 0 14,180 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 554 0 426 0 3,266 10.5 0 0 6,055 7.4 2022 232,266 141,650 66,386 0 0 18,230 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 571 0 476 0 4,409 10.7 0 0 7,270 8.6 2023 235,285 147,650 65,300 0 0 22,335 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 600 0 526 0 5,673 10.8 0 0 8,607 9.8 2024 238,344 147,650 64,197 0 0 26,497 0 0. 679 0 2,559 3,238 624 0 628 0 7,066 10.9 0 0 11,556 12.7 2025 241,442 147,650 63,077 0 0 30,715 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 649 0 681 0 8,600 11.1 0 0 13,168 14.0 2026 244,581 147,650 61,940 0 0 34,991 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 675 0 734 0 10,288 11.2 0 0 14,935 15.4 2027 247,761 147,650 60,786 0 0 39,325 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 702 0 789 0 12,140 11.4 0 6 16,869 16.9 2028 250,982 147,650 59,614 0 0 43,718 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 730 0 845 0 14,171 11.5 0 0 18,983 18.4 Net Present Value 15,753 40,000 8,869 0 3,855 68,477 4,770 0 1,203 0 12,761 123 0 0 87,210 199 Real I 994 Levelized Cost 611 1,551 344 0 149 2,655 185 0 47 0 495 4.8 0 0 3,381 7.7 12109/94 ~\ -,, JL......~--' L.~- >a Cl) ~a; (1)0: c Cl) w-CI).a ·-co t=·c Cl) co t:> -tn ~:s Cl) 0 ... a.. ~E Cl) co tnC co ... o::s .f 1a Appendix B EES Analysis for I !DR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes Intertie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Eiuancina.., lutellie Eoer&~ Cos! · ISER I oad Growtll Sl:enada · Medium or Base Capital Cost $61.6 miUion 1997$ lntertle Energy Cost at Variable Rate KfC Surpllli Salu · No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Intertle Project Lire 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC Surplus Energy Rate 3.8 cents peri<Wbin$1994 Inflation 4.0% per year Variable Pun::hase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximum KI'C PW'Chase 0 MWhr's Real Discount 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year Slate loantenn 15 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ Slate loan rate 3.0% per year Mab~Ul~ £g~~c Elilkbasc w New Diesel Capilal Cost $1,000 perkW in$1992 Slate Bond tenn 20 years New Diesel Overhead $75,000 per year 1992$ Slate Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power @ Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per kW in $1992 Markel bond tenn 30 years Four Darn Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents peri:Whin$1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 Slate Grant $0.0 million per year Four Darn Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel conswnption 14 kWh per gaUon 3 0 0 Switch 0 I 2 0 Existing New lntertle Malloney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resource Mahoney Tyee Existing New State State Market Grant New Diesel Total lntertle O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Tolal Total Y.w !mil. ~ lUdm ~ Diwl llieW Lllan Blllll1 Bll.W1 llfl'.W CJip.ili1 CJip.ili1 Q&M C:a~l ClW ClW ClW ClW ClW ~ !.llW:l CQ1I CQ1I (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWI>) (MWb) (MWh) ($000.) ($000.) (SOOOo) ($000a) ($000•) (SOOOo) ($000.) ($000.) ($0001) ($0001) (SOOOa) (O<nUII<Wb) ($000.) (SOOO.) (SOOO.) («nU/kWb) 1999 173,503 147,650 25.853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2.249 0 2,249 8.7 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2,434 0 2,434 8.7 2001 177.486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,626 0 2,626 8.8 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,746 0 2,746 8.8 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 2,890 0 2,890 8.9 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,071 0 3,071 9.0 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,270 0 3,270 9.0 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 3,543 0 3,543 9.1 2007 189,512 147,650 40,905 951 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,89-1 0 0 8,199 320 0 0 41 0 9.2 3,763 0 12,324 29.4 2008 192,714 147,650 40,905 4,159 0 0 1,67.5 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 333 0 0 187 0 9.2 3,763 0 12.483 27.7 2009 19.5,911 147,650 40,905 7.356 0 0 1.675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8.199 346 0 0 344 0 9.3 3,804 0 12,694 26.3 2010 198,917 147,650 40,905 10,362 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 360 0 0 505 0 9.4 3,845 0 12,909 25.2 2011 201.503 147,650 40,905 12,948 0 0 1.615 3,630 2.894 0 0 8,199 375 0 0 656 0 9.5 3,886 0 13,116 24.4 2012 204,122 147,650 40,905 15,567 0 0 1,615 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 390 0 0 820 0 9.6 3,927 0 13,336 23.6 2013 206,776 147,650 40,905 18,221 0 0 1,615 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,!99 405 0 0 998 0 9.7 3,968 0 13,.570 23.0 2014 209,464 147,6.50 40,905 20,909 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 421 0 0 1,191 0 9.8 4,009 0 13,821 22.4 2015 212,187 147,6.50 40,905 23,632 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 438 0 0 1,400 0 9.9 4,050 0 14,087 21.8 2016 214,946 147,650 40,905 26,390 0 0 1,67.5 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 456 0 0 1,626 0 10.0 4,091 0 14,372 21.4 2017 217,740 147,650 40,905 29,185 0 0 1,615 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 474 0 0 1,870 0 10.1 4,131 0 14,675 20.9 2018 220.571 147,650 40,905 32,015 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 493 0 0 2,134 0 10.2 4,172 0 14,998 20.6 2019 223,438 147,650 40,905 34,883 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 513 0 0 2,418 0 10.3 4,213 0 15,343 20.2 2020 226,343 147,650 40,905 37,787 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8.199 533 0 0 2,724 0 16.4 4,254 0 15,711 20.0 2021 229,28.5 147,6.50 40,905 40,730 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 554 0 0 3,053 0 10.5 4,295 0 16,102 19.7 2022 232.266 147,650 40,905 43,711 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 517 0 0 3,408 0 10.7 4,377 0 14,886 17.6 2023 235,285 147.650 40,905 46,730 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 600 0 0 3,789 0 10.8 4,418 0 15,331 17.5 2024 238,344 147,650 40,905 49,789 0 0 0 3,630 2.894 0 0 6,524 624 0 0 4,199 0 10.9 4,459 0 15,805 17.4 2025 241,442 147,650 40,905 52,887 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 649 0 0 4,638 0 11.1 4,540 0 16,352 17.4 2026 244,581 147,650 40,905 56,026 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 675 0 0 5,110 0 11.2 4,581 0 16,890 17.4 2027 247,761 147,650 40,905 59,206 0 0 0 0 2,894 0 0 2,894 702 0 0 5,616 0 11.4 4,663 0 13,875 13.9 2028 250,982 147,650 40,905 59,614 0 2,813 0 0 2,894 0 1,672 4,566 730 0 386 5,881 912 11.5 4,704 0 17,178 16.6 Net Present Value 9,518 24,169 20,170 0 253 54,110 3,150 0 58 12,072 138 123 45,378 0 114,906 211 Reall994 Levelized Cost 369 937 782 0 10 2,098 122 0 2 468 5 4.8 1,759 0 4,455 8.2 12/09194 Appendi~ B EES Analysis for II DR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lntertie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Ein~n,ine • lnte!li~ Enc[n C!llit· ISEB. I llild Q[Q~lh li!i~Dill:ill· Mediwn or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ lntertie Energy Cost at Variable Rate KPC SUQliiiS Sales · No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Pun:base Power Rate 2 .6 cents per k Wb 1994$ lntertie Project Life 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC SWp!us Energy Rate 3.8 cents per k.WII in $1994 Inflation 4.0% per year Variable Pun:hase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximwn KPC Purchase 0 MWbr's Real Discowlt 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year State loan tenn 1.5 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year MabQDC): f!t~cc fuccbasc -New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 per kW in $1992 State Bond term 20 years New Diesel Overhead $75,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per kW in $1992 Market bond term 30 years Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cenls per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents perkWbin$1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPIJ diesel fuel consumption 14 kWb per gallon 3 0 0 Swit£b 0 4 0 Existing New lntertle Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Putebase Purchase Energy Resource Tyee Existing Mahoney New Slate Slate Market Grant New Diesel Total Jntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Tolal Total Y.w l!lwl ~ llllu1i.t D.illi1 ~ D.illi1 Lllill ll!!WI. ll!!WI. Qffw Cip.ilal Cip.ilal Q&MC!!SI C!lli1 C!lli1 C!lli1 C!lli1 C!lli1 lllta.I..C!l.U Qffw C!lli1 C!lli1 (MWb) (WAll) (MW!o) (MII'h) (MII'b) (MWh) ($000.) ($000a) ($000a) ($000.) ($000&) ($0001) ($000.) ($000o) ($0061) ($000.) ($000t) (ocnllll<Wh) ($0001) ($000t) ($000t) (c:<nllll<Wh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 1,67.5 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 234 0 0 818 0 8.7 0 0 7,037 27.2 2000 17.5,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 .5,985 243 0 0 921 0 8.7 0 0 7,149 25.5 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 253 0 0 1,021 0 8.8 0 0 7,259 24.3 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 263 0 0 1.110 0 8.8 0 0 1,358 23.6 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 274 0 0 1,202 0 8.9 0 0 7,460 23.0 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 285 0 0 1,313 0 9.0 0 0 7,582 22.2 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 .5,985 296 0 0 1,454 0 9.0 0 0 7,735 21.3 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 308 0 0 1,621 0 9.1 0 0 7,913 20.3 2007 189,.512 147,650 41,862 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 320 0 0 1,812 0 9.2 0 0 8,117 19.4 2008 192,714 147,650 45,064 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 333 0 0 2,029 0 9.2 0 0 8,347 18.5 2009 195,911 147,650 48,261 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 346 0 0 2,260 0 9.3 0 0 8,591 17.8 2010 198,917 147,650 51,267 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 360 0 0 2,497 0 9.4 0 0 8,842 17.2 2011 201,503 147,650 53,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 .5,985 315 0 0 2,727 0 9.5 0 0 9,087 16.9 2012 204,122 147,650 56,472 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 390 0 0 2,974 0 9.6 0 0 9,349 16.6 2013 206,776 147,650 59,126 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 405 0 0 3,239 0 9.7 0 0 9,629 16.3 2014 209,464 147,650 61,814 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 421 0 0 3,522 0 9.8 0 0 8,252 13.4 2015 212,187 147,650 64,537 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 438 0 0 3,824 0 9.9 0 0 8,571 13.3 2016 214,946 147,650 67,296 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 456 0 0 4,147 0 10.0 0 0 8,912 13.2 2017 217,740 147,6.50 70,090 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 414 0 0 4,492 0 10.1 0 0 9,275 13.2 2018 220,571 147,650 70,568 0 0 2,353 0 3,630 679 0 1,130 5,439 493 0 281 4,703 468 10.2 0 0 11,385 15.6 2019 223,438 141,650 69,546 0 0 6,242 0 0 679 0 !,130 1,809 513 0 329 4,820 1,304 10.3 0 0 8,175 11.6 2020 226,343 147,650 68,509 0 0 10,184 0 0 679 0 !,130 1,809 533 0 317 4,938 2,234 10.4 0 0 9,891 12.6 2021 229,285 147,650 61,455 0 0 14,180 0 0 679 0 1,130 1.809 554 0 426 5,051 3,266 10.5 0 0 11.112 13.6 2022 232,266 147,650 66,386 0 0 18,230 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 577 0 476 5,176 4,409 10.7 0 0 12,446 14.7 2023 235,285 147,650 65,300 0 0 22.335 0 0 619 0 1,130 1,809 600 0 526 5,295 5,613 10.8 0 0 13,902 15.9 2024 238,344 147,650 64,197 0 0 26,497 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 624 0 628 5,414 7,066 10.9 0 0 16,969 18.7 2025 241,442 147,650 63,017 0 0 30,715 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 649 0 681 5,532 8,600 11.1 0 0 18,700 19.9 2026 244,581 147,650 61,940 0 0 34,991 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 675 0 134 5,650 10,288 11.2 0 0 20,584 21.2 2027 247,761 147,650 60,786 0 0 39,325 0 0 619 0 2,559 3,238 702 0 789 5,766 12.140 11.4 0 0 22.635 22.6 2028 250,982 147,650 59,614 0 0 43,718 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 730 0 845 5,881 14,171 11.5 0 0 24,865 24.1 Net Present Value 15,753 40,000 8,869 0 3,855 68,477 4,170 0 1,203 32,505 12,761 IZ3 0 0 119,716 259 Real1994 Levelized Cost 611 1,551 344 0 149 2,655 185 0 47 1.260 495 4.8 0 0 4,641 10.1 12109194 >a CD en a; ~a: C CD w-m CD UJ ·-CD io .... .c .5;: ! .. en :::J-0 0 u.g_ me m "' oc ... :::J 0 u. 1U Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cosl Model Swan /Tyee Lakes lnterlie Projecl, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Einam:ina • lllll:lli~ tlltli~ Co~l • ISER l.!!ad lJ[IIlliLb S!:md!! • Mediwn or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ Jntertie Energy Cost at 6.6 cents per li:Wh in 1994$ K EC SIIQlllls Sales • No Capital Cost $SS.6 million 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lntertie Project Life 30 yean; Fixed Pun;hase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC Swplus Energy Rate 3.8 cents per kWb in $1994 Inflation 4.0% per year Variable Pwchase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maxin1wn KPC Pwchase 0 MWhr's Real Discount 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year State loan tenn 15 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ Suue loan rate 3.0% per year Mab~toc:~t fawc[ f:w:l:bue • New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 per kW in $1992 State Bond tenn 20 yean; New Diesel Overhead $75,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6. 5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per kW in $1992 Market bond tenn 30 yean; Four Darn Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents per li: Wh in $1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year !'our Darn Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rale Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPI.J diesel fuel consumption 14 kWh per gallon I 0 0 Swit.:h 0 I 2 0 Existing New lntertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resource Mahoney Tyee Existing New Stale State Market Grant New Diesel Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total l::.w: 1'l.w1 ~ l.b:dm .loll:l:l.il: 1lil:W Ilil:sJ:.l lJliw llwll1 llwll1 Q.{fm ~ Ci,pil.il.l Q&MCI!lil ClW. ClW. ClW. ClW. ClW. IllJ4I..ClW. Q.{fm ClW. ClW. (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) ($000.) (SOOO.) ($000s) (SOOO.) ($000•) ($000a) ($000.) ($000a) (SOOO.) (SOOO.) ($000.) (<eoW!f.Wh) ($000•) ($0001) ($000.) ( .. nWI<Wh) 1999 113,S03 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.1 2,249 0 2,249 8.1 2000 175,631 147.650 27,981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2.434 0 2,434 8.7 2001 177.486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 &.8 2,626 0 2,626 8.8 2002 118,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,746 0 2,746 8.8 2003 180,127 147,650 32,417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 2,890 0 2,890 8.9 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,071 0 3,071 9.0 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,270 0 3,270 9.0 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 3,543 0 3,543 9.1 2007 189,512 147,650 40,905 957 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 320 0 0 80 0 9.2 3,763 0 12,363 29.5 2008 192,714 147,650 40,905 4,159 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 333 0 0 354 0 9.2 3,763 0 12,649 28.1 2009 195,911 147,650 40,905 7,356 0 0 1,675 3,630 2.894 0 0 8,199 346 0 0 639 0 9.3 3,804 0 12,989 26.9 2010 198,917 147,650 40,905 10,362 0 0 1,615 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 360 0 0 919 0 9.4 3,845 0 13,324 26.0 2011 201,503 147,6SO 40,905 12,948 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 375 0 0 1.174 0 9.5 3,886 0 13,634 25.3 2012 204,122 147.650 40,905 15,567 0 0 1.675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 390 0 0 1,443 0 9.6 3,927 0 13,959 24.7 2013 206,776 147,650 40,905 18,221 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 405 0 0 1,727 0 9.7 3,968 0 14.299 24.2 2014 209,464 147,650 40,905 20,909 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 421 0 0 2,028 0 9.8 4,009 0 14,657 23.7 2015 212,187 147,650 40,905 23,632 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 438 0 0 2,345 0 9.9 4,050 0 15,033 23.3 2016 214,946 147,650 40,905 26,390 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 456 0 0 2,682 0 10.0 4,091 0 15,427 22.9 2017 217,740 147,650 40,905 29,185 0 0 1,615 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 474 0 0 3,038 0 10.1 4,131 0 15,842 22.6 2018 220,571 147,650 40,905 32,015 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 493 0 0 3,414 0 10.2 4,172 0 16,279 22.3 2019 223,438 147,650 40,905 34,883 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 513 0 0 3,813 0 10.3 4,213 0 16,738 22.1 2020 226,343 147,650 40,905 37,787 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 533 0 0 4,235 0 10.4 4,254 0 17,222 21.9 2021 229.285 147,650 40,905 40,730 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 0 0 8,199 554 0 0 4,683 0 10.5 4,295 0 11,732 21.7 2022 232,266 147.650 40,905 43,711 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 571 0 0 5,156 0 10.7 4,377 0 16,634 19.7 2023 235,285 147.650 40,905 46,730 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 600 0 0 5,658 0 10.8 4.418 0 11,200 19.6 2024 238,344 147,650 40,905 49,789 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6.524 624 0 0 6,190 0 10.9 4,459 0 17,797 19.6 2025 241,442 147,650 40,905 52,887 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 649 0 0 6,754 0 11.1 4,540 0 18,467 19.7 2026 244,581 147,650 40,905 56,026 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 0 0 6,524 675 0 0 7,351 0 11.2 4,581 0 19,131 19.7 2027 247,761 147,650 40,905 59,206 0 0 0 0 2,894 0 0 2,894 702 0 0 7,984 0 11.4 4,663 0 16,243 16.2 2028 250,982 147,650 40,905 59,614 0 2,813 0 0 2.894 0 1,612 4,566 730 0 386 8,266 912 II.S 4,704 0 19,563 18.9 Net Present Value 9,518 24,169 20,170 0 253 54,110 3,150 0 58 18,784 138 123 45,378 0 121,619 220 Real 1994 Levelized Cost 369 937 782 0 10 2,098 122 0 2 728 5 4.8 1,759 0 4,715 8.5 12/09/94 Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lnterlie Project, Mahoney Lake llydro Project, Diesel Eio~u~hl& ~ llll~llh:c Euc£8)! C:g~l -ISEI.l. I !lid Qam:!.b S!ocllillill -Medium or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ lntertie Energy Cost at 6.6 cents per kWh in 1994$ K ~C Sw:pl!l$ SaleL: No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lntertie Project Life 30 years Fixed Pun:hase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC Swplus Energy Rate 3.8 cencs per kWh in $1994 Inflation 4.0% per year Variable Purchase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximum KPC Purchase 0 MWhr's Real Discount 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year State loantenn 15 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year Milb!lot)! ~llll!tr ~urclluc-New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 perkW in$1992 State Bond term 20 years New Diesel Overhead $75,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power @ Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per kW in $1992 Marl\et bond tenn 30 years Four Darn Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cencs per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cencs per kWh in $1992 Marl\et bond rate 8.0% per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 Stale Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wltolesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel consumption 14 kWI1 per gallon 0 0 Swilch 0 4 2 0 Existing New lntertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resowce Tyee Existing Mahoney New State State Markel Grant New Diesel Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total ::Lur l:fwl ~ ~ lliml lWim lliml l.aiil flll1ul flll1ul illl.i.e1 Cijillal Upilill ~ !:Jls1 !:Jls1 !:Jls1 !:Jls1 !:Jls1 ~ illl.i.e1 !:Jls1 !:Jls1 (MWn) (MWh) (MWh) (MWn) (MWb) (MWb) ($000a) ($000&) ($000a) ($000s) ($000a) (SOOOs) (SOOOa) (SOOO•) ($000a) ($000.) ($000a) (cenWI<Wh) ($000a) ($000.) ($0001) («nWI<Wh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 234 0 0 1,852 0 8.7 0 0 8,071 31.2 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 243 0 0 2,040 0 8.1 0 0 8,268 29.5 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 253 0 0 2,214 0 8.8 0 0 8,452 28.3 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 263 0 0 2,358 0 8.8 0 0 8,606 27.6 2003 180,127 147,650 32,417 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 274 0 0 2,501 0 8.9 0 0 8,759 27.0 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 285 0 0 2,678 0 9.0 0 0 8,947 26.2 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 296 0 0 2.907 0 9.0 0 0 9,188 25.3 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 1,615 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 308 0 0 3,178 0 9.1 0 0 9,471 24.3 2007 189,512 147,650 41,862 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 320 0 0 3,487 0 9.2 0 0 9,792 23.4 2008 192,714 147,650 45,064 0 0 0 1,615 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 333 0 0 3,832 0 9.2 0 0 10,149 22.5 2009 195,911 147,650 48,261 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 346 0 0 4,190 0 9.3 0 0 10,521 21.8 2010 198,917 147,6.50 51,267 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 360 0 0 4,547 0 9.4 0 0 10,892 21.2 2011 201,503 147,650 53,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 619 0 0 5,985 375 0 0 4,882 0 9.5 0 0 11,241 20-9 2012 204,122 147,650 56,472 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 390 0 0 5,233 0 9.6 0 0 11,608 20.6 2013 206,776 147,650 59,126 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5.985 405 0 0 5,604 0 9.7 0 0 11,994 20.3 2014 209,464 147,650 61,814 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 421 0 0 5,994 0 9.8 0 0 10,725 17.4 2015 212,187 147,650 64,537 0 0 0 0 3,630 619 0 0 4,309 438 0 0 6,405 0 9.9 0 0 11,153 17.3 2016 214,946 147,650 67,296 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 456 0 0 6,838 0 10.0 0 0 11,604 17.2 2017 217,740 147,650 70,090 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 474 0 0 7,295 0 10.1 0 0 12,079 17.2 2018 220,571 147,650 70,568 0 0 2,353 0 3,630 679 0 1,130 5,439 493 0 281 7.526 468 10.2 0 0 14,207 19.5 2019 223,438 147,650 69,546 0 0 6,242 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 513 0 329 7,602 1,304 10.3 0 0 11,556 15.2 2020 226,343 147,650 68,509 0 0 10,184 0 0 619 0 1,130 1,809 533 0 377 7,679 2,234 10.4 0 0 12,632 16.1 2021 229,285 147,650 61,455 0 0 14,180 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 554 0 426 7,755 3,266 10.5 0 0 13,811 16.9 2022 232,266 147,650 66,386 0 0 18,230 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 511 0 476 7,831 4,409 10.7 0 0 15,102 17.8 2023 235,285 141,650 65,300 0 0 22,335 0 0 679 0 1,130 1,809 600 0 526 7.907 5,613 10.8 0 0 16,514 18.8 2024 238,344 147,650 64,197 0 0 26,497 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 624 0 628 7,982 7,066 10.9 0 0 19,537 21.5 2025 241,442 147,650 63,017 0 0 30,715 0 0 679 0 2.559 3,238 649 0 681 8,055 8,600 11.1 0 0 21,223 22.6 2026 244,581 147,650 61,940 0 0 34,991 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 675 0 734 8,127 10,288 11.2 0 0 23,062 23.8 2027 247,761 147,650 60,786 0 0 39,325 0 0 679 0 2,559 3,238 702 0 789 8,197 12,140 I 1.4 0 0 25,066 25.0 2028 250,982 147,650 59,614 0 0 43,718 0 0 679 0 2.559 3,238 730 0 845 8,266 14,171 11.5 0 0 27,249 26.4 Net Present Value 15,753 40,000 8,869 0 3,855 68,477 4,770 0 1,203 56,452 12,761 123 0 0 143,663 310 Real 1994 Levelized Cost 611 1,551 344 0 149 2,655 185 0 47 2,189 495 4.8 0 0 5,510 12.0 12/09194 ~ -,..:-~ C) c ·-"'C c :::s LL ... c ca ... CJ Cl) 1ii ! > ·-LL m ·ca 0 Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lntertie Project, Mahoney lake Hydro Project, Diesel Einancine • lol~llic Ene[al£ ~it • ISEB I .111d Qco:n:lll ~'llWQ • Mediwn or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ lntertie Energy Cost at Melded Rate KPC SIIQIIIIS Sales • No Capital Cost $SS.6 million 1992$ Variable Pun:hase Power Rate 2.6 cen!S per kWh 1994$ lntertie Project Life 30 years Fixed Purebase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC Surplus Energy Rate 3.8 cen!S per kWh in $1994 Inflation 4.0% per year Variable Purehase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximum KPC Purebase 0 MWblti Real Discount 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year State loan tenn 15 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year Maboull)1 fllw.ec Eua;ba~ • New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 per kW in $1992 State Bond tenn 20 years New Diesel Overhead $7 5,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® AcruaiCost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per kW in $1992 Market bond tenn 30 years Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents per kWh in $1992 Mari<et bond rate 8.0% per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wllolesate Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $4.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel consumption 14 kWh per gallon 2 0 0 Switch 0 I 2 I Existins New lntertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purebase Diesel Purebase Purchase Energy Resoun::e Mahoney Tyee Existing New State State Mari<et Graut New Diesel Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total x.w tllid ~~ ln1eJ:tm llii:W Dil:£d Lam .!Uwd llaw;l llJlli1 ClllllW ClllliW Q&M CQ~I Cllli Cllli Cllli Cllli Cllli Il!J.ai..QW llJlli1 Cllli Cllli (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) ($0001) ($000.) ($0001) ($0001) ($000.) (SOOO.) ($000.) ($000.) ($0001) ($0001) ($0001) (otn!alkWh) ($0001) ($0001) ($0001) (""n!alkWh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2,249 0 2,249 8.7 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 2,434 0 2,434 8.7 2001 171,486 147,6.50 29,836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,626 0 2,626 8.8 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.8 2,746 0 2,746 8.8 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 2,890 0 2,890 8.9 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,071 0 3,071 9.0 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 3,270 0 3,270 9.0 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 3,543 0 3,543 9.1 2007 189,512 147,650 40,905 951 0 0 1,67.5 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 320 0 0 79 0 9.2 3,763 0 8,362 20.0 2008 192,714 147,650 40,905 4,159 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 333 0 0 348 0 9.2 3,763 0 8,644 19.2 2009 195,911 147,6.50 40,905 7,356 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 346 0 0 623 0 9.3 3,804 0 8,973 18.6 2010 198,917 147,650 40,905 10,362 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 360 0 0 888 0 9.4 3,845 0 9,293 18.1 2011 201,S03 147,650 40,905 12,948 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 375 0 0 1,126 0 9.5 3,886 0 9,586 17.8 2012 204,122 147,650 40,905 15,567 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 390 0 0 1,375 0 9.6 3,927 0 9,891 17.5 2013 206,776 147,650 40,905 18,221 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 40.5 0 0 1,636 0 9.1 3,968 0 10,208 17.3 2014 209,464 147,6.50 40,905 20,909 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 421 0 0 1,910 0 9.8 4,009 0 10,540 17.1 2015 212,187 147,650 40,905 23,6)2 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 438 0 0 2,198 0 9.9 4,050 0 10,885 16.9 2016 214,946 147,6.50 40,905 26,390 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 456 0 0 2,501 0 10.0 4,091 0 11,247 16.7 2011 217.740 147,650 40,905 29,185 0 0 1,615 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 474 0 0 2,821 0 10.1 4,131 0 11,626 16.6 2018 220,571 147,6.50 40,905 32,015 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4.199 493 0 0 3,158 0 10.2 4,172 0 12,023 16.5 2019 223,438 147,650 40,905 34,883 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 513 0 0 3,514 0 10.3 4,213 0 12,440 16.4 2020 226,343 147,650 40,905 37,787 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 .533 0 0 3,891 0 10.4 4,254 0 12,878 16.4 2021 229,285 147,650 40,905 40,730 0 0 1,675 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 4,199 .554 0 0 4,289 0 10.5 4,295 0 13,338 16.3 2022 232,266 147,650 40,905 43,711 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 2,524 577 0 0 4,711 0 10.7 4,377 0 12,189 14.4 2023 235,285 147,650 40,905 46,730 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 2,524 600 0 0 5,158 0 10.8 4,418 0 12,700 14.5 2024 238,344 147,650 40,905 49,789 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 2,524 624 0 0 5,632 0 10.9 4,459 0 13,239 14.6 2025 241,442 147,650 40,905 52,887 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 2,524 649 0 0 6,135 0 11.1 4,540 0 13,848 14.8 2026 244,581 147,6.50 40,905 56,026 0 0 0 3,630 2,894 (4,000) 0 2,524 675 0 0 6,669 () 11.2 4,581 0 14,449 14.9 2027 247,761 147,650 40,90.5 59,206 0 0 0 0 2,894 (2,894) 0 0 702 0 0 7,235 0 11.4 4,663 0 12,600 12.6 2028 250,982 147,650 40,905 59,614 0 2,813 0 0 2,894 (2,894) 1,672 1,672 730 0 386 7,508 912 11.5 4,704 0 15,911 15.4 Net Present Value 9,518 24,169 20,110 (27,534) 253 26,576 3,150 0 58 17,351 138 123 45,378 0 92,652 173 Real 1994 Levelized Cost 369 937 182 (1,067) 10 1,030 122 0 2 673 s 4.8 1,759 0 3,592 6.7 12114194 Einancina .. Capital Cost Capital Cost lntertie Project Life lntlalion Real Discount State loan tenn State loan rate State Bond tenn State Bond Rate Markel bond tenn Market bond rate State Grant Switch 1999 2000 200t 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20t0 2011 20t2 2013 2014 2015 2016 20t7 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 KPU Energy l:'lw1 (MWh) 173,503 175.631 177.486 178,850 180,127 181.768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,91t 198,917 201,503 204,t22 206,776 209,464 2ti,l87 214,946 217,740 220,571 223,438 226.343 229.285 232,266 235,285 238,344 241.442 244,581 247,761 250,982 0 $67.6 million 1997$ $55.6 million 1992$ 30 years 4.0% per year 2.40% per year 15 years 3.0% per year 20 years 6.5% per year 30 years 8.0% per year $4.0 million per year 2 Existing Resource Tyee ~ l.u1cttit (MWh) 147,650 147,650 147,650 t47,650 147,6~0 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 t41,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 t47,650 t47,650 t47 ,650 t47,650 t47,650 t47,650 t47,650 147,650 147,650 t47,650 147,650 147.650 147,650 t47,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 (MWh) 25,853 27,981 29,836 31,200 32,477 34,lt8 36,328 38,933 41,862 45,064 48,261 51,267 53,853 56,412 59,126 61,814 64,537 67,296 70,090 70,568 69,546 68,509 67,455 66,386 65,300 64,197 63,077 61.940 60,786 59,614 Mahoney 1.J.ydm (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,353 6,242 10,184 14,180 18,230 22,335 26,497 30,715 34,991 39,325 40,905 Net Preseot Value Real1994 Levelized Cost EES Analysis for II DR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lntertie Project, Mahoney Lal\e Hydro Project, Diesel lntertie Enerey Cost - lntertie Energy Cost at Variable Purchase Power Rate Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc Variable Purchase Power Rate Esc Mahoney Power Purchase .. KPU Purchasing Power ® Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. Existing Ili=1 (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Ili=1 (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,813 State Lwll1 (SOOOt) 2 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,67.5 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 15,753 611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Il.2llll ($0000) 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 40,000 1,551 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melded Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ 0.0% nominal per year 4.0% nominal per year Actual Cost 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ 4.0% nominal per year Tyee Market Il.2llll ($000.) Grant Qlli.c.t. New Diesel ~ Total lntertie 679 679 619 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 619 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 679 8,869 344 ($000&) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4.000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (679) (679) (679) (679) (679) (679) (679) (679) (679) (679) (45,460) (t,762) ~ O&MCosl ($000•) (SOOOa) 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1.985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1.985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 1,985 0 309 0 309 0 309 0 309 0 309 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,672 1,672 253 10 19,415 753 ($000&) 234 243 253 263 274 28S 296 308 320 333 346 360 375 390 405 421 438 456 474 493 513 533 554 577 600 624 649 675 702 730 4,770 185 ISER I oad Growth Scenario- KPC Sl!QliUS Sales· KPC Surplus Energy Rate Maximum KPC Purchase Project energized date Fixed O&M cost New Diesel Capital Cost New Diesel Overhead Diesel filled O&M cost Diesel variable O&M cost Diesel fuel in 1997 KPU diesel fuel conswnption Existing Diesel O&M QI.U (SOOOo) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel O&M QI.U (SOOO.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 386 58 2 2 lntertie Purchase Power QI.U ($000.) 1,678 1,839 1,989 2,114 2,238 2,391 2,586 2,815 3,074 3,362 3,662 3,961 4,244 4,542 4,857 5,189 5,540 5,911 6,303 6,523 6,623 6,723 6,824 6,924 7,024 7.124 7,222 7,319 7,415 7,508 49,765 1.929 Mediwn or Base No 3.8 cents per kWh in $1994 0 MWhr's 1999 year $200,000 per year 1995$ $1,000 per kW in$1992 $75,000 per year 1992$ $12.50 per kW in $1992 I cents per kWh in $1992 $1 per gallon in $1997 14 kWb per gallon 0 0 Mahoney Mahoney Diesel Purchase Purchase Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total QI.U QI.U IlWt.I..Cl!.tt !lfJm QI.U ($000.) («n!iii<Wh) 0 8.7 0 8.7 0 8.8 0 8.8 0 8.9 0 9.0 0 9.0 0 9.t 0 9.2 0 9.2 0 9.3 0 9.4 0 9.5 0 9.6 0 9.7 0 9.8 0 9.9 0 10.0 0 10.1 0 10.2 0 10.3 0 10.4 0 10.5 0 10.7 0 10.8 0 10.9 0 11.1 0 11.2 0 11.4 912 11.5 138 5 123 4.8 (SOOO•l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 643 1,059 1,489 1,951 2,412 2,888 3,409 3,919 4,483 4,104 5,074 197 (SOOOI) ($000•) 0 0 0 3,897 0 4,067 0 4,226 0 4,362 0 4,496 0 4,660 0 4,867 0 5,107 0 5,319 0 5,680 0 5,993 0 6,306 0 6,603 0 6,916 0 7,246 0 5,920 0 6,288 0 6,676 0 7,087 0 7,565 0 7,718 0 8,316 0 8,867 0 9,452 0 10,036 0 10,636 0 11,280 0 11,913 0 12,599 0 15,911 79,219 3.071 Appendill B Total QI.U («ntaikWh) 15.1 14.5 14.2 14.0 13.8 13.7 13.4 13.1 12.8 12.6 12.4 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.3 9.6 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.4 10.3 IQ.6 10.9 11.2 ll.5 11.7 12.0 12.3 12.6 15.4 167 6.5 12114194 Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lnter!ie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydm Project, Diesel Eioau~iD,e · lllleaic Enee&Y C!lu -ISER lllaa U[ll:tr:lb Si<CDilill-Medium or Base Capital Cost $61.6 million 1997$ lntertie Energy Cost at Melded Rate Kfe Sw:plWi Salts-No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable l'un:ltase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lntenie Project lire 30 years Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% uominal per year KPC Swplus Energy Rate 3.8 cents perleWh in$1994 lnnation 4.0% per year Variable Pwchase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximwn KPC l'un:hase 0 MWbr's Real Discount 2.40% per year Project energized dale 1999 year State loan term IS years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 peryur 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year Mab!locy &!:tr:cr £masc -New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 per leW lo $1992 State Bond term 20 years New Diesel Overltead $75,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® Actual Cost Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per leW in $1992 Market bond tellll 30 years Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents perkWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I centspertWbin$1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $4.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel coiiSWllption 14 kWh per gaUon 2 0 0 Switch 0 4 2 I Existing New lnlertie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel P~hase P~hue Energy Resource Tyee Existing Mahoney New State State Market Grant New Diesel Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total Yw: l::llli. wlluli.ml ~ IlliW ~ IlliW 1&111 BJilld BJilld Qffw. Caililal Caililal O&M C~l Con Con Cll11 Con Con I!llai..CW Qffw. Con Con (MW!o) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) ($000o) ($0001) ($000.) ($000.) ($000o) (S0001) (5000•) (S0001) ($000o) ($000o) (lOIIOI) («nllliWh) ($000o) ($000o) (SOOO•) ("nllliWh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 234 0 0 1,678 0 8.7 0 0 3,897 15.1 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,98.5 243 0 0 1,839 0 8.7 0 0 4,067 14.5 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 2.53 0 0 1,989 0 8.8 0 0 4,226 14.2 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 263 0 0 2,114 0 8.8 0 0 4,362 14.0 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 1,67.5 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1.985 274 0 0 2,238 0 8.9 0 0 4,496 13.8 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 1,675 3.630 679 (4,000) 0 1.985 285 0 0 2,391 0 9.0 0 0 4,660 13.7 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1.985 296 0 0 2,586 0 9.0 0 0 4,867 13.4 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 308 0 0 2,815 0 9.1 0 0 5,107 13.1 2007 189,.512 147,650 41,862 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000} 0 1,985 320 0 0 3,074 0 9.2 0 0 5,379 12.8 2008 192,714 147,650 45,064 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 333 0 0 3,362 0 9.2 0 0 5,680 12.6 2009 195,911 147,650 48,261 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 346 0 0 3,662 0 9.3 0 0 5,993 12.4 2010 198,917 147,650 51,267 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000} 0 1,985 360 0 0 3,961 0 9.4 0 0 6,306 12.3 2011 201,503 147,650 53,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 375 0 0 4,244 0 9.5 0 0 6,603 12.3 2012 204,122 147,650 56,472 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 390 0 0 4,542 0 9.6 0 0 6,916 12.2 2013 206,776 147,650 59,126 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 1,985 405 0 0 4,857 0 9-1 0 0 7,246 12.3 2014 209,464 147,650 61,814 0 0 0 0 3,630 619 (4,000) 0 309 421 0 0 5,189 0 9.8 0 0 5,920 9.6 2015 21i,I87 147,650 64,537 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 309 438 0 0 5,540 0 9.9 0 0 6,288 9.1 2016 214,946 147,650 67,296 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 309 456 0 0 5,911 0 10.0 0 0 6,676 9.9 2017 217,740 147,650 70,090 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 (4,000) 0 309 474 0 0 6,303 0 10.1 0 0 7,087 10.1 2018 220,S11 147,650 70,568 0 0 2,353 0 3,630 679 (4,000) 1,130 1,439 493 0 281 6,523 468 10.2 0 0 9,204 12.6 2019 223,438 147,650 69,546 0 0 6,242 0 0 679 (679) 1,130 1,130 513 0 329 6,623 1,304 10.3 0 0 9,898 13.1 2020 226,343 147,650 68,509 0 0 10,184 0 0 679 (679) 1,130 1,130 533 0 371 6,723 2,234 10.4 0 0 10,997 14.0 2021 229,285 147,650 67,455 0 0 14,180 0 0 679 (679) 1,130 1,130 554 0 426 6,824 3,266 10.5 0 0 12,200 14.9 2022 232,266 147,650 66,386 0 0 18,230 0 0 619 (679) 1,130 1,130 511 0 476 6,924 4,409 10.7 0 0 13,516 16.0 2023 235,285 147,650 65,300 0 0 22,335 0 0 619 (679) 1,130 1,130 600 0 526 7,024 5,673 10.8 0 0 14,953 17.1 2024 238,344 147,650 64,197 0 0 26,497 0 0 619 (679) 2,559 2,559 624 0 628 7,124 7,066 10.9 0 0 18,000 19.8 2025 241,442 147,650 63,077 0 0 30,71!1 0 0 679 (679) 2,559 2,559 649 0 681 7,222 8,600 ILl 0 0 19,711 21.0 2026 244,581 147,650 61,940 0 0 34,991 0 0 679 (679} 2,559 2,559 675 0 134 7,319 10,288 11.2 0 0 21,575 22.3 2027 247,761 147,650 60,786 0 0 39,325 0 0 679 (679) 2,559 2,559 702 0 789 7,415 12,140 11.4 0 0 23,604 23.6 2028 250,982 147,650 59,614 0 0 43,718 0 0 679 (679) 2,559 2,559 730 0 845 7,508 14,171 11.5 0 0 25,812 25.0 Net Present Value 15,753 40,000 8,869 (45,460) 3,855 23,011 4,770 0 1,203 49,765 12,761 123 0 0 91,515 180 Real 1994 Levelized Cost 611 1,551 344 (1,762) 149 892 185 0 47 1,929 495 4.8 0 0 3,548 7.0 121141'94 CD CD ~a; ~cr. CD CD 0-ca gJ .CCI) (,) -.... 0 ::::S.c o..;: .... 0 ~ ~ o::l 0..~ >~ CD ca c 0 .c ca :E L ·-en 81 ca 0 Ejnancina. Capital Cost Capital Cost lntertie Project Life In nation Real Discount State loan term State loan rate State Bond term State Bond Rate Market bond term Market bond rate State Grant Switch Yui: 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 KPU Energy ~ (MWh) 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,503 204,122 206,776 209,464 21i,187 214,946 217,740 220,571 223,438 226,343 229,285 232,266 235,285 238,344 241,442 244,581 247,761 250,982 0 $67.6 million 1997$ $55.6 million 1992$ 30 years 4.0% per year 2.40% per year 15 years 3.0% per year 20 years 6.5% per year 30 years 8.0% per year $0.0 million per year Existing Resource Mahoney ~ lhdm (MWh) 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 147,650 (MWh) 25,853 27,981 29,836 31,200 32,477 34,118 36,328 38,933 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 40,905 Tyee ~ (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 957 4,159 7,356 10,362 12,948 15,567 18,221 20,909 23,632 26,390 29,185 32,015 34,883 37,787 40,730 43,711 46,730 49,789 52,887 56,026 59,206 59,614 Net Present Value Rea11994 Levelized Cost EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lnterlie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel lntertie EnerKY Cost · lntertie Energy Cost at Variable Purchase Power Rate Fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc Variable Purchase Power Rate Esc Mahoney Power Purchase - KPU Purchasing Power @ Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. Existing Di=1 (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Di=1 (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,813 State Llwl (SOOOo) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1.675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 1,675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State lllmd (SOOOs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 3,630 0 0 Melded Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ 0.0% nominal per year 4.0% nominal per year KPU's Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ 4.0% nominal per year Market ilJmd (SOOOs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 2,894 Grant Q.[W:t (SOOOs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel Total Up.i1al. Up.i1al. (SOOOs) (SOOOa) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 8,199 0 6,524 0 6,524 0 6,524 0 6,524 0 6,524 0 2,894 1,672 4,566 Tyee Intertie O&M Cosl (SOOOs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320 333 346 360 375 390 405 421 438 456 474 493 513 533 554 577 600 624 649 675 702 730 9,518 369 24,169 20,170 0 0 253 10 54,110 3,150 937 782 2,098 122 ISER I oad GrowU1 Scenario- KPC Sucplus Sales- KPC Surplus Energy Rate Maximun1 KPC Purchase Project energized date Fixed O&M cost New Diesel Capital Cost New Diesel Overbead Diesel fixed O&M cost Diesel variable O&M cost Diesel fuel in 1997 KPU diesel fuel consumption Existing Diesel O&M ~ (SOOOo) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel O&M ~ (SOOOo) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 386 58 2 Intertie Purchase Power ~ (SOOOo) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 348 623 888 1,126 1,375 1,636 1,910 2,198 2,501 2,821 3,158 3,514 3,891 4,289 4,711 5,158 5,632 6,135 6,669 7,235 7,508 17,351 673 Medium or Base No 3.8 cents per kWh in $1994 0 MWhr's 1999 year $200,000 per year 1995$ $1,000 per kW in $1992 $75,000 per year 1992$ $12.50 per kW in $1992 I cents per kWh in $1992 $1 per gallon in $1997 14 kWh per gallon I 0 Mahoney Mahoney Diesel Purchase Purchase Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total ~ ~ ~ 1'.a1aJ...Ql.U Q.[W:t (S000a) (ccnlalkWh) 0 7.2 0 7.3 0 7.4 0 7.6 0 7.7 0 7.8 0 8.0 0 8.2 0 8.3 0 8.5 0 8.7 0 8.9 0 9.1 0 9.3 0 9.5 0 9.7 0 9.9 0 10.2 0 10.4 0 10.7 0 10.9 0 11.2 0 11.5 0 11.8 0 12.1 0 12.4 0 12.8 0 13.1 0 13.5 912 13.9 138 5 117 4.5 (SOOOs) 1.852 2,040 2,214 2,358 2,501 2,678 2,907 3,178 3,407 3,478 3,552 3,628 3,708 3,791 3,877 3,967 4,060 4,157 4,258 4,362 4,471 4,585 4,703 4,825 4,953 5,086 5,224 5,367 5,516 5,672 43,480 1,686 (SOOOo) (SOOOo) 0 0 0 1,852 0 2,040 0 2,214 0 2,358 0 2,501 0 2,678 0 2,907 0 3,178 0 12,006 0 12,359 0 12.720 0 13,076 0 13,408 0 13,755 0 14,118 0 14.497 0 14,896 0 15,313 0 15,752 0 16,213 0 16,698 0 17,208 0 17,746 0 16,637 0 17,235 0 17,866 0 18,532 0 19,235 0 16,347 0 19,773 118,287 4,586 Appendix B Total ~ («nlalkWh) 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.0 8.2 28.7 27.4 26.4 25.5 24.9 24.4 23.9 23.5 23.1 22.8 22.5 22.2 22.0 21.9 21.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.8 19.8 16.3 19.1 211 8.2 12114194 Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes lntertie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel EiuaukiDK .. llllcl:li~ llncq;.: Clllil· ISEB I .!lad !Jm:tt:lll S!:~llill:ill • Mediwn or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ lnterue Energy Cost at Melded Rate KrC SIIQllus Sak:s • No Capital Cost $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Putchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lnterue Project Life 30 years Fixed Putchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC SWJ>Ius Energy Rate 3.8 cents per kWh in $1994 In nation 4.0% per year Variable l'utchase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximwn KPC Purchase 0 MWiu's Real Discowll 2.40% per year Project energized date 1999 year State loan term 15 years Fixed O&M cost $200,000 per year 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year Million~ fslwec eun:base • New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 perkWin$1992 State Bond term 20 years New Diesel Ovemead $75,000 peryear1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power @ KPU's Wholesale Rate Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 per kW in $1992 Market bond term 30 years Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents per kWh in$1992 Market bond rate 8.0% per year Four Darn Pool Variable Wholesale Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fue I in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Darn Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel consumption 14 kWh per gallon 2 I 0 Switch 0 2 2 0 Existing New Interne Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel PUtChase Diesel PUtChase Purchase Energy Resource Tyee Mahoney Existing New State State Market Grant New Diesel Total lntertie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total ::we Mw1 !HLll...dim.l lnWlit ~ llieW llieW Lo.an llllw1 llllw1 !ltW:I. i:.apilal Cjj1iW Q&MCosl ClW !.:!lit !.:!lit !.:!lit !.:!lit I.!l1ll1.iJI.U !ltW:I. !.:!lit !.:!lit (MV.'h) {MWh) (MWh) (MWh) {MWh) {MWh) ($00Qs) ($00Qs) (SOOOa) (SOOOs) ($000•) ($0008) ($000•) ($000•) ($000a) ($000s) (SOOO.) («niJ/\Wh) ($00Qs) (SOOO.) ($00Qs) (<:<nlOikWh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 234 0 0 1,678 0 7.2 0 0 7,897 30.5 2000 175,631 147,650 27.981 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 243 0 0 1,839 0 7.3 0 0 8,067 28.8 2001 117,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 253 0 0 1.989 0 7.4 0 0 8,226 27.6 2002 178,850 147,6.50 31,200 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 263 0 0 2,114 0 7.6 0 0 8,362 26.8 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,9&5 274 0 0 2,238 0 7.7 0 0 8,496 26.2 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 28.5 0 0 2,391 0 7.8 0 0 8,660 25.4 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 296 0 0 2,586 0 8.0 0 0 8,867 24.4 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 308 0 0 2,815 0 8.2 0 0 9,107 23.4 2007 189,512 147,650 41,862 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 320 0 0 3,074 0 8.3 0 0 9,379 22.4 2008 192,714 147,650 45,064 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 333 0 0 3,362 0 8.5 0 0 9,680 21.5 2009 195,911 147,650 48,261 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 346 0 0 3,662 0 8.7 0 0 9,993 20.7 2010 198.917 147,650 51,267 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 360 0 0 3,961 0 8.9 0 0 10,306 20.1 2011 201,503 147,650 53,853 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 315 0 0 4,244 0 9.1 0 0 10,603 19.7 2012 204,122 147,650 56,472 0 0 0 1,675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 390 0 0 4.542 0 9.3 0 0 10,916 19.3 2013 206.776 147.650 59,126 0 0 0 1.675 3,630 679 0 0 5,985 405 0 0 4,857 0 9.5 0 0 11,246 19.0 2014 209,464 147,650 61,814 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 421 0 0 5,189 0 9.7 0 0 9,920 16.0 2015 212,187 147,650 64,537 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 438 0 0 5,540 0 9.9 0 0 10,288 15.9 2016 214,946 147,650 67,296 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 456 0 0 5,911 0 10.2 0 0 10,676 15.9 2017 217,740 147,650 70,090 0 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 474 0 0 6,303 0 10.4 0 0 11,087 15.8 2018 220,571 147,650 70,568 2,353 0 0 0 3,630 679 0 0 4,309 493 0 0 6,523 0 10.7 251 0 11,576 15.9 2019 223,438 147,650 69,546 6,242 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 513 0 0 6,623 0 10.9 682 0 8,497 11.2 2020 226,343 147,650 68,509 10,184 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 533 0 0 6,723 0 11.2 1,141 0 9,077 ll.5 2021 229,285 147,650 67,455 14,180 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 554 0 0 6,824 0 11.5 1,630 0 9,688 11.9 2022 232,266 147,650 66,386 18,230 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 571 0 0 6,924 0 11.8 2.151 0 10,331 12.2 2023 235,285 147,650 65,300 22,335 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 600 0 0 7,024 0 12.1 2,704 0 11,008 12.6 2024 238,344 147,650 64,197 26.497 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 624 0 0 7,124 0 12.4 3,294 0 11,721 12.9 2025 241.442 147,650 63,077 30,715 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 649 0 0 7,222 0 12.8 3,922 0 12,472 13.3 2026 244,581 147,650 61,940 34,991 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 675 0 0 7,319 0 13.1 4,591 0 13.264 13.7 2027 247,761 147,650 60,786 39,325 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 679 702 0 0 7,415 0 13.5 5,303 0 14,099 14.1 2028 250,982 147,650 59,614 40,905 0 2,813 0 0 679 0 1,672 2,351 730 0 386 7,508 912 13.9 5,612 0 17,558 17.0 Net Present Value 15,753 40,000 8,869 0 253 64,874 4,770 0 58 49,765 138 117 5,812 0 125,417 284 Reall994 Levelized Cost 611 1,551 344 0 10 2,515 185 0 2 1,929 5 4.5 225 0 4,862 11.0 12114194 Appendix B EES Analysis for HDR Engineers Inc. Resource Cost Model Swan I Tyee Lakes Jnrerlie Project, Mahoney Lake Hydro Project, Diesel Ehlilll~iua • llll~llic EIIC[I~ Cl!Sl • ISEB I aad !Jcawlb ~CDilli!l· Mediwn or Base Capital Cost $67.6 million 1997$ Intenie Energy Cost at Melded Rate K~!: SIIQll~ Sal~s • No Capital Cos! $55.6 million 1992$ Variable Purchase Power Rate 2.6 cents per kWh 1994$ lntenie Project Ufe 30 years fixed Purchase Power Rate Esc 0.0% nominal per year KPC SutplllS Energy Rate 3.8 cents per kWh in $1994 Infiation 4.0% peryear Variable Purehase Power Rate Esc 4.0% nominal per year Maximwn KPC Purchase o MWill's Real Diswunt 2.40% per year Project energized dale 1999 year State loan tem1 IS years Fixed O&M wst $200,000 per year 1995$ State loan rate 3.0% per year Mabs:m~ ~»:el13.11Iibrus: · New Diesel Capital Cost $1,000 per kW in $1992 State Bond term 20 years New Diesel Overhead $75,000 per year 1992$ State Bond Rate 6.5% per year KPU Purchasing Power ® KPU's Wholesale Rate Diesel fixed O&M cost $12.50 perkW in $1992 Market bond tenn 30 years Four Dam Pool Fixed Wholesale Rate 4.0 cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel variable O&M cost I cents per kWh in $1992 Market bond rale 8.0% per year Four Darn Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Vi cents per kWh 1994$ Diesel fuel in 1997 $1 per gallon in $1997 State Grant $0.0 million per year Four Dam Pool Variable Wholesale Rate Esc. 4.0% nominal per year KPU diesel fuel consumption 14 kWh per gallon 2 I 0 Switch 0 3 2 0 Existing New Intenie Mahoney Mahoney KPU Existing Tyee Diesel Diesel Purchase Diesel Purchase Purchase Energy Resource Mahoney Existing Tyee New State State Market Grant New Diesel Total lntenie O&M O&M Power Fuel Power Power KPC Sales Total Total Yw Hw1 ~ l:Udm l:1.ittd ~ l:1.ittd Lw1 1Wid. 1Wid. UfCW !:apiL1I C.illili1 O&M C:!!SI c.w c.w c.w c.w c.w ~ ou.w c.w c.w (MWII) (MWII) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (SOOO.) ($0001) (SOOOo) ($000a) (S000a) ($0001) (SOOO.) ($0001) ($0001) ($0001) (SOOO.) ("niiii<Wh) ($0001) (SOOO.) ($0001) ("nil/kWh) 1999 173,503 147,650 25,853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.2 1,852 0 1,852 7.2 2000 175,631 147,650 27,981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.3 2,040 0 2,040 7.3 2001 177,486 147,650 29,836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.4 2,214 0 2,214 7.4 2002 178,850 147,650 31,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.6 2,358 0 2,358 1.6 2003 180,127 147,650 32,477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.7 2.501 0 2,501 1.1 2004 181,768 147,650 34,118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 2,678 0 2,678 7.8 2005 183,978 147,650 36,328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 2,907 0 2,907 8.0 2006 186,583 147,650 38,933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.2 3,178 0 3,178 8.2 2007 189,512 147,650 40,905 0 0 951 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 195 0 Ill 8.3 3,407 0 4,447 10.6 2008 192,714 147,650 40,905 0 0 4,159 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 232 0 508 8.5 3,478 0 4,952 11.0 2009 195,911 147,650 40,905 0 0 7,356 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 270 0 944 8.7 3,552 0 .5,499 11.4 2010 198,917 147,650 40,905 0 0 10,362 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 306 0 1,396 8.9 3,628 0 6,063 11.8 2011 201,503 147,650 40,905 0 0 12,948 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 337 0 1,831 9.1 3,708 0 6,610 12.3 2012 204,122 147,650 40,905 0 0 15,567 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 370 0 2,312 9.3 3,791 0 7,206 12.8 2013 206,776 147,650 40,905 0 0 18,221 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 403 0 2,841 9.5 3,877 0 1,855 13.3 2014 209,464 147,650 40,905 0 0 20,909 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 437 0 3,423 9.1 3,967 0 8,560 13.8 2015 :212,187 147,650 40,905 0 0 23,632 0 0 0 0 734 734 0 0 471 0 4,062 9.9 4,060 0 9,327 14.5 2016 214,946 147,650 40,905 0 0 26,390 0 0 0 0 1,778 1,778 0 0 556 0 4,763 10.2 4,157 0 11,254 16.7 2017 217,740 147,650 40,905 0 0 29,185 0 0 0 0 1,778 1,778 0 0 592 0 5,m 10.4 4,258 0 12,158 17.3 2018 220,571 147,650 40,905 0 0 32,015 0 0 0 0 1,778 1,778 0 0 628 0 6,371 10.7 4,362 0 13,139 18.0 2019 223,438 147,650 40,905 0 0 34,883 0 0 0 0 1,778 1,178 0 0 665 0 7,289 10.9 4,471 0 14,203 18.7 2020 226,343 147,650 40,905 0 0 37,787 0 0 0 0 1,778 1,778 0 0 703 0 8,290 11.2 4,585 0 15,356 19.5 2021 229,285 147,650 40,905 0 0 40,730 0 0 0 0 1,778 1,778 0 0 741 0 9,383 11.5 4,703 0 16,605 20.3 2022 232,266 147,650 40,905 0 0 43,711 0 0 0 0 1,778 1,778 0 0 780 0 10,573 11.8 4,825 0 17,957 21.2 2023 235,285 147,650 40,905 0 0 46,730 0 0 0 0 1,778 1,778 0 0 820 0 11,868 12.1 4,953 0 19,420 22.2 2024 238,344 147,650 40,905 0 0 49,789 0 0 0 0 3,207 3,207 0 0 911 0 13,277 12.4 5,086 0 22,481 24.8 2025 241,442 147,650 40,905 0 0 52,887 0 0 0 0 3,207 3,207 0 0 953 0 14,809 12.8 5,224 0 24,192 25.8 2026 244,581 147,650 40,905 0 0 56,026 0 0 0 0 3,207 3,207 0 0 995 0 16,472 13.1 5,361 0 26,041 26.9 2027 247,761 147,650 40,905 0 0 59,206 0 0 0 0 2,474 2,474 0 0 1,038 0 18,277 13.5 5,516 0 27,305 27.3 2028 250,982 147,650 40,905 0 0 62,426 0 0 0 0 2,474 2,474 0 0 1,082 0 20,235 13.9 5,672 0 29,462 28.5 Net Present Value 0 0 0 0 9,194 9,194 0 0 3,,0 0 37,112 117 43,480 0 93,336 158 Reall994 Levelized Cost 0 0 0 0 356 356 0 0 138 0 1,439 4.5 1,686 0 3,618 6.1 12114194 0~ >< as =tiE c E CD ::S 8::(/) <C .2 E 0 c 0 u w ... u CD .-. 0 ... 0.. ~ c 0 .c m :E Mahoney Hydroelectric Project Lifetime Economic Summary AU cost assumptions stated in 1998 doUars Investment cost $28,521 O&M $280 Bond revenue 2866 Administration 70 Financing 807 Insurance 57 Working capital 70 Interim replace 57 Total capital $32,264 Total variable costs $464 Bond rate 7.0 percent per year Bond term 30 years Inflation rate 4.0 percent per year Real discowlt rate 2.9 percent per year Energy Debt Variable Project Total Total ~ QmJ2y1 s~rvi~~ .co.& Mm:ain CQs! CQs! (MWh) (000!1) (000!1) (000.) (000.) (cents/kWh) 1999 40,905 $2,600 $483 $462 $3.545 8.7 2000 40,905 2,600 502 465 3,567 8.7 2001 40,905 2.600 522 468 3.590 8.8 2002 40.905 2.600 543 471 3.614 8.8 2003 40.905 2,600 565 475 3.639 8.9 2004 40.905 2,600 587 478 3.665 9.0 2005 40.905 2.600 611 482 3.692 9.0 2006 40,905 2,600 635 485 3.720 9.1 2007 40,905 2,600 660 489 3,750 9.2 2008 40.905 2,600 687 493 3,780 9.2 2009 40,905 2.600 714 497 3.811 9.3 2010 40,905 2,600 743 501 3,844 9.4 2011 40,905 2.600 773 506 3.879 9.5 2012 40,905 2.600 803 511 3,914 9.6 2013 40,905 2,600 836 515 3,951 9.7 2014 40,905 2,600 869 520 3.989 9.8 2015 40,905 2,600 904 526 4,029 9.9 2016 40,905 2,600 940 531 4,071 10.0 2017 40,905 2,600 978 537 4.114 10.1 2018 40.905 2,600 1,017 543 4.159 10.2 2019 40,905 2,600 1,057 549 4,206 10.3 2020 40,905 2,600 l,lOO 555 4.255 10.4 2021 40,905 2,600 l,l44 562 4,305 10.5 2022 40,905 2,600 1,189 568 4,358 10.7 2023 40.905 2,600 1,237 576 4.413 10.8 2024 40,905 2,600 1,286 583 4,469 10.9 2025 40,905 2,600 1,338 591 4,529 11.1 2026 40,905 2,600 1.391 599 4.590 11.2 2027 40.905 2,600 1,447 607 4,654 11.4 2028 40,905 2,600 1,505 616 4,721 11.5 Net present value $47,720 $117 Reallevelized cost in 1994 dollars 2,398 5.1 12108/94 05:31PM CGK Appendix I APPENDIX I PERMIT/CERTIFICATION APPLICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS APPUCATION FOR WATER RIGHT APPLICATION FOR FACll.JTIES ON FEDERAL LANDS SECTION 404 PERMIT APPLICATION COASTAL PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE AND CERTIFICATION STATEMENT FISH HABITAT PERMIT APPLICATION STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES~ DIVISION OF WATER 0 Southcentral Region P.O. Box 107005 Anchorage, Ak 99510 (9071762·2.575 B·Southeast R1119ion 400 Willoughby 4th Floor 0 Northam Region 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks. AK 99706 (9071 451·2700 0 Mat-Sui Copper 1 offK::I! USE ot&.Y Baain Alu OA'1'11'1111£ ITNU fax: 562-1384 AMENDED Juneau, AK 99801 (907} 465-3400 fax: 586-2954 fax: 451·2751 APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHT 1800 Glenn Hwy. Ste 12 Palmer, Ak 99645 (907} 745-7200 fax: 745-7112 u.s 'Ihis application updates information presented in the 1993 application for water rt-s. INSTRUcnONS: Plea• type or print in ink.. Completo and sign the application: incomplete applications Will not be accaptec:.l and wliiDe ratUtfiiid. Submit one application tor each water source. Attach the 1'9q1Jlred items and return to the DNR Regional offica n the araa of the wal8r usa. Agent: HDR Alaska, Inc. I 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Cape Fbx Corporation Full legal name(s) Social Secunty or Federal Tax 10 #(optional) P.O. Box 8558, Ketchikan, AI< 99901 Mailing Address Contact: D::>Uq campbell (907) 225-5163 Ext. 303 Home T eiephone Number I 2. LOCATION OF WATER USE Anchorage, AK 99503-2639 (907) 274-2000 Attn: An:ne_LeQ:ae Co-owner vuu regal name) Social Security or Federal Tax 10 #(optional) City, State and Zip Business/Daytime T eiephone Number Provide the legal description of the property where the water will be used: Lot Block ASLS, ATS, or US Survey Subdivision Name ~1/4 SE 1/4_2":"'6 _ __, Aliquot Parts Section 74S 91E Conoor River Township Range Meridian Do you own or lease this property? YES~ NO_ If yes, attach a signed copy of the patent, deed, or lease; OR If no, you may not be eligible to.app)X for ws.ter rights. Contact your DNA regio!'lal office for ad-1ice. rnR has copy of Inten.m u:mveyance docurrent. I 3. LOCATION OF WATER SOURCE Is the source of water within the boundaries of the same property as described in Section 2? YES __ NO.J.L If yes, skip the rest of section 3 OR If no, complete the fallowing section giving the legal description of the water source. ---cot , Block ASLS, ATS, or US Survey SE NE HJL_1/4~ Aliquot Parts 1/4 34 ' .Sectton 74S , 91E Township Range Subdivision Name Copper Rj yer Meridian Do you own or lease and have right of access to this property? YES __ NO_X_ If yes, attach a signed copy of the patent, deed, lease, or document(s) granting access. OR It no, you will need to obtain a right of access to this property to obtain water rights. If the water source is on state land. you must file an application for a right-of-way permit with the appropriate DNA office listed above. l'.,n application for access has been ne.de to the u.s. Forest Service (the land manager ) . 10.102 Rev. (08193) Page 1 of4 I 4. SOURCE INFORMATION Is your water source groundwater (ia. a well)? YES __ NO~ It yes, check one of the foUowing well types: Drilled [ 1 Driven [ ] Dug [ ] Total depth, in feet Static water level. in feet ___ _ Diameter Attach a copy of the well log It available OR Is your water source surface water? YES~ NO __ If yes, check one of the following: Stream { ] River [ ] Lake [X] Spring [ ] Geographic name (if unnamed, state so) Upper f.fahor.ey lake I 5. LOCA noN MAP Attach a complete 1:63 360 (inch to mile) USGS map, 1:25.000 USGS map, or a subdivision plat identifying the section comers, township, range, and meridian and indicate the following on it: • Point of water withdrawal. impoundment, or diversion AND * Route of water transmission AND * Point of water use AND • Property boundary for the area of water use. I 6. COASTAl ZONE MANAGEMENT AREA? Is this appropriation within a Coastal Zone Management Area Plan? YES X NO __ _ If yes, and you are using more than 1.000 GPO from a surface source or 5,000 GPO from a subsurface source, you need to submit a completed Coastal Zone Questionnaire. If no, disregard. For more information on Coastal Zone Areas r::al/ the Division of Governmental Coordination; Anchorage 561·6131, Fairbanks 451-2819, Juneau 465·3552. I 7. METHOD OF TAKING WATER (complete the following table) Pump intake_ inches Pump output GPM Pump YES_NO X Length of p~ ft. Hours working Hr/day (from pump to point of use) Pipe diameter32 to inches Gravity YES X NO 'u length of pipe 6 r 420 ft. Hea@pprox 1, 740ft. (take point to use point) Ditch Yes No -X l H w ft. Diversion GPM orCFS Reservoir Yes _No ~ l H w _ft. -Water storage AF Dam Yes NO X l H -w ft. Water storage AF uenmuons: GPM = uauons per Mmute At-= Acre reet (;):.:!o,b!:l 1 uauons) ~o;r-:;, = I...UClc r-eet per :;,econc ~nded A:oolication for I-'later Right 10.102 Rev. COBJ93) Mahor:ey Lake Hydroelectric Project Page2oi..C I l 1: 8. WATER"QUANT1TY· AND, USE Expected data for system to be comptetely developed ---:1:.:::2""/ ... 1 .. 1 ... 99--::---::"--:-:--- Fill out the chan below if you are proposing to use water for one of these uses. For all other uses, describe the type of use and explain how much water is requested by showing calculations, etc. COMMON WATER USES AND STANDARD QUANlTTIES TYPE(S) OF HOW MANY STANDARD TOTAL MONTHS OF USE QUANlTTY QUAN11TY USE REQUESTED FROM THRU Fully plumbed single family i Homes X 500 GPO = GPO Fully plumbed single family with • mother-in-law• apartment i Homes X 750 GPO = GPO Partially plumbed single family • Homes X 250 GPO = GPO Unplumbed single family • Homes X 75GPO = GPO Duplex or Triplex • Bldgs • X 1000 GPO = GPO Fourplex and larger • Units X 250 GPO = GPO Mobile Home Park • Units X 250 GPO = GPO Motel or Resort II Rooms X 150 GPO = GPO Cattle (not dairy cows) II Cows X 12GPO = GPO Dairy Cows • Cows X 35GPO = GPO Horses • Horses X 15 GPO = GPO Poultry or Rabbits • Animals X 0.5 GPO = GPO Oogs(Kennels) I Dogs X 1 GPO = GPO Crop lrrtgatlon (I acres or sq. ft.): II Acres X O.SAFY = AFY Work Camps • People X 50 GPO = GPO *Other Water Uses: Hydroelectric project. .Maxim.:;un water use will 1::e approximately 50 million gallons ~r day. The project u-i :..1 orcrcr::~ :'lear-round. uetmations: GPO • gallons per day AFY -acre feet per year CFS -cubic feet per second Fully plumbed single family· Water piped into the house for domestic uses. Hot water heater; flush toilet and irrigation of up to 10,000 sq.ft. of yard and garden are included Partially plumbed single family • Water piped into the house for limited domestic uses. Generally no hot water heater and no water flush toilet included. Unplumbed single family -No water piped into the house. Water is hand carried •ether Water Uses· Quantities of water requested over the standard amounts must be aa:ompanied with justification for the additional wat Am:m&>.n Application for Water Right 1o:T02 Rev. (08J93) Hahorey Lake Hydroelectric Proiect fllol3oU I 9. FEE OOR has alreadv received Sl 000 00 fi S 50.00 FOR USE OF 5,000 GPO OR L'E~S. • ee. S 100.00 FOR USE OF MORE THAN 5,000 GPO BUT LESS THAN 30.000 GPO. $200.00 FOR USE OF 30.000 GPO OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 100.000 GPO. $300.00 FOR USE OF 100,000 GPO OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 500.000 GPO. $ 500.00 FOR USE OF 500,000 GPO OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 1,000,000 GPO. S 1.,000.00 FOR USE OF 1,000,000 GPO OR MORE EXCEPT ... (see next line) $ 1,500.00 FOR USE OF 1,000,000 GPO OR MORE. OUTSIDE OF THE HYDROLOGIC UNIT FROM - WHICH IT WAS REMOVED (based on current USGS Hydrologic Unit Map of Alaska). S 500.00 FOR USE OF ANY QUANTITY OF GLACIER ICE. Attach payment with application (Use table below to determine fees if your quantity is not in GPO}. WATER COHVUSION TAIIU:: UIM..O. ---100.--MO.--.01 CF$ .Q5 CFS Q.2 CFS Q.ICFS 3.A7a.... 20JI30PU •• 4GPU :W7.2GPM UOAFY :IUOAFY UZ.OAFY 6&0.1 AF'r .QZAFD .CIIIAFO <1.3 MD ,QUI .liUI ll.11ol ---··-······-·-·----·-···-·····-··-. I 10. SIGNATURE For this application to be complete It must include: _ -J Comp141ted and lligned Application Form. _ -J USGS Map (incn to mile) or Subdivision Plat (Section 5). _ -J o-ct to property or poaaaory lnt-t (Section 2). _-/.Well Log if appficable (Section 4). IJiAFO O.lilol '·----' t..iCFS a4.40PU 1120.1 AF'r 3.1 AFO 1.0 ... _ -J L.llpJ Acceaa Documents if applicable; ie. Rights-of· Way or Easements (Section 3). _ -J Coastal Zona Quationnaira if applicable (Section 6). _ -J Filing Fee (Section i). Of:F1111110NS: CFS. CUBIC FElm5ECONo ON-~ AFY• ACRE-FEE17\'ENI AFOe ACRE...f'EET;Qt.Y U. WIUION GAU..ONSilllY The information presented in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that per 11 AAC 93.040 and 11 AAC 93.050 additional intonnation may be required by the Division of Water to adjudicate this application. Failure to provide requested infonnation could result in this file being closed. SIGNED: ~CMIM.~Udf DATED: 5/zb/i<Q One appli t only lbuglas _ M. carnoreu Chief Executive Officer Name (please print) Title I 11. STATEMENT OF BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER IS YOUR WATER SOURCE AND WATER USE FULlY DEVELOPED AT THIS nME? YES_ No..!_ WHEN? If yes, sign the following affidavit of usa in the presence of a notary. OR if..n2. skip this -sectiO--n.- I certify under penalty of perjury that the above is a true and accurate statement of the extent to which the above water use has been fully developed and am using the stated quantity of water . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) )sa. State of Alaka ) This is to certify that on the _day of • 19 _ betore me personally appeared .... ~~~--------------·kllown by me 10 be ltle person named 1r1 and who exec:utad this dOCument and I1Cia'IOWiaagea voUJnmnry Signing 1ne same. IN TEsnMONY WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto sat my hand and affixed my official seal. ltle day and year in this document first above wna.;n. Nolllry Public rn and tor N Stale of Alaska My commission exllints: Anended .Application for Water Right 1o:tcrz Rav. "(08193) Mahorey Lake Hydrce~~4 Project ... STANDARD FORM 299 (10195) Prescribed by DOUUSDAIDOT P.L 96487 and Federal FORM APPROVED Rl:iisl<er Notice 5-22·95 APPLICATION FOR TRANSPORT AnON AND OMS NO. 1004-0060 UTILITY SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES Expires: August 31. 1998 ON FEDERAL LANDS FOR AGENCY USE ONLY NOTE: Before completing and filing the applicmion. !he applicant should completely review this package and schedule a Application Number preapplication meeting with representatives of the agency responsible for processing the application. Each agency may have specific and unique requirements to be met in preparing and processing !he application. Many times. with Dale filed !he help of !he agency representative. the application can be completed at rhe preapplication meeting. I. Name and address of applicant (include zip code! 2. Name. utle. and address of authorized agent if different 3. 'TE.EPHONE (area code) cape Fox Corporation from I rem I !include zip codtt) Attn. Anne Applicant ( I) Attn: D:>ug cartpbell HDR Alaska, Inc. • 907 225-5163 P ·.~;.h~!n 8558 · 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Leggett Authorized Agent Ke ' AK C}9901 Anchorage, AK 99503-2639 (907} 274-2000 4. As applicant are you? ( chttck one) 5. Specify what application is for: t check one) a. Cl Individual a. l3k New authorization b. 01 Corporation• b. Cl Renewing existing authorization No. c. Cl Partnership/Association• c. Cl Amend existing authorization No. d. Cl Stale Government/State Agency d. Cl Assign ellisting authorization No. e. Cl Local Government e. Cl Existing use for which no authorization has been received• f. Cl Federal Agency f. Cl Other• • If checked. compk:tl!': supplem11nral page • If ch11cked. provide derails under Item 7 --· ----------- 6. If an individual. or partnership are you a citizen(s) of the United States) Cl Yes Cl No N/A 7. Project description (dllscribl! in derail): (a) Type of system or facilicy. (e.g .• ca110.l. pipeline. road); (b) reialed strucrures and facilities; (c) physical specifications (lenglh .. width. grading. 11tc.J; (d) term of years needed: (el time of year of use or operation: (f) Volume or amount of product to be transported; (g) duration and timing of construction; and (b) temporary worlc areas needed foe construction (Anach additional shuts. if addirional space is needed.) See attached pages. 8. Attach a map covering area and show location of project proposal 9. Stale or Loc gova:nment approval: Cl Attached ~ Applied for Cl Not required I 0. Nonreturnable application fee: Cl Attached l3k Not required II. Does proJCX::t cross international boundary or affcx::t in~emational war.erways~ Cl Yes G:l No (ff"yes." indicau on ltUlfJ) 12. Give statement of your ~ecbnical and fmancial capability to construct. operale. maintain. and ~erminate system for which authorization is being requested. cape Fox Cbrporation is an Alaska Native Village corp::>ration with ~rie:rce in project planning and irnplerrentation. Cape Fox 'ONnS 22,000 acres of land in the :i.m:mdiate vicinity of the pro:r::osed project on which logging, road building, and associated managen:ent have occurred. 'Ihe hydro}::lower applicant, the City of Saxman, as a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Alaska, is authorized to fund. the cost of developing and constructing the pro:r::osed project through the sale of revenue borrls. I:ebt service on oonds and operating costs will be paid for with revenue generated from the sale of the electricity. (Continued on reverse) 1 This form is authorized for local reproduction. r1ahon?!v T nkP. Hvclrr.p 1 P.M-ri r. Pro;ect: .... -' l3a. Describe other reasonable alternative routes and modes considered. See attached pages. b. Why were these altemati ves not selected? See attached pages • c. Give explanation as to why it is necessary to cross Federal Lands. See attached pages. 14. List authorizauons and pending applications filed for similar projects which may provide information to the authorizing agency. r Specify 11Umber. dare. code. or name I tbt applicable. 15. Provide statement of need for project. including the economic feasibility and items such as: (a) cost of proposal lconsrrumon. operazion. and main.umance}; (b) estimated cost of next best alternative: and (c) expected public benefits. See attached. pages. 16. Describe probable effeCts on the population in the area. Including the soctal and economtc aspects. and the rural lifestyles. See attached pages. !7. Descnbe likely environmental effects thax the proposed project will have on: (a) air quality: (b) visual impact: (c) surface and ground water quality and quantity: (d) the control or SU'Uctural change on any stream or od!er body of water: (e) existing noise levels: and (0 the surface of the land. including vegetatio!L permafrost. soil, and soil stability. See attached pages. 18. Describe the probable effects that the proposed project will have on (a) populations of fish. plantlife, wildlife. and marine life, including threatened and endangered species: and (b) marine mammals. including hunting. capruring, collecting_ or killing these animals. See attached pages. 19. State whether any hazardous material. as defined in this paragraph. will be used. produced. transpated or stored on or Within the right-of-way or any of the right-of-way facilities. or used in the consuuctio!L operatio!L maintenance or terminalion of the right-of-way or any of its facilities. "Hazardous material" means any substance. poUutant or contaminant that is listed as halardous under the Comprehensive Environmental Respoose. Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq .• and its regulations. The deftnition of hazardous substances under CERCLA includes any "hazardous waste" as defined in the Resource Conservaxion and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq~ and its regulations. The term hazardous materials also includes any nuclear or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended,42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. The term does not include petrOleum. inc:luding crude oil or any fraction thereof that is not odlerwise specifu:ally listed or designaxed as a hazanious subsranee wtder CERCLA Section I 0 1(14 ). 42 U .S.C. 960 1(14 ). nor does the term include naruraJ gas. Hazardous rra.terials might be used during construction of the project. tb hazarcbus rraterial is expected to be used during project oreration. 20. Name all the DepartmenUs)IAgency(ies) where this application is being flied. u.s. Forest Service Federal Erergy Iegulatory Corrmission U.S. Cepart::J:rent of t:he Anny, eorpE> of En.gi:reer§J' Fegulai::ory Branch I HEREBY CERTIFY. That I am of legalag.= and authorized to do business in the State and thax I have personally examined the informaxion contained in the application and believe that the information submitted is correct to the best of my knowledge. Signaxure of Applicant ~(~JJD; •.. fltlflj__ _ I ~~/zdl!LJ ----y--------. Tide 18. U.S.C. Section 1001. mllkes it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to make to any department or agency of the United States any false. fictitious. or fraudulcm statements or representations as to any matter within its jurisdiction. ' SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE: The responsible agencyt ies) will provide additional insaucuons CliECK APPROPRIATE BLOCK I· PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AlTACHED FILED" a. Articles of Incorporation a eg b. Corporation Bylaws a 5a c. A certification from the State showing !be corporation is in good standing and is entided to operare within the State. * a a d. Copy of resolution authorizing filing *Not required, :p=r Teresa Trulock, 5/16/96 * a a e. The name and address of each shareholder owning 3 percent or more of the shares. together with !he number and percentage of any * class of voting shares of !he entity which such shareholder is awllorized to vote and !be name and address of each affiliate of the entity togelber with. in the case of an affiliate controUed by !be entity. the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting stock of a a that affiliate owned. direcdy or indirectly. by that entity. and in the case of an affiliate which controls !hat entity. !he number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting stock of thar entity owned. directly or indirectly. by the affiliate. f. If application is for an oil or gas pipeline. describe any related right-of-way or temporary use permit applications. and identify · previous applications. N/A a a g. If application is for an oil and gas pipeline. identify all Federal lands by agency impacted by proposal. N/A a a II· PUBLIC CORPORATlONS a. Copy of law fonnmg corporatioo a a b. Proof of organization a a c. Copy of Bylaws a a d. Copy of resolution authorizing filing a a d. If application is for an oil or gas pipeline. provide informauoo required by Item "J.f' and "l·g· above. a a III· PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER UNINCORPORATED ENTITY . a. Anicles of association. if any a a b. If one partner is authorized 10 sign. resolution authorizing acuon is a a c. Name and address of each participant. panner. associaion. or other a a d. If applicaion is for an oil or gas pipeline. provide information required by Item "I-f' and "1-g" above. a a ---- • If the required informarion is already flied with the agency processing this application and is current. checlc block entitled "Filed." Provide the file identifiCation information f e.g .• n umbt:r. d.a~. code. name I. If n« on file or cum:nL artach the requested informatioo. Articles of Inoorp:>ration and Corp:>ration Bylaws on file at USFS are current. NOTlCE The Privacy Act of 1974 ~ovides that you be furnished the following informauoo in connection with informauon required by this applicatioo for an aulhoriz:auon. AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 310; 5 US.C. 301. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: The informatioo is to be used to process the applicarion. ROUTINE USES: <I) The processing of the applicant's request for an authorization. ( 2) Documentatioo for public informauon. (3) Trausfer to app-opriar.e Federal agencr.es when concum:nce is required prior to granting a right in public lands or resources. (4)(5) lnformauon from the record and/or the reoord will be transferred to appropriate Federal. State. local or foreign agencies. when relevant to c1viL crimmal or regulatory investigations or prosecuuons. 3 EFFECT OF NOT PROVIDING IN FORMA TlON: Disdosure of the informarion is volunta.ry. If all !he informarion is nOt provided. die application may berejeaed. DATA COLLECTlON STATEMENT The Federal agencies coUect this information from applicuiS requesting right-of- way. permit. license. lease. or certificarion for tile usc of Federal lands. The Federal agencies usc !his information to evaluate the applicant's proposal. The public is obligated to submit this fonn if they wish 10 obtain permission 10 usc Fedcra.llands. A re~oducible copy of this form may be obtained from the Bu.reau of Land Management. Division of Lands. 1620 L Street. Rm. 204, Wasbingwn. D.C. 20036. Mahoney Lake Hydrrelectric Project Application for Facilities on Federal Lands Answers to Questions 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18 7. Project description a. The Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project, located approximately 7 miles northeast of the City of Ketchikan, would generate electricity using water flowing from Upper Mahoney Lake to Lower Mahoney Lake. The project would employ a lake tap design. The project would produce a maximum of 46 million kWh of energy annually. b. The project would include the following structures: (1) a lake tap near the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake at a depth of about 75 ft.; (2) a 1,700-foot-long upper tunnel; (3) a valve house between the upper tunnel and vertical shaft; ( 4) a 12-inch-diameter bypass pipe to convey water from the valve house to Upper Mahoney Creek to provide upwelling flow in the lower lake during periods of emergency shutdown; ( 5) a 1 ,3 70-foot-long vertical shaft; (6) an 8-foot-diameter, 3,350-foot-long lower tunnel to the powerhouse; (7) a semi-underground powerhouse; (8) a 200-foot-long tailrace channel to Upper Mahoney Creek; (9) 1.54 miles of buried transmission line and 3.1 miles of overhead transmission line; (10) a switchyard; (11) 2.6 miles of new access road; (12) 2 spoils piles-one at the valve house site and one at the powerhouse site. c. The following are physical specifications for project structures: (1) The lake tap would be at a depth of 75 feet. Drawdown would be to within 10 feet of the lake tap-70 feet of drawdown. (2) The 1,700-foot-long upper tunnel would be unlined except for a 4-foot-diameter, 20-foot-long, pipe 200 feet downstream of the lake tap with a valve to isolate the lake tap from the rest of the system, and a 4-foot-diameter steel pipe that would connect the upper tunnel and vertical shaft. (3) The 300-square-foot concrete valve house would be constructed directly above the vertical shaft and contain two 48-inch-diameter butterfly valves and a vent pipe. ( 4) The bypass would be a 200-foot-long, 12-inch-diameter pipe. (5) The 1,370-foot-long vertical shaft would be partially unlined. The unlined sections would be 5 to 7 feet in diameter and the lined sections 4 feet in diameter. (6) The lower tunnel would be an 8-foot-diameter horseshoe shape, 3,350 feet long, from the powerhouse portal to the base of the vertical shaft. It would be partially lined and supported by rock bolts and steel sets as required and be at 10% grade for positive drainage. A 32-inch-diameter steel pipe on concrete saddles would convey the turbine flow. (7) The powerhouse would be a 1,600-square-foot, semi-underground, concrete structure located about 1,100 feet upstream of Lower Mahoney Lake. (8) The 200-foot-long tailrace would be pre-cast concrete box culvert or corrugated metal pipe for 70 feet downstream of the powerhouse and a rip-rap lined earth channel from there to Upper Mahoney Creek. (9) The transmission line would be 13.2-kV conductor buried for 1.04 miles within the access road as far as the switchyard. From the switchyard it would be 34.5-kV, and would be buried for 0.5 mile and overhead for 3.1 miles south to Beaver Falls. Installation and maintenance of the transmission line from the switchyard to Beaver Falls would require that approximately 75 acres be continually cleared of trees. (10) The switchyard and power transformer, where the voltage would be stepped up from 13.2- kV to 34.5-kV, would be about 0.4 acre in size and would be located 1.04 miles from the powerhouse. (11) The 2.6-mile access road would be constructed as an extension to the existing timber access road. It would be 14 feet wide, gravel surfaced, single lane with turnouts, and would require two bridges: an 80-foot span over Lower Mahoney Creek and a 30-foot span over South Creek. (12) The upper spoils pile near the valve house would cover 1. 7 acres; the lower spoils pile near the powerhouse would cover 1.5 acres. d. The FERC License would be issued for a fifty-year period. e. The hydropower project would operate year-round. f. The facility would have an average turbine flow of 44.4 cfs, and a generating capacity of9.6 MW. Application for Facilities on Federal Lands 4 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project ~ g. It is estimated that construction ofthe project would begin 711/97 and run as follows: access road-7/1/97 to 9/30/97; transmission line-4/1/98 to 9/1/98, 3/1/99 to 7/1/99; lower tunnel-4/1/98 to 11/30/98; vertical shaft -12/1/98 to 3/31/99; upper tunnel and lake tap -4/1/99 to 11/15/99; powerhouse -4/1/99 to 8/I8/99; turbine/generator installation-8/18/99 to Il/1/99; start-up and testing-11/1/99 to 12/1/99. h. Temporary work areas that would be cleared for construction are: 1.4 acres at the valve house site for construction of upper tunnel, valve house, and vertical shaft; 3.2 acres for the access road from the powerhouse to the switchyard; 0.2 acre at the switchyard; and 4.4 acres for the access road from the switchyard to the existing timber access road. 13. Project alternatives a. Three alternatives to the lake tap design were considered: (I) construct a dam at the outlet to Upper Mahoney Lake; (2) construct a dam approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Upper Mahoney Lake outlet; (3) construct a deeper lake tap. Three alternative water conveyance configurations were considered: (I) instead of the upper tunnel, divert flow from a low height dam through a 500-foot-long pipeline to the top of the vertical shaft; (2) same as alternative (1) except divert flow into a different shaft and tunnel arrangement 2,000 feet downstream of the dam; (3) construct a pipeline all the way from the low dam on Upper Mahoney Lake to the proposed powerhouse site. A conventional aboveground powerhouse, located either north of the proposed site across Upper Mahoney Creek or further east on the south side of the creek, was considered. One alternative transmission line route was considered: a northern route to interconnect with the Swan Lake Project. Burying the entire transmission line was considered. b. Lake tap alternatives (I) and (2) were not considered feasible because of the danger of damage or failure due to rock slides and avalanches in the area ofthe dam sites. Alternative (1) would also require stabilization ofthe left abutment, which is talus, and would be impractical and economically prohibitive. In addition, only a very high dam would provide storage equivalent to that of the lake tap design. Alternative (3) was rejected because there would be little economic advantage and there would be concerns about the reservoir refilling completely each year, rim stability, increased siltation, and controlling seepage into the tunneL All three alternative water conveyance configurations included a low dam and would be operated as run-of-river projects. Any use of a dam and extensive pipe risks damage or failure due to slides and avalanches. Run-of-river operation modes have less flexibility in meeting energy needs. An aboveground powerhouse was not considered practical because of the frequent avalanches in the project area. The proposed location was chosen because the powerhouse can be excavated back into the rock as part of the tunnel construction, thereby cutting costs and impacts, and the length of the tailrace needed is decreased. The northern alternative transmission line route was rejected in favor of a southern route to Beaver Falls because of additional length (about 1.5 miles) and the ability to continue supplying power to downtown Ketchikan in the Application for Facilities on Federal Lands 5 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project event of a Swan Lake Project line trip. This alternative was recommended by the local utility, Ketchikan Public Utilities. Although burying a line can minimize the impacts to aesthetics, vegetation, and wildlife, the amount of blasting of bedrock that would be necessary combined with steep, difficult terrain make this alternative unfeasible. c. Project components that would be constructed on or cross USFS lands are the lake tap intake, upper tunnel, valve house, bypass, upper spoils pile, vertical shaft, and most of the lower tunnel; about 500 feet of the access road north of Lower Mahoney Creek; and about 3 miles of overhead transmission line south of Lower Mahoney Lake to Beaver Falls. At the upper site, only the valve house, spoils pile, and bypass would be evident above ground. It was necessary to locate this part of the project at the proposed site to use the storage capacity of Upper Mahoney Lake and the drop in head between the upper lake and the powerhouse to generate the maximum amount of power. The new access road would cross a small portion of USFS land to avoid either the shoreline or the steep mountainside above. The southern transmission line route was chosen in part because it would be 1.5 miles shorter than the northern route. More importantly for the residents of the Ketchikan area, by tying into the Beaver Falls Project and not the Swan Lake Project, power to downtown Ketchikan would not be interrupted during a Swan Lake line trip. 15. Statement of need for project This project could generate 46 million kWh of electricity annually, based on an average water year, which would be sold to Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). KPU presently has access to 141 million kWh annually of other hydropower resources. It can produce up to 100 million kWh annually by diesel combustion. KPU' s load was 158 million kWh in 1994, and the load is projected to grow at 3.62% annually. Any demand over 141 million kWh per year requires that diesel fuel be burned. Developing additional renewable sources of energy would reduce Ketchikan's use of fossil fuels. This project's capital cost would be approximately $32,263,000 (1998 dollars). Annual O&M costs would be about $464,000. This project could produce power at a levelized cost of approximately 5.5¢ (2000 dollars) per kWh. Levelized cost of continued diesel generation would be approximately 11.7¢ (2000 dollars) per kWh. Public benefits of this project would include: lower electricity costs, less use of nonrenewable fuels (less emission of noxious byproducts and greenhouse gasses, less risk of spill), and a more reliable energy source. 16. Probable effects on the population in the area These effects are described in section V.C.8. of the preliminary draft environmental assessment. Short-term effects include: employment for up to 50 people during construction; greater spending at local businesses; increased noise, dust, and combustion emissions from transport ofworkers and materials; and more traffic. Long-term effects include: increased revenue to the City of Saxman from sale of power; up to two full-time jobs; less emissions from combustion of fossil fuel and lower risk of environmental damage from handling of fueL No effects on rural lifestyles would occur, and no demographic changes are anticipated. 17. Physical environmental effects Application for Facilities on Federal Lands 6 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project These effects are detailed in sections V.C.l, 2, and 5 ofthe preliminary draft environmental assessment. Dust, noise, and combustion emissions from transport and construction machinery would occur during construction. Noise and combustion emissions from diesel power generation would be reduced once the hydro project was operating. Installation of structures, construction of fill pads, deposition of spoil piles, and clearing of vegetation at and near Upper Mahoney Lake, at the powerhouse site, and along the access road and electrical transmission line would eliminate the pristine quality of the views ofthose areas. Drawdown of the upper lake would slightly reduce the lake's natural appearance. Reduction offlows over the waterfall would lessen the dramatic quality of views ofthat feature. Changes to surface waters would include drawdown of the upper lake, reduction of flows in Upper Mahoney Creek between the upper lake and the tailrace, filling of some intermittent and high flow channels at the upper construction site, routing of small creeks and overland flow through culverts, and temporary increases in suspended sediment levels during construction. The creeks' flow regimes and the upper creek's temperature would be altered as described in the EA. Groundwater quality, except for temperature, would not be affected. Changes in groundwater temperature at the upper creek delta in the lower lake would not likely affect incubating fish. Construction would require clearing of vegetation and movement of soil, which could result in decreased soil stability in some locations. Land surface contours would be altered by placement of fill pads, spoil piles, and the road. 18. Probable effects on biological resources Effects on project area biological features are described in sections V.C.2, 3, and 4, and in Appendices A and B of the environmental assessment. No adverse effects to salmon spawning in Lower Mahoney Lake are expected to result from thls project. Moderation of extreme flows through Lower Mahoney Creek would probably enhance sockeye salmon passage into the lower lake and would probably be beneficial to success of fish spawning in the lower creek. The project would result in clearing of forest, muskeg, and wet meadows and alteration or elimination of approximately 180 acres of plant and animal habitat, including wetlands and old- growth forest. The types of animals occupying the project area might change slightly as early successional vegetation develops after construction. Construction activity would disturb and cause temporary displacement of many animals species away from the project area. Several specially protected plant and animal species occupy the project area; individuals of some of these species might be displaced or even eliminated but the local populations would not be adversely affected. The project would not affect marine mammals. Application for Facilities on Federal Lands 7 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Department of the Army Permit Application Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS) 1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED (ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPUCAND 5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE Cape Fox Corporation HDR Alaska Inc.; Anne LegQett 6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS Cape Fox Corporation HDR Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 8558 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attn: Doug Campbell 7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE PHONE: (907) 225-5163, ext. 303 (907) 274-2000 (FAX 274-2022) FAX: (907) 225-3137 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize, Anne Leagett of HDR Alaska Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. l2n '(A '(h~ Cte1J APf:ti:-ANT:SS -NATURE ~IZ<->!q_fD • r DATE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS Mahoney Creek N/A 15. LOCATION OF PROJECT Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN T. 74 S., R. 91 E., S. 24-27,34-36; T. 74 S., R. 92 E., S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E., S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian 17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE From downtown Ketchikan, drive northeast and follow Ward Lake Road, White River Road, and timber access road to north end of project area. White River Road is blocked by a gate; a key must be obtained from Cape Fox Corporation to gain entry. Alternatively, fly 7 miles northeast via helicopter or ftoatplane to access Upper or Lower Mahoney Lake; or access south terminus of electric transmission line by following public road to Beaver Falls. - Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 1 Section 404 Permit Application 18. Nature of Activity See detailed project description and drawings attached to the Coastal Project Questionnaire. 19. Project Purpose The project purpose is to generate electricity using a renewable energy source to meet Ketchikan's power needs. The project will reduce the community's dependence on burning of fossil fuels for generation of electricity. Construction is proposed to begin in July 1997 and be completed in December 1999. USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Reason(s) for Discharge Disturbance of the Upper Mahoney Lake bottom is necessary for installation of the lake tap. Filling of wetlands and intermittent creek channels is necessary to provide a work area for construction of the tunnel and shalt near the upper lake and for disposal of tunnel spoils in that area. Excavation of the Upper Mahoney Creek bank is required in two locations: to construct the outlet of the bypass pipe at the upper construction site; and to connect the tailrace outlet with the creek near the powerhouse. Parts of the access road and buried and overhead transmission line and the entire switchyard site are located in wetlands. Crossing of wetlands cannot be avoided for construction of the linear project features because of the ubiquitous nature of wetlands in the project area. The switchyard must be located in wetlands because the other suitable sites are located in areas potentially impacted by avalanches. 21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards The material to be discharged will be silt, sand, and gravel obtained from a local borrow site and shot rock removed from the tunnels. Minor amounts of fine materials will be included in the generally coarse fill. The total volume of fill material to be discharged in wetlands and other waters of the U.S. will be approximately 36,000 cubic yards. 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or other Waters Filled Approximately 7.3 acres of wetlands will be filled or excavated, or both. An additional approximately 8.4 acres of wetlands will be mechanically cleared. (The overhead electric transmission line corridor will be cleared by hand, using helicopter support.) Excavation or fill activiities will occur in up to approximately one acre of other waters of the U.S. These activities will include: construction of the lake tap in Upper Mahoney Lake; placing fill over an area that includes several high-flow and intermittent channels of Upper Mahoney Creek at the upper tunnel construction site; removal of material from the bank of Upper Mahoney Creek for construction of the bypass pipeline discharge structure; and removal of material from the bank of Upper Mahoney Creek for connection of the tailrace outlet to the creek 23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X , IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK 24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc. Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody U.S. Forest Service Forest Supervisor's Office Federal Building Ketchikan AK 99901 25. List of other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application. AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL ID NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED Federal Energy Regulatory License for Major 11393-000 will be submitted Commission Unconstructed Project 5131196 U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit not yet assigned concurrent with this application AK Division of ACMP consistency AK9403-33JJ concurrent with this Governmental Coordination determination application AK Department of Environmental Section 401 water quality not yet assigned concurrent with this Conservation certification application AK Department of Fish and Game Fish Habitat Permit not yet assigned concurrent with this application AK Department of Natural Resources Water Rights not yet assigned 5117/93 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 2 Section 404 Permit Application 26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the woO< described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the wor1< described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. t'?Jti!A(~ ~~/fta ~~ SJo/IJCf4> • SIGNA'"fURE OF\1\PPLICANT The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsiftes, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10.000 or imprisoned not more than fiVe vears or both. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 3 Section 404 Permit Application roject Questionnaire and Certification Statement Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project APPLICANT INFORMATION Anne Leggett 2. HDR Alaska, Inc. 1. Cape Fox Corporation (Attn: Doug Campbell) Name of Applicant P.O. Box 8558 Agent (or responsible party if otber than applicant) Address Ketchikan, AK 99901 2525 C Street, Suite 305 City SWe Zip Code (907) 2:2.5-5163_(e,q. 3Q3) Address Anchorage, AK. 99503 Daytime Phone (9~7} 225-3137 City State Zip Code (907) 274-2000 Fax Number Daytime Phone (907) 274-2022 Fax Number PROJECT INFORMATION Yes No 1. This activity is a: [!] *new projecO modification or addition to an existing project *Project is new (not yet constructed) but agencies reviews have been ongoing since early 1980s. If a modification do you currently have any State, federal or local approvals related to this activity? D [!] Note: Approval means any form of authorization. If"yes," please list below. Approval Type Approval # Issuance Date Expiration Date 2. Has this project ever been reviewed by the State of Alaska per the ACMP? Previous State I.D. Number: AK 9403-331, 9504-081, Previous Project Name: same as this one 9603-241 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Attach the following: a detailed description of the project and all associated facilities; a project timeline for completion of all major activities in the proposal; a site plan depicting all proposed actions; other supporting documentation that would facilitate review of the project. Note: If the project is a modification, identify existing facilities as well as proposed activities on the site plan. Proposed starting date for project: 711/97 <construction) Proposed ending date for project: 1211/99 <construction> 2. Provide a brief description of your entire project and ALL associated facilities (access roads, caretaker facilities, waste disposal sites, etc.). Construct a hydroelectric power generation project. A tap will be installed below the surface ofUpper Mahoney Lake, and water transmitted through a penstock in a tunnel to a powerhouse near Lower Mahoney Lake. The tailrace will discharge water to Mahoney Creek upstream from Lower Mahoney Lake. A 2.6-mile-long access road will connect the powerhouse site and an existing logging road. A buried and overhead electric transmission line will extend from the powerhouse site southward to the Beaver Fails area, a distance of about 3. 5 miles. Coastal Project Questionnaire Page 1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project PROJECT LOCATION 1. Attach a copy of the topographical map with the project location marked on it. 2. Location of project (include nearest community or name of the land feature or body of water. Identify township, range and section): Mahoney Lakes, along George Inlet, northeast of Ketchikan, AK 3. 4. 5. Township T. 74 S. T. 74 S. T. 75 S. Range R. 91 E. R. 92E. R. 92 E. Section 24-27, 34-36 31 5, 6, 8 Meridian CRM CRM CRM Latitude/Longitude 55°25'N 131°32'W The project is on: State Land* Federal Land XX Private Land XX Municipal Land *State land can be uplands, tidelands, or submerged lands to 3 miles offshore. See Question #1 in DNR section. Th~oject is located in which region (see attached map): U Northern 0 Southcentral II] Southeast D State Pipeline Coordinator's Office Yes No ~ D Is the project located in a coastal district? If yes, please contact the district representative listed on the attached sheet. 6. Identify the communities closest to your project location: Ketchikan, Saxman FEDERAL APPROVALS 1. 2. 3. 4. Is the proposed project on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land or will you need to cross USFS lands for access? Does the cost of the project exceed $250, 000? Ifyes, have you applied for a USFS permit or approval? Date of submittal: concurrent with this submittal Is the proposed project on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land or will you need to cross BLM lands for access? Does the cost of the project exceed $250,000? If yes, have you applied for a BLM permit or approval? Date of submittal: Will you be constructing a bridge over tidal (ocean) waters, or navigable rivers, streams or lakes? If yes, have you applied for a U.S. Coast Guard permit for a bridge? Date of submittal: Will you be dredging or placing structures or fills in any of the following: tidal (ocean) waters, streams, lakes, wetlands*? If yes, have you applied for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit? Date of submittal: concurrent with this submittal (Note: Your application for this activity to the Corps of Engineers also serves as your application to DEC.) ~ ~ ~ D D D D D [K] ~ D D D ~ D D ~ D D D *If you are not cerlain whether your proposed project is in a wetlands, contact the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch at (907) 753-2720 for a wetlands detennination (outside the Anchorage area call toll free 1-800-478-2712.) Coastal Project Questionnaire Page 2 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 5. Have you applied for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit? Date of submittal: construction will require a general stormwater discharge permit 6. Will you have a putrescible waste discharge within 5 miles of any public airport? If yes. please contact the Airports Division ofrhe FederalAvilltinn.Administratum ar (907) 271-5440. 7. Does the project include a nonfederal power project affecting any navigable body of water or located on federal land? Or, is utilization of surplus water from any federal government dam proposed? (Power projects consist of dams, water conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, and transmission lines.) If yes, have you applied for a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FER C)? Date of submittal: a:Q:Qlication for license will be submitted 5/31/96 (Note: For infonnation, contact FERC. Office of Hydropower Licensing, at (202) 208-0200.) 8. Have you applied for permits from any other federal agency? Agency Approval Type Date Submitted DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) APPROVALS? L 2. Will a discharge of wastewater from industrial or commercial operations occur? Will the discharge be connected to an already approved sewer system? Will the project include a stormwater collection/discharge system? Do you intend to construct, install, modifY, or use any part of a wastewater (sewage or greywater) disposal system? a) If so, will the discharge be 500 gpd or greater? b) If constructing a domestic wastewater treatment or disposal system, will the system be located within fill material requiring a COE permit? If you answered yes to a or b, answer the following: 1) How deep is the bottom of the system to the top of the subsurface water table? 2) How far is any part of the wastewater disposal system from the nearest surface water? 3) 4) Is the surrounding area inundated with water at any time of the year? How big is the fill area to be used for the absorption system? (Questions 1&2 will be used by DEC to determine whether separation distances are being met; Questions 3&4 relate to the required size of the fill if wetlands are i'l'fiKilved. Yes D D ~ D D D D D D D D D No ~ ~ D ~ lliJ ~ D D ~ D D D Coastal Project Questionnaire Page3 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 3. Do you expect to request a mixing zone for your proposed project? (lf your wastewater discharge will exceed Alaska water quality standards, you may apply for a mixing zone. If so, please contact DEC to discuss information required under 18 AAC 70.032.) Yes No D ~ 4. Do you plan to store or dispose of any type of solid waste resulting from this project? [K}* 0 (Note: Solid waste means drilling wastes, garbage, refose, sludge. and other discarded materia~ including solid, liquid, sem1-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercia~ and agricultural operations, and from community activities.) 5. 6. 7. 8. *Tailings from tunnel construction will be disposed of on-site. Will your project require the application of oil, pesticides, and/or any other broadcast chemicals to the surface of the land and/or the waters of the state? a. b. c. d. e. Will you have a facility that will generate air emissions from processing greater thanfive tons per hour of material? Will you have one or more units of fuel burning equipment, including flaring, with a heat input rating of 50 million Btu per hour or more? Will you have a facility containing incinerators with a total charging capacity of 1, 000 pounds per hour or more? Will you incinerate sludge? Will you have any of the following processes? § Asphalt plant Petroleum refinery Petroleum Contaminated Soils Cleanup D Coal preparation facility 0 Portland cement plant D D D D D D f. Will your facility use the following equipment? D D Diesel internal combustion engines? o (Total capacity~ to or grea:ter1han 1, 750 kilowans or total raled brake specific horsepower grea:ter1han 2,350 bhp) D ~s fired b~ders (f ota1 heat input rating of 1 oo million Btu per hour) Oil fired bmlers (Total heat imput rating of 65 million Btu per hour) D Combustion turbines (Total raled power output of 8,000 Hp) g. Will your facility bum more than the following per year in stationary equipment? D D 1,000,000 gallons offuel oil D 35,000 tons of coal D 900 million cubic feet of natural gas h. If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions ( 6 a-g), have you installed, replaced or modified any fuel burning or processing equipment since 1977? D Will you be developing, constructing, installing, or altering a public water system? D a. Will your project involve the operation of waterborne tank vessels or oil barges that carry crude or non-crude oil as bulk cargo, or the transfer of oil or other D petroleum products to or from such a vessel or a pipeline system? b. Will your project require or include onshore or offshore oil facilities with an effective aggregate storage capacity of greater than 5,000 barrels of crude oil D or greater than 10,000 barrels of non-crude oil? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [!] ~ D ~ [!] ~ Coastal Project Questionnaire Page4 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project c. Will you be operating facilities on the land or water for the exploration or production of hydrocarbons? If you answered NO to ALL questions in this section, continue to next section. Yes No D ~ If you answered YES to ANY of these questions, contact the DEC Regional office for information and application forms. Please be advised that all new DEC permits and approvals require a 30-day public notice period. Based on your discussion with DEC, please complete the following: Approval Type: Section 401 Water Quality Cert'n Date Submitted: concurrent with this submittal and Section 404 permit appl'n submittal 9. Does your project qualify for a general permit for wastewater or solid waste? N/A D D 10. If you answered yes to any questions and are not applying for DEC permits, indicate reason below: Judd Peterson (DEC contact) told me on 2/2/96 that no DEC approvals are required for this type of project. Reason: For the Tazimina hydro project, I asked him whether a solid waste disposal permit is needed for disposal of tunnel spoils. He said they do not consider those spoils "solid waste" unless there is reason to believe they are contaminated. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME (DFG) APPROVALS 1. 2. Will you be working in, or placing anything in, a stream, river or lake? (This includes work in running water or on ice, within the active floodplain, on islands, the face of the banks or the tidelands down to mean low tide.) C!JD Name of0 stream Driver, or[!] lake: Upper Mahoney Lake; Upper and Lower Mahoney Creeks; South Creek Will you do any of the following? Please indicate below: D Build a dam, river training structure or instream impoundment? I xI Use the water? D Pump water out ofthe stream or lake? D Divert or alter the natural stream channel? D Block or dam the stream (temporarily or permanently)? [!] Change the water flow or the water channel? ~ Introduce silt, gravel, rock, petroleum products, debris, chemicals, or other organic/inorganic waste of any type into the water? 00 ~ Alter or stabilize the banks? ~ Mine or dig in the beds or banks? ~ Use explosives? ~ Build a bridge (including and ice bridge)? ~ Use the stream as a road (even when frozen), or crossing the stream with tracked or wheeled vehicles, log dragging or excavation equipment (backhoes, bulldozers, etc.)? ~ * Install a culvert or other drainage structure? *culverts under road are not in fish streams D Construct a weir? ~ Use an in-stream structure not mentioned here? Bypass pipe discharge to upper creek, lake tap in upper lake, tailrace discharge to creek. Coastal Project Questionnaire Page5 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 3. 4. 5. 6. Is your project located in a designated State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area or State Sanctuary? Does your project include the construction/operation of a salmon hatchery? Does your project affect, or is it related to, a previously permitted salmon hatchery? Does your project include the construction of an aquatic farm? If you answered "No" to ALL questions in this section, continue to next section. Yes No 0 D D D [R] ~ ~ [R] If you answered "Yes" to ANY questions under 1-3, contact the Regional DFG Habitat Division Office for information and application forms. If you answered "Yes" to questions 4-6, contact the DFG at the CFMD division headquarters for information and application forms. Based on your discussion with DFG, please complete the following: Approval Type: Fish Habitat Permit Date Submitted: concurrent with this submittal 7. If you answered yes to any questions and are not applying for DFG permits, indicated reason below: D (DFG contact) told me on that no DFG approvals are required. Reason: ----------------------- D Other: The upper lake and creek above the falls do not support anadromous or resident fish. so work in these areas will not be part of the fish habitat permit application. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) APPROVALS 1. 2. 3. 4. Is the proposed project on State-owned land or will you need to cross State-owned land for access? ("access" includes temporary access for construction purposes) Note: In addition to State-ol91led uplands, the State owns almost all land below the ordinary high water line of navigable streams, rivers and lakes, and below the mean high tide line seaward for three miles. Do you plan to dredge or otherwise excavate/remove materials on State-owned land? Location of dredging site if other than the project site: ___________ _ Township Range Section Meridian Do you plan to place fill or dredged material on State-owned land? Location of fill disposal site if other than the project site: Township Range Section Meridian Sourceison: OstateLand DFederalLand OPrivateLand DMunicipalLand Do you plan to use any ofthe following State-owned resources: D Timber: Will you be harvesting timber? Amount: D[R] D[R] D[R] 00 Coastal Project Questionnaire Page6 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. D Materials such as rock, sand or gravel, peat, soil, overburden, etc.: Which material? Amount: Location of source:O Project siteD Other, describe: Township Range Section Are you planning to use or divert any fresh water? Amount (gallons per day): approx. 50 million gpd Meridian Source : Upper Mahoney Lake Intended Use : generation of electricity Will you be building or altering a darn? Do you plan to drill a geothennal well? At any one site (regardless ofland ownership), do you plan to do any ofthe following? *Tunnels will be excavated; unless this is considered mining, no mining will occur. D Mine five or more acres over a year's time? D Mine 50,000 cubic yards or more of materials (rock, sand or gravel, soil, peat, overburden, etc.) over a year's time? D Have a cumulative unreclaimed mined area of five or more acres? If you plan to mine less than the acreage/amount stated above and have a cumulative unreclaimed mined area ofless than five acres, do you intend to file a voluntary reclamation plan for approval? Will you be exploring for or extracting coal? Will you be drilling for oil/gas? Will you be investigating or removing historical or archaeological resources on State-owned land? Is the proposed project located within a known geophysical hazard area? Is the proposed project located in a unit of the Alaska State Park System? Yes No ~ D D ~ D ~ D ~* DD D~ D~ D~ D~ D~ If you answered "NO" to ALL questions in this section, continue to certification statement. If you answered "YES" to ANY questions in this section, contact DNR for information. Based on your discussion with DNR, please complete the following: Approval Type: Water Rights Date Submitted: 5/17/93. An updated application will be submitted concurrently with this application. 14. If you answered yes to any questions and are not applying for DNR permits, indicated reason below: D (DNR contact) told me on that no DNR approvals are required. Reason: ------------------------------ 0 Other: Jim Anderson ofDNR-Juneau said on 5/15/96 that DNR would not claim ownership ofthe Upper Mahoney Lake bed. Coastal Project Questionnaire Page 7 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Please be advised that the CPQ identifies permits subject to a consistency review. You may need additional permits from other agencies or local governments to proceed with your activity. Certification Statement The infonnation contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I certify that the proposed activity complies with, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with, the Alaska Coastal Management Program. ~{~(.La ~!20/q(o .~ S~re of AllPii:mt or Agent' " -1 ;ate Note: Federal agencies conducting an activity that will affect the coastal zone are required to submit a federal consistency determination, per 15 CFR 930, Subpart C, rather than this certification statement. This certification statement will not be complete until all required State and federal authorization requests have been submitted to the appropriate agencies. To complete your packet, please attach your State permit applications and copies of your federal permit applications to this questionnaire. Coastal Project Questionnaire Page8 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description The Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project would be located approximately 7 miles northeast of the City ofKetchikan. Upper Mahoney Lake, an alpine lake at an elevation of 1959 feet on USFS system lands, would serve as the reservoir for the project. The project would employ a lake tap design. The powerhouse would be 800 feet upstream ofLower Mahoney Lake at an elevation of ISO feet. The project would produce a maximum of 46 million kWh of energy annually. Generation at the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project would be year-round with a generating capacity of9.6 MW. The project would include the following structures: (I) a lake tap near the outlet of Upper Mahoney Lake; (2) an upper tunnel between the lake tap and the valve house; (3) a valve house between the upper tunnel and vertical shaft; ( 4) a bypass pipe to convey up to I 0 cfs of water from the valve house to Upper Mahoney Creek to provide upwelling flow in the lower lake during periods of emergency shutdown; (5) a I,370-foot-long vertical shaft; (6) a lower tunnel from the base of the vertical shaft to the powerhouse; (7) a semi-underground powerhouse located about I,IOO feet upstream ofLower Mahoney Lake; (8) a tailrace channel from the powerhouse to Upper Mahoney Creek; (9) 1.54 miles of buried electric transmission line and 3.1 miles of overhead transmission line; (10) a switchyard; (11) 2.6 miles of new access road; (12) two spoils piles--one at the valve house site and one at the powerhouse site. The following are physical specifications for these project structures and components: (I) The lake tap would be at a depth of75 feet. Drawdown would be to within 10 feet of the lake tap- with a maximum of 70 feet of drawdown. (2) The 1, 700-foot-long upper tunnel would be unlined except for a 4-foot-diameter, 20-foot-long pipe 200 feet downstream of the lake tap with a valve to isolate the lake tap from the rest of the system, and a 4-foot-diameter steel pipe that would connect the upper tunnel and vertical shaft. (3) The 300-square-foot concrete valve house would be constructed directly above the vertical shaft and contain two 48-inch-diameter butterfly valves and a vent pipe. (4) The bypass would be a buried 12-inch-diameter pipe about 200 feet long. (5) The 1,370-foot-long vertical shaft would be partially unlined. The unlined sections would be 5 to 7 feet in diameter and the lined sections 4 feet in diameter. (6) The lower tunnel would be an 8-foot-diameter horseshoe shape, 3,350 feet long, from the powerhouse portal to the base of the vertical shaft. It would be partially lined and supported by rock bolts and steel sets as required and be at 10% grade for positive drainage. A 32-inch-diameter steel pipe on concrete saddles would convey the turbine flow through this tunnel. (7) The powerhouse would be a 1,600-square-foot, semi-underground, concrete structure. (8) The 200-foot-long tailrace would be pre-cast concrete box culvert or corrugated metal pipe for 70 feet downstream of the powerhouse and a rip-rap lined earth channel from there to Upper Mahoney Creek. (9) The transmission line would be 13.2-kV conductor buried for 1.04 miles within the access road as far as the switchyard. From the switchyard it would be 34.5-kV, and would be buried for 0.5 mile and overhead for 3.1 miles south to Beaver Falls. Installation and maintenance of the transmission line from the switchyard to Beaver Falls would require that approximately 75 acres be continually cleared of trees that could damage the line. (10) The switchyard and power transformer, where the voltage would be stepped up from 13.2-kV to 34.5-kV, would be about 0.4 acre in size and would be located 1.04 mile from the powerhouse. (II) The 2.6-mile access 1 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project road would be constructed as an extension to the existing timber access road. It would be 14 feet wide, gravel surfaced, single lane with turnouts, and would require two bridges: an 80-foot span over Lower Mahoney Creek and a 30-foot span over South Creek. (12) The upper spoils pile near the valve house would cover 1. 7 acres; the lower spoils pile near the powerhouse would cover 1.5 acres. Approximately 90 acres would be occupied by structures or permanently cleared. An additional approximately 11 acres would be cleared for construction and allowed to revegetate. A timeline for completion of the project is attached, as are preliminary project drawings. Project Description 2 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 1 Submit FERC llcenae AppllcaUon 2 FERC Procenlng 3 Receive FERC Llcenu (est) 4 Final Design Englnee~ng IS Final Survey and Oectech Work e Bid & Award Turblne/Oen Contract 7 TurbiiHIIOenarator Manllfllctur. 8 Turbine/Generator Delivery 8 Accen Road ConotrucUon 10 Upper Lake Winter Shutda.Yn 12 T· Line Conltnlctlon 111 Lower Tunnel Conlllnletlon 18 Shall ConotrucUon 17 UpperTunneland Lake Tap 18 Powerh01110 ConotrucUon 19 Turbine/Generator ln11allaUon 20 start-Up and Testing 21 Begin Commercial Opelatlon 612197 613197 613197 1214197 2/11/98 8/19/99 7/1197 12/1198 411198 411198 12/1/98 411/99 411199 8/18199 11/1/99 12/1/99 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 612197 8/2. 612198 10/3/97 2110198 6118199 10/8199 9130/97 -3131199 7/1/99 11130/98 3131/99 11/15199 8/18199 11/1/99 12/1/99 12/1/99 --• 1211. - ---- - .. -- -- - -- - .. --- I c. + .... •' e. ...... VICINITY MAP k&-J l ICALI II IIUS CAPE FOX CORPORATION P. 0. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 Agent: HDR Engineering, Inc. Adjacent Property Owner: U.S. Forest Service MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECr PROJECT LOCATION MAPS FIGURE 1 OF 9 fU: Ol&~t.\DWG 1'1.01 SCAl[: 1•1 DAlt: 05/17/M 11M[: 4:10pm PAi'tl: H: \IIAHONEI'\ AIICriC OCtAN ALASKA \ ~A CI,IC OCCAit LOCATION MAP LOCATION: WATERBODY: REVILLAGIGEDO IS ., ALASKA MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK Within Ketchikan Gotewoy Borough, AK T. 74 s., R. 91 E., S. 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36; T. 74 S., R. 92 E .. S. 31 ; T. 75 S., R. 92 E., S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian · .. · / CAPE FOX CORPORATION P.O. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 Agent: HDR ·Engineering, Inc . Adjacent Property Owner: U.S. Forest Service MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT AREA WETLANDS FIGURE 2 OF 9 F'll F'~ ?-."~r:,OA nwr. PI OT <;rAI F'~ 1•1 OATE: 05/15/96 TIME: 12:01om PATH: H: \MAHONEY\ Pf048'-FORESl£0 tot:n.ANOS (WES1£AN HEIII.CXK/11(0 ClOAA) Pf04/tll18 -UUSKEC/OP£11 SJIOA£ O>N[ FORESTED WEn.ANOS 1'012/18-HEA9 AND S£0CE •t n.ANOS V--'<ON -wtn.ANOS ! T T"" ,:._. CCORCC INLCT LOCATION: REVILLAGIGEDO IS., ALASKA WA TERBODY: MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK Withi~ Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK T. 74 S., R. 91 E., S. 24, 25, 26, 26, 34, 35, 36: T. 74 S., R. 92 E., S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E .• S. 5, 6, 8: Copper River Meridian ---------------.. --- :.§~::: ~)~r.~t~;·y.:.~;::_:,~~r~r-t~-~ ~? . ._. • ;.~-;··· '• o •M ."":' 0 CAPE FOX CORPORATION P.O. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 Agent: HDR Engineering, Inc. Adjacent Property Owner: U.S. Forest Service LEGEND Pf'041'--FORESTtD M:II.AHOS (WESTDIN HOII.OCK/Iml C£DAR) Pf'04/Dolll -IAUSXEC/OPEN SHORE PINE FOR£5'1t0 M:II.AHOS POI2/tl-HERe AND SEOC£ M:llANOS V----NON•WEllANOS • Nph~•"= ,,...... •• from National Wetland• ln"'"tor1 dottltlcoUon lyttem. MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT AREA WETLANDS FIGURE 3 OF 9 F'ILE: 2-3fi59A OWr. PI OT C:f'AI r. 1•t I)Alf.·O'i/1-;/Qfl Tlan".1?•n?,_.,. OATI-4•1o1•\VA1o10N~V\ Gt.O t-Gt. 1-'\ +" ' --- '\'; 1 ........ , ..• LOCATION: REVILLAGIGEDO IS., ALASKA .VJATERBODY: MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK Within Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK T. 74 S., R. 91 E., S. 24, 25, 26, 26, 34, 35, 36; T. 74 S., R. 92 E., S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E .• S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian 12"• ·~""l P1PQJN[ n.ow,:: - Of-M' ~~51 ~ 1·'·-o·' 111N, I PLAN AT B'YPASS OUn.ET "" CAPE FOX CORPORATION P.O. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 Agent: HDR Engineering, Inc. Adjacent Property Owner: U.S. Forest Service PLAN SECTION AT BYPASS OUll.ET "" MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT UPPER TUNNEL AND LAKE TAP PLAN FIGURE 4 OF 9 " d T T r w;a .. £ NOTES: 1, 01STUIIIID AMAS AT Ala VENT AND TUNHn CONSTIIUCIION SiltS W1ll k AU.OWEO TO lt[()[H(IIAI[ NAI\JIIAU.Y. LOCATION: WATERBODY: REVILLAGIGEDO IS., ALASKA MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK Within Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK T. 74 s., R. 91 E., S. 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36; T. 74 S., R. 92 E., S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E., S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian -.. ------------------ NORII.t.L NINIMUU W.S.EL. 109Q;t CAPE FOX CORPORAnON P.O. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 Agent: HDR Engineering, Inc. Adjacent Property Owner: U.S. Forest Service lot:NT 'lo SECTlON ED NTS - uppER lUNNEL SEC'DON NTS SECTlON ED NTS - MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT UPPER TUNNEL PROFILE AND SECTIONS FIGURE 5 OF 9 12" BYP,t.~ PIP£ TO MAHONEY CRUI< PETAIL NTS 12" MOTOR OPER,t.TEO EDV.t.LVE LOCATION: WATERBODY: REVILLAGIGEDO IS .• -ALASKA MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK Within Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK T. 74 s., R. 91 E., S. 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36; T. 74 S., R. 92 E., S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E., S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian · ' " ' '\ 1 ..-~ \ TAilRACE \ I ~ . . Ct!ANND. \ --f-=----.::.c-::[_-::x--( . ., .... ;c-\ - -t-.:Z--,)--\. "'\' , .\ \ I '.._.(__ -/'.._ '\ • I_ I .... ,, \ -~ ' I \)', auln!o CON n: \I 1 \, '.......(·~ '' TAf.RAC£ T \ 'l. /' TAJ.j I I . \ '\( \ I I I \ \ 1 \' 18" 'll!ICK LAYI:R 01 RIPRAP I I I \ I '~, I / I ; \ ! \' 1 I I I I j "(_, ' \ { \ I i \\ \' \ \ \ I /r ~\ / \''\~~ ;'¥=:..-\ / /' ~~< 1 \ '' I l I I /, "" ~ \ / I ,:,. ...,:-,.:::; \ -<' I I I I . ....--;;; / \ . ''i / I I ~ ........ ,.,,..., _,/ i \!~I\ \ I 1.. .-/ ACr.fss ROAD. ./ CAPE FOX CORPORA~ON P.O. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 \ '· ~ s,;E"FiGUR£7, _ ..... \ / I \ ·, .._,~ ..... i / I / -·. \:; .... .z~'J:----1----~ .... -\ ... 1'... / / _ .. - \ ' --...... " )/ I 1 I t' \ '·-....... , --\ ) ., / / / ,, \ ,..\_ _ .... ,......... / I t '··-..... \ I /. '·.,_ ·-,,, \ \ I PLAN SPOILS DISPOSAL AREA, SEE flGURE 7 LOCATION: WATERBODY: EXCAVATE EXISnNC EXiSnN FOR TA. llRAC£ GROUN T _ EDGE CW UPPER MAHONEY ClltEI< 111" 'lliiCK LAYER CW RIPRAP TAILRACE CHANNEL PROFILE HTS NOTES: 1, ST ACIHO AND DISPOSAL Slli:S Will liE ALLOWED TO REVECETAII: NATURALLY EXCEPT FOR AN AREA APPROXIIIATEL 1' 0.3 ACRE 'll!AT I'IILL BE USED FOR PARKING HEAR 'Ill£ POYttRHOUSE., T ! T 1 IC:L.II& ..... REVILLAGIGEDO IS., ALASKA MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK Agent: HDR Engineering, Inc. Adjacent Property Owner: MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POWERHOUSE SITE PLAN Witliin Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK T. 74 s., R. 91 E., S. 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36; FIGURE 6 OF 9 U.S. Forest Service 1"11r. 1\a••n• 1'\Y.Ir"' I'M f\'f' r-,..11 t'· ·-1 I'U'ft", 1\._/t"f /fttt Til~• tot .... _ 1'!1'1\1• Uo\UJUfolll'Y'\ '. ___ j T. 74 S., R. 92 E.. S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E., S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian -~-·' l TYPICAL ROAD SECllON "---' .......... LOKf"R MAHONEY LAK£ GEORG£ INLET CAPE FOX CORPORATION P.O. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 Agent: HDR Engineering, Inc. Adjacent Property Owner: U.S. Forest Service W.S. [L 81 PLAN 1'cuu& i .......... 1 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT . ACCESS ROAD FIGURE 7 OF 9 a .... ,.._,.._,.. • """"'it. ""' ""'-.,.. •• ,a " • "' ..... "" ... ,.,. ,,.,.,. ....... ""'"' ·~ ... ,.. ....... '·' ,, "''""'"""'' NOTES< I. PIIOVID£ CUI.IoUI~ AS R(OIJJI![l) TO WAINTAIN NATURAl DIIAINAGt PATTEIINS. LOCATION: REVILLAGIGEDO IS., ALASKA WA TERBODY: MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK Within Ketchikan Gateway Borough , AK T. 74 S., R. 91 E., S. 24, 25, 26, 26, 34, 35, 36: T. 74 S., R. 92 E., S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E., S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian DCE AIIIJNENT (T"'P) 80'-0":1: PlAN AT L.OMR MNfCNEY CREEK .... BRIDCE DE:a< NEW ACCESS ROAD ~~w,--=:~/ ~------~T:EAM ELEVA110H AT UJITIER loiAHONEY CREEl< CAPE FOX CORPORA~ON P.O. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 Agent: HDR Engineering, ln·c. Adjacent Property Owner: U.S. Forest Service .... MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT· BRIDGE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS FIGURE 8 OF 9 PLAN AT SOU1H CREEK MIS ELEVA110H AT 80U1M alEEK • MIS LOCATION: WATERBODY: REVILLAGIGEDO .IS., ALASKA MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK W.[thin Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK T. 74 S., R. 91 E., s. 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36; T. 74 S., R. 92 E., S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E., S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian • ___ _j l ___ - -, __ J OCICIDf..c Ml.llt t ..,.lltr.C*J .. ... coeur tJ.t •v I ----· ftll\D~--. ~ --1 'I1WaiiSIIOH LIIE H-fltMIE S1RUC'I\JRE ... ... _ Ill .-nt ACCUS l'lOAD W1MOUT ACCUS IIOAD TYPICAL UIIIEMftCIUIG 1IWtSIUIION LfiE IE'C1IClN ... L.EaUI) ---• ACICIII ~ CAPE FOX CORPORATION P.O. BOX 8558 KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 99901 MAHONEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TRANSMISSION LINE AND SWITCHYARD Agent: HDR Engineering, Inc. Adjacent Property Owner: FIGURE 9 OF 9 U.S. Forest Service ror. """""' ~.... Ill liT YA"' toil ftA'it· 11'1117IINI Tll.t(: t:l7MI I'A111: M:\IIAHI'INt" GCORGC 1NL£T LOCATION: WATERBODY: REVILLAGIGEDO IS., ALASKA MAHONEY LAKE AND CREEK Within Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK T. 74 s., R. 91 E., S. 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36; T. 74 S., R. 92 E., S. 31; T. 75 S., R. 92 E., S. 5, 6, 8; Copper River Meridian GENERAL WATERWAY /W ATERBODY APPLICATION ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Habitat Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 A. APPLICANT: 1. 2. Name: Address: Cape Fox Corporation P.O. Box 8558, Ketchikan, AK 99901 Telephone: 3. Contractor: (907) 225-5163 Contact: Doug Campbell, ext. 303 not yet selected Agent: Telephone: Contact: HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street, Suite 305 Anchorage, AK 99503 (907) 274-2000 Fax: (907) 274-2022 Anne Leggett B. TYPE AND PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Hydroelectric project. See detailed project description and drawings attached to the Coastal Project Questionnaire. Work will occur in Upper Mahoney Lake and Upper Mahoney Creek above the falls. Neither of these waterbodies bears resident or anadromous fish. Therefore, this application is only for work required in Upper Mahoney Creek below the falls to install the outlet of the tailrace, and for work in Lower Mahoney Creek and South Creek to install bridges. Only Lower Mahoney Creek is a designated anadromous fish stream. C. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Waterbody Name Anadromous Township, Range, USGS Quad Stream# Section, Meridian Upper Mahoney Creek not known to bear T. 74 S., R. 91 E., S. 26; Ketchikan (B-5) anadrornous fish C.R.M. South Creek not known to bear T. 74 S., R. 91 E., S. 36; Ketchikan (B-5) anadrornous fish C.R.M. Lower Mahoney Creek 101-45-10160 T. 74 S., R. 91 E., S. 25; Ketchikan (B-5) C.R.M. See attached plans. D. TIME FRAME FOR PROJECT: 7/97 to 12/99 (construction) Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 1 Fish Habitat Permit Application E. CONSTRUCTION METHODS: 1. 2. Will the stream be diverted? How will the stream be diverted? How long? Will stream channelization occur? Yes No XX Yes No XX 3. Will the banks ofthe stream be altered or modified? Yes XX No Describe: The bank of Upper Mahoney Creek will be excavated to provide a path for flow of water from the tailrace into the creek. The tailrace will be left blocked with native rock during construction; the rock plug will be removed as late as possible prior to completing construction of the tailrace outlet. The banks of Lower Mahoney Creek and South Creek may be recontoured to form ramps to allow fording of equipment for bridge construction; they will be restored to their original contours after construction is completed. 4. List all tracked or wheeled equipment (type and size) that will be used in the stream (in the water, on ice, or in the floodplain): Excavator 5. How long will equipment be in the stream? Equipment will be in each stream intermittently for approx. two months. This period will be limited to a construction window if one is specified by ADF&G. a. Will material be removed from the floodplain, bed, stream, or lake? Yes XX No For construction of tailrace/creek connection. b. wm material be removed from below the water table? Yes XX No Excavation for placement oftailrace rock may extend below water table. If so, to what depth? Up to 2 feet Is a pumping operation planned? Yes No XX 6. Will material (including spoils, debris, or overburden) be deposited in the flood plain, stream, or lake? Yes XX No If so, what type? The tailrace will be constructed with an 18-inch-deep layer of nprap. Amount: Approximately 20 cubic yards. Disposal site location(s): Within floodplain for tailrace. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 2 Fish Habitat Permit Application 'l l * ,, 7. Will blasting be performed? Yes XX No Not in the creeks. Weight of charges: Not yet known Type of substrate: Predominantly phyllite and schist with some granodiorite along South Creek. 8. Will temporary fills in the stream or lake be required during construction (e.g., for construction traffic around construction site)? Yes No XX 9. Will ice bridges be required? Yes No XX F. SITE REHABILITATION/RESTORATION PLAN: Creek banks disturbed by construction activities will be regraded to their original contours or to contours that blend with the adjacent natural banks and newly constructed areas. If necessary to stabilize the banks, structures such as large rock or root wads may be placed. Upper banks will be covered with native topsoil, fertilized, and seeded with grasses, except under bridges. Shrubs will also be planted along the upper banks to restore cover to the creek. Appropriate measures will be taken to control erosion on adjacent road slopes and prevent discharge of sediments to the creeks. G. WA TERBODY CHARACTERISTICS: Width of stream: 5 to 20 feet Depth of stream or lake: 1 to 3 feet Type of stream or lake bottom (e.g., sand, gravel, mud): rock Stream gradient: Approximately 5% below falls on Upper Mahoney Creek, 9% average on Lower Mahoney Creek, and 5% to 10% on South Creek. H. HYDRAULIC EVALUATION: 1. Will a structure (e.g., culvert, bridge support, dike) be placed below ordinary high water of the stream? Yes No XX If yes, attach engineering drawings or a field sketch, as described in Step B. For culverts, attach stream discharge data for a mean annual flood (Q=2.3), if available. Describe potential for channel changes or increased bank erosion, if applicable: No channel changes or increase in bank erosion are expected. Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 3 Fish Habitat Permit Application 2. Will more than 25,000 cubic yards of material be removed? Yes No XX If yes, attach a written hydraulic evaluation including, at a minimum, the following: potential for channel changes, assessment of increased aufeis (glaciering) potential, assessment of potential for increased bank erosion. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED ON OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. tm\lffl11Aatlbf1W U Signature of Applicant e;/}c/10 Date Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 4 Fish Habitat Permit Application " " AppendixJ THE CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT WILL BE PROVIDED AT A FUTURE DATE UNDER SEPARATE COVER.