HomeMy WebLinkAboutSilver Lake Hydro 1997Stow | =
July 3, 1997 - WO we w9e DO) EDEIVE Jeerectteer)
: if ov amie.) T UMS sur o7 agar LY Tous : -
AIDEA , Alaska Ind ctria! Develasmen
480 W. Tudor and Export Authority
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Subject: Transmittal of Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Number
11548-001-AK) Initial Consultation Document.
Dear Sirs:
This correspondence represents official transmittal of the Initial Consultation
Document (ICD) for the proposed Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project, near
Valdez, Alaska. Silver Lake Hydro (SLH) of Bellingham, Washington, holds a
Preliminary Permit (Permit) from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) in Washington D.C. to study the feasibility and environmental
consequences of the project. The permit was issued on November 1, 1996 and
expires on November 1, 1998, at which time SLH intends to submit an
application for license to the FERC.
Under requirements of the Permit, SLH must conduct consultation with
responsible resource agencies and the public. The first stage of this consultation
involves identification of appropriate agencies and public entities and distribution
of the ICD. We are mailing the ICD to you, recognizing that you, or your office
may not be the appropriate consultation party within or agency or organization to
serve as your agency’s representative during the licensing process for the Project.
If you assign further review on this project to another office or individual, we
would appreciate your informing us of the party assigned so we will be dealing
with the appropriate person/office for the remainder of the licensing process.
This ICD contains:
e Project maps and land descriptions;
e Engineering design and the proposed operational mode of the project;
e Identification of the environment to be affected, the significant resources
present, and impacts which might occur to those resources if the project
were developed;
engineering WwW H | T E WAT E R corporation
1050 LARRABEE AVENUE « SUITE #104-707 * BELLINGHAM, WA
(360) 733-3008 ° FAX (360) 33-3056
2
e Proposed environmental protection, mitigation, and enhancement
measures, to the extent known, and
e Descriptions of any studies SLH might conduct, and the proposed methods
to be used in those studies.
Two meetings involving the public and resource agencies will be held, one in
Valdez and one in Anchorage on or about August 15, 1997, to discuss the
licensing procedure and to receive comment and information on resource values in
the project area and environmental issues and studies to be conducted in support of
environmental analyses. The publicly available copies of this ICD will be
available for review and copying from the date of notice of the public meeting (at
least fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting) until the date of the meeting. The
final meeting date will be set after coordination with agency and public
representatives.
We are specifically soliciting information in the following areas, to be provided
verbally or in writing at the public meeting or in writing no more than sixty (60)
days after this letter’s transmittal date:
e potentially-affected resources in the project vicinity including fish,
wildlife, vegetation, geology and soils, water quality and quantity,
cultural and archaeological resources, and aesthetics;
e relative importance or value of the various resources, as indicated by
local, regional or national use, economic value or special protection
(e.g. endangered species);
e management goals or objectives for the various resources and potentials
for the proposed projects satisfying those objectives;
e recommended studies and study methodologies for various resources or
resource categories.
SLH, in coordination with agencies and the public, will develop detailed study
plans for all resources to be evaluated. We would much appreciate your input
regarding studies after your review of the ICD, to help guide our study planning
efforts.
The section on “environment to be affected” in the ICD is based largely on surveys
conducted in 1982 for an earlier Silver Lake project proposal. We realize that this
information may be outdated, and intend to conduct comprehensive literature,
and, if necessary, field surveys in 1997 and 1998 to update the resource baseline.
3
We would greatly appreciate, however, any more recent information you or your
agency might have regarding existing resources in the project area. Please provide
the information, if possible, at the public meeting.
We appreciate your interest in and attention to this project licensing. If you have
questions, please call Thom Fischer at Whitewater Engineering Corporation, at
(206) 733-3008 in Bellingham, Washington. Either Thom or his licensing
designee will respond to your questions or refer you to the appropriate FERC
representative.
Sincerely,
(prs Fotavtle for
Thom A. Fischer
President, Whitewater Engineering Corporation and SLH
SILVER LAKE
Hydropower Project
Initial Consultation Document
FERC Preliminary Permit Number 11548-000-AK
July, 1997
WHITEWATER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Please send your comments by September 2, 1997, to:
Whitewater Engineering Corporation
1050 Larrabee Ave. Suite 104-707
Bellingham, WA 98225
SILVER LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SILVER LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. ............:scsesessseresesssessssesscesssssssscesseeeseasars ii
INITIAL CONSULTATION DOCU MEN Teer ctarescusetasuravselssecunusvoverebuedeveveesvsenteatietea ta ii
Cee Oe CON EN eg ese rr eee ts eed LUNN LU Maal se MEME elem euaea eG ii
ROE TO eee eee ete dese nace a aide etree aCe MEL aU aL Laney ae ee a GML 1
THREE-STAGE CONSULTATION PROCESS
CORE Oo eee eee eee a re ee et ee aul
PUBLIC MEETING AND SITE VISIT .........-...cscccssseisseestsssescnsnenesesereveesscenererecnenesenearees 2
THEE Eee OR Oe Coo cree erect aueeateurusueleanet sata tee alaeats cts cc anata ate 3
FREE pO CATO eee Huse teat e ta degae es stds MC cada I ee a 3
FREE Re eee eee ena MeL Nau scdsataueuedeuta ae uL eel EeULne laa se Rede a 3
SMALL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....
VARGE PROJECT) DESCRIP TO eee rae aee ata aun rata Menace ee ect
Altemative Large Project Arrangements tit steal tell nual aaa etal 7
Storage Dam. And Reservoirs: citscsscscesscssssestcosseaeossoesenrnssesserensseunesestesaesaeaterseceanetecnersear 7
Power Conduit and Powerhouse Alternatives..........ccccseseseeseeeeeeseteteeseeteeseseseseseeneneee 7
Switchyard
instream: F1Ow) Re|e2S6 Faces ee ee Mata anU So 12
TE PANSMISSION, LANG tees shaseseeseesecesscscvesueseesuceasty svete esessvacseavensussdeuucususnaasasasarvesuctesrsuetes 13
LANDS OWNERSHIP eee iiiauieunsdssclasaniuadeseseieabledessstsueenslesensueustaxteysrasueansuuacterasuastas 15
MARKET FOR PO Wee Ge ee a ore ees iisesstesacasssuesaveneeneesracsessustsueaectascesces 15
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ISSUES 16
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. ..........::scccsssssssssssssssssesesesesesscscssssscsavevssssssessssseeseeeeeeeenenes 16
Information Sources and Previous Studies .0........cccccesesessseesesseseseseesesssseessesesenseeteneees 16
Fee Ser Res CES eee eles Lela t dda atlLeatagMiltaueusudsouevenecussusaetesesetereueuts 19
Water Use and Quality... ecesssscsscsssssscssesssesesesssseseseseseesesesecseseseeecseseneeeeeasneneats 20
Geology and Soils ...........sccssssssssssssssscesesssssensessssssscsssseassesseasseserseseneaesesensorseeasossnesoestss 20
Recreation
il
Cultural Resources 2
Misual/A esthetic RESOUrCES iret eee Lene 21
EXPECTED RESOURCE ISSUES, PROJECT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION......... i
FA CQUALICIRCSOULCES teeters esse nenstenseetnecancustenseatsecesevastanestnestsccatecsunsuensestsausasneesuseseseseacee 21
Waters Useland Ouality ee eee eeee eae nenacreneasenceserace eneat sangeet ansnsersseneetcee senses 22
PRETres trial RESOUTCES ee a eee Et nn Re eee eae reas 22
Cultural Resources
Recreation ers esee tse tesnsccsestes
Wisual/Aesthetics RESOULCCS ee Me sea eee casaneeeanstaanenceasncatsucacntents 23
Geologysand Sois|RESOUrCES Merete receerscccnenesuerstsccrscsncusnccsusasesatcestocscecuencavetcsedtes 23
eR eee oro ee or ea naa us nn eauseUueaTseenstatsneneaers 23
PAQUATICHRESOULCES ar antssesasernasereanencutararsensactearesessersacucesuscesercsuensest 23
METrestrial IRESOUTCCS ee UL Mataay teeter aanctietearsarseceestencnatesarents 24
Cultural Resour Ces ooo ea nabectacteurarsecsirersasearasesnscesarsursssescstsernsesnsaaaserssctezses
Recreation ReSOUrCeS men ee ssssrenrensases
Visual/Aesthetic Resources
Geology and Soils ReSOurces....................c.csserssscsssesesesstesecesacacaceserorasasassncarerastsnessesssses 25
Water. USe) and) OUality termes eraser an ae suena aubasusneaaeeesnattaserancnsesencecucntcencast 25
ENGINEER TN Gee ee ee aiimnissecastensestacsasnsesise stveasustsensasescasessazrss 26
EI CEN STNG ee ee ere acaenesransresetsnscesarusacaensseearcereresnseuenorsestieesucanc ted iT
Ree ee Coe eee ree aseeatenrachtenssrsnscarstststcnarstcuscansescccases Di
iii
INTRODUCTION
Silver Lake Hydro, Inc. (SLH) has been granted a Preliminary Permit (Permit) by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the proposed Silver Lake
Hydroelectric Project (Project), as described in the following sections. The Permit (FERC
No. 11548-000-AK) allows SLH to secure priority of license application for the Project
under Part 1 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) while obtaining the data and performing the
acts required to determine the feasibility of the Project and to support an application for a
license. The term of the Permit is thirty six (36) months, expiring on October 30, 1998, at
which time SLH intends to submit a license application to the FERC.
The name, business address, and telephone number of SLH is:
Silver Lake Hydro, Inc.
1050 Larrabee Avenue, Suite 104-707
Bellingham, WA. 98225
Ph. (360) 738-9999 FAX (360) 733-3056
The name, business address and phone of each person authorized to act as agent for the
Applicant in this application are:
Thom A. Fischer, President
1050 Larrabee Avenue, Suite 104-707
Bellingham, WA. 98225
(360)738-9999
C. Mike Prewitt
1415 140th Ave. NE, #9
Bellevue, WA, 98005
(206) 957-1874 Fax (206) 957-4782
THREE-STAGE CONSULTATION PROCESS
Pursuant to FERC regulations Section 4.38, SLH must complete three stages of
consultation with agencies, the public and other Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGO’s). These stages are:
Stage 1. In this stage, SLH distributes the Initial Consultation Document (ICD), holds a
public meeting and site visit, requests comment, conducts study planning, and distributes
the draft and final environmental study plans to consulting agencies and other parties
requesting them.
Stage 2. In this stage, SLH conducts field studies and distributes reports of these studies
for review. SLH then prepares and distributes a draft license application and associated
documents, including a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) for public
and agency review.
Stage 3. In this stage, SLH submits the final license application to the FERC.
Consultation continues during this stage, but is carried out primarily by the FERC in the
process of finalizing environmental documents and obtaining resource agency
recommendations and conditions.
PURPOSE OF THIS ICD
This ICD is intended to inform the public, agencies and NGO’s of the following:
The FERC licensing process;
The general design and operation of the Project, as presently known;
Market(s) for the power generated by the project;
Environmental resources potentially affected by the Project;
Potential impacts to those resources, and measures currently envisioned by
SLH to protect or mitigate those resources; and
e The licensing schedule.
PUBLIC MEETING AND SITE VISIT
SLH will conduct two public meetings on the Silver Lake project. One will be held in
Anchorage and the other in Valdez. The exact times and dates of these meetings will be
published in the respective local newspapers at the two meeting venues. At these
meetings, SLH will present a detailed description of the proposed project and its mode of
operation, as known at the time of the meetings. We will also describe the environment
potentially affected by the project and environmental impacts as well as they are known at
the time of the meetings.
A primary purpose of the meetings will be to obtain information on the potentially-
affected resources in the project area. If you have, or know of the existence of, data
or information on any resource or other feature of the project, SLH would
appreciate your providing that information during or after the meetings.
PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS BY September 2, 1997, TO THE
FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
Thom Fischer, President
Whitewater Engineering Corporation
1050 Larrabee Avenue, Suite 104-707
Bellingham, WA, 98225
THE SILVER LAKE PROJECT
PROJECT LOCATION
The project would be located 15 miles southeast of Valdez, Alaska, on Silver Lake and
the Duck River (Figure 1). The approximate latitude and longitude are 60° 57' North,
146° 33' East. The Project would be located in the sections shown below:
TOWNSHIP AND RANGE
i __(Copper River Meridian) SECTIONS
TILS,R&8W 12 ae)
T10S,R8W 36
TI1S,R7W 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11, 14, 15
T10S,R7W BIB 2533
PROJECT PURPOSE
Currently, SLH is evaluating two different purposes for a project at the Silver Lake site.
The first would be to provide power to the community of Tatitlek. The second would be
to replace the current diesel generation of the Copper Valley Electric Association
(CVEA) as well as the Tatitlek load. If built only to serve Tatitlek, the Project would
have an installed capacity of about 500 kW. If the project were built to serve Valdez as
well, the Project would have an installed capacity of approximately 15,000 kW.
This ICD presents two different project configurations, one to serve only the Tatitlek load
(termed the “Small Project”) and the other to serve the combined CVEA and Tatitlek
loads (termed the “Large Project”). The Small Project would be less costly and would
presumably have fewer environmental effects than the Large Project.
The Tatitlek loads are currently met entirely by diesel generation. CVEA uses diesel
generation from about October through May to supplement the generation by the
Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project. The Solomon Gulch Project can meet all of
CVEA’s current requirements during the summer, but has insufficient reservoir storage
and inflow to meet requirements during the remainder of the year. The Large Project
would operate primarily during the winter months and would provide power to CVEA
when the existing Solomon Gulch Project reduces its output due to low reservoir levels
Tos Westhegth-2 ud Ga
Viaeter Oe
‘Annin 2 ener /
| Mun ane
ao oO - “ae 5
4 eer” i SSS & 2 /Entrance tate : = "Boint.’ * Point [SOLOMON GULCH PoweRHOUsE PE |,
Lf ur A RE me fe a
;
WINS wus a9 as
Boh
meat & ¥)
FIGURE 1 SILVER LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
and insufficient storage. Both the Small and Large Projects would provide economical
hydroelectric energy to energy consumers that are currently dependent upon more
expensive energy or mixes of diesel and hydropower sources.
SMALL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Small Project would include the following project features, as shown in Figure 2:
e An access road approximately 10 miles long from Tatitlek to Silver Lake. For the
most part of its length, this road would be a single lane gravel road along the
transmission line alignment.
e An intake at the outlet of Silver Lake, which would allow drawing water from about 6
feet below the normal water surface.
e A penstock approximately 6000 feet long, buried in the access road to the dam. The
pipe would be 45-inch diameter HDPE pipe near the lake where pressures would be
low, and 42-inch diameter steel pipe near the powerhouse where pressures would be
higher.
e A powerhouse located on the Duck River at about El 115, on a prominent bend in the
river well above a series of rapids and falls that are a barrier to upstream fish
migration. The powerhouse would be a reinforced concrete structure set into the
ground so that the roof would be at about the existing ground surface. The
powerhouse would contain two 250-kW, horizontal-shaft generating units. A small
switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse would be contain a single pad-mounted
transformer and recloser.
e A 10-mile long 12.5-kV transmission line along the access road alignment. SLH will
evaluate both overhead and underground transmission construction.
LARGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SLH is currently considering three alternative project arrangements for the Large Project
configuration. Each of these alternatives has associated cost, risk, and environmental
attributes, the details of which will be the subject of feasibility studies to be conducted
during the Preliminary Permit period if the Large Project is pursued. The three
alternatives are described in this document to generate initial public and agency comment.
A preferred alternative will be selected after initial review and study, and will be
presented in the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft License
Application, scheduled to be distributed on or about October, 1998.
“ACCESS ROAD AND ‘|’ | TRANSMISSION. LINE’ TOTATITLEK
Hom fi wh
FIGURE 24 GENERAL PROJECT ARRANGEMENT -- SMALL PROJECT
All of the Large Project alternatives currently being considered would have an installed
capacity of approximately 15 megawatts (mw), and would generate approximately 45
gigawatt hours (gwh) of electricity per year to meet the power needs described in the
preceding section.
Alternative Large Project Arrangements
Each Large Project alternative would include several major features, including a storage
dam, reservoir, power conduit, one or more powerhouses, access roads and transmission
lines. Major differences among the alternatives at this time relate primarily to the power
conduit(s) and powerhouse(s). In the following sections, we first describe the storage
dam and reservoir, which are common features of all alternatives, and then the various
power conduit and powerhouse configurations relative to the three alternatives, and other
project features. (The names of the project features are in bold type on first reference).
Storage Dam And Reservoir
The storage dam and reservoir for all three Large Project alternatives would be the same
design. The three alternatives currently under consideration all include a storage dam
approximately 120 feet high raising the lake from El 306 to El 410. The dam would be
constructed of roller compacted concrete, and would incorporate an overflow spillway.
The reservoir created by the dam would have an active storage capacity of 143,000 acre-
feet and would have a surface area of about 1,550 acres, 550 acres more than the existing
lake. Approximately 1% miles of the valley above Silver Lake would be inundated.
Power Conduit and Powerhouse Alternatives
Three power conduit/powerhouse alternatives are currently under consideration. These
alternatives would have different construction costs and risks, power outputs, and
environmental impacts. SLH intends to evaluate all factors relative to these alternatives
during the term of the Preliminary Permit.
Intake/Upper Tunnel
All three alternatives would include an intake at the reservoir which would divert water
either through a 900-foot-long upper tunnel or across an excavated bench. SLH will
evaluate the need for a multilevel intake to allow temperature control of the reservoir
releases. If a tunnel were used, it would first be constructed to divert water around the
damsite during construction, and subsequently would be converted for use as part of the
power conduit.
Power Conduit(s)/Powerhouse(s)
The three alternative power conduits and powerhouses differ below the upper tunnel, and
are described in the following sections:
Alternative 1
Power Conduit
Under Alternative 1, a 5,600-foot long lower tunnel would continue below the
upper tunnel (or excavated bench) with an inclined shaft to a powerhouse on the
lower reach of the Duck River (Figure 3). Among the three Alternatives, this
arrangement would have the least surface disturbance (and presumably the least
terrestrial and aquatic impacts), but would have a relatively large cost risk because
of the amount of underground construction.
Powerhouse
The powerhouse for Alternative 1 (the Duck River powerhouse) would be on the
Duck River about 700 feet upstream from the Lagoon (Figure 3).
Alternative 2
Power Conduit
The Alternative 2 power conduit below the upper tunnel would be 9,000 feet of
steel pipeline and penstock (Figure 4). The pipeline would be buried in the
access road as much as possible, but would include a 3,000-foot-long section on a
bench cut around the hill above the lower reach of the Duck River. This
alternative probably would have the least construction cost, but would involve the
most construction near the important habitat of the Duck River.
Powerhouse
This alternative would also utilize the Duck River powerhouse in the same
location as for Alternative 1. (see Figure 4).
Alternative 3.
Power Conduit
Under this alternative, the power conduit would continue below the upper tunnel
with an inclined shaft and lower tunnel 3,100 feet long to the upper powerhouse
in a valley approximately midway between Silver Lake and the Lagoon (Figure 5).
A regulating pond would be formed in the valley by a small dam on Reverse
Creek (the Reverse Creek dam). A steel pipeline and penstock 1,000 feet long
from the Reverse Creek dam would convey water from the regulating pond to the
6 “~] upPek »-~>} TUNNEL
Z if) . | CK | / | LOWER
EAGOON OUTFALL FSA . | AL TUNNEL |
SY
FIGURE 3. GENERAL PROJECT ARRANGEMENT - - ALTERNATIVE 1
Bes aa Zon
=~
a:
os
FIGURE 4. GENERAL PROJECT ARRANGEMENT - - ALTERNATIVE 2
SILVER LAKE INTAKE =
NA aN = \ -
TUNNEL
000 XZ os E
REGULATING POND. |f
\ \ i Z
The VAY - a a
“| LOWER. POWERHOUSE :
q ACCESS ROAD | \/
FIGURE 5. GENERAL PROJECT ARRANGEMENT - - ALTERNATIVE 3
lower powerhouse near the outfall of Reverse Creek. This alternative would
probably be the most costly and would involve some risk related to tunneling. It
would, however, avoid all construction near the important habitat of the Duck
River and presumably would reduce terrestrial and aquatic impacts relative to the
other alternatives. Also, it would have the greatest generation potential since it
would develop the waters of Reverse Creek as well as those of the Duck River.
Powerhouses
Under Alternative 3, the upper powerhouse would be at approximately El 130 on
the west bank of the regulating pond and the lower powerhouse would be at
approximately El 10 on the right bank of Reverse Creek (Figure 5).
For all three Large Project alternatives, the powerhouses would be prefabricated metal
buildings with reinforced concrete foundations containing either two or three generating
units. The building footprints would all be approximately 50 feet by 100 feet. For
Alternatives 1 and 2, the total installed capacity would be approximately 15 MW. For
Alternative 3, the upper and lower powerhouses would have installed capacities of
approximately 10 MW and 5 MW respectively.
The turbines would be horizontal shaft Francis units direct-connected to horizontal shaft
generators. Other equipment contained in the powerhouse would include inlet valves,
tailrace gates, a bridge crane, a generation control system, miscellaneous plant
mechanical and electrical systems and a blowoff valve.
Switchyard
A switchyard would be located adjacent to the powerhouse(s). The switchyard would
include the main transformers, circuit breakers and switches.
Instream Flow Release Facilities
All three Large Project alternatives would include facilities for releasing water into the
Duck River to maintain instream flows. Upstream salmon migration in the Duck River is
blocked by a barrier falls approximately 3,500 feet upstream of the mouth. To provide
instream flows to this stream reach under alternatives 1 and 2, a buried instream release
pipe would be constructed from the powerhouse to a point on the Duck River upstream of
the salmon habitat. Some of the water discharged from the powerhouse would travel up
the pipe under pressure, and be released at a point above the salmon migration barrier.
Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the powerhouse would discharge high flows during the winter
when the natural flows are low. To minimize the potential impact of these high flows on
the Duck River and intertidal salmon spawning area near its mouth, SLH will evaluate the
feasibility of a tailrace pipeline from the powerhouse to a lagoon outfall in the Lagoon.
This arrangement would allow SLH to selectively release water from the powerhouse
12
either into the instream flow release pipe or into the Lagoon outfall, as determined by
results of instream flow studies.
Under Alternative 3, instream flows would be released from the regulating pond to the
Duck River above the barrier falls. Under this alternative, high flows in the winter would
be released from the powerhouse no. 2 into Reverse Creek, thus avoiding high flow
impacts in the Duck River.
Transmission Line
SLH is currently evaluating three potential transmission line routes to the Valdez service
area and another route to the Tatitlek area (Figure 6). Each of the routes to Valdez would
terminate at the existing Solomon gulch project switchyard in Valdez. The Valdez routes
are:
1). A submarine cable through Galena Bay, Valdez Narrows and Port Valdez (a
distance of approximately 28 miles);
2). A tidewater overhead transmission route near along Galena Bay and Port
Valdez (a distance of approximately 26 miles, including a one-mile long
underwater crossing of Jack Bay); and
3). An overland transmission route crossing the two mountain ridges between
Silver Lake and Valdez (a distance of 22 miles).
Each of these transmission line alternatives have different levels of reliability,
construction costs, and environmental impacts, which will be evaluated before a preferred
alignment can be selected.
In addition, SLH will evaluate the feasibility of a Tatitlek transmission line from the
project to that community, a distance of approximately 10 miles.
Access Roads
Currently, access to the Project area is only by boat or by air. During construction and
operation, SLH would construct a boat dock and barge unloading facility at the head of
Galena Bay near the outlet of the Lagoon. Relative to the three Project Alternatives, there
are currently two access road arrangements. For Alternatives 1 and 2, a single lane, all-
weather dam/intake access road approximately 4.5 miles long would be constructed
from the boat dock to the dam/intake site. A Duck River powerhouse access road
approximately 0.5 to 1.0 miles long would be constructed to provide access to the
powerhouse (see Figures 2 and 3).
Alternative 3 would utilize the same 4.5 mile intake access road, which, under this
Alternative, would also provide access to the upper powerhouse (see Figure 4). The
lower powerhouse would be accessed via an approximately 0.5 mile lower powerhouse
access road.
13
Anderson PY +t SOLOMON GULCH POWERHOUSE [<7
< PN ee Bee einer NAN
FIGURE 6 SILVER LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES
PROJECT OPERATION
The project operation would be dictated by the variability of the load to be served and the
flow rate required for the instream flow releases. The instream flow rate during the
summer months would have a major influence on the feasibility of the project. The
project alternatives would all allow generation with the instream flow requirement, but,
during the summer, there would be very limited need for the generation since the existing
Solomon Gulch project can currently meet most of Valdez’s summertime requirements.
If the project studies indicate that a relatively high instream flow rate is necessary during
the summer, SLH will evaluate the feasibility of modifying the operation of Alternative 3
so that a portion of the instream flow requirement is pumped from the Lagoon into the
regulating pond and then released back to the Duck River. This operation would both
decrease the amount of discharge required from the reservoir and provide a load to be met
by the reservoir releases.
SLH has developed Duck River streamflow data by correlation of the existing Duck River
flow data to the long-term flow records of Power Creek near Cordova. SLH has used that
correlated data to develop preliminary pre- and with-Project hydrographs (Appendix 1).
In the Appendix, we describe the various conditions represented by the hydrographs.
Please note that these hydrographs have been constructed using preliminary streamflow
and load data.
LANDS OWNERSHIP
In general, most of the project, with the exception of the proposed facilities near the city
of Valdez, lies on lands of the Chugach National Forest (Forest). Within these forest
lands, however, much of the proposed project area lies on lands patented from the Forest
to the Chugach Alaska Regional Native Corporation (Chugach Corporation). The main
project features near Silver Lake (dam/intake, power conduits, powerhouses, switchyards,
docks and access roads) are either on Chugach Corporation lands or on lands patented to
the Tatitlek Village Corporation (Tatitlek Corporation).
Much of the land crossed by the proposed overland transmission line route is managed
directly by Forest. Lands crossed by the proposed Tatitlek transmission line are variously
owned or managed by the Forest, Chugach Corporation, or the Tatitlek Corporation.
Ownership of project-affected lands near the city of Valdez and Tatitlek is complex. In
these areas, there are numerous private holdings and parcels patented to individuals,
industries, the City of Valdez and the Tatitlek Corporation. SLH will conduct detailed
land-ownership surveys for these areas depending upon which Project and Transmission
line Alternatives are selected.
15
MARKET FOR POWER GENERATED
Small Project
The proposed market for the power from the small project is the community of Tatitlek.
These villages are currently supplied by diesel generators with a combined installed
capacity of 425 kW. The proposed small project would replace this diesel generation
entirely. The cost of power from the small project would depend a great deal on the
amount of federal or state contribution.
Large Project
The proposed market for the power from the large project is comprised of three potential
components: 1) the Tatitlek load as described above, 2) the Copper Valley Electric
Association, Inc. which serves Valdez, Glennallen and its contiguous areas, and 3) the
Petro Star refinery in Valdez. Presently, CVEA power is supplied in the summer by the
Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Plant in Valdez, and, in the winter, by the Solomon Gulch
Hydroelectric Plant and by diesel power plants in Glennallen and Valdez. SLH expects to
replace the present diesel generation with the output of the large project. SLH will also
investigate the potential for supplying power directly to the Petro Star refinery, which
would provide a summer market for the potential power produced by the project instream
flow releases.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ISSUES
In the following sections we describe the environmental resources potentially affected by
the Project. Our current state of knowledge of these resources and issues is based on
existing information. SLH will conduct formal study planning after receiving comment
on this document and subsequent public meetings, and will develop plans for studies,
some of which may involve field surveys. In all further sections concerning
environmental resources, the text references resources potentially affected by the Large
Project proposal, with an overland transmission line to Tatitlek, or the combination of
features with the most extensive potential for environmental effect.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Information Sources and Previous Studies
Information on resources and issues in this document is derived from previously-
conducted studies and surveys, which include the following:
1) In 1980-1981 United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted a power
assessment of Silver Lake. (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1981).
16
2) A study was completed by R. W. Rutherford Associates for the Alaska Power
Authority (APA) and the City of Cordova. (R. W. Rutherford Associates, 1981). In this
study, Silver Lake was identified as one of the alternative small hydroelectric sites. The
study presented load forecasts and a preliminary feasibility evaluation.
3) In 1981-1982 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, under contract to APA
prepared, an assessment of the Silver Lake project and area (Stone and Webster
Engineering, 1982). This study involved the following:
e Agency coordination and public participation
e Electric energy forecasts
e Preliminary hydroelectric conceptual design and analysis
e Intertie conceptual design and analysis
e Preliminary environmental analysis
e Hydrologic investigation
e Air quality and meteorological tests
e Cost estimates
e Socio-economic investigations
4) In 1982 Dowl Engineering Corp., under contract to Stone and Webster Engineering
Corp., conducted environmental and geologic field investigations in the project area
(Stone and Webster, 1983). The report addressed a broad variety of resource and
contained extensive data collection results on:
e Stream gaging stations at the mouth of Silver Lake and the mouth of the Duck
River above tide water.
e Surface and ground water temperature and water quality recording stations.
e Topographic mapping and survey.
e Water quality studies of the lake, stream and lagoon.
e Avian and terrestrial species in the project area and the extent of utilization of
the area by the species.
e Mapping and classification of vegetation and wildlife habitat in the project
area.
e A fisheries field program related primarily to anadromous fish in the lower
Duck River and the Lagoon coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game in anticipation of future instream flow assessment.
e A sampling program for invertebrates (both fresh water and intertidal) in Silver
Lake, the Duck River, the Lagoon and Galena Bay.
17
e An inventory of recreation and subsistence use of the resources within the
project area.
e A reconnaissance level survey of cultural, historical and archaeological
resources within the project area.
e A geological and geotechnical survey that included regional geologic mapping,
site-specific geology (including soil series), core drilling, identification of
geologic hazards and an assessment of available construction materials.
Following is a summary of existing environmental resources in the project area. The
information is preliminary and subject to revision based on additional information and
studies conducted by SLH. _ Readers are encouraged to provide additional
information or sources of information on these resources in written or oral
comments.
Aquatic Resources
Silver Lake. A fish survey conducted by ADF&G in 1972 produced only Dolly Varden
and sculpin from Silver Lake. Indications from the survey were that there was only light
fishing pressure at the outlet area by Valdez area sport fishers. Dowl Engineers (1983a)
surveyed Silver Lake and its tributaries in 1982 and found only Dolly Varden and sculpin.
Duck River. The Duck River is listed in ADF&G anadromous fish Catalogue (ADF&G,
1993a and b) as offering habitat for both pink and chum salmon from tidewater to the
barrier falls approximately 3,500 ft. upstream. Duck River is one of the more productive
salmon streams in Prince William Sound. Phil Sharp of ADF&G, in a recent
communication within that agency, described the Duck River as the most important pink
salmon spawning area in eastern district of Prince William Sound. Duck River averages
between 4% and 6% of the entire Prince William Sound escapement for pink and chum
salmon respectively.
The Duck River is an aerial index area, meaning that ADF&G counts fish in the area from
aircraft on a weekly basis during the migration and spawning seasons. These aerial index
results have been collected by ADF&G from 1960 to the present. From 1960 to 1996, the
estimated pink salmon escapement averaged 51,000 and ranged from a high of 124, 000
in 1976, to a low-of 7,000 in 1965. During that same time period, chum salmon
escapement averaged 13,000 with a high of 30,000 in 1973 and a low of 2,000 in 1975
and 1979. Over the period of observation, pink salmon index counts have remained
stable or risen slightly in recent years while chum salmon counts have decreased in the
past five years.
Silver salmon are also present in Duck River but the abundance is unknown and estimated
to be low.
Dowl Engineers (1983a) studied the Duck River and the Lagoon and found the areas most
utilized by both pink and chum salmon. They also reported on the periodicity of pink and
18
chum salmon life history phases including spawning, incubation, rearing, outmigration
and inmigration.
Salmon spawning in the Duck River/Lagoon area occurs intertidally and in the lower
reaches of the Duck River. The river flows through a rock gorge from Silver Lake to
about 2 mile above mean low water. It is believed that this gorge forms a velocity barrier
for fish passage. Downstream of this barrier, Duck River has a more moderate gradient
and smaller and more suitable substrate size.
Elsewhere in the Project area, the Alaska anadromous fish Catalogue (ADF&G 1993 a
and b) lists anadromous fish only in Millard Creek which empties into Galena Bay. No
anadromous fish are listed for Reverse Creek.
The Lagoon/Galena Bay. The Lagoon was studied in detail in 1982-83 by Alaska
Biological Consultants (1983). They found several species of typical intertidal organisms
in the Lagoon, both free-living and in the substrate. The intertidal community was
described having lower diversity than usual, perhaps because of the amount of fresh water
from the various stream inputs. The researchers found no organisms which would be on
the Threatened or Endangered species lists today, but the study was conducted long
enough ago that it may not represent the current list of organisms in the Lagoon. The
authors cautioned against project operations which might alter the salinity and
temperature regimes in the lagoon.
Pacific herring spawn along the north shore of Galena Bay near Valdez Arm. The project
area also supports shellfish populations throughout Valdez Arm, Port Valdez and Galena
Bay.
Terrestrial Resources
The area surrounding Silver Lake has a good population of mountain goats, with 291
goats counted on a 1981 ADF&G survey between Jack Bay and Port Fidalgo. Silver
Lake is one of the most popular goat hunting areas in Prince William Sound, and in 1980
sustained the fourth highest harvest in the area (10 animals, 5 males and 5 females).
The area is subject to periodic aerial surveys conducted by ADF&G which indicate use of
the area as winter and summer habitat and for kidding. Recent ADF&G surveys indicate
that goat populations in the area have declined in the past 20 years (Nowlin, 1996, Hicks,
1994, Abbot, 1992). These reports generally show a population of goats in the Game
Management subunit which contains Silver Lake, to range from 100 to 200 goats, relative
to an estimated 3,000 goats in all of Game Management Unit 6, which extends includes
all of Prince William Sound and the Alaska coast to as far south as Cape Yakataga.
Black bear habitat is good to excellent in this portion of Prince William Sound and the
Duck River-Silver Lake area has a good population of black bears. Black bear utilize the
slopes behind the lake for spring feeding on vegetation and feed along the lower slopes of
Duck River when salmon are present (Stone and Webster, 1983).
19
Brown bears are uncommon in the Silver Lake area, although recent ADF&G reports
(Nowlin, 1994) indicate that brown bear populations in the Game Management subunit
containing Silver Lake are “moderate”. No brown bears were noted in the 1982
environmental surveys by Dowl Engineers in the Project area (Stone and Webster, 1983).
Although sitka black-tailed deer are common in Prince William Sound and areas further
south, they tend to be most abundant on the islands and not on the mainland. No deer
were noted in the studies reported in Stone and Webster, 1983.
Moose are not present in this area of Prince William Sound. At least one family of river
otters is using Duck River (spring observation ’82). Limited use of the shallow lagoon is
made by marine mammals, principally by sea otters, and there are established populations
of sea otters throughout the nearshore areas of Valdez Arm, Port Valdez, and Galena Bay.
Stone and Webster (1983) provided an extensive list of birds in the Project area.
According to recent communications from ADF&G, information on birds in the Project
area is not complete. In their letter to SLH dated October 20, 1995, ADF&G stated that a
small Arctic tern colony is located on the east shore of Valdez Arm at the entrance to
Galena Bay. Ducks and geese are thought to be generally distributed throughout the area,
but specific information on nesting, molting and staging areas is not available. Bald eagle
nesting has been documented around Galena Bay and The Lagoon.
Water Use and Quality
The Duck River does not currently have a streamflow gage installed, nor is there a
monitoring device at Silver Lake. Dowl Engineering Corp. (1983) reported on
approximately 5 months of stream gaging and lake level measurements, but did not
establish long-term monitoring stations on either the Duck River or Silver Lake. The
streamflow measurements were made by Dowl Engineers were used in a synthesis of
Duck River streamflow using data from Power Creek, near Cordova, Alaska, (Dowl
Engineers 1983), (Figure 6). Low flows, present from mid-December through mid-April
of most years, range from 50 to 100 cubic feet per second (cfs). During April and May
flows increase due to snowmelt and increased rainfall, and reach monthly averages
greater than 650 cfs throughout June, July and August, falling again in September as
precipitation slows and temperature declines.
Other than the studies performed by Dowl Engineers in 1982, there have been no formal
studies of water quality in either the Duck River or in Silver Lake. The Dowl studies
showed the water quality in the Duck River to be good, as would be expected for a stream
in an uninhabited area with no industrial, residential or other pollution sources.
Geology and Soils
Geologic data in the Project area are extensive. Dowl Engineers (1982, draft report)
developed detailed soil series for the entire project area including the areas around Silver
20
Lake. Subsurface geology was studied by Dowl Engineers in 1982 as part of the
geotechnical feasibility studies for that project. Four drill-logs are available in the Dowl
report from the areas which would be utilized by the SLH project alternative designs.
Recreation
No formal recreation surveys have been conducted in the area. The ADF&G fisheries
studies at Silver Lake conducted in 1972 indicated that there was light use of Silver Lake
by sport fishers from the Valdez and perhaps Anchorage areas. There is known to be
some float plane traffic in and out of Silver Lake, but the usage has not been quantified.
As mentioned in the terrestrial resources section, the slopes above Silver Lake are used
for hunting of mountain goats and black bears, and the area is one of the more popular
areas for hunting these species in Prince William Sound, perhaps because of the
proximity to Valdez and the relative abundance of these game species in the area.
In the summer of 1996, the US Forest Service Cordova Ranger District developed a foot-
trail from the lagoon area to Silver Lake and beyond for access through Village and
Native Corporation lands to the Chugach National Forest Lands east of Silver Lake. This
trail substantially increases recreational access within the Project area, relative to the
situation prior to its construction.
Cultural Resources
The Dowl Engineers studies (Dow! Engineers, 1983) found two potential cultural
resources sites near the damsite/intake location. No other cultural or historic sites are
known to exist in the project area.
Visual/Aesthetic Resources
The area surrounding Silver Lake and the Lagoon is currently undisturbed and offers very
high-value visual resources. No current data is available which quantify these resources,
but the US Forest Service has offered the highest possible level of protection for the
recreational, scenic and aesthetic resources of the areas they manage in their most recent
Forest Plan.
EXPECTED RESOURCE ISSUES, PROJECT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
Aquatic Resources
The primary Project effects would result from changes in streamflow and effects on fish
(particularly pink and chum salmon) spawning habitat in the Duck River, its delta and
The Lagoon.
SLH will consult with fish and wildlife agencies to develop and conduct studies to
quantify effects of various alternative flow regimes on instream habitat and to optimize
21
project operation relative to these effects. Mitigation would generally be in the form of
flow regime changes to minimize habitat losses. In certain cases, fisheries mitigation
may be in the form of off- or on-site habitat improvements for the affected or other
relevant resources.
Water Use and Quality
Water use effects would be those on existing uses and quantities of water in the Duck
River, Silver Lake and other affected waterways. The project operation would have to
comply with existing Alaska state water allocation priorities, including instream flow and
lake level requirements from ADNR and ADF&G. Water quality could be affected
during construction through excavation, fill, spoils disposal and road and water conduit
route construction. During long-term operation, water quality, including temperature in
Silver Lake and the Lagoon and sediment concentrations in the Duck River, could be
affected by reservoir operation and instream flow. SLH would develop, through
consultation with resource agencies, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) which
would specify both construction and long-term practices to minimize effects of erosion
and sedimentation.
Terrestrial Resources
Wildlife or vegetation effects would relate to 1.) construction activities, including noise
associated with blasting and equipment operation, human activity and encounters and 2.)
long-term existence and operation of the project, including habitat losses due to land
clearing and inundation and effects on migration and feeding routes. After study review
and agency consultation, construction practices would be proposed to minimize wildlife
disturbance. Project facilities locations would be evaluated with respect to wildlife
habitat and may be changed or redesigned to minimize impacts.
The Project, particularly inundation related to a rise in Silver Lake elevation, would affect
certain areas which might be classified as wetlands. SLH would consult with the
appropriate agencies to determine which areas exist and measures which might mitigate
for wetland losses.
Cultural Resources
Cultural resource impacts are not expected to be great. The 1982-1983 studies conducted
by Dowl Engineers indicated that there were two potential cultural resource sites near the
dam site. No formal surveys for cultural resources have been conducted near the other
proposed project features such as access roads, transmissions lines, powerhouses or
impoundments. The primary method to address cultural impacts would be avoidance, if
possible. For any significant cultural or archaeological features encountered which could
not be avoided, SLH would consult ADNR to determine appropriate methods of
retrieving or otherwise protecting artifacts or sites.
22
Recreation
Recreation in project area could be affected by both construction and long-term operation
of the project. Certain access restrictions might be placed on construction zones for
safety purposes. The access roads might facilitate public accessibility to areas which are
currently quite primitive because of access difficulty. Presence of project features might
reduce the recreation experience on or near Silver Lake, as might the rise in reservoir
elevation and inundation of shoreline wetlands areas.
Visual/Aesthetics Resources
The presence of the project features, depending on which alternative is selected, might
have moderate impacts on the visual quality of the project area.
Geology and Soils Resources
Most project-related effects for these resources would be on soils which might be
disturbed due to project construction. Soil effects would be addressed in part through the
ESCP and its associated construction practice directives, and in part through project
design which would avoid sensitive or unstable soils areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
SLH intends to conduct studies relative to several resources to determine the engineering,
economic and environmental feasibility of the project. The FERC regulations require that
State and Federal resource agencies be consulted prior to conducting environmental
studies. Further input on studies may result from comments received on this document
and the various other documents and public meetings required prior to licensing.
Following are general descriptions of studies which might be conducted in the various
resource areas, but do not represent formal proposals for study:
Aquatic Resources
Aquatic resources are typically studied through research of existing literature and, when
necessary, by field surveys of the fish, invertebrates and vegetation of the lakes and
streams potentially affected by the project. Generally, SLH will utilize the survey results
from the 1982-83 work done by Dowl Engineers and any more recent survey results
which may have been conducted by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G),
including aerial fish escapement surveys and/or foot surveys. Other study results may be
obtained from surveys conducted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Based on input from
the resource agencies, SLH will decide whether to conduct further field studies of
fisheries in the Duck River, its tributaries, the Lagoon and in Silver Lake.
23
Another important aquatic resources issue could be instream flow, or the effects of
changes in the streamflow regime in the Duck River as a result of project storage and
release operations. Instream flow studies to quantify the effects of streamflow changes on
aquatic life may be done using only existing or synthesized streamflow records, or
through more sophisticated techniques which require intensive measurement of hydraulic
and habitat features. SLH will decide, based on input from natural resource agencies,
which instream flow technique(s) would be employed.
Terrestrial Resources
Terrestrial resources (typically categorized as either 1) wildlife or 2) botanical resources)
are typically studied through review of existing literature and, if necessary, by field
surveys of the plants and animals in the potentially-affected area. Wildlife resources may
be studied in the field using aerial survey techniques and ground surveys which might
include large and small mammals and birds. A survey for various rare, threatened and
endangered species is often conducted if responsible agencies believe that they might
occur in the project area.
Botanical resources studies involve describing and classifying the vegetation in the
project area, determining the presence of sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered plants,
and determining the value of the potentially-affected vegetation as habitat for wildlife. In
addition, SLH might be asked to conduct a determination of the occurrence of wetlands
which might be affected by project construction or long-term operation.
Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources include prehistoric and historic artifacts in the affected area. Alaskan
cultural resources usually include evidence of use by native American peoples and
recognition of locations which might be important to those peoples. SLH will consult
with the ADNR State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and, based on that initial
consultation, determine whether field surveys are necessary. If cultural resources studies
are necessary they are typically done by a qualified cultural resources specialist using
foot surveys and mapping techniques in the potentially affected areas. After a
reconnaissance level survey, the SHPO may determine that more detailed surveys and
mapping might be required. All survey reports would be reviewed by the SHPO who
would make final recommendations regarding the significance of sites or artifacts found.
Recreation Resources
Recreation resources are often studied using literature review and, if found necessary
during consultation, field surveys. Such field surveys involve stationing survey personnel
at specific trailheads or known recreation areas. The surveyors may either distribute
questionnaires or ask questions in addition to counting the numbers of people who pass
the survey site or are seen in a pre-determined area. The recreational use of the Silver
24
Lake area appears to be light and SLH initially proposes to use existing data to
characterize the type and level of use.
Visual/Aesthetic Resources
These resources are often studied using renderings of the project features both before and
after the project is constructed. SLH, in the course of its engineering design for the
project, will develop drawings of the project features, both in the pre- and the with-project
conditions. Mitigation for aesthetic impacts is facilitated by use of computer-based
depictions of various alternative ways of building, shaping and painting various project
features.
Geology and Soils Resources
These resources include the surface features of both rock and soil in the project area, with
interest in slope and structural stability, permeability, and the subsurface features which
might affect structural stability, resistivity, and earthquake potential. These resources are
typically studied by initial literature survey, and field work, including soils surveys and
rock analysis.
SLH will examine all previous studies on the Silver Lake Project area, including seismic
work and the avalanche/slide potential in this area. We will examine the intake structure
site, ground storage sites, building locations and power plant site.
We do not currently plan to conduct drilling at the damsite. Instead, we will utilize the
bore logs from the 1982- 83 studies conducted by Stone and Webster for the Alaska
Power Authority. If information from those bore logs proves insufficient, we will inform
the FERC and relevant Alaska agencies and land owners of our intention to conduct
drilling and will provide maps of the proposed drilling sites. Drilling will be necessary in
the area(s) of all tunnels, as they may relate to the selected Alternative.
Water Use and Quality
In this area, the important factors are 1.) water use (how water in the project area is
currently allocated and how much water might be needed to serve the project purposes)
and 2.) water quality (the quality or the water in potentially affected streams and lakes
and how it might be changed by project construction and operation). Water quantity and
quality studies are typically done using existing records, if available, or through
installation of stream gages and water quality measuring instruments. Based on
consultation with Alaska state and federal agencies, SLH will conduct studies to
document existing water use and quality and to aid in predicting project-related effects on
those resources.
25
ENGINEERING STUDIES
SLH will conduct engineering studies to evaluate the various project alternatives and
select the most appropriate one to propose in the application for FERC license. The
selection will consider environmental concerns as well as technical and economic criteria.
The engineering studies will utilize and build upon the results of the previous studies of
the project area as described previously. The engineering studies will include the
following:
Field Reconnaissance: SLH will conduct on-site examination of the locations of the
various project features to obtain an understanding of the geotechnical, topographic, and
vegetal conditions.
Topographic Mapping: SLH has acquired detailed topographic mapping of the Silver
Lake area developed in the early 1980’s. SLH will either convert that mapping to a
digital format or will obtain new digital mapping to allow use in CAD development of the
project preliminary designs.
Geotechnical Explorations: SLH will conduct geotechnical explorations of the most
promising power conduit arrangement. Sufficient explorations have already been
conducted at the Silver Lake outlet to confirm the viability of a storage dam.
Explorations for the power conduit may include mapping, seismic refraction surveys, and
core boring.
Hydrology Studies: SLH will review existing streamflow correlations and modify them
as appropriate to develop a long-term daily streamflow data set. SLH will also develop a
peak flow data set for use in sizing flood-dependent project features.
Load Studies: SLH will obtain recent hourly or daily load data for the potential power
markets to use in the operations studies and in selecting the final installed capacity.
Operation Studies: SLH will refine its existing computer model of the Silver Lake
Project to exactly model the proposed daily operation and to optimize the sizing of the
project features.
Alternative Arrangements: SLH will evaluate various sizes and layouts of the various
project features and alternatives based on geotechnical, hydraulic, power output, and
economic criteria to determine the most beneficial and cost-effective arrangement.
Estimation of the construction and operating costs and benefits is inherent in this
evaluation.
26
LICENSING SCHEDULE
Following is the proposed licensing schedule for the project. This schedule is preliminary
and subject to change as a result of study results and consultation and review timing.
Event Approximate Timing
Initial Consultation July, 1997
Environmental Study Planning July-October, 1997
1997 Field Studies August-October, 1997, continued, as required
Scoping October-November, 1997
Draft License Application Submittal February, 1998
Draft License Application Review February-May, 1998
Continued Field Studies April-October, 1998
Final License Application November, 1998
FERC Draft Environmental Assessment March, 1999
Final EA and License Order September, 1999
27
REFERENCES
Abbot, Susan M. (Ed.) (Report prepared by Roy Nowlin), 1992. Mountain Goat.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Survey Inventory Management Report, 1 July-30
June, 1991. ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation, Anchorage, AK.
Alaska Biological Consultants, 1983. Benthic Ecology of the Duck River Lagoon and
Proposed Galena Bay Dock Site. Prepared for Dowl Engineers, Anchorage, AK 63 pp.
ADF&G. 1993a. Catalog of Waters Specified as Important for the Spawning, Rearing,
or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. ADF&G Habitat and Restoration Division,
Anchorage, AK.
ADF&G. 1993b. Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Specified as Important for the
Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. ADF&G Habitat and
Restoration Division, Anchorage AK.
Dowl Engineers, undated (assumed to be 1983). Draft Geology and Geotechnics of the
Proposed Silver Lake Hydropower Project. Prepared for Stone and Webster Engineering
and Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage Alaska. 112 pp. Plus Appendices.
Dowl Engineers, 1983. Draft Environmental Field “Study Plan” (1983-84), Silver Lake
Alternative, Cordova Power Supply Feasibility Analysis, Phase II. Prepared for Alaska
Power Authority, Anchorage AK, 44 pp. plus figures.
Hicks, Mary V. (Ed.) (Report prepared by Roy Nowlin), 1994. Mountain Goat,
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Survey-Inventory Management Report, | July-30
June, 1993. ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation, Anchorage, AK.
Nowlin Roy, 1994(?). Untitled. Draft report on brown bear surveys in ADF&G Game
Management Unit 6, 1992-1994. ADF&G Division of Wildlife Management
Conservation, Anchorage AK.
Nowlin, Roy, 1995(?). Untitled. Draft report on mountain goat surveys in ADF&G
Game Management Unit 6, 1993-1995. ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Anchorage, AK.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., 1982. Cordova Power Supply, Interim
Feasibility Assessment, Volumes 1 and 2. Report prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, AK.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., 1983. Cordova Power Supply, Silver Lake
Hydroelectric Site, Field Data Collection, Apr-Oct 1982. Report prepared by Dowl
Engineering Corp. for the Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, AK.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 1981. Electrical Power for
Valdez and the Copper River Basin. Interim Feasibility Report and Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
28
United States Department of the Interior Forest Service, 1972. Review Report,
Powersite Withdrawal, Duck River, Silver Lake, Near Valdez, Alaska.
29