HomeMy WebLinkAboutElectrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin 1981E
---~ -~-~ for
and the Copper River B-~
~ ~-f
AI3 . a Po ver Aut ority
3:r W. 5th A I •
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
~~~------------------~
J8t8R111 FEASIBILITY REPORT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(W] United States Army ~~.r"'l.n Corps of Engineers ~ ... Mrvlng d wArmv
... SrFlJl ng til#' Nat/on
Alaska District
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT AREA, ALASKA
INTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ELECTRICAL POWER
FOR VALDEZ
AND THE COPPER RIVER BASIN
MARCH 1981
SYLLABUS
The geographic area considered in this study encompasses the coastal
community of Valdez and tne interior communities of the Copper River
Basin (Glennallen being the largest). In past years this area has been
impacted by various economic "booms" and "busts." The latest boom was
the construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, followed by the
post-pipeline construction slump, the latest DuSt. During these periods
there have been corresponding increases and decreases in electrical usage.
Although the econm~ is currently in a "slump," the outlooK for the
future is for a large increase in the construction industry as the Alaska
Petrochemical Company (ALPETCO) begins worK on their complex in Valdez.
This, in combination with the current expansion of the port facilities,
will greatly increase electrical demand. Furthermore, ALPETCO
anticipates approximately 720 permanent employees to remain for plant
operation. Additional population increases would be associated with the
employees' families and support facilities such as housing, stores, etc.
The proposed plan consists of two elements to meet the future needs of
the study area. The elements include the installation of a pressure
reducing turbine (PRT) in the oil pipeline by 1984 followed by hydropower
development at Allison LaKe approximately 6 years later.
The PRT would produce approximately 7.4 megawatts of power based on an
oil flow rate of 1.5 million barrels per day. Tnis project has the
advantage of providing a relatively continuous amount of power year-round
allowing for more flexibility in the utilization of the Solomon Gulch and
ultimately the Allison Lake hydropower systems. Implementation of this
project would be the responsibility of the local utility and Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company.
Tne second part of the plan, a lake tap at Allison Lake, would produce
ap~rox;mately 32,200 megawatt hours (MWH) of firm annual energy with
S,050 MWH of secondary energy from an installed capacity of 8 megawatts.
The estimated first cost is $34,301,000. Associated annual operation,
lfIaintenance, and replacement costs are estimated at $200,000.
ALLISON LAKE AND ALYESKA PIPELINE TERMINAL
3720-&1
PERTINENT DATA
ALLISON LAKE HYDROPOWER
RESERVOIR
Water Surface Elevation, feet mean sea level
r~ax imulll
Average
r1inimum
Surface Area at Maximum Elevation, acres
Usable storage, acre-feet
HYDROLOGY
Dra i nage Area, squa're mi 1 es
Annual Runoff, cubic feet per second
Average
r1aximum
Minimum
POWER AND ENERGY
Dependable Capacity, kilowatts
Firm Annual Energy, megawatt hours
Average Annual Energy, megawatt hours
FIRST COSTS (October 1980)
Federal
r'lon-Federa1
Total
ANI~UAL COSTS
100-year life @ 7-3/8 percent interest rate
Operation, Maintenance & Replacement
Total Annual Cost
ANNUAL !3ENEFITS
Total Annual Benefits (Assumes Pressure Reducing
Turbine in oil pipeline)
Net Annual Benefits
Benefit -Cost Ratio
iii
1,367
1,335
1 ,267
258
19,980
5.7
49
68
36
8,000
32,200
37,250
$30,871 ,000
3,430,000
$34,301,000
$3,034,000
200,000
$3,234,000
$4,985,000
$1,751,000
1.5 to 1
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT AREA. ALASKA
INTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Item
INTRODUCTION
STUDY AUTHORITY
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION
STUDIES OF OTHERS
THE STUDY AND REPORT
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ECONOMY AND POPULATION
EXISTING SYSTEM AND FUTURE NEEDS
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION TAKEN
PROBLEMS. NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
PLANNING CONSTRAINTS
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANS
ALTERNATIVES WORTHY OF FURTHER CONSIDERATION
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
DIESEL
CONSERVATION
T~ANSMISSION INTERTIE
PRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE
ALLISON LAKE HYDRO
COMPARISON OF DETAILED PLANS
SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS
RATIONALE FOR DESIGNATION OF NED PLAN
RATIONALE FOR DESIGNATION OF EQ PLAN
RATIONALE FOR SELECTED PLAN
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (YELLOW)
iv
Page
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
8
18
18
20
20
20
22
27
28
28
29
31
32
34
40
45
49
49
50
50
51
51
APPENDIXES
A HYDROLOGY
B EXISTING SYSTEM AND FUTURE NEEDS
C ECONOMIC EVALUATION
D PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATE
E ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
F CULTURAL RESOURCES
G FOUNDATIONS AND MATERIALS
H FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
AND CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESPONSE
I MARKETABILITY ANALYSIS
J PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES
v
INTRODUCTION
Due to continued growth and incre~sing electrical energy costs in the
Valdez-Glennallen area, the need for development of renewable electrical
resources is oecoming imperative. The current dependence on diesel-fired
generation and its associated cost escalation is taking a larger propor-
tion of personal income each year.
Increased demand due to an expanding population associated with the
planned petrochemical plant in Valdez (ALPETCO), the port facilities in
Valdez, and exploratory oil drilling in the Glennallen area, dictate the
need for expanded energy production. The need to obtain this energy from
either renewable or less expensive resources is critical to the economic
and social well-being of the area. Expansion of diesel-fired generation,
which currently accounts for all commercial electricity produced in the
study area, Inay prove questionable at a time when future availability and
price are doubtful.
)TUDY AUTHORITY
On 18 January 1972 the Committee on Puolic Works of the United States
Senate adopted a resolution requesting a review of the feasibility of
providing hydropower to the southcentral railbelt area. The resolution
is quoted as follows:
That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Haroors created under
the provisions of Section 3 of the River and Harbor Act approved
June 13, 1902, be, and is hereoy requested to review the reports
of the Chief of Engineers on: Cook Inlet and Tributaries,
Alaska, puolished as House Document Number 34, Eighty-fifth
Congress; Copper River and Gulf Coast, Alaska, published as House
Document Number 182, Eighty-third Congress; Tanana River Basin,
Alaska, pUblished as House Document Number 137, Eighty-fourth
Congress; Yukon and Kuskokwim River Basins, Alaska, pUblished as
House Document Number 218, Eighty-eighth Congress; and other per-
tinent reports with a view to determining whether any modifica-
tions of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at
the present time, with particular reference to the Susitna River
hydroelectric power development system, including the Devil
Canyon Project and any competitive alternatives thereto, for the
provision of power to the Southcentral Railbelt area of Alaska.
This interim feasibility report is in partial response to the
above resolution.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study was originally intended to determine the energy needs, and
the alternatives available to meet those needs for the Valdez area.
However, since the completion of the initial evaluation of alternatives
in April 1978, which identified Solomon Gulch and Allison Lake as the two
Dest alternatives, a number of changes have taken place.
Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) has undertaken the
construction of Solomon Gulch. This 12 megawatt (MW) installation will
produce approximately 55,600 megawatt hours (MWH) of average annual
energy with 38,600 MWH oeing firm. The estimated date for completion is
Novemoer 1981. In conjunction with the Solomon Gulch project, CVEA is
constructing a transmission line from Valdez to Glennallen. This will
significantly increase the early utilization of the Solomon Gulch plant
and set the need for additional capacity and energy at an earlier date
than previously assumed.
Due to transmission line construction, the scope of the study has been
increased to include any other potential hydropower sites which are in
the area. With the Valdez-Glennallen intertie, sites which had been
previously considered uneconolnical for development have Decome worthy of
further evaluation.
STUDY PARTIClPANTS AND COORDINATION
During this study contact has been maintained with interested Federal,
State, and local entities. PUblic meetings were held in Valdez on
26 April 1977, 24 July 1978, and 18 November 1980. The earlier meetings
were primarily designed to gather puolic comments and information to help
guide our study process. The last meeting included a report on the study
findings, and an opportunity for puolic comment on the study.
Sesides input from public meetings, close contact and cooperation was
maintained throughout the study with Fish and Wildlife Service and the
State Department of Fish and Game. The Department of Fish and Game was
instrumental throughout the study in gathering lake and stream
temperature data. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was
responsiole for providing the power values which represent the cost of
the most likely alternative. The Alaska Power Administration provided
load forecasts as well as the marketao"ility analysis for the study.
Copper Valley Electric Association assisted with the study by supplying
updated generation costs and load requirements. R.W. Retherford and
Associates provided information on the pressure reducing turoine. The
cooperation that Alyeska Pipeline Service Company provided, particularly
with field investigations, was essential to the successful completion of
this study.
STUDIES OF OTHERS
A number of investigations have been conducted in the study region,
particularly in the Valdez area, since it is the farthest north ice-free
port in Alaska. Following is a brief summary of reports done for the
study area. Much of the information utilized for this report was
ootained from these sources.
Copper Valley Electric Association conducted a 15-year power cost
study in 1976 and updated it in 1980 for the Valdez-Glennallen area. The
study conside~ed diesel generation, oil pipeline turbine generation, and
hyuropower development. The study concluded with the construction of the
Solonlon Gulch hydroelectric project.
2
The city of Valdez conducted environmental, social, and economic
studies of the Valdez area as a part of their proposed port facility
environmental assessment. The study was completed in September 1979.
Alyeska Pipeline Company conducted many studies in the Valdez-
Glennallen area prior to the construction of the oil pipeline and the oil
terminal located near the city of Valdez. Their studies included the
impacts on the environment as well as socio-economic impacts from the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the oil pipeline and related
port facility.
Alaska Petrochemical Company is now studying the effects of their
proposed refining and petrochemical facility to be located near the city
of Valdez. Tne draft environmental impact statement was released for
public review in December 1979 and the final document was made available
in March 1980.
The city of Valdez completed an Inventory Report in June 1979 which is
a progress report on work accomplished by the Planning Department toward
development of the City's Coastal Management Program. Tne report
contains an inventory of natural and cultural resources in the Valdez
coastal area, analyzes potential changes in management, use, and
ownership of major coastal land and water resources.
THE STUDY AND REPORT
This report is organized into a main report and accompanying
appendixes. The main report gives an overview of the study, the findings
(including the environmental impact statement), and the recommendations.
The appendixes provide oackup and a data source for the findings in the
main report.
3
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The followinq section of the report gives an overview of national
objectives, a profile of the area's environmental setting and natural
resources~ a summary of the existing electrical system~ and an expla-
nation of the problems and needs of the study area. In addition~
planning constraints and objectives for the study are addressed.
NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Federal water and related land resource planning is directed toward
achieving National Economic Development (NED) and Environmental Quality
(EO) as equal national objectives. NED is achieved by increasing the
value of the nation's output of goods and services and by improving
national economic efficiency. Tne EO oDjective is achieved by the
management, conservation, preservation, creation, restoration, or
improvement of the quality of certain natural and cultural resources and
ecological systems.
Tnose resource management needs specific to the stUdy area, that can
be addressed to enhance the national objectives, become the planning
oDJectives for the study. These, in turn, serve as the yardstick against
which the various alternatives are evaluated.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The study area is separated into three distinct regions; the coastal
area south of the Cnugach Mountains, tne Chugach Mountains, and the
Copper River Basin.
Climate:
Inland of the Chugach Mountains is an area characterized by a semiarid
climate with relatively clear skies and extreme temperatures. South of
the mountains the temperature is moderate, with cool, rainy summers and
high winter snowfall.
Topography:
Tne coastal area is a glacially created fjord, composed of a fairly
flat outwash plain with some moraine deposits leading rapidly to steep
sided mountains. The remainder of the study area includes parts of the
Alaska Range, the Wrangell and Chugach Mountains, and the Copper River
lowland.
Hydrology:
Hydrologic ddta is scarce in the Valdez basin. The Lowe River, with
its 3l0-square mile drainage basin, is the largest contributor of
freshwater to Port Valdez. Moderate to heavy rain, snow, and glacial
melt generally provide a plentiful water supply. Streams at the study
area are mostly short and steep and in many cases, glacial fed. The
4
~ --'" ~ r .' ~ '. ',',
PORT
VAL
FIGURE I:
HYDROPOWER STUDY AREA
FOR VALDEZ AND
COPPER RIVER BASIN
~,~
, -' -CHITINA
average annual runoff is approximately 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) per
square mile in coastal regions, with peak runoff sometimes exceeding 150
cfs per square mile. These peaks usually result from rainstorms in the
fall. High runoff can also occur with winter rain combined with snowmelt.
The principal watershed of the study area is the Copper River system
with a 24,400-square mile drainage basin. It drains the south slopes of
the Alaska Range, south and west slopes of the Wrangell Mountains, most
of the Chugach Mountains, the Copper River Basin, and a small section of
the Talkeetna Mountains.
Geology:
The Chugach Mountains within the study area are composed mainly of a
thick section of alternating dark shales and graywackes known as the
Valdez Group.
Outwash planes of the Robe and Lowe Rivers and Valaez Glacier Stream
coalesce to form a delta on the east end of the port. Although borings
in the area have not contacted bedrock, inference from geophysical data
within Port Valdez indicates that sediment thickness is probably in
excess of 600 feet. For the interior portion, no formation or bed has a
distinctive enough character to be recognized over any large area,
however, much of the area shows signs of folds and faults with the beds
standing at steep angles and striking parallel to the axis of the range.
Bed dip angles range from 45 to 85 degrees over long distances. Studies
have assigned local rock to the upper cretaceous age.
Geophysical Hazards:
The study area is one of the most seiSmically active areas in the
world. Although land shaking can be destructive, most past damage has
been caused by the accompanying tsunami. Tne sediments within the Port
Valdez basin are porous gravels which experience ground failure or
slumping.
Agriculture ana Range:
Potential agriculture and range resources of the stUdy area are mainly
along the Copper and Chitina River Valleys. Narrow coastal strips and
stream deltas might be grazed during the summers, with removal of the
animals imperative for the balance of the year due to snow conditions.
Forestry:
Most of tne timDer in the stUdy area is noncommercial oecause of its
slow growth due to poor site conditions. The lowland spruce-hardwood
ecosystem covers 2,484,000 acres and is noncolllmercial tnroughout.
The total standing volume in the interior forest is 1.5 billion board
feet consisting of 1.4 Dillion board feet of spruce and 52.5 million
6
board feet of hardwoods, half of which is birch. The total volume of
coastal forests is about 19.8 billion board feet, 67 percent of which is
Sitka spruce and 28 percent Western hemlock.
Minerals:
Metallic minerals occur in several areas. Lodes in many parts of the
Copper River region contain copper, gold, silver, molybdenum, antimony,
nickel, iron, lead and zinc, but only gold, copper and by-product silver
were mined commercially.
Fisheries:
Since mucnof the area is mountainous, the fisheries habitat is
characterized by many short, steep, coastal streams which are utilized by
pink and chum salmon. Cono salmon are also abundant in the study area,
however they require somewhat larger streams where the young can survive
in the stream for at least 1 year. Sockeye salmon are found primarily in
drainages that contain a lake which is necessary to part of their life
cycle. Dolly Varden are present throughout the coastal streams with
rainbow and cutthroat trout present to a lesser extent.
Important marine fish and shellfish include salmon, herring, halibut,
rockfish, black cod, king, tanner and dungeness crab, shrimp, scallops,
and razor clams.
Birds:
The study area is an important migration route for many species of
waterfowl and other water related birds. The Copper River Delta is one
of the most important waterfowl nesting areas in Alaska. Along with its
unique nesting population, the delta is probably most important as a
staging and feeding area for migratory waterfowl bound to and from the
arctic and subarctic nesting areas to the north. The entire coastal area
is habitat for seabirds of various species. At least 48 major seabira
colonies have been identified in the study area, and undoubtedly many
more exist. Resident game birds of forest, treeless, and other habitats
are spruce, ruffed and sharp-tailed grouse; willow, rock and white-tailed
ptarmigan.
Wildlife:
The three geographical regions of the study area, coastal, mountain,
and interior dictate the wildlife distribution and abundance. Several
wildlife species may be found in more than one area, however, they are
generally more numerous within a specific area.
Sea otters, fur seals, northern sea lions, harbor seals, harbor
porpoise, Dall's porpoise, killer and hump-backed whales are either
residents or regular visitors to the coastal waters of the stUdy area.
Terrestrial animals associated with the coastal region in~lude the Sitka
black-tailed deer, which are primarily confined to tne is1ands of Prince
William Sound (although some occur on the mainland near Cordova), and the
blaCk bear.
7
The mountainous region of the study area contains some of the most
important Dall sheep range in tne State. Mountain goats are also
abundant in the mountains of Prince William Sound, but are present in low
numoers in the Wrangell Mountains and the interior portion of the Chugach
Range.
Tne interior portion of tne study area supports several species of
large mammals. Moose are relatively abundant throughout the interior
region and concentrate in the river basins during the winter months.
Brown/grizzly bears are present in the area and become most visible about
streambanks during the salmon runs. Other large mammals include the
Barren ground caribou which utilize the interior portion of the study
area as a winter range. Two distinct bison herds, the Cnitina and Copper
River herds, have been established and appear to be sustaining healthy
populations.
Wolves, wolverines, lynx, red fox, land otter, mink, marten,
short-tailed weasel, beaver, muskrat, and snowshoe hare are present
throughout the study area to varying degrees.
ECONOMY AND POPULATION
Tne physical differences between tne coastal portion of tne study area
(Valdez) and interior portion (Glennallen-Copper Center) are strongly
reflected in tneir nistory, economy, and population.
Valdez:
Valdez ;s tne largest population center in the region. Tne city is ;n
a setting of natural beauty situated in mountainous terrain at the head
of Port Valdez. It is the farthest north ice-free seaport ;n Alaska and
serves as the southern terminus of both the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline and
the Ricnardson Highway.
Hi story:
Valdez was estaulished in 1890 as a debarkation point for men seeking
a route to Interior Alaska and the Klondike gold fields. A post office
was established in the community in 1899, and Va1aez soon became a supply
center for gold and copper mining in the immediate area. Until the
Alaska Railroad was completed in 1923, Valdez was the only all-season
port of entry to the interior. In the winter months freight and
passengers were hauled weekly to Fairoanks in horse-drawn sleds over the
"Valdez Trai1." Construction of the Alaska Railroad from Seward to
Fairuanks and emergence of Anchorage as the largest city in Alaska,
combined to eliminate the vital role of Valdez as a port of entry to the
interior.
Old Valdez was destroyed by tne 1964 Alaska Earthquake and the
resultant seismic wave. The new relocated townsite near Mineral Creek
has been growing rapidly, especially witn the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Terminal located in Port Valdez. The construction of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline has had notable permanent effects on tne populations ana
economies of Valdez and the Copper Valley basin.
8
VALDEZ
Transportation:
Although served by air, road, and sea, Valdez is relatively isolated
from other population centers in southcentra1 Alaska. Anchorage is
located 115 miles to the west, but physical barriers increase the
distance by highway to 306 miles.
The airport layout comprises a single 5,000-foot runway in an
east-west orientation. Valdez is currently served by two air carriers on
a regular basis. The principal carrier is Valdez Airlines. The vast
majority of air passenger traffic originates in or is destined for
Anchorage. Valdez is one of eight cities served oy the Southwestern
Marine Highway System. This system provides ferry service to Whittier,
Valdez, Cordova, and Seward, within the Prince William Sound area.
Passenger traffic totaled approximately 44,000 riders in 1976. The
Valdez to Whittier route, which passes the scenic Columbia Glacier,
accounts for nearly 20 percent of this total traffic. Thus the ferry
system nourishes a sfllall but growing tourist industry in Valdez.
Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project:
Tne ongoing construction of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project oy
the Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA), is due to be completed in
late 1981. Tnis 12 MW plant (including transmission line) is expected to
cost in excess of $61,000,000 upon completion. The project has helped to
decrease unemployment resulting from the post-pipeline wind-down.
Approximately 35 percent of the project's total cost has gone to labor,
generating aoout 100 full-time jobs over the construction period. In
addition, two permanent positions will be created.
£:.~~h i ~l~ :
The Valdez fishing fleet is haroored in a 10-acre boat harbor
constructed by the Corps of Engineers in 1965. The fleet consists of 25
vessels averaging 40 feet in length. Primary target species include
salmon, herring, shrimp, and crab. In recent years the Valdez fishing
industry has provided an average of 77 seasonal joos to the community.
Until recently the town had no processing capacity of its own.
Historically, fishermen SOld their catch to canneries in Cordova and
Seward. This practice changed in February of 1979 when Farm and Sea of
Alaska established a processing plant at Valdez. Tne facility handles
fish as well as shrimp and crab. All products are frozen rather than
canned. Statistics concerning capacity or annual output are not readily
available. However, it is known that the plant cannot process the local
catch single-handedly and sales to Seward and Cordova continue. Farm and
Sea of Alaska employed about 100 people in Valdez during the peak of the
1979 salmon season.
Port of Valdez:
By Alaskan stanaards, Valdez continues to be a significant port (even
exclusive of pipeline activity). The volume of waterborne commerce, both
preceding and following the pipeline boom, is depicted in tne following
table. Petroleum based products are shown separately for clarification.
10
ALYESKA PIPELINE TERMINAL
Tao1e 1
Port of Valdez Waterborne Commerce (Tons)*
Year Petroleum Based Oth~r Freight Total
1972 247,801 5,704 253,505
1973 293,885 7,191 301,076
1974 273,516 84,451 356,967
1975 412,420 242,094 654,514
1976 403,029 104,643 507,672
1977 10,653,755 13,217 10,666,972
* Waterborne Commerce of the U.S.
As can be seen, petroleum based products represent the bulk of port
traffic. This is a pattern dating back to the early 1960's. Further
examination reveals that this is primarily the result of the region's
electricity demand which is met by diesel-fired generation. Post-
pipeline data indicates that the level of nonpetro1eum related commerce
has been permanently increased. This finding cannot be positively
verified for the lack of more recent data. However, population
statistics offer strong supporting evidence.
Citizens of Valdez have long expressed interest in reviving the city's
role as a major deep water port. To some extent this goal will be
realized given the export of seafood products by Farnl and Sea of Alaska
and refined petroleum from the soon to be installed ALPETCO plant.
(ALPETCO's capacity will oe far in excess of local needs.) In antici-
pation of these and other events, Valdez voters approved in April 1979,
by a margin of almost 5 to 1, the sale of $48 million in general
ooligation bonds to improve the Port of Valdez. The groundbreaking
ceremonies for this undertaking were held on 16 August 1980. Port
expansion will generate an average of 33 jobs over a period of 2 years.
In addition, 20 permanent positions will oe created.
ALPETCO:
On 9 September 1980, groundbreaking ceremonies were held in Valdez for
the Alaska Petrochemical Company (ALPETCO) refinery. Originally this
refinery was to have a daily capacity of 150,000 barrels and include
petrochemical as well as refining capaoi1ity. Under this plan, the plant
would have employed a construction work force averaging 1,127 persons per
month for 42 months and direct permanent employment for 1,180 persons.
The plant currently under construction has been revised downward somewhat
and is planned strictly as a 100,000 barrel per day refinery. The
construction work force is expected to average 940 persons per month for
42 months. Permanent employees are expected to number 720 with an
incremental population growth of 1,290. That figure does not include the
additional population growth associated with support facilities for this
work force. This undertaking is by far the largest economic event to
occur since the pipeline. The total cost is expected to exceed $1.25
billion. Labor costs for the construction work force alone will total
approximately $220,000,000. The payroll for the operations personnel
will approach $11,600,000 per year.
12
Other Activities:
Nonseasonal stable sources of employment in Valdez include, but are
not 1 imited to:
1. A State Highways District Headquarters employs approximately 160
people.
2. Harborview De~elopment Center, which cares for the State's
mentally retarded, employs about 130 people.
3. Alyeska Marine Terminal employs an estimated 280 full-time
employees.
4. Tne new U.S. Coast Guard Station located in Valdez is manned by
approximately 25 personnel.
smploxment_Overview:
Table 2 shows employment in Valdez by industry for the years 1968 and
1978. It should be noted that the increased employment from the ALPETCO
project alone (not considering support facilities) will nearly double the
total employment figure for 1978. A declining relative role for
government is also apparent.
13
Table 2
Employment Estimates
City of Valdez 1968 and 1978
1968 1978 1978 (Part-time)
Industry Number Percent Number Percent Number
Mining 0 0 0
Construction 15 4.7 209 15.8 15
Manufacturing 10 3. 1 0 0
Transportation* 35 2 7
15 4.7 283 21.4 17
Communication &
Utilities 35 2.7 8
I\Iholesale Trade 8 2.5 6 .5 2
Reta il Trade 23 7.2 218 16.5 77
Finance, Insurance,
Real Estate 3 .9 28 2. 1 6
Services 26 8. 1 102 7.7 69
Government 220 68.8 404 30.6 34
TOTAL 320 100.0 1,320 100.0 228
*Transportation, communications and ut il it ies combined in 1968 data.
1968 data source: Alaska Department of Economic Development (now
Commerce and Economic Development), Standard Industrial Survey of Valdez,
1969.
1978 data source: City of Valdez, Overall Economic Dev~lopm~nt Plan,
June 1978.
Population: ---------
Tne population and employment mix of Valdez has grown in accordance
with these developments. Table 3 indicates the population of Valdez at
the close of each decade since 1900 with selected years for the early to
late 1970's. The influence of pipeline construction over the last decade
is quite apparent. From a town of just over 1,000 people in 1970, Valdez
grew to a peak of some 8,000 inhabitants in 1976. By 1978 construction
activity had receded and the population stabilized at 4,481 as certified
by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. There is
SOllie evidence (oased on school enrollment, occupied dwellings, etc.) that
the population has declined somewhat since. In keeping with other recent
studies concerning Valdez, a 1979 base population of 3,500 has been
adopted for this document.
14
Table 3
Historical Population of Valdez
1900 351
1920 466
1930 442
1940 529 ( 1 )
1950 554
1960 555
1970 1,008
-------
1972 1,106
1973 1,760
1974 2,271
1975 6,670 (2 )
1976 8,253
1977 7,483
1978 4,481
1979 3,500
(1) Source -U.S. Census
(2) Source -City of Valdez and U.S. Census aata utilizea for Revenue
Sharing.
The Copper River Basin:
Approximately 110 miles from Valdez, near the intersection of the
Glenn and Richardson Highways, lies Glennallen, the next largest
population center in this region of the study area. Numerous villages
dot the highway leading from Valdez to Glennallen and radiating to the
north and west of Glennallen. The largest of these conrnunities is Copper
Center. Copper Center is located south of Glennallen on Mile 103 of the
Richardson Highway. Other villages include (but are not limited to)
Coppervi11e. Gu1kana. Gakona. Chistochina. Paxson. Taz1ina. To1sona.
Ne1china, Eureka. Tonsina, Ernestine, Kenny Lake, Old Edgerton Cutoff,
and Chitina. Like Copper Center, these settlements are unincorporated
villages within an unorganized borough.
History:
Historically. Copper Center and Chitina are the more significant
settlements of Copper River region. Unlike Valdez, Native Alaskans have
been known to occupy tne area for at least 5,000 years. Rich copper
deposits were discovered at the turn of the century along the northern
flanKs of the Chitina River Valley, bringing an onrush of prospectors and
settlers to the region. The Copper River and Northwestern Railroad was
built in 1908 to accommodate the growing traffic of are, supplies, and
15
passengers. But Chitina·s prominence was short-lived. By 1939 the
principal mines ana the railroad were closed, and virtually all sources
of support moved to Copper Center and emerging Glennallen.
The present settlement of Copper Center developed from a trading post
established in 1896. Hundreds of gold rushers passed through the area in
1898--1899 on their way to the Klonaike fields; many stayed on to prospect
in the Copper River Basin. A telegraph station was set up in Copper
Center by tne U.S. Army in 1901.
More recent activities in tne basin include construction of the Glenn
and Richardson Highways, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Highway
construction intne late 1930·s and early 1940·s made the region more
accessible to other more populated parts of the State. Settlement ana
expansion since then has paralleled the road. Tne Trans-Alaska Pipeline
had massive but predominately temporary impacts in the Copper River
Basin. However, like Valdez this project tended to leave the area on a
higher plateau of population and economic activity.
Iransportatio.!!:
Glennallen: By most standards Glennallen is a very remote rural
community, linked to other communities only by air and road. Like
Valdez,Glennallen is not endowed with a rail connection. Although
physically more distant, Glennallen is only 187 highway miles from
Ancnorage, considerably closer than Valdez.
Otiler communities: In most cases the highway and small bush airstrips
are tne only link to the outside for minor communities.
Highway and Pipeline Maintenance:
Tne malntenance of tne Glenn and Richardson Highways is a basic
activity in the region. In addition to the work force originating from
tne State Highway District Headquarters in Valdez, 65 persons are
employed in highway maintenance within the area. This is also a major
source of employment for tne area's youtn as activity peaks in the summer.
Pipeline maintenance is one of the few permanent occupations left in
tne aftermath of the construction boom. Forty people are engaged in the
maintenance duties associated with mainline Refrigeration Sites 1, 2, and
7, Pump Station 11, and several remote gate valve locations.
Government Services:
The Copper River Bdsin has a variety of government services which
correspond to the needs and population of the region. Government and
municipal occupations inclUde fire fighting, law enforcement, education
and other social services, and natural resource management. There is
also a Federal Aviation Aaministration facility located at Gulkana
Airport.
16
Transportation and Tourism:
Detailed information concerning tne work force of the Copper Valley is
not obtainable. But it is known that the non-Native population is
engaged primarily in transportation and tourism. Tne scenic beauty of
the area coupled witn hunting, fishing, and boating opportunities make
this region a favorite for recreation. These activities generate jobs in
gas stations, stores, bars, lodges, local trucking firms, wholesale oil
distribution, and finance. Should the city of Valdez develop as
anticipated, the demand for these services will undoubtedly be enhanced.
This is particularly true in the case of transportation.
Minjng ~~d_Resource Extraction:
As mentioned, the study area is highly mineralized and has
historically been the center of extensive mining activity. Currently
there are no significant local mining operations. Early in 1980 reports
by State geoloqists sparked interest in the region about 60 miles west of
Glennallen. These findings triggered a flurry of gold mining claims.
Although that region has yet to yield any significant finds, this episode
is highly illustrative. The Copper River Basin is always a primary
candidate for mineral extraction and interest in the basin rises and
recedes witn the price of gold, silver, and copper.
The Glennallen vicinity has recently been subject to oil and gas
exp I or at ion. The AI'~OCO Company in conj unct i on witn AHTNA Inc. has been
conducting test drills since 1979. As yet, no commercial quantities of
oil or gas have been aiscovered. A commercial strike would be
particularly advantageous given Glennallen's proximity to the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
Native Corporations:
The Native population participates less extensively in the area's cash
economy but does enjoy employment opportunities created by three Native
corporations. Tnese are AHTNA Inc., tne Copper River Native Association,
and the Copper Valley-Tanana Development Corporation. Many villagers
(including non-Natives) still rely on hunting, trapping, and fishing to
supplement their cash incomes.
Population:
The hignly volatile nature of economic development in this area is
reflected by its population. Unfortunately, population data for the
rlurllerous unincorporated villages of the area is limited. Satisfactory
data is expected to be available in the 1980 census. However, Table 4
depicts the populations of Glennallen, Copper Center, and the total for
the service region for which information is available. Copper Valley
Electric Association, the area's electrical utility, estimates a
population of 2,500 within the Glennallen service area (March 1979).
17
Table 4
Historical Population of
Glennallen, Copper Center, and the Glennallen Service Region
Year Glennallen Copper Center Glennallen Service Region
1950 142 90
1960 169 151
1970 363 206 2,090 4/
1971 1,875
1972 2,358
1973 1,808
1974 260 3/ 1,562
1975 1,070 433 2,969
1976 5,517
1977 433 2,422
1978 2,384
197~ 363 2/ 143 2,500
1/ Population figures for Glennallen and Copper Center for the years 1950,
T960, 1970, and 1975 are taKen from the Solomon Gulch Final EIS March 1978.
2/ Population data for Glennallen and Copper Center for the year 1979 is
Yaken from an October 1979 issue of the Tundra Times Energy Special.
3/ Copper Center data for the years 1974 and 1977 are from Copper Center
tOlTlrTlunity Profile, July 1977, prepared by the University of AlasKa Arctic
Environmental Information and Data Center.
4/ Population Datd for the Glennallen Service Region derived from Upper
Susitna River Project Power Market Analyses, March 1979, Alaska Power
Administration.
EXISTING SYSTEM AND FUTURE NEEDS
Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) is the sole electric utility in
the study area. Currently CVEA relies entirely on diesel-fired generators to
serve the stuay area Dependence on diesel generation will De noticeably
reduced upon completion of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project. This
proJect also includes a transmission line intertie between Valdez and
Glennallen which will allow the utility to operate more efficiently under a
single system. Tne area's nistorical, current, and projected power demand is
presented in detail in Appendix B of this document.
CONDITION IF NO FEDERAL ACTION TAKEN
Without Federal action, diesel generation will be required to meet system
demands above the output of Solomon Gulch. Even if the proposed pressure
reducing turbine (PRT) is installed, CVEA will be forced to return to diesel
generation in the late 1980's. A more detailed explanation of the PRT is
included under the section "Assessment and Evaluation of Alternative Plan
Elements."
18
The following tables show the future use of diesel generation which would
occur if no Federal action is taken. Both tables reflect the addition of the
Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project in 1981. Table 5 assumes additional
generation would come from diesel, Table 6 assumes tne PRT would be
constructed.
Table 5
Projected Energy Generation of CVEA Without PRT
Total Load Hydro Diesel
Year (gwh) (gwh) (gwh)
1980 47.9 0 47.9
1985 77.5 38.6 38.9
1990 97.6 38.6 59.0
1995 123.0 38.6 84.4
2000 146.0 38.6 107.4
Table 6
Projected Energy Generation of CVEA With PRT
Total Load Hydro PRT Diesel
Year (gwh) (gwh) (gwl1) (gwh)
1980 47.9 0 0 47.9
1985 77.5 38.6 38.9 0
1990 97.6 38.6 52.0 7.6
1995 123.0 38.6 * 52.0 32.4
2000 146.0 38.6 ** 52.0 55.4
*This figure represents 80 percent of the total energy possible based on
a flow of 1.5 million uarrels per day (the current flow is 1.5 MBD with
no plans for increase to the 2 MBD capacity).
**Based on known oil reserves, the useful life of the project may end
before the year 2000; however, additional discoveries may be made,
extending the life of the pipeline.
The preceding tables correspond to Figures 2 and 3 on the section
"Comparison of Detailed Plans."
For purposes of simplification and more direct comparability to the
hydropower alternatives, additional diesel generation, as evaluated by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is assumed. This alternative
is the economic standard against which each of the hydropower plans are
tested. Tnat is, the power benefits of a given hydropower system
represent the cost of producing the same amount of power by constructing
and operating a conventional state-of-the-art diesel generation system.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that the appropriate
19
diesel plant at Valdez-Copper Valley consists of a 2,625 kW unit with a
heat rate of 9,370 BTU/kWh. The capital cost is estimated at $710 per kW
with a service life of 35 years.
PROBLEMS, NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Given existing and planned generation, this community will be forced
to continue its reliance on diesel generation if the load requirements
grow as anticipated. To rely on diesel fuel is to expose the community
to the likelihood of extremely high cost power. Further, reliance on
diesel power is contrary to present State and National energy policy.
The Valdez area has the unique potential to utilize oil flow from the
pipeline in addition to nearDy hydropower potential. Tne opportunity of
developing these resources should De pursued.
PLANNING CONSTRAINTS
Selection of the Dest plan from among the range of alternatives
involves evaluation of their comparative performance in meeting the study
oDJectives as measured against a set of evaluation criteria. These
criteria derive from law, regulations, and policies governing water
resource planning and development.
Tecnnical criteria require that power generation development, from any
source or sources, be of appropriate scale to satisfy the projected
energy needs, and tnat tne plan be technically feasible.
Economic criteria specify that the power must be marketable. Plan
Denefits should exceed the costs to the maximum extent possible, and each
separable plan feature must provide benefits at least equal to its cost.
The benefits arid costs are expressed in comparable quantitative terms to
the fullest extent possible. Annual costs and benefits are based on a
100-year period of analysis, an interest rate of 7-3/8 percent, and
October 1980 price levels. Power benefits are based on providing
equivalent output by means of the least costly, most likely alternative,
in this case diesel-electric generating plants.
Environmental criteria require the identification of impacts to the
natural and human environment. Adverse environmental effects should be
minimized and measures taken to protect or enhance existing environmental
values.
Otner criteria specify that plans be formulated with consideration for
social well-being and regional development. Consideration was given to
the pOSSiDility of enhancing or creating recreational values, to the
effects on personal income, employment, and population, to the effects on
cultural and archeological resources, and to the conservation of
nonrenewable resources.
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
The stUdy oDJectives are derived from the problems and needs that are
specific to the study area and can be reasonably addressed within the
20
framework of the study authority and purpose. The planning objectives
selected for tnis study are:
To meet tne intermediate and long term electrical energy needs of tne
Valdez-Glennallen area.
To preserve, conserve, or ennance fish and wildlife in tne study area.
To reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the study area's and the
ndtion's depenaence upon petroleum products as a source of energy,
particularly for producing electricity.
21
FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANS
A number of possible solutions exist which could aid in the
availability of power and energy in the future for the study area.
Outlined below are the various alternatives considered, with a brief
statement about each.
No Growth:
"No growtn" is an alternative future scenario, not a "plan" per se.
It appears here to indicate one possible outcome in the absence of
add it i ona 1 power deve 1 opment. Tne opt i on of a no growth economy in tne
Valdez-Glennallen area is no longer a realistic prospect. The past
construction of the Trans-AlasKa Oil Pipeline and tanKer terminal, the
ongoing construction of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project and
transmission line to Glennallen, oil exploration in the Copper River
Basin, ongoing expansion of the port facilities at Valdez, and the
proposed Alaska Petrochemical Company plant speaK for themselves as to
the validity of a no growth option.
Conservation:
Conservation is beginning to play an important role in future energy
needs for the study area. New commercial and residential structures are
incorporating better insulation and energy saving systems into their
construction. The Alaska Power Administration has taKen into account
conservation measures and increasingly efficient use of energy in its
load projections. However, conservation of electricity beyond that
anticipated by APA would require massive efforts. Until a standardized
approach is taken to either strongly encourage or require energy
conservation, an accurate assessment of its impact will be difficult to
ascertain. A more detailed discussion of conservation appears as the
nonstructural alternative in the following section.
Coa 1:
Although coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the nation, no known
sizable coal resources are in the Valdez area. The Matanuska coal field
on the Glenn Highway is the closest known site. It was in operation a
number of years ago for a relatively short period. In general the coal
beas were too tnin and impure to be economically mined. Additional
fields include the Healy field on the Parks Highway which is currently in
operation and the Beluga field northwest of CooK Inlet which is not
developed. The primary obstacle to be overcome is the cost of
transportation to tne Valdez-Glennallen area. In addition to this, the
problems with meeting air quality standards, and the associated
environmental impacts of strip mining dO not make this an attractive
alternative for the study area.
22
Nucl ear:
Nuclear energy development is not seen as a likely alternative for the
study area. The relatively large size of a nuclear powerplant, the
prooaoility of a major earthquake in the area, the growing national
sentiment against them, and the existence of other viable alternatives
has precluded this alternative from further investigation.
Natural Gas:
Natural gas is not considered a viable alternative for the study
area. Although it has oeen used in the Anchorage area, Valdez and
Glennallen lacK the necessary transportation facilities making
feasibility dOUbtful. Furthermore, national priorities may preclude its
use for electrical energy production on a nationwide level in the near
future.
Oil :
The study area currently relies entirely on diesel-fired electrical
generation. The completion of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project
will be the first opportunity to break away from the grip of escalating
fuel costs. In Valdez and Glennallen respectively, the cost of diesel
has increased from 41.3¢ and 44.4¢ per gallon in January 1979 to 79.2¢
and 84.3¢ per gallon in April 1980. As of Feoruary 1981 these costs
stood at $1.00 for Valdez and $1.02 for Glennallen. Even with these
factors in mind, diesel generation is still seen as the short range
solution. However, with adequate planning, it will be possible to
greatly limit the use of diesel fuel. This will be of great benefit to
the study area as well as fulfilling the State and Federal policies for
utilization of renewable resources.
Geothermal:
Geothermal resources could eventually provide significant power
generation in Alaska. The southcentral railbelt area has sUbstantial
geothermal potential primarily in the Wrangell Mountains; however this
area has been included in the new Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. Due
to this change in land status further stUdy of this alternative is not
deemed justified for this report.
Solar:
The radiant heat of the sun is another renewable source of energy that
has potential for generating power. Use of solar energy to produce
electrical power on a large scale is not presently feasible due to the
lack of technology to generate and store large amounts of electricity
produced by the sun's radiation. The most successful methods for
capturing the sun's rays have been through active and passive solar.
heating. However, feasioility for heating may be limited in the Valdez
23
area due to a high incidence of cloud cover. The Glennallen area may
hold more promise, out it will also De limited due to reduced sunlight in
the winter. Therefore, additional study of this alternative has not been
undertaken.
Wind:
Research and development proposals for wind generators should improve
future capaoilities of wind-powered electrical generating systems. With
increased diesel fuel costs, wind-generated electrical power is a possi-
ole a lternat i ve power source for remote areas of the State with sma 11
loads. However, wind is not currently felt to De a viable alternative
for the study area. Wind is very difficult to adapt to present energy
demands because it is unpredictable and erratic. To effectively utilize
wind energy, winds must De of sufficient speed and long duration. As
further developments are made in wind power, it may prove feasiole to
feed electricity into a grid system displacing other expensive forms of
energy; however, standoy capacity would still be required for calm
periods.
Tidal:
The Port of Valdez might be developed for tidal energy. The mean
lower low water elevation is 0.00 feet and the mean higher high water is
12.00 feet, which would provide a total gross head of 12 feet. However,
such an installation would require a low dam spanning the width of the
Valdez Narrows (a massive cost item in itself) as well as a deep draft
lock system to allow supertankers into the Port of Valdez. The dam would
change the entire flow regime of the Port of Valdez with a significant
potential for extensive adverse effects on major ecosystems. Further
study of this alternative is not deemed justified for this report.
Wood:
Wood fuel, as an energy source for the load center, is limited by
local availaoility, transportation costs, and environmental consider-
ations. The region surrounding both Glennallen and Valdez is forested;
however, in terms of ooard feet and sustained yield this resource is
noncommercial. Furthermore, the legal status of much of this land is
either unresolved or prohioited to logging. Realistically, the forest
reserves of southeast Alaska would have to be utilized if wood were to
make a significant contribution to the region's power load. But like
coal, the primary oostacle ;s the cost of transportation to the
Valdez-Glennallen area. Other prohioitive factors include strong
competition to maintain this resource in higher uses such as lumber,
pulp, paper, and environmental concerns associated with the large scale
harvesting, and incineration of timoer. At best, it is concluded that
wood can make a modest energy contrioution to the community, most likely
through increasing private suostitution of wood heat for oil heat. Such
factors are considered in the discussion on conservation and the Alaska
Power Administration's marketaoility analysis.
24
lntertie:
With the deciSlon by the Copper Valley Electric Association to
construct the transmission line between Glennallen and Valdez, the
opportunity exists to intertie this area with Anchorage-Fairbanks area
via the Glenn Highway. This POSsibility was considered under the Alaska
Power Administration's (APA) 1978 Upper Susitna Project Power Market
Analysis. Based on the load growth assumptions and costs at that time,
transmission costs were estimated at 3.3 cents/kWn. However,
reevaluation based on 1980 price levels and revised load forcasts show
tnat tne cost per kWn nas significantly increased. A more detailed
discussion of this alternative appears in the following section.
So 1 i d Wa s t e :
Power generation from solid waste has severely limited prospects in
the study area. Typically, successful solid waste operations are located
in regions of hign population density where economies of scale pennit the
efficient gathering, transport, and incineration of solid waste. In
addition, sucn operations playa dual role by relieving population
centers of solid waste, a less acute consideration for smaller
communities. The Valdez-Glennallen region does not produce a sufficient
volume of solid waste to enable practicable power generation. This is
eviaenced oy similar findings in a recent study made for the Municipality
of Anchorage. Although the burning of solid waste on an individual basis
may have some substitution potential for heating, it is not expected to
be a significant factor during the forecast period.
Oil Pipeline Turbine:
-----
A pressure reducing turbine (PRT) has been proposed for installation
in the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. This turbine would produce electricity
by taking advantage of tne nead drop as the pipeline descendS Tnompson
Pass. This project, as originally conceived, would have an installed
cdpacity of 9 MW Dased on the pipeline design flow of 2 million barrels
per day and would produce approximately 63,000 MWH of energy per year.
However, tne pipeline is currently pumping at about 1.5 MBD and tnere are
no plans to increase this in tne future. Based on this output the PRT
WOUld produce approximately 7.4 MW of power and 52,000 MWH per year of
energy. These figures are based on a plant factor of 0.8.
Hydroelectric Power:
A large number of potential hydroelectric sites are available in the
study area; however, most have been eliminated due to size, location, or
environmental proulems.
The Stage II report, completed in April 1978, considered sites in the
Valdez area only. Sites considered included Gold Creek, Sheep Creek,
Wortmann Creek, Silver Lake, Solomon Gulch, Allison Lake, Unnamed Creek,
Mineral Creek, and Lowe River. Of these only Solomon Gulch and Allison
Creek demonstrated tentative feasibility.
25
With the construction of Solomon Gulch by Copper Valley Electric
Association, only Allison CreeK was left as a viable alternative for
future nydropower generation. However, since the decision was made to
construct the transmission line to Glennallen, the POSsibility existed
that otner sites near tne transmission line corridor could be available
to serve the increased needs of the expanded service area.
Although a number of sites are available, all sites east of the Copper
River have been eliminated from further consideration. With the
establishment of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, development of a
hydroelectric project would be incompatible with its current status.
Some of the drainages affected include Tebay Lakes, Bremmer River,
Kotsina River, Chitina River, Kennicott River, and Nizina River.
Other potential sites within the study area that were evaluated are
Tsina River, Tiekel River, Tonsina River, and K1utina River. Of these,
Tsina River and the Tieke1 River sites would provide less than 2,000 MWH
and 10,000 MWH of firm annual energy respectively. Both sites would
require lOa-foot dams. Based on a 50 percent plant factor, the installed
capacity for Tsina River Would be only 425 kW. Installed capacity for
the Tieke1 River would be about 2,200 kW. Neither of these projects
would provide significant energy or capacity to contribute to the
combined loads of Valdez and Glennallen. Due to their small size and the
great expense of tne required dam to achieve such a limited amount of
firm energy, these projects have been dropped from further consideration.
A 35-foot dam on the Tonsina River could provide almost 2,500 kW of
capacity (50 percent P.F.) and 10,700 MWH of firm annual energy.
However, to realize this potential a penstock nearly 6 miles in length
would be required. The environmental impact of diverting the river
through the penstock and effectively drying up the stream during much of
the year would be totally unacceptable from an environmental standpoint.
The Tonsina drainage is a productive salmon stream and no1ds significant
numbers of sockeye, chinook, and coho. Due to the environmental concerns
alld the relatively small amount of energy available this alternative has
been eliminated from further consideration at this time.
A project on the Klutina River could produce an estimated 75,000 MWH
of firm annual energy with an installed capacity of almost 17 MW. This
project would require approximately 6,700 feet of 16-foot diameter
penstock to develop 90 feet of head available from a 50-foot dam. As
witn the Tonsina site, this development would adversely affect tne
productive lake and river system which supports excellent runs of
Sockeye, chinook, and coho salmon. Tne lake is of major importance to
sockeye runs which utilize lake residence for a portion of their life
cycle. Estirnates from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game indicated
that in excess of 73,000 salmon utilize the river above the potential
dams ite on good years. All of these are either chinook or sockeye which
provide the highest price per pound to the fishermen of the Prince
Wi 11 ialll Sound area.
26
If the powerhouse were moved to just below the dam, a firm energy
output of 32,200 MWH would be realized with an installed capacity of
7,340 MW. However, even if this were the recommended development,
significant impacts on the salmon runs could still be expected. In
addition, the dam would inundate critical moose habitat presently
utilized during winter months. Other major impacts would likely take
place on the black and brown Dear populations that utilize this area
throughout the spring, summer, and fall.
ALTERNATIVES WORTHY OF FURTHER CONSIDERATION
The alternatives which were seen as the only viaDle solutions to help
meet demands for future electrical power generation in the study area
inclucea diesel-fired generation, conservation, transmission intertie,
oil pipeline pressure reducing turbine, and Allison Lake Hydro. A
detailed assessment and evaluation for these alternatives is included in
the following portion of the report.
27
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Tne purpose of this section is to evaluate the various alternat',ves
that could be utilized to meet the needs of the study area. Although
eacn of tnese alternatives is discussed separately, it appears that the
best overall plan may combine one or more of the alternatives. The
section "Comparison of Detailed Plans" discusses the possible
combinations of alternatives on a comparable basis.
DIESEL
De s c rip t ion:
Tnis alternative is effectively the without condition, the probable
future if no Federal, State, or local action were taken to provide
electrical energy through alternative means. There is currently enough
installed capacity at Glennallen and Valdez, when combined with the soon
to be finished Solomon Gulch hydroelectric, to meet the needs of the
intertied system until the mid-1990's.
Based upon the diesel scenario, between 1981 and 2000 CVEA will De
burning an estimated 70 to 75 million gallons; this is based upon
expecteo population and industrial increases associated with ALPETCO and
the expanded port facilities.
Impact Assesslllent:
From an environmental stanapoint the impacts of continued use of
diesel for electrical generation are primarily associated with noise and
air pollution. However, in comparison to other alternatives, such as the
transmission intertie, and hydropower, these are seen as relatively
minor. Social impacts associated with continuing energy cost escalation
are already affecting business, industry, and the average household.
Continued reliance on diesel generation will force the local economy to
divert a growing proportion of its resources to electricity generation.
Evaluation:
Power costs associated with this alternative would be directly tied to
the escalating cost of diesel fuel. As shown in Table 1, Appendix B, the
cost of fuel increased 136 percent between 1974 and 1979, with the cost
of energy increasing 170 percent over the same time period. Increases
during 1980 enforce the probability that this trend will continue for
some time.
Besides this economic deterrent, the fact that petroleum is a non-
renewable resource of limited quantities dictates that it should be
utilized for higher priority uses SUCh as transportation. To continue to
use diesel fuel for energy production when other alternatives are avail-
aDle is unwise from an economic stanapoint not to mention that it is
contrary to State and National policies.
28
CONSERVATION: THE NONSTRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE
Description:
Various measures exist which could aid in the implementation of energy
conservation. Many of the steps discussed here are already in effect in
tne stuay area and other parts of the nation. Local measures include
energy auditing services, a public awareness program, the utilization of
waste heat from diesel-fired generation, and the preheating of diesel
fuel in winter for more efficient combustion. State and nationwide
efforts involve increased tax incentives and deductions for money spent
on conservation measures and direct grants or low interest loans for
conservation. The newly estao1ished energy auditing service conducted by
the State Division of Energy and Power Development has provisions for
grants up to $300 and low interest loans up to $5,000 for energy
conservation purposes.
Tnese programs are providing important incentives for energy
conservation. Their effect on individual energy consumption could be
sigrlificant in the years to come. However, the most important gains will
be in the reduction of fossil fuels for heating, not for electrical
generation. As it now stands space heating in the service area is
provided almost entirely by heating oil with wood heat running a distant
secona. There are virtually no structures in the region which utilize
electric space heating (the Totem Inn of Valdez being a notable
exception). The present generation and distribution system likewise
affords little opportunity for added efficiency. The operating measures
taken for diesel generation have already been described. Also, it is
assumed that the retirement of older diesel units will gradually improve
the efficiency of the system. Glennallen's distribution is handled by
1/0 ACSR cables (14.4 kV) which currently sustain an 11 percent annual
line loss. The distribution system in Valdez likewise consists of 1/0
ACSR lines (7.2 kV). Although some sections of Valdez are serviced by
smaller gage 2 ACSR cables, the relatively short distances enable an
overall annual line loss of 8 percent. Officials at CVEA regard their
distribution system as oeing fairly modern and efficient. They do not
believe that improvements to the system will yield significant
electricity savings.
Possio1e conservation methods that would influence electrical
consumption inclUde pricing decisions and incentives, minimum efficiency
standards ana growth restrictions. One method that would be effective
(though not acceptable) is to artifica1ly raise the price of electricity
to tne level necessary to bring about reduced use. The virtue of this
approach is that individuals could make their own decisions on how to
reduce tneir consumption oy comparing the relative costs and merits of
their electric appliances ana consumption habits. Given that this is not
palatable, tne only recourse would be for the utility to dictate to the
consumer how to save. This could be done by offering "discounts" for off
hour usage or to consumers who meet certain efficiency standards. Such
standards might entail increased insulation for hot water heaters, the
introduction of microwave ovens, and minimum efficiency ratings for
29
stoves, washers, dryers, and other electric appliances. The utility
COuld insist on these measures for all new customers and coordinate more
closely with builders. More extreme steps might include rate reductions
for households whicn share certain appliances (e.g. washers/dryers) or
for households which do without discretionary items sucn as electric
hairdryers, toothbrushes, knives, water oed heaters, etc. Finally, the
community could embark on a policy of severely restricted growth or no
growth. Puolic users could reduce use and/or reschedule their hours by
direct regulation. These communities might also reexamine their public
electricity requirements (e.g. street lighting).
Tne total impact of these various measures is very difficult to
ascertain. Much would depend on the responsiveness of individual
households to such a program or conversely, the magnitude of the
incentives. Consumer reports indicate that the energy efficiency of some
appliances, such as refrigerators and dryers can vary as much as 40 .
percent, whereas ranges, washers, and toasters vary by 15 to 20 percent.
Realistically, more efficient appliances would have to be phased in as
old appliances are replaced. In addition, it is likely the appliances
currently in use are not woefully inefficient. Thus the full savings
possibilities implied by these efficiency variances could not be realized
irrmeoiately. Given a stringent incentive system, and considering the
most typical and demanding household appliances, an electric energy
savings of 10 percent over tne forecast period beyond the conservation
already predicted to occur is Quite optimistic. This would include gains
from reduced pUblic and private use as well as efficiency improvements.
Evaluation:
As mentioned, various conservation n~asures are already in effect on
both State and National levels and represent the most attractive,
inlplemental policies. Tnese will undouotably play an 'increasingly
important role in future energy conservation for the study area,
particularly for heating; however, their impact on electrical consumption
will be much more modest. currently, electricity is used primarily for
horne app'liances, hot water heaters, and lighting. Because of this, the
opportunities for reducing electrical consumption are not nearly as
significant as in other parts of the country where electric heating is
more common. Many residents and some commercial structures in the study
area nave installed lower wattage light bulbs and eliminated unnecessary
lighting. Therefore, it is oelieved that the energy conservation assumed
in tne Alaska Power Administration load forecast gives a reasonable
estimation of future demands including conservation. Although additional
reductions may be possiDle by raising the price of electricity above its
actual cost, this method is considered extreme and could result in severe
soc i a 1 impacts.
30
TRANSMISSION INTERTIE
Description_:
This alternative consists of a 136-mile transmission line extending
east from Palmer to Glennallen. The single circuit, 138 kV line would
allow power to be brought in from the Anchorage-Fairbanks area. To prove
feasiDle, the power transmitted would have to De of a low enough cost to
justify the transmission line. This power would probably be produced by
the proposed Susitna project or possiDly from coal-fired generation. The
availaDility of inexpensive Cook Inlet gas is fast coming to an end with
increasingly higher prices. This, coupled with recent Federal policy
changes regarding the utilization of natural gas, eliminates it as a
viaDle alternative.
The Alaska Power Administration's Upper Susitna Power Market Analysis
estimated the total transmission construction cost, including interest
during construction, for the Palmer-Glennallen intertie at $40,800,000
as of OctoDer 1978. Assuming a 10 percent inflation rate of construction
costs, the updated cost estimate for OctoDer 1980 is $44,880,000.
Assuming the Power Admini-stration's figure for operation, maintenance,
and replacement, and amortizing the cost over 100 years at 7-3/8 percent,
yields the following results:
Amortization
OM & R
Total Annual Cost
$3,312,000
144,000
$3,456,000
The Federal interest rate was applied to evaluate the intertie on a
comparaDle basis with the other alternatives. Based on the transmission
of 50,000 MWH per year, and the 7-3/8 percent interest rate, the cost per
kWh for transmission only would be 6.9¢/kWh. This, coupled with the
current cost of electricty in the Anchorage area, would Dring the total
cost to approximately 13¢/kWh.
Impact Assessment:
The long term environmental impacts associated with this alternative
would De primarily visual. Approximately 825 acres would have to be
cleared along the Glenn Highway for the transmission route. Short term
impacts associated with construction would include the prObable
displacement of various species of wildlife in the area.
Evaluation:
For the Palmer-Glennallen intertie to be considered a viable
alternative Dased on current price levels, two requirements must be met.
One, the system must transmit enough energy to bring down the
transmission cost/kWh to a reasonaDle level, and two, a stable,
reasonaDle cost source of energy must be made available to transmit.
31
Based on the most up-to-date load forecast for the Glennallen-Valdez
area (including ALPETCO), the energy required to meet system demands
aoove the output of Solomon Gulch is relatively small. This is further
reduced oy the possiole presence of the pressure reducing turbine.
Besides the limited demand, the lack of a stable, reasonable cost
source in the railoelt area tends to eliminate the interties as a viable
alternative at present. However, if the proposed Susitna Project is
ultimately constructed, it may be able to supply a stably priced energy
source. If the current studies prove favorable and the State pursues
FERC licensing and construction, current estimates call for a Susitna
power on-line date of 1994. Even if this were the case and power was
available by the mid-1990's, the intertie would not be feasible based on
current demand expectations. Therefore, at this time, the intertie has
been dismissed as all but a very long range alternative.
PRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE
Description:
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline hydraulic energy recovery turbine facility
would consist of a single hydraulic turbine installed in parallel with
the 48-inch main line block valve located approximately 5 miles east of
the Valdez terminal. Diversion of crude oil through the turbine by
closing the main line block valve could generate nearly 65,000 MWH of
energy per year at the pipeline flow rate of 1.5 MBD. This recoveraole
energy is contained in the crude oil stream as it reaches the main line
olock valve #125 and, if not extracted by the hydraulic turbine, would be
dissipated in pipeline friction.
Crude oil flow through the PRT facility would be controlled by
pressure reducing and bypass valves. A standard multifunction integrated
electronic control system would be provided responding to both load
changes and pipeline conditions.
The deSign provides overriding control of crude oil flow through the
PRT facility to Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. All station valving
suoject to utility control would be interlocked with Alyeska block valve
control. The paramount operational consideration is that of maintaining
staole continuity of flow of the crude oil stream.
Inasmuch as this facility would De an integral part of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, its design, construction, and operation would be
sUbject to all applicaole criteria established for the pipeline as well
as tne approval of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Alaska State
Pipeline Coordinator, and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. If
approval could be reached, the PRT could be on-line oy 1984.
The primary disadvantage to this plan is its tenuous ability to
provide firm energy. Whenever a routine or emergency shutdown of the oil
pipeline occu~red no energy could be produced. This is not uncommon,
particularly during winter storms when the loading of tankers is
32
impaired. As a result, standoy generating capacity would almost
certainly have to be maintained at all times. Such standoy capacity
would undouotedly oe provided oy existing diesel generators. The
percentage of time that this would be necessary cannot be predicted.
However, given that no energy source is entirely firm, and in the
interest of conservatism, power produced by the PRT will be regarded as
firm and assigned a dependency factor of 80 percent for purposes of this
report.
Another concern worthy of further consideration is that of project
life. Estimates of the total Prudhoe Bay field are approximately 9.6
billion barrels. Based on a flow rate of 1.5 MBD, the known oil reserves
will last between 15 and 20 years. The potential of additional oil
discoveries, particularly in the Beaufort Sea, are relatively good;
however, due to the uncertainty of future finds it will oe assumed that
the oil will last untn 2000.
Pertinent data for the project follows:
Capacity (kW) 7,400 (1.5 MBD)
Annual Energy (MWH) 52,000 (PF=0.8)
First Cost $9,700,000
The above estimates of capacity and energy were derived from
information available from R.W. Retherford1s 1976 report on the pressure
reducing turbine. Capacity and energy figures were reduced to account
for an oil flow of 1.5 MBD and an 80 percent power availability factor as
previously stated. The first cost of $9.7 million was obtained from R.W.
Retherford Associates who are currently updating their previous study.
The estimated annual costs based on October 1980 prices and financing
over 16 years at 7-3/8 percent are as follows:
Interest and Amortization
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement
Average Annual Cost
$1,052,000
$ 200,000
$1,252,000
Based on these prices the cost per kWh would be approximately 2.4i.
The inability of the turoine-generator to follow the power demand for the
system would restrict its operation to baseload. This may reduce the
usaole output until the minimum system demand exceeds the unit1s capacity.
Impact Assessment:
The proposed site for the pressure reducing turbine (PRT) is located 5
miles east of the pipeline terminal, approximately 3/4 mile off the
Dayville Road. The PRT site is adjacent to the proposed transmission
corridor on the south side of the Lowe River. The powerhouse and parking
facilities would utilize an area improved during the construction of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
33
The impacts associated with the PRT action are minor with little
construction occurring in nondisturoed areas. The main impacts would oe
disturDance of wildlife species during the construction phase. Increases
in dust, noise, and air pollution would occur, but these would be short
lived and end with the construction phase.
Evaluation:
Based on the preceding information, the PRT is the lowest cost energy
alternative availaole to the study area. It would operate as a oaseload
energy source allowing for the utilization of Solomon Gulch to meet peak
demands.
Besides oeing inexpensive, the PRT has the advantage that it can oe
orought on-line in a relatively short period (oy 1984), thereby greatly
reducing or temporarily eliminating the need for diesel generation.
The primary disadvantages to the PRT are: (1) its energy production is
only a secondary function of the pipeline, (2) it would not produce
energy during pipeline shut downs, whether due to emergency, maintenance,
or weather (i.e. winds), (3) it would no longer operate when the oil flow
ceases (this may cause an energy shortage for nonpipeline related
activities which would not cease to function with the loss of the oil),
and (4) the administrative proolems of reaching an agreement oetween the
affected parties. However, these disadvantages are relatively minor when
compared to the oenefits that could be derived from the system.
Plan Implementation:
Implementation of this plan would be the responsibility of the local
utility and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. Due to the sensitive
nature of pipeline security, a number of questions need to be resolved.
Questions as to whom would own and operate the system and what guarantees
would be required to insure the system does not affect normal pipeline
operations are proDaoly the foremost concerns. These are primarily
questions of security and will have to be addressed by Alyeska and the
local utility respectively.
ALLISON LAKE HYDRO
Description:
Allison Lake is located just south of Port Valdez (Figure 1). A
project here would consist of a lake tap at approximately the 1,250-foot
level, 117 feet below the current lake level. A dam was considered at
the lake outlet; however, surficial geological investigations indicated
that the terminal moraine near the outlet would not be an adequate
foundation for a dam.
The lake tap plan would require a combination of a concrete lined
6-foot circular and an unlined 8-foot horseshoe shaped power tunnel.
This lO,200-foot tunnel would transport the water from Allison Lake to
34
ALLISON LAKE
just inside the tunnel portal where it would enter a 4-foot diameter
penstock. This above ground penstock would extend from the tunnel portal
to either one of the identified powerhouse sites. Powerhouse Site #1 is
located approximately 20 feet MLLW and Powerhouse Site #2 is located at
100 feet MLLW. Either powerhouse would have an installed capacity of 8
MW. This was Dased on the recommended 50 percent plant factor provided by
the Alaska Power Administration. A transmission line of 3 to 3.5 miles
would be required to tie into the Solomon Gulch Substation. A detailed
description of this plan is included in Appendix D.
Evaluation:
Pertinent data fur both alternatives follow. The estimated first
costs for the two plans are based on October 1980 dollars. The prices
include a 20 percent allowance for contingencies. Also included is the
cost for environmental mitigation.
Altern at i ve #1
Capacity (KW)
Firm Annual Energy (MWH)
Average Annual Energy (MWH)
First Cost ($1,000)
A lternat i ve #2
CapdcHy (kW)
Firm Annual Energy (MWH)
Average Annudl Energy (MWH)
First Cost ($1,000)
8,000
34,300
39,350
37,250
8,000
32,200
37,250
34,301
Annudl costs are computed by amortizing the investment cost, which
includes interest during construction, over the life of the project and
adoing the operation, maintenance and replacement costs. Interest during
construction is computed as compound interest on a uniform expenditure
over the 4-year construction period. Adding interest during construction
gives an investment cost of $44,644,000 and $41,109,000 respectively.
The following estimated annual costs dre based on a 100-year project
life and interest at 7-3/8 percent.
Alternative itl
Interest and Alliortization
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement
Averdge Annual Cost
Alternative #2
Interest Mid Amortization
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement
Average Annual Cost
36
$3,295,000
200,000
$3,495,000
$3,034,000
200,000
$3,234,000
From the time of pO\'Ier-on-line, only the operation, maintenance, and
replacement costs are subject to inflation. With these representing only
a snall portion of the total, annual costs are relatively insensitive to
the effects of inflation.
The costs per fi rm kWh for Al tern,',ti ve #1 and #2 are 10. 2ft and 10. oct
respectively. Besides being more expensive, Alternative #1 could be
exposed to possible seismic waves (Appendix G), and the environmental
impact woul d be greater due to a reducti on in spawni ng area (tai 1 race
discharge being closer to tide-water). Therefore, Alternative #1 has
been eliminated from further evaluation.
Alternate #2 was analyzed at 4, 6, 8, and 10 MW to determine the
optimum si ze power pl ant from an economic standpoi nt. Power benefi ts
were based on the load forecast provi ded by the A1 aska Power
Administration. Fuel cost escalation, as determined by the U.S.
Depa rtment of Energy, for the 1980 Annual Report to Congress was also
used. Below is a summary of the annual benefits (excluding employment
benefits) and costs of the various units. (Benefits and costs are in
thousands of dollars.)
SUMr~ARY
Plant Capacity Energy Total BIC Net
Size Benefits Benefits Cost Ratio Benefits
4 r,n~ $398.9 $4,262.2 $2,946.0 1. 58 $1,715
6 HW $585.9 $4,772.6 $3,036.0 1.77 $2,323
8 1,1104 $748.0 $4,882.9 $3,234.0 1. 74 $2,397
1 0 r~w $897.9 $4,827.7 $3,456.0 1. 66 $2,270
The above economic sUMmary indicates that the 8 r~w alternative
maximizes net I~ED benefits. By "including employment benefits of $182,000
for the 8 r~\~ unit, the total benefits are $5,813,000 compared to the
total costs of $3,234,000. This provides net NED benefits of $2,579,000
and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 to 1.
The benefits shown above have been computed under the assumption that
the PRT would not be built. The results of the net benefit maximization
would not change significantly if the PRT were assumed as part of the
without project condition.
Various benefit outcomes of different assumptions concerning the load
forecast, PRT, and fuel cost escalation are presented in the Economic
Analysis of the selected plan (Appendix C). The method used in deriving
NED employment benefits is also discussed in Appendix C.
Impact Assessment:
The major environmental effects of Alternative #2 are associated with
changes in water quality \'Ihich may impact the fishery resources in
Allison Creek. The introduction of higher flows and warmer water during
the wi nter months coul d cause rapi d egg i ncubati on and early emergence of
salmon fry. The early emergence may cause the fry to enter Port Valdez
at a time when food sources are scarce. Determination of the potential
37
effects on the salmon run and the resultant fishery are being assessed.
A stream gage has been installed to aid in the determination of existing
winter flows. A recording thermograph has been in operation since 1979
in Allision Creek. The data for that period is included in Appendix E.
Two additional thermographs will be installed to determine spawning
gravel temperatures within the stream and the intertidal area.
Mitigation includes providing a two tailrace system which would discharge
fully into Allison Creek in the summer. Winter discharge would be to
Port Valdez with partial diversion to Allison Creek to maintain adequate
; nstream flow.
Other impacts include disturbances to wildlife during the construc-
tion phase, clearing of approximately 22.5 acres of spruce/hemlock forest
for the transmission rigllt-of-way, and decreases in the visual quality of
the area. For further information on project impacts, refer to the envi-
ronmental impact statement.
~Ii ti gati on:
Proposed mitigative measures are for a tailrace to Port Valdez in
addition to the one to Allison Creek. The rationale behind the two
tailrace system is to divert winter powerhouse releases directly to Port
Valdez, thus reducing water temperature impacts on Allison Creek during
salmon egg incubation. Mitigative costs for the additional tailrace and
gating systems are $925,000 including 20 percent contingencies, 8 percent
engineering and design, and 8 percent supervision and administration.
Annual costs were calculated at $68,300.
Determining the monetary value of the Allison Creek fishery is not
feasible. Population estimates are not complete and reflect minimal data
collection. Biomass originating from salmon production in Allison Creek
is large enough to be an important contributor to the Port Valdez derived
food web. Fish originating from Allison Creek also add to the commercial
and sport fisheries. Esthetic values and other intangibles are also
illportant to the human envi ronment of the study area. The spawni ng
activity can be observed where the creek is crossed by the Dayville Road.
The probability of losing of the fisheries resource of Allison Creek
is high without mitigation. This loss would have an effect on the Port
Val dez ecosystem and to the human envi ronment of the study area.
Implementation Responsibilities:
The United States would design and construct the lake tap,
powerplant, and transmission facilities. Project operation would be
supervised by personnel from the local utility from a centralized
operati ons control center. Project mai ntenance woul d be performed by
Federal maintenance/operators assigned to the project who would be
supplemented by utility maintenance personnel. These individuals would
operate the project under emergency situations. Overall project
administration including power sales contracts, billing, accounting, and
annual inspections would be provided by the Alaska Power Administration
headquarters office in Juneau.
38
Technical services such as electronic systems maintenance and repair,
meter relay mechanics. and staff for major maintenance activities would
be provided on an as needed basis by utility personnel supplemented by
staff from APA headquarters and from the Eklutna and Snettisham
hydroelectric projects. This amounts to sharing the skills of the staffs
of several small projects in order to minimize total operation and
maintenance costs.
Transmission line maintenance and major powerplant maintenance, such
as turbine overhaul. would require additional manpower provided either by
the utility staff or personnel detailed from other APA projects.
The project benefits are attributable to power and the utilization of
otherwise unemployed labor resources. All project costs would be repaid
\/ith interest through revenues derived from the sale of project power.
39
COMPARlSON OF DETAILED PLANS
No single alternative was seen to be the best solution to the needs of
the study area. Of the alternatives considered, various possible
combinations were looked at to determine the "besC plan for the study
area. Besides the all diesel alternative considered under the previous
section (designated Plan A), the plans that were evaluated include diesel
plus pressure reducing turbine (Plan B), diesel plus Allison hydropower
(Plan C), and PRT plus Allison hydropower (Plan D). All of these plans
include the utilization of Solomon Gulch hydropower which will be in full
operation by 1982. In all cases diesel is utilized up until the
power-on-line date of the various alternatives.
Figures 2 through 5 give a graphic representation of the energy
available from the various plans considered. A detailed summary of the
plans is given in the system of accounts table that follows. The
power-on-line date for the PRT is assumed to be 1984 for all cases. The
on-l i ne date for All i son hydropower is 1990 for P'I an C and Pl an D. The
energy load growth was based on the Alaska Power Administration most
recent forecast for the area. A higher growth rate would require
additional diesel consumption to meet energy needs. A lower rate would
delay the required power-on-line dates for the projects.
When evaluating Figures 2 through 5 their actual significance must be
considered. The graphs represent the study area's yearly energy demand
in gigawatt hours (GWH) and the ability of the various plans to meet the
demand. The figures shown are based on firm energy rather than average
annual. This was done to give a more accurate representation of usable
energy available from the hydropower projects. Secondary energy is
produced duri ng tile summer months \'1hen load requi rements are down
renderi ng most of the energy unusabl e at 1 east until the year 2000. The
follO\'1ing table sUf.1marizes the energy potentials for Solomon Gulch,
Allison Lake, and the PRT:
Project
Solomon Gulch
All i son Lake
PRT
Firm Energy (MWH)
38,600
32,200
52,000
Secondary (MWH)
17,000
5,050
-0-
Total
55,600
37,250
52,000
Although Solomon Gul ch produces s i gni ficantly more total energy, the
actual amount of firm energy is not much greater than Allison Lak.e. This
is due to greater reservoir regulation of Allison Lake.
The system of accounts tables following the graphs give an accurate
comparison of the various plans. In all cases, a 100-year evaluation
period was used. The beginning date of evaluation is 1984, corresponding
to the power-on-line date of the PRT.
By this approach, a future project (Allison hydropower) is econo-
mically discounted to the 1984 base. Annual benefits and costs can
40
175
150
125
100
.J:::.
........
75
50
25
-::I:
~
(!) -
C
Z
<X
~
L1J
C
>-(!)
0::
L1J
Z
L1J
FIGURE: 2
ENERGY DEMAND -REVISED APA PROJECTION
DIESEL ONLY
DIESEL
SOLOMON GULCH HYDRO
o+-~~~--~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
~
N
175
150
125 -z
~
(!) -100 0
Z
<t
~
W
0
75 >-(!)
Q: w z w
50
25
FIGURE: 3
ENERGY DEMAND -REVISED APA PROJECTION
DIESEL a PRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE
DIESEL
PRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE
DIESEL SOLOMON GULCH HYDRO
o~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
175
150
125 -::I:
!t
(!) -
100 0
Z
<t
."", :E
w I.aJ
0
75 >-(!) a:
I.aJ
Z
I.aJ
50
25
FIGURE: 4
ENERGY -REVISED APA PROJECTION
DIESEL a ALLISON HYDRO
DIESEL ALLISON HYDRO
SOLOMON GULCH HYDRO
1980 1985 1990 1995
--.. -.... -.. ---
2000
175 FIGURE: 5
150
125
100 0
Z
<t
~
W o
75 >-
(!)
50
25
Q:
lAJ
Z
W
ENERGY -REVISED APA PROJECTION
PRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE a
ALLSON HYDRO
ALLISON HYDRO
PRESSURE REDUCING TURBINE
DIESEL SOLOMON GULCH TURBINE
o+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
4'>
Ul
Accounts
l. National Economic
Development (NED)
a. Beneficial Impacts
Power Production
Employment Benefits
TOTAL NED BENEFIT~
(annua 1 )
Location of Tmpacts
Power Production
Employment
b. Adverse Impacts
Construction Costs
TOTAL NED COSTS
(annual)
SYSTEM
Plan A
All ~iesel Generation
(Without Condition)
Power will be utilized
in the Copper Valley
Electric Service Area
Glennallen-Valdez &
vicinity.
Employment would re-
main approximately
the same as present.
OF ACCOUNTS
Plan B Plan C Plan 0
f)i ese 1 & PRT Diesel & Hydro PRT & Hydro
1984 1990 1984 1990
2, 100,000 3,835,000 5,234,000
119,000 119,000
2,100,000 3,954,000 5,353,000
Same Same Same
A slight in-Employment would Same
crease in be gained by
employment Valdez, Alaska.
may take place;
however it should
not be a substan-
t i a 1 increase.
852,000 2,110,000 2,962,000
~
~
Accounts
Location of Impacts
Pro.iect rnsts
c. Net NED benefits
(annua 1)
d. Benefit Cost Ratio
2. Environmental
Quality (EQ)
Location of Impacts
a. Envi ronmenta 1
Quality Enhanced
b. Enviromental
Quality Destroyed
Pl an A
All Diesel Generation
(Without Condition)
Costs of continued use of
diesel fuel will be incur-
red by the local ~tility
and passed on to the
consumer.
o
o
None
Local air pollution
and noise during
construction.
Plan B
Diesel & PRT
lq84
Costs of the PRT
will be incurred
by either the local
utility or Alyeska
Pipeline Service
Company.
$1,248,000
2.46
None
Temporary displace-
ment of wildlife for
construction.
Plan C
Diesel & Hydro
1990
Ninety percent of con-
struction costs for
hydro development
would be charged to
people of the U.S. and
10 percent to State
of Alaska in accordance
with the President's
guidelines for cost
shari ng. Interest and
principal would be paid
back through sale of the
power to consumers of
the area.
$1,844,000
1.87
None
Possible long term
detrimental effects
for the pink and chum
salmon in Allison
Creek. Short term
displacement of wild-
life during construc-
tion as well as noise
and air pollution. A
decrease of the visual
qua1iLy of the area.
Plan D
PRT & Hydro
1984 1990
Combination
of Band C
$2,391,000
1.81
None
Combination
of Plan B
and C
Accounts
3. Social Well Beinq
(SWB)
a. Beneficial Impacts
Displacement of
People
Enerqy Costs
Community Cohesion
b. Adverse Impacts
Noise
Esthetics
Plan A.
All Diesel Generation
(Without Condition)
None
Energy costs will con-
tinue to increase directly
with fuel costs. Electri-
city will continue to
claim a larger and larger
portion of individual
income.
Higher energy prices
may force potential
employers to seek sites
elsewhere, with lower
costs.
Noise will not increase
substantially.
No change from current
situation.
Plan B
Diesel & PRT
1984
None
Energy costs will
stabilize and drop
during the life of
project; however,
as soon as the oil
stops flowing sub-
stantial increases
will take place.
Increase should be
negligible.
Noise impact during
construction, no
long term effects.
Temporary change
during construction.
Long term impacts
are negligible.
Plan C
Di ese 1 & Hydro
1990
None
The project will help
stabilize energy costs
throughout its life;
however, the amount of
diesel needed above the
hydro's capabilities
will force prices up.
Increase will be a
more significant
than Plan B due to
longer construction
period. Long run
impacts will be small.
Same as B only greater
noise levels during con-
struction due to blast-
ing, drilling and longer
construction period.
There would be scars
left from the blasting
and removal of rock
that would be at least
partially visible
from Va 1 dez.
Plan D
PRT & Hydro
1984 1990
None
Energy costs
should drop
and remain
relatively
consistent at
least until
the year 2000
Effects shoul
be a combina-
tion of Plans
Band C.
Same as Band
C.
Same as Band
C.
Accounts
4. Regional Development
(RD)
a. Beneficial Impacts
Additional Power
Production
Employment
b. Adverse Impacts
Tax Revenues
Public Services
All Diesel Generation
(Without Condition)
The cost of additional
energy will continue
to rise with fuel prices.
This would have a stifl-
ing effect on the develop-
ment of the area.
Any change in employ-
ment would be limited to
maintaining additional
diesel units.
No Chanqe
No Change
Diesel & PRT
1984
Additional power
should stabilize and
lower enerqy costs
at least 15 years.
This should encour-
age the development
of the region.
A temporary increase
in employment during
construction with a
smaller permanent
increase for opera-
tion.
No Change
No Change
niesel & Hydro
1990
Same as B except the
total energy is not as
great; however, this
would have a much
longer term effect
than the PRT.
Same as B except the
construction work force
would be much greater
and the duration of
construction is much
longer.
No Change
No Change
PRT & Hydr
1984 1990
Same as Band
C.
Same as Band
C
No Change
No Change
then be determined for the 100-year evaluation period. This will portray
both benefits and costs reduced with a corresponding reduction in net
benefits; however the ratio of benefits to costs will remain the same.
In the case of the PRT the total benefits and cost were present-
worthed to 1984 and then spread over the 100-year evaluation period.
These economic evaluation procedures have the effect of evaluating the
plans on equal ground.
RATIONALE FOR DESIGNATION OF NED PLAN
The ~Jational Economic Development (NED) objectives are achieved by
increasing the value of the nation's output of goods and services and
improving national economic efficiency. Based on this criteria the NED
Plan is Plan D, the pressure reducing turbine plus Allison hydropower.
This plan would provide net annual benefits exceeding any of the alter-
nate plans. The combination of the PRT with hydropower would allow the
displacement of exceedingly precious and expensive petroleum products.
Although a number of questions regarding implementation of the PRT remain
to be resolved between the local utility and Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company, these are the responsibility of those organizations. Funding
for the PRT would be private whereas it would be primarily Federal for
the hydropower portion of the plan. The average net annual NED benefits
over the life of the proposed plan, are $2,391,000.
~ATIONALE FOR DESIGNATION OF EQ PLAN
The Environmental Quality (EQ) Plan is an alternative which makes the
most significant contribution to preserving, maintaining, or enhancing
the cultural and natural resources of the study area. Of the detailed
plans considered, none would provide an actual enhancement of the
environment; however, Plan B (PRT plus diesel), would cause the least
environmental damage (LED). Therefore, this alternative has been
designated the LED plan.
The continued use of diesel has the impact of noise and air pollution,
but this is relatively minor compared to the impact of hydropower
construction. The fact that the generators are already in place, and no
additional units would be required until the mid-1990's, would eliminate
any environmental impacts from construction.
The pressure reducing turbine would have some minimal impacts from
construction, but there would be less impact from noise and pollution
during operation. Located immediately adjacent to the oil pipeline, the
facility would be in an area that has been previously disturbed. The PRT
would be housed in a building approximately 60 x 170 feet. The total
area required for the building and grounds would be approximately 1.5
acres.
49
RATIONALE FOR SELECTED PLAN
Under realistic assumptions regarding future economic conditions and
fuel costs, Plan D, PRT plus hydropower, is the most economical means of
meeting the long term future needs of the study area. This plan would
help meet both the short and long term needs of the study area and reduce
the current dependence on diesel-fired generation.
The PRT would have a much shorter construction period than Allison
Lake hydropower allowing for faster implementation. The PRT would
function as a baseload operation with Solomon Gulch and the existing
diesel generators providing back up and peaking capability.
Allison Lake hydropower would come on line in 1990 at a time when
additional energy, above and beyond the capability of Solomon Gulch and
the PRT would be needed. The project would meet the estimated energy and
capacity needs until 1995 and 1998 respectively. In 1995 additional
energy would come from either diesel generation or possibly additional
hydropower.
The following table provides a summary of the Federal and nonfederal
first cost apportionment for the selected plan.
First Cost (October 1980 Dollars)
Federal
PRT -0-
ALLISON HYDRO $30,871,000
Non-Federal
$9,700,000
$3,430,000
The above cost apportionment for Allison Lake hydropower is in
accordance with the President's proposed cost-sharing policy. This
policy requires 10 percent State participation in Federal projects having
a "vendible" output.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION
Throughout the course of this study public involvement was
accompl i shed primar"ily through three publ i c meeti ngs hel d at vari ous
times during the study process. The purpose of the earlier meetings was
to obtain input from the public to help direct the study, where the
latter meeting was to receive comments on the results.
Input from State and rederal agencies was obtained by either direct
contact or through the State Clearing House. Nearly 200 copies of the
draft report were sent to various agencies, special interest groups, and
interested individuals.
50
Comnents received from the city of Valdez, Copper Valley Electric
Association, Alaska Power Authority, and the Governor's Office basically
concur with the findings of the repor~. The primary concern voiced by
various resource agencies related to the environmental impact of warmer
water being discharged over the developing salmon eggs in winter.
Appendix J, "Public Views and Responses," includes comments received on
the draft report and Corps of Engineer's responses.
CONCLUS IONS
Based on the analysis and proceedings used in this report, the
combined plan of the pressure reducing turbine and hydropower from
Allison Lake appears to be the best solution to meet both National and
local objectives. Implementation of the PRT at the earliest possible
date should be pursued jointly between the local utility and Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company. This represents a rare opportunity for an
unusual energy source to provide low cost power to a region with minimal
environmental impact.
Detailed analysis and final design should resume on the Allison Lake
hydropower project by 1984. This would allow adequate time for design
and construction to provide needed power by 1990. Approximately 4 years
would be needed to construct the Allison Lake project.
RECO~I:~ENDATIOIJ
I recommend that the Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project be authorized
for construction generally as described in this report, with such
modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be
advisable, at a Federal cost estimated at $30,871,000. The estimated
annual operation and maintenance cost and replacement is $200,000.
Former President Carter, in his June 1978 water policy message to
Congress, proposed several changes in cost-sharing for water resources
projects to allow states to participate more actively in project
implementation decisions. These changes include a cash contribution from
benefiting states of 5 percent of the first costs of construction
assigned to nonvendible project purposes and 10 percent of first cost of
construction assigned to vendible project purposes. Contributing states
would share with the Federal Government the revenue from vendible outputs
in proportion to their shares of project costs.
Application of this policy to the Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project
requires a contribution from the State of Alaska of an estimated
$3,430,000 in cash (10 percent of $34,301,000 total estimated first costs
of construction assigned to vendible project purposes, based on October
1980 price levels). The State of Alaska will share 10 percent of the net
power revenues from the Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project. Net power
revenues are defined as the gross receipts from power outputs less all
51
operat ion and rna i ntenance costs allocated to power. I reconmend
construction authorization of the Allison Lake Project in accordance with
the President's proposed cost-sharing POliCY.~~ ~ dl'( /U.---
LEE R NUNN
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
52
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Proposed plan for a hydroelectric powerplant at Allison Lake, (South-
central Railbelt, Valdez Interim), Valdez, Alaska.
The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Engineer' District, Alaska.
Abstract: The Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress to study the
feasibility of hydroelectric power in the Southcentral Railbelt area of
Alaska. The proposed plan would provide an additional 8 megawatts of
power from hydroelectric generation and an estimated average output of
7.4 megawatts from a pressure reducing turbine (PRT) in the oil pipeline
to serve the Valdez-Glennallen area. The hydropower portion of the plan
would be Federal responsibility while the PRT would be local. Possible
adverse environmental impacts include increased winter water temperatures
which could cause early emergence of pink and churn salmon fry. Positive
impacts include reducing the use of fossil fuels as electrical generating
power and decreasing air and noise pollution associated with diesel
generation.
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE
DISTRICT ENGINEER BY:
If you would like further information
on this statement please contact:
Mr. William Lloyd
U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska
ATTN: NPAEN-PL-EN
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Name
.John A. Burns
(EIS r.oordinator)
Loran Baxter
Sam Murray
Charles Wellinq
L i zette Boyer
Julia Steele
LIST OF PRFPARERS
Expert i se
Fisheries Biology
King crab research, NMFS
Kodiak, Alaska
Civil f:.:nqineer
A.laska District
Economics
North Pacific Division
9 mo Economic Studies
Alaska District
Economics
Alaska District
,A.nthropo logy
Social Studies, Alaska
District
Arc h aeo logy
Management Experience, MS
in Anthropology.
Experience
2 yrs EIS studies,
Alaska District, 1 yr
3 yrs, Feasibility Studies
2 yrs Economic Studies
18 yrs, Economic Studies
2 yrs Anthropological and
Cu ltura 1 Stud i es
5 years Cultural Resources
Discipline
Fisheries Biologist
Civil Engineer
Economist
Economist
Anthropoligist
Anthropologist
SUMMARY
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide electrical power for
the Valdez-Glennallen area. Presently the electric power is supplied by
ale~el generators located botn in Valdez and Glennallen. PrOjected
population growth and the increasing cost of petroleum products will
cause increasing demand for electrical power generated from alternative
energy sources
The selected Plan (D) will generate 8 megawatts (MW) with 32,200 megawatt
hours (MWH) of firm annual energy from the hydroelectric project and 7.4
MW with 52.000 MWH of annual energy from ttle pressure reducing turoine
(PRT). Other plans include combinations of diesel PRT, and
hydroelectric.
Adverse environmental impacts associated wltn the selected plan are to
the fisheries resources of Allison Creek. Changes in winter water
temperatures may cause accelerated egg incubation and early emergence of
salmon fry. An increase of stream temperature of 2° C could cause fry
emergence 1 to 2 months earlier, a time when adequate food sources for
the fry do not exist in Port Valdez. Mitigative measures include an
additional tailrace which would divert powerhouse discharge directly into
Port Valdez, thus not chanqing the natural temperature regime of Allison
r:reek.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS
None of the alternatives make significant contributions to preserving
maintaining, or enhancing the cultural ana natural resources of the stuay
area, and therefore. do not meet the criteria of an Environmental Qual ity
(EQ) Plan. For this study. Plan B, the diesel ana pressure reducing
tUrLJlne alternative, has been established a~ the Least Environmentally
Damaging (LED) Plan.
Th~ National Economic Development (NED) Plan addresses the planning
objectives which maximize net economic oenefits. Plan D, Allison Lake
Hydrupower and the PRT, would provide the "lost power output, and coupled
with the increasing costs of petroleum products, this alternative may be
considered to be the NED Plan when viewed on an overall oasis.
A Section 404(b) (1) evaluation for the proposed project is included in
Appendlx E. Water quality requirements set forth under the Clean Water
Act will be met through Section 404(r) exemption criteria.
All the alternatives fulfill Federal, State, and local legal require-
ments and comply with the requirements of all applicable environmental
laws, executive orders, and policies.
iii
-I.
<
PLAN A
(Diesel, no action)
PLAN B
(Diesel, PRT)
PLAN C
(Diesel, hydroelectric)
PLl\N D
(PRT, Hydroelectric)
COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
WETLANDS
NONE
NCNE
minor loss at
location of tailrace
at Allison Creek
same as Plan C
VEGETATION
NONE
all activities
will occur in
disturbed area
loss of 24 acres
for transmission
line and Powerhouse
same as Plan C
HISTORIC
SITES
NONE
NONE
NONE
COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES (cont)
ECONOMY
WATER BENEF IT -COST
QUALITY FISHERIES ESTHETICS RATIO
PLAN A NONE NONE NONE N/A
(Oiesel, no action)
PLAN B NONE NONE minor local Refer to Economic
(Diesel, PRT) decrease in Appendix
visual quality
impacts not
visible from
Valdez
PLAN C change in flow loss of egg noticable Refer to Economic
(Diesel, flydroe 1 ectri c) and temperature incubation changes in Appendix
to Allison Creek habitat due visual
< to temper-qua 1 ity
ature change. impacts
Possible loss would be seen
of fishery from Valdez
PLAN 0 same as Plan C same as same as Refer to Economic
(PRT, hydroelectric) Plan C Plan B Append i x
and C
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
To date no specific area of controversy has oeen associated with project
study.
REI ATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Federal Policies and Regulations
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
u
o
o
Federal Water Project Recreatiun Act
Water Resource Planning Act of 1966
Fisn and Wildlife Coordination Act
National Historical Preservation Act
National Environmental Pulicy Act
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
Endangered Species Act of 1973
Anadromous Fisn Act
Flood Plain Management EO 11988
Protection of Wetlands EO 11990
Archeoloqical and Historic Preser-
vation Act
Clean Air Act
Estuary Protection Act
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuary Act
vi
All Plans
Fu 11 Cump1iance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Full Comp 1 i ance
Partial Compliance;
requirements will be met
completion of Final EIS
review.
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Fu 11 Compliance
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Fu 11 Compliance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Partial Compliance;
requirements will be met
completion of Final EIS
review.
Fu 11 Compliance
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
upon
upon
o
o
o
Rivers and Harbors Act
Clean Water Act
Watershed Protection and FloOd
Prevention Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
State
State Coastal Zone Management
o State Water Ouality Certification
vii
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Partial Compliance,
requirements will be
met under Section 404(e)
upon congressional
approval
Full cornplaince
N/A
Partial Compliance;
requirements will De met
upon completion of Final
EIS review.
N/A
COVER SHEET
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED PLAN FOR A HYDROELECTRIC POWERPLANT
VALDEZ, ALASKA
LIST OF PREPARERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph Item
SUMMARY
A. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION
B.
C.
D.
Study Authori ty
AL TERNATI VES
1. Plans Eliminated
2. Without Conditions (Plan A)
3. Diesel -Pressure Reducing Turbine (Plan B)
4. Diesel -Hydroelectric (Plan C)
S. Pressure Reducing Turbine -Hydroelectric (Plan D)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1 Pnysical
a. General
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
c. Esthetics
2. Biological
a. Vegetation
b. Wildlife
c. Birds
d. Fish
e. Mar; ne
f. Rare and Endangerea Species
3. Socio economics
4. Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Pnysical
a. General
b. Hydrology and Water Quality
c. Esthet ics
vii i
iii
EIS-l
EIS-l
EIS-l
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-2
EIS-3
EIS-4
EIS-4
EIS-4
EIS-S
EIS-S
EIS-S
EIS-7
EIS-7
EIS-7
EIS-8
E1S-8
EIS-8
E1S-8
E 1 S-lO
2. Biological
a. Vegetation
b. Wildlife
c. Birds
d. Fish
e. Marine
f. Rare and Endangered Species
3. Socio-economics
4. Cultural Resources
E. MITIGATION
F. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
G. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1. Public Involvement Program
2. Required Coordination
3. Statement Recipients
H. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
ix
E I S-11
EIS-12
EIS-12
EIS-13
EIS-14
EIS-14
EIS-14
EIS-15
EIS-15
EIS-17
EIS-18
EIS-18
EIS-18
EIS-18
EIS-20
EIS-21
A. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION
Study Authority
The Valdez Hydropower Study was authorized by a resolution of the com-
mittee on PUDlic Works, United States Senate, 92 Congress, 2d Session.
The Southcentr~l Railbelt (SCRB) resolution was adopted on 18 January
1972. This resolution specifically stated that the upper Susitna was to
De studied first for potential hydropower. The feasibility report on the
upper Susitna did not find it economical to transmit power by transmis-
sion intertie facilities in the Valdez area. Therefore, the feasibility
of hydropower in proximity to Valdez was also investigated under the SCRB
resolution.
B. ALTERNATIVES
1. Plans Eliminated
Numerous sites for hydroelectric development were analyzed and found to
be infeasible due to size, location, and environmental constraints.
Sites eliminated in the immediate Valdez area include Gold Creek, Sheep
Creek, Wortmann Creek, Silver Lake, Unnamed Creek, Mineral Creek, and
Lowe River.
All sites east of the Copper River have been eliminated due to
estaDlishment of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. The Tsina and
Tiekel Rivers located between Valdez and Glennallen were eliminated
because they could not provide sufficient energy to contribute to the
power loads of Valdez and Glennallen. The Tonsina and Klutina Rivers
were eliminated because of extreme adverse impacts to the fisheries
resources which contribute to the Prince William Sound salmon harvest.
For further information, refer to the section titled "Formulation of
Preliminary Plans.1I
2. Without Conditions (No Action -Plan A)
The no action alternative is the least environmentally damaging of the
alternatives as it would preserve a rather unique glacial fed drainage.
However. power consumption for the Valdez-Glennallen area is projected to
exceed the capability of the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project by the
time it comes on line in late 1981. With the cost of diesel escalating
and its availability a concern. hydroelectric projects, like the proposed
project. would be more cost effective and efficient.
The city dock expansion and ALPETCO plant will increase the population of
Valdez, thus increasing power consumption. The need for additional power
will result in the construction of a project such as Allison Lake whether
it is constructed with Federal, State, or local funding.
EIS-l
3. Diesel -Pressure Reducing Turbine (PRT) (Plan B)
The proposed PRT would be located 5 miles east of the oil pipeline
terminal at a site on the Trans-Alaska pipeline, Block Valve No. 125,
where the necessary tap was installed during construction. This area was
selected to take advantage of the head available as the pipeline descends
Thompson Pass. The PRT would produce approximately 7.4 megawatts of
electrical power based on a flow of 1.5 million barrels per day. The
advantages of this plan are the relatively low installation costs and the
low environmental impacts. The disadvantages include the relatively
short life of the pipeline project and the assurance of constant oil
flows. The oil reserves in the Prudhoe Bay area may be depleted within
15 to 20 years which would terminate the PRT project. Maintenance and
emergency shutdown of the Trans-Alaska pipeline would cease electrical
generation. During the periods of shutdown, a standby diesel generation
system would be utilized. This system would have to be maintained year-
round to insure dependable power when the PRT is nonoperational. Only
minor environmental impacts associated with disturbance and the
transmission corridor would occur with this plan.
It should be noted that the Corps of Engineers has no authority to
construct or fund either diesel generation or the pressure reducing
turbine.
4. Diesel -Hydroelectric (Plan C)
The hydroelectric portion of this alternative will consist of a tap of
Allison Lake, power tunnel, above ground penstock, powerhouse, and a
transmission line intertie with the Solomon Gulch substation. The hydro-
electric generation will provide approximately 8 megawatts of installed
capacity to the Valdez-Glennallen area. The hydroelectric alternative
will require mitigative measures to sustain the salmon run in Allison
Creek. Sug-gested mitigation includes a two tailrace system to maintain
water quality and flow in Allison Creek, and a comprehensive biological
monitoring study to insure the quality of the fisheries resource is
maintained at preconstruct ion levels.
The diesel portion of this alternative would be utilized to meet load
requirements above the capabil ity of the hydroelectric project. Both
systems would be necessary by the time Allison Creek comes on line. (See
Figure 4 under the section "Comparison of Detailed Plans.")
The hydroelectric portion of this alternative is under the Corps of
Engineers· authorization, and can be constructed or funded for
construction under this authority.
5. Pressure Reducing Turbine (PRT) -Hydroelectric (Plan D)
The design of both portions of this alternative are identical to those
previously discussed.
This alternative would utilize the PRT for the base load and hydro-
electric for peak load demand and back-up. The power generated from this
EI5-2
alternative has been estimated to provide sufficient energy to the study
area until about 1995. When the power generated from the PRT terminates,
an intertie with the Anchorage-Fairbanks area may be feasible.
C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1. Physical
a. General: Two specific sites are possible for development; the
Lowe River flats and Allison Creek.
The proposed PRT site lies at the head of Port Valdez on the south side
of Lowe River. The valley is of glacial origin and is filled with out-
wash aeposits of the Valdez and Corbin glaciers. The site is bounded on
the north by the Lowe River, and south by the Chugach Mountains.
Allison Lake is located on the south side of Port Valdez, directly across
from the present city of Valdez, filling approximately one half of a
glacier formed hanging valley. Allison Creek, which originates at
Allison Lake, decends 1,360 feet in 2-1/4 miles to Port Valdez. It is an
extremely high graaient stream for the first 2 miles with the last
quarter mile leveling considerably.
The area is underlain geologically by the late Cretaceous Valaez Group, a
series of metagraywackes, shales and slates with occasional beds of
pillow basalt. This is indicative of a rapid, unsorted deposition in an
ocean environment. The beds are highly disturbed and no regional
structures have yet been defined.
The Port Valdez area is located in Seismic Zone 4, approximately 46 miles
east of the epicenter of the 27 March 1964 earthquake. Prior to 1964,
there were approximately 70 earthquakes, magnitude 5 or greater, in the
Valdez vicinity.
Excluding the 1964 earthquake, magnitude 5 earthquakes have averaged
approximately one per year. Magnitude 8 or greater events have occurred
three times this century, consequently, there is a good probability of a
large earthquake occurring during the life of the project.
There has been no evidence of ruptures in area bedrock. Most destruction
in port Valdez has been causea by tsunami and submarine mass movement of
unconsolidated Lower River delta deposits.
The site for the proposed powerhouse (Alternate #2) is located at the 100
foot elevation. Powerhouse Alternate #1, located on delta deposits at
the 20 foot elevation has been dismissed from further consideration. The
delta deposits would make good foundation material for a small surface
powerplant; however, the area may be subject to tsunami to an elevation
of +85 MLLW. During slide induced sea waves, runup at Anderson Bay, 7
miles west of Allison Creek, was measured at 70 feet. Measurements at
Shoup Bay (Cliff Marine) on the north side of the arm show a runup of 170
feet. No runup measurements were made at Jackson Point or Fort Liscum,
but the cannery at Jackson Point was destroyed.
EIS-3
b. Hydrology and Water Quality: The water quality of the Allison
Creek dra1nage 15 11ttle affected by conditions other than natural, and
is considered typical of a small, glacial fed system.
A recording thermograph was installed in Allison Creek at the weir in
June 1979 and the data will be collected for several more years. The
recordings indicate tnat high temperatures occur in August and low
temperatures of 0 degrees Celsius first occur in early November (Appendix
E, Table 1). Two additional tnermographs to record intergrave1
temperatures of Allison Creek and the intertidal area are proposed for
installation.
A stream gage was installed in Allison Creek in March of 1981, and will
continue to monitor stream flows until at least project completion.
Calculated flows have been established for the drainage basin using
meteoroloq;cal data from 1948 to 1977 (Appendix E, Table 2). The data
inaicate unregulated flows and predict flows which would occur upon
project completion. Estimates were also calculated to predict average
inflows to Allison Creek below Allison Lake (Appendix E, Taule 3). Tnese
estimates were derived only to predict flows whicn may occur in addition
to the diverted flows. It should be noted that these flows are only
estimates and may not precisely indicate actual flows.
Water qua 1 ity ana lys i s for All i son Creek was performed for A lyeska
Pipeline Service on several occasions between 22 February 1975 and
11 April 1977. Water quality analysis of Allison Lake was performed by
the Alaska District on 7 May 1979 (Appendix E, Table 4).
The proposed PRT action would not affect the aquatic environment.
c. Esthetics: The scenic value in the Valdez area is still
considered high. The view from tne city of Valdez of the proposed
hydroelectric project area is of steep mountainous terrain with the
natural values marred by the Alyeska Oil Terminal. Neither the lake nor
the creek can be seen from the city and the creek cannot be viewed by the
general public due to its location on restricted Alyeska property.
The proposed site for the PRT is located south of the Lowe River in an
area changed by the construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. The
esthetic values have been changed in this area where the pipeline is
unaerground, however the values are not considered poor.
2. Biological
a. Vegetation: The transmission line corridor between Allison Creek
and the Solomon Gulch substation is typified by dense coniferous forest
of Sitka spruce ana mountain hemlock with an Llnderstory of alder and
other shrubs. The area of the proposed powerhouse and lower reaches of
penstock support tall thickets consisting primarily of alder with some
salmonberry, blueberry, ana devils club. Portions of the area have been
disturbed by the Alyeska terminal and pipeline construction. Tne steep
EIS-4
slopes surrounding Allisorl Lake are almost exclusively covered by alpine
tundra. At the head of Allison Lake is a small vegetated wetland area.
Detailed information and vegetative species lists concerning this wetland
area are lacking as well as the significance to the wildlife species of
this area.
The affected marine vegetation, which may oe impacted by the proposed
project, visually consists mainly of rockweed (Fucus distichus) and
coraline algae (Lithothamnion sp.). Tnese two algal representives are
abundant in the intertidal area around the mouth of Allison Creek.
The PRT site is located in a spruce-hardwood forest. Tne hardwoods
consist of birch and cottonwood with an understory primarily of alders,
salmonberry, blueberry, and devils club.
b. Wildlife: Wildlife species known to occur in the project area
include brown Dear, black Dear, mountain goat, wolf, wolverine, marten,
porcupine, and snowshoe hare. Moose are also present in small numbers
along the Lowe River delta. The densities of the respective populations
are unknown. Very little information is available on small mammals in
the project area. A list of known species living in or around Valdez is
in Appendix E, Table 5.
The most conmlOn ly observed mammal near the proposed All i son site are
black bear. Both black and brown bear have been observed near the PRT
site with the highest concentrations occurring during the salmon runs.
c. Birds: Approximately 150 species of birds have been observed
witnin the Port Valdez area. Waterfowl are numerous seasonally, with
some seabirds residing year-round.
Waterfowl utilize Allison Lake to some extent. Canada geese and dabbler
ducks have been observed on the lake, however, not in large numbers. The
lake appears to support waterfowl for resting, possiole feeding, and
molting. Tne intertidal area probably supports waterfowl and water
related biras year-rouna, mainly for feeding.
The Port Valdez area contains most of the major bird habitat groups found
in Alaska (see Appendix E, Table 6 for species list).
Northern bald eagles are commonly observed in the Port Valdez area.
Several eagle nests have been documented in the area of the proposed
sites by the joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team and the
U.S. Fish and Wilalife Service. Refer to Figure 6 for the locations of
the nests.
d. F1Sh: Allisun Creek is a high gradient creek wnich restricts
fish movement to the lower reaches, approximately the lower quarter
mile. Spawning habitat for pink and chum salmon occurs from the existing
E1S-5
ALLISON
LAKE
FIGURE 6: LOCATIONS N EAGLES NESTS
EIS -S
weir to the mouth, with the majority of spawning occurring in the
intertidal area. There are approximately 500 lineal feet of suitable
intertidal spawning habitat. Prior to the construction of the weir by
AlyesKa Pipeline Service Company for a water gallery, it is believed pinK
salmon spawning, in odd years when stronger runs occurred, existed above
the weir. A fiSh passage facility was incorporated with the weir
construction, however, it has proven unsuccessful.
Escapement for Allison CreeK has been estimated by the AlasKa Department
of Fish and Game and indicates a high of 750 spawning pink salmon in 1961
and a high of 2,660 chum salmon in 1963 (Appendix E, Table 7). The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game attempted an escapement count in August of
1980. Due to high turbidity, the count was unsuccessful.
Dolly Varden char, and sculpin have also been identified as using Allison
Creek. Allison Lake has no known fishery population.
e. Marine: The intertidal area at the mouth of Allison CreeK con-
sists of gravel, small cobble, and boulders. There is little saltwater
intrusion of Allison Creek because of the gradient of the creek near the
mouth. Dense populations of rockweed and blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)
are the most conspicuous species. Smaller populations of gastropods,
arthropods, and other marine invertebrates typical of a rocky,
semiprotected shoreline occur within the area which may be affected by
the proposed project. Although no finfish were observed, the area
probably supports those fish typical of the nearshore habitat.
Port Valdez supports and is visited by several marine mammals which may
be affected by the proposed project. HIe shore area from 0.3 miles west
of Allison Creek to 0.3 miles west of Dayville Flats Creek has been
identified as a feeding area for sea otters and harbor seals.
Species lists for the marine environment in the Valdez area are included
in Appendix E, Table 5.
f. Rdre and Endangered Species: No rare and endangered species were
identified for the proposed project area. Refer to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife letter, Appendix E.
3. Socio-economics
Prior to the construction of the Alaska Railroad, Valdez was the only
all-season port of entry to the interior. The AlasKa Railroad estab-
lished the rail system from Seward to Fairbanks through Anchorage which
eliminated Valdez as an important port of entry to the interior.
During the perioo preceding the construction of the Trans-Alaska
pipeline, government was HIe largest employer. Although its importance
has lessened, government is still the largest single employer today.
The population of Valdez has fluctuated dramatically in the past decade
because of the local construction boom associated with the Trans Alaska
EIS-7
pipeline and marine terminal. The population in 1969 was approximately
1,000, grew to 8,000 in mid-1976 and steadied to 3,350 by 1979.
Future population fluctuations will occur with the construction of Alaska
Petrochemical Company (ALPETCO) plant. During the construction phase
ALPETCO will employ nearly 1,000 people and the operational phase will
employ over 700 persons.
Table 2 of
workforce.
members of
dependents
the main report presents employment estimates for the Valdez
Approximately 35 to 40 percent of the Valdez population are
the 1abur force. This means there are approximately 1.5
for every member of the workforce.
4. Cu ltura 1 Resources
There are no cultural resources in the affected area of the Valdez
hydropower project. The area had the potential of yielding prehistoric
Chugach Eskimo evidence because of the traaitiona1 land use of these
people in Prince William Sound. Historical events surrounding early
Valdez, such as Army exploration, mineral mining and settlement is very
rich. No remains, however, are left in the affected area. For a more
complete account see Appendix F.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Physical
a. General: The plans discussed in the report all utilize two
methods of power generation. Since the impacts associated with diesel
generation already exist, no new diesel plants are proposed. The
hydroelectric project will have its own unique impacts on the environment
whether associated with diesel or the Pressure Reducing Turbine. For
reasons of clarity and continuity, the impacts of the hydroelectric
project and the Pressure Reducing Turbine will be discussed separately.
b. Hydrology and Water Quality:
Hydroelectric Project: The proposed laKe tap would withdraw water
from a depth of 117 feet below the existing normal lake level. Lake
temperatures have only been collected on one occasion, 13 April 1978.
The temperature profile indicates that no stratification occurs and
little temperature change occurred past 8 meters. Although no summer
temperatures were taken, using the worse case basis, the area for
withdrawal will oe approximately 4° C.
The discharge of 4° C water into Allison Creek may cause the stream
temperatures to be reduced below the powerhouse during the summer
months. The actual impacts on the downstream temperature regime are
unknol'm. Pred ict i ng downstream changes in stream temperatures is 1 imitea
due to problems in estimating the degree of mixing in a lateral stream
and in evaluating convective and evaporative heat losses under conditions
of local atmospheric stability. Estimates made of the average inflow
EIS-8
expected to Allison Creek below Allison Lake indicate the highest flows
occur in June, July, and August. July and August are the most critical
months because of spawning salmon.
Winter withdrawals from the lake wOUld be warmer than the natural stream
temperatures. Thermograph readings show water temperatures in the winter
months to be near 0° C while lake temperatures are at 3.5 0 C. Since
winter is the high power demand period, the project would probably be
running at maximum output part of the time. The maximum power release
has been estimated at approximately 100 CUbic feet per second (cfs) with
a predicted streamflow above the powerhouse Detween 1 to 5 cfs.
Hydroelectric projects tend to even flows. Natural high summer flows
would be utilized to refill the lake, therefore reducing outflows from
the lake. During the winter months when natural flows are low, the water
used for electrical generation would SUbstantially increase the flows.
The entire stream would be impacted by the proposed project with both
summer and winter flows decreased above the powerhouse location. The
proposed powerhouse site is located above the existing weir,
approximately one quarter mile from Port Valdez. At this location, the
water would reenter Allison Creek.
Tne natural flUShing process woula be affected by the hydroelectric
project, thereby reducing streambed scour and possibly increasing
sedimentation of spawning gravels. Allison Creek has a stable streambed,
consisting mainly of boulders and slaty cobbles with very small amounts
of sands and gravels. Little fine grain material appears to be entering
the system, consequently, sedimentation of the spawning bedS may not
occur. During high water years, the extra quantities of runoff may
provide adequate flows for flUShing. The intertidal area supports the
majority of spawning activity, and tidal fluctuation should keep the
spawning area free from sedimentation.
Winter is the tinle of high power consumption and also the time of low
flows into the lake. The increased flows through the powerhouse would
cause the lake to De drawn down a maximum of 100 feet from the natural
water 1 eve 1.
The tailrace to the creeK would consist of a 5-foot diameter steel pipe
at a 10 percent slope. The length would be 20 feet with a 10-foot
transition to a 2.5-foot diameter steel pipe on the sanle slope. An
energy dissipater Ivould be built on tne banks of the creek with very
1 itt le instream construct ion. Tne impacts occurring with the construc-
tion of the dissipater should be minimal; however, in order to assure no
impacts occur on either spawning salmon or their incubating eggs, con-
struction could occur between early June and mid-July or during the
winter months when construction could be accomplished out of the stream
because of the reduction in flow. Approximately 5 cubic yards of riprap
would be placed in the creek just below the energy dissipater. Tne
riprap would be approximately 1.5 feet thick and cover about 10 square
yards. The riprap WOUld assure that water from the powerhouse would not
cause scour or erosion.
EIS-9
The lake may be drawn down to the level of the tap upon completion of the
project to secure necessary gating and screening structures. Tne
drawdown would decrease water quality in Allison Creek by increasing
turbidity and flows, and by changing the temperature regime. Because
water quality degradation could have an effect on the fisheries resources
of Allison Creek the drawdown for lake tap structure placelnent would
occur at the optimal time for the fishery.
During the operation of the proJect, the lake would be drdwn down
approximately 100 feet during the winter months when the lake is ice
covered. Little erosion is anticipated because of the large boulder
shoreline which surrounds most of the lake. A small delta is located at
the head of tile lake which consists mainly of fine grain glacial
outwash. This area could experience some erosion during drawdown, but to
what degree is unknown. The Snettisham hydroelectric project near Juneau
taps Long Lake which is similar in configuration to Allison Lake.
Althougn the depth, size of the lake and size of the delta are greater,
Long Lake experiences a drawdown of 114 feet. To date, little water
quality degradation is occuring and the delta area appears to be stable.
The drilling of the penstock tunnel would require approximately 300
gallons of water per hour which would probably be pumped from the lake.
The discharged water from the drills would be allowed to flow out of the
tunnel, and diKes and diversion ditches would be used to assure that the
water does not enter Allison Creek.
Pressure Reducing Turbine: Tnere would be no hydrology or water
quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the
PRT.
c. Esthetics:
Hydroelectric: Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of tunnel tailings
would be disposed of on a dense stand of alder, devils club, red
elderberry, and salmonberry. Tne talus created by the disposal would be
visible from Valdez. The natural landscape of weathered rock and
vegetative cover would be visually marred by tne deposition of lighter
colored rock. If the disposal site is visually offensive, a revegetation
program coula be initiated in attempt to cover the talus.
Other aspects of the project would probably not degrade the visual
quality of the area. The powerhouse is small and located in an improved
area. The majority of the aboveground penstock would not be in view
except by air or pOSSibly boat. The lake can only be viewed by air and
visual impacts of the drawdown could only be seen by a few.
Pressure Reducing TurDine: The constructlon of the housing for the
PRT unit would distract from the existing natural visual environment,
however, it appears the structure would not be visible from Valdez or the
road system. The transmission line would connect with the proposed
Valdez-Glennallen intertie, and little aaditional clearing would be
required.
EIS-1D
2. Biological
,r-.
a. Vegetation:
Hydroelectric: No direct vegetative impacts would be associated with
the underground penstock, however, the tailings from the tunnel would be
renwved from the portal and dumped into a canyon located to the east.
The material would De dumped over a near vertical cliff and cover an area
of a dense alder stand with devils Club, red elderberry and salnlonberry
understory at the bottom of the canyon. Revegetation of the impacted
area witn simi lar species proDably WOuld not occur for nlany years due to
the different nature of the tunnel material and the existing disposal
site material. Alternative methOdS and sites for tailings disposal have
been eliminated mainly because of physical constraints. Road
construction to the tunnel portal would require consideraole excavation
into the mountain side which would cause esthetic degradation and greatly
increase the possibilities of erosion. No alternative sites are near the
tunnel portal with gradual slopes that could contain the tailings. The
proposed disposal site does not drain into either Allison Creek or
Solomon Creek and any increased sedimentation would not affect anadromous
fish.
The above-ground penstock would require a 2,8S0-foot right-of-way
approximately 10 feet wide. The lower portion of the proposed right-of-
way consists of a dense alder thicket while the upper portion of the
right-of-way is either unvegetated or consists of alpine tundra. All
large bushes and snrubs would be removed, with the low ground cover
remalnlng. Sixteen concrete anchor blocks and 190 concrete support piers
Would be utilized to support the penstock above ground. In these areas
all vegetation would be cleared. In the exposed areas where the
vegetative cover would be removed, revegetation with suitable species
would occur upon project completion.
The transmission line would impact tne Sitka spruce/mountain hemlock
forest located along the 3.S-mile long, 50-foot wide corridor. The
entire line would require essentially continuous clearing regardless of
the exact alignment. Small shrubs and bushes would remain and all other
materials would be burned, chipped, or left in place as determined by the
U.S. Forest Service which is the administrator of the land. The terrain
exclUdes establiShing the transmission line next to tne Dayville Road
(refer to Photo on page ii of the Feasibility Report and the
topographical map. Plate D-A-3 in Appendix D). Although the Trans-Alaskd
Pipeline Corridor has been clearcut, Alyeska Pipeline Service is
reluctant to allow any construction tnat would hinder their access along
the corridor. The tentative route would De as near the Dayville Road as
possible.
The powerhouse would only occupy an area large enough to house the two
turbines. The proposed powerhouse site is in an area co~ered mainly with
alder with a portion of the site having been previously cleared. A
proposed mitigative tailrace leading to Port Valdez would cross an area
which has been cleared and covered with gravel and supports little
vegetation.
E I S-11
Some impacts would occur to the intertidal algal vegetation in the area
designated for tne riprap. Tne riprap would cover fairly dense growths
of rockweed (Fucus disticus) and encrusting algae. Colonization of the
riprap material would occur, probably to a lesser extent than prior to
disposal, because of the freshwater introduction and the force of the
falling water.
Pressure Reducing Turbine: Tne site for the PRT structure is locate~
on the Trans-Alaska pipeline corridor. The pad and road are already
existing and little vegetative alteration would occur. The exact
location of the transmission line has not been determined at this time.
If it is allowed to follow the existing oil pipeline route, little
vegetation impact would occur. Any other route would impact a 50-foot
wide corridor for the length of the transmission line.
b. Wildlife:
General:
projects and
conaucted to
transmission
Act of 1940.
Prior to construction of either the hydroelectric or PRT
their transmission line corridors, a survey would be
ascertain the exact locations of eagle nests. The
line corridors would be routed to comply with the Bald Eagle
Hydroelectric: Tne transmission corridor would cnange approximately
24 acres of mature Sitka spruce/mountain hemlock forest, located between
tne Dayville Road and the AlyesKa oil pipeline, to a small brush ana
shrub habitat. Utilization of the proposed transmission right-of-way by
large mammals is low partially because the surrounding area has moderate
human activity to act as a deterrent to migratory or resident mammals.
The construction and maintenance of the transmission line corridor would
increase the influence of man's disturbance forcing the animals farther
south.
The proposed construction of the project would have varying effects
during different phases of construction. Blasting and drilling of the
penstock tllnel could cause mountain goats and other highly mObile
anima1s to evacuate the area temporarily. Winter construction could
disturb the resident black bear causing them to locate alternate dens.
Bear-human conflicts could increase especially if stringent regulations
concerning feeding or harassing of bears are not enforced.
Pressure Reducing Turbine: Bear have been observed along the Lowe
River in the area of the PRT site. The construction of the PRT facility
and transmission route may cause alterations in their movement to the
Lowe River during salmon spawning. Operation and maintenance of the
facility may also impede bear movement. This impact appears to be
unavoidable and its significance is unKnown.
c. Birds:
Hydroelectric: Waterfowl utilizing the lake for resting and feeding
would probably not be affected except during the construction phase.
EIS-12
Waterfowl and water related birds found at the mouth of Allison Creek may
avoid tne immediate area during the construction phase with no long term
adverse effects expected. The possible increase of freshwater into the
bay may cause minor shoreline icing during winter months and could
decrease the available habitat.
Slignt changes in tne marine habitat would occur through the increase of
winter freshwater and the placement of 5 cubic yards of riprap. The
marine habitat changes are considered minor.
Pressure Reducing Turbine: Clearing for the transmission corridor
would change blrd nabltat from dense woodland to woodland edge. Some
nesting habitat would be lost, but it does not appear to be a significant
impact. Prior to transmission line routing, tne area would be surveyed
to assure bald eagle nesting would not be impacted and an adequate buffer
zone would be estaDlisned near nesting activity.
d. Fish:
Hydroelectric: The impacts which would occur to the fishery
resources of All1son Creek are associated with changes in water
temperature and tne flow regime.
Adult pink and cnum salmon spawn from July through Septemoer when the
natural high water temperature of Allison Creek is from 8 to 11 0 C.
Spawning is directly related to stream temperature; salmon spawn earlier
in the season in colder streams and later in the season in warmer
streams. Intertidal spawners also spawn later in the season. Because of
the timing of spawning, intertidal and freshwater spawning salmon of the
same stream are of different genetic stock; interbreeding does not
occur. Although it is not known at this time, Allison Creek probably has
two distinct runs of pink salmon in the odd years, the majority of the
early run enters and spawns in freshwater with a later run spawning
almost exclusively intertidally. Tne most plausible explanation for tne
relationship between time and stream temperatures is that they are
coordinated to provide optimulTI survival and the most advantageous timing
for emergence.
The lake tap WOUld substantially cnange water temperatures at tne time of
spawning. The proposed project would draw water from the lake bottom at
a temperature of approximately 4 0 C. Although there would be natural
flows occurring from the drainage basin Delow the outlet, (Appendix E,
Taole 3) stream water temperatures would decrease. A temperature above
4.5 0 C is critical for normal embryonic development. With temperatures
below 4.5 0 C, mortality increases, and spinal deformities occur. At 20
C, complete mortality results. It appears during normal water years with
normal runoff into the stream below the lake outlet, water temperatures
with the proposed project would be above the critical level, however, low
water years may cause temperatures oelow 4.5 0 C.
EIS-13
Intertidal spawning, which is the majority of spawning activity, may also
be affected by reduced temperatures, however, it is not known to what
extent. The t ida 1 range is approx imate 1y 18 feet ana depend i ng on what
tidal level spawning occurs, the effects would vary. The most successful
spawning occurs above the -8 to -10-foot line from MHHW and at low tides
when only freshwater would occur during early incubation. Whether the
perioas of marine influence would compensate for the colder freshwater is
unknown.
Winter water temperatures of Allison CreeK would be warmer with tne
proposed project than occurs naturally. Winter temperatures in the lake
at the depth of the tap are approximately 3.5 0 C while the present winter
temperature of Allison Creek is near 00 C. The timing of emergence and
downstream migration of salmon fry depend on the temperature regime
because the development rate depends on temperature. Warmer water from
the proposed project would decrease incubation time, possibly by one
month. If early emergence occurred, the likelihood of an adequate food
source for the fry would be low. Intertidal incuoation and emergence
would also be accelerated, however not to the extent of instream spawning.
As discussed earlier, spawning probably occurs in Allison Creek prior to
intertidal spawning. The time-temperature coordination of spawning and
development is a result of adaption, to assure that the norlllal time for
seaward migration of the fry is the most opportune time for food
avai 1abil ity, and possibly saltwater temperatures.
The proposed project would alter both temperatures at the time of
spawning activity and during incubation. Deviations from the existing
temperatures caused by project operations cannot but influence survival.
Pressure Reaucing Turbine: No impacts to fish would occur with this
project.
e. IViarine: The additional freshwater in the winter months may have
some impact on the intertidal area. Much of the affected area receives
freshwater during higher flows and marine productivity appears to be
equal to the areas where high concentrations of freshwater do not occur.
Whether part of the species' life history necessitates periods of no
freshwater influence is unknown: however, it appears that increased
winter flows would have little effect.
Mitigative measures require tne placement of approximately 5 cubic yards
of riprap below the tailrace for erosion protection. Approximately 10
square yards of marine habitat at the MHHW mark would be covered.
Recolonization may occur, but probably not to the extent of precon-
struction productivity.
f. Rare and Endangered Species: There are no rare or endangered
species in the project area.
3. Socio-Economic
Tne construction pnase may employ as many as 100 persons. No construc-
tion camp is likely to be built, the employees would have to fino lodging
EIS-14
within the local community. The impact of the employees on the local
econon~ would probably be minor; however coupled with the construction of
the city dock and the ALPETCO plant, the cumulative effects may cause a
surge in the Valdez econorr~. Proposed construction times indicate the
Allison project would be built after the above projects are completed.
The power generated at Allison Creek may have a long term positive impact
on the economy of Valdez and Glennallen area. Initially the cost of the
power would De approximately equivalent to the present power costs based
on the October 1980 cost estimate. Once constructed, future price
increases would be related to tne increase in operation and maintenance
costs. Increases with diesel generation is directly related to the price
of diesel, which is escalating rapidly.
The operation and maintenance of the facility would require very few
persons. ana their presence would have little impact on the socio-
economic structure of the study area.
4. Cultural Resources
There are no cu ltura 1 resources in tne affected area, thus no impacts.
E. MITIGATION
The proposed hydroelectric project on Allison CreeK may eliminate the
natural runs of both pink and chum salmon over a period of time.
Although the fiShery resource of Allison Creek is not large in comparison
with other river systems in Prince William Sound, the resource should be
maintained as close to its preconstruct ion strength as is practicable.
A two tailrace system was devised to regulate the amount of water being
released into Allison Creek. The system consists of an additional
tailrace which would empty directly into Port Valdez. Both tailraces
would incorporate a gating mechanism which could regulate the amount of
flow through a particular tailrace. Thus, all the water, any portion of
the water', or none of Ule water can be regu 1 ated through either
tailrace. The upper powerhouse location would help protect both the
intertidal and Allison Creek fisheries. This was one of the contributing
factors for the selection of the upper powerhouse site as the preferred
alternative.
The discharge from the powerhouse would be diverted into Allisen Creek
during the periods of salmon spawning to provide adequate flows for
spawning. During the winter monthS when temperature is critical for egg
incubation and emergence, the discharge would be diverted directly to
Port Valdez. A 4 cfs minimum during the winter months was suggested by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for maintenance of egg incubation. An
adaitional 3/4 cfs is required for Alyeska's water supply. If natural
flows are below 5 cfs, the tailrace to Allison Creek can be utilized to
augment that portion belo~ 5 cfs.
Studies on similar ldkes in Alaska indicate that bottom temperatures
during the spawning season are higher than 4°C used in this report. If
E1S-15
Allison Lake limnology is similar to Bradley Lake near Homer and Crater
LaKe near Juneau, water Deing drawn through the lake tap would be
approximately 7°C. Due to the lack of data, the worse case basis was
used. Prior to any construction, temperatures would be determined and
measures to prevent less than optimal temperatures would be employed, if
necessary.
Without mitigative measures, major adverse impacts to the fishery are
expected to occur. If the change in water temperature causes accelerated
egg incubation and early fry emergence, there is a high probability that
the majority of the salmon run would be destroyed. Environmental studies
to fill the data gaps associated with the impacts on the salmon resources
have been scheduled for the advanced engineering and design phase. The
study would begin prior to construction, monitor the effects during
construction, and assess the impacts of the project on the fishery
resource of Allison Creek. The proposed stUdy would collect background
information on numbers and species of spawning fish, hatching time with
regard to water temperature and the effects of saltwater flooding to
incubation time. The study would provide specific information on the
effects of a hydroelectric project on Allison Creek and would also
provide general information on the effects of hydroelectric projects on
short coastal streams throughout Alaska. The information would be
utilized in future hydroelectric planning processes to assure
environmentally sound projects.
Determining a monetary value for the Allison Creek fishery appears to be
infeasible. Population estimates for Allison Creek were not scheduled
and counts were made on a time-available basis. Tne counts were not made
daily during the entire run and the estimates must De considered as the
least number of spawning adults.
Commercial fishing catches show only a small portion of the value of a
salmon run. Based on research statistics for this region of Alaska and
using the highest number of spawning chum salmon (2,660) with half being
females (1,130), approximately 3,657,500 eggs are deposited. Mortality
is high and approximately 75 percent of the eggs either do not hatch or
the fry never migrate to the ocean. Successful fry may number in excess
of 900,000 individuals. To maintain the species, at least 2,660 fish
will return to spawn, or 0.3 percent of the successful fry. For a
statewide average, commercial catches equal escapement or 2,660 fish.
This leaves over 909,175 fish which enter the food web. The exact amount
of biomass added to the next trophic level is unknown but is considerably
more than that taken in the commercial harvest.
Other nonquantifiable values are the contribution to the sports fishery,
esthetic values, and the contribution to the human nonconsumptive
knowledge of the natural environment.
EIS-16
Cumulative impacts to the Port Valdez fishery are now occurring. The
construction of the ALPETCO facility and docK, the city docK expansion
and the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project and proposed development on
Mineral CreeK are reducing salmonid fishery resources by both direct
impacts to habitat and migration routes and indirect impacts associated
with the additional stress placed on the fish. The proposed and actual
development in Port Valdez adds to the value of the Allison fishery,
again in an unquantifiable amount.
Maintenance of the powerhouse and penstock system would occur periodi-
cally. During penstock maintenance, no water would be added to the
creek. If this occurs for an extended period of time while natural flows
are low, adverse impacts on the fishery resources could occur. The
probability of maintenance of the penstock system is low and any
scheduled maintenance would occur during periods of high natural stream
flows. Turbine shutdown would occur more regularly. However, at least
one of the two turbines could be run at a lower output to meet fisheries
needs.
F. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Diesel -Pressure Reducing Turbine (PRT)
1. Diesel generation alreadY exists in the Valdez area and this plan
would not increase the number or output of diesel generators. The
addition of the PRT would not cause cumulative adverse effects, but the
new impacts would only occur with the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the PRT facility.
Diesel -Hydroelectric
2. The cumulative impacts of this plan are similar to those described
below.
Pressure Reducing Turbine -Hydroelectric
3. The cumulative impacts of this plan are both biological and
socio-economical. The construction of both power sources and their
ancillary facilities would create a disturbed area between Port Valdez
and the Chugach Mountains on the south side of Port Valdez. This may
impede movement of wildlife species and offers no areas of relief between
the two projects. The extent of this impact is unknown, but
superficially appears minor.
The combination of labor
an effect on the economy
facilities and services.
consist largely of local
economy.
forces to construct the two facilites may have
of Valdez. At this time, Valdez is limited in
The addition of a labor force which does not
residents may place a strain on the local
EIS-17
Pressure Reducing Turbine -Hydroelectric and Other Proposed Regional
Activities
4. Several other activities have either been proposed or are under
construction in the study area. These include the construction of the
city dock, transmission line to Glennallen, improvements on the
Richardson Highway, and the construction of the Alaska Petrochemical
Company (ALPETCO) refining facility. Concurrent construction activities
in the Valdez area could cause a "boom -bust" type situation causing
extreme economic impacts to Valdez. Tnis impact could be reduced with
proper preparedness by the city of Valdez.
G. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1. PUblic Involvement Program
Formal public hearings were conducted at Valdez on 26 April 1977, 24
July 1978, and 18 November 1980 to obtain public opinion describing the
need for power generation, and alternative preference. Local response is
strongly in support of the selected plan. Coordination with Federal and
State agencies, and local interest groups during the course of the study
include:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
State Historic Preservation Officer
Copper Valley Electric Association
Aleyska Pipeline Service Company
2. Required Coordination
The final EIS was filed with tne Environmental Protection Agency
concurrently with circulation to all parties on the project mailing
list. EPA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register
which will begin the 30-day review period. All comments received from
the draft EIS are addressed in Appenaix J. The Feasibility Report and
FEIS will be submitted to Congress and an exemption under Section 404(r)
of the Clean Water Act will be obtainea.
3. Statement Receipients
A list of statement recipients is in Appendix I.
H. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
The proposed project has been reviewed to assure that it will be
undertaken in a manner consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program to the maximum extent practicable. Coordination through the A-95
Clearinghouse review for processing has been accomplished and agencies
reviewing the DEIS did not comment on any major Alaska Coastal Management
EIS-18
Program-related issues. The Alaska District has determined the proposed
hydroelectric project is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program.
E1S-19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bailey, Jack E. 1964. "Incubation of pink salmon eggs in a simulated
intertidal environment." Reprint from Proc. of Northwest Fish Cult. Conf.,
1964. p. 79-89.
Bailey, Jack E. 1969. Alaska1s Fishing Resources. The Pink Salmon. Dept
Inter. USFWS BCF. Fish. Lent. 619. 8 pp.
Bailey, Jack E., ana Evans, Dale R. 1971. liThe low-temperature threshold for
pink salmon eggs in relation to a proposed hydroelectric installation." Fish.
Bull. Vol 69, No.3: 587-593.
Combs, Bobby D. 1965. "Effect of temperature on the development of salmon
eggs.1I Prog. Fish. Cult. 27(3): 134-137.
Dames and Moore. 1980. City of Valdez Port Expansion Project. Environmental
Assessment. Anchorage, Alaska.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1978. Solomon Gulch Project, Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.
Helle, John, H. Williamson, Richard S. and Bailey, Jack E. 1964.
IIIntertidal ecology and life history of pink salmon at Olsen Creek, Prince
William Sound, Alaska.1I USFWS, Dept of Spec. Studies. 26 pp.
Roberson, Ken. 1980. Personnel Communication. ADF&G, Glennallen, Alaska.
Sheridan, William L. 1962. IIRelation of stream temperatures to timing of
pink salmon escapements in Southeast Alaska." Reprint from Symp. on Pink
Salmon, H.R. MacMillan lectures in Fisheries, 1960. Univ. Brit. Col. p.
87-102.
State of Alaska.
Valdez. Alaska.1I
1980. IIInventory report district program phase one,
Alaska Coastal Management Program. Juneau. Alaska.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. IIAlaska petrochemical Company
refining and petrochemical facility, Valdez, Alaska Final Environmental Impact
Statement. II Seattle, WA.
Feder, Howard M., Michael Cheek, Patrick Flanagan, Stephen C. Jewitt, Mary H.
Johnston, A.S. Naider, Stephen A. Norrell, A.J. Paul, Arla Scarborough and
David Shaw. 1976. liThe sediment environment of Port Valdez, AlaSKa; the
effect of oil on this ecosystem.1I EPA-600/3-76-086. Corvallis, Or. 322p.
Cooney, R. Ted, David Urguhart, Richard Neve, John Hilsinger, Robert Clasby
and David Barnard 1978. IISome aspects of the carrying capacity of Prince
William Souna, Alaska for hatchery released pink and churn salmon fry." Sea
Grant Report 78-4, IMS Report R78-3. Fairbanks, Alaska 98 pp.
EIS-20
13.10
Subjects
Affected Environment
Alternatives
Areas of Controversy
Comparative Impacts of
A lternat i ves
Environmental Effects
List of Preparers
Need For and Objectives
of Action
Planning Objectives
Plans Described in Detail
INDEX
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
E1S-3 to 8
EIS-1 to 3
vi
iii to iv
EIS-8 to 15
i i
EIS-1
Relationship to Environmental vi to viii
Requirements
Report Recipients
Study Authority EIS-1
Summary iii to vii
Table of Contents viii
Without Conditions E1S-1
EIS-21
Feasibility Report
4-8
21-37
20
27-49
APPENDIX
iii
18
I
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGY
Item
INTRODUCTION
CL rr~ATE
Temperature
Precipitation
Snow
Wind
Storms
STREAMFLOW
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Extension of Streamflow Records
Estimated Damsite Streamflows
Evaporation
Flood Characteristics
Past Floods
Flood Frequencies
Probable Maximum Flood
ESTIMATED MONTLY STREAMFLOWS
Lowe River and Solomon Gulch (Table A-l)
Klutina River (Table A-2)
Tonsina River (Table A-3)
Power Creek (Table A-4)
Allison Creek (Table A-5)
ALLISON LAKE -RESERVOIR REGULATION (Figure A-l)
Page
A-l
A-l
A-5
A-10
A-15
I NTRODUCTI ON
The area considered for possible hydroelectric alternatives included
the coastal area around Valdez, the Chugach Mountains, and portions of
the Copper River Basin. This area corresponds roughly to the service
area bf Copper Valley Electric Association, over whose powerlines the
electricity from any potential hydropower development would be
transmi tted.
This appendix describes the climate of the study area and the
streamflows derived for the five sites considered as hydropower
alternatives. These sites include Allison Lake, Tsina River, Tiekel
River, Tonsina River, and Klutina River. They are shown on the basin
location map, Figurp 1 page 24 of the main report. The final page of
this appendix is a plate which portrays reservoir regulation, including
estimated lake elevations, regulated and unregulated streamflows, as well
as firm and secondary energy for the favored development at Allison
Lake. This was done on a monthly hasis for the years 1948 to 1977.
CLIMATE
There is a wide variation in climate throughout the study area. The
region adjacent to the coast is under maritime influence, with high
precipitation and relatively mild temperatures. The interior area has
more of a continental climate, with extreme temperatures and less
precipitation. Between these two areas is a mountainous transition
region whose climate is a hydbrid of maritime and continental
conditions.
Valrlez, the primary load center of the coastal region, is located on
a well sheltered extension of Prince William Sound. Snowcapped mountains
containi~g extensiv~ glacier areas surround Valdez on three sides, with
rugged but unglaciated mountains to the south and southwest. Active
glaciers extend t~ within 5 to 10 miles of old Valdez to the north and
reach down to the level of the glacial plain on which old Valdez is
located. This level glacial plain is a well forested area except for the
tidal marshes south~/est and the glacial drainage area to the east. The
terrain surrounding Valdez exerts a pronounced influence on practically
all aspects of the local weather and climate. The sheltering effects of
surrounding mountains channel local winds into two distinct channels.
From October through April prevailing winds are from the northeast; from
May through September prevailing winds are from the southwest.
Precipitation is abundant year-round, but builds up noticeably during the
late summer and fall. The heaviest precipitation usually occurs in
September and October; almost 25 percent of the total annual rainfall
occurs in these 2 months. Snowfall during the winter months is very
heavy. There is considerable cloudiness during the entire year, but
slightly less tha~ is realized at Alaskan points farther southeast.
About 1 day in 6 can be classified as clear. Although the high mountain
ridges to the north provide considerable barrier to the flow of cold
continental air from the interior during the winter months, there is a
definite off setting factor in the downslope drainage from the high
A-l
snowfields and glacier areas on the southern slopes of these mountains.
The lowest temperatures recorded at Valdez appear to be due to the
downslope flow of cold air, since the lowest temperatures on retord have
occurred durinq periods with 1 ittle or no wind, providing ideal condi-
tions for the cold air to flow down onto the flat glacial plain. The
nearby snow and icefields combine with the ocean areas to provide a
moderating effect on summertime high temperatures which seldom reach the
middle 80's. The surrounding mountains tend to produce considerable
variations in practically all weather elements within relatively short
distances.
The continental region, whic~ covers Klutina and Tonsina Lakes and
most of their watersheds, has mean maximum summer temperatures in the mid
to upper 60's, and mean minimum winter temperatures around 20 below zero,
Fahrenheit. The mean annual precipitation is between 10 and 20 inches,
at least in lower elevations. Heavier amounts occur in the upper
elevations. Surface winds are light compared to those found along the
coast.
In the transition region, where the conditions are between those of
the maritime and continental regions, temperature extremes most resemble
th~ continental zone's, while precipitation amounts range from light to
heavy enough to maintain glaciers. The Tsina River and Tiekel River
drainages are considered to be in the transitional zone. Surface winds
in the transition region range between coastal and interior conditions,
including some channeled winds through mountain valleys.
While the climatic data from the Valdez weather station is fairly
rppresentative of the sea level conditions in the study area, lower
temperatures and greater precipitation will occur over most to the higher
drainage basins. Based on 7 years of streamflow records, which typify
the amount of precipitation in the areas being studied, the Solomon Gulch
gage recorded an average annual discharge of 104,300 acre-feet for a
19-square mile drainage basin, yielding a basin average of 103 inches
runoff per year.
Temperature:
The four climatological stations in the area are located at Copper
Center, Glennallen, Valdez, and Cordova. The records for Glennallen and
Copper (enter are incomplete and are not presented in this analysis. A
summary of the average monthly temperatures for Valdez and Cordova is
presented below.
A-2
L
,1an
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURES (OF)
Valdez
1 7.8
22.4
2 i). 8
35.1)
43.8
51.2
53.3
52.0
46.5
37.5
26. 1
19.5
Cordova
23.0
26.7
29.2
36.0
43.7
50.4
53.4
53.0
48.0
39.6
30.6
24.6
The Valdez data are recorded by the National Weather Service at an
elevation of 87 feet mean sea level (MSL). The Cordova data are recorded
by the Ferleral Aviation Administration at an elevation of 41 feet MSL.
The temperatures range between 42° F and 60° F during the summer and
between 11° F and 43° F during the winter for Valdez with the extremes
being _28 0 F and 87° F. The temperatures range between 44 D F and 61° F
during the summer and between 21° F and 39° F during the winter for
Cordova with the extremes being -23° F and 86° F.
80th locations average a growing season of about 4 months. Normally,
the first freeze occurs early in September and the last freeze occurs in
mid-May.
Summertime temperature gradients follow the traditional pattern of
decreasina temperatures with increasing altitude. During periods of
extreme winter cold, how~ver, a strong temperature inversion may exist in
the lower layers of the atmosphere as a result of radiation cooling and
cold air drainage for the surrounding mountains. Under these conditions,
the temperature gradient will be reversed.
Precipitation:
Precipitation over the basin varies from moderate amounts in the low
elevations to heavy in the mountains, to moderate amounts again in the
Klutina and Tonsina drainages. The orographic effect of the Chugach
Mountains insures heavy precipitation in the upper elevations of the
basin and lower amounts in the lower basin. Storms are generally light
in intensity, with few convective-type storms of cloudburst magnitude.
The only climatological stations in the study area with reasonably
complete precipitation data are located in Valdez and Cordova. Average
monthly precipitation for these communities is presented below.
A-3
AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
(inches)
Valdez Cordova
Jan 5.06 6.14
Feh 5.30 6.42
Mar 4.33 5.89
Apr 3.06 5.71
l"1ay 3 .20 5.99
,lu n 2.70 4.67
Ju 1 4.31 7.08
Aug 5.80 8.94
Sep 7.74 13.53
Oct 6.75 12.34
Nov 5.67 8.37
Dec 5.39 7.45
ANNUAL 59.31 92.53
These data were collected by the National Weather Service and the
Federal Aviation Administration for Valdez and Cordova respectively.
Snow:
Snowfall records are available in the vicinity of Valdez~Glennallen.
Snowfall is generally confined to October through April and comprises
approximately 27 percent of the mean annual precipitation.
Snow course data for four stations within the basin are presented in
the following tahulation.
Average Water
Snow Cours e
Years of
Record
Elevation
(ft) MSL Content Per Month
Tsina River
Worthington Glacier
Lowe River
Valdez
7
21
7
7
1 ,500
2,400
550
50
March
13.6
16.9
14.3
15.7
(inches)
Apri 1
14.9
20.5
15.2
18.0
The water content of the May snow mass provides a good index of
expected spring runoff.
Wind:
May
13.8
23.2
1 3. 1
18. 1
The wind records available are scarce. The National Weather Service
monitors the station in Valdez which has about 3 years of data. Observa-
tions there indicate that the highest winds occur between October and
A-4
l
April. The winds tend to follow the contours of the terrain and, thus,
adjacent areas can have average winds of opposite direction. The follow-
inq is the average fastest 1 minute wind speed for the period of record.
Storms:
AVERAGE WIND SPEED (MPH)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mav
Jun
Jul
~g
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
23
25
25
25
20
18
18
19
19
2n
26
27
Because of the dominating maritime influence, thunder and hail storms
rarely occur in the study area. ~wever, the area is subject to fall and
winter storms of heavy precipitation intensities. These storms are
cyclonic in nature and are generated by the semipermanent, Aleutian low
pressure system. This cyclogenesis takes place as a result of the cold
flow of southeasterly air from Asia, which generates a wave on the polar
front. These storms move eastward from their point of origin into the
Gulf of Alaska, where they cause high winds and low ceilings for a period
of 2 to 3 days. Storms of this nature usually cause copious amounts of
precipitatio~ to fallon the coastal mountain ranges.
STREAMFLOW
Runoff characteristics for the study area vary substantially between
the coastal and interior regions. Tn the coastal region, the maritime
influence areatly increases the runoff per square mile and also changes
the ti~ing of high flood flows from those experienced in the interior
region. While flood peaks do occur in May and June, due to snowmelt, the
yearly maximum peaks generally center around the month of September.
Streamflow records were available for several streams, in the study
area. In all, a total of five streams were used for alternating flows.
Two streams in the immediate vicinity of Valdez which have been gaged
by the U.S. Geological Survey are Lowe River and Solomon Gulch. In
addition, several other streams between Valdez and Glennallen have had
streamflows recorded by the USGS. Two of these, Klutina River and
Tonsina River, are close to sites considered in the present study. There
are discharqe data for each station and some measurements for chemical
constituents and water temperature. The recorded monthly runoff for the
A-5
gages at Lowe River near Valdez, Lowe River in Keystone Canyon near
Valdez, and Solomon Gulch near Valdez are shown on Table A-l. The
streamflows for Klutina River at Copper Center and Tonsina River at
Tonsina are given in Tables A-2 and A-3, respectively.
The gage at Solomon Gulch was on the right bank at the tidewater, 1/2
mile downstream from a small lake and about 3 miles south of Valdez. The
records that are available are July to December 1948 and October 1949 to
September 1956. The average annual runoff is 104,300 acre-feet per year
or 144 cfs.
The gage on the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon near Valdez is located
on the left bank, 500 feet south of the south entrance to Richardson
HighvJay tunnel in Keystone Canyon. The records that are available are
October 1974 to the current year. The average annual runoff is about
1,200 cfs. The other Lowe River gage (Lm"e River near Valdez) was
upstream from this one about 4 miles. The gage was discontinued in
September 1974.
The Klutina River gage was near the left bank on the downstream side
of the RiChardson Highway bridge, 0.7 mile south of Copper Center.
Records are available from October 1949 to June 1967 and July 1970 to
September 1970. The mean streamflow is 1,670 cfs.
The Tonsina River gage is near the right bank on the downstream side
of the RiChardson Highway bridge at Tonsina. Recorded streamflows extend
from October 1950 to September 1954 and from October 1955 to September
1978. The mean annua 1 flow is 836 cfs.
txtension of Streamflow Records:
Extension of t'le streamflow records for Solomon Gulch and Lowe River
was performed by linear correlation with the long term records of Power
(reek near Cordova. In an attempt to observe visual relations between
the stations, the respective monthly strEamflows for the two stations
were plotted against the correlative Power Creek monthly streamflows, as
shown in Table A-4. Depending on the shapes of the relationships
ohserved, the data were split into time groups ranging from 1 month to 3
months. After transformation, a linear regression analysis was performed
for each data group and, based on the correlation coefficients and
standard errors of estimate, a relationship for each group of data was
adopted for streamflow extension.
In general, there was good correlation for the months of April
through December. The winter months of January, February, and March were
grouped together and still had a low correlation coefficient. It may be
explained by the lowflow characteristics of Power Creek which did not
dl"scribe the same 1m" flow on the other two gages. The equation on the
Lowe River for August was adjusted since it was not consistent with the
A-6
L
slope of the two adjacent months of July and September, therefore, no
correlation coefficient was derived. The relationships derived for the
two stations are shown in Table A-4.
The monthly streamflows for Allison Creek were not correlated with
Power Creek sinc~ there were no records available for Allison. Solomon
Gulch's drainage area of 19.5 square miles better approximates the size
of Allison's, so its extended streamflow values were used to derive
'StreamflO\'I values for Allison Creel( rather than the Lowe River
streamflows with a drainage area of 222 square miles. Allison and
Solomon are also iYl very close proximity to each other so they should
have similar hydrologic characteristics. The following table lists the
oertinent characteristic'S of each basin.
Area Mean Elevation % Area
Creek (M i 2) (Feet) in Gl aciers
Allison 5. F)8 2,800 24
Power 20.8 2, 140 25
Solomon Gu 1 ch 19.5 2,300 21
The monthly streamflow values for Power Creek were used to extend the
period of record for Solomon Gulch; this extended period of record is
shown in Table A-5. These values in turn were used along with a basin
area relationship to determine streamflows for those basins without
data. Allison Creek estimated streamflows were derived in this manner
and are shown in Table A-6.
The four damsites considered as alternatives to the Allison Creek
development had streamgages in fairly close proximity to two of them.
The Klutina River and the Tonsina River are both gaged, but at locations
downstream from the proposed damsites. For the Tonsina River, the
average annual precipitation was estimated for the area above the dam and
for the area above the gage by use of isohyetal maps presented in a 1977
U.S. Forest Service Water Resources Atlas. The ratio of the two area-
wide average precipitation values was then determined, and the ratio of
the project-drained area to the gaged area was also determined, then
these two were applied to the gaged streamflows to give the expected
flows at the sites.
At the Klutina River site, no isonyets were available for most of the
drainage area, so streamflows were modified only on the basis of area
drained considering the Tsina River and Tiekel River sites, no streamflow
records exist for these rivers. Solomon Gulch was selected as most
closely representing the Tsina River, since it was the only fairly
heavily glaciated stream with flow records in the vicinity. Average
annual precipitation and drainage area comparisons were again made in
order to adjust the Solomon flows for the Tsina. Only the 7 years of
recorded data from Solomon were used.
Because of the approximately similar glaciated percentages, overall
drainage areas, and the proximity of the watersheds, Tiekel River flows
A-7
were estimated based on Tonsina River flows. As with the Tonsina site,
precipitation and area rati()s were used to generate the Tiekel flows from
the Tonsina's.
The pertinent characteristics for each site are shown below:
Gage
% Average Average
Area in Annual Gage Annual Overa 11
Creek Gage Used Area Glaciers Precip. Area Precip.
(mi2) ( in) (rli2) ( in)
Klutina Klutina 826 5 -1 0 880
Tiekel Tonsina 367 15 53. 1 420 28.0
Tonsina Tonsina 263 10 32.9 420 28.0
Ts ina Solomon 5'1 50 70.4 19 1 14
Estimated Damsite Streamflows:
It has been assumed that the streamflows determined through the
previous analysis would be the estimated damsite streamflows.
~v aporat ion:
Ratio
0.94
1.66
0.74
1. 79
The normal high relative humidity, high percentage of overcast days,
and cool climate preclude any appreciable loss from evaporation.
Estimates of flow were based on records of existing or historical gaging
stations near the project areas, and include evaporation from the stream
surface. Due to the nortllern latitude and prevailing maritime climate,
additional evaporation from the reservoir surface would be
insignificant.
Flood Characteristics:
Snowmelt-type floods are dependent upon two conditions: (1) the
amount of accumulated snow; and (?) the temperature sequence during the
spring melt period. A 1 arge snowpack over the basin will give a 1 arge
volume of runoff during the spring. However, if the temperatures
increase gradually, causing slower snowmelt, the flood peak will be just
slightly above normal. If the early spring is colder than normal and
then tile temperatures rise rapidly for a prolonged period, the flood peak
will be extremely high with the duration of flooding dependent upon the
total snowpack.
On the streams in the southern portion of the study area, rainfloods
produce the highest flm ... s. These occur in the fall, generally between
late August and October. The flood peaks are quite sharp due to the fast
runoff, which is caused by the steepness of the terrain and the low
infiltration losses into the underlying rock. On the Klutina and Tonsina
Rivers, the flooding characteristics are mixed. The annual peak flows on
A-8
the Klutina generally occur at any time throughout the summer, as a
result of rainstorms. However, the maximum recorded flow there was in
June, during a snowmelt runoff. The Tonsina's highest flows yearly range
from early June to mid-September, being caused either by snowmelt or
rainfall flooding.
Past Floods:
The maximum instantaneous recorded discharge for the five recording
stations utilized in the study are:
Lowe River
Klutina River
Tonsina River
Pov.Jer Creek
So 1 omon Gu lch
Flood Frequencies:
Date
9/11/75
fJ/29/53
6/17/62
9/25/49
9/04/51
Pe ak (cfs)
12,600
9,040
8,490
5,540
2,420
The following is a tabulation of the peak discharges for the
various recurrence intervals:
Peak Discharges -cfs
Recurrence Lowe Power So lomon
Interval River Creek Gulch
(years)
5 11,900 3,750 2,200
10 14,900 4,650 2,600
25 18,800 5,750 3,200
50 23,000 6,900 3,750
100 27,500 8,000 4,300
Probable Maximum Flood:
The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is used for spillway sizing and for
estimating downstream impact. Since Allison Creek has a lake tap and no
associated dam, no spillv.Jay shall be required. Thus, the PMF derivation
is also not necessary. Also, since the other proposals investigated have
not been judged worthy of further consideration at this time, no PMF was
derived of these sites.
A-9
LOWE RIVER NEAR VALDEZ STREAMFLOW -CFS
'fUR r)c r , -. n:c JA~ FEEl "'A~ APi1 '~A Y J \.J '; JUL A.J'; ---, ~"''' ~E ---.---.-----------.-____ we. -.----------.------------.---------------- -------
--.----.------._._---
1 'H 2. -I: •• ~!.L • 72. bl4. ':11. ':18. b7. 380. 1 103. b2t>2. -IOw5. S; -. : "3 ~.
1 '173. ')~~. 1 ~ ~. 88. 57. 45. 35. 52. ijbl. 1789. 320b. "023. ; "':;7.
l'n,. • 22: • 1 G 1 • 71 • ':17. 1.18. 33. 145. b74. 2197 • 14137. 3771. -:228. --
LOWE RIVER IN KEYSTONE CANYON NEAR VALDEZ STREAMFLOW -CFS
'fC:~" uc T .,.j f ,.--JAN FE3 ~A" A;J<:/ "'AY JU~ JUL A j'" S~;:> , --.' ~ -
)::0 .... •• :,-ooI.J~
I
____ we. ---.-.-----------------.-------.-------------------------.------------.--------------_.----
0 1 9 7:; • ..j::>:>. 22!J. 101 • bb. 50 • 45. 49. 71)0. 253-1. ':1191.1. 251:'5. 2 = : = . : = 15.
l'n" . b3). '2. b4. b3. ':l6. 52. bOo (l51. 287u. 4179. 307-1. 1 3: : • : :" 7.
SOLOMON GULCH NEAR VALDEZ STREN~FLOW -CFS
----_. ----------
~~~01 c;:r ", j" )E: JAN FE3 ~AR AP~ ~'AY JU~ JUL A ... .; ~:. -~ . ~~AGE --------------.. -------.-----------------------------------------------------------------.... -.... ---
1950. : ! • !l4. 3b. 16. 12. 9. 7. 99. 3b8. 277. 25". =::. 125.
1951. .. e • 22. 10 • 1 • 4. 7. 10. 54. 2bl. 346. 25'-. . . 133 •
1952. 75. 74. 21 • 1 4. 11 • 10. 9. 45. 3b6. 419. 2~2. ' -. .. 130.
1 'h3. 3 ) ... 131. 30. 18. 12. 11 • 10. 2214. " 5~ij. 408. 3 ... 0. :: -. 1-12.
--t 1954. l w 3. 3~. 17. 11. 12. 8. 11. lb4. 357. 277. 35b. -. 13b. ~ 1955. 133 • 74. 12. 12. 11. 10. 8. 37. 320. 514. 3b1-::. 135. \,j
r-1950. S::. 27. 1 7. 21. 12. 8. 1 4 • 90. 371. 507. "'-'2. ::; . 1"8. ...,
l>
I -
J::>
I
YEAR
-------
)::0
I
N
1950.
1951.
19')2.
1953.
1954.
1955.
195b.
1957.
1958.
1959.
19bO.
19b I.
1902.
19b3.
19b4.
19b5.
19bb.
KLUTINA
OCT ·';Jv J~C J (.',
--------------------------.-
1b59. 7 1 7 • 370. 22j.
941. 350. 289. .: 5 ( .•
1498. b07. 270. 1 c C •
177 b. 911 • 710. SOC'.
893. lj15. 2bO. 2 C' C'.
893. 557. 295. 270.
725. 227. 195. 1 be.
1045. '113-382. 251.
2089. 1079. 1.191. 30 4 •
827. 523. 215. 100.
1192. bUS. 454. 30.J.
1509. ')35. 358. 323.
1353. 550. 330. 25().
904. -lo4. 350. 330.
_. -' 1222. __ 413. ___ 370. 300 •.
Q17. 455. 370. 300.
1313. .,j80. 310 • 21 J •
RI VER NEAR COPPER CENTER STREAMFLOW ~ CFS
~::3 I.L."'{ .:,:)~ t·A Y JU;~ JUL AUG S~;> AvERAGE ---.--------------.----------.-------------------------. -------
135. 135. 1 t> 7. 1370. 35ll2. ll810. 4703. 2ljOo. 1b50.
230. 24C:. 2:10. 051. 2393. 5573 • 40b8. 5,)62. 1735.
1bO. 1 5 f: • 1 !J () • -l9b. 2358. 490b. 4b23. 1920. 11.1 lj 3.
~OO. 2 b O. 250. 1017. 5bBb. 7071 • 5529. 2591, 2225.
1 bO. 13' .• 127. 1 1 05. B05. 41 '17 • 57bb. 2732. lb08.
220. 1 q S • 1 1 0 • 2b5. 2000. 5395. 3885. 23(jo. 13b9.
150. 1t r;. 2(;0. 957. 3192. 5'120. 5132. 2200. 15b4.
175. ,255. 2bO. 1251. 5941. 51b8. 451.13. 52~5. 2079.
2b 1. 23:;. 223. 879. 49'::10. SOUl. 4502. 1892. 1833 •
105. 10'i • 140. 1032. 5117. 5411. 4122. 1 7 ~.,. lb3b.
240. 2,)5. 240. 1552. 3757. llbt>7. u729. 3b76. 1808.
271 • 225. 215. 1051 • 3153. 4BO. '1680. 2859. lbl.l7.
230. 220. 2';)0. bb4. 42b2. 5b53. 4b75. 2 .. 57. 1744.
320. 30S. 210. 949. 2302. 5b95. 5140. 2927. lb04.
320. 230. 220. 354. , , _ 47 b 1 .. 507b. 4402. 2341. lb72.
270. 230. 200. 527. 2080. 4309. 3489. 2771.1. 1327.
1 70 • 190. 2 u o. '::112. 3792. 4791. 3805. 2220. 1503.
--..,
I
-J
l>
I
W
TONS INA RIVER AT TONSINA STREAMFLOW
--. -,-----------
r::AR OCT r-.:. J~: J;' '1 :~S J:'~ ;.;,;; r·iAY ----------------------------____ we. .. _---.----------.-----------
1'150. 305. : ! : • · ..... 10: • 100. I 1 (j • : .. ~. U18.
1957. 253. : ::. C~:. 9~. 01. I 0 iJ • ~ 3 J. 985.
1958. 1057 L . ------= .... -· . -."1...,. -175. 115. 105. ~ i • 500.
1959. 30b. 2: : • 1 : :: • 81. 73. 73. :: ... 5c.7.
1900. 558. 2 -:-:. ! :: : • 12 C • '10 • B5. :: I • 1395.
1901. U80. c: : : • 1:;:. 175. 121 • 91. ~ 0 • 794.
1962. U92. c: .. w'. 12: • &<:. e3. 79. = = . 431 •
1963. 420. 2:~. 15 : • 12 ': • 11) 0 • 99. . ~. 019 •
1964. __ 300 L _____ t ,,=,. · .. 13C. 11 O. 100. : 30. 359. · -....
1905. 411. 5::;. 2:-. 12e. 120. 120. l 2 J • 257.
~960. 51.0. __ __ ,2~: .• ' :''-' liS. 100. 90. ;j. 304. " .......
1907. 497. -., ~: ... 1: : • 12~. 95. 00. 7':). 510.
1908. 359. : :. : . : ! ~. I 3: • 137. 155. : ~ 5 • 889.
1909. 274. · -· :-, . ~-:. 127. I J 5 • &7. 1 ~ , • 378.
1970. ___ 26J,o. ____ :..:2._ .. 1 : :: • _. 97. ~O. 81.. ' --. ., .., . 441.
1971. 319. ! :: :: . I::. 90. 82. 72. : 7 • 314.
1972. 409 .. _ 25~. I:::. 13 e. 109. 95. ;5. 828.
1973 • 567. 3 :'3. 157. 1(j~. 80. 77. :2. 240.
1974. 2&5. !~~. 7" 5'5. 013. 37. 3~. 527.
1975. <137. · --70. 75. 73. n. 305 • ... :7J. -· 1970. 5&1.. ---------: ~ · 1 : e2. 73. 70. 7:. 510.
1977. U37. · . · 2: · 210. 216. 190. 1'2. 093.
1978. 505. 2: · ::: · 1£;.;. 125. 107. : : ~ . 375.
-CFS
JUN JUL AJG ;;~;> .:. .:: .... :. ~E
____ we. ----------------------------
2307. 3071. 18UI. 07,). 731.
37u 1-1955. 2080. 2317. 1 ~ 2 ~ •
iJ200. 25~(j. 1<l0~. 61'1. 901.
4031. 2522. 2015. :. 1 7. ~~~.
2839. 2055. 2106. 1073 • l(;~5 •
2305. C(l3S. 2387. 11 7C. ~50.
3021. 2815. 2222. 722. 9 I ...
177<1. 3717 • 2309. l.H5. ~10.
31100. 2953. 1920. 507. 66b.
1249. 22~2. 10(17. 1271l. 678.
2735. 2302. 1057. 12 ill • 79iJ.
229(1. 2105. 1594. 1030. 7,-I •
2779. 285b. 1702. 7~iJ. ::. ...
1871. 2215. 1017. 523. S5:J.
1500. 2059. 1801 • 781. =32.
1 H8. 2075. 2001l. 7H. 712.
2054. 2830. 2123. 11 n. 85&.
1530. 1571. 1531 • iJ!S3. 505.
1<150. 205J. 1910. lU2b. :00.
19 tH. 3,,92. 1782. 1455. :B.
2tltlO. 2245. 1915. 75". 7 .. 9.
30<11. (l05~. 2050. I 218. 1177.
159tl. 16~0. 183<1. oB. bSe.
POWER CREEK NEAR CORDOVA -CFS
YEAR JC T :-mV )EC J I\r, FEd 'iAR I\pq MAY JUN JUL AJ:; S::? AvE~AGE --------------------------------, .... ----.--. --------------------. -.---------.-. ---------------------1948. 252. 327. 103. 87. 53. 28. 24. 218. 566. 6bl. .. 53. 478 • 274. 19~'1. 3~'5. 1'19. 59. 49. 30. 43. 3:'. 142. 376. 454. "~5. 74~. 246. 1950. ... '3 7 • 319. 73. 36. 22 • 25. 2':1. 141 • 571. ~ J 0 • ..24. :.32. 203. 1951. 123. '53. 37. 25. 29. 33. 34. 120. 35:'. 539. 397. 102 ... 23l. 1952. 250. 232. 50. 35. 25. 20. 20. 94. 427. 897. .. 55. 358. 244 • 1"153. 594. 2b7. 65. 50. 33. 32. 50. 259. 595. 542. 1020. 45l. 2'18. 195:l. 3 .. 3. 103. 59. 50. 47. 27. 30. 189. 412. ... 51-10 12. 4:.1 • 232. 1955. 307. 290. 52. 00. 43. 29. 24. 102. 372. 671. 603. 294. 244. 1956. 151 • bO. 38. 35. 23. 10. 22. 177 • 356. 612. 710. 425. 219. 1957. 134. 2H. 100. 49. 23. 23. 24. 180. 422. 457. o.J5~. 973. 260. 1'158. <J 0 U • 334. 69. 113. 46. 45. 65. 297. :'98. 925. 073. 256. 31B. 1959. 38!:l • 1 12. 83. 43-34. 24. 37. 236. 464. '=>92. 331. 2b5. 217. 1'160. 32~. 165. 78. 84. 59. 33. 35. 271 • 465. 628. 530. 471-263. 1961. 219. 1 0 1 • 164. 129. 06. 42. 59. 308. 420. 506. 557. 486. 257. :--" 19102. 291. 11 b • 61. 87. 45. 42. 43. 173. 399. 472. 355. 3!>3. 204. 1963. 2':; 8. ---lB9. 128. 92. 156. 98. 104. 240. 382. 593. ...32. 326. 249. (-) 1964. 255. 05. 11.10. 63. 69. 47. 44. 100. 1.196. 610. o.J90. 291. 222. 1965. 253. 196. 11 1 • 43. 39. 47. 96. 187. 428. 433. J3o. 556. 236. 1966. 320. BO. 54. 33. 23. 22. 39. 146. 382. 431 • 56!> • 713. 235. 1967. .3ob. 178. 48. 36. 49. 59. 89. 181. 455. 497. 49~ • 736. 265. 19bB. 174. 2bO. 102. 58. 175. 134. 53. 274. 401. "52. 33 7. 311 • 228. 196 9. 184. 109. 59. 27. .36. 93. 94. -228. -458. 399. 252. 218. 180. 197 O. o.J4B. 204. 190. 1 0 1 • 143. 1 14. 104. 173. 428. 527. 6.10. 3b 7. 287. 1971. 259. 162. 74. 56. 45. 27. 47. 116. 466. 681 • 559. 318. 234. 197 2. 287. 81-39. 25. 19. 15. 16. 1 0 1 • 328. :;b5. 505. 5 ... 2. 210. 1973 • 3.JO. 90. 61. H. 30. 21. 37. 189. 351. 449. i.&78. 234. 193. 197:J. 155. 56. 48. 36. 28. 19. 48. 180. 354. 352. 340. 531. 1 79. 1975. 460.--2511. 811. 56. 43. 26. 40. 179 • 382. 632. 388. b04. 262. 1976. 267. 49. 41. 30. 36. 21. 90. 46il. 803. 546. ..69. b96. 292. 1977 • 4"2. 548. 195. 187. 257. 54. 85. 183. 454. 571. 522. 51.10. 336. 1978. 330. B 1 • 35. 80. 75. 47. 50. 21B. 405. 435. 41 ... 339. 209.
ALLISON CREEK
ESTIMATED STREAMFLOW -CFS
YEAR OCT i'OV DEC JAN FEB ~AR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SE? !.::~AGE -------____ we. ._---------.-. .. ---~.-._------------------. ----... --------... -----.... _------... ---..... _-191.18. 36. 35. 14. 7. 5. 3. 3. 59. 152. 11&. 9i. S3. 50. 19149. 52. 23. 7. 5. 3~ 1.1. ... 30. 111 • 103. 89. 13..1 • 14 7. 1950. 29. 28. 12. 5. ". 3. 2. 3u. 121.1. 91.1. 81:>. S!). ~2. 1951. I!). 7. 3. o. 1 • 2. 3. Pi. 88. 117. 60. 1."1 ... 45. 1952. 25. 2S. 7. 5. 1.1 • 3. 3. 15. 1211. 255. q9. 7 .... 53. 1953. 1 u 3. 44. 10. 0, U. 14, O. 7&. 104. 138. 117. ~~. bS. 1954. '10. 12. &. ". u. 3. u. 55. 121. 91.1. 120. 53. '10. 1955. 1.17. 25. LI. ". LI. 3. 3. 12. 108. 1711. 122. .3. II 1:>. 195b. 19. 9. O. 7. 1I. 3. 5. 31. 125. 171. lU9. 72. 50. 1'157. 17. -27. 13. 5. 3. 3. 3. lI'1. 121. 1011. q~. 17:.. 51. 1958. 5~ • 35. 9. B. ". 1I. 7. 89, 159. 261.1. 151.1. -1. e 7. 1959, 5.3. 11.1. 11. 5. u. 3. U. bb. 110. 150. 70, ...2. "0. 1900. U· 19. 10. 7. S. 3. 4 • 79. 130. 101. loa. 51. S .... ...
19b1. 29. 13. 21. 9, 5. 4. b. 93. 120. 121. 118. =-... 52.
");:a 19&2. H. 15. 8,. 7. u. 1.1. 5, u 1 • 110. 109. 7u. ~l. ~o. I 19b3. H. 22. 17. ? 10. 7. 11 • 07. 112. 151. 0'1. 5 ... 46. --' 19bU. .3:.1. 10. 19. 6. 6. Ii • S. 13. 131 • 157. 100. .. 7. us. .0:::-1905. 35. 22. IS. 5. 'I. 1I. 10. 47. 122. Qb. 9v. =17. ..~. 19b&. ij,;.,. 11 • 7. lI, 3. 3. 5. 31. 112. 95. 11 U. 127. 116. 19&7. u9. " 20. b. iI. 1I. 5. 9. 41.1. 128. 1111. 101. 131. 51. 19b8. 23. 28. 11.1. 5. 11. 9. O. 80. 110. 101. 71. 51. 113. 19('9; ---~2iJ.----I(j.---7~---1.1;--"i4 ~ 1. 10. 62; -129; -8~. 55. H. 3:'. 1970. bl. 23. lb. 8. 10. B. 11. 111. 122. 128. 128. 01. 52. 1971. 35. 19. 9. S. Q. 3. S. 20. 130. IB1. 113. 52. ;'8. 1972. 39. 11. 'I. 1I. 3. 2. 2. 111. 100. 1111. 103. 95. ..3. 1973. . II O. 12. 8. II. 3. 3. q. 1I8. 105. 102. 98. H. 3'1. 1911.1. 20. 9. b. U. 1. 3. 5. 4b. lOb. bB. 7t • 'n. 51>. 1975. o3~ 28 .• 11. 5. " Q. 3. 5. lIQ. 112. 1011. SO. lJb. 52. 1910. 30. B. S. 4. 1I. 3. 9. 1511. 2140. 135. 90. 122. boo 1977 • b::l. 55. 27. 12. lb. 4. 9. us. lZ8. 11.13. lOb. 9~. 5il.
, I : I I ,--: ! iii
, I
1360
z 1320 L __ _
o .......
I-ex: > w
....J
W
W
~
1280 _ _ "--: i _". --__.1 : -~ --_ _ i I -V r-------I -
:5 1240
I I I H;,todc El,:UOO.' 13~7.00 ft., _, iii i I -+--___ _
"1, I I r! I i
'" 4-
U
w
~ ex: :r: u
V1 .......
Cl
>-
<.!l
0:::
w z:
I i 'i" I ! 'I 'I I ':
1200 ~~--~--------__ --~~ __ ~--__ ----__ --~-+ __ ~I __ ~ __ +--4 __ ~ __ ~ __ ~~--~!'--~--~-r'--~'--~--~------~
,
! I! I ~ , I! i i ! I i
300 1---.: _____ .. _~--------:-_---------L------~ ____ ~----. --+ I J I i I: ':, ---i ---r ----r-t-----+-, -----~-T---' ---:::"-T----i--;-------
I ! ;
250 1-
200 I I
50
7000
i . I .
______ , -----i--------+---+----+----~----j.---
I
6000 ~---
, r
i
,
I
,
5000 .------~ .
I
_1+ _I+---.+--I-i--'---i
i I 'I' i ! i !
I : ! ' I i
----c._ ---1_ -t,-i ---------r-, ----'-----T----+----+
I
'-I
I i I I
: I ~ j
i
-1------ ----
,
r
' ,
I
I I +I __ ~---L--_+-~:-4-~~,-+~' ~-~--~--~-~--I-~-+-+--+--~l---~,!-,-
i[i ~,!:,-~Hi----~~+-~-~!.!/~r--~se~c-on~d~a-ry~E-n~er-g-y+-~-_~I _+_.-~~~-+_~--~--'--U,--
II! : V: ! I II
~ ~ I ; , t, , ' . r F; '" 'o"gy_
I! I ! , _ l ~ :
------1 -----'---
w 4000 1-_ --------j---i Iii·' : J .. ~' ii, \
3000 .. ~ h. b1 If " fL ,~ I~ " I, ,~ ~ .. ~ rL ~ ,-t'lf'11f-~/]r, .. +~--a+JJ.,+-I::,.lI'1+ ~ lr. ~ ~ lr. ~ r. ~ ~ \
I \ n rlJij! \ ~ i \ "1:, , :\:1 !\ '. ! ~ 'i \j \ I \ I \ \ ~:~! \1 \~ ~ 1(A
2000 ~~~-~c:';,d 'li '.l;,H!~C!~C!T;Cs~j\:;~;nn~HHliHnH: § :l§ i ~ ,q"~~H~HH;"nlnlHH~ ~r\ 1947 I 1948 1949 I 1950 1951 1952 I 1953 1954 1955 1956T1957 I 1958 I 1959 I 1960 I 1961 I 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 I 1968 I 1969 I 1970 I 1971 I 1972 I 1973 1974 I 1975 1976 11977
Interim Report
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILBELT
VALDEZ HYDROPOWER STUDY
Allison Lake -Reservoir Regulation
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
WCW July 1980
FIGURE A-I
APPENDIX B
EXISTING SYSTEM AND
FUTURE NEEDS
Item
INTRODUCTION
APPENDIX 13
EXISTING SYSTEM AND FUTURE NEEDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VALDEZ SYSTEM
GLENNALLEN SYSTEM
FUTURE NEEDS
EXCERPT FROM POWER REQUIREMENTS STUDY,
COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, MARCH 1979
Number
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
13-7
B-8
B-9
B-lO
LIST OF FIGURES
Tit 1e
Price Increases to CVEA
CVEA Utility Rates 1970~1979
Peak Energy Requirements, CVEA 1964-1979
Energy Demand Projections: Valdez-Copper Valley
Peak Power Demand Week, Oecember 1990
Average Power Demand Week, April 1990
Minimum Power Demand Week, July 1990
Peak Power Demand Week, December 1995
Average Power Demand Week, April 1995
Minimum Power Demand Week, July 1995
Page
B-1
B-1
B-2
B-8
B-19
B-3
B-4
B-7
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-18
IIHf{ODUCTION
This section is devoted to a detailed description of the region's present
utility system. Topics will include the community's current stock of
diesel-fired units, the cost of fuel and electricity generation, industrial
versus residential use, and the historical demand for power. Also included is
a brief examination of ongoing and probable additions to the system. Finally,
the recent projections of future power demand are reviewed. The selected
forecast is the basis for benefit derivation as shown in Appendix C -Economic
Evaluation.
VALDEZ SYSTEM
, The Valdez system came into existence following the March 27, 1964
earthquake which demolished the town. Studies following the quake determined
that the townsite should be abandoned. A new Valdez was built at a location
approximately 5 miles west of the original townsite.
The Valdez Light, Power and Telephone Company served the Valdez area prior
to the earthquake. The generating and distribution facilities of this company
were purchased by the Urban Renewal Agency which, in turn, sold the facilities
to Copper Valley Electric Association. The old facilities were obsolete, in
poor condition and were used only until new facilities were operable.
The Copper Valley Electric Association obtained a Certificate of
Convenience from the State of Alaska and a franchise from the new city of
Valdez to own and operate the electric system serving the new Valdez. The
Certificate of Convenience covers the general area and is not confined to the
limits of the new townsite.
The Valdez system presently serves approximately 1,153 consumers over about
21 miles of distribution lines. The system serves the new city of Valdez, the
old Valdez area and consumers from old Valdez to the airport area and 10 miles
east of old Valdez along t~e Richardson Highway.
The existing powerplant contains the following diesel and gas turbine units:
3 -600 kW, 720 rpm, Fairbanks Morse (1967) 1,800 kW
1 -1,928 kW, 400 rpm, Enterprise (1972) 1,928 kW
1 -965 kW, 360 rpm, Enterprise (1975) 965 kW
1 -2,620 kW, 450 rpm, Enterprise (1975) 2,620 kW
1 -2,800 kW, gas turbine (1976) 2,800 kW
Total Installed Capacity 10,113 kW
B-1
GLENNALLEN SYSTEM
The Glennallen system serves approximately 890 consumers over about 250
miles of distribution lines. The present system extends from about 70 miles
west of Glennallen along the Glenn Highway to about 39 miles north and 55
miles south of Glennallen along the Richardson Highway. The existing power-
plant contains the following diesel electric units:
2 -320 kW, 720 rpm Fairbanks Morse ( 1959) 640 kW
1 -560 kW, 720 rpm Fairbanks Morse ( 1963) 560 kW
2 -600 kW, 720 rpm Fairbanks Morse (1966) 1,200 kW
2 -2,624 kW, 450 rpm Enterprise (1975-76) 5,248 kW
Total Installed Capac ity 7,648 kW
The load factors of these two separate systems average 53.3 percent and
54.7 percent over the years 1970-1977 for Glennallen and Valdez, respectively.
The utility1s nearly absolute dependence on diesel fuel results in a close
correlation between the cost per kWh sold and the price of diesel. This
interrelationship is demonstrated in Table 1 which depicts both rates for the
1970 1s.
Table 1
Year Year end cost of fuel (per ga 1. ) Total Cost per kWh sold (busbar)
1974 .302 .0368
1975 .361 .0478
1976 .366 .0629
1977 .410 .0687
1978 .415 .0736
1979 .714 .0995
1980 (April) .814
Due to the continuing escalation of fuel costs, high maintenance and
operations costs, and the relatively short operational life of diesel driven
turbines, the community strongly desires to lessen its dependence on this
energy source.
To that end, the Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project is expected to add
12,000 kW of capacity to the system by 1981. That addition is expected to
hold the $/kWh cost of the total system to $.08677 in 1982 and below $.0900
throughout the 1980 1s. Copper Valley Electric Association also has prospects
for the construction of an oil pipeline pressure reducing turbine, as
described in the section concerning alternatives. In the future, the
Association intends to dispose of its small diesel generating units and retain
the larger diesel units for emergency standby. There are however, no near
term plans for acquiring additional gas or diesel turbines.
The following tabulation gives the installed generation capacity, peak
demand, and energy load for the Valdez district for the years 1973-1979.
8-2
FIGURE: B-1
PRICE INCREASES OF DIESEL FUEL TO CVEA *
*' WEIGHTED AVERAGE ACCORDING TO USE IN EACH SERVICE AREA
1.00
.90 -
-.80 _ en
a::
<l:
.....J
.....J
0
Q
.70 .-
.....J
W en
W
.60 -Q
LL
0
Z g
.....J .50
<l:
C>
a::
W
I' a. .40
~ en
0 u
.30
.20
.10
o 71
,
72 73 74 75 is
TIME (YEARS)
B-3
( 10/80 EST.)
77 78 7'9 80
120
110
FIGURE: B-2
CVEA UTILITY RATES 1970-1980
100
::r::
~
90 ~ ......
(J)
..J
::!
::I
80 -0:: co « I
~ m
(J)
70 :::::> m -t-
(J)
60 0 u
>-~
50 '" z
'"
3O~--~--p---~~--~--~--~--~--~--~~--~--~--~--~--~--~~~~--~. 1970 1971 1972 73 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Installed Generat.or Peak Energy for Load
Year Capacity (kW) Demand (kW) (kWh)
1973 3,719 1,280 6,469,830
1974 3,719 2,470 9,457,380
1975 7,304 4,750 18,250,705
1976 10,113 4,875 26,006, 160
1977 10,113 4,700 23,323, 183
1978 10,113 4,750 21,100,542
1979 10,113 4,225 21,415,721
For the Glennallen district, the historic trends of installed capacity,
peak demand, and energy for load are as follows:
Instalied Generator Peak Energy for Load
Year Capacity (kW) Demand (kW) (kWh)
1973 2,394 1,220 6,120,940
1974 2,394 1,340 6,166,760
1975 2,394 2,360 8,635,810
1976 7,642 3,500 13,280,530
1977 7,642 4,290 19,049,912
1978 7,642 4,000 17,232,102
1979 7,642 3,470 16,017,863
The per customer residential use of both service regions increased from
3,846 to 6,423 over the years 1970 to 1977. Per customer residential use was
5,735 in 1979. Industrial consumption has grown rapidly in recent years,
accounting for about 75 percent of total demand during the 19701s. The
current commercial-industrial share of CVEAls generation is 74 percent
(1979). The Alyeska Marine Terminal became electrically self-sufficient in
1977. The impending ALPETCO plant will likewise generate its own power
utilizing waste steam. .
The specific current power requirements of the community have been
classified by CVEA as rural residential, small commercial, large commercial,
and public buildings and street lights. An examination of each category
became the basis for a forecast by CVEA which was in turn adopted by APA and
ultimately by this study (with some modification). A detailed rationale for
the future needs of each of these categories is offered in the back of the
appendix.
B-5
The steady but uneven growth in CVEAls net utility generation is presented
in Table 2 and Figure 8-3.
Table 2
UTILITY NET GENERATION (GWH) 1/
GLENNALLEN-VALDEZ AREA
Upper Susitna Project Power Market Analysis (APA)
Year CVEA Growth %
1960 3.2
1961 3.4 6. 1
1962 4.0 17. 1
1963 4.5 12.2
1964 4.2 -6.5
1965 6.5 55.8
1966 8.0 22.4
1967 8.2 3.7
1968 8.6 5.9
1969 9.7 17 .8
1970 10.7 11.3
1971 11. 7 8.5
1972 11. 8 0.8
1973 12.6 6.2
1974 16.6 29.2
1975 26.9 58.2
1976 39.3 44.3
1977 47.4 20. 1
1978 43.8 -8.0
1979 41.6 -5.0
1/ Net generation does not include line losses and therefore exceeds total
consumption.
8-6
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000 -~
..-: -3000 a::
LLI
~
2000 0 a..
1000
FIGURE: B-3
PEAK ENERGY REQUIREMENTS, CVEA,
1964-1979
SYSTEM ANNUAL LOAD FACTOR
CONTINUOUS
DEMAND
ANNUAL LOAD
FACTOR % 1.0
0.8 _-_-Y'" 0.6
0.4
o 6~ 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
TIME . (YEARS)
FUTURE NEEDS
There have been three recent projections concerning electricity demand in
the Valdez-Glennallen service area. The earliest was produced by the Alaska
Power Administration and subsequently appeared in a March 1979 report entitled
Upper Susitna River Project Power Market Analysis. This report considers the
Copper Valley utility district for intertie with the proposed Susitna
hydrelectric project. The forecast provided by APA was made during a period
of unprecedented growth in the study area. Consequently it is the highest of
the three load forecasts, as will be illustrated. The second projection
(chronologically) appears in the Power Cost Study 1979-1993 prepared for CVEA
by Robert W. Retherford Associates, also in March of 1979. Contrary to the
APA forecast, this projection was formed during the post-pipeline wind-down
and reflects the reduced expectations of that period. Like the APA analysis,
it does not take into account the recently initiated ALPETCO refinery. The
third and most recent load forecast was also conducted by APA, and appears in
their marketability analysis provided for this report. The relative position
of APA's 1980 projection can be seen in the following comparative tables:
Table 3
VALDEZ-GLENNALLEN AREA UTILITY FORECASTS
Upper Susitna Project Power Market Analysis
Energy (gwh) Peak Demand
CVEA lL CVEA lL
Year Glenna1len Valdez Total Glennallen
1976 12.5 24.5 37.0 39.3 2/ 3. 1
1977 21.0 27.0 48.0 47.4 2/ 4.2
1978 22. 1 27.2 49.3 43.8 2/ 4.4
1979 24.0 27.6 51.6 41.6 ]j 4.6
1980 45.9 27.9 73.8 7.3
1981 48.5 30.5 79.0 7.7
1982 50.0 33.0 83.0 8. 1
1983 52.2 35.5 87.7 8.5
1984 55.0 38.2 93.2 9.0
1985 57.6 41.4 99.0 9.5
1986 60.0 45.0 105.0 10. 1
1987 63. 1 48.5 111. 6 10.6
1988 66.0 52.5 118.5 11. 1
1989 69. 1 56.8 125.9 11.7
1990 72.3 61.4 133.7 12.4
1991 75.0 66.4 141.4 13.0
1995 180
2000 240
2025 1,025
1/ Copper Valley Electric Association Forecast from 1976 REA Power
Requirements Study.
2/ Historical values
B-8
(MW)
Valdez
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
6.3
6.8
7.4
8.0
8.6
9.3
10. 1
10.9
11.8
12.8
13.8
Table 4
VALDEZ-GLENNALLEN AREA UTILITY FORECASTS
Retherford Associates
Energy (,Wh) Peak Demand {MW~ Year Glennallen Va dez Total Glennallen Va"dez
1980 21.4 26.5 47.9 4.4 5.4
1981 22.0 28. 1 50. 1 4.7 5.7
1982 22.5 30.0 52.5 4.9 6. 1
1983 23. 1 31.9 55.0 5.2 6.5
1984 24.6 33.7 58.3 5.5 6.9
1985 26.3 35.5 61.8 5.8 7.3
1986 28.0 37.6 65.6 6.2 7.7
1987 29.8 39.8 69.6 6.6 8. 1
1988 31.8 42.0 73.8 6.9 8.6
1989 33.9 44.4 78.3 7.3 9. 1
1990 36. 1 47.0 83. 1 7.8 9.6
1995 111.2
2000 148.8
2025 638.6
8-9
Table 5
VALDEZ-GLENNALLEN AREA UTILITY FORECASTS
1980 Marketability Analysis
Energy (gwh) Peak Demand (MW)
Historical
1976
1977
1978
1979
Forecast
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
2000 3/
2025 !/
Glennallen Valdez
13.3
21.4
20.4
18.5
21.4
22.0
22.5
26.0
27.7
29.5
31.4
33.5
35.7
38. 1
40.6
43.3
46. 1
49.2
70.0
293.4
26.0
26. 1
23.4
23.0
26.5
30.0 ~/
33.0 '!:../
35.0 2/
34.0 ~/
35.6
37.6
39.8
42.0
44.4
46.9
49.6
52.4
55.4
80.0
335.3
Total
39.3
47.5
43.8
41.6
47.9
52.0
55.5
61.0
61.7
65. 1
69. 1
73.3
77 .8
82.5
87.5
92.9
98.6
104.6
150.0
628.7
Glennallen Valdez
3.5
4.3
4.0
3.5
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.2
5.5
5.8
6.2
6.6
6.9
7.4
7.8
8.2
8.7
9.2
14.0
56.7
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.2
5.4
6. 1 '!:../
6.7 ]j
7. 1 '!:../
7.0 '!:../
7.3
7.7
8. 1
8.6
9. 1
9.6
10.2
10.8
11.4
16.0
67. 1
1/ Copper Valley Electric Association Forecast from January 1980 Power Cost
"S"tudy.
~/ Additions for ALPETCO facility have been included.
3/ APA extrapolation.
4/ Corps of Engineers extrapolation based on APA growth rate.
8-10
As footnoted, the Alaska Power Administration adopted future power
demand estimates front CVEA's 1976 power requirements study. The study
included estimates of demands through 1991; APA made a rough extension to
the year 2000, assuming a 6 percent rate of increase.
Also footnoted is the actual performance of the utility from the
beginning year of the APA forecast to 1979. This projection was fairly
accurate for 1976 and 1977 but diverged considerably in the years 1978
and 1979. These later years represent a lull between the wind-down from
the pipeline activity and the initiation of the ALPETCO refinery. The
Retherford Associates projection is too recent to test against historical
data, however, a corresponding forecast made by Retherford in 1976 per-
formed inversely to that of APA, with the greater inaccuracies appearing
in the earlier years. Although the current Retherford projection will
probably out-perform the earlier APA forecast, it is ill-suited for the
expected high activity years of the early 1980's. The load forecast
which is considered to be most accurate and was adopted for this study is
APA's 1980 estimate. Much too recent to test against historical data,
this projection represents the best compromise between the other two, and
incorporates the most current information available. This extrapolation
is essentially a variation of Retherford with the earlier year adjusted
to account for ALPETCO construction and subsequent maintenance, and a
later period of reduced growth rates in the face of energy conservation.
A graphic comparison of the various forecasts is shown on Figure B-4.
Annual load factors are expected to remain in the 50 percent range.
The incentive for the Valdez-Copper Valley community to avoid diesel
generation is better understood in view of the fact that 1981 costs for
the system are expected to reach 114 mills per kWh. New hydro construc-
tion, with its high capital investment, does not appear resoundingly
preferred to diesel at this time. However, developments since 1973,
including the abrupt price adjustments of 1979, cast considerable doubt
on the standard analysis based on fixed relative costs.
Figures B-S through B-10 on the following pages portray how the
system would look for the minimum, average, and peak weeks in 1990 and
1995 with the addition of the PRT and Allison hydropower. The load
shapes are based on actual data for the combined systems of Glennallen
and Valdez.
The various shaded areas on the graphs represent the amount of firm
energy available during the respective weeks. It does not represent the
actual ,mode in which it will operate. For example, Figure B-5 shows
Allison hydro operating in a base mode with a continuous output of about
4 megawatts. In reality, it may be used primarily for peaking.
With the proper interfacing of the PRT with the Solomon and Allison
hydroelectric projects, it may be possible to increase the winter output
from the hydropower projects. This could be accomplished by increased
utilization of the PRT during periods of less demand. However, this was
not taken into account for the graphic representations.
B-11
200.0
co
I
~
r'0
100.0
>-(!) a:
UJ z
UJ
FIGURE: 8-4
ENERGY DEMAND PROJECTIONS: VALDEZ -COPPER VALLEY
REVISED APA
PROJECTION
.890 I.e
R.W. RETHERFORD
PROJECTION
2000
CD
I
20
15
10
.: ...
:.
T. .' !', ~. '., . ~~ ..
5
SUN WED
F'1GlR£ ~ PEAK POWER DEMA~ WEEK, GLENNALLEN -\tllEZ,
.: ~.'
. ,: ~.' .
/"
THU SAT
DEC. t9IO. BASED ON "79 LOAD SHAPES.
flGU. a-. AYllAOI POWel DeMAND Will, GlINMALllN-VAI.8IZ, ANN. 1990. IASlD ON 1979 LOAD SHAHS.
--------------------------
SOLOMON HY I.IICU'-__
'lOUIE 1-7 MlNtMUM 'oweR DlMANO Will, OlINHAU.1N -VALDII. JULY 1990. lAUD ON LOAD SHAHS fROM 197 •.
25
20
1
WID
'JGUII I-a NA« POWIt DEMAND Will, OlfNNAlLIN· VALOIZ, Dlel .... ''". 1ASi0 ON 19'9 LOAD SHl\m.
, .. ,·.AYI.AG! fOWl. DlMANO WHit, GLENNAllEN. YAlDlZ, APlIL 1'"'. "'10 ON 1'" LOAD SMAPlI .
•
10
MUll 1-10 MINIMUM POW.I DeMAND Wltl, _"""ALLIN. YAlDlZ, JUlY'"', lASED ON LOAD IIWtIS NOM "'9,
The following is an excerpt from the Power Requirements Study, Alaska
18 Copper Valley, Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc., Glennallen,
Alaska, March 1979.
VALDEZ
Rural Residential
Included in this consumer classification are single and multi-family
dwelling units, and approximately six trailer courts. The number of
rural residential consumers in Valdez declined substantially during 1977
and moderately during 1978. A further moderate decline may occur in
1979. However, this trend is expected to stabilize and gradually reverse
itself. According to information from Mr. Cal Dauel, State Economist,
and other available information it appears that most individuals who
could be expected to leave the Valdez area due to completion of the
pipeline facilities, have in fact left. In estimating future growth of
residential consumers, it was assumed that the average number of
consumers in 1979 and 1980 would remain at approximately the 1978 level.
After 1980, additional growth would occur due to increased activity in
shipping and oil transportation. A gradual increase in the number of
consumers is also expected as the Fluor Staff Housing Units are
transferred to private ownership -28 were transferred in 1978 and 118
a~e projected in 1979-1980. Average usage is also expected to reverse
its downward trend as the possibility of continued mild winter conditions
appears remote.
Small Commercial
The historical data indicates a significant increase in the number of
consumers and average monthly usage during the period 1973 through 1977.
This is attributed to a deficiency of small commercial establishments
prior to pipeline construction. Since completion of the pipeline and
related terminal facilities, this class of consumer has not shown a
signifjcant decrease although kWh usage has dropped. There are several
reasons for the decreased consumption, including above average winter
temperature in 1976 and 1977 and fewer hours of operation during the day
for small commercial establishments such as restaurants, fast food
outlets, etc.
It was assumed that a deficiency of small commercial establishments
existed prior to the pipeline activity and the services which were
provided during the construction era will remain and continue to grow at
a rate at least comparable to that of prepipeline activity.
Public Buildings
This class of consumer consists of schools, churches, and government
buildings. There has been a gradual increase in the number of consumers
since 1969 although there were years of static growth. Public building
consumers and average usage was projected to increase as consumer demands
for more and better services, comparable to those normally found in
8-19
Power Requirement Study (excerpt)
Anchorage and other larger cities, also increases. Information from
Alaska Labor Force Estimates also indicates an increase in the government
workforce in the area.
Street Lights
Normal usage for street lights was assumed to remain at present
levels. Three additional street light installations are expected within
the next 10 years as normal expansion of the community occurs.
Large Commercial
The average annual kWh for this class has been estimated to show a
moderate increase. Consumers have shown a slow but gradual increase the
past 10 years. Consumers have increased from 22 in 1974 to the present
33 in 1978. Consumers were projected to increase during the future
10-year period at approximately one-half the rate previously experienced.
Over 350 kVA
The system presently serves 4 loads in excess of 350 kVA, namely:
1. Valdez Memorial Hospital
2. Valdez City Schools
3. Fluor Staff Housing
4. Farm and Sea of Alaska
The Fluor Staff Housing load consists of a housing development which
is presently being reclassified to residential. 54 units have been
completely removed from the area, 28 have already been reclassified in
1978 and the remaining 118 units are scheduled to be transferred during
1979 and 1980. Therefore, this load has been phased out of operation
after 1980.
Farm and Sea of Alaska is a new load which was connected February 2,
1979. No historical data is available for this load. Estimates have
been prepared based on information supplied by the consumer.
A potential load which exists, but has not been'considered in the
estimates, is the expansion of the Valdez City Dock. The bond issue for
the port facilities is sCheduled to go before the voters April 10, 1979
and, if approved, construction would begin in early 1980. Completion of
the dock facilities would be expected in 1981.
8-20
Power Requirement Study (excerpt)
GLENNALLEN
Rural Residential
Rural residential consumers in the Glennallen area consist primarily
of single family units. Significant consumer growth was experienced in
this class of consumer during the 1974 to 1976 period due to construction
activity related to the A1yeska Pipeline construction. Beginning in 1977
and 1978, growth continued in the number of rural residential consumers
but at a much slower rate than experienced during pipeline construction.
This was due to a return to an economy more normal to the area. The
number of consumers has not experienced a decline subsequent to the
completion of the pipeline. It is expected that any consumers which
would have departed the area have already done so. Many of the transient
workers (workers from outside the State of Alaska not bringing their
families during pipeline construction) were housed in the Glennallen Camp
(large power load) and would not appear in rural residential statistics.
In projecting future growth in this class, it is expected that a
preconstruct ion (1968-1974) growth rate will be followed. There is
enough economic activity in the Glennallen area to assume this type of
growth. It is expected that the usage will, after several years of
decline, begin a steady upward climb due to a return to more normal
temperatures for this area. The Glennallen area experienced rather warm
weather in 1976-1978. Another item which may affect residential usage is
the possibility of installation of electric hot-water heaters as the cost
of propane gas increases.
Small Commercial
The small commercial class consists of primarily small businesses
which provide specific services to the area residents such as food,
hardware, lumber, etc. The growth of small commercial consumers has seen
a rather consistent pattern since 1968 with the exception of a sharp
increase during 1976 and 1977. From all available information, it
appears that the Glennallen area will not suffer an economic letdown now
that the pipeline is completed and growth of small commercial consumers
will continue. Although average monthly usage has shown a leveling trend
since 1975, this is expected to increase as more severe winter weather
conditi~ns are anticipated and as the growth rate returns to a more
consistent level.
Street Lights
It was basically assumed that the number of street lights would
double over a lO-year period as normal growth occurred within the area.
The average usage per installation is expected to remain at approximately
the same number of hours each year.
B-21
Power Requirements Study (excerpt)
Public Buildings
This particular class of consumer consists of government offices, schools,
churches, and other community type organizations. Since 1973 there has been a
steady growth in the number of consumers. Continued growth is expected but at
a slower rate experienced during prepipeline construction era. Average
monthly consumption was projected on the basis that some consolidation would
occur within this class and larger facilities being constructed in the future
which could accommodate more than one type of activity.
Large Commercial
The average annual kWh usage for this class has been estimated to show a
moderate increase during the study period. Consumers ranged from 24 in 1974,
39 in 1976 and 19 in 1978. The erratic growth is largely attributed to
pipeline activity and the subsequent completion of this project. In view of
this, growth is expected to normalize and increase moderately to 21 consumers
in 1983 and 24 in 1988. Both consumer and energy requirements were estimated
on a group basis.
Over 350 kVA
The system is presently serving 4 loads in excess of 350 kVA, namely:
1. Alyeska Mechanical Refrigeration No.
2. Alyeska Mechanical Refrigeration No. 2
3. Alyeska Housing @ P.S. 12
4. Alyeska Pipeline Pump Station No. 12
The Alyeska Pipeline Glennallen Camp has been completely phased out of
operation. Alyeska Pipeline Pump Station No. 11 is expected to come on line
beginning 1983 as capacity in the pipeline is increased from the present 1.2
million barrels a day to 1.6 million barrels a day. It is felt that
increasing the capacity in the line must occur as the demand for oil in the
Continental United States continues to increase or as oil exchange agreements
between foreign countries are eventually finalized. Therefore usage is
expected to be approximately equal to that of Pump Station No. 12.
The refrigeration loads are necessary to freeze underground sections of
pipe to prevent melting of permafrost areas. These loads were projected on
the basis of existing usage.
The pump station loads include all power to the station except for the
actual pumping load. The pumps are run by customer self-generation.
B-22
APPENDIX C
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Item
APPElmIX C
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ItHRODUCTIOtJ
PROJECT COSTS
Interest During Construction
Annual Costs
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Costs
Total Average Annual System Costs
PROJECT BENEFITS
Updating of FERC Power Values
Transmission Losses
Credit for Energy and Capacity
NED Employment Benefits
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED PLAN
Comparability Test
Sensi ti vi ty Tests
Low-load Growth Assumption
Alternate Discount Rate
Fuel Cost Escalation
Without Pressure Reducing Turbine
Matrix Table of Multiple Conditions
HYDROPOWER BENEFIT COMPUTER PRINT OUT
i
Page
C-l
C-l
C-2
C-7
C-ll
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to outline the basic assumptions used
in making the economic analysis for hYdro development in the Valdez-
Copper Valley area. Evaluation is based exclusively on economic benefits
that can be derived from hydropower development. Evaluation of the
Allison Lake development was accomplished by comparing the benefits to
accompanying costs. The benefit value of hYdroelectric power is measured
by the cost of providing the equivalent power from the most likely
alternative source (diesel).
The base condition of the selected plan calls for the installment of
the PRT by 1984. The proposed Allison hydro project would then augment
the system with a power-on-line date of 1990. These projected
installment dates are derived from the community's future power needs, as
posited by the Alaska PO\ter Administration's load growth forecast. The
All i son hYdro component of the sel ected pl an is the subject of a margi nal
analysis in the latter half of this appendix.
PROJECT COSTS
A detailed cost estimate of the selected project is contained in
Section D of the appendix.
Interest During Construction:
For the purpose of the screening analysis, interest during
construction was based on the formula of simple interest (7-3/8 percent)
applied to a uniform expenditure over the construction period.
Annual Costs:
The compound interest charge on costs incurred during the construction
period of any project is considered a logical cost of the construction
phase and is added to first cost to establish the investment cost. This
investment cost can then be transformed into an average annual fixed cost
by applying the appropriate capital recovery factor associated with the
7-3/8 percent interest rate and 100-year economic project life. By
adding operations, maintenance, and replacement costs, a total annual
cost is establ i shed for the purpose of determi ni ng comparabil ity and
feelsi bil i ty.
Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs (OM&R):
Annual or~&R costs were provided by the Al aska Power Admi ni strati on
(APA) and a more detailed discussion appears in the section on assessment
and evaluation of detailed plans. An OM&R cost of $200,000 has been
established for the Allison Lake project.
C-l
Total Average Annual System Costs:
The average annual costs for the various plans of development are
based on a 7-3/8 percent annual interest rate and a 100-year economic
life. These costs also reflect transmission facilities, access, land
acquisition, replacement costs, annual operation and maintenance, and
other associated project costs.
PROJECT BE~EFITS
The benefit value of hydroelectric power is measured by the cost of
providing the equivalent power from the most likely alternative source.
The types of alternative power sources appropriate for the Valdez-Copper
Valley area and the annual unit costs for those alternatives have been
detennined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and updated for
current fuel costs by this organization. For derivation of benefits the
energy and capacity-producing capabilities of these projects will be
adjusted to account for transmission losses and marketability
considerations.
Updating of FERC Power Values:
Escalating prices of petroleum products have made it necessary to
include the effects of recent increases on project feasibility. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provided the Corps of Engineers with
energy and capacity values for the most likely alternative (diesel) to be
implemented if hydropower were not developed (see 1 February 1980 letter,
Appendix H). These values were based on 1 July 1979 fuel prices of 58.8
and 57.1 cents per gallon at Glennallen and Valdez respectively. As of
September 1980 these prices had increased to nearly 90 cents per gallon.
In order to account for these increases and to bring them up to date
with the Ocotber 1980 cost estimate for hydropower development, certain
adjustments were made.
The values given for capacity were assumed to remain the same, the
majority of these costs are fixed, with fuel cost escalation having
little effect. For the economic analysis the capacity values (Federal
financing) of 93.86$/kW-yr and 97. 52$/kW-yr for Valdez and Glennallen
were ~i ghted accordi ng to energy use in the respecti ve porti ons of the
study area. A weighted value of 95.43$/kW-yr has been used.
The energy values provided by FERC include the cost of fuel and
operation and maintenance costs. Based on heat rates of 138,000
BTU/gallon and 9,370 BTU/kWh the proposed diesel units would produce
14.73 kWh/gallon. By subtracting the weighted cost of fuel from the
weighted energy value, a weighted value for O&M of 5.82 mills/kWh was
determined. This value was assumed to remain constant.
To determine the updated energy values the projected cost of diesel
fuel (90.0i/gallon / 14.73 kWh/gallon = 6.11¢/kWh or 61.10 mills/kWh) was
added to the O&M cost (5.82 mi 11 s/kWh) to arri ve at an updated energy
C-2
value of 66.92 mills/kWh. This figure was the basic mill rate used for
economi c eval uati ons throughout the report. Its primary shortcomi ng is
that it does not take into account any inflationary changes in the
capacity values or the O&M of the energy value which would put it on par
with the hydropower cost estimate. As a result these figures are seen to
be conservative.
Transmission Losses:
Benefits must be based on prime power which represents project
capabilities less losses. The highly favorable location of the Allison
Lake project necessitates only 3.5 miles of additional transmission
line. Thus, for benefit evaluation purposes capacity losses are assumed
to be 2.0 percent. Whil e there "Ii 11 be addi ti onal losses through the
transmission network, this would be absorbed by the local utility and
reflected in their rates to users. This practice is consistent with the
(modified) power values provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. For purposes of the final screening analysis, a 2 percent
capacity loss ,,,as applied to each project variation.
Credit for Energy and Capacity:
Opportunities exist for displacing energy which could theoretically be
produced by exi sti ng thermal pl ants. If the cost of hydro energy is
cheaper than the cost of producing energy with the existing thermal
plants, it is to the utilities· advantage to shut down the thermal plants
and purchase hydro energy. This I'lould conserve fossil fuel, which would
otherwise be burned. The value of thennal energy that would be displaced
is dependent on prevailing fuel costs. For the Valdez-Copper Valley
region it is apparent that maximum possible displacement of thermal
energy is desirable. Although CVEA is expected to fully employ all hydro
capacity at the earliest opportunity, the capacity costs of displaced
existing diesel units cannot be claimed as a benefit. Thus the proposed
project is not given any credit for capacity until 1994. Capacity credit
is thereafter IIstepped in ll according to a diesel retirement schedule
provided by the Alaska Power Administration.
As illustrated in Figure C-l, the communities projected pOI'ler demand
over the year 1997 will exceed the total firm energy output of Solomon
Gulch, the PRT and Allison for nearly every interval in that period. By
the follOl'ling year, the power demand exceeds the system·s firm energy
output at every poi nt. The proposed project is therefore gi ven full
credit for firm energy as it is absorbed into the system.
Figure C-2 is similar to the previous figure except that it includes
secondary energy and is adjusted to reflect conditions in the year 2000.
r~ote -the absence of the PRT (caused by the exhausti on of the
Prudhoe Bay field).
C-3
15
10
5
o
FIGURE C-I: PRT, SOLOMON GULCH, AND
ALLISON LAKE FIRM ENERGY
PROJECTED ENERGY
DEMAND FOR THE
YEAR 1997.
J F M A M J J A SON 0
15
10
"
5
o
FIGURE C-2: SOLOMON GULCH ALLISON LAKE
APA REVISED PROJECTION
ALLISON LAKE
SECONDARY------
ENERGY
PROJECTED ENERGY
DEMAND FOR
THE YEAR 2000
J F M A M J J A SON D
(-5
As can be seen from Figure A-l, Appendix A, the availability of
secondary energy from Allison is very erratic, and secondary energy is a
small proportion of firm energy. Early in the project life, little of
the All ison secondary energy would be usuable because loads would be
lm'/er and secondary energy \'Iould also be available from Solomon Gulch.
Consequently, no secondary energy benefits are claimed before year 2000.
After year 2000, however, it is estimated that an equivalent annual
average of 65 percent of Allison secondary energy will be usable for
displacing diesel generation, considering load growth and monthly
distr'ibution of loads, and the availability of energy from Solomon Gulch.
tJED Employment Benefits:
Project benefits for employment are claimed to show the impact of
project construction on a local economy. A cornmunity is declared
eligible based on a condition of persistant and continuous unemployment,
for which Valdez qualifies. Project labor requirements for skilled and
ullski 11 ed \'Iorkers can be partly filet by the unemployed workers of the
area. The amount earned by thi s group is amorti zed over the project 1 ife
and claimed as a project benefit, because there is no economic cost
entailed in the use of otherwise unemployment resources.
Data from and evaluation of the Public Works Impact Program (PWIP)
indicates that 30 percent of the wages paid to skilled labor and 45
percent of wages paid to unskilled labor can be expected to flow to
previously unemployed or underemployed \'/orkers, based on records from
other large public works projects. These are broad, general averages.
Labor market conditions in Alaska tend to be different from those in the
rest of tile country. There are adequate numbers of unemployed workers in
the affected eligible labor areas (3,500 unemployed out of a labor force
of 30,000 in the Valdez and Fairbanks area) to supply project needs.
Rather large proportions of the project construction jobs can be expected
to be filled by immigrants, based on previous experience. The
percentages from PWIP evaluations were consequently reduced by 36 and 75
percent for skilled and unskilled labor, respectively, based on recent
experience with other multimillion dollar construction projects. This
approach provi des what may be a conservati ve estimate of ~JED employment
benefits, but the magnitude of the benefits does not warrant the
e~tensive labor market analysis which would be required to refine these
percentages further.
To estimate rJED employment benefits, it is also necessary to determine
what proportion of construction costs would flow to skilled and unskilled
\'Jorkers. Based on experience with other project, 42 percent of
construction costs can be expected to accrue as \'lages. Of these wage
payment, a 60/40 split beb/een skilled and unskilled workers is
expected. Computation of r~ED employment benefits is detailed below.
Employment Benefits Computation
Project Construction Cost (less E&D S&A IDC) =
Labor Costs (42%) =
C-6
$29,407,000
$12.351.000
Er.Jployment Benefits Computation (cont)
Skilled Unsld 11 ed
Labor Cost (60%)
Unemployed (.30x.36)
$7,411,000
800,000
Labor Cost (40%) $4,940,000
Unemployed (.45'x. 75) 1,667,000
Total Payment to Under or Unemployed 784,000 + 1,679,000
Annual Benefit 2,538,000 x .0738
Fuel Cost Escalation:
$2,467,000
182,000
Olle of the most practical features of a hydroel ectric pl ant is its
contribution to fossil fuel conservation. The real price of petroleum
has increased dramatically in recent years and will continue this trend
to the forseeable future. Real increases in diesel fuel costs create
corresponding real increases in the value of diesel generation displaced
by the hydro p1 ant.
For purposes of this report, diesel fuel price forecasts developed by
the U.S. Department of Energy have been used. Real diesel fuel price
escalation rates for Region 10 (Alaska) are estimated as follows: from
1980-84, 3.1% from 1985-1990, 2.2% and 4% for the next 20 years. The
values for energy received from the Federal Energy Regulation Corronission
(FERC) have been adjusted to the power-on-line date (1990) to establish a
starting value. Energy values are then escalated by 4 percent for the
next 20 years and held constant for the remaining project life. The
values are applied to each future year and are discounted to 1990 at the
current project interest rate and expressed as an average annual benefit
value. The tables showing power benefits at the end of this appendix
give the details of yearly fuel price escalation for each condition
considered in the report.
ECO~OMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED PLAN
The selected plan has net benefits of $1,751,000 annually when the
pressure reducing turbine is treated as part of the without project
conditi on. Project economics are summari zed below.
Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Average Annual Costs ($1,000)
Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Sensitivity Tests:
4,985
3,234
1 , 751
1. 54
Several tests of economic justification wey'e made for the selected plan to
demonstrate the effect of departures from the assumptions that underlie the
analysis. Each of the tests was conducted under the criteria outlined earlier
in this section, but with the specific changes noted below.
C-7
Fuel Cost Escalation:
For the base case, the assumptions concerning fuel costs have been
outlined. Should the prOV1Slons for fuel cost escalation prove too modest,
the proposed project would yield greater benefits that anticipated.
Conversely, if fuel costs do not increase in real terms, the projected
benefits of Allison are reduced. This sensitivity test examines the effects
of reduced fuel cost escalation and no fuel cost escalation. Assuming that
CVEAls current diesel costs remain unchanged throughout the project life the
resulting costs and benefits are as follows:
Average Annual Cost ($1,000)
Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
3,234
2,812
-422
.87
In the absence of fuel cost escalation project benefits are substantially
reduced with a BC rati 0 fall i ng belo\,1 uni ty. When fuel costs are escalated
until the pO''Ier-on-line date and held level thereafter, the feasibility of the
project improves as shown bel 0\'1:
Average Annual Costs (1,000)
Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Without Pressure Reducing Turbine:
3,358
3,234
124
1. 04
Although the selected plan anticipates the presence of the PRT, this is not
necessarily a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, the projected output of the
PRT has recently been subject to downward adjustments as a result of more
modest expectati ons concerni ng the rate of oil flow. Thi s uncertai nty coupled
with the unusual nature and performance of the PRT makes its possible absence
an appropriate subject for a test of sensitivity. The impact on power
benefits of this possibility is shown in the summary which follO\~s:
Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Average Annual Costs ($1,000)
~et Annual Benefts ($1,000)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
5,813
3,234
2,579
1.80
The preceeding table shows a significant increase in project benefits. The
effect of the without PRT condition, combined with varing fuel cost escalation
rates, is summarized in the matrix table of end of this text.
Low-load Growth Assumption:
The economic analysis has been based 011 the Alaska Power Administrationls
revised load growth projection. Based on present knowledge, this is
considered the most reasonable estimate of future conditions. An economic
downturn and lower growth in power demand are \'tithin the realm of possibility
and woul d affect pm'ler benefits of the proj ect. Lesser demand coul d mean a
delayed power-an-line date, or a longer period of underutilization. With the
10\ler load growth a ssumpti on proposed by Retherford and Associ ates pri or to
ALPETCO, an additional 2 years would be required before the projectls firm
C-8
energy would be fully utilized. As a result the annual power benefits are
reduced by approximately 9 percent to $4,534,000. A summary of the resulting
economic justification for the low case is as follows:
Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Average Annual Costs (1,000)
Net Annual Benefits $1,000)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
4,534
3,234
1,300
1.40
The above sllmnary is based on the power-on-1ine date of the selected plan
(1990). A delayed power-on-1ine date of 1995 under the low growth assumption
reduces the problem of underuti1ization. Nevertheless, 2 years must elapse
before the project is fully absorbed. Resulting benefits and costs have been
brought back to a 1990 base for the purpose of comparison.
Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Average Annual Costs ($1,000)
Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
4,334
2,266
2,068
1. 91
The effects of various fuel cost escalation rates on the low load growth
scenario and the 1990 power-on-1ine date are shown at the end of this text.
Impact of Solomon Gu1ch 's Secondary Energy:
As previously stated, benefits for the selected plan were estimated under
the assumption that the availability of secondary energy from Solomon Gulch
would not reduce the usability of Allison Lake's firm energy. In reality,
Solomon Gu1ch 's secondary energy \'lou1d probably render some of Allison's finn
energy surplus for short intervals during high flow years early in the project
life. Due to the lack of data on Solomon Gu1ch 's secondary energy output and
due to the limited significance of the potential effect, the SUbstantial
analysis effort required to quantify the effect was judged to be unwarranted
for a small hydro project. To test the sensitivity of the analysis to this
simp 1 ifyi ng assumpti on, however, benefi ts \~ere reestimated based on the
assumption that all of the Solomon Gulch secondary energy would displace
Al1ison 's firm energy. This is clearly an extreme test, but it provides an
upper-based estimate of the significance of this assumption. As shown,
benefits are reduced to $1,717,000 under this extreme test, a reduction of 5
percent. Ttli s confi rms that no si gnifi cant change in study fi ndi ngs wou1 d
occur by quantifyi ng the di sp1 acement of All i son Lake IS fi rm energy by Solomon
Gul::h I s secondary.
Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Average Annual Costs ($1,000)
Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Alternate Discount Rate:
4,717
3,234
1,483
1.46
Interest rates for evaluation of civil works projects are annually
established by law for use by all Federal water resource agencies. The
current applicable rate is 7-3/8 percent, but some higher rate is likely for
C-9
ensuing years. To test the sensitivity of project economics to changes in the
discount rate, the analysis was reevaluated at a rate of 8 percent. The
higher figure was used in the discounting of both benefits and costs, although
the power values in this alternative analysis are still based on the official
rate of 7-3/8 percent. The results of this sensitivity test are presented
below:
Average Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Average Annual Costs ($1,000)
Net Annual Benefits ($1,000)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
C-10
4,867
3,234
1,633
1. 50
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF HYDROPONER MODE~
ALASKA DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF ENGI~EERS
____ . ~ _____ AL~ISON HYDRO: n/PRTI REvISED APA; Nt ... FUEL ESC, 8Mr.
PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT MARKETABLE FIRM PRES. NORTH MAR~ET. VALut Of PRESENT
______ YlOR TH MAR!<J; T AB\, E_'{~l. UE:._DE-._riORltLOt_ fIRM __ "!) L l S/K I'Ib __ E NE fiG ~ ___ E NE R G Y S ~ C O'JD AR L S[ C. ___ NDR T H. TOT AI.
----yEAR FACTOR CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY ENERGY H'C.O&M BENEFITS BEI,EFITS Er.ERGY BEr,ER~y SEC. ENERGY 8LNEFITS
._ .. _----
(MW) (~IOOO) (SIOOO) (GNH) ($1000) (~IOOO) (GwH) (11000) (11000) (!1000)
I '1'10 1 ,00 a Q _____ ~ 0 • Q 0 , 0_ 0, Q ___ 7 , 0 B 4 , 4 /j 4 'I 5 'II ,4 5 'II , tj U , 0 0 • 0 0 , 0 5 'II , ~
1'1'11 0.'1313 0,0 0.0 0.0 11.7 87.6315 1025.3 '1,4.'1 0.0 0.0 0.0 '1'~.'1
____ 0'12 ___ 0_!.f\~J3 O.L0 9-L.9 ____ ~9. 9 ____ ) 6.5 __ '1Q. '1Q ~ Q __ L4 9'1. '1 ___ 13 Q 1. O_~__ _ 0,0 _ Q. L_ __ Q. Q _ 1301. 0
1'1'13 0.8078 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 '14.3074 2037.0 1645.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1645.,
_1'1'1Il ____ Q.752:5~ ___ 3,~ ___ 314,9 _____ Z36.'1 27.11 '17.6~6'1 21161.0 2016.'1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22,3.8
1'1'15 0.700b 4.6 1l39.0 307.6 32.2 101.527'1 326'1.2 22'10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2SQ6.0
1'1'16 ______ 0,6525 ~ __ 5,8 ___ 553,5361.2 32.2 105.3563 3392.5 2213.6 0,0 0.0 0.0 2,74.7
1'1'17 0.6077 7.1 677.6 411.7 32.2 10'1.3377 3520.7 213'1.5 0,0 0.0 0.0 25,1.2
I'I'IB 0.565'1 7.6 7~tj .. .£l._~ __ 42!.3 ___ J2,L_113,4184 __ 3b54,O ___ ?06~.g___ 0,0 _____ 9.0_0.0 __ ~2tj~9.2
-----If;'1 '1--~5 271 7 • 6 744 • Ll 392 • 3 32 • 2 1 I 7 • 7 8 4 7 3792 • 7 1 '1'1'1 • 0 0 • 0 0 • CO. 0 23 'II • 3
2000 0.4'10'1 7.6 744.Ll 305,4 32,2 122,2633 _ 3'136,'1 1'132,5 3,2 3'11,2 1'12.1 2489.'1
n 2001 0;Ll572 7~8 71l4.4 340.3 32.2 126.'1211 4066.'1 1868.3 3.2 40e.1 185.7 23'14.3
I 2002 0.4258 7.8 744.4 316.'1 32.2 131,7651 4242.8 1806,Il 3.2 421.6 17'1.5 2302.'1
::: 2003 0.3'165 -7~8 744.4 295.1 32.2 13b.802'1 4405.1 174b.7 3.2 ~37.8 173.6 2215.~
__ ----;2004 0.36'13 7.8 741l,Ll 274.'1 32.2142.0422 4573.8 Ib89.0 ~3.?~ __ ~S4.~ ____ !Q.7.'1_Xl~!L7
2005---6-:-343'1 7:S---i4~--2-56--:-6---32-: 2-1-4 7 ~4q i 1--474~-:2--i 633 .3----3.2 472.0 162.3 2051.6
2006 0, 3203 ____ J ~ 8 ___ 744.4 ______ 238,4 32,2_1 S3, 158Q _____ 4'131, 7 _____ 157'l, 6 3.2 4'10. I 15? 0 1'175,0
2007 0.2'183 7.8 744,Il 222,0 32.2 15'1.0515 5121,5 1527.7 3.2 50'1.0 151.8 1'101,b
2008 0.2778 7.8 741l,4 206.8 32,2 _11>5,1807 _ 5318.8 1477,6 3.2 528.6 146.8 IB31.2
200'l----0~2587------7:8-----744:4 192:6 32.2 171.5552 552~.1 142'1.2 3.2 S~<O 142:0 17b3:8
___ ~.Q) 0 0.2410 7. 8 7LJ~_L_~ __ 17c~ -'--Ll 32.2 17_8.1 84b 573?-,-_5 __ I.3~8~ ... 5 ____ ~_2 __ S7Q, ?~ __ IE.!!-I __ !~'l'l !2_
5018.7 352'13.0 5230.1 17'1b.1 42107.7
7.8 32--:--2---17 S:-Z---5737. 5--1-8b77-:8-----~--3. 2----~--570. 2 ~-1-85-b~2--2iq57-. j---------
_?3 '170,? 5800,3 3652,2 65064,'1
CRF= O.0!38 AV ANN BENEFITS = 549.3 3'183,8 2b'l,6 4802,7
CAPACITY VALUE: '15.43
FUEL ENERGY VALUE (1'180): 61.10
AVE ANNUAL PONER BENEFITS: 4802.7
EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: 182.0
ANNUAL BENEFJTS: 4'184.7
---~-----~------ANNUAC--COSTS:-3234 -: 0-----~-~--~--
8/C RATIO: 1.54
YEAR
ECONOMIC EVALUATIOII OF HrDROPO .. ER "'ODEL
ALASKA DIS1R]CT, ARMY CORPS OF E~GINEERS
ALLISON HrDRO: W/PRTJ REvISED APAI FuEL E~~ TO 1990; 8~W
PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT MARKETABLE FIRM PRES. WORTH MAR~ET.
wORTH MARKETABLE VALUE OF WURTH OF FIRM M!LL5/K~H ENERGY ENERGy SE~D~DAR,
FACTOR ---CAPAC! T Y--CA PAU t V-CAPAC if Y --E NE f<Gy J NC • -o!:.t~---BE ~E.F i T S-SE r,EF f I-S-" [I.U'G Y
VALUE OF
SEC.
BENERGr
PRE SEIIT
.. _~D~TH TOTAL
SEC. E~ERGY 6E~EF]T5 ------.---------.-.-----.---------------------.-.-----.---------------.-------.--.------.---------.-----
------------------( t-Hot) t 5 1 000) (S i 600) (G .. ,,1) (! 1 000) ( ! 1 000) ( G" h) ( $ 1 000 ) ( ~ 1 0 0 0 J ( ~ 1 000 J
1990 1.0000 0.0 0.0 _______ 0.0 7.084.4849 _591,4 5'11.4 0,0 0,0 0.0 5'11."
1'19 1 --0: 93 i 3 -----0 :-0 --------O. 0 O. 0 1 I • 7 1\ 4. 4 B 49 '188 • 5 920 • b O. 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 920.0
___ 1'1'12 O. 8b73 0.0 0 !..0 _____ 9-'O _____ I?, 5 __ 84,484 'I. ___ 13Cf4 ,0_---.1 20~JL _ 9! 0 0, Q _______ 0,9 __ .1 2 0'1.1
('I '13--O:-if6 7 8 O. 0 0 .0 0 • 0 21 • b 8 ... 484'1 1 82" • 9 1 4 7 4 • I 0 • 0 0 • 0 O. 0 1 474. 1
I 'I 9 4 0 • 7 5 2 3 3 • 3 ~ 1 4 • 'i _____ n b • 9 _ 2 7 • 4 8 4 • 4 8 4 9 2 3 1 4 ! 'I ___ I 7 4 I , '5 _ _ 0 , 0 0 , 0 . 0 , 0 1 9 7 8 ! 4
I 995--6: 7006 -----Q ~ b 439. 0 307. 6 32.2 84 • 4849 2720 • 4 1 'lOb. 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 22 I 3. 5
1'I9b 0.b525 S.8 553.5 3bl.2 32.2 ~4.48~9 2720.4 1775.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2]3b.2
1997 0.b077 -----7.1 677.b 411.7 3?2 -b4.4849 2720.4-1053.2 0.0 C.O 0.0 2064.'1
I 9 9 8 0 • 5 b 5 9 7 • 8 7 4 4 • 4 42 I • 3 3 2 • 2 8 4 • 4 8 4 9 2 7 2 0 • 4 I 5 3 9 • 0 0 • 0 0 , Q Q ,_0 1 9 b 0 • 9 ---1 '199--0-: 5271 7. 8---7 4-4-:-4----3Q2~ 3---32 :2--8~:-48Lj-9--2726:4---1-4 33-:"9 ---0.0 0.0 0.0--1826: 2
n
I
I-'
N
2000 0.4909 7.8 744.4 3b5.~ 32.2 8Ll.48Ll9 2720.4 1335.4 ~.2 270... 132.7 1633,5
2001-0.4572 -----7:8 744:4 340.3 32:2 84.4849 2720.4' 1243.7 3.2 270.4 i23:b 1707.5
2002 0.4258 7.B 744.4 31b.9 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 1158.2 3.2 270.4 115,1 1590,3
2 0 0 3 0 • 39 b 5 --7 -. 8 7 I< I< : .. 29 5 : 1 3 2 • 2 8 4 : 4 B " 9 27 2 0 • 4 I 0 7 8 • 7 3 • 2 2 7 0 • 4 1 0 7 • 2 I 4 6 1 • 0
2004 0.3b93 7.8 744.4 274.9 32.284.4849 2720.4 1004.b 3,2 ______ 270,4 99.B ____ q7~!~ ______ _
2005---0:3Ll39----r:-B---7L14~-4--25b-:O -----32 :2--8~-: 484Q--2720: 4--935: b --3.2 27 o. ~---93 :-6 12B~. b
200 b 0 • 3203 7 • 8 7 4 4 • 4 23 B • .. 32 • 2 84 • 4 B 4 9 _____ 27 2 0 , 4 ___ 87 1 , 3 3 , 2 27 0 • 4 80 • 0 I I 90 , 3
2007 0.2983 7:8 744.4-222.032.2 84.484'1 2720.4 Bll.5 3.2 270.4 80.b 111~.2
2008 0.2778 7.8 744.4 20b.8 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 755.7 3.2 270.4 75,1 1037,b
2009 O.2SS7 7.8744:4 192.b 32.284.4849-2720.4 703.8 3.2 270.1, b9.9 9bo.4
20 I 0 0.2410 7.8 744 ._~ ___ J?_9.!~ 32.2 84.484'1 2720.4 b55 ... _? ____ ......l!f ___ ?7 O~~ _____ .!>?L ___ 'IQ.Q.Q __ _
5018.7 24798.3 2973.9 1048.8 30Bb5.9
2011
---2090--3:-ZSS11 7.8 74/j~lj-.l"4~a:~---32-:-2---8~5 2720.4 8BS~---3:-2---i7 0.4
33b54,3_ ~244 ,2
880.1
1'128,9
12159.2
43025.1 PRESENT ~ORTH BENEFITS 7441.9 -._-----
CRF= 0.0738 AV ~NN BENEFITS = 549.3
--_._---------------------------
CAPACITY VALuE= 'lS.43
FUEL ENERG1 VALUE (1980): bl.IO
AvE ANNUAL PO~ER BENEFITS= 3175.9
EMPLOYMENT 8E~EFITS~ 182.0
ANNUAL BENEFITS= 3357.9
----ANNU-Al.-COST3-"-3234-:-0--
___ _______ B(~ __ ':!~ T ~9= 1.011
_2IJ84,? 3175,9
ECONOMIC EV~LUATION OF HYDROPO~ER MODEL
ALAS~A DISTRICT, A~MY CORPS OF E~GINEERS
__ _ __ ALL ISO N H Y Q R 0 I ~ I ~ R T IRE V I SED A P A; NO F U E L ESC; 8"1 W
PRESENT TOTAL PRESE~T MARKETABLE FIR~ PRES. ~ORTH MARKET. PRESENT
WORTH MAR~£TABLE VALUE OF wORTH OF fIRM MILLStKr'lH __ ~NEI!!!.Y ____ ENE~~Y ___ ~ECOIWARr
---Y-E AR---F A C TOR--t A-PACITY--CAPAC iiy-CAPAC IT Y-E-NE RGY--i ~C:. cii.M BE NE FIT S BE r,EF ITS U.[RG Y
VALUE OF
SEC.
BEr-ERGY
. "'QRT t1 TQTn
SEC. E~EkCY BENEFITS
-------------, M W )----( i i 0 00 ) ( 1 I 0 00 ) ( G w H ) ( 1 I 00 0 ) ( ~ I 0 0 0 ) ( G W H ) ( S I 0 0 0 ) ( S I 0 0 0 ) ( S I 0 0 0 )
1'1'10 ___ 1.0000 _______ 0,0 _______ 0,0 .0.0 7.0 __ 6(>.'1200 _468.4 .4/)8.tj 0,0 0,0 0.0 4be.4
1'1'11 0.9313 0.0 0,0 0.0 11.7 6b.'1200 783.0 72'1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 72'1.2
___ 1J_92 __ Q.~6D ____ 9_.0 0 ,Q _____ 9. 0 ___ I./) .. ~_/)Q.92Q 0 ____ IJQ4 .'--____ 951 .. 1 __ 0, Q ______ 0.0 ________ 0. Q _957. L
1'1'13 0.8018 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 66.<;200 1445.5 1167.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1167.6
____ I'I'I". __ 0,}52~ _____ 3,~ ____ ;314,q nb.9 21.4 ___ 66.'1200 _1833.b. ____ 1379.4 _ 0.0 0,0 0.0 1610.3
1'195 0.7006 4.6 439.0 307.6 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 1509.7 0,0 0,0 0.0 1817.3
1'196 0.6525 5.8 553.5 361.2 32.2 bb.<;200 2154.8 __ 1406.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 1767.2
19'17 0:6017 -----":i -677.6 411.7 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 1309.5 0,0 0.0 0.0 1721.2
1'1'18 0.5659 7.8 744! 4 4f1.l~ ___ n.f_/)I:>_L9fOQ ___ 1L5~. ~ __ ) n 9.5..__ 9.90. Q ________ 0 .. L ___ l!i~Q • .e __ .
---1-'19'1--0-:-5271 1:8---7~L!.~----3'l2.3 32.2 66,9200 2154.8 1135.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1520.1
2000 0.1l909 7,8 744.4 3b5,4 ____ 32,2 66.9200 2154.8 1057.7 3.2 214.1 105.1 1528.2
(J 2001 0.4572 7.8 744.4 340.3 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 985.1 3,2 214.1 97.9 1423.3
I 2002 0,4258 7.8 744,4 316,9 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 .. _917.4 3.2 214.1 91.2 1325.5 t;. 2003 0:3'165 7.8 744.4 295.1 32.2 bb,'1200 2154.8 854.4 3.2 214.1 84.'1 1234.5 '
___ 2004 0.3693 1.8 744,4 274J. 32.l2 __ ~6, 92QQ ___ f L~.E..Jl ___ IJ~ ... L__ _~. ~ ____ ~ 1 ~ .1 ____ 19. L __ llll'l. 7 __________ 1
2005--0:-3 Q:3 q '1:-8 ----7 -44: 4 ---2 Sb • 0 32. 2 66 • '1200 2 154 • 8 74 I • I 3.2 2 I 4 • I 73.6 I 070.7
2006 0.3203 ______ 1.1l 744,4 ____ 238,4 ___ J2.2 ___ 66.9200 __ 2154.8 ___ 690,2 ;'.Z ~1~.1 b8.i> '1'1],2
2001 0.2'183 7.8 14~.4 222.0 32.2 66,9200 2154.8 642.8 3.2 21~,1 63.'1 '128.7
2006 0 • 2778 _______ 1. 8 7 ~ ~ • 4 2 0 b • 8 32 • 2 _ 66, '120 0 _ 2 I 54 • 8_ _ 598 ,I> 3 • 2 2 I 4 • 1 .. 5'1. 5 864 • 9
2009 -0: 2581 1 • 8 14 /1.4----I 92 , b 32.2 66 .9200 2 I 54 • 8 557. 5 :1.2 2 I ~ • I 55 • 4 805.5
2010 O. 211 I 0 7.8 144 ,Il U~L4 3L.2 __ ~~ .. 9fOO __ 2.1~.!I-L§ ___ ~J~~ ____ ..J.~ ____ ~ l!l. L_---.5I .. b __ ~_5Q.2. ___ . __ '
5018.7 1'1642.6 2355.6 830.8 25q'l2.1
-------------
2011 ----20 q 0--3 -:-25511 7.8 21511.8 70lIJ,7 3.2
,-
PRESEtH _WORTtt. BENEFIT~
CRF= 0.0736 AV ANN BENEFITS:
-------------------------_._----------------.
CAPACITY VALUE= '15.43
fUEL ENERGY VALUE (1'180)= 61.10
AVE ANNUAL POWER BENEFITS= 2629.8
EMPLOl~ENT BENEFITS= 182.0
ANNUAL BENEFITS: 2811.8
----ANNUAC-COSTS=-32:111.0-----
BIC RATIO: 0.87 - -. --
26657, q ___ _
l'Ib1,L I! 2.8 262'1.8
---------.-------.------.------------.-------
ECONO~IC EvALUATION OF H~OwuPO~ER ~OOEL
A LA 51\ A DIS T R I Cl, A R,.. ~ COR P S 0 FEN G I I. E E R S
ALL!SON ~YDRO:~O(PRTI REVISED APAJ NEw FUEL ESCI 8~~
----._------
PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT ~ARKETABLE FIRM PRES. WORTH ~A~KET. VALUE OF PRE~ENT
___________ WQRI fL"'ARKEJ A!lL~_Y_~~Ul_ QF_~Q8.TH Qf __ J I R~ __ ~ ILL ~tK.!'/H~_E_Tlj~ 8~r __ ETljEg~L_?~ q,)r.[lA~L _ ~tC IiQRT H TOTA\.
YEAR FACTOR CAPACITY CAPACITY C'PACITY ENERGY INC. O&~ BENEFITS &E~EFITS E~ERGY BENERGY SEC. ENlRGY blNEFITS
--.----. -----.-. ---------------- -------------------.------------- --
(MW) (SIOOO) (SIOOO) (Gr"'1) (!IOOO) (11000) (Gr.H) (11000) (SIOOO) (tIOOO)
__ .1999 ___ l.Q9QO _____ 3.18 ___ 362,6 )b2.6 32.2 64.484'1 2720.4 ___ 2720.4 :'>.2 '70.~ 270.4 3353.4
1991 0.9313 5.3--505.8----471.0 32.2 87.6315 2821.7 2627.9 3.2 280.4 261.2 33bO.1
1992 0.8673 6.7 H~_.~ ___ 5?!I.6 ______ 32,? __ 90,9Q~Q __ 2_921.I __ f?:.\!I.!L_ _ 3,'-____ 2'1Q.9 _____ 252,3. ___ ~345.7
---1-9 q 3--6 :-807-8 7 • 8 7 4 4 • 4 6 0 I • 3 3 2 • 2 9 u • 3 0 7 4 3 0 36 • 7 24 5 3 • 0 3 • 2 3 0 I • 8 2 4 3 • 8 3 2 'i 8 • 0
I 994 __ 0!}?2} _?8 ___ 7tj4.-,! __ 560,032.2 __ 97.84/:>9 _____ 3150.7 _____ 2370.2 3.2 313.1 235.0 3165.8
1995 0.7006 7.8 744.4 521.5 32.2 101.5279 3269.2 2290.5 3.2 324.'1 227.6 3039.6
I 99 b 0 • 6 5 2 5 7 • 8 7 44 • 4 _ Q 8 5 • 7 3 2 • ? __ _ I 0 5 , 3 5 6 3 .3 3 9 2 ,5 ___ 2 2 I 3 • b 3 , 2 3 3 7 • 1 2 2 0 • 0 2 'I 1 9 • 3
1997--0:/;077"-----7:8 --7Q4~4------452.3 32.2 10'1.3377 3520.7 2139.5 3.2 349.9 212.6 2804.4
__ --:1998 0.5659 7_.8 ___ 7 ~4 .'L __ 4f 1,3 ___ }?. f __ ln ,-,!? 84 3t>5 ~,Q ____ Z06fl.Ji_ __ _ __ ~,' HL I _____ , Q5, 5 ___ 'Q~4 ... L___ ___ _
1999---6-:-5271 7. 8 744 .4 39 2.3 32.2 I I 7. 7847 ;3 79 2 • 7 19 '19 • 0 3.2 376 • 9 198. 7 2590 • 0
2000 0!4909 ____ 7.8 74Q.4 365,4 32,2_ 122.2633 3936,'1 1'132,5 3,2 3'11,2 1'12,1 248'1,9
2001 0.4572 7.8 744.4 340.3 32.2 126.9211 4086.9 le68.3 3.2 400.1 185.7 23'l~.3
2002 0.4258 7.8. 7Q4,4 ___ 316,'1 32,2 131,7651 _4242,8 1806,4 3,2 u21.6 179.5 230Z.9
2003 0.3965 7.8 744.4 2'15.1 32.2 136.802'1 4405.1 1746.7 3.2 437.8 173.0 2215.4
2004 0.36'13 7 I 8 7_Q.:!, ~ ____ ?7_4, 9 ______ 32 .1_1.~? .9.!<..?2 45J 3_.~ __ 1 k~,!.Q_ .3. 2 _____ ~54, 5 _____ 101. '1 __ 2111_. L
----2005--~-0:-3439 7.8 744.4 256.0 32.2 147,4'111 47Q9.2 1633.3 3.2 472.0 162.3 2051.6
2006 0.3203 ______ 7.8 ____ 744,~ _____ 238'4 __ 32,2 153.158_Q ___ ~931.7._-_157_'1.6 3.2 4'10.1 157.0 1975.0
2007 0.2983 7,8 744.4 222.0 32.2 15'1.0515 5121.5 1527.7 3.2 509.0 151.0 1'101.6
2008 0.2778 ____ 7~8 74Q!4 ___ 206,8_ 32.2 _ 165,180L_53!8.8 ___ 1477,/:> 3.2 526,~ Itj6,8 1831.2
200'l----0~2567 7,8 7144.4 192.6 32.2 171.5552 5524.1 1429.2 3.2 549.0 142.0 1763.8
___ 2=-.010 0.2410 7.8 744.4 U9 ... 4 32.2178,1646 573].5 1382__'5 ____ ~.f __ ?7Q.L __ U]__'~ ___ L~'!j.' ____ _
7710.4 41493.7 8438.6 4123.b 53327.7
:l.~013 .1
10133.5
!2-;2 --(7-8~--573-7--=-5--f6b77:-S---~ -'-'3--:~2----570 -:-2--185b-:2--2-i9sr:-l .------
CRF: 0.0736 AV ANN BENEFITS: 746,0
CAPACITY VALUE: 95.43
FUEL ENERGY VALUE (1960)= 61.10
AVE ANNUAL POwER BENEFiTS: 5630.9
EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS= 182.0
ANNUAL BENEFITS= 5812.9
---------------------------'----'---ANNUACCOSTSi: -3234~-0
_______ __ ________ ___ _ B/~ __ R~ TI9= 1.80
60171;5 900,8,8 597,~,8 H28Q.8
------~-~
ECONO~IC EVALUATION OF HYDROPO~ER MODEL
ALASKA DISTRIC1, ARMY CORPS OF Er.GIr>EERS
ALLISON HYDRO:~O/PRT, REVISED AP,; FUEL ESC yo )990; 6~w
PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT MARKETABLE FIR~ PRES. ~ORTH ~A~KE1. VALUE UF PRESENT
WORTH MARKETABLE VALUE OF WORTH OF FIRM MILLS/~WH ENEAGYENERGYSECONO&RI ----YTA R--FAe {OR--CAP A C-I TY-C APACI T Y-C A PAC i i y-~ ENE RG Y --INC ~ -oi~1 ~-~-BE I,E FiT 5--bE ;;u ITS E rde R G Y
SEC, ~ __ ~OR1H lOYAL
BENlRGY SEC. ENl~GY Bl~EFI1S
----.--. -.-----------------------------. -----------------.-----. -.-----. ---.-.-. -------. -.---.-. ~-------
n
I
I--'
U"1
(MW) (SlOOO) ($1000) (G~H) (~IOOO) (11000) (G~H) ($1000)
1990 1.0000 3.~ 302.b ~ 362.0 32,2 ~4.4~~9 2720.4 2720,4 3.Z 270,4
1991 0.9313 5.3 505.8 471.0 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 2533.0 3.2 270,4
____ J 9'12_ ~_O--, 80 7 ) ____ ~ ,J ___ ~o ?"--J 1! ___ ??4, b __ 32, 2 _ 84, 4b4"-_~ __ 212 0, 9~ n';.'l. 5 _ 3.2 27 Q. ~
1'193 0.8078 7.8 744.4 601.3 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 2197.5 3.2 270.4
1994 0.7523 _ 7,8 744,4 _ 560,0 32.2 84.4649 2720." 2040.0 3.2 270,4
1995 0.7000 7.8 744,4 521.5 32.2 e~.u849 2720.~ 1900.0 3.2 270.4
1990 0.6525 7.8 744.4 485.7 32.2 84.4849 2720,4 1775.1 3,2 270.4
1997 0.b077 7.8 744.4 452.3 32.2 84.4649 2720.4 1053.2 3.2 270,4
I 998 0 • 505'1 7. 8 7 44 • 4 42 1. 3 32 • 2 84 • 4 8 ~ 9 ___ 27 2 Q.'I __ ~ _ 1 5 39. ~__ 3 • ;> 2 7 Q • 4
199'1---0-:-5271----7:8---7~~:4--3'l2:3--32.284.4849 2720.4 1433.9 3.2 270.4
2000 0.4'10'1 7,8744.4 365.4 32.2 84,4649 2720.4 1335,4 3,2 270,4
2001 0.4572 7.8 744.4 340.3 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 1243.7 3.2 270.4
2002 0.4258 7.8 744.4 310.9 32.2 b~.4849 2720.4 1158,2 3,2 270,4
2003 0.3905 7,8 744.4 295.1 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 1078.7 3,2 270.4
2 0 0 4 0 • 3 b 9 3 7 • 8 74 4 • 4 27 4 • 9 3 2 • 2 il 4 • 4 8 4 9 2 7 2 0 • 4 I Q 0 ~ , L _ ~ • 2 _______ nO. ~
2CC5--0~343'1 7~8---7"4-;~---25b.0-----32;2--84;4849--2720~~----935.0 :1.2 270.4
200b 0.3203 7.B 744.4 238.4 32.2 8~.4849 2720,4 .. 871,3 3,2 270.~
2007 0.2983 7.8 744;4 222.0 32.2 84.4849 2720,4 BII.5 3.2 270,4
2008 0.2778 7.8 74~.4 206.8 32.2 84.484'1 2720.4 755,7 3.2 270,4
2009 0.2587 7.8 744;4 192.6 32.2 84.4849 2720,4 703.8 3.2 270.4
2010 0.2410 7.8 744.4 179.4 __ g,1 ___ ~!!.,~84? ____ :._f}I9__'~ b55,5 __ ~!~ ___ ~ 279.li -------------------------71io:~4 ---3071~:3---5077.4
2 011
2090 3.255q 7.8
PRESENT wORTH BENEFITS
CRf= _0.0738 AV ANN BENEfITS =
eI~~3,1
10133.5
748.0
32.2 84.5 2720.4 8855.9
39575.2
2921.2
------------------------------------------------
--------------------
CAPACITY VALUE= 95.43
FUEL ENERGY VALUE (1980): bl.IO
AvE ANNUAL POwER 8ENEFITS= 3959.5
--EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS= -182.0
ANNUAL BENEFITS= 4141.5
---------A t, NU A C C O-S T S=3 2 34; 0 ------
BIC RATIO: 1!28
3.2 270.4
5947,7
($1000) ($1000)
270,4 3353.4
251.8 32511.'<
234,S __ :!>14~.b
218.4 3017.1
203,4 2809.9
189.4 2010.'1
176,~ 2437.2
104.3 2209.8
. ___ 1 ~ 3 • Q _ _ ? I I ~ , 'I
142.5 19bEl.7
132.7 1833,5
123.0 1707..,
115.1 1590.3
107.2 1461.0
99.8 1~79,L ----~-~93 : 0 I 284 • 0
8b.b 11'10.3
80.& 1114.2
75.1 1037.6
69.9 900.4
65.1 900.0 ---305 2:S ---~ I-~ b 2 : ~-
880. I
3932.9
290.3
1215Q.2
53041,7
3959.5
ECUNOMIC EVALuATIO~ OF HYDRGPO~ER MODEL
ALASKA DISTRICT, ~R"'Y CORPS OF EI.GI',E!:.RS
___ ~,=L I SON HYDRO: l'o0tPRT I REV I SED APA I ~iO FulL ESC 18M"
---------
PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT ~ARKETABLE FlAM PRES. ~ORTH MARKET. VALUE OF PRESENT
WORTH MARKETABLE VALUE OF WORTH Of ____ FIRM MILLS/KrtH
-----yEAR --FACTOR --O:p""jCI T Y-CAPAC I fy-CAPAC IT Y ENE RGY---r NC -0&1'1
ENEFlGY ENERGY _ SECO"liA~! _ SEC,
BEN EF IT oS -b ui E F f T S fI, ERG Y BEN ERG Y
wORTH TOTAL
SEC,E:itRGY bt:"U 1 T 5 ---------------------------------.-.---. ------.-----.-.----------------------------------------. --------
,-----~--. --"--- ( M w ) ( S 1 0 0 0 ) ( S -1 0 0 0 ) ( G w ~ ) ( ~ 1 0 0 0 ) ( 11 0 0 0 ) ( G ~ ,., ) ( $ 1 [I 0 0 ) ( S 1 0 0 0 ) ( 1 I 0 0 0 )
1'1'10 1.0000 LB :H2.6 :'>62.6 32,2 6b,9200 _ 215~.8 2154,8 :'>.~ 21~.1 ZI~.1 2731.1>
1 '1'1 I ----0 : '13 1 3 -----5 : 3 -505 • 8 ~ 71 • 0 3 2 • 2 66 • '12 0 0 2 I 5 ~ • B 2006 • 8 :'> • 2 2 1 " • I I '1'1 • ~ 2 b 77 • :'>
___ -'I'--c:'1'12 0.8673 6.7 b3'1.~ ~.2!!.Lb ___ n.f ___ bb,'12QO ___ fl?!J..8 _____ 18~'1,9 ~,? 2)4.1 1~5,7 _2QQ9,3
1'193 0.B078 7.-8---7il~-:-~----601.3 32.2 06.'1200 215~.6 17~O.6-3.2 21~.1 17:'>.0 251~.'1
1'1'14 0.7523 ?!~ ___ 7~4,~ ___ 5~Q.O ___ 32,2 __ 66,'1200 ____ 215~,8 ____ lb21.1 3,2 214.1 )bl.l (342,1
I q q 5---0 :-" 0 0 b 7 • B 7 4 ~ • 4 5 2 I. 5 3 2 • 2 6 6 • '12 0 0 2 I 5 ~ • 8 1 5 0 'I • 7 3 • 2 2 1 4 • I 1 5 0 • 0 2 I 8 1 • 3
1'1'16 0.6?25 7.8 74~.4 485,7 32,266,'12002IS~,8 ____ 1~06.P 3.2 21~.1 13'1.7 2031.4
1'1'17 O.b077 -----7:a------7411.4-----452.:'> 32.2 66.'1200 2IS~.8 130'1.5 ~.2 2)~.1 130.1 15'1).'1
_____ I_'1~_8 ___ 0..!..~~?~ 7. a 7411.4 421,332,2 66,9209 __ ?J.5~ ,8 121 'I .. 5 _~, , _____ 21 ~. '--__ \ 21.2 ___ 1 H2. Q __ _
1'1'1'1 0.5271 7;1i---74Li:Il---3Q2.3----32.2--bb.9200 21S ... 8---1-135.8---3.2 21~.1 112.'1 :~~I.O
2000 0.4'10'1 7.a 74~.4 365.4 32.2 66.'1200 215~,8 1057,7 3,2 21Q,I 195,1 IS26.2
2001 0.4572 ---7:8 744:~ 340.3 32;2 66.9200 2IS~.8 985.1 3.2 214.1 Q7,9 1423.3
2002 0.4258 __ 7!8 7~4.4 316,'1 32.2 6b.'I200 215~,B '117,4 3.2 21~.1 9),Z 1325.5
2003 0.3965 7.8 7~~.~ 2'15.1 32.2 66.9200 2IS~.8 854.4 3.2 214.1 84.'1 12:'>4.5
2004 0.3693 7.8 74~. ~ ____ ~ 7 jj ,'I _____ 32L? __ ~t> .9_2 99 __ JI 5jj, ~ ___ 7'12, L 3, ~ ____~) ~ , l ____ J'! .. 1. ___ 11 ~5. 7 __
----2-00S--0:"3u3'1 7.-8 744.~ 256.0 32.2 60.'1200 2154.8 741.1 3.2 21~.1 73.6 1070.7
2006 0._3203 _______ 7~8 __ 744,4 238,4_ 32,2 6b,9200 ____ 2154,8 ___ 690,2 3.2 21~,) i:>8,b __ '1'17.2
2007 0.2'183 7.8 744.4 222.0 32.2 60.'1200 2154.8 642.8 3.2 21Q.1 6:r,.'1 QU.7
2 0 0 B 0 • 2 7 7 8 7 • 8 7 4 4 • Q 2 C 6 • 8 3 2 • 2 b b , 'I 2 0 0 2 I 5 4 ,8 ~ ____ 5 'I 8 , b 3 • 2 2 I ~ , I 5'1 • 5 8 6 4 , 'I
2 0 0 'I 0 • 2 5 8 7 -------7 : a ---H 4 • 4 I '12 • 6 3 2 • 2 6 6 • 'I 2 0 0 2 I 54 • a 557. 5 3 • 2 2 1 4 • 1 55 • 4 8 0 5 • 5
2010 0.2410 7.8 744.4 I}"_.~ 32.2 6b, .. ?Q.0 ___ fJ.5...IlL8 51'1-'_2 _____ },f __ ?!~.I _____ ~I.!> ____ I~Q.' __ _
7710.4 24332.6 ~4'17,0 2418.1 34~61.1
7014,7
;\P~?3
---------~~----3,2 21~.1 0'17.1 10135.0
CRf= 0.0738 AV ANN BENEFITS = 748.0
CAPACITY VALuE= '15.113
FuEL ENfRGY VALUE (Iqeo): 61.10
AVE AN~U.L PO~ER BENEFITS: 32'11.8
EMPLOYMENT BENEfITS= IB2.0
AN~UAL BE~EFITS: 3473.8
--ANNUACCOSTS=3234: 0 --------
_______ . _______ B! ~ _ R. A T I 0.: I . 07
471 I 'f 31}5,3 445'16,1
_ 23p,'1 no, Q 32'11,B
-. -----------------.---------I
i
--.. -~------------.. ----------"----------,
n ,
........
'-.J
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF HYDROPO~ER MODEL
A~.SKA DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
__________ ALLISON HY[)RO: r./PRTI RETHERFORD, NEr. FuEL ESCI BMw
. ----------
PRESENT TOTAL PRESENT MARKETABLE FIR",· PRES. \'IORTH "'AR~ET. VALUE OF PRESENT
________ IIQRTtt "'AR~U!BL~_~~LUE_ClE __ "'O~TH Qf_JI R':1 ___ MI~LS/K",H __ ~r!~RG't ___ P~ERGY __ s~CONDA~L _ SEC, ____ "'QRTH __ TOr A~
YEAR FACTOR CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY ENERGY INC. OtM BENEFITS BENEFITS E~fRGY BENlkGY SEC. E~£RGY BENlF11S
------.----.---- ------.---------------------------.-.-------.-----------------.---------.-------.-------
----------------------(Mwf--1S1000) (51000) (GwHJ 01000) (~1000J (GrIH) (11000) (1000) (11000)
1990 1.0000 ______ 0~0 ______ 0,0 _______ 0.Q_ 0,0 B~,~81<9 O.Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0
1991----0:9313 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.6315 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
__ ----'1992 0.8673 o.g 0.0 0.9 2le __ 90r90~L __ f2~-,'? __ f?O.§ Q,Q o,Q _______ O.O ___ nO,e_
199-3 ---0 :e-oYil 0 • 0 0 • 0 O. 0 8 • ~ 9 ~ • 307 ~ 7'12 • 2 639 • 9 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 639. 9
________ 19911 0.7523 1..d ____ 105 .. O _____ 79,_0 _____ ! ~. 3 __ 97. B~ 69 _____ .1399.2 _____ 1052.1:> 0,0 0.0 _ 0.0 1131,6
1 995 ---0: 7 0 0 b 3 • 0 286.3 200 • 6 20 • 6 I 0 I .527'1 209 I. 5 I ~ 65. 3 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 1 065. Q
1996 0.6525 ~.9 ~67.6 305.1 27,3_ 105,3563 2870.2 1870,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 2161.9
I 997 0 ~ b 0 77 -----b ~ 7---b 39 • Q 38 b • 5 32 • 2 1 O'l , 337 7 3520 • 7 2 1 39 • 5 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 2525 • (;
____ :1998 O. 5b59 7, 8 7~~..!.~ ___ ~_21 !~ ____ ~~! ~_!t3,-~ 7 ~ ~ __ .ll>,?~,-Q __ f9!::>§,Q ______ 9. Q ______ 0.9 _____ Q. Q _____ f~~~.2
1999--6-:-5271 '7 , 8 7 'l ~ • ~ 39 2. 3 32.2 1 I 7 • 7 '0 ~ 7 37'12 • 7 1 999. 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 239 I • 3
2000 0.~909 7,8 71.l~.'< 365.~ 32.2 122.2633_. 3936.9 1932.5 ~,2 391,2 _192,1 2~89.9
2001 ~~4572 --7:8 7~4.~ 3QO.3 32.2 126.9211 ~oe6.Q 1868.3 3.2 ~Db.l 185,7 2394,3
2002 0.~256 7,8 7~,<,4 316.9 32.2 131,7651 1.l2~2.8 1806,4 3,2 ~21.6 _ 179,5 2302,9
2003 0.3965 7.8 7~1.l.4 295.1 32.2 13b.8029 4~05.1 17~6.7 3.2 ~37.8 173.6 2215.4
___ 200~ __ 0.J69? 7.8 74~~~ __ ?7~-,-_~ ___ ~2-,-2_1.4.2-,--9~_~_2 ___ I.l21~--,-~ ___ I~~'!.....il _______ ~!? ____ ~5Q L~ ____ 1 !:>7~9 __ ?!}1 ~7 _____ I
2005 0.3~39 7.8 7~~.4 256.0 32.2 1~7.1.l911 47~q.2 1633.3 3.2 1.l72.0 162.3 2051.6
2006 0!3203 ____ 7.8 ___ 7~~t'< ______ ne,~ _______ 32,2_!5~,15~0 __ ._1.l9)1.7 __ I,?.?9,6 _3,2 1.l90,1 __ 157.0 ___ 1975,0
2007 0.2<183 7,8 744.4 222.0 32.2 159.0515 5121.5 1527.7 3.2 509.0 151.8 1'101.6
2008 0.277B 7.8 74~.4 206,8 32.2 lb5,1807 ___ 531~,8 __ 1477.L__ 3,? 528,6 l~b.8 __ !8~1,2
2009 O:258f--~--7:8---7~4~4---192.6 32.2 171.5552 552~.1 1429.2 3.2 5~9.0 1~2.0 lH3.8
2010 0.2410 7. 8 74~ .'< _\79_. I.l 32.2 178 oJ 8 ~b 5737.5 13~? ____ 3-,-_2 ___ ~?9-,-L_ J}I .~ ___ 1_6~~-,L-___ _
CRf=
4bH.6 29534.7 5230.1 179b.l 36005.3
21.l~3.1
7097.7
0.0738 AV ANN BENEFITS: 523.9
32,2 176.2
----------------
CAPACITY VALUE= 95.43
FU[L ENERGY VALUE (1980)= 61.10
AVE ANNUAL POwER BENEFITS= 4352.3
EMPLOYM[NT BENEFITS= 162.0
57J7.5 16677.6
~8212.5_
ANNUAL BENEFITS= q53~.3 ----~ ANNUAL-COSTS:-f23ci:0--------------------
_ ~ I ~ R_A T I ~= _1 ,40
570.2
5800.~ _
185b.2
3b52,2
22957.1
569b2,4
q352,~
Eco~o~rc EVALUllrO~ OF HYDROPO~ER ~ODEL
ALASKA DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF E~GINEERS
PRESENT------TOTAL-PRESENT MARKETABLE FIR~ PRES. I'oORTH ~AfiKET. VALUE OF PRESENT
lIOR TH~J5E.T A BL~ __ ValUE _Qf _IIj:lR Tt:1_QE __ El f!M __ ~! L qt~\'I~_~NE RG! ___ ~ NE;RG L_g C Or,O A ~ L __ ~E ~._ _ _~:OR T rt T QT ~b.
----YEA-R--(A-CTOR CAPACITY CAPACITY-CAPACITY ENERGY INC. 0&'" BE~,EFITS BENEFITS EI.ERGY BUiERGY SEC. EI,ERGY bE~EFITS
----_.
(Mr.) (SIOOO) (1000) ((OWH) (11000) (11000) (GI'tH) (SIOOO) (SIOOO) ($1000)
1990 1.0000_0,0 0.0_ 0,0_ 0,0 ~4,~8Lj9 ____ O.Q __ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
19Q"i--6:CnI3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.4849 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
___ 19q2~~~73 Q .... Q 9_.0 _____ 2_.0 , ... 8 __ !l1l. 4 8~'1 ___ 230. Q ___ Z05.2 ______ 0. 0.. _______ 0. L ____ O .Q ______ 20~. 2 _____ _
1993 0.8078 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.Q 84.4849 709.7 573.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 573.~
_____ 1994 __ 0.7~2~ ____ I.L ____ 195.0 _____ 79.0 _14.3 __ 84.484'1 ___ 1208.1 _____ 908.9 0.0 0.0 ______ 0.0 967.E
1995 0.7006 3.0 28b.3 200.6 20.b 84.4849 1740.4 1219.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1414.9
____ 1996 ___ 0,b525 _____ 4,9__ 4b7.6 305.1 27,3 _ 84.4849 __ 2306.41505.0 0.0 0.0 __ 0.0 1810.1
1997 0.b077 6.7 639.4 388.5 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 Ib53.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2041.7
___ 1998 0.5659 ? ... 8 ___ 7.~~L_4 ____ 42 L.3 ____ ~2.~ __ 8~ ,~~~~ __ U10.E ___ t5~9 ... L_ 0.0 _____ O. 0 ____ 9 ... Q __ 19~Q. 'L ____ _
19qq---O~-527i 7.8 7~Q.4 392.3 32,2 84.4849 2720.4 1433.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 182b.2
2000 0 • 4909 _ ____ _ 7. 8 _ 7 /J 4 , lj 3 b 5 ,4 _____ 32.2 84 , 4 e 4 '1 _ 2720 • 4 13 3 5. /j 3.2 nO. 4 I ~ 2.7 1 8.> 3.5
2 0 0 1 ----0: ~ 5 72 7. 8 7 4 4 • 4 3 4 0 • 3 3 2 • 2 8 4 • 4 8 4 9 2 7 2 0 , 4 1 2 4 3 • 7 3 • 2 2 7 0 • 4 I 2 3. b I 7 0 7 • 5
n 2002 0.~258 7.8 744,4 31b.9 _____ 32,2 ___ 84.4849 2720.4 1158.2 3,2 270.4 115.1 1590.3
~ 2003 0;3965 7.8 744.4 295.1 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 1078.7 3.2 270.4 107.2 1481.0
(X) 2004 0.3693 ? .!..~ ___ 7_4~ ,-~ ___ 2 71J.! 9 ____ ?2_.? __ ~!l,.484_9 __ ?U9 ,"-__ 19 Olj .. b___ _ _ ~.? ___ ?1 Q l~ _____ ~'!. ~ ___ 1 E9. L ____ _
---2-6-0 5--6:-3 ilj q 7.8 744.4 25b.0 32.2 84.4849 2720.4 935.b 3.2 270.4 93.0 1284.6
2006 0.3203 __ ~_7,B _744,4 236,4 ____ 32.2 __ B4,4Bq9 ___ ._2720,~ ____ 871.3 3,2 nO,<I ~6l~ 1196,3
2007 0.2983 7.8 74'1.4 222.0 32,2 84.4849 2720.4 811.5 3.2 270.4 BO.b 1114.2
2008 0.277B 7.8 7q4.~ 20b.B 32.2 8Q.Q849 2720,4 755.7 3,2 270,4 75.1 10~7lb
2009 0;2587 7.8 74~;4··· 192;b 32:2 84:4849---2720.~-----7()3.8 3.2 270.4 b9.9 9b6.4
20 I 0 0.211 I 0 7.8 744.4 17'1_.4 32.2 6Q. 4849 272_Q~ b55.1._5 _____ 1.2 _____ f7 O. '!. ___ f!2.t ! ___ ~9Q ...9 ___ ._
CRF=
IIb74.b 19592.3 2973.9 1048.8 25~15.7
0.0738 ~v ANN BENEFITS:
;''i a3. I
7097.7
523.9
32.2 84.5 2720,11 6855.9 3,2 680.1 12159,2
___ f~q~8.?_ . . 1 ~ ? 8 , 9__ 3 1 q 7 4 • 9 _ •
?7bb,2
-------.. _---------------------------
CAPACITY VALuE= 95.43
FUEL ENERGY VALUE C1 980) = b I. 10
AvE ANNUAL PO~ER BENEFITS= 27bb.2
EMPLOYMENT BENEFIlS= --182.0
~t/NUAL BENEFITS= 29~8.2 _______ . _______ _
------ArINUAC-COS1'S=3234-;0----
SIC RATIO: 0.91 ._"----".+---+
ECONO~IC EVALUATION OF HYDROPOwER MODEL
ALA9KA DIS1RICT, AR~Y CORPS OF E~GI~[ERS
-----_._--
--------PR-E 9 ENT -----TOTAL PRE S£ NT--",.A RKE T ABL E FIR'" PRE 9. ",ORT H ~A R KET • VALUE UF PRESENT
WORTH ~ARKETABLE VALUE OF wORTH OF FIRM MILLS/K",H EN~R~L ____ EfiERGt SECQrIDA~r
YEAR--F AC T OR--CAPAcITY-CAPAC 1 TY-C APAC J T Y-Ei;"E:RGY-INC~--O&-M--BENEF ITS 8EN£F ITS E r.ERG Y
~E~. ______ ~QRTH TQTAl,.
B[NEkGY SEC. E~ERGY B[~~FITS
--------. . ---------_.-_. -------------------------(MW5---(SI000) (SIOOO) (GwH) (SIOOO) (SIOOO) (GI'lH) (SI000) (SIOOO) (SI000) -- ----- -_ .
1990 1. 0000 O. 0 0, Q ________ 0 , 0 _____ 0, Q ____ ~ 6.9200 __ ____ _0, 0 _____ 0 .9 _ 0 , 0 0 , Q _ ___ o. Q 0 • 0
----lqq1--O:-QJ13 0:0----0,0 0.0 0,0 b6.'1200 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0
___ ---'1992 O. S6B 0.0 9. 0 o!o_ 2~_8 __ ~~,~20_9 ___ ~].~ ___ I!?g, ~___ 0, o ________ n. Q ____ Q. Q _____ I ~~.~
1993--6-:eo-78 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 66.9200 562.1 45~.1 0.0 0,0 0.0 ~5~.1
_____ 1994 ____ 0,7523 10I ___ J05,O _______ 19,0 ____ !4.} __ ~i:1.9?OQ _____ 9S7.O" __ 719,9 0,0 _ 0,0 0.0 798.9
1995 0.7006 3.0 286.3 200.6 20.6 66.9200 1378.6 ~65.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 116b.4
1996 0.6525 4.9 467.6 305,1 ___ 27.3. _____ 66.920Q ____ 1826,9 1192,1 0,0 O.Q 0,0 )497.(
1997 ---0:6077 ----1;,:7---639.~ 38e.5 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 1309.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1690.0
1998 O. 5659 1.!.S ___ 74.~!4 ~ ?J_,J ___ n-,-? __ 6..t!L~?Q.Q. __ 2J2.!:1_,_~ __ !'?J9.~ _______ Q, 9 ___ 0, L ___ Q .. 9 ___ 1 Q~9, ~ _____ _
---1-999---0--:-5271 7.8 744.4 392.3 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 1135.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1528.1
2000 0.4909 7.8 744.4 365.4 32.2 66.9200 -2154.e 1057,7 3.2 ?14,1 !05,1 _1528,2
2001 0~4572--------7.8 744.4 340:3 32:2---66:9200 ----2154.0 985.1 3:2 21~.1 97.9 1423.3
2002 0 • 4258 _________ 7.8 744 .4 31 6. 9 32.2 66.9200 ___ 21 54 • 8 ___ 9 1 7 , 4 3 • 2 21 4 • 1 91 .2 1 325 , ';
2003 0.39b5 7.8 744.4 295.1 32.2 6b.9200 2154.8 854.4 3.2 214.1 84.9 1234.5
____ 29_0tl O. 3~J3 7_L8 ___ 7_~~....'I. __ ?? ~-,-9 32. 2 6~-,-~?9_0 __ f L~'!.L.§ ___ 7'!~ .. ] ________ J.f _______ f!~. ! ____ 1~. L __ J 1 ,,~.] ____ _
2005 0.3439 7.8 744.4 256.0 32.2 66.9200 2154.8 7 U l.1 3.2 214.1 73.6 1070.7
2006 0.3203 7.8 _ 744.4 __ 238.4 _____ 32,2 ____ 66.9200 __ 2154.8 ___ ~_90.2 __ 3.? 2!~. 1 _____ 6§.~ 997.?
--2007 --0: 2 q 8 3---7: 8 -----'7 4 ~ : 4 --222. 0 32.2 b 6. 92 0 0 2154 • 8 642.8 3 • 2 2 1 4 • 1 63.9 926 • 7
2008 0.2778 7.8. 7~4.4206.8 _32!2~_66.9290 __ 2154,8 ___ 598,6__ 3,2 214,1 ________ 59,5 _tl64,9
-----2009--0":2587 7:8~------7~":4---1'12:b---32.2 66.Q200 21S~.8 557.5 3.2 21i.i.l 55,4 605.5
2010 0.2QIO 7.8 7~~.4 179.4 32.2 bb.9200 2154.8 519.2 .3.2 211l.1 5h~ ____ 7~Q_.? ___ _
IIb74.6 -15~fI6-:-9---------2355-:-6 830.821024.3
32.2
CRF= _____ 0.0738 AV ANN BENEFIT~ = 523. ~ __ _
bb.9 21511.8 70111.7
?25D.7 _.
--------------
CAPACITY VALUE: 95.43
FUEL ENERGY VALUE-(i980)= bl.l0
AvE ANNUAL PO",ER BENEFITS= 2300.0
EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS~ 182.0
ANNUAL BENEFITS= 2~82.0 --------------------------ANNUAC-fosis= 3234:0------------
___________________________________ ~L~ __ RATIQ=_ 0.71
3.2 21 Q • 1
_?5~9. 7
b97.1
__ 1 ~ ~ 7. 9 _
112. S
10135.0
31159,3
2309,Q
----------------------
------------------
__ ECONOMIC: EVALUATION OF HYDROPOWER MODEL.
ALASKA DISTRICT, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
_____________ ~LLISON hYDRO: W/P~TI REVISED APAi '"E ... FUEL ESCI SOLOMON SECONlHIHI 8Mr/
-------------PR-ESENT TOTAi-----PRE-SENT MARKETABLE FIR'" PRES. WORTH MARKET. VALUE OF PRESENT
w_()R1H.~~TAB~~L\!E_g_F _~QBJIj Q_F __ U RIoI_~nl.~LI\\'!t1_~J,!~R~l ___ Ltj~BG)' __ ~~t;ONQA:f<'t ___ ~EC ,_ !!Qf<iH_ JQHI.
YEAR FACTOR CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITy ENERGY INC. O~'" BENEFITS BENEFITS EhERGY BENERGY SEC. ENERGY BE~EFITS --------.. ------.-------.-... ---------------:--~-~~.-.---.--------:~.~~.-.:-: . .::::-,:-:,-:-----~: ---:":'~~~::-------.----------
----------------C"1Wf---:-C-SIOOOJ---CSIOOO) (GWH) ($1000) ($1000) (GYIHl (11000) (1000) (11000)
1990 1.0000 ___ Q-lQ _____ O,Q ___ O.Q _ 7.L8~.1l8L19 ______ 5.91.~ _____ 5'11.4 O.Q 0.0 _ 0.0 5'1l.~
--I 99 ! --0 :<1 313 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 1 I • 7 8 7 • b 3 I 5 I 025 • 3 95 q • 9 0 • 0 0 • 0 a • 0 95 LI • 9
__ -,1992 O. BbB 0.0 0.,0 O. 0 !b'-~ __ '1Q~90<JQ_1~jJ~ __ U9 LL ____ 0, Q ______ Q. o _____ 0 .L ____ 130 1~ 0 _____ ----1
I 99-3 --0-:-8078 o. 0 o. 0 o. 0 2 1 • b C; ~ • 30 7 ~ 2037 • 0 I b ~ 5. 5 O. 0 O. 0 O. 0 I b LI 5 • 5 I
____ 19'1/l __ 0172~3 3.~ ___ ~I/l.'1 ___ ~~6.'1 ____ 22.~ __ '17,Bl.lb9 ___ n91,f;I_ 16/l8~L 0.0 _____ 0.00.0 _ letl5.e
1995 O.700b /l.b /l3'1,O 307.b 22.LI 101.5279 2274.2 15'13.Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 1900.9
19'1b 0!...b525 ____ 5.8 ____ ?53,5 ___ 3Id,2 22,L1 _105,35b3 __ 23!>O,O ___ 15~'1,'1 0.0 9.Q. 0.0 .. 1901.0
1'1'17 0.b077 7.1 b77.b L111.7 22.4 109.3377 21.1~9.2 1488.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1900.1
___ 1 998 __ 9 !...~~~'1 7,8 7--,!.,! ____ L1 1J,.l. ~ ___ ~, .~_ll ~~ /J]§'~-Z5.!lL ___ 'L __ ..J_I.j~~.b __ . ___ 9~Q ______ 0. Q _____ Q.Q ___ HS9. 8 _____ _
1'199 0.5271 7.8 744.4 392.3 22.4 117.7B47· 2b38.4 1390.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17B2.9
2000 0.~q09 7.8 7~4./l 3b5,4 _ 32.2122,2b33 ___ .3 9 3b,9 ___ 1'l32.5 3,2 ~,!I,? 192,1 __ 21.189,9
2001 0:"572 7~8---744.4 340.3 32.2 126.9211 L108b.9 IBbB.3 3.2 ~Ob.1 185.7 239~.3
(J--2002 O.4258 ____ .J,8 _____ 7~L1.4 ____ 316.9 ___ 32.2 131.1651 ___ 1.1242.8 180Q.4 3.2 ~21.Q 179.5 2302.9
I 2003 0.3965 7.8 7~~.L1 295.1 32.2 13c..802'1 L1405.1 171.1b.7 3.2 ~37.8 173.b 2215.~ l
N 2QQ./l __ 0...l~93 7,8 H~-----" n_'!.~9 32. "_l't2, Q~?2 ___ 42.U.§ __ IQ.§'L_9 __ . ___ ~ .f ___ ~?'L. 5 ____ H>7. 9 __ , UJ..~_. __ i
a 2005-0.3439 i.8 744.4--25b.0 32.2 1'17'-~'111 L17~'1.2 Ib33.3 3,2 /l72.0 Ib2.3 2051.b
____ 200b __ 0! ;!203 ___ h~ ___ 74L1 • .E __ 238, 1l _____ 32, 2 _ 153, 15~0. __ l!9n. 7 __ 1 ~ 79. b_ 3. 2 ~ 90, J ___ 157,0 ____ 1975. °
2007 0.2983 7.8 744.4 222.0 32.2 159.0515 5121.5 1527.7 3.2 509.0 151.8 l'IOI.b
2008 0.2778 7.8 741l./l 20b.8 32.2 IbS.IB07 5318.B 1~77.6 3,2 528.b \/lb.8 1831 t 2
2009--6-:2587 7;8--744;4---192:b 32.2 171:5552 552/l-:1---142'1~2--3.2 549:0 ---142:0 ·~·i7b3.8
2010 0.2/l10 7.8 74L1.4 179.4 32.2 178.IBLlb 5737.5 1382.5 3.2570.2 137.4.1699."
56,:8:7 ----31 bbS-.-2-------S230.1 1791:-1 -~f8480:0-·
---------
---------_.
3-2--:2---178.2 5737.5 18b77,6
___________________________ ~O~/l~! L_
CRFz: 0~Q!3~ AV ANN BENEFITS =
-----------------------------------------------
CAPACITY VALU~= G5.43
- ---" ----------. FUEL ENERGY· VALUE (1980): b 1.1 0
AVE ANNUAL POWER BENEFITS= 453~.9 .--------.----... ~-------... EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: 182.0
ANNUAL BENEFITS: 471b.9
ANNUAL-COS T 5-=-32 34: 0
_~I ~ RAT I Q =_ _ I. 4 b
___ __ _ _ __ ~ 7 1 ~. ~ _
:3 • 2 0:))0--:2--1 B 5 b • 2--2 2-Q-S 7 • 1
___ ~ 8 0 9 • :3 ___ ~ ~ 52.2 ___ ~.I 43 7. L
2b~. ~ . __ ~53~, 9
-I
I
I
__ 1
·1
1
--j
-----1
APPENDI X D
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATES
RESERVOIR
ALL ISON CREEK
PERTINENT OAT A
(Alternate Plan No.1)
Water Surface Elevation, feet MSL
Maximum
Average
Minimum
Surface Area at Maximum Elevation, acres
Usable Storage, acre-feet
HYDROLOGY
Drainage Area, square miles
Annual Runoff, cfs
Average
Maximum
Minimum
LAKE TAP
Lake Entry Invert Elevation, feet MSL
Spilhvay
POWER TUNNEL
Tunnel Size, feet
Tunnel Length, feet
Tunnel Grade, percent
PENSTOCK
Type
Length, feet
Diameter, inches
Shell Thickness, inches
Maximum
Minimum
Support Spaci~g, feet
Type
POWERPLANT
Numher 0 f Un its
Turbine Type
Installed Capacity, kW
Plant Factor, (average) percent
Plant Factor, (firm) percent
Design Head, feet
Generator Rating, kW
Power Factor, percent
Voltage, kV
1,367
1 ,335
1 ,267
258
19,980
5.7
49
68
36
1 ,250
Natural Outfall
6 (lined circular)
8 (unlined horseshoe)
10,200
0.5
Steel, ASTM A537 Grade A
4,050
48
1.50
0.75
40
concrete Pier
2
Impulse
8,000
56. 1
48.9
1,220
4,350
90
13.8
PERTINENT DATA (Cont)
POWERHOUSE
Type
TRANSMISSION LINE
Voltage, kV
Type
Length, mi les
Conductor
Transmission Losses, percent
PROJECT OUTPUT
Dependable Capacity, kW
Firm Annual Energy, MWH
Average Annual Energy, MWH
Steel Structure on Concrete Fou~dation
i i
115
Wood Pole
3
#1/0 ACSR
2
8,000
34,300
39,350
ALLI SON CREE K
PERT! NENT OAT A
(Alternate Plan No.2)
RESERVOIR
Water Surface Elevation, feet MSL
Maximum
Average
Mi n imum
Surface Area at Maximum Elevation, acres
Usable Storage, acre-feet
HYDROLOGY
Drainage Area, square miles
Annual Runoff, cfs
Averaqe
Maximum
Minimum
LAKE TAP
Lake Entry Tnvert Elevation. feet MSL
Spi llway
POWER TUNNEL
Tunnel Size, feet
Tunnel Length, feet
Tunnel Grade, percent
PENSTOCK
Type
Length. feet
Diameter, inches
Shell Thickness, inches
Maximum
Minimum
Support Spacing, feet
Type
POWERPLANT
Numb e r 0 fUn its
Turbine Type
Installed Capacity, kW
Plant Factor, (average) percent
Plant Factor, (firm) perce~t
Design Head, feet
Generator Rating, kW
Power Factor, percent
Voltage, kV
iii
1 ,367
1,335
1 ,267
258
19,980
5.7
49
68
36
1, ?50
Natural Outfall
6 (lined circular)
8 (unlined horseshoe)
10,200
0.5
Steel, ASTM A537 Grade A
2,450
48
1.50
0.75
40
Concrete Pier
2
Impulse
8,000
53.2
45.9
1, 170
4,350
90
13.8
PERTINENT DATA (Cont)
POWERHOUSE
Type
TRANSMISSION LINE
Voltage, kV
Type
Length, mi les
Conductor
Transmission Losses, percent
PROJECT OUTPUT
DepennableCapacity, kW
Firm Annual Energy. MWH
Average Annual Energy, MWH
Steel Structure on Concrete Foundation
iv
115
Wood Pole
3.5
111/0 ACSR
2
8,000
32,200
37,250
Item
GENERAL
SECTION D
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WATERWAYS
Lake Tap and Rock Trap
Power Tunne 1
In take Tr ashrack
Gate Control Room
Access Ad it
Penstock
POWERPLANT
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILTTIES
COST ESTIMATES
NumfJer
Dl
D2
D3
D4
Number
D-A-1
D-A-2
D-A-3
D-A-4
D-A-5
D-A-fi
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Summary Cost Estimate, Alternate Powerhouse Site No.1
Summary Cost Estimate. Alternate Powerhouse Site No.2
Detailed Cost Estimate, Alternate Powerhouse Site No.1
Detailed Cost Estimate, Alternate Powerhouse Site No.2
L 1ST OF PLATES
Tit le
Site Plan, Location and Vicinity Maps
Photo Mosaic
Topographic P1 an
Waterways Profiles
Lake Tap and Rock Trap Detai ls
Gate Structure, Powerplant, Power Tunnel Sections
and Portal
v
Page
D-l
D -1
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-14
D-18
D -19
D-20
D-21
D-22
D-23
VALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT
GENERAL
A lake tap scheme for lake entry at Allison Lake was studied. Two
sites near the lower outlet of Allison Creek were considered for the
location of the powerp1ant. The first alternate site for the powerplant
is located approximately 200 feet uphill from the mouth of Allison Creek
at elevation 20 feet MSL and the second alternate site is located about
2000 feet from the bay of the Port of Valdez at elevation 100 feet MSL.
Access to both powerplant sites during construction and operation would
be by road. Access to the tunnel portal and other work areas would be by
helicopter. The first alternate powerplant site would require a water
pump system to pump adequate water back to the main creek channel above
Alyes~a's weir to provide for their water supply and fishery water
requirements. After economic evaluations it was determined that the
lower powerhouse site, Alternative 1, could not be incrementally
justified for the additional energy it would provide. However, both
alternatives are presented here.
WATERWAYS
The method of lai<e entry would be by a lake tap. The lake tap would
be 100 feet below the existing lake surface. The tap would be accom-
plished from the 8-foot horseshoe tunnel which would be excavated from a
portal located at elevation 1,000 feet MSL on the east side of Allison
Creek. The excavated material would be disposed of to the east of the
portal by means of mechanically operated railroad gondola cars. The rock
trap would be excavated near the lake, perpendicular to the rock contours.
After careful investigation and analysis, the final holes would be
d rill e dan d c h a r9 edt 0 b 1 as t the fin a 1 roc k wall s epa rat i n g the 1 a k e and
rock trap. This scheme would include a trashrack and a rock trap, a
power tunnel leading to an underground control gate structure and
terminating at a tunnel portal, a secondary rock tap, a gate room access
adit, a penstock, and other features shown on Plates D-A-5 and D-A·6.
These structures const itute a method to convey water from the All i son
Lake reservoir to the aboveground powerhouse located near the channel of
Allison Creek.
Lai<e Tap and Rock Trap
The lake tap IA/ou1d be made directly into the power tunnel with the
invert at elevation 1.250 feet MSL, approximately 110 feet below the
existing normal lake level. The trap would provide space to catch and
permanently store about 97 percent of the rock from the final blast. The
control gates would be closed when the final remaining wall is blown.
The power tunnel branches off from the side of the rock trap above the
floor level so the rock from the t:>last would not be diverted into the
power tunnel itself.
D-l
Power Tunne 1
The power tunnel would be partially concrete lined 6-foot circular
and oartially unlined 8-foot horseshoe shaped tunnel approximately 10,200
feet lonq, from the lake tap chamber to the tunnel portal. About 100
feet downstream of the gate structure, the power tunnel would drop at a
45-deqree angle to elevation 1,050 and would continue down at 0.5 percent
slope until it would daylight at elevation 1,000 at the tunnel portal.
ApproximatAly 300 feet from the tunnel portal, a transition from a power
tunnel to a steel penstock would occur.
Intake Trashrack
The power tunnel entrance would be covered by a steel trashrack to
prevent debris from entering the intake and reaching the turbines. The
trashrack would be placed partially in the wet after the lake is drawn
down through the power tunnel and aboveground penstock during the low
inflmv period.
Gate Control Room
The gate control room would consist of a hoist machinery room, a
vertical access shaft and a gate room. The hoist machinery room, located
at elevation 1,456, would house a crane rail hoist and an elevator. The
vertical access shaft, which is approximately 200 feet long and 16 feet
high by 16 feet wide. would have a ladder from the hoist room to the gate
room. The elevator shaft would be adjacent to the access shaft and the
elevator would be an overhead hoist cable operated system. The gate room
would contain two 6 by 16 feet slide gates, one heavy duty and one
standard type, set in tandem. There would be a crane rail hoist at the
gate room above the heavy gate for lifting and shifting the gate to the
area below the upper hoist during maintenance. An access hatch and a
vent would be provided at the gate room floor. The 18-inch diameter vent
pipe would run from the power tunnel to the gate room and up through the
vertical access shaft, to the hoist machinery room then finally out
through the access adit.
Access Adit
Access to the gate control room would be through the access adit.
The adit would be an 8-foot diameter horseshoe shaped tunnel, approxi-
mately 100 feet in length and located at elevation 1,456. A 100-by
100-foot staging area and heliport would be cleared adjacent to the
access adit portal.
Penstock
The penstock would be a 48-inch diameter, all welded structure
supported on concrete piers at approximately 40 feet on centers. The
steel penstock would emerge from the power tunnel portal and would
continue downstream to the aboveground powerhouse following the existing
ground contours. At alternate powerhouse Site No.1, the penstock would
bifurcate into two penstocks immediately upstream of the powerhouse valve
room. Each penstock would connect with a valve in the valve room, and
downstream of each valve, a penstock extension would connect to a
0-2
turbine. The penstock would bifurcate into two penstocks immediately
upstream of the Alternate No.2 powerhouse valve room. Each penstock
would connect to a turbine. Some of the water discharged from the
turbines would be diverted into the existing weir on the creek for
A1yeska's water supply and for the Department of Fish and Game salmon
hatchery f ac i 1 it i es.
pm~ERPLAN T
Two alternative sites of the aboveground powerhouse would be located
near the channel of the Allison Creek. The centerline of the bifurcation
would be at the same elevation as the powerp1ant. The powerhouse would
contain two synchronous generators driven by Pelton wheel turbines with
design heads of 1,220 feet for the alternate Site No.1 and 1,170 feet
for the alternate Site No.2. The turbines would have nameplate ratings
of 4.0 MW each. The powerhouse structure would house the generators,
turbines, a 15-ton bridge crane, and all other equipment required for
operation and maintenance. Remote control of the powerp1ant would be
from Valdez accomplished through the use of a carrier communication
system. The tailraces of the alternate powerhouse No.2 are longer in
length than that of the alternate powerhouse No.1. On both alterna-
tives, stoplogs would be installed near the upstream end of the tailrace
pipes to regulate flow during the summer and winter operations. Energy
dissipators at the Allison Creek end of the tailraces would be of
concrete construction.
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
The Valdez project power would be delivered to Solomon Gulch sub-
station and then transmitted over the Copper Valley Electric Association
system for distribution. The transmission line route was located in the
field based on aerial and map reconnaissance. The route runs along the
south side of the existinq road Qetween Allison Creek and Solomon Gulch.
The terrain is of a moderate ro11inq mountains and close to tidewater of
the Port of Valdez.
The project installed capacity is 8.0 MW and the transmission system
capacity would be 10 MVA. The transmission line from Allison Creek
powerp1ant to Solomon Gulch sUbstation would be a 115 kV line. There
would be approximately 3.0 miles of single wood pole construction. The
overhead conductors would be #1/0 ACSR with no overhead ground wires.
The 115 kV system was chosen for power transmission to match existing
facilities. Vo1taqe regulation from Allison Creek powerplant to Solomon
Gulch substation is 2.5 percent and is acceptable. An addition to the
Solomon Gulch sUbstation is proposed to provide switching and power
enerqy to the existing system. An oil filled circuit breaker would be
remotely controlled from Valdez via a carrier communication system.
The proposed right-of-way would be a 50-foot wide corridor and would
run over lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Based on USGS
maps with vegetation overprint, the entire line would require essentially
continuous clearing. Small shrubs and bushes would remain and all other
materials would be burned, chipped or left in place as determined by the
D-3
U.S. Forest Service when the line location is established. Construction
and maintenance of the transmission 1 ine would be by road and helicop-
ter. A cleared 10-foot wide hiking trail would be provided for inspec-
tion access.
The transmission 1 ine would be approximately 0.5 mile longer for the
alternate powerhouse No.2 but the terrain is of similar characteristic
throughout the transmission line.
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
No permanent housing and maintenance facilities would be required
except for a small warehouse for maintenance equipment and supply
storage. Existing dirt roads would be used as necessary during
construction and operation of the project. No sewer and water systems
would be required except those in the powerhouse.
COST ESTIMATES
All estimates are based on October 1980 price levels. The
contingency used for all alternatives was 20 percent. Engineering and
Design, and Supervision and Administration costs are each 8 percent of
construction costs. The cost data was obtained from bid prices on recent
major power projects in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and adjusted to
reflect current price levels, Alaska labor costs, and transportation
costs to the sites. T~e construction time was estimated to take 4 years
and power-on-line would be 1988 or 1990.
D-4
Account
Number
01
04
07
19
30
31
TABLE D-l
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE
OCTOBER 1980 PRICE LEVEL
VALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALTERNATE POWERHOUSE SITE NO.1
Item
MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK
LANDS AND DAMAGES
INTAKE WORKS AND PENSTOCK
POWERPLANT
Powerhouse
Turbines and Generators
Accessory Electrical and Powerplant Equipment
Tailrace
Switchyard
Transmission Facilities
BUILDINGS, GROlJNDS, AND UTILITIES
SUBTOTAL
20% CONTINGENCIES
CONTRACT COST
ENGBIEE~ING AND DESIGN
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PROJECT COST
0-5
Feature
Cost
( ~ 1 ,000 )
1 ,560
700
20, 07 4
4,009
270
26,613
5,323
31 ,935
2,555
2,759
37,250
Account
Number
01
04
07
19
30
31
TABLE D-2
SUMMARY COST ESTIMATE
OCTOBER 1980 PRICE LEVEL
VALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALTERNATE POWERHOUSE SITE NO.2
Item
MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK
LANDS AND DAMAGES
INTAKE WORKS AND PENSTOCK
POWERPLANT
Powerhouse
Turbines and Generators
Accessory Electrical and Powerp 1 an t Equ i pmen t
Tailrace
Switchyard
Transmission Facilities
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
SUBTOTAL
20% CONTINGENCIES
CONTRACT COST
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL PROJECT COST
D-6
Feature
Cost
( ~1 ,000)
1,340
724
17,563
4,629
250
24,506
4,901
29,407
2,353
2,541
34,301
TABLE 0-3
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
VALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALTERNATE POWERHOUSE SITE NO.1
Cost Unit Tota 1
Account Cost Cost
Number Description or Item Unit Quant i ty ilL ($1 ,000)
r~OB AND PREP WORK LS 1 ,560,000 1,560
01 LANDS AND DAMAGES
Government Admin Cost LS 400,000 400
Powerhouse and Trans-LS 300,000 300
mission Facilities
(Private Lands) --
TOTAL -LAND AND DAMAGES 700
04 I NTAKE WORKS AND PENSTOCK
04. 1 LAKE TAP AND ROCK TRAP
Excavation CY 350 75 26.2
roncrete CY 30 600 18
Reinforcement LB 3,000 0.75 2.2
Trashrack LB 30,000 2 60
Rock Bolts, 1"x7' EA 25 210 5.2
Lake Tap LS 1 420,000 420
TOTAL -LAKE TAP AND ROCK TRAP 531 .6
04.2 GATE CONTROL ROOM
Sl ide Gate, heavy duty LB 10,000 5 50
Slide Gate, std. type LB 6,000 5 30
Access Ha tch LS 1 1 ,500 1.5
Ladder (w/cage) 200' LS 1 3,000 3
Hydraulic Unit &
E 1 e v a to r, 1,000 # cap LS 1 60,000 60
Vent, 8" 0 pipe LF 300 40 12
Ho i s t , 1 0 -ton cap. EA 2 30,000 60
Excavation, Rock CY 2,790 250 697.5
Concrete Lining CY 754 700 527.8
Reinforcement LB 37,700 1 37.7
Rock Bolte;, 1" 0 x 7' EA 350 250 87.5
TOTAL -GATE CONTROL ROOM 1,567
0-7
TABLE 0-3 (cont)
Cost
Account
Number Description or Item Un it Quant ity
04.3 ACCESS ADIT AND STAG1NG AREA
Excavation
04.5
Rock CY
Common CY
Concrete CY
Reinforcement LB
Excavation (Adit) rock CY
Rockbolts, 1" x 10' EA
TOTAL -ACCESS AOIT
POWER TUNNEL
Tunnel Excavation (Rock) CY
Concrete Lining CY
Reinforcement LB
Rock Bolts, l"xlO' EA
Portal (Including Secondary
Rock Trap, Transition, Staging
Area and Haul Road)
Rock Excavation CY
Overburden CY
Concrete CY
Reinforcement LB
Rock Bolts, 1"x14'. EA
Roc k Bo lt s, 1" x 7 ' E A
Rails and Track~ . Lf
Trestle LS
TOTAL -POWER TUNNEL
04.5 PENSTOCK
3, 180
1,360
95
4,800
.215
130
21,763
4,889
244,450
8,338
17,014
150,009 .
172
11, 100
90
130
800
1
Steel, 48"0
Ring Stiffeners, Exp.
LB 1,976,600
LB 138,362
Anchors, Anchor Supports
Concrete Support Piers
Concrete Anchor Block~
TOTAL -PENSTOCK
07 POWERPLANT
07. 1 POWERHOUSE
CY 296
. CY 25
Mobilization & Pre-LS
paratory Work
Excavation and Concrete LS
0-8
Uri it
Cost
ilL
75
15
600
0.75
200
300
225
600
0.75
210
30
10
700
0.75
460
275
50
100,000
2.50
3
300
300
120,000
230,000
Tota 1·
Cost
($1,000)
238.5
20.4
57
3.6
43
39
401.5
4,896.7
2,933.4
183.3
1,751.0
510.4
1,500. 1
120.4
8.3
41 .4
35.7
40
100
12,120.7
4,941.5.
415. 1
88.8
7.5
5,452.9
120
230
TABLE D-3 (cont)
Cost Unit Tota 1
Account Cos t Cost
Number Description or Item Unit Quantity ilL (~1,000)
07. 1 POWERHOUSE (cont)
Building Superstructure LS 1 72,000 72
Misc. Building Item LS 1 97,000 97
Bifurcation & LS 1 36,000 36
Branch Pipe
Valves EA 2 145,000 290
TOTAL -POWERHOUSE B45
07.2 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
Turbines, Governor & EA 2 30B,500 617
Coolinq System
Generators & Excitation EA 2 600,000 1,200
Equipment --
TOTAL -TURBINES AND GENERATORS 1,B17
07.3 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Switchgear, Breaker & LS 211,000 211
Busses & Station
Service Unit
Supervisory Control LS 317,000 317
System
Misc. Electrical System LS 36,000 36
TOTAL -ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 564
07.4 AUXILLARY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
Heating & Ventilating LS 7,000 7
Eq u i pment Br i dge Cr ane LS 120,000 120
& Misc. Mechanical
Systems --
TOTAL -AUXILLARY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT 127
07.5 SvJI TCHYARD
Power Transformer LS 222,000 222
Disconnects & Electrical LS lB,OOO lB
Equ i pment
TOTAL -SWITCHYARD 240
0-9
TABLE 0-3 (cont)
Cost Un it Total
Account Cost Cost
Number Description or Item Unit Qu ant i ty ilL ($1,000 )
07.6 TAILRACE CHANNEL
Overburden Excavation CY 48 10 0.5
Rock Excavation CY 20 25 0.5
Concrete CY 38 300 11.4
Reinforcement LB 1,900 0.75 1.4
R i prap CY 30 30 0.9
Steel Pipe LB 40,040 2.25 90. 1
Misc. Steel LB 4,004 2.50 10
Stop1ogs EA 2 7,000 14
TOTAL -TAILRACE CHANNEL 128.8
07.7 TRANSMISSION LINE
(WITH INSPECTION ACCESS TRAIL)
Clearing AC 37 2,500 92.5
Line Conductors & MILE 3 65,000 195
Single Wood Pole
Structures (55 pcs)
TOTAL -TRANSMISSION LINE 287.5
19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
Maintenance Equipment
& Supply
Storage Warehouse LS 250,000 250
Water Supply System &
Fish Facilities
Water Pump System LS 20,000 20
TOTAL -BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES 270
SUBTOTAL -CONSTRUCTION COSTS 26,613
20% CONTINGENCIES 5,323
TOTAL -CONTRACT COSTS 31,936
30 ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (8%) 2,555
31 SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION (8% ) 2,759
TOTAL -PROJECT COST 37,250 .
0-10
TABL E D-4
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
VALDEZ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALTERNATE POWERHOUSE SITE NO.2
Cost Unit Tota 1
Account Cost Cost
Number Description or Item Unit Quant ity ilL ( $1 ,000)
MOB AND PREP WORK LS 1 ,340,000 1,340
01 LANDS AND DAMAGES
Government Admin Cost LS 1 400,000 400
Powerhouse and Trans-LS 1 324,000 324
mission Facilities
(Private Lands) --
TOTAL -LAND AND DAMAGES 724
04 I NTAKE WORKS AND PENSTOCK
04. 1 LAKE TAP AND ROCK TRAP
t::xcavation CY 350 75 26.2
Concret e CY 30 600 18
Reinforcement LB 3,000 0.75 2.2
Trashrack LB 30,000 2 60
Rock Bolts, 1"x7' EA 25 210 5.2
Lake Tap LS 1 420,000 420
TOTAL -LAKE TAP AND ROCK TRAP 531.6
04.2 GATE CONTROL ROOM
Sl ide Gate, heavy duty LB 10,000 5 50
Slide Gate, std. type LB 6,000 5 30
Access Hatch LS 1 1 ,500 1.5
Ladder (w/cage) 200' LS 1 3,000 3
Hydraulic Unit &
E1 evator, 1,000# cap LS 1 60,000 60
Vent, 8" 0 pipe LF 300 40 12
Ho is t, 10 -ton cap. EA 2 30,000 60
Excavation, Rock CY 2,790 250 697.5
Concrete Lin i ng CY 754 700 527.8
Reinforcement LB 38,000 1 37.7
Rock Bolts, 1" QJ x 7' EA 350 250 87.5 --
TOTAL -GATE CONTROL ROOM 1 ,567
D -11
TABLE 0-4 (cont)
Co st Unit Total
Account Cost Cost
Number Description or Item Un it Quant ity ilL ( ~l ,000)
04.3 ACCESS AOIT AND STAGING AREA
Excavation
Rock Cy 3, 180 75 238.5
Common CY 1 ,360 15 20.4
Concrete CY 95 600 57
Reinforcement LB 4,800 0.75 3.6
Excavation (Ad it) rock CY 215 200 43
Rockbo lts, 1" X 10 1 EA 130 300 39
TOTAL -ACCESS AOIT 401.5
04.5 POWER TUNNEL
Tunnel Excavation (Rock) Cy 21,763 225 4,896.7
Concrete Lining CY 4,889 600 2,933.4
Reinforcement LB 244,450 0.75 183.3
Rock Bolts, l"xlO' EA 8,338 210 1,751.0
Portal (Including Secondary
Rock Trap, Transition, Staginq
Area and Haul Road)
Rock Excavation Cy 17,014 30 510.4
Overburden Cy 150,009 10 1 ,500. 1
Concrete CY 172 700 120.4
Reinforcement LB 11 ,100 0.75 8.3
Rock Bolts, 1"x141 EA 90 460 41.4
Roc k Bo lt s, 1" x 7 1 EA 130 275 35.7
Rails and Tracks LF 800 50 40
Trestle LS 1 100,000 100
TOTAL -POWER TUNNEL 12,120.7
04.5 PENSTOCK
Steel, 48"0 LB 1,063,000 2.50 2,657.5
R i n9 Stiffeners, Exp. LB 74,410 3 223.2
Anchors, Anchor Supports
Co ncrete Support Piers CY 190 300 57
Concrete Anchor Blocks Cy 16 300 4.8
TOTAL -PENSTOCK 2,942.5
07 POWERPLANT
07. 1 POWERHOUSE
Mobilization & Pre-LS 120,000 120
paratory Work
Excavation and Concrete LS 230,000 230
D -12
TABLE D-4 (cont)
Co st Unit Tota 1
Account Cost Cost
Number Descr-iption or Item Un it Quantity ilL ( ~l,OOO)
07. 1 POWERHOUSE (cont)
Building Superstructure LS 72,000 72
Misc. Building Item LS 97,000 97
Bifurcation & LS 36,000 36
Branch Pi pe
Valves EA 2 145,000 290
TOTAL -POWERHOUSE 845
07.2 TURBINES AND GENERATORS
Turbines, Governor & EA 2 308,500 617
Cool ing System
Generators & Excitation EA 2 600,000 1,200
F:quipment
TOTAL -TURBI NESAND GENERATORS 1 ,817
07.3 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Switchgear, Breaker & LS 211,000 211
Busses & Station
Service Unit
Supervisory Control LS 317,000 317
System
Misc. Electrical System LS 36,000 36 --
TOTAL -ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 564
07.4 AUXILLARY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
Heating & Ventilating LS 7,000 7
Equipment Bridge Crane LS 120,000 120
& Misc. Mechanical
Systems
TOTAL -AUXILLARY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT 127
07.5 SWITCHYARD
Power Transformer LS 222,000 222
Disconnects & Electrical LS 18,000 18
Eq u i pment
TOTAL -SWITCHYARD 240
D-13
TABL E 0-4 (cont)
Co st Unit To ta 1
Account Cos t Cost
Number Description or Item Unit Qu ant ity ilL (~l,OOO)·
07.6 TAILRACE CHANNEL
Overburden Excavation CY 48 10 0.5
Rock Excavation CY 20 25 0.5
Concrete CY 38 300 11.4
Reinforcement LB 1 ,900 0.75 5.2
Steel P·i pe LB 270,440 2.25 608.5
Misc. Steel LB 27,044 2.50 67.6
R i pr ap CY 42 30 1.3
Stoplogs EA 2 7,000 14.0
TOTAL -TAILRACE CHANNEL 709
07.7 TRANSMISSION LINE
(WITH INSPErTION ACCESS TRAIL)
Clearing AC 40 2,500 100
Line ro nductors & MILE 3.5 65,000 227.5
Single Wood Pole
Structures (55 pcs)
TOTAL -TRANSMISSION LINE 327.5
19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES
Maintenance Equipment
& Supply
Storage Warehouse LS 250,000 250 --
TOTAL -BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, AND UTILITIES 250
--
SUBTOTAL -CONSTRUCTION COSTS 24,506
20% rONTINGENCIES 4,901
TOTAL -CONTRACT COSTS 29,407
30 ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (8%) 2,353
31 SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION (8% ) 2,541
TOTAL -PROJECT COST 34,301
D-14
,:.::
L D E Z
-.
, ..... , .. ,;
\ (I) > "----f . '-.. -
\
1 /)1: L------f _-I 29 --,,~.~---~'--
! V ~_~;
-" ~ ~--------
""---:
I :~ ... ! ;':'Val(!ez '., " ~'_"
A !tN:~" :,,::,:, "'C"}'" ~ , ,;;;:;,:;;::Y"', ....
): I .' Islands " • '-• . / ' , / 'l~ .'-" ___
,,"~ ;~~,,:;t:i~-./;, -_ ,i, <,/,: .. :.;, ; .. ~.F;'\ :'\Cl; ..' (~<: ' , ;'
---=-...: ,-,/" ,
Old Vald":,,;,:;;~:; "D)' ,3[:i;;) ""';' <~t:j'~G~1~~2~
4C /":,-/,.;}~~~-·~~u;, <S~t-_______ "~_,
':.:r~.</~ .: "'. '7'"<."
v • .' a s ~ '::'': 0'
Sa 5'-
-0-
I
I
LOCATION MAP
......
,~.
--_'",-'-
--------~,---.------
VALDEZ. ALASKA
VALDEZ INTERIM REPORT
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBEL T
VICINITY MAP
ALASI(A DISTRICT. CO::lPS OF U1G!NEERS
PLANNING AI~ REPORTS BRANCH
Pf:EPARED BY DATE ______ _
D-18 PLATE D-A-I
1>-J9
u.s. AIOIIY ENGINEER DlflWICT. AL.A.cA -,.,,-_MMM
ALLISON CREEK
PHOTO MOSAIC
I
"'~~TAPAND
ROCK TRAP
1600
.•. -~ 1400
i ~\
"00
?
\
';
DISTRICT ALASKA NGINEERS
CORPS OF E LASKA
ANCHORAGE, A REPORT
VALDEZ INTEAR~M RAILBELT SOUTHCENTR
ALLISON CREEK
~
1"\00
"00
TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN. __
APPROVED, __ _
SHUT 0,
PLATE D-A-3
CORPS Of ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY
cOOO ~
1500 I-
1000 I-
500 I-
0'--
'<)'
;::01 ALLISON LAKE ] ZOOO
"--. '-"1K;ccess Add ........ Lake Tc!f} EL 12500
h ~A ~ ire~tn9\ ",+-====-";E.?,:L"/~,,,l;;;=7.~O~---:M7,(. Flood vWS.EL 1360.1 V EL.IZ67.0 /.1 Power Tunnel Min. Pool ~E1L~.~/a~o~0~.~0~~~d~~~================================~====~======~~==============================~================~~~~E~L~.~/O~S.~O~.o ~Z.O
EL. 0.00
1 MS.L. 1
140+00 130 +aD 120+00 110 +00 100+00 90+00
~I.... \ a Slope O. 005
" ,. -Power Tunnel ,. ~ f2IQ:j
eo +00
' . . ,
~:;g
'-"1,,,-
70 +00
PROFILE
POWERHOUSE All NO. /
50+00 40+00 30+00
~ ...
~~ ~
i-~ ~ ALLISON LAKE -cOOO
~ ~ ~ ~t£:Access Add Lake Tap EL. 11:50. 0
SO, ~ ~ _==--------~ /, . ..,. 1500 ~ CS Sfagtng Area~ VJ';:: ~_ . vEL.l367.0/~aK Flood \7 Ws. EL.l360./ --'SZfL IZ6('0 Mltl Pool
?; ~p~ pecn"bSc'f0'r-Cl(;k~()~~ \L~V===I=================;===r=========~~~~~~:==================11/~II~E~L~.-"10[)'5;cO[)'.""O . ~o;:;4;~;eI ~"'~~~~=~-= ~ ~ ~Il:) ;;L /000.0 I -1000
: ~ ~ '" I \ . Slope 0.005 I ~ ;t '" ~ '" ~Power Tunnel '" "'6: '" '" ,§ ,. Co Clio ~"'" C) "'113 -500 ~ ~~ i-~ ~ ~ ':J ~ ~
f ~L 100.0" ~~ S'.'tl ~ ~I<:)
130-00
~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~I ~ ~ -0 Tatlrace Channel -,,~ -, -; "--, _,.::;
(To /illison Creek)
I I 1 1 1 1
IcO+OO 110-00 100+00 90+00 80+00 70100 60+00
PROFILE
POWERHOUSE ALr NO. 2
500 -Scale in Feel o 500 1000 -
50+00 40+00 cO+OO 10 +00 o I(X)
CAMERO
_w 'EEL
CH~
SUPERVISED:
0-21
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANC,..ORAGE, ALASKA
VALDEZ INTERIM REPORT
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT
ALLISON CREEK
PROFILES
APPROVED:
""'''' IDA'"
AlE NUIoIIER
SHEET OF
PLATE 0-A-4
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
f----4,oprox. ,500. 0. '
1 4 ,o,orox. Zlo..o. StagmlJ IIrpo Calt? flaisl
U. S. ARMY
./
l . ,// MOc/lmenj Roam
n--' : II .. 1456.0 __________ ~~~~~~.!:i§Q.J..,@'~~-----------------------==::iSZ~~M~a=x=.~F,~/o=O=d===E~L~.=/~:J='6=?=O=====_I-----i-----~:=----7 -)~" ll~i --;'ale Shari
e' Horsesha.e : r y ~s. a U60J(MS" Ac~,dd" 1'_/00'
: :
I,
I
Bol/om or lake
n. lieD. 0.
Power Tunnel
-Concrete Lip
Dead End Rock Trap
SECTION o
Nol fo Scale
60'
'b--
sz Min. Pool EL. IZ6? 0
Lake Tap EL
LAKE ENTRY PROFILE
Nof 10 Scale
Gafe Room~ l i i, Tunnel Inyerl "'~
'00 ' 400 EL IZ4Z.0 EL.IZ5i5:0._UWJ ELIZ . --_____ ~~=~ ~---____ -_-_-_-~~_~~====-=-~ ltt-===-=-_--_--_--:.--_--_;.,:"',', ~" .-f-'L't:,2::~=:::::J:::::~=~== \8' Horseshoe "': ~
Fbwer Tunnel ", " An'lie dependinlJ
on slo,oe conddion
EL 10.50.. Q~~~~~~_-_-_-_ _=__=__=__======={
0.0.0.5 Slope
\>
Trash Rock--
//
-\ I. ---/
/;
/
~
-----Power Tunnel
n. 1250..0
~An9le d,opending
{In slop~ condihon
-Top Area 8'
Power Tunnel
--~~r~~~~~--~ 3-
SECTION o
Nof 10 Scale
'--C oncrele Lip
D NED:
C.i\ME RO
DRAWN:
EF!
PEP ED=
all ••
SUPERVlSED=
'0, ...
~'"
R t.4MEN ED:
0-22
Dead End Rock Trap
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
VALDEZ INTERIM REPORT
SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT
ALLISON CREEK
LAKE TAP PROFILE. PLAN 8 SECT.
APPROVED:
SCALE:
FILE NUhlBER
SHEET OF
PLATE 0-A-5
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Concrele
Lining
-:!.:J
r
venl-
Gale Room
;//cce55 HOTch
EL. 1240.0
···~6'x 16'
GATE STRUCTURE SECTION 0
Nof TO Scole
TYPICAL UNLINED SECTION
Naf to Scale
r
1
I
l'
!
U. S. ARMY
1 ;.::;,,,;;,,,
Genera/or Roon/
10' 1'0'-
L I/alvt? Room
f, 1 __ <1:
r----~ .c 1~ 6'~: B,roM!'"" :~0 ~
PLAN-GATE ROOM FLOOR
SECT/ON ®
Nol 10 Scale
~[t~&;~~.l el
~~ 1 ~;
-b0;I~.·i~."I. I /'.. ,?,
--"' SecondarlJ-····-· I"
Rock Trap ! r--",~~
1-1 _~'i-A'-0 __ _
/"Roclr BOIIS'J
/ /Is Required
\\
'\ ~
Nol fa Scale
Conuele Plug 48"¢ Sled Pensloclr
SECTION-POWER TUNNEL PORTAL
Nol to Scale
,
}l
~ft--::
"
l
Tunn!"1
Porlal
r-
. I
'D!
[. 't:::::-:--
Sioplog·
To /I Ilison Cr!"!"Ir---------
._-T-......... -Slaplog
)~ -60"¢ Steel PIp!"
Ta//roc!?
--36"¢ Sleel Pipe
Tailrace
48"1' Pensloclr
Energy Disslpatar
Allison Creelr~
POWERPLANT PLAN VIEW
Nol 10 Scale
T--
r
I' ,
:' I'
"
"
" ,
I'
" I'
"
II
rr-r,-
Lc
" " " rT"
I,
I,
"
II ______ -~-L ______ I..!....
l---18'
ENERGY DISSIPATOR PLAN VIEW
Nol fa Scale
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
Sleel Pipe
TOI/race
_¥~_o _.!{3_'0 " _0 .----r--
VALDEZ INTERIM REPORT
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILBELT
ALLISON CREEK
GATE STRUCT" POWERPLANT,
TUNNEL PORTAL a TUNNEL SECT. SECTION ®
Nal 10 Scale TYPICAL CONCRETE LINED SECTION
PO
SUI'ERVI$ED: APPRO~
Nof 10 Scale SCALE: DAn:
ALE NUtr.IIER
SHEEr 0'
D-23 PLATE D-A-6
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Item
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table
TEMPERATURE RECORDING OF ALLISON CREEK AND SOLOMON GULCH lA
WATER TEMPERATURE PROFILES OF ALLISON LAKE lB
UNREGULATED FLOWS FOR ALLISON CREEK 2A
REGULATED FLOWS FOR ALLISON CREEK 2B
ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS OF ALLISON CREEK WATERSHED
BELOW ALLISON LAKE
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR ALLISON CREEK
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR ALLISON LAKE
MAMMALS OF THE PORT VALDEZ AREA
BIRDS OF THE PORT VALDEZ AREA
ALLISON CREEK SALMON ESCAPEMENT
ENDANGERED SPECIES LETTER -U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SECTION 404(b)(1) EVALUATION
3
4A
4B
5
6
7
ALLISON CREEK
JUNE
1979
26
27
28
29
30
JULY
1979
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2.7
28
29
30
TABLE 1A
TEMPERATURE RECORDING OF ALLISON CREEK
AND SOLOMON GULCH
HIGH LOW
TEMP. TEMP.
4 3
5 . 3
HIGH LOW
TEMP. TEMP.
5 3
6 4
6 4
6 4
5 4
5 4
6 4
6 5
6 5
6 5
6 4
6 5
6 5 7 . 5
7 6
8 6
7 5
7 5
7 5
7 5
8 7
8 6
8 5
7 5
8 6
9 6
9 7
AVER.
TEMP.
3
3
3
3.5
4
AVER.
TEMP.
4
5
5
5
4
4
4.5
5.5
5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
6
6
6
6
7.5
7
6.5
6
7
7.5
8
TABLE 1A (cant)
ALLISON CREEK (cant)
AUGUST HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEt~P . TEMP.
1 9 7 8
2 10 7 8.5
3 11 8 9.5
4 10 7 8.5
5 10 7 8.5
6 9 7 8
7 9 7 8
8 9 7 8
9 8 7 7.5
10 8 7 7.5
11 8 7 7.5
12 8 6 7
13 8 6 7
14 8 7 7.5
15 7
16 6
17 6
18 6 5 5.5
19 6
20 7 5 6
21 8 5 6.5
22 7 6 6.5
23 8 6 7
24 9 7 8
25 9 7 8
26 9 7 8
27 7
28 9 7 8
29 9 7 8
30 8 7 7.5
SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
2 8 6 7
3 8 5 6.5
4 9 7 8
5 7 6 6.5
6 7 6 6.5
7 7 5 6
8 8 6 7
9 8 6 7
10 7 6 6.5
11 8 6 7
12 9 7 8
TABLE 1A (cont)
ALL! SON CREEK (cont)
SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEI"1P. TEMP.
13 9 8 8.5
14 9 8 8.5
15 8 7 7.5
16 7
17 7
18 7
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 6 5 5.5
28 6 5 5.5
29 5 4 4.5
30 6 5 5.5
OCTOBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
1 5.5
2 5.5
3 5.5
4 5.5
5 5.5
6 5.5
7 5
8 6 5 5.5
9 5.5
10 5.5
11 5.5
12 5.5
13 5
14 5 4 4.5
15 5 4 4.5
16 5
17 5 4 4.5
18 4
19 4
20 3
21 4 3 3.5
22 4
23 4
TABLE 1A (cant)
ALLISON CREEK (cant)
OCTOBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
24 4
25 4
26 4 3 3.5
27 4
28 4
29 4
30 4
NOVEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
1 3.5
2 3.5
3 3 2 2.5
4 2 1 1.5
5 1
6 2 0 1
7 2 1 1.5
8 3 2 2.5
9 3
10 3 2 2.5
11 2
12 3
13 2.5
14 3 2 2.5
15 2
16 2 1.5
17 1
18 0
19 0 .5
20 1
21 2 1.5
22 2
23 2
24 2 0 1
25 0
26 0
27 1 0 .5
28 2 0 1
29 2
30 2 1.5
TABLE 1A (cont)
ALLISON CREEK (cont)
DECErvlBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
1 1
2 0 .5
3 .5
4 0
5 0
6 -0.2 -0.3
7 -0.3
8 -0.3
9 -0.3
10 -0.3
11 -0.3
12 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3
13 -0.3
14 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4
15 -0.3 -0.5 -0.4
16 -0.2 -0.2 -0. 1
17 0.-4 0.3 0.4
18 0.2 -0.3 -0. 1
19 0.3 -0.2 O. 1
20 0.6 0.4 0.5
21 0.5 0.2 0.3
22 0.2 O. 1 O. 1
23 0.2 O. 1 0.2
24 0.6 0.2 0.4
25 0.8 0.6 0.7
26 0.8
27 0.8 0.7 0.8
28 0.8
29 0.8 0.5 0.7
30 0.3 O. 1 0.2
31 O. 1 -0.3 -0. 1
JANUARY HIGH LOW AVER.
1980 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
1 -0.3
2 -0.3
3 0.0 -0.4 -0.2
4 O. 1 0.0 0.0
5 0.4 O. 1 0.2
6 0.6 0.5 0.5
7 0.6 0.5 0.5
8 0.5
9 0.5 0.0 0.4
10 0.0 -0.4 -0.3
TABLE 1A (cont)
ALLISON CREEK (cont)
JANUARY HIGH LOW AVER.
1980 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
11 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5
12 -0.5
13 -0. 1 -0.6 -0.3
14 0.2 -0. 1 O. 1
15 0.2
16 0.6 0.2 0.3
17 0.5 O. 1 0.2
18 0.3 O. 1 0.2
19 0.4 O. 1 0.2
20 0.2 0.0 O. 1
21 O. 1 -0.3 0.0
22 -0.4 -0 5 -0.5
23 -0.5
24 -0.5 -0.7 -0.6
25 -0.4 -0.6 -0.5
26 -0.5
27 -0.2 -0.5 -0.3
28 0.2 -0. 1 O. 1
29 O. 1 -0.7 -0.4
30 -0.6
31 -0.3 -0.7 -0.5
FEBRUARY HIGH LOW AVER.
1980 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.5
2 O. 1 -0.4 -0.2
3 O. 1 0.0 o. 1
4 0.0
5 0.0 -0.4 -0.2
6 O. 1 0.0 O. 1
7 O. 1
8 O. 1
9 O. 1 -0. 1 0.0
10 0.3 -0.2 0.0
11 0.5 0.3 0.4
12 0.4 0.2 0.3
13 0.2 0.0 O. 1
14 O. 1
15 O. 1 0.0 0.0
16 o. 1 -0. 1 0.0
17 0.0 -0.7 -0.4
18 -0.5
19 -0.4 -0.7 -0.5
ALLISON CREEK (cont)
FEBRUARY HIGH LOW AVER.
1980 TEMP TEMP TEMP.
20 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3
21 0.0 -0.2 -0.1
22 0.3 0.0 0.0
23 0.8 0.4 0.6
24 0.9 0.7 0.8
25 0.7 0.4 0.5
26 1.0 0.7 0.8
27 1.0
MARCH HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 0.9 0
2 0.9 0
3 1.0 O.
4 1.0 0.8
5 1.0 0.7
6 1.0 0.7
7 1.0 0.8
8 1.0 0.8
9 1.0 0.8
10 1.0 0.3
11 0 0
12 0 -0.2
13 -0.2 -0.5
14 -0.5 -0.5
15 0 -0.8
16 0 0
17 0.5 0
18 0.5 0
19 0.5 0
20 0 -0.9
21 1.0 0
22 0.9 0
23 0.5 0
24 1.0 0.5
25 1.0 0.5
26 1.0 0.9
27 1.2 0.9
28 1.2 0
29 1.2 0
30 1.1 0
31 1.0 0.8
TABLE lA (cont)
ALLISON CREEK (cont)
APRIL HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 0.9 0.7
2 1.0 0.6
3 1.0 0.5
4 1.0 0.7
5 1.3 1.0
6 1.8 1.0
7 1.7 1.0
8 2.0 0
9 2.0 1.0
10 2.0 1.0
11 1.8 1.0
12 1.2 1.1
13 1.1 0.9
14 1.3 0
15 1.8 0.9
16 1.8 1.0
17 1.8 0
18 2.2 0.9
19 2.8 1.5
20 2.8 1.5
21 1.8 1.2
22 1.8 1.2
23 2.3 1.2
24 3.5 1.0
25 2.1 1.0
26 2.5 1.2
27 2.2 1.0
28 2.8 1.1
29 2.5 1.0
30 2.9 1.2
MAY HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 3. 1
2 2.0 1.2
3 2. 1 1.0
4 2.9 1.0
5 2. 1 1.2
6 2.0 1.3
7 2.5 1.2
8 2.5 1.2
9 2. 1 1.2
10 1.2 1.2
11 1.9 1.0
12 2.5 1.0
13 2.9 1.0
TABLE lA (cant)
ALLISON CREEK (cant)
MAY HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
14 1.9 1.1
15 2.0 1.0
16 1.9 1.0
17 1.6 1.1
18 1.8 1.1
19 2.0 1.2
20 1.8 1.1
21 1.9 1.2
22 2.0 1.2
23 2.0 1.2
24 1.8 1.2
25 2.0 1.2
26 1.8 1.6
27 No reading
28 No reading
29 No reading
30 No reading
31 No reading
JUNE HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 No reading
2 No reading
3 No reading
4 1.5 2.2
5 1.0 2.2
6 2.0 1.0
7 2.0 1.5
8 2.0 1.8
9 2.8 1.8
10 2.8 1.8
11 2.0 1.8
12 2.0 1.8
13 2.2 1.8
14 2.3 1.8
15 2.5 1.8
16 3. 1 1.8
17 2.0 3.0
18 2.2 1.8
19 2.5 1.8
20 2.4 2.0
21 3.0 1.8
22 3.2 2.0
23 3.3 2.2
24 2.9 2. 1
25 2.5 2. 1
26 3.3 2. 1
27 3.3 2.3
28 3.0 2.2
29 3.2 2.5
30 3. 1 2.2
TABLE 1A (cant)
ALLISON CREEK (cant)
JULY HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 3.9 2.2
2 3.9 2.2
3 3.9 2.4
4 4.0 2.3
5 4.0 2.4
6 3.0 3.0
7 3.0 2.8
8 3.2 2.8
9 3.2 2.8
10 4.0 2.8
11 3.5 2.8
12 3.0 2.9
13 4.4 3.0
14 4.8 3.0
15 4.6 3.5
16 4.2 3.5
17 4.8 3.8
18 4.8 3.8
19 5.2 3.8
20 5.8 4.0
21 5.0 4. 1
22 6.0 4.1
23 5.5 4.2
24 5.2 4.5
25 5.0 4.5
26 4.8 4.5
27 4.8 4.5
28 4. 1 4. 1
29 4.3 4.1
30 4.8 4.2
31 4.8 4.2
SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 7.0 5.0
2 5.0 4.0
3 3.0 5.0
4 5.5 4.2
5 5.0 4.9
6 5.3 4.0
7 4.5 3.2
8 4.5 4.5
9 4.5 4.5
10 4.5 4.5
11 4.5 4.5
TABLE 1A (cont)
ALLISON CREEK (cont)
SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
12 4.5 4.5 .
13 4.5 4.5
14 4.5 4.5
15 5.5 5.0
16 5.5 5.5
17 7.0 5.5
18 5.5 5.5
19 5.5 5.5
20 5.5 5.5
21 5.0 4.8
22 3.3 3.3
23 3.3 3.3
24 3.3 3.3
25 3.3 3.3
26 3.3 3.3
27 3.3 3.3
28 3.3 3.3
29 3.3 3.3
30 3.3 3.3
OCTOBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 1.8 1.8
2 1.5 0.8
3 2.0 0.9
4 2.2 1.2
5 2.2 2.0
6 2.0 2.0
7 2.0 2.0
8 2.0 2.0
9 2.0 2.0
10 2.0 2.0
11 2.0 2.0
12 2.0 2.0
13 2.0 2.0
14 2.0 2.0
15 2.0 2.0
16 2.0 2.0
17 2.0 2.0
18 2.0 2.0
19 2.0 2.0
20 2.0 2.0
21 2.0 2.0
22 2.0 2.0
23 2.0 2.0
24 2.0 2.0
25 2.0 2.0
TABLE lA (cont)
ALLISON CREEK (cont)
OCTOBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
26 2.0 2.0
27 2.0 2.0
28 2.0 2.0
29 2.0 2.0
30 2.0 2.0
31 2.0 2.0
NOVEMBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 1.0 1.0
2 1.0 1.0
3 1.0 1.0
4 1.0 1.0
5 1.0 1.0
6 1.0 1.0
7 1.0 1.0
8 1.0 1.0
9 1.0 1.0
10 1.0 1.0
11 1.0 1.0
12 1.0 1.0
13 1.0 1.0
14 1.0 1.0
15 1.0 1.0
16 1.0 1.0
17 1.0 1.0
18 1.0 1.0
19 1.0 1.0
20 1.0 1.0
21 1.0 1.0
22 1.0 1.0
23 1.0 1.0
24 1.0 1.0
25 1.0 1.0
26 1.0 1.0
27 1.0 1.0
28 1.0 1.0
29 1.0 1.0
30 1.0 1.0
TABLE 1A (cont)
SOLOMON CREEK -HIGH VALUES EFFECTED BY TIDES
SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW
1979 TEMP. TEMP.
10 12 7
11 12 7
12 13 8
13 12 9
14 13 8
15 8
16 8.5
17 7
18 7 6
19 7
20 7
21 7 6
22 6
23 6
24 6
25 6
26 6
27 6
28 9 6
29 11 6
30 6
OCTOBER HIGH LOW
1979 TEMP. TEMP.
1 12 5
2 12 6
3 9 6
4 11 6
TABLE 1A (cont)
SOLOMON CREEK (cont)
OCTOBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEtJIP. TEMP. TEMP.
5 6 5
6 12 5
7 5
8 5
9 10 5
10 11 5
11 5
12 5
13 5
14 5
15 4.5
16 4.5 3.5
17 7 4
18 10 4
19 10 4
20 11 4
21 10 3
22 9 2
23 9 2
24 9 2
25 9 3
26 9 3
27 9 3
28 8 3
29 9 3
30 9 3
NOVEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
1 6 3
2 3
3 8 3
4 7 3
5 7 2
6 7 1
7 8 1
8 8 1
9 8 0
10 2 1
11 3 2
12 3 2
13 2 1
14 1.5
15 4.5 1.5
TABLE 1A (cant)
SOLOMON CREEK (cant)
NOVEf>lIBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
16 6 1.5
17 6 2
18 6 1
19 6 1
20 5 0
21 7 1
22 7 1
23 7 1
24 6 1
25 6 1
26 6 1
27 5 1
28 6 1
29 5 1
30 6 1
DECEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TElviP. TEMP. TEMP.
1 6 1
2 6 1
3 7 1
4 7 1
5 7 0
6 6 0
7 7 0
8 6 0
9 5 0
10 1 -0.7
11 -0.6
12 0.6 -0.6
13 3.8 -0.6
14 2.4 -0.5
15 4.0 -0.5
16 3.7 -0.5
17 4.5 -0.7
18 4.4 -0.5
19 4.5 -0.3
20 4.6 -0.4
21 4.6 -0.4
22 3.7 -0.3
23 3.3 -0.4
24 4.8 -0.2
25 4.8 -0.2
26 4.4 -0.2
TABLE 1A (cant)
SOLOMON CREEK (cant)
DECEMBER HIGH LOW AVER.
1979 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
27 4.3 -0.2
28 3.2 -0.2
29 3.0 -0.3
30 2.9 -0.5
31 3.3 -0.5
JANUARY HIGH LOW AVER.
1980 TEMP. TEIVlP. TEMP.
1 3.8 -0.5
2 4. 1 -0.3
3 2.5 -0.4
4 3.5 -0.2
5 3.7 -0.2
6 3. 1 -0.2
7 3.3 -0.2
8 3.2 -0.2
9 1.2 -0.5
10 2.7 -0.5
11 2.9 -0.6
12 2.2 -0.6
13 2.9 -0.3
14 3.4 -0.3
15 2.9 -0.5
16 3. 1 -0.3
17 2.8 -0.2
18 3.0 -0.2
19 2.3 -0.2
20 2.6 -0.2
21 3.0 -0.2
22 2.0 -0.3
23 1.8 -0.5
24 1.8 -0.5
25 2. 1 -0.5
26 1.5 -0.5
27 3. 1 -0.4
28 2.8 -0.5
29 2.4 -0.5
30 2.8 -0.5
31 3.2 -0.6
•
TABLE 1A (cont)
SOLOMON CREEK (cont)
FEBRUARY HIGH LOW AVER.
1980 TEMP. TEMP. TEMP.
1 2.9 -0.4
2 3.0 -0.3
3 3. 1 -0.3
4 2.2 -0.5
5 2.5 -0. 1
6 2.0 -0.3
7 2.2 -0.4
8 2.0 -0.5
9 1.6 -0.5
10 1.7 -0.2
11 2.0 -0.4
12 1.0 -0.8
13 1.7 -0.5
14 1.9 -0.5
15 1.8 -0.4
16 1.7 -0.7
17 2. 1 -0.5
18 2.0 -0.5
19 2.8 -0.4
20 2.6 -0.3
21 2.5 -0.3
22 2.6 -0.3
23 2.0 -0.4
24 2.0 -0.5
25 2.4 -0.3
26 2.3 -0.2
27 3.8 -0.2
TABLE 1A (cent)
SOLOMON CREEK (cent)
MARCH HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 3.0 -0.5
2 2.5 -0.5
3 2.8 -0.5
4 2.9 -0.3
5 3.0 -0.4
6 3.0 ':0. 1
7 3.0 -0. 1
8 3.0 -0.1
9 2.8 -0. 1
10 2.4 -0.4
11 2.0 -0.4
12 2.0 -0.5
13 2.0 -0.5
14 3.0 -0.5
15 2.9 -0.5
16 3. 1 -0.3
17 3.5 -0.3
18 3.2 -0.3
19 3.5 ':0.5
20 3.0 -0.5
21 3.9 -0.2
22 3.5 -0.5
23 3.3 -0.5
24 3.8 -0.2
25 3.8 -0.2
26 3.8 -0. 1
27 3.2 -0. 1
28 3.2 a
29 3.4 a
30 3.5 -0.2
31 3.0 -0.4
APRIL HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 2.8 -0.5
2 2.8 -0.2
3 4.0 -0.2
4 4.0 -0.3
5 4.5 .02
6 4.3 .02
7 4.9 .05
8 4.5 .02
9 5.8 .05
10 4. 1 0
11 * *
TABLE lA (cont)
SOLOMON CREEK (cont)
APRIL HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP
12 * *
13 * *
14 * *
15 * *
16 * *
17 * *
18 * *
19 * *
20 * *
21 * *
22 * *
23 * *
24 * *
25 * *
26 * *
27 * *
28 6.2 0
29 5 .02
30 5 .08
*Machine malfunctioned -data not avail ab 1 e
MAY HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 5.2 .08
2 5.8 .08
3 5.2 0
4 6.0 0.8
5 6.8 1.0
6 6.8 .05
7 7.4 .09
8 7.8 .09
9 7.9 1.0
10 7.8 .08
11 7.5 .08
12 9.5 .08
13 8.4 .05
14 8.2 0
15 9.8 0
16 9.8 .05
17 9.0 .09
18 9.0 .08
19 8.5 .08
20 8. 1 .08
21 7.4 .08
TABLE 1A (cant)
SOLOMON CREEK (cant)
MAY HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
22 7. 1 .08
23 2.5 .09
24 3.0 .09
25 3.3 .08
26 3.0 .09
27 1.09 .08
28 3.01 .08
29 3.0 .09
30 8.1 0
31 4.0 .08
JUNE HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 5.3 0.8
2 5.3 0.8
3 3.5 0.8
4 3.0 0.5
5 4.8 4.8
6 1.2 3.0
7 4.5 1.3
8 5. 1 1.3
9 3.0 2.0
10 3. 1 1.8
11 4.0 2.0
12 4.8 2.0
13 4.5 2.0
14 5. 1 1.8
15 7.0 2.2
16 4.0 2.2
17 3.8 2.0
18 4.2 2.0
19 4.6 2. 1
20 7. 1 2.1
21 7.2 2.6
22 5.9 2.9
23 5.0 2.2
24 4.8 3.0
25 7.6 3.0
26 6.2 3.0
27 4.0 3.0
28 6.0 3.0
29 7.4 3.0
30 9.0 3.0
TABLE 1A (cont)
SOLOMON CREEK (cont)
JULY HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 9.2 3.0
2 5. 1 3.0
3 9.5 3.0
4 7.0 3.5
5 4.5 3.8
6 5.0 3.8
7 6.0 4.0
8 5.5 4.5
9 6.5 4.0
10 7.0 5.0
11 7.0 5.2
12 6. 1 5.0
13 7.0 5. 1
14 8.0 5.2
15 9.2 6.2
16 9.0 5.8
17 8.0 5.2
18 7. 1 5.5
19 6.3 5.0
20 5.0 6.2
21 5.5 5.0
22 6. 1 5. 1
23 5.3 6.5
24 8.4 5.5
25 8.4 5.0
26 9.0 6.0
27 9.0 5.0
28 7.5 5.0
29 6. 1 5.5
30 7.3 5.0
31 9.0 5.3
AUGUST HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 9.0 5.2
2 7.0 5.2
3 7. 1 5.0
4 8.2 4.5
5 6.5 5.6
6 7.0 4.8
7 9.5 5.2
8 9.5 5.2
9 10.8 4.2
10 11.5 4.2
11 12. 1 7.0
12 11. 1 6.8
13 9. 1 6. 1
14 11.8 5.2
15 11.8 5.8
16 7.2 7.0
TABLE 1A (cont)
SOLOMON CREEK (cont)
AUGUST HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
17 6.0 6.0
18 6.0 6.0
19 6.0 6.0
20 6.0 6.0
21 6.0 6.0
22 6.0 6.0
23 6.0 6.0
24 6.0 6.0
25 6.0 6.0
26 6.0 6.0
27 6.0 6.0
28 6.0 6.0
29 6.0 6.0
30 6.0 6.0
31 6.0 6.0
SEPTEMBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 6.5 6.0
2 7.2 4.6
3 6.3 4.4
4 10.2 4.5
5 9.8 4.8
6 9.8 5.3
7 9.8 5.8
8 9.8 6.0
9 10.0 6.0
10 10.5 4.8
11 10.8 4.8
12 10.5 5.0
13 10.0 5.2
14 5.5 5.4
15 6.0 5.5
16 6.4 6.0
17 5.4 7.5
18 5.0 6.0
19 5.0 5.9
20 8.9 4.8
21 9.5 5. 1
22 9.5 5.5
23 9.9 5.4
24 10.0 4.9
25 10.0 4.9
26 10.0 5.5
27 10.0 5.5
28 10.0 5.0
29 9.9 5.0
30 5.9 5.4
TABLE 1A (cont)
SOLOMON CREEK (cont)
OCTOBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 5.5 5.0
2 5. 1 5.0
3 9. 1 4.8
4 9. 1 4.0
5 9.5 4.0
6 8.5 4.5
7 5.0 4.8
8 5.0 3.8
9 8.8 1.8
10 7.8 1.8
11 8.2 2.0
12 8. 1 1.0
13 9.0 1.0
14 8.9 2.0
15 7.4 2.0
16 3.5 3.5
17 7.5 2.5
18 7.0 2.2
19 7.5 2.2
20 7.5 2.2
21 8.3 2.8
22 8. 1 3.0
23 8.2 2.8
24 8.0 2.4
25 7.4 2.8
26 6.5 0.9
27 6.4 1.3
28 7.2 1.8
29 6.8 2.0
30 6.5 1.8
31 6.5 1.8
NOVEMBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 6.5 2.5
2 5.5 1.8
3 5.8 1.5
4 5.0 1.5
5 5.8 1.5
6 4.0 1.5
7 4.0 1.5
8 4.0 1.5
9 4.0 1.5
10 4.0 1.5
11 4.0 1.5
12 4.0 1.5
13 4.0 1.5
14 4.0 1.5
TABLE 1A (cant)
SOLOMON CREEK (cant)
NOVEMBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
15 4.0 1.5
16 3.0 1.0
17 3.0 1.0
18 3.0 1.0
19 3.0 1.0
20 3.0 1.0
21 3.0 1.0
22 3.0 1.0
23 3.0 1.0
24 3.0 1.0
25 3.0 1.0
26 3.0 1.0
27 2.5 0
28 2.5 0
29 2.5 0
30 2.5 0
DECEMBER HIGH LOW
1980 TEMP. TEMP.
1 2.5 0
2 2.5 0
3 2.5 0
TABLE 2A
Calculated Flows of Allison Creek
Using Meteorological Data from 1948 to 1977
(Unregulated Flows)
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL· AUG SEP AVG
1948 38. 35. K To 5. 3. 3. 59. 152. 176. 93. 83. 56-. -
1949 52. 23. 7. 5. 3. 4. 4. 30. 11l. 103. 89. 134. 47.
1950 29. 28. 12. 5. 4. 3. 2. 34. 124. 94. 86. 86. 42.
1951 16. 7. 3. O. l. 2. 3. 18. 88. 117. 86. 194. ~ ~.
1952 25. 25. 7. 5. 4. 3. 3. 15. 124. 255. . 99. 74. 54.
1953 103. 44. 10. 6. 4. 4. 6. 76. 184. 138. 117. 89. 65.
1954 48. 12. 6. 4. 4. 3. 4. 55. 12l. 94. 120. 83. 46.
1955 47. 25. 4. 4. 4. 3. 3. 12. 108. 174. 122. 43. 46.
1956 19. 9. 6. 7. 4. 3. 5. 3l. 125. 17l. 149. 72. 50.
1957 17. 27. 13. 5. 3. 3. 3. 44. 12l. 104. 99. 176. 5l.
1958 54. 35. 9. 8. 4. 4. 7. 89. 159. 264. 134. 4l. 68 .
. 1959 53. 14. ll. 5. 4. 3. 4. 66. 130. 150. 70. 42. 46.
1960 44. 19. 10. 7. 5. 3. 4. 79. 130. 163. 108. 8l. 55.
1961 29. 13. 23. 9. 5. 4. 6. 93. 120. 12l. 118. 84. 52.
1962 39. 15. 8. 7. 4. 4. 5: 4l. 116. 109. 74. 6l. 40.
1963 33. 22. 17 . 7. 10. 7. ll. 67. 112. 15l. 89. 54. 49.
1964 34. 10. 19. 6. 6. 4. 5. 13. 137. 157. 100. 47. 45.
1965 35. 22. 15. 5. 4. 4. 10. 47. 122. 96. 90. 97. 46.
1966 44. 1l. 7. 4. 3. 3. 5. 3l. 112. 95. 114. 127. 46.
1967 49. 20. 6. 4. 4. 5. 9. 44. 128. 114. 10l. 13l. 5l.
1968 23. 28. 14. 5. ll. 9. 6. 80. 116. 103. 7l. 5l. 43.
1969 24. 14. 7. 4. 4. 7. 10. 62. 129. 84. 55. 33. 36.
1970 6l. 23. 26. 8. 10. 8. ll. 4l. 122. 128. 128. 6l. 53.
1971 35. 19. 9. 5. 4. 3. 5. 20. 130. 18l. 113 . 52. 48.
1972 39. ll. 4. 4. 3. 2. 2. 14. ' 100. 14l. 103. 95. 43.
1973 46. 12. 8. 4. 3. 3. 4. 48. 105. 102. 98. 36. 39.
1974 20. 9. 6. 4. 3. 3. 5. 46. 106. 68. 7l. 93. 36.
1975 63. 28. ll. 5. 4. 3. 5. 44. 112. 164. 80. 106. 52.
1976 36. 8. 5. 4. 4. 3. 9. 154. 240. 135. 96. 122. 68.
1977 60. 55. 27. 12. 16. 4. 9. 45. 128. 143. 106. 94. 58.
AVERAGE 4l. 2l. ll. 6. 5. 4. 6. 50. 127. 137. 99. 85. 49.
TABLE 1B
Water Temperature
of A 11 i son Lake
13 April 1979
Site #1 Site #2 Site #3
Ice Thickness 1 ft. 3 ft. 6 ft.
Overflow 1. 5 ft. 0 0.5 ft.
Temperature °C
Surface (top of ice) -0.25 -0.25 +0.25
1 Meter -0.25 -0.25 0.00
2 -0.25 0.00 0.00
2.5 +0.25 +0.25
3 0.25 +0.25 0.30
3.5 0.50 +0.75 0.75
4 1.00 1.25 1.50
4.5 2.00 1.90 2.40
5 2.25 2.40 2.50
5.5 2.75 2.75
6 2.75 3.00 2.90
6.5 3.00 3.00
7 3.00 3.25 3.10
7.5
8 3.25 3.25 3.25
8.5
9 3.25 3.25 3.30
9.5
10 3.25 3.30 3.30
10.5
11 3.25 3.30 3.30
12 Bottom Cd 12.25 M 3.30 3.30
13 3.40 3.30
14 3.40 3.30
15 3.40 3.30
16 3.40 3.50
17 3.40 3.40
18 3.40 3.50
19 3.50 3.50
20 3.50 3.50
30 3.50 Bottom @ 22.25 M
Bottom @ 37 M
TABLE 2B
Calculated Flows of Allison Creek
Using Meteorological Data from 1948 to 1977
(Regulated Flows)
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP AVG
T948 19-4"5"":-48"-:-j7-: 4lf": jT. 14-13. "j"j."" 96. 82. 78. W.
1949 47. 45. 49. 37. 40 32. 34 33. 34. 32. 34. 77. 4l.
1950 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 39. 37.
1951 39. 46. 49. 38. 4l. 32. 35. 34. 35. 33. 35. 39. 37.
1952 39. 46. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 65. 88. 69. 38.
1953 98. 45. 48. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 33. 120. 106. 84. 47.
1954 43. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 72. 59.
1955 42. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 64. 39. 40.
1956 39. 46. 49. 38. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 87. 67. 40.
1957 39. 46. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 135. 44.
1958 49. 45. 48. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 33. 227. 123. 39. 45.
1959 46. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 35. 59. 39. 62.
1960 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 67. 97. 76. 40.
1961 39. 46. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 33. 32. 103. 79. 49.
1962 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 33. 32. 34. 39. 46.
1963 39. 46. 49. 38. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 50. 49. 37.
1964 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 5l. 32. 40.
1965 39. 45. 49 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 68. 39.
1966 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 33. 34. 76. 40.
1967 44. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 40. 126. 40.
1968 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 39. 45.
1969 39. 46. 49. 38. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 34. 39. 37.
1970 39. 46. 49. 38. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 37. 56. 37.
1971 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 32. 84. 47. 39.
1972 39. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 33. 34. 39. 42.
1973 40. 45. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 34. 33. 34. 39. 37.
1974 39. 46. 49. 38. 4l. 33. 35. 34. 35. 33. 35. 40. 37.
1975 40. 47. 50. 38. 4l. 33. 23. 34. 35. 33. 35. 39. 38.
1976 39. 46. 49. 38. 4l. 32. 35. 33. 7l. 124. 85. 117. 59.
1977 55. 50. 48. 37. 39. 3l. 34. 33. 33. 84. 95. 89. 52.
AVERAGE 43. 46. 49. 37. 40. 32. 34. 33. 35. 5l. 58. 62. 43.
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS OF ALLISON CREEK
WATERSHED BELOW ALLISON LAKE
MONTHS cfs (Average)
Oct 29
Nov 14
Dec 4
Jan 3
Feb 2
Mar 2
Apr 2
May 24
Jun 86
Ju1 103
Aug 86
Sep 69
1\ilr1Ua 1 j6
TABLE 4A
Water Quality Data of Allison Creek
Collected by Alyeska Pipeline Service
from 1975 to 1977
PARAMETER
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Manganese
Aluminum
Zinc
Arsenic
Copper
Barium
Cadmium
Charomium, Hexavalent
Lead
Silver
Mercury
Chloride
Fluoride
Cyanide
Silica, Total
Silica, Dissolved
Su If ate
Nitrate
Phosphate, Total
Solids, Total
Solids, Suspended
Solids, Dissolved
Hardness, as CaC03
Calcium
Magnesium
Alkalinity, Total, as CaC03
M Alkalinity, as CaC03
P Alkalinity, as CaC03
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC0 3 Hydroxide, as CaC0 3 Turb i d ity
Color, Apparent
pH (Laboratory)
22 February 1975
VALUE
0.5 o. 1
O. 1
0.01
0.01
6 mg/l
10 mg/l
10 mg/l
0.01
1 mg/l
10 mg/l
2 mg/l
2 mg/l
0.2 mg/l
0.33
0.05
0.05
2.5
3. 1
6.4
0.5
1.2
43.8
0.7
43. 1
31.2
10.0
1.5
19.6
19.6
o
19.6
° o
3.0 JTU
5 Color Units
(at pH 7.2)
7.2 pH Units
PARAMETER
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
TABLE 4A (cont)
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC03
Hydroxide, as CaC03
M Alkalinity, as CaC03
P Alkalinity, as CaC03
Sulfate
Chloride
Iron
Aluminum
Silica (Total)
Silica (Dissolved)
Total Dissolved Solids
Turbidity, JTU
Color, Color Units
Hardness, as CaC0 3 Ammonia
Copper
pH (Laboratory), pH units
Temperature (Field), 0C
Dissolved Oxygen (Field)
Carbon Dioxide (Field)
13 FEBRUARY 1975
VALUE
8.7
1.1
0.98
18.5
o
o
18.5
o
6.5
0.24
O. 1
0.2
7.0
2.2
35.0
2.2
5
26.0
0.48
0.02
7. 1
3
18.4
3.75
PARAMETER
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
TABLE 4A (cont)
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC0 3 Hydroxide, as CaC0 3 1'1 Alkalinity, as CaC0 3 P Alkalinity, as CaC0 3 Su Hate
Chloride
Iron
Aluminum
Si 1 ica (Total)
Silica (Dissolved)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Turbidity, JTU
Color, Color Units
Hardness, as CaC03
Copper
pH (Laboratory), pH Units
Temperature
Carbon Dioxide
4 APRIL 1975
VALUE
8.4
0.8
0.80
20.7
o
o
20.7
o
7.7
1.2
O. 1 o. 1
4.0
3.5
1.5
35.2
1.1
5
24.3
O. 1
7.0
70 C
4.0
PARAMETER
Turbidity, NTU
Color, Color Units
TABLE 4A (cant)
pH (Laboratory), pH Units
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC0 3 Hydroxide, as CaC03
M Alkalinity, as CaC03
P Alkalinity, as CaC0 3 Hardness, as CaC03
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium-Hexavalent
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Fluoride
Ammonia
Nitrate
Phosphate, Total
Silica, Total
Silica, Dissolved
Su lf ate
Solids, Total
Solids, Suspended
Solids, Dissolved
23 MAY 1975
VALUE
1.2
5
7.3
13.8
o
o
13.8
o
20.8
7. 1
0.8
0.3
o. 1
0.01
0.7
0.90
0.2
10 mg/l
0.2
10 mg/l
10 mg/l
10 mg/l
10 mg/l
0.2 mg/l
10 mg/l
10 mg/l
26 mg/l
O. 17
8.84
0.4
0.3
11
3.4
4. 1
33.0
1.5
31.5
PARAMETER
Turb i d ity, NTU
Color, Color Units
TABLE 4A (cont)
pH (Laboratory), pH Units
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC03
Hydroxide, as CaC03
M Alkalinity, as CaC03
P Alkalinity, as CaC03
Hardness, as CaC03
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Iron
t~anganese
Sodium
Su If ate
PARAMETER
Turbidity, NTU
Color, Color Units
TABLE 4A (cont)
pH (Laboratory), pH Units
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC03
Hydroxide, as CaC03
M Alkalinity, as CaC03
P Alkalinity, as CaC03
Hardness, as CaC0 3 Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Sodium
Su If ate
24 JUNE 1975
VALUE
1.3
5
7.0
10.7
o o
10.7
o
18.5
5.8
1.0
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.6
4.7
AUGUST 1975
VALUE
4.3
5
7. 1
11.8
o
o
11.8
o
15. 1
5.7
0.2
0.5
0.15
0.01
0.50
3. 1
TABLE 4A (cont)
PARAII,jETER
Turbidity, NTU
Color, Color Units
pH (Laboratory), pH units
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC03
Hydroxide, as CaC03
M Alkalinity, as CaC0 3 P Alkalinity, as CaC0 3 Hardness, as CaC0 3 Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium-Hexavalent
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Fluoride
Ammonia
Nitrate
Phosphate, Total
Silica, Total
Silica, Dissolved
Sulfate
Solids, Total
Solids, Suspended
Solids, Dissolved
19 AUGUST 1975
VALLIE
4.4
5
7.0
11.9
11.9
16.3
5.8
0.5
0.4
O. 15
0.01
O. 14
0.5
O. 1
10 mg/l
O. 1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.3 mg/l
0.01
0.01
0.05
O. 1
O. 10
0.5
0.3
8
1.3
4.8
41.5
2.0
39.5
TABLE 4A (cont)
PARAMETER
Turb i d ity, NTU
Color, Color Units
pH (Laboratory), pH Units
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC03
Hydroxide, as CaC03
M Alkalinity, as CaC03
P Alkalinity, as CaC03
Hardness, as CaC03
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Iron
Maganese
Sodium
Sulfate
b OCTOBER 1975
VALUE
7.0
10
7.2
23.9
o
o
23.9
o
16.3
5.6
0.5
0.5
0.86
0.01
0.4
3. 1
TABLE 4A (cont)
PARAMETER
Turbidity, NTU
Color, Color Units
pH (Laboratory), pH Units
Bicarbonate, as CaC03
Carbonate, as CaC03
Hydroxide, as CaC03
. M Alkalinity, as CaC03
P Alkalinity, as CaC03
Hardness, as CaC03
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Iron
I"'anganese
Sodium
Sulfate
9 DECElvlBER 1975
VALUE
1.6
5
7 • 1
21.2
o
o
21.2
o
26.0
9.0
0.7
0.9
0.25
0.01
0.9
8.5
TABLE 4A (cont)
22 APRIL 1977
ELEMENT RUN #1 RUN #2 ELEMENT RUN #1 RUN #2
Silver .005 .005 Magnesium 0.8 0.7
Aluminum .009 .009 Manganese .002 .00
Arsenic .02 .02 Molybdenum .004 .00
Gold .02 .021 Sodium
Boron .001 .001 Nickel .006 .00
Bari urn .001 .001 Phosphorus . 1 . 1
Bismuth .03 .03 Lead .02 .02
Calcium 8.6 8.6 Platinum .05 .05
Cadmium .01 .01 Antimony .016 .01
Cobalt .03 .03 Selenium .01 .01
Chromi urn .01 .01 Silicon 1.40 1.38
Copper .017 .016 Tin .001 .00
Iron .001 .001 Strontium .003 .00
Mercury .025 .025 Vanadium .002 .00
Potassium .2 .2 Zinc .025 .02
TABLE 4A (cont)
PARAMETER TOTAL Si02, ppm DISSOLVED SiO
Allison 3.00 2.95
TABLE 4B
ALLISON LAKE
WA TER QUALI TV
May 1979
SAI~PLE DEPTH
Alkalinity mg/l as CaC03
Aluminum mg/l as Al
Ammonia mg/l as N
Arsenic mg/l as As
Barium mg/l as Ba
Cadmium mg/l as Cd
Chloride mg/l as Cl
Chlorine mg/l as Cl
Chromium mg/l as Cr
Color pt-co unit
Copper mg/l as Cu
Flourine mg/l as F
Iron mg/l as Fe
Iron Bacteria
Lead mg/l as Pb
Magnesium mg/l as Mg
Manganese mg/l as Mn
Mercury mg/l as Hg
Nickel mg/l as Ni
Nitrate mg/l as N
Nitrite mg/l sd N
Kjeldahl mg/l as N
Petroleum or derivatives mg/l
ph
Potassium mg/l as K
S-ilver mg/l Ag
Sodium mg/l as Na
Sulfate mg/l (S04)
Total Dissolved Solids mg/l @
Total Settleable Solids mg/l
Turbidity NTU
Zinc mg/l
6 Feet
11.0
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.03
1. 15
0.33
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.0
0.01
none
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
O. 11
0.004
O. 14
0.00
7.52
0.09
0.00
0.06
6.5
103C 20.0
0.0
0.01
0.00
70 Feet
11.4
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.90
0.36
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.0
0.01
none
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.006
O. 11
0.00
7.81
0.08
0.00
0.07
7.2
19.0
0.0
0.01
0.00
Mammals
Black bear -Ursus americanus
Brown bear -Ursus arctos
Wolverine -Gulo ~
TABLE 5
Mammals of the
Port Valdez Areal
Marten -Martes americana
Short-tailed weasel -Mustela erminea
Mink -Mustella vision
River otter -Lutra canadensis
Lynx -Lynx canadensis
Coyote -Canis latrans
Gray wolf -Canis lupus
Porcupine -Erethizon dorsatum
Snowshoe hare -Lepus americanus
Mountain goat -Oreamnos americanus
Marine Mammals
Sea otter -Enhydra lutris
Northern sea lion -Eumetopias jubata
Northern fur seal -Callorhinus ursinus
Harbor seal -Phoca vitulina
Dolphin -unidentified
Killer Whale -Orcinus orca
Harbor porpoise -Phocoena-phocoena
Dall's porpoise -Phocoenoides dalli
Hump-backed whale -Megapetera novaeangliae
Compiled by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Ecological
Services, Anchorage, Alaska.
TABLE 6
BIRDS OF THE PORT VALDEZ AREA
Common Loon
Yellow-billed Loon
Arctic Loon
Red-throated Loon
Red-necked Grebe
Horned Grebe
Short-tailed Albatross*
Black-footed Albatross
Laysan Albatross
Fulmar
Pink-footed Shearwater*
Pale-footed Shearwater*
Sooty Shearwater
Slender-billed Shearwater
Scaled Petrel*
Fork-tailed Petrel
Leach's Petrel
Double-Crested Cormorant
Pelagic Cormorant
Red-faced Cormorant
Great Blue Heron
Whistling Swan
Trumpeter Swan
Canada Goose
Black Brant
Emperor Goose
White-fronted Goose
Snow Goose
Mallard
Gadwa 11
Pintail
Common Teal
Green-winged Teal
Blue-wi nged Tea 1
European Widgeon
American Widgeon
Shoveler
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Canvasback
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Barrow's Goldeneye
Bufflehead
White-winged Scoter
Surf Scoter
Common Scoter
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Goshawk
Sharp-shined Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Harlan's Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Golden Eagle
Bald Eagle
l"1arsh Hawk
Osprey
Gyrf a 1 con
Peregrine Falcon
Pigeon Hawk
Sparrow Hawk
Spruce Grouse
Willow Ptarmigan
Rock Ptarmigan
White-tailed Ptarmigan
Sandh ill Crane
American Coot*
Black Oystercatcher
Semipalmated Plover
Killdeer
American Golden Plover
Black-bellied Plover
Surfbird
Ruddy Turnstone
Black Turnstone
Whimbrel
Bristel-thighed Curlew
Spotted Sandpiper
Solitary Sandpiper
Wandering Tattler
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Knot
Rock Sandpiper
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Baird's Sandpiper
Oldsquaw
Harlequin Duck
Steller's Eider
Common Eider
King Eider
Western Sandpiper
Gray Jay
Steller's Jay
Black-billed Magpie
Common Raven
Northwestern Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
Boreal Chickadee
Chestnutbacked Chickadee
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Dipper
Winter Wren
Robin
Varied Thrush
Hermit Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Wheatear
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Water Pipet
Bohemian Waxwing
Northern Shrike
Starling
Red-eyed Vireo*
Orange-crowned Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Myrtle Warbler
Townsend's Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
Wilson's Warbler
Red-winged Blackbird
Rusty Blackbird
Common Grackle*
Pine Grosbeak
Gray-crowned Rosy Finch
Hoary Redpoll
Common Redpool
Red Crossbill
White-winged Crossbill
Savannah Sparrow
Slate-colored Junco
Least Sandpiper
Dunlin
Short-billed Dowitcher
Long-billed Dowitcher
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Hudsonian Godwit
Sanderling
Red Phalarope
Northern Phalarope
Pomarine Jaeger
Paras it ic Jaeger
Long-tailed Jaeger
Skua*
Glaucous Gull
Glaucous-winged Gull
Herring Gull
Mew Gull
Bonapart'sGull
Black-legged Kittiwake
Sabine's Gull
Arctic Tern
Aleutian Tern
Common Murre
Thick-billed Murre
Pigeon Guillemot
Marbled Murrelet
Kittlitz's Murrelet
Ancient Murrelet
Cassin's Auklet
Parakeet Auklet
Rhinoceros Auklet
Tufted Puffin
Screech Owl*
Great Horned Owl
Snowy Owl
Hawk Owl
Great Grey Owl
Short-eared Owl
Boreal Owl
Annals Hummingbird*
Rufous Hummingbird
Belted Kingfisher
Yellow-shafted Flicker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Northern Three-toed Woodpecker
Red-shafted Flicker
Say's Phoebe
Western Flycatcher
Oregon Junco
Tree Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lapland Longspur
Snow Bunting
Western Wood Peewee
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Violet-green Swallow
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Barn Swa 11 ow
Cliff Swallow
TABLE 7
All i son Creek Escapement
-.--~ .. -. YEAR Escapement
Pink Salmon Chum Salmon .-.---~---.--.
1960 100
1961 750
1962 560 580
1963 -0-2,660
1964 -0-190
1965 -0--0-
1966 -0--0-
1969 500-1,000
1971 300
1973 25
Source: ADF&G.
Note: Allison Creek was not regularly checked for escapement by Fish and
Game but only as time and funding allowed. A year which shows zero
escapement does not necessarily mean that no fish spawned that year, it
only indicates that at the time it was checked there were no fish present.
UNITED STf-lrES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFF SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOr: H[).
IN FH:Pl.Y REFf:~1 TO (8£) M,CHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(9071 276-30:00
III I
Colonel Lee R. Nunn, District Engineer
Attention: Mr. Jay Soper
Department of the Army
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn:
This responds to your letter of Novemher 9, 1979, requesting a list of
threatened and endangered species H'hich may be affected by construction
of a hydroelectric power facility on Allison Creek near Valdez, Alaska.
Based on the best information currently available to us, no listed or
proposed threatened or endangered species for ,,,hich the Fish and Wild-
life Service (FWS) has responsibility, are known to occur in the Valdez
area. Therefore, you may conclude that the hydroelectric power project
on Allison Creek will have no affect on those species, and that formal
Section 7 consultation ,,,ith the FWS is not required.
Protection of threatened and endangered marine mammals is the responsi-
bility of the National Marine Fisheries Service (m1FS). Hhereas Allison
Creek is a tributary to Valdez Arm, you may \I1ish to contact the NMFS to
determine potential effects of the project on those species.
New information indicating the presence of currently listed threatened
or endangered species administered by the n~s or the listing of new
species which might be affected by the proposed project will require
reinitiation of the consultation process.
Thank you for your concern for endangered species. Please contact us if
you have questions or if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely, "I
.. ~/I?/~ AS~rea Director
.:.
Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation
Southcentral Railbelt
Valdez Interim
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project consists of a lake tap at Allison Lake, power tunnel,
above ground penstock, powerhouse, and a transmission line intertie with
the Solomon Gulch Substation. Approximately 5 cubic yards of riprap would
be placed in Allison Creek below the tailrace as an erosion protection
measure. Five cubic yards of riprap would also be placed below the
tailrace to Port Valdez at the MHI~~ mark for erosion protection.
2. AREA DESCRIPTION:
a. Physical: The area impacted at Port Valdez would be approximately
90 square fe8t of rock and cobble wi thin the intertidal area near the
mouth of Allison Creek. Five cubic yards of riprap would be placed in
Allison Creck above the existing weir. The impacted area is wi thin the
banks of the stream on a rock and cobble area.
b. Biological: The proposed disposal site in Port Valdez would be at
the MHI-tN level which supports little attached vegetation and minor
populations of benthic organisms. The Allison Creek disposal site is
above any salmonid spawning or rearing and is in an area where the
velocity is high. The area contains typical algae and juvenile
invertebrate species associated with short, glacial fed, coastal streams.
3. CONFORMITY WITH GUIDELINES:
Evaluation Under 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230)
a. Physical Effects: The direct ~hysical impact of this discharge
involves the elimination of 20 square yards of a water resource from the
physical, chemical, and biological systems. The work is exempt from
testing since the material to be used does not represent a possible source
of contamination to the surrounding aquatic ecosystem.
b. Water Column Effects: Turbidity would increase during work
operations. Accordingl \f, light penetration would be decreased. Turbidity
caused by runoff at the project site would not be significant. High
nutrient concentrations or toxic materials would not be discharged into
the water column. The water column, as a whole, would not be
significantly impacted.
c. Effects on Benthos: The proposed discharge would eliminate a
portion of the benthic community due to smothering from sedimentation. It
is likely that this community will recolonize the project site. Overall,
the benthos would not be adversely impacted.
d. Chemical-Biological Effects: The material to be discharged would
not significantly impact the chemical integrity of the aquatic ecosystem.
The project site is not located in a biologically sensitive area. Thus,
the chemical-biological system would not be significantly disrupted.
4. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND OBJECTIVES:
a. This project would not significantly disrupt the integrity of the
aquatic ecosystem.
b. The food chain would not be significantly disrupted by the
proposed work.
c. This activity would not inhibit the movement of fauna.
d. The filling activity would not destroy wetlands having significant
functions in maintenance of water quality.
e. The filling activity would not destroy wetland areas that retain
natural high or flood waters.
f. The proposed work would be conducted in a manner so as to minimize
turbidity.
g. The activity would not degrade aesthetic, recreational, and
economic values.
5. DEGRADATION OF WATER USES:
a. The discharge is not in the vicinity of a public water supply
intake.
b. The discharge is not in an area of concentrated shellfish
production.
c. The discharge would not disrupt fish spawning and nursery areas.
d. The discharge has been designed to minimize impact on wildlife.
e. The discharge would not adversely impact recreation areas or water
oriented recreation.
2
6. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES:
No endangered or threatened flora and fauna, as listed in the Federal
Register, Vol. 44, No. 12, 17 January 1979, "List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants" and subsequent updates, would be impacted
by the proposed project. No critical habitat would be destroyed or
modi fied which would jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered
or threatened species.
7. WETLANDS:
Wetland species impacted by this proposal include: rockweed (Fucus
disticus) and coraline algae. The project site is not considered to be a
productively vegetated wetland. This project would not adversely impact
the wetland resource.
8. SUBMERGED VEGETATION:
The project site is vegetated with submerged vegetation. The following
species are located on the site: rockweed and coraline algae. This
project would not adversely impact this wetland resource.
9. APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES:
a. No Action: The no action alternative may cause erosion and scour
in both Port Valdez and Allison Creek. This alternative would not be
environmentally acceptable.
b. Reduced Fill Size: The fill is at the smallest practicable size.
c. Modi fy Fill Location or Dimensions: The location is below the
outfall at the MHHN level and cannot be located at any other site.
10. WATER DEPENDENCY:
The purpose of the project is water dependent or water oriented. All
activities taking place on the fill are water oriented in nature. There
is a water dependent need for the proposed project.
11. DISPOSAL SITE SELECTION:
The disposal site has been selected to be the least environmentally
damaging. There are no alternate disposal sites available which are less
environmentally sensitive and still feasible for the proposed project.
The disposal site has been limited to its smallest practical size.
3
An ecological evalu~)tion as required by Section 40 LI(b) (1) of the Clean
\~() ler Act has bO::cn made following the evaluation guidance in 40 CFR
2~XJ. 5. ApprofJI iate measures have been identified and incorporated in the
proposed plan to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic and wetland
(~Co~;ystems as a result of the discharge. Consideration has been given to
the need for the proposed activity, the availability of alternate sites
and methods of disposal that are less damaging to the environment, and
such water quality standards as are appropriate and applicable by law.
Impacts on wetlands at the site would be unavoidable. Approximately less
than one-ten th of an acre of aquatic habitat would be eliminated. All
activities upon the fill would be water oriented or dependent. There are
no other viable or foreseeable practical alternatives.
The discharge site does conform with the Guidelines. As such, the
discharge site can be specified through the application of Section
404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended by
the Clean Water Act of 1977. .
APPENDIX F
CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPARTMENr OF lW&nJRAL RESOIJRCES
November 12, 1980
Re: 1130-2-1
Col. L. R. Nunn
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
DIVISION OF PARKS
Subject: Electrical Power for Valdez, etc.
Dear Col. Nunn:
JAY S. HAMMO~D. GOVERNOR
619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99601
PHONE: 2744676
We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer the follow-
ing connnents:
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
No probable impacts. Should cultural resources be found during the
construction, we request that the project engineer halt all work which
may disturb such resources & contact us innnediately.
The proposed action is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program's historic, prehistoric and archaeological resources standard.
i 7) A-;~ f/~~ l .. I~ ~i~L pi
Douglas?R. Reger, D~puty
State Historic Preservation Officer
STATE PARK PLANNING
Page 20 of the EIS states that consideration was given to the possibil-
ity of enhancing or creating recreational values, yet there is little
text given to the recreational and scenic values or opportunities.
These elements appear to be dismissed due to the restricted land use
control and existing site modifications.
Col. L. R. Nunn
November 12, 1980
Page 2
LWCF
No connnent.
Sincerely,
~~~~.{~£,
\' ~--~'.
~ Chip Dennerlein
Director
CD:mlb
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Aboriginal Setting: Prince William Sound is the home of the Chugach
Eskimo, or Cuatit, as they call themselves. The Chugach Range and the
mountains of Kenai Peninsula form material boundaries between the Chugach
and the Tanana Athabaskans of Cook Inlet and other Athabaskan groups in
the interior.
The Chugach hunted primari ly marine rather than 1 and animals. Present in
the sound were harbor seal, fur s~al, sea otter, sea lion, and beluga
whale. Fish of all kinds were abundant. In the 1 ate winter and early
spring when bad weather prevented hunting, the natives relied on shell-
fish. This is evidenced by the accumulation of shells that mark almost
every village site or camping spot.
Federica de Laguna surveyed Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet during
the summers of 1930 through 1933. She was able to reconstruct much of
the Chuqach material culture as it must have been within 500 or so years
preceeding first contact with the white man. The following is a summary
of her conclusions.
Archeological evidence indicated the population of the sound was very
small. There were long stretches of shoreline where no sites were
reported or observed. The material evidence shows that they had an
elaborate social and religious culture. The Chugach were impressive
craftsmen in woodworking, evidenced by a rich asortment of tools,
especially common was the heavy splitting adz, present in some of the
oldest sites. There was a reliance on chipped flint and chert that were
grinded on wet stones. Native copper was worked by hammering, heating,
and grinding for weapons, needles, spear points, and decorative uses.
Village sites were usually on the shore, usually in protected waters, for
travel was almost all by sea. The village was frequently placed in a
strategic position with a view of the approaches. This seems to be a
more important consideration than a neighborhood of a salmon stream or a
rich bead of shellfish. Thus, it is thought, no permanent villages were
located at the heads of bays in spite of the presence of some of the best
salmon streams. Temporary summer camps were set up at fish streams
during the salmon runs. Small rocky islands or cliffs which were diffi-
cult to climb were used as refuge places or forts. Hunting camps were
set up on small islands for the pursuit of sea mammals. Rock shelters or
caves near the shore might be used as camping places and burial grounds
and the rock walls of such sllelters were sometimes used for pictographs.
There were no permanent settlements in the interior.
The dwell ings of the Chugach were generally underground with spruce bark
for roofing, although there is evidence of wood plank houses above
ground. There is also evidence of the Chugach using bath houses.
F -1
The closest site investigated by De Laguna to the Valdez area was Galena
BiiY. It was reportedly a fish camp. There '/Jere two semi-subterranean
houses which have since washed away. The only trace of early occupation
was a 2-foot layer of humus and fire cracked rock at a sand beach. A
spitting adz, a broken pestle and an unfinished hunting lamp came from a
bank near tl'lO existing cabins.
A cultural resou~ce survey conducted in connection with the proposed
right-of-way for the Alyeska pipeline checked out the area being cleared
for storage tanks. This area is located just south of the remaining
buildings of old Fort Liscum which is in the affected area of Allison
Creek hydropower project. Th e 0 pi ni on was t he a rea conta i ned 1 itt 1 e
promise of archeological value (Workman 1970).
Historical Setting
The Spaniards are credited with the initial discovery of Valdez Bay by
Don Salvador Fidalgo in 1790. He named the bay for a fellow naval
officer Antonio Valdes y Basan. In 1884, Captain William Ralph
Abercrombie of the U~S. Army surveyed a portage route from the interior
to Port Va 1 del;
Around 1889, the early beginnings of what 10 years 1 ater was to be a
booming stamped town began to make an appearance at Port Valdez. Early
miners came to seek routes leading to their fortune in mineral wealth.
The discovery of gold in the interior established Valdez as one of the
three Alaskan routes to the gold fields. There was prospecting done
around Valdez, also. The streamer and transport companies were making a
fortune bringing men to the port towns (Wartan 1972).
Captain Abercrombie was responsible for establishing a military road to
Fort Egbert in Eagle, exploring the Copper River valley and maintaining
some order in Valdez. Fort Liscom, across the east end of Port Valdez
"'Ias established for this purpose in 1900. Company C, 7th Infantry
a r r i ve d tog a r r i son For t Lis com 0 nAp r i 1 2 9 , 1 9 00 . ( Arm yin A 1 ask a
1972). Fort: Liscom was also the base of operations for the Washington
DC-Alaska military cable and telegraph system connecting Alaska to the
lower 48 via Canada.
The follol'ling is taken from a report written by C.I"1. Brown for the State
of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, 1975.
Of the 1,600 acres which comprised the Fort Liscum military reservation
(reduced to 660 acres in 1903) the post buildings occupied only a few
acres. The buildings were located closely to one another, with plank
walks linking most. Officers' quarters were arranged in a row, forming
the western boundary of tIle parade ground. The barracks, gymnasium, post
exchange, hospital, and guardhouse formed the eastern and southern
boundaries of the parade ground. Large structures, such as the hospital
and barracks, were located some distance from the shore, while smaller
huildings such as the sheds and storehouses, were placed nearer to the
F-2
shorp--probablv to facilitate easier transport of supplies and equipment
from the l,o,iharf. Civilian quarters and stables formed their own complex.
a short distance west of the post.
Both permanent and portable buildings were constructed at Fort Liscum.
Nearly all of the permanent buildings, such as the barracks, officers '
quarters, offices, amusemet hall, hospital, etc., were occupied in 1900;
they were frame structures with wood foundations and corrugated iron
roofs. Additional permanent structures were constructed in 1904-05 when
the post garrison was increased to two companies; these buildingw were
essentially the same in architectural style as earlier structures. The
exception was the commanding officer's quarters, the only building at
Fort Liscum with concrete foundations, basement, and closed porch. Most
portable buildings at Fort Liscum were assembled from sheets of corru-
qated iron in 1901; many had boarded interiors, while others were metal
shells.
For a community of its size. Fort Liscum was provided with a remarkable
number of modern facilities. The post had its own telephone system,
connecting all of the offices and several officer's quarters. The
"centra 1" was located in the guardhouse, and operated by a member of the
guard on duty. The post also had a telegraph office which, by means of a
submarine cable to Valdez, allmved communications with almost any point
in Alaska and the contiguous United States. Also, the post had a govern-
ment launch, which made trips to Valdez on a regular basis. Fort Liscum
W(jS not an isolated post in the wi lderness.
In the early 1900 's, water was obtained primarily from a barrel sunk into
the bed near the mouth of Allison Creek. Water \',as dipped from the
barrel, and then del ivered by water cart to the post. Thi s arduous
method was modified somewhat in early 1903 when a small pipe was
installed to conduct water from Allison Creek to the company and hospital
kitchens, and bath house. Water for the officers ' quarters and barrack
lavatories was still obtained oy water cart. Late in 1903, however,
Chief Surgeon of the Department of Columhia, Lieutenant-Colonel Wilcox,
inspected the post and recommended the installation of modern water and
sewage systems, noting also that Allison Creek might prove a source of
electricity. In 1904, a dam was constructed to form a reservoir, and a
temporary pipe system installed. The next season, modern plumbing
facilities began to be installed.
Completed in 1906, the new water system eliminated the old method of
transporting water by cart to post buildings and disposing garbage and
refuse in dry earth closets. A 4-inch main conducted water from Allison
Creek to distributinq pipes with a pressure of about 75 pounds to the
square inch. Barracks, officers ' quarters, the hospital, and other
buildings were thus equipped with enamel bath tubs and wash bowls, shower
baths in the barracks, wash sinks and closets. Two sewer mains drained
into the bay near the limit of low tide. Fire hydrants were conveniently
located about the grounds. Water pressure on the lower levels of the
reservation was sufficient to throw two fair streams of water over two-
F-3
story buildings. At higher points the results were not satisfactory. By
1913, Ilydroelectric dams with an aggregate rated capacity of 700 horse-
power were operating in Solomon Gulch, providing electricity for lights,
heat, etc. for the post. (U.S. Geological Survey 1914: 78).
For several years after Fort Liscum was abandoned in 1922, the post
buildinqs remained vacant and unused. In 1925, however, President Calvin
Coolidge ordered (No. 4131) the Fort Liscum military reservation placed
under the control of the Secretary of the Interior. Several private
citizens then applied for permission to acquire the buildings. In July
1925, the Reverend T. Lavrischeff, Rector of Russian-Greek Orthodox
Mission in Prince William Sound, requested the removal of any two build-
ings at Fort Liscum, to Cordova where he intended to establish a "temple
and church house (Lavrischeff 1925). The appl ication was denied. There
must have been numerous requests to obtain the post buildings, for in
1926 the district General Land Office was instructed to send an inspector
to Fort Liscum and appraise the improvements. In the meant-ime, tIle
Alaska Road Commission was permitted to salvage several of the post
buildings (Nos. 20 and 30). (General Land Office, February 26, 1926)
In early 1928 the General Land Office submitted an appraisal of the Fort
Liscum military reservation at $2.50 per acre. Each post building was
appraised separately, the inspector arriving at values considerably less
than the original cost of tIle buildings--reportedly because the wood
foundations of most structures were in poor condition and because the
roofs of some structures had collapsed. In any case, the reservation,
buildings, and miscellaneous objects were valued at $2,288. (General
Land Office, January 9, 1928) Shortly thereafter, on October 2, 1928,
the Alaska Road Commission received permission to salvage all buildings
on the reservations. A special survey (U.S. Survey No. 1746) was made of
the military reservation, with the Interior Department accepting the plat
on March 11, 1929. (General Land Office, February 8, 1934)
The Alaska Road Commission moved a number of the post buildings to other
sites; it also sold various buildinCjs to private citizens, who in turn
salvaged the structures. One of these individuals, A.S. Day, applied for
a homestead on the mi 1 itary reservation, and converted several former
post buildings for use as a residence and salmon-canning operations. In
the mid-1Q30's, the Interior Department cancelled U.S. Survey 1746 and
Day acquired a patent to his homestead, 160 acres of USS 1746. Day
subsequently applied for permisstion to purchase an additional number of
buildings. Referrinq to Day's application, a special agent to the
District Land Office reported: "the Alaska Road Commission at Valdez
stated that during the time the buildings were in their possession, they
had removed everything they considered to have any salvage value, and
that what remained on the ground was not worth transporting to any other
place, and tlley as well stated that had not Mr. Day been right at Fort
Liscum, no other person in all probability would ever have offered $1 for
what rem2ined." (General Land OffiCe, December 7, 1937) On December 7,
1937, 11 buildings, the dock, water pipes, telegraph poles, etc. were
sold to Day for $500.
F-4
Today the Alyeska oil terminal encompasses the original site of Fort
Liscom.
Impact Investigation
A cultural resource reconnaissance was conducted for the Allison Creek
hydropower project.
The 10catiCln tested for cultural remains was within the confines of the
Alyeska Pipeline Terminal across Valdez Arm from the city of Valdez.
The proposed pm"erhouse site area was specifically tested.
The area is reached from a short gravel road on the west side of Allison
Creek that leads to an exist-ing pUlTlphouse. The general terrain slopes to
the north yet the area in question has been flattened and graded. It is
presently a material source, approximate 50 meters in diameter.
The edges of this gravel pit seemed to have been disturbed at some point
in the past based on the evidence of the vegetation which consists of low
growing alders and other brush. The cleared area was visually inspected
for cultural remains, because test pits were useless in the gravel
substratum. A number of rusted metal parts were noted scattered through-
out the gravel pit. It was difficult to ascertain just how old they
were. On the western side of the pit several large chunks of concrete
that seemed old and eroded \'Jere found. The gravel incorporated into
these blocks was not of uniform size as it is in more recent concrete;
however, it is probably pre-World War II. The concrete and metal parts
may be the remains from Fort Liscum. Three test pits were dug on the
alder covered hillside to the south of the gravel pit. Bedrock was only
an inch or two below the surface so natural exposures were looked at
instead of digging test pits. No cultural remains were found.
Cultural resource clearence is recommended for the proposed powerhouse
site. In the unlikely event that any unknown cultural resources are
discovered during construction activities the Corps of Engineers Cultural
Resource Coordinator wi 11 be contacted.
No properties included in or that may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places are located within the area of
environmental impact, and this undertaking will not affect any such
property.
The latest edition of the National Register and monthly supplements
contained in the Federal Register have been consulted.
F-5
APPENDIX G
FOUNDATIONS AND MATERIALS
Item
INTRODUCTION
LOCAL LINEAR FEATURES
SEISMICITY
LAKE TAP
POWER TUNNEL
POWERHOUSE
COMMENTS
ADDI TIONAL WORK
BORING LOGS
APPENDIX G
FOUNDATIONS AND MATERIALS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
G-l
G-l
G-l
G-l
G-2
G-2
G-3
G-3
G-4
INTRODUCTION
Allison Lake is located on the south side of Port Valdez, directly across
from the city of Valdez, filling approximately one-half of a glacier formed
hanging valley. The area is underlain by the Late Cretaceous Valdez Group, a
series of metagraywackes, shales and slates with occasional beds of pillow
basalt. This is indicative of a rapid, unsorted deposition in an ocean
environment. The beds are highly disturbed and no regional structure has yet
been defined.
LOCAL LINEAR FEATURES
Aerial photographs and regional mapping show three strong lineaments near
Allison Lake. They are: Jack Bay, east-west leg on the north side of Jack
Bay, and an east-west trend approximately 1 mile north of Jack Bay. These
features have been mapped as faults by the U.S.G.S. (Bulletin 989-E dated
1954) .
SEISMICITY
Allison Lake is located in Seismic Zone 4, approximately 46 miles east of
the epicenter of tne 27 March 1964 earthquake. The major source of seismic
activity in this region is the relative motion of the Pacific and North
American plates. The Pacific plate is plunging under the North American plate
and it is active along the Benioff Zone which controls the tectonic setting of
the area.
Prior to 1964, there were approximately 70 magnitude 5, or greater,
earthquakes recorded in the Valdez vicinity. Magnitude 5 earthquakes have
averaged approximately one per year in recent years. Submarine landslides
have been associated with several of the larger events. Magnitude 8 or
greater events have occurred three times this century, therefore there is a
good probability of a large earthquake occurring during the life of the
project. Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) should be tentatively set at
magnitude 8.5 at 40 miles.
It is important to note that there has been no evidence of rupture in area
bedrock. Most destruction in Port Valdez has been caused by tsunami and
submarine mass movement of unconsolidated Lowe River delta deposits.
LAKE TAP
Allison Lake valley has the very typical "U" shape of glacier scouring.
Sidewalls are extremely steep metagraywacke cliffs with extensive talus
deposits and fans at lake elevation. Lake bottom slope changes indicate talus
slopes continuing to the bottom. DH-l, drilled near the original tap
location, went through 33 feet of pourous sandy boulders. Metagraywacke
bedrock is highly fractured to 70 feet and from 130 feet to 168 feet. A zone
of liqht to moderate fracture extends from 70 feet to 130 feet and from 168
feet to the bottom of the hole at 176 feet. Artesian water was encountered at
approximately 110 feet. Shutoff pressure of 50 psi indicate approximately
G-l
100 psi pressure at depth. The source is located in or above the cliffs
bordering the lake. Precisely locating the tap will require underwater
photography and possible use of diver inspection. Additional drilling will be
required during the General Design Memorandum phase to determine exact
overburden thickness and rock characteristics. Artesian conditions
encountered in the vicinity could pose a problem during construction and will
require further investigation.
POWER TUNNEL
As noted, Allison Lake sits in a glacier scoured valley. The lake outlet
is in what appears to be deep till deposits. DH-2, located approximately
4,000 feet downstream of the lake outlet, did not penetrate bedrock at a depth
of 64 feet. Assuming a relatively flat rock line, bedrock may be at an
elevation between 1,150 and 1,200, 170 to 220 feet below lake elevation. This
is based on the elevation of the falls downstream of the outlet. DH-2 was
drilled from an elevation of 1,350 feet, 1,200 feet east of metagraywacke
cliffs. This reinforces the suspicion of deep tills in the valley.
Plans call for a power tunnel invert elevation of 1,050 feet. The tunnel
has been alined to be under the metagraywacke cliffs to assure that it was
located in rock. Additional postauthorization explorations and studies may
locate suitable rock in the valley floor which would permit a shorter tunnel
alinement. The cost estimate for the proposed tunnel was based on an 8-foot
unlined horseshoe tunnel for 50 percent of the length and a 6-foot diameter
concrete lined circular tunnel for 50 percent of the length. During
postauthorization studies, additional drilling will be done to determine the
extent of overburden and condition of underlying rock.
POWERHOUSE
One hole DH-3, has been drilled in the lower powerhouse area, penetrating
69 feet of Allison Creek delta deposits before encountering moderately to
highly fractured metagraywacke. While the delta deposits would make good
foundation material for a small surface powerp1ant, the area may be subject to
tsunami below an elevation of +85 MLLW. During slide induced sea waves, runup
at Anderson bay, 7 miles west of Allison Creek, was measured at 70 feet.
Measurements at Shoup Bay (Cliff Mine) on the north side of the arm show a
runup of 170 feet. No runup measurements were made at Jackson Point or
Fort Liscum, but the cannery at Jackson Point floated away.
Maximum high tide in Port Valdez is approximately +14 MLLW; therefore, to
include the 70-foot runup at Anderson Bay the powerhouse elevation should be
at least +85 MLLW. For this reason the upper powerhouse, located at
approximately +100 MLLW was selected. Additional reconnaissance and
explorations will be required for final powerhouse location during
postauthorization studies.
G-2
COMMEIHS
Permeability of the glacial till and the artesion water will have to be
assessed after additional drilling and e~ploration~ to determine the extent of
and solution to the problem.
ADDITIONAL WORK
Due to preliminary nature of the work performed to date, additional
drilling and regional and local mapping will have to be done during the
General Design Memorandum phase. The particular questions to be addressed
wi 11 be:
a. Condition and permeability of bedrock on proposed tunnel alinements for
lining requirements.
b. Depth and permeability of tills.
c. Source of artesian water in lake tap area.
G-3
-1'~~ ·/~-IU-'J\·-----'~r-.-;-,~ __ .. 3t!;tiv.ll:£~
onILLOAT£9' START 22 ~) 1978~. .8apW·j.
17!1.8' O£,.TH O'F OVEnOUROVi 33.2' OIAM .• tQ.I •
CORE RECOV£r.EO 138.3' 'R. ft£"" .., rz-•. nOCK D~I~LL~E~O ____ 1'_12_._6_' +-~~~~~~~ ________ ~ __ ~M-~~ ____ _
AtR'.1\ITH mo:'J NOilT.1 .-1M NJGLE f'RO:'-A VERT. 00 r------.-----------"----h.----------=---1t
OIST'SICES: VERTICAL. .. • H<r.l'ZO~T~"".
6-.Af't(~
ELEV. C:::P1'H LOG DESCRIPTION Of IMTEf'IAL$
1380 0 '~": Overburden. brraywa<.:kc boulders 1n "!~' . tl sand and sil t rmtrix. Boulders to
. '6' 4. feet in diameter -I.' .,,' :
: .. /~ .~~~:
10-.,' ., Sand and silt .: .. / ..
>I l ./·: ... " .
. ' .... :~. Bouldery sand; sand fine to
·b· ::. medium, boulders to 1 foot diAmeter
:setup on ~ ~ .. ~' I_let.
Artesian flow, lIMIt (1):ff
pt c 9I.U"e SO psi.
SWL 4.0'
9.6'
15.0'
,
()ye~'burden I!JIIftt)We ClOnIIwt
20' ". ;.::. '-.... f>. of boulder fniJuiliiu. _
:~.::.::.:~
-'::6''-0.:, •. ".': 27.5'
~A 0 ::;anay DOIHoers; OOUloors t;o ;t reet
3p_ :&".~ in diameter _
1347 ?J:~ Top of Rock 1-'33=:,.2=--' _________ "
-:f):': Metagraywacke, noderat;ely weathered C8J to 32.8'
11.:. nodcratcly hard, fine to n~clhrn n~
. rained. mas.<;i vc except in sh8Jle ' ..... :. ~O_ :~:.~: '.Ones, highly fractured, gray;
: .-:. ': staining on fractw-es oc:mron. qtz r ....
. 'c!l'.' veins ccmoon. t
-':.: :·,:iL Thin gray plastic mud at 38.5', L' Qtz veins 'JJfJ to fIfJ
. '~.. 39.1'. 41.4'; 0.1' at 43.5' w/occ. veiRfJ at tJJifJ , ." :
~ iI··· 1'-"'-".1)' . .. . "
'A: '.
-:::~.~.:. ...... '
60
.. ·.·ii:·.· .. ·:: Oce. sulphides 011 jOints belo.v
-.. :'Ii: 57.7' .
.. . .
~<A":-
" ....
DO_ .:?l'::::'.
.':' :-. (.1. :4: :.~ .::'
-: -:'i.:i: J2R3 . . "-
1280 100 -'.~:' .::. :'.:. Sandstone. lrr'c1ilUJl gl'a i ned, grny.
. .... .' Qtz. ve i.1J~; llQarYCr J;j~1: 1.
NP;~ f()Tm _"(1'" I) APR. C3$ ., rnOJECT An ison L:l.k('
G-4
Core lengths 33. 2'
<0.1' -1.8'
Mostly <0.5'
Core lengths 71. 0 '
126.7'
<0.1' -3.0'
Mostly 0.5' -1. 0'
97.0'
f
100.0' .
IHo~E ..G.
--
.
~ .
--
~l
=! ,
W-l .1
r---s\.J~,f'~~.RY LOG
' -,.' -;: ~-.. it: ; , .,'"
:-i,,\"I,(,.),mlk \ __ ._~cu.~EI 1. Of 1 1 --1:LO LEN O. I ~I-:.! ~ __ SU:1rACs..~b~V,_1
PROJECT Allison l:lko DRILL [d.TES I START 3 Oct 1978 COMPo 18 OctlU1K1
.... ,~
CE?TII OF HOLE 61.0' ~"" O'F CVEnaUROEft 64.0' 0111:.1. OF 1t000E NX/Blt 1 .
ROC'( OniLLEO 0.0' COR( RECOVEr.EO NA ~\ RECOVERY NA
ANt:;LE' FROM VERT. rP AZIrJUTH mo.J HOaTH ~D8Y. DAT!: !
! _.
" /#~?9 I OlSTAI'JCES I VERTICAL. i H~IZOHTAL. I
IOIWttG
DESCRIPTION Of k'ATERIALS
.,. I £LFi. OEPTH LOG J:mt REMARKS
u _ 11." ~! Bouldery silt, red-browo. metagray-1 ~j,l, wacke boulders, non-plastic fines. 3---5' TIlL I j
-~~.:<J 50% Boulders / j
~~o.' ~ Fines .,~
, ~ ........... ' . " '
10.-': ?$~ .. Q Gravelly, sandy boulders. gray. o.=m Boulders to 3.5' in diameter. 1 :' .:~ . .. -7r1fo boulders ~-.a' -,:·pd 2r1fo Sand.
\1l~1i. 1r1fo Gravel
riQi' .-..
.20.2' 00, '.' . ....... :.; Gravelly sand, dark gray, frozen Pennafrost (7) ...•.. No, terperature readinp -
'.~ .. :':: -.. -. -...... -........ · ...... • •• s· •• • -
~ ·:,;.~·:h ~' -• ••• t. ';F" . Silty sand, dark gray, frozen, ~ • 1~~f.1 55% Sand -2r1fo-3O% Silt
°1·' $-15% gravel '" :,. 1r1fo Boulders
14°-.,.'V.'\ Occ, clay serurs 'j · ... Gravels round to sub-round.
-;
, ',1".', • .1 :l
-'J~"j ~
I' 'oO · , . ,
48.9' :1 ., ....
50_ 'D ;0 Silty, oobbley sand, tan to gray, Weathered surface -3 o'jo: possibly frozen. TIlL II
..:. lor-4!i'J, sand Ess~ltially the same 1 ·.· •. jo: 35$ cobbles parent naterial as upper
· .f) .,,' 15% silt rrIIL I -VI .\ ~ gravel · "'' .~ ~-.. '., . ·i~:~1 I
. -LM.1)'. 'j at ' . .,
-W.rro.f OF IDLE 1 Total Depth 64.0' ~I 10_ 1 i j
~
J
I
80--=-! .' -; -· -
'~ -'. ,
po---: . --.
, -0'
I -
100 j l ,
NPA form lrrCiln APR,EG PROJECT Allison lAke I "JLUft(). 111-2 •
G-5I
r~UMi'.'j~'~Y!lfG .--
1-'---f3~fJ 1
Pa.w'rlnllsc Q~ ! l
11.[-3 AJ"C:l t IOL~ N . ,
-.~',.--. ....~ • SURr-A£:_~~V. I
PRO·JECT All bOil Lake OmLL CV\TES I SlArrr :t OI:t 1978 COMPo 19 (kt197; i f---.
OEPTIf OF HOLE 90.0' DEPTH Or OVEnaunOEN 68.S' DIAU. OF .. OLE NCQ • !
noc" DrlILLED 21 2' COrtE RECOVEfiEO 21.2' % RECOVEnv ~
.
j
FROM VERT. ....... . ANGLE 0° AZIMUTtI FROM r-!OiITti ..NA ~~D BY. DAT£. i ---' Val--<f1!:1~"?f~ DISTAtlCES' V:~.RTICAl t HC;'lIZONTAL.
~c DESCRIPllON
,. .. I ELEY. OEPTH LOG OF '.!IATERIALS CORE: REMARKS
I u _ t7 ",l>. Overburden; fill, (',obbley gravel .!
CIlc)~ :! () •• 0 ~ -'" D " 6.0' .
-l~·· ~at r O.t! ••• Gravel with minor cobbles, _:1 10 '" &)._
graywacke origin. Creek outwash 0.0'-17' drilled with ,I o. ,.. ·1 "'., . Trioone bit J -.~ ""].0." 17' .1 , -i~~ Boulders (95%) with 5% gravel ., I f20 20' .: rr. Boulder till, gray, occ . 0% DI~'R 0' -23' . R 'O' •• -I ,-~. Clay layers and sand layers, lQ<:J$ D\\'R 23'-50' )
.' iirD. 25% -45% boulders .i , . "., CJfo -'.!I.1k cobbles -:1 I~ro': 5% -lax. gravel 17' to botton N~ roring :j
30.-' ~~;~@.. 20% sand ...
0% -20% silt -~
• IqIO''; "
Graywacke origin. '!
,~ .. J -·f·C).' -, .~.j~ -I
:t
~O ,0, ~.' 40' r":' Cobbley, silty sand, dense, gx-ay "
'0:' : to tan Dec. layers of :;
}·tl: rounded gravels (1"-3" dia) -: and clay layers .
. ', 0, ..: ~ .1~:I::I .. 0% DWR 50'-51' in I:,rravel -!
-: " ,.0, j ,. ,
-a .:-::' ~~ay clay with Occ. sand and 75% ~m 51' -56' ,-_~4. ock fragrrents, 52.5' to 56.5' 100% llVR 56' -66' 1 .. -. ----~)~.~~~; ,
,.j
Q ,.' , TIU. 100% llYR 66' -73' .'
:. .0, :1 ,-·iv·· 'I: CSG to 66.0' I F "\ -, : t· .. :' :r,'~ : 68.8' .1 .
• f; " ....
70_ .... .. .... ~ MGtagra~'\mcke, troderately \\'eathert:.'<1 Core lengths -· .... ~ .. : ':'A:: sarl, fine b'l'nuK-'CI, nl:Jdcrately to <0.1' to 2.0' ,
highly fractured, dark gray. Avg.O.33' .
"'}j: i -"!i: .: Pyrite comoon on fractures. Materia
; IJ.· .; *~; grades ootween lOOtnf,'Tuywueke and 0% D\\'R 73' to bottan
· ·,~tr. shale, QTZ veins eamon,
80 . -:~::'::: --'-j . :::::h:: ... .
.-: ;;;:':.:: ".
190 ,~::tl·. 00.0'
-,
• <;«"' ... . OOl'lOjl OF l/Ol..J~ :I
'11icklles.og of overburden 68,8' .J .:
100 1 Rock fnl'fvl 21.2' l --' Core recovered 21.2' .;
% Core reeovcrccl 100 .!
I
tl PA Form 1~ t) I HOLE NO.
I APR. 66 O~ PROJ~CT A ll.i son Lnl,e DI-3 I ~
A #
i"'$U~,~~·"hV (00 .. ~
-1J~.~,I,;-. no. Ilil··1
Pf(OJECT Allison Lake!
1--'
1-. ~~ __ ~~ HOlE 111;.1:5 '
AOCI< OfULLEO lt12.G'
NlGlE FRO~1 VERT. 00 r-------
OISTA!.!£.ES: VERTICAL.
conE nECOVEnfO 138.3'
AZ !:':Ntli FAO~A NonrH Nfl
i HO:nZOttTAL.
pwn~
ELEV. I>~PTH LOG DESCRIPTION OF "'ATERIALS
,.
CCAE
"A nECOYEAY 97
I rw~i) BY. DATl I
,~ IJ~'"it
REMARKS
.......,P'I'rV'I+-.?<>r+.-.-:--+~-----:-~~------t---t----------.. ~ lUU :','.:.:. Metagraywacke, IBID .;
:.:A::·~ .,
-::.~\\
" .:': (j.:-::ll'::':
Sanci"itone, ] ight 1 Y wea the red , hard,
medilun grained, light to rroderate
fracture, gray
1261 12n -'~'.i\,~' 1259 ~~~·~'·~H.~.~~~I~e~la~lgr~:a~w\'a~ck~e~I~B~I~J) __ ~~ ______ ~
:: . .'.:': SandstOne, IBID. Dec. shale :rones.
-':..;:..:.:.: --." .. " . ...:-
1251. -.. :-;-:-
1249 1~~·~:~~·~~'~~·'-:~-A-~-l-~,-.t-·a--~v-ac-'k-e-'--II-ll-D-.------------'
1247 . I .. .. • Sandstone, mID.
1237
. --=-:::: Sha 1 e, rroderalely weath('nxl, ==_-rroderate!ly harel, fill(! gl'ainecl,
---
14~ -_--
.:.....::::---
thin bedded, highly fractured
dark gray .
_ {/:// Sandstone, mID., highly fractured.
1230 150 ::.'.:.:::
1212
1204
;. ':-:(::i Metagraywacke, m!D., highly
::'."4,::. fractured. ~linor clay cOlmun on -·.'jii joinls.
. __ . ::~~~·S:/
1...-' ·:,n;·
_ -Shale, mID. Dec. SS. lay~rs '-=.==: _ .~ .. ,~:::. SS. 161.4' -161.9' and 167.3' -
_ -167.8' -.. : .. ' .:
17Q......:: '::-~ ,.:': Sandstone!, IBID, Oce. Irctagr;I)"I'.<lcli.e. .":~:': Lightly fractured 168.8' to boltull.
-j~'~.:.~.: .. :': -~ ..... '.
100.-:
-
19~
200
. -
rUnD\! OF HOW
1\'pl h !) r hole
'Jh i Ckllf.'SS (l [ O\'cl'lJul'li<.'1I
Hock C'()I'l~d
Coi'(' rCl'O\'('n'<I
<;;, Con~ rccovered
1111 i SOil LHk(~
17;). R'
:n.2'
112.6'
l:l:-i.3'
97
109.0'
1.19.0'
121. 3'
129.2'
131. 5'
Qtz. veins continue ooonOl
11.50.0'
Core lengths 126.7' -
1G8.8' <0.1' -1.2'
Mostly <0.5'
C 160.0'
168.0'
Olre lenglhs 168.8' -
175.8' 0.2' -2.7'; AvgO.~
11 boxes 0 r core
I\rt.C':·;i;Ul flow
1\ 'plh
!j{()-
lOG.O -
llG.()-
12(;.0 -
1:16.0 -
1116.9 -
IG1.7 -
161.3 -
GI'AI
107.6 0-:-0
117.6 2.6
127.6 2.4
l:l7.G 8.0
1·17.6 0.6
]!)8.5 12.0
JG3.3 1.8
175.8 13.0
UI··
.'
; ; ; Ii; Z II ;;; II til, ;;; : i;; ; II
APPENDIX H
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
AND
CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESPONSE
A Ii ,Ii, I ' !jiil' "',,1'
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE II\lTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
IN REPL YREFFR TO: ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
R7·1
Co.lonel Lee R. Nunn.
District Engineer
. Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn:
This correspondence transmits the final Coordination Act report of
the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, 48 stat. 401, as amended, for the proposed hydro-
electric project at Allison Lake near Valdez, Alaska. The U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service participation in this project was initiated on
December 17, 1976, through a letter from the Corps of Engineers.
Project design information was obtained via a preliminary report
dated April, 1978, and through correspondence and conversations with
Corps of Engineers personnel.
Information provided is based on the analysis of field investiga-
tions, a . literature review, and discussions with personnel from the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Corps of Engineers, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,
the City of Valdez, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, and the U.S.
Geological Survey. Review comments of the draft Coordination Act
report by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of
Engineers were considered in preparation of the final document.
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning the contents
of the report, please contact the Western Alaska Ecological Services
Field Office at 271-4575. ,
Sincerely,
~r"·""f' Vc,..V C<7
A""~t Area Director ((-
cc: AOES, WAES
Valdez Interim
Southcentral Railbelt Study
Allison Lake Hydropower Project
Alaska
Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
Submitted to Alaska District
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers·
Anchorage, Alaska
Prepared by:
Western Alaska Ecological Services Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anchorage, Alaska
May 1980
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
AREA DESCRIPTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
RESOURCE INVENTORy ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5
PROJECT IMPACTS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8
DISCUSSION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13
RECOMMENDATIONS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17
LITERATURE CITED ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 20
APPENDIX A: SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES ••••••••••••••••• 21
APPENDIX B: TEMPERATURE DATA ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22a
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Page
Figure 1. Location and Vicinity Map Southcentral
Railbelt Study, Valdez Interim ••••••••••••••••••••• 4a
Figure 2. Valdez Interim Report, Southcentral
Railbelt, Allison Lake, Topographic Plan •••••••••• Sa
Figure 3. Valdez Interim Report, Southcentral
Railbelt, Allison Creek, Topographic Plan •••••••••• 5b
Figure 4. Seasonal Variation Population Density
of Harpacticus uniremis •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7a
Figure 5. Bald Eagle Nest Sites,
September 14 and 16, 1976 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8a
Table I Prince William Sound Salmon Catch by
Species in Numbers of Fish, 1970-79 •••••••••••••••• 6a
Table II Value of Prince William Sound Salmon Catch
in Pounds, and Value to Fishermen, 1970-79 ••••••••• 6b
Table III Allison Creek Salmon Escapement Data ••••••••••••••• 6e
I Table IV Allison Creek -Discharge Measurements ••••••••••••• 8b
INTRODUCTION
The Alaska District, Corps of Engineers (CE) is investigating the
need for electrical energy at Valdez, Alaska and surrounding commu-
nities. In performance of this investigation, the CE analyzed
various alternatives and has identified the hydropower potential of
Allison Lake. A detailed feasibility analysis of this project is
occurring. This final Coordination Act report is being provided to
the CE by the Western Alaska Ecological Services Field Office of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to assist in that analysis.
AREA DESCRIPTION
Port Valdez is located in the northeasternmost extension of Prince
William Sound, and is surrounded by the Chugach Mountains. The Port
is a steep walled, glaciated fiord which is 3 miles wide and extends
in an east-west direction about 14 miles. At its western end the
fiord bends to the southwest and constricts to a one mile width at
Valdez Narrows before opening into the Valdez Arm of Prince William
Sound. The steep mountain slopes extend beneath the water, forming
a flat bottomed trough 400 to 800 feet deep. The shore of Port
Valdez is steep and rocky, except where river deltas and glacial
moraines project into the fiord. Port Valdez is the northernmost
ice-free seaport in Alaska, and provides the shortest and most
direct route between tidewater and the interior of Alaska. The
southern terminus of both the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the Richardson
Highway are located in Valdez.
Approximately 70 earthquakes with a magnitude of five or greater on
the Richter scale have been reported at Valdez since 1898, and seven
earthquakes have equaled or exceeded a magnitude of eight. The 1964
Alaska Earthquake and the attendant secondary impacts virtually
destroyed the original town of Valdez on the Lowe River Delta. A
new' town has since been constructed on the delta of Mineral Creek on
the north side of the bay.
Valdez enjoys a maritime climate, characterized by heavy precipita-
tion and relatively mild temperatures. The average annual precipi-
tation is 59.31 inches, including 244 inches of snow. The average
annual temperature at sea level ranges from 39° to 43° F, with a
recorded maximum of 87° F and a minimum of minus 28° F. Local winds
are influenced by the Chugach Mountains and follow two distinct
patterns: (1) from October through March or April prevailing winds
are from the northeast, and (2) from May through September prevail-
ing winds are from the southwest. Maximum sustained winds of 58
m.p.h. and gusts of 115 m.p.h. have been recorded at Valdez.
Allison Lake (Figure 1) is located near the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
terminal in a glacial cirque lying in a north-south trend. A glacial
moraine extends across the valley and impounds the lake at a surface
elevation of 1,367 feet. The lake is 1.25 miles long, approximately
0.3 mile wide, and over 190 feet deep. Several small glaciers and
permanent snowfields at the head of the valley drain into the lake.
The outlet stream traverses a gentle gradient for approximately 0.6
mile before descending steeply to sea level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------~
I
GLENNALLEN
VALDEZ
LOCATION A ~J () V I C I NIT Y M /\ P
s au THe [ N T R A L n A I L. [3 E L T S H; 0 Y
----_._------_._--------------------_.--------------------
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Allison Lake hydropower facility will consist of a lake
tap at 1,250 feet elevation, a rock tunnel from this level to 1,220
feet elevation, and a 48~inch penstock reaching from the lake tap
through the rock tunnel to one of the two proposed powerhouse alter-
natives (Figures 2 and 3). Both proposed powerhouse alternatives
are located on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company property and either
would occupy about 1.5 acres. The Alyeska terminal site road would
provide access to either site, with only an additional 50-100 feet
of road construction required.
Powerhouse alternative #1 is proposed above the existing weir in
Allison Creek, which was constructed by the Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company for a partial source of water for the terminal of the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline. The proposed powerhouse is at an approximate
elevation of 100 feet (Figure 2). The tailrace would run directly
into Allison Creek at this location. The CE has not proposed a dual
tailrace configuration at this site as described below for powerhouse
alternative #2; however, further consideration of such a feature at
this site is contained in the discussion section of this report.
Powerhouse alternative #2 is proposed near tidewater at an approximate
elevation of 10 feet (Figure 3). A combination of two tailraces are
proposed by the CE for this powerhouse. One would discharge directly
into Port Valdez, the other would discharge into Allison Creek near
the proposed powerhouse. CE personnel have stated that the discharge
from the proposed powerhouse could be regulated through each tailrace
independently or through each simultaneously. For example, flow
through one tailrace could be constant while flow through the other
would vary according to power generation requirements. In addition,
a six-inch steel diversion pipe is proposed from the penstock to
Allison Creek above the existing weir to provide supplemental water
if the tributary flow to the creek is not sufficient for the needs
of Alyeska, and resident and anadromous fish.
To allow disposal of the proposed spoil, excavated from the rock
tunnel, an access road approximately 500 feet long will be con-
structed from the lower end of the rock tunnel at 1,220 feet
elevation due east to the edge of a cliff. About 45,000 cubic yards
of rock is proposed to be dumped over this cliff and into a deep
gorge.
The proposed transmission line will run 3.5 miles from one of the
proposed powerhouse sites to the Solomon Gulch substation of the
Solomon Gulch hydropower facility, now under construction by the
Copper Valley Electric Association. It will closely follow the
route of the existing Dayville Road along Port Valdez.
RESOURCE INVENTORY
Lower elevations of thi/coastal forest in this region support dense
stands of Sitka spruce-and mountain hemlock with an understory of
I' hi _T Common names of plant and animal species are used throughout t s
report. A list of scientific names is given in APPENDIX A.
~ ~. r
t~ -~ . i
~
;
Valdez Interim Report
Southcentral Railbelt
Allison Lake
Topographic Plan
Figure 2
I
\ g g :
,. -I
Valdez I nteri
Southcentral m ~eport Radbelt
Allison C To reek
pographic Plan
Figure 3
-
7
alder, salmonberry, blueberry, and devilsclub. The steep walls
above Allison Lake and upper Allison Creek support alpine tundra.
Tall shrub thickets dominated by alder and some balsam. poplar' occur
in the area of lower Allison Creek. The riparian area above the
lake supports mainly willow thickets.
The fresh and saltwaters of the Prince William Sound area support a
number of valuable fish species which are of great· economicimpor-
tance to the local economy. The short. coastal streams (approxi-
mately 700) are important for salmon production. Salmon usage of
these small streams is so widespread that, unlike other areas of
Alaska, no single stream or small group of streams plays a dominant
role in salmon production. In addition, the island-bay complex of
the Sound, provides thousands of miles of shoreline. distributed in a
fiord system particularly suited to early-stage rearing of juvenile
salmon. .
The Prince William Sound area has been a rather consistent salmon
producer since 1960. The average total salmon catch of 4.6 million
fish represents approximately 10 percent of the statewide salmon
harvest (Table I). The economy of the Prince William Sound area is
largely dependent on the commercial salmon fisheries (Table II).
The sport fisheries in the Prince William Sound area are also important
to the economy and are primarily centered around the communities of
Cordova, Valdez, and Whittier.· the area supports an expanding
marine fishery which is concentrated in Valdez Arm near the city of
Valdez.
Sport fishing is an important tourist attraction for Valdez and a
major source of summer recreation for local residents. Saltwater
salmon fishing is popular, with coho salmon being the most sought
after species. Pink and chum salmon are also caught in large numbers,
and a few chinook are occasionally landed. Dolly Varden, halibut,
rockfish, dungeness crab, and butter clams are also harvested in the
saltwater fishery. Freshwater fishing activity is minor in the
Valdez area. Salmon fishing is prohibited in all streams draining
into Valdez Bay, and trout habitat and populations are limited.
No fish are known to occur in Allison Lake,but fish do inhabit the
lower 0.5 mile of Allison Greek. Fish migration above this point is
blocked by high water velocity and the steep gradient of the stream.
The weir in Allison Creek is also a partial barrier to fish migration.
Dolly Varden and sculpin are resident in the creek, while spawning
populations of adult pink and chum salmon seasonally occur in the
summer and fall. Egg development of salmon occurs through the
winter months until out-migration of fry in early spring.
Salmon escapement estimates are limited and the available data
collected between 1960 and 1971 by the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) are given in Table III. It is apparent that escapement
counts on Allison Creek were not conducted on a regular basis;
however, numbers of chum salmon counted in 1963 exceeded 2600 and
Table I·
1 Pr ince William Sound Salmon Ca~ch hyS.pecies, in Numbers of ·fish, 1970-79.-1
Y~e-a-r----~Ch~in-o-o~k~----~S~o-c~k-eX-e--·----~C~o7h-O------~Pi7n~k~------~C7h-u-m Total
1970ll
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
* 19772./
*1978!!../
*197¢.1
Totals
10 yr
Average
1,031 104,169
3,551 88,368
547 197,526
2,405 124,802
1,590 129,366
2,519 189,613
1,044 112,809
632 310,147
1,043 220,329
2,002 146,468
16,364 1,623,597
1,636 162,360
11,485
30,551
1,634
1,399
801
6,142
6,171
804
1,464
6,780
67,231
6,723
2,809,996
7,310,964
54,783
2,056,878
448,773
4,452,805
3,018,991
4,509,260
2,785,156
15,375,339
230,661
574,265
45,370
729,839
88,544
100,479
370,478
570,497
483,559
323,397
3,157,342
8,007,699
299,860
2,915,323
669,074
4,751,558
3,509,493
5,391,340
3,491,551
15,853,986
42,822,945 3,517,089 48,047,226
4,282,294 351,709 4,804,722
1/ IJ Does not
Source:
include Copper-Bering Rivers~
1970-76, Alaska catch and production.
statistics. Statistical leaflets H21,
29.
Commercial fisheries
23, 25, 26, 27, 28, and
3/ ~/ Source: Alaska Department of
Source: Pete Fridgen, Alaska
* Preliminary results.
Fish and Game, 1977, Annual Report.
Department 6fFish arid-Game, -Coidova.
Table II
Prince William Sound Salmon Catch in Pounds,
and Value to Fisherrr:en, 1970-79
Pounds All Species ~( Catch % Catch hy wei~ht Tot<1~ Value
Pinks & Chums Pinks & Chur.!s Cate;"; in Dollars
197 o-!-I 13,R77,688 89 94 $2,277,582
1971 31,217,634 91 97 " 7, 4 3 6 ,5 1 s1-1
1972 2,132,510 18 30 2,926,061.Y
1973 16,314,156 70 93 8,635,016~J
1974 3,906,587 67 75 5,81l,69&~l
1975 18,524,038 94 92 5,733,649
1976 17,038,169 86 95 7,395,290
197711 ( 2 6 , 4 3 2 ,337) 84 (91) data not available
1975!!) (17,740,921) 80 (91 ) (6,832,242)
1979~J (68,660,829) 97 (98) (27 ,391, 727)
1/
2/
3/
~/
Source: 1970-76, Alaska catch and production. Commercial
fisheries statistics. Alaska Depart~ent of Fish and
Game. Statistical leaflets~ No.'s 21,23,25,26,
27, 28, and 29.
Includes value of salmon from the Copper~Bering River districts
also.
1977 data in parentheses are preliminary estimates only and not
published by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Total
pounds calculated using 1976 average weights for each species.
Chinook salmon not included. Source: Dennis Haanpaa, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage.
1978 data in parentheses are preliminary estimates only and not
published by ADF&G. Total pounds calculated using 1976 average
weights for each species. Chinook salmon not included. Total
value of the catch calculated by using the 1978 average dollar
value per fish paid to the fishermen. Chinook salmon not
included. Source: Dennis Haanpaa, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Anchorage.
1979 data in parentheses are preliminary estimates only and not
published by ADF&G. Total pounds calculated using 1976 average
weights for each species. Chinook salmon not included. Total
value of the catch calculated by using the 1979 average price
per pound for each species paid to the fishermen and the 1976
average weights for each species. Chinook salmon not included.
Source: Dennis Haanpaa, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Anchorage.
3/ 4/ 5/ - - -
1976 Average weights by species
Sockeye -7.4 Ibs
Coho -8.5 Ibs
Pink -'4.2 Ibs
Chum -9.1 Ibs
Source: ADF&G, 1976 catch and production. Commercial fisheries
statistics. Statistical leaflet 1129.
1978 Average price per fish paid to the fishermen
Sockeye - $
7.48/fish
Coho 3.59/fish
Pink 1. 29/fish
Chum 3.28/fish
Source: Dennis Haanpaa, ADF&G, Anchorage
1979 Average price per pound paid to the fishermen
Sockeye - $
1.400/lb
Coho 0.390/lb
Pink 0.377/lb
Chum 0.530/lb
Source: Dennis Haanpaa, ADF&G, Anchorage
II
T:lhlc III
ALlison Creek Salmon Escapement Data·
Y l':\ r Escapenien t
Pink Sa lmon Chum Salmon
1%0 100
1961 750
1962 560 580
1963 -0-2,660
190
1965 -0--0-
1966 -0--0-
1969 500-1.000
1971 300
197] 25 -.---.---------------------------'
Source: ADF&G.
~\utC': Allis,)!! Creek W<lS not regularly checked for escapement by
Pi f;lI drid C;J[ile bL! t only as time and funding allowed. A year \-,hich
shows zero (~:;cilpemcnt docs niJt necessarily mean tho t no fish spawned
that year, it only indicates that at the time it was checked there were
no fish pres('l1t.
(1
the number of pink salmon counted in 1969 reached 1,000. In even years
spawning by both pink and chum salmon occurs almost exclusively in
the intertidal reach of Allison Creek, an area estimated to be 40 feet
wide by 300· feet long. During odd years, when stronger runs of pinks
occur in Prince William Sound streams, spawning also occurs in
Allison Creek upstream to the existing weir.
A basic understanding of the life cycle of pink and chum salmon is
necessary to recognize all potential impacts which could occur from
the proposed project. Adult pink salmon return'to their natal
streams to spawn in mid-summer or fall of their second year. Adult
chum salmon are predominantly three, four, and five year old fish.
Pink salmon enter streams inthe.Valdez area in July and spawn in
August and early September, while chum salmon spawn slightly later.
Eggs are deposited in the streambed gravels' where development' to
the fry stage occurs. .
Alevins (embryos which have emerged from the'egg) remain in the
gravel until their yolk sacs are compietely, or almost completely
absorbed •. The life cycles of pink and chum salmon are very similar •
. For chums, the alevin stage' (from hatching to emergence) is completed
In 30 to 50' days, depending on the water temperature. In Port
Valdez, fry emergence of pink and chum salmon begins in mid-April
and peaks in May.
Both pink and chum salmon fry migrate to salt water during their
first summer, generally within a few days to a few weeks after
emergence. Once in. salt water, the young salmon feed in schools
near shore until late July or August; some remain near shore until
autumn. Between mid-summer of their first year and their second
summer, they disperse throughout the offshore waters of the North
Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.
In salt water, main foods of young pink and/or chum salmon have been
reported to be cladocerans, copepods, barnacle naupli, barnacle
cyprids, euphasids, and tunicates (Bakkala, 1970). Other studies
have shown harpacticoids to be a major' component of the stomach
contents of post-emergent pink and chum salmon fry (Kaczynski et.
al., 1973; Healey, 1979). The seasonal population density of the
copepod Harpacticus uniremis in Port Valdez is shown in Figure 4.
Wildlife known to occur in the Allison Lake drainage include brown
bear, black bear, mountain goat, wolf, wolverine, marten, porcupine,
and snowshoe hare. Upland game birds include willow, rock, and
white-tailed ptarmigan and spruce grouse. There is littleinfor-
mation on the occurrence of small mammals and birds in the project
vicinity, although lists of species are available for the Valdez
area. A general list of species which may occur in the vicinity of
Allison Creek is provided in APPENDIX A.
Waterfowl use of Allison Lake and the creek is considered quite
limited. The lake may occasionally be used for resting, and feeding
may occur in the shallow, upper part and along the braided stream
channel. Approximately 18 Canada geese have been observed resting
"0 [-----.-.
i
100 f--
, r
~ '"'r ; i
• r , -:: ~:r-
t
i ."r-:
---1--------1.1)
Seasonal Variation in Population Density of Harpacticu~ uniremis.
Feder, et. al., 1976.
1
]
I
~
/
OE'= J",N n.B ....... Y
I .. ,. -----II
in the fall at the upper end of the lake by FWS personnel. Also,
molting geese were observed in the Allison Lake Basin by FWS per-
sonnel during 1979.
Extensive waterfowl use is made of the intertidal area around upper
Port Valdez and the Lowe River Delta. Numerous seabirds inhabit
that area also. Waterfowl present in the Valdez area year-round
include scoters, goldeneye, common and red-breasted mergansers,
mallards, buffleheads, harlequins, and Canada geese. Others sea-
sonally present in the Valdez area include pintails, teals, wigeons,
oldsquaws, and shovelers.
Northern bald eagles are common in the Valdez area. Personnel of
the FWS conducted a survey in 1976, locating 23 eagles and 10 nests
within Port Valdez (includes all of the shoreline inside of Middle
Rock except for the Lowe River flats south of old Valdez). Two
nests were identified within three miles on the mouth of Allison
Creek, one on each side of the stream (see Figure 5). Congregations
of eagles are attracted by salmon to mouths of stream which flow
into Port Valdez. The carcasses of salmon are an important addition
to the diet of both resident and migratory eagles. Other raptors
found in the Valdez area include the osprey, red-tailed hawk, sharp-
shinned hawk, goshawk, and Peale's peregine falcon.
No terrestrial threatened or endangered species are known to occur
in the Valdez area. The endangered finback and humpback whales have
been sited in Port Valdez. Peale's peregrine falcon is not listed
as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Hunting, hiking, and overnight recreational use in the Allison Lake
area appear to be limited, due to the rugged terrain. However, a
rough hiking trail to the lake is presently used by local residents.
Port Valdez is used, or occasionally visited, by the following
marine mammals: northern fur seal, harbor seal, sea otter, northern
sea lion, killer whale, humpback whale, Dall's porpoise, and harbor
porpoise. The nearshore area from 0.3 mile west of Allison Creek to
0.3 mile west of Dayville Flats Creek has been identified as a
feeding area for sea otters and harbor seals.
The flow regime of Allison Creek varies from high flow in early
summer and fall to low flow in the late winter and early spring.
Specific data are lacking and that data available is given in Table
IV.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impacts which would result from the project are discussed in two
categories: construction, and operation and maintenance.
Construction: At present, no access road is planned to Allison
Lake. This considerably reduces the possible impacts of the project
on the upland area. The road and rock dump associated with the
tunnel construction will cover existing vegetation, as well as
create a scar visible from Valdez. Weathering of the rock will
I~
Figure 5. Bald Eagle Nest Sites, September 14 & 16, 1976.
\ '-I / -:.~ ~-r/' -~_./.-~:: /'~.='~-: /-:~.:~ =/--~ .. -~ .
• _" -.,",",-'-. ____ . __ ;;; • ~ ,\.:,"/" . -I •
=;~-.-=~+-'-/-~5 C.bi~.\
• C"~JI"
.36 'I
. .'t.~ (,';:~J !
" ~ I
V A L [) 1..,' 7.
~ .1. " c." P, \ . I _
J-----,
)
.::....-----
. ':.t", ~ 't· ".
' . .
L::. I "i. __ r -J 1 :or ,_ ,-._j ___ _
1 •. 0:> (j 1p~
L-L !-___ .i:r 1 L ~j:: -~
" ".TJ)! r-rT1--l:
j]
:!. -
~---:::::/ / .-' r "~··,1 ···.·f..;.t;;j?'~:·/\:\. . /-:o-..f~::-~f~··l··': )';-i
. :.: .... :~.: ... ~.: ... \~:~.:.':.::\.:: .. :::.~'.:"::;. " r.~;~~/, I 1(:';:' >'"
"'i .M~,er8,6~·:!".". f --. --;!
. '-'-sl;nds -.,. "':',;;' -.·;{';"'t. /1 It ~ :-B ;'
V"d'f.~::: .. :.': :~ .' T, 9 ~
<;;\;!)" C'~\};:j~~t~l~~
Old V a:ldei .:~ ~.:.~; ;~~'I~~' J'/~ ;·;1~~fi~ i ? I,
"':'. ';. I
.: I J \'-'-T--
. ,
(;.'i~~#it!~
Furt I.i~.·um
i ': ~ J
17
Table 1 V
Date
9-01-50
1-23-74
2-12-74
2-23-74
.1-15~74
[j-09-74
!,-2J-7!,
11-18-74
12-17-7LI
1-25-75
2-07-75
2.-19-75
3-06-75
3-07-75
3-13-75
3--17-75
3-:1.0-75
3--2b-/'l
11 -] 1-75
Ij -l7-})
1,-24-75
1,-25-75
5-01-75
6-05-75
6-12-75
L,-01-76
Ij-02-76
L,-03-76
4-04-76
4--05-76
4-06-76
4-07-76
4-08-76
4-09-76
4-10-76
4-11-76
4-12-76
1.-13-76
4-14-76
4-15-76
Allison Creek -Discharge Measurements
Flow in cubic feet
per second (c.f.s.)
54.9
11. 9
15.2
7.6
10.9
13.2
12.9
20.4
20.2
7.2
7.7
10.3
5.15
6.7
5.1
3.96
11. 7
6.0
7.0
10.0
4.6
5.1
5.8
85.0
80.0
3.9
4.2
4. 7
4.9
4.6
4.5
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.7
5.1
4.4
5.5
4.5
1,.2
D3ta collE:'ctL'd by:
U.S. Geological Survey
Nurthwest Hydraulic Consultants, Ltd.
JFI·JAT, George Perkins
Fluor Alaska, Inc.
occur, and may allow the rock to blend in with the surroundings
. within several years. Blasting for tunnel construction could
temporarily disturb resident wildlife. The above ground portion of
the penstock will be a permanent scar on the hillside.
Increased erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation may result
from cleared areas. The extent of this occurrence will be directly
related to construction techniques and can be avoided. Adverse
impacts which can occur to aquatic species as a result of siltation
are numerous and well documented. Major impacts from siltation, as a
result of construction of the proposed project, include decreased
vigor or death of incubating salmon eggs by interfering with or
preventing respiration, loss of spawning gravels, and physical
disturbance to both adult salmon and other resident species.
Clearing of approximately 21.5 acres of vegetation would be required
for the transmission line. Visual impact would be significant.
Clearing and construction activities could disturb nesting eagles
which may result in desertion of eggs and young. Bird collisions·
with power lines will result in mortality. Transmission poles could
be the tallest object in the immediate vicinity and may commonly be
used by raptors as a perch. Improper line spacing presents the
hazard of electrocution to large raptors.
Construction activities will disturb terrestrial wildlife and may
cause avoidance of the area while construction is occuring. This
impact should be minor as no wildlife concentrations or critical
habitat areas are known to occur in the immediate area.
To prevent debris from reaching the turbines, construction of a
screen over the penstock intake at the lake will be necessary and
could require lake drawdown to the lake tap inlet. This will result
·in dewatering the upper reaches of Allison Creek. If discharge did
not occur directly to Port Valdez or occur in a carefully controlled
manner it could create excessive discharge into the lower stream;
possible scouring of the streambed; and depending when this occurred,
above normal stream velocities could either prevent returning adults
from entering the stream or expose incubating eggs. Also, resident
Dolly Varden could be flushed out of the system to marine waters.
Operation and Maintenance: During project operation, the lake level
would be drawn down as much as 100 feet, primarily over the winter
months. Biological impacts to the lake resulting from this drawdown
would probably be minor, although the aesthetic impact would be
significant. Fortunately, the lake itself is not visible from the
town of Valdez. Fluctuating lake levels could cause lake shore
erosion leading to landslides in steeper areas with accompanying
habitat degradation. During winter, shelf ice formed by the
dropping lake level could impede movement of mountain goats. The
low number of goats in the area reduces the extent of this occurrence.
The impacts which would result from project operation have the
greatest potential for adversely affecting the environment of
Allison Creek. The drawdown would dewater Allison Creek at its
1'1
outlet from the lake; however, the CE expects· natural seepage through
glacial deposits to provide some flow into the upper creek. Also,
tributary flow will provide some stream flow to lower portions of
the creek.
Water for hydropower production would be drawn from deep in the lake
and, based upon available information, will be warmer than Allison
Creek water in the winter and colder than the stream's water in the
summer. Water at lake tap depth may also be deficient in dissolved
oxygen. A minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of 6.0 milligrams
per liter (mg/l) has been recommended for coldwater fish (Doudoroff
and Shumway, 1966). At the present time, dissolved oxygen data at
the depth of the proposed lake tap is not available. The passage of
water through the powerhouse and energy dissipator is expected to
aerate these waters, although the extent of this occurrence in
relation to the acceptable limits for fish is not known at present.
Temperature has a major influence on the freshwater stages of salmon.
Stream temperature data for Allison Creek has been collected by the
U.S. Geological Survey and is now being collected by the ADF&G
(APPENDIX B). The CE has also collected some temperature data for
Allison Lake (APPENDIX B). The ADF&G has also taken intertidal
temperatures at Solomon Creek (three miles to the east) since
September, 1979, and this data would probably be consistent with
salt water temperatures off the mouth of Allison Creek (APPENDIX B).
No intragravel temperatures have been taken~
The effects of warm water discharges on developing eggs and alevins
have been studied in laboratory situations and at most major hatchery
facilities. Increased mortality and abnormal embryonic development
have been shown to occur if the initial incubation temperatures for
developing pink salmon eggs is 4.SoC or lower. At 2.0°C or lower,
complete mortality will occur (Bailey and Evans, 1971). Preliminary
temperature data from the lake (APPENDIX B) indicates that the water
through the powerplant would be 4°C or less. Based upon these data,
the potential alteration of the temperature regime in Allison Creek
could have a significant adverse impact upon the fish resources of
Allison Creek.
Low concentrations of dissolved oxygen and exposure to light can
increase incubation time, but temperature is the primary factor in
regulating the duration and timing of incubation and hatching.
Development is normally expressed in terms of temperature units. A
temperature unit is defined as one degree above freezing for a
period of 24 hours. A given number of temperature units is required
for the eggs to hatch. The number of temperature units required is
generally specific to the species of fish and even to the particular
stock. Hatching and emergence is delayed in colder water temperatures
and accelerated in warmer temperatures. A minor temperature increase
or decrease could considerably advance or delay hatching. A change
in the natural temperature regime of Allison Creek could change the
timing of pink and chum salmon fry emergence. The extent of this
impact is difficult to assess with the data available; however,
significant early development of eggs would result in early
emergence and outmigration of fry to Port Valdez at a time when it
is questionable that there would be adequate planktonic production
to sustain rearing activity. Consequently, a substantial alteration
in natural water temperature during the egg to fry development
period would negatively impact run strength.
With sufficient data, the number of temperature units required for
eggs to hatch under natural stream temperatures can be calculated
and compared to the number of temperature units anticipated to exist
under altered stream conditions. The difference in temperature
units will show if early or late emergence will occur, and if so,
give the approximate magnitude of change in the time of emergence.
Where intertidal spawning occurs, such as in Allison Creek, the
warmer saltwater contributes to higher intragravel temperatures.
This adds to the complexity of the temperature regime in intertidal
areas because intertidal zone temperatures are influenced by (1)
upstream water temperatures, (2) saltwater temperatures exposed to
stream gravel, (3) time of exposure to saltwater, and possibly (4)
the permeability of gravels.
Should early fry emergence occur, sufficient food sources may not
exist. Figure 4 illustrates the seasonal variation in population
density of the copepod, Harpacticus uniremis, an organism which
could be an important food source for post-emergent fry. Healey
(1979) found that H. uniremis made up 50% of the overall diet of
juvenile chum salm~n in the Nanaimo Estuary and greater than 80%
of the diet when fry were most abundant. He also found that
the seasonal pattern of abundance of fry and H. uniremis in the
estuary was the same, and that fry consumed most of the estimated
production of H. uniremis. Large numbers of this copepod are usually
not present in Port Valdez until mid-March to early April. Under
natural conditions pink and chum salmon fry emergence begins in
mid-April in the Port Valdez area.
Radical fluctuations in stream flow contribute most heavily to
mortality of developing eggs through erosion, shifting of gravel, or
dewatering of spawning beds. Flooding also causes mortality by
deposition of silt on spawning areas, which slows intragravel water
movement, decreasing the oxygen supply to the eggs, and preventing
removal of waste products. Other factors contributing to mortality
of eggs are freezing, exposure to light, parasites, predation, high
salinity, shock, and superimposition of redds (spawning beds).
The tailrace discharge could cause increased velocity in the stream
and scouring of the streambed with subsequent removal or burial of
spawning gravel. Alterations in natural streamflow could also have
adverse impacts upon spawning adults as a result of either high or
low flows which are not optimum for spawning. Post-project flow
schedules could be beneficial to fish resources by reducing radical
flow fluctuations and providing flows optimum for life stage require-
ments of pink and chum salmon.
As stated previously, two alternative sites have been proposed for
the powerhouse. Either site would require clearing of approximately
1.5 acres for construction purposes. Some alteration of the stream-
bank and streambed will result from installation of the tailrace and
sedimentation could occur. The magnitude of these impacts could be
reduced significantly depending on the construction techniques
utilized and the time of work.
Impacts which would result from either of the proposed powerhouse
alternatives were described above. Those impacts which would vary,
depending on the site selected, are described below.
Powerhouse Alternative Itl: The discharge of flow from this alter-
native is proposed by·the CE directly from the tailrace into Allison
Creek. Radical flow changes would result and all adverse impacts
described previously for alteration of flow would occur. In addition,
if instream flows were totally dependent on power generation needs,
periods of very low flow could result when the power plant was shut
down for maintenance or other reasons.
The discharge of all project flows into Allison Creek at this site
would also result in temperature and possibly dissolved oxygen
impacts occurring in the total reach of Allison Creek utilized by
f ish. Flows in the creek above this site may not have any appre-
ciable buffering effect for maintenance of natural water quality
since they would be low in relation to the flow through the power-
house.
Powerhouse Alternative 1t2: Impacts described above for site Itl may
also be applicable to this alternative. This alternative has two
tailraces proposed. If the tailrace waters were discharged directly
into Port Valdez during the summer months, a portion of the salmon
population could be diverted away from spawning areas in the natural
stream by the larger quantities of Allison Creek water issuing from
the tailrace into Port Valdez. Diverting water from the powerhouse
through the tailrace positioned in Allison Creek would alleviate
this impact; however, those impacts discussed above under powerhouse
1t1 would occur. Hhen the discharge is diverted back through the
tailrace into Port Valdez, some of the redds could be dewatered.
Also, the discharge could prove to be such an attractant to adult
salmon that they would pool up below the discharge and not utilize
other portions of the stream or intertidal area for spawning.
Periods of very low flow during powerhouse shut down could also
result from this alternative. The proposed 6 inch diversion pipe
could be used to add supplemental water to the creek. However, the
use of the diversion pipe for long periods to supply water to the
stream or as a substantial supplement to natural flows could also
cause early fry emergence as dicussed earlier.
Diversion of flows directly into Port Valdez during most of the year
would result in a reduction of water velocity in the natural stream~
bed which could result in sedimentation of the spawning gravel.
Should a major earthquake occur, this site could be severely damaged
or destroyed by seismic sea waves.
DISCUSSION
With fossil fuel prices continuing on an upward spiral, increasing
attention is being given to alternative energy sources. In Alaska,
with steep slopes and abundant streams, hydropower is a logical
choice. Sites with large hydropower potential close to population
centers are limited, but potential small hydropower sites are numerous.
Alaska also has abundant fish resources, which frequently inhabit
the same drainage systems suitable for hydropower development.
Unfortunately, these two resources may not be completely compatible.
Allison Creek, cumulatively with the other short coastal streams of
Prince William Sound, provides an important contribution to the
overall salmon production of the area. Both the commercial and
sport fisheries play an important role in the economy of Valdez. In
addition, maintenance of natural and wild stocks of salmon in
~llison Creek can be viewed as an aesthetic value which cannot be
measured in monetary terms.
The most significant impacts upon fish and wildlife resources which
would occur from construction of the Allison Lake project are the
potential changes in the flow and temperature regimes of the creek.
All other potential impacts are considered less significant. An
analysis of existing data and subsequent impacts indicate that
appropriate structural and non-structural features to mitigate major
adverse impacts could be incorporated into project design including
either of the proposed powerhouse sites which would make the proposal
acceptable environmentally. However, baseline data gaps presently
exist which preclude a complete assessment of potential impacts.
Execution of appropriate studies before or during the advanced
engineering and design stage of planning will enable a thorough
evaluation of potential impacts to fish and wildlife and refinement/
development of necessary mitigation features. In addition to these
studies, a cooperative study jointly scoped by the FWS and CE, and
conducted through project construction and operation, would enable
refinement of mitigation recommendations; assessment of the accuracy
and effectiveness of those recommendations; and provide a comprehensive
data base useful in the future planning of similar projects.
Available data suggests that peaking or excess flow should be
discharged directly to port Valdez year round and that regulated
flows be discharged through the tailrace to Allison Creek. A
pre-project instream flow analysis of Allison Creek is needed to
derive accurate and specific optimum flow recommendations for fish
maintenance. The regulated flows would vary according to life stage
requirements of fish and natural streambed flow. For example, from
approximately mid-July to early September adult salmon are present
in the creek and a constant flow optimum for spawning should occur
in Allison Creek. Peaking or excess flow would continue d:i.rectly to
Port Valdez and this discharge should occur subtidally to at least
-10 feet mean lower low water from June through September to eliminate
attracting adults.
Discharge measurements are sparse and; according to the CE, accurate
predictions of the amount of water flowing through the powerhouse
cannot yet be determined. Daily discharge measurements of Allison
Creek should be taken for a minimum of one year, beginning as soon
as possible. However, collection of data for two years or more is
recommended. These data should be provided to the FWS quarterly to
assist in refining discharge flow schedules through the proposed
powerhouse to Allison Creek.
The CE has stated that tributary and groundwater flow to Allison
Creek will contribute seasonally to base flow in the creek after
project operation. The specific amount of this flow is needed for
analysis in the development of flow recommendations to Allison Creek
from the powerhouse. The CE expects that tributary and groundwater
flow will maintain adequate flow in that reach of the stream below
the weir; however, during the low flow period of late winter and
early spring it may be necessary to supplement instream flow below
the weir to 5.0 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed 6 inch
diversion pipe should be adequate to accomplish this.
Temperature profile data of Allison Creek is needed to assess
impacts. The CE should conduct temperature profiles in Allison Lake
to the proposed lake tap intake depth for a period of one year
beginning as soon as possible. A minimum sampling effort should
include the months of March, June, September, and December.
Concurrently, water samples for testing dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy
metal, and turbidity levels, should also be taken at the surface and
at the same depth and general location of the proposed lake tap. It
may be feasible for the CE to model or accurately predict the thermal
regime of Allison Lake with data available for similar alpine lakes.
If dissolved oyxgen concentrations are below 6.0 mg/l, corrective
measures may be necessary if the dissipators do not insure dissolved
oxygen readings of 6.0 mg/l or above. A temperature probe or similar
recording device should be installed in the gravel where intertidal
spawning occurs to record intragravel temperature for the same time
period. The thermograph now installed in Allison Creek should also
be maintained throughout the same one-year period.
With knowledge of the existing temperature regime for Allison Creek,
the temperature of the water coming from the powerplant, the anti-
cipated base flow, and the anticipated flow schedules for project
operation, the temperature in the spawning beds could be predicted
and the effects on developing salmon embryos calculated. Until the
extent of adverse impacts can be identified, it is difficult to
predict if any other form of mitigation may be appropriate. It
could be determined that regulation of the thermal regime of Allison
Creek may be required to protect fish resourCeS.
During the first year of project operations, daily temperature
readings should be taken in Allison Creek below the tailrace dis-
charge and provided monthly to the FWS and the ADF&G. Depending on
the temperatures, it may be feasible that refinement of discharge
recommendations could further mitigate potential impacts due to
alteration of the temperature regime through mixing base flows in
Allison Creek with project flows. An extension of the one year
recording period may be necessary.
As additional information is available for a thorough assessment of
impacts due to potential changes in flow and temperature regimes,
other alternatives for the discharge to Port Valdez may be acceptable
or recommended. For example: (1) operation of the project only for
base load pmver production would eliminate the radical flow variations
associated wi th a peaking facility, (2) alterations in the discharge
of flow· from the tailrace in response to power demand could be done
incrementally by a specified discharge in a given time period (ex.
10 cfs/hour), (3) discharge of excess flows directly into Port
Valdez could be done via .a flume or manmade channel and discharged
sub tidally only from June through September.
Recent information on spawning populations in Allison Creek is also
lacking. Beginning in 1980, escapement counts should be taken at
least once a month in July, August, and September of each year.
These surveys should continue through the planning, construction,
and operation phase of the project to allow assessment of project
impacts upon salmon populations.
A dual tailrace design as proposed for the lower powerhouse alterna-
tive should be included in plans for the upper powerhouse alter-
native as well. The impacts associated with the potentfal changes
to flow and temperature regimes described previously would occur at
either powerhouse alternative unless appropriate mitigation features
are incorporated into project design. In fact, construction and
operation of the upper powerhouse with the dual tailrace feature is
favored slightly because stabilizing the flows in that stream reach
between the lower and upper site would benefit fish resources in a
greater portion of their habitat.
To prevent scouring and downstream sedimentation, energy dissipators
should be installed in both the tailrace and outlet of the 6 inch
diversion pipe to Allison Creek. Design of the dissipators should
insure that the velocity of the discharge into Allison Creek will
not exceed the optimum velocity of the natural stream for fish
maintenance.
The timing of construction will be of considerable importance in
minimizing impacts to fish. The work should be done to avoid cri-
tical biological life stages. Disturbance of the water quality or
streambed morphology while eggs are incubating or fry are emerging
can result in direct mortality through suffocation by burial or
physical damage. Disturbance ,",hile adults are present can disrupt
or prevent spawning and l:Lmit production of future generations. The
timing of any inwater construction activity or construction on th.e
banks of Allison Creek should he coordinated with the FWS, National
Marine Fisheries Service (ID-IFS) ,and the ADF&G to avoid unnecessary
impact on the salmon population. Also, because highest densities of
populations of spawning salmon occur in odd years, major construction
affecting flows should be done on even years.
Streambed sedimentation can be caused by a variety of activities.
Improper construction and clearing techniques can cause increased
runoff and excessive erosion. Clearing for penstock construction
above ground should be limited to large shrubs and any trees which
may be encountered to reduce ground disturbance and erosion. A
damaged streambank is unstable and can cause sedimentation.
Streambanks should be restored to pre-project integrity during the
. construction season in which they are damaged. Transmission line
construction should be initiated after the ground is frozen and some
snow cover exists to minimize erosion and rutting.
Alteration of the streambed or barriers in the channel can cause
scouring and downstream sedimentation. Vegetation and debris should
be kept out of Allison Creek and any streams crossed by the trans-
mission line. Any structures placed in or across streams or water-
bodies, as a result of project work, should be removed before the
end of the current construction season. An erosion control plan and
a plan for any instream work (including transmission lines) should
be developed prior to construction and presented foy review by
resource agencies to insure appropriate precautions are implemented.
Care should be taken to prevent the introduction of toxic materials
into any waterbody. Fuels, lubricants, and other potential pollutants
should be stored in leakproof containers within an area surrounded
by a containment berm at a mintmum of 300 feet from any stream or
waterbody.
Improper disposal of refuse can serve as an attractant to bears and
other wildlife and lead to bear/human confrontations, usually
resulting in removal or destruction of the bear. Feeding of wild-
life by construction crews is illegal and should not be allowed.
During construction, all refuse should be placed in metal containers
with heavy lids and be removed from the site regularly.
Nesting eagles can easily be disturbed by human activity which may
cause them to desert eggs or young as a result. Nest removal or
disturbance of bald eagles is prohibited by the Bald Eagle Act of
1940. When the exact transmission line route is established, FWS
personnel should be given the opportunity to survey the route for
any nests. Restrictions may be placed on construction activity
occurring between April 1 and July 15 if nests are found in close
proximity.
Improper spacing of transmission lines can cause electrocution of
raptors. Transmission line design and construction should be governed
by "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines," Raptor
Research Foundation, 1975. Use of this information should be made
to design the powerline with proper grounding, spacing, and configura-
tion, such that it will prevent the electrocution of raptors.
Clearing for the transmission line could create a visually displeasing
scar on the landscape. To lessen this impact, clearing for the
right-of-way should be limited to that needed to string the conductors
and allow the passage of construction equipment. To further reduce
visual impacts, small shrubs should be left in the right-of-way and
along the edge of clearings so the vegetation will blend with the
natural surroundings.
It is our intent to protect the existing salmon runs of Allison
Creek. Should we be unsuccessful in adequately protecting.those
resources, other mitigation measures such as providing artificial
hatching, spawning, and/or rearing areas may be· determined necessary.
A final analysis to determine whether or not any of these mitigation
measures would be acceptable or are favored cannot be made with data
now available.· However, based upon present flow and temperature
data, we have tenatively determined that excess flows from the
powerhouse should be discharged directly to Port Valdez to mitigate
potential adverse impacts to fish resources.
Additional data needs which have been identified should be satisfied
as soon as possible. Those studies are: a comprehensive analysis
of the pre-and post-project temperature regimes, salmon escapement
surveys, bald eagle nest surveys, and an instream flow assessment.
These studies should be conducted cooperatively by the FWS and CEo
Execution of these studies would satisfy data needs for refinement/
development of mitigation recommendations and provide data needed
for preparation of a supplement to this report. A cooperative study
through project construction and operation would allow further
refinement of mitigation recommendations, assessment of the accuracy
and effectiveness of these recommendations, and provide baseline
data for use in the planning of similar projects in the future. An
amended scope of work and associated transfer of funds to the FWS
would be required.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the design of the powerhouse allow the release of
regulated flows to Allison Creek through the tailrace and
excess flows to Port Valdez through the other tailrace.
2. That flows from the powerhouse tailrace to Port Valdez be
discharged subtidally to at least -10 feet MLLW from June
through September.
3. That the proposed start-up of project operation affecting
the natural flows in Allison Creek occur in an even year.
4. That the timing of proposed construction activities in or
on the banks of Allison Creek be coordinated with the FWS,
NMFS,and the ADF&G.
5. That streambanks be restored to pre-project integrity
during the construction season in which they are damaged
and debris or vegetation be kept out of streams.
6. That any structures placed in or across streams be removed
during the same construction season.
7. That clearing for the penstock construction be limited to
large shrubs and any trees which may be encountered.
17
8. That during the construction phase, bulk fuels, lubricants,
and other potential pollutants be stored in leakproof
containers within an area surrounded by a containment berm
at a minimum of 300 feet from any stream or water body.
9. That no feeding of wildlife occur and all refuse be placed
in metal containers with heavy lids and removed regularly.
10. That transmission line construction be governed by
"Suggested Pr&ctices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines,"
Raptor Research Foundation, 1975.
11. That clearing for the transmission line right-of-way be
.1imited to only that area needed for construction and be
reduced by leaving shrubs and blending the edges of the
clearing with the surrounding vegetation.
12. That an erosion control plan and instream work plan be
prepared and made available to resource agencies for
review and comment before construction.
13. That the CE collect natural discharge data of Allison
Creek continuosly for at least one year, beginning as soon
as possible.
14. That the CE maintain the thermograph in Allison Creek to
collect natural temperature data continuously during the
one year period that other temperature data is recorded.
15. That the CE collect intragravel temperature data of Allison
Creek continuously for at least one year, beginning as
soon as possible.
16. That the CE take temperature profiles of Allison Lake to
the lake tap depth and temperature, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, heavy metal, and pH readings at the lake surface
as well as the depth of the lake tap. These measurements
should be collected as soon as possible. A minimum sampling
effort would include the months of March, June, September,
and December.
17. That the CE collect continuous temperature data below the
proposed tailrace into Allison Creek for at least the
first year of project operation.
18. That the CE determine the base flow in Allison Creek
expected above the powerhouse after project operation.
19. That provisions be included in advanced project planning
for the FWS to survey the selected transmission line route
for eagle nests.
20. That provisions be included in advanced project planning
for escapement surveys of salmon in Allison Creek by the
FWS or ADF&G.
21. That prov1s1onsbe made in advanced project planning for
instream flow analysis of Allison Creek by the FWS to
determine optimum flow schedules and the velocity of
supplemental flows to Allison Creek.
22. That a cooperative study of the proposed Allison Creek
Hydropower project, jointly scoped by the CE and FWS and
funded by the CE, be conducted through project construction
and operation.
23. That, if after execution of the recommended additional
. studies, it is determined that some losses to fish and
wildlife are unavoidable, those losses be offset by
implementation of mitigation measures mutually acceptable
to the FWS and the CEo
LITERATURE CITED
Bailey, Jack E., and Dale R. Evans. 1971. The low-temperature
threshold for pink salmon eggs in relation to a proposed hydro-
electric installation. Fishery Bulletin 69(3): 595-613.
Bakkala, Richard G. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on the
chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum) 1972. FAO Fisheries
Synopsis No. 41, Circular 315, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Doudoroff,Peter and Dean L. Shumway. 1966. Dissolved oxygen
criteria for the protection of fish. American Fisheries Sociey,
Special Publication No.4, A symposium on Water Quality Criteria
to Protect Aquatic Life.
Feder, Howard M., L. Michael Cheek, Patrick Flanagan, Stephen
C. Jewett, Mary H. Johnston, A.S. Naidu, Stephen A. Norrell,
A.J. Paul, ArIa Scarborough, and David Shaw. 1976. The sediment
environment of Port Valdez, Alaska: the effect of oil on this
ecosystem. For: Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon.
Healey, M.C., 1979. Detritus and juvenile salmon production in the
Nanaimo Estuary: I. Production and feeding rates of juvenile
chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:
488-496.
Kaczynski, V. W., R. J. Feller, and J. Clayton. 1973. Trophic
analysis of juvenile pink and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
and O. keta) in Puget Sound. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:
1003=-10OS--:-
30
APPENDIX A: SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES
Plants
Sitka spruce -Picea sitchensis
Mountain hemlock -Tsuga mertensiana
Balsam poplar -Populus balsamifera
Willow -Salix spp.
Alder -Alnus sp~.
Salmonberry -Rubus spectabilis
Devils club -Oplopanax horridus
Blueberry -Vaccinium spp. .
Animals
Invertebrates
Dungeness crab -Cancer magister
Butter clam -Saxidomus spp.
Copepod -Harpacticus uniremis
Fish
Pink salmon -Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Chum salmon -Oncorhynchus keta
Coho salmon -Oncorhynchus kisutch
Sockeye salmon -Oncorhynchus nerka
Chinook salmon -Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Dolly Varden -Salvelinus malma
Trout -Salmo ~.
Rockfish -Sebastes spp.
Sculpin -Cottus spp.
Halibut -Hippoglossus spp.
Birds
Canada goose -Branta canadensis
Mallard -Anas platyrhynchos
Pintail -Anas acuta
Green-winged teal -Anas crecca
American wigeon -Anas americana
Northern shoveler -Spatula clypeata
Goldeneye -Bucephala spp.
Bufflehead -Bucephala albeola
Oldsquaw -Clangula hyemalis
Harlequin -Histrionicus histrionicus
Surf scoter -Melanitta perspicillata
Black scoter -Oidemia nigra
Common merganser -Mergus merganser
Red-breasted merganser -Mergus serra tor
Goshawk -Accipiter ~tilis
Sharp-shinned hawk -Accipiter striatus
Red-tailed hawk -Buteo jamaicensis
Northern bald eagle -Haliae~tus leucocephalus alascanus
Osprey -Pandion haliaetus
Peale's peregrine falcon -Falc6 peregrinus pealei
Spruce grouse -Canachites canadensis
Willow ptarmigan -Lagopus lagopus
Rock ptarmigan -Lagopus mutus
White-tailed ptarmigan -Lagopus leucurus
Mammals
Black bear -Ursus americanus
Brown bear -Ursus arctos
Wolverine -Gulo luscus
Marten '-Martes americana
Short-tailed weasel -Mustela erminea
Mink -Mustela vison
River otter -Lutra canadensis
Lynx-Lynx canadensis
Coyote -Canis latrans
Gray wolf -Canis lupus
Porcupine -Erethizon dors~tum
Snowshoe hare -Lepus americanus.
Mountain goat -Oreamnos americanus
Marine Mammals
Sea otter -Enhydra lutris
Northern sea lion -Eumetopias jubata
Northern fur seal -Callorhinus ursinus
Harbor seal -Phoca vitulina
Killer Whale -Orcinus rectipinna
Harbor porpoise -Phocoena phocoena
Dall's porpoise -Phocoenoides dalli
Humpback whale -Megaptera novaeangliae
APPENDIX B
TEMPERATURE DATA
j3
Date
09/23/71
02/15/72
. OS/23/72
·07/24/72
10/12/72
04/04/73
06/17/73
Allison ereekTemperature Data
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Temperature °e
5.0
1.0
3.0
7.0
2.5
2.5
4.0
· Thermograph Re8(/ings
ALLISON CREEK
June 1979 July 1979 AUBust 1979
0 C
High Low·· Aver. High· Low. Aver. High . Low Aver.
Temp. Temp. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e. Tem:e.
1 5 3 4 9 7 8
2 6 4 5 10 7 8.5
3 6 4 5 11 8 9.5
4 6 4 5 10 7 8.5 .
5 4 10 . 7 8.5
6 4 9 7 8
7 5 4 4.5 9 7 8
8 5 4 4.5 9 7 8
9 6 4 5 .8 7 7.5
10 6 5 5.5 8 7 7.5
11 6 5 5.5 8 7 7.5
12 6 5 5.5 8 6 7
13 6 4 5 8 6 7
14 5 8 7 7.5
15 6 5 5.5 7
16 6 5 5.5 6
17 7 5 6 6
18 7 6 6.5 6 5 5.5
19 8 6 7 6
20 7 5 6 7 5 6
21 7 5 6 8 5 6.5
22 . 7 5 6 7 6 6.5 --------23 7 5 6 8 6 7
24 8 7 7.5 9 7 8
25 8 6 7 9 7 8
26 3 8 5 6.5 9 7 8
27 3 7 5 6 7
28 3 8 6 7 9 7 8
29 ·4 3 3.5 9 6 7.5 9 .7 8
30 5 3 4 9 7 8 8 7 7~ --_ ... --~ ----.... --.--
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
ALLISON CREEK
September 1979 . October 1979 . November 1979
CO
High Low Aver. High Low Aver. High . Low Aver.
Temp. TemE_ Teme· Teme·· Teme· Teme· Teme· Teme· Teme·
1 5.5 3.5
2 8 6 7 5.5 3.5
3 8 5 6.5 · 5.5 3 2 2.5
4 9 7 8. · 5.5 2 1 1.5
5 7 6 6.5 5.5 1
6 7 6· 6.5 5.5 2 0 1
7 7 5 6 5 2 1 1.5
8 8 6 7 • 6 5 5.5 3 2 2.5
9 8 ·6 7 5.5 3
10 7 6 6.5 5.5 3 2 2.5
11 8 6 7 .. 5.5 2
12 9 7 8 · 5.5 3
13 9 8 8.5 5 2.5
14 9 8 8.5 5 4 4.5 3 2 2.5
15 8 7 7.5 5 4 4.5 2
16 7 5 2 1 1.5
17 7 5 4 4.5 1
18 7 4 0
19 4 1 0 0.5
20 3 1
21 . 4 3 3.5 2 1 1.5
22 4 2
23 4 2
24 4 2 0 1
25 4 0
26 4 3 3.5 0
27 6 5 5.5 4 1 0 0.5
28 6 5 5.5 4 2 0 1
29 5· 4 4.5 4 2
30 6 5 5.5 4 2 1 1.5
Source: . Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
ALLISON CREEK
December 1979 Januarl 1980 Februarl 1980
CO
High Low Aver. High· Low Aver. High Low Aver.
Temp •. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp· Temp. Temp. Temp.
1 1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.6 -0.5
2 1 0 0.5 -0.3 0..1 -0..4 -0.2
3 0.5 0.0 -0.4 -0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
4 a 0..1 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0 0..4 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.2
6 -0.3 -0.3 0..6 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1
7 -0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.1
8 -0.3 0.5 0.1
9 ·-0.3 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 -0.1 0.0
10 -0.3 0.0 -0.4 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 0.0
11 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4
12 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3
13 -0.3 -0.1 -0.6 -0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1
14 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.1
15 -0.3 -0.5 -0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
16 0.2 -0.2 001 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.0
17 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 -0.7 -0.4
18 0.2 -0.3 -0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 -0.5
19 0.3 -0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -0.5
20 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.3
21 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 -0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1
22 0.2 0.1 0.1 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 0.3 0.0 0.1
23 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.5 0.8 0.4 0.6
24 0.6 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -0.7 -0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8
25 0.8 0.6 0.7 -0.4 -0.6 -0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5
I .-
ALLISON CREEK
December 1979 Januarl 1980 Februarl 1980
CO
High Low Aver. High Low ',Ayer. High Low Aver. "
Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp Temp. Temp. Temp.
26 0.8 -0.5 1.0 0.7 0.8
27 0.8 0.7 0.8 -0.2 ' -0 .. 5 -0.3 1.0
28 0.8 0.2 -0.1 0.1
29 0.'8 0.5 0.7 0.1 -0.7 -0.4
30 0.3 0.1 0.2 -0.6
Source: Alaska Depart~ent of Fish and Game.
37
Allison Lake Temperature Data
May 7, 1979
Type Probe Itl Probe 1t2 Probe 1t3
Ice Thickness 1 Ft. 3 A 6 Ft.
Overflow 1.5 Ft. 0 0.5 Ft.
TemperatureoC
~O. 25° o·
Surface (top of ice) -0.25 +0.25°
1 Meter -0.25 -0.25 0.00
2 -0.25 0.00 0.00
2.5 +0~25 +0.25
3 . 0.25 +0.25 0.30
3.5 . 0.50 +0.75 0.75
4 1.00 1. 25 1.50
4.5 2.00 1. 90 '2~40
5 2.25 2.40 2;50'
5.5 2.75 2.75
6 2.75 3.00 2.90
6.5 3.00 3.00
7 3.00 3.25 3.10
7.5
8 3.25 2.25 3.25
8.5
9 3.25 3.25 3.30
9.5
10 3.25 3.30 3.30
10.5
11 3.25 3.30 3.30
12 Bottom@ 12.25 M 3.30 3.30
13 3.40 3.30
Source: Corps of Engineers.
A
SOLOMON. CREEK
SeEtember 1979 October 1979 November.1979
CO
High Low Aver. High Low Aver. . High Low Aver.
Tem:e. Tem:e. TeriJ:e. . Temp. TemE·· Tem:e. Temp. . Tem:e. Tem:e •
1 12 5 6 3
2 12 6 3
3 9 6 . . 8 3
4 11 6 7 3
5 6 5 7 2
6 12 5 7 L
7 5 8 1
8 5 8 1
9 10 5 8 0
10 12 7 11 5 2 1
11 12 7 5 3 2
12 13 8 5 ·3 2
13 12 9 5 2 1
14 13 8 5 1.5
15 8 4.5 4.5 1.5
16 8.5 4.5 3.5 6 1.5
17 7. 7 4 6 2
18 7 6 10 4 6 1
19 7 10 4 .6 1
20 7 11 4 5 0
21 7 6 10 3 7 1
22 6 9 2 7 1
23 6 9 2 7 1
24 6 9 2 6 1
25 6 9 3 6 1
26 6 9 3 6 1
27 6 9 3 5 1
28 9 6 8 3 6 1
29 11 6 9 3 5 1
30 6 9 3 6 1
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game~
.. 31
RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the
Final Coordination Act Report.
1. That the design of the powerhouse allow the release of regulated
flows to Allison Creek throught the tailrace and excess flows to Port
Valdez through the other tailrace.
Response: The selected plan includes a two tailrace system which would
allow regulated flows to both Allison Creek and Port Valdez.
2. That flows from the powerhouse tailrace to Port Valdez be discharged
subtida11y to at least -10 feet MLLW from June through September.
Response: During the advanced engineering and design phase, studies will
be conducted to determine stream temperatures with project operation. If
these studies indicate the stream temperature during the spawning would
be below the critical level and all the project discharge could not be
discharged into Allison Creek during spawning, mitigative measures, such
as a subtidal outlet would probao1y be employed.
3. That the proposed start-up of project operation affecting the natural
flows in Allison Creek occur in an even year.
Response: The initial drawdown for securing the tap and the placement of
trash racks would probably occur during the winter months when flows into
the Port Valdez tai1ace and would have no impacts on the incubating eggs
within Allison Creek and the intertidal area. Project operation would
probably occur with the refilling of the lake the same year as the
drawdown. It would be impossible at this time to insure project startup
would occur in an even year.
4. That the timing of proposed construction activities in or on the
banks of Allison Creek be coordinated with the FWS, NMFS, and the ADF&G.
Response: This recommendation will be included in the stipulations to
the contractor.
5. That streambanks be restored to preproject integrity during the
construction season in which they are damaged and debris or vegetation be
kept out of streams.
Response: Refer to response to number four.
6. That any structures placed in or across streams be removed during the
same construction season.
Response: Refer to response to number four.
7. That clearing for the penstock construction be limited to large
shrubs and any trees whi~h may be encountered.
Response: Some clearing to base ground would be required for the footing
of the pensto~k brac~s. Stipulations to the contractor would include
revegetati6n in areas where erosion could possibly occur.
8. That during the const:'uction phase, bulk fuels, lubricants, and other
potential pollutants be stored in leakproof containers within an area
surrounded by a containment berm at a minimum of 300 feet from any stream
or water body.
Response: Refer to response to number four.
9. That no feeding of wildlife occur and all refuse be placed in metal
containers with heavy lids and removed regularly.
Response: Refer to response to number four.
lO. That the transmission line construction be governed by "Suggested
Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines," Raptor Research
Foundation. 1975.
Response: The design of the transmission lines will follow the above.
practices.
11. That clearing for the transmission line right-of-way be limited to
only that area needed for construction and be reduced by lea~ing shrubs
and blending the edges of the clearing with the surrounding vegetation.
Response: Refer to response to number four.
12. That an erosion control plan and instream work plan be prepared and
made available to resource agencies for review and comment before
construction.
Response: Little instream work is anticipated, however the
recommendation will be included in the stipulations to the contractor~
13. That the CE collect natural discharge data of Allison Creek
continuously for at least one year, beginning as soon as possible.
Response: At least one stream gage will be installed on Allison Creek
during the advanced engineering and design phase and it will collect data
for several years.
14. That the CE maintain the thermograph in Allison Creek to collect
natural temperature data continuously during the one year period that
other temperature data is recorded.
Response: The thermograph is in place at this time and will remain
collecting temperatures well after project completion.
15. That the CE collect intragravel temperature data of Allison Creek
continuously for at least one year, beginning as soon as possible.
Response: Intragravel temperature data will be collected during the
advanced engineering and design phase.
16. That the CE take temperature profiles of Allison Lake to the lake
tap depth and temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, heavy metal, and
pH readings at the lake surface as well as the depth of the lake tap.
These measurements should be collected as soon as possible. A minimum
sampling effort would include the months of March, June, September, and
December.
Response: Refer to response to number 15.
17. That the.CE collect continuous temperature data below the proposed
tailrace into Allison Creek for at least the first year of project
operation.
Response: The thermograph which is now operating in Allison Creek will
continue to collect data for at least the first year after project
completion.
18. That the CE determine the base flow in Allison Creek expected above
the powerhouse after project op~ration.
Response: Preliminary estimates have been completed and are included in
this report. A gage will be installed during AE&D and maintained after
project completion.
19. Response: An eagle nest survey will be.conducted prior to any
construction associated with the project.
20. That provisions be included in advanced project planning for
escapement survey of salmon in Allison Creek by the FWS or ADF&G.
Response: ADF&G, has indicated they would increase their effort on
Allison Creek. During AE&D at least one year of intensive an escapement
survey will be conducted.
21. That provisions be made in advanced project planning for instream
flow analysis of Allison Creek by the FWS to determine optimum flow
schedules and the velocity of supplemental flows to Allison Creek.
Response: Provisions for flow analysis of Allison Creek will be included
in the AE&D phase. Whether an extensive instream flow analysis is
reqUired is not known at this time.
22. That a cooperative study of the proposed Allison Creek Hydropower
project, jointly scoped by the CE and FWS and funded by the CE, be
conducted through project construction and operation.
Response: The U.S~F.W.S. will be involved in the scoping process for
environmental studies during the AE&D.
23. That, if after execution of the recommended additional studies, it
is determined that some losses to fish and wildlife are unavoidable,
those losses be offset by implementation of mitigation measures mutually
acceptable to the FWS and the CEo
Response: The CE is in full accord.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
December 1979
High
Temp.
6
6
7
7
7
6
7
6
5
1
0.6
3.8
2.4
4.0
3.7
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6
3.7
3.3
4.8
4.8
4.4
4.3
3.2
3.0
2.9
Low
Temp.
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
-0.7
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-n.s
-0.5
-0.5
-0.7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.4
-0.4
-0.3
-0.4
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.5
Aver.
Temp.
SOLOMON CREEK
January 1QRO
High
Temp.
3.8
4.1
2.5
3.5
3.7
3.1
3.3
3.2
1.2
2.7
2.9
2.2
2.9
3.4
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.0
2.3
2.6
3.0
2.0
1.R
1.8
2.1
1.5
3.1
2.8
2.4
2.8
Low
Temp.
-0.5
-0.3
-0.4
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
~0.2
. -0.2
-0.5
-0.5
-0.6
-0.6
-0.3
-n.S
-0.3
-0.3
--0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
Aver.
Temp.
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
February 19RO
High
Temp,
2.9
3.0
3.1
2.2
2.5
2.n
2.2
2,f)
1.6
1.7
. 2.0
1.f)
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.7
2.1
2.0
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.0
2.n
2.4
2.3
3.8
Low
Temp.
-n.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.5
-0.1
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.2
-0.4
-n,R
-n.S
-0.5
-n.4
-0.7
-0.5
-n.S
-0.4
-0.3
-n.3
-n.3
-0.4
-0,5
~b.3
.... 0,2
,""0.2
Aver.
Temp.
APPENDIX I
MARKETABILITY REPORT
Val d ez - G len n a lie n
Povver Market
Anal'ysis
January 1981
U.S. Depart ment of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Colonp.l Lee Nunn
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, AK 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn:
January 27, 1981
This is Alaska Power Administration's power market report for the
Valdez-Glennallen area.
The power market analysis includes load projections, power market size
and characteristics, a review of available alternatives, and a deter-
mination of marketability and financial feasibility. APA considered
various alternative power supply alternatives as follow-on projects
after completion of the Solomon Gulch Project. They were:
1. Allison Creek.
2. Pressure reducing turbines (PRT's) in the Alyeska Pipeline.
3. Interconnection of CVEA system with Railbelt power supplies.
4. Use of diesel generation.
The marketability findings were:
1. PRT' s appeared to have a tremendous cost advantage over other
alternatives.
2. If PRT's are constructed, Allison Creek could be deferred a
few years. If not, Allison Creek would be needed as soon as
possible after completion of Solomon Gulch.
3. Allison Creek represents generally a higher cost of power
compared to other projects now under active consideration in
the State.
4. Railbelt power supplies made available through interconnection
could be competitive with Allison Creek.
2
APA concludes that the outlook for financial feasibility is sufficiently
favorable to warrant steps towards project authorization, but recommends
rep-valuation of the power markets and alternative costs prior to construc-
tion.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
·/-7 /7
I{-:'-V. @~
Robert J. Cross
Administrator
Chapter
Valdez/Glennallen Power Market Analysis
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION............................................... 1 Purpose and Scope..................................... 1
Project Plans and Costs............................... 1 Previous Studies...................................... 1
I I • SUMMARY. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
III. POWER MARKET DESCRIPTION AND OUTLOOK....................... 7
Location.............................................. 7
Economy. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7
Population and Employment............................. 9
IV. EXISTING POWER SySTEMS..................................... 11
System................................................ 11
Installed Capacity.................................... 11
Historical Loads...................................... 12
General.......................................... 12
Energy Growth Relationships...................... 12
Load Factors ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15
Rates................................................. 16
V. FUTURE POWER AND ENERGY ASSUMPTIONS AND REqUIREMENTS....... 17
Energy and Peak Demand Forecasts...................... 17
Installed Capacity Forecast and Future Needs.......... 18
Energy Distribution................................... 18
VI. ALTERNATIVE GENERATION AND COSTS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23
Hydropower............................................ 23
Tidal Powe r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24
Steamplants........................................... 24
Coal-fired....................................... 24
Oil-and Gas-fired............................... 24
Biomass-fired •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
Solar............................................ 25
Nuclear •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
Combustion or Gas Turbines............................ 25
Diesels ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25
Geothermal Powerplants................................ 25
Wind 'Ma.chi-nes ••.•• "................................... 26
Exogp.nous Supply •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 26
Other Altprnatives.................................... 26
VII. LOAD/RESOURCE ANALySIS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29
Installed Capacity •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 29
Ne t Energy............................................ 30
i
Chapter
VIII.
IX.
FINANCIAL ANALySIS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Co'st Summary •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Average Rates ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
B IBL IOGRAPHY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ii
39
39
45
59
Table
III-1
IV-1
IV-2
V-I
V-2
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3
VIII-1A
VIII-1B
VIII-2
VIII-3
VIII-3A.
VIII-4
VIII-4A
VIII-5
VIII-6
VIII-7
VIII-8
VIII-9
VIII-lO·
VIII-lOA
VIII-ll
VIII-12
List of·Tab1es
Demographic Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10
Historical Loads •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13
Historical Growth Rates and Energy Use................ 14
Valdez/Glennallen Area Utility Load Estimates......... 19
Installed Capacity Estimates and Existing Generation •• 21
Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with Allison Creek Supply.. 31
Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with PRT Supply............ 32
Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with Allison Creek
and PRT Supply ........• -••••••• e, •••••• '.......... ••• •• 33
Summary Cost Estimate Allison Creek Alternate No. 1. 40
Summary Cost Estimate Allison Creek Alternate No. 2. 41
Summary Cost Estimate Pressure Reducing Turbine ••••• 42
Summary Cost Estimate Railbe1 t Area to
Glennallen Intertie •••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 43
Average Rate Determination -Anchorage Portion of
Railbel t System ••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••
CVEA Diesel Generation Expenses -Historic ••••••••••••
CVEA Diesel Generation Expenses -Future ••••••••••••••
Average Rate Comparisons •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••
Average Rate Determinations -Allison Creek
44
46
47
48
Al tp:rna t ive No.1 ••.•••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••• e-. • • 50
Average Rate Determination -Allison Creek
Alternative No.2 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 51
Average Rate Determination -Pressure
Reducing Turbi~e ••••••••••••••••••.••••• e._.... .. ... 52
Average Rate Determination -Interconnection
with Rai1be1t System •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Average Rate Determination -Continued
Diesel Generation-(5 Percent Fuel Escalation) ••••••
Average Rate Determination -Continued
Diesel Generation-(2 Percent Fuel Escalation) ••••••
Average Rate Determination Allison Creek Case •••••••
Average Rate Determination -Intertie Case ••••••••••••
iii
53
54
55
56
57
List of Figures
Figure
III-l Utility Market •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8
V-I Valdez/Glennallen Area Energy Forecasts •••••••••••••••• 20
VII-l Valdez/Glennallen Capacity/Resource Diagram •••••••••••• 34
Plan 1 Allison Creek Alternative 1 or 2 •••••••••• 34
Plan 2 Pressure Reducing Turbine ••••••••••••••••• 34
VII-2 Plan 3 Continuing Thermal Generation ••••••••••••• 35
VII-3 Valdez/Glennallen Net Energy/Forecast Resource ••••••••• 36
Plan 1 Allison Creek Alternative No.1 ••••••••••• 36
VII-4 Plan 2 Pressure Reducing Turbine ••••••••••••••••• 37
VII-5 Plan 3 Continuing Thermal Generation ••••••••••••• 38
VIII-l Valdez/Glennallen -Alternative Generation
Sources' -Busbar Costs .•...•••••..•.•• 0 •••••••••••••• 49
iv
Valdez/Glennallen Power Market Analysis
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose aQd Scope
This power market analysis evaluates alternatives for meeting the power
needs of the Valdez/Glennallen areas after full utilization of the
Solomon Gulch hydro project, now under construction. Included are power
market forecasts, analyses of various alternatives for supplying the
projected needs, and estimates of future energy costs. The Valdez and
Glennallen areas are considered as one, for the purposes of this report,
since the Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) line between the two
areas is presently under construction.
The analysis primarily focuses on the Allison Creek Hydro Project as a
potential to meet area power needs after full utilization of Solomon
Gulch. It also looks at the alternatives of (1) pressure reducing
turbines in the Alyeska Pipeline, and (2) interconnection with Railbelt
area power supplies.
Project Plans and Costs
The Corps of Engineers Southcentral Railbelt Stage II Checkpoint report
of April 1978 titled, Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes for
Valdez, Alaska, identified the Allison Creek project lake tap scheme as
having the best potential of several alternatives considered. Since
that report, the Corps designed two alternatives for using a power
tunnel and a penstock between lake tap and powerplant. Alternative 1
uses a "lower" powerplant near the shoreline and alternative 2 an
"upper" one on the mountainside. The following chart outlines these:
Powerplant Location
Installed Capacity
Average Annual Energy
Firm Energy
Plant Factor (firm)
Project Cost
Unit Power Cost
Average Annual Cost
Unit Energy Cost
Transmission Line
Alternative 1
Lower
8 MW
39,350 MWH
34,300 MWH
48.9%
$37,250,000
$5,029/kW
$3,489,521
10.2¢/kWh
3 miles
Previous Studies
Alternative 2
Upper
8 MW
37,250 MWH
32,200 MWH
45.9%
$34,301,000
$4,63l/kW
$3,229,176
10.0¢/kWh
3.5 miles
An inventory of potential hydroelectric sites in Alaska was done by the
Alaska District of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (now the Alaska Power
Administration) in the 1960's. Several sites near Valdez, including
Allison Creek, were part of this inventory. However, when the inventory
1
list was classified into the 76 most economical, Allison Creek was not
included. Higher fuel co~ts have since changed the economic outlook.
Allison Creek project has not previously been studied as a lake tap
scheme, other than in the above mentioned, Corps report. However, the
project with a dam has been included as an alternative or an adjunct to
Solomon Gulch in studies by Robert W. Retherford Associates (see bib-
liography items 8, 10, 15). Retherford, as well as the Corps, concluded
that the scheme with a dam was not feasible.
Load forecasts of the Valdez/Glennallen area have been reported in
several reports •. Copper Valley Electric Association and REA jointly
study future loads about every two years. Results are shown in several
Solomon Gulch studies and in the Robert W. Retherford Asssociates reports
of po~er supply (see bibliography items 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18).
The ,Upper Susitna River Project Market Study completed by APA in 1979
and the Alaska Water Study Committee S.C. Alaska Level B Phase I study
include sections on the Valdez/Glennallen area.
2
CHAPTER II
SUMMARY
Valdez and Glennallen, both served by Copper Valley Electric Association
(CVEA), and the Alyeska Pipeline terminal in Valdez are all presently
supplied from oil-fired electric generation. CVEA is currently into
. construction of the l2-MW Solomon Gulch hydro project. Assumed project-
on-line-date is 1981. A l38-kV transmission line between Valdez and
Glennallen is also assumed to be completed in 1981.
This report dealt primarily with alternatives the Valdez/Glennallen
areas have for meeting their electric power needs after full utilization
of Solomon Gulch. .
The Valdez area and, toa lesser extent, the Glenallen area experienced
rapid growth during the Alyeska pipeline construction period of 1974 to
1977.· The following table shows a summary of historical annual growth
rates.
Residential
Period Growth (%)
Valdez
1970-1973 7.7
1973-1977 50.0
1977-1979 -9.4
Glennallen
1970-1973 15.9
1973-1977 24.0
1977-1979 -7.5
Energy use per customer in 1979 was:
Residential
6,666 kWh
Valdez
Commercial/Industrial
62,350 kWh
Commercial/Industrial
Growth (%)
Residential
4,708 kWh
3.4
38.2
-3.9
5.0
42.6
-9.8
Glennallen
Commercial/Industrial
55,171 kWh
CVEA retail rates for electric energy in 1979 were: (revenue per kWh)
Residential
l2.7e
Valdez
Commercial/Industrial
10.ge
Residential
l4.le
Glennallen
Commercial/Industrial
13.4e
The annual cost of generation in the CVEA area in 1979 averaged 8.le per
kWh. Preliminary input from the utility indicates close to lOe/kWh in
1980.
3
It was found that there are considerable uncertainties in making load
forecasts for this area. For example, there are many questions on
precise timing and numbers of jobs associated with the construction and
operation of the State's Alaska Liquid Petroleum Company Refinery
(ALPETCO) scheduled for Valdez. Because of such contingencies, both
Valdez and Glennallen have potential for growth appreciably different
than the assumed forecast. The basic forecast adopted was presented in
the CVEA Power Cost Study of January 1980. That forecast then was
extrapolated to year 2000 and adjustments made to reflect conservation
and estimated additional loads during ALPETCO construction and operation.
Future power requirements are estimated as follows:
Valdez
EnerSil (GWH) Demand (MW) caj2acityl/ (MW)
Historical 1978 23.4 4.8 10.1
1979 23.0 4.2 10.1
1980 26.5 5.4 7.2
1985 48.0 9.8 13.1
1990 57.0 11.7 15.6
1993 63.0 12.9 17.2
2000 76.0 15.2 20.3
Glennallen
EnerSil (GWH) Demand (MW) CaEacityl/ (MW)
Historical 1978 20.4 4.0 7.6
1979 18.5 3.5 7.6
1980 21.4 4.4 5.9
1985 29.5 5.8 7.7
1990 40.6 7.8 10.4
1993 49.2 9.2 12.3
2000 70.0 14.0 18.7
1./ Forecasted capacity is computed from peak demand + 75% (assumes
25 % reserves).
Various alternative power supply alternatives were considered as follow-
on projects after Solomon Gulch:
1. Allison Creek
2. Pressure reducing turbines (PRT's) in Alyeska Pipeline
3. Interconnection of CVEA system with Railbelt power supplies
4. Use of diesel generation
Load/resource and cost analysis were performed to compare the forecasted
loads with the alternatives listed above. The load/resource results
indicated:
4
A. Assuming Allison Creek follows Solomon Gulch:
1. CVEA needs energy and capacity immediately after completion of
Solomon Gulch.
2. Allison Creek firm energy would be fully utilized by 1985.
3. Allison Creek capacity plus Solomon Gulch can supply the area
peak demand until 1991.
B. Assuming PRT's follow Solomon Gulch:
1. Allison Creek energy would not be needed until about 1990.
2. Solomon Gulch, Allison Creek, and PRT capacity and firm energy
would all be fully utilized before 2000.
The cost analyses showed the following:
1. Allison Creek alternative 1 has slightly higher power cost
than Allison Creek alternative 2. Both are about 10¢ per kWh,
under current prices, assuming 50-year payout, and with 8 percent
interest rate.
2. PRT unit costs are about one-fourth of Allison Creek.
3. Allison Creek power costs appear comparib1e with 1980 diesel
generation costs.
4. Based on rough studies from the March 1979 Upper Susitna Power
Market Study, with allowance for inflation to the present, cost of
power supply obtained through an interconnection to the Rai1be1t
may be comparable to or slightly higher than Allison Creek.
The marketability findings are as follow:
1. PRT's appear to have a tremendous cost advantage over the
other available alternatives.
2. If PRT's are constructed, Allison Creek would be deferred a
few years. If not, Allison Creek would be used about as quickly as
it could be brought on line after Solomon Gulch.
3. Allison Creek represents generally a higher unit cost of power
than other projects now under active consideration elsewhere in
the State.
4. It appears probable that power supplies made available through
interconnection with the main Rai1be1t area load centers would be
competitive with Allison Creek.
5
5. Marketing vagarities (loads, Railbelt intertie, local or state
construction) make present comparisons uncertain.
Interest rates for repayment of Federal investment in power projects are
keyed to long-term borrowing costs, with an annual determination by the
Secretary of Treasury. The formula is based on average costs of govern-
ment securities with 15 or more years to maturity at the beginning of
each fiscal year. Changes in the rate to be applied to new investments
are limited to one-half percent per year.
Studies for this re.port used an 8 percent interest rate, which was the
rate to be applied for new Federal investment in FY 1980.
A larger increase in borrowing costs was experienced in FY 1980, as
reflected in Tn~asury' s determination that the average rates for the
long-term securities as of October 1, 1980 was in excess of 10 percent
(10.25). Thus, if Allison Creek Project is constructed in the mid to
late 1980's, it is likely that the project interest rate will be 10
percent or higher.
Under the 8 percent assumption and October 1980 price levels, annual
reserves $3,229,000 are needed to cover operations, maintenance, and
amortization costs for Allison Creek. Under a 10 percent assumption,
annual reserve requirements would be $3,937,000, an increase of 22
percent. Average rates for repayment would reflect similar increases.
These figures do not reflect future inflation.
Changes in interest rate and future inflation would have similar impacts
on costs for alternative power sources.
APA concludes that the outlook for financial feasibility is sufficiently
favorable to warrant steps towards project authorization, but recommends
reevaluation of the power markets and alternative costs prior to construc-
tion.
6
CHAPTER III
POWER MARKET DESCRIPTION AND OUTLOOK
Location
Valdez, situated in the northeast corner of Prince William Sound, is now
~~ll known as the southern·· termim,ls of the Alaska oil pipeline. It is
als~ . the·southern termin~s of the Richardson highway, which leads to
Fairbanks, 363 miles·north. Anchorage is 306 miles by road from Valdez.
The Alaska Marine Highway connects Valdez to Whittier and Cordova. It
is served by air, but not mainline schedules.
Glennallen, about half way between Valdez and Fairbanks, is 115 miles
north on the Richardson highway. It is the eastern end of the Glenn
highway, 189 miles from Anchorage.
Figure 111-1 locates Valdez and Glennallen geographically.
Economy
Valdez economy before the oil pipeline was based on fishing and govern-
ment. Before the 1964 earthquake, shipping played a part. The pipeline
activity has had heavy impact since 1970 when the first pipe stockpiling
started. Oil storage and shipping facilities have been operating in
Valdez since the middle of 1977. Stability is returning after the
extreme economic and demographic fluctuations caused by pipeline con-
struction between 1974 and 1976, and construction "wind-down" in late
1976 and early 1977. The following chronology summarizes economic
activity in Valdez since 1970:
1970 -Beginning of pipe delivery to Valdez and other areas along
the pipeline corridor.
1971 -Value of pipe dropped off but delivery of pipe continued.
1972 and 1973 -No pipe delivered in this period. Business receipts
decreased by SO percent in 1972 and continued to decrease in 1973.
1974 to 1976 -Pipe delivery resumes with seven-fold increase by
1975. Community experiences an ll-fold increase in business
receipts from 1974 to 1975 and a four-fold increase from 1975 to
1976.
1976 -Peak of pipeline terminal construction. Pipe delivery eight
times less than 1975 activity.
1977 -Operation of pipeline and terminal began in late summer.
CVEA service of some pump station utility type loads commenced.
Since 1977, Valdez economy, judged by employment, dipped for several
months after pipeline operation commenced, then recovered with cyclic
7
1:0DI Il.!C-8[iTCL r Kor SlNmEGION
8
Figure III-l
ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION
o
UTILITY NARKET AREAS
MARCH 1979
increases. Municipal construction has been perhaps the major vehicle of
economic stability in the last two years. Three municipal buildings,
port and airport improvements, and the start of Solomon Gulch hydroproject
have been the major activities. Along with "gearing-up" for the proposed
ALPETCO refinery, the city is working towards re-establishing its pre-
earthquake status as a significant port for more than oil tankers. No
indications point towards a future economic downturn for Valdez.
Glennallen and its neighboring towns are crossroad and tourist dependent
places. Interior Alaska government functions also contribute to the
economy. The pipeline activity had a definite influence but not as
severe as in Valdez. No definite activities appear in the offing to
alter the area economy. The proposed gas pipeline in the Alaska highway
corridor is not within commuting distance of Glennallen; so its impact
is expected to be minimal to negligible. Recent oil exploration activity
near the area appears now to be small and uncertain. The Glennallen
area will expand with the state tourism industry.
Population and Employment
Available demographic statistics do not separate Valdez and Glennallen.
Statewide data is disaggregated into census divisions and both places
are included in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division.
Table 111-1 shows annual historic values of population, employment, and
housing starts, which come from Alaska Department of Labor and Department
of Housing and Urban Development publications (see bibliography items 2,
7,14,16).
The peak of Valdez pipeline terminal construction, the dip at the end of
construction, and the increase with recent construction activity clearly
show in the employment statistics. Preliminary 1979 data indicates
population decline has leveled off. Housing starts also indicate an
increase, from 14 starts in 1978 to 29 starts in 1979.
Overall, it appears the pipeline boom-bust cycle left Valdez on a somewhat
higher economic plane than before the pipeline. The future outlook is
continuing moderate (compared to pipeline construction years) growth
until the ALPETCO installation is completed, then steady but smaller
growth at least to the year 2000. The Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Impact Statement of December 1979 estimates 2,800 employees
may be needed at ALPETCO construction peak and 1,200 for operations.
9
TABLE III-1
Demographic Data--Valdez/Chitina/Whittier
Census Division
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Population 3,098 2,932 3,464 3,568 3,833 9,639 13,000 9,905 5,000 5,OOO(p)
Employment 1/ 831 1,085 904 985 1,526 . 4,626 7,818 3,768(r) 2,043 2,140
(1st 9
Employment 2/ 1;209 2,023 3,054 2,794 2,143 2,239
Unemployment 2/ 8.8 6.9 9.3 14.1 18.1 11.4
(Percent)
Housing Starts 1 0 6 6 161 85 39 33 14 29
(p) = preliminary.
(r) = revised since previous use.
1/ Nonagricultural wage and salary employment by place of work (based on jobs).
2/ = current population survey (CPS) labor force statistics (based on people).
Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Division Alaska Power Administration
August 1980
mas)
CHAPTER IV
EXISTING POWER SYSTEMS
System
The Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) utility serves both Glenn-
allen and Valdez. Radial distribution lines of CVEA extend from Glenn-
allen 30 miles north on the Copper River, 55 miles south on the Copper
River to Lower Tonsina, and 70 miles west on the Gl~nn Highway. The
utility is constructing a 138 KV transmission line between Valdez and
Glennallen in conjunction with the Solomon Gulch hydroplant construction •.
The area contains no national defense installations significant to the
study, but self-supplied industry is represented by a sizable powerplant
at the Valdez oil terminal. Oil pipeline pumping is not electrical; .
however, CVEA supplies utility-type loads at pumping stations within
their market area.
Installed Capacity
The installed capacity for utility and industry by type of prime mover
is listed on the following table:
1979 INSTALLED CAPAC I TY--MW
Utility
Copper Valley Electric Association
--Glennallen
. --Valdez
Self-Supplied Industry
Valdez Oil Terminal
Pumping Station Standby
Gas
Turbine
(oil)
2.8
1.2
1.2
Diesel
(oil)
7.6
7.3
2.5
0.05
2.5
Steam
(oil)
37.5
37.5
Copper Valley Electric Association is now cortstructing the Solomon Gulch
hydro project, a l2-MW plant across Valdez Arm from Valdez. It is
scheduled for completion in 1983.
11
Total
7.6
10.1
40.0
·1.2
41.2
Historical Loads
General
Valdez and Glennallen utility loads divide into residential, commercial/
industrial, and other. "Other" includes street lights, public buildings,
utility use, and losses. The only load that may be considered indus-
trial is the CVEA supplied non-pumping requirements at a few pipeline
pumping stations. Table IV-1 lists CVEA loads from 1970 through 1979.
Energy use, customers·,. and peak demand are shown. The "other" sector is
not listed separately, but the totals include it. Peak demand data is
not metered by sector, so only annual totals can be shown. Some earlier
year customer information is not available for this study as designated
by '~A" in the table.
Self-supplied industrial loads were non-existent until 1977 when pipe-
line operation commenced. Table IV-1 shows this Valdez terminal steam-
plant load.
Energy Growth Relationships
Table IV-2 shows historical growth rates and energy Use per customer.
The unsettlednati)re of the area is depicted in growth rate variances
and extremes. Valdez residential energy, for instance,. jumped from no
growth in 1973 to 135 percent in 1975. Other extremes were less, but
similar. Business depressions followed cessation of pipe deliveries in
1972 to 1973 and pipeline construction in 1977. Extreme economic up-
turn from 1974 to 1976 co-existed with pipeline construction.
Examination of Table IV-2 also shows some lack of correlation between
customers and energy use. Valdez residential energy growth peaked a
year earlier than residential customers, for instance. Customer growth
dropped off more sharply than energy. Pipeline construction employment
characteristics can help explain some of this. It is only necessary to
point out he.re, however, that these facts emphasize the difficulty in
projecting the historical data.
The energy use (kWh/customer) statistics show the variations too. A
measure of constancy can be noticed until 1975, the year of peak pipe-
line construction. Then, a large usage increase occurred--much more so
in Valdez than in Glennallen. After 1975, residential use moderated
somewhat but at a higher level than before 1975. A large jump in the
Glennallen commercial/industrial sector in 1977 reflects the utility
assumption of pipeline pumping station non-pumping loads.
12
TABLE IV-1 HISTORICAL LOADS--VALDEZ AND GLENNALLEN
VALDEZ GLENNALLEN TOTAL eVEA VALDEZ
YEAR RESI C/I TOTAL RESI C/I TOTAL RESI e/I TOTAL INDUSTRIAL
ENERGY (MWH)
1970 1,200 3,800 5,912 900 3,200 4,790 2,134 7,072 10,702
1971 1,483 4,010 6,363 1,128 3,447 5,363 2,610 7,457 11,726
1972 1,500 3,800 6,202* 1,300 3,400 5,601* 2,796 7,173 11,803
1973 1,500 4,200 6,470 1,400 3,700 6,121 2,887 7,942 12,591
1974 2,110 6,176 9,457 1,641 3,802 6,167 3,751 9,979 15,624
1975 4,966 10,894 18,251 2,690 4,692 8,636 7,656 15,586 26,887
1976 6,966 14,353 26,006 3,269 7,570 13,281 10,235 21,923 39,287
1977 7,589 15,330 26,060 3,306 15,287 21,401 10,895 30,617 47,461 39,420
1978 6,455 14,222 23,411 3,090 13,738 20,425 9,545 27,960 43,835 54,750
1979 6,393 14,153 22,977 2,961 12,027 18,522 9,354 26,181 41,499
PEAK DEMAND (kW)
1970 1,160 1,030 2,190
1971 1,266 1,060 2,326
I-' 1972 1,270* 1,130* 2,400* w
1973 1,280 1,220 2,500
1974 2,470 1,340 3,810
1975 4,750 2,360 7,110
1976 4,875 3,500 8,375
1977 4,850* 4,290* 9,140 38,560 (capacity
1978 4,750 4,000 8,750 40,000 (capacity
1979 4,225 3,470 7,695
CUSTOMERS
1970 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 542 219 786
1971 348 107 467 329 117 464 677 224 931
1972 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 651 235 918
1973 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 680 245 957
1974 494 178 685 413 137 575 907 315 1,260
1975 637 209 860 531 150 708 1,168 359 1,568
1976 1,052 231 1,297 621 171 823 1,673 402 2,163
1977 1,040 222 1,276 651 203 887 1,691 425 2,163
1978 892 229 1,140 666 194 894 1,558 423 2,034
1979 959 217 1,209 629 218 882 1,588 445 2,091
* = estimated Alaska Power Administration
April 1980
TABLE IV-2 Historical Growth Rates (%) and Ener~.l Use (kWh/customer)
VALDEZ GLENNALLEN TOTAL eVE A
Year Resi C/I Total Resi C/I Total Resi C/I Total
ENERGY GROWTH RATES (%)
1971 23.6 5.5 7.6 25.3 7.7 12.0 22.3 5.4 9.6
1972 1.1 -5.2 -2.5 15.2 -1.4 4.4 7.1 -3.8 0.7 .
1973 0 10.5 4.3 7.7 8.8 9.3 3.3 10.7 6.7
1974 40.7 47.0 46.2 17.2 2.8 0.8 29.9 25.6 24.1
1975 135.4 76.4 93.0 63.9 23.4 40.0 104.1 56.2 72.1
1976 40.3 31.8 42.5 21.5 61.3 53.8 33.7 40.7 46.1
1977 8.9 6.8 -0.1. 1.1 101.9 61.1 6.4 39.7 20.8
1978 -14.9 -7.2 -9.9 -6.5 -10.1 -4.6 . ...,.12.4 -8.7 -7.6
1979 -1.0 -0.5 -1.9 -4.2 -12.5 -9.3 -2.0 -6.4 -5.3
1970-1973 7.7 3.4 3.1 15.9 5.0 8.5 10.6 3.9 5.6
1973-1977 50.0 38.2 41.6 24.0 42.6 36.7 39.4 40.1 39.3
CUSTOMER GROWTH RATES (%-)
1971 24.9 2.3 18.4
1972 12.4* 18.5* 13.6* 7.9* 5.4* 7.4* -3.8 4.9 . -1.4
~ 1973 12.4* 18.5* 13.6* 7.9* 5.4* 7.4* 4.5 4.3 4.2 .p..
1974 12.4* 18.5* 13.6* 7.9* 5.4* 7.4* 33.4 28.6 31.7
1975 28.9 17.4 25.5 28.6 9.5 23.1 28.8 14.0 24.4
1976 65.1 10.5 50.8 16.9 14.0 16.2 43.2 12.0 35.2
1977 -1.1 -3.9 -0.8 4.8 18.7 7.8 1.1 5.7 2.5
1978 -14.2 3.2 -U.4 2.3 -4.4 0.8 -7.9 -0.5 -6.4
1979 7.5 -5.2 6.1 -5.6 12.4 -1.3 1.9 5.2 2.8
ENERGY USE (kWh/CUSTOMER)
1970 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,937 32,292 13,616
1971 4,261 37,477 13,625 3,429 29,462 11,558 3,855 33,290 12,595
1972 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,295 30,523 12,857
1973 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,246 32,416 13,157
1974 4,271 34,697 13,806 3,973 27,752 10,725 4,136 31,679 12,400
1975 7,796 52,124 21,222 5,066 31,280 12,198 6,555 43,415 17,147
1976 6,622 62,134 20,051 5,264 44,269 16,137 6,118 54,535 18,532
1977 7,297 69,054 20,367 5,078 75,305 24,126 6,443 72,040 21,942
1978 7,237 62,105 20,546 4,640 70,814 22,832 6,126 66,099 21,551
1979 6,666 65,221 19,005 4,708 55,170 21,000 5,890 58,834 19,847
1978 7,237 62,105 20,546 4,640 70,814 22,832 6,126 66,099 21,551
* Average annual from 19JL to 1974 Alaska Power Administration
April 1980
Load Factors
The following chart lists historical load factors, showing the relation-
ship between e.nergy and peak demand in percent:
Valdez Glennallen Total CVEA
1970 58.2 53.1 55.8.
1971 57.4 57.8 57.5
1972 55.7 56.6. 56.1
1973 57.7 57.3 57.5
1974 . 43.7 52.5 46.8
1975 43.9 41.8 43.2
1976 60.9 43.3 53.6
1977 61.3 57.0 59.3
1978 56.3 58.3 57.2
1979 62~3 60.9 61.6
Avg. 55.7 53.8 54.9
Load factor equals energy divided by the product of peak demand and
hours (8,760 hours annually). A peak load and subsequent installed
capacity forecast can be obtained from the energy forecast by using an
average assumed load factor. The load factors are fairly constant except.
during the years of greatest pipeline activity. Revised averages obtained
by excluding those years are:
Valdez
Glennallen
Total CVEA
Rates
58.7% (1974-1975 excl~)
56.7% (1975-1976 excl.)
57.3% (1974-1975 excl.)
Rates to residential customers as stated in the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission (APUC) annual report of 1979 were as follows (in C/kWh):
For
. Valdez
Glennallen
100 kWh
16.8C/kWh
17 .5
500 kWh
15.5
16.2
1;000 kWh
14.0
15.7
1,500 kWh
13.2
14.8
Another form of customer rate (costs/kWh), as shown in the following
chart, illustrates averages of all users. The values are calculated by
dividing annual revenue for each sector by annual energy sold in each
sector.
15
REVENUE/KWH (¢/KWH)
YEAR VALDEZ GLENNALLEN TOTAL CVEA
R C/I Total R C/I Total R C/I Total
1970 N/A N/A 9.1 7.0 7.5
1971 8.4 6.2 6.8 9.9 8.1 8.6 9.1 7.1 7.6
1972 N/A N/A 9.0 7.3 7.8
1973 N/A N/A 8.9 7.1 7.6
1974 8.1 6.3 6.8 9.5 7.9 8.4 8.7 6.9 7.4
1975 7.6 6.2 6.6 10.5 9.3 9.7 8.6 7.1 7.6
1976 9.6 6.6 7.6 11.1 11.7 11.5 10.2 8.4 8.9
1977 9.4 7.7 8.3 1101 9.8 9.9 9.9 8.8 9.0
1978 10.8 9.3 9.7 12.5 11.5 11.7 11.4 10.4 10.6
1979 12.7 10.9 11.5 14.1 13.4 13.5 13.1 12.1 12.4
Note: 1975 and 1976 include sllrcharge revenue--other years the surcharge
was not separately specified.
R = Residential
C/I= Commercial/Industrial
The annual generation cost rates are shown on the following table which
is a summary of Table VIII-3. These values were compiled from data
submitted by the utility to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission
(APUC). The annual investment cost was calculated using production
plant-in-service data times the capital recovery factor for 7.5 percent
discount· rate and. assumed 20-year diesel generator life.
Energy Production Expense Rates (¢/kWh)
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
O&M Excluding Fuel 1.0 103 104 106 2.0
O&M Including Fuel 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.7 5.2
Investment Cost/Year 104 102 2.0 106 1.7
Total Annual Cost 4.6 5.1 6.1 6.3 6.9
Data for 1977-1979 indicates about 55 percent of the total operation and
maintenance expenses, including fuel, occur at Valdez. In 1975, it was
66 percent. Data for the other years is not available.
The last line of the production expense table shows that total annual
costs had about a 15 percent average annual growth during the pipeline
construction years. The average from 1974 through 1979 is 12 percent.
A large increase in fuel cost occurred in 1979.
16
1979
2.1
6.3
1.8
8.1
CHAPTER V
FUTURE POWER AND ENERGY ASSUMPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
Energy and Peak Demand Forecasts
Any forecasts in the Valdez/Glennallen area have a high measure of
uncertainty, not only from lack of a stable historic base but also from
vagueness of the future. Future contingencies include the ALPETCO
petrochemical plant proposal, expansion of Valdez port activities, some
petroleum exploration activity near Glennallen, and possible electrical
interconnection to the Railbelt area.
Periodically, Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA), in conjunction
with the Rural Electric Administration (REA), commissions a power re-
quirements or power cost study. The last one available was dated
January 1980 and made load estimates for the 1980 to 1993 period. It
has been adapted for this study as shown in Table V-I, which lists
energy and peak demand by year for Valdez, Glennallen, and the total
CVEA area. Growth rates and load factors are also shown.
The CVEA forecast does not include the proposed ALPETCO petrochemical
facility near Valdez nor adjustment for conservation. Therefore, the
estimates have been altered by Alaska Power Administration to reflect
these contingencies. The Valdez forecast was derived by first decreasing
the CVEA 6-percent.average annual growth rate in five-year increments
then adding 17 GWh for 1982 peak year construction and 12 GWh per year
for ALPETCO operation. The following average annual growth rates were
applied to the CVEA base 1980 energy:
1980-1985 6%
1985-1990 5%
1995-2000 3%
The 17 GWH and 12 GWh were developed from the 1970 to 1978 net generation
per employee statistics and estimated numbers of employees. During the
oil terminal construction in Valdez, CVEA supplied 5 to 6 MWh per
employee. The other years these values were 10 to 14 MWh. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Statement of December 1979
indicated almost 2,800 peak construction employees and about 1,200
operational employees. (6 MWh/employees x 2,800 employees = 17 GWh;
10 MWh/employees x 1,200 employees = 12 GWh).
The Glennallen forecast comes directly from the CVEA study. It was
assumed growth factors and conservation would cancel any need for
revision. Peak"loads can be determined by using the following load
factors from the CVEA study:
1980-1993
1993-2000
Glennallen
57.8%
57.1%
17
Valdez
55.8%
57.1%
Total
56.7%
57.1%
Figure V-I pictures the forecast of the total CVEA area. It also shows
the 1980 CVEA power cost study load growth, the forecast from the CVEA
1976 Power Requirements Study, and a projection that averages these
latter two. The 1976 forecast was presented in the March 1979 Susitna
Power Market Study and the Y~rch 1979 AWSU S.C. Alaska Level B Phase I
Technical Memorandum (see bibliography items 5 and 6). The projected
average was used as an interim forecast by the Corps of Engineers in
their Allison Creek draft report. It could be cons~dered a high range
forecast for this power market report.
In addition to these utility forecasts, self-supplied industries should
be mentioned. The only ones considered were the oil pipeline terminal
and the proposed ALPETCO project. The terminal commenced operation in
1977 with a 37.5 MW oil-fired steamplant, about four times the total
CVEA 1977 peak load. The ALPETCO installation may have up to 55 MW
installed capacity as reported in a CVEA/REA Power Requirements Study of
March 1979.
These industries, with their large loads compared to the utility, were
considered unlikely to be utility supplied. Therefore, the forecast did
not combine utility and industry.
Installed Capacity Forecast and Future Needs
In'stalled capacity is equal to peak load plus system reserves. The 1979
Susitna Power market analysis assumed a 20 percent reserv,e in urban
areas and 25 percent in towns and rural areas. This study assumes that
peak load is 75 percent of installed capacity.
Table V-2 expands the peak load forecast by dividing each value by 0.75.
Existing installed capacity is listed also for each year, decreasing
according to an assumed retirement schedule. Solomon Gulch capacity
(12 MW) shows for Valdez in accordance with its assumed on-line date of
1981. An interconnection is assumed under "CVEA Total"; so Valdez and
Glennallen capacity estimates and existing generation are totaled. A
last column adds Solomon Gulch to existing thermal capacity.
Energy Distribution
Assuming current energy use patterns will not change significantly in
the future, the annual energy forecast values divide into the following
monthly distribution. This distribution is arranged in water year
order, October 1 through September 30. The assumption of no significant
change in percentages is justified as long as the utility remains isolated
electrically from a large industry. Expanding use of electric space
heating in the residential and commercial sectors may modify the distri-
bution somewhat also.
18
-\0
Table V-I
VALDEZ/GLENNALLEN AREA UTIUTY LOAD ESTIMATES
Enpr~:z: (GWh)
Glennallen Valdez Total
Historical
1976 13.3 26.0 39.3
1977 21.4 26.1 47.5
1978 20.4 23.4 43.8
1979 18.5 23.0 41.6
Forecast*
1980 21.4 26.5 47.9
1981 22.0 (28.2) 30.0** 52.0
1982 22.5 (30.0) 33.0** 55.5
19B3 26.0 (31.9) 35.0** 61.0
1984 27.7 (D.n 34.0** 61.7
1985 29.5 35.6 65.1
1986 31.4 37.6 69.1
1981 D.5 39.8 73.3
1988 35 .• 7 42.0 77.8
1989 38.1 44.4 82.5
1.990 40.6 46.9 87.5
1991 43.3 49.6 92.9
1992 46.1 52.4 98.6
1993 49.2 55.4 104.6
2000*** 70.0 80.0 150.0
Avera!le Annual Growth Rates (%)
1910-1973 8.5 3.1 5.6
1973-1977 36.7 41.7 39.3
1977-1979 -6.0 -7.0 -6.4
1970-1979 16.2 16.3. 16.3
1980-1993 6.6 5.8 6.2
1993-2000 5.2 5.4 5.3
* Copper Valley E1pctric Association Forecast from January 1980
** Additions for ALPETCO facility have been included. Values in
*** APA extrapolation.
*4 Average excluding pipeline construction impact.
Peak Demand (MW)
Glennallen Valdez
3.5 4.9
4.3 4,9
4.0 4.8,
3.5 4.2
4.4 5.4
4.7 (5.7) 6.1*'"
4.9 (6.1) 6.7**
5.2 (6.5) 7.1**
5.5 (6.9) 7.0**
5.8 7.3
6.2 7.7
6.6 8.1
6.9 8.6
7.4 9.1
7.8 9.6
8.2 10.2
8.7 10.8
9.2 11.4
14.0 16.0
Avera!!,e Load Factors
54.3 (56.6)*4 54.1 (56.4)*4
57.8 55.8
57.1 57.1
Power Cost Study.
( ) are from original forecast.
Alaska Power Administration
April 1980
Total
8.4
9.1
8.8
7.7
9.8
10.8
11.5
12.4
12.5
13. 1
13.9
14.7
15.5
16.4
17.4
18.4
19.5
20.6
30.0
54.1 (56. n*4
56.7
57.1
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
Hist<)rical
.VALDEZ/GLENALLEN AREA
ENERGY FORECASTS
For"casts
Figure V-I
5.9%
5.7%
August Annual
growth-from
19BO
O~------~ ____ ~L-______ L-______ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 lqq5 2()()O
20
N
I-'
Table V-2 INSTALLED CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS AND USE OF EXISTING GENERATION
(MW)
VALDEZ GLENNALLEN CVEA·TOTALS
Solomon Existing Existing Solomon Existing Total
Year Estimate Gulch Diesels Estimate Diesels Estimate Gulch Diesels Generation
1980 7.2 10.1 5.9 7.6 13.1 17.7 17.7
1981 9.1 12.0 10.1 6.3 7.0 15.3 12.0 17.1 29.1
1982 12.8 12.0 10.1 6.5 7.0 19.3 12.0 17.1 29.1
1983 12.5 12.0 10.1 6.9 6.4 19.5 12.0 16.5 28.5
1984 12.5 12.0 7.3 7.3 9.2 19.9 12.0 16.5 28.5
1985 13.1 12.0 7.3 7.7 9.2 20.8 12.0 16.5 28.5
1986 13.6 12.0 7.3 8.3 8.0 21.9 12.0 15.3 27.3
1987 14.1 12.0 7.3 8.8 8.0 22.9 12.0 15.3 27.3
1988 14.4 12.0 5.5 9.2 8.0 23~6 12.0 U.S 25.5
1989 15.1 12.0 5.5 9.9 8.0 24.9 12.0 13.5 25.5
1990 15.6 12.0 5.5 10.4 8.0 26.0 12.0 U.S 25.5
1991 16.1 12.0 5.5 10.9 8.0 27.1 12.0 U.S 25.5
1992 16.7 12.0 3.6 11.6 8.0 28.3 12.0 11.6 23.6
1993 17.2 12.0 3.6 12.3 8.0 29.5 12.0 11.6 23.6
2000 20.3 12.0 0.0 18.7 0.0 38.9 12.0 0.0 12.0
Notes:'
1. Installed capacity estimates = peak demand in table V-I ~ 0.75
2. Totals are derived from unrounded components
3. Existing diesels decrease according to an assumed retirement schedule
Alaska Power Administration
August 1980
Monthly Energy Distribution
Valdez Glennallen Total Utility
October 7.5 7.4 7.5
November 8.9 8.9 8.9
December 9.2 10.0 9.6
January 9.5 10.4 9.9
February 9.4 10.3 •• 9.9
March 8.3 8.9 8.6
April 8.6 8.7 8.6
May 7.7 7.2 7.5
June 7.6 6.8 7.2
July 7.4 6.6 7.0
August 7.8 7.1 7.4
September 8.2 7.7 8.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
October through April 61.3% 64.7% 62.9%
These values are averages of historical monthly energy from October 1969
through September 1979. Year to year values for anyone month vary less
then 2 percent from the average--even during the pipeline construction
years. The total utility percentages vary less than the components.
The winter months, October through April (58 percent of the year),
consume over 60 percent of the annual energy.
22
CHAPTER VI .
ALTERNATIVE GENERATION AND COSTS·
Focus of this chapter is selection of feasible power and energy supply
possibilities for the Valdez/Glennallen area. As follow-up to the
Solomon Gulch hydro project, now under construction, only three alterna-
tives appear reasonable:
1. Allison Creek hydro (two options)
2. P~essure Reducing Turbines (PRT's) in the Alyeska pipeline
3. Interconnection to the Railbelt area (Palmer-Glennallen trans-
mission line).
Discussion of the alternatives considered follows:
Hydropower
Several sites in addition to Aliison Creek and Solomon Gulch have been
inventoried in the Valdez and Glennallen areas. These are part of a
statewide list of 252 published in February 1980 in an Alaska" Power
Administration report titled Hydroelectric Alternatives for the Alaska
Railbelt. Sizes and evaluations are given in the following list:
Valdez
Lowe River 0.2 -55 MW
Silver Lake 10 MW
Mineral Creek 0.4 -1.3 MW
Gold Creek ?
Unnamed Creek 3.6 -10.4 MW
Cleave 820 MW
Wood Canyon 2,600
Glennallen
Tazlina 104 MW
Lower Gulkana River 9MW
Sanford 80 MW
Currently classed as not feasible econ-
omically or environmentally.
Requires much longer transmission than
Allison Creek. Can perhaps be the next
increment.
Currently classed as uneco~omical.
Currently classed as uneconomical.
Currently classed as uneconomical.
Far too large for area.
Far too large for area.
Previous studies show less feasibility
than Lowe.
Previous studies show less feasibility
than Lowe.
Previous studies show less feasibility
than Lowe.
23
These are the sites closest by. Other sites could also be considered
but are judged not alternative to Allison Creek~ If the very large
projects, Wood Canyon or Cleave, are developed for energy export else-
where; feasibility of serving the Glennallen-Valdez interconnection
should be considered.
Tidal Power
Tidal power is not considered an 'alternative to Allison Creek. The main
reason is sizing and economics. The size needed for.tida1project
1 feasibility is much too large for indigenous use. In qddition, a Valdez
area tidal project would certainly conflict with port traffic (oil
tankers, etc.). If a tidal project is· constructed in the Cook Inlet
area, it would be considered as exogeneous supply to the Valdez/Glennallen
area by new transmission facilities.
Steamp1ants
Steam turbines can use many types of resources: coal, oil, gas, nuclear,
biomass, sun heat. The availability of each resource, economics, and
institutional constraints preclude steamp1ants from consideration as
alternatives for the Valdez/Glennallen area.
Coal-Fired
Coal is Scarce in the Valdez/Glennallen area. One deposit has been
defined in the Chugach Mountains, east of the Copper River delta. No
others are evidenced. This deposit is ranked low in probability of
development. A State report of Alaska's resources (see bibliography
reference 13) lists it as ninth out of a dozen possibilities.
Several recent report~/ have indicated small size (less than 50 MW)
coal-fired steamp1ants cost between $4,000 and $5,000 per kW. This
includes scrubbers. Other environmental equipment would increase capital
costs. Adding escalating fuel costs, fuel transportation costs (coal
would have to be imported), and high maintenance costs would cause
steamp1ant energy to be more expensive than Allison Creek.
Oi1-and Gas-Fired
Oil and gas provinces in the Gulf of Alaska area are evaluated in the
State study of Alaska's resources (see bibliography item 13). Evalua-
tions rank an off-shore province as promising, a province surrounding
Glennallen as possible, and a province east of Cordova as very improbable.
In addition to the lack of local fuel supplies, oil-and gas-fired
steamp1ants are considered as unlikely alternatives to Allison Creek
because shortages and national policy indicate that in a few years these
fuels will not be availablp for powerplants. In the sizes needed for
generation at ValdeZ/Glennallen, other forms of energy supply are more
practical and economic.
1/ 1979 Susitna Power Market Study; Alaska Study Committee Southcentral
Alaska Level R Studies.
24
Biomass-Fired
Although of many forms, biomass, for current applications, assumes the
burning of wood and wood residues in steamplants. The pulp mills in
Southeast Alaska burn mill waste as part of their process, but very
little has been done to inventory biomass generation possibilities
statewide.
Biomass-fired steamplants may be a possibility if wood is proved avail-
able. However, because of the limited state-of-the-art and lack of
local studies, they are not, at this time, considered an alternative to
Allison Creek.
Solar
The state-of-the-art also eliminates solar as alternative to Allison
Creek hydro. The solar boiler technology for steamplant power is still
in the development stage. Also, sun incidence during high energy usage
is low in the Valdez/Glennallen area.
Nuclear
The economics of nuclear steamplants preclude this as a possibility in
the ValdeZ/Glennallen area. Nuclear plants, apart from questionable
sociability, require a minimum 200 MW to 400 MW for economic feasibility.
This is too large for the area.
Combustion or Gas Turbines
Because of their relatively low capital costs, continued use of oil-
fired combustion turbines could be an alternative to Allison Creek.
However, escalating fuel cost and national objectives for use of petro-
leum preclude this option. Alternative cost comparisons are therefore
not pursued.
Diesels
Other than one small gas turbine installed in 1976, diesels now supply
all electric power and energy requirements in ValdeZ/Glennallen. Most
of these will most like.ly be on standby service when Solomon Gulch hydro
comes on line in the early 1980's.
If oil conservation and high costs were not factors, bringing these
diesels off standby status and adding more would be a likely alternative
to Allison Creek. However, by the time additional capacity is needed,
diesels are expected to be allowed only if no other alternative is
available.
Geothermal Powerplants
The most promising geothermal sites in Southcentral Alaska occur in the
Wrangell Mountains near Glennallen. This may be a source of electric
power and energy for the ValdeZ/Glennallen area for the long-term.
25
However,techno10gy has not yet developed enough to consider it as an
alternative resource in the. area before the year 2000.
Wind Machines
This resource only supplements a basic power supply. Energy storage
technology needs to develop before wind can serve as primary energy.
The Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development report dated January
1979 and titled, Alaska's Energy Resources, Phase 1. Volume III has
ranked wind power sites in Alaska. Based on sketchy data, out of a list
of 67, Valdez is number 54 and the Glennallen area number 41.
Demonstration units (under 100 kW) in Colorado are presently estimated
a t over $5, OOO/kW not including installation. Costs will undoubtedly
decrease as the technology develops.
Overall, for the Valdez/Glennallen area, wind machines cannot be considered
an alternative to Allison Creek. However, they certainly must be investi-
gated as supplemental power to any future electric supply system.
Exogenous Supply
Exogenous to the Valdez/Glennallen utility system are several possibili-
ties for generation import:
1. Rai1be1t interconnection.
2. Other large hydroprojects; such as Rampart, Porcupine, Wood-
chopper. (Wood Canyon and Cleve, within the Valdez general region,
were mentioned under hydropower.)
The large hydro projects should not be considered as alternatives
for this area or any other area, at this time.
The 1979 Susitna power market study included a section on costs of a
Palmer-Glennallen transmission line. A $40.8 million investment and
$3.3 million annual cost result in 3.3~/kWh transmission costs at a
transfer of 100 million kWh (1978 costs). 50 million kWh would more
nearly fit the Valdez/Glennallen system; so the unit cost would about
double. This would probably be economically feasible. Delivery to CVEA
at Glennallen would supply Valdez over the Glennallen-Valdez transmission
line. The Susitna study indicated Railbe1t generation costs average
about 5~ per KWh to 6~ per KWh at 1978 prices.
Other Alternatives
1. Pressure Reducing Turbines (PRT's) in the A1yeska pipeline.
2. A1yeska pipeline terminal generation at Valdez.
3. ALPETCO petrochemical installation at Valdez.
26
A Solomon Gulch article in the December 1978 issue of Alaska Construction
and Oil magazine and a January 1980 CVEA power cost study both discuss
pressure reducing turbines in the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. A two
million barrel per day (MBD) oil flow can produce 77,263 MWh with a
9.8-MW installed capacity. However, a more likely flow of 1.6 MBD and a
capacity factor of 80 percent results in 56,000 MWh energy and 8 MW
capacity. Investment W0uld be $9.7 million or $1,200/kW. This is
definitely an alternative to Allison Creek, but requires industry/utility
agreements.
A 1974 power cost study for Copper Valley Electric Association by Robert W.
Retherford Associates suggests oil pipeline pressure reducing turbines
in conjunction with hydro pumped storage at Solomon Gulch. This scheme
appears quite favorable and therefore worth more investigation.
The interties to the industrial installations at Valdez (Alyeska pipeline
terminal and ALPETCO) conceptually are feasible but considered unlikely.
The industries would not have excess firm energy; so these were not
included as Allison Creek alternatives.
27
CHAPTER VII
LOAD/RESOURCE ANALYSIS
This chapter analyzes three plans that relate feasible
alternatives to the Valdez/Glennallen load forecasts.
addresses installed capacity and energy separately. A
transmission is assumed so total CVEA loads are used.
power supply
The discussion
Valdez-Glennallen
Chapter VI indicated three viable alternatives for consideration:
Allison Creek; pressure reducing turbines (PRT) in the Alyeska pipeline;
and an interconnection with Railbelt power sources. An all thermal case
has been added for comparison. The following plans are illustrated on
Figures VII-1 through VII-5. Bases for the curves are Tables VII-1 and
VII-2. Table VII-3 combines plans 1 and 2.
Figure Number Page Number
Plan 1 Allison Creek alternative VII-1 and VII-3 34 and 36
Plan 2 Pipeline PRT alternative VII-1 and VII-4 34 and 37
Plan 3 Continuing thermal generation VII-2 and VII-S 35 and 38
A Railbelt interconnection has not been separately illustrated. It can
fit in the cross hatched areas in the diagrams or displace Allison
Creek.
Installed Capacity
Figures VII-l and VII-2 illustrate how the installed capacity forecast
can be supplied. The analysis assumes that much of the existing thermal
generation of both Valdez and Glennallen will be put in standby status
when Solomon Gulch comes on line.
The diagrams show clearly the need for capacity in addition to Solomon
Gulch. Further, they show that more than one of the three alternatives
is required before 1990 (see Figure VII-I).
Allison Creek as part of an interconnected system could be fully utilized
to supply load demand plus reserves by 1985. If diesels are used for
reserves, then Allison Creek full utilization would come in 1991 (see
Figure VII-l and Table VII-I). From a capacity viewpoint, PRT's have
the same schedule.
Figure VII-2 indicates existing generators, if not displaced by hydro,
will not be adequate after 1981. Retirement schedules for the existing
diesels and gas turbine are based on an assumed 20 to 2S-year life.
Solomon Gulch plus existing capacity will not be adequate after 1989.
29
Net Energy
This section discusses the relationships between alternative generation
and total energy load plus losses. Time scheduling of alternatives is
somewhat different than for peak demand because the PRT'fOl, while equal
in capacity to Allison Creek, have about 60 percent more energy capability.
Figures VII-3 through VII-5 and, again, Tables VII-1 through VII-3 show
the energy load/resource analyses. Firm energy for Solomon Gulch and
Allison Creek is depicted in the graphs and listed in the Tables.
Average annual energy would add secondary generation as additional
displacement of diesel g~neration and as contirtgency supply. From an
energy standpoint, installation timing would not be affected in the
interconnected system if average annual was used in place of firm for
the analyses.
~ith an interconnected system, generation in addition to Solomon Gulch
is needed immediately to displace diesels. Allison Creek would be fully
loaded when it comes on line in 1985. The PRT's would gain full energy
output by 1990.
Figure VII-5 indicates existing generation, if operated at 75 percent
plant factor, would meet the load until 1988. However, economics and
national policy, as stated in the recent national energy act, would
preclude this case.
30
Table VII-l
Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with Allison Creek Supply
Energr (GWH) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 2000
Energy Forecast 47.9 55.0 69.5 72.0 73.7 77.5 81.4 85.5 R8.7 93.1 97.6 102.3 107.1 112.2 14&.0
Solomon Gulch
( finn) 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.& 38.&
Energy Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 35.1 38.9 42.8 46.9 50.1 54:5 59.0 fin 68.5 73.& 107.4
Allison Creek
( firm) 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 3t,.3 34.3
Further Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 35.1 4.6 ---s:s 12.6 IT.8 20.2 24.7 29.4 34-:2 J9.) 7D
Existing Diesel
(75% Plt.Fac.) 116 112 112 108 108 lOR 100 100 88 88 88 88 76 76 0
Demand and C3~3city (MW)
Peak Demand 9.8 1l.5 14.5 14.6 14.9 15.6 16.4 17.2 17.7 18.7 19.5 20.3 21.2 22.1 29.2
Solomon Gulch 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
PeAk Need ~ -0.5 2"":S 2:6 2.9 3.6 ~ 5.2 5.7 ----r;:'i 7.5 8:3 ~ 10.1 17.2
Allison Creek 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Further Peak Need 9.8 -0.5 2.5 2.6 2.9 -4.4 -3.6 :'2.8 -2.3 -1.3 -0.5 <J:3 1.2 -2.1 9:-2
w ...... Reserves Required 3.3 3.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 9.7
Capacity Need 13.1 3":3 1":J ----y-:s . -r:9 --o.s I:9 2.9 J.(; 4":9 r;:o 7.1 -8.3 ---g:-s 18.9
Existing
Diesel Capacity 17.7 17.1 17.1 16.5 17.5 16.5 15.3 15.3 13.5 13.5 13.5 lJ.5 11.6 11.& 0
"'Reserves (Peak Demand + 75%) -Peak Demand
Table VII-2
Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with PRT Supply
Eners:!:: (GWH) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 2000
Energy Forecast 47.9 55.0 69.5 72.0 73.7 77.5 81.4 85.5 88.7 93.1 97.6 102.3 107.1 112.2 146.0
Solomon Gulch
(firm) 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6
Energy Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 35.1 38.9 42.8 46.9 50.1 54.5 59.0 63.7 68.5 73.(; 107.4
PRT (80% capacity
factor) 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0
Further Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 -20.9 -T7.l -13.2 =-9:1 -5.9 -1.5 J":O 7--:7 12.5 17.6 51.4
Existing Diesel
(75% Plt.Fac.) 116 112 112 108 108 108 100 100 88 88 88 88 76 76 0
Demand and CaEacitl (HW)
Peak Demand 9.8 11.5 14.5 14.6 14.9 15.6 16.4 17. 2 17.7 18.7 19.5 20.3 21.2 22.1 29.2
Solomon Gulch 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Peak Need 9:8 -0.5 2-:s 2:6 ~ 3.6 4":4 5.2 5-:7 6":7 1"":5 --s:J 9:2 10.1 17.2
w PRT 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 N
Further Need 9:8 o:s 2.5 2.6 -5.1 -4.4 -3.6 -2.8 -2.3 -1.3 -0.5 o.J 1":2 2.1 9:2
Reserves Required* 3.3 3.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 9.7
Capacity Need 13.1 3:J 7-:J 7-:s -0.1 ----o.a .--:9 ~ ~ l;"-:9 6":0 ----r:l" --s:J 9-:s 111.9
Existing
Diesel Capacity 17.7 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.5 16.5 15.3 15.3 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 11.6 11.6 0
*Reserves s (Peak Demand + 75%) -Peak Demand
Table Vll-3
Valdez/Glennallen Forecast with Allison Creek and PRT Supply
EnerSI (GWH) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 2000
Energy Forecast 47.9 55.0 69.5 72.0 73.7 17.5 81.4 85.5 88.7 93.1 97.6 102.3 107.1 112.2 . 146.0
Solomon Gulch
(firm) 38.6 38.6 38;6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6
Energy Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4 35.1 38.9 42.8 46.9 50.1 54.5 59.0 .63:7 68.5 13.6 107.4
Allison Creek 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3
Further Need 29.4 34.2 39.3 73.1
PRT 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 .56.0 56.0
Further Need 47.9 16.4 30.9 33.4. -20.9 -17.1 -13.2 -9.1 -5.9 -1.5 ~ 26.6 -21.8 -16.7 T7.T
Existing Diesel 116 112 112 108 108 108 100 100 88 88 88 88 76 76 0
Demand and CaEacitI (HW)
Peak Demand 9.8 11.5 14.5 14.6 14.9 15.6 16.4 17.2 17.7 18.7 19.5 20.3 21.2 22.1 29.2
Solomon Gulch 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Peak Need --u -0.5 ~ ~ 2:9 J":6 4":4 ---s:2 s:7 ~ 7-:s a:J ~ 10.1 17 .2
Allison Creek 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
\..,) Further Need ---o.J l.2 ~ 9":2
\..,)
PRT 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Further Need --u -0.5 ~ ~ -5.1 -4.4 -3.6 -2.8 -2.3 -1.3 -0.5 -7.7 -6.8 -5.9
Reserves Required* 3.3 3.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 9.7
Capacity Need 13.1 3.J 7:J --=r:s -0.1 0.8 1:9 2:9 J":6 4:9 6.0 -0.9 0.3 --y:s 10 .. 9
Existing
Diesel Capacity 17.7 17.1 17.1 16.5 16.5 16.5 15.3 15.3 13.5 lJ.5 lJ.5 13.5 11.6 11. 6 0
*Reserves -(Peak Demand + 75%) -Peak Demand
!>'"
H
H
U
40
35
30
25
~ 20 < u
o w
H
H
~ en
Z
HIS
10
5
o
1975
APA 9-30
Plan 1
plan 2
VALDEZ/GLENNALLEN
CAPACITY/RESOURCE DIAGRAM
Figure VII':"'l
Allison Creek Alternative lor 2
Pressure Reducing Turbine
(Includes 25% Reserves) .
UNSPECIFIED
ADDITIONAL
CAPACITY
Allison Creek Hydro
or
Pressure Reducing Turbine
8MW
38.9
20
~------~------------------------------~12
1980 1985
History Forecasted Need
34
Solomon Gulch
Hydroproject
12 MW
1990 1995 2000
YEARS
40
35
30
25
10
5
VALDEZ/GLENNALLEN
CAPACITY/RESOURCE DIAGRAM
(Includes 25% Reserves)
·Figure VU-2
Plan 3 Continuing Thermal Generation
Existing diesels and
gas turbine-retired
at end of amortized life
F recast
Additional
diesels and
gas turbines
History
o--------~~--------~------~~------~--~~~~
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
APA 9-30 YEARS
35
150
140
120
100
......,
~
~ 80 0
.,-l
..-l
..-l
.,-l
f3
'-'
>< c..!l ~ w 60 z
~
H
~
Z
40
I
I
~I 00 20 ·,-ll ..-l .., . Q)
00 00
',-l I Q) ~ .,-l
~ A
I
0
1975 1980
[History I Forecast
Figure VII-3
VALDEZ/GLENNALLEN
NET ENERGY/RESOURCE
Plan 1
Unspecified
Additional
Generation
~~+-~~ ____________ ~~~~~~~72.9
38.6
55.0
1985
Alternative #2
Allison Creek Hydro
Alt~rnative #1 -34.3 GWH firm;
39.4 GWH avg.annua
Alt~rnative #2 -32.2 GWH firm;
37.25 GWH avg. ann.
Solomon Gulch
Hydroproject
GWH firm energy
GWH average annual energy
70.9
8.6
1990 1995 2000
YEARS
36
150
140
120
100
40
I
~I U)
"r-! l..-i ~ Q)
U) U) 20 or-! Q)
>< I"r-! w c:l
I
I
0
1975 I History
APA 9-30
1 Forecast
Figure VII-4
VALDEZ/GLENNALLEN
NET ENERGY/RESOURCE
38.6
55.0
1985
Plan 2
Pressure Reducing
Turbine
56 GWH at 80% Capacity
factor
Solomon Gulch
Hydroproject
GWH firm energy
GWH average annual energy
1990 1995
YEARS
37
38.6
2000
>-< ~ w z
150
140
120
100
W 60
H
W
Z
40
20
VALDEZ/GLENNALLEN
N'ET.ENERGY/RESOURCE
Existing Diesels and
Gas Turbine-Retired at
End of Amortized Life
Diesel capability
assumed=capacity
X8760XO.75
·Figure VII-5
Additional
Diesel and
Gas Turbine
Generation
°1~9:75~.-----t1~9~8:0--------19~8-5--------1~99-0-------1-9j9~5--~~~2~OOO
I History I Forecast YEARS
APA 9-30
38
CHAPTER VI II .
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The costs developed in this chapter compare the alternatives identified
in Chapte~ VI as future energy supply possibilities: . (1) Allison Creek
No.1 or No.2, (2) pressure reducing turbines (PRT's) in .the A1yeska
Pipeline, and (3) the Railbe1t interconnection. An indication of the
expenses related to continued use of diesels is also presented. Costs
for the PRT's are taken from the January 1980CVEA power cost study.
Chapter VII indicated the PRT's and Allison Creek are more complimentary
than a1ternative--they are both needed. Therefore, costs are presented
more for prospective than comparison. The Rai1be1t interconnection
appears a close alternative to Allison Creek asa follow-up to the
PRT's. Costs come from the March 1979 Susitna Power Market Study.
Cost Summary
Cost summaries are shown for all of the above possibilities. These
summaries include investment, OM&R, and interest during construction
(IDC). Investment and IDC total costs are converted to average annual
costs by use of a capital recovery factor at 8 percent discount rate and
50-year repayment for Allison Creek and 30-year for the PRT's. Allison
Creek investment costs were submitted by the Corps of Engineers in
August 1980 with an October 1980 price level. Project OM&R is taken
from Mahoney Lake criteria (see bibliography item 12). Annual costs are
assumed to inflate at the same rate for all alternatives; therefore no
inflation has been applied. A busbar (losses included) cost comparison
value is computed by adding OM&R to annual investment costs, then dividing
the sum by firm annual energy. Tables VIII-1A and VIII-1B give the
Allison Creek cost summary for alternate powerp1ant sites 1 and 2.
The pressure reducing turbine cost estimates are shown on Table VIII-2.
The investment and OM&Rcosts are given in the January 1980 CVEA Power
Cost Study. They have been given an increase to reflect an October 1980
price level. Amortized life was assumed to be 30 years, as suggested in
the CVEA study. A cost comparison value was computed similarly to
Allison Creek. Annual energy assumes an 80 percent capacity factor.
Table VIII-3 adapts costs of the CVEA-Rai1be1t interconnection in the
March 1979 Susitna Power Market study to this Valdez/Glennallen study.
The October 1978 prices have been raised 10 percent to agree with the
Allison Creek level of October 1980. However, an 8 percent rather than
the Susitna study 7.5 percent was used to calculate annual costs. The
Susitna study used 100,000 to 300,000 MWh per year energy transfer.
However, 50,000 MWh annually compares better with Allison Creek, the
PRT's, and the load requirements. Unit costs, therefore, of the trans-
mission line have more than doubled. Costs of purchasing Rai1be1t
energy come from average rate determinations as shown in Table VIII-3A.
39
TABLE VIII-IA
Summary Cost Estimate
October 1980 Price Level
Allison Creek (Lake Tap) Alternate No. 1
8 MW; 34,300 MWh firm annual energy; 39,350 MWh average annual energy.
Lands and Damages
Hydraulic Works
Powerplant, Switchyard, and.Transmission System*
Miscellaneous (Mobilization, Buildings, etc.)
Contingencies (20%)
Engineering and Design (8%)
Supervison and Administration (8%)
Subtotal -Contract Cost
Interest During Construction (8% for 2 years)
Total Investment Cost
Average Annual Cost (8% for 50 years)
=Total Investment x 0.081743
Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement
Total Average Annual Cost
or $5,029/kW
=10.2¢/kWh (firm)
$ 700,000
20,074,000
4,009,000
1,830,000
5,323,000
2,555,000
2,759,000
37,250,000
2,980,000
$40,230,000
3,288,521
201,000
$ 3,489,521
* Allison Creek powerplant to Solomon Gulch transmission line tap; 3 miles.
40
TABLE VIII-1B
Summary Cost Estimate
October 1980 Price Level
Allison Creeek (Lake Tap) Alternate No. 2
8 MW; 32,200 MWh firm annual energy; 37,250 MWh average annual energy.
Lands and Damages $ 724,000
Hydraulic Works 17,563,000
Powerp1ant, Switchyard, and Transmission System* 4,629.000
Miscellaneous (Mobilization, Buildings, etc.) 1,590,000
Contingencies (20%) 4,901,000
Engineering and Design (8%) 2,353,000
Supervision and Administration (8%) 2,54l,000
Subtotal -Contract Cost $34,301,000
Interest During Construciton (8% for 2 years) 2,744,080
Total Investment Cost $37,045,080
or $ 4,631/kW
Average Annual Cost (8% for 50 years)
=Tota1 Investment x 0.081743 $ 3,028,176
Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement 201,000
Total Average Annual Cost $ 3,229,176
=10.0C/kWh (firm)
* Allison Creek powerp1ant to Solomon Gulch transmission line tap;
3.5 miles.
41
TABLE VIII-2
Summary Cost Estimate
Pressure Reducing Turbines (PRT)
Cost from January 1980 CVEA Power Cost Study
(Inflated to October 1980)
8 MWj 56,000 MWh at 80 percent capacity factor
Total Investment Cost ($9,727,300 + 8% inflation* $10,500,000
from January 1980 to October 1980)
Average Annual Cost (8% for 30 years)
= Total Investment X 0.088827
Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Assumed**
Total Average Annual Cost
2.4¢/kWh (firm)
932,684
432,316
$1,365,000
* Water and Power Resources Service Cost Index indicates a 6.5% increase
in pump and prime mover costs between January 1980 and July 1980.
** Agrees with average of escalating costs used in CVEA Power Cost
Study, January 1980.
42
TABLE VIII-3
Summary Cost Estimate
October 1978 Prices from March 19}9 Susitna Power Market Study
(Inflated 10% t~ October 1980)*
Rai1be1t Area (Palmer) to Glennallen Intertie
138 kV; 136 miles; 50,000 MWh. at 8 MW and 70 percent load factor.
T~ansmission Line ($33,100,000 + 10%)
Switchyards and Substatioris
Subtotal·
($4,800,000 + 10%)
Interest During Construction ($2,900,000 + 10%)
Total Investment Cost
Average Annual Cost (8%; 50 years)
$36,410.000
5,280,000
41,690,000
3,190,000
$44,880,000
10%)
= Total Investment X 0.081743
Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement ($131,000 +
Total Average Annual Cost $
= 7.6¢/kWh
3,669,000
144,000
3,813,000
Cost of Rai1belt energy
Total Cost
5¢ to 6¢/kWh**
12.5¢ to 14¢/kWh
* The. Corps of Engineers inflated the powerp1ant and transmission line
costs of Allison Creek, alternative two, about 10% between January 1979
and October 1980. Alternative one costs were decreased in that period.
** Wholesale energy prices in the Anchorage area were about 1.5¢/kWh in
1979. See also Table VIII-3A.
43
Table VIII-3A
Average Rate Determination
Anchorage Portion of Rai1be1t System
8% Discount Rate
Low Case 1 Case 2 Medium Case 1 Case 2 High Case 1
Energy System System Energy System System Energy System
Year Forecast Costs Costs Forecast Costs Costs Forecast Costs
(GWH) * * (GWH) * * (GWH) *
1985 3,433 84.1 84.1 4,329 187.6 187.6 6,849 317.0
1986 3,594 84.8 84.8 4,657 193.7 193.7 7~357 368.6
1987 3,754 141.0 141.0 4,985 233.0 233.0 7,864 375.0
1988 3,915 136.6 136.·6 5,313 231.9 231.9 8;372 454.8
1989 4,075 173.4 173.4 5,641 272.0 254.5 8,879 457.7
1990 4,285 175.0 175.0 6,063 274.2 293.8 9,589 463.3
1991 4,495 185.7 185.7 6,485 324.2 343.8 10,298 541.0
1992 4,705 223.3 223.3 6,907 387.5 409.9 11,008 606.2
1993 4,915 227.2 227.2 7,329 391. 7 414.1 11,717 615.2
1994 5,125 270.9 252.4 7,751 398.9 421.3 12,427 686.7
~ 1995 5,385 306.6 290.2 8,311 463.7 486.1 13,477 778.6
~ 1996 5,645 367.3 327.9 8,871 549.0 571.5 14,526 852.3
1997 5,904 369.4 389.8 9,431 615.9 578.7 15,576 927.7
1998 6,164 376.4 396.7 9,991 627.7 650.2 16,625 1,008.2
1999 6,424 457.2 397.9 10,551 694.4 657.2 17,675 1,102.6
2000 6,489 450.2 470.6 10,863 691.8 714.3 18,584 1,169.8
2001 6,555 452.1 472.5 11,175 698.6 721.1 19,493 1,187.8
2002 6,620 449.4 469.8 11,487 760.3 723.1 20,402 1,260.1
2003 6,686 452.3 472.8 11,799 767.9 789.8 21,311 1,339.9
2004 6,751 454.4 474.8 12,111 776.0 798.5 22,220 1,359.6
2005 6,817 517.1 477.8 12,423 864.0 807.1 23,129 1,460.3
2006 6,882 520.2 480.9 12,735 872.8 815.9 24,038 1,541.9
2007 6,948 523.3 484.0 12,047 881.9 904.4 24,947 1,564.3
2008 7,013 526.4 487.1 13,359 891.1 913.6 25,856 1.,647.0
2009 7,079 529.6 490.3 13,671 901.6 932.1 26,765 1,730.3
2010 7,144 532.9 493.6 13,983 969.9 932.7 27,674 . 1,754.5
Average ~/kWh 5.3 5.2 5.7 5.7 5.7
* Millions of dollars.
Case 1 is without Anchorage to Fairbanks interconnection and without the Susitna hydro project.
Case 2 is with the Anchorage to Fairbanks interconnection and without the Susitria hydro project.
Case 3 is with both the interconnection and Susitna but is not shown because its costs are lower.
The higher cost comparisons are adequate.
Source: March 1979 Susitna Power Market Study -0 percent inflation values.
Diesel costs came from historical data up throt,lgh 1979. TableVIII-4
shows expenses for several years. Fuel costs per kWh generated have
averaged almost 14 percen~ growth per year for the last 5 years; therefore,
it is assumed to continue increasing'at something above the inflation
rate. The study used 5 percent and 2 percent fuel cost escalation rates
as shown in TableVIII-4A.
TableVIII-5 gives a summary comparison of Allison Creek and its alter-
natives. ThePRT undoubtedly does not include all costs. Nevertheless,
it seems to be the most economical. The diesel comparison value is
given for 1979 and estimated for 1980. Figure VIII-1 graphs these
relationships. .
Average Rates
Tables VIII-6through VIII-9 indicate project payback rates for the
different alternatives. For comparison, continuation of diesel genera-
tion at 5 and 2 percent fuel escalation is shown in tables VIII-10 and
VIII-lOA. The rates, summarized below, are not much different than
those shown in Table VIII-S.
45
Table VIII-4
CVEA Diesel Generation Expenses -Historic
Annual EXEenses ($)
EXEense Items 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Production Operation
w/o fuel 117,698 284,556 473,161 653,248 778,609 713,288
fuel 344,038 695,218 1,069,900 1,479,667 1,363,869 1,733,009
Total Production 461,736 979,774 1,543,061 2,132,915 2,142,478 2,506,297
Operation
Production Maintenance 33,732 57,370 83,752 102,218 116,088 114,117
Total Production O&M 495,469 1,037,144 1,626,813 2,235,133 2,258,566 2,620,414
Production Plant-
in-Service (2,239,181) (3,392,115) (8,025,424) (7,593,779) (7,712,880) (7,718,781)
Annual Investment
.po. Cost (at 7.5% and
a-20-year Life) 219,646 332,740 787,231 744,890 756,570 757,150
Total Annual Costs 715,115 1,369,884 2,414,044 2,980,023 3,015,136 3,377,564
Net Generation (kWh) 15,624,140 26,886,515 39,286,690 47,461,390 ·43,835,350 41,498,633
Energy Production Expense Rates (¢/kWh)
O&M Excluding Fuel 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1
Total O&M Including Fuel 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.7 5.2 6.3
Annual Investment Cost 1.4 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.8
Total Annual Cost 4.6 5.1 6.1 6.3 6.9 8.1
Note: Preliminary information indicates 1980 annual generation cost may be close to 10¢/kWb.
TAHLE VIII-4A
CVEA Diesel Generation Expenses -Future Contingencies
Fuel Energy Fuel Cost Generation Cost O&H Cost OMI + Fuel ----------Year Used Efficie~ w/o Fuel ollq~ut Historic Escalated For Fuel Total Costs
(Gab;) (kWh) (kWh/G,~l) (S/Gal) ($/G,~l) (S/Gal) (s/kwhf----(S/kWh) (S /kWh) ($/kl~h) ($/kWh)
Historic
1975 1,954,092 26,886,515 13.76 .356 0.026 0.013
1976 2,962,176 39,286,690 13.26 .361 0;027 0.01[,
1977 3,377 ,640 47,461,390 14.05 .438 0.031 0.016
1978 3,336,027 43,835,350 13.14 .409 0.031 0.020
1979 3,140,000 41,[.98,633 13.22 .552 0.04.2 0.021
13.49 avpragp
Forecast
Fuel Escalation Percentage: 5% 2% 5% 2% * 5% 2%
1980 13.49 0.900 0.900 0.067 0.067 0.040 0.107 0.107
1981 13.49 0.945 0.918 0.070 0.068 0.040 0.110 0.108
1982 13.49 0.992 0.936 0.074 0.069 0.040 0.114 0.109
19R3 13.49 1. 0[,2 0.955 0.077 0.071 0.040 0.117 0.1 Ll
1984 13.49 1.094 0.974 0.081 0.072 0.040 0.121 0.112
1985 13.49 1.149 0.994 0.085 0.074 0.040 0.125 0.114
1986 13.49 1.206 1.014 0.089 0.075 0.040 0.129 0.115
1987 13.49 1. 266 1.034 0.094 0.077 0.040 0.134 0.117
1988 13.49 ).330 1.054 0.099 0.078 0 .. 040 0.139 0.118
1989 13.49 1.396 1.076 0.103 0.080 0.01.0 0.143 0.120
.p. 1990 13 ,1,9 1.466 1.097 0.109 0.081 0.040 0.149 0.121
-...J 1991 13.49 1.539 1.119 0.114 0.083 0.040 0.154 0.123
1992 13.49 1. 616 1.141 0.120 0.085 0.040 0.160 0.125
1993 13.49 1. 697 1.164 0.126 0.086 0.040 0.166 0.126
1994 13.49 1.782 1.188 0.132 0.088 0.040 0.172 0.128
1995 13.49 1.871 1. 211 0.139 0.090 0.0[.0 0.179 0.130
1996 13.49 1. 965 1. 236 0.146 0.092 0.040 0.186 0.132
1997 13.49 2.063 1.260 0.153 0.093 0.040 0.193 0.133
1998 13.49 2.166 1.285 0.161 0.095 0~040 0.201 0.135
1999 13.49 2.274 1.311 0.169 0.097 0.040 0.209 0.137
2000 13.49 2.388 1. 337 0.177 0.099 n.040 0.217 0.139
*Note that these costs include annual investment costs of 1.8e/kWh.
Table VIII-5
Average Rate Comparisons
Annual Firm Annual
Cost Energy Rate
Allison Creek 1 $3,489,521 34.3 GWh 10.2¢/kWh
Allison Creek 2 3,229,176 32.2 10.0
PRT 1,365,000 56 2.4
Railbelt Interconnection 3,813,000 50 12.5 to 14
Diesels -1979 3,377,564 41.5 8.1
-1980 estimate 10.7
From Chapter IV:
1979 Residential Rate for 1,000 kWh/month Use
Valdez 14.0
15.7
1979 Revenue Received per Energy Unit Sold
CVEA Residential 13.1
CVEA Total 12.4
Valdez Total 11.5
48
Figure VIII-1
14
~ .,.",0
Intertie '" ':),'t!-12.5 to 14
v't!-¢/KWH .. <vqj
~ 4,.<>
12 ~\.
I
I Allison Creek Alternative 1 10.2 ¢/KWH
10 I Allison Creek Alternative 2 10~0 ¢/KWH
I
1
8
I
I
6 I
I
I
I
4 I
I
I
I el:~S~iiUlte i~dll~j;Q~ Iutbj;Q~ 2.4 ¢/KWH
2 I
J
1
I
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
YEARS
49
V1
0
Table VIII-6
Average Rate Determination
Valdp.z/Glennallen System
Allison Creek Hydro Project -Alternative 1
Need* Project Project Present 1st Year Annual
Year (Table VII-I) Capabilit~ Output Worth Factor Energ~ Eg,uivalent
(GWH) (GWH) Firm (GWH)
1980 47.9
1981 16.4
1982 30.9
1983 33.4
1984 35.1
1985 38.9 16** 16
1986 42.8 34~3 34.3
1987 46.9 34.3 34.3
1988 50.1 34.3 34.3
1989 54.5 34.3 34.3
1990 59.0 34.3 34.3
1991 63.7 34.3 34.3
1992 68.5 34.3 34.3
1993 73.6 34.3 34.3
1994 34.3 34.3
1995 34.3 34.3
1996 34.3 34.3
1997 34.3 34.3
1998 34.3 34.3
1999 34.3 34.3
2000 107.4 34.3 34.3
2001-2035 34.3 annually 34.3
Annual Energy
= Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energies
= .081742 X 403.2 = 33.0 GWH per Year
Annual Cost Average Rate = An 1 E nua nergy
$3.489.521 = 10.6¢/kWh
33.0
(@ 8%; 50 yrs)
.9615
11.3076***
* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast -includes losses.
** Assumed output for last half of year.
*** Present worth factor for 1986-2035.
(GWH)
15.38
387.85
403.2
VI .....
Table VIII-7
Average Rate Determination
Valdez/Glennallen System
Allison Creek Hydro Project -Alternative 2
Need* Project Project
Year (Table VII-I) CaEabilit~ Output
(GHW) (GWH) Firm (GHW)
1980 47.9
1981 16.4
1982 30.9
1983 33.4
1984 35.1
1985 38.9 15** 15
1986 42.8 32.2. 32.2
1987 46.9 32.2 32.2
1988 50.1 32.2 32.2
1989 54.5 32.2 32.2
1990 59.0 32.2 32.2
1991 63.7 32.2 32.2
1992 68.5 32.2 32.2
1993 73.6 32.2 32.2
1994 32.2 32.2
1995 32.2 32.2
1996 32.2 32.2
1997 32.2 32.2
1998 32.2 32.2
1999 32.2 32.2
2000 107.4 32.2 32.2
2001-2035 32.2 annually 32.2
Annual Energy
= Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energies
= .081742 X 378.5 = 30.9 GWH per Year
Annual Cost $3,229,176 10.4~/kWh Average Rate = = ~
Annual Energy 30.9
Present
Worth Factor
(@ 8%; 50 yrs)
.9615
11.3076***
1st Year Annual
Ener~~ Eg,uivalent
(GWH)
14.42
364.10
378.5
* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast -includes losses.
** Assumed output for last half of year.
*** Present worth factor for 1986-2035.
VI
N
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001..;..2012
Annual Energy
Need*
(Table VII-I)
(GHW)
47.9
16.4
30.9
33.4
35.1
38.9
42.8
46.9
50.1
54.5
59.0
63.7
68.5
73.6
107.4
Table VIII-8
Average Rate Determination
Valdez/G1enna11p.n System
Pressure Reducing Turbine
Project
Capabili ty
(GWH)
80% Plant Fac.
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
Project
Output
(GHW)
33.4
35.1
38.9
42.8
46.9
50.1
54.5
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
= Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energies
= .081742 X 557.5 = 49.5 GWH per Year
Average Rate = Annual Cost $1,365,000 = 2.8¢/kWh = Annual Energy 49.5
Present
Worth Factor
(@ 8%; 50 yrs)
.9259
.8573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
6.0514**
* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast -includes losses.
** Present worth factor for 1990-2012.
1st Year Annual
Energy Equivalent
(GWH) .
30.93
30.09
30.88
31.46
31.92
31.57
31.80
338.88
557.50
V1 w
Need*
Year (Table VII-l)
(GWH)
1980 47.9
1981 16.4
1982 30.9
1983 33.4
1984 35.1
1985 38.9
1986 42.8
1987 46.9
1988 50.1
1989 54.5
1990 59.0
1991 63.7
1992 68.5
1993 73.6
1994 78.4
1995 84.4
1996 88.7
1997 93.1
1998 97.7
1999 103.5
2000 107.4
Stim
Sum X Capital Recovery Factor
Required
From
Intertie
(GWll)
38.9
42.8
46.9
50.1
54.5
59.0
63.7
68.5
73.6
78.4
84.4
88.7
93.1
97 .• 7
103.5
107.4
Table VIII-9
Average Rate Determination
Valdez/Glennallen System
Interconnection with Rllilbelt System
(PIIlmer-Glennallen Transmission Line)
8% Discount Rate
RIIUbelt**
Energy
Rate
(C/kWh)
Cost
of
Energy
$1,000
Cost
of
Intertie
$1,000
4.3 1,672.7 3,813
4.2 1,797.6 3,813
4.7 2,204.3 3,813
4.4 2,204.4 3,813
4.5 2,452.5 3,813
4.8 2,832.0 3,813
5.3 3,376.1 3.813
5.9 4,041.5 3,813
5.6 4,121.6 3,813·
5.4 4,233.6 3,813
5.8 4,895.2 3,813
6.4 5,676.8 3,813
6.1 5,679.1 3.813
6.5 6,350.5 3,813
6.2 6,417.0 3,813
6.6 7,088.4 3,813
Average Rate = Annual Cost = $7,291,120/year = 11.3C/kWh
Annual Energy 64,537,300 kWh/year
* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from foreCIIst -includes losses.
Totlll
Cost
Annually
$1,000
5.485.7
5,610.6
6,017 .3
6,017.4
6.265.5
6.645.0
7,189.1
7,854.5
7,934.6
8,046.6
8,708.2
9,489.8
9,492.1
10,163.5
10,230.0
10,901.4
** These rates COllIe from Harch 1979 Susitna Power Harket Study Csse 2, 0% inflation (see tllble VIII:-3A).
1st YeltrAnnual
Cost. Equivalent
$1,000
5,079.4
4,810.2
1.,776.7
4,423.0
4,264.2
4,187.5
4,194.8
4,243.5
3,969.3
3,727.1
3,734.8
. 3,768.5
3,490.2·
3,460.3
3,224.9.
3,182.0
64,536.4
7,291.1
1st Year Annulll
Energy Equivalent
(MloIH)
36,01.8.5.
36,6<]4.1
37,230.7
36,825.0
37 ,09i. 8
37,180.0
37,168.3
37,008.4
36,818.3
j6~314.4
36,197.7
35,224.0
.34,232.7
33,263.0
32;627.5
31,349.0
57.1,243.6·
64,537.3
V1
~
Table VIII-IO
Average Rate Determination
Valdez/Glennallen System
Continued Diesel Generation
(5% Fuel Escalation)
8% Discount Rate
Need* Existing Required Present
Year (Table VII-I) CaEabilitl': OutEut Worth Factor
(GWlI) (GWH) (GWH) (at 8%)
1980 47.9 116 47.9 0.9259
1981 16.4 112 16.4 0.8573
1982 30.9 112 30.9 0.7938
1983 33.4 108 33.4 0.7350
1984 35,1 108 35.1 0.6806
1985 38.9 108 38.9 0.6302
1986 42.8 100 42.8 0.5835
1987 46.9 100 46.9 0.5403
1988 50.1 88 50.1 0.5002
1989 54.5 88 54.5 0.4632
1990 59.0 88 59.0 0.4289
1991 63.7 88 63.7 0.3971
1992 68.5 88 68.5 0.3677
1993 73.6 69 73.6 0.3405
1994 78.4 69 78.4 0.3152
1995 84.4 62 84.4 0.2919
1996 88.7 62 88.7 0.2703
1997 93.1 11 93.1 0.2502
1998 97.7 0 97.7 0.2317
1999 103.5 0 103.5 0.2145
2000 107.4 0 107.4 0.1987
Annual Energy ~ Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energies
z .099832 X 520.2 ~ 51.9 GWh per Year
Annual Cost ~ Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Costs ~ S7,873,500/year
Average Rate = Annual Cost ~ $7,873,500/l':ear =15.~/kWh
Annual Energy 51.9 GWh/year
* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast -includes losses.
1st Y .. ar Annual
Enersl': Eguivalent
(GWH)
44.35
14.06
24.53
24.55
23.89
24.51
24.97
25.34
25.06
25.24
25.30
25.30
25.19
25.06
24.71
24.64
23.97
23.30
22.64
22.21
21. 34
520.16
** Output from 1993 thru 2000 includes diesel additions to thermal generators existing in 1980.
Yearly Cost of
Ot.M and Fuel with 1st Year'Annual
5% Fuel Escalation Cost Eguivalent
(SI,OOO) (w/fuel escalation
of 5%/yr) (SI,OOO)
5,112 4.733.1
I,R05 1,547.4
3,509 2,785.4
3,916 2,878.1
4,250 2,892.7
4,868 3,067.8
5,539 3,231. 7
6,279 3,392.2
6,942 3,472. 'J
7,821 3,622.5
8,772 3,762.0
9,817 3,898.3
10,947 4,025.2
12,203 4,154.7
13,492 4,253.3
15,082 4,402.3
16,466 4,450.1
17,960 4,494.6
19,595 4,540.3
21,589 4,631.9
23,308 4,630.2
78,866.8
\J1
\J1
Table VIII-lOA
Average Rate Determination
Valdez/Glennallen System
Continued Diesel Generation
(2% Fuel Escalation)
8% Discount Rate
Need* Existing Required Present
Year (Table VII-I) Ca~abilit~ Output Worth Factor
(GWH) (GW\l) (GWH) (at 8%)
1980 47.9 116 47.9 0.9259
1981 16.4 112 16.4 . 0.8573
1982 30.9 112 30.9 0.7938
1983 33.4 108 33.4 0.7350
1984 35.1 108 35.1 0.6806
1985 38.9 108 38.9 0.-6302
1986 42.8 100 42.8 0.5835
1987 46.9 100 46.9 0.5403
1988 50.1 88 50.1 0.5002
1989 54.5 88 54.5 0.4632
1990 59.0 88 59.0 0.4289
1991 63.7 88 63.7 0.3971
1992 68.5 88 68.5 0.3677
1993 73.6 69 73.6 ** 0.3405
1994 78.4 69 78.4 0.3152
1995 84.4 62 84.4 0.2919
1996 88.7 62 88.7 0.2703
1997 93.1 11 93.1 0.2502
1998 97.7 0 97.7 0.2317
1999 103.5 0 103.5 0.2145
2000 107.4 0 107.4 0.1987
Annual Energy ~ Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Energies
a .099832 X 520.2 : 51.9 GWh per Year
Annual Cost = Capital Recovery Factor X Sum of Yearly Costs = $6,30l,820/year
Average Rate ~ Annual Cost = $6,301,820/year =12.l/kWh
Annual Energy 51.9 GWh/year
* After Solomon Gulch output is subtracted from forecast -includes losses.
1st Year Annual
Energ~ Eguivalent
(GWH)
44.35
14.06
24.53
24.55
23.89
24.51
24.97
25.34
25.06
25.24
25.30
25.30
25.19
25.06
24.71
24.64
23.97
23.30
22.64
22.21
21.34
520.16
** Output from 1993 thru 2000 includes diesel additions to thermal generators existing in 1980.
Yearly Cost of
O&H -and Fuel with 1st Year Annual
2% Fuel Escalation Cost Egu.ivalent
($1,000) (w/f"el escalation
of 2%/yr) ($1,000)
5,112 4,733.1 -
1,772 1,519.2
3,381 2,683.8
3,701 2,720.1
3,939 2,680.7
4,421 2;786.2
4,928 2,875.3
5,470 2,955.4
5,920 2,961.6
6~525 3,022.5
7,158 3,070.1
7,832 3,110.2
8,536 ,3138.6
9,296 3,164.9
10.038 3,164.3
10,954 3,197.5
11,672 3,154 • .5
12,421 3,108.4
13,218 3,062.7
14,199 3,046.5
14,943 2,968.6
63,124.1
T'lble VIII-J 1
Average Ra te Determination -Allison Creek Case (A 1 tern;)te 2)
Va1dez/G1ennallpn System
Energy Cost
Energy Su!:,!:,ly for Need PreSE'nt Annual Cost of GE'Tlera t iOTl ·PrE'sen t Cost -
----~------Year Need'~ PRT Allison Cr. Diesels Worth 1980 PRT Allison Cr. DieselS Total Worth 1980 Energy
(GWH) (GWll) (GWH) (GWH) (GWH) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) (IT, 000) ($1,000) (C/kWh)
**
1980 47.9 47.9 44.35 5,112 5, J 12 4,733.3 10.67
1981 16.1. 16.4 14.06 1,805 1,805 1,547.5 11. 01
1982 30.9 30.9 24.53 3,509 3,509 2,785.6 11. 36
1983 33.4 33.4 24.55 1,365 ],365 1,003.3 4.09
1984 35.1 35.1 23.89 1,365 1,365 929.0 3.89
1985 3R.9 38.9 24.51 1,365 1,365 860.2 3.51
198f> 42.8 42.8 24.97 1,365 1,365 796.5 3.19
1987 46.9 46.9 25.34 1,365 1,365 737.5 2.91
1988 50.1 50.1 25.06 1,365 1,365 682.R 2.72
1989 54.5 54.5 25.24 1,365 1,365 632.3 2.50
] 990 59.0 56.0 3.0 25.30 1,365 3,22':1 4,594 1,970.3 7.79
1991 63.7 56.0 7.7 25.30 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,824.3 7.21
1992 68.5 56.0 12.5 25.19 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,689.2 6.71
1993 73.6 56.0 17.6 25.06 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,564.1 6.24
1994 78.4 56.0 22.4 24.71 1,365 3,229 4,59 1, 1,448.2 5.86
1995 84.4 56.0 28.4 24.64 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,340.9 5.44
VI 1996 88.7 56.0 32.7 23.97 1,365 3,229 4,594 1,241.6 5.18 0'\
1997 93.1 56.0 34.3 2.8 23.30 1,365 3,229 540 5,134 1,284.8 5.51
1998 97.7 56.0 34.3 7.4 22.64 1,365 3,229 1,481, 6,078 1,408.3 6.22
1999 103.5 16 .0 31, • 3 13.2 22.21 1,365 3,229 2,759 7,353 1,577 .6 7.10
2000 107.4 56.0 34.3 17.1 21.34 1,365 3,229 3,711 8,305 1,649.8 7.73
Sum 520.16 31,707.1
Sum X Capital Recovery Factor 51.93 3,165,1.
Sum X CRF Cost $3,165,400 = 6.l/kWh
Average Rate = Sum X CRF Energy 51,930,000
* Energy need = forecast ~ Solomon Gulch firm energy output.
1,* From table VIII 4A. 2nd to last column X diesel supply in 5th column of this table (VIII-ll.
\J1
-...J
T<'Ible VIlI-12
Average Rnte Determin<'ltion -Tntertie Case
Valdez/Glennallen Sy"tem
Energy Cost
Energy SU!,[ll:tfor Need Present Annual Cost of Generation Present
Year Need* PRT Intertie Diesels Worth 1980 PRT Intertie Diesels Total Worth 1980
(GWH) (GWH) (GWII) (GWH) (GWII) ($1,000) ($1,000) -($1,000) . ($1,000) .($1,000)
**
1980 47.9 47.9 44.35 5,112 5,112.0 4,733.3
1981 16.4 16.4 14.06 1,805 1,805.0 1,547.5
1982 30.9 30.9 24.53 3,509 3,509.0 2,785.6
1983 33.4 33.4 24.55 1,365 1,365.0 1,003.3
1984 35.1 35.1 23.89 1. 365 1,365.0 929.0
1985 38.9 38.9 2' •• 51 1,365 1,365.0 860.2
1986 42.8 42.8 24.97 1,365 1,365.0 796.5
1987 46.9 46.9 25.34 1,365 1,365.0 737.5
1988 50.1 50.1 25.06 1,365 1,365.0 682.8
1989 54.5 54.5 25.24 1,365' 1,365.0 632.3
1990 59.0 56.0 3.0 25.30 1,365 3,957.0 5,322.0 2,282.5.
1991 63.7 56.0 7.7 25.30 1,365 4,221.1 5.586.1 2,l18.3
1992 68.5 56.0 12.5 25.19 1,365 4,550.5 5,915.5 2,175.1
1993 73.6 56.0 17.6 25.06 1,365 4,798.6 6.163.6 2,098.5
1994 78.4 56.0 22.4 24.71 1,365 5,022.6 6,387.6 2,013.6
1995 84.4 56.0 28.4 24.64 1,365 5,460.2 6,825.2 1~992.2
1996 88.7 56.0 32.7 23.97 1,365 5,905.8 7,270.8 1,965.1
1997 93.1 56.0 37.1 23.30 1,365 6,076.1 7,44L1· '1,862.1
1998 97.7 56.0 41.7 22.64 1,365 6,523.5 7,888.5 1~827.9
1999 103.5 56.0 47.5 22.21 1,365 6,758.0 8,123.0 1,742.8
2000 107.4 56.0 51.4 21.34 1,365 7,205.4 8,570.4 . 1,702.6 ..
Sum 520.16 36,588.6
Sum X Capital Recovery Factor 51.93 3.652.7
Sum X CRF Cost $3,652,700 7.0/kWh
Average Rate = Sum X GRF Energy 51,930,000
* Energy need = forecast -Solomon Gulch firm energy output.
** Intertie costs represent Narch 1979 Susitna Power Market Study Case 2, 0% inflation: Anchorage to Fairbanks interctmnection hut
without Susitna hydro project. Costs are calculated by multiplying the energy rate from the 4th column of table VIII-9 by the
intertie supply need of this table (VIII-12) then adding the Palmer-Glennallen intertie cost in column 6 of table VIII~9.
Cost -
Energ:t
(¢/kWh)
10.67
11.01
11.36
4.09
3.89
3.51
3.19
2.91
2.72 ;
2.50
9.02
8.77
8.64
8.37
8.15
8.09
8.20
7.99
8.07
7.85 .
7 .. 98
CHAPTER IX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Power Cost Study, 1980-1993; Copper Valley Electric Association
Inc.; January 1980 •
2. "Total Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and Public
Contractors in Selected Alaska Urban Areas"; Department of Housing and
Urban Development; 1979.
3. Power Requirements Study; Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.;
March 1979.
4. Phase I Technical Memorandum, Electric Power Needs Assessment;
Electric Power Work Plan Committee; draft report, March 1979.
5. Upper Susitna River Project Power Market Analysis; Department of
Energy, Alaska Power Administration; March 1979.
6. Southcentral Alaska's Economy and Population, 1965-2025: A Base Study
and Projections; a report of the Economics Task Force; Southcentral
Alaska Water Resources Study (Level B); Alaska Water Study Committee;
February 1979.
7. Alaska Labor Force Estimates by Area: revised 1974-1977; Alaska
Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Division; November 1978.
8. Transcript of Proceedings -Report on Valdez Hydropower Public
Meeting; Corpos of Engineers; 24 July 1978.
9. The Proposed Glennallen-Valdez Transmission Line -an Analysis of
Available Alternatives; Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. by
Robert W. Retherford Associates; May 1978.
10. Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes for Valdez, Alaska -
Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska, Stage II Checkpoint Report; Alaska
District, Corps of Engineers; April 1978.
11. Solomon Gulch Project No. 2742 -Alaska: Final Environmental Impact
Statement; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric
Power Regulation; March 1978.
12. Operation and Maintenance Plans and Costs -Mahoney Lake, Swan Lake,
Lake Grace; Alaska Power Administration; February 1978.
13. Alaska Regional Enf'.rgy Resources, Planning Project -Phase I:
Findings and Analysis; volume 1; Alaska Division of Energy and Power
Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development; October
1977 •
59
14. Quarterly Statistics; Alaska Department of Labor, Research and
Analysis Division; 1970-1977.
15. Environmental Report for Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project -
Exhibit W FPC Project No. 2742; Copper Valley Electric Association,
Inc.; by R.obert W. Retherford Associates; 1976. .
16. Current Population Estimates by Census Division; Alaska Department
of Labor, Research and Analysis Division; 1970-1976.
17. Definite Project Report -: Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project -
Exhibit·T FPC Project No. 2742; Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc.
by Robert W. Retherford Associates; March 1975.
18. IS-Year Power Cost Study-Hydro/Diesel; Copper Valley Electric
Association, Inc.; by Robert W. Retherford Associates; October 1974.
19. A Proposed Electric Generation and Transmission Intertie System for
Interior and SouthcentralAlaska -Phase I; Trans-Alaska Electric Genera-
tion and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. by CH2M.Hill; April 1972.
60
: I,B'I II Ii ::1: iii,
APPENDIX J
PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES
Recipients of Valdez Draft Interim Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement
Federal
Senator Ted Stevens
Former Senator Mike Gravel
Conqressman Don Younq
Dir~ctor, Office of ~nvironmental Project Review, U.S. Dept. of Interior
Deputy Assistant, Secretary for the Environment, U.S. nept. of Commerce
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
Director, Alaska Operations Office, Environmental Protection Agency
Director, Environmental Impact Division, Office of Environmental Programs
Advance Council on Historic Preservation
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington, D.C.
Area Director, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Pacific Northwest Region, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration
.l\rea Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service
Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration
National Park Service
National Oceanographic Data Center, Environmental Data Service, NOAA
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Re~ion X
State Director, Bureau of Land ~anagement
Director, Bureau of Land Management, District Office
Manager, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf, Bureau of Land Management
Area Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Supervisor -WAES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Supervisor -NAES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S.h.S. Water Resources Division
Special Assistant to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior, Anchorage
Study Director, Water Resources Studies, U.S. Department of the Interior
Pipeline Coordination Office
Alaska Resources Library, Federal Building
State
Governor Jay Hammond
Executive Director, Alaska Power Authority
Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Div. of Energy and Power Development
Department of Natural Resources, Southcentral District
Director, Division of Land and Water Management
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
Director, Division of Community Planning
Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks
Department of Environmental Conservation, S.C. Regional Office
Alaska Denartment of Environmental Conservation
State-Federal Coordinator, A-95 Clearinghouse
Recipents of Valdez Draft Interim feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (cont'd)
Organizations
Dr. Paul Friesema, Butler University
Paul Johnson, Knik Group/Sierra Club
Roland Shunks, Denali Group/Sierra Club
Alaska Native Foundation
Executive Secretary, Alaska Conservation Society
Anchorage Audubon Society
President, iHaska Geological Society
Alaska Society of Professional Engineers
Lin Sonnenburg, Sierra Club-RCC
AHTNA Inc.
Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Library, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Library, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Z.J. Loussac Library, Anchorage
Director, Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Arctic Information and Data Center
State Representative, Friends of the Earth
Executive Director, Fairbanks Environmental Center
Trustees for Alaska
American Society of Civil Engineers
Alaska Center for the Environment
Atomic Industrial Forum
Indiana University-Political Science-Public and Environmental Affairs
Marine Biological Consultants
Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers
Mr. Jay Greenwalt, Tenneco Building
Mr. Sherman Feher
Technical In~rmation Center, Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.
Librarian, Energy Impact Associates
Fluor Ocean Services
Fred Schmidt, Colorado State University
Larry !~i 1 ki nson, Foundation Sci ences
Local
Mayor of Valdez
Valdez City Manager
Postmaster, Glennallen
Postmaster, Cordova
Postmaster, Valdez
Postmaster, Copper Center
Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Clifton
Ho 11 i s Henri chs
Recipients of Valdez Draft Interim Feasibility Study
and Environmental Impact Statement (cont'd)
Charles F. LaPage
Mr. Herbert W. Lehfeldt
Mr. Perry Lovett
Mr. Chalres E. Maxwell
Mr. Frank H. Tatro
The Valdez Vanguard, Valdez
The Valdez Vanguard, Cordova
The Cordova Times
Station KCAM, Glennallen
Mr. Max Faucher, Executive Director, Copper Valley Native Association
Copper Valley Electric Association
General Manager, Copper Valley Electric Association, Glennallen
Valdez Chamber of Commerce
Copper Valley Telephone Co-op
Chief, Volunteer Fire Deaprtment
u. s. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
3 DEC ~
Colonel Lee R. NunG
District EnginEer
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTlE. WASHINGTON 98101
Alaska District, Cerps of Engineers
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska Q9510
RE: Electrical Po~er for Valdez, Draft Interim Feasibility Report
and Environmer.tal Impact Statement
Dear Colonel Nunn:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ccmpletea its review
of the Draft Interim Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact
Statement on Electri:al Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin.
1. We believe Jhat the two tailrace system below the powerhouse and the
plannea use: of the pressure reducing turbine are desirable aspects
of the plan.-We also appreciate the discussion of alternative power
sources and :locaticr,s for nydropower. However, we believe that the
[IS lacks adequate information regard>-,g the impacts expected from
lake arawaO\'m, durr'ring of tunnel tailings, ana -..ater temperature
modification by the tailrace section. We also believe that public
involvement and en=rgy conservation shiluld be expanded ana discussed
in greater detail, ~nd that transmiss'on corridors and mitigation
measures should be ;'inal izea. Our specific cCI1'rr:ents 01' these issues
are enclosed as an attachment.
We have rateo this oIS as ER-2 due to this lack af information and
the project's potential impact on water quality. This ER-2 rating
will be Dub"tished i~ the FedEral ReqistEr in accoroance 'Hith our
resDcnsiblity to inform the public of our views as required in
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
If you have any questions regarding our C()OOlents or would 1 ike to
discuss them, please feel free to contact either me or Scott Berg of
my staff at (206) 4~2-1285 or (FTS) 399-1285.
Sincerely yours,
~Lkrl; Gu~r--
Elizabeth Coroyn, C~ief
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Attachment
1. Report findings were based on available data including hydrologiC computer
analyses, recording thermographs and a field check of the Allison Lake
temperature profile. Information on fisheries resources was obtained from
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In all cases where detailed
information was lacking, a worse case basis was assumed. The section on
lake drawdown, disposal of tunnel tailings, and transmission corridors
have been revised for clarification. Data collecton measures are now in
progress and several more are proposed for the near future. During the
Advanced Engineering and Design (AE&D) phase, intensive effort by the
Alaska District and the U.S. Fish and ~ildlife Service would be
accomplished to obtain detailed information necessary prior to project
implementation. During the AE&D phase, an environmental document will be
prepared as appropriate. The Alaska District is looking forward to
continued close coordination with your agency as "'ell as other interested
resource agencies in assuring environmentally sound development which
would preserve the fisn and wildlife resources and also provide
hydroelectrical generation to the project area.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
2. Involvement in the project by Federal, State, and local governments
appears to be extensive. However, we find no mention nor indication
that the public has been involved in the scoping process. We
believe that agressive public involvement is essential and should be
conducte<:: as soon as possible. Scoping should be conducted as a
conscientious effort to identify issues of concern and suggestions
for project imprGvement.
ENERGY USE
3. The IIS lacks adequate discussion of conditions in Valdez such as
who will actually use the energy provided by increasea hydropower.
Would future housing use electricity or natural gas for heating?
ENERGY CONSERVATION
4. The draft interim feasibility report states that aggressive energy
conservation should be consioered a partial solution of last
resort. Such aggressive me~~ures are said to include: offering
discounts for off-hour usaort or to consumers who meet certain
efficiency standards; increased insulation for hot water heaters;
the introduction of microwave ovens; and minimum efficiency ratings
of electric appliances. We do not believe that these measures are
·unreasonable" nor would cause "numerous and perhaps unacceptable
inconveniences." In fact, numerous studies recOOlll1end measures such
as these as the most cost-effective and environmentally sound means
of conserving energy.
'Because few buildings in Valdez presently use electricity for heat,
we recognize that insulation may not contribute "to immediate
reductions in electrical demand. However, insulation as part of an
overall conservation plan c,n reouce demandS on scarce fossil fuel~
now used for rJome heating. rYolJ state that a primary goal of
converting to hydropower ishc reduce deoendence on fossil fuels.
If the previously mentionedkonservation measures are implemented
now, immediate expenditures for fossil fuels and demand for
additional energy in 1995 can be reduced. This effort is especially
critical as 1,200 new employees are exoected from the Alpetco
refinery.
TUNNEL Til I II NGS
~e note that ~oproximately 20,000 cubic yards of tunnel tailings
will be disposed of over a very steep cliff of over SOD feet.
Dumoing the tai 1 ings over the cl iff may wipe out the dense stand of
alder and any other vegetation for the length of the slope. This
material would continue to erode long after the dumping has ceased,
causing long term water quality problems. The light colored rOCK
would also be highly visiole and very oifficult to revegetate.
2. Three Publ ic Meetings were held during the study process. The dates of
the meetings were 26 April 1977, 24 July 1978, and lB November 19BO. The
initial meeting was held prior to the Council on Environmental Quality's
requirement for a scoping meeting, but the Corps realized the need to
obtain public input to help guide the study process. The final meeting
was to present our findings for public comment. Additional information
regarding our public involvement program has been included in the final
report.
3. Hydropower from Allison Lake would be used primarily to accommodate the
expected growth in population due to future development such as the port
and refinery. Most of the energy would be utilized for lighting,
appl iances, etc., with very 1 ittle, if any for heating. Future housing
would probably not use electricity initially because it would be more
expensive per BTU of heat. Future housing will probably not use natural
gas either because it is not readily available in the area. Most housing
will probably continue to be heated by oil with an increasingly
proportionate amount being supplemented with wood.
4. The final report has been modified to give a better understanding of the
conservation alternative and its possible, impacts on the study area. A
more detailed description is given of the potential for energy reduction
by insulation, weather stripping, etc., and how this could significantly
lower the consumption of heating ~il, but have a lesser effect on
electricity use.
2
5. ~e str?ngly recOTmend that an alternate disposal site and methods be
1nvest1gated. It appears from the photo on page ii that a bench
ne~r the portal could serve as a disposal area. Re~egetation of
th1S area would be much easier than the cliff. In addition, if a
haul roa? could safely be constructed down the most gentle slope,
the ta111ngs could represent a source of fill or ballast.
WATER TEMPERATUR~ MITIGATION
6. We note that the rationale behind the two tailrace system is to
di~ert win~er powerhouse releases directly to Port Valdez, thereby
not affect1ng water temperature 1n All1son Creek d~ring salmon egg
1ncubat1on. ,However, the most critical months, because of spawning
salmon, are uuly and August. The lake tap would sUbstantially lower
water Lemperature~ at the time of spawning, thereby delaying
development. It 1S not clear what flow regimes will occur in the
stream channel be~ow the powerhouse during these critical months.
What proport10n or the total flow would originate from to the
powerhouse ve~sus the natural channel and what temceratures could be
expected? What provisions will be made fort low water years?
7.
8.
t;
PRESSURE REDUCING TuRBINE i!
The feasibili~y stud~ for the pressure reducing turbine states that
one.of 1ts pr1mary d1sadvantages is that "it would only function
unt1l the 011 runs out." It would appear that once the oil Goes run
out, the refinery and most otner economic activity dependent JPon
the oil resource will .also cease. The PRT would then supply energy
f?r the 11fe ?f the p1pellne and woula efficiently cease just at the
t1me wnen 1t 1S no longer needed. An explanation of why this is
seen as a disadvantage should be included ~n future reports.
WATER (JUALITY
I
A lake level fluctuation of 100 feet could ~ause sUDstantial erosion
of eX1st1ng Deltas and the lake shore. Tht effects of sediment
reaistribution can be deleterious because of the excessive
resusoension of sediments into the water column. This increased
turbidity could result in adverse fish impacts downstream from the
powerhouse: ~hes;, impacts are briefly mentioned but not adequately
d1scussed 1n .he C1S sect10n. Future reoorts should discuss :he
POSS1~111ty of clogging the intake with sediment, expected levels of d1ssolve~ oxyqe~: the cegre~ of fisheries aegradctior: resulting from
1ncreas~~ rurD1D1ty anc sed1mentat10n, and possible mitigation
r::c-~sti!'es •
5. The text has been revised for clarification. Refer to section D.2.a. of
the FEIS. Alternative disposal sites have been investigated and
eliminated mainly due to engineering constraints. Although a bench may be
interpreted from the photo in the Feasibility Report, that area is steep
and would require extensive diking to contain the tailings. It is the
opinion of the biologists who have visited the site that the proposed
disposal area is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
6.
7.
8.
As stated in the DEIS and FEIS, 40C temperature was employed as a worse
case basis because of the lack of specific data at Allison Lake for this
time period. Temperature data from similar Alaskan lakes indicate that
temperatures at the depth of the lake tap would probably be 2 to 30C
higher. Tables 2 Band 3 of Appendix E are calculated flows of both
powerhouse discharge and the contribution of the watershed below the
lake. Estimated percentages of the regulated water from the tailrace are
33 percent for July and 40 percent for August of the total Allison Creek
flow. When actual intake temperatures are obtained for Allison Lake
during July and August, provisions to refine the mitigative measures would
be employed.
"
Although the stUdy area may enter an economic slump when the ofl is
depleted, the extent and long tenn effects are impossible to assess. It
is probable that if the pipeline did cease to operate for lack of oil, the
refinery would remain open and receive oil from elsewhere. Even if loads
dropped significantly. additional energy would be needed above Solomon
Gulch's output. This would have to come from other sources, most likely
diesel or possibly a railbelt intertie. In either case the cost would be
higher than the PRT.
Text has been revised fer clarification. The shoreline of Allison Lake is
composed mainly of large boulders with little fine grain materjal present
except for the delta at the head of the lake. Although the erOSion
possibilities of this delta are unknown, the Alaska District believes it
would react similarly to the delta at Long Lake near Juneau. Long Lake is
a glacial fed lake of similar configuration to Allison Lake. The lake was
tapped for hydroelectric power generation several years ago and the Alaska
Department of Fish and G~€ has established a hatchery in its tailrace.
Water quality parameters are monitored regularly and no degradation has
occurred. The shoreline has not experienced erosion and the delta
underwent a change in slope and stablized after the first year.
9.
10.
3
TAAN5~!SSJO~ CORRIDOR
ine ·1 Dcati on of tne transrrlss lon I ine for the PRT has not been
oetermi'lf'Cl at this time. We believe that the locatio~. ~nould be .
finalized as ,oon as possible. Visual sersitivity ShOUlD bea maJor
consideration, Wltr tnE clearing of vegetatiofl kept to ~ mlnlmum.
hgf' US-l1 states that 3.S miles ~f dense conifer ~orest would be
c.ieared for tne transmission line Trom the Alllson lreeK prOJect.
It dPoears tr-,at the transmission 1 ire could parallel the road
thP~eby eliminatinG the n<:ec to clear an additional oath. The
Alyeska Pipelinp coulc also proviOE an alternatlVe (ornoor.
PENSTOCK CONSTRUCTJO~
Impacts associated with the construction of the penstock from the
portal to the powerhouse arE not discussed. An.area 2,850 feet long
bv 10 feet wide "ould be cleared of all vegetatlon on what appears
t~ be a very steeD SlopE. What constru~tion a~t!vities a~e
anticipated and how ",ill they affect sOll staDlllty. eros~on
potential, and water quality? What mitigation measures wlll b~ used
to reduce disturbance and wl11 the rlght-of-way be revegetated. A
thorough discussion of these activities and impacts is needed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft ElS and
feasibi 1 ity n~PQrt.
9. Although an e~act transmission corridor has not been established to the
PRT site, it would probably parrallel the e~isting access road as closely
as possible. The transmission line route for Allison lake hydropower will
be finilized during the AE&D phase. Although the proposed transmission
line would closely parallel the Dayville Road, the clearing of 3.5 miles
of dense conifer forest would still be necessary. Portions of the road
were constructed b~ ~utting into the hillside, leaving a steep sloped bank
whlCh cannot be utl1lzed as a transmission corridor. At the top of the
slope, the dense conifer forest begins. The proposed corridor' is
indicated on Plate D-A-3, Appendix D. For reasons of access a~d
maintenance, Alyeska does not allow any construction on the oil pipeline
corridor.
10. The te~t has been revised for c]arificaton. The placement of the penstock
wou 10 occur with the use of a he] icopter. As stated in the DElS and in
the FElS, the only place where all vegetation would be cleared would be
the areas covered by the support footings.
Colonel Lee R. ~~unn
Alaska District. Corps of Eugineers
Department of the Army
Post Office Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
[lear Colonel :iunn:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CO!'!MERCE
The Assistant SecrHary fDr Policy
:. =1-"--:;l:'~" [ :. ::----
This is in reference'·to your draft environmental impact statecent entitled,
"Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin." The enclosed
COOlI!lents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are
forwarded for your consideration.
Thank you for giving uS an opportunity to provide these co~ents, which we
hope will be of assistance to you. ~e would appreciate receiving five (5)
copies of the final statement.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Miki
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Regulatory Policy (Acting)
Enclosures: ~emo from Hr. Robert \J. HcVey
National Marine Fisheries
Service -NOAA
Mr. Robert B. Rollins
National Ocean Survey -NOAA
Oate
To
From
Subiect:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Se1"'Jice
P.o. Box 1668
Junea~, Alaska· 99802
November :;, 1980 Reply to A 1::n. at:
PP/EC -;,et::~ ff b-,~
y/AKR i./Ir;w. McVey
Review of :casibi1ity Report and DEIS No. 8010.0S -Electrical Power for
Valdez anc the Copper River Basin Southcentral Railbelt Area, AK
We have re7iewed the sUbject document and offer the following comments:
Feasibil ~:-> Report
The inter~ feasibility report appears to have adequately investigated
the vario~ alternatives for energy production in the Valdez area and to
have reac~2d a logical conclusion. We have no additional comments to
offer on :iis·report.
Draft Env::onmental Impact Statement
GENERAL C~ENTS
It is apF~rent from reviewing the DEIS that additional data are needed
on Allis,,:: Creek before sound decisions can be made.
1. a)
2. b)
Allio0n Creek does not have a gauging station so flows have been
calc~~ated for the drainage basin using meteorological data. It
may :e beneficial to p.stablish a gauging station on the stream to
obtc~"1 some recorded streamflow data. Even if data would be
col:'~cte.d for only a few years prior to project construction, they
woc:: provide a basis of comparison for determining the accuracy of
the ::eteorological data for the area.
Add::ional temperature data should be collected prior to project
,:ono:ruction. Table lA in Appendix E provides temperature data for
Allioon Creek from June 26, 1979 through February 27, 1980. Temperature
dat~ from Allison Lake have been collected on only one occasion.
Th"~,, data provide an inadequate base from which to draw sound
con::"J.sions.
SPECIFIC :OMMENTS
Section :, Subsection Ib, page EIS-9, paragraph 3
It is st~:ed that ..... the natural flushing process will be eliminated
and poss::le sedimentation of spawning gravels may occur. During high
water yE~:3, it may be necessary to spill quantities of water, this may
1. A recording stream gage was established in Allison Creek in March 1981 and
will continue to operate through project construction.
2. The temperature data from Allison Creek has been updated (refer to
Appendix E, Table 1). Two additional thermographs are proposed for
Allison Creek, one to record intergravel temperatures within the stream,
and the second to be placed in the intertidal area to record intergravel
temperatures and the changes due to tidal influence. The theromographs
will be installed prior to the 1981 spawning season. During the Advanced
Engineering and Design (AE&D) phase, numerous temperature profiles of
Allison Lake would be accomplished during all seasons.
3. have adequate flows for flushing of the gravels." Does the Corps have
any additional mitigating measures, such as mecha~ical flushing, planned
for cleaning spaw~ing gravels if necessary? This topic needs to be
discussed in greater detail in the FEIS.
Section E, page EIS-15
4. This section discusses, among other things, the concept of a two tailrace
system to regulate the quantity of water being released into Allison
Creek. It appears that water from the powerhouse .... ill be available to
supplement the flow in Allison Creek as needed. It is imperative that
this water does not differ substantially from the normal flow in Allison
Creek with respect to temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc. This project
should be designed to ensure that adequate natural stream flows are
available if needed (Le. if the powerhouse is shut down or if the
quality of water from the powerhouse is inadequate with respect to
temperature, etc.).
5. This section also contains a brief discussion of the potential for
cumulative impacts resulting from construction of the ALPETCO facility
and dock, the city dock expansion, the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric
project and some proposed development on Mineral Creek. This section
should be expanded to include a description of each of these projects
and some discussion of the potential impacts.
CLEARANCE:;!,/ ~TIJRE
F/HP: Ken ROberts~\ rt, U---z"¥----=
tUm DATE:
I
i -,
: .
3. Allison Creek is relatively free of small grain materials and fines. The
periodic spilling of Allison Lake and the expected SUrm1er flo .. s '.;auld
probably be sufficient; therefore, no sedimentation of the stream is
anticipated. However, if additional studies show that sedimentation of
spawning gravels does occur, the problem would be rectified by methods
agreeded upon during the AE&D phase prior to construction.
4. If a moderate to large percentage of the flow is discharged from the
powerhouse it is possible that a temperature change could occur. Most of
the spawning occurs intertidally and the effects of the warmer discharge
on incubation is unknown. The planned installation of an intergravel,
intertidal thermograph and expanding knowledge of the winter flow regime
will aid in refining mitigative measures. Adequate flows would be
maintained by scheduling turbine maintenance during times when sufficient
natural stream flow for egg incubation is available.
5. The Alaska District agrees the cumulative impacts in the Valdez area are
an important aspect to further development. Environmental Impact
Statements or Environmental Assessments have been published for these
projects and are reasonably available. In accordance with NEPA
guidelines, this information has been incorporated by reference.
rfS>\\
\\:~~, ~~ .... -,';' ,~1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMOJT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and A.tmospheric Administratiol
:"jA::C'.:"L I~<~~':"·. -?: .. ..J-1 • .:..
~GC~.'!~·.~.: 2_-?:::'2
NOV 21 \860 OA/CS2x6:Jl~
TO: PP/EC -Joyce M. Wood
FROM: OAICS -Robert B. Rollin?;'
SUBJECT: DEIS #8010.05 -Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River
Basin, Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska
The subject stacement has been reviewed within the areas of the
National Ocean Survey's (NOS) responsibility and expertise, and in
terms of the impact on the proposed action on NOS activities and
projects.
1. Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed
project area. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or
destroy these monuments, NOS requires not less than gO days' notifica-
tion in advance of such activity in order to plan for their relocation.
NOS recommends that 7unding for this project includes the cost of any
relocation required for NOS monuments.
<:)
I
;i
1. Final alignments, locations, etc., would be set during the Advanced
Engineering and Design Phase of the project. At that time, construction
activity that could disturb any monument would be identified dnd
coordinated with the National Ocean Survey.
Cnitc:d Srat6 [)c'~,artmcnt of the: I:-::-;::rior
F () Bo\ 120
\f,c-i't ·r,,!.,!y \1.1\l ... l..~r5HI
ER-SCo/ 1:51 :'t~e!:lber Lt, 1.980
COlO:l~: Lee n. N~...rln
~i5t!"ic~ Engineer
Alask~ District, Corps of E~~~neers
P. G. Box 7002
Ancnorage, Alaska 99510
~ear Celonel Nunn"
In response to yoOJr Sep"tembe!" 8, 1980, rectuest 'We flE.,"e reviewed the Draft
In"te:-':'!: Feasibility ::tepor:. ar::' Environmental :z::.pac-: ::..a:~ement (r:EIS) for
Elec~rical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Eao~~. We offer the fol-
lowing C-Ol!lDenT..S for yOlU' consideration.
Gener~l Co~ents
1. From our perspective, projec: information anG the dis~ussion of alterna~ives
in the repor"!. and DEIS appea:-~o be gene:-ally aae,:;.u.c.:e. Hoyever, "e believe
both aocumen"!.s are lacking i~ specific info~tio~ related to fisheries
resources and vater quality, flows, and temperatures. We understand that
additional studi~s are bein, Flanned as per reconoer.:ations contained in
the Fish and Wildlife Service's May 21, 1980 Fish a~d Wildlife Coordination
Act Report. Upon:. completion of these studies, a SUFplemental Coordination
Act Report ,till be prepared ty the Fish a"d Wildlfie Service.
Specific Comments
2.
FeaSibility Report:
Page 32, lmnact Assessment:
oil spill be addressed.
We suggest that the possibility of an
3. Page 36, Impact Assess~ent: We believe an assesssment of the impacts
cf Alternative 1 should also be discussed in this section.
Environmental Impact S~atement:
4. Page 9, Hydrology and ~ater Quality: We sugges~ that the EIS discuss
the design of features ~d methods for providi~g vater release should
it be necessary to spill excess vater during bigh vater years.
1. Refer to response No.1, EPA Comments
2. The installation of the Pressure Reducing Turbine
~robability.of an oil spill because the necessary
l~stalled wlth the construction of the pipeline.
plpeline would be required.
should not increase the
piping and valves were
No alteration of the
3. Text revised. Refer to page 36 of the Feasibility Report.
4. Text revised. Refer to section D.l.b of the FEIS.
5. Pag" lU, Hydr~log\' <ind \-idter Quality: Th" drawdown scenario for
~stablishing th~ lake tap, i.e., ti~ing, flow duration, etc., should
b., addressed.
6. Page II, ~ldlife: w~ suggest that the document reflect the requir.,-
ment for maintaining minimum distance. of 300 feet oet\Jeen eagle n.;:st.s
and proj.,ct f~atures.
7. Page 13, fish: Experienc~ with similar projects has indicated that
atypical high flow and cold water may cause sallllon to delay migration
into spawning streams, potentially reducing production. The ElS
should indicate that temperature studies are proposed prior to
development of final project deSign.
B. Page 15, Mitigation: The EIS should reflect the n~ed for determining
the effect of increased winter flows on the fishery resourc~, and for
obtaining mor~ accurate information as to· the number of salmon which
utilize Allison Creek.
9. Page 16, Mitigation: It is sugg~sted that the EIS indicate that the
results of proposed water studies be published in a form which will
make the information wid~ly available for similar future projects.
Also, th~ document should indicate that provisions will be made for
monitoring the ~ffectiveness of mitigation meaSures during project
operation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these draft documents.
Sincerely,
5. Text reviseo. Refer to section D.l.b. of the FEIS.
6. During the Advanced Engineering and Design phase, the transmission route
will be surveyed to assure compliance with the Bald Eagle Act of 1940.
7. Text revi.sed. Refer to sect ion C.l.b. of the FEIS.
8. Text revised. Refer to section C.2.d. of the FEIS.
9. An environmental report containing all information gathered for the
Allison project would be included during the Advanced Engineering and
Design phase. Any information gathered prior to the distribution of the
document can be mad~ ~vailable upon request.
, . .
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
1 ~Z2 K Street. NW
W.shlO~lon . .oC 20005
Occober 24, 1900
ri~:!'"ict. E:-:.~inee!"
Cc!"'ps of E:lgineers, _lJ.as~c.. J:'strict
DE';B.!'""Cme:i..'t 0: the Army
P. C. Box 7002
~chorage, ~~aska
Llee.r CoJ.ODel Nun~:
99510
Lake Ptaza South. SUIte 6:
44 Umon Boule~ard
LHkPwood. CO 80228
r.l'h5.:J.}: you fo!" yOUl~ requf'st of ~,~;)"Le:::"~er 30, :980, for c~:;:nments on
t ne Draft Irl"teriI!. Feasi bil:' ty Repor~_ and: t.he Envircnrne~tal
sts.7.~ment for Soutbcent:-al Railbel:. Area, Alaska, fo!" electrical
"Do-,e!" for "valdez and the COPDer Rive!" E2.sin. p...J.rsli.ant to Section
i02(2)(C) of the National E~:"i,·on:;tenccal Folicy Act of 1969 and
the CQuncil' s regulc.tj o~~s, "P:LD:'e27. _G.:: of Historic and-CU: tural
?ro:;.ercies 1t (36 CFR Part 300), we '":.2..1/2 de~,er~ined that yOll!"
e:-.v.: . .:'0!1ID.P!1tal sta--:'e!Ilent fl.;Jpear-s adJ?q'L.a'"e cancer-nine; our area of
iL~erest, find ~w.:: have no ~urther co:r..m.en'ts at this tiDe,
Sincer,> ly,
~~~ .1/ C{e!(~f
Chief, Western Division
o~ Frojec'"V Review
1. Comment Noted •
November 4, 1980
Col. Lee R. Nunn
District Engineer'
Alaska uistrict, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn:
JA r s. HAIIIIOIilD. 60YfRIIOII
Re: Electrical Power for Valdez -Draft Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the referenced draft
feasibility report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
In general. we feel the report and EIS provide an adequate description
of the proposed project, potential environme'1tal impacts and mitigation
measures.
1. Our biggest concern re1~tes to the potential impacts on the anadromous
fisheries resources in Allison Creek. While we have no objection to the
project as proposed this Department will require measures to mitigate
conflicts. We support the concept of the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service
recommendations; however, we feel the additional studies described in
both the Coordination Act Report (page 17) and the EIS (page EIS-16)
should be conducted before any specific recommendation on mitigation is
made. The Department of Fish and Game desires to participate in both'
the scoping and actual conduct of the studies which should be accom-.
plished during the advanced engineering and design phase of the project.
In addition to these general comments on the report and EIS we have some
specific input which will be transmitted directly to your staff.
~, The ~laska District will be gathering additional physical and bio10 ical
lnformatl0n,durlng the,Advanced Engineering and Design (AE&D) phase /stream
gage on All1son Creek 1S now operational and two intergrave1 recordin t~erm?grap~s are p~oposed for installation in the near future. The A~aska
D1strlct w11l cont~n~e close coordination of all future studies with your dep~rtment and SOllC1t your recommendations to assure the project is env1ronmenta11yacceptab1e.
Corps Of Engineers - 2 -
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Ronald O. Skoog, Commissioner
~~ '\ 27 ~A"R7 /t.,1
BY: Bruce M. Barrett
Project Keview Coorci,lator
Habitat Protection Section
Telephone 3440541
cc: R. Logan, ADFG
M. Whitehead, OPOP
(State 1.0. # 80101501ES)
11/4/80
\:'~ VI" ,,In,I,I, vr i,~ m, r, 'II, ,I,' r-I., n I'" ~'riJ rv7 ~ " r II := -,,} \ !, t~ I, \,' I,' " I"
'\\' ; ..... i I (, 'J~' I r' U v r LJ r\J I, , i ! '\ I I \ I . ;~ L: Lf'J U,~ v U L:lJ b Lr'J ,_/ L. \j u\..l
OFFICE OF THE GO~'ERNOR
DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PlANNING
Mr. Loran Baxter
U.S. Department of the Army
Alaska Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
December 29, 1980
JAY 5 HAMMO'-ID, Go •• rnor
POUCH AO
JUNEAU. ALASKA 99817
PHONE,' 465~573
SUBJECT: COE Electrical Power for Valdez Renewable Energ;-Project DEIS
State lOt FD214-80101501ES
Dear Mr. Baxter:
The Alaska State Clearinghouse (SCH) has completed re~iew of the referenced
DElS.
The City of Valdez commented:
L "The City of Valdez has reviewed the COE DIFR/EIS and
found it consistent with community objectives. The impact
of the recon~ended action upon Valdez will be positive
in supplying energy to meet forecast power demands':,
"The growth that is projected for Valuez in this decade
will surpass the capacity of the current power generation
sys tem. The proposed acti on of the CDE wi 11 benefit Va 1 dez
and the Copper River Basin through ad~anced planning for
forecast energy demands and, ultimately, supplying power
in advance of critical shortages.
"Considering the amount of power generated by the proposed
action, relatively little environmental impact will result.
We feel that the COE has adequately addressed the' environmental
impacts of their EIS section."
The following comment was received from the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR):
"1. Of the various alternatives presented to help meet the
needs -of the electrical power as projected in the report.
a combination of the hydro-electrical facility at
Allison Lake and the Pressure Reducing Turbine to be
installed in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline along with
increased conservation programs appear to be the
most reasonable methods if it can be demonstrated
that the need for additional electrical power
sources ex is ts.
1. COiTr.ient Noted
1. Based upon current information th t' t ' are the best available' Ho • \ e~ lma ,ed future energy requlrements
future demand COuld be'eith~~v~~'h~r ~s ~ulte Possib~e that the actual
happens versus What is prOjected~ rower dependlng on what actually
-2-
'2. Most of the State 1 and encompass i ng the project at
Allison Lake is classified Watershed under the State
Classification system. This area was identified as
an alternative source of water for the City of Valdez.
"3. The t~ansmission line now under construction by
Copper Valley Electric Association was finally
permitted following widespread controversy and was
subject to numerous stipulations pertainina to
environmental impact. Would this line as it is
now being constructed be sufficient to handle the
additional power to be generated by these additional
sources, or would it have to be upgraded or altered
in any way?
"4. It apPears that there would be a significant impact
on the fisheries resource th~t utilizes this stream.
This aspect of the project needs to be more thoroughly
reviewed.
"5. Installation of a Pressure Reducing Turbine in the
lrans-Alaska Pipeline for electrical powe~ generation
should certainly be taken advantage of for the reasons
stated in the report. In light of the potential power
thJt can be developed from this source, a closer look
should be given to the projected popula.tion and power
demands in the near future. It is rep~rted that the
facility being constructed at Valdez by Alpetco will
generate, via gas turbines run by by-products of the
petro-chemical process, more power than could be
consumed by the operation of that facility. Therefore,
during the life of that project, no additional electrical
power would be required for its operation. Given
that the Alpetco facility as well as much of the
other development in this area is based on the
existence of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and given
the finite amount of oil available for transport
through the pipeline, it follows that after the oil
is depleted, such facilities as Alpetco and the
Pipeline Terminal will no longer exist to support the
populations of this area. It is conceivable that
electrical power requirements will decrease rather
than increase as projected.
"6. The location of the power tunnel and appurtenances
for the Allison Lake Project is within an active fault
zone identified during pipeline construction. Has
this been taken into account in the design of this
project?
2. If the water from Allison Creek were needed at a future date Dy the city
of Valdez, it would be possible to extract it from the tailrace.
3. Tnf power line between Valdez and Glennallen would be a6~q~ate for
transmitting power from the proposed projects without rurtner upgrading.
4. The Alaska District will perform physical and biological studies during
the Advanced Engineering and Design (AE&D) p~ase when a thorOllgh analysis
of the fishe~ies impacts will be accomplished.
5. It is possible that the energy demand for the study area would decrease
after the oil is depleted; however, it is doubtful that ~emand would fall
to present levels when considering increases in other business activities
in the study area such as the port expansion. Even if demand did fall to
the current level, the output from the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project
would be exceeded, forcing the study area to once again depenq on diesel
generation as a primary source of power. Also, with construcUion of a new
oil refinary in Valdez, it is likely that oil would be brough~ in from
elsewhere rather than allow the refinary to lie idle after ju~t a few
years of operation.
6. The fault zone has been taken into account in the feasibility study.
Additional detailed geotechnical work will be undertaken during the
Advanced Engineering and Design Phase to identify specific problem areas.
To date, the primary problem is with tsunamis rather than ruptured
bedrock. Because of this, the powerhouse is located at +100 feet MLLW.
Appendix G, Foundations and Materials includes additional information.
-3-
"while there is a significant amount of inTermation provided in
the DEIS, and from a cost/benefit point of view it has been
shown .that the Allison Lake Project along with the installation
of a PRT in the lrans-hlaska Pipeline appears to be the most
feasible, some basic questions as discussed snould be addressed
in future planning for the Copper River Basin."
The Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) commented:
7.
"The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the
referenced draft feasibility report and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
"In aeneral, we feel the report and EIS provide an
adequate description of the proposed project, potential
environmental impacts and mitigation measures.
"Our biggest concern relates to the potential impacts on
the anadromous fisheries resources in Allison Creek. While
we have no objection to the project as proposed this
Department will require measures to mitigate conflicts.
We support the concept of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service recommendations; however, we feel the additional
studies described in both the Coordination Act Report (page
17) and the [IS (page EIS-16) should be conducted before any
specific recommendation on mitigation is made. The
Department of Fish and Game desires to participate in
both the scoping and actual conduct of the studies which
should be accomplished during the ad~anced engineering and
design phase of the project."
This comment was received from the Office of Coastal Management:
8. "The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) has reviewed the
'Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper Basin' Draft
Feasibility Report and Environmental Statement (State 1.0.
No. 80101501; COE No. 800930). OCM has no comments at this
time concerning the consistency of this project with the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (AC~'P). Reviewing agencies
have not brought up any major ACMP-related issues in
their review. OCM will issue a consistency determination
when the Final Environmental Impact Statement is submitted
to DPDP for review."
7. Refer to answer Number I to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
8. Comment Noted
/
/
-~-
The SCH has no objection to this proposal; however, DF&G an~ DNR have
specific concerns which should be addressed as further studles are
conducted. we would like to rec:orrmend that the COE coordinates future
studies and planning with DNR and DF&G prior to completion of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
when the FEIS is submitted to the SCH, it will be placed in review for
consistency with the Alaskan Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and for
final A-95 review.
Thank you for your cooperation with the review process. 1.
cc: Commissioner Skoog, DF&G
Torn Barnes, OCM
Rob Ridgway, City of Valdez
L.A. Dutton, DNR
Bruce Barrett, DF&G
Sincerely, 1
J,~kL~
Mi\hael Whitehead .
State-Federal Coordinator
9. Tne Corps will work closely with the Departments of Fish an: ~ame and
Natural Resources during the Aovancea Engineering and Desi~' ~hase of the
Project. At tnat point the specific detailed studies neces!!py will be
.conoucted to refine the project design and mitigative plan.
23j:,~'-.~. -.' .. ' :/~· ;
COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC.
SERVING VALDE:Z A"<D THE COPPER RIVER 8ASIN
<!,
HEADQUARTERS:
P.O. BOX 45
GLENNALLEN, AK 99588
i907! 827·3211
February 25, 1981
Mr. Loran Baxter
Alaska District, Coros of Enaineers
U. S. Department of the Army
p. O. Box 7002
Anchoraqe, Alaska 99510
. Attention: NPAE!\-PL-R
fiear-Mr. Baxter:
DISTRICT OFFICE:
P,O BOX 927
VALDEZ, AK 99686
19071 835·4301
I have reviewed your report entitled "Electrical Power
for valdez and the COPDer River Basin, Draf~ Interim
Feasibility Report an~'Enviromental ImDact Statement".
I apolooize that my schedule has prevented me from res-
ponding to you sooner on your report.
1. I agree with the basic conclusions and recor:-unendations
in your study. With construction of the Solomon Gulch
Project nearing completion the most logical next steps
for meeting the ene~gy needs of Valdez and the Copper
River Basin are installation of the PRT and establishing
an intertie with the Alyeska terminal power plant,
followed by de"'elopment ,)f Alliso" Lake hydro power.
As pointed our in your study, implementation of the PRT
program is currently planned to be undertaken by the
local utilities. As to administrative responsibilities
for construction, ooeration and m2intenance of the Allison
Lake hydro project,' provi sions should be nude whereby
these responsibilities can be shifted at an appropriate
point. in time to best fit. the power requirements of the
various areas. Development of hydroelectric projects
throughout. Alaska should be one of the top priorities of
Federal, State, and Local Governments.
We would appreciate being kept informed of your progress
on Allison Lake and look forward to it becoming a real-
ity.
Sincerely yours,
COP~ELECTRIC
~s F. F,lin
General Manager
JFP/RGY/pls
ASSOCIATION, INC.
I. Tne possibility of an intertie with the Alyeska terminal power plant to.
supply needed energy may be a realistic consideration in the future.
~owever, _ all pf Alyes~a's energy is currently supplied through Giesel
t lred COll1bUS~lOn turblnes WhlCh are generally less efficient than the
existi~g dierklgenerators used to supply the stUdy area's needs. One
obJectlv~ of ~hlS study was to decrease the utilization of diesel as an
en:rg,Y ~Iternative. Relying on Alyeska to provide additional generation
USl ng dlesel 1S not conSidered real istic at this point. However, if the
hydropower projects come on line as antiCipated, it may be pOSSible to
sell or trade second~ry hydroelectric energy to Alyeska during the summer,
therebY,reduc1ng the1r energy costs. This may provide incentive for them
to provlde excess energy to meet peak winter demands for Valdez and Glennallen.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
333 WEST 4th AVENUE -SUITE 31 -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Colonel Lee R. Nunn
Alaska District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn:
February 25, 1981
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-2715
The Alaska Power Authority would support state funding of 10% of the
costs of construction of the Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project near
Valdez, Alaska if the project is determined to be feasible and the best
future source of power for the market area. As you know, the State of
Alaska is currently completing feasibility studies of Susitna and a Rail-
belt transmission line, and either the Copper Valley Electric Association
or the City of Valdez may install a pressure reducing turpine on the
Alyeska oil pipeline. Therefore, the definite decision to proceed with
development of Allison Creek should await decisions on these projects and
refinement of demand forecasts in the market area.
State funding participation in the project would require legislative
appropriation once a clear decision can be made. With this in mind, I
will request that Governor Hammond prepare a letter of support for con-
tinued field investigations and preparation of a General Design Memorandum
for Allison Creek, with the understanding that State funding of a portion
of construction costs must be delayed until other studies are completed
and the need for the project becomes more definite.
cc: Governor Hammond
Sincerely,
cc.. ~.\J~
Eric P. Yould "\
Executive Director