Potential impacts of the proposed Dow-Shell petrochemical complex on fish and wildlife resources in Alaska

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
DOW SHELL PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX ON FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
IN ALASKA

Prepared by:
Marine and Coastal Habitat Management
Habitat Division.
Department of Fish and-Game
July 1981

QH
545
W3
P67
1981

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ................ ......................... 1
List of Tables ..................... ........................ 31
List of Figures ....... I........................................... 4
Section I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................... 6
INTRODUCTION ............................. .......... 10@.
State of Alaska Agreement with Dow-Shell ...o .... 10
Chemical Industries and Project Description . ................ 11
Gas liquids recovery ....... ........ 12
12
Gas liquids pipeline ....... o........ .....................
Petrochemical complex ................... o.................. 19

Section II
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES AT PROPOSED TIDEWATER
PETROCHEMICAL SITES ............................. ............. 25
'Resource Identification ............................. s ......... 25
Commercial and subsistence fisheries ............. .... 26
Sport fishery ............. o............ ............. 30
Anadromous streams .... o........ o .......................... 35
Other fishes ............. o................................ 38
Marine invertebrates ....................................... 39
Marine mammals ................. o .......................... 41
Terrestrial mammals .......................... o............ 45
Birds .......... o............ ........................ 48,
Primary productivity .,., ................ o................... 52
Ocean mixing and circulation ................. a............ 55
Recreation/aesthetics .., ........ e................. 0 ....... 63

Section III
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE DOW-SHELL PROPOSAL ON FISH AND
WILDLIFE@RESOURCES ............................ .............. 68
Sources of Information on Petrochemical Industries .......... 68
Effluents, Emissions, and Wastes from a Petrochemical
Plant .................................... o................... 69
Toxicity of Petrochemical Products and Wastes to
Animals and Plants ............ o ................... 0 .......... 71
Potential Impacts of the Proposed Petrochemical
Complex ....... o@ ....... 76
Fish .................. 79
Mammals ................ 81
Birds ......... 1. .1 ....... .................................... . 84
Vegetation ......
............... o .... 84
Potential Impacts o the G s iquid ip line ............... 86
Fish ........................................ - .............. 87
Mammals ............................ o ..... o.o..; ............ 88
Birds ..................................................... 89
Vegetation ............................................. ... 90

Section IV
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR STUDY REQUIREMENTS ................ 94
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES IN THE
DOW-SHELL PROPOSAL ........................ ................... 96

Section V
LITERATURE CITED ....................... ...................... 99

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Products Being Studied (Dow-Shell Progress Report
No. 6) ................................................ 21

Table 2. Estimated Utility Requirements - Dow-Shell
Petrochemical Complex (Dow-shell Progress Report
No. 4) ................................................. 23

Table 3. Salmon Run-Timi ng, Upper Cook Inlet ................... 28

Table 4. Subsistence Fishing-in Seward-Resurrection Bay ........ 31

Table 5.., Su.bs.istence Fishing in Valdez ......................... 32

Table 6..' Comparative Rating of Sites with Respect to Resource
Values ........................... .................... 66
Table 7.@@ Predicted Air Emissions From the Dow-Shell Central
Petrochemica.1 Complex ............. .................... 72
Table 8.@: Participation in Hunting and Trapping Activities with
.I@Respect to Occupation, Southc.entral Alaska ............ 83

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Basic Project Diagram ................................. 13

Figure 2. Proposed Site - Pt. MacKenzie ......................... 14

Figure 3.. Proposed Site - Fixe Island ........................... 15

Figure 4. Proposed Site -, Kenai .................................... 16

Figure 5. Proposed Site.- Seward ................................ 17

Figure 6., Proposed Site Valdez ............................. 18

SECTION I

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

A review of the Dow-Shell Group progress reports, similar existing

petrochemical industries,, literature dealing with the env ironmental effects

of petrochemicals, and physical and biological data at each of the proposed

sites, has revealed that insufficient information is available to predict

the full magnitude of impacts which a petrochemical industry might have on

Alaskan fish and wildlife resources. The Department's analysis of impacts

has been inhibited by the lack of information in the Dow-Shell progress

reports on the identity and quantity of all effluents, emissions, and

wastes from the proposed facility, and lack of specific details on

environmental engineering and pollution control practices which will be

employed during facility construction and operation.

The major impacts to fish and wildlife resources are likely to occur from

the operation of the main petrochemical complex and the construction of the
gas liquids pipeline.. Impacts associated with the main complex are likely

to result from the accidental release of petrochemicals or discharge of

thermal effluent,into the marine and freshwater environments, the

appropriatio.n of groundwater or surface water to operate the plant', and the

industrial and residential growth needed to support the facility.

A petrochemical industry at any of the proposed sites will have the

greatest impact on marine fishery resources with the most vulnerable

species being shellfish and salmon. Petrochemical manufacturing or

transportation related impacts c ould result in direct mortality to existing
fish populations, or could cause reduced production through loss of food

supplies or disruption of critical life stages. Sublethal impacts to

shellfish such as razor clams., could include tainting of the meat and

prevent consumption of these shellfish by humans. Marine mammals:and

waterfowl will also be adversely impacted if food supplies or critical

habitat areas are altered by the proposed facility. The impact could

result in a reduction of reproductive success, species avoidance of

disturbed areas, or direct mortality to a local population. -Increased

human populations and their demand for fish and wildlife resources may.

result in the enactment of shorter hunting and fish ing seasons. Permit

hunting seasons will reduce the exi sting opportunities to participate in

hunting and fishing activities.

The major long-term impacts of constructing the gas liquids pipeline from

Prudhoe to the pla nt site will be on fish populations. The impact will

occur if disturbance of critical fish habitat areas in watercourses used

for spawning, rearing:, and overwintering results in lower production or,

loss.of habitat. The major terrestrial wildlife habitat loss will result

from gravel removal, work pad construction, and sppoil. disposal. Adverse

short-term impacts on wildlife populations along the pipeline corridor

could result from the feeding of wildlife, hunting from construction camps,

destruction of nuisance anima.1s, road kills, noise and disturbance, and

increased access to sensitive wildlife.areas. Many impacts to birds and

mammals can be minimized by routing the pipeline to avoid sensitive areas,

and by,strict management of construction practices. Significant

operational impacts would result if the ambient temperature p-ipeline

contributed to frost heave, thaw, or subsidence; if a pipeline rupture

occurred under a stream crossing; or if disruption of,'surface.water and/or

sheet flow occurred along the pipeline.

The proposed tidewater pet rochemical complex would have the lowest

potential for adversely impacting fish and.wildlife resources if it were

located at the Fire Island or Pt. MacKenzie sites in Upper Cook I nlet. The

highest potential-for,adverse impacts to marine and freshwater fish and

wildlife resources would result if the site were'located at the proposed

Seward or Valdez sites. The proposed gas liquids pipeline would have the

least impacts on fish and wildlife resources if it followed the

Trans-Alaska Pipe.line System (TAPS) to Valdez.

Final assessment of the short-term., long-term, and irreversible impacts of

a petrochemical industry on fish and wildlife resources will require

accurate and detailed accounts of chemical, physical, biological, and

toxicological data. This level of information does not currently exist to

evaluate the proposed Dow-Shell facility. To insure adequate protection

for fish and wildlife resources, the following criteria should be met

before a decision is made to support the project.

1. Each respective industrial process in the Dow-Shell complex is

sufficiently understood by the State resource an d regulatory agencies

so that ecologi'cal impacts are known and can be mitigated.

2. The chemical products, by-products, feedstock, and wastes associated

with the normal operation of each component industry will not enter

the environment in concentra tions that are acutely or chronically

toxic to any species which would be unintentionally exposed to them.

.3. The Company will develop and maintain the resources and expertise to

insure that any episodic, non-planned expos-ure of marine or

terrestrial organisms to toxic concentrations resulting from spills or

other accidents will be limited in geographical scope, temporary in

nature, and not capable of creating a delayed or irreversible loss of

resources or habitat.

4. The structure, scope of concern, and authority of industrial

management for environmental protection is identified and specific

commitments exist for fish and wildlife resource protection in both

the construction and operational phase of all proposed facilities.

The certainty with which these conditions can be met will differ between

the chemical industries and the individual chemicals produced, transported,

and disposed of. For some chemicals no reasonable amount of environmental

analysis or testing will provide full assurance of essentially zero or very

low risk to fish and wildlife resources. In many cases the technology
exists to limit the extent of risk by special precautions and restriction

in the manufacture and handling of chemical products. Risk can also be

limited in time by environment al monitoring to identify or quantify any

adverse effects as early as possible.

Our review of the Dow-Shell proposal and the manufacture of petrochemicals,

leads,us to conclude that this industry has the capability to adversely

impact several important fish and wildlife resources. The degree of risk

or hazard that a petrochemical industry could have on fish and,wi'ldlife

resources must be carefully balanced against the expected benefits.

INTRODUCTION

State of Alaska Agreement with Dow-Shell

In October 1980, the State of Alaska and nine chemical companies,

known as the Dow-Shell Group, signed a Memorandum of Understanding and

Intent-for the pu rpose of studying the feasi bility of a plan to

establish a petrochemical industry in Alaska.. As part of.the State's

agreement, a Citizens Advisory Committee composed of key State and

local representatives was appointed by the Lt. Governor to represent

all of the citizens of Alaska in reviewing the Dow-Shell Group's

proposal and plan of study. This committee's function is to assure

that all major concerns of the citizens of Alaska with respect to the

establishment of a petrochemical industry are addressed.

In March 1981, representatives of seven State agencies met at the

requ6st'of the Department of Environmental Conservation to form the

Petroc'hemical'Technical Group. The purpose of this group is to report

on potential social and environmental problems associated with

petrochemical development in Alaska. As a member of the Technical

Group, the Department of,Fish and Game has coordinated with the

Dow-Shell Group to review their progress reports and proposal for

petrochemical development. This report was prepared in response to

the Dow-Shell progress reports and ildentifies the Department's

Concerns in regarding the potential impacts of a petrochemica.1

industry on the fish and wildlife resources of the State. Since

design modifications are made by Dow-Shell each month as new

information becomes available, recent design changes may not be

covered in this report. The Departmen t of Fish and Game will continue

to review new information as it becomes available and is prepared to

evaluate the completed Dow-Shell feasibility study when it is

released...

Chemical Industries and Project Description

Under terms of an agreement with the State of Alaska, the companies
involved in' the feasibility study are described as the Dow-Shell
0
Group. Themembers,of the.group include: Dow Chemical Company USA,

Shell Chemical Company, Asahi-Dow Ltd., DuPont Company, Alaska

Interstate Company, Alaska Interior Resources Company, Mitsubishi

Chemical Industries Ltd., Mitsubishi Corporation, and Earth Resources

Company of Alaska. The.agreement designated Dow Chemical* USA as the

project leader, with Shell Chemical Company designated as the

cosponsor of the study.

The Dow-Shell proposal is based on an assumed tidewater petrochemical

industry site, with gas liquids recovery at Prudhoe Bay and pipeline

transport of the gas liquids to a tidewater site in southcentral

Alaska (Figure 1).

1. Gas liquids recovery

Lean oil extraction has been premised for the Prudhoe Bay NGL

recovery upstream of a gas conditioning plant. This process will

extract approximately 90,000 barrels per day (B/D) of ethane,

61,000 B/D of propane, 34,000 B/D of butane, and 21,000 B/D of

pentanes and highers along with some carbon dioxide

(approximately 4,000 B/D)..

2. Gas liquids pipeline.

The Dow-Shell gas liquids pipeline is proposed to carry and

supply feedstock to the petrochemical complex. The products to

be transported in this pipeline include ethane, propane, butane,

and other low molecular weight hydrocarbons. The tidewater sites

currently being considered by Dow-Shell for the petrochemical-

complex include: Pt. MacKenzie, Fire Island, Kenai, Seward, and

Valdez (Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6).

To serve each of these sites,, several alternate pipeline

corridors are being studied. From.Prudhoe Bay the proposed

pipeline will follow the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and

right-of-way*to Fox Station north of Fairbanks; at that point it

will branch contingent upon the selection of either the Valdez or

R U-R" E
Basic Project Diagram

OIL & GAs- GAS,
PRODUCTICU - ------ RECOVERY CCNOfTICNING
PLAUT

PiPELINE

UQUIDS.,
TERMIXAL

ETHANEANCt
PROPANE FEMS, CC.<

FUEL
CLEEFINS
P
4T POWER:
t.At ENERGY

ENE- NE.
ETHYL- -;;RCPYLEL
7

REFINERY

PCRCPYt.:-NE,
CESIVATIVES
OEFRIVATIVES-w-,

Not part
PatrachemicaL
Project

JIM
L

41.1

4@ 3

W.p m:,:
-'sat --- - - ---------- -
Z t '71 Mtpd,@'

12'4'1
9:

7
is

----- ------- -
IV

20 2L
V -
1110! 12 26 i

1132
32

28
7@ 7
T
Jol T
29, 1
A
MW
tp I
La
JIE

21,
g-,@-,Z@@;,-;-,:,-,-:1.4v X. P,F
W7
MaWz@
. ..........
re.- Gl; w-1
33
32-
112

5 Gmd
At

3
4 5
4

ocam Qc)ck
.... . ...... point
FORT RICHARD"K
M=ARY A=
mowmint

ANCH 0 RSGR@ar

Figure- 2
!9 N47--ool-
PROPOSED SITE 7-1p
Gn
Mod
6T
H7 1 1 LA
hot Rd !1.-,Itatl
we md
pt 11

21
1 20 Rogem
24- 19
14 .Aach(W
20
.g3rk

14
Poll
i`flId
jv
At

ell,
2 1, fit
lq .111"" l41-,
10 1 ,@ I yll". 1 1, 1 , ", I I I l If 4 1 " I "' 'Oli,o"!
3 7 " i . I, -
if we Op
pig-j oft.

ivy
IT, " 1 11 1h 41

al
J1,113 19 1 k IIJI: pl@ 11, @P
Ila
r sub

Nt v cl A

AV!,
fir

I
All, Gb\
'A"
I V.
/L r

C"IT

toil)

15
. . . . . . . 1.3
14. 17

'20
24.
22, ----- -

57-

E-4

26
25- 30 29
+

35 36 31 32

L
Actv

VT@

4
MW@

%G
-20
3: fn%

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ew

................

+
2(@
.4 40@

3C
36 32@ 2
36
!-k.

Figure- 4
Kenai
PROPOSED SITE KE@Al Akrpl
0 2
V7
-t I I rm
MILES
SCALE I" z7 I M ILE. 1A. Z

21 22

Now _46. n
A
10", is ! f @ - ": i
\27

91MARD kk
3

Gel
!v

...... ....
seward

VAW

Dub er
sea

Sk*

M:
Fbilt

9
Figure 5 .P
ED SITE S
PROIROS

Iz-
771

ftA
SCA, E I"

32
36 Nil'

.'Mineral crait@
Wand$ T I S
AI,

If
Old lv@ldo,
T,

V A D E Z lo

c4m
5f.a
Jackson pt

Ftws LWAmn

14 --.,y 14
13 A 18
5r.

JAW
Vi FF
20 qp) q,

Cook Inlet region for the plant site location. The line either

continue s to Valdez along the TAPS route or will follow the Parks

.-Highway and Alaska Railroad rights-of-way to Nancy.Lake. From

Nancy Lake, one branch will either lead to Pt. MacKenzie or Fire

Island, or will cross Cook Inlet to Pt. Possession and into,

Kenai. An alternate pipeline route to Seward parallels the

Sterling and Seward highways from Kenai.

The proposed gas liquids pipeline will be 20 inches in diameter,.

pressurizedat 800-1,20O.psi, and operated at ambient

temperatures. The entire pipeline will be buried at a minimum

depth of three feet with several aerial river crossings

anticipated. Both summer and winter construction are proposed

during, the anticipated three-year construction period. Cook

Inlet would be crossed by two, 20 inch pipelines separated by

1,000 feet (Dow-Shell Progress Report No.'s 2-4).

3. Petrochemical complex

Terminal facilities would be constructed at or near the

petrochemical site. They would include hydrocarbon separation

facilities; storage for ethane, propane, butane, pentane and

highers;' petrochemical plant product storage for both liquid and

packaged products; and ship loadi ng facilities.

At the pipel'ine terminal a fractionation plant will separate the

NG Ls into various components thus supplying ethane to an olefin

plant with the remainder for use as petroleum ga ses. The basic

production unit would be a world scale olefins plant.with a

ca pacity to produce one billi on pounds of ethylene and 350

million pounds of propylen e per year. Ethylene is the principle

raw material for the manufacture of polyethylene, ethylbenzene,

ethyl.ene dichloride, and ethylene glycol. The type and quantity

of products to be produced in derivative plants are listed in

Table 1.

To manufacture many of the products, additional chemical

reagents, such as benzene, will need to be refined elsewhere in

Alaska or imported. In the manufacture of ethylbenzene, 7,800

barrels of benzene per day will be require d. Quantities of other

chem icals, such as chlorine to manufacture ethylene.dichloride,

are not currently identified..

The petrochemical complex will provide a foundation for numerous

satellite industries. The Fairbanks area is the proposed site of

a wo rld scale methanol plant and a styrofoam industry. Other

industries include the production of chlorine, benzene, caustic

soda, and ammonia urea.

The energy system for the petrochemical complex may include a gas
turbine power system fueled with medium BTU gas from coal,.or
direct burning of coal. Other utility requirements for the

facility are given in Table 2.

Table 1. Products Being Studied
(Dow-Shell Progress- Report No. 6.)

Phase I Phase II

PRODUCT MILLION LBS/YR PRODUCT MILLION-LBS/YR

EthyTene 1,500 Ethylene 1,500
LPG (minimum 4,800 LPG(balance) 1,500
EthyTbenzene 1,874 Caustic Soda Solution. 1,150
EthyTeneGlycol 750 Ethylene Dichloride 700
Ammonia 950: Ethylenelycol 600
PoTyethyl'ene 400 Alpha Olefins Light 40
Urea Prills 1,280 Alpha Olefins. (2 grades) 360
Benzene 1,400 Polyethylene 200
Methanol, 4,000
Styrofoam. under study

Tablow Z Estimated Utility- Requirements
Oow-Shell. Petrochemical Cowlex
(Oow-Shell Progresz@ Report No- 4.)

Utility Phase. I Phase I r Total Phase r and rr

Steaur (Ibs/hr@-. (30, 90, 150, 179, 200,350,
475, 900, 1,200 psi)
Low, (30-50 Psi) 15090ca-200,000 250100C 450',000
Inter:(ISO-20.G psi) S-10001 240,000 250,00a
High (3sa-900 qsi)z z3a'OM 230,000
other 1317,00(t. at 900, psi 40,00a at. L.200 psi 170,000

TOTAL SOMOO

Power 70@@ ft, 155 MW 225 M,

Condensate 10 to- 100. z0a 210
(rewi red) (required)

Oemineralized
Water 315'
(gpml

Soi I er Feed
Water
(gpm)

Coo I i ng- Water 34(79000 S001000
(gpm) recirculation- rate: rscirculation@ rate recircuTati=rate
make, up, (estimated) make up Cestimated) make@ up@ (estimated)
64800- 13,500 1,200 5.400 10,000 20,000

Patadle Water 100, 300
(.g;m) 6a process ZSG-process 300 process

Other Water 15,000: Fire@ Peak 15,00C Fire 15,000 Peak,

Natural Gas 3-7' 1 S.S.
(SlITion, 3TU-hr)-

Air (SCF-M) 7,500 LOW
each partl ci pant (plus ShelT (plus-Shell) (plus Shell)

Mi trogen, 75,000 25,000, 100-4M.
SC F@f 100,OM peak 60*000, Peak@ 166,56a Peak

The petrochemical complex and the gas liquids pipeline would

require four years to construct. An average of 2,500 workers

would.be employed during the construction of the main plant and

another 2,500-3,000 workers would be required for pipeline

construction. A permanent work force of 700-900 workers would be

required for the petrochemical complex and an additional 250

would be needed to operate the liquids pipeline.

SECTION II

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES"AT PROPOSED TIDEWATER PETROCHEMICAL SITES

Resource Identification

Existing fish and wildlife resource data.have been assembled for each

of the five proposed tidewater sites. The sixth potential site at

Fairbanks (Bonanza Creek) was omitted from this evaluation because

specific information-on the development of this site was not availa ble

at:the time this report was prepared. It is the Department's

understanding,that only a portion of the complex could be located at

Fairbanks.and the remainder would need to be placed at tidewater. It

has also been suggested that selection of the Fairbanks site would--

require that al'l products be shipped by railroad to a tidewater site
..(Dow-Shell Progress,Reports 1-7).,

The resources considered in this section are those which could be

impacted by the proposed petrochemical industry, despite their

relative distances from the actual Project site. Since the marine

ecosystem provides a more dynamic environment for the transport of

petrochemical pollutants than terrestrial areas, marine resources are

given a much broader coverage. In some situations, fish and wildlife

survey or harvest data only exists. for,large units. of land which

inctude, but are not specific to a proposed site.

The information provided for each.site summarizes the major resource

values of thearea, as existing information is very'limited at several
of the proposed sites. Major emphasis has been placed on fishery. and

marine resources.for our re view of*this industry has indicated that

these resources will recei ve themajor im pacts. The summarized data

for each site has been compared and assigned a numerical value. A

rating of the tidewater-sites.with respect to identified resource

values appears at the end of this section in Table 6.

1. Commercial and subsistence fisheries

Uppex Cook Inlet Sites (Kenai/Nikiski Pt. MacKenzie, Fire
Island) Upper Cook Inlet is the dominant salmon production area

of Cook Inlet accounting for 78 percent-of the total area

commercial salmon catch since 1960. Cook Inlet salmon catches

average 7.5 percent of the annual Alaska production (1960-1980).

Sockeye sa.lmon dominate the commercial harvest with an average
annual catch of 1.2 million fish (42%). The average contribution

of other salmon species includes: pink 901,047 (52%), chum
607,814 (35%), coho 221,521 (12%), and king 10,754 (1%).

The average.catch for all species during 1976-1980 is 4.4 million

salmon having-an average market value of 20.5 million dollars.

Sockeye salmon have an average annual, value of 4.4 million

dollars, or 56% of the total catch value. The even year average

for pink salmon is 1.5 million dollars,,and the combined yearly

average is.1.3 million dol-lars. The annual chum salmon value is

1.3 million dollars.

In the Central and North districts of Upper Cook Inlet commercial

salmon fishing is presently restricted to drift and set gill net

gear only and.primarily harvests stocks of-salmon bound for river
systems north of Anchor Point. B;th drift and set gill net gear

is.allowed at Nikiski, whereas only set net gear is allowed at

Pt.. MacKenzie and Fire Island.

Although all five species of salmon may be found in Cook Inlet

simultaneously, each.species has a norm al period of occurrence.

An early king salmon run can be expected during late May with the

peak run occu.rring in mid-June. Sockeye salmon appear in early

June and peak the third week of July. The early run of pink
salmon peaks during July-12-17 and,the later run peaks during
July 26-August 6. Chum salmon run timing varies greatly from

year to year;, however runs usually peak from July 18-24, and,

correspond to.the peak abundance of coho salmon. The timing of

adult and juvenile salmon migrations for Upper Cook Inlet is

summarized in Table 3.

A commercial herring set net fishery exists in Upper Cook Inlet
and along beaches in the Nikiski area.' Annua 1 harvest over the
last five years (1975-80) at Nikiski has averaged ten tons with a

market value of $3,000..00. In 1979, 190 tons of herring were

harvested in Central Cook Inlet by drift and set gillnet
fishermen. No commercial shellfishery exists in Upper Cook Inlet

waters. A commercial halibut fishery exists at Ninilchik

approximately 35 miles south of the Kenai-Nikiski site. A

Table;- 3., Salmon Run-Timing, Upper Cook Inlet

King Salmon
Adul ts.
Enter Freshwater May 15 Aug. 10
Actua-T Spawn-ing, July 20, Aug. 10

Juveniles.
Outmfgration, Out, byf mid-Aug.ust

Sockeye Salmon
Adults
Enter Freshwater- May 20 Aug. 15
Actua-l Spawning July 15 Nov. 10

Juvenfles:
Outmigratiom. Out by July I

Coha Sa.Tmon:
Adul ts
Enter Freshwater Ju,.Ty 25 Nov. 10
AttuaT Spawnfng Sept. 10 Feb. 1

Juveniles
Outmigratfon Out by mid-July

Pink- SATmon:
Adu-l,ts-
Enter Freshwater 'June 21-August -15
ActuaT Spawnfng July 10-Sept. I

Juveniles
Outmtgrati.on: April 15-June-7

Chum Salmon-
Adults
Enter Freshwater July I-Sept. 1
Actua-l Spawning August I-Oct.-l

Juveniles
Outmigration April 15-July 7

28,

special subsistence fishing'season. for salmon occurs at Tyonek in

Upper Cook Inlet.

Port Valdez - The.@Valdez region is an important commercial

fishing area in Prince William Sound. The average annual catch

for all salmon s.pecies in the Eastern District of Prince William

Sound (which includes Valdez Arm and Port Valdez) is four million

fish (1976-80). The.1980 value for three major species in the
commercial -catch was $4,860,000 for pink salmon, $678,000 for
chum,salmon,, and $49,000 for red salmon. These figures represent

approximately 45 percent.of the total commercial harvest value in

Prince William Sound. Small numbers of king and coho salmon are

also harvested by commercial fishermen each year,.but their
combined value has not exceeded $10,000 (1976-80).

The herring sac.roe fishery is the major herring fishery of

Prince William Sound with a major effort of both gillnet and

seine in the Northern District and Valdez Arm. An important

herring fishery for bait and food exists along the outer

shoreline of Valdez Arm. Permits for herring fishing in this

area were last issued in 1977 when the annual catch was worth

$1,375,000. Herring sac roe and spawn on kelp are also harvested

near the mouth of Valdez Arm. A commercial kelp fishery exists
on the east side of Valdez Am and in.Galena'Bay. The average

annual harvest of kelp is 200-250 tons (1976-79) with a

commercial value of approximately $200,000.

Tanner crab are the only shellfish species commercially harvested

in Valdez Arm. The fishing effort primarily occurs at the mouth

,of Valdez Arm. Subsistence fishing in Port Valdez is summarized

in Table 5.

Se@/Resurrection Bay - The commercial salmon fishery in

Resurrect@ion Bay is limited to purse seining for pink and chum

salmon. The 1980 pink salmon catch in Resurrection Bay was
156,763fish valued at $159,657. The 27 year (1954-80) average

annual catch for pink salmon is 19,743 fish, and for chum salmon,
1,395 fish.. Principal salmon fishing.areas in Resurrection Bay

are Humpy Cove, Thumb Cove, and the mouth.of Fourth of July

Creek. Pink and chum salmon enter freshwater systems from

Resurrection Bay during mid-July, and peak spawning occurs during

the month of August.

A commercial fishery also exists for halibut, herring, and Tanner

crab. Subsistence fishing in-Resurrection Bay is summarized in

Table 4.

2. Sport fishery.

Kenai-Nikiski Large runs of king, coho, and sockeye salmon

enter the Kenai River each year. The Kenai River system supports

one of the highest levels of sport fishing effort in Alaska.

Anglers have. expended an average of 159,148 man-days and

harvested approximately 7,000 king salmon per year (1977-1980).

Table 4, Subsistence Fishing in Seword4esurrection Bay
(Stratton, 1901)
Resource Percent Households HARVEST Percent Households Y$F
Subsistence Resource Subsistence Resource
25-49% 50-74%. 75% or more 25-49% 50-74% '75% or more

FISH

,King Salmon x
Silver Salmon x
Red Salmon x
Pink Salmon x
Black Bass x
Dolly Vorden X.
Halibut x
Hooligan
Fish Eggs x

CRAB

King Crab 9
Tanner Crab 9.

SHELLFISH

Razor Clams
Shrimp X,

Table 5. Subsistence Fishing in Volde;
(Stratton, 1981)

Rosoorce Percent Households US
Percent Households HARVEST
Subsistence Resource Subsistence Resource
25-49i 50-74% 75% or more 25-49% 50-74% 75% or more

FISH

King 441mpn
Silver Salm x
Red a O" x
Im
Chum Salmon x
Pink Salmo
Ool Vor0en x
Fis"
b Eggs Winfor-
[la) Out, MatIQn
x
Lake Trout
Red Sna x
pper

SHELLFISH

Butter Clams x
Ro?or Clams x
Oungene5s Clams
King Crab
x
Tanner Crab x
.Shrimp
x

The majority of the recreational king salmon harvest occurs in
the mainstem Kenai River, and in saltwater along the lower Kenai

Peninsula shoreline.

TheKenai River sockeye salmon runs also support an active sport

fishery., The most heavily fished tributary is the Russian River,'

a clear water tributary'of the Kenai River. An average of 50,000

sockeyefrom both early and late runs are taken from this river

annually.

Razor clam beaches south of Kenai provide a heavily utilized

sport fishery resour ce.. The razor clam sport harvest from Kenai

Peninsula beaches was 771,693 clams in-1980, and has averaged

846,4 69 annually (1979-1980). The man-day effort for razor clams

has consistently,increased each year si-nce 1971.. The east side

Cook Inlet beaches are currently the most heavily used sport

shel'l -fishery in the State.

Land locked salmon (cohos and sockeyes), lake trout, rainbow

trout, grayling,,and Dolly Varden are common in lakes throughout

the area and subject to sportfishing effort. There are several

stockedlakes in the Niki'ski a rea including Cabin Lake, Bernice

Lake,. Island Lake, and Stormy Lake.

P't. MacKenzie-Fire Island - The Pt. MacKenzie and Fire Island

sites currently support the lowest level of sport fishing.effort.

However, salmon stocks which spawn in Upper Cook Inlet streams

migrate along the beaches at-these sites. Eulachon (hooligan)

spaw.n in, numerous Upper Cook Inlet streams during May and early

June and aresubject to locally intensive sport fishing effort.

Upper,Cook Inlet streams also support an active sport fishery for

king, coho,. and.pink salmon. It is probable that salmon stocks

bound for the Sus itna River, Little Susitna River, Knik River,

Fish Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Was.illa Creek, and othe r important

sport fishing drainages in Turnagain and Kn*Arm, occur in the

Pt. MacKenzie-Fire Island area. Juvenile salmonids from Upper

Cook.Inlet streams. may also occur in the area. Land.locked coho

salmon, rainbow trout, grayling, burbot, and Dolly Varden are

fished in freshwater lakes throughout the Matanuska-.@Susitna

Valley.

Port Valdez A valuable sport fishery exists in the Valdez area.

A creel census taken in 1980 indicated that sport fishermen

fished 18,707 days in Port Valdez and caught 11,606 pink salmon,

5,545 coho salmon, 923 chum salmon, 568 sockeye salmon, and 121

king salmon. A'sport fishery also exists for marine fish

including greenling, halibut,,sole, rockfish, and sculpins.

King, Tanner, and dungeness crab are harvested by sport fishermen

throughout the area.

Seward The saltwater sport salmon fishery at Seward is one of

the largest and most intensively managed sport fishery.in the

North-Central Gulf of Alaska. In 1980, Bear Lake and the State

fish hatchery at Seward contributed an average of 23% of the coho

-1 A

salmon,caught by sport fishermen.. This hatchery produces over

100,000 coho smolts annually. The Seward Lagoon is also a major

production area for smolts. Coho salmon account for about 80% of

the seasonal sport salinon catch which averages 1.6,300 fish per
year (1977-'80). During 1980, 20,981 coho,,13,292 pink, and 150

king sa1mon were harvested by sport fishermen in Seward. In

addition to salmon, Dolly Varden, halibut, rockfish, ling cod,

flounder,. hooligan, shrimp, and crab are also harvested.

3. Anadromous streams

Kenai/Nikiski. - The Kenai River is located about eight miles

South of Nikiski and is the most important anadromous stream in

the area. The Kenai River sockeye salmon-escapement in 1980 was

over 373,000 fish, making it.the largest sockeye salmon system in

Cook Inlet. No king.salmon escapement figures are available for

the Kenai River, but substantial numbers of king salmon spawn in

the Kenai River drainage. The average size of the late run of

king salmon caught in the Kenai, River is among the largest in the

State. The Kenai River also supports anadromous runs of c'oho and

pink salmon and Dolly Varden.

Bishop Creek,-located approximately ten miles to the north of

Nikiski, supports a run of sockeye salmon. Swanson River,

located 15 miles north of the site, supports runs of both pink

and coho sa.lmon. All of the rivers provide important juvenile

salmon rearing habitat..

Pt.. M=Kenzie No anadromous streams are located directly

adjacent to the proposed site. The Susitna and Little Susitna

rivers located.several miles to-the west of Pt. MacKenzie,

support five species of salmon as well as Dolly Varden. Fish

Creek,. an important sockeye and coho salmon stream, is located 12

miles north of'the-site. Sockeye salmon escapement in Fish Creek

during 1980 was 63,000 fish, and coho escapement was 9,000 fish.

Adult salmon stocks-bound for both of these important spawning

systems pass through the Pt. MacKenzie-Fire Island areas. Other

anadromous:streams in the Knik Arm system include Eagle River,

Peters Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Ship Creek, Wasilla Creek and its

tributaries, Knik River, and the Matanuska River.

Port Valdez - In Prince William Sound, salmon spawning is

extremely widespread and no single stream or system plays a

dominant role in salmon production. At least 41 anadromous fish

streams have been identified within Port Valdez.

Siwash Creek and Lowe River are the major salmon producing

streams in Port Valdez with average odd year escapements of

22,000 and 15.,000 pink salmon respectively. The Robe River

drainage is also a major producer with annual runs of 5,000

sockeye and 2,500 coho salmon. Major areas of the Robe River

system used for spawning include Lower Corbin Creek, Robe Lake,

and Brownie Creek.

Other anadromous tributaries to eastern Port Valdez include

Crooked Creek (pink and chum salmon spawning), Abercrombie Gulch
Creek (chum and coho spawning),, Solomon Gulch Creek (intertidal

pink spawning),.Allison Creek (intertidal pink spawning), and

Airport Creek (pink salmon spawning)., While no indigenou's stocks

of king salmon exist in the area, immature king salmon frequent

shallow subtidal areas in Port Va.ldez throughout the summer.

Seward At least 16 anadromous fish streams have been identified

in the northern end of Resurrection Bay. The Resurrection River

and its tributaries represent the major area utilized by coho

salmon stocks in the Bay. Humpy Creek is, an important pink

salmon producer and supports 5,000 to 6,000 salmon during even

years. Fourth of July Creek supports runs of pink, coho, and

chum salmon and is. one of the.more important spawning streams in

Upper Resurrection Bay. Spring Creek supports a small run of

pink salmon (500 to 1,000 fish). Most streams in Resurrection

Bay support runs of Dolly Varden and eulachon. With the

exception of Resurrection River, freshwater habitat available to

spawning salmon is limited by small, steep 'and generally

unproductive watersheds that ate drained by very short streams.

Fire Island - No anadromous streams have currently been

identified.on Fire I sland..-@ However, fishery stocks enroute to

streams@ at the head of Tu.rnagain and Knik Arm pass along the

shorelines of Fire Island.

4. Other fishes

Kenai./Nikiski. Other-finfish occurring in marine waters adjacent

to the Nikiski site include prickleback, eulachon, tom cod,

bering cisco, greenling, lamprey,.Paci fic cod, snail fish,

sculpin, capelin, and sandlance (Bucher, 1976). Small species of

pelagic schooling fish (capelin and sandlance) feed on plankton

resources and are known to be important food for marine mammals,

fish species, and birds.

Pt. MacKenzie/Fixe Island - Resident fish populations in the Pt.

MacKenzie-Fire Island region are assumed to be low because of

severe environmental conditions and low primary and secondary

productivity. Juvenile herring and halibut have been reported in

Knik Arm (Jacksm, 1970). Demersal fish, including starry

flounder, Pacific tom cod, and lemon sole are found in small

numbers. Other fish that are present seasonally include Dolly*

Varden, eulachon, stickleback,,and humpback whitefish (Tetra

Tech, 1,977).

Port valdez The outer shorelines of Valdez Arm are a major

spawning area for Pacific herring. Demersal fish within Port

Valdez incl ude greenling, sole, rockfish, halibut and sculpins.

Large numbers of several' bottomfish species are present. in Port

Valdez.

Seward/Resurrection Bay Marine-bottomfish of greatest

commercial and sport fishing value in Resurrection Bay include

rockfish, sole, and halibut.- Other dem ersal fish present include

starry flounder, Pacific tom cod, lemon sole, greenling, an d

sculpin. Rainbow:trout and Dolly Varden populations exist in

most streams draining into upper Resurrection Bay and at Bear

Lake and other small lakes north of Seward.

5. Marine invertebrates'

Kenai/Nikiski -Compared to the Valdez and Seward sites,

invertebrate biomass at Nikiski is low.. Twenty-six species of

marine invertebrates have been identified at Nikiski including

gastropod snails, clams,. amphipods,,crabs,.isopods, and starfish

(Hood et-al., 1969; Jackson, 1978). Mudflats characterize much

of the beach habitat at the Nikiski site. The intertidal mud

flats support assemblages of polychaetes, clams, and other

infaunal invertebrates. Water-borne detritus represents a large

percentage of the diet of filter feeding intertidal invertebrates

on beaches south of Kenai.

The invertebrate populations serve as an important food source

for other marine species. Sea ducks and starry flounder move

over theflats during high tide to feed on clams and mussels.

Migrating birds rest on the flats and feed on worms, clams, and

small meiofaunal organisms. During spring,,out-4igrating salmon

fry, forage over the flats for insect larvae and meiofaunal

crustaceans. Harborseals frequent the mudflats at high tide to
feed.on'starry flounder and salmon.

Pt. MacKe=ie/Fire Island - The least productive invertebrate

habitat occurs. at the Pt. MacKenz-ie and Fire Island sites. Only

-11 species of marine invertebrates have currently been

identified. Invertebrate@populations are limited in diversity

and abundance due'to the high sedimentation rates, high

turbidity, rapid curr ents, ice sco ur, and flu ctuating salinities.

Port Valdez - Over@70 species of marine invertebrates have been

identified.in Port Valdez.. This site has a high diversity and

abundance of invertebrates because of the increased salinities,

increased primary productivity., and greater habitat diversity.

The rocky, intertidal habitat is characterized by barnacles,

mussels, limpets, sea stars, clams, and crabs. Intertidal

mudflat habitat is characterized by high populations of

polychaetes, clams, and infaunal invertebrates.

The abundant intertidal and subtidal invertebrate populations are

of vital significance to other marine life in Port-Valdez. They

are heavily used by shorebirds and waterfowl. Intertidal

shellfish resources are als o harvested by local residents
(primarily butter clams, littlenecks, and horse clams). Halibut,

king,,and Tanner crab, sea otters, and harbor seals have a diet
consisting of a large percentage of infaunal o'r.epifaunal

invertebrates.

Seward/Resurrection E@ay Resurrection Bay also has a high

diversity of intert idal and subtidal habitats, and contains a

wide diversity and abundance of marine invertebrates. Marine

invertebrates present in the highest density include: nine

famil'ies-and,over 50 species of Annelidae; two families and 20

species of Mollusca; five families and 15 species of Arthropoda;

and six species of Echinoderm,ata (Feder et al., 1979).

Sizable mussel beds are located at.the head of Resurrection Bay.

The flats also contain high densities of the small clam, Mac oma

balthica. Clams and.musse.Is provide critical food for.wintering

seabird and w aterfowl populations, fish species, and sea otters.

The'rich supply of amphipod.s, euphausiids, larval crustaceans,
and forage fish in Resurrection Bay provide a rich food supply

for whales and other marine mammals, salmon, and birds. High

concentrations of pelagic invertebrates often determine the

distribution of feeding fish, birds, and mammalswithin

Resurrection Bay.

6. Marine mammals

Kenai/Nikiski Harbor seals,'belukha whales, killer whales,

harbor porpoise, sea lions,'and rarely walrus,. occur in the

Kenai-Nikiski area. Harbor seals and belukha whales are the most

abundant marine mammals-in Upper Cook Inlet (Calkins, 1980).

From May through September, harbor seals occur in highest numbers

in Upper Cook Inlet and frequently-enter the Kenai and other

river systems. Seal movements into Upper Cook Inlet coincide

with movements of anadromous prey species.of fish such as

eulachon and salmon (Calkins, 1980). Timing of-key life history
events for harbor seals in' Cook Inlet are as follows: pupping

May 25 to June 25; nursing May 25 to July 15; breeding

June 15 to July 20; molting late June to early October.

The;Cook Inlet belukha.whale population has been estimated at 300

to 400 (Calkins, 1980). Sighting data from 1976-1979 confirm

that belukhas are present during all seasons (Calkins,.1980).

There-is little information currently available on the seasonal

use of,specific.habitats in Cook Inlet. Large river estuaries in

the northwest Inlet are the primary concentration areas. The

preferred food of the belukha in Cook, Inlet during the summer
-appears to be osmerids and sa.lmonid.-s (Calkins, 1980).

Pt. MacKenzie and Fire.Island - Belukha whales, harbor seals,. and

rarely, northern sea lions are recorded i n the region. Beluga

whale concentrations are found near the mouth of the Susitna

River and throughout Knik Arm during July and early August. Use

of the Pt. MacKenzie and Fire Island areas by other marine

mammals is very limited.

Port Valdez- Marine mammals kn own to occur in,the area include

harbor seals, sea ott ers, harbor porpoise,. killer whales,

humpback whales, and minke.whales. Harbor seals are the most

abundant marine mammal in Port Valdez, and haul out areas
(offshore rocks, sandbars, and beaches) exist throughout the

Port. Harbor seals are widely distributed in Port Valdez and no

specific concentration sites1have been identified (Pitcher and

Calkins, 1979). Harbor seals normally occupy areas in close

proximity to the coast where they feed on herring, cod,flounder,

smelt, rockfish,.sculpin,, and salmon.

Sea otters occur throughout Port Valdez and occupy near shore

areas with reefs and rocky shoals. Their d.iet.consists of bottom

dwelling invertebrates and fish. Peak breeding and pupping

occurs. during spring, but can occur throughout, the year. Sea

otters are-notmigratory and major activities-such as feeding,
resting, breeding, and pupping.all' occur within the same general

area (Calkins, 1980).

Harbo r porpoise, humpback whales, killer whales, and minke whales

range-throughout Prince William Sound and frequently enter Valdez

Am in search of food.

Harbor porpoise usually occupy shallow areas where they feed on
small fish (Calk ins, 1980) and are easily disturbed by boat

traffic. Humpback, minke, and killer whales are migratory and

are present in Prince William Sound from April to December.

Current andpropo sed petrochemical developments in Port Valdez

will require an increased knowledge of the ecology, distribution,

and abundan ceof marine mammals.

Seward - Marine mammals occurring in Resurrection Bay include

harbor seals,.sea lions, sea otters, Dall and harbor porpoise,

and humpba&,. grey, minke, killer, and fin whales.

Haul! out and intensively used habitats for harbor seals in

Resurrection Bayioccur at Bear Glacier (70 animals, August 1976).,.

Cheval Island (200 animals, August 1976), and at Pony Cove (40
animals, August 1976) (Pitcher and Calkins, 1979). Major prey of

harbor seals in Resurrection Bay are walleye pollock, octopus,

capelin,,herring, and Pacific cod-(Pitcher and Calkins, 1979).

Sea lion haul out sites exist at Rugged Island where 215 animals
were censused in March 1976, Seal Rocks haul out (630 animals in

March 1976), and Chiswell Islands (over 4,000 animals in March

1976) (Calkins and Pitcher, 1981). These haul out sites receive

maximum use during the winter. Sea lions feed primarily on
pollock and cephalopods (Calkins an d Pitcher, 1981).

Sea otters are very common in areas around the Seward boat harbor

and at the mouth of Fourth of July Creek.. Sea otters remai n in

these areas throughout the year and do not migrate unless food

becomes scarce.

Baleen whale species which occur in Resurrection Bay are usually

solitary, but congregations may occur in areas-of abundant food.
.These whales feed primarily on small, schooling fish-(cod,
pollock,.capelin) and crustaceans, and may approach close to

shore while feeding.

7. Terrestrial mammals

Kenai/NikisU - The primary big game animals in the Kenai area

are caribou, moose, brown-bear, and black bear. The Kenai

lowlands caribou herd numbers between 65-80 animals and was

established from transplanting conducted in 1965. The calving

grounds of this herd border the east side of the Wildwood-site.

The caribou winter east of the Salamatof Lakes region. Because

th,is herd is accessible from the road system it-is a local

tourist attraction and is used for viewing and photography. In

1981, the Board of Game authorized a limited permit hunt for'up

to five animals.

Moose populations are high in areas adjacent to the site and a

small number reside in the North Kenai area throughout the year.

Winter concentrations occur around Daniels Lake and Bishop Creek.

The annual sport hunting harvest of moose in Unit 15A (Kenai

area) averages 176 animals (1978-81). The moose population in

Unit 15A is currently estimated at 3,000 animals. Nonconsumptive

use, is also high and many tourists,actively seek. moose during the

summer months.

Black bears and brown bears are widely distributed throughout the

Kenai area. Black bears are relatively common and hunting is

very popular in the Kenai' area. The annual hunter harvest
averages.25 bears in Unit 15A (1978-1980). Black bears are also

available for viewing and..photography during spring and late

fall. Increases-in human population and accompanying urban

sprawl have resulted in bear-human conflicts and an increase in

the-number of "'defense oil life.and property" ki,llings.

Other mammals.present in th e Kenai area include wolves, land

otter,. beaver,. mink,. coyotes, marten, wolverine, lynx, muskrat,

hare, and pocupine.

Pt. MacKenzie/Fire Island -M ammals most abundant in the Pt.

MacKenzie area include mink, weasel, muskrat, beaver, land otter,

marten, moose, black bearii. lynx, hare, red fox, coyote,

porcupine, wolf,. and wolverine..

Winter concentrations of moose exist throughout the Pit. MacKenzie

area and important.calv,ing areas exist to the west along the

Little Susitna River. The annual sport hunting kill of moose in

Unit 14A (including Pit. MacKenzie) averages 334 animals

(1978-1981).

There are abundant beaver and land otter populations in the area.

These species;are of substantial economic value-t6 area fur

trappers. Clear-cut logging and construction of transportation

and utility corridors.have had detrimental effects,on furbearers

north of the proposed site..

A total of 18 moose@were-censused on Fire Island in.1980 (FAA,

pers- comm.). In,1909,, an Executive Order by the U.S.

Government,. declared the Island a reserve and breeding ground for

moose. The moose.reserve status was withdra wn in 1921 when the

Island became a military reservation.

Other mammals present onFire Island include mink, weasel,

muskrat, land otter, and beaver.

Port Valdez - The vicinity of Valdez Arm and Port Valdez provides

some of the best black bear hab itat in the State. Beach fringes

andtidal meadows are heavily used by black bears during spring

and summer. Freshwater streams which support large runs of

salmon are:also heavily used by black bears during the summer.,-
The annual hunterharvest of black bears in Unit 6D (including

Port Valdez) averages 73 animals (1978-1980). Brown bears also

range throughout the Valdez'area and utilize coastal habitats

during salmon runs.

Sitka black-tailed deer and mountain goats often winter along the

beach during periods of,heavy snowfall. A small population of

mountain goats occupy the lower 25 miles of the Lowe River

Valley.

Other locall y abundant mammals occurring in the Port Valdez area

include.coyotes, marten, mink, land otter,, and weasel. Beaches

and intertidal zones are key habitat areas for many of these

species.

Seward -Moose areAistributed throughout the Resurrection Bay

area, but populations are low compared to other areas of the

Kenai Peninsula. A winter concentration area for moose extends

north from the City of Sewardto Bear Lake and east across the

Fourth of July Creek. The annual hunter harvest of moose in Unit

7 (including.the Seward area) averages 45 animals (1978-1981).

Black bears are abu ndant,throughout Resurrection Bay and most

river drainages provide excellent black bear habitat. The

1.978-1980 harvest of black bears in Unit 7 has averaged 78

animals. Brown bears also frequent coastal habitat near the

mouth, of Resurrection Bay during the s.ummer salmon runs.

Mountain goats are distributed along the east slopes of the

Harding Ice Field and utilize coastal areas during winter and

areas above Fourth of July Creek in summer. Other mammals inthe

Seward area include mink, weasel, beaver, land otter, lynx,

coyote, and hare.

8. Birds

Kenai/Nikiski. Important bird habitat in the area includes tidal

flats,,-and freshwater lakes, streams, and marshes. Bird

AJQ

populations are at their highest densities during spring

migratory periods. (mid-April through mid-May) when many species

are in the.Konai area for resting and feeding. The most.

important areas incl'ud,e the tidal marshes at the mouth of the

Kenai River... Migratory waterfowl present in highest numbers

include mallards,:p.intails,,widgeon., snow geese, and Canada

geese. Sandhill' cranes.remain to nest on the Kenai marshes and
the'wetlands adjacent to the site. Lyngbyaei sedge and arrow

grass are a primaryfoo d of waterfowl on the Kenai fl'ats.

Other,waterfowl. habitat'sloccur adjacent to the Kenai s.ite and

include lakes and ponds@@Used by trumpeter swans, scaup,

goldeneye,,, pinta-il, and mallards. Several raptorial species
(hawks., owls, eagles,,a:nd falcons) are present in the area. Bald

eagles,inhabi.t areas adjacent,to the Kenai and Swanson Rivers.

One hundred forty-six species of birds have been recorded within

the Kenai, National Wildlife Refuge which adjoins the Kenai Site

(USFWS, 1968).

Pt. fv%cKenzie/Fire Islancl - Important bird.habitats in the Pt.

MacKenzie area include tidal flats at the Goose Bay and Susitna

River State game refuges,,and-freshwater lakes, ponds, and

rivers.. Coastal waterfowl nesting areas within the Goose Bay and

Susitna Refuges average 75 breed-ing,birds per square mile, and

inland areas at Pt. MacKenzie average 15 birds-per square mile.

Waterfowl- species nesting in highest numbers include Canada

geese,, pintails, mallards, andigreen-winged teal.

The Susitna Flats State.Game Refuge to the west of the site is

one of the most important waterfowl staging and breeding areas in,

the Cook-Inlet Basin. Estimated spring and fall waterfowl use of

the Susitna:Refuge exceeds 150,000 ducks,.50,000.geese, and,

10,000 swans annually.. Numbers of waterfowl nesting on the flats

exceed 6,000 annually, including ducks, ge ese, and trumpeter

swans. An average of 14 percent of the annual waterfowl harvest

in Alaska occurs on the Susitna Flats making it the number one

harvest area-in the State.

Shorebirds which are.most common and nest in the Pt. MacKenzie

area include least sandpipers, greater and lesser yellowlegs, and

semi-palmated plovers.

Interti'dal areas on the south e.nd of Fire Island and upland ponds

are used by shorebirds and waterfowl during the spring and fall

migrations. Upland ponds are frequently used for nesting.by

trumpeter swans and other waterfowl (FAA, pers.'comm.). No

information exists.on- other bird populations resident during the

summer.

Po&- Val&z - Port Valdez provides important habitat for large

concentrations of non-breeding waterfowl and shorebirds which

utilize intertidal habitats throughout the year and are dependent

upon ice-free waters during winter mon ths. Approximately 70

species overwinter in this region including mall-a rd; greater

scaup;.common and Barrow's goldeneye; bufflehead; oldsquaw;

harlequin; white-wing, surf, and common scoter; common and

red-breasted mergansers; and Canada geese. During winter, large

numbers of shorebirds including rock sandpipers, dunlin,

surfbird, black turnstone, and black oystercatchers are found

along the rocky shores and intertidal zone. The most important

bird habitat in Port,Valdez includes the Island Flats area on the.

northeast end of the Port (Hogan and Colgate,- 1980). This area

is, the largest salt marsh,in Valdez Arm and one of the largest

coastal marshes in Prince William Sound (Hogan and Colgate,

1980).

Shoup Bay on the northwest end of Port Valdez provides important

habitat to resident birds and contains the fourth largest

black-legged kittiwake colony in Prince William Sound (Hogan and

Colgate,.*1980Y. Thirteen bald.eagle nests exist in Port Valdez

and most salmon streams receive intensive,use by bald eagles

during,the summer and fall'. There are a total of.four Arctic

tern colonies and oneglaucous-wing gull colony in Port Valdez.

Seward - Major seabird colonies,in Resurrection Bay exist at

Barwell Island, Cape Resurrection, and the Chiswell Island s.

Nesting,species include common and thick-billed murres; pigeon

guillemots; horned and:tufted puffins; double crested, pelagic,

and red faced cormorants; fork-tailedstorm petrels; ancient,

marbled-, and Kittlitz's murrelets;, and parakeet auklets. The

average number of seabirds.on the ChiswelTIslands is 63, 000

birds, including over 30,000 breeding pairs, and on Res urrection

Bay Islands,, 24,000 @birds, including 10,000 breeding pairs

(Bailey, 1976). A black-legged kittiwake colony along Cape
Resurrection, accomodates 25,000 birds annually.

In addition to its@importanceto seabirds,.Resurrection Bay also

winters a substantia] number of waterfowl including, scoters,

mergansers, harlequin,.oldsquaw, common and Barrow's goldeneye,

and bufflehead.. No intensive winter population surveys have been
made.. Due to a lack of broad,tidal flats and deltas,
Resurrection Bay does not receive the heavy use by migrating

waterfowl and shorebirds which is common to the Upper Cook Inle t

sites.

9,.-. Primary productivity

Kend/Niki ski. - Although no quantitative data exists on primary

productivity at the Nikiski site, productivity is relatively low

compared to. the Seward or Valdez sites. A valuable salt marsh

ecosystem exists along.-the Kenai.River flats eight.miles south of

the site. The Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska

(Hood et al., 1968; Rosenburg et al., 1969) has documented 65

species of zooplankton and arthropods,,and 34 spec-ies of diatoms I

at Nikiski.. Important members of this group include jellyfishes,

ctenophores, pelag-.ic molluscs, polychaetes, copepods and other

crustaceans, echinoderm larvae, and.fish larvae.

Zooplankton graze on phytoplankton and enriched detritus. These

animals provide the first link in the mari.ne.fbod web and are a,

source of food to higher,trophic levels.. Zooplankton.also

provide an-important food*source to fish, birds,, and benthic

animals.

Pt. MacKenzie/Fire Island - There have been no measurements.of

primary productivity in Knik Arm; however biological activity in

this ecosystem,is very low1compared to the other proposed sites.

The g1acially-derived sediments introduced into Knik Arm and

adjacent@waters severely restrict light penetration and limit the

photic.zoneand photosynthes:is to a very narrow surface l'ayer.

Jackson (1970) identified only ten taxa of diatoms during a

summer survey b f Knik Arm which indicates a very low diversity.

An annual growth of the' green alga, Vaucheria on tidal flats

contributes some primary productivity to the upper Inlet. Other

macrophyte populations can be expected to be small or nonexistent

due to.the absence of suitable attachment substrate, low
salinity, and winter i ce stress on the shallow environment.

Documented zooplankton diversity and abundance are equally low.

Jackson (1970) surveyed Knik Arm and found cladocerans, copepods,

protozoa, and rotifers to be the dominate species ofzooplan kton.

Coastal marshes@near the sites, including.Susitna Flats, Goose
Bay, Eagle.River Flats,, and the Pt. Campbell-Pt.,Woronzof area,

contribute substantially to the primary production. Mud-dwelling

invertebrates on these tidal flats are an important food source

for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds..

Port Valdez. The annual net spring primary productivity reported
in Valdez,Arm,(200g,C/m 2 year, which is therate of carbon uptake
in grams/meter 2), and PoftValdez (,150g C/m2 year) is slightly

higher than other inshore waters of similar latitude (Hood et

a.l.., 1973). Dinoflagellates (Ceratium, Peridinium, and Gonyaulax

sp.) are the most abundant phytoplankton in Port Valdez. The

introduction of silt-laden freshwater;tdnds to suppress.

phytoplankton growth during mid-summer.

Over 30 genera of zooplankton have been identified in Valdez Am

with calanoid copepods..the dominant species (Hood et al., 1973).

All shellfish within Port Valdez are planktonic during their-

early life history stage. The king and dungeness crabs, butter

and litt,len.eck-clams,.shrimp, and scallops all release larvae in

the shallow nearshore waters of Port Valdez. These larvae are

concentrated near the surface for up to three months-where they

feed on phytoplankton.

Eelgrass and kelp are abundant and important marine macrophytes

in Port Valdez, and form a distinct subtidal zone in bay and

inlets along Valdez Arm. They provide a valuable nursery area

for juvenile salmonids and many species of invertebrates, such as

crabs and shrimp, afford egg depositing substrate.for spawning

C A

herring, and Supply food for grazing invertebrate species which

are in turn eaten by waterfowl, fish, and marine mammals.

Seward Annual spring net primary productivity at two sites in
Resurrection Bay varied.between 22P and 285g C/m 2 (Heggie et.al..,

1975)., Phytoplankton and zooplankton levels are very high

compared to other systems.along.the outer Kenai Peninsula Coast

(Paul, pers. comm.), butsurvey data on individual spec ies and

their abundance is,not currently available. The ambient

phytoplankton blooms deplete dissolved nutrients within the

euphotic zone during the summer.

The relatively clear waters of Resurrection Bay allow for a high

Tevel of photosynthetic growth which results in enhanced

biological productiv-ity at all.trophic levels. Kelp and eel

grass are abundant in Resurrection Bay and reach peak,biomass

during spring and early summer. The high level of productivity

supports the abundant marine mammal and seabird populations which

exist in Resurrection Bay.

10. Ocean mixing and circulation

Kenai/Nikiski - The oceanography of the Kenai/Nikis-ki area has

been'studied by various investigators, primarily in relation to

the-Colli'er Chemical plant effluent. Dames and Moore's (197.6)

Environmental Impact Statement for the Collier plant addition is

the most recent summary of the available data. The EIS concludes

that due to the relatively strong tidal currents and mixing in

the Kenai/Nikiski area, the Collier effluent will be rapidly

mixed and dispersed. Average maximum tidal currents are two to

four knots, and the minimum estimated current speed for an

average tidal cycle is,0.5 knots. Tidal mixing in this area is

sufficient to prevent all but minor vertical stratification of

the water column.

Very limited drougue studies by the.University of Alaska
(Rosenberg et al., 1967 provided inconclusive evidence on the

net circu,lation. One set of drougues was carried in an onshore

direction, whereas a drogue from another set was carried

offshore. Local salmon drift-net fishermen have observed little

or no net surface circulation (movement of surface waters out of

the area) except during.periods.of relatively large tidal ranges
(spring tides) (Burbank, 19,77). This suggests that there is a

potential for accumulation of pollutants in the area,

particularly during periods of neap tides and low-freshwater

runoff.

Past research efforts in the Kenai/Nikiski area have largely

addressed the subject of mixing and dispersion of effluents in

the vicinity of the.dis-charge, although long-term accumulation of

various components of the Collier effluent such as ammonia,

nitrite, and nitrate, have also been.studied. No buildup-or

adverse.effects from the Collier effluent have been observed;

however the effluent components studied are relatively quickly

assimilated or absorbed into the natural system. Potentia 1

long-term accumulation of refractory or conservative pollutants

(pollutants such as phenols and heavy metals which persist in

their toxic state for rel'atively long.periods), is as yet, an

unanswered question.

The potential for synergistic effects (a biophysical effect,

resulting from the interaction of two or more pollutants, which

is greater than the sum of effects of each pollutant working

separately) will be greatly increased by the presence of

petrochemical effluents in the-area. Synergistic effects are

highly complex and.little understood, but are known to occur with

combinations of various effluent properties and constituents such

as temperature, sali,nity,.pH,. carbon dioxide,-organics,

hydrocarbons,. heavy metals, etc.. Other major industries or

municipal sources contrib uting to the potential cumulative

pollution and which may.-be sources for synergistic pollutants

are:

A., Standard'Refinery and Chugach Power Plant;

B. Tesoro Refinery;

C. Phillips-Marathon Liquification Facility;

D. Collier-Chemical Plant; and

E. Kenai and Soldotna sewage disposal.

What little-is known of the circulation in the area also suggests

that Kenai area pollutants may be carried south past the Clam

Gulch clam fishery (Burbank, 1977). In this case, relatively

small concentrations of heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and other

pollutants might,present a significant problem due to the

tendency of shellfish to bioaccumu,late toxic pollutants from

exceptionally low concentrations in their environment.

In.summary,.the:strong tidal mixing and,consequent rapid dilution
and dispersion .: of effluents discharged into nearshore marine

waters of the Kenai/Nikiski area will substantially reduce the

potential for adverse effects on the local marine resources.

However,. due ta-the lack of information concerning the net

circulation, and.flushing of the.receiving waters, there is a

significant, b.ut unknown potential for adverse cumulative

environmental effects in,the Kenai/Nikiski and Clam Gulch area.

Synergistic effects.from diverse industrial and municipal

effluents are also a possibility.

Pt.. MacKenzie and Fire Island - The oceanography of the Knik Arm

region has been studied by Murphy et al. (1972), Britch (1976),

Tetr& Tech (1977), and others. These studies were mostly

directed towards the Pt. Woronzof sewage treatment plant effects,

however much of this.information is thought to be applicable to

Pt.. MacKenzie and Fire.1sland.

Tidal currents are very strongin the Pt. MacKenzie/Pt. Woronzof

region, having normal maximums of three to four knots. Although

mixing is intense, some stratification of freshwater from Knik

Arm over the more saline Cook Inlet water-has been observed.

Nearshore eddies have been observed on either side of Pt.

Woronzof and ice movements indicate similar eddies develop on

both sides of Pt. MacKenzie (Bri:tch, 1976). These eddies would

contribute to retention and possible onshore-transport of

pollutants., Studies in the area however, generally indicate that

mixing.and dispersion due to tidal currents are highly efficient,

and high concentrations of pollutants should be rapidly diluted.

Net transport (f1ushing of pollutants out of the Knik Arm area)
is highly dependent on seasonal river flow. Murphy et al. (1972)

have calculated that the-net transport velocity in the area

varies from near zero in March to approximately one mile per day

in July,.. As a resul't of the-..lowwinterriver discharge, the

reduction in flushing will enco.urage & buildup of pollutants in

the region during winter.

There is- a.potential for significant synergistic effects between

the Anchorage sewage effluent and petrochemical effluent. For

example,. phenols (characteristic of refinery wastes) in the

presence of residual' chlorine (from sewage effluents) may produce

lethal or sublethal compounds (McKee and Wolf, 1963).

Suspended sediment concentrations in the area are quite high,

ranging from a few hundred to over 2,000 mg/l.

In summary, in.itial mixing and dispersion of pollutants should be

highly efficient due to the strong tidal currents. However,

flushing.of conservative pollutants from the area may be a

problem during the winter period of low river runoff.

Synergistic effects with the Pt. Woronzof sewage effluent could,

be a significant.problem.

Port VaIdez - Tidal currents in Port Valdez are quite weak. Even

in Valdez Narrows, where currents can be expected to be

significantly greater than within Port Valdez, the maximum tidal
currents are only 0.4tknots (Muench and.Nebert, 1973).

Muench and Nebert concluded that estuarine circulation in Port

Valdez, even during periods of maximum runoff, was confined to

the upper 20 meters or less of the water column. Water movements

at deeper depths,were apparently responding primarily to wind and

tidal currents.

Current meter measurements in Valdez Narrows in December

indicated near-surface and deep outflows with mid-depth inflow.

Measurements in March showed a deep water inflow@and surface

outflow., Mean current speeds were about two to three centimeters

per second (.04 to .06 knots). From this data the residence time

for Port Valdez water was@calculated,to be 40 days (excludin g

tidal flushing action)., Prevailing@easterly winds probably

enhanced the flushing ra te during the measurement periods.

Subsurface drougue studies within Port Valdez.(Nebert and Muench,
1973) suggested an i,rregular circulation in.the absence of winds..

During periods of winds,.the surface currents move generally in

the direction of the wind. Estuarine circulation generated by

freshwater runoff was confined to the upper ten to 15 meters of

the water column.

A subsurface circulat.ion pattern was inferred by Sharma and

Burbank (1973) based on suspended load distribution. Burbank

(1974) suggested a surface,circulation pattern for Port Valdez

based on ERTS imagery and hydrographic data indicating eastward.

transport along the southern shore and westward transport

(outflow) along the northern shore. An eddy was noted,in the

eastern part of the bay.-

Dye dispersion studies (Nebert et al., 1973) Indica ted an average

tenfold dilution distance of 0.46 nautical miles. There is also

a strong possibility of synergistic effects between the

petrochemical, effluent and.the existing ballast water treatment

effluent and Valdez sewage effl-uent.

In general,,the avail-ab,le data suggests a.moderate flushing rate

for Port Valdez. The weak tidal currents will greatly inhibit.

mixing and dilution of pollutants within the bay.

Seward Resurrection Bay is a.fjord estuary that is

approximately 30 kilometers long, six to eight kilometers wide,

and-oriented in a north-south direction. An inner basin. 290

meters deep,..is separated from the outer reaches of the fjord by

a 185 meter sill. Outer Resurrection Bay opens directly onto the.

Gulf of Alaska. Longitudinal and cross-channel bathymetry

profiles have been described by Heggie et al. (1975).

Tidal currents are weak within Resurrection Bay, and turnover

exchange of water with the Gulf of Alaska.occurs only once each

year. Due to weak and variable west winds over the adjacent

continental shelf, winds in Resurrection Bay are predominantly

southerly.

The water column of Resurrection Bay is stratified during the

summer months@because of the addition of freshwater from adjacent

watersheds and, glaciers and moderate surface warmingi Fresh

water is added to the outer reaches of the fjord from B ear

Glacier and at the head of the Bay from the Resurrection River-

and.smaller creeks. With decreased freshwater runoff, the water

column a pproa ches homogeneous conditions during the winter

months, but surface waters probably still flow seaward due to

northerly winds during this period.

Dispersion coeffi'cients are estimated to average eight to 13

square-feet per second. Dye studies indicatethat a shear line

develops.-about.1,500 feet offshore during calm weather. At flood
tide, ti'd*al currents between the shoreline and the @shear line are

northward,, and tidal currents west of the shearline Are.southward

(Heggie et a.l., 1975).

The,availab1e,information suggests.a moderaterate of flushing

for Resurrection Bay and weak rates of dispersal and dilution for

any pollutants within the Bay.

11. Recreation/aesthetics

Kenai/Nij-dski -The shoreline:at Nikiski is already
industrialized and additional construction with-in the industrial

zone would have little direct impact on recreational activities

or aesthetics. If the shore facility were located inland,

impacts,to recreation and aesthetics would be greater especially

if the-faciltty bordered:a recreational or sport fishing lake.

Camping and sport fishing are popular on nearly all" of the small

lakes in the region. The Kenai River and its tribu taries support

the largest freshwater sport.fishery in Alaska. Anglers spend

over 200,000 man-days/year in pursuit of.salmon, trout, and char.

Captain Cook State Park is located to the north of the area.near

Swanson River and there are camping facilities available at@
Bernice Lake. The Kenai @ational Wildlife Refuge@adjoins, the

site to the.east and is intensively used for canoeing, camping,

fishing, and hunting.

Pt. MacKenzie/Fire Island - Moderate hunting and trapping effort

occurs,at Pt. MacKenzie The Susitna River Flats, located eight

miles to the west, is the most intensively-used duck hunting area

in, the State. There is very little sport fishing activity near

Pt. MacKenzie;, howe.ver there is cons.iderable.effort a.long the

Little,Sus-i.tna River five mi.les west of the site.

Present land usage of the area includes set net cabins located

along the Bluff, utility line crossings, a submarine cable

landing site to the west, a barge landing.site to the west, and

extensive agricultural development to the north. None of these

facilities:are highly visible from the Anchorage side of Knik

Arm..

In 1971, the Federal Aviation Adminstration took over operation
of Fire Island from the U.S. Air Force. Until 'November of 1980,

there were approximately 14 families permanently residing on the

island. At the current time the island has no permanent

residents and is occupied only during the commercial fishing

season. Little recreational use is currently made of Fire

Island;, however the island i's visible from many parts of

Anchorage and is an aesthetic resource for an undeterminable

numbers.of residents and tourists.

Port Valdez Several areas in Valdez Arm havealready been

identified by the Division of State Parks on the basisof their

recreation, scenic, wilderness, and heritage valUes. Galena Bay

offers goo recreational opportunities. The Forest Service

recognizes three anchorages-in the bay and has built two

recreational cabins on the shore. One archeological site is

known,at the mouth of.Indian-Creek.. Sawmill Bay also provides an

important area for recreation including,boating and sport fishing

for salmon,.c rab,.clams, and halibut. The Forest Service

maintains a public use-cabin in Sawmill Bay. Shoup Bay is

located in close proximity to Valdez and offers excellent

recreation opportuni.ties for hiking, fishing,.and wildlife

viewing (Meiners, 1977)..

Seward - Seward has a city campground and a small boat harbor

which recei@e intensiverecreational use. The State of Alaska

operates the 5,961 acre Caines,HeadRecreati on Ar ea. along outer

Resurrection.Bay. Sport fishing constitute s an important

recreational activity and tourist attractions in'the Seward area

contribute substantially to the economy of the area.

Table 6. Comparative Rating: of Sites with Respect to
Resource, Values,

Poi nt Fire-
Resources Kent MacKenzie- Island Valdez Seward

Fisheries - commercial
and subsistence 5 2 2 4 4
Sport fish and Other-Fish- 1 1 1 6 6
Marine invertebrates 2 1. 1 4 5
Marine mammals. 3 6 2 2q5 5
Terrestrial mammals 4, 5 1 2 2
Bi rds: 1 3, 2 5 4
Anadromous, streams. 3 1 1 5 4
Primary Productivity 2 1 1 4- 5
Circu1atio and Mixing 3 2 4, 4
Recreation/aesthetics 3 2 1 5 4q4

TOTALS 31 28 14 44 43

I - area of Test biological importance
6- - a rea. of greatest biological importance-
I/ I - well mixed
6 poorly mixed:waters with good circulation

A A

SECTION III

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE DOW-SHELL PROPOSAL ON FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Sources of Information on Petrochemical Industries

To accurately predi'ct the potential biological impacts of a

petrochemical industry, specific information on the@identity,

quantity, and concentration of compounds.likely to be discharged or

emitted into the environment is required. In addition, specific

information is,needed on pollution control and environmental

protection-measures which are planned for the facility.. For example,

to assess the potential impact of handling or landfilling,waste

chemical compounds,.it is essential to know the identity and quantity'.

of the compounds as well, as a description,of what precautions will be

taken tcy, prevent their estape, or@,leakage- i,nto nearby rivers and

streams.. The Dow-Shell Group,progress reports have not provided

sufficient quantitative data on predicted effluents and emissions from

[email protected] complex for use in reviewing and assessing

impacts on fish an d wildlife populations.

Several of the chemicals which have been@identified as products or

feedstocks for the petrochemical industry are highly toxic and have

variable physical and chemical properties. To fully assess the

consequences of their release-into the environment, data is needed on

their toxicity,_bioaccumulation@, biodeg.radabi-lity, and behavior,under

differing.physica.1 conditions. Evaluation of potential impacts is

further limited by the lack of existing information concerning.the

biological effects of petrochemical effluents. The occurrence of

emissions and.discharges of hazardous materials from petrochemical

manufacture has been well documented (EPA, 1980 and 1981), but little.

information exists on specific biological effects resulting from

chronic discharges or accidental release.of toxic petrochemica-Ts..

The information on petrochemical wastes and by-products included in

this re port has been obtained from a review of the literature on the

operation of facilities similar to.those proposed for Alaska.

Additional information has been provided through correspondence with

State and Federal. environmental protection agencies which have

previ-ously monitored petrochemical plants, and chemical engineers

specialized in-petrochemical manufacturing. Although some of this

information is incomplete, it does provide a background upon which

major potentiaI project.impacts can be assessed.

Effluents, Emissions, and Wa,stes From a Petrochemical Plant

During the operation of a petrochemical plant,. environmental

contaminants can be introduced into the environment from the following

major sources:

1.- discharged cooling and waste water;

2. air- emissIons;

3. leaks from product holding tanks, pipelines, cooling towers;

4. spills associated with product transfer; and

5. landfil.1 waste d,isposal.

The direct release of petrochemicals from production plants is

difficult to evaluate because manufactured compounds are normally not
monitored in plant effluents. Murray and Riley (1973) have estimated

that an average of 1.5percent of'the products manufactured at
petrochemica.1 plants.arelost@ to the.environment. In addition to the

products manufactured, chemical compounds used as feedstocks,

reagents, catalysts, detergents, solvents, and manufacturing wastes

and by-products, constitute-a-major source of effluents.

The chl'orination of ethylene-to produce ethylene dichloride (EDC)

requires.the-use of metallic chlorides as catalysts. Contingent upon

the quaTity of the ethylene feedstock,,the production yields of EDC

will generate four to six percent waste.(Stanford Research Institute,

1979). The operation of a petrochemical plant also requires the use

of large volumes of cleaning solvents such as phenol, glycols, amines,
and sul-folane wh ich must be disposed of (Tuckler et al.,1975). Other

solid wastes include large volumes of caustic material such as.sodium

and aluminum hydroxide, sodium sulfide, and calcium carbonate.

With'in the cooling towers., chemicals are frequently transferred into

the recirculating water and eventually discharged into.the environment

(Taback et al.,. 1978)., This@chemical transfer results from leaks in

val'ves, flanges, pumps., and compressor seals which have@a ten to 50

percent@frequency of leakage (EPA, 1980c). A variety of chemicals are

used in cooling towers for corrosion and algae control., The use of

these chemicals, often constitutes.a source of highly'toxic pollutants

such as phenol, chromium, and copper. Water pass.ing through pumps,

'7n

demineralization units,.and cool-ing towers, will undergo a temperature

gain of up to 20'F (Tucker et al. 11975)1.

Large.volumes of hydrocarbon gases.are by-products in the manufacture

of petrochemica-1s.. The preferred method of disposing of
non.recoverable-waste gases is toburn them-in a flare (Taback et al.,
1978). Proposed plans for waste disposal at the Dow-Shell complex,

indicate that most or all waste,gases and liquids will be incinerated
(Bill Anderson, Dow-ShelT Group,.pers. comm.). Flaring directly

releases,quantities of carbon monoxide., sulfur-dioxide, and nitrogen

oxide into the atmosphere.. Predicted emissions from the Dow-Shell

central comple@ are given in Table 7. In.addition to normal operating

emissions, emergencies at petrochemica.1 plants frequently require the

sudden ventingor release of excessive amounts of chemi"cal products

due to compressorfailures,. o.verpressure in process vessels, line

breaks, le aks, and power failures (Jones,, 1973).

The.annual.quantity of petrochemicals discharged from domestic

transport is unknown. Losses occur a1most inevitably from loading,

transfer operations,. and accidents. During 1 970,.80.tons of ethylene

dichloride and 241 tons of benzene were.spilled from ocean tankers

(Hann, 1975). Cleaning of chemical tanks aft er off-loading of bulk

chemicals.involves removal' of cargo residues with caustic detergents.

This creates large quantities of waste-mixtures which,must be:disposed

of.

Toxicity of Petrochemical Products and Wastes to Animals and Plants:

Table 7.,. Predicted.Air Emi ssions From Dow-She;TT
Central' Petrochemical [email protected]

Compound Phase r Phase II Total
(tons/yr) (to s/yr)

NO- 3000-360G,- 2700-3100- 5700-6700'
C 6?'- 3X-4-307 490-570 860-1000
HC 100(1-1200 3M-4M 1400-1600
TSR 370-430, 16G-190
so 0-4 0-5
z

Pre-liminary-es'timates.from- Bill: Anderson, Dow-Shell Group,, June
1981

72,

Hydrocarbons such as ethane,. propane, and butane have low partial

pressures,, low boiling points, are insoluble,in water,,and evaporate

qu-ickly in natural air. Because of their physical properties, these

compounds do not normally present a'toxic hazard to fish and wildli fe.

Straight chain hydrocarbons, aromatics, and products such as

polyethylene, ethylene dichl.ori,'de,, and.ethylene glycol evaporate
slowly and are water soluble. These,com*pounds dissipate slowly, have
accumul.ation:tendencies, and are highly toxic at low concentrations to

plants and anima ls (Dowden and Bennett, 1965).

Effluents from petrochemical plants a re often comple x chemical

mixtures with continually changing chemical compositions. Hatch and
Mata (1981) identified.over-50 different chemica.1 compounds associated

with the:manufactureof ethyleneproducts. Assessment of the

biological impacts of'these various.parameters is complicated by the

lack.of adequate historical infor mation on acute and chronic impacts

on.local species,.and the total lack of information on the combined

effects,(additive, synergistic, or antagonistic) of all of these

factors combined.

Hydrocarbons such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and ethylene dichloride

are highly toxic to aquatic lifeat very low concentrations (EPA,

1980a),- and any direct exposure cmbe expected to have adverse
effects. These:.chemicals are very persistent in the environment.and
have a high potential for sublethal effects at low,concentrations.

For example, the half life of ethylene dichloride in Water is

estimated to be the-order of several thousand years (EPA, 1980b).

-7 '3

Aromatic hydrocarbons have proven to bioaccumulate and concentrate in

marine animals (jungclaus, 1978). Marine mammals are high trophic

level consumers and may be directly and severely affected by ingestion
of toxic compounds.passed alo.ng.the food chain. Indirect effects

include behavior alterations,. decreased vitality, or mortality

resultingjrpm@petrochemical related mortality of prey items or

destruction of habitat*..

Partitioning of aromatic.hydrocarbons across the skin and.gills of

fish is responsible-for the tainting of fish flesh in waters
containing.low a romatic concentrati-ons. Investigations.of unpalatable

fish fr=the lower Mississippi River have been correlated with
discharges of aromatic com pounds in the area (EPA, 1972).

The breakdown:of hydr@carbons through evaporation, chemical

hydrolysis,, and biological degradation occurs slowly in cold,climates
(Tucker et al., 1975). -Aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons also

have a: tendency to absorb and concentrate in sediments. High levels

of sedimentation,. such as exist in Upper Cook-Inlet,.are believed,to

provi'de a,highly favorable medium,for the, uptake of chemical wastes.

However,,it is not known to.what extent sediments in shallow oceanic

areas represent a.sink.for these substances or merely a temporary

storage site,from which@they will be rel*eased slowly in the future

(Tucker-et al.,,1975).

Sulfur and. nitrogen oxides are hi-ghly toxic to vegetation. Aquatic

plants are most susceptable to,chro.nic and-subacute levels of these

oxides (EPA,, 1976). Ethylene is known to have adverse effects on

plants and contributes to abnormal leaf growth; abcession of leaves

chlorosis, and reduction of growth. Many types.of plants are@

sensitive to photochemical air pol.lution at levels of one to two ppm.

Sulfur,and nitrogen ox-ides form su,lfuric and nitric acid when mixed

with-rain water, and comprise@the main constituents of acid rain.:

Aquatic communities:may also be affected by lower pH conditions

resulting from acid rain.

Spills of hazardous chemicals.,.while much less frequent, can be

significant in terms of their immediate,and long-term effects on fish

and wildlife habitat. The extent of the spill's effect will depend on

its location, size, material spil-led, concentration, and,season of the

year.,

The following processes are related to the transport and

transformation of wasteimaterials'and hazardous chemicals in the

environment. Because the Alaskan environment differs significantly

from areas, where previous petrochemical development as.occurred, the

implications toward impacting fish and wildlife resources and habitats

are poorly understood.

Chemical Transport Processes

Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

1. transport in ocean currents;

2. uptake and metabolism by plants and animals;

3. chemica,l transformations, including precipitation;

4. diffusion into sediments including transport a.nd deabsorption;

5@. concentration in surface-films; and

6. evaporation from surfaces.

Terrestrial. Ecosystem

.1. diffusion intoisoi,l as@ vapor or in water solution;-

2. volatilization-from bu.rning.dumps, incinerators, or.reprocessing

plants;..

3. leachi%into ground water;

4. adsorption and deadsorption from soil particles;

5. uptake by plants and animals;

6. metabolism by soil organisms; and

7. wind or water erosion of soil particles.

Atmosphere

1.- transport of vapor-phase material or particles. by wind;

2. absorption of vapor-phase-emissions.into snow packs and release

into aquatic systems;

3. rain-out of particles;

4. fall-out and dry-deposition of particles; and

5. chemical', changes such as photochemical oxidation and hydrolysis.

PotentiaI Impacts of the Proposed Petrochemical Complex

The major impacts of the proposed facility on fish and wildlife

resources fall into several genera1 categories:

1. The introduction of toxic.substances into the marine environment.

A petrochemical industry located@near a tidewater site will

potentially: affect commercial, subsistence, and sport fishery

stocks,.marine,invertebrates, marine mammals, and birds.

Adverse impacts could result from the discharge of thermal or

wa ste effluent,, tanker sh.ipment spills, or the accidental release

of chemicals at the terminaT site-or storage tanks.

2. The introduction of toxi'c substances into the freshwater and

terrestrial environ ment. Leaks or spills of gas liquids, toxic

materi-als used.in petrochemical manufacture, leacheates from

solAd waste fill-s, airborne emissions, and acid rain will affect

aquatic and terrestrial habitat with a resultant impact on fish

and wil-dlife resources.and their human use.

3. The.expansion and qrowth of human.populations and associated

increased level of demand on fish and game resources.

Residential, urban, and industrial expansion associated with the

constr uctiomand operation of the.facility will contribute to an

annual loss of wildlife-habitat. Increased human populations

wilI result in increased demand for fish and wildlife resource.

Existing opportunities. to participate in fishing and hunting will

be reduced by the necessity of enacting more restrictive permit

seasons, lower bag limits-, and additional limited entry

fisheries. Competition for hunting and fishing opportunities

wi'll exclude.many individuals, some of which are existing

residentiusers of the resources,

4. Groundwater withdrawal. Many@of the proposed sites are in areas

where the water table wi1l be lowered by industrial withdrawals.

Groundwater withdrawal and.depletion and its net effect upon the

surface water resources of adjacent-streams, lakes, and wetlands,

could2contribute to the direct loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

5. Surface Water Withdrawal. Surface wa*ter withdrawal from

anadromous streams or-other important aquatic systems could

result..in the dewatering of fish spawning and rearing areas,

entrainment@or impingement of. juvenile fish on intake screens,

bl'ocki.ng, of mig-ration,.freeze out,of redds, and loss of adjacent

marsh-and riparian habitat.

Imp acts.resulting.from construction are likely to be concentrated at

the facility,site., Many of these impacts are anticipated to be short

term and can be mitigated by adherence to prescribed constraints and

regulations on the designand timing of construction. The impact of

the construction work force may be a significant problem at most of

the sites and result from bear-human conflicts, increased sport

hunting,, fishing,. and illegal kills, and incre ased travel into

surrounding areas.

The major,long-term impacts of the proposed facility wiU result

Auring the operational stage after successive derivitive plants are

brought into production. These impacts wil 1 have the greatest affect

on marine fishery and.wildlife resources., Theresources discussed in

this section are those which appear to be,significantly affected by

the.centra.1 tidewater complex.,

1. FISH - The.proposed petrochemical facility could affect

shellfish,-salmon, herri-ng, and bottomfish populations.

Localized species such as clams, crabs., shrimp, and other

shellfish are most sensitive-to the uptake of hydrocarbon

pollutants. Filter feeding clams and.mussels rapidly accumulate

and concentrate@water soluble hydrocarbons and toxic compounds.

Resea. rctt by- the. National Marine Fisheries Service has

demonstrated that petrol'eum hydrocarbons cause,di:rect mortality

to razor clams and that sublethal effects result in tainting of
the,meat (Rice and Karinen, 1976 Konigsberg, 19.77). There is'

evidence to indicate that continued exposure to hydrocarbon

pol lution will'result in the tainting of clams and mussels and

may result in declining populations of shellfish. These effects

can be minimized or avoided through strict adherence to State

water quality standards and rigorous measures to avoid spills.

Crabs and shrimp are.alsohighly vul nerable to petrochemicals
.while in. the larval stage and during the molting process. Direct

morta-lity to adults has occurred from exposure 'to levels of

hydrocarbons in the one to.Jour ppm range (Karinen and Rice,

70.

1974). Sublethal effects frequently alter feeding, mating,

migration, and habitat selection and-indirectly cause.mortality.

Many studIes. have demonstrated that sublethal exposure-to

petroTe=hydrocarbons. inhibits growth of phytoplankton and
zooplankton (Dunstan et al., '1975). Plankton form@the base in

the food chain for all finfish and shellfish stocks. Thermal

pollution-resulting from the%discharge of heated effluent water

from cool i-ng towers, can adversely,affect marine life. Species

of fish-and'shellfish such as juvenile salmon and.larval stages

of crab,. may be killed by temperature changes of 2-3"F above

ambient levels. Sea water which is ing
.pumped into plant cool'

systems contains plankton, zooplankton,,and larval stages of
mari-ne life. Organisms drawn into cooling systems:are killed by

a. rise in temperature which often exceeds ambient levels by 20*F,.

and:by physical shockand abrasion.. Cooling waters may be

chlorinated or treated to@retard fouling. Chlorine and other

antifouling compounds,arevery toxicto marine life. When

cool,ing.waters are drawn into a plant,. larger organisms and fish

may become entrapped or impinged on the intake screens.

Juvenile sa.lmon and fry are. sens,itive to hydrocarbon pollutants.

Salmon fry rapid.ly accumulate aromatic fractions of hydrocarbons
in gut,muscle a.nd.gill tissues.. The proposed petrochemical,
fa.cil.ity cou.1d,have its greatest impact on intertidally spawning

adult.s.almon, smolts outmigrating from nearby coastal streams,

and juvenile salmonids rearing in nearshore waters. Eggs and

80*

alevins in intertidal spawning areas could be continually exposed

to. soluble fractions of hydrocarbons and waste effluents

associated@with plant operation and..ma-intenance. The net result

may be lower yields of salmon to commercial and sport fishing

interests,,..

Dredging, filling, and construction of a marine dock facility may

have-adverse-short-term effects on local benthic biological

communities.. Insufficient information existson the size or

design-of the@dock facility. to assess long-term impacts.

2... MAMMALS - Di-rect@impacts of the central petrochemical complex on

terrestrial mammals does@not appear to be significant. Direct

habitat destruct.ion will probably be limited to the immediate

construction site.. Construction and operational noise leve-ls may

pose &disturbance factor at some sites. It is assumed that the

entire complex will be fenced to prevent entry by moose and other-

large animals. Increased road and.rail traffic serving the

facility will contribute toincreased road-kill mortality. The

greatest impact on mammals will result from the secondary impact

of re.sidenti'al: a,nd human population growth. Additional waste
disposal .or-other food sources also attract bears or other

carnivores.. Anima,ls,which become.nuisanceswill have to be

destroyed.

Increases in:human populations will likely-result in the

enactment of more restric'tive.hunting regulations to sustain

wildlife.,@populations. Current participation in hunting and
trapping activities in southcentral Alaska is given in Table 8.

The operating work force at the central petrochemical complex is

estimated to consist of 370 operators, 220 craft/maintenence, and

4.10 non-craft (clerical and administrative) (J. Kruse, pers.

comm.),. Secondary growth-associated with a petrochemical

industry will contribute,an, even larger work force. Employment

increases in the Matanuska-Susitna area are estimated to be 2,000

if the Pt.., MacKenz.iesite were chosensand 1,500 at the Kenai,
Seward, or@Val'dez sites,(J. Kruse, pers. comm.). There is

currently no way to estimate the impacts of th'is populations

growtfton the currentlevel' of fish and game harvest at each

site. However, it i's expected that a substantial percentage of

the workforce,'.would consist of new residents to the State, and

that many of these residents. will want to compete wi

residents forfish and,wildlife@resources.

Marine,mammal populations will decline if prey species of fish or

invertebrates are adversely affected by the facility'. Localized

speci.,es such as sea otter, may suffer,the greatest impacts

(Calkins, 1980)-. Any localized reduction in food would likely

resu,l't..in a localized reduction of'sea otter numbers. Direct.

contact,with toxi'c.hydrocarbons at spill sites could result in

injury. or,mortality:to harbor-seali,,sea lions, and'sea otters.

Marine mammals populations near shipping terminal sites could

become@selective feeders on contaminated prey and be exposed to

concentrated:amounts,of petrochemicals. Increased ship traffic

TabTe 8.- Partfcipation.fn Huntingand@Trapping Activities
Vifth- Respect to Occupation%,. Southcentral, Alask&
(Inst...SociaI [email protected],. 1979)

Game Specf es.,
Hunted, or Trapped Occupation Class

Craft/MaIntenence, Operators Cleri'cal/Admin-istrati.ve-

Moose, 42%,
Caribou 9t U 1%@.
Waterfow.T. 30%- 16T 10%
Smal-I Game 24%,- 23% 8%
Furbearers: 16T 9%: 3%

t part-icipatfng: in thelast IZ months.

83,

to the site and associated noise and disturbance could result in

avoidance.of traditional use areas by whales and porpoise and

inc rease the-potentia1 for ship collisions with marine mammals.

3. BIRDS - None of'theAesignated land tracts at the proposed-sites

are considered critical habitatfor bird.species. The greatest

impact on birds would resu,lt from the secondary development of

adjacent land areas,. such as development in wetlands, increased

noi.se and,d,isturbance- increased harvest, disruption of food
chains, and dir@ct contamination through spills or improper waste

disposal.

Groundwater withdrawal for facility use could potentially

decrease.waterfowl habitat and reduceethe productivity of local

breeding populations,through the dewatering of marshlands, ponds,

and sloughs@. A reduction in marine.invertebrates, fish

populations, or nearshore plant communities would affect the

habitat.,use:by migrating shorebirds and waterfowl. Birds landing

on sludge or evaporat.ing.pond.s may be affected by exposure to

toxic chemicals.

4. VEGETATION- Vegetative cove r will be lost at the site of plant

construction and related facilities., This impact will be lea st

severe at sites such as Kenai and.-Valdez which have already been

subject,to surface disturbance and.development.

A major impact to vegetation could result from oxide air

emissions and acid rainfa.11. This impact has received

international attention in recent years,,but is poorly

understood., A'detailed"knowledge of air emission data and

atmospheric conditions at ea&site is requ.ired to predict the

magnitude of this impact. Secondary impacts wi-11 result from

facil.ities required to support the industry. Road construction

requires an extensive amount of land and borrow:'material, and

this impact wi.11 extend far-beyond the actual project site. The

primary impacts include removal of vegetation,-@Oteration of

soils and drainage, and increased access to. fish and.4ildlife

habitat.

The@information currently available does not al. low,a ranking of
all the proposed'sites with respect to the potential for being

adversely impacted by petrochemical development. The Fire Island

site,appears to have,the lowest potential for adverse impacts to

fish, wildlife, and'.marine resources. The biological diversity

at th.is site i's Iow due to.the low productivity'of coastal

waters, absence of major freshwater environments, and limited

terrestrial habitat. The physical characteristi'cs of the marine

environment at Fi.re I,s-land@provide the greatest potential for

minimizing the@effects of a spill' or-discharge of waste effluent.

The@physical and biologica-l* marine environment at the Pt.

MacKenzie site-is, very, similar to.that of Fire -Island and the

potent,ial for major impacts:is similar. The potential for

or_

impacts to.terrestria,l wildlife popu-lations and habitat is

greatest at the Pt. MacKenzie site. The Kenai-Nikiski site

appears intermedi:ate with respect to impacts resulting from

surface,or-ground water appropriation, discharge of waste

effluents.into-marine and freshwater-environments, and increased

human populations.,

The manufacture of petrochemicals would have the greatest

potential for adversely impacting the marine environment at the

Seward or Valdez sites., Thelmarine ecosystems at these sites are

highly productive and'the most sensitive to the introduction of

additiona 1 pollutants.. The cummulative impacts of exis ting

petroleum related facilities at Valdez:and a new petrochemical

industry may result_i:n@a long-term decline of marine [email protected]

w-ildlife resources and,.habitats. Impacts to terrestrial wildlife

species.would be of lesser significance at the Valdez or Seward

sites-.

Potential Impacts of the,Gas Liquids Pipeline

Most long-term impacts associated with the-proposed gas liquids

pipeline can be precluded by proper design, scheduling., construction,

installation,. restoration, operation, and pipeline maintenance. The

degree to@which the'chemical industries comply with the prescribed

methods and regulations designed to safeguard fish and wildlife

habitat will largely determine the severity of impacts from the

project. The l'oss.orAegradation of some wildlife habitat and a.

reduction in the numbers of some species is inevitable. The resources

discussed in this section are only those which appear to be

sign-ificantly affected and do not represent the tota,l environment

[email protected].,routes.

Additional construction pl'ans are released monthly by Dow-Shell.

Severa.1 aspects of the pipeline route and design have changed since

this report was prepared,,and these alterations and future changes

will have impacts which are,not addressed in this section. For

example, an alternatelpipeline route crossing the Minto Lakes west of
Fa,irbanks has been,proposed (Dow-Shell Progress Report No. 7). Thi's

route would have severe and@irreversable impacts on a valuable wetland

area and very likely would receive strong.opposition by resource.

agencies.

1. FISH The proposed Dow-Shell' gas liquids pipeline will cross

200-300rivers.and streams between Prudhoe Bay and the tidewater

petrochemical sites. Each.stream crossing presents a potential

adverse impact on the fish and other aquatic organisms:residing

.there. The,major impacts which the pipeline cou,ld potentially

have on fish populations would result from water.withdrawal,

destruction of overwintering areas, increased sedimentation and

turbidity.,,blockage.of'fish passage,. and depletion of dissolved

oxygen in the event of alpipeline leak or rupture.

Winter fis-h habitat is severely restricted along many portions of

the pipeline route. Stream rechannelization and siltation

resu.1ting from stream crossings can have serious detrimental

effects on overwintering fish-. If not engineered properly, an

ambient-temperature pipeline will induce icing at stream

crossings- during the winter-, and result in the obstruction of

normal flows and@freezing of fish.eggs., A pipelin 6 rupture would

have;the greatest impact during winter when streams are covered

with a heavy layer of ice and pollutants would become trapped and

may remain undetec ted for long periods of time. Siltation may

cause local problems by lowering water quality and oxygen levels

to the point where-fish and aquatic iny ertebrates are threatened.

Gravel extracted from streams for pad and road construction can

affect s.pawning.habitat and stream channels. The cummu.lative

impact of construction, operation, and repair of the proposed

Do*-She1`1-_, gas l.iqui'ds. pipel ine. on the fish population, in major

drainages crossed by the system will depend upon the measures

used,.to minimize construction impacts from siltation and.

dewatering, gravel extraction, and the toxicity of any products

which,may be spilled.

2. MAMMALS.- The construction and operation-of the proposed pipeline

will reduce some mamma I populations through destruction of

habitat, road kills and nuisance control, harassment by employees

of construction and pipeline companies, and by providing

increased access to-remote areas via the pipeline.corridor and

roads. Disturbance@from pipeline.construction noise and the

accidental introductio n of pollutants into the ecosystem also,

have the potential for serious impact. Revegetation and

management of the@pipeline corridor may offset some of these

impacts by improvihg@habitat conditions:for species such as moose

and caribou..

Principal large@mammals,impacted would becaribou, Dall sheep,
moose@, bison,.'and gr izzly bear. Migration of moose, caribou, and

bison could be restricted during construction by the physical

presence of equipment,,pipeline,sections, and.open stretches of

ditch. Construction noise, and low altitude aircraft operations

could adversely affect ca.lving and lambing activities of large

mammals. Most disturbance-related impacts can be alleviated-by
routing the pi-peline to avoid sensitive areas,timing@

construction to avoid critical use.periods,.a-nd locating pipeline

facilities in non-sensitive areas.

Habitat loss will result in a,reduction in the population level
of small mammals.such as squirrels and@lemmings This population

reduction will have different implications for each of the small

mammal species and'their predators, but is considered

insignificantin relation to the total amount of habitat
ava'ilablefor small mammals.

3. BIRDS The-proposed.pipeline has.the potentiaI for some-
unavoidable impacts on birdipopu.lations through disturbance.by

aircraft, construction activities, and human presence;,pollu.tion;

habitat destruction; and direct mortality. Many conflicts can be

89:

reduced or eliminated by proper route and facility location and

by management of construction practices and schedul-ing.

The major groups, of birds which would be impacted include raptors
and waterfowl.. Spring.and summer operation and-emergency repair
acti@vities could adversely affect nesting falcons and eag les.

The pipeline routes.cross large areas of wetlands and coastal

plains which receive heavy use;by swa'ns, geese, ducks, loons, and

shorebirds for nesting@,, staging, and molting. The.noise of

pipel.l'ine pump stat@ions and monitoring activities, could disrupt

nesting and mig,rating,waterfowl. The loss of waterfowl habitat

may result from drainage of wetlands or alteration of stream flow

and aquatic habitat.

Land requirements for the pipe-line corridor represent a small

fraction of available-bird,habitat. However, the loss or

alteration of a crit1cal staging area for migratory birds could

adversely affect-populations over a large area of Alaska.

4. VEGETATION During1pipeline construction, natural vegetation

@wfll: be destroyed along the pipeline ditch at camp and equipment

yarding s-ites,. airstrips,.,pump stations,, communication towers,

permanent roads,.an&other permanent facilities. Areas adjacent

to the.pipeline corridor--will be partially destroyed or changed,

by downslope dewatering,. ponding behind workpads, icing, spoil

di sposal sites, and summer and off-road vehicle@use. If the

Dow-Shell pipeline is not engineered to adequately handle sheet

flow,and insure cross. drainage,.major impacts on vegetation could

result outside.the-pipeline corridor.

Potentia.1 operational impacts include SO 2 and NO2 emissions from
pump stations and the fire hazard associated with a pipeline leak

or rupture'. A@rupture or@leak in the pipeline would allow large

quantities of volatile gases:to vaporize into the atmosphere.

Contingent.up'on wind",and temperature, these gases will form a

plume and,settle into low areas,and river valleys or spread with

w:,ind currents into-adjacent areas.. Since the pipeline corridors

parallel' highways and ra.ilroads, there is a high potential for

ignition of these-dispersion plumes. A fire could have negative

or,positive impact on fish and wildlife habitat along the

pipelAne depending upon the time of year, the species affected,

and the.type of habitat present. A fire in permafrost reg.ions

could-produce a deep thaw and promote erosion and subsidence.

Insufficient information exists regarding the specific routing

and engineering, design,of the Dow-Shell gas liquids pipeline for

our Department to select the most environmentally favorable route
at this time.@ the cummulative impact of the pipeline would be

greatest if the Seward s1te were chosen, primarily because it is

the longest route and,crosses the@greatest number of sensitive

habitatareas'. The Valdez alternative would appear to have the

lowest,potential for impact-if the existing TAPS right-of-way

were used. However, the gas liquids pipeline alignment maps

given to our Department do.not indicate that the Dow-Shell

pipeline wi-11 be constructed completely within the TAPS corridor.
In addit,ion, it seems highly unlikely that Alyeska Pipeline

Company will allow-the use of the TAPS gravel pad for

constructing,a gas liquids pipeline.. Since the TAPS line already

occupies:the 1*east environmentally sensitive.corridor along the

Prudhoe BaYto Valdezroute, and if the Dow-She.11 pipeline had.to

be routed along a substantially different route,then it is

possible that the proposed Dow-Shell pipeline might have less

environmental impacts if it were routed to a site in Upper Cook

Inlet.

SECTION IV

IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR STUDY REQUIREMENTS

There is currently insufficient information to al,low the Department of Fish

and Game-to.quant-itatively predict the impacts of a petrochemical industry

omspecific fisKand wildlife:resources at-any of the proposed sites. A

considerable number- of baseline!field studies are needed before the effects

of such issues as wastewater discharge, groundwater withdrawal, or marine

transport-of chemicals. can be assessed. A preliminary identification of

the major issues which need to-be.,.addressed include:

1. Ocean circulation and transport studies to, determine if the release:of

chemicals at the pipeline terminal manufacturing site, barge dock, or

shipping route will adversely threaten area fish and wildlife

populations- or critical. habitat.areas.

2. The capacity of ma'rine:waters to dissipate'thermal effluent needs to

be examined.and a model constructed to predict the impact of cooling

water discharge to area-marine life.

3'. Studies are;needed to@determine the:probability of a marine tanker

shipping spill and its impact on m arine fish, invertebrates, mammals,

and birds.. The interference of barge traffic with commercial fis,hing

operations,and whale.movements also needs investigation.

4. The@likelihood of toxic substances associated with petrochemical

manufacture to bioaccumulate@in Iocal finfi-sh and she'llfish

populations needs to be evaluated.,

5. Studies are.needed,to i'dentify and.determine the synergistic potential

between Dow-Shell effluent-and existing industrial and municipal

effluent at sites where current petroleum processing or tr ansport

activi-ties.occur.

6. Major freshwater fi-sheryand hy drological studies are required,to

determine if the proposed quantities,of process and cooling water can

be withdrawn fr=local ground or surface water supplies throughout

the year without.the loss of major- fishery habitat or wetlands
important io birds-land,mammals,.

7. The construction of a trans-Alaska gas liquids pipeline involves many-

activities which could adversely impact fish and wildlife habitat.

S'pecific,aspects@of construction@, such as :gravel extraction., work pad

construction, alteration of surface water flows, or routing through

sensitive fish and@wildlife habitats, will require field evaluation

throughout the length of the pipeline corridor.

K The impacts of constructIon wo rkers,. phase I and,II operational

personnel, and the associated-residential growth must be evaluated

with respect to the increased fishing and hunting demand which is

likely to be placed on-existingfish and wildlife resources.

9. A.greater understanding is needed of the potential impacts of nitrogen

and'sulfu.r oxides on fish-and@wildlife habitat. The uptake of oxide

into snowpacks and eventual releas e into anadromous streams, and the

- ---------

potentiail for acid- rainfall affecting vegetation or lowering the pH of

surface lakes shou-ld be investigated.

10- Additional baseline data on. fish.and.wildl'ife.populations is needed

along the proposed-pipeline corridors and tidewater sites to make a

more complete evaluation of potential biological impacts.

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES IN THE DOW-SHELL PROPOSAL

Reviewof [email protected]'s@ petrochemical proposal and progress reports

has,led us to the opinion that specific environmental protection

commitments are lacking. The%progress reports.have been written in such

general terms thatspecific environmenta.1 and fish and wildlife protection

procedures-are not incTuded. The Dow-Shel] Group has not responded to

requests-from;ou,r'Depa-rtment:to identify environmental protection mea sures

which will be employed during the construction of the gas liquids pipeline

and centra.1 tidewater complex,.,, Many of these measures could be costly and

shou:ld,be included@in the feasib.ility study. Although there is no reason

to believe that the Dow-Shell Group wi,11 not provide a-responsible

env,ir onmental corporate structure to manage its own operations and those of

its associates, no commitment has been indicated during the course of their

feasibility study,

The Dow-Shell Group has been,rel'uctant to exhibit a commitmentto specific

environmentaT protection,measures that it-knows will be difficult to
fulfill. The.Dow-Shell progress reports do not demonstrate,a-complete

awareness of,the costly and technical environmental protection problems

which must be overcome@to construct and operate &gas liquids pipeli,ne from

Prudhoe Bay to a tidewater site. In other cases they have openly stated

that all environmental standards will be met or-exceeded, yet.give no facts
or details on how,they will accomplish these measures. As a,result, many

of their-.pro.cedures@ for-environmental protection are qualified and not

explicit. We believe that adequate environmental protection requires the

stipu,lation of expli.cit commitments by industry and government in the early

stages of project planning.

Without the details of specific'pollution hazards and proposed

environmental protection measures, the State-can only rely,on the good

intentions of the industry, as well as the experience and ability of

governmental-regulation agencies. In cases where an industry has.well

establi`s'hed""@rules of''practice" to-go by., this is often adequate, but

"rules of practice" for-petrochemical industries have not yet been

established in Alaska.

SECTION

LITERATURE CITED

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1973. Alaska.'s wildlife and habitat.
Alaska Department of Fts4 and:Game. Juneau,.Alaska. 143 pp. -

AlaskalDepartment of Fish and Game. 1975. A fish and wildlife resource
inventory of the northeast Gulf of-Alaska. Under contract to ADEC.
50 maps.

Alaska-Department of Fish-and-@Gamef. 1976.. A compilation.of fish and
wildlife resource.information for the State of Alaska. Volume 3.
Commercial Fisheries Division. Under contract to AFSLUPC. 521 pp.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1977. A compilation of fish and
wildlife-resour.ce information for the,State of Alaska.. Volume 2. 235
pp--

Alaska Petrorefining-Corporation. 1.977. Proposal for utilization of
Alaskan-State royalty oil. October 1977.

Bailey,,Edgar P. 1976. Breeding seabird distribution and abundance along
the south s.ide of the.Kenat Peninsula, AK, USFWS, Anchorage., AK.

Britch @ R'., 1976. Tidal' currents fn Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska
Unpublished M'.S.-Thes-isi. Universi'ty of Alaska,.Fairbanks, Aiaska.

Calkins, D.G. 1980. -.Marine mammals of Lower Cook Inlet and the potential
for impact from'Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration,
development, and@transport... Alaska.-Department of Fish and Game,.
Anchorage, Alaska.. 89 pp.

Calkins,, D.G. and K.W. Pitcher. 1981, (unpubl.ished). Population
assessment, ecology, and trophic relationships of Steller sealions in
the. Gulf of Alaska. Final Report. Outer Continental Shelf
Environmental Assessment Program.
B.urbank,.D.C. 1974. Suspended sedi 'ment transport in Alaskan coastal
waters. Unpubl:ished M.S. Thesis.. University of Alaska,, Fairbanks,
Alaska.

ftrbank,@ D.C.@ 1977* Circulation-studies in Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook
Inlet In Environmental Studies of Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook Inlet
(edited VL. Trasky, L. Flagg, and D. Burbank). Alaska Department of
Ffsh@and:Game, Anchorage, Alaska...

ColJier Carbon and-Chemical Corporati=. 1967. Summary report, effluent
research studies of Kenai plant of:Co-llier Carbon and Chemical
Corporation. Research and Development Department, Col'lier Carbon' and
Chemical Corporation, Los;Angeles, California.

Corps of Engineers. 1974. Final Enviro nmental Impact Statement. Offshore
oil and gas development in Cook Inlet@, Alaska.

Curl'. H.D. J'r.,.R.L. Iverson, and H.B. Conners, Jr.. 1971. Pelagic ecology
of biological production in Auke Bay, Alaska. A final report to
National. Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries laboratory, Auke Bay,
Alaska. Department of Oceanography,.Oregon State University,
Corva.llis. 107 pp. (Cited in Meyers, T.F. and Reed Harris. 1974).

Dames and Moore. 1976. Environmental impact report- proposed
ammonia/urea plant expansion,, Kenai, Alaska. Report to Collier Carbon
and Chemical Corporation., Dames and. Moore,. Los Angeles,, California.

Dowden, B.F., and H.J.., Bennett. 1965. Toxicity of selec ted chemicals to
certain anima.1s., J'. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 37:1308-1316.

Dow-Shell Group. Alaska:,Petrochem icals Development. Progress Reports No.
1-T. Anchorage,:Alaska.

Dunstan, W.M., L.-P. Atkinson, and1J. Natoli. 1975. Stimulation and,
inhibition of phytoplankton growth by low molecular weight
hydrocarbons. Mar. Biol., 31:305-310.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development document for effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the
petroleum refining point source.category. EPA-440/1-74-014-&.-
Washington, D.C'.,

Environmenta:T-Reporter. 1977.- Federal regulations, Title 40 Section 419:
effluent guidelines and standards for petroleum refining. 15 April
1977. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

Erikson_,. D. 1977. Distribution,, abundance, migration, and breeding
locations of marine birds - Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. 1976. In
Envrionmental Studies of Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook Inlet, Al@i-ska
(edited.by L. Trasky, L. Flagg,. and D...Burbank). Alaska Department of
Fish and Game. Anchorage, Alaska.

Evans, C.D., E.. Buck, R. Buffler, G. Fishk, R. Forbes, and W. Parker.
1972.. The Cook Inlet environment - a background study of available
knowledge.. Resource and Science Service Center, Alaska Sea Grant-
Program,,Unive.rsity.of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska.

Feder, H.M. et:al.@ 1976. The sediment environment of Port Valdez, Alaska.
The,effect of, oil on this ecosystem. Project R800944-02-0. U.S.
Environmental' Protection Agency Report. 322 pp.

Feder, H.M.,. A.J. Paul,, and J. McDonald. 1979.. A preliminary survey of
the.benthos of Resurrection-and Aialik Bay. Sea Grant Report 79-9.
53 pp.

Gatto, L.W., 1976. Baseline data on the oceanography of Cook Inlet,
Alaska. CRREL Report 76-25. Cold,Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory,,Corps of Engineers, Hanover, N.H.

100

Hal stead, B.W. 1972. Toxicity of marine organisms caused-by pollutants.
In Marine Pollution and*Se& Life (edited by M-. Ruivo). Fishing News
TBooks) Ltd., Surrey, England.

Hann,.R.W. 1975.. Ocean discharge. In Assessing Potential Ocean
Pollutants. Nat.. Acad.. Sci., Wa7s-hington,,D.C. pp. 228-291.

Hatch, L.F. and S. Matar., 1981. From-hydrocarbons to petrochemicals.
Gulf Publication Company,. Houston, Texas. 214 pp.
Heggie, D.I.,. D.W. Boisseau,,.and D.C. Burrell' 1975. Hydrography,
nutrient chemistry,, and primary productivity of Resurrection Bay.
Inst.itute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
pp..

Hood, D.W. and.D.H. Rosenberg. 1969. Site selection evaluation for a wood
pulp mill to NSPCP.. Institute of Marine Science Report R69-14.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Hood,,D.W. et al.. 1968. Summary report on,Collier Carbon,and Chemical
Corporation studies in Cook Inlet, Alaska.. Institute of Marine
Science, University of Alaska., Fa-irbanks, Alaska.
Hood, D.W., W..E'. Shields, and E.J. Kelley. 1973. Environmental studies of
Port Valdez., Insti'tute of Marine Science, University of Alaska:,.
Fai.rbanks, Alaska., Occas. Publ'.- No. 3.

Hunka, D.L 1974., The effects of effluents from the Canadian plastic
industry on aquatic organisms. Canada Department of the Environment,
Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report No. 473.

Idl.er,.D.R 1972. Effects of poll:utants on qualfty of marine products and
effects.,on fishing. In Marine.Pollution and Sea Life (edited by M.
Ruivo). Fishing News7TBooks) Ltd., Surrey,.England.

Institute of Social and Economic Research. 1.979. Alaska public survey
(unpublished). Unive-rsity of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.'

Isleib,, P. and B. Kessel. 1973'. Birds of the North Gulf Coast - Prince
William Sound region, Al-aska. University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska.

Jackson,.W.@H. [email protected] Summary of reconnaissance collections in Cook Inlet,
Alaska. July 26 - August 1, 1970. Environmental. Protection Agency,
Office of Water Programs., Cincinnati, Ohio..

Jones, H.R'. 1973'. Pollution contol in the petroleum industry. Noyes Data
Corporation.. Park Ridge, New-York. 240 pp.

Jungclaus, G.A,... V. Lopez-Avi,la, and R.A. Hites@.. 1978. Organic,compounds
in an industrial-wastewater; a case study of their environmental
impact.. Environ. Sci. Tech.,.12(l):88-96..

101

Karinen, J. and S. Rice.. 1974. Effect&of Prudhoe:Bay crude oil on
molting Tanner crabs, Chionoecetes bairdi. Marine-Fisheries Review
36(7):31-37.

Kinney, P.J.,,J. Groves, and D.K. Button. 1970. Cook Inlet environmental
data -R/V Acona cruise 065,, May 21-28, 1968. I.MS Report R-70-2.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks,, Alaska.

Konigsberg, Daniel'. 1977. Razor,clam (Siliqua patula Dixon) distribution
and popu,lation assessment study., Research Unit #24 Environmental
Assessment,of the Alaskan Cont.inental Shelf, Annual*Reports of
Principal Investigators for the year ending March 1977. Volume VII.
Receptors - Fish, Li,ttoral, Benthos. pp. 195-276.

Loy, E.W. Jr.,. D.W.. Brown, [email protected]. Stephenson, and J.A. Little. 1976. Use
of wastewater discharge compliance monitoring data. In Identification
and Analysis@ of Organic Pollutants in Water (edited.by L.W. Keith).
Ann Arbor,Science,. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Marine Advisors. 1962. Oceanographic survey of Beluga-Moose Point,
pipeline route across Cook Inlet, Alaska.. Report to Standard Oil of
California. Marine Advisors, Inc., La Jolla, California.

Marine Advisors. 1964. Oceanographic conditions at Beshta Bay, Cook
Inlet,.,Alaska. Report to Humble@Oil of California. Marine Advisors,
Inc., La Jolla,,,Cali-fornia.

McKee, J.E. and H.W.- Wol.f. 1963. Water quality criteria., Ca,lifornia
Water Resources,Control Board Pub,li.cation 3-A. Sacramento,.
California.

Martin, J.W-. 1966. Early sea life of pink sa.lmon'.. Proceedings of the
1966 Northeast Pacific Pink Salmon Workshop. Alaska Department of
Fish-and,Game Information Leaflet 87. pp. 111-125. (cited.in Meyers,
T.F. and R. Harris. 1974).

Meiners,.A., W. Terra Prodan, and N,.C. Johannsen. 1977. Recreation,
scenic, and heritage areas,of particular concern: Cape Puget to Cape
Suckling-, Alaska. Alaska Division of Parks, Department of Natural
Resources. 111 pp.

Muench, R.D. and D.L. Nebert. 1973 Physical oceanography. In
Environmental Studies of Port @aldez (edited.by D.W. Hood, W.E.
Shiels, and E.J. Kelley).. Institute of Marine Science. Occasional
Publication No. .3. University of Alaska, Fairbanks,,Alaska.

Murphy,, R.S., R.F. Carlson, D. Nyquist, and R. Britch. 1972.. Effect of
waste discharges! into.a silt-laden estuary - A case study of Cook
Inlet, Alaska. Insti.tute of Water,Resources Publicat.ion@IWR 26.
University of Alaska,,Fairbanks, Alaska.

Murray,. R. and L. Riley. 1973., Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants.
National Academy of Science.. Washington, D.-C. 348 pp.

Myren, R.T. 1972. Marine life abundance near the site of a proposed
Alaskan mil'I. Commercial Fisheries Review. 34(3-4): p. 27. (cited
in Meyers,.T.F. and R..Harris., 1974).

National Ocean Survey. 1976.. Tida.1 current tables - 1977; Pacific Coast
of North America and Asia. Nationa.1 Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration..

Nebert,,D.L., R.D. Muench,@ and [Y.W. Hood. 1973'. Dye dispersion studies.
In Environmental Studies,of Port Valdez (edited:by D.W. Hood, W.E.
SFieTs,. and E.J. Kelley). Institute of'Marine Science. Occasional
Publication No. 3. Universi'ty of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Pickard, G.L. -1967. Some oceanographic characteristics of the larger
inlets of Southeast Alaska. J. Fish..,. Res. Bd. Canada, 24M.

Pitcher, K.W.. and D.G.. Calkins. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal, Phoca
vitulina richadsi, in the,Gulf of'Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Anchorage,,.Alaska... 72 pp.

Rice,,J. and J. Karinen.. 1976., Acute and chronic.toxicity uptake and
depuration, and subletha.1 metabolic response of Alaskan marine
organisms,to petroleum hydrocarbons. As.rep6rted in Reference Paper
No. 6, Bureau of Land Management,, Outer''Continental Shelf Office,
Anchorage, Alaska.,

Rosenberg,, D.H., D.C. Burrell,,K.V. Natarajan, and D.W. Hood. 1967.
Oceanography-of Cook,Inlet.. IMS Report:67-3. University of Alaska,
Fairbanks,.Alaska.

Sears,.H.S. and S.T. Zimmerman.. 1977. Alaska intertidal survey atlas.
U.S. Department of Commerce., National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Adminstration. Auke gay, Alaska.

Sharma,,G.D. and D.C. Burbank. 197.3. Geological oceanography. In
Environmental Studies of Port Valdez (edited by D.W. Hood, W.E.
Sheils, and E..J. Kelley). Institute of Marine Science. Occasional
Publication No. 3. University of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska.

Stratton,. L. 1981. Chugach Region community subsistence profiles.
Chugach Native Region'. 72 pp.

Taback, H.J. 1978. Control of hydrocarbon emissions from stationary
sources in the California-South Coast Air Basin., California Air Res.
Board,' Sacramento,, California.

Tetra Tech. 1977. Water qua.lity'study, Knik Arm and Upper Cook Inlet,.
Alaska. Report to Alaska: District, Corps of Engineers. Tetra Tech,
Pasadena, California.

Tucker,. E.S. 1975. Synthetic.organic chemicals. In Assessing Potential
ocean'Pollutants. National Academy of'Science, Washington,. D.C. pp.
64-224.

U.S. Depart ment of Commerce. 1970.. Cruise report No. 70-4, R/V ORE 'GON,
Berners Bay,, Southeast Alaska. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Adminstration,.National Marine Fisheries Service, for Exploratory
Fishing and Gear Research Base, Kodiak, Alaska. (cited in Meyers,
T.F. and R. Harris. 1974).

U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 1972., Long-term effects of organic
pollutants on ecosystems. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 188 pp.,

U.S-. Environmental' Protection.Agency. 1976. Compilation of air pollutant
emission factors, Research Triangle Park. Office of Air and Waste
Management. Document AP-42, Part A.

U.S-. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980a. TSCA chemical assessment
series,. chemical hazard,information profiles. Off. Pesticides and
Toxic Substances,. Washington, D.C. 294 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection,Agency. 1980b. Federal register, water
quality,criteria.documents.. Washington,. D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980c. VOC fugitive emissions in
synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing,industry., Office of Air
Quality, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

U.S'. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Control of volatile organic
fugitive emissions. from.synthetic organic:chemica.l,,.pol.ymer,.and.resin
manufacturing euipment- Emission'Standards:and Engineering Division,,
Research Triangle Park.,.,N:.C.

U.S. Fish and Wi,ldli-fe Service. 1968.. Birds.of the Kenai National Moose
Range. USFWS, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Refuge Leaflet
197-R2.

U.S.- Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Preliminary catalog of seabird
colonies and photographic mapping,of seabird colonies. In
Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental ShelT.-
pp., 99-245.,

U.S. Geological Survey. 1976. Development and.application of a
methodology for siting onshore facilities associated with OCS
development4 factbook. NERBC-RALI project. New England River Basins
Commission. Boston, Massachusetts--

Wallen, D.D.- and D'.W-. Hood. 1971. Descriptive Oceanography of Southeast
Alaska and marine-interfaces.. Institute of Marine Science Report
R71-1. University of'Alaska,, Fairbanks, Alaska.

104

HINIIIIIIIIIIHIr i
3- 6668 14103 7970