The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSmall Scale Hydropower Recon Study SW AK part 2 of 2 1981V-11 "summer -only" diversion dam showed that while the total investment cost would be reduced to $3,150,000 for the Canyon Creek site and $2,900,000 for the Knutson Creek site, the total benefits with 5% escalation of oil would also drop so that the revised benefit -cost ratios would only increase to 0.38 and 0.42 for the Canyon Creek and Knutson Creek sites, respectively. (3) Environmental Evaluation Pedro Bay lies at the northeast end of Lake Iliamna. Two tributary streams enter the lake in the vicinity of the bay, Knutson Creek and Canyon Creek. Spawning sockeye salmon ascend Knutson Creek for about 5 miles and Canyon Creek for about 5-1/2 miles. Whitefish and rainbow trout occur in the watershed and occasional grayling and Arctic char are also known from the area. SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA PEDRO BAY Population Estimates 1980 2000 2030 Electric Power Requirements 1980 2000 2030 Site No. Streams Drainage Area Estimated Average Flow Plant Peak Discharge Gross Head Installed Capacity Dam Height Dam Length Penstock Length Penstock Diameter Transmission Line Length PB-2 Canyon Creek 24.5 square miles 98 efs 30 of s 50 feet 100 kW 20 feet 200 feet 500 feet 30 inches 10 miles 65 97 175 Annual Energy 130,000 kWh 328,000 kWh 1,490,000 kWh TABLE V-15 Peak Load 37 kW 94 kW 425 kW PB-3 Knutson Creek 29.4 square miles 117.6 efs 30 efs 50 feet 100 kW 20 feet 200 feet 700 feet 32 inches 3 miles TABLE V-16 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA COST ESTIMATES PEDRO BAY SITES Canyon Creek Knutson Creek Dam Cost .................................. $ 815,000 $ 815,000 Penstock Cost ............................. 25,000 35,000 Powerhouse Cost ........................... 200,000 200,000 Powerhouse Excavation Cost ................ 16,000 16,000 Misc. Power Plant Equipment ............... 13,000 13,000 Installed Turbine/Generator Cost .......... 185,000 185,000 Station Electrical Equipment .............. 100,000 100,000 Switchyard Equipment Cost ................. 62,000 62,000 Switchyard Civil Cost ..................... 18,000 18 000 Transmission Line ......................... 158,000 63,000 SUBTOTAL (1) .............................. $1,592,000 $1,507,000 Direct Construction Cost Including Geographic Factor ....................... 3,184,000 3,014,000 Contingencies ............................. 637,000 603,000 Direct Construction Cost Plus Contingencies ........................... $3,821,000 $3,617,000 Engineering and Owner Administration @ 15% .................... 573,000 542,000 Total Construction Cost ................... $4,394,000 $4,159,000 Interest During Construction @ 8.6% ....... 378,000 358,000 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (On-line 1980) ...... $4,772,000 $4,517,000 TIC/Installed kW .......................... 47,700 45,200 NOTES: (1) Cost in the conterminous states TABLE V-17 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA ECONOMIC EVALUATION PEDRO BAY SITES Canyon Creek Knutson Creek Costs Total Investment Cost .................. $4,772,000 $4,517,000 Annual Operation and Maintenance ....... 72,000 68,000 Present Worth of 0&M ................. 972,000 920,000 Total Present Worth Costs .............. $5,744,000 $5,437,000 Total Present Worth Costs "Summer -only" Analysis ............... 4,122,000 3,820,000 Benefits Total Present Worth for: 5% Escalation of Oil ................. $1,697,000 $1,697,000 2% Escalation of Oil ................. 1,021,000 1,021,000 0% Escalation of Oil ................. 780,000 780,000 5% Escalation of Oil and "Summer -only" Analysis ............. 1,580,000 1,580,000 Benefit -Cost Ratios for 5% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.30 0.31 for 2% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.18 0.19 for 0% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.14 0.14 for 5% Escalation of Oil and "Summer -only" analysis ............... 0.38 0.42 Transmission M- Diversion dam 'ipeline Knutson Creek powerhouse.,_ I Mile O I Mlle Scale U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA PEDRO BAY SITES ATE DRAWN: APPROVED: FIG: APRIL 1981 1913p 19 V-12 f. Ruby (1) General Ruby is located on the south bank of the Yukon River across from the mouth of the Melozitna River. It has a population of 220 people employed in a variety of activities including government, trapping, subsistence hunting and fishing, and some mining. The village has a store, a roadhouse and school. A grant is providing the village with farm equipment and there is a plan to clear several acres for commercial farming starting next year. Electricity comes from two city -owned generators, one 90-kW and a 100-kW back- up. Monies from State grants will be used to intertie the school's 200-kW generator with the village system; it will serve as additional backup. (2) Field Reconnaissance The map study identified two potential sites on tributaries to the Melozitna River, which flow through steep valleys into the Melozitna Canyon. They appear to have good flows and sufficient gradients for easily developing head with a diversion dam and penstock. The biggest problem appears to be constructing a transmission line from either project to the village; the transmission line must cross the one-half mile wide Yukon River as well as the hills around the Melozitna Canyon. Some amplification of the problems in- volved of transmission line construction would help the reader evaluate this "problem." People in Ruby seemed to favor projects on tributaries to the Melozitna River, but not on the river itself. Salmon spawn in the Melozitna and are important to the area's economy. Only grayling and trout inhabit the tributaries and these species are not presently important to community well- being. V-13 (3) Hydropower Development Both sites at Ruby would involve constructing an embankment dam, a penstock, a powerhouse, and a transmission line, including about one-half mile of submarine cable to cross the Yukon River. Both sites would have enough storage to allow some control of the timing of generation, but not enough to fully regulate the river. The sites and their features are shown on Fig. 23. Data on the sites and possible projects are included in Table V-18. Ruby grew from 147 in 1970 to 220 people by the end of the decade; according to 1979 estimates, a growth rate of 4.6% per year. Over the longer term, 1950 to 1979, the growth rate was 1.8% per year. The variety of exist- ing and proposed activities engaged in by Ruby citizens indicates that con- tinued high growth may be possible. Consequently, the higher rate observed during the past 10 years was used for planning purposes. Since no energy con- sumption data are available, the standard assumptions of 2,000 kWh per capita during the first year of operation and a growth rate of 3% were adopted. Cost estimates and results of the economic analysis are included in Tables V-19 and V-20. (4) Environmental Evaluation Both sites are on tributaries to the Melozitna River which flows into the Yukon at Ruby. The Melozitna River supports runs of Chinook and chum salmon. Local residents reported that these fish did not ascend Grayling Creek or the second tributary, but their absence could not be confirmed in the literature. Residents stated that the tributaries are occasionally used for sport fishing for trout and grayling. Sheefish, northern pike and occasional Arctic char are also known to occur in the area. SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA Population Estimates 1980 2000 2030 Electric Power Requirements 1980 2000 2030 Site No. Streams Drainage Area Estimated Average Flow Plant Peak Discharge Gross Head Installed Capacity Dam Height Dam Length Penstock Length Penstock Diameter Transmission Line Length RUBY R-1 Grayling Creek 22.8 square miles 17.1 cfs 25 cfs 120 feet 200 kW 110 feet 300 feet 900 feet 26 inches 10.5 miles(1) (1) - Includes 0.5 mile of submarine cable. 220 54o 2,o85 Annual Energy 440,000 kWh 1,904,000 kWh 17,140,000 kWh TABLE V-18 Peak Load 125 kW 543 kW 4,892 kW R-2 2nd Tributary 24.7 square miles 18.5 cfs 28 cfs 100 feet 180 kW 80 feet 400 feet 3,000 feet 36 inches 8 miles(1) TABLE V-19 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA COST ESTIMATES RUBY SITES Grayling Creek 2nd Tributary Dam Cost .................................... $ 2,870,000 $ 3,970,000 Penstock Cost ............................... 150,000 45,000 Powerhouse Cost ............................. 200,000 200,000 Powerhouse Excavation Cost .................. 16,000 16,000 Misc. Power Plant Equipment ................. 16,000 16,000 Installed Turbine/Generator Cost ............ 180,000 170,000 Station Electrical Equipment ................ 115,000 115,000 Switchyard Equipment Cost ................... 62,000 62,000 Switchyard Civil Cost ....................... 18,000 18,000 Transmission Line ........................... 144,000 174,000 SUBTOTAL (1)................................ $ 3,771,000 $ 4,786,000 Direct Construction Cost Including Geographic Factor ......................... 7,542,000 9,572,000 Contingencies ............................... 1,508,000 1,914,000 Direct Construction Cost Plus Contingencies ............................. $ 9,050,000 $11,486,000 Engineering and Owner Administration @ 15% ...................... 1,357,000 1,723,000 Total Construction Cost .... .... ...... $10,407,000 $13,209,000 Interest During Construction @ 8.6% ......... 895,000 1,136,000 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (On-line 1980) ........ $11,302,000 $14,345,000 TIC/Installed kW ............................ 62,800 71,700 NOTES: (1) Cost in the conterminous states. TABLE V-20 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA ECONOMIC EVALUATION RUBY SITES Grayling Creek 2nd Tributary Costs Total Investment Cost .................. $11,302,000 $14,345,000 Annual Operation and Maintenance ....... 170,000 215,000 Present Worth of O&M ................. 2,303,000 2,923,000 Total Present Worth Costs .............. $13,605,000 $17,268,000 Benefits Total Present Worth for: 5% Escalation of Oil ................. $ 3,550,000 $ 2,932,000 2% Escalation of Oil ................. 2,214,000 2,453,000 0% Escalation of Oil ................. 1,588,000 1,703,000 Benefit -Cost Ratios for 5% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.26 0.17 for 2% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.16 0.14 for 0% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.12 0.10 Figure 20 Town of Ruby Figure 21 Grayling Creek Damsite Figure 22 Unnamed Tributary Damsite line Ruby 1 Mile 0 1 Mile I I I I Scale U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA RUBY SITES DATE: DRAWN: APPROVED: FIG: APRIL 1981 1 BRA 1 1 23 0 V-14 g. Scammon Bay The AVEC study identified one potential site at the village of Seammon Bay which could meet community needs. The possible project is cur- rently under study by the Corps. For that reason no analysis was made as part of the Southwest Alaska Reconnaissance. Data on the site are included in Table V-21. SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA SCAMMON BAY SITE Site No. Stream Drainage Area Estimated Average Flow Plant Peak Discharge Gross Head Installed Capacity Dam Height Dam Length Penstock Length Penstock Diameter Transmission Line Length SB-1 Unnamed stream 1.5 square miles 2 efs 4 efs 500 feet 100 kW 8 feet 50 feet 3,500 feet 12 inches 0.2 miles TABLE V-21 1� V-15 h. Togiak (1) General Togiak is a fishing village of about 500 people located at the north end of Togiak Bay west of the mouth of Togiak River. Power to the vil- lage is supplied by AVEC from two 300-kW and one 100-kW generators. Because of improved fishing, the village has grown during the past few years. Across the bay is a commercial cannery and a little further away, the village of Twin Hills. There is no wood in the area and homes are heated with fuel oil. If there were cheap electricity available, there could be a shift to electric heating. (2) Field Reconnaissance The AVEC study included a small site west of Togiak at a waterfall on a tributary of the Kurtluk River. Aerial reconnaissance of this site con- firmed the estimates made by AVEC. Villagers report that the stream flows year round. AVEC also indicated there might be other potential in the mountains west of the Quigmy River. A fly -over of this range revealed only one potential site at the southern edge. The stream is fast flowing with several sites for diversion dams and a good gradient. Further north along the mountains, streams are all small with little flow. (3) Hydropower Development Development of the site on the Quigmy River tributary would involve constructing a concrete diversion dam, a penstock, powerhouse, and a transmis- sion line. Development of the site on the tributary to the Kurtluk River would involve building a concrete diversion dam in a narrow canyon above a waterfall, a penstock, powerhouse, and transmission line. Because the village can use both sites, the transmission line from the Kurtluk River tributary site could be used for carrying power from the Quigmy River tributary site. The sites are shown on Fig. 27 and data on the sites are listed in Table V-22. V-16 Population has grown at a rate of 2.2% per year since 1970. As- suming this growth rate will continue and using the standard assumptions of 2,000 kWh per capita during the first year of operation and a growth rate of 3% per year, the growth rate in total energy use will be 5.2%. Because po- tentials of the sites are limited, the total output would be used during the first year of operation, and no increased growth due to heating loads was con- sidered. The cost estimates and the economic analyses are summarized in Tables V-23 and V-24. (4) Environmental Evaluation No anadromous runs are listed in the Alaska's Fisheries Atlas for the Kurtluk River which enters Togiak Bay 4 miles southwest of Togiak. The Quigmy River, 12 miles southwest of Togiak, supports a run of chum salmon. TABLE V-22 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA TOGIAK Population Estimates 1980 474 2000 733 2030 1,408 Electric Power Requirements Annual Energy Peak Load 1980 948,000 kWh 270 kW 2000 2,616,000 kWh 747 kW 2030 11,954,000 kWh 3,412 kW Site No. Streams Drainage Area Estimated Average Flow Plant Peak Discharge Gross Head Installed Capacity Dam Height Dam Length Penstock Length Penstock Diameter Transmission Line Length *9 miles to Kurtluk site TK-1 Kurtluk River Tributary 4.9 square miles 9.8 efs 15 efs 50 feet 50 kW 25 feet 100 feet 200 feet 20 inches 5 miles TK-2 Quigmy River Tributary 8.1 square miles 16.2 cfs 24 efs 50 feet 80 kW 20 feet 300 feet 2,000 feet 36 inches 14 miles* r TABLE V-23 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA COST ESTIMATES TOGIAK SITES Kurtluk R. Trib. Quigmy R. Trib. Dam Cost ............................... $ 408,000 Penstock Cost .......................... 10,000 Powerhouse Cost ........................ 200,000 Powerhouse Excavation Cost ............. 16,000 Misc. Power Plant Equipment ............ 10,000 Installed Turbine/Generator Cost ....... 185,000 Station Electrical Equipment ........... 86,000 Switchyard Equipment Cost .............. 62,000 Switchyard Civil Cost .................. 18,000 Transmission Line ...................... 92,000 SUBTOTAL(1) ........................... $1,087,000 Direct Construction Cost Including Geographic Factor .................... 2,174,000 Contingencies .......................... 435,000 Direct Construction Cost Plus Contingencies ........................ $2,609,000 Engineering and Owner Administration @ 15% ................. 391,000 Total Construction Cost ................ $3,000,000 Interest During Construction @ 8.6% .... 258,000 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (On-line 1980) ... $3,258,000 TIC/Installed kW ....................... 65,200 NOTES: (1) Cost in the conterminous states. $1,220,000 100,000 200,000 16,000 12,000 190,000 94,000 62,000 18,000 143,000 $2,054,000 4,108,00o 822,000 $4,930,000 739,000 $5,669,000 488.000 $6,157,000 77,000 TABLE V-24 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA ECONOMIC EVALUATION TOGIAK SITES Kurtluk R. Trib. Quigmy R. Creek Costs Total Investment Cost .................. $3,258,000 Annual Operation and Maintenance ....... 49,000 Present Worth of 06M ................. 664,000 Total Present Worth Costs .............. $3,922,000 Benefits Total Present Worth for: 5% Escalation of Oil ................. $1,204,000 2% Escalation of Oil ................. 787,000 0% Escalation of Oil ................. 652,000 Benefit -Cost Ratios for 5% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.31 for 2% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.20 for 0% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.17 $6,157,000 92,000 1,255,000 $7,412,000 $1,975,000 1,300,000 1,077,000 0.27 0.18 0.15 Figure 24 Togiak Figure 25 Kurtluk River Tributary Figure 26 Quigmy River Tributary D Divevsio ['ipeline Quigr you I I q i i giak 0 1 Mile I I Scale U.S. ARMY CORPSOF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST AL ASKA TOGIAK SITES DATE: DRAWpN; APPROVED: FIG: �� APRIL 1981 $U.lg V-17 i. Unalakleet (1) General Unalakleet is a village of 600, located on the shores of Norton Sound at the mouth of the Unalakleet River. It has an economy based on com- mercial fishing, government employment, and employment in the village corpo- ration. The village has a grade school and two high schools, one public and one private. The town is supplied with electricty through the Matanuska Electric Association but is now in the process of taking over the electric system. The system has three diesel units, two 350-kW and one 450-kW capacity. (2) Field Reconnaissance The map study indicated three possibilities for hydropower develop- ment on the South River, and a tributary of the Unalakleet River. All three locations have potential, with good flow, sufficient gradient and sites for dams. The most promising lies on the east branch. This site appears the steepest and has the narrowest width between potential abutments. Villagers commented that anadromous fish spawn in the lower part of the river, but did not know about upstream. There are no barrier dams or falls visible from the air. (3) Hydropower Development Development of the site on South River would involve constructing a 100-foot high embankment dam, a penstock through the dam extending about 2,000 feet downstream, a powerhouse and transmission line to Unalakleet. The dam would form a reservoir covering about 350 acres which would provide annual storage to regulate flow and, hence, generation. The project and its location relative to Unalakleet are shown on Fig. 29. Data on the project are shown in Table V-25. Unalakleet has experienced a population growth rate of 3.3% per year over the last 10 years. Using this growth rate and an energy use per capita growth rate of 3% yields a total growth rate for electrical energy of 6.3%. Cost estimates and economic analysis are included in Tables V-26 and V-27. (4) Environmental Evaluation The South River flows into the Unalakleet River 3.5 miles east of the town of Unalakleet. Chum salmon ascend the South River for a distance of 10 miles or so to spawn. The Unalakleet River supports runs of coho, pink and chum salmon while grayling and whitefish also occur in the system. Nothing specific could be found regarding runs to the east fork of the South River. Development of the project will include flooding about 350 acres. This will affect the terrestrial environment. SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA UNALAKLEET Population Estimates 1980 2000 2030 Electric Power Requirements 1980 2000 2030 Site No. Stream Drainage Area Estimated Average Flow Plant Peak Discharge Gross Head Installed Capacity Dam Height Dam Length Penstock Length Penstock Diameter Transmission Line Length 632 1,210 3,200 Annual Energy 1,866,000 kWh 6,333,000 kWh 39,600,000 kWh TABLE V-25 Peak Load 533 kW 1,807 kW 11,300 kW U-1 East Fork of South River 31.6 square miles 31.6 cfs 80 efs 150 feet 825 kW 100 feet 800 feet 2,500 feet 42 inches 16 miles SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA COST ESTIMATES UNALAKLEET SITE TABLE V-26 E. Fork of S. River Dam Cost .............................. $ 8,800,000 Penstock Cost ......................... 125,000 Powerhouse Cost ....................... 220,000 Powerhouse Excavation Cost ............ 16,000 Misc. Power Plant Equipment ........... 26,000 Installed Turbine/Generator Cost ...... 210,000 Station Electrical Equipment .......... 175,000 Switchyard Equipment Cost ............. 63,000 Switchyard Civil Cost ................. 18,000 Transmission Line ..................... 211,200 SUBTOTAL(1) .......................... $ 9,864,000 Direct Construction Cost Including Geographic Factor ................... 19,728,000 Contingencies ......................... 3,945,000 Direct Construction Cost Plus Contingencies ....................... $23,673,000 Engineering and Owner Administration @ 15% ................ 3,551,000 Total Construction Cost ............... $27,224,000 Interest During Construction @ 8.6% ... 2,341,000 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST (On-line 1980) .. $29,565,000 TIC/Installed kW ...................... 42,200 NOTES: (1) Cost in the conterminous states. SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA ECONOMIC EVALUATION UNALAKLEET SITE Costs Total Investment Cost .................. Annual Operation and Maintenance ....... Present Worth of 0&M ................. Total Present Worth Costs .............. Benefits TABLE V-27 E. Fork of S. River $29,565,000 443,000 6,025,000 $35,590,000 Total Present Worth for: 5% Escalation of Oil ................. $14,485,000 2% Escalation of Oil ................. 9,351,000 0% Escalation of Oil ................. 7,521,000 Benefit -Cost Ratios for 5% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.41 for 2% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.26 for 0% Escalation of Oil ............... 0.21 Figure 28 South Fork - Unalakleet Site .f !t*-;44 n07_ .I Unatakleet Embankment dam Pipeline South Fork powerhouse ~ ! s .n , ! r ,hY IMile 0 1 Mile I I I I Scale U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALASKA DISTRICT SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTHWEST ALASKA UNALAKLEET SITE DATE: DRAWN: APPROVED: FIG: APRIL 1981 888 1 1 29 0 0 V-19 3. FIELD STUDIES OF OTHER COMMUNITIES a. Lime Village Lime Village is located on the south bank of the Stony River 50 miles upstream from its confluence with the Kuskokwim River. The village has a population of 58. In addition to single-family dwellings, the village has a health clinic, community hall, storage building and church. Because no barges serve the village, all petroleum fuel is flown in; consequently, fuel costs about $2.60 per gallon. There are two 12-kW generators which serve the school and the teachers' residence. There are no private generators. The village economy is based on subsistence fishing and hunting augmented by government assistance programs. There were two potential sites located during the map study, one in the Lime Hills west of town and the other across the Stony River on a creek flowing off an unnamed mountain. Upon inspection, neither of these appeared to have potential for hydropower development. The land is gently sloping with the streams meandering through wide valleys. Even a low diversion would in- volve construction of a long dam to develop necessary head on the intake. In addition, people in the village mentioned another potential, Hungry Creek, lo- cated over a low bluff to the east of the village. Hungry Creek flows from Trout Lake about 6 miles into the Stony River. The creek has little potential for hydropower development since it falls only about 75 feet in its 6-mile course with almost uniform slope. Again, there were no obvious sites for even low diversion dams. b. Medfra Medfra is located on the North Fork of the Kuskokwim River about 50 miles upstream from McGrath. It is a spread out, disjointed collection of houses and buildings along the banks of the river and its tributaries. During V-20 the summer, intravillage travel is by water. There is no central generating station, but private generators serve some of the residences. A small sawmill near the village operates sporadically. Map studies had yielded one potential site on Medicine Creek. Medicine Creek, however, is a small meandering creek in the center of a wide valley, having only a moderate flow. Other than at the sites of two small beaver dams, there were few locations where a diversion structure could be built. The low gradient (20 feet per mile) would require a long penstock to develop sufficient head to power even a small generator. The surrounding area is similarly devoid of potential. While there is some high terrain, it has little or no water. The streams are all located in wide valleys, often form- ing marshes or small lakes. There is almost no discernable fast flowing water in the area. e. Sleetmute Sleetmute is a town of 111 people located along both banks of the Kuskokwim River below the confluence of the Stony River. There is a lodge lo- cated nearby, an air charter service, and the school, but otherwise the econo- my is based on subsistence hunting and farming supplemented by government as- sistance programs. The town is presently served by private generators while the school has a 50-kW plant to meet its needs. The Kuskokwim Native Associ- ation (KNA) recently received a $700,000 grant to provide community generators to 4 communities along the lower Kuskokwim River, including Sleetmute. This installation will take place during the next two years. The village had expressed an interest in developing hydropower on Vreeland Creek, a tributary to the Kuskokwim River across from the center of town. The entire creek course was flown but, while there is sufficient flow, there are no sites for dams and not enough gradient (10 feet per mile) to justify a diversion structure with penstock. The stream flows along a row of V-21 hills which separate it from the Kuskokwim. On the opposite side, the valley is flat and wide allowing the stream to meander away from the hills, ef- fectively eliminating any potential for a dam. The stream appeared wide and of moderate depth, but generally slow moving. d. Crooked Creek The village of Crooked Creek is divided into three population areas along the north bank of the Kuskokwim River at the confluence of Crooked Creek. The village has a population of 115. Government programs, the region- al school district and a minimum of support services provide the only perma- nent positions in the village. The Alaska Village Council Presidents Employ- ment and Training Program employs approximately 20 people during the summer. Income from these enterprises is supplemented by public assistance payments and subsistence activities including hunting, trapping, fishing and berry harvesting. Electricity is supplied by private generators. The school has its own 50-kW generator. The KNA grant will allow for installation of a 65-kW generator and a community distribution system. There was some opposition to hydropower expressed due to its possible impact on fishing and social values. Even those in favor of hydropower were concerned that such a project would af- fect salmon spawning streams. The map study resulted in two possible sites, one on Getmuna Creek and another on a tributary to Getmuna Creek. In addition, people in the vil- lage talked with us about the hydro potential of Crooked Creek. All three sites were inspected, but none were found suitable for hydropower develop- ment. The streams all flow through wide, flat valleys with little relief to allow construction of a dam. The gradients of the streams are low (30-60 feet per mile), eliminating any real potential for a diversion type project with a conduit downstream. r V-22 e. Napaimiut Two sites across the Kuskokwim River from the old village of Napai- miut were identified in the map study. Although the village of Napaimiut only has two full time residents, an aerial reconnaissance was made of the identi- fied sites since they were near the flight path from Crooked Creek to Chuath- baluk. The site on Kogoyuk Creek appeared to have good potential. The stream passes between two bluffs about 50 ft. high and 300 to 500 ft. apart which could serve as dam abutments. The stream also appeared to have a sufficient flow and a reasonable gradient in this area (100-200 feet per mile). f. Russian Mission Russian Mission is a village of 150 people located on the banks of the Yukon River. Employment is concentrated in commercial fishing and public assistance programs. In addition to family dwellings, the village has a grade school, high school, health clinic, two stores and three churches. The grade school and new high school have their own generators. The village had a central system powered by a 55-kW generator, but has had malfunctions on two separate generators. The village is now buying a new 100-kW generator to power the central system. A feasibility study of the entire system is being made by a consulting firm. The village is very enthusiastic about hydropower because it is perceived to be much less expensive than diesel generation. Villagers mentioned several potential creeks that do not freeze solid during the winter. The map study indicated five sites worthy of field investigation. In addition, the village is described as having three streams with potential for development. These streams flow into the Yukon north and south of the village. They were all described as having good flow which continued all winter. Aerial inspection confirmed that there was a reasonable flow in the creeks, but almost no head. The creeks meander through wide, flat valleys with no places to develop head and a gradient of only about 50 feet per mile. The sites identified during the map study were all in similar valleys across the hills fran the village and they also lacked potential. V-23 g. St. Marys, Pilot Station, Holy Cross The Association of Village Council Presidents in Bethel advised that there were potential sites in or near St. Marys and Pilot Station. Al- though the map study did not indicate any sites near Holy Cross, the topogra- phy near the village had sufficient relief to suggest that there might be a site. This, plus their proximity to the flight path, justified looking around these three communities. Unfortunately, none of the areas look promising. At St. Marys there is one creek west of the village with a gentle gradient from near the crest of the hills, but with only nominal flow and no large drops. The terrain does not appear suitable for a dam. At Pilot Station there are hills northwest of town with several creeks draining small areas. However, there was little or no water in these streams. At Holy Cross, the streams are in wide, gently sloping valleys and thus have low gradients which preclude project development. h. Grayling Grayling is a village of 145 people located along the lower Yukon River. The village's economy is based on commercial fishing and government assistance supplemented by subsistence hunting and fishing. There is also one store and an air charter service. Electric power is supplied by AVEC with two 75-kW and one 150-kW generators. The system is different in that it is en- tirely underground. At present, the demand study indicates the required oper- ation of only two units, but a new high school is being constructed which might increase peak demand. AVEC had identified a potential site on a creek northwest of town and the map study had identified two additional sites on creeks southwest of the village. Both the two southern sites had little flow and would require large dams to develop sufficient head for a small project. The streams had maximum gradients of 60-70 feet per mile. The AVEC site had greater flow, but meandered over a wide plain with no discernible dam sites. The stream also has a low gradient (less than 50 feet per mile) and any project would require a long penstock to develop head. V-24 i. Gambell Gambell is a community of 447 located at the northwest tip of St. Lawrence Island. The town has two stores, a health clinic and two schools. The main cash producing occupation of the residents is ivory carving. In ad- dition, the villagers hunt and fish for subsistence. The village is served by AVEC with an installed capacity of 572.5 kW. The Public Health Service recently installed four wind generators which will supply power to the exist- ing washeteria. At the time of the field visit, the wind generators had not been connected. Wind power is viewed as a reasonable alternative to diesel generation by the residents. The village is located at the foot of a high bluff, but there was no evidence of surface water which could be used for hydropower. Apparently, water only flows during the spring runoff. j. Savoonga Savoonga is located on the north shore of St. Lawrence Island, about 40 miles from Gambell. It has a population of 407 and its chief sources of income are ivory carving and government assistance programs. Villagers also hunt seals, walrus and whales and engage in subsistence fishing. The village is supplied with electricity by AVEC from a 650-kW generating plant. The BIA school has an additional 200 kW of standby capacity. The village is located about ten miles from the highest mountains on St. Lawrence Island, but there is no potential for hydropower since surface water flows only during the spring runoff. Figure 30 Lime Village Figure 31 Vreeland Creek A r Now - w. low Figure 34 Grayling - Creek Northwest of Town Figure 35 Savoonga Figure 36 Hills South of Savoonga 0 SECTION VI INTERTIE POTENTIALS Reconnaissance studies performed by R. W. Retherford and Associates in 1980 investigated the possibility of two transmission systems which would intertie several small communities to the Bethel and Dillingham/Naknek sys- tems.(2)(3) 1. One power network would intertie 11 villages within a 50 mile radi- us of Bethel to the Bethel system. The generation facility is the Golden Gate hydro site on the Kisarilik which has the potential to supply the future needs of the Bethel area to the year 2000. The interties would be accomplished by using single phase lines utilizing a single wire ground return system. This type of transmission allows relatively low cost installation compared to three phase transmission. Phase conversion equipment can be installed where three phase power is needed. 2. The second power network using power from the Tazimina and Lake Elva Projects would intertie 10 villages in the Nushagak/Kvichak area to the Dillingham/Naknek system. R. W. Beek and Associates, Inc. is presently con- ducting a feasibility study and FERC licensing investigations on the Lake Elva hydro site which would supply power to the Dillingham/Naknek system. The only new intertie potential investigated in this study is that serving McGrath, Takotna, and Ophir. Details are shown in Fig. 18 and the cost estimate is included in Table V-13. The economic evaluation shows that the project is not viable. 9 SECTION VII CONCLUSIONS This reconnaissance study was unable to identify any hydropower sites that can even be considered marginally economical. Two larger projects to meet the needs of Bethel and Dillingham were found during previous studies, but were not evaluated during this reconnaissance because of their size. Other sites suitable for larger projects and identified in the Statewide Inventory of Potential Hydroelectric Sites (1) were also not considered be- cause of their size. In general, these larger sites would not prove economi- cal because there is no nearby market for the power. The only previous study addressing energy needs in a manner similar to the current work was the 1979 reconnaissance of hydroelectric potentials for villages served by AVEC, including 26 villages also reviewed in the cur- rent study. The AVEC reconnaissance identified four villages with hydropower sites having sufficient potential to justify further study, Goodnews Bay, Grayling, Scammon Bay, and Togiak. However, the study methods, especially those regarding estimates of flow and project costs, differ from those in the current study. The Goodnews Bay site was inspected from the air by the field team and considered technically feasible. However, using the economic evalu- ation methodology described in this report, the project is not feasible. The Grayling site was also inspected as part of the current study, but was not considered technically feasible. In addition, flow estimates reported in the AVEC report are much higher than flows observed during the 1980 field trip and than the average flows calculated in the current study. The Scammon Bay site was not inspected as part of the current study, and therefore can only be referenced. A more detailed study of the site is now underway by the Corps, so any conclusions as to its feasibility should await results of this work. Togiak was inspected by the field team and two sites were located. One was the site identified in the AVEC study and the other was in the hills west of town which warranted inspection according to the AVEC study. Neither site proved viable using the methodology described in this report. In addition, the AVEC study identified uneconomical sites at Kalskag, Mekoryuk, Tununak VII-2 and Toksook Bay. None of these were visited as part of the current study, but map study confirmed the AVEC study results regarding physical conditions. The remaining AVEC villages in the southwest region were found to have no nearby potential, based on the results of both the AVEC and the current study. The lack of potential hydropower sites stems, in part, from the terrain and, in part, from the small size of the communities. Most of South- west Alaska is flat with only occasional low hills. Streams and rivers are usually in the lowlands with gentle gradients. Thus, hydropower development requires constructing high dams or long penstocks. At the same time the com- munities are generally small and located far apart from each other. Conse- quently, all power and energy from any one project must be used in a single community. This constraint precludes the full development of any larger proj- ects and even small projects would not be fully utilized until many years into the future. An additional factor that must be considered when evaluating the potential for hydropower meeting the energy requirements of small communities is the relative timing of runoff and need. Runoff in the southwest comes mainly in the summer months while electrical energy needs of the communities are greatest in the winter. Using meager winter flows to meet increased power requirements is often further complicated by severe icing conditions. In order to meet year-round needs, storage projects must be developed. Adequate storage requires building larger dams with correspondingly higher costs. Again, only communities with energy demands larger than those generally exist- ing in Southwest Alaska can support such projects. Unfortunately, as shown in this study, the costs of conventional engineering together with the expense of importing construction forces and materials make any of the examined projects during this study economically unattractive. It is entirely possible, however, that some small hydropower proj- ects could be developed at the local level without major use of outside engi- neering and construction organizations. If local residents can locate a site VII-3 and necessary materials, and local labor (at least in part donated) can de- velop the project, development of micro -hydro capability may be possible in some instances. The feasibility of local development, however, depends com- pletely on the local situation, both in terms of site availability and in the willingness of the people to pool their labor and other resources. A short vocational course could provide sufficient training in the development and operation of micro -hydro facilities to make this type of local development possible. ri 0 0 SECTION VIII SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1. CITED REFERENCES 1. Inventory of Potential Hydroelectric Sites in Alaska, Alaska Power Administration. 2. Reconnaissance Study of the Kisaralik River Hydroelectric Power Po- tential and Alternate Electric Energy Resources in the Bethel Area, Robert W. Retherford Associates, 1980. 3. Reconnaissance Study of the Lake Elva and other Hydroelectric Power Potential in the Dillingham Area, Robert W. Retherford Associates, 1980. 4. Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by the Alaska Vil- lage Electric Cooperative, Alaska Power Administration, December 1979. 5. Water Availability, Quality and Use in the Alaska Region, U. S. Geological Survey, August 1976. 6. Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 1979. 7. Feasibility Studies for Small Scale Hydropower Additions, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979. 8. Reconnaissance Evaluation of Small, Low Head Hydroelectric Instal- lations, Water and Power Resources Services, 1980. t, � .. r- i� - -. VIII-2 2. OTHER REFERENCES 9. Alaska Blue Book, 1979. 10. Alaska Construction and Oil, December 1976, November 1978, February 1980. 11. Alaska Economic Information and Reporting System Quarterly Report January 1980, Alaska Division of Economic Enterprise. 12. Alaska Economy, 1977. 13. Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1976, U.S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Power Administration, July 1977. 14. Alaska Fisheries Atlas, Volumes 1 and 2, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1979. 15. Alaska Industry, December 1978. 16. Alaska Population Overview, Alaska Department of Labor, 1979. 17. Alaska Power Development Plan 1980, Division of Energy and Power Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, 1980. 18. Alaska Regional Profiles - Southwest Region, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, 1975. 19. Alaska Review of Business and Economic Condition, University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1977. 20. Alaska Water Assessment, Alaska Water Study Committee, 1976. VIII-3 21. Alaska's Energy Resources Finding and Analysis, Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, 1977. 22. Basic Economic Statistics of Alaska Census Divisions, Alaska De- partment of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise, 1979. 23. Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential, U.S. Department of Energy, 1979. 24. Community Energy Survey 1979, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy and Power Development. 25. Community Facilities Summaries for Interior Communities Outside the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks Town and Village Associ- ation for Development, Inc., 1979. 26. Directory of Rural Alaska Organizations, Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc., 1980. 27. Electric Power in Alaska 1976 - 1995, Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska, 1976. 28. Energy Profile for Alaska, Energy Department, Rural Alaska Com- munity Action Program, Inc., 1979. 29. Hydropower Cost Estimating Manual, North Pacific Division - Port- land District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979. 30. Lower Yukon Region Community Profiles, Alaska Department of Com- munity and Regional Affairs, 1979. r VIII-4 31. Middle Kuskokwim Region Community Profiles, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 1979. 32. Performance Report of the Alaska Economy in 1978, Division of Small Economic Enterprise, Department of Commerce and Economic Develop- ment. 33. Planning Status Report for Alaska River Basins, Federal Power Com- mission, 1967. 34. Population Estimates and Projections, Series P-25, No. 741, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, January 1979. 35. Regional Electric Power System for the Lower Kuskokwim Vicinity, Robert W. Retherford Associates, 1975. 36. Tundra Times, October, 1979. 37. Year -End Performance Report on the Alaska Economy in 1977, Division of Economic Enterprise, Department of Commerce and Economic De- velopment. 3. AGENCIES CONTACTED a. Federal (1) Geological Survey (2) Alaska Power Administration (3) Fish and Wildlife Service (4) Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (5) Bureau of Land Management Cl VIII-5 b. State of Alaska (1) Fish and Game (2) Alaska Power Authority (3) Department of Commerce (4) Department of Community and Regional Affairs (5) Department of Environmental Conservation (6) State Library e. Other (1) Rural Community Action Programs (2) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (3) Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (4) Kuskokwim Native Association (5) Newham Klitusiti (6) Association of Village Council Presidents 4