HomeMy WebLinkAboutPort Lions Hydroelectric Report Environmental Report (Supplement) 1981KOD-P
006
vol. 2
Alaska Power Authortty
LIBRARY COPY
..--Port Lions Hydroelectric Project___..
ENVIRO MENTAL REPORT
(Supplement)
Kodiak Electric Association Inc.
Kodiak, Alaska
Beak Consultants Incorporated
Portland, Oregon
June, 1981
I DATE
I
-HIGHSMITH 42·225
KOD-P
006'
vo1.2
SSUEDTO
PfiNTED IN u.s.A.
I
LETTER A
.-. ~~ -, -r .. -
/ (• ~: / ~ ' ~ .. ~~ I •
·-·· :L ,-',...~· ·. -.. ---_, ~ ~ ......
eFnCB eF TBB 50VBilNOa
DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PlANNING
December 5, 1980
JAYS. HAMMOND, GovwnGt
I'OUCH AD
JUNEAU. ALA$1CA -~~
#HONE'-..-~~
Hr. David Nease, Jr. Manager
Kodiak Electric Association
P.O. Box 787
Kodiak, AK 99615
Subject: Port lions Hydroelectric Renewable Energy Project Environmental Report
State 10 I TJK01-80071404ES
Dear Hr. Nease:
The Alaska State Clearinghouse has completed review of the referenced
project.
The following comment was received from the Department of Community and
Regional affairs (C&RA):
A-2 1
"The Department, through the A-95 review, previously commented on
the "Background Infonnation" publication prepared by Beak Consultants
concerning the Port Lions Hydroelectric project . The A-95 review
comments, including ours, were not included in the Environmental
Report (ER). We requested in our comments that the issue of flood
hazard be addressed in the ER in a manner which delineated the
flood zone, assessed its potential impacts and identified flood
prevention measures. This Issue as well as many of the issues
raised in the comments of other agencies and the City of Port Lions
were not addressed in the Environmental Report. It was our understand-
ing that the purpose of reviewing the "Background Information"
publication was to identify issues that should be addressed in the
Environmental Report. We can only conclude that either the Enviror~ntal
Report was written and printed prior to the receipt of the review
comments or that the consultant did not believe the comments merited
a response. If this is a correct interpretation, we find the
process of developing the report as well as the substance of the
report to be deficient in this regard. We recommend that a response
be provided to the issues raised by the City of Port Lions and the
reviewing agencies ."
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) commented:
A-1
A-2
RESPONSE TO LETTER A
Dam safety analyses are being prepared as part of the "Permit to
Construct or Modify a Dam" for the State of Alaska . Separate analyses
are be i ng prepared for the Crescent Lake and forebay dam site . These
analyses will evaluate effects of earthquakes and seisMic loading on dam
structure integrity. A separate flood plain analysis Is also being
prepared to evaluate the effects of dam failure on downstream areas. The
dam safety studies and flood plain analyses will be submitted for agency
review when they are complete .
Comment noted.
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
The
I
I
I
LETTER A (CONT.)
"1. We expect that the Department of Fish & r.ame will address the
proposed Port lions River salmon loss and the report's related
statements. One significant item concerns the consultant's
opinion that although the spawning grounds will be lost below
the falls, the lagoon spawning area will be enlarged as the
lower dam will allow this ground to be covered more fully
through stream flow regulation. This may be true; however,
this same increased area will not be covered with water during
the egg hatching period {December to February) as the dam
system will be shutdown, thus any increased spawning will be
lost. ·
"2. The reduction or possible elimination of the salmon from Port
lions River will affect the wildlife which feed upon them,
including eagles and river otter.
"3. The report stated that the Crescent Lake beaver population
would probably move as they cannot live where water levels
fluctudte. The problem is that the beavers will not know in
advance that the lake level will fall in the winter, thus they
may not attempt to move until it is too late.
114. There may be more increased siltation in the Port lions River
than expected, as the upper river will always be swollen to
bank level during the months that the system is operated.
This will cause increased bank erosion with its resulting
water siltation. I "5. lf construction crew housing is brought into the areas, the
contractor must be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from
this Department."
Department of Fish & Game (DF&f.) has this comment:
"The Alaska Department of fish and r.ame has reviewed the above
referenced environmental report on the Port lions Hydroelectric
Project.
"We feel that the document adequately describes the environmental
setting of the project site and identifies possible impacts associ-
ated with the project.
"With respect to operation of the project, our greatest concern Is
detrimental Impacts to area fisheries resources, particularlv loss
of spawning habitat in that area of the river that will be dewatered
during three months of the year.
"Cursory analysis of the data presented in Table 3.21, Projected
monthly mean discharge in the Port lions River flow requirements
RESPONSE TO LETTER A (CONT.)
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
In severe winters, flow during January, February and March could drop
to relatively low levels. Under these conditions it is probable that some
of the incubating eggs in the lagoon area will be lost. It should be noted
thdt such losses could occur under natural flow conditions as well as regu-
lated conditions. In years such as 1980-81, the regulation of stream flow
would have benefited spawning success. flow in the Port lions River dropped to
3.3 cfs in August 1980, thus greatly reducing the suitable spawning habitat
in the lagoon. With regulation, flow would have been 40 cfs in the lagoon
during this period. During the winter of 1980-81, flow did not drop to the
low levels projected; the lowest daily flows in January, february and March
were 59.4, 37.3 and 45.7 cfs, respectively. Therefore, there would have
been essentially no reduction in spawning habitat during the winter months.
The winter of 1980-81 was relatively warm for Kodiak although similar winters
have been experienced for the last four years. Without additional flow
records for the Port lions River, it is difficult to know how representative
the 1980-81 hydrograph is. In any case, it appears that in some years sup-
plementation of flow into the lagoon will definitely increase the available
spawning habitat. Only during periods of prolonged extreme cold spells would
the gains made during the summer be completely lost in the winter.
BEAK agrees, but the impact should be minimal for the time of the
pink salmon run (August-September) is not a critical period for survival
of fish-eating wildlife and numbers of fish-eating wildlife in the town
are low. for example, bald eagles are not known to nest near Port lions
(Roger Smith, AOf&G, pers. comm.) and do not usually utflfze the pink
salmon resource {Alvin Nelson, Port lions resident, pers. comm.) on the
townsite.
BEAK agrees that the dam at Crescent Lake will reduce the suitability
of the lake for use by beaver. It is likely that the number of beaver
presently living along the lake will be reduced. The extent of their
reduction is not known.
Beaver are common in the ponds and lakes near Port lions. The
project will only influence beaver near Crescent lake and will have a
negligible impact on the regional population of beaver.
It is correct that the potential exists for increases in suspended
sediment loading in the upper Port lions River during periods when supple-
mental water is released from Crescent Lake. However, supplementation wHl
result in "bank full" conditions only under conditions of unusually low
natural flow. During average flow years the maximum total discharge from
Crescent lake is expected to be in the range of 20 to 25 cfs during periods
of supplementation. Flows of this level are below the average monthly flows
experienced presently in the upper river during spring and fall high flow
periods and are far below the maximum short term flows experienced after
heavy rain fa 11. Therefore, 1t is not anticipated that flows of 20-ZS cfs
in the upper river will result in much increase in sediment loading. Short
term increase in suspended sediments could occur if it was necessary, due
to extreme low flow conditions, to supplement with flows in the range of
35 to 40 cfs. flows in this range could result in "bank full" conditions.
It should also be noted that some reduction in natural bank erosion
and suspended sediment loading will occur due to stabilization of stredm
flows. By holding back water for storage during periods of heavy runoff,
Crescent lake dam will reduce the magnitude of high flow events. This will
reduce bank erosion and streambed scouring.
Comment noted.
A-8
A-9
LETTER A (CONT.)
for the city of Port Lions and KEA the pro1ected monthlt shortage
surplus of water, ind1cated that there wil be an annua average
water surplus of 8 cfs over the quantity required for the City's
consumption and generation at the 40 cfs demand. While the text
addresses this shortage capacity of the Crescent Lake impoundment,
it fails to describe the capacity of the forebay impoundment.
Would it be possible to store some of this excess in the forebay
impoundment? This point should be classified because the only
fisheries mitigation proposed for the project is enhancement of
lagoon spawning areas through regulation of tailrace discharges.
In addition, the project engineer should work together with Depart-
ment personnel to develop an acceptable level of discharge into the
lagoon. If fresh water influx to lagoon is the limiting factor for
spawning success, mere stabilization of flows will not enhance
spawning if flows fall below an acceptable existing quantity.
A-10
"Another area of concern with respect to fisheries is the loc~tion
of the tailrace discharge. lt should be located in an area where
it will not obliterate spawning. lt may be necessary to fit the
tailrace with a diffuser.
A-11 "With respect to wildlife impacts, our concern is with improved
access to the project area via construction roads which may result
in excessive hunting pressure with the area."
It is our understanding that a copy of a letter sent to us on November 3,
1980 from the Alaska Power Administration, has been forwarded to you,
therefore it will not be included in this letter.
The following comment was received from the Office of Coastal Management
(OCM):
"The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) wi11 review this project
for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP)
if it is determined that FERC has jurisdiction. OCM has received
comments from interested agencies and local governments. These
comments indicate a number of issues exist which were not adequately
discussed in the Environmental Report and which relate to ACMP
standards. OCM will not issue a consist~ncy determination_at this
time. The issues which require further treatment are prov1oed
below. Additionally, there are comments which indicate that suffi-
cient information exists in the Environmental Report, but that
further stages of the project which have impacts on resources may
require stipulations insuring that the project conforms to ACMP
standards. These issues are also separately listed below. These
issues should provide the applicant with information as to issues
which require resolution prior to a determination of consistency by
OCM.
"The following issues require further discussion in the Environmental
RESPONSE TO LETTER A (CONT.)
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
The maximum storage capacity of the forebay impoundment will be
80-acre feet. It is possible that some of the water stored behf nd the
forebay dam could be released after the storage capacity of Crescent Lake
has been depleted. Only part of the maximum storage capacity of the
forebay dam could be released to downstream areas because Port lions
auxiliary water supply intake, located at the 75 ft elevation, w1ll have
to remain submerged to provide for emergency uses of water. The amount of
supplemental water available from the forebay dam is therefore quite
limlted and would not be sufficient to provide much benefit to either fish
or incubating ova in downstream areas.
The project engineer will work with ADF&G to develop an acceptable
level of discharge Into the lagoon. According to proposed plant operation
schedules the minimum flow into the lagoon will be 40 cfs except during
periods of low winter flow when the storage capacity of Crescent Lake
has been used up. At this time. natural stream flow will be reestablished.
The only times during the year that flow into the lagoon will be lower
than natural flows, will be during periods of heavy runoff when water fs
being held back in Crescent Lake for storage. At least 40 cfs will be
maintained at the lagoon during those periods. As discussed in the
response to Comment A-3, the 1980·81 hydrograph indicates that the lagoon
area would have benefited substantially by increases in discharge during
and shortly after the pink spawning period when natural flows dipped to
only 3.3 cfs.
The location of the tailrace is shown in Attachment A. The discharge
from the tailrace will be upstream from most of the lagoon gravel used far
spawning by pink salmon (Alvin Nelson pers. c00111. April 18, 1981). There
will be some scouring in the immediate vicinity of the tailrace outfall.
A trash rack will be placed over the outfall and will tend to dissipate
some of the water velocity. There should be little or no loss of lagoon
spawning habitat due to operation of the tailrace.
BEAK agrees. the road to Crescent Lake will result in increased
traffic to the Island-Crescent Lake area. Hunting pressure is likely to
increase and will likely lead to better utilization of wildlife resources.
Whether or not the increased traffic will lead to "excessive" hunting
pressure is not known.
LETTER A (CONT.)
Report. (Relevant ACMP standards are cited in parentheses.)
A-12 "1)
A-13 I "2)
"3)
A-14
A-151 "4)
"5)
A-16
"6)
A-17
"7)
A-18
A-19 "8)
"9)
A-20
I "1 0) A-21
What is the storage capacity of the forebay impoundment, and
what will be the effect of the expected impoundment levels on
fish habitat? (6AAC 80.130 HABITATS)
What will be the effect of projected freshwater discharges
into the lagoon and what effect will discharges have on fish
spawning habitat? (6AAC 80.130 HABITATS)
The project is located in an area of frequent and severe
seismic activity. How will the siting and design of the
project allow it to withstand seismic events? Local and
teleseismic tsuanamis and severe seismic shaking are a threat
in this location. Information should also be included concern-
ing geologic modifications of the streambed involved in the
project. (6 AAC 80.050 r.EQPHYSICAL HAZARDS)
What is the hazard involved from floods due to icing? What
mitigation measures will be employed concerning this hazard?
(6 AAC 80.050 GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS)
Port Lions uses an auxillary water supply when seafood processing
is taking place. The project may cause significant sedimentation
problems to occur in this water supply system. What is the
probable extent of this problem, what mitigation measures will
be employed, and what will the cost be? (6 AAC 80.140 AIR,
LAND AND. WATER QUALITY)
The alternative to the project (which involves a tie-in to the
Terror Lake project) should be more thoroughly discussed.
What would the costs be, and how would the environmental
impacts involved compare to the proposed project? (6 AAC
80.070 ENERGY FACILITIES)
What is the exact location of the penstock, powerhouse and
related facilities? These facilities will be very close to
existing residences, and their location needs to be provided
in detail. (6 AAC 80.070 ENERGY FACILITIES)
The City of Port Lions water supply line will have to be
rerouted. What will be the cost and impacts related to this
aspect of the project? (6 AAC 80.070 ENERGY FACILITIES)
Apparently the penstock would flood Lagoon St. The applicant
also discusses another access road in this area. What are the
specific locations involved and what impacts will result? (6
AAC 80.070 ENERGY FACILITIES)
The project will increase the ease of access to Crescent Lake
(a traditional winter recreation area) while making the lake
unsafe for winter recreation during at least some periods due
RESPONSE TO LETTER A (CONT.)
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
The storage capacity of the forebay impoundment is 80 acre ft. The
effect of the impoundment levels on fish habitat are expected to be neutral
or positive. The reservoir will provide approximately 7.5 acres of addi-
tional habitat for the native population of Dolly Varden in the Port Lions
River.
The projected alterations in freshwater additions to the lagoon are
not expected to have any detrimental effects on existing biota (see page 8
of the ER). All of the estuarine organisms which presently inhabit the
lagoon have a wide salinity tolerance and will be able to easily adjust
to increases or decreases in the amount of freshwater entering the lagoon.
As discussed in the ER (page 69) regulation of flow into the lagoon should
have a net beneficial effect on pink salmon spawning success in the lagoon.
Effects of loss of regulation during the latter part of the pink salmon egg
incubation period (i.e., January-February) is discussed in the response
to A-3.
Siting and design criteria for Crescent Lake dam and the forebay dam
relative to seismic events is under study (see response A-1). The Crescent
Lake dam and the forebay dam spillways will be located at 312 ft and 86 ft
MSL, respectively. These elevations are well above the elevation reached
by the 27 March 1964 Tsunami wave. The powerhouse will be located at
about 12 ft MSL and therefore could be hit by a Tsunami wave similar in
magnitude of the 27 March 1964 wave. The powerhouse will be anchored on
bedrock and will be constructed of concrete.
There is no historical evidence to indicate that flooding due to ice
dam formation has been a problem in the Port Lions River. Flow charac-
teristics during the winter will not be altered by hydrogeneration to the
extent that the hazard for flooding should increase. The primary concern
with regard to icing will be the potential for buildup of ice on the
forebay dam spillway. The consulting engineer is looking into various
techniques to avoid such buildups. A plan showing the methods that will
be employed will be forwarded for agency review when it is complete.
Mitigation measures for flooding due to icing will entail daily
(or more often if conditions warrant) reconnaissance of the river between
the mouth and Crescent Lake. Any buildup of ice will be quickly reported
to KEA and the ice blockage will be blasted out by explosives if necessary.
Explosive charges will be available at all times for such emergencies.
The Port Lions hydroproject will have no impact on the City's
water supply system. The U.S. Public Health Service, Anchorage Office
is in the process of installing additional water supply capacity for
the City. The new system is being developed to meet the added demands
from the 35 units of HUD housing which will be developed in the near
future. Water will be taken from Branchwater Creek outside the area of
Impact of the hydroproject. The water system is being designed with
enough capacity to supply the entire city plus any commercial development,
including a fish processor, that may occur in the forseeable future. The
auxillary water supply system would be used only for emergency needs. The
auxillary water transmission 1 ine will be hooked into the raw water line
from the storage tank on Branchwater Creek. Thus water from the auxillary
system will pass through the new filtration plant that the USPHS is going
to construct. The filtration plant will have more than enough capacity to
filter water from the auxillary supply system. Most of the funds for
development of the new water supply system are coming from the USPHS.
Funds for moving the auxillary system will be provided by KEA. No
estimate of cost for moving the auxillary water supply system is available
at this time.
A-22
LETTER A (CONT.)
to discharge of water destabalizing ice. What measures will be
taken to mitigate this hazard? (6 AAC 80.070 ENER\,Y FACILITIES)
"The following issues have been sufficiently discussed in the
Environmental Report. However, at further stages of the project,
OCM may require specific stipulations to insure consistency with
ACMP in the following areas of concern:
"1) The timing of construction activities which may impact anadnmous
fish.
"2) The design and location of the tailrace discharge."
Discussions with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC} indicate
that a problem does exist in determining the legal owner of the land on
which this activity is proposed to occur. The land for the Port Lions
hvdroelectric facilities has been tentatively conveyed under the Alaska
~ative Claims Settlement Act however, legal title to the land presently
still resides with the U.S. government. Legal representatives of FERC
are attempting to determine whether or not the proposal site for this
project is still under federal jurisdiction, thus requiring a FERC
license. In the event FERC determines they do not have legal jurisdiction
1n this matter, the Division of Policy Development & Planning will
withdraw the project from ACMP consistency until a decision has been
reached. This project will be held in abeyance with regard to ACMP
review. Therefore at this time, please consider the comments included
in this letter as relating to State Clearinghouse review only.
The SCH would like to ask that a written response be sent to us which
addresses the issues and concerns raised by the reviewers.
Provided this response is received, the SCH has no objection to this
proposal.
Thank you for your cooperation with the review process.
~incerely, It~~
CC: Comm. Lee McAnerney, C&RA
Comm. Ernst Mueller, DEC
Bruce Barrett, Or&G
Murray Walsh, OCM
James L. Cheatham, APA
Bob Ellis, Beak Consultant
Bob Carrier, FECR
M~hael Whiteh:ad
State-rederal Coordinator
RESPONSE TO LETTER A (CONT.)
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
Since the ER was prepared, a document en tit led "Transmission Line
Intertie Between Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project and the City of Port
Lions" was prepared for Kodiak Electric Association (Attachment B). The
document compares the relative economic merits of the Terror Lake in-
tertie with the Port Lions hydroproject. Basically the report concludes
that KEA and its customers in Port Lions would benefit most by construc-
tJon of a hydroelectric project at Port Lions River for short-term gains
and construction of an intertie for long-term gains. With growing energy
needs, the construction of the transmission intertie can be economically
justified when the energy requirements of the city exceeds 2220 x 103 KWH
with 5', financing. With the present trend it is expected to happen some-
where near year 1988. The Board of Directors of KEA will consider incor-
porating the intertie plan into their long-range development plans.
A thorough environmental study of the transmission intertie will be
required to select the most appropriate routing. Comparisons of the rela·
tive environmental effects of the intertie and the Port Lions hydroproJect
cannot be made without addition of information on the alternative intertie
routes.
The exact location of the penstock, powerhouse and related facilities
is shown in Attachment A. The penstock will pass within 100 feet of houses
in the City of Port Lions. The penstock will be buried for its entire
length and will not be visible from the existing residences.
Only the auxiliary water supply line will have to be rerouted (see
response A-15). This work will be done during the summer. No cost
estimates for relocation of the auxillary water supply system are
available at this time. Any cost incurred will become part of the project
costs.
We were unable to locate the Lagoon Street referenced in the comment.
We assume that Bayview Drive is the street referenced since it is the only
street that will be affected by flooding from the forebay dam impoundment.
The location of Bayview Drive is shown in Attachment A. Bayview Drive is
a graveled city street. Approximately 160 ft of Bayview Drive will be
inundated by the impoundment. An access road leading from Bayview Drive
to the forebay dam will be constructed. The exact location of the access
road is shown in Attachment A. Some spruce trees will have to be removed
to construct the access road. Only those trees will be removed that are
absolutely necessary for access road construction.
The city of Port Lions (letter, November 7, 19BO) made a request that
KEA "dedicate the Crescent Lake access road to public use as far as Island
lake. Beyond this point, K£A may restrict public access if it so desires."
KEA will comply wlth this request and will restrict public access to
Crescent Lake with a gate across the road between Island Lake and Crescent
lake. The gate will discourage use of Crescent Lake during periods when
ice is unsafe. Crescent Lake will be posted with signs indicating that 1t
is unsafe to walk on the ice.
A-22 Comment noted.
8-1
LETTER B
United States Department of the Interior
HERITAGE CONSER VATJON AND llECIIEA TJON SEll VICE
ALASKA AliA OFFICE
lOll £,Tudor, S\l.iu 19i AncbonC~t, A1ulu: 99S0l
h II[PLV RI:PI'fl TO, Td~,(90?) 277.J666
A800
1201-0Ja Nov 2 J 19BO
Dr. Robert H. Ellis
Project Manager
Beak Consultants Incorporated
317 SW Alder
Portland, OK 97204
Dear Dr. El11 s:
In response to your request of October 13, 1980, we have revit!wed the
Environmental Report for the proposed Port Lions hydroelectric project
and have the following comments concerning recreation and cultural
resources.
According to the report, proposed project impacts to the existing
recreational use and aesthetics of the Port Lions River are objectionable
to a significant number of residents. Although recreation mitigation
opportunities are identified in the report, there does not yet appear to
be a clear concensus among the river users or overall community as to
what will be acceptable. We recommend that a committee, composed of
residents concerned al..out the river and community recreation, be formed
to consider the possible recreation mitigation alternatives associated
with the project. This committee can then bring their proposal to the
community for consideration. We believe that it is important for the
community to approv" of any proposed recreation mitigation that is
associated with the project.
Archeological surveys by Finn-Yarborough and Wiersum are identified ln
the report. However, it would appear that a comprehensive survey which
would establish the effect of the project on sites which possibly may
exist within the construction or inundation area has not yet been
conducted by a qualified archeologist as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.
If we can assist you further, please contact Larry Wright (re:recreation)
or Jim Thomson (re:cultural resources) of my staff at 277-1666.
Sincerely,
~·~~~
Janet HcCa be
Area Director
8-1
8-2
RESPONSE TO LETTER B
se~eral community meetings have been held in Port lions, the
project was e•plained and questions were answered. Since those meetings,
the City of Port Lions provided KEA with a list of conditions that
must be met before the City will approve the project. Response to
those conditions and related comments are provided in sections D-1 through
D-12.
A comnrehensive survey as stipulated in 36 CFR 800 will be conducted
prior to project construction by a qualified archaeologist. This information
will be forwarded for agency review upon completion.
LETTER C
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TUDOR RD.
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-51
c-sl
ANCilORAloE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-JROO
1 8 NOV 1980
Dr. Robert Ellis
Project Manager
Beak Consultants Incorporated
317 S.W. Alder
Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Dr. Ellis:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed your Environmental Report
on the proposed Port Lions hydroelectric project. The September 1980
document will be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) by the Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) as a part of FERC's short
form license application.
Host of the concerns listed in our 8 July 1980 letter to you have been
addressed in the report. However, data related to fisheries resources
seem sketchy for purposes of recommending mitigation and/or enhancement
measures. We recommend additional on-site information gathering as
follows:
1. Page 10, paragraph 1 -Additional water temperature data should
be collected to establish pre-project thermal regimes in the
spawning areas. This information will be the basis for measures
to maintain the water temperature necessary for normdl timing
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
of emergence of juveniles.
Page 18, paragraph 1 -We agree that the discharge readings to
date are insufficient. Before determining in-stream flow
requirements, it would be helpful to have more flow data on the
Port Lions River.
Page 22, paragraph 1 -We recommend that additional fish surveys
be conducted on the Port Lions River to determine the numbers
of spawning salmon present and the extent of spawning habitat.
Page 27, paragraph 3 -Presence or absence of spawning coho
salmon should be determined.
Page 81, paragraph 2 -Specific in-stream flow regimes for normal
and drought conditions to preserve fishery resources will need to
be determined. A program for maintaining these flows should be
discussed.
Page 81, paragraph 5 -The area
be quantified and compared with
habitat cr~ted in the lagoon.
the penstock and outfall to the
of spawning habitat lost should
areas of improved spawning
Also, the alternative of moving
area above the culvert (thus
preserving the present spawning ared) should be considered.
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
RESPONSE TO LETTER C
~ater temperature measurements in the lower Port Lions River have
been taken on a daily basis since July 1980. They will continue to
be taken throughout the pre-project period to establish baseline
temperature conditions. It should be noted that the lagoon spawning
habitat, which will remain after project completion, is periodically
inundated by salt water due to tidal action. Incubation temperature in
this area is therefore determined by a complex set of variables, i.e.,
stream temperature and ocean temperature. It would be extremely difficult
to regulate flow in the Port Lions River so that temperature conditions
are replicated exactly. Also normal variability in year to year flow
conditions would be expected to have as much or more effect en water
temperature in the Port Lions River then the changes brought about by
thP project.
Daily flow measurements have been taken since April 23, 1980 and will
continue to be taken throughout the pre-project period. A permanent
stream flow gage will be established after the project is developed. See
Attachment C for August 1980 -March 1981 flow records.
Counts will be taken in 1981 by a qualified observer to determine
the number of pink salmon in the lower Port Lions River.
A qualified observer will make observations in the lower Port Lions
River on a daily basis during the coho spawning season. Any evidence of
spawning will be reported.
Due to the requirement of the hydroelectric facility for 40 cfs,
there will be periods during the year when no flow can be maintained
in the stream between the forebay dam and the tailrace. Economics
preclude diverting water for maintenance of sufficient flow in this
reach to support a viable fish population. However, as discussed in
the ER {page 69) very 1 ittle of the area between the laqoon and the forebay
dam contains habitat suitable for resident ur anadromous fish populations.
Regulation of flow in the lagoon was discussed in response A-3.
Measurements for the map of suitable pink salmon spawning habitat
shown on page 24 of the ER were determined when flow in the Port Lions
River was 37.3 cfs. Therefore, the areal extent of suitable spawning
habitat shown on the map closely approximates the amount of spawning
habitat that would be available at 40 cfs, i.e., minimum operational flows.
Approximately 83 m2 of suitable habitat occurs above the highway culvert
and 697 m2 in the lagoon below the highway culvert.
The amount of spawning habitat that would be added in the lagoon with
hydrogeneration would vary from year to year depending upon what the
minimum flow conditions would be without the power plant in operation. For
example, in 1980 only a small part of the habitat shown on the map was
covered with fresh water when the flow dropped to 3.3 cfs. Flows were so
low during the 1980 spawning season that pink salmon were unable to move
upstream past the lagoon (Alvin Nelson, Port Li~ns Resident, pers. comm.).
~ith the plant in operation approximately 697 m of habitat would have
been available in the lagoon for spawning.
LETTER C (CONT.)
Dr. Robert Ellis
The fact that the project is being studied in accordance with short-form
licens~ application procedures does not diminish the necessity for thorough
analysis and ~vdlu~tion of alternatives and impacts. The environmental
report draws num~rous conclusions from what appcdrs to be a limited data
base and somewhat cursory inv~stigations. Wt:: anticipatt commenting furthtr
on the project as more data b~com~ available and plans are refined. We
will specifi<:dlly comment on the licenst: application to fERC dnd the Army
Corps of Engine~rs' Section 10/404 permit application.
Thank you for the opportunity to rt:view your environmental report.
cc: AOES, WAES
ADf&G, NMFS, ADEC, OCM, Juneau
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage
FERC, Wdshington, D.C.
KEA, Kodiak
Sincerely,
~·~· < ~Area Director
RESPONSE TO LETTER C (CONT.)
D-1
D-2
LETTER D
e4 o/ fJOJd ..e«uu
,.0 lOX 271
~IT LIONS, A.LASICA MSSO
Beak Consultants, Inc,
8u Floor Loyalty Hldg,
J!7 S,W, Alder
Port] and, Oregon '17:.!U4
liE: Port Lions llydro ProJect
Final Impact Statement
November 7, I '/t-lO
The City of Port Liona aubmite the following comment• concerning the
Joilvironmental Im1•act StAtement prepared by HEAK. The Ctty of Port
Lions finds the Statements sensitivity to it~su~• eurroundin~ the
project very commemlable, However, the City feels tjte document io
deficient vith respect to technical details, M&ny citizens lin
vithin yards of project facilities which are not clearly descriheol
or repreaented graphically.
The City's responses are divided into two cat.eogoriea; conditions
and commenta. The City's approval of tbe project is contin~ent upon
the condi tiona preaent<!d herein, Comments are intended to help
BLA.K, KEA, and tbe contractor to benefit from local knowledge,
CONDITIONS
1. BtAK present• a very cur•ory diacuaaion of a Terror Lake Ti•-in aa
an alternative energy source vbich vould offer industrial potential at a
better rate, Port l.iono doea not accept tbe validity of the idea that
Terror lAke haa nu uexceaa" capacity to •erYe Port Lions. The community
feel• that the Port Liooa ProJect •uat not preclude the possibility
of a Terror Lake Tie-in. Our approval io aubJeCt to the promise that
!iliA will co111111ence with tb<! design, study, and acquiaition of permits and
eaae••nta for a Tie-in, and that conetruction vi II bel( in vhen Port Lions
conaumption eice<!da the capacity of the Port Lions l~dro ProJect,
2, Tbe re-inatallation of the City'• auxiliary water oupply pump and lin"
ia of u:treme concern, Tbe <locument doea not deacribe the reroutwg of
the water transmiaaion line and does not aatiafy our concerns regarding
sediment in the vater aupply. Tbe City muat have the authority to r•view
and approve the deoign of this installation prior to conotruction. Our
proceaeor vas recently ordered by Puhlic Uealth official8 to ceasf"
operation becauee of the eicessive sediment in this vater suppl)' .. We
D-1
D-2
RESPONSE TO LETTER D
As a public utility KEA is charged to provide the following:
KEA will build a transmission intertie between Port Lions and
the Terror Lake hydroelectric plant when and if the load in Port Lions
develops to a point that it is economically feasible to do so. KEA
w1ll prepare a letter of intent suitable to show any potential indus-
trial developer that if he intends to develop a load of sufficient
size to warrant construction of an intertie, K[A will do so. The KEA
Board of Directors will incorporate the tie-in plan on their long-
range development plans. Specific loads and economic considerations
which will justify construction of the intertie are discussed in "Trans-
mission Line lntertie Between Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project and
City of Port Lions" which has already been provided to the City of
Port Lions for their review.
See response A-6.
D-2
(cant)
LETTER D
HFAK Conoul tanto
Pa~e 2
November 7, 19HO
(CONT.)
believe that for a period of time after construction of the forehay
dam and reaervoir, this ai tuation may worsen. The re-inatallation
of the water Bnpply ayatem muat include n proviaiou for filtration to
minimize this effect. Thia conatruct.ion al1all },e coordinated with
U.S.P.II.S. planB for a new tranamiaaion line to the dam ao City water
aervice will not be interrupted.
3. The aumoer r~creational uae of the Rive-r, and winter recreational
uoe of Crucent Lake "ill be effectively precluderl by the l'ro.Ject.
Ho ... ever, the City f~elo that the I~OJ8Ct itoelf provides oufficient
recreation alternative• to mitiA,Rte thia loaa, provided that the public
ia aasured acceaa to the facilities for recreation purpoaea. This
acceaa aha 11 be asanred in four way~.
A. In the proceaa of ohtainiu,~ Project esaernenta, KL\ shall
concurrently ohtair1 eaaemer1t for pul•lic recreation use of
D-3
Janda adJacent to the reaervoir anrl Jslanrl Lake. The reAervoir
easemer1t al1all include the lar1Js l1ounrled by tl1e reaervotr,
Bayview Street, to a 1 ine from the corner of the fore bay flt1m to
the corner of llayvie" and Ptarmiglln Streeta, (oee 1118p)
D-4
D-5
D-6
D--71
The 1econd easement shall include a 200 ft. access corridor
from the Crescent Lake Hoad at ita nearest point to Island Lake,
to thf' shore at leland Lake. Easements 1hall include perrw1iaaion
for the City to develop recreational facilities on tlaeee easemer1ts.
H. KEA aha l 1 obtain any necessary variance& or permits requ i rerl
by Borough Planning and Zoning authorities for hoth ProJeCt anrl
recreational activities in the City watershed.
C. Kl":A shall dedicate the Creocent Lake occeso road to pnhlic
use a1 far as l1land Lake. S.yond this point, KEA may restrict
public acceaa if it ao deairea. The City will provide routitle
maintenance of the road with State Rrvenue Sharin~ funds.
Routine maintenance 1hall not inclt1de anow-plowin~.
D. KE" ahall further provide 2 picnic table• at each puldic
recreatioo aite. Kf::A will install and maintain and pAy for 1t
otreet liKhto alon11 the reoervoir to provide I ightin~ for
evening recreatio1ml uae of the re1ervoir in winter.
KL\ ohall clearly poot oi11n1 "hich "arn of any dan~ers
aaaociated with the Project, such aa the lJazard of r:reacent
Lake ice.
The City ha1 attempted to minimize capital coste for recreation alterna-
tives in orrler to allow funda to be concentrated on the protection of
the City'o Yater supply,
RESPONSE TO LETTER D (CONT.)
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
KEA will request by letter that the landowners include recreation
with their easements on land use permits. Further, KEA will consult
with the city on a recreation plan.
KEA will attempt to obtain any necessary variances or permits.
KEA will attempt to comply with the City's
the permit application to the State of Alaska.
regulations will determine what will be allowed
of access and maintenance funds.
wishes in this area in
State statutes and
with respect to dedication
KEA will provide two (2) picnic tables at each public recreation
site. KEA will also provide for fcur (4) street lights along the forebay
dam impoundment.
Such signs will be posted by KEA.
D-8
D-9
D-10(
D-11
D-121
LETTER D
llUK Conaul tanta
l'aae J
November 7, I YHO
(CONT.)
COMMENTS
The atatement deacribea an accees road from the highway to tbe power
plant at the lagoon. We correct our earlier etate•ent concerning th~
exiattmce of a road easement. There ia no f!lUJement, but there ia a rosd
vhieh ebould he auffieit!nt to this need, J'roJect faei I i tin must not
reatrict traffic on this road. IU:A ea&ementa ahould prnvide fur tltis
road ao a City atreet. Ueatruction of the natural beauty of the
lagoon muot be minimized,
We believe that the eumulativt! erft!eta of the Settler's Cove break-
water• and the raleaae of colder freehvater into the Cove may reault
in ice which mav interfere vith boat traffic in the new harbor. The
effect• of rele~seo ahould be carefully monitored.
Citizens woulrl appreciate more apecifie rletaile concernin;t reeervnir
houndariea, vater aupply 1 ine ronte. penstock route, pover plant
location, and floodplain areaa from both dams.
lie aloo wiah to point out that the penple of Port Lions hav" 1llread:·
once paid for the inatallation of thi! auxi llary YAter pump and traus-
f'liasion line at the Jliver, and are curr~ntiy payin~ KEA a contract
rate for the nece88ary el .. ctrical installation forth" pump. The r"-
1 oca tion of a II th .. e faci I i tiea is sure to he UJ>ensi ve. Th i • cn•t wli I
he included in our rBte base and we will be paying for vhat ve have
already paid for,
w .. helievc that the coat-benefit ratio of th~ l'ro,Ject rould he si~ni
ficantly •nhanceti h)· ohtaining a:rant funds for conetruct1on. ffiveu
Federal and State eommit....,nta to the development of alternative "ner!J(Y
aoureea, ve believe that such fun•1a 11ho..tld he more actively }JUr8ueti ..
vv
ec:: KEA, ]nc.
Enclo•un: (Hap)
CITY OF POUT LIONS
RESPONSE TO LETTER D (CONT.)
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
D-12
~EA will make every ~ffort to maintain the scenic beauty of the
ldgoon and absolutely will not cut any trees that are not essential.
It is po;sible that icing will be aggravated by the combined effects
of increased fresh water discharge and the breakwaters for the small boat
harbor. We agree that the situation should be carefully monitored.
All of this information is presented in Attachment A.
KEA will relocate the auxiliary water pump and transmission line.
These activities plus costs of picnic tables, lights. etc., will be
included in the City's rate base.
KEA is actively pursuing grants as well as low interest loans.
.,·
j
.. ,..,
e
(/<a -
36 /
LETTER E
e DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
p;o BOX 7002
" OlOLY TQ
ATlfiiTtON Of
NPAEN-PL-EN
Or. Robert H. Ellis
Project Manager
Beak Consultants, Inc.
31 7 S • W. A 1 der
Portland, OR 97204
Dear Dr. Ellis:
ANCHOitA.G£ ALASKA 88810
The Alaska District, Corps of Engineers has reviewed the "Port Lions
Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Report" and we have the following
conments:
The Department of the Army has statutory responsibility under Sec-
tion 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill
material in the waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Several of the proposed activities would be within Corps jurisdiction
and would require permits. From the project description it is diffi-
cult to state exact actions which would require a permit with the
exception of the two dams which are definitely under Corps juris-
diction. Other areas which may require permits could include the
powerhouse, penstock route, and access roads if the placement of fill
material in wetlands is required. For clarity, wetlands are defined
as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalance of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, muskegs, and similar areas.
The Alaska District would like to adopt the final environmental
document for its regulatory permit process. If the environmental
RESPONSE TO LETTER E
E-1
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
LETTER E (CONT.)
NPAEN-PL-EN
Dr. Robert Ellis
document does not adequately address the area of Corps responsi-
bility, a supplement to the document would be required and permit
issuance would be delayed.
SPECIFIC
Page 1, Project Description. The Description of the proposed action
is difficult to follow. Possibly the inclusion of quantities and
plans would clarify the proposed action.
Page 31, Vegetation. In several areas of the vegetation discussion
some areas are described as "wetlands" or "poorly drained". These
areas may be under Corps jurisdiction, and a better description and
impact assessment of these areas would aid in the permit process.
Page 65, First Parag. Although operation of the plant will produce
uniform flows, there are some aspects of hydroelectric power pro-
duction which could have adverse impacts on the spawning area and
on the life histories of the salmon. With uniform flows, natural
flushing of the spawning gravels does not occur. Water temperatures
w i 11 tend to be colder during the spawning season and warmer when egg
incubation is occurring. Although temperature changes may be slight,
this could change the time of emergence and the fry may enter the
marine habitat when sufficient food sources are not available.
Page 70, Vegetation. If any areas classified as wetlands are going
to be impacted by construction, regardless of whether or not it is
unique or limited, Corps permitting may be required. A description
of impacts on these wetlands would be appreciated by the Alaska Dis-
trict.
Page 80, Water Quality, Number 3. Minor stream crossings and
temporary stream crossings can be permitted under the nationwide
permit system if they are culverted for the expected high flows.
Pages g1 and 92, Negative Impacts. The negative impacts stated
for a transmission line from the Terror Lake Project appear to be
excessive. The transmission line could be routed around possible
raptor nesting habitat. Although the transmission corridor for the
alternative is not included in this report, additional crossings of
Kizhuyak Creek does not appear warranted. The proposed powerhouse
RESPONSE TO LETTER E (CONT.)
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
See attachment A for details of project description.
~etlands (as defined by Corps of Engineers' letter to Or. Robert
£llis. 22 October 1980), will be disturbed by fill material in the
following locations: l) 650 ft. section of the access road between
Crescent Lake Dam and Island Lake: 2) That section of the access
road form where the road leaves the Island Lake perimeter to a point
4200 ft. east and; 3) the access road from a point 1530 ft. beyond
the end of the previous stretch to a point 3400 ft. east (see Attachment
A for map of wetlands area). The width of the access road will be
approximately 20 ft. A total of 3.8 acres of wetlands will be affected
by construction of the access road.
The wetlands that will be impacted support willov1, alder, lupine,
labrador tea, and blueberry. These species are well adapted to the wet
conditions that occur along the access road but certainly are not typical
of marshy habitats (e.g., cattai 1 ). The plant groups and species are
co~non in the Port lions area as well as Kodiak Island. The r~ad will be
constructed by laying a reinforcing fabric membrane over the wetland soil and
covering the fabric with at least 18 inches of gravel. The result wi11
be loss of 3.8 acres of wetland vegetation. No waterfowl or shorebird
nesting areas will be affected. Culverts placed as indicated in Attach-
ment A will reduce the impact of the access road on drainage.
The reference to uniform flow may be somewhat misleading in our
statement on page 65. Actually the lagoon will still experience
substantial flow variability. During runoff periods some water will be
held back for storage. However about 2!3 of the flow in the lower river
originates in the watershed downstream from Crescent Lake. During heavy
rainfall events the lagoon will still be subject to freshets which should
be adequate to flush out the gravel.
Effects of the project on water tE!11peratures relative to salmon
spawning and incubation were discussed previously (see response C-1).
See response E-2.
All streamcrossings will be culverted. Culvert size has been de-
termined from appropriate tables in ARMCO handbook for standard road
culvertinQ. Culvert sizes and locations are presented in Attachment A.
As discussed in response A-17 a report has been prepared since the
[R was distributed that describes the economics and feasibility of the
intertie. The report also shows two alternative transmission routes from
Terror Lake to Port Lions.
E-6
(cont)
LETTER E (CONT.)
NPAEN-PL-EN
Dr. Robert Ellis
for the Terror Lake Project is located on the west side of Kizhuyak
Creek. The proposed corridor to Kodiak would cross the creek where
an intertie to Port Lions could occur. The Terror Lake intertie
appears to be a viable alternative and possibly should be expanded
1n the final environmental document.
The Alaska District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
Environmental Report and hope our comments are useful If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact John Burns of the
Environmental Section, at (907) 752-2572.
Sincerely,
~Ditl~
Chief, Engineering Division
RESPONSE TO LETTER E (CONT.)
LETTER F
UNITEO STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminiacration
NATIONAL MAl-liNE FISHERIES SERVICI
Alaska Region
Post Office Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
NOV 3 1980
Dr. Robert H. Ellis
Project Manager
Beak Consultants Incorporated
317 S.W. Alder
Portland, Oregon g7204
Dear Dr. Ell is:
We have received the Environmental Report for the proposed Port Lion
hydroelectric project, which accompanied your letter of October 2, 1980.
We believe the draft statement presents an acceptable discussion of the
environ •. ~ental impacts associated with most project features. However certain
features or impacts have not been thoroughly addressed. These concerns may
be significant in assessing project impact or in meeting federally mandated
responsibilities; they include:
F-11 I.
2.
F-2
F-31
3.
4.
F-4
Wetlands. No discussion of wetlands, per se, is presented in the
report. A description of existing wetland habitat within the project
area, and the effects of the project on this habitat, should be
provided.
Access Road. Page one describes an access road to be built along the
penstock right of way from the highway to the power plant. What ty~e
of access to the Crescent Lake damsite is being proposed? Detailed
mapping of all roads and impacted tributary streams and stream
crossings or ford sites should be provided.
Material Sites. Quarries or other material sites should be identified
to allow for associated impacts and/or mitigative measures to be
addressed. Again, more detailed mapping of the project should be
made available.
Mitigation. Location of the tailrace from the powerhouse as far
upstream as possible is a necessary mitigative measure. It is not
clear just how far upstream this could go. Could this flow be provided
to spawning areas above the culvert? Section 404. Fis_t! should mention
that construction activities will be timed to avoid critical life
history stages of salmon. Also, the deposition of construction
generated silts and fines in the lagoon should be monitored. Should
excessive build-ups occur, a mechanical means of flushing these gravel
spawning areas should be considered.
10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administr•tion
A yQ~;mg agency w1th a h1~tor1c
trad1l1M of Set"VICtt to the Nat.on
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
RESPONSE TO LETTER F
See response E-2
A gravel access road will be constructed from the Forebay dam site
to Crescent Lake (see Attachment A). The first 2000 ft of road, starting
at the Forebay dam site, will require clearing of trees and brush. A
30 ft right-of-way will be cleared. None of this area is classified
as wetlands. The remainder of the access road will be constructed by
laying gravel on the existing trail. Clearing will not be necessary.
Rpinforcing fabric membrane will be used in boggy areas to provide sup-
port for the gravel bed. The road will be approximately 20ft wide
throughout this stretch. All creeks and small tributaries will be cul-
verted. Location of the access road and culverts are shown in Attach-
ment A.
Three borrow areas are proposed for the Port lions project. Their
size and location is presented in Attachment il. The three areas and
the impacts associated with their use as borrow areas are described below.
CrescP~t Lake site. Fill material for the Crescent Lake Dam will be ex-
tracted from a-f=iicre borrow area adjacent to the dam site. This area
is well drained, consisting primarily of silty-gravelly-sand and a glacial
till and is not likely to fill with water. The edges of the borrow area
will be contoured. Topsoil will be spread over the area and the site
will be revegetated. The area does not contain critical habitat for any
species of animal or plant.
Access Road. Gravel for the access road will be excavated from a borrow
site previously developed by the City of Port Lions. This area is lo-
cated near the Port Lions airstrip and is current 1 y !·ei ng used for con-
struction and maintenance of city roads. Impact of th1s borrow area will
be low due to the disturbed conditions that presently exist.
Forebay Borrow Site. Fill for the Forebay dam will be extracted from a
large abandoned river meander about 300 feet west of the dam site. The
area contains about five acres of clean gravel with little soil cover.
A minimum five foot layer of gravel is apparently present. This borrow
area would be inundated by the forebay impoundment and therefore reclamation
of excavated areas would not be required. lm~acts to this general area
have been discussed in the ER.
The location of the tailrace for the proposed hydroelectric project
is shown in Attachment A. At this location I ittle, if any, existing
spawning habitat in the lagoon area will be destroyed. According to the
design engineer, movement of the powerplant to a location upstream of
the culvert would result in loss of too much head. The project would not
be economically feasible.
All attempts will be made to schedule construction activities to
avoid critical life history stages of salmon. Spring and early SUirmer
would be the best times of the year to schedule construction activities
to avo1d such conflicts.
Deposits of construction generated silts and fines in the lagoon
will be monitored by KEA. Should excessive build-ur occur KEA will
use a high pressure hose to flush the sediment out of >pawning gravel.
LETTER F (CONT.)
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this draft report, should you
have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Brad Smith
with our Western Alaska area office in Anchorage, phone (907) 271-5006.
Sincerely,
~~~ .j.r Robert W. McVey
Director, Alaska Region
RESPONSE TO LETTER F (CONT.)
G-1
LETTER G
U. S. E N V I R 0 N M E N T A l P R 0 TE C T I 0 N A G E N C Y
REGION X
IEPlY TO
A.OH Of
4 NOV 1980
Dr. Robert H. Ellis
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
Beak Consultants, Incorporated
317 S.W. Alder
Portlarw, flrPunrr q7704
Subject: Envirnnmpntal Report for thP rtPC Short Fr,.-n, L irpw.P
Applicdtion for tne Port Lions, Alaskd, Pro.r•'ct
Dear Dr. Ellis:
Thenk vou for SPnr!inq us the abovP rc'port for reviP>~. Rasr"l orr ti!P
rroject descript 1011 in the May 1980 Backqrounrl Informal H•n r!ocrmtf'nt
!lnd thr environrnrntal impacts otrtlined in the environmerrt;•l rt'fHn-t,
wP will have no objections to thP project if the mitiqatinn mrasurrs
outlined in Chdpter 4 are implemPnted.
In qeneral the rennrt was interPst inq and arlS••erpc many of t '"'
concerns wr raiser1 "arl irr. The usP of photuqraphs was esper "llv
helpful. Then; are howrv•Y, five isstrcs tor l<hich adcitinndl
informal ion Wl'Uld be helpful.
l. There SPems to he some diseqreemrnt h•'l•!Pen yotrr analv'ls of liH·
pro.iect's etfPct on domestic watPr quality and thP Citv of Port
Lion's anelvsis in thPir letter locater1 in Appe••dix r. The r1tv's
let.tpr impl~es that this project would rPquirc hyoassinq of lhP
w;;ter treatment facility at certain times. The effect of "":h a
bypass on the City's rlrinkin~ water quality should be evalu•trd.
G-21 2. The report should describe the locatinn of, impacts of, ard
mitigation for any necessary borrow areas.
G-3
3. A discussion of the community's monthly electricnl rlrmantl wr<~rld
be usPiul in evaluatinq future flm1s betwren thP forroa" doll' anrl the
lagoon as well as flm;s frnll' the powerhouse into tile lauoon. MPr·r
information is needed on the plant's operational olan tn clarify if
there will be any ciurnal or seasonal flow chanors at the tailrace
due to varyinq electrical loads. The effects of any such flow
chanqes shollld bP discussed.
G-1
G-2
G-3
RESPONSE TO LETTER G
See response A-16.
See response F-3.
The type of turbine that will be used in this project responds to
changes in load by deflecting water onto ur away from the turbine blades.
Therefore the amount of water passing through the powerplant remains
constant. There will be no diurnal changes in flow leaving the tailrace.
Seasonal changes in flow from the tailrace were discussed previously
(see response A-3).
G-4
LETTER G (CONT.)
2
4. lolhile el»ctric heat does nnt appear co'lJilon now in thP City of
Port Lions, sta~ilizino the cost nf electricity whrn compared to the
rapidly increasing heatinq oil costs may enco11raq~' such changes.
The likPlihoon such switches and their pfftct nn bnth hpatino nil
and electricity costs anrl supplies should bP examinPd.
5. Major impacts in any of these areas may require arlditional
mitigation. In addition, monitorinq the imoacts of the projPct on
sensitivp rf>sOurCPS SLJCh -35 the salmnn spawnino qravels and nin<
salmon runs should bP considered to ens11rP that thesP valual'le
resources arP maintained.
Aoain, wP appreciate the nooortunitv to review this repnrt. If ynu
have any questions reqarn1no our comments, pleasP feel free to
contact eithPr my<elf or Judi Schw•rz of mv staff. WP con be
reached at (206) q42-1285.
Sincerely yours,
U.tC 1"
Elizaheth Corbyn, rhi<ef
[nvironMI'ntal Evaluation Branch
cc: David Nease, Jr., KEA
FERC
RESPONSE TO LETTER G (CONT.)
G-4
G-5
When the ER was prepared, It was assumed that financing for the
Port Lions hydroproject would come through REA with 5% financing. Since
that time the State of Alaska has proposed a bill that would provide
outright grants for hydroelectric projects. The bill has passed the
Senate but is being held up in the House for revisions. It is likely
that a revised bill will be passed that will provide monies for hydro-
projects with an interest rate in the neighborhood of 3 percent. The
Port Lions project has been included on the list of projects which would
receive state funding. If such funds do become available, the cost of
electricity in Port lions would be less than originally anticipated.
This could result in some shifts to electric heating. However, the number
of conversions will probably be small because most of the people in Port
Lions cannot afford the capital outlay for new electrical heating systems.
The present trend is toward more reliance on wood stoves for heating.
Wood is relatively plentiful In the area and will probably continue to
supply a large proportion of the heating requirements in the forseeable
future. KEA estimates of power requirements for Port Lions do not
include an increase in demand from residents switching over from fuel oil
to electricity for heating.
Co11111ent noted.
LETTER H
ALASii.A t•tnVI~It AITTIIOiliTY
333 WEST 4th AVENUE SUITE 31 ·ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone· !907) 277-7641
H-1
Mr. Robert H. Ellis, Ph.D.
Project Manager
Beck Consultants, Inc.
317 S. W. Alder
Portland, Oregon 97204
RE: Beck Project 02672
Dear Dr. Ellis:
(907) 276-2715
October 10, 1980
We have completed our review of your Environmental Report for the proposed Port
Lions hydroelectric project at Port lions, Alaska. We'd like to commend you and your
staff on an exceptionally well written and beautifully illustrated document.
The position of the Alaska Power Authority relative to the project continues to
be favorable; provided the construction of the project will result in lower consumer
power costs than would otherwise result from continued dependence on diesel powered
generators. However, we note, with some concern, that reduced fuel requirements for
the generation of electrical power may cause a significant increase in the cost of
heating oil. The obvious result is that some of the savings in electrical costs will
be lost to higher heating costs. Since this issue may adversely affect the cost of
living in Port Lions, we agree with your statement (p. 86) that mitigating measures
for the escalation of heating oil costs need more investigation. Also, while reducing
the operation of diesel generators is the net objective, we do not think it wise to
totally replace (remove) diesel generators as you imply in Section 3.3 (p. 68). Some
equipment should remain as a backup for or to supplement the hydroelectric facilities.
Sincerely,
k~~JJ
Executive Director
cc: David Nease, Jr. Kodiak Electric Ass'n.
H-1
RESPONSE TO LETTER H
As discussed on page 67 of the ER, diesel generation will continue to
be used to supplement hydropower during months of inade~uate flow in the
Port lions River. Therefore, periodic bulk shipments of fuel oil will con-
tinue to be brought into Port Lions for diesel generation. The frequency
of those shipments will be reduced to approximately one shipment per year.
K[A is willing to continue sharing the bulk shipments with the City's
fuel oil supplier. Therefore, the people of Port Lions will be able to
continue to secure most of their fuel oil at bulk quantity prices.
LETTER I
• . -
.
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Anchorage District Office
4700 Eaat 72nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
AK-016-0IUH
2~20 (Ulb)
1-1
Dr. Robert Ellis
Beak Consultants Incorporated
317 Southwest Alder
Portland, Oregon 97204
JAN 2 P 19i1
RE: Port Lions Hydroelectric Project, Environmental Report -R0viC'w
Dear Mr. r:J lis:
The Bureau of Land Management has reviewed thP EnvironmPnt.ll H~Jl~~ com-
pleted by Reak Consultants Incorporated in Septemb~r 1980.
The report presents a rather broad scope of project relatc•d env! rnnm•·nt:1l
and socioeconomic factors; howevt:!r, it docs not present a tl·chni_c,d .tTt.tly-
sls sufflclent to eitht_•( identify the benefits of the projl'ct ur qu.llltlfy
potential overall project costs. In particular, tht' report does not
justify the proposed project as the most sultRhle of tlw a]tl-'ruativt-s
discussed.
We are particularly concPrned that the level of stt1dy and inf<Jrmatinn
\ccumulated concerning thP effect of the project on tlw environmt•nt and
the socioeconomic status of Port Lions is at times con_jr>ctural and incon-
clusive. In particular:
-The ''sizeable'' benefit to local employment during tile 11roject
construction is not quantified.
1-2
-long-range effects of the project upon the entirt• city dc1 not
indicate the effect upon the local fuel oil dlstrlhutor <>r th.-
avallahility and price of fuel oil to be usPd for hcat!n~ and
auxiliary power.
1-3
1-4
1-5
-Streamflow baseline data is insufficient; flow data is inconclnsivP
when it is basf'd upon precipitation records, particularly when such
data was not generated in the local area.
-There is a lack of soils data. Without this, only unsubtantiatPd
predictions can be made indicating stream sedimentation and salmon
spawning habitat alteration.
-There is no bathymetry of Cresent Lake itself, concerning potenti.1l
sedimentation at the dam site.
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
RESPONSE TO LETTER I
The benefit to local employment during project construction is quan-
tified as follows:
I. Six to eight local persons will be hired fur clearing of timber
and brush in th1 rorebay and Crescent Lake impoundment areas .
Approximately one month of labor will be required for t~is
operation.
2. There are two or three licensed heavy equipment operators in
the City of Port Lions. Every attempt will be made to utilize
these persons during the construction phase if they are available.
See responce H-1.
At the date of this writing, stream flow records for the Port Lions
River have been monitored daily for over one year. srnK agrees that it
would be desirahle to have more years of flm; data upon which to estimate
hydropower potential. However, with one year of flow data and precipi-
tdtion and temperature records it is possible to develop reasonably re-
liable correlations between measured flows in the Port Lions River and
measured flows in nearby streams which have a longer record of flow.
Those correlation studies have been completed by Roland Jones Consulting
Eng1neers, Kodiak and support the original projections discussed in the ER.
A soils report was prepared after the ER was distributed. The text
of the soils report can be found in Attachment E. Boring logs, labora-
tory tests and figures attached as Appendices A, B and C to the original
soils report are available from KEA upon request. Results of the soils
analyses did not change our conclusions regarding effects of the project
on salmon spawning habitat.
Transects will be made in the upper one-third, middle and lower one-
third of Crescent Lake. Depth soundings will be taken at 100 ft intervals.
These readings will be used to provide a rough characterization of trescent
Lake's bathymetry. Results of the survey will be forwarded to the Bureau
of Land Management upon completion and will be available to other agencies
upon request.
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-J
LETTER I (CONT.)
I -The impact on the city water supply, water quality and quantity is
insufficiently analyzed.
I -There is no discussion of earthquake or tsunami related effects
upon the project.
Further, several major issues remain in question:
I -It is not clear that the residents of Port Lions either support
this project or understand its scope and benefits.
-The benefit of this project, which will theoretically supply only a
portion of Port Lions power demand for ninv months of the year, is
questionable. There is no excess capacity.
1-10
I
I -The benefit of supplying limited hydroelectric power, assuming zero
environmental impact, has not bee11 adcquatt·ly compared "With the
economic cost of the project, given low cost financing.
1-11
-It remains quite possible that the most cost effective alternative
for Port Lions is via hydroelectric power transmitted from
Terror Lake. The fact that this would capture a percentag~ of
power theoretically earmarked for Kodiak is understood~ Ho"Wevert
the relative cost effectiveness of the Terror Lake transmission to
Port Lions over an entire separate project has not been indicated.
This relationship should be studied.
Please feel free to contaet MiKe Kasterin or Ron Huntsinger at the Anchor-
age District Office (907) 344-9661 for information or assistance as neces-
sary.
Sincerely yours,
t ,._,,,ve"JZ
~ ,,~··
ohn Merrick
Area ManagPr
Peninsula Resource Area
RESPONSE TO LETTER I (CONT.)
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
See response A-16.
See responses A-1 and A-14.
See pages 88-89 of the ER. Also see response to cornnents sutrnitted
by the City of Port Lions.
See rttachment B "Transmission line lntertie Between Terror lake
Hydroelectric Project and the City of Port lions.
See Attachment B.
See Attachment B.
ATTACHMENT A
...
ll 12 1
I I
" ------L
VIC!NITY MAP
0 i/2 2 3
t;;;;;.;:=iil ......., i
SCALE IN MILES
?l FROM • USGS t~ A P KODIAK D-3
Lfl; u l r-
CD L[)
0l
BFXJCH\'il\TC::R. CP.El:r:-//
BO\JF30N
ACCESS
\ I 0 \ -I \ :Ji /
;01
l.[",,
··-·~·· .. /
::oE:-:,\L POOL LE\'EL 1 • .. -
./ SHORC LI:~E
'· ,/
'v'
POOL LEVEL ELE'J. 312
PL'\!J
SCA!.-E IN :-n LES
DATU!·l: !'I:EA:: SET, LEVEL
PURPOSE: POWER ?RODUC:'IO!~
ADJACENT PROPERTY 01\:1ERS:
1: STATE OF ALASKA
DIVISION OF LANDS
Al'JCHORl-\.GE I AL!.SKA
2: AFOGNAK NATIVE CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 14
KODIAK, ALA~KA 99615
I
I
I
I
C r: E E ~ lT L !\1~ F l
l\rl': POnT LIONS, AL71.S:::~
l\PPLICT,TION BY:
KOD!l-1K I:LECTR.IC ,\SSOC., r:;c.
P. 0. 30X 7(i7
KODIAK, ALASKA 996~5
DA'I'L: JA!lt.Ji\RY 26, 1':181
SJ;r:T.:'l': 1 OF G
/
I
I Lcnqlll: 1700 lin ft.
Material and Quantity:
l. Ernbank.ment-··-~8, SOU Cu. Ydc~. uf Clay, Sand, Gr<~vcl .1nd C.Jbblc:;
2. Riprap -2600 OJ. Yds.
Nu \vL:tlands under t::rnbankme>nt /\reel
STI<IP!:•rt:c; \·JfiSTr:--.
26'-0"
L1\'l, SILT, Sf\!JD !\tiD
CR.I\\'EL l<OLLUl TU 6" r,;,·n:J<:~
1·11\X. SlZE i\CC;JZECTITE l)". --)
(_.--
cv:::;T J:u·:'.'. 320.0
:;:\NO, CRAVEr. ~~ COBBLES-J
--------- ------
l.l.J
_J
f-··
~
•_)
' ;1
ij
~ (f)
,-
Li
0
w
U'
0
~
0 .::,;
~-·
, ''--G FOOT MIN. UNLES:;
::: .. ,
H
r.::::
UJ
0
H
...:1
•1
~~:
0 ··-
..
H
"--'----,!----',--< ~ BEDr~OCK EUCOUNTERED.
20 " -BEDl<OCK
;1 / ~--=-----,'r. ~..,.
~:: ...
(1)
F-:-:
>-<
N;
[j) ..
'7 >< 0 C!l
H
...:1 0
t H l:: LJ ·~ u
H
...:l .. P-
E-< 1"-,_ <
// / CUTOF~·· Tl{[cNl:II I LGLAClAL 'fHL "'-._ ____ CONCkETF. GHOUT CAP 1-HIERE BEDHOCK
LL ---REHOVE OH.GANIC HATE!UALS
ORIGINAL GROUND LINE
Cf~ESCENT ~AKE
Sl·T'l'ION
NUT '1\) SCALE
ENCOUNTERED WITH Gil.OU1' HOLES AT
l 0 FOOT CF:NTE HS .
u
"7
H
rl
( ~ ~
u lt'i (_",\
0 rl ,.-j
u) \=-'
(fJ 0>
•.I: 0'\ \D
0j
'-J
H ~ >< c::: ~ p;
E-< r--(fJ ·-· \D u co ~ :J
w r--...:1 ~
...:1 .:.:: ,~ ~
w X r; 0
0 ;:.: p:) ~: ('~
~ ~-:.:
H H r,J r::: 0 " ~ ..
0 c '' f~
~ p. ;..; 0 r.l
r~ ::r::
(fJ
./ tTJ
~.: X n ;::.
<; ;::.
J-:3
tTJ
g .
J-:3
~
J-:3
Ul
tTJ n
J-:3
H
0 z ;::.
L'
tTJ
L'
t'l ·< ;:::.
I ~
H
0 z
;:::.
L'
0 z
0 .,.. I f;j
'· J-:3
t"l ;:::. z L' ~
t"l 0
~ H c;'l .
;::. -r-
H '0 .~-z ::r: t' ·-!:'= ~ H -;.;..
0 ~
'"'.1 C) :;::
~ (J)
0 0
~ c:
0 J-:3
'0
H ::0 z
~
J-:3
Ul
'0 _J
H
L' -.
~ ;::. ><
I
I
I n
G5
Ul n w
tTJ -"". z "" J-:3 0 -
H
L' ;::.
~ H z
L'
"' '0 ~
H w Ul
'0 ~ '0 t1J f\,J H
t" H £ z
f;; N ;:::.
1.0 >< J-:3 CD .
0
CilliSCENT LJ\KE ACCESS F:Oi1D
LIST Or-' CUL'JER'l'S
S'l'l\Tim! PIPE S IZE LEi!GTil
14H+06 24 " 2G'
144+81 18" 20 '
137+ 7 0 2 <1 " 2Ei'
130+72 60" 3(,'
1 25+40 36" 30 '
117+ 7 0 36" 30'
11 ·1+·~0 3 6 " 3 0'
104+40 18" 20 '
'J31-80 3 6 " 30 '
91+70 24" 26 '
88+5 2 2'1 II 2G '
GG+69 48" 38'
61+18 3f>" 3 0 '
tl ·1 +5 3 GO " 40'
·12+ 10 2<1" 2G '
·ll+08 24 " ') ·' I -'J
2:2+0~ 24 " 26 '
l.'/-'-34 )~" 20 '
<J+ ".7 108 " SG '
~·J I·:r~·: J7 ~i ~ DS LI!•:?\T!OllS
8G+O O TO 1 ::R·I·O i 1
1·1 2+5 0 'i'(J 1f1<Jt()(J
Liil. I-'':'.
3tl00
.; 2 r; ()
GSrJ
f'ILL
.::r . J. ~--~ •
'2 F->Jf)
3~00
SGO
-18" !-H I-!. I-'P.L OVER I'J,L:!IC
EE HJl·'OI ·:CI!lG l''T1BF:I C ;,o;:~:·ffiP/\ilE
OH.IGI:~lll. GJ{QUim
ACCESS ROJ\D---TiPICTIL SECTIOH
N .T .S.
P hOPOSE D Di1:·:S
Iti: PORT LIO!~S RIVEH
r,T : PORT LIONS, J\Ll1S i:i~
r,PPLICJ\TION BY:
KODIJI.K ELECTRIC ASSOC. , INC .
P.O. BOX 787
i:ODIJ\K, ALASKA 996 2.5
DATE: JANUARY 26 , 1981
S II EET : 3 OF 6
SHEET: S OF 6 -MATCH 1----
-}."'
t'Jlvl 10. o
;:J
:-:1
G1
~
til
tT:
>-3
V'1
0
'"'::
:;;. z
0
I
I
I
'"0
(7\ >-3 :-:1
>' z
'"'J H G1
0 t"'
;:J ~ g
n n ~"
0 r:J-z
>-3
H z c
:r>
>-3
H
0 z
BI:::::JROCK
0
0
HIGHWAY
_______ ,
rr::
l1
0
7J
-1
P' OPOSED DX·'C:
PORT LIO:JS EI'.':::;
T,T: l·Gra LIOIJS, J,L;,su,
.·,ppJ,IC'ITIOI~ BY:
I
KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOC.,
P.O. BOX 787
:1_71 TE:
sr:::cr:T:
fEB~~A~Y 25, l9ll
I) OP 6
\
I
\
I
l
IJ
r::c.
~
""~
WATE::.R
SURFACE
E.LE.V 84.0
v / ;~~ • I il
~3LOCK 12 II ~/ ' I
/MPA~SABLE
FALLS
2
~
TRACT "A'
~
1
·-.
,L, .,. UJ
Ll .. ~-.
Cl > e.:J WH .:::
Ul r;::
0 c.. ;;: Ul
0 '7
..::; 0 0
r~ ..... H
... :t ..:1
E-< t r:: c 0 ,...., c.,
•·
'
E,__.
~ rc;
81
u
H
:._.)
0
Ul
Ul .:::
u
H n: • • E-< r-
>< U CD
P-lwr-
~
a~~
H
£::: • .. u
'. ...... <
H w
0
~
c
0
P-l
0
lil
r-1
\.C)
(.)\
()\
~'; ......
U) .::
e.:J .:::
' . .
~· <
H
t::J
0
~
E-<
0
0
,.....;
:::.J
f.:-1
(:.
I
I
I
I
I
kl ... ~ ,:;.:
u
Ul
,.-;
~o
;J'\
,.....;
t."1
N
>< 1.;:> CY.
~-< :) (_;,
~~ 0 ...
~~ L> ~.
.. E-<
[.,_; ro.:
E'-• ·.• ,_
(.,.;
U) 0 ::J
0 f-i
E-< < n: :.:.>
f:l z
5 , ...
£-<
Cl; •7
0
' f"-l u
~ u c) ;$. .:r;
u 0
[-< • .::t [:...
Ul H
i.ti ·~ <-0
f-•
p.. (!..
I Cl 0
I z
I .:!; <;!' z < E-<
... 1 w
p.. kl ::r;
....:1 (j)
<
H
E-<
;'":: :1 ..:c p..
Length:
}!atvl'icll:
Q11ant i ty;
310 ft.
Sand, gravel 1< coLhlc:; \vi th :oill•,:t :itL:c l n~vmhrarh.,
7580 Cubic Y:.lrcl:> of Embankmcr1L
TOP STEi:L " :s: :n: !:LEV. 'H.(;
'\ (I
"'·~ .. ·... . ~,,-.
~.:.... ...
.,
" SHE?T S'~'J:r:L
1·'E:-!BI<J\tlE ~····
0 ·-7
CXb < . -S !,N D ,
-~
CJ2-GLi\CI AL
UJiJIJLJ::c; /
L_..-•
/ rl
FOkE!3AY DAM
SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
CONCRETE GROUT CAP
GROU'l' HOLES A'I' 10' CTHS
u
H
C) L>
~' rl ,l1
,_j ... u~ ~~J Gl
._:" (,) G: ,~\ rl ,, :;.J ..::: ..::: (;\
~1 ..-1
Ul H ~ u L')
0 ..::.: H .::::; 0l
0 c:; " .~
Ul [f) .. E-< r-rJ) >-0:. ~7 >-u co ...:: .:::; t::J
0:. 0 0 m u r-~ H H ....::) ,_ r,.
>-1 ,_:
(5 u X 0 0 ~ c:
f..; " H :,: ;n :,_ ~ G ,_ c.: E·· .:::: .::::; ;:.,..
~ I') h: H h ;: .. u f~ 0 Q
f-' 8 0 .. t >~ P:. :,: ~. ~
r r: •.•
•· E-< ~ ·~ .:::: ,.: .~ t.:
REi>IOVf~ OltGANIC NATEHIALS
."SBt::::T W-1
·'
,3. P. I. STA. 16 + 39.77
b:. = 21° 40' 36"
R = 1619.19'
T = 310.00'
L = 612.59'
2. P.I. STA. 4 + 31.34
I A = 12° 51' 45"
R = 1774.30'
T = 200.00'
I L = 398.32'
l. P.I. STA. 0 + 00.00
€. Tt.,~'DC'l:',....,.T ,... .. , ",..~,..,.. .·
.1
I ·f
I "' n
z
.. : ... : \
··:.?·.-(1·V: \A .~
• ' -1.L·L+'-'' • .... •__..__~ ... ' '
f ~I ' ~-~ . :.,:.· :::
• '. ~: lr ,. ' ....
16. P.I. STA. 152+45.27
=1 ,413,354.053 N
702,361.303 E
15. P.l. STA. 134+50.76
= 64° 34 1 23 11
R= 600.00 1
T= 240.00 1
L= 676.21 1
14. P.I. STA 126+35.96
1 3.
12.
11.
=29° 17' 56 11
R = 918.13 1
T = 240.00 1
L = 469.50 1
p .I. STA 92+89.59
= 1 6° 35 I 35 11
R = 7 54 • 34 I
T = 110.00 1
L = 218.46 1
p .I. STA 87+69.24
= 24° 34 1 35 11
R = 780.46 1
T = 170.00 1
L = 334 o 77 I
p .I. STA. 81+87.80
= 24° 07 1 1 2"
R = 819.09 1
T = 175.00 1
L = 344.82 1
ATTACr:t·1ENT B
kea007/a1
TRANSMISSION LINE INTERTIE
BETWEEN TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
AND CITY OF PORT LIONS
Prepared for
Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.
Kodiak, Alaska
by
ROBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
Anchorage, Alaska
April 1981
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
SECTION III: ROUTE SELECTION, LAND OWNERSHIP AND
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
SECTION IV: DESIGN CRITERIA & COST ESTIMATES
SECTION V: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
SECTIOtJ VI. SUt,lt~ARY & RECm1~1ENDATIONS
SECTION VII: APPENDICES
kea007/a2
A. REFERENCES
B. POWER RATE DEVELOPMENT FOR CITY OF KODIAK
C. ECONOMICS OF SUPPLEMENTAL DIESEL GENERATION
FOR PORT LIONS VS CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSMISSION
INTERTIE
I-1 to I-4
II-1 to II-8
II I -1 to I II-7
IV-1 to IV-4
V-1 to V-12
VI-1 to VI-3
kea007/a3
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION & HISTORY kea07/b1
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
Port Lions is a small, predominantly Alaskan native village with a
population of approximately 227 (1979 count) located in the Kodiak
Island Borough on the North end of Kodiak Island. The inhabitants are
primarily residents relocated from the village of Afognak on Afognak
Island following the March 1964 earthquake.
The new townsite is situated on the west side of Kizhuyak Bay and is
about 19 air miles from the city of Kodiak. Travel to Port lions is
possible only by sea and air. A state-owned, city-operated 2600 foot
gravel airstrip is located one mile northeast of Port lions. The
community is serviced daily (weather permitting) by scheduled flights
out of Kodiak as well as by wheeled and float plane charters also from
Kodiak. The community is served by the A 1 aska Marine Hi gh\'l'ay System
with a twice weekly visit from a ferry.
The cost of living in Port Lions is substantially above that of nearby
Kodiak.
POWER REQUIREMENTS:
The electrical energy is supplied to Port Lions by Kodiak Electric
Association, Inc. (KEA) which supplies power to the city of Kodiak and
the surrounding areas. At present KEA operates and maintains two sep-
arate and independent systems at Port Lions and Kodiak. The generating
capacity at Port Lions is 1100 kilowatts as compared to 25 Megawatts for
Kodiak. These are mostly diesel engine driven generators. Due to size,
consumption and other operating conditions, the cost of energy for the
KEA consumers in Port lions is much higher than in Kodiak. (The consumer
pays about 24¢/kWh in Port Lions as compared to 7.7C/kWh in Kodiak 1 .)
This high and ever increasing cost of energy in Port Lions has dimin-
ished the demand and the usage has declined somewhat since 1975. It is,
however, expected to go up again in early eighties when the new HUD
1 December 1979 figures from KEA operating report (Ref. 3)
I - 1
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION & HISTORY kea07/b2
homes, the small boat harbor and the seafood processing plant are con-
nected to the system.
The energy requirement for Port Lions is shown below in Table 1-1. This
data has been taken from KEA Power Requirements Study done in October of
1980. The data has been extrapolated to year 2000 and rearranged.
TABLE 1. 1
PORT LIONS ENERGY REQUIREMENT
1980 1985 1990 1995
Annual MWh required 648 1950 2323 2441
Non Commercial Monthly
Peak Demand (kW) 200 500 535 563
The cost of electricity for KEA customers has risen drastically in the
past two years as has the cost of fuel oil for heating. The average
cost of fuel oil to KEA has risen from 56C a gallon in 1978 to $1.36 a
gallon in the first part of 1980. It is expected to go even higher in
the eighties. To combat the ever increasing cost of fuel oil, KEA is
investigating various alternatives. A recent study was done to con-
struct a hydroelectric plant at nearby Terror Lake. The cost of the
electrical energy from such plant is shown in Table 1.2 below.
Financing
5%
9%
TABLE 1.2 1
ENERGY COST FROM TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1984
5.7
8. 7
Cost of Energy in ¢/kWh
2018
9.0
12.0
2019
3.8
3.8
Another recently completed study indicate the energy available from
a small 200 kW hydroelectric project on Port Lions River funded under
1 From Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, Kodiak Island, Alaska
Supplemental Information Report 2, February 1980. (Ref. 1)
I - 2
2000
2566
591
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION & HISTORY kea07/b3
di:--ect State appropriation scheme, for less than one cent per k\VH.
The busbar cost from such a plant for Port Lions is developed in
Table 5-6 Section V.
A comparison of the energy costs for Kodiak after the completion of
Terror Lake project and Port Lions with continued diesel generation
is made in Table 1.3.
TABLE 1.3
ENERGY COST ¢/kWh
1979 1 1980 1985 1990 1995
Kodiak 2 7. 7 10.8 6.4 8.7 12.5
Port Lions 3 24 24.7 27.6 36.1 48.1
1
2
Taken from operating report for KEA, December 1979.
Developed in Appendix B.
3 From Table 5-3 Total Diesel Generation.
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS
2000
15.0
64.0
To subdue this enormous cost of energy in Port Lions, different alter-
nates were investigated. These are very briefly listed below.
Wind Energy: Utilization of wind energy is possible but has to be
considered strictly as a source of secondary energy without energy
storage facilities. Without storage the breakeven point for energy
costs has been calculated to occur when diesel fuel costs more than
$3.50/gal 1 for a system of Port Lions size.
Biomass Conversion: The present state-of-the-art and costs of the
technologies for biomass conversion processes of the required size do
not allow an accurate assessment of this resource for the Port Lions
community.
1 Assessment of Power Generation Alternatives for Kotzebue, from
1980.
I - 3
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION & HISTORY kea07/b4
Port Lions River Hydroproject: The planned development of a 200 k\o/
hydroproject on the Port Lions River will benefit the costs of electric
energy but will be too small to meet the future energy needs of the
community. The economics of energy for such a plant is discussed in
Section V.
Transmission Line Intertie to Terror Lake Hydroproject: The site for
the proposed Terror Lake Hydroproject is located about ten miles south
of Port Lions. This hydroelectric project after its completion is going
to supply all or the major share of Kodiak energy needs via a 138 kV
about 20 mile long transmission line. Some suggestions have been made
to feed Port Lions from this hydroproject via another transmission line.
Due to the attractiveness of the project this report will discuss the
feasibility of such an intertie and compare it with other alternates.
I - 4
kea007/a4
SECTION II
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT kea07/c1
The fo 11 owing data on the exist i Pg environment has been taken from
11 Assessment of Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of
the Proposed Terror Lake Hydroe 1 ectri c Facil i ti' prepared by AEIDC in
November 1979.
1. Water
Water in streams and lakes in the Kodiak Island area generally has a
dissolved solids concentration of less than 60 mg/1 (Jones et al. 1978).
Nelson and Edmondson (1955) found that Bare Lake contained 30 to 40 ppm
dissolved solids. Physical and chemical data collected on several
Kodiak Island streams (Van Julle and Murray 1978, 1979) indicated that
chemical parameters fluctuate within a narrow range for each river
system and show minor differences between systems. For example, pH
ranged from 6.2 to 6.7, low values for hardness (as CaC0 3 ) indicated
very soft waters, and alkalinity never exceeded 34 ppm for any system.
Jones et al. (1978) summarized these water quality features by character-
izing stream waters from the calcium bicarbonate type to the sodium
chloride type. A summary of some of the physical-chemical characteris-
tics of these waters, collected by USGS in previous years, is provided
in Figure 10. Figure 11 gives a genera 1 i ndi cation of the amount of
major dissolved constituents in Kodiak Island streams. USGS also has
conducted numerous analyses of minor elements in streams and lakes of
the Kodiak Island Region.
Transparency measurements have been made on several lakes in this area.
Prior to lake fertilization experiments, Nelson and Edmondson (1955)
measured Secchi disc depths of Bare Lake; they ranged from 5.5 to 7.0 m.
Hilliard (1959) found Secchi disc depth at Karluk Lake varied from 4.5
to 8. 6 m.
During winter, lakes on Kodiak Island typically freeze to depths of up
to a meter and may or may not be covered with snow. The severity of
winter, therefore, and the elevation and surrounding physiography large-
ly determine the physical and chemical conditions of Kodiak Island
II - 1
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT kea07/c2
lakes. For example, Marriott (1968) reported that the winter of 1967-68
was fairly mild, and lake ice thickness was less than normal. Subse-
quently, relatively high dissolved oxygen values were found in lakes
tested by ADF&G. However, moderately severe conditions can occur lo-
cally even during mild winters. During the winter of 1968-69, oxygen
values in some lakes were fairly low, and one lake contained no dis-
solved oxygen during mid-winter (Marriott 1969). Mild winter conditions
again occurred in 1969-70, and ADF&G investigations of five lakes near
the city indicated no winter mortality of sport fish was anticipated due
to thin ice and high dissolved oxyg~n concentrations (Van Hulle 1970).
2. Land
The mountainous island of Kodiak is a structural continuation of the
Kenai-Chugach mountain system of the Alaska mainland. The island's
axis, trending northeast-southwest, consists of an exposed, Late Cre-
taceous to Paleocene, granitic batholith with rugged peaks rising 900 to
more than 1,200 m in elevation. Surrounding the central granite divide
on the east and west are mountains rising 600 to 900 m, composed of
earlier Late Cretaceous graywacke, slate, and argillite. The valJeys of
Terror River, Kizhuyak Creek, Shotgun Creek, and Falls Creek are under-
lain by this rock series.
The entire island was eroded by glaciers during various stages of the
Pleistocene epoch, but the highest horns and aretes of the central range
stood above the ice. (The southwestern part of the island was not
glaciated during the last major glacial stage). Glacial erosion carved
the island into broad, U-shaped valleys, such as the Kizhuyak Creek
valley, separating rugged alpine peaks and ridges. Many of the valleys
were eroded below present sea level in their lower reaches and were
inundated by the sea, creating spectacular fjords. Typical of these are
Terror and Kizhuyak Bays. Many fjords extend deep into the island's
interior; no point on the island is more than 24 km from the sea.
II - 2
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT kea07/c3
In many places glacial erosion ir the valleys created deep basins that
became lakes. Many small ponds on the glacially sculptured terrain are
the result of this process. Permafrost is essentially absent from most
of the island.
Unconsolidated materials are generally absent at the higher elevations
but cover the lower slopes and valley floors. Most of these materials
are glacially derived, either directly deposited by ice or, more fre-
quently, by glacial meltwater. Most consist of well-graded sand and
gravel, characteristically forming terraces along valley sides where
they were deposited by the old, receding glaciers.
More recent sediments consist of valley alluvium, alluvial fans, and
talus deposits laid over the older glacial deposits and erosion sur-
faces. The lower Kizhuyak Valley has a large amount of valley alluvium,
alluvial fans, and talus deposits laid over the older glacial deposits
and erosion surfaces. The lower Kizhuyak Valley has a large amount of
valley alluvium, consisting of particles that range in size from fine
sand to gravel, extending to an unknown depth.
Katmai ash, a loose, fine sand with rounded particles, was deposited
over the entire region by the explosive eruption of nearby Mt. Katmai in
1912. The ash deposit has been washed from most of the upper slopes and
concentrated in the lower valleys. It is usually underlain by older
alluvial soils and overlain by more recent peaty soils and vegetation
but is frequently exposed along streams.
3. Ecology
Fish-The fresh waters of the project area are inhabited by pink
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum~ keta), and coho~ kisutch) salmon;
Dolly Varden/Arctic char (Salvelinus spp.); and coastrange sculpin
(Cottus aleuticus). Threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and
starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) can be found in brackish delta
areas. The average Kodiak Island salmon catch for the years 1948 through
1977 (ADF&G 1977b) was: 6,007,211 pink, 706,174 chum, 35,148 coho,
II - 3
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT kea07/c4
496,1~0 sockeye (0. nerka), and 1,187 chinook (0. tshawytscha) (total
average catch= 7,245,526). The salmon catch in the Kizhuyak Bay area
contributes only a small portion to the total.
Climatic events and processes, both past and present, have had a pro-
found effect on the indigenous biota of the archipelago. Over time
these factors have essentially shaped or molded the biota into the
communities we recognize today.
Vegetation -The flora of Kodiak Island is typically coastal. Most
species are characteristic of those indigenous to a narrow band that
extends along the entire southern coast of Alaska, which have apparently
invaded the area since the last glacial epoch. There are, however,
several species present, primarily inland plants, which do not occur
along the coast. Hulten (Karlstrom and Ball 1969) surmised that these
inland species survived the last glacial period in the unglaciated
southwest area of Kodiak. After retreat of the ice, these plants spread
to favorable habitats elsewhere on the island. Most of these plants,
such as Carex scirpoidea, are now considered alpine. Others, such as
spirea (Spiraea Beauverdiana), Kenai birch (Betula kenaica), and cotton-
wood (Populus balsamifera) are lowland species.
Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) forest covers Afognak Island and many of
the smaller islands to the northeast of Kodiak. It is confined to a
rather small area northeast of Kodiak Island. The edge of Sitka spruce
di stri but ion forms a 1 i ne running northwest-southeast, approximately
from Cape Chiniak to Kupreanof Peninsula. When extended to the north-
west, this line roughly corresponds to the forest front on the Alaska
Peninsula. Pollen samples taken from bogs within the spruce forest of
Kodiak in 1930 provided data to support Robert Griggs' assumption that
the forest front on Kodiak is advancing westward into new territory
(Griggs 1934, Ruth and Harris 1979). Scattered individuals and small
clumps of Sitka spruce can be seen beyond this forest line.
Cottonwood and occasional Kenai birch are a common overstory at the
mouth of major drainages of the northern portion of the island. Sitka
II - 4
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT kea07/c5
alder (Alnus cri~pa sinuata) and willows (Salix spp.) produce extremely
dense thickets below 700 m elevation. Red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa),
salmonberry (Rubus spectablilis), and fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium)
are very common among the alder and willow.
Grass-herb meadows are abundant as understory be 1 ow cottonwood and
alder-willow communities as well as forming subalpine meadows above the
shrubline. These meadows are primarily bluejoint (Calamagrostis cana-
densis) but also contain fireweed, devil's club (Echinopanax horridum),
false hellebore (Veratrum viride), Angelica spp., cow parsnip (Heracleum
lanatum), ferns, and salmonberry.
Alpine areas are typically covered by herbaceous tundra. Sedges, Arnica
spp., fleabane (Erigeron perigrinus), and dwarf willows are predominant
in moist areas, and crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), heath (Cassiope Stel-
leriana), and mountain heather (Phyllodoce aleutica) are more common on
dry ridges. Lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis), Luetkea pectinata, and
sedges are abundant throughout the alpine areas.
Coastal vegetation is dominated by lyme grass (Elymus arenarius), which
grows in dense stands along beaches and in river deltas. Eelgrass
(Zostera marina) may be found in some of the delta areas.
The 1912 eruption of Mount Katmai deposited a layer of ash over Kodiak,
which seemingly devastated the previously lush vegetation of the island.
Only trees and taller shrubs were visible. After a short time, some
fireweed and lupine emerged; however, blowing ash severely stressed
these exposed plants.
Open Deciduous Forest. Open deciduous forest is found in two forms on
the major floodplains below 150 m elevation. Cottonwoods occur within
the floodplains at an elevation of 300 m or lower. Cottonwood provides
30 to 40 percent crown cover in the Kizhuyak drainage and approximately
50 percent in the Terror drainage. The understory is usually a bluejoint-
mixed herb community. An open shrub stratum of alder and willow is also
present, with willow being more dominant near the delta and alder more
I I - 5
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT kea07/c6
so up in the valleys. Fire':eed occasionally forms dense stands in open
areas. Cow parsnip, bluejoint, and lady fern are common understory
species.
Kenai birch occurs on rolling hills between 150m and the floodplain.
It is uncommon in the Kizhuyak drainage but ranges over a relatively
large area in the lower Terror drainage. The understory for Kenai birch
is also bluejoint-mixed herb meadow with scattered alder and willow.
Closed Alder Shrubland. This community consists of alders with a crown
cover of 75 percent or more. This unit occurs primarily as narrow bands
on hillsides at 300 m elevation or lower. Pacific red elder (commonly
called elderberry), salmonberry, bluejoint, and lady fern are the prin-
cipal understory species.
Open Alder Shrubland. The open alder shrubland community is character-
ized by bluejoint-mixed herb meadows interspersed with open, well-spaced
alder. Shrub crown cover is 10 to 75 percent of the total area. Clump-
ing of alders is minimal. (Areas of clumped shrubs interspersed with
bluejoint-mixed herb meadow are classified as closed alder-meadow mosaic).
Dominant species in open shrubland community are bluejoint, fireweed,
lady fern, and salmonberry.
Closed Alder-t·1eadow ~1osaic. This classification refers to the rela-
tively large areas covered by small clumps of closed alder interspersed
with bluejoint-mixed herb meadow (see descriptions of these communi-
ties). The complex patterns created by these communities precluded
mapping them separately. Shrubs provide a 25 to 74 percent crown cover
for the total areas, as in the open shrubland communities. This com-
munity is distinguished by the abundance of elderberry and salmonberry
near the margins of the alders as well as the open grassland areas.
Willow Shrubland. Willow shrubland generally occurs in moist areas of
relatively low relief. The willows (primarily Salix pulchra and ~
alaxensis) are usually 1 to 2 m tall and generally grow in clumps.
Those communities between 500 and 700 m are generally more open than
I I - 6
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT kea07/c7
those at lower elevations (70 to 650 ~). Willows at lower elevations
tend to be associated with low-relief floodplain areas. The understory
is often rather sparse, with patches of barren sand. Major species in
this vegetation type are Salix pulchra, ~ alaxensis, horsetail, burnet
(Sanguisorba stipulata), lupine and Indian paintbrush (Castilleja
unalaschcensis).
Bluejoint-Mixed Herb Meadow. This community is variable and can occur
in large open stands by itself or as an understory beneath cottonwood,
Kenai birch, and shrubland communities. Together, the closed brush
community and the bluejoint-mixed herb meadow community form the closed
brush-meadow mosaic association. Major species present are bluejoint,
fireweed, salmonberry, and lady fern. Salmonberry occurs most often on
slopes below 500 m. The relative abundance of these species varies from
unit to unit, but the species composition is fairly consistent. This
community may include some small patches of dwarf birch (Betula nana
exilis) and highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule).
Co as ta 1 Elymus. Lyme grass with a t ida 1 fringe of the ta 11, coarse
sedge, Carex Lyngbyaei, forms dense, almost pure stands on river deltas,
grading into a b l uej oint-mixed herb me ado·..., where cottonwood stands
begin. Lyme grass stands may continue along riverbanks for short dis-
tances into the cottonwood zones.
4. Economy
The present economy of Port Lions depends primarily on the fishing
industry, especially the harvesting of crab and salmon. The local 12
vessel fleet provides employment for 50-60 people for varying periods
from 3 to 9 months a year. The Wakefield Fish and Shellfish Processing
Plant provided the major source of employment until April 1975 at which
time the plant caught fire and burned to the ground. A floater-processor
was operated after the fire by the Port Lions Native Corporation, the
ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) corporation of the Native
residents of Port Lions, for two years. It was then removed from the
community thus eliminating local employment in the processing sector.
II - 7
SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT kea07/c8
The floater-processor has been purchased by a P"'ivate firm and was
recently returned to Port lions. Unemployment has been substantial with
a 50% rate since the closing of the floater-processor. However, the
reopening of the processor should provide the much needed employment.
The City of Port Lions is actively working towards having a shore-built
processor to replace the Wakefield plant.
As a result of the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971,
a regional corporation (Koniag, Inc.) as well as two local corporations
(Port Lions and Afognak) were created for persons of at least~ Alaskan
Native percentage born prior to 1972. In addition to a small cash
settlement to each shareholder and a larger one to each corporation,
these corporations were deeded additional assets in the form of land and
sub-surface mineral rights. The two village corporations were merged in
1978 to become Afognak Natives Inc., which now has a total of 512 indi-
vidual shareholders. The corporation will eventually own much of the
land surrounding Port lions as well as important stands of timber on
Afognak Island.
5. Resources
The resource of the area is fish. Future development of potential oi 1
and gas discoveries have not been fully addressed in this report. Any
finds in these fields would change all other aspects mentioned in pre-
vious parts of this section.
II -8
kea007/a4
SECTION III
ROUTE SELECTION, LAND OWNERSHIP &
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
SECTION III: ROUTE SELECTION, LAND OWNERSHIP AND
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
kea07/dl
If the Terror lake hydropower is to be transmitted to Port lions econom-
ically the only reasonable alternatives available are:
1. Overhead transmission line
2. Submarine cable
For alternate 2, approximately 9 miles of three phase submarine cable
would have to be laid. The cost of such a line is estimated to be
prohibitively high (over 2 million dollars by 1980 estimate). There-
fore, this study would be confined to the first alternate only.
Figure 1 shows the general location of future power plant, City of Port
Lions, and two different routes 11 A11 and 11 8 11 for an overhead pole line.
The cost of construction for both routes is anticipated to be in close
proximity on per mile basis. These two routes are briefly discussed
be 1 ow.
Under this alternate the proposed transmission line will be routed in an
approximate 30' wide corridor from the future jetty of Kizhuyak Bay up
the hillside to an elevation of approximately 200• and follow the west
shore of the bay for approximately 3 miles. The line then follows the
valley of a small stream inland to be routed west of a nameless mountain
(elevation 1,678 feet) and after approximately 3 miles turns northeast
and crosses several small creeks before connecting to the existing Port
Lions distribution system. The total length of the line for this route
is little more than 11 miles.
The advantages of such route are less visual impact on the coast line,
maybe little more reliability as compared to.alternate 11 8 11
, and compara-
tively fewer people to negotiate right-of-way access.
I II - 1
•••"o"+~
ALASKA \ . \
fAIR&,.IJ;KS ·
\
KODIAK ELECTRIC
ASSOCIATION
24.9 KV LINE TO
PORT LIONS
ROUTING
SECTION Ill: ROUTE SELECTION, LAND OWNERSHIP AND
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
kea07/d3
ALTERNATE 11 8 11 :
Routing for this alternate follows the west shore of Kizhuyak Bay in its
entirety. This route allows the utility to supply the possible future
consumer near the coast which might be a plus in negotiating right-of-way,
but would definitely involve more people in such negotiations. It will
be slightly less expensive than Alternate "A".
LAND OWNERSHIP:
Land ownership of the planned transmission corridor is presently as
follows (all Seward Meridian)
Alternate A
T28S, R22W, Sec.20:
Sec.20 NE~ through
Sec.l8,7:
T28S, R23W, Sec.l2, 1&2:
T27S, R23W, Sec.35:
T27S, R23W, Sec.25,24:
T27S, R22W, Sec.l9,18,7,8:
Sec.8: Nrf-.a:
Sec.5:
Alternate B
T28S, R22W, Sec.20:
Sec.20 NE~ through
Sec.6:
Sec.6:
Power Site Withdrawal
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
State of Alaska selection
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
Claimed by Afognak Native P..ssoc.
Private (Madsen)
Port Lions townsite
Power Site Withdrawal
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
Also contains two state selected
parcels overlapping a native
allotment and a village selection.
II I - 3
SECTION III: ROUTE SELECTION, LAND OWNERSHIP AND
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
kea07/d4
T27S, R22W, Sec.31 ~~:
Sec.31 SE~:
Sec.31 NE~:
Sec.30 & 19:
Sec.l8, SE~:
Sec.l8, NE~:
Sec.7:
Sec.8, Sk· 2·
Sec.8, N1:
except for:
Sec.5:
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
Native Allotment overlapping state
selection.
State selection
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
except for parcel on Barabara Cove,
which is a village selection over-
lapped by private ownership.
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
Village selection
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
Village selection
Claimed by Afognak Native Assoc.
private parcel (Madsen)
Port Lions townsite
The choice between 1 i ne routing according to Alternate A or B will
probably depend on the ease of obtaining right-of-way and the relative
importance placed by the people concerned on visual impact versus avail-
ability of electric service. For purposes of this study an arbitrary
choice is made for Alternate 11 A11 as this route will be a little more
expensive and, if proven economical and feasible, the selection of the
other route will have no adverse effect in the project.
CONSTRUCTION METHOD:
The proposed transmission line would be three phase overhead line rated
at 24.9 kV, constructed with single wooden poles following standard REA
(Rural Electrification Administration) design as shown in Figure 2. The
right-of-way clearing is shown in Figure 3. The individual poles will
be set into up to 3' diameter holes to a depth of 6' to 8'. The holes
will be dug by augering equipment mounted on Nod~1el type vehicles;
backfill will be with gravel or the excavated material if suitable.
Angle and deadend poles will be anchored with suitable means depending
on the soil conditions (screw anchors in soil, rock anchors in rock).
Little right-of-way clearing is expected due to the sparse tree growth
I I I - 4
4". 3' -e"
I
I I I j
I I --:IJ---l;:s>-
/1 I
bs-d' I I
I 1
I I
I I 1
I I
I I
I I
d-ek f"*i ec
'-IiI I I I
l~~.J ~-~:--,. ~
I :
I . .
I i J•
l j,-J ..,.._
Specify VC IS for
offse~ neutral assembly
lTE~-.dNo.! MATERIAL
c 13 ~. ' . .. .7\SJ,o.or pin type
b I I ~?in pol:! top 20" .
c i3 i2o!!, 17l::Jchi:~e, 518" x req' d. leng:h
d 14 : '•'icsiler square 2 1/4"
f 12 '?· ; .n, crossarm, steel 5!8" X !4"
I !Cros::;crrn~ 3 V2'' X 4 112'' lr: 8' -0" £ . I ;
j ; 3 ~r:.ett:,to_g.JL2"x4" (VCI8 only )
3'-e" 4'
PLAN
ITEM NO. MATERIAL
cu 2 3race., woo 28"
l i 2 Bolt corrio~e 318" l( 4112'
j I I Screw log 112'' l( 4"' (VCI only}
bs I B:>B singre upset insulated ,('VCI only}
ek I Loc~.nuls
ec I I !Brocket, offset, insulotedl_(VCIB only}
14.4/24.9 KV. 3-PHASE
CROSSARM CONSTRUCTION-SINGLE PRIMARY SUPPOR oo TO 5° ANGLE
-·
• I
I
;
I
Jon. 1,1963 VCI,VClq
III-5
FIGURE 2
CLEARING AIGI-11-0F-WAY GUIDE
J0~1,1952
Fer !U1r hy th(" S:J;.crintrndcnt cf Documrut~. l.'~S:. c:o\ rrll~·rn! l'rir.ttn; orr.cr
W:uhtnj;ton, D.C. ~>-1'7.! • l:'ri~t ~:: :!.>
III-6
FIGURE 3
Rl
SECTION III: ROUTE SELECTION, LAND OWNERSHIP AND
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
kea07/d7
in the area. with the use of tracked vehicles it is not anticipated
that a regular access road will have to be built.
The following manpower requirements are anticipated:
Clearing (brush only)
Pole Hole digging
Pole framing/setting
Wire stringing
(including sagging and chipping)
3 men
3 men
5 men
5 men
Construction time is not expected to exceed three to four months.
Construction equipment will consist of a tracked vehicle mounted auger,
a small dozer for brush clearing, pole erection and wire stringing
equipment (low surface pressure vehicles).
II I - 7
kea007/a6
SECTION IV
DESIGN CRITERIA & COST ESTIMATES
SECTION IV: DESIGN CRITERIA & COST ESTIMATES kea07/el
DESIGN CRITERIA
study.
The followi~g basis of design is selected for the
Voltage Level Selection:
After comparing economics and practicability of different voltage levels,
a vo 1 tage of 14. 4 kV phase to ground and 24. 9 kV phase to phase is
recommended for transmitting year 2000 power requirements to Port Lions
(See table 5-l). Considering the terrain, etc., the choice is made in
favor of a 3 phase overhead transmission line to be constructed with
single wooden poles following standard REA (Rural Electrification
Administration) design as shown in Figure 2.
Conductor Selection:
The load current for the above voltage and for the peak demand of year
2000 at .8 P.F. is: IL = 17 Ampere. After checking voltage drop calcu-
lations and the mechanical strength criteria, a 1/0 ACSR Conductor is
recommended to carry the energy. This would enable us to carry power
with less than 3% voltage drop and with very minimal line losses.
Mechanical Loading:
The individual weather data could not be obtained for Port Lions, there-
fore the Kodiak data is used for basis of choosing the design criterias
as below.
Temperatures: Average 30°F to 55°F
Max 86°F
t•1i n -12°F
Precipitation: 40 -80 inches/year
>56 inches/year (Average)
Wind: NW prevailing, 10 knots average
gusts >50 knots up to 120 knows have been noted
IV -1
SECTION IV: DESIGN CRITERIA & COST ESTIHATES kea07/e2
The conditions in this study necessitate the following minimum basic
design criteria.
1. Transmission Line:
Loading:
Class ifi cation:
Pole Selection:
NESC Heavy Loading
~.zu ice and 4 lbs. wind pressure
Class C Construction with added
Safety factor of 66%
40'-45' Class - 4
Average Span: 425'
Conductor Selection:1/0 ACSR for Phases
#2 ACSR for neutral
Line length: 11 miles (Approx. AL.A)
2. Substation:
Considering various aspects as discussed earlier a transmission
voltage of 14.4/24.9 kV was selected. This would require a tapping
of the 138 kV Terror lake-Kodiak transmission line. Our load for
year 2000 is close to 591 kW or 740 kVA at .8 power factor.
The following tranformation equipment would be needed:
Supply end:
Transformer: 138 to 24.9 kV, 750 kVA, 3-Ph. stepdown with
ole protection for the above transformer (supply side)
Receiving end:
Tr_ansformer: 24.9 kV to 277/480 V, 750 kVa, 3-Ph with
ole protection on l.T. side.
IV - 2
SECTION IV: DESIGN CRITERIA & COST ESTIMATE kea07/f//
COST ESTHlATES
The following cost estimates have been prepared from the price infor-
mation obtained from suppliers and past experience for similar jobs.
These estimates represent 1980-81 construction cost. An escalation of
about 7% should be used for any future construction.
1. Transmission Line Cost
Structures: 138 @ $625 ea
Conductors:
3-1/0 ACSR $275/MFT
1#2 ACSR $200/MFT
Anchors etc. 12 @ $300 ea
Survey/Staking
Cleaning $15,000/mile
ROW acquisition etc $250/mile
Permits/Bonds
Freight
Labor $70/hr -5000 hrs.
Contigencies 15%
Profit 10%
Engineering 10%
Subtotal
TOTAL TR~NSMISSION LINE COST
(Cost per mile -$103,500/mile)
IV -3
$86,250
49,000
12,000
3,600
80,000
165,000
27,500
10,000
35,000
350,000
$818,850
122,800
$941,650
94,000
$1,035,650
103,000
$1,138,650
SECTION IV: DESIGN CRITERIA & COST ESTIMATE
2. Substation Costs (2-Required)
Transformer
Switchgear
Misc. Equipment
Freight
Labor 300 man hours @ $70
Contingencies 15%
Profit 10%
Engineering 10%
(Cost for 2 Substations = 219,500)*
Subtotal
TOTAL
kea07/f//
$35,000
15,000
5,000
3,000
21,000
$79,000
11,750
$90,750
9,000
$99,750
10,000
$109,750
TOTAL COST = (Transmission Line Cost + Substation Costs)
= $1,358,150
*The cost of the two substations would be close. Its
doubled for the purpose of this study.
IV -4
kea007/a7
SECTION V
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
SECTION V: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS kea07/g1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
I
In this section an economic comparison is made between different alter-
nates available to combat the rising energy cost for Port Lions consumers.
The following four scenarios are analyzed here.
A. Continued diesel generation.
B. Construction of transmission line intertie cost Terror Lake
Hydroelectric Project.
C. Construction of Port Lions River Hydroelectric Project supple-
mented by diesel generation.
D. Construction of Port Lions River Hydroelectric Project plus
transmission intertie.
Each of the scenarios is discussed here briefly.
PLAN A:
Continued Diesel Generation: This case assume that no alternate
plan is developed for Port Lions and the existing diesel-generation is
continued for the period of this study. The energy rates until year
2000 are developed in Table 5-3.
PLAN 8:
Construction of Transmission Line intertie with Terror Lake Hydro-
electric Proiect: Under this plan the transmission line between
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project and Kodiak is taped and power is
brought to Port Lions by another transmission 1 i ne. The cost of
energy for this scenario is developed in Table 5-4. In development of
these costs, the cost of energy from Kodiak rather than that from Terror
Lake Hydroelectric Project is used (these costs for Kodiak are developed
in Appendices B). This is due to the fact that all the power from Terror·
Lake Hydro Project would be absorbed by Kodiak as soon as it comes on line
in 1984. To meet the future demand for the City of Kodiak and U.S. Coast
Guard load, KEA will have to supplement this power by their diesel
generation in Kodiak. It is, however, anticipated that thel'e will be
enough surplus energy available from such combination (i.e., hydro and
diesel) to meet the Port Lions energy needs until year 1993 (Ref. 1).
V-1
SECTION V: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS kea07/g2
At that time, KEA will have to make a choice of either adding additional
units in Kodiak or use the ex1sting diesel plant at Port Lions. In
developing the energy cost for the City of Kodiak (Appendices B), new
7 ~TW diesel units have been included to meet such additional energy
requirements.
PLAN C:
Construction of Port Lions River Hydroelectric Project: A study has
recently been completed by KEA to build a small hydroelectric project at
Port Lion River. This is a small 200 kW plant located about three miles
from the City. The estimated cost of this project is $1.758 million and
it is expected to come on line by 1982 (See Ref. 5) The output of this
plant though adequate to meet the Port Lions immediate energy needs, is
not large enough for future energy requirements. The energy output of
this plant, along with Port Lions requirements, is shown in Table 5-5.
The additional energy needs under this plan would be supplemented by
existing diesel plant. Table 5-6 shows the development of energy rates
for this plan. Under a recent bill passed in Alaska Senate SB 25 and SB
26, the financing for this project is anticipated to be by direct State
appropriations.
PLAN D:
Construction of Port Lions River Hydroelectric Project+ Transmission
Intertie: Under this scheme, the Port Lions River project is to be
built as soon as possible and the additional power requirements for the
City are supplemented by the existing diesel plant, until such time that
these additional energy requirements are large enough to justify the
construction of transmission line intertie between Port Lions and Terror
Lake Hydroelectric Project. The time frame for such a scenario is
discussed in detail in Appendices C.
For Plan B, C, and 0, the existing power is considered to stay as a
back-up system. The 0 & M cost for this plant is included in developing
the energy rates under all the plans.
V-2
SECTION V: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS kea07/g3
The cost benefit ratios for the plans B and C are compared with Plan A
and are shown in Table 5-7. The other parameters used for this study
are as follows:
A. Base Year: 1980 is used as the base year. All cost data and pricing
is done in 1980 dollars.
B. Figures & Facts: Various figures have been used in this study from
previous studies done. A list of such studies and reports has been
included in the Appendices under 11 References 11
•
C. Inflation: In diesel fuel cost, the average cost of fuel to KEA -
Port Lions has risen from 56~ in 1978 to $1.36 a gallon in 1980.
This is an escalation of about 65% a year. It is, however, expected
to slow down. An inflation rate of 10% is applied to fuel cost
until 1984 and 6% thereafter. The fuel cost is shown on Table 5.2.
A general inflation rate of 7% is applied to all other costs.
D. Insurance: The existing insurance rate is assumed to hold good for
the period of this study. It is, however, adjusted for inflation.
A 11 new insurances are ca 1 cul a ted at $3 per $1000 of investment.
E. 0 & ~l Cost: The present 0 & ~l cost for Port Lions is taken from
KEA operating report of December 1979. It is about $42,000/year.
This cost is adjusted for inflation.
F. Fuel Efficiencies: The fuel efficiency is calculated to be 10 KWh/
gallon for Port Lion from KEA operating report.
G . F u e 1 & L u b 0 i 1 Co s t : L u be o i 1 etc . i s a s s u me d to be 1 0% o f f u e 1
oil cost. The fuel oil cost is calculated by dividing energy
requirement by fuel efficiency and multiplying by fuel oil cost.
H. Transmission Line ~laintenance: Transmission line maintenance is
included at a rate of $1000/mile. Inflation rates have been applied
to this cost.
V-3
SECTION V: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS kea07/g4
I. Transmission Line Construction Cost: This cost has been taken from
Section III of this report.
J. Debt Services: The existing debt service is taken from KEA oper-
ating report. The values of existing plant & equipment was not
available. The debt service on new investments have been calcu-
lated at 5% and 9% financing except where funding is anticipated
to be provided by direct appropriation by the State.
K. Discount Rate: The discount rate of 5% is used for present worth
calculations.
L. Power Rate for City of Kodiak: The power rates for the city of
Kodiak were not available after the completion of the Terror Lake
hydroelectric project. These rates were separately developed and
are included in the Appendices. These rates were used to calculate
the cost of energy for Port Lions by constructing a transmission
intertie with Terror Lake hydroelectric project.
V-4
KEA007/H
YEAR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Table 5-12
PORT LIONS
POWER REQUIREMENTS
System Peak 1
Demand (KW)
200
250
315
390
490
500
510
515
520
530
535
541
546
552
557
563
568
574
580
585
591
System Energy 1
Requirement (KWH X 10 3 )
648
850
1100
1420
1850
1950
2030
2120
2220
2300
2323
2346
2370
2393
2417
2441
2466
2491
2515
2541
2566
1 Forecasts for 1981-1989 taken from Power Requirement Study, October
1980, then 1% growth 1989-2000.
2 Same as used in Reference 5.
v -5
'J: 2500
3:
~
z
z
0
t-o.. ;:;:
::> 2000
(f) z -:o u
">-(!)
0:: w z w
8 1500
1-
<l:
~
1-
(/')
w
1000
0
-
-
-
/t -
~ / :/
/
v--
v ,_ENERGY. COcT:N
_,/
~
--·---~·-~o.EMANO --
/ ~·-
.
~I
v·
1980 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
YEAR
-800
-~ 700
-600 _ ..... ·-~·--• ·--·--~·-
-500:
-400
-300
PROJECTED YEARLY
ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION
& ELECTRICAL DEMAND FOR
PORT LIONS 200
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000
KEA007/H
YEAR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000.
Table 5-2 2
PORT LIONS
DIESEL FUEL COSTS
Diesel Fuel Cost 1
$/Gallon
$1.36
1. 50
1.65
1.82
2.00
2.12
2.25
2.38
2.52
2.68
2.84
3.01
3.19
3.38
3.58
3.80
4.02
4.27
4.52
4.79
5.08
Based on Actual 1980 price of $1.36/gallon, escalated at 10% to
1984 and 6% thereafter.
2 From Reference 5.
v -7
TABLE 5-3
ECONOMICS STUOY
PORT liONS, AlASKA
ENERGY RAT£5 WITH CONTINUED USE Of OI£SEL·G£N£RATORS
~~
191l_Q 1981 1982 1983 19A4 _1985 1986 1987 19R8 19119 19'.10 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 .!22r 1998 1999 ~000
1. a) Load 0P~and 1 kW 200 250 315 390 490 !>00 510 515 520 5JO 535 541 546 552 557 5GJ 5&6 574 580 585 591
b) [ nergy Hreq MIIH' &48 8~0 1100 1470 18~0 1'1~0 7030 2120 nzo 2JUO Z323 7346 2370 2393 2411 2441 2446 2491 2515 2541 Z566
2. PowPr Sourc!'
Existing Units·kW
1 350 3~0 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 3'>0 350 3~0 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
7 3~0 3~,o 3~0 )50 350 350 3~0 350 350 JoO 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
3 700 7(1() zoo 200 200 ?00 200 700 :100 700 700 200 200 zoo ?00 200 zoo 200 200 200 200
4 700 700 700 700 200 200 200 700 700 700 700 200 700 200 200 700 200 200 200 200 200
5
&
Total Capacity • kW 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 l!OO 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 liDO
largrst Unit • kW 3~0 350 3!>0 3~0 350 3!>0 3~0 3~0 3!>0 3~0 J~O 3~0 350 3~0 JSO 350 350 3!>0 3~0 350 3!>0 ..-: firm C~pacity • kW 1~0 750 750 750 750 750 750 /50 750 750 750 750 750 750 7!>0 750 7!>0 7!>0 750 7SO 750
Surplus or (Orficit) kW 5~0 500 435 Jr,o ?60 2~0 740 73'> 730 270 21!> 709 204 198 193 187 182 116 l70 165 159
o:> ). ]nvrst"'••nt Costs ($1000)
[xi<tinq lnvestmPnt H/A N/A N/A H/A N/A N/A N/A HIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A HI f. N/A N/A N/A N/fl IVA N/A
Additional lnvestmt:'nl
Tot•l (Ba'P Yrar S)
Total (lnflatt:'d S)
4. F!xPd Cost (SIOOO)
(lnflatrd VJlues)
A. Drht SHvicE'
a. histlng ]) 1) 13 13 ll 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
b. Mdit ions
8. lnsuranc~ (~xisting)4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21
c. lUI'S
Total Fl•td Cost l!l 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 27 23 24 24 2S ~6 27 28 29 30 31 33 34
!:'ll30 }QIJ} 1982 1983 !.2.~ 1985 1986 1987 1988 1%9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199~ 1996 1997 1998 1999 £l1.Q.Q
5. Production Cost ($1000)
lnflatPd Values
A. 0 & H Co,t2 45 41\ ~1 55 59 63 67 n 77 83 88 9~ 101 108 116 124 133 142 152 163 174
B. Fuel & lub~ 011 Cost 3 97 140 200 {84 407 455 502 5~5 615 678 nr. 777 832 890 952 lOll 1090 1170 1251 1339 1434
lotal Production Cost 142 188 251 339 466 518 S69 627 692 ]f,} 814 an 933 998 1068 1145 1223 1312 1403 1502 1608
6. lotal Annual Cost {4•5) 160 207 270 3'>9 486 539 590 649 714 7M 838 896 958 1024 1095 1173 1252 1342 1434 1535 1642
'. ENERGY C05l {Mills/lWh)
~~ 1b) Z47 ?44 746 2~3 263 276 291 306 322 341 361 382 404 428 453 481 S1Z 539 S70 604 MO
8. Total Cost of [n~rqy
for city (SJOOO) 1&0 707 770 35'! 406 539 590 649 714 7!l4 !IJ!l 0% 9~8 1024 1095 1173 1252 }342 1434 1535 1642
9. Pr~~pnt worth fActor
5\ I. 000 . 9!>24 .9070 . BuJA .AlU . 7!l3'> . 74[,2 . 7107 • £>7111'1 .64~6 . 6139 . ~114 7 .5568 • 5303 . 50~1 .4810 .4581 .4363 .uss . 3957 .3769
<: 10. Prpsrnt worth of total
£nrrgy Co't (SJOOO) 160 197 246 310 401 427 4~0 461 4!l4 505 ~14 524 !>3] !>4] SSJ 565 S74 586 596 607 617
~ 11. Accumulal~d r.w. of
lot•l [nrrqy Co•t
(SJOOO) lf•O 357 GOJ 913 1314 173G 2176 ?(,)7 31?1 ]{,7(; 4140 4{,{,4 5197 5740 6293 6115!1 7432 !1018 8(,]4 9221 9A38
From Rpf~r<•I'U '>.
~ lhP 0 I. M Cost is takrn from Rpfprpnc~ 3. An ~scalatlon of 7% Is appli•d on a yParly basis.
3 Bas~d on Fu~l efficiPncy of 10 kW/gallon (Samp as used • Rpf. 5). 10% Is addt'd for 1ubp oil Pte . to fu~l COSL
• [scalat~d at 11 anl'ually.
TAelf ~-4
ECONOMICS STUDY
PORl liONS, AlASKA
[N[RCY RATES WllH lRANSMISS!ON liNE INHRTI£
PlAN 8:
1_Qeo 1981 198? 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 !'1_8_1! 1989 1990 1991 !992 1993 1994 199!. 1996 1997 1996 1999 ?.QQ!1
L a) load o~~andl kW 100 2~0 315 390 490 500 !.10 515 520 S30 535 541 546 552 557 563 5(,8 574 580 S85 591
b) [nPrQY N•·~d ,MWH 1 MB 8~0 1100 14l0 lBSO 1Y~O ZOJO n;o 2220 nuo Z373 234& :?370 2393 2417 2441 244& 2491 251!> 2541 2566
2. J'ow~r Sourr" ( kW)
[dHinQ Units
1 350 3!>0 350 350 3!>0 350 350 350 350 350 3!'>0 350 350 350 3!>0 350 350 350 JSO 350 350
2 3~0 350 3'>0 350 350 350 3SO 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 3!>0 350 350 350 350 350 350
3 ?00 200 200 zoo 200 200 200 2[10 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
4 200 zoo 200 zoo 200 200 200 zoo 700 zoo 200 200 200 zoo 200 zoo zoo 200 zoo zoo zoo
5
b
Additional dirs~l Units
1
..::: 2
3
4 -0 Additional Altprnat~
(lransmissfon lnt¥rti~) 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1SO!l 1500 1500 1!>00 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
Tot~l Capacity -kW 1100 1100 1100 llOO 2600 2600 7600 ?GOO 2600 7600 2&00 2&00 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600 2600
lJrg~st Unit -kW 3'>0 3':>0 3~0 3~0 1500 1500 1500 1500 1~00 1500 1500 1500 1500 1!>00 1500 l~O!l 1500 1500 1500 1500 1'>00
rirm CJpacity-lW 7':>0 1~0 7~>0 750 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 11!l0 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100
Surplus or (U~ficit) kW 5~0 500 437 360 610 562 594 587 578 570 5G2 551 540 529 518 SO& 494 462 470 457 444
3. 1nvestm~nt Costs (\1000)
a. [xistinq lnv~stmrnt N/A N/A N/A N/A HIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A II/A II/A N/A H/A HIA N/A N/A II/A N/A II/A
b. Add it ioMl lnv"'tment
(l':lf!O dol Iars) 1358 1350 1358 1358 1358 13!>8 13!>8 13!>8 13!>8 13!>8 1358 1358 ll58 1358 1358 1358 1358
Total (BasP YearS) 13!>8 1358 1358 l358 1358 l35B 1358 13!>8 1358 1358 1358 1358 1358 1358 1358 1358 1358
Total (!nflatl'd S) 1780 17110 1700 1700 1780 1780 1780 17B!l 1780 1780 1780 1780 1780 1780 1780 1780 1780
1"110
4. fi•Pd Cost (S!OOO}
!981 !')87 !2~ l'lt\4 no~ 1911& 1987 l<J88 1989 1990 !221 1992 1993 _!294 199!"> 19% 1997 1998 1999 2000
(lnflatPd Values)
A. Dt•bt Srrvlce
I. hi sting 13 13 13 ll 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 lJ 13 13 1J
b. Addition~! fl
l} >X 10~ 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
2)9t 168 l(,(l l~!l 168 1&8 1&8 H•B 1&8 168 168 1£.8 168 168 168 168 168 168
B. lnsuranc~ eK;sting 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 ]8 20 21
c. la.PS
lotal fi•Pd Cost 1$1000)
1} )X 18 19 19 20 129 130 130 131 131 132 133 13) 134 13!> 136 137 138 139 140 142 143
2) 9l 18 19 19 ?0 175 18'l Hl9 190 190 191 197 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 201 202
!>. Production Cost ($1000)
(lnflat~d Volu~~l
II. 0 & M Cost 7
a} lxlstinq 4!> 48 51 5~ 59 63 67 72 17 83 88 9S 101 108 116 124 133 192 152 163 114
h) Additions 14 15 17 18 19 20 'n 23 25 26 28 30 32 35 37 40 42
B. fu~l & tub~ Oi 1 Co~tl
~ a} l•istinq 97 140 200 2(14
b) Addition
Tohl Pro due lion Cos l 147 188 2Sl 339 13 78 84 90 96 103 11? 118 126 134 146 1~4 16S 177 189 203 216 .....
6. Total Annual CoH (S 1000)
~t lf,O 207 270 3!'>9 202 208 214 221 221 ?35 245 251 260 269 282 291 298 316 329 34S 359
<n. 160 Z07 270 3!>9 248 261 273 2BO 286 294 304 310 319 328 341 350 357 375 388 404 418
7. [nPrgy Cost (Mills/<Wn)
A. Annual Cost Ol,burs~m~nl
5'1: 747 244 246 253 109 107 105 104 IOZ 102 105 107 110 112 117 119 123 127 131 136 140
'1'1: 247 244 746 253 134 137 ])4 132 129 128 131 132 135 137 141 143 14& 151 154 1!>9 163
B. (nHqy Purch.n~
Mi 1 h/KWH ! rom
f.odia< 106 64 &9 72 77 82 87 92 98 lOS 117 12S 133 141 144 147 1~0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1904 198~ 1986 1987 1988 1939 1990 199__! 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 )997 1998 l999 2000 c. [N(RGY COST (A•B)
5% 7H 744 246 253 215 171 174 176 179 184 192 199 208 217 234 244 256 268 275 283 290
9l: 2H 744 7~(; 253 240 201 203 704 70fi 710 218 224 233 242 258 2&8 279 292 298 306 313
8. Total Cost of [n~rqy
for city (SIOUO)
~X 160 207 271 3~9 398 333 353 373 397 423 4~6 467 493 519 566 596 626 668 692 719 744
9l: 160 707 271 3')9 4~4 392 417 4)2 4')7 483 !.tO& 525 552 579 624 654 682 727 749 778 803
9. rrf'SPnt worth factor
~t 000 . 9'J24 . 9070 .8638 . 8227 .703') .7467 . 7107 .67[.8 . G446 . 6139 .5847 .5568 . 5303 . 5051 .4810 .4581 . 4363 .4155 .3957 .3769
10. Pr~s~nt worth of total
[nt•rqy Cost (SlOOO)
~% )(,0 197 24[, 309 327 2fil 2GJ 2G5 769 213 774 273 275 275 28fi 287 287 291 288 285 280
9% 1&0 197 746 309 3G~ 307 )07 307 309 311 311 307 307 307 315 315 312 317 311 JOB 303
11. Accumulat•d P.W. of
Total Energy Cost (S1000)
~X no 357 603 912 1239 1500 1703 2028 2297 2~70 2044 3117 3392 3667 3944 4240 4527 4818 5106 5391 5671
9l: lf,O 357 603 912 1277 1'Jil4 1891 2198 2~0l 2lll0 3179 3436 3743 4050 43(;5 4G80 4992 5309 5620 5928 6231
< 12. rresent Worth of
Annual Cost (S1000)
~l 160 197 245 310 156 163 160 157 154 151 150 14 7 145 143 142 140 137 138 137 137 135
91, lLO 197 245 310 204 209 20~ 199 194 190 187 181 178 174 172 I fiB 164 1M 161 160 158
N 13. AccumulalPd r.w. of
Annual Cost ($1000)
~X 1GO 357 602 912 1068 1231 1391 1~48 1707 1853 2003 2150 2295 2438 2580 2720 2857 2995 3132 3269 3404
9l: 1&0 3'>7 fiOZ 912 1116 137'> 1579 1728 1972 2117 zzg9 24fl0 2G58 2832 3004 3172 3336 3'JOO 3&61 3821 3979
From Rttfrrencf' 5.
2 Th~ 0 & H Cost is taken from RPf~renc~ J. An esc•lation of 7% is appli~d on a ye•rly basis.
• Rased on ruel efficiency of 10 kW/gallon (Same as used-Ref. 5). 10% is •dd~d for lube oil etc. to fuel cost.
[scalated at 7% annually.
KEA07/0
TABLE 5-5 1
ENERGY BALANCE FROM PORT LIONS RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
System Energy
Requirement (KWHx10 3 )
1100
1420
1850
1950
2030
2120
2220
2300
2323
2346
2370
2393
2417
2441
2466
2491
2515
2541
2566
1 From Ref. 5
Sources (KWHx10 3 )
Port Lions Diesel
Hydro Supplement
1581 2 (481)
1581 (161)
1581 269
1581 369
1581 449
1581 539
1581 639
1581 719
1581 729
1581 765
1581 789
1581 812
1581 836
1581 860
1581 885
1581 910
1581 934
1581 960
1581 985
2 Assumed energy available 90% of the time.
3 Parentheses indicate surplus capacity of hydro, no diesel supplement
required.
V-13
TABLE 5-6
[CONDMICS STUDY
PORl Ll ONS, ALAS~A
fNfRGY RATES WITH PORT LIONS RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT • DIESEL SUPPLEMENTAL
rLAH C
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 198S 1986 1987 19A8 1989 199D 1991 1992 1993 1994 199S 1996 1997 1998 1999 :zooo
I. a) Load 0Pmand 1 kW 700 2SO 315 390 49D SOD SID SIS 570 510 S3S 541 546 552 '557 '563 ')68 574 '580 585 '591
b) [nprgy N~Pd M\.'11 1 &48 850 1100 l42D l!l~D 1950 2030 217D 7220 2300 2323 7346 2370 2393 2417 2441 2446 2491 2515 2541 2566
2. Pow~r SourcP (kW)
Existing Units
1 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
2 350 3~0 3~0 J~O 3,0 350 350 3,0 J50 3~0 3SO 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
3 700 200 200 200 700 700 200 2DD 700 2DO 7DO 200 700 200 200 200 200 2DO 200 200 200
4 7(10 200 200 200 200 200 200 700 200 700 700 700 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 .,
L
llrldition,1l lllf"·•·l lin it .. ,
I
< 7
3
.......
J.-A•ldit inn• I Al t •·t·n.ltt•
Port l11w~ Ulvt•r llydn1 70D ;'00 700 700 7110 ;ou 700 70D 700 200 700 700 700 700 70D 700 700 200
lotol (opacity-kW liDO l!OD !10D 1300 1300 1.100 !)00 1300 1100 ])00 ])OO lJDO 1300 1300 DOO 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300
loryt•\l Unit -kW J~.o J•,o 3~0 3~10 J~,o J~,o J~(l 3~·0 3'•0 J~O 1't0 350 J~O 3~0 3~0 J!.IO 3!.0 J!.JO )',0 3SO 3~0
rirm (apolcily-~w 7~(1 7~0 9~0 9~0 9~·0 (1~0 9!JO 9~0 CJ~O yr.o y~.o 9~0 950 9~0 9'>0 9~0 9!>0 9~0 9!.0 950 %0
Sorplus or (Deficit) kW s~o 5DD 635 5h0 460 4~0 440 4 ), 430 420 415 409 404 398 393 387 382 376 370 365 359
lotal Hydro [nergy
Avoilahll' (kWIIJ 1S81 1S81 1581 1SB1 1501 1581 1SB1 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1501 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581
Jtydro fn~rgy St•rplu~ or
(Urficit) kWit 481 161 (769) ( 3G9) (4~9) (539) (639) (719) (742) < n.s > (789) (812) (836) (8[,0) (885) (910) (934) (960) (985)
3. lnv••tm~nt Co•t• (SIDDO)
a. [xist;ng lllvP!.lmC"nt H/A N/A H/A N/A H/A H/A H/A H/A N/A N/A H/A N/A H/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
b. Additional lrtvt'\l"'('nl
(1980 dollars) 1726 1776 1776 1776 1776 1776 1726 1726 1776 1726 1726 1126 1776 1726 1726 1726 1726 1776
19AO 1~81 1'187 !283 1'J84 _t'_fl~ 1906 !987 1'l!'B l9A'l 1~90 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
4. r;x~d (o't ($1000)
A. Debt S.rvic~
a. [xistin<J 13 lJ 13 13 13 13 13 1) 13 13 1) 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 ]) 13 13
b. lldditional'
B. Insurant~ ~.i,tlng• s 6 6 7 7 8 e 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21
c. laxes
Total Fix~d (o't ($1000) lfl 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 ?3 74 24 z~ 26 27 28 29 30 ::n 33 34
!>. Production Cost ($1000)
(lnflatPd Valu~~)
(\. 0 & M (ost 7
a) Exist i nq 45 48 51 55 59 63 67 72 17 8J AB 95 101 108 116 124 133 142 152 163 174
.-:: b) AdditionsG
B. fuel & luh£' Oil Co,t' 97 140 60 8& 111 141 177 212 232 253 277 302 329 360 3'11 427 464 506 !>50
.......
Ul total Product ion Co't 147 108 51 55 119 ]49 178 713 7Sil Z'J!i 370 348 378 410 44!> 484 524 569 616 669 724
6. Total Annual Cost ($1000)160 707 70 75 139 170 l'l'l 23~ 27& JIH 344 372 403 436 472 512 553 !>99 647 702 758
7. [!llRGY CO~T (Mills/kWh) 741 744 f,4 53 75 87 98 111 174 lJO H8 159 170 182 195 209 226 240 257 276 296
1900 !981 1982 1983 1984 1985 19B6 1987 1'lBS 19B9 1990 1991 1992 ~ ~94 1995 1996 1997 .!J98 1999 2000
8. Total Cost of En~rgy 160 207 70 7!> 139 170 199 235 276 318 344 372 403 436 472 512 553 599 647 702 758
9. Pr~~ent wort~ factor
~1 LOOO '9~24 .9070 .8638 . 8217 . 7835 . 74u2 .7107 .6768 .6446 .6139 . 584 7 . 5!>68 .5303 . 5051 .4810 .4581 .4363 .415!'> .3957 .3769
10. PrP,~nl worth of total
[nrrqy Cost ($]000) 1GO 197 64 65 114 132 148 167 197 20!> 211 218 224 231 238 246 2!>3 261 269 278 286
11. Accumulated P.li. of
lotal [n~rqy Co't ($1000)1(,0 3!>7 421 486 ~00 733 OBI 1048 1235 1440 1631 1869 2093 2324 256:> ZB08 3061 3322 3591 3869 415!'>
from Rt•ferrhC<' 5.
The 0 & H Co\t h tak.Pn from lh•ft>r~nCP 3. An escalAtion of 7'.t is ~pplled on a y~arly basis.
..-:: 3 Based on Fuol efficirncy of 10 kW/gallon (Sa~l!' a$ used • llPf. 5 ). 10% is added for lubt' oil etc. to fuPI cost.
,_. Escalated at 7% annu3lly.
0\ ' No additional d••bt 'prvicl' i~ lnclud•d as ppr Senatl!' Bill $8 25 and $8 2G. HlP projrct is antlclp~tl!'d
to bt> fundrd with dirrct ~npropriation' by the Stall' .
• Thr l!'xistlng 0 & M on diesPI plant would rpducP. and bt' dlvtrll'd to hydro 0 & M. No additional cost ls assumed.
KEA07/K
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Table 5-7
PORT LIONS
PROJECT BENEFIT COST RATIOS
(COMPARISON OF ACCUMULATED P.W. OF ENERGY COST)
Plan A Compared Plan A compared
to Plan B to Plan C
5% 9%
1.43
1.88
1. 06 1. 03 2.19
1.16 1.10 2.37
1. 23 1.15 2.47
1. 30 1. 20 2.52
1. 36 1. 24 2.53
1. 41 1. 29 2.52
1.46 1. 32 2.51
1. 50 1. 36 2.50
1.53 1. 39 2.48
1. 57 1. 42 2.47
1. 60 1.44 2.46
1. 62 1.47 2.44
1. 64 1.49 2.43
1. 66 1. 51 2.41
1. 69 1.53 2.40
1.71 1. 56 2.38
1. 73 1. 58 2.37
V-17
kea007/a8
SECTION VI
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENUATIONS
SECTION VI SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY:
The energy rates and cost-benefit ratios from different alternative
plans are summarized in Table 6-1.
The comparison of these plans reveal that Plan A (do nothing), i.e.,
continued use of diesel plant, is the worst choice and should be avoided
if at all possible. The cost of energy would go as high as 64¢/kWH by
the turn of the century under this plan. These are very conservative
figures. The actual cost is anticipated to be even higher. The accumu-
lated present worth of cost of energy for the City at 5% discount rate
under this plan is used as base for comparison to derive the cost-benefit
ratio for other plans.
Under Plan B, i.e., construction of transmission line intertie between
Port Lions and Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, the energy rates would
stabilize between 20 -30C/kWH. The cost-benefit ratio for this plan
indicates that this plan is economically feasible, even at the first
year of operation, though by a small margin. As the price of fuel goes
higher and the consumption in Port Lions increases, the City and the
consumers would realize more and more economic benefit from such an
intertie.
The cost of energy under Plan C, i.e., construction of Port Lions River
Hydroelectric project, would drop to about 5-6~/kWH for the first two
years of operation, i.e., 1982-83. This plant is, however, too small to
meet the growing electrical needs for the City. For this plan, all
additional electrical energy requirements would have to be supplemented
by the diesel plant. This can be clearly seen in Table 6-1. As more
and more energy is supplemented by the diesel plant, the energy rates
start to climb up-again. The cost of energy under this plan would just
surpass that of Plan B in the 2000. This is also indicated by reversal
of cost-benefit ratio after year 1988.
KEA07/Pl VI-1
SECTION VI SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMt~ENDA TI ONS:
After comparing the economic benefits from the above alternates, it is
clear that KEA and its customers in Port Lions would benefit most from
Plan C, i.e., by construction of a hydroelectric project at Port Lions
River, if this project is funded under the latest State proposals.
This, however, is a short-term solution and would yield maximum benefit
unt i 1 the energy consumption for the City surpa~.ses the ava i 1 ab 1 e energy
from such a plant. Although this scenario is much more beneficial
over the continued diesel generation, with more diesel supplemental
energy needed for the growth of the City, the composit energy rate
under this plan would just surpass that from Plan B, i.e., construction
of transmission line intertie.
The best long term solution for Port Lions, therefore, lies in scenario
11 0 11 which is a combination of Plan 8 and C, i.e., construction of a hydro-
electric project on Port Lions River for immediate benefit and that of
transmission line intertie for long term gains. With growing energy needs,
the construction of such a transmission intertie can be economically justi-
fied when the energy requirements for the City exceeds 2220 x 10 3 kWH with
5% financing. With the present trend it is expected to happen somewhere
near year 1988 (refer to Appendices C for details.)
KEA07/P2 VI-2
SECTION VI SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE 6-1
ECONO~ll C SU~1MARY
Energy Cost (Mills/kWH) Cost-Benefit Ratios
Plan A Plan 8 1 Plan C Plan A vs Plan Bl Plan A vs Plan C
1980 247
1981 244
1982 246 64 1. 43
1983 253 53 1.88
1984 263 215 75 1. 06 2.19
1985 276 171 87 1.16 2.37
1986 291 174 98 1.23 2.47
1987 306 176 111 1. 30 2.52
1988 322 179 124 1. 36 2.53
1989 341 184 138 1.41 2.52
1990 361 192 148 1. 46 2.51
1991 382 199 159 1. 50 2.50
1992 404 208 170 1. 53 2.48
1993 428 217 182 1. 57 2.47
" 1994 453 234 195 1. 60 2.46
1995 481 244 209 1. 62 2.44
1996 512 256 226 1. 64 2.43
1997 539 268 240 1. 66 2.41
1998 570 275 257 1. 69 2.40
1999 604 283 276 1. 71 2.38
2000 640 290 296 1. 73 2.37
1 For 5% financing
KEA07/P VI-3
70
60
50
40
:r:
~
~ -V'J ._.
z
UJ
u
30
.
COST OF ENERGY IN ¢/KWH
-
-
-
i
I
-
I
1
I
v
I I
i I I
I
l
!
I
I I I
I \ i I i
-U-H1 ·~ -'
I I
I ,.,,,~,
. I \,~\ ,__.· ,f' ' I \~~ I .............. I/ I I
I I \'~ I~ I ,...¥ . !
' ~ ~ ./"1 I j....... I I
' I !.~~I -(" :II ),/'/'1 I' :
I
I i : ~~ Yi I o\ ./'' i
I I I ~ ,.,\)~ _.....<"' I
1980 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1990 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20:)(
YEARS
\' l -4
kea007/a9
SECTION VII
APPENDICES
SECTION VII: kea07/M
APPENDICES A
REFERENCES
The data from the following published reports and studies was referred
to or used in this report.
Ref. 1.
Ref. 2.
Ref. 3.
Ref. 4.
Ref. 5.
Ref. 6.
Ref. 7.
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Kodiak Island, Alaska.
Application for License Project #2743, Supplemental Infor-
mation Report #2, February 1980.
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project Kodiak Island, Alaska.
Definite Project Report, December 1978.
KEA "Operation Report (REA Form 12f)" for City of Kodiak and
Port Lions, December 1979.
KEA "Power Requirements Study" October 1980.
KEA Report on "Port Lions Hydroelectric Project 11 November
1980.
11 Assessment of Power Generation Alternatives for Kotzebue",
1980.
"Assessment of En vi ronmenta 1 Effects of Construction and
Operation of the Proposed Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility"
prepared by AEIDC in November 1979.
APPENDICES B
CITY OF KODIAK
ENERGY RATES WITH TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984" 1985 1986 !987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 ~94"" 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
A. FIXED COST (S1000)
1. OHSH
a. [xis t1 ng debt
SPrvicP 3 519 51'1 51'1 51'1 51'1 519 519 51'! 519 519 519 519 51'1 51'1 519 519 519 519 519 519 519
b. Addition l debt
s•rvice 1 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 405
c. Addition I! debt
service2 925 925 925 '125 '125 925 925
d. I nsurancp on
eoxisting:t. 60 64 69 74 79 R4 90 96 103 110 118 126 135 144 155 165 177 189 203 217 232
f. Insurance on
llddiUon I 23 25 26 28 30 32 35 37 40 42 45 48 52 55 59 63 68 73 78 83 , . Insurance on
Addition II 69 74 7'1 85 90 97 104
g. lues
2. HYDRO .. Debt Service 6779 6779 6779 6719 6779 677'1 6779 6779 6779 677'1 6779 6779 6779 6779 6779 6779 6779
b. ]nsuranc~ 333 7 356 381 408 436 467 ~00 535 572 612 655 701 750 802 859 918 983
c. Taxes
8. PRODUCTION COST (SIOOO)
I. HYDRO'·
(Plant & Trans~ission
Line 0 & H) 318 340 364 3'10 417 446 477 511 546 585 626 669 716 766 820 877 939
2. SUPPL[M£NTARY 01£S£L 0 6965 9088 10595 11'195 5665 400 1581 2311 3314 4416 5(,42 6794 8279 9&88 11480 13200 15352 17310 18354 194~2 20622
c. TOTAL ANNUAL COST 7544 100'1'1 11613 13019 14126 '1001 10151 10943 12010 131fl2 14482 15714 17283 18784 21668 23496 25765 27848 29027 30267
D. ANNUAL CONSUHrTION
(kWh x 10'')4 70 83 88 94 133.5 140.7 147.7 151.7 156.7 161.7 1(,6, 7 170.7 175.7 17'1. 7 184.7 188.7 193.7 197.7 202 206 211
E. ENERGY COST
(Mills/kWh) 108 122 132 138 106 64 69 12 77 82 87
1 Addition of 7 MW Unit to mpet 1982·83 demand. lht construction co~t Is taktn from Rtf. 1, Tablt 8.3.
t Addition of 7 MW Unit to ~oPt th~ additional Powtr rtqulremtnt afttr 1994. lht construction cost Is
taken from Rtf. 1, Table 8-3. T~e dobt strvtce Is calculattd on 10% 33 ytar loan.
' from Rtf. 3
from Rtf. 1, Table 8-2
Estimated at $1~/KW as In Ref. 1. lhp Transmission Lint 0 & M Is $1000/mll~ for 18 Milt lines. lhtse
ar• 1984 figures and inflated at 7l thereafter.
• from Rtf. 1, Table B-1. Calculated for 1980-84.
Calculattd as SJ ptr SlOOO lnvtstment In 1904. Chtaptr ratt assumPd for largp lnvest~ent, calculated on
total lnvtstment•.
• Partial Hydro Powor. The USCG load Is lnttgrattd ~lth KEA system.
92
•• Additional Powrr requirtmtnl to mett the futurt dtmand. E•ltnslon of In t•lstlng diesel plant Is assumed.
98 lOS 111 125 133 141 144 150
KEA07/Q//q//
APPENDICES C
ECONOMICS OF SUPPLEMENTAL DIESEL GENERATION
FOR PORT LIONS VS CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSMISSION INTERTIE
Economic justification of a transmission line intertie from the Terror
Lake-Kodiak transmission line to the town of Port Lions is based upon
a comparison of annual cash flows associated with such an intertie (See
section 11 A11 below) and with the alternative possibility of continued
supplementing of the power to Port Lions using local diesel generation
(See section 11 811 below).
The assumption is made that sufficient power to supply Port Lions (as a
supplement to the Port Lions Hydro Facility) will be made available to
Port Lions. Presumably, the power will be available upon completion of
the Terror Lake Hydro Facility and Transmission Line to Kodiak, beginning
in late 1984.
Two trends are relevant. First, the differential between the cost of
Kodiak supplied power and the cost of Port Lions local diesel supplied
power increases continually. Second, the demand of Port Lions consumers
for energy to supplement the Port Lions Hydro increases continually.
The first year when the costs of the tie line are smaller than the costs
of local diesel generation, is the year when the construction of such an
intertie would be justified, i.e., when the annual debt service plus 0 &
M cost for transmission line intertie becomes less than the annual cost
of diesel generation minus cost of energy supplied by the tie line from
Kodiak, then the transmission intertie to Terror Lake Kodiak line
becomes economical and should be built.
If the present trend in growth of energy consumption continues, the
difference between the above two cost starts to shrink, until year 1988,
when the supplemental diesel generation is large enough to offset the
annual debt service and associated 0 & M cost for the transmission
intertie. It may be pointed out here that this conceivably could
happen earlier, if demand of energy reached the 1988 figures.
KEA07/Q//q//
Annual cash flows associated with the two alternatives and optimum
(1988) load is analyzed here.
A. Transmission Line Intertie:
The cost of building an intertie to Port Lions in 1980 has been
estimated as $1,358,000. If the tie line were built in 1987 (to
serve 1988 load), using a general inflation rate of 7% per year,
the cost would become $2,180,650. At 5% cost of money and a 35
year loan, a capital recovery factor of .06107 would require annual
debt service payments of $133,000.
The only other cost of the transmission line would be maintenance.
If 1980 costs of $1000/mile were inflated at 7% per year, maintenance
in 1988 would cost $1720/year/mile. The intertie to Port Lions at
11 miles would cost $18,900/year.
Approximate annual cash flow associated with the tie line if built
in 1988 = $133,000 + $18,900 = $151,900.
B. Diesel Generation
Costs associated with this alternative are based upon the differential
of the rates of the local diesel generation to supplement the Port
Lions Hydro power and intertied supply sources. In 1988, it would
cost Port Lions 320 mills per kWH to supply itself with local
diesel power. (This is taken from Table 5-3.)
By comparison, energy rates for the City of Kodiak at this time
(i.e., after construction of Terror Lake Hydro Facility) would be
77 mills per kWH. (This is from page VII-3.) Assuming power could
be delivered to Port Lions via the transmission line at this rate,
the differential cost of the two alternatives would be 243 mills
per kWH.
KEA07/Q//q//
I~ 1988, 639 MWH of supplemented energy would be needed in Port
Lions.
Cost of supplemental energy = $.243 times 639,000 kWH = $155.277.
This means that by continued dependence on local diesel for
supplemental energy, Port Lions consumers would pay $3,780 more
than if power were supplied to them at Kodiak rates.
Thus for 1988 load, the equivalent annual costs associated with the
construction of tie line to Port Lions are slightly less than the
costs associated with continued use of local diesel. ($151,900 compared
to $155,277).
It may be pointed out here that the above comparisons are made for
5% financing. If the financing is at a higher rate than 5%, the load
has to be higher than the one considered above (1988 load) to justify
such construction. The contrary is true also, i.e., if the financing
can obtained at lower than 5% or if the diesel prices escalate faster
than assumed in this report or if the energy consumption grows faster
than anticipated in the report, the construction of such transmission
intertie would be justified and beneficial much earlier than 1988.
ATTACHMENT C
ROLLAND A. JONES SIH ( I ~h-~ or __ "--Consulting Engineer
P 0 Box 375 (Al CUl Al[O p, [)AT£
KOD!AK" ALASKA 9%1 :)
CHlt....!\(D [1Y DATE
SCAi f .. "----··--·
Month Da Str am Flow (c.f.s.) Temperature°F.
September 1 0.175 7.4 52°
1980 2 0.15 6. 1 46
3 0. 15 6.1 45
4 0.2 8.8 45
5 0.175 7.4 42
6 0.175 7.4 44
7 0.3 16.3 48
8 0.625 51.2 48
9 0.475 34. 7 50
10 0.4 27.0 48
11 0.4 27.0 50
12 0. 7 59.4 50
13 0.675 56.7 52
1<1 0.55 42.9
l s I 0.525 40. l 52
0.4 34.7 54
l 7 0.475 34.7 54
18 0.475 34.7 53
19 0.45 32.2 49
20 0.425 29.6 50
21 0.425 29.6 54
22 0.45 32.2 48
23 0.425 29.6 50
24 0.425 29.6 50
25 0.425 29.6 50
26 1.3 129.6 50
27 0.8 70.2 50
2'' 0.9
()
82. 1 48
29 1.5 153. 9 4[3
1.4 141.8 50
~ 1
"' I
' ·~ • .. j
ROLLAND A. JONES
Consulting Engineer
P 0 Box 375
KODIAK. ALASKA 9%1:>
Jvf1
rUl I,. l.. tVIt.:) IIJUI V
-----QF_
CALCL!l Al[!l [1Y DATE __ _
CHEC.•-ED 0< LATE
Honth Da ;;:__:~:_.:::...:..:..;..;;J__,.------"'-S-"-t a's1DI F J 0)'{ ( c . f . s . ) Gg_ge Read in Ter.1peraturc °F.
October 1980 1.0
2 0.85
3 0.7
4 0. 775
5 0.7
6 0.9
7 0.8
8 0. 75
9 0.7
1 0 0.575
ll 0.55
l 2 0. 5
13 0.5
H ' 0. 5
1 G 0.5
lf. 0 ,.'17')
l 7 1.2
lb 1.0
19 1.1
20 0.9
21 1.4
22 1.9
23 1.9
1.8
25 1. 2
.26 l.O
27 1.2
1.0
29 0.8
30 0. 775
31 0. 75
\,' /I • '. 1 ,b.
94.0
76.1
59.4
67.5
59.4
82.1
70.2
59.4
59.4
45.7
-+2.9
37.3
37. 3
37.3
37.3
34.7
117.7
94.0
105.8
82.1
141.8
203.5
203.5
190.4
117.7
94.0
117.7
94.0
70.2
67.5
59.4
48
44
4()
47
44
46
44
42
40
38
40
44
! ' ·4 ()
4J
4 ~
)
44
42
46
48
46
46
44
44
42
40
38
33
ROLLAND A. JONES SHI [ I tJr) or_~--Consulting Engineer
P 0. Bm 37:J f"A<rut~Trlll'> __ O"TE __ .
KODIAK, ALASKA ()'JG l '1
C~<lC•lO IJ¥ • -----OATE
_______ ,_
Month Da G£S1Lf~ead_i n trei:.lm ElorL (c.f.s.) 0 Temp F
November 1980 1 0.6 48.5 36
2 0.6 48.5
3 0.7 59.4 40
4 0.7 59.4 40
5 0.8 70.2 40
6 0. 775 67.5 38
7 0.7 59.4 37
8 0.7 59.4
9 0.6 43.5 33
10 0.6 48.5 39
11 0.55 42.9
12 0.7 59.4 33
1 3 0.65 .0 37
14 0.6 48.5 40
15 0.65 54.0 39
15 0.6 48.5
1 7 0.55 42.9 38
18 0.6 48.5 37
19 0.8 70.2 40 .. ~--·-~--.-----~
20 0.7 59.4 I 36 i j
21 54.0 38
:··-r--
0.65 . I
22 0.8 70.2 33
23 0.7 59.4 38
24 1 . 1 105.8 37
25 0.8 70.2 37
26 0.7 .4 37 ..
ice damps form 27 0.7 59.4 36
'affecting read 23 0.35 21.7 35 I •
:1 ngs
29 0.7 59.4
30 0.95 88. 1
31
I
I
r~onth
December 1980
ROLLAND A. JONES
Consulting Engineer
P 0 Boll 375
KODl AK, ALASKA 9'JL 1 ~)
Da G{l_g~_Rcad i!l
1 0.95
2 0.7
3 0.6
4 0.5
5 0.5
6 0.5
7 0.7
8 0.625
9 0.6
10 0.575
11 0.9
12 1.1
1 3 1.1
14 1 . 1 5
1 5 0.9
16 0.75
1 7 0.6
18 0.5
19 0.4
20 0.4
21 0.4
22 0.4
23 0.4
24 0.4
25 0.35
26 0.325
27 0.325
28 0.375
29 0.45
30 0.4
31 1.8
~-~~----~---------
~.~---~ ---~-~ --o•-~--
CAl CUI h HOI'> ~--·-~---DATE_-----
CHf('~[[) 11Y ~-·--~----DATE _______ _
(c.f.s.) 0 T ern;:J F
36°
59.4 37
48.5 38
37.3 36
37.3 37
37.3 37
59.4 38
51.2 38
48.5 37
45.7 36
82. 1 35
105.8 35
105.8 34
111.75 34
82. 1 34
64.8 34
48.5 36
37.3 36
2 7. 0 34 I .. ____ ._ .. _____ --·--
I
27.0 .}~--·----·-
I 27.0 33 i
27.0 33
27.0 34 I .... _ ..
27.0 35
21.7 35
19.0 34 ·•·
19.0 33
24.3 33
32.2 3Y
27.0 34
190.4 34
ROLLAND A. JONES
Consulting Engineer
P 0. Ro)( 375
KODIAK. ALASKA 9'1G l'!
Sill [ 1 till __ or---~----
CA.t CUl 1\ il'l> fl, 04TE
CH[C•HlBY.
---------------------~_.r_"'-' --------· ·--· ·--~-~ --·-··-··----------::..:..:::::.;::=::::::.;::::=.=::=:::=:
Month Da y{l_g~j\Oll_Q ll!{] s tr . .c'.illlJ Eluw (c.f.s.) IcmD of
January 1981 1 2. 1 229.8 34°
2 1.0 94.0 33
3 1.1 105.8 34
4 1.1 105.8 34
5 1.1 105.8 35
6 1.1 105.8 35
7 1.25 123.7 35
8 .95 88.1 35
9 1.2 117.7 35
10 1.0 94.0 34
ll 0.95 88.1 36
12 0.875 79.1 36
13 1. 0 94.0 36
14 1.0 94.0 36
15 ] . 0 94.0 36
16 1.0 94 .0 36
17 l.] ] 05.8 37
18 1.1 1 OS. 8 37
19 . 9 82.1 37
20 0.85 76.2 ~6 ...
21 1.0 94.0 36
22 . 7 59.4 34
23 .8 70.2 34
24 1.0 94.0 36
25 1.1 105.8 36
26 .85 76.2 34
27 . 75 64.8 34
28 .75 64.8 36
29 .8 70.2 36
30 1.1 105.8 37
31 .9 82.1 36
•··· ' I
' ;
. f''··• 1\ ,·,,·f·n•",."·/.-,l.'i}•~•• 1o'lll"'•'"'"'1'·*·'"''·!'1.t··•
m-:·--~ G'l:tlit' e • .• . ........ lill0"3' '}t .. 'e• •• -euL!..• r auw m•....--:-.-1 • 'b._, _.._.. ....... --...,-• __ ...___,_,_ ______ -----
I\VL..L..M111V ,..._ ..JUI'IC.;)
Consulting Engineer
P. 0 Box 375
!<.OD!AK, ALASKA 9%1 :'l
CHl Ct<(D 0¥ __
---OF------
DATE ____ _
DATE ____ _
Da ____ t·1_0_'I-'-t h_~--:~....,.---_,GlLgf_R..s il rl i n.~.-----......._,.'• t reiJ rn f] ow ( c . f. s . ) T e:.m "'F
February 1981 1
2
3
4
-
:J
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
13
14
15
l G
1 ~ . I
, Q
I~
20
21
?"• c...)
?7
30
31
1.3 129.6
1.1 105.8
.9 82.1
.9 82.]
.85
O.t\5
0.8
0.8
0.7
0. 7
0.65
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
l.J
l )
0.5
0. i'
0.8
76.2
76.2
70.2
70.2
59.!;
5().4
5-'l.O
.';8.5
48.5
48.5
llt . 7
129.h
ll 5. I
1 J 7. 7
3 7. 3
59.4
70.2
54.0
36
35
36
36
37
37
37
37
36
36
35
l~
J4
34
:l ~;
13
-~
b
I
1,:. .....
' 34
3J
34
33
I
I
I r·--·---·
I ! ' -1--·j·-:
1 ' '
I .:. __ ;
I ' I
I
t·1on t h
April 1981
ROLLAND A. JONES
Consulting Eniin~ter
P. 0. Bolt 375
KODIAK, ALASKA 9961!)
Da
1 0.6
2 0.6
3 0.55
4 0.5
5 0.5
6 0.5
7 0.5
8 0.5
9 0.475
1 0 0.450
11 0.450
12 0.425
13 0.4
14 0.4
15 0.5
16 0.475
1 7 0.475
18
19
20
21
,....') t.~
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
J(Jlf. Port
Sttlt l "' l
CALCULot.TfD OV
CH( CKHl OY.
!lC•tr .. -
48.5
48.5
42.9
37.3
37.3
37.3
37.3
37.3
34.7
32.2
32.2
29.6
27.0
27.0
37.3
34.7
34.7
lions liydro .__
Of
o .. n
OATE
---~
(c.f.s~)
36
37
38
38 '
39
I .. 3r ~
38
I
39
. 40 --·-· .•
! I
3~---j·--j
I --~ l Jf.L. -~
I i I I I ... ! . -.3
Month
Harch 1981
ROLLAND A. JONES
Consulting Engineer
P. 0. Box 375
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
Da
1 0.8
2 0.7
3 0.6
4 0.55
5 0.6
6 0.575
7 0.55
8 1.2
9 1.3
10 1.2
11 1.6
12 l.l
13 1.3
14 1.1
15 1.0
16 1.0
17 1.1
18 1.3
19 1.0
20 0.9
21 0.85
22 0.8
23 0.7
24 0.65
25 0.6
26 0.675
27 0.650
28 0.6
29 0.6
30 0.6
31 0.575
.. ,, ........ ",,....,.. ~ .. ' . '
JOO -----
Port Lions Hydro --------------------
Stll t l t,rJ -·-------OF
C"'LCUt"'T(O DV --OATE _____ _
CHECI<EOBv_ --------DATE _____ _
SC~l f
70.2
59.4
48.5
42.9
48.5
45.7
42.9
117.7
129.6
117.7
166.1
105.8
129.6
105.8
94.0
94.0
105.8
129.6
94.0
82.1
76.2
70.2
59.4
54.0
48.5
56.7
54.0
48.5
48.;)
48.5
45.7
(c.f.s.)
34
34
33
34
35
35
36
3p
3.6
l
3)
37
36
36
3(,
36
j
I
..
I
3~ __ ,!
I . i
I
I 1 I I
!.;· ~~-r i. I : :t--' 1--
! . -:1 .. ~-3L_LT. -
, 1 1
_ 3.7 .. _, --r--
37
36
37
3!)
36 I
37
ATTACHMENT D
I ,.
WATER SURFACE EL. 312
Location of borrow areas MS-1, MS-2 and MS-3.
ATTACHMENT E
SOILS-FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
FOR
PORT LIONS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PREPARED FOR
KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOCIATIO~~ INC.
RnLAJlD A. JOt~ES -CONSL:L TI NG ENGHlEER
PREPARED BY
HOWARD GREY & ASSOCIATES~ INC.
GEOLOGISTS ~ ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE~ ALASKA
OcTOBER~ 1930
INTRODUCTION
Field examinations were conducted during the summer months of
1980 in the vicinity of Port Lions, Alaska to gather geologic
information pertinent to the design and construction of the
proposed hydroelectric project.
Port Lions is located in the northern portion of Kodiak Island,
about 30 miles west of the City of Kodiak.
The hydroelectric facility vJill consist of a storage reservoir,
located about 3 miles west of the citv and the main facility
da~min8 the Port Lions River adjacent to the to~~site. WaLer,
with a head of some 90 feet, will be delivered to the power
generation station via penstock.
The on-site investigation exaoined both surficial and bedrock
deposits to determine their applicability to the project.
The contents of this report contain the results of the examinations
at both sites. Also included is an evaluation of building materials
within close proximity to the selected sites.
Locations at both damsites are depicted on the vicinity map.
(Figure A)
FIELD l1ETHODS
The field ~ork at Kodiak was performed in three phases. An
initial reconnaissance trip was conducted to obtain general
information on both sites. This included identifying general
surface features, napping bedrock exposures and hand excavation
of test pits.
The second phase consisted of drilling a series of holes along
the dam axis. The drilling machine was a Mobil-t1inute Man drill
eauioed \·lith 4' solid flieht augers combined with a 2" split
spoon sanoler and a 70 pound hammer. The split spoon eauiornent
was used to obtain samples and penetration resistance values of
the underlyin8 material.
A total of 15 holes at 6 separate locations were drilled ~long
the Cresent Lake dam axis. In all cases, the holes were abandoned
due to refusal on larse rocks. Generally, the holes were drilled
to about 7 feet, but in no case did any of the borings reach
bedrock.
Due to the dense nature of the subsurface materials, the drilling
machinery was not transported to the Forebay darn site. A series
of four hand du~ test pits were excavated along the axis of the
loY.?er dam. Two of these holes did reach bedrock, while the t·~-·o
holes furthest from the river did not.
-2 -
Percolation tests were also performed at both the upper and
lO'v.>er sites .
The final phase of this investir.ation utilized a Bison Model
1570 C, signal enhancement seisnograph, to deteroine the approx-
imate thickness of the surficial deposits and the depth to bedrock.
Seismic lines were located along both dam sites as illustrated
in Figures No.l-1 and 2-1.
Seismic velocities and strata deoths were deterrr.ined and are
graphically displayed in Figures No.l-2 and 2-2.
As noted on these illustrations, the seismic velocities of similar
horizons vary. ~his is due to topographic variations, the thick
accumulation of volcanic ash and to an irregular bedrock surface.
Logs of all test holes and borinp,s as well as percolation results
are included with the report.
In general, ~oth sites exhibit the same basic features: a surface
layer of organics, organic silt and volcanic ash over a gravelly-
till material of various denths which covers an irregular slate
and gra)"vacke bedrock surface.
- 3 -
LAB ANALYSIS
Samples of the dense glacial materials recovered during-field
work were returned to Anchorage for laboratory analysis,
The analysis included particle size distribution, moisture contents
and Atterberg Limits.
Results of these tests indicate that the till material overlying
bedrock at both the upper and lower sites is a silty-sandy-
gravel.
A lateral moraine which suh parallels the Port Lions River alone
the north side in the vicinity of the Forebay Dam was also
analyzed. This material is a clayey-gravelly-sand.
Results of all laboratory analysis are included with this report.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The present surface topography of the subject area is a result
of Pleistocene glaciation, being modified by present erosional
forces. Evidence of this is characterized by the glacially
sculptured ridges and cirques of the surrounding mountains.
Glaciers apparently occuppied the wide valley west of Port Lions,
originating in the higher mountains and flowing toward the sea.
-4 -
As the glaciers advanced they scoured the bedrock and unon re-
treat deposited various amounts of glacial till nn the vallev
floors. The till is a dense accumulation of unsorted silt,
sand and rock particles up to boulder size. The particles
are generally sub-rounded to sub-angular and consist of slates,
grayHackes and granites.
The present hummocky surface with numerous ponds and small lakes
is a typical product of glacial activity. Cresent Lake is the
result of glacial scour and ponding behind moraines.
Since the last glacial retreat, an organic silt of about 2 feet or
less in thid.ness developed over the glacial drift. In June, 1912,
the erruption of Ht. Novarupta blanketed the area with volcanic
ash. The ash grades from a fine angular sand to a silt. The
present ash accumulation varies between ridges and intervening
vallevs but is generally about 1~ feet thick.
Draina~e in the area is poorly intep.rated, with numerous streams
draining small areas.
Water from Cresent Lake flows for some 3 miles to the East,
through lakes and marshes and meandering streams before joining
with two southward flowing streams to form the Port Lions River.
The topography of the area between Cresent Lake and the village
- 5 -
of Port Lions, which is characterized by nurrerous nonds and
marshes, is typical of terrain developed on a glacial 1 ;round
moraine.
GEOLOGY
Geologically, Kodiak Island is an extension of the Kenai
mountains. Bedrock throu8h this portion of Kodiak Island is
co~posed of Cretaceous slates, graywackes and argillites.
Kodiak Island is separated by two major fault syste~s. into
three areas characterized by different types of sedimentary rocks.
The eastern portion of the island contains Tertiary marine and
continental sediments. The western part is characterized by late
Triassic to earlv Jurassic volcanic and sedimentary rocks.
Sediments of the central section, whicl1 cover the majority of the
Island, including the subject study area, are described as pre-
dorninently Cretaceous slates, graywackes and argillites. (Hoore,
1967) Some minor amounts of conr,lomerate and tuff are associated
with these rocks, but none was evident at any of the outcroppings
studied. The rocks are extensively folded and faulted. The
bener8l geologic structure of Kodiak Island and vicinity is
illustrated on Figure B.
Bedrock in the Port Lions vicinity is a thin to moderately thick
bedded, brittle, dark gray to black slate. At the lower site
it trends north 35° -45° east, with a Hesterly dip of 15° -20c'.
- 6 -
Strata at the upper site trends northwest with a 20° -27'' dip
to the east.
The slates weather into platey sheets and generally no soft or
hign weathered rock was observed. The bedrock contains tight folds
and is fractured, with no apparent pattern.
Structure
Two major faults, both of which trend to the northeast, extend
across Kodiak Island. As previously mentioned, these faults
se~arate the major rock groups of the Island. (Figure B)
A normal fault displaces rocks on the eastern side of the Island,
while a thrust fault extends alan~ the western coast.
Numerous other faults representine; local stress adjustments have
been napped in the central portion of the Island. (t1oore, 1967)
Quaternary Deposits
Quaternary deposits consist of unconsolidated silt, sand and
gravel deposited as a ground moraine during Pleistocene and
Recent geologic time. This material covers extensive areas be-
tween mountain ridges, to depths from a few feet to 40 feet and
more.
A generalized map (Figure B) illustrates the surficial geology
of the study areas.
-7 -
SITE DESCRIPTION
Forebay Da~site
The lower facility, the Forebay Dam, will be constructed on the
Port Lions River, immediately south of the townsite.
The stream draining Cresent Lake together with two creeks flo,ving
from the mountains to the north, form the Port Lions River. West
of the damsite the stream is some 30 feet wide and flows on a
gravel stream bed. At roughly the Forebay Dam site, the stream
is incised into the slate bedrock with steep, near vertical banks.
Do~~stream these walls approach 50 feet in height at some
locations.
Bedrock is well exposed alonB the lower portion of the Port Lions
River. The rock is a thin to medium thick bedded, dark gray
slate. It is well indurated and contains extensive tight folds
and fractures. The rock separates along bedding planes when
struck. Generally, the exposed rock showed little deterioration
due to weatherinp,.
7he strata trend N35° -40°F. and dip to the west fron' 17° to 25°.
A plan view of the area is illustrated in Figure Ho.l-1. Fip,ure
No.l-2 represents a cross section along the dam axis based on our
test hole notes and geophysical surveys.
- 8 -
The surface bedrock apparently rises to the south with frequent
dips and peaks.
Overlying the basal slate unit is a till material similar to that
encountered in the Cresent Lake area. The till varies in thickness
from 0 to 30 feet, and is composed of an unstratified mixture of
gravel, sand and silt. Analysis of this silty-gravelly sand is
included in the appendix. Covering the till is an old organic
silt overlain by volcanic ash and a recently developed organic
silt. The depth of material covering the till varies, but is
generally under 4 feet. Seventy-five feet north of the Port
Lions River and running some 500 feet to the west, is a moraine
deposit of clayey-gravelly-sand. Results of analysis of this
material are presented in the appendix. The material is very
dense and a percolation test indicated an infiltration of 80
mintues per inch.
About 300 feet west of the darnsite a large abandoned river meander,
coverine some 5 acres, contains a substantial a~ount of clean
gravel with little soil ~over. (Figure C) No test pits were dug
at this site due to lack of access, but a rninirnu~ 5 foot layer of
gravel apparently is present. The gravel, mostly derived from
slate, gra~7 acke and granite is well-graded with about 10% greater
than 3 inches. An estimated 40,000 cubic yards could be removed.
Other meanders with gravel deposits exist further upstream. All
are at greater depths and contain more fine material.
-9 -
Cresent Lake Darnsite
Cresent Lake is located approximately 3 miles west of the village
of Port Lions. The lake is about 1 mile long and ~mila wide.
The lake is at an elevation of about 300 feet and lies in a large
broad east-west trending valley, flanked by 1000 to 2000 foot
mountain ridges.
The proposed darn will raise the water level of the lake about
12 feet.
A plan map arnd cross section of the dan axis are illustrated in
Figures No.2-1 and 2-2.
There are three bedrock exposures within the immediate darnsite
areas. (Figure No. C) Two are located along the north edge of
Cresent Lake, on each side of the discharge stream at water level.
Bedrock at these outcropings trends northwest and dips to the east.
About 500 feet east of the Cresent Lake shoreline, another outcrop
is exposed at a bend in the stream. Here similar rock strikes
to the northeast and dips to the east. The difference in trends
could be due to faulting, folding or the exposure may be a dis-
placed block which has shifted from its original position.
Another bedrock exposure is visible on a small, whale back shaped
island, east of Cresent Lake. No data was collected from this
island since there was no access.
-10 -
The bedrock is a thin to moderately thick bedded dark gray slate.
The slates are well indurated and separated along bedding planes
when struck. They are only slightly weathered and exhi~it tir.ht
folding and fracturine.
Figure No. 2-1 is a plan view of the Cresent Lake area, all
locations of test holes, borings and seismic lines.
Figure No. 2-2 depicts the subsurface depths along the darn axis
as established by test holes and geophysical methods. As shown,
the uppermost layer is composed of or3anics, volcanic ash and
organic silt. This laver grades to a till comprised of silt and
silty-sandy-gravel., containin8 nUQerous large boulders. The
contactsho~~ between the uppermost soils and the till material
is actually at depths corresponding to the boulder laver.
Bedrock depth across the axis varies between 15 and 40 feet. The
surface slopes upward at both the north and south ends. A pro-
nounced depression in the rock surface at point 25+00 along the
survey line may be an ancient stream cut. Although no change in
materials was noted, alluvial gravels might be present in the
lower portions of this dePression.
It is assumed that th€ Cresent Lake dam will be of earth fill
construction. The till will be used for fill, compacted and keyed
into similar gravelly-material. The till analyzed is a silty-
-11 -
~ravelly-sand containing :
gravel 4J~. sand 45% and silt 12%. Percolation testing
in the upper 2 feet of the till showed infiltration rates of
beti.veen 20 and 26.7 minutes per inch.
RECOMYENDATIONS
General
Foundation conditions at both damsites include glacial till over
bedrock. At both sites, in some areas, the till has been eroded
away and rock is exposed at the surface.
Blanketing both sites are o anic silts, volcanic ash and organics.
At the Forebay site, construction materials for an embanknent
dam include sands and gravels from an abandoned river channel,
and a clayey-gravelly-sand, morainal deposit. At the Cresent Lake
site, silty-gravelly-sand and a Elacial till is available for dam
construction. The surficial ash and organic rich soils would not
be suitable for darn construction or foundation materials.
Site Preparation
Due to the potentially unstable and compressible nature of the
surficial organics, volcanic ash and organic silts, these
rna teria ls should be removed from the foundation area. \..Jhere the
dam will be founded on the hard slate bedrock, a ke:~Jay should be
cut into the rock sur.face. Such a key should slope downward,
going upstream. In addition, dependinL upon the width ·of the
embankment, a slot at least ten feet wide may need to be cut into
-12 -
rock, to form a cutoff trench. Once a darn configuration has been
tentatively selected, we should be allowed to evaluate seepage
potential and dam stability to provide for foundation sloping,
cutoff and embankment stability.
Where the darns are supported by the glacial till, a keyway may
still be required. It may, however, not need to extend to rock.
Filling
Earthfill dams should be constructed with compacted structural
fill. Typically, such fill is compacted to at least 90% or 95%
density based on AASHTO Standard: T-99. On Kodiak Island, due
to the generally rainy weather, the silty-soils available for darn
construction will probably become rnoistioned during grading. Once
theJ· are rnoistined even slightly and become wetter than optimum,
they will become difficult or impossible to co~pact to the de-
sired degree. Thus, it may be necessary to design the darns with
less dense fill. This would, however, call for relatively flatter
sideslopes.
Another option for design may be to improve fill strength and
stahility through the use of soil-cement. This approach has the
advantage of eliminating the need for riprap.
However, earthwork may be appreciably more di icult, especially
since large rocks would need to be removed from the fill. Also,
soil-cement construction reauires the use of extra machinery,
which would beed to be transported to the remote sites. Finally,
soil-cement construction should be performed by a contractor
-13 -
familiar with the technique.
Outler: Harks
Conduits vJhich penetrate through the daos or their abut.;ments can
be sources of leakage. In order to control such leakge, cutoff
collars or diaphrams around the lines will be necessary. S?ill-
ways and low level discharges should be aligned with the stream
channels, so that bank erosion does not become a problem.
Spillways will probably need sowe form of lining to control
erosion. Depending upon dischar~e ouantities and velocities,
spillways may be lined with sod, gravel riprap or concrete.
Slopes
Commonly, embankment dams are designed with the sideslopes of
3H:IV to 5H:IV. Depending upon foundation conditions and em-
bankment materials, slopes as flat as lOH:IV may also be necessary.
T!1us, once an embankment material type is selected and a fill
density is established. specific e~bankment slooe an3les can be
evaluated.
The face of the embankment exposed to the reservoir should be
protected from 'vave erosion. This may be acco~plished with rip-
rap, soil-cement or durable facing. The appropriate form of bank
protection should be based upon wave heieht, frequency and
embankment slope angles.
Uonitoring
Prior to construction, permanent, groundwater elevation monitoring
-14 -
points should be installed dovmstrearn of the Cresent Lake damsite.
A minimum of one piezo~eter stould be located in the swale about
150 feet southeast of the stream draining Cresent Lake. This well
should be located within 50 et of the downstream toe of the dam.
It would also be prudent to install a second groundwater monitoring
.
well, in the swale about 200 feet south of the bend in the dam axis.
This well should be set on the order of 10 to 30 feet from the toe
of the darn.
These monitoring wells should be installed as soon as practical.
They should be read on a refular basis, prior to construction of
the darn, to establsih background data, against which operational
changes may be compared. These wells shn11Jd be monitored
continuously during the initia] pool filling and thereafter until
any changes in the groundwater regime are established and under-
stood.
If during or shortly after pool filling, water levels begin to
rise appreciably, it may be necessary to install a network of
relief wells, construct a toe berm or improve darn stability or
to blanket portions of the reservoir with impervious materials,
to prevent a potential failure.
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide these initial
design recommendations. As plans develop, please do not hesitate
-15 -
to contact us for additional geotechnical data.
Respectfully submitted,
HO\,JAB.D GREY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geologist