HomeMy WebLinkAboutAK Hydropower Evaluation Final 05-2014
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
May 2014
Allison Lake, Courtesy: Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared for:
Alaska Energy Authority
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Executive Summary:
Report Purpose and Scope: This report was prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
in response to a request to evaluate hydropower potential throughout the State of Alaska. This
report is not meant to imply funding for any of these items has been approved or is available.
This report is intended to assist local, state and Federal decision-makers in their budgetary and
project prioritization process.
Study Partners: This report was a collaborative effort between the AEA and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps). AEA provided funding to the Corps for the study.
Problem Description: A large number of studies have been conducted evaluating hydropower
potential throughout the State of Alaska. However, a mechanism does not currently exist for
comparing the projects due to differences in time periods and evaluation criteria.
Solution: This report provides a comparison of proposed projects to the extent practicable given
availability of data and a number of assumptions.
ii
ALASKA HYDROPOWER EVALUATION
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Scope and Summary 1
2. Problem Description 1
3. Methodology 1
a. Initial Screening 1
b. Level II Screening 1
c. Analysis Criteria 2
i. Renewable Energy Fund Status 2
ii. Current Local Cost of Electricity 3
iii. Distance to Population 3
iv. Estimated Cost per kWh Generated 3
v. Criteria Completeness 4
4. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 4
a. Initial Analysis 4
i. Criteria Weighting 4
ii. Follow-up Analysis 8
5. Conclusions and Recommendations 13
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Analysis Criteria .......................................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Equal Weightingt Analysis Results.............................................................................. 4
Table 3. Cost/kWh 40 Percent Analysis Results ........................................................................ 5
Table 4. Current Electricity Rate 40 Percent Analysis Results .................................................. 6
Table 5. Grant Status 40 Percent Analysis Results .................................................................... 6
Table 6. Distance/Population Index 40 Percent Analysis Results ............................................. 7
Table 7. AHP Criteria Rankings ................................................................................................ 7
Table 8. AHP Analysis Results .................................................................................................. 8
Table 9. Equal Weighting (3-criteria) ........................................................................................ 9
Table 10. Current Cost of Electricity 50 Percent Analysis Results ......................................... 10
Table 11. Distance/Population Index 50 Percent Analysis Results ......................................... 10
Table 12. Grant Status 50 Percent Analysis Results ................................................................ 11
Table 13. AHP Weight Analysis .............................................................................................. 12
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
1
1. Scope and Summary
This study compiled the results of 2,200 hydropower studies conducted throughout the State of
Alaska between 1900 and 2013 in order to determine how each recommended project would rank
in a comparison based on established criteria.
2. Problem Description
To this point there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of individual studies throughout the
State of Alaska. Given the wide range of years in which these reports were completed, it is
difficult to compare projects from one timeframe to another.
3. Methodology
Initially, data from the 2,200 studies was compiled into a spreadsheet with each study receiving a
unique identifying number. Data such as site information, project specifications, cost of
construction, installed capacity, generation, cost/kWh, location of the project, and proximity to
the nearest community were pulled from the report, (as available). Throughout this process it
was clear that some reports simply lacked the needed data to perform a thorough analysis of their
viability vis-à-vis other, more complete reports. Other proposed projects had obvious issues that
would greatly affect their implementability. Because of these issues, two rounds of screening
were conducted to improve the quality of the final analysis.
a. Initial Screening
Given the large number of projects identified, an initial round of screening was conducted to
narrow the field of projects to those that were more implementable in nature. Criteria for this
round of screening included those projects that were:
• Too large for rural hydroelectric purposes
• Were not the recommended alternative by the report
• Environmentally unacceptable
• Projects that were screened out within the report
• Projects located in a National Wildlife Refuge or State Park
The screening threshold for what was considered “too large” for a study area was based on best
professional judgment. The other four criteria were based on data contained inside of the
reports. After this round of screening, 1,035 studies remained for evaluation and comparison.
b. Level II Screening
After the initial screening, a second round of screening was completed to further narrow the field
of projects to those that were implementable. Criteria for being screened out included projects
that were:
• Too far from the nearest community
• Located on land with compatibility issues
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
2
• Strongly negative according to the original report
• Located on stream with special status
• Currently under development
• Already constructed
• Not feasible based on professional judgment
• Not hydropower in nature
As with the initial round of screening, subjective criteria thresholds were based on best
professional judgment. After this second round of screening, 477 studies remained for
evaluation and comparison.
c. Analysis Criteria
Working with AEA, the Corps identified four criteria for comparing the proposed projects.
These criteria are: Renewable Energy Fund Status, Current local cost of electricity,
Distance/Population Index, and Estimated cost per kWh generated.
i. Renewable Energy Fund Status
For this criterion, the most current AEA database of grant application statuses was used to
determine whether the studies had applied for a grant with AEA. The projects were sorted into
three status groups:
1. Not applied
2. Applied but not funded
3. Applied and funded
This criterion was project-specific as opposed to community-specific. For instance, Elim had
four studies. Three of them had not applied. The fourth study applied but has not received any
funding. Therefore three of the reports had a status of “1” with the fourth having a status of “2”.
Table 1. Analysis Criteria
Site# Location Cost/kWh Electricity Cost Grant Status Index*
570 Elim 4.96 0.59 1 1,609
584 Elim 1.88 0.59 1 132
675 Elim 2.02 0.59 1 42
2213 Elim 3.87 0.59 2 25,880
*- The Index is based on a project’s distance to its target population and is discussed in following sections.
In all, there were 17 studies that had applied and been funded that could be matched to studies,
18 studies that had applied but not been funded that could be matched to studies, 443 studies that
had not applied, and 45 current AEA grants that could not be matched to a study.
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
3
ii. Current Local Cost of Electricity
Current costs of electricity were gathered for the communities closest to the projects listed in the
various reports. This information was gathered from three sources including, (in order of
preference), utilities, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, most current available DCCED
information. After compiling this information, current local cost of electricity was still
unavailable for the following communities:
• Edna Bay
• Hobart Bay
• Ivanof Bay
• Lake Minchumina
• Loring
• Mosquito Lake
• Pope-Vannoy Landing
• Port Alexander
• Skwentna
• Ugashik
For these communities, an average cost for electricity was calculated based on the fuel delivery
method for that type of community. These types of communities included:
• Rural communities on the road system
• Communities with barge access
• Communities with a small boat dock
• Communities with air access
The above-listed communities were assigned an average rate based on known rates in
communities that rely on each of these four delivery methods.
iii. Distance to Population
For this criterion, an index was developed to give a value based on how close a proposed project
is to a population center. It was calculated by dividing population by the square root of the
distance, or (p/√d). This formula gives a greater bias to projects that are either close to a
community or serve a larger population center. The logic behind this is that constructing a
project near a community avoids the need to construct many miles of transmission line and
avoids line losses.
iv. Estimated Cost per kWh Generated
This number was calculated from the cost/kWh generated within the original reports, then
escalated to 2014 dollars using the Civil Works Construction Cost Index (CWCCI)1, which
provides annual escalation factors for the cost to construct power plants. The CWCCI provides
1 CWCCI is a USACE tool used to compare costs from different time periods.
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
4
escalation factors from 1967 to 2014. Reports written prior to 1967 were given the same
escalation rate as reports written in 1967.
v. Criteria Completeness
Of the 477 remaining studies, a number had incomplete information. Specifically, while it was
possible to assign grant status, a distance/population index figure, and current cost of electricity
to the remaining studies, 341 studies lacked cost/kWh data. Without this key piece of
information, these studies would fall to the bottom of any comparison, leaving 137 studies with
complete information.
4. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
a. Initial Analysis
IWR Plan software was used to run a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) on the 137
studies with complete information 2. This software allows users to perform analyses based on a
multiple criteria and gives users the flexibility to weight the criteria differently based on set
quantitative parameters or qualitatively based on user preference.
i. Criteria Weighting
Six separate analyses were performed with different criteria weightings. The first analysis was
based on equal weightings for all criteria with the subsequent four analyses “shocking”, (or
varying inputs to), the first result in some manner. The final analysis (analytical hierarchy
process or AHP) was based on qualitative preference. Each of these results are described below.
For analyses that included projects that AEA has funded for either design and permitting or
construction, an equal number of projects were added so that AEA will have access to 10 high-
scoring projects that either have not been funded or have only been funded into the study phase.
Those projects that fell within the Top-10 rankings for each analysis but which had been funded
for either the Design/Permitting or Construction phases are shown with strikethrough font.
(1) Equal Weighting
For this analysis, the four criteria were each given a weighting of 25 percent (for a total of 100).
The top-10 ranked projects for this analysis that have not received funds for either design and
permitting or construction are listed below in Table 2:
Table 2. Equal Weightingt Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.9883 Study
2 Perryville Unnamed Creek 2 0.9541 None
2 IWR Plan is a USACE4 tool that allows comparisons of alternatives based on multiple criteria and user-defined weightings.
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
5
3 Shungnak Shungnak River 0.9463 Study
4 Perryville Unnamed Creek 1 0.9424 None
5 Kobuk Dahl Creek 0.9418 Study
6 Kobuk Wesley Creek 0.9320 Study
7 Elfin Cove Roy’s Creek 0.9013 Study
8 Port Heiden Barabara Creek 0.8994 None
9 Port Heiden Reindeer Creek 0.8967 None
10 Tanana Jackson Creek 0.8879 None
(2) Cost/kWh 40 percent
For this analysis, the installed Cost/kWh criterion was given a weighting of 40 percent with the
other three criteria each receiving a weighting of 20 percent. Communities with projects that
could produce electricity at a lower rate were given a higher preference. The top-10 ranked
projects for this analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or
construction are listed below in Table 3:
Table 3. Cost/kWh 40 Percent Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.9813 Study
2 Perryville Unnamed Creek 2 0.9585 None
3 Kobuk Dahl Creek 0.9528 Study
4 Shungnak Shungnak River 0.9512 Study
5 Perryville Unnamed Creek 1 0.9397 None
6 Kobuk Wesley Creek 0.9372 Study
7 Port Heiden Barabara Creek 0.9063 None
8 Old Harbor Big Creek, Tributary 0.9063 None
9 Old Harbor Midway Creek 0.9062 None
Old Harbor Mountain Creek, Tributary 0.9041 Design/Permitting
10 Port Heiden Reindeer Creek 0.9019 None
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
6
(3) Current Electricity Rate 40 percent
For this analysis, the current electricity rate criterion was given a weighting of 40 percent with
the other three criteria each receiving a weighting of 20 percent. Communities with high costs
for electricity ranked higher than communities with lower electrical costs. The top-10 ranked
projects for this analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or
construction are listed below in Table 4:
Table 4. Current Electricity Rate 40 Percent Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.9906 Study
2 Perryville Unnamed Creek 2 0.9314 None
3 Perryville Unnamed Creek 1 0.9221 None
4 Shungnak Shungnak River 0.9199 Study
5 Kobuk Dahl Creek 0.9074 Study
6 Kobuk Wesley Creek 0.8996 Study
7 Elfin Cove Roy’s Creek 0.8626 Study
8 Port Heiden Barabara Creek 0.8523 None
9 Port Heiden Reindeer Creek 0.8501 None
10 Tanana Jackson Creek 0.8466 None
(4) Grant Status 40 percent
For this analysis, the grant status criterion was given a weighting of 40 percent with the other
three criteria each receiving a weighting of 20 percent. Communities that had not yet applied for
a grant were ranked higher than those having already applied. The top-10 ranked projects for
this analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or construction are
listed below in Table 5:
Table 5. Grant Status 40 Percent Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.9942 Study
2 Perryville Unnamed Creek 2 0.9771 None
3 Shungnak Shungnak River 0.9731 Study
4 Perryville Unnamed Creek 1 0.9712 None
5 Kobuk Dahl Creek 0.9709 Study
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
7
6 Kobuk Wesley Creek 0.9660 Study
7 Elfin Cove Roy’s Creek 0.9507 Study
8 Port Heiden Barabara Creek 0.9497 None
9 Port Heiden Reindeer Creek 0.9483 None
10 Tanana Jackson Creek 0.9440 None
(5) Distance/Population Index 40 percent
For this analysis, the distance/population index criterion was given a weighting of 40 percent
with the other three criteria each receiving a weighting of 20 percent. The top-10 ranked projects
for this analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or construction are
listed below in Table 6:
Table 6. Distance/Population Index 40 Percent Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.9906 Study
2 Perryville Unnamed Creek 2 0.9633 None
3 Shungnak Shungnak River 0.9570 Study
4 Perryville Unnamed Creek 1 0.9539 None
5 Kobuk Dahl Creek 0.9534 Study
6 Kobuk Wesley Creek 0.9456 Study
7 Elfin Cove Roy’s Creek 0.9210 Study
8 Port Heiden Barabara Creek 0.9195 None
9 Port Heiden Reindeer Creek 0.9173 None
10 Tanana Jackson Creek 0.9103 None
(6) AHP Weighting
For this analysis, the software prompted qualitative choices from the user in ranking the criteria
in a “more important than”/”less important than” fashion. Criteria rankings and weightings for
this analysis are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. AHP Criteria Rankings
Criteria Slot Approximate Weight
Current Electrical Rates 42 percent
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
8
More Important Than
Grant Status 23 percent
More Important Than
Distance/Population Index 18 percent
More Important Than
Installed Cost/kWh 17 percent
The top-10 ranked projects for this analysis that have not received funds for either design and
permitting or construction are listed below in Table 8:
Table 8. AHP Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.9906 Study
2 Perryville Unnamed Creek 2 0.9201 None
3 Shungnak Shungnak River 0.9154 Study
4 Perryville Unnamed Creek 1 0.9125 None
5 Kobuk Dahl Creek 0.9014 Study
6 Kobuk Wesley Creek 0.8950 Study
7 Elfin Cove Roy’s Creek 0.8599 Study
8 Tanana Jackson Creek 0.8412 None
9 Port Heiden Barabara Creek 0.8405 None
10 Port Heiden Reindeer Creek 0.8388 None
ii. Follow-up Analysis
At the request of AEA, another analysis was completed on all 477 studies with the cost/kwh
installed data removed. This left three parameters: Current Cost of Electricity, Grant Status, and
Distance/Population Index. Five analyses were completed with this expanded data set. The
results of these analyses are discussed below. Those projects that fell within the Top-10 rankings
for each analysis but which had been funded for either the Design/Permitting or Construction
phases are shown with strikethrough font.
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
9
(1) Equal Weights
For this analysis, each of the three criteria were given equal weighting. The top-10 ranked
projects for this analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or
construction are listed below in Table 9.
Table 9. Equal Weighting (3-criteria)
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Shungnak Cosmos Creek 0.8425 Study
Pedro Bay Knutson Creek 0.8399 Design/Permitting
Atka Chuniisax Creek 0.8015 Construction
2 Scammon Bay Unnamed Creek, South of Village 0.7810 Study
Chitina Fivemile Creek 0.7784 Design/Permitting
Chenega Bay Anderson Creek 0.7451 Design/Permitting
3 Edna Bay Survey Creek 0.7348 None
Tanacross Yerrick Creek 0.7271 Construction
4 Aleknagik Chikuminuk Lake 0.7220 Study
5 Sleetmute Vreeland Creek 0.7177 None
6 Akutan Loud Creek 0.6887 Study
Akutan Town Creek 0.6887 Design/Permitting
7 Tatitlek Silver Lake 0.6750 None
8 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.6741 Study
9 Covenant Life Walker Lake 0.6733 None
t-10 Takotna Ganes Creek 0.6459 None
t-10 Takotna Roberts Creek 0.6459 None
t-10 Takotna Gold Creek 0.6459 None
(2) Current Cost of Electricity 50 percent
For this analysis, the current electricity rate criterion was given a weighting of 50 percent with
the other two criteria each receiving a weighting of 25 percent. The top-10 ranked projects for
this analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or construction are
listed below in Table 10.
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
10
Table 10. Current Cost of Electricity 50 Percent Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Shungnak Cosmos Creek 0.8088 Study
Pedro Bay Knutson Creek 0.8050 Design/Permitting
2 Sleetmute Vreeland Creek .7883 None
Atka Chuniisax Creek 0.7473 Construction
3 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.7229 Study
4 Scammon Bay Unnamed Creek, South of Village 0.7165 Study
Chitina Fivemile Creek 0.7126 Design/Permitting
5 Takotna Ganes Creek 0.6806 None
6 Takotna Roberts Creek 0.6806 None
7 Takotna Gold Creek 0.6806 None
Chenega Bay Anderson Creek 0.6626 Design/Permitting
8 Perryville Unnamed #2 0.6537 None
9 Perryville Unnamed #1 0.6537 None
10 Edna Bay Survey Creek 0.6473 None
(3) Distance/Population Index 50 percent
For this analysis, the distance/population index criterion was given a weighting of 50 percent
with the other two criteria each receiving a weighting of 25 percent. The top-10 ranked projects
for this analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or construction are
listed below in Table 11.
Table 11. Distance/Population Index 50 Percent Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Shungnak Cosmos Creek 0.8368 Study
Pedro Bay Knutson Creek 0.8349 Design/Permitting
Atka Chuniisax Creek 0.8061 Construction
2 Scammon Bay Unnamed Creek, South of Village 0.7907 Study
Chitina Fivemile Creek 0.7887 Design/Permitting
Chenega Bay Anderson Creek 0.7637 Design/Permitting
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
11
3 Edna Bay Survey Creek 0.7561 None
Tanacross Yerrick Creek 0.7503 Construction
4 Aleknagik Chikuminuk Lake 0.7464 Study
5 Sleetmute Vreeland Creek 0.7432 None
6 Akutan Loud Creek 0.7214 Study
Akutan Town Creek 0.7214 Design/Permitting
7 Tatitlek Silver Lake 0.7112
8 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.7105 Study
9 Covenant Life Walker Lake 0.7099 None
t-10 Takotna Ganes Creek 0.6894 None
t-10 Takotna Roberts Creek 0.6894 None
t-10 Takotna Gold Creek 0.6894 None
(4) Grant Status 50 Percent
For this analysis, the grant status criterion was given a weighting of 50 percent with the other
two criteria each receiving a weighting of 25 percent. The top-10 ranked projects for this
analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or construction are listed
below in Table 12.
Table 12. Grant Status 50 Percent Analysis Results
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Shungnak Cosmos Creek 0.8819 Study
Pedro Bay Knutson Creek 0.8800 Design/Permitting
Atka Chuniisax Creek 0.8511 Construction
2 Scammon Bay Unnamed Creek, South of Village 0.8357 Study
Chitina Fivemile Creek 0.8338 Design/Permitting
Chenega Bay Anderson Creek 0.8088 Design/Permitting
3 Edna Bay Survey Creek 0.8011 None
Tanacross Yerrick Creek 0.7953 Construction
4 Aleknagik Chikuminuk Lake 0.7915 Study
5 Akutan Loud Creek 0.7665 Study
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
12
Akutan Town Creek 0.7665 Design/Permitting
6 Covenant Life Walker Lake 0.7550 None
7 Tyonek Chakachamna Lake 0.7309 Study
Crown Point Grant Lake 0.7309 Design/Permitting
8 Kupreanof Cascade Creek 0.7276 None
9 Seward Fourth of July Creek 0.7273 Study
10 Saxman Mahoney Lake 0.7234 None
It is interesting to note that the Distance/Population index at 50 percent and the Grant Status
criteria at 50 percent produced the same results with slightly different scores.
(5) AHP Weighting
For this analysis, the current electricity rate criterion was given a weighting of approximately 55
percent, Grant Status was given a weighting of approximately 28 percent, and
Distance/Population Index was given a weighting of approximately 15 percent. The top-10
ranked projects for this analysis that have not received funds for either design and permitting or
construction are listed below in Table 13.
Table 13. AHP Weight Analysis
Rank Location Project Name Score Funding
1 Shungnak Cosmos Creek 0.8089 Study
Pedro Bay Knutson Creek 0.7956 Design/Permitting
2 Sleetmute Vreeland Creek 0.7825 None
Atka Chuniisax Creek 0.7953 Construction
3 Adak Lake Bonnie Rose 0.7178 Study
4 Scammon Bay Unnamed Creek, South of Village 0.7738 Study
Chitina Fivemile Creek 0.7712 Design/Permitting
5 Scammon Bay Unnamed Creek, South of Village 0.7007 None
6 Takotna Gold Creek 0.6657 None
7 Takotna Roberts Creek 0.6600 None
8 Takotna Ganes Creek 0.6600 None
Chenega Bay Anderson Creek 0.7363 Design/Permitting
9 Crooked Creek Getmuna Creek 0.6467 None
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
13
t-10 Perryville Unnamed #2 0.6311 None
t-10 Perryville Unnamed #1 0.6311 None
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
There were 36 separate projects that appeared at least once in the Top-10 rankings of any of the
11 analyses that were performed. Of these 36 projects, eight were disqualified because they had
been funded for either the Design/Permitting or Construction stages. These eight projects are:
• Knutson Creek (Pedro Bay)
• Chuniisax Creek (Atka)
• Fivemile Creek (Chitina)
• Anderson Creek (Chenega Bay)
• Yerrick Creek (Tanacross)
• Town Creek (Akutan)
• Grant Lake (Crown Point)
• Mountain Creek, Tributary (Old Harbor)
The remaining 25 projects had either received funding for only the study phase or had not
received funding at all. A list of those project follows and is sorted by how many times the
projects appeared in the top-10 rankings of the 11 analyses. The projects in bold have received
study funding. Those not in bold have not received funding.
Appeared in ten Top-10 Rankings:
• Lake Bonnie Rose (Adak)
Appeared in eight Top-10 Rankings:
• Unnamed Creek 2 (Perryville)
• Unnamed Creek 1 (Perryville)
Appeared in six Top-10 Rankings:
• Shungnak River (Shungnak)
• Dahl Creek (Kobuk)
• Wesley Creek (Kobuk)
• Barabara Creek (Port Heiden)
• Reindeer Creek (Port Heiden)
Appeared in five Top-10 Rankings:
• Roy’s Creek (Elfin Cove)
• Jackson Creek (Tanana)
• Cosmos Creek (Shungnak)
• Unnamed Creek, South of Village (Scammon Bay)
Appeared in four Top-10 Rankings:
Alaska Hydropower Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
14
• Survey Creek (Edna Bay)
• Vreeland Creek (Sleetmute)
• Gold Creek (Takotna)
• Roberts Creek (Takotna)
• Ganes Creek (Takotna)
Appeared in three Top-10 Rankings:
• Loud Creek (Akutan)
• Walker Lake (Covenant Life)
• Chikuminuk Lake (Aleknagik)
Appeared in two Top-10 Rankings:
• Silver Lake (Tatitlek)
Appeared in one Top-10 Ranking:
• Chakachamna Lake (Tyonek)
• Cascade Creek (Kupreanof)
• Fourth of July Creek (Seward)
• Mahoney Lake (Saxman)
• Getmuna Lake (Crooked Creek)
• Big Creek, Tributary (Old Harbor)
• Midway Creek (Old Harbor)
From this listing, it appears that the following 17 projects would be good candidates for initial
funding:
• Unnamed Creek 2 (Perryville)
• Unnamed Creek 1 (Perryville)
• Barabara Creek (Port Heiden)
• Reindeer Creek (Port Heiden)
• Jackson Creek (Tanana)
• Survey Creek (Edna Bay)
• Vreeland Creek (Sleetmute)
• Gold Creek (Takotna)
• Roberts Creek (Takotna)
• Ganes Creek (Takotna)
• Walker Lake (Covenant Life)
• Silver Lake (Tatitlek)
• Cascade Creek (Kupreanof)
• Mahoney Lake (Saxman)
• Getmuna Lake (Crooked Creek)
• Big Creek, Tributary (Old Harbor)
• Midway Creek (Old Harbor)