The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutChikuminuk Lake Feasibility Report Vol. I and II 2014Prepared for: ti/Pvista April2014 NUVISTA LIGHT & ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ~vista Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Foreword Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. is a non-profit electric cooperative founded and led by non-profit, tribal, and Alaska Native stakeholders in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region. Nuvista's stated mission is to improve the energy economics in rural Alaska by creating energy generation and transmission infrastructure to serve, connect and enable the region to attain affordable, long-term energy sustainability and self-sufficiency. The motivation to explore new energy solutions is clear. The Yukon-Kuskokwim region, like many other rural regions of Alaska, suffers from staggering energy costs. High and rising electric, fuel and heating costs undermine the foundations of life in rural communities. Low-income families are hardest hit by the high cost of diesel-generated energy, with some households paying more than 50 percent of their monthly income for heat and electricity.1 The State of Alaska attempts to relieve the exorbitant prices that rural families face through continued support for the power cost equalization (PCE) program; but even with the PCE program, residents of rural Alaska pay more than twice their urban neighbors for electricity. Further, PCE subsidies do not extend to businesses; resulting in electric bills that are four to five times those of urban Alaska. Nuvista recognizes that the volatility of the petro-based fuel system punishes business and family finances, ultimately threatening the future of cultures and the solvency of communities in our region. We were created specifically to identify the most pressing energy problems and develop projects that offer the best possible solutions. Given this mission, and the large-scale energy problems, we sought to explore a promising, large-scale solution. Beginning in 2010, Nuvista worked with local communities to investigate possible solutions to the region's energy challenges. From the many alternatives considered, hydroelectric generation at Chikuminuk Lake, which sits at the upper reaches of the Nuyakuk-Nushagak drainage in northern Wood Tikchik State Park, was selected as a promising energy solution by representatives ofYK. regional organizations over a series of meetings in fall of 2011. Chikuminuk has several advantages over other potential regional sites; records indicate it receives limited recreation or subsistence activity, preliminary studies show it does not support a salmon run, and it can generate year-round water flows capable of meeting the electricity demand among communities throughout the Yukon- Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay regions. 1 Commonwealth North, Energy for a Sustainable .~Iaska-The Rural Conundrum presentation ofiSER February 2010 Study Data. The Chikutninuk Lake Hydroelectric Project presents an opportunity to provide affordable electricity from a stable and sustainable source, as well as a source that does not contribute to climate change already threatening the future of our region's coastal villages. In 2011, under the continued guidance of the Board of Directors and through the support of funding from the Alaska Legislature, Nuvista began studying the feasibility of hydroelectric generation at Chikuminuk Lake. Following the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) guidelines, Nuvista began preliminary studies of the site to develop baseline understanding of the area, assess potencial capacity, and evaluate potencial impacts. Initial studies focused on: • Geology of the lake basin • Water use and quality, water flow • Aquatic Resources • Terrestrial Resources • Cultural and Subsistence Resources • Recreation and Visual Resources • Socioeconomic Resources • Electric generation capability of the site • Potencial costs to construct and operate Results of the studies, to date, are presented in this interim feasibility assessment. Independent of any insights about the hydroelectric project, this research produced the first ever thorough investigation of the environment and human uses of this remote landscape. The informacion gathered provides valuable, but preliminary, data on the Chikutninuk project area and the project's potencial impacts. Early results are encouraging, suggesting that adverse environmental impacts would be modest, and that the project is technically feasible and can provide long-term affordable stable, renewable, clean power. However, due to limited access while conducting field work and certain land use restrictions, we do not yet believe we have compiled enough informacion to recommend a decision on the project to Nuvista leadership, stakeholders, and the Alaska Legislature. The informacion Nuvista has been able to gather to this point definitely shows the Chikurninuk Lake Hydroelectric Project has merit today, and may someday become essential. Particularly intriguing is the potencial for per kilowatt hour costs following construction, shown on Pages 24-25, alongside the diesel price projections. We understand the challenges before the state legislature concerning capital funding for any project, small or large-scale. We also understand the concerns voiced by some regional residents that this project could disrupt the watersheds that support subsistence and our way of life. We are residents of the region, and would not support a project that would jeopardize those resources. Further, Nuvista's Board understands that there are unanswered environmental and economic questions, as well as political issues, that may prevent this particular hydroelectric project from being a practical solution to Western Alaska's energy problems at this time. On the other hand, there may be a point, in the not too distant future, at which hydroelectric generation at Chikuminuk Lake will be an essential element of the region's energy solutions. Accordingly, we remain proud of the work we have conducted to analyze the project and the conditions at the site as a base-line for any future review of the hydtoelectric potential of Chikuminuk Lake. The path to regional energy solutions is not clear and no initiative is perfect, but we must position ourselves to begin pursuing opportunities available to our communities. Nuvista is poised to consider any option "on the table" and hydtoelectric generation at Chikuminuk Lake was just one such option. The bottom line is that new energy solutions are needed in Western Alaska, solutions founded on thorough investigation, working \vith the people who are most affected by these decisions. Nuvista continues to work to improve the energy economics for the people of Western Alaska. Ultimately, we see access to affordable energy as being a component of self-determination for our people and self-sufficiency for our businesses and families. Nuvista's role is to speak up for, and work on behalf of, the people we are trying to help. We will have succeeded when we have attained affordable, sustainable energy choices for every community in our region. We submit the following report as a contribution to the science and understanding of the Chikuminuk area and hope that it fosters greater understanding of this magnificent resource. Executive Director Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. -w ~ ::::» .... 0 > "JNI'3AilVH3dOOJ JIHD313 18 lH911 VlSIAnN ttOZ I!Jd' eJS!A'f/SI ~H~J.YH ~ :Jo:J piuediUd Prepared for: ~HATCH .. ti/Pvista April2014 NUVISTA LIGHT & ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations ~HATCH~ Nuvista Electric Cooperative Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Vol. 1 Technical Considerations April2014 Page i Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 Table of Contents FORWARD 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Access .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Capacity ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Turbine Selection ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Project Alternative Selection ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Preferred Project Arrangement ................................................................................................................... 3 1.5.1 Diversion During Construction .......................................................................................................... 4 1.5.2 Intake and Tunnel ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.5.3 Surge Chamber .................................................................................................................................. 5 1.5.4 Dam and Spillway .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.5.5 Outlet Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.5.6 Fish Passage Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 8 1.5. 7 Transmission ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Geology ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 3. Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.1 Chikuminuk Lake Drainage Basin ............................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Stream Flow Record ................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Stream Flow Extension for Chikuminuk Lake ............................................................................................. 11 3.4 Flood Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 12 3.4.1 Inflow Design Flood ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.4.2 Flood Recurrence ............................................................................................................................ 15 4. Reservoir Operations Studies and Project Energy Estimation ...................................................................... 16 4.1 Energy Potential and Reservoir Operations ............................................................................................... 16 4.2 Project Impact on Downstream Lake Levels .............................................................................................. 16 5. Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost and Schedule ......................................................................... 17 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Probable Total Construction Cost .............................................................................................................. 17 5.2.1 Direct Construction Cost ................................................................................................................. 17 5.2.2 Indirect Costs .................................................................................................................................. 18 5.2.3 Total Construction Cost ................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 Construction Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 20 6. Economic Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 21 6.1 lntroduction ............................................................................................................................................... 21 6.2 Project and Diesel Cost per kWh ............................................................................................................... 21 ~HATCH~ Page ii Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 6.2.1 Project Cost First Year Annual Cost ................................................................................................. 21 6.2.2 Diesel Cost per Gallon ..................................................................................................................... 22 6.2.3 Lower Limit, Base and Upper Limit Cost I kWh-Project and Diesel Alternatives ......................... 23 6.3 Cost Comparisons-Project vs. Diesel ....................................................................................................... 24 7. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 27 7.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 27 7.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 27 8. References ................................................................................................................................................. 28 list of Tables Table 1.1 Selected Turbine Parameters (estimated) .................................................................................................... 2 Table 1.2 Summary of Qualitative Costs Comparison of Project Arrangement Alternatives ($',000) .......................... 3 Table 1.3 Selected Design Parameters and Values ....................................................................................................... 3 Table 3.1 Drainage Areas ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3.2 Summary of Available Average Daily Flow Data ......................................................................................... 11 Table 3.3 Values of Slope, Intercept and Bias Correction Factor for the Multi-segment Regression by KTRiine of the Discharge at Allen River Using Nuyakuk River as Index Station .................................................................................. 13 Table 3.4 Estimated Average Monthly Flows at Dam Site, Using Measured Values if Available (Cfs) ........................ 13 Table 3.5 Chikuminuk Lake Dam PMF Routing Summary (MWH, 2011) .................................................................... 15 Table 3.6 Estimated Flood Recurrence Flows at Nuyakuk River (USGS 15302000) .................................................... 15 Table 3.7 Estimated Flood Recurrence Flows at Chikuminuk Lake Dam Site ............................................................. 15 Table 5.1 Cost Estimate Classification ........................................................................................................................ 17 Table 5.2 AACE Class for Major Project Features ....................................................................................................... 18 Table 5.3 Scope and Price Contingencies for Major Project Features ........................................................................ 18 Table 5.4 Administration & Management (%of DCC+ Contingencies} ..................................................................... 19 Table 5.5 Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost ............................................................................................. 19 Table 6.1 Cost Benefit Analysis, Data lnput ................................................................................................................ 23 list of Figures Figure 3.1 Correlation of Available Concurrent Average Daily Flows at Allen River (Usgs 15301500} and Nuyakuk River (Usgs 15302000) ................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3.2 Scatter-plot and Multi-segment Best-fit Line of Measured Concurrent Average Daily Flows at Allen River and Nuyakuk River ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5.1 Probable Construction Schedule ................................................................................................................ 20 ~HATCH~ Page iii Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 Figure 6.1 Estimating Accuracy Trumpet .................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 6.2 Project-Base Case vs. Diesel-Medium Projection (2013 Dollars) ............................................................... 24 Figure 6.3 Project-Upper and Lower Limits vs. Diesel-Medium Projection (2013 Dollars) ......................................... 25 Figure 6.4 Project-Base Case vs. Diesel-High and Low Fuel Prices (2013 Dollars) ...................................................... 26 List of Figures-Preferred Project Arrangement Figure 1 Project Location Figure 2-Project Boundary Figure 3-Project Features General Arrangement Figure 4-Hydroelectric Facilities-General Arrangement-Site Plan Figure 5 Dam I Spillway General Arrangement Figure 6-Dam -Downstream Elevation View Figure 7-Power Tunnel Plan, Profile & Sections Figure 8 -Intake Structure Plan & Sections Figure 9-Gate Shaft & House-Plan & Sections Figure 10 Powerhouse-Area Site Plan Figure 11-Powerhouse & Penstock-Plan Figure 12-Powerhouse-General Arrangement-Sections List of Appendices Appendix A-V-Pass Preliminary Geologic Evaluation Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Appendix D-Probable Construction Cost Appendix E-Economic Analysis Pageiv Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 1. Introduction The cost of electricity in western Alaska is high, due to most of the electricity being generated by expensive diesel fuel. Previous studies have identified Chikuminuk Lake as a potential hydropower site, which would provide the Dillingham and Bethel region with less expensive renewable energy and energy storage. In this study, two sites on the Allen River at the outlet of the lake were reviewed and one ultimately selected to be most feasible based on lowest cost and least visual impact. This Volume 1 of the Interim Feasibility Report (Report) presents the results of the engineering investigations by Hatch and its subconsultants. It includes presentation of the site selection analysis, project arrangement description, hydrology, geology, reservoir operations, opinion of probable cost, and economic analysis. Volume 2 of the Report presents the existing environmental considerations and a general geologic overview. The purpose of this interim report is to provide Nuvista Electric Cooperative (Nuvista) with the information necessary to assess the viability of this project and to identify any additional information or studies required to complete a final feasibility report. 1.1 Project Access Appendix B includes a technical analysis of construction access (R&M, 2013) to the Project, including cost estimates and the following Project access alternatives: • An overland road from Dillingham • A winter (ice) road from Dillingham • Barge access to Dillingham combined with an overland road or winter road from Dillingham. • An airstrip for aircraft access only. The analysis concludes that a Lockheed Hercules C-130 cargo plane is the only reliable means of access for construction, based on a lack of a connection with a navigable waterway or established overland route (permanent or winter). Therefore, the project will require an approximately 5,000 feet long runway during construction that will allow landings and takeoffs by the Hercules. After construction is complete, the runway would be minimally maintained to allow smaller aircraft to provide the primary means of access for maintenance and permanent personnel. In case of large equipment delivery needs beyond the capacity of a helicopter, the runway could be restored to temporarily allow a Hercules to land and take off. The Hercules has the following approximate payload and cargo size limitations (Lynden Air Cargo), which was used to estimate the number of flights required for construction of the Project: • Max payload = 48,000 lb • Max cargo height= 9ft • Max cargo width 10 ft • Max cargo length= 55ft 1.2 Project Capacity The selected project capacity of 22 MW was determined by adding up the expected average annual load demand of potential communities to be served by the project in the Calista and Bristol Bay regions {76.4 GWh) and then applying an average peak load factor. A review of available statistics from the local utilities indicated that a annual average peak load factor of approximately 0.4 would be appropriate for the Project. 1.3 Turbine Selection Based on a rated head of (95ft) and total plant capacity of 22 MW, which results in a rated discharge for the powerhouse of approximately 3,000 cfs, either Francis units or Kaplan units may be used. Four Page 1 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 vertical Francis units were ultimately selected based on: expectation of maintenance costs, weight considerations for shipping, and powerhouse footprint requirements. The rotor would be shipped with its poles and shaft separate, but the stator would be shipped in one piece. The estimated stator weight for one unit is 46,800 lb (23.4 tons}, which is just within the capacity of the C-130 cargo plane. Table 1.1 summarizes the turbine parameters and associated values for the selected vertical Francis units. Table 1.1 Selected Turbine Parameters (estimated) 1.4 Parameter Value Type of turbine Vertical Francis Total plant flow (cfs} 3000 Number of units 4 Flow per unit (cfs} 750 Rated head (ft) 95 Full load turbine efficiency{%) 91 Turbine power {MW) 5.5 Runner diameter {ft} 6.0 Power factor 0.9 Gen output (MVA} 5.9 Gen rotor weight (tons) 31.2 Stator weight (tons) 23.4 Project Alternative Selection A total of four project arrangements were qualitatively reviewed on a cost basis to facilitate selection of a preferred project arrangement: an Upstream and a Downstream dam site with either a roller compacted concrete (RCC} dam or a concrete faced rockfill dam (CFRD}. The Upstream and Downstream dam sites are located approximately 1,500 feet and 4,500 feet downstream from the lake outlet, respectively. Appendix C includes the technical memorandum that presents the analysis in more detail, including figures of the four alternatives. Only the major features {dam, spillway, and tunnel} of the Project costs were considered in the analysis, assuming that the powerhouse costs, and other costs, would be small or similar for all alternatives. Table 1.2 summarizes the results from the technical memorandum. Based on its lowest anticipated construction costs, the Lower site with an RCC dam was selected as the preferred project arrangement, for which the design and construction cost estimate would be further refined and developed. Page 2 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations Table 1.2 Summary of Qualitative Costs Comparison of Project Arrangement Alternatives ($',000) Upper Upper Lower Lower Feature CFR Dam RCC Dam CFR Dam RCC Dam Dam Spillway Diversion Tunnel Power Tunnel TOTAL $9,700 $19,300 $5,200 $26,500 $60,700 $17,500 $0 $5,200 $25,500 $48,200 1.5 Preferred Project Arrangement $16,100 $21,400 $5,900 $12,700 $56,300 $24,100 $0 $2,300 $9,000 $35,400 April 2014 Figures 1 through 12 located herein Volume I at page 29 present the preferred project arrangement which is described below. Table 1.3 summarizes selected design parameters and values. Table 1.3 Selected Design Parameters and Values Parameter Value Powerhouse Type Plant rated capacity Normal tailwater level Rated head Plant hydraulic capacity Powerhouse size Switchyard size Synchronous Bypass No. of turbine units Turbine type Rated unit discharge Reservoir and Spillway Inflow Design Flood (IDF) Spillway Crest EL/Normal max reservoir level Normal min reservoir level Spillway length IDF peak outflow IDF peak head on spillway Reservoir surface area @ EL 660 Reservoir storage volume @ EL 660 Lake Chikuminuk Characteristics Existing Lake Level Surface Area at EL 613 Volume at EL 613 Hydrology 10-yr peak outflow 25-yr peak outflow 100-yr peak inflow PMF inflow Access Design aircraft Design aircraft max payload capacity Design aircraft max cargo dimensions Landing strip Helipad ~HATCH~ Above-ground 22MW 544ft 95ft 3,100 cfs 160 X 60 100x75 ft None 4 Vertical Francis 775 cfs PMF 660ft 643ft 100ft 17,000 cfs 12.6 ft 31,300 ac 1,630,000 ac-ft 613ft ~24,000 ac 9,900 cfs 10,000 cfs 23,600 cfs 110,000 cfs Lockheed Hercules C-130 48,000 lbs width = 10ft; height= 9ft; length =55ft Length = 5,000 ft, Width = 125 ft Yes Page 3 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations Parameter Value Airport access road width Local access road width CofferDam Service Life, t Design Event Return Period, T Probability (p) of flow exceeding design event (T) during service life (t) Dam Type IDF Flood Reservoir EL Freeboard above IDF Flood Elev. Top of Dam EL Top of Dam Length Diversion/Power Tunnel Type Length Design Flow Horseshoe tunnel size Fish Passage Facilities Upstream and downstream Minimum Flows at Dam Minimum instream flows (normal operating conditions) Minimum instream flows (project offline) 1.5.1 Diversion During Construction 20ft 15ft 1 yr 5-yr 20% RCC 672.4 2ft 674.4 TBD Concrete-lined horseshoe tunnel 900ft Diversion: 14,000 cfs, Power: 3,000 cfs B = 13.0 ft, H = 13.0 ft No 50 cfs (Nov-May), 150 cfs (June Oct) 600 cfs April2014 The diversion scheme was based on a 10-year recurrence interval, which has a design flow of 10,000 cfs. Embankment dams typically have a significantly higher diversion design recurrence flow, but for an RCC dam, a lower recurrence interval can be selected based on the fact the consequence of overtopping an RCC dam is much less than for an embankment dam. Diversion schemes utilizing conveyance channels in the existing channels and embedded outlets in the dam was briefly reviewed, but the design flows would require large channels and the steep canyon topography would make construction impractical. Also this type of division would not be efficient for RCC construction and create several cold joints in the dam. Therefore, the selected diversion scheme includes a more typical arrangement of a diversion tunnel and cofferdams. The diversion would be an approximately 900 feet long, 13ft wide, and 19.5 ft high (finished dimensions) horseshoe tunnel, most of which would be used as power tunnel when the Project is finished. The tunnel would be constructed from downstream to upstream, with spoils being hauled out the powerhouse road. The cofferdams are assumed to be constructed of rockfill with a slurry trench. Since the powerhouse and associated equipment installation is often a critical path item in hydropower projects, the downstream cofferdam would be constructed following the powerhouse access road completion and start of diversion tunneling. This sequence would allow the powerhouse construction to progress independent of the tunnel construction. The gate shaft would be constructed using conventional raise boring. The power tunnel and gate shaft would be lined with reinforced concrete prior to diversion of flows. Also the intake structure would be completed prior to diversion of flows. Then the upstream cofferdam would be constructed ~HATCH'" Page4 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 and begin to divert flow through the diversion tunnel. A rock plug would remain at the wye of the power tunnel until flow could be spilled at the dam. With flow diverted through the diversion tunnel, construction of the dam would commence. The gate house and powerhouse would be constructed simultaneously with the dam. Following completion of the dam and spillway, the diversion tunnel would be closed, and primary flow diversion would then be over the spillway. The rock plug at the power tunnel would be excavated and the final steel lining of the power tunnel and connection to the penstocks would be completed. The steel liner construction would include a concrete tunnel plug in the diversion tunnel. 1.5.2 Intake and Tunnel The geotechnical information available is limited, but exposed rock in the river canyon indicate that it is highly jointed and that the joint planes run roughly parallel to the tunnel alignment. We have therefore assumed that the power tunnel will need to be fully lined with reinforced concrete. The power tunnel was sized for a velocity of approximately 15 ft/s for the total plant flow of 3,000 cfs. Access to the power tunnel following project completion will be through a penstock access vault near the downstream power tunnel portal. Two types of intake and tunnel gated control systems were reviewed: 1) a tower with a vertical gate at the intake, and 2) a vertical gate in a shaft approximately 200 feet inside the tunnel. The vertical gate in an excavated shaft was the preferred option. The intake gate tower, which would also have included an access bridge from shore, would likely require significant reinforcement to meet seismic and ice load design criteria. The vertical gate shaft would include both gate and stoplog slots with a hoist located in a gate house above on the surface. We have assumed a trashrack with a 2 inch bar spacing at the intake. Stoplog slots would be included at the intake structure for emergency dewatering of the entire power tunnel, including the section upstream of the gate. These stoplogs could either be lowered by crane from shore or from a barge in the reservoir and installed with the aid of divers, but their installation is expected to be very infrequent. Also, due to ice in the reservoir, the intake structure could not reliably be accessed during winter months. A stoplog slot was included in the gate shaft as the primary means of dewatering the tunnel for inspection and for gate maintenance. 1.5.3 Surge Chamber We have assumed that control of transient pressures and unit frequency will be achieved using additional flywheel weights on the generators. We expect that the increased cost of the generating equipment will more than offset the cost of constructing a surge chamber, the diameter of which above normal minimum water level would be approximately 40 feet. Also, the location of a surge chamber should ideally be close to the powerhouse. However, the topography near the powerhouse is such that a surge chamber would essentially be a tall tower above ground, which would likely require a significant structure to meet seismic, ice, and wind loading criteria. It would also have a significant negative visual effect. A more realistic location would be further upstream where the chamber could be completely below ground, but its effect on reducing transient pressures and maintaining frequency stability would be reduced. 1.5.4 Dam and Spillway The dam would be a roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam with approximately 35,000 CY of concrete. The dam would be approximately 123 ft high with a dam crest at elevation 676ft and a crest length of approximately 465ft. ~HATCH" Page 5 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 The dam has a crest width of 20' with access from the left abutment. The downstream face of the dam is sloped at 0.8H:1V, while the upstream face is vertical. A layer of conventional concrete is placed at the upstream face of the RCC dam to provide an impervious barrier. Curtain grouting has been assumed to extend to a depth below the foundation of 60% of the dam height, while drain holes have been assumed to extend below the foundation to 40% of the dam height. Consolidation grouting has been assume below the entire foundation at a 20ft x 20ft grid spacing. A significant benefit of an RCC dam over an rockfill dam is that the spillway can be integral to the dam, which eliminates the additional excavation and concrete required for a separate spillway. The spillway would be ungated with a length of 110 feet and a crest elevation of 660ft. We have assumed that personnel access to the right dam abutment will be provided by access galleries under the spillway. Vehicle access would be provided by a three-span precast concrete bridge over the spillway, which therefore includes two piers. The reservoir level to pass the IDF is approximately 672.3 ft with approximately 3.7 ft of freeboard. Since the dam is in a very protected location, wave run up on the reservoir would be insignificant. The river canyon at the dam site is relatively steep, with approximately 1H:1V walls. The steep canyon helps to minimize the RCC volume, but it limits the width of the spillway and stilling basin. The spillway and stilling basin have a clear opening width of 110ft, which approximately matches the width of the downstream river channel. A stepped spillway was assumed to improve energy dissipation on the spillway and reduce the size of the stilling basin. A Type II USBR Stilling Basin (Peterka, 1984} was selected for the design head, flow rate, and residual energy. 1.5.5 Outlet Facilities 1.5.5.1 lnstream Flow Outlet We have assumed a minimum and maximum instream flow requirement of 50 cfs (Nov May) and 150 cfs (June-Oct), respectively, for the reach between the dam and the powerhouse. The flow would be discharged through a regulating valve on the synchronous bypass outlet (see Section 4.5.5.2 for details). It would be possible to include a small horizontal1,000 kW Francis unit to capture the available energy in the instream flow. Assuming an outlet elevation of approximately 581ft for an average head of approximately 70 feet and a minimum and maximum flow of 50 and 150 cfs, respectively, the potential available annual energy would be approximately 4,100 MWh. The outlet could potentially be installed at a lower elevation closer to the invert of the apron to increase generation. However, a turbine unit like this has not been included in the analyses and cost estimates presented herein. It would require a separate small powerhouse at the base of the dam, transformers, and transmission line to the main powerhouse. 1.5.5.2 Synchronous Bypass Outlet A synchronous bypass outlet at the dam should be included so that a minimum flow in the Allen River can be maintained in case the powerhouse is tripped off-line. We have assumed that the minimum flow in the river at any time during the year is 600 cfs. A hooded fixed cone valve (ring jet valve} would be installed at the end of the outlet near the end of the lower gallery access on the left abutment to dissipate the energy. Based on a minimum and maximum net head of approximately 57ft and 75ft, respectively, and a maximum flow of 600 cfs, we have estimated that a 48" diameter outlet and valve will be sufficient. ~HATCH~ Page 6 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 The fixed cone valve would normally be regulated to release only the flow required for instream flow. If the powerhouse is tripped off-line, the valve would automatically open to its full capacity to maintain a watered reach between the dam and the powerhouse. 1.5.5.3 Low-Level Outlet Facilities We have assumed that low-level outlet facilities to evacuate the reservoir in an emergency situation would not be required based on the probable classification of the dam as low risk and low hazard, and based on the large size of the reservoir and the resulting large outlet works required to meet the evacuation criteria and guidelines by USBR {USBR, 1990) and USACE {USACE, 1975). Concrete dams like the proposed RCC dam do not generally fail in a catastrophic manner in the same way that an impervious core rockfill dam may fail during a seismic event. The consequence of a dam failure would also likely be low, based on the attenuating effects of the large downstream lakes Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake. The estimated starting reservoir storage is approximately 1,600,000 acre-ft and it would require an average outflow of approximately 10,000 cfs to draw down the reservoir within the four high-inflow months of June through September. The required peak flow capacity would be significantly higher. Providing the facility with this flow capacity is not considered economical, based on the anticipated low level of risk and low hazard potential at the site. A more detailed risk and hazard analysis should be performed during a preliminary design phase to confirm this assumption. 1.5.5.4 Powerhouse and Switchvard Three types of powerhouse structures were considered including an above grade, cavern and shaft style. In an above grade structure the powerhouse is accessed from the turbine/generator service level and the building superstructure is full exposed. The cavern powerhouse is constructed entirely underground and access is by tunnel. The shaft style powerhouse is recessed into the ground such that much of it is below grade, with some above grade features and access can vary depending on the layout. Although cavern and shaft style powerhouses present a lower visual impact than the above grade alternative, they require competent rock. Due the expected highly jointed nature of the rock and orientation of the joint planes at the site, these alternatives would require significant rock support and waterproofing and would present significant technical challenges and likely high construction costs. The above-ground powerhouse was, therefore, the preferred style. The preferred location for the powerhouse is on the left bank of an existing pool just downstream of the dam. The topography of the preferred site would facilitate tailrace excavation and minimize excavation volumes. The site is located in a small existing valley and the powerhouse would only be visible by air or from the river. A preliminary powerhouse footprint of 100ft by 160ft was selected to accommodate the four selected Francis turbine units and generators. We have assumed a pre-engineered superstructure with insulated wall and roof panels. We have assumed that the switchyard would be located immediately behind the powerhouse to minimize the length of expensive high amperage cable between the powerhouse and the units. An alternative location may be up above the powerhouse above the ravine that forms the river. Page 7 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 1.5.6 Fish Passage Facilities There is insufficient information to determine any specific details or requirements for either upstream or downstream fish passage. Therefore, these details are not included in this report. However, a lump sum line item in the cost estimate has been included to account for the potential need to include upstream and downstream fish passage structures after further studies have been completed. 1.5.7 Transmission Alternative transmission line routes to Dillingham and Bethel have been identified. These alternative routes are described in more detail in separate technical memoranda in Appendix B. The alternatives were segmented into terrain and access types for construction and O&M expenses. Finally, a range of construction costs was developed for each alternative. These analyses did not consider other possible impacts such as environmental; however most impacts are directly proportional to the miles of line. 1.5.7.1 Project to Bethel Three separate transmission line routes were identified based on maps, agency requests and knowledge of best transmission route selection for Alaskan conditions: West; North; and North Alternative. Based on the comparisons, the West Route is the most reasonable choice. The estimated costs are only for the direct construction of the transmission line itself. The North and North Alternative routes will add between 50% and 70% more to the financed cost of power in Bethel compared to the West Route. 1.5.7.2 Project to Dillingham Two separate transmission line routes were identified based on maps, agency requests and knowledge of best transmission route selection for Alaskan conditions: a South route and a South Loop route. Based on the analyzed comparisons and estimated costs, the South Route is the most reasonable choice. The estimated costs presented in the memorandum support the South Route and are only for the direct construction of the transmission line itself, other costs will be required. The South loop route will approximately double the financed cost of power in Dillingham compared to the South Route. Page 8 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 2. Geology Geotechnical studies were intended to be completed, however the permit application that would have allowed these studies was not approved by the State. Therefore, except for a 2-day reconnaissance level visual walk-through inspection of the site and desk studies, this report and analysis presented herein are relying on previous studies and reports. Unfortunately, none of the referenced historical studies include more detailed (subsurface} investigations, rather they also rely on visual above-surface investigations. Appendix A includes the referenced historical investigations and the studies performed by Hatch and our subconsultants. A more general description of the geology and physical setting of the project area is presented in Volume 2. The geology and geotechnical studies presented to Alaska Power Authority in the Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment by Harza (Harza, 1982} form the primary geotechnical basis for the discussions presented herein. In addition, the geotechnical discussions in the final feasibility report presented to Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority by Harza {MWH, 2011} was also reviewed and used as geotechnical basis where applicable. An additional planning-level geologic evaluation was performed on an area known as Y-pass (Banks, 2013}. TheY-Pass is a U-shaped glacially carved valley located on the south shore of Chikuminuk Lake approximately 10 miles west of the proposed dam site. The result of the preliminary evaluation of both the western and eastern fork of Y-Pass indicates a potential for bedrock to lie at an elevation which could reduce or preclude seepage of the proposed reservoir through permeable soil units. However, prior to the final feasibility/design phase of the project, a geophysical survey in conjunction with a drilling program should be performed within theY-Pass area to better define the depth to bedrock in critical areas. In summary, the geotechnical information at the site can be summarized as follows, with more detailed descriptions available in the attached reference materials in Appendix A. The hard sedimentary rock should provide favorable tunneling conditions. Shear zones or fault lines approximately parallel to proposed tunnel alignments may require additional support steel sets and lining. It is expected that the foundation rock will be adequate to support the loads of either a rockfill or gravity dam. The rock characteristics appear to not support an underground powerhouse. A surface powerhouse is favored. The morainal ridges around the lake, such as theY-pass, need additional studies to determine their water retaining capacity. The concept of a slurry wall to reduce seepage has been proposed but its length and depth cannot be determined without additional studies. Additional geological studies recommended to assess final feasibility of Project: • Subsurface investigations to evaluate permeability, ground water conditions, etc. • Need for a slurry cut-off wall to reduce or eliminate seepage through moraine at the site • Assessment of effect of local permafrost on Project design • Investigations to assess suitability of aggregate sources for fill, concrete aggregate, etc. ~HATCH~ Page 9 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 3. Hydrology 3.1 Chikuminuk Lake Drainage Basin The area of drainage basin is approximately 353 mi 2, including Chikuminuk Lake, which is part of a series of land-locked fiords and is approximately 16 miles long with an average width of about 2.5 miles. The natural normal water surface elevation of Chikuminuk Lake is El. 613 1 with a surface area of about 24,640 acres (41.6 mi\ The southeastern arm of the lake has a recessional moraine over shallow rock with a box canyon that forms the lake outlet to the 11.6 miles long Allen River. The Allen River flows to the southeast to Lake Chauekuktuli, which in turn drains into Nuyakuk/Tikchik Lake through the informally named Northwest Passage. The drainage areas of each lake are presented in Table 3.1. A more detailed description of the drainage basin is presented in Volume II of this Interim Feasibility Report. Table 3.1 Drainage Areas Drainage Total Drainage Drainage Basin Area {mi 2 ) Area {mi 2 ) Comment lake Chikuminuk 348 348 USGS gage 15301500 Lake Chauekuktuli 259 607 Location of R&M stream gage on Northwest Tikchik/Nuyakuk lake 883 1490 USGS gage 15302000 3.2 Stream Flow Record The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has maintained a gage just downstream from the outlet of Lake Chikuminuk on the Allen River near the location of the proposed project (USGS 15301500 ALLEN R NR ALEKNAGIK AK), but its flow record is limited to average daily flows between July 1963 and September 1966, between October 2011 September 2012, and between July 2013 to today. The average daily flow data for 2013 are still provisional and have not been approved. A much longer streamflow record is available from the USGS gage just downstream from the outlet of Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake on the Nuyakuk River (USGS 15302000 NUYAKUK R NR DILLINGHAM AK). Average daily flow data have been recorded at this gage from June 1953 to September 1995, July 2002 to September 2004, July 2007 to September 2012, and May 2013 to today. Hatch and R&M Engineering Consultants also installed two additional gages: one on Allen River downstream from the proposed project location (Hatch/R&M ALLEN R), and one in the channel (Northwest Passage) between Lake Chauekuktuli and Nuyakuk Lake (Hatch/R&M NW PASSAGE). However, both gages were destroyed by ice in the fall and winter 2012-2013 and have only short partial records. Table 3.2 summarizes the available gage flow data and clearly shows the periods of concurrent flow records for the USGS gages near the project area. 1 Surveyed by R&M (NAVD88). ~HATCH .. Page 10 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations Table 3.2 Summary of Available Average Daily Flow Data Hatch/R&M ALLEN R Hatch/R&M NW PASSAGE =full record yellow = partial record 3.3 Stream Flow Extension for Chikuminuk Lake April2014 Only about four full years of data are available at the USGS Allen River gage, but a long term stream flow record is necessary to perform the power studies to estimate the potential energy from the proposed hydroelectric project and the effect of flow regulation on downstream resources . The long unbroken flow record at the downstream gage on the Nuyakuk River provides a convenient index- station to which flows on the Allen River can be correlated. The Nuyakuk River has a similar hydrological response to snow melt and precipitation as the Allen River. Figure 3.1 shows the correlation of concurrent average daily flows measured at the USGS gages on the Allen and Nuyakuk Rivers. The figure and the best-fit line clearly show the high correlation, but also that the regression could be improved with separate low and high flow periods. Hatch used the Streamflow Record Extension Facilitator (SREF) Version 1.0, which is a software program by the USGS for extending and augmenting streamflow records using available daily data from nearby gaging stations, to extend the flow record on the Allen River. In addition to the maintenance of variance extension type 1 (MOVE.l) and type 3 {MOVE.3) regression analyses, the SREF program can also use a single or multi-segment regression model using the nonparametric Kendall-Theil Robust Line (KTRLine) program. The output from SREF includes an extended record data file in a format similar to the USGS standard NWISWeb daily value RDB input. KTRLine was selected because it conveniently facilitates a multi-segment regression, which allows the low and high flow periods to have separate regression equati ons. Figure 3.1 clearly indicates that a multi-segment line is appropriate. Iterations included the default !-segment line, then several attempts at multi-segment lines, increasing the model one segment at a time until the best fit was obtained with the fewest possible segments. The breakpoints for the multi-segment lines were visually selected based on the data scatter plot then adjusted until improvements dimin ished . Page 11 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations 4 3.8 3.6 =3.4 ... :2. 3.2 a: c 3 .!! $z.s J 2.6 2.2 2 3 y = l.OS27x • 0 .9045 R2 :o 0 .8 657 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 Los[Nuyakuk R (ds)) April2014 All cnR -linear (Allen R) 4.2 4.4 4.6 Figure 3.1 Correlation of Available Concurrent Average Daily Flows at Allen River (Usgs 15301500) and Nuyakuk River (Usgs 15302000) The final multi-segment regression from KTRLine is presented in Figure 3.2 on top of the scatter plot of concurrent daily flows. The root mean square error (RMSE) of the multi-segment fit is 0.122. The values of each regression equation for each segment are presented in Table 3.3 and were entered into SREF, which computed the extended discharge values and retransformed them from logarithmic values to produce a complete record of measured and extended daily flows for the period . Table 3.4 presents the resulting extended average monthly flows used for all subsequent analysis presented herein. 3.4 Flood Hydrology The flood hydrology characteristics of the drainage basin at the dam site is important for sizing the spillway, sizing the diversion facilities, and to estimate the risk of overtopping the diversion facilities during construction . 3.4.1 Inflow Design Flood Based on the high value of the project, we have assumed that the probable maximum flood (PMF) is appropriate as the project inflow design flood (IDF), which determines the minimum flow capacity of the spillway. Because of the large surface area and storage volume of Chikuminuk Lake, the lake will cause significant attenuation of large floods, including the PMF. In their feasibility report (MWH, 2011), therefore, MWH presents the results of routing an estimated 72-hr hydrograph of the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) through Chikuminuk Lake for various spillway lengths. The results, which were adopted by Hatch for the purpose of these studies, are presented in Table 3.5. Page 12 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 4 3.8 3.6 ::::::3.4 .:!! ~ 3.2 a: c 3 ~ ~ 2.8 0 _, 2.6 2.4 -KTRLine Best-Fit 2.2 o Allen R 2 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 Log[Nuyakuk R (cfs)] Figure 3.2 Scatter-plot and Multi-segment Best-fit Line of Measured Concurrent Average Daily Flows at Allen River and Nuyakuk River. Table 3.3 Values of Slope, Intercept and Bias Correction Factor for the Multi-segment Regression by KTRiine of the Discharge at Allen River Using Nuyakuk River as Index Station. Segment No. Slope Intercept Bias Correction Factor 1 0.324 1.497 1.042 2 2.210 -5.400 1.028 3 1.212 -1.464 0.978 Notes: Values represent logarithms of discharge in cubic feet per second Table 3.4 Estimated Average Monthly Flows at Dam Site, Using Measured Values if Available (Cfs) ----- I I Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1953 3996 2954 262 1189 896 472 425 1954 392 366 344 335 677 2469 1239 679 788 631 968 486 781 1955 440 409 392 386 531 2894 5609 3187 1510 1163 475 409 1460 1956 373 344 335 344 546 4407 2901 1302 2154 808 455 425 1197 1957 373 344 344 366 939 3271 1396 477 2780 1499 2037 738 1211 1958 444 407 392 389 559 5520 6106 2789 1343 1034 459 420 1663 1959 404 366 335 344 571 3466 2639 891 706 2009 664 449 1074 1960 417 376 347 287 989 4382 3144 2238 1323 1111 787 487 1325 1961 448 425 386 366 1262 4153 3087 2310 2038 1097 486 396 1375 1962 379 373 359 359 678 4112 3995 1207 718 686 463 435 1150 1963 445 449 442 379 562 3620 2966 1492 2239 1071 478 571 1228 1964 474 406 314 255 339 4870 2908 1986 2039 1571 625 520 1358 1965 460 400 370 348 494 4702 3476 2132 4554 1576 569 460 1628 Page 13 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Avg Min Max 400 437 357 378 402 368 403 421 375 390 372 450 406 455 431 428 404 432 494 398 431 425 420 429 428 410 386 381 438 448 405 743 409 423 384 412 410 303 419 303 743 350 407 348 359 378 354 374 389 355 373 339 423 391 405 424 433 419 408 428 416 399 398 412 388 400 397 377 373 418 409 390 486 390 394 375 394 380 322 391 322 486 ~HATCH~ 300 386 344 351 366 348 351 367 351 364 307 387 379 378 414 421 401 380 392 374 385 389 398 386 378 389 368 374 391 384 402 451 377 387 368 377 367 340 373 300 451 260 367 3900 3226 2010 375 404 2699 2209 1059 344 708 2659 1429 1689 351 771 6650 4145 1167 359 790 3915 3279 2209 346 559 3618 4935 3523 346 412 2987 4211 1687 354 563 3697 4242 1574 352 657 2907 2274 840 363 549 3521 3709 1322 299 434 2616 2614 1857 361 446 5117 7611 6897 379 2716 3826 4018 1975 404 1356 5006 3722 3708 414 1400 5523 5026 2476 415 1452 4934 3073 1935 384 626 4829 5152 1800 381 1278 5216 3537 1348 374 697 3283 3450 1106 339 367 3564 4426 2714 374 433 2565 3919 2666 381 500 4623 6438 3210 384 877 5638 5131 3031 373 499 4214 3434 2154 395 533 3273 1793 1448 404 749 3778 2159 1374 373 1015 3744 3388 2450 422 2182 5274 3200 1935 402 881 4910 3975 2492 406 2171 4891 3181 1933 394 1254 2541 2018 1090 2300 2497 1164 987 1016 477 805 2781 1852 593 1377 1095 1390 1258 1691 1284 1097 1255 1164 1614 2329 2770 2281 902 1926 938 2007 2963 885 1486 1096 526 2772 2959 494 496 503 640 1748 1798 2489 2159 1181 1698 2750 1765 4519 3273 1540 1536 2185 3390 2323 587 2490 2394 1475 2722 2759 2727 612 910 438 418 1858 442 552 974 472 573 611 1037 473 706 2092 1031 530 584 481 437 594 1544 862 1076 1038 529 1162 434 744 948 1253 480 382 397 489 391 441 472 408 426 425 489 416 527 654 440 444 454 1108 402 465 458 453 480 452 430 426 398 467 498 459 3164 1303 637 1692 3294 2696 406 595 3222 2944 393 1761 3736 1930 2005 373 825 4321 3734 370 2084 4893 2498 365 800 4428 3236 359 1159 4453 3153 314 535 4795 3933 499 4074 2368 365 864 4071 3450 255 339 2469 1239 422 2716 6650 7611 1717 876 1092 485 2032 2422 1370 1909 3236 1322 3537 1893 1684 1540 1564 1920 2890 1451 2032 1705 477 485 6897 4554 1592 1624 1566 2662 649 870 2144 1559 477 3390 831 774 442 1335 488 431 1610 842 418 3294 443 493 412 460 439 390 541 516 382 2696 1421 914 849 1678 1251 1468 1241 1293 957 1205 1291 2162 1523 1937 1666 1310 1738 1300 1019 1440 1491 1723 1865 1766 1058 1405 1321 1691 1636 1756 1196 1347 1673 1423 1269 1386 781 2162 Page 14 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations Table 3.5 Chikuminuk Lake Dam PMF Routing Summary (MWH, 2011) Spillway Crest Peak Project Peak Project Head on Length (ft) Inflow (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Spillway (ft) 50 100 150 200 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 9,830 17,000 22,600 27,300 13.9 12.6 11.6 10.9 April2014 A more detailed PMF analysis per FERC engineering guidelines (FERC, 2001) should be completed if project advances to a more detailed design phase. 3.4.2 Flood Recurrence The estimated peak flood recurrence flows at the Nuyakuk gage site are shown in Table 3.6. Considering the considerably larger drainage area of the Nuyakuk gage (1490 mi 2 ) compared to the drainage area at the Chikuminuk Lake dam site (348 mi 2 ), the 100-yr flow estimate by MWH seems high. Applying the regressions equations and procedures published by USGS (Curran, Meyer, & Tasker, 2003) for estimating peak flows and recurrence intervals at ungaged sites in Alaska results in the estimated recurrence interval flood flows at the Chikuminuk Lake dam site as shown in Table 3.7. These flood frequencies and flows were adopted by Hatch for the purpose of the studies presented herein. Table 3.6 Estimated Flood Recurrence Flows at Nuyakuk River (USGS 15302000) Recurrence Recurrence Interval, T (yrs) Flow (cfs) 5 23,200 10 25,400 25 28,000 50 29,600 100 31,200 Table 3.7 Estimated Flood Recurrence Flows at Chikuminuk Lake Dam Site Recurrence Recurrence Interval, T (yrs) Flow (cfs) 5 8,400 10 9,900 25 11,800 50 13,300 100 14,700 ~HATCH~ Page 15 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 4. Reservoir Operations Studies and Project Energy Estimation A reservoir model was set up using the computer program HEC-ResSim 3.0, which facilitated the estimation of the regulated reservoir operations, including energy generation and outflow estimation. The regulated outflow results from the HEC-ResSim model were also used to estimate pre-project (unregulated) and post-project (regulated) lake water levels of the two downstream lakes, lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk lake. Appendix C includes a more detailed description of the reservoir operations studies and the project impact on the downstream lake levels, but the following is a summary of the results. 4.1 Energy Potential and Reservoir Operations • The average annual energy potential of the Project, based on the estimated long term (42 years) reservoir inflow record, is approximately 78.1 GWh. • A conservation zone at elevation 641ft, below which flow to the turbines is limited to reservoir inflow, was necessary reduce risk of emptying the reservoir during periods of low inflow. • The simulated average monthly reservoir level is 652.1 ft, which reflects the need to maintain available storage for large runoff events to fully utilize the energy potential of the site and minimize spill. • On average: 1) project generation will likely not meet the estimated average monthly demand in the winter and spring months of November through May; 2) project generation will likely be able to meet the demand during the summer months (June through October). • Project will likely meet the annual average demand approximately 70 percent of the time. 4.2 Project Impact on Downstream Lake Levels • The water levels in the downstream lakes will likely increase in the winter and decrease in the summer due to the storing of runoff during spring and summer and release of reservoir water in the fall, winter, and spring for power generation. • The average water level of lake Chauekuktuli may increase about 2.5 feet in the winter and spring and decrease up to 3.5 ft in the early summer. • The average water level ofTikchik/Nuyakuk lake will likely increase about 1ft in the winter and spring and a decrease about 1ft in the early summer. • Reestablishment of the stream gage in the NW Passage is recommended to facilitate a more detailed and accurate routing analysis of flows to lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk lake. • Development of lake outlet rating curves at both lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk lake are recommended to facilitate more accurate estimates of lake levels. ~HATCH'" Page 16 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 5. Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost and Schedule 5.1 Introduction Effective cost estimating involves the use of data derived from the most current pricing for materials, appropriate wages and salaries, accepted productivity standards, and customary construction practices, procurement methods, equipment needs, and site conditions. Cost estimates are by definition prepared with less than complete information and have inherent levels of risk and uncertainties. In both the public and private sectors, many levels or types of classifications of cost estimates exist. No matter the organization, the levels of engineer cost estimating begin at initial planning or design and end with a 100 percent design that is biddable and constructible. With each increasing level of design and cost estimate, the likelihood that the cost estimate reflects the actual project costs increases. This leads to increased confidence in both the design and the estimated project cost resulting expected project cost. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) is an international non-profit professional educational association that provides services related to cost estimating, cost/schedule control, and project management to a wide range of professions and industries. AACE International (AACE, 2011) defines five levels of cost estimates for a project as shown in Table 5.1 that is used herein to guide the development of the current estimated cost of the Project. Table 5.1 Cost Estimate Classification AACE Accuracy Typical Class Methodology Design % Range % Contingency % 5 Para metric/Stochastic <5 -35 to +50 20 to 40 4 Semi-detailed Unit Price < 15 -25 to +35 lOto 30 3 Detailed Crew Analysis 10-40 -15 to +20 Sto 20 2 Detailed Crew Analysis w/ Budget Quotes 50-99 -10 to +15 Oto 10 1 Detailed Crew Analysis w/ Firm Quotes 100 +/-5 0 to 5 (reference: AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97). 5.2 Probable Total Construction Cost 5.2.1 Direct Construction Cost All cost estimates are based on January 2013 bid price levels. The Probable Direct Construction Cost is the total of all costs directly chargeable to the construction of the project and in essence represents and is presented in the form of an estimate of contractor's bid. At the current phase of the Project, the level of information that is available to support level of the design in accordance with the AACE criteria shown in Table 5.1 above varies from feature to feature. Accordingly, each feature was independently evaluated to establish an appropriate AACE class. Table 5.2 provides a listing of the major features identified for the Project as defined in Section 1 as well as the associated AACE classifications. Worksheets consistent in detail with these AACE classifications are included in Appendix D and are identified in accordance with the outline in Table 5.2. Page 17 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 Table 5.2 AACE Class for Major Project Features AACE ITEM Class 1 General 5 2 Roads and Airstrip 5 3 Roller Compacted Concrete Dam 4 4 Waterways 4.1 Mobilization I Demobilization 3 4.2 Portal Construction 3 4.3 Tunnel Construction 3 4.4 Gate Shaft Construction 3 4.5 Penstock System 4 4.6 Intake Structure and Gate 4 5 Powerhouse 5.1 Structure and Site Development 4 5.2 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment 3 6 Transmission line 6.1 Chikuminuk to Bethel 4 6.2 Chikuminuk to Dillingham 4 5.2.2 Indirect Costs Indirect costs include an allowance for contingencies, engineering, and owner administration. Table 5.3 includes the contingencies for each feature consistent within the contingency ranges in Table 5.1 for the respective AACE class shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.3 Scope and Price Contingencies for Major Project Features Scope Price ITEM Contingency Contingency 1 General NA 15% 2 Roads and Airstrip 40% 15% 3 Roller Compacted Concrete Dam 30% 15% 4 Waterways 4.1 Mobilization I Demobilization 20% 15% 4.2 Portal Construction 20% 15% 4.3 Tunnel Construction 20% 15% 4.4 Gate Shaft Construction 20% 15% 4.5 Penstock System 30% 15% 4.6 Intake Structure and Gate 30% 15% 5 Powerhouse 5.1 Structure and Site Development 30% 15% 5.2 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment 15% 15% 6 Transmission line 6.1 Chikuminuk to Bethel 20% 15% 6.2 Chikuminuk to Dillingham 20% 15% Page 18 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 The assumed Administration and Management costs during the design and construction phase of the Project are summarized in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 Administration & Management (%of DCC+ Contingencies) Item Percent Planning and Licensing Engineering Engineering During Construction Construction Oversight & Mgt Mise Owner's soft costs Land Acquisitions, Rights and Mitigation 5.2.3 Total Construction Cost 1.5% 3.0% 2.0% 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% The direct and indirect costs shown above are added together to form the Probable Total Construction Cost {PTCC) as shown in Table 5.5 in summary form. The complete detail for each item is included in Appendix D. Table 5.5 Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Item Estimated Cost 1 General $35,000,000 2 Roads and Airstrip $29,000,000 3 Roller Compacted Concrete Dam $38,000,000 4 Waterways 4.1 Mobilization I Demobilization $5,200,000 4.2 Portal Construction $9,600,000 4.3 Tunnel Construction $22,800,000 4.4 Gate Shaft Construction $7,600,000 4.5 Penstock System $4,300,000 4.6 Intake Structure and Gate S6,soo,ooo $56,000,000 5 Powerhouse 5.1 Structure and Site Development $23,700,000 5.2 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment S4o,6oo,ooo 6 Transmission Line 6.1 Chikuminuk to Bethel $114,400,000 6.2 Chikuminuk to Dillingham S3o,soo,ooo $145,000,000 Subtotal -Direct Construction Cost $367,000,000 7 Contingencies $126,000,000 8 Administration and Management $76,000,000 PROBABLE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST {2013 Dollars} $569,000,000 ~HATCH~ Page 19 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 5.3 Construction Schedule 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1-u-r--u ~ r--u 16 17 18 19 zo The construction schedule is an important element is the development of the total construction cost estimate outlined above and the total investment cost as discussed below in two areas: 1. Camp infrastructure costs required to support the overall crew size on a month to month basis, and 2. The calculation of the interest during construction on the basis of the required monthly draw from the construction loan for the project. While the construction schedule for the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project will determined by I the selected contractor, it can be expected to be heavy influenced by the combined factors of the climate and remoteness of the site. For the purposes herein as referenced above, it is generally assumed that there will limited activity at the site during the winter months. The exception would be that work that involves small crews within protected spaces such as the tunnel or powerhouse can be extended into or initiated within the winter period. On this basis, the general framework of a probable construction schedule for the project is outlined in Table 5.1 . !Task Name Yoar1 I Year2 I Year 3 I Year4 J IFIMIA!M}J I J IAISI O!N ID! J !FIMIA!MIJ J !A!SIOIN IDI J IFIM IA MI J J IAISIO IN!DIJ IFIMIA IMIJ I J lA ~onstruetion start r+-5/12 Mobilize ·office/shops etc c:~ ----··-~ Main camp c:~ [Site preparation g _ -f.\ccass, D/S protal prep ~ Diversion tunnel (1 ,000') ~ Winter break -year one Power tunnel (500') p Intake structure M 1Tunnelllnin1 ~ Intake ~rate installation and testins ·-1 ~inter break-year two RCC dam construction Powerhouse construction Equipment fabrication l Equipment installation -..l. Mechanical/ electrical controls c=: Switchyard construction G:::J Startup ~5/5-Comercial operation Figure 5.1 Probable Construction Schedule Page 20 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 6. Economic Analysis 6.1 Introduction The present values of the unit production cost of energy at the Bethel and Dillingham load centers throughout a 50-year horizon is used herein as the metric to compare the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) with the most viable alternative, which in this case is assumed to be an equivalent diesel plant (Diesel) at the each load center. The comparative analysis is summarized below for three cases in relation to: • The "Base Case" consisting of; Project: "Probable" values for the energy, Probable Total Construction Cost (PTCC), financing terms, and system loads as presented herein. Diesel: "Average" case for fuel prices as published by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER, 2013). • The "Lower Limit" including expected variation within the values for the above parameters combined in such a way to provide the minimum expected cost per kWh. This would include minimum values for hydro and diesel parameters except for the energy production and system load for which the expected maximum values would lead to the minimum expected cost per kWh. • The "Upper Limit" including expected variation within the values for the above parameters combined in such a way to provide the maximum expected cost per kWh. This would include maximum values for hydro and diesel parameters except for the energy production and system loads for which the expected minimum values would lead to the maximum expected cost per kWh. The values for all parameters used in the analysis for these three cases are included in Table 6.1. 6.2 Project and Diesel Cost per kWh 6.2.1 Project Cost First Year Annual Cost In the case of the Project, the cost stream per kWh is calculated on the basis of: • Traditional hydro project financing of the Project, and • The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for the generation facilities at Chikuminuk Lake and the transmission systems to Bethel and Dillingham. The first year annual cost of the power from the Project for the Base, Lower Limit and Upper Limit cases is based on the above listed parameters and as summarized in Table 6.1. In particular, the Base Case cost power is determined by the PTCC as discussed above in Section 5. The Lower and Upper Limit values for annual kWh cost of the power cases are based on an evaluation of the estimating accuracy consistent with the current status of the Project. Numerous non- governmental organizations and for-profit companies offer graphs, charts, and tips related to cost estimate accuracy. An internet search of "estimating accuracy" yields a plethora of options for additional information in this regard. One of the better illustrations as endorsed by the United States Society of Dams titled Estimating Accuracy Trumpet (USSD, 2012), has been developed by R. Max Wideman. The illustration has been modified to serve the purposes herein in relation to the current status of the Project as shown in Figure 6.1. ~HATCH~ Page 21 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 urrent Status 50 Probable Total Construction Cost Ideal Target Cost ~ 3: 11\ Cl> N G.Jo.!! -~;!!. ~';/! §,~ + - - - -·'= ~ . - - - - -. ex: ., - - - - - - - --~ ~-- - - -·u; ~ . ~· c:. Q)+ <1>+ o -o.o O'lo_.-., ___ cx: o-o o ...., e:; ·~-: 0--;!! ..... ~-8~-o&;-~~-o~ .. _..._ 1.1\ ~ ;!!' ~~ ~~ ~ 0 I -------------M ---------------- 15 25 50 80 85 Increasing Estimating Information as a 'Yo of Total Finished Project Information (ratio scale) Economic ltudln J Feasibility Studies Detailed Design I Commmeca Figure 6.1 Estimating Accuracy Trumpet 6.2.2 Diesel Cost per Gallon The unit production cost over the 50-year horizon for the Diesel alternative is dependent upon the cost of diesel fuel to feed the plant .. The cost per gallon of diesel fuel for the Bethel I Dillingham load centers, being the primary cost for element this alternative over the life of the Project, is based on projections as recently published by the ISER (ISER, 2013). The ISER publication was developed for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for the purpose of estimating the potential benefits and costs of renewable energy projects. The report document explains the ISER methodology used the develop the projections and is included herein as Appendix E1. A companion Excel workbook contains detailed low, medium, high case fuel price projections for incremental diesel delivered to a PCE commun ity utility tank, which can be downloaded from the AEA with the link below. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/2013 06-Fuel price projection 2013-203S .xlsx The results in 2012 dollars for the Bethel Utilities Corp and Nushagak Electric Cooperative, which serve the communities of Bethel and Dillingham respectively, are included herein as Appendix E2. The projections, weighted in relation to the contributing generation for each utility is summarized in Appendix E3 for the years 2013 through 2035. Values for the remaining years within the 50-year horizon through 2063 are calculated and shown for each scenario on the basis of the respective inflation rates for each case as shown in Table 6.1. ~HATCH~ Page 22 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 Table 6.1 Cost Benefit Analysis, Data Input Base Case Lower Limit Upper Limit Source I Comments flNANCIAt. !'> Bond rate AEA NCERB Rural Utility Service 5.00% 3.75% 7.00"Ai Bond period 30 30 SOAEA Horizon so so 100 AEA Inflation I discount rate 2.4% 1.9% 3.1% mean CPI rates for 2001-11 CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDRO PROJECT-TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS (1/13) ($1,000,000) Basis Base -15% 25% Probable Total Construction Cost $569.000 $494.783 $7U.250 Hatch Cost Model Grant Funding ($7.000) ($23.000) $0.000 Nuvista Subtotal $562.000 $471.783 $711.250 Hatch Cost Model Interest During Construction $13.668 $11.474 $17.298 Hatch Cost Model Probable Total Investment Cost $575.668 $483.257 $728.548 Hatch Cost Model Reserve Fund $41.299 $34.676 $52.255 Hatch Cost Model Financing & Legal $17.270 $14.498 $21.856 Hatch Cost Model Working Capital $0.625 $0.625 $0.625 Hatch Cost Model Probable. Total Capital Requirements $634.862 $533.056 $803.284 Hatch Cost Model CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDRO PROJECT ANNUAL COSTS (1/13) ($1,000,000} Debt Service $41.299 $34.676 $52.255 Hatch Cost Model O&M Cost $2 .500 $2.500 $2.500 Hatch Cost Model Administrative & General $1.000 $1.000 $1.000 Hatch Cost Model Insurance $0.600 $0.500 $0.700 Hatch Cost Model Hydro Interest on Reserves ($2.065} ($1.734} ($2 .613} Hatch Cost Model Average Energy Potential@ Site 78.1 Bethel Une loss= 1.5%@ 10 MW Average load Dillingham Une loss = 3%@ 4 MW Average load Net transmission loss Average Energy@ Bethel/Dillingham FY2011 base load (GWh/yr) Bethel FY20ll base load (GWh/yr} Dillingham 76.5 54.8 21.4 84.0 72.0 Hatch Hydrology Model 2.0% 82.3 70.6 54.8 54.8 FYll PCE data 21.4 21.4 FYll PCE data Bethel load: rate of change 1.06% 1.60% 0.67% DOL. Table 3.33 ; US Census 1990-2000 rate Dillingham load: rate of change 0.29% 0.98% -0.10% DOL, Table 3.33; US Census 1990-2000 rate Initial base load (GWh/yr) Bethel 56.0 56.6 55.6 Adds 2 years growth Initial base load (GWh/yr) Dillingham 21.5 21.8 21.4 Adds 2 years growth Diesel efficiency (kWh/gal) 13.86 13.56 15.09 FY12 PCE data AvgAll Bgri d Avg Dillingham $0.0425 $0.02 $0.05 Di esel O&M ($/kWh) KEA MWHp 14-6 +25%for smaller scale plants $0.025 $0.023 $0.030 Diesel standby cost ($/kWh) The capital cost element of the diesel plants is not included as they are assumed to be existing and maintained in place in either case as local system backup to the Project. 6.2.3 Lower Limit, Base and Upper Limit Cost I kWh -Project and Diesel Alternatives The numerical results for the Lower Limit, Base and Upper Limit cases are summarized in Appendix E4.1, Appendix E4.2 and Appendix E4.3 respectively for the Project and Diesel alternatives in 2013 dollars. These results were obtained from the data included above in the following manner: Page 23 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 • All costs were normalized to 2013 dollars on the basis of the respective inflation rates for each case. • For each case and year, the fuel cost in $/kWh for the Diesel alternative is calculated on the basis of: The per gallon cost of Diesel fuel, and Project energy as limited by the lower value of system load and available water. • The O&M cost for the Diesel alternative is based on the respective value for each case. • The fixed cost for the Project alterative includes the debt service and the interest on reserves for each of the three cases under consideration. • The variable costs for the Project alternative include the O&M, Administrative & General and Insurance costs for each case. • All fixed costs are de-escalated by the discount rate over the 50-year horizon 2013 to 2063 for each case. • All variable costs remain constant over the 50-year horizon 2013 to 2063 on the basis of equal values for the discount and escalation rates . 6.3 Cost Comparisons-Project vs. Diesel .c 3: ..liC -'1/lo $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.SO $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 The comparison of the $/kWh cost of the Project and Diesel alternatives are shown graphically in three ways as follows: 1. The annual $/kWh Project-Base Case and Diesel-Medium Projection values are plotted in Figure 6.2. 2. The annual $/kWh Project-Upper and Lower Limit cases and the Diesel-Medium Projecti on values are plotted in Figure 6.3. 3. The annual $/kWh Project-Base Case and Diesel-High and Low Fuel Price values are plotted in Figure 6.4. =t -~ 1---.., =t -..,. - -.:;:..-:=r--1----L---""" =t -.! """ ' ---1----; .-""" ~-+-f-I-------h 1 r--.., -~Medium Projection=f= -L• ~~ -L- ~ ~ r-r--- ~ i -i 1 I .- '---: -I ....,.!!!::j_ = -1-1-l. --+-- f- -I--r= :i=--' -t ~ -1--r----+--1----r--'--I--.__ -~ .. -'---~ ~ I .. ·--r--r ~ -t r-- I--I~ )Y~ .J..... . _.j__ ' -· ~~ -+-I---E;f --:r __ :_J -- I--t i ! 1----:--. I--, -~ ± l ---1---1-· # --.1.-I- I--Probable p----+-+----+-- I---r--1--·t--I - ~ I--f-. r -I--· ---r 1 - r--r---I_ . _.___ 1---r--~--L ---r--1--t __j__ ~ t-1-,_ =--; r--___, -1-r--r--r--r--1--Diese l T t-r-I ,----+· 1--.1. __ -+-' r--1 ~~roje ct -t---t 1-j ·-r--I l I T I ·--+ I---t t .1. t-r- 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 20 60 2070 Figure 6.2 Project-Base Case vs. Diesel-Medium Projection {2013 Dollars) Page 24 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 $0.70 $0.60 ..c $0.50 3: .0111 ....... ill- $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 c--~ -+----=r-J f-u !--Diesel r t-i '--l-----Project L ~.......J:=._LH_l~lll!!~·-1111!!!!1!!1!!!11!!1!1~-1 r -r-+-~ l. -f-j so.oo .J=oe±=±=t::±±±=±=t=:Je±~=r:=t=±±=±:_qp=±=t:::i-+-:::c.c±=:~ m-. r-• l.-. I . -· r- r--t----1 . • ~ :R ---r--r- 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Figure 6.3 Project-Upper and Lower Limits vs. Diesel-Medium Projection {2013 Dollars) ~HATCH ~ Pa ge 25 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 .c $0.50 ~ "" ....... 'II). $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 H + r--1-J=t-: .~ ,_ - 1-1-T-"' ~-~-~ ~~ -1- 1-t-<\)~A~ -~ ...L T --=-~--= ~~<!- f--l. ~(o.d'-. -" -r-=1=: _._ 1--\\)e'. .. ¥--=--!-- 1--"'\": ·.!.-t- ........ -~ 1--·-t-.... 1---r -~ I -1--. --_j__ 'Medium Projection = 1-- s ~~· . c--1---I f-L--1 ,...= j_ -1-- iiifl" -1----1-- ~-. -I= ~----~ -1 . ~ :"""'''llo.L ... J I--H .. -r-~ --1-h--r--- h • ·-·--/' .......... !-1---[--t-I --I--. I - ~ .. I • • !.-.-. .--..-. ~ ...... .._ ~ ..... ~ .. ~.---··---·--~-··· . .. . . wfuel Price (LowerUmlt) ~ -1----1-- Probable ~-:_ 1---f--1---I-- 1--+-r-1-- 1---1-,_. -· .... 1-+ I -__j_ -T-r--1 -1--I-- ~= f-+--'· 1---r:-1--r---'--1----t-r I i t-1----I-- I--1-· -r--Diesel l-1---r-·--t ~-+--+-· +--+-----1---Project ~~I -F I-- 1--r-:r-FFJ , t "~ 1-- I--c-- 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Figure 6.4 Project-Base Case vs. Diesel-High and Low Fuel Prices (2013 Dollars) Page 26 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 7. Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions • Design and construction of the Project is technically feasible. • The primary generation features of the Project would consist of: A gravity roller compacted concrete dam providing a normal maximum water surface at El 660, A 900 foot-long power tunnel including a 540 foot-long 13'x19.5' concrete lined horseshoe section and 360 foot-long 16.5' diameter steel lined section, A four unit, 22 MW powerhouse, and A 138 kV-136 mile and a 69 kV 119 mile transmission line to the Bethel and Dillingham load centers respectively. • Completion of the Project would require a minimum of three construction seasons. • Project construction access is feasible only by air. A landing strip suitable for a Lockheed C- 130 cargo airplane would be required. • The potential average annual energy of the Project is approximately 78 GWh. • The Project as presented herein demonstrates economic feasibility to a level that supports completion of the technical and environmental studies as would be required for the preparation of a Final Feasibility Report for the Project. 7.2 Recommendations It is recommended that further review of the feasibility of a hydropower project at Chikuminuk Lake include the following specific studies on the basis of their being critical to the refinement of project features and project operation in support of a final feasibility level opinion of the probable construction cost and an assessment of economic feasibility: • Geotechnical. Geophysical survey in conjunction with a drilling program should be performed within theY-Pass area and morainal ridges to better define the depth to bedrock and permeability in critical areas. Assessment ofthe availability of quality on-site aggregate. Subsurface investigations for the tunnel to characterize rock, ground water conditions, and tunnel support requirements and the dam site to assess the foundations conditions at the base and at both abutments. • Hydrological. Continued stream gage data collection on Allen River and NW Passage. • Environmental. A determination of the fish populations along with the availability and usage of the habitat on the lower, middle and upper reaches of the Allen River. An evaluation of the spawning habitat on Lake Chauekuktuli. Page 27 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume I, Technical Considerations April2014 8. References AACE. (2011). Cost Estimate Classification System-As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for The Process Industries. AACE International. www.aacei.org Banks, A. (2013). Y-Pass Preliminary Geologic Evaluation. Anchorage, AK: R&M Consultants, Inc. Curran, J. H., Meyer, D. F., & Tasker, G. D. (2003). Estimating the magnitude and frequency of peak stream/lows on ungages sites on streams in Alaska and conterminous basins in Canada: U.S. Geologica/Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4188. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of Interior. FERC. (2001). Engineering Guidelines, Chapter VIII Determination of Probable Maximum Flood. Washington, D.C.: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Harza. (1982). Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment, Appendix D-2 Geology of Hydroelectric Sites. Harza Engineering Company. ISER. (2013). Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013-2035. Anchorage, AK. Institute of Social and Economic Research. Lynden Air Cargo. (n.d.). C-130/L-382 Hercules Aircraft Capabilities. Retrieved December 3, 2013, from Charter and Scheduled Air Cargo Service: http:/ /www.lynden.com/lac/hercules-cargo- aircraft.html MWH. (2011). Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake, Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasib/ity Study. MWH. Peterka, A. J. (1984). EM No. 25 Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Dept. of Interior. R&M. (2013). Temporary and Permanent Components of a Transportation Network. Anchorage, AK: R&M Consultants, Inc. USACE. (1975). Low Level Discharge Facilities for Drawdown of Impoundments, ER 1110-2-50. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Army. USBR. (1990). Criteria and Guidelines for Evacuating Storage Reservoirs and Sizing Low-Level Outlet Works, Acer Technical Memorandum No.3. Denver: U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. USSD. (2012). Guidelines for Construction Cost Estimating for Dam Engineers and Owners. Denver: U.S. Society of Dams. ~HATCH'" Page 28 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume I, Technical Considerations FIGURES PREFERRED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT Figure 1-Project Location Figure 2-Project Boundary Figure 3-Project Features-General Arrangement Figure 4 Hydroelectric Facilities-General Arrangement-Site Plan Figure 5-Dam I Spillway-General Arrangement Figure 6-Dam-Downstream Elevation View Figure 7-Power Tunnel-Plan, Profile & Sections Figure 8 -Intake Structure Plan & Sections Figure 9-Gate Shaft & House-Plan & Sections Figure 10 Powerhouse-Area Site Plan Figure 11-Powerhouse & Penstock-Plan Figure 12 Powerhouse-General Arrangement Sections April2014 Page 29 r "<! -J. a: ::l ~ E~ ! ..... ;:~ I ~ ..,,. Newtok •Chefornak Kipnuk • Upper Kalskag • Lower Kalskag • ~ i~ ~.§' ~ ~ ~vr.;e Tuluksak Kasigluk .:unapitchuk Atmautluak • Akiachak • eAkiak Tuntutuliak • Kangigqnak . ,-........ Kwigilling'?$ - -··--............. ~ Kuskokwim Bay BETHEL Oscurville . • Kwethluk Napakiak • ~Napaskiak 'l(usltoY.Witn Ri"er CA I!I.STA REG :ION •Eek Yukon Delta NWR t •.I'. ~ ~ -t.;. 'f.> ~ . Q)~-i -e;. .f~s- E>t~~ G-..f-?.. ~~E>,. 19,.... TogiakNWR Togiak Twin Hills •-:• J '\, ! A/ligk • Napamiute, * Proposed Dam/Powerhou se Location e Hub Community ·~-:t.·1.A • Community ~.2~ ~ ~c:::J AK Native Claims Settlement Act Boundary Wood-Ti kch i k State Park Na tio na l W ildlife Refuge (NWR) -··-· ... 1~rl~ r ,... "'r '· " .... ~-- Wood-Tikchik State Park Alek · iJr • ' '!"'I z 0 0 0. ., 1-~ :1--,) :fc:. :(~ . 'J,.t:. ;Koli ganek if"o..f . New Stuyahok ~O.f • -1};,. ... k k ."'c:"r e"'' wo :;t q,Q(, ~s~e '1.(\'a ~~,(.~?> Lake Iliamna •Igiugi g Manolcotok ~ +v.~'b~ LAKE & PENINSULA BOROU GH •Levelock • DILLINGHAM e Qark's Point eEkuk ~ •Portage Crt k B_R_I_S-TO_l_B_A_Y--.1 BOROUGH Naknek \outh • King SIJimon Naknek Bristol Bay Projection: Albers Conic A laska, NAD 1927 0 10 w ~ 00 ~~-~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-M il es Data: Alaska State Geo-spatial Data Cleamgh ouse (ASG DC) Produced by Hak h Associates for Nuvista. March 2013 FI GURE 1 Nuvist a Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. Ji 1L~~~De~c=!!~~~e~~~2~~1~r-_-__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -_--_--_--_-_. ____ ~l Chikuminuk La ke Hydroelectri c Project P A OII=CT I_QCATION : ""! i ~ e/ ~~ ~~ ·~ ..,.., ,.,-: .. 0 27 26 "' 32.6? 33 34 35 Chikuminuk Lake ? 25 36 LEGEND * Dam/Po werhouse Loc atio n Transmissi on Route Alt e rnatives Chikuminuk Lake El. 613 -Project I nundation (Max.) El. 660 ·-·-·-• .;Wood-Tikchik State Park ~M's=. "'"..,_ £ ·""'" i ~-• • 1 N 1M · w L 1 1 ~I ,~~, ~ ~ r , · ·1·1 ~~\?4 _,~. ~c ->:::.. ___ ,_ n. 1· -. _ orma ax 1mum ater eve . -re:0 ;::;::? • 7 --~P 1 .. ~.-~ El. 660 5 4 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Data sources: Alaska State Geo-spatial Data Clearinghouse; National Geographic Topol USGS 63k, 50-and 100-foot contour intervaL 660' contour developed from USGS by Hatch. Produced by Hatch Associates for Nuvista . December 2013 FIGURE 2 Nuvist a Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Proj ect PROJ ECT BOUNDARY "<><: .,_ £ ~ 1 December 2013 ----· -----1 IIHATCH- Decemt (\U NORMAL MAXIMUM POOL EL 660' ~~/J/~1,~\~~-)JJ!fl~t\lrnll0~t~~~· F~URE3 o 600 1200 FEET Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc • .. c. • H a .. CH----.. . . Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project 1: -j • A 1 1 = 600 -0 FIGURE 4 PROJECT FACILITIES-GENERAL ARRANGEMENT ~ E December 2013 ~0~~~~~~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ I 0 I 8 g N N 0 II • ..... ! ! !~ o"' -::1 .~ ~ -...___ ~ --- F L 0 W // ,/ ~----- " -,_ ·'b-t" . '«> la::-1 o.. I != in!= N'-" I"')'-" I A :J:==~-=-, t -=., --·,, ,,_ ./-(FIG.6) B., _,/- // ___ / / / _/ ~--· -:~--65o---- ,- 1 I I k=====...,--.;: r-~~~~~- . -~- A .t • 0 I 'b GUARD RAIL PMF EL 672.3' Y EL 660' NORMAL Y MAX. POOL EL 642' y MIN. POOL RCC rl '\._ w EL 676.0' ~I[ EL 660.0' 2'-o· (TYP) SCALE: 1 " = 1 0' -0" 114'-0" EL 585.0' \ I 1'-o· (TYP) CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE coo.. . 1 .......... _I != N .._.. ~::: _ , . I I ~~.~~ I il . I • • • PRIMARY I I GROUTINGY I I I I I I I :'-..__ DRAIN HOLES I I I I ~ CONSOLIDATION GROUTING (TYP) SECTION A-A SCALE: 1" = 40' -0" 0 0 - 10 '1 1" = 10'-0" 40 --1" = 40'-o· 0 60 EL 578.0' 20 FEET 80 FEET 120FEET ----1" = 60'-o· ::!;. ~ \.l..,,,,,,,,,,,v ~->a FIGURES ~ ~ -'0, 8... Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. /~~--------- ~ i Iii! HATCH---~ PLAN Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project £! December 2013 SCALE: 1• = 60 ._0• DAM/ SPILLWAY-GENERAL ARRANGEMENT ~ .., ui J, 0:: ;:) G 6- E/ §~ o;~ I~ v ~,. -~ ....... "" " " " " "" EXISTING GROUND "Q' " ' " ' ', ',, ' ....... ....... EXISTING ALLEN RIVER WATER SURFACE EL 558' ~ """"~ ', ~~x~ "' ' /;~~ '"",'-' ,, '~~~ ~~ ~ ' I ' I ' "~ ' DRAIN HOLES 11o'-o" 35'-0" 2'-6" (lYP) (TYP) GROUTING AND ..:-:~::.PRAI N~GE J?.~lJ.JBX=·· ···~ t-LI_-----------1 PRIMARY GROUTING . : ~ (SEE NOTE 1)--~ I 'fO'-o:l (TYP) -- SECTION 8-8 (FIG. 5) SCALE: 1" = 40' -0" / RCC / EL 585.0' EXTENT OF DRAIN HOLES EL 530.0' EL 676.0' / / ~EXTENT Of GROUT CURTAJN NOTES: 1. PRIMARY GROUT HOLES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. SECONDARY AND TERTIARY GROUT HOLES NOT SHOWN. I) '-'~ FIGURE 6 ~ a: o 40 80 FEET Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. u/ ] -~ II HATCH'" .. , .. Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project :Q ~ December 2013 1 = 40-0 DAM-DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION VIEW ~0~--------------------------------------------------------------------~==~~~ "' l< .., " I w a:: :::> (!) ;:;: -& E/ ~~ ··/ ~N ~N I~ "" I') I') ~/ ~ ~ > ( .o 0 -q_, FIGURE 8 )-.. . ~I FIGURE 9 tli ---~ ---.---1-\ ~I I A t 750 I 700 I 650 y 600 550 520 0 0 u1 oco 0 1.() c) .....I +w z ~ NORMAL MAX. POOL tfi EL 660' 0 100 W6X25 STEEL SUPPORTS AT 4' SPACING 0.25' io N c) 13.00' GATE HOUSE ACCESS ROAD I I I I I I I DAM ACCESS ROAD NOTE 1 / .. /·/' \ I I ·. S' ~----= DIVERSION TUNNEL DOWNSTREAM INVERT EL. 540 I \ '~X ~~· PENsTOCK 1 \ C....._ 6'6'0 1 / \\ ACCESS VAULT . " B.. '··. . .......... -~.9 1/;' I ~ ... ,(,~ A J . ( 11 -w·-..,, ·.. < ",~ ------==-==-=~===-==-====="}= = ======-=====~=====c==-==~=======:==~=~·-J.~"~~-:~~= =-::====~====:=-=== 200 / B.-c.-;\ I ~ ,' ( \, CONCRETE POWER TUNNEL PLAN ! \ TUNNEL PLUG I \ /'SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" .; / A "'--I I I-.... I " CD 0'10'1 N,_: GATE SHAFT g~ 300 -9~ I ,.0 I ·~s- 400 500 SECTION A-A SCALE: 1"=100' ~ 0.25' CD .....I +w z· r-> V)!?; 700 POWER TUNNEL ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ',,, ',, 800 .t I 0 I 0'11.() 750 N.q: ''<I" ~I.() 0'1.....1 +w I 700 z > tli z I 650 600 550 520 900 1000 NOTES: 1. SWITCHYARD NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 0 10 20 FEET ---1" = 10'-0" 0 1 00 200 FEET . I 1 n = 100'-o" v§! ill!! HATCH" ~~ S~£_II~~ ,~_-:B ~rsECTI;~-1 C ~RSION) sECTK)N'"C-c (OPERATION) £ J5 December 2013 · 0 ~I ~ SCALE: 1" = 1 o· -o" SCALE: 1" = 1 o· -o" FIGURE 7 Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative1 Inc. Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project POWER TUNNEL-PLAN, PROFILE & SECTIONS -------n--- PLAN AT CRANE PAD ~ "I:! Ol .1 0:: ~ u:: / 0 E/ cO ;;;<3 .. ,.... ~N ~N I~ .... :2_?. A _t_ SCALE: 1 "=30' -0" 11' -9" 4'-o" 3'-0" I CENTER PIER II -~A_KE I --r-11 SLOPE (ROCK) T.O. INTAKE STOP LOG I EL 585.001 -:< -:; ~ "--T.O. CONC . . S BASE SLAB "--T.O. ROCK ~ ~ I EL 583.00 I I EL 583.00 I ~i • HATCH.. ,.__.fj PLAN AT ~L. 585.0' FINISHED TUNNEL SURFACE 0 I I"") • 0 I I"") ® ROOF HATCH 6'-6" PARKING AREA EL 611.50 "" !j I. . • I. ~ 614.00 "" I " " I· I 0 (§ a:: (/) t:3 t3 '<( ---o --··• --=--~) EL 583.00 v EL 611.50 v EL 608.50 v TRASH RACK EL 583.00 v EL 580.50 SECTION 8-8 scALE: 1 n = 1 o' -o• 4 ., . . 4 4 ' .4 'II "·..1 .. ·4·. ''!:i "· ' .. ··" •· .. . ... " < •. :< ..1 ... ., " w I ;,-, INTAKE STOPLOG SLOT TUNNEL PORTAL FACE SECTION A-A scALE: 1 "= 1 o'-o" 0 10 20 FEET ---1" = 10'-0" 0 30 60 FEET ----1" = 30'-0" FIGURE 8 Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative~ Inc. Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project INTAKE STRUCTURE-PLAN & SECTIONS ] e December 2013 SCALE: 17 =101-011 ~0~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_j ® 40'-n" .----[VN,.;•," .•. .:.!----+ : 0 I (o • 0 I 0 ,.., CONTROL ROOM ACCESS EL 700.0 EL 675.0 B t aZ ~~ ....J<..:>:::E ~zg ~~0:: o:::E ug f A ~----1 I I I I I I I I I I I ----------- c...- PLAN SCALE: 1 6 == 20' -0" ® ® D B .t~ Co VENT PIPE l A ---- STEEL SUPPORT STOPLOG SLOT SECTION A-A SCALE: 1" = 1 01 -0" EL 700.0 SECTION C-C SCALE: 1 D = 20' -0" INTAKE GATE SLOT 0 0 . I . I I "1-r:> 1n 20" DIAMETER VENT PIPE BRIDGE CRANE 0 10 20 FEET "' J: ""C ci ® DEAD-END STRAIN INSULATORS ABOVE LINE DISCONNECT SWITCHES (VERTICAL) 'o I ol 1-¢ LINE CVTs ----""----- <0 \ DISCONNECT SWITCHES (HORIZONTAL) PENSTOCK BELOW (NOTE 1) PENSTOCK ACCESS VAULT ~PARKING~ '-...._""~ SWITCHYARD .. NON-SEGREGATED BUS DUCT STEP-UP TRANSFORMER PLANT WALL FIREWALL (lYP) I ' /I I 'I ~ ,..,..---- ~ -------,----~---------T----------r---------T-c~/~~=~'~------------------------------/i--=--E/ 1 I I I 1 \~1' ) oO --~---•---______,_ ____ ,_ ____ J ~~~-------'------------------I ~ ~ ------L ___ _:__ ---------L_ -------_L ---------I __ L ::: __ ----~ --~--c ------------------------. -nn -u ------- ~~ ~,. ~;:!: ~ ;; :::l ~z I / I I ~a: -I I ;; g.,. HATCH I = <tu-u ----FIGURE 10 Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project POWERHOUSE -AREA SITE PLAN 1'' = ·~· ~" 0 40 80 FEET SCALE: 1·· = 40' -0" POWERHOUSE AREA PLAN @ EL. 567.0' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~:c uu 0':;:( tn:c z W(/) Q..(/) w u u <( rn t ---n----_.--" I I A/ \ -H-- /' \ --"\ II ,z y \ __ u __ _ /!' / ;,.---!... ' .. / I ' / I '/ ,-...... L_.._ 1 N L-f~l : / I 0:::: I I =:l I I )--,--G /'..._,~/ I u._ I --+----.........~--..,. I ' I I \--.-L---<( --- (', I I t • I ' I 0 I '-1 I 'y ·o / ,,tj), I <0 /-...~1-ij/ I I ' I / 'y I I I / ..... ~,.".,L __ T __________ _ II ' / ----t-------- 1 ', I !'..._ I \ _.-J--------------- 1 ..... ,_-- .... I '...._ I I 1-......... zO.. W/!: ::::;:_ a.. -:c 5u w!;:( :J: a:: 0 0 Cl z < ::::;: ::::;: 0 (/)0 t30:: U...J ~~ wi-Clz _o l!!u =>o 01- s-,c:r w u ~ w (/)a:; <o8 -o I 3NI8~nl ~ ~ CD w u ~ w (/) .. 6-,9l (/) w b z ~ ~ u a:: e z ~ :c (/) 1-0. zoo ClW ~§5 :c£! uLL.. !::::w 3:w (/)(/) rn j .l-,G . 0 I b r') • r') I r.. • <0 I . <0 I • r') l ro [ w CD ::> 1- .. 0 . ~ c.o L()'O I _J~ w.u • 0 I b 0 N N 0 f>Mp· ~ t-3~nm.:1\o ~ \aw\c;c;oc;-vr\ v• ~-• '1N\:d :f>utMDJQ wdc;-;:c; t -£ tf l OQO :pgnold i' -q ~ ~ a: ~ li: 6 E/ f~ ••/ N~ -N I~ .... ......... _..,.... ~~ 1 -~ 1- nol~ I--1-CTTJ EL 578.0 GENERATOR 2 I-- I 5.94 MVA 13.8 kV 0.9 P.F. 257 RPM ===o:=.=J==9-S-W..JITUIC~HGLEA_R-J---1--I EL 567.0 •' -:-:t::::~~;:::::=:::i~~T INERTIA FLYWHEEL r 9' DIA, DOUBLE DISK • • . • ~ • '-::---r-,...J-.,------,.---1 I I: · . .. .J ~ --I I •.•• .. . • • • VALVE HATCH :-\ '-L · · '. ~~r__ rVE ~ \ ........................... m........- EL 557.0 . /\-•. ( l I . ~ yL 550.0 .• •.· ~. ( 4· \..__ - .. ~ • ~7 . ' . .. .. ., . . . •• A\ I . ........................... :· .. EL 535.0 . . 4 .. .. . . . ·• -. . •. . . . \. • ~4 . . •· . - . . .. """" • 4 • ~ • ; • :-; ~. : .... -........ ... . ... .. dl· • 4 ' : . . -..... ·4 .. '• .. . . .; 4 . ~JJ··. oil .... ~ 4 ---J-.:.._ "4. .• ~. • 4 .. ·.• ... .. .jj :~ . ·<.; >· ... :. ; . ·~ . ; ·. · .. ' .. ! ... :: 4 • "" 'A··· 4 . . . """· .. . ·:a ., . 4 DRAFT TUBE . A • . ~. :1 . .· ' . .. . -. ~ ·--·-35 TON BRIDGE CRANE CONTROL ROOM 1- G-41 G-31 G-21 G-1 EL 578.0 200 GALLON WATER TREATMENT BATTERY ROOM SYSTEM or~;::;::;:;:;:;l llllllllllllllllllllllllll I ~ MONORAIL GATE HOIST 16' SERVICE DOOR 1- I-- ~ ? • . . . .. ' : . ' ~ ~ . . .: . . :. . ' .. • . :. : : .·: ': ~-: ~ : 4 _.. j WATER TANK BATTERY STORAGE (TYP) 300 GALLON _______/ _/ BATTERY CHANGERS SECTION 8-8 (FIGURE 11) (TYP) SCALE: 1 "= 1 0' -0" "9' NWL EL 544.0 EL 529.8 0 10 20 FEET 1" = 10'-0" FIGURE 12 Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. o<:" ;:!a_ 1!.~,. HATCH-\ I £ ~ December 2013 I Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project POWERHOUSE -GENERAL ARRANGEMENT -SECTIONS SECTION A-A (FIGURE 11) SCALE: 1"=1 0' -0" Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report, Volume I, Technical Studies Chikuminuk lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume I-Technical Studies Appendix A-V-Pass Preliminary Geologic Evaluation DRAFT April, 2014 Prepared By: ~HATCH™ © 2014 Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., exclusive of U.S. government maps April2014 To: From: Subject: Date: Project#: R&M CONSULTANTS, INC. I Memorandum Dick Griffith, P.E. Aaron Banks, C.P.G. Y-Pass Preliminary Geologic Evaluation October 28, 2013 1806.02 9101 Vanguard Drive· Anchorage, AK 99507 • 907.522.1707 3S041ndustrial Avenue 11102 ·Fairbanks, AK 99701 • 907.452.5270 9737 Mud Bay Road #301• Ketchikan, AK 99901· 907.220.9424 Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Nuvista) is currently conducting studies at Chikuminuk Lake for a proposed hydroelectric project. An area referred to as Y-Pass is expected to lie within the inundation zone and is underlain by unknown materials. The area is approximately only 57 to 125 feet higher than the proposed maximum reservoir elevation. Seepage into Lake Chauekuktuli could occur if thick deposits of permeable materials are present. R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M) was tasked by Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. (Hatch) to provide a geologic evaluation for theY-Pass area. This preliminary geologic evaluation will be used for the planning of future field and office studies relating to the potential for seepage through theY-Pass area from Chikuminuk Lake to Lake Chauekuktuli. Regional Geology Chikuminuk Lake lies within the Ahklun Mountains physiographic province (Wahrhaftig, 1965), consisting of rugged steep-walled mountains, having sharp summits 2,000 to 5,000 feet in altitude, separated by broad flat valleys and lowlands. The entire area was covered with glacial ice during advances of late Pleistocene-age (Coulter et al., 1965), as evidenced by the local topography and soil stratigraphy. This region is considered to be underlain by isolated masses of permafrost (Ferrains, 1965). The project area lies within the Tikchik subterrane which occurs in the northern Tikchik lakes area, southeast of the Togiak-Tikchick fault (Denali-Farewell fault system). The Tikchick subterrane is a structurally complex assemblage (melange) of clastic rocks, radiolarian chert of Paleozoic and Mesozoic age, Permian limestone and clastic rocks, Permian or Triassic pillow basalt and graywacke, and Upper Triassic clastic and mafic volcanic rocks (Decker et al., 1994) Little more than what is described above is known about the Tikchik subterrane. The Tikchik subterrane is an apparently chaotic assemblage of blocks, particularly chert, of Ordovician, Triassic, Jurassic and Early Cretaceous age, and of limestone of Permian age. The matrix is mainly graywacke, argillite, tuff and mafic volcanic rock, although blocks of different ages commonly are juxtaposed without intervening matrix. Some of these blocks are quite large (kilometer-scale) and are structurally and stratigraphically coherent. The age(s) of deformation Memo to: Dick Griffith, P.E. From: Aaron Banks, C.P.G. Date: 10/28/2013 Page 2 is uncertain, but predates deposition of the unconformably overlying clastic rocks of mid- Cretaceous age (Decker et al., 1994}. Y-Pass Conditions Y-Pass is a U-shaped glacially carved valley located on the south shore of Chikuminuk lake approximately 10 miles west of the proposed dam site. The valley is oriented roughly north- south and discharges into Chikuminuk lake. Approximately 3 miles from the lake shore, the valley bifurcates into a southwest-northeast and southeast-northwest trending valley (Figures 1 and 2}. The main valley is rimmed by bedrock ridges to approximately 2,500 feet in elevation. At the bifurcation point, the valley splits around a headwall of approximately 2,400 feet in elevation. At this point, both valleys continue to gently climb to their passes at an elevation of approximately 800 feet within the west fork and an elevation of 730 feet within the east fork. After topping out at each of their respective passes, the valleys then descend toward the southeast before discharging into lake Chauekuktuli. Y-Pass Bifurcation Point Regional geology, local terrain unit mapping (R&M, 2012) and a review of satellite imagery (GeoEye, 2012} indicate that Y-Pass is underlain by bedrock at varying depths. This bedrock is overlain on moderate slopes and low-lying areas by soil deposits consisting of glacial drift ' and outwash, alluvial materials, organic deposits and colluvium. For the purposes of this preliminary evaluation, a reference elevation of 613 feet was established for the existing lake elevation. This elevation was based on the Digital Terrain Model (DTM) created in the fall of 2012 (GeoEye, 2012}. A maximum inundation zone of the proposed reservoir was also established by assuming a total of 47 feet would be added to the current lake level, resulting in a maximum inundation elevation of 660 feet. This area of inundation is presented on both Figures 1 and 2. It should be noted that published USGS topographic quadrangle mapping, current as of 1976, indicates a lake elevation of 598 feet. The discrepancy of 15 feet between the DTM and USGS lake elevations is not surprising given the different timeframes and available technologies. Although depth to bedrock at both forks of Y-Pass is currently indeterminable, some exposed bedrock has been interpreted within some lower-lying areas of the eastern fork of Y-Pass. This exposed bedrock was identified through satellite imagery interpretation and was only mapped where visible rock was present and landforms indicated bedrock morphology. It should be Memo to: Dick Griffith, P.E. From: Aaron Banks, C.P.G. Date: 10/28/2013 Page 3 noted that terrain units were not mapped as that effort fell outside the scope of this preliminary evaluation. Within the western fork of Y-Pass (Figure 3), no exposed bedrock was identified. The western fork of Y-Pass tops out at a maximum elevation of greater than approximately 798 feet. A more precise elevation could not be determined as the western fork pass lies outside of the DTM boundary. Although exposed bedrock was not identified in the western fork, it does have the advantage of lying at a higher elevation than the eastern fork. Soil deposits greater than 125 feet thick would need to be present for seepage through soil units to occur. Based on local geo-morphology, bedrock potentially lies at depths shallower than 125 feet deep. Within the eastern fork of Y-Pass (Figure 4), exposed bedrock was interpreted close to the valley floor at a minimum elevation of approximately 740 feet. Although this exposed bedrock is located on the Chauekuktuli side of the pass and upslope from the main drainage, it indicates that bedrock could potentially underlie the eastern fork of Y-Pass at shallow depth. The maximum elevation of the pass is approximately 57 feet above the proposed maximum reservoir elevation. However, based on currently available data, it appears likely that bedrock occurs in the pass at an elevation above the proposed reservoir. Conclusion and Recommendations Preliminary evaluation of both the western and eastern fork of Y-Pass indicates a potential for bedrock to lie at an elevation which could reduce or preclude seepage of the proposed reservoir through permeable soil units. Prior to the feasibility/design phase of the project, a geotechnical investigation should be performed within the Y-Pass area to better define the depth to bedrock in critical areas. Components of the investigation should include a geophysical survey in conjunction with a drilling program. Memo to: Dick Griffith, P.E. From: Aaron Banks, C.P.G. Date: 10/28/2013 Page 4 References Coulter, H.W. et al (Coulter et al, 1965). "Map Showing Extent of Glaciations in Alaska". U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-415, 1965. Decker, J., Bergman, S.C., Blodgett, R.B., Box, S.E., Bundtzen, T.K., Clough, J.G., Coonrad, W.L., Gilbert, W.G., Miller, M.L., Murphy, J.M., Robinson, M.S. and Wallace, W.K., (Decker et al., 1994). "Geology of southwestern Alaska", The Geology of Alaska (Piafker, G., and Berg, H.C., eds), The Geology of North America, Volume G-1. The Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, 1994. Ferrains, Jr., O.J. (Ferrains, 1965). "Permafrost Map of Alaska". U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geological Investigations Map 1-445, 1965. GeoEye-1 (GeoEye, 2012) 50cm GeoEye-1 stereo elevation imagery of the Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project. Bare earth Digital Terrain Model (DTM) for the area and a Digital Surface Model (DSM), both at a pixel resolution of 6.25 feet based on 2m photogrammetric post-spacing. August and October, 2012. R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M, 2012). "Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, Terrain Unit Map". Prepared for Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc., August 17, 2012. Wahrhaftig, Clyde (Wahrhaftig, 1965). "Physiographic Divisions of Alaska". U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 482, 1965. Legend 1111 Area of Inundation (660ft) CJ V-Pass Watershed Boundary Digital Terrain Model Elevation (It) 0 660-720 0720-725 0 725-730 0730-735 0735-740 0 740-745 0 745-750 0 7so-7ss 0 755-760 0 760-780 0 780-785 IZ:]1ss -790 790-795 810-815 LZ:]sts -s2o Os2o-s2s D 825 -830 0830-835 ~ Os35 -B4D 0840-845 0845 -850 N Proposed Maximum Inundation Zone Elevation 660ft Figure 3 Figure 4 1 inch= 3,700 feet CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTR IC PROJECT PREPARED BY: Y-PASS GEOLOGIC EVALUATION TECHN ICAL MEMORANDUM FIGURE 1 OCTOBER 2013 Legend L\ N -Area of Inundation (660ft) D Y-Pass Watershed Boundary Y-PASS GEOLOGIC EVALUATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FIGURE 2 OCTOBER 2013 Lesend l::]v-Pus W•tJrnhtd Bound try Dfsital Tenaln Model Efe vatton {ftJ 660· 720 710-715 725-730 730-735 0 735-740 0 740 -745 0745 -750 0 750-755 0 755-760 0 760-780 0 780-785 Om-790 790-795 795-IK)O 800-805 805-810 CJato-sls O sts-a2o O s20-82S 0 825-830 0 830-835 O m-84o 0 840-845 0 845-850 NHD Flowline Strum. River No Elevation Data Acquired in this Area 0 500 1,000 1,500 Feet Y-PASS GEOLOGIC EVALUATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FIGURE 3 -WESTERN FORK OF Y-PASS OCTOBE R 2013 ~ ........... ..,"' I::Jv-Pass wa~rshed BountMty Dl&ital Terrain Model Elevation {ft) £:]060-720 t:Jno-ns Ons-730 0730·735 Om-740 0740-745 0745-750 0750-755 0755-760 0760·780 c::J 780. 785 785-790 ·790·795 .705-IIIXI ...... "" ·805-810 .810-815 .BlS-820 .820·825 825-830 830-835 0835-840 0840-845 0845-850 NHD Flowlkle Strr•m.lllver CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC Y-PASS GEOLOGIC EVALUATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FIGURE 4-EASTERN FORK OF Y-PASS PREPARED BY: Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report, Volume I, Technical Studies Chikuminuk lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14369 April2014 Interim Feasibility Report Volume 1-Technical Studies Appendix B-Project layout I Configuration Studies Appendix Bl-R&M Transportation Memo .......................................................................................... l Appendix 82-Powerhouse & Dam Alternative Selection ................................................................... 42 Appendix 83-Bethel Transmission line Alternatives ......................................................................... 62 Appendix 84-Dillingham Transmission line Alternatives .................................................................. 91 DRAFT April, 2014 Prepared By: ~HATCH~ © 2014 Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., exclusive of U.S. government maps Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 1 of 120 FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT COMPONENTS OF A TRANSPORTATION NETWORK CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. P-14369 Prepared for: Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. 301 Calista Court, Suite A Anchorage, Alaska 99518 In Association with: Prepared by: R&M Consultants, Inc. 910 1 Vanguard Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. 6 Nickerson Street, Suite 101 Seattle, Washington 98109 November 2013 NOTICE TO USERS Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 2 of 120 This document reflects the thinking and preliminary design decisions as of September 2013. Changes frequently occur during the evolution of the design process, so persons who may rely on information contained in this document should check with the persons below for the most current information: Chuck Casper, P.E. Program Manager Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. 219 E International Airport Way Anchorage, AK. 99518 (907) 565-4211 Dick Griffith, P.E. Project Manager Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. 6 Nickerson Street, Suite 101 Seattle, W A 98109 (206) 352-5730 This document is an interim feasibility technical memorandum to select design criteria, identify major project features, identify likely construction phasing and develop rough order of magnitude preliminary construction cost estimates for temporary and permanent components of an integrated transportation network pursuant to the selection of a preferred hydroelectric project arrangement. Many details remain to be addressed through additional field and reconnaissance explorations/investigations, analysis, and studies and numerous variables still exist regarding land status, geotechnical and material characteristics/properties, environmental and permitting challenges and final design details. Appendix 8 -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 3 of 120 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. ii 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Project Facilities ...................................................................................... 1 1.4 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................ 3 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 4 3.0 SITE ACCESS .................................................................................................................... 5 3 .1 Overland Road ........................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Barge with Overland Road and or Barge with Ice/Winter Road ............................ 6 3.3 Airstrip .................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Ice/Winter Roads .................................................................................................... 8 4.0 PROJECT SITE ................................................................................................................ 14 4.1 Network Roads ...................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Permanent Camp ................................................................................................... 15 4.3 Apron .................................................................................................................... 15 4.4 Lake Based Operations ......................................................................................... 15 4.5 Fuel Storage .......................................................................................................... 15 5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 16 5.1 Airstrip .................................................................................................................. 16 5.2 Helicopter and Touchdown/Lift-off Area ............................................................. 16 5.3 Winter Road .......................................................................................................... 17 5.4 Roadway ............................................................................................................... 18 6.0 PREFERRED ACCESS OPTION AND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING ................ 19 6.1 Preferred Access Option ....................................................................................... 19 7.0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY ...................................................... 22 8.0 ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................... 23 9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 24 Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 4 of 120 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-2 Dam Site Location ........................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3-1 Runway Typical Section .............................................................................................. 7 Figure 3-2 Theoretical Optimum Ice Growth Rate Versus Flooded (Pumped) Water Thickness (after Duthweiler and Utt, 1985) ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4-1 Road Typical Section ................................................................................................. 14 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES of an Overland Road ................................ 6 Table 3-2 ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES of an Airstrip ............................................ 7 Table 3-3 Mean of the Monthly Average Air Temperatures at Dillingham .................................. 9 Table 3-4 Time, in Hours, to Freeze a 1" Thick Water Layer ..................................................... 12 Table 5-1 Runway Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 16 Table 5-2 Touchdown and Lift-Off Area Design Criteria ........................................................... 16 Table 5-3 Winter Road Design Criteria ....................................................................................... 17 Table 5-4 Roadway Design Criteria-Rural Resource Recovery .............................................. 18 Table 6-1 Equipment Fleet ........................................................................................................... 20 Table 6-2 Estimated Air Lift Costs to Project Site ...................................................................... 21 LIST OF APPENDICES Plan Sheets ..................................................................................................................... Appendix A Estimated Costs and Quantities ..................................................................................... Appendix B Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 11 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 5 of 120 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Introduction This technical memorandum has been prepared by R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M) for Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. (Hatch). The report advances the study of the transportation components described in the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-14369) Pre- Application Document, Section 2 I Project Location, Facilities, and Operation dated April 12, 2013. A kick-off meeting was held August 19, 2013 in Hatch's Anchorage office. 1.2 Project Location The proposed Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) would be located at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake, on the Allen River, approximately 118 miles southeast of Bethel, Alaska and 75 miles north of Dillingham, Alaska. Chikuminuk Lake is located within the Wood-Tikchik State Park. (Figure 1-1, Project Location) 1• The Project facilities and boundary would encompass sections within ranges R54W, R55W, R56W, R57W of townships TIN and T2N of the Seward Meridian of Alaska. 1.3 Proposed Project Facilities The proposed Project arrangement would potentially consist of the following elements: • Dam and reservoir • Spillway • Penstock (tunnel & piping from intake to powerhouse) • Powerhouse and related facilities (switch yard), • Transmission lines • Tailrace • Camp facilities for construction, maintenance and operations staff • Airstrip and access roads to key project related facilities The dam site is located approximately 2,500 feet downstream of the outlet. (Figures 1-2, Project Locationf 2 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 14369) Pre-Application Document, Section 2 I Project Location, Facilities, and Operation, Aprill2, 2013; pg. 2-5. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 6 of 120 TllnflltU/igk • CALISTA REGION Yukon Delta Kuskokwim Boy I ~ tioodMws ,., Platloum • • Final T echnical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 NWR Figure 1-1 Project Location 2 LEGEND • * Proposed Dam/Powerhouse Location ,_."'" e Hub Community • Community ;C AK Native Claims Settlement Act Boundary of D Borough and Census Boundaries (County) Wood-Tikchik State Park National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) DILLINGHI\M CENSUS AREA /Chikuminuk Lake 4~ * "\~ BRISTOL BAY REGION Wood·Tikchl k ShltePark AIHMJfllt ·-& \ .. Ma~~o~~Dt~rt e • DilLINGHAM • Clatfr's Point •nut ... Prqection: ~Cone-. NAD 11127 0.00: AI ..... Statio Qeo.~ Dabo Cloaring-(ASGDC) Produced by Halch Auocial08 for Nuv;.ta March 2013 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix 8 -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 7 of 120 1.4 Scope of Work Figure 1-2 Dam Site Location The objective of this memo is to identify, establish and develop likely access scenarios for temporary and permanent components of an integrated transportation network in support of the hydroelectric project. To that end, the scope of study included: 1. Site Access a. Overland Road b. Barge with Overland Road and or Barge with Ice/Winter Road c. Airstrip d. Ice/Winter Road Access 2. Establish Design Criteria a. Design Aircraft and Runway b. Design Helicopter and Touchdown/Lift-Off Area c. Roadway d. Camp 3. Downstream Alternative a. Prepare preliminary plans, profiles, and typical sections for roads accessing runway, camp and dam related facilities b. Calculate preliminary quantities 4. Construction Phasing 5. Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERCNo. P-14369 3 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 8 of 120 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS Access to the Project site is limited to floatplane or helicopter. There are no permanent roads connecting Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel or Dillingham. The Project site is generally located between two physiographic areas. To the west lie the rugged Wood River Mountains, ranging in elevation from 2000 feet to 5000 feet. Further west lays the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and the community of Bethel, Alaska. East of the Project site lay the Nushagak and Bristol Bay lowlands, ranging between 50 and 500 feet above sea level. The lakes in Wood-Tikchik State Park are glacial in origin and are long and deep. The area has been extensively glaciated. The natural environment varies greatly from wet tundra and marshlands at the lowest elevations to bare rock, heath tundra and alpine meadows at the highest. In between are coniferous forests comprised of white spruce and mixed spruce-birch, muskeg, and willow-alder thickets. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 4 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 9 of 120 3.0 SITE ACCESS Construction and operation of the Project would require establishing temporary and permanent elements of an integrated transportation network. A key element of the infrastructure network is access to the Project site. For the purpose of this technical memorandum, construction of four site access options was studied: 1) an overland road; 2) barge with overland road and or barge with ice/winter road; 3) airstrip; 4) ice/winter road. 3.1 Overland Road Construction of an all season, overland route from either Dillingham or Bethel to the Project site would present engineering, environmental, permitting, social/cultural and cost challenges. In addition, permanent road construction would be through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and/or the Wood-Tikchik State Park and may be prohibitive to permit. If permittable, such a road would be over 120 miles in length depending on its origin. It would be today's equivalent of the Dalton Highway or haul road from Livengood to Coldfoot, constructed in the mid-1970s to the oil fields of the North Slope. Likely engineering challenges would include multiple stream and river crossings requmng permanent culvert and/or bridge installation; construction over tundra, discontinuous and continuous permafrost, muskeg, soft soils, and the rugged Wood River Mountains (from Bethel). Environmental and permitting challenges would be linked to new construction through a national wildlife refuge and state park. Conventional wilderness management practices restrict or prohibit the use of motorized activities. Additional challenges include crossing extensive wetlands and numerous anadromous waters (streams, rivers, and lakes important to anadromous fish species), namely the Nushagak, Wood, Nuyakuk, and Tikchik Rivers and their tributaries. Likely social/cultural challenges would be tied to increased access, affecting the practice of the subsistence lifestyle, increasing access to fish and game resources, and affecting the remote, wilderness context, with the area receiving little visitation and offering limited man-made comforts. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 5 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 10 of 120 Table 3-1 ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES of an Overland Road ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Reliable, all season access to the Project site High capital constmction costs Ability to transport materials and equipment without Yearly maintenance and operations costs restrictions Lower transport costs Environmental, pem1itting, and social/cultural impacts Management practices restrict or prohibit the use of motorized activities in State Park It is difficult to estimate the total cost to construct an overland route at this time. There are a number of factors that are unknown and additional study is required. For example, routes have not been thoroughly developed with alignment, profile, and typical section inputs from which excavation and embankment quantities are calculated, the number of stream crossings and types (culvert or bridge), and allowances for roadway construction over the varied terrain types likely to be encountered (muskeg, permafrost, gravel, rock). A range of costs for a rural resource road classification in Alaska would be $400,000 to $1,000,000 per mile. 3.2 Barge with Overland Road and or Barge with lee/Winter Road In an effort to reduce the constructed length of an overland or winter road, an alternative access option would involve barging equipment, materials and supplies up the Nushagak River to the village of Koliganek. From the village, it is approximately 80 miles to the Project Site. While this alternative reduces the amount of impacts by reducing the total length of an overland or winter road, it does not completely eliminate the impacts and challenges. The advantages and disadvantages with this alternative are similar and the major chaUenge of permitting a route through the State Park remains. The challenges of constructing an ice or winter road from the village to the Project site are similar and are discussed in Section 3.4. 3.3 Airstrip Access to the Project site could be accomplished by air via construction of a 4,900-foot airstrip, with 300-foot runway safety areas (RSA) on each end. The runway would be 125 feet in width, or 150 feet, including the RSA widths. The 125-foot width would accommodate the design aircraft being able to turn around for either a back taxi to the apron area or for takeoff, eliminating the need for turnaround areas on each end. The runway profile grade would be 1.5 percent. Figure 3-1 shows a feasible runway typical section. The runway would be considered restricted to operate under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 6 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 ..... ..... ..... Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 11 of 120 ct ...... 3' 16' 12.5' 62.5' 62.5' \ ' ' \ ...... ..... ' ' ' 1.5% ..... ...... ..... _ 24" BORROW 12" SUBBASE COURSE 12" CRUS! !CD AGGRCGATC SURr ACC COURSC 4" CRUSrED AGGREGATE SURF ACE COURSE BORROW 1.5% RUNWAY TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE Figure 3-1 Runway Typical Section 12.5' EXtSTING GROUND;---- The airstrip could be located within a mile of the dam site, positioned in a southeast to northwest orientation that mirrors the general valley layout, accommodates the prevailing winds and avoids the steep mountains on each side. The challenges facing the other site access options are greatly reduced and impacts limited to the immediate Project vicinity. In addition, access could be controlled. A preliminary runway layout is provided in Appendix A. Table 3-2 ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES of an Airstrip ADVANTAGES Lower capital costs I proven option for rural Alaskan access Lower maintenance and operations cost Improved control of access to the site Fewer engineering, environmental and permitting challenges Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 7 DISADVANTAGES Access, including emergency I rescue access is weather dependent Payload limited to maximum carrying capacity and opening dimensions of design aircraft. May drive the selection and sizing of other Project elements (ie. Transformer, turbines, etc.) Higher transportation costs for re-supplying and maintaining site and camp operations, including crew change outs. Increased noise, particularly during construction, as equipment and materials are brought to the Project site R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 3.4 Ice/Winter Roads Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 12 of 120 This alternative attempts to reduce the impacts associated with a permanent, overland access road constructed from a soil embankment by constructing a temporary "winter" road using snow and/or ice. The winter road would begin from either Dillingham (120-mile length) or Koliganek (82-mile length) and extend to the Project site. The model for this type of access is the ice and winter roads constructed on the North Slope to access remote on and off shore oil reserves. Design criteria for key roadway elements can be found in Table 5-3. This alternative assumes that the snow or ice embankments are founded on soil and that the construction and maintenance activities can be accomplished using equipment common to traditional earthwork projects. Crossing of large rivers or streams would be via construction of ice bridges. The primary performance objectives for a winter road are: l) to provide the minimum structural section (snow and/or ice) to support the planned loads and protect the underlying vegetation; 2) to provide an alignment, geometries, and cross section that provides for safe and efficient vehicle movements; and 3) to evaluate project costs when comparing the design, construction and maintenance costs for a winter road to that of a similar road constructed of a soil embankment. 3.4.1 Factors Affecting Ice/Winter Roads The constructability and performance of a winter road are a function of the local climate, vehicle loads, the strength of constructed snow or ice embankment and the length of the operating season. The operating season can be characterized as the period during which the daily average air temperatures are below about 25°F. A partial list of climate factors affecting the operating period include: the average start of freezing period, average date of first snowfall, snow fall distribution and total snowfall, air temperature, and the average start of the thawing period. The time at which construction of a winter road can begin is typically limited by the bearing capacity of the natural ground upon which the snow or ice embankment is constructed or the minimum natural snow cover required to protect the underlying vegetation, which may be an agency- mandated minimum depth (10" to 14") or a specific calendar day. Generally, the depth of frost in most soil subgrades should be sufficient to support the winter road construction equipment once the cumulative freezing degree days has reached more than about 300 °F-Days. A record of reliable climate data (air temperature, precipitation, etc.) is unavailable for the Project site. The nearest station according to the Western Regional Climate Center records is the Dillingham Airport. Table 3-l shows the mean of the monthly average air temperatures for the period of 1951 to 2005. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 8 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 20 l3 Table 3-3 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 13 of 120 Mean of the Monthly Average Air Temperatures at Dillingham MONTH Of Freezing Degree Days October (30 days) 33.1 N/A November (30 days) 22.7 279 December (31 days) 14.4 545 January (31 days) 16.1 492 February (28 days) 16.4 437 March (31 days) 22.1 306 April (30 days) 31.4 N/A Average Air Temperature 18.3 Recognizing the variability in the local climate and the potential for warm or "Chinook" events, the operating period is generally mid-December through mid-March. Additional climate data and further analysis is needed before proceeding with preliminary winter road design. 3.4.2 Snow and Ice Embankment Depths Snow and ice embankment thicknesses vary depending on the type of foundation material (ground or water), the planned design loads and construction methods (discussed below). Winter roads constructed with snow embankments typically range from 10 to 36 inches. Roads subjected to heavy or repeated loads usually require an additional treatment for improved performance (durability, safety, lower maintenance). A common treatment is spraying water to provide a frozen cap, typically on the order of 2 to 4 inches thick. The depths of ice embankments founded over soil (grounded) typically range from l 0 to 24 inches while depths over water (floating) range from 10 to 60 inches. 3.4.3 Alignment Winter road construction and maintenance costs can generally be reduced by selecting alignments to: • Minimize overall length; • Minimize profile grades; • Favor terrain with minimum micro-relief; • Follow existing pre-cleared trails, seismic lines, fire breaks; • A void natural snow catchments (i.e., narrow valleys, and the lee of tree/shrubs) as drifting snow is a maintenance and safety concern; • Follow along the tops of ridges or valley bottoms; Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 9 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 14 of 120 • A void following a contour across a slope where the embankment may pond or otherwise alter established surface drainage during spring thaw; • A void crossing areas with natural springs and very wet ground; • Avoid south facing slopes or be shaded to minimize exposure to direct sunlight; and, • Optimize distances between the winter road and source areas to supply snow and water. Crossing streams and rivers via temporary ice bridges are fundamentally different than snow or ice embankments founded over soil. Additional ice bridge considerations include: • Minimizing ice bridge length; • Locating ice bridges so that the thickened ice does not obstruct the natural flow of water in the stream and/or river, thus: o Adversely atiecting wintertime aquatic life; o Increasing flow velocities, possible increasing erosion in the stream or river bed; o Increasing the upstream hydraulic forces and reducing the longitudinal stability of the bridge, and o Increasing upstream water levels resulting in overflows or surface icing buildup. • Potential for river flow to physically and or thermally erode the underside of the ice bridge; • Locating ice bridges with gentle sloping banks to minimize erosion and provide reasonable vehicle operation/control; and, • Align ice bridges parallel with the prevailing wind or as far from the shore as possible to minimize snow drifting. Added dead load and insulating effects of snow cover are detrimental to the allowable bearing capacity of the ice bridge. For planning purposes, a conceptual winter road route from Koliganek to the Project site ts provided in Appendix A. 3.4.4 Winter Road Construction Sequence Prior to full scale winter road construction, the route surface must be prepared. Preparation activities include clearing of trees, either by hand (chain saw) or mechanical (hydro-axe) and an initial leveling, grading and compacting of the snow cover to the rough sub grade widths. The strength of snow is comprised of cohesive and frictional components, both functions of the particle grading, contacts and bonding. The bonding in snow is in tum a function of temperature and time. As such, snow embankments should be constructed in stages in order to achieve the high strengths to support the design loadings. The recommended construction sequencing is as follows: 1. Process the snow using tillers and/or blowers to maximize the particle grading; 2. Place the snow in graded and compacted lifts to maximize inter-granular contacts and density; and, 3. Allow the embankment to set for a period to "sinter" ( a natural, irreversible time and temperature dependent hardening of the snow) Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 to R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 15 of 120 Overland solid ice embankments require a great deal of water (approximately 1 -1.5 million gallons for a one mile road, 40 feet wide and 6 inches thick), but can provide the hardest and thinnest embankment section. An initial lift is usually made by pulling a drag behind an all- terrain vehicle to prepare the surface and provide, after an initial hardening, a minimal ice surface to support wheeled construction equipment. Water is then sprayed on the surface in thin lifts using tank trucks until the desired structural section is built up (surface or layer flooding). Build up rates vary by physical location and local climate conditions. -.. u L--:E u "'0 c ~ -80 Wind -60 Speed (kmlh) -40 -20 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 Air Temperature \C) Water Layer Titickness (mm) 125 "i lQO 75 . 50----..J 25--_. : I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time to Freeze Water Layer (h) Figure 3-2 Theoretical Optimum Ice Growth Rate Versus Flooded (Pumped) Water Thickness (after Duthweiler and Utt, 1985) Figure 3-2 compares the theoretical ice growth rates for the Project Site (blue) and Alaska's North Slope (red) assuming constant typical mean air temperatures and an average wind speed. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 11 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix 8 -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 16 of 120 Table 3-4 Time, in Hours, to Freeze a 1" Thick Water Layer Location Air Temp (OF) I eq Wind Speed Time to Freeze (mileslhr) I 25 mm I 1" Thick (km/hr) Water Layer (Hr) North Slope -20 I -28.8 12/20 4.5 Project Site 14*1-10.0 12 I 20 8.5 *From Table 3-3 Assuming nonstop buildup or flooding operations over a 24 hour period and each flooded layer well frozen before the next layer is added, the predicted theoretical buildup rate for the North Slope and Project Site would be approximately 5.3 inches/day (24/4.5) and 2.8 inches/day respectively. Average ice growth rates reported from actual North Slope projects have been on the order of one-half the optimum predicted theoretical ice growth or approximately 1.5 to 2.5 inches/day. It would be reasonable to expect a similar reduction at the Project site (0.75 to 1.4 inches/day) and considering the need to haul water, a further reduction in the average ice buildup rate would not be unexpected (0.25 to 0.5 inches/day). Considering the overall length of an ice/winter road (82 to 120 miles), the low ice buildup rates, the topographical, environmental, and construction challenges, and uncertainties associated with a maritime climate, the construction of an ice/winter road is not feasible. An option to the traditional technique of "built-up" ice road construction is ice harvesting. Ice is harvested from a source, such as a frozen lake, using a piece of equipment that "shaves" off the ice (similar to pavement rotomilling). The ice is then hauled to the road and placed as an "ice aggregate". Equipment and haul costs can render this option not feasible when the route is located significant distances from the ice source. 3.4.5 Additional Construction Considerations The use of a winter road to access the Project site presents the following additional challenges: • The overall length may require multiple construction crews, strategically located along the route, all working towards one another to construct the entire length; • If the use of multiple construction teams is not possible or feasible, it may be that only a portion of the overall winter road length is constructed during a single operating season; thus the transport of equipment, material and supplies only advances as far as the winter road construction, resulting in multiple years to reach the Project site. The high risk of stockpiling equipment, materials and supplies mid route and having favorable weather to continue on during the next operating season would be reflected in the construction costs. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 12 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 17 of 120 • Increased exposure to direct sunlight and air temperatures associated with spring would likely reduce the operating season and or increase maintenance activities. It would be reasonable to expect the hauling or transport operations to occur at night, with maintenance activities performed during the day, readying the road for that night's heavy traffic. 3.4.6 Winter Road Maintenance Considerations Winter roads require maintenance just like their earthen counterpart. Maintenance efforts can be categorized into preventative and routine. Preventative activities include clearing, grading, and dragging to keep the top of the embankment surface smooth and hard. Bumps which develop due to traffic or frost heave, or some other action tend to grow rapidly and affect speed, safety and increase maintenance costs if not treated early. Periodic compaction, (if no frozen cap) can improve useful life. Routine maintenance activities include repairing cracks, ruts, potholes and surface treatments (frozen cap) to improve vehicle control and traction on curves and grades. Cracks, ruts and potholes can typically be repaired by filling with compacted slush or an ice chip and water slurry. Removing snow berms and drifting snow are often significant portions of maintenance costs. In addition to safety concerns associated with winter road travel, snow berms and drifting snow can reduce the performance of winter roads, particularly ice embankments and bridges over water (floating), where their weight effectively reduces the net allowable load capacity and may lead to overflow on top of the surface. 3.4. 7 Winter Road Construction Costs It is difficult to estimate the total cost to construct a temporary winter road at this time. There are a number of factors that are unknown requiring further study. For example, detailed research, collection and analysis of climate data may be necessary to refine the operating seasons, identification of available water sources, development of route alternatives with alignment, profile, typical sections and identification of feasible river/stream crossings and estimated winter road production rates (miles/day). Cost estimates for constructing winter roads in Prudhoe Bay are approximately $100,000 per mile, where the projects are connected and supported by the existing road system. For the Project location, it is not unreasonable for the estimated construction costs to be 2 to 4 times the cost per mile. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 13 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 18 of 120 4.0 PROJECT SITE 4.1 Network Roads The road network to access and serve the dam related facilities (camp, powerhouse, airstrip, float plane dock, helipad, spillway etc.) will be designed and built to the standards for new construction for a rural resource recovery road functional classification. Design criteria for key roadway elements can be found in Table 5-4. For purposes of this study, the network roads are identified as: • Roadway # l -from the runway to the camp intersection • Roadway #2-from the camp intersection to the float plane dock/ boat ramp • Roadway #3 from the camp intersection to the power house • Roadway #4 -from Roadway #3 to the dam, including the penstock gate valve. Preliminary plan and profile sheets for each roadway are provided in Appendix A. Figure 4-1 depicts the typical cross section for all roadways, comprised of two 1 0-foot lanes and two 2-foot outside shoulders for an overall width of24 feet. The 24-foot top width will facilitate two way traffic, the transport of the larger pieces of equipment and truck tracking. The 3% roadway cross slope or crown improves surface runoff from the road, preserving the well graded gravel running surface and reducing maintenance costs. ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE Figure 4-1 Road Typical Section A feasible embankment section (from top to bottom) is composed of 6-inches of crushed aggregate base course (grading D-1) and 24-inches Borrow Type A over a prepared sub grade. Final, individual structural section depths will be based upon the recommendations as a result of geotechnical field investigations and lab analysis. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 14 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 19 of 120 Many of the design criteria values reflect the acceptable minimums in an effort to minimize the impacts to the surrounding natural environment by minimizing the improvement footprint. Cut slopes are 2H: 1 V in soil and 114H: 1 V in rock. Fill slopes are 2H: 1 V. It is assumed that the soil overburden stripped from project excavations will be used as topsoil on the engineered slopes and will be seeded. Rock cut slopes will be left in their post construction state. To avoid a temporary degradation of water quality and to meet Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) permit requirements, Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) will be developed based upon construction sequencing, available and existing materials, and other relevant factors during the design process. The ESCP will contain information regarding the construction site that may be used by the contractor in developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 4.2 Permanent Camp For planning purposes, the permanent camp site is centrally located for short vehicle trips or walking access to all other related facilities. The permanent camp site area is approximately 4 acres in size and is located to minimize the earthwork to construct. The site can be expanded as needed. Likely elements of the camp include sleeping, meal/recreation, supply and utilities (power, water, etc.) buildings, equipment and maintenance shop and storage/staging yard, fueling station (vehicles and equipment) and a helipad located at one of the furthest corners of the camp pad. 4.3 Apron The apron is located mid-point along the runway and is approximately 5.5 acres in size and can be expanded as needed. The layout would allow for the design aircraft (C 130) to taxi over to the apron and load/unload without affecting runway operations. The apron would also serve as a staging area to store incoming or outgoing cargo. The apron could support aircraft refueling operations. The apron could also serve as a helipad and temporary camp location while the runway is being constructed. 4.4 Lake Based Operations The conceptual site layout includes access to the lake to accommodate water based operations such as floatplane access, dock and boat ramp. From a usability perspective, the final location for these elements should be located to protect the water based operations from the fetch. 4.5 Fuel Storage It is anticipated that onsite fuel storage would be in double walled, self-contained tanks mounted on skids. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 15 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 5.1 Airstrip Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 20 of 120 5.0 DESIGN CRITERIA The preliminary runway design criteria based on the design aircraft characteristics are presented in Table 5-1. ELEMENT Table 5-1 Runway Design Criteria VALUE SOURCE Lockheed I 00-C 130 Hercules Based on the transport of the largest & heaviest anticipated Design Aircraft (CI30) piece of equipment/ material which is likely to be the transfonner equipment -(approx .. 54,000 lbs). • 125 ft Runway Width Aircraft Characteristics Approach Speed: 138 knots • No tum around areas Runway Design Code: C-lV required Wind Span: 132.60 ft • Maximum longitudinal Tail Height: 39.20 ft grade 1.5% . 4 900 ft (most critical) C-130 Maximum Landing Wt: Lynden Air Cargo 135,000 lbs • 4,800 ft (uphill) C-130 Maximum TakeoffWt: C-130 FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual 130,000lbs. • 4,000 ft (downhill) . 300 ft Runway Safety Area beyond runway ends, Runway Protection Parameters for . 150 ft Runway Safety Area Design Aircraft: B-11 Width, AC 150/5300-13A Appendix 7 Table A7-3 • 500 ft Object Free Area Width 5.2 Helicopter and Touchdown/Lift-off Area Preliminary touchdown and lift-off areas based on the design helicopter characteristics are presented in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 Touchdown and Lift-Off Area Design Criteria ELEMENT Design Aircraft Aircraft Characteristics Length: 57.14 ft Rotor Diameter: 48 ft Height: 12.57 ft Maximum takeoffwt: 11,200 lbs Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 VALUE SOURCE Bell212 • 48 ft x 48 ft Touchdown & Lift-off Area • 85.5 ft x 85.5 ft Final Approach and Takeoff Area AC 150/5390-28 Figure 2-2. • 115.5 ft x 115.5 ft Safety Area 16 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 5.3 Winter Road Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 21 of 120 Preliminary winter roadway design criteria are presented in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 Winter Road Design Criteria ELEMENT VALUE Functional Classification Rural Resource Recovery Average Daily Traffic :S 400 Rolling/Mountainous Terrain Design Speed (mph) 35 mph Design Vehicle WB-50 Total Roadway Width 20-30ft Overland 50-200ft Grounded Ice 100-150 ft Floating lee Maximum Grade < 8-10% (12-15% with traction Snow surface lee Surface treatment) <5% Cross Slope (Snow surface) <2 -3% Stopping Sight Distance 650ft Minimum Radius of Curvature 950 feet Minimum K-Value for Crest: 7 Vertical Curves Sag: 17 Side Slopes 4: I (h:v) Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 17 SOURCE AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low- Volume Local Roads (ADT :S 400) 200 I. AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low- Volume Local Roads (ADT :S 400) 2001. AASHTO 2001, Pg. 274 Roads and Airfields in Cold Regions, ASCE Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering Monograph. Pg. I 03. AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low- Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400) 2001. Roads and Airfields in Cold Regions, ASCE Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering Monograph. Pg. 103. Roads and Airfields in Cold Regions, ASCE Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering Monograph. Pg. 103. Roads and Airfields in Cold Regions, ASCE Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering Monograph. Pg. I 03. Roads and Airfields in Cold Regions, ASCE Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering Monograph. Pg. I 02 Roads and Airfields in Cold Regions, ASCE Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering Monograph. Pg. 103. AASHTO 2001, pg. 274, Exhibit 3-76 AASHTO 200 I, pg. 280, Exhibit 3-79 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 5.4 Roadway Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 22 of 120 Preliminary roadway design criteria are presented in Table 5-4. Table 5-4 Roadway Design Criteria-Rural Resource Recovery ELEMENT VALUE SOURCE Functional Classification Rural Resource Recovery AASHTO Guidelines lor Geometric Design of Very Low- Volume Local Roads (ADT :S 400) 2001. Average Daily Trame 400 AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low- Volume Local Roads (ADT::; 400) 2001. Rolling/Mountainous Terrain AASHT02001, Pg. 231 35 mph (Site Access Road) 35 mph (Between Runway/Float AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Design Speed (mph) plane ramp & Camp) Volume Local Roads (ADT::; 400) 200 I. Exhibit I. 20 mph (Camp & Powerhouse) 15 mph (Powerhouse & Dam Site) Design Vehicle WB-50 AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low- Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400) 200 I. Total Roadway Width (both lane+ 24ft AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low- shoulders) Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400) 2001 Exhibit I Cross Slope Minimum 3% for gravel roads Stopping Sight Distance 170 ti AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low- Volume Local Roads (ADT 400) 200 I. Exhibit 12. Maximum Grade 6% desirable (10% maximum) AASHTO 200 I, Exhibit 5-15 Pg. 409 Minimum Grade 1.0 % minimum 35 mph-275 fi AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Minimum Radius of Curvature 20mph-115 ft 15 mph-65ft Volume Local Roads (ADT 5 400) 2001. Exhibit 7. Superelevation e 6% 6-inch crushed aggregate surface course C-1 or D-1. Minimum K-Value for Crest: 14 AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low- Vertical Curves Sag: 49 Volume Local Roads (ADT 5 400) 2001. Exhibit 12. Roadway surfacing (lanes & 6" Crushed Aggregate Base Course, To be confirmed through a forrnal geotechnical investigation C-1 or D-1 shoulders) 24" Borrow, Type A & recommendation phases. Soil: Side Slopes Cut and Fill 2: I (h:v) To be confirrned through a fomml geotechnical investigation Rock: & recommendation phases. Cut varies l/4:lto 1:1 Final decisions regarding alignment, typical section widths and proposed improvements will be decided during subsequent phases of the design process. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 18 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 23 of 120 6.0 PREFERRED ACCESS OPTION AND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING The previous sections discussed the four basic options to access the Project site: • Overland Road • Barge with Overland Road and/or Winter Road • Airstrip • Winter Road There are combinations of these options that may be feasible and worthy of additional consideration. For example, construct a winter road to only bring in the equipment to construct a runway. Ultimately, the final decision will be based on cost, constructability, and the ability to secure construction related environmental permits. 6.1 Preferred Access Option Access by air is a viable and proven approach for constructing large infrastructure projects in remote, interior Alaska. Because of a lack of a connection with a navigable waterway or established overland route (permanent or winter), the initial construction push must also be accomplished by air. The likely scenario would use heavy lift helicopters, with load capacities in excess of 20,000 lbs, to sling load equipment, materials, and supplies from Dillingham into the Project site. Initially, a remote camp and small pioneer workpad would be constructed with small earthwork equipment (operating weight < 40,000 lbs). Once the pioneer workpad and roads are completed, a temporary construction camp and medium sized earthwork equipment (operating weight up to 55,000 lbs.) can be brought in pieces and reassembled. Both the 234 Chinook and Erickson S-64F Aircrane can meet the payload requirements. The larger pieces of equipment (operating weights up to 55,000 lbs) will increase production rates in order to complete the runway and associated roadway construction in two construction seasons. A single construction season is defined as May 1 through October 31. Depending on equipment model and manufacturer, most medium sized earthwork equipment can be air lifted in 2 to 4 trips. A likely equipment fleet mix and operating weights are shown in Table 6-1. This mix represents the minimum fleet required and does not include backup equipment to replace equipment taken out of service due to scheduled maintenance, mechanical breakdown or outright failure. A temporary construction camp for approximately 30 individuals from the construction, engineering, materials, inspection and owner representative groups is necessary to support the construction of the runway and site access/circulation roads. The camp would be needed for approximately 1.5 construction seasons. The camp would be capable of providing a basic level of living conditions (room and board, and limited recreation). Primary power and backup power would be available. The camp would be re-supplied via helicopter and float plane initially and then wheeled aircraft as the runway embankment is built up. It is estimated that a camp staff of three persons (cook, housekeeping, and maintenance) would be necessary for camp operations. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 19 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 24 of 120 Preliminary quantity estimates support the position that the runway and roadway can be completed in two construction seasons. A likely construction scenario would be to complete the runway excavations and embankment to the bottom of the structural section by the end of the first year. This would allow the runway embankment to consolidate over the winter. The second season would repair any settlement areas and place the runway structural under a grading operation, freeing the majority of the equipment for roadway construction. All roadways would be completed by the end of the second year. EQUIPMENT Small Equipment CAT Dozer D4 CAT Excavator 3 16 Medium Equipment CAT Dozer D6 CAT Excavator 320 CAT 725 Articulated Truck CAT Loader 950 CAT 54B Compactor CAT 160M2 Motor Grader Total Weight of Fleet to be Air Lifted Table 6-1 Equipment Fleet OPERATING WEIGHT (lbs.) 19,000 38,000 46,150 55,000 50,000 44,000 24,000 45,500 472,800 QUANTITY 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 This approach was successfully used to construct the access road to Quartz Hills Mine near Ketchikan Alaska. An Erickson Air-Crane moved over 1, 100 tons in four days. Based on a carrying capacity of 20,000 lbs. and the need to move approximately 600,000 lbs. of equipment, materials, and supplies (475,000 + 125,000), approximately 30 trips will be required. Assuming 2.5 hours per round trip (75 trip flight hours), 16 contingency flight hours, and 8 weather hours, approximately l 00 total flight hours are estimated. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 20 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 25 of 120 For estimating purposes, a breakdown of airlift costs is shown below: Table 6-2 Estimated Air Lift Costs to Project Site DESCRIPTION QUANTITY Mobilization I Demobilization to/from l Dillingham Alaska Lift work 100 Fuel (400 gallhr) 40,000 Lodging, Per Diem for crew of 10 for 10 days Subtotal Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 100 UNIT UNIT PRICE LS $400,000 Hrs $15,000 Gal $12 Each $294 21 AMOUNT $400,000. $1,500,000. $480,000. $29,400. $2,409,400. R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 26 of 120 7.0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Estimated total construction cost for the Project airstrip and site access/circulation roads: Component Amount Runway & Apron $33,760,000. Site Roads & Pads $12,100,000. Total $45,860,000. Detailed estimated access costs, preliminary quantities and estimated site construction costs are provided in Appendix B. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 22 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 27 of 120 8.0 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made in preparing this pre-feasibility study and developing estimated construction costs. • Estimated costs and unit prices are in 2013 dollars. It would not be unreasonable to expect a 10-15% cost escalation going forward; • These are unit price estimates and do not break out equipment purchase and depreciation, risk, profit, etc. as a contractor would when preparing a bid for competitive selection; • Access roads and layouts for related facilities are based on the preliminary dam location altematives developed by Hatch and distributed during the August 19, 2013 meeting. All existing ground and proposed finished grade elevations are based on 1 0' contour interval mapping generated from aerial imagery collected the summer of 20 12; • There are no provisions for temporary or construction access roads to the dam site or dam related facilities, (portals for penstock, coffer dam, and material sites, etc.) • Excavations in the moraine areas above the Allen River can be accomplished without blasting and the material is usable for meeting road and runway embankment, surfacing and other material requirements. Opportunities to reduce the overall earthwork quantities would be accomplished during design level surveys and final design activities. Without specific geotechnical information, soil overburden, limits of rock excavation, material sites and access and the usability of the excavated material to meet material requirements will potentially impact construction costs; • The proposed equipment fleet from Table 6-1 represents the minimum. It would be reasonable to expect backup equipment on site to cover mechanical breakdowns and/or to increase construction production. The equipment mobilized to construct the runway would be available to construct other related facilities (dam, spillway, powerhouse, tunnel/penstock, etc.), • Additional specialty construct equipment and materials (cement, flyash, pozzolan, reinforcing steel) to construct dam and related facilities would be brought in via air after the runway is completed; • Dam and power generation related equipment and materials will be delivered via air; Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 23 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 28 of 120 9.0 REFERENCES Scher, Robert L (1996) Temporary Snow and lee Pavement Structures. Roads and Airfields in Cold Regions. American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Cold Regions Engineering Monograph. Final Technical Memorandum Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. P-14369 24 R&M Consultants, Inc. November 2013 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 29 of 120 Appendix A Plan Sheets Q) -tt: e D. "C ctS 0 0:: Q) u ~ ~ ~ ~ 'I~ ii II I. .. , ,,, ~ ... ~. G. I ~~-· .. IIIII fTl (i) < 0 ~ 0 :J 51 __. ~·l·'f.C.... ··..:•""" ' ...... ;:<~!."' -· ,· . ··~¥ .,. .. L\\' . , .: . =~· . "~4--!".,. .. . ,~, n. , p;· ' ~ 1!' ~~-:-;: .. !J .' " ~-:.6 ~ •\ >; •. .. -~ ... ~. .. 'tL• I -' ' · "L~: ~~-.,•:r~~ -~· l ~ . ·t~ J) .L •' . . -' . <.. • ~ ~ \ ~ ' . . .-... ~ ... ~ .. • '' . ' • L • ' " . -.. ' ~-•p ~ ...... • ... ·t~· ..... ..-_--~ . . ~~ ' .:r ' . . .rt.... ., 7' f_.' , .. ~ ... -u~... . '(. ,•··c~~· ... \.~.-· ~-c ,11_.. . 11........ . .. -, ,, ,., fj ( ·':;~ ;~-·~ ' . {J ifii!. . .. " '" " ''' ·c--( ' .Ji -t; . " ... , .... , .. ' .. .., 1. . -'t~. '·"' ') . ' . <$'> I.\ ;.,. ' . 'I'. ·. . ' __,-. '~· .& -_· ~: .. ~--l.; ·:~ . rf" ·~~·· <t ''·'. : ... ~· ~.... ~ "'-~-.&, : ,.. rn . ·':< •t ' ~-. ':-' ·. '•. . ..... , :" . ,:._ l ~ . . . ~ t Profile View of Runway Station GRAPIDC SCALE "'- 2t-.-L~ i " c=J ~ '750 '700 TOTAl SHEEI'S en:> ::r "0 CD"O CD CD -:J wa. ...... x· S.CJ _.. I c "''"O o o-. ~ .Q . 0 CD > (') <lJ --;-w Ill ~ c --() 0 :J :::!l (Q c ..... CHIKUMINUK LAKE i5' PHL::~~~:;i~::~~J DEVElOP£D BY: RaM aa-.n.:r~IND. CHIKUiriiNUK LAKE w.s. f1.0DO EL£V. • 110 - - - - -an SLOPE uwns • • • • • • • • • • •" FU SI.OPE UlollS GRAPIOC SCAIJI 2!10 0 I» !fiG -------t en SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN c a. ROADWAYS/PADS PLAN VIEW<'D" (/1 0(\(\.0P{D I'Pl i " ' 0 ~ [] l ~rl :5 z 0 ~ '-' z ~ I ROADWAY 1 PROFILE 75 N,.., 100+oo ws+oo !07i-so 112+50 11St-OO 117-t-So 122i-50 125'+00 127'+50 130'+00 Station ROADWAY 3 PROFILE ·~r++;-r~~-rt+-r~~-rr+~-rr+~-r++~-r++~-rr+~rr++~~++~~~4-r++;4-r+~4-r+-r~750 50 12 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 I I JzoLoo J 1zzlso 1 Jzslrio 1 327lso 1 3 13olrio dnL;6z 3001-00 30Z+50 3051-00 ::507+50 JIO+OO 312+50 315+00 Station VALVE ACCESS DRIVEWAY PROFILE " 612 1 1 1 s1ooL6o 1 1 soLso 1 sosL~~2 Station 50 ROADWAY 2 PROFILE 200'+00 202'+50 205'+00 207'+50 210'+00 Stat10n ROADWAY 4 PROFILE 50 TOTAL St-1EETS ,,~+;-r~~-r~~-r++-r-r++-r~++-r~++-rr+~-r++~rr++~~++~-r++~~ ~~~,_~~-r++~-r++-r-r++-r~+f-rr++f-r++~-r++-rrr++~rr++~~++~~· (/))> ::J "0 CD"O CD CD -::::l w D.. w x· 400+00 410+00 412+50 4151-00 Station GRAPHIC SCALE 250 0 250 ~---- S.OJ ...... ' 1\.)-u 0-, .2. CD ~ r ru '< 0 s. () 0 :::!, tiS" c ..., CHIKUMINUK LAKE a· HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ::::l (/) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN c D.. ROADWAYS PROFILE VIEWS ro· (/) DEVELOPED BY 111aM CCN.&A:I"AN'I'Wt INC. Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 34 of 120 Appendix B Estimated Costs and Quantities Temporary ar ·manent Components of a Estimated Construction s by Access Alternative Appendix B Transportatio. ;work Page 1 of7 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project November 2013 Line Access Option I Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount Notes 1 Airstrip Construction Heavy Lift Copter Operations a Heavy Lift Copter Mobe I Demobe to Dillingham Lump Sum 1 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 b Lift Work Hr 100 $ 15,000 $ 1,500,000 c Fuel Gal 40,000 $ 12 $ 480,000 d Lodging, Per Diem for crew of 10 for 10 days in Dillingham Each 100 $ 294 $ 29,400 e Subtotal Heavy Lift Copter $ 2,409,400 Lines a-d Heavy Lift Copter Contingency @ 20% $ 481,880 Line e g Total Heavy Lift Copter Operations $ 2,891,280 Line e+f Runway & Apron Construction h Mobe I Demobe Dillingham Lump Sum 1 $ 2,460,000 $ 2,460,000 Clear and Grub Acre 29 $ 10,000 $ 290,000 Unclassified Excavation Cu. Yd 200,000 $ 22 $ 4,400,000 k Runway Structural Section Cu. Yd 120,000 $ 55 $ 6,600,000 I Borrow Cu. Yd 3,000 $ 35 $ 105,000 m Drainage Items @ 5% Lump Sum 1 $ 570,000 $ 570,000 n 30-Person Camp, Lodging, Meals Lump Sum 1 $ 4,381,000 $ 4,381,000 0 Temporary Erosion Control Measures @ 3% Lump Sum 1 $ 360,000 $ 360,000.00 p Subtotal Runway & Apron Construction $ 19,166,000 Lines h-o q Contingency Runway & Apron Construction @ 40% $ 7,666,400 Line p Construction Engineering@ 15% $ 4,030,000 Lines p+q (/))> s Total Runway & Apron Construction incl. Heavy lift Copter $ 33,760,000 Lines g,p,q,r ::r "0 (1)"0 (1) (1) ...... :::l 2 Overland Access Road Construction w Q. Ul )(' a From Dillingham Q,co Access Road Mile 120 $ 700,000 $ 84,000,000 _., I 1\.)-u Contingency Roadway Construction @50% $ 42,000,000 o-. .2. Construction Engineering @15% $ 18,900,000 (1) Q. Total Overland Road Construction from Dillingham $ 144,900,000 r OJ '< 0 c b From Bethel -..._ Access Road Mile 170 $ 700,000 $ 119,000,000 () 0 Contingency Roadway Construction @ 50% $ 59,500,000 :::l :::!1 Construction Engineering @15% $ 26,775,000 (Q c Total Overland Road Construction from Bethel $ 205,275,000 ii 5' :::l c Barge to Koliganek/Overland Road to Project Site (/) c Access Road Mile 82 $ 700,000 $ 57,400,000 Q. 15" Contingency Roadway Construction @ 50% $ 28,700,000 (/) Construction Engineering @15% $ 12,915,000 Total Barge & Road Construction from Koliganek $ 99,015,000 Temporary and Permanent Components of a Transportation Network Estimated Construction Costs by Access Alternative Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Line Access Option I Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount Notes 3 Winter Road Construction a From Dillingham Winter Road Contingency Winter Roadway Construction @ 50% Construction Engineering @15% Total Winter Road Construction from Dillingham b Barge to Koliganek/Winter Road to Project Site Access Road Contingency Roadway Construction @ 50% Construction Engineering @15% Total Barge & Winter Road Construction from Koliganek ASSUMPTIONS Mile 120 $ 400,000 $ $ $ $ Mile 82 $ 400,000 $ $ $ $ 1. Construction Cost Estimates are Unit Price Estimates in 2013 Dollars. There are no cost adjustments to anticipated construction year. 2. Construction Cost Estimates do not include Owner's costs for oversight and administration of the construction contract. 3. Construction Cost Estimates based on relevant past projects: a. Rural Airport Construction: Takotna, Akutan, Tuntutuliak, Manokotak, Nunapitchuk b. Rural Road & Bridge Construction: Aleknagik-Wood River Bridge, Dalton Highway, Allison Creek, Battle Creek, Akutan c. Winter Road Construction: Various North Slope Projects 4. Regarding the Airstrip Construction Option, the following assumptions have been made in preparing the cost estimate: 48,000,000 24,000,000 10,800,000 82,800,000 32,800,000 16,400,000 7,380,000 56,580,000 a. All the excavated material would be useable for constructing other project elements, embankment, subbase, surface courses, etc. The structural section unit price reflects the fact that not all material quantity requirements can be satisfied with project excavations and the development of a dedicated material source is likely. It is assumed that such a source would need to be developed regardless in order to construct other Project related elements, dam, coffer dam, aggregates, etc. and would be available for construction of the runway and various site access/circulation roads. b. The runway operates under restricted use and Visual Flight Rules {VFR) conditions, meaning installation of minimal lighting and navigational aids. c. Construction for the runway, apron, and associated site access/circulation roads would take two seasons. The runway could be constructed to the bottom of the runway structural section at the end of year one and the embankment left to settle/consolidate over the winter. Year two would repair any settled areas and put down the material for the structural section. The partially completed runway would be open to aircraft operation, depending on load restrictions. Construction of the site access/circulation roads would be concurrent in year two. With the runway open to aircraft, additional equipment and personnel could be brought in to complete remaining construction activities. d. The 30 person construction camp is temporary, intended to support staff necessary for the construction of the runway, apron and site access/circulation roads. Permanent housing and camp facilities would be constructed at the permanent camp pad. Camp costs reflect housing, power, equipment, food and supplies for 30 persons for 1.5 construction seasons. After that, construction staff would stay in the permanent camp. Power includes primary and backup generators and fuel. Camp Costs include 3 support staff (cook, housekeeping and maintenance). e. Two seasons for runway and site access/circulation road construction based on the provided construction equipment mix. This mix represents the minimum. Actual equipment fleet would be decided by the Contractor. More equipment could reduce construction time but increase mobe/demob costs. 5. Regarding the Overland Access Road Construction Options, the provided costs per mile reflect construction efficiencies associated with the project scale. Appendix B Page 2 of 7 November 2013 en)> ::r "0 <1>"0 (]) (]) -:::J (..) 0. m x· S.co ...... ' N-o o~ .2. (]) Q. r OJ '< 0 s. --0 0 :::J :::!1 (Q c ?l a· :::J en 2 0. (i)" Ul Tempera d Permanent Components of a Estimated Constructior ;ts for Network Roads and Supporting Elements TransporL~ ...... n Network Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Line Item Description Unit Quantity 1 Roadway 1 Construction (Runway to Camp Intersection (lntx)) Clear and Grub Acre 13 Unclassified Excavation Cu. Yd 19,000 Borrow Cu. Yd 0 Roadway Structural Section Cu. Yd 9,000 Subtotal Roadway 1 Construction 2 Roadway 2 Construction (Camp lntx to Float Plane & Boat Ramp Pad) Clear and Grub Acre 4 Unclassified Excavation Cu. Yd 25,000 Borrow Cu. Yd 0 Roadway Structural Section Cu. Yd 3,000 Subtotal Roadway 2 Construction 3 Roadway 3 Construction (Camp lntx to Powerhouse Site) Clear and Grub Acre 9 Unclassified Excavation Cu. Yd 51,000 Borrow Cu. Yd 2,000 Roadway Structural Section Cu. Yd 8,000 Subtotal Roadway 3 Construction 4 Roadway 4 Construction (lntx with Roadway 3 to Dam*) *(Includes driveway to valve) Clear and Grub Acre 6 Unclassified Excavation Cu. Yd 67,000 Borrow Cu. Yd 1,000 Roadway Structural Section Cu. Yd 6,000 Subtotal Roadway 4 Construction Unit Price $ 10,000 $ $ 22 $ $ 35 $ $ 55 $ $ $ 10,000 $ $ 22 $ $ 35 $ $ 55 $ $ $ 10,000 $ $ 22 $ $ 35 $ $ 55 $ $ $ 10,000 $ $ 22 $ $ 35 $ $ 55 $ $ endix B rdge 3 of 7 November 2013 Amount 129,262 418,000 495,000 1,042,262 35,196 550,000 165,000 750,196 94,495 1,122,000 70,000 440,000 1,726,495 59,858 1,474,000 35,000 330,000 1,898,858 (/))> :r -o ('[)-cJ ('[) ('[) -::J (...) 0.. -...J ;;;:· 8,0J ....>. I N"' 0-, .2. ('[) Q. r w '< 0 s. ..._ 0 0 ::J :::!l (0 c ?l 6' ::J (/) c 0.. Ci)' Ul Temporary and Permanent Components of a Transportation Network Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Estimated Construction Costs for Network Roads and Supporting Elements Line 5 Item Description Camp Pad (Permanent) Clear and Grub Unclassified Excavation Borrow Roadway Structural Section Subtotal Camp Pad Construction 6 Float Plane & Boat Ramp Pad (Permanent) Clear and Grub Unclassified Excavation Borrow Roadway Structural Section Dock, Ramp, Mise Items Subtotal Float Plane & Boat Ramp Pad Construction Subtotal Project Site Development/ Access Roads Contingency Project Site Development Construction @ 40% Drainage Items @ 5% Temporary Erosion Control Measures @ 3% Subtotal Project Site Development/Access Roads Construction Engineeering@ 15% Total Project Site Development Construction Costs Total Project Site Development Construction Costs (Rounded) ASSUMPTIONS Unit Acre Cu. Yd Cu. Yd Cu. Yd Acre Cu. Yd Cu. Yd Cu. Yd Lump Sum Quantity 5 6,000 8,000 14,000 5 3,000 0 1,000 1 Unit Price $ 10,000 $ 22 $ 35 $ 55 $ 10,000 $ 22 $ 35 $ 55 $ 100,000 1. Construction Cost Estimates are Unit Price Estimates in 2013 Dollars. There are no cost adjustments to anticipated construction year. 2. Construction Cost Estimates do not include Owner's costs for oversight and administration of the construction contract. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3. Roadway Structural Section unit cost reflects the assumption that the specific material layers can be derived from on-site project excavations or material site with select screening and minimal processing. Appendix B Page 4 of 7 November 2013 Amount 45,839 132,000 280,000 770,000 1,227,839 45,839 66,000 55,000 100,000 266,839 6,912,489 2,764,996 483,874 304,841 10,466,200 1,569,930 12,036,130 12,100,000 (f))> =r "0 ro-o (!) (!) -:::J w 0.. 0:> :;;:· 8,1JJ ....>. I NlJ o~ .Q. (!) n. r Ql '< 0 s. 0 0 :::J -<0. c ?l a· :::J (f) c 0.. ro· en Tempor2 ·d Permanent Components of a Tra nspon.~ .... m Network Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Estimate Duration (days)* *Based on 180 days/construction season. Construction season is from May 1 thru October 31. Cost Item Camp Mobe/Demobe to Dillingham 30-Person Camp Power 30-Person Camp Support staff of 3 Subtotal Camp Development Estimated Project Construction Staffing Contractor Equipment Operators On-Site Mechanic Oiler Project Foreman Project Engineer Grade Check/Surveyor Laborers ·- Estimated Temporary Constr Unit Each Per Person-Day Per Person-Day Per Person-Day Quantity 1 8,100 8,100 8,100 Staff (cook, housekeep, maintenance, staff) Owners Reps Project Engineer Inspector/Material Others Total ASSUMPTIONS 360 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 3 30 :m Camp Costs and Staffing Unit Price Amount $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 400 $ 3,240,000 $ 50 $ 405,000 $ 60 $ 486,000 $ 4,381,000 1. Temporary Construction Cost Estimate is in 2013 Dollars. There are no cost adjustments to anticipated construction year. 2. The 30 person construction camp is temporary, intended to support staff necessary for the construction of the runway, apron and site access/circulation roads. Permanent housing and camp facilities would be constructed at the permanent camp pad. Camp costs reflect housing, power, equipment, food and supplies for 30 persons for 1.5 construction seasons. After that, construction staff would stay in the permanent camp. Power includes orimarv and generators and fuel. Camp Costs include 3 support staff (cook, housekeeping and maintenance). 3. Number of equipment operators based on the Estimated Construction Mix. endix B Page 5 of 7 November 2013 (f))> :::r-o m-o ro m -:J wa. c.o x· a!Il -" I 1'\.llJ o~ .Q. (l) $l .._ (") 0 :J ~ c §. cr :J (f) c a. a;· (f) Temporary and Permanent Components of a Transportation Network Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 40 of 120 Appendix B Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Estimated Construction Equipment Mix EQUIPMENT Small Equipment CAT Dozer D4 CAT Excavator 316 Medium Equipment CAT Dozer D6 CAT Excavator 320 CAT Loader 950 CAT 725 Articulated Truck CAT 54B Compactor CAT 160M2 Motor Grader Total Weight to be Lifted (lbs) Total Weight to be Lifted (tons) ASSUMPTIONS OPERATING WEIGHT (lbs.) 19,000 38,000 46,150 55,000 44,000 50,000 24,000 45,500 QUANTITY Total 1 19,000 1 38,000 2 92,300 2 110,000 1 44,000 2 100,000 1 24,000 1 45,500 472,800 236 1. This estimated equipment mix represents the minimum pieces of equipment necessary to complete runway and site access roads in two construction season. 2. This equipment mix has limited redundancy in case of mechanical breakdowns or scheduled maintenance. 4. Additional equipment considerations may include additional trucks (2-CAT 725) and a second compactor/roller (CAT 54B) 5. This equipment would be available for dam and related facility construction. 6. Equipment unique to dam and related facility construction would be delivered via plane using the newly constructed runway. Page 6 of 7 November 2013 Temper 3nd Permanent Components of a Transpor Ldtion Network Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Estimated Heavy Lift Copter Operations and Costs DESCRIPTION Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Mobilization I Demobilization 1 LS $400,000 $400,000 Airlift Work 100 hrs $15,000 $1,500,000 Fuel 40,000 gal $12 $480,000 Lodging & Per Diem for crew of 10 for 10 days 100 each $294 $29,400 Subtotal $2,409,400 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Heavy lift Copter cost estimate is in 2013 Dollars. There are no cost adjustments to anticipated construction year 2. Heavy lift operations, including equipment staging and loading operations will be out of Dillingham 3. Estimate 90 air miles from Dillingham to Chikuminuk Lake Project Site for a total of 2.5 flight hours for round trip 4. Estimate 9 actual days of flying and 2 weather days for total of 10 days (90 hrs + 8hrs 5. Weather days are charged at a minimum of 4hrs/day or 8hrs for two days 6. Estimate the need to move 600,000 lbs (475,000 lbs of equipment and another 125,000 lbs of misc. other supplies, equipment, 7. Estimate moving 20,000 lbs per trip: #of trips= 30 #of flight hours= 75 cont. hrs = 16 weather hrs 8 ===== Subtotal hrs 99 Use 100 8. Estimated fuel consumption 400 gal per hour (600,000/20,000) (30 X 2.5) I ndix B Page 7 of 7 November 2013 etc. ({))> ::r '0 (!)'0 (!) (!) ..... ::;, .~>-a. ~ x· Q.ro ....>. I NIJ 0 .2. (!) Q. r Ill <§ s. 0 0 ::J :::!1 (Q c ~ o· ::J ({) c a. (i)' (/) Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 42 of 120 Internal Project Memo H342022 Nov 1, 2013 To: Dick Griffith From: Ray Trudgeon cc: Carl Mannheim Joe Earsley Eli Sanders Nuvista Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Selection of Preferred Site and Dam Alternative 1. Introduction Hatch is currently preparing the Interim Feasibility Report (Task 6.7) for the proposed Chikuminuk Lake Hydropower Project (Project), FERC No. P-14369. This objective of this report is provide an economic analyses and feasibility assessment of a hydropower development at Chikuminuk Lake and will identify the preferred project configuration such as site access, hydropower features, and transmission line routing. An intermediate step is to select a preferred dam site and dam configuration. This memorandum summarizes the decision process and ultimate selection of the preferred alternative. The dam site and configuration review included an upstream and downstream site with the review of a concrete-faced rockfill dam (CFRD) and roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam configuration at each site, for a total of four dam alternatives. Further review and refinement to the selected alternative will be performed as part of the Interim Feasibility Report. The project would be located on the Allen River which is the outlet to Chikuminuk Lake. Existing normal pool elevation of the lake is 598 ft with a surface area of about 24,640 acres, while the project would raise the lake elevation to a normal maximum pool elevation of 660 ft. The outlet of the lake is at the southeast end and is formed by the Allen River. A recessional moraine over shallow rock is located at the southeast arm of the lake and the Allen River cuts through this moraine as an approximately 60 to 80 ft deep and 100 to 150 wide U-shaped canyon. Previous feasibility studies have been performed by Harza (Harza 1984) and MWH (MWH 2011 ). The Harza 1984 study analyzed both CFRD and RCC dam configurations at the upstream site and selected the RCC alternative as the preferred alternative. The MWH 2011 study analyzed a CFRD configuration near the downstream site. The results of these studies were reviewed as part of the current study. As part of this study, R&M Consultants (R&M) performed additional survey of the project site and developed a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) which has 10-ft contour intervals. The DTM and Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 43 of 120 survey information has allowed for a more detailed review and layout of the major hydropower features and access. Layouts of the dam, spillway, diversion tunnel and cofferdams, power tunnel and powerhouse were prepared for each of the four dam alternatives. These major project features are the major items that will vary between the alternatives and help to distinguish the pros and cons of each site. Additional major project features such as site access and transmission routes were not included in this phase of the project, as they are common for each of the alternatives. Preliminary cost estimates on a unit cost basis of major project features were prepared for each alternative. These preliminary cost estimates were compared as well as additional items such as environmental concerns, aesthetics, visual impact, and hydrological considerations. Based on a comparison of these criteria the RCC Downstream alternative was selected as the preferred alternative. The methodology and basis for this selection is described below. 2. Descriptions of Alternatives 2.1 General The upstream and downstream sites are approximately 1,500 ft and 4,500 ft downstream by river of the existing lake outlet respectively. In order to maintain the same operating head between the four alternatives, the powerhouse is located in same area for each alternative, thus the diversion tunnel and power tunnel lengths are significantly different for the upstream and downstream locations. 2.2 Geology Due to permitting constraints no geologic assessment from the surface was allowed. Site geology was inferred from helicopter flyovers and photographs. From this assessment it was determined that the beds are standing on end (near vertical) and roughly parallel to the line of the tunnel as evidenced by the long stretches of the lake outlet in the legs of the "S" curves. 2.3 Tunnel The site geology requires that the tunnels should be fully supported w/ steel sets and lagging. The diversion and power tunnels have been designed as horseshoe shaped with steel sets at a 4 ft spacing. Due to the anticipated highly jointed nature and joint orientation of the bedrock for the tunnels, the power tunnel has been designed to be fully concrete lined. This type of support for the final lining will provide a decreased surface roughness, thus less friction head loss, and a more positive rock protection than an open rock surface. The diversion tunnel has been designed without concrete lining. The diameter of the diversion tunnels were designed to maintain normal depth flow for the given tunnel length and gradient. The design diversion flows for the RCC alternatives were lower than the CFRD alternatives, since the damage consequences of cofferdam overtopping for the CFRD alternatives is significantly greater. A diversion dam failure for the CFRD alternatives would likely result in the destruction of the dam under construction and create a significant construction delay. The RCC alternatives can tolerate overtopping and construction delays due to concrete cleaning and preparation would be minimized. Also, a Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 44 of 120 low level outlet pipe would be installed at the base of the RCC alternatives and could serve as a secondary dewatering measure. The power tunnels for the four dam alternatives were designed such that the head losses were relatively the same for each alternative. Steel tunnel liners have been assumed at the power tunnel outlet for each alternative, but since they were similar for each alternative the cost comparison was not included in this study. As the selected alternative is further reviewed as part of the Interim Feasibility Report, the tunnel support and lining will be reviewed. 2.4 CFRD Dam and Spillway Characteristics In a CFRD configuration the dam is composed primarily of large diameter rockfill with layers of a coarse transition material and bedding material at the upstream face to support an impervious facing of reinforced concrete. The upstream and downstream faces were designed at 1.7H:1V and 1.5H:1V respectively. A separate spillway channel through an abutment is required for the CFRD alternatives and requires a significant volume of excavation. The excavated material from the spillway would be the primarily source of fill for the dam, thus source material would be readily available and haul distances would be relatively short. The CFRD spillway is comprised of an unlined approach channel with a reinforced concrete agee spillway and stilling basin. A Type II Stilling Basin was selected based on the design head and flow using The United States Bureau of Reclamation Engineering Monograph No. 25-Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipaters. The dam and spillway for the CFRD alternatives were sized to pass the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) flow while maintaining 5 ft of freeboard at the dam. 2.5 RCC Dam and Spillway Characteristics RCC mixes are composed of less cement and fly ash than structural concrete. Since the RCC mixes are typically designed for a significantly lower compressive strength than structural concrete, RCC dams are designed to resist overturning by gravity of the dam mass. RCC dams are constructed primarily of RCC with structural concrete being utilized at the upstream face, spillway and stilling basin. The RCC mix would be delivered to the dam and concrete trucks via conveyor belts from a batch plant located at the left abutment. The RCC mix is placed and compacted using traditional earthwork construction equipment such as bulldozers and rollers. thus it doesn't require specialty equipment or labor. Another typical benefit of RCC construction is that it can be placed with relatively high efficiency. The RCC dam alternatives were designed with a vertical upstream face and a downstream face sloping at 0.8H:1V. With an RCC dam the spillway and stilling basin are integrated into the dam. A Type II Stilling Basin was also selected for the RCC alternatives. Due to the more robust structure of an RCC dam. the design freeboard while passing the PMF flow was selected as 2 ft. 2.6 RCC Dam Upstream Alternative The RCC dam at the upstream site would have a dam crest elevation of 676 ft for a dam height of approximately 86 ft. A 90 ft wide ogee spillway would be located on the dam with a crest elevation of 660 ft. The overall volume of RCC and structural concrete is approximately 19,000 CY and 6,000 CY respectively. Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 45 of 120 The diversion and power tunnels are located in the left abutment with approximate lengths of 500 ft and 2,100 ft respectively. An approximately 250 ft length of the upstream end of the permanent power tunnel will be utilized during flow diversion for dam construction. The slope of the diversion and power tunnels will be approximately 2.5%. See Appendix A for the layout of the RCC Dam Upstream Site Plan. Pros: • Reduced dam footprint and volume compared to CFRD Upstream alternative and CFRD and RCC Downstream alternative. • Shorter overall diversion tunnel length than downstream sites. • Integrated spillway so no separate spillway excavation. • Lower cost than CFRD Upstream and Downstream alternatives. • Longer power tunnel than downstream alternatives. • Approximate 4,200 length of stream dewatered between dam and powerhouse. • Dam and intake are visible from Chikuminuk Lake. • Dam site is upstream of an unnamed tributary to the Allen River, thus reducing reservoir inflow compared to downstream alternatives. • Higher cost than RCC Downstream alternative. 2.7 CFRD Upstream Alternative The CFRD dam at the upstream site would have a dam crest elevation of 676ft for a dam height of approximately 86 ft. The overall volume of fill materials is approximately 56,000 CY, while the combined structural concrete volume of the dam and spillways is approximately 10,300 CY. The agee spillway would be located on the right abutment with a crest elevation of 660 ft and crest width of 150 ft. Excavation for the spillway will be significant and as cuts are as deep as 75ft, and the overall excavation volume is approximately 260,000 CY. Separate mobilization to the right abutment would be required in order for the spillway excavation to begin and generate the required fill for the dam. The diversion and power tunnel arrangement is the same for CFRD Upstream alternative as the RCC Upstream alternative. Cofferdam heights for the CFRD Upstream alternative would be higher than the RCC Upstream alternative since it will be designed for a higher flow recurrence interval. See Appendix A for the layout of the CFRD Upstream Site Plan. • Lower volume than CFRD Downstream alternative. • Shorter overall diversion tunnel length than downstream sites. • Highest cost alternative. Appendix B Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 46 of 120 • Longer power tunnel than downstream alternatives. • Approximate 4,200 length of stream dewatered between dam and powerhouse. • Dam. spillway and intake are visible from Chikuminuk Lake. • Dam site is upstream of an unnamed tributary to the Allen River, thus reducing reservoir inflow compared to downstream alternatives. 2.8 RCC Dam Downstream Alternative At the downstream site the RCC Dam alternative would have a dam crest elevation of 676 ft for a dam height of approximately 124 ft. A 11 0 ft wide ogee spillway would be located on the dam with a crest elevation of 660 ft. The overall volume of RCC and structural concrete is approximately 35,000 CY and 8,300 CY respectively. The diversion and power tunnels are located in the left abutment with approximate lengths of 400ft and 800ft respectively. An approximately 750ft length of the upstream end of the permanent power tunnel will be utilized during flow diversion for dam construction. The slope of the diversion and power tunnels will be approximately 4.0%. See Appendix A for the layout of the RCC Dam Downstream Site Plan typical dam, and tunnel sections. • Lowest cost alternative. • Reduced dam footprint and volume compared to CFRD alternatives. • Shortest overall tunnel length of any alternative. • Integrated spillway so no separate spillway excavation. • Approximate 1,300 length of stream dewatered between dam and powerhouse is much less than upstream alternatives. • Major hydropower features not visible from Chikuminuk Lake. • Gain inflows from unnamed tributary to the Allen River that may be used for generation. • Greater RCC and structural concrete volume than RCC Upstream alternative. • Steepest tunnel gradient required for construction. 2.9 CFRD Downstream Alternative The CFRD dam at the downstream site would have a dam crest elevation of 676 ft for a dam height of approximately 124ft. The overall volume of fill materials is approximately 152,000 CY, while the combined structural concrete volume of the dam and spillways is approximately 16,100 CY. The ogee spillway would be located on the left abutment with a crest elevation of 660 ft and crest width of 150 ft. Excavation for the spillway will be significant and as cuts are as deep as 80ft, and the overall excavation volume is approximately 210,000 CY. Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 47 of 120 Due to the location of the spillway in the left abutment, the powerhouse would be located east of the spillway and further downstream than the RCC Dam Downstream alternative. This shift in powerhouse location increases the tunnel lengths, and the diversion and power tunnels lengths are approximately 600ft and 1,100 ft respectively. An approximately 800 ft length of the upstream end of the permanent power tunnel will be utilized during flow diversion for dam construction. The slope of the diversion and power tunnels will be approximately 3.5%. Cofferdam heights for the CFRD Downstream alternative would be higher than the RCC Downstream alternative since it will be designed for a higher flow recurrence interval. See Appendix A for the layout of the CFRD Downstream Site Plan. Pros: • Lower cost than CFRD Upstream alternative. • Shorter overall tunnel length than upstream alternatives. • Approximate 1 ,300 length of stream dewatered between dam and powerhouse is much less than upstream alternatives. • Major hydropower features not visible from Chikuminuk Lake. • Gain inflows from unnamed tributary to the Allen River that may be used for generation. • Higher cost than RCC Dam alternatives. • Greatest footprint and volume of any dam alternative. • Spillway is a significant excavation that is highly visible from air. 3. Cost Estimates 3.1 Unit Cost Approach and Assumptions As part of the evaluation process for the four dam alternatives, preliminary cost estimates for each alternative were prepared on a unit cost basis. The preliminary cost estimates focused only on the major hydropower items that differ significantly between the four alternatives including the dam, spillway, and diversion and power tunnel features. Preliminary quantity takeoffs were performed for these project features. Dam quantities and unit costs were developed for the excavation, concrete (Structural and RCC), and fill material. Excavation and concrete quantities and unit costs were developed for the spillways. Tunnel unit costs included excavation and concrete lining. These items are the major cost items that are likely to differ significantly between the alternatives and help to distinguish the costs. For this phase of the study and cost estimate, it was assumed that site access is by airstrip. The Lockheed C-130 (Hercules) with a payload of 48,000 lb was used as the assumed plane for air freight delivery. The overall weight of imported items was estimated for the preliminary cost items in order to determine the total number of air freight deliveries. A delivery cost of $30,000 per flight was assumed for the Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 48 of 120 preliminary cost estimate based on previous experience. Air freight delivery costs will be reviewed further during the detailed cost estimate and will involve discussion with vendors. Sample mixes for the structural concrete and RCC were developed to estimate the total weight of cement, fly ash and aggregate required. Preliminary geological assessment of the rock at the site indicate that aggregate produced on-site may have the potential of creating the damaging Alkali-Aggregate Reaction (AAR), which is also known as Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR), when used in concrete. Previously the importation of concrete aggregate had been discussed to avoid the AAR potential. However based on review of the quantity of aggregate required and costs for air freight delivery, the importation of concrete aggregate would make all alternatives cost prohibitive. AAR is a widely recognized problem and the sample mixes were designed to counteract this problem. 3.2 Structural Concrete and RCC Unit Costs Sample structural concrete and RCC mixes were determined based on previous project experience for sites of similar climate. In order to counteract the potentially reactive aggregate, the fly ash content for both mixes was kept high. The total weight cement and fly ash, which is the total cementitious materials, was determined for both concrete mixes in order to determine the number of required flights and the air freight delivery costs. The delivery cost was then added cost of cementitious materials purchased in Anchorage, which was based on previous estimates. Previous project experience was used to estimate cost of aggregate production, and concrete placement costs on a CY basis, as well as the cost of the batch plant. When the batch plant is cost is included in the concrete unit cost, the mobilization costs and operation costs spread across the volume and a slight scale of economy is realized. Reinforcement costs were included in the structural concrete unit costs and total weight of reinforcement and air freight delivery costs were estimated similar to the cementitious materials. Approximate weight of steel was estimated perCY of structural concrete. It was assumed that the amount of reinforcing steel per CY of structural concrete was slightly less for the RCC alternatives than for structural concrete used in the CFRD alternatives. This assumption was made since more CFRD features were cantilever. where structural concrete bears against the RCC dam. Also the upstream structural concrete facing of the RCC alternatives, which is a significant volume, would be minimally reinforced. The unit cost for the structural concrete lining of the tunnels was simply increased $100/CY above the cost of the structural concrete for the dam and spillway for each alternative. This assumption was based on the fact that costs for concrete in tunnels are typically greater due to increased formwork and working space and access restrictions. 3.3 Excavation and Fill Unit Costs The excavation volumes for the dam and spillways were determined using AutoCAD and checked by hand calculations. The total volume of each dam alternative was also calculated using AutoCAD and checked by hand calculations. The unit costs for excavation were based on previous project experience. Unit costs for dam excavation were estimated higher than for spillway excavation due to the steep topography at the dam site and more difficult site access. Also the spillway excavation could proceed with larger production blasting operations Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 49 of 120 than at the dam due to the topography and significantly greater volume of excavation. Similarly the fill material unit costs for the CFRD alternatives were based on previous project experience. 3.4 Tunnel Unit Costs Unit costs were developed for the excavation, which includes steel support, and concrete lining for the diversion and power tunnels. The diameter of the finished modified (straight leg) horseshoe diversion tunnel was sized for each alternative in order to maintain normal depth for the design diversion flow. The diversion tunnel diameter varies for each design alternative from 14.0' to 16.5'. A reinforced concrete liner was assumed for the power tunnels. An overbreak of 0.5 ft is assumed for the tunnels. The reinforced concrete liner for the power tunnels is estimated to extend 0.5 ft to the interior of each side of the steel sets and will encapsulate the steel sets The preliminary estimated cost of tunnel excavation was $600/CY. This estimate was based upon a previous 18-foot horseshoe tunnel for a recent bid on in Central British Columbia, and is of comparable size to the excavation required for both the diversion and power tunnels. This cost includes using type V tunnel supports (steel sets) which would be fabricated from W6x25's and installed at a 4 ft spacing for all diversion and power tunnels. Front-end loaders have been assumed for all spoils removal. An additional cost of approximately $1,000,000 would be required for mobilization of the equipment to the site, while the cost of demobilization would be slightly less. The mobilization/demobilization costs are approximately the same for all design alternatives, and were not considered in the selection process. 3.5 Preliminary Cost Estimate The development of the aforementioned unit costs allowed for the cost comparison of the four alternatives through the preliminary cost estimates. The preliminary cost estimate of the CFRD Upstream and Downstream alternatives is approximately $61 million and $56 million respectively, while the Upstream and Downstream RCC alternatives are approximately $48 million and $35 million respectively. In general the cost comparison indicates that the RCC alternatives are less costly than the CFRD alternatives significantly due to the high cost of the separate spillway, which is approximately $20 million, for the CFRD alternatives. Also, the cost comparison indicates that the increased tunnel lengths required for the upstream alternatives significantly increase the costs above the downstream alternatives. The total tunnel costs CFRD and RCC Upstream alternatives are approximately $13 million and $19 million greater than the downstream alternatives respectively. Table 1 in below provides a cost comparison summary of the four alternatives. Table 1: Cost Comparison Summary U(!stream Dam Location Concrete Faced Rockfill Roller Comoacted Concrete Item Units QuantityiUnit Cost! Cost Quantity! Unit Cost! Cost Dam I I I Excavation CY 1o,2oo I $551 $561,000 6,100 1 $551 $335,500 Struclural Concrete CY 4,400 1 $1,5001 $6,600,000 6,000 I $1,3501 $8,100,000 RCC Concrete CY I I $0 19,ooo I $4751 $9,025,000 Rock Fill CY 43,200 1 $40 1 $1,728,000 I I $0 Bedding Fill CY 3,ooo I $501 $150,000 I I $0 Transition Material Fill CY 9,600 1 $45 $432,000 $0 Dam Subtotal I I $9,471,000 I I $17,460,500 I I Spillway I I I I Excavation CY 26o,ooo I $40, $10,400,000 I I $0 Structrual Concrete CY 5,900 I $1,5001 $8,850,000 I I $0 SpillwayS ubtotal I I $19,250,000 I I $0 I I I Diversion Tunnel I I I I Excavation and Support CY 8,732 $6001 $5,239,200 8,732 I $6001 $5,239,200 Diversion Tunnel Subtotal I I $5,239,200 I I $5,239,200 I I I I Power Tunnel I I I I Excavation and Support CY 24,739 1 $600 $14,843,229 24,739 $600 $14,843,229 Concre1e Liner CY 7,316 I $1,6001 $11 '705,545 7,316 I $1,4501 $10,608,150 Power Tunnel Subtotal I $26,548,774 _l_ $25,451,379 I I I I TOTALS I 1 $so,so9,ooo I I $48,151,000 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 50 of 120 Downstream Dam Location i Concrete Faced Rockfill Roller Com(!acted Concrete Quantity 1 Unit Cost 1 Cost Quantity 1 Unit Cost 1 Cost I I I I ' 20,400 $55 $1,122,000 11,000 1 $55, $605,000 6,5oo I $1 ,35o I $8,775,000 8,3oo I $1,2501 $10,375,0001 I I $0 35,000 1 $3751 $13,125,000 126,ooo I $401 $5,040,000 I I $0 6,000 1 $50j $300,000 I I $0j 20,000 I $451 $900,000 I I $0 ! I $16,137,000 I I $24,105,000 I I I I I I I I 210,000 I $40 1 $8,400,000 I I $0 9,6oo I $1,3501 $12,960,000 I J $0 $21,360,000 $0 I I I I 9,917 I $6001 $5,950,200 3,912 I $6001 $2,346,959 I I $5,950,200 I $2,346,959 I I I I I I I I 12,369 I $6001 $7,421,400 8,996 I $6001 $5,397,600 3,658 I $1,4501 $5,304,100 2,660 I $1,350 1 $3,591,000 I I $12,725,500 I I $8,988,600 I I I i I I I I I I $56, 173,000 I I $35,441,0001 4. Selection of Preferred Alternative 4.1 Conclusions Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 51 of 120 The results of the preliminary cost estimates and alternative reviewed were presented to Nuvista during and internal team meeting on September 251h, 2013, and the RCC Downstream alternative was selected as the preferred alternative. The RCC Downstream alternative emerged as the preferred alternative for several factors including; lowest cost alternative; least visible alternative; shorter dewatered reach when compared to upstream alternatives; and the downstream location has increased reservoir inflow. Following the September 251h meeting, a peer review of the preliminary estimate of costs for the four alternatives was conducted. A memorandum summarizing the peer, unit cost review is included in Appendix B. The review suggested certain revisions to the unit costs. These revisions are reflected in Table 1. As the unit cost revisions were minor, the cost comparison rankings did not change. 4.2 Recommendations and Next Actions Although the preliminary cost estimates were performed in limited scope, only significant changes to the unit costs would likely changes the cost comparison rankings. Further features of the selected alternative, RCC Downstream, will be developed in more detail. These detailed drawings will be utilized to develop a detailed cost estimate and schedule. The detailed cost estimate will be prepared in a "Contractor" approach in which unit costs will be estimated based on labor, equipment and materials costs. It will also include all major project features which were not included as part of the alternative review and overhead costs such as the construction camp. The detailed drawing and cost estimate preparation are currently under development. Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 52 of 120 Appendix A Dam Alternative Figures no DIVERSION TUNNE L UPSTREAM PORTAL AND ~INTAKESTRUCTUR ~ ~~~00 ~ ~/ ~~ DIVERSION TUNNEL DOWN STRE o~ I FIGURE 1 CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT RCC UPSTREAM PLAN / no (j~ !? FIGURE 2 CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT CFRD UPSTREAM PLAN / -® '·~~~~ 0 700 650 ___ _ 0 800 /()0 .IQ/"""- ' 650 0 0 0 - UPSTREAM PORTAL AND ) ( ,DIVERSION TUNNEL /~?0 ~INTAKE STRUCTURE ~ ~ \ --------------6 00 UPSTREAM ---- COFFERDAM 6 -s. Oo. RCC DAM ?So SCA L ~' 0' 0 0 ACCESS ROAD 300 1"=300' ---- SWITCHYARD 600 FE ET (- t-· \ 6So POWERHOUSE \ \ DIVERSION TUNNEL DOWNSTREAM PORTAL '-----~ .~) s.so =//~------------:_-__ ._ ---=-----_ DOW NSTREAM ~~-:~~~ ,~------~ -- COFFERDAM 600 0 1 . 6 FIGURE 3 CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT RCC DOWNSTREAM PLAN DIVERSION TUNNEL /~':P UPSTREAM PORTAL AND INTAKE STRUCTURE --------"\ (j~ FIGURE4 CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT CFRD DOWNSTREAM PLAN / Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 57 of 120 Appendix B Internal Memo: Unit Cost Review Memo To: Dick Griffith From: Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 58 of 120 H342022 October 9, 2013 Eli Sanders cc: Steve Hart Nuvista Light and Power Cooperative Chikuminuk Hydro Project Unit Cost Review An internal review of the unit costs for the Chikuminuk Hydro Project ("Chikuminuk" or "Project") was undertaken by Eli Sanders and Steve Hart in the Hatch Seattle office. The unit costs under review were previously computed as part of the selection of the preferred site and dam alternative for the Project. Two dam types, Roller Compacted Concrete ("RCC") and Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam ("CFRD"), were considered at two locations for the Project with the downstream RCC location selected for further analysis due to it having the lowest total cost. This analysis seeks to evaluate the reasonableness of the unit costs which were used as the basis of selection. Different unit pricing was offered where costs appeared low or high. The unit costs derived to date are assumed to be at the pre-feasibility level. Hatch reviewed unit costs for the major Project features including the dam, spillway and tunnels. Powerhouse, turbine generator equipment, transmission line, switchyard and access costs were not reviewed. The unit costs at Chikuminuk were compared to unit costs derived for pre-feasibility level cost estimates performed for three projects which included RCC and CFRD structures as well as various other hydropower related appurtenances. Additionally, empirical formulas used to calculate RCC unit costs and historical cost databases for tunnelling and concrete lining were reviewed. In almost all cases, the Chikuminuk unit costs were between two and five times the rates that would be expected for more traditional and easily accessible project sites. Due to the remoteness of the Project and the requirement that all equipment be flown in by airplane, it is expected that unit costs at Chikuminuk would be between two and three times what would be seen at a more typically accessible sites. The one exception for the apparent accuracy of the unit rates is for the cost of the rockfill for the CFRD option. Hatch reviewed CFRD unit rates escalated to present day for a reference project in Wyoming. The reference project's rockfill quantity was approximately 45 times what is required at Chikuminuk while the unit rate used at Chikuminuk is equal to that which was used for the Wyoming project. Furthermore, the site conditions at Chikuminuk could easily multiply the Wyoming unit rate by a factor of 2 to 3. Thus, this will likely result in increased total project costs for the two CFRD dam options. Table 1 below provides a summary of the unit rates reviewed by Project feature. Table 1 -Unit Rates by Feature Chikuminuk-It U ·t A Reference1 Reference2 -Reference3 Reference4 - em "' ~~:~e -Cost Cost -Cost Cost ~-.. -- Diversion Tunnel CY $1 1. British Columbia Project; pre-feasibility study. 2. British Columbia Study of several projects. 3. Wyoming Project, feasibility study. 4. USBR tunnel cost data. $590.00 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 59 of 120 As noted in the unit pricing comparison shown in Table 1, the stated unit pricing is from about 2 times higher for dam excavation and structural concrete, which is appropriate for a site that is located in a remote Alaska location. Using an empirical formula for adjusting the unit pricing of the BC referenced project based on volume of RCC for placement, we would expect the unit pricing for RCC could be reduced in half. This assumes that indirects, construction camps and other costs missing from the estimate is estimated separately. For the CFRD, the unit pricing is low and should be increased as follows: • If the rockfill source is from the spillway excavation, then the unit pricing assumed for the Project is on the high side. If the rockfill source is to come from a quarry, then the unit price should be increased to about $40/cubic yard. • The unit pricing for the CFRD concrete is sufficiently high so long as the price does not include cement and rebar. These items should be estimated separately and added to the estimate if not included. • The proxy comparison for tunnelling unit pricing is misleading as the unit pricing is a function of the tunnel diameter. We understand that the power tunnel is about 15-ft diameter. On this basis, and assuming the location index is 2.0, the unit cost for concrete lining would be $2,750/LF. Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 60 of 120 Cement and reinforcement would need to be estimated separately. Similarly the unit pricing for excavation would be $4,650/LF. Rock support would need to be estimated separately. • The steel liner should be checked to be sure it meets the Norwegian formula for its length. The thickness would appear to be based on internal pressure as Amstutz formula for thickness from external loading would appear to be reasonably low due to low rock cover. The unit pricing appears reasonable. Certain items were not included in the cost estimate which was used as the basis for selecting the downstream RCC location. Those items not included were the low-level outlet, grouting program, mobilization, construction camp, and indirect costs. The dam structures did not include low level outlet structures, such as may be required for flushing sediment. However, we understand that a lake just upstream of the dam site will act as a sediment trap; thereby not conveying much sediment loading. Further investigation during feasibility studies will need to confirm this assumption. A low-level outlet ("LLO") has not been considered in the current cost estimate. If required, an RCC structure would more easily and inexpensively be able to incorporate a LLO structure into the body of the dam than a CFRD structure which would either require a free-standing LLO or incorporate the outlet into an abutment. The grouting program for both dam types may include 3-line curtain grouting, however, the RCC option would also require consolidation or contact grouting. This would have the effect of increasing the project cost slightly for the RCC dam options versus the CFRD options. Mobilization, construction camp and indirect costs for this level of study could be computed on a percentage basis of either the civil or total project costs. These costs would not affect the ranking of the four dam options or the ultimate selection of the downstream RCC option but would serve to substantially increase the computed total project costs. If sedimentation were to be an issue for the Project, it is likely that the CFRD option would be ruled out as it would not have the capacity to easily and cost effectively incorporate "undershoot" gates which would serve to flush sediment downstream. However, the Hatch Project Manager indicated that due to the large size of the reservoir no sedimentation issues are expected. The unit costs reviewed as part of the selection of the downstream RCC option as the preferred alternative are in line with what would be expected based on recent project experience. None of the items possibly omitted from the cost estimate nor the suggested change in the unit rate for rockfill for the CFRD option would change the comparative rankings of the four dams. This review confirms that the unit pricing is valid as computed and supports the selection of the downstream RCC option as the preferred alternative. Other design considerations for the options are: 1. As the diversion tunnel also serves as the power tunnel, the diameter of the tunnel, or power conduit should be constant or decreasing (e.g. increasing flow velocity) as the conduit reaches the unit. The power tunnel bifurcation from the diversion tunnel became a larger diameter, thereby slowing the water velocity. In this instance, the diversion tunnel was sized for meeting the 1 0-year return period in meeting the minimum tunnel size for diversion. However, the tunnel was not sized properly for power waterway requirements. The 10% headloss criteria should be Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 61 of 120 revised to be in the range of 5 to 7% and both power and diversion tunnel segments should have the same diameter until the manifold splits the conduits into the 3 or 4 turbine units. 2. The cofferdam structure shown is relatively large structure, and it may be that the structure needs to be smaller. For the RCC dam, the cofferdam could actually be an RCC structure built into the main dam. As the RCC structure will be constructed rapidly following foundation treatment, e.g. 6 to 8 weeks, it may be reasonable to limit the criteria for diversion to a 5-year return period. This would reduce the height of the cofferdam as the diversion tunnel would be sized for power tunnel flow velocity criteria. ES:es Attachment( s )/Enclosure Appendix 8 -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 62 of 120 Chikuminuk lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes Chikuminuk lake to Bethel Prepared for: Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1 ~ Prepared by: Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 3305 Arctic Blvd., Suite 201 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 and Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. 6 Nickerson Street, Suite 101 Seattle, WA 98109 April 16, 2013 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 63 of 120 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Criteria Used for Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Access .................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Terrain ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Reliability ............................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Stream Crossings ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.5 Village Visibility ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.6 Line Loss ................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.7 Construction, Operation, & Maintenance Costs ........................................................................................ 6 2.8 Land Status ............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.9 Added Revenue ...................................................................................................................................... 7 3 Evaluation of Routes .................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Access and Terrain .................................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Line Length ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Reliability ............................................................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Land Status ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.5 Transmission Construction and O&M Cost Estimates .............................................................................. 1 0 4 Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 12 4.1 Criteria Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel 1 Introduction PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 64 of 120 The purpose of this evaluation is to identify possible transmission line routes from the proposed Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project to the community of Bethel and to determine which route should be studied in more detail. This is primarily an office evaluation using United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps and Google Maps. One route "West" has been flown by helicopter to identify general soil conditions and avalanche paths. LINE CONFIGURATION The transmission line associated with this hydro facility is expected to transmit a peak of approximately 14 MW to Bethel and would conceptually require a voltage of 69 kV or 138 kV. Final design will determine which voltage is appropriate, but a 138 kV line on wooden H-structures has been assumed for this evaluation. 138 kV is a typical transmission voltage throughout Alaska and is commonly placed on wooden or steel H-structures. Transmission lines are built to a higher standard than local distribution lines and as such are more expensive to construct and normally require less maintenance. LINE ROUTES Three separate line routes into Bethel, shown in Figure 1, have been identified based on maps, agency requests, and knowledge of transmission lines in Alaska: • The North Route is east of the easterly border of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge to Aniak where it then runs southerly along the west side of the Kuskokwim River. • The North Alternative Route shares a beginning and an ending with the North Route, but takes a westerly route towards Tuluksak, staying primarily on patented or selected native lands. • The West Route into Bethel is as direct a path as possible while minimizing mountainous areas and soft soils. ENGINEERING EVALUATION The following pages present an assessment of the conditions for constructing a transmission line along the defined routes. All of the routes present significant challenges for design and construction. April2013 1 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 65 of 120 Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel N 5 10 I I I I 20 Miles I I w+• E ~ Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 4N Sources: Alaska State Geo-Spatial Data Clearinghouse data; Google map. s LEGEND Route -North(N) = North Alternate (NA) -West(W) gure 1 Alternative Chikuminuk lake I Bethel Transmission Routes April2013 * Dam/Powerhouse location e Community e Hub Community 2 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel 2 Criteria Used for Evaluation Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 66 of 120 The criteria used in this evaluation are identified in this section with a brief explanation of how they are applied. Each route is divided into segments to allow for different types of access and terrain (see Figure 2). The following criteria and comparisons are based on construction knowledge of other Alaskan transmission lines in similar locations. 2.1 Access Soft and wet soils for significant portions of any transmission line route will preclude a permanent access trail. Construction will involve large crews with specialized equipment, neither of which will be available for maintenance. For construction comparisons, each line route is divided into sections depending on the anticipated type of access. Access types are estimated to be: • Air (helicopter}-This form of access will limit any ground disturbance to the immediate vicinity of each structure. Helicopter is the most expensive form of access with poor construction efficiency. • Overland in summer-This access will utilize low ground pressure equipment for construction. Some helicopter support is expected. This access also takes advantage of the Kuskokwim River on which materials and equipment can be transported by barge during the summer months. Structure locations will be some distance from the river and summer access is not expected to be practical due to the extensive effort needed to get equipment off the river, up the steep river bank and back through the brush to reach the line. This effort would need to be done multiple times, possibly for each tower. Building the transmission line adjacent to the river is not feasible due to soft soils, steep river banks and the risk of river channel changes washing out the tower foundations. These conditions limit the ability to construct a transmission line directly from the river. • Overland in winter-This access requires adequate frost and snow cover, and ice roads for construction. Equipment suitable for travel over frozen ground will be required. During winter, frozen conditions allow the use of existing rivers and Chikuminuk Lake as a limited ice road for construction. This will allow transport of materials and equipment without ground disturbance. However, structure locations will be some distance from the rivers or lake and will require suitable ground crossing equipment. Other rivers parallel to the line route, such as the Aniak River, can be utilized in the winter to access the right-of-way, but are not expected be able to support large summer operations. Access for maintenance will be limited to helicopter and/or snow track equipment. The access criterion will compare the estimated miles of each type of construction access. April2013 3 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 67 of 120 Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel N 5 10 I I I 20 Miles I I w+• E ~ Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 4N Sources: Alaska State Geo-Spatial Data Cleari1ghouse data; National Geographic Topo! USGS 63k. s LEGEND Route -North(N) = North Alternate (NA) -West(W) * Dam/Powerhouse Location • Community • Hub Community 1gure 2 Alternative Chikuminuk Lake I Bethel Transmission Routes-Line Segment Map April2013 4 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel 2.2 Terrain Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 68 of 120 The ideal transmission line route would be placed on well-drained soils that never heave and in places where climatological loadings are minimized. However, all routes will pass through varying terrain. The following terrain types are intended to provide an overview of the impacts to design and construction: • Mountainous-This terrain is primarily rocky with minimal top soil at higher elevations. Avalanches, strong funneling winds and potential icing conditions make this terrain challenging for transmission lines. Almost any design condition can be accommodated by varying the strength capacity of the line components. However, there is no available climatological data for these areas to specifically determine design conditions. A conservative design with reasonable costs will be required. The least number of miles in this terrain is preferred. • Highlands-This terrain consists of areas with reasonably well drained soils based on map designations. It is anticipated low ground pressure equipment can be utilized in this terrain even during thawed conditions. The number of equipment crossings in an area may also be limited by permit stipulations and some air transportation of crews and materials may be required. Primarily overland travel is assumed in this terrain; therefore summer will be the most efficient construction season possible. Maximizing the route on this terrain is preferred for reliability and construction costs. • Lowlands-This terrain includes soft and wet soils with open water or muskeg. Construction in this terrain is expected to be limited to appropriate frozen conditions. Only construction during the winter using ice roads is assumed. The least number of miles in this terrain is preferred. 2.3 Reliability The purpose of a transmission facility is to provide reliable electrical power for consumption. Reliability of a transmission line is dependent on many variables, some of which are controllable and others that are not. Controllable variables include: • location of the transmission line, which will affect the climatological loadings that it will be required to withstand, such as wind and ice loading; • the soil conditions, which will impact the mechanical stability of the line; and others. For these reasons, it is better to minimize the miles of line in terrain that will reduce the reliability. For this evaluation, the reliability of each route is estimated based on the factors discussed above. Routes will be ranked first, second, and third. 2.4 Stream Crossings This criterion will tabulate the number of named rivers and streams shown on USGS maps. It is anticipated that natural buffer zones will be required at most stream crossings to minimize visual impacts. The buffer zones typically increase April2013 5 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 69 of 120 the span between structures and therefore increase construction costs. The least number of stream crossings is ..;referred. 2.5 Village Visibility The majority of most routes will not be visible from permanent buildings. This criterion only takes into account the number of villages that are adjacent to each route. It is assumed that most village residents would prefer to not have a transmission line in their visual landscape. Reducing village proximity to the transmission line is preferred. 2.6 Line Loss Electrical line loss (energy loss) is dependent on the magnitude of the load being supplied and the length of transmission line. For this comparison it is assumed the average electrical load at Bethel is 10 MW. Longer lines will have more line loss and be less efficient. 2.7 Construction, Operation, & Maintenance Costs Transmission lines are built to a higher standard than local distribution lines and as such are more expensive to construct and normally require less maintenance. The following construction, operation and maintenance costs criteria are evaluated: • Construction -In simplified terms, construction of a transmission line consists of the following items: equipment needed to transport and construct the materials, transportation of equipment and crews to and from the jobsite, and conditions under which a crew can work most efficiently. Access and terrain types along each alignment will dictate different construction methods from helicopters in the mountains, low ground pressure equipment in the highlands, and ice roads in the lowlands. This project is large in terms of Alaska transmission lines and with a limited work force will require multiple seasons to construct. Construction cost will reflect all of these variables and will be substantially different for each route alternative. The major cost difference between the alternative routes will be the length of the line. • Operations-Transmission lines are constructed to operate continuously for at least 50 years and often last longer. The components of the transmission line are all designed for long life with no operational requirement. Operation is primarily limited to the substation equipment installed at the terminuses. Substation equipment at Chikuminuk Lake is expected to be designed for remote operation but will require regular visits by personnel. Bethel will use substation personnel for regular operation. Operation is not expected to be different for the alternative routes unless more substations are added. • Maintenance-Construction of this transmission line is typical of many other Alaskan lines that will mobilize large crews and specialized equipment such as heavy lift helicopters. Once construction is complete, all of this special equipment will leave the state and will not be available for line maintenance. Because ofthe high reliability of the lines, they seldom require major repairs. It is expected that small helicopters and snow track equipment will normally be available and adequate for most maintenance activities. However, if incidents such as an avalanche cause major damage to the line it will require a contracted operation for repair and will result in an extended service interruption. Refined maintenance costs will need to be determined after construction and are generally proportional to the miles of line. Maintenance costs for this report will be proportional to costs of construction. April2013 6 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel 2.8 Land Status Appendix B Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 70 of 120 This criterion will tabulate the miles of each route within the categories of land ownership such as Native, State, and Federal. A preliminary assessment of land status is reflected in Figure 3 in Section 3.4. 2.9 Added Revenue From Adjacent Village Loads Assuming 14 MW peak is provided by the hydroelectric plant (size subject to further study), it is expected that after a short period of time this capacity will be completely utilized by the load in Bethel and adjacent villages. The northern transmission line routes would pass near additional villages. Added revenue from additional villages will not be possible because of the limited capacity. April2013 7 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel 1 Evaluation of Routes Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 71 of 120 Following is an engineering comparison of the three possible line routes from the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project to the load center at Bethel based on the Construction Comparison Matrix and a general understanding of the area. 3.1 Access and Terrain For comparison purposes each route has been divided into segments representing different methods of access and terrain and detailed in Table 3-1 below. Mountainous terrain on each route is classified according to miles above 1000 ft in elevation and highest elevation along the route. This is important to identify relative reliability risk and construction costs. Data is from line routes drawn on USGS 1:250,000 scale maps and Google Map and shown in Figure 2. • Air access is assumed in mountainous areas which will dictate expensive construction methods. The North Route is 77 miles, North Alt. Route is 96 miles and West Route is 47 miles. Only avalanche paths in the West Route have been field confirmed with 29 noted paths in the 47 miles. The North Route traverses the same mountain range and, assuming the number of avalanche paths is proportional to total length, is expected to have more avalanche paths. The North Alt. Route crosses additional mountain terrain as it traverses westerly. This area has many north-facing slopes and is, therefore, expected to have more avalanche paths than what would be expected with additional line length. • Overland access allowed in summer will be the most economical construction method. The North Route has 38 miles of overland access allowed in summer, North Alt. has no miles and West Route has 43 miles. • Overland winter access will require some form of ground cover for transportation of heavy pile driving equipment. It is assumed an ice road is the most practical for this work. Construction and maintenance of an ice road is weather dependent. Adequate frost penetration and continuous cold weather are required. Weather in the Bethel area could be problematic for full winter season construction. The winter construction season with adequate ice and snow cover would potentially not begin until January and would end in early March. The North Route has 105 miles of overland access allowed in winter, North Alt. Route has 91 miles and the West Route has 46 miles. Table 3-1 Access and Terrain Comparison ROUTE NORTH NORTH ALT. WEST ACCESS Air (helicopter) 1N-51mi. 1NA-51mi. 1W-17mi. 2N-26mi. 2NA-45mi. 2W-30mi. Overland-Summer 3N-38mi. 3W-43mi. Overland-Winter 4N-58mi. 3NA-44mi. 4W-46mi. 5N-47mi. 4NA-47mi. TERRAIN Mountainous 1N-max. 1395' 1NA-max. 1395' 1 W-max. 1614' 1N-30mi.>1,000' 1NA-30mi.>1,000' 1W-3mi.>1,000' 2N-max. 1023' 2NA-max. 1965' 2W-max. 2068' 2N-2mi.>1,000' 2NA-23mi.>1,000' 2W-22mi.>1,000' April2013 8 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 72 of 120 Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel Highlands Lowlands 3.2 Line Length 3N-max. 409' 4N-max. 695' 5N-max. 50' 3NA-max. 349' 4NA-max. 50' 3W-max. 1482' 3W-32mi.> 1000' 4W-max. 578' Each additional mile of line length adds to the complexity of designing, constructing, and maintaining a transmission line, including the following: • Increased exposure to damaging climatological conditions • Increased exposure to avalanche damage in mountainous terrain • more ground disturbance • additional stream crossings • additional general construction impacts • additional operational impacts due to inspections • additional maintenance impacts • additional materials installed • additional costs for construction, operation and maintenance Anticipated total line lengths are: North Route 220 miles, North Alt. Route 187 miles, and West Route 136 miles. 3.3 Reliability This transmission line will not be part of an electrical grid but will be a single radial line. Any disturbance to the transmission line will result in an outage to Bethel. The following conditions will improve the overall line reliability: • Less miles reduces the number of towers and conductor • Less miles in poor soil conditions improves the long-term stability of towers • Less potential avalanche paths reduces risk of line damage due to avalanches • Less miles at higher elevations reduces risk of "in-cloud-icing" events. On the western Alaska coastline, with its proximity to the ocean, icing occurs in the 700-800' elevation range. Interior Alaska experiences this type of icing at about 2000' elevation. There is no available data for icing in the Kuskokwim region and the best estimate is that the icing elevation will occur somewhere in between the western coast and interior elevations at elevations above 1000 ft. • Less miles in mountainous terrain reduces severe winds, avalanche and icing conditions, which are more prevalent in mountainous terrain • Based on the above conditions the North Route is expected to be the least reliable. The North Alt. will be the next least reliable route and the West Route the most reliable. 3.4 Land Status For comparison purposes the land ownership along each route has been investigated on a large scale basis and is shown in Table 3-2 and Figure 3 below. Acquisition time and cost of an easement for the transmission line will not be the same for each route. Easements across state lands will follow a normal permitting process. Lands under other ownership may require additional effort possibly including the following: April2013 9 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 73 of 120 • Federal Refuge lands will require compliance with ANILCA Title XI Transportation and Utility Systems in and across conservation system units. This will impact both the North Alt. (25 miles) and the West (57miles). • State Park lands will require modification of the Management Plan. This will impact all routes: North & North Alt (33 miles) and West (19miles). • Native corporation lands will require compliance in accordance with Federal and State acquisition laws. This would impact the North (121 miles), North Alt. (69 miles) and West (29 miles). • It is anticipated Native Allotments will also be impacted by easement acquisition in accordance with Title 25 USC. Historically, easements through allotments have required additional time for acquisition. The number of allotments is expected to be proportional to the miles of line on Native Corporation and Native Allotments lands on each route: North (121 miles), North Alt. (69 miles) and West (29 miles). Table 3-2 Land Status Ownership along each Proposed Route ROUTE NORTH NORTH ALT. WEST LAND STATUS BLM 12 miles DPOR Wood-Tikchik 33 miles 33 miles 19 miles NATIVE 121 miles 69 miles 29 miles STATE OF ALASKA 66 miles 48 miles 31 miles USFWS 22 miles 57 miles USFWS-VILLAGE SELECTED 3 miles 3.5 Transmission Construction and O&M Cost Estimates The estimated range of direct construction cost for each route is provided in Appendix A. The costs are provided only for comparing alternatives and based on information obtained in a largely tabletop investigation. These costs cannot be assumed as applicable to budgeting or any other purposes outside this report. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are expected to be a percentage of construction cost and will therefore have the same relative comparison. April2013 10 Chikuminuk lake Hydroelectric Project Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 74 of 120 Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes -Chikuminuk lake to Bethel Figure 3 April2013 5 10 20 Miles I I I I I ROUTE Land Status -North -BlM -North Alternate DPOR Wood-Tlkctuk State Pllllt ---wm -N~ -State at Alaska -USFWS USFWS.VSEL Alternative Chikuminuk Lake I Bethel Transmission Routes-Land Status 11 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel Summary and Conclusion 4.1 Criteria Evaluation Matrix Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 75 of 120 The Criteria Evaluation Matrix, Table 4-1, is based on interpretation of USGS maps and Google Maps. The types of construction methods required by access and terrain are based on engineering judgment of similar transmission lines in Alaska. Table 4-1 Criteria Evaluation Matrix ROUTE COMPARISON NORTH NORTH ALT. WEST ACCESS SUMMARY <2> Air less is better 77 miles 47 ... Overland-Summer more is better ..... Overland-Winter less is better TOTAL MILES less is better 187 miles TERRAIN SUMMARY <3> Mountainous -summer const. less is better 77 miles Maximum elevation less is better 1395' Miles> 1,000' less is better 32 miles Highlands summer const. more is better 38 miles Maximum elevation less is better 409' Miles> 1,000' less is better Lowlands -winter const. less is better RELIABILITY first is best STREAM CROSSINGS less is better VILLAGE VISIBILITY less is better APPROX. LINE LOSS less is better {lOMW load at Bethel) EST. RANGE CONST. COST $M less is better 206-268 Notes: Colored bars only compare within each criterion (green is best, yellow is next and red is worst). For example: West is shortest route for Air criterion. <2> Access is a gross interpretation of soil conditions based on USGS Maps and Google Map <3> More severe icing conditions will exist at higher elevations. An arbitrary elevation of 1,000' is selected. 4.2 Conclusion Three separate transmission line routes were identified based on maps, agency requests and knowledge of best ransmission route selection for Alaskan conditions. Alternatives were segmented into terrain and access types for nstruction and O&M expenses. Finally, a range of construction costs were developed for each alternative. April2013 12 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel Appendix 8-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 76 of 120 Based on the comparisons noted in Section 3 and summarized in Table 4.1, the West Route is the most reasonable choice. The estimated costs shown in Section 3 are only for the direct construction of the transmission line itself. The North and North Alt. routes will add between 50% and 70% more to the financed cost of power in Bethel as compared to the West Route. This impact will significantly burden the project feasibility. This analysis did not consider other possible impacts such as environmental; however many environmental impacts are a function of miles of line. The longer line routes generally result in more environmental impacts. This again supports the West Route because of its considerably shorter line length. April2013 13 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 77 of 120 Appendix A-Detailed Construction Cost Estimates April2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 78 of 120 The following pages explain the development of the construction cost estimates for the alternative line routes. • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS-show material and labor estimates for major line components for tr three types of access and terrain: Air, Overland Summer and Overland Winter • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS-using Detail Sheets the components are combined into units, for example line sections with average for structures, foundations, and miscellaneous • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS-using ESTIMATE UNIT SHEETS additional costs such as mobilization/demobilization are added to the typical line sections • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY using the TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS SHEETS cost per mile of each type of construction, a summary table is shown CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS Unit Cost Unit Air (Helicopter} (Mountainous} Qnty Materials Mult. Material Tangent Wood 138kV H-Frame, 1000 ft. Insulator Strings 3 $600 1.10 $660 70' Wood H-Frame 1 $8,000 1.10 $8,800 Large Angle/DE Woad 13BkV, 3 pole Insulator Strings 6 $700 1.10 $770 80' Single poles 3 $10,000 1.10 $11,000 Small/Medium Angle Wood 138kV, 3 pole Insulator Strings 3 $600 1.10 $660 80' Single poles 3 $8,000 1.10 $8,800 Driven Pile 1 1.10 Rock Foundations 1 1.10 Drake Conductor (1,000') 3 $1,500 1.10 $1,650 Crew Hr Material Crew $ Hr $1,980 1 $8,800 8 $4,620 2 28 $1,980 1 $26,400 22 4 10 $4,950 7 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configurati,...., Studies Sheet 79 of 120 Labor Unit Labor Mult. Labor $Labor Total $1,200 1.30 $1,560 $4,680 $6,660 $9,600 1.30 $12,480 $2,400 1.30 $3,120 $18,720 $23,340 $33,600 1.30 $43,680 $164,040 $1,200 1.30 $1,560 $4,680 $6,660 $26,400 1.30 $34,320 $129,360 1.30 1.30 $8,400 1.30 $10,920 $32,760 $37,710 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 80 of 120 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS Unit Cost Unit $ Crew Hr Labor Unit Overland Summer (Highlands) Qnty Materials Mult. Material Material Labor Mult. Labor $Labor Total Tangent Wood 138kV H-Frame, 1000 ft. Insulator Strings 3 $600 1.00 $600 $1,800 1 $1,200 1.00 $1,200 $3,600 $5,400 70' Wood H-Frame 1 $8,000 1.00 $8,000 $8,000 6 $7,200 1.00 $7,200 $7,200 S15,2oo $9,800 $10,800 $20,600 Large Angle/DE Wood 138kV. 3 pole Insulator Strings 6 $700 1.00 $700 $4,200 2 $2,400 1.00 $2,400 $14,400 $18,600 80' Single poles 3 $10,000 1.00 $10,000 S3o,ooo 22 $26,400 1.00 $26,400 S79,2oo $109,200 $34,200 $93,600 Small/Medium Angle Wood 138k'v_ 3 pole Insulator Strings 3 $600 1.00 $600 $1,800 1 $1,200 1.00 $1,200 $3,600 $5,400 80' Single poles 3 $8,000 1.00 $8,000 S24,ooo 16 $19,200 1.00 $19,200 S57,600 $81,600 $25,800 $61,200 Driven Pile 1 $3,600 1.00 $3,600 $3,600 3 $3,600 1.00 $3,600 $3,600 $7,200 Rock Foundations 1 $5,000 1.00 $5,000 $5,000 6 $7,200 1.00 $7,200 $7,200 $12,200 Drake Conductor (1,000') 3 $1,500 1.00 $1,500 $4,500 5 $6,000 1.00 $6,000 $18,000 $22,500 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS Unit Cost Unit $ Overland Winter (Lowlands) Qnty Materials Mult. Material Material Tangent Wood 138kV H-Frame, 1000 ft. Insulator Strings 3 $600 1.10 $660 $1,980 70' Wood H-Frame 1 $8,000 1.10 $8,800 $8,800 $10,780 Large Angle/DE Wood 138kV, 3 pole Insulator Strings 6 $700 1.10 $770 $4,620 80' Single poles 3 $10,000 1.10 $11,000 ~33,000 $37,620 Small/Medium Angle Wood 138kV, 3 pole Insulator Strings 3 $600 1.10 $660 $1,980 80' Single poles 3 $8,000 1.10 $8,800 ~26,400 $28,380 Driven Pile 1 $3,600 1.10 $3,960 $3,960 Rock Foundations 1 $5,000 1.10 $5,500 $5,500 Drake Conductor (1,000') 3 $1,500 1.10 $1,650 $4,950 Crew Hr Labor 1 $1,200 8 $9,600 2 $2,400 28 $33,600 1 $1,200 22 $26,400 4 $4,800 10 $12,000 7 $8,400 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configurat;~., Studies Sheet81 of120 Labor Unit Mult. Labor $Labor Total 1.20 $1,440 $4,320 $6,300 1.20 $11,520 ~11,520 ~20,320 $15,840 $26,620 1.20 $2,880 $17,280 $21,900 1.20 $40,320 ~120,960 $153,960 $138,240 1.20 $1,440 $4,320 $6,300 1.20 $31,680 ~95,040 $121,440 $99,360 1.20 $5,760 $5,760 $9,720 1.20 $14,400 $14,400 $19,900 1.10 $9,240 $27,720 $32,670 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS Air (Helicopter) (Mountainous) lN & 2N = 77 miles Unit Material Cost Tangent Structure 249 ea $10,780 DE/large Angle 40 ea Medium 50 ea Pipe Pile Fdn 0 ea $3,960 Rock Foundations 519 ea $5,500 crkt Cond. Drake 77 mi $26,136 OPGW 77 mi $12,000 OHSW 77 mi $2,800 Grounding 339 ea $150 Dampers 1017 ea $50 Aerial Balls/Bird 681 ea $400 Structure 339 ea Clearing 0 mi $0 Material & Labor labor Cost Cost $17,160 $27,940 $6,240 $10,200 $15,600 $21,100 $172,973 $199,109 $22,000 $34,000 $18,000 $20,800 $500 $650 $600 $650 $2,000 $2,400 $30,000 $30,000 Total Cost $6,957,060 $0 $10,950,900 $15,331,378 $2,618,000 $1,601,600 $220,350 $661,050 $1,635,336 $0 $54,492,224 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 82 of 120 Mtl. Cost lbr. Cost Str. $16,543 $46,151 Fnd. $5,500 $15,600 Misc. $20,321 $70,026 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS Air (Helicopter) (Mountainous) Example-Section 2W= 30 miles Material Qty Unit Cost Tangent Structure 96 ea $10,780 DE/Large Angle 12 ea $37,620 Medium Angle 24 ea $28,380 Rock Foundations 204 ea $5,500 crkt Cond. Drake 30 mi $26,136 OPGW 30 mi $12,000 OHSW 30 mi $2,800 Grounding 132 ea $150 Dampers 396 ea $50 Aerial Balls/Bird 265 ea $400 Structure Signs 132 ea $150 Clearing 0 mi $0 Material & Labor Cost Labor Cost Total Cost $17,160 $27,940 $2,682,240 $149,760 $187,380 $2,248,560 $107,640 $136,020 $3,264,480 $15,600 $21,100 $4,304,400 $172,973 $199,109 $5,973,264 $22,000 $34,000 $1,020,000 $18,000 $20,800 $624,000 $500 $650 $85,800 $600 $650 $257,400 $2,000 $2,400 $636,768 $500 $650 $85,800 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $21,182,712 Str. Fnd. Misc. Appendix B -Project Layout I Configurati~.., Studies Sheet 83 of 120 Avg Mtl. Cost Avg Lbr Cost $16,420 $45,665 $5,500 $15,600 $20,318 $70,008 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS Overland Summer (Highlands) Example-Section 3W= 43 miles Material Qty Unit Cost Tangent Structure 138 ea $9,800 DE/Large Angle 22 ea $34,200 Medium Angle 30 ea $25,800 Pile Foundations 294 ea $3,600 Cond. Drake 43 crkt mi $23,760 OPGW 43 mi $12,000 OHSW 43 mi $2,800 Grounding 190 ea $150 Dampers 570 ea $50 Aerial Balls/Bird 382 ea $400 Structure Signs 190 ea $150 Clearing 0 mi $0 Material & Labor Cost Labor Cost $10,800 $20,600 $93,600 $127,800 $61,200 $87,000 $3,600 $7,200 $95,040 $118,800 $22,000 $34,000 $18,000 $20,800 $500 $650 $600 $650 $2,000 $2,400 $500 $650 $30,000 $30,000 Total Cost $2,842,800 Str. $2,811,600 $2,610,000 $2,116,800 Fnd. $5,108,400 $1,462,000 $894,400 Misc. $123,500 $370,500 $916,560 $123,500 $0 $19,380,060 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 84 of 120 Avg Mtl. Avg Lbr. Cost Cost $15,152 $28,345 $3,600 $3,600 $20,341 $70,135 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS Overland Winter (Lowlands) Example-Section 3N,4N,5N,3NA,4NA,4W Material Qty Unit Cost Tangent Structure 121 ea $10,780 DE/Large Angle 20 ea $37,620 Medium Angle 27 ea $28,380 Pile Foundations 262 ea $3,960 Cond. Drake 38 crkt mi $26,136 OPGW 38 mi $12,000 OHSW 38 mi $2,800 Grounding 168 ea $150 Dampers 504 ea $50 Aerial Balls/Bird 338 ea $400 Structure Signs 168 ea $150 Clearing 16 mi $0 Ice Road 38 mi $0 3N=38miles Material & Labor Cost Labor Cost $15,840 $26,620 $138,240 $175,860 $99,360 $127,740 $5,760 $9,720 $146,362 $172,498 $22,000 $34,000 $18,000 $20,800 $500 $650 $600 $650 $2,000 $2,400 $500 $650 $30,000 $30,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Cost $3,221,020 Str. $3,517,200 $3,448,980 $2,546,640 Fnd. $6,554,909 $1,292,000 $790,400 Misc. $109,200 $327,600 $810,432 $109,200 $480,000 $5,700,000 $28,907,581 Appendix 8 -Project Layout I Configurat; -Studies Sheet 85 of 120 Avg Mtl. Cost Avg Lbr. Cost $16,804 $43,834 $3,960 $5,760 $20,344 $232,783 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS Section lN & 2N Air (Helicopter) (Mountainous) 77 miles Description Qty Unit Material Cost Labor Cost Structures 339 ea $16,543 $46,151 Foundations 519 ea $5,500 $15,600 Conductor 77 crkt mi $26,136 $172,973 Other* 39 crkt mi $20,321 $70,026 Subtotal Mob/Demob @10% Helicopter Construction Cost adder @ 25% Contingency @20% Total Estimated Total Construction Cost Average Cost per Mile *Includes: OH ground & fiber, ground, dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, signs, clearing Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 86 of 120 Material & Labor Cost Total Cost $62,694 $21,253,260 $21,100 $10,950,900 $199,109 $15,331,378 $90,347 $3,523,516 $51,059,054 $5,105,905 $14,041,240 $14,041,240 $84,247,439 $1,094,123 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS Section 2W Air (Helicopter) (Mountainous) 30 miles Description Qty Unit Material Cost Structures 132 ea $16,420 Foundations 204 ea $5,500 Conductor 30 crkt mi $26,136 Other* 30 crkt mi $20,318 Subtotal Mob/Demob @10% Helicopter Construction Cost adder @ 25% Contingency @20% Total Estimated Total Construction Cost Average Cost per Mile * Includes: OH ground & fiber, ground, dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, signs, clearing Labor Cost $45,665 $15,600 $172,973 $70,008 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configurat; -Studies Sheet 87 of 120 Material & Labor Cost Total Cost $62,085 $8,195,280 $21,100 $4,304,400 $199,109 $5,973,264 $90,326 $2,709,768 $21,182,712 $2,118,271 $5,825,246 $5,825,246 $34,951,4 75 $1,165,049 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS Section 3W Overland Summer 43 miles Description Qty Unit Material Cost Labor Cost Structures 346 ea $15,152 $28,345 Foundations 294 ea $3,600 $3,600 Conductor 43 crkt mi $23,760 $95,040 Other* 30 crkt mi $20,341 $70,135 Subtotal Mob/Demob @8% Helicopter support adder @5% Contingency @20% Total Estimated Total Construction Cost Average Cost per Mile * Includes: OH ground & fiber, ground, dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, signs, clearing Appendix 8 -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 88 of 120 Material & Labor Cost Total Cost $43,497 $15,049,907 $7,200 $2,116,800 $118,800 $5,108,400 $90,476 $2,714,274 $24,989,382 $1,999,151 $1,349,427 $5,667,592 $34,005,551 $790,827 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS Section 3N ~- Overland Winter 38 Description Qty Unit Material Cost labor Cost Structures 168 ea $16,804 $43,834 Foundations 262 ea $3,960 $5,760 Conductor 38 crkt mi Other* 38 crkt mi $20,344 $232,783 Subtotal Mob/Demob @10% Helicopter Support @5% Contingency @20% Total Estimated Total Construction Cost Average Cost per Mile * Includes: OH ground & fiber, ground, dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, signs, clearing Appendix 8-Project Layout I Configurati""' Studies Sheet 89 of 120 Material & Labor Cost Total Cost $60,638 $10,187,200 $9,720 $2,546,640 $172,498 $6,554,909 $253,127 $9,618,832 $28,907,581 $2,890,758 $1,589,917 $6,677,651 $40,065,907 $1,054,366 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Alternative Description North Air= 77 miles, Overland-Summer= 38 miles, Overland Winter= 105 miles North Alternate Air= 96 miles, Overland-Winter= 91 miles West Air= 47 miles, Overland-Summer= 43 miles, Overland Winter= 46 miles low $227,800,000 $206,200,000 $136,800,000 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 90 of 120 High $273,360,000 $268,060,000 $149,600,000 Based on the values from the previous pages, the following section costs are used to develop the route costs above. Air $1,200,000 per mile Overland-Summer $800,000 per mile Overland-Winter $1,000,000 per mile Existing Road $600,000 per mile Note: These are only construction costs and do not include other costs such as: Design, Owners Cost, Permitting, Environmental Compliance, etc. Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 91 of 120 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham Prepared for: Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. I ~ Prepared by: Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 3305 Arctic Blvd., Suite 201 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 and Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. 6 Nickerson Street, Suite 101 Seattle, WA 98109 October 2013 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 92 of 120 Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Criteria Used for Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Access .................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Terrain ................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Reliability ............................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Stream Crossings ..................................................................................................................................... & 2.5 Village Visibility ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.6 Line loss ................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.7 Construction, Operation, & Maintenance Costs ........................................................................................ & 2.8 land Status ............................................................................................................................................. 7 3 Evaluation of Routes .................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Access and Terrain .................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 line length ............................................................................................................................................. 8 3.3 Reliability ....................... ~ ...................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 land Status ............................................................................................................................................. 8 3.5 Transmission Construction and O&M Cost Estimates ................................................................................ 9 4 Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 12 4.1 Criteria Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 1" Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham 1 Introduction PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION Appendix B-Project Layout f Configuration Studies Sheet 93 of 120 The purpose of this evaluation is to identify possible transmission line routes from the proposed Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project to the community of Dillingham and to determine which route should be studied in more detail. This is an office evaluation using United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps and Google Maps. LINE CONFIGURATION The transmission line associated with this hydro facility is expected to transmit a peak of approximately 4 MW to Dillingham. This is comparable to the present peak load of the utility, but does not consider possible seasonal fisheries loads that are presently supplied from self-generation. Based on a 4MW load and the length of the line routes a conceptual voltage of 69 kV is selected. Final design will determine the appropriate voltage, but a 69 kV line on wooden poles has been assumed for this evaluation. 69 kV is a typical transmission voltage throughout Alaska and is commonly placed on wooden poles. LINE ROUTES Two separate line routes into Dillingham, shown in Figure 1, have been identified based on maps, agency requests, and knowledge of transmission lines in Alaska: • The South Route crosses the northern portion of the Wood-Tikchik State Park for approximately 23 miles and then parallels outside the eastern boundary of the Park to the south for approximately 77 miles. The route follows the existing roadway for 19 miles from Aleknagik into Dillingham. • The South Loop Route crosses the northern portion of the Wood-Tikchik State Part for approximately 23 miles and then proceeds southeasterly for approximately 40 miles to the Nushagak River. It then generally parallels the river for approximately 69 miles into Aleknagik where it joins the South Route into Dillingham. This route will allow the transmission line to possibly supply several local villages. ENGINEERING EVALUATION The following pages present an assessment of the conditions for constructing a transmission line along the defined routes. Both of the routes present significant challenges for design and construction. October 2013 1 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 94 of 120 Figure 1 Alternative Chikuminuk Lake I Dillingham Transmission Routes October 2013 2 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham 2 Criteria Used for Evaluation Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 95 of 120 The criteria used in this evaluation are identified in this section with a brief explanation of how they are applied. Each route is divided into segments to allow for different types of access and terrain (see Figure 2). The following criteria and comparisons are based on construction knowledge of other Alaskan transmission lines in similar locations. 2.1 Access Soft and wet soils for significant portions of any transmission line route will preclude a permanent access trail. Construction will involve large crews with specialized equipment, neither of which will be available for maintenance. For construction comparisons, each line route is divided into sections depending on the anticipated type of access. Access types are estimated to be: • Air (helicopter)-This form of access will limit any ground disturbance to the immediate vicinity of each pole. Helicopter is the most expensive form of access with poor construction efficiency. • Overland in summer -This access will utilize low ground pressure equipment for construction. Some helicopter support is expected particularly to transport crews. This access may also take advantage of the various lakes of the Wood-Tikchik Park for material transport if it is acceptable. The specialized equipment for this access will allow movement across softer soils and be functional in the forested areas with higher ground. Because of the advantages of summer construction, this form of access is more efficient than others. The existing road from Dillingham to Aleknagik will also be available for construction • Overland in winter-This access requires adequate frost and snow cover, and ice roads for construction. Equipment suitable for travel over frozen ground will be required. During winter, frozen conditions allow the use of existing rivers as a limited ice road for construction. This will allow transport of materials and equipment without ground disturbance. However, pole locations will be some distance from the rivers and will require suitable ground crossing equipment. Maintaining an ice road during the winter season may be difficult in this semi-maritime climate and will be highly dependent on the particular winter conditions. This form of access is expensive because of the extra cost of ice road construction and maintenance as well as winter working conditions. Access for maintenance will be limited to helicopter and/or snow track equipment. The access criterion will compare the estimated miles of each type of construction access. October 2013 3 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 96 of 120 Figure 2 Alternative Chikuminuk Lake I Dillingham Transmission Routes-Line Segment Map Octo~rW13 4 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham ~.2 Terrain Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 97 of 120 The ideal transmission line route would be placed on well-drained soils that never heave and in places where climatological loadings are minimized. However, all routes will pass through varying terrain that do not match the ideal. The following terrain types are intended to provide an overview of the impacts to design and construction: • Mountainous-This terrain is primarily rocky with minimal top soil at higher elevations. Avalanches, strong funneling winds and potential icing conditions make this terrain challenging for transmission lines. Almost any design condition can be accommodated by varying the strength capacity of the line components. However, there is no available climatological data for these areas to specifically determine design conditions. A conservative design with reasonable costs will be required. The least number of miles in this terrain is preferred. • Highlands-This terrain consists of areas with reasonably well drained soils based on map designations. It is anticipated low ground pressure equipment can be utilized in this terrain even during thawed conditions. The number of equipment crossings in an area may also be limited by permit stipulations and some air transportation of crews and materials will be required. Primarily overland travel is assumed in this terrain; therefore summer will be the most efficient construction season possible. Maximizing the route on this terrain is preferred for reliability and construction costs. • Lowlands-This terrain includes soft and wet soils with open water or muskeg. Construction in this terrain is expected to be limited to appropriate frozen conditions. Only construction during the winter using ice roads is assumed. The least number of miles in this terrain is preferred. 2.3 Reliability The purpose of a transmission facility is to provide reliable electrical power for consumption. Reliability of a transmission line is dependent on many variables, some of which are controllable and others that are not. Controllable variables include: • location of the transmission line, which will affect the climatological loadings that it will be required to withstand, such as wind and ice loading; • the soil conditions, which will impact the mechanical stability of the line; and others. For these reasons, it is better to minimize the miles of line in terrain that will reduce the reliability. For this evaluation, the reliability of each route is estimated based on the factors discussed above. Routes will be compared and ranked first or second. October 2013 5 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes Chikuminuk Lake to 2.4 Stream Crossings Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 98 of 120 This criterion will tabulate the number of named rivers and streams shown on USGS maps. It is anticipated that natural buffer zones will be required at most stream crossings to minimize visual impacts. The buffer zones typically increase the span between poles and therefore increase construction costs. The least number of stream crossings is preferred. 2.5 Village Visibility The majority of the routes will not be visible from permanent buildings. This criterion only takes into account the number of villages that are adjacent to each route. It is assumed that most village residents would prefer to not have a transmission line in their visual landscape. Reducing village proximity to the transmission line is preferred. 2.6 Line Loss Electrical line loss (power loss) is dependent on the magnitude of the load being supplied and the transmission line characteristics. For this comparison it is assumed the average electrical load at Dillingham is 4 MW. Longer lines will have more line loss and be less efficient. 2. 7 Construction, Operation, & Maintenance Costs Transmission lines are built to a higher standard than local distribution lines and as such are more expensive to construct and normally require less maintenance. The following construction, operation and maintenance costs criteria are evaluated: • Construction -In simplified terms, construction of a transmission line consists of the following items: equipment needed to transport and construct the materials, transportation of equipment and crews to and from the jobsite, and conditions under which a crew can work most efficiently. Access and terrain types along each alignment will dictate different construction methods from helicopters in the mountains, low ground pressure equipment in the highlands, and ice roads in the lowlands. This project is large in terms of Alaska transmission lines and with a limited work force will require multiple seasons to construct. Construction cost will reflect all of these variables and will be substantially different for each route alternative. The major cost difference between the alternative routes will be the length of the line. • Operations-Transmission lines are constructed to operate continuously for at least 50 years and often last longer. The components of the transmission line are all designed for long life with no operational requirement. Operation is primarily limited to the substation equipment installed at the terminuses. Substation equipment at Chikuminuk Lake is expected to be designed for remote operation but will require regular visits by personnel. Dillingham will have substation personnel for regular operation. If there are village substations, they are also expected to be remote operation with regular visits. Operation costs will be proportional to the number of substations. • Maintenance-Construction of this transmission line is typical of many other Alaskan lines that will mobilize large crews and specialized equipment such as heavy lift helicopters and low ground pressure carriers. Once construction is complete, all of this special equipment will leave the state and will not be available for line maintenance. Because of the high reliability of the lines, they seldom require major repairs. It is expected that small helicopters and snow track equipment will normally be available and adequate for most maintenance October 2013 6 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Appendix 8-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 99 of 120 Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham activities. However, if incidents such as an avalanche or wind storms cause major damage to the line it will require a contracted operation for repair and will result in an extended service interruption. Refined maintenance costs will need to be determined after construction and are generally proportional to the miles of line. Maintenance costs for this report will be proportional to costs of construction. 2.8 Land Status This criterion will tabulate the miles of each route within the categories of land ownership such as Native, State, and Federal. A preliminary assessment of land status is reflected in Figure 3 in Section 3.4. 3 Evaluation of Routes Following is an engineering comparison of the two possible line routes from the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project to the load center at Dillingham based on the Construction Comparison Matrix and a general understanding of the area. 3.1 Access and Terrain For comparison purposes each route has been divided into segments representing different methods of access and terrain and detailed in Table 3-1 below. Mountainous terrain on each route is classified according to miles above 700ft in elevation and highest elevation along the route. This is important to identify relative reliability risk and construction costs. Data is from line routes drawn on USGS 1:250,000 scale maps and Google Map and shown in Figure 2. Air access is assumed in mountainous areas which will dictate expensive construction methods. Both the South and South Loop Routes will have about 4 miles of this access. • Overland access allowed in summer will be the most economical construction method. The South Route has 96 miles of overland access allowed in summer and South Loop has 40 miles. • Overland winter access will require some form of ground cover for transportation of heavy pile driving equipment. It is assumed an ice road is the most practical for this work. Construction and maintenance of an ice road is weather dependent. Adequate frost penetration and continuous cold weather are required. Weather in the Dillingham area will be problematic for full winter season construction. The winter construction season with adequate ice and snow cover would potentially not begin until January and could end in early March. The South Loop Route has 88 miles. Table 3-1 Access and Terrain Comparison ROUTE SOUTH SOUTH LOOP ACCESS Air (helicopter) 1S-4mi. 1SL-4mi. Overland-Summer 2S-96mi. 2SL-40mi. Overland-Winter 3SL-46mi. October 2013 7 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes Chikuminuk Lake to Road TERRAIN Mountainous Highlands Lowlands 3.2 Line Length 3S-19mi. 15-max. 720' 25-max. 761' 35-max. 360' Appendix B Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 100 of 120 4SL-42mi. SSL-19mi. 15L-max. 720' 25L-max. 675' 55L-max. 360' 35L-max. 371' 45L-max. 529' Each additional mile of line length adds to the complexity of designing, constructing, and maintaining a transmission line, including the following: • Increased exposure to damaging climatological conditions • more ground disturbance • additional stream crossings • additional general construction impacts • additional operational impacts due to inspections • additional maintenance impacts • additional materials installed • additional costs for construction, operation and maintenance Anticipated total line lengths are: South Route 119 miles and South Loop Route 151 miles. 3.3 Reliability This transmission line will not be part of an electrical grid but will be a single radial line. Any disturbance to the transmission line will result in an outage to Dillingham. The following conditions will improve the overall line reliability: • Less miles reduces the number of poles and conductor • Less miles in poor soil conditions improves the long-term stability of poles • Based on the above conditions the South Loop Route is expected to be less reliable than the South Route. 3.4 Land Status For comparison purposes the land ownership along each route has been investigated on a large scale basis and is shown in Table 3-2 and Figure 3 below. Acquisition time and cost of an easement for the transmission line will not be the same for each route. Easements across state lands will follow a normal permitting process. Lands under other ownership may require additional effort possibly including the following: • BLM lands will require compliance with the Federal Land Policy Management Act and 43 CFR 5200. In the event refuge lands are crossed by the project, the provisions ofTitle XI of ANILCA will apply to BLM lands also. • State Park lands will require modification of the Management Plan. This will impact both routes: South & South Loop (23 miles). • Native lands including in-holdings will require compliance in accordance with Federal and State acquisition law: This would impact the South (44 miles), and the South Loop (54 miles}. October 2013 8 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 101 of 120 • It is anticipated Native Allotments will also be impacted by easement acquisition in accordance with Title 25 USC. Historically, easements through allotments have required additional time for acquisition. The number of allotments is expected to be proportional to the miles of line on Native lands. Table 3-2 Land Status Ownership along each Proposed Route ROUTE SOUTH SOUTH LOOP LAND STATUS BLM 9 miles DPOR Wood-Tikchik 23 miles 23 miles NATIVE 38 miles 54 miles STATE OF ALASKA 58 miles 65 miles 3.5 Transmission Construction and O&M Cost Estimates The estimated range of direct construction cost for each route is provided in Appendix A. The costs are provided only for comparing alternatives and based on information obtained in a tabletop investigation. These costs cannot be assumed as applicable to budgeting or any other purposes outside this report. Operation costs are dependent on the routine work as determined by the operating company. It is anticipated the transmission line will primarily consist of an annual inspection. This is normally completed using a helicopter and some Jrm of imaging, either photographic or thermal. The result of this inspection should identify if any systemic issues are present. For this report it is assumed the materials selected and the construction techniques did not create any problems. The substations associated with the transmission line have mechanically operating equipment and as such would typically be inspected monthly. For this report it is assumed monthly inspections and typical operating activities such as snow removal, lighting, and travel to remote villages. Design and construction of long transmission lines in remote Alaska present several major challenges including; estimating the climatological conditions that will impact the poles and wires with no site specific meteorological information. Possible wind and ice conditions will be estimated by using available data from nearby towns, but environments especially at higher elevations are unknown. For this report it is assumed a major event will occur within 10 year and require an outside contractor for repairs. Also, soil conditions in this area are categorized as "Isolated Permafrost" according to the Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Foundations along both of these potential routes will need to accommodate a variety of soil conditions. An economical foundation design that will provide the necessary support without overdesign and the associated higher cost is difficult. Transmission lines over 100 miles in length with economical designs that cross varying soils and terrain will undoubtedly experience some foundation issues. It is not practical to acquire soil borings for each pole location to determine precisely the best foundation type and depth. To cover these variables, several foundation types will be developed during design and then applied in-the-field as the various conditions are encountered. This is not an exact science and judgments of applications will be required. For this report it is anticipated some foundations will need maintenance within the first 5 years and will taper off after that period. October 2013 9 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 102 of 120 Substations will require regular maintenance of equipment typically about 5 year intervals. For this report the followinp table is an estimate of annual O&M costs. These costs cannot be assumed as applicable to budgeting or any other purposes outside this report. SOUTH SOUTH LOOP Transmission (119mi.) Transmission {151mi.) Substations (2) Substations (5) Est. Annual Operation & Maintenance $350,000 $675,000 October 2013 10 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Pr oject Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 103 of 120 Evaluation of Alternative Transm ission Routes -Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham ~--+~C hikuminuk Lake Transmission Land Status 0 5 5 10 20 Miles J J I I Legend Ulnd Statuo ROUTE -BI.M Soulll ~ OPOR W:;lc;l4-1'11cr* Stale Pwk -SIUh Loop ...... N.tt'lelnlicM'I(I•TOC!il*~ ........ -. 10 20Miles gure 3 Alternative Chikuminuk Lake I Bethel Transmission Routes-Land Status October 2013 11 Chi ku m inuk Lake Hydroelectric Pr oject Eval u ation of Alt ernative Tra nsm ission Routes-Ch i kuminuk Lake to Dillingham 4 Summary and Conclusion 4.1 Criteria Evaluation Matrix Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 1 04 of 120 The Criteria Eval uation Matrix, Table 4-1, is based on i nterpretation of USGS maps and Google M aps . The types of co nst r uction method s r equired by access and terrain are based on enginee ri ng judgment of simila r t r ansmissi o n lines in Alaska. Table 4-1 Criteria Evaluation Matrix ROUTE ACCESS SUMMARY <2> Air Overland-Summer Overland-Winter Existing Road TOTAL MILES TERRAIN SUMMA RY <3> Mountainous -summer canst. Maximum elevation Miles>700' Highlands/Road summer canst. Maximum elevation Miles> 700' Lowlands -winter canst. RE LIABI LITY STREAM CROSSINGS VILLAGE V ISIBILITY APPROX. LINE LOSS {4MW} EST. RANGE CONST. COST $M Notes: COMPARISON less is better more is better less is better more is better less is better less is better less is better more is better less is better less is better less is better first is best less is better less is better less is better less is better SOUTH 4 miles 19 miles 4 miles 1,250' 5 miles 0 miles SOUTH LOOP 4 miles 19 miles 4 miles 1,250' 5 miles 0 miles Colored bars only compare within each criterion (green is best, yellow is tied and red is worse). For example: South is shortest route for Overl and Summer Access criterion. <2> Acce ss is a gross interpretation of soil conditions based on USGS Maps and Google Map <3> More sever e icing conditions will exist at higher elevations. An arbitrary elevation of 700' is selected. 4.2 Conclusion Two sep ar ate transmission line routes were identified based on maps, agency requests and knowledge of best transmiss ion route selection for Alaskan conditions. Alternatives were segmented into terrain and access types for con struction and O&M exp e nses. Fin ally, a r ange of construction costs w er e developed for each alternative . October 2013 12 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 105 of 120 ~ased on the comparisons noted in Section 3 and summarized in Table 4.1, the South Route is the most reasonable ..:hoice. The estimated costs shown in Appendix A support the South Route and are only for the direct construction of the transmission line itself, other costs will be required. The South Loop Route will add between 95% and 107% more to the financed cost of power in Dillingham as compared to the South Route. This impact will significantly burden the project feasibility. This analysis did not consider other possible impacts such as environmental; however most impacts are proportional to the miles of line. The longer line route generally results in more environmental impacts. Also, poor soil conditions and more stream crossings again substantiate the South Route as the better choice. October 2013 13 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes-Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham Appendix B-Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 1 06 of 120 Appendix A-Detailed Construction Cost Estimates April2013 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 107 of 120 The following pages explain the development of the construction cost estimates for the alternative line routes. • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS-show material and labor estimates for major line components for the three types of access and terrain: Air, Overland Summer and Overland Winter • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS-using Detail Sheets the components are combined into units, for example line sections with average for structures, foundations, and miscellaneous • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS-using ESTIMATE UNIT SHEETS additional costs such as mobilization/demobilization are added to the typical line sections • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY using the TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS SHEETS cost per mile of each type of construction, a summary table is shown. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS Crew Hr Unit Cost Mtl. Unit Material Air (Helicopter) (Mountainous) Qty Materials Mult. Material $ Tangent Wood 69kV Single Pole, 400ft. Crossarm Assembly 1 $150 1.10 $165 $165 50' Wood Pole 1 $2,000 1.10 $2,200 $2,200 $2,365 Large Angle/DE Single Pole, 69kV Insulator Assembly 3 $100 1.10 $110 $330 60' Single pole w/guys 1 $2,500 1.10 $2,750 $2,750 $3,080 Small/Medium Angle Single Pole, 69kV Insulator Assembly 3 $200 1.10 $220 $660 50' Single pole w/guys 1 $2,000 1.10 $2,200 $2,200 $2,860 Driven Pile 1 $2,500 1.10 $2,750 $2,750 Rock Foundations 1 $5,000 1.10 $5,500 $5,500 Oriole Conductor (1,000') 3 $500 1.10 $550 $1,650 $1,200 Crew Hr Labor 1 $1,200 4 $4,800 2 $2,400 6 $7,200 1 $1,200 5 $6,000 4 $4,800 8 $9,600 6 $7,200 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 1 08 of 120 Mtl& labor Unit labor lbr Mult. labor $ Total 1.30 $1,560 $1,560 $1,725 1.30 $6,240 $6,240 $8,440 $7,800 1.30 $3,120 $9,360 $9,690 1.30 $9,360 $9,360 $12,110 $18,720 1.30 $1,560 $4,680 $5,340 1.30 $7,800 $7,800 $10,000 $12,480 1.30 $6,240 $6,240 $8,990 1.30 $12,480 $12,480 $17,980 1.30 $9,360 $28,080 $29,730 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configurati,.,.., Studies Sheet 1 09 of 120 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS Crew Hr $1,200 Mtl& Unit Cost Mtl. Unit Material Crew Labor Unit Labor Lbr Overland Summer (Highlands) Qty Materials Mult. Material $ Hr Labor Mult. Labor $ Total Tangent Wood 69kV Single Pole, 400ft. Crossarm Assembly 1 $150 1.00 $150 $150 0.5 $600 1.00 $600 $600 $750 50' Wood Pole 1 $2,000 1.00 $2,000 3 $3,600 1.00 $3,600 $5,600 $4,200 Large Angle/DE Single Pole, 69kV Insulator Assembly 3 $100 1.00 $100 $300 1 $1,200 1.00 $1,200 $3,600 $3,900 60' Single pole w/guys 1 $2,500 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 6 $7,200 1.00 $7,200 $9,700 $10,800 Small/Medium Angle Single Pole, 69kV Insulator Assembly 3 $200 1.00 $200 $600 0.5 $600 1.00 $600 $1,800 $2,400 50' Single pole w/guys 1 $2,000 1.00 $2,000 $2,000 4 $4,800 1.00 $4,800 $4,800 $6,800 $2,600 $6,600 Driven Pile 1 1.00 3 Rock Foundations 1 1.00 6 Oriole Conductor (1,000') 3 $500 1.00 $500 $1,500 4 $4,800 $4,800 $14,400 $15,900 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS Unit Cost Mtl. Unit Overland Winter (Lowlands) Qty Materials Mult. Material Tangent Wood 69kV Single Pole, 400ft. Crossarm Assembly 1 $150 1.10 $165 50' Wood Pole 1 $2,000 1.10 $2,200 Large Angle/DE Single Pole, 69kV Insulator Assembly 3 $100 1.10 $110 60' Single pole w/guys 1 $2,500 1.10 $2,750 Small/Medium Angle Single Pole, 69kV Insulator Assembly 3 $200 1.10 $220 50' Single pole w/guys 1 $2,000 1.10 $2,200 Driven Pile 1 $2,500 1.10 $2,750 Rock Foundations 1 $5,000 1.10 $5,500 Oriole Conductor {1,000') 3 $500 1.10 $550 Crew Hr $1,200 Material Crew $ Hr Labor $165 1 $1,200 $2,200 4 $4,800 $2,365 $330 1 $1,200 $2,750 6 $7,200 $3,080 $660 1 $1,200 $2,200 5 $6,000 $2,860 $2,750 4 $4,800 $5,500 8 $9,600 $1,650 5 $6,000 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 11 0 of 120 Mtl& Labor Unit Labor Lbr Mult. Labor $ Total 1.20 $1,440 $1,440 $1,605 1.20 $5,760 $5,760 $7,960 $7,200 1.20 $1,440 $4,320 $4,650 1.20 $8,640 $8,640 $11,390 $12,960 1.20 $1,440 $4,320 $4,980 1.20 $7,200 $7,200 $9,400 $11,520 1.20 $5J60 $5,760 $8,510 1.20 $11,520 $11,520 $17,020 1.20 $7,200 $21,600 $23,250 B -Project Layout I Configurati"'"' Studies Sheet 111 of 120 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE DETAILS Crew Hr $1,200 Mtl& Unit Cost Mtl. Unit Material Crew Labor Unit Labor Lbr Road Summer Qty Materials Mult. Material $ Hr Labor Mult. Labor $ Total Tangent Wood 69kV Single Pole, 400ft. Crossarm Assembly 1 $150 1.00 $150 $150 0.5 $600 1.00 $600 $600 $750 50' Wood Pole 1 $2,000 1.00 $2,000 $2,000 1 $1,200 1.00 $1,200 $1,200 $3,200 $2,150 $1,800 Large Angle/DE Single Pole, 69kV Insulator Assembly 3 $100 1.00 $100 $300 1 $1,200 1.00 $1,200 $3,600 $3,900 60' Single pole w/guys 1 $2,500 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 4 $4,800 1.00 $4,800 $4,800 $7,300 Small/Medium Angle Single Pole, 69kV Insulator Assembly 3 $200 1.00 $200 $600 0.5 $600 1.00 $600 $1,800 $2,400 50' Single pole w/guys 1 $2,000 1.00 $2,000 $2,000 3 $3,600 1.00 $3,600 $3,600 $5,600 $2,600 $5,400 Driven Pile 1 $2,500 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 3 $3,600 1.00 $3,600 $3,600 $6,100 Rock Foundations 1 $5,000 1.00 $5,000 $5,000 4 $4,800 1.00 $4,800 $4,800 $9,800 Oriole Conductor (1,000') 3 $500 1.00 $500 $1,500 3 $3,600 1.00 $3,600 $10,800 $12,300 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS Air (Helicopter) (Mountainous) Example-Section 1S & 1SL = 4 miles Material Qty Unit Cost Tangent Structure 47 ea $2,365 DE/Large Angle 3 ea $3,080 Medium Angle 3 ea $2,860 Pipe Pile Fdn 0 ea $2,750 Rock Foundations 53 ea $5,500 crkt Cond. Oriole 4 mi $8,712 OPGW 4 mi $2,000 Dampers 32 ea $50 Aerial Balls/Bird 6 ea $400 Structure Signs 53 ea $50 Clearing 1 mi $0 Material Labor & Labor Cost Cost $7,800 $10,165 $18,720 $21,800 $12,480 $15,340 $6,240 $8,990 $12,480 $17,980 $148,262 $156,974 $20,000 $22,000 $200 $250 $2,000 $2,400 $150 $200 $10,000 $10,000 Total Cost $477,755 $65,400 $46,020 $0 $952,940 $627,898 $88,000 $7,950 $15,264 $10,600 $10,000 $2,301,827 Avg Mtl. Cost Str. $2,433 Fnd. $5,500 Misc. $74 Appendix 8 -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 112 of 120 Avg Lbr. Cost $8,683 $12,480 $297 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS Overland Summer (Highlands) Example-Section 2S= 96 miles Material Unit Cost Tangent Structure 1163 ea $2,150 DE/large Angle 45 ea $2,800 Medium Angle 60 ea $2,600 Pipe Pile Fnd. 254 ea $2,500 crkt Cond. Oriole 96 mi $7,920 OPGW 96 mi $2,000 Dampers 761 ea $50 Aerial Balls/Bird 152 ea $400 Structure Signs 1268 ea $50 Clearing 70 mi $0 Material Labor & labor Cost Cost $4,200 $6,350 $10,800 $13,600 $6,600 $9,200 $3,600 $6,100 $76,032 $83,952 $15,000 $17,000 $200 $250 $1,000 $1,400 $50 $100 $10,000 $10,000 Total Cost $7,385,050 Str. $612,000 $552,000 $1,549,400 Fnd. $8,059,392 $1,632,000 $190,200 Misc. $213,024 $126,800 $700,000 $21,019,866 Mtl. Cost $2,194 $2,500 $74 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuratin11 Studies Sheet 113 of 120 Lbr. Cost $4,548 $3,600 $169 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS Overland Winter {lowlands) Example-Section 3Sl = 46 miles Material Qty Unit Cost Tangent Structure 553 ea $2,365 DE/large Angle 20 ea $3,080 Medium Angle 35 ea $2,860 Pipe Pile Fnd. 575 ea $2,750 crkt Cond. Oriole 46 mi $8,712 OPGW 46 mi $2,000 Dampers 365 ea $50 Aerial Balls/Bird 73 ea $400 Structure Signs 608 ea $50 Clearing 15 mi $0 Ice Road 46 mi $0 Material labor & labor Cost Cost $7,200 $9,565 $12,960 $16,040 $11,520 $14,380 $5,760 $8,510 $114,048 $122,760 $20,000 $22,000 $600 $650 $2,000 $2,400 $150 $200 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total Cost $5,289,445 $320,800 $503,300 $4,893,250 $5,646,960 $1,012,000 $237,120 $175,104 $121,600 $300,000 $4,600,000 $23,099,579 Avg Mtl. Cost Str. $2,417 Fnd. $2,750 Misc. $74 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 114 of 120 Avg lbr. Cost $7,638 $5,760 $436 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configura!; ' Studies Sheet 115 of 120 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE UNITS Road Section 35 & SSL = 19 miles Material Material Labor & Labor Qty Unit Cost Cost Cost Total Cost Avg Mtl. Cost Avg Lbr. Cost Tangent Structure 228 ea $2,150 $1,800 $3,950 $900,600 Str. $2,198 $2,237 DE/Large Angle 9 ea Medium 14 ea Pipe Pile Fdn 51 ea $311,100 Fnd. $2,500 $3,600 Rock Foundations 0 ea crkt Cond. Oriole 19 mi OPGW 19 mi $2,000 $12,000 $14,000 $266,000 Dampers 151 ea $50 $200 $250 $37,650 Misc. $74 $169 Aerial Balls/Bird 30 ea $400 $1,000 $1,400 $42,168 Structure Signs 251 ea $50 $50 $100 $25,100 Clearing 12 mi $0 $6,000 $6,000 $72,000 $3,101,354 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS DILLINGHAM Section 1S & 1SL Air (Helicopter} (Mountainous} 15 & 1SL = 4 miles Description Qty Unit Material Cost Structures 53 ea $2,433 Foundations 53 ea $5,500 crkt Conductor 4 mi $8,712 crkt OPGW 4 mi $2,000 Other* 1 lump $74 Clearing 1 mi $0 Subtotal Mob/Demob @10% Helicopter Construction Cost adder @ 25% Contingency @20% Total Estimated Total Construction Cost Average Cost per Mile * lncludes:dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, signs Labor Cost $8,683 $12,480 $148,262 $20,000 $297 $10,000 Material & Labor Cost $11,117 $17,980 $156,974 $22,000 $371 $10,000 Total Cost $589,175 $952,940 $627,898 $88,000 $33,814 $10,000 $2,301,827 $230,183 $633,002 $633,002 $3,798,014 $949,503 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 116 of 120 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS DILLINGHAM Section 2S & 2Sl Overland Summer 2S = 96 miles Description Qty Unit Material Cost Structures 1268 ea Foundations 254 ea crkt Conductor 96 mi crkt OPGW 96 mi $2,000 Other* 1 lump $74 Clearing 70 mi $0 Subtotal Mob/Demob @8% Helicopter support adder @10% Contingency @20% Total Estimated Total Construction Cost Average Cost per Mile * lncludes:dampers, aerial bird diverters, signs Material & labor Labor Cost Cost $4,548 $6,742 $3,600 $6,100 $76,032 $83,952 $15,000 $17,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total Cost $8,549,050 $1,549,400 $8,059,392 $1,632,000 $530,024 $700,000 $21,019,866 $1,681,589 $2,270,146 $4,994,320 $29,965,921 $312,145 Appendix B-Project Layout I Configurati~-. Studies Sheet 117 of 120 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS DILLINGHAM Section 3SL & 4SL Overland Winter 3SL = 46 miles Description Qty Unit Material Cost Structures 608 ea $2,417 Foundations 46 ea $2,750 crkt Conductor 46 mi $8,712 crkt OPGW 46 mi $2,000 Other* 1 lump $74 Clearing 15 mi $0 Ice Road 46 mi $0 Subtotal Mob/Demob @10% Helicopter support adder @10% Contingency @20% Total Estimated Total Construction Cost Average Cost per Mile * lncludes:dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, signs Material & Labor Cost Labor Cost $7,638 $10,055 $5,760 $8,510 $114,048 $122,760 $20,000 $22,000 $436 $510 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total Cost $6,113,545 $391,460 $5,646,960 $1,012,000 $533,824 $300,000 $4,600,000 $18,597,789 $1,859,779 $2,045,757 $4,500,664.94 $27,003,990 $587,043 Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 118 of 120 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE TYPICAL LINE SECTIONS DILLINGHAM Section 3S & SSL Road Summer 19 miles Description Qty Unit Material Cost Structures 251 ea $2,198 Foundations 51 ea Conductor 19 crkt mi OPGW 19 crkt mi Other* 1 lump $74 Clearing 12 mi $0 Subtotal Mob/Demob @5% Contingency @20% Total Estimated Total Construction Cost Average Cost per Mile * lncludes:dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, Material & Labor Cost Labor Cost $2,237 $4,436 $3,600 $169 $243 $6,000 $6,000 Total Cost $1,113,400 $311,100 $1,233,936 $266,000 $104,918 $72,000 $3,101,354 $155,068 $651,284 $3,907,706 $205,669 Appendix 8 -Project Layout I Configurati"" Studies Sheet 119 of 120 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Alternative Description South Air= 4 miles, Overland-Summer= 96 miles, Road= 19 miles South Loop Air= 4 miles, Overland-Summer= 40 miles, Overland-Winter-88 miles, Road-19 miles Based on the values from the previous pages, the following section costs are used to develop the route costs above. Air Overland-Summer Overland-Winter Existing Road Note these are only construction costs and do not include other costs such as: Design, Owners Cost, Permitting, Environmental compliance, etc. Appendix B -Project Layout I Configuration Studies Sheet 120 of 120 Low High $37,666,000 $45,199,200 $71,850,000 $93,405,000 $950,000 per mile $312,000 per mile $587,000 per mile $206,000 per mile Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report, Volume I, Technical Studies Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume 1-Technical Studies Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling April2014 Appendix Cl-Project Operations Modeling ........................................................................................ 1 Appendix C2-Project Impact on lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Water levels ............ 27 DRAFT April, 2014 Prepared By: ~HATCH~ © 2014 Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., exclusive of U.S. government maps Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 1 of 43 ~HATCH~ Project Memo H342022 31 Mar 2013 To: Dick Griffith From: Carl Mannheim cc: Nuvista Electric Cooperative Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Study Project Operations Modeling 1. Introduction This memo describes the operations modeling of the selected project arrangement and presents expected energy generation to meet existing load patterns, expected Lake Chikuminuk water level fluctuations, and regulated flows from the proposed Chikuminuk Hydroelectric project (Project). The purpose of this memo is to provide information on expected Project operations, such as energy generation and reservoir fluctuations. 2. Project Arrangement The preferred project arrangement includes a roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam with a 110ft long uncontrolled spillway. The spillway crest elevation is 660ft, which means that the normal maximum lake level will be raised 47 feet from elevation 613ft. A 13ft wide and approximately 900 feet long concrete lined power tunnel will route water to the powerhouse, in which four 5.5 MW vertical Francis turbines will be installed. The tailrace elevation is approximately 544 ft, resulting in a maximum gross head on the units of 116 feet. 3. Operations Modeling 3.1 Model Selection HEC-ResSim 3.0 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Engineering Center was selected to simulate the Project operations. This software comprises a graphical user interface and a computational program to simulate reservoir operations. The software is public domain and can be downloaded for free from www.hec.usace.army.mil. 3.2 Model Input Requirements Attachment A presents the model input parameters used, excluding the long term monthly flow record and average monthly energy demand, which are presented below. The parameters include, but are not limited to: -..J rJIIt ~ Rev. B If yo" dl'' with aoy lofmmatbo cootaloed hecelo, plea'e advl'e lmmed lately. ~ .::. a::JI Page 1 Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 2 of 43 • Reservoir area and storage data (Table A-1) • Spillway configuration and any other outlet configuration (Table A-2 and A-3) • Turbine unit description, including headlosses, tailwater level (Table A-2) • Any other required flow releases, e.g. instream flow requirements (Table A-3) • Reservoir operation rules (Table A-4) 3.2. 1 Hydrology Inflow to the Project is based on the extended monthly stream flow record for the Allen River USGS gage (USGS 15301500) presented in Table 1. The stream flow extension is based on correlation to the USGS gage on the Nuyakuk River. A more detailed description on the development of the extended stream flow record for the Allen River is presented in the Draft Interim Feasibility Report (Hatch, 2014). Table 1 Estimated average monthly flows at dam site, using measured values if available (cfs) Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 Att rights reserved, including att rights relating to the use of this docLment or its contents. Rev.B Page2 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 3 of 43 ~HATCH~ Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1986 431 399 385 374 433 2565 3919 2666 2489 2159 1544 458 1491 1987 425 398 389 381 500 4623 6438 3210 1181 1698 862 453 1723 1988 420 412 398 384 877 5638 5131 3031 2750 1765 1076 480 1865 1989 429 388 386 373 499 4214 3434 2154 4519 3273 1038 452 1766 1990 428 400 378 395 533 3273 1793 1448 1540 1536 529 430 1058 1991 410 397 389 404 749 3778 2159 1374 2185 3390 1162 426 1405 1992 386 377 368 373 1015 3744 3388 2450 2323 587 434 398 1321 ,_ 1993 381 373 374 422 2182 5274 3200 1935 2490 2394 744 467 1691 1994 438 418 391 402 881 4910 3975 2492 1475 2722 948 498 1636 1995 448 409 384 406 2171 4891 3181 1933 2759 2727 1253 459 1756 1996 405 390 402 394 1254 2541 2018 1090 612 -2002 3164 1303 637 1692 3294 2696 2003 743 486 451 406 595 3222 2944 1717 876 1592 831 443 1196 ------ 2004 409 390 377 393 1761 3736 1930 1092 485 ·-2007 2005 2032 2422 1624 774 493 ------··--2008 423 394 387 373 825 4321 3734 1370 1909 1566 442 412 1347 2009 384 375 368 370 2084 4893 2498 3236 1322 2662 1335 460 1673 2010 412 394 377 365 800 4428 3236 3537 1893 649 488 439 1423 -----2011 410 380 367 359 1159 4453 3153 1684 1540 870 431 390 1269 --2012 303 322 340 314 535 4795 3933 1564 1920 ··-2013 499 4074 2368 2890 1451 2144 1610 541 Avg 419 391 373 365 864 4071 3450 2032 1705 1559 842 516 1386 Min 303 322 300 255 339 2469 1239 477 485 477 418 382 781 Max 743 486 451 422 2716 6650 7611 6897 4554 3390 3294 2696 2162 -----··--·---------·-·--------··-· 3.2.2 Average Monthly Energy Demand One primary input requirement is the average monthly energy demand, which is presented in Table 2 below. The computer program will determine the flow required to generate sufficient power to meet the monthly energy demand at each time step, subject to any water level or flow restrictions, such as instream flow requirements. Per Table 2, the total annual energy demand is expected to be 82.1 GWh. Table 2. Average monthly energy demand (Hatch, 2013) Month Energy Demand (MWh) Jan 8,000 Feb 6,800 Mar 7,200 Apr 6,700 Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents, Rev. B Page 3 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 4 of 43 ~HATCH .. 3.2.3 3.2.4 lnstream Flow Requirements An instream flow requirement of approximately 150 cfs, or 10 percent of the annual average flow (1 ,386 cfs) was assumed during the primary fish spawning season of June through November. A reduced value of 50 cfs was assumed for the remaining months. The instream flow would be released at the dam and would ensure that the short reach from the dam to the powerhouse would not be dewatered during normal operation or during short periods when the powerhouse is not in operation. A low level outlet with higher discharge capacity would ensure normal river flows would be maintained during longer periods of powerhouse outage. Reservoir Operation Rules The reservoir operation zones are presented in Table A-4. Two zones were considered appropriate based on the reservoir water level: 1) A power generation zone; and 2) a conservation zone. These are described in more detail below. Power Generation Zone (WL > 641 ft} The power generation zone is defined as the range of reservoir levels for which water will be drawn through the powerhouse to generate power to meet the average monthly energy demand. Within this zone, project discharges are prioritized as follows: 1) lnstream flow requirements: 150 cfs for June through October; 50 cfs November through May. 2) Power generation flows: The turbines will draw as much flow as is necessary to meet the average monthly energy demand. Conservation Zone (WL < 641 ft) The conservation zone is defined as the range of reservoir levels for which water will be used to only satisfy the instream flow requirements and no water will be used to generate power. The purpose of this zone is to ensure that, on average, the reservoir fills back up within a few hydrologic cycles. Otherwise, during extended periods of low flow, the energy demand may be greater than what can be generated with available head and flow, resulting in the reservoir being emptied. A reservoir elevation of 641 was estimated as the top of conservation zone based on maximization of the generated energy. Within this zone, project discharges are prioritized as follows: 1) lnstream flow requirements: 150 cfs for June through October; 50 cfs November through May. 2) Power generation flows: The turbines will draw only as much flow as is available to maintain a reservoir elevation of 641 ft (reservoir inflow less the instream flow requirement). 3.3 Results The analysis and results presented herein assume that the Project will be operated to meet the full average monthly demand of the served communities to the greatest extent possible. Table B-1 in Attachment B presents the full monthly output from HEC-ResSim of selected parameters. Safety • Quality • Suslainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved. including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Rev. B Page 4 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 5 of 43 3.3. 1 Energy Generation The expected average monthly energy generation is presented in Table 3. The expected average annual energy generation is 78,100 MWh, compared to an average annual demand of 82,100 MWh, which is presented in Table 4. The results in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that, on average, project generation may not be able to meet the estimated average monthly demand in the winter and spring months of November through May. However, the Project is very likely to be able to meet the demand during the summer months (June through October). Also, the results indicate that the Project would be able to meet the annual average demand approximately 70 percent of the time (29 years out of 41), but that dry periods may cause reduced generation for several years (e.g. 1960-1964) if the reservoir cannot fill up at the end of each year. Table 5 summarizes selected generation statistics. The average power factor for the project is 0.40, which compares very well to other hydroelectric projects in Alaska as well as nationwide. The minimum reservoir water level for the period of record is 641 ft, due to the limitation of the Conservation Zone. 3.3.2 Reservoir Water Levels and Regulated Flows Figures 1 and 2 show the resulting reservoir fluctuations and Project inflows and outflows for the period of record, respectively. Figure 1 shows that the Project would spill only during the wettest years of the record, which indicates efficient use of available flow for generation. Table 3 Expected average monthly energy generation Month Average Energy Average Project Average Difference Demand (MWh) Generation (MWh) (MWh) Jan 8,000 7,694 -306 Feb 6,800 6,416 -384 Mar 7,200 6,242 -958 t----=-A:.c.:.._plr ___ ___::.62..:, 7-=-0-=-0 ______ __:5:..c.:.., 143 -1 ,557 May 6,500 5,959 -541 r----=-J=un=:::--____ 6::..?.'..::..00::-:0c----------~000 ______________ 0 1--_c;J..:;.u;_l -------'.6-'-',8--0-'-0_______ 6,800 0 1----::-A_,ug...__ ___ -=6"-=,5-=-0-=-0____ ______ 6,50_Q_ __________ q_ _______ _ I--_S_e,____p ____ 6-'-,_30_0 ___________ 6"'-,3_0_0 ____________________ _Q _______ _ 1---0....:..c_t ______ ..........:...6,_,6.:....::..0..:...0 __________ .....::.6,_60_0 -----------·---:0-':.-::-----~ Nov 7,400 7,264 -136 ~---------------~~-------·------'--~------------·--~~--------I-··-D_e_c ______ 7.:_,3_0 __ 0 ___________ _1_~.-~.?-. _____________ _-:1_~~---·-·--·· Annual 82,100 '------------'--·---···------------·--·-·---------·-·---···-----·------·-- Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Rev. B Page 5 ~HATCH .. Table 4 Expected average annual energy generation ~ Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 6 of43 Average Demand Avera~e Average Year (GWh) Ge(~~~)on Difference (MWh) r== 1956 ---- . 1957 Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All lights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or i~s contents. Rev. B Page 6 Appendix C -Project Ope rations Modeling Sheet 7 of43 670 -·-Spillway Crest Elevation -660 t +-~~~-~ 665 660 ~ ~ 655 ... IV .... 111 ;: 650 ... ·e ~ 645 Ill IV a: 640 = 630 1954 .f- - -~ ,--~1 - 1-:-r-t r--f-.j 1.- 'lillt 1-1 H ·--', =~ L._ 1959 1964 I- I- 1- 1969 -I - 1974 - 1979 j -,.--1-- --f-1-f- --1-1- ----1.:-l=c l.:l =l~ I r 1984 Figure 1. Reservoir water level (spillway crest elevation 660ft) 10000 =t::-f-+ rl :=m !_!_ Pr oject ~n ilow ~Ba sin Runoff I ~··- -I '±- 1----f--- + JlU r-~- 1989 1994 l I 9000 1-- , '"'J"'" L Outfl .o : lnstre am Flow Power Flow+ Spill Fl ok 8000 1--f--- ·--l -~=---;-!-;:: --~..-r -- ~ f--'-1.:: -C:I= -: -~,_ 1-~---~~-7000 + c-· _,_ r-1-·-,__ --c--'1----·-.---, _ --f--_ .-,_ 1-f--' 1;- 6000 --== "t=l= I:;=~ ~I = . 1-,_ 11 Ill .... ~-= ---+I ~ = =-+-u ·I-iSOOO -- --+-----1-1-K 0 -t-~ u::: f= 4000 -r= 1----=!= ~ 30 00 1-- 2000 ' N ,,, IIIII-I 1000 -IT iO •1 p~ 0 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 Figure 2. Es timated average Project inflow and outflow Safety • Quality • SUstainablllty • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. I ·~ ....... f-·-'-- 1'--1- 1,- ,_ : 1="" ---~ ·~ .., 1989 ·-Ia 1994 Rev. B Page 7 Table 5. Summary of generation statistics Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 8 of 43 Parameter Average Max Min Generation Efficiency 0.9 0.9 0.9 Power Head (ft) 98.1 111.6 86.9 ----------~----------------·------------------------·-------------------- Energy Generated per Time Step (MWh) 214.1 258.1 0 ------------------- Power Generated (MW) 8.9 10.8 0 ~------------~--~---------------------------------------·-------------- Plant Factor 0.4 0.5 0 ~--------------------------------------·-------------------------------- Flow Power (cfs) 1203.9 1640 0 '-------·-----'-----'-------------------------------------------------- 4. Summary and Conclusions A reservoir model was set up using the computer program HEC-ResSim 3.0, which facilitated the estimation of the regulated reservoir operations, including energy generation and outflow estimation. The following is a summary of the results; model output of selected parameters is included in Attachment B: • The average annual energy potential of the Project, based on the estimated long term (42 years) reservoir inflow record, is approximately 78.1 GWh. • A conservation zone at elevation 641 ft, below which flow to the turbines is limited to reservoir inflow, was necessary reduce risk of emptying the reservoir during periods of low inflow. • The simulated average monthly reservoir level is 652.1 ft, which reflects the need to maintain available storage for large runoff events to fully utilize the energy potential of the site and minimize spill. • On average: 1) project generation will likely not meet the estimated average monthly demand in the winter and spring months of November through May; 2) project generation will likely be able to meet the demand during the summer months (June through October). • Project will likely meet the annual average demand approximately 70 percent of the time. 5. References 1. Hatch. (2014). Draft Interim Feasibility Report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project. 2. Hatch. (2013). Draft Preliminary Application Document for Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Development. Carl Mannheim CM:cm Attachment( s )/Enclosure Safety • Quality • Sustain ability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Rev. B Page 8 ~HATCH~ Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 9 of 43 Attachment A HEC-ResSim 3.0 Model Input Parameters Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. ~HATCH .. Table A-1. Reservoir area and storage Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 1 0 of 43 Table A-2. Reservoir and powerhouse input parameters and values Parameter Value Comment Tailwater El Powerplant Capacity ___ ..:.54_4 _____ ft-:-:-_~C:--o_ns_t_ant tailwater elevation _:.:fo:.:.r-=a:.:.ll:..:r.:....iv:..:e:.:.r_:_fl:.::o:..::w:.::s:...__-:---:------:---1 22 MW Nameplate capacity; Based on estimated total peak demand from served communities Powerplant Overload Factor 1.0 The Overload Factor (OF) is a multiplier for the Installed Capacity to determine the maximum energy the power plant can produce in a time interval. To use the full Installed I I Capacity, an OF of 1.0 is used; to overload a plant's capacity by 10%, an OF of 1.1 would be u=-s::..:e::..:d:.:.·-------------1 r . Powerplant Efficiency 89% Constant; Total efficiency (generator efficiency x turbine _______________ efficiency) of the power plant_ over range of flows and head. Station Use 0 cfs The portion of the total plant flow that is not used to generate l __________________________ -------· power to meet the demand from the grid. ------------ [ Hydraulic Losses ___________ } 0 ft Constant over range of flows _a,-n __ d_he_a __ d ___ -:---:-----------J I ~llway Leng!b__ _______ 1 00 ft Effective crest length due to abutments and piers __ l~lw~ discharge coefficient 3.9 Average coefficient over e~ected range of flows. ____ _ [_g~n.!_r_~!!~j ou_tlet ~2..~ .. c_a.:.;"-pa.:.:.c.:.:i.c.t.ty'-----'-1-'-5-'-0.-:c_fs __ M_a_x_i_m..:.u_m--'-in-'-s_tr...;..eam flow releas~---------------------- Table A-3. lnstream flow release schedule Table A-4. Reservoir operation zones lnstream flow requirements Power flows to meet e demand Jan-Dec EL < 641 Conservation lnstream flow requirements Power flows only as necessary to maintain water level ----------------···----------·-·---"" ----·--------------------·-···----·-----_______ __j Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Rev. B • HATCH™ Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 11 of 43 Attachment B HEC-ResSim 3.0 Selected Model Output Safety • Qualrty • Susta>nability • Innovation Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use or this document or its contents Rev. B Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 12 of 43 Table B-1. Model results of selected model parameters (Note: time step= 1 day). Average values. Reservoir Energy Project Power Spillway lnstream Pool Generation Project Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow Elevation per Model Outflow (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) • ' . • • 1125 0 150 658.7 213 1275 1954 11 788 1312 0 50 658.0 247 1362 1954 12 471 1273 0 50 656.3 235 1323 1955 440 1423 0 50 654.3 258 1473 955 2 409 1364 0 50 652.5 243 1414 955 3 392 1332 0 50 650.4 232 1382 955 4 386 1307 0 50 648.5 223 1357 955 5 1218 1248 0 50 647.0 210 1298 __ , ___ -----~----·------ 955 6 4812 1155 0 150 650.1 200 1305 1955 7 5170 1162 0 150 658.7 219 1312 1955 8 2107 1078 834 150 661.7 210 2062 '--·-·-··· ~---~-1955 9 1844 1086 427 150 661.1 210 1662 1955 10 694 1108 71 150 660.3 213 1329 --------~~--------- 11 475 1304 0 50 658.6 247 1354 --·---~---.----·-----·-----------~---··-------· -·------------·-····--"<--,---·· ·----··- 12 409 1267 0 50 656.8 235 1317 1956 1 373 1418 0 50 654.7 258 1468 1956 2 344 1313 0 50 652.7 234 1363 ~-'-·--·-···· ··--· ~-· --·---·- 1956 3 335 1329 0 50 650.6 232 1379 956 4 344 1305 0 50 648.6 223 1355 956 5 1884 1247 0 150 647.1 210 1397 1956 6 5138 1118 0 150 653.3 200 1268 1956 7 1095 1185 0 150 656.4 219 1335 1956 8 1699 1133 0 150 656.4 210 1283 1956 9 1889 1116 0 150 658.2 210 1266 . """ -------------.. -------·· 10 471 1141 0 50 657.2 213 1191 --------~------~----~--~--~-- 1345 0 50 655.4 247 1395 .. -----~-----··-· ---------'------~------------- 1309 0 50 653.5 235 1359 . ·--·--.. ~-----~---·---~~----- 373 1468 0 50 651.2 258 1518 ·------------------~---------~--"··-------~-···---~-----··-· ---'·--•«•·.--. -----~----------- 2 344 1411 0 50 649.2 243 1461 3 344 1382 0 50 646.9 232 1432 -------------·-··--·· -----------------------------·-·------~------------------------------·"---------------. ·----~~~'"------"-'"'"---·-·· -~----·----- 4 366 1359 0 50 644.9 223 1409 5 2533 1290 0 50 644.0 210 1340 ---·-····~-----·--- 6 2620 1180 0 150 647.9 200 1330 ------·-· ---~---------····-···------------·---·-·--·-·-~· If you di'' PJ"Mmloontained hecein, please advise imme~:~~~ Safety • Quality • Sustainabi!Jty • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved. including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents_ Project Power Spillway lnstream Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs} 1957 7 535 1293 0 150 1957 8 479 1262 0 150 1957 9 2620 1229 0 150 1957 10 1592 1242 0 150 1957 11 1467 1422 0 50 1957 12 449 1376 0 50 1958 1 440 1547 0 50 1958 2 404 1490 0 50 1958 3 392 1463 0 50 1958 4 386 336 0 50 1958 5 1298 1248 0 50 1958 6 7688 1164 0 150 1958 7 3921 1156 0 150 --1958 8 2244 1079 764 150 1958 9 965 1089 248 150 1958 10 535 1111 1 150 1958 11 435 1308 0 50 1958 12 420 1271 0 50 1959 1 404 1422 0 50 -1959 2 366 1364 0 50 1959 3 335 1333 0 50 1959 4 344 1309 0 50 1959 5 1638 1250 0 50 1959 6 4046 1141 0 150 1959 7 1761 1218 0 150 1959 8 666 1173 0 150 1959 9 2028 1191 0 150 1959 10 1095 1190 0 150 1959 11 502 1400 0 50 1959 12 435 1364 0 50 1960 1 409 1533 0 50 1960 2 366 1425 0 50 1960 3 344 1450 0 50 1960 4 283 233 0 50 1960 5 3365 1326 0 150 -··- Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved. including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 13 of 43 Reservoir Energy Pool Generation Project Elevation per Model Outflow (ft} Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) 647.8 219 1443 645.9 210 1412 648.7 210 1379 648.9 213 1392 650.0 247 1472 648.6 235 1426 646.2 258 1597 644.1 243 1540 641.8 232 1513 641.0 53 386 -641.0 196 1298 ~-- 649.5 200 1314 659.1 219 1306 .. 661.6 210 1992 660.7 210 1487 660.0 213 1262 658.3 247 1358 656.5 235 1321 654.4 258 1472 ------652.5 243 1414 -· --650.4 232 1383 648.4 223 1359 -646.9 210 1300 651.2 200 1291 653.7 219 1368 652.9 210 1323 651.6 210 1341 653.0 213 1340 651.5 247 1450 649.5 235 1414 647.1 258 1583 645.0 234 1475 642.6 232 1500 641.0 37 283 641.6 210 1476 .. . ···-· Rev. B ~HATCH .. Project Power Spillway In stream Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 14 of 43 Reservoir Energy Pool Generation Project Elevation per Model Outflow (ft) Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) 1960 6 4362 1183 0 150 647.8 200 1333 1960 7 2201 1248 0 150 651.4 219 1398 1960 8 1638 1170 0 150 653.2 21 0 1320 1960 9 1424 1172 0 150 653.2 210 1322 1960 10 901 1193 0 50 652.8 213 1243 1960 11 535 1400 0 50 651.5 247 1450 1960 12 487 1363 0 50 649.6 235 1413 1961 1 445 1530 0 50 647.3 258 1580 1961 2 425 1472 0 50 645.2 243 1522 1961 3 386 1444 0 50 642.9 232 1494 1961 4 366 316 0 50 641.0 50 366 1961 5 2033 1322 0 50 641.8 210 1372 1961 6 4015 1186 0 150 647.5 200 1336 1961 7 2504 1253 0 150 650.9 219 1403 1961 8 2287 1174 0 150 652.9 210 1324 1961 9 1844 1159 0 150 654.3 210 1309 f----·--····-·-·---·-···--·-·-·---------- 1961 10 558 1179 0 150 653.9 213 1329 1961 11 458 1392 0 50 652.0 247 1442 --------··-·---:-----:-:--:::-------,-----:::-----:-=-_--,----------=--··------:-:-:~--t 1961 12 373 1357 0 50 650.0 235 1407 c---19_6_2 _________________________ 373""""--1-52_5 _____ 0 ___ 5_0__ 64 7-_-5=----·----2-=-58 ________ 1:-::5c:::7-::-5 ·-·l 1962 2 373 1469 0 50 645.4 243 1519 ------------------··------------------------------------------------l 1962 3 359 1442 0 50 643.0 232 1492 f--------------c-··-------:--------------,-------····-·-=--------:::------········-· ------------------------------- 1962 4 359 0 0 50 641.0 0 50 1962 5 1981 1332 0 50 641.2 210 1382 1962 6 5800 1197 0 150 646.7 200 1347 1962 7 2361 1239 0 150 652.1 219 1389 1962 8 666 1186 0---1-50----651~--_____ 2_1 __ 0 _________ 1_3-36-----1 T962 ____ ---9-----------·-9·8·,--3:--------1:-:2-::-o-=-3 ---·--a=--·-----:-:::-=--·--------65 ····o·---_-6---------2--1 o-----·-1 3-5-3---1 ·-----------------------------------------· -------------------------...... ·---------------------------------! 1962 10 494 1238 0 150 649.1 213 1388 ............. ····--·-·----------_____ .. ___________ ------------------·------------------1 1962 11 463 1466 0 50 647.1 247 1516 1962 12 435 1433 0 50 644.9 235 1483 -------------------------------:--:-:-------=-------:::-::------------:_----:-::··-:·----------=-=--=-·····-----------:-·:-::-:::---1 1963 1 445 1615 0 50 642.4 258 1665 "----------------------------------------······ ........... ---------·--------------........................................ -----------------·------1 1963 2 449 399 0 50 641.0 63 449 ·-·-------------------.......................... ---~---------------·1 50 641.0 61 440 0 0 ---------------------------------------------·--·---1 50 641.0 52 379 Rev. B Safety • Quality • Sustainabillty • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. ~HATCH~ Project Power Year Month Inflow Plant (cfs) Flow (cfs) 1963 5 1615 0 1963 6 3500 1209 1963 7 1760 1280 1963 8 2300 1221 1963 9 1440 1200 1963 10 704 1224 1963 11 420 1448 1963 12 610 1409 1964 1 450 1585 i---1964 2 380 1476 1964 3 280 230 ,-- 1964 4 260 210 1964 5 704 554 1964 6 4160 1177 1964 7 1950 1248 --1964 8 2620 1177 ---· 1964 9 3200 1163 c-:f964 10 760 1171 1964 11 580 1378 ~---- 1964 12 520 1339 1965 1 460 1501 1965 2 400 1443 1965 3 370 1415 _ .. 1965 4 336 1394 1965 5 2230 1332 1965 6 4420 1181 _, ____ 1965 7 2420 1237 -1965 8 1230 1162 ~--1965 9 4210 1096 1965 10 677 1107 , ___ 1965 11 560 1301 I I 1965 12 460 1263 r-·---~96~ 1 400 1412 1 1966 2 350 1355 I r 1966 3 300 1324 Spillway lnstream Flow Flow (cfs) (cfs) 0 50 0 150 0 150 0 150 0 150 0 150 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 150 0 150 0 150 0 150 0 150 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 150 ___ ,_ 0 150 0 150 12 150 85 150 -0 50 -- 0 50 0 50 -----0 50 0 50 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 15 of 43 Reservoir Energy Pool Generation Project Elevation per Model Outflow {ft) Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) 641.1 0 50 645.7 200 1359 648.8 219 1430 649.1 210 1371 650.9 210 1350 650.2 213 1374 648.2 247 1498- 646.4 235 1459 644.0 258 1635 641.8 234 1526 -641.0 36 280 641.0 33 260 641.0 87 704 648.3 200 1327 651.3 219 1398 652.7 210 1327 -654.1 210 1313 654.6 213 1221 653.0 247 1428 651.3 235 1389 649.1 258 1551 647.1 243 1493 644.8 232 1465 642.6 223 1444 641.2 210 1382 -647.9 200 1331 -652.2 219 1387 653.9 210 1312 660.2 210 1258 -------------·-----------660.3 213 1343 658.8 247 1351 ·--·-657.2 235 1313 --655.1 258 1462 653.1 243 1405 -----651.0 232 1374 ·-·----·-··· ·-'"' -~"·---------·-·---·--·--·-·· ······--·---···-~"--~-------------~---------·------------~ ~~--~------·-----·-·-----------------·-·· -------------·-···~" Rev. B Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights rese!Ved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 16 of 43 ~HATCH~ Year ••• 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 1966 Month 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Reservoir Energy Project Power Spillway lnstream Pool Generation Project Inflow Plant Flow Flow Elevation per Model Outflow (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) • • • • 50 648.8 223 1352 580 1248 0 50 646.9 210 1298 4600 1131 0 150 652.1 200 1281 2500 1193 0 150 655.9 219 1343 2300 1124 0 150 657.3 210 1274 3000 1105 0 150 659.3 210 1255 1732 ---1 0_9 __ 8___ 54 7 150 661.3 213 1795 510 1287 0 50 660.0 247 1337 458 1248 0 50 658.4 235 1298 ----------------------------------------------------------------------1 1967 420 1394 0 50 656.4 258 1444 1967 ______ 2 ________ 398 1335 0 50 654.6·---------2-43..,.-------1-:-:3-:-8-5---·l 1967 3 379 1302 0 50 652.7 232 1352 1967 4 379 1276 0 50 650.8 223 1326 ,_, ____ ·~~-~- 1967 5 458 1220 0 50 649.1 210 1270 1967 6 3365 1133 0 150 651.8 200 1283 1967 7 1095 1219 0 150 653.5 219 1369 .. .,. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1967 8 938 1172 0 150 653.0 210 1322 1967 9 1904 1178 0 150 652.7 210 1328 -------------------------·---:-::--:o------,-,--:-::--------::------:-::--:--·-----:--:::-·c-:c--·-------:-:--o--------,--,--=c-::-----l 1967 10 483 1202 0 150 652.0 213 1352 1967 11 404 1422 0 50 649.9 247 1472 ---~- 1967 12 366 1389 0 50 647.8 235 1439 1968 1 351 1565 0 50 645.2 258 1615 ~----1,-9=-6:=8·-----------=-2·---------3~4~4:·--------:-1~45~8:--------70 _______ 5=o~-------642.9 ___________ 2 __ 3_4 _______ 1 ___ 5 __ o_8 __ ~ 968 3 344 294 0 50 641.0 46 344 968 4 344 294 0 50 641.0 46 344 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1968 5 2038 1331 0 150 641.2 210 1481 ------------------------------------------.. --------------------------,~:-------------:-::--::-:-··----1 6 2476 1234 0 150 643.8 200 1384 7 763 1353 0 643.6 219 1503 --~···-···------------------------------------------··---------------''"" 150 150 8 2134 1288 0 644.2 210 1438 •• ~---~---,.·----------w-•- 9 613 1301 0 150 643.3 210 1451 10 435 1351 0 50 641.1 213 1401 ------------------------------------------· -----------------------------------------------1 1969 1969 11 12 2 404 386 366 351 354 0 50 641.0 56 404 ---------·-·. -----------------------------------.------------------------------------1 336 0 50 641.0 53 386 ----------------------------------·-··---------------------------~---·--------~ 316 0 50 641.0 50 366 301 0 50 641 . 0 4 7 351 Rev. B Safety • Quality • Sustain ability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. ~HATCH .. Project Power Spillway lnstream Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1969 3 351 301 0 50 1969 4 351 301 0 50 1969 5 2447 1329 0 50 1969 6 7513 1133 0 150 I--· 1969 7 2137 1171 0 150 1969 8 613 1120 0 150 1969 9 1132 1133 0 150 1969 10 3034 1117 0 150 1969 11 917 1283 99 50 1969 12 440 1243 0 50 1970 1 386 1389 0 50 1970 2 373 1331 0 50 1970 3 366 1298 0 50 --1970 4 359 1272 0 50 1970 5 2227 1208 0 50 1970 6 4235 1094 0 150 1970 7 2447 1154 0 150 1970 8 2447 1085 377 150 1970 9 1007 1085 462 150 1970 10 469 1116 0 150 1970 11 409 1315 0 50 1970 12 379 1278 0 50 1971 1 359 1431 0 50 1971 2 351 1374 0 50 1971 3 344 1343 0 50 1971 4 359 1319 0 50 --·-1971 5 1502 1261 0 50 !-~ 1971 6 5800 1149 0 150 1971 7 5733 1172 0 150 ·--1-971 8 2335 1078 842 150 1971 9 1062 1088 271 150 1971 10 871 1109 34 150 1971 11 467 1304 0 50 -" 1971 12 420 1265 0 50 1972 1 386 1416 0 50 Safety • Quality • Sustamability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reser<ed, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 17 of 43 Reservoir Energy Pool Generation Project Elevation per Model Outflow (ft) Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh 641.0 47 351 641.0 47 351 641.4 210 1379 652.1 200 1283 657.7 219 1321 657.5 210 1270 656.6 210 1283 --659.6 213 1267 660.4 247 1432 658.8 235 1293 656.7 258 1439 654.9 243 1381 653.0 232 1348 --· 651.1 223 1322 650.1 210 1258 655.3 200 1244 659.3 219 1304 661.0 210 1612 661.1 210 1697 659.5 213 1266 657.8 247 1365 655.9 235 1328 653.7 258 1481 651.8 243 1424 649.6 232 1393 647.6 223 1369 ---·--------646.1 210 1311 650.6 200 1299 657.9 219 1322 661.7 210 2070 660.8 210 1509 660.2 213 1293 658.7 247 1354 656.9 235 1315 654.8 258 1466 -~-~·-~---' Rev. B 1972 2 1972 3 1972 4 1972 5 1972 6 1972 7 1972 8 1972 9 1972 10 1972 11 1972 12 1973 1973 2 366 344 351 576 5138 2533 1709 788 1909 545 440 404 379 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 18 of 43 1310 0 50 653.0 234 1360 1325 0 50 650.9 232 1375 1301 0 50 648.9 223 1351 1246 0 150 647.1 210 1396 1151 0 150 650.4 200 1301 1189 0 150 656.2 219 1339 1127 0 150 657.0 210 1277 1125 0 150 657.3 210 1275 1142 0 50 657.2 213 1192 1332 0 50 656.4 247 1382 -----·-----··-----"-"'"-""' _____ ....... ···--·--:-:-:-··,----1 1294 0 50 654.7 235 1344 1449 0 50 652.5 258 1499 1390 0 50 650.6 243 1440 ___________ , ____________ ,__________ ----------------··-----................... ______ ................. ___ ... _____ .,.. .. ___ ! 1973 3 359 1360 0 50 648.5 232 1410 1973 4 351 1336 0 50 646.4 223 1386 1-·-·c .. :-::c-:----·-·-·-·--·-----------------·--·--------··---... ---···--·-·-----·--1 1973 5 1356 1278 0 50 644.8 210 1328 f-----------.. ----·--·"··-··-····----·--------·-------------------.. -----------............. --·-------------------.. ----.. 1973 6 5733 1162 0 150 649.6 200 1312 1973 7 2562 1198 0 150 655.4 219 1348 1973 ____ .. _8 __________ 81--6-~-1-13_7 ________ o _______ 1_5_o ______ 6 __ 5_6 ___ o---------2-10 __________ 1_2_8_7 __ j r--··c---=:---..................... ,_____________ ----· 1973 9 2418 1132 0 150 656.8 210 1282 ~----·-----------------------------------------------------·---------1973 10 613 1146 0 150 656.8 213 1296 1973 -----1~1------,-43~o~--~1~35~1~----~o------~5o~-----6~5~5=·-:_o __________ .. =2-:-4=7--------1~4~0-1---~ f----------·-----.. ·-·--·-----·-·---·-------------------·---··---.. --.. -------------.. ·---, .. , ...... -=--.. -i 1973 12 392 1315 0 50 653.1 235 1365 1974 366 1475 0 50 650.7 258 1525 . ~-------------~~_, _______ _ 2 351 1418 0 50 648.7 243 1468 _______________ .. __ ,,. ___________________________ .. ________ ,, ____ ,,_, ---·-·-=-:-c~---·-·---------:--·---1 3 351 1389 0 50 646.4 232 1439 ...... _____________________________ ,, .. ,______ ,____ ........................ -... --.--..... -.... -·-·-·-·-...... _ ......... _, _________ ..., 4 366 1367 0 50 644.3 223 1417 1----~=-=·-·-.. -............... __ .... ___ --:---::-::---------·-:-:---·--·-·---------:-------...................... ---·--·-·--....... -... ''C""'C'-:c-~---·--···---·--=---j 5 1825 1307 0 50 642.8 210 1357 ---~···-~·---· ....................................... ___________ ............................ _ .......... -.... ___ ............. ---·------·-------1 1974 6 3244 1205 0 150 646.0 200 1355 ........................... .. .............. ·-"""'"' ............... --.. ---·--------·----· .. -·. ·---- 1974 7 1398 1296 0 150 647.7 219 1446 , _____ ....................... _,_ ... _ ... _ ... __ , ____ .,. _______________ ,-:-~-- 1974 8 938 1254 0 150 646.5 210 1404 1974 9 1095 1264 0 150 645.9 ,,_._~•••--·--·~--··•w--•-•---• _ _, __ -~.,•·------"'--••-·•••••"'"~-----··•-•••~·-· -··-·----~-·v-------···~··-·"""-""""•-•-• 1974 10 858 1287 0 150 645.5 197 4 11 458 1524 0 50 643.5 ---·····-·· .. -·-····-·--·---............. ____________ ............. _ .. _ .. ·----.. _ ...................... .. 1974 12 409 1494 0 50 Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 641.2 210 1414 o< ............................................ -..... ~.=·-----i 213 1437 247 1574 ..,_,_ .. _ ........ __ . ____ .... -j 235 1544 Rev. B ~HATCH .. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 19 of 43 . Energy Project Power Spillway lnstream Re~~~olr Generation Project Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow El t" per Model Outflow eva 1on . (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) T1me Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) 1975 1 379 329 0 50 641.0 52 379 1975 2 366 316 0 50 641.0 50 366 1975 3 359 309 0 50 641.0 49 359 --1975 4 379 329 0 50 641.0 52 -----3::-7=-9---j 1975 5 1095 1045 0 50 641.0 164 1095 ~------------------------------------------------------------------------1975 6 5007 1213 0 150 645.5 200 1363 1975 7 2389 1263 0 150 650.2 219 1413 r-~~----~----~--------~----~-------~------~~----------------~---4 1975 8 683 1207 0 150 650.1 210 1357 1975 9 2091 1215 0 150 649.7 210 1365 1975 10 1290 1225 0 150 650.2 213 1375 1975 11 471 1444 0 50 648.5 247 1494 1975 12 398 1410 0 50 646.3 235 1460-- rl_-~19~7~6~--~1·----~3~6~6----~15~9~0------~o------~50~----~64~3~_=-7------~25=-8~-----1c~6~ 1 1976 2 318 1484 o 5o 641.4 234 1534 1 1976 3 303 253 o 50 641.o 4o 303 1976 4 303 253 0 50 641.0 40 303 r-~19~7~6~--~5~--~8~2~5----~6~7=-5-------o~------1~5~o·----~64~1~_=-o-------10-6-------~82!5--- r---------~------------------------------------------------------------- 1976 6 3426 1236 0 150 643.7 200 1386 r-~~~----~------~------------~-------------------------------------~ 1976 7 2125 1319 0 150 646.1 219 1469 --1976 8 1991 1248 0 150 647.0 210 1398-- 1976 9 2620 1225 0 150 648.9 210 1375 1976 10 2022 1205 0 50 651.8 213 1255 1976 11 629 1407 0 50 651.0 247 1457 1976 12 458 1369 0 50 649.1 235 1419 Gf; ~ :~~ ~::~ ~ :~ :::~ ~:: -~~~ 1 1977 3 366 1453 o 5o 642.4 232 1503 , .. 1977 4 362 312 0 50 641.0 49 362 ~------------------ 1 1977 5 751 701 0 50 641.0 110 751 i---------------·-----------------------------------·-----· ! 1977 6 9589 1175 0 150 648.8 200 1325 1 1977 7 7164 1134 512 ·-150 661.4 219 _____ 179(3- !;!;; : -~~:: :~~~ ~~: ::~ ::~~ ~:~ -~~ ,--1977 10 586 1107 115 150 660.4 i1'3-1372 I 1977 11 435 1303 o 5o 658.7 24 7 -13-5:3-- l _____ ·---~~···~-~--~-'-·-------·-~--~-.+••~--.------------------------·--~------··-~ ••+•~ -----••••--• ________ ,_, _ _,,, _________ ,,_ ----~--0 0 ••W•"'" •-•---••oo 0 0 --~ '••·-·-- Rev. B Safety • Quality • Sustain ability •Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 20 of 43 ~HATCH .. . Energy Project Power Spillway lnstream Re~~~o•r Generation Project Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow El t" per Model Outflow eva 1on . (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) T1me Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) 1977 12 409 1265 0 50 657.0 235 1315 1978 1 398 1415 0 50 654.9 258 1465 c--1978 2 --386 .. --1:-:-3-::-56-c-----:co-----=-5o--·--6-53.o __ _ 243 1406 ~-~ :~: ! !:: ~ ~!: ~ :~ ::~:~ ,.... 1978 5 3858 1185 0 50 652.1 232 1374 223 1349 210 1235 r--::--;----!~:~-~~~: 1~55 ~:~ :::~ --- ~-:} : ~:~-~---~-~-:-~---~-~-:---~ :-~-::~ :: --------- 200 1225 -219 2330 210 1918 210 1940 ,---1978--10-·-788 1109 49 150 660.2 213 1308 f ~:~r-r--: --~~-~-:---~----:-~--._:;_.~-r~=-- 1979 2 386 1347 0 50 653.7 247 1349 235 1309 258 1456 243 1397 ._ .. ________________ ---:-::-:-------::----::.-::--_____ _,, ....................... . 1979 3 386 1315 0 50 651 . 7 ------- 232 1365 ---·------------------·-----------------------· ........ -................... . ...... _____________ 1979 4 440 1288 0 50 649.9 223 1338 ---------- 1979 5 3274 1210 0 50 650.1 210 1260 -------- 1_1 ~~~-----~---~-50 1073 0 150 657.4 ----·· 1223--200 ------------L~~~ ___ !.._ ____ 3_o3_4 ____ 11_2_7 ___ 8_7_6 ___ 1s_o ___ 66_~-----219 2153 ... 1979 8 3889 1 059 2639 150 663.6 210 3848 ------------------------------------ 1979 9 1547 1078 907 150 661.7 210 2136 ---1-979------16 ______ 2289 --·---:-:1 o:-::8-=-5 ___ 1._6_0_6 ___ 1_5_0 ----·-662.6 ___ .. _____ _ ......... _ ... _______________ 213 2841 -·-------·-------------------------·---·-··----·------ 1979 11 1290 1267 849 50 661.7 247 2166 r-.. 1979 _____ 12-----......,4-=-5-=-2 ---1-=-=2-3~1 -----=o----=5-=-o------659~8---------------- 235 1281 ~---:;·98a·-----1----·--·42s 1374 o 5o 657~9-----·----258 1424 ----------------------.........,,...,.......-----------------,,------=-=------------·--............................... ... 1980 2 417 1268 0 50 656.2 ·--·---·-··--------- 234 1318 1---· .. .,..._-c--::-··--·----::---·-·:------~:::-:-----:-----::-::------·-------· .. -...... -..... 1980 3 420 1279 0 50 654.4 ·---··----232 1329 ........................................... _. ...................... ______________ _ 1980 4 418 1252 0 50 ... .... ------··----.. --...................... ______________ _ 1980 5 4172 117 4 0 150 1980 6 5269 1 034 492 150 1980 7 3983 11 03 3134 150 652.7 653.0 661.3 664.0 .......1980 8 ---------1302 ------1-0_7_2 ___ 1_2-50 ___ 15_0 _____ ""66i1 ..... ---·--·--···--------· 223 1302 ..... ________ .. ________ 210 1324 ---------------- 200 1676 ·------------- 219 4387 ""---~------------- 210 2472 ----19sa·------9---........... 1 .. 290------:1-=o-=-91-c------:1-=3-=-8 ----1:-::s=-=-o--·--6-6o.5 ________ _ ---~--------210 1379 1980 10 2016 1105 222 50 660.7 213 1376 --------~--····· .. -·-··------- Rev. B Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights rese!Ved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 1980 11 499 1289 0 50 1980 12 409 1981 1 435 1397 0 50 1981 2 425 1337 0 50 1981 3 415 1303 0 50 1981 4 413 1276 0 1981 5 4015 1196 0 50 1981 6 4204 1062 150 1981 7 2447 1130 681 150 1981 8 1547 1080 640 150 1981 9 558 1981 10 671 1123 0 150 1981 11 1981 12 1982 1 420 0 1982 2 398 1377 0 50 1982 3 1982 4 379 1320 0 50 1982 5 2235 1260 0 50 1982 6 0 150 1982 7 1138 257 150 1982 8 951 1085 351 150 1982 9 5236 1068 1857 150 1982 10 881 1089 1183 150 1982 11 488 1288 0 50 50 50 1983 3 0 50 1983 4 50 1983 5 50 1983 6 4747 0 150 1063 150 261 150 0 150 Safety • Quality • Sustainabitity • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved. including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 21 of 43 659.9 247 1339 1300 656.1 258 1447 654.4 243 1387 652.6 232 1353 650.8 1326 651.2 210 1246 200 1212 661.5 219 1961 661.4 210 1870 660.4 210 1347 658.9 213 1273 1371 1333 653.4 1486 651.5 243 1427 232 1395 223 1370 646.2 210 1310 653.2 200 1270 660.8 219 1545 1585 662.9 210 3075 662.1 213 2422 659.9 247 1338 658.3 1299 656.3 258 1446 243 652.5 232 1354 650.7 223 1328 650.7 210 1251 658.5 200 1212 662.0 219 2338 660.7 210 Rev.B ~HATCH .. Project Power Spillway Year Month Inflow Plant Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) 1983 10 476 1136 0 -1983 11 638 1339 0 1983 12 700 1284 0 ··---· 1984 1 454 1435 0 -----------·-~-1984 2 409 1327 0 ------------- 1984 3 379 1343 0 ·-· 1984 4 373 1318 0 1984 5 1810 1256 0 ------------ 1984 6 4394 1151 0 1984 7 2025 1207 0 ---------------------- 1984 8 510 1158 0 --------------------1984 9 683 1178 0 ------------ 1984 10 451 1212 0 -----------------·---"~-------~--~---· 1984 11 415 1435 0 ---------- 1984 12 377 1401 0 1985 1 430 1579 0 ------------------------------___ " _____ --- 1985 2 395 1522 0 1985 3 359 309 0 1985 4 320 270 0 1985 5 497 447 0 1985 6 6136 1212 0 1985 7 2650 1241 0 1985 8 2447 1153 0 -· 1985 9 2349 1145 0 1985 10 986 1148 0 -----1985 11 487 1350 0 ---------------------------- 1985 12 449 1312 0 1986 1 409 1470 0 1986 2 392 1412 0 -·-----------·--·-···-· -1986 3 379 1382 0 1986 4 366 1359 0 1986 5 788 1304 0 lnstream Flow (cfs) 150 50 50 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 150 150 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 150 150 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 22 of 43 Reservoir Energy Pool Generation Project Elevation per Model Outflow (ft) Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) 657.7 213 1286 -655.9 247 1389 -------· --655.5 235 1334 -·---~--~---~-~---- 653.5 258 1485 --~------------------ 651.7 234 1377 _______ _. _____ 649.7 232 1393 ~·-··--------------647.7 223 1368 ---------------646.4 210 1406 ---- 650.4 200 1301 --------654.6 219 1357 --------------·-- 654.2 210 1308 --------· 652.6 210 1328 ----~----- 651.1 213 1262 -----------------/·---~ --------------649.1 247 1485 --------------------------- 646.9 235 1451 644.4 258 1629 ---------~--------------642.2 243 1572 641.0 49 359 641.0 42 320 -----------~----· 641.0 70 497 ----------645.7 200 1362 651.9 219 1391 654.7 210 1303 655.6 210 1295 656.6 213 1298 ------------------------- 655.1 247 1400 ----~------~------~---~~·------ 653.3 235 1362 651.1 258 1520 649.1 243 1462 -----·---·-·-·-------------------·---------- 647.0 232 1432 644.9 223 1409 643.0 210 1354 --·1986 "--·--~· . ··-·--·--... -. .. ~•-•--•-•-·------•••·-----··-·-·-·---------·-••--•·•-·"--'•~e-••-• ----·· --------------------·------- 6 4490 1214 0 150 645.4 200 1364 f---1986 -~----·~-------~-·~ ·----~~~-""·-~~-··-~---~-~-·--~--~--· 7 2944 1259 0 150 650.5 219 1409 1986 8 2708 1170 0 150 653.3 210 1320 ·-·····-~~----·-----"~-----~ ··---·~------------~---·~----'"·------------·~-· ----~--·---·--·---- Rev. B Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 23 of 43 ~HATCH .. . Energy Project Power Spillway lnstream Re~~~o•r Generation Project Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow El t" per Model Outflow eva1on . (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) {ft) T1me Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) 1986 9 2072 1145 0 150 655.6 210 1295 1986 10 1930 1141 0 150 657.3 213 1291 1986 11 502 1316 0 50 657.7 247 1366 1986 12 440 ·---1-2_7_8 ____ 0 ____ 50 ____ .6_5_5_.9 _____ 2_3_5 ____ 13 __ 2_8---l 1987 1 409 1430 0 50 653.8 258 1480 1987 2 392 1371 0 50 652.0 243 1421 1987 3 386 1339 0 50 649.9 232 1389 1987 4 386 1314 0 50 648.0 223 1364 1987 5 1132 1257 0 50 646.3 210 1307 --19-8l·---=-6--·-7=-:8:c-:6c-:4---,.{f-24 _____ 0 ___ 1_5_0·-----::-65::-:2:-.9:------::-20:c-:Oc-----1:-::2-=7 4-:---l 1987 7 4683 1119 1560 150 662.6 219 2829 I 1987 8 2007 1068 1633 150 662.6 210 2851 11987 ___ 9 ___ 9_17 ___ 1_0_87 ___ 3_1_2 ___ 1_5_0 ___ 660.8 210 1550 1-1987 10 1638 1100 446 150 -6-=-6:--1-.1:--------2--1-=-3----1--6:-::9-=-6__, 1987 11 479 1289 0 50 659.8 247 1339 -----------------------------------------~ 1987 12 435 1251 0 50 658.1 235 1301 1988 1 415 1398 0 50 656.1 258 1448 1988 2 409 1292 0 50 654.4 234 1342 1988 3 392 1305 0 50 652.5 232 1355 1988 4 379 1279 0 50 650.6 223 1329 1988 5 2361 1212 0 150 649.8 210 1362 1988 6 6544 1064 0 150 658.4 200 1214 1988 7 3214 1110 2371 150 663.3 219 3631 1988 8 3610 1065 1986 150 663.0 210 3201 1988 9 2033 1071 1508 150 662.4 210 2729 1988 10 1732 1095 753 50 661.6 213 1898 1988 11 757 1283 78 50 660.3 247 1412 1988 12 440 1244 0 50 658.7 235 1294 1989 1 398 1389 0 50 656.7 258 1439 i 1989 2 386 1331 0 50 654.9 243 1381 1989 3 386 1297 0 50 653.0 232 1347 i 1989 4 379 12~~----·---o ____ 5_o ___ 6_5_1_.2 ________ 2_2_3 _______ 1_32_1_ 4 '--~~--5 ______ 1 0_5_8 ___ 12.14 ! 1989 6 5007 1094 0 649.6 --------------·-------------4 150 655.4 50 210 1264 0 200 1244 ------------ 1 __ --~ _989 ______ ! __ .... --....... ~-~~-~-------~ 1-~~----.-----0-----~-~-? ------·--~-~~~~------------~-1-~--------------1-~?-~----- Rev. B Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved. including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. •HATCH~ Project Power Spillway In stream Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) .,. . • e:~ •• • • 1989 9 4426 1058 2998 150 1989 10 50 1989 11 12 1 0 2 0 3 379 0 50 4 420 1269 0 50 5 6 7 8 1269 9 2295 10 757 11 445 1361 0 12 420 1325 0 50 1 409 2 3 0 420 1375 0 50 2218 2944 11 7 1732 1279 0 150 8 951 0 150 9 4812 1207 0 150 10 1742 1170 0 150 11 483 1361 0 50 1991 12 398 1324 0 50 1992 1 386 1486 0 50 1992 2 373 1992 3 359 1 4 420 1377 50 5 221 1 0 1 6 4909 1183 0 150 --•-•·----~·• •n"--" -·--------~----··--------~-~--~-~~--•-M ammo Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of tbs document or its contents. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 24 of 43 Reservoir Energy Pool Generation Project Elevation per Model Outflow (ft) Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) •• • • 663.9 210 4206 662.7 213 2986 660.5 1485 235 1292 258 1438 655.1 243 1379 653.1 232 651.3 223 1319 1261 200 1260 219 1356 210 1299 655.4 210 1296 655.9 213 1306 654.2 247 1411 652.3 235 1375 650.0 258 1536 648.0 243 1478 645.9 232 1448 643.8 1425 642.5 1362 1336 648.9 219 1429 648.9 210 1372 650.6 210 1357 654.7 213 1320 654.3 247 1411 652.4 235 1374 650.0 258 1536 648.0 234 1429 645.8 232 1449 643.7 223 1427 643.0 0 1455 647.8 200 1333 ---··--.. ______ ._. -------~' Rev.B Project Year Month Inflow (cfs) 1992 7 2111 1992 8 3672 1992 9 962 1-· 1992 10 467 1992 11 409 11992 12 386 l 1993 1 379 1993 2 373 1993 3 379 1993 4 494 t--1993 5 5203 I 1993 6 4172 1993 7 2361 1-- 1993 8 2101 1993 9 2137 1993 10 1502 1993 11 491 1993 12 449 1994 1 430 1994 2 409 1994 3 386 1994 4 425 f----1994 5 2418 1994 6 4909 1994 7 3672 -1994 8 1278 1994 9 2418 1994 10 1502 1994 11 613 1994 12 463 1995 1 440 ! 1995 2 386 1995 3 379 1995 4 467 1995 5 4877 Power Spillway Plant Flow Flow (cfs) (cfs) 1241 0 1160 0 1137 0 1169 0 1381 0 1346 0 1512 0 1455 0 1427 0 1405 0 1299 0 1137 0 1199 0 1132 0 1108 0 1102 364 1292 0 1253 0 1400 0 1340 0 1307 0 1281 0 1214 0 1079 0 1127 900 1076 964 1084 549 1091 1088 1283 79 1243 0 1388 0 1329 0 1296 0 1269 0 1172 0 lnstream Flow (cfs) 150 150 150 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 150 150 -. 150 150 150 50 50 50 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 25 of 43 Reservoir Energy Pool Generation Project Elevation per Model Outflow (ft) Time Step (cfs) (Day) (MWh) 651.9 219 1391 654.2 210 1310 656.2 210 1287 654.7 213 1219 652.8 247 1431 650.8 235 1396 648.4 258 1562 646.3 243 1505 644.0 232 1477 641.9 223 1455 643.6 210 1349 651.6 200 1287 655.3 219 1349 656.6 210 1282 658.9 210 1258 661.0 213 1615 -1342--659.6 247 658.0 235 1303 656.0 258 1450 ----~------- 50 654.2 243 1390 50 652.3 232 1357 ---·- 50 650.4 223 1331 50 649.7 210 1264 150 656.8 200 1229 150 661.8 219 2178 150 -------------------------:--661.8 210 2190 150 661.3 210 1783 150 662.0 213 2328 50 660.3 247 1412 50 658.8 235 1293 50 656.8 258 1438 50 655.1 243 1379 50 653.1 232 1346 50 651.3 223 1319 50 653.2 210 1222 -· ~-·~" ~ --· ~·-·· ------·------~-~,.----------------------····-·· Rev. B Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. ~HATCH .. Project Power Spillway In stream Year Month Inflow Plant Flow Flow {cfs) Flow {cfs) {cfs) (cfs) •• '. I' • •• 7 2361 1122 1292 1 •• 8 1356 1 741 150 • • 9 4586 1069 1770 150 1995 10 2043 1090 1173 150 1995 11 189 50 1995 12 425 1242 0 50 1996 1 392 1387 0 50 1996 2 398 1282 0 50 1996 3 398 1996 4 428 1268 0 50 1996 5 2349 1996 6 2447 1996 7 1629 1996 8 627 1996 9 475 11 0 150 ~~~ ~-"~ ··~--··~-··--· -~-,.·--- Average 1399 1203 115 92 Min 260 0 0 Max 9589 1615 4742 150 Safety • Quality o Suslainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or ils contents. Appendix C Project Operations Modeling Sheet 26 of 43 Reservoir Energy Pool Generation Project Elevation per Model Outflow (ft) Time Step {cfs) (Day) {MWh) . .. ' II '' 662.2 . ' 661.5 210 1970 662.8 210 2989 662.1 213 2413 660.6 247 1519 658.9 235 1292 656.9 258 1437 655.1 234 1332 653.2 232 1344 651.4 223 1318 210 1342 200 1258 655.3 219 1349 654.9 210 1300 653.5 210 1317 "'~--·" __ , ___ •• 652.1 214 1410 0 50 258 5935 Rev. B Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 27 of 43 ~HATCH .. Project Memo H342022 28 Mar 2013 To: Dick Griffith From: Carl Mannheim cc: Nuvista Electric Cooperative Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Study Project Impact on Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Water Levels 1. Introduction This memo presents the expected change in water level fluctuations for Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake due to the regulated flows from the Project. The purpose of this memo is to provide supporting information for future assessments of impact on fish spawning in the two downstream lakes affected by the Project. The analysis is based on the preferred project arrangement and overall hydrology described in detail in the Draft Interim Feasibility Report (Hatch, 2014a) and summarized herein. 2. Project Arrangement The preferred project arrangement includes a roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam with a 110ft long uncontrolled spillway. The spillway crest elevation is 660 ft, which means that the normal maximum lake level will be raised 4 7 feet from elevation 613 ft. A 13ft wide and approximately 900 feet long concrete lined power tunnel will route water to the powerhouse, in which four 5.5 MW vertical Francis turbines will be installed. The tailrace elevation is approximately 544 ft, resulting in a maximum gross head on the units of 116 feet. 3. Hydrology The following is a summary of the relevant hydrology for the analysis presented herein. A more detailed description of the hydrology, including how the available short-term record at the USGS Allen River gage was extended to a long-term record, is presented in the Draft Interim Feasibility Report (Hatch, 2014a). Daily flow and water level fluctuations are not expected to change significantly; monthly records are therefore considered sufficient. If yo" dlfi ii~Pi"t~~fDcootaloed herelo, plea'e advl'e lmme%:~.~~ ... ~ Page1 Safety o Quality o Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 3.1 Drainage Areas Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 28 of 43 The drainage areas of each individual basin and their cumulative drainage areas are presented in Table 1. These drainage areas are used with the stream flow records to estimate the runoff per unit area. Table 1 Drainage areas and normal water surface elevations Lake Chikuminuk 348 348 Lake Chauekuktuli 259 607 Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake 878 1485 3.2 Unregulated Monthly Average Flows 613 315 305 USGS gage 15301500 Location of R&M stream gage on Northwest Passage USGS gage 15302000 Monthly average flows from the extended record at the USGS Allen River gage (15301500) and the USGS Nuyakuk River gage (15302000) in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, were used to represent unregulated (pre-project or existing) flow conditions into Lake Chauekuktuli and out of Tikchick!Nuyakuk Lake. The unregulated flows into Tikchick/Nuyakuk Lake are estimated based on the calculated runoff per unit area. 3.3 Regulated Monthly Average Flows The regulated average monthly outflow from the Project into Lake Chauekuktuli is summarized in Table 4 (Hatch, 2014b). Regulated flows into Tikchick/Nuyakuk Lake are estimated based on the expected runoff per unit area. Safety • Quality • Sustain ability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Rev. A Page 2 ~HATCH .. Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 29 of 43 Table 2 Average monthly flows on Nuyakuk River (cfs) (USGS 15302000), unregulated conditions Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 1954 2100 1700 1400 1300 3919 10360 6794 5191 1955 3000 2400 2100 2000 3359 11790 20420 12730 1956 1800 1400 1300 1400 3298 16680 11880 7006 1957 1800 1400 1400 1700 4806 13080 7232 3855 1958 3097 2354 2100 2050 3854 19900 21850 11460 1959 2300 1700 1300 1400 3415 13680 10910 5836 1960 2545 1855 1448 800 5084 16650 12630 9579 1961 3176 2700 2000 1700 5890 15930 12460 9820 ~62 1897 1800 1600 1600 4161 15640 15370 6707 1963 3100 3200 3041 1900 3550 14230 11480 6306 -- 1964 1397 1252 1097 1100 1719 16370 13740 7720 1965 2000 1600 1700 2300 3247 18910 14940 9255 1966 2000 1700 1600 1500 2010 10900 12870 9103 - 1967 2939 2371 2003 1833 2323 11280 9625 6397 1968 1574 1462 1400 1400 3942 11030 7297 8098 1969 1887 1600 1500 1500 4090 23290 15760 6564 1970 2284 1871 1700 1600 4360 15130 13100 9471 1971 1726 1532 1461 1423 3519 14130 18350 13830 1972 2290 1814 1497 1433 2496 12220 16070 7980 1973 2629 2050 1713 1533 3567 14350 16130 7718 1974 1832 1554 1500 1510 4162 11850 9749 5721 --1975 2068 1804 1665 1653 3774 13860 14470 7034 1976 1787 1348 990.3 905 2565 10990 10860 8261 -- 1977 3216 2654 2026 1623 2894 18620 26220 24190 1978 2332 2075 1900 1910 11320 14890 15490 8829 1979 3333 2336 1881 2309 6930 18580 14540 14420 I 1980 2820 2678 2495 2496 6748 20160 18650 10470 1981 2756 2850 2615 2497 6988 18370 12410 8600 --1982 2303 2604 2248 1977 3706 17980 18950 8398 1983 2844 2379 1913 1936 6349 19230 13920 7060 1984 4005 2759 2097 1817 4085 13060 13620 6407 1985 2205 2527 1823 1350 1817 14040 16710 11210 -- 1986 2823 2221 1981 1823 2708 10760 15170 11050 1987 2700 2207 2048 1933 3340 17260 22850 12830 1988 2603 2452 2197 1967 4958 20400 18920 12280 ~--·----· -1989 2781 2036 2000 1797 3410 16010 13570 9173 ·----· 2243 2160 13030 1990 2761 1881 3777 8359 7373 1991 2419 2179 2045 2300 4687 14700 9258 7184 1992 2006 1869 1732 1810 5474 14570 13410 10240 1993 1932 1804 1816 2692 9715 19400 12830 8505 : 1994 2974 2571 2090 2273 5206 18230 15370 10520 1995 3177 2393 1965 2365 9564 18230 12770 8641 A 2458 2079 1816 1776 4447 15471 14214 9120 ·--~y~~-~.2':. Max 4005 3200 3041 2692 11320 23290 26220 24190 Min 1397 1252 990 800 1719 10360 6794 3855 Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Sep 5589 7485 9277 11540 7098 5271 7068 8813 5351 10770 7620 14370 8684 6573 6127 5633 8407 7192 7187 8201 6497 6526 9851 9861 8593 9039 5877 6442 11660 4167 4099 8146 10440 6660 11320 17070 7651 9811 10040 10440 7543 11420 8367 17070 4099 Oct Nov Dec Annual 5058 6111 4029 4463 6592 3800 2400 6506 5395 3333 2732 5458 7500 8886 4887 5674 6255 3450 2600 7172 9049 5092 3190 5262 6531 5586 4100 6156 6402 4010 2187 6257 5228 3500 2900 5480 6702 3057 1848 5765 7364 4225 2700 c;c;Jc; 11520 5300 3100 7354 10470 5900 3916 _ _.?888 6015 2976 1939 4690 3816 2570 2187 4242 11470 8567 3806 7139 4636 3057 2094 5643 6490 4572 3026 6438 6755 6065 3727 5795 6901 3680 2377 5904 6863 4573 2723 4878 --- 7734 4807 2710 5675 --11400 6249 3983 5766 --5923 3747 2523 8625 6037 5325 4467 6931 12040 9192 4693 8274 7480 6170 3045 7424 4268 4489 3095 6282 12100 4815 3310 7504 4282 3857 6500 6203 4933 2950 2281 5176 8212 4790 3555 6365 9273 7477 3397 6594 7928 5567 3284 7384 8065 6400 3719 7940 13010 5978 3272 7509 ·------~-- 7569 4247 2796 ~321 13350 6399 2748 6423 4583 2893 2213 5903 10130 5377 3600 7353 11240 6050 4177 7354 11280 6793 3452 7671 7806 5045 13350 9192 3816 2570 3221 6500 1848 6318 8625 4242 Rev. A Page 3 Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 30 of 43 Table 3 Estimated average monthly flows on Allen River (USGS 15301500), pre-project conditions Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1954 392 366 344 335 677 2469 1239 679 788 631 968 486 781 ------------------~ 1955 440 409 392 386 531 2894 5609 3187 1510 1163 475 409 1460 ---------------------------1 1956 373 344 335 344 546 4407 2901 1302 2154 808 455 425 1197 ---------------------1 1957 373 344 344 366 939 3271 1396 477 2780 1499 2037 738 1211 -------·---- 1958 444 407 392 389 559 5520 6106 2789 1343 1034 459 420 1663 --------------- 1959 404 366 335 344 571 3466 2639 891 706 2009 664 449 1074 ------~--------------·--·----- 1960 417 376 347 287 989 4382 3144 2238 1323 1111 787 487 1325 ------------~--------------·------ 1961 448 425 386 366 1262 4153 3087 2310 2038 1097 486 396 1375 -----------·------------------------------- 1962 379 373 359 359 678 4112 3995 1207 718 686 463 435 1150 1963 445 449 442 379 562 3620 2966 1492 2239 1071 :-------------------------------- 1964 474 406 314 255 339 4870 2908 1986 2039 1571 625 520 1358 ,_______ ·---------·---··--------· 1965 460 400 370 348 494 4702 3476 2132 4554 1576 569 460 1628 I-----·-------------·~-'"--· -·--~---· __ ., _________ _ 1966 400 350 300 260 367 3900 3226 2010 2300 2497 910 480 1421 1-------------------------- 1967 437 407 386 375 404 2699 2209 1059 1164 -·-- 1968 357 348 344 344 708 2659 1429 1689 1016 477 418 397 849 ----------·----------· -----·---- 1969 378 359 351 351 771 6650 4145 1167 805 2781 1858 489 1678 ---------·-----····-----~--·--· -------·· 1970 402 378 366 359 790 3915 3279 2209 1852 593 442 391 1251 1971 368 354 348 346 559 3618 4935 3523 1377 1095 552 441 1468 !-· --- 1972 403 374 351 346 412 2987 4211 1687 1390 1258 974 472 1241 1973 421 389 367 354 563 3697 4242 1574 1691 1284 472 408 1293 -----------------" ------. ------·-··----------· ··-··--·-------------·- 1974 375 355 351 352 657 2907 2274 840 1097 1255 573 426 957 r--------------------------------- 1975 390 373 364 363 549 3521 3709 1322 1164 1614 611 425 1205 -----------~·--~------·----·-~--····-----""" -----------------------··------------------ 1976 372 339 307 299 434 2616 2614 1857 2329 2770 1037 489 1291 --------·--------------------- 1977 450 423 387 361 446 5117 7611 6897 2281 902 473 416 2162 ---------~-------·-·------------~---.------- 1978 406 391 379 379 2716 3826 4018 1975 1926 938 706 527 1523 r--------------------·---·------~----··----------------· ·------ 1979 455 405 378 404 1356 5006 3722 3708 2007 2963 2092 654 1937 -------------~---------·---------- 1980 431 424 414 414 1400 5523 5026 2476 885 1486 1031 440 1666 -----~-------••• •~ •-"~-··~ ''"-----·-·---_._ .. -·-o••""•"••--·-•w<> _______ _ 1981 428 433 421 415 1--------------------------· 1452 4934 3073 1935 1096 526 530 444 1310 1982 404 419 401 384 626 4829 5152 1800 2772 2959 584 454 1738 ----------------······-------·------------··--···-----··--··---------------- 1983 432 408 380 381 1278 5216 3537 1348 494 496 481 1108 1300 !------------·-----·--- 1984 494 428 392 374 697 3283 3450 1106 503 640 437 402 1019 ·-·------- 1985 398 416 374 339 367 3564 4426 2714 1748 r--------------· 1798 594 465 1440 --·-------·-----·-~------··---------- 1986 431 399 385 374 433 2565 3919 2666 2489 2159 1544 458 1491 -------------·------ 1987 425 398 389 381 500 4623 6438 3210 1181 1698 862 453 1723 ----------~----------·----·--·----·-·---·-·--··· ----~·-------------- 1988 420 412 398 384 877 5638 5131 3031 2750 1765 1076 480 1865 1-----------____ ., ____ ,_ ----·-·-·----·--~---~------- 1989 429 388 386 373 499 4214 3434 2154 4519 3273 1038 452 1766 -· -«·-----------------------------------···---------------·-· .. -·--~-----·--·· -----~--··-·--·----------·- 1990 428 400 378 395 533 3273 1793 1448 1540 1536 529 430 1058 ---------------~-----~--- 1991 410 397 389 404 749 3778 2159 1374 2185 3390 1162 426 1405 ------------·-·--·-·-·-·---------------·--»~--------- 1992 386 377 368 373 1015 3744 3388 2450 2323 587 434 398 1321 --~-----~------~---.. --~--~~-~ --------~~------ 1993 381 373 374 422 2182 5274 3200 1935 2490 ------------~--~-·--···--··~ONO---··--~-------· 2394 744 467 1691 -------------··· ----------------------·-l 1994 438 418 391 402 881 4910 3975 2492 1475 ···-·---..,-~-~-~--~ ._, __ "_" __ <O< 2722 948 49_8_: ________ ~1~_;6_::3 . ..:.6 __ 1 -~. "~· ~-~,. ...... --~---~ ~ . ·----~·~ '~~- 1995 448 409 384 406 2171 4891 3181 1933 2759 2727 1253 459 1756 ---~---------.--~--~-"" ·--.. -~·-····-"""" .......... -·-··-·-·---··-·-· --- 1996 405 390 402 394 1254 2541 2018 1090 612 ---~ ·---------~-~----· -------·-·····--·~ ···-·-"-~-~--~"----~---- Avg 419 391 373 365 864 4071 3450 2032 1705 1559 842 516 1386 ~----· ---------------------· Min 303 322 300 255 339 2469 1239 477 485 477 418 382 781 ----~--"'-"----~~---.. ···---·· ·--------~---·----·--·~~-- Max 743 486 451 422 2716 6650 7611 6897 4554 3390 3294 2696 2162 ... ······------~·-··-··· ----.... ·-· .... _, __ ... ~--~-·~-----·-----------------~---- Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Rev. A Page4 ~HATCH~ Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 31 of 43 Table 4 Estimated average monthly flows on Allen River, post-project conditions (regulated flows) Year Jan Feb Mar 1954 1955 1473 1414 1382 1956 1468 1363 1379 1957 1518 1461 1432 1958 1597 1540 1513 1959 1472 1414 1383 1960 1583 1475 1500 1961 1580 1522 1494 1962 1575 1519 1492 1963 1665 449 440 1964 1635 1526 280 1965 1551 1493 1465 1966 1462 1405 1374 1967 1444 1385 1352 1--- 1968 1615 1508 344 1969 366 351 351 1970 1439 1381 1348 1971 1481 1424 1393 1972 1466 1360 1375 1973 1499 1440 1410 1974 1525 1468 1439 -- 1975 379 366 359 1976 1640 1534 303 1977 1588 1531 1503 1--- 1978 1465 1406 1374 1979 1456 1397 1365 1980 1424 1318 1329 1981 1447 1387 1353 -· 1982 1486 1427 1395 1983 1446 1387 1354 1984 1485 1377 1393 1985 1629 1572 359 1986 1520 1462 1432 1987 1480 1421 1389 1988 1448 1342 1355 1989 1439 1381 1347 1990 1438 1379 1346 ----~----- 1991 1536 1478 1448 ----- 1992 1536 1429 1449 ~- 1993 1562 1505 1477 -· 1994 1450 1390 1357 -----·-· 1995 1438 1379 1346 --------- 1996 1437 1332 1344 Avg 1456 1360 1227 --------·- Min 366 3S1 280 -- Max 166S 1S72 1Sl3 -·--------------· Apr May Jun Jul 1357 1298 1305 1312 1355 1397 1268 1335 1409 1340 1330 1443 386 1298 1314 1306 1359 1300 1291 1368 283 1476 1333 1398 366 1372 1336 1403 50 1382 1347 1389 379 50 1359 1430 260 704 1327 1398 1444 1382 1331 1387 1352 1298 1281 1343 1326 1270 1283 1369 344 1481 1384 1503 351 1379 1283 1321 1322 1258 1244 1304 1369 1311 1299 1322 1351 1396 1301 1339 1386 1328 1312 1348 1417 1357 1355 1446 379 1095 1363 1413 303 825 1386 1469 362 751 1325 1796 1349 1235 1225 2330 1338 1260 1223 2153 1302 1324 1676 4387 1326 1246 1212 1961 1370 1310 1270 1545 1328 1251 1212 2338 1368 1406 1301 1357 320 497 1362 1391 1409 1354 1364 1409 1364 1307 1274 2829 1329 1362 1214 3631 1321 1264 1244 1300 ----------- 1319 1261 1260 1356 1425 1362 1336 1429 1427 1455 1333 1391 1455 1349 1287 1349 1331 1264 1229 2178 1319 1222 1244 2564 ------- 1318 1342 1258 1349 1063 1234 1307 1676 so so 1212 1300 14SS 1481 1676 4387 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1275 1362 1323 2062 1662 1329 1354 1317 1439 1283 1266 1191 1395 1359 1338 1412 1379 1392 1472 1426 1418 1992 1487 1262 1358 1321 1365 1323 1341 1340 1450 1414 1371 1320 1322 1243 1450 1413 1316 1324 1309 1329 1442 1407 1324 1336 1353 1388 1516 1483 1319 1371 1350 1374 1498 1459 1069 1327 1313 1221 1428 1389 1151 -- 1312 1258 1343 1351 1313 1386 1274 1255 1795 1337 1298 1373 1322 1328 1352 1472 1439 1362 1438 1451 1401 404 386 1105 - 1270 1283 1267 1432 1293 996 -- 1612 1697 1266 1365 1328 1380 2070 1509 1293 1354 1315 1428 ---- 1277 1275 1192 1382 1344 1338 1287 1282 1296 1401 1365 1363 ------- 1404 1414 1437 1574 1544 1448 -· - 1357 1365 1375 1494 1460 1034 1398 1375 1255 1457 1419 1197 --- 5935 2478 1372 1353 1315 1776 - 1918 1940 1308 1349 1309 1517 3848 2136 2841 2166 1281 1872 2472 1379 1376 1339 1300 1719 1870 1347 1273 1371 1333 1427 ---- 1585 3075 2422 1338 1299 1627 1497 1254 1286 1389 1334 1423 1308 1328 1262 1485 1451 1377 1303 1295 1298 1400 1362 1149 ----- 1320 1295 1291 1366 1328 1379 2851 1550 1696 1339 1301 1650 - 3201 2729 1898 1412 1294 1851 ----------------- 1695 4206 2986 1485 1292 1747 ---·--------------------------------------~----------~- 1299 1372 1310 1282 2190 1970 1300 1745 1270 S93S 1296 1306 1411 1375 1337 ---------------------- 1357 1320 1411 1374 1404 ------- 1287 1219 1431 1396 1389 --1258 1615 1342 1303 1399 ----~~-~-· --~----- 1783 2328 1412 1293 1600 --------<-~----------------- 2989 2413 1519 1292 1725 ---------___ ,. ____________________ 1317 --~--~~--------·---------------- 1609 1503 1406 1334 1410 00 NO'-''------0 ----------------~----------------------~---- 12S4 1191 404 386 676 ----~----------------- 4206 2986 2166 1S44 2S49 ----------------------------~ ----------------------~---- Rev. A Page 5 Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. ~HATCH .. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 32 of 43 4. Project Impact on Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake The total flow out of each lake can be determined based on estimated runoff into each lake and any additional inflow, regulated or unregulated, from upstream lakes. The water level in each lake can then be calculated based on estimated lake outlet rating curves. The analysis of the Project impact on Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake presented herein was performed using the long term average monthly flow records available from the Nuyakuk River stream gage (Table 2) and the corresponding unregulated (pre- project) and regulated (post-project) estimated monthly flow records on Allen River (Tables 3 and 4 ). Daily flow records were not considered necessary based on the expectation that daily flow and water level fluctuations would be very small. The runoff characteristics of each drainage basin must be determined so that a simplified routing of the incremental flow contributions (basin runoff and inflow from upstream basin) on each basin can be determined. Estimated lake outlet rating curves facilitates the translation of outlet flows into lake levels. 4.1 Lake Chikuminuk Drainage Basin Runoff The Lake Chikuminuk drainage basin is the most upstream drainage basin and the runoff is equal to the flows estimated at the lake outlet on the Allen River shown in Table 2. 4.2 Lake Chauekuktuli Drainage Basin Runoff The Lake Chauekuktuli drainage basin is the middle drainage basin and there are no reliable long term lake outlet flow data available to calculate the contribution of runoff from this basin to the total lake outflow, which would also include the inflow from the Lake Chikuminuk drainage basin. Therefore, a long term record of Lake Chauekuktuli average monthly runoff volumes had to be estimated by assuming runoff characteristics similar to those for Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake. That assumption is reasonable considering the elevation and orientation of both drainage basins. The monthly runoff volumes were then estimated by scaling Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake basin unit runoff (cfs/mi 2 ) to the drainage area of Lake Chauekuktuli. The average monthly Lake Chauekuktuli outflows were estimated by adding the inflow from Lake Chikuminuk to the estimated basin runoff. 4.3 Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Drainage Basin Runoff The average monthly unit runoff for Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake was estimated by subtracting the inflows from Lake Chauekuktuli from the monthly record at the Nuyakuk Lake stream gage. 4.4 Lake Outlet Rating Curves The water surface elevation in each lake is a function of the rating curve of the outlet from each lake. The outlet from Lake Chauekuktuli is represented by the NW Passage, a stream channel with very consistent width and depth characteristics. The stream slope is consistently very flat for most of the channel, except towards the downstream end where the slope increases. Assuming the same cross-sectional shape of the channel at the lake outlet as for the NW Passage gage, the outflow from Lake Chauekuktuli is subcritical and therefore Safety • Quallty • Sustainability • lnnovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Rev. A Page 6 Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 33 of 43 normal depth controlled. A rating curve for the lake outlet was estimated by shifting the normal depth rating curve from the gage to the lake outlet by assuming the total energy should match the lake elevation for any flow. The slope of the channel at the outlet was assumed to be the same as at the gage, which was calculated from the measured cross section, flow, and water level of the gage calibration data. The resulting outlet rating curve for Lake Chauekuktuli is presented in Equation 1 below, in which z is the lake water level (ft) and Q is the flow (cfs). z = 306.31 + 0.1860Q 0 ·4772 ........................................................... Eq. 1 The water surface elevation of Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake was derived in a similar fashion using the Nuyakuk River gage rating data available from the USGS. The resulting outlet rating curve for Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake is presented in Equation 2 below. z = 301.59 + 0.1102Q 0 ·4638 .......................................................... Eq. 2 4.5 Analysis and Results Detailed tabular results are presented in Attachment A, based on the estimated runoff volumes and the lake outlet rating curves. Figures 1 and 2 show the estimated pre-and post-Project water levels for Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchick/Nuyakuk Lake, respectively, during the average hydrologic year (1987) of the record. The results indicate that the water levels would likely increase in both lakes during winter and spring as the Project would release more water for generation. The water level in Lake Chauekuktuli may increase as much as 2.5 feet in the spring, whereas the water level of Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake may increase only about 1 foot. The results for the specific periods shown in Figures 1 and 2 are indicative of the overall results that the lake water levels would increase slightly in late fall through spring (October through May) and be reduced in the summer through early fall (June through September) as the reservoir stores the runoff from snow melt and early fall precipitation. The magnitude of the change in average monthly water levels in Lake Chauekuktuli is greater than in Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake, since the regulated outflow from the Project affects Lake Chauekuktuli directly. The estimated effect on water level of Lake Chauekuktuli due to the Project should be fairly accurate, since impact is primarily a function of the relative change in flows from Lake Chikuminuk. The accuracy of the lake outlet rating curve would likely have a greater effect on the results than any inaccuracy of the estimated average monthly flow record on Allen River. Figures 3 and 4 show the estimated pre-and post-Project water levels for Lake Chauekuktuli during an average hydrologic year (1987) and the wettest hydrologic year (1977) of the record for fish spawning in August and eggs hatching in November. These results are indicative of the overall results that the water level variations from the time of spawning (in June through August) to the eggs hatch (in September through November) would generally be reduced in both lakes if the Project is constructed. Safety • Quality • Sustainability • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Rev. A Page 7 324 322 320 ~ 318 ~ E: -2 316 ~ Cll w 314 312 310 308 t-- - - Jan -Pre-Proj ect I -Po st -Proj e ct J - ) 1 ...,. _,/ Feb Mar Ap r May / ~ r A ~ 1// ' v Jun Jul Aug Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 34 of 43 ~ ~ -IS:: r--- f' Se p Oct Nov Dec Figure 1 Estimated average monthly water level fGr Lake Chauekuktuli during the average hydrologic year of record (1987) of the a v~ble re cord (1954-1996) 316 314 312 g 310 Qj > ~ 308 ... Cll .... 111 3: 30 6 304 302 300 r- - Ja n -Pre-Proj e ct -Po st-Project j -ld ...,. Feb Mar Apr May / ~ 1/ ~ "' ~ r ' ~ -......... ~ r==:::: Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 2 Estimated average monthly water level for Tikchick/Nuyakuk Lake during the ave rage hydrologic year of record (1987) of the available record (1954-1996) Safety • Quality • Sustai nabil ity • In novation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents . Rev. A Page 8 --------- Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 35 of 43 320 -~ r::: 0 -~ Qj 31 5 w 310 Figure 3 Estimated impact of Project on Lake Chauekuktuli water levels for an average hydrologic year {1987) with spawning in August and eggs hatching in November ----------- 8.6 ft _l_ 11.0 ft 320 -~ r::: 0 -~ Qj 1 315 W 310 Figure 4 Estimated impact of Project on Lake Chauekuktuli water levels for wettest hydrologic year {1977) with spawning in August and eggs hatching in November Safety • Quality • SUstalnabillty • lnnovatlon @Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or Its contents. Rev. A Page 9 Appendix C-Project Operations Modeling Sheet 36 of 43 Development of lake outlet rating curves by concurrently measuring lake levels and outlet flows would significantly improve these estimates of lake level fluctuations. One drawback of the methodology used to perform the analysis is that the estimated average monthly flows from Lake Chikuminuk and Lake Chauekuktuli are both based on correlated flows from the Nuyakuk River stream gage record. The estimated runoff and lake outflows from Lake Chikuminuk and Lake Chauekuktuli are therefore not independent. Reestablishment of the destroyed stream gage in the NW Passage and the continuation of flow measurements in the Allen River would allow a more refined analysis to be performed during a later design phase, should the Project proceed. 5. Summary and Conclusions The regulated Project outflow from the project operations model were used to estimate the impact of the Project on water levels in the two downstream lakes, Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake. Estimates of pre-project (unregulated) and post-project (regulated) lake water levels were calculated based on estimated basin runoff characteristics from the unregulated stream flow data. Detailed tabular results are included in Attachment A. The following is a summary of the results and conclusions: • The water levels in the downstream lakes will likely increase in the winter and decrease in the summer. Lake Chauekuktuli may experience an increase of about 2.5 feet in the winter and spring and a decrease of up to 3.5 ft in the early summer. Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake will likely only experience a modest increase of about 1 ft in the winter and spring and a modest decrease of about 1 ft in the early summer. • Reestablishment of the stream gage in the NW Passage is recommended to facilitate a more detailed and accurate routing analysis of flows to Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake. • Development of lake outlet rating curves at both Lake Chauekuktuli and Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake are recommended to facilitate more accurate estimates of lake levels. 6. References Hatch. (2014a). Draft Interim Feasibility Report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project. Hatch. (2014b). Draft Project Operations Memorandum. Carl Mannheim CM:cm Attachment( s )/Enclosure Safety • Quality • Sustainab!Hty • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All lights mseJVed. including all rights relating :o the use of this document or its contents. Rev. A Page 10 EiHATCH .. Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 37 of 43 Attachment A Detailed Tabular Results Safety • Quality • Sustainat>iltty • Innovation ©Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, irclucting all lights relating to the use of this document or its contents" Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 38 of 43 Page 1 --· ---·~----~-------,--------·--------------------------.--------~----------- Unregulated Monthly Flow Estimated Monthly Runoff Estim."lted Monthly Runoff Cceftlcient Estim.Jted Ba<,in Runoff (cfs} Lake Outflow· Pn•-?roject (cfs} Estimated Lake Outflow· Post-Project {cfs) Estim.Jted Lake Lev~! Pre-Project (ft) Estimated Lake Level-PosHroject (ftl Pre-and Post-Project t.ak~ Water Level Differential From Time of Spawning to Eggs H<llch {3 Month Spawning Period: Jtme-Aug) (ft} r-· ----r--~·· ---.-------,-----+----------,-+-----.-------.--------+----.-----------+-------,----------+--------.---------.-------.--------- Date Y€ar Month WY USGS 15302000 NUYAKUK R NR DILLINGHAM AK (cf!.) USGS 15301~00 ALLEN A NR ALEKNAGIK AK (ds} NUYAKU!( R less ALLEN R (cfsj USGS 15302000 I Lake Chikwm!nuk NUYAKUK R NR 15301500 ALLEN R (USGS 1~301500 DilliNGHAM AK (cfs/miJ\2l NR ALEKNAGIK AK (cfs/m1"l) ALU·N R ALEKNAGIK AK) (cfs} LakP Chau~t>kuktwli {NW Passage g.;ge)(ds) T1kchikjNuyakuk liike (USG$ 15302000 NUYAKUK R NR mLUNGKAM AK) Ids) Ldkc Chikurnfnuk Outflow-Pre- Project {cfs) Projf!ct(cfsj I Tikdlik/NIJyakt~k I Lake Chikuminuk lake Outnow • Owtflow-Post- 1 Pre-Project (cfs) ProJeCt (ds~ Lake Chauekuktuli oUtflow-Post- Project (cfs) Lake Chauekuktu!i I fikchik/Nuyakuk Lake I I Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake T1kchik/Nuyakuk ~ke {pre): CL = JlB.]B-(pre}: El = Lake Chauckuktuli (post): fl = Outflow· Pest-Project 112.47+0. 186"0"'0.47 301.59+0.1102•QA0.4 (post): EL"' 318·78-30L59+0.1102*'Q"0.463 (ds) 72 638 12.47+0.185•Q:"'OA772 Lake Chauekuktuli Pre-Project Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Pn.•-Project Lake Chauekuktuli- Post-Project Tikchik./Nuyal:uk Lake-Post-Project 11}:,4 1954 +-1954 1100 392 1708 15 u 392 355 """'-392 747-2050 r== ·--_____ _ +------1-----l-·----1 1954 1700 366 1334 L2 U 366 301 _lOll 366 667 1684 -!------_ ,.,.,-,, 1954 3 1954 lOOO-344 1056 0,9 LO 344 259 HOS 344 603 --i4(i9 _ _ ----···-+-------·--+---- Apr-54 19~4 4 __ 1:;1?:4_ 1300 335 965 0.8 1.0 335 245 n6 335 sso 1316 May-54 19">4 !) 1954 3919 6J 3242 2.8 1.9 677 648 2473 577 1325 3798 ..• ----·-- Jun·54 19?4 6 _ ~:3-~1-10360 2469 7891 6.9 7.1 2469 1898 60UI 2469 4367 10385 ~ ·--~-----__ Jul-54 1954 7 1954 6794 1239 5555 4.9 3.6 1239 1141 4Hl 17."19 2380 6617 Aug·54 1954 8 19~4 5191 679 4512 4.0 2.0 679 BOO ,'1441 679 1478 4920 -·------ Sep·54 1954 9 19!':14 5589 788. 4801 4_2' !.3 788 811 :'1661 188 1665 5326 Oct-54 1954 10 19SS _5058 631 ____ _:1427 '-9 -8 631 771 3:<76 63. 1402 _ --~~---1--275 ~~--~ '-·-2£2 307_ 313-4 _ 3075 No,-54 1951 11 1955 :--~~_g___l--968 ,,4, 45 ,_8 968 987 39; 968 1955 ==-~r-1-136l_ _ 2349 -,,-', _ _ 307. 313.9 '", ~ Dec-54 195-1 12 19SS . 4029 -~ 3543 U _ 486 610 2701 ~1 __ 1096 3Jgg ll23 1932 31L6 30~~ 313_2 30 _____ _ Jon-55 1955 1 19" -3;mi;-l---~ 2560 v __ 3 440 47! 1953 44() 915 2868-1473 1948 3901· 31U 3112 306_ Feb-55 1955 2 19,_ ---NOD _ 409 ·-1991 U ·4o9 395 --1519 409 804 323 1414 !RIO J'~ 310,R 3C5G HO 306,3 ~~---- Mar-55 19ss , 1s5s noo-39< 11o& '-' -392---355-·-13£_3__ _·is2-747 --zoso 1382 r----.'04:!_ 311JJ 22>_:' nn 3o6_ _____ 1------·---- --~-1sss 4 1955 >ooo 386 1614 u . 386-"' 1231 386 "" -1959 1357 15ss •• ,,. 310_6 "" 1 3tH 306_ -~ -~ --S 1955 33;9 >31 1828 !5 5 53l 541 --,--~lSi___ 531 1073 3230 1298 1841 3991 31LS 3uS lUO 3068 - Jcn-5' 1955 -6 1955 11190 2894 8896 7.8 _____ H3 2894 -~ ~-82 ·--~--__ 6]_8~= _____ 2S94 5076 11861 1305 3481. __ 10212 311-2 310_1 _ 3154 309,6 -2J -L7 -0_7_ -1 Jul-;s 1955 7 1955 20420 5609 4811 no 16-560~---~41 ______ 1_12_9J _____ 5609_ 9550 2oi47-1312 57>1 16sso 32: 31'-7 1__ 317 4 31!.6 -73 -u -34 15 ~ Au•-" 1955 8 ·1955 ui3o-3187 9s4J s•-n 31so ,n___ n'~-__ 3187 -556(1 ll839 2o62 _ .,, 11713 '" 31o_s 316.s 310_1 -6-' -4_o _ ___ -n -n ~-~ 9 -i9ss--7485 110 5975 ;_i u 1510 mi1-·---4557 ---,,,(,-2807 -7364 1562 _,_,,,, 7516 114.5 303.4 · 314 3085 -ilit:S,---~ ---~o-e-·--1956 -,;;;92-1163 >429 ._. '-' 116' 1o9, 41~~ --i163 ,.o 6401 1329 .'-"" 65su " 3o8_o 314-0 308_1 Nov-5:'> 19':15 ii 1956 .1800 475 3325 2.9 L4 475 '.>19 2536 475 ; 1054 3590 1354 J') _ 44G9 c.5 3:06.$ 313.2 307.0 De-c~')S 19':.5 12 1956 2400 409 1991 Ll L2 409 395 1519 409 804 2323 -1317 32:31 -· H0.8 305.5 312.8 306.3 . _ Jan-~6 1956 1 1956 1800 37~ 1427 1.2 1.1 373 315 1088 373 688 1776 t46S £?>_~--310.5 3()?: 312.9 306.0 _ ------ Feb~~6 1956 2 19% 1400 344 10'>6 0.9 LO 344 259 805 341 603 1409 1363 162: . 2-11S 110.: J-()~:~-312.6 305.7 Mar-56 1956 3 1956 1300 3-3~ 965 0.8 LO 335 245 736 335 580 1316 1379 __ 1624 Z:O';o_J _ 110.: 304. 312.6 30$.6 ;\pr·S6 1956 4 1956 1400 344 10S6 0.9 1.0 344 ~ 259 805 344 603 , .1409 1355 . 1614 1420 310.3 304.8 312.6 305 . . M<!Y·S6 1956 5 1956 3298 ~46 2752 2.4 1.6 546 539 2099 546 108-6 _3!84 1397 ·~· 193(, 11[)35 3ll.S '3fl6.: 313.2 306.S - )~:Jr:~_56 1956 6 1956 16-680 440i 12173 10.7 12.7 4407 -,3172 936J 4407 7579 16940 1268 4440 :~DC 319.') 316.5 310.R -3.7 ·2'.S -1.8 ·1.9 J~1:56 1956 7 1956 11880 2901 3979 7_9 83 __ 2901 ~~ 6848 2901 __ 5096 110:14 __ :_~-_1?~---3530 •?S 31U 110-315.5 309_6 -4.5 -7,8 2-1 -2_0 _Au~ 56 1956 a 1956 7006 1302 5704 5_o n nc 1184 435: 1302 2485 6BJ'o [-----; _ ~· 2467 314-1 lOB. 314 o 30&2 -7_8 -w 09 -L4 _S.<Jl:56 1956 9 1956 97: 2154 123 6_ 6-> 1154 1684 s" m• 3838 927: __ we i--295C :83 315 9 309.2 314-7 308_9 __ Oct-56 1956 10 1957 5395 808 4587 4,0 '-3 --~--~~:=-~ _ ----~ 1666 ·-····~-I~ :::~ ~ 301.4 _ 313-4 307.6 ____ _ Nov-56 1956 11 1957 . 3333 455 287& _ 2-5 U :-__ -_-_ ~ ~----f---~~ . . 974 _ . f -ISS__ -------' .09 :.3 lU6.2 313.2 306.8 Dec-56 1956 12 1957 _____ 2732 425 1307 '-0 -------~--_ _ __ Bii:'__ _ 1;9 :--mt= .57 31LO 305,8 3HO 3065 __________ _ -!_-•~:;~ . 1952_ 1957 1soo m _142~ IS_ 10f!&_ ---m 688 '" 310 5 305_ 3ao 30U --·-__ _ __ _ _ 1957 19s: 14oo 344 -j-6~f--o3 ---159 so5 344 603 1409 -· · ~ 310-' 304 s m s 3os_8 ::_-t:.~ ]957 8-195: 1400 344 lOSE 03 !59 805 344 603 1409 ~--1691 .. · . '"c-,; =--3103 f---3048 -:!l28 305. -f----~ ---=--.. -··= --A.,; ,." 4 _19_?_: 1100 366 133' 1011 366 '"-' 1684 ;~ __ -: -=~r-,72. -,;o_s_ 305.0 ,_8 305_9 r-May-195; 5 195< 0806 939 3861 L4 V 939 825 2949 939 ---··-4713 ---51: ------3ll-. 30> L6 107,4 i-- Jun 19" 6 195: l3080 31: 980 --8_6 9_4 3171 2438 2481 171. -·-13190 ----~~~~ 1l24B-----ii7J! 310_6 315,8 309,9 -0.8 -05 :0_ ------j>A Jul-57 1957 7 1957 7232 1396 5836 5. 4.0 1396 1236 4451 '· -· -~~-7083 --j-l:u _ --'-~"-7130 _ 314 3 303_3 31M 3083 0.2 o 1 __ _ _ o,o_ _ __ Aug-57 1957 8 1957 3855 477 3378 3.0 L4 477 587 2576 3640 Ml2 -lS99 4575 3115 3065 31B 307.1 4.1 '.5 L6 Sep-57 1957 9 1957 11540 2780 8760 1-1 8.0 2780 2122 6681 ----4902 11583 li'J 3501 10181 31 310,0 315_4 309.6 ---------- Oet-57 1957 10 1958 7500 1499 6001 53 43 1499 12% 4577 -----'I!'-'!_ 7372 l35J 7688 7264 3145 30"-4 l14A 3084 ------ Nov-57 1957 11 1958 8886 2037 6849 6 0 5_9 2037 1606 5224 ·2o37 i643 8866-1472 3078 8301 315.6 309_ 114-9_ 308_8 -----__ Oec-57 1957 12 1958 4887 738 4149 3_5 2-738 780 _E_r,:_ 738 151'< 4682 1426 2206. _ 5370 312 4 __ 30 L6 307.5 Jan-58 1958 1 1958 3097 444 7653 --2-.3---13 444 488 --2:J2 \ 444 r,; 2'1! 1597 2()~ _i108 --~ 3061 L4 30b.R Feb-58 1958 2 1958 2354 407 ·-1947 1.7 -~--12 ---40, -389 14"' ___ -·---407 2'!-1281 _tS'O_ 1929 __ 3415 310_8 3056 11'-2 306,4 M"-S8 1958 3 _ 1958 2100 392 1708 , 5 J.l "ln 3>5 1303 :n .J _ iGSO ·----·}''!3 1868 3171 3054 !!H 3062 ·--- Apc-58 1958 4 1958 1oso 389 1661 : s u 389 349 1267 ::-738 _2_004 _}d& 735 2001 no. 3051 !m6 3051 May-58 19~~-~-1958 -3854 559 1295 2.9 l_b "9 609 1513 _,-,_•_ 1167 3681 1298 1907 4420-30H :m.J 307_0 --- Jun-;8 19.58-6 _I.~-19900 • 5520 -~-1'-6 15.9 5520 3856 10967 •,;',)---·-· 9376 20343 14_ 5170 16 ·20,9. '.6 311A -6_8 -4_3 -'-9 . -3]_ --Jul-;s 19SS ~----_2_1_!!212_ 6106 ------13-8 1.5 5106 ''"'' _!Ccos Gw:, ----~ 1360 1306 555: 10 ;:__ _ 1J>_ 13_ 311-8 -8-2 -5_2 -3_9 ---1---·-_3,~ Aug-58 1-ossrg---195il ---=-~-: 2789 --~----•.6 "·' """ 1 --2180 -·-~·· 115: 1992 _410_-____ 10 :l!Jl. llO_-<~6-l 309_7 ---~ ..•. ___ -_3-__ 7. io :2:9 5Pp-SB 1958 9 1958 -~ 1343 57" 5.0 3.9 1:!4: i LCo l------_::,:;;,0 1343 6931 1481 269: 3083 114-4 308, ---------·------·-___ --------1-------- Oot-58 1958 10 1959 6255 1034 i221 4.6 3,0 1034 1012 39!l2 ~-· i ---i038 1262 128• 5; iH4 307.8 l,8 30'-9 -1------·--·----_____ ---------_ ----- Nov-58 1958 11 19>9 3450 459 2991 2.6 L3 <S'l : 534 2281 . .... ----~-~:! :--·-1358 189-31U 306,3 lB-306_9 ---+-_ --1-----__ Oec-58 1958 12 __ 1959 2600 420 2180 1.9 1.2 l): 4; 1663_ __',:"-. --8:': ______ 1505 1321 1743 3405 310 9 305,7 _ 312 9 306,4 J•n-59 1959 1 ._1_~ '--2300 404 ~ 17 1.2 . -1:'1 381 1446 _ ___ :-'} ______ _!~~ -· 123l 1472 1854 3300 310_8 3055 llU 306,3 ______ _ __ _ Feb-59 1959 2 1959 1700 365 1334 12 Ll 30J 101: J>h_ bbl 1684 1414 1715 2732 3105 3050 312_8 305,9 Mu-59 1959 3 ____ 195~-~~ \35 SGS 08 i,O _24?_ _736 f---!:: __ _\8()_ 1316 B83 1628 2364 310_7 304-3126 305_6 Ap,-59 1959 4 1959 1400 344 1056 0 9 _;c,:>_ _259 805 603 1409 B59 __ _1618 2424 310.3 304-8 312.6 305,7 __ ~?J-1959 5 1959 3415 "1 2844 . -"-"-1,6 57_1_ 560 _2169 3300 1300 . 1860 4029 3116 3063 3131 306,8 . --- Jun,s!i.--1959 6---i·---1959 ll680 3466 10214 s_9 _1(),0 3466 -:5~ _ 790 -+--' •-6028 13818 12~~ ·-:. -385_3 c-1164" 3182 310,8 315.9 310-_,_ _ -JA I-·:,.-- _J_u159. 1959 7 _ 1959 10910 2639 8271 . H _2__639 _§08 .,_,_ 4648 10956 1368 --~-· 9685 3168 309,8 _ ___ 315.3 309,4_ --~--------'f:. -05 A;R59 1959 8 -1959 5836 891 4945 1.3 . J~ --891 ------':-1. ---f----37-71 ---f-I '"" 5596 1323 l257 6028 ---313-D 30'-6 3137 301_8 -0 -OA 0.0 -0. - -&ep_5_9_ 1959 9 1959 5271 706 4565 4.0 1----_l_O___ 706 \1 _ -·-348: , ,J& "13 104 1341 2158 5639 312-5 3073 31_36 307 6 _______ _ --a,\:59-1959 10 1960 9049 2009 7040 6.2 5_3 20 tnL 5369 ;oos 36, 196 1340 2958 832. :n5_6 3oH 314-7 308_8 Nov-59 1959 19. 60 5091 664 4428 3-9 _1 9 6f 7H4 :!3!' 664 1448 1450 2234 -5611 :nn 307_2 313-7 307_6 -D~S9 19S9 1960 3190 449 -,74} 2,4 ---1.3 ,, 50 .r--t 449 948 _1414 1914 4DOS lll. 306-1 313,2 306.8 ---- Jon6( 1960 __ 1 1960 2545 417 1118 __ :9 ______ L2_ 4: 415 :'"-' 417 __ 832 1583 --1997 362! 310_9 305,7 3133 306,5 ___ __ ·---·---·- --F~bi 1s6o 2 '""o 1855 376 1479 u u ,, 1 ·i 376 6ss _14_25 1797 2925 11o_s 3o5_, 3no 3o6_ _ __ _ Mu-1 1960 3 1960 1448 307 llOl _ 10 347 ' 266 39 347 613 _1500 • 1165 260$ 310,! 304_8 31'-9 305,8 --------------------------_ ----·-___ _ 'pr 1960 4 1%0 800 lxt 514 0.4 ),8 287 172 92 187 159 _283 4;5 847 309,8 304_1 309.8 304_ ----------·-------- May-1 196U 5 1960 5084 989 4095 3 6 2_8 989 871 23 989 1860 ~ 1476 7347 54"/0 31U 30. 31H 3~ -----_ ---__ -----~--·-~--- Jun-f 1960 6 1960 16650 4382 12268 lC 1'-6 <382 3162 157 438; _ --i--7543 16900 1333 4494 13852 3195 JlG_G 310_8 -5_4 -'-4 2S ·~2.5-·--- ;ul-60 1960 7 1960 12630 3144 9486 83 9.0 3144 2350 "235 3144 5494 '729 1398 3747 10982 317,6 !1M 315.7 309H -4_, -H L9 I---!•~----·-~ -Aug-60 1960 8 1960 9579 2238 73:1_1 64 -6.4 2238 l743 5599 ?238 3981 9580 1320 3062 8661 16_ 309_ 314_9 309_0 -H ·1 8 -1 l:l- Sep-60 1960 o 1960 7068 m i7.15 s.o u 1323 1197 4382 132 ;,o 6902 1372 7>18 6900 --___ 314_ lOB-__ 314. 308.2 _________ ---l Oct-60 1960 10 1961 6531 111 _54_20 4_ 3.2 1111 1076 -4134---llll 118: --0321 _!2 2319 ~?;! ____ lll-6 308,0 _____ ll '-8 308.0 1------ No,-60 1960 11 --1961 5586 --~~:---1799 ---__:1;2__ B 780 !--~--3660 -,~-;:-------5323 _!_< 2326 5986 JIL 3C15 _____ 3U8 30H ---· oeo-<>O 1960 12 1961 41Do 487 3613 ___ __ L4 --1---~----ill ----1756 437 -----iio5 ---3861 -~~ __20-'1___ ±7''-L6 306_7 3134 -~ Jan-61 l06l-1 1961 3176 448 1728 '.4 L3 448 498 2081 448 945 30; ~ 2078 4159 306_ 3134 306_8 __ Feb-61 1961 2 1961 2700 425 2275 2.0 L2 42S 435 1735 415 860 2596 _J_5 1958 :<69' 305,8 306_6 Mar-61 1961 --J~~~ -2000 386 1614 :.4 Ll -----386 347 1231 386 llS i--1959 14 1_836~-·· 306: ll0-6 305 3 :.0 306. ---------~------- Apr-61 1961 4 !YO! 1700 366 1334 _1,2_ ___ ---_!;!;_ 366 301 1017 366 667 1684 _!! 6G2_ 1684 3105 305-0 :!~---305.' May:61 -~61 5 __ ~§1 5890 1262 4628 ,jj -------==-~ 1041 3530 l262 2303 5832 241 5942 3HB 3071 30 Attachment A Detailed Tabular Results Mar 28,2014 Unregul;~ted Monthly Flow Estimated Estirmted Monthly Runoff Coefftdent Estimated lhsln Runoff (cfs) Monthly Runoff Lake Chikuminuk Tikchlk/Nuyokuk USGS 15302000 USG~ 1~301500 USGS 15302000 USGS 15301500 ALLEN R (USG~ 1~301500 Loke Lokeiu= NUYAKUK R NR ALLEN R NR NUYAICUK R less NUYAKUK R NR Chauekuktull 1~302000 Date Year Month WI NR ALEKNAGIK AK AUEN RNR DIWNGHAMAIC AlfiCNAGIIC AIC ALLEN R(cfs) DI LLI NGHAM AIC (NW PISSIIIe NUYAKUIC R NR (cis) (cfs) lcls/ml"2) (cfs/"*'2) ALEKNAGIK AK) s•s•l (cfs) DILLINGHAM AK) (cfs) (cfs) Jun-61 1961 6 1961 15930 4153 111n 10.3 11.9 4153 3014 8982 Jul-61 1961 7 1961 12460 3087 9373 8.2 8 .9 3087 2314 7148 Au,e-61 1961 8 1961 9820 2310 7510 6.6 6 .6 2310 1790 5728 Sep-61 1961 9 1961 8813 2038 6775 ~.9 ~.9 2038 1~97 5167 OcHl 1961 10 1962 6402 1097 ~3~ 4.6 3 .2 1097 1057 4046 Nov-61 1961 11 1962 4010 486 3524 3.1 1.4 486 607 2687 Oec-61 1961 12 1962 2187 396 1791 1.6 1.1 396 367 1366 Jan-62 1962 1 1962 1897 379 1518 1.3 1.1 379 328 1158 Feb-62 1962 2 1962 1800 373 1427 1.2 1.1 373 31~ 1088 Mu-62 1962 3 1962 1600 3~9 1241 1.1 1.0 3~9 287 947 Apr-62 1962 4 1962 1600 359 1241 1.1 1.0 3~9 287 947 May-62 1962 ~ 1962 4161 678 3483 3.0 1.9 678 677 26~6 Jun-62 1962 6 1962 15640 4112 11528 10.1 11.8 4112 2969 8793 Jul-62 1962 7 1962 15370 399~ 11375 10.0 11.5 3995 290~ 8676 Aua-62 1962 8 1962 6707 1207 ~500 4.8 3 .~ 1 207 1122 4195 ~p-62 1962 9 1962 5351 718 4633 4.1 2.1 718 829 3~33 Oct-62 1962 10 1963 ~228 686 4542 4.0 2 .0 686 806 3464 Nov-62 1962 11 1963 3500 463 3037 2.7 1.3 463 ~41 2316 Oeo-62 1962 12 1963 2900 43~ 2465 2.2 1.3 43~ 462 1880 Jan-63 1963 1 1963 3100 44~ 2655 2.3 1.3 44~ 488 202~ Feb-63 1963 2 1963 3200 449 2751 2.4 1.3 449 ~01 2098 Mar-63 1963 3 1963 3041 442 2~99 2.3 1.3 442 480 1982 Apr-63 1963 4 1963 1900 379 1521 1.3 1.1 379 328 1160 May-63 1963 ~ 1963 3~~ ~62 2988 2.6 1.6 ~62 ~73 2279 Jun-63 1963 6 1963 14230 3620 10610 9.3 10.4 3620 2668 8092 Jul-63 1963 7 1963 11480 2966 8514 7.~ 8.~ 2966 216~ 6494 Aua-63 1963 8 1963 6306 1492 4814 4.2 4 .3 1492 1152 3671 ~-63 1963 9 1963 1ono 2239 8531 7.~ 6 .4 2239 1884 6~06 Oct-63 1963 10 1964 6702 1071 ~631 4.9 3 .1 1071 108~ 4295 Nov-63 1963 11 1964 3057 478 2~79 2.3 1.4 478 492 1967 Dec-63 1963 12 1964 1848 ~71 1277 1.1 1.6 ~71 374 974 Jan-64 1964 1 1964 1397 474 923 0.8 1.4 474 294 704 Feb-64 1964 2 1964 1252 406 846 0.7 1.2 406 2~8 64~ Mar-64 1964 3 1964 1097 314 783 0.7 0.9 314 215 ~97 Apr-64 1964 4 1964 1100 2~~ 84~ 0.7 0.7 2~~ 200 644 May-64 1964 ~ 1964 1719 339 1380 1.2 1.0 339 296 1053 Jun-64 1964 6 1964 16370 4870 11500 10.1 14.0 4870 3261 8771 Ju l-64 1964 7 1964 13740 2908 10832 9.~ 8.4 2908 2418 8261 Aua-64 1964 8 1964 7720 1986 ~734 ~.0 ~.7 1986 1454 4373 ~ep-64 1964 9 1964 7620 2039 5581 4.9 ~.9 2039 1456 42~6 Oct-64 1964 10 196~ 7364 1571 ~793 ~.1 4.5 1571 1299 4419 Nov-64 1964 11 196~ 4225 62~ 3600 3.2 1.8 62~ 671 2746 Oec-64 1964 12 1965 2700 ~20 2180 1.9 1.5 ~20 461 1663 -11U 1 Uli5 2000 .au 1.5«1 1.3 1.3 -~ IUS -lJIIS z 1965 UOD -12110 1.1 u --tU -Uli5 3 1M5 171» 170 1310 L2 1.1 J)O liiZ 1111.4 A« .a 1J6S 4 1915 23llO ,.. 1!152 1.7 1.0 ,.. Jl57 ... --5 1J&S SN7 -:rm u 1A -n• 21<10 -·-6 Uli5 JlftD 4lll:l lA* 12.4 u.s IJQI 1517 JGU7 -1te 7 1te -J47ll u.4 10.0 10A aGI 271.4 .,., -1M$ a 1-tlS5 2132 11U &.2 u 2DZ -sea -1te ' 1te 1Q70 4554 Jll1t ... U.1. ·-.. -oct-65 1915 Ill -115211 1571 -1.7 u 1m l'ID ,_ -Uli5 11 -uoo .set uu 4.1 u Slit. 711 ... ~ 1J6S u -3100 --2.5 1.J -40l 1'11'1. Jan-66 1966 1 1966 2000 400 1600 1.4 1.1 400 346 1220 Feb-66 1966 2 1966 1700 3~0 13~0 1.2 1.0 3~0 296 1030 Mar-66 1966 3 1966 1600 300 1300 1.1 0 .9 300 271 992 ADr-66 1966 4 1966 1~0 260 1240 l.l 0.7 260 248 946 May-66 1966 ~ 1966 2010 367 1643 1.4 1.1 367 338 1253 Jun-66 1966 6 1966 10900 3900 7000 6.1 11.2 3900 2349 ~339 Jul-66 1966 7 1966 12870 3226 9644 8.4 9 .3 3226 2400 7356 Au -66 1966 8 1966 9103 2010 7093 6.2 ~.8 2010 1624 5410 ~ep-66 1966 9 1966 8684 2300 6384 ~.6 6.6 2300 1653 4869 Oct-66 1966 10 1967 10470 2497 7973 7.0 7.2 2497 1918 6081 Nov-66 1966 11 1967 ~900 910 4990 4.4 2-6 910 946 3806 Oec-66 1966 12 1967 3916 480 3436 3.0 1.4 480 ~94 2621 Jan-67 1967 1 1967 2939 437 2502 2.2 1.3 437 467 1909 Feb-67 1967 2 1967 2371 407 1964 1.7 1.2 407 392 1498 Mar-67 1967 3 1967 2003 386 1617 1.4 1.1 386 342 1233 ~-67 1967 4 1967 1833 37~ 1458 1.3 1.1 37~ 319 1112 May-67 1967 ~ 1967 23 23 404 1919 1.7 1.2 404 38~ 1464 Jun-67 1967 6 1967 11280 2699 8581 7.~ 7.8 2699 2069 6~44 Jul-67 1967 7 1967 962~ 1209 7416 6.~ 6.3 2209 1740 ~6~6 A"'_-67 1967 8 1967 6397 1059 5338 4.7 3 .0 1059 1046 4071 ~eo-67 1967 9 1967 6573 1164 5409 4.7 3 .3 1164 109~ 4125 Ott-67 1967 10 1968 6015 987 5028 4 .4 2.8 987 981 3835 Nov-67 1967 11 1968 2976 438 2538 2.2 1.3 438 472 1936 Oec-67 1967 12 1968 1939 382 1557 1.4 l.l 382 333 1188 Jan-68 1968 1 1968 1574 3~7 1217 1.1 1.0 3~7 283 928 Fe b-68 1968 2 1968 1462 348 1114 1.0 1.0 348 268 849 Mar~ 1968 3 1968 1400 344 105 6 0.9 1.0 344 2 ~9 80~ Apr-68 1968 4 1968 1400 344 1056 0.9 1.0 344 2~9 805 May-68 1968 ~ 1968 3942 708 3234 2.8 2.0 708 660 2466 Jun-68 1968 6 1968 11030 26~9 8371 7.3 7 .6 26~9 2029 6384 Jul-68 1968 7 1968 7297 1429 ~68 ~.1 4 .1 1429 12~3 4475 Aug-68 1968 8 1968 8098 1689 6409 ~.6 4 .9 1689 1418 4888 Sep-68 1968 9 1968 6127 1016 5111 4.~ 2.9 1016 1002 3898 Ott-68 1968 10 1969 3816 477 3339 2.9 1.4 477 ~2 2546 Estimated Lake Outflow -Pre-Project (cfs) Estimated l.Jike OUtflow-Post-ProjKt (ds) Loke Loke Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Chlkumlnuk Loke Tikchlk/Nuyakuk U~ke Chikumlnuk Olauekuktull Chauekuktull Lake Outflow~ Outflow~Post· Outflow ~ Post-Project Outflow-Pr.-OUtflow ~ Pre--Outftow-Post- Pro)ect(cfs) Project (cfs) Pnt-Project (cfs) Project(cfs) Pro)ect(cfs) lets) 4153 7168 16150 1336 4351 13333 3087 5402 12550 1403 3718 10866 2310 4100 9828 1324 3114 8842 2038 3635 8803 1309 2906 8073 1097 2153 6200 1329 2386 6432 486 1094 3781 1442 2049 4737 396 762 2129 1407 1773 3140 379 707 186~ 1575 1903 3061 373 688 1776 1519 1834 2922 3~9 646 1593 1492 1779 2726 3~9 646 1~93 ~0 337 1284 678 1356 4012 138 2 2059 4715 4112 7081 1~873 1347 4316 13109 399~ 6900 15576 1389 4294 12969 1207 2329 6524 1336 2458 66~3 718 1548 5081 1353 2182 5716 686 1492 4956 1388 2194 5658 463 1004 3320 1516 2056 4373 43~ 897 2777 1483 1944 3824 44~ 933 29~ 1665 2153 4178 449 9~0 3048 449 9~0 3048 442 922 290~ 440 920 2903 379 707 1867 379 707 1867 ~62 1136 3414 ~ 623 2902 3620 6288 14380 1359 4028 12120 2966 ~131 11625 1430 3595 10089 1492 2644 6316 1371 2523 6155 2239 4123 10630 1350 3234 9740 1071 2156 64~1 1374 2459 6754 478 970 2937 1498 1990 3957 ~71 94~ 1919 1459 1833 2807 474 768 1472 163~ 1930 2633 406 664 1310 1526 1785 2430 314 ~29 1126 280 49~ 1092 2~~ 455 1099 260 460 1104 339 63~ 1687 704 1000 20~2 4870 8130 16902 1327 4587 133~9 2908 5316 13~87 1398 3815 12076 1986 3439 7813 1327 2781 7154 2039 3496 n~2 1313 2769 702~ 1571 2870 7288 1221 2~20 6938 62~ 1296 4041 1428 2098 4844 520 981 2644 1389 1850 3513 -1:21 -j~J ltU JDI7 --uu 1A9l Ull 270J J)O m *' l4e .,.. zm ,. ns 22114 i= 1--::1811 UICI .. -~ --I u. "" _llN_ --u u 1»1 -~ ~ Ull 4 mu ~~~~ !---UQ JD7Zl m :---US1 UM 5743 -t--uu 11M lal 400 746 1966 1462 1808 3028 3~0 646 1676 1405 1701 2731 300 ~7 1 1563 1374 164~ 2637 260 ~08 1454 1352 1601 2547 367 7~ 1958 1298 1636 2889 3900 6 249 11588 1281 3630 8 969 3226 5626 12982 1343 3743 11099 2010 3634 9044 1274 2898 8308 2300 3953 8822 1255 2908 7777 2497 441~ 10496 1795 3711 9795 910 1856 5662 1317 2284 6090 480 1074 3695 1298 1892 4~13 437 904 2812 1444 1911 3819 407 799 2297 138~ 1776 3274 386 728 1961 13~2 1694 29 27 37~ 694 1806 1326 164~ 2757 404 789 2252 1270 16~~ 3 119 2699 4768 11313 1283 3352 9896 2209 3949 9605 1369 3109 8 766 1059 2105 6176 1322 2367 6439 1164 2260 6385 1328 2423 6548 987 1968 ~803 1352 2333 6168 438 909 284~ 14 72 1944 3880 382 71~ 1903 1439 1772 2960 3~7 640 1569 1615 1898 2827 348 616 146~ 1508 1776 2625 344 603 1409 344 603 1409 344 603 1409 344 603 1409 708 1368 3834 1481 2141 4607 2659 4688 11072 1384 3412 9797 1429 2682 7 1~7 1503 2756 7231 1689 3107 799~ 1438 2856 7744 1016 2018 ~91 6 1451 2453 6351 477 1059 3606 1401 1983 45 29 Attachment A-Detailed Tabular Results Estimated U ke Levet -Pre..Project (ft) Estimat ed Lake leYel -Post-Project (ft) Lake Ch auekuktull Tikchik/Nuyakuk Uh nkchik/Nuyakuk Lake (pro)' EL• 318.78-(pre)' El• Lake Ol•uekuktuli (post)' EL• (post)' El • 318.78-12.47+0.186.Q"0.47 301.59+0.1102.Q"0.4 301.59+0.110 2•Q"((.463 72 638 12.4 7+0.186.Q"0.4772 8 319.2 311 .~ 316.4 310.6 317.5 310.4 31~.7 309.8 316 .2 309.4 315.0 309.0 315.6 309.0 314.7 308.7 313.6 307.9 313.9 308.0 311.6 306.6 313.4 307.2 310.7 30~.4 312.9 306.2 310.6 30~.2 313.1 306.1 310.5 30~.1 313.0 306.1 310.4 30~.0 312.9 30~.9 310.4 30~.0 309_3 304.6 312.1 306.8 313.4 307.2 319.1 311.4 316.4 310.~ 318.9 311.3 316.4 3 10.5 313.8 308.1 314.0 308.1 312.5 307.4 313.6 307.7 312.4 307.3 313.6 307.7 311.3 306.3 3 13.4 307.0 311 .1 30~.9 313.2 306.6 311.2 306.1 313.6 306.9 311.2 306.1 311.2 306.1 311.1 306.0 311.1 3 06.0 310.6 305.2 310.6 305.2 311.6 306.4 3 10.3 306.0 318.4 310.9 3 16 .1 310.2 317.3 310.1 315.6 309.5 314.3 308.0 3 14 .1 3 07.9 316.2 309.7 3 1~.1 309.4 313.6 308.0 3 14.0 308.2 311.3 306.1 3 13.3 306.7 311.2 30~.3 3 13.0 306.0 310.7 304.8 3 13.2 3 05.8 3 10 .4 304.7 312.9 30~.7 3 10.0 304.5 309.9 3 04.4 309.8 304.4 309.8 304.4 310.4 30~.0 311.3 305.4 320.0 311.7 316.7 310 .6 317.5 310.7 315.8 110.2 315.4 308.6 314.5 308.3 315 .4 308.6 3 14.5 308.3 314.6 308.4 314 .1 308.3 312 .0 306.8 313.5 307.2 311.3 30~.9 3 13.0 306.~ ~ lOU 31U JOU JlO.S 3llSJ) Jl2.t .aos. Ull.5 305.0 l1U lOLO .ue.. IOS.S 11111 --JllA !lOU ~ .. JaJI uu 117.0 QYI_ ~ JlU J-.z --Ju.a w.z 114.& _, l~A JU.J. lW All.l 3W ... ns.o .. ., 112.1 l01.J lUll t/11.1 JlU *-1. au.o -.. 310.7 305.3 313.0 106.1 310 .4 30~.0 312.8 30~.9 310 .2 304.9 3 12.7 30~.8 309.9 304.8 3 12.6 305.8 310 .6 305.3 312.7 306.0 318.4 310.0 315.6 309.1 317.8 310.5 315.7 309.9 315.6 309.1 3 14.7 308.8 316.0 309.0 3 14.7 30 8.6 316.5 309.7 315.7 309.4 313.1 307.7 313.8 307.9 3 11.5 306.6 3 13.1 307.0 311.1 306.0 313.2 306.6 3 10.8 305.6 3 12.9 306.3 310.6 30~.3 312.8 306.1 310.5 305.2 312.7 30~.9 3 10.8 305.5 312.7 306.2 3 16 .9 310.0 31~.3 309.4 31 6.0 309.3 314.9 309.0 313.5 307.9 3 13.9 308 .0 313.7 308.0 3 14.0 308.1 313.3 307.7 3 13.8 307.9 311.1 306.0 3 13.2 306.7 310.6 30~.2 312.9 306.1 310.4 304.9 3 13.1 306.0 310.3 304.8 312.9 305.8 310.3 304.8 310.3 304.8 310.3 304.8 310.3 304.8 312.1 306.7 3 13.5 307.1 316.8 309.9 315 .3 309.4 3 14.4 308.4 314.5 308.4 314.9 308.7 3 14.6 308.6 313.3 307.8 3 14.0 308.0 311.5 306.5 313.3 307.1 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 39 of 43 Page 2 Pre-and Post..f'r oj ect Lake W ater Level Differential From Time of Sp;~wnin& to Eas Hatch (3· M onth Spawnin1 Period: Ju ne-Au&) (ft) Lake O.auekuktuli -Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Lake CNuetuktull -rrtehik/Nuyilkuk Pre-Project Pre-Project Post-Pro ject La ke-Post-Project -3.6 -2.4 -1.8 -1.9 -4.0 -2 .4 -1.8 -1.8 -4.6 -2.8 -1.6 -1.9 -6.6 -4.0 -2.8 -2.9 -6.~ -4.0 -2.8 ·2.8 -2.5 ·1.7 -ll.6 ·1.2 -2 .2 -1.2 -1.0 -ll.8 ·3.7 -2.0 -1.~ -1.3 -3.0 ·1.9 -<J.8 ·1.2 -4.~ -3.1 -2.2 -2.3 -2.9 -2.3 ·1.7 -2.0 -3.4 -1.9 -1.0 -1.1 .ca ·1.1 .0.7 -u ·1.0 -1.] -u .0.7 -f-1_ -U -u -1.1 -1 .4 ~1.0 -ll.9 -ll.~ -1 .3 -ll.S 0.0 -ll.S -2.6 -1.5 -<J.9 -1.0 -3 .2 -1.9 -1.3 -1.4 -2.7 -1.6 -1.1 -1.1 -2.4 -1.9 -ll.7 -1.3 -3.~ -2.1 -1.3 -lA -2 .9 -1.8 -1.2 -1.3 ~.0 -3.0 -3.7 -2.9 Ma r28, 2014 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 40 of 43 Page 3 ,---------r~----,-~--~----- Unregutated Monthly Flow ~Runoff Estimated Monthly Runoff COefficient Estimated Basin Rtmoff (cfs) E~timated Lake Outflow· Fstimated Lake Outflow-Post-Project !cfs.) f'>timated Lake lPve!-Pre-Project (ft) Estimuted I ake Level· Post-Project (ft) Pre-and Post-Project Lake WdtN LevPI Differential From Time of Spawning to £gg~ Hatch {3 Month Spawning Period; lune-Aug) {ft) .---~-,.-~---r-----.- Month WY USGS l530JOOO ,USG$15301500 NUYAKUK R NR ALLEN R NR OILUNGHAM AK ALEKNAGIK AK Ids) (d•l Year Date -----,--~----~ ~---j--~ ~ ~------,~ ~--~-,---~-~-~ +------~~, -~ ~~~---~~ Lak~ Chikuminuk 153~0 2000 15:~01500 ALLEN Rl (USGS 15301500 R lPSS I NUYAKUK R NR NR ALEKNAGIK AK ALLEN R NR DilliNGHAM AK (cfs/mi"2) ALEKNAGIKAK) [ds/rrw"2) (ds) lake Chauekuktuli (NW Passage gag~) (cf~) T1kr.h1k/Nuyakuk loke {USGS 15302000 NUYAKUK R NR DILLINGHAM AK) {d•l l.1ke Chikuminuk Outflow-Pre- ~roject {cfsl Lake Chauek.uktuli Outflow-Pre- Project {ds) Lakf' Chauekuktuli Outflow-Post- Project (tfs) Lake Chauekuktuli ITikchik/NJiy~kl~k Lake I Lake Chaue!wktuli I {post): Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake (pre); El = 318.78-jpre): d -(post): EL "'318.78- 301 59 +0,1102"'0."'0.463 Outflow-?ost-Project\12 .47 +0.l8&•Q"0.47 3DLS~h·0.1102*Q"OA 12 . 4 7+0.186*Q"0.4Tl2 · {cfs) 72 638 Tikchik/Nuyokuk Lakt> Llke Chauekuktuli • Pre-Project Tfkchik/Nuyakuk Lake Pre-Project Lake Chauekuktuh Post-Project Tik.::hik/Nuyakuk l->ke-Po~t-?roject ~~-~ ~·i%8-··· 1969 2570 4~1B·--~:·~!---.. 9 ~,!,:>_ 418 413 1641 418 ~--=~ 836 247B 4o• 872 1463 ~~ 305~ __310 9 30>~7 ~ -~~ Dec~68 1968 1969 2187 397 1790 :~6 39C 367 1365 397 764 1129 -386 753 1118 3054 3107 3054 JJn~69 1969 1 1969 1887 378 1509 1.3 r--~· ~ 1~1 378 326 1151 378 lOS JSS5 J66 692 1843 310~5~~~--WS2 310~5 305~2 ~- Feb·£9: 1!!69 2 1969 1600 .'159 1241 1.1 . 0 359 28: 947 359 646 1592. 351 --~ ----~ 15.8':> 310.4 lOS.O 310.4 304.9 ~!·69 1969 3 1969 1500 351 1149 1.0 1.0 35l-77' 876 351 624 1500 351 -624 1;00 310~3 304~9 310.3 304~9 I Apr·69 1969 4 1969 1500 351 1149 l.O .. o 351 21: 876 351 624 !SOD 351 624 1soo 31J. 304.9 :no.3 304.9 May-69 1969 S !969 4090 77: 3319 2~9 Z~Z Til 694 2531 171 1465 -3996 1379 2073 4605 11 ' 306~7 313~4 307~1 Jun-69 r'~ _,'!. 1969 13290 6650 16640 14 6 19~1 6650 4564 12691 6650 11214 23905 1283 '"47 18538 l22 313~4 3180 312.1 ~9.5 -5~9 -4.4-~4~4 Juf-69 1969 7 1969 15760 4145 11615 10. 11.9 4145 2992 ~~?::!_ 4145 7137 159% 1321 4313 13172 lJ. 311.4 316,4 310.6 -2.1 -1.4 ·1.1 -1.1 ~ ~~--~ 1~ ~~---~ -1--19 6564 116J '397 0 3~4 1167 1095 4116 1167 2262 _ 63~ 170 >365 648: __3£7~ 308~0 31 !.9 ~!08.0 L6 ~0"'~-0.8 0~7 ~ ~ _ 1~ .it!~::,~~~ -~-' 19 5633 8os 4828 4, 2~3 aos as6 368l 8os 1691 1 ~-~· 1783 2169 ,. 312.8 307.5 31 •~6 307.7 o~i~69 i96il 10 _19 I7C 2781 8689 7~6 •~o 2781 2114 66: 2781 ' 4895 ~n !267 3381 1ocoB >.o 110.0 315~3 309.5 ~ ·-·----~ ~· Nov-69 1969 -1S 856; 1858 6709 5~9 5~3 18 1519 5111 1858 -~3377 8494 143: 2951 8069 15.3 708.9 314~~7 308~7 Dec~69 1969 12 19 3806 489 331; '~9 1.4 4~ 584 2530 489 _1072 3603 129' 1877 107 1.5 3:;c, s n3."! 307~0 Jan~ID 19/o 1 197o 1284 402 ~-1882 1.6 1~2 ~--~ 4C 380 1435 4o; 1s: m: 1439 1819 _::-'"~~ Jms~ 313~0 3063 --~ Feb-70 1970 2 1970 1871 378 1493 U 3J 374 ll39. 378 702 1841 138: 1705 ~ >s44~ l\06 'OS 2 312~8 306, Marw70 )970 3 1970 HOO 366 1334 1.2 3t 301 1017 366 667 1684 1348 1649 2666 310.5 3!;S · 312.7 305.9 1.~ .A~'2Q_ 1970 4 1970 1600 359 1241 ~ --~~-359 -~-~ 947 359 646 1593 131 1609 25;6 310~4 305~ t~6 305.8 :-~ ~-t--- ~~'Y:;J!--1~t---S _1')70_ 4360 790 3570 3~ -ij 790 731 _ _::::_-,~~~ 790 1521 4244 1258 19~0 4712 312~4 306~9 313. 307~2 ~--f--···~ i_Jun:7!'__ -~~~ ~6_ _1970_ l30 391! !-.-!!3}? 9.8 3915 28;s ~~ SSS4 3915 6770 ~-~~ ~ 1244 12653 3188 3112 Jl6. 104 ~3~6 !4 ·1.1 ·1.6 • ~ .Jul70--1970 ~--:~ ~-r--!~~~ 13lo0 3279 8.6 9.4 3279 2442 7490 3279 ~~ rni2 -1304 11236 ~ ~~ ~-~~ 31~~ ~ 315~7 309 9 -~s~• ~3 6 ·2.5 ~2~6 Aug~7C i97o s I97o 9471 22o9 1262 6.4 •-' 12o9 1122 "" 22o9 3931 9~469 1612 "'' as,; 316.0~ 309:3~ 315~2 3oo u ~3~ -2.z ~2~4 Sep~70 1970 9 1970 R407 1852 6555 1~7 5~3 1852 1499 5000 1852 ~~~ 3350 8350 1697 bb 8196 , ~-~~ 315~3 308~9 315 1 308~8 ----- Oct 70 1910 10 1971 4636 503 4043 3.5 593 71 3084 593 1303 4387 1266 1'>7G 506'7 312~0 30 '0 313.3 307~3 Nov-70 1970 11 1971 3057 442 2615 2j ~} 442 -· 482 -1994 442 924 2919 1365 1H41 I·-Y~·l 311.1 306.1 'H3.0 306.7 Oet>70 1970 12 1971 2094 391 1703 _ 1.5 ~~ }54 --· 12¢19 391 746 2044 1328 16S2 :'"~ 310.1 305.4 312.8 --~ 306.1 ·- Jan~71 1971 1 1971 >26 368 1358 --r----+-~-368 304 10% 368 672 1708 1481 1786 .'?,~'· 310~5 305.1 312.9 306~0 Feb 71 1971 2 1971 1530 354 1178 10 l~D 354 277 899 3;4 631 1530 1424 1701 L600 310~3 304.9 312~8 305~8 M,., 71 1971 3 1971 1461 348 llll 1 1~0 348 268 849 348 616 !~65 1393 1661 ?' C9 310. 304,S~ 3l2.7 305~7 Ap<~71 1971 +--~--_, 1971 142:< 3'6 1077 0 9 1.0 ,. 262 82l 346 608 1430~~-~ 1369 • 1632 l!C 304.<!_ '"~T 305~7 '=~~==:= May 71 1971 5 1971 3'19 559 2960 2~6 1.6 559 569 , /258 559 ~ 127 t;;:, 111 1819 311~6 3~ 313~1 306~8 Jun 71 1971 6 1911 14130 '£18 10512 9~2 10.4 18 265> 8017 -~ -·-, 627. L-''' 395S li'' >18. l!D~9 311'>~0 ~4~ ~2~6 ·1~6 ~1.8 Jul~71 1971 7 1971 !83;o 4935 13415 ll.l 14~2 >35 35: !OJ 4935 8448 4835 1505: I~~ 320~: 312~1 317 0 ~6.7 ~4~2 ·3~1 .. ~~.1~--- Aug.J 1971 8 1971 B830 3523 10307 0~0 10~1 ~---' ~=:: __ 259 ~~~;-~ 352' Gill ln ! ~tl_l!J__ I~~~ :''•'~1 _ --~ -1llli ~-~~~ 310~8 316~8 ~ 3104 --~ ~-~~ ~3~9 -3~4 ~~~3.6~ ~- 5ep~7J m1 9 "" 1192 m1 sa1s s~ ~E.. ~~;~-~ , ~~ ~~~ 2603 so9 ~~ ~~~ -7176--314, 308.3 3144 3oi~.----~ -~ ··---· ·-· _____ _ Oct~71 1971 10 1972 6490 1095 5395 --f------~~~~7 __ -~ 3:1 ~-~~-iSS::-~=~=~~~t= ~--~ 10" 2161 6276 293 ~ 6475 313.6 308.0 313 9 ~-~ 308~0 ~ ~--~-~-------~~~~ Nov~7: 1971 11 1972 4572 ~ 4020 ~1Ji.. 552 ~(;92 ss; 1244 !~E -::j~._:::-r--~ IL:~ 3119 306~9 ~~ ~---,oiX Dec;71 1971 12 1~ ~~ 1585 --~-r---,~,-~--~ i3~ 441 -478 1972 441 919 ~ ~ -:;-~ I-1~;4·--1-~ ~~~~ ~ 306~0 ~-~ ~ ~3i~i0 106~6 ---~~---~ :~72_ ~g 1 ~~-i:i90 ~ -----:=':-1----f~ <~n 381 1439 403 784 ---~~-==.---__38!6 -'~'" ---r~-~ ,;o.~~--~~ 313.0 3063 ~ -·--- ~~~ ~~~-_, 1972 ~ :~~ ~'-;::;-;:-~ 1440~ 13 1~1 374 316 1099 22:!. ~-~ s~o 1789 J:67i >75 ~---r----310~ 305~ 312 305.9 ·--------~-----~--~=-:~==- M0<~72 1912 3 3>1 1146 1.0 351 n: 874 1498 _1648_ 2522 310.3 304~9 312~7 305~8 ~-~ ~;; 1977~ ~--t-f-· ~,m--·~-~ 346 1o81 1.0 t.o 346 .264_ ,!:!_!!~ -r-----t;~---~ 'CC:~·-1439 i1s1 ~-~615 2444 310.3 3048 ·---mT~ 3os., ~-~ May.; 1972 5 197~ 2496 412 2084 1.8 l.2 _4_g_ -~-~ ,~~~0 '--B-lS 2409 1803 3393 31o.9 305~ -~ 306,4 __ ~ Jun-72 1912 6 1972 12220 2987 9233 8~ 8.6 ~---~ -cc=-~~ _>.'.'!!'_ 7042 1.-~ 5246 2288 ~JJJ 3559 10601 31 '.4 310~ 309~: ~3~1 ,~~--~-f-· ·1.4 ~1.5 Jul~72 1972 7 1972 16070 4211 1859 104 _ --~ 12~1 ;:~:-:---~---~ -3~ 9045 '·'" 7258 1631)3 __ f-------.-!!'.~"~ f---4385 13430 319~2~ ·--31 310~6 ~5~ r---~2~6 ~2~6 __ Aug-72 1972 8 1972 7980 168J 629' f-__g.. ___ _4,8 ~ ___ _ ,~:c::---1404 4799 _1.687 3091 _1~90 11>' 2680 7480 '14~9 308~ 314.4 308.5 0.9 ~o.s -D.6 ___ _ Sep~72 1972 ~~~ 1972 181 1390 ~ 5797 S~ ~---~ •~o ~ ~~~~ 1229 ••; 1390 2619 7040 127S -~-2504 6926 lid ~ --308~ 314.1 308 ~~ -t~ 10--~ 6755 1258 -549: 4~8 16 1258 1142 ~~ 12Sl 240 6592 1192 2334 -6527 31'-0 308.1 313.8 ~--~ 308~ " ------ Nov~72 1972 11 1973 0065 974 509: 4~5 2.8 974 983 l8,.: 974 lOS:< 1840 ~-~ 2366 6248 3!3~2 307.7 3139 ~IOH -- Oec~/2 1972 12 1973 ---m;--472 32>0 2~9 1.4 472 570 2483 4 1("1' i 1i"44 m4 4397 311.4 306~5 ~ ~ 313~2 307.0 -- Jan·/3 1973 1 1973 2629 421 2208 1.9 1~2 421 426 1684 -f--~~"~'~!.. C:17 ~~ZSJ_1_ W"l 1925 3609 311~0 305~1 3Ul 306~5 ~ -----·~~ feb~73 1973 2 1973 2050 389 1661 l.S 389 ~ 348-1267 J<'l 137 2004 1>40 1789 3056 310 7 305~3 3!2.9 306~1 Mar,l3 1973 3 1973 1713 367 1346 l~2 ~~-303 1027 :>C 669 1696 1410 1712 2739 310~5 305~ 312~8 305~9 -~ Apr-73 1973 4 1973 1533 354 1179 ~~ 11)______ ~~~ -~ _!E.. ·~ 278 l 899 i~~~i __ 631 1531 1386 1664 2564_ _ __31_92_ 304~9 312~7 305~8 -----·~ May-73 1973 5 1973 3567 563 3oo4-~ ~-4:g_-~ -~~-563 ~ ~ ~ : :"1 -f-~ -:=:-""'-13s 343o !28 1903 r-----:~195 c~.,:.c---~ ~'06~4 313~1 306~9 un-7: 197c 6 ~ ~ 3697 -l06S·J-9:3 :lb97 _ _:~ '>401 14526 131 4015 ~ 12140 3iST 311~0 3!6~1 no~ ·1~5 ~2.2 ~17 Jul-7: 191• ~~i97i ~wio ·· 424: 118ss 1,0,,;'.-----iu 4242 , ::=----_::~ ~ ~ --~ :~---'>'4 16371 B4s 441o ~4" 3193 J11.s 316~ ''" -5.3 ~3.4 ,2,s_ ~~r~73 ~'~?· I -4--_ :.~g__ 7718 "" 6144 S~· 4~, 1574 ~~ ~-, ~-_2)1'! 7602 ,,., 2629 15 314~ 308.5 ~---~!' 308.4 -3. ~2~1----1--~ ~1~0 1,4_ 191 • 197:1 s2o1 1691 6510 5~ 4.9 16?1 ! 1431 ~--~ i69:1 i1r• 8087 1282 "" 7678 n5.0 308: "' 3DB~6 ~ ~~--~~ _ ~--1-~-~-~ __ ·-·-·--···-- oct~ 197: 10 1974 69D1 1284 5617 4~9 3~7 12•:, 1167 4284 '·"" 2.:,, 673! 1296 246: 6746 1140 308~ 31• 30&~ Nov~73 1973 11 1974 3680 472 3208 2!'._ _y1_ ~:•2 -~ 564 2447 ~ -17~ 1037 3483 1401 1966 4412 31 306~4 31• _ ~ 307~0 -·----~ ~-~:====-~ Dec~73 1973 12 1974 237: 408 1969 ~-u-~---]_2-397 1502 ::-: SO() 1301 1365 :75: 3259 305~6 31: 306 Jan~74 1974 1974 1832 :~~-~~~-~:~::__1--" 1.3 319 1111 JOS 694 180~ ~--1525 1844 ~ ~-~~~ _ >~> 305~ 313~0 306~1 ·-__ Feb~74 1974 1974 15S4 • 3SS-1199 :~o ::'~', 281 914 _§(>~~ 1550 1468 2663 1~4 304~9 317.9 305 9 ~r:-:-;-~ ~~ ?--~~ 1914 !500 351 1149 1~0 LO 351 : 113 876 __ -~ 624 --f--1500 1439 ~--f-~~ ;-----~ 2589 1.3 304 9 112~8 305~8 -------~~ ~--~ Ap<·74 1974 .-1914 1510 352 1158 1.0 352 '74 ss: 626 1510 1417 2575 1.3 304~9 31:!,8_ 305 8 -'!3!174_ 1974 5 1974 4162 657 3505 -· '~ 1.9 657 ~ 0:2 2G74 128 4002 1357 4702 306.8 31"1.4 --~ 307 - un~74 1974 6 1974 11850 2907 8943 '~8 8~4 290 6821 l 5090 11921 135; 10369 310~2 31~ 309.6 ~3.7 ~'' ~1.4 :LS ~}4 1974 7 1974 9749 2274 7475 65 6~5 ~S70l 4047 9748 1446 3218 8919 309.4 315, 309~1 ~2. ~ ~~-~ ~0~9 :Oc'l_ I Aug-:-;4 ~~ B 1974 572 840 48ll1 4.3 2~4 84C ·9cO !123 840 1746 5469 1404 1310 6033 '~9 307.6 2! 307~8 ~o~9-~ ~-~ ~O~G ~0~1 1~4 S•p-74 1974 9 19H 6497 1097 >400 4.1 3~2 109 1068 ~ i ~9 1097 2165 6283 ~14J4 2482 6601 3~6 3080 31 308.1 O<t-74 19/4 10 1975 6863 12>5 5608 4~9 3~6 125 iis4-llSS 2408 6686 1437 2591 6868 314~0 308~1 31 308~ Nov~74 1974 11 1975 __ 4573 573 4000 3~5 l~G ---~ 57~ 698 573 1271 3-y_2_~ ~~· -~4 2272 5322 31.9 306~9 31 307~5 Oec-74 1974 12 1975 2723 426 2297 2• 426 438 ~_-:--~ I---426 864. 2616 1544 1982 134 3LO 305.8 •~3 306~6 , ~ .'975 1975 2068 --~ 16 ·~ 5 390 35: --1-~ 390 741 2021 379 ~ 7~~ --2010 310~7 305.4 ~ 310~6 ~~--305.3 ~ ·--------!---------~ .. F•b~75 1975 ~_2 1975 1804 373 373 315 Jog) 37: 688 1779 2_66 681 172 310.5 _ 305. . 3105 305. --~ ~-5 1975 1975 1665 ~---~64 1~0 364 296 99:! 364 659 1652 359 ~ 655 1648 310.4 305~0 310 4 305~0 1-··---~ _ --~ .. ___ ·--~ ~------- 1 !lp;:75 197s 4 1975 1653 _ 363 1~o 363 2o• 9R4 36> 657 1641 <79 -r~ ~6~,, 1657 310.4 3os~o 3\0-' 3o5.o ____ :~ -- I~'S'::'-~ i ~~ s. 1975 3774 540 2~8 ~~6 549 596 7460 549 1145 3605 2_09.5 1691 4151 31 ~-1 306. 3Ll~8 3068 -~ -~- Jun~75 i\!ls -~~ 6 1915 13860 ___ 352: 339 9 10 3521 2598 7886 3521 6118 H004 l:l63 396: 11847 310.8 316~0 '10~1--45 ·2 8 ·2~0 2~1 Jul-75 1975 7 1975 14470 3709 10761 ~ 1--9~4 10 37~0"_ 8707 3709 6430 14638 ~ ~~3 4134 134J ~~---~ ~5 111~0 316~2 ---~ :HD~3 ·3~3 ·2 S ~1.8 ·1.8 Acg-/5 1975 8 1975 7034 1322 5712 '~" ~ #~ ~----1192 4357 1321 2514 6871 _1~~ 6906 ~,1 308~2 ~ 1142 --· WR~2· '~0 ·I 2 ~0~ -D 7 Sep~75 1975 9 ~ 197~~ 6526 1164 5362 4~ 3}~ -1164 1089 4090 l164 2253 _ 634: 1365 6S44 3\:U 308.0 3l4E_ IOS.l ~-~---~ Oct-75 1975 10 :1~1:6~ 7734 1614 ~-~ 6120 5~4 4~6 1614 __ 1355 4668 1614 2969 ~-~~~~ ~-:-~ l75 ~-739i 314~8 308.6 31_4;4_ 108~5 ·-f-~-~ ~-----1-- Ncv-75 1975 .. !.1 --i97~6 4807 611 4196 3~7 • '~" 011 736 61 1346 4547 1494 5430 31: 307 '.5 -~~-~--- 1 Dcc~75 1975" 12 1976 7710 475 2285 !~0 425 436 743 425~~ -~ 1 2604 1460 3640 310 305.8 :l13~l 06~5 ~---~ ~-~ -~- J~c-76 1976 1 1975 1787 371 1415 313 079 ~ 684 1764 1640 95' 3032 3105 305 13~1 306~ Feb~76 1976 2 1976 1348 m 1009 -_119 1.0 339 152 170 339 590 1360 __1~4 1785~ 2555 310 2 • 304~7 31:! 9 305.3 .... :=::=-:-----· -Mar~76 1s1o 3 !~76 -· 99o 31] 6H3 o~6 o . .9 _______ 3_0_7__ 201 '" 30 soa 1o29 Jl03~ s04 ~ 1o2.1 "'9~9 304.3 309 9 3ou ~~ --~--~- Attachment A-Detailed Tabular Results Mar 28,2014 Appendix C - P roj ect Operations Modeling Sheet 41 of 43 Page 4 Unr@~Ulited Mot~thty Flow Estimated Est:ii'Nited Monthty Runoff Coeffident Estimated Bisln Runoff (cfs) Estimated Lake Outflow· Pre-Pro}Kt: (cfs) Estimated Lake Outflow · Post-Project (cfs) Estimated Like left~-Pr•Pto}ect (ft) EstirNted Lake L.evel-Post-Projtct (ft) Pr ,.. a nd Post-Project lake Wo torl ... l Olfferentiol From Time of Spawnin g to Egs Hold> (3! MOllthlyRunoff M onth S~wnins Period: June-Aut) (ft.) Like Chikuminuk Tikchlk/Nuyakuk USG.S 15302000 USGS 15301500 USGS 15302000 USGS 15301500 AUEN R (USGS 1S301500 lake Lake (USGS lake lake Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake 0\iku mlnuk lake Ti kchik}Nuyakuk Lake Lake Chaueku kt u ll Tlkch ik/Nuyakuk Uke Tikchlk/Nuyakuk L.J te NUYAKUK R NR ALLENRNR NUYAKUKR~ NUYAICUK RNA Chauekuktull 15302000 Ollkuminuk Chauekuktull ~uetc.uktull (pre): El • 318.711-(pre): El• lake Chauekuktuli (post): El • lake Chauetuktufi -Tikchlk/Nuyakuk Lake Like Olauekuktufi -Tikchik/Nu~kuk Date Yeu Month WY NR ALEKNAGIK AK AUfNANR LakeOutflChllt· Ou--Post-Outflow -Post-Project (post): El ,. 318.78-DilliNGHAM AK AlfkNAGIK AK AllEN R(ds) OIWNGHAMAK (NWPusa,e NUYAKUKA NR Outfto.M-Pre-Outflow· Pre-Outflow -Post-12.47+0.186.QAQ.47 30 1.59+0.1102'Q~.4 30 1.59+0.110l·Q"'.463 Pre-Project Pre-Project Post-Project lako -Post-Pfojo<t (cfs) (cfs) (ds/mi•2) (cfs/ml•2) ALEKNAGIK AK) gage) (cfs) DI W NGHAM AK) Project (ds) Pfojo<t(ds) Pre-Pfojed (cis) Pro)e<t(cls) Project (cfs) (d s) 72 638 12.4 7t0.186'Q"0 .4 772 8 (cfs) (cis) Apr-76 1976 4 1976 90S 299 6()7 0.5 0.9 299 188 463 299 487 949 303 491 954 309.9 304.2 309.9 304.2 May-76 1976 5 1976 2565 434 2131 1.9 1.2 434 422 1625 434 856 2481 825 1247 2872 311.0 305.7 311.9 306.0 Jun-76 1976 6 1976 10990 2616 8374 7.3 7.S 2616 2012 6387 2616 4628 11015 1386 3398 9785 316.7 309.8 3 15.3 309.4 -<1.6 -<1.4 -<1.3 -<1.3 Jul-76 1976 7 1976 1086() 2614 8246 7.2 7.5 2614 1996 6289 2614 4610 10899 1469 346S 9755 316.7 309.8 315.4 309.4 0.3 0.2 -<1.1 0.1 Aua-76 1976 8 1976 8261 1857 6404 S.6 S.3 1857 1483 4884 1857 3340 8224 1398 2881 7765 315.2 308.8 314.6 308.6 -1.8 -1.0 -<1.6 -<1.6 Sep.76 1976 9 1976 9851 2329 7522 6.6 6 .7 2329 1799 S737 2329 4128 9865 137S 3175 8912 316.2 309.4 315.0 309.1 Oct-76 1976 10 1977 11400 2770 8630 7.6 8 .0 2770 2103 6S82 2770 4873 11455 1255 3358 9940 317.0 310.0 31S.3 309.5 Nov-76 1976 11 1977 6249 1037 5212 4.6 3.0 1037 1022 397S 1037 2059 6()34 1457 2479 6454 313.4 307.8 314.1 308.0 0«-76 1976 12 1977 3983 489 349< 3.1 1.4 489 60S 2665 489 1094 37S9 1419 2024 4689 311.6 306.6 313.3 307.1 1-.T1 wn 1 li77 »>a .all 2'IM 2A 1.3 450 501 21111 -tl53 .. 1511 2Cir.l 4201 U1 ~ DJ.5 ..... ,.7'1 U77 2 .1J77 2654 4U 12!1 2.11 1.2 4U 4l!l 1102 423 ts2 2554 1531 1iiiO JM1 nul ... 1W lOIS -n U77 l 1977 2025 117 -1A u 317 34S ll50 317 732 -15111 U4a .. -.., 1Ull iiOL --n 1m 4 U77 ltU .. ua 1.1 LD 361 m 96J 361 651 lt14 -6S1 l6l5 .~ .. ,a_ IIU ~ -n nn 5 U77 --2-2.1 1.3 ... ~ 1.1&7 -no 1777 151 12U ·oa .. ~ ' au Jlll.l -.n sm ' 1977 UI20 sm ll!ll!ll !La 1A.7 5117 J5l4 ,_ 5117 mt 1tOi4 -~ ..»1Jt .... !L IS7.1 .nu ...u -u ~ ·t.? Jul-:71 lf77 7 1977 7$11 -tO zu 1111 51.71 14lf1 7611 .me. 2tt15 --~ ,!IZU ... lU.f. ..JIU -6.4 -5.2 -4-' -77 1m I 1m ~ .. ii9T lntt 15.1 .19.J. ii9T e-m 131!10 6197 l.W4 :1412] -10677 UIU 3D.$ IS au 1UA ·U.l ·7.2 .a:1 -6.4 s.-n 1m ' lf77 -1 Zltl 7Sa u "' 22n 1787 sm Zltl 40&1 1(150 711 --Sll.t -A nu ~ O.S.77_ tm 10 19711 ms 1m sew <1.4 Z.f 902 M7 -902 -S*?a 37Z .1119 tlAt Sll.ll J/l11.1 ~Ul .1117.!1 '*"'"" 1977 11 1971 3747 471 m• J.9 lA 47J sn 2ol97 413 ,_ 35411 JlSJ 1m 44U SUA lOU l~ ¥1111 Deo-77 lffl 11 1911 ZS2J 416 UO! u 1.2 4lt 412 1607 416 82& Z435 IllS 17'¥1 ,_ .J10.t 1115.7 !1U lOU Jan·78 1978 1 1978 2332 406 1926 1.7 1.2 406 386 1469 406 792 2261 1465 1852 3321 310.8 305.6 313.1 306.3 Fob-78 1978 2 1978 2075 391 168S 1.S 1.1 391 352 1285 391 742 2027 1406 1758 3043 310.7 305.4 312.9 306.1 Mar·78 1978 3 1978 1900 379 1521 1.3 1.1 379 328 116() 379 707 1867 1374 1702 2862 3 10 .6 305.2 312.8 306.0 Apr-78 1978 4 1978 1910 379 1S31 1.3 1.1 379 329 1168 379 708 1876 1349 1678 2846 310 .6 305.2 312.7 306.0 May-78 1978 s 1978 11320 2716 8604 7.5 7.8 2116 2078 6S62 2716 4795 11357 1235 3314 9876 316.9 310.0 31S.2 309.4 Jun-78 1978 6 1978 14890 3816 11064 9.7 11.0 3826 2802 8438 3826 6629 15067 1225 4027 12466 318.7 311.1 316.1 310.3 -3 .3 -2.2 -<1.7 -1.4 Jul-78 1978 7 1978 15490 4018 114n 10.0 u .s 4018 2926 8750 4018 6944 15693 2330 S255 14005 319.0 311.3 317.4 31D.8 ·5.8 -3.6 -3.6 -2.9 Aug-78 1978 8 1978 8829 1975 6854 6.0 S.7 197S 1S82 S228 1975 3557 8785 1918 3500 8727 315.5 309.0 315.4 309.0 -3.1 -1.7 -1.9 -1.3 Sep-78 1978 9 1978 8593 1926 6667 S.8 5 .S 1926 1541 S08S 1926 3467 8552 1940 3481 8 566 315.4 308.9 315.4 308.9 Oct·78 1978 10 1979 6()37 938 S099 4.5 2.7 938 970 3889 938 1908 5797 1308 2278 6 167 313.1 307.7 3 13.8 307.9 Nov-78 1978 11 1979 5325 706 4619 4.0 2.0 706 823 3523 706 1529 5052 1349 2172 S695 3125 307.3 313.6 307.7 Dec-78 1978 12 1979 4467 S27 3940 3.5 1.S 527 673 3005 S27 1199 4205 1309 1981 4 987 311.8 306.9 313.3 307.3 Jan·79 1979 1 1979 3333 455 2878 2.5 1.3 4S5 519 219S 45S 973 3169 1456 1975 4170 311.3 306.2 313.3 306.9 Feb-79 1979 2 1979 2336 40S 1931 1.7 1.2 405 387 1473 405 792 2265 1397 1784 3 257 310.8 305.6 312.9 306.3 Mar-79 1979 3 1979 1881 378 1503 1.3 1.1 378 326 1146 378 703 1850 1365 1690 2837 310.6 305.2 312.8 306 .0 Apr-79 1979 4 1979 2309 404 190S 1 .7 1.2 404 383 1453 404 787 2240 1338 1722 3175 310.8 3 0S.S 312.8 306.2 May-79 1979 s 1979 6930 1356 5574 4.9 3.9 1356 1189 4251 1356 254S 6797 126() 2449 6700 314.2 308.2 314.0 308.1 Jun-79 1979 6 1979 18580 5006 13574 11.9 14.4 S006 356() 10353 S006 8566 18919 1223 4782 15135 320.3 312.2 316.9 311.2 -4 .7 -3.1 -1.2 -2.0 Jul-79 1979 7 1979 14540 3722 10818 9.5 10.7 3722 2733 8251 3722 6455 14706 2153 4886 13137 318.5 311.0 3 17.0 310 .6 -1.2 -<1.8 0.2 -<1.4 Aug-79 1979 8 1979 14420 3708 10712 9.4 10.7 3708 2715 8170 3 708 6423 14593 3848 6562 14 733 3 18.5 311.0 3 18 .6 311.0 ·2.8 ·1.8 -2.8 -1.8 Sep·79 1979 9 1979 9039 2007 7032 6.2 5.8 2007 1616 5363 2007 3623 8986 2136 3752 9115 315.6 309.1 315.8 309.2 Oct·79 1979 10 1980 12040 2963 9077 7.9 8.5 2963 2231 6923 2963 5194 12117 2841 5071 11994 3 17.3 310.2 317.2 3 10.2 Nov-79 1979 11 1980 9192 2092 7100 6.2 6 .0 2092 16 57 S415 2092 3749 9 164 2166 3823 9 238 3 15.8 309.2 315.8 309.2 Oec-79 1979 12 1980 4693 654 4039 3.5 1.9 654 734 3080 654 1388 4469 1281 20 15 S09S 3 11.2 307 .0 313.3 307.4 Jan-80 1980 1 1980 2820 431 2389 2.1 1.2 431 4S1 1822 431 882 2704 1424 1875 36 97 3 11.0 305.9 313.1 306.6 Feb-80 1980 2 1980 2678 424 2254 2.0 1.2 424 433 1719 424 8S7 2576 1318 1751 3470 311.0 30S.8 312.9 306.4 Mar-80 1980 3 1980 2495 414 2081 1.8 1.2 414 408 1587 414 823 2409 1329 1737 3324 310.9 305.7 312.9 306.3 Apr-80 1980 4 1980 2496 414 2082 1.8 1.2 414 408 1S88 414 823 2410 130 2 1710 3298 3 10.9 305.7 312.8 306.3 May-80 1980 s 1980 6748 1400 5348 4.7 4.0 1400 1180 4079 1400 2S80 66S9 1324 2S04 6582 314.2 308.1 314.1 308.1 Jun-80 1980 6 1980 20160 5523 14637 12.8 15.9 5523 3887 11164 5523 9410 20S74 1676 S563 16726 321.0 312.6 317.7 311.6 -8.0 -5.0 -3.9 -3.7 Jul-80 1980 7 1980 18650 5026 13624 11.9 14.4 5026 3574 10391 S026 8600 18991 4387 7960 18351 320.3 312.2 319.8 312.1 -S.9 -3.8 -5.5 -3.7 Aug-80 1980 8 1980 10470 2476 7994 7.0 7.1 2476 1913 6097 2476 4389 10486 24 72 4385 1 0482 316.5 309.7 316.S 309.7 -3.1 -1.9 -2.6 -1.7 Sep-80 1980 9 1980 S877 88S 4992 4.4 2 .5 885 937 3807 88S 18 22 5630 1379 2316 6123 313.0 307.6 313.8 307.9 Oct-80 1980 10 1981 7480 1486 5994 S.2 4 .3 1486 1290 4572 1486 2775 7347 1376 2666 7238 314.5 308.4 314.3 308.4 Nov-80 1980 11 1981 6170 1031 5139 4.5 3 .0 1031 1011 3920 1031 2042 5962 1339 2350 6270 313.4 307.8 313.9 307.9 Dec-80 1980 12 1981 304S 440 26(JS 2.3 1.3 440 480 1987 440 921 2907 1300 1781 3768 311.1 306.0 312.9 306.6 Jan-81 1981 I 1981 27 56 428 2328 2.0 1.2 428 443 1776 428 871 2646 1447 1890 3666 311.0 305.9 313.1 306.5 Feb-81 1981 2 1981 2850 433 2417 2.1 1.2 433 455 1844 433 ... 2732 1387 1843 3687 311.1 305.9 313.0 306.6 Mar-81 1981 3 1981 2615 421 2194 1.9 1.2 421 424 1673 421 845 2519 135 3 1778 3451 310.9 305.8 312.9 306.4 Apr-81 1981 4 1981 2497 415 2083 1.8 1.2 415 408 1S88 415 823 2411 1326 1735 3323 310.9 305.7 3 12.8 306.3 May·81 1981 5 1981 6988 1452 5536 4.8 4 .2 1452 1222 4222 1452 2674 6897 1246 2469 6691 314.3 308.2 314.0 308.1 Jun-81 1981 6 1981 18370 4934 13436 11 .8 14.2 4934 3515 10247 4 934 8450 18697 1212 4728 14 975 320.2 312.1 316.9 311.1 -6.7 -4.2 -2.9 -3.1 Jul-81 1981 7 1981 12410 3073 9337 8.2 8 .8 3073 2304 7122 3073 5377 12498 1961 426 5 11387 317.5 310.3 31 6.3 310.0 -S.8 ·3.6 ·3.2 -2.8 AUR-81 1981 8 1981 8600 1935 666S S.8 S.6 1935 1544 S083 1935 3480 8563 1870 3414 8497 ll5.4 308.9 315.3 308.9 -3.6 ·2.1 -2 .0 -1.6 Sep_-81 1981 9 1981 6442 1096 S346 4.7 3.1 1096 1061 4077 1096 21S7 6234 1347 2408 648S 313.6 307.9 314.0 308.0 Oct-81 1981 10 1982 4268 S26 3742 3.3 1.5 526 649 2854 S26 1175 4029 1273 1921 4775 311.7 306.8 313.2 307.2 Nov-81 1981 11 1982 4489 SJO 3959 3.S 1.5 530 676 3019 530 1206 42 26 1371 2047 S066 311.8 306.9 313.4 307.3 Dec·81 1981 12 1982 309S 444 2651 2.3 1.3 444 487 2022 444 931 29 53 133 3 1820 3842 311.2 306.1 313.0 306.7 Jan-82 1982 1 1982 2303 404 1899 1.7 1.2 404 383 1448 404 786 2235 1486 1869 3317 310.8 305 .5 313.1 306.3 Feb~82 1982 2 1982 2604 419 2185 1.9 1.2 419 423 1666 419 842 2S08 1427 1849 3516 310.9 305.7 313.0 306.5 Mar-8 2 1982 3 1982 2248 401 1847 1.6 1.2 401 375 1409 401 776 2185 139S 1770 3179 310.8 305.5 312.9 306.2 Apr-82 1982 4 1982 1977 384 1593 1.4 1.1 384 339 1215 384 723 1938 1370 1708 2923 310.6 305.3 312.8 306.1 May-82 1982 5 1982 3706 626 3080 2.7 1.8 626 609 2349 626 1235 3584 1:310 1919 4 268 311.9 306.5 313.2 306.9 Jun-82 1982 6 1982 17980 4829 13151 11 .5 13.9 4829 3441 10030 4829 8270 18300 1270 4711 14 741 320.1 312.0 316.8 311.0 -3.0 -2.0 o.s -<1.9 Jul-82 1982 7 1982 18950 S1S2 13798 12.1 14.8 5152 3643 10523 5152 8796 19319 1545 S188 15711 320.S 312.3 317.3 311.3 -3.2 -2.1 -<1.6 -1.3 Aus-82 1982 8 1982 8398 1800 6S98 S.8 S.2 1800 1484 5032 1800 3284 8316 1585 3069 8 101 315.2 308.8 314.9 308.8 ·3.1 -1.8 -1.5 -1 .3 Seo-82 1982 9 1982 1166() 2772 .... 7.8 8 .0 2772 2134 6779 2772 4 906 11685 3075 S209 11988 3 17.0 310.1 317.4 3 10 .2 Oct-82 1982 10 1983 12100 29S9 9141 8.0 8 .S 2959 2237 6972 2959 5 195 12167 24 22 4659 11631 3 17.3 310.2 316.8 310.1 Nov-82 1982 11 1983 4815 584 4231 3.7 1.7 S84 729 3227 S84 1314 4541 1338 2068 5294 312.0 307.1 313.4 307.5 Dec·82 1982 12 1983 3310 454 2856 2.5 1.3 454 S16 2178 4S4 969 3148 1299 1815 3993 311.3 306.2 313.0 306.7 Jan-83 1983 1 19 83 2844 432 2412 2.1 1.2 432 454 1839 432 887 2726 1446 1900 3740 311.1 305.9 31 3.1 306.6 Fob-83 1983 2 1983 2379 408 1971 1.7 1.2 408 393 1504 408 800 2304 1387 1779 3283 310.8 305.6 312.9 306.3 M;.n-83 19 83 3 1983 19 13 380 1533 1.3 1.1 380 330 1169 380 7 10 1879 1354 1683 2853 310.6 305.2 312.8 306.0 Apr-83 1983 4 1983 1936 381 1555 1.4 1.1 381 333 1186 381 7 13 1900 1328 166() 2847 310.6 305.2 312.7 306.0 May-83 1983 5 1983 6349 1278 S071 4.4 3 .7 127 8 1099 3867 1278 2378 6245 1251 2351 6218 313.9 307.9 3 13.9 307.9 Jun-83 1983 6 1983 19230 5216 14014 12.3 1S.O 5216 369< 10689 5216 8909 19598 1212 4905 15594 32D.6 312.4 317.0 311.3 -9.0 -5.7 -3 .9 -4.1 Jul-83 1983 7 1983 13920 3537 10383 9.1 10.2 3537 2609 79 19 3537 6 146 1406S 2338 494 7 12866 318.3 31 0.8 317.1 310 .5 -6.6 -4.1 -3.9 -3.2 Aug-83 1983 8 1983 7060 1348 5712 5.0 3.9 1348 120 3 4356 1348 2 551 6907 149 7 2700 7056 3 14.2 308.2 314.4 308.3 -2.7 -1.7 ·1.1 -1.2 Attachment A-Detailed Tabular Results Mar 28,2014 Appendix C -Proj ect Operations Modeling Sheet 42 of 43 Page 5 Unreculated Monthly Flow Estimated Estimited Monthly Runoff Coefficient Estimated Basin Runoff Ids) Estimated LAke Outflow-Pre-Project (ds) Estimated Lake Outflow· Post-Project (ds) Estimated LAke l evel -Pre-Project (ft) Estim ated Lake \..awl-Post-Project {ft) Pre-an d Post-ProjKt LAke Water Level Di ffer ential From Ttme of Spawnlna to Eggs H atch (3 Monthly Runoff Month Spawnin g Perkxt: Jun•Aug) (ft) Lake Chikuminuk likchik/Nuyaltuk USGSIS302000 USGS 15301500 USGS 15302000 (USGS 15301500 Lak• Lake (USGS Lake lak• Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Ch ikuminuk Lak• nkchik/Nuyakuk Lake Lake Chauelcuktuli Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake likchik/Nuyakuk Lake NUYAKUK R NR NUYAKUK A tess USGS 15301500 ALLEN R ChauelcuktuH 15302000 Olikuminuk Chauekuktull Chauekuktuli (Jwe): El• 318.78-(pro): El• Lake Chauekukt\111 (post): El• LAke Chauftuktuli-Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Uke Chauekuktuti-llkd11k/Nuyakuk Date Year Month WY All.£NRNR NUYAKUKRNR NR AlEKNAGIK AK AUEN R NR Lake Outflow-Outflow -Post-Outflow-Post-Projec:l (post): EL• 318.78-DILLINGHAM AK ALEKNAGIK AK AllEN R (ck) OIWNGHAMAK INWPasuae NUYAKUK R NR Outflow-Pre-Outflow-Pre-Outflow-Post-12.47+0.186.Q"0.47 301.59+0.11Q2•Q"0.4 30 1.59+0.1102.Q"0.463 Pr•Pro)ect Pr•Projed Post-Project ~ke -Post-Project (ck) (ck) (cfs/mi"2) (ds/mi•2) ALEKNAGIK AK) r•sel (ct.) DILLINGHAM AK) Project(ds) Project (ds) Pre-Proj<ct (ds) Proj<ct (ds) Project (ck) (ck) 72 638 12.47+0.186•Q"'.4772 8 (ds) (ck) Sep-83 1983 9 1983 4167 494 3673 3.2 1.4 494 628 2802 494 1122 3923 1254 1882 4684 311.6 306.7 313.1 307.1 Oct-83 1983 10 1984 4282 496 3786 3.3 1.4 496 642 2887 496 1139 4026 1286 1928 4816 311.7 306.8 313.2 307.2 Nov-83 1983 II 1984 3857 481 3376 3.0 1.4 481 S88 2575 481 1069 3644 1389 1977 4552 311.5 306.5 313.3 307.1 Oec-83 1983 12 1984 6500 1108 5392 4.7 3.2 1108 1011 4113 1108 2179 6292 1334 2405 6518 313.6 308.0 313.9 308.1 Jan-84 1984 I 1984 400S 494 3511 3.1 1.4 494 609 2678 494 1103 3781 148S 2093 4771 311.6 306.6 313.5 307.2 Feb-84 1984 2 1984 2759 428 2331 2.0 1.2 428 443 1778 428 871 2649 1377 1821 3S99 311.0 305.9 313.0 306.5 Mar-84 1984 3 1984 2097 392 1705 I.S 1.1 392 3S5 1301 392 746 2047 1393 1147 3048 310.7 305.4 3 12.9 306.1 Aor-84 1984 4 1984 1817 374 1443 1.3 1.1 374 317 1101 374 691 1791 1368 1685 2786 310.5 305.1 312.8 306.0 May-84 1984. s 1984 408S 697 3388 3.0 2.0 697 673 2S84 697 1370 3954 1406 2079 4663 312.1 306.7 313.4 307.1 Jun-84 1984 6 1984 13060 3283 9777 8.6 9.4 3283 2438 7457 3283 S721 13178 1301 3739 11196 317.9 310.6 31S.7 309.9 .j;.2 -3.9 -2.5 -2.8 Jul-84 1984 7 1984 13620 3450 10170 8.9 9 .9 34SO 2SSO 7756 3450 6000 13757 1357 3907 11664 318.1 310.7 315.9 310.1 -5.9 -3.6 -2.6 -2.6 Aug-84 1984 8 1984 6407 1106 S301 4.6 3.2 1106 1060 4043 1106 2166 6209 1308 2367 6410 313.6 307.9 313.9 308.0 -2.5 -1 .9 .0.7 -1.3 Sep-84 1984 9 1984 4099 S03 3596 3.1 1.4 S03 622 2743 S03 1125 3868 1328 1951 4694 311.6 306.7 313.2 307.1 Oct-84 1984 10 1985 4933 640 4293 3.8 1.8 640 7S9 3274 640 1399 4673 1262 2021 529S 312.2 307.1 313.3 307.5 No v-84 1984 II 198S 2950 437 2513 2.2 1.3 437 468 1917 437 90S 2822 1485 1953 3870 311.1 306.0 313.2 306.7 Dec-84 1984 12 1985 2281 402 1879 1.6 1.2 402 379 1433 402 782 2215 1451 1831 3264 310.8 305.5 313.0 306.3 Jan-85 1985 I 198S 2205 398 1807 1.6 1.1 398 369 1378 398 767 2145 1629 1998 3376 310.7 305.5 313.3 306.4 Feb-85 1985 2 198S 2527 416 2111 1.8 1.2 416 412 1610 416 828 2438 1572 1985 359S 310.9 30S.7 313.3 306.S Mar-85 1985 3 198S 1823 374 1449 1.3 I . I 374 318 1105 374 692 1797 3S9 677 1782 310.5 30S .2 310.5 305.1 Apr-8S 1985 4 198S 1350 339 1011 0.9 1.0 339 2S2 771 339 S91 1362 320 S72 1343 310.2 304.7 310.2 304.7 May-85 1985 s 1985 1817 367 14SO 1.3 1.1 367 31S 1106 367 682 1788 497 812 1918 310.S 305.1 310.9 305.3 Jun-85 1985 6 1985 14040 3S64 10476 9.2 10.2 3564 2631 7990 3S64 619S 14185 1362 3993 11982 318.3 310.9 316.0 310.2 -3.3 -2.1 -1.6 -1.6 Jul-85 1985 7 1985 16710 4426 12284 10.8 12.7 4426 3181 9369 4426 7606 16976 1391 4572 13941 319.5 311.7 316.7 310.8 -4.4 -2.9 -2 .2 -1.2 Aug-85 1985 8 1985 11210 2714 8496 7.4 7.8 2714 206S 6480 2714 4779 11259 1303 3368 9848 316.9 309.9 31S.3 309.4 -4.9 -2.9 ·1.8 -1.9 Sep-85 1985 9 1985 8146 1748 6398 S.6 s.o 1748 1440 4880 1748 3188 8068 1295 2734 7614 315.0 308.7 314.4 308.5 Oct-85 1985 10 1986 8212 1798 6414 S.6 S.2 1798 1461 4892 1798 3259 8151 1298 2759 7651 315.1 308.8 314.5 308.6 Nov-85 1985 II 1986 4790 S94 4196 3.7 1.7 S94 729 3201 S94 1323 4523 1400 2129 S330 312.1 307.1 313.5 307.5 Dec-85 1985 12 1986 3555 46S 3090 2.7 1.3 46S S48 2357 46S 1012 3369 1362 1910 4267 311.4 306.4 313.2 306.9 Jan-86 1986 I 1986 2823 431 2392 2.1 1.2 431 4S2 1824 431 883 2707 1520 1972 3796 311.0 30S.9 313.3 306.6 Feb-86 1986 2 1986 2211 399 1822 1.6 1.1 399 372 1390 399 771 2160 1462 1834 3223 310.7 30S.S 313.0 306.3 Mar-86 1986 3 1986 1981 38S IS96 1.4 1.1 38S 339 1218 38S 724 1941 1432 1771 2988 310.6 305.3 312.9 306.1 Apr-86 1986 4 1986 1823 37. 1449 1.3 1.1 374 318 1105 374 692 1797 1409 1126 2831 310.5 30S.2 312.8 306.0 May-86 1986 5 1986 2708 433 2275 2.0 1.2 433 439 173S 433 872 2607 1354 1792 3S27 311.0 30S.8 312.9 306.S Jun-86 1986 6 1986 10760 2S6S 819S 7.2 7.4 2S6S 1971 6250 2565 4536 10786 1364 3335 9585 316.6 309.8 315.2 309.3 -0.1 .0.1 .0.2 .0.1 Jul-86 1986 7 1986 15170 3919 11251 9.9 11.3 3919 2861 8S81 3919 6780 15361 1409 4270 12851 318.8 311.2 316.4 310.S -3.0 -2.0 -1.6 -1.6 Aug-86 1986 8 1986 11050 2666 8384 7.3 7.7 2666 2033 6394 2666 4699 11093 1310 3353 9747 316.8 309.9 315.3 309.4 -2.2 -1.4 .0.9 -1.0 Sep-86 1986 9 1986 10440 2489 7951 7.0 7.2 2489 1913 6064 2489 4402 10466 1295 3207 9271 316.5 309.7 315.1 309.2 Oct-86 1986 10 1987 9273 2159 7114 6.2 6.2 1159 168S 5426 2159 3843 9269 1291 2976 8402 315.9 309.2 314.8 308.9 Nov-86 1986 II 1987 7477 IS44 5933 S.2 4.4 1544 1305 4S2S 1544 2849 7374 1366 2671 7197 314.6 308.4 314.3 308.4 Oec-86 1986 12 1987 3397 4S8 2939 2.6 1.3 458 527 224 2 4S8 98S 3226 1328 1855 4097 311.3 306.3 313.1 306.8 -JM'1 1 lW/ 2700 425 W'S Ul L2 425 43S 1735 4U -~ -\ U15 l650 au.o :105.8 SI.U 3IIU -JM'1 2 1917 2JI17 --u Ll -370 1379 3H "" 2141 1m U70 310-7 !lOSS 312.9 JGU --87 1917 ] 1917 2M -1559 LS u -341 1l65 n t liOCII tm 100:1 31l1.7 JOS.1 l!lJI IOf.1 -JJil 4 1lll7 1m lll usz L4 1.1 )11 m 1183 724 -~ -2110 31A6 305.1 lU-I lQ6.0 ~ ....... 7 1917 s i917 U4l) 500 -u 1.4 soo s.u 21§6 500 laC '* .. -IUA 3QU 3U.O 3QU Jclll47 1N1 5. 1lll7 17210 46U Ula1 11-1 1U 46U R99 9431 1ID mu m .an :IAU1 3l9JI Ul-8 :nt:.7 :wa.t .u -3.1 ~ 4.7 -JJil 7 1917 2211511 -16&U MA I&S -4454 US11 .... lM3Ir 2id 7BI ~ UUl aw Jlt'.l .1UA ·7.1 -41 -4.1 -a.l ~ 1917 II JJe7 UIJO 3110 -1.4 !U 3210 -mr iWO Ula all .UU us. U1.1 lUI.5 117.4 :IIIlA ...u -J.O .S.7 .,u .SO;W 1J87 9 l9ID -Ull ~ u 3.4 lUl 1Uli 4119 11&1. --.... '*' -lUll ..., JJ,U .801.1 OtW7 JJil 10 19118 7921 1191 WD ss u 1698 lollll) 41$2 .. 1ISO ·u. .. ,.. 3t.U lOU ~tU ... -1911 l1 ,,.. 5$67 162 47US u 2.S 162 .,. 398 w 1.141 JP9 mJ 5122. 11U ]07.5 1U.7 Jtn:I DOoo&7 1911 12 19118 !1214 453 lUI 25 u 453 512 2151 EO~ JIM llD( 1IU :un nu JOI.1 11J.II .,.., Jan-88 1988 I 1988 2603 420 2183 1.9 1.2 420 423 166S 420 843 2508 1448 1870 3535 310.9 305.7 313.1 306.S Feb-88 1988 2 1988 2452 412 2040 1.8 1.2 412 402 1556 412 81S 2370 1342 1744 3300 310.9 305.6 312.9 306.3 Mar-88 1988 3 1988 2197 398 1799 1.6 1.1 398 368 1372 398 766 2138 1355 1723 309S 310.7 305.5 312.8 306.2 Apr-88 1988 4 1988 1967 384 1583 1.4 1.1 384 337 1208 384 721 1929 1329 1666 2873 310.6 305.3 312.7 306.0 Mav-88 1988 s 1988 4958 877 4081 3.6 2.5 877 826 3112 877 1703 4815 1362 2188 S300 312.8 307.2 313.6 307.5 Jun-88 1988 6 1988 20400 5638 14762 12.9 16.2 5638 3947 112S9 S638 9S8S 20844 1214 5161 16419 321.1 312.7 317.3 311.5 -4.1 -2.7 -0.4 ·1.6 Jul-88 1988 7 1988 18920 5131 13789 12.1 14.7 5131 3634 10517 5131 8 76S 19282 3631 7265 17782 320.S 312.3 319.3 311.9 -5.4 -3.6 -4.0 -3.1 Aug-88 1988 8 1988 12280 30ll 9249 8.1 8.7 3031 2277 70SS 3031 5308 12363 3201 5479 12533 317.5 310.3 317.6 310.4 ·3.9 -2.4 ·3.6 -2.3 Seo-88 1988 9 1988 11320 2750 8570 7.S 7.9 2150 2088 6536 27SO 4837 11374 2129 4817 11353 317.0 310.0 316.9 310.0 Oct-88 1988 10 1989 806S 1765 6300 s.s S.l 1165 143S 480S 1765 3200 8005 1898 3333 8138 315.1 308.7 315.2 308.8 Nov-88 1988 II 1989 6400 1076 S324 4.7 3.1 1076 1051 4061 1076 2127 6187 1412 2463 6S23 313.5 307.9 114.0 308.1 Dec-88 1988 12 1989 3719 480 3239 2.8 1.4 480 S71 2411 480 1051 3521 1294 1865 4336 311.5 306.S 313.1 306.9 Jan-89 1989 I 1989 2781 429 23S2 2.1 1.2 429 446 1794 429 8 7S 2669 1439 1885 3679 311.0 305.9 313.1 306.6 Feb·89 1989 2 1989 2036 388 1648 1.4 1.1 388 347 1257 388 73S 1992 1381 1727 2984 310.6 30S.3 312.8 306.1 Mar-89 1989 3 1989 2000 386 1614 1.4 1.1 386 342 1231 386 728 1959 1347 1689 2920 310.6 305.3 312.8 306.1 Apr-89 1989 4 1989 1197 373 1424 1.2 1.1 373 3 14 1086 373 687 1773 1321 1635 2722 310.5 305.1 312.7 305.9 May-89 1989 s 1989 3410 499 2911 2.S 1.4 499 S40 2221 499 1038 3259 1264 1803 4024 311.4 306.3 313.0 306.8 Jun-89 1989 6 1989 16010 4214 11796 10.3 12.1 4214 3040 8997 4214 7254 16251 1244 4285 13282 319.2 311.5 316.4 310.6 0.4 0.3 3.0 1.1 Jul-89 1989 7 1989 13570 3434 10136 8.9 9 .9 3434 2S40 1730 3434 5974 13705 1300 3840 IIS70 318.1 3 10.7 315.9 310.0 .0.3 .0.2 1.7 0.4 Aug-89 1989 8 1989 9173 2154 7019 6.1 6 .2 2154 1671 5354 2154 382S 9179 1695 3366 8 720 315.8 309.2 315.3 309.0 -2.5 ·1.5 -1.2 -1.1 Sep-89 1989 9 1989 17070 4519 12551 11.0 13.0 4SI9 3249 9S72 4519 7768 17341 4206 7455 17027 319.7 311.8 319.4 311.7 Oct-89 1989 10 1990 13010 3273 9737 8.S 9.4 3273 2430 7427 3273 S702 13129 2986 5416 12842 311.8 310.S 317.6 310.5 Nov-89 1989 II 1990 S978 1038 4940 4.3 3 .0 1038 990 3767 1038 2029 5796 1485 2475 6243 313.4 307.7 314.1 307.9 Dec-89 1989 12 1990 3272 4S2 2820 2.5 1.3 4S2 Sll 2151 4S2 963 3114 1292 1803 3954 311.2 306.2 313.0 306.7 Jan-90 1990 I 1990 2761 428 2333 2.0 1.2 428 443 1779 428 872 2651 1438 1881 3661 311.0 30S.9 313.1 306.S Feb-90 1990 2 1990 2243 400 1843 1.6 1.1 400 374 1406 400 77S 2180 1379 1753 3159 310.8 305.5 312.9 306.2 Mar-90 1990 3 1990 1881 378 IS03 1.3 1.1 378 326 1146 378 704 1850 1346 1611 2817 310.6 305.2 312.7 306.0 Apr-90 1990 4 1990 2160 39S 1765 I .S 1.1 39S 363 1346 39S 7S9 2105 1319 1682 3028 310.7 305.4 312.8 306.1 Mav-90 1990 s 1990 3777 S33 3244 2.8 I.S S33 S93 2474 S33 1126 3600 1261 1853 4327 311.6 306.5 313.1 306.9 Jun-90 1990 6 1990 13030 3273 97S7 8.5 9.4 3273 2432 7442 3273 5705 13147 1260 3692 11134 317.8 310.6 315.7 309.9 -3.2 -2.0 ·1.4 -1.5 Jul·90 1990 7 1990 8359 1793 6S66 S.7 S.2 1793 1477 S008 1793 3270 8278 1356 2833 7841 31S.2 308.8 314.6 308.6 .0.6 .0.3 .0.3 .0.3 Auo-90 1990 8 1990 7373 1448 S92S S.2 4 .2 1448 1267 4519 1448 2115 7234 1299 2S66 708S 314.4 308.4 314.2 308.3 -2.7 -1.6 .0.8 -1.1 5ep-90 1990 9 1990 7651 1540 6111 S.4 4 .4 1540 132S 4661 1540 2865 7526 1296 2621 7282 314.6 308.S 314.3 308.4 Oct-90 1990 10 1991 7569 IS36 6033 S.3 4.4 1536 1314 4602 1536 2849 7451 1306 2620 1221 314.6 308.S 314.3 308.4 Nov-90 1990 11 1991 4247 S29 3718 3.3 I.S S29 647 2835 S29 1177 4012 1411 20S9 4894 311.7 306.8 313.4 307.3 Oec-90 1990 12 1991 2796 430 2366 2.1 1.2 430 448 1805 430 878 2683 1375 1823 3628 311.0 30S.9 313.0 3 06.5 Jan-91 1991 I 1991 2419 410 2009 1.8 1.2 410 398 1532 410 808 2340 1536 1934 3466 310.8 305.6 313.2 306.4 Attachment A -Detailed Tabular Results Mar28, 2014 Appendix C -Project Operations Modeling Sheet 43 of 43 Page 6 ,---------r ~-----. ---· -- Date Year Month WY Umegulated Monthly Flow USGS 15302000 NUYAKUK R NR DllUNGHAM AK {cfs) USGS 15301~00 ALLE11J R NR ALEKNAGIK AK Ids! Est1rnated Monthly Runoff NUYAKUKR!ess ALLEN R (ds) Estimated Monthly Runoff Cocff1dent Estimated Basin Runofl\ds) Lake Chi$;,uminok USGS 15302000 Ftl {USGS 15301500 NUYAKUK R NR ALLEN DILUNGHAM AK AlEKNAGIK AK) (ds/rni ... 2) (cf~) Lake Chauekuktwli (NW Pass.Jge gagej !cf:..} 15302000 NUYAKUK R NR DilliNGHAM AK) (cfs) f!.timated lnke Outflow-Pre-Project (cfs} estimated l.ake Outflow-Post~Prcject jcfs) Estimated L:~ke Level-Pre Project !ft) f<>tlmated Lake Level. Post-Pmjt>ct (ft} Pte" and Post-Project lake Water Lt>vel Differential From Time of Spawning to fgg$ iiatch (3 Month Spawnmg Period: June-Aug) (ftl ·----+-·--------.-'1'" -+---~-~---~-----If-----.-----~f---~~-----.--·-----1 L!kC Chikuminuk Outf1ow -Pre- ProJect (ds} lake Chauekuktuli Outflow -Pre- Project [cfs) Tikchik/Nuyakuk I lake Chikuminuk Lake Outflow- Pfe·Project {ds) Outflow-Post- Project (cfs) Lake Ch-t~uekuktuli Outt1ow-P'o:.t- Projett (ds) take Chauekuktuli IT1kdHk/Nuyakuk l-t~ke I llikch,k}Nuyakuk L..tl<.e T!k<:hik/Nuyakuk L~ke (prej: EL" JlB. 78 _ (prf'): H"' Lake ~hauekuktul1 (po~t): Outflow· Post-ProJectl17.4ltO 18G•tt'0.47 301.59+0.ll02*QA0.4 (post). EL = 318 ·78 ~ 30l.S9'1-0.1lD2"'Q"'0.463 (tfs) 72 638 12.47'1-0.186*Q"OA772 8 La+:t> C:hauekuktuli • ITikchik/Nuyakuk Lake Pre-Pro;t.><:t Pre·Pfoj&t l ,;ke Chauekuktuli Post-Project Tikchik/Nuyakuk Lake · Po'>t-Project ~b:9l-+~I" 1991 2179 397 17··· 1.6 u 397 366____ 13oo ,., 162 ·-r-nu 1•1• 1s••=-f 3104 310 1 3os.4 13.o ··t--306.2 · -r------~ Mar-91 1991 _3_ 1991 2045 jgg--1656 1.5 389 348 1263 3S9 737 2000 1443 96. _ 3059 310.· 305. R 30< 'pr-91 1991 4 1991 BOD '4o4 1891 1.1 I. 404 3B2 1446 404 786 2232 1425 07 -3254 310.3 ~--305.5 l__l3.0 -- May 91 1991 5 1991 • 46R/ 749 3_,8 3.4 749 759 3004 • 149 1>08 4511 1367 • 5124 31H 307.0 13.5 -·- Jun 91 1991 b 1991 VOO 3778 1092. 9.6 10.9 3778 2767 RBO 3178 6545 14875 1336 03 12433 318.< __ 31 16. -2.6 -17 ~1.2 -17 Jul91 1991 7 1991 ~9358 2!59 7_099 6.2 2159 1683 >414 7159 3842 9256 1429 12 8>76 31'. '-' 3092 314.9 2.2 15 0.9 1.1 -~ug-91 1991 B 1991 ·~ 184 !74 SBIC 5.1 1374 1224 44.3! 1374 2599 .:7030 _13n_ Jon 308.3 314.1 -0.5 -n.4 • 0.2 -0.2 Sep-91 1991 9 1991 981 185 7626 6.7 2185 1756 SSI6 218o 3941 9757 _135! 8928 1( 309.4 314.9 -'oct91 1ss1 111 1ss2 1335, 339o 9s&o 8.2 33so 2502 7597 339o 5891 ---t------;34ss iizo 11418 ·-"" _ 310.7 315.8 1100 .. --':!ov-9!._ 1991 11 1992 6395 1161 52!7 4.6 1162 1074 !994 1162 2236 6230 _l41 6479 i --~~ 307.9 314.1 308.0 ~ o~, 9: 1991 1992 ~,-7.,. -~=;:=: .,6 "" '-" 426 441 1111 426 86> 2638 -~'n 3586 ___ i ·-ru.0 · 3o5.a !.o 306.5 Jan 92 1992 1992 2006 386 1620 1.4 386 343 U35 386 ~ 1964 "'' 18 3114 ---jiQ6 305.3 31' (-· -~ -~-b_:9_2_ 1992 1 1992 1869 .U7 1492 1.3 377 324 1138 377 1839 142' L 2891 310.6 3052 312.9 -Jo6:0 ~;--1992 1 1992 !732 368 1364 u 368 1o5 ' 1040 368 673 114 144' 1,;4 n94 310.5 iX1 312.9 306.o _ -~ __ Apc-92 1992 4 1992 1810 373 1437 .113 316 1096 ·lZ.~---688 1185 142 1743 co;: 310.5 .. l 312.9 306.0 ~=· ~ ... _ ---_ ----___ ~- May-92 1992 s 1992 54/4 1o1s 4459 t9 ·.s 1o1s 924 J4o1 lOis 1939 5340 145 7379 s:s: 313.2 ~ YJ <, 313.9 3071 ---~ · --_ 1un·92 1992 6 1992 14570 3744 -~ 10826 9.5 108 3744 2742 8257 3744 6486 14243 1333 4075 1333 na.·6· 1.1. 316.1 310.3 7,4 1.5 -1.-l -1.2 Jul-92 1992 1 1992 13410 _ -~~--[~--~~~¥------8.8 9.7 3388 2508 -'~~-1388 5396 13540 3899 11543 .. 0 ___ ps.o 310. 315.9 _ _'l~O :6.0 :----1.7 '8 -2.7 Aug-92 1992 s 1ss2 1024o ?4s6 i79o 6.s 1.o 245o 1s1s 594> 2450 4318 101os 10 '!"s .-· 913o 316.4 3o9.6 ... __ 315.o 3692 ,s,3 -1.6 -1.9 -2. Sep-92 1992 s . _19.!:£_ --'~----rm n 6.8 6.7 m 1820 5886 2323 4143 10029 87 _ n -f-~------_ 316.2 3o9.s ___ __ 314.9 ~--->09 _ Oct-92 _1_992_ 10 4Slll "' 39q5 3.5 1.7 587 703 3048 58: ll90 4338 jg. 317.0 306.9 31 307 3 __ _ Nov-92 • 1992 ;~->89! 434 2459 2.2 12 ~434 461 1875 434 sss 2770 ;ci·.i -;-----3767 --~ 311.1 305.9 · ·-306.6 Oec-92 199; 1993 2213 398 1815 1.6 .. 398 370 !lB4 398 /69 115' 1396 li•c·l_ 3150 __ -------l10. 3055 3!2.9 306 .. _}§4'.1:93 l_g_~_ 1993 1932 381 lSSl 1.4 J81 332 lUB 381 714 J~~li 1562 y:z_':;S. 307 310.6 305. "1B.l 306.; ~-1993 19g3 1804 313 1431 1.3 ~7: 315 1091 313 6&8 !?_.!!:9 1505 ;c~.. ~:-JL 310.5 _ lOS. 313.0 306.0 __ ~ 1993 3 1993 1&16 374 1442 1.3 3]~ 317 1100 374 691 1?2J liL~ 17S-l J:"\:,.; 310.5 305.1 313.0 306.0 Apr.!B -~ 1993 4 1993 7692 422 2270 2.0 4P 434 17.H 422 856 2_5!?_ 1455 1889 -~ cr: _ 1J 311.0 '1.05.8 313.1 306.5 ~ -is93 s 1993 9115 2182 7533 6.6 ---6.3 2182 174! 5746 2!82 3925 9_(;7J 1349 3091 --t~~-'<838 316.o 3094 314.9 309.0 ~ '}993 6 1993 19400 l26 I 12.4 15. 5174 3730 10774 5274 9004 1~??~-~~_!287 ~p16 :;7qQ 320.7 . 311.4 317.2 3L.3 4.1 -2.8 ~ -2.1 -2.1 Ju!-9:! 199'3 l 1993 12830 9630 8 4 9.2 3100 2389 7345 3200 5589 ~~~: 1349 3738 (;::J~ 317.7 310.5 315.7 309.9 -1.4 -0.9 -0.3 -0.6 Aug-93 1993 8 1993 85( 6570 $.8 5.6 1935 1533 ~q11 1935 ___ 3468 .!"_7' _ P82 2815 cr, • _ 3!5.4 308.9 314 S 308.6 ~2.8 -1.5 -0.9 -1.0 5Pp·93 1993 9 1993 !04 24 7950 7.0 1.2 2490 1913 6064 2490 -~403 101h j''-'1 3171 --~ }:1________ 116. 309.7 3!5.0 309.2 --1 0<1-93 1993 10 1994 101 736 6.8 6.9 2394 18~2 590 B94 4244 10 ;y, 346> -~-!16. 309.5 315.4 309.2 <ov-93 1993 11 1994 " 74~ 4633 4.1 2.1 744 839 3533 744 1584 S!' . ! ~ :jf1~ --~ ~-31 '.6 307 4 3136 301 __ '"c-s: 1993 12 1994 _3€\( 467 133 u u 467 553 1390 4Gl 10; 3410 _·:.' -130:------~ -f--~-:--3Ji. 306.4 313. 306.9 ____ --~_:_~ __ _ an-94 1994 I 199~~ ---~ 438 2536 7.2 1.3 138 472-r--1934 438 9' 7844 -~ 1 '-----31 306.0 313. 306. ·--~--~~----· eb-94 1994 2 1994 257 418 1.9 1.2 18 -·1642. 4ll 836 2478 139 --~%i .4 1 3109 ~~-31'10 306.4 -~---_ j <ar-94 1994 ---t--+-__199_<: __ 2090 -r--391 1699 ' 1.5 1.1 ___ 12s6· 391 74S 2041 _ 135.-___ ;-= ~ 310.7 3L8 306. ----,.-______ ~~·- \pr-94 1994 1994 402~ 1871 1.6 1427 402 780 2207 i1 o 310.8 312.8 306.2 ·-f~~{ 1994 -,..--. -~.,~---~~.j~~ SRI 4325 3.8 '5 --i~~ 3299 881 __ 1?37 SOJG in: ---~-54!9 312.9 :iOJ3 313S 307,5 . , 94 1994 " 1994 -iiii3o 4910 13320 1.1 -~ -_~_-· --c ~-· ·---: i9i 10159 4910 _ cw1 -18so·l_____ m1 14880 320J·-=t-----3!. 316 .. 8 -s. ~ _ -~~~----1.9 -.;,-:;;-·-- --'c-: . 1994 1S37o 3975 11395 10.0 __ ____ lOO sso1 397:, 155so so77 111ss r---~~lllJ-'' __ , >122__ no,, 1.0 _ -~~--u ~o.7 ___ -09 8 1994 10520 2492 10 U 1923 6123 I 10>38 !.. 41\: 10236 316.5 309.7 ~-309.6 __ ____2], ·2.0 -2.3 l.6 ~ ·.;;p:<i4 ~s4 ~~f--~Y94 7S43 1475 068 53·--f----4. 1294 4628 : ,,, _ _:~-::_~ 1397 ,,~ 307: 22_0s ~ ... J.t4.s 303.5 ---1--1.9 08 -----~ F ~oic1·94 1994 10 19" 11240 122 1s-___ IB 2122 2011 6497 ___ m 47~92 11289 22:i: _ _ 4399 __1qs95 316.9 3099 ~ 09. __ _ , 94 1994 11 199' 6<J50 948 102 4-5 2.1 948 975 3891 948 1•1 sS14 -~ _2213_7_ 627s 313.2 307. 313.9 os. ~ +--- D•c94 1994 12 1995 4177__ 498. 579 ·---1.4 498 631 -· 2806 · 498 1129 3935 ii93 --1 --1924· 4730 311.6 306. 313.2 07. --1 ;an·95 El95 1 1995 3177 448 2729 2.4 1.3 448 498 20S 448 946 3Q~3 1438 1937 4018 311.2 306_ 313.2 05,. feb-95 1995 1 1995 2393-·: ----~~··--r--~9.84 1.7 1.2 409 395 151 409 <,,' -::: 22_1?_ 1319 1174 3287 310.8 305.6 312.9 05,3 --·-- MM~9S 1995 3 1095 1965 _ 384 1581 1.4 1.1 384 337 1206 384 7.'j I 11G 1683 2889 310.6 305. 312.8 106.0 ----· .. -- ,pr-95 1995 4 1995 2355 --~ 406 19i9 17 1.2 406 390 1494 .:05 .":!'.. -''-'" 1100 1204 310.8 10s.s 312.8 100.2 ~ __ _ M'y-95 1995 5 1995 9564 7171 7393 65 6.2 2171 17" 5639 5894 9SJ 2945 8583 315.9 309.3 14.7 108.9 1un-95 1995 , 6 1995 18230 4891 13339 11.7 14 .. 1 4891 3487 10174 ~!':ll 83?8_ _ 18502 1244 4/31 14904 320.~-_: 312.1 !169 311.1 3.2 ·2 1 0.4.. c_o Jul-95 1995 7 1995 __~EZO~ 318: _ 9589 8.4 9. 318: 2376 1314 ;!S j _2ss7 ----· 128, 2564 4940 317.7 ---f-· 310.5 3.12.:!_ 310.3 0.8 ·0.5 -0.5 _ -0.4 Aug~95 1905 8 ·~ 1995 8641 1933 6708 5.9 5.6 -~ 1c, .. ;_o --'-~c'\ J93J 3482 8538 1970 3519 315.4 309.0 315.5 309.0 :1.5 ·11.8 -1.1 ....:".• 5ep-95 1995 9 1995 11470 2159 8661 i 7.6 ~ _ :-~-~ _ __ · ---· Z759 1861 1146< 2089 5091 '.0 3!0.0 31 !10 . --f--- ~ =~ lO 1996 1280 2727 8553 7..5 7.8 "" .·'eli '"' l 27: .. -1:'·'4 1137 !~!~ f~-.316.9 310.0 3166 309.8 ---r--- Nov-95 :~~~~ 1991 6793 1253 5541 ____ -~~"c9_ 36_ 1)53 1145 12c 1253 }!C< hh, '":-~~--_ ~ 1 3139 3081 14.. 3082 Dec-95 _149,5 12 199' .]_~2 459 2993 ..... .. 2.6 "'-_ __"c59_ -~-534 228' 459 3216 -~~-.. 3 306. 13.0_ 3068 ~96_ 1gg5 199' m 405 1918 ·----~~7 ------r--""' 385 1463 :·--ns 7o:J '"3 l4i7 --·~~-~----; :---:: -~---3' '-310.8 3055 l_3JJ_ 306. ~- ~G-. 1995 2!J':-----~ __ 2_D_~----~~-----r--!676 .. S 1.1 ; ·:; 351 _ .. _i9J _ 741 2019 133; 310.1 305 3 l1_2_1!_ 306.1 _ _ JV!ar:9".. 199S )9g, 2271 _iq2 1869 1.6 1.2 .:· 378 78C 2206 1344 1.8 305.5 306.2 ---~ ~-- ---~~ 1995 _!9,6 7151 394 17'1 1.5 1.1 _''"; 362 756 2096 1318 !6&C 3111( 1.7 305.4 31>.7 306.1 Moy-9 1995 1996 &.BO .. 1,,. 507& 4.4 3.6 lh o 1090 -~ '·1 2344 6216 1341 2432 5303 1.9 307.9 314.0 3080 .. ... ~- Jun-9! 1'195 1996 10673 1S41 80&l _.~ 7.3 254. 1948 J;·" 4489 10654 1258 3l_l)! 9311 1.6 309. 315 .. 1 309.3 ------ Jul-91 1995 19% 8811 1018 ~ --~~--5.9 5.8 2018 1592 itli•i 3610 879: 1349 2940 8172 ,3 309. 314. 308.8 Au<-Yl 19!!5 JS% 6420 1090 --S-Ji30 4.1 3. 1090 1S .C<) lMi 621: 1300 2h: &42; 3135 _ ---t-----· 301.9 !.9 308.0 ~-~- ~ ~ ---i99G~ 4895 61 4283 3.8 -~---. 1.8 6: :ii _ n6 ·:iJ. 1359 4625 2064 i:BO 312.l 30: 313.4 307.S Attachment A-Detailed Tabular Results Mar28, 2014 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report, Volume I -Technical Studies Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume I -Technical Studies Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost April2014 Appendix D-Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost, Summary and Detail. ................................ 1 Appendix D.1-Estimated Labor Rates ................................................................................................. 6 Appendix D1.1 -RCC Dam and Powerhouse Demobilization ................................................................ 8 Appendix D1.3 and D1.4-C130 Flight Costs ......................................................................................... 9 Appendix D1.6-Equipment Standby Costs ........................................................................................ 11 Appendix D2-Roads and Airstrip ...................................................................................................... 12 Appendix D3 -RCC Dam .................................................................................................................... 14 Appendix D4.2 and D4.3-Tunnel System .......................................................................................... 19 Appendix D4.4 and D4.6 -Intake and Gate House .............................................................................. 20 Appendix D4.5-Penstock System ...................................................................................................... 29 Appendix D5.1-Powerhouse Structure ............................................................................................. 30 Appendix D5.2-Powerhouse Equipment .......................................................................................... 38 Appendix D6.1-Transmission to Bethel ............................................................................................ 41 Appendix D6.2-Transmission to Dillingham ...................................................................................... 42 DRAFT April, 2014 Prepared By: © 2014 Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., exclusive of U.S. government maps Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0 -Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost, Summary SUMMARY ITEM 1. General 2. Roads and Airstrip 3. Roller Compacted Concrete Dam 4. Waterways 4.1 General Mobilization I Demobilization 4.2 Portal Construction 4.3 Tunnel Construction 4.4 Gate Shaft Construction 4.5 Penstock System 4.6 Intake Structure and Gate 5. Powerhouse 5.1 Structure and Site Development 5.2 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment 6. Transmission Line 6.1 Chikuminuk to Bethel 6.2 Chikuminuk to Dillingham Subtotal • Direct Construction Cost 7. Contingencies 8. Administration and Management TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (2013 Dollars) 4/2/2014 ESTIMATED COST $5,200,000 $9,600,000 $22,800,000 $7,600,000 $4,300,000 $6,800,000 $23,700,000 $40,600,000 $114,400,000 $30,800,000 Sheet 1 of 1 $35,000,000 $29,000,000 $38,000,000 $56,000,000 $64,000,000 $145,000,000 $367,000,000 $126,000,000 $76,000,000 $569,000,000 Appendix D -Probable Constn •dion Cost Sheet 1 of 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0 -Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost, Detail Labor 1 General 1.1 Mobilization I Demobilization 1.2 Man Camp Construction 1.3 C-130 Flight Cost Dam & Powerhouse, Equipment & materials delivery 1.4 C-130 Flight Cost-Fuel delivery 1.5 Allowance for Compensation, Mitigation and Enhancement 1.6 Equipment Rental During Non-use Period 2 Roads and Airstrips 2.1 Airstrip 2.2 Roadway 1-Airstrip to Camp 2.3 Roadway 2 Camp to Float Plane 2.3 Roadway 3 -Camp to Powerhouse 2.3 Roadway 4-Roadway 3 to Dam 2.4 Camp Pad 2.5 Float Plane and Boat Ramp 3 Roller Compacted Concrete Dam 3.1 Prep area I laydown $432,000 3.2 Excavate dam foundation $600,000 3.3 Erect batch plant $1,200,000 3.4 Stockpile cement/ trial mixes $432,000 3.5 RCC convential concrete $10,080,000 3.6 Conveyor systems $72,000 3.7 Cofferdams uls & dis and dewater $360,000 3.8 Consolidation Grouting $1,080,000 3.9 Curtain Grouting $1,296,000 41112014 Equip Materials Total Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $37,710,000 $138,800 $61,900 $633,000 $173,000 $60,000 $833,000 $145,500 $240,000 $1,586,000 $106,700 $86,400 $625,000 $1,415,000 $17,001,300 $28,496,000 $273,600 $27,400 $373,000 $137,400 $1,864,000 $2,361,000 $118,500 $37,200 $1,236,000 $142,200 $128,700 $1,567,000 Sheet 1 of 4 Units Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 2 of42 Unit Price Price Total Price $35,000,000 $13,800,000 $13,800,000 $13,800,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $3,718,500 $3,719,000 $3,719,000 $753,750 $754,000 $754,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $29,000,000 $21,575,400 $21,575,000 $21,575,000 $1,126,500 $1,127,000 $1,127,000 $815,500 $816,000 $816,000 $1,859,800 $1,860,000 $1,860,000 $2,051,000 $2,051,000 $2,051,000 $1,330,600 $1,331,000 $1,331,000 $292,700 $293,000 $293,000 $38,000,000 $633,000 $833,000 $1,586,000 $625,000 $28,496,000 $373,000 $2,361,000 $1,236,000 $1,567,000 Appendix D -Probable Constn ·~•ion Cost Sheet 3 of42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix D-Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost, Detail Labor Equip Materials Total Quantity Units Unit Price Price Total Price 4 Waterways $56,000,000 4.1 General Mobilization I Demobilization $5,190,000 $5,190,000 4.1.1 Mobilization· Lower 48 to Dillingham 1 Lump Sum $1,129,659 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 4.1.2 Mobilization-Dillingham to Lower 48 1 Lump Sum $1,588,582 $1,589,000 $1,589,000 4.1.3 Demobilization-Lower 48 to Dillingham 1 Lump Sum $1,482,677 $1,483,000 $1,483,000 4.1.4 Demobilization Dillingham to Lower 48 1 Lump Sum $988,451 $988,000 $988,000 4.2 Portal Construction $9,622,000 $9,622,000 4.2.1 Diversion I Power Tunnel· Upper Portal 1 Lump Sum $6,471,783 $6,472,000 $6,472,000 4.2.2 Diversion I Power Tunnel-Lower Portal 1 Lump Sum $3,149,983 $3,150,000 $3,150,000 4.3 Tunnel Construction $22,776,000 $22,776,000 4.3.1 Tunnel Excavation 930 Feet $18,349 $17,065,000 $17,065,000 4.3.2 Tunnel Concrete Work 645 Feet $8,855 $5,711,000 $5,711,000 4.4 Gate Shaft Construction $7,615,000 $7,615,000 4.4.1 Shaft Excavation 110 Feet $40,581 $4,464,000 $4,464,000 4.4.2 Shaft Lining 110 Feet $28,646 $3,151,000 $3,151,000 4.5 Penstock System $4,300,000 $4,300,000 4.5.1 Penstock Supply Tunnel Section 308,900 Pounds $3.00 $927,000 $927,000 4.5.2 Penstock Supply-Manifold Section Section 54,700 Pounds $6.00 $328,000 $328,000 4.5.3 Penstock Supply· Powerhouse Section 82,500 Pounds $6.00 $495,000 $495,000 4.5.4 Penstock I Manifold Installation 1 Lump Sum $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 4.5.5 Tunnel Plug 700 Cubic Yard $1,500 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 4.6 Intake Structure and Gate House $6,778,000 $6,778,000 4.6.1 Intake Structure-Crane Pad $192,000 $51,800 $61,200 $305,000 $305,000 4.62 Intake Structure Reinforced Concrete $408,000 $100,600 $289,900 $799,000 $799,000 4.6.3 Intake Structure-Stoplogs and Guides $132,000 $36,200 $432,500 $601,000 $601,000 4.6.4 Intake Structure Trash racks $156,000 $37,400 $510,000 $703,000 $703,000 4.6.5 Gate House-Excavation and Surface Prep $192,000 $51,800 $21,200 $265,000 $265,000 4.6.6 Gate House Gates, Stoplogs and Guides $360,000 $87,400 $1,614,000 $2,061,000 $2,061,000 4.6.7 Gate House-Reinforced Concrete Structure $276,000 $77,000 $181,800 $535,000 $535,000 4.6.8 Gate House Steel Superstructure $216,000 $46,000 $556,200 $818,000 $818,000 4.6.9 Gate House-Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical $312,000 $42,600 $336,200 $691,000 $691,000 4/112014 Sheet 2 of4 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 4 of 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix D-Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost, Detail Labor Equip Materials Total Quantity Units Unit Price Price Total Price 5 Powerhouse $64,000,000 5.1 Structure $10,140,000 $1,377,500 $12,195,260 $23,713,000 $23,713,000 5.1.1 Prep a rea /laydown $288,000 $73,600 $141,500 $503,000 $503,000 5.1.2 Excavate overburden/rock foundation $480,000 $159,900 $72,000 $712,000 $712,000 5.L3 Foundation prep $144,000 $16,600 $19,740 $180,000 $180,000 5.1.4 Concrete for substructure $2,016,000 $260,600 $9,428,000 $11,705,000 $11,705,000 5.1.5 Steel frame superstructure $2,640,000 $273,000 $2,370,500 $5,284,000 $5,284,000 5.1.6 Mechanical/ Electrical Installation $3,300,000 $444,400 $70,000 $3,814,000 $3,814,000 5.1.7 Archectural/ paint I trim $720,000 $57,000 $72,000 $849,000 $849,000 5.1.8 Pre-operation system testing $168,000 $67,200 $10,000 $245,000 $245,000 5.1.9 Trial operation $384,000 $25,200 $11,520 $421,000 $421,000 5.2 Mechanical/ Electrical Equipment $40,613,000 $40,613,000 5.2.1 Turbine, Generator, Switchgear, Governor (Each) 4 each $4,974,200 $19,897,000 $19,897,000 5.2.2 Turbine, Generator, Switchgear, Governor Installation 4 each $2,984,520 $11,938,000 $11,938,000 5.2.3 Turbine Isolation Valve 4 each $150,000 $600,000 $600,000 5.2.4 Flywheel 8 each $55,500 $444,000 $444,000 5.2.5 Air Compressors and Appurtenances (S&I) 1 each $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 5.2.6 Unwatering, Drainage, & Cooling Water Pumps (S&I) 1 each $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 5.2.7 Fire Protection System (S&I) 4 each $25,000 $100,000 $100,000 5.2.8 Oil Filtration System (S&I) 1 each $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 5.2.9 Potable Water System 1 each $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 5.2.10 Piping, Valves and Fittings (S&l) 1 each $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 5.2.11 Maintenance Equipment {S&I) 1 each $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 5.2.12 Ventilation Equipment (S&!) 1 each $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 5.2.13 Sanitary System (S&I) 1 each $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 5.2.14 Miscellaneous Equipment (S&I) 1 each $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 5.2.15 Station Service Transformer SOO kVA, 12.47 kV/480-877\; 2 each $25,000 $50,000 $50,000 5.2.16 Station Batteries, Controls, installation 1 each $198,968 $199,000 $199,000 5.2.17 Station Service Switchgear, Incl. 10 C. B.'s 480 V 1 each $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 5.2.18 Unit Protection 4 each $137,500 $550,000 $550,000 5.2.19 Electrical Services 1 each $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 5.2.26 SCAD A 4 each $137,500 $5SO,OOO $550,000 5.2.27 Crane (S&I) 1 each $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 5.2.28 300 KW Standby Generator and 2000 gal Fuel Tank (S&I) 4 each $137,500 $550,000 $550,000 S.2.29 Switchyard 1 each $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 4/1/2014 Sheet 3 of 4 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix D-Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost, Detail Labor 6 Transmission Une 6.1 Chikuminuk to Bethel 6.1.1 Air (helicopter) construction= 30 miles 6.1.2 Overland summer construction= 43 miles 6.1.3 Overland winter construction 46 miles 6.2 Chikuminuk to Dillingham 6.2.1 Air (helicopter) construction= 4 miles 6.2.2 Overland summer construction= 96 miles 6.2.3 Road summer construction 19 miles DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST 7 Contingencies 7.1 Pricing 7.2 Scope Roads and Airstrip 7.2 Scope· Dam, Tunnel Concrete, Penstock, Intake Gate, and PH Civil 7.3 Scope· PH Equipment 7.4 Scope Transmission SUBTOTAL: DIRECT+ CONTINGENCIES 8 Administration and Management 8.1 Planning and Licensing 8.2 Engineering 8.3 Engineering During Construction 8.4 Construction Oversight & Mgt 8.5 Mise Owner's soft costs 8.6 Land Acquisistions, Rights and Mitigation TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 4/1/2014 Equip Materials Total Quantity 1 1 1 Sheet 4 of 4 Units Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Appendix D-Probable Constro·~•ion Cost Sheet 5 of 42 Unit Price Price Total Price $145,000,000 $114,386,000 $114,386,000 $45,631,000 $45,631,000 $45,631,000 $28,338,100 $28,338,000 $28,338,000 $40,417,300 $40,417,000 $40,417,000 $30,803,000 $30,803,000 $3,164,900 $3,165,000 $3,165,000 $24,381,900 $24,382,000 $24,382,000 $3,256,200 $3,256,000 $3,256,000 $367,000,000 - $126,276,000 15.0% $55,050,000 $55,050,000 40.0% $11,600,000 $11,600,000 30.0% $24,496,000 $24,496,000 15.0% $6,092,000 $6,092,000 20.0% $29,038,000 $29,038,000 $493,000,000 -- $76;4i"5,ooo 1.5% $7,395,000 $7,395,000 3.0% $14,790,000 $14,790,000 2.0% $9,860,000 $9,860,000 5.0% $24,650,000 $24,650,000 2.0% $9,860,000 $9,860,000 2.0% $9,860,000 $9,860,000 $569,000,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix D.l -Estimated Labor Rates Dick Freeman Chikuminuk Labor Rate Estimate Average Equipment Operator Wage (Means 2012 rear cover) Factorfor Fairbanks 115.0 = +15% (Means 2012, page 588) Escalation @ 2.1% (ENR) Overtime Allowance for 6-10s = 70 pay/60 work= 0.167 x Means Workmans' Comp @ 9% Average Fixed Overhead (home office)@ 17.9% Overhead at site@ 14% Supervision, maintenance, safety, non-production personnel etc.@ 25% Subsistence (food/shelter/camp)@ $500/day Risk I inefficiencies I turnover@ 7% Profit@ 10% Jim Peregoy Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 6 of 42 $46.55 $6.98 Subtotal $53.53 $1.12 $54.65 $9.13 Subtotal $63.78 $5.74 $11.42 $8.93 $26.09 Subtotal $89.87 $22.47 $62.50 $84.97 Subtotal $174.83 $12.24 Subtotal $18.71 TOTAL $210.00 Chikuminuk Labor Rate Estimate Base Rate Operator $46.55 Tax @13.5% $6.28 Fringes $41.00 Subtotal $93.83 Workman's comp @13.38% $12.37 Subtotal $106.20 Overtime @ 40.18% $42.67 Subtotal $148.87 Camp cost @ $500/day $62.5_Q TOTAL $210.00 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.1 -Estimated Labor Rates R & M Consultants Chikuminuk Labor Rate Estimate Operator Group lA-A1602 Davis Bacon Total Fringe Benefit Rate Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 7 of 42 $46.55 $19.95 Total Hourly Burden Rate (Davis Bacon Rate 2013) $66.50 Workmans' Comp @ 8% Estimate a 70 Work Week (Seven Ten Hour Shifts) (50% OT premium) 35% markup for overhead cost Subtotal Subtotal Operator cost Camp cost @ 866.67 per day Contractor's hourly cost @ 70 hours/week Profit@ 10% Subtotal TOTAL $3.72 $70.22 $5,613.93 ~1,754.67 $7,368.60 ~6,066.69 $13,435.29 $191.93 $210.00 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix D.l.l -RCC Dam and Powerhouse Demobilization B<Jse Labor Rate I hour $200 (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime & per diem) Item Activity Duration Unit= Weeks Hours I Week= 60 No. Duration labor Labor Labor Cost Hours Rate Unit Cost Equip Cost Qty Unit Unit Cost Appendix 0 -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 8 of 42 Materials Cost Item Cost Oemobe incl Restoration -~------________ ---~---I 3 weeks 180 $200 $36,000 I $36,000 6 3 weeks 1,080 $200 $216,000 $216,000 D Ooo Truck drivers 2 3 weeks 360 $200 $72,000 $72,000 Carpenters 2 3 weeks 360 $200 $72,000 $72,000 Electrician 2 3 weeks 360 $200 $72,000 $72,000 Mechanic 2 3 weeks 360 $200 $72,000 $72,000 Laborers 2 3 weeks 1,080 $200 $216,000 $216.000 Subtotal 21 Cat 07 2 3 weeks $7,000 $42,000 $42,000 966loader 2 3 weeks $5,500 $33,000 $33,000 E/D trucks 2 3 weeks $5,500 $33,000 $33,000 Mobile Crane 2 3 weeks $8,600 $51,600 $51,600 Tractor/Trailer 2 3 weeks $2,800 $16,800 $16,800 Flights to demobe equipment $1,507,500 g,_so7,soo Subtotal 50% % $378,000 $378,000 1.00 LS $1,000,000j $1,000,000 I I I I I Subtotal Chikuminuk Hyr' lectric Project Interim Feasibih., .• eport Appendix 01.3 and 01.4 -C 130 Flight Costs Equipment Qty Req'd (ea) Modular Batch Plant (Aran Modumix II or simil< 1 Modular Batch Plant (Aran Modumix II or simi!; Modular Batch Plant (A ran Modumix II or simil< 1 Modular Batch Plant (Aran Modumix II or simi!< 1 Modular Batch Plant (Aran Modumix II or simili 1 Kenworth T470 (base truck only) 1 E/D trucks (dump attachment only) 1 Kenworth T470 (base truck only) 1 E/D trucks (dump attachment only) Ken worth T470 (base truck only) light plants, Doosan l20-60Hz 1 Kenworth T470 (base truck only) Light plants, Doosan l20-60Hz 1 Trailer, lowboy Scaffolding 1 500 A Welder, lincoln Electric K2325-2 Trailer, lowboy 1 Scaffolding 500 A Welder, lincoln Electric K2325-2 Track Drill, Cat MD509 1 Track Drill, Cat MD509 Grove 540E Rough Terrain Crane 1 67" Roller, Cat CB54 Grove 540E Rough Terrain Crane CAT D6 Dozer 1 4 WD Forklift, Cat Tl1055C 250 kW generator, Doosan G325WCU 1 Dragline setup for 60 ton crane Silo, Diversified Storage System 1400 1 Mise diesel pumps, Godwin CD400M 1 Silo, Diversified Storage System 1400 Mise diesel pumps, Godwin CD400M 1 Silo, Diversified Storage System 1400 1 Mixer truck, drum only, london Series 60 1 Silo, Diversified Storage System 1400 Mixer truck, drum only, london Series 60 1 Silo, Diversified Storage System 1400 600 cfm compressor, Doosan P600 1 Silo, Diversified Storage System 1400 1 600 cfm compressor, Doosan P600 1 Conveyor, Putzmeister Telebelt 130 Mixertruck, drum only, london Series 60 1 Silo, Diversified Storage System 1400 1 CAT D6 Dozer Total Weight (48,000 lbs max) (lbs) 48,000 48,000 48,000 48,000 48.000 33,000 10,000 33,000 10,000 33,000 2,540 33,000 2,540 18,800 5,848 1,730 18,800 5,848 1,730 41,000 41,000 60,126 23,818 60,126 29,690 34,160 13,595 96,000 12,000 13,575 12,000 13,575 12,000 10,000 12,000 10,000 12,000 5,178 12,000 5,178 29,800 10,000 12,000 29,690 Length (55' max) (ft) 55 55 55 55 55 27.75 20 27.75 20 27.75 15.2 27.75 15.2 50 40 5.25 50 40 5.25 34 34 39 16 39 15.3 20.8 19.3 55 37 15.0 37 15.0 37 13.92 37 13.92 37 14.2 37 14.2 42 13.92 37 15.3 Width (9' max) (ft) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8.5 8 8.5 8 6.6 8 6.6 8.5 5 2.75 8.5 5 2.75 8.5 8.5 8.64 6.3 8.64 7.7 8.4 6.9 8 8.5 7.2 8.5 7.2 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 6.5 8.5 6.5 8 8.5 8.5 7.7 Height (9' max) (ft) 8 8 8 8 8 9.5 8.5 9.5 8.5 9.5 7.4 9.5 7.4 8 8 4.08 8 8 4.08 10.25 10.25 10.6 10.1 10.6 9.67 8.4 9.4 8 8.5 6.0 8.5 6.0 8.5 8.333 8.5 8.333 8.5 6.3 8.5 6.3 12 8.333 8.5 9.67 Disassemble ?? (Y/N) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y y y y y y N N y y N y N y N y N y N y N y N y y Re-Assembly Time (hrs) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 4 16 4 16 4 NA NA 32 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 6 NA 24 NA 6 4 Flight No. (#) 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 13 14 & 15 15 16 & 17 17 18 18 19 & 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 Appendix D -Probable Constr· ·•on Cost Sheet 9 of42 Comments-Demobilize or stay on-site post construction Assume 5 trips (Hoppers, Mixer, Operations Room), Steel Structure Assume 5 trips (Hoppers, Mixer, Operations Room), Steel Structure Assume 5 trips (Hoppers, Mixer, Operations Room), Steel Structure Assume 5 trips (Hoppers, Mixer, Operations Room), Steel Structure Assume 5 trips (Hoppers, Mixer, Operations Room), Steel Structure Used as Dump Truck, Haul low Boy, Mount a Cement Mixer, Attach a Plow. Probably have 3-4 that stay on site. Assumed dimensions and weight Used as Dump Truck, Haul low Boy, Mount a Cement Mixer, Attach a Plow. Probably have 3-4 that stay on site. Assumed dimensions and weight Used as Dump Truck, Haul low Boy, Mount a Cement Mixer, Attach a Plow. Probably have 3-4 that stay on site. Used as Dump Truck, Haul low Boy, Mount a Cement Mixer, Attach a Plow. Probably have 3-4 that stay on site. 5' x 5' frames stacked 8.5' high, 4 stacks 5' x 5' frames stacked 8.5' high, 4 stacks Disassemble at Chasis. Keep 1 or 2 on site. In lieu of 60 ton crane? Need to remove cab/roof Disassemble at Chasis. Keep 1 or 2 on site. In lieu of 60 ton crane? D7 is too heavy Assumed 2 flights required Must remove wheels for this model Must remove wheels for this model Must remove wheels for this model 8.5 yd capacity, weight is assumed Must remove wheels for this model 8.5 yd capacity, weight is assumed Must remove wheels for this model Must remove wheels forthis model 8.5 yd capacity, weight is assumed Must remove wheels for this model D7 is too heavy Chikum i nuk Hn lectri c Project Interim Feasib eport Appendix 01.3 and 01.4-C 130 Flight Costs Equ i pment QtyReq'd Total Wei ght Length W idth He ight Di sassemble Re-Asse mbly Flight No. {48,000 lbs max) {55 ' max) (9' max) (9' max) ?? Time CAT Loader 938 1 35,104 25.1 8.75 11 y 4 29 Pick-up truck, 4WD 1 4,816 18.7 6.7 6.2 N NA 29 CAT Loader 938 1 35,104 25.1 8.75 11 y 4 30 Pick-up truck, 4WD 1 4,816 18.7 6.7 6.2 N NA 30 CAT Excavator 318 1 41,010 28 8.75 10 y 8 31 Concrete pump, Schwing SP 4800, 2020 1 17,637 23 6.2S 8.1 N NA 32 Pick-up truck, 4WD 1 4,816 18.7 6.7 6.2 N NA 32 4WD Forklift, Cat n1055C 1 34,160 20.8 8.4 8.4 N NA 33 Pick-up truck, 4WD 1 4,816 18.7 6.7 6.2 N NA 33 Pick-up truck, 4WD 1 4,816 18.7 6.7 6.2 N NA 33 Pick-up truck, 4WD 1 4,816 18.7 6.7 6.2 N NA 34 Pick-up truck, 4WD 1 4,816 18.7 6.7 6.2 N NA 34 Pick-up truck, 4WD 1 4,816 18.7 6.7 6.2 N NA 34 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 10 of 42 Comments -Demobilize or stay o n-site post co nstruction In lieu of 966 which is too heavy, 950 is too wide In lieu of 966 which is too heavy, 950 is too wide Fuel Tanks, 12,000 gal 1 24,000 25 9 9 N NA 35 Weight unknown Fuel Tanks, 12,000 gal 1 24,000 25 9 9 N NA 35 Weight unknown Tool shed, Conex, 40' 1 8,575 40 8 8.5 N NA 36 Tool shed, Conex, 15' 1 3,500 15 8 8.5 N NA 36 Weights and di mensions approximate Tool shed, Conex, 40' 1 8,575 40 8 8.5 N NA 37 Tool shed, Conex, 15' 1 3,500 15 8 8.5 N NA 37 Weights and dimensions approximate Total Flights : Material mob I de mob $30,000 $35,000 $33,500 74 Cost per Flight-Dillingham to Site= Cost per Flight-Fairbanks to Dillingham= Assume 10 Local Flights I Fairbanks Flight, Avg Cost I Flight {Dillingham to Site) = Applying a f actor o f 1.5 on mob/demob fli ghts f or labor, equip & m aterials: COST= Applyi ng a fa ctor of 1.5 on flights for fuel: COST= $3,718,500 $753,7 50 All equipment must fit inside a C-130 Aircraft, payload 48.000 lbs Eg yi11ment Gallons Pounds Flights Track Drill 4800 35,280 1 -cu Dozer 13500 99,225 2 ,,. :::::1 Loader 918 6,747 0 ~ Pickup 8237 60,542 1 .. Excavator 4200 30,870 1 "' .., Roller 2640 19,404 0 .c .!:!!l Mack Trucks 8160 59,976 1 -Compressor 5175 38,036 1 ~ Generator 19890 146,192 3 -ra Crane 11160 82,026 2 .., Batch Plant 15120 111,132 2 0 .... Pump 1920 14,112 0 Light Plant 1800 13,230 Q Total = 97,520 716,772 15 Side VIew ·--· -..--_:r•'f'" Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 01.6 -Equipment Standby Costs Equipment Weeks Tractor/Trailer 50 Cat 07 94 966 Loader 58 600 cfm compressor 9 Batch plant 52 Concrete pump 52 60 ton crane, @ 50% 27 250 kW Generator 27 Rate $2,800 $7,000 $5,500 $3,750 $5,250 $1,800 $12,900 $6,900 Total= Appendix 0 -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 11 of 42 Total Cost $140,000 $658,000 $319,000 $33,750 $273,000 $93,600 $348,300 $186,300 $2,100,000 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 12 of 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 02-Roads and Airstrip ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Airstrip Heavy lift Copter Operations Heavy Lift Copter I Mob I De mob Lump Sum 1 $400,000 $400,000 Lift work Hr 100 $15,000 $1,500,000 Fuel Gal 40,000 $12 $480,000 Subsistence (10 for 10 days) Each 100 $294 ~29,400 Subtotal $2,409,400 Runway and Apron Construction Runway Mobe I Demobe Lump sum 1 $2,460,000 $2,460,000 Clear & Grub Acre 29 $10,000 $290,000 Unclassified excavation Cu. Yd. 200,000 $22 $4,400,000 Roadway structural section Cu. Yd. 120,000 $55 $6,600,000 Borrow Cu. Yd. 3,000 $35 $105,000 Drainage Lump sum 1 $570,000 $570,000 Subsistence (30 person camp) Lump sum 1 $4,381,000 $4,381,000 Erosion control Lump sum 1 $360,000 ~360,000 Subtotal $19,166,000 Total $21,575,400 Roadway 1 Construction (runway to camp) Clear & Grub Acre 13 $10,000 $130,000 Unclassified excavation Cu. Yd. 19,000 $22 $418,000 Borrow Cu. Yd. 0 $35 $0 Roadway structural section Cu. Yd. 9,000 $55 ~495,000 Subtotal $1,043,000 Drainage@ 5% $52,200 Erosion Control @ 3% ~31,300 Subtotal $83,500 Total $1,126,500 Roadway 2 construction (camp to float plane} Clear & Grub Acre 4 $10,000 $40,000 Unclassified excavation Cu. Yd. 25,000 $22 $550,000 Borrow Cu. Yd. 0 $35 $0 Roadway structural section Cu. Yd. 3,000 $55 ~165,000 Subtotal $755,000 Drainage @ 5% $37,800 Erosion Control @ 3% ~22,700 Subtotal $60,500 Total $815,500 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 13 of 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 02 -Roads and Airstrip Roadway 3 construction (camp to powerhouse} Clear & Grub Acre 9 $10,000 $90,000 Unclassified excavation Cu. Yd. 51,000 $22 $1,122,000 Borrow Cu. Yd. 2,000 $35 $70,000 Roadway structural section Cu. Yd. 8,000 $55 ~440,000 Subtotal $1,722,000 Drainage @ 5% $86,100 Erosion Control @ 3% ~51,700 Subtotal $137,800 Total $1,859,800 Roadway 2 construction (roadway 3 to dam) Clear & Grub Acre 6 $10,000 $60,000 Unclassified excavation Cu. Yd. 67,000 $22 $1,474,000 Borrow Cu. Yd. 1,000 $35 $35,000 Roadway structural section Cu. Yd. 6,000 $55 ~330,000 Subtotal $1,899,000 Drainage@ 5% $95,000 Erosion Control @ 3% ~57,000 Subtotal $152,000 Total $2,051,000 Camp Pad (permanent) Clear & Grub Acre 5 $10,000 $50,000 Unclassified excavation Cu. Yd. 6,000 $22 $132,000 Borrow Cu. Yd. 8,000 $35 $280,000 Roadway structural section Cu. Yd. 14,000 $55 ~770,000 Subtotal $1,232,000 Drainage @ 5% $61,600 Erosion Control @ 3% ~37,000 Subtotal $98,600 Total $1,330,600 Float Plane & Boat Ramp Pad Clear & Grub Acre 5 $10,000 $50,000 Unclassified excavation Cu. Yd. 3,000 $22 $66,000 Borrow Cu. Yd. 0 $35 $0 Roadway structural section Cu. Yd. 1,000 $55 $55,000 Dock, Ramp, Mise Items Lump Sum 1 $100,000 ~100,000 Subtotal $271,000 Drainage @ 5% $13,600 Erosion Control @ 3% $8,100 Subtotal $21,700 Total $292,700 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 03 -RCC Dam Superintendent Equip Operators Truck Drivers Laborers Subtotal 40 Ton crane 07 Cat E/D trucks 66" Roller Subtotal Superintendent Blasters Dragline operator Truck drivers Operators Subtotal Cat 07 Dragline setup w/40 ton crane E/D trucks 600 cfm (drill/shoot) Subtotal Mise: safety, etc@ 10% of labor Subtotal Base Labor Rate I hour= $200 (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime & per diem) Activity Duration Unit Weeks Hours I Week 60 1 4 weeks 240 $200 $48,000 4 4 weeks 960 $200 $192,000 2 4 weeks 480 $200 $96,000 2 4 weeks 480 $200 $96,000 9 1 4 weeks $8,600 $34,400 2 4 weeks $7,000 $56,000 2 4 weeks $4,300 $34,400 1 4 weeks $3,500 $14,000 I 420 CY 1 5 weeks 300 $200 $60,000 4 5 weeks 1,200 $200 $240,000 1 5 weeks 300 $200 $60,000 2 5 weeks 600 $200 $120,000 I 5 week> 600 $200 $120,000 10 2 5 weeks $7,000 $70,000 1 5 weeks $8,600 $43,000 2 5 weeks $4,300 $43,000 1 5 weeks $3,400 $17,000 $45 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 14 of 42 $48,000 $192,000 $96,000 $96,000 $34,400 $56,000 $34,400 $14,000 I $43,000 $18,9001 $18,900 $60,000 $240,000 $60,000 $120,000 $120,000 $70,000 $43,000 $43,000 $17,000 $173,000 $60,000 $.60,00Q Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 03 -RCC Dam Item Base labor Rate I hour" $200 (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime & per diem) Activity Duration Unit" Weeks Hours/ Week= 60 Appendix D -Probable ConstP · -•;on Cost Sheet 15 of 42 No. Duration labor labor labor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Qty Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Item Cost Hours Rate 13.3. Erect Batch Plants· double shifts (RF4.3) I Ooeraro 4 5 weeks 1,200 $200 $240,000 $240,000 Electrician 2 5 weeks 600 $200 $120,000 $120,000 Ironworker 2 5 weeks 600 $200 $120,000 $120,000 Carpenter 2 5 weeks 600 $200 $120,000 $120,000 Truck drivers 2 5 weeks 600 $200 $120,000 $120,000 laborers §. 5 weeks 2,400 $200 $480,000 $480,000 Subtotal 20 40 Ton crane 1 7.5 weeks $8,600 $64,500 $64,500 600 cfm 1 7.5 weeks $3,400 $25,500 $25,500 Tractor Trailer 1 7.5 weeks $2,800 $21,000 $21,000 250 kW Generator 1 7.5 weeks $4,600 $34,500 $34,500 Subtotal $145,500 Mise@ 20% of labor $240,000 $240,000 Equip Operators 2 3 weeks 360 $200 $72,000 $72,000 Carpenter 4 3 weeks 720 $200 $144,000 $144,000 laborers § 3 weeks 1,080 $200 $216,000 $216.000 Subtotal 12 t: 40 Ton crane 1 4.5 weeks $8,600 $38,700 $38,700 9661oader 1 4.5 weeks $5,500 $24,800 $24,800 Mise equip@ 10% labor $43,200 $43,200 Subtotal Mise @ 20% of labor I I I I I $86,4001 $86.400 Subtotal Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 03 -RCC Dam Item Base Labor Rate I hour= $200 (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime & per diem) Activity Duration Unit= Weeks Hours I Week 60 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 16 of 42 No. Duration labor Labor Labor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Q.ty Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Item Cost Hours Rate 13.5. RCC & conventional concrete-7-lO's, double shifts (44,300 cy) {RF4.5) 4 20 weeks 5,600 $200 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 40 Ton crane operator 2 20 weeks 2,800 $200 $560,000 $560,000 Electrician 2 20 weeks 2,800 $200 $560,000 $560,000 Laborers 4 20 weeks 5,600 $200 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Carpenters 8 20 weeks 11,200 $200 $2,240,000 $2,240,000 07 Dozer operator 2 20 weeks 2,800 $200 $560,000 $560,000 Roller compactor operator 2 20 weeks 2,800 $200 $560,000 $560,000 Vibrator operators 8 20 weeks 11,200 $200 $2,240,000 $2,240,000 Mixer truck drivers 1 20 weeks 5,600 $200 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Subtotal 36 40 Ton crane 1 15 weeks $8,600 $129,000 i $129,000 Concrete Mixer Trucks 2 20 weeks $5,000 $200,000 $200,000 EID Trucks 1 20 weeks $4,300 $86,000 $86,000 07 Dozer 1 20 weeks $7,000 $140,000 $140,000 66" Roller 2 20 weeks $3,500 $140,000 $140,000 Batch plants 4 30 weeks $3,500 $420,000 $420,000 Silos, conveyors, etc 4 30 weeks $2,500 $300,000 $300,000 Subtotal Form lumber-single use, 314 ply 215,000 sf $1 $215,000 $215,000 Roller Compacted Concrete 35,000 CY $265 $9,275,000 $9,275,000 Reinforced Conventional Concrete 8,330 CY $610 $5,081,300 $5,081,300 60" Dia Howell Bunger Valve 2 EA $300,000 $600,000 $600,000 24" Dia Howell Bunger Valve 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 60" Steel Piping 440 LF $1,440 $633,600 $633,600 24" Steel Piping 220 LF $580 $127,600 $127,600 60" Butterfly Valve 2 EA $200,000 $400,000 $400,000 24" Butterfly Valve 1 EA $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 6'x6' Bulkhead Gate and Guides 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 3'x3' Bulkhead Gate and Guides 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1 1 LS $463,800 $463,800 $463,800 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix D3 -RCC Dam 76 foot setups storage silos Subtotal 250 kW generator Subtotal Replacement Belts@ 10% of Equipment Subtotal 40 Ton Crane Operator 07 Cat operator EID truck drivers Laborers Subtotal 40 ton Crane Cat 07 EID trucks Mise pumps-6" diesels Subtotal Rock Fill Cement Grout Mise@ 10% of Labor Subtotal i Base Labor Rate I hour= $200 (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime & per diem) Activity Duration Unit= Weeks Hours I Week= 60 2 I 1 weeks I 120 :!_ 1 weeks 240 6 2 20 weeks 3 20 weeks 20 weeks 2 3 weeks 360 2 3 weeks 360 2 3 weeks 360 :!_ 3 weeks 720 10 2 3 weeks 2 3 weeks 2 3 weeks 2 30 weeks $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $144,000 $2,680 $1,240 $4,600 $8,600 $7,000 $4,300 $300 LS $51,600 $42,000 $25,800 $18,000 10,700 CY 2,000 CY $27,360 $40 $700 Appendix D -Probable Constn ·~•ion Cost Sheet 1 7 of 42 $428,000 $1,400,000 $36,000 $24,000 $48,000 $107,200 $74,400 $92,000 $27.400 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $144,000 $51,600 $42,000 $25,800 $18,000 $428,000 $1,400,000 $36,000 $72,000 600 $360,000 $137,400 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 03 -RCC Dam Laborers Subtotal Compressor, 600 cfm Rotary Diamond Bits Grout mix/pumps Cement storage trailers Subtotal Subtotal Cement storage trailers Subtotal Cement "take" for 7300' drilled, l sack/ft Drain Hole Piping Subtotals Labor Equipment Materials TOTAL Base Labor Rate I hour= $200 (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime & per diem) Activity Duration Unit= Weeks Hours I Week= 60 2 5 weeks 600 16 5 weeks 4,800 18 2 5 weeks 2 5 weeks 2 5 weeks 2 5 weeks 126 I 6 weeks 720 6 weeks 5,760 18 2 6 weeks 2 6 weeks 2 6 weeks 2 6 weeks $200 $200 $3,750 $4,350 $3,000 $750 $200 $144,000 $200 $1,152,000 $3,750 $4,350 $3,000 $750 $37,500 $45,000 $52,200 $36,000 $9,000 2,080 bag 6 ea 7,300 bag 4,380 LF 6 ea $15 $1,000 $15 $3 $1,000 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 18 of 42 $109,5001 $13,200 $6,000 $120,000 $960,000 $37,500 $43,500 $30,000 .$JJ:?OO $31,200 $6,000 $144,000 $1,152,000 $45,000 $52,200 $36,000 ~goo --- $109,500 $13,200 _$i;_,QQQ $15,552,000 $2,650,700 $19,506,900 $1,296,000 $37,709,600 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 04.2 and 04.3 -Tunnel System Bid Item Item Description 10000 General Mobilization/Demobilization 1000 Mob -lower USA 1010 Mob-Dillingham to Site 1030 Demob -Site to Dillingham 1040 De mob-Dillingham to lower 48 20000 Portal Construction 2010 DiversionL_PowerTunnel-Lower Portal JP1000 Materials & Subs JP3000 Soil Excavation JP3010 Rock Excavation JP3020 Rock Support JP3030 Canopy Construction 2020 Diversionf_Power Tunnel-UQJJ.er Portal JP1000 Materials & Subs JP3001 Soil Excavation JP3011 Rock Excavation JP3021 Rock Support JP3031 Canopy Construction 30000 Tunnel Construction 3010 Tunnel Excavation JP1000 Materials & Subs JP3110 Diversion Tunnel Excavation JP3111 Power Tunnel Excavation 3020 Tunnel Concrete Work JP1000 Materials & Subs JP3112 Diversion Tunnel lining JP3113 Diversion Tunnel Plug JP3114 Power Tunnel Plug 40000 Gate Shaft Construction 4010 Shaft Excavation JP1000 Materials & Subs JP4010 Shaft Raise JP4011 Shaft Slash 4020 Shaft Lining JP1000 Materials & Subs JP4012 Shaft Collar Section JP4013 Shaft lining-First Stage JP4014 Shaft lining-Second Stage TOTALS= 4/1/2014 Qty 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 877 16,364 1,200 16 1 1 544 6,993 5,050 16 1 930 1 870 60 645 1 600 5 40 1 110 1 110 110 110 1 5 110 85 MHR lab PM 4,704 $462,368 1,024 $94,615 1,440 $147,396 1,344 $137,569 896 $82,788 16,128 $2,761,208 $695,846 10,848 $.1,110,379 $_262,403 $262,403 576 $58,958 6,624 $678,019 2,496 $255,486 1,152 $117,916 5,280 $_540,450 $.171,040 $171,040 480 $49,132 2,592 $265,312 1,056 $108,090 1,152 $117,916 39,240 $7,123,391 $3,191,455 29,400 $.3,060,712 $.1,126,750 $1,126,750 27,240 $2,835,844 2,160 $224,869 9,840 $.1,001,966 $_937,955 $937,955 7,440 $757,584 960 $97,753 1,440 $146,629 13,920 $2,285,525 $460,424 8,160 $.849,504 $_82,265 $82,265 3,000 $312,318 5,160 $537,186 5,760 $_586,517 $.295,894 $296,894 600 $61,095 2,760 $281,039 2,400 $244,384 73,992 $12,632,492 $4,347,724 XM Equip Direct Indirect $2,977,600 $196,258 $3,636,226 $1,553,143 $130,400 $42,723 $267,738 $338,099 $1,375,000 $60,079 $1,582,475 $475,452 $1,375,000 $56,074 $1,568,643 $443,755 $97,200 $37,383 $217,371 $295,837 $1,159,050 $2,544,824 $4,296,704 $5,325,062 $.468,079 $.1,023,363 $.2,864,224 $_3,581, 738 $468,079 $730,482 $0 $54,338 $113,296 $190,181 $624,886 $1,302,905 $2,187,079 $235,464 $490,950 $824,117 $108,676 $226,592 $380,362 $.222,893 $_498,097 $.1,432,480 $.1, 743,324 $222,893 $393,933 $0 $45,281 $94,413 $158,484 $244,521 $509,833 $855,814 $99,620 $207,710 $348,665 $108,676 $226,592 $380,362 $2,014,566 $4,253,672 $9,820,250 $12,956,067 $_757,393 $.1,817,979 $_6, 762,834 $.9,707,145 $757,393 $1,884,143 $0 $1,684,412 $4,520,256 $8,993,967 $133,566 $358,435 $713,178 $_499,780 $_617,715 $_3,057,416 $_3,248,922 $499,780 $1,437,735 $0 $467,053 $1,224,637 $2,456,502 $60,265 $158,018 $316,968 $89,397 $236,026 $475,452 $436,600 $1,370,753 $3,018,900 $4,596,036 $_98,050 $_504,582 $.1,534,401 $.2,694,228 $98,050 $180,315 $0 $185,508 $497,826 $990,525 $319,074 $856,260 $1,703,703 $.240,500 $_361,589 $.1,484,499 $.1,901,808 $240,500 $537,394 $0 $37,665 $98,760 $198,105 $173,261 $454,300 $911,283 $150,662 $395,046 $792,420 $6,587,816 $8,365,507 $20,772,079 $24,430,309 Total Margin Bid $5,189,369 $0 $5,189,369 $1,129,659 $0 $1,129,659 $1,588,582 $0 $1,588,582 $1,482,677 $0 $1,482,677 $988,451 $0 $988,451 $9,621,766 $0 $9,621,766 $.6,471, 783 2Q $730,482 $0 $303,477 $0 $3,489,984 $0 $1,315,067 $0 $606,954 $0 $_3,149,983 2Q $393,933 $0 $252,897 $0 $1,365,647 $0 $556,375 $0 $606,954 $0 $22,776,317 $0 $22,776,317 $.17,064,824 2Q $1,884,143 $0 $13,514,223 $0 $1,071,613 $0 $_5, 711,492 2Q $1,437,735 $0 $3,681,139 $0 $474,986 $0 $711,478 $0 $7,614,936 $0 $7,614,936 $.4,463,928 2Q $180,315 $0 $1,488,351 $0 $2,559,963 $0 $.3,151,008 2Q $537,394 $0 $296,865 $0 $1,365,583 $0 $1,187,466 $0 $45,202,388 $0 $45,202,388 Appendix D-Probable Construction Cost Sheet 19 of 42 Quantity Units Unit Total 1lS $5,189,369 $5,189,369 $1,129,659 $1,588,582 $1,482,677 $988,451 $9,621,766 1 LS $.6,471, 783 $.6,471, 783 1 LS $_3,149,983 $_3,149,983 $22,776,317 930 VF $_18,349 $.17,064,824 645 VF $_8,855 $_5, 711,492 $7,614,936 110 VF $_40,581 $.4,463,928 110 VF $_28,646 $_3,151,008 $45,202,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4-Intake and Gate House Labor: Superintendent 1 2 weeks Equipment Operators 3 2 weeks Truck Drivers 2 2 weeks Laborers .f 2 weeks Subtotal 8 Equipment: D7 Dozer 1 2 weeks 966 Loader 1 2 weeks 316 Excavator 1 2 weeks E/D Trucks 2 2 weeks Misc. small tools, 5% of labor 1 Subtotal Materials: Rock Fill Gravel Surfacing Ecology Blocks Subtotal 120 $200 $24,000 360 $200 $72,000 240 $200 $48,000 240 $200 $48,000 $4,600 $9,200 $3,400 $6,800 $4,500 $9,000 $4,300 $17,200 $9,600 667 100 200 CY $40 CY $45 CY $150 Appendix D -Probable Constr· ·;on Cost Sheet 20 of 42 $24,000 $72,000 $48,000 $48,000 $192,000 $9,200 $6,800 $9,000 $17,200 $9,600 $51,800 $26,700 $26,700 $4,500 $4,500 $30,000 $30,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4-Intake and Gate House Labor: Superintendent 1 4 weeks 40 Ton crane operator 1 2 weeks Carpenters 4 4 weeks Mixer truck drivers 2 2 weeks La borers I 4 weeks Subtotal 10 Equipment: 40 ton crane, @ 50% 1 2 weeks Concrete Mixer Trucks 2 2 weeks 250 kW Generator 1 4 weeks 600 cfm compressor 1 4 weeks Batch plants 1 2 weeks Silos, conveyors, etc 1 2 weeks Misc. small tools, 5% of labor 1 Subtotal Form Lumber 3/4" Plywood Reinforced Concrete Subtotal 240 120 960 240 480 $48,000 I $200 $200 $24,000 $200 $192,000 $200 $48,000 $200 $96,000 $8,600 $17,200 $5,000 $20,000 $4,600 $18,400 $3,400 $13,600 $3,500 $7,000 $2,000 $4,000 $20,400 3,000 SF 340 CY $2 $835 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 21 of 42 I $48,000 $24,000 $192,000 $48,000 $96,000 $408,000 I $17,200 $20,000 R $18,400 $13,600 $7,000 $4,000 $20,400 $6,000 $6,000 $283,900 $283,900 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4-Intake and Gate House Superintendent 1 2 weeks 40 Ton crane operator 1 1 weeks Carpenters 2 2 weeks Laborers -'. 2 weeks Subtotal 6 40 ton crane, @ 50% 1 1 weeks 250 kW Generator 1 2 weeks 600 cfm compressor 1 2 weeks 500 A Welder 1 2 weeks Misc. small tools, 5% of labor 1 Subtotal Form Bracing Cement Grout Stop logs Stop log Guides Roof Hatch Subtotal 120 $200 60 $200 240 $200 240 $200 $24,000 $12,000 $48,000 $48,000 $8,600 $8,600 $4,600 $9,200 $3,400 $6,800 $2,500 $5,000 $6,600 150 LF 5 CY 34,000 lb 8,930 lb 1 LS Appendix D -Probable Constr' ''on Cost Sheet 22 of 42 $24,000 $12,000 $48,000 $48,000 $8,600 $9,200 $6,800 $5,000 $6,600 $5 $800 $800 $700 $3,500 $3,500 $9 $306,000 $306,000 $12 $107,200 $107,200 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4 -Intake and Gate House Item No. Duration 14.6.4. Intake Structure-Trash rack, single shift Labor: I Superintendent 1 2 weeks 40 Ton crane operator 1 1 weeks Carpenters 3 2 weeks Laborers 2. 2 weeks Subtotal 7 Equipment: 40 ton crane, @ 50% 1 1 weeks 250 kW Generator 1 2 weeks 600 cfm compressor 1 2 weeks 500 A Welder 1 2 weeks Misc. small tools, 5% of labor 1 Subtotal Trashracks I I I Subtotal Labor Labor Hours Rate Labor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Qty 120 $200 $24,000 I 60 $200 $12,000 360 $200 $72,000 240 $200 $48,000 $8,600 $8,600 $4,600 $9,200 $3,400 $6,800 $2,500 $5,000 $7,800 I 1 34,ooo Unit Unit Cost lb $15 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 23 of 42 Materials Cost Item Cost $24,000 $12,000 $72,000 $48,000 $156,000 $8,600 $9,200 $6,800 $5,000 $7,800 $37,400 $510,000 $510,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4 -Intake and Gate House Superintendent 1 2 weeks Equipment Operators 3 2 weeks Truck Drivers 2 2 weeks Laborers I 2 weeks Subtotal 8 D7 Dozer 1 2 weeks 966 Loader 1 2 weeks 316 Excavator 1 2 weeks E/D Trucks 2 2 weeks Misc. small tools, 5% of labor 1 Subtotal Materials: Gravel Surfacing labor Subtotal 120 $200 360 $200 240 $200 240 $200 $24,000 $72,000 $48,000 $48,000 $4,600 $9,200 $3,400 $6,800 $4,500 $9,000 $4,300 $17,200 $9,600 44 CY 1 LS Appendix D-Probable Constp·-+ion Cost Sheet 24 of 42 $24,000 $72,000 $48,000 $48,000 $192,000 $9,200 $6,800 $9,000 $17,200 $9,600 $51,800 $45 $2,000 $2,000 $19,200 $19,200 $19,200 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4-Intake and Gate House Item No. Duration Labor Labor Hours Rate Labor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Qty Unit Unit Cost Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 25 of 42 Materials Cost Item Cost 4.6.6. ~ate House -Gates and Guides, single shift (Note: Supply and install of Gates and Guides only, concrete and shaft lining in tunnel estimate.) I Superintendent 1 4 weeks 240 $200 $48,000 $48,000 40 Ton crane operator 1 2 weeks 120 $200 $24,000 $24,000 Carpenters 4 4 weeks 960 $200 $192,000 $192,000 Laborers .f. 4 weeks 480 $200 $96,000 $96,000 Subtotal 8 $360,000 Equipment: 40 ton crane, @ 50% 1 2 weeks $8,600 $17,200 $17,200 4WD Forklift 1 4 weeks $3,800 $15,200 $15,200 250 kW Generator 1 4 weeks $4,600 $18,400 $18,400 600 cfm compressor 1 4 weeks $3,400 $13,600 $13,600 500 A Welder 1 2 weeks $2,500 $5,000 $5,000 Misc. small tools, 5% of labor 1 $18,000 $18,000 Subtotal $87,400 Materials: Intake Gate 42,000 lb $12 $504,000 $504,000 Intake Gate Guides 36,000 lb $14 $504,000 $504,000 Gate Shaft Stop logs 34,000 lb $9 $306,000 $306,000 Gate Shaft Stop log Guides 25,000 lb $12 $300,000 $300,000 Subtotal Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4-Intake and Gate House Superintendent 1 2 weeks 40 Ton crane operator 1 1 weeks Carpenters 4 2 weeks Mixer truck drivers 2 2 weeks Laborers 1 2 weeks Subtotal 12 40 ton crane, @50% 1 1 weeks Concrete Mixer Trucks 2 2 weeks 4WD Forklift 1 2 weeks 250 kW Generator 1 2 weeks 600 cfm compressor 1 2 weeks Batch pia nts 1 2 weeks Silos, conveyors, etc 1 2 weeks Misc. small tools, 5% of labor 1 Subtotal Materials: Form Lumber 3/4" Plywood I I I Reinforced Concrete Subtotal 120 $200 $24,000 60 $200 $12,000 480 $200 $96,000 240 $200 $48,000 480 $200 $96,000 $8,600 $8,600 $5,000 $20,000 $3,800 $7,600 $4,600 $9,200 $3,400 $6,800 $3,500 $7,000 $2,000 $4,000 $13,800 I I 2,000 SF 225 CY Appendix D -Probable Constr· 'ion Cost Sheet 26 of 42 $24,000 $12,000 $96,000 $48,000 $96,000 $8,600 $20,000 $7,600 $9,200 $6,800 $7,000 $4,000 $13,800 $4,0001 $4,000 $790 $177,800 $177,800 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4-Intake and Gate House Superintendent 1 2 weeks Operators 2 2 weeks Ironworkers 2 2 weeks Laborers 2 2 weeks Sheetmetal workers 2 1 weeks Roofers I 1 weeks Subtotal 11 40 Ton crane 1 2 weeks 4WD Forklift 1 2 weeks 250 kW Generator 1 2 weeks 500 A Welder 2 2 weeks Misc. light plants 1 2 weeks Subtotal ·ials: Steel Superstructure Pre-insulated Wall Panels Pre-insulated Roof Panels Bridge Crane Supplier Representatives Doo rs/1 o uve rs/h ate hes Paint Subtotal 120 240 240 240 120 120 $200 $24,000 $200 $48,000 $200 $48,000 $200 $48,000 $200 $24,000 $200 $24,000 $8,600 $17,200 $3,800 $7,600 $4,600 $9,200 $2,500 $10,000 $1,000 $2,000 27,500 LB $3.90 1,420 SF $29.00 1,140 SF $33.00 1 LS $250,000.00 1 LS $40,000.00 1 LS $75,000.00 1 LS $5,000.00 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 27 of 42 ! $24,000 ' $48,000 ! l $48,000 $48,000 $24,000 $24,000 $216,000 $17,200 $7,600 $9,200 $10,000 $2,000 $46,000 $107,300 $107,300 $41,200 $41,200 $37,700 $37,700 $250,000 $250,000 $40,000 $40,000 $75,000 $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 0.4.4 -Intake and Gate House Labor: Superintendent Carpenters Electricians Pipefitters Laborers Subtotal r: 4WD Forklift 250 kW Generator 500A Welder Misc. light plants Subtotal munications Equipment Subtotal [ Subtotals Labor I Equipment Materials TOTAL 1 2 2 1 z. 8 1 1 1 1 4 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 2 weeks 4 weeks 240 240 $200 480 $200 120 $200 480 $200 $3,800 $15,200 $4,600 $18,400 $2,500 $5,000 $1,000 $4,000 1 1 1 1 *Intake Structure Excavation and Slope Support is included in Jim Peregoy's Estimate. Do not include on this tab. LS LS LS LS Appendix D -Probable Constn ·~1 ion Cost Sheet 28 of 42 $31,200.00 $31,200 $40,000.00 $40,000 $15,000.00 $15,000 $250,000.00 $250,000 $48,000 $48,000 $96,000 $24,000 $96,000 --- $15,200 $18,400 $5,000 $4,000 -- $31,200 $40,000 $15,000 $250,000 $912,000 $199,000 $1,205,400 $312,000 $42,600 $2,376,400 Base Labor Rate I hour $200 {includes directs, in directs, allowance for overtime & per diem) Activity Duration Unit= Weeks Hours I Week= 60 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 29 of 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 04.5 -Penstock System PENSTOCK THICKNESS & WEIGHT CALCULATIONS Minimum Thickness: tmin = (D + 20)/400 Manifold Powerhouse Item Tunnel Section Section Section D (inch)= 198 171 99 tmin = 0.545 0.4775 0.2975 say= 9/16" 1/2" 5/16" weight (lb) = 308,900 Internal Pressure: allowable stress= pr/t Manifold Powerhouse Item Tunnel Section Section Section p= 54.48 54.48 54.48 r= 99 85.5 49.5 stress = 15,000 15,000 15,000 t = 0.360 0.311 0.180 Note: minimum thickness controls over allowable stress External Pressure (tunnel section only)-Amstutz Equation Weight: W = 128*D*t*L Tunnel Item Section D (feet)= 16.5 t= 0.5625 L (feet) = 260 W{lb)= 308,900 see: Chapter 3 Buckling of Restrained Pipe under External Pressure, p 71 Head= 0.454*(660-540) Head= Path= L= F.S. = p= p= r= t = i= a= E= E= Allowable P = 54.48 psi 850 feet 550 feet 1.5 l.S*Head*L/Path 35 psi 99 inch 0.5625 inch 0.180421959 28,800 30,000,000 17 133 psi (total length of tunnel) (distance from intake to upstream extent of penstock) (Minimum thickness criteria) (good to go!) TUNNELSECTION -250 feet@ 0=16.5 feet External Pressure (tunnel section only)-Amstutz, Jacobsen & Vaughan Formulas see COE Engineering Monogram 110-2-2901, Table 9-2, p 9-19 Results for a 90 in radius Safety Shell Thickness Formulas Factor 1/2 5/8 3/4 7/8 Amstutz 1.5 65 82 119 160 Jacobsen 1.5 51 65 116 153 Vaughan 1.5 97 135 175 217 Manifold Section 14.25 0.5 60 54,700 1 205 173 260 Results for a 99 inch radius where Allowable Pressure varies by (t/r)"3 and t = 0.5625 Safety Formulas Factor 9/16" Powerhouse Section 8.25 0.3125 250 82,500 Amstutz Jacobsen Vaughan 1.5 1.5 1.5 69.5 54.6 103.8 (5/16" shell can support full head-headwater to tailwater) CONCLUSION: MINIMUM THICKNESS CRITERU\ CONTROLS TOTAL 446,100 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix DS.l-Powerhouse Structure Item No. ls.l.l Prepare laydown area-single shift Superintendent Equip Operators Truck drivers Laborers Subtotal Cat D7 966 loader E/D trucks 66" Roller Tractor /Trailer Subtotal Gravel Surfacing Geotextile, etc. @ 10% of labor Subtotal 4 3 1 12 2 1 2 1 Duration 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks l 2 weeks I 2 weeks labor Hours 120 480 360 480 labor labor Cost Rate $200 $24,000 $200 $96,000 $200 $72,000 $200 $96,000 Unit Cost $7,000 $5,500 $5,500 $3,500 $2,800 Equip Cost Qty 2,500.00 Unit Unit Cost CY $45 Appendix D -Probable ConstP ·~+ion Cost Sheet 30 of 42 Materials Cost $112,500 Item Cost $24,000 $96,000 $72,000 $96,000 $288,000 $28,000 $11,000 $22,000 $7,000 $5,600 $112,500 $29,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 05.1-Powerhouse Structure Item No. Duration labor labor labor Cost Hours Rate Unit Cost Equip Cost Qty Unit Unit Cost Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 31 of 42 Materials Cost Item Cost Js.1.2. Excavation -double shifts I Superintendent 2 2 weeks 240 $200 $48,000 $48,000 Laborers 2 2 weeks 240 $200 $48,000 $48,000 Truck drivers 4 2 weeks 480 $200 $96,000 $96,000 Operators 12 2 weeks 1,440 $200 $288,000 $288,000 Subtotal 20 $480,000 Cat 07 2 2 weeks $10,500 $42,000 $42,000 966 Loader 2 2 weeks $8,250 $33,000 $33,000 316 Excavator 2 2 weeks $6,750 $27,000 $27,000 Track Drill 2 2 weeks $4,350 $17,400 $17,400 E/D trucks 2 2 weeks $8,250 $33,000 $33,000 600 cfm compressor 1 2 weeks $3,750 $7,500 $7,500 Subtotal ~eel, etc. @ 15% of $72,000 2 weeks 120 $200 $24,000 $24,000 2 2 weeks 240 $200 $48,000 $48,000 ~ 2 weeks 360 $200 $72,000 $72,000 Subtotal I 6 I 2 2 weeks $2,900 $11,600 $11,600 2 weeks $2,500 $5,000 $5,000 Subtotal $16,600 7/s: Form lumber 2,670 $2,670 ft $2 $5,340 $5,340 Mise@ 10% of labor $14,400 $14,400 Subtotal Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix DS.l-Powerhouse Structure Superintendent 2 4 weeks Equip Operators 4 4 weeks Boilermakers 8 4 weeks Ironworkers 4 4 weeks Electrician 2 4 weeks Mixer truck drivers 6 4 weeks Carpenter 6 4 weeks 40 Ton crane operator 2 4 weeks Laborers ~ 4 weeks Subtotal 42 Equipment: 40 Ton crane 1 4 weeks 4WD Forklift 1 4 weeks Batch plant 1 4 weeks Mixer truck 3 4 weeks 600 cfm compressor 1 4 weeks Concrete pump 1 4 weeks 250 kW Generator 2 4 weeks Subtotal Materials: Reinforced Concrete Inlet valves at wall Draft tube embedments Draft tube gate I bulkhead guides Form lumber for 20 pours, 15 sf/cy 0 Subtotal 480 960 1,920 960 480 1,440 1,440 480 1,920 $200 $96,000 $200 $192,000 $200 $384,000 $200 $192,000 $200 $96,000 $200 $288,000 $200 $288,000 $200 $96,000 $200 $384,000 $12,900 $51,600 $3,800 $15,200 $5,250 $21,000 $7,500 $90,000 $5,100 $20,400 $1,800 $7,200 $6,900 $55,200 7,800 4 136,000 93,000 13,000 CY $690 EA $250,000 LBS $14 LBS $12 SF $2 Appendix D -Probable ConstP ·~•ion Cost Sheet 32 of 42 $96,000 $192,000 $384,000 $192,000 $96,000 $288,000 $288,000 $96,000 $384,000 $2,01 $51,600 $15,200 $21,000 $90,000 $20,400 $7,200 $55,200 $260,600 $S,382,000 $5,382,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,904,000 $1,904,000 $1,116,000 $1,116,000 $26,000 $26,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 05.1 -Powerhouse Structure Item No. Duration e· I II I • Superintendent 2 5 weeks Operators 4 5 weeks Ironworkers 8 5 weeks Electrician 4 5 weeks Laborers 8 5 weeks Carpenters 4 5 weeks Sheetmetal workers 8 5 weeks Roofers §_ 5 weeks Subtotal 44 40 Ton crane 2 5 weeks 4WD Forklift 2 5 weeks 250 kW Generator 1 5 weeks 500 A Welder 2 5 weeks Misc. light plants 2 5 weeks Subtotal Materials: Steel Superstructure Pre-insulated Wall Panels Pre-insulated Roof Panels Bridge Crane Supplier Representatives Doors/louvers/hatches Paint Subtotal labor Hours 600 1,200 2,400 1,200 2,400 1,200 2,400 1,800 labor labor Cost Rate $200 $120,000 $200 $240,000 $200 $480,000 $200 $240,000 $200 $480,000 $200 $240,000 $200 $480,000 $200 $360,000 Unit Cost $12,900 $5,700 $6,900 $3,750 $1,500 Equip Cost $129,000 $57,000 $34,500 $37,500 $15,000 Qty Unit 275,000 LB 14,200 SF 11,400 SF 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS Unit Cost $3.90 $29.00 $33.00 $300,000.00 $40,000.00 $150,000.00 $20,000.00 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 33 of 42 Materials Cost $1,072,500 $411,800 $376,200 $300,000 $40,000 $150,000 $20,000 Item Cost $120,000 $240,000 $480,000 $240,000 $480,000 $240,000 $480,000 ~360,000 $2,640,000 $129,000 $57,000 $34,500 $37,500 $15,000 $27 $1,072,500 $411,800 $376,200 $300,000 $40,000 $150,000 $20,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project interim Feasibility Report Appendix DS.l -Powerhouse Structure Labor: Superintendent 1 11 weeks Millrights 4 11 weeks Boilermakers 2 11 weeks Carpenters 2 11 weeks Ironworkers 2 11 weeks 40 Ton crane operator 2 11 weeks Pipefitters 2 11 weeks Laborers 6 11 weeks Electricians ~ 11 weeks Subtotal 25 Equipment: 40 ton crane, @ 50% 2 11 weeks 4WD Forklift 1 11 weeks 250 kW Generator 1 11 weeks 600 cfm compressor 1 11 weeks 500 A Welder 2 11 weeks Misc. small tools, 5% of labor 1 Subtotal Materials: Switchgear In-house transformers Lighting/accessory fixtures/HVAC I I Small pumps/meters/piping 660 $200 $132,000 2,640 $200 $528,000 1,320 $200 $264,000 1,320 $200 $264,000 1,320 $200 $264,000 1,320 $200 $264,000 1,320 $200 $264,000 3,960 $200 $792,000 2,640 $200 $528,000 $4,300 $94,600 $3,800 $41,800 $4,600 $50,600 $3,400 $37,400 $2,500 $55,000 $165,000 I I I 1 LS $40,000.00 1 LS $30,000.00 Appendix 0 -Probable Constr· ·-+ion Cost Sheet 34 of 42 $132,000 $528,000 $264,000 $264,000 $264,000 $264,000 $264,000 $792,000 $528,000 $3,300,000 $94,600 $41,800 $50,600 $37,400 $55,000 $165,000 $30,0001 $30,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 05.1 -Powerhouse Structure Subtotal Misc. fans, pumps, 5% of labor Subtotal Paint, 10% of labor Subtotal 2 6 l 10 I 6 weeks 1720 6 weeks 2,160 6 weeks 720 I 6 weeks 6 weeks 6 weeks $200 $144,0001 $200 $432,000 $200 $144,000 $100 $600 $3,400 $20,400 $36.000 I Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 35 of 42 I $144,000 $432,000 $144,000 $600 $20,400 $36,000 --- $72,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 05.1-Powerhouse Structure Pipefitters 2 2 weeks Electrician 1 2 weeks Mill rights 1 2 weeks Start-up engineer 1 2 weeks Factory reps .f 2 weeks Subtotal 7 Subtotal 1teria/s: Flushing oil I filters 1 240 $200 $48,000 120 $200 $24,000 120 $200 $24,000 120 $200 $24,000 240 $200 $48,000 LS $10,000 Appendix D -Probable Constr· -•ion Cost Sheet 36 of 42 $48,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $48,000 $168,000 $67,200 $10,000 $10,000 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 37 of 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 05.1 -Powerhouse Structure Superintendent, @80% Pipefitters, @80% Millrights, @80% Electrician, @80% Factory reps, @80% Laborers, @80% Boilermakers, @80% Subtotal Equipment: 250 kW Generator 600 cfm compressor, @ 50% Subtotal Materials: Mise @ 3% of Labor Subtotal Subtotals 1 4 weeks 1 4 weeks 1 4 weeks 1 4 weeks 2 4 weeks 3 4 weeks 1 4 weeks 10 1 4 weeks 1 4 weeks 240 $160 240 $160 240 $160 240 $160 480 $160 720 $160 240 $160 $38,400 $4,600 $1,700 $38,400 $38,400 $38,400 $38,400 $76,800 $115,200 $38.400 $18,400 $6,800 $11,520 Labor $10,140,000 Equipment $1,377,500 Materials $12,195,260 $384,000 $25,200 TOTAL $23,712,760 Base Labor Rate I hour= $200 (includes directs, in directs, allowance for overtime & per diem) Activity Duration Unit= Weeks Hours I Week= 60 Appendix D-Probable Constr• ·-+ion Cost Sheet 38 of 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 05.2 -Powerhouse Equipment Cost Estimate Summar~ Item Unit Cost Quantity Total Total Weight Notes Turbine, Generator, Switchgear, Governor (Each) $4,974,200 4 $19,896,800 440,000 5.5 MW Vertical Francis Units, 750 CFS at 100ft Head Turbine, Generator, Switchgear, Governor $2,984,520 4 $11,938,080 Installation Turbine Isolation Valve $150,000 4 $600,000 96,000 96" Weir Tricentric Butterfly Valve Flywheel $55,500 8 $444,000 296,000 9ft diameter, two disc, each about two ft thick, weight 37,000 lb Air Compressors and Appurtenances (S&I) $30,000 1 $30,000 3,000 2 Ea 45 SCFM with 300Gal Recievers and dryer Unwatering, Drainage, & Cooling Water Pumps (S&I) $40,000 1 $40,000 5,000 4 Ea Vertical Turbine Pumps Fire Protection System (S&I) $25,000 4 $100,000 8,000 4 Ea C02 Oil Filtration System (S&I) $30,000 1 $30,000 2,000 Zurn 35GPM Potable Water System $30,000 1 $30,000 3,000 Dual supply, well and penstock, hyproclorinator, tank pumps Piping, Valves and Fittings (S&I) $300,000 1 $300,000 25,000 Maintenance Equipment (S&I) $20,000 1 $20,000 25,000 welders, lathe, drill press, gantry, hand tools etc Ventilation Equipment (S&I) $60,000 1 $60,000 12,000 Trane T17 Climate Changer (17,000 cfm) Sanitary System (S&I) $25,000 1 $25,000 20,000 Claw seage ejection system and septic system Miscellaneous Equipment (S&I) $50,000 1 $50,000 25,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 05.2 -Powerhouse Equipment Cost Estimate Summary Item Station Service Transformer 500 kVA, 12.47 kV /480- 877V Station Batteries, Controls, installation Station Service Switchgear, Incl. 10 C.B.'s 480 V Unit Protection Electrical Services a. DC Load Centers -------- b. Conduit c. Cable, Power, Control, Communications ------------~ - d. Cable e. Grounding System f. Lighting SCAD A Crane (S&I) 300 KW Standby Generator and 2000 gal Fuel Tank (S&I) Switchyard TOTALS Unit Cost Quantity $25,000 2 $198,968 1 $200,000 1 $137,500 4 $650,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $137,500 4 $300,000 1 $137,500 4 $4,000,000 1 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 39 of 42 Total Total Weight Notes $50,000 10,000 GE Dry Type $198,968 15,000 -- $200,000 12,000 -- $550,000 12,000 -- $650,000 89,000 $0 1,000 $0 12,000 --------------· -·-------------- $0 50,000 $0 4,000 $0 10,000 $0 12,000 $550,000 20,000 -- $300,000 50,000 48 Ton Bridge Crane $550,000 48,000 $4,000,000 $40,613,000 1,305,000 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 05.2-Powerhouse Equipment 2009 Turbine Price Item $/KW Escalation Better Governor Installation Possible premium for European manufacture Turbine size (kw) Turbine Generator Switchgear Governor ($2009) Unit Protection $/kw Appendix D Probable Construction Cost Sheet 40 of 42 Value $665 0.16 0.05 0.6 0.15 5500 $3,657,500 $25 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 06.1-Transmission to Bethel Description Qty Unit Air (helicopter) construction = 47 miles Structures 207 ea Foundations 320 ea Conductor 47 crkt mi OPGW 0 crkt mi Other* 47 mi Clearing 0 mi Subtotal Mob/Demob (10%) Helicopter Construction (25%) Contingency Subtotal Estimated Total Construction Cost Overland summer construction = 43 miles Structures 346 ea Foundations 294 ea Conductor 43 crkt mi OPGW 0 crkt mi Other* 30 lump Clearing 0 mi Subtotal Mob/Demob {8%) Helicopter Construction (5%) Contingency Subtotal Estimated Total Construction Cost Overland winter construction = 46 miles Structures 203 ea Foundations 317 ea Conductor 46 crkt mi OPGW 0 crkt mi Other* 46 lump Clearing 0 mi Subtotal Mob/Demob {10%) Helicopter Construction (5%) Contingency Subtotal Estimated Total Construction Cost * lncludes:dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, signs Material $16,420 $5,500 $26,136 $20,318 $15,152 $3,600 $23,760 $20,341 $16,804 $3,960 $26,136 $20,344 Appendix D -Probable Construction Cost Sheet 41 of 42 Estimated Cost Labor Total $45,665 $12,839,200 $15,600 $6,743,600 $172,973 $9,358,100 $0 $70,008 $4,245,300 ~ $33,186,200 $3,318,600 $9,126,200 ~ ~12,4441800 $45,631,000 $28,345 $15,050,000 $3,600 $2,116,800 $95,040 $5,108,400 $0 $70,135 $2,714,300 ~ $24,989,500 $1,999,200 $1,349,400 ~ S3134816oo $28,338,100 $43,834 $12,331,900 $5,760 $3,082,800 $146,362 $7,934,900 $0 $232,783 $11,643,800 ~ $34,993,400 $3,499,300 $1,924,600 ~ ~514231900 $40,417,300 Appendix D-Probable Construction Cost Sheet 42 of 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix 06.2 -Transmission to Dillingham Estimated Cost Description Qty Unit Material Labor Total Air (helicopter) construction = 4 miles Structures 53 ea $2,433 $8,683 $589,100 Foundations 53 ea $5,500 $12,480 $952,900 Conductor 4 crkt mi $8,712 $148,262 $627,900 OPGW 4 crkt mi $2,000 $20,000 $88,000 Other* 1 lump $33,800 Clearing 1 mi $0 $10,000 $10,000 Subtotal $2,301,700 Mob/Demob (10%) $230,200 Helicopter Construction {25%) $633,000 Contingency ~ Subtotal SsG312oo Estimated Total Construction Cost $3,164,900 Overland summer construction= 96 miles Structures 1268 ea $2,194 $4,548 $8,548,900 Foundations 254 ea $2,500 $3,600 $1,549,400 Conductor 96 crkt mi $7,920 $76,032 $8,059,400 OPGW 96 crkt mi $2,000 $15,000 $1,632,000 Other* 4 lump $33,800 Clearing 70 mi $0 $10,000 $700,000 Subtotal $20,523,500 Mob/Demob (8%) $1,641,900 Helicopter Construction {10%) $2,216,500 Contingency ~ Subtotal S31858AOO Estimated Total Construction Cost $24,381,900 Road summer construction= 19 miles Structures 251 ea $2,198 $2,237 $1,113,200 Foundations 51 ea $2,500 $3,600 $311,100 Conductor 19 crkt mi $7,920 $57,024 $1,233,900 OPGW 19 crkt mi $2,000 $12,000 $266,000 Other* 1 lump $104,900 Clearing 12 mi $0 $6,000 $72,000 Subtotal $3,101,100 Mob/Demob (5%) $155,100 Contingency ~ Subtotal S155 11oo Estimated Total Construction Cost $3,256,200 * lncludes:dampers, aerial balls, bird diverters, signs Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume I -Technical Studies Appendix E-Economic Analysis Appendix E1 -Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013-2035 ......................................................................... 1 Appendix E2 -USER Bethel & Dillingham Projected Fuel Price Projections ......................................... 20 Appendix E3-Weighted low, Medium & High Utility Diesel Fuel Price Projections ............................ 21 Appendix E4.1-Base Case Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs .................................................................... 24 Appendix E4.2 -lower limit Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs ................................................................. 26 Appendix E4.3-Upper limit Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs ................................................................. 28 DRAFT April, 2014 Prepared By: ~HATCH~ 2014 ----~···-------- © 2014 Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., exclusive of U.S. government maps Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013-2035 prepared for: Alaska Energy Authority prepared by: Ginny Fay Alejandra Villalobos Melendez Sohrab Pathan Jeffrey Armagost Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage June 30, 2013 Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 1 of 28 Contents Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 2 of 28 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Projections vs. Forecasts ........................................................................................................................... 3 The projections ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Methods and assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 4 Base year and time horizon ...................................................................................................................... 4 Ultra low sulfur diesel premium ............................................................................................................... 4 Carbon pricing ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Natural Gas ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Assumptions .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Price Projection ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Fuel Oil ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Rural Fuel Prices ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Urban Fuel Prices .................................................................................................................................... 12 Home Heating Fuel Prices ....................................................................................................................... 13 References .................................................................................................................................................. 15 Appendix A. Projection methodology ......................................................................................................... 17 Fuel Oil Prices-Rural Communities ....................................................................................................... 17 Fuel Oil Prices-Urban Communities ...................................................................................................... 18 Natural Gas Projection ............................................................................................................................ 19 Suggested citation: Fay, G. and Villalobos-Melendez, A. and Pathan, S. and Armagost, J. 2013. Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013-2035, Technical Report, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority, 19 pages. 2 June 30, 2013 Introduction Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 3 of 28 The Alaska Fuel Price Projections are developed for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for the purpose of estimating the potential benefits and costs of renewable energy projects. Project developers submit applications to AEA for grants awarded under the Alaska Renewable Energy Fund {FlEF) program process. These fuel price projections are used to evaluate the economic feasibility of project applications; economic feasibility is only one of many factors of the project evaluation process. In this report we present the methodology for the seventh fuel prices projection. In addition to their use for the REF review, the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) uses the projections for other economic research and energy project evaluations. Economists at ISER have completed six previous Alaska Fuel Price Projections since 2008 (all available at: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/). The fuel price projections fulfill an important need for price information and are used by many stakeholders in addition to AEA. As a result of their broad use among the public, we expanded what used to be cursory notes on methodology. Our intent is to provide more detailed information to the report's readers and users of the fuel price projections. Projections vs. Forecasts The fuel price projections are not price forecasts. Projections are statistical estimates based on a data sample that systematically adjusts the data using statistical estimation procedures. A projection provides an estimate of future values based on a statistical assessment of past relationships under specific assumptions, but they are not a prediction that these specific assumptions will happen. In contrast, forecasts speculate future values with a certain level of confidence, based on current and past values as a 'prediction' of what will happen in the future. In short, projections are based on assumptions but they do not imply the assumptions will happen, whereas forecasts are based on assumptions that represent expectations of actual future events. For example, in our rural fuel price projections for western Alaska villages, we assume that future sea ice patterns will remain similar to previous patterns and will have a similar effect on the cost and timing of fuel deliveries to the region. We do not attempt to forecast when seasonal ice patterns will change, and build that assumption into a forecast of fuel prices under diminished sea ice conditions. The projections The Alaska Fuel Price projections are a statistical estimation of potential utility avoided fuel prices from 2013 to 2035, based on historic relationships between utility fuel prices and crude oil prices reported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA).1 These statistically estimated relationships are used to project potential future fuel prices based on EIA's published Annual Energy Outlook crude oil and natural gas price forecasts. So in short, the Alaska fuel price projections are based on EIA forecasts. We use the historic relationships between actual crude oil and actual community utility fuel prices to project each community's future fuel prices based on the EIA forecast. The fuel price projections are limited in their applicability to the modeling of project benefits and costs and should not be considered fuel price forecasts. 1 Avoided fuel costs are the marginal cost for a utility to produce one more unit of power. The projections presented in this report are based on the potential fuel prices a utility may have to pay if it needed to produce one more unit of power. 3 June 30, 2013 Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet4 of 28 Based on the EIA low, medium and high forecasts, the projections also provide three possible scenarios: low, medium and high fuel price projections. In addition, estimates of the social cost of carbon (previously included as estimates of potential carbon taxes), and a price differential for home heating fuel are provided and are incorporated into the REF benefit-cost model for evaluating potential projects.2 Previously, a five cents premium for low sulfur diesel was added to the fuel oil price projections in anticipation of the implementation of low sulfur diesel air quality requirements. However, the low sulfur diesel requirement was implemented in 2010; hence recent prices reflect the effects of the rule and a premium is no longer necessary. The ranges of values between the low, medium (reference), and high projections are based on the assumptions implicit in the EIA oil price forecasts. Readers are encouraged to directly review the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2013 at: http:Uwww.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html We generated low, medium, high case fuel price projections for the years 2013-2035 for the following fuels: • Incremental (or next unit purchased) natural gas in Southcentral Alaska delivered to a utility- scale customer • Incremental diesel delivered to a PCE community utility tank • Incremental home heating oil/diesel purchased in a PCE community • Incremental home heating oil/diesel purchased in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Palmer, Petersburg, Sitka, Wasilla and Wrangell This technical report provides documentation of the assumptions and methods used to develop these projections. A companion Excel workbook contains the detailed projections. Methods and assumptions Base year and time horizon Our projections run from 2013 to 2035. They are computed and reported in inflation-adjusted year 2012 dollars. Because the projections are statistical estimates of annual prices, they may differ from actual prices. In addition, our sample data sets do not include pricing data for 2013. We recognize that a "projection" for 2013 is unlikely to match actual 2013 data. However, much of the data we rely on is published only through 2011 and 2012. Ultra low sulfur diesel premium We no longer include a five cent additional price premium for rural areas to account for the additional refining costs of ultra-low sulfur diesel. The low sulfur fuel requirement was implemented in 2010 and recent prices reflect this factor. Carbon pricing We continue to use the federal government's estimates for the social cost of carbon (SCC) that are used in benefit-cost analyses for federally funded projects. In this update, we continue to use the sec 2 There are differences in the fuel prices different customl::rs pay. Utilities commonly pay lower prices than retail customers (what a household may pay). Also, there is a difference in the and cost of fuel used for electricity and fuel used for space heating. 4 June 30, 2013 Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 5 of 28 estimates as explained by a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research.3 However, a technical update was published in May 2013 by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, so we updated accordingly.4 For the High case, we use the cost of $62 (2012 dollars) per ton of C02 emissions in 2013. For the Medium case, we use the cost of $40 {2012 dollars) per ton of C02 emissions in 2013. For the Low case, we use the cost of $12 (2012 dollars) per ton of C02 emissions in 2013. All three estimates are inflated over time at 3%, which is the average inflation rate of the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 1985 to 2012.5 The carbon pricing methods were modified to reflect current 2012 data. The social cost of carbon is no longer added to the fuel price projections, but rather included separately in the benefit-cost model developed to evaluate proposed projects. However, the flexibility of adding SCC to the price projections remains. Figure 1 summarizes the assumed carbon price trajectories. These assumptions are parameters that can be changed in the model workbook. The data source prior to the June 2011 update was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.6 Figure 1. Carbon price trajectories (year 2012$ per metric ton C02) 140.00 120.00 N ~ 0 u 100.00 c ~ 0 1-~ u 80.00 ·;: ~ -+-Low ... Cll ::?! --... 60.00 ~Mid Cll ----c. ----&-High ~ 40.00 N -.-4 0 """'" ..... N ..... 20.00 ..... ..... .... '0" 0.00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a,"'-~ ~ ~ rt> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"" ~ ~'>) ~ ~" ~ Sources: ISER calculations based on Greenstone (2011 and 2013 update). 3 Greenstone, M., Kopits, E., and Wolverton, A. 2011. Estimating the social cost of carbon for use in U.S. federal rulemakings: a summary and interpretation. NBER Working Paper 16913, available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16913. 4 Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis- Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social cost of carbon for ria 2013 update .pdf 5 Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers, All items. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at: ftp://ftp .bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt . The average CPi from 1985 to 2012 is 2.85%, we use a rounded rate of 3.0%. 6 In fuel price projections prior to the June 2011 update, the cost of carbon was introduced in the model using the estimates developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Future of Coal study (Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2007. The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World. (March). Available at: http://web.mit.edu/coal/ ). 5 June 30, 2013 Natural Gas Background Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 6 of 28 The Cook Inlet natural gas market is structurally different from the Lower 48 natural gas markets because it is not connected to a large pipeline network and has relatively few buyers and sellers of gas. As a result, Cook Inlet does not have a natural gas spot market to reveal the true market value of natural gas. In Lower 48 natural gas markets, the market value of gas is revealed by market forces as thousands of buyers and sellers bid on natural gas spot markets. Most natural gas used by Lower 48 utilities is not purchased on the spot market but the physical access to spot markets ensures the price utilities pay for gas reflects the true value of the gas. Public utility regulators in these markets generally do not have to regulate the price utilities pay for natural gas because the price is largely determined by local and regional markets. In contrast, the Cook Inlet natural gas market has no spot market and thus no clear market signals of value. Instead, all natural gas sales are based on indexed prices agreed upon in contracts negotiated between natural gas producers and a limited number of buyers. As a result, the contract prices negotiated between natural gas producers and utilities may not reflect the true value of the gas because utilities do not actually bear the cost of the gas. Instead the entire natural gas cost is passed on to the utilities' customers who do not directly participate in price contract negotiations; the utilities purchasing the natural gas are also not regulated. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) is tasked with protecting the utilities' customers by ensuring that rates are fair and reasonable, which they do through review of natural gas contracts. Unlike its Lower 48 counterparts, the RCA must determine what merits a fair and reasonable natural gas price in the absence of a natural gas market price. Historically, natural gas prices, as determined by RCA approved contracts, pegged the price of natural gas to a basket of Lower 48 price indexes including natural gas, crude oil, and heating fuel. This pricing method resulted in relatively low natural gas prices until dramatic increases in oil prices drove up the price of Cook Inlet natural gas purchased on these contracts. Over the last few years when Cook Inlet natural gas prices were especially low, there were concerns regarding future availability of Cook Inlet natural gas because significant capital investment on behalf of the natural gas producers would be necessary to meet growing demand. In the past, producers argued that the return on capital for Cook Inlet natural gas investments needed to be competitive with capital investments in other markets and indicated that they needed the Southcentral price to more closely resemble Lower 48 prices to spur continued investments in field development and production. Under this reasoning the Cook Inlet producers, local utilities, and the RCA began to agree to and approve contracts with the Cook Inlet natural gas price indexed to Lower 48 spot prices.7 However, with the sudden rapid increase of shale gas supplies in the Lower 48, natural gas prices dropped significantly. As a result, Cook Inlet became a more appealing natural gas production location given the now relatively higher prices, available infrastructure and ready but less competitive market. This has led to increased exploration and optimism regarding development of Cook Inlet natural gas. In fall2011, Escopeta Oil company announced that it discovered a large deposit (estimated at 3.5 trillion cubic feet) of Cook Inlet natural gas modifying expectations and assumptions about future Cook Inlet natural gas development and availability. Though there has been no new development in Cook Inlet, 7 For more information on Southcentral Alaska natural gas prices and contracts, see the RCA website: http://rca.alaska.gov/RCAWeb/home.aspx 6 June 30, 2013 Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 7 of 28 exploration has continued and there are positive expectations about future development. However, prices have continued to decrease. Since 2009, when Cook Inlet gas reached its highest average annual price of $7.80 per Mcf {2012$), prices have fallen an average of 11% annually to $4.84 per Mcf in 2013 {2012$}.8 The largest decrease occurred in 2010 when prices dropped approximately 18%.This natural gas projection attempts to take these factors into consideration. Nevertheless, both the national and Alaska markets are clearly in flux and difficult to predict. Assumptions As we mentioned earlier, in Alaska the RCA must approve prices and contracts between natural gas suppliers and utilities. Hence, some contract information is publicly available. The analysis in this report assumes Chugach Electric Association (CEA) is the marginal supplier of electricity in Southcentral Alaska. Also, it assumes that two recent contractual relationships provide the marginal supply of gas for electric power generation. CEA fulfills its unmet needs of natural gas through a contract with Conoco Phillips {2009) and a more recent contract with Hilcorp (previously Marathon Alaska Production, LLC) (Figure 2). The concept of marginal supply in this context refers to the most recently purchased energy to supply electricity, not to the energy supply that would first be disrupted or offset by a new renewable energy resource. This is appropriate for the projection of prices because the most recently purchased energy is a better indicator of future energy prices than previously purchased energy. Figure 2. Chugach Electric Association natural gas supply contracts Summary of Chugach Natural Gas Supply Contracts Gas Supplier Contract Term Contract Q2-2013 Q3-2103 (Actual) (Projected) ConocoPhillips 11112010-12/31/2016 Firm Fixed $3.44 S4.08 Finn Variable $4.53 $4.94 Hilcorp 4/112011-12/31/2014 Firm $5.94 $5.94 Hilcorp (Economy) 4/112013-12/31/2014 Base $7.75 $7.75 Image reproduced from Chugach Electric Association Tariff Advice Letter to RCA No.373-8 from May, 2013. The contract between CEA and ConocoPhillips, filed May 12, 2009 ( http://rca .a I as ka .gov /RCA Web/Certificate/Certificate Deta i ls.aspx? id= 7 eefd8ff -1630-4ed0-80f6- 59e1aed8e391}, states that ConocoPhillips will supply natural gas sufficient for CEA to meet 100% of unmet gas requirements through April 2011, roughly 50% of Chugach's unmet gas requirements from June 2011 through 2015, and about 25% of Chugach's unmet needs in 2016 (Figure 3). Hence, currently and over the next two years, ConocoPhillips will supply CEA with enough natural gas to satisfy 50% of its unmet needs, while the other 50% will be supplied by Hilcorp. 8 Please note that the 2013 average is partial and only includes two quarters of data. The Cl NG average price for 2012 was $5.64 per Mcf. 7 June 30, 2013 Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 8 of 28 Figure 3. Chugach Electric Association natural gas supply, 2009-2016 •Beluga Rinr P1·oduce1'S 8 1\Iarathon Oil Co. •:"'ew ConocoPhillips Conn·act iii Unmet Yolumes 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20U 2015 2016 Sourc e: Chugach Long -Term ::-latural Gas Volume Forec as t, April 2009 Upda te Image reproduced from Chugach Electric Association, Gas Supply Contract with ConocoPhillips, 2009. The majority of the gas to be supplied to Chugach Electric Association for base load electric generation is termed "Firm Fixed Gas." The price of this gas is based on an index of natural gas spot markets from natural gas producing areas. This index is termed "Production Area Composite Index," or "PACI." The PACI consists of: • El Paso, Permian Basin; under the heading Permian Basin Area • Waha; under the heading Permian Basin Area • ANR, Oklahoma; under the heading Oklahoma • Columbia Gulf, Louisiana; under the heading Louisiana-Onshore South • Agua Dulce Hub: under the heading South-Corpus Christi Until recently, the PACE and Henry Hub prices were highly correlated, the price of PACI was 90% of Henry Hub.9 However, this correlation changed as a result of the dynamic effects of shale gas development in the Lower 48. The structure of these shale gas markets is still in flux. Although more volatile and less certain, a correlation between PACI and Henry Hub remains since all the producing areas included in PACI and Henry Hub are part of the national natural gas market and they all have been affected by the increase in supply from shale gas. Furthermore, in 2010 the RCA approved a gas supply agreement between CEA and Marathon Alaska Production, LLC. This agreement allows Marathon to meet 100% of CEA's unmet needs from April2011 to December 2014. Under this agreement the base price for Firm Gas is calculated using an average of the monthly NYMEX future gas contract prices within a price collar. CEA pays the higher of the two prices which frequently is the floor price. Figure 1 above illustrates the prices CEA expects to pay in the near future under both contracts. Under the Hilcorp agreement Base Gas prices are established at the higher of the annual (or nine months) average of NYMEX future gas contract prices, or the collar floor. Swing Gas is priced at the higher of the collar floor, or 125% of the annual (or nine months) average 9 Henry Hub is the pricing point for natural gas futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It is a point on the natural gas pipeline system in Erath, Louisiana. 8 June 30, 2013 Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 9 of 28 NYMEX future gas contract prices.10 Excess Gas is priced the same as Swing Gas. Furthermore, natural gas spot and future prices (NYMEX) are based on delivery at the Henry Hub in Louisiana.11 In February 2013, Hilcorp Energy took ownership of most of Marathon's Inlet assets.12 Hence, it is now Hilcorp Energy who fulfills the gas supply agreement. Price Projection The Chugach Electric Association contract assumes one Mcf (one thousand cubic feet) of natural gas equals one MMBtu (million British thermal units) of natural gas. The EIA forecasts the Henry Hub price in dollars per MMBtu but the Chugach Electric Association gas is priced in dollars per Mcf, we assume CEA's Mcf-MMBtu conversion factor. In Lower 48 markets, the abundant shale gas production continues to result in low natural gas prices. Meanwhile demand continues to put pressure on Cook Inlet supplies, though currently supplies remain limited. Still optimism about Cook Inlet supply is growing. After the purchase of Marathon's assets, Hilcorp external affairs manager, Lori Nelson, commented to the Alaska Journal of Commerce that they (Hilcorp) were "confident they can quickly add production" and that they aim to satisfy demand for the coming years. Moreover, Hilcorp stated that they had a 160% increase in gas production in their fields since January 2012. The major structural changes in both Cook Inlet and Lower 48 markets are impacting our ability to project natural gas prices with high confidence levels. Both of CEA's contracts are indexed or highly correlated to the Henry Hub spot prices. Hence, we assume that over time the overall relationship between the two will stabilize. Our projection takes the Henry Hub EIA forecast as reference and we adjust it upwards by the average price difference between the EIA forecasted price and Hilcorp Firm gas of $5.94 adjusted to 2012 dollars over the projection time period (Figure 4). To establish low and high scenarios, we adjust the modified reference case informed by the CEA's contractual agreements with its suppliers to 90% for the low scenario and 125% for the high scenario. 10 Base gas is gas let in a gas store to provide the pressure needed to produce stored gas, but which itself remains un-produced. Firm gas is gas which a supplier commits to supply to a utility under terms defined in a contract without interruption. Excess gas is either: 1) gas taken at a rate in excess of the daily delivery rate at a premium price; or 2)gas taken in excess to the annual contact quantity. Swing gas, refers to a contractual option where a volume of gas can be supplied between some minimum and maximum limits, and within some defined period at a pre-agreed price. 11 Official daily closing prices at 2:30p.m. from the trading floor of the New York Mercantile Exchange ( NYMEX) for a specific delivery month. 12 The fields acquired by Hilcorp include: Ninilchik, Kasilof, Kenai, Cannery Loop, Beaver Creek, Wolf Lake, Trading Bay and McArthur Rivers. 9 June 30, 2013 Figure 4. Southcentral natural gas prices, 2013-2035 $16 $14 +---------------------------------------~ $12 ~$10 i~~~~~ :;;:;: $8 N ..-t ~ $6 $4 $2 $0 +-.,,-,-,,-,-,-.,,-,-,,-,-,-.,,-,-,,-, Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 1 0 of 28 -+-Reference ___.Low ..... High Sources: U.S. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2012, ISER calculations. Fuel Oil Background Projecting fuel oil prices requires a different methodology because there are no existing complex contracts that must be approved by RCA. Each utility negotiates individually (or as a group with other utilities or communities) with various fuel suppliers that compete for their business. Our projections are based on U.S. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2012 forecasts for crude oil. We use the Composite Refiner Acquisition Cost (CORAC) of crude oil as the basis for the fuel oil projections. Rural Fuel Prices This projection update follows the same methodology as the projection update of July 2012 with some improvements. Please refer to Appendix A for added detailed methodology. The rural regression model assumes that the price of diesel 13 to a particular utility receiving Power Cost Equalization assistance bears a stable linear relationship to the refiner acquisition cost of crude price. In the projections prior to June 2011, parameters were calculated using a pool regression where the coefficient was allowed to be different from 1.0 and not allowed to vary by community.14 A coefficient above 1.0 indicated "percentage markup pricing" as opposed to a straight pass-through of a crude price increase/decrease dollar for dollar. In contrast, in the current update (and the previous two versions) we ran individual linear regressions for each community, which provides a unique slope and intercept for each community that represents how communities are affected differently by crude oil prices. For example, access to purchased fuel is affected by each community's geographic location; meaning, some communities have more frequent deliveries of fuel than others. To build a more accurate projection, in the June 2011 update we ran two sets of regressions for each community. In one projection, we lagged the crude oil price by one year, while in the other no lag was allowed. The testing of the potential of lagged prices to better explain 13 PCE prices collected from PCE statistical reports. 14 Fay, G. and Saylor, B. 2010. Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2010-2030, Available at: http ://www.i ser.uaa .alaska .edu/Publications/o il price projection aea07 2010 vl.xls 10 June 30, 2013 Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 11 of 28 some community utility fuel oil prices was based on our research on "components of rural fuel prices" that we completed from 2008 through 2011.15 Informed by the regressions, we analyzed which community fuel prices were better explained with a year lag versus those that were not. We used the R-squared and P-values, statistical indicators of the precision of the regression equation's ability to "explain" the historic data, to select the intercept and slopes for each community appropriately. As expected, the scenario without a lag in crude prices better explained the crude and fuel price relationships for communities in the Southeast, Southcentral and Southwest regions where communities have more flexibility in sourcing their fuel and can purchase fuel more frequently. As anticipated, the lagged crude price better reflects the fuel prices for most rural PCE communities where importing fuel is complicated due to their remoteness, and seasonal conditions such as winter sea ice, which permits only one or two fuel deliveries per year. Thus, crude oil price changes have a lagged effect on these communities. Based on that analysis, in the current update, regressions with and without a year lag were run accordingly. The communities that were subject to the No-Lag regression are: Table 1. Communities that did not show a lagged relationship to crude oil prices Community ID Community Name Census Area 14 Craig Prince of Wales-Hyder (CA) 28 Hydaburg Prince of Wales-Hyder (CA) 65 Skagway Skagway 73 Tok Southeast Fairbanks (CA) 95 Chalkyitsik Yukon-Koyukuk(CA) 103 Cordova Valdez-Cordova (CA) 150 Pelican Hoonah-Angoon(CA) 151 Perryville Lake and Peninsula 159 Saint George Aleutians West (CA) 175 Unalaska Aleutians West In previous projections, we used the EIA published forecast for Imported Crude Oil Price. However, EIA no longer publishes these prices, and instead publishes prices for Brent Spot (a European terminal) and West Texas Intermediate. Because we are interested in the prices electric utilities are likely to pay and a significant amount of crude oil is still imported into the U.S., we use the simple average of the forecasted prices for both of these terminals in our projection. 15Szymoniak, Nick; Fay, Ginny; Villalobos-Melendez, Alejandra; Charon, Justine; Smith, Mark. 2010. Components of Alaska Fuel Costs: An Analysis of the Market Factors and Characteristics that Influence Rural Fuel Prices. University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska State Legislature, Senate Finance Committee, 78 pages. Fay, Ginny, Ben Saylor, Nick Szymoniak, Meghan Wilson and Steve Colt. 2009. Study of the Components of Delivered Fuel Costs in Alaska: January 2009 Update. Anchorage: University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska State Legislature, Senate Finance Committee, 22 pages. Wilson, Meghan, Ginny Fay, Ben Saylor, Nick Szymoniak, and Steve Colt. 2008. Components of Delivered Fuel Prices in Alaska. Anchorage: University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority, 70 pages. 11 June 30, 2013 Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 12 of 28 In addition, we use diesel prices utilities report under the Power Cost Equalization program. However, some utilities may fail to report every month or year resulting in missing values in the historic data. To provide a more robust projection, we statistically impute missing values, using the statistical software program STAT A, based on the output of a linear regression of crude and diesel prices for each community.16 Given the variation of the original number of observations and of the data quality for each community, some projections may appear to be 'better' than others. In statistical terminology, the coefficient of determination in our model, the Adjusted R-squared, indicates how well observed outcomes are replicated by the model; or in other words how well the independent variable explains the dependent variable. The Adjusted R-squared coefficient ranges from 0 to 1. The higher the coefficient value and the closer to 1, the better the goodness of fit of the model. We ran regressions for 156 rural communities that experience the lag phenomena. Of these 156 communities, 122 community projections have an Adjusted R-squared value above 0.75, 21 community projections have an Adjusted R-squared value between 0.5 and 0.75 and only 13 communities have an Adjusted R-squared value below 0.5. Most communities with low Adjusted R-squared values are communities for which limited data are available or are located in the North Slope Borough, which has a fuel subsidy program in addition to the Power Cost Equalization program, which lowers variability in fuel prices over time and impacts the estimates' reliability. Figure 5. Distribution of Adjusted R2 Values for Rural Community Fuel Price Projections • R2<0.5 • 0.5>R2>0. 75 • R2>0.75 Source: ISER fuel price analysis. In addition, we ran regressions for ten communities that do not experience the lag phenomena. All projections for these communities resulted in an R-squared value above 0.8. Urban Fuel Prices Finally, regressions and projections were also performed for larger communities in Alaska that are not part of the Power Cost Equalization program: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan, Palmer, and Wasilla. Unlike previous reports, the following communities are also included: Kodiak, Petersburg, Sitka and Wrangell. Projections of fuel prices for these communities are also based on the same underlying model described above and do not include a lag. However, public data regarding utility fuel 16 This process is done using the statistical software STAT A using the 'reg' and 'predict' commands. 12 June 30, 2013 Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 13 of 28 prices are less available. These projections are based primarily on two sources of retail fuel price data: 1) data collected by the Alaska Housing and Finance Corporation (AHFC} and 2} the University of Alaska Fairbanks Cooperation Extension Service Food Survey (UAF CES). Retail prices can be significantly higher than the wholesale prices utilities pay. The Energy Information Administration also collects price data but these data are not available for all utilities. We conducted an analysis of the price difference for communities for which data are available from all three sources (Fairbanks and Juneau). Our analysis revealed that on average CES prices are about 24% higher than EIA published prices for the same community in the same time period. Also, as expected, AHFC prices are about 21% higher than EIA published prices. Hence, we adjusted fuel prices downward based on our analysis to reflect the likely wholesale prices utilities pay. Home Heating Fuel Prices We were not able to rigorously determine a home delivery surcharge by statistical methods. However, there is some evidence of a relationship between residential home heating fuel prices, crude oil prices and PCE utility fuel prices (Table 2). Table 2. Correlations between residential home heating fuel, PCE utility fuel and crude oil prices Residential home heating fuel (rural) PCE utility fuel Crude oil Residential home 1.0000 heating fuel PCE utility fuel 0.7312 1.0000 Crude Oil 0.4543 0.3938 1.0000 The average difference between PCE fuel and Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) fuel survey prices (retail-heating) between years 2008 to 2011 was $1.58 (2011$). As a result, we suggest that the community utility fuel price plus $1.61 (2012$) per gallon be used as the avoidable cost of home delivery when small amounts of home-delivered fuel are being avoided. However, when substantial amount of delivered fuel is avoided (e.g., a community district heating system or mass retrofit for biomass heating), we suggest that the appropriate credit for avoided delivery charges is zero. The suggested heating fuel premium based on the amount of fuel is shown in Table 3 below. These are the amounts applied in the Renewable Energy Fund project economic review model. Table 3. Suggested fuel premiums per gallon of displaced fuel Gallons of Displaced Heating Fuel <1,000 1,000 < 25,000 25,000 > 100,000 >100,000 Source: ISER fuel price analysis. Heating Fuel Premium (2012$) $1.61 $1.07 $0.54 $0.00 Determining the value of an avoided gallon of fuel oil for space heating by renewable energy projects is complex because a substantial portion of the costs that ultimately determine the price per gallon of village home heating fuel are fixed. In addition, specific community circumstances, such as whether a bulk fuel storage facility was recently upgraded or will soon need to be, influence actual potential 13 June 30, 2013 Appendix E Economic Analysis Sheet 14 of 28 avoided costs since most of the costs of storage and delivery can only be avoided in "lumps." More analysis of community non-utility fuel use and prices will be necessary as more energy projects displace space heating diesel fuel. Other important factors besides crude oil prices affect the final community wholesale fuel price. These factors include: the varying time intervals between the placement of orders, the timing of departures of fuel deliveries from refineries, and fuel storage inventories in communities, as well as distances between refineries, fuel distributors and community storage facilities.17 However, due to data limitations these factors are not represented in our simple statistical regression. Because no additional research was conducted to better inform home heating fuel price differentials, these estimates were adjusted to 2012 dollars only. 17 Szymoniak, Nick; Fay, Ginny; Villalobos-Melendez, Alejandra; Charon, Justine; Smith, Mark. 2010. Components of Alaska Fuel Costs: An Analysis of the Market Factors and Characteristics that Influence Rural Fuel Prices. University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska State legislature, Senate Finance Committee, 78 pages. Fay, Ginny, Ben Saylor, Nick Szymoniak, Meghan Wilson and Steve Colt. 2009. Study of the Components of Delivered Fuel Costs in Alaska: January 2009 Update. Anchorage: University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska State legislature, Senate Finance Committee, 22 pages. Wilson, Meghan, Ginny Fay, Ben Saylor, Nick Szymoniak, and Steve Colt. 2008. Components of Delivered Fuel Prices in Alaska. Anchorage: University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority, 70 pages. 14 June 30, 2013 References Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 15 of 28 Alaska Energy Authority, Power Cost Equalization, fuel prices from fiscal years 1985-2011. The PCE Statistical Reports for fiscal years 2002 through 2010 can be obtained at: http://www.aidea.org/aea/programspce.html Alaska Food Cost Survey, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Cooperative Extension Service. Surveys available at: http://www.uaf.edu/ces/fcs/ Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Annual fuel price surveys conducted in years 1999 through 2011. Black & Veatch, 2010, Alaska Railbelt Regional Integrated Resource Plan (RIRP} Study, Final Report, prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority, February 2010 .. Available at: http://www .akenergya uthority.o rg/regiona li ntegrated resou rcepla n. htm I Chugach Electric Association. Gas Supply Contract with ConocoPhillips, May 2009. Available at: http://rca.alaska.gov/RCAWeb/ViewFile.aspx?id=95B1BE87-1123-4D04-8766-964E7F813A77 Derner, Lisa. Changes come to the Inlet's gas, oil outlook. Anchorage Daily News. Published August 18, 2012. Available at: http://www.adn.com/2012/08/18/2593151/changes-come-to-inlets-gas-oil.html Fay, G. and Saylor, B. 2010. Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2010-2030, Available at: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/oil price projection aea07 2010 vl.xls Fay, G. and Villalobos-Melendez, A. and Pathan, S. 2011. Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2011-2035, Technical Report, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority, 13 pages. Available at: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/Fuel price projection 2011-2035 final.pdf Fay, G. and Villalobos-Melendez, A. and Pathan, S. 2012. Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2012-2035, Technical Report, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority, 14 pages. Available at: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/2012 07-Fuel price projection 2012-2035.pdf Fay, Ginny, Ben Saylor, Nick Szymoniak, Meghan Wilson and Steve Colt. 2009. Study of the Components of Delivered Fuel Costs in Alaska: January 2009 Update. Anchorage: University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska State Legislature, Senate Finance Committee, 22 pages. Available at: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/fuelpricedeliveredupdate.pdf Greenstone, M., Kopits, E., and Wolverton, A. 2011. Estimating the social cost of carbon for use in U.S. federal rulemakings: a summary and interpretation. NBER Working Paper 16913, available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16913. Gas Strategies-Glossary: http://www.gasstrategies.com/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2007. The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World. (March}. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/coal/ 15 June 30, 2013 Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 16 of 28 Natural Gas Spot and Future Prices (NYMEX). U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng pri fut s1 d.htm Pickett, Robert M. Letter of Approval. Regulatory Commission of Alaska. May 17, 2010. File: TA316-8. LO#: L1000175. Available at: http://rca.alaska.gov/RCAWeb/Filings/EDoclist.aspx?id=a541084b-3a55- 4446-95e5-0c69ba8bced1 Smith, Brian. Morris News Service, Alaska. Hi/corp closes Marathon sale, turns up Inlet gas. Alaska Journal of Commerce. Available at: http:Uwww.alaskajournal.com/Aiaska-Journal-of- Commerce/February-lssue-3-2013/Hilcorp-closes-Marathon-sale-turns-up-lnlet-gas/ Statement of Commissioner Paul F. Lisankie concurring, joined by Chairman Robert M. Pickett. Regulatory Commission of Alaska. May 17, 2010. File TA316-8. LO#L1000175. Available at: http :Urea .a Iaska .gov /RCA Web/Fi I i ngs/E Doc list. as px ?i d=a 541084b-3a5 5-4446-95e5-0c69 ba8bced 1 Szymoniak, Nick; Fay, Ginny; Villalobos-Melendez, Alejandra; Charon, Justine; Smith, Mark. 2010. Components of Alaska Fuel Costs: An Analysis of the Market Factors and Characteristics that Influence Rural Fuel Prices. University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska State Legislature, Senate Finance Committee, 77 pages. Available at: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/componentsoffuel3.pdf Tariff Advice Letter No. 373-8. From Chugach Electric Association, to Regulatory Commission of Alaska. May 30, 2013. Available at: http://www.chugachelectric.com/system/files/regulatory affairs/ta373- 8.pdf U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2012. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. ~~u.s. Crude Oil Imported Acquisition Cost by Refiners (Dollars per Barrel)" {CORAC): http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet pri rac2 dcu nus m.htm Wilson, Meghan, Ginny Fay, Ben Saylor, Nick Szymoniak, and Steve Colt. 2008. Components of Delivered Fuel Prices in Alaska. Anchorage: University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority, 70 pages. Available at: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/Finalfuelpricedelivered.pdf 16 June 30, 2013 Appendix A. Projection methodology Fuel Oil Prices-Rural Communities Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 17 of 28 The fuel oil price projection is based on crude oil price forecasts from EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO). 1. Access the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2013. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/ 2. Obtain the forecast for Crude Oil Price, Brent and West Texas, from Table 1 for the Reference, Low Oil Price, and High Oil Price cases. 3. Obtain the historical monthly "U.S. Crude Oil imported Acquisition Cost by Refiners (Dollars per Barrel)" (CORAC) from the following URL: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet pri rac2 dcu nus m.htm 4. For each month, adjust crude prices to 2012 dollars ("real crude price") using the appropriate average CPI-U (U.S. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers). Available at: http://www.bls.gov/CPI/. 5. Calculate the average real crude price by fiscal year. Divide by 42 to obtain real crude price per gallon. 6. Obtain PCE fuel prices from fiscal years 1985-2012. The PCE Statistical Reports for fiscal years 2002 through 2012 can be obtained from the following URL: http://www .a idea .org/aea/progra mspce. htm 1.18 7. Calculate the average CPI-U by fiscal year, and adjust PCE prices to real dollars based on the average CPJ-U. 8. Perform an ordinary least squares regression for each community where the real fuel price per gallon is the dependent variable and real crude price per gallon lagged by one year is the independent variable. Then repeat the regression without lagging the crude oil price. Evaluate the regression output (R-square and P-value) to select the parameters that better explain the crude-fuel relationship for each community. The constant term of the regression represents the intercept of each community and the beta of the crude oil price represents the slope. 9. Some communities with little or no data require using data from other communities as a proxy. The proxy communities suggested by AEA, listed with the original community first, then the proxy, are as follows: o For Dot Lake: Substitute: Tok o Hollis: Craig o Klawock: Craig 18 Data from prior years were obtained from printed copies of statistical reports, but are not available through the AEA website. The forecast workbook includes a worksheet with a list of communities and their respective prices from year 1985 to 2011. 17 June 30, 2013 • Thorne Bay/Kasaan: Craig • Kasigluk: Nunapitchuk • Pitkas Point: St. Mary's • Chignik Lake: Chignik Lagoon • Klukwan: Kake • Kobuk: Shungnak • Napakiak: Napaskiak Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 18 of 28 Perform these substitutions not by copying data points from the proxy community into the missing slots, but by copying the regression coefficients from the proxy community. 10. Apply the slope and intercepts from the regression to the EIA Annual Energy Outlook forecasts (Low, Reference, and High cases) to predict fuel oil price per gallon for each PCE community as a function of average Crude Oil Price per gallon of the Brent and West Texas forecasts (lagged by one year or not, as appropriate) for each year from 2012 to 2035. 11. Continuing with changes implemented in the June 2011 projection, the 'C0 2 Equivalent Allowance Cost' is no longer added to allow flexibility in the use of these projections. We now appropriately add the 'C0 2 Equivalent Allowance Cost' in the benefit-cost model rather than directly into the fuel price projection. 12. Take the moving average three (MA3 ) to smooth out the projections for all three cases. Fuel Oil Prices-Urban Communities 1. For urban communities: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan, Palmer, Wasilla, Sitka, Wrangell, Kodiak and Petersburg; obtain prices for heating oil from Alaska Housing Finance Corporation's annual fuel price surveys conducted in years 2000 through 2012 (contact ISER or AHFC to obtain this data). Use the average of #1 and #2 heating oil. Where prices are missing, use the price included in the Alaska Food Cost Survey conducted for December (http:ljwww.uaf.edu/ces/fcs/). The Alaska Food Cost Survey includes data from 1996 to 2012. However, even after combining data from both datasets there will be missing data points. Adjust prices to real dollars. 2. Collect fuel price data for urban communities from the U.S. Energy Information Administration Survey Form 923 data file, Schedule 5. Calculate the wholesale-retail price difference (percentage) for each community (when data are available) between EIA and AHFC and CES prices. Adjust downward the prices to be used on the regression by the appropriate percent difference depending on data source. 3. Integrate CORAC real fuel prices for the appropriate period into the dataset. For each community, perform a linear regression with the diesel price as the dependent variable and CORAC as the independent variable. 4. Use the regression coefficients to project heating diesel prices as a function of the simple average of Brent Spot and West Texas Intermediate forecast prices per gallon (Low, Medium, and High cases) for each year from 2013 to 2035 for each community. 18 June 30, 2013 Home Heating Fuel Adder Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 19 of 28 The calculated prices are for utilities. Calculate the correlation between AHFC and PCE prices. Since no clear relationship was found between AHFC surveyed home heating oil prices and PCE utility fuel prices, estimate the average difference ($1.61, 2012$). Natural Gas Projection 1. Obtain the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast of Henry Hub Spot prices. Set forecast as reference case. 2. Adjust forecast to 2012 dollars. 3. Estimate the average percentage difference between the EIA Henry Hub forecasted prices and the floor price per unit of the marginal gas supply. Adjust EIA's reference case by that rate. 4. Adjust the modified Henry Hub projected prices to 90% of the reference case to establish the Low projection. 5. Adjust the modified Henry Hub projected prices to 125% of the reference case to establish the High projection. 19 June 30, 2013 4/10/2014 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 20 of 28 Appendix E2 -ISER Bethel & Dillingham Fuel Price Projections: Low, Medium and High 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Bethel Utilities Corporation (Bethel) Low Medium High $5.89 $5.89 $5.89 $5.46 $5.46 $5.46 $4.84 $5.48 $6.81 $4.56 $5.45 $7.41 $4.35 $5.56 $7.93 $4.18 $5.74 $8.15 $4.18 $5.86 $8.33 $4.18 $5.98 $8.50 $4.20 $6.10 $8.67 $4.21 $6.21 $8.85 $4.23 $6.33 $9.02 $4.24 $6.46 $9.20 $4.26 $6.58 $9.39 $4.27 $6.71 $9.57 $4.29 $6.84 $9.76 $4.31 $6.97 $9.96 $4.32 $7.11 $10.16 $4.34 $7.25 $10.36 $4.35 $7.39 $10.57 $4.37 $7.53 $10.79 $4.38 $7.68 $11.00 $4.40 $7.83 $11.22 $4.41 $8.00 $11.45 Sheet 1 of 1 Nushagak Electric Cooperative (Dillingham) Low Medium High $3.70 $3.70 $3.70 $3.41 $3.41 $3.41 $3.00 $3.42 $4.32 $2.81 $3.40 $4.71 $2.67 $3.48 $5.06 $2.55 $3.60 $5.21 $2.56 $3.68 $5.33 $2.56 $3.76 $5.45 $2.57 $3.84 $5.56 $2.58 $3.92 $5.68 $2.59 $4.00 $5.79 $2.60 $4.08 $5.91 $2.61 $4.16 $6.04 $2.62 $4.25 $6.16 $2.63 $4.33 $6.29 $2.64 $4.42 $6.42 $2.65 $4.51 $6.55 $2.66 $4.61 $6.69 $2.67 $4.70 $6.83 $2.68 $4.80 $6.97 $2.69 $4.90 $7.12 $2.70 $5.00 $7.27 $2.71 $5.11 $7.42 4/9/2014 Chikumiunuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 21 of 28 Appendix E3 -Weighted Low, Medium & High Utility Diesel Fuel Price Projections 2012-2013 Fuel Usage by Utility (Gallons) Bethel 3,197,401 71.6% Nushakak 1,269,686 28.4% 100.0% Low Projection (2012$) Medium Projection (2012$) High Projection (2012$) Bethel Dillingham Weighted Bethel Dillingham Weighted Bethel Dillingham Weighted 2013 $5.89 $3.70 $5.36 $5.89 $3.70 $5.39 $5.89 $3.70 $5.43 2014 $5.46 $3.41 $4.97 $5.46 $3.41 $5.00 $5.46 $3.41 $5.03 2015 $4.84 $3.00 $4.40 $5.48 $3.42 $5.01 $6.81 $4.32 $6.29 2016 $4.56 $2.81 $4.14 $5.45 $3.40 $4.98 $7.41 $4.71 $6.85 2017 $4.35 $2.67 $3.94 $5.56 $3.48 $5.09 $7.93 $5.06 $7.33 2018 $4.18 $2.55 $3.79 $5.74 $3.60 $5.25 $8.15 $5.21 $7.54 2019 $4.18 $2.56 $3.79 $5.86 $3.68 $5.36 $8.33 $5.33 $7.71 2020 $4.18 $2.56 $3.79 $5.98 $3.76 $5.48 $8.50 $5.45 $7.87 2021 $4.20 $2.57 $3.80 $6.10 $3.84 $5.59 $8.67 $5.56 $8.03 2022 $4.21 $2.58 $3.82 $6.21 $3.92 $5.70 $8.85 $5.68 $8.19 2023 $4.23 $2.59 $3.83 $6.33 $4.00 $5.81 $9.02 $5.79 $8.36 2024 $4.24 $2.60 $3.85 $6.46 $4.08 $5.92 $9.20 $5.91 $8.52 2025 $4.26 $2.61 $3.86 $6.58 $4.16 $6.04 $9.39 $6.04 $8.70 2026 $4.27 $2.62 $3.88 $6.71 $4.25 $6.15 $9.57 $6.16 $8.87 2027 $4.29 $2.63 $3.89 $6.84 $4.33 $6.27 $9.76 $6.29 $9.05 2028 $4.31 $2.64 $3.90 $6.97 $4.42 $6.40 $9.96 $6.42 $9.23 2029 $4.32 $2.65 $3.92 $7.11 $4.51 $6.52 $10.16 $6.55 $9.42 2030 $4.34 $2.66 $3.93 $7.25 $4.61 $6.65 $10.36 $6.69 $9.61 2031 $4.35 $2.67 $3.95 $7.39 $4.70 $6.78 $10.57 $6.83 $9.80 2032 $4.37 $2.68 $3.96 $7.53 $4.80 $6.92 $10.79 $6.97 $10.00 2033 $4.38 $2.69 $3.98 $7.68 $4.90 $7.05 $11.00 $7.12 $10.21 2034 $4.40 $2.70 $3.99 $7.83 $5.00 $7.19 $11.22 $7.27 $10.41 2035 $4.41 $2.71 $4.01 $8.00 $5.11 $7.35 $11.45 $7.42 $10.62 2036 $4.02 $7.50 $10.99 2037 $4.03 $7.65 $11.37 2038 $4.05 $7.81 $11.76 2039 $4.06 $7.97 $12.17 Sheet 1 of 2 4/9/2014 Chikumiunuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E-Econorr'-A.nalysis Sheet 22 of 28 Appendix E3 -Weighted Low, Medium & High Utility Diesel Fuel Price Projections 2012-2013 Fuel Usage by Utility (Gallons) Bethel 3,197,401 71.6% Nushakak 1,269,686 100.0% Low Projection (2012$) Medium Projection (2012$) High Projection {2012$) Bethel Dillingham Weighted Bethel Dillingham Weighted Bethel Dillingham Weighted 2040 $4.08 $8.14 $12.59 2041 $4.09 $8.30 $13.03 2042 $4.11 $8.48 $13.48 2043 $4.12 $8.65 $13.94 2044 $4.14 $8.83 $14.43 2045 $4.15 $9.01 $14.92 2046 $4.17 $9.20 $15.44 2047 $4.18 $9.39 $15.97 2048 $4.20 $9.58 $16.53 2049 $4.21 $9.78 $17.10 2050 $4.23 $9.98 $17.69 2051 $4.25 $10.18 $18.30 2052 $4.26 $10.39 $18.93 2053 $4.28 $10.61 $19.59 2054 $4.29 $10.83 $20.26 2055 $4.31 $11.05 $20.96 2056 $4.32 $11.28 $21.69 2057 $4.34 $11.51 $22.44 2058 $4.36 $11.75 $23.21 2059 $4.37 $11.99 $24.02 2060 $4.39 $12.24 $24.85 2061 $4.40 $12.49 $25.71 2062 $4.42 $12.75 $26.59 2063 $4.44 $13.01 $27.51 Sheet 2 of 2 Chikumiunuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E4.1 -Base Case Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs Notes Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 23 of 28 * Diesel fuel costs escalated on the basis of inflation rate Energy Year Use 2013 76.5 2014 76.5 2015 76.5 2016 76.5 2017 76.5 2018 76.5 2019 76.5 2020 76.5 2021 76.5 2022 76.5 2023 76.5 2024 76.5 2025 76.5 2026 76.5 2027 76.5 2028 76.5 2029 76.5 2030 76.5 2031 76.5 2032 76.5 2033 76.5 2034 76.5 2035 76.5 2036 76.5 2037 76.5 2038 76.5 2039 76.5 2040 76.5 2041 76.5 2042 76.5 2043 76.5 4/10/2014 **Fixed hydro costs (debt service+ interest on reserves) are expressed in 2013 dollars based on the discount rate Diesel Costs {2013 dollars) Hydro Costs {2013 dollars) Fuel cost* 0& M Diesel ' Fixed** Variable Diesel Hydro {$/kWh) ($/kWh) Cost/kWh {$M) {$M) Standby Cost/kWh $0.389 $0.043 $0.431 -39.23 -4.10 $0.025 $0.566 $0.360 $0.043 $0.403 -38.31 -4.10 $0.025 $0.554 $0.362 $0.043 $0.404 -37.42 -4.10 $0.025 $0.542 $0.360 $0.043 $0.402 -36.54 -4.10 $0.025 $0.531 $0.367 $0.043 $0.409 -35.68 -4.10 $0.025 $0.519 $0.379 $0.043 $0.421 -34.85 -4.10 $0.025 $0.509 $0.387 $0.043 $0.430 -34.03 -4.10 $0.025 $0.498 $0.395 $0.043 $0.438 -33.23 -4.10 $0.025 $0.487 $0.403 $0.043 $0.446 -32.45 -4.10 $0.025 $0.477 $0.411 $0.043 $0.453 -31.69 -4.10 $0.025 $0.467 $0.419 $0.043 $0.461 -30.95 -4.10 $0.025 $0.458 $0.427 $0.043 $0.470 -30.22 -4.10 $0.025 $0.448 $0.435 $0.043 $0.478 -29.52 -4.10 $0.025 $0.439 $0.444 $0.043 $0.486 -28.82 -4.10 $0.025 $0.430 $0.453 $0.043 $0.495 -28.15 -4.10 $0.025 $0.421 $0.462 $0.043 $0.504 -27.49 -4.10 $0.025 $0.412 $0.471 $0.043 $0.513 -26.84 -4.10 $0.025 $0.404 $0.480 $0.043 $0.522 -26.22 -4.10 $0.025 $0.396 $0.489 $0.043 $0.532 -25.60 -4.10 $0.025 $0.388 $0.499 $0.043 $0.542 -25.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.380 $0.509 $0.043 $0.552 -24.42 -4.10 $0.025 $0.372 $0.519 $0.043 $0.562 -23.84 -4.10 $0.025 $0.365 $0.530 $0.043 $0.573 -23.28 -4.10 $0.025 $0.357 $0.541 $0.043 $0.583 -22.74 -4.10 $0.025 $0.350 $0.552 $0.043 $0.595 -22.21 -4.10 $0.025 $0.343 $0.564 $0.043 $0.606 -21.69 -4.10 $0.025 $0.337 $0.575 $0.043 $0.618 -21.18 -4.10 $0.025 $0.330 $0.587 $0.043 $0.630 -20.68 -4.10 $0.025 $0.323 $0.599 $0.043 $0.642 -20.20 -4.10 $0.025 $0.317 $0.611 $0.043 $0.654 -19.72 -4.10 $0.025 $0.311 $0.624 $0.043 $0.667 -19.26 -4.10 $0.025 $0.305 Sheet 1 of 2 Chikumiunuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E4.1 -Base Case Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs Notes Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 24 of 28 * Diesel fuel costs escalated on the basis of inflation rate Energy Year Use 2043 76.5 2044 76.5 2045 76.5 2046 76.5 2047 76.5 2048 76.5 2049 76.5 2050 76.5 2051 76.5 2052 76.5 2053 76.5 2054 76.5 2055 76.5 2056 76.5 2057 76.5 2058 76.5 2059 76.5 2060 76.5 2061 76.5 2062 76.5 2063 76.54 4/10/2014 **Fixed hydro costs (debt service+ interest on reserves) are expressed in 2013 dollars based on the discount rate Diesel Costs (2013 dollars) Hydro Costs (2013 dollars) Fuel cost* 0& M Diesel Fixed** Variable Diesel Hydro ($/kWh) ($/kWh) Cost/kWh ($M) ($M) Standby Cost/kWh $0.624 $0.043 $0.667 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.637 $0.043 $0.679 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.650 $0.043 $0.693 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.664 $0.043 $0.706 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.677 $0.043 $0.720 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.691 $0.043 $0.734 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.705 $0.043 $0.748 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.720 $0.043 $0.762 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.735 $0.043 $0.777 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.750 $0.043 $0.792 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.765 $0.043 $0.808 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.781 $0.043 $0.824 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.797 $0.043 $0.840 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.814 $0.043 $0.856 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.831 $0.043 $0.873 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.848 $0.043 $0.890 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.865 $0.043 $0.908 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.883 $0.043 $0.925 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.901 $0.043 $0.944 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.920 $0.043 $0.962 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 $0.939 $0.043 $0.981 0.00 -4.10 $0.025 $0.053 Sheet 2 of 2 Chikumiunuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E4.2 -Lower Limit Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs Notes Appendix E -Economic Analysis Sheet 25 of 28 * Diesel fuel costs escalated on the basis of inflation rate Energy Year Use 2013 78.4 2014 79.6 2015 80.7 2016 81.8 2017 82.3 2018 82.3 2019 82.3 2020 82.3 2021 82.3 2022 82.3 2023 82.3 2024 82.3 2025 82.3 2026 82.3 2027 82.3 2028 82.3 2029 82.3 2030 82.3 2031 82.3 2032 82.3 2033 82.3 2034 82.3 2035 82.3 2036 82.3 2037 82.3 2038 82.3 2039 82.3 2040 82.3 2041 82.3 2042 82.3 2043 82.3 4/10/2014 **Fixed hydro costs (debt service+ interest on reserves) are expressed in 2013 dollars based on the discount rate Diesel Costs (2013 dollars) Hydro Costs (2013 dollars) Fuel cost* 0& M Diesel Fixed** Variable Diesel Hydro ($/kWh) ($/kWh) Cost/kWh ($M) ($M) Standby Cost/kWh $0.396 $0.020 $0.416 -32.94 -4.00 $0.023 $0.471 $0.367 $0.020 $0.387 -32.33 -4.00 $0.023 $0.456 $0.325 $0.020 $0.345 -31.72 -4.00 $0.023 $0.442 $0.305 $0.020 $0.325 -31.13 -4.00 $0.023 $0.429 $0.291 $0.020 $0.311 -30.55 -4.00 $0.023 $0.419 $0.279 $0.020 $0.299 -29.98 -4.00 $0.023 $0.413 $0.279 $0.020 $0.299 -29.42 -4.00 $0.023 $0.406 $0.280 $0.020 $0.300 -28.88 -4.00 $0.023 $0.399 $0.281 $0.020 $0.301 -28.34 -4.00 $0.023 $0.393 $0.282 $0.020 $0.302 -27.81 -4.00 $0.023 $0.386 $0.283 $0.020 $0.303 -27.29 -4.00 $0.023 $0.380 $0.284 $0.020 $0.304 -26.78 -4.00 $0.023 $0.374 $0.285 $0.020 $0.305 -26.28 -4.00 $0.023 $0.368 $0.286 $0.020 $0.306 -25.79 -4.00 $0.023 $0.362 $0.287 $0.020 $0.307 -25.31 -4.00 $0.023 $0.356 $0.288 $0.020 $0.308 -24.84 -4.00 $0.023 $0.350 $0.289 $0.020 $0.309 -24.38 -4.00 $0.023 $0.344 $0.290 $0.020 $0.310 -23.92 -4.00 $0.023 $0.339 $0.291 $0.020 $0.311 -23.48 -4.00 $0.023 $0.333 $0.292 $0.020 $0.312 -23.04 -4.00 $0.023 $0.328 $0.293 $0.020 $0.313 -22.61 -4.00 $0.023 $0.323 $0.294 $0.020 $0.314 -22.19 -4.00 $0.023 $0.318 $0.295 $0.020 $0.315 -21.77 -4.00 $0.023 $0.313 $0.296 $0.020 $0.316 -21.37 -4.00 $0.023 $0.308 $0.298 $0.020 $0.318 -20.97 -4.00 $0.023 $0.303 $0.299 $0.020 $0.319 -20.58 -4.00 $0.023 $0.298 $0.300 $0.020 $0.320 -20.19 -4.00 $0.023 $0.294 $0.301 $0.020 $0.321 -19.82 -4.00 $0.023 $0.289 $0.302 $0.020 $0.322 -19.45 -4.00 $0.023 $0.285 $0.303 $0.020 $0.323 -19.09 -4.00 $0.023 $0.280 $0.304 $0.020 $0.324 -18.73 -4.00 $0.023 $0.276 Sheet 1 of 2 Chikumiunuk lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E4.2 -lower limit Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs Appendix E Economic Analysis Sheet 26 of 28 * Diesel fuel costs escalated on the basis of inflation rate Energy Year Use 2043 82.3 2044 82.3 2045 82.3 2046 82.3 2047 82.3 2048 82.3 2049 82.3 2050 82.3 2051 82.3 2052 82.3 2053 82.3 2054 82.3 2055 82.3 2056 82.3 2057 82.3 2058 82.3 2059 82.3 2060 82.3 2061 82.3 2062 82.3 2063 82.32 4/10/2014 **Fixed hydro costs (debt service+ interest on reserves) are expressed in 2013 dollars based on the discount rate Diesel Costs (2013 dollars) Hydro Costs (2013 dollars) Fuel cost* 0& M Diesel Fixed** Variable Diesel Hydro ($/kWh) ($/kWh) Cost/kWh ($M) ($M) Standby Cost/kWh $0.305 $0.020 $0.325 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.306 $0.020 $0.326 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.307 $0.020 $0.327 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.309 $0.020 $0.329 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.310 $0.020 $0.330 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.311 $0.020 $0.331 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.312 $0.020 $0.332 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.313 $0.020 $0.333 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.314 $0.020 $0.334 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.315 $0.020 $0.335 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.317 $0.020 $0.337 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.318 $0.020 $0.338 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.319 $0.020 $0.339 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.320 $0.020 $0.340 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.321 $0.020 $0.341 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.322 $0.020 $0.342 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.324 $0.020 $0.344 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.325 $0.020 $0.345 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.326 $0.020 $0.346 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.327 $0.020 $0.347 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 $0.328 $0.020 $0.348 0.00 -4.00 $0.023 $0.048 Sheet 2 of 2 I Chikumiunuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E4.3-Upper Limit Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 27 of 28 * Diesel fuel costs escalated on the basis of inflation rate Energy Year Use 2013 70.6 2014 70.6 2015 70.6 2016 70.6 2017 70.6 2018 70.6 2019 70.6 2020 70.6 2021 70.6 2022 70.6 2023 70.6 2024 70.6 2025 70.6 2026 70.6 2027 70.6 2028 70.6 2029 70.6 2030 70.6 2031 70.6 2032 70.6 2033 70.6 2034 70.6 2035 70.6 2036 70.6 2037 70.6 2038 70.6 2039 70.6 2040 70.6 2041 70.6 2042 70.6 2043 70.6 **Fixed hydro costs (debt service+ interest on reserves) are expressed in 2013 dollars based on the discount rate Diesel Costs (2013 dollars) Hydro Costs (2013 dollars) Fuel cost* 0& M Diesel Fixed** Variable Diesel Hydro ($/kWh) ($/kWh) Cost/kWh ($M) ($M) Standby Cost/kWh $0.360 $0.053 $0.413 -49.64 -4.20 $0.023 $0.763 $0.333 $0.053 $0.387 -48.15 -4.20 $0.023 $0.742 $0.417 $0.053 $0.470 -46.70 -4.20 $0.023 $0.721 $0.454 $0.053 $0.507 -45.30 -4.20 $0.023 $0.701 $0.486 $0.053 $0.539 -43.94 -4.20 $0.023 $0.682 $0.500 $0.053 $0.553 -42.61 -4.20 $0.023 $0.663 $0.511 $0.053 $0.564 -41.33 -4.20 $0.023 $0.645 $0.522 $0.053 $0.575 -40.09 -4.20 $0.023 $0.627 $0.532 $0.053 $0.585 -38.88 -4.20 $0.023 $0.610 $0.543 $0.053 $0.596 -37.72 -4.20 $0.023 $0.594 $0.554 $0.053 $0.607 -36.58 -4.20 $0.023 $0.578 $0.565 $0.053 $0.618 -35.48 -4.20 $0.023 $0.562 $0.576 $0.053 $0.629 -34.41 -4.20 $0.023 $0.547 $0.588 $0.053 $0.641 -33.38 -4.20 $0.023 $0.532 $0.600 $0.053 $0.653 -32.38 -4.20 $0.023 $0.518 $0.612 $0.053 $0.665 -31.40 -4.20 $0.023 $0.504 $0.624 $0.053 $0.677 -30.46 -4.20 $0.023 $0.491 $0.637 $0.053 $0.690 -29.54 -4.20 $0.023 $0.478 $0.650 $0.053 $0.703 -28.65 -4.20 $0.023 $0.465 $0.663 $0.053 $0.716 -27.79 -4.20 $0.023 $0.453 $0.676 $0.053 $0.729 -26.96 -4.20 $0.023 $0.441 $0.690 $0.053 $0.743 -26.15 -4.20 $0.023 $0.430 $0.704 $0.053 $0.757 -25.36 -4.20 $0.023 $0.419 $0.728 $0.053 $0.782 -24.60 -4.20 $0.023 $0.408 $0.754 $0.053 $0.807 -23.86 -4.20 $0.023 $0.397 $0.780 $0.053 $0.833 -23.14 -4.20 $0.023 $0.387 $0.807 $0.053 $0.860 -22.45 -4.20 $0.023 $0.377 $0.834 $0.053 $0.888 -21.77 -4.20 $0.023 $0.368 $0.863 $0.053 $0.916 -21.12 -4.20 $0.023 $0.358 $0.893 $0.053 $0.946 -20.48 -4.20 $0.023 $0.349 $0.924 $0.053 $0.977 -19.87 -4.20 $0.023 $0.341 4/10/2014 Sheet 1 of 2 Chikumiunuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Appendix E4.3 -Upper Limit Annual Hydro & Diesel Costs Notes Appendix E-Economic Analysis Sheet 28 of 28 * Diesel fuel costs escalated on the basis of inflation rate Energy Year Use 2044 70.6 2045 70.6 2046 70.6 2047 70.6 2048 70.6 2049 70.6 2050 70.6 2051 70.6 2052 70.6 2053 70.6 2054 70.6 2055 70.6 2056 70.6 2057 70.6 2058 70.6 2059 70.6 2060 70.6 2061 70.6 2062 70.6 2062 70.6 2063 70.56 4/10/2014 **Fixed hydro costs (debt service+ interest on reserves) are expressed in 2013 dollars based on the discount rate Diesel Costs {2013 dollars) Hydro Costs {2013 dollars) Fuel cost* 0& M Diesel Fixed** Variable Diesel Hydro ($/kWh) ($/kWh) Cost/kWh {$M) {$M) Standby Cost/kWh $0.956 $0.053 $1.009 -19.27 -4.20 $0.023 $0.332 $0.989 $0.053 $1.042 -18.69 -4.20 $0.023 $0.324 $1.023 $0.053 $1.076 -18.13 -4.20 $0.023 $0.316 $1.059 $0.053 $1.112 -17.58 -4.20 $0.023 $0.308 $1.095 $0.053 $1.148 -17.05 -4.20 $0.023 $0.301 $1.133 $0.053 $1.186 -16.54 -4.20 $0.023 $0.294 $1.172 $0.053 $1.225 -16.04 -4.20 $0.023 $0.287 $1.213 $0.053 $1.266 -15.56 -4.20 $0.023 $0.280 $1.255 $0.053 $1.308 -15.09 -4.20 $0.023 $0.273 $1.298 $0.053 $1.351 -14.64 -4.20 $0.023 $0.267 $1.343 $0.053 $1.396 -14.20 -4.20 $0.023 $0.260 $1.389 $0.053 $1.442 -13.77 -4.20 $0.023 $0.254 $1.437 $0.053 $1.490 -13.36 -4.20 $0.023 $0.249 $1.487 $0.053 $1.540 -12.96 -4.20 $0.023 $0.243 $1.538 $0.053 $1.591 -12.57 -4.20 $0.023 $0.237 $1.592 $0.053 $1.645 -12.19 -4.20 $0.023 $0.232 $1.647 $0.053 $1.700 -11.82 -4.20 $0.023 $0.227 $1.703 $0.053 $1.757 -11.47 -4.20 $0.023 $0.222 $1.762 $0.053 $1.815 -11.12 -4.20 $0.023 $0.217 $1.823 $0.053 $1.876 0.00 -4.20 $0.023 $0.059 $1.886 $0.053 $1.939 0.00 -4.20 $0.023 $0.059 Sheet 2 of 2 "JNI'3AI~"H3d00J JIHD313 "8 ~H91l "~SIAnN t'tOli!Jd" BIS!It'f/SI ~H~.LYH ~ :JOJ paJed~Ud Prepared for: ~HATCH D t;/uvista April2014 NUVISTA LIGHT & ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume II-Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Prepared by: ~HATCH~ for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table of Contents Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... i 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Activities During 2012 and 2013 ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Overview of Environmental Baseline ................................................................................................ 3 2 PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATION ........................................................................................... 6 2.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Proposed Project Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 7 3 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES .......................................................................... 8 3.1 Existing Environment ................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1.1 Available Information ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.1.2 Potential Project Impacts and Issues ................................................................................................. 8 3.1.3 Protection, Mitigation or Enhancement ............................................................................................ 8 3.2 River Basin Description .............................................................................................................................. 9 3.2.1 Basin Area and Stream Lengths ......................................................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Land and Water Use ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.2.3 Dams and Diversion Structures ....................................................................................................... 15 3.2.4 Tributary Rivers and Streams .......................................................................................................... 15 3.2.5 Regional Climate .............................................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Geological Features ......................................................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Soil Types and Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 18 3.3.3 Existing and Potential Geological and Soil Hazards ......................................................................... 18 3.3.4 Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River Geologic Characteristics ............................................................. 18 3.3.5 Transmission Corridor Geologic Characteristics .............................................................................. 19 3.3.6 Reservoir Shorelines and Streambank Characteristics .................................................................... 19 3.3.7 Seismology ....................................................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 Drainage Basin Overview ................................................................................................................. 20 ~HATCH~ Environmental Conditions 2014 3.4.2 Water Quantity I Flow Records ....................................................................................................... 20 3.4.3 Nuvista Stream Gages ...................................................................................................................... 22 3.4.4 Federal Standards ............................................................................................................................ 24 3.4.5 Seasonal Variations ......................................................................................................................... ·24 3.4.6 Reservoir Data ................................................................................................................................. 27 3.4. 7 Downstream Effects ........................................................................................................................ 27 3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................................................... 30 3.5.1 Existing Fish Communities ............................................................................................................... 30 3.5.2 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................................................ 34 3.5.3 Federal and/or State Management of Fishery or Fish Habitat ........................................................ 39 3.5.4 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 Temporal and Spatial Distribution ................................................................................................... 40 Botanical Resources ................................................................................................................................. 54 Land Cover Types and Plant Species ................................................................................................ 54 Rare and Invasive Plant Species ...................................................................................................... 56 Plant Species Distribution and Wetland Delineation ...................................................................... 58 Wildlife Resources ................................................................................................................................... 59 Mammals ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Amphibians ...................................................................................................................................... 73 Birds ................................................................................................................................................. 73 3.8 Special Status Species .............................................................................................................................. 85 3.8.1 Federal Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered Species .............................................................. 85 3.8.2 State Designated and Special Conservation Status Species ............................................................ 85 3.9 Recreation and Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 90 3.9.1 Description and Maps ...................................................................................................................... 90 3.9.2 Current Use ...................................................................................................................................... 90 3.9.3 Buffer Zones .................................................................................................................................. 107 3.9.4 Current and Future Needs ............................................................................................................. 107 3.9.5 Shoreline Management Plans or Policies ...................................................................................... 109 3.9.6 Protected River Systems ................................................................................................................ 110 3.9.7 National Trails Systems and Wilderness Areas .............................................................................. 110 3.9.8 Regionally or Nationally Important Recreation Areas ................................................................... 111 3.9.9 Non-Recreational Land Use and Management ............................................................................. 111 ~HATCH~ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.9.10 Recreational and Non-Recreational Land Use and Management ................................................. 114 3.10 Aesthetic Resources .............................................................................................................................. 116 3.10.1 Visual and Aesthetic Character and Quality ofthe Project Area ................................................... 117 3.10.2 Vantage Points for Viewing Natural Features ............................................................................... 122 3.10.3 Federal Land Management Restrictions on Development ............................................................ 122 3.11 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 126 3.11.2 Historic and Archaeological Sites .................................................................................................. 129 3.11.3 Existing Discovery Measures ......................................................................................................... 130 3.11.4 Indian Tribes .................................................................................................................................. 133 3.12 Socio-economic Resources .................................................................................................................... 135 3.12.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 135 3.12.2 Calista Region Study Area .............................................................................................................. 135 3.12.3 Bristol Bay Region Study Area ....................................................................................................... 136 3.12.4 General Land Use Patterns ............................................................................................................ 137 3.12.5 Economy ........................................................................................................................................ 144 3.12.6 Governance and Taxation .............................................................................................................. 149 3.12.7 Housing .......................................................................................................................................... 153 3.12.8 Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 155 3.12.9 Public Facilities and Services ......................................................................................................... 158 3.12.10 Energy Cost and Usage .............................................................................................................. 161 3.12.11 Other Capital Projects ................................................................................................................ 163 3.12.12 Subsistence Resources ............................................................................................................... 163 4 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST.. ..................................................................................................... 179 4.1 Resource Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 179 4.1.1 General Issues ................................................................................................................................ 179 4.1.2 River Basin Description Issues ....................................................................................................... 179 4.1.3 Geology and Soils Issues ................................................................................................................ 179 4.1.4 Water Resource Issues .................................................................................................................. 180 4.1.5 Fish and Aquatic Resource Issues .................................................................................................. 180 4.1.6 Botanical Resource Issues ............................................................................................................. 180 4.1.7 Wildlife Resource Issues ................................................................................................................ 181 4.1.8 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Issues ....................................................................... 181 ~HATCH" Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 4.1.9 Recreation and Land Use Issues .................................................................................................... 181 4.1.10 Aesthetic Resources Issues ............................................................................................................ 181 4.1.11 Cultural Resources Issues .............................................................................................................. 181 4.1.12 Socio-economic Resources Issues ................................................................................................. 182 4.1.13 Tribal Resources Issues .................................................................................................................. 182 4.2 Studies and Information Acquisition ..................................................................................................... 182 4.2.1 General Requirements ................................................................................................................... 182 4.2.2 Geology and Soils Studies .............................................................................................................. 182 4.2.3 Water Resources Studies ............................................................................................................... 182 4.2.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources Studies .............................................................................................. 183 4.2.5 Botanical Resources Studies .......................................................................................................... 183 4.2.6 Wildlife Resources Studies ............................................................................................................ 183 4.2.7 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Studies ..................................................................... 184 4.2.8 Recreation and Land Use Studies .................................................................................................. 184 4.2.9 Aesthetic Resources Studies .......................................................................................................... 184 4.2.10 Cultural Resources Studies ............................................................................................................ 185 4.2.11 Socio-economic Resources Studies ............................................................................................... 185 4.2.12 Tribal Resources ............................................................................................................................ 185 4.3 Waterway Plans ..................................................................................................................................... 185 4.4 Resource Management Plans ................................................................................................................ 186 Appendix A-Literature Cited Appendix B-List of Environmental Reports ~HATCH" Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Term Definition AAC Alaska Administrative Code ACS Alaska Communications Services ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game AFFID Alaska Freshwater Fish Index Database AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AKNHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program ANCs Alaska Native Corporations ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 Applicant Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. ARLIS Alaska Resources Library and Information System ASTt Arctic Small Tool Tradition ATV All-Terrain Vehicle AVCP Association of Village Council Presidents AVSP Alaska Visitor Statistics Program AWC Anadromous Water Catalog BBAHC Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation BBNA Bristol Bay Native Association BBNC Bristol Bay Native Corporation BET Bethel Airport BLM Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices CNIPM Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management CDQ Community Development Quota CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIRI Cook Inlet Regional incorporated CNIPM Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management CTC Curyung Tribal Council DLG Dillingham Airport DPOR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation DO Dissolved Oxygen DOTPF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities EFH Essential Fish Habitat El. Elevation (feet} ESA Endangered Species Act FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FMP Fishery Management Plans GMUs Game Management Units GCI General Communication Inc. ~HATCH" Page i Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Term Definition Hatch Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. ILP Integrated Licensing Process KCH Kilbuck Caribou Herd KFMA Kuskokwim Fisheries Management Area KNA Kuskokwim Native Association KWA Kuskokwim Wilderness Adventures Licensee Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCH Mulchatna Caribou Herd NLCD National Land Cover Dataset NMFS National Marine Fisheries Services NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWS National Weather Service NLCD National Land Cover Dataset NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NPCH Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd Nuvista Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. NWR National Wildlife Refuge NWS National Weather Service ONC Orutsararmiut Native Council PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation SAVEC Southwest Alaska Vocational Education Center SCORP Alaska Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r) SSI Supplemental Security Income TCP Traditional Cultural Property TDHA Tribally Designated Housing Authorities TDS Total Dissolved Solids USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VPSO Village public safety officer YKHC Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation Yukon Delta NWR Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Y-K Delta Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta ~HATCH~ Page ii Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Interim Feasibility Report is to provide Nuvista Electric Cooperative (Nuvista) with the information necessary to assess the viability of the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project (Project) and to identify additional information or studies required to complete a final feasibility report. The cost of electricity in southwestern Alaska is high, as most electricity is being generated by expensive diesel fuel. Previous studies have identified Chikuminuk Lake as a potential site for a hydroelectric dam, which would provide the Dillingham and Bethel region with less expensive renewable energy and energy storage. This study further investigates the suitability of locating a hydroelectric dam located on the Allen River at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake. Two locations were studied and one site was ultimately selected to be most feasible based on lowest cost and least visual impact (Interim Feasibility Report (Report), Volume I. Hatch 2014) This volume (Volume II) of the Report presents the results of environmental and social investigations by Hatch and its subconsultants. A comprehensive review of existing, relevant, and reasonably available information for various resource areas was completed. Subsequently a Gap Analysis was prepared to guide consultations with representatives from federal and state resource agencies, Native Alaska entities, and other individuals with knowledge about the geographic area and related environmental resources. Volume II presents the information gathered along with a summary of additional information needed in order to assess the feasibility of constructing the Project and providing a reliable source of renewable energy for the Dillingham and Bethel region. 1.2 Activities During 2012 and 2013 On March 2, 2012, Nuvista filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a preliminary permit for the project pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)1 to study project feasibility. On August 14, 2012, FERC issued a preliminary permit to Nuvista, assigning it the project number P- 14369.23 Stakeholder outreach activities included contacting representatives from federal and state resource agencies, Native Alaska entities, and other individuals with knowledge about the geographic area and related environmental resources. Nuvista commenced baseline engineering and environmental field and office studies during 2012 and 2013 as summarized in Table 1.2-1. 1 16 usc 797(f) (2006) 2 Order Issuing Preliminary Permit and Granting Priority to File License Application, Project No. 14369. August 14, 2012 3 The sole purpose of the preliminary permit is to preserve the right of the permit holder to have the first priority in applying for a license for the project that is being studied. Because a permit is issued only to allow the permit holder to investigate project feasibility and to prepare a license application, it grants no land-disturbing or other property rights. Minor land disturbing activities associated with conduct of field studies are to be approved by the landholder and any resource agencies with jurisdiction over resources that may be disturbed. No construction is allowed. Page 1 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Table 1.2-1 Summary of Accomplishments during 2012 and 2013 by Resource Category DATES Mar/Apr 2012 June 2012 June 2012 Jun/Sep 2012 Jun/Sep 2012 Jun/Aug 2012 May/Jun 2012 Jun/Aug 2012 Jun/Aug 2012 Jun/Aug 2012 June 2012 Jun/Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012- Dec 2014 Oct 2013- Apr2014 CATEGORY All Categories Engineering & Pre-feasibility Geology & Soils Water Resources Aquatic Resources lnstream Flow & Fish Passage Wildlife and Botanical Resources Wildlife/Botanical Resources Recreation Resources Aesthetic Resources Cultural & Subsistence Resources Socioeconomics Resources Mapping-All Categories Engineering & Pre-feasibility Water Resources 2012 FIELD & OFFICE STUDIES-DESCRIPTION • Literature Search/Gap Analysis for all study categories • Reviewed prior project analyses and reports • Prepared baseline study plans in consultation with resource agencies • Conducted avalanche hazard evaluation of potential transmission corridor between Chikuminuk Lake and Bethel • Initial engineering site reconnaissance • Conducted site reconnaissance field trip • Conducted a stream gage installation field trip to the project vicinity. Installed two stream gages, one 3.4 miles up from the mouth of the Allen River and one near the outlet of Lake Chaulekuktuli on the Northwest Passage. • Conducted four field trips: initial site reconnaissance and fish surveys and collections • Conducted three field trips: initial site reconnaissance and installation of four thermistors • Wildlife Resources-Raptor Surveys: Nest occupancy surveys were conducted in May & June; productivity surveys were conducted in July • Botanical Resources: unsuccessful attempts were made to acquire high-resolution imagery for mapping of vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife habitats • Conducted two field trips involving aerial reconnaissance flights and lake shore landings; and short hikes to gain understanding of recreation as the regional economic generator and project setting • Concurrent with Recreation Resources, gathered information regarding view points and aesthetic character of area during the two field trips involving aerial reconnaissance flights, lake shore landings, and short hikes. • Cultural Resources: Conducted site reconnaissance trip involving float plane over- flights, lake shore landings, and surveys • Subsistence Resources: Office study only; no field work • Concurrent with Recreation Resources, acquired an understanding of recreation as the regional economic generator during two field trips involving aerial reconnaissance flights and lake shore landings; and short hikes. Acquired information through meetings in Bethel and Dillingham; and, discussions with Native Villages that would be affected by the proposed Project. • Conducted site reconnaissance field trip to establish locations to acquire satellite imagery of project area • Office studies to establish the layout of project features in support of construction cost estimating and project economic analyses. Preparation of Interim Feasibility Report. • Maintenance and collection of data of the two stream gages, one located at the mouth of the Allen River and the other near the outlet of Lake Chaulekuktuli on the Northwest Passage Permits required to conduct the baseline studies were received from: State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)-Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR-Wood-Tikchik Park); Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G); and the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). ~HATCH~ Page 2 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 1.2.1 Overview of Environmental Baseline EXISTING CONDITIONS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RIVER BASIN DESCRIPTION Chikuminuk Lake is part of the Tikchik lakes situated on the eastern slopes of the Kilbuck Mountains and the Wood River Mountains of the Kuskokwim Mountain Range located within Wood-Tikchik State Park. Together, the Upper and Lower Tikchik lakes systems constitute the headwaters of the Nuyakuk River, one of two major tributaries that join the Nushagak River near Koliganek and flow into Bristol Bay near Dillingham. Fed by precipitation, snowmelt, and small glaciers in the Wood River Mountains, the Tikchik lakes can be expected to buffer flood peaks, produce relatively slow rates of rise and fall in river water levels, and contribute to high base flows during dry periods and in the winter. GEOLOGY & SOILS The banks of the Allen River immediately downstream of the proposed powerhouse location are characterized by steep rock cliffs. About 1,000 feet downstream of the proposed powerhouse location the river exits the steep-walled canyon and cuts through a glacial outwash deposit. Here the banks transition from rock to terraced alluvial deposits consisting of re-worked glacial outwash. The alternative transmission corridors under consideration would pass through a wide variety of geologic conditions. Mountainous areas of the corridor are primarily bedrock with some glacial deposits. Alluvial soils are present in the bottom of valleys. On the coastal plain the corridor is underlain by generally fine-grained unconsolidated soils. The coastal plain is underlain by moderately thick to thin permafrost. Locally, in close proximity to large water bodies, permafrost is absent. WATER RESOURCES Chikuminuk Lake has a number of significant bays and outcrop islands, is approximately 16 miles long and averages roughly 2.5 miles in width. The normal water surface elevation of the lake is approximately 613 feet. The 39-square mile lake covers approximately ten percent of the 353-square mile drainage basin above the dam site. Except at its western end, there are relatively few major streams entering the lake. During reconnaissance conducted in June 2012, glaciers appeared to be in strong recession in the basin, with current glacier extents being less than mapped extents, and moderate to low sediment loads being carried in glacial streams. Due to their small size and extent and the hydrologic influence of Chikuminuk Lake, the glaciers in the project basin are assumed to exert an extremely minor influence on basin hydrology. Water in the Allen River and Chikuminuk Lake is not used for irrigation, domestic water supply, or industrial purposes. Because of dangerous rapids on the Allen River, Chikuminuk Lake is very rarely used as a staging point for longer boating trips. Subsistence use occurs, although it is thought to be quite limited. Most villagers using the lakes and rivers in the unit are from Koliganek, New Stuyahok and Ekwok. FISH & AQUATIC RESOURCES Fish surveys were not completed, and it is not known how far upstream anadromous fish are present in the Allen River. Native species known to inhabit Chikuminuk Lake and Lake Chauekuktuli include: native char, arctic grayling and lake trout. Sockeye salmon are present in Lake Chauekuktuli. Overall, twenty-four species of resident and anadromous fishes have been observed in the Wood-Tikchik lakes system, including all five species of Pacific salmon. The Wood and Nuyakuk rivers have been estimated to account for upward of 20 percent of the total Bristol Bay sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) escapement. Sockeye salmon have not been found in Lake Chikuminuk, most likely due to the presence of several potential ~HATCH~ Page 3 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 fish migration impediments in the Allen River which limit the upstream extent of sockeye movement. BOTANICAL RESOURCES The most common plant community type in the mountainous region of the lake study area is low shrub scrub. Forested habitats appear to be relatively uncommon in the study areas, and are more likely to occur in the lowlands of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region, along the lower portions of river and stream drainages in the West transmission corridor study area. The AKNHP database indicates that eight rare vascular plant taxa have been collected in the regional search area. Two are wetland species that are more likely to occur in the Yukon-Kuskokwim lowlands within the West transmission corridor study area. The remaining six species occur throughout the lakes region of Wood-Tikchik State Park and are thus highly likely to occur near Chikuminuk lake and mountainous areas immediately adjacent to the lake. No fine-scale mapping of vegetation, wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitats specific to the lake study area or the transmission corridor alternatives has been conducted. WILDLIFE RESOURCES At least 37 species of terrestrial mammals have been documented or are considered likely to occur in the Project study area. These include moose, caribou, muskoxen, lack and brown bears, eleven species of furbearing carnivores, two species of hares, thirteen species of rodents, five species of shrews, and one bat species. The area around Chikuminuk lake is considered general habitat for moose but is not considered a calving, winter, or rutting area; the Tikchik River east of Chikuminuk lake is the closest winter range. However, no population estimate of moose is available for the project area. At least 131 species of birds have been observed or are considered likely to occur in the project area. This includes eleven species of raptors (eagles, hawks, falcons) and six species of owls that potentially breed in or migrate through the project area. THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES There are no federally-listed candidate, threatened or endangered fish, plant or wildlife species, or designated or proposed critical habitat within the project vicinity. RECREATION & LAND USE Recreational use of Chikuminuk lake very limited as it is accessible only by air. Recreation opportunities include hunting, camping, fishing, kayaking. The lake Aleknagik Recreation Area Ranger Station reported an annual average of 16 visitors per year from 2004-2011. The project would be located primarily within the Wood-Tikchik State Park and the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, which are protected by state and federal law. There are no State or Federally-protected river segments in the project area. No project lands are under study for inclusion in the National Trails System nor designated as, or under study for inclusion as, a national Wilderness Area. AESTHETIC RESOURCES There are no existing project facilities. The visual character of these proposed facilities will depend on the design developed. CULTURAL RESOURCES There are 51 cultural resource sites within the Project Study Area. There are no communities located in the immediate vicinity of Chikuminuk lake. Nuvista has identified 23 Federally Recognized Tribes in the Bristol Bay and Calista Regions that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties within the project boundary or in the vicinity of the Project. These tribes are located within 21 communities and are represented by ANCSA Village Corporations as":"-'ell as their respective Alaska Native Regional Corporation, i.e. Bristol Bay ~HATCH~ Page 4 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Native Corporation or the Calista Corporation. SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES Rising energy fuel costs; high unemployment; Population of Calista and Bristol Bay region is approximately 32,000, with 6,000 in Bethel and 2,300 in Dillingham. Approximately 82 percent are Alaska Native. Subsistence is an important aspect of economy; most residents employed in state/local government. Page 5 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 2 PROJECT LOCATION, FACILITIES, AND OPERATION 2.1 Project location The proposed Chikuminuk Lake Hydropower Project (Project) would be located in the Chikuminuk Lake watershed approximately 118 miles southeast of Bethel, Alaska and 75 miles north of Dillingham, Alaska, as shown on Figure 2.2-1. Chikuminuk Lake is located within the Wood-Tikchik State Park within the eastern portion of the Kilbuck Mountains in the Kuskokwim Mountain Range about 20 miles northeast of Heart Lake Pass. The lake is part of a series of land-locked fiords and is approximately 16 miles long with an average width of about 2.5 miles. The natural normal pool elevation of Chikuminuk Lake is El. 613 with a surface area of about 24,640 acres. The lake's southeastern arm has a recessional moraine over shallow rock with a box canyon that forms the outlet to the Allen River. The box canyon is 60 to 80 feet deep and terminates in a protruding ridgeline about 2,500 feet downstream of the lake outlet. The Allen River flows to the southeast for approximately 11 miles to Lake Chauekuktuli. Currently, there are no dam or diversion structures at Chikuminuk Lake or on the Allen River. Access to the site is limited to floatplane or helicopter; there are no roads connecting Bethel or Dillingham to Chikuminuk Lake. More information on the project location is presented in Volume I, Section 1. ~HATCH~ Page 6 Chiku m in uk Hydroelectric Project Int er im Feasi bility Report-Volume II, Existing Envi ronmental Conditions Figure 2.1-1 Project Location .a.e[omok I /Qpmltr • TIHI!Uhlllalr • Kuskokwim Bay I ~~~ OALISTA REGION Yukon Delta NWR April2014 LEGEND ... ·;;,r Clrllfltlrbolut An • * Proposed Dam/Powerhouse Location • N""""'"'le e Hub Community • Community 1::] AK Native Claims Settlement Act Boundary c:J Borough and Census Boundaries (County) i• Wood-Tikchik State Park National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) DllliN.GHAM CEN~US AREA /Chikuminuk Lake A-A'/~-. ~'-'--'1 'f.~ BRISTOL BAY REGION Wood-Tikchik State Park t~ -AlelrllfiOIIr •.z Lake Iliamna .Igiugig o· '& ., . .,<{!"-LAKE & PENINSULA BOROUGH ,.~"' •'-'odt. Mattolto!tllr • • DILLINGHAM • aarlc's Point • Elrulr ~~ .PortQ(Je BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH .,Nalmelr "South • King lmon Nolmelr Bristol Bay Projection: Albers Conic Alaska, NAD 1927 01020 <40 60 ~~-~~~liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilMiles 2.2 Proposed Project Facilities Data: Alaska State Geo-spa!lal Data Clearinglo>uoe (ASGDC) Produced by Hatch Auoclates for NUViata. March 2013 The proposed Proj ec t would consist of a dam and reservoir, a tunnel lead i ng to a powerhouse, transmission connections, and r e lat ed faci lities. Alternatives ident ified for study in relatio n to the p ro po se d Project included: • two co ncep t s for the locat ion and co nfigu ratio n of a dam, • a range of re servo i r inun dation levels, • the number and size of powerhouse units to prov ide an installed ca pacity in the range of 12 MW to 25 MW, and • alignments for t ra ns missio n of power to the load center(s), and access for constr uction and operation. More detailed d iscus sio n of proj ect alternatives is p resen t ed in Volu me I, Section 1. Page7 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES 3.1 Existing Environment Nuvista identified information on the Project through its public outreach, informal agency meetings, literature search and baseline field studies as performed during 2012 and 2013. Descriptions of existing conditions include the following resource categories: 3.2 River Basin Description 3.3 Geology and Soils 3.4 Water Resources 3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources 3.6 Botanical Resources 3.7 Wildlife Resources 3.8 Special Status Species 3.9 Recreation and Land Use 3.10 Aesthetic Resources 3.11 Cultural Resources 3.12 Socio-economic Resources 3.1.1 Available Information Nuvista conducted a comprehensive literature search and gap analysis (Appendix B) that addressed each of the above-listed resources. Provided below are summaries of existing data and studies acquired to date. Information gained through this effort was used to identify early-start baseline field studies that began in 2012 and continued in 2013. 3.1.2 Potential Project Impacts and Issues A preliminary listing of issues and potential adverse impacts that may be associated with the construction, operation or maintenance of the proposed Project is included within each resource of Section 3. This information is based on results of public outreach, informal agency meetings, literature search and baseline field studies performed during 2012 and 2013. Should the project move forward, Nuvista anticipates additional identification and related discussion of issues and potential project-related effects will be developed during the FERC NEPA Scoping Process and associated FERC licensing efforts. 3.1.3 Protection, Mitigation or Enhancement Nuvista expects that project-related effects would be identified during implementation of the formal studies program. Concurrent with the studies program, consultation with resource agencies and other interested entities regarding the proposed Project will begin to focus in on measures that could potentially be employed to protect environmental and cultural resources and to avoid any adverse impacts. Where that is not practicable, the consultations could lead to discussion of how to mitigate unavoidable significant adverse effects, or to enhance comparable resources present in the project area of effect. ~HATCH" Page 8 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.2 River Basin Description Chikuminuk Lake is part of the Tikchik lakes, a series of land-locked fiords situated on the eastern slopes of the Kilbuck Mountains and the Wood River Mountains of the Kuskokwim Mountain Range located within Wood- Tikchik State Park. Together, the Upper and Lower Tikchik lakes systems constitute the headwaters of the Nuyakuk River, one of two major tributaries that join the Nushagak River near Koliganek and flow into Bristol Bay near Dillingham. Fed by precipitation, snowmelt, and to a lesser extent by small glaciers in the Wood River Mountains, the Tikchik lakes can be expected to buffer flood peaks, produce relatively slow rates of rise and fall in river water levels, and contribute to high base flows during dry periods and in the winter. Chikuminuk Lake is one of the three lakes of the Upper Tikchik lakes system. Flows draining from the two northernmost lakes of this system, Nishlik Lake and Upnuk Lake, bypass Chikuminuk Lake and flow via the Tikchik River directly into the Lower Tikchik lakes system at Tikchik Lake. The Allen River connects Chikuminuk Lake to Lake Chauekuktuli. Lake Chauekuktuli is the upper lake of the three lakes-Lake Chauekuktuli, Nuyakuk Lake and Tikchik Lake that comprise the Lower Tikchik lakes system (see Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2). 3.2.1 Basin Area and Stream Lengths The basin and sub-basin areas for Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River as well as the basin areas for Lake Chauekuktuli and a major portion of that for the USGS Nuyakuk River gage are shown on Figure 3.2-2. Figure 3.2-3 includes the basin area for the Nushagak River and indicates the relative size ofthe basins within the Tikchik lakes system relative to that of the entire Nushagak River basin. Table 3.2-11ists the areas of the relevant Nushagak River sub-basins, from the project basin to the mouth of the river at Bristol Bay. Table 3.2-1 Key Nushagak River Sub-basin Areas Chikuminuk Lake (USGS Allen River Gage) 353.0 Allen River below Canyon Gage 365.0 Allen River 10.3 Allen River at Mouth 379.0 Lake Chauekuktuli (Northwest Passage Gage)4 612.0 Tikchik Lake (USGS Nuyakuk River Gage) 1,490.0 Nushagak River at Dillingham 13,700.0 Streams within the Nuyakuk River basin include the 11.6-mile long Allen River, which connects Chikuminuk Lake with Lake Chauekuktuli, the one-mile long (informally named) Northwest Passage, which connects Lake Chauekuktuli to Nuyakuk Lake, and the approximately 1,000-foot long Tikchik Narrows, which connects Nuyakuk Lake with Tikchik Lake (Figure 3.2-2). From Tikchik Lake, the Nuyakuk River joins the Nushagak River near Koliganek and flows into Bristol Bay near Dillingham. Table 3.2-2 presents the stream lengths for these rivers. 4 The Lake Chauekuktuli basin is similar to the Northwest Passage Gage basin; this gage is located a short distance below the outlet of Lake Chauekuktuli. ~HATCH~ Page 9 Environmental Conditions Table 3.2-2 Stream lengths-Chikuminuk lake to Bristol Bay Stream Length (mi} Allen River to lake Chauekuktuli 11.6 Northwest Passage to Nuyakuk lake 1.0 Tikchik Narrows to Tikchik lake 0.2 Nuyakuk River to Nushagak River 46 Nushagak River to Bristol Bay 285 Source: Nushagak River length obtained from USGS Water Fact Sheet, Largest Rivers in the United States (Open-File Report 87-242). All other river lengths measured by R&M Consultants from USGS maps. 3.2.2 Land and Water Use 3.2.2.1 Land Use 2014 The Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project vicinity is sparsely populated and geographically diverse. Large areas of uninhabited wetland, river drainages and shrub tundra are separated by mountainous areas. The region's population centers tend to be located along major rivers, lakes and sheltered coastline. Bethel, with a population of 6,080 residents, is the 58,000 square-mile Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and Calista region's largest community and lies within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Dillingham, with a population of about 2,300, is the largest community in the over 40,000 square-mile Bristol Bay region. Most communities are rural in character and a few settlements are used only as seasonal fishing and subsistence camps. The largest tracts of land in this area are owned and managed by federal agencies, the State of Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations. Smaller properties are owned by local governments. Individuals and Alaska Native allotments also own small properties, some within federal or state-owned lands. The proposed Project would be located on a variety of land types: State of Alaska lands managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) including the Wood-Tikchik State Park; federal lands within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge managed by the USFWS; Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands; native lands; and private lands. Sections 3.9 and 3.11 of this Volume provide further detail regarding the land uses in the project area and vicinity. Wood-Tikchik State Park At 1.6 million acres, Wood-Tikchik State Park is the largest state park in the United States (Figure 3.2-1). The proposed project dam site is located within a region of the Park designated by the state park's management plan as Wilderness (ADNR 2002). Named for its two systems of large, interconnected, clear water lakes, the park is characterized by its water based ecosystems. The State created a seven member park management council with five positions filled by local residents to represent the communities of Dillingham, Aleknagik, Koliganek, New Stuyahok and the Bristol Bay Native Association. This council ensured that area residents had a significant role in managing the park. A total of 104 in-holdings in the park were claimed by Native residents of Bristol Bay under the 1906 Native Alaska Allotment Act. These totaled about 8,000 acres and ranged in size from 20 to 160 acres. Since these were also claimed by the state, the BLM was required to adjudicate land title and the issue was settled with a combination of about 25% relocating and swapping their in-holdings for State lands outside the park boundary and about 75% agreeing to conservation easements. Most ofthe Wood-Tikchik parcels affected were classified to allow subdivision into ten-acre lots, with no more than one five-acre commercial development site (Ketchum et al. 2003). This solution has limited large commercial development within the Park and ensured public access while protecting Native land claims. Page 10 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge The Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Figure 3.2-1) is the largest unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, encompassing 19.2 million acres within the northern boreal zone of southwestern Alaska (Rudis 2009). The Yukon Delta NWR traces its history back to 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt created a refuge to preserve the breeding grounds of native birds. In 1929, Nunivak Island was set aside as a refuge for birds, game and furbearing animals. In 1930, the small islands and all the lands under the waters surrounding Nunivak Island were added to the refuge. Additional lands were reserved in 1937, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Hazen Bay Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. The Kuskokwim National Wildlife Range was established in 1960, and in 1961, it was enlarged and renamed the Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge. On December 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which consolidated and added to the existing ranges and refuges to create the Yukon Delta NWR. With the exception of several small additions to the refuge due to purchase or land exchange, the lands of the refuge were in the public domain prior to the refuge designation (USFWS 2012). 3.2.2.2 Water Use lnstream flow uses of the Allen River include fish, wildlife, riparian vegetation, passive recreation and the water required to maintain the aesthetic characteristics of the river itself. There are irrigation or industrial activity uses. The Allen River is the largest of six major tributaries that feed Lake Chauekuktuli, which has limited use as a water supply. Both the Wood River and Tikchik lake systems are in the Nushagak fishing district of the Bristol Bay region and are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Weiland et al. 1994). The lakes of the Tikchik Lake system experience low to moderate sport fishing pressure and minor subsistence usage (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971, 1972; ADNR 2002). Compared to the Tikchik lakes, the southern Wood River lakes have seen increasing sport fishing pressure and subsistence activities; the Wood River lakes area has navigable water, road access, and several lodges (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971; Chihuly 1979). In the Yukon Delta basin, substantial commercial and subsistence fishing for Chinook and chum salmon occurs near the confluence of the Kasigluk River with the Kuskokwim River (Wilson et al. 1982; Boyd and Coffing 2000) (Figure 3.2-1). The Kwethluk River receives considerable subsistence and commercial fishing at its confluence with the Kuskokwim River; in the early 1980s it was described as having the most sport fishing pressure of the main Lower Kuskokwim tributaries (Wilson et al. 1982). ~HATCH~ Page 11 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Envi ronmental Conditions Figure 3.2-1 Wood-Tikchik Lakes Systems TOGIAK NWR ~HATCH" .. , LEGEND National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) NWR Wilderness • Community Projection: Albers Conic Alaska , NAD 1927 Data source: Alaska State Geo-spatlal Data Clearinghouse Produced by Hatch Associates for Nuvista. April2013 ALASKA STATE LANDS • New Stuyahok , / una va u,ralu k L /-•Eicwok //,.--L..e ~elcnagik ~ ~ ;., 00 A.~ .. o-v aark's Point ,Ekuk -e.i. 1 ~ .~-~if -.DILLINGHAM (Closest town to dam location) • Portage Creek Levelock • Naknek • South Naknek • King Salmon April2014 Page 12 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report -Volume II, Existing Environmenta l Conditions ., Cll ~ IU ....1 ~ ..c u ~ j:: N I N rti Cll ... ::l tiO ~ ~~~~--~--~~--~~~~------.. -.--~~.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~HATCH '" April2014 Page 13 -o 1:11 ~ ~ Figure 3.2-3 Tikchik Lake Sub-basins within Nushagak River Drainage Basin " c ... ,,., -... L.mEWl CJ ~~=c:.:-GE , CJ ~swr.TERSHED # Fs-i"t?~~~~=::::::TA ~ N ------····---·----····-·-·· t -n ::I :::r .... -· (1) ,... ::::!. c: 3 3 -n :r (1) c: "' ,... !!!. :I: !:!:< =a. .... ..., < 0 ;;>;J~ (1) (1) '0 !+ 0 ..., ~ n· , <..., 0 .2. -(1) c: n 3 .... (1) ~ :a· :;· OQ m ::I < ::;· 0 ::I 3 (1) ::I .... !!!.. n 0 ::I a. ;::;: o· ::I "' )> '0 :2: ~ 1-' """ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.2.3 Dams and Diversion Structures No dams or diversion structures are present downstream of the proposed Project. 3.2.4 Tributary Rivers and Streams The largest of several perennial tributaries that feed Chikuminuk Lake, Milk Creek, enters from the west and comprises close to half of the project basin by area. Milk Creek's headwaters are located at the outlet of Heart Lake and the creek drains several other lakes to the west of Chikuminuk including Cascade Lake (Figure 3.2-2). Most inlet streams to Chikuminuk Lake are as yet unnamed and have yet to be surveyed. The Allen River is the sole outlet of the lake and flows directly into Lake Chauekuktuli. Approximately one mile upstream from the mouth of the Allen River, a prominent tributary (informally called the Allen River Tributary) enters river from the west. With the exception of this tributary, concentrated flows on both sides of the river appear to be limited to springs. Overall, the Tikchik lakes strongly influence the hydrology of the rivers feeding the western branch of the Nuyakuk River. These lakes are connected by relatively short rivers, including the Allen River between Chikuminuk Lake and Lake Chauekuktuli, the informally named Northwest Passage connecting Lake Chauekuktuli with Nuyakuk Lake, and the Tikchik Narrows, joining Nuyakuk Lake to Tikchik Lake (Figure 3.2-2; Table 3.2-2). The Nuyakuk River is a major tributary to the Nushagak River, which, as one of the largest rivers in Alaska, flows into Bristol Bay from an expansive drainage basin (Figure 3.2-3). 3.2.5 Regional Climate No separate climate data exists for the Allen River Watershed, and no readily or publicly available data exist for the Wood-Tikchik State Park. The National Weather Service (NWS) operates two long-term weather stations in the Bristol Bay region at Dillingham and King Salmon. The Dillingham weather station is the nearer of the two and is located at the Dillingham Airport, approximately 90 miles to the south of the project site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) operates a number of snow (Snow Course) and precipitation telemetry (SNOTEL) sites in the Southwest Alaska region. The closest of these sites is located more than 100 miles from the Chikuminuk Lake project site. Limited climate data may be available from research stations within the Wood River drainage. The School of Aquatic & Fisheries Science at the University of Washington (UW) maintains field stations at three lakes within the Wood River Lakes system-Lake Kulik, Lake Nerka, and Lake Aleknagik (WRCC 2012). Lake Kulik is located about 30 miles to the south of the project site, and is the closest of the three lakes to the project site (Figure 3.2-1). A high elevation weather station was installed in 2008 on Mount Waskey in the Ahklun Mountains in the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. The climate station was installed as part of an effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Northern Arizona University to inventory and monitor glaciers in western Alaska (NAU 2012). The site is located about 10 miles west of Lake Kulik, and approximately 40 miles southwest of the project site. High winds destroyed the Mount Waskey weather station during its first year of operation. Climate data from the UW research stations in the Wood River drainage and from the Mount Waskey weather station can be acquired and analyzed under a later project phase. It is anticipated that the climate near the project site is similar to the climate in Dillingham, and observations during site visits conducted in the summer and fall of 2012 generally confirm this. Dillingham lies within a climatic transition zone between a cool, moist maritime climate and a cold, dry continental climate (WRCC 2012). During the summer months, the maritime influence of Bristol Bay and the Bering Sea to the west and the Pacific Ocean to the south dominate the local weather patterns. Temperatures are mild; strong and persistent surface winds are common. Skies are frequently cloudy, precipitation is ~HATCH" Page 15 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions moderate to heavy, and periods of fog are common, particularly in the later part of the summer. During the winter months, a colder, drier climate dominates, with strong and persistent surface winds still common. 2014 The weather station in Dillingham has been operated by the National Weather Service since February 1951. For the period of record, the mean annual temperature was 1 degree Celsius (° C). The average maximum monthly temperature was 5°C and the average minimum monthly temperature was -3°C. December is typically the coldest month, with a long-term mean of -10°C. The warmest temperatures usually occur in July, with a long- term mean of 13° C. A record high temperature of 33°C occurred in the summer of 1953 and a record low temperature of -47° C occurred in the winter of 1989. Mean annual precipitation at Dillingham is 26 inches. Most of the year's precipitation falls during the summer and fall, with approximately 50 percent of mean annual precipitation occurring between July and October. Winter precipitation is typically light to moderate, with a mean annual snowfall of 83 inches. A weather station was operated by the NWS at Aleknagik from September 1958 to February 1973. Aleknagik is located 17 miles north of Dillingham. For the 1958-1973 time period, the average maximum monthly temperature in Aleknagik was 6° C and the average minimum monthly temperature was -4° C. A record high temperature of 31 o C occurred in the summer of 1963 and a record low temperature of -42° C occurred in the winter of 1973. Page 16 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.3 Geology and Soils 3.3.1 Geological Features The dam, powerhouse & related features, and those portions of the proposed transmission line alternatives to deliver power to Bethel from the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project are located in the Ahklun Mountains. The Ahklun Mountains province is characterized by groups of rugged steep-walled mountains having sharp summits 2,000 to 5,000 feet in altitude. Numerous glacial lakes are present, and many are more than two miles long. Lake depths of more the 900 feet have been reported. The mountains generally drain west and south to Bristol Bay, and east to the Nushagak River. Portions of alternative transmission line routes are located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Lowland physiographic provinces of Alaska characterized by lake-dotted coastal plains (Wahrhaftig 1965). Meandering streams with very low gradient drain the area to Bristol Bay. The geology of southwest Alaska includes a collection of three primary rock groups: 1) continental margin rocks associated with the northern Kuskokwim Mountains and southwestern Alaska Range; 2) tectonically accreted rock formations; and 3) younger sedimentary, volcanic, and plutonic rocks. These rock groups are variably overlain by recent, unconsolidated alluvial and glacial deposits, and by Quaternary extrusive deposits in localized areas. Within the project area, continental margin rocks are primarily comprised of metamorphic rocks. Exposures of these rocks are limited to isolated locations of the Kuskokwim Mountains and in fault contacts with tectonically accreted rock terranes. The tectonically accreted rock units have been subdivided by genetic relations collectively known as the Terranes of the Bristol Bay Region (Box et al. 1993}, (Decker et al. 1994). In the project area units include the Nyack, Togiak, and Goodnews Terranes. • The Nyack Terrane is mapped in the central portion of the Bethel quadrangle map and is located furthest west of the accreted terranes in the project area. The Nyack Terrane consists of volcanic and sedimentary rocks. Volcanic rocks of this terrane include andesite, basalt, and dacite. Sedimentary rocks typically consist of greywacke, siltstone, and conglomerate. The rocks are generally slightly altered. • The Togiak Terrane extends from the south-central portion of the Bethel quadrangle in a northeastern direction to the northwest corner of the adjacent Taylor Mountain quadrangle. The Togiak Terrane consists of volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks. Near the project area volcanic rocks consist primarily of dacite, and volcaniclastic rocks consist of breccias. These rocks are weakly metamorphosed, and moderately to severely deformed. • The Goodnews Terrane has been subdivided into several subterranes. Three subterranes occur in the project area; the Nukluk Subterrane, Kilbuck Subterrane, and the Tikchik Subterrane. The Nukluk and Kilbuk Subterranes are present in a localized portion of the east-central Bethel quadrangle. The Tikchik Subterrane is mapped surrounding Chikuminuk Lake within the western Taylor Mountain quadrangle and southeastern Bethel quadrangle. These terranes are structurally complex and to date, are not well defined. The Nukluk Subterrane consists primarily of chert, mudstone and basalt. The Kilbuck Subterrane consists of highly deformed metagranitic and metasedimentary rocks. The Tikchik Subterrane is a complex assemblage of clastic rocks, chert, limestone, pillow basalts, and mafic volcanic rocks. ~HATCH'" Page 17 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 In many parts of southwestern Alaska, the accreted terranes are overlain by a series of younger sedimentary rocks of the Kuskokwim Group. This unit is composed of sandstone, greywacke, conglomerate, and other sedimentary rock types. The rocks are regionally deformed into open folds. Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits comprise the entire western portion of the project area and are present locally within the mountainous areas. Within the Kuskokwim River Lowlands, these deposits are primarily mapped as alluvial silt deposits, with some glacial outwash deposits occurring near the western edge of the mountains. Within the mountains, Quaternary deposits primarily consist of glacial till, which mantles most valley lowlands. Localized areas of recent alluvium and glacial outwash are also present in smaller deposits within the mountainous areas. 3.3.1.1 Permafrost The region is considered to be underlain by isolated masses to relatively continuous thick permafrost in areas of predominantly fine-grained deposits (Ferrians 1965). In the mountainous areas the permafrost generally occurs in isolated masses either at considerable depth below the surface as relict permafrost, or near the surface as thin lenses at local sites where ground insulation is high and ground insolation (solar radiation received) is low. The coastal plain is underlain by moderately thick to thin permafrost. Locally, in close proximity to large water bodies, permafrost is absent. 3.3.2 Soil Types and Characteristics The valley floor northeast of the canyon in the Allen River is covered with a series of glacial moraines. The thickness and characteristics of these glacial deposits are unknown, but they are generally expected to be coarse-grained. Where it was observable during summer 2012 site visits, the soils generally consisted of sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Generally, coarse-grained glacial and alluvial soils have a low to moderate erosion potential and moderate potential for slope instability, but may have a moderate to high potential for seepage and piping (migration of fines out of soil deposits due to groundwater action). Areas of fine-grained soils may exhibit higher potential for erosion and slope instability. The characterization of the soil deposits in the vicinity of the lake outlet would be an important part of future geotechnical studies. 3.3.3 Existing and Potential Geological and Soil Hazards Erodible Areas: Soil deposits within the potential inundation area, particularly deposits on slopes, may be susceptible to erosion. The existing vegetation mat which helps in the reduction in erosion may be destroyed by a rise in lake level from the proposed project. Erosion could occur during periods of low water level in the lake when the inundation area is exposed. Other areas of potential erosion include any soil deposits which would be disturbed by construction activities. Slope Instability: There is potential for slope instability in soil deposits within the inundation area. Soil deposits would become saturated and may lose strength, possibly resulting in landslides. Seepage: Three areas of potential seepage from the raised lake level have been identified. These are the glacial moraine in the vicinity of the lake outlet, the saddle between Chikuminuk Lake and the Tikchik River, and theY- shaped, unnamed valley (including two drainage divides) between Chikuminuk Lake and Lake Chauekuktuli. 3.3.4 Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River Geologic Characteristics At the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake, the Allen River flows in a steep sided canyon with bedrock walls. The canyon is situated along the southwest side of a glacial valley approximately one-mile wide. Bedrock exposed on the canyon walls consist of chert, argillite and greywacke. The rock is foliated dipping from about 60° to 80° to the south-southeast (170° azimuth). The foliation is moderately to closely spaced (about 6 to 24 inches), and ~HATCH~ Page 18 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 moderately persistent, with continuous discontinuities up to 30 feet in length observed in 2012. A less persistent and more widely spaced joint set was observed with a dip of 70° to 80° southwest (235° azimuth}. 3.3.5 Transmission Corridor Geologic Characteristics The alternative transmission corridors under consideration would pass through a wide variety of geologic conditions. The mountainous area corridors are primarily bedrock with some glacial deposits. Alluvial soils are present in the bottom of valleys. The coastal plain corridor is underlain by generally fine-grained unconsolidated soils. Peat deposits and permafrost are likely to be encountered in this area. 3.3.6 Reservoir Shorelines and Streambank Characteristics The shoreline of Chikuminuk Lake is dominated by steep bedrock outcrops. Alluvial delta deposits are present at various locations around the perimeter of the lake, but are more numerous at the west end of the lake. The largest alluvial deposits are associated with Milk Creek at the far west end of the lake. No large areas of slope instability or large landslide deposits were identified in a reconnaissance-level aerial survey conducted in 2012. The banks of the Allen River immediately downstream of the powerhouse location are characterized by steep rock cliffs. About 1,000 feet downstream of the proposed powerhouse location the river exits the steep-walled canyon and cuts through a glacial outwash deposit. In this area the banks transition from rock to terraced alluvial deposits consisting of re-worked glacial outwash. 3.3.7 Seismology Southwest Alaska is characterized by low to moderate seismicity as compared to many other regions of Alaska (Page et al. 1991}. The region is dominated by a series of north-northeast and northwest trending faults. The primary north-northeast fault is considered to be the Denali fault system, which includes the Togiak-Tikchik Fault. A number of faults run sub-parallel to this fault system, and a series of smaller faults run generally perpendicular to the larger and more continuous north-northwest trending faults. Between 1903 and 2010, only one earthquake with a magnitude greater than 5.0 has occurred within 100 miles of the project area. This earthquake occurred in 1903 and was located approximately 100 miles north of the dam/powerhouse site. It had an estimated magnitude of 6.9 (AEIC 2012}. However, due to the limited number of seismographs in Alaska at that time, the location and magnitude estimates should be considered provisional at best. Page 19 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.4 Water Resources 3.4.1 Drainage Basin Overview Chikuminuk Lake is the most southerly of the three lakes in the Upper Tikchik lakes system (Figure 3.2-1). The 39-square mile lake covers approximately ten percent of the 353-square mile drainage basin above the dam site (Figure 3.2-3). The lake, which has a number of significant bays and outcrop islands, is approximately 16 miles long and averages roughly 2.5 miles in width. The normal water surface elevation of the lake is approximately 613 feet. Except at its western end, there are relatively few major streams entering the lake. Only two major streams were noted along the northern shore of the lake between the northwest and north arms of the lake during a site reconnaissance in June 2012. A number of major inflows were noted at the western end of the lake. Milk Creek, which drains approximately half of the Chikuminuk Lake basin and is the only named stream entering the lake, is by far the largest of these. Milk Creek is steep and flows within a canyon for a large portion of its length. Heart Lake lies at the headwaters of Milk Creek and has no westward draining outlet, contrary to what some past mapping has shown. There are a number of small glaciers within the Milk Creek drainage, including the Chikuminuk Glacier, which occupy generally north-facing drainages in the southwest portion of the project basin. Glaciers are estimated to comprise much less than five percent of the area of the project basin. Fine-grained sediments derived from these glacial basins impart a milky quality to the waters of Milk Creek, giving the stream its name. In a site reconnaissance of the basin conducted in June 2012, glaciers appeared to be in strong recession in the basin, with current glacier extents being less than mapped extents, and moderate to low sediment loads being carried in glacial streams. The glaciers of the Milk Creek basin appear to be the only glaciers in the Nuyakuk River system, although mapping shows the possible presence of a few very small glaciers in the headwaters of the Lake Chauekuktuli basin. Glaciers can exert a strong influence on basin hydrology. The hydrograph of a typical glacial stream shows a sudden and strong rise in flow in the spring as winter snow melts, followed by a continual rise into the middle of the summer, and then a gradual decline throughout the fall. Glaciers tend to decrease a basin's annual and monthly variations in runoff and produce a delay of the maximum seasonal flow by storing spring meltwater and producing their peak meltwater volumes in late summer. However, because of their small size and extent and the hydrologic influence of Chikuminuk Lake, the glaciers in the project basin are assumed to exert an extremely minor influence on basin hydrology. 3.4.2 Water Quantity I Flow Records The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates or has operated in the past a sparse system of stream gages in the Nushagak River region. These gages include: 15302000 Nuyakuk River near Dillingham (May 1953-September 1996, July 2002-September 2004, and July 2007-present; active) 15302500 Nushagak River at Ekwok (October 1977-September 1993; discontinued) 15302800 Grant Lake Outlet near Aleknagik (July 1959 -July 1965; discontinued) 15302900 Moody Creek near Aleknagik (July 1968-present; active) 15303000 Wood River near Aleknagik (September 1957-September 1970; discontinued) 15303010 Silver Salmon Creek near Aleknagik (October 1984-September 1989; discontinued) 15303011 Wood River Trib near Aleknagik (May 1990-September 1993; discontinued) 15303150 Snake River near Dillingham (August 1973-September 1983; discontinued) 15301500 Allen River near Aleknagik, Alaska (June 1963-September 1966, and September 2011- present; active) Page 20 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 A stream gage was installed by the USGS in 1963 on the Allen River near the proposed dam site. The gage (15301500-Allen River near Aleknagik, Alaska) recorded stream discharge from June 23, 1963 to September 30, 1966. Only weekly average data are available for the 1966 water year. Thirteen field discharge measurements were made during the period from August 19, 1963 through August 30, 1966. The gage was located at an elevation of approximately 550 feet and had a contributory drainage basin estimated to be 353 square miles. The USGS began gaging the Allen River again very near the site of the original gaging station in September 2011 under an agreement with Nuvista, and there is a discontinuous record of approximately 5-1/2 years of data available for the gage. The Allen River hydrograph shows two distinct peak flow periods: a large, well-defined snowmelt peak in the early summer and one or more rainfall-induced peaks in the late summer or fall. The snowmelt peak usually occurs between late June and early July, and typically represents the highest mean daily flow of the year. Flows gradually decrease in the late fall and through the winter, and do not rise again until snowmelt begins in the spring. For the discontinuous period of record from 1963 to 1966 and 2011 to 2013, the mean annual flow of the Allen River was approximately 1,400 cfs. The peak stream flow recorded during this period was 7,930 cfs, which occurred in September 1965. The USGS has operated a gage on the Nuyakuk River near its origin at the outlet ofTikchik Lake since May 18, 1953 {15302000-Nuyakuk River near Dillingham, Alaska). A discontinuous record of approximately 51 years of data is available for the gage. Gaging records are available for the periods of May 18, 1953 through September 30, 1996; July 1, 2002 through September 30, 2004; and July 1, 2007 to the present. The gage is located at an elevation of 325 feet. The drainage basin above the gage is estimated to be 1,490 square miles. The Nuyakuk River gage shows a hydrograph similar to that of the Allen River gage. An analysis of average daily streamflow data for the period of record has shown a characteristic hydrograph consisting of two distinct peaks: a snowmelt peak in the early summer and a rainfall-induced peak in the late summer or faiL Like the Allen River, the snowmelt peak on the Nuyakuk River usually occurs between late June and early July, and typically represents the highest mean daily flow of the year. Flows gradually decrease in the late fall and through the winter and do not rise again until snowmelt begins in the spring. For the period of record from 1953 to 2012, the mean annual flow of the Nuyakuk River was approximately 6,300 cfs. The peak stream flow recorded during this period was 32,200 cfs, which occurred in July 1977. Nuvista, as part of the 2013 feasibility assessment, used a linear regression of data from the coincident period of record between the Allen River and Nuyakuk River gages to extend the record of the Allen River gage. The linear regression results for the ice-free period of May 25 through October 15 were applied to a 41-year period of record for the Nuyakuk River gage, beginning in 1963 and extending into 2013. For the ice-affected winter period of October 16 to May 24, the monthly averages for the discontinuous 5-1/2-year record for the Allen River gage were used, and are expected to better represent flows during the winter months. Mean monthly flows for both measured and extended record flows for the Allen River gage are presented in Table 3.4-1. ~HATCH~ Page 21 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.4-1 Allen River Mean Monthly Flows-Measured vs. Extended Record (cfs) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Measured (1963-66, 419 378 338 285 396 4,560 3,146 2,012 2,602 1,400 518 467 1,377 2011-2013) Record Extension 419 378 338 285 599 3,907 3,314 2,060 1,760 1,365 518 467 1,284 (Nuvista 2013) 3.4.3 Nuvista Stream Gages In September of 2012, Nuvista's water resources team conducted a stream gage installation field trip to the project vicinity. Two stream gages were installed and are now being maintained by Nuvista: one 3.4 miles up from the mouth of the Allen River (Allen River below Canyon near Aleknagik, Alaska) and one near the outlet of Lake Chauekuktuli on the Northwest Passage (Northwest Passage near Aleknagik, Alaska). The location of the gages can be seen in Figures 3.2-3 and 3.4-1. Data have been retrieved from the two Nuvista gages. The period of record is September 14, 2012-August 16, 2013 for the Allen River gage, and September 13, 2012-May 24, 2013 for the Northwest Passage gage. The gage at the Northwest Passage malfunctioned and has produced no reliable data since May 24, 2013. A total of four discharge measurements have been made at each gage. The open-water discharge measurements, made in August 2012, September 2012 and August 2013, were used to create a rating curve for each gage site. The rating curves were applied to the stage data collected at the gages for the open-water season only (May 25-0ct 15}, and a more conservative approach was applied to the ice-affected season using the USGS Allen River gage data. Existing and Proposed Uses 3.4.3.1 Existing Uses Water in the Allen River and Chikuminuk Lake is not used for irrigation, domestic water supply, or industrial purposes. Chikuminuk Lake, the Allen River, as well as the other Upper Tikchik lakes and streams support arctic grayling, char, and lake trout. Because of dangerous rapids on the Allen River, Chikuminuk Lake is very rarely used as a staging point for longer boating trips. Subsistence use occurs, although it is thought to be quite limited. Most villagers using the lakes and rivers in the unit are from Koliganek, New Stuyahok and Ekwok. (ADNR 2002. See also Section 3.12.12, Subsistence Resources.) 3.4.3.2 Proposed Uses No other uses of the water in the Allen River and Chikuminuk Lake are proposed beyond its use for hydroelectric generation as described herein. ~HATCH~ Page 22 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report -Vo l ume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Figure 3.4-1 Gage Sites and Thermograph Sites .. .. ~- ,..,r A •lnr &.A •~" .. " . I --- ~· 11KCHI( INCE l1KCHIK - ~HATCH '" Page 23 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.4.4 Federal Standards The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Division of Water manages the Water Quality Standards (WQS) program in Alaska (ADEC 2013). Current state standards are provided in the Alaska Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 20, last amended on April 8, 2012 (ADEC 2012a). Standards approved by the state undergo EPA review to determine compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). An ADEC table provides a comparison between the state and federally approved water-quality standards (ADEC 2012b). Updates are available on the EPA Region 10 website, which outlines and describes changes to the WQS under recent EPA review, current EPA review, or expected to be submitted to EPA for review in the near future (USEPA 2013). 3.4.5 Seasonal Variations 3.4.5.1 Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Historical Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Data A very limited amount of water quality information is available for the project. The only quantitative data identified in a data gaps analysis for a study area that encompassed the Tikchik lakes were several water temperature measurements that were measured in the Allen River during August of 1982. What little other information was uncovered was qualitative in nature. Generally, statements like probably, could be, expected to be and are likely to be, preface most of the information available (Harza 1984). The limited information is described below. The temperature of Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River are identified as "cold" in several sources. The Wood- Tikchik State Park Management Plan states "the Tikchik lakes are deep, relatively cold, and low in nutrients" (ADNR 2002}. The 1984 Harza Feasibility Study states: "the wintertime water temperatures in the Allen River are probably near 0°C through most of its length. Water entering Chikuminuk Lake is probably only slightly warmer, although it could be as warm as 3° to 4°C." The summertime lake conditions are derived from a generalization about all subpolar lakes, stating they have a "temperature of about 4°C for only short periods." Additionally, the Harza report includes a limited discussion about the temperature gradient in Chikuminuk Lake. Water entering the Allen River during the 1982 field visit was measured at 5°C and remained cold for the length of the river (Harza 1984). Limnological studies and bathymetric charting were conducted during July 1964 in Lake Chauekuktuli, Nuyakuk Lake, and Tikchik Lake (Burgner and Reeves 1965). Only summary mean water chemistry values for the Tikchik lakes were reported, and these did not include temperature. Additionally, there is a paucity of historical information describing basic water chemistry, seasonal stratification and turnover, and bathymetry for Chikuminuk Lake. Oxygen levels are expected to be high in Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River, as cold waters usually have relatively high dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. Research conducted for the previously described data gap analysis did not identify any DO measurements for Chikuminuk Lake, the Allen River, or Tikchik lakes study area for comparison (Harza 1984). 2012 Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Data Water temperature data were gathered at several locations during baseline fish surveys conducted on Chikuminuk Lake and its tributaries in July and August of 2012 (Unpublished ABR, Inc. data, 2012). Lake and tributary stream temperatures ranged from 3.0°C to 3.6°C during early July sampling. Water temperatures in August ranged between 5.3°C and 7.5°C in several small channels of the Milk Creek delta. Temperatures of 6.9°C in the lake at the outlet of Milk Creek and 7.7°C in the center of Chikuminuk Lake were measured during this same period. Page 24 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Temperature data are also collected at the USGS Allen River gage. Water temperatures varied from 4°C to 6°C in July 2012 before climbing to around 9°C in mid-August. Temperatures then fluctuated between 4°C and 8°C for much of the summer and fall before declining to around 2.5°C in mid-November. Thermographs were installed at four locations in the lower Allen River in August (Figure 3.4-1). Preliminary results indicate that water temperatures followed a pattern similar to the USGS Allen River gage at three locations (82657, 82653, and 82654). However, the thermograph in the Allen River delta near Lake Chauekuktuli (82655) followed a different pattern {Figure 3.4-2). The delta thermograph decreased to 4°C in late August and early September when the stage recorded at the Allen River USGS gage {15301500) was low and the other three thermographs were reading above 8°C. The delta thermograph readings then increased to nearly match those at the upstream instruments for a brief period in late September, which corresponded to a high flow event that raised the stage at the USGS Allen River gage nearly two feet. 3.4.5.2 Other Physical and Chemical Parameters Historical Water Quality Data The only turbidity information identified in the data gap analysis efforts was a qualitative statement in the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan that the waters of Chikuminuk Lake have the potential for high turbidity values based on the observation: " ... glacial waters of Milk Creek, entering Chikuminuk Lake from the mountains to the west, impart a silty appearance to the lake's water" {ADNR 2002). The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan states that the Upper and Lower Tikchik lakes and groundwater were identified as having a low mineral content, with ranges from soft to moderately hard and a neutral or slightly alkaline pH {ADNR 2002). There were no other pH data identified for Chikuminuk Lake, the Allen River, or the study area. No data were identified addressing dissolved metals present in Chikuminuk Lake, the Allen River, or surrounding water bodies. One additional water quality data point was identified outside of the study area. A water sample was collected by a USGS field crew at Grant Lake, approximately 25 miles south of the study area, on April 20, 1960. The USGS Water Information System lists data for parameters including, but not limited to, pH, C0 21 nitrate, hardness, and dissolved solids. These data are limited to one sample that is over 40 years old. Due to the lack of water quality data for Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River, direct comparisons could not be made between existing conditions and federal and state of Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70). Additionally, there was no known water quality information identified for similar lakes in the watershed. Page 25 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Figure 3.4-2 Thermograph Data 15 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 11- I 10 -I ~9 -~ ::s 8 --e !. 7 - E {!!. 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - o-I 08-13-12 I 08-27-12 I 09-10-12 I 09-24-12 I I 10.(18-12 10-22-12 Date I 11-05-12 I 11·19·12 Station -82653 -82654 -82655 82657 -USGS Gage 15301600 I 12.CJ3·12 April2014 I 12-17-12 No sediment data are available for Chikuminuk Lake and its major tributaries, the Allen River, or Northwest Passage. These waterbodies can be expected to experience some fluctuations in suspended sediment concentrations as a result of glacial melt and runoff from snowmelt or rainfall. Observations of stream and lake habitat during fish surveys conducted in July and August 2012 in the western portion of Chikuminuk Lake reflected these fluctuations. The Milk Creek delta and the surrounding lake habitat substrates are dominated by fine sediment. Tributaries in the southwest portion ofthe lake and southern shore ofthe main body of the lake provide habitat substrates of fine sediments, gravel, and cobbles. The eastern portion of Chikuminuk Lake nearshore habitat is composed primarily of clean gravel with very little fine sediment or other substrate types, indicating that most of the finer sediments carried into the lake from Milk Creek and other tributaries have settled out before the outlet to the Allen River. 2012 Water Quality Data A single turbidity measurement was made at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake in June of 2012. The outflow was noted to have extremely low turbidity. Observations made in June 2012 show that the sedimentation effect of glacially influenced Milk Creek does not extend further than approximately one mile to the east of its delta at the west end of Chikuminuk Lake. Observations made in June 2012 when flows were at or near the annual peak showed clear water in the Allen River, Northwest Passage, and Tikchik Narrows. Chikuminuk Lake, Lake Chauekuktuli, and Nuyakuk Lake appear to serve as sediment sinks and are expected to allow most sediment carried by tributary streams to settle out except for organic particles and particles in colloidal suspension. This results in the rivers connecting the large EeHATCH '" Page 26 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 lakes being relatively sediment-starved. As a consequence, fine-grained material in the stream bed of the Allen River has probably been winnowed away, leaving behind a coarse gravel and cobble lag that is only mobilized under extremely high flow conditions. Ice Dynamics Limited wintertime observations at the dam site suggest that the Allen River does not form a continuous ice cover near the proposed dam site and USGS 15301500 gage site, although shore ice is common. This may be due to the steepness of the channel, relatively mild winter temperatures, an influx of relatively warm groundwater, high winter base flows coming out of Chikuminuk Lake, or some combination of these factors. A continuous ice cover was observed in April 2013 on the lower Allen River between the lower Allen River gage and the mouth of the river at Lake Chauekuktuli. Open water was noted along the full length of the Northwest Passage on the April 2013 field trip, but significant shore ice accumulations were present along both banks of the river. The lakes in the region form extensive ice covers. Breakup typically occurs in June after significant melting of the snowpack and of the in-place ice cover on lakes in the system. Lake ice can move down the rivers during breakup. Cobble ridges present on both sides of the channel of the Northwest Passage a short distance below the outlet of Lake Chauekuktuli are interpreted as ice push ridges. Regional observations of the Wood River below Lake Aleknagik suggest that ice does not move downstream until there has been significant in-place melting, and the ice floes are candled and rotten. 3.4.6 Reservoir Data The existing Chikuminuk Lake surface area at elevation 613 feet is approximately 25,000 acres. Construction of the dam would raise the lake level to normal maximum elevation of 660 feet, with a corresponding increase of the surface area to about 34,000 acres; and the gross active storage capacity between El. 613 and El. 660 would be roughly 1,900,000 acre feet (Harza 1984, Exhibit 22). At its current water surface elevation of 613ft, the shoreline length is approximately 87 miles, which would increase to approximately 100 miles at El. 660. Detailed bathymetry data are not available for Chikuminuk Lake. However, Nuvista performed an initial bathymetry survey in 2012 with the use of kayaks and float planes. While the scope of this program was limited due to safety and time constraints, it confirmed that the main body of the lake is very deep, likely more than 500 feet deep over much of its area, with maximum depths greater than 600 feet (Figure 3.4-3). The preferred dam site is located on the Allen River approximately 1.2 river miles downstream from the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake (see Volume 1). The drainage area above the dam site is approximately 353 square miles. Stacked storm beach ridges, which are interpreted to represent as many as a dozen previous and distinct lake levels, were noted at a few locations on the southern shore of Chikuminuk Lake during the June 2012 site reconnaissance. It is unknown if the current lake level is steadily decreasing and more of these storm ridges are being created at progressively lower elevations, if the lake level is generally rising and encroaching on the old ridges, or if the current level of the lake is relatively stable. Regardless, the relict storm ridges provide evidence of former lake levels that were higher than the present lake level. 3.4.7 Downstream Effects The Allen River flows approximately 11.6 miles from its start at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake to its delta along the northern shore of Lake Chauekuktuli. The drainage area of the Allen River at its mouth is approximately 379 square miles. ~HATCH~ Page 27 ""CC Ill ~ ""' co Figure 3.4-3 Chikuminuk La ke Bathymet ry from 2012 Reconna i ssance 0 0-811 • 100-1811 • 200-299 • 300-399 • 400-499 • S00-~99 • >600 -Proposed TransmiSsion Line Ahematives £!> Max. lnundalionAtea (660 II Contour) 0 Lake Study Area LJ P..t< or ~rug. BoundariH Chik~~r~t,.,ltk .Coke ' . -n ~ :::r .... -· "' ,... ~-c 3 3 "T'' 5 ' "' c: Ill ,... !a. :I: ~~ ~ 0 ;Jl~ "' "' "0 n 0 ::::- ;:::!. ;:;· ' _, ~ .2. em 3 ~ "' m )( iii' .... ::;· 011 m ~ < a· ~ 3 "' ~ .... !!!.. n 0 ~ a. ;:::;: o· ~ "' )> "0 ~ ~ ~ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 The Allen River drops steeply over its entire length and accounts for a 298-foot change in elevation between Chikuminuk Lake and Lake Chauekuktuli, which sits at El. 315. The hydraulic path downstream from Lake Chauekuktuli, however, is much more gradual, taking in excess of 150 river miles to accomplish a 315-foot drop in elevation to Bristol Bay. The Allen River has three sets of canyons. One canyon begins immediately below the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake and extends past the proposed dam site and to the site of USGS gage 15301500. A second canyon is present about midway down the length of the river, and a third canyon is present from approximately three to four miles above the river's mouth at Lake Chauekuktuli. The bed of the river appears to be composed of coarse gravel and cobbles, but is likely composed of bedrock and boulders in the canyons. The cross-section of the river appears to be relatively uniform, with respect to both width and depth, except in the canyons. Side channels and braiding are rare to absent for much of the length of the river. Below the lower canyon, the river forms a split channel pattern with six or seven islands present two to three miles above the river's mouth. The channel pattern of the river remains fairly consistent along the lower two miles until near the river's mouth, where a deltaic distributary channel system is formed. A prominent tributary (informally called the Allen River Tributary) enters the river from the west approximately one mile upstream from the mouth. With the exception of this tributary, very little in the way of concentrated flows have been noted entering the river from either side, although springs have been commonly noted on both sides of the river. Page 29 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources The following description of fish and aquatic resources is based on the literature review and data gap analysis report for the Project (ABR 2012) as supplemented by baseline field studies performed by Nuvista in 2012. Three distinct study areas were identified in the 2012 literature review and data gap analysis including: • The Allen River extending downstream from the proposed Project facilities to its confluence with Lake Chauekuktuli; • the Chikuminuk Lake basin or lake study area (Figure 3.5-1), where the inundation area and all Project facilities would be located; and • The transmission corridor study area, comprising the proposed West Route (see Volume I) between Chikuminuk Lake and Bethel. Other alternative transmission corridors as discussed in Volume 1-including the Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham corridor-were not under consideration during development of the gap analysis. Although this overview of fish and aquatic resources does not specifically cover the alternative transmission corridors, much of the general discussion regarding the likely presence of fish species there may apply. 3.5.1 Existing Fish Communities The Wood-Tikchik State Park is noted for its 12 primary interconnected lakes; six each in the Tikchik lakes and Wood River lakes systems. As shown on Figure 3.2-1, the Tikchik system includes Nishlik Lake, Upnuk Lake, Chikuminuk Lake, Lake Chauekuktuli, Nuyakuk Lake and Tikchik Lake. The physiographic setting, hydrology, and water quality of the lakes, streams and rivers of the Tikchik system are described Sections 3.2 and 3.4 of this report and the data gap analysis reports (R&M 2012a, 2012b; Appendix B). Relative to the Wood River system, considerably fewer studies have been conducted on the Tikchik lakes system leading to a paucity of site-specific background information. Of survey efforts that have been performed in the Tikchik system, the majority have occurred during the last ten years. Administered by ADF&G's Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC) and Alaska Freshwater Fish Index (AFFI) programs, these studies over the last 10 years primarily documented anadromous and resident fish populations (ADF&G 2011) (Figure 3.5-2). Limited studies of lake trout have occurred in Heart Lake, Chikuminuk Lake, and Tikchik Lake (MacDonald 1996; Bosch et al. 1995; Walsh et al. 2006). In addition, the southern three lakes of the system, Chauekuktuli, Nuyakuk, and Tikchik lakes were surveyed in 1961 and 1962 for primary productivity, lake thermodynamics, bathymetry, and salmon spawning distributions (Burgner et al. 1969). There has been little effort to fully characterize the presence or absence of resident species and habitat in Chikuminuk Lake and its inlet streams. Fish presence/absence, species composition and distribution, seasonal movements, feeding behavior, habitat use, and spawning behavior and locations have not been evaluated for the basin. Additionally, the upstream extent of fish presence and the location of potential barriers to fish passage in inlet streams are unknown. Nearshore lake benthic habitats in the basin that are important for macroinvertebrates and periphyton production and for their role as a food resource for fishes in the basin have not been described. The adjacent Wood River lakes system that lies to the southwest, however, has a history of state, federal, and independent academic scientific fish studies (ABR 2012). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) started conducting surveys of sockeye salmon spawning and escapement in 1946, and ADF&G has monitored salmon escapement for over 60 years by visual means and, more recently, by sonar estimation (Marriott 1964; Nelson 1966, 1967; Dunaway and Sonnichsen 2001). The University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute (FRI) has conducted frequent studies of anadromous and resident fishes over the last 50 years focusing on the Wood River system. The FRI maintains three field stations throughout the Wood-Tikchik State Park, where past and current projects have collected data on primary productivity, bathymetry, and the climatology of the Wood ~HATCH~ Page 30 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 River system. Additional data associated with spawning distribution and age structure of sockeye salmon populations are widely available (Church 1963; Burgner and Reeves 1965; Rogers 1967; Burgner et al. 1969; Rogers 1973, 1977a, 1977b; Chihuly 1979; Rogers and Rogers 1998; Ruggerone et al. 2000; Schindler et al. 2005; Lin et al. 2011; McGiauflin 2011). Overall, twenty-four species of resident and anadromous fishes have been observed in the Wood-Tikchik lakes system, including all five species of Pacific salmon (Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2) (Burgner and Reeves 1965; Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971; Rogers 1977a, 1977b; Page and Burr 1991; ADF&G 2011). The Wood and Nuyakuk rivers have been estimated to account for upward of 20 percent of the total Bristol Bay sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) escapement (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1972). Past sockeye salmon spawning surveys conducted by the ADF&G have revealed that spawning occurs in several areas ofTikchik Lake, Tikchik River, Lake Nuyakuk, Lake Chauekuktuli, and in the lower Allen River (Weiland et al. 1994). Sockeye salmon have not been found in Lake Chikuminuk, most likely due to the presence of several potential fish migration impediments in the Allen River which limit the upstream extent of sockeye movement. Table 3.5-1 Reported Fish Species within Wood-Tikchik Lake Systems Common Name Scientific Name Life History Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Anadromous Sockeye salmon 0. nerka Anadromous Coho salmon 0. kisutch Anadromous Chum salmon 0. keto Anadromous Chinook salmon 0. tshawytscha Anadromous Rainbow trout 0. mykiss Resident or Anadromous Dolly Varden char 5alvelinus malmo Resident or Anadromous Arctic char 5. a/pinus Resident Lake trout 5. namaycush Resident Arctic grayling Thymol/us arcticus Resident Least cisco Coregonus sardine/fa Amphidromous Humpback whitefish C. pidschian Amphidromous Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum Resident Pygmy whitefish P. cou/teri Resident Bur bot Lata Iota Resident Northern pike Esox lucius Resident Alaska blackfish Da/lia pectoralis Resident Arctic lamprey Lampetra japonica Anadromous Alaskan brook lamprey L. a/askens Anadromous Rainbow smelt Osmerus dentex Anadromous Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus Resident Coastrange sculpin C. a/euticus Catadromous Ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius Resident Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Resident Sources: ADF&G 2011, Grumman Ecosystem Corporation 1971b, Burgner and Reeves 1965. ~HATCH" Page 31 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions IU cu ... <( > "'C ::II .... V) Cll u ·.o:; IU ::II ~ "'C c IU .s:::. Cll u::: cu .:II: ~ .:II: ::II c ·e ::II .:II: .s:::. u ~HATCH'" April2014 Page 32 -g DJ OQ 1'1) w w Figure 3.5-2 Upper Nushagak River System and Lower Kuskokwim River Fish Observations Sources: ADF&G, Anadromous Waters Catalog, 2011. Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory Program •:1-':' Lake Slully Area -Pta posed TransmosaiOn Lone Alllernatoves B Mil•. InundatiOn Atea (6eO ft Conlour) B Watenhed Boun<*ie1 (NHO Level 5). [] "-11< o r Refuge Boundarift Anadromous Waters Catalog .. • Anldornous Fish Obi8Mitions ..,.._ Anldornous FISh W&llrl Alaska Frnhwator Fi•h lnvont.oty (AFFI) ... o ResiOent Foah ObservaliOnt • No Callec1ion Elfoii/Wogratory Barner ED No Fish Obsi!Mid "SIM!Iwoa .. .._, • .. 11'1 .._. ~ URI C.. f«JC• ..,...._ DIIIMII .... ~~IItUIGa. •c:s . .:i .. EMftlc. .............. ~ ..... -r..--.~tlfFIIh-"~·tUttCFG~~,... .... ~dllp;a'N,_,... ...... ~tarl ........... aNI .......... HtKII"'Mo ... ~to-k-..ni.OP"•~dtiJINHitMQII ).Soulaa ~-USGS ~ LN c..-(DlQ) Mel ......., M-;<aogr..., o.tMel (Nt-0}fliJI*Dirlllhrill1a:AII.-..~-~RtoiMRMhtoql~ latW. Mil ADFQ ~ &Its kif ltf. ·~and "CCeelooa". -.DFO ~·1M ~ •• .,..,.. .. """'~· O..fOitnrt ........... twNII..,d m.mu ........ -,....,. ,,..._" f-"' .....-y O...._.IMFIO)tt.Mtl ........,_,._ ~-~---·~--·--ol ..... AOAlllh ... ...,.ac.-.... ......... .....-.:~.--.. OG:II'WIIII •• Mil .,._ t\DfG ,_ Rteo.c:e ,.,_ ~ NIIIO«S ........a•ADFGIIJ-...,.._...(...,..,.~ .... eo. ~ ................ ...,....)..-GIIIcl .... lot ..... OI -- -n :::1 =r .... -· I'D ,... ~-r= 3 3 "TI :;· I'D t: Ill ,... !!!. :I: !:!:< =c. .. .., < 0 ;:a~ I'D I'D "C ~ 0 .., ~ ;::;· I " <.., !2. ~· § ~ I'D m )( ~ :;· Qtl m :::1 < a· :::1 3 I'D :::1 .. !!!.. s :::1 c. ;::;: 6' :::1 "' > ~ N 0 ...... ~ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Table 3.5-2 Anadromous and Resident Fish Species Identified within the Tikchik Lakes System Waterbody a Nishlik Lake Lake Tikchik River Chikuminuk Lake Allen River Chauekuktuli Lake Nuyakuk Lake Nuyakuk River Nushagak River Anadromous Species sockeye salmon, Dolly Varden salmon sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, pink salmon, arctic lamprey, Alaskan brook lamprey salmon sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, pink salmon, unspecified whitefishc sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum whitefish< sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, pink salmon, arctic lamprey, Alaskan brook lamprey unspecified whitefishc Resident Species arctic char arctic char, arctic grayling, lake trout, burbot, northern pike, round whitefish, slimy sculpin Dolly Varden · lake trout, slimy sculpin, stickleback arctic char arctic char arctic char arctic char, arctic grayling, rainbow trout, burbot, northern pike, round whitefish, slimy sculpin, longnose sucker, ninespine stickleback, hr<:><:>CrHnQ stickleback a Lakes listed include species also observed in inlet streams. Major tributaries and connecting streams are listed separately. April2014 b Dolly Varden are considered to exist as resident and anadromous populations (ADF&G 2011, Armstrong and Morrow 1980). c Depending on species, may be resident or amphidromous. Sources: ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog and Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory. Resident fish species are also abundant in Wood-Tikchik State Park. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), arctic grayling (Thymol/us arcticus), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), arctic char (Salve/inus a/pinus), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malmo malmo), and northern pike (Esox lucius) are all common sport fish found in waters within the area (ADNR 2002). In addition to popular sport fish, Burgner and Reeves (1965) collected humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian), pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulterii), least cisco (Coregonus sordinefla), round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum), lake trout, burbot (Lota Iota), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) in combination across the two lake systems. Limited studies of Lake Trout (Salve/inus namaycush) have occurred in Heart Lake, Chikuminuk Lake, and Tikchik Lake (MacDonald 1996; Bosch et al. 1995; Walsh et al. 2006). In addition, Lake Chauekuktuli, Nuyakuk Lake, and Tikchik Lake were surveyed in 1961 and 1962 for primary productivity, lake thermodynamics, bathymetry, and salmon spawning distributions (Burgner et al. 1969). 3.5.2 Aquatic Habitat Fish and aquatic habitat in the project area can be broadly categorized as stream and river (i.e., !otic or riverine) habitat or lake (i.e., lentic or lacustrine) habitat. The relative amounts of these habitats are determined by the physiographic characteristics of the area and geomorphic processes such as the ice, hydrologic, and sediment transport capacity of the system. Within lakes, habitat can be further categorized as littoral, pelagic, and benthic zones. Littoral zones are adjacent to the shoreline, interact with the riparian zone surrounding the lake, and may also have aquatic vegetation. The pelagic zone includes open water areas that are generally deep, while the benthic zone is the lowest level in a body of water and has interactions with sediment. In general, littoral habitat and the surrounding riparian habitat are the zones frequently affected by hydroelectric development because of changes in water surface elevations. Page 34 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 The Tikchik and Wood River lake systems result from land-locked fiords created during the advancement and recession of glaciers. All lakes of the Wood-Tikchik systems have been classified as temperate, deep (>98ft maximum depth; i.e., >30 m) and generally nutrient poor (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971, 1972). Shorelines are generally steep except in areas where tributaries have created deltas. None of the Tikchik lakes have been surveyed in detail. Consequently, the amount of littoral habitat potential affected by hydroelectric development is unknown. Two of the Tikchik lakes will be directly influenced by the Project, Lake Chauekuktuli which receives much of its inflow from the Allen River and will therefore be subjected to lake elevation changes in conjunction with flow regulation, and Lake Chikuminuk which drains into the Allen River and will be subjected to lake elevation changes due to dam construction and management of flow releases into the Allen River. The natural normal pool elevation of Lake Chauekuktuli is El. 327ft with a surface area of 20,288 acres. Lake Chauekuktuli is a deep lake with a maximum depth of 893ft (272 m) and an estimated volume of 3.1 x 10 11 fe (8.9 km 3 ) (Yanagawa 1967). Littoral habitat is important to sockeye salmon in Lake Chauekuktuli since it contains areas used for spawning. Past sockeye salmon spawning surveys conducted by the ADF&G have revealed that spawning occurs in several areas of Tikchik Lake, Tikchik River, Lake Nuyakuk, Lake Chauekuktuli, and in the lower Allen River (Weiland et al. 1994). Chikuminuk Lake is the third most northern of the principal Tikchik lakes and is approximately 16 miles long with a number of distinct bays and outcrop islands (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971; Walsh 2006; ADF&G 2011). The natural normal pool elevation of Chikuminuk Lake is El. 613ft with a surface area of about 24,640 acres. Except at its western end, there are relatively few major streams entering the lake. Only two unnamed major streams were noted during a June 2012 site reconnaissance along the northern shore of the lake between the northwest and north arms of the lake (Photo 3.5-1). These inflows appeared to be generally lower gradient compared to other streams on the north shore of Chikuminuk Lake. There are two large unnamed tributaries along the western portion of the southern shore of the main body of Chikuminuk Lake which are likely to provide significant fish habitat. These streams appear to be mostly low gradient (Photo 3.5-2). Four significant tributaries enter the southernmost portion of the southwest arm of the lake within an extended flood plain. The major inflow to the western end of the lake is Milk Creek, which drains approximately half of the Chikuminuk Lake basin (Photo 3.5-3). Heart Lake lies at the headwaters of Milk Creek. Many of the smaller tributaries flowing into Chikuminuk Lake are high gradient streams in which only the lower reaches appear to provide habitats suitable for fish production. The upper reaches of these streams likely contain physical barriers to fish migration (e.g., steep cascades or falls); while seasonally high flows in these reaches would likely also create velocity barriers (Photo 3.5-4). Larger tributaries to the lake which can at minimum support seasonal fish populations for rearing and feeding are located primarily on the southern shore of the lake, in the northwest corner of the lake and in the southernmost portion of the southwest arm of the lake (Figure 3.5-3). Additional larger tributaries on the northeastern shore of the lake do not appear to have been previously surveyed (Photo 3.5-5). Preliminary bathymetric surveys conducted in the western portion of the main body of the lake indicate a depth of at least 640 feet, while the maximum depth in the southwest arm of the lake which is fed by Milk Creek is approximately 430 feet. The large, deep lakes in the Tikchik basin, including Chikuminuk Lake, are sediment sinks that allow fine sediment delivered from upstream tributaries to settle out (see Section 3.4). Consequently, outlet rivers to these lakes such as the Allen River for Chikuminuk Lake are generally clear water systems that transport relatively low levels of fine sediment. Bedload and suspended load transport rates for the Allen River are unknown at this time. The Allen River, Chikuminuk Lake, and its major tributaries are likely to experience some seasonal changes in suspended sediment concentrations due to snow and glacial melt and runoff, and from rainfall events. There are numerous unnamed tributaries entering the Allen River, all of which are relatively small and unlikely to substantially affect flows in the river. ~HATCH~ Page 35 ""0 Ill OQ CD w CT\ Figure 3.5-3 Resident Fish Observations in the Area of Upper Portions of Chikuminuk Lake Flailing Elrott • Hook and Line • Minnow Trap Electrofiahing 0 Visual Observation • Gill net Flah Obaervatlona t:::::::> Ninespine Sticl<leback ,_ Unidentified Char J:C> U.ke Trout ,. Slimy Sallpin Al .. ka Freah-ter Fl8h Inventory (AFFI) 0 Resident Fish Observation • No Collection Effort I Migratory Barrier ffi No Fish Observed AFFI Species Codes and Status AC -Arctic Char DV • Dolly Varden LT -Lake Trout P ·present NS • Ninesplne Stickleback ss -Slimy Sculpin 0 Max. Inundation Area (660 II Contour) 0 I.Jike Study Area -Proposed Transmission Line Alternatives cJ Pari< or Refuge Boundaries ~p ' • I ~ .II cn;.JtuJTI.irt.Uh Lake -n ~ ~ .... -· 11) ,.,. ~. c 3 3 ., :r ro c: Ill ,.,. !!!. :::c ~~ .... .., < 0 :;Jl~ 11) 11) "0 n 0 ~ ;:!. ;:::;· ' " <.., 0 .2. -ro 3 ~ 11) -m I~· .... :;- CIQ m ~ :s. .., 0 ~ 3 11) ~ .... !!!. n 0 ~ Q. ;::;-c:r :J "' )> ~ N 0 ...... ~ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Aquatic habitat in the Allen River downstream of the proposed project has not been characterized. At an overall gradient of approximately 21 feet/mile (0.4%), the Allen River makes a relatively steep descent from its source in Chikuminuk Lake to its terminus in Lake Chauekuktuli. The upper 11 miles is higher gradient and the river tends to be more incised, situated within a canyon much of the way. The lower two miles is lower gradient and contains more depositional features such as point bars, islands and an alluvial delta at the confluence with Lake Chauekuktuli. Cursory inspection of aerial photo and videography indicate that cascade (Photos 3.5-6 and 3.5- 7), riffle (Photos 3.5-8 and 3.5-9), run (Photo 3.5-10), and pool (Photo 3.5-11) meso-habitat types are represented. Although relatively uncommon, some lateral habitat that should provide good rearing habitat is also present, primarily in the lower two miles of the Allen River (Photo 3.5-12). Several deep pool areas exist within the canyon areas and provide excellent adult and juvenile feeding and holding habitats. These same areas are also likely used as overwintering habitats. In general, overwintering habitat for salmonids tends to include areas that are relatively deep, with large cobble or boulder cover (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Beaver ponds and areas with upwelling were identified as being important overwintering areas in the Susitna River basin (Jennings 1985). While some of these features exist in the Allen River, as evidenced during aerial reconnaissance surveys in June and August, specific locations of these features have not been identified. The amount of suitable spawning habitat in the lower Allen River has also not been quantified but observations made during reconnaissance surveys completed in August indicate suitable spawning gravels are present in the river (e.g., Photo 3.5-13), primarily in locations proximal to shoreline areas as well as island complexes. 3.5.2.1 Potential Fish Passage Barriers No sockeye presence or spawning has been observed and reported for Chikuminuk Lake. Consequently, it is generally concluded that anadromous fish cannot ascend three potential fish passage impediments due to high water velocities associated with steep cascades. Two are located in the middle section of the Allen River (e.g., Photo 3.5-6, at river mile 3.7), and one in the upper section of the Allen River (Photo 3.5-7), at river mile 10.4. Nevertheless, there is some uncertainty about the factors limiting the distribution of sockeye salmon in the Allen River and to what extent potential impediments may be influenced by flow. The presence of barriers to fish passage of resident fish to tributaries of Chikuminuk Lake including Milk Creek and other unnamed inlet streams are also unknown. 3.5.2.2 Sediment, Ice, and Geomorphology Fluvial geomorphic conditions are fundamental physical attributes that contribute to the quantity and quality aquatic species spawning and rearing habitats. Bedload and suspended load transport rates for the Allen River are unknown at this time. The Allen River, Chikuminuk Lake, and its major tributaries are likely to experience some fluctuations in suspended sediment concentrations as a result of glacial melt and runoff from snowmelt or rainfall. Observations of stream and lake habitat during fish surveys conducted in July and August 2012 in the western portion of Chikuminuk Lake reflected these fluctuations. The Milk Creek delta and the surrounding lake habitat substrates were dominated by fines resulting from glacial melt. Tributaries in the southwest portion of the lake and southern shore of the main body of the lake provide substrates composed of silts and sands, gravel and cobble. The portion of Chikuminuk Lake nearshore habitat is composed primarily of clean gravel with very little silt and sand or other substrate types. This would indicate that most of the finer sediments carried into the lake from Milk Creek and other tributaries have settled out before the outlet to the Allen River. This was visually apparent during the June 2012 aerial reconnaissance ofthe lake. As previously noted, the large, deep lakes in the Tikchik basin, including Chikuminuk Lake, are sediment sinks that allow fine sediment delivered from upstream tributaries to settle out (Section 3.4). Consequently, outlet rivers such as the Allen River have relatively low levels of fine sediment. Furthermore, the Allen River for the first eight miles downstream of Chikuminuk Lake is high gradient and the floodplain is naturally limited due to local geology, which further reduces the opportunity for finer particles to settle. Most of the river channel is deeply incised through this section. ~HATCH~ Page 37 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 The presence of frazil ice, anchor ice, and continuous ice cover during the winter months can affect fish use in riverine habitats. Salmon ids often redistribute to overwintering habitat near the onset of winter (Bjornn 1971). Limited wintertime observations suggest that the Allen River does not form a continuous ice cover near the proposed dam site and USGS 15301500 gage site, although shore ice is common (Section 3.4). This may be due to the steepness of the channel, an influx of relatively warm groundwater, high winter base flows coming out of Chikuminuk Lake, or some combination of these factors. Limited wintertime observations at the dam site suggest that the Allen River does not form a continuous ice cover near the proposed dame site, although shore ice is common. Habitat utilization by salmonids can also change near the time of ice break-up in the spring (Jennings 1985). With the onset of warmer air temperatures during mid to late spring, the low-elevation snowpack melts first, causing the river discharge to increase. The rising water level puts pressure on the ice, causing fractures to develop in the ice cover. The severity of breakup is dependent upon the snow melt rate, the depth of the snowpack, and the amount of rainfall. Flooding and erosion that may occur during breakup are important factors influencing channel morphology. In addition, rising flows can make off-channel habitats accessible for rearing by emerging fry. Lake Aleknagik (elevation 37 feet), in the Wood River system is usually ice-free from early June to late October. It is the first of the lakes to breakup with the others following successively within a two week period (BLM 2005). Ice breakup on Lake Chauekuktuli and Chikuminuk Lake at elevations 315ft and 613 feet, respectively, would likely follow shortly thereafter. 3.5.2.3 Water Temperature Temperature is an important water quality parameter affecting the metabolic rates and behavior of salmonids (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Water temperature affects the activity level of fish during overwintering periods and also the developmental rates of incubating eggs. A limited amount of water quality information is available for the project area as described in Section 3.4. The only historical quantitative data identified during gap analysis were several water temperature measurements from the Allen River during August of 1982. Harza (1984) indicated that water entering the Allen River during the 1982 field visit was measured at soc and remained cold for the length of the river. Additionally, there is a paucity of information describing basic water chemistry, seasonal stratification/ turnover, or bathymetry for Chikuminuk Lake. These variables, in addition to temperature, likely influence the seasonal movements of resident fishes within the lake and its tributaries for feeding and reproduction. Continuous water temperature data collected during the summer of 2012 at four locations in the Allen River and one tributary to the Allen River are reported in Section 3.4. Preliminary results indicated temperatures declined rapidly during the second week of October for the tributary thermograph compared to those in the Allen River. The thermograph located at the mouth of the Allen suggested upwelling may be occurring, which tends to stabilize temperature fluctuations. The degree to which this may be influencing sockeye spawning in the area is unknown. There are few historical records of water temperatures in Chikuminuk Lake or its tributaries, including Milk Creek. Harza (1984) collected limited baseline lake surface to depth temperatures on August 26, 1982. Temperatures ranged from 8.0°C at the surface to 4SC at 197ft (60 m) depth. ABR biologists measured surface temperatures of 7.rc on Chikuminuk Lake on August 5, 2012 (ABR, unpublished data). Harza did not report temperature data for inlet streams, but Nuvista collected minimal data from several small tributaries in early July and August 2012. Water temperatures in four tributaries on the southern shore of Chikuminuk Lake ranged between 3.0 and 3.4°C on July 5th and 6th of 2012. Temperatures in Milk Creek Delta measured 5.3°C in the main channel near its outlet to Chikuminuk Lake and 7SC in slack water side channels of the Delta on August 3, 2012. ~HATCH~ Page 38 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.5.2.4 Riparian Habitat There are no previous riparian community studies or riparian baseline information specific to the Allen River or Chikuminuk Lake. Because of the isolated nature of the project site inside the Wood-Tikchik State Park, the riparian conditions along the lake shoreline and Allen River have been largely undisturbed. In protected valleys such as along the Allen River, dominant genera include willows, alders and cottonwoods (ADNR 2002). The riparian community is an important component to fish and aquatic resources that provides streambank stability, nutrients, and woody debris. Large woody debris (LWD) (logs, stumps, and branches) is an important component of stream ecosystems. It increases aquatic habitat diversity through the formation of pools, meanders, undercut banks, and backwater areas, aids in energy dissipation and in the deposition of spawning gravel, and it traps sediment and organic debris that can retain nutrients in the ecosystem and influence the development of riparian habitat communities. 3.5.2.5 Streamflow Fish and other aquatic fauna such as aquatic insects, often have specific flow-related requirements of water depth and velocity, and substrate types (Gore and Judy 1981), that along with other physical factors determine the quantity and quality of habitat. Streamflow also influences fish passage and other physical characteristics such as water temperature, substrate size distribution, stream bed morphology, and riparian function. However, no basic aquatic habitat mapping of the project area or development of habitat-flow relationships have been accomplished to date for the Allen River. Consequently, how streamflow regulation may influence the quantity and quality of habitats in the Allen River is currently unknown. In addition to the provision of spatial elements that define fish habitat, streamflow is also important for creating and maintaining these habitats. Such flows generally fall into the category of peak flows which typically occur as part of the natural runoff cycle associated with snowmelt and glacial melt processes. The peak flows in the Allen River are poorly understood because of the lack of a sufficiently long record of mean daily flows (Section 3.4). Finally, groundwater flow can provide a substantial contribution in some systems to the overall flow in a river. The majority of flow in the Allen River comes directly from Lake Chikuminuk, although there are likely locations of groundwater inflow occurring over the entire extent of the river down to its mouth with Lake Chauekuktuli. The locations and magnitude of groundwater inflows to the river is currently unknown. 3.5.3 Federal and/or State Management of Fishery or Fish Habitat 3.5.3.1 Fishery Most fish species of the project area are of management interest because of their use in subsistence and/or recreational activities and also their role in ecosystem dynamics. For these reasons, freshwater habitats for fish are protected by many state and federal water-quality and fish-habitat regulations. Because of their importance in commercial, sport, and subsistence harvest, anadromous fish (salmon, trout, and some whitefish populations) are of particular conservation interest, and development activities that could potentially affect anadromous fish waterbodies are regulated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 3.5.3.2 Habitat The federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996) was passed by Congress to provide Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for the nation's important fisheries. The plans are administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service which has created management plans for the five Pacific salmon species. As required by law, FMP's for anadromous species extend into freshwaters. Special provisions under this legislation are in place to protect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for fisheries that have a management plan (NMFS 2012). EFH is ~HATCH~ Page 39 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." Specific areas of the major rivers, tributaries, lakes, and ponds that would be classified as sensitive anadromous fish spawning and rearing habitats will need to be identified as EFH for all waterbodies in the project area. Once EFH components are fully identified, steps to ensure minimal disturbance to these areas both during and after construction of the project will be required. Chief concerns during and after construction periods will be the minimization of effluent releases, eliminating any alterations to EFH connectivity, and monitoring for and eliminating any potential behavioral changes in anadromous fish caused by increased anthropogenic activity in these streams. Alaska's Title 16 is the state regulatory statute devised to protect aquatic habitat important to anadromous and resident fish. Information on aquatic habitat important to anadromous fish is maintained by ADF&G in the "Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes" (ADF&G 2011) also known as the AWC. NOAA Fisheries Service generally refers to the ADF&G catalog when determining whether inland freshwater habitats warrant special protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Because the AWC documents sockeye salmon in both the lower Allen River and Lake Chauekuktuli, the habitat in these waters is automatically afforded special protection as EFH. 3.5.4 Temporal and Spatial Distribution 3.5.4.1 Chikuminuk Lake Chikuminuk Lake is the third most northern ofthe principal Tikchik lakes with a number of significant bays and outcrop islands (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971; Walsh et al. 2006; ADF&G 2011). Milk Creek feeds Chikuminuk Lake from the west and is the largest of several perennial tributaries to the lake. Milk Creek's headwaters are located at the outlet of Heart Lake and the creek drains several other lakes to the west of Chikuminuk including Cascade Lake (Figure 3.5-1). Most inlet streams to Chikuminuk Lake are unnamed and have never been surveyed for fish. The Allen River is the sole outlet of the lake and flows approximately 13 miles (21 km) south into Lake Chauekuktuli. Lake trout, arctic char, slimy sculpin, and ninespine stickleback have been documented in the Heart Lake system which includes Heart Lake, Cascade Lake, and Milk Creek, which drains into Chikuminuk Lake (Walsh et al. 2006). Chikuminuk Lake supports resident populations of lake trout, Dolly Varden, arctic char, slimy sculpin, and ninespine stickleback (Walsh et al. 2006; ADF&G 2011). In 2005, ADF&G documented a waterfall approximately 4.0 miles (6.5 km) northeast of Heart Lake on Milk Creek as part of the Alaska Freshwater Fish Inventory program (AFFI) and reported this as a fixed geological barrier to fish passage (Figure 3.5-2) (MacDonald 1996; ADF&G 2011). This suggests that fish passage from Chikuminuk Lake to Heart Lake is not possible. Heart Lake was surveyed in 1984 and 1987 by the USFWS as part of a four-year study of 21 Togiak National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lakes (MacDonald 1996). As part of this study, detailed bathymetry, fish sampling, plankton, and fish gut content data were collected. Discharge was also periodically recorded at the outlet of Heart Lake during genetic studies of lake trout (Walsh et al. 2006). This study investigated genetics for lake trout samples collected from a number of lakes, including Heart and Chikuminuk lakes, as a contribution to a study of the genetic relationships of lake trout populations within the Togiak NWR (Walsh et al. 2006). In 2005, a southern tributary to Chikuminuk Lake was sampled for fish presence/absence as part ofthe ADF&G AWC/AFFI program (ADF&G 2011; Wiedmer 2010). Reconnaissance-level surveys were undertaken in 2012 to evaluate fish species composition in Chikuminuk Lake and its tributaries (ABR, unpublished data). One small tributary was surveyed on the southern shore of the main body of Chikuminuk Lake and four tributaries were sampled on the southwest leg ofthe lake during July 2012 (Figure 3.5-3). An additional five stream channels associated with the Milk Creek delta were visually surveyed in July and then electrofished and minnow trapped in August 2012. Lake trout fry and juveniles were present in ~HATCH~ Page 40 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 small numbers in the lower gradient (<5%) reaches sampled during this time. Large schools of lake trout fry were visible in backwater sloughs of the Milk Creek delta in July but had dispersed by August sampling. Adult lake trout were captured using hook and line at the southwestern-most portion of Chikuminuk Lake in July 2012 near the outlets to several tributaries in that area. Adult lake trout and arctic char were caught at the outlet of Milk Creek to Chikuminuk Lake (Figure 3.5-3). Sport fishing guides from nearby Tikchik Narrows Lodge have suggested the presence of large lake trout (>30 inches fork total length) in deeper portions of the lake in years past (Hodson 2012, pers. comm.). The survey team was unable to sample deeper waters in 2012 but nearshore hook and line sampling at the mouth of Milk Creek yielded nearly two dozen lake trout adults averaging approximately 17 inches in total length. Lake trout outnumbered the similarly sized arctic char by a ratio of 10:1 during hook and line surveys near the mouth of Milk Creek. Small numbers of sculpin (Cottidea spp.) were captured via electrofishing in the lower reaches of most of the tributaries to Chikuminuk Lake that were surveyed in July and August 2012. Ninespine sticklebacks were captured in minnow traps at the mouth of Milk Creek in August 2012. Additional sampling carried out by ADF&G in August 2005 and by a group of researchers from ADF&G, USGS, and The Nature Conservancy in August 2010 occurred in one large tributary flowing into the south shore of the main body of Chikuminuk Lake as well several small tributaries in the northwest corner of the lake. These surveys found lake trout, Dolly Varden, arctic char, slimy sculpin, and ninespine stickleback (Figure 3.5-3). The degree to which seasonal fish movement in and out of Chikuminuk Lake is possible from either its major inlet at Milk Creek or its major outlet at the Allen River is unclear. However anecdotal information provided by fishing guides in the region (Hodson 2012, pers. comm.) suggests that physical structures resulting in falls/cascades and/or channel constrictions resulting in velocity chutes exist in both streams and can impede or prevent upstream migration of fish. It is also unknown whether fish found in tributaries to Chikuminuk Lake are present seasonally or if overwintering habitat is available allowing fish occupancy year round. 3.5.4.2 Allen River Sockeye salmon spawn in the lower reaches of the Allen River and along the shores of Lake Chauekuktuli (ADF&G 2011). The Anadromous Waters Catalog (AWC) depicts the upstream extent of sockeye salmon in the Allen River as roughly 1.9 miles (3.1 km) north of Lake Chauekuktuli. However, the most recent AWC nomination amendment occurred in 2011 and resulted in a slight extension of the observed upstream presence of sockeye in the Allen River (Wiedmer et al. 2010; ADF&G 2011). Reconnaissance-level surveys were undertaken in 2012 to evaluate fish species composition and periodicity in the Allen River (ABR, unpublished data). Opportunistic minnow trapping, electrofishing and hook and line fishing surveys were conducted on the in the river as well as one of its tributaries and a series of springs near the lower section of the river, in late July and early September 2012. In addition, visual observations were made during August 2012 field reconnaissance surveys (R2 Resource Consultants 2012a, 2013). Sockeye salmon were observed in the outlet of the Allen River as it enters Lake Chauekuktuli and along its shoreline near the outlet of the Allen River from late July until early September during flights over the river. Several adult sockeye were observed in the lower Allen River during the August 1-3 field trip including a single observation upstream of the uppermost point noted in the AWC (Figure 3.5-4). However, no redds or spawning activity was observed in the river during that survey and no sockeye were observed in the river during the August 27-28 trip. Sockeye salmon were observed along the shoreline of Lake Chauekuktuli during both the August 1-3 and August 27-28 field trips. Fishing guides at Tikchik Narrows Lodge (Hodson 2012, pers. comm.) have described a popular arctic grayling fishery in the lower Allen River from the mouth at Lake Chauekuktuli upstream to a canyon and a large set of rapids which preclude upstream boat travel (Figure 3.5-4). During the September surveys, several arctic grayling ~HATCH~ Page 41 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 were captured within this section of the river using hook and line methods (ABR, unpublished data). Additionally, slimy sculpin, arctic grayling and unidentified juvenile char were caught in minnow traps and by electrofishing in the lower river and several small tributaries (Figure 3.5-4). Several juvenile arctic char were captured via minnow traps within a side slough complex located parallel to the river at the upper end of this segment (R2 Resource Consultants 2012a). 3.5.4.3 Transmission Corridor A literature review and gap analysis for fish and aquatics was conducted for the direct, West transmission route alternative between the hydropower development on Chikuminuk Lake and Bethel, which includes portions of the Kuskokwim River drainage. The major drainages of the Lower Kuskokwim River are the Aniak, Tuluksak, Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk, and Eek rivers (Figure 3.5-5). This alternative would cross the Kisaralik, Kasigluk, and Kwethluk River watersheds (Figure 3.5-5). These rivers and associated tributaries have their headwaters in the Kilbuck and Ahklun mountains and flow through the northern portion of the Yukon Delta NWR, (Brown et al. 1985; USFWS 1988). All five species of Pacific salmon are found in the transmission corridor (Table 3.5-3) (Ait 1977; Wilson et al. 1982; Brown et al. 1985). In addition to the five Pacific salmon, these waterways support up to 20 other species of anadromous, and resident fishes (Figure 3.5-5; Tables 3.5-3 and 3.5-4) (Ait 1977; Wilson et al. 1982; UFWS 1988). The extent to which individual species utilize the area's aquatic habitats for reproduction, rearing, and feeding varies widely on both spatial and temporal scales (Table 3.5-4). Salmon spawning in the Kisaralik River occurs principally between Quartz Creek (see Figure 3.5-5) and Nukluk Creek (about 25 river miles downstream from Quartz Creek), although coho and Chinook salmon also spawn in Kisaralik Lake, the headwaters of the river (Ait 1977; Faurot and Jones 1992; Buzzel 2010; ADF&G 2011). The river's mid-section is a popular sport fishing area for rainbow trout, arctic char, and arctic grayling (Harper et al. 1997). Commercial and subsistence fishing for Chinook and chum salmon occurs near the confluence of the Kisaralik River with the Kuskokwim River (Baxter 1981, 1982). The major salmon spawning in the Kasigluk River occurs upstream of the confluence with Columbia Creek and continues into the headwaters of the system (ADF&G 2011). Rainbow trout are present in the Kasigluk drainage, although sport fishing for these and other non-salmon species, such as northern pike and arctic char, is less intensive than in the Kisaralik River (Ait 1977; Wilson et al. 1982). Substantial commercial and subsistence fishing for Chinook and chum salmon occurs near the confluence of the Kasigluk River with the Kuskokwim River (Wilson et al. 1982; Boyd and Coffing 2000). The Kwethluk River offers rearing habitat for all species of salmon, rainbow trout, arctic char, and arctic grayling. The braided, gravel-bottomed mid-section of the river provides habitat for spawning Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon, although all four species occur as far upstream as the headwaters of Crooked Creek (Figure 3.5-5) (Ait 1977; Wilson et al. 1984; Roettiger et al. 2004; ADF&G 2011). The Kwethluk receives considerable subsistence and commercial fishing at its confluence with the Kuskokwim River; in the early 1980s it was described as having the most sport fishing pressure of the main Lower Kuskokwim tributaries (Wilson et al. 1982). ~HATCH~ Page 42 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Figure 3.5-4 Resident and Anadromous Fish Observations on Allen River Allen River Aquatic Survey Results Fishing Effort and Sbum Futures e Hoole and Una • Minnow Trap Q Electrofishing Q VISual ObS8Mition • Stream Feature Fish Obsemllons ,.... Arctic Grayling ~ Ninespine Stickleback *' Uni:lenfified Char ~ Sockeye Salmon *' Slimy Sculpin ADFG Anadromous Waters Catalog (thru 2012) 0 Anadromous Fish Obserwtioos ~ Anadromous Fish Waters S • Soclleye Salmon p· present s-spawning Sources: 2012 Reconnaissance trips ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog, 2011 ~HATCH '" April2014 Page43 "'0 !l.l O'Q 111 t: Study Area Dra i nage Basins and Fish Community Composition along West Transmission Route Alternative to Bethel -Proposed Transmission Line Alternati ves 0 Lake Study Area B 1/Vatarshad Boundaries (NHD Level 5)- ['_] Park or Refuge Boundaries • The Alllk.l 0.~ of Filh and Game's (AOFG) Anadromoua .,..,. bodlel data dllpicl 1hl tnowon 1Mdrornoua fllh bNMg lakel and alrHrns wilhin AIIIU (from the mouth to the known upper exblnt of apede:l uugo). ADFG upd8la lhe AMdrvmous Strelml dati regulerty. Dati for the ..... filM .,. current .. ol 1hl 2012 NVilion. -AI<fV.alul<a.govllf/SARRIA-.dm?odfV._po.inlorodlve ""WIIIOroi'CI 1te -on lho Slh -Hydrologioll Un~ ~ (HUC) boundarita. Detalel wu produced by the USGS, NRCS, and lhe EPA and can t. downloaded from t1UpJfnhd.usgr..gov/ Sources: Alt 1977; Wilson et al. 1982; Baxter 1981, 1982; Fa rout and Jones 1992. Alukan Blaekfllh, LongnoM SliCk..-. Ardie L.mprey, R1inbow Smett. Pond Smelt, Sli N1ne1plne -n ::J :::r .... -· I'D .... :::::!. c: 3 3 ., :r I'D c: Ill .... !!!. ::I: ~~ .... .., < 0 ::1:1~ I'D I'D "C ~ ~ ;:i· ' "'C <.., 0 .Q. -I'D 3 ~ I'D m X !a" :;· OQ m ::J ~. 0 ::J 3 I'D ::J g_ n 0 ::J a. ;::;: (5' ::J "' )> ~ "" 0 .... ,.. Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.5-3 Reported Fish Species in Major Drainages along West Transmission Route Alternative Common Name Scientific Name Life History Major Drainages Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Anadromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Sockeye salmon 0. nerka Anadromous Kisaralik, Kwethluk Coho salmon 0. kisutch Anadromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Chum salmon 0. keta Anadromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Chinook salmon 0. tshawytscha Anadromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Rainbow trout 0. mykiss Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Dolly Varden Sa/velinus malma Resident or Anadromous Kisaralik, Kwethluk Arctic char S. a/pinus Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Lake trout S. namaycush Resident Kisaralik Arctic grayling Thymol/us arcticus Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Least cisco Coregonus sardinel/a Amphidromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Humpback whitefish C. pidschian Amphidromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Broad whitefish C. nasus Amphidromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Bering cisco C. /aurettae Amphidromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Burbot Lata Iota Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Sheefish Stenodus leucichthys Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Northern pike Esox lucius Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Alaska blackfish Dal/ia pectoralis Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Arctic lamprey Lampetra japonica Anadromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Rainbow smelt Osmerus dentex Anadromous Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Pond smelt Hypomesus o!idus Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius Resident Kisaralik, Kasigluk, Kwethluk Sources: ADF&G 2011; Faurot and Jones 1992; Baxter 1981, 1982; Wilson et al. 1982; Alt 1977. In 1975 and 1976, ADF&G conducted detailed surveys of fish presence and utilization of the major tributaries of the Lower Kuskokwim River (i.e., Aniak, Tuluksak, Kisaralik, Kasigluk, and Kwethluk rivers) and Kuskokwim Bay (i.e., Eek, Kanektok, and Goodnews) (Ait 1977). Life history, habitat use, food availability, and age structure of anadromous and resident fishes of the area were extensively analyzed. Diets of arctic grayling, arctic char, and rainbow trout from several of the rivers of the Lower Kuskokwim River drainages were determined from gut content analysis. Of the major drainages of the Lower Kuskokwim River, the Kisaralik River has received the most attention because of a proposed hydroelectric project in the 1970s and its consideration for designation as a national Wild and Scenic River (NPS 1984; Brown et al. 1985; Faurot and Jones 1992; Harper et al. 1997; Buzzell 2010). Salmon runs in the major tributaries of the Lower Kuskokwim River and Kuskokwim Bay have been monitored by ADF&G since 1954 (Wilson et al. 1982). While the distribution of fish species is fairly well understood, in some cases, synthesis of fish and other aquatic resource information is lacking, particularly in headwaters associated with the Kisaralik, Kasigluk, and Kwethluk River watersheds. In addition, little information on the factors affecting these species' life histories, including habitat availability, food availability, fish migratory timing, and spawning behavior is available. ~HATCH~ Page 45 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.5-4 Spawning Periodicity, Preferred Spawning Locations, and life History Notes for Fish in Major Drainages of the Lower Kuskokwim River Common Name Pink salmon Sockeye salmon Coho salmon Chum salmon Chinook salmon Rainbow trout Arctic char Lake trout Arctic grayling Least cisco Humpback whitefish Broad whitefish Bering cisco Burbot Sheefish Northern pike Period Jul Aug-Sep Sep-Oct Jul Late Jun-Jul Late May- early Jun Late May- earlyJun Sep-Oct Late May- early Jun Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Sep-Gct Sep-Dct Nov-Dec Early Oct Late May Spawning Activity Location Lower sections of main rivers with suitable substrate Shallow tributaries and side channels w/ suitable substrate and lake connections Shallow tributaries and side channels with suitable substrate Shallow tributaries and side channels with suitable substrate Shallow tributaries and side channels with suitable substrate Shallow tributaries and side channels with suitable substrate Shallow tributaries and side channels with suitable substrate Shallower rocky areas of deep, upland lakes Shallow tributaries and side channels with suitable substrate Slower waters of the mainstem Kuskokwim River Slower waters of the mainstem Kuskokwim River Slower waters of the mainstem Kuskokwim River Slower waters of the mainstem Kuskokwim River Deep areas of the mainstem Kuskokwim River and major its tributaries Mainstem of the Kuskokwim River Slow moving waters of interconnected lakes and larger tributaries of the mainstem Kuskokwim River Sources: ADF&G 2011, Faurot and Jones 1992, Wilson et al. 1982, Alt 1977. ~HATCH~ life History Notes Limited odd/even year runs. Even years are the Limited runs; more common in the Kuskokwim Bay drainages Second most abundant salmon species in the Lower Kuskokwim River Most common salmon species in the Lower Kuskokwim River Moderate runs in larger tributaries Widely dispersed and common in larger rivers and their tributaries. Overwinter in deep holes of rivers Widely dispersed with varied life histories. Stream and lake residents as well as anadromous stream Do not spawn in consecutive years Widely dispersed and found in good number in larger rivers, tributaries and connected lakes. Overwintering occurs in the Kuskokwim and mouths of tributaries Widely distributes in low-lying lakes and in the lower reaches of tributaries Found in the lower reaches of larger tributaries to the Kuskokwim River Mainly occur in the mainstem Kuskokwim, occasionally in the lower reaches of major tributaries Mainly found in the mainstem Kuskokwim and its downstream brackish waters Found mainly in deeper, low-lying lakes and in the lower reaches of larger tributaries Occasionally use tributaries of the Lower Kuskokwim River Likely overwinter in the mainstem of the Kuskokwim Page 46 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Photo 3.5-1 _ View of northwest arm of Chikuminuk Lake. The broad floodplain in the distance was sampled by ADF&G in 2010. Photo 3.5-2 Typical view of lower reach of streams on southern shore of Chikuminuk Lake. ~HATCH '" Page 47 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report -Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Photo 3.5-3 View of broad floodplain associated with Milk Creek delta. The main channel of Milk Creek flows near the base of the mountain in the left of photo. 111111121112 11 :48 Photo 3.5-4 Looking west across the south shore of Chikuminuk Lake. Note the typical gradient of shoreline with lower reaches of streams available as fish habitat while upper reaches are higher gradient. ~HATCH '" Page48 • Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Photo 3.5-5 View of lower gradient northeast shore of Chikuminuk Lake. Few significant streams were seen flowing into this portion of lake during June 2012 reconnaissance surveys. No fish sampling has occurred in this portion of the lake to date. Photo 3.5-6 Cascades in the Allen River at River Mile 3.7, thought to be at least a partial barrier to anadromous fish distribution. ~HATCH '" Page 49 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Photo 3.5-7 Cascades in the upper Allen River near the proposed powerhouse at River Mile 10.4. This set of cascades likely poses a partial barrier to anadromous fish distribution. Photo 3.5-8 Chikuminuk Lake outlet, preferred project features downstream of this view. ~HATCH '" Page 50 • Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Exist ing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Photo 3.5-9 Representative riffle habitat in the Allen River. Photo 3.5-10 Representative aerial photograph of run habitat in the Allen River. ~HATCH '" Page 51 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Photo 3.5-11 Representative view of pool type habitat in the Allen River. • Photo 3.5-12 Representative photograph of lateral rearing habitat in the lower Allen River. P&HATCH '" Page 52 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Photo 3.5-13 Representative photograph of potential spawning habitat in the lower Allen River ~HATCH '" Page 53 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim 1-Pri«:.hllltv Environmental Conditions 2014 3.6 Botanical Resources The following description of botanical resources, wetlands, riparian and littoral habitat is based on the literature review and data gap analysis report for the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project (ABR 2012). The two study areas identified in the 2012 Biological Resources report were the Allen River/Chikuminuk Lake basin or lake study area, where the inundation area and all Project facilities would be located, and the West transmission corridor study area, comprising the West Route between Chikuminuk Lake and Bethel. Other alternative transmission line corridors discussed in Volume I, including the Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham alternatives, were not under consideration during development of the gap analysis. Although this overview also does not specifically cover them, vegetation patterns are likely to be similar for many portions of alternative corridors. Further botanical literature review and data gap analysis studies are needed before additional routes are considered. No vegetation or wetlands assessments or fine-scale mapping studies of vegetation or wetlands have been conducted within the Project study areas. Several regional or Alaska-wide (coarse-scale) vegetation and wetlands mapping efforts cover some or all of the study areas, but these map products do not provide the detail necessary to delineate vegetation and wetland types at the finer scales required for permitting the proposed Project. 3.6.1 Land Cover Types and Plant Species 3.6.1.1 Physiographic Relationships Little information on vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife habitat types is currently available specific to the Project study areas. However, there are several vegetation-land cover reports focused on similar ecosystems relatively near the lake study area or the West transmission corridor study area, and it can reasonably be assumed that the vegetation in these study areas is at least roughly similar. In particular, several studies (Morsel! et al. 1981; Wilson et al. 1982; NPS 1984a; and USFWS 1988) provide general information on vegetation types that have been identified around Lake Elva to the south in the Wood River lakes system, in the Kisaralik River drainage to the northwest, and in the southern portions of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta to the west. The following provisional sketch of the vegetation and land cover types likely to occur in the lake study area and West transmission corridor is based on information in those studies, on the authors' field experience in Wood-Tikchik State Park, the Ahklun Mountains, and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, and a review of field photographs taken in the study areas by other consultants in September 2010. The lake study area includes Alpine, Subalpine, Upland, Riverine, and Lacustrine physiographic zones. The West transmission corridor occurs primarily within Lowland physiography, but also includes vegetation types typical to the Subalpine, Upland, Riverine, and Lacustrine physiographic zones. The Alpine zone primarily includes barrens and glaciated terrain and mountain heath plant communities on mountain crests, upper slopes and ridgetops. The Subalpine zone is the most common physiographic region and includes the entire area surrounding Chikuminuk Lake, primarily steep slopes supporting tall shrub, mixed forb, and mountain heath vegetation types. Uplands include the lower forested slopes adjacent to Lake Chikuminuk mainly composed of coniferous forest. Riverine communities include open water and shrub vegetation types along the Allen River, in tributary inlets to Chikuminuk Lake, such as the Milk Creek delta, and along various streams in the upper basin. Lacustrine types include small ponds and lakes and associated shoreline littoral areas including Heart Lake, Cascade Lake, and primarily, Chikuminuk Lake. The West transmission corridor descends from the mountainous region surrounding Chikuminuk Lake and crosses the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta lowlands to Bethel. The landcover types found within the mountainous terrain are expected to be similar to the lake study area and the Y-K Delta lowlands will include a variety of types, predominantly wetland. Previous vegetation classification work in the Y-K Delta has focused on coastal Page 54 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 areas near population centers and is not directly applicable to the West transmission corridor, which is expected to include a range of low shrub and herbaceous wet tundra types interspersed with numerous lakes, ponds, and streams. 3.6.1.2 Plant Community Descriptions At the highest elevations in the mountains, on steep upper slopes and ridge crests surrounding Chikuminuk Lake, dry alpine barrens, unconsolidated boulder and fell-field terrain and snow and ice are common. Some sites are likely to be partially vegetated with dwarf vascular plants (<5% plant cover). Below the ridge tops on upper slopes, alpine barrens grade into alpine dwarf scrub. These areas likely are dominated by dwarf ericaceous shrubs such as Arctostaphylos alpina, Empetrum nigrum, Vaccinium vitis-idaea, Loiseleuria procumbens, and dwarf willows such Salix arctica and S. rotundifolia. At lower elevations on middle and lower slopes, alpine dwarf scrub probably gives way to a broad band of alder (Alnus spp) scrub. The alders can be low (<1.5 m) or tall (>1.5 m) in height, and the understory may be composed of herbaceous species such as Dryopteris expansa, Athyrium filix-femina, Calamagrostis canadensis, Spiraea stevenii, and Equisetum spp. Alder scrub often dominates all the way to the bases of the mountain slopes, but occasional openings occur in the alder thickets, and these can be dominated by tall grasses (Calamagrostis canadensis), ferns (Dryopteris expansa, Athyrium filix-femina), and forbs. The most common plant community type in the mountainous region of the lake study area is low shrub scrub. This type is likely to occur on well drained mesic sites. Low shrub scrub in the study area is occupies hummocky terrain and dominated by dwarf or very low-growing shrub birch (Betula nana) and ericaceous shrubs such as Empetrum nigrum, Ledum decumbens, Vaccinium uliginosum, and Vaccinium vitis-idaea. Natural depressions, toeslopes or other water gathering topography support wet sedge meadow plant communities. These areas would be strongly dominated by sedges (Carex and Eriophorum spp.) with associated dwarf shrubs and forbs. As the West transmission corridor descends to the Y-K Delta lowlands it passes through rolling foothills terrain that is dominated by mesic low shrub or tussock dominated plant communities. The low shrub communities typically have a high graminoid component composed of a variety of sedge species including Carex aquatilis and Eriophorum vaginatum. Shrubs are dominated by ericaceous types including Empetrum nigrum, Ledum decumbens, Vaccinium uliginosum, and Vaccinium vitis idaea. Shrub birch (Betula nana) and a variety of willow species (Salix spp.) are found along drainage channels in headwaters. The foothills give way to an open expanse of lowland plant communities typically dominated by wetland communities such as wet sedge meadow and aquatic marshes. The area is characterized by a discontinuous permafrost layer and plant communities are limited by the presence of persistent surface water where drainage is impeded by shallow frozen soil layers. Wet sedge meadows are dominated by aquatic sedge species including Carex aquatilis. The aquatic marsh communities may also support obligate forb species such as Comarum palustre and Menyanthes trifoliata. Forested habitats appear to be relatively uncommon in the study areas, and are more likely to occur in the lowlands ofthe Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region, along the lower portions of river and stream drainages in the West transmission corridor study area. Forests, especially broad leaf forests, probably occur only sporadically in patches in protected locations in the mountains and foothills. Open spruce forests, dominated by white (Picea glauco) or black spruce (P. mariana), mixed forests, and broad leaf forests all probably occur, primarily in the West transmission line corridor. Mixed forests likely would be composed largely of white spruce and balsam poplar {Populus balsamifera), and, to a lesser extent, Alaska paper birch {Betula neoalaskana). Broad leaf forests likely would be dominated by balsam poplar and less frequently by Alaska paper birch and aspen {Populus tremuloides). Associated understory plant species in spruce forests are likely to include Ledum decumbens, Betula nana, Empetrum nigrum, Vaccinium uliginosum, and Vaccinium vitis-idaea. Mixed forest and broadleaf forests likely would share some of the same understory species such as Alnus spp., Rosa acicularis, Ribes triste, ~HATCH~ Page 55 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Viburnum edule, Spiraea stevenii, Epilobium angustifo/ium, Ca/amagrostis canadensis, Equisetum spp., and Rubus arcticus. Riparian floodplain areas are found along the Allen River, in tributary inlets to Chikuminuk Lake, such as the Milk Creek delta, and along various streams in the upper basin. Upper perennial streams found in the upper basin are high velocity high gradient systems with very little floodplain development whereas the lower perennial rivers listed above display a typical riverine successional community gradient which includes permanently flooded channels, riverine barrens, riverine graminoid meadow, and riverine low and tall willow. Plant communities are strongly dominated by willow species including Salix pulchra, S. arbusculoides, S. barclayi, and S. richardsonii. Lakes and ponds occur throughout the study areas, and graminoid-and forb-dominated marshes occur along lake and pond margins where poor drainage is dictated by seasonal fluctuations in lake water levels. Graminoid- dominated marshes may be dominated by sedges (Carex and Eriophorum spp.) and grasses (Calamagrostis canadensis), with associated forbs such as Comarum palustre and horsetails (Equisetum spp.). Forb-dominated marshes may be dominated by species such as Comarum pa/ustre, Menyanthes trifoliata, and Hippuris tetraphyl/a. 3.6.2 Rare and Invasive Plant Species 3.6.2.1 Rare Plants Only one plant species in Alaska currently is listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2010). The Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum), which is listed as endangered, is restricted to two islands (Adak and Atka) in the central Aleutian Island chain (USFWS 2010). The State of Alaska does not list any plant species as endangered (ADFG 2010). Although no rare plant species in Alaska are protected by law, the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) tracks the status of plant taxa that are considered to be rare in Alaska. The AKNHP maintains a database with collection locality and habitat information for rare and/or endemic vascular plants in the state. To determine which of these rare plant taxa have the potential to occur in the lake study area or West transmission corridor study area, data were requested from AKNHP's spatially explicit database of rare species (AKNHP 2008, 2012a) for collections of rare plants that have been made in a broad region surrounding the Project study areas. The search area was 39,750 km 2 (15,347 mi 2) and included Wood-Tikchik State Park, the southern portion of the Kilbuck Mountains, the Ahklun Mountains, Bethel, and Dillingham. In this assessment of rare plant occurrences, only taxa with the rarer state rankings (51 and 52) were considered. Taxa listed as 51 and 52 are categorized by the AKNHP as critically imperiled or imperiled, respectively, in Alaska, largely because few collections of these plants have been made in the state. For 51 species, five or fewer collections have been made in the state and/or there are very few remaining individual plants, and for 52 species, six to 20 collections have been made (Lipkin and Murray 1997). ~HATCH~ Page 56 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.6-1 Rare Vascular Plant Taxaa Found Broadly from Dillingham to Bethel Including Wood-Tikchik State Park No. of State Global Scientific Name Common Name Collections Rankb Ranke Carex lapponica Lapland sedge 1 52 G4GSQ Co rex preslii Presl's sedge 1 51 G4 Cape Thompson Draba chamissonis G. Don draba 1 51Q G3Q Eleocharis kamtschatica Kamchatka spikerush 3 5253 G4 Geum aleppicum Yellow avens 3 5253 GSTS Saxifraga adscendens ssp. oregonensis Small saxifrage 2 5253 GST4TS Saxifraga nelsoniana ssp. porsildiana Prosild's saxifrage 1 52 GST4 Thalictrum minus ssp. kemense (Fr.) Cajander Hulten's meadow-rue 3 52 GNR Carex lapponica Lapland sedge 1 52 G4GSQ a Data from the Alaska Natural Heritage Program's spatially explicit database of rare species (AKNHP 2008 and 2012a, 2012b). b State rarity rankings: 51= critically imperiled, 52 =imperiled, and 53= vulnerable. c Global rarity rankings: G2 =imperiled, G3 =vulnerable, G4 =apparently secure, GS =demonstrably secure, T rank of subspecies or variety, Q indicates uncertainty about taxonomic status that may affect global rank and NR no record. 3.6.2.2 Invasive Plants Resource agencies have become increasingly concerned about the potential for invasive plant species to become established as a result of construction activities associated with new developments. As a result, the USFS, NPS, BLM, Alaska Natural Heritage Program, and other stakeholders formed the Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management (CNIPM) and developed the Strategic Plan for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management in Alaska (Graziano 2011). The CNIPM has developed a statewide mapping program and provides internet updates regularly as new surveys are conducted (http:/ /aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/maps/akepic/) (AKNHP 2012b}. The database was queried for information on invasive weed surveys in a wide area surrounding the lake and West transmission corridor study areas. Location information was obtained for seven invasive species: Amaranthus retroflexus (red root pigweed), Capsella bursa-pastoris (shepherd's purse), Cerastium fontanum (big chickweed), Crepis tectorum (narrowleaf hawksbeard), Leontodon autumnalis (fall dandelion), Matricaria discoidea (pineappleweed), and Rumex acetosella (common sheep sorrel}. All these species occurrences were found on disturbed surfaces in the villages of Dillingham and Kwethluk, both outside of the biological resources study areas. The study areas are largely undisturbed, but invasive species may be transported into these remote areas by float plane. While it is probable that invasive species are relatively rare within these study areas, the absence of invasive species data is also due to the lack of surveys undertaken in the area. ~HATCH'" Page 57 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.6.3 Plant Species Distribution and Wetland Delineation 3.6.3.1 Habitat Mapping and Use Assessment The availability of habitats for wildlife often is assessed using a vegetation map but can be more accurately described by incorporating mapping data for physiography, landforms, and soil moisture with data on vegetation and land cover (Jorgenson et al. 2002; Schick and Davis 2008). As noted above, only coarse-scale vegetation mapping is available for the biological resources study areas; this information is not suitable to derive a wildlife habitat map that could be used to quantitatively evaluate the proposed Project's potential affect on habitats. 3.6.3.2 Wetland Mapping and Determination No fine-scale mapping of vegetation, wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitats specific to the lake study area or the transmission corridor alternatives has been conducted. Wetlands in Alaska are classified using the three- parameter approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region Version 2.0 (USACE 2007). To be classified as a wetland, a site must be dominated by hydrophytic plants, have hydric soils, and show evidence of wetland hydrologic conditions (saturation or inundation of sufficient duration during the growing season). Only two sources (Whitcomb et al. 2009, USFWS 2012) describe wetlands in some portions of the lake and West transmission corridor study areas; both of those studies involved only coarse-scale mapping efforts. Page 58 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.7 Wildlife Resources The following description of wildlife resources is based on the literature review and data gap analysis report for the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project (ABR 2012). The two study areas identified and discussed in the 2012 report were the Chikuminuk Lake basin or lake study area (Figure 3.5-1), where the inundation area and all Project facilities would be located, and the West transmission corridor study area, comprising the West Route between Chikuminuk Lake and Bethel. Other alternative transmission corridors including the Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham alternatives were not under consideration during development of the gap analysis. Although this wildlife resources overview also does not specifically cover them, much of the general discussion regarding likely species and habitat conditions in alternative transmission corridors may apply. 3.7.1 Mammals At least 37 species of terrestrial mammals have been documented or are considered likely to occur in the Project study areas (Table 3.7-1). The mammal fauna in the project area includes three species of ungulates (hoofed mammals), two species of bears, eleven species of furbearing carnivores, two species of hares, thirteen species of rodents, five species of shrews, and one bat species (common and scientific names of mammals are provided in Table 3.7-1). Five other species of mammals recorded elsewhere in southwestern Alaska-Dall's sheep (Ovis dalli), water shrew (Sorex palustris), singing vole (Microtus miurus), taiga vole (Microtus xanthognathus), and collared pika (Ochotona collaris)-are not likely to occur in the project area or along any of the proposed transmission route alternatives because their distributions end farther east or north. 3.7.1.1 Moose Moose habitat varies seasonally and geographically based on their requirements for forage, protection from predators, specific nutrients, and refuge from deep winter snow. Productive areas of shrub growth, especially willows (Salix spp.), provide high-quality forage; aquatic areas provide important nutrients such as sodium and early emerging, high-quality spring vegetation (MacCracken et al. 1993; Kellie 2005); and mature forests with closed canopies provide areas with lower snow depths in winter. In mountainous areas, moose often move to higher elevations during the rut in fall and early winter, but remain in low-elevation areas almost exclusively during winter, due to deep snow accumulations at higher elevations (Modaferri 1999). Snow deeper than about 70 em limits moose mobility and covers many of the preferred forage species (Coady 1974; Collins and Helm 1997). Moose have only recently moved into the Bristol Bay region, with the first reports occurring in the Wood-Tikchik area in the early 1900s (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971). During surveys in 1970, moose were observed near upland ponds in the vicinity of Chikuminuk Lake (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971). The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) began collecting data on moose in GMU 17 (see Figure 3.7-1) in 1971, a time at which moose were not abundant (Faro 1973, cited in Woolington 2010b). High harvest of moose of either sex by local residents was suspected to be a major factor in keeping the population low in that period (Woolington 2010b). In the last several decades, however, the moose population has grown substantially and extended its range westward into the Togiak River drainage. Moose are now common in the Wood-Tikchik area (Woolington 2010b). The Alaska Habitat Management Guide (ADF&G 1986) indicates that moose are distributed throughout the project area, with known winter and rutting concentration areas where some parts of the West transmission route alternative cross the upper Kisaralik River basin, the lower Kwethluk River valley and lower Kuskokwim River (Figure 3.7-2). Possible reasons for the increase in population include relatively mild winters, decreased harvest of cows, and increased use of caribou by local hunters as an alternative resource (Woolington 2010b). The West transmission route alternative would be located largely in GMU 18, which coincides with the Yukon Delta NWR. Moose are thought to have first become established on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in the 1940s. ~HATCH~ Page 59 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim rea~;IDIIItv Environmental Conditions 2014 The current population along the Kuskokwim River is small and still colonizing riparian habitat (Perry 2010b). The population in the area probably is limited by harvest rates. In 2004, the Lower Kuskokwim Fish and Game Advisory Committee asked the Board of Game to close moose hunting along the Lower Kuskokwim River for five years (Perry 2010b). In response, the Board established the Lower Kuskokwim Closed Area. Based on population surveys conducted by ADF&G, the moose population along the Lower Kuskokwim River increased from 0.1 moose per square mile in 2004 to 0.8 moose per square mile in 2008. Calf survival rates and bull:cow ratios were extremely high in the area. The tributaries of the Kuskokwim River also support small populations of colonizing animals from the mainstem Kuskokwim River (Perry 2010b). The area around Chikuminuk Lake is considered general habitat for moose but is not considered a calving, winter, or rutting area; the Tikchik River east of Chikuminuk Lake is the closest winter range (BLM 2007). Based on the most recent moose surveys conducted by ADF&G in 2002 for eastern GMU 17B and in 2006 for western GMU 17B, an estimated 3,163 moose (±374 at 90% Cl) inhabit GMU 17B, below the ADF&G management objective of 4,900-6,000 moose for the subunit (Woolington 2010b). Moose have been expanding rapidly in the Togiak NWR. Aderman et al. (1995) estimated a density of 0.33 moose per square mile in the Togiak River drainage and Wood River Mountains west of the Wood River lakes system. In a recent study, 83 radio telemetry collars were deployed on female moose and it was reported that yearling moose in the Togiak NWR were among the heaviest on record, and that moose had very high rates of productivity, high calf survival, and high rates of calving for two-year-old moose (Aderman and Woolington 2011). No population estimate of moose is available for the project area, either in the lake study area or in the West transmission corridor study area . Moose density will be related strongly to habitat distribution and abundance in the project area, so development of a GIS-based habitat map will be useful in identifying moose distribution. Page 60 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Table 3.7-1 Mammal Species Reported or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Cinereus shrew, masked shrew, common shrew Sorex cine reus Pygmy shrew Sorex hoyi Dusky shrew, montane shrew Sorex monticolus Tundra shrew Sorex tundrensis Alaska tiny shrew Sorex yukonicus Little brown bat, little brown myotis Myotis /ucifugus Coyote Canis latrans Wolf Canis lupus Arctic fox* A/apex lagopus Red fox Vulpes vu/pes Lynx Lynx canadensis River otter Lontra canadensis Wolverine Gulo gulo Marten Martes americana Ermine, short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea Least weasel Mustela nivalis Mink Neovison vison Black bear Ursus americanus Brown bear, grizzly bear Ursus arctos Moose Alces americanus Caribou Rangifer tarandus Muskox* Ovibos moschatus Hoary marmot Marmota caligata Arctic ground squirrel Spermophilus parryii Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Beaver Castor canadensis Northern red-backed vole Myodes rutilus Collared lemming Dicrostonyx groenlandicus Brown lemming Lemmus trimucronatus Tundra vole, root vole Microtus oeconomus Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Northern bog lemming Synaptomys borealis Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Snowshoe hare, varying hare Lepus americanus Tundra hare, Alaska hare Lepus othus Hoary marmot Marmota ca/igata Arctic ground squirrel Spermophilus parryii * West alternative transmission corridor. Sources: Grumman Ecosystems Corporation (1971), ADF&G (1973), Anderson 1978), USFWS (1986, 1988), Nolan and Peirce (1996), Parker et al. (1997), Peirce and Peirce (2000, 2005), Jacobsen (2004), Cook and MacDonald (2005), MacDonald and Cook (2009); continental modifiers of English names (e.g., North American river otter) have been dropped from this list. April 2014 Page 61 ~ z ~ n z "'0 Q) CIQ I'll en N Figure 3.7-1 Game Management Units (GMUs) in Southwestern Alaska and in the Wildlife Resource Study Areas ~ Source: ADF&G Game Management Units and Subunits from http:/ /dnr.alaska.gov; accessed April 2012. -Pn:lposed T...,IMIISion I.JneAlema11VI$ 0 LakeS11.1Ctfhea CJ Park or Refuge Boundlriea -n :J :::T r+ -· tD " ~. c 3 3 -n :r tD c: Ql " !!!. :I: !:!.< =a. r+ .., < 0 :;Jl~ tD tD "C n 0 !:t ;:::!. ;:;· I "l;l ~ .2. -tD c: n 3 r+ tD m )( ~ :;· CJQ m :J < a· :J 3 tD :J [ s :J a. ;::;: (5' :J "' )> "C 2: N 0 ~ ~ z !i n z ., DJ OQ I'D 0'\ w j Figure 3.7-2 Moose Distribution and Habitats in the Project Area <Z) General DISiributian - Known Winter and Rutting Cancenlralion Areas [> Max. Inundation Area (660 II Contour) !} Lake Study Area -Propoaed Tranamonion Une AltlltmaiMt• [] Park or Refuge Boundaries Source: Data from the Alaska Habitat Management Guide (ADF&G 1986); digitized by Resource Data Inc. -n :l ~ .... -· 10 "' ~. c:: 3 3 .., ~· 10 c Ql "' \!!. :t ~~ .... .., < 0 ~!P_ (I) 10 -c n 0 :::i :::1-;:;· ~ <.., 0 .2. -10 ~ ~ 10 m X v;· .... :;· oq m ;;::J :S. 0 ;;::J 3 n> :l .... !!!.. () 0 :l c. ;:+ s· :l VI )> ~ N 0 .... """ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.7.1.2 Caribou Caribou are highly mobile animals with the lowest net cost of locomotion measured for any species of terrestrial mammal (Fancy and White 1987). Their distribution and habitat selection vary seasonally in response to different forage availability, predation threats, and insect harassment levels. Caribou generally prefer tundra and other open areas where predators are visible, but they also can be found in spruce forest or other closed habitats in some seasons. In winter, caribou feed primarily in areas with abundant lichens and low snow depth and hardness, such as windswept ridge tops or coastal areas (Tucker et al. 1991; Saperstein 1993). Caribou herds experience long-term population fluctuations and changing patterns of range use. A large number of caribou was present in southwest Alaska in the 1800s and was referred to as the Bering Seacoast Herd (Murie 1935; Skoog 1968; Hinkes et al. 2005). That herd apparently peaked in the 1860s and declined in the 1870s (Hinkes et al. 2005). Caribou were virtually absent from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta by 1880 but were still present in the Kilbuck Mountains (Petrof 1884, cited in Hinkes et al. 2005). Substantial numbers of caribou were reported in the Mulchatna River area in the early 1900s (Murie 1935). The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta also was used for reindeer herding starting in 1901. The reindeer population on the delta peaked at about 68,000 in 1930, with an unknown number of reindeer in the Mulchatna River drainage (Woolington 2003). However, the industry collapsed in the 1930s (Calista Professional Services and Orutsaramuit Native Council 1984, cited in USFWS 1988). Only 1,000 caribou were estimated to be in the Mulchatna Caribou Herd (MCH) in 1949 (Woolington 2003). The herd grew slowly over the next two decades, reaching about 5,000 animals by 1965 (Skoog 1968). Herd growth accelerated rapidly during the 1980s and early 1990s, however, peaking at approximately 200,000 animals in 1996 (Taylor 1989; Van Daele 1995; Woolington 2009a). Since then, the herd has declined steeply, and was estimated at just 30,000 caribou in July 2008, the most recent census (Figure 3.7-3; Woolington 2009a). Adult female survival rates increased in 2010 (Demma et al. 2011), raising the prospect that the herd may rebound. The caribou in the project area most likely all belong to the MCH, although several other herds have been described in southwest Alaska. The Kilbuck Caribou Herd (KCH) appeared to be a separate herd that used the Kilbuck Mountains and numbered an estimated 4,216 animals in 1993 (Valkenburg 1998), but the KCH evidently was assimilated by the MCH in the mid-1990s as the MCH expanded its range (Hinkes et al. 2005; Woolington 2009a). The Nushagak Peninsula Caribou Herd {NPCH) was introduced on the Nushagak Peninsula in 1988 and grew rapidly to over 1,000 caribou by 1994 {Hinkes and Van Daele 1996), peaked at about 1,429 in 1997, and then declined in size (Collins et al. 2003). The NPCH has remained in the Nushagak Peninsula area (Collins et al. 2003; Hinkes et al. 2005) and is therefore unlikely to occur in the project area. The Northern Alaska Peninsula Herd (NAPCH) wintered with the MCH between the Naknek River and western Iliamna Lake in the late 1980s, but has declined since and most of the herd has wintered south of the Naknek River since 2000 (Butler 2009). During the 1980s, the MCH calved east of the lake study area, north of Lake Clark, whereas the KCH calved in the Kilbuck Mountains. In the mid-1990s, the MCH expanded west and assimilated the KCH (Hinkes et al. 2005) as it began using the Kilbuck Mountains. Today, the MCH range extends from Lake Clark in the east, across the Mulchatna and Nushagak drainages, throughout the Kilbuck Mountains to the Kuskokwim River on the west. Thus, the herd largely avoids the Wood River lakes and the lower Tikchik lakes systems {Hinkes et al. 2005; PLP 2011). Since 2000, the MCH has calved farther east and, judging from telemetry data, little calving has occurred near the proposed Project (PLP 2011). Over the past few years, the MCH separated into western and eastern herd segments. The western segment has wintered near the Kilbuck Mountains, with most calving occurring east of Wood-Tikchik State Park. Some calving also occurs west of Chikuminuk Lake. The eastern segment has remained between the Mulchatna River and Lake Clark, calving near Lime Village (Demma et al. 2011). Page 64 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 The lake study area lies within an area of high-density summer range use by the MCH in the last decade (2000- 2010) and of medium-density autumn range use (PLP 2011). The winter distribution of the MCH has had two areas of high density since 1990, with the eastern segment wintering along the Kvichak River and western Iliamna Lake and the western segment along the western edge of the Kilbuck Mountains (PLP 2011). The lake study area was in an area of low-density use of winter range and spring range during 2000-2010 (PLP 2011). Although specific density information is not available for the lake study area, the general area surrounding the lake study area and the eastern portion of the West transmission corridor study area, where it lies in mountainous terrain, have experienced substantial use during all seasons over the last two decades, with the greatest use in recent years occurring during summer, somewhat less use occurring in autumn and spring, and little use during calving and winter (PLP 2011). The West transmission route alternative passes through an area used all year (PLP 2011). In the past, the Tikchik lakes area and the area farther north have been used heavily as a travel corridor for seasonal movements between the Kilbuck Mountains and the eastern range of the MCH. Large numbers of MCH typically migrate past Aniak and Nishlik Lake during the fall and Nishlik Lake is used heavily by caribou hunters using floatplanes (AKDNR 2002). In the last few years, the western segment has spent much of the year west of the project area and has calved east of the project area, but the eastern segment of the herd has not used the project area (Demma et al. 2011). Therefore, caribou are expected to use the project area during migratory movements between seasonal ranges. 250.000 Mulchatna Herd Size 200,000 ::J 150,000 0 .tl 'i:: ('(! 0 -0 .... 100,000 Ill .tl E ::J z 50,000 ~ ~~~~~ 0 I I • I I I 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year Figure 3. 7-3 Estimated Population Size of the Mulchatna Caribou Herd, 1974-2008 Caribou are monitored by ADF&G through the use of periodic population estimates, counts of sex and age composition, and tracking of harvest statistics. A collaborative study is being undertaken by researchers from the University of Alaska, ADF&G, and the USFWS on the linkages between climate, nutrient cycling, vegetation, and caribou for the five southwestern Alaska herds, focusing especially on the Unimak Herd (Spalinger et al. 2011). ADF&G is studying MCH bull survival and recruitment, bull antler development and growth, and distribution of bulls (Demma et al. 2011). An ADF&G calf survival study is estimating calf survival and Page 65 Source: ADG&G surveys and censuses Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim ~""''oihilih Environmental Conditions 2014 recruitment rates, and determining the cause of death for young calves. Preliminary results indicate that early calf mortality is largely due to an even mix of predation by wolves and bears (Demma et al. 2011). Estimates of the seasonal density of caribou in the specific areas near the lake study area and along the West transmission route alternative are not available. Telemetry data for the MCH have been collected by ADF&G but a cooperative agreement with the Mulchatna Caribou Herd Technical Working Group would be necessary to access and analyze the data. The number of caribou in the area likely varies annually and seasonally. 3.7.1.3 Brown Bear Brown bears occur throughout the project area, although habitat occurs primarily in the mountainous terrain in the eastern portion of the West transmission corridor study area (Figure 3.7-4). Brown bears are mobile generalist species that use large home ranges to exploit seasonally abundant resources. Brown bears will often feed on a variety of vegetation, berries, salmon, ungulates, and small mammals. They often feed on arctic ground squirrels in the spring. Vegetation in coastal sedge meadows and mudflats supports very high densities of bears in early summer (Rode et al. 2001). Bears will also feed on moose and caribou calves and berries during the summer. By mid and late summer, brown bears congregate at salmon streams, where available. Brown bears in alpine areas of Kodiak Island fed heavily in sedge-forb meadows (Atwell et al. 1980). Brown bears are often found in open areas, but riverine and forested areas commonly are used as travel corridors, for hunting moose calves, and for feeding on salmon. Brown bears usually den at high elevations in winter. Female bear dens on the Kenai Peninsula were located in high-elevation areas with steep slopes and away from human disturbance (Goldstein et al. 2010). The vegetation at denning locations in the Talkeetna Mountains was alpine tundra (52%), shrubs (alder, willow, or birch; 35%), tussock grass and rocks (13%; Miller 1990). On Kodiak Island, brown bears denned most often in alder-willow thickets at elevations ranging from 100 to 3,300 ft asl (Lentfer et al. 1972). Salmon are not present in Chikuminuk Lake, although they spawn in the lower Allen River, so summer brown bear densities in the lake study area are likely to be lower than in adjacent areas with anadromous streams. Grumman Ecosystems Corporation (1971) reported 17 sightings of brown bears during field work in 1970, with the majority occurring near Chauekuktuli, Chikuminuk, and Upnuk lakes. Several bear dens were noted on well drained slopes near Upnuk Lake. Important brown bear denning areas have been identified around Agenuk Mountain, north of Nishlik Lake, and in the upper Youth Creek valley (AKDNR 2002). The brown bear habitat in GMU 17 is reported to be in excellent condition (Woolington 2009b). The brown bear harvest in GMU 17 has increased since the mid-1990s and 62% of reported brown bear harvest has come from GMU 17B in recent years (Woolington 2009b). Approximately 250 brown bears are estimated to inhabit the Kilbuck Mountains (Perry 2009). The density of brown bears in the Togiak NWR was estimated to be 40.4 bears/1,000 km 2 in 2003-2004 (Walsh et al. 2010), compared with 101 bears/1,000 km 2 in Katmai National Park and Preserve (Hamon et al. 2011), and 47.7-58.3 brown bears/1,000 km 2 in the area surrounding Iliamna Lake in 2009 (PLP 2011). Ruggerone et al. (2000) studied brown bear predation on spawning salmon in a tributary of Lake Aleknagik and found that bears could kill a large proportion of salmon when the run was small. Page 66 ~ :1: ~ n :1: "'0 QJ OQ 11) al ...., Figure 3.7-4 Brown Bear Distribution and Habitats in the Project Area Brown Be.,. C2> Gener.l Oillrl:)ulion - Known Concentration Areas Along Fill\ Streams -Propelled Trarl$1lliiSion Line Altemalilles 0 Lalca Study Area _,-:...J P.n< « Rel'uge Boundanes Source: Data from the Alaska Habitat Management Guide (ADF&G 1986); digitized by Resource Data Inc. - n ;::J ~ .... -· 11) "' ~-c 3 3 , :;· 11) c:: "' "' ~-::J: ~"'& <a ::0~ 11) 11) "0 n 0 ~ ;::!. ;:;· I ""C < 0 0 ~. -11) c:: n 3 .... 11) m )( ;;;· .... ::;- gq m ;::J < a· ;::J 3 11) ;::J .... "' n 0 ;::J c. ;:;· o· ;::J "' )> "0 2: ~ ~ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 A long-term brown bear study conducted in the Kuskokwim Mountains provides a great deal of information for areas close to the lake and West transmission corridor alternative. During the period 1993-2003, Kovach et al. (2006) deployed radio-collars on 40 female brown bears in a study area including western Chikuminuk Lake and areas farther west, including much of the West transmission corridor. They reported a mean litter size of 2.0 cubs per female and survival rates of 90.1 to 97.2% for adult females, 48.2 to 61.7% for cubs of the year, and 73.3 to 83.8% for yearlings and two-year-aids. The population was estimated to be expanding during the first half of the study and declining during the second half of the study (Kovach et al. 2006). The home range of adult females ranged from 93 to 623 km 2 (Collins et al. 2005). During July, bears rested in alder and willow thickets when air temperatures were high (Van Daele et al. 2001). Bears occupied lower elevations in July and August when salmon were spawning and moved to higher elevations in September, probably reflecting selection for areas supporting arctic ground squirrels, berries, and caribou. Females with cubs were found at higher elevations than were females without cubs (Collins et al. 2005). Bears den ned in areas of higher elevation (mean 632 m): 71% in steep rocky areas and 13% in tundra habitats (Van Daele et al. 2001). Occupancy of winter dens generally began by mid-October and ended by mid-May (Collins et al. 2005). Individual bears showed fidelity to general denning areas, with an average distance between consecutively occupied dens of 4.5 km (SD 3.1) between years. Bears were located farther from spawning streams when salmon escapement was low (Collins et al. 2005). Van Daele et al. (2001) also discuss some of the cultural barriers to brown bear management in the Kuskokwim Mountain area. No population estimate or habitat use data are available on brown bears in the lake study area or the West transmission corridor study area. 3.7.1.4 Black Bear Black bears avoid open habitats and select closed forest and scrub habitats (Holm et al. 1999). In areas where brown and black bears occur together, black bears typically avoid areas used consistently by brown bears, such as salmon-spawning streams. In such areas, there is an inverse relationship between brown bear density and the proportion of salmon in black bear diets (Belant et al. 2006) and black bears are largely herbivorous and frugivorous (Jacoby et al. 1999; Belant et al. 2006; Fortin et al. 2007). In the spring, black bears seek out emerging green vegetation such as horsetails (Equisetum spp.), grasses, and sedges (Carex spp.), which are high in protein and easily digestible. Bears begin to eat berries and fruit as they begin to ripen in midsummer and continue feeding heavily on berries and fruit throughout the fall to store up energy for winter dormancy. They also feed on newborn ungulate calves, carrion, insects, and salmon (when brown bears are not present). Black bear dens in the Yukon Flats were in well drained terrain in forested areas and 42% were located at the base of toppled or leaning trees (Bertram and Vivian 2002). Three cases of suspected predation of black bears in dens by grizzly bears were documented in the Yukon Flats (Bertram and Vivian 2002). Black bears occur in the Chikuminuk Lake area but at lower densities than brown bears. Grumman Ecosystems Corporation (1971) reported three sightings of black bears along the eastern ends of Chikuminuk and Upnuk lakes. Black bears were observed near Iliamna Lake, albeit too infrequently to permit calculation of a density estimate (PLP 2011). There have been no research activities by ADF&G on black bears in GMU 17 but, based on incidental observations, they might be increasing in abundance (Woolington 2008). The greatest densities of black bear in GMU 17 are suspected to occur in spruce forest habitats along the upper Mulchatna, the upper Nushagak, and the Chichitnok rivers. Black bears are most frequently seen feeding on berries on open hillsides in the fall. Few black bears are expected to occur in GMU 18 west of the Kilbuck Mountains (ADF&G 1973). Little is known about the abundance of black bears in the lake study area or West transmission corridor study area. The species will be restricted largely to forested habitats, so is unlikely to be numerous in the project area. Page 68 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.7.1.5 Muskox Thirty-one muskoxen from Greenland were introduced on Nunivak Island in 1935 and 1936 and 31 muskoxen were translocated from Nunivak to Nelson Island in 1967 and 1968 (Jones and Perry 2011). The population on Nelson Island has fluctuated over time but reached a high of 561 animals in 2010. Some muskoxen emigrated from Nelson Island to the mainland and a minimum of 100 animals are thought to be scattered from the Kilbuck Mountains to the Andreafsky Mountains north of the Yukon River (Jones and Perry 2011). Illegal harvest may be keeping the mainland population from expanding {Jones and Perry 2011). Muskoxen are unlikely to occur near Chikuminuk Lake but are known to use the area that would be crossed by the West transmission line corridor. Muskoxen are nonmigratory and must put on adequate supplies of body reserves during the snow-free period to survive the winter. They feed primarily on sedges and grasses and are typically found in river corridors, floodplains, and foothills. In winter they use areas of shallow, soft snow or windblown areas, where food is more accessible. ADF&G monitors muskoxen distribution, population, and harvest in GMU 18. Three GPS collars were scheduled to be deployed on mainland muskoxen in 2011 {Jones and Perry 2011). No estimate is available for the number of muskoxen that uses the West transmission corridor study area or how range use varies seasonally. Based on the low number of muskoxen using the mainland and the location of the West transmission route alternative, the project area is most likely used sporadically by a small number of animals. 3.7.1.6 Wolf The wolf is a generalist species that uses most habitats from alpine tundra to lowland coastal wetlands, depending on the distribution and abundance of prey. Wolves feed on a variety of prey species, including moose, caribou, beavers, hares, porcupines, small mammals, and salmon. Wolves are common throughout the northern Bristol Bay region but the population fluctuates due to periodic rabies epizootics and fluctuations in the availability of prey species, especially caribou (Woolington 2009c). Moose, caribou, and possibly beaver are thought to be the main prey for wolves in the northern Bristol Bay region, but wolf packs do not appear to follow the movements of the MCH (Woolington 2009c). A trapper questionnaire conducted in 2000-2001 indicated that in GMU 17, wolves were abundant and their population was increasing {Scott and Kephart 2002). The wolf population in GMU 17 was also thought to be increasing from 2005-2008. Woolington (2009c) estimated that 280 to 320 wolves in 16 to 22 packs inhabited GMU 17B in 2008. With the recent decline in caribou numbers in the area, wolf numbers also may have declined. Walsh and Woolington (2008) deployed four radio-collars (two GPS and two VHF collars) on wolves from two packs near the Nushagak Peninsula to determine how much time they spent near caribou of the NPCH, and additional wolves have been collared in recent years (Walsh and Woolington 2011). A study of wolves in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve found that the main prey species in that location was moose, but some packs also fed heavily on salmon when available. The packs that had large components of salmon in their diet had smaller territories (Mangipane 2011). little is known about the number of wolves and packs in the lake study area and along the West transmission route corridor. 3.7.1.7 Wolverine Wolverines have large home ranges and take a broad range of foods, consisting mostly of small mammals and birds, but also including carrion and, occasionally, larger mammals (Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995). They occur at low densities and are sensitive to human disturbance (Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995; May et al. 2006). Wolverines in the middle Susitna River basin of south-central Alaska tended to use broad habitat ~HATCH~ Page 69 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 categories (forest, scrub, rock/ice) in relation to availability, but changed elevations seasonally. They moved to higher elevations where arctic ground squirrels and other small mammals were available during summer and lower elevations where moose carcasses were available in winter (Whitman et al. 1986). Wolverine density on the northern Kenai Peninsula, Alaska was estimated to be 3.0 wolverines/1000 km 2 (Golden eta!. 2007). Wolverine numbers in GMU 18 were reported to be moderate to low but increasing; they are most abundant in the Kilbuck and Andreafsky mountains (Perry 2010a). Wolverine numbers in GMU 17 are thought to be stable (Woolington 2010a). A trapper questionnaire conducted in 200Q-2001 indicated that wolverines were common in GMU 17 and their population was stable (Scott and Kephart 2002). There is no specific information available on wolverine abundance in the lake or West transmission corridor study areas. 3.7.1.8 Beaver The beaver is a keystone species whose presence and activities profoundly affect the distribution of aquatic and riparian habitats and the abundance of fish and other wildlife species in those habitats (Johnston and Naiman 1987; Mitchell and Cunjak 2007). The only aquatic habitats unsuitable for beavers are fast-moving streams and rivers and those with widely varying levels of water flow. Beavers prefer to forage on aspen, balsam poplar (cottonwood), and willow but also eat birch and alder (Jenkins and Busher 1979). Beavers are reported to be common in all major drainages and most of the smaller tributaries in GMU 17. Beavers were observed commonly along the Kisaralik River (Boyce and Fristensky 1984). A trapper questionnaire from 2000-2001 indicated that beaver populations were abundant and increasing in GMU 17 (Scott and Kephart 2002). Beavers in GMU 18 are perceived to be abundant to overabundant, with villagers complaining that high densities of beavers are ruining favored fish habitat (Perry 2010a). Farther east, beavers are abundant in the area of the proposed Pebble mine project and lodges were found on most of the suitable ponds, lakes, and streams (PLP 2011). Specific information is lacking on the number of active beaver lodges in the lake and West transmission corridor study areas. 3.7.1.9 Other Furbearers Other species of furbearers in the Wood-Tikchik area include coyote, red fox, lynx, river otter, marten, ermine, least weasel, mink, and muskrat. In addition, the arctic fox may occur in low numbers in some areas along the West transmission route corridor where it crosses the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Grumman Ecosystems Corporation (1971) reported that the most common furbearers in the Wood-Tikchik areas were beaver, muskrat, river otter, red fox, and wolverine. River otter populations increased in GMU 17 during the 1980s and appear to have been stable since the 1990s (Woolington 2010a). Muskrats are reported to be rare in GMU 17, although they have been common in the past (Woolington 2010a). Coyotes have become common in GMU 17, with the highest densities occurring along the lower Nushagak River and on the Nushagak Peninsula (Woolington 2010a). Lynx have never been common in GMU 17, although their numbers increased in the early 1990s. Both lynx and snowshoe hare numbers were low during 2006-2009 (Woolington 2010a). A trapper questionnaire conducted in 2000-2001 indicated that coyotes and muskrats were scarce but increasing in GMU 17; lynx were scarce and stable; ermine were common and stable; marten, mink, and hares were common and increasing; and red foxes and river otters were abundant and increasing (Scott and Kephart 2002). In the Kisaralik River drainage between Chikuminuk Lake and the Kuskokwim River, muskrats were recorded on the lower river, river otter tracks were common on the middle and lower river, mink tracks and red foxes were observed along the entire river (Boyce and Fristensky 1984; Brown et al. 1985). ~HATCH~ Page 70 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 In GMU 18, coyotes are reported to be at low densities but increasing. They are established along the Kuskokwim River and most tributaries (Perry 2010a). The arctic fox population is moderate and stable along the coast, but arctic foxes are rare inland (Perry 2010a). Red fox were reported to be moderate to abundant and be stable or increasing and have tested positive for rabies in GMU 18 (Perry 2010a). Marten were at low densities and stable, mink are plentiful, muskrat were reported to be at moderate and stable densities, and river otters are abundant in preferred riverine habitats (Perry 2010a). Apart from presence/absence and general reports of relative abundance, little information is available on the populations of furbearers in the lake study area or the West transmission corridor study area. 3.7.1.10 Snowshoe Hare Snowshoe hares follow a roughly ten-year population cycle with peaks followed by a precipitous crash. Predators such as lynx, coyotes, Northern Goshawks, and Great Horned Owls will show a similar numerical response, often with a lag period. Other small mammals also show cyclical patterns, possibly due to food competition or as alternative prey for predators. Snowshoe hares can remove a large proportion of the standing shrub biomass (Hodges 1999) and in locations where they are abundant, snowshoe hares have a large effect on the ecosystem. Snowshoe hares actively select habitats with dense understory cover in boreal coniferous forest, avoiding young regrowth, clearings, and other open areas (Hodges 1999). Dense understory is more important than canopy closure and interspersion of different stand types may be preferred. They are more likely to use deciduous forest types in summer than in winter due to the greater cover afforded by leaves and may occur in areas of sparse cover mainly during darkness. Open areas may be used more when hare densities are high (Wolff 1980). Dense understories provide escape cover and thermal protection and were correlated with spring densities and overwinter survival in Maine (Litvaitis et al. 1985). In south-central Alaska, snowshoe hares preferred white spruce forest, alder, and willow plant communities during winter and early spring. Pellets contained predominately spruce, willow, Labrador tea, and dwarf birch with lesser amounts of blueberry, horsetail, and unidentified forbs and grasses. Alder was not an important forage species even though it was abundant (MacCracken et al. 1988). Areas used in winters when hare densities are low may be critical habitat to maintain remnant populations until the subsequent population increase (Wolff 1980). Snowshoe hare populations appeared to be moderate in GMU 178 from 2006-2009 (Woolington 2010a). Hare populations were not reported for GMU 18, but lynx populations were reported to be increasing (Perry 2010a). No specific information is available on the occurrence or abundance of snowshoe hare in the project area. 3.7.1.11 Tundra Hare The tundra hare, also called the Alaska hare, is an endemic species that is related to the arctic hare of northern Canada and Greenland (Waltari and Cook 2005). It occurs in tundra habitats along coastal western Alaska from the Baldwin Peninsula south to the Alaska Peninsula (Anderson 1978; Waltari and Cook 2005; MacDonald and Cook 2009). Tundra hare are discussed in Section 3.8.2.2. No specific information describes the occurrence or abundance of tundra hare in the project area. 3.7.1.12 Small Mammals Small mammals likely present in the Project study area include as many as five species of shrews, three species of squirrels and marmots, porcupines, and as many as seven species of mice, voles, and lemmings (Table 3.7-1). ~HATCH~ Page 71 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Shrew distributions are related to invertebrate abundance, temperature, and moisture, and they appear to require adequate ground cover. Pygmy shrews prefer boreal habitats where both dry and wet habitats are found together in proximity to water (Long 1974). The cinereus shrew can be found in a wide variety of habitats but prefers moist areas within habitats, often near mosses (Whitaker 2004). The dusky shrew is found in montane and boreal habitats with dense ground cover-often in clearcuts with dense herbaceous ground cover (Smith and Belk 1996). The Alaska tiny shrew, the smallest mammal in North America, was described as a new species (Sorex yukonicus) only in 1997, although Hope et al. (2010) have since concluded that it is conspecific with 5. minutissimus, an Old World species. When he described the species, Dokuchaev (1997) listed only three locations where it had been recorded, but specimen records increased quickly as researchers looked for it elsewhere in the state. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the species had been recorded over a broad area of interior, western, and northern Alaska .. The Alaska tiny shrew is discussed in more detail in Section 3.8.2.2. Arctic ground squirrels live in arctic and alpine tundra, meadows, riverbanks, and lakeshore habitat. They prefer permafrost-free areas with loose soils, good visibility, and an adequate supply of low, early successional vegetation (MacDonald and Cook 2009). They survive the long winters by putting on large fat reserves during the summer and dropping their body temperature below the freezing point of water during winter hibernation (Barnes 1989; Buck and Barnes 1999). Arctic ground squirrels were reported to be common on the upper and middle Kisaralik River (Boyce and Fristensky 1984; Brown et al. 1985). Red squirrels are abundant across much of boreal Canada and the northern and western United States but are largely restricted to coniferous forest, although they also may use mixed forest (Steele 1998). They prefer coniferous habitats for the abundant conifer seed, fungi, and interlocking canopies that allow for effective escape from predators and efficient foraging (Steele 1998). Hoary marmots live in small colonies of two to 36 animals in areas above tree line with suitable vegetation for forage and rocky areas for escape cover. They feed on the leaves of herbaceous plants in early summer, flowers of herbaceous plants in midsummer, and herbs and forbs in late summer (Braun et al. 2011). In south-central Alaska, Carex species made up 78-91% of the total dry weight of the diet (Holmes 1984). Juvenile survival is strongly affected by winter climate, especially snow depth (Patil 2010). The northern red-backed vole is one of Alaska's most ubiquitous and common mammal species, inhabiting forest, scrub land, alpine tundra, and riparian areas throughout much of the state (MacDonald and Cook 2009). They feed on fungi, berries, succulent green plants, and lichens (Bangs 1984). Northern red-backed voles have large interannual fluctuations in density that are strongly influenced by climate. Overwinter survival was influenced by winter severity and snow depth; food availability was influenced by green-up date; and early summer precipitation influenced survival of the first litter (Rexstad and Debevec 2002). Tundra, or root, voles inhabit a wide variety of open herbaceous habitats at various elevations. Although they can be found in scrub land, tundra, grassland, and riparian areas, they are most abundant in wet sedge and grass-forb meadows and bogs (MacDonald and Cook 2009). In northern Alaska, tundra voles reach their highest densities in swales and watercourses with dense, wet meadows dominated by sedges (Carex spp. and Eriophorum spp.), their primary food plants (Bee and Hall 1956; Batzli and Henttonen 1990). Brown lemmings are usually associated with wet sedge-grass meadow but move to higher ground when preferred areas are flooded (McDonald and Cook 2009). Collared lemmings are usually associated with higher, drier, rockier tundra and often associated with cotton-grass sedges (Bee and Hall 1956; McDonald and Cook 2009). Page 72 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 Grumman Ecosystems Corporation (1971) reported that arctic ground squirrels and hoary marmots were abundant in the Wood-Tikchik region. Trappers responding to an ADF&G questionnaire in 2000-2001 indicated that mouse and rodent populations were abundant and increasing in GMU 17 (Scott and Kephart 2002). In their survey of small mammals in Wood-Tikchik State Park, Nolan and Peirce (1996) trapped meadow jumping mice, pygmy shrews, northern red-backed voles, cinereus shrews, dusky shrews, and ermines, and observed arctic ground squirrels and red squirrels. Peirce and Peirce (2000, 2005) captured eight species of small mammals in the Goodnews River drainage west of the project area: four species of shrew (cinereus, pygmy, Alaska tiny shrew, and tundra shrew) and four microtine rodents (tundra vole, northern red-backed vole, collared lemming, and brown lemming). In 2003, the University of Alaska Museum conducted field surveys of small mammals for the federal Bureau of land Management (BLM) north and west of Iliamna lake and in the Kvichak and Nushagak river valleys (Jacobsen 2004). Seventeen species were documented with vouchered specimens: four species of shrews (cinereus, pygmy, montane, and tundra), river otter, marten, hoary marmot, arctic ground squirrel, red squirrel, meadow jumping mouse, northern red-backed vole, collared lemming, brown lemming, root vole, meadow vole, northern bog lemming, and porcupine. The most frequently captured small mammals were cinereus shrew, montane shrew, and northern red-backed vole. Small mammals were most diverse and abundant in scrub and forest habitats (Jacobsen 2004). Specific information is lacking on the occurrence and abundance of small mammals in the lake study area and West transmission corridor study area. 3.7.1.13 Little Brown Bat The little brown bat is the most widely distributed and common species of bat in Alaska and Canada, inhabiting areas with some degree of forest cover (van Zyll de Jong 1985; MacDonald and Cook 2009) During summer 2012, Chikuminuk Lake Hydro Project field personnel reported that hundreds of little brown bats commonly occurred on summer evenings at the Tikchik Narrows lodge, near the southern edge of the lake study area and lodge employees confirmed that they were a common occurrence there annually. Little else is known of their occurrence or abundance in the project area. The locations of winter hibernacula used by little brown bats are virtually unknown in most of Alaska. Little brown bats are discussed in more detail in Section 3.8.2.2. 3.7.2 Amphibians Amphibians are of increasing conservation concern worldwide because of both widespread population declines and loss of local populations (Collins and Storfer 2003; McCallum 2007). Of the eight species of amphibians that occur in Alaska, only one inhabits southwestern Alaska the wood frog, Rona (Uthobates) sylvatica, which is the most common amphibian in Alaska (MacDonald 2010). Wood frogs are discussed in more detail in Section 3.8.2.3. 3.7.3 Birds The avian fauna in the project area includes 22 species of waterfowl (geese, swans, and ducks), 15 species of other waterbirds (loons, grebes, gulls, terns, and jaegers), 17 species of raptors (eagles, hawks, falcons), six species of owls, 21 species of shorebirds, and 56 species of landbirds (grouse, ptarmigan, kingfishers, woodpeckers, and passerines [songbirds]) (Table 3.7-2). The lake and stream habitats within the project area are used by several species ofwaterfowt shorebirds, and other waterbirds. Forest and scrub habitats are predominately occupied by landbirds and may support some tree-nesting raptors. Tundra habitats are predominantly occupied by shorebirds and some land birds. Cliffs and bluffs along river corridors and rocky outcrops in the mountains are used by cliff-nesting raptors (Golden Eagles, Rough-legged Hawks, and falcons). Page 73 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 All migratory species of birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); eagles are also protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Both species of eagles occur in the project area. National guidance currently is being drafted by the USFWS for the preparation of eagle conservation plans for various types of development projects, including hydroelectric projects (J. Muir, USFWS, pers. comm.). In January 2011, the first such guidance was released in draft form for wind-energy development; guidance for hydroelectric projects is still in preparation. The impetus for eagle conservation plans is increasing concerns regarding "take" of eagles elsewhere in the state and nation (e.g., at wind turbines), which has resulted in increased scrutiny of anthropogenic influences on eagle populations. 3.7.3.1 Raptors and Owls At least eleven species of raptors (eagles, hawks, falcons) and six species of owls potentially breed in or migrate through the project area (Table 3.7-2). The majority of past avian surveys have been performed in the West transmission corridor study area, mainly because the study area crosses a section of the Yukon Delta NWR and because the Kisaralik River, which lies within the eastern half of the study area, previously was considered for hydropower as well as for designation as a Wild and Scenic River (Wilson et al. 1982; NPS 1984a). Data are limited for the lake study area in the Wood-Tikchik State Park. Of the western drainages of the Kilbuck Mountains, the Kisaralik River has the most canyon development and supports the highest number and diversity of breeding cliff-nesting raptors, including Rough-legged Hawks, Gyrfalcons, and Golden Eagles (White and Boyce 1978; Mindell1981, 1983; Weir 1982). Boyce and Fristensky (1984) concluded that if rivers were ranked in both density and diversity of nesting raptors, the Kisaralik River would rank highest in Alaska. Since then, studies largely have focused on monitoring Golden Eagle, Gyrfalcon, and Rough-legged Hawk territories identified along the middle Kisaralik River (McCaffery and Earnst 1989; McCaffery 1993; McCaffery et al. 2011). Literature review for the project indicated that few data were available on nesting raptors in either the lake or West transmission corridor study areas (ABR 2012). To fill the data gap and to ensure that nesting raptors were avoided and not disturbed by Project activities, raptor surveys were conducted of virtually all suitable nesting habitat in the Allen River/Chikuminuk Lake basin (excluding the far western basin and areas inside the wilderness area of the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge) (Figure 3.7-5). In the 2012 raptor study area, 31 occupied raptor territories and five additional territories that may have been occupied (i.e., nests with unknown occupancy status >1.0 km from any other occupied nests) were identified (Table 3.7-4; Figure 3.7-5). Altogether, 119 stick nests were recorded, the majority of which were Golden Eagle nests (Figure 3.7-5; Table 3.7-3). Active and inactive nests of seven species of raptors (including Common Ravens) were identified in the 2012 survey area (Figure 3.7-5). Although not technically raptors, Common Ravens nests are included because they use (and often construct) cliff-ledge and stick nests, at sites that may harbor nesting raptors (eagles, falcons, hawks, and owls) in past or future years. Table 3.7-3 Nest Success and Territory Occupancy for Raptors located in the Raptor Study Area, 2012 Occupied Nests No. of No. of Incubating No. of Occupied Possible Species Pairs Successful3 '!est lings Territories Territories Golden Eagle 16 7 12 19 1 Bald Eagle 3 1 2 3 0 Rough-legged Hawk 4 1 3+ 5 2 Gyrfalcon 2 1 2 2 0 Common Raven 2 1c 3 2 0 Unknown raptor 0 0 0 0 1 Total 27 11 22+ 31 4 a Young ?:75% of fledging age (estimated by comparing with known-age photos); b Occupancy status of territories were unknown throughout the study; c Because fledging happens early with Common Ravens, success was confirmed at only one of the two nests, Page 74 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.7-2 Bird Species Reported or Suspected to Occur in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Breeder Emperor Goose Chen canagica Visitant Canada Goose Branta canadensis Breeder Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Breeder Gadwall Anas strepera Possible breeder American Wigeon Anas americana Breeder Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Breeder Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Breeder Northern Pintail Anas acuta Breeder Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Breeder Canvasback Aythya valisineria Possible breeder Ring-necked Duck Aythya co/loris Visitant Greater Scaup Aythya marila Breeder Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Breeder Surf Seater Melanitta perspicil/ata Possible breeder White-winged Seater Me Ia nitta fusca Visitant Black Seater Melanitta americana Breeder Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Breeder Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Visitant Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Possible breeder Common Merganser Mergus merganser Breeder Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Breeder Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbel/us Resident Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis Resident Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Resident Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta Resident White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucura Resident Red-throated Loon Gavia stel/ata Breeder Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Breeder Common Loon Gavia immer Breeder Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Breeder Osprey Pandion haliaetus Visitant Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeder Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Breeder Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Resident Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Visitant Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Breeder Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Breeder American Kestrel Falco sparverius Visitant Merlin Falco columbarius Breeder Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Resident Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Possible breeder Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Breeder Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Possible breeder American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica Possible breeder Pacific Golden-Plover Pluvial is fulva Possible breeder ~HATCHn Page 75 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Common Name Scientific Name Stat usa Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Breeder Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Breeder Solitary Sandpiper Tringa so/ita ria Breeder Wandering Tattler Tringa incana Breeder Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Breeder Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Possible breeder Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Possible breeder Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Visitant Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Possible breeder Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala Migrant Surfbird Aphriza virgata Breeder Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Possible breeder Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Breeder Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Breeder Dunlin Calidris alpina Possible breeder Wilson's Snipe Gallinago de/icata Breeder Red-necked Phalarope Pha/aropus lobatus Breeder Red Phalarope Pha/aropus fulicarius Possible breeder Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Visitant Sabine's Gull Xema sa bini Visitant Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia Possible breeder Mew Gull Larus canus Breeder Herring Gull Larus argentatus Visitant Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens Possible breeder Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Possible breeder Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Breeder Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Visitant Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus Possible breeder Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Resident Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Migrant Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulu/a Resident Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Resident Short-eared Owl Asia flammeus Breeder Boreal Owl A ego/ius funereus Resident Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle a/cyan Breeder Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Breeder Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Possible breeder American Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis Resident Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Possible breeder Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Breeder Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Breeder Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Breeder Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Resident Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia Breeder Common Raven Corvus corax Resident Horned Lark Eremophila a/pestris Breeder Tree Swallow Tachycineta bico/or Breeder Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta tha/assina Breeder ~HATCHn Page 76 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Common Name Bank Swallow Cliff Swallow Barn Swallow Chickadee Boreal Chickadee Amprjcan Djnnpr Swainson's Thrush Hermit Thrush American Robin Varied Thrush American Snow Northern Waterthrush Orange-crowned Warbler Yellow Warbler Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Wilson's Warbler Scientific Name Hirundo rustica Poecile Poecile hudsonicus borealis Turd us lxoreus naevius Motacilla tschutschensis Anthus rubescens nivalis Passerculus sandwichensis Passerella iliaca Statu sa Breeder Breeder Possible breeder Resident Resident Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Possible breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Possible breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Breeder Possible breeder Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Possible breeder Acanthis hornemanni Possible breeder Source: ABR 2012 and ABR unpublished data. April2014 a Resident= individuals present all year and breed in the project area; breeder= breeding evidence has been documented; possible breeder= breeding evidence has not been documented but individuals have been recorded in the greater project area and appropriate nesting habitat is present; migrant= individuals present during spring or fall migration; visitant= individuals present occasionally, including molting, non-breeding, failed breeders, and post-breeding birds. Page 77 ~ z !i n z ""0 DJ Otl CD -...I 00 Figure 3.7-5 Occupied, Unoccupied and Unknown Status Raptor Nests Identified during Aerial Surveys in. the Project Area, 2012 2012 Nest Occ:uency Summary .lllilloBia l!!Bimllll!!Sli!l!!!l -~ * 0 6. 8111E.,. * G~-* ~w-* e A c--* • C> Rllp!Dr Study Area 2012 B Max. lnumlanCil Area (660 I Conlcurl _, Pn:lposed Transmission tJneMema!lves 0 LMa Sl.ldy Area CJ Pall< tr RefUge Boundar1es -n :::l :r .... -· C1) ,... ::::!. c 3 3 "T1 :::l C1) c Ql ,... ~. :c ~< =a. .... .., < 0 ;;o~ C1) C1) "0 ~ 0 .., ;:l. ;:;· 0 "0 <.., Q.. ~· 3 ~ C1) m X ~· :;· oq m :::l < ~3' :::l 3 C1) :::l .... !!!.. n 0 :::l a. ;:::;: 5' :::l "' )> "0 ~ "" 0 ~ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Bald and Golden eagles and their nests are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Both species occur in the project area but Golden Eagles are more common. Golden Eagles are known to nest along the western drainages of the Kilbuck Mountains, particularly where rivers cut through the foothills prior to entering the lowland wet tundra (White and Boyce 1978; Mindell1981, 1983; Weir 1982; Boyce and Fristensky 1984; McCaffery and Earnst 1989; McCaffery 1993). Golden Eagles were the most numerous nesting raptor in the 2012 survey area with 19 occupied nests (plus one possibly occupied nest). Incubating birds were observed at 84% of occupied Golden Eagle territories in 2012. Prior to summer 2012, the mountains around Chikuminuk lake had not been systematically surveyed for nesting raptors. Golden Eagles reportedly were seen soaring along ridgelines near Upnuk lake and Chikuminuk lake, but no effort was made to find nests and none were documented (Grumman Ecosystem Corporation 1971; Weir 1982). Weir (1982) suspected that the elevation of the cliffs at the headwaters of these rivers might be too high for raptor nests, including Golden Eagles. In Alaska, Golden Eagles are migratory. They arrive on their breeding grounds in late February to early April and typically complete egg laying by mid-to-late April (Kessel1989; Young eta!. 1995; Mcintyre and Adams 1999). Since they are primarily cliff-nesting birds, they breed near or above timberline in mountainous habitat dominated by rugged terrain (Petersen eta!. 1991; Kochert et al. 2002). Golden Eagles build stick nests and maintain multiple nests within their territory, which they may use alternately from year to year (Kochert et al. 2002). Once pairs establish a territory, they tend to return to it; however, they may not lay eggs every year (Kochert eta!. 2002). Whether or not eggs are laid is one of the most variable components of Golden Eagle reproduction and has been linked to the availability of spring prey, primarily snowshoe hare and ptarmigan (Mcintyre 2002). Prey remains at nests along the Kisaralik and Tuluksak rivers indicated that Golden Eagles there were preying primarily on ground squirrels, ptarmigan, and snowshoe hare (Mindel1983). Golden Eagles in interior Alaska leave breeding grounds in late September and early October and migrate to the western United States and northern Canada for the winter (Mcintyre and Adams 1999; Kochert et al. 2002; Mcintyre et al. 2008). An approximate 45-kilometer stretch of the Kisaralik River from Upper Falls to the little Crow Hills has been the most consistently surveyed area in the region and was periodically surveyed from 1977 to 2004 (White and Boyce 1978; Mindell1981, 1983; Weir 1982; McCaffery and Earnst 1989; McCaffery 1993; McCaffery et al. 2011). Five to seven Golden Eagle nesting territories have been identified from Upper Falls downstream to the little Crow Hills (Mindell1981, 1983; McCaffery and Earnst 1989). In some studies, the survey area extended downstream to the confluence of Clear Creek, and included Quicksilver, Quartz, and Swift creeks, raising the total to 11 to 15 Golden Eagle territories in the area (Weir 1982; McCaffery 1993). McCaffery et al. (2011) surveyed a 339 km 2 corridor along the Kisaralik River from 2000 to 2004 and reported an average of about 15 territories. Nesting occupancy (number of territories containing a nesting bird/the number of known territories) along the Kisaralik River was highly variable among years and ranged from 40 to 80% (McCaffery and Earnst 1989). Despite those yearly fluctuations, the Golden Eagle population was thought to be stable between 1977 and 1993 (McCaffery 1993}. The USFWS conducted a survey for raptors along the Kisaralik River in May 2012 (Travis Booms, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm.). Results were not yet available. At least a dozen Bald Eagle nests have been documented in the Wood-Tikchik lakes and Nushagak River region (Wright 2010). During resource inventory studies in 1970, Bald Eagles were seen on all the Wood-Tikchik lakes and one nest was found on the Tikchik River (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971). During the late 1970s, one to three nests were found each year along the Kuskokwim River between Bethel and Tuluksak (Mindel! 1983). Scattered Bald Eagle nests have been observed incidentally in such woodlands along the Eek, Kisaralik, and Kasigluk rivers (White and Boyce 1978; McCaffery and Earnst 1989; McCaffery 1993; Morgart 1998}. Bald Eagles have also been observed flying near the Kwethluk River (Petersen et al. 1991). Three occupied Bald Eagle territories were identified in the 2012 raptor survey area (Table 3.7-3). Bald Eagles migrate through the Kilbuck Mountains and occur at low densities along the lower Kuskokwim River and the western river drainages of the Page 79 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Kilbuck Mountains (Mindell1983; Petersen et al. 1991; Wright 2010). Bald Eagles are present in the area from mid-April to mid-October (Petersen et al. 1991). They build large stick nests near water, often in the dominant tree of a stand, typically a large balsam poplar or white spruce (Mindell1983; Ritchie and Ambrose 1996). The project area appears to be at the edge of the Bald Eagle's breeding range in Alaska (Buehler 2000). Although Bald Eagles are considered common breeders in Togiak NWR, nests are rare along the Kuskokwim River and its tributaries (Mindell1983; Ritchie and Ambrose 1996; MacDonald 2003; Wright 2010). Mindell (1983) thought that suitable nesting habitat for Bald Eagles was not lacking in the region but that food availability might limit nesting. Salmon runs in the area may not start until late June or early July and waterfowl densities may not be high enough to provide an alternate prey base. Large trees suitable for nesting appear to be limited around the edge of Chikuminuk Lake and no known salmon runs enter the lake, potentially explaining the low densities of Bald Eagles in the lake study area. However, the Allen River does have large trees and a salmon run in its lower reaches. Rough-legged Hawks are an Arctic nesting species that typically nests on coastal, riverine, and upland cliff substrates. In Alaska (Seward Peninsula), the earliest arrival date and subsequent nest-building periods are from late April to early May. The mean egg-laying dates are in the second week of May, but as early as late April (Bechard and Swem 2002). In this study area, Rough-legged Hawks were only found nesting in lower elevation habitats, by comparison with Golden Eagles. Of the 15 Rough-legged Hawk nests that were found in the study area, five (33%) were occupied during the study, seven (47%) nests were unoccupied, and three (20%) nests were of unknown occupancy. Gyrfalcons are widely scattered residents throughout southwestern Alaska and are locally common breeders in several of the western drainages of the Kilbuck Mountains, including the Kisaralik River (Mindell 1983, Petersen et al. 1991). Between 1977 and 1993, four to six Gyrfalcon territories were identified along the Kisaralik River and Quicksilver Creek (Weir 1982; Mindell1983; McCaffery and Earnst 1989; McCaffery 1993). Most were distributed along the central 28 km of river between Golden Gate Falls and Icebox Lake (McCaffery 1993). Gyrfalcons nested on cliffs in old Golden Eagle, Rough-legged Hawk, or Common Raven nests (Mindell1983). Although not typically a tree-nesting species, one nest was found in a cottonwood tree near Quicksilver Creek (McCaffery 1993). Two Gyrfalcon territories were identified in the lake study area in 2012 (Table 3.7-3) and incubating birds were found in one of the occupied territories (50%). In southwestern Alaska, Gyrfalcons are primarily birds of the alpine zone that forage at the edge of subalpine dwarf scrub habitats (Petersen et al. 1991). Gyrfalcons nest on hillside rock outcrops and riverine cliffs as well as in trees where the forest follows the river into tundra biome (Cade 1960; Booms et al. 2008; McCaffery et al. 2011). Gyrfalcons are recognized as a species of conservation concern in southwest Alaska by the Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIFWG 1999). Merlins are the only other falcon known to nest in the project area, preferring transitional scrub habitats at the edge of deciduous tree woodlands and subalpine willow-alder (Petersen et al. 1991). Merlins were not observed during 2012 field efforts in the project area. Peregrine Falcons nest on cliffs along the upper Kuskokwim River between McGrath and Aniak, but have not been documented nesting along the lower Kuskokwim River and are considered very rare in the western drainages of the Kilbuck Mountains (Ritchie and Ambrose 1976; Dotson and Mindell1979; Mindell1983; Petersen et al. 1991). Only one Peregrine Falcon nest has been reported in the region (NPS 1984), and that observation has been questioned (McCaffery and Earnst 1989), the combined evidence suggesting that the 1981 nest was actually a misidentified Gyrfalcon nest. According to published literature, the last confirmed record of a Peregrine Falcon in the area was in 1979 when one was recorded calling along the Kisaralik River (Weir 1982). Although Peregrine Falcon populations in the 1970s were greatly reduced by pesticide contamination, significant population recovery occurred in interior Alaska during the late 1990s and early 2000s (Ritchie and Shook 2011) ~HATCH~ Page 80 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions and it would therefore not be surprising to find this species nesting in the eastern portion of the project area (Ritchie and Shook 2011). No Peregrine Falcon nests were located in the 2012 survey area. 2014 Riparian woodlands are common along the Kisaralik River (Brown et al. 1985) and appear to be dominant on the Allen River; such riparian areas likely provide some of the only trees in the region large enough to support tree- nesting raptors. Northern Goshawks are resident and nest along the Kisaralik River in spruce-cottonwood woodlands, typically in the forks of balsam poplar trees (Petersen et al. 1991). The project area appears to be at the western range limit of the breeding ranges of Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrel, and Osprey (Buehler 2000; Poole et al. 2002; Smallwood and Bird 2002; Preston and Beane 2009}. These species are not known to nest in the project area, however, scattered individuals of each species have been observed near riparian areas in the western drainages of the Kilbuck Mountains (Mindell1981, 1983; Boyce and Fristensky 1984; Petersen et al. 1991}. Northern Harrier likely breed in the project area and have been recorded along the lower Kisaralik and Kwethluk rivers (Boyce and Fristensky 1984; McCaffery 1993}. Nesting has been documented along the Tuluksak River in low and tall willow-scrub plant communities (Petersen et al. 1991). Of the six species of owls that occur in the project area, all but the Snowy Owl are likely breeders (Table 3.7-2}. Snowy Owls breed on coastal tundra and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is at the southern limit of their breeding range in Alaska (Parmelee 1992). No evidence of breeding has been reported in the lake study area but Snowy Owls have been seen on heath tundra of the lower Kuskokwim River during summer and fall (Williamson 1957). Short-eared Owls have been observed but are uncommon along the lower tributaries of the Kilbuck Mountains in moist tussock tundra, which is considered a breeding habitat (Mindell1983; Boyd and Fristensky 1984; Wiggins et al. 2006). Like Snowy Owls, however, Short-eared Owls in this region may be more common near coastal areas (Petersen et al. 1991). Both Snowy and Short-eared owls are migratory species and highly irruptive across their range depending on the abundance of microtine rodents, their primary prey (Parmelee 1992; Wiggins et al. 2006). Riparian spruce-cottonwood woodlands provide nesting and year-round habitat for Great Horned, Great Gray, and Boreal owls (Williamson 1957; Petersen et al. 1991). Great Gray and Boreal owls are recognized as species of conservation concern in southwest Alaska by the Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIFWG 1999). The Great Horned Owl is considered common in Kilbuck Mountains and western drainages, whereas the other two species are considered rare (Mindell1983; Petersen et al. 1991}. The Northern Hawk Owl is a year-round resident and uncommon breeder in the Kilbuck Mountains (Petersen et al. 1991). Northern Hawk Owls nest along the western drainages at the edges of riparian spruce and spruce- cottonwood woodlands and on well drained riverine terraces dominated by dwarf scrub vegetation (Mindel! 1983; Petersen et al. 1991}. 3.7.3.2 Waterbirds The waterbirds treated in this section include waterfowl, loons, grebes, cranes, gulls, terns, and jaegers. Waterfowl comprise the largest group of waterbirds in the project area, including geese, swans, dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and seaducks. Waterfowl occupy lake, pond, wetland and river habitats and occur throughout the project area. Harlequin Ducks restrict their breeding habitat to fast-flowing rivers and streams; specific surveys for them have been conducted on the Kisaralik River and its tributaries (McCaffery and Harwood 1994; Morgart 1998). Loons and grebes breed on lakes, preferring those with islands or emergent vegetation. Common Loons, in particular, nest on fish-bearing lakes and are likely to occur on Chikuminuk Lake. Cranes, gulls, and terns use lake, pond, and wetlands in tundra habitats for foraging and nesting. A few studies designed to determine the distribution and abundance use of waterbirds have been conducted within portions of the West transmission corridor study area. Waterfowl breeding population surveys have been conducted annually since 1957 in the Yukon Delta NWR (Mallek and Groves 2010). The aerial survey follows ~HATCH" Page 81 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 transect lines that are spaced approximately 800 meters apart and aligned to cover the largest possible number of waterbodies and wetlands. Only one of the eight transect lines of the Yukon Delta NWR survey falls within the project area; it runs parallel to and just east of the Kuskokwim River. Annual densities are calculated for each species of waterfowl for the entire survey area to determine breeding population estimates; all large waterbirds, including loons, grebes, cranes, gulls, terns, and jaegers are recorded. For the portion of the transect that occurs within the project area, USFWS survey data helps determine the presence of waterbirds (Table 3.7-2). An expanded waterfowl breeding population survey, which was more intensive and covered a broader area than the USFWS surveys, was conducted in the Yukon Delta NWR over a four-year period (1989-1992) (Platte and Butler 1993). The east-west transects of this survey extended to the Kilbuck Mountains and probably covered all of the waterbodies and wetlands within the project area between the Kuskokwim River and the Kilbuck Mountains. Results from the expanded waterfowl survey concluded that dabbling duck densities were highest in coastal areas and on deltas while seater, scaup, and Long-tailed Duck densities were highest in inland areas (Platte and Butler 1993). In 2004 and 2005, the transect lines of the expanded survey area were flown; only seaters, Greater Scaup, and Long-tailed Ducks were recorded (Stehn et al. 2006). Population estimates of those species from the 1989-1992 survey were compared with 2004-2005 estimates. Annual (1957-2011) and expanded (1993-1994) waterfowl breeding population surveys also have been conducted in the Bristol Bay region in the waterbodies and wetland habitats east of the project area (Platte and Butler 1995; Mallek and Groves 2010}. Surveys designed to determine the distribution and relative abundance of breeding Harlequin Ducks have been conducted along streams and rivers of the Kilbuck Mountains that occur in the West transmission corridor study area {McCaffery and Harwood 1994; Morgart 1998). Breeding pair surveys were conducted by helicopter of the Kisaralik and Kwethluk river drainages in 1994-1998 and a portion of the Eek River in 1994 (McCaffery and Harwood 1994; Morgart 1998). The density of Harlequin Ducks on the Kisaralik River in 1994 was about twice that of the Kwethluk River, and about half of all paired and unpaired birds occurred in 13 km of river between the mouths of Gold Creek and the North Fork Kisaralik River (McCaffery and Harwood 1994). About two-thirds of the Harlequin Ducks observed on tributaries of the Kisaralik River in 1994 occurred on Quicksilver Creek, Gold Creek, and the North Fork (McCaffery and Harwood 1994). Some annual variation occurred in the number of Harlequin Ducks on the Kisaralik River and its tributaries in 1995-1998, but overall the number remained high (Morgart 1998). Eight other species of waterfowl were observed on surveys for Harlequin Ducks in 1998, with Common and Red-breasted mergansers as the two other species most frequently seen (Morgart 1998). No surveys for Harlequin Ducks have been conducted on the Allen River or other inlet streams of Chikuminuk Lake in the lake study area. Waterbirds were recorded incidentally during boat-based surveys along the Kisaralik River, many of which were conducted primarily for cliff-nesting raptors (Boyce and Fristensky 1984; Brown et al. 1985; Peterson et al. 1991). Most of these surveys were confined to the river corridor and conducted in July or August after birds had completed nesting. During these surveys breeding was documented or suspected for at least two species of geese, ten species of ducks, and two species of gulls (Boyce and Fristensky 1984; Peterson et al. 1991). A bird- habitat study conducted around Napaskiak in late May/early June of 1955 and 1956 documented the occurrence of breeding by loons, grebes, cranes, and many species of ducks (Williamson 1957). Within the lake study area, a list of species was recorded during field activities in 1970 that served to assess the resource inventory of the Wood River-Tikchik area (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971). The field visits occurred in July and August and did not document any evidence of waterbird breeding. Tikchik Lake was noted as having more waterfowl than other lakes in the Wood River-Tikchik area because it was generally shallower and more eutrophic, but no reference was made to Chikuminuk Lake or the surrounding area for the occurrence of waterfowl (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971). ~HATCH" Page 82 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Tundra Swans are known to migrate through the project area in the fall (Peterson et al. 1991}, but no migration studies have been done in the project area. Very little is known about the use of Chikuminuk Lake or other waterbody and wetland habitats by waterbirds during spring and fall migration. No information was located on the use of Chikuminuk Lake by waterbirds and limited information exists on their use ofthe lakes and wetlands between the Kuskokwim River and the Kilbuck Mountains. Systematic aerial surveys for breeding waterfowl conducted annually by USFWS cover only the very western portion of the project area in the lower Kuskokwim River floodplain. A one-time aerial survey expanded the extent of coverage to include all of the lake and wetland habitats between the Kuskokwim River and the Kilbuck Mountains, but it occurred 20 years ago and most waterfowl populations have changed since then. Surveys are needed to document the current distribution, abundance, and habitat use of waterbirds within the project area during both the migration and breeding seasons. Harlequin Ducks use rivers exclusively for breeding and currently are a species of management concern (USFWS 2009). Surveys for Harlequin Ducks were conducted along rivers of the Kilbuck Mountains in the mid-1990s and the Kisaralik River was found to support a high number of ducks during the pre-nesting season when pair bonds are being formed. No surveys were conducted along the Kisaralik River during the brood-rearing season to determine productivity. No information was located on the occurrence of Harlequin Ducks or any other waterbirds on the Allen River or other inlet streams to Chikuminuk Lake. Surveys are needed of rivers and streams within the project area to determine the current distribution and abundance of breeding Harlequin Ducks and other waterbirds. 3.7.3.3 Landbirds and Shorebirds Excluding accidental occurrences during migration, at least 21 species of shorebirds and 56 species of land birds (primarily passerines) have been recorded or are likely to occur in the Project area (Table 3.7-2). Ten species of shorebirds are confirmed breeders and another 9 species possibly breed in the Project area. In contrast, 47 species of land birds are considered breeders and an additional nine species are possible breeders in the Project area. Both shorebirds and landbirds nest in a variety of habitats and probably occur throughout the Project area. In areas where studies were conducted, shorebirds were most commonly found using meadow habitats (wet, dwarf scrub, and grass) in both lowland and upland terrain and lacustrine and fluviatile waters and their shorelines (Wilson et al. 1982; Peterson et al. 1991). Land birds utilize an array of habitats that are found in the Project area, ranging from rocky alpine barrens to lowland meadow, scrub, and forest patches (Wilson et al. 1982; Peterson et al. 1991}. Studies that have documented shorebird and/or landbird use in the Project area are limited. Within the lake study area, a list of species was kept during field activities in 1970 that served to assess the resource inventory ofthe Wood River-Tikchik area (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971). The field visits occurred in July and August and did not document any evidence of bird breeding. Tikchik Lake was noted as having more shorebirds than other lakes in the Wood River-Tikchik area because it was generally shallower and more eutrophic, but no reference was made to Chikuminuk Lake or the surrounding area for the occurrence of shorebirds and landbirds (Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1971). Avian studies within the transmission line study area are primarily boat-based surveys, primarily for cliff-nesting raptors, that were conducted along the Kisaralik River, and only a few recorded the presence of shorebirds and landbirds (Boyce and Fristensky 1984; Brown et al. 1985; Peterson et al. 1991). The most comprehensive survey was conducted in 1985 as part of a general biological inventory of the Yukon Delta NWR (Brown et al. 1985). Birds were sampled by counting all individuals observed along transects (75 m or 100 m by 1,800 m) extending perpendicular from the river. Twenty-seven transects were completed, of which nine transects were in the Kisaralik Lake area, nine above the Upper Falls, and nine at Little Crow Hills below the lower falls on the river; Page 83 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 these locations all occur within the transmission line study area. The density and composition was summarized by species-group (shorebirds, passerines, waterfowl, and other) for each transect. Passerines were reported to be the dominant species group at the lower elevation transects while at the higher elevation transects, shorebirds and other birds were more common (Brown et al. 1985). The survey was conducted in August when all shorebirds and landbirds had finished nesting and rearing young; consequently, no evidence of breeding was found, although most bird species observed were assumed to have bred in the area. Data on the occurrence of bird species were recorded during float trips on rivers of the Kilbuck and Ahklun mountains between 1952 and 1987 and were synthesized in detailed species accounts by Peterson et al. (1991). Relative abundance, seasonal occurrence, distribution, and habitat use are presented for each species. Species sightings from the Kisaralik River are included in Peterson et al. {1991) but specific location data are not given. Boyce and Fristensky {1984) recorded the occurrence of all birds species observed during a raptor survey ofthe Kisaralik River in 1984 and reported location information in township/range format. Most of their observations occurred from a boat while floating downriver and were biased towards conspicuous species. No specific information exists on the distribution and abundance of shorebirds and landbirds within the project area. Systematic surveys are needed to determine the current distribution, abundance, and habitat use of the Project area by shorebirds and landbirds. ~HATCH~ Page 84 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.8 Special Status Species This section identifies species with a special federal or state conservation designation that are known to occur in the project vicinity. As of August 15, 2011, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) no longer maintains a list of species of special concern. The ADF&G does maintain a Wildlife Action Plan (ADF&G 2006) that is supported through the State Wildlife Grant program. The Wildlife Action Plan outlines the conservation needs for hundreds of species, most of which are listed due to lack of knowledge, some of which are listed because of actual conservation concern due to restricted range or decreasing abundance. "Featured Species" listed in the Wildlife Action Plan include fish, mammals, and birds. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FERC and USFWS (30 March 2011) tasks FERC to evaluate species published in the Birds of Conservation Concern (published and updated periodically by the Division of Migratory Bird Management; USFWS 2008, 2009) and other identified lists of priority migratory birds (BPIFWG 1999; Brown et al. 2001; Kushlan et al. 2002, 2006; Dunn et al. 2004; NAWMP 2004; ASG 2008). On the basis of the MOU definitions, 42 species of birds that occur or are suspected to occur in the project area have been identified as being of conservation and management concern. These species are described under Birds, below. 3.8.1 Federal Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered Species There are no federally-listed Candidate, threatened or endangered fish, plant or wildlife species, or designated or proposed critical habitat within the project vicinity. Listed species in Alaska include Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri) (threatened), Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri)(threatened), Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) (endangered), Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) (threatened) SW DPS, Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) (threatened), Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum a/euticum)(endangered), Eskimo curlew (Numenius borea/is)(endangered), Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) (threatened). Candidate species include Kittlitz's murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii), Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). Steller's and Spectacled eiders occur in coastal areas of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and are not expected to occur in the project area. Kittlitz's murrelet, a Candidate species, nest in talus habitats similar to those occurring in the mountains surrounding Chikuminuk Lake. However, the distance to coastal feeding areas is too far and they are not expected to occur in the project area. 3.8.2 State Designated and Special Conservation Status Species 3.8.2.1 Plants The AKNHP database indicates that eight rare vascular plant taxa with 51 and 52 rankings have been collected in the regional search area (Table 3.6-1). Eleocharis kamtschatica and Carex /apponica are both wetland species that are potentially more likely to occur in the Yukon-Kuskokwim lowlands within the biological resources study areas. The remaining six species all occur throughout the lakes region of Wood-Tikchik State Park and are thus highly likely to occur near Chikuminuk Lake and mountainous areas immediately adjacent to the lake. 3.8.2.2 Mammals The Little Brown Bat, Collared Lemming, and Tundra Hare are the only terrestrial mammal species in the project area that occur as featured species in the ADF&G Wildlife Action Plan due to rareness, restricted range, population declines, or conservation concern (ADF&G 2006). The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) maintains lists of "sensitive species" (BLM 2010); two terrestrial mammals that occur in the project area-the Tundra Hare and the Alaska Tiny Shrew-are included on that list. ~HATCH~ Page 85 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Little Brown Bat The Little Brown Bat is included as a featured species in the ADF&G Wildlife Action Plan with a ranking by the Nature Conservancy as rare or in widespread decline (ADF&G 2006). The Little Brown Bat is the most widely distributed and common species of bat in Alaska and Canada, inhabiting areas with some degree of forest cover (van Zyll de Jong 1985, MacDonald and Cook 2009). During summer, Little Brown Bats roost in natural cavities, under loose bark, in rock crevices, in dead or hollow trees, and in buildings; females with young roost in communal maternity colonies numbering from a few bats to more than a thousand (van Zyll de Jong 1985). Little Brown Bats generally occupy caves during winter hibernation. The species has been found hibernating in caves in southeastern Alaska and has been recorded on Kodiak Island in February, but it is not known if bats in interior Alaska migrate to the south coast or hibernate elsewhere (Parker et al. 1997). The population of Little Brown Bats in the eastern United States is experiencing a precipitous decline due to mass mortality caused by white- nose syndrome and the eastern population has a high probability of regional extinction in coming decades (Frick et al. 2010). Concern has been expressed about the possibility of white-nose syndrome being transported to Alaska (Wright and Moran 2011). Grumman Ecosystems Corporation (1971) reported Little Brown Bats in the Wood-Tikchik region but provided no supporting details. Nolan and Peirce (1996) observed a colony of Little Brown Bats occupying a cabin in summer on the Agulukpak River in Wood-Tikchik State Park, but did not report whether it was a maternity colony. Specimens have been collected near Iliamna Lake, King Salmon, and Sleetmute, on the Kuskokwim River (Parker et al1997). During the summer of 2012, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project field personnel reported that hundreds of Little Brown Bats commonly occurred on summer evenings at the Tikchik Narrows Lodge, near the southern edge of the lake study area and lodge employees confirmed that they were a common occurrence there annually. Little else is known of their occurrence or abundance in the project area. The locations of winter hibernacula used by Little Brown Bats are virtually unknown in most of Alaska. Collard Lemming Despite its abundance and widespread distribution in tundra habitats, the Collared Lemming is included as a featured species in the ADF&G Wildlife Action Plan with a ranking by the Nature Conservancy as rare or in widespread decline (ADF&G 2006). Collared Lemmings may occur in mesic tundra habitats throughout the project area. Tundra Hare It is uncertain whether or not Tundra Hares occur in the project area, if so they would be primarily in tundra habitats in the West transmission corridor, which approaches the eastern edge of the southern portion of the species range in Alaska. Although not rare in appropriate habitats, the Tundra Hare is listed by the BLM as a Sensitive Species, presumably because of its restricted distribution. The Tundra Hare is a featured species in the ADF&G Wildlife Action Plan with a ranking by the Nature Conservancy as rare, restricted range, or recent and widespread declines (ADF&G 2006). The Tundra Hare, also called the Alaska hare, is an endemic species that is related to the arctic hare of northern Canada and Greenland (Waltari and Cook 2005). It occurs in tundra habitats along coastal western Alaska from the Baldwin Peninsula south to the Alaska Peninsula (Anderson 1978, Waltari and Cook 2005, MacDonald and Cook 2009). The species is listed on the mammal checklists for the Yukon Delta NWR (USFWS 1988) and Togiak NWR (USFWS 1986). Jacobsen (2004) reported seeing a Tundra Hare from the air while conducted research near Iliamna Lake and the Nushagak River but no location was given. No specific information describes the occurrence or abundance of Tundra Hares in the project area. Alaska Tiny Shrew The Alaska Tiny Shrew is listed by the BLM as a Sensitive Species, although the abundance and distribution of the species is largely unknown. The Alaska Tiny Shrew, the smallest mammal in North America, was described as a ~HATCH~ Page 86 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 new species (Sorex yukonicus) in 1997, although Hope et al. (2010) have since concluded that it is conspecific with 5. minutissimus, an Old World species. When he described the species, Dokuchaev (1997) listed only three locations where it had been recorded, but specimen records increased quickly as researchers looked for it elsewhere in the state. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the species had been recorded over a broad area of interior, western, and northern Alaska. By 2007, the total number collected statewide had increased to 38 specimens from at least 22 locations (MacDonald and Cooke 2009), including the Togiak NWR (Peirce and Peirce 2000) and Lake Clark National Park and Preserve (Cook and MacDonald 2005). Early information on habitat affinities indicated that it occurred primarily in riparian habitats, but as trapping efforts expanded, it also was captured in scrub habitats. The Alaska Natural Heritage Program classifies the Alaska Tiny Shrew as "unrankable" globally (GU), presumably because little information is available; as "vulnerable" in the state (53; AKNHP 2011), probably due to restricted range and relatively few populations; and it was listed as a sensitive species by BLM in 2010, presumably because of its 53 ranking by AKHNP. 3.8.2.3 Amphibians The only amphibian that inhabits southwestern Alaska, the wood frog (Rana [Lithobates] sylvatica), is the most common amphibian in Alaska (MacDonald 2010). Wood Frog Although not considered rare, resource management agencies have devoted more attention to inventorying and monitoring Wood Frog populations due to population declines of amphibians elsewhere in North America and to reports of physical deformities in wood frogs in Alaska (Anderson 2004). Despite its abundance and widespread distribution, the Wood Frog is included as a featured species in the ADF&G Wildlife Action Plan (ADF&G 2006) with a ranking by the Nature Conservancy as rare or in widespread decline.Wood frogs occur in a wide variety of habitats during the year. Mature adults congregate in wetland areas to breed in the spring (beginning in late April to early May) and then move into adjacent wetland and upland habitats, usually within a few hundred yards of the breeding areas, during the summer (MacDonald 2010). Beaver ponds provide high-value habitat for wood frogs (Stevens et al. 2006). Egg-laying occurs in small ponds or lakes in wooded or open habitats; wood frogs reportedly avoid egg predation by fish by selecting waterbodies that are free of fish (Gotthardt 2005). Birds, such as gulls, prey on frogs during the breeding season. Wood frog breeding populations may vary by a factor of ten and juvenile populations may vary by a factor of 100 among years (Berven 1990). Adult survival depends on rainfall, drought, and winter severity (Berven 1990; Anderson 2004). Wood frogs hibernate throughout the winter under snow cover in shallow depressions of compacted forest litter, entering hibernation as early as late August. The species is remarkable because of its ability to tolerate freezing during winter hibernation by producing cryoprotectant chemicals that act as a natural"antifreeze" to prevent cell disruption, allowing up to 65% of the water in their bodies to crystallize and their body temperature to drop as low as -12°C (MacDonald 2010). In southwest Alaska, wood frogs have been recorded northwest of Iliamna Lake (Jacobsen 2004; PLP 2011) and southwest of Iliamna Lake near Kaskanak Creek (Jacobsen 2004). They also have been reported in Lake Aleknagik in the Wood River system and along the lower Kuskokwim and Yukon rivers (MacDonald 2010). About 50% of the waterbodies mapped for the proposed Pebble Mine Project northwest of Iliamna hosted wood frogs in the spring; deep ponds with aquatic vegetation and with hibernation habitat nearby were most likely to contain frogs (PLP 2011). The occurrence of wood frogs in the project area is suspected but unconfirmed. 3.8.2.4 Birds Forty-two species of birds that occur or are suspected to occur in the project area have been identified as being of conservation and management concern (Table 3.8-1). This list of birds of conservation and management concern, is based on the 30 March 2011 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FERC and the USFWS. The MOU states that bird species of concern within a proposed project area be identified from the USFWS Birds ~HATCH'" Page 87 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 of Conservation Concern, published by the Division of Migratory Bird Management (USFWS 2008, 2009) and by other lists of priority migratory bird species, including the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act-listed gamebirds of management concern (BPIFWG 1999; Brown et al. 2001; Kushlan et al. 2002, 2006; Dunn et al. 2004; NAWMP 2004; ASG 2008). However, not all of the species in Table 3.8-1 are considered uncommon or rare-the definition of species of concern in the MOU includes species that pose management challenges for various reasons, including population declines, small or restricted populations, dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats, or overabundance to the point of causing ecological or economic damage. The MOU listing of birds of concern is largely similar to the listing of birds identified as featured species by the ADF&G Wildlife Action Plan due to rareness, restricted range, population declines, or conservation concern (ADF&G 2006). Gyrfalcons Gyrfalcons are widely scattered residents throughout southwestern Alaska and are locally common breeders in several of the western drainages of the Kilbuck Mountains, including the Kisaralik River (Mindell1983, Petersen et al. 1991); therefore, it is likely that they also occur in the lake study area. In southwestern Alaska, they are primarily birds of the alpine zone that forage at the edge of subalpine dwarf scrub habitats (Petersen et al. 1991). Gyrfalcons nest on hillside rock outcrops and riverine cliffs as well as in trees where the forest follows the river into tundra biome (Cade 1960; Booms et al. 2008; McCaffery et al. 2011). Gyrfalcons are recognized as a species of conservation concern in southwest Alaska by the Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIFWG 1999). Great Gray and Boreal Owls Great Gray and Boreal owls are recognized as species of conservation concern in southwest Alaska by the Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIFWG 1999). Their status in the project area is unknown, however the distribution of both species is restricted to forested habitats, thus they may be uncommon in the lake study area. Waterbirds Sixteen species of waterbirds recorded in the project area are species of conservation or management concern (Table 3.8-1). Red-throated Loons are listed as a Bird of Conservation Concern by the USFWS because of declining population numbers (USFWS 2008). Five species of waterfowl that occur in the project area have been identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan as species of High Continental Priority (Cackling Goose, Lesser Canada Goose, Emperor Goose, Mallard, and Northern Pintail) and seven species are species of Moderately High Continental Priority (American Wigeon, Canvasback, Surf Seater, White-winged Seater, Black Seater, Long-tailed Duck, and Common Goldeneye) (NAWMP 2004). Five of these waterfowl species of High or Moderately High Continental Priority also are considered Birds of Conservation Concern by the USFWS (Table 3.8-1). Additional waterfowl species listed as Birds of Conservation Concern are Greater White-fronted Goose, Harlequin Duck, and Greater Scaup. The status of these species in the project area is unknown. Landbirds and Shorebirds Currently, information on the use of the project area by landbirds and shorebirds of conservation and management concern is lacking. Ten shorebirds of conservation concern (American Golden-Plover, Solitary Sandpiper, Lesser Yellowlegs, Whimbrel, Hudson ian Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Black Turnstone, Surfbird, Western Sandpiper, and Dun lin) and twelve land birds of conservation concern (White-tailed Ptarmigan, Olive- sided Flycatcher, Northern Shrike, American Dipper, Gray-cheeked Thrush, Varied Thrush, Bohemian Waxwing, Blackpoll Warbler, Golden-crowned Sparrow, Rusty Blackbird, White-winged Crossbill, and Hoary Redpoll) probably occur in the project area, most as breeders (Dunn et al. 2004; ASG 2008; Table 3.8-1). ~HATCH" Page 88 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Table 3.8-1 Reported or Suspected Bird Species of Conservation and Management Concern Common Name USFWS BCCa • • USFWS (2008} Birds of Conservation Concern. USFWS BMCb • • • • • NAWMPC • • • • • • • NAWCPd • • ASG (USSCP)e • • • • • • • • • USFWS (2009} Birds of Management Concern; designated as "Game Bird Below Desired Condition". April2014 BPIF (PIF)t • • • • • • • • • • • • ' North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee (2004); designated as "High or Moderately High Continental Priority". North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002, 2006); designated as "Species of High Concern". • Alaska Shorebird Group (2008), an amendment to the US Shorebird Conservation Plan (2001); designated as "Species of High Concern". Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (1999); designated as "Watch List Species of Continental Importance". ~HATCH~ Page 89 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.9 Recreation and Land Use This section provides an overview of the existing recreational and land uses and opportunities in the Project boundary and includes a focused description of specific recreational uses and attributes of Chikuminuk Lake as well as recreation along potential transmission corridor routes and in relevant nearby areas. As used in this resource review, the term "recreation" encompasses a diverse array of activities, including: • Sport hunting1 and sport fishing • Non consumptive recreational activities-hiking, boating, wildlife viewing • Activities by residents of the region, by residents from other parts of Alaska, and out-of-state visitors. 3.9.1 Description and Maps For the purposes of this recreation and land use section, the Project boundary is defined as the land immediately surrounding Chikuminuk Lake as well as land along the potential transmission line corridors. This includes: land within the northern area of Wood-Tikchik State Park; villages, land and waters along the lower Kuskokwim River to the west in the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta region; and lands, waters and villages along the Nushagak in the Bristol Bay region to the east. Section 2 of this volume contains detailed maps of the project boundary and Volume I defines the transmission corridors. Figure 3.9-1 provides an overview of the major land use designations within Southeast Alaska and Figure 3.9-2 provides further detail of controlling land use designations surrounding Chikuminuk Lake and the three potential transmission line corridors to Bethel. The extension of the two potential transmission line corridors to Dillingham not shown on Figure 3.9-2 both lie within Alaska State lands that are outside of the Wood-Tikchik State Park. 3.9.2 Current Use 3.9.2.1 Introduction Chikuminuk Lake is located in a remote part of Southwest Alaska. The lake is a part ofthe Tikchik Lakes system, located in the northern zone of Wood-Tikchik State Park. Approximately 90 miles north of Dillingham and 118 miles southeast of Bethel, the area cannot be reached by car or boat. Air is the principal means of access, although locations within the project boundary are occasionally visited by snow machine, and rarely by someone coming on foot or on skis. Southwest Alaska is world famous for its pristine river and lake systems, salmon runs, and sport fishing for salmon, rainbow trout and other species. Figure 3.9-1 maps the region's protected lands. As a whole, the region has a well-developed sport fishing industry with many lodges, camps and guides. As a result of this distant, wilderness location, and because many other areas of Bristol Bay offer easier access and more diverse fishing and hunting opportunities, recreational use of the Chikuminuk Lake area is very limited. There are no developed facilities in the area, and Alaska State Parks estimates that about only nine people received permits to camp there in 2011 (see Table 3.9-1). Recreation use may be somewhat higher in the vicinity ofthe potential alternative transmission line corridors west and/or south of the potential dam site. Transmission routing from the proposed Project to Bethel and/or Dillingham was the subject of consultation with the USFWS and Nuvista anticipates that there will be alternative transmission routes to consider if and when the project moves forward. These potential corridors are located near portions of several popular fishing rivers that currently support regular recreation activity, particularly the Kisaralik River to the northwest of the project site. 1 For some people hunting and fishing are recreational activities, while for others the same activity is subsistence. A separate study has been prepared that addresses subsistence activities in the Chikuminuk region (Appendix B). ~HATCH~ Page 90 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.9.2.2 Recreational Use Trends in Alaska Recreation is a very important part of life in Alaska; residents participate in wildlands recreation at twice the rate of the rest of the country, and the Alaska economy is heavily dependent on the tourism industry. Tourism is the state's second largest private sector employer, and the money generated by tourism is an important component of Alaska's economy (ADNR 2009). Two sources of information provide statistics about the magnitude and character of statewide recreation and outdoor-oriented tourism activities. The State of Alaska's Division of Economic Development, Office of Tourism Development oversees the Alaska Visitor Statistics Program (AVSP), which collects extensive information on Alaska visitors. The most recent comprehensive survey was done in 2011 and includes visitor profiles, volume, preferences, and other information (ADCCED 2011). For information on the use patterns and preferences of Alaska residents, this report will also refer to the Alaska Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), which is produced every five years by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR 2009). Wildlands recreation in Alaska includes a variety of activities, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing, boating, ORV riding, wildlife viewing, recreational mining, dog mushing, and rafting. While areas open to wildland recreation are available all over the state, use is concentrated in the Railbelt 2 area (ADNR 2009). This is largely due to the ease of access for residents and travelers as well as the presence of numerous supporting facilities, such as campgrounds, trail heads, boat launches, and other facilities. Resident Recreation Trends Alaskans place a very high value on recreation. A 2009 survey conducted as a part of the Alaska SCORP identified that 96 percent of Alaska residents believe that parks and outdoor recreation are important or very important to their lifestyle. This number has remained consistently high over the past two decades. According to the survey, the top ten favorite activities are hiking, fishing, hunting, snowmachining, cross country skiing, camping, biking, ATV riding/four-wheeling, skiing/snowboarding and running (ADNR 2009). Residents were also asked about their level of satisfaction with facilities. Information is summarized into three regions, with the Project included in the "Rural" region (see Figure 3.9-3). Of the three regions, the Rural residents are the least satisfied, citing a shortage or absence of facilities within their community or within an hour's travel time. All three regions (Railbelt, Southeast, and Rural) support improving the maintenance of existing facilities before developing new facilities (ADNR 2009). 2 The SCORP defines three regions of Alaska: Railbelt, Southeast, and Rural. The Railbelt includes all rural and urban communities that are accessible on the road system, which includes 73 percent of the population of Alaska. Southeast Alaska includes the temperate coastline areas and communities in the southeast portion of the state with 12 percent of the population, and Rural Alaska encompasses the large remaining portion of the state, with 15 percent of the state's population. ~HATCH~ Page 91 ~ :z: = n :z: '"0 Ill CIQ (I) 10 1'-l • Figure 3.9-1 Major Federa l and State Protected Areas in Sou t hwest Alaska ' I'JUSUP'I) ~ Legend e Hub Community • Mid-size Community ANCSA Boundary Glacier Designated Wilderness Area -Designated Wild and Scenic River q: .1.'~ ~ D .l.aflgtuk ~..) N,unaplclluk lethele Alclacllak • elwetlltuk Cll•lonlak • -.Kipnuk lollgonek • Chikuminuk Lake Wood·Tikchl: State Pork Kotmoi Notional Pork & Preserve Lake Clark Notional Pork & Preserve Togiak Notional Wldlife Refuge Yukon Delta Notional Wildlife Refuge New stu ,,aglkEkwo~ yahok ' . ,<()_ Bristol Bay 0 10 20 o1IO 60 80 Source: Alaska Geo -spat ia l Data Cleari nghouse (data) ,• n ::::J ::r ... -· It) """ :::::!. c: 3 3 -n s· It) c: "' """ §:~ =:c. ... ., < 0 ::0~ It) It) "0 n 0 ~ ;::l. ;::;· I "tJ < ., 0 .2. -It) c: n 3 ... It) m X Vi " ... :;· CIQ m ::::J < ~r ::::J 3 It) ::::J ... !!!. n 0 ::::J c. ;::;: o· ::::J Ill l> "0 2: N 0 ~ Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Figure 3.9-2 Adjacent Land Use Management Areas LEGEND * Dam/Powerhouse Location Bureau of Land Management Public Lands - -Transmission Route Alternatives* State Patented, Tentatively Approved or Other State Acquired Lands National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) ~ State Park Wilderness (ADNR 2002) c::J NWR Wilderness ~ State Selected c::::J AK Native Claims settlement Act Boundary ~ ANCSA Selected O Community ANCSA Patented or Interim Conveyed • Hub Community ~Both State and ANCSA Lands are Located Within a Section N A 0 •• 16 24 ----Miles ~HATCH '" -Municipal or Other Private Parcels Projection: Albers Conic Alaska, NAD 1927 Data sources: Alaska State Geo-Spatial Data Clearinghouse; U.S. Depl of the Interior Bureau of Land Management; Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Produced by Hatch Associates for N uvista. March 2013 April2014 Page 93 Environmental Conditions Table 3.9-1 Annual Visitation to Chikuminuk lake and Allen River Area, Wood Tikchik State Park Total Visitor Use Year Visitors Days 111 Primary Reported Permitted Activities 2004 3 36 2005 4 40 2006 12 148 2007 31 362 Camping, fishing, hiking, kayaking, photography 2008 28 296 Camping, guided hunting, hiking, hunting, photography, rafting 2009 21 180 Camping, hiking, hunting, rafting 2010 16 158 Camping, hunting, kayaking 2011 9 105 Camping, guided sportfishing, hunting Average 16 166 [1] Visitor Use Days is defined as the sum of all visitors in each group multiplied by the length of the group's stay. Source: Lake Aleknagik Recreation Area Ranger Station (2011) Figure 3.9-3 Planning Regions as Defined in the Alaska SCORP OF ALAs,;;, Source: Alaska DNR, SCORP (2009) ~HATCH" PLANNING REGIONS ··········M<Ijor Roads RAILBELT 1111( SOUTHEAST ~~ 'v, 2014 Page 94 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Rural Alaskans strongly support more facilities for the disabled, boat launches, off road vehicle trails, roadside toilets, RV dump stations, more recreational programs, more visitor centers, and improved maintenance of existing parks. They state that while facilities are crowded, that there are enough parks. Sport hunting, while also an important subsistence activity, is the favorite outdoor recreational activity among rural Alaska residents. Rural residents are also almost twice as likely as Rail belt residents to own hunting equipment, fishing equipment, ORV/ATVs, and snowmachines (ADNR 2009). The survey also asked respondents about barriers to outdoor recreation. The most frequently cited answer was lack of funding for outdoor recreation facility development, maintenance, and supervised programs. Other significant barriers included access issues, a shortage of land available for development, a lack of connecting trails, and climate or seasonal conditions (ADNR 2009). Statewide Visitor Recreation Trends According to the 2011 report by the Alaska Visitor's Statistics Program (AVSP), there were approximately 1.56 million out-of-state visitors to Alaska between May and September in 2011. There was a dip in visitation in 2009- 2010, although numbers have been steadily increasing since then and are expected to continue to increase in coming years. Travelers to Alaska are generally very happy with their experience, with 98 percent of visitors stating that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their trip (ADCCED 2011). The majority of visitors (57 percent) were cruise ship passengers, with an additional 39 percent coming to Alaska by air and the remaining four percent arriving by highway or ferry. Just over three-quarters of the visitors were traveling for vacation and pleasure, followed by 14 percent traveling to visit friends or relatives and the last nine percent arriving for business-related purposes. One-hundred percent of cruise visitors, 18 percent of air visitors, and seven percent of highway/ferry visitors purchased multi-day packaged tours. The most popular non-cruise packaged tours were fishing lodge (44 percent), wilderness lodge {16 percent), adventure tour (13 percent), and motor coach tour {10 percent). Statewide, the average age of visitors was 50.7 years; for the southwest region, the average age was 52.4 years (ADCCED 2011). As the Alaska SCORP points out, this aging visitor population means that the demand for physically demanding activities is decreasing, while the demand for more easily accessible roadside opportunities such as resorts is increasing (ADNR 2009). Of the planning regions shown in Figure 3.9-4 as defined in AVSP, most visitors travel through Southeast and Southcentral Alaska. Southwest Alaska, which includes the Kodiak and the Bristol Bay planning region, receives much less visitation: four percent of out-of-state visitors passed through and two percent of visitors stayed overnight. The region did see a one percent increase in visitation from 2006 rates. Compared to the other Alaska regions, Southwest visitors stayed in the region the longest, with an average of 7.5 days. More than half of these visitors traveled to the island of Kodiak. Almost half of the visitors to the Southwest area were from the Western U.S., and 61 percent of these visitors were male (ADCCED 2011). Table 3.9-2 shows the 2011 distribution of activities that visitors participated in during the summer season. Compared to statewide trends, visitors who traveled to the Southwest region were more likely to have gone wildlife viewing, fishing, and participated in cultural activities. Southwest visitors spent an average of $1,514 per person per trip, excluding transportation in and out of the state and any cruise package expenditures. This is about 50 percent more than the amount spent among all Alaska visitors. In the Southwest region, 49 percent of visitors who traveled to the area stayed in a hotel or motel during their Alaska trip, with another 30 percent having spent some time lodging on a cruise ship, 28 percent at a lodge, 22 percent in a private home, and eight percent wilderness camping. Southwest Alaska also seems to attract more repeat visitors than the rest of the state: half of visitors to the southwest said they were very likely to return to Alaska in the next five years, compared with 38 percent of visitors statewide. Three out of five had previously traveled to Alaska on vacation (ADCCED 2011). ~HATCH~ Page 95 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.9-2 Visitor Activities, Southwest Alaska and Statewide, 2011 Southwest Activity Statewide Alaska Wildlife Viewing 52 49 City Sightseeing Tour 39 18 Train Ride 38 n/a Hiking or Nature Walk 38 38 Day Cruise 36 4 Museum Visit 27 21 Historical or Cultural Attraction 25 38 Fishing 20 41 Visit Friends or Relatives 19 23 Flightseeing 16 11 Camping 7 5 Kayaking or Canoeing 7 2 Rafting 6 <1 Total 330 250 Source: DCCED, AVSP {2011) 3.9.2.3 Importance of Recreational Opportunities and Existing Facilities to the Public This and the following sub-sections review information on recreational use in the project boundary, which is located on both state-managed and federally-managed park and refuge areas. Additional information on existing and needed studies relating to recreational use in the project vicinity, are included in the Recreation and Aesthetics Data Gap Analysis (Appendix B). A look at statewide recreation resources and activities provides a helpful reference point for evaluation of recreational use and resources within the project boundary. Alaska has extensive statewide recreational opportunities, largely in the form of undeveloped public land open for fishing, hunting and exploring on foot, ski, four-wheeler or snowmachine. Of Alaska's 366 million acres, 322 million acres are public lands. While most of this acreage is remote, the large majority of this land is open and available for public recreation. In fact, forty-six percent of Alaska, or 168 million acres, is explicitly designated for wildland recreation. For comparison, the state of California occupies about 100 million acres (ADNR 2009). Alaska contains sixty percent of the U.S. national park acreage, the country's largest state park system, the nation's two largest national forests, and twenty-five rivers with a National Wild and Scenic River designation. The large quantity of publicly reserved lands is in part due to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), which protected over 100 million acres of Alaska federal lands and doubled the size of the country's national park and refuge system (ADNR 2009). ~HATCH~ Page 96 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Figure 3.9-4 Planning Regions as Defined in the Alaska Visitor Statistics Program Source: DCCED, AVSP (2011) ~HATCH " Page 97 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Statewide and Regional Recreation and Land Use Land use in Alaska is unique compared to the rest of the contiguous United States. The federal government is the largest landowner and manages over half of the land, and the State of Alaska owns about a quarter of all acreage in the state. The remaining land is owned by Native Corporations with a very small amount owned by private individuals; these areas are generally not open to public recreation. Overall, the amount of public land available for recreation in Alaska is extensive; in fact, almost half the acreage in the state is designated for wildland recreation. After purchasing Alaska in 1867, the federal government became the legal owner of nearly all the land in Alaska. The Alaska Statehood Act authorized the State of Alaska to receive over 103 million acres from the federal government. Approximately 95 percent of this land has been formally conveyed to the State. After the completion of this conveyance process, federal government holdings will be reduced to approximately 60 percent of land in Alaska, the majority of which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and BLM. The State will be the second largest landowner and will own approximately 28 percent of land around the state. Land owned by Native Corporations, which encompasses about 11 percent of the state, is generally not open for public recreation without permission. Less than one percent of Alaska's land is held by private owners other than Native Corporations (ADNR 2009). Approximately 82.4 million acres of these federal lands are designated as wilderness. Of land held by the State of Alaska, approximately 12 percent is under some form of legislative designation that protects or enhances wildland recreation, including designated state parks and state fish and game refuges. The State also owns about 65 million acres oftidelands, coastal submerged lands and lands under navigable waters, all of which have significant value for wildland recreation (ADNR 2009). The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities {DOT /PF) is also a very important agency when it comes to recreation in Alaska. Most recreation occurs along the road system, which provides residents and visitors with access to public lands {ADNR 2009). Infrastructure and facilities are also disproportionately concentrated along the road system to meet this higher demand. Rural, off-road areas of the state see much less recreation due to the difficulty and expense of transportation. Rural Alaska has considerable high-value recreation lands, although developed facilities such as campgrounds, trails, trail heads, cabins and boat launches are in short supply. In particular, Southwestern Alaska provides extensive off-the-beaten path experiences for recreationalists. These range from high end, luxurious wilderness fishing lodges to do-it-yourself hiking, floating, fishing or snowmachine adventures. For people from outside the region, considerable expense is required for all these activities. Many recreational activities also require substantial skill, experience and equipment. These realities significantly constrain the number of visitors that come into Southwest Alaska. Outdoor recreational activity by regional residents tends to be linked to subsistence, and the locations of such activity are highly controlled by access. Many residents travel by boat in the summer and by snowmachine in the winter. Southwestern Alaska contains a diverse variety of outdoor recreational opportunities (Figure 3.9-1). The NPS manages two large parks in the region: Katmai National Park and Preserve and Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. Both Katmai and Lake Clark offer world-renowned sports fishing, bear viewing, and remote wilderness experiences in striking, largely undeveloped landscapes. The USFWS manages a number of National Wildlife Refuges in the region as well. The 19 million acre Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Yukon Delta NWR) consists of mostly flat delta lands extending out to the Bering Sea. This refuge was established to protect water resources and wildlife populations. There are 41 villages located within the refuge, many of which own land conveyed through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to village corporations (USFWS 2004). The Page 98 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 slightly smaller Togiak National Wildlife Refuge to the south contains diverse landscapes and is home to eight local villages (USFWS 2004). In addition to these federally protected lands there are five designated Wild and Scenic rivers in the region (Figure 3.9-1). Andreafsky River is located in the northern part of the Yukon Delta NWR, Alagnak River starts in Katmai National Park, and the Chilikadrotna, Mulchatna and Tlikakila Rivers are located in the lake Clark National Park and Preserve (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2012). The State of Alaska manages recreational lands in southwest Alaska. Wood-Tikchik State Park is the largest state park in the country and the proposed Project would be within its boundaries. This 1.6 million acre park features two distinct lake chains and offers backcountry camping, birding, boating, fishing, hunting and rafting (ADNR 2002). There are no official land trails or trailheads, although several water routes are listed on the State Park webpage (ADNR 2011). The nearest Ranger Station and public access point is at lake Aleknagik State Recreation Site, located at the southern end of Wood-Tikchik State Park in Aleknagik. Southwestern Alaska offers some of the most productive salmon fishing in the country. Bristol Bay in particular contains a well-developed sportfishing industry with a variety of lodges, camps and guides. Popular Bristol Bay destinations include the Nushagak River, and much of the Wood-Tikchik lake system. Sportfishing destinations on the Y-K Delta side include the Kisaralik, Kwethluk, Kasigluk, Akulikutak and Kuskokwim Rivers. These fishing locations all require either boat or floatplane transport. There are many recreational hunting opportunities in the region as well. ADF&G oversees most of the recreational and subsistence hunting in southwest Alaska. Recreational hunting is generally not allowed on federal parklands, but it is permitted on federal preserve lands and refuges. Commonly hunted species include caribou, moose and some black bear (ADNR 2002). Recreational Use in the Project Vicinity Chikuminuk lake is located in a remote part of Southwest Alaska; it is accessible only by aircraft Wood-Tikchik State Park contains very few facilities and therefore encourages visitors to be self-sufficient and use "pack it in, pack it out" practices (ADNR 2002). There are a number of recreation opportunities in the park, including fishing, hunting, sightseeing, camping and watersports such as rafting and kayaking. As a whole, the Bristol Bay region has a well-developed sportfishing industry with many lodges, camps and guides. See Figure 3.9-5 for existing lodges and recreation sites. lake Aleknagik State Recreation Site, the only official recreational access point, offers a ranger station, parking area, boat launch ramp and other facilities, although visitors are welcome to fly, hike, or boat into the more remote areas (ADNR 2011). Camping and rafting are both allowed throughout the park but several areas require permits, including Chikuminuk lake. In an effort to reduce park user conflict and to avoid crowding, the park has a ten day camping limit per site, as well as group size limits and overall annual visitation limits. The park also has various restrictions on the use of motorized craft and equipment. Snowmachines are allowed throughout the park, and hovercraft and generators are allowed in all non-wilderness designated zones. Helicopters, airboats, and all-terrain vehicles are prohibited entirely within Wood-Tikchik State Park. Motorized boats are not permitted on Chikuminuk lake (ADNR 2002). Because many other areas of Bristol Bay offer easier access and more diverse fishing opportunities, recreational use of the Chikuminuk lake area is very low. According to the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan, the majority of use occurs between June 15 and the end of September, although a select number of local residents and Dillingham residents use the park year-round (ADNR 2002). The heavier use in the summer reflects the influx of visitors for hunting and fishing. Water recreation, including rafting and kayaking, are also popular activities in the park. ~HATCH" Page 99 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 According to information shared by the State Park Ranger, a small number of visitors acquire a permit travel to the Chikuminuk Lake/Allen River area each year. Visitor information between 2004 and 2011 is summarized in Table 3.9-1. The most popular activities in this area were hunting and camping, and the average length of stay was 12 days. Between 2004 and 2011, 39 of the visitors were from Alaska, and 85 were from the Lower 48 states (WTSP 2012). The West transmission route alternative would pass near several popular fishing rivers that currently support regular recreation activity, including the Kisaralik River. The downstream portion of this river is located within the Yukon Delta NWR. The Kisaralik River is the most heavily used recreational river in the Yukon Delta NWR. Local residents, mostly from Bethel, Akiachak, Akiak, and Tuluksak, use motor boats to sport fish on the lower Kisaralik River below Golden Gate Falls (Buzzell 2010). Visitors often combine sportfishing with raft float trips that start at Kisaralik Lake. Both visitors and residents sport fish the Kisaralik between the months of May to October, peaking in July (Buzzell 2010). At least two commercial outfitters provide floatplane transport, sportfishing and rafting support for visitors to the Kisaralik River (Buzzell 2010). The USFWS strongly restricts commercial activity on the river; recent attempts by commercial sportfishing businesses to obtain special-use permits to take customers down the river have been unsuccessful (Buzzell 2010). According to the Yukon Delta NWR's Land and Conservation Plan there is relatively little recreational use on the refuge by people other than local residents (USFWS 2004). Alaska's Department of Community and Economic Development estimates that 500-800 visitors come to the Refuge annually, including school groups (USFWS 2004). This low number is largely due to the transportation costs required to recreate in the area and to a lack of supporting infrastructure, lodges, and facilities that provide resources to visitors. The nearest community to the proposed dam site is Koliganek, located on the Nushagak River. The closest communities in the Calista region are the set of villages along the Kuskokwim River, starting from Tuluksak on the north extending downriver through Bethel and eight other smaller villages. Many of the residents in these villages use resources within the vicinity of the Project. It is important to note that for some individuals hunting and fishing are considered recreational activities, while for others the same activity is an important element of the subsistence lifestyle. Records of use at Chikuminuk and nearby areas are limited, and do not necessarily capture this distinction. Section 3.12.12 addresses subsistence activities in the Chikuminuk region. Sportfishing and Angling Bristol Bay and Southwest Alaska in general, are world famous for sportfishing for salmon, rainbow trout and other species. As a whole, the region has a well-developed sportfishing industry with many lodges, camps and guides. Because many other areas of Bristol Bay offer easier access and more diverse fishing opportunities, recreational use of the Chikuminuk Lake area is very low. In contrast, the potential transmission line corridor running west of the proposed project site passes near several popular fishing rivers that currently support regular recreation activity. For purposes of this sub-section, sportfishing is distinguished from subsistence fishing. The definition of sportfishing is recreational fishing done for enjoyment and as a supplemental food source, not as a primary food source. In contrast, subsistence fishing is done primarily for sustenance and trade. According to the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan, sportfishing attracts a number of visitors to Wood- Tikchik State Park each year. The top five species of fish caught in the park are arctic grayling, coho Salmon, Dolly Varden char, lake trout and sockeye salmon (ADNR 2002). Some of the park visitors choose guided fishing trips, while others choose to either camp in the park independently or use day access from Lake Aleknagik State Recreation Site. There are eight lodges within the Wood-Tikchik State Park, one of which is the Tikchik Narrows Lodge, located approximately 16 miles from the proposed dam site, on the peninsula that separates Nuyakuk and Tikchik Lakes (ADNR 2002; Agnew::Beck 2012). ~HATCH" Page 100 Chikuminuk Hyd roelectric Project Inter im Feasi bility Re port-Volume II, Existing Environmenta l Conditions Figure 3.9-5 Recreation Sites and Lodges i n Wood-Tikchik State Park ~HATCH '" Kef'.'~· tn. LEGEND • Community e Private Lodge • Camp or Ranger Station f2Z2I Federal Wilderness Area [:::J Chilcum inulc Lalce Dolo: Alaska State Geo-spotiol Dolo Clearinghouse (ASGOC) lodge and camp dolo developed by Agnew::Beck Produced by Agnew::Beck Comulling for ~~fa. Mach 2013 April2014 Page 101 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.9-3 Anglers per Year, Tikchik-Nuvakuk Lake Svstem Number of Year Anglers 2000 737 2001 788 2002 579 2003 829 2004 867 2005 551 2006 425 2007 807 2008 836 2009 309 2010 416 Average 649 Source: ADFG (2011d) Sport fishing activity is concentrated in the more accessible southern Tikchik-Nuyakuk Lakes system, which can be entered by boat from the road that connects Dillingham and Aleknagik Lake. Table 3.9-3 shows the anglers per year that visited this area between 2000 and 2010 (ADF&G 2011d). Fishing interest at Chikuminuk Lake is minimal for several reasons. Salmon have not been found to make use of Chikuminuk Lake (ADNR 2002). In the past, local lodges would fly people to the lake, and then use skiffs with motors to troll for trout and other species. Since the area was closed to motorized use, this activity has ended. The net result of difficult access, remote location, lack of fish, and restrictions on the use of motors has led to very minimal fishing activity at the lake. State Parks visitor statistics supports this conclusion: of the visitors to the Chikuminuk Lake/Allen River area between 2004 and 2011, on average only 2.4 people participated in fishing activities each year (WTSP 2012). To the degree that out-of-region visitors travel to the Yukon Delta NWR, the motivation is primarily tied to the region's fishing opportunities. Several rivers used for recreational fishing are located in the vicinity of the potential alternate transmission line West Route to Bethel are the Kisaralik, Kwethluk, Kasigluk, and Akulikutak Rivers, all of which drain into the Kuskokwim River in the south- central portion of the Yukon Delta NWR. The West Route to Bethel travels in the vicinity of the Kisaralik and would cross the Kasigluk, Akulikutak, and Kwethluk Rivers before crossing the Kuskokwim River and entering the city of Bethel. The abundance of fish species in the Kuskokwim River drainage has made sportfishing a popular activity there. Sport fish found in these rivers include several species of salmon, Dolly Varden char, northern pike, arctic grayling and rainbow trout. The ADF&G has specific data on fish harvests and number of anglers for two Kuskokwim River tributaries: the Kisaralik and Kwethluk Rivers. According to this angler survey data, the frequency of sportfishing on the rivers has increased over the past ten years. Preliminary discussions with people familiar with the area suggest that these rivers are common destinations for fly-in anglers coming from lodges in Bristol Bay. However, commercial guides must obtain permits to take visitors into the Yukon Delta NWR. This reduces the number of guided parties that visit rivers in the refuge and, as a result, reduces the number of sport angler visits. The Kisaralik River, which starts east of the refuge at Kisaralik Lake and joins with the Kuskokwim River just north of Bethel, is a relatively popular destination for fishing and float trips, and the most heavily used recreational river in the Refuge. According to ADF&G surveys conducted between 2000 and 2004, there was an average of 1,862 angler days per year along the Kisaralik River (ADF&G 2011e). Sport fishermen travel to the area to seek out a variety of species, including rainbow trout, Chinook salmon, Chum salmon, Arctic grayling, northern pike and sheefish. As there are very limited facilities along the river, most fishermen travel on float trips, either with guides or independently. Summaries of the angler days, salmon species catches and resident species catches are shown on Tables 3.9-4, 5 and 6 respectively. ~HATCH~ Page 102 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.9-4 Sportfishing Estimates- Angler Days, Kisaralik River, 2000-2010 Year[ll Anslers Da~s Fished 2000 373 2084 2001 274 1304 2002 358 2410 2003 368 1439 2004 334 2071 2005 326 1282 2008 552 2576 2009 362 2235 2010 483 2056 Average[2 J 381 1940 [1] No 2006 or 2007 data is available [2] Averages are rounded to the nearest integer Source: ADFG (2011e) Recreational Hunting and Trapping The northern part of Wood-Tikchik State Park receives relatively limited recreational hunting use. Use was higher in the past, when caribou numbers were greater in this area (ADF&G 2011b). The ADF&G provides annual hunting reports based on the results of hunting permits sold or auctioned. This is the best data for understanding sport hunting in the area. However, this information is limited due to its broad geographic scope. Other sources of game population data include caribou and moose management reports, furbearer trapping reports, the Wood- Tikchik State Park Management Plan and information on the Yukon Delta NWR website. Like sportfishing, recreational hunting and trapping is distinct from subsistence hunting and trapping. In Alaska, subsistence hunting takes precedence over sport hunting. If an animal population cannot be harvested under the principle of "sustained yield," sport hunting and trapping are restricted; a further distinction must be made between high priority and lower priority subsistence hunting, called a "Tier II" hunt (USFWS 2003). Both subsistence and sport hunters require permits from ADF&G. (see Section 3.12.12.2). Table 3.9-5 Sportfishing Catch Estimates-Salmon Species, Kisaralik River, 200Q-2010 Chinook Coho Sockeye Chum Year[ll Salmon Salmon Salmon Pink Salmon Salmon 2000 10 199 0 0 13 2001 0 195 34 0 0 2002 46 167 0 0 0 2003 75 377 74 0 28 2004 58 226 22 0 0 2005 40 298 22 0 0 2008 148 807 171 23 31 2009 51 559 10 0 22 2010 0 172 0 0 24 Average[2 J 48 333 37 3 13 [1] No 2006 or 2007 data is available [2] Averages are rounded to the nearest integer Source: ADFG (2011e) The Project is located in ADF&G Game Management subunit 17B (shown in Figure 3.7-1), which covers the Nushagak River drainage upstream from and including the Mulchatna River drainage, and the Wood River drainage upstream from the outlet of Lake Beverley. This includes Chikuminuk Lake and the northern half of Wood-Tikchik State Park. Table 3.9-7 displays available ADF&G hunting information between 2005 and 2010 for both residents and non-residents. The ADF&G data does not distinguish between subsistence and sport hunters in the general season hunt data. ~HATCH~ Page 103 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 Table 3.9-6 Sportfishing Catch Estimates-Resident Species, Kisaralik River, 2000-2010 Lake Dolly Varden Arctic Northern Year11 l Trout (Arctic Char) Rainbow Trout Grayling Whitefish Pike 2000 0 367 47 29 0 11 2001 37 320 0 64 0 0 2002 17 345 29 507 0 0 2003 0 432 21 280 0 0 2004 0 114 99 45 60 0 2005 0 246 78 346 0 247 2008 0 113 136 121 31 9 ··--·· 2009 10 232 0 90 0 0 2010 0 125 0 0 0 0 Average[21 7 255 46 165 10 30 [1] No 2006 or 2007 data is available [2] Averages are rounded to the nearest integer Source: ADF&G (2011e) Table 3.9-7 Hunting Reports for Game Management Unit 17B, 2005-2010 Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 All Caribou Hunters Residents 532 197 140 109 79 82 Non Residents 474 267 121 75 2 1 4 0 0 0 Total 1018 468 267 186 83 84 Successful Caribou Hunts Residents 378 96 62 43 36 38 Non Residents 252 163 76 32 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Total 636 261 142 76 37 38 Moose Hunters Residents 108 197 214 206 208 133 Non Residents 211 193 166 117 75 79 2 Total 453 395 387 324 288 215 Successful Moose Hunts Residents 11 68 6 4 58 28 Non Residents 71 44 52 30 25 34 0 3 Total 118 114 118 78 83 65 Black Bear Hunters Residents 7 3 Non Residents 15 14 Unspecified 0 0 0 1 Total n/a n/a n/a n/a 22 18 Successful Black Bear Hunts Residents 1 1 Non Residents 7 7 0 Total 8 8 Source: ADF&G (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) ~HATCH~ Page 104 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 According to ADF&G, the most commonly hunted species in the Wood-Tikchik State Park are caribou, moose, and black bear {ADF&G 2011a; 2011b; 2011c). The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan notes that most of the hunters that travel to the park are residents of Southwest Alaska {ADNR 2002). The plan indicates that brown bears are abundant in the area around Chikuminuk and Nuyakuk Lakes, although no records of brown bear hunting are available from ADF&G. Hunt data for caribou, moose, and black bear all show a decline in the number of hunters and their harvest since 2005. As the Mulchatna Caribou Herd has shifted locations and fallen in numbers, the number of caribou hunters has dropped dramatically, from 1,018 in 2005 to only 84 in 2010 (ADF&G 2011b). Moose populations are actually increasing in the park, although the number of moose hunters has fallen from 453 in 2005 to about half that number in 2010 (ADF&G 201lc). Data on the black bear hunt, though sparse, also shows a decline. Black bear hunt data has only been collected since 2009 with only 22 hunters that year and 18 the following year (ADF&G 2011a). Hunting is listed as a trip activity more than any other form of recreation (including fishing, camping, hiking, climbing, boating, or floating) and is the most popular activity in the northern portion of the Park (ADNR 2002). The relatively large number of hunters every fall is a management issue for the State Park system. The heaviest use of the lakes occurs from the third week in August to mid-October. Nishlik, the northernmost Tikchik Lake, is the most heavily used, with nearly every sheltered bay used by floatplanes and supporting a hunting camp. Crowding of hunters and increasing amounts of camp refuse has spurred the Alaska State Parks to restrict the number of parties on the Upper Tikchik lakes (ADNR 2002). Information on recreational hunting activity along the proposed transmission corridor is more difficult to obtain. The USFWS does not collect hunting and fishing data on refuge land. The Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Land Conservation Plan is one of a very limited set of resources that references hunting in the Yukon Delta NWR. This plan notes that all Yukon Delta NWR lands are open to public use with certain restrictions on harvesting endangered species and trespassing on Native Alaskan land (USFWS 2004). However, the USFWS issues no regulations directly limiting hunter use of the refuge; rather, restrictions on the issuance of commercial guide permits may limit the number of commercial hunting guides and as a result, the number of recreational hunters visiting the refuge. From the conservation plan, it is evident that most hunting in the Yukon Delta NWR is by local residents for subsistence use (USFWS 2004). Non-Consumptive Recreation Non-consumptive recreation is outdoor recreation that does not include harvesting natural resources such as fish and game. These activities commonly include hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, kayaking or boating, and mountain climbing. Non-consumptive recreation is not common within the project boundary, but the area does offer characteristics (attractive landscapes, wilderness, and wildlife) that a small number of visitors enjoy each year. Existing data on non-consumptive recreation within the project boundary are sparse or non-existent. Recreational use of Wood-Tikchik State Park is secondary to subsistence use, as determined by the State Legislature (ADNR 2002). Because of the park's remoteness, the most common uses in the park are subsistence or recreational fishing and hunting. The southern portions ofthe park, particularly Lake Aleknagik State Recreation Site, are used much more heavily by non-consumptive recreationalists (boaters and wildlife viewers). The northern part, including Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River, receives few recreational visits because of its remote location and the expense of air charter. As stated earlier, most recreational visits are for sportfishing in the summer or hunting in the fall (ADNR 2002). The proposed Project is located in the Tikchik Lakes Management Unit of the state park. The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan notes that some non-consumptive recreational use occurs in this Management Unit (ADNR 2002). This plan states that the upper Allen River can be explored by foot from Chikuminuk Lake, and there are ample hiking opportunities in the unit because of its higher elevations and minimal brush. River floating is also popular in the unit, starting from Upnuk or Nishlik Lakes in the drainage north of Chikuminuk Page 105 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 Lake. The headwaters for the long and easily floated Tikchik River (ADNR 2011), which bypasses the Chikuminuk Lake I Allen River basin and joins the Nuyakuk River basin at Tikchik Lake is located within the Tikchik Lakes Management Unit. Due to the dangerous rapids at the Allen River outlet of Chikuminuk Lake, the lake itself is not used as a staging area for longer float trips. As noted earlier, the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan specifies that only six parties of up to ten individuals may be present on Chikuminuk Lake at one time. Along with a restriction on power boats and the area's remoteness, this suggests very little camping or other activities such as wildlife viewing or mountain climbing is done near the lake {ADNR 2002). The Wood-Tikchik State Park Ranger provided approximate numbers of visitors to the Chikuminuk Lake/Allen River area of the park and their primary activities. Between 2004 and 2011, visitors participated in non-consumptive activities including kayaking, camping, hiking, and photography; however, the primary uses of the area were hunting, fishing, and camping (WTSP 2012). Information regarding non-consumptive recreation outside of Wood-Tikchik State Park {in the vicinity of potential transmission line alignments) is limited. Yukon Delta NWR sources and a variety of background reports on the Kisaralik River offer some background on non-consumptive recreational use outside ofthe State Park. The Yukon Delta NWR Management Plan notes that there is very little non-consumptive recreation within the refuge, but it does not offer statistics to indicate the number or magnitude of this recreational use. This plan notes that in recent years regional and national publications have featured fishing and floating opportunities within the refuge, although it is unclear if this has resulted in increased visitation (USFWS 2004). The Kisaralik River Final Summary Report provides historical information regarding recreational use on the Kisaralik River. Besides sportfishing and recreational hunting, the report also covers rafting, canoeing, and camping on the river. Camping is only mentioned in association with other recreational activities, but rafting and canoeing are covered fairly extensively. These activities are likely tied to hunting and fishing (Buzzell 2010). The first recorded recreational raft trip down the Kisaralik River was in the summer of 1973, when two individuals from Bethel floated the river. These two individuals tried canoeing it the following summer, but lost everything and had to walk for fifty days to reach Bethel. After his float trip down the river in July 1978, David Dapkus of the U.S.-Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service reported that "The river offered good floating with a raft, kayak, or canoe for the intermediate to expert canoeist" (Buzzell 2010). Annual numbers of recreational canoeists, kayakers and rafters are not available; the USFWS does not collect such data on a regular basis. Most rafting data are provided to the Yukon Delta NWR from outfitters or guides permitted to run the river. A 1984 National Park Service draft report titled Kisaralik River, Alaska, Draft Wild and Scenic River Study, noted that recreational travel down the river usually starts at Kisaralik Lake and occurs by canoe, kayak or raft, with occasional portages (NPS 1985). The report also noted that sportfishing is almost always combined with rafting. The number of float trips was low: eight to ten groups of four persons were reported to float the Kisaralik every year. Since 1997, the Yukon Delta NWR has halted commercial rafting on the river. Because the Yukon Delta NWR only keeps track of commercial guided tours, little or no data are available on float trips on the Kisaralik River from the Yukon Delta NWR. A report titled Kisaralik River System: Final Summary Report, commissioned by ADNR, includes a table of non- guided raft traffic on the Kisaralik River from 1973-2008. Much of the information is provided by commercial guiding outfits and some from the Yukon Delta NWR. The Yukon Delta NWR only occasionally conducts studies to determine the number of non-guided raft groups; no data are available for many of these years, particularly since 2003. Available data indicate that the number of people and groups rafting the Kisaralik has grown since the 1980s. The largest number of people rafting on the river was recorded in 2001, when 123 people in 21 ~HATCH'" Page 106 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 groups floated down the river. According to the report, today fewer than 100 people raft the Kisaralik each summer (Buzzell 2010). Although commercial guiding of float groups is only allowable by permit, several businesses have been started in response to demand for gear and transportation to and from the river. Papa Bear Adventures and Kuskokwim Wilderness Adventures (KWA) are two major Kisaralik River float outfitters in the area. Together these two Bethel outfitters capture more than 95 percent of the rafting business on the Kisaralik. Other businesses that have outfitted rafters for trips down the Kisaralik include: Aniak Air Guides of Aniak, Renfros' Alaska Adventures of Bethel, and Frontier Outfitters of Anchorage. According to the manager of the Yukon Delta NWR, only Papa Bear and Renfros' Alaska Adventures have permits for guided drop-offs along the Kisaralik River within the Refuge (Buzzell 2010). 3.9.2.4 Formal and informal public access to lands and waters Chikuminuk Lake is located in a remote part of Southwest Alaska, which is itself a remote part of the state. The lake is a part of the Tikchik Lakes system, located in the northern zone of Wood-Tikchik State Park. Approximately 90 miles north of Dillingham and 118 miles southeast of Bethel, the area cannot be reached by car or boat. Air is the principal means of access, although the area is occasionally visited by snow machine, and rarely by someone on foot or on skis. 3.9.2.5 Existing uses of land within and adjacent to the Project The generation facilities for the proposed Project would be located within the Wood-Tikchik State Park, which is managed according to the 2002 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan. One of the proposed transmission line corridors would traverse the Yukon Delta NWR, which would be managed according to the 2004 Yukon Delta Land Conservation Plan. Adjacent recreation areas include the 4.2 million acre Togiak National Wildlife Refuge and parcels of state lands managed by various state agencies. Sections 3.9.9, 3.9.10, and Section 3.12.2 contain additional information on land ownership and uses within the project area. 3.9.3 Buffer Zones There are no existing shoreline buffer zones within the project boundary. There are currently no developed uses adjoining the shore of Chikuminuk Lake or its adjoining river banks, which is consistent with the specifications of the Alaska State Park wilderness zone designation. 3.9.4 Current and Future Needs Current and future recreation needs are expressed through needs statements, goals, and objectives contained in various state and local planning documents; these are described below. 3.9.4.1 Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan {SCORP} (2009} The Alaska State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) summarizes the recreational use patterns, preferences and needs of the State of Alaska. Four overarching were issues identified in the 2009-2014 Plan. The first was a lack of adequate funding. The state seeks to address this issue in a variety of ways, including encouraging reform to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, strengthening interagency communication and cooperation, promoting volunteer programs, organizing user groups, and developing alternate funding sources such as a matching grants program or a trails foundation. The second issue revolved around the close relationship between tourism and the Alaska economy: the plan seeks to "provide and promote high-quality, sustainable, safe and affordable recreational opportunities to keep pace with the rising demands, needs and diversity of Alaskans and visitors." The plan encourages increased cooperation and planning across the public and private sector, as well as improvements to facilities and the development of year- Page 107 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 round tourist destinations and services. The third issue involves insufficient access to outdoor recreation opportunities. The plan acknowledges that while there are ample areas for outdoor recreation, there is a lack of access in the form of trails, facilities, and other supporting infrastructure that makes these recreation areas accessible to many residents. Outdoor recreation needs differed by region. Rural residents needed more facilities and access to outdoor recreation opportunities that Southeast or Rail belt residents. The last issue identified in SCORP is a shortage of community recreation facilities. The plan encourages the maintenance and/or addition of local facilities such as play fields, pools and parks (ADNR 2009}, noting that facilities are needed more than land. 3.9.4.2 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan (2002) The 2002 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan identifies a number of recreation-related goals and objectives. The first goal is to protect fish and wildlife resources of the park. The park aims to do so by identifying the acceptable level of disturbance to natural systems, by inventorying and monitoring fish and wildlife resources, by establishing park management units, and by establishing habitat management practices. The second goal is to support traditional subsistence use. The park aims to inventory subsistence uses, establish priorities for resource allocation, recommend acceptable harvest levels, and manage areas to mitigate potential conflicts between subsistence users and recreational users. The third goal is focused on providing for the outdoor recreational needs of visitors as appropriate to the park's values and setting. In order to support recreational users, the park recognizes that it must define appropriate activities, apply management practices to maintain quality experiences for users, establish developments and facilities as appropriate, protect private property rights, and balance consumptive and non-consumptive park uses. The fourth goal is to protect, document, interpret, and manage areas of significant scientific, educational, visual, cultural, or historical value. In order to accomplish this, the plan recommends that areas are inventoried and defined, that visitors are taught these scientific and educational values through information programming, that park management encourages responsible off-site visitor interpretation and promotion, and that the park works to protect the archaeological, historical, and visual quality of park elements. The last goal of the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan is to establish management practices that align with regional and statewide recreation and tourism demands (ADNR 2002). Within the land use chapter, the recreational development designation acknowledges the need to develop more recreation facilities, such as campsite and bathrooms, to minimize visitor impact. 3.9.4.3 Land Conservation Plan for the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (2004) The Yukon Delta Land Conservation Plan lists a number of concerns and encourages that "Refuge management be cognizant of these issues when making decisions." Of these issues, two are particularly relevant to recreation in the area: the first is concern over the loss of wilderness values, and the second is user group conflicts. The plan also discusses the potential for commercial tourism development on private lands within the refuge and acknowledges that if managed responsibly, these services and facilities could open up additional opportunities for public use of Refuge lands and waters (USFWS 2004). 3.9.4.4 Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2009) The Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan was produced in 2009. The Togiak National Wildlife Refuge mission statement notes that the refuge was established to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations within their natural ecosystems, and to encourage current and future generations to appreciate and participate in fish-and wildlife-dependent activities. The plan outlines goals to support this mission. These goals all emphasize that the refuge is to be maintained and protected in its natural state, which involves conducting an inventory of resources, establishing protection and management guidelines, and collaborating with subsistence users, visitors, and nearby stakeholders. The plan also introduces specific policies for managing the wilderness area that is located within the refuge, namely tighter restrictions on visitors and activities located within that area (USFWS 2001). Page 108 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.9.4.5 Dillingham Comprehensive Plan (2010) The City of Dillingham's Comprehensive Plan Update & Waterfront Plan, adopted in 2011, includes recreation- related goals and strategies. One of the goals includes strengthening Dillingham's position as a premier tourism destination and moving into the role of the "gateway to Bristol Bay." The City hopes to accomplish this through improvements to downtown Dillingham's appearance, better marketing to potential visitors, a new community cultural center, improved recreational access (signage and trails), and by supporting locally-owned tourism businesses. The community would also like to see additional development and maintenance of indoor and outdoor areas and facilities for recreation. The plan recognizes the need for improved planning in order to support and fund these efforts (City of Dillingham 2011). 3.9.4.6 Bethel Comprehensive Plan (2011) The City of Bethel produced an updated Comprehensive Plan in September 2011. The plan provides the City with direction for the next twenty-five years. One goal is to improve and support tourism and visitation through marketing, beautification of the downtown area, and improved facilities and trails, particularly in nearby parks. There are also a number of recreation goals in the comprehensive plan. Relevant goals include: expansion of the Bethel trail system, improvements to existing parks and open space, and construction of additional park and outdoor recreation facilities to meet the growing needs of Bethel residents and visitors (City of Bethel 2011). 3.9.4.7 Kisaralik River Management Plan (1997) A management plan for the Kisaralik River was completed in 1997, but was unavailable from any state resource library at the time of writing. Preliminary research suggests that this plan is not actively consulted, or has been since it was superseded by subsequent management planning documents in the region. The study team recommends further research into whether this plan should be considered a relevant source. 3.9.4.8 Bristol Bay Area Plan Produced in 2005 by ADNR's Department of Mining, Land and Water, the Bristol Bay Area Plan identifies management intent, guidelines, and land use designations for state lands located in the Bristol Bay area. The plan identifies few recreation-related goals, including a general statement supporting access to outdoor recreational opportunities on state lands. Recommended strategies include collaborating with communities to establish and support trails and parks, encouraging commercial development of recreational facilities with private enterprise when appropriate and protecting recreational resources such as access, viewsheds, and wildlife. The plan states that recreation opportunities should be available on less-developed land and water areas that serve multiple purposes, such as habitat protection or mineral resource extraction. The plan also includes a Recreation Management Plan for the Nushagak and Mulchatna Rivers, which are located to the east of Wood-Tikchik State Park. According to the plan, these rivers are to be managed to provide a mix of commercial and non-commercial use opportunities, to ensure the availability of public sites for the needs of all users, to protect habitat and natural resources, and to maintain options for additional future recreation management (ADNR 2005). 3.9.5 Shoreline Management Plans or Policies There are currently no existing shoreline management plans or permitting processes in place for Chikuminuk Lake or its adjoining river banks. The shoreline of Chikuminuk Lake or its adjoining river banks are managed according to the specifications of the Alaska State Park wilderness zone designation as referenced above in Section 3.9.2. Major water bodies located along the potential west transmission corridor (to Bethel) are the Kisaralik, Kwethluk, Kasigluk, and Akulikutak rivers, all of which drain into the Kuskokwim River in the south-central portion of the Yukon Delta NWR. ~HATCH~ Page 109 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.9.6 Protected River Systems There are no State or Federally-protected river segments in the Project area. 3.9.6.1 River segment in the National Wild and Scenic River System In the State of Alaska, there are 25 rivers and over 3,200 river miles that are protected under the National Wild and Scenic River designation. In addition, six State Recreation Rivers encompass 460 river miles. Southwest Alaska has five designated Wild and Scenic rivers. The closest to the Project is the Andreafsky River, located in the northern part of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2012). In 1980, the Kisaralik River was one of 12 Alaska rivers that ANILCA authorized to be studied for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system. The NPS coordinated a multiple-agency study, which recommended that Congress not designate the Kisaralik River as a Wild and Scenic River. The study noted that the river met the basic eligibility requirements but was not suitable for inclusion due to opposition expressed by Alaska State Parks, local residents, and the USFWS. This opposition arose out of concern that the designation would bring heightened restrictions and regulation, and noted that most of the river is already protected due to its location within the Yukon Delta NWR (NPS 1985). 3.9.6.2 State-protected river segment There are no State-protected river segments in the Project area. 3.9.7 National Trails Systems and Wilderness Areas National Trails Systems No project lands are under study for inclusion in the National Trails System nor designated as, or under study for inclusion as, a national Wilderness Area. The State of Alaska has one designated National Historic Trail, the 938-mile lditarod National Historic Trail, which follows a historic mail route from Seward to Nome (BLM 2012). The annuallditarod Sled Dog race follows two alternating routes from Willow to Nome. There are no designated National Scenic Trails or National Historic Trails in the project vicinity, Y-K Delta or Bristol Bay regions. Wilderness Areas America's first federal wilderness areas were designated by Congress in 1964. Over 750 wilderness areas in the United States protect a combined 109 million acres (ADNR 2009); over half of this acreage is in Alaska. Several federally designated wilderness areas lie in the region: two located in the adjacent national wildlife refuges and two located in national parks to the east of Bristol Bay. The northern half ofthe Togiak NWR has been designated as wilderness. There is also a wilderness area in the northernmost part of the Yukon Delta NWR called the Andreafsky Wilderness, named for the river that runs through the area. Portions of both Katmai and Lake Clark National Park and Preserve are designated wilderness as well (NPS 2012a; 2012b). The State of Alaska also has its own State Park wilderness designation, which is distinct from the federal designation. State park wilderness zones are established in order to maintain and protect an area's wilderness character and therefore these areas have tighter use and management restrictions than other state parklands (ADNR 1982). The project site is located in the northern third of Wood-Tikchik State Park, which is designated as a wilderness zone. Since large-scale man-made developments are discouraged in wilderness zones, the park's enabling legislation will need to be amended before any hydropower development moves forward at Chikuminuk Lake (ADNR 2002). ~HATCH~ Page 110 Environmental Conditions 2014 3.9.8 Regionally or Nationally Important Recreation Areas Nationally Important Recreation Areas As stated above, there are large blocks of protected federal and state lands in the region. Portions of the proposed Project would be located within the Wood-Tikchik State Park. A transmission route from the project powerhouse to Bethel and/or Dillingham is presently the subject of consultation with the USFWS. A potential transmission line corridor would traverse the Yukon Delta NWR. Adjacent recreation areas include the 4.2 million acre Togiak National Wildlife Refuge and parcels of state lands managed by various state agencies. The National Park Service manages two large parks in Southwest Alaska: Katmai National Park and Preserve and Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. Both Katmai and Lake Clark offer world-renowned sports fishing, bear viewing, and remote wilderness experiences in striking, largely undeveloped landscapes (NPS 2012a; 2012b). Regionally Important Recreation Areas The Bristol Bay region contains a small but significant sportfishing industry with a variety of lodges, camps, and guide services. Almost all of these fishing locations require either boat or floatplane transport. Most visitors fly through one of several hub communities in the area, which include Bethel, Kodiak, Dillingham and King Salmon. In addition to public lands, certain private lands also support regional recreational and subsistence activities to local residents. The various Native village corporations in the area have selected large acreages as part of their entitlement under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), the parent regional Native corporation, also own large blocks in the area where locals derive subsistence and recreational enjoyment. 3.9.9 Non"Recreationalland Use and Management The generation features of the Project would be located within the Wood-Tikchik State Park, which is managed according to the 2002 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan; and three of the alternative transmission alignments under consideration are located partially within the Yukon Delta NWR. This section also considers the designation and use of the airspace above the project area for military operations. Land use and management within the project boundary is largely focused on wilderness values and protection because the generation features of the Project are located within an area of Wood-Tikchik State Park designated as wilderness. Recreational use and management is secondary to wilderness preservation in this portion of the Park. The park was established to preserve and protect the natural habitat of the area along with access to subsistence and recreational activities. Three of the five alternative transmission alignments under consideration are located partially within the Yukon Delta NWR, which is predominantly managed for the protection of fish and wildlife resources. Following is a more detailed description of land use and management of Wood Tikchik State Park and Yukon Delta NWR. 3.9.9.1 Wood-Tikchik State Park In the 1960s, the Wood River-Tikchik lakes area was considered by the NPS for addition to the National Park System. However, the State of Alaska pre-emptively selected lands in the area and proposed a state park designation, largely due to concerns that federal action could diminish future opportunities for commercial, recreational, and resource development (including hydroelectric potential). After a variety of interagency studies examining the area's recreation potential and commercial fishery potential, Wood-Tikchik State Park was eventually established in 1978 and became the largest state park in the country at approximately 1.6 million acres (ADNR 1987). See Figure 3.9-6. The enabling legislation for the establishment of Wood Tikchik State Park states that "the primary purposes of creating the Wood-Tikchik State Park are to protect the area's fish and wildlife breeding and support systems and to preserve the continued use of the area for subsistence and recreational activities" (ADNR 2002). The State created a seven member park management council with five positions filled by local residents to represent the communities of Dillingham, Aleknagik, Koliganek, New ~HATCH'" 111 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 Stuyahok, and the Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA). This council was created to ensure that area residents have a significant role in park management. Wood-Tikchik State Park contains very few facilities and therefore encourages visitors to be self-sufficient and use "pack it in, pack it out" practices (ADNR 2002). There are a number of recreation opportunities in the park, including fishing, hunting, sightseeing, camping and watersports such as rafting and kayaking. See Figure 3.9-5 for existing lodges and recreation sites. Lake Aleknagik State Recreation Site, the only official recreational access point, offers a ranger station, parking area, boat launch ramp and other facilities, although visitors are welcome to fly, hike, or boat into the more remote areas (ADNR 2011). Camping and rafting are both allowed throughout the park but several areas require permits, including Chikuminuk Lake. In an effort to reduce park user conflict and to avoid crowding, the park has a ten day camping limit per site, as well as group size limits and overall annual visitation limits. The park also has various restrictions on the use of motorized craft and equipment. Snowmachines are allowed throughout the park, and hovercraft and generators are allowed in all non-Wilderness designated zones. Helicopters, airboats, and all-terrain vehicles are prohibited entirely within Wood-Tikchik State Park. Motorized boats are not permitted on Chikuminuk Lake (ADNR 2002). The Upper Tikchik Lakes in the northern portion of the park are designated wilderness (Figure 3.9-6). Chikuminuk Lake is included in this area. The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan states multiple factors that support this designation: • The area receives limited recreational use; • There is very little privately owned land; • Wildlife (particularly brown bear and caribou} are concentrated in the area; • Sportfishing potential is moderate compared to other regions of the park; • Subsistence use is minimal; • The remote wilderness setting of the area (ADNR 2011). The Upper Tikchik Lakes have tighter restrictions than the rest of the park. These include restrictions on the number and frequency of visitors as well as use restrictions limiting motorized activity. Public facilities will only be constructed if absolutely necessary to resolve environmental degradation. Also included in the Management Intent, Guidelines for the Upper Tikchik Lakes is the following statement: "Hydropower development is incompatible with park purposes. The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation therefore does not have the authority to approve hydroelectric development at Chikuminuk Lake. Before Chikuminuk Lake can be considered for hydropower development, the enabling legislation must be amended" (ADNR 2011). Currently, Nushagak Electric, Dillingham's electric provider, is studying the feasibility of two hydroelectric projects further south in Wood-Tikchik State Park. The Lake Elva and Grant Lake projects are authorized for study under the 2002 Wood Tikchik State Park Management Plan. The Lake Elva Project would be located at Elva Creek, which drains into Lake Nerka, approximately 36 miles north of Dillingham. The Grant Lake Project would be approximately 43 miles north of Dillingham on Grant Lake, which drains into Lake Kulik via the Grant River. Nuvista would coordinate with Nushagak Electric representatives as one of the transmission line alternatives proposed linking with these nearby potential projects. 3.9.9.2 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge The Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge {Yukon Delta NWR} is located to the west of the project site. The 19 million acre refuge is dominated by the two largest rivers in the Y-K Delta: the Yukon River and the Kuskokwim River. The majority of the refuge is a treeless wetland plain that provides habitat for an abundance of wildlife populations including millions of ducks, geese, and other migratory bird species. With nearly 25,000 Yup'ik ~HATCH~ Page 112 Chikuminuk Hydroelect r ic Project Int erim Feasi bility Report -Volume II , Exist i ng Environmental Conditions April 201 4 Eskimo living in more than 40 villages, the Yukon Delta NWR is also one of the most populated road less areas in rural Alaska (USFWS 2004). Ref uge management works closely with these v i llages to ensure that subsistence uses and community needs are protected (USFWS, 2004). Figure 3.9-6 Land Use Des ignati on in Wood-Tikchik State Pa rk -,.,_ .---- ';?!--:--=---! -_r;_ • ~ 6 mle8 • A Ill! HATCH '" -• .. ..... , ... UJrE NERKA ~LIIk) • LAND USE DESIGNATION IN WOOD-TIKCHIK STATE PARK • • GeneraDzed Land Statuo . ---.. 1*1< * ot..ptooll--.. 1*1< lAnda Addntued by lhio Plan = L .... Aie.._kSIIIe 1:::=::::1 Rec. S4e (SAS) ~~pn-itiono N Wood-llk-s.o .. """' N ,._,_,,Unllbou- Land IJM O..lanotlono In Wood-Tlkchlk S!Mo Park IIliiiJ Wilderness o -..... li2Q -..naiDewlopmenl Mlscenaneous Page 113 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Source: Alaska DNR, Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan (2002) Recreation is not a primary intent of the refuge. However, the National Wildlife Refuge system recognizes compatible recreational activities as a priority public use on refuge lands. Consequently, compatible recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education are generally encouraged and promoted on National Wildlife Refuges. The Yukon Delta NWR is open to hunting, although due to the low populations of big game and limited access, the area sees minimal recreational hunting. According to USFWS data, subsistence fishing far exceeds sport fishing use. Visitors occasionally venture to the area for wildlife observation, kayaking, rafting and photography, but due to the remote nature of the area and the challenge of transportation, these visitors are limited in number compared with more accessible locations around the state. Most non-local visitors fly into the refuge via small planes out of Bethel, where the refuge headquarters and visitor center are located (USFWS 2004). The USFWS's Yukon Delta Land Conservation Plan lists a number of issues concerning the Yukon Delta NWR and encourages that refuge management be cognizant of these issues when making decisions. The concerns include various threats to healthy ecosystems (disruption of natural balance, fragmentation, habitat loss and displacement), preservation of wilderness values, and user group conflicts. The plan goes on to recommend some Resource Protection Priorities as required by the State of Alaska. These priorities identify private parcels along coastal zones, river corridors, nesting areas, and designated Wilderness areas that are considered high priority for resource protection (USFWS 2004). 3.9.10 Recreational and Non-Recreational Land Use and Management There are five broad categories of land ownership that in many ways drive land use patterns in the study area. These are federal land; state land; Alaska Native Corporation land; local government and tribal land; and private lands and Alaska Native Allotments. 3.9.10.1 Federal Land Large tracts of land are owned and managed by federal agencies, including the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are two national parks in the study area (Lake Clark and Katmai National Parks) as well as two large national refuges (the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge). Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns large tracts of land in the study area. Most federal land is held in a manner meant to preserve its natural condition into the future. 3.9.10.2 State Land Large tracts of land are owned and managed by the State of Alaska, including the Wood-Tikchik State Park. The State also owns land that is available for lease and/or development. Chikuminuk Lake is located in the 1.6 million acre Wood-Tikchik State Park, which was established in 1978. 3.9.10.3 Alaska Native Corporation Land Significant portions of the region are owned by Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. ANCSA conferred land to 13 for-profit regional corporations and approximately 200 village corporations. The Calista Corporation takes in the Calista Region, and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation is the ANSCA corporation for the Bristol Bay Region. Both ANCSA corporations own subsurface and surface rights to land that was either granted to the ANCs or that the ANCs selected through the ANCSA process. In instances where the village corporations own the surface rights, the regional corporation assigned to that region typically owns the subsurface rights. ANC land is private land that is available for development, preservation, or other activities as directed by the ANC so long as those activities are in alignment with local, state, and federal land use controls (Kijik Corporation 2011). ~HATCH~ Page 114 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.9.10.4 Local Government and Tribal Land Within villages and local communities, some land has been conveyed to the local government for public services. In certain instances, the tribal government owns specific parcels. More often the local city government owns land for public facilities, and the local village corporation owns large portions of land within a village. 3.9.10.5 Private Lands and Alaska Native Allotments Within communities throughout the study area, properties are held by individual residents and businesses. Many Alaska Natives hold title to individual parcels called Alaska Native allotments that were legally transferred prior to ANCSA. Parcels owned by individuals and allotments are typically located near villages and local communities, but can be found within national parks and state parks, particularly if they were granted under the federal Homestead Act or established as allotments prior to statehood and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act {ANILCA). Private parcels located within conservation units are referred to as inholdings. In 1978, there were 104 inholdings in the Wood-Tikchik State Park claimed by Native residents of Bristol Bay under the 1906 Native Alaska Allotment Act, totalling about 8,000 acres and ranging in size from 20 to 160 acres. Because these in holdings were also claimed by the state, the BLM was required to adjudicate land title. The issue was settled with a combination of relocation and conservation easements. Twenty-seven applicants exchanged their inholdings for State lands outside the park boundary. The remaining 77 pressed their land claims but agreed to conservation easements based on the strength of the original claim, the age of the applicant and the location of the parcel. A three-tier system was created: • Tier 1-The least restrictive, established a 25-foot wide pedestrian easement on land bordering lakes and rivers with no other restrictions. • Tier 2-Allows the subdivision of parcels into ten-acre lots, with no more than one five-acre commercial development site. • Tier 3-Similar to Tier 2, but with no commercial development (Ketchum et al. 2003). Most of the Wood-Tikchik parcels affected were classified as Tier 2. This solution limited large scale commercial development within the Park and ensured public access, while protecting Native land claims. However, there are growing pressures on the predominantly Native in-holders to sell their properties. Many are aging and may need additional funds for retirement or to cover medical expenses. Declines in the fishing industry during the 1990s and 2000s also increased the pressure on inholders to sell their land (Ketchum et al. 2003). To counteract these forces, the park has controlled the level of commercial use, encouraged the placement of covenants and conservation easements on the property prior to sale, and encouraged land exchanges, cooperative agreements or sales of in holdings to the state. The State has also instituted zoning within the park (ADNR 2002). The Nature Conservancy and The Conservation Fund have also purchased inholdings within the Wood-Tikchik State Park to hold in trust. Some of these lands were transferred to the Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood-Tikchik Land Trust (now known as the Bristol Bay Heritage Land Trust), which was formed by Bristol Bay residents to preserve salmon and wildlife habitat in the Nushagak Bay watersheds. These include lands in the Wood-Tikchik State Park and the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge (Ketchum et al. 2003; Bristol Bay Heritage Land Trust 2013). The Nature Conservancy of Alaska acquired a 110-acre parcel (USS 12058) at the headwaters of the Allen River on Chikuminuk Lake (ADNR 2013). This parcel was the only private inholding on Chikuminuk Lake, one of the most remote lakes in the northern reaches ofWood-Tikchik State Park. ~HATCH~ Page 115 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report -Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.10 Aesthetic Resources This section provides a description of the visual characteristics of the lands and waters potentially affected by the proposed Project. The aesthetic resources study area broadly includes Chikuminuk Lake and the upper Allen River (Photo 3.10-1) in Wood-Tikchik State Park, as well as potential transmission line routes (see Volume I for a discussion of the transmission facilities). The description of the existing aesthetic resources within the project area is informed by published literature and site observations made by the project team during trips in June and August 2012. Photo 3.10-1 Chikuminuk Lake and Upper Allen River ~HATCH '" Above: Panoramic view ofChikuminuk Lakeflowingintothe Allen River, seen from the eastern shore looking west. Left: Allen RiverS-curve located directly south of Chikuminuk Lake. This distinct visual feature is located close to the proposed dam site and would likely be significantly and permanently altered by the project. Source: Agnew::Beck (June 2012) Page 116 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 3.10.1 Visual and Aesthetic Character and Quality of the Project Area 3.10.1.1 Regional Context The visual context of southwest Alaska ranges from rugged mountainous terrain to rolling hills; winding, complex river systems; and marshy lowlands. Varied vegetation covers the region including tundra, low shrubs, and areas of spruce forests. The majority of the regional landscape is visually intact and has no apparent signs of human activity, primarily because it is extremely remote, even from long-settled villages. As stated on the official State of Alaska vacation and travel information website: 11 For those with a naturalist streak, few places on earth compare with the wonders of Southwest Alaska" (State of Alaska 2012). Visual disturbances and human development are limited to the rural communities dotted throughout the region. The communities are only accessible by air travel, roads are limited to each community, and there are no regional roadways. 3.10.1.2 Wood-Tikchik State Park The proposed dam site and a portion of the transmission corridor route would be located in Wood-Tikchik State Park. Wood-Tikchik State Park, specifically the area around Chikuminuk Lake, is known for its wilderness scenery. Chikuminuk Lake, like the several other large lakes of Wood-Tikchik State Park, offers striking visual character with a broad expanse of water ringed by the varied hues of sub alpine vegetation. Rising from lake basins are many sharp edged, snow covered peaks. In contrast to other lakes in Wood-Tikchik State Park, this lake is located at slightly higher elevation and has a more alpine feel than the lakes located further downstream (A::B site visits 2012). Distinctive visual features in the Chikuminuk Lake area include the lake's varied colors, hues influenced by water depth; the sinuous canyon and rapids of the Allen River; and portions of the lake that have relatively complex shorelines and small islands. 3.10.1.3 Transmission Line and Corridors There are no existing project facilities. The visual character of these facilities will depend on the proposed project design. Refer to Volume I for a discussion of proposed project facilities. It is likely that the proposed transmission line would be a standard un-braced, H frame ranging from 70 to 90 feet tall. A typical H-frame transmission structure is shown in Photo 3.10-2. The number of structures required and distance between each structure is currently unknown and would be determined once a preferred transmission line route is selected. The Project would not likely develop a permanent road associated with the transmission line route; a 100-foot wide corridor right-of-way is anticipated. Five potential routes were identified for study-three traveling north and west from the proposed project dam site to Bethel and two traveling south to Dillingham (See Volume 1). The visual environment of the most direct route to Bethel is described below, as it was the route studied in the gap analysis. Aesthetic study ofthe four additional routes was preliminary and is not included in this document. West Route Alternative from Proposed Project to Bethel The West route alternative to Bethel would travel northwest from the proposed dam site along the south shore of Chikuminuk Lake, entering the Kilbuck Mountain Range where Milk Creek flows into Chikuminuk Lake. The proposed transmission corridor winds through steep, rocky mountain peaks and proceeds down onto the foothills of the Kilbuck Mountains, through the marshy wetlands east of Bethel, and crossing the Kuskokwim River to reach the community of Bethel. The transmission line route would use areas of better drained soils and avoid recreational areas to the extent possible. The Kisaralik River is a popular subsistence fishing and recreational rafting and fishing river (USFWS 1993) that the transmission corridor will want to avoid. The majority of the West route would pass through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Yukon Delta NWR). The following description, which gives a sense of the visual environment of the Refuge, has been compiled from the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet and Yukon Delta Land Conservation Plan Page 117 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 (USFWS 2002, 2004). The description of the Kisaralik River comes from the Kisaralik River System: Final Summary Report (ADNR 2010). Since the West route alternative would originate at Chikuminuk Lake and run to Bethel, the description below follows this same route, from the mountains near the lake to the marshy flat lands surrounding Bethel. Photo 3.10-2 Example of Basic H-Frame Transmission Line The headwaters area of the Kisaralik River is swift-flowing with boulders strewn throughout the channel. The river then enters a wide tundra-covered glacial plain in the Kilbuck Mountains, opening into a broader valley flanked by 2,000 to 3,000 foot high mountains. The river is less than 100 feet wide at this point, and thick willow and willow brush line the riverbanks. The mountaintops have rounded ridges and steep slopes that sometimes wash into the river. Near the Upper Falls, the river enters a canyon one-half to two miles wide with pinnacles, columns and bluffs as it continues to flow through the Kilbuck Mountains. Cottonwood, white spruce, and black spruce start to appear here. Large boulders are common, especially near the Upper Falls where at one point the river is forced into a channel only six feet wide. At Golden Gate Falls, the river narrows again to only 25 feet wide and deepens to 15 feet between rock canyon walls that rise 25 feet on either side. Large boulders and three sharp bends make the waterfall a dramatic but dangerous section of the river. From Golden Gate Falls, the river Source: HATCH Associates (2012) becomes a braided channel with overhanging willow and alder along the banks. At this point the Kisaralik River bends to the north while the transmission line would continue in a west-westerly direction towards Bethel and into the terrain the Yukon Delta NWR is known for: broad, flat, delta marshlands. By this point the Kisaralik River (and the potential transmission line route alternative) has traversed through four ecosystems of the Yukon Delta NWR: wet tundra, moist tundra, upland spruce/hardwood forest and alpine tundra. Most of the proposed west route alternative transmission corridor to Bethel is comprised of moist tundra characterized by low growing shrubs, herbs, grasses, and sedges rooted in a continuous mat of mosses and lichens (ADNR 2010; USFWS 2002, 2004). Most of the land within the Yukon Delta NWR is a nearly flat, broad delta rising less than 100 feet in elevation. The final stretches of the two largest rivers in Alaska, the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers, flow through the refuge. ~HATCH '" Page 118 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Inter im Feas i bility Report-Volume II, Existing Env i ronmental Cond itions April 2014 These two rivers have created the vast delta landscape through the ancient meanderings which continue to shape the modern landscape. The terrain is dotted with literally thousands of ponds and wetlands, providing habitat for a range of resident and migratory bird and animal species. See Photo 3.10-3 for several aerial views of the route described. ~HATCH '" Selected views of the proposed transmission line route between Chikuminuk Lake and Bethel, heading generally west, as seen from the air while flying along the proposed route. Top to Bottom from Left: Kisaralik Lake and headwaters of the Kisaralik River; the Upper Kisaralik River winding through steep topography before flowing onto marshy lowlands; vast stretches of marshy and ponds; the shore of the Kuskokwim River; an aerial view of the city of Bethel. Source: Agnew ::Beck (June 2012) Page 119 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Aprll2014 3.10.1.4 Dam and Associated Infrastructure There are no existing project facilities. The visual character of these proposed facilities will depend on the design developed. Refer to Volume I for a discussion of proposed project facilities. 3.10.1.5 Natural Water Features and Other Scenic Attractions Chikuminuk Lake Chikuminuk Lake, shown in Photos 3.10-4, 5 & 6 is glacial in origin and very deep. Summer 2012 field study revealed the lake to be over 600 feet deep; the deepest portion extends below sea level (see Section 3.4 for water resources). The lake is fed by a mix of glacial and clearwater streams. Vegetation in the vicinity of the lake is mainly low-growing tundra species with some willows, alders, and cottonwoods at lower elevations, in protected valleys (see Section 3.6 for vegetation types). Roughly two-thirds of the lake is surrounded by rugged, rocky alpine peaks and ridges rising 3,000 to 4,500 feet along the north, south and west shores. These peaks hold snow through the summer, primarily in more shaded topographic ridges. Terrain in the eastern portion opens into the rolling to flat, broader landscapes of the upper Nushagak River drainage (Agnew: Beck 2012). Photo 3.10-4 Potential Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Dam Site, Facing Northwest The proposed dam and powerhouse sites are located in the foreground; Chikuminuk Lake is visible in the upper section of the photo. Source:Agnew::Beck(June2012) ~HATCH '" Page 120 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Photo 3.10-5 Chikuminuk Lake, Valley Along South Shore April2014 During summer site visits the project team observed and documented three distinct lakeshore types as follows and illustrated in Photo 3.10-7: • Low Angle: Shoreline rising at a low angle above the lake with gradual slope; higher water elevation would extend relatively far inland from the current lakeshore. • Steep Bank: Steeply banked, generally uniform shoreline areas; higher water levels would move inland a relatively short distance from the current lake shore boundaries. • Complex: Areas of more complex lake edge topography such as existing islands and bays; higher water levels would change the shoreline form, but may create new bays, new islands. 3.10.1.6 Allen River The dam site would be located where Chikuminuk Lake flows into the Allen River. The Allen River at the eastern outflow of Chikuminuk Lake has rocky rapids with large boulders and tight turns. There is a visually distinct "s-curve" in the Allen River. Summer site visits afforded the oppo rtunity to fly over the full length of the Allen River revealing the intricacies and Source: Agnew:: Beck (June 2012) bends of the river, views of the two different sets of rapids, and the unusual clarity of the water (Agnew:Beck 2012). See Photo 3.10-1. 3.10.1.7 Milk Creek Milk Creek, flowing into Chikuminuk Lake on its western shore, also offers interesting visual features (Photo 3.10-8). The peaks along the south side of upper Milk Creek, roughly ten miles west of Chikuminuk Lake, are home to Chikuminuk Glacier (Photo 3.10-9) one of the few glaciers in southwestern Alaska. The glacial waters of M ilk Creek enter Chikuminuk Lake from the Kilbuck Mountains and impart a silty turquoise appearance to the l ake's water for a downstream distance of approximately X of a mile. r&HATCH '" Page 121 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Photo 3.10-6 Chikuminuk Lake, Northeastern Shore Complex shoreline with islands, ponds and bedrock mounds concentrated on Chikuminuk lake's northeastern shore. Source: Agnew:: Beck (June 2012) April2014 3.10.2 Vantage Points for Viewing Natural Features Although the proposed dam site and a portion of the associated facilities would be located on public lands (Wood-Tikchik State Park), there is no existing built infrastructure to designate a public vantage point. There are no residents within the area of the dam site. The following communities may be able to view the transmission line corridor, depending on the route: • West Route to Bethel: Bethel, Kwethluk, Napaskiak, Oscarville • North Route to Bethel: Akiak, Akiachak, Bethel, Kwethluk, Napaskiak, Oscarville, Tuluksak, Upper and Lower Kalskag • Northern Alternate Route to Bethel: Akiachak, Akiak, Bethel, Kwethluk, Napaskiak, Oscarville, Tuluksak • South to Grant Lake: Aleknagik, • Dillingham • South to Dillingham: Dillingham, Ekwok, Koliganek, New Stuyahok Aircraft travelers would be able to view the dam site and transmission corridor from the air. Depending on the location, the transmission line corridor may be viewed by boat travelers on the Kuskokwim River or by snowmachines, which are used for travel along the rivers during winter months. Assumptions about the number of potential viewers can be made based on information presented primarily in Sections 3.9 and 3.12. These sections indicate that recreation and subsistence use in the vicinity of the Project is very low. 3.10.3 Federal Land Management Restrictions on Development The project area would be located primarily within the Wood-Tikchik State Park and the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, which are protected by state and federal law, respectively. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources manages Wood-Tikchik State Park. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, their managing entities have adopted and are guided by management plans. The following management policies are relevant to visual resources and aesthetics. P&HATCH .. Page 122 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Photo 3.10-7 Example of Lakeshore Types, Chikuminuk Lake .. ' . ... ~ -. . ' . '- ,---:'"'·-_ .... ..... ... .....::.- ~ , Low Angle Steep Bank Complex Source: Agnew::Beck (June 2012) 3.10.3.1 Wood-Tikchik State Park One of the primary purposes for the establishment of Wood- Tikchik State Park was to protect the area's recreational and scenic resources. The 2002 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan identifies as one of its goals (Goal4) to 11Protect, document, interpret and manage areas of significant scientific or educational value, visual quality, cultural or historic value and areas of special significance" (ADNR 2002). The goal specifies six objectives. Objective 4-6 directs park managers to 11Define the park's landscape character and apply visual quality criteria to the park's management programs, developments and land use practices" (ADNR 2002). Portions of the proposed project site are located within a region of Wood-Tikchik State Park designated by the Management Plan as Wilderness. The Plan defines Wilderness areas as being 11Established to promote, perpetuate, and where necessary, to restore the wilderness character of the land and its specific values of solitude, physical and mental challenge, scientific study, inspiration and primitive recreational opportunities ... ~~units designated Wilderness are designed to encompass areas large enough to offer visitors an experience where the sights and sounds of other users are minimized . They are managed to maintain the area's wilderness character including its landscape, vegetation and habitat. Resource modification can occur in these units only to restore the area to a natural state. Natural processes will continue with a minimal amount of human intervention to the extent that human safety and natural resources are protected ... ~~units designated Wilderness should have no man- made conveniences within their boundaries, except for the most primitive of trails, minimum trail maintenance, and signing ... "Assessment of the aesthetic resources will need to focus on project impacts on wilderness character'' (ADNR 2002). Page 123 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.10.3.2 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with conserving the fish, wildlife and habitats of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge for the benefit of present and future generations. Yukon Delta NWR is managed to conserve native fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, while providing sufficient opportunities for subsistence and compatible recreation activities. The USFWS works to preserve the wilderness values of the refuge and identifies several activities that can affect those values. Th~ Land Conservation Plan for the Yukon Delta NWR mentions that "noise, permanent structures and other evidence of human presence can alter wilderness values" (USFWS 2004). The Refuge managers work to limit the amount of disturbance from human activities. Photo 3.10-8 Milk Creek Milk Creek drainage viewed from the air Source: Agnew::Beck (June 2012) ~HATCH '" Page 124 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feas ibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Photo 3.10-9 Chikuminuk Glacier Chikuminuk Glacierviewed from the air Source: Agnew::Beck (June 2012) Page 125 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.11 Cultural Resources 3.11.1.1 Definition For the purposes of the Data Gap analysis (Blanchard 2012) and the initial field study plans, the cultural resources study area (Project Study Area) was defined to include the following proposed project features: Chikuminuk Reservoir, the Dam and Powerhouse, related facilities, the proposed construction site, the Allen River, a small portion of Lake Chauekuktuli and five miles on either side of the West Route to Bethel. 3.11.1.2 Description Geochronology The geochronology of the Wood-Tikchik lakes region is relatively undeveloped. Two major tephra deposits, the ODLF Tephra (3,800-4,000 14C years B.P.) and the Aniakchak Tephra (3,430 ± 70 B.P.) are likely to be encountered in the Project Study Area (Beget et al. 1992; Fierstein 2007). VanderHoek (2009) asserts that the Aniakchak eruption would have had a significant impact on the ecological productivity in western Alaska and either killed or caused the relocation of Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) populations living in western Alaska, leaving a cultural and ecological dead zone between Bering Sea Eskimos and Aleutian populations for more than 1,000 years. Prehistory The prehistory of southwest Alaska is poorly understood. Most of the known archaeological sites in the region are situated in or near coastal environments (Dumond 1962, 1981; Henn 1978; Larsen 1950; Oswalt 1952a; Shaw 1983). As a result, only an incomplete regional cultural chronology for southwest Alaska is possible at this time. The currently accepted chronology detailed in the Cultural Resources Data Gap (Blanchard 2012) and summarized below has been developed by Ackerman (1979b, 1980b, 1985, 1987, 1994a, b, 1996a, b, c, 2001, 2004, 2008a, b), Dumond (1962, 1981, 1984, 2000a, b), Henn (1978), Holmes (1986) and Shaw (1998). Paleoindian Tradition (10,000 to 8,000 years ago) The earliest Paleoindian Tradition sites with unequivocal artifacts are dated to ca. 10,000 years ago and are typified by the assemblage at Spein Mountain (10,050±90 B.P.) (BTH-00062 through BTH-00065), which is located within the Project Study Area (Ackerman 199Gb, d, 2001). The Paleoindian Tradition in southwest Alaska is a non-microblade complex consisting of lanceolate and leaf shaped projectile points, bifacial knives, gravers, notches, various scrapers (including some on bifacial blanks), and flake knives (Ackerman 2001). American Paleoarctic Tradition (10,000 to 7,000 years ago) The American Paleoarctic Tradition appears to overlap the Paleoindian Tradition temporally (Anderson 1970; cf. West 1967 for an interior variant, the Denali Complex). American Paleoarctic tool kits include composite antler and stone projectiles, generally thought to have been used to hunt late Pleistocene-early Holocene fauna. Northern Archaic Tradition (6,000 to 2,000 years ago)-The Northern Archaic tradition appears to represent the spread of a new boreal-forest oriented culture (Anderson 1988), although the presence of numerous sites in tundra areas may complicate this interpretation (Lobdell1986; Schoenberg 1995). The defining artifact-type of the Northern Archaic is a somewhat asymmetrical side-notched biface reminiscent of projectile point styles from mid-latitude North America (Anderson 1968, 1988). Arctic Small Tool Tradition {4,500 years ago to A.D. 900)-Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) sites occur in an extensive zone stretching from the Bering Sea side of the Alaska Peninsula northward around Alaska, and through the Arctic Archipelago to Greenland. ASTt sites are known for the presence of tiny, finely-flaked stone tools, which may be associated with the introduction of the bow and arrow. Many archaeologists believe ASTt is the direct ancestor to modern Eskimo people in Alaska, the arctic regions of Canada, and Greenland (Dumond 1987a; Giddings 1967; Irving 1964); for another view see Gerlach and Mason (1992). The original ASTt definition ~HATCH" Page 126 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 has been expanded to include later cultures such as Choris, Norton, and lpiutak (Gerlach and Edwin S. Hall 1988). Norton Tradition (3,000 years ago to A.D. 1000)-The Norton tradition includes all post-Small Tool archaeological manifestations of Alaska usually termed Paleo-Eskimo, dating from ca. 1000 B.C. to 1000 A.D (Dumond 1982, 1987a, 2000a). Norton subsistence strategies were varied. Dumond (2000a) sees Norton people as predominantly river fishing folk who also engaged actively in the terrestrial hunting of caribou as well as in the coastal hunting of sea mammals. Western Thule and Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Eskimo (A.D. 900 to 1790)-The direct ancestors of the southwest Alaskan Yup'ik Eskimos were likely people of the Western Thule tradition. Typical artifacts include ground slate, chipped stone technology, heavy gravel-tempered pottery, snowshoes, hafted beaver-tooth knives, and birch bark baskets. Late prehistoric and protohistoric Eskimo subsistence was broad-based, with both interior and coastal resource exploitation. Data from the Naknek drainage suggests reliance on salmon and caribou, though some sea mammal remains occur (Dumond 1984). Athabascan Tradition (2,000 years ago to present)-The Athabascan tradition is a prehistoric culture attributed to ancestors of the northern Athabascan Indians of Alaska, whose archaeological history precedes Euro- American contact (Cook 1968; Cook and McKennan 1970; Dixon 1985). It is important to note that the "Athabascan Tradition," in its archaeological denotation, refers to the archaeological culture. In common usage, the Athabascan Tradition continues to the present. Early prehistoric Athabascan sites are characterized by subsurface housepit and cache features associated with a variety of flaked and ground stone, bone, and antler artifacts. Proto-historic (or late prehistoric) Athabascan sites include artifact assemblages predominately characterized by Native-made items with a small amount of non-Native trade goods (e.g. iron and glass beads) obtained through trade. Historic Athabascan sites (post-1850) generally have a mixture of log cabin and house pit dwellings affiliated with a greater percentage of Euro- American artifacts, and possible changes in site location in order to obtain these goods. Ethnohistory The Project is located in a region traditionally occupied by the Yup'ik Eskimo. The early cultural center of the Central Alaskan Yup'ik speaking peoples of southwest Alaska was the Bering Sea coast. This was primarily a maritime economy based on seal hunting, with some caribou hunting in the adjacent tundra. Approximately 3,800 radiocarbon years before present (B.P.), ancestral Eskimos (ASTt) moved south to occupy the Alaska Peninsula northwest of the Aleutian Range, displacing the previous Paleoindian occupants. Relatively little is known about this process (VanStone 1984b). Before contact, Yup'ik peoples in the region practiced a central based seasonal mobility subsistence strategy. In this system, people spend part of each year wandering and the rest in a settlement of central base to which they may or may not return in subsequent years (VanStone 1971). According to Van Stone (1984b), several Yup'ik groups inhabited the region at the time of contact. The Aglurmiut resided along the coast around Nushagak Bay and throughout much of the Alaska Peninsula (Dumond et al. 1975; VanStone 1967b). The Kiatagmiut occupied the entire Nushagak River, the lower Mulchatna River, and the area to the north, possibly including the Wood River Lake. The more northern Tikchik Lakes were within the territory of the Kusquqvagmiut, who also inhabited the Kuskokwim River as far inland as the modern village of Aniak. The Kusquqvagmiut occupied the village of Tikchik on Tikchik Lake. They may have controlled the lakes to the north, including Chikuminuk, but it is doubtful they utilized this area extensively. The Tuyuryarmiut occupied the banks of the Togiak River, its tributaries and the adjacent coast, between the Kusquqvagmiut and the Kiatagmiut (VanStone 1984b). ~HATCH~ Page 127 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 History Explorations of Bristol Bay and the Nushagak River were undertaken by the Russian-American Company in the early nineteenth century in an effort to open the Alaskan interior to the fur trade. Between 1818 and 1836, the Russians established trading posts at the mouth of the Nushagak, on the middle Kuskokwim and the lower Yukon (VanStone 1959, 1967b). Following the establishment of a Russian Orthodox Church at the Aleksandrovski Redoubt in 1841, missionaries began to penetrate the Nushagak and Kuskokwim region. Little is known about the interaction between the interior Yup'ik and missionaries, but it was apparently extremely effective. By the end of the Russian era (1867), it is probable that most of the Yup'ik peoples in southwestern Alaska considered themselves to be Christians (VanStone 1964, 1984b). Between 1818 and 1867, the fur trade with the Russian-American Company led Native peoples in western Alaska to alter their hunting efforts towards beaver, which had little or no food value, and away from subsistence game. As a result, Natives became dependent on the trading posts for the necessities of life. However, the process was slow among the Yup'ik, who did not become totally dependent on the global market until after the Americans purchased Alaska in 1867 (VanStone 1984b). The impact of the Russian fur trade was most prevalent on the Nushagak and the middle Kuskokwim, where beaver were plentiful. It was not until the turn of the twentieth century, when mink became a major trade item, that intensive fur trapping was undertaken in the Yukon delta region (Oswalt 1963). With the sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, an American firm, the Alaska Commercial Company, continued to operate the Russian trading centers. During this period, the variety of goods offered for trade increased considerably but the economic system of southwestern Alaska did not change significantly from the model established by the Russian trading posts until the commercial development of the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries in the 1880s (VanStone 1984b). During the American period, the Russian Orthodox Church experienced competition from other churches including the Moravians, Episcopalians, Catholics and various evangelical protestant denominations (VanStone 1984b). Despite the Klondike and Nome gold rushes, Natives in the Kuskokwim and Nushagak regions had little contact with miners during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century's (VanStone 1984b). One significant technology introduced to southwest Alaska by miners was the fish wheel, which was widely adopted along the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers and is still in use today (Oswalt 1978). Beginning in Bristol Bay during the 1880s, commercial fishing came to have a significant impact on Native life. During the early years, most of the actual fishing was done by whites and the cannery work by imported Chinese and other laborers; Native peoples were considered to be poor workers due to prevailing ethnocentric attitudes. Gradually, some Natives were able to overcome this prejudice and get work in the canneries but, it was not until after WWII that Natives were allowed to participate fully in the industry. The Nushagak region was most directly affected by the development of the fishing industry, but residents from villages throughout southwest Alaska were attracted to Bristol Bay during the summer months when the canneries were opened. The canneries were important acculturation sites where Native peoples interacted not only with people from other Yup'ik groups, but also with people from different races and nationalities (VanStone 1984b). Parks and Wildlife Refuges in the Vicinity of the Project Chikuminuk Lake is located in the 1.6 million acre Wood-Tikchik State Park, which was established in 1978. When the park was created, 104 inholdings (totaling approximately 8,000 acres) were claimed by Native residents of Bristol Bay under the 1906 Native Alaska Allotment Act. Because these in holdings were also claimed by the state, the BLM was required to adjudicate land title. The issue was eventually settled with a combination of relocation and conservation easements. Twenty-seven applicants agreed to exchange their in holdings for ~HATCH~ Page 128 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 State lands outside the park boundary. The remaining 77 pressed their land claims but agreed to conservation easements based on the strength of the original claim, the age of the applicant and the location of the parcel. This solution limited large scale commercial development within the Park and ensured public access while protecting Native land claims. In order to limit commercial development, the State has encouraged the placement of covenants and conservation easements on inholdings prior to sale, and encouraged land exchanges, cooperative agreements or sales of inholdings to the state. The State has also instituted zoning within the park (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 2002; Ketchum et al. 2003). Another factor in preventing the development of in holdings within the park has been the involvement of The Nature Conservancy and The Conservation Fund, which have purchased inholdings within the park to hold in trust. Some of these lands were transferred to the Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood-Tikchik Land Trust (now known the Bristol Bay Heritage Land Trust), which was formed by Bristol Bay residents to preserve salmon and wildlife habitat in the Nushagak Bay watersheds (including lands in the Wood-Tikchik State Park and Togiak National Wildlife Refuge) (Ketchum et al. 2003; Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood-Tikchik Land Trust 2012). The 19.2 million acre Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Yukon Delta NWR) is located to the west of the Wood-Tikchik State Park, between Chikuminuk Lake and Bethel (Rudis 2009). A transmission line route from the proposed project powerhouse to Bethel and/or Dillingham is presently the subject of consultation with the USFWS and Nuvista anticipates that there will be alternative transmission routes to consider. One or more of the alternate transmission line routes would pass through the Yukon Delta NWR. The origins of the Yukon Delta NWR trace back to 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt created a refuge to preserve the breeding grounds of native birds. In 1929, Nunivak Island was set aside as a refuge for birds, game and furbearing animals. In 1930, the small islands and all the lands under the waters surrounding Nunivak Island were added to the refuge. Additional lands were reserved in 1937, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Hazen Bay Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. The Kuskokwim National Wildlife Range was established in 1960, and in 1961, it was enlarged and renamed the Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge. On December 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which consolidated and added to the existing ranges and refuges to create the Yukon Delta NWR. With the exception of several small additions to the refuge due to purchase or land exchange, the lands of the refuge were federally owned prior to the refuge designation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012b). The Togiak National Wildlife Refuge (TNWR) is also located west of Chikuminuk Lake. In 1969, 265,000 acres of public lands were set aside as the Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge. In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) expanded the Cape Newenham Refuge to 4.7 million acres and renamed it the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. The northern 2.3 million acres ofthe refuge have been designated as a Wilderness Area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012a). 3.11.2 Historic and Archaeological Sites 3.11.2.1 Research Methods During the Data Gap analysis (Blanchard 2012), background research on historic properties was conducted for the preliminary Project Study Area. This involved a review of the Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) databases and an examination of reports from previous research on file with the OHA. Northern Land Use Research Alaska, Inc.'s (NLURA) extensive library and the electronic card holdings at all libraries included in the Alaska Resources Library & Information System (ARUS) was searched for published and unpublished materials concerning the culture history, history and previous archaeological research in the vicinity of the Project Study Area. ~HATCH~ Page 129 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 The Data Gap report (Blanchard 2012) identified the need to locate, examine and revaluate the records and collections from previous archaeological projects carried out in the Project Study Area. Archaeological survey and testing planned for the Project Study Area is intended to identify historic properties, determine their eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), assess the effect of the Project on NRHP eligible properties and recommend mitigation measures for any adverse effects. 3.11.2.2 Cultural Resources in the Project Vicinity The Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database shows 51 cultural resource sites within the Project Study Area covered in the 2012 cultural resources Data Gap report (Blanchard 2012). Twenty-six of these sites {51 percent) are classified as prehistoric, twenty-four (47 percent) are classified as historic, and one site {2 percent) does not have an accompanying description to the AHRS database entry. No paleontological sites or TCPs were identified. Twenty-four of the 26 prehistoric sites have not been evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the NRHP, an essential step in the Section 106 process. Thirteen of the unevaluated prehistoric sites are relatively small lithic scatters, some containing as little as a single flake. Eight sites have a larger archaeological signature: TAY-0004 consists ofthree house pits; TAY-00007 is a large prehistoric workshop; four sites (BTH-00062, BTH-00063, BTH- 00064, and BTH-00065) are associated with the Spein Mountain complex; and, Oovingiyuk (BTH-00130) is a late prehistoric village site. None of these sites have been evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Two sites, a prehistoric mound (possibly a midden) (TAY-00039) and a larger lithic scatter (TAY-00042), have been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D (Biddle 2003). Fourteen of the twenty-four historic sites within the Project Study Area have not been evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the NRHP, an essential step in the Section 106 process. Seven historic sites (St. Sophia Church, Bethel (BTH-00011), the NWS Bethel Upper Atmosphere Facility (BTH-00121), the NWS Bethel Warehouse Building (BTH-00122), Building 601, a Fire Hose Storage Building (BTH-00124), Building 602, a Fire Hose Storage Building (BTH-00125), Building 603, a Fire Hose Storage Building (BTH-00126) and The Reindeer Service Warehouse (BTH-00144) have been determined ineligible for listing on the NRHP. The Bethel White Alice Communication System (BTH-00142) and the Old BIA School in Bethel (BTH-00143) have been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. The First Mission House in Bethel (BTH-00013) is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A for its role in the religious life, education, exploration and settlement of Bethel, Alaska. 3.11.3 Existing Discovery Measures A Data Gap analysis (Blanchard 2012) examined previous research in the vicinity of Chikuminuk Lake and along the West Route to Bethel. Similar studies will be completed for those transmission line routes deemed feasible. The existing discovery measures listed below are from the Data Gap report but provide an example of the existing discovery measures likely to be encountered for the alternate transmission line routes selected for further study. 3.11.3.1 Existing Discovery Measures for Chikuminuk Lake and the West Route to Bethel Archaeological research in southwest Alaska began in 1931 (Hrdlicka 1943) but the majority of work has focused on the more accessible coastal margins (Larsen 1950). In the 1960s, VanStone began a multi-year study ofthe early historic period along the Nushagak Drainage (VanStone 1967a, b, 1968a, b, 1970a, b, 1971, 1972, 1984b). This work has provided the bulk of current knowledge on the history and life ways of Native peoples in the Project Study Area at the time of contact. Habitation sites on the Wood-Tikchik lake system are almost all located on outlet streams or along narrows (Dumond 1987b). VanStone identified a set of characteristics for identifying village sites occupied at the time of contact; these include a location along a riverbank or lakeshore, cleared areas covered with tall grass, easily Page 130 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 identifiable house depressions and a general lack of extensive midden deposits. Referring specifically to the Wood Lakes, VanStone (1971) noted that all of the known sites were located at lake inlets or outlets. However, the location of historic sites does not appear to be a good predictor for the location of prehistoric sites since VanStone found few indications of prehistoric settlement during five years of field survey. He postulated that the location characteristics of prehistoric sites in the area might differ substantially from historic sites; that prehistoric sites could be overgrown and not easily visible from the air or by boat; that the area was uninhabited until relatively late in the prehistoric period; or, that the early sites were located along unstable riverbanks or lake shores and have eroded away (VanStone 1971). These hypotheses have yet to be tested in a systematic way. In 1978, Ackerman surveyed sites in the Goodnews River Valley, Goodnews Lake, Kagati Lake and the Trail Creek-Kwethluk River Valley (Ackerman 1979a, b). The principal aim of these surveys was to establish a regional subsistence model using site locations, environmental contexts and known resource strategies, derived from ethnographic accounts. This model would then be used to locate evidence of sites occupied by Pleistocene hunters who hunted extinct fauna including mammoth, bison, horse and antelope. Artifacts from the glaciated zone indicated an initial occupation of perhaps as early as 10,000 radiocarbon years before present (B.P.) with continued occupation into the historic period. All the sites identified, with the exception of GDN-00094 at Kagati Lake, were surface scatters. Kagati Lake (GDN-00094) was a subsurface site that included microblade cores and typological association with sites dating to 9,000 years B.P., though no radiocarbon dates were taken. A side- notched point complex, associated with the Northern Archaic Tradition, was found at several sites along the upper fringes of Kwethluk, Goodnews and Nushagak Drainages. In 1979, Ackerman conducted archaeological surveys to the east of Kagati Lake, to Nenevok Lake, north to the Trail Creek and Kwethluk River valleys, west along the Kwethluk and Kisaralik River Valleys, and north along the Aniak River valley to the Kuskokwim River lowlands. The 1979 efforts were an attempt to determine, through site location, a pattern of resource use over the last 10,000 to 15,000 years. Ackerman defined a set of activity areas, including lookout sites, kill sites, raw material sources and major manufacturing, processing and residential areas, that were of interest. The survey identified a number of sites in the Project Study Area (Ackerman 1980a, b). Ten sites (BTH-00047 through BTH-00056) were small lithic scatters found along the North Fork of the Kisaralik River. Ackerman (1980a, b) notes that these sites are along a major caribou migration route, running east through the Taylor Mountains. Four additional sites were located between the North Fork and the Upper Falls of the Kisaralik River. Two lithic scatters (BTH-00058 and BTH-00059), located along the high bluffs overlooking the river canyon were interpreted as lookout sites. Two historic camp and cabin sites (BTH-00057and possibly BTH- 00060) were also described. The historic sites had previously been identified by BLM archaeologist John Beck (Ackerman 1980b). Near Spein Mountain, on a ridge 600-700 feet above the Kisaralik River, Ackerman (1980b) identified a major prehistoric site complex. On the western end of the ridge were thin scatterings of flakes (BTH-00062 and BTH- 00065) interpreted as lookout points and two deflated areas (BTH-00063 and BTH-00064). The surface scatters included an assortment of parallel sided square and round based points, leaf shaped points, bifacial scarpers or adze blades, gravers on flakes, scrapers on flakes, whetstones, hammerstones, bifacial fragments and flakes. Ackerman's research strategy was based on two approaches: 1) a subsistence model with a heavy reliance on ecological data, and 2) a culture-historical model with support from historical sources and ethnographic studies. He concluded that topography and climate were important to both humans and the game they hunted. He noted that there were differences between the artifacts found in glacial and periglacial zones. He attributed these differences to glacial retreat. According to this theory, during the late Pleistocene/ early Holocene the Page 131 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 periglacial zone, which included the foothills of the western Ahklun-Kilbuck Mountains, was used by herds of herbivores on their east-west migrations. As the glaciers retreated, the fault block valleys of the Ahklun-Kilbuck Mountains provided new east-west passages for migratory animals and opened new hunting sites. Ackerman concluded that there was a clear relationship between site distribution, topography and subsistence strategy related to the hunting of migratory animals in the area from the Pleistocene to the recent past (Ackerman 1980b) In 1992, Ackerman returned to conduct more extensive testing at Spein Mountain (BTH-00062 through BTH- 00065) the Nukluk Mountain site on the lower course of the Kisaralik River and the llnuk site on the Middle Holitna River. Eighty-five 1m x 1m units were excavated in BTH-00063. These excavations yielded bifaces, scrapers, knives, adzes, gravers on flakes, notched flakes and whetstones consistent with the Mesa Complex (part of the Paleoindian Tradition), which has been recorded at sites in the Brooks Range. A pit feature (Zone B) within the site included a fire pit; charcoal from this feature yielded an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) date of 10,050± 90 B.P (Beta 64471 [CAMS-8281]). Pollen analysis suggests alpine tundra with shrubs but no tree forms. The percentage of grass pollen is much higher than that found naturally, even in lush grasslands, which may indicate that the grass was transported to the site (Ackerman 2001). Little archaeological work has been done in the upper Wood-Tikchik lake system. In conjunction with his ethnohistorical research, VanStone (1968b) identified and excavated Tikchik Village (DIL-00001). In 1981, Ackerman surveyed the area around Chikuminuk Lake, identifying seven sites subsequently listed on the AHRS. Four sites (TAY-00005, TAY-00006, TAY-00008 and TAY-00009) consisted of a single flake or small lithic scatters. TAY-0010 was a small mound, interpreted as a midden or house pit debris. Test excavations revealed pottery shards (plain ware), a whetstone, and several chert chunks and retouch flakes. A charcoal sample from the unit provided a date of 630 ±60 B.P. (WSU-2657), indicating a late prehistoric occupation. TAY-00007 yielded a large amount of chert cores and debitage, a conical microblade core, two fragments of projectile points of non-local material, hammer stones and large amounts of charcoal (which was probably the result of a burn event). A radiocarbon date of 1945± 137 B.P. (WSU-2658) was obtained from the charcoal above the artifacts but may not accurately date the debris. The site was interpreted as a Norton site, but the conical microblade core is similar to those of the Kagati Lake Late Tundra tradition (circa 9000-6000 B.P.) indicating either an earlier occupation of the site or curation and relocation of the artifact (Ackerman in Biddle 2003). In 2000, as part of the Section 106 process prior to sale, several surveys were undertaken by BIA archaeologists on the Hansen Native Allotment (AA-7179-C), at the mouth of Chikuminuk Lake. These surveys identified lithic materials on the east side of the Allen River within the original boundaries of TAY-00007, in an area identified by Ackerman in 1981 as a modern camp. In 2003, Biddle conducted surface surveys and test excavations on two prehistoric sites (TAY-00039 and TAY-00042) either wholly or partially within the Hansen Native Allotment. The sites included house depressions, hearth features, chert flakes and a biface preform. A charcoal sample from TAY-00039 was radiometrically dated to 640 ± 70 B.P. (Beta #185623), which is consistent with a Thule occupation of the site. The sites were determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to significantly add to the knowledge and understanding of prehistoric and historic Native life ways in southwest Alaska (Biddle 2003). Although a number of sites have been identified within the Project Study Area in and around Bethel, this work has not always been exhaustive. For example, Oswalt (1980) located and described the community of Bethel (BTH-00014), the historic village sites of Mumtrekhlagamiut (BTH-00015) and Oovingiyuk (BTH-000130), the historic residential site of Kwigohok (BTH-00131) and the historic settlement, trading post and school at Oscarville (BTH-00132), but none of these sites have been systematically tested or evaluated for listing on the NRHP. ~HATCH~ Page 132 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 The Bethel White Alice site (BTH-00142) was examined in 1988 as part of a historical overview and inventory of the White Alice System (Reynolds 1988). It was re-examined by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) during the development of a management plan for Cold War cultural resources in Alaska (Denfield 1994). The site has subsequently been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. A building assessment of the Old BIA School in Bethel (BTH-00143) was carried out by the BlM in 1991, prior to its transfer to the Bethel Native Corporation (BNC). This report concluded that the structure was eligible for listing on the national register under Criterion A (Bureau of land Management 1991). The same year, the BNC conducted an assessment of the structure to calculate the cost to move or restore it (GDM 1991). The building has been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. In 1999, Chattey examined the surviving CAA/FAA structures in Bethel (BTH-00124, BTH-00125, BTH-00126 and BTH-00128) as part of a determination of eligibility for air navigation facilities constructed between 1940 and 1958 and recommended that they were not eligible for listing on the NRHP (Chattey 1999). OHA concurred with this recommendation. In 2003, Hart Crowser and Associates examined the surviving National Weather Service (NWS) facilities in Bethel (BTH-00121 and BTH-00122) as part of a state wide inventory of NWS structures and recommended that they were not eligible for listing on the NRHP (Hart Crowser and Associates 2003). OHA concurred with this recommendation. There is relatively little information on the history of research at three historic sites along the West Route to Bethel and in Bethel itself; the Reindeer Service Warehouse (BTH-00144), a small historic camp (BTH-00156) and Qip'acuk (BTH-00158). The only information so far located for these sites are the OHA files and BIA ANCSA Site Records. A historic campsite (BTH-00060) and a historic cabin (BTH-00061) were located by Ackerman (1980b) but they were not examined in detail. None of these sites have been systematically tested or evaluated for listing on the NRHP. Van Stone (1967, 1968b, 1971) identified numerous historic Yup'ik settlement sites around Nushagak Bay and along the Nushagak and Wood Rivers. Oswalt (1980) identified historic settlements along the Kuskokwim River south of Bethel. Both VanStone and Oswalt recorded Native place names, which often include information on how people view, use and relate to the surrounding natural environment. They can contain descriptions of landforms, hydrology, vegetation, fauna, and other aspects of the local environment. Place names can also refer to past human history and activities such as gathering places, areas of trading, territorial boundaries, and spiritual places. As such, place names can provide a framework to understand continuity and change in past land use systems in the archaeological record. No formally-defined TCPs were identified within the Project Study Area. By definition, TCPs are associated with repeated use/significance over multiple generations and long periods of time. Long term use can, but does not always leave evidence, in the form of material culture, visible in the archaeological record. Native place names can also be indications of a TCP's cultural significance. However, TCPs are primarily identified by the people to whom they are significant during the consultation process. 3.11.4 Indian Tribes In Alaska, consultation occurs with 229 federally recognized tribes, thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations and approximately 200 Alaska Native Village Corporations created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The Regional and Village Corporations are recognized as "Indian tribes" for some NHPA purposes. There are no communities located in the immediate vicinity of Chikuminuk lake. Nuvista has identified 23 Federally Recognized Tribes in the Bristol Bay and Calista Regions as listed in Table 3.11-1 that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties within the project boundary or in the vicinity of the Page 133 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Project. These tribes are located within 21 communities and are represented by ANCSA Village Corporations as well as their respective Alaska Native Regional Corporation, i.e. Bristol Bay Native Corporation or the Calista Corporation. The identified tribes have unique histories, but are characterized by strong ties to the land and its resources, and in some cases, through strong kinship connections. The successful completion of the Consultation and Coordination phase of the Section 106 process will require the development of an efficient and effective consultation process that addresses the letter of the laws and regulations within the context of local custom and practice. Table 3.11-1 Federally Recognized Tribes, Communities, and Village Corporations Affected by the Project Federally Recognized Tribe Community Village Corporation Bristol Bay Region Native Village of Aleknagik Aleknagik Aleknagik Natives Limited Village of Clarks Point Clark's Point Saguyaklncorporated Native Village of Ekuk Dillingham Choggiung Limited Curyung Tribal Council Dillingham Olsonville, Incorporated Ekwok Village Ekwok Ekwok Natives Limited New Koliganek Village Council Koliganek Koliganek Natives Limited New Stuyahok Village New Stuyahok Stuyahok Limited Portage Creek Village Portage Creek N/A Calista Region Akiachak Native Community Akiachak Akiachak, Limited Akiak Native Community Akiak Kokarmiut Corporation Village of Atmautluak Atmautluak Atmautluak, Limited Orutsararmuit Native Village Bethel Bethel Native Corporation Native Village of Napaimute Bethel Bethel Native Corporation Native Village of Eek Eek lqfijouaq Company Kasigluk Traditional Elders Council Kasigluk Kasigluk, Incorporated Organized Village of Kwethluk Kwethluk Kwethluk Incorporated Native Village of Napakiak Napakiak Napakiak Corporation Native Village of Napaskiak Napaskiak Napaskiak, Incorporated Native Village of Nunapitchuk Nunapitchuk Nunapitchuk Limited Oscarville Traditional Village Oscarville Oscarville Native Corporation Native Village of Kwinhagak Quinhagak Qanirtuuq, Incorporated Tuluksak Native Community Tuluksak Tulkisarmute Incorporated Native Village ofTuntutuliak Tuntutuliak Tuntutuliak Land, Limited Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative (2012), Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries (2012). ~HATCH~ Page 134 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.12 Socio-economic Resources 3.12.1 Introduction The Project has the potential to affect the socioeconomic resources of communities in the Calista and Bristol Bay Regions. 3.12.1.1 Study Area Definition For purposes of this socioeconomic overview, the primary study area consists of the Calista and the Bristol Bay portions of southwest Alaska. While other studies of southwest Alaska might include the Aleutian Islands and sometimes Kodiak Island, this report excludes the Aleutians and Kodiak. A map of this socioeconomic study area is provided as Figure 3.12-1. Different geographic areas are relevant to describe the subsistence activities in the vicinity of the Project, as discussed at the end of this section, 3.12.12 Subsistence Resources. As shown by Figure 3.12-1, the Calista portion of the primary socioeconomic study area includes the Bethel Census Area and the Wade Hampton Census Area. The Calista Region boundary is the same as that of the Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional corporation. The Bristol Bay portion of the socioeconomic study area includes the Dillingham Census Area, the Bristol Bay Borough, and the Lake and Peninsula Borough. The Bristol Bay Region's boundary is the same as the boundary for the Bristol Bay Native Corporation. Within this primary socioeconomic study area, there are several ways that data are shown and analyzed. The geography used to summarize data is a function of data availability, as well as whether it is appropriate to show information on a larger scale or on a specific community scale. The five geographies used to summarize data are listed below. • Statewide: statewide data is shown for comparison purposes. • Study Area: data is shown for the study area (Southwest Alaska, defined as the Calista Region and the Bristol Bay Region). • Calista Region: data is shown for the Census areas that make up the Calista Region: Bethel and Wade Hampton Census Areas. • Bristol Bay Region: data is shown for the Census areas and boroughs that make up the Bristol Bay Region: Dillingham Census Area, Bristol Bay Borough and Lake and Peninsula Borough. • Communities: in certain instances, data is shown at the community level. Bethel and Dillingham are described in more detailed because they are the two largest communities in the study area. Where appropriate, data is provided for an additional13 communities, as a sample of smaller villages. In the future, as more is understood about the Project, other villages may be covered in greater detail. 3.12.1.2 Socioeconomics of Southwest Alaska The story of southwest Alaska is one of both social and economic strengths and significant challenges. Regional strengths include the area's natural beauty, largely intact ecosystems, and the rich cultural traditions, which include Vup'ik, Cup'ik, Athabascan and Alutiiq cultures. Like much of rural Alaska, many of the communities possibly served by the proposed Project are experiencing the challenges associated with a lack of jobs and high unemployment. Rising energy and fuel costs have further hindered the economic viability of life in rural Alaska: most food, home heating fuel and other materials must be flown or shipped in from outside the region, leading to steady growth in the cost of living. 3.12.2 Calista Region Study Area The Calista Region includes two primary rivers, which are the region's lifelines for transportation, food, and culture. To the north, the Yukon River travels from its headwaters in Canada nearly 2,000 miles to empty into the Bering Sea. The Kuskokwim River further south travels 700 miles from Alaska's interior to the Bering Sea. These rivers flow through a remote area, unconnected to the road system, that is nearly 58,000 square miles Page 135 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 (approximately the size of Oregon). The region has been home to Native cultures for thousands of years. Today's regional population is approximately 25,000 in over 48 permanent communities and several seasonally occupied villages. (ADCCED 2012a). The rich mix of subsistence resources on land, rivers and lakes, and at sea historically meant this region has had the largest concentration of rural communities in all of Alaska. Residents are primarily people of native decent (Yup'ik, Cup'ik and Athabascan) living a subsistence-based lifestyle, with hunting, fishing and gathering providing a large majority of their food (City of Bethel 2011a). The Calista Region is divided into the Bethel and Wade Hampton Census areas. The Bethel Census Area is one of only 38 county-level census divisions of the United States where the most spoken language is not English and one of only three where it is neither English nor Spanish. Sixty-three percent of the population in the Bethel Census Area speaks a Yup'ik language at home, followed by English (ADCCED 2012a). 3.12.2.1 City of Bethel Bethel is a second-class city, incorporated in 1957 (City of Bethel2011a). The City of Bethel is located on the outer bank of the main channel of the Kuskokwim River, 40 miles inland from the Bering Sea. The city occupies approximately 44 square miles of land within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and has a population of approximately 6,080 according to the 2010 U.S. Census (City of Bethel 2011a). Not connected to Alaska's road network, Bethel is about four hundred air miles from Anchorage; it is the largest town in southwest Alaska and the hub community of the region. Bethel is a particularly diverse and multi-cultural city among rural Alaska communities. In 2010, Bethel's population was about 65 percent Alaska Native/American Indian, 23 percent White (American), and also included people of Indian, Filipino, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian, Mexican, Puerto Rican and other Asian, Pacific Islander and Hispanic ethnicities (2010 census data, ADCCED 2012a). For cities, businesses, and individuals living in the villages in the region, Bethel is the major source for government, education, transportation, and health services, as well as a major shopping center for food, equipment, clothing, and other products. The remote villages, scattered throughout the region, range in size from less than 100 people to several with over 800 residents. Few villages are connected by road to one another; none to the rest of Alaska {City of Bethel2011b). 3.12.3 Bristol Bay Region Study Area Located in southwestern Alaska, the Bristol Bay Region consists of vast, diverse, largely roadless wilderness, punctuated by remote villages. Its boundaries extend from the village of Nondalton on the east, to Perryville on the south coast of the Alaska Peninsula-an area encompassing over 40,000 square miles. Bristol Bay villages are predominantly Alaska Native, including Yup'ik, Aleut/Aiutiiq, and Dena'ina Athabascan. The Aleut/Aiutiiq historically inhabited the communities on the Pacific Ocean side of the Alaska Peninsula, the Dena'ina Athabascan are from the areas surrounding Lake Clark and Iliamna Lake, and the Yup'ik traditionally inhabit the coastal villages of Bristol Bay (ADCCED 2012a). Bristol Bay's rivers and streams support the world's largest sockeye salmon run, which has attracted people for centuries for subsistence, commercial and sport fishing. Because of the long history of commercial fishing and fish processing, people of many backgrounds have moved into the area, creating a tapestry of cultural influences, from Europe to Southeast Asia (City of Dillingham 2010). 3.12.3.1 City of Dillingham Dillingham, incorporated in 1963, became a first-class city in 1972 {City of Dillingham 2010). Dillingham is the largest community in Bristol Bay with 2,329 people, and is the government, service and transportation hub for the region. Dillingham is the entry point for access to Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Wood-Tikchik State Park and Walrus Island State Game Sanctuary. Government services, natural resources, fish and wildlife are the ~HATCH~ Page 136 Environmental Conditions economic engines of the Bristol Bay and Dillingham areas, with the latter supporting commercial, subsistence and recreational activities (City of Dillingham 2010). 3.12.4 General Land Use Patterns 2014 Southwestern Alaska is geographically diverse. The land consists primarily of relatively low-lying wetlands, lakes and shrub tundra, separated by mountainous regions and low hills. Much ofthe region's land is sparsely populated or uninhabited. Population centers tend to be concentrated along important rivers and lakes, or along the more sheltered portions of the Bering Sea coastline. These areas are characterized by rural development patterns. Bethel and Dillingham are the largest and most urbanized communities, while most of the region's communities are much more rural in character. A few settlements are only seasonally occupied and serve as fishing and subsistence camps. There are five broad categories of land ownership that in many ways drive land use patterns in the study area. See Section 3.9 for more detail about the primary land uses in the region. 3.12.4.1 Federal Land Large tracts of land are owned and managed by federal agencies, including the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are two national parks in the study area (Lake Clark and Katmai National Parks) as well as two large national refuges (the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge). Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns large tracts of land in the study area. Most federal land is managed in a manner meant to preserve its natural condition into the future. 3.12.4.2 State Land Large tracts of land are owned and managed by the State of Alaska, including the Wood-Tikchik State Park. The State also owns land that is available for lease and/or development. Chikuminuk Lake is located in the 1.6 million acre Wood-Tikchik State Park, which was established in 1978 (see Sections 3.9.9 and 3.9.10 for additional discussion of land ownership and use patterns in Wood-Tikchik State Park). 3.12.4.3 Alaska Native Corporation Land Significant portions of the region are owned by Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 (see also Section 3.12.6.3). ANCSA conferred land to 13 for-profit regional corporations and approximately 200 village corporations. The Calista Corporation takes in the Calista Region, and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation is the ANSCA Corporation for the Bristol Bay Region. Both ANCSA corporations own subsurface and surface rights to land that was obtained through the ANCSA land selection process. In instances where the village corporations own the surface rights, the regional corporation assigned to that region typically owns the subsurface rights. ANC land is private land that is available for development, preservation, or other activities as directed by the ANC so long as those activities are in alignment with local, state, and federal land use management requirements (Kijik Corporation 2011). 3.12.4.4 Local Government and Tribal Land Within villages and local communities, some land has been conveyed to the local government for public services. In certain instances, the tribal government owns specific parcels. More often the local city government owns land for public facilities, and the local village corporation owns large portions of land within a village and the immediate surrounding area. ~HATCH~ Page 137 Chikuminuk Hyd r oelectric Project Interim Feas ibility Report -Vo l ume II, Existi ng Environmental Condi t io ns Figure 3.12-1 Socioeconomic Impact Study Area, Southwest Alaska Wade Hampton CenauaArea Saint Mary's fill • tv'o rsholl Plot Statio.,. -1!----.1 • • • Aniak • • •• • Tululsak • Be-thel Census Area Dtllngham Cens.usA...a • • • Kuskokwim Bay . , LEGEND e Regio nal Hub Communi1y • Study Ar&a Com m un ity D Chilc.uminuk Lake Borou gh or Cemv1 AreQ &O'Jnd ory Socioeconomic Impact Study Area Bristol Bay Region c:::J Colsto Region Projoclion: Al>enConic Aknto, NAD 1927 Data: nuka Slate Ge~patkll Oola Ctearhghouse CASGOC) N&w StjJYdhok • • • • MDnototaka Dillingham • p Bltslol lay I • NDK~ough Bristol Bay 41Kilo Salmon lake + renin sula &oro ugh • Kodlalc blaad Pf~ucoo by A(JWIW::B&ek Conmlli\g 101 Nuvlsto ~rch2013 25 50 100 •-===-•••Miles 0 ~HATCH '" Apr il2014 Page 138 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Fea~;ibilitv Environmental Conditions 2014 3.12.4.5 Private Lands and Alaska Native Allotments Within communities throughout the study area, properties are held by individual residents and businesses. Many Alaska Natives hold title to individual parcels called Alaska Native allotments. Native Allotments continue to be investigated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and transferred to the allotment applicants. Parcels owned by individuals and allotments are typically located near villages and local communities, but can be found within national parks and state parks. Private parcels within conservation units are referred to as inholdings. In 1978, there were 104 inholdings in the Wood-Tikchik State Park claimed by Native residents of Bristol Bay under the 1906 Native Alaska Allotment Act, totaling about 8,000 acres and ranging in size from 20 to 160 acres. Because these inholdings were also claimed by the state, the BLM was required to adjudicate land title. The issue was settled with a combination of relocation and conservation easements. Twenty-seven applicants exchanged their inholdings for State lands outside the park boundary. The remaining 77 pressed their land claims but agreed to conservation easements based on the strength of the original claim, the age of the applicant and the location of the parcel. A three-tier system was created: • Tier 1-The least restrictive, established a 25-foot wide pedestrian easement on land bordering lakes and rivers with no other restrictions. • Tier 2-Allows the subdivision of parcels into ten-acre lots, with no more than one five-acre commercial development site. • Tier 3 Similar to Tier 2, but with no commercial development allowed (Ketchum et al. 2003). Most of the Wood-Tikchik parcels affected were classified as Tier 2. This solution limited large scale commercial development within the Park and ensured public access, while protecting Native land claims. However, there are growing pressures on the predominantly Native landowners to sell their properties. Many are aging and may need additional funds for retirement or to cover medical expenses. Declines in the fishing industry during the 1990s and 2000s also increased the pressure on inholders to sell their land (Ketchum et al. 2003). To counteract these forces, the park has controlled the level of commercial use, encouraged the placement of covenants and conservation easements on the property prior to sale, and encouraged land exchanges, cooperative agreements or sales of in holdings to the state. The State has also instituted zoning within the park (ADNR 2002). The Nature Conservancy and The Conservation Fund have also purchased inholdings within the Wood-Tikchik State Park to hold in trust. Some of these lands were transferred to the Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood-Tikchik Land Trust (now known as the Bristol Bay Heritage Land Trust), which was formed by Bristol Bay residents to preserve salmon and wildlife habitat in the Nushagak Bay watersheds. These include lands in the Wood-Tikchik State Park and the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge (Ketchum et al. 2003; Bristol Bay Heritage Land Trust 2013). The Nature Conservancy of Alaska acquired a 110-acre parcel (USS 12058) at the headwaters of the Allen River on Chikuminuk Lake (ADNR 2013). This parcel was the only private inholding on Chikuminuk Lake, one of the most remote lakes in the northern reaches of Wood-Tikchik State Park. 3.12.4.6 Population Trends Table 3.12-1 presents population figures for the Calista Region and the Bristol Bay Region. Between 2000 and 2010, the Calista population grew by 6.2 percent, while the Bristol Bay Region's population dropped by approximately 6.5 percent (U.S. Census 2010a). There are three components that make up population change: births, deaths, and net migration. A region's population change is a function of the number of births, the number of deaths, and the number of people who move in and out of the region (net migration). ~HATCH~ Page 139 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 Table 3.12-1 Population Summary of Southwest Alaska by Region Population Crude Birth Crude Death Net Change Rate sill Ratesru Migration Census Area 200Q-2010 2009 2007-2009 200Q-2010 Calista Region 1,438 29.1 624.7 (3,758) Bethel Census Area 1,007 25.2 556.1 (2,375) Wade Census Area 431 32.9 693.3 Bristol Ball Region (528) 19.8 684.3 (1,373) Bristol Bay Borough (261) 13.4 694.0 (328) Dillingham Census Area (75) 24.7 560.4 (728) Lake and Peninsula 21.3 798.6 Calista and Bristol Bay Regions 910 23.5 660.5 (5,131) Statewide 83,299 16.3 515.6 22,609 [1] Crude birth rates are live births per 1,000 people. [2] Crude death rates are deaths per 100,000 people. Source: U.S. Census 2010, Alaska Department of Vital Statistics, Alaska Permanent Fund 2010 migration data In both regions, the crude birth rates (births per 1,000 people) were higher than the statewide average (ABVS 2012). See Table 3.12-2. High birth rates are the reason that the Calista Region realized a positive increase in population; the additional births offset negative net migration and deaths. In the Bristol Bay Region, higher birth rates were not sufficient to compensate for negative net migration and higher than average death rates. Crude death rates (deaths per 100,000 people) for both regions were also higher than the statewide average. Health problems, high suicide and fatal injury rates, among other reasons for death, were part of the reason for higher death rates in these communities (ABVS 2012). Table 3.12-2 Population Birth and Death Rates by Census Area Crude Birth Rates[tJ Crude Death Rates[2J Census Area 1992 2000 2009 1999-01 2007-09 Calista Region 33.9 28.2 29.1 544.0 624.7 Bethel Census Area 28.6 26.2 25.2 524.0 556.1 Wade Census Area 39.1 30.2 32.9 564.0 693.3 Bristol Ball Region 24.1 14.6 19.8 713.6 684.3 Bristol Bay Borough 12.1 12.7 13.4 596.4 694.0 Dillingham Census Area 29.7 18.5 24.7 515.7 560.4 30.5 12.6 21.3 798.6 Calista and Bristol 28.0 20.0 23.5 645.8 660.5 Statewide 20.0 15.9 16.3 457.8 515.6 Difference (percentage) 40% 26% 44% 41% 28% [1] Crude birth rates are live births per 1,000 people. [2] Crude death rates are deaths per 100,000 people. Source: Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics Net migration in both regions was negative over a ten-year period (see Table 3.12-3), a major cause of declining population in Bristol Bay and a reduced growth rate in the Calista Region (ADOWLD 2012c, 2012d). People in rural Alaska are moving to urban Alaska as well as to areas outside of Alaska in search of jobs, economic opportunity, better education, and a safer, healthier environment for raising children (ADOWLD 2010, 2012c. Page 140 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Table 3.12-3 Net Migration in Southwest Alaska, 2000-2010 Net Migration Census Area 2000 to 2010111 Calista Region Bethel Census Area Wade Hampton Census Area Bristol Bay Region Bristol Bay Borough Dillingham Census Area Lake and Peninsula Borough Average, Calista and Bristol Bay Regions Anchorage I Mat-Su (3,758) (2,375) (1,383) (1,373) (328) (728) (317) (5,131) 22,609 [1] Net migration is population change due to people moving into and out of a region (within Alaska and from other places) Source: Alaska Economic Trends, April2012 3.12.4.7 Population Size and Concentration April2014 Approximately 32,000 people live in the combined Calista and Bristol Bay Regions; this comprises about five percent of Alaska's population. Seventy-seven percent of the southwest Alaska population resides in the Calista Region (Figure 3.12-2). Almost half the population in southwest Alaska (47 percent) is concentrated in ten communities, including the cities of Bethel and Dillingham, which are the two largest population centers in southwest Alaska (U.S. Census 2010a; ADCCED 2012a). Bethel has a population of approximately 6,080, according to the 2010 U.S. Census (City of Bethel 2011a). Dillingham's community has about 2,329 people. Figure 3.12-2 Population Distribution by Census Area and Community Share of SouthwestAK Population Top Ten Most Populated Southwest Alaska Communities 47% Top Ten Communities with Population Hooper Bay (WHCA), 1 Chevak (WHCA), 938 Mountain Village, 813 \.Emmonak (WHCA), 762 I \.Kwethluk (BCA), 721 L---------Q-u-in-h-ag_a_k-(B_C_A_).-6-697 Alakanuk (WHCA), 677 Note: Includes Wade Hampton CensusArea (W-ICA), Bethel Census Area (BCA), Bristol Bay Borough, Dillingham Census Area (DCA), and Lake and Peninsula Borough . Source: U.S. Census 2010 Source: Port of Anchorage (2012) ~HATCH '" Page 141 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Approximately 11,700 people live in the City of Bethel and the 13 villages selected for study. The average population of the 13 villages is 432 people and the communities range in size from 70 to just over 700 people, which suggests varying levels of infrastructure, as discussed further in this section. Table 3.12-4 provides detailed population data for these 13 communities. Table 3.12-4 Population in Selected Communities and Historical Trends, 198D-2010 Po~ulation Percent Change 1980-199o-2000-198o- Community 1980 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 2010 Calista Region 15647 19358 23034 24472 24% 19% 6% 56% Bethel Census Area 10982 13567 16006 17013 24% 18% 6% 55% Akiachak 438 481 585 627 10% 22% 7% 43% Akiak 198 285 309 346 44% 8% 12% 75% Atmautluak 219 258 294 277 18% 14% (6%) 26% Bethel 3576 4674 5471 6080 31% 17% 11% 70% Eek 228 254 280 296 11% 10% 6% 30% Kasigluk n/a 425 543 569 n/a 28% 5% n/a Kwethluk 454 558 713 721 23% 28% 1% 59% Napakiak 262 318 353 354 21% 11% 0% 35% Napaskiak 244 328 390 405 34% 19% 4% 66% Nunapitchuk n/a 378 466 496 n/a 23% 6% n/a Oscarville 56 57 61 70 2% 7% 15% 25% Quinhagak 412 501 555 669 22% 11% 21% 62% Tuluksak 236 358 428 373 52% 20% (13%) 58% Tuntutuliak 216 300 370 408 39% 23% 10% 89% Subtotall3 Villages and Bethel 6539 9175 10818 11691 40% 18% 8% 79% Balance of Bethel Census Area 4443 4392 5188 5322 (1%) 18% 3% 20% Wade Census Area 4665 5791 7028 7459 24% 21% 6% 60% Bristol Ba~ Region 5710 7090 8003 7475 24% 13% (7%} 31% Bristol Bay Borough 1094 1410 1258 997 29% (11%) (21%) (9%) Dillingham Census Area 4616 4012 4922 4847 (13%) 23% (2%) 5% Lake and Peninsula 1668 1823 1631 9% Total Calista & Bristol 26448 31037 31947 24% 17% 3% 50% Statewide 401851 550043 626932 710231 37% 14% 13% 77% Calista & Bristol Bay as% of State 5% 5% 5% 4% n/a n/a n/a n/a [lj!ncluded in Dillingham Census Area for 1980 Source: U.S. Census 198D-2010 ~HATCH~ Page 142 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 3.12.4.8 Race/Ethnicity The vast majority of the population in southwest Alaska (82 percent} is Alaska Native. As shown in Table 3.12-5, the population in the Calista Region is 87 percent Alaska Native, with a higher concentration of Alaska Natives (95 percent} in the Wade Hampton Census Area. In the Bristol Bay Region, approximately 65 percent of the population is Alaska Native. Statewide, the Alaska Native population makes up about 15 percent of the overall population (U.S. Census 2010a). Table 3.12-5 Population (Percent) by Ethnicity and Race, Southwest Alaska, 2010 Asian, Alaska Native Native & Hawaiian American African & Pacific Hispanic Census Area Indian White American Islander & latino111 Calista Region 87% 9% 0% 1% 1% Bethel Census Area 83% 11% 0% 1% 1% Wade Census Area 95% 3% 0% 0% 0% Bristol Ba:t Region 65% 23% 0% 1% 2% Bristol Bay Borough 34% 48% 0% 1% 2% Dillingham Census Area 72% 18% 0% 1% 2% lake and Peninsula 65% 23% 1% 1% 3% Calista and Bristol 82% 12% 0% 1% 1% Statewide 15% 67% 3% 6% 6% [1] Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity is counted independent of race, and the Hispanic population generally identifies as White or Other Race. Total population percentages exceed 100%. This change was made in the 2010 Census. Source: U.S. Census 2010 3.12.4.9 Age and Gender Distribution Two or More Races & Other 4% 4% 2% 11% 17% 9% 10% 5% 9% Both the Calista Region and parts of the Bristol Bay Region have a young population relative to the state average (Table 3.12-6). The median age for the Bethel, Wade Hampton, Dillingham and Lake and Peninsula Borough Census Areas are all below the statewide average of 33.8; the Bristol Bay Borough's median age exceeds the state average. The Wade Hampton Census Area has the lowest median age of the five census areas, at 21.9 years. Population distribution also indicates a larger proportion of people under the age of 18, particularly in the Calista Region and parts of the Bristol Bay Region. Again, the Wade Hampton Census Area includes the highest proportion of younger people, at 42 percent of the population. There is no significant difference in the gender distribution in southwest Alaska, both locally and regionally, relative to Alaska's population overall. Females make up about 47 percent and males make up about 52 percent of the population. ~HATCH~ Page 143 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Table 3.12-6 Population (Percent) by Age Cohort and Sex, 2010 Median Po~ulation b~ Age (%) Po~. B~ Sex (%) Census Area Age Under18 18 to 64 over 65 Female Male Calista Region 24.1 39% 55% 6% 47% 53% Bethel Census Area 26.2 37% 57% 6% 47% 52% Wade Hampton Census Area 21.9 42% 53% 5% 47% 53% Bristol Ba~ Region 34.2 29% 64% 8% 47% 53% Bristol Bay Borough 42.8 23% 69% 8% 46% 54% Dillingham Census Area 29.0 33% 60% 8% 48% 52% Lake and Peninsula Borough 30.8 30% 62% 8% 47% 53% Calista and Bristol Bay Regions 30.1 33% 60% 7% 47% 53% Statewide 33.8 26% 66% 8% 48% 52% Source: U.S. Census 2010 3.12.5 Economy Alaska's economy is heavily dependent on the extraction and transportation of the state's vast natural resources: oil, natural gas, coal and minerals, as well as salmon, halibut, crab, other sea life, and historically, timber. The wealth and need for management generated by these resources has resulted in a very large government and non-profit sector in Alaska. While most of the administrative functions and support services for resource industries and government are located in Alaska's major urban areas, rural Alaska economies are dominated by these two sectors. Government (at the state, federal and local levels) and non-profit organizations provide the largest number of jobs in the study area regions. At the same time, the local people of rural Alaska remain closely tied to a subsistence lifestyle. The differences and occasional conflicts in these systems have produced a mixed cash-subsistence economy. 3.12.5.1 Subsistence Though not a formal industry sector, subsistence is a very important aspect of the economy for rural Alaskan communities (Subsistence is discussed in detail in Section 3.12.12). In addition to providing food in a remote area with a high cost of living, subsistence activities are integral to the life and identity of many rural Alaska residents, particularly Alaska Native peoples. Traditionally, community members hunt, fish and gather foods, which are distributed throughout the community and region so that everyone is fed and cared for. As illustrated in Table 3.12-7, Lake and Peninsula Borough, Wade Hampton Census Area and Bethel Census Area are among the four boroughs/census areas in Alaska with the highest rates of subsistence harvest. Wade Hampton residents harvest more wild food per capita than any other region of the state (Wolfe 2004). Some workers choose to forego formal employment if it conflicts with subsistence harvest timing and opportunities. ~HATCH~ Page 144 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Table 3.12-7 Average Yearly Wild Food Harvest per Resident by Census Area Annual Harvest per Census Area Resident (lbs.) Wade Hampton Census Area 698 Northwest Arctic Borough 617 Lake and Peninsula Borough 602 Bethel Census Area 592 Nome Census Area 519 Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 454 North Slope Borough 434 Yakutat Borough 398 Dillingham Census Area 369 Aleutians East Borough 315 Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon CA 243 Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan CA 212 Bristol Bay Borough 211 Sitka Borough 206 Aleutians West Census Area 206 Haines Borough 196 Wrangell-Petersburg Census Area 182 Kodiak Island Borough 169 Denali Borough 139 Valdez-Cordova Census Area 134 Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 116 Kenai Peninsula Borough 42 Ketchikan Gateway Borough 34 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 25 Juneau Borough 25 Fairbanks North Star Borough 21 Municipality of Anchorage 18 Interpreted as averaged figures of data gathered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game from 1978-2003. Source: Wolfe {2004) 3.12.5.2 Primary Industries April2014 Approximately half of the study area's residents (46 percent in 2011} are employed in state or local government (Table 3.12-8}. Other significant industries are Educational and Health Services; Trade Transportation and Utilities, and Commercial Fishing. Regional education and healthcare facilities are large employers in the hub cities of Dillingham and Bethel (e.g., BBAHC, YKHC, University of Alaska campuses} (ADOLWD 2012b}. Schools Page 145 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions and clinics in nearly every community also offer a source of year-round employment. Because most communities are remote (not on the road system), air taxis, air freight and barge services are also larger employers in the study area (City of Bethel 2011a). April 2014 In 2010, 1,798 people fished commercially in the study area. Residents of the study area (comprising the Bethel, Bristol Bay, Dillingham, Lake and Peninsula and Wade Hampton Census Areas) who hold commercial fishing permits make up about 20 percent (19.2 percent) of Alaska's total commercial fishing permit holders (Table 3.12-9). Non-residents account for 26 percent of all Alaska commercial fishing permit holders (Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 2011). Table 3.12-8 Residents' Employment by Industry, Southwest Alaska, 2010-2011 Residents Em!;!lo~ed Wade Bethel Bristol Dillingham Lake and Hampton Census Bay Census Peninsula Census Area Borough Area Borough Area Industries (2011)11 l 8,021 499 2,134 786 3,414 Natural Resources and Mining 140 7 28 27 66 Construction 151 36 47 29 65 Manufacturing 134 12 51 6 238 Trade, Transportation and Utilities 1,219 149 338 57 565 Information 86 19 33 10 23 Financial Activities 664 32 124 24 221 Professional and Business Services 122 11 33 82 31 Educational and Health Services 1,174 28 543 80 217 Leisure and Hospitality 84 28 59 12 45 State Government 371 22 119 9 55 Local Government 3,371 153 693 445 1,630 Other 504 2 63 5 253 Unknown 1 0 3 0 5 Commercial Fishing {2010) 717 140 390 113 438 [1] Does not include segments of the employed population working in industries that do not require unemployment insurance coverage: self-employment, agriculture and fisheries, unpaid caretakers and domestic staff. Source: ADOLWD. Fishing data from Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. Page 146 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Table 3.12-9 Residents Holding Commercial Fishing Permits by Census Area, 2010 Number of Percent of Region Permits Alaskan Permits Southwest Alaska (Calista and Bristol Bay Study Area) 2,609 19.3% Bethel Census Area 1,070 7.9% Bristol Bay Borough 163 1.2% Dillingham Census Area 620 4.6% Lake and Peninsula Borough 146 1.1% Wade Hampton Census Area 610 4.5% All Other Alaska Census Areas 7,460 54.8% Non-Resident Permit Holders 3,544 26.0% Alaska Total 13,613 100.0% Selected Southwest Communities 922 6.8% Akiachak 75 0.6% Akiak 21 0.2% Atmautluak 20 0.1% Bethel 189 1.4% Dillingham 227 1.7% Eek 41 0.3% Kasigluk 34 0.2% Kwethluk so 0.4% Napakiak 40 0.3% Napaskiak 28 0.2% Nunapitchuk 40 0.3% Oscarville 1 0.0% Quinhagak 83 0.6% Tuluksak 26 0.2% Tuntutuliak 47 0.3% Source: Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 3.12.5.3 Employment and Public Assistance The boroughs and census areas within the study area have higher rates of unemployment than the state as a whole, as shown in Table 3.12-10 (ADOLWD 2012a).1 Median and per capita income for the Lake and Peninsula Borough and Wade Hampton Census Area are lower than the national and state figures. See Table 3.12-11. The hub communities (Bethel, Dillingham, and King Salmon-Naknek) have the highest employment and income statistics in the study area, as most year-round jobs are in industries that tend to be based in hub communities (e.g., government, education, healthcare, transportation) (U.S. Census 2010b). The high median household and 1 It is worth noting that unemployment is defined as the portion of the working age population (16 and older) in the labor force, not currently employed but actively seeking employment. There is another portion of the population not in the labor force: adults who have chosen not to work (e.g. stay-at-home parents), who cannot work (e.g. severely disabled or ill individuals), retired persons and those who have been unemployed for a long period of time and have been discouraged from further seeking work. The size of the labor force and the proportion of those not in the labor force also give some indication of the economic health of a region. ~HATCH~ Page 147 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 per capita incomes in hub communities are the result of the few, high-paying positions in these communities (e.g., government and medical professionals). Table 3.12-10 Resident Employment and Unemployment by Census Area, 2010 Total Year-Round Population Em~lol£ment Em~lol£ment Region {2010) Individuals %Total Individuals %Total Bethel Census Area 17,013 7,910 46.5% 4,588 27.0% Bristol Bay Borough 997 493 49.5% 317 31.8% Dillingham Census Area 4,847 2,160 44.6% 1,306 26.9% Lake and Peninsula Borough 1,631 760 46.6% 395 24.2% Wade Hampton Census Area 7,459 3,415 45.8% 1,697 22.8% Alaska 710,231 305,105 43.0% 212,543 29.9% Source: ADOWLD Table 3.12-11 Income and Poverty Rates, Southwest Alaska Median Households Household Below lncomel11 Per Capita Income Poverty level Census Areas l Boroughs Bethel Census Area $52,214 $18,584 18.6% Bristol Bay Borough $84,000 $31,260 5.0% Dillingham Census Area $60,800 $22,597 18.1% Lake and Peninsula Borough $40,909 $15,161 21.4% Wade Hampton Census Area $37,955 $11,269 31.4% Communities Bethel $86,935 $29,220 7.8% Dillingham $74,828 $34,156 13.2% Akiachak $39,167 $12,996 27.6% Akiak $35,833 $13,400 21.9% Atmautluak $45,536 $11,596 15.2% Eek $17,350 $10,626 27.9% Kasigluk $40,851 $11,355 25.7% Kwethluk $40,625 $14,522 18.0% Napakiak $37,250 $11,023 34.1% Napaskiak $57,917 $15,263 10.8% Nunapitchuk $38,281 $12,321 22.5% Oscarville $57,813 $9,973 54.7% Quinhagak $30,833 $10,422 38.9% Tuluksak $35,417 $7,767 32.8% Tuntutuliak $34,464 $10,349 36.6% Alaska $66,521 $30,726 9.5% United States $51,914 $27,334 13.8% [l]lncome given in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars. [2] "Public Assistance" includes public assistance income, food stamps (EBT) and SNAP benefits. Unem~lol£ment Insurance Claimants Individuals %Total 2,310 13.6% 81 8.1% 483 10.0% 224 13.7% 1,306 17.5% 57,170 8.0% Households Receiving Public Assistance 121 41.6% 6.1% 23.2% 13.0% 60.2% 20.4% 9.2% 66.4% 45.2% 63.8% 70.4% 63.5% 49.4% 61.9% 37.3% 52.3% 100.0% 82.9% 87.1% 73.5% 11.8% 10.0% Page 148 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Residents of the study area utilize a relatively high level of public assistance. With the exception of the Bristol Bay Borough (6.1 percent), the remaining census areas in the study area all have higher (and in some cases much higher) rates of public assistance than either state or national levels (11.8 and 10.0 percent, respectively). At 23.3 percent, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that households in the Dillingham Census Area have received double the state and national rate of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months (U.S. Census 2010b). That percentage goes up to 41.6 percent for the Bethel Census Area and 60.2 percent for the Wade Hampton Census Area. The percentage of total personal income comprised of non-labor earnings (including State of Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, Native Corporation dividends, government assistance, etc.) is also higher in the study area than the state as a whole, as shown in Table 3.12-12. Table 3.12-12 Components of Residents' Personal Income by Census Area Bristol Lake and Bay Peninsula Wade State of Income Category Bethel Borough Dillingham Borough Hampton Alaska Payroll jobs and self-employment 64.3% 65.6% 67.9% 61.4% 47.9% 70.3% -- Dividends, interest and rental 6.4% 14.5% 12.1% 16.8% 5.8% 13.8% 29.3% 19.9% 20.0% 21.9% 46.4% 15.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% [1] "Dividends, interest and rent" is defined as money earned from investments, PFD, Native Corporation dividend [2] "Personal current transfer receipts" is defined as government retirement and disability insurance benefits, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Regional Economic Information System Public assistance can and does provide a needed support in a region with little industry and few existing formal year-round employment opportunities. However, it can also create a disincentive to work beyond a certain amount each year. Income eligibility for public assistance can penalize families that earn more than the maximum income for eligibility to receive the benefits.2 From having access to subsidized housing and an income that can support the family (especially with subsistence inputs for food), a family that earns more than the income limit can find themselves with a net decrease in household income without the public assistance supports (Haley and Fisher 2012). In an area with an extremely high cost of living, this loss of income can significantly impact the family's welfare (Fried and Shanks 2011). Households' economic situation is also affected by the role of subsistence activities in rural Alaska life. Subsistence activities can require substantial periods of time spent away from school or employment. If there is an option to receive supplemental income that allows a family or individual to work fewer hours and spend that time pursuing subsistence activities, then socially there is an incentive to take advantage of it (Wolfe 2004) ... 3.12.6 Governance and Taxation There are numerous local and tribal entities with jurisdiction over some portion of the study area. Including local government and Alaska Native organizations, there are over 200 entities with a role in directing policy, implementing projects, raising funds, and providing services to the 31,000 residents who call these two regions home (ADCCED 2012a). Coordination and outreach among all these entities can be challenging due to the sheer 2 The work requirements for receiving public assistance in Alaska have been waived in rural villages because there are so few jobs (Haley and Fisher 2012). ~HATCH~ Page 149 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 magnitude of the number of entities that are involved; similarly, acquiring the resources needed to sustain all these entities is an ongoing challenge. Coordination among entities is critical for effective local governance. To provide revenue, almost half of the cities and both boroughs in the two regions levy some type of local tax structure within their community. These communities are collecting revenue to assist in project implementation and service provision. Many other entities do not have taxation powers or do not currently levy taxes, relying on other sources of public funds. 3.12.6.1 Local Government As shown in Table 3.12-13, there are 78 communities in the Calista and Bristol Bay Regions; 45 of those communities are incorporated first and second class cities under Alaska state law (ADCCED 2012a). Bethel is a second-class city, incorporated in 1957, and Dillingham, originally incorporated in 1963, became a first-class city in 1972 (City of Bethel 2011a; City of Dillingham 2010). Two boroughs have incorporated in the Bristol Bay Region: Bristol Bay Borough (containing Naknek and King Salmon) and the Lake and Peninsula Borough. Eleven school districts provide education services to the 31,000 residents in the two regions (ADEED 2012). Table 3.12-13 Summary of Local Government Entities, Southwest Alaska Total Local Incorporated Incorporated School Government Communities Cities[11 Boroughs Districts Entities Calista Region 47 30 0 7 37 Bethel Census Area 34 18 0 4 22 Wade Hampton Census Area 13 12 0 3 15 Bristol Ba~ Region 31 15 2 4 21 Bristol Bay Borough 3 0 1 1 2 Dillingham Census Area 10 9 0 2 11 Lake and Peninsula Borough 18 6 1 1 8 Total, Calista and Bristol Bay Study Area 78 45 2 11 58 [l]lncludes first and second class cities. Source: DCCED Community Database 3.12.6.2 Taxation and Revenue The State of Alaska has no statewide personal income tax, sales tax, or property tax. A corporate income tax is levied but the large majority of state tax revenue is derived from the state's royalty share of the revenue from oil and gas development on state owned land on the North Slope of Alaska. Communities often share the revenue from oil and gas development with the state through projects funded in the state capital budget as well as services provided through the state operating budget. Another major source of funding is through the federal government, which provides about $3 billion in revenue to the state each year, and is passed through to communities for services and projects. Federal funds through Alaska Native and American Indian programs are also a major source of revenue in the two regions (AOMB 2012). In terms of local tax revenue, many communities in Alaska levy local taxes to raise funds for services and projects. The Calista and Bristol Bay Regions are no different. As shown in Table 3.12-14, approximately, 44 percent of the cities and boroughs (34 in total) levy some type of tax according to the following categories: Property Tax The Bristol Bay Borough and the City of Dillingham levy a property tax at an average rate of 13 mils per thousand dollars in assessed value. Most communities do not have property tax. Property tax is not assessed on Native ~HATCH~ Page 150 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 Allotments. Other property-tax exemptions include exemption from paying local or borough taxes because the federal housing program paid for construction. Sales Tax Thirty cities within the Calista and Bristol Bay Regions levy a sales tax within their boundaries. Rates range from two to six percent. Eleven of the 13 communities in the Wade Hampton Census Area levy a sales tax. Sales tax revenues are substantial in hub communities; outside of the regional hub communities, sales tax produces modest but still important revenues. Emmonak, for example, one of the larger Calista villages, generated $208,432 in sales tax in 2011; Napakiak, a much smaller community, generated $49,597 in 2011. Some regional communities with sales tax on the books (Nondalton, Nightmute, and Scammon Bay) do not generate any sales tax revenue {ADCCED 2012). Special Taxes Both the Bristol Bay Borough and the Lake and Peninsula Borough levy special taxes, primarily related to tourism activities (hotel, guiding, and fishing). The Bristol Bay Borough levies a ten percent bed tax and a four percent fish tax, while the Lake and Peninsula Borough levies a two percent raw fish tax, a six percent bed tax, and a guide/lodge tax. Other significant special taxes include a ten percent bed tax and ten percent alcohol tax levied by the City of Dillingham, as well as a 12 percent bed tax, six percent alcohol tax, and six percent gaming tax levied by the City of Bethel. Four additional communities (Saint Mary's, Aleknagik, Egegik, and Pilot Point) levy a special tax, including a bed tax, raw fish tax, and an alcohol tax (ADCCED 2012a). Overall, communities in the Calista and Bristol Bay Regions collect about $18 million annually from local taxes, 60 percent of which is derived from taxes collected by the City of Bethel and the City of Dillingham. On average, both regions collect about $577 annually per person in local taxes. However, the amount collected per capita ranges from about $135 in the Wade Hampton Census Area to $3,500 per capita in the Bristol Bay Borough (ADCCED 2012a). Table 3.12-14 Summary of Tax Revenues, Southwest Alaska Communities Levying Communities Taxes Calista Region 47 22 Bethel Census Area 34 11 Wade Hampton Census Area 13 11 Bristol Bay Region 31 12 Bristol Bay Borough 3 1 Census Area 10 5 Lake and Peninsula 18 6 Total, Calista & Bristol Bay 78 34 [l]lncludes first and second class cities. Communities Levying Taxes(%) 47% 32% 85% 39% 33% 50% 33% 44% Annual Revenue {2010) $1,008,318 $11,072,338 $18,431,240 Annual Revenue Per Capita (2010) $135 $1,481 $577 [2]1ncludes property, sales, and special taxes (bed tax, fish tax, guide tax, alcohol tax, or gaming tax) at the borough or city level. Source: DCCED Community Database 3.12.6.3 Alaska Native Entities and Governance Tribal governments, regional non-profits and other Alaska Native organizations are a critical component of community governance in the Calista Region and the Bristol Bay Region. There are 106 Alaska Native organizations involved in governance in the Calista Region and 65 entities in the Bristol Bay Region for a total of Page 151 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions approximately 170 entities (Table 3.12-15). Each Alaska Native community is typically served and/or represented by each of the following organizations. Tribal Government April 2014 Nearly every community in the study area region has a federally designated tribe that makes policy, provides services, and implements projects in the community. In the Calista Region there are 47 tribal governments, which is the same number of communities. In the Bristol Bay Region, there are 29 tribal governments for 31 communities. Both Bethel and Dillingham also have tribal councils that operate within distinct but co-located boundaries with the city governments: Orutsararmiut Native Council (ONC) in Bethel and Curyung Tribal Council (CTC) in Dillingham (ADCCED 2012a; City of Bethel 2011a; City of Dillingham 2010). Alaska Native Corporations In 1971 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was passed by Congress, a landmark piece of legislation that established Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on behalf of Alaska's original peoples. ANCSA established over 200 village corporations and 12 regional corporations throughout the state, plus one regional corporation for Alaska Natives who had migrated out of Alaska (see Section 3.12.4.3). ANCs were granted land to assist in capitalizing their for-profit corporations, which are run for the benefit of their shareholders. Shareholders are Alaska Native and members of the village or region within which the corporation was founded, as of the date of ANCSA. Most regional corporations, and many village corporations, implement shareholder service programs, including scholarships, job training, and other programs. Many also provide an annual dividend to shareholders in order to share in profits from the corporation's activities. The level of profitability, and therefore dividend amount, varies significantly between corporations and can significantly contribute to household income (see Section 3.12.4.3). Village and regional corporations are governed by a board of directors. In the Calista Region, there are 39 village corporations, and Calista is the regional corporation for that area. In the Bristol Bay Region, there are 25 village corporations, and Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC) is the regional corporation serving the area. Bethel is home to the Bethel Native Corporation, and Choggiung Ltd. represents Dillingham, Ekuk and Portage Creek. Regional Organizations Each region is served by a regional non-profit with the responsibility of providing an array of health, social service and economic development services to communities and individuals. Among the regional entities in the Calista Region are the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) and the Kuskokwim Native Association (KNA). In the Bristol Bay Region, the regional non-profit is the Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA). Both regions have health systems, described in the public facilities section that follows (3.12.8.5). Also present in both regions are the Community Development Quota (CDQ) organizations: the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, and in the Calista Region, the Coastal Villages Corporation. These entities work to expand and diversify regional economies, and are funded through a portion of offshore fishing revenues. In the Calista Region, Coastal Villages operates a fishing fleet and processing facilities. Tribally Designated Housing Authorities (TDHAs) The TDHAs are designated to provide and assist Alaska Native communities with quality affordable housing. Communities are typically served by one regional housing authority, but many have opted to provide housing themselves through their tribal government. In the Y-K Delta, there are 15 communities in which the tribal government provides housing, and the Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority provides housing to the remaining communities in the region. For Bristol Bay, the Bristol Bay Housing Authority provides housing to all but seven communities, which provide that service through their tribal government (ADCCED 2012a). ~HATCH~ Page 152 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Table 3.12-15 Summary of Alaska Native Organizations, Southwest Alaska , .... Ill c: QJ '~-+:: Qj 0 ·-E ... r:: QJ ::I c: ..c E ... l1l Qj E E ..D > ::I 0 ·-0 zu t=CJ Calista Region 47 47 Bethel Census Area 34 34 Wade Hampton Census Area 13 13 Bristol Ba~ Region 31 29 Bristol Bay Borough 3 3 Dillingham Census Area 10 10 Lake and Peninsula Borough 18 16 Total, Both Regions 78 76 , c: 0 ·.;:::; l1l Qj ... b.QO roC. -... = 0 >u 39 26 13 25 2 10 13 64 ';j' -, c: 0 ·.;:::; l1l l1l c: ... .S! g_ b.D ... Qj 0 o:::u 1 1 1 2 1 1 16 10 6 8 24 1 1 1 [1) Port Alsworth is shown in the Cook Inlet Regional Incorporated {CIRI) boundary, the Cook Inlet Tribal Council, and Southcentral Foundation boundary. , c: 0 ·.;:::; l1l .!::! c: l1l e_D 0 l1l .... 0 t- 102 70 32 54 5 20 29 167 [2) Counts of tribally designated housing authorities (TDHAs) include regional housing authorities and instances when the tribal government serves as the TDHA. Source: U.S. Census 2010 3.12.7 Housing April2014 Housing in rural Alaska differs significantly from urban Alaska and most of the United States in terms of quality, vacancy levels and occupancy. Tables 3.12-16 and 3.12-17 summarize the two regions' vacancy rates, housing tenure and average household size. Vacant seasonal units make up about 21 percent of housing stock in the study area but only nine percent of the housing stock statewide. More homes in the study area are used for seasonal activities. The homeowner vacancy rate is very low in the study area (less than two percent in most cases) compared to the state homeowner vacancy rate, which is about 6.6 percent. The homeowner vacancy rate is the number of vacant homes that are for sale divided by the total number of units that are owner occupied. In contrast, the rental vacancy rate in the study area is higher than the state as a whole. The rental vacancy rate is the number of rental units that are available for rent divided by the total number of rental units (U.S. Census 2010a). The number of people living in the housing units is higher, on average, than the state as a whole. Average household size in the study area ranges from 2.3 to 4.3. For the state as a whole, the average household size is about 2.65. These trends are more pronounced when looking at average family size (statewide average is 3.21 and study area communities range from 2.9 to 4.7) (U.S. Census 2010a). ~HATCH~ Page 153 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Table 3.12-16 Housing Unit Vacancy by Census Area, 2010 Vacant Vacant Vacant For Rent Others Census Area Occupied Seasonal or Sale Reasons Total Calista Region 6,396 859 278 569 8,102 Bethel Census Area 4,651 616 241 411 5,919 Wade Hampton Census Area 1,745 243 37 158 2,183 Bristol Ball Region 2,539 1,893 231 235 4,898 Bristol Bay Borough 423 425 56 65 969 Dillingham Census Area 1,563 646 129 89 2,427 Lake and Peninsula Borough 553 822 46 81 1,502 Total, Both Regions 8,935 2,752 509 804 13,000 Statewide 258,058 27,901 11,278 9,730 306,967 Source: U.S. Census 2010 Table 3.12-17 Housing Tenure by Census Area, 2010 Vacancll Rate Housing Tenure Percent Percent Average Average Owner Renter Household Family Census Area Homeowner111 Rental 121 Occupied Occupied Size Size Calista Region 0.5% 6.0% 65% 35% 3.9 4.5 Bethel Census Area 0.9% 8.3% 58% 42% 3.6 4.2 Wade Hampton Census Area 0.1% 3.6% 72% 29% 4.3 4.7 Bristol Ball Region 1.2% 15.0% 58% 42% 2.8 3.3 Bristol Bay Borough 2.6% 15.1% 52% 48% 2.3 2.9 Dillingham Census Area 0.7% 13.4% 60% 40% 3.1 3.7 Lake and Peninsula Borough 0.3% 16.4% 64% 37% 2.9 3.4 Calista & Bristol Bay Regions n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Statewide 6.6% 1.7% 63.1% 36.9% 2.65 3.21 [1] The homeowner vacancy rate is the proportion of the homeowner inventory that is vacant and for sale. It is a percentage computed by dividing the total number of vacant units for sale by the sum of owner-occupied units, vacant units for sale, and vacant units that have been sold but are unoccupied. Units vacant for other reasons are not included. [2] The rental vacancy rate is the proportion of the rental inventory that is vacant and for rent. It is computed by dividing the total number of vacant units for rent by the sum of renter-occupied units, vacant units for rent, and vacant units that have been rented but are unoccupied. Units vacant for other reasons are not included. Source: U.S. Census 2010 There is a need for additional housing to meet demand. Demand for additional housing is a function of the need to replace homes that are in poor quality and the need to alleviate overcrowding. According to the two-part housing assessment released in 2009 by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, approximately one-third of homes in the Calista Region are considered overcrowded and one third are in need of major repair (AHFC 2009). In Bristol Bay, overcrowding impacts 16 percent of the homes and about 21 percent are in major disrepair. Taken together, these two trends indicate a need for about 3,671 new housing units in the study area. Tables 3.12-18 and 3.12-19 provide additional detail. ~HATCH~ Page 154 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Table 3.12-18 Housing Stock Characteristics in Southwest Alaska, 2009 % with Difficulty %Units %in Poor Maintaining Region Overcrowded 111 Condition Heat in Winter Calista Region 31% 27% 87% Bristol Bay Region 16% 21% n/a Cook Inlet Region (Anchorage) 2% 7% 10% [1] An overcrowded home is defined as one which provides less than 200 square feet per person. Source: AHFC Alaska Housing Assessment (2009) Table 3.12-19 Housing Stock Needs in Southwest Alaska, 2009 Alleviate Replace Poor-Excess Units for Current Overcrowding Quality Units Market (neg.) Calista Region 2,378 402 0 Bristol Bay Region 710 248 {67) Cook Inlet Region (Anchorage) 3,002 1,158 0 Source: AHFC Alaska Housing Assessment (2009) April 2014 Total Units Needed 2,780 891 4,160 Most village housing traditionally has been constructed through regional programs using federal funding. In recent years funding has declined, populations have grown, and much of the housing stock has deteriorated. New models for building and rehabilitating housing are being explored, driven by the need to reduce household energy use and to establish systems where owners would invest both money and 11 Sweat equity" to construct new or rehabilitate existing homes. 3.12.8 Transportation Alaska's size and geography limit the extent of the road network. Most of Alaska cannot be accessed by roads. Bethel in the Calista Region and the Dillingham-Aleknagik and King Salmon-Naknek communities in Bristol Bay each have a small road network, but the hub communities' roadway system is localized and does not connect with other regional communities. Most freight and travel in the region are routed through these hub communities by air or barge. Without air and water transport, southwest Alaska travel and freight delivery would be severely limited. 3.12.8.1 Statewide Transportation System The size, geography and climate of Alaska make transporting people and cargo challenging in all seasons. Alaska's road system primarily connects Anchorage, Fairbanks and the Kenai Peninsula to each other (known as the Rail belt) and to the contiguous 48 states and Canada by way of the year-round, all-weather Alaska Highway. Most regions of the state have limited road networks and otherwise rely on water, air and (during the winter months) ice for transportation between communities. The Alaska Marine Highway System connects the communities in southcentral Alaska with southeast Alaska. The Kuskokwim River and other inland waterways freeze over during the winter months, providing ice roads for snow machines, cars, pickup trucks and (depending on the strength and stability of the ice) heavier freight vehicles (City of Bethel 2011). See Figure 3.12-3 for a map of major transportation routes. ~HATCH~ Page 155 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Figure 3.12-3 Primary Air, Land and Water Cargo Distribution Routes in Alaska Source: Port of Anchorage (2012) 3.12.8.2 Southwest Alaska Transportation Network Cargo Distribution Map Map Key e Port of Anchorage e MajorHubs e Communities Served ln<omJnt'-.-and""*....,_ -_ .. -loN!t ............ Southwest Alaska's transportation network has developed around hub communities, through which most passenger flights and air or water cargo shipments pass on their way out to the surrounding communities. Routine travel between regional hubs and their associated service-area communities is customarily by air, snow machine, ATV or skiff, depending on the season. Most cargo such as food, fuel and other items to and within the region comes by air or by oceangoing vessel, which then transfers cargo for barging up river systems. While both regions rely heavily on commercial and charter air service year-round, communities along Bristol Bay and the Gulf of Alaska are generally better positioned to utilize ocean transport. Most communities in the Calista Region rely on river transport, including Bethel (City of Bethel 2011a; City of Dillingham 2010). 3.12.8.3 Bethel as Transportation Hub Bethel has long been the central transportation node of the Calista Region, due in part to U.S. military investment in air and communications infrastructure during World War II and the Cold War. Bethel also has a ~HATCH '" Page 156 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 local road system with 26 miles of primarily gravel roads, as well as the Kuskokwim ice road, plowed and maintained each winter by Bethel and other communities along the 28-mile route (ONC and City of Bethel 2010). Water and sewer trucks are heavy users of local roads, which create high maintenance costs for the city. Additionally, the roads are stressed due to yearly freezing and thawing, which necessitates re-surfacing the roads at least every five years. Many residents do not own cars or trucks, and consequently walk or use taxis, ATVs or snow machines or (where available) public transit to travel in town (City of Bethel2011a, 201lb). In 2010, the Bethel Airport (BET) was the third-busiest airport in Alaska, serving as the connecting point for passengers and freight within the region and to Anchorage. By 2011, Bethel had slipped behind Juneau and moved to the position of fourth busiest airport in the State. The airport is state-owned and operated with two paved and one gravel runway (City of Bethel 2011a). The airport has seen a slight decrease in operations in recent years, but the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT /PF) is currently upgrading the facilities according to its Airport Improvement Program (ONC and City of Bethel 2010). During months when the Kuskokwim River and Bay are navigable, the Port of Bethel is active with freight and barge shipments as well as small boats from villages up-and downriver. Managed by the City in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, the port includes a cargo dock, petroleum port for fuel shipment and storage, a small boat harbor, float plane beach and seawall for mooring barges and tugs. The river channel is relatively shallow, limiting the size and weight of vessels that can reach Bethel; shipments further upriver must be loaded onto smaller, lighter vessels, typically barges. Fuel shipments for Bethel and surrounding villages arrive at the petro port. Crowley and Delta Western are the primary carriers, and Crowley also owns a tank farm at the port with 15 million gallon storage capacity (City of Bethel 2011a). Possible future expansion of Bethel Airport and the Port of Bethel are both constrained by surrounding land uses. The port faces an additional threat: Bethel is situated on an eroding river bank, and recent movement of the Kuskokwim River suggests that it may shift in coming years, cutting off Bethel's access to the main channel (City of Bethel 201la; ONC and City of Bethel 2010). 3.12.8.4 Dillingham and King Salmon-Naknek as Transportation Hubs Dillingham functions as a hub community for the Bristol Bay Region and is accessible only by air or ocean, by way of Nushagak Bay. Like Bethel, Dillingham serves as a regional center for government, healthcare, transportation and other services (City of Dillingham 2010). King Salmon and Naknek have regional transportation functions as well, including jet service to King Salmon from Anchorage. All three communities are at the center of Bristol Bay's salmon fishing and fish processing industries, as well as the primary access point for tourism and recreation in Wood-Tikchik State Park, the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge and the region's other wilderness areas. There are 45 miles of mostly gravel roads in the City of Dillingham, as well as several trails for snowmobiles and ATVs (City of Dillingham 2010). Dillingham Airport (DLG) is owned by the State of Alaska; passenger service is offered by two commercial airlines and several charter services. The Dillingham airport currently has a single paved runway, with an additional crosswind runway prioritized in the facility's airport master plan. The airport has struggled with declining passenger travel in recent years (City of Dillingham 2010). The State of Alaska Division of Lands also owns and manages a seaplane base. The city benefits from its all-tide dock that is reasonably protected from the full force of Bristol Bay waves and weather. This is the only port in the region whose operation is not dependent on tidal movement. The port and adjoining small boat harbor are owned by the City of Dillingham, annexed by special referendum on April10, 2012. The port is utilized for transporting cargo (including regular shipments directly from Seattle), the point of origin for commercial fishing fleets, and private vessels. Its downtown location is both an asset and a detriment, Page 157 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 constraining potential expansion of the port and causing congestion between freight shipments and fishing vessels {City of Dillingham 2010). King Salmon and Naknek are linked by a 15-mile road and rely on each other's transportation infrastructure for cargo delivery. Both communities have air access, but only King Salmon is serviced by jet. King Salmon has a state-owned airport (a former Air Force base) with two paved runways. There are scheduled jet flights and charter services to and from Anchorage. A seaplane base is also located at Lake Brooks, within the Katmai National Park to the east (ADCCED 2012a). Naknek has two airports: the private Tibbetts Airport, and the state-owned Naknek Airport, which has two runways. Naknek has a borough-operated cargo dock which serves as the primary Bristol Bay port. A stretch of the Naknek River is also designated for float planes. King Salmon obtains its cargo through Naknek's harbor. (ADCCED 2012a). 3.12.9 Public Facilities and Services The size and geography of the two regions render most centralized infrastructure impractical and expensive. Public services (including utilities, health care and schools) tend to be managed locally or among small groups of communities. Approximately 40 separate utilities provide electricity to the Calista and Bristol Bay Regions. (Energy is discussed in more detail in Section 3.12.10.) Most local cities and some tribal governments provide sewer, water, and landfill services. The type of service provided ranges from piped systems to hauled services. Public safety programs at the state level (State Troopers, Village Safety Patrol Officer, and State Fire Marshal) provide limited services in communities in the study area. Some communities have local public safety staff and volunteers to serve residents. The study area is primarily served by two non-profit Alaska Native healthcare corporations: Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC) and Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC). Eleven school districts serve the communities within the study area. 3.12.9.1 Electric Utilities Most of southwest Alaska's energy needs are met through 40 separate utilities {18 in the Calista Region and 22 in the Bristol Bay Region) that primarily use diesel fuel to power electrical generators (ADCCED 2012a). The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC) provides power to 25 villages in southwest Alaska. Most other communities are powered through a municipal utility or a local cooperative, with a few private utilities providing services, such as the Bethel Utilities Corporation (AEA 2012b). Two ofthe larger utilities are the privately owned Bethel Utilities Corporation in Bethel and the Nushagak Electric Cooperative in Dillingham {City of Bethel 201lb). (Electricity is discussed in more detail in Section 3.12.10.) 3.12.9.2 Water, Sewer, and Landfill Services Responsibility for provision of water and sewer services varies by community. One or both services may be provided by the city government, village council, school or left to individual households. Landfill management is typically provided by the city or tribal government, with some communities' landfills operated by fish processing companies. Bethel residents are served by a combination of above-ground water and sewer pipes and a haul truck system. The existing pipes and waste treatment facility are aging and many will need replacement in the near future. The City has considered installing underground pipes, a costly option due to the presence of permafrost soils. Dillingham is also served by an aging water and sewer system, with several capital improvement projects identified as priorities, particularly replacement of the sewage treatment facility serving the downtown area. Depending on the community's size, location and resources, the villages of southwest Alaska may have shared infrastructure, wells and septic systems or honey buckets managed by individual households (ADCCED 2012a). ~HATCH~ Page 158 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 3.12.9.3 Public Safety Most communities have some form of public safety and emergency services. In hub communities, a local police department may be in place and in villages and smaller communities, the village public safety officer (VPSO) is often present. The VPSO is a state program that provides a law enforcement presence in some of Alaska's smallest communities. Locally based emergency responders or volunteer fire department are also present in many communities. Responders in rural Alaska must be prepared to handle medical, fire and public safety incidents, as well as maritime accidents, hazardous material spills (typically fuel), and to perform effectively even if they are supported by limited infrastructure. The Alaska State Troopers maintain posts in Bethel, Aniak, St. Mary's, Emmonak, Dillingham, King Salmon and Iliamna. Most communities have volunteer-only fire responders, including Dillingham. Bethel has seven paid staff with additional volunteer firefighters and EMTs. State of Alaska fire marshals are also sent to remote communities to investigate fire incidents (ADCCED 2012a). 3.12.9.4 Telecommunications The telecommunications network in rural Alaska is limited, but in recent years, telecom companies such as General Communications/ Inc. (GCI) and Alaska Communications Services (ACS) have made significant infrastructure investments across the state. Cellular service is typically provided by GCI or ACS, while landline telephone and Internet services are offered by local carriers. Dillingham is served by the Nushagak Cooperative (the same entity that provides electricity); Bethel is served by United Utilities, Inc., which also serves most of the other Calista communities (AEA 2012b; ADCCED 2012a). 3.12.9.5 Health and Social Services The systems of healthcare and social services are, like other infrastructure in Alaska, designed to provide communities with adequate support while overcoming significant geographic and cost challenges. The healthcare system in Alaska is a dual system, in which care is provided through a general care network and through the tribal health system. Each ANCSA region has a non-profit Native Health Corporation (in addition to a for-profit Native Corporation), which provides care to the tribal members in its region through a system of regional healthcare centers/hospitals, sub-regional clinics that offer specialty care and laboratory services/ and village clinics that provide basic primary, emergency and preventative care. Village clinics are often staffed by a Community Health Aide/Practitioner. Primary care physicians and specialized healthcare services (e.g.1 dentistry, eye care) are either provided through sub-regional and regional facilities (village residents must travel to the services) or on an itinerant basis (the doctor travels to area villages). Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC) is headquartered in Bethel and provides healthcare for communities in the Calista Region. YKHC manages five sub regional clinics in Aniak, St. Mary's, Emmonak, Hooper Bay and Toksook Bay that offer some specialty care and laboratory services, and a total of 47 village clinics funded through the Community Health Aide Program that provide basic primary, emergency and preventative care (YKHC 2012). Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) is based in Dillingham and serves Dillingham and 34 villages with a similar system to YKHC, including Kanakanak Hospital, sub-regional clinics in Togiak and Chignik, and health clinics in other smaller communities. Both Bethel and Dillingham provide emergency medevac services (air ambulance), as well as more specialized behavioral health care for adults and youth (BBAHC 2012). Southcentral Foundation, a non-profit based in the Cook Inlet region serves nine communities in eastern Bristol Bay with a sub-regional clinic in Iliamna (ADCCED 2012a). The closest community with health care facilities near the project site is Koliganek/ approximately 60 miles away by air, but the nearest full-service hospitals would be in Dillingham (85 miles away) and Bethel (100 miles away). Page 159 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Hospital is a 50-bed facility located in Bethel and is managed by YKHC (YKHC 2012a). 2014 As with other services, hub communities offer additional resources for their residents and those of surrounding villages. Several villages have community centers focusing on youth and elders, and larger communities may have additional state-funded resources such as the Office of Children's Services in Aniak and St. Mary's. Bethel is home to several social service providers including the Tundra Women's Coalition, a shelter and resource center for women and families suffering domestic violence. Bethel is also a cultural hub for its region and houses the Yup'iit Piciryarait Cultural Center and Museum, which houses documents, artifacts, educational and language programs to preserve and celebrate Yup'ik culture. Dillingham is home to a senior center, the Valerie Larson Family Resource Center and a number of health services, public assistance and crisis support programs managed by the Native health organization, non-profits and state agencies (City of Bethel 2011a; City of Dillingham 2010). 3.12.9.6 School Districts Eleven school districts serve both regions (see Table 3.12-20). In small villages, schools are often one of a few (or perhaps the primary) public buildings in the community and serve multiple purposes, including providing shelter, heat and fresh water in an emergency. Bethel, the largest community in the Lower Kuskokwim School District, has a regional high school, which serves multiple communities, as well as an alternative boarding school; many of the district's communities have K-12 schools, depending on their distance from Bethel. Dillingham City School District has a single elementary school, combined middle and high school and an alternative school. School enrollment in both regions generally follows demographic trends: Bristol Bay schools' enrollment is shrinking, while most Calista Region schools are growing or maintaining their size. There have been a few recent school closures in the region. Pitkas Point on the lower Yukon River and Clark's Point school in Bristol Bay have had to close their doors because they have not had the enrollment threshold required by a 1999 law which reduces operational funds to districts when schools fall to nine students or fewer (ADEED 2012; DCC ED 2012a). Table 3.12-20 School Enrollment by District, Southwest Alaska Total K-12 Enrollment as of October 1 District 2001 Calista Region 7,502 lditarod Area School Districtl11 573 Kashunamiut School District 320 Kuspuk School District 435 Lower Kuskokwim School District[2J 3,671 Lower Yukon School District 1,909 St. Mary's School District 150 Yupiit School District 444 Bristol Bay Region 1,969 Bristol Bay Borough School District 239 Dillingham City School District 539 Lake and Peninsula Borough School 429 Southwest School District 762 Total Calista and Bristol Bay Regions 9,471 [1] Most of this district is located in the adjoining Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area [2] This district includes Bethel and several surrounding villages Source: Department of Early Education and Development, 2012 ~HATCH~ 2008 2010 2011 7,597 7,600 7,659 281 324 331 314 302 312 339 348 345 3,977 4,025 4,041 2,063 1,973 2,002 177 176 182 446 452 446 1,644 1,601 1,584 145 160 149 502 481 482 371 335 330 626 625 623 9,241 9,201 9,243 %Change 2001-2011 2.09% (42.23%) (2.50%) (20.69%) 10.08% 4.87% 21.33% 0.45% (19.55%) (37.66%) (10.58%) (23.08%) (2.41%) Page 160 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 In addition to primary and secondary education, the region offers a robust early childhood education program through Head Start. Head Start is a free, federally funded comprehensive early childhood program for children, ages three to five, and their families. Head Start serves children in their communities. The Bristol Bay communities of Dillingham, New Stuyahok, Manokotak and Togiak have Head Start programs run by Bristol Bay Native Association. In the Calista Region, the Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP) operates about 25 head start sites in communities (RurAL CAP 2012). In addition to childhood education, Calista and Bristol Bay Regions are served by University of Alaska Fairbanks, with Kuskokwim Campus in Bethel and Bristol Bay Campus in Dillingham. Each region also has a vocational learning center with industry-specific training courses, including the Southwest Alaska Vocational Education Center (SAVEC) in King Salmon and Yuut Elitnaurviat in Bethel (City of Bethel 2011a; SAVEC 2012). 3.12.10 Energy Cost and Usage Despite Alaska's abundant supply of and economic dependence on energy resources, the current infrastructure in many areas of the state makes energy (electricity, heating and transportation fuel) very expensive (Kohler and Schutt 2012). Rural Alaskans pay significantly higher costs than in urban areas, as the primary source of fuel is diesel for both heating and electricity (via generator). Steadily rising oil and transportation costs have dramatically increased the cost of living in rural Alaska, greatly impacting the viability of rural communities. Nearly all (non-subsistence) food items, household goods and other materials are transported to the region and among individual communities by air and barge, necessitating an effective surcharge on nearly all purchased goods that rises as the cost of fuel increases. High energy costs also limit subsistence activities, which usually require fuel for boat, ATV, and/or snow machine transportation to and from subsistence areas. High costs of electricity and fuel drive up the costs of providing public facilities and services (e.g., schools, hauled water/sewer). As these costs rise, communities are pressured to increase taxes and revenue from other sources of public funding. Table 3.12-21 illustrates the high cost per gallon of fuel oil a household must pay to heat and power their home. In the last five years, the percent of household income spent on energy (heat, electricity and transportation) increased from 40 percent to between 60 and 75 percent for a rural family (ADCCED 2010, 2012b). Of that large proportion, approximately 20 to 35 percent is paid for electricity (AEA 2012a). 3.12.10.1 Energy Costs In response to and in anticipation of rising electricity costs for rural residents, the State of Alaska created the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program in 1985 in conjunction with several capital projects for energy infrastructure. The PCE program is administered by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) with total funding appropriated by the legislature and paid out to individual utilities across the state (City of Bethel 201lb). The PCE subsidy is intended to bring residential electric rates (cents per kWh) for rural Alaskans closer to that paid by urban residents. Urban price is defined as the average price paid in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau; this is currently 14.39 cents per kWh. The law sets a maximum ceiling rate of $1.00 per kWh. Utility costs eligible for subsidies are fuel expenses, transportation and non-fuel expenses such as salaries, insurance, taxes, parts and supplies, and interest. In addition, a qualifying utility must meet required efficiency and line loss standards, or the PCE payment is reduced to reflect those standards (City of Bethel 2011b; AEA 2012b). The PCE has been an effective means of reducing families' energy bills, but as noted above, electricity is not the primary energy- related cost for residential customers (AEA 2012a). ~HATCH~ Page 161 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 3.12-21 PCE-Adjusted Electrical and Fuel Oil Costs, 2011 PeE-adjusted Price of Fuel Oil for Residential PeE-eligible Community Electricity (C/kWh) utilities ($/gal) Calista Region Akiachak 27.61¢ $3.36 Akiak 30.41¢ $4.58 Atmautluak 38.49¢ $3.36 Bethel 15.62¢ $4.62 Eek 20.96¢ $3.44 Kasigluk 20.53¢ $3.46 Kwethluk 25.04¢ $3.46 Napakiak 42.00¢ $3.46 Napaskiak 17.10¢ $3.59 Nunapitchuk 20.53¢ n/a Oscarville 15.62¢ $4.62 Quinhagak 20.69¢ $3.28 Tuluksak 28.30¢ $2.93 Tuntutuliak 41.54¢ $3.32 Bethel Census Area Range ll.lOC to 42.00C $2.93 to $4.58 Wade Hampton Census Area Range 20.36C to 34.17C $2.71 to $3.35 Bristol Bay Region Dillingham 19.25¢ 2.58 Bristol Bay Range 13.42C to 70.85C $2.64 to $6.67 Anchorage Rate (Chugach Electric) 12.96¢ n/a Source: Alaska Energy Authority FYll Residential customers' consumption rate is subsidized up to 500 kWh per household per month; community facilities (excluding state-or federally funded organizations) also receive a subsidy for consumption up to 70 kWh per resident per month (with a cap based on the community's population). See Table 3.12-21 for residential PCE costs for selected communities and the range of rates in each region. Qualifying facilities are determined by the individual utility. In Bethel, for example, the Bethel Utilities Corporation allows for the City of Bethel to receive a PCE subsidy of approximately $200,000 per year (City of Bethel 2011b). Private businesses are not subsidized and pay full electrical rates. The current Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative (Dillingham) commercial rate is 24.36 cents per kWh, and the current commercial rate of Bethel Utilities Corporation is 43.50 cents per kWh (AEA 2012b). 3.12.10.2 Energy Use A recent report by the Alaska Energy Authority indicates that while rural Alaskan households have greater energy use per square foot for space heating than urban homes, rural housing units tend to be much smaller than their urban counterparts and use less energy overall (AEA 2012a). Poorly insulated housing and extremely cold winters also contribute to higher energy needs in rural Alaska, particularly the Calista Region, where a majority of residents report difficulty keeping their homes sufficiently heated in winter. Electricity use is also relatively low in rural communities. Bethel residents' homes, on average, do not significantly differ in size than those of other areas, but almost all households heat their homes using fuel oil and therefore spend the greatest Page 162 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 portion of energy expenditures on heating, not electricity. Cooking and other major appliances consume a majority of total electricity used. Among non-residential buildings in Bethel, offices have the highest annual energy use, but foodservice establishments have the highest intensity of use (energy per square foot). Residents of rural villages devote an even larger share of energy expenditures to heating homes and community facilities, suggesting relatively lower electricity consumption (AEA 2012a). 3.12.11 Other Capital Projects There are other large capital projects, including mining operations, on the horizon for this region which, if approved and put into operation, would have profound impacts on the Bristol Bay and Calista Regions. The projects are located in different areas within the region but would create significant new demand for energy and transportation infrastructure in Southwest Alaska. The mines would also create employment in the region, but may also have negative environmental impacts which could affect residents' quality of life, the health of the commercial fishing industry and traditional subsistence activities. The Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project has no ties to these projects, beyond the fact that it is occurring in the same region. 3.12.11.1 Proposed Mining Projects Near the Study Area Pebble Mine is the short name for a proposal to mine for copper, gold and other minerals in the remote, eastern portion of the Bristol Bay watershed. As of April 2014, the Pebble Mine project faces considerable opposition and the EPA is currently reviewing potential ecological impacts (Pebble Partnership 2012). Donlin Creek Mine, located near Crooked Creek along the Kuskokwim River, while currently under less public scrutiny than Pebble Mine, is another significant proposed mineral extraction operation. The primary deposit is gold, with potentially other minerals of value (Donlin Gold 2012). The TNR Gold Group has also proposed development of other mining operations in the area. The Shotgun Ridge/Winchester claims are directly north of Wood-Tikchik State Park and represent a potentially sizeable gold deposit. The Iliamna claim, near the community of the same name in Bristol Bay appears to be similar to the copper and gold deposits at Pebble (TNR 2012). Nyac Gold LLC leases property roughly 60 miles east of Bethel and is sampling for gold. 3.12.12 Subsistence Resources 3.12.12.1 Subsistence Overview and Study Area Definition The following description of subsistence resources is based on the literature review and data gap analysis report prepared for the Project (NLUR 2012). The two study areas identified and discussed in the 2012 report were the Bristol Bay region, where the project dam and Chikuminuk Lake impoundment area are located, and the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta (Y-K Delta), which is crossed by the West Transmission Route to Bethel. As described at the beginning of this Socioeconomic Resources section, the Project straddles the boundary between the Bristol Bay Region and the Calista Region. The subsistence resources study area encompasses the geographic regions used by the subsistence literature, which share a similar border to that of the Calista and Bristol Bay Regions, but are defined by Southwest Alaska's two largest watersheds: the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and the Bristol Bay watershed. The West Route to Bethel traverses portions of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (Yukon Delta NWR) from the Ahklun Mountains west to Bethel. Other alternative transmission corridors as discussed in Volume I of this report, including the Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham alternatives, were not under consideration during development of the gap analysis. The Subsistence Resources Study Area has high per capita uses of wildlife resources, including subsistence, commercial, and sport harvests of fish and wildlife. In both regions households harvest a wide range of large and small land mammals, anadromous and resident fish, marine mammals, marine invertebrates, migratory birds, Page 163 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 and plant products. Table 3.12-22 lists the major subsistence resource categories and species harvested in the Study Area. Table 3.12-22 Major Subsistence Resource Categories and Species Harvested Resource Category Salmon Freshwater Fishes Marine Fishes Large Land Mammals Small Land Mammals/Furbearers Marine Mammals Marine Invertebrates Birds and Eggs Wild Plants/Other Example Species Chinook, chum, coho, pink, sockeye Arctic grayling, blackfish, northern pike, smelt, whitefishes, trout, Dolly Varden Various cads, pollock, herring, halibut, flounders, burbot Caribou, moose, brown bear, black bear, muskox Beaver, coyote, foxes, hares, river (land) otter, lynx, marmot, marten, mink, muskrat, porcupine, squirrels, weasel, wolf, wolverine Seals, sea otter, Steller sea lions, Whales (beluga) Clams (various species), crabs, mussels, scallops, shrimp Migratory birds (ducks, geese, swans, cranes), seabirds, loons; resident birds (grouse, ptarmigan) Berries (blackberry, cranberry, blueberry, salmonberry), wild spinach, wild celery, ferns, mushrooms, other greens, grasses, firewood Source: Compiled from various ADF&G Division of Subsistence Reports and CSIS Notes Spawning sockeye salmon, landlocked salmon also harvested. Harvested throughout the year. Little harvest effort in Study Area communities, but people travel to harvest or receive in exchanges. Dall sheep, mountain goat not present in the Study Area. Some species used for both food and furs; others for fur only. Little harvest effort in Study Area communities, but people travel to participate in hunts. Little harvest effort in the Study Area, but received in gifts and exchange. Duck, geese, and seabird eggs collected. Grasses used for handicraft items. Freshwater used for drinking. Subsistence harvests have a long customary and traditional time depth, with important underlying social and cultural importance attached to the harvesting, processing, and sharing of wildlife resources among extended networks of relatives. Rural Alaska's economy is a dual subsistence and cash economy. Income from commercial fishing, full-time, part-time and seasonal wage employment, fur trapping, transfer payments and other sources provides cash, which is used to purchase equipment and supplies used to harvest wildlife resources. This mixed cash-subsistence economy is characterized by small communities, substantial wild food harvests for local consumption, a domestic mode of production based on family-kinship organization rather than corporate business entities, a seasonal cycle of food production activities, non-commercial distribution networks involving wild foods and some cash transactions, and traditional systems of land use and occupancy. Studies of the rural economy found that "successful families in rural areas combine jobs with subsistence activities and share wild food harvests with cash-poor households who cannot fish or hunt, such as elders, the disabled, and single mothers with children" (Fall 2012:3). ~HATCH~ Page 164 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game-Subsistence Division (ADF&G-SD) has undertaken research about subsistence uses of wildlife resources since its establishment in 1978. Research results consistently demonstrate that hunting and fishing provide a large share of the food supply in rural Alaska. Per capita and household harvests of large and small land mammals, fish, marine mammals, migratory birds, and plant products are higher in the Project's two regions than in urban areas of Alaska, and higher than in many other regions designated rural under Alaska's subsistence priority system. A best estimate is that 38.3 million pounds of wild foods are taken annually by residents of rural Alaska, or about 316 pounds per person per year for rural residents. This compares to approximately 13.8 million pounds per year harvested by Alaska's urban residents, or about 23 pounds per person per year for urban residents. Fish comprise 55 percent, by weight, of subsistence foods taken annually. Ninety-five percent of rural households statewide consume subsistence-caught fish (Fall 2012). Within the Kuskokwim Fisheries Management Area (KFMA), approximately 75% of the region's 4,500 households are located in the Kuskokwim River drainage. The largest community in the region is Bethel, with approximately 1,900 households. A 2004 survey found an estimated total salmon harvest of 65,332 salmon, totaling 695,637 pounds {Simonet al. 2007). Other Kuskokwim River communities report subsistence salmon harvests of 650 pounds per capita (Coffing 2001). Subsistence salmon may be taken with gill nets, beach seines, hook and line (rod and reel), hand line, or fish wheels, and by spear in some drainages. A distinguishing feature of the subsistence economy is that, while cash and current technologies (firearms, boats, motors, etc.) are utilized for harvesting and processing, there is a primary economic, social, and cultural reliance on fish and game resources which is integrated into the community's economic and social fabric in a mutually supportive fashion. Subsistence harvesters have participated in subsistence activities for many generations, and tend to harvest subsistence resources in the traditional areas surrounding their communities. It is difficult to place an exact dollar value on subsistence products, as they do not circulate in the market economy, with some exceptions such as trapping furbearers and bartering some fish and fish products. A simplistic "replacement value" of $3.50 to $7.00 per pound for rural Alaska wild food harvests results in an estimated $134 to $268 million dollars annual value for subsistence harvests. 3.12.12.2 Applicable Laws and Regulations Under Alaska State law, "subsistence" refers to the practice of taking wild fish or game for subsistence uses (AS 16.05.258). Defined in Alaska State law as the "non-commercial customary and traditional uses" of fish and wildlife, subsistence uses include the following: • Food • Customary trade, barter, and sharing • Homes and other buildings • Fuel u Clothing • Tools and home goods • Transportation • Handicrafts State law protects customary and traditional uses of fish and game resources, and the State must provide a reasonable opportunity for those uses before providing for recreational or commercial uses. To decide if a fish stock or game population is associated with customary and traditional uses, state regulation directs the Board of Game and the Board of Fish to consider eight factors, called the Eight Criteria (5 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 99.010(b), Boards of fisheries and game subsistence procedures). The Eight Criteria are summarized as follows: Page 165 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 • The length and consistency of use of the resource; • A pattern of use that occurs on a regular seasonal basis; • A pattern of use that is characterized by efficiency and economy of effort and cost; • An area in which the pattern of use occurs; • Traditional methods of handling, preparing, preserving, and storing used in the past, but not excluding recent advances; • A pattern that includes the handing down of knowledge, skills, and values and lore from generation to generation; • Traditional patterns of distribution and exchange including customary trade, barter, and gift-giving; and • A pattern that includes the use of, and reliance upon, a wide diversity of fish and game that provides substantial economic, cultural, social, and nutritional elements of the subsistence way of life. Communities that do not demonstrate meeting these criteria are designated "nonsubsistence areas" under Alaska State law. These "nonsubsistence areas" are typically urban, and may include areas on the rural-urban fringe "where dependence upon subsistence is not a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life of the area or community" (AS 16.05.258(c) and 5 AAC 99.015). To date, the following nonsubsistence areas have been identified by the Joint Board of Fisheries and Game-the Anchorage-Kenai-Mat-Su area, Fairbanks- Delta, Prudhoe Bay, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Valdez. Federal law defines "subsistence" as the customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife and other renewable resources for food, clothing, shelter, and handicrafts (ANILCA, Title VIII). Like State law, Federal law defines the subsistence use of fish and wildlife resources as customary and traditional use. The Federal Subsistence Board determines which fish stocks and wildlife populations have been customarily and traditionally used for subsistence. These determinations identify a specific community's or area's use of specific fish stocks and wildlife populations. For areas managed by the National Park Service where subsistence uses are allowed, the determinations may be made on an individual basis. Like the State, the Federal Subsistence program uses eight factors to determine customary and traditional use. These Federal Eight Factors are very similar to the Eight Criteria used by the State. Under State management, this is called the "Tier II" process for game harvests. Tier II is an allocation system to distinguish and identify those individuals most dependent on a particular fish stock or wildlife population among all subsistence users. Tier II gives priority to users based on: 1) customary and direct dependence and 2) availability of alternative resources. There are no Tier II hunts presently authorized in the project area. ANILCA Section 810 requires federal agencies to analyze the impacts of actions on subsistence. The analysis is required when a federal agency is determining whether to withdraw, reserve, lease or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands, such as lands within a national wildlife refuge in Alaska. If this evaluation concludes with a finding that a Proposed Action or its alternatives would result in a significant restriction to subsistence uses and needs, and the agency wishes to proceed, further procedural requirements of Section 810 must be initiated. ANILCA requires that this evaluation include findings on three specific issues: • The effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs; • The availability of other lands for the purpose sought to be achieved; and; • Other alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes (16 United States Code [USC) § 3120). Having briefly outlined governmental definitions of subsistence and some of the related legislation and regulations, it should be pointed out that many Alaska Natives do not like the term subsistence, feeling that it does not adequately describe the importance of wild foods to Alaska Native culture. As the anthropologist Richard Nelson (1982:229) observes: Page 166 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 ... Aside from the economics, there are other very important dimensions that reinforce the Native people's dependency upon subsistence. Our studies of Koyukuk villages find that food from the land provides much more than subsistence alone-indeed it is the focal point of Koyukon culture. Native food is a source of psychological well being, it comprises a matrix of social and ceremonial events and it is a vital component in traditional religious practices. Robert J. Wolfe, long-time research director with ADF&G-SD, defines it most succinctly as the 11 production and distribution of wild resources for local use and small-scale exchanges in Alaska" (Wolfe 2009:163). In 1986 the state amended its statutes to match ANILCA by limiting subsistence uses to rural residents. However, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. Alaska (785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989)) that the rural preference violated the equal access clauses of the Alaska Constitution. This meant that the state could not provide the rural preference for rural residents required by ANILCA. Because Alaska law no longer provided for the rural resident preference required by ANILCA, the federal government moved to take over management of subsistence hunting on Federal public lands on July 1, 1990 (USDOI, FWS 1992). A separate question involving whether the state or federal government would manage subsistence fishing on navigable waterways complicated management of subsistence fishing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Katie John v. United States that federal agencies have jurisdiction under ANILCA to manage subsistence fishing in navigable waters in which the federal government has reserved water rights, in addition to waters running over federally owned submerged lands. 3.12.12.3 Research Methods Subsistence information comes from a range of sources in the biological and social sciences literature. Three categories of subsistence research studies include baseline community studies, resource-specific harvest issue studies, and ongoing monitoring studies. These three types of studies are conducted by researchers from federal, state, local, non-profit, and native agencies and organizations, academic-based researchers, and independent contractors. Collaboration across agencies and between organizational types is common in subsistence research. As noted in the subsistence data gap report (Stern and Phillips 2012), baseline information is not available for most of the communities in the study area, or is dated. Resource-specific harvest issue studies are available that cover some species or species groups, but not for all species or communities. Finally, ongoing monitoring studies are largely confined to annual salmon fisheries harvests (commercial, subsistence, and sport), and the voluntary system of hunter harvest reporting for big game and furbearer species. Subsistence research is guided by the research principles adopted by the Alaska Federation of Natives in 1993 and the Interagency Research Policy Committee in 1990. These principles include community approval of research designs, informed consent and anonymity of participants, community review of draft study findings, and sharing study findings with each study community when research is completed. Descriptions of subsistence resources, harvest activities, harvest area maps, and other information used to prepare this section come from previous reported research in the Y-K Delta and Bristol Bay Regions. No new studies of subsistence were conducted to prepare this section. Data comes from the review of existing, relevant, and reasonably available information used during preparation of the subsistence data gap report prepared for the Project in 2012 (Stern and Phillips 2012). 3.12.12.4 Regional Subsistence Activities The seasonal round of subsistence activities varies from region to region of the State depending largely upon the availability of different resources in different regions-coastal versus inland, arctic versus interior Alaska, and so forth. With adjustments for regionally available resources, the following description (Coffing 1989) could apply to all communities within the Subsistence Resources Project Study Area. Subsistence is carried out throughout the year, based on seasonal timing of runs of fish, availability of subsistence species, weather, and employment, ~HATCH~ Page 167 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 among other factors. Many subsistence species are seasonal migrants and may only be available for short periods of the year. Smelt are usually the first migratory fish to arrive after breakup, generally in late May. Long handled, fine-mesh dipnets are used to sweep up the fish from river banks or drifting boats. Smelt are boiled, eaten fresh, and preserved by smoking. Salmon fishing occupies most people's efforts throughout the summer, depending upon whether they are both commercial and subsistence fishers. Salmon camps along the major rivers, their tributaries, and the coast typically consist of a wood cabin, tent platform, fish drying racks, smokehouse, and sometimes a steam bath. Set gill nets and drift gill nets of various sizes are used, depending upon the target species, and regulations. Salmon are eaten fresh, cut into strips and smoked, split and smoked whole, and buried to preserve them for later use. Some may be canned or frozen. Summer is also a time of year when more wage employment opportunities are available in construction, longshoring at the Bethel or Dillingham port, or outside the region. During the summer season, rod and reel fishing for pike, grayling, and trout continues, and whitefish may be netted in channels and sloughs. Berry picking for salmonberries, blueberries, and other plants and greens takes place as berries ripen. Late summer runs of coho salmon may be targeted if the earlier Chinook, sockeye, and chum salmon runs were inadequate for household needs. Late August is the start of moose hunting season. Hunters travel by boat up the Kwethluk, Gweek, Kisaralik, and Kuskokwim Rivers, sometimes as far upstream as McGrath. In the Bristol Bay Region, fall hunting takes place along the major river systems and tributaries; Wood, Nushagak, Mulchatna, and Nuyakuk are closest to the project area. During the fall moose hunt, other resources may be harvested, including black and brown bear, beaver, muskrat, otter, grouse, ducks, cranes, geese, freshwater fish and berries. Wood for firewood and logs for construction may also be gathered and floated downstream to be processed. During mid-to late August, people may also visit mountain camps to harvest parka squirrel, caribou, brown bear, beaver, porcupine, moose, and fish. In the Kuskokwim River drainages, after the fall harvest, skins of bear, caribou, or sealskins brought along for the purpose were stretched over a wooden frame and keel, and the family and harvest were floated downriver to their home communities. The decline in the numbers and distribution of the Mulchatna Caribou Herd (MCH) has limited caribou hunting over the past several decades. As freezeup approaches, fishing for whitefish, burbot, and sheefish continues. Blackfish traps are set beginning in October, and after freezeup, gill nets set under the ice may harvest more whitefish, burbot, pike, and occasionally salmon. Furbearers such as beaver, fox, otter, and mink are trapped starting in November and continuing throughout the winter. Short daylight hours, harsh weather, and the social activities in the community for the Protestant Christmas (December 25 1h), New Year, and Russian Orthodox Christmas in December and January keep many people in the community. February sees some hunters searching for brown bear. In late winter and early spring, people fish for pike and other fish by jigging through the ice. Some families fly to traditional camps in the mountains near the headwaters of the Kwethluk, Kisaralik, Aniak, and Nushagak Rivers in spring, where they fish, hunt, and trap for a few weeks. Return to home communities by bear-skin boat (angyaaqatiit) occurred as in the fall. Other families may travel to coastal communities where they hunt sea animals with relatives. Harvest efforts focus on seal and walrus; occasionally, beluga may also be harvested. By mid-April, waterfowl begin to arrive in large numbers. Their arrival is a welcome change in diet for fresh meat, as the previous summer's supply of dried fish or smoked salmon may be running low. Snow machines or all-terrain vehicles (ATVs, or "four wheelers") are used to haul aluminum skiffs to narrow open-water channels. There the open water allows hunters to use outboard motors to travel to spring camps and hunting areas along the rivers. Muskrats are hunted along the way. May is the month for preparing for another subsistence and commercial fishing season; people are busy mending nets, repairing boats, and motors, and gearing up for the start of another cycle of the subsistence year. ~HATCH~ Page 168 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim I=P:o~dhlilihl Environmental Conditions 2014 3.12.12.5 Subsistence Activities in the Project Vicinity This seasonal subsistence pattern described above for the region takes place in all the communities in the study area, with variations depending upon local conditions. The Chikuminuk lake drainage does not currently support known subsistence activities. Historically, people from both the Bristol Bay and Kuskokwim River sides of the Ahklun Mountains utilized the area for hunting, trapping, fishing, and travel between the two regions. The proposed West transmission route to Bethel is an area which currently supports subsistence activities, and has seen substantial subsistence uses in the past. Species Harvested Subsistence species harvested in the Project Study Area include salmon and non-salmon fish, large and small land mammals, migratory and resident birds, marine mammals, marine invertebrates, and flora such as berries, greens, mushrooms, basket-making grasses and wood. Fish. Five species of salmon are harvested: Chinook (king), coho (silver), chum (dog), pink (humpy), and sockeye (reds). Methods used to harvest salmon include gill nets (both drift and set nets) and rod and reel. Subsistence regulations allow for a wide variety of legal gear types that include gill nets, beach seines, fish wheels, pot, longline, fyke net, dip net, jigging gear, spear or lead. Subsistence fish are also removed from commercial catches. Salmon are processed in a wide variety of traditional and modern methods. These include drying and smoking, half-drying and freezing, freezing, salting, and canning and jarring. Dry weather with sufficient winds to dry cut and hung salmon on drying racks is essential. Wet weather or no wind may result in loss of all or part of a subsistence salmon harvest. Salmon are also eaten fresh-cooked by frying, baking, boiling, and steaming. Drying salmon properly is heavily influenced by summer weather. Non-salmon species harvested include herring, herring roe, rainbow smelt, halibut, lamprey, stickleback, Alaska blackfish, burbot, Dolly Varden, lake trout, Arctic grayling, pike, sheefish, suckers, rainbow trout, broad whitefish, humpback whitefish, round whitefish, and cisco. Harvest and preservation methods for non-salmon species are similar but also include dipnets, and rakes for herring roe. Winter harvest of blackfish under frozen water bodies includes the use of traditional grass and wood-woven basket traps (Fienup-Riordan 2007). large land Animals. large game harvests include black bear, brown bear, moose, and caribou. Muskoxen are found in the southwestern portion of Game Management Unit 18 (GMU 18, the Y-K Delta), but few Natives hunt them. Dall sheep are not present in the Ahklun Mountains which form the boundary between GMU 18 to the west, and GMU 17 to the east. Harvest efforts are typically high for households attempting to harvest large land animals, but harvest success rates vary from year to year, and household to household. When harvested, large land animals are shared widely within the community. large land animals are harvested using firearms, but prior to the introduction of firearms they were hunted with bow and arrow, spears, lances, pit traps, drive fences and corrals (for caribou), and snares. Methods of access to hunt and transport large land animals include hiking overland, boats with outboard motors, snow machines, four-wheelers (A TVs), and for a very few, aircraft. Low water in late summer and early fall may hamper access to moose and fall caribou hunting areas. Snow cover and safely frozen water bodies facilitate travel by snow machine for winter caribou hunting. Seasons and bag limits for large game may be set by both state and federal regulations within the study area. Hunting for large game, such as caribou and especially moose, is a cooperative effort. Hunting parties include related men, and sometimes include women. Women related to the hunters are the primary processors and complete the processing once the meat is back in the community. Field dressing methods include gutting, skinning, and cutting up the meat into large pieces (back, neck, leg, ribs, etc.). Preservation methods include drying, freezing, canning, making jerky, and eating fresh. Hides of caribou and moose may be used for sleeping pads while camping. Organs, including the liver, kidneys and heart are eaten as well as the tongue. long bones are cracked and marrow extracted. Antlers, hooves, claws, and teeth are used in handicraft production and for ~HATCH'" Page 169 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 tools. A young hunter's first animal harvest, especially a bear or other large game, is distributed to other households. A portion is sometimes reserved for a feast to commemorate the young hunter's success. Hunting, especially for bear, is still governed by beliefs and taboos to protect the hunter, placate the spirit of powerful animals, and assure hunting success. Small Land Animals/Furbearers. A variety of small land animals are harvested throughout the year. Furbearers such as wolf, fox, coyote, wolverine, marten, and weasel are harvested solely for their fur. Furbearers may be sold to a fur buyer, or used for local production of clothing and articles of decoration. Other small land animals, including mink, otter, muskrat, beaver, lynx, and parka squirrel have value for both their fur and for food. Porcupine and snowshoe hare yield both food and raw materials for handicraft items-porcupine quills, and rabbit skins. Small land animals are caught with traps and snares. Firearms may also be used but furs are less valuable if shot than if trapped. Mink, land otter, and muskrat harvests occur underwater by drowning the animals using traditional taluyet (funnel trap). Seasons and bag limits vary, but most furbearer trapping takes place in early to mid-winter, when pelts are prime. The level of effort put into trapping depends upon numerous factors including the price of furs and the cost of trapping, which includes factors such as the price of fuel and traps, as well as wear and tear on snow machines due to snow cover and distances travelled to tend to traplines. Trapping represents an incremental use of existing equipment, land areas, and knowledge and skills used for other subsistence pursuits (Wolfe 1991). Marine Mammals. Most ofthe Subsistence Resources Study Area communities are located along rivers, not along the coast. As a result, harvests of marine mammals by Study Area community residents occur primarily when people travel to coastal communities to hunt with relatives. Marine mammals harvested include several species of seals, sea lions, walrus, whales, porpoises and dolphins, and polar bears. Large whales such as bowhead and gray whales, and polar bears are not found in the Study Area. Harvests of marine mammals occur rarely in the rivers, when beluga or an occasional seal move upriver from the ocean. Marine mammal harvests are restricted to Alaska Natives by the 1972 federal Marine Mammal Protection Act for subsistence uses, and for use of by-products in handicraft items. Kwethluk exemplifies a riverine community with marine mammal use. Baseline information on Kwethluk indicates that people received seal oil and meat in trade or as gifts from relatives living in coastal communities. Sixty-eight percent ofthe community households received seal oil (Coffing 1991:72). During Aprit some Kwethluk hunters fly to Eek, Kwigillingok, or Kipnuk to hunt seal and walrus with their relatives. Hunters haul boats to the edge of shorefast ice with snow machines. Seals are the targeted species but walrus are taken ifthe opportunity presents itself. Coffing mapped the subsistence harvest use areas of Kwethluk residents for ringed seal, spotted seal, bearded seal, and walrus and reported hunting effort, total number harvested and pounds of meat harvested in the 1985-1986 study year (1991:71). New Stuyahok, a riverine community in the Nushagak River drainage, reported no marine mammal harvests in 2005, yet half the households reported using marine mammal products (CSIS database). Research on the annual subsistence harvests of harbor seals and Steller sea lions, conducted by the ADF&G Division of Subsistence, has been underway for nearly 20 years. Annual reports on harvests are available through survey year 2008 (Wolfe et al. 2009). The communities nearest to the Subsistence Resources Study Area are the South Bristol Bay drainage communities of Egegik, King Salmon, Levelock, Naknek, South Naknek, Pilot Point, and Port Heiden with an estimated total Native population of 951; and the North Bristol Bay communities of Aleknagik, Clark's Point, Dillingham, Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills with an estimated Native population of 2,952 (U.S. Census 2000 cited by Wolfe et al. 2009b:9). Aleknagik reported harvest of seals, walrus, and one beluga in 1998, as well as one fourth of the households reporting use of seal oil in 1998. Clark's Point reported nine harbor seals taken in 2008 (CSIS database). ~HATCH~ Page 170 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Marine Invertebrates. Marine invertebrates is a major resource category which includes various species of shellfish such as clams, cockles, mussels, and scallops, as well as crabs, octopus, and shrimp. Most of the Study Area communities are not located adjacent to marine waters. As one would expect, the reported harvest levels are low for this resource category. The 2005 Koliganek harvest study found only seven percent of responding households which had used marine invertebrates (clams) in the study year (SRB&A 2012). The 1998 Akiachak baseline harvest study found only four percent of reporting households which had used clams (Coffing et al. 2001). Birds and Eggs. This resource category includes migratory, and non-migratory (resident) birds, and their eggs. The category includes numerous species of ducks, geese, swans, cranes, ptarmigans, grouses, seabirds, shorebirds, grebes, and loons. The harvest of migratory and resident birds, and their eggs is a small resource category by weight in most household annual harvests, around one percent to four percent in a statewide 1990 overview of available data (Wolfe et al. 1990); but it is an important category by tradition and for its nutritional value (Naves 2012). Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area harvests were 16.1 pounds of birds per person harvesting or 5.3 birds per person. Harvests occur in spring, summer, and fall, and for non-migratory species such as ptarmigan and grouse in winter. Contemporary harvesting is done with firearms, snares, and in some communities with occasional communal drives into nets for molting birds. Traditional methods included bolas, nets, scoops, and bow and arrow. Birds are eaten fresh or frozen for later use. Preparation methods include roasting, baking, and boiling in soups and stews. Feathers and other parts are used in handicrafts. Other traditional uses include bird-skin clothing and hats, ornamentation, and rattles. Migratory Birds. Migratory bird harvest surveys in Alaska are conducted on a rotating community, sub region, and regional schedule through a cooperative harvest survey conducted by the Alaska Migratory Bird Co- Management Council (AMBCC) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. The latest available report for the 2010 harvest year shows that the 22 surveyed communities in the Y-K Delta region harvested an estimated 75,584 ducks, 43,371 geese, 4,511 swans, 2,879 cranes, and some 1,800 seabirds, shorebirds, loons and grebes (Naves 2012:43). The Y-K Delta region harvested some 26,965 bird eggs of all species (Naves 2012:34). Data are not presented on a community by community basis but are aggregated at the region and sub-region levels. The Lower Kuskokwim region includes Aniak, Upper Kalskag, Lower Kalskag, Upper Kalskag, Tuluksak, Akiak, Akiachak, Kwethluk, Napaskiak, Napakiak, Atmautluak, Nunapitchuk, Oscarville, and Kasigluk. Bethel is its own sub region. The latest published harvest information for Bristol Bay is from the 2009 harvest year, due to the survey rotation schedule for regions (Naves 2011). The Bristol Bay Region average annual yearly bird harvest was 36,205 birds between 2004 and 2009. Ducks contributed an average of 38 percent of the harvest over these years, ptarmigans and grouses 33 percent, and geese 18 percent. In the Southwest Bristol Bay sub region, egg harvests varied during the 2004 to 2009 period. It declined from 54,437 eggs in 2004, to 25,118 eggs in 2007, before rebounding to 37,630 eggs in 2008 (Naves 2011:68). The Southwestern Bristol Bay sub region includes Aleknagik, Clarks Point, Egegik, Ekwok, Igiugig, Iliamna, King Salmon, Kokhanok, Koliganek, Levelock, Manokotak, New Stuyahok, Newhalen, Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Pilot Point, Port Heiden, South Naknek, Togiak, and Twin Hills. Similar to Bethel, Dillingham is its own sub region within the Bristol Bay region for survey purposes. Resident Birds. Resident bird harvest information is collected during the annual AMBCC and ADF&G-SD surveys. In 2010, the Y-K Delta communities harvested some 14,569 ptarmigans and grouses (Naves 2012:43). Estimated resident bird harvests for the Southwest Bristol Bay sub region were 4,177 in 2004, 10,050 in 2005, 8,201 in 2006, 2, 748 in 2007, and 11,086 in 2008. For the Dillingham sub region, the numbers are 5,235 in 2005, 3,861 in 2007, and 2,358 in 2008. Dillingham was not surveyed in 2006 or 2009 (Naves 2011:67). Page 171 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Wild Plants and Other Subsistence Resources. Berries, plants, and other flora subsistence resources are harvested throughout the year depending upon seasonal availability, abundance, and timing with other subsistence pursuits. Berry picking throughout the summer and early fall periods occurs when berries are ripe for harvest. Groups of women and children most often harvest berries, although men may also participate. Berries are eaten fresh, frozen, baked into other goods, and fermented in pokes of seal oil. Medicinal uses are known for many plant species. High to moderate percentages of households use, try to harvest, harvest, give and receive berries and other plants. Species of subsistence interest include berries such as blueberries, crowberries (locally called blackberries), cloud berries (locally called salmonberries), and cranberries. Grass baskets produced for home use and the handicraft market are made from beach grasses. Driftwood, used for a variety of purposes, remains an important resource, particularly in the Y-K Delta, lower Kuskokwim River, and along the rivers of the Nushagak drainage. Uses of driftwood in some cases is species specific, including heating, smoking salmon, fuel for sauna or steam baths, drying racks, model boats, masks, utensils and doll faces. In the past, driftwood was also used for kayaks, arrows and bows, snowshoes, dog sleds and house frames. Driftwood is harvested opportunistically when it passes by, or collected deliberately, lashed into rafts, and taken downstream to the community for use. Driftwood used as a primary heating source has declined throughout the region (Wheeler and Alix 2004:2). Community Information Subsistence information is typically organized by community. The community study approach has a long tradition in social science research. A small community is studied ethnographically as being representative of larger regional culture. In addition to the work done by ADF&G-SD, there are a number of ethnographic and social impact studies that have been done in the Project Study Area in connection with planned onshore and offshore resource development. Published work includes Oswalt's 1955-1956 study of Napaskiak (Oswalt 1963), as well as several Minerals Management Service (MMS) socioeconomic studies including Village Economies in Rural Alaska (Petterson et al. 1988), and Bristol Bay Subsistence Harvest and Sociocultural Systems Inventory (Endter-Wada et al. 1992). Wolfe (2009) provides an overview of subsistence in Alaska while reviewing the MMS socioeconomics research program. In the Y-K Delta region of the Study Area, only a few community baseline studies have been conducted. Additional studies are underway, and older studies are being updated (see Section 3.12.12.6). Recent environmental baseline studies research in the Bristol Bay drainage (SRB&A 2012) has resulted in a number of communities that have current, high quality subsistence harvest information including household and community sharing patterns, harvest search and use areas, and traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) about environmental and resource changes over time. VanStone's earlier research into the changes in settlement patterns during the historic period in the Nushagak River drainage provides some historic subsistence related information (VanStone 1967, 1984a, 1984b). Over time, there has been a research shift from baseline, community-oriented studies to more issue-specific studies (fish, non-salmon species, large land mammals, marine mammals, and waterfowl) and to annual harvest monitoring studies. The shift to issue-specific or species-specific studies and monitoring efforts is driven by regulatory and management issues, such as changes in the International Migratory Bird Treaty, and declining salmon stocks. The lack of baseline studies for a specific community handicaps efforts to characterize that community's subsistence harvest practices, except by extrapolation from other, similarly situated communities. Baseline studies conducted 10 to 30 years ago enable researchers to update those studies using comparable methodologies. This results in having two or more data points over time, enabling researchers, management agencies, and not least, the community itself to identify trends and changes. ~HATCH~ Page 172 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Subsistence Mapping Subsistence mapping is used to document the locations of harvest efforts over time. Maps also reflect English and Native language place names which reveal cultural information about travel routes, subsistence harvest locations, camps and cabins, traplines, habitat, and perceptions of the landscape. Several maps show historic subsistence uses of the Chikuminuk Lake area. Michael Coffing's (1991:75) ADF&G study of subsistence uses in Kwethluk included a mapping component showing areas used by Kwethluk residents for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering from 1920 to 1987 for all resource categories. The information from Coffing's map is provided in Figure 3.12-4. Kwethluk residents reported hunting black and brown bear, caribou, furbearers, and small game hunting and trapping within the Chikuminuk Lake drainage during the 1920-1987 period (Coffing 1991). Schichnes and Chythlook (1991:65) investigated subsistence resources use in the communities of Ekwok, Koliganek, New Stuyahok, and Portage Creek. The Koliganek resource harvest area encompasses the Upnuk and Chikuminuk lake drainages and downstream to the Nushagak River. The Nuyakuk Lake and River and Tikchik Lake and River were utilized and trips were sometimes made to Lake Chauekuktuli and Chikuminuk Lake for unspecified harvesting activities (1991:64). Subsistence use area maps available for Akiachak residents show use of the lower Kisaralik River and upper Kuskokwim River tributaries-the Kogrukluk River drainage and the Hoholitna River drainage-for fishing (Coffing et al. 2001). Use area maps depict trout fishing areas (arctic grayling, Dolly Varden, Lake trout, and rainbow trout), "other fish" fishing areas (whitefish, cisco, smelt, blackfish, pike, burbot, sheefish, sucker, lamprey, and stickleback) and subsistence salmon fishing areas used by Akiachak residents, 1988-1987. Seven Akiachak residents provided map information for 1988-1997 depicting caribou, moose, bear and other resource harvesting areas. The maps show use of Kisaralik and Kwethluk River drainages up to the Ahklun Mountains, and upper Kogrukluk River but not crossing over the drainage divide into the Upnuk Lake, Chikuminuk Lake drainage. Koliganek residents use the areas adjacent to the major river systems, the Nushagak, Mulchatna, Nuyakuk, and King Salmon Rivers to access subsistence harvest areas. Land and water areas along these rivers, areas in Nushagak Bay, and portions of the Wood River and Tikchik Lakes system are used for subsistence harvests. A total of some 3,529 square miles of land was utilized during the 1996 to 2005 time period for Koliganek subsistence mapping studies. One map shows use of the eastern two-thirds of the Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River area for furbearers in the 1963-1983 period (SRB&A 2010:58, Map 19-data from ADF&G 1985). Another map shows a use area along the northern shore of Chikuminuk Lake for fishing-all species and again, for non- salmon fish during the period 1996-2005 (SRB&A 2010:66, 85). Trout fishing was carried out along the northern shore of Chikuminuk Lake. The length of the Nuyakuk River and the entirety of lakes Nuyakuk, Chauekuktuli, Chikuminuk, Upnuk, Nishlik and Slate are mapped as subsistence use areas for fishing for the 1963 to 1983 period, as are the Nushagak and King Salmon rivers. The area used by Koliganek residents for furbearer harvests from 1963 to 1983 is presented in Figure 3.12-5. Page 173 ~ :z: !i n :z: "'tl Ill em ...... ~ ~ N A: 25 50 YUKON DELTA NWR Kwethluk Subsistence Area: 192Q-1987 ADFG Game Management Units National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) IZZJ NWR Wilderness · c:::J wood-Tikchik State Park ProjectiOn: Albers Alaska Equal Conic Area. NAD 1983. Base data: Alaska Sate G~spatial Data Cleamghouse. soon:e. Subsistence Area: Ceiling, Michael w. 1991 ."Kwelh1Uk SUbsiStence: Contemporary Land Use Patterns, Wid Resource Harvest and Use, and the Subsistence Economy of a Lower KuskOkWim RIVer Area Community.• Technical Paper No.1 57. ADFG. DiviSIOn of SubsiStence, Juneau. Alaska. This map depicts areas used between 1920 and 1987 by residents or Kwethluk. Data were complied rrom IntervieWs with ten key respondent households dunng FebnJary, and Man:h, 1987. Additional lnformaiiOn was aclcled dUI1ng a community review in May, 1987. This map represents only lllOse areas used by people w hBe domlc lied tn KwethlUk. U ndocumerl1ed use or other areas may occur, consult wtth the approp11ate community representallves for delin~llle lr11ormalion. Produced by Hatch Associates forNuvista. March 2013 :!! :Jn O'Q ,...:r c: (1) -· """ ~. e I'D 3 3 w 'T1 -· • (1) :::1 ..... Ill c N !!:!. ><' I c-::I: -1=> ='< ;:::;: a. < ..., ~ ;:co :e (1) !!!.. I'D "C l!l ..... 0 i-+ :r ;:::). ::::!. -' n ~ ~~ 11'1 c: '*· c: 3 ~ C" (1) Ill u;· -;., ; ~. ::;, ~ n -· I'D ~ :::1: m Ill ~ < ::;· I'D 0 Ill :::1 ..... 3 )> ~ .... .... I'D !!!.. ~ s ..... :::1 ID a. N ;:;: 0 c;· I :::s ..... "' ID co ....., > "C a !:5 ~ Chikuminuk Hydroelectr ic Project Interim Feasib il it y Report -Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Figure 3 .12-5 Koliganek Subsistence Use Areas, Furbearers, 1963-1983 BETHEL N 18 YUKON DELTA NWR 20 30 LEGEND 98 9( Projection: Albers Alaska Equal COOle Area. NAD 1983. Base data: Alaska Sale Geo-spallal Data Clealinghoose . .. F rbearer H tAl K ...,~nek, 1963-1983 Souae, FUJbearer HarvestArea: Stephen R Braund & u BJVes ea, o._., Associates. 2010. Pebble EJWironmental Baseline 0 AOFG Game Management Units Report. Chapler 23-Subslstence. AppendiX 23-D, Map 19. Subsistence Use Areas. Koliganek. Fwbearers, 1963-1983. as reporled byADF&G. Habitat DiViSion, Alaska H abltat Management Guide, Southwest Region Map Atlas, 1965. Wood-Tikchik State Park National Wiklife Refuge (NWR) A"" ----Miles !2Zj NWR Wilderness PrOOuced b)' H alch Associates lorN UYisla. Marth 2013 ~HATCH '" April2014 Page 175 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Subsistence Harvests Subsistence harvests per household and per capita are high in rural Alaska subsistence areas. Research information on resource harvest and use patterns consistently shows high levels of household and individual participation in subsistence activities, and high degrees of sharing of subsistence products among households as evidenced by numbers of resources given away and received. Akiachak households attempted to harvest as many as 69 different resources during a recent 1998-1999 study year. On average, Akiachak households attempted to harvest 37 types of wild resources, successfully harvesting an average of about 36 resource types (Coffing et al. 2001:27; table 9; figure 6). In the 1985-1986 baseline study at Kwethluk, Coffing (1991) found that moose constituted 90 percent of the total pounds edible weight harvested of big game species, with brown bear constituting the next largest category. Caribou was an important big game animal in some years. The study year was at a time when the Mulchatna-Kilbuck caribou herd was at the lower end of its population size, at approximately 20,000 caribou. Even though small numbers of caribou were calving in the Kilbuck Hills, their numbers were probably so low as to not support a reliable, yearly harvest effort. Coffing describes a subsistence seasonal pattern in the 1900 to 1930s period when men and older boys traveled from Kwethluk eastward to the Kuskokwim Mountains trapping furbearers, especially beaver, and hunting ground squirrels in the Togiak Lake, Tikchik Lakes, and upper Aniak and Holitna River drainages. Moose, caribou, and brown bear were harvested opportunistically during these trapping expeditions. Beaver and moose were rare west of the Kuskokwim Mountains until the 1930s. Men sometimes traveled to Dillingham in late spring to sell their furs, before returning to Kwethluk across the Kuskokwim Mountains (Coffing 1991:31). Fienup-Riordan (2007:159-164) describes the construction of shallow- draft, wood-framed bearskin boats (angyaaqatiit) to make the one-way journey downstream from the mountains after hunting, trapping, and trading travels. Baseline information from Kwethluk in the 1980s, currently being updated by ADF&G-SD, indicated that people received seal oil and meat in trade or as gifts from relatives living in coastal communities. Sixty-eight percent of the community households received seal oil (Coffing 1991:72). Koliganek data also show 64 percent of respondents reporting use of marine mammal products, including meat, oil, and skins. During April, some Kwethluk hunters fly to Eek, Kwigillingok, or Kipnuk to hunt seal and walrus with their relatives. Hunters haul boats to the edge of shorefast ice with snow machines. Seals are the targeted species, but walrus are taken if the opportunity presents itself. Coffing mapped the subsistence harvest use areas of Kwethluk residents for ringed seal, spotted seat bearded seal, and walrus and reported hunting effort, total number harvested and pounds of meat harvested in the 1985-1986 study year (1991:71). A characteristic of the subsistence economy is the high degree of participation in subsistence harvest efforts, and the distribution of harvested items through networks of relatives. This kin-based harvesting, processing, and sharing is found throughout the subsistence-cash based economies in rural Alaska (Wolfe 2004). Community studies gather this information. Kwethluk provides a representative example of the degree of participation in subsistence and distribution of subsistence harvests. Table 3.12-23 presents information from the Kwethluk baseline study in the 1980s (Coffing 1991) showing the percentages of household (HH) participation in subsistence harvests/ and the percentages of households giving away and receiving subsistence harvest products. The four columns on the right present information on estimated harvest totals, the estimated pounds total harvested by the community and the average pounds harvested per household, and per capita. (Fieldwork for an updated baseline study of Kwethluk is complete, but the analysis and final report are not yet available from ADF&G-SD.) As noted above, rural communities tend to have high per household and per capita harvest rates of salmon and other fish. Data from Kwethluk show this pattern with 2,045 pounds of salmon harvested per household, and ~HATCH" Page 176 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions Table 3.12-23 Household Subsistence Harvests, Kwethluk Resource KWETHLUK-All RESOURCES 100 :z::ao :Z::s::: ...,-..::; s::: Ill QIGI u > ...... Ql111 c.. :I: 100 > 111 3: +"<( s:::aa Ole u,_ ... > 01·-Q..~ ao +",!: s::: > Ql•- uGI ... u QIQI a.. a: "C Qj +" +" 111111 E ~ ·-... +"111 ~:I: 429,627 429,627 3,835.96 111 +" ·c. 111 u April2014 836.13 Fish 89.9 89.9 367,068 367,068 3,277.39 714.38 Salmon 111 Non-Salmon 69.6 87.4 69.6 87.4 (6) (6) 25,149 229,063 2,045.2 445.8 land Mammals Large Mammals Black Bear Brown Bear Caribou 121 Moose Small Mammals 131 Marine Mammals Birds and Eggs Migratory Birds Other Birds Grouse Ptarmigan Vegetation Berries 141 Plants/Greens /Mushrooms 151 Wood Notes: 83.5 63 15.5 17.4 4.9 63 70.9 33.9 3.4 8.2 2.4 29 63.6 53.4 31.5 3.4 8.2 0 29 77.7 67.5 45.1 11.6 11.6 11.6 75.2 68.5 50 71.8 68.5 39.7 57.3 50.6 35.4 14.1 14.1 6.3 54.9 48.1 35.4 93.3 93.3 44.2 76.3 76.3 30.1 45.2 45.2 0 62.2 62.2 28.1 71.9 138,005 80.6 2,732 72.3 48 37.3 4 24.8 9 27.7 3 63.1 33 57.3 70.9 66.5 64.1 25.2 2.9 25.2 60.2 2,684 4,095 6,506 2,651 3,856 144 3,712 2,558 55.4 2,250 2.4 210 12. 7 20 cords 138,005 1,232.19 268.58 34,525 308.26 67.19 26,000 232.15 50.6 567 5.06 1.1 1,847 16.49 3.59 328 2.93 0.64 ?~,?.?~-207 :_~--45.26 8,524 4,095 10,550 6,694 3,856 144 3,712 13,390 13,285 105 76.11 36.56 94.2 59.77 34.43 1.29 33.14 119.55 118.61 0.94 16.59 7.97 20.53 13.03 7.5 0.28 7.22 26.06 25.85 0.2 (1) Salmon harvest data was gathered from all salmon-harvesting households therefore harvest quantities are known. (2) Kilbuck caribou herd was closed to hunting. (3) Some furbearers, such as fox, are not eaten. (4) Conversion factor is species-specific. Species harvested: salmonberries, blueberries, blackberries, cranberries. (5) Species: Tea plants, Greens. (6) Virtually all households used salmon. Data on giving and receiving of salmon were not obtained. Source: ADF&G website, Kwethluk 1986 data (Coffing 1991). Page 177 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 446 pounds per capita. Akiachak data from a 1998-1999 study found harvests averaging 5,887.1 pounds per household, and a community per capita harvest of 1,328 pounds (Coffing et al. 2001:29). Data from a 2005 study at Koliganek show a similar high per household and per capita harvest pattern for salmon with 2,139 pounds harvested per household, and 899 pounds per capita. Koliganek households harvested an average of 14 different kinds of resources during the study year, and used an average of 21 kinds of resources giving away on average nine kinds of resources, receiving about eight kinds (Krieg et al. 2009:114). 3.12.12.6 Existing and Ongoing Studies The data gap report compiled available information about subsistence in the Study Area (Stern and Phillips 2012). The data gap report identified existing baseline community information of varying quality and recency available for Quinhagak and New Stuyahok (Wolfe et al1984), Nunapitchuk (Andrews 1989), Tuluksak (Andrews and Peterson 1983), Kwethluk (Coffing 1991), Bethel (Wolfe et al. 1986), Koliganek, New Stuyahok, and Ekwok (Schichnes and Chythlook 1991), Clarks Point (Seitz 1996) and a Bristol Bay Regional overview (Wright et al. 1985). Comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys were completed for the middle Kuskokwim River communities of Aniak, Chuathbaluk, Crooked Creek, Lower Kalskag, Upper Kalskag, Red Devil, Sleetmute, and Stony River with an available report (Brown et al. 2012). A report is expected from ADF&G-SD for 2011 surveys at Akiak, Georgetown, Kwethluk, Napaimute, Oscarville, and Tuluksak. An ethnography project on the Yukon salmon disaster with data from Emmonak, Marshall, Nulato, Beaver, and Eagle may have insights on challenges for Kuskokwim River communities. Comprehensive subsistence harvest surveys were conducted in 2012 at Napakiak, Napaskiak, McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai, Russian Mission, Anvik, and Galena. A comprehensive subsistence harvest survey was planned for Bethel in 2012 to 2013. Beginning in the 1990s, some ADF&G-SD efforts shifted towards species-specific and issue-specific research, and to ongoing monitoring efforts in response to management changes and biological concerns. Walker and Coffing (1993) surveyed subsistence salmon harvests in 36 communities in the Kuskokwim Fisheries Management Area. Annual statewide subsistence salmon and non-salmon harvest surveys are ongoing with data reported for both the Y-K Delta and the Bristol Bay drainages (Fall et al. 2011-see annual reports listed in the subsistence data gap report). Harvest information and subsistence uses for selected years for various large land mammals such as brown bear, black bear, moose, and musk-ox (Holen et al. 2005) are available for selected communities in the Study Area. Subsistence harvests of certain marine mammals (harbor seals and sea lions) are available annually starting in 1992 (Wolfe and Mishler 1993). These harvest surveys also include information on other marine mammal species in some years. Reports are available from 1993 to date. The searchable Community Subsistence Information Survey (CSIS) database available online contains the quantitative data from all ofthe ADF&G-SD technical papers prepared since 1978. Reports prepared by other agencies include research sponsored by the Minerals Management Service (MMS, now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement-BOEMRE) to identify and evaluate the socioeconomic impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration and development and the effects of harvest disruptions. Annual harvest reports for big game species requiring big game tags and reports to ADF&G are ongoing and are reported by Division of Wildlife Conservation's Survey & Inventory (S&I) reports. Page 178 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 4 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND STUDIES LIST 4.1 Resource Issues This section includes a preliminary list of resource issues to be addressed in an environmental review for the Project. Effects on natural resources can accrue from construction, operation, and maintenance of project facilities. These include the environmental effects of the dam, spillways, generation facilities, transmission lines, construction access, temporary housing, waste disposal, staging areas, and other appurtenant facilities/structures. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but contains those project issues identified to date. 4.1.1 Generallssues The potential for climate change may result in issues affecting multiple resources. For example, effects of climate change upon resources within the project boundary may be difficult to assess given the current best available science. Nuvista would investigate relevant and pertinent information available to assess how the Project may influence climate change processes. 4.1.2 River Basin Description Issues An estimate of Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) is required for the computation of the Probable Maximum Flood for dam spillway design. Preliminary PMP estimates presented in the 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study (MWH 2011) used rainfall estimates presented in the 1963 National Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 47 (TP-47) and the 1983 NWS Hydrometeorological Report No. 54 (HR-54). These two publications present rainfall estimates based primarily on pre-1960 datasets. Since the submittal of the 2011 MWH study, both TP-47 and HR-54 have been superseded by NOAA Atlas 14: Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States (NOAA 2012). Updated preliminary design flood estimates would be calculated using the precipitation values presented in Atlas 14 or a more recent Atlas if available. 4.1.3 Geology and Soils Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on geologic resources include the following: • Erosion Processes Changes to shorelines and terraces resulting from fluctuations in lake levels and stream flows caused by project operations (i.e. storage, pulse flows, minimum flows); Effects on vegetation and soils resulting from clearing, grading and other construction activities; • Sediment Supply and Transport Sediment deposition in Chikuminuk Lake Sediment supply and transport in Allen River, Tikchik River, Lake Chauekuktuli Aquatic areas affected by construction and presence of transmission facilities. Spawning gravels and bedload characteristics • Seismic hazards on project facilities and transmission lines • Potential for seepage, piping and erosion in Allen River, Tikchik River, Lake Chauekuktuli from raising Chikuminuk Lake levels • Changes in fluvial geomorphic processes ~HATCH~ Page 179 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 4.1.4 Water Resource Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on water resources include the following: • Water quality-Changes to temperature, turbidity, total dissolved solids, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, pH, metals, and chemical/nutrient characteristics, and total dissolved gas in Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River. • Water quantity Existing and projected future Allen River flow regime, including minimum instream flow releases, flood, pulse, and base flow conditions, peaking operations, the existing flow regime of the Allen River, including the timing, magnitude, and duration of flows. Elevation of Lake Chauekuktuli due to flow regulation of Allen River. • Ice processes within Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River. 4.1.5 Fish and Aquatic Resource Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on fish and aquatic resources include the following: • Inundation • Fish habitat connectivity between Chikuminuk Lake, Allen River and other tributaries; habitats in deltas within Chikuminuk Lake due to inundation. • Mortality offish passing through turbines (i.e. turbine mortality). • Stranding and trapping fish due to daily flow fluctuations in the Allen River. • Lake and river aquatic productivity changes due to such factors as: Flow changes in the Allen River, Water quality changes (e.g. Total Dissolved Gas, pH, nutrients, etc.), Alterations to the littoral, pelagic, and benthic zones, Changes in fluvial geomorphic processes • Modification to the temperature profile of Lake Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River. Riparian and stream habitats in Chikuminuk Lake, Allen River, and streams in the transmission corridor. 4.1.6 Botanical Resource Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on botanical resources include the following: • Wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife habitats, including rare plant populations • Altered hydrologic regimes on wetlands, wetland functions, riparian vegetation, and riparian succession patterns in the Allen River. • Potential introduction of invasive plant species. • Potential exposure to environmental contaminants. • Potential changes in solar radiation and temperature moderation, and erosion and dust deposition on the distribution and composition of vegetation and wetland communities within and adjacent to Project features. ~HATCH~ Page 180 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 4.1.7 Wildlife Resource Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on wildlife (mammal, amphibian, and avian) populations and habitats include the following: • Potential changes to wildlife movements, including any physical and behavioral blockage and alteration of wildlife movement patterns and access to important habitats {e.g., moose wintering range, caribou foraging and calving areas, etc.) • Potential changes to mortality rates due to habitat alteration or loss from altered hydrologic regimes such as fluctuating water levels and ice conditions in Chikuminuk Lake Allen, with an emphasis on big game species. • Changes in distribution, habitat use, and abundance caused by increased human presence (i.e. hunting and trapping, vehicular use, noise, etc.). • Changes to Bald and Golden Eagle roosting, nesting, rearing, and foraging habitats and availability. • Changes to nesting, rearing, and foraging habitats of migratory "bird species of concern." • Potential avian collision and electrocution on Project transmission lines. • Potential habituation and attraction of scavengers. • Effects of sport and subsistence hunting facilitated by enhanced public awareness. • Potential exposure to hazardous materials. 4.1.8 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Issues There are no federally-listed or candidate threatened or endangered species in the Project area. The eight rare vascular plant taxa with 51 and 52 rankings in the AKNHP database may be encountered during botanical investigations and all occurrences would be documented. • Potential effects to Golden and Bald eagle nests in project site. • Potential effects on the use of Chikuminuk Lake and wetlands by waterbirds of conservation concern. • Potential effects to shorebirds and landbirds of conservation concern within the Project area. 4.1.9 Recreation and Land Use Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on recreation and land use include the following: • Non-consumptive recreation (boating, hiking, wildlife observation, camping). • Recreation use due to presence of construction workers. • Hunting, trapping and sport fishing opportunities. • Changes in ice processes that affect the timing and extent of wintertime use of Chikuminuk Lake. • Effects on river access and navigation within and downstream of the reservoir due to changes in the flow regime of the Allen River. • Changes to level of management required for recreation activities. 4.1.10 Aesthetic Resources Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on aesthetic resources include the following: • Changes to views in the study area. 4.1.11 Cultural Resources Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on cultural resources include the following: ~HATCH" Page 181 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 • Effects to cultural resource sites including those determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). • Effects due to increased human use on traditional spiritual areas and other traditional uses. 4.1.12 Socio-economic Resources Issues Issues to be addressed in order to fully assess the effects of project construction, operation, and maintenance on socio-economic resources include the following: • Effects to regional and local economic conditions due to project power output (i.e., lower cost I stable- priced energy). • Changes to area resident populations, lifestyle and quality of life. • Changes to demand on community services and facilities, including health and human services, law enforcement, emergency services, education, etc. • Demand for housing. • Changes to fishing, hunting, material gathering, and other subsistence activities. • Effects on local workforce (i.e. changes in job opportunities related to the existing power distribution system, increases in household income due to greater employment opportunities, and reduction in unemployment in regional communities). • Effects on direct and indirect commercial opportunities related to recreation, including fishing, hunting, and trapping, and commercial non-consumptive uses. • Changes in tourism and tourism-related employment. 4.1.13 Tribal Resources Issues Protection of any archaeological, cultural, or historic properties/sites are identified above at 4.1.11 Cultural Resources Issues; and issues related to subsistence use of resources would be covered in 4.1.12 Socio- economic Resource Issues 4.2 4.2.1 Studies and Information Acquisition General Requirements The potential for climate change may require studies to assess the effects upon multiple resources over the requested 50-year term for the Original License in Nuvista's license application for the Project. 4.2.2 Geology and Soils Studies • Conduct geotechnical investigations to evaluate the potential for seepage and piping from the reservoir. • Evaluate and establish designs for project excavations, including development of plans for borrow sites. • Develop detailed descriptions of geologic conditions, characteristics and features following further study of transmission alternatives. 4.2.3 Water Resources Studies • Continue stream gaging program. • Acquire at least three additional discharge measurements at each gage site for rating curve development March or April low flow measurement, June high flow measurement, July-September intermediate flow measurement. • Conduct winter observations of Allen River and Northwest Passage during March I April low flow measurement field trip. • Collect sediment and water quality data. • Install staff gages in Lake Chauekuktuli, and Nuyakuk and Tikchik Lakes in order to document hydrologic changes in the system between the upper Allen River gage and the Nuyakuk River gage. Page 182 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions • Develop reservoir filling information during future phases of project development, as hydrologic information becomes more complete and project features and operation are better defined. 4.2.4 Fish and Aquatic Resources Studies • Conduct fish, habitat, and spawning surveys in Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River. • Conduct bathymetric survey and lake-turnover analysis of Chikuminuk Lake. • Conduct salmon movement survey. April2014 • Collect data for and prepare a 1-D Hydraulic model to determine flow/habitat relationships for salmon in the Allen River. • Prepare a habitat model of the Allen River system with preliminary Weighted Usable Area curves for each target species. • Water temperature monitoring. • Assess fish passage barriers. • Assess instream flows needed for the riparian community. 4.2.5 Botanical Resources Studies • Conduct a quantitative analysis of affected wetlands, vegetation types, and habitat types following completion of the project description and after vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife habitat maps are completed (after 2014). • Obtain recent and high-quality, digital ortho-photography of the study area to serve as the basis for wetland, vegetation, and habitat mapping. • Design a field sampling program to complete a wetlands functional assessment. • Conduct field studies to ground-truth the aerial photography interpretation and to determine boundaries of wetland, vegetation and wildlife habitat types. • Using the completed habitat map, assess habitat values and potential Project affects for the wildlife species of concern. • Conduct literature review and field surveys in the Project area to determine the occurrence and distribution of rare plant species. • Conduct literature review and field surveys in the Project area to determine the occurrence and distribution of invasive species. 4.2.6 Wildlife Resources Studies Mammals • Conduct moose surveys. • Conduct caribou surveys. • Conduct aerial surveys for bear dens to provide data on the abundance and distribution of bear dens in the Project area. • Collect data on seasonal concentration areas for bears (e.g., spring foraging and fall berry areas), recorded incidentally during other surveys. • Survey winter furbearer tracks, with a focus on wolverines. • Compile ADF&G furbearer harvest records. • Conduct an aerial survey of active beaver lodges to assess the current conditions for this species. • Establish data-sharing agreements with ADFG and USFWS biologists, where possible. Avian • Conduct aerial surveys for nesting large raptors. • Conduct waterbird surveys and include aerial surveys for migrant and nesting waterbirds (waterfowl, loons, grebes, gulls, and terns). Page 183 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 • Conduct ground-based surveys for brood-rearing waterbirds in the proposed inundation area. • Conduct land-based migration counts for all migrating birds (focusing on raptors, and waterfowl) along the preferred transmission corridor alternative, including radar studies to determine flight paths and elevation of both diurnal and nocturnal migrants. • Survey Harlequin Ducks. • Conduct ground-based point-count surveys for breeding shorebirds and landbirds. • Conduct a literature review and gap analysis, focusing on bird movements for each transmission corridor alternative once alternative routes have been developed and shape files are available. 4.2.7 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Studies Collect the following types of data necessary to describe baseline conditions for species of conservation concern and to evaluate potential impacts: • Conduct aerial surveys for large nesting raptors, including Bald and Golden eagles, Gyrfalcons (a species of conservation concern) and Peregrine Falcons (recently delisted). • Conduct surveys to document the current distribution, abundance, and habitat use of waterbirds of conservation concern within the Project area during both the migration and breeding seasons. • Conduct surveys of rivers and streams within the project area to determine the current distribution and abundance of breeding Harlequin Ducks and other waterbirds. Harlequin Duck surveys would occur in 2015 (or later). • Conduct systematic surveys to determine the current distribution, abundance, and habitat use of the project area by shorebirds and landbirds of conservation concern. • Conduct a literature review and gap analysis once alternative routes have been selected focusing on the movements of birds of conservation concern for each transmission corridor alternative. 4.2.8 Recreation and Land Use Studies • Continue research regarding types and amounts of recreation use and trends, and recreation potential in the project vicinity; in particular expand research to include the proposed transmission line routes. • Conduct more detailed recreation value assessment including shoreline mapping and change analysis due to inundation of reservoir. • Conduct recreation use survey and continued interviews with knowledgeable users regarding past, current and likely future recreation use; including surveys of lodge owners, air taxi operators and guides. • Quantify economic impact of visitor/tourism industry on local economy-recreation linkage with socioeconomics. • Identify need for new recreational opportunities and/or new or modified management strategies in the project area in consultation with resource agencies and interested participants. 4.2.9 Aesthetic Resources Studies • Inventory and photograph the visual environment (character, quality, integrity) including images for each major season and in different lighting conditions. • Identify initial key viewing areas and viewpoints, with special consideration of the locations of current and likely recreation use areas, and specific structural elements of the Project, including areas of cut-and- fill, dam structure height and features, and transmission tower placement. • Consult with landowners, lodge operators, guiding outfits, and interested parties regarding potential Project effects to the visual environment. • Develop Project viewshed model and use to help identify major viewsheds from public viewing areas. • Prepare visual simulations of dam structures and transmission lines. ~HATCH~ Page 184 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 4.2.10 Cultural Resources Studies • Relocate, obtain GPS waypoints, and test known AHRS sites in the project study area. • Conduct excavations at TAY-010 and TAY-004. • Conduct pedestrian survey and subsurface testing on prominent land forms surrounding Chikuminuk Lake. • Conduct surveys and subsurface testing of prominent land forms along the shores of Chikuminuk Lake inundation area. • Conduct aerial and pedestrian surveys for ice patch archaeology in the vicinity of Chikuminuk Lake and along the West Route to Bethel. • Conduct aerial reconnaissance of the proposed Transmission Line route(s) to identify locations for future pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. • Identify locations with a potential to contain material suitable for palynological testing. • Conduct archival research, in addition to the fieldwork, on existing collections from sites located in the vicinity of the Project. • Conduct additional background research on viable transmission and ice road routes once they are identified. 4.2.11 Socio-economic Resources Studies • Conduct interviews with key community members (business owners, public institutions, etc.) to refine and gather data on socioeconomic conditions. • Conduct special analysis of rural migration trends and energy costs. • Conduct analysis of subsistence use of lands and waters, including fishing, hunting, and material gathering. • Identify any adverse effects on subsistence use during Project construction and operation. • Determine when and if input-output economic model should occur. (Use the results of initial rate study to conduct input-output analysis to measure the full economic impact of new electricity rates to the communities served.) 4.2.12 Tribal Resources • Investigations and analysis of Native Alaskan archaeological, cultural, and historic properties would be accomplished under 4.2.11 Cultural Resources Studies. Assessment of adverse effects on subsistence use during Project construction and operation would be accomplished under 4.2.12 Socio-economic Resources Studies. 4.3 Waterway Plans Section 10(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(2)(A), requires FERC to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway affected by the Project. On April 27, 1988, FERC issued Order No. 481, a revising Order No. 481, issued October 26, 1987, establishing that FERC will accord FPA Section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status to any Federal or state plan that: • Is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways; • Specifies the standards, the data, and the methodology used; and • Is filed with the Secretary ofthe Commission. FERC currently lists 67 comprehensive plans for the state of Alaska. Table 4.3-llists potentially relevant plans that may be useful in the future licensing proceeding for characterizing desired conditions. The most current listing of the Commission's List of Comprehensive Plans is from December 2012. Page 185 Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Project Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Table 4.3-1 Qualifying Federal and State Comprehensive Waterway Plans Potentially Relevant to the Project Resource Aquatic Resources Recreation Aquatic Resources Comprehensive Plan Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Alaska Anadromous Waters Catalog- Western Region. Anchorage, Alaska. June 1, 2011. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2009-2014. Anchorage, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries policy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. D.C. Kisaralik River Management Plan 4.4 Resource Management Plans In addition to the qualifying federal, state, and tribal comprehensive waterway plans listed above, some resource agencies have developed resource management plans to help guide their actions regarding specific resources of jurisdiction. The resource management plans listed in Table 4.4-1 may be relevant to the Project and may be useful in the licensing proceeding for characterizing desired conditions. Table 4.4-1 Resource Management Plans Potentially Relevant to the Project Resource Comprehensive Plan Aquatic, Botanical, Water, Wildlife, Recreation Recreation ~HATCH'" Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Wood-Tikchik State Park rl1<ll19!5.~t."l~l1tPI<ll1: AI1CQ()rag~,j\la~~a. ()ct()~~r?Q()2. . . . . .............. .. . . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge: .... f?.E!!PE~-~-~-11.?..i_~':: .. ~5?..11.?..~EY..~!!.<?..I1 . .P.!.~.I1.:_.A.I1.<:~.<?..r..~~~~...A.!.~.~-~-~:..JCl.I1.~.~-~Y. ... ~~-~-?..: ....... _ .. _______________________ _ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated. Fisheries USA: the recreational fisheries .. .P.?.I_i_~Y .. f<?.E_tQ.~ .. Y:.?..~E.i?.~ .. i:l.l1~ .. '.i'l.li_l_~lif~ .. ~.~.r.Y..i~~~---·".".·~-~-hiEJ_g_~?..I1~1?.~C:~ ............................................. .. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Alaska Anadromous Waters Catalog- Western Alaska. June 2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Northwest area plan for state lands . .... F..i:J.ir.~<:~l1_k?,Aic:~.s.~.c:!.: .... E.~.~!.~.i:l.r.Y...~~?..~: ........................................ ........................... . ......................................................... . Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1988. Kuskokwim area plan for state lands . .... A.r:!~.~-()E.~.g-~~...A.!<l.~~-~.: .... ~Cl.Y...!.~.?..?..: ......................................................................... -............ -..................................................... _ ............... _. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide .. C:()~p.r.~.b~.I1S..iY~ .. Outdof:?.r. Re~t~t:l-~i?..I1.P..l.CJ.n (SCOR P ):_?_()()~:?()~'!:. A11~.b.ClE<J.ge, AI<Js.ka. Agnew:Beck. Bethel Co~pr~b~11sive Plan 2035 . . Agnew:Beck Dilli!1gh.<Jr11 C()!llP~eh.t=f'lSiV!;!~Ian Area Plan Page 186 ... Chikuminuk Lake.Hydr~electric Project, FER~ No. P-14369 Environmental Conditions 2014 Appendix A-Literature Cited Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 1 Introduction and Overview--Literature Cited Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2013 18 CFR Part 4, Subpart D-Application for Preliminary Permit, License or Exemption: General Provisions, 18 CFR 4.39 Specifications for maps and drawings. 2013 18 CFR Part 4, Subpart E-Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project and Major Modified Project, 18 CFR 4.40 and 4.41. 2013 18 CFR Part 5 -Integrated License Application Process. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 2012 Office of Energy Projects, A Guide to Understanding and Applying the Integrated Licensing Process Study Criteria. 2004 Office of Energy Projects, Hydroelectric Licensing Under the Federal Power Act, Final Rule and Tribal Policy Statement, Issued July 23, 2003, and revised on February 23, 2004. 2011 Office of Energy Projects, Ideas for Implementing and Participating in the Integrated Licensing Process-Tools for Industry, Agencies, Tribes, Non-governmental Organizations, Citizens, and FERC Staff, Version 2.0. 2011 Office of Energy Projects, Integrated Licensing Process Effectiveness Evaluation Feedback March 2011 2008 Office of Energy Projects, Division of Hydropower Licensing, Preparing Environmental Documents- Guidelines for Applicants, Contractors, and Staff, September 2008. 2 Project Location, Facilities, and Operation -Literature Cited Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (ADNR) 2002 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan. Alaska Energy Authority 2011 Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, Fiscal Year 2011, July 1, 2010-June 30, 2011. Alaska Power Authority 1984 Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment-Appendix D Hydropower Resources Draft, Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1970 CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA, Part 1502-Environmental Impact Statement, Section 1502.23-Cost-benefit Analysis. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 1979 Hydroelectric Power Evaluation MWH 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake, Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study, Prepared for the Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority. 3.2 River Basin Description-Literature Cited Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) 2002 Wood Tikchik State Park Management Plan. 134 pp. Page 1 Chikuminuk lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Boyd, T., and M. Coffing 2000 Bethel post-season subsistence fisheries harvest surveys, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game Cooperative Agreement No 70181-0-J288. Chihuly, M.B. 1979 Biology of the northern pike, Esox lucius linnaeus, in the Wood River lakes system of Alaska, with emphasis on Lake Aleknagik. University of Alaska, M.S. thesis. Grumman Ecosystem Corporation. 1971 Flora vegetation and ecological formations. In: A resource inventory and evaluation of the recreational potential of the Wood River-Tikchik area of Alaska. Anchorage, AK. Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1972 Recreational potential of the Wood River-Tikchik area of Alaska. Booklet 24 pp. Ketchum, Robert Glenn, Bill Sherwonit, Deborah Williams, Jim Stratton and Tim Troll 2003 Wood-Tikchik: Alaska's Largest State Park. Aperture Foundation, New York, N.Y. MWH 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study. Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority. 158 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2012 "NOAA Atlas 14-Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 7, Version 2.0: Alaska." March 2012. Northern Arizona University (NAU) 2012 Web Interface: Climatic Records from Lakes in Southern Alaska, High-elevation Weather Station- http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/S_AK/high_wx/high_elevation_wx.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2012 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, History, http://www. fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm ?id= 7 4540. United States National Weather Service, Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) 2012 Desert Research Institute Web Interface: Alaska Climate Summaries for National Weather Service Stations http:/ /www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmak.html Weiland, K.A., R.B. Russell, J.A. Regnart, and T. E. Brookover 1994 Salmon spawning ground surveys in the Bristol Bay area, Alaska, 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Regional Information Report No. 2A94-34. Anchorage, Alaska. Wilson, W.J., R.J. Hensel, S.V. Cuccarese, D.L. Spencer, M.D. Kelly, J.G. Thiele, M.S. Floyd, J.C. LaBelle, P.O. McMillan, J.L. Wise, and A.L. Comiskey 1982 Preliminary summary of environmental knowledge of the Bethel area power plan feasibility assessment project. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. 171 pp. 3.3 Geology and Soils-Literature Cited Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC) 2012 www.aeic.alaska.edu, Earthquake Database, queried October 2012 Box, Steven E.; Moii-Stalcup, Elizabeth J.; Frost, Thomas P.; and Murphy, John M. (Box et al.) 1993 "Preliminary Geologic Map of the Bethel and Southern Russian Mission Quadrangles, Southwestern Alaska." U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 2226-A, Scale 1:250,000. 1993. Page 2 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Decker, John; Bergman, Steven C.; Blodgett, Robert B.; Box, Steven E.; Bundtzen, Thomas K.; Clough, James G.; Coonard, Warren L.; Gilbert, Wyatt G.; Miller, Martha L.; Murphy, John M.; Robinson, MarkS.; Wallace, Wesley K. (Decker et al.) 1994 "The Geology of Southwest Alaska", in The Geology of North America, Vol. G-1, The Geological Society of America, pp. 285-310. Ferrians, O.J., 1965, Permafrost map of Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-445, 1 sheet, scale 1:2,500,00. MWH 2011 "Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study" prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority. Page, R. A.; Lahar, N. N.; and Pulpan, H., (Page, et al.) 1991."Seismicity of Continentia! Alaska", in Noetectonics of North America: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Decade Map Volume 1. Wahrhaftig, Clyde 1965 Physiographic divisions of Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 482. 3.4 Water Resources-Literature Cited Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 2012a Water Quality Standards, 18 AAC 70. Amended as of April 8, 2012. http:/ /www.dec.alaska.gov/commish/regulations/pdfs/18%20AAC%2070.pdf. Accessed April1, 2013. 2012b "Comparison of State and Federally Approved Water Quality Standards, Current as of July 26, 2012." http://www.dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/Comparison_of_state_and_federal_standards.pd f. Accessed April1, 2013. 2013 Water Quality Standards web page. http:/ /www.dec.alaska.gov/water/wqsar/wqs/index.htm. Accessed April 1, 2013. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) 2002 "Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan". October 2002. Burgner, R.L., and J. Reeves (Burgner and Reeves) 1965 Observations on Resident Fishes in the Tikchik and Wood River Lake Systems. Harza Engineering Company (Harza) 1984 "Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment-Alaska Power Authority-Appendix D." 1984. MWH (MWH) 2011 "Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake-Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study." March 2011. Meyer, Dave 2012 United States Geological Survey Alaska Science Center; personal communication, February 17, 2012. R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M) 2012 "Hydrology Data Gap Analysis Report-Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, Wood-Tikchik State Park, Alaska." March, 2012. 2012 "Water Quality Data Gap Analysis Report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, Wood-Tikchik State Park, Alaska." March 2012. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Interface: SNOTEL and Snow Course Sites in Alaska http:/ /www.ak.nrcs.usda.gov/Snow/snowsites.html Page 3 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2013 Alaska Water Quality Standards. http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/webpage/Aiaska+Water+Quality+Standards. Accessed April 1, 2013. United States Geological Survey National Water Information System Web Interface-USGS 15301500 ALLEN R NR ALEKNAGIK AK http:/ /waterdata. usgs.gov /nwis/nwisma n/?site_no=15301500&agency _ cd=USGS United States Geological Survey National Water Information System Web Interface-USGS 15302000 NUYAKUK R NR DILLINGHAM AK http:/ /waterdata. usgs.gov /nwis/nwisma n/?site _ no=15302000&agency _ cd=USGS University of Washington School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences Web Interface: Wood River Lake System Field Stations- http://www. wash ington.edu/resea rch/field/river. htm I 3.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources-Literature Cited ABR 2012 Biological resources in the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project area: Literature review and gap analysis. Report for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc.- Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK. Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) 2011. Anadromous fish streams interactive maps. Accessed February 24, 2012 at: http://www.ADF&G.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/index.cfm?ADF&G=maps.interactive. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Parks and Recreation (ADNR) 2002 Wood Tikchik State Park Management Plan. 134 pp. 2012 Accessed March 20, 2012 at: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/units/woodtik.htm. Alt, K.T. 1977 Inventory and cataloging western Alaska waters. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, G-1-P study; Volume 18, 74 pp. Armstrong, R. H., and J. E. Morrow. 1980 The Dolly Varden charr, Salvelinus malma. Pages 99-140 in E. K. Balon, editor. Charrs: salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. The Hague, the Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk bv Publishers. 928pp. Bauersfeld, K. 1978 Stranding of juvenile salmon by flow reductions at Mayfield Dam on the Cowlitz River 1976. Baxter R. Washington Department of Fisheries Technical Report No. 36. Prepared for the City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities. 36 pp. 1981 Kisaralik River and lake inventory, 1981. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 95-26, Anchorage. 1982 Kisaralik River and lake inventory, 1981. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 95-26, Anchorage. Becker, C.D., D.A. Neitzel, and D.H. Fickeisen 1982 Effects of dewatering on Chinook salmon redds: Tolerance of four developmental phases to daily dewaterings. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 57: 162-164. ~HATCH~ Page 4 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Bjornn, T.C. 1971 Trout and salmon movements in two Idaho streams as related to temperature, food, stream flow, cover, and population density. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 100:423-438. Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser 1991 Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138 in W.R. Meehan (ed.). Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland. Bosch, D., L. Coggins, and R.E. Minard 1995 Evaluation of the thermal habitat volume for lake trout in selected lakes of Southwest Alaska, 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 95-26, Anchorage. Boyd, T., and M. Coffing 2000 Bethel post-season subsistence fisheries harvest surveys, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game Cooperative Agreement No 70181-0-J288. Brown, M., N. Brown, M. Ade, K. Bolovan, M. Lapin, K. Sullivan, and C. Ziobron 1985 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge general biological inventory Kisaralik River-1985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Bethel, AK. 14 pp +appendices. Brusven, M.A., C. MacPhee, and R. Biggam 1974 Effects of water fluctuation on benthic insects. Pages 67-79 in Anatomy of a River, Chapter 5. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission Report, Vancouver, Washington. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2005 Navigability of Wood River and lake system in the Bristol Bay region, Alaska. Memorandum from Navigable Waters Specialist. AA-085089 39 pp. Burgner, R.L., and J. Reeves 1965 Observations on resident fishes in the Tikchik and Wood River lake systems. Burgner, R.L., C.J. DiCostanzo, R.J. Ellis, G.Y. Harry, Jr., W.L. Hartman, O.E. Kerns, Jr., O.A. Mathisen, and W.F. Royce 1969 Biological studies and estimates of optimum escapements of sockeye salmon in the major river systems in Southwestern Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Bulletin Vol. 67: 405-459. Buzzell, R. 2010 Kisaralik River system-Phase IV: Final summary report, HUC 30502, Zone 2. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Chihuly, M.B. 1979 Biology of the northern pike, Esox lucius Linnaeus, in the Wood River lakes system of Alaska, with emphasis on Lake Aleknagik. University of Alaska, M.S. thesis. Church, W. 1963 Red salmon spawning ground surveys in the Nushagak and Togiak districts, Bristol Bay, 1961. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Dillingham, Alaska. Dunnaway, D.O., and S. Sonnichsen 2001 Area management report for the recreational fisheries of the Southwest Alaska sport fish management area, 1999. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Fishery Management Report No. 01-6, Anchorage. Faurot, D., and R. N. Jones 1992 Fishery resources in the Kisaralik River basin, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 15, Anchorage, Alaska. ~HATCH" Page 5 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Gore, J.A. and R.D. Judy, Jr. 1981 Predictive models of benthic macroinvertebrate density for use in instream flow studies and regulated flow management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38(11): 1,363- 1,370. Grumman Ecosystem Corporation 1971 Flora vegetation and ecological formations. In: A resource inventory and evaluation of the recreational potential oft he Wood River-Tikchik area of Alaska. Anchorage, AK. Grumman Ecosystems Corporation 1972 Recreational potential oft he Wood River-Tikchik area of Alaska. 24 pp booklet. Hansen, T.F., and J.C. Richards 1985 Availability of invertebrate food sources for rearing juvenile Chinook salmon in turbid Susitna River habitats. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro Aquatic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. 139 pp. Harper, K.C., J.F. Bromaghin, and S.P. Klosiewski 1997 Rainbow trout abundance in the Kisaralik River, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 78, Anchorage, Alaska. Harza Engineering Company (Harza) 1984 "Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment-Alaska Power Authority-Appendix D." 1984. Hodson, B. 2012 Owner of Tikchik Narrows Lodge and Guide Service. Personal communication with J. Seigle, ABR, Inc. June 20, 2012. Hunter, M.A. 1992 Hydropower flow fluctuations and salmon ids: A review of the biological effects, mechanical causes, and options for mitigation. Washington Department of Fisheries, Technical Report No. 119. 46 pp. Jennings, T.R. 1985 Fish Resources and Habitats in the Middle Susitna River. Woodward-Clyde Consultants and Entrix. Final Report to Alaska Power Authority. 175 pp. Leonetti, F.E. 1997 Estimation of surface and intragravel water flow at sockeye salmon spawning beaches in Iliamna Lake, Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17(1): 194-201. Lin, J.E., R. Hilborn, T.P. Quinn, and L. Hauser 2011 Self-sustaining populations, population sinks or aggregates of strays: chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Wood River system, Alaska. Molecular Ecology 20: 4,925-4,937. MacDonald, R. 1996 Baseline physical, biological, and chemical parameters of 211akes, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, 1984-1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Data Series Number 96-5. Marriott, R.A. 1964 Stream catalog of the Wood River lake system, Bristol Bay, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, Fisheries No. 494. McGiauflin, M.T., D.E. Schindler, L.W. Seeb, C.T. Smith, ,C. Habicht, and J.E. Seeb 2011 Spawning habitat and geography influence population structure and juvenile migration timing of sockeye salmon in the Wood River lakes, Alaska. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 140: 763-782. Page 6 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Montgomery, D.R., J. Buffington, N. Peterson, D. Schuett-Hames and T. Quinn 1996 Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning bed surface mobility on embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 1,061-1,070. MWH 2011 Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study. Prepared for Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority. 158 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2012 Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Essential Fish Habitat. Accessed online March 2012 at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ess_fish_habitat.htm/. Nelson, M.L. 1966 Red salmon spawning ground surveys in the Nushagak and Togiak districts, Bristol Bay, 1965. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Dillingham, Alaska. 1967 Red salmon spawning ground surveys in the Nushagak and Togiak districts, Bristol Bay, 1966. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Dillingham, Alaska. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1989 The Yukon Delta-A synthesis of information. OCS Study, MMS 89-0081. National Park Service (NPS) 1984 Kisaralik River, Alaska: Draft wild and scenic river study. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 50 pp. 1984 Final wild and scenic river study: Kisaralik River, Alaska. National Park Service. 14 pp. National Research Council (NRC} 1996 Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr 1991 A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Quinn, T.P. 2005 The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 378 pp. R2 Resource Consultants 2012a August 1-3, 2012 field trip completion report. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington, for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 2012b lnstream flow program data gap analysis report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P- 14369. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington, for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 14 pp. 2013 August 27-28, 2012 field trip completion report. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington, for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. R&M 2012a Water quality data gap analysis report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369. Prepared by R&M Consultants, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 11 pp. 2012b Hydrology data gap analysis report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. P-14369. Prepared by R&M Consultants, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 25pp. ~HATCH~ Page 7 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions Reiser, D.W. and R.G. White 1983 Effects of complete redd dewatering on salmonid egg hatching success and development of juveniles. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112: 532-540. Richter B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D.P. Braun April2014 1996 A method for assessing hydrological alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10(4): 1,163- 1,174. Roettiger, T.G., F. Harris, and K. C. Harper 2004 Abundance and rum timing of adult Pacific salmon in the Kwethluk River, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2004-8. Rogers, D.E. 1967 Estimation of pelagic fish populations in the Wood River lakes, Alaska, from tow net catches and echogram marks. University of Washington, Ph.D. dissertation. 1973 Abundance and size of juvenile sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, and associated species in Lake Aleknagik, Alaska, in relation to their environment. Fishery Bulletin 71: 1,061-1,075. 1977a Collection and analysis of biological data from the Wood River lake system, Nushagak district, Bristol Bay, Alaska-Will fertilization increase growth and survival of juvenile sockeye salmon in the Wood River lakes? Alaska Department of Fish and Game, part C of Final Report, FRI-UW-7617-C. 1977b Collection and analysis of biological data from the Wood River lake system, Nushagak district, Bristol Bay, Alaska-Biology of the threespine stickleback in the Wood River lakes. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, part D of Final Report, FRI-UW-7617-C. Rogers, D.E., and B.J. Rogers 1998 Limnology in the Wood River lakes. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, FRI-UW-9807. Ruggerone, G.T., R. Hanson, and D.E. Rogers 2000 Selective predation by brown bears (Ursus arctos) foraging on spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 974-981. Schindler, D. E., D. E. Rogers, M.D. Scheuerell, and C. A. Abrey 2005 Effects of changing climate on zooplankton and juvenile sockeye salmon growth in southwestern Alaska. Ecology 86: 198-209. Sands, T., S. Morstad, and K. Weiland 2003 Salmon spawning ground surveys in the Bristol Bay area, Alaska, 2002. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regional Information Report No. 2A03-07, Anchorage, AK. 80 pp. Schuett-Hames, D.E., N.P. Peterson, R. Conrad, and T.P. Quinn 2000 Patterns of gravel scour and fill after spawning by chum salmon in a western Washington stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 610-617. Seiler, D., L. Kishimoto, and S. Newhauser 1999 1998 Skagit River wild 0+ Chinook production evaluation. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1988 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, wilderness review, and wild river plan. Anchorage, AK. Walsh, P., C. Lewis, P. Crane, and J. Wenburg 2006 Genetic relationships of lake trout Sa/velinus namaycush on Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Togiak Refuge lake trout genetics progress report. Page 8 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Weiland, K.A., R.B. Russell, J.A. Regnart, and T.E. Brookover 1994 Salmon spawning ground surveys in the Bristol Bay area, Alaska, 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Regional Information Report No. 2A94-34. Anchorage, Alaska. Westing, C., T. Sands, S. Morstad, and P. Salomone 2007 Salmon spawning ground surveys in the Bristol Bay area, Alaska, 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fishery Management Report No. 07-40, Anchorage, AK. 62 pp. Wiedmer, M., T. Troll, and C. Torgersen 2010 Accounting for the influence of large glacially carved lakes on upstream fish assemblages: Summary of 2010 field project. USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Cascadia Field Station and College of the Environment, University of Washington. Unpublished field report. 8 pp. Wilson, W.J., R.J. Hensel, S.V. Cuccarese, D.L. Spencer, M.D. Kelly, J.G. Thiele, M.S. Floyd, J.C. LaBelle, P.O. McMillan, J.L. Wise, and A.L. Comiskey 1982 Preliminary summary of environmental knowledge of the Bethel area power plan feasibility assessment project. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. 171 pp. Yanagawa, C. 1967 Tikchik lake system commercial freshwater fishery. Information Leaflet 109. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, AK. 23 pp. 3.6 Botanical Resources-Literature Cited ABR 2012 Biological resources in the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project area: Literature review and gap analysis. Report for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc.- Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK. Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) 2010 State of Alaska endangered species list. Available online (accessed March 2012): http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/esa_home.php Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) 2008 Rare vascular plant tracking list, April 2008. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 8 pp. Available online (accessed March 2012): http:/ /aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare- p I ants-specie s-1 ists/ 2012a Species tracking list (under development). Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 31 pp. Available online (accessed March 2012): http:/ I a kn h p. ua a .a las ka .ed u/bota ny Ira re-pl a nts-speci es-1 ists/20 12 -ra re-vascu Ia r -pia nt -I ist 2012b AKEPIK data portal. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 31 pp. Available online (accessed January 2012): http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/maps/akepic/ Graziano, G. 2011 Strategic plan for invasive weed and agricultural pest management and prevention in Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Agriculture, Alaska Plant Materials Center, Palmer. 36 pp. Jorgenson, M.T., J.E. Roth, S.F. Schlentner, E.R. Pullman, and M. Macander 2002 An ecological land survey for Fort Richardson, Alaska. Report by ABR, Inc.-Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK, for United States Army Alaska, Anchorage, AK. 142 pp. Page 9 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Lipkin, R., and D.F. Murray 1997 Alaska rare plant field guide. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Natural Heritage Program, and U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. Morsel!, J., S. Parker, D. Erikson, L. Peterson, and P. Knode 1981 Lake Elva hydroelectric project environmental report, Volume II. Dames & Moore, Anchorage, AK. National Park Service (NPS) 1984 Kisaralik River, Alaska: Draft wild and scenic river study. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 50 pp. 1984 Final wild and scenic river study: Kisaralik River, Alaska. National Park Service. 14 pp. Schick, C.T., and W.A. Davis 2008 Wildlife habitat mapping and evaluation of habitat use by wildlife at the Stewart River Training Area, Alaska. Report by ABR, Inc.-Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK, for Alaska Army National Guard, Fort Richardson, AK. 54 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 90 pp +appendices. 2007 Supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: Alaska Region Version 2.0. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 72 pp. +appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1988 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, wilderness review, and wild river plan. Anchorage, AK. 2010 Endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and delisted species in Alaska. Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office. 2 pp. Available online (accessed 12 July 2011): http:/ I ecos. fws.gov /tess _pu bl ic/pu b/ stateOccu rre ncelndivid ua l.jsp ?state=AK 2012 National Wetland Inventory. Geospatial Wetlands Data. [Online] http:/ /www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/index.html. Whitcomb, J., M. Moghaddam, K. McDonald, J. Kellndorfer, and E. Post 2009 Mapping vegetated wetlands of Alaska using L-band radar satellite imagery. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 35: 54-72. Wilson, W.J., R.J. Hensel, S.V. Cuccarese, D.L. Spencer, M.D. Kelly, J.G. Thiele, M.S. Floyd, J.C. LaBelle, P.O. McMillan, J.L. Wise, and A.L. Comiskey 1982 Preliminary summary of environmental knowledge of the Bethel area power plan feasibility assessment project. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. 171 pp. 3.7 Wildlife Resources-Literature Cited ABR 2012 Biological resources in the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric project area: Literature review and gap analysis. Report for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc.- Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK. Page 10 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Aderman, A., and J. Woolington 2011 Reproductive performance of female moose in an expanding population in southwest Alaska. Paper presented at the 2011 Southwest Alaska Park Science Symposium, November 2011, Anchorage. Available online: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/ (accessed 6 March 2012). Aderman, A., L. VanDaele, and M. Hinkes 1995 Estimated moose population size in the Togiak River drainage (Unit 17A) and adjacent Wood River Mountains (western unit 17C), Southwest Alaska, 1995. Alaska Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group 1999 "Watch List Species of Continental Importance". Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) 1973 Alaska's wildlife and habitat. Juneau. 144 pp. +reference maps. 2006 Our wealth maintained: A strategy for conserving Alaska's diverse wildlife and fish resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Xviii+824 pp. AKNHP (Alaska Natural Heritage Program) 2011 Species tracking list (updated January 2011). Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 31 pp. Available online (accessed 12 August 2011): http:/ I a kn h p. uaa .alaska.ed u/wpcontent/u ploads/2010/11/ All_ Tracki ng_Lists_ Com bi nedl. pdf Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Parks and Recreation (AKDNR) 2002 Wood Tikchik State Park Management Plan. 134 pp. Accessed March 20, 2012 at: http:/ I d n r.alaska.gov/ pa rks/u n its/woodti k. htm. Alaska Shorebird Group (ASG) 2008 Alaska shorebird conservation plan. Version II. Alaska Shorebird Group, Anchorage, AK. http:/ /a Iaska .fws.gov /m bsp/mbm/shorebi rds/pla ns. htm. Anderson, H. L. 1978 Range of the tundra hare. Murrelet 59:72-74. Anderson, B.C. 2004 An opportunistic amphibian inventory in Alaska's national parks 2001-2003. National Park Service, Inventory and Monitoring Program, Anchorage, AK. Atwell, G., D.L. Boone, J. Gustafson, and V.D. Berns 1980 Brown bear summer use of alpine habitat on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. Pp. 297-305 in Bears: Their biology and management, Vol. 4: A selection of papers from the 4th International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Kalispell, Montana, February 1977. Bangs, E.E. 1984 Summer food habits of voles, Clethrionomys ruti/us and Microtus pennsylvanicus, on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 98: 489-492. Barnes, B.M. 1989 Freeze avoidance in a mammal: body temperatures below oo C in an arctic hibernator. Science 244: 1,521-1,616. Batzli, G.O., and H. Henttonen. 1990 Demography and resource use by microtine rodents near Toolik Lake, Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 22: 51-64. Bechard, M.J., and T.R. Swem 2002 Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus). In The Birds of North America, No. 641 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. ~HATCH~ Page 11 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Bee, J.W., and E.R. Hall 1956 Mammals of northern Alaska on the Arctic Slope. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication No.8. 309 pp. Belant, J.L., K. Kielland, E.H. Follmann, and L.G. Adams 2006 Interspecific resource partitioning in sympatric ursids. Ecological Applications 16: 2,333-2,343. Bertram, M.R., and M.T. Vivian 2002 Black bear monitoring in eastern interior Alaska. Ursus 13: 69-77. Berven, K.A. 1990 Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (Rona sylvatica). Ecology 71: 1,599-1,608. Booms, T.L., T.J. Cade, and N.J. Clum 2008 Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus). No. 144 in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http:/ /bna. birds. corn ell.ed u/b na/ speci es/114 Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIFWG) 1999 Landbird conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic regions. Version 1.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. Boyce, D.A., Jr., and S.J. Fristensky 1984 A profile of raptors and other fauna of the Kisaralik River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Bethel, AK. 35 pp. Braun, J.K., T.S. Eaton, Jr., and M.A. Mares 2011 Marmota ca!igata (Rodentia: Sciuridae). Mammalian Species 43: 155-171. Brown, M., N. Brown, M. Ade, K. Bolovan, M. Lapin, K. Sullivan, and C. Ziobron 1985 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge general biological inventory Kisaralik River-1985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Bethel, AK. 14 pp +appendices. Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001 The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. Buehler, D.A. 2000 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). No. 506 in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Onlin-e: http:/ /bna. birds.cornell.ed u/bna/species/506 Buck, C.L., and B.M. Barnes 1999 Annual cycle of body composition and hibernation in free-living arctic ground squirrels. Journal of Mamma logy 80:430-442. Bureau of land Management (BLM) 2007 Bay proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage, Alaska. Available online: http:/ /www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/Bay_Pian/bay_feis_documents.html (accessed 24 February 2012) 2010. BLM-Aiaska sensitive animal and plant lists. Alaska State Office, Anchorage. Butler, l. 2009 Units 9C and 9E caribou management report. Pages 32-42 in P. Harper, ed. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2006-30 June 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. ~HATCH~ Page 12 Chikuminuk lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Environmental Conditions 2014 Calista Professional Services and Orutsararmuit Native Council 1984 Prospects for reviving the reindeer industry in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region. Anchorage, Alaska. 178 pp. [original not seen, cited in USFWS 1988] Cade, T.J. 1960 Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 289 pp. Coady, J.W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior moose. Le Naturaliste Canadien 101: 417-436. Collins, G.H., S.D. Kovach, and M.T. Hinkes. 2005 Home range and movements of female brown bears in southwestern Alaska. Ursus 16: 181-189. Collins, J.P., and A. Storfer 2003 Global amphibian decline: sorting the hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions 9: 89-98. Collins, W.B., and D.J. Helm 1997 Moose, Alces a lees, habitat relative to riparian succession in the boreal forest, Susitna River, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111: 567-574. Collins, G.H., M.T. Hinkes, A.R. Aderman, and J.D. Woolington 2003 Population growth, movements, and status of the Nushagak Peninsula Caribou herd following reintroduction, 1988-2000. Rangifer, Special Issue (14): 143-151. Cook, J.A., and S.O. MacDonald 2005 Mammal inventory of Alaska's national parks and preserves: Southwest Alaska Network-Kenai Fjords National Park, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, and Katmai National Park and Preserve. National Park Service, Alaska Region, Inventory and Monitoring Program final report [NPS/AKRSSWAN/NRTR-2005/05]. Museum of Southwestern Biology, Albuquerque, NM. 57 pp. + appendices. Demma, N., J. Woolington, and B. Dale 2011 Characterizing population trends, range utilization, and survival of the Mulchatna caribou herd. Paper presented at the 2011 Southwest Alaska Park Science Symposium, November 2011, Anchorage. Available online: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/ (accessed 6 March 2012). Dokuchaev, N.E. 1997 A new species of shrew (Soricidae, lnsectivora) from Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy 78:811-817. Dotson, R.A., and D.P. Mindel! 1979 Raptor surveys and river profiles in the Kuskokwim, Unalakleet, and Yukon River drainages, Alaska. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 57 pp. Dunn, W., C. Hunter, E.E. lfiigo-Eiias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will 2004 Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Fancy, S.G., and R.G. White 1987 Energy expenditures for locomotion by barren-ground caribou. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 122- 128. Faro, J.B. 1973 Game Management Unit 17 moose survey-inventory progress report. Pages 117-119 in D.E. McKnight, ed. Annual report of survey-inventory activities. Part I. Moose, Deer, and Elk. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Progress Report. Project W-17-4, Job 1, 2, & 13. Juneau, Alaska, USA. ~HATCH~ Page 13 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Fortin, J.K., S.D. Farley, K.D. Rode, and C.T. Robbins 2007 Dietary and spatial overlap between sympatric ursids relative to salmon use. Ursus 18: 19-29. Frick, W.F., J.F. Pollock, A.C. Hicks, K.E. Langwig, D.S. Reynolds, G.G. Turner, C.M. Butchkoski, and T.H. Kunz 2010 An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science 329: 679-682. Golden, H.N., J.D. Henry, E. F. Becker, M.l. Goldstein, J.M. Morton, D. Frost, Sr., and A.J. Poe 2007 Estimating wolverine Gu/o gulo population size using quadrat sampling of tracks in snow. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 2): 52-61. Goldstein, M.l., A.J. Poe, L.H. Suring, R.M. Nielson, and T.L. McDonald 2010 Brown bear den habitat and winter recreation in southcentral Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 35-42. Gotthardt, T. 2004 Monitoring the distribution of amphibians in the Cook Inlet watershed: 2003 final report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 2005 Wood frog conservation status report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Grumman Ecosystem Corporation 1971 Flora vegetation and ecological formations. In: A resource inventory and evaluation of the recreational potential of the Wood River-Tikchik area of Alaska. Anchorage, AK. Hamon, T., K. Loveless, and T. Olsen 2011 Population assessment of brown bears in Katmai National Preserve. Paper presented at the 2011 Southwest Alaska Park Science Symposium, November 2011, Anchorage, Alaska. Available online: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/ (accessed 6 March 2012). Hinkes, M.T., and L.J. Van Daele 1996 Population growth and status of the Nushagak Peninsula caribou herd in southwest Alaska following reintroduction, 1988-1993. Rangifer 9: 301-310. Hinkes, M.T., G. H. Collins, L.J. VanDaele, S.D. Kovach, A.R. Aderman, J.D. Woolington, and R.J. Seavoy. 2005 Influence of population growth on caribou herd identity, calving ground fidelity, and behavior. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 1,147-1,162. Hodges, K.E. 1999. The ecology of snowshoe hares in northern boreal forests. Chapter 6 in The scientific basis for lynx conservation. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT. Hokit, D.G., and A. Brown 2006 Distribution patterns of wood frogs (Rona sylvatica) in Denali National Park. Northwestern Naturalist 87: 128-137. Holm, G.W., F.G. Lindzey, and D.S. Moody 1999. Interactions of sympatric black and grizzly bears in northwest Wyoming. Ursus 11: 99-108. Holmes, W.G. 1984 Predation risk and foraging behavior of the hoary marmot in Alaska. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 15: 293-301. Hope, A.G., E. Waltari, N.E. Dokuchaev, S. Abramov, T. Dupal, A. Tsvetkova, H. Henttonen, S.O. MacDonald, and J.A. Cook 2010 High-latitude diversification within Eurasian least shrews and Alaska tiny shrews (Soricidae). Journal of Mammalogy 91: 1,041-1,057. ~HATCH~ Page 14 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Jacobsen, B. 2004 Mammal inventory of BLM lands: Vicinity of Iliamna Lake, Kvichak River, and Nushagak River valleys, with reports of opportunistically collected amphibians. Annual report 2003, University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. Jacoby, M.E., G.V. Hilderbrand, C. Servheen, C.C. Schwartz, S.M. Arthur, T.A. Hanley, C.T. Robbins, and R. Michener 1999 Trophic relations of brown and black bears in several western North American ecosystems. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 921-929. Jenkins, S.H., and P.E. Busher 1979 Castor canadensis. Mammalian Species 120. 8pp. Johnston, C.A., and R.J. Naiman 1987 Boundary dynamics at the aquatic-terrestrial interface: The influence of beaver and geomorphology. Landscape Ecology 1: 47-57. Jones, P., and P. Perry 2011 Unit 18 muskox. Pages 1-15 in P. Harper, ed. Muskox management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2008-30 June 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Kellie, K.A. 2005 Summer movements of female moose at high density. M.S. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 79 pp. Kessel, B. 1989 Birds of the Seward Peninsula, Alaska: Their biogeography, seasonality, and natural history. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK. 320 pp. Kessel, B., H.K. Springer, and M.W. Clayton 1964 June birds of the Kolomak River, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Murrelet 45: 37-47. Kochert, M.N., K. Steenhof, C.L. Mcintyre, and E.H. Craig 2002 Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). No. 684 in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http:/ /bna. birds.cornell.edu/b na/species/684. Kovach, S.D., G.H. Collins, M.T. Hinkes, and J.W. Denton. 2006 Reproduction and survival of brown bears in Southwest Alaska, USA. Ursus 17(1): 16-19. Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, 5. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wahl 2002 Waterbird conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC, U.S.A. 78 pp. Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wahl 2006 Conservation status assessment factor scores and categories of concern for solitary-nesting waterbird species. Addendum to waterbird conservation for the Americas: North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. April17, 2006. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC. Lentfer, J.W., R.J. Hensel, L.H. Miller, L.P. Glenn, and V.D. Berns 1972 Remarks on denning habits of Alaska brown bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 2: 125-132. ~HATCH~ Page 15 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Litvaitis, J.A., J.A. Sherburne, and J.A. Bissonette 1985 Influence of understory characteristics on snowshoe hare habitat use and density. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(4): 866-873. Long, C.A. 1974 Microsorex hoyi and Microsorex thompsoni. Mammalian Species 33. 4 pp. McCallum, M.L. 2007 Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate. Journal of Herpetology 41: 483-491. MacCracken, J.G., V. Van Ballenberghe, and J.M. Peek 1993 Use of aquatic plants by moose: sodium hunger or foraging efficiency? Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 2,345-2,351. MacCracken, J.G., W.O. Steigers, Jr., and P.V. Mayer 1988 Winter and early spring habitat use by snowshoe hares, Lepus americanus, in south-central Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(1): 25-30. MacDonald, R. 2003 Occupancy and productivity of nesting Bald Eagles, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dillingham, AK. 11 pp. MacDonald, S.O. 2010 The amphibians and reptiles of Alaska: A field handbook. Version 2.0. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, and Museum of Southwestern Biology, Albuquerque, NM. Available online: http:/ I a kn h p.uaa. a Iaska. edu/wp-conte nt/u ploads/20 11/02/Herps-of -Aiaska-Ha ndbook -F ina 1- Version-2-reduced.pdf (accessed 3 March 2012) MacDonald, S.O., and J.A. Cook 2009 Recent mammals of Alaska. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. 387 pp. Mallek, E.J., and D.J. Groves 2010 Alaska-Yukon waterfowl breeding population survey, May 16-June 8, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks and Juneau, AK. 30 pp. Mangipane, B. 2011 Assessing wolf population status and predation rate in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Paper presented at the 2011 Southwest Alaska Park Science Symposium, November 2011, Anchorage. Available online: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/ (accessed 6 March 2012). May, R., A. Landa, J. van Dijk, J.D.C. Linnell, and R. Andersen 2006 Impact of infrastructure on habitat selection of wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biology 12: 285-295. McCallum, M.L 2007 Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate. Journal of Herpetology 41: 483-491. McCaffery, B.J. 1993 Raptor survey along the Kisaralik River, memorandum to Ron Perry, Refuge Manager, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. 4 pp. McCaffery, B. J., and R. D. Ernst 1989 Cliff-nesting raptors of the Kisaralik River: 1977-1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bethel, AK. 27 pp. McCaffery, B.J., and C.M. Harwood 1994 Distribution and relative abundance of Harlequin Ducks in the southwest Kuskokwim Mountains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bethel, AK. 13 pp. ~HATCH'" Page 16 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 McCaffery, B.J., T.L. Booms, T.C.J. Doolittle, F.J. Broerman, J.R. Morgart, and K. Sowl 2011 The ecology of Gyrfacons Falco rusticolus on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. In R.T. Watson, T.J. Cade, M. Fuller, G. Hunt and E. Potapv, eds. Gyrfalcons and ptarmigan in a changing world. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID. Mcintyre, C.L. 2002 Patterns in nesting area occupancy and reproductive success of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, 1988-99. Journal of Raptor Research 50: 50-54. Mcintyre, C.L., and L.G. Adams 1999 Reproductive characteristics of migratory Golden Eagles in Denali National Park, Alaska. Condor 101: 115-123. Mcintyre, C.L., D.C. Douglas, and M.W. Collopy 2008 Movements of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) from Interior Alaska during their first year of independence. Auk 125: 214-224.Miller, S.D. 1990 Denning ecology of brown bears in southcentral Alaska and comparisons with a sympatric black bear population. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8: 279-287. Mindell, D.P. 1981 Status and distribution of nesting raptors in southwestern Alaska. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. 73 pp. 1983 Nesting raptors in southwestern Alaska: Status, distribution, and aspects of biology. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Technical Report 8, Anchorage, AK. 59 pp.Mitchell, S.C., and R.A. Cunjak 2007 Stream flow, salmon, and beaver dams: Roles in the structuring of stream fish communities within an anadromous salmon-dominated stream. Journal of Animal Ecology 76: 1,062-1,074. Modafferi, R.D. 1999 Lower Susitna valley moose population identity and movement study. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration research final report, July 1985-30 June 1995. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau. Morgart, J.R. 1998 Kilbuck Mountains Harlequin Duck breeding pair survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bethel, AK. 18 pp.Murie, O.J. 1935 Alaska-Yukon caribou. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fauna Series No. 54. National Park Service (NPS) 1984 Kisaralik River, Alaska: Draft wild and scenic river study. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 50 pp. 1984 Final wild and scenic river study: Kisaralik River, Alaska. National Park Service. 14 pp.Nolan, K.S., and J.M. Peirce 1996 A survey of small mammals in Wood-Tikchik State Park, Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 77: 44-45. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee (NAWMP) 2004 North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Implementation framework: Strengthening the biological foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Media Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 106 pp.Parker, D.l., B.E. Lawhead, and J.A. Cook. 1997 Distributional limits of bats in Alaska. Arctic 50: 256-265. ~HATCH~ Page 17 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Environmental Conditions Parmelee, D.F. 1992 Snowy Owl (Bubo scandiacus). No. 10 in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http:/ /bna. birds .cornell.edu/b na/species/010. Pasitschniak-Arts, M., and S. Lariviere 1995 Gulo gulo. Mammalian Species, No. 499. 10 pp. Patil, V.P. 2010 The interactive effects of climate, social structure, and life history on the population dynamics of hoary marmots (Marmota ca/igata). M.S. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) 2011 Pebble Project environmental baseline document. Anchorage, Alaska. Available online: http:/ /www.pebbleresearch.com/ (accessed 24 February 2012) Peirce, K.N., and J.M. Peirce 2014 2000 Range extensions for the Alaska tiny shrew and pygmy shrew in southwestern Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 82: 67-68. 2005 Occurrence and distribution of small mammals on the Goodnews River, southwestern Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 86: 20-24. Perry, P. 2009 Unit 18 brown bear management report. Pp. 191-198 in P. Harper, ed. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2006-30 June 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 2010a Unit 18 fur bearers. Pp. 233-242 in P. Harper, ed. Furbearer management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2006-30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 2010b Unit 18 moose management report. Pp. 271-85 in P. Harper, ed. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2007-30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska. Petersen, M.R., D.N. Weir, and M.H. Dick 1991 Birds of the Kilbuck and Ahklun mountain region, Alaska. North American Fauna: Number 76: 1-158. Petrof, I. 1884 Population, resources, etc. of Alaska. Pages 55-282 in Compilation of narratives of exploration in Alaska. 56th Congress, Senate Report, Number 1023. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. [original not seen, cited by Hinkes et al. 2005] Platte, R.M., and W.l. Butler, Jr. 1993 Waterbird abundance and distribution on the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. 59 pp. 1995 Waterbird abundance and distribution in the Bristol Bay region, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. 2 pp.Poole, A.F., R.O. Bierregaard, and M.S. Martell 2002 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). No. 683 in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/683.Preston, C.R., and R.D. Beane 2009 Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). No. 52 in The Birds of North America Online. (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/052. ~HATCH" Page 18 Chikuminuk lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Rexstad, E., and E.M. Debevec 2002 Small mammal monitoring at the landscape scale in Denali National Park and Preserve. Report to the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Research Division (USGS/BRD) and National Park Service. Ritchie, R.J., and J.E. Shook 2011 Recovery and trends of Peregrine Falcons breeding in the Yukon-Tanana uplands, east-central Alaska, 1995-2003. Journal of Raptor Research 45: 150-159. Ritchie, R.J., and R.E. Ambrose 1976 An investigation of Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) activity and habitat for cliff nesting raptors on the Kuskokwim River, McGrath to Aniak. Unpublished report for U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Peregrine Recovery Team 34 pp. Ritchie, R.J., and S. Ambrose 1996 Distribution and population status of Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Interior Alaska. Arctic 49: 120-128. Rode, K.D., C.T. Robbins, and LA. Shipley 2001 Constraints on herbivory by grizzly bears. Oecologia 128: 62-71. Ruggerone, G.T., Hanson, R., and D.E. Rogers 2000 Selective predation by brown bears (Ursus arctos) foraging on spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 974-981. Saperstein, LB. 1993 Winter forage selection by barren-ground caribou: Effects of fire and snow. M.S. thesis. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 79 pp. Scott, R., and J. Kephart 2002 Statewide annual report, trapper questionnaire, 1 July 200Q-30 June 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Seppi, B.E. 2007 Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in the central Kuskokwim River area, Alaska. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. 14 pp. Skoog, R.O. 1968 Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in Alaska. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley. 699 pp. Smallwood, J.A., and D.M. Bird 2002 American Kestrel (Falco sparverius). No. 602 in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/602. Smith, M.E., and M.C. Belk 1996 Sorex monticolus. Mammalian Species 528. 5 pp. Spa linger, D., B. Collins, N. Harris, K. Legner, B. Atkinson, J. Welker, and C. Peterson 2011 The potential implications of climate change on the dynamics of caribou populations in western Alaska. Paper presented at the 2011 Southwest Alaska Park Science Symposium, November 2011, Anchorage. Available online: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/ (accessed 6 March 2012). Steele, M.A. 1998 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus. Mammalian Species 586. 9 pp. Page 19 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Stehn, R.S., R. Platte, P. Anderson, F. Broerman, T. Moran, K. Sow!, and K. Richardson 2006 Monitoring Black Seater populations in Alaska, 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. 44 pp. Stevens, C.E., C.A. Paszkowski, and G.J. Scrimgeour 2006 Older is better: Beaver ponds on boreal streams as breeding habitat for the wood frog. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1,360-1,371. Taylor, K.P. 1989 Mulchatna caribou survey and inventory report. Pages 8-16 inS. Morgan, ed. Annual report of survey-inventory activities. Vol. XIX, Part XI. Progress Report, Project W-22-6. Job 3.0. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Tucker, B., S. Mahoney, B. Greene, E. Menchenton, and L. Russell 1991 The influence of snow depth and hardness on winter habitat selection by caribou on the southwest coast of Newfoundland. Rangifer, Special Issue 7: 160-163. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1986 Togiak National Wildlife Refuge final comprehensive conservation plan, wilderness review, and environmental impact statement. Anchorage, AK. 514 pp. 1988 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, wilderness review, and wild river plan. Anchorage, AK. 2007a Advisory: Recommended Time Periods for Avoiding Vegetation Clearing in Alaska in order to Protect Migratory Birds. http:/ /alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/fieldoffice/anchorage/pdf/vegetation_clearing.pdf 2007b National Bald Eagle management guidelines. Washington, DC. 25 pp. 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Online version available at http:/ /www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/Specia1Topics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf. 2009 Birds of Management Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. Online version available at http://www. fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Management/ BirdsofManagementConcern09.pdf. 2011 Endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and delisted species in Alaska, April2011. Anchorage, AK. 2 pp. Valkenburg, P. 1998 Herd size, distribution, harvest, management issues, and research priorities relevant to caribou herds in Alaska. Rangifer, Special Issue 10: 125-129. VanDaele, L.J. 1995 Mulchatna caribou herd; Units 9B, 17, 19A and 19B. Pages 22-37 in M.V. Hicks, ed. Annual report of survey-inventory activities. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 1992-30 June 1994. Progress report, Project W-24-2 and W-24-3, Study 3.0. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. VanDaele, L.J., J.R. Morgart, M.T. Hinkes, S.D. Kovach, J.W. Denton, and R.H. Kacyon 2001 Grizzlies, Eskimos, and biologists: Cross-cultural bear management in southwest Alaska. Ursus 12: 141-152. Van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985 Handbook of Canadian mammals, Vol. 2-Bats. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 212 pp. Page 20 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Environmental Conditions Walsh, P., and J. Woolington 2008 Temporal use of the Nushagak Peninsula by wolves, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, southwest Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dillingham, Alaska. 19 pp. 2014 2011 Temporal use of the Nushagak Peninsula by wolves, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, southwest Alaska. Paper presented at the 2011 Southwest Alaska Park Science Symposium, November 2011, Anchorage. Available online: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/swan/ (accessed 6 March 2012). Walsh, P., J. Reynolds, G. Collins, B. Russell, M. Winfree, and J. Denton 2010 Application of a double-observer aerial line-transect method to estimate brown bear population density in southwestern Alaska. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1: 47-58. Waltari, E., and J.A. Cook 2005 Hares on ice: Phylogeography and historical demographics of Lepus arcticus, L. othus, and L. timidus (Mammalia: Lagomorpha). Molecular Ecology 14: 3,005-3,016. Weir, D.N. 1982 Cliff nesting raptors of the Kisaralik River, western Alaska. Pp. 138-152 in Raptor management and biology in Alaska and western Canada (W.N. Ladd and P.F. Schempf, eds.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. Whitaker, J.O. 2004 Sorex cinereus. Mammalian Species 743. 9 pp. White, C.M., and D.A. Boyce, Jr. 1978 A profile of various rivers and their raptor populations in western Alaska 1977. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. 77 pp. Whitman, J.S., W.B. Ballard, and C.L. Gardner 1986 Home range and habitat use by wolverines in southcentral Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 50: 460-463. Wiggins, D.A., D.W. Holt, and S.M. Leasure 2006 Short-eared Owl (Asia flammeus). No. 62 in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/062 Williamson, F.S.L. 1957 Ecological distribution of birds in the Napaskiak area of the Kuskokwim River delta, Alaska. Condor 59: 317-338. Wilson, W.J., R.J. Hensel, S.V. Cuccarese, D.L. Spencer, M.D. Kelly, J.G. Thiele, M.S. Floyd, J.C. LaBelle, P.O. McMillan, J.L. Wise, and A.L. Comiskey 1982 Preliminary summary of environmental knowledge of the Bethel area power plan feasibility assessment project. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. 171 pp. Wolff, J.O. 1980 The role of habitat patchiness in the population dynamics of snowshoe hares. Ecological Monographs 50(1): 111-130. Woolington, J. D. 2003 Mulchatna management report. Pages 23-42 in C. Healy, ed. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 1998-30 June 2000. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Page 21 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 2008 Unit 17 black bear management report. Pages 199-207 in P. Harper, ed. Black bear management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2004-30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 2009a Mulchatna caribou management report; Units 9B, 17, 18 South, 19A and 19B. Pages 11-31 in P. Harper, ed. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2006-30 June 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 2009b Unit 17 brown bear management report. Pages 179-190 in P. Harper, ed. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2006-30 June 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 2009c Unit 17 wolf management report. Pages 121-127 in P. Harper, ed. Wolf management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2005-30 June 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 2010a Unit 17 furbearers. Pages 212-232 in P. Harper, ed. Furbearer management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2006-30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 2010b Unit 17 moose management report. Pages 248-270 in P. Harper, ed. Moose management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2007-30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Wright, J.M. 2010 Bald Eagles in Western Alaska. Pages 251-257 in B. A. Wright and P. Schempf, eds. Bald Eagles in Alaska. Hancock House Publishers, Fairbanks, AK. Wright, S.K., and J.R. Moran 2011 Ocean-going vessels: A possible conduit for the introduction of white-nose syndrome (Geomyces destructans) into bats in Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 92: 133-135. Wright, J.M. 2010 Bald Eagles in Western Alaska. Pages 251-257 in B. A. Wright and P. Schempf, eds. Bald Eagles in Alaska. Hancock House Publishers, Fairbanks, AK. Page 22 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions 3.8 Special Status Species-Literature Cited ABR April2014 2012 Biological resources in the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project area: Literature review and gap analysis. Report for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc.- Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK. Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) 2006 Our wealth maintained: A strategy for conserving Alaska's diverse wildlife and fish resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Xviii+824 pp. 2011 Anadromous fish streams interactive maps. Accessed February 24, 2012 at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/index.cfm?adfg=maps.interactive. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Parks and Recreation (AKDNR) 2002 Wood Tikchik State Park Management Plan. 134 pp. 2012 Accessed March 20, 2012 at: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/units/woodtik.htm. Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) 2008 Rare vascular plant tracking list, April 2008. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 8 pp. Available online (accessed March 2012): http:/ /aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare- pla nts-species-lists/ 2012 Species tracking list (under development). Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. 31 pp. Available online (accessed March 2012): http:/ /a kn hp. uaa .a Iaska .edu/bota ny /ra re-pla nts-species-1 ists/2012 -ra re-vascula r-pla nt -list Alaska Shorebird Group (ASG) 2008 Alaska shorebird conservation plan. Version II. Alaska Shorebird Group, Anchorage, AK. http:/ /alaska. fws.gov /m bsp/m bm/ shorebirds/plans. htm. Booms, T.L., T.J. Cade, and N.J. Clum 2008 Gyrfalcon (Falco rustico/us). No. 144 in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http:/ /bna .birds.cornell.ed u/bna/ s pecies/114 Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIFWG) 1999 Land bird conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic regions. Version 1.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001 The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2010 BLM-Aiaska sensitive animal and plant lists. Alaska State Office, Anchorage. Burgner, R.L., and J. Reeves 1965 Observations on resident fishes in the Tikchik and Wood River Lake systems. Cade, T.J. 1960 Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 289 pp. Dokuchaev, N.E. 1997 A new species of shrew (Soricidae, lnsectivora) from Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 811-817. ~HATCH~ Page 23 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Dunn, W., C. Hunter, E.E. lnigo-Eiias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will 2004 Partners in Flight North American Land bird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Frick, W.F., J.F. Pollock, A.C. Hicks, K.E. Langwig, D.S. Reynolds, G.G. Turner, C.M. Butchkoski, and T.H. Kunz 2010 An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science 329: 679-682. Grumman Ecosystem Corporation 1971 Flora vegetation and ecological formations. In: A resource inventory and evaluation of the recreational potential of the Wood River-Tikchik area of Alaska. Anchorage, AK. Hope, A.G., E. Waltari, N.E. Dokuchaev, S. Abramov, T. Dupal, A. Tsvetkova, H. Henttonen, S. 0. MacDonald, and J.A. Cook 2010 High-latitude diversification within Eurasian least shrews and Alaska Tiny Shrews (Soricidae). Journal of Mammalogy 91: 1,041-1,057. Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wahl 2002 Waterbird conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC, U.S.A. 78 pp. Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wahl 2006 Conservation status assessment factor scores and categories of concern for solitary-nesting waterbird species. Addendum to waterbird conservation for the Americas: North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. April17, 2006. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC. Lipkin, R., and D.F. Murray 1997 Alaska rare plant field guide. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Natural Heritage Program, and U.S. Forest Service, Anchorage, AK. MacDonald, 5. 0. 2010 The amphibians and reptiles of Alaska: A field handbook. Version 2.0. University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, and Museum of Southwestern Biology, Albuquerque, NM. Available online: http:/ /aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Herps-of-Aiaska-Handbook-Finai- Version-2-reduced.pdf (accessed March 2012). MacDonald, S.O., and J.A. Cook 2009 Recent mammals of Alaska. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. 387 pp. McCaffery, B.J., T.L. Booms, T.C.J. Doolittle, F.J. Broerman, J.R. Morgart, and K. Sowl 2011 The ecology of Gyrfacons Falco rusticolus on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. In R.T. Watson, T.J. Cade, M. Fuller, G. Hunt and E. Potapv, eds. Gyrfalcons and ptarmigan in a changing world. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID. Mindell, D.P. 1983 Nesting raptors in southwestern Alaska: Status, distribution, and aspects of biology. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Technical Report 8, Anchorage, AK. 59 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2012 Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Essential Fish Habitat. Accessed online March 2012 at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ess_fish_habitat.htm/. Page 24 Chikuminuk lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Nolan, K.S., and J.M. Peirce 1996 A survey of small mammals in Wood-Tikchik State Park, Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 77: 44-45. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee (NAWMP} 2004 North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Implementation framework: Strengthening the biological foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Media Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. 106 pp. Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr 1991 A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Parker, D.l., B. E. Lawhead, and J.A. Cook 1997 Distributional limits of bats in Alaska. Arctic 50: 256-265. Peirce, K.N., and J.M. Peirce 2000 Range extensions for the Alaska Tiny Shrew and pygmy shrew in southwestern Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 82: 67-68. Petersen, M.R., D.N. Weir, and M.H. Dick 1991 Birds of the Kilbuck and Ahklun mountain region, Alaska. North American Fauna: Number 76: 1-158. Rogers, D.E. 1967 Estimation of pelagic fish populations in the Wood River Lakes, Alaska, from tow net catches and echogram marks. University of Washington, Ph.D. dissertation. 1977a Collection and analysis of biological data from the Wood River Lake system, Nushagak district, Bristol Bay, Alaska-Will fertilization increase growth and survival of juvenile sockeye salmon in the Wood River Lakes? Alaska Department of Fish and Game, part C of Final Report, FRI-UW-7617-C. 1977b Collection and analysis of biological data from the Wood River Lake system, Nushagak district, Bristol Bay, Alaska-Biology of the threespine stickleback in the Wood River lakes. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, part D of Final Report, FRI-UW-7617-C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS} 1986 Togiak National Wildlife Refuge final comprehensive conservation plan, wilderness review, and environmental impact statement. Anchorage, AK. 514 pp. 1988 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, wilderness review, and wild river plan. Anchorage, AK. 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Online version available at http://www. fws.gov I migratorybi rds/NewReportsPublications/Specia IT opics/BCC2008/BCC2008. pdf. 2009 Birds of Management Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. Online version available at http:/ /www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Management/BirdsofManagementConcern09 .pdf. 2010 Endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and de listed species in Alaska. Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office. 2 pp. Available online (accessed 12 July 2011): http:/ I ecos. fws.gov /tess _public/pub/ stateOccu rrence I ndivid ua l.jsp ?state=AK 2011 Endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and delisted species in Alaska, April 2011. Anchorage, AK. 2 pp. Van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985 Handbook of Canadian mammals, Vol. 2-Bats. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 212 pp. ~HATCH'" Page 25 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Waltari, E., and J.A. Cook 2005 Hares on ice: Phylogeography and historical demographics of Lepus arcticus, L. othus, and L. timidus (Mammalia: Lagomorpha). Molecular Ecology 14: 3,005-3,016. Weiland, K.A., R.B. Russell, J.A. Regnart, and T. E. Brookover 1994 Salmon spawning ground surveys in the Bristol Bay area, Alaska, 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Regional Information Report No. 2A94-34. Anchorage, Alaska. Wright, S.K., and J.R. Moran 2011 Ocean-going vessels: A possible conduit for the introduction of white-nose syndrome (Geomyces destructans) into bats in Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 92: 133-135. 3.9 Recreation and Land Use-Literature Cited Agnew::Beck Consulting 2012 Site visits to Chikuminuk Lake, Wood-Tikchik State Park, and Dillingham, June and August 2012. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Economic Development Office of Tourism Development (ADCCED) 2011 Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI. Produced by McDowell Group, Summer 2011. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation {ADF&G) 2011a Black Bear Management Report of survey-inventory activities, 1 July 2007-30 June 2010. Produced by Patricia Harper. Accessed March 6 2012 from: http://www.ADF&G.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/11_blb.pdf 2011b Caribou Management Report of survey-inventory activities, 1 July 2007-30 June 2010. Produced by Patricia Harper. Accessed March 6 2012 from: http://www.ADF&G.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/09_caribou.pdf 2011c Moose Management Report of survey-inventory activities, 1 July 2007-30 June 2010. Produced by Patricia Harper. Accessed March 6 2012 from: http://www.ADF&G.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/10_moose.pdf 2011d Alaska Sportfishing Survey, Southcentral Alaska Region, Survey Area T: Nushagak, Wood River and Togiak 2000-2010 Harvest Estimates. Accessed March 5 2012 from: http://www.ADF&G.alaska.gov/sf/sportfishingsurvey/index.cfm?ADF&G=area.home 2011e Southcentral Alaska Region, Survey Area V: Kuskokwim River and Bay drainages 2000-2010 Harvest Estimates, Accessed March 5 2012 from: http:/ /www.ADF&G.a Iaska .gov /sf /sportfish ingsu rvey /i ndex.cfm. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land & Water Management (ADNR) 1982 Alaska State Park System: Statewide Framework. Accessed October 2012 from http:/ /d n r.a Iaska .gov /parks/u n its/na ncyl k/asps _statewide_ framework. pdf 1987 A Promised Land, A History of Alaska's Selection of its Congressional Land Grants. 2002 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan. Accessed February 2012 from: http:/ I d n r.a Iaska .gov /pa rks/pla ns/woodt/woodtpl n. htm 2005 Bristol Bay Area Plan for State Lands. Accessed November 2012 from http:/ I d n r.a Iaska .gov I m lw /pian n i ng/a rea pia ns/bristol/ 2009 Alaska's Outdoor Legacy: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2009-2014. 2011 Lake Aleknagik State Recreation Site. Accessed October 2012 from http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/aspunits/woodtik/lkaleknsrs.htm Page 26 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 2013 Correspondence with David W. Griffin concerning parcel USS 12058. Bristol Bay Heritage Land Trust (BBHLT) [formerly Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood-Tikchik Land Trust] 2012 Website: About Us. Online resource. Buzzell, Rolfe. 2010 Kisaralik River System: Final Summary Report. Kuskokwim Assistance Agreement, Phase IV Submission. Produced for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of History and Archaeology. January 15, 2010. City of Bethel. 2011 Bethel Comprehensive Plan: 2035. Produced by Agnew::Beck Consulting, 2011. City of Dillingham. 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update & Waterfront Plan. Produced by Agnew:: Beck Consulting, October 2010. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (FERC) 1992 Guidelines for Public Safety at Hydropower Projects. Ketchum, Robert Glenn, Bill Sherwonit, Deborah Williams, Jim Stratton and Tim Troll. 2003 Wood-Tikchik: Alaska's Largest State Park. Aperture Foundation, New York, N.Y. Kijik Corporation 2011 Kijik Corporation Land Use Plan. Prepared by Agnew::Beck Consulting and approved by the Kijik Corporation Board in March 2011. National Park Service (NPS) 2012a Lake Clark National Park & Preserve. Accessed October 2012 from http://www.nps.gov/lacl/index.htm 2012b Katmai National Park & Preserve. Accessed October 2012 from http:/ /babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924004184580;seq=5;view=1up;num=i 1985 Kisaralik River: Draft Wild and Scenic River Study. Report transmitted to Congress on April26, 1985. Accessed November 2012 from the Hathi Trust Digital Library, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, Alaska (2012). Accessed October 2012 from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924004184580;seq=5;view=1up;num=i National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2012 Alaska. Accessed October 2012 from http:/ /www.rivers.gov/rivers/alaska.php. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2012 lditarod National Historic Trail. Accessed October 2012 from http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/nlcs/iditarod.html. United States Department ofthe Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2003 Subsistence Management Regulations for Federal Public Lands in Alaska. 2001 Togiak National Wildife Refuge: Comprehensive Conservation Plan Revision. 2004 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Land Conservation Plan. Accessed February 3, 2012 from: http:/ I a Iaska. fws.gov /nwr /pian n ing/pdf /YD _ LCP. pdf Wood-Tikchik State Park Ranger Station, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation (WTSP) 2012 Chikuminuk Lake/Allen River Visitation within Wood-Tikchik State Park, 2004-2011. Shared August 2012. 3.10 Aesthetic Resources-Literature Cited ~HATCH~ Page 27 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Agnew::Beck Consulting (A::B) 2012 Two site visits by staff members to Chikuminuk Lake, Wood-Tikchik State Park and Dillingham, June and August 2012. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) 2012 Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Wood-Tikchik State Park Ranger Station, Chikuminuk Lake/Allen River Visitation within Wood-Tikchik State Park, 2004-2011. 2002 Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan. 2010 Office of History and Archaeology. Kisaralik River System: Fino/Summary Report. Prepared by Dr. Rolfe Buzzell for ADNR. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1984 Visual Resource Management, Manual 8400. Washington, DC. Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Nuvista) 2012 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project: Gap Analysis. Recreation Resources and Aesthetic Resources. FERC No. P-14359. Prepared for Nuvista by Hatch Associates Consultants, Agnew::Beck et al. State of Alaska 2012 TraveiAiaska.com: Maps and Places to Go. Online resource. 1978 Alaska Statute (AS) 41.21.160. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 1995 Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook 701. Washington, DC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1993 Draft Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Kisaralik River, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska 2002 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet. 2004 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Land Conservation Plan: Options for the protection of fish and wildlife habitats. 3.11 Cultural Resources-literature Cited Ackerman, Robert E. 1979a Southwestern Alaska Archaeological Survey 1978: Akhlun-Kuskokwim Mountains. Final report to the National Geographic Society by Arctic Research Section, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Washington, D.C. 1979b Southwestern Alaska Survey, 1978: Akhlun-Eek Mountains Region. A preliminary report to the National Geographic Society, February 7, 1979. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 1980a Archeological Surveys in the Akhlun-Kilbuck Mountains, Southwestern Alaska. Paper presented at the 7th Annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, March 21-22, Anchorage, AK. 1980b Southwestern Alaska Archaeological Survey: Kagati Lake, Kisaralik-Kwethluk Rivers. Final Report to National Geographic Society, Grant No. 2032, Pullman, WA. 1985 Southwestern Alaska Archaeological Survey. In On Research and Exploration Projects Supported by the National Geographic Society, for which an initial grant or continuing support was provided in the year 1978, edited by W. Swanson, pp. 67-94. val. 19. National Geographic Society Research Reports, Washington, D.C. ~HATCH~ Page 28 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 1987 Mid-Holocene Occupation of Interior Southwestern Alaska. In Man and the Mid-Holocene Climatic Optimum, edited by N.A. McKinnon and G.S.L. Stuart, pp. 181-192. Proceedings of the 17th Annual CHACMOOL Conference, University of Calgary Archaeological Assocation, Calgary, Alberta. 1994a Early Cultural Complexes in Southwestern Alaska. Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:109-111. 1994b Report On Archaeological Investigations In Southwestern Alaska 1992-1994. Report to Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, USDOI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of History and Archaeology, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska, and Arctic Social Sciences Program, Division of Polar Studies, National Science Foundation. 1996a Lime Hills, Cave 1. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by Frederick Hadleigh West; with the assistance of Constance F. West, Brian S. Robinson, John F. Hoffecker, Mary Lou Curran, and Robert E. Ackerman, pp. 470-477. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 1996b Nukluk Mountain. In American Beginnings, edited by F. H. West. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 1996c Report on the 1995 Field Season Lime Hills Archaeological Project Southwestern Alaska. 1996d Spein Mountain. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by Frederick Hadleigh West; with the assistance of Constance F. West, Brian S. Robinson, John F. Hoffecker, Mary Lou Curran, and Robert E. Ackerman, pp. 456-460. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 2001 Spein Mountain: A Mesa Complex Site In Southwestern Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 38(2):81-97. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (ADNR) 2002 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan. Anderson, Douglas D. 1968 Early Notched Point And Related Assemblages In The Western American Arctic. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of American Anthropological Association, Seattle, WA. 1970 Microblade Traditions in Northwest Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 7(2):2-15. 1988 Onion Portage: The Archaeology of a Deeply Stratified Site from the Kobuk River, Northwest Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 22(1-2):i-163. Beget, James Owen K. Mason and Patricia M. Anderson 1992 Age, Extent and Climatic Significance of the c. 3400 BP Aniakchak Tephra, Western Alaska, USA. The Holocene 2:51-56. Biddle, K. Gregory 2003 Section 106 Review of the Alaska Native Allotment parcel of Oleanna Hansen (AA-7179-C) and the Archaeological Sites 49TAY-00039 and 49TAY-00042, located on Chikuminuk Lake, Southwest Alaska. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Region. Manuscript on file, Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage, Alaska. Blanchard, Morgan R. 2012 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis: FERC No. P-14369, Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska. Bureau of Land Management 1991 History of the Old Bethel School, Copy on file at the OHA. Chattey, Paul W. 1999 Determination of Eligibility for Air Navigation Facilities Built by the Civil Aviation Administration in Alaska, 1940-1958. 2 vols. Center of Expertise for Historic Preservation, USACE Seattle District, Seattle, WA. ~HATCH~ Page 29 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April 2014 Cook, John P. 1968 Some Microblade Cores from the Western Boreal Forest. Arctic Anthropology 5(1):121-127. Cook, John P. and Robert A. McKennan 1970 The Athapaskan Tradition: A View from Healy Lake in the Yukon-Tanana Upland. Paper presented at the lOth Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Anthropological Association, May 7-9, Ottawa, Ontario. Dale, Rachel Joan and J. David McMahan 2007 Human Remains and Cultural Resource Management in Alaska: State Laws and Guidelines. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 5(2):87-96. Denfield, D. Colt 1994 The Cold War in Alaska: A Management Plan for Cultural Resources, 1994-1999. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Dixon, E. James, Jr. 1985 Cultural Chronology of Central Interior Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 22(1):47-66. Dumond, Don E. 1962 Prehistory in the Naknek Drainage: A Preliminary Statement. In Research on Northwest Prehistory: Prehistory in the Naknek Drainage, Southwestern Alaska, edited by L.S. Cressman and D. E. Dumond, pp. 7-54. Anthropological Papers of the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. 1981 Archaeology on the Alaska Peninsula: The Naknek Region, 1960-1975. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 21. University of Oregon, Department of Anthropology, Eugene, OR. 1982 Trends and Traditions in Alaskan Prehistory: The Place of Norton Culture. Arctic Anthropology 19(2):39-51. 1984 Prehistory of the Bering Sea Region. In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by D. Damas, pp. 94-105. val. 5, Arctic, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. 20 vols. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1987a The Eskimos and Aleuts. 2nd ed. Thames and Hudson, London. 1987b Prehistoric Human Occupation in Southwestern Alaska: A Study of Resource Distribution and Site Location. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 36. Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. 2000a The Norton Tradition. Arctic Anthropology 37(2):1-22. 2000b A Southern Origin for Norton Culture? Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 25(1):87-102. Dumond, Don E., Leslie Canton and Harvey M. Shields 1975 Eskimo and Aleuts on the Alaska Peninsula: A Reappraisal of Port Moiler Affinities. Arctic Anthropology 12(1):49-67. Fierstein, Judy 2007 Explosive Eruptive Record in the Katmai Region, Alaska Peninsula: An Overview. Bulletin of Volcanology 69:469-509. GDM, Inc. 1991 Bethel Bureau of Indian Affairs Old School: A Feasability Study. Submitted to the Bethel Native Corporation. ~HATCH~ Page 30 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Gerlach, S. Craig and Edwin S. Hall, Jr. 1988 The Later Prehistory of Northern Alaska: The View from Tukuto Lake. In The Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska's Native People, edited by R.D. Shaw, R.K. Harritt and D.E. Dumond, pp. 107- 136. Alaska Anthropological Association, Aurora Monograph series. vol. 4, Edwin S. Hall, Jr., general editor. Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage, Alaska. Gerlach, S. Craig and Owen K. Mason 1992 Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates and Cultural Interaction in the Western Arctic. Arctic Anthropology 29(1}:54-81. Giddings, J. Louis, Jr. 1967 Ancient Men of the Arctic. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Hart Crowser and Associates 2003 Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation of National Weather Service Facilities, Alaska. Copy on file at the Alaska OHA. Henn, Winfield G. 1978 Archaeology on the Alaska Peninsula: The Ugashik Drainage, 1973-1975. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 14. Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Holmes, Charles E 1986 Lake Minchumina Prehistory: An Archaeological Analysis. Aurora, Monograph Series No.2. Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage, AK. Hrdlicka, Ales 1930 Anthropological Survey in Alaska. In Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1928-1929, edited by M.W. Stirling, pp. [19]-374. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1943 Alaska Diary: 1926-1931. The Jacques Cattell Press, Lancaster, PA. Irving, William N. 1964 Punyik Point and the Arctic Small Tool Tradition. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Ketchum, Robert Glenn, Bill Sherwonit, Deborah Williams, Jim Stratton and Tim Troll 2003 Wood-Tikchik: Alaska's Largest State Park. Aperture Foundation, New York, N.Y. Larsen, Helge 1950 Archaeological Investigations in Southwestern Alaska. American Antiquity 15(3):177-186. Lobdell, John E. 1986 The Kuparuk Pingo Site: A Northern Archaic Hunting Camp of the Arctic Coastal Plain, North Alaska. Arctic 39(1}:47-51. National Historic Preservation Act 1966 National historic Preservation act [as ammended], Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood-Tikchik Land Trust 2012 Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood-Tikchik Land Trust, http:/ /www.nmwtlandtrust.org/index.php. Oswalt, Wendell H. 1952a The Archaeology of Hooper Bay Village, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 1(1}:47-91. 1963 Mission of Change in Alaska: Eskimos and Moravians on the Kuskokwim. 1st ed. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. 1978 The Kuskowagmiut: Riverine Eskimos. In This land Was Theirs: A Study of North American Indians, edited by W.H. Oswalt, pp. 103-143. Wiley, New York, NY. Page 31 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 1980 Historic Settlements Along the Kuskokwim River, Alaska. Alaska State Library Historical Monograph No.7. Alaska Department of Education, Division of State Libraries and Museums, Juneau, Alaska. Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King 1995 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Culturql Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. USDOI, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C. President of the United States 1971 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment. 1994 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 1996 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites. Reynolds, Georgeanne Lewis 1988 White Alice Communications System: Historical Overview and Inventory. Prepared for U.S. Air Force, Alaskan Air Command, Elmendorf AFB by United States Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage. Rudis, Deborah D. 2009 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Contaminant Assesment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau Filed Office, Juneau, AK. Schoenberg, Kenneth M. 1995 The Post-Paleoarctic Interval in the Central Brooks Range Arctic Anthropology 32(1):51-61. Shaw, Robert D. 1983 The Archaeology of the Manokinak Site: The Study of the Cultural Transition Between Late Norton Tradition and Historic Eskimo. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University. 1998 An Archaeology of the Central Yup'ik: A Regional Overview for the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Northern Bristol Bay, and Nunivak Island. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):234-246. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012a Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, History, http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/History.cfm?ID=74535. 2012b Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, History, http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=74540. VanderHoek, Richard 2009 The Role of Ecological Barriers in the Development of Cultural Boundaries During the Later Holocene of the Central Alaska Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. VanStone, James W. 1959 Russian Exploration in Interior Alaska: An Extract from the Journal of Andrei Glazunov. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 50(2):37-47. 1964 Some Aspects of Religious Change among Native Inhabitants in West Alaska and the Northwest Territories. Arctic Anthropology 2(2):21-24. 1967a Archaeological excavations on the Nushagak River, Alaska, pp. 3, ms. Unpublished short report to the U.S. Department of the Interior. Copy on file at Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Anchorage, Alaska. 1967b Eskimos of the Nushagak River: An Ethnographic History. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 1968a An Annotated Ethnohistorical Bibliography of the Nushagak River Region, Alaska. Fieldiana: Anthropology 54, No.2 pps. 149-189. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois. ~HATCH~ Page 32 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 1968b Tikchik Village: A Nineteenth Century Riverine Community In Southwestern Alaska. Fieldiana: Anthropology 56, No.3. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL. 1970a Akulivikchuk: A Nineteenth Century Eskimo Village on the Nushagak River, Alaska. Fieldiana: Anthropology 60. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. 1970b Ethnohistorical Research in Southwestern Alaska: A methodological perspective. In Ethnohistory in Southwestern Alaska and the Southern Yukon: Method and Content, edited by M. Lantis. University of Kentucky Studies in Anthropology No.7. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY. 1971 Historic Settlement Patterns in the Nushagak River Region, Alaska. Fieldiana Anthropology 61. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois. 1972 Nushagak: An Historic Trading Center In Southwestern Alaska. Fieldiana: Anthropology 62. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. 1984b Mainland Southwest Alaska Eskimo. In Arctic, edited by D. Damas, pp. 224-242. Handbook of North American Indians. val. 5, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. 20 vols. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. West, Frederick Hadleigh 1967 New Evidence on the Time Placement and Affinities of the Denali Complex of Central Alaska. Paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Wood, Patrick and John L. Nau 2002 Guidelines for the Development of Historic Properties Management Plans for FERC Hydroelectric Projects. Federal Energy Regulitory Commission and Advisory Council in Historic Preservation. 3.12 Socio-economic Resources-Literature Cited Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics (ABVS) 2012 Birth and Death Rates by Region (database). Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 2011 Fishing Permits and Fisheries Employment, 2010 (database). Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development {ACDEC) 2012 Alaska Community Database Profiles {CIS). State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. (www.commerce.state.ak.us). Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (ADCCED) 2012 Alaska Taxable 2011, January 2012. 2012a Community Information Database (database) 2012b Quarterly Fuel Price Reports: 2008-2012. 2010 Report to the Director: Current Community Conditions: Fuel Prices Across Alaska. 2008-2010, annual updates. Alaska Department of Early Education and Development (ADEED) 2012 School District Enrollment (database). Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 2006 Estimated Harvests of Birds by Region, 2004 and 2005. Migratory Bird Assessment. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. 2012 Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS). ADF&G, Online searchable internet resource, accessed March, 2012 (http:/ /www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/) Page 33 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Division (ADOLWD) 2010 Alaska Economic Trends: February 2010. 2012a Alaska Local and Regional Information (ALAR!): Local unemployment data. (database). 2012b Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment Data (database). 2012c Permanent Fund Dividend Applicant Migration Data (database). 2012d Alaska Economic Trends: April 2012. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (ADNR) 2002 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan. 2013 Correspondence with David W. Griffin concerning parcel USS 12058. Alaska Department of Transportation and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) 2012a Alaska Energy Authority End Use Study. Prepared for AEA by W.H.Pacific et al. 2012b Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program, Fiscal Year 2011. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 2009 Alaska Housing Assessment (Part I and Part II). Produced for AHFC by Information Insights. Alaska Office of Management and Budget (AOMB) 2012 FY2013 Enacted Alaska State Budget (Summary). Approved and enacted May 14, 2012. Alaska State Geo-Spatial Data Clearinghouse (ASGDC) 2012 Region, community, hydrology and terrain data for Alaska (database). Alix, Claire and Karen Brewster 2004 "Not All Driftwood is Created Equal": Wood Use and Value Along the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 2(1-2):48-65. Andrews, Elizabeth F. 1989 The Akulmiut: Territorial Dimensions of a Yup'ik Eskimo Society. Technical Paper No. 177. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Andrews, Elizabeth F. and Michael W. Coffing 1986 Kuskokwim River Subsistence Chinook Fisheries: An Overview. Technical Paper No. 146. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Andrews, Elizabeth F., Gretchen B. Jennings and Kurt Kamletz 2002 Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fishing Regulations Database, 1960-2001-Kuskokwim and Yukon Fisheries Management Areas. Final Report No. FIS-01-010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Andrews, Elizabeth F. and Raymond Peterson 1983 Wild Resource Use of the Tuluksak River Drainage by Residents of Tuluksak, 1980-1983. Technical Paper No. 87. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Braund, Stephen R. and Elisabeth L. Moorehead 2009 Sociocultural Research. In Synthesis: Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska, edited by S.R. Braund and J. Kruse, pp. 111-162. Alaska OCS Study MMS 2009-006. USDOI, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska. Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) 2012 Website: Service Area. Online resource. ~HATCH~ Page 34 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Environmental Conditions Bristol Bay Heritage Land Trust (BBHLT) [formerly Nushagak-Mulchatna/Wood-Tikchik Land Trust] 2012 Website: About Us. Online resource. 2014 Brown, Caroline L., David Caylor, Jesse Dizard, James A. Fall, Susan Georgette, Tracie Krauthoefer and Michael Turek 2005 Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2003 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 316. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Brown, Caroline L., James S. Magdanz and DavidS. Koster 2012 Subsistence Harvests in 8 Communities in the Central Kuskokwim River Drainage, 2009. Technical Paper No. 365. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Brown, Caroline L., David Caylor, Jesse Dizard, James A. Fall, Susan Georgette, Tracie Krauthoefer and Michael Turek 2005 Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2003 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 316. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Brown, Caroline L., James S. Magdanz and DavidS. Koster 2012 Subsistence Harvests in 8 Communities in the Central Kuskokwim River Drainage, 2009. Technical Paper No. 365. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Brown, Caroline L., David Caylor, Jesse Dizard, James A. Fall, Susan Georgette, Tracie Krauthoefer and Michael Turek 2005 Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2003 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 316. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Brown, Caroline L., James S. Magdanz and DavidS. Koster 2012 Subsistence Harvests in 8 Communities in the Central Kuskokwim River Drainage, 2009. Technical Paper No. 365. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. City of Bethel 2011a Bethel Comprehensive Plan. Produced for the city by Agnew:: Beck Consulting and approved by City Council, 2011. 2011b Electrical Utility Ownership Feasibility Study. Produced by Agnew::Beck Consulting and EES Consulting, June 2011. City of Dillingham 2010 Dillingham Comprehensive Plan. Produced for the City by Agnew::Beck Consulting and approved by City Council, 2010. Coffing, Michael W. 1989 Bear Boats: Floating Home from Squirrel Camp. Alaska Fish and Game 21(6):12-13. 1991 Kwethluk Subsistence: Contemporary Land Use Patterns, Wild Resource Harvest and Use, and the Subsistence Economy of a Lower Kuskokwim River Area Community. Technical Paper No. 157. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 2001 Bethel Post-Season Subsistence Fisheries Harvest Surveys, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Resource monitoring Program, final report (study No. 00-009). Alaska Department of fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Coffing, Michael W., Cheryl L. Scott and Charles J. Utermohle 1998 The Subsistence Harvest of Seals and Sea Lions by Alaska Natives in Three Communities of The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska, 1997-98. Technical Paper No. 255. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. ~HATCH'" Page 35 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 1999 The Subsistence Harvest of Seals and Sea Lions by Alaska Natives in Three Communities of the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska 1998-99. Technical Paper No. 257. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Coffing, Michael W., Louis Brown, Gretchen Jennings and Charles J. Utermohle 2001 The Subsistence Harvest and Use of Wild Resources in Akiachak, Alaska, 1998. Technical Paper No. 258. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Coiley, Philippa Kenner 2002 From Neqa to Tepa: A Database with Traditional Knowledge about the Fish of Bristol Bay. Final Report No. FIS00-012. USDOI, FWS Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program, Anchorage, Alaska. Coiley-Kenner, Philippa, Theodore M. Krieg, Molly B. Chythlook and Gretchen Jennings 2003 Wild Resources Harvests and Uses By Residents of Manokotak, Togiak, and Twin Hills, 1999/2000. Technical Paper No. 275. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Donlin Gold [Barrick Gold North America and NovaGold Resources Alaska] 2012 Website: Our Plan. Online resource. Dull, Byron S. and Christopher A. Shelden 2007 Lower Kuskokwim River lnseason Subsistence Salmon Catch Monitoring, 2006. Fishery Management Report No. 07-50 Final Report for Study FIS 06-306, USFWS Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Services Division. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Ellanna, Linda J. and Polly C. Wheeler 1989 Wetlands and Subsistence-Based Economies in Alaska, U.S.A. Journal of Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 21(4):329-340. Endter-Wada, J., Lynn A. Robbins, Douglas W. Levine, Daniel L. Boxberger, Paula D. Nohalty, Joseph G. Jorgensen and Steven L. McNabb 1992 Bristol Bay Subsistence Harvest and Sociocultural Systems Inventory. Technical Report No. 150 OCS Study MMS 92-0036. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Social and Economic Studies, Anchorage, Alaska. Fall, James A. 2012 Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2010 Update. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. (original by Robert J. Wolfe 2000) Fall, James A., David Caylor, Michael Coffing, Brian L. Davis, Susan Georgette and Polly Wheeler 2001 Alaska Subsistence Fisheries 1999 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 300. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Fall, James A., David B. Andersen, David Caylor, Michael Coffing, Susan Georgette and Michael Turek 2002 Alaska Subsistence Fisheries 2000 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 306. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Fall, James A., Caroline L. Brown, David Caylor, Michael Coffing, Susan Georgette, Amy W. Paige and Louann Rank 2003 Alaska Subsistence Fisheries 2001 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 314. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Fall, James A., Caroline L. Brown, David Caylor, Susan Georgette, Tracie Krauthoefer and Amy W. Paige 2003 Alaska Subsistence Fisheries 2002 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 315. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Fall, James A., Dave Caylor, Michael Turek, Caroline Brown, Tracie Krauthoefer, Brian Davis and David Koster Page 36 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions 2007a Alaska Subsistence Salman Fisheries 2004 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 317. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 2007b Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2005 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 318. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. April2014 Fall, James A., Caroline Brown, Michael F. Turek, Nicole Braem, James J. K. Simon, Amy Russell, William E. Simeone, Davin L. Holen, Liliana Naves, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, Terri Lemons, Victoria Ciccione, Theodore M. Krieg and David Koster 2009a Alaska Subsistence Fisheries 2006 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 344. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 2009b Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2007 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 346. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Fall, James A., Theodore M. Krieg and Davin L. Holen 2009 An Overview of the Subsistence Fisheries of the Bristol Bay Management Area. Special Publication No. BOF 2009-007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. Fall, James A., Caroline Brown, Nicole Braem, James J. Simon, William E. Simeone, Davin L. Holen, Liliana Naves, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough, Terri Lemons and Theodore M. Krieg 2011 (revised) Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fisheries, 2008 Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 359. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Fienup-Riordan, Ann 1982 Navarin Basin Sociocultural Systems Analysis. Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office Final Technical Report No.70. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska. 2005 Yup'ik elders at the Ethnologisches Museum Berlin: Fieldwork Turned on its Head. University of Washington Press in association with Calista Elders Council, Bethel, Alaska, Seattle, Washington. 2007 Yuungnaqpia/lerput I The Way We Genuinely Live-Masterworks of Yup'ik Science and Survival. In association with the Anchorage Museum Association and the Calista Elders Council, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Fienup-Riordan, Ann, with William Tyson, Paul John, Marie Meade and John Active 2000 Hunting Tradition in a Changing World. Yup'ik Lives in Alaska Today. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Francisco, R. Kim, Keith Schultz, D. J. Schneiderhan, Dan Huttunen and Richard Cannon 1988 Annual Management Report Kuskokwim Area, 1987. Regional Information Report 3888-35. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska Francisco, R. Kim, Keith Schultz, D.J. Schneiderhan, Dan. Huttunen, Charles Burkey, Jr., Helen H. Hamner and Robert J. Walker 1989 Annual Management Report Kuskokwim Area, 1988. Regional Information Report 3889-08. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Francisco, R. Kim, Charles Burkey, Jr., Douglas B. Molynaux, Cindy Anderson, Helen H. Hamner, Karen Hyer, Michael W. Coffing and Charles Utermohle 1991 Annual Management Report Kuskokwim Area, 1990. Regional Information Report 3891-11. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Francisco, R. Kim, Cindy Anderson, Charles Burkey, Jr., Michael W. Coffing, Karen Hyer, Douglas B. Molyneaux and Charles Utermohle 1992 Annual Management Report for the Subsistence and Commercial Fisheries of the Kuskokwim Area, 1991. Regional Information Report 3A92-06. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. ~HATCH~ Page 37 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 1993 Annual Management Report for the Subsistence and Commercial Fisheries of the Kuskowkim Area, 1992. Regional Information Report 3A93-11. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisionof Commerical Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Francisco, R. Kim, Cindy Anderson, Charles Burkey, Jr., Michael Coffing, Karen Hyer, Douglas B. Molyneaux and Charles Utermohle 1994 1993 Annual Management Report for the Subsistence and Commercial Fisheries of the Kuskokwim Area. Regional Information Report 3A94-21. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries Management and Development, Anchorage, Alaska. Francisco, R. Kim, Cindy Anderson, Jr. Charles Burkey, Mary Fogarty, Douglas B. Molyneaux, Charles Utermohle and Kyle Vaught 1995 Annual Management Report for the Subsistence and Commercial Fisheries of the Kuskokwim Area, 1994. Regional Information Report 3A95-15. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Fried, Neal and Alyssa Shanks 2011 The Cost of Living in Alaska: How It's Measured, and How We Compare. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Alaska Economic Trends series. May 2011. Gasbarro, Anthony F. and George Utermohle 1975 A Study of Subsistence Activities in Bristol Bay. Man in the Arctic Program, Institute of Social, Economic, and Government Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. Haley, Sharman and David Fisher 2012 Shareholder Employment at Red Dog Mine. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. Hamner, Helen H., Richard Raymond, Fredrick West and Kevin Clark 2002 Shared Information for Fishery Management in AYK. Part 1: AYK Data Inventory and Problem Review. Part 2: Survey of Fishery Researchers and Managers. Regional Information Report No. 3A02-43, Federal Project No. FIS00-016 Final Report No. 00-015. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division, AYK Region, Anchorage, Alaska. Holen, Davin and Terri Lemons 2010 Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Lime Village, Alaska, 2007. Technical Paper No. 355. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Holen, Davin L., William E. Simeone and Liz Williams 2006 Wild Resource Harvests and Uses by Residents of Lake Minchumina and Nikolai, Alaska, 2001-2002. Technical Paper No. 296. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Jonrowe, DeeDee 1980 Middle Kuskokwim Food Survey December 1979. Technical Paper No. 51. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Bethel, Alaska. Hamner, Helen H., Richard Raymond, Fredrick West and Kevin Clark 2002 Shared Information for Fishery Management in AYK. Part 1: AYK Data Inventory and Problem Review. Part 2: Survey of Fishery Researchers and Managers. Regional Information Report No. 3A02-43, Federal Project No. FIS00-016 Final Report No. 00-015. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division, AYK Region, Anchorage, Alaska. Holen, Davin and Terri Lemons 2010 Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Lime Village, Alaska, 2007. Technical Paper No. 355. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Page 38 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Holen, Davin L., William E. Simeone and Liz Williams 2006 Wild Resource Harvests and Uses by Residents of Lake Minchumina and Nikolai, Alaska, 2001-2002. Technical Paper No. 296. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Jonrowe, DeeDee 1980 Middle Kuskokwim Food Survey December 1979. Technical Paper No. 51. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Bethel, Alaska. Kari, James and James A. Fall 2003 Shem Pete's Alaska. The Territory of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. 2nd ed. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska. Kari, Priscilla Russell 1985 Wild Resource Use and Economy of Stony River Vi/loge. Technical Paper No. 108. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Ketchum, Robert Glenn, Bill Sherwonit, Deborah Williams, Jim Stratton and Tim Troll 2003 Wood-Tikchik: Alaska's Largest State Park. Aperture Foundation, New York, N.Y. Kijik Corporation 2011 Kijik Corporation Land Use Plan. Prepared by Agnew::Beck Consulting and approved by the Kijik Corporation Board in March 2011. Klein, David R. 1966 Waterfowl in the Economy of the Eskimos of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Arctic 19(4):319- 336. Kohler, Meera and Ethan Schutt 2012 Energy for a Sustainable Alaska: The Rural Conundrum. Commonwealth North, February 2012. Krauthoefer, Tracie, Jim Simon, Michael Coffing, Madel Kerlin and Wayne Morgan 2007 The Harvest of Non-Salmon Fish by Residents of Aniak and Chuathbaluk, Alaska, 2001-2003. Technical Paper No. 299. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK. Krieg, Theodore M., Philippa Coiley Kenner, Lisa Hutchinson-Scarbrough and Louis Brown 1996 Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Caribou, Moose, and Brown Bear in 12 Alaska Peninsula Communities, 1994/95. Technical Paper No. 240. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Krieg, Theodore, James A. Fall, Charles J. Utermohle and Louis Brown 1998 Subsistence Harvests And Uses of Caribou, Moose, And Brown Bear in 12 Alaska Peninsula Communities, 1995/96 and 1996/97. Technical Paper No. 244. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Krieg, Theodore M., James A. Fall, Molly B. Chythlook, Robbin LaVine and David Koster 2007 Sharing, Bartering, and Cash Trade of Subsistence Resources in the Bristol Bay Area, Southwest Alaska. Technical Paper No. 326. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Krieg, Theodore M., Molly Chythlook, Philippa Coiley Kenner, Davin Holen, Kurt Kamletz and Hans Nicholson 2005 Freshwater Fish Harvest and Use in Communities of the Kvichak Watershed, 2003. Technical Paper No. 297. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Krieg, Theodore M., Davin L. Holen and David Koster 2009 Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in Igiugig, Kokhanok, Koliganek, Levelock, and New Stuyahok, Alaska, 2005. Technical Paper No. 322. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Dillingham, Alaska. ~HATCH .. Page 39 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 MacDonald, Robert and Michael Winfree 2008 Marine Mammals Haulout Use in Bristol Bay and Southern Kuskokwim Bay, Alaska, 2006. A Status Report ofthe 2006 Marine Mammal Monitoring Effort at Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. USDOI, USFWS, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Dillingham, Alaska. Martz, Michael and Craig Whitmore 2005 Lower Kuskokwim River lnseason Subsistence Salmon Catch Monitoring, 2004. Fishery Management Report No. 05-27. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Martz, Michael and B.S. Dull 2006 Lower Kuskokwim River lnseason Subsistence Salmon Catch Monitoring, 2005. Final Report for Study 05-307, USFWS Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Information Services Division. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Mishler, Craig W. 1999 WHISKERS! AskSam Database of Marine Mammals Subsistence and TEK. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. Nadasdy, Paul 1999 The Politics of TEK: Power and the "Integration" of Knowledge. Arctic Anthropology 36(1-2):1-18. Naves, Liliana C. 2010a Alaska Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Estimates, 2004-2007, Alaska Migratory Bird Co- Management Council. March 2010, revised ed. Technical Paper No. 349. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 2010b Alaska Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Estimates, 2008, Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. Technical Paper No. 353. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 2011 Alaska Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvests Estimates, 2009. Technical Paper No. 364. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council and Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 2012 Alaska Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvests Estimates, 2010. Technical Paper No. 376. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council and Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.Naves, Liliana C., David Koster, Marianne G. See, Bridget Easley and Lisa Olson 2008 Alaska Migratory Birds Co-Management Council Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Survey: Assessment of the Survey Methods and Implementation. Special Publication No. 2008-05. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, Alaska. Norvell, N. and Cynthia Wentworth 2004 Subsistence Migratory Bird Harvest Survey, Bristol Bay, 1995-2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and State Programs, Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska. Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative 2011 Calista Region Alternative Energy Update. Orutsararmiut Native Council and City of Bethel 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan. Produced for ONC and the city by WHPacific Incorporated and approved by ONC and the City of Bethel, March 2010. Oswalt, Wendell H. 1963 Napaskiak: An Alaskan Eskimo Community. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. Page 40 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Environmental Conditions Pebble Partnership 2012 Website: Prospecting the Future. Online resource. Port of Anchorage 2012 Cargo Distribution Map. Online resource. http://www.portofalaska.com/business/cargo- distribution.html Perry, Phillip 2010 Unit 18 Moose Management Report. In Moose Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities, 1 July 2007-30 June 2009, edited by P. Harper, pp. 271-285. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Project 1.0, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, Alaska. Pete, Mary 1991 Subsistence Herring Fishing In The Eastern Bering Sea Region: Nelson Island, Nunivak Island, and Kuskokwim Bay. Technical Paper No. 192. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Pete, Mary C., Daniel E. Albrecht and Ronald E. Kreher 1987 Subsistence Herring Fishing in the Nelson Island District and Northern Kuskokwim Bay, 1987. Technical Paper No. 160. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Petterson, JohnS., StevenS. McNabb, William Nebesky, Oran Young, Kevin Waring, Lynn Robbins and Ann Fienup-Riordan, (Impact Assessment, Inc.) 2014 1988 Village Economics in Rural Alaska. Technical Report 132 OCS Study, MMS 88-0079. USDOI, Minerals Management Service, Socioeconomic Studies Program, Anchorage, Alaska. Pratt, Kenneth L., editor 2009 Chasing the Dark: Perspectives on Place, History, and Alaska Native Land Claims. Shadowlands Volume 1. USDOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Region, Division of Environmental and Cultural Resources Management, ANCSA Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Ray, Lily, Caroline Brown, Amy Russell, Tracie Krauthoefer, Crystal Wasillie and Jennifer Hooper 2010 Local Knowledge and Harvest Monitoring of Nonsalmon Fishes in the Lower Kuskokwim River Region, Alaska, 2005-2009. Technical Paper No. 356. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP) 2012 Website: Overview of Child Development Division. Online resource. Schichnes, Janet and Molly B. Chythlook 1988 Use of Fish and Wildlife in Manokotak, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 152. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 1991 Contemporary Use of Fish and Wildlife in Ekwok, Koliganek, and New Stuyahok, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 185. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Seavoy, John N. 2010 Units 19A, 19B, 19C, and 19D Moose. In Moose Management Report of Survey and Inventory Activities 1 July 2007-30 June 2009, edited by P. Harper, pp. 286-319. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Project 1.0, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, Alaska. Schroeder, Robert F., David B. Andersen, Rob Bosworth, Judith M. Morris and John M. Wright 1987 Subsistence in Alaska: Arctic, Interior, Southcentral, Southwest, and Western Regional Summaries. Technical Paper No. 150. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Page 41 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Seim, Sharon G. and Cynthia Wentworth 1996 Subsistence Migratory Bird Harvest Survey, Bristol Bay, 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, Alaska. Seitz, Jody 1996 The Use of Fish and Wildlife in Clark's Point, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 186. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Shelden, Christopher C. and John C. Linderman, Jr. 2007 Activities of the Kuskokwim River Salmon Management Working Group, 2005 Through 2006. Fishery Management Report No. 07-45 Annual Report for Study 06-307, USFWS Office of Subsistence Management, Fisheries Information Services Division. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Simon, James J. K., Tracie Krauthoefer, David Koster and David Caylor 2007 Subsistence Salmon Harvest Monitoring Report, Kuskokwim Fisheries Management Area, Alaska, 2004. Technical Paper No. 313. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Simon, James J. K., Tracie Krauthoefer, David Koster, Michael Coffing and David Caylor 2007 Bethel Subsistence Harvest Monitoring Report, Kuskokwim Fisheries Management Area, Alaska, 2001- 2003. Technical Paper No. 330. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Skoog, Robert 0. 1968 Ecology of the Caribou (Ranqi{er tarandus qranti). Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Biology, University of California. Berkeley, CA. Southwest Alaska Vocational Education Center (SAVEC) 2012 Enrollment and graduation data, Curriculum and Available Training and Workforce preparation (database). Stephen R. Braund & Associates (SRB&A) 2007 PacRim Coal, Chuitna Coal Project, West Cook Inlet, Alaska Subsistence and Traditional Knowledge Studies Subsistence Use Areas and Traditional Knowledge Study for Tyonek and Beluga, Alaska. Report prepared for DRven Corporation by Stephen R. Braund & Associates, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 2010a Subsistence Uses and Traditional Knowledge Study, Koliganek, Alaska. In: Pebble Project Environmental Baseline Document, 2004 through 2008. Appendix 23D, 160 pps. Prepared for Pebble Limited Partnership, July 2010, by SRB&A, Anchorage, Alaska. 201Gb Subsistence Uses and Traditional Knowledge Study, New Stuyahok, Alaska. In: Pebble Project Environmental Baseline Document 2004 through 2008. Appendix 23F, 220 pps. Prepared for Pebble Limited Partnership, July 2010, by SRB&A, Anchorage, Alaska. 2012 Subsistence Uses and Traditional Knowledge-Bristol Bay. In: Pebble Project Environmental Baseline Document, 2004 through 2008. Chapter 23, pp. 1-1801. The Pebble Partnership, Anchorage, Alaska. (http://www.pebbleresearch.com/index.php, accessed February, 2012). Stern, Richard 0., Edward L. Arabia, Larry L. Naylor and Wayne C. Thomas 1980 Eskimos, Reindeer, and Land. Bulletin 59. School of Agriculture and Land Resources Managment, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska. Stickney, Alice A. 1980 Middle Kuskokwim Food Resources Survey: Status Report. Technical Paper No. 52. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. ~HATCH~ Page 42 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 1981 Middle Kuskokwim Food Resources Survey -II. Technical Paper No. 53. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Stokes, Jeff W. 1982 Subsistence Salmon Fishing in ihe Upper Kuskokwim River System, 1981 and 1982. Technical Paper No. 23. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 1983 Winter Moose Season in the Upper Kuskokwim Controlled Use Area, 1982-1983. Technical Paper No. 72. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Nikolai, Alaska. 1984 Natural Resource Utilization of Four Upper Kuskokwim Communities. Technical Paper No. 86. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Stokes, Jeff W. and Elizabeth F. Andrews 1982 Subsistence Hunting of Moose In The Upper Kuskokwim Controlled use Area, 1981. Technical Paper No. 22. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Stratton, Lee and Susan Georgette 1985 Copper Basin Resource Use Map Index and Methodology. Technical Paper No. 124. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. TNR Gold Corporation 2012 Website: Alaska Operations. Online resource. U.S. Census Bureau 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010a Decennial Census (database). 2010b American Community Survey 2006-2010, 5-Year Estimate (database). U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2012 Regional Economic Information System (database). VanStone, James W. 1967 Eskimos of the Nushagak River: An Ethnographic History. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 1984a Exploration and Contact History of Western Alaska. In Arctic, edited by D. Dames, pp. 149-160. Handbook of North American Indians. val. 5, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. 20 vols. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1984b Mainland Southwest Alaska Eskimo. In Arctic, edited by D. Damas, pp. 224-242. Handbook of North American Indians. val. 5, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. 20 vols. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Walker, Robert J. and Michael W. Coffing 1993 Subsistence Salmon Harvests in the Kuskokwim Area during 1989. Technical Paper No. 189. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Ward, Timothy and Nora Horn 2003 Kuskokwim River Salmon Management Working Group Support. Regional Information Report No. 3A03-40 Annual Report for Study 01-116, USFWS Office of Subsistence Management, Fishery Information Service Division. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Ward, Timothy C., Michael W. Coffing, Jeffrey L. Estenen, Roberta L. Fisher and Douglas B. Molyneaux 2003 Annual Management Report for the Subsistence and Commercial Fisheries of the Kuskokwim Area, 2002. Regional Information Report 3A03-27. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. ~HATCH~ Page 43 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 Wentworth, Cynthia 1998 Subsistence Waterfowl Harvest Survey. Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Comprehensive Report, 1987-1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, Alaska. 2004 Subsistence Migratory Bird Harvest Survey. Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 1995-2000. With 1985-2000 Species Tables. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and State Programs, Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska. 2007a Subsistence Migratory Bird Harvest Survey, Bristol Bay, 2001-2005, with 1995-2005 Species Tables. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and State Programs, Anchorage, Alaska. 2007b Subsistence migratory bird harvest survey, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 2001-2005 with 1985-2005 species tables. U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and State Programs, Anchorage, Alaska. Wentworth, Cynthia and Sharon G. Seim 1996 Subsistence Waterfowl Harvest Survey Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Comprehensive Report 1985-1995 and Results 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management in cooperation with Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, Anchorage, Alaska and Bethel, Alaska. Wheeler, Polly and Amy Craver 2005 Office of Subsistence Management and Issues and Challenges of Integrating TEK into Subsistence Fisheries Management. Practicing Anthropology 27(1):15-19. Wheeler, Polly and Tom Thornton 2005 Subsistence Research in Alaska: A Thirty Year Retrospective. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3(1):69- 104. Wheeler, Robert and Claire Alix 2004 Economical and Cultural Significance of Driftwood in Coastal Communities of Southwestern Alaska. Report to the Cooperative Extension Service, Fairbanks, Alaska. (available on line at http://www.uaf.edu.coop-ext/ruraldevelopment/pdfs/driftwood.pdf) Whitmore, Craig and Michael Martz 2005 Activities of the Kuskokwim River Salmon Management Working Group, 2003 through 2004. Fishery Management Report No. 05-25 Final Report for Study 01-116, USFWS Office of Subsistence Management, Fishery Information Services Division. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical Services. Whitmore, Craig, Michael Martz Jr., Douglas G. Bue, John C. Linderman, Jr. and Roberta L. Fisher 2005 Annual Management Report for the Subsistence and Commercial Fisheries of the Kuskokwim Area, 2003. Fishery Management Report No. 05-72. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Whitmore, Craig, Michael Martz Jr., John C. Linderman, Roberta L. Fisher and Douglas G. Bue 2008 Annual Management Report for the Subsistence and Commercial Fisheries of the Kuskokwim Area, 2004. Fishery Management Report No. 08-25. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish and Commerical Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. Wolfe, R.J. 1991 Trapping In Alaska Communities With Mixed, Subsistence-Cash Economies. Technical Paper No. 217. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 2000 Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2000 Update. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. 2004 Local Traditions and Subsistence: A Synopsis from Twenty-Five Years of Research from the State of Alaska, 1978-2003. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ~HATCH~ Page 44 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 2009 An Overview of Subsistence in Alaska. In Synthesis: Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska, edited by S. R. Braund and J. Kruse, pp. 163-192. Alaska OCS Study MMS 2009-006. USDOI, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, Alaska. Wolfe, Robert J., James A. Fall, Virginia Fay, Susan Georgette, James S. Magdanz, Sverre Pedersen, Mary C. Pete and Janet Schichnes 1986 The Role of Fish and Wildlife in the Economies of Barrow, Bethel, Dillingham, Kotzebue, and Nome. Technical Paper No. 154. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert G. Bosworth 1994 Subsistence in Alaska: 1994 Update. Report prepared by Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. {4 pp.) Wright, John M. and Molly B. Chythlook 1985 Subsistence Harvests of Herring Spawn-On-Kelp in the Togiak District of Bristol Bay. Technical Paper No. 116. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska. Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC) 2012 Website: About Us. Online resource. Zavaleta, Erika 1999 The Emergence of Waterfowl Conservation among Yup'ik Hunters in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal27(2):231-267. ~HATCH~ Page 45 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectdc Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility ~Jfort-Velum!" II, Exi_sting Environmental Conditions April2014 Appendix B-list of Environmental Reports Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369 Interim Feasibility Report-Volume II, Existing Environmental Conditions April2014 The following list includes the reports prepared by various environmental and engineering firms regarding the study of the proposed Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project. A copy of these reports can be obtained by contacting Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. ABR 2012 Biological resources in the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project area: Literature review and gap analysis. Report for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc.- Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK. Agnew::Beck Consulting 2012a Recreation and Aesthetics Gap Analysis Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project. Report for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by Agnew:Beck Consulting, Anchorage, AK. 2012b Socioeconomic Data Gap Analysis Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project. Report fat Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by Agnew:Beck Consulting, Anchorage, AK. Dryden and LaRue, Inc. 2013 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel. Report for Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. Anchorage, AK. 2013 Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes Chikuminuk Lake to Dillingham. Report for Nuvista Light and Electric Cooperative, Inc. Anchorage, AK. Northern Land Use Research (NLUR) 2012a Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis: FERC No. P-14369, Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska. 2012b The Role of Subsistence Uses of Fish and Wildlife in the Economies of Western Alaska-Data Gap Analysis FERC No. P-14369. Northern Land Use Research, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska. R2 Resource Consultants, Inc. (R2) 2012 lnstream Flow Program Data Gap Analysis Report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369. Prepared by R2 Resource Consultants, Inc., Redmond, Washington, for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 14 pp. R&M Consultants, Inc. {R&M) 2012a Water Quality Data Gap Analysis Report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. P-14369. Prepared by R&M Consultants, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 11 pp. 2012b Hydrology Data Gap Analysis Report, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project. FERC No. P-14369. Prepared by R&M Consultants, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, for Nuvista Light & Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska. 25pp. ~HATCH~ Page 1