HomeMy WebLinkAboutIndian and Mud Bay Lake Creeks Feasibility Assessment 1983., ..
....
..
.. ,'11
,_ .. 1111
._.........,.,,.-Alaska Power Authority
f T8RARY COPY
CHIGNIK
FINAL DRAFT
Feasibility Report of Small Hydropower
and Envlromental Assessment
POTENTIAL FROM
INDIAN AND. MUD
BAY LAKE CREEKS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MARCH 1983
FINAL DRAFT
FEASIBILITY REPORT
SMALL HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL
FROM
INDIAN AND MUD BAY LAKE
CREEKS
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MARCH 1983
SYLLABUS
The study areas encompass the communities of Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon, located on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula,
approximately 500 miles southwest of Anchorage.
The purpose of this feasibility report and environmental document
is to determine the hydropower potential of two sites located
near Chignik. The two drainages of Indian Creek and Mud Bay
Creek have been evaluated to determine the hydropower potential
available. Additionally, a transmission intertie route carrying
power from these sites to the community of Chignik Lagoon has
been assessed.
In evaluating the hydropower potential of these sites,
replacement of existing diesel generation has been used as a
basis for economic comparison. The drainage basins have been
assessed individually and together.
This study assesses the hydropower potential by evaluating the
power potential, feasible structures, and economic sizing of the
facility appurtenances. Should the plan or plans prove
economically viable and should the project be authorized, final
design whould then be undertaken to complete the plans and
specifications. Therefore, this feasibility report contains
information as to the type of hydropower development contemplated
at these locations. Physical conditions, public attitudes,
national and local priori ties, and environmental impacts have
been assessed. From the alternatives studied, the Indian Creek
plan has been selected based upon evaluation of engineering,
economic, environmental and social factors. An intertie between
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon is marginally feasible, while the Hud
Bay Lake Creek project is not feasible at all.
i
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
PERTINENT DATA
(Based en Recorr~ended Plan of Development)
Project Features:
Reservoir
Elevation of existing lake
surface, feet
Elevation of normal full-
pool water surface, feet
Elevation at minumum operating
pool, feet
Elevation at Spillway Design
Flood, feet
Area of reservoir at full-
pool, acres
Area of reservoir at minumum
pool, acres
Initial active storage capacity,
acre-feet
Active storage after 100-year
sedimentation, acre-feet
Hydrology
Drainage area, square miles
Annual runoff, maximum, acre-feet
Annual runoff, average, acre-feet
Annual runoff, minimum, acre-feet
Dam
Type
Length, feet
Indian Creek
442
455
430
457
33
9
540
540
3
39,700
21,100
13,500
Rock Fill
255
35
460
Mud Bay Creek
127
140
130
143
68
44
560
560
4.5
53,000
28,000
17,800
Concrete
62
20
144
Height of maximum section, feet
Top of dam elevation, feet
Spillway type
Impervious Membrane
Rock volume, cubic yards
Ungated Ogee Ungated
Central Concrete/core
6,000
Ogee
Length, feet
Penstock diameter, inches
Penstock, type
Penstock
ii
5,500
40
Steel
5,100
42
Steel
Intertie
Indian Creek Mud Bay Creek
Length, miles
Type
Voltage, kV
Poles
6.5
SWGR
14.4
\'looden A-frames
Powerhouse
Project Installed Capacity kW
Number of Units each
1,400
1
Type of Turbine
Average Annual Energy (kWh} {1 )
Estimated Usable Energy {1985} (kWh}
Estimated Usable Energy (1995) (kWh} (1 )
Estimated Usable Energy (2005) (kWh) (1 )
Prime Capacity kWh
Francis
6,700,000
4,900,000
6,100,000
6,600,000
Gross Head feet
Design Head feet
Economic Data
Price Level -1982 Basis
With Intertie
Project Investment cost
Project Annual Cost (7 7/8%}
Project Annual Benefit
Net Annual Benefit
Benefit Cost Ratio
Without Intertie
Project Investment Cost
Project Annual Cost (7 7/8%}
Project Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefit
Benefit Cost Ratio
With Intertie.
$12,760,000
$ 1,170,000
$ 1,480,000
$ 310,000
1. 26
$11,500,000
$ 1,040,000
$ 1,370,000
$ 330,000
1.32
(1)
( 2} Built·together with Indian Creek.
iii
0
440
430
500
1
Francis
2,400,000
500,000
1,100,000
1,600,000
0
130
120
$13,550,000(2 )
$ 1,200,000
$ 270,000
(-930,000}
0.23
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYLLABUS •.••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••••••••••
Page
i
PERTINENT DATA... . • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • . ii
SECTION 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
SECTION 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
SECTION 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
SECTION 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
SECTION 5
5.1
5.2
SECTION 6
6. 1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
GENERAL
Authority.
Purpose •••••••••
Scope ••.•.•
Study Participants.
Studies by Others •.•
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Community Profiles .•
Natural Setting .•
Electricity Use .•
FUTURE ENERGY PROJECTIONS
General .•••..•.•.••
Population
Per Capita
Energy Use
Growth •.
Energy Use .•
Projections.
PLAN FORMULATION
General •••••.•.•
Design Layouts •.
NED Plan .•.••.•
CONCLUSIONS AND
Conclusions •.•.•.
Recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
General. •••
Hydrology ..
Geology •.•
Geotechnical ••
Dams, Spillways and Intakes ••
Penstock and Surge Tanks.
Power House •.•......
Transmission System.
Alternative Designs.
Construction Procedures .•
Operation and Maintenance ••
Project Cost .•.•.••
Project Economics .•
Water Supply •..•.••.
....
Design and Construction Considerations ..
Cold \leather Considerations •.••••.••••.•
iv
1
1
4
4
4
6
12
16
17
17
18
18
22
24
26
27
27
28
28
31
34
37
39
41
43
43
46
47
48
58
60
61
61
PLATES
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7 :
8:
Location and Vicinity Map
Indian and Mud Bay Creeks
Transmission Intertie, General Plan
Indian Creek Project, General Plan
Hud Bay Creek Project, General Plan and
Longitudinal Section
Indian Creek Project, Dam End Intake, Plans
and Sections
Indian Creek Project, Power House, Penstock,
Typical Plans and Sections
Mud Bay Creek Project, Dam and Intake, Plans
and Sections
EUVIRONr1ENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Environmental Impact Assessment •.••••••••••••••..••••
A. Need and Objectives ............................ .
B. Alternatives ................................... .
C. Affected Environment •..••..•••.•••.....•.•..•••.
1. Physical .................................. .
2. Biological ................................ .
3. Socioeconomics ............................ .
4. Cultural Resources .••••••••.•.•••••.•.•..••
D. Environmental Effects ••••••.•••••.•••.••..••••••
1. Physical .................................. .
2. Biological ................................ .
3 . Socioeconomics ............................ .
4. Cultural Resources ••••••..••..••••.••..••••
E. Mitigation ..................................... .
1. Physical .................................. .
2. Biological ................................ .
3. Socioeconomics •.•..•...••••.•••..•••.••••••
4. Cultural Resources ••••••••••.•••••••••••.••
F. Culmulative Impacts •••••••••••••••.••••••••.•••.
1. Physical .................................. .
2. Biological ................................ .
3. Socioeconomic ............................. .
4. Cultural Resources .•..••••.•••••••..•••.••.
G. Public Involvement ••••••.•..•.•••.•••..•••••••..
H. Coastal Zone ...•...•...•.....•.........••.•.•...
Bibliograhy ......................................... .
Appendices .......................................... .
v
,
'
1
1
' A
1
i '} EIA-1
EIA-1
EIA-3
EIA-3 ) EIA-6
EIA-16
EIA-19 J EIA-23
EIA-23
EIA-26
EIA-33 I EIA-34
EIA-34
EIA-34 I EIA-35
EIA-37
EIA-37 I EIA-37
EIA-37
EIA-37
EIA-39 I EIA-39
EIA-40
EIA-40 I EIA-41
EIA-44
I
I
I ,
SECTION 1
GENERAL
SECTION 1 -GENERAL
1.1 AUTHORITY
The evaluation of small scale hydroelectric systems was
authorized by a United States Senate Resolution dated 1 October
1976. That resolution directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to determine the feasibility of installing small prepackaged
hydroelectric units in isolated communities throughout Alaska.
The full text of the resolution reads as follows:
RESOLVED BY THE COH.MITTEE ON PUBLIC HORKS OF THE UNITED
STATES SENATE, That the Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors be, and is hereby reauested to review the
reports of the Chief of Engineers ~n Rivers and Harbors
in Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 414,
83rd Congress, 2nd Session; Southeastern Alaska,
published as House Document numbered 501, 83rd
Congress, 2nd Session; Cook Inlet and Tributaries,
Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 137, 84th
Congress, 1st Session; Southwestern Alaska, published
as House Document Numbered 99, 86th Congress, 1st
Session, Yukon and Kuskokwim River Basins, Alaska,
published as House Document, Numbered 218, 88th
Congress, 2nd Session; and other pertinent reports,
with a view to determining the advisability of
modifying the existing plans with particular reference
to the feasibility of installing the 5 HH or less
prepackaged hydroelectric plants to service isolated
communities.
1.2 PURPOSE
To provide an analysis of the hydropower potential from the
drainage areas of Indian and Hud Bay Lake Creeks. This study
analyzes the power needs of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon and the
power availability from the sited drainage areas including the
intertie from Chignik to Chignik Lagoon (reference Plates 1 and
2) •
1
-z
CJ -I
u
(;;=====~
f
0
/
./
./
/
/
/
I
I
/
/
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
I
I
I
I
< ~ rn ,....< w....a 1-< < . ...J~ a..z 0 J: (.) "' a: w
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-b·r I
I INCH: 1000 FEET
PLATE 2
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
INDIAN AND
MUD BAY CREEKS
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1.3 SCOPE
To formulate a conceptual plan for small hydropower development
based on various schemes analyzed for each site, consideration
was given to the economic, environmental and social factors
involved. These factors are in turn weighted against the overall
project development costs related to diesel replacement cost of
power. An environmental assessment of the power development has
also been addressed.
1.4 STUDY PARTICIPANTS
A multidisciplinary team composed of the following organizations
and agencies assisted the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers in
preparation of this report.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Public Health Service
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Alaska Power Administration (Federal)
Alaska Power Authority (State)
Arctic Slope Technical Services
The cooperation of the people of the Chignik region and the
Alaska Packers Cannery is gratefully acknowledged.
1.5 STUDIES BY OTHERS
The power requirements and potential for hydropower developments
in the Chignik area were also assessed in the following study
reports:
"Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential," Phase 1,
December 1979. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Alaska Power Administration, by Robert W. Retherford
Associates, Arctic District of International Engineering
Co., Inc., Anchorage, Alaska.
"Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small
Hydropower Projects -Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula and
Kodiak Island, Alaska," October 1980. Prepared for
Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
by Ebasco Services, Incorporated. ·
Draft 1982, Community profiles for the villages of Chignik
and Chignik Lagoon done by Environmental Services Limited
for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.
"Kotzebue Coal-fired Cogeneration, District Heating and
Other Energy Alternatives Feasibli ty Assessment, 11 November
1982. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by a joint
venture of Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.; Ralph
Stefano & Associates, Inc.; and VECO, Inc.
4
"Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and
Alternatives for Chignik Lake," July 1982. Prepared by
Northern Techincal Services and Van Gulik and Associates for
the Alaska Power Authority.
Although a great divergence of opinions as to the projection of
future power requirements exists, the first two of the above
studies note the potential for small hydropower developments in
the Chignik area.
5
SECTION 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SECTION 2 -EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILES
2.1.1 History
The villages of Chignik (Photo 1) and Chignik Lagoon (Photo 2),
are located on the south shore of the Alaska Peninsula. The name
Chignik is an Aleut word meaning "wind". Prior to Chignik, a
Kaniagmiut Native village called Kaluak was located there. The
village was destroyed during the Russian fur boom of the late
1700's. Chignik was established as a fishing village and cannery
in the second half of the 19th century. A four-masted sailing
ship called the Start of Alaska transported workers and supplies
between Chignik and San Francisco. Chinese crews from San
Francisco travelled to Chignik in early spring to make tin cans
for the cannery. Japanese workers followed in mid-June to begin
processing. Two canneries operated in Chignik during the first
part of the 20th century. Today, only one cannery is in
operation. However, a second cannery has recently been built,
but has yet to be put into operation. A post office was
established in 1901.
2.1. 2
Year
1890
1939
1950
1960
1970
1980
Population {Source U.S. Bureau of Census)
Chignik
193
224
253
99
83
178
Chignik Lagoon
108
45
48
There are 48 houses in Chignik, and the active cannery has
bunkhouses for its seasonal workers. A few newer houses in good
condition are scattered throughout the community, however, most
of the houses are in fair to poor condition. There are usually
three or four vacancies in the winter, but when people move to
Chignik in the summer for fishing, a severe housing shortage
occurs. During the summer fishing season, approximately 600-700
people move to Chignik from Kodiak, Anchorage, Seward, Seattle,
and villages throughout the region to fish and work in the
cannery.
In Chignik Lagoon some of the community's 61 single family houses
are new; others are substandard. The majority are in good
condition. Houses are of wood frame or prefabricated
construction; most are owner built. There is sufficient housing
for village residents. Nany people who arrive each summer to
fish have summer cabins in or near the village. Others live on
their boats for the summer. The vacancy rate is about 80 percent
in the winter.
6
Chignik Village and Cannery (Looking North East)
Chignik Village (Looking North East)
Photo 1
Chignik Lagoon (Looking South West)
Photo 2
2.1. 3 Government and Services
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are unincorporated communities
recognized by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and
located within an Unorganized Borough. The village's Native
populations are represented by an eight or nine member
traditional council. After adopting a constitution and bylaws,
the councils were recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) as the official traditional governing body of each village.
The village councils are entitled to participate in various state
and federal programs.
The village of Chignik is in the process of filing a petition to
incorporate as a second class city. Incorporation will allow the
village to receive title to its townsite lands, and make it
eligible to receive funding for a much needed small boat harbor.
As a second class city, it will receive a percentage of the
state's raw fish tax and will be eligible for increased revenue
sharing funds.
2 .1. 4 Land Ownership
The villages are under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) of 1971. Chignik's Native Corporation, Far West, Inc.,
is entitled to select 115, 200 acres of land from the Federal
Government while Chignik Lagoon is entitled to select 94,080. As
of this writing, the Chignik corporation has received interim
conveyance (working title) from the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) for 107,244 acres of unsurveyed land, while Chignik Lagoon
has received 89,511 acres. A patent will be issued once the
boundary descriptions are confirmed with a survey. Pursuant to
ANCSA, the village corporation has title to the surface estate
while the regional corporation, Bristol Bay Native Corporation,
holds the subsurface rights.
Chignik has an approved federal townsite survey and is waiting
for a patent to be issued to the BLb-1 Townsite Trustee. When the
paten~ is issued, the trustee will issue deeds to parcels of land
to individuals and organizations for private parcels.
Chignik Lagoon has a patented federal townsite consisting of 123
acres. It is managed by a BLM Townsite Trustee who issues deeds
to the parcels of land to individuals and organizations. Those
lands used for public purposes within the townsite will be deeded
to the municipality if and when Chignik Lagoon incorporates.
2.1. 5 Transportation
The villages are primarily accessible by air and sea. There are
no roads connecting the villages to any other community.
Peninsula Airways based in King Salmon flies scheduled mail
service to the villages and also provides charter service. A
1, 700 feet by 80 feet gravel runway exists at Chignik Lagoon
while Chignik's runway is 2,800 feet by 100 feet. The airports
9
are owned by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT/PF). The State annually contracts with local
residents to maintain the airstrips. There is also a public
domain seaplane base at Chignik.
At Chignik, State maintained roads include the 2.5 mile Chignik
airport road and approximately one-half mile of local roads. The
North Star Barge stops in Chignik once a year. Supplies from the
barge must be lightered to shore. The cannery owns a dock for
unloading fishing vessels.
The Alaska Marine Highway ferry system provides scheduled service
to Chignik three to four times a year beginning in May, with
scheduled stops in June, September, and occasionally October. In
June, 1982 it cost $44 per person and $143 per vehicle to travel
from Chignik to Kodiak by ferry.
At Chignik Lagoon there is approximately one-half mile of local
roads, which are maintained by residents under contract to the
village council. There is no dock or harbor in· Chignik Lagoon.
The North Star barge brings supplies to the village once a year,
either in the spring or summer. The barge stops offshore. Cargo
must be lightered ashore.
2. 1. 6 Economy
Fishing is the mainstay of the cash economy of the villages.
Beginning around the second week in June, residents prepare to
fish for red salmon and successive runs of pink, dog (chum) and
silver salmon. Fish are taken in purse seiners and delivered to
the local cannery or to Kodiak for freezing. Chignik is the
major fishing community in the area, with boats, crews and
families from several area villages and elsewhere congregating
here during the salmon season.
The economic well-being of the whole region depends on the
success of the salmon fishing. Salmon runs have been good the
last several years. The 1981 Chignik red salmon runs of
3,072,599 fish broke the previous record set in 1888. Runs for
other salmon species approached record numbers in 1981. For
example, the 103 fishing boats in the Chignik area in 1981 caught
a total of $22,090,000 worth of salmon (all species) averaging
$214,446 per vessel. Red salmon comprised the major portion of
the total catch of 3,621,800 fish.
In addition to the historical salmon fishery, herring roe and
crab have been commercially harvested in recent years.
Other jobs in the communities include teachers, teacher's aides,
maintenance persons, cooks at the schools, and a U.S. Postal
Service employee. A health aide is hired through the Bristol Bay
Health Corporation. At Chignik, the village council employs a
maintenance person for the electrical system and the state hires
an airport maintenance man.
10
' l
' ' l
L
• • •
t
People in the region supplement their income with subsistence
hunting and fishing.
2 .1. 7 t-linerals
Although there are high potential mining areas near Chignik Bay,
there has been little mining activity in the area.
Coal deposits consisting of bituminous and lignite beds, closely
spaced and up to 7 feet in thickness, have been identified in a
belt 1 to 3 miles wide and 25 miles long on the west shore of
Chignik Bay. Mining the coal was attempted from 1899 to 1915.
Transportation and access problems, however, make development of
this deposit economically infeasible at this time. Residents
currently obtain sand and gravel from the beach.
2 .1. 8 Health Care
At Chignik, health care is provided by a privately-owned clinic
operated by the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation with funding
from the Alaska Area Native Health Service. The cannery also
provides health care for its employees.
Patients who cannot be treated at the clinic are sent on charter
or scheduled flights to the BBAHC hospital at Kanakanak or to
clinics or hospitals in larger communi ties, such as Anchorage,
for treatment.
2 .1. 9 Water
At Chignik, a dam on Indian Creek was built in 1947 to provide a
reservoir for the cannery and the village residents. A
transmission line distributes water from the dam to the cannery.
This use is recognized by the State of Alaska issuance of water
rights (case Serial No. 46026) to appropriate 2,000 gallons per
minute from Indian Creek to the Alaska Packers Associates. Five
homes, which have buried lines connected to the main transmission
line, have water all winter. Other homes are connected via
above-ground line. These lines often freeze in the winter. When
this happens, residents carry water from the cannery. The water
is untreated, but of good quality. Six houses and the school
have private wells.
Residents of Chignik Lagoon use individual wells as their water
source. The wells average 10 to 30 feet in depth. The school
has its own hand-dug well. The water is untreated, but of good
quality.
2.1.10 Sewage
There are no community sewage treatment facilities. Most homes
have flush toilets with septic tanks or seepage pits. Some homes
have privies. The schools and cannery have septic tanks.
11
2.1.11 Solid Waste
At Chignik, trash is burned and solid waste that cannot be burned
is dumped in the slough behind the village offices.
At Chignik Lagoon garbage is dumped on the sandy point near the
airport and burned. The tide washes away the residue.
2.2 NATURAL SETTING
2.2.1 Climate
The villages of Chignik Lagoon and Chignik are located on the
south side of the Alaska Peninsula. The villages are partially
protected from the most severe southerly Pacific storms by a
ridge of mountains rising to 3,000 feet. The high frequency of
cyclonic storms crossing the Northern Pacific and the Bering Sea
are the predominant weather factors. These storms account for
the frequent high winds and the frequent occurrence of fog and
low visibility.
The climate at Chignik is basically maritime, due to the nearness
of extensive open ocean areas. Temperature extremes, both
seasonal and diurnal, are generally confined to fairly narrow
limits, with differences between maximum and minimum temperatures
for all individual months averaging less than l5°F. Temperatures
below 0 op are unusual. However, they do occur in occasional
years when the Bering Sea freezes and allows the influx of cold
continental air.
Precipitation of more than one hundredths of an inch occurs about
170 days per year. The greatest observed precipitation rate is
7. 3 inches per 24 hours. Snow has been observed every month,
except June, July, August and September. The greatest recorded
monthly snowfall was 31 inches in February of 1931.
Seasonal periods are poorly defined at Chignik due to the
moderating effects of the nearby ocean areas. The beginning of
spring is late; vegetation begins to grow in late May. August is
regarded as midsummer and autumn arrives early in October. The
greatest frequency of fog occurs from mid-July to mid-September.
Table 2. 2. 1 provides a summary of the climate data obtained at
Chignik.
12
l
l
l
' L
' I
&
L
L
L
' I
TABLE 2.2.1
CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUMHARY
ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL INfORMATION ANO DATA CENTeR
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
\TIOH LATITUDE 0 LONGITUDE 0 ELEVATION -.. -. ......... -v ~v -~Jv ~-.
TEHPeRA TURE (0 F)
Heans £xtremes
5 ~ >. ro~ ....
>. e "'"' e .r::: '"' 0. .... ---... B~ ... -)( ..... c c ,;
I'll 10 10 ..... 0 ~i Ill
0;): c:x: :X:: )"
12 12 12 111
32 4 22.0 26 9 ~8 1968
31.2 19.6 25.1 ~7 971+
33. 1 20.5 26 8 ')0 1 Q7l.
38.9 26.6 32.6 51 1930
45.9 33.8 39 4 169 196R
54.2 40.4 44.3 72 11974~
59.6 44.9 52 3 176 11971
60.6 45.8 52.8 72 1969
c;o 3 14 r o 144 4 175 11910
45. 1 34. 1 39 4 163 1967
39. 1 27. 1 33.5 157 1970
14.4 21.7 29 0 55 11970
43.7 29.7 i37.2 76 1971
Period of Record
Less than one half
"'0 u
'"' Ill 0 Ill ...
u ) Ill
Ill 0 Ill'
C:::,...J >-
13
-12 1971
_q 1974
-Hl 11 Q7c;
5 1971
1 ') 11 C)7 3
30 1930
11 It 910
33 1928
?7 11 Q7h~
.-.l!L 1 q 7 n-i
4 1930
' 11 Q7'i~
-12 1971
u
Ill
Ill
4.J >. c , ....
Ill III'P4
Ill .... "' :X:: (.!)0
12 11
0~52 7 15
11. 21' 5 80
6. 36 3.~
4.50 2. 90
11 44 ~
A 44 3 60
4 Afi 1 68
~ 7. 1 c;
' 7c; L..l.2
10.99 6.52
12.01 4.82
R 87 l! . 4C
l07.9 5 7 1
Also on earlier dates, months, or years
Trace, an amount too small to measure
PRECIPIT1\T10N (IN INCHES)
Snow, Ice Pellets
.d
4.J o.
Ill
0
"'0 u 4.1 4.J 4-JC
Ill >. Ill >. Ill Ill :I
Ill .... ~~~-Ill 1110 u.c 4-J.S: 4.J >. 4.J ,. ... Ill u ... c Ill 4.J ... Ill .... ... ro<.:> ...
Ill Ill c: Ill "' Ill c Ill cu .... Ill Ill "' Ill ... 0 Ill Ill '"' 0 Ill '"' "' Ill ~g QJ )" <.:>:X: >-:X:: <.:>:X: >-(.:)Q >-)"
11 11 11 10 11
1930 ~Q RQ 1910 8.9 ?7. 2 1 911 9 1 1975 23 197 2-+
1927 b? /tQ J.31B. 1fi 0 11 0 1 Clh q 12.0 1929 34 197 3
1928 l2..s1.Q. 1974 A 3 lA 0 1Q69 8.0 1969 47 1972
1970 7.48 1968 6.0 18.2 1972 8.0 1928 57 1973
1910 1'1 71 1930 1.1 5 3 1971 ') 1 1 971 1)9 197 3
196Q b7 ?c; 1Q(;Q 0 0 -0 -n -
1929 11 1 h 1 1 Q71 0 0 -0 -0 -
1927 18 09 J...2.2l 0 0 _Q_ La----1 Q?7 lit.. 1!.. 1929 n T 1972 'T' 1 Q7? 0 -
1930 20.13 1930 3.8 12.0 1927 10.0 1927 10 1927
192R In qq 1 Q?Q l..fi , .o 1 Q10 1 4 1 1 Q7c; 7 1 977·
1927 18.81 1928 9.1 25.5 1930 9.0 1930 16 1928
, 91( i 'l,/, '>.l l'l7. 8 192C: 31 . 0 1969 11. 1 197') ')Q 1971
WIND MEAN NUHBER OF' DAY
0 Temperature .... . Max Hin
Ill
c: '"' 0 0 >--..... E -.r::: 00 u
'"' a. t: c ro '"' :I 8 ..... 0 u 0 o ....... --..... "'0 "'0 "'0
:X: ..... 4.J 0.1/l c: c c "'0
"'0 ro u ..... Ill
"' Ill ro:r "' ) c ) c Ill > Ill u.s: > 0 0 111 0
Ill Ill Ill "" Ill u 0 0 0 ..... 0 ..... .....
Ill 0. ~;5 '"' c o.c C'ollll C'ol ClJ 0 ~
:X::Cil P-4~ "< ~!:Q ~!:Q OI:IJ
N 5 7 12 12 12 12
0 SE 6 0 10 24 2
T NW ~ n 10 ?1 ?
NW R n 11 25 2
A NW 6 0 3 22 0
v .s..L 7 n * 10 0
A SE c; * 0 1 0
1 lsw 4 1 0 o n
L SW 5 1 0 0 *
A w 9 * 0 2 *
B INW 1 1 n 1 , o
T NW 10 0 5 21 * -
E w Q n I 12 I ?l.. n
NW 89 2 52 ~64 6
2.2.2 Regional Geology
The Alaska Peninsula is divided into two
physiographic sub-provinces. The major
Aleutian Mountain Range and the Bering Sea
lowlands adjacent to the Pacific Ocean
division.
rna j or and one minor
divisions are the
lowlands. The narrow
constitute the minor
The two proposed dam sites at Hud Bay Lake Creek and Indian Creek
are located on the Alaska Peninsula, in the vicinity of the
village of Chignik. The villages lie on the so~theast coast of
the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 275 miles east of Unimak
Pass, the separation between the Alaska Peninsula and the
Aleutian Islands; approximately 450 miles southwest of Seward,
Alaska and approximately 270 miles northwest of Kodiak Island.
The study area is located between 158 and 159 degrees west
longitude and 56 and 57 degrees latitude. The villages border
the Pacific Ocean.
Geologically, sedimentary rocks or Mid-Jurassic to Late
Cretaceous shale, sandstone, and conglomerate compose the
basement of the northeast headlands of the Chignik Peninsula.
Tertiary formations of sedimentary rocks, especially siltstones
and interbedded volcanic lavas, are found to the southwest of the
older headland formations. The area was glaciated during the
Wisconsin period. This area is on the Pacific "ring of fire" of
seismically active areas but has been generally free of earth-
quakes of more than 5 on the Richter scale. Mt. Veniaminof (8450
feet), is located about 30 miles west of Chignik; it last erupted
in 1944.
In the vicinity of the two proposed dam sites, the lowlands are
extremely narrow and limited in area. Notably, in the Hud Bay,
Anchorage Bay, and Negro Head areas, the mountains rise directly
from the ocean. Faulting and uplift has raised the land mass
southeast of Chignik Lagoon to the general altitude of the
Aleutian Mountain Range, which can be in excess of 3000 feet. In
the area between Chignik Lagoon and Kuiukta Bay, the adjacent
Pacific lowlands are usually less than one-half mile wide and
consist of alluvial material.
2. 2. 3 Dam Sites
Mud Bay Lake Creek is approximately 2.5 miles long, drains
generally to the north from an elevation of approximately 500
feet to sea-level, and exits into Hud Bay. The valley is fairly
wide, 2. 2 to 1. 4 miles crest to crest, north to south, with a
small lake approximately 30 acres in size at elevation 127 feet.
The western valley walls are relatively steep and have slopes
ranging from 18 to 38 percent. Near the northwestern valley wall
crest slopes approach vertical. The eastern valley wall is less
steep at the mouth and has slopes of approximately 24 percent.
The valley walls narrow to the south and slopes approach
47 percent in the southeastern area of the valley. The drainage
14
J
J
j
area is approximately 5 square miles with one small tributary
stream, approximately one half mile in length, entering the main
stream north of the lake at 127 feet elevation. Upstream of the
lake, the valley floor is relatively wide and very gently
sloping. The average stream gradient is approximately 4 percent
over the 2.5-mile length. (Refer to Plates 2 and 5.)
Indian Creek is approximately 3.5 miles long and drains generally
north-northwest from an elevation of 1200 feet to sea-level
exiting through the flatlands containing the village of Chignik
into Anchorage Bay. The valley is relatively narrow and
approximately 1.5 miles wide (crest to crest). The valley walls
are steeply sloping, ranging from 50 percent to near vertical
along the upper valley walls. A small timber dam and lake
impoundment are located at elevation 442 feet. These facilities
provide both water (via elevated pipeline) and limited power to
the cannery at Chignik. The average stream gradient is
15 percent from headwaters to mouth. The stream is generally
very incised downstream of the dam and lake. (Refer to Plates 2
and 4.)
2.2.4 Biology
Major wildlife species of the region are the five important
salmon species that support the economy of the people, a few
brown bears, moose and occasionally small bands of caribou. The
Chignik River salmon fishery is a major concern of all public and
private interests because of its impressive size and continued
support of a large portion of the Alaskan fishing economy.
Vegetation of the project environs is classified as predominantly
Closed Tall Shrub Scrub or Open Tall Shrub Scrub, with a few
areas of alpine tundra. Sitka alder and American green alder are
the major woody species in the Shrub Scrub areas, with several
species of willow and other low shrubs present. Bluejoint and
fescue grasses are important understory plants. Sedges
predominate in the alpine tundra areas.
2.2.5 Anthropology and Archeology
The Alaska Peninsula has been of particular interest to
anthropologists because, at the time of European contact, three
separate ethnic and racial groups existed in this area: the
Aleuts, Eskimos and Athabaskans. The most recent research on the
peninsula seems to indicate that the Chignik region on the
Pacific coast west to Port Moller on the Bering Sea coast was the
northernmost extent of the Aleutian tradition. The prehistoric
boundary between the groups probably fluctuated somewhat
throughout time, so precise boundaries cannot be drawn.
The University of Oregon performed some archeological surveys and
excavations in the Chignik area as part of their long-tern
program on Alaska Peninsula prehistory. Several sites were
15
~-------~~~------
located and tested on the Chignik River between Chignik Lake and
Chignik Lagoon.
The majority of these sites have assemblages closely related to
those from the Hot Springs collection at Port Holler and other
collections from Izembek Lagoon at the tip of the Alaska
Peninsula.
2.3 ELECTRICITY USE
2.3.1 Existing Systems and Use
At Chignik, the village council operates two 175-kvl generators
and one 75-kW generator. The generators provide power to
approximately 27 homes. Three more homes will be added to the
system in June 1982. In Hay 1982, power cost 30 cents per
kilowatt hour. The operational cannery has three 300-kH
generators and one 250-kW generator. This cannery also diverts
some of its water through a 60 k~·l-impulse turbine to produce
power. The new cannery (not yet operational) has installed one
10-kH, one 60-kW and two 500-kW diesel electric generators.
Hence the overall available diesel electric generation capacity
totals 2,645 kW. Fuel oil is the primary heat source for the
village, however, many households also use wood.
There is no central generator in Chignik Lagoon. Individual
homes or groups of two to three homes operate small generators of
4 to 10 kW. There are approximately 30 small generators in the
village. The school has its own power plant (two 15-kW
generators). Electrical usage increases significantly during the
summer fishing season. Fuel oil burned in pot burner furnaces is
the primary heat source for the village. Several households also
burn wood gathered from the beach.
2.3.2 Fuel Use and Availability
Chevron's tanker, Alaska Standard, delivers fuel from Valdez
about once a month to the cannery. The fuel is stored at the
cannery's 130, 000-gallon tank farm and in the school's storage
tanks. The cannery sells fuel directly to the villagers, the
school and the Chignik Electrical Association. In May 1982, fuel
oil cost $1.40 a gallon. Gasoline was $1.50 a gallon. Since the
community's fuel supply often gets very low in winter, the
village would like to install a large bulk fuel storage facility.
In Chignik, a 5-kW wind generator at a private residence began
successfully operating in the spring of 1982. It is estimated
that the wind at Chignik averages at least 10 mph.
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
SECTION 3
FUTURE ENERGY PROJECTIONS
SECTION 3 -FUTURE ENERGY PROJECTIONS
3.1 GENERAL
In order to properly assess the future power demands, projections
of these requirements are necessary. Since almost no historical
energy use information is available for the Chignik area and
since by its nature it is highly speculative, the per capita and
household energy use projections on the recent studies done by
the Alaska Power Authority (APA) for the City of Kotzebue and
Chignik Lake have been utilized (reference Section 1.5). A
shortfall in overall hydropower energy availability exists when
the current operational cannery load is considered. Any
additional energy requirements from other industries or
expansion of the current cannery operation would have to be met
by sources other than the hydropower scheme herein studied.
3.2 POPULATION GROWTH
Table 3.2.1 shows the projected population growing at a rate of
2. 3 percent until the turn of the century and then 1 percent
thereafter ( 1 ) • While the Chignik Lake ( 3 ) study ( 2 ) pro-
jected growth rates of 2.0 percent, the projections are
considered most realistic when we look at the history of the
Chignik fishery, the harbors and canneries at Chignik, and what
is projected in the future for the overall Alaskan village growth
and the area fishing economy.
( 1)
(2)
( 3)
APA's November 1982 Kotzebue Feasibility Study.
APA's July 1982 Chignik Lake Reconnaissance Study.
Chignik Lake is a new village established in 1950.
Population data exists for the short period of 1960 to 1980.
17
TABLE 3.2.1
POPULATION PREDICTION
Basis Chig:nik Grmvth Rate ChJ.g:nik Lagoon
{Percentage) (Individuals) (Percentage) {Individuals)
1980 25 178 0 48
1985 25 199 2.3 54
1990 37.5 223 2.3 60
1995 50 250 2.3 68
2000 62.5 280 2.3 76
2005 75 295 1.0 80
2010 87.5 310 1.0 84
2015 . 100 326 1.0 88
2020 100 342 1.0 92
2025 100 360 1.0 97
2030 100 378 1.0 102
2035 100 397 1.0 107
3.3 PER CAPITA ENERGY USE
As is the case in many of the Alaskan rural communities, energy
use is currently growing faster than in the larger cities. This
energy use gap will close, it is believed, near the turn of the
century, when the usc will be considered constant. Table 3.3.1
depicts this energy use projection. Electric resistance heaters
are estimated provide 25 percent (25%) of the space heating
demand by 1985 increasing to 100 percent (100%) by year 2020.
TABLE 3.3.1
kWh PER CAPITA
Household s:eace Heat Hot Total
Electricity Water
1985 4,952 2,925 760 8,639
1990 6,280 4,508 975 11,916
1995 6.870 6,200 1,520 15,410
2000 7,689 7,969 2,075 19,381
2005 10,119 8,627 2,310 21,058
2010 10,119 9,585 2,310 22,016
2015 10,119 11,183 2,310 23,614
2020 10,119 12,780 2,310 25,211
2025 10,119 12,780 2,310 25,211
2030 10,119 12,780 2,310 25,211
2035 10,119 12,780 2,310 25,211
3.4 ENERGY USE PROJECTIONS
The projected future power requirements and monthly energy demand
distributions are shown on Table 3.4.1. It should be noted that
the greatest power demands occur during the summer \'lhen the
cannery is at peak operation and when most water for power
generation is also available. Figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2
graphically show the community and industry demands. Figure
18
3. 4.1 deals with the energy usage at Chignik. It shows the
projected total demand with the new cannery (freezer plant) as
well as the needs of the operating cannery alone. Figure 3.4.2
shows the demand requirements for Chignik Lagoon as well as the
projected total for Chignik. It should be noted that no records
exist to determine the historical energy uses in the villages.
YEl\.R
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TABLE 3.4.1
FUTURE POWER REQUIREMENT PROJECTIONS (MWh)
CHIGNIK
LAGOON CHIGNIK TOTAL
500
700
1,000
1,400
1,700
1,900
2,200
2,300
2,400
2,600
2,700
Without With Without
Cannery Cannery Cannery
1,700 7,100 2,200
2,700 8,900 3,400
3,900 10,900 4,900
5,400 13,300 6,800
6,500 14,800 8,200
7,300 16,100 9,200
8,200 17,600 10,400
8,600 18,400 10,900
9,100 19,400 11,500
9,500 20,400 12,100
10,000 20,900 12,700
MONTHLY ENERGY DE~~ND DISTRIBUTION
(PERCENT)
1981-2000
9
10
11
10
9
6
3
7
a
9
9
9
Community
2005-2035
9.5
11
12
11
a
6
3
6
7
8
9
9.5
With
Cannery
7,600
9,600
11,900
14,700
16,500
18,000
19,800
20,700
21,800
23,000
23,600
Industrial
1985-2005
9.25
9.25
9.25
6
2.75
9.75
16.75
9.75
2.75
6
9.25
9.25
1 Based on the "Bristol Bay and Electric Power Potential,"
report for a typical small Alaskan Peninsula Community with
and without a fish processing plant. Modified to include
future use of electricity for space heating.
19
0
10 co a» ...
NOTE: Historically no energy
uae data exists
•Low• = Total less
freezing plant and
space heating
10
C')
0 0
N N 0
N
YEAR
Figure 3.4. 1
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Small Hydropower Feasibility Study
CHIGNIK ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
6,00._..0t---------------------
0
~£~"'"""'~.Jc~~,2~01&'*''"'
year Figure 3.4.2
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
mall Hydropower Feasibility Study
CHIGNIK AND CHIGNIK LAGOON
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SECTION 4
PLAN FORMULATION
SECTION 4 -PLAN FORMULATION
4.1 GENERAL
Two drainages have been analyzed to determine their hydropower
potential to serve, on an economic basis, the villages of Chignik
and Chignik Lagoon.
Other alternative energy sources were not considered in this
study although certain resources and measures should be noted.
The availability of wind energy and thermal conservation are
obvious. No judgement is made in this study as to whether or not
wind is economically viable. Fuel resources such as wood and
peat fuel are not readily available in the Chignik area, whereas
water is; consequently hydropower is the subject of this study.
4 .1. 2 Existing Water Project on Indian Creek
At Indian Creek Lake, elevation 442 feet, there is a wood
buttress dam 20 to 25 feet high (reference Photo 3), reported to
have been constructed in 19 4 7. However, the community leader
present at the public meeting dated the use of water for power
generation back to 1925.
The present water project conveys basin run-off through a wood
stave/steel pipe, approximately 10 inches by 6,500 feet, down to
Anchorage Bay for community and cannery water supply and to a
60-kW pelton-wheel in the cannery. The latter is used primarily
to balance the pressure on the water mains. Both the dam and
wood stave pipe have served their time and would have to be
replaced if a hydropower development is to ensure continuous
operation. The pipeline itself also would be much too small to
accommodate the actual discharge of a hydropower scheme.
22
Existing Indian Creek Dam and Spillway
(Looking North East)
Plate 3
.,'1
l ..
4.2 DESIGN LAYOUTS
4.2.1 General
Below is a brief description of the two small hydropower
developments on Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek, and the
transmission line between Chignik and Chignik Lagoon.
4.2.2 Indian Creek Project
Reference Plates 4, 6 and 7.
The Indian Creek Project would utilize the head between Indian
Creek Lake at elevation 442 feet, and the Chignik Flats, at
elevation 15 feet.
An approximately 35-foot-high rockfill dam with a central
concrete impervious membrane partly substitutes for the existing
wooden dam now used for water supply, and partly raises the
present water level 13 feet to 455 feet. A maximum drawdown of
25 feet creates a small 540-acre-foot pool. From the dam, the
discharge is conveyed through an elevated 40-inch diameter steel
penstock 5,500 feet along the existing water supply pipe down to
the flats behind Chignik. A 15-foot diameter, 70-foot high surge
tank at the top of the bluff ensures smooth performance of the
generating unit.
The generating unit with a Francis turbine generates 1,400 kW at
a maximum discharge of 43.8 cubic feet per second under a maximum
net head of 430 feet. The potential average energy capability
would be 6,700,000 kWh annually. The tailwater would be
discharged through a system of ditches and ponds across the
flats to the open channel that exist between the cannery and the
village and then into the sea.
4.2.3 Hud Bay Creek
See Plates 5, 7 and 8.
The Mud Bay Creek Project would utilize the head between the Mud
Bay Creek Lake, at elevation 127 feet, and the sea.
A 20-foot-high concrete weir raises the lake level to an
elevation of 140 feet. A maximum drawdown of 10 feet creates a
small, 560-acre-foot pool.
A 42-inch diameter elevated steel penstock conveys the discharge
the 5,100 feet down to the powerhouse at the head of Mud Bay.
Half the penstock runs through a very steep gorge.
A 20-foot diameter, 50-foot-high surge tank just above the
powerhouse ensures smooth performance of the generating unit.
24
The generating unit with its Francis turbine would generate 500
kW at a maximum discharge of 58.3 cubic feet per second under a
maximum net head of 120 feet.
The potential average energy capability would be 2,400,000 kWh
annually.
The tailwater is discharged directly into the sea.
Mud Bay is evaluated as developed in addition to Indian Creek for
the following reasons:
The potential is much less as the runoff
higher than Indian Creek, while the design
28 percent of that of Indian Creek.
is 33
head
percent
is only
The economic feasibli ty is deemed poorer than for Indian
Creek, as the length of the penstock alignment is about the
same for both schemes (5,100 to 5,500 feet), the economy in
reservoirs about the same (poor) for both and construction
costs relatively higher for Mud Bay due to more costly
access/transport.
Developing Mud Bay in addition to Indian Creek means that usable
energy is limited to what Indian Creek cannot supply. As the
demand during the first years is in the same order as the Indian
Creek potential, very little of the Hud Bay potential would be
usable then. According to the report the Mud Bay potential will
not be used in full until the end of the 50 year period in
question.
Overall the Mud Bay Creek Project showed only negative net
benefits when judged solely on an overall economic basis.
4.2.4 Intertie
Reference Plate 3.
The 6. S-mile transmission intertie between Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon is proposed to be a SWGR (single wire ground return) line
on wooden A-frame poles. In a salt water environment, the SWGR
should work well. Life expectancy of SWGR concept is judged to
equal the conventional constructed lines.
The intertie would pass close by the Mud Bay powerhouse site.
Initial voltage would be 14.4 kV, which is compatible with the
existing Chignik generators and distribution. There is no
voltage or distribution system to match in Chignik Lagoon.
Hi th fewer structures generally required
vegetation, wildlife and birds will be less.
25
the effect on
Since no distribution systems currently exist at Chignik Lagoon,
one would have to be constructed as part of the intertie system.
4.3 NED PLAN
Federal water resource development
alternative providing the greatest
designated the National Economic
Hydroelectric power was compared to
which is what now exists.
policy requires that the
amount of net benefits be
Development Plan (NED) •
diesel electric generation,
For Chignik, the NED Plan is most likely hydroelectric power from
Indian Creek. It would provide net benefits of $330,000
annually.
For Chignik with intertie to Chignik Lagoon, using hydropO\ver
only frcm Indian Creek would provide net benefits of $310,000
annually.
26
(>
10 \
' ~
~
(,
'
+
~
~ v
0
i-0 -
•
....... <.•::,:~~<
·~L~VJ1I-~~A~r&\cJ
• ...
..
TRANSMISSION
INTERTIE
"'
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 5 -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis contained in this report, hydropower
provides the best alternative for electrical generation at
Chignik. An intertie fron Indian Creek power station to Chignik
Lagoon is marginally feasible, whereas construction of the Mud
Bay Creek project is considered not feasible!
The Indian Creek project with an intertie to Chignik Lagoon
provides net annual benefits of $310,000, whereas without the
intertie, the net annual benefits are $330,000. The hydropower
scheme would have to be supplemented with diesel electric
generation during periods of low in-flow, since the projects are
basically run-of-the-river schemes.
Alternative energy sources and schemes were beyond the scope of
this study. However, conservation and weatherization are all
important steps in minimizing long-term costs associated with
providing energy to the users.
A detailed analysis of hydropower is presented in Section 6
"Technical Analysis" and in the Environmental Assessment.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
"To be provided by the District Engineer after review of this
draft report for inclusion in the final report."
27
SECTION 6
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
SECTION 6 -TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
6.1 GENERAL
The selected plan for hydropower development favors, as a
minimum, construction of the Indian Creek plan for the village of
Chignik with a possible transmission line intertie to Chignik
Lagoon. Since the greatest historical energy load is in the
summer months during cannery operation, a hydropower development
(one with little storage) serves this purpose well. Indian Creek
would provide 86, 70 and 57 percent of the projected electric
energy needs for the cummuni ties of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
and the cannery, respectively, by 1985. For 1995 the coverage
would be 78, 70 and 37 percent and by 2005, 69, 43 and 20 percent
respectively. In winter when water flows are minimal, the
current methods of diesel electric generation and oil stoves
would always be required.
The Indian Creek system could generate an average of
approximately 6,700,000 kWh of electricity annually at an
estimated first cost of $12,400,000 including the transmission
line to Chignik Lagoon. The Mud Bay Lake Creek project could
generate approximately 2,400,000 kWh of electricity annually at
an estimated first cost of $13,550,000. Annual benefit is
estimated at $590,000 for Indian Creek with an intertie; however,
if Hud Bay is added, this turns to an estimated loss of $360,000.
Mud Bay alone then provides a "net loss" of $650,000 annually. A
detailed description of the design considerations and parameters
follows. Photos 4 and 5 and Plates 4 and 5 show the typical dam
sites, creeks, and other features.
6.2 HYDROLOGY
6.2.1 Basin Description
Indian Creek: Above the damsi te, Indian Creek has a drainage
area of 3 square miles. The basin is sparsely vegetated and
consists predominatly of bedrock and talus slopes. The basin is
partially shielded from southerly Pacific storms by the mountains
on its southerly boundary.
Mud Bay Creek: Mud Bay Creek has a drainage area of 4.5 square
miles above the dam site. The basin is shielded from the more
severe southerly storms by a southerly barrier ridge. Like
Indian Creek, the basin is predominantly bedrock and sparsely
vegetated talus slopes.
6. 2. 2 Streamflows
Stream gauging stations were established near each of the two
proposed dam sites in early 19 82. At this time these stations
have not developed enough records to be useful for estimation of
potential streamflow. Therefore, a synthetic 50-year sequence of
monthly average streamflows was developed for each stream. The
28
Indian Creek Lake (Looking North West)
Indian Creek (Looking North West)
Photo 4
Mud Bay Lake
(Looking South West)
Mud Bay Lake (Looking North West)
Photo 5
synthetic record was developed from considerations of records
from precipitation stations and streams in the region having
similar size and characteristics to the basins under
consideration. The Corps of Engineers computer program "Monthly
Streamflow Simulations" (HEC-4) was employed to develop 50 years
of synthetic runoff record having the same statistical properties
as that which should have been obtained by actual measurements at
the darn sites. This synthetic record is shown for each site in
Table A.3 and A.4 in Appendix "A".
6.2.3 Flood Frequency
No direct observations of historical flood discharges are
available. Flood frequency curves have been developed in
Appendix A using procedures developed by the U.S. Geological
Survey. These studies indicate 50-year floods of about 600 cfs
for Indian Creek and 830 cfs for Hud Bay Creek.
6. 2. 4 Sedimentation
The clear water discharge observed and lack of topset beds in the
existing lakes indicate no storage allowances for sedimentation
are necessary.
6. 2. 5 Climate
A limited record of climate has been obtained at Chignik. A
summary of this data is included as Table 2.2.1.
6.2.6 Evaporation
The total annual lake
inches. This amounts
0.001 cfs.
6.3 GEOLOGY
evaporation at
to a negligable
6.3.1 Physiography-Topography
Chignik
average
is about eight
annual loss of
The Alaska Peninsula is divided into two major and one r:1inor
physiographic subprovinces. The major divisions are the Aleutian
Mountain Range and the Bering Sea lowlands. The narrow lowlands
adjacent to the Pacific Ocean constitute the minor division.
The two proposed darn sites at Mud Bay Lake Creek and Indian Creek
are located on the Alaska Peninsula, in the vicinity of the
village of Chignik.
In the vicinity of the two proposed darn sites, the lowlands are
extremely narrow and limited in area. Notably, in the Mud Bay,
Anchorage Bay, and Negro Head areas, the mountains rise directly
from the ocean. Faulting and uplift has raised the land mass
southeast of Chignik Lagoon to the general altitude of the
Aleutian Mountain Range, which can be in excess of 3000 feet. In
31
the area between Chignik Lagoon and Kuiukta Bay, the adjacent
Pacific lowlands are usually less than one-half mile wide and
consist of alluvial material.
6. 3. 2 Proposed Dam Sites
Mud Bay Lake Creek is approximately 2.5 miles long, drains
generally to the north from an elevation of approximately 500
feet to sea level, and exits into Mud Bay. The valley is fairly
wide 2. 2 to 1. 4 miles crest to crest, north to south, with a
small lake approximately 30 acres in size at elevation 127 feet.
The western valley walls are relatively steep and have slopes
ranging from 18 to 38 percent. Near the northwestern valley wall
crest slopes approach vertical. The eastern valley wall is less
steep at the mouth and has slopes of approximately 24 percent.
The valley walls narrow to the south and slopes approach 4 7
percent in the southeastern area of the valley. The drainage
area is approximately 5 miles square with one small tributary
stream, approximately one-half mile in length, entering the main
stream north of the lake at 127 feet elevation. Also, directly
north of the lake is a natural saddle at an elevation of 200
feet, which is incised by the creek 1 s natural drainage to the
east and appears to offer a favorable spillway location to the
west of the saddle 1 s topographic high point. Upstream of the
lake 127 feet, the valley floor is relatively wide and very
gently sloping. The average stream gradient is approximately
4 percent over the 2.5-mile length.
Indian Creek is approximately 3.5 miles long and drains generally
north-northwest from an elevation of 1200 feet to sea level
exiting through the flatlands containing the village of Chignik
into Anchorage Bay. The valley is relatively narrow and
approximately 1.5 miles wide (crest to crest). The valley walls
are steeply sloping, ranging from 50 percent to near vertical
along the upper valley walls. A small timber dam and lake
impoundment are located at elevation 442 feet. These facilities
provide both water (via elevated pipeline) and limited power to
the cannery at Chignik. The average stream gradient is 15
percent from headwaters to mouth. The stream is generally very
incised downstream of the dam and lake.
6.3.3 Geological Setting
There are five basic geologic
Chignik area. They range from
(recent) in age. The following
work done by Knappen (1929).
formations that occur in the
late Cretaceous to Qua ternary
descriptions are based on the
Chignik Formation (Kc) : The Chignik Formation is late Cretaceous
( 135 million years) in age and consists of sedimentary fluvial
and marine deposits. The rock types consist of black and brown
fine-grained sandstones, black shales, and arkosic conglomerates
with class sizes ranging from 3 inches to 2 feet in diameter.
Two coal seams are reported northwest of Chignik Lagoon. The
32
I
-·
1
,,
Chignik Forcation outcrops in a continuous band along the
promontories at Negro Head, Eagle Rock and east of Anchorage Bay.
Reported thickness of the Chignik Formation ranges from 780 feet
at Negro Head to 450 feet in other areas.
Tertiary (Eocene) Series (Tc): The Tertiary sedimentary series
crops out along the west-side of Anchorage Bay to Chignik Lagoon.
This broad band of Eocene age sediments consists of predominantly
black shale with minor amounts of interbedded sand and gravel
that are approximately 1200 feet thick. The black shales are
easily weathered and fissile and interbedded with fine-to
coarse-grained sands indicating deposition by streams or in
lakes. Generally, the stratification and sorting are excellent
in these rocks but crossbedding in the gravels indicates limited
deposition by strong currents. Plant fossils are present in the
shale and have been collected along the shore of Anchorage Bay.
The contact between these black shales and the Chignik Formation
is unconformable and, in the study area, poorly exposed.
Heshik Formation (Tm) : In the Chignik area the uplands are
mapped as the Miocene or Oligocene r<leshik Formation. This
sequence of rocks consists primarily of sediments of volcanic
origin including purple and green-gray andesitic agglomerates,
vari-colored volcanic ash and bentonitic clays and intercalated
black soil horizons. The volcanic agglomerate forms resistant
ridges and mountain spurs. The Heshik Formation is reported to
have a minimum thickness of 2000 feet but may reach 3500 to 4000
feet outside of the study area near the Aniakchak River mouth.
Glacial Drift (Qd): Valley glaciers scoured existing stream
valleys and deposited a blanket of glacial drift. Quaternary
(Pleistocene) glacial drift is mapped within the lower reaches of
the Indian Creek drainage. Reconnaissance photos (April 1982)
suggest morainal-type glacial deposits within the valley and
exposed cutbanks show the glacial drift deposits to be a mixture
of sand, silt, clay and boulders.
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal): Recent deposits of sand, gravel, and
clay of fluvial and lacustrine origin occupy the narrow flatlands
at the head of both Anchorage and Mud Bays and at Chignik Flats.
These deposits consist of detrital material eroded from existing
bedrock in the Indian, Hud Lake Creek, and Packer's Creek
drainages. r1arine tidal flat and sand spit deposits are also
present in Mud Bay and Anchorage Bay.
The United States Geological Survey (1924, 1929, and 1965) does
not show any faults within the study area. An inferred normal
fault is mapped beneath Chignik Lagoon. The rocks within the
study area, from Negro Head to the promontories between Mud and
Anchorage Bays have a generally northwesterly strike and have
been deformed by folding. The anticlinal axis is mapped at
N 70° W and can be traced through the coastal promontories to the
east side of Anchorage Bay and into the hills north and east of
Chignik. Northeast of the axis beds are mapped dipping 4° to go
NE.
33
6.3.4 Regional Seismicity
Southern and southwestern Alaska is an area of high seismic
activity. The seismicity is due to subduction of the Pacific
Plate under the North American Plate. This is an ongoing process
with the majority of the accumulated strain resulting from plate-
plate interaction being released in the form of great earthquakes
(Magnitude> 7.8). Because the Pacific Plate is being subducted
beneath the Alaska Peninsula, the earthquake foci tend to be
deeper to the north, away from the Aleutian Trench, which is the
point of the initial interaction between the two plates.
The Chignik area occurs within the Shumagin Islands Seismic Gap.
Seismic gaps are the areas between aftershock zones of great
earthquakes. The aftershock zones between great earthquakes do
not overlap, suggesting that the intervening areas are the most
likely sites for the next great event (Davies and Jacob, 1979).
The Shumagin Islands region is one of these gaps. This area must
be considered a high seismic risk zone with the possibility of a
great earthquake occurring in the future.
In addition to the great earthquake, numerous smaller (Magnitude
< 7.8) earthquakes are common throughout the region. All
structure are to be designed to withstand these smaller events in
addition to not failing during a great event.
6.4 GEOTECHNICAL
6. 4. 1 General
At the time of the field investigation (7 to 9 September 1982)
numerous water seeps and springs were observed within the
drainage areas. Generally, these seeps and springs occur in the
sandstone that underlies caps of very hard, resistant
conglomerate. The water appears to move along joints and bedding
surfaces.
The stability of the natural slopes is good, and no recent
significant slope failures were observed.
No ash-fall tephra deposits were observed within the Indian Creek
area. Although active volcanism occurs along the Alaska
Peninsula it is not considered a potential hazard for this site.
6. 4. 2 Indian Creek
6.4.2.1 Dam and Spillway Foundation
The proposed dam site on Indian Creek is the present site of a
small timber dam. The foundation at the present site consists of
hard, massive, unyielding, hornfelsed sandstone (Quartzite) and
siltstone with a thin residual soil cover. The original
sedimentary rock has been thermally metamorphosed. The original
sedimentary structures (bedding) have been preserved and no
34
..
metamorphic structures were observed. Bedding is oriented
OBP/26° N above the existing dam and 327°/15° SH (strike/dip)
below the existing dam. The joints within the foundation rock
are oriented 120°/70° S, 290°/90°, and 145°/80° to 90°. Their
spacing is one-half to 4 inches and they are tight. Some
sulphide mineralization occurs on the joint surfaces. No
substantial seepage occurs around the existing structure;
however, the conditions of the cut-off are unknown. Because the
joints appear to be tight at the surface they are expected to be
tight at depth also. Grout takes should be small, less one-half
sack-per-foot.
The spillway cut for the existing structure is steep, almost
vertical, and ragged due to the joint orientations. No evidence
of slope instability in the excavated slopes was observed.
Excavations for the proposed structure will have to be drilled
and shot due to the hard, unyielding nature of the bedrock.
Evidence was not found to suggest slope stability problems occur
within the existing reservoir area. Talus overlies bedrock along
the shore of the existing lake and the raising of the lake 10 to
20 feet should not result in the creation of unstable slopes.
6.4.2.2 Materials of Construction
A talus deposit approximately one-third mile west of the proposed
dam site at elevation 720 feet should be adequate for the
pervious fill requirements (see Photo 4 and Plate 4). The talus
deposit consists of sand-sized to 24-inch long material with the
average size being approximately 6 inches. Particles tend to be
flat and elongated with diorite to quartz diorite being the
predominant rock type. The angle of repose for the talus is
greater than 45°.
The talus deposit should be adequate as shell material for the
proposed dam. The steep angle of repose suggests very high shear
strengths for this deposit. Limited material for filters and
drains may be available by processing the talus.
Southeast of the proposed dam site near the end of the existing
lake is a small knoll underlain by residual soil formed on
hornfelsed conglomerate. The soil ranges up to greater than 10
feet in thickness and consists of silty-sand with some pebbles
and cobbles. Other than this knoll, no other fine-grained
material that may be suitable for impervious fill exists within
economic haul distance of the site. Additional exploration
(drilling) is required to determine the amount of material
present at the knoll.
At the existing dam, a small fillet of concrete (less than two
cubic yards) appears to have been made from material hauled to
the site and not local sand and aggregate. The talus and sand in
the immediate area is high in elongate particles and would
produce very harsh concrete. The rock type present in the talus
deposits would not preclude their use as concrete aggregate.
35
6.4.2.3 Penstock
Between Indian Lake and Chignik, bedrock is either exposed at the
surface or is very near, generally less than 5 feet deep. This
should provide adequate support for the proposed penstock along
its entire length. Some improvement over the alignment of the
existing penstock may be possible with more detailed topographic
maps, but such is believed unnecessary for this small hydropower
facility.
6.4.2.4 Powerhouse
The foundation of the proposed powerhouse will depend upon the
final site location. For the purpose of this study, the
foundation is considered adequate for concrete based support.
The existing penstock is supported by piles through this area
from the base of the hill to the cannery. If the powerhouse is
sited on the strand deposits, nearer to Anchorage Bay, the
foundation materials would consist of sand-gravel and cobbles.
Excavation of this material by normal earthmoving equipment is
possible. Temporary slopes of approximately 1 horizontal to 1
vertical that will be backfilled after construction are possible.
The foundation material at either site is easily excavated for
the tailrace, which can be discharged directly into Anchorage Bay
or the lagoon.
6. 4. 3 Mud Bay Lake
6.4.3.1 Dam and Spillway Foundation
The site for the proposed dam on Mud Bay Creek is near the outlet
to Mud Bay Lake. The foundation material at the proposed site
consists of hard, massive, unyielding, coarse-grained sandstone
with a thin cover of residual soil. Bedding is poorly developed
and where observed is oriented 001°/35° ~l. Joints in the bedrock
are tight, oriented 320°/73° SW and 250°/90°, and spaced every 1
to 12 inches with an average spacing of 6 inches. No substantial
seepage is expected at this site. Because the joints are tight
at the surface, they are expected to be tight at depth. Grout
takes should be small, less than one-quarter sack-per-foot.
At the damsite the natural slopes stand up very steep horizontal
to 1. 5 vertical. The jointing will have· an affect on slope
stability and excavated slopes cannot be as steep as at Indian
Lake. Excavations for the proposed structures will have to be
drilled and shot.
Overall the natural slopes surrounding Mud Bay Lake are gentle,
4 horizontal to 1 vertical. It is not likely that raising the
level of Hud Bay Lake several tens of feet will influence the
stability of the slopes.
36
l
l
)
J
l
1
1
6.4.3.2 Materials of Construction
No naturally occurring materials suitable for pervious or
impervious fill occur within the immediate area of the proposed
site. The sandstone that crops out in the area would make good
pervious fill or concrete aggregate if quarried and crushed. The
nearest source of pervious material that would not require
processing is approximately 2 and one-half miles south of the
proposed dam site across a low drainage divide.
6.4.3.3 Penstock
Bedrock is exposed either at the surface or very near, generally
less than 5 feet deep from Hud Bay Lake to Hud Bay. This should
provide adequate support for the proposed penstock along its
entire length. Alignment of the penstock should await more
detailed topographic maps.
6.4.3.4 Powerhouse
The foundation materials for the powerhouse at the mouth of Hud
Bay Creek will consist of sandy gravel or possibly even bedrock.
Excavation of sandy gravel will be possible by normal earthmoving
equipment with temporary slopes of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical.
These would be backfilled after construction. Excavation for the
tailrace would be easily accomplished with water discharge
directly into Mud Bay.
6.4.4 Transmission Line to Chignik Lagoon
The routing of the intertie between the generating facility and
Chignik Lagoon is dictated less by geology than by the ease of
construction and maintenance. Two obvious routes occur, one high
(upstream of Mud Bay Lake) and one low (between Mud Bay and
Chignik Lagoon) (see Plate 3). The low route is selected as it
is less costly. For most of its length rock is at or near the
surface, less than 10 feet deep. This will influence the
selection of pole-types. The steep slopes near Chignik Lagoon
and Mud Bay influence the alignment along the preferred route.
6.5 DAMS, SPILLWAYS AND INTAKES
6.5.1 Indian Creek Project
The main dam will be a rockfill dam with a central impervious
membrane of reinforced concrete. Utilizing the topographical
features at the damsite, the dam raises the lake level from its
present elevation 442 feet to 455 feet. Maximum drawdown will be
25 feet.
The main dam will be maximum 40 feet high from bedrock to the top
of the concrete membrane with a 13-foot wide and 255-foot long
crest located just downstream of the existing wood buttress dam.
37
The concrete membrane crest elevation will be 460 feet and the
rockfill will have a crest height of 458 feet.
Reference is made to Plates 4 and 5.
On the left bank a 55-foot wide service spillway will be
excavated. It will have a low concrete weir with crest elevation
at 455 feet. The spillway will accommodate the 50-year return
period design flood of 600 cfs at lake level 457 feet. A 2. 5
foot freeboard on the dam exists for 100-year flood. The maximum
probable flood of 2, 400 cfs will be accommodated at lake level
460 feet, i.e. without spilling over the concrete membrane. Even
if the concrete membrane were overstepped, the dam is considered
stable.
A low concrete wall protects the downstrean rockfill of the main
dam from being washed out.
The rockfill can be hauled from talus deposits over cat trail
travel with end dump vehicles. The talus deposit is only
one-quarter mile west of the proposed damsite. This is one of
the reasons the proposed dam type is found to be the most
feasible one.
The 1-foot thick concrete membrane will be founded on bedrock, if
necessary on a somewhat spread footing in order to create a good
basis for the membrane itself. To prevent the membrane from
being damaged during construction, large rocks (greater than 9
inches) should be avoided in a 3-foot wide zone on each side.
(See Plate 6.)
Grouting of the rock is deemed unnecessary, but allowance for
some grouting is included in the cost estimate.
The intake consists of a 5-foot corrugated steel culvert through
the upstream rockfill to the membrane. From here the discharge
is conveyed through the 40-inch steel penstock being embedded in
concrete through the downstream rockfill to a valvehouse.
During construction of the intake, valvehouse and lower part of
the main dam, the existing dam will serve as a cofferdam with the
basin runoff spilling over the existing spillway. Later the
intake and the penstock will be used to divert the basin runoff.
The existing dam will be removed once the new dam and
appurtenances are complete including new penstock which will then
also be the means for conveying the village's water supply. (See
also Paragraph 6.14.)
The valvehouse will have double sets of butterfly penstock
rupture valves and air inlet valves.
38
1
1
J
I
1
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.5.2 Mud Bay Project
The dam will be a concrete gravity dam with a total crest length
of 62 feet and a maximum height of 20 feet founded on bedrock.
The dam would raise the lake level from 127 feet to 140 feet;
maximum drawdown would be 10 feet. Grouting is deemed
unnecessary. The spillway takes up 40 feet, which allows the
50-year return period design flood of 830 cfs to be accommodated
at a lake level of 143 feet. The maximum probable flood of
3,320 cfs would spill over the entire dam including the intake
section, which has a crest elevation of 144 feet. Haximum lake
level for this discharge will be 147 feet.
The intake is located on the right side of the dam. The penstock
is led through the dam to its upstream side. A part of the dam
is a valvehouse containing double sets of butterfly penstock
rupture valves and air inlet valves.
A low protecting wall will be needed to prevent ordinary spillway
discharge to flood the roof of the valve house and from damaging
the penstock the first 500 feet downstream from the dam.
Reference is made to Plate 5 and 8.
6.6 PENSTOCKS AND SURGE TANKS
6.6.1 Indian Creek Project
The 5,500-foot long, one-quarter inch steel penstock would have
an inside diameter of 40 inches. The penstock thickness of
one-quarter inch was chosen to withstand the hyperdraulic
pressures and to allow adequate metal for corrosion losses. For
about 4, 0 00 feet downstream of the intake, the penstock will
follow the alignment of the present woodstave water supply
pipeline. At this point, just after passing the small lake at an
elevation of 342 feet, the new alignment runs a little to the
east in order to reach a point at elevation approximately 405
feet, where a surge tank would be constructed. The total
distance from the intake to the surge tank is about 4,700 feet.
This part of the penstock alignment goes through a rolling
terrain and can be easily reached enabling construction to take
place simultaneously at several locations.
Typical sections are shown on Plate 7.
The surge tank will be a 70-foot high, 15-foot diameter tank.
Maximum water elevation at full pool and full stop will be 468
feet while minimum water level will be 416 feet during start-up
at maximum pool drawdown. Surge tank is sized to accommodate the
turbine and penstock sizes.
From the surge tank, the penstock dips some 385 feet in 800 feet
down to the powerhouse at the foot of the bluff. This part of
the penstock calls for construction from one end only, most
39
likely by the means of a duo-rail-track with the hoist located in
the surge tank area.
The entire penstock would be constructed above ground on concrete
saddles and with concrete anchor blocks at both vertical and
horizontal bends. At two locations, approximately 2,600 feet and
3,300 feet from the intake, penstock high bends would be fitted
with air vents.
6.6.2 Mud Bay Project
The 5,100-foot one-quarter inch steel penstock will have a
42-inch inside diameter. The penstock runs along the right bank
of Mud Bay Creek down to the powerhouse, which will be located at
the bay about 300 feet south of the creek outlet.
Plate 5 shows the planned penstock routing.
The first 2,000 feet downstream of the intake, the penstock runs
through a narrow gorge. Extensive rock excavation works will
have to be carried out in order to provide proper access to and
along the penstock for construction and future maintenance.
Coming out of the gorge, the terrain becomes more negotiable, but
for another 1,000 feet or so it remains fairly steep.
Just above the powerhouse at elevation 105 feet, approximately,
there would be a 50-foot-high, 20-foot diameter surge tank.
r.laximum water level during full stop at maximum pool level would
be 148 feet. \-l'hile the minimum water level during start-up and
maximum pool drawdown would be 115 feet.
From the surge tank the penstock dips 100 feet down to the power
house. This part is short, but steep and would probably require a
duo-rail-track with the hoist located in the surge tank area.
The entire penstock would be constructed above ground on concrete
saddles with concrete anchor blocks at all vertical and
horizontal bends. Ring stiffeners are not necessary with the
shown type of saddles at assumed intervals of not more than 40
feet on centers.
6.6.3 General
Surge tanks required to ensure a stable performance for both
schemes with penstock diameters 40 to 42 inches. Dropping the
tank means additional 8-inch penstock diameter approximately for
both schemes at approximately twice the price of a surge tank.
Ten-foot diameter tanks mean
Indian Creek and 15 feet for
then go from 70 feet to 85
respectively.
an increase in surge of 10 feet for
the Mud Bay project. Total heights
feet and from 50 feet to 65 feet
40
I
J
I
I
I
In the harsh, windy climate of the Chignik area, it is felt that
high surge tanks should be avoided, hence a larger diameter was
chosen.
6.7 POWERHOUSE
6.7.1 General
Both powerhouses (Indian and Mud Bay Creeks) would have all their
equipment housed in separate 30 by 38 foot buildings. The
structures would be prefabricated, insulated, weathertight, steel
structures built on a concrete slab. The draft-tube et al. would
be encased in concrete. Maximum high tide in the Chignik area is
about 10 feet above mean sea level. From mean sea level to
centerline of the units Indian Creek would have a maximun
tailwater difference of 15 feet with 7 and one-half-foot maximum
acceptable suction, whereas Mud Bay Creek would have a maximum
tailwater of 10 feet with a 15-foot maximum acceptable suction
requiring a small weir in the tailrace. The purpose of the weir
is to ensure the maximum accepted suction head is not exceeded
during low tide water level. Open channel tailraces would exist
for both plants.
Since the size of the turbines would be nearly the same even
though unit outputs are very different, it was felt desirable to
nake both powerhouses the same size. ~leathertight roll-up doors
would be used with space being allowed for equipment installation
and maintenance. A 10-ton bridge crane would be used. Plate 7
shows typical powerhouse layout and sections.
6. 7. 2 Description of Turbines, Governors and Valves
The mechanical and electrical equipment would be of the same type
both for Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek. Single turbines were
judged to be most economical, since two units would increase cost
by about 20 percent. The following description can be used for
both:
0 Turbine and generator.
The turbine and generator
Francis type, which is the
actual discharge and head.
would be of a horizontal
only sui table type for the
Several speeds have been considered. Hhen choosing the
speed, account was taken of the highest efficiency and
lowest investment, which would permit a positive
suction head. The design of the nechanical equipment
would be such that maintenance work can be as little as
possible. The operation would be fully automatic, with
local or remote control.
The turbine runner would be nounted directly
generator shaft. \'leight and thrust from the
runner is absorbed by the generator bearings.
41
on the
turbine
0
Effective
The turbine would be equipped with an adjustable
distributor, operated by an oil-hydraulic cylinder, and
with mechanical feed-back to the governor.
The governor would be of the woodward type,
specifications would be adapted to the time constants
for the penstock and inertia masses, and would control
the frequency within a local circuit with proper
accuracy.
In front of the turbine would be a butterfly valve,
automatically operated by oil pressure from the same
source as for the governor. For emergency shut-off of
the water flow to the turbine, the valve would be
equipped with a weight that can be released by a
solenoid and thus shut the valve.
The three-phase synchronous generator would
cooled and enclosed drip-proof protected.
according to manufacturers' standard,
be air-
Voltage:
preferably
380-400 volts.
Exi tation system of the brushless type is preferred,
but a static thyristor type fed by an exitation
transformer connected to the generator terminals is
acceptable if this is according to the manufacturers'
standard practice.
The generating units' characteristics are noted in
Table 6.7.1.
TABLE 6. 7. 1
GENERATING UNITS' CHARACTERISTICS
Indian Creek Hud Bal: Creek Units
Head, l·1ean 422 126 feet
fvlaximum Discharge 43.8 58.3 cfs
Hinimum Discharge 15.9 21.2 cfs
Naximum Output 1400 435 kvJs
Synchronous Speed 1200 900 rev/min.
Runaway Speed 1950 1800 rev/min.
Power Factor 0.8 0. 8
Inertia Time Constant 4.0 2.5 sec.
o The penstock for the Indian Creek unit has a length of
5,500 feet and a diameter of 40 inches, whereas, the
Hud Bay Creek unit has a length of 5100 feet and a
diameter of 42 inches.
42
j
6.8 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
For Chignik, a step-down transformer would be used to provide
power via wood poles to the existing village distribution system
including the cannery at Chignik, whereas a distribution system
would have to be built at Chignik Lagoon.
A single wire ground return transmission system on wood poles
would be utilized in carrying power to Chignik Lagoon. Maximum
distance from the Indian Creek Powerhouse is 6.5 miles (see also
Plate 3). The intertie voltage would initially be 14.4 kV.
It is envisioned that wood pole would be used, however light
weight aluminum "A" frames are also possible. A nominal 30-foot
pole height above ground would be envisioned, providing no less
than 20-foot clearance at mid-point of the conductor sag.
6.9 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS CONSIDERED
6.9.1 Storage Capacity
The combination of small drainage basins and high summer demand
point in the direction of poor feasibility in establishing
storage of any significance by means of a darn, provided one does
not have extremely favorable dam-sites. In order to find out,
rough cost estimates have been carried out for two sets of dams.
One provides a minor storage, not for seasonal but for practical
operational use, i.e. storage equivalent to 1 to 2 percent of the
average annual basin run-off. The other set provides storage
capacity allowing reasonable control of variable flows; i.e.
storage equivalent to 15 to 20 percent of the average annual
basin run-off.
6.9.1.1 Indian Creek Dam
For this site a 45-foot-high dn.m \vas chosen with an active
storage capacity of 2 percent of the annual basin run-off,
primarily replacing the existing dam and an 85-foot high dam
giving an active storage capacity of about 16 percent of the
annual basin run-off. The results shown in Table 6.9.1 are based
on optimism of dam heights based on overall economics using most
recent mapping and cost estimates. Extensive dam construction
work (higher and wider) is considered uneconomical.
43
TABLE 6.9.1
ALTERNATIVE DAMS CCNSIDERED
Storage Usable (MWh) Cost
Crest Elev. (AF) 1985 1995 2005 (Mill.$)
515 Feet 3,315 5,350 5,825 6,175 16.10
457 Feet 425 4,625 5,250 5,775 8.45
Difference (2,890) (725) (575) (400) {7.45)
The extra energy output due to a higher dam is decreasing as more
of the run-of-the-river output can be used with increasing
demand. The cost of extra energy would be on the order of 80 to
100 cents/kWh.
6.9.1.2 Mud Bay Lake Dam
For this site a minimum diversion weir was chosen for practical
intake operations; a 15-foot-high dam allowing for about 1. 5
percent of active storage; and an 80-foot-high dam in the outlet
gorge with a lovl spillway weir on the saddle a little west of the
outlet. The latter would have an active storage of about 18
percent of the annual basin run-off. Results shown in Table
6. 8. 2 are, like those for Indian Creek, based on the previous
reconnaissance level study with respect to maps and cost
estimates. However, the conclusion remains unchanged.
Extensive dam construction works is deemed infeasible.
Crest Elev.
210 Feet
155 Feet
Difference
TABLE 6.9.2
ALTERNATIVE DAMS CONSIDERED
Storage Usable {MWh)
(AF) 1985 1995
5,000 1,125 1,700
375 650 1,125
(4,625) (457) (575)
2005
2,450
1,800
(650)
Cost
{Mill.$)
13.75
9.90
(3.85)
The usable energy figures assume that Mud Bay Creek is developed
in addition to Indian Creek, which results in an increasing yield
as the demand increases. The ultimate yield is 825 HWh more for
the higher dam when the projects' capacity is fully utilized.
The cost of extra energy would be on the order of 60 to 80
cents/kWh.
44
.j
J
6.9.2 Dams
6.9.2.1 Indian Creek
Other types of dams than the one recommended are briefly
addressed below:
Concrete slab/buttress dam: This dam type which normally is
regarded as a concrete-saving type of dam would require an
additional structural concrete quantitiy of 1,500 cy. The
cost of a concrete dam of this type then would exceed the
cost of the chosen dam by more than 50 percent.
Hood slab/buttress dam: For operational reasons the active
storage capacity should be at least 2 percent of the annual
runoff which means a 25 to 35 foot dam would be required. A
wooden dam this height could hardly be designed to
reasonable safety standards and is not given any closer
consideration.
Rockfill with concrete facing: this is more or less the
same type of dam as the one chosen, but requires
substantially more concrete. Also, the concrete facing is
more vulnerable to cracking from uneven settling of the
rockfill on which the slab rests. On the other hand,
possible damage to the concrete membrane can hardly be
repaired in case of a central membrane. However, reports on
damaged central merabranes for dams this height are rarely
seen.
On these grounds, but mostly due to lower costs, a central
membrane is pre rred to a frontal one.
Rockfill with asphalt membrane: It is deemed infeasible to
bring an asphalt plant to Chignik for a couple of hundred
cubic yards of asphalt concrete. Hence this type of dam has
not been given closer consideration.
6.9.2.2 Mud Bay Creek
Other types of dams than the concrete gravity dam chosen were not
considered, since the height is too great for wood buttress and
rock fill would be more expensive than concrete, as a separate
spillway would have to be excavated apart from the dam.
6.9.3 Penstocks
Glassfiber reinforced polyethylene (GRP) pipe could be used for
penstocks on these projects as these pipes, under ordinary
circumstances and for low pressure installations, would be
competitive price wise. However, general long-term durability of
this pipe material in a harsh climate like in the Chignik area is
not fully known. Also the remoteness of the installations with
respect to maintenance and repairs does not call for experimental
45
use of this type of pipe material, at least not budgetwise in a
feasibility study. No other pipe material is deemed compatible
for the dimensions in question. Steel pipeline is recommended.
Table 6. 9. 3. shows usable energy from Indian Creek, only, with
varying unit and penstock sizes.
TABLE 6.9.3
USABLE ENERGY -INDIAN CREEK
-Variable Unit Sizes -
Year Demand Usable Energy
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Mv1h
7,600
9,500
11,600
14,300
16,000
17,800
19,800
20,700
21,700
23,000
23,660
I
MWh
4,800
5,150
5,350
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
I: Penstock, 32 inches -Unit, 925 kW
II: Penstock, 40 inches -Unit, 1,400 kW
III: Penstock, 46 inches -Unit, 1,860 kW
6.10 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
II
M\.Jh
4,900
5,600
6,100
6,400
6,600
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
6,700
III
MHh
4,900
5,600
6,200
6,600
6,900
7,050
7,150
7,200
7,250
7,250
7,250
Overall project cost would largely be dictated by the simplicity
and durability of the design. Host material and crafts would
have to brought in. This means barge shipment of materials with
possible lightering required for both projects (hopefully, most
Indian Creek material could be off-loaded over the cannery
docks) .
Since excellent talus material exists (size and quantity) near
the outlet of Indian Creek Lake, a rock fill dam was chosen. The
dam crest was sized to allow for access to the left abutment
(material source).
All concrete material would most likely be brought in by barge
since the overall quantities are so small that it is judged
uneconomical to set up a crushing and screening plant.
As nearly as possible all materials would be pre-fabricated and
packaged for shipment to Chignik.
Access to Indian Creek Lake would be by the existing cat-trail
(minor upgrading only envisioned). Hud Bay would require some
46
type of access from Chignik as it is felt necessary for both
housing and quartering t.he construction workers as \'Tell as the
plant operators. A cat-trail is proposed. This would allow
fcur-wheel drive and snow machine access when conditions so
dictate. Most likely, most of the heavy material would have to
be lightered in from Hud Bay to the proposed powerhouse area.
The terrain at Mud Bay Creek makes for most difficult access to
the dam site and would require significant benching work to
provide a safe and secure place for the penstock.
While this terrain is rough, little of the vegetation is over 10
feet high, consequently little clearing of the intertie route is
envisioned except for helipads and possibly in the vicinity of
angle poles, etc. Wire et al. would be air lifted and strung by
helicopter.
6. 11 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Once constructed, the project would be turned over to the local
utility for operation and maintenance in conjunction \vith the
existing diesel generators. All maintenance associated with the
intake works, penstock, powerhouse and distribution system would
be the responsibility of the utility.
Project operators are envisioned to be locally based. The
overall systems (hydropower and diesel) would be intermeshed so
that any, both or only one may be operated at any one time.
The unit would be capable of matching the necessary load during
the time of year when flows equal or exceed the demand. During
those low flow times when energy demand exceeds the capabilities
of the system, the hydropower unit would, when water is
available, operate in a base load mode while the diesel would be
utilized for peaking.
47
6.12 PROJECT COST
6.12.1 Indian Creek
TOTAL
ITEH DESCRIP'riON QUANTITY UNIT UNI'f PRICE M.F. (1) (in $1,000) --
1 MOBILIZATION
Barge L.S. 205
Load L.S. 20
Freight to Loading L.S. 20
Stand By L.S. 25
Unloading L.S. 40
Administration Labor 2,000 H. H. L.S. 80
Casual Labor 1,000 M.H. L.S. 60
Misc. Directs L.S. 50 --
+>-TOTAL 500.0
00
2 LAND AND DAN.AGES
TOTAL 78.0
3 DAM AND SPILLHAY
Stripping Excavation 750 C.Y. $8.50 1. 30 8.3
Common Excavation 1500 C.Y. $8.00 1. 30 15.6
Rock Excavation 1500 C.Y. 130.00 1.30 253.5
Membrane Concrete 350 C.Y. 1200.00 1. 30 546.0
Spillway Concrete 200 C.Y. 1000.00 1.30 260.0
Culvert 5' 55 L.F. 225.00 1. 30 16.1
Sand and Gravel Zone 1400 C.Y. 30.00 1. 30 54.6
Rockfill Dumped 6000 C.Y. 15.00 1. 30 117.0
Rip-rap 18" 7000 Sq.Ft. 14.00 1. 30 127.4
P]aced Rock 12' 10,000 Sq.Ft. 6.00 1.30 78.0
Grouting 1,500 Ft. 25.00 1.30 48.8
300 Sacks 200.00 1. 30 78.0
(1) M.F. = Hultiplier Factor conversion unit costs to areas other than Anchorage
(Reference Appendix F) .
.. ... .. --...,._.., L'
ITI:M DESCHIPTIOlJ
Valve Hous8
Penstock Concrete
TOTAL
Subtotal
QUANTITY
30
30
4 PENSTOCK
Concrete Saddles and Anchors
Common Excavation
Rock Excavation
Saddle Concrete
275 Ea.
Anchor Concrete
35 Ea.
Valvehouses (2 ea.)
Concrete
Surge Tank
Rock Excavation
Foundation Concrete
Bridge
Support Concrete
Structure
Penstock
40" Dia. x 4,500 L.F. @ ~" wall
400
400
750
350
60
50
50
50
40" Dia. x 1,000 L.F. @ 3/8" wall
770,000
Surge Tank
15' Dia. x 70 1 @ 3/8" wall
Stop Logs
Valvage
TOTAL
60,000
5,000
UNIT
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
C.Y.
L.S.
Lbs.
Lbs.
Lbs.
L.S.
UNIT PRICE
1,200
1,000
12.0
195.00
1,200
1,200
1,200
160.00
1,000.00
1,000
1. 04
1. 73
1. 54
1. 30
1. 30
TOTAL
(in $1,000)
46.8
39.
$1,689.1
( ($2,267.1))
1.30 6.2
1.30 101.4
1.30 1,170
1. 30 546
1. 30
1. 30
1. 30
1. 30
93.6
10.4
65
65
50
1.30 1,041
1. 30
1. 30
135
10
50
$3,343.6
( 1) TO'l'AL
I 'l'Et1 DESCRIPTION QUANTI'l'Y UNIT UNIT PRICE fvl.F. (in $1,000) ----
5 PO\vERHOUSE
Site Excavation 300 C.Y. $ 8.00 1.15 2.8
Foundation Concrete 160 C.Y 2 800.00 1.15 147.2
Metal Building 1,140 Ft. 100.00 1.15 131. 1
Electric Lighting
and Station Service L.S. 150
Turbine and Generator Erection L.S. 100
Mechanical Systems L.S. 100
Crane L.S. 40
Finishes L.S. 50
TOTAL $771.1
Subtotal (($6,381.8))
6 TAILRACE
Ditching 2,000 C.Y. 12.00 1.15 27.6
TOTAL 27.6
7 ELECTRO-NECHANICAL
Generating Unit
1,400 kH L.S. 600
Control Equipment
and Switch Gear L.S. 50
Valvage L.S. 25
TOTAL 675.0
8 TRANSMISSION
Transmission Line
l:i mile, 3 wire L.S. 75
Step Down Station L.S. 50
TOTAL 125.00
---.-.. -A ....
... •.
(1) TOTAL
I'l'EH DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE H.F. (in $1,000) ---
9 DEHOI3ILIZATION
Barge L.S. 250
Load L.S. 20
Unloading L.S. 10
Standby L.S. 25
Subtotal ( • 0 ) )
Administration Labor 1000 M.H. 40
Casual Labor 2000 H. H. 120 --
TOTAL 465.0
10 ACCESS ROAD
Existing Alignment
Upgrade 4,000 L.F. L.S. 50
New Alignment
Stripping Excavation 800 C.Y. 8.50 1. 30 8.8
Common Excavation 200 C.Y. 8.00 1. 30 2.1
Rock Excavation 400 C.Y. 130.00 1. 30 67.6
TOTAL 28.5
SUBTOTAL (($7,802.9))
11 COlJT INGENC IES 20%
12 ENGINEERING 6% 468.2
13 ADHINISTRATION 2% --
14 CONSTRUCTION l"IANAGENENT 4%
TOTAL 299.9
OR SAY 'l'OTAL ( ($10,300.0))
6.12.2 tlud B<.ty
TOTAL
rrEr1 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE H.F. (in $1,000) ----
1 NOBILIZATION
Barge L.S. 250
Load L.S. 22.3
Freight L.S. 22.3
To Loading
Standby L.S. 25
Unload L.S. 44.7
Administration Labor 2,500 M.H. 100
Casual Labor 1,000 M.H. 60
Misc. Directs 10
TOTAL $534.3
-
2 LAND AND DAMAGES
TOTAL $2.Q
-
3 DAH AND SPILLWAY
Stripping Excavation 50 C.Y. 8.50 1. 45 0.6
Rock Excavation 150 C.Y. 130.00 1. 45 28.3
Dam Concrete 450 C.Y. 1,200.00 1. 45 783
Valve House and
Intake Concrete 150 C.Y. 1,200.00 1. 45 261
TOTAL $1,072.9
4. PENSTOCK
Alignment Access
Stripping Excavation 3,000 C.Y. 15.00 1. 45 65.3
Common Excavation 5,000 C.Y. 12.00 1. 45 87
Rock Excavation 30,000 C.Y. 50.0 1. 45 2,175
......, ........ ~ Ira..--·""
'l'O'l'AL
ITEH DESCRIP'l'IOH QUAUTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE M.F. (in $1,000) --
Protection Wall Concrete 100 C.Y. 1,200 1. 45 174
Concrete Saddles and
Anchors 250 Total 500 C.Y. 1,200 1. 45 870
Surge Tank Foundation
Concrete 50 C.Y. 1,150 1. 45 83.4
Penstock 42" dia.x
5,100 Ft. @ ~· wall 680,000 Lbs. 1.04 1. 45 1025.4
Surge 'l'ank
20' dia.x 50' @ 3/8 11 wall 50,000 Lbs. 1. 73 1. 45 156.8
Stop Logs 2,500 Lbs. 1. 54 1. 45 5.6
Valvuge L.S. 55.8
TOTAL 98.3
5 POHERHOUSE
Site Excavation 300 C.Y. 8.00 1. 25 3
Foundation Concrete 160 C.Y. 800.00 1. 25 160
Hetal Building 1,140 Sq.Ft. 100.0 1. 25 142.5
Electrical Lighting
and Station Service L.S. 54.4
Electrical Distribution
and Substation L.S. 163.0
Turbine and Generation
Erection L.S. 108.7
Hechanical System L.S. 54.4
Crane L.S. 43.5
Finishes L.S. 54.3
TO'l'AL $783.8
6 TAILRACE
TO'l'AL 0.0
ITEt1 DESCRIPTION
7 ELECTRO-HECHANICAL
Generating Unit
500 kH
Control Equipment
and Switch Gear
Valvage
TOTAL
8 DEMOBILIZATION
9
Barge
Load
Unload
Standby
Administration Labor
TOTAL
HELICOPTER SUPPORT
TOTAL
10 ACCESS ROAD
11
TOTAL
Subtotal
CONTINGENCIES 20%
~ ....... _, ·~~ ~~ ~
QUAtiTITY
1,250
UNIT PRICE M.F.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
H. H.
L.S.
TOTAL
(in $1,000)
450
30
20
$500
250
22.3
11.2
25
50
478.5
100
1,340.0
( ($9,541.4))
$1908.3
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
12 ENGINEERING 6%
13 ADHINISTRATION 2%
14 CONSTRUCITON MANAGEMENT 4%
TOT AI.
OR SAY TOTAL
UNIT PTICE M.F.
$
$
$
$
TOTAL
(in $1,000)
572.5
190.8
381.7
12,594.7
( ($12,600.00))
U1
m
6.12.3 Transmission Line
TOTAL
l'£E1·1 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE M.F. (in $1 ,000) --
1 Line Single Wire
Ground Return 6.5 Miles 60K/Mi. 1.30 $ 507.0
2 Central Distribution
System (Chignik I.agoon) L.S. $ 200.0
3 Step Down Station L.S. $ 40.0
4 CONTINGENCIES 20% $ 149.4
5 ENGINEERING 15% $ 112.1
-
6 ADMINISTRATION 4% ~ 29.9
-
7 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEHENT 12% $ 89.6
-
TOTAL $1,128.0
-
OR SAY 'l'OTAL ( ($1,1300.0))
No mobilization or demobilization costs. This project would have to be built with either
or both Indian Creek or Mud Bay .
• ··~-. • • . •-lit ~ •---..._
Jl
_J
6.12.4 GENERAL
If all projects built together, i.e. Indian Creek and Mud Bay reduce the costs as foJlows:
Remove or deduct:
HOB -
DEMOB
TOTAL
Barge
Administration
-Barge
Administration
$250,000
$40,000/$290,000
$250,000
$20,000/$270,000
$560.0
6.13 PROJECT ECONOMICS
6.13.1 Assumptions and Criteria for Federul Review
The major assumptions used in the analysis to determine
feasibility according to federal guidelines are as follows:
o 50-year economic life for hydropower projects;
o 30-year life for transmission lines1
o Interest rate of 7 7/8 percent1
o 2-year construction season in 1983 and 1984 with half
of construction cost expended in each year;
o Projects are operational in 1985;
o Annual fuel cost growth rates of -.53 percent in 1983,
1984 and 1985, 4.23 percent in 1986 -90, 3.71 percent
in 1991-95, 2.65 percent in 1996-2000, 3.53 percent
in 2001 -2013, and 0 percent beyond that time;
o Cost of diesel generation is 30¢/kWh in 1982 and
includes funds for fuel, operation and maintenance, and
replacement1
o The avera<;e annual value of diesel generation
"displaced" by hydropower generation is 27¢/kWh; and
o The total displaced pov;er is calculated with a fuel
cost element and O&M and replacement element at $1.43
per gallon for diesel fuel divided by an efficient rate
of 9 gallons per KWh and multiplied by a factor of 1.6
to arrive at an average annual cost of approximately
$.25/KWh. If a dam is constructed, annual O&l1 on the
diesel generators will be reduced from approximately
$250,000 to $125,000 and the life of the diesel
generators will be extended from 20 years to 25 years.
Together 1 these latter savings account for
approximately $. 02/K'Vlh for a total value of fuel plus
O&M and replacement of $.27/KWh.
o Annual labor (O&H) considers personnel to operate both
plants 1 i.e. diesel and hydropower. Labor costs are
assu~ed to be shared equally between the facilities.
Table 6.13.1 summarizes the analyses under these guidelines.
58
Ul
1.0
TABLE 6.13.1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS WI'rH FEDERAL GUIDELINES
Indian Creek
Indian Creek Dam
Dam (1) w/Intertie(2 )
----
Construction Cost $10,300,000 $11,430,000
Construction Interest 1,200,000 1,330,000
Investment Cost $11,500,000 $12,760,000
(with construction
interest)
ANNUAL COSTS
Interest and Amortization $ 930,000 $ 1,040,000
Operations, Maintenance,
and Replacement 110,000 130,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 1,040,000 $ 1,170,000
ANNUAL BENEFITS
Diesel Generation
Displacement Benefit $ 930,000 $ 1,030,000
Fuel Cost
Escalation Benefit 440,000 450,000
TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFIT $ 1,370,000 $ 1,480,000
NET ANNUAL BENEFIT $ 330,000 $ 310,000
BENEFIT-COST RATIO 1. 32 1. 26
Chignik Community only served. (1)
(2)
( 3)
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon Communities served.
Chignik Lagoon only served.
Indian Creek and
f.1ud Bay dams
w/Intertie(2 ) Intertie(])
$23,430,000 $1,130,000
2,880,000 130,000
$26,310,000 $1:260,000
$ 2,130,000 $110,000
150,000 20!000
$ 2,280,000 $130,000
$ 1,180,000 100,000
610,000 10,000
$ 1, 19o ,·ooo $110,000
($ -490,000) ($-20,000)
0.79 0.85
~lud Bay
Darn
$12,000,000
1,500,000
$13,550,000
$1,090,000
110,000
$1,200,000
180,000
90,000
$270,000
($-930,000)
0.23
6.13.2 Results Under Federal Guidelines
The analyses summarized in Table 6.13 .1 shew that the Indian
Creek Dam Alternatives can be considered feasible under the
Federal guidelines. The Indian Creek Alternative with the
intertie appears marginally better than the alternative without
which doesn't supply power to Chignik Lagoon. The alternatives
which include the Mud Bay Lake Creek Dam are not feasible
according to this economic analysis.
An examination of their feasiblili ty level data was made to
estimate the cost of energy to the two communi ties under the
Indian Creek Alternative with the intertie. This was only done
for 3 selected years and assumes that the communities could sell
all of the surplus power (in excess of the communities' needs) to
the cannery, and diesel generators would be employed to meet the
deficit in electrical requirements. Table 6.13.2 shows the
results of this analysis.
Year
1985
1995
2005
TABLE 6.13.2
COST OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR SELECTED YEARS
Hydropower
(¢/kWh)
25
20
19
Hydropower with
Diesel (¢/kWh)
26
23
26
The cost of hydropower decreases over time as the amount of
energy used by the communites and the industry expands over time
while the majority of the costs are fixed. The cost of blended
energy (hydropower with supplemental diesel) decreases for a
period of time until the amount of diesel generated power becomes
a substantial portion of total power. After that point the cost
of blended power begins to increase.
The feasibility of the Indian Creek Alternative was also
considered for a low demand forecast. Under this forecast,
electricity is not utilized for space heating and potential
demand at the freezing plant is not considered. An intertie is
not considered in this forecast. The Indian Creek Dan
Alternative serving Chignik would be feasible with a net annual
benefit of $120,000 and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.11.
The major alternatives were also reviewed under the guidelines of
the Alaska Pmver Authority. The results of these analyses are
contained in Appendix "H".
6.14 WATER SUPPLY
The hydropower development will have to maintain the existing
water rights on Indian Creek, and is very much suited for the
purpose.
60
To maintain the community and cannery water supply there are two
options:
o A bypass arrangement in the powerhouse.
o Pumping the needed water supply back up from the tailwater.
The latter required minimun loss of energy, as the required
pressure for water supply is only about half of the available
head.
However, based on the existing water rights -2,000 gal/minute -
and assuming this represents the peak water demand, the water
supply represents only about 35 to 60 kH average power or 300 to
5 lliJh annually, with an average/peak ratio of 0.3 to 0.5. This is
a small part of the scheme's usuable energy.
Water supply during construction will be maintained through
temporary means wherever/whenever the existing pipeline has to be
removed or will risk destruction. As water pressure is not in
excess of 100 feet, 43.4 psi for the approximately 4,000-foot
alongside the existing pipeline, 4-to 6-inch Perrot pipes
(light-weight, quick-coupled pipes) most likely will be used for
naintenance of water supply.
6.15 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
For small scale hydropower developments at remote locations in
Alaska, the design is aimed at solutions minimizing the needs for
transport, "shipped in" skilled labor, and sophisticated material
plant.
The machinery facilities and other features are designed to
minimize field work.
6.16 COLD WEATHER CONSIDERATIONS
There is no record of problems with the water fret::zing in the
existing small diameter wood stave and steel pipeline. No
significant operational related problems are anticipated in the
now proposed larger penstock or surge tank at Indian Creek or Mud
Bay. The existing 60-kW pelton wheel could always be used in a
low flow winter time emergency. Valveing at low spots in the
pipeline would be provided for emergency drainage.
61
PLATES
LEOGEND
-Nt• Ptnttock <,a ---Eaitling Penstock
_..,_...,toil ROC I
----Eaiatin11 Col Troil
GENERAL PLAN
~
0 266 ~ 1911 1064 fiHI
J
20po'
mel-
rJ-
-
scpo'
~ DIIITRICT
.._... __ --
CHIGNIK. AI.ASU.
U.S. Allo4Y
SWAU. Hl'llRCI'OWER FEASifllJTI STUD!'
INDIAN CREEK
GENERAL PLAN t PROFILE
·~
COirS 0' f"'O'"'UIS
•
38'-o"
·~ li
.-,I t ~ Of I
'ol
-~I
'':'!
~~~
PLAN ARRANGMENT
il
~
~~
0 2 4 6 8 ., ....
SE C'T10ti..lA-..l
......----~
0 Z 4 6 8 IOIMI
r II
TYPICAL ANCHOR BLOCK ELEVATION
~
0 2 4 6 8 lOW
~e21 Ct.-
;[
N I =-:;-=o==;;..:----=-!...;. I
.,l !!'
TYPtCAL PENSTOCK SADDLE
~
0 2 4 • 8 IOIMf
~
L '*'"*'a! 2!:1 ac.
(rd lo--401
U.S. AI MY
t t--d" 1 t t-o" t
0
~ ~~ ~~ ._..,
Rock Balls
TYPICAL ANCHOR BLOCK SECTION
0 2 4 6 8 lOW
V4·s...,
Pwlttcc:ll
AL»>f(A DIST1tiCT
ca.. Of'---CHIGNIK, ALASKA
SMAU. HYDROPOWER f'EAS181UT't STU01
INDIAN t MUD BAY CREEKS
POWER HOUSE ~ PENSTOCK
PLAN, SECTION t DETAILS
-..
INV. NO. DACWU-PLATE 1
C01'1 Of fNGINHU
--+
'
'50'
1110'
II·-HcuMW/
i z F'eniiQelt Rullt\ft ~ z Ail .. """-
lllllclnlw>le
-t n~.
~·140'
"""'~
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
-~ 0 10 20 30 40 501Mt
r;_DF'Wt.•KS -----
lild
txt
120'
_, -----
-· u. s. AUIY I
I
r-----6%-d"
~,.:~!!'3'! 4(/-(/' .,.Do~~~ • !tl!qt!f ~
DAM ELEVATION
r----'-~-~ 0 -.J 20 30 40 50Mt
PLAN VIE:'N
r---.~ o 40 eo 120 160 200,...
ALASIC.A DlsnucT ---
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
SloW..L ~ FtASI8IlJ'I'Y S1'UDY'
YUD SAY CRf.f.IC
DAY. SPILLWAY ( INTAJCI
PLAN. ELEVATION e DETAILS
------.-,,.. -~-.. I
INV. NO. DACWSS-PUTE 8
·~~·~~~:,:_.:.rr:..;·~~~-c:i1
l
I
COl'S 0' fNC.INUIS
460'-,
450'-1
440-1
430'-1
DUMPED
ROCI<FILL
wa» -;
z,s K1 •
',l
OUt.IPED
ROCKI'lLL
---~.442'
' ~ acxQQ)J 4 42Cf..J c -BEDROCK-' ·-RIVER BED
46C1,
i
I
4~
______..,.., ~
4'30-1
4zcP~
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION MAIN DAM ----0 10 20 30 <40fMt
CONCRETE
\GUIDE WALL
~-
SECTION THROUGH SPIUWAY
~
0 10 zo S) <40fMt
5" CORR STEEl.
CULVERT
\
. -
-y ~~--~-__.,---, ~ --;;:/ ~~
SECTION . THROUGH IN.TAK.E
:----~ o 10 zo 30 .or ...
tAlli'E HOUSE W/
.2. PENSTOCK RUPTl..fl£ VAL\10
2 AIR INI..ET VAIYES
I MANHOI.£
.
l 'IO"DDA.-v.c' srm. lL /P'EH'SfCD. __ ,
Spii'-J f C.•55' • ltlain DMI, L-2!5!!1' f
I ,
460']'~~:; ·--1" ~ .
4~ '
DAM_flEVA~ _
0 .,o----80 ~160 200 ....
-
-~ l.IIW o...e;. 442"
PLAN
0 '10 80 IZO NiO 200 fMt
N...NJIIII.A DIS'TI'IIC1"
U. 5. ARU.Y
;-j
·I
•
,_,
1
-~
COl'S 0' lNGINHIS
rJ
I
GENERAL PLAN
~
0 21&6 ~ 7'98 106<4 fMt
lCfd zcr" •.ooa I
4000'
I
5000'
I
SURGE TANK~
~]~ ~~
~HTWL•'O' rJ
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
200 IDO 0 200 400 100 800 IX)()t.t
-Z~
'9' .....
ALASKA DISTIIICT
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
SMAU.. tNDROPOWER FEASIBILITY ST\Ct
WUD BAY CR££K
GENERAL PLAN ( PROFILE
-
INV. NO. DACW85-PLATE 5
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
. FINAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OF
SMALL HYDROPOWER POTENTIAL
FROM
INDIAN AND MUD BAY LAKE
CREEKS
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MARCH 1983
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Small Hydropower Potential
From Indian and Mud Bay Creeks,
Chignik, Alaska
The responsible lead agency is the U. s. Army Engineer District,
Alaska.
Abstract: This assessment addresses the environmental conditions
existing in the project area based on limited, existing
information. Some temporary impacts of increased turbidity in
the creeks would be experienced during construction. A temporary
socioeconomic effect would result from the construction labor
force since housing conditions are scarce. No cultural resources
impact is anticipated at Indian Creek, but a resource study
should be conducted at Mud Creek if selected for the power site.
Long term environmental impacts at Indian Creek are minimal, and
these can be largely or completely mitigated by appropriate
construction practices and project design. Environmental impacts
at Mud Bay Lake should be anticipated, but this would be greater
in the loss of salmon food resources for bears and eagles, and
increased public access via associated transmission line
corridor. Some loss of fishery resources at Mud Bay should be
anticipated, but this would be insignificant in the total
picture. Alternative of wind, diesel, coal, peat and
timber-fired power sources were considered and eliminated in this
study. The proposed project is considered environmentally
acceptable and would provide needed power.
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER BY
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ElNIRONNENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ••
TABLE OF CONTENTS •••••••••
A. NEED AND OBJECTIVES •••.
B. ALTERNATIVES •••••••••
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
c. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT •••••••••••• • •
D.
1. Physical ••••...•
2. Biological •.•.•
3. Socioeconomics.
4. Cultural Resources •.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
. . . ....
1. Physical .•.••.•.••. . . . . . . .
E.
F.
2. Biological .••.•••••
3. Socioeconomics .••.
4. Cultural Resources.
MITIGATION •••••••
1. Physical ••..•••••
2. Biological •.•...
3. Socioeconomics.
. . . . . . . . .
4. Cultural Resources •...•••.
CULMULATIVE I~WACTS •••
1. Physical •.••••. . . . .
2. Biological •••••
3. Socioeconomic ..
4. Cultural Resources ••
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT •••••
. . ..
. . .
. .... . . .
G.
H. COASTAL ZONE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
ii
. . .
. . . . . . . . .
....
. . . . . . .
i
ii
EIA-1
EIA-1
EIA-3
EIA-3
EIA-6
EIA-16
EIA-19
EIA-23
EIA-23
EIA-26
EIA-33
EIA-34
EIA-34
EIA-34
EIA-35
EIA-37
EIA-37
EIA-37
EIA-37
EIA-37
EIA-39
EIA-39
EIA-40
EIA-40
ENVIRONMENTAL H1PACT ASSESSMENT (CHIGNIK)
A. Need and Objectives
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress in
1976 to determine the feasibility of installing small prepackaged
hydroelectric units (5 megawatts or less) in isolated communities
throughout Alaska. The communities of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
are interested in developing small hydropower plants to replace
or supplement existing diesel-powered generation facilities.
The escalating costs of diesel fuel, the noise and smell of
diesel generators, and long-range diesel supply dependability are
all reasons for concern on the part of local residents.
The objective of ongoing feasibility studies for hydropower
development to service these communities is to determine if such
power development is technically, economically, and
environmentally feasible. This Assessment addresses the
environmental conditions existing in the project area, based on
limited existing information, and gives an overview of the
possible environmental effects that would result from the
proposed action. A complete assessment of existing conditions,
impacts, and proposed mitigation is not possible with the
information presently available. It is anticipated that such
additional analyses will be conducted after a determination is
made whether or not to proceed with detailed project design.
B. Alternatives
Present studies have concentrated on various alternative
hydropower development scenarios within the Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon environs. Other generation alternatives have not been
fully analyzed at this level of feasibility evaluation.
IUDIAN CREEK
The development of Indian Creek would consist of a low dam on the
creek just downstream of an existing dam. The dam would be a
rockfill structure with a maximum height of 40 feet and a crest
elevation of 460 feet. Installed power capacity would be 1. 4
megawatts (MW). The normal full-pool elevation would be 455
feet, which would increase the elevation of the existing lake
surface by 5 feet. The preferred alternative could supply power
to both Chignik and Chignik Lagoon, assuming the construction of
approximately 6.5 miles of transmission line from the power
station near the village of Chignik to Chignik Lagoon.
DIESEL GENERATORS
The existing electrical generation facilities at Chignik
excluding the cannery -consist of one 75-kilowatt (kH) diesel
generator and two 175-kW diesel ·generators. These generators
supply power to the residents of the village and the school. The
EIA - 1
operational cannery at Chignik operates on its own generators,
consisting of one 60-kW Pelton wheel, one 250-kW diesel
generator, and three 300-kW diesel generators. The village of
Chignik Lagoon operates on a dispersed power generation system,
consisting of various 3-to 10-kW diesel generators owned and
operated by individual residents or groups of residents. There
are no commercial generation facilities serving Chignik Lagoon.
The no-action alternative would essentially result in a
continuation of the present reliance on diesel-powered
generators, both commercial and dispersed, in the two nearby
communities. Noise and smells associated with diesel operations
would not be abated in this alternative. Concerns relative to
diesel fuel cost and dependability would not be alleviated in
this alternative.
WIND POWER
It is possible that wind powered generators may be feasible at
Chignik, but this possibility has not been investigated during
the present study. It is unlikely that competitive and fully
dependable wind powered commercial generators would be possible
at Chignik Lagoon.
PLANS ELIMINATED FROH FURTHER STUDY
Numerous hydroelectric power development scenarios to serve
either Chignik and/or Chignik Lagoon have been investigated in
this feasibility study. These scenarios included possibly
generating power from Packers Creek 1 Mud Bay Lake Creek 1 and
Indian Creek. Various co-development and intertie options were
considered. Generation at Packers Creek was concluded to be.
Development of Mud Bay Lake Creek was determined to be less
beneficial than development of Indian Creek.
MUD BAY LAKE
This small mesotropic system is approximately 1,200 feet long and
1,000 feet at the widest point. The basin is fenerally oval in
shape at an elevation of 127 feet. The inlet on the south side
of the lake is a meandering·creek. The outlet is on the north
end of this system. No depth, water quality or biological
productivity data are available for this aquatic system.
WITHOUT CONDITIONS (NO ACTION)
Uithout the development of the proposed hydroelectric power, some
environmental impacts would occur in the form of air and noise
pollution from diesel generators. There would be the possibility
of fuel spills and resultant pollution associated with diesel
power generation. Escalating costs of fuel could prove to be an
important economic consideration for the community.
EIA - 2
SUMMARY
A full description of the preferred alternative is presented in
the engineering report. The feasibility of developing
geothermal, coal, peat, or timber-fired power is considered
unlikely, due to the remoteness of the project area from adequate
supplies of these resources. Solar energy could be utilized for
some community needs, but would not be fully effective
year-round. Waste heat recovery from the existing diesel
generators would require construction of a suitable distribution
system, but might reduce some requirements for electrical power.
Given the small size of the affected communities, municipal solid
waste and tidal energy are considered unlikely coordinate
resources for future development.
C. Affected Environment
1. Physical
a. General
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are located on the southeast
coast of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 275 miles
east of Unimak Pass, and 450 miles southwest of Seward,
Alaska. The area which would be affected by project
activities lies between longitude 158° and 159° west,
and latitude 56° and 57° north. Portions of the
project area are within the Aleutian Mountain Range and
the adjacent Pacific Ocean lowlands.
Mud Bay Lake Creek is approximately 2. 5 miles long,
drains generally to the north from an elevation of
approximately 500 feet to sea level, and exits into Mud
Bay. The creek valley is fairly wide, approximately
2.0 miles crest to crest, north to south, with a small
lake approximately 30 acres in size at elevation 127
feet. The western valley walls are relatively steep
and have slopes ranging from 18 to 38 percent. Near
the northwestern valley wall crest slopes approach
vertical. The eastern valley wall is less steep at the
mouth and has slopes of approximately 24 percent. The
valley walls narrow to the south and slopes approach 47
percent in the southeastern area of the valley. The
drainage area is approximately five square miles with
one small tributary stream, approximately one-half mile
in length, entering the main stream north of the lake
at 127 feet elevation. Also, directly north of the
lake is a natural saddle at an elevation of 200 feet,
which is incised by the creek's natural drainage to the
east. Upstream of the lake 127 feet, the valley floor
is relatively wide and very gently sloping. The
average stream gradient is approximately 4 percent over
the 2.5 mile length. Field reconnaissance photos taken
EIA - 3
in April of 1982 show sedimentary bedrock outcrops
along the stream drainage.
Indian Creek is approximately 3.5 miles long and drains
generally north-northwest from an elevation of 1200
feet to sea level, exiting through the flatlands
(containing the village of Chignik) into Anchorage Bay.
The creek valley is relatively narrow and approximately
1.5 miles wide (crest to crest). The valley walls are
steeply sloping, ranging from 50 percent to near
vertical along the upper valley walls. A small timber
dam and lake impoundment are located at an elevation of
442 feet. These facilities provide both water (via
elevated pipeline) and limited power to the cannery at
Chignik. The average stream gradient is 15 percent
from headwaters to mouth. The stream is generally very
incised downstream of the dam and lake. Field
reconnaissance photos taken in April of 1982 show
sedimentary bedrock outcrops both within and adjacent
to the incised creek drainage.
b. Hydrology
Above the existing damsite, Indian Creek has a drainage
area of 3 square miles. The basin ranges in elevation
from 3,430 feet at the highest point to a low of about
442 feet at the existing 20-acre reservoir. The basin
is sparsely vegetated and consists predominantly of
bedrock and talus slopes. The basin is open to the
northwest and partially shielded from southerly Pacific
storms by the mountains on its southerly boundary. The
existing lake has been formed by a glacial terminal
moraine.
Mud Bay Creek has a drainage area of 4.5 square miles
above the damsite. The basin ranges in elevation from
a high of 2,650 feet on its eastern boundary to a low
of 127 feet at the existing 30-acre lake. The basin is
open to the north and, like Indian Creek, is shielded
from the more severe southerly storms by a southerly
barrier ridge averaging approximately 2, 500 feet in
elevation. Like Indian Creek, the basin is comprised
predominantly of bedrock and sparsely vegetated talus
slopes. The lake has been formed by a glacial moraine.
Stream gauging stations were established near each of
the two proposed damsites in early 1982. These
stations have not yet developed enough record to be
useful for estimation of potential streamflow.
Therefore, a synthetic 50-year sequence of monthly
average streamflows was developed for each stream. The
synthetic record was developed from considerations of
records from streams in the region having similar size
and characteristics to the basins under consideration.
EIA - 4
The Corps of Engineers computer program known as
"Monthly Streamflow Simulation" (HEC-4) was employed to
develop ·statistics from the region • s similar streams.
The limited rainfall record available at Chignik was
correlated with longer record regional stations and the
relationship of the variability of rainfall to the
variability of streamflow examined. The results of the
HEC-4 analysis of regional streamflow and rainfall are
presented in the engineering report. An attempt was
made to explain the minor variation of the monthly
standard deviations, skews, and serial correlation
coefficient by correlation with known basin
characteristics. No significant correlation was
achieved. Therefore, the mean values from the study
were adopted as regional coefficients. The mean
monthly flows for each basin were derived from runoff
from basins. The basins used were Myrtle Creek near
Kodiak and Spruce Creek near Seward.
Non-direct observations of historical floods are
available for either Indian or Mud Bay Creeks. The
probable magnitude of annual peak flood discharges for
each stream has been estimated by means of a u.S.
Geological Survey method as presented in "Flood
Characteristics of Alaskan Streams" by John Lamb.
Flood frequency curves developed by this method are
presented in the engineering report. For preliminary
purposes, the maximum probable flood may be
approximated as four times greater than the 50-year
flood magnitude. Thus, for the purpose of this
document, the maximum probable flood for Indian Creek
is about 2,400 cubic feet per second (cfs), and the
maximum probable flood for Mud Bay Creek is about 3,400
cfs. These estimates represent the runoff resulting
from the most severe rainfall and snowmelt situation
considered possible for the region. They should be
used only for consideration of dam integrity when
failure would result in loss of life and extensive
property damage downstream.
No sediment transport studies have been performed at
either Indian Creek or at Mud Bay Creek. The observed
discharge is very clear. The existence of relatively
deep lakes without topset beds indicates that there is
little sediment inflow. For that reason, depletion of
storage by sediment is not expected.
c. Aesthetics
The Indian Creek drainage has already been impacted by
manmade developments. Existing facilities include a
small timber dam and lake impoundment at an elevation
of 455 feet. An elevated water supply pipeline runs
from this elevation to the Alaska Packers Association
EIA - 5
Cannery at Chignik. Mud Bay Lake Creek is relatively
undisturbed. The entire project area is relatively
scenic with mountain vistas in stark contrast to the
narrow flatlands bordering the northern Pacific Ocean.
2. Biological
a. Vegetation
Plant communities in the areas of interest to this
study were analyzed by means of observations made and
photographs taken during April of 1982, recent
photogrammetric maps produced as a part of this project
and preliminary vegetation maps furnished by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) personnel in Planning Aid
Letters.
Although the general environment of the Chignik area
appears homogeneous, the
hydroelectric development lie
environmental settings that
influences on the vegetation
populations.
proposed sites of
in slightly different
will have important
and associated animal
Indian Creek Lake is situated at an elevation of 442
feet approximately 1.5 miles south of Chignik village.
Mountains rise steeply to elevations of 1,500 feet to
2,000 feet on the east, south and west sides of the
lake, closing in more abruptly on the west side of the
lake. Drainage into the lake is principally from the
south. Much of the drainage basin is relatively barren
of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation because of the
harsh environment of broken rock and steep topography.
Based upon an analysis of 1.6 square miles of mapped
habitat encompassing Indian Creek Lake and Indian Creek
drainages that will be traversed by the proposed
project, approximately 48 percent of the area is
covered by Closed Tall Alder Scrub, principally
composed of dense (more than 75 percent canopy cover)
Sitka Alder thickets that are six to nine feet tall
with a fairly dense understory of bluejoint grass.
Alder and willow thickets occur around the small lake
north of Indian Creek Lake, and this habitat type
predominates just east of the larger lake on the
southwest exposures between 1,000 to 1,500 feet
elevation. Open Tall Alder thickets occupy about 17
percent of the area, mostly between 1, 500 to 2, 000
feet, and a narrow band along the east side of Indian
Creek Lake. The terrain on the southwest side of the
lake is covered by a mosaic of low (less than 6 feet in
height) Open Alder and Tall Herbaceous habitat of
bluejoint grass with a mixture of herbs. Coverage of
major habitat types at the proposed Indian Creek and
.Mud Bay Lake project areas is estimated in the chart
EIA - 6
below. Habitat types are classified according to
Viereck, Dyrness and Batten (1982).
Habitat Type
Closed Tall Alder
Indian Creek
44
Open Tall Alder-Willow
Open Tall Alder
Closed Tall Alder-Willow
Open Low Alder
Tall Grass (Bluejoint and herbs)
Miscellaneous
23
16
5
3
3
6
100
Mud Bay Lake
5
12
50
10
23
100
Major differences between habitats in the Indian Creek
and Mud Bay Creek drainages are apparent, particularly
in terms of the mosaics of alder-willow and tall grass
cover types. Such differences reflect the more open
character of the Ivlud Bay watershed and its less rugged
topography. Wet meadows along both creeks are
especially supportive of salmonberries, crowberries,
cloudberries, cranberries, dwarf birch, Labrador tea,
and other low shrubs of importance to a variety of
animals, including man. These productive wet meadows
are much more abundant in the t-lud Bay Lake drainage
compared to the Indian Creek drainage. Time and budget
constraints precluded the accurate mapping of these
important areas and appreciable areas of alpine tundra
that would be transected by the proposed electric
transmission intertie between Mud Bay Lake and Chignik
Lagoon.
One of the most important examples of wet meadow
habitat is a wet sedge meadow located between the
village of Chignik and the steep bluff just west of it,
across which the current penstock extends on pilings.
Such areas are considered sensitive habitat that are
highly productive for a variety of biota, are not
locally abundant, and which should not be impacted if
at all possible.
b. Wildlife
Emphasis was placed on determining the importance of
the Indian Creek and Mud Bay Lake Creek drainages to
brown bears and moose because of the value placed on
these animals as big game species. Aerial surveys were
made by helicopter inspection of north-and east-facing
slopes of the project area environs during late April
1982. Special emphasis was placed on dense alder and
willow thickets with deep snow and located between
1,000 feet and 1,500 feet, the preferred denning
habitat (Lentfer et al. 1972). None were discovered,
nor do such preferred areas appear to be in the area of
influence projected from the increased lake leve 1 or
EIA - 7
the penstock right-of-way. The entire penstock
alignment was surveyed on foot during September and no
signs of bear denning activities were seen, although
the dense alder thickets restricted visibility to a few
yards from the narrow path. In general, the project
area can be considered to be on the periphery of
optimum brown bear habitat such as exists near Black
Lake, where up to 148 animals were seen during one
evening aerial survey during the past summer (Richard
Sellers, personal communication).
Signs of moose and other big game animals were seen
near Indian Creek and Indian Creek Lake during the
field surveys conducted by government personnel. There
were reports during our April survey of a denning brown
bear in the creek drainage immediately east of Chignik,
and a sow and her cub were observed feeding on salmon
cannery wastes on the shores of Anchorage Bay during
the USF&WS's August field trip. One bear, apparently a
male, was observed during the survey of the t1ud Bay
Lake area in April. Although its den was not
discovered, it was believed to be near the northeast
corner of S14 T45S R59W, based upon the short distance
the bear trail was visible in fresh snow and the
lateness of the season. Another fresh bear trail was
followed for about one-half mile on the peninsula
between Mud Bay and Chignik Lagoon. Previous sightings
were made of a sow and three cubs in June 1981 near Mud
Bay Lake and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
biologists estimated that same year that there were six
brown bears in the drainage basin to the south of the
proposed project area. Aerial surveys conducted by the
ADF&G from 1970 to 1975 provided only scattered
observations of bear in this region, giving no specific
locations and densities. Den emergence for brown bears
in this area varies with the weather conditions and
usually occurs between early April and early June.
Most emerge in May, sows with cubs usually emerging
later than males. Abundant bear signs were noted
around Mud Bay Lake during all USF&WS and contractor
surveys, indicating that the salmon resource provides
support for an abundant bear population.
Three moose were sighted during the April survey in the
western part of the Chignik Peninsula and two moose
were seen during the September survey. The population
is considered to be now relatively stable near the
animals, alhtough not at the level of about five years
ago. Chignik residents have reported that the
population has never recovered to former levels.
Further information from the ADF&G biologists in King
Salmon verify that the moose population in this area
has gradually declined during the past 10 to 15 years
(Richard Sellers, personal communication). One or two
EIA - 8
moose are usually taken annually by hunters of the
Chignik area, but most residents harvest animals in the
Aniakchak-Amber Bay area, some 35 to 50 miles farther
up the Alaska Peninsula from Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon.
Caribou are taken in limited numbers by Chignik
residents, mostly in the Port Heiden or Kujulik Bay
areas, and there is appreciable exchange of food items
with Chignik Lake and Chignik Lagoon residents. Early
runs of salmon produce fresh fish that is traded for
caribou and moose at those locations (Payne and Braund
1981), thus expanding the subsistence resource base.
Furbearers of the Chignik region receive only slight
attention from the residents, although appreciable
numbers of red foxes, weasels, mink, wolverine, and
tundra hares are indicated by signs noted during all
field surveys conducted this year. Less numbers of
wolves and land otters are also present in the area.
Sizeable populations of small mammals occur throughout
the alder and willow thickets, especially where the
more open areas have extensive stands of grasses and
herbs for food. One Chignik Lagoon resident ran an
extensive trap line in this area, and several of his
abandoned traps were found during our field survey.
One trap contained remains of a wolverine eaten by
predators. Signs of furbearers other than beaver were
especially abundant around the headwaters of Packers
Creek and eastward toward Mud Bay Lake. Residents of
this area do not possess much interest in trapping
(ADF&G's Richard Sellers, personal communication),
although socioeconomic studies indicate that "a few
residents" participate in these activities. Recent
mild winters in the region may have discouraged greater
involvement: however, beaver lodges on Mud Bay Lake
have been dynamited in the past (apparently as a
management procedure) by fisheries personnel who were
concerned for the potential blockage of the lake outlet
to salmon. Fresh beaver cuttings and dams were noted
on Mud Bay Lake drainages during May (USF&WS Planning
Aid Letter, July 1982), and a new dam was noted in the
lake outlet in September (Ken z.tiddleton, personal
communication). This dam did not obstruct the sockeye
salmon movement into Mud Bay Lake, and provided
schooling habitat for some 40 to 50 large (12-to 24-
inch) Dolly Varden char.
c. Birds
Chignik Lagoon is situated on the edge of a major
north-south migration route for waterfowl, shorebirds,
and marine birds that follow the Alaska Peninsula and
colonize major rookeries in the general area of
EIA - 9
Chignik. An appreciable number of birds also cross the
Aleutian Range in the Black Lake-Chignik Lake area as
various population segments move between Bristol Bay
and Gulf of Alaska on their way to and from breeding
grounds in western Alaska. Estuaries of Chignik Bay
serve as shelter and feeding areas for several species
of marine birds that winter in the area. Castle Bay,
located about 10 miles southwest of Chignik, is an
important area for the harvesting of ducks and geese
that are an important subsistence resource for Chignik
residents. Chankliut Island, located about 5 miles
southeast of Castle Bay, supports a seabird colony of
about 4, 000 murres, kittiwakes, puffins, guillemots,
gulls, and cormorants (Sowls, Hatch and Lensink 1978).
About 250 species of birds are expected to occur in the
Chignik-Chignik Lagoon environs, heavily represented by
marine and passerine types because of the peninsula
location of the area of interest and its situation on a
major migration pathway. Of these only the Aleutian
Canada Goose is considered to be threatened or
endangered; it may transit the area on its migrations
to and from the Pacific coast states from its main
breeding ground on Buldir Island in the western
Aleutian Islands.
Appendices provide hypothetical
expected to occur in various
Chignik-Chignik Lagoon environs.
d. Fish
checklists
habitats
of biota
of the
Due to the importance of the salmon fishing industry to
the State of Alaska in general, and to the communities
of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon in particular, the
effected fishery resources of the Chignik environs
should first be discussed in a broader context. To do
so, it must be understood how the finfish resources of
Indian Creek and Mud Bay Lake Creek fit into the
overall State of Alaska Fisheries Management Plan.
The Chignik Fishery Management Area is bounded on the
north by Kilokak Rocks, near the entrance to Imuya Bay,
and on the south by Kupreanof Point. This management
area is further divided into five fishing districts
(for finfish). These five fishing districts are
further subdivided into a total of 14 sections. These
smaller divisions serve specific management and
geographic orientation purposes. Overlapping the
districts and sections are 25 statistical catch
reporting units. These units do not always conform
exactly to the regulatory descriptions for districts
and sections due to regulation changes; however, they
remain constant in order to maintain the integrity of
the historical catch data base.
EIA -10
The Indian Creek watershed drains into Anchorage Bay,
which is a component of the Chignik Bay Fishing
District. The Chignik Bay District is confined to
those waters southwest of a line extending from Jack
Point on the south to Neketa Creek on the north.
Anchorage Bay is also a component of the slightly
smaller statistical catch reporting unit known as
271-10, or Chignik Lagoon.
In 1981, ADF&G personnel surveyed some 86 salmon
streams in the Chignik Management Area. Such surveys
were routine annual surveys conducted by aircraft
throughout the summer fishing season to assess salmon
run strength and escapement levels for management
purposes.
The Chignik Fishery Management Area salmon harvest in
1981 totalled 3.6 million fish valued at $22 million to
the fishermen. For 103 registered vessels, the harvest
resulted in gross income of $214,000 per vessel. The
Chignik Lagoon statistical area produced back-to-back
record sockeye harvests of 1.3 and 1.4 million fish in
1981 and 1982, respectively.
The Chignik Bay District accounted for 42 percent of
the area's total salmon catch, 74 percent of the
sockeye catch, 45 percent of the coho catch, 10 percent
of the pink catch, 6 percent of the chum catch, and 74
percent of the king salmon catch in 1981. Virtually
all of the Chignik Bay District catch and production is
generated by the highly productive Chignik River
system, where the commercial fishing fleet concentrates
(in Chignik Lagoon) during the fishing season. As few
as four seine vessels normally venture into the outer
area of Chignik Lagoon toward the Anchorage Bay-Jack
Point area. Consequently, the exploitation rate of
salmon stocks specific to the Mud Bay-Anchorage Bay
systems is probably minimal.
With the exception of reported personal use of clams in
the Mud Bay area, no documentation is available
concerning recreational or subsistence utilization of
finfish in the Anchorage Bay or Hud Bay areas.
Indian Creek Fisheries Resources
Historical documentation concerning the Indian Creek
system does not exist. This system has not been listed
in the ADF&G Anadromous Stream Catalog, nor is it one
of the numerous streams in the area routinely surveyed
by the ADF&G annually.
According to the USF&HS, local residents estimate a
population of pink salmon ranging from 300 to 1000
EIA -11
fish. It is not clear, however, whether these
estimates were based on pre-or post-1964 earthquake
observations. Local opinion also maintains that the
pink salmon run was larger and that a small coho salmon
population existed in Indian Creek before the 1964
earthquake. The earthquake presumably moved the stream
mouth outlet from its former site just behind and east
of the gravel spit upon which the Alaska Packers
cannery is situated to a location several hundred yards
west of this point. However, aerial photos dated
August 20, 1963 show the Indian Creek outlet in its
current position, suggesting either that local op~n~on
is mistaken as to the date of the alteration or that
the aerial photo date is erroneous.
The physical characteristics of the stream present
definite limiting factors relative to salmon
production. A significant velocity barrier exists
approximately one mile upstream from the stream's mouth
and in all probability is the upper limit of anadromous
fish migration. Again, local opinion has it that the
limit of pink salmon spawning may be restricted to the
lower one-half mile of stream. The stream's substrate
consists primarily of boulders, large rubble, and
cobble with little available gravel for spawning.
Three field investigations were conducted during 1982
to ascertain fisheries resources. A 2-day field
investigation conducted by USF&WS personnel on May 14
and 15, 1982 revealed the presence of juvenile pink
salmon, Dolly Varden char, and sculpin in the lower
reaches of Indian Creek. The timing and duration of
this sampling period may not have been optimal to
evaluate the abundance of outmigrating pink salmon fry.
Pink salmon fry typically emerge from their redds in
Alaskan streams from March through May. Nevertheless,
this limited sampling effort did establish that pink
salmon utilize Indian Creek for spawning si~ce a
24-hour fyke net set produced a catch of 200 juvenile
pink salmon. Additionally, a 24-hour sample with four
baited minnow traps captured seven Dolly Varden
juveniles and one sculpin.
A subsequent USF&WS field trip from July 27 to August 2
revealed that juvenile Dolly Varden and sculpin were
inhabiting the lower one-half mile of Indian Creek. No
adult pink salmon were found, although observations
centered on the general adult migration of pink salmon
spawners in this area (July 10 through August 30).
A field trip to this same area of Indian Creek was
conducted during the period of September 6 to 9, 1982
by Middleton & Associates. Helicopter and ground
surveillance substantiated previous investigations that
EIA -12
fish did not occur in the lake or immediately below the
lake. A foot survey of the lower 500 yards of Indian
Creek revealed the presence of eight adult Dolly Varden
char and one female pink salmon in a gravid,
pre-spawning condition. There was no evidence of post-
spawners, carcasses, or other salmon species in this
area.
Alaskan studies of anadromous Dolly Varden char
indicate that mature fish use their natal streams to
spawn and seek lakes to overwinter. Since Indian Creek
Lake is not available for this purpose, these
apparently anadromous Dolly Varden probably leave
Indian Creek by late November to either ocean feed or
to overwinter in lake systems. Migration from the
ocean into freshwater streams can extend from July
through October, the latter month being the peak period
for spawning.
It is apparent that Indian Creek does not support a
significant finfish population. At one time, before
the 1964 earthquake, it may have supported up to 1,000
pink salmon, but this number is unsubstantiated and
unlikely in light of observations made during 1982.
Since pink salmon are noted for their "straying"
habits, the presence of salmon in the Indian Creek
system could possibly be related to population
pressures (abundance indicating spatial intraspecific
competition) in adjacent systems, or even random
straying of individual fish.
Had there been any significant numbers of salmon
present, they would have been readily apparent in this
small, clearwater stream. Adult pink salmon were still
entering the adjacent Mud Bay Creek in early September,
so timing was not the factor.
The only anadromous species known to occur in Indian
Creek are pink salmon and Dolly Varden char. Only one
adult pink salmon was observed near the mouth of Indian
Creek in the course of two field investigations
undertaken between July 27 and September 9, 1982.
Since pink salmon have a distinctive 2-year life cycle,
the even and odd year populations are genetically
distinctive and may vary considerably in population
size. If a remnant pink salmon run is maintained in
this system, this brood year was a virtual failure.
Pink salmon production was generally down in the
Chignik Bay District in 1982.
Mud Bay Creek Fisheries Resources
Historical documentation concerning the Hud Bay Creek
system does not exist. It has not been listed in the
EIA -13
ADF&G Anadromous Stream Catalog, nor is it included
among the group of streams annually surveyed by ADF&G
to evaluate fisheries resources in the area.
Two independent surveys conducted in 1982, one month
apart (late July and late August) each produced
estimates of approximately 1,000 sockeye salmon in Mud
Bay Lake. USF&WS personnel estimated that there were
20 adult chum salmon and 12 adult pink salmon in the
lower one-fourth mile of Mud Bay Lake Creek in late
July. Another survey conducted in early September
registered a count of 60 adult pink salmon in the lower
40 yards of Mud Bay Lake Creek. Additional salmon were
observed in the fast water above this area but could
not be counted. One pink salmon was observed in a
spawning tributary to the lake, but the majority of
pink salmon probably spawn below the lake as is
characteristically done.
All investigators observed significant numbers of Dolly
Varden char throughout the system, from the lake
tributary sockeye spawning areas to the mouth of the
Mud Bay Lake Creek. A minimum of 1, 000 Dolly Varden
char were estimated by Middleton in conjunction with
spawning sockeye salmon in the tributary streams at the
upper end of Mud Bay Lake. These char ranged from four
to eight inches in length. Large Dolly Varden char,
from 12 to 24 inches in length, were schooled-up just
above and below a small beaver dam at the lake's
outlet. Some 40 to 50 of these larger char were seen
in this area. Char were also observed along the
lakeshore near the outlet, but no estimate of numbers
was possible.
Based on late August and early September observations,
the peak of sockeye spawning activity occurred in a
2-week period between August 25 and September 7. Since
the USF&WS personnel found that pink salmon spawning
had occurred by late July, it was surprising to find
that adult pink salmon were still moving into the lower
reaches of the stream in early September. This is not
unheard of, but is somewhat late timing for pink salmon
in this area.
Coho salmon were observed by investigators from the
Corps of Engineers.
The Mud Bay Lake system supports a sockeye salmon
population as large as 1,000 adults. This number may
reflect the maximum population size because: a) sockeye
production in the general area was exceptionally high
in 1982, with a record commercial catch in the adjacent
Chignik Lagoon fishery; b) the limited nature of the
spawning area; and c) the likelihood that there was a
EIA -14
low interception rate on this specific stock, due in
part to the intense fishery that occurred in Chignik
Lagoon.
I4ud Bay Lake Creek supports a modest population of both
chum and pink salmon. As many as 20 adult chum salmon
and 60 pink salmon were observed at one time. However,
the pink salmon figure is minimal since fish were
observed in the stream above this count area but could
not be reliably counted. Additionally, adult pink
salmon were observed in the system as early as July 27
and were still entering the stream as late as
September 8. This prolonged migration results in
successive waves of spawners. Consequently, one-time
observations under these circumstances are usually not
indicative of abundance. In any event, the limited
observations made this summer do not indicate a
substantial even-year pink salmon population.
Dolly Varden char occur in substantial numbers
throughout the watershed. While total population
estimates are not available with the data at hand, it
would not be unreasonable to surmise that the
population of both mature and immature Dolly Varden
char inhabiting this system this season ranged from
1,500 upward.
King salmon are not known to occur in this watershed.
e. Marine
The shellfish fishing areas for the Chignik District
vary somewhat by species. The Tanner and king crab
areas approximate the finfish area extending from
Kupreanof Point to the longitude of Cape Kumlik. For
shrimp, the boundaries are Kilokaka Rocks on the east
and Cape Sarichef on the west.
Shellfish production has varied considerably in recent
years. King crab production from the Chignik District
has averaged 165,000 pounds per season for the past ten
years, with a range of 12,000 to 365,000 pounds.
Tanner crab production has averaged 4.9 million pounds
over the last eight years, ranging from 2. 5 to 6. 9
million pounds. The shrimp fishery began in 1968 with
a harvest of 900,000 pounds. Peak production occurred
during the 1977-78 season, when 71.6 million pounds
were landed. Production during the 1981-82 season
dropped to 71,000 pounds. Since the peak year of
1977-78, the entire area has been virtually closed to
shrimp fishing in order to rebuild the stocks. Shrimp
populations have been in a depressed condition in
recent years throughout the Chignik-South Peninsula
EIA -15
Date:
area. Both Dungeness crab and scallop fisheries are
sporadic and relatively minor.
Herring have been harvested in the general area since
1906. Total annual catches in the early 1900's did not
exceed one million pounds, and the fishery ended in the
late 1930 1 s. Commercial herring fishing recommenced in
the Chignik area in 1980, directed at sac roe
production for export to Japan. In 1980, 48 tons of
herring were harvested in Anchorage Bay from May 16 to
21. On May 24, aerial surveys undertaken by ADF&G
indicated that 40 tons of herring were present in the
area. In 1981, 1,000 tons were observed during the
entire season. Fishermen seined schools of fish
totalling 3,000 tons to 5,000 tons, but they turned out
to be unmarketable spawned-out herring and capelin. No
commercial landings of herring were recorded that
season. Only 196 tons were harvested in 1982.
Mud Bay is extremely shallow and supports a healthy
aquatic plant community. Even though no data exist
other than the general knowledge that there are clam
resources in the area, it is very likely that the
aquatic plants are important to a variety of marine
life forms.
f. Rare and Endangered Species
These species are discussed under the "Environmental
Effects" section of this report (see Section (D) (2) (f).
3. Socioeconomics
Project resources did not permit field research on the
socioeconomic structures of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon. The
following material is excerpted from the most recent studies
completed in the area (Environmental Services, Ltd. 1982a,
b.)
Chignik
a. Population
Population:
1890
193
1939
224
1950
253
1960
99
1970
83
1980
178
The population of Chignik peaked in 1950 with 253
persons and then decreased dramatically. Between 1970
and 1980, the population increased by 114 percent.
Residents report that this increase is primarily due to
a healthy economy and the population is 53.4 percent
Native, mostly Aleut. In 1980, the median ages were
25.3 and 25.2 years for males and females,
EIA -16
respectively. The population was 53.4 percent male and
46.6 percent female.
During the summer fishing season, approximately 600 to
700 people move to Chignik from Kodiak, Anchorage,
Seward, Seattle, and villages throughout the region to
fish and work in the cannery.
b. Economy
Fishing is the mainstay of the cash economy in Chignik.
Beginning around the second week in June, residents
prepare to fish for red salmon and successive runs of
pink, dog (chum), and silver salmon. Fish are taken in
purse seiners and delivered to the local cannery or to
Kodiak for freezing. Chignik is the major fishing
community in the area, with boats, crews and families
from several area villages and elsewhere congregating
there during the salmon season. All but a few of the
Alaska Packers Association cannery employees come from
outside the state.
The economic well-being of Chignik, as well as the
whole region, depends on the success of the salmon
fishermen. Salmon runs have been good the last several
years. The 1981 Chignik red salmon runs of 3,072,599
fish broke the previous record set in 1888. Runs for
other salmon species approached record numbers in 1981.
The 103 fishing boats in the Chignik area in 1981
caught a total of $22,090,000 worth of salmon (all
species) averaging $214,446 per vessel. Red salmon
comprised the major portion of the total catch of
3,621,800 fish.
Subsistence is an important part of the residents' life
style and Native cultural heritage, as well as a major
source of food. Salmon are caught by seining from
spring until early winter. Marine fish, such as cod,
black bass and halibut, are caught year round. Rainbow
trout are taken in the winter and summer. Dolly Varden
are caught during the summer and early fall. Residents
fish for dungeness, king, and tanner crab, clams and
octopus through the year. Moose, caribou, ptarmigan,
ducks, and geese are hunted in season (villagers travel
extensively for hunting). In the fall, residents pick
blueberries, cranberries, mossberries, and salmon-
berries.
c. Housing
There are 48 houses in Chignik and the cannery has
bunkhouses for its seasonal workers. A few newer
houses in good condition are scattered throughout the
community; however, most of the houses are in fair to
EIA -17
poor condition. There are usually
vacancies in the winter, but when
Chignik in the summer for fishing,
shortage occurs.
three or four
people move to
a severe housing
d. Water
The village built a dam on Indian Creek in 1947 to
provide a reservoir for the cannery and the village
residents. The water is untreated, but of good
quality. A line distributes water from the dam to the
cannery. Five homes, which have buried lines connected
to the main line, have water all winter. Other homes
are connected via above-ground lines. These lines
often freeze in the winter. When this happens,
residents carry water to their homes, from the cannery.
Six houses and the school have private wells.
e. Solid Waste
Trash is burned at an incinerator operated by the
cannery. Solid waste that cannot be burned is dumped
in a slough which empties into Anchorage Bay. This
dump site is not approved by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Chignik Lagoon
a. Population
Date:
Population:
1960
108
1980
48
There are no early census figures for Chignik Lagoon,
nor was the population counted in the 1970 census. The
population declined 125 percent from 1960 to 1980. A
local census, conducted by the village council on
October 1, 1981, counted 84 people. The present
population is 85.4 percent Native (mostly Aleut). In
1980, the median ages were 21.8 and 19.5 years for
males and females, respectively. The population was
52.1 percent male and 47.9 percent female.
In summer, during salmon season, people
surrounding area move to Chignik Lagoon to
village population swells to as many as 200
an additional 10 people live on boats moored
b. Economy
from the
fish. The
people and
offshore.
The economy of Chignik Lagoon is similar to that
described previously for Chignik; fishing is the
mainstay of the economy and subsistence is an important
EIA -18
part of the lifestyle and source of food.
Lagoon does not have a cannery, however.
Chignik
Other jobs in the community include a teacher, part-
time school custodian, a U.S. Postal Service employee,
a health aid, and a part-time road maintenance person.
c. Housing
Some of the community's 61 single family houses are
new. Others are in substandard condition, but the
majority are in good condition. Houses are of wood
frame or prefabricated construction. Most are owner
built.
d. \-later
Residents of Chignik Lagoon use individual wells as
their water source. The wells average 10 to 30 feet in
depth. The school has its own hand-dug well. The
water is untreated, but of good quality.
e. Solid Waste
Garbage is dumped on the sandy point near the airport
and burned. The tide washes away the residue. The
disposal site is not approved by the State Department
of Environmental Conservation.
4. Cultural Resources
The Alaska Peninsula has been of particular interest to
anthropologists because, at the time of European contact,
three separate ethnic and racial groups existed in this
area: the Aleuts, Eskimos and Athabaskans. The most recent
research on the Peninsula seems to indicate that the Chignik
region on the Pacific coast west to Port Moller on the
Bering sea cost was the northernmost extent of the Aleutian
tradition. The prehistoric boundary between the groups
probably fluctuated somewhat throughout time so precise
boundaries cannot be drawn.
In historic times, before the start of the canning industry,
the westernmost Eskimo village on the Pacific coast of the
Peninsula was located on the small peninsula between Chignik
and Kujulik Bays, which is north of the study area (Pinart
1871 quoted in Dumond, et al. 1975). At that time, the
nearest Aleut settlements to the project area were in the
Shumagin Islands to the south and on the Peninsula itself
near present day Perryville (Dumond 1974).
The early history of the Chignik area is summarized by
Dumond, et al. (1975) and is somewhat confusing. The 1980
census indicates that two small Eskimo towns flanked Chignik
EIA -19
Bay. By 1889 there were three canneries in the bay and a
year later the 1890 census indicates only five remaining
natives. Church records at the end of that decade give
conflicting reports of Aleut and Aglemiut (Eskimo) marriages
and births, possibly reflecting white confusion of
terminology about these natives. Dumond, Conton and Shields
conclude that the "bulk of the evidence suggests Chignik
natives were Eskimo".
Currently the village participates in the Eskimo Bristol Bay
Native Corporation.
a. Previous Archeological Studies
The University of Oregon performed some archeological
surveys and excavations in the Chignik area as part of
their long term program on Alaska Peninsula prehistory.
Several sites were located and tested on the Chignik
River between Chignik Lake and Chignik Lagoon as a
result of this program (see Dumond 1975 for map).
The majority of these sites have assemblages closely
related to those from the Hot Springs collection at
Port lvloller and other collections from Izembek Lagoon
at the tip of the Alaska Peninsula (Henn 19781 Dumond,
et al. 1976). The chipped stone assemblage is almost
exclusively of basalt1 there is no pottery and little
slate. The sites may date to roughly 2000 B.C.
Clearly, Chignik's affiliation is to the Aleutian
tradition to the south in its Alaska Peninsula
manifestation, which is distinct from the Aleutian
proper, but even more distinct from Eskimo traditions.
One site on the Chignik River, Alaska Historic
Resources Survey (AHRS) No. CHK 011, includes
Thule-like material indicating some Eskimo influence or
influx in the second millenium A.D.
Near the project areas, Dumond found a site, AHRS No.
CHK 010, located behind the uppermost houses at the
upstream end of Chignik Lagoon village. Ten specimens
were collected that were similar to the Chignik River
Aleutian tradition material. The site was obscured by
modern construction.
Another site was located at the present landing strip
at Chignik (Alaska Division of Parks, June 1976).
Strip construction destroyed the site, and its cultural
affiliation is unknown.
EIA -20
b. Field Reconnaissance
1. Chignik
Two person days were spent surveying the Chignik
area. Damsite, powerhouse site, penstock route
and transmission line route were all scrutinized
as indicated on the enclosed map. Since there are
still tentative alignments, a more general area
was studied. Intensive visual coverage was given
to the project area. Vegetation and landforms
were scanned for any anomalies and soil exposures
were studied. Four judgemental shovel test pits
were excavated on the banks of Indian Creek.
The area near the present village is highly
disturbed. Recent and old bulldozer activity can
be noted as well as rubble from old canneries that
have been razed in the past. No prehistoric
remains were found and it is highly unlikely that
any could survive the intensive modern occupation.
The gravel deposits of Indian Creek indicate a
great volume of run-off in the spring. The banks
do not seem very stable in the lower reaches. No
cultural remains were noted.
The damsite and penstock are located in a high,
rugged area where aboriginal use would not be
expected. They were checked, however, due to the
possibility of historic remains. None were
noticed. The picturesque wooden pipe which
constitutes the village's water supply follows
this route, yet it apparently post dates World War
II.
2. Mud Creek
This project area is accessible only by a
difficult boat ride, due to tides and extensive
mudflats, or an equally difficult hike from
Chignik. Bad weather prevented a survey of this
location from the ground. Aerial reconnaissance
from a small plane indicated that the shores of
Mud Bay are almost completely ringed by steep
cliffs or bluffs. Mud Creek debouches through a
gap where there is not much level ground. The
area did not appear to be a very promising one for
human occupation or usage, yet it is possible that
the salmon run was exploited.
EIA -21
•
~HIGNIK, ALASKA
Hydropower Feasibility Stud
TaANSMISSION
INTERTIE
ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
..
f
i
3. Chignik Lagoon
The methodology used at Chignik Lagoon was the
same as at Chignik. Site CHK 010, reported by
Dumond {1975) was not located. It may be that
very recent construction had totally obscured this
site or that the proper area was not tested. The
Corps project should not impact the area Dumond
describes, although it is possible that power
distribution to individual houses could have
marginal impact. Local people were unaware of a
site.
The area to the north of the mouth of Packers
Creek exhibited rubble from what locals indicated
was an old cannery. The rubble consisted of brick
fragments, concrete chunks, rusted metal, etc •
There were no significant remains.
The old cemetery on a hill overlooking Chignik
Lagoon is quite interesting. It includes some
marble gravestones of people who died in the 19th
century. Birthplaces represented included Norway,
Sweden, Finland and New Jersey. This would not be
impacted by the project.
Paralleling Packer's Creek for at least a half
mile is a decrepit wood-stave pipe. Upstream are
the remains of a timber wing dam. Apparently,
this constitutes the remains of the water supply
system built by a cannery earlier in the century.
D. Environmental Effects
1. Physical
a. General
Certain small modifications of the existing topography
at the Indian Creek project location would result from
construction of a new dam. Excavations to key the
proposed structure into the metamorphosed sandstones
(which would serve as the rock abutments in the valley
walls) would require drilling and shooting with
explosives.
An existing talus deposit situated approximately
one-third mile west of the proposed damsite at an
elevation of 500 to 600 feet would be excavated to
EIA -23
provide impervious fill for the structure. The
suitability of this material as an impervious fill is
presently unknown.
Some limited soil excavation may occur along the
proposed penstock alignment.
The raising of the lake level after dam construction is
not expected to lead to significant slope failures into
the reservoir.
Certain small modifications of the existing topography
at Mud Bay Lake Creek would result from construction of
a new dam and spillway. Excavations to key the
structures into the sandstones (which would serve as
the rock abutments in the valley walls) would require
drilling and shooting with explosives.
Impervious fill would either have to be processed from
nearby quarry rock or imported to the project location.
No source of impervious fill has been identified near
the development site.
Some limited soil excavation may occur along the
proposed penstock alignment.
The raising of the lake level after dam construction is
not expected to lead to significant slope failures into
the reservoir.
b. Hydrology and Water Quality
There are no existing water quality data for Indian
Creek or Mud Bay Lake Creek. However, visual
observations of the water during brief field visits
suggest that the existing streams exhibit high clarity
and low turbidity. Increases in turbidity can be
expected during the construction phase of a dam and
spillway on either creek. These increases would be
localized and of short duration. Long-term increases
in stream turbidity are not expected, particularly with
proper design of project water intakes and tailraces.
The low level of existing turbidity in both Mud Bay
Lake and the Indian Creek Reservoir suggest that
sediment entrapment in dead forage behind the proposed
structures would be insignificant.
Existing stream flow would be impacted in the reach of
both streams between the water intake structures and
the powerhouse. Indian Creek would essentially be
dewatered in the impacted reach of the stream. Impacts
to Mud Bay Lake Creek water flow would depend on
release levels established for downstream flow
requirements to maintain fish habitat value.
EIA -24
c. Aesthetics
Construction of a new dam, penstock, and powerhouse on
Indian Creek would have little impact on the existing
aesthetic values of Indian Creek. The new dam would be
constructed very near the site of an existing timber
dam on Indian Creek. The proposed penstock would
closely follow the route of an existing water. supply
pipeline to the village of Chignik. The location of
the proposed powerhouse is very near the existing
cannery.
A visible scar would exist along the lakeshore between
the water line at full pool elevation and the pool
elevation when the pool is at maximum drawdown.
Construction of a new dam, penstock, and powerhouse on
Mud Bay Lake Creek would have more noticeable impact on
existing aesthetic values. No facilities currently
exist at the lake outlet or along the creek to
tidewater. Construction of project facilities would
reduce the natural visual quality of the undisturbed
lake and stream system.
The Indian Creek reservoir does not support a migratory
fish population, and, therefore, its recreational sport
fishing value is minimal. The isolation of Mud Bay
Lake virtually precludes its use for a recreational
sport fishery. Therefore, recreational impacts are
considered minimal in either stream system.
If an intertie transmission system is constructed at
either location, the aesthetic impacts would be more
substantial. The intertie line would presumably be
built with wooden poles in an A-shaped configuration,
with single wire ground return. Poles would be
approximately 27 feet apart at the base and the wire
would be approximately 32 feet above the terrain.
Depending on selected construction and clearing
techniques, visual impacts could range from minimal to
moderately high. Creation of an accessible corridor to
more remote areas could also lead to a downgrading of
the natural quality of the affected areas.
Positive aesthetic
scenarios from the
diesel generators
Chignik Lagoon.
benefits would be gained in both
elimination of the noisy, smelly
now in operation in Chignik and
EIA -25
2. Biological
a. Vegetation
Assuming that a high dam on Indian Creek Lake is
infeasible and that a feasible alternative is to
increase the existing lake level by about 10 to 15
vertical feet to slightly increase its storage
capacity, very little environmental impact is expected
to occur. The steep talus topography of the lake edge
supports limited plant and animal communities, at least
partially because the action of winter ice cover on the
shoreline and seasonal changes of the lake level
maintain primarily meadow habitat that would probably
reestablish itself in the future. The potential
25-foot vertical drawdown zone around the lake would
appear as a more visible scar on the lake periphery
compared to the existing zone of limited plant and
animal communities.
New dam construction would presumably be of the form
using rock fill from a talus deposit reported by
project geologists to be one-third mile west of the
proposed damsite. Minimal vegetation now covers this
active talus slope, and no major impacts on the plant
communities are anticipated. Additional excavation
would have to be made at the proposed damsite and would
result in loss of vegetation, which would regenerate in
areas with topsoil.
Construction of the dam and penstock would require
heavy equipment such as bulldozers, front-end loaders,
and hauling equipment that would presumably be brought
to the site by way of the penstock alignment and
connecting pioneer road. A minimum road width of 15-
to 20-feet would be required, in place of the 5-to
6-foot wide path that now follows the wood stave
penstock. Some new alignment of the proposed penstock
would probably be necessary to accommodate optimum
construction modes. Assuming that the penstock is
about 4,700 feet long to the upper limit of the bluff
behind the village, and that the vegetation within the
20-foot wide alignment corridor would be removed, a
worst-case situation would require disruption of about
2.16 acres of predominantly Closed Tall Alder habitat,
including associated understory plants and dependent
vista. This represents about 0.6 percent of the
available habitat of that type in the project area, and
0.3 percent of the total cover considered in our
analysis. Regeneration would begin immediately
following the completion of construction activities and
would be stabilized in a few years and would gradually
return the landscape to its natural state in most areas
when bedrock was not left exposed.
EIA -26
..
..
An area situated approximately 200 feet east of the
existing penstock and about halfway between the small
lake in the northeast corner of 513, R59W, T4SS and the
bluff would be disrupted by the emplacement of a 60-to
70-foot high by 15-foot diameter surge tank. This
additional area of vegetation disruption will be
minimal and may be considered to be part of the former
estimate of 2.16 acres of alder habitat to be modified.
Two possible locations for a powerhouse in the Indian
Creek proposal have been considered: one at the base
of the bluff behind the village and the other on the
edge of the estuary between the Alaska Packers Cannery
and the buildings along the boardwalk on the south side
of the estuary. In terms of avoiding adverse
environmental impacts, the latter location would be
preferred in order to preserve the wetlands of the
area. If located at the base of the bluff, the
building may have to be founded on piles because of the
wet, fine-grained nature of the soils. The existing
penstock is supported by piles through this area from
the base of the bluff to the cannery. If the
powerhouse were to be sited on the sand deposits,
nearer to Anchorage Bay, the foundation materials would
consist of sand-gravel and cobbles. These materials
could be excavated by normal earth-moving equipment
working in a previously disturbed area, thus preserving
the sensitive wetlands habitat.
In the case of the Mud Bay Lake hydroelectric
development, the penstock would traverse about 3000
feet of habitat along the 200-foot elevation contour.
About one-third of the traverse would be through
meadows of bluejoint reed grass and lyme grass. In
addition, the powerhouse would presumably be sited in
the lyme grass habitat near the lake. Assuming that
the Mud Bay Lake reservoir would be operated at an
elevation of about 150 feet (up 23 feet from the
existing lake level), much of the bluejoint reed grass
habitat around the lake would be inundated. The
productivity of this habitat for mammals and birds
would diminish, at least for a time, since those
species utilize such areas for feeding, resting -and
rearing of young.
The electric transmission intertie line would
presumably be constructed of wooden poles in an A-
shaped configuration, single wire ground return. The
poles would be about 27 feet apart at the base, and the
single wire would be approximately 32 feet above the
terrain. \Jhether the usual 100-foot right-of-way (with
its attendant brush removal)would be required is
unknown at this time, but some reduction of the
alder-willow growth under much of the transmission line
EIA -27
would probably be required. It is recommended that
mechanical removal be the rule in such exercises,
preferably by hand tools rather than power mowers or by
herbicidal spraying. Part of the intertie route that
crosses the headland between Mud Bay and Chignik Lagoon
would traverse alpine tundra, which is extremely
sensitive to mechanical impacts and very slow to
recover. This type of habitat should be avoided by all
vehicular traffic, other than helicopter landings of
pedestrian parties, if at all possible.
b. Uildlife
The proposed construction and operations of the Indian
Creek hydroelectric developments would have minor
impacts on wildlife. Loss of the 2.16 acres of Closed
Tall Alder Scrub and its understory vegetation would
undoubtedly cause temporary reduction of small mammal
populations that are important food items for fur-
bearers and for limited numbers of raptorial birds that
were not defined in this study. No serious impact upon
those predators, nor upon the minor use of small
mammals for food by brown bears can be expected.
Assuming a linear relationship between loss of cover
and small mammal populations, the 0. 6 percent loss
expected in a worst case situation would be impossible
to detect in field studies. It is also doubtful
whether the food chain effects of such loss on the
upper trophic levels (foxes, weasels, wolverines,
wolves and bears) can be realistically judged as
measureable or as being even greater than normal
variations in availability in the long term that occur
as a result of population variations, weather
conditions, or other natural influences.
About seven small tributaries to Indian Creek would be
crossed by the Indian Creek penstock and the crossings
would provide underpasses for bears and other game
animals that may occupy some ranges traversed by the
penstock. The wider roadway constructed for the
project, along the penstock may provide a trail for
wildlife and expedite their travel for short distances,
but would also prove attractive for human travel by
all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. The benefits to
wildlife would probably be offset by more interactions
with humans in terms of trapping, shooting, or other
harassment.
In the Hud Bay Lake area the impacts of hydroelectric
developments on mammals would be much more pronounced.
Any reduction of fish populations can be expected to
adversely affect the major food supply of several
species of animals, most importantly brown bears.
Since the Mud Bay Lake area represents marginal habitat
EIA -28
I
I
I
I
I
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
.J
J
J
J
I '
•
•
I •
L
for these large carnivores and the population probably
consists of animals moving into the area from major
population centers close to Black Lake, the relatively
few animals now available locally for Chignik residents
would · probably decrease. At least three bears were
taken near Chignik this past summer (C. Larson,
personal communication).
Further impacts on big game animals and furbearers
would probably occur if the 6.5-mile transmission
intertie line is built from Mud Bay to Chignik Lagoon.
The transmission corridor would probably result in
increased public access into some of the areas that now
enjoy some measure of sanctuary and provides suitable
habitat for bears, moose, furbearers, and other
wildlife. While the intertie most likely will be
constructed by helicopter operation, and the impacts of
such an operation would be short term, the removal of
brush from helipads and the transmission line
structures on the right-of-way could potentially create
a partial transportation corridor for snowmobiles and
all-terrain vehicles near Chignik and Chignik Lagoon.
This scenario is highly probable in light of the great
interest expressed by Chignik Lagoon residents for some
type of road system to Chignik to provide greater
access to better airline and mail facilities {Payne and
Braund, 1981). The history of public access along
transmission line corridors in the Bristol Bay region
provides ready examples of growing impacts from simple
beginnings (Dames & Moore, 1982) and the general public
dissatisfaction with the consequences.
Several wildlife species would probably use the
intertie corridor because of the easier travel that it
would afford and its creation of greater "edge effect"
in the area. Howing of the brush may stimulate
vegetation growth of value as browse to·moose; however,
browse is apparently not a limiting factor for those
animals in this area. Furbearers may be more heavily
hunted along the corridor as trappers utilize the
increased access, although the proposed corridor is
located north of the major concentration of furbearer
signs noted during the field surveys.
c. Birds
Impacts to bird populations in the Indian Creek
drainage would probably result mainly from removal of
nesting, resting and brood-rearing habitats associated
with the removal of brush and associated vegetation
along the penstock right-of-way. As noted previously,
this loss is considered to be very slight {0.6 percent
of the available habitat) and at least partially
temporary.
EIA -29
Construction activities will occupy one spring and
summer season, and some disruption of nesting birds
will occur. No known eyries of raptorial birds have
been identified in the project area but may,
nevertheless, exist. Blasting of bedrock and other
noise of construction equipment may have detrimental
effects on nesting birds that would probably not be
measurable, albeit still a reality.
Effects of lake reservoir operations as a part of the
hydroelectric operations will probably be minimal,
although insufficient information on several wildlife
species precludes definitive evaluations.
The development of the Mud Bay Lake project would
probably affect more birds than the Indian Creek
project, particularly in terms of waterfowl and
shorebird habitat that will be impacted. Bald eagles
would be adversely affected by loss of spawning salmon
as food. Modest losses of birds would be expected from
collision with the transmission intertie line.
Electrocution of birds that would utilize the
transmission line for perching is considered to be
remote because of the construction mode expected to be
used.
d. Fish
Indian Creek System
The construction of a new dam and the resultant rise of
some 10 to 15 feet in the lake level would have no
effect on fisheries resources in Indian Creek Lake
since it does not support any fish due to the velocity
barrier.
The proposed hydroelectric facility would essentially
dewater Indian Creek. Therefore, the most direct
environmental effect upon fisheries resources concerns
the loss of this habitat in Indian Creek proper, and,
in particular, in that lower one-half mile of stream
below an apparent velocity barrier. This loss involves
a remnant, but indeterminate, pink salmon population
since documentation is virtually nonexistent except for
local opinion and limited field observations made
during 1982. Additionally, a population of presumably
anadromous Dolly Varden char resides in the lower
portion of Indian Creek during various life stages.
This population is considered small on the basis of
data available.
There is no documentation or reports of commercial,
recreational, or subsistence utilization of fisheries
resources specific to Indian Creek. Therefore, no loss
EIA -30
r
I
in terms of economic, aesthetic, or subsistence values
can be ascribed to the project from a fisheries
standpoint.
Construction of a penstock access and service roadbed
or trail should not present any special concerns
relative to fisheries resources. The proposed penstock
routing is well removed from Indian Creek except in the
area immediately below the dam, where special attention
should be designed to minimize any long-term erosion
problems that would further detract from existing
stream conditions.
One alternative relating to the Indian Creek fisheries
resources concerns the location of the powerplant and
subsequent tailrace configuration. Two options have
been suggested. The first option would site the
powerplant at the base of the hillside immediately
behind the village with a tailrace ditch to the
tidewater. The second would place the powerplant on
the gravel spit adjacent to the salt water slough with
direct discharge into the slough between the village
and cannery.
The first option, requ~r~ng an open ditch between the
powerplant and the tailrace outlet, creates some
concern for the freshwater pond environment through
which the ditch would pass. One modification to this
proposal might be to construct an elevated tailrace
trough, erected on pilings and similar to the existing
water supply pipeline. This approach should not create
any new environmental concerns or problems other than
those associated with the present water pipeline.
The second option should not present any particular
fisheries problems. The powerplant is located at
tidewater in this option, having a direct tailrace
discharge into the salt water lagoon where the present
discharge is located.
Another alternative relates to regulated dam discharge
to provide Indian Creek with water flows simulating
current or past streamflow regimes on an annual basis
in order to maintain the existing fishery resources in
Indian Creek. Whether this is practical or cost
effective within the framework of the proposed project
and power demands cannot be ascertained or evaluated at
this time.
Mud Bay Lake Creek System
The construction of a dam at the outlet of Mud Bay Lake
would result in the total loss of the sockeye salmon
EIA -31
population that utilizes the lake for spawning and
rear1ng purposes. Juvenile sockeye normally spend one
or two winters in a lake before migrating to sea.
There would be an indeterminate, but significant impact
on the Dolly Varden char population that is dependent
on the lake environment for survival. It is not known
what proportion of this population may be resident to
the system versus anadromous. Therefore, the exact
impacts that lake impoundment would have on this
species are not possible to assess at this time.
If appropriate streamflows could be maintained below
the dam, it is possible that the chum, pink, and a
portion of the Dolly Varden char populations could be
maintained in the stream. This would require special
rehabilitative efforts during the construction phase
such as egg takes at the stream, egg incubation at a
State or private hatchery, and transplanting of fry
back into the stream.
If Mud Bay Lake Creek is dewatered, habitat supporting
the existing chum and pink salmon runs would be lost,
as would the populations of these salmon species. The
Dolly Varden char populations, both anadromous and
resident varieties, would also be lost in this
situation.
There are no reports or documentation of commercial,
recreational, or subsistence utilization of fisheries
resources specific to Mud Bay other than reported
personal use of clams by residents of Chignik. The
isolation of Mud Bay Lake virtually precludes any
recreational use. Therefore, these fisheries
essentially exist in a pristine state except for
incidental interception of salmon by commercial fishing
activities in the general area. This interception
cannot be evaluated on the basis of existing data, but
is probably low based on the characteristics of the
adjacent and intensive fishery in Chignik Lagoon.
Additionally, the comparatively small numbers of salmon
involved would not likely attract a specific commercial
fishing effort.
e. Marine
Neither hydroelectric project is expected to generate
any significant marine environmental impacts.
If construction occurs at the Mud Bay Lake Creek
facility, and equipment and material is barged to the
area via Mud Bay, special attention should be paid to
possible effects on the marine environment. Efforts
EIA -32
I
'
1
ill
I , •
f •
1
"
should be made to prevent needless disruption of this
habitat.
f. Rare and Endangered Species
The only such species expected to be impacted would be
the Aleutian Canada Goose, which migrates through the
Chignik region infrequently and which may collide with
the transmission line between Mud Bay and Chignik
Lagoon. This remote possibility would exist only if
such construction occurred.
3. Socioeconomics
a. Chignik (Indian Creek)
The socioeconomic effects of the hydropower facility
can be addressed in two sections: effects during
construction and effects during operation.
The major socioeconomic effects during construction
would be occasioned by the construction labor force,
which would move into the community during the
construction period. Housing accommodations in Chignik
are scarce in the summer and additional persons may
place further strain upon the housing situation.
However, the community is accustomed to influxes of
large numbers of persons for the fishing season, and
the additional construction labor force should not
significantly change the existing situation.
Construction of the facility does offer the potential
for local employment, particularly if such activities
are conducted during the spring, fall and winter
seasons when fishing and canning activities are at low
levels. The number of jobs available for local
residents is expected to be small.
During operations, the hydropower facility would
provide lower cost power than currently provided to
community residents and the cannery. This would result
in a substantial savings to local residents, and would
reduce the cost of operating the cannery, making it
more competitive in the market place and, thereby,
helping to ensure that the cannery remains as a major
element in the local cash economy.
One person may be required on a part-time basis to
assist in scheduled maintenance for the utility, in
addition to the maintenance person now employed for the
diesel generating facilities. It is expected that this
additional person would be a current resident of
Chignik.
EIA -33
4.
b. Chignik Lagoon (Mud Bay Lake Creek)
The anticipated socioeconomic effects of construction
and operation of the Mud Bay Lake Creek hydropower
facility are similar to those described above for the
Indian Creek facility with a few differences.
Housing accommodations for temporary workers are
limited in comparison to Chignik, and the construction
work force could not be accommodated in Chignik Lagoon
during the summer season.
One additional person would have to be employed by the
village council for maintenance of the facility, and
the benefits accruing from the project would be
primarily limited to the savings experienced by village
residents from reduced power costs.
The loss of Mud Bay Lake Creek as spawning habitat for
red salmon and other anadromous fish would reduce total
catch of salmon by local residents and other permit
holders, but the economic loss is considered
insignificant in terms of the total value of salmon
caught in the district (see Section (D) (2) (d), above).
Cultural Resources
No cultural resources impacts at Indian Creek should
result from this project. The possibility exists of
disruption and destruction of artifacts at Mud Creek
and an on-the-ground cultural resource survey should be
conducted prior to any earth work in this area. Any
construction associated with the Packers Creek
alternative could cause damage to the old water pipe
and wing dam. Otherwise this area (Packers Creek)
should not be impacted from a cultural resource
standpoint by the project.
E. Mitigation
1. Physical
Slight topographic changes resulting from project activities
are unavoidable. Assuming that the dam is constructed of
earth and/or rockfill, quantities of this material would be
excavated and placed at the damsite. Use of this material
is an unavoidable impact. These impacts on the physical
environment are considered negligible.
Impacts to the hydrologic system can be mitigated by proper
diversion and care of surface water during the construction
phase, and through minimizing siltation from construction
activities within or near the stream channel. Reduction or
elimination of channel flow within the reach of the streams
EIA -34
l I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b. Fish
In terms of the benefit-cost ratio for this project,
the extremely limited fisheries resources involved, and
the documented needs and desires of local and regional
concerns, mitigation does not appear to be realistic
for the Indian Creek system's fisheries.
While it has been suggested that a tailrace spawning
facility for pink salmon be designed as a part of the
final project, the question arises as to what purpose
such a facility would serve. aased on available
information, the Indian Creek system accommodates no
commercial, recreational, or subsistence uses of
fisheries resources .. If the object of mitigation is to
enhance the system's fisheries beyond existing known
natural conditions, then perhaps such a proposal could
be justified. However, it may be difficult to justify
a substantial outlay of public funds to create, or even
to sustain, an unknown but definitely small fisheries
resource without a rationally determined end point.
The region's relatively rich resource-based economy is
geared to the adjacent, highly productive Chignik
River-Lagoon area; the creation of a new pink salmon
run next to the cannery would not be justified or
realistic in a commercial fishing context. Nor does
information exist to justify such an expenditure from a
recreational or subsistence standpoint.
Mitigation measures for the Mud Bay Lake hydroelectric
proposal are difficult to develop at this feasibility
study level.
Because of their complex life cycle, it is probably not
feasible or reasonable to consider mitigation measures
for sockeye salmon in the Mud Bay Lake system. Such
measures require complex hatchery and rearing
facilities well beyond the physical and financial
realities of this project, especially in view of the
low level of natural production indicated in· this
system.
In the case of chum and pink salmon, it may be
reasonable to consider a couple of alternatives. If
streamflows can be maintained below the dam to sustain
chum and pink salmon spawning populations, an option
would be to provide for egg takes .,and incubation at
some State or private hatchery facility during dam
construction and to replant the fry after construction.
If streamflows cannot be maintained, it may be possible
to create spawning channels in the tidewater tailrace
construction to maintain these two salmon species. The
question that needs to be answered is whether this
latter option would be cost-effective and truly
EIA -36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
between the water intake structures and the power house is
unavoidable.
Impacts to the aesthetic value of Indian Creek and Mud Bay
Lake Creek can be minimized by reducing the usual contrasts
of project facilities with surrounding terrain, and through
m1.n1.m1.zing construction activities along the proposed
intertie transmission corridor, perhaps through helicopter-
assisted placement of wooden poles.
2. Biological
a. Vegetation, Wildlife, and Birds
Design construction and operational details of the
Indian Creek and Mud Bay Lake projects and their
alternatives have not been sufficiently defined to
allow an in-depth consideration of potential mitigation
measures.
In general, the terrestrial wildlife impacts could be
mitigated most effectively by adopting sound
environmental practices. Major impacts on the wetlands
area between Chignik and the steep bluff behind the
village can be avoided by locating the powerhouse on
the sand near the cannery. Widening of the penstock
right of way should be engineered to remove a minimum
of habitat and to avoid sidehill erosion. Exposed soil
should be planted with grass species to avoid erosion
until natural regeneration can occur. Hinimurn
excavation should be made to accommodate the base of
the surge tank to be located on the Indian Creek
penstock, because the relatively thin soil cover would
require extensive drilling and blasting of underlying
bedrock. Such activities are highly disruptive to
wildlife of the area, especially during periods of
nesting and rearing of young.
At Mud Bay Lake, wildlife impacts could be much
greater. Such impacts are expected to result largely
from loss of the salmon food resource for brown bears
and bald eagles and increased public access to a
relatively unimpacted area. Mitigation measures
recommended include the utilization of helicopter
construction techniques for installation of the
transmission intertie line, minimal brush removal from
the right-of-way, the use of manual techniques rather
than mechanical mowing, and the careful treatment of
alpine tundra areas during construction. Controlled
access in the transmission line corridor would be a
major step in avoiding the increased impacts that are
expected to occur if any sort of regular transportation
corridor becomes available to the public.
EIA -35
....
-----
---
..
beneficial. The level of information currently
available concerning the chum and pink salmon
populations is not deemed adequate to make such an
evaluation.
c. Marine and Rare and Endangered Species
No mitigation measures are indicated as impacts on both
of these resources are expected to be minimal.
3. Socioeconomics
The major socioeconomic effects from both of the proposed
projects is the strain placed on the housing situation
during the summer months. A possible mitigation measure
would be to require that the contractor provide a tent camp
for the construction work force during the period June
through September. Accommodations at Chignik would be
available for the remainder of the year and would provide
additional revenue to the local cannery. Workers on the Mud
Bay Lake Creek facility should be housed at Chignik and
transported daily to the work site.
4. Cultural Resources
Impacts to the cultural resources of the area can be
mitigated by conducting an on the ground survey at Mud Creek
and protecting the old water pipe and wing dam in the
Packer's Creek alternative from damage during any
construction activity.
F. Cumulative Impacts
1. Physical
Existing water flow in reaches of either Indian Creek
Bay Lake Creek would be eliminated or reduced
topographic changes would occur in areas of rock
talus excavation and facility construction.
or Mud
minor
and/or
Some loss of the aesthetic value of the surrounding terrain
will occur as a result of visual impacts of project
construction.
2. Biological
a. Vegetation, Wildlife and Birds
The Indian Creek hydroelectric development is expected
to have modest impacts on terrestrial ecosystems if
sound engineering practices are followed and a moderate
amount of environmental consultation is included to
deal with special situations as they arise. The
EIA -37
presence of a trained professional biologist during the
preliminary stages of construction and frequent
consultation as the project proceeds would be a logical
approach to avoiding problems and making knowledgeable
decisions.
The addition of the Mud Bay Lake project would have a
much greater impact in the overall evaluation of
bringing hydroelectric development to the Chignik area.
The impacts of the loss of the salmon food resource for
bears and bald eagles, the increased impacts of
building the transmission line intertie, and (most
importantly) the increased public access that may be
expected to result from the transmission line corridor,
make that portion of the total project a serious matter
for consideration.
b. Fish
The only cumulative impacts related to the affected
fisheries resources would be a relatively small, but
indeterminate economic loss to the commercial fishery
over time, assuming that the existing runs are
maintained. In the case of Indian Creek, the probable
loss would be too small to attempt to measure. In the
case of Mud Bay Lake Creek, sockeye salmon --the
watershed's most abundant and valuable salmon species
--is the only species for which such an economic loss
projection can realistically be attempted.
Insufficient data exist on the pink and chum salmon
populations to make such a projection. Since no
subsistence or recreational use data exist, cumulative
impacts cannot be generated along these lines.
Using 1980-1982 average price and fish weight data, for
the Chignik Management area as a whole, sockeye salmon
were worth $7.91 per fish to the fishermen. Assuming
that the 1, 000 sockeye spawning population for 1982
represents the total population and has remained
constant and that $7.91 per fish represents a constant
price (none of these assumptions being wholly
accurate) , one can at least develop a theoretical
exploitation rate and economic loss table to explain
the economics of the sockeye •
The following table shows a minimal annual value of
$791 with a 10-percent exploitation rate to a maximum
of $7995 at a 50-percent rate.
EIA -38
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
Exploitation Rate
10%
Number of Fish
100
Annual Value ($)
20%
30%
40%
50%
200
300
400
500
791
1582
2373
3164
3955
c. Marine and Rare and Endangered Species
Cumulative impacts on these two resources would likely
be minor since potential impacts on the individual
resources are expected to be minimal.
3. Socioeconomic
Cumulative socioeconomic impacts are limited to fisheries
income losses tied to the loss of habitat for anadromous
fish in both of these proposed projects. The loss of fish
from Indian Creek would be so small as to be immeasurable
and the loss of fish from Mud Bay Lake Creek is
insignificant in terms of the total value to fish caught in
the district.
4. Cultural Resources
A professional survey of the Indian Creek and Packers Creek
alternatives and the proposed transmission line did not
reveal any significant archeological or historic sites.
There should be no impacts on cultural resources from these
project features (Steele, 1982). The Mud Creek alternative
was not assessed through an on-ground survey. Although no
sites are known in the area, a survey will be performed if
construction is planned at this site.
Recent archeological research on the Alaska Peninsula
indicates that the Chignik region on the Pacific coast, west
to Port Moller on the Bering Sea coast, was the northernmost
extent of the Aleutian cultural tradition. The prehistoric
border between the Aleuts and the Eskimos undoubtedly
fluctuated over time, so precise boundaries cannot be drawn.
Archeological excavation of several sites located on the
Chignik River has recovered evidence of the influence of
both cultural groups in the region at various times in the
past.
By 1882, two Eskimo villages flanked Chignik Bay.
the decade the presence of three canneries in
disrupted life to the extent that only five natives
in the area at the time of the 1890 census.
Later in
the Bay
remained
Over the next century, however, villages grew up at various
places in the bay and on the Chignik River as a result of
the fishing and canning industry, which drew both natives
EIA -39
and whites to the area. Chignik,
Chignik Lake currently participate
Regional Corporation.
G. Public Involvement
Chignik
in the
Lagoon,
Bristol
and
Bay
Public meetings were held in Chignik Lagoon and Chignik on 1
April 1982. Attendance at meetings was sparse, but community
leaders were in attendance. Participants were informed of the
basic feasibility study plan, the responsibilities of the Corps
of Engineers, the small hydropower concepts being evaluated, the
evaluation process, the possibilities of excess power and
transmission line construction, and the status of land that may
be impacted. Public testimony followed the briefing by project
team members. In general, public concern focused on any
potential impacts on local fisheries. Public acceptance of the
project concept was evident, and no objections to the proposed
developments were raised.
H. Coastal Zone Management
The villages of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon are both within the
Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) established by the Bristol
Bay Coastal Management Program (BBCMP). All developmental
activities within the CRSA must be consistent with the
stipulations of the BBCMP.
This project is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Plan.
EIA -40
1
]
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game.
finfish annual report.
Kodiak, AK. 118 pp.
1981. Chignik management area
Division of Commercial Fisheries,
--------· 1982. South Peninsula and Chignik area shellfish
management report to Alaska Board of Fisheries. Division of
Commercial Fisheries, Kodiak, AK. 21 pp.
1982. Freshwater habitat relationships, Dolly Varden
Salvelinus malma (Walbaum) . Habitat Division, Anchorage,
AK. 38 pp.
1981. Freshwater habitat relationships, pink salmon,
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha. Habitat Division, Anchorage, AK.
44 pp.
1981. Freshwater habitat relationships, chum salmon,
Oncorhynchus keta. Habitat Division, Anchorage, AK. 81 pp.
Atwell, G., D.L. Boone, J. Gustafson, And V.D.Berns. 1981.
Brown bear summer use of alpine habitat on the Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge, pp. 297-305. In: Bears --Their
Biology and Management. Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No. 3,
C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur (eds.). u.s. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Bailey, E.P., and N.H. Faust. 1980. Summer distribution and
abundance of marine birds and mammals in the Sandman Reefs,
Alaska. The Murrelet 61:6-19.
Dames & Moore. 1982. Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan
Environmental Report. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority.
228 pp.
Dumond, Don E. 1974.
Alaska Peninsula.
of Alaska 16 (1).
Prehistoric Ethnic Boundaries on the
Anthropological Papers of the University
1975. Archaeological Research on the Alaska
Peninsula, 1975. Report to the Secretary, Smithsonian
Inst1tut1on, on research conducted under permits 75-AK-048,
75-AK-051. Prepared with the assistance of Winfield Henn.
, Leslie Canton and Harvey Shields. 1975. Eskimos
______ a_n_d~A~l-e-uts on the Alaska Peninsula: A Reappraisal of Port
Moller Affinities. Arctic Anthropology 12 (1).
, Winfield Henn and Robert Stuckenrath. 1976.
----=~.,....-~ Archaeology and Prehistory on the Alaska Peninsula.
Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 18 (1).
EIA -41
---
Environmental Services, Ltd. 1982a. Community Profile of
Chignik, Alaska: (Draft). Prepared for Ak. Dept. of
Community and Regional Affairs.
1982b.
Alaska: (Draft) .
Regional Affairs.
Community Profile of Chignik Lagoon,
Prepared for AK Dept. of Community and
Forsell, D.J. and P.J. Gould. 1981. Distribution and abundance
of marine birds and mammals wintering in the Kodiak area of
Alaska. U.S. Dept. Interior Report FWS/OBS-81/31. USDOI,
\vashington, D.C.
Gill, R.E., Jr., M.R. Petersen, and P.D. Jorgensen. 1981.
of the northcentral Alaska Peninsula, 1976-1980.
34:286 -306.
Birds
Arctic
Glenn, L.P. and L.H. Hiller. 1980. Seasonal movements of an
Alaskan Peninsula brown bear population, pp. 307-312. In:
Bears --Their Biology and Management, C.J. !<lartinka and
K.L. McArthur (eds.) Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No. 3, u.s.
Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Harding, L. and J.A. Nagy. 1980. Responses of grizzly bears to
hydrocarbon exploration on Richards Island, Northwest
Territories Canada, pp. 277-280. In: Bears Their
Biology and ~lanagement, Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No. 3,
C.J. Martinka and K.L. McArthur {eds.) U.S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Henn, Winfield. 1978.
Alaska Peninsula.
Papers.
The Ugashik Drainage: Archeology on the
University of Oregon Anthropological
Jones, J.K., Jr., D.C. Carter, and H.H. Genoways. 1979. Revised
checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1979.
Occas. Papers Mus. Texas Tech. Univ. 62:1-17
Kessel, B. 1979. Avian habitat classification for Alaska. The
Murrelet 60:86-94.
Klinkhart, E.G. (comp.). 1978. Alaska's wildlife and habitat,
vol. II, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Print Northwest,
Tacoma, Washington.
Lentfer, J.W. and R.J. Hensel, L.H. Miller, L.P. Glenn, and V.D.
Berns. 1972. Remarks on denning habits of Alaska brown
bears, pp. 125-137. In: Bears Their Biology and
Management, IUCN publ. N. S. No. 23. IUCU, Merges,
Switzerland.
McLean, R.F. and K.J. Delaney (comp.). 1978. Alaska's fisheries
atlas, vols. I & II, Alaska Dept. Fisha and Game. Print
Uorthwest, Tacoma, Washington.
EIA -42
. J
j
]
1
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
Manville, R.H. and S.P. Young. 1965.
mammals. Bureau Sport Fish.
Washington, D.C.
Distribution of Alaskan
Wildl. Circ. 211. USGPO,
Miller, D., E.L. Boeker, R.S. Thorsell and R.R. Olendorff. 1975.
Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines.
Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Provo, Utah. 20 pp.
Miller, G.S., Jr. and R. Kellogg. 1955. List of North American
Recent mammals. u.s. National !-1us. Bull. 205.
Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D.C.
Narver, D.W. 1970. Birds of the Chignik River drainage, Alaska.
Condor 70:102-105.
Payne, J.T. and S.R. Braund. 1981. North Aleutian Shelf Basin
Sociocultural Systems Analysis. Draft Final Technical
Report, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program. BLM-OCS
Contract No. AA851-CT0-33. 21 pp.
Salter, T.E., M.A. Gollop, S.R. Johnson, W.R. Koski, and C.E.
Tull. 1980. Distribution and abundance of birds on the
Arctic Coastal Plain of Northern Yukon and adjacent
Northwest Territories, 1971 -1976. Canadian Field -t~atur.
9:219-238.
Selkregg, L.L. 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles --Southcentral
Region. Univ. Alaska Env. Inform. Data Center, Anchorage.
255 pp.
Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of
Alaska seabird colonies. u.s. Dept. Interior Report FWS/OBS
-78/18.
Viereck, L.A. and E.L. Little, Jr. 1972. Alaska trees and
shrubs. Agriculture Handbook No. 410. U.S. Dept.
Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, and A.R. Batten. 1982. 1982
revision of preliminary draft classification for vegetation
of Alaska. u.s. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service (in
press). Update of General Technical Report Pml-106, 72 pp.
Vroom, G.W., S. Herrero, and R.T. Ogilvie. 1980. The ecology of
winter den sites of grizzly bears in Banff National Park,
Alberta, pp. 321-330. In: Bears --Their Biology and
Uanagement, Bear Biology Assoc. Conf. No. 3, C.J. Martinka
and K.L. McArthur (eds.). u.s. Govt. Printing Office,
viashington, D.C.
EIA -43
APPENDICES
The following appendices contain information relevant to the
Environmental Document (environmental assessment)
Appendix AA:
Appendix BB:
Appendix CC:
Appendix DD:
Appendix EE:
Appendix FF:
APPENDIX GG:
Species List of Mammals Expected to Occur in the
Chignik -Chignik Lagoon Region.
Species List of Birds Expected to occur in the
Chignik -Chignik Lagoon Region.
Checklist of Amphibians of the Chignik -Chignik
Lagoon Region.
Checklist of Fish of the Chignik -Chignik Lagoon
Region.
Hypothetical List of Trees and Shrubs of Chignik -
Chignik Lagoon Region.
Hypothetical List of Genera of Grasses and Herbs
of the Chignik -Chignik Lagoon Region.
List of Preparers.
EIA -44
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
..
APPENDIX AA
SPECIES LIST OF MAMMALS
EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE
CHIGNIK -CHIGNIK LAGOON REGION
COMMON NM1E
INSECTIVORA
Masked shrew
Dusky shrew
Water shrew
Arctic shrew
Pygmy shrew
CHIROPTERA
Little brown bat
LAGOMORPHA
Collared pika
Snowshoe hare
Arctic hare
RODENTIA
Hoary marmot
Arctic ground squirrel
Red squirrel
Beaver
RODENTIA (Continued)
Northern red-backed vole
Meadow vole
Tundra vole
Muskrat
Brown lenuning
Northern bog lenuning
Norway rat
House mouse
Meadow jumping mouse
Porcupine
CETACEA
North Pacific bottle-
nosed whale
North Pacific beaked
whale
Goose-beaked whale
Sperm wh;ale
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Sorex cinereus
Sorex monticolus
Sorex palustris
Sorex arcticus
.t-1icrosorex hoy i
Myotis lucifugus
Ochotona collaris
Lepus amer~canus
Lepus arcticus
Marmota caligata
Spermophilus ~arryii
Tamiasciurusudsonicus
Castor canadensis
Clethrionomys rutilus
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Microtus oeconomus
Ondatra zibethicus
Lemmus sibiricus
Synaptomys borealis
Rattus norvegicus
Z.lus musculus
Zapus hudsonius
Erethizon dorsatum
Berardius bairdii
.t-tesoelodon stejne'1eri
Ziph1us cavirostr1s
Physeter macrocephalus
AA-1
STATUS
common
common
rare
unconunon
uncommon
common
rare
uncommon
common
common
common
uncommon
common
common
uncommon
common
unconunon
conunon
uncommon
common
conunon
common
common
uncommon
rare
uncommon
uncommon
CETACEA (Continued)
Belukha or white whale
Pacific white-sided
dolphin
Killer whale
Common pilot whale
Harbor porpoise
Dall's propoise
Gray whale
*Fin whale
*Sei whale or rorqual
Little piked or
Hinke whale
Hump-backed whale
Black right whale
CARNIVORA
Coyote
Gray wolf
Red fox
Grizzly or brown bear
Raccoon
Least weasel
Mink
Wolverine
River otter
Sea otter
PINNIPEDIA
Northern fur seal
Northern sea lion
Harbor seal
ARTIDACTYLA
t·1oose
Caribou
Delphinapterus leucas
Lagenorhynchus obliquidens
Orcinus orca
Globicephala melaena
Phocoena phocoena
Phocoenoides dalli
Eschrichtius robustus
Balaenoptera physalus
Balaenoptera borealis
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Megaptera novaeangliae
Balaena glacialis
Canis latrans
Canis lupus
Vulpes vulpes
Ursus arctos
Procyon lotor
Mustela nivalis
.Hustela vison
Gulo gulo
Lutra canadensis
Enhydra lutr~s
Callorhinus ursinus
Eumatop~as ~ubata
Phoca vitul~na
Alces alces
Rang~fer tarandus
* Threatened or endangered species.
common
uncommon
uncommon
casual or
accidental
common
common
common
uncommon
uncommon
common
rare
rare
uncommon
common
common
common
uncommon
common
common
common
common
common
common
common
common
common
common
Ref: Jones, Carter, and Genoways 1979; Klinkhart 1978;
Manville and Young 1965; Miller and Kellogg 1955.
AA - 2
)
l
l
APPENDIX BB
SPECIES LIST OF BIRDS
EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE
CHIGNIK -CHIGNIK LAGOON REGION
COID-10N NAME
GAVIFORMES
Common loon
Yellow-billed loon
Arctic loon
Red-throated loon
PODICIPEDIFORMES
Red-necked grebe
Horned grebe
PROCELLARIFOIUrlES
Short-tailed albatross
Black-footed albatross
Laysan albatross
Northern fulmar
Pink-footed shearwater
Flesh-footed shearwater
Sooty shearwater
Short-tailed shearwater
Scaled petrel
Cook's petrel
Fork-tailed petrel
Leach's storm-petrel
PELECANIFORMES
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Gavia immer
Gavia adamsii
Gavia arct1ca
Gavi stellata
Podiceps grisegena
Podiceps auritus
Diomedea albatrus
Diomedea nigripes
Diomedea immutabilis
Fulmarus glacialis
Puffinus creatopus
Puffinus carneipes
Puffinus griseus
Puffinus tenuirostris
Pterodroma inexeectata
Pterodroma cook1
Oceanodroma furcata
Oceanodroma leucorhoa
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
Pelagic cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus
Red-faced cormorant Phalacrocorax urile
CICONIIFORMES
Chinese egret
AUSERIFORMES
Whooping swan
Whistling swan
Trumpeter swan
*Aleutian Canada goose
Cackling Canada goose
Lesser Canada goose
Brant
Egretta eulophotes
Olor cytnus
Olor co umbianus
Olor bucc1nator
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Branta canadensis minima
Branta canadens1s parv1pes
Branta bernicla
BB -1
STATUS (l)
uncommon breeder
rare
common breeder
common breeder
uncommon breeder
common breeder
casual or accidental
common
uncommon breeder
common breeder
rare
casual or accidental
common
common
casual or accidental
uncommon
common breeder
common breeder
common breeder
common breeder
common breeder
casual or accidental
rare
common breeder
casual or accidental
uncommon
common
uncommon
common
ANSERIFORMS (Continued)
Emperor goose
White-fronted goose
Bean goose
Snow goose
Mallard
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged teal
Blue-winged teal
Northern shoveler
European widgeon
American widgeon
Redhead
Ring-necked duck
Canvasback
Greater scaup
Lesser scaup
Common goldeneye
Barrow's goldeneye
Bufflehead
Old squaw
Harlequin duck
Steller's eider
Common eider
King eider
Spectacled eider
White-winged scoter
Surf scoter
Black scoter
Hooded merganser
Common merganser
Red-breasted merganser
FALCONIFORMES
Goshawk
Sharp-shinned hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Rough-legged hawk
Golden eagle
Bald eagle
Steller's sea eagle
Marsh hawk
Osprey
Gyrfalcon
Peregrine falcon
Merlin
Philacte canagica
Anser albifrons
Anser fabalis
Chen caerulescens
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas stepera
Anas acuta
Anas crecca
Anas discors
Anas clypeata
Anas penelope
Anas americana
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya valisineria
Aythya marila
Aythya affinis
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala islandica
Bucephala albeola
Clangula hyemalis
Histrionicus histrionicus
Polysticta stelleri
Somateria mollissima
Somateria s~ectabilis
Somateria f~scheri
Melanitta deglandi
Melanitta perspicillata
Melanitta nigra
Lophodytes cucullata
Mergus merganser
Z.1ergus serrator
Accipiter gentilis
Accipiter striatus
Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo la*opus
Aquila c rysaetos
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus pelagicus
circus c*aneus
Pandionaliaetus
Falco rusticola
Falco peregrinus peali
Falco columbarius
BB - 2
"""' common breeder
common breeder
rare
"""' common
common breeder
uncommon
common breeder 1
common breeder }
casual or accidental
rare
uncommon
uncommon
casual or accidental
casual or accidentar,
casual or accidentalJ
common breeder
casual or accidental~
common breeder J
common breeder
common breeder
common breeder
common breeder
common
common breeder
common
I
I rare
common
common
common
casual
common
common
breeder I
or accidental
breeder
breeder
uncommon
I
I
casual or accidental
casual or accidental
common breeder
uncommon
common breeder
casual or accidental
uncommon
rare
uncommon ' common
uncommon
' ~
l
GALLIFORMES
Spruce grouse
Willow ptarmigan
Rock ptarmigan
GRUIFORMES
Sandhill crane
American coot
CHARADRIIFORMES
Black oystercatcher
Ringed plover
Semipalmated plover
Mongolian plover
Killdeer
Dotterel
American golden plover
Black-bellied plover
Hudsonian godwit
Bar-tailed godwit
Marbled godwit
Whimbrel
Bristle-thighed curlew
Redshank
Greens hank
Greater yellowlegs
Lesser yellowlegs
Solitary sandpiper
Spotted sandpiper
Wandering tattler
Ruddy turnstone
Black turnstone
Northern phalarope
Red phalarope
Common snipe
Short-billed dowitcher
Long-billed dowitcher
Surfbird
Red knot
Sanderling
Semipalmated sandpiper
Western sandpiper
Rufous-necked sandpiper
Least sandpiper
Baird's sandpiper
Pectoral sandpiper
Sharp-tailed sandpiper
Rock sandpiper
Dun lin
Curlew sandpiper
Spoonbill sandpiper
Canachites canadensis
Lagopus lagopus
Lagopus mutus
Grus canadensis
Fulica americana
Haematoeus bachmani
Charadr1us hiaticula
Charadrius semipalmatus
Charadrius mon~olus
Charadrius voc1ferus
Eudrom1as morinellus
Pluvialis dominica
Squatarola squatarola
Limosa haemastica
Limosa lappon1ca
Limosa fedoa
Numen1us phaeopus
Numenius tahitiensis
Tr1nga tetanus
Tringa nebularia
Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa flavipes
Tringa solitaria
Actitis macularia
Heteroscelus incanus
Arenaria 1nterpres
Arenaria melanocephala
Lobipes lobatus
Phalaropus fulicarius
Gallinago gallinago
Limnodromus griseus
Limnodromus scolopaceus
Aphriza virgata
Calidris canatus
Calidris alba
Calidris pusilla
Calidris mauri
Calidris ruficollis
Calidris minutilla
Calidris bairdii
Calidris melanotus
Calidris acuminata
Cal1dr1s pt1locnemis
Calidris alpina
Calidris ferruginea
Eurynorhynchus pygmeus
BB - 3
rare
common breeder
common breeder
common breeder
casual or accidental
common breeder
casual or accidental
common breeder
casual or accidental
rare
casual or accidental
common
common
casual or accidenta}
common
rare
common
rare
casual or accidentaj
casual or accidenta]
common breeder
rare
rare
uncommon
uncommon
common
common breeder
common breeder
common
common breeder
common breeder
uncommon
rare
rare
uncommon
rare
common
rare
common breeder
uncommon
common
uncommon
common breeder
common breeder
casual or accidenta:
casual or accidenta:
CHARADRIIFORMES (continued)
Broad-billed sandpiper
Stilt sandpiper
Buff-breasted sandpiper
Ruff
Pomarine jaeger
Parasitic jaeger
Long-tailed jaeger
Glaucous gull
Glaucous-winged gull
Slaty-backed gull
Western gull
Herring gull
Thayer's gull
Ring-billed gull
Mew gull
Black-headed gull
Franklin's gull
Bonaparte's gull
Ivory gull
Black-legged kittiwake
Red-legged kittiwake
Ross's gull
Sabine's gull
Common tern
Arctic tern
Aluetian tern
Common murre
Thick-billed murre
Dovekie
Black guillemot
Pigeon guillemot
Harbled murrelet
Kittilitz's murrelet
Ancient murrelet
Cassin's auklet
Parakeet auklet
Crested auklet
Least auklet
Whiskered auklet
Rhinoceros auklet
Horned puffin
Tufted puffin
COLUMBIFORMES
Mourning dove
Limicola falcinellus
Micropalama himantopus
Tryngites subruficollis
Philomachus pugnax
Stercorarius pomarinus
Stercorarius parasiticus
Stercorarious longicaudus
Larus hyperboreus
Larus Glaucescens
Larus schistisagus
Larus occidentalis
Larus argentatus
Larus thayeri
Larus delawarensis
Larus canus
Larus ribibundus
Larus pipixcan
Larus philadelphia
Pagophila eburnea
Rissa tridactyla
Rissa brevirostris
Rhodostethia rosea
Xema sab~n~
Sterna hirundo
Sterna paradisea
Sterna aleutica
Uria aalge
Uria lomvia
Alle aile
Cepphus grllle
Cepphus co umba
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Brachlramphus brevirostris
Synth iboramphus antiquus
Ptychoramphus aleuticus
Cyclorrhynchus psittacula
Aethia cristatella
Aethia pusilla
Aethia pygmaea
Cerorhinca monocerata
Fratercula corniculata
Lunda c~rrhata
Zenaida macroura
BB - 4
' I
casual or
casual or
casual or
rare
common
accidenta. accidenta~
accidental
common breeder
uncommon
uncommon
common breeder
rare
I
I
casual or accidental
common breeder
rare
rare I common breeder
casual or accidental
casual or accidental
common breeder
casual or accidenta
common breeder
casual or accidental
casual or accidenta
uncommon
rare
common breeder
uncommon
common breeder
I
common breeder I
casual or accidenta
rare
common breeder I uncommon
uncommon
common breeder
common breeder I common breeder
common breeder
common breeder I uncommon
rare
common breeder
common breeder ' casual or accidenta4L
l
,, •
STRIGIFORMES
Scops owl
Great horned owl
Snowy owl
Hawk owl
Short-eared owl
Boreal owl
Saw-whet owl
APODIFORMES
White-throated
needle-tailed swift
\lhi te-rumped swift
Common swift
CORACIIFORMES
Belted kingfisher
PICIFORMES
Downy woodpecker
Black-backed three-
toed woodpecker
Northern three-toed
woodpecker
PASSER! FORMES
Eastern Kingbird
Say's phoebe
Alder flycatcher
Olive-sided flycatcher
Skylark
Horned lark
Violet-green swallow
Tree swallow
Bank swallow
Rough-winged swallow
Barn swallow
Cliff swallow
Purple martin
Black-billed magpie
Common raven
Clark's nutcracker
Black-capped chickadee
Boreal chickadee
Red-breasted nuthatch
Brown creeper
Dipper
Winter wren
American robin
Otus scops
Bubo virginianus
Nyctea scandiaca
Surnia ulula
Asio flammeus
Aegolius funereus
Aegolius acadius
Hirundapus caudacutus
Apus pacificus
Apus apus
Megaceryle alcyon
Picoides pubescens
Picoides arcticus
Picoides tridact~lus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Sayornis sata
Empidonax a norum
Nuttallornis borealis
Alauda arrensis
Eremophilia al~estris
Tachycineata t alassina
Irido~rocne bicolor
RiparJ.a riparia
Stelgidopter~x ruficollis
Hirundo rustJ.ca
Petrochelidon pyrrhonata
Progne subis
Pica pica
Corvus corax
Nucifraga columbiana
Parus atricaeiilus
Parus hudsonJ.cus
sitta canadensis
Certhia familiaris
cinclus mexicanus
Troglodytes troglodytes
Turdus migratorius
BB - 5
casual or accidenta:
uncommon
uncommon
uncommon
common breeder
uncommon
casual or accidenta:
casual or accidenta
casual or accidenta
casual or accidenta
uncommon
rare
casual or accidenta
uncommon
casual or accidenta
casual or accidenta
uncommon
rare
rare
rare
uncommon
co:r.unon
uncommon
casual or accidenta
casual or accidenta
uncommon
casual or accidenta
rare
common breeder
casual or accidenta
uncommon
uncommon
casual or accidenta
uncommon
common breeder
common breeder
common breeder
PASSERIFORMES (continued)
Varied thrush
Hermit thrush
Swainson's thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush
Wheatear
Siberian ruby throat
Arctic warbler
Golden-crowned kinglet
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Red-breasted flycatcher
Sooty flycatcher
Gray-spotted flycatcher
White wagtail
Yellow wagtail
Water pipit
Red-throated pipit
Northern shrike
Starling
Orange-crowned warbler
Yellow warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Townsend's warbler
Blackpoll warbler
Northern waterthrush
Wilson's warbler
Rusty blackbird
Brown-headed cowbird
Brambling
Hawfinch
Bullfinch
Pine grosbeak
Gray-crowned rosy finch
Oriental green finch
Hoary redpoll
Common redpoll
Pine siskin
Red crossbill
White-winged crossbill
Savannah sparrow
Dark-eyed junco
Tree sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Golden-crowned sparrow
Fox sparrow
Lincoln's sparrow
Song sparrow
Lapland longspur
Snow bunting
McKay's bunting
Little bunting
Rustic bunting
Gray bunting .
Reed bunting
Ixoreus naevius
Catharus guttatus
Catharus ustulatus
Catharus minimus
Oenanthe oenanthe
Luscin1a calliope
Phylloscopus borealis
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Ficedula parva
Muscicapa sibirica
Muscicapa griseisticta
Motacilla alba
Motacilla flava
Anthus spinoletta
Anthus cervinus
Lanius excubitor
Sturnus vulgaris
Vermivora celata
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica townsendi
Dendro1ca striata
Sc1urus noveborascensis
Wilsonia pusilla
Euphagus carolinus
Molothrus ater
Fringilla montifringilla
Coccothraustes coccothraustes
P¥rrhula pyrrhula
P1nicola enucleator
Leucosticte tephracotis
Carduelis sinica
Carduelis hornemanni
Carduelis flammea
Carduelis r;>inus
Loxia curv1rostra
Loxia leucoptera
Passerculus sandwichensis
Junco hyemalis
Spizella arborea
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza lincolni
t-1elospiza melodia
Calcarius lapponicus
Plectrophenax nivalis
Plectrophenax hyperboreus
Emberiza pusilla
Emberiza rustica
Emberiza variabilis
Emberiza variabil1s
BB - 6
common breeder
common breeder
uncommon
common breeder
rare
rare
uncommon
uncommon
rare
I
I
I
I
I
casual or accidental
casual or accidenta
casual or accidenta]
rare
rare
common breeder
rare I
common breeder 1 casual or accidenta
common breeder
common breeder
uncommon J
casual or accidenta
common breeder
common breeder I
common breeder
uncommon
casual or accidental
rare J
casual or accidenta
casual or accidental
uncommon &
common breeder
casual or accidental
common
common breeder I
casual or accidenta~
rare
uncommon
common breeder
rare
uncommon
common breeder
common breeder
common breeder
uncommon
common breeder
common breeder
' ' ~
common breeder ~
uncommon
casual or accidenta]
rare
casual or accidenta~
casual or accidenta~
..
.,
..
• .
* Threatened or Endangered species.
1 Status refers to relative abundance and seasonal occurrence
expected in the Chignik and Chignik Lagoon areas based on
several studies in surrounding areas (Narver 1970J Taylor
1979; Baily and Faust, 1980; Gill, Petersen, and Jorgensen
1981; Salter et al. 1980). Common breeder = breeds each
year in moderate numbers throughout preferred habitats;
common = occurs at least seasonally in moderate numbers or
in high numbers during migration; uncommon = usually
observed each year in low numbers; rare = observed
sporadically at a few locations i casual or accidental =
infrequently seen, usually as a vagrant from usual range •
BB - 7
APPENDIX CC
CHECKLIST OF AMPHIBIANS
OF THE CHIGNIK -CHIGNIK LAGOON REGION
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMENTS
Wood frog Rana sylvatica Corrunon
cc -1
..
APPENDIX DD
CHECKLIST OF FISH
OF THE CHIGNIK -CHIGNIK LAGOON REGION
COMMON NAME
Pink salmon
Chum salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon (red)
Chinook salmon (king)
Rainbow.trout
( steelhead)
Dolly Varden
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhunchus tshawytscha
Salmo gairdneri
Salvelinus alpinus
DD - 1
COMMENTS
Common, anadromous
Common, anadromous
Common, anadromous
Common, anadromous
Common, anadromous
Common, anadromous
Common, freshwater
APPENDIX EE
HYPOTHETICAL LIST OF
TREES AND SHRUBS
OF CHIGNIK -CHIGNIK LAGOON REGION
COMMON NAME
Balsam poplar
Net leaf willow
Least willow
Arctic willow
Alaska bog willow
Ovalleaf willow
Grayleaf willow
Barren-ground willow
Barclay willow
Undergreen willow
Feltleaf willow
Diamondleaf willow
Dwarf arctic birch
Sitka alder
Beauverd spirea
Luetke a
Salmonberry
White mountain-avens
Crowberry
Narrow-leaf Laborador-tea
Kamchatka rhododendron
Alpine azalea
Aleutian mountain-heath
Starry cassiope
Alaska cassiope
Bog rosemary
Leather leaf
Bearberry
Alpine bearberry
Mountain cranberry
Early blueberry
Bog blueberry
Bog cranberry
Diapensia
Pacific red elder
High bush cranberry
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Populus balsamifera
Salix reticulata
Salix rotundifolia
Sal~x arctica
Salix fuscescens
Salix ovafolia/Salix stolonifera
Salix glauca
Salix brachycarpa ssp. niphoclada
Salix barclayi
Salix commutata
Salix alaxensis
Salix planifolia spp. pulchra
Betula nana
Alnus s~nuata
Sp~rea beauverdiana
Luetkea pectinata
Rubus spectabilis
Dryas octo~etala
Emaetrum n~grum
Le urn decumbens
Rhododendron camtschaticum
Loiseleur~a procurnbens
Phyllodoce aleutica
Cassiope stelleriana
Cassiope lyco~odioides
Andromeda pol~folia
Chamaedaphne calyculata
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Arctostaphylos alpina
Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Vaccinium ovalifolium
Vaccinium uliginosum
Vaccinium oxycoccos
Diapensia lalponica
Sambucus cal icarpa
Viburnum edule
EE - 1
APPENDIX FF ..
OF
COMMON NAME
Bluejoint
Fescue
Yarrow
Lupine
Jacob 1 s ladder
Horsetail
Fireweed
Parley fern
Marsh fern
Lady fern
11!1 Fragile fern
.,
HYPOTHETICAL LIST OF GENERAL OF
GRASSES AND HERBS
THE CHIGNIK -CHIGNIK LAGOON REGION
FF - 1
GENUS
Calamagrostis
Festuca
AGhillea
Lupinus
Polemonium
Equisetum
Epilobium
Cryptogamma
Thelpteris
Athyrium
Cystopteris
APPENDIX GG
LIST OF PREPARERS
1. Dr. Robert o. Baker
Discipline/Expertise
Biology, ecology and fisheries.
Experience
Thirty years environmental and fisheries; seven years in
Alaska.
Role in Preparing EIS
Associate report editor and resource consultant.
2. Mr. Patrick L. Burden
Discipline/Expertise
Cultural resources, archeology and economics.
Experience
Ten years cultural resources and socioeconomics1 two years
in Alaska.
Role in Preparing EIS
Socioeconomic effects and cultural resources.
3. Hr. Kevin F. Freeman
Discipline/Expertise
Geology, engineering geology and stratigraphy.
Experience
Twelve years exploration and engineering geology; five years
Alaskan experience.
Role in Preparing EIS
Study manager, surficial geology, formulation of
alternatives and needs assessment.
4. Dr. Wayne c. Hanson
Discipline/Expertise
Biology, ecology and wildlife management.
ExJ?erience
Thl.rty-four years environmental and wildlife ecology; 22
years arctic and Alaskan experience.
Role in Preparing EIS
Effects on wildlife and terrestrial ecology.
GG -1
5. Mr. Kenneth R. Middleton
Discipline/Expertise
Biology and fisheries.
Experience
Twenty-two years fisheries biology and management; 21 years
in Alaska.
Role in Preparing EIS
Effects on fisheries.
6. Mr. CLiff Knitter
Discipline/Expertise
Geology, geotechnical engineer.
Experience
Four years geotechnical engineering; two years Alaskan
experience.
Role in Preparing EIS
Site geologic investigations.
7. Mr. Kim deRubertis
• J
~
l
Discipline/Expertise ~
Professional engineer, geotechn~cal engineer.
Experience L
Seventeen years geotechnical engineering; one year Alaskan
experience.
Role in PreEarini EIS L
site geotec nica engineering.
L
L
GG - 2 (_
APPENDICES
APPENDICES
A HYDROLOGY. . . • • • . • • • . . • • • • • • . . • • . • • • • A-1
B AGENCIES/PERSONS CONTACTED .•.....•.. B-1
C AGENCIES/PERSONS RESPONSES •••..•...• C-1
D POPULATION FORECAST •••.•..•..••••... D-1
E ENERGY FORECAST ...••.•..••...•.....• E-1
F POWER STUDIES. . . . • • • . • • . . . . • • • • . . . . . F-1
G COST DATA..... . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • • • • • . G-1
H ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDER ALASKA
POWER AUTHORITY GUIDELINES .•.•.....• H-1
I FWS-COORDINATION ACT REPORT ....... I-1
(To be added to the Final, not
available for the draft report)
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX A HYDROLOGY
Basin Description
Indian Creek: Above the damsi te, Indian Creek has a drainage
area of 3 square miles. The basin ranges in elevation from 3430
feet at the highest point to a low of about 442 feet on the
existing 20-acre reservoir. The basin is sparsely vegetated and
consists of predominatly bedrock and talus slopes. The basin is
open to the northwest and partially shielded from the predominant
southerly Pacific storms by the mountains on its southerly
boundary.
Hud Bay Creek: Mud Bay Creek has a drainage area of 4. 5 square
miles above the dam site. The basin ranges in elevation from a
height of 2650 feet on its eastern boundary to a low elevation of
127 feet on the existing 30-acre lake. The basin is open to the
north, and like Indian Creek, shielded from the more severe
southerly storms by a southerly barrier ridge averaging about
2500 feet in elevation. Like Indian Creek, the basin is
predominantly bedrock and sparsely vegetated talus slopes.
Runoff
Stream gaging stations were established near each of the two
proposed dam sites in early 1982. At this time these stations
have not developed enough record to be useful for estimation of
potential streamflow. Therefore, a synthetic 50-year sequence of
monthly average streamflows was developed for each stream. The
synthetic record was developed from considerations of records
from precipitation stations and streams in the region having
similar size and characteristics to the basins under
consideration. The Corps of Engineers computer program "Monthly
Streamflow Simulations" (HEC-4) was employed to develop
statistics from these similar streams. The limited rainfall
record available at Chignik was extended by correlation with
precipitation records from stations in the region having longer
records by means of HEC-4. The results of the HEC-4 analysis of
regional streamflow and rainfall is presented in Table A.1. An
attempt was made to explain the minor variation of standard
deviations, skews and serial correlation coefficients of monthly
runoff by correlations with known basic characteristics and
precipitation. No significant correlations were achieved.
Therefore, the mean values from the study were adopted as
regional coefficients. The mean monthly flows were derived from
runoff from Myrtle Creek near Kodiak and Spruce Creek near
Seward. The adopted monthly means, standard deviations, skews
and preceeding month serial correlation coefficients of logs of
monthly flows are listed in Table A.2.
Fifty-year sequences of simulated monthly average streamflows
were generated by means of HEC-4 for both Indian Creek and Mud
Bay Creek. These simulated records are believed to represent the
best estimate possible of a synthetic streamflow record having
A - 1
the same statistical properties as those which
obtained by actual measurement at the site. The
developed is provided in Tables A. 3 and A. 4.
employed in the hydropower evaluations.
would have been
synthetic record
This record was
Design Floods
No direct observations of historical flood discharges are
available for either stream. The probable magnitude of annual
peak flood discharges for each stream has been estimated by means
of a U.s. Geological Survey method as presented in, "Flood
Characteristics of Alaskan Streams" by John Lamb. Flood
frequency curves developed by this method are presented in
Figures A.l and A.2. For preliminary purposes the maximum
probable flood may be approximated as four times the 50-year
flood magnitude. Thus, for the purpose of this study the maximum
probable flood for Indian Creek is about 2400 cfs and maximum
probable flood for Mud Bay Creek is about 3400 cfs. These
estimates represent the runoff resulting from the most severe
rainfall and snowmelt situation considered possible for the
region. They should be used only for consideration of dam
integrity when failure would result in loss of life and extensive
property damage downstream.
Sedimentation
No sediment transport studies have been performed at either
Indian Creek or at Mud Bay Creek. The observed discharge is very
clear. The existence of relatively deep lakes without top set
beds indicates there is little sediment inflow. For that reason
depletion of storage by sediment is not expected.
Climate
A limited record of climate has been obtained at Chignik.
summary of these data is included as Table 2.2.1.
A
Evaporation
The total annual lake evaporation at Chignik is about 8
This low value is the result of low temperatures and
average relative humidity of about 86 percent. The
annual evaporation amounts to about 0.001 cfs per
reservoir. Since in both cases the increase in lake
modest, evaporation losses are negligible.
A - 2
inches.
a high
average
acre of
area is
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
TABLE A.1
REGIONAL STREAHFLOW AND RAINFALL STATISTICS
Streamflow Stations
o Power Cr. Nr. Cordova, DA = 20.5 sq. mi.
Honth
January
February
t1arch
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Log Mean
Discharge
(cfs)
0.758
0.684
0.578
0.662
1. 279
1. 614
1. 734
1. 695
1. 656
1.485
1.185
0.866
Std.
Dev.
0.251
0.286
0.244
0.223
0.158
0.185
0.092
0.123
0.171
0.177
0.270
0.198
Skew
Factor
1.110
0.964
0.587
-0.009
-0.024
-4.092
0.544
0.753
0.143
-0.468
-0.115
0.485
o Myrtle Cr. Nr. Kodiak, DA = 4.78 sq. mi.
January
February
Harch
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
0.407
0.327
0.191
0.456
0.898
0.821
0.412
0.469
0.716
0.694
0.568
0.272
0.483
0.502
0.493
0.299
0.145
0.248
0.338
0.356
0.221
0.208
0.248
0.360
-0.599
-0.429
-0.032
-1.750
-0.323
-0.595
-0.264
-0.743
-1.293
-0.084
-0.841
-0.019
o Uganik R. Nr. Kodiak, DA = 123.0 sq. mi.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December ·
2.324
2.132
2.100
2.329
2.917
3.236
3.148
2.934
2.884
2.775
2.593
2.335
0.320
0.285
0.263
0.174
0.138
0.105
0.161
0.155
0.210
0.233
0.320
0.271
A - 3
0.899
0.404
0.176
-1.006
0.074
0.160
-1.075
-0.184
-0.221
-0.244
0.169
0.176
Serial
Correlation
Coefficient
0.582
0.763
0.763
0.698
0.527
0.297
0.173
0.451
0.210
0.100
0.499
0.515
0.426
0.623
0.459
0.369
0.367
0.097
0.422
0.257
-0.387
0.148
0.162
0.087
0.781
0.820
0.594
0.510
0.360
0.282
0.232
0.767
-8.030
0.152
0.351
0.586
Years
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
18
9
18
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
TABLE A.1 -Con't.
]
0 w. Fl. Olsen Bay Cr. Nr. Cordova, DA = 4.70 sq. mi. 1
Log Mean Serial I Discharge Std. Skew Correlation
Month (cfs) Dev. Factor Coefficient Years
January 0.888 0.511 0.803 0.694 17 I February 0.959 0.515 0.841 0.805 16
March 0.804 0.449 0.116 0.708 16
April 1. 211 0.280 -2.043 0.609 16 I Nay 1. 696 0.071 -0.121 0.185 16
June 1. 782 0.100 0.096 -0.264 16
July 1. 639 0.160 -0.281 0.825 16 I August 1. 503 0.230 -0.013 0.425 16
September 1. 640 0.243 0.203 0.214 17
October 1. 670 0.171 -0.399 -0.028 17 I November 1. 325 0.395 -0.086 0.458 17
December 1. 018 0.339 0.127 0.803 17
0 Terror River Nr. Kodiak, DA = 15.0 sq. mi. I
January 1. 536 0.371 1. 592 0.452 9
February 1. 351 0.293 0.720 0.717 9 I Harch 1. 323 0.244 0.310 0.408 9
April 1. 399 0.176 0.040 0.474 9
Nay 2.112 0.272 -0.851 0.609 9 I June 2.589 0.096 -0.256 0.421 9
July 2.461 0.156 -1.367 0.491 11
August 2.290 0.185 -0.989 0.428 11
September 2.339 0.146 -0.779 0.008 11 I October 2.154 0.251 0.507 0.220 9
November 1. 685 0.299 0.950 -0.107 9
December 1. 4 71 0.211 0.141 0.567 9 I Eskimo Cr. Nr. King Salmon, DA 16.1 sq. mi. 0 =
January 0.775 0.142 1. 524 0.441 7 I February 0.755 0.284 0.468 0.240 7
Harch 0.012 0.284 0.468 0.555 7
April 1.194 0.160 -1.200 0.360 7 I Hay 1.113 0.301 2.081 0.593 7
June 1. 054 0.113 -0.032 0.386 7
July 1. 053 0.139 1. 489 0.265 7 I August 1.118 0.204 0.159 0.742 7
September 1.160 0.164 1. 243 0.193 7
October 1. 077 0.733 -2.676 0.043 8
November 0.888 0.737 -2.473 0.553 8 I December 0.633 0.737 -2.515 0.414 8
I
A - 4 I
TABLE A.1 Can't.
PRECIPITATIONS STATIONS
0 Chignik
Log Serial
Precip. Std. Skew Correlation
Month (inches) Dev. Coef. Coefficient Years
January 0.892 0.378 -0.353 0.130 13
February 0.943 0.353 -0.535 0.115 12
March 0.627 0.534 -1.755 0.215 13
April 0.587 0.270 -0.345 0.365 13
Hay 0.922 0.305 0.625 -0.068 14
June 0.631 0.670 -1.219 0.461 12
July 0.583 0.326 0.109 -0.097 11
August 0.681 0.321 -0.443 0.460 12
September 1. 038 0.251 0.606 -0.091 12
October 0.971 0.264 0.261 0.139 13
November 1. 003 0.289 -0.287 0.596 12
December 0.883 0.259 0.159 -0.100 11
0 Kodiak
January 0.569 0.369 -1.258 0.422 64
February 0.589 0.347 -1.373 0.150 62
Harch 0.471 0.449 -2.352 -0.079 63
April 0.520 0.370 -2.181 0.161 63
Hay 0.723 0.230 -0.693 0.113 66
June 0.605 0.258 -0.354 0.040 64
July 0.493 0.276 -0.567 0.114 64
August 0.620 0.244 -0.889 -0.003 63
September 0.691 0.237 -0.253 0.119 62
October 0.827 0.209 -0.650 0.130 61
November 0.669 0.320 -1.559 0.291 63
December 0.686 0.279 -0.758 0.113 62
0 Kodiak, Naval Air Station
January 0.620 0.393 -1.431 0.215 30
February 0.612 0.257 0.085 0.425 30
Harch 0.551 0.229 -0.466 0.432 29
April 0.511 0.208 -0.689 0.337 30
Hay 0.625 0.269 -0.021 0.381 30
June 0.537 0.270 -0.198 0.031 30
July 0.519 0.257 -0.390 0.13 30
August 0.600 0.205 -0.050 -0.190 30
September 0.744 0.251 -0.802 0.098 30
October 0.778 0.202 -0.188 0.128 30
November 0.664 0.346 0.2098 0.139 30
December 0.679 0.255 -0.314 0.252 29
A -5
TABLE A.2
Adopted Monthly Streamflow Statistics
Log Mean Monthly Serial
Discharge Std. Skew Correlation
Honth (cfs) Dev. Coef. Coefficient
Indian Mud Bay
Creek Creek
January 0.45 0.57 0.35 -0.35 0.56
February 0.53 0.65 0.34 -0.53 0.66
Harch 0.28 0.40 0.36 -1.76 0.58
April 1. 31 1. 43 0.22 -0.34 0.50
May 1. 71 1. 83 0.18 0.62 0.44
June 1. 72 1. 85 0.14 -1.32 0.06
July 1. 36 1. 48 0.17 0.11 0.40
August 1. 41 1. 54 0.21 -0.44 0.51
September 1. 57 1. 70 0.19 0.61 0.03
October 1. 52 1. 64 0.30 0.26 0.11
November 1. 41 1. 53 0.38 -0.29 0.32
December 1. 32 1. 45 0.35 0.16 0.50
l
J
J
j
1
I
I
A - 6
l.
100 0
80 0
60 6
50 0
en u. 40 0
0
G) 30 C) .. co .c u
.!! 20
"C
::l co
G) a. -co
0
0
20
nonexcedence interval -%
130 140 50 160 t70 180 90 t95 98
~
L
/
~ f.vy ~~ ~u
~ ~
/
~ 10 c
; 8
01'
6
5
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
NOTE: Frequency Curves are Estimates
Based on "Flood Characteristics
of Alaskan Streams•, USGS WRI
78-129
Maximum Probable Flood is
Approximately Four Times the
50 Year Flood Magnitude
2 14 110 150
average reoccurence Interval -years·
FIGURE A.1
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Small Hydropower Feability Study
ANNUAL PEAK
FLOOD FREQUENCY
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
100 )0
80 0
60 6
50 0
en u. 40 0
0
~ 30 ..
('CJ
J:!
CJ
0
20
nonexcedence interval -%
130 140 50 160 170 180 90 195 98
~ " -7
17
~v ~v; v <c~~ r ~
.~ 20 ,
,::tl.
('CJ
G)
Q.
0:/
-('CJ
::J 10 c c
('CJ 8
6
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
NOTE: Frequency Curves are Estimates
Bas_ed on .. Flood Characteristics
of Alaskan Streams•. USGS WRI
78-129
Maximum Probable Flood is
Approximately Four Tlmea The
50 Year Flood Magnitude
0 2 14 11 3 0 150
average reoccurence Interval -years
FIGURE A.2
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Small Hydropower Feasibility Study
ANNUAL PEAK
FLOOD FREQUENCY
ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINF.ERS
Table A.4
SIMULATED MONTHLY AVERAGE STREAM FLOWS
50 YEAR SEQUENCE
Mud Bay Creek
YEl\R
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
lJ
14
J 5
16
17
l A
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3 1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Jl\N
29
u
71
5.4
25
3.7
3.H
7.7
9.0
3.7
5.0
.6
19.1
51
1.5
r,o
J.(,
10
10.7
S.R
4'\
s.n
5.1
4.0
5.9
20.1
2.7
6.5
.5
3.1
19
2.1
4.0
.5
3.1
1.0
A.4
2.5
2.9
4.4
3.0
1.1
11
13.1
5.1
24
39
22
27
11il
FEn
1.8
2.0
(,8
14
l.l
4}l
u
1.4
2.7
9.2
54
.9
7.5
I Q.R
2J
10.0
S.l
1 GJ
12.3
9.9
12!l
2.1
8.1
10)
6.2
3.0
7.8
26
4.2
16
11
9.7
J2
7.0
6.9
14.4
8
4.8
6.0
4.7
6
5.1
8.6
5.6
12
35
2.5
6.7
1 5.9
Ml\R
1.4
1.6
3.5
.6
.!i
l3
l.H
.2
2.3
4.2
L1
1.4
1.4
5.7
4.5
/.'}
46
5.0
2.7
4.H
2.4
41l
5.9
S.B
2.7
.4
4.0
4.4
3.3
Ll
16
~.9
5.8
4.3
1.8
5.4
.6
13
.s
3.7
42
2.9
2.9
6.4
2.6
25
3.7
.3.2
5.5
l\PR
222
4 2.0
31.7
1 9,1
47.1
10.4
22.4
3 6.8
29.J
4 0,7
2 2.4
10.0
3.4.0
66.5
2 0.1
1 n.s
33.7
31.4
295
19.7
no
21'l
25.0
27.9
27.4
2 5.8
11.2
42.4
112
16.1
3 (,}
31.9
14.2
47.3
9 3.9
19.0
3 9.4
21i8
39.4
19.8
39.7
37.7
211
2 7.4
79.9
2 6.4
16.2
41.6
7.8
22.4
Ml\Y
39.5
51\.4
774
90.3
a 1.0
70.1
(, 7.7
650
54.7
99.0
64.2
.314
52.7
105.2
97.4
130.0
7 ~-~
52.R
4 2'l
35.1
4 6.6
(, 4.4
475
207.4
397
79.7
57.3
41.5
57.0
50.2
7 o.r.
12 5.1
1 4 a.s
39.4
1263
7 rlli
74.5
43.9
100.3
8 4.3
5 8.6
7 4.7
170.5
11A.4
57.7
69.5
40.7
51.2
JUN
91.0
100.0
9 J.(,
21.7
92.J
n.n
104.4
10 2.2
31i7
%.3
68.2
85.9
50.7
li7.9
919
RlH
09.9
74.'l
O.R
1~.5
1 04.'J
69.0
07.2
7 3.4
73.6
61.4
58.7
B 5.7
liO.O
765
94.R
70.9
610
88.4
R5.7
60.9
(,8.1
100.9
99.5
54.1
88.5
61.2
4 e.o
6 5.7
82.7
58.1
710
66.9
72.1
A - 9
JUL
39.6
40.6
52.4
16.8
S9.3
3fl.f!
4 S.7
63.4
2 3,2
32.5
3BJ
23.9
12.2
JIR
44.0
4 4.0
41.5
21.9
212
l (,4
31.0
40.8
50.~
376
32.0
17.4
24.6
27.R
22.A
24.~
36.6
26.9
2 3.7
2 6.1
21.9
25.1
46.4
4 8.7
31.1
15.5
51.9
2f\.9
16.7
1 72
39.6
2 3.2
22.0
31.4
31.6
AUG SEP
28.4 105.3
4 3.6 78.0
725 73.0
29.9 39.6
3S.J
H1.4
20,6
516
50.1
46.0
1 ~.9
4 4.9
15.0
n4
4R2
7f •. H
472
l 0.3
5 s.o
48.3
56.0
29.1
l4.R
35.6
30.6
40.9
40.0
3 0.2
4 O.!i
1 4.6
32.0
45.1
4 O.fl
84.3
45.2
28.6
9.2
57.1
19.9
30.1
29.7
35.8
I 6.2
4 2.4
52.7
24.9
51.1
3 S.2
2!1A
4/..9
1 OB.H
67.4
367
67.0
60.4
35.4
47.1
1r •. o
R 1.5
40.9
713
ns
/0.0
25.7
47.'>
4%
41.9
27.5
sn.6
3H.4
56.9
3 R.4
51.3
80.0
61.6
42.0
3">.2
6!.7
57.2
59.8
4 5.2
31.7
5 LB
JB.J
38.1
22.1
12 0.1
93.1
7Ui
24.7
63.9
OCT
54.6
25.0
4 7.4
33A.5
I 'l.O
44.3
27.6
14.4
133.3
72.3
14.6
95,4
7 3.4
32.3
42JI
22.1
53.6
4 ~.1
)').2
I !1.1
342
10.6
Jfi.O
106.0
30.6
202.3
4 o.8
4 1.7
21.9
27.8
13.9
30.7
27.6
44.1
3 7.6
50.3
169.9
56.3
4 9.4
74.5
32.1
77.1
40.9
4 3,7
10.4
94.6
12 8.1
40.2
21.1
60.2
NOV
4.8
9.9
246
17.5
4 4.2
I 03.0
HI
R.7
106,0
I 00.3
100.4
2 18.6
39.4
42.8
2 9.7
2 9.2
34J
775
25.2
20.4
314
585
59.6
15.4
4 7,8
30.5
28.4
5.0
23.4
37.0
~-1
26.5
12.9
146,9
25.8
38.8
63.0
36.1
91.7
16 6.5
3 6.1
38.7
125
106.6
8.9
38.8
275
13.5
94.9
23.1
DEC
6.1
46.0
32.1
13.1
SUM
397.1\
4 4 6,2
522.1
595.9
24.2 457.6
327 52 2.7
36.8 394.4
2 0.8 4 1 7.1
15.9 57 2.0
7R.5 650.1
6.5 377.7
295.1 877.1
63.6 428.4
9.8 445.7
1 39 445.4
41.4 540.7
271 465.6
f>-1.0 ., 17.1
32.9 348.9
1 RJ 314.0
37.3 34q4
34.!l 378.1
2fl(, 39'8.9
4 9 2 514.8
95.9 4 87.8
22.4 694.0
7 3.5 3 2 8.8
11.1 376.5
2 f\.9 3 32.7
31.1 344,7
10.6 315.7
41.9 4109
39 366.2
290 'j64.8
17.5 5262
441 389.2
20.5 6 43.6
27.5 477.2
153 5359
127.1 647.1
18.8 348.9
56.6 549.6
1 0.8 2 9 7.3
360 445.9
230 4 4 4.5
75.9 636.5
30.6 4 606
13.2 J 9 5.4
7 3.4 4 26.2
i O.R 4 0 7.7
Table A.3
SIMULATED MONTHLY AVERAGE STREAM FLOWS
50 YEAR SEQUENCE
Indian Creek
YEAR
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
J 1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4 1
4 2
43
44
45
46
47
4 ij
49
50
JAN
2.2
.9
5.4
4.1
1.9
2.8
2.9
5.8
6.8
28
3.8
.5
14.5
3.8
1.2
4.6
27
2.3
8,1
4.4
3.4
3.8
3.8
lO
4.5
15.2
2.1
5,0
2.4
3.0
L6
3.1
,4
2.4
8
6.4
19
22
13
23
8
2.4
9.9
39
1.8
3.0
1.6
2.0
122
FEll
1,4
15
5.1
2.6
.9
3.6
.9
l.l
2.1
7.0
4.1
.7
5.7
8.2
1.7
7.6
3.8
3.8
122
9.3
7.5
9,7
1.6
6.1
7.8
4.7
23
5.9
2.0
3.2
27
23
6.6
24
5.3
5.2
10.9
6
3.7
4.5
)6
,4
3.9
6.5
4.2
25
2.6
1.9
5,1
12.1
MI\R
1.1
12
2.7
.5
.3
1.0
u
.1
1.8
3.2
.a
1.0
1.0
4.3
3.4
2.2
3.5
3.4
3.8
2.0
3.7
1.9
3.1
45
4.4
2.1
J
3.6
3.3
2.5
.a
2.7
45
44
13
1.4
4.1
.5
2.5
.4
2.8
3.2
2.2
2.2
4.8
1.9
1.9
2.8
2.4
4.2
APR
169
31.9
24.1
14.5
35.7
7.9
17.0
27.9
222
30.9
17.0
7.6
2 5.8
50.4
15,3
14.0
25.6
23.8
2 2.4
14.9
2 3.5
1 8.1
19.0
21.2
20.U
19.6
8.5
32.2
10.0
12,2
27.9
24.2
10.8
3 5.9
71.2
14.4
29.9
20.3
29.9
1 s.o
30.1
28.6
1 7.5
20,8
60.6
20.0
12.3
31.5
5.9
17.0
MAY
30.0
4 2.8
58.7
68.5
61.5
53.2
51.4
49.3
415
75.1
48.7
25.3
40.0
79.8
719
98.6
330
56.3
40.1
32.5
49.6
26.6
35.3
4H.B
3r •. o
15 7.3
30.1
60.5
43.5
31.5
4 3.2
38.1
53.6
94.9
112.7
:199
95.8
53.6
56.5
33.3
76.1
63.9
4 4.5
56.7
129.3
8 9,8
43.8
5~.7
30.9
3 8.8
JUN
67.4
74.1
69.4
16.1
68.4
71.9
77.4
75.7
27.2
71.4
505
63,6
376
50,3
69.6
62.1
66.7
55.6
418
3 L7
10.7
77.8
51.7
64,6
54.4
54.G
45.6
4l5
635
44.5
56.7
70.3
52.5
46.7
6 55
615
51.1
50.5
74.8
717
4 0.1
6 5.6
4 5.4
35.6
48.7
61.3
4 3.1
54.1
49.6
~15
JUL
30.0
30.8
39.7
12.7
45.0
29.4
347
4 8.1
17.6
24.6
29.1
18.2
9.2
2 4.1
3 3.4
33.4
31.5
37.7
16.6
17.6
12..!>
23.5
31.0
38.6
2 H.5
24.3
1 3.2
18.7
21.1
17.3
18.4
27.ij
20.4
18.0
1 9.8
16.6
191
35.2
37.0
216
11.8
39.3
1 s.e
12.7
u.o
30.0
17.6
l 1>.7
2 J9
24.0
AUG
21.1
32.3
53.8
22.2
2 6.2
60.3
15.3
39.7
37.1
34.1
11.0
333
11.1
24.0
35.8
56.9
35.0
10.7
13.5
27.1
412
14.1
4 1.2
3:'>.8
415
216
1!.0
26.4
227
30.3
29.6
28.4
30.1
10.8
23.8
33.4
30.1
62.5
33.5
21.2
6.8
423
14.7
22.3
no
26.5
12.0
3].5
)9.1
1 A.4
1'.-1(\
SEP
78.1
57.8
54.1
29.4
37.9
26.1
21.1
31.8
80.6
50.0
27.2
4 9.7
44.7
26.2
34.9
56.4
60.4
so.u
30.3
52.8
14.il
19.1
3 5.2
3 &.7
310
20.4
43.5
28.5
4 <.2
285
30.0
5 9.3
4';.7
31.2
2 6.1
45.8
42.4
443
JlS
215
3H.4
2 U.4
28.2
16.4
935
69.0
5 3.1
1 H-3
4 7.4
OCT
41.4
19.0
35.9
256.8
14.4
33.6
20.9
10.9
101.1
54.9
11.1
72.4
55.7
245
325
16.8
40.6
33.5
29.7
13.7
2 5.9
23.2
27.3
80.4
2 3.2
15 3.5
3 7.0
31.7
16.6
21.1
10.6
23.3
209
33.4
28.5
38.2
12 8.9
42.7
37.4
56.5
24.4
585
31.0
33.2
7.9
64.2
97.2
30.5
1 o.o
4 s. 7
NOV DEC
3.6 4.5
75 34.1
18.7 218
13.3 9.7
335 17.9
78.1 24.3
2 5.a 27.3
6.6 15.4
80.4 11.8
76.1 58.2
7 6.1 4.8
165.8 218.7
2 9.1 4 7.2
3 2.5 7.3
2 2.5 10.3
22.1 30.7
26.0 20.1
55.0 4 7.4
l 9-l 2 4.4
15.5 13.6
25.4 219
44.4 25.8
4 5-2 21.2
11.7 36.4
3 ~J 711
2 3.1 1(,6
21.5 54.5
3.8 8.2
17.8 19.9
2A.O 23.0
6.9 7.9
20.1 31.1
9.8 '2.9
11 1.4 215
1 ').6 12.9
29.5 327
47.8 1 5.2
27.4 20.4
6 9.6 11.4
12 6.3 94.2
27.4 119
29.3 41.9
9.5 A.O
80.9 26.7
6.7 17.1
29.5 56.3
20.9 227
1 o.2 ~.a
72.0 5 4.4
17.5 15.4
SUM
297.7
333.9
391.4
4 50.4
343.6
39 2.2
2960.
312.4
4302
488.3
284.2
65 6.8
321.6
335.4
334.5
405.4
348.9
3 8 8.3
2620
2 35.1
2fi2.5
2817
299.5
386.3
365.2
523.6
246.5
2BJ.O
249.3
250.2
2 36.7
307.9
2 7 4.5
4 25.5
396.2
291.7
4 85.1
3sao
4 0 2.8
4H5.5
26 2.0
4 122
22l3
J 3 5.7
334.6
4 77.3
34 6.1
2 96.4
J 19.6
306.2
APPENDIX B
AGENCIES/PERSONS
CONTACTED
APPENDIX B -AGENCIES/PERSONS CONTACTED
Ms. Hary Lynn Nation
U. s. Fish & Wildlife Service
733 \·Jest Fourth Avenue, Suite 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Ms. Nation
Mr. Keith Schreiner
u. s. Fish & Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Donald Morris
Director
National Marine Fishery Service
701 C Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Carl Yanagana
Attention: Mr. Tom Arminski
State of Alaska
Department of Fish & Game
333 Raspberry Road
P. o. Box 3-2000
Juneau, Alaska 99802
State of Alaska
Department of Public Transportation
and Public Facilities
4111 Aviation Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
State of Alaska
Public Utilities Commission
338 Denali
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
State of Alaska
Department of Commerce and
Economic Development
Energy and Power Development
338 Denali
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Rural Community Action Program
327 Eagle
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. John Bowman
U. s. Bureau of Interior
Bureau of LAnd Management
Peninsula Resource Area
4700 East 72nd Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
B - 1
Ms. Linds Gaudreau
U. S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management -
Outer Continental Shelf
P. 0. Box 1159
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Mr. John Benson
U. S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
701 C Street, Box 13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
U. S. Department of Interior
1675 C Street
Anchorage, alaska 99501
u. s. Department of Interior
Bureau of Mines, Alaska
Field Operations Center
2221 East Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchroage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Bailey o. Breedlove
u. s. Department of Interior
National Park Service
540 West Fifth Avenue
Anchroage, Alaska 99503
Mr. Theodore Smith
Director
Attention: C. A. Dutton
State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Forest, Land and
Water Management
333 East Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Hr. Paul Janke
State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Forest, Land and
Water Management
323 East Fourth Avenue
Anchroage, Alaska 99502
Mr. Reed Stoops
Attention: Hr. Rick Austin
State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
Pouch N
Juneau, Alaska 99811
B - 2
J
J
\.
Mr. Bob Martin
Regional Supervisor
Attention: Mr. Dan Wilkerson
State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
437 E Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Mike Black
State of Alaska
Department of Community Planning
222 Cordova Street, Building B
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Division of Community Planning,
Department of Community & Regional Affairs
225 Cordova Street, Building B
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Alaska Center for the Environment
1069 \vest Sixth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Paul Haetral
Superintendent of Lake Clark
540 West fifth Avenue, Room 202
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Chip Dennerlein
619 Warehouse Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
University of Alaska
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
University of Alaska
Arctic Environmental Information
and Data Center
707 A Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
University of Alaska
Institute of Social and Economic
Research
707 A Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. ~v. James Sweeney
Director
Environmental Protection Agency
701 c Street, Box 19
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
B -3
Mr. Mike Zacharof
Executive Director
Attention: Mr, Ken Selby
Aleutian/Pribilof Islands
Association, Inc.
1689 C Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Mr. Dan O'Hara
P. o. Box 148
Naknek, Alaska 99633
Mr. Hjalmer Olson
President
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
P. 0. Box 198
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Mr. Ted Agnasen
Executive Director
Bristol Bay Native Association
P. o. Box 189
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Mr. Tom Hawkins
P. o. Box 196
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Mr. Larry Laving
u. S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
1209 Orca Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Alaska Power Administration
Federal Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Ms. Arlene Kopun
Village Council President
Chignik, Alaska 99564
Mr. Clemens Grunert
Village Council President
Chignik Lagoon, Alaska 99565
j
J
J
j
I
I
i
I
APPENDIX C
AGENCIES/PERSONS
RESPONSES
... \ :-1/1 n
I , \ :
.. '
i \ '. I \ :
\ • I /11, ; ~· ',
' ' ,' ; } '.) t: j .. ~
DEPARTJIElft OF lVllnJil.&L RESOI!RC:ZS
April 29, 1982 DIVISIOII 01' MiliCI
JAYS. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR
.,. WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99/iOt
PHONE: 2'?4..fi17S
File No. 1130-2-1 ARCTIC SLOP!
:rECHNICAL SERVICES INO.
Morris J. Turner, P.E.Project Manager
Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.
420 L Street, Suite 406
Anchorage, AK 99501
MAY 031982
Subject: Chignik Lagoon & Chignik Small Hydropower Feasibility Studies.
Dear·Mr. Turner: ·--..__,
We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer the
following comments;
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
There are numerous sites on the AHRS that can be found in the vicinity
of the proposed project. These sites include the town of Chignik Lagoon
(CHK 004), some prehistoric sites (CHK 013, 012, 011, 009, etc.) plus
some historic sites (CHK 019). There is potential for other sites to
be found. However, we will need more precise locational information
and some maps with the proposed hydropower sites plotted before we
can make further, or more definate statements.
Upon receipt of the above mentioned locational information, we will be
pleased to provide more information about the cultural resources of the
area and the proposed hydropower projects effects on them. If you have
any questions, please contact Diana Rigg of this office.
STATE PARK PLANNING
The proposed action is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program's recreation standard.
LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT PROGRAM
No comment.
Sincerely,
Daniel Robinson
Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau. Alaska 99802
Mr. Morris J. Turner, P.E.
Project Manager
April 13, 1982
Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.
420 L Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Turner:
We have reviewed the scope of work for the feasibility study of hydro-
power for Chignik and Chignik Lagoon transmitted by your March 26, 1982
letter, and have a few comments.
The scope of work does not specifically call for a summary of previous
studies or statements on alternative community energy sources such as
use of coal for space heat and supplemental diesel generation. We feel
this would give the study a broader perspective and possibly help show
how a hydro project would fit into an overall energy plan. Enclosed is
a copy of the Bristol Baa Energl and Electric Power Potential, prepared
for us by R.W. Retherfor Assoc ates of International Engineering
Company, which contains data and analyses of the Chignik area. This may
be helpful to you. The Alaska Power Authority also recently had a
reconnaissance study prepared on the energy requirements and alterna-
tives for Chignik Lake. We have reviewed their study and found it is in
general agreement with the one prepared for us.
In response to your question dealing with concerns about small hydropower
facilities, we would recommend emphasis be placed on simplified civil
works, minimum use of concrete and use of a prepackaged powerplant to
minimize work in the field. Simplified operation and maintenance would
also be of prime concern.
We hope this information will be of assistance to you, and we appreciate
the opportunity to comment.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
RJ~
Robert J. Cross
Administrator
cc: Colonel Nunn, Corps of Engineers
. ' JArS. HAMMOIID, CIJYEIIIOI
' I
I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 4' 11 AVIATION A VENUE
POUCH6900
"''C..'\.T~ "' u
CENTRAL REGION l
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502
(TELEX 25-,851
Mr. Morris Turner
Project Manager
Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.
420 11 L11 Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
May 26, 1982
RE: Chignik/Chignik Lagoon Small Hydro Projects
Dear Mr. Turner:
Thank you for your letter informing the Department of the Corps activities
in the Chignik/Chignik Lagoon Area. I would request that you inform us to
any potential impact to the air and water transportation systems in the
study area as they arise. I would be interested in reviewing the draft
environnental working paper if appropriate. Otherwise, I will look for
the environmental assessment when it comes out for A-95 review. Please
contact me at 266-1451 if I can help your efforts in any specific way.
Thank you.
JBE: MMO/d 1 e
Sf ncerel y,
James B. Edwards
Transportation Planner
~~D·~
Murph o•srien
Kodiak/Aleutian Area Planner
CHOGGIDNG LIMITED
P.O. BOX ffl • DILLINGHAM, ALASKA 99576 • PHONE (907) 842-5218
April 2, 1982
Morris J. Turner, P.E. P.M.
A.S. Tech Services Inc.
420 L Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Turner:
We are glad to hear that the long awaited Chignik Study is under
way. I serve on the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area
Board and we are in the process of developing a Coastal Zone
Management Plan. We would like to keep abreast of your activities.
Please contact:
Greg Peters, Director
Bristol Bay CRSA
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
(907) 842-5257
and put us on your mailing list for information as it comes available.
There is also a re~ion wide study of Bristol Bay being undertaken by
an army of federal and state agencies. Known as the Bristol Bay
Cooperative Management Plan this is the key planning and data
gathering exercise for the region, Please contact:
Dave Simpson, Director
BBCMP
Alaska Land Use Council
P.O. Box 120
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
I support small hydro projects and look forward to your sucess in
identifying potential in the Chignik area. Remember "Fish First",
in Bristol Bay and half the study is complete.
Sincerely,
~H-~
Tom Hawkins
Landman
TH:tms
cc: Greg Peters
Dave Simpson
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RfiSOURC:::ES
April 2, 1982
DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT
SOUTHCENTRAL DISTRICT
Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.·
420 1 Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
ATTN: Mr. Morris J. Turner
Project Manager
JAY .t NAIIMOIID, SOV£11101
POUCH 7-oo5
323 EAST FOURTH AVENUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510
Phone: (907) 276-2653
ARCTIC SLOPE
TECHNICAL SERV1CES INC.
APR 07\982
Re: Hydropower Feasibility Study-Chignik Region
Dear Mr. Turner:
I have received and reviewed your Scope of Work excerpts, and have been
asked to respond to your letter of March 26, 1982.
The status of the lands located in the communities of Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon fall within the Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge. These lands are
under Federal jurisdiction and/or the Bristol Bay Native Regional Corporation.
Should a need for water appropriation be necessary for the operation of a
base camp, we can issue a Temporary Water Use Permit (TWP). I have attached
a directive governing the use of TWP's. I hope this information is bene-
ficial to you and look forward to assisting you or members of your staff.
Sincerely,
, . ? ··; a,
~~'Jk~< c{, (...-.,';Nt'~.J'V"
Arnold L. Van Horn
Acting Anchorage Area Manager
Enclosure
STATE Of ALASKA
Division of Forest. Land and Water Management
$TAtiDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
APTER TIT\.E
J Water Rights
SUBJECT
.Temporary Water Use Permits .
S.O. P. NO.
3200-20
EFFECnVE DATE
13/11/80
SUPERSEDES S. 0. P. NO. DATED
8/1/80
DIVISION SEC'TlON
.-orest., Land Water Mqmt \4ater
APPRC'/IED -// A-11
it:-. -sl ,L(;. ~--
PURPOSE: To outline procedures for issuing Temporary '-~r Use Permits.
REFERENCE: AS 46.15.070.(f) and 11 AAC 93.210·220.
DISTRIBUTION: All holders of the Standard Operating Procedures.
FOR ACTION BY: Personnel who adjudicate and review Temporary Water Use Permits.
PAGE NO.
1 of 2
1. GENERAL: Occasionally a person will have a need for a significant amount (5,000 gpd) of
water for a short period of time for construction, prospecting, etc. This use although
temporary may affect prior appropriators, or public interest purposes such as fish habitat,
or water quality and therefore would need a permit. A Temporary Water Use Permit may be
issued if the use is for less than two consecutive years, however, no water right or priority
-is established and the water is subjec.t to appropriation by others. .
2. PROCEDURE: a. At this time, there is no form for an application for a Temporary Water·
Use Permit, but the request for this type of permit should be in writing. No filing fee is
required.
',, A map indicating the location of the property or prospecting site1 the ~~ description
,.for the take point and the point of use, the quantity of water to be used, th~ type·of
use(s), and time of use, will accompany the "application."
c. ADF&G and DEC will be notified of Temporary'Water Use Permits. See the SOP on public
notice for specific guidelines.
d. A legal advertisement may be placed in a local newspaper and prior appropriators may be.
notified at the adjudicators discretion. For example: If the area is remote or the water
amount small, notice is probably not necessary. ·If the area has many prior appropriators
using the same water source the water amount is large or the amount-or location of the water
use is controversial, public notice will be given.
e. If all the information is submitted, the amount is reasonable and no adverse comments
are received the permit will be issued in form of a letter permit. It will include:
1. Legal description.
a. Point of take.
b. Point of use.
•
2. Project description ie. dust control on construction site.
3. Expiration date.
STATE Of ALASKA S.O.P. NO. HF ECTIVE DATE PAGE HO.
3200 -20 8/11/80 2 of 2 livision of Forest. Land and Uater Manageli'lent
S. 0. P. NO. SUPERSEDES DATED
STAUOARD OPEAAT I·NG PROCEDURES 8/1/80
HAPTER TITLE DIVISION SEC110N .....,
'ater Rights rForest. land ~later Momt \ola ter
UBJECT . APPROVED
emporary Water Use Penni ts.
•· Necessary conditions and/or recommendations.
!tC.
The permit should be numbered by the year of issue then consecutively, ie. 80-1, 80-2, ·
:. The p~rmit will be signed by the district manager or his delegated agent.
,
) .,
;
1
j
.._,
• l
l
I
1
I
I
I
\ I .......,/ ,
::J ,n . 1 r-~.\ n; .. i ·
''\; J.,," ,,, jA\ •I · I \ ·. ' ' I !j i ' . I. . . -, \ ! 1\\ u I
I,-,\ . , 1· . • \ •-0) [J' ·._', I 1-\\ uu~._J.J .. J·.-,1u;,) I
Dt:P.4RT fl·:~T 0 .. ' FISH .4 ~D G.-\ flt:
OFRCE OF THE COMMISSIONER /
I
ARCTIC SLOPE April 14, 1981 JECHNICAL SERVICES INC.
Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.
420 l Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
APR 1 C11982
Attention: Morris J. Turner, P.E., Project Manager
Gentlemen:
JAYS. HAMMOND, SO VERNOR
P.O. BOX 3·2000
JUNEAU, AlA..iKA 99802
PHONE: 465-4100
Re: Scope of Work -Chignik lagoon and Chignik Small Hydroelectric
Feasibility Studies
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the scope of work for
Chignik and Chignik lagoon small hydropower feasibility studies.
We feel that while the whole scope of work identifies general areas that
need to be addressed in a feasibility study, it lacks the specificity
necessary to determine its sufficiency.
With respect to that shortcoming, enclosed is a listing of topics we feel
must be addressed in the environmental portion of any hydropower feasibility
study.
Thank you for the opportunity to coiTITlent. If you have any questions
please contact Carl Yanagawa of the Habitat Division. His telephone number
in Anchorage is 344-0541.
Sincerely,
~ Ronald 0. Skoog
~o11111issioner
P Enclosure
cc: Carl Yanagawa
Chignik lagoon, Chignik
Small Hydropower Feasibility Assessment
Suggested Environmental Report Contents
1. Community preferences;
2. Impacts on the community infrastructure;
3. Timing in relation to other capital projects;
4. Air quality;
5. Water quality;
6. Fish and wildlife impact;
a. a description of existing fish, wildlife, and habitat of the
proposed project area and its vicinity, including any adjacent
areas that may be affected by the proposed project and the area
within the transmission line corridor or right-of-way. A map of
vegetation types should be included in the description. For
species considered important because of their subsistence,
commercial, or recreation value, the information provided should
include temporal and spatial distributions, utilization levels,
and densities of such species. Any fish or wildlife listed as
endangered by the AOF&G must be identified;
b. a description of the anticipated impacts on fish, wildlife, and
habitat resources of the proposed construction and operation of
project facilities, including possible changes in size, distribu-
tion, and reproduction of essential populations of these resources
and any impacts on human utilization of these resources;
c. a description of any measures or facilities recommended by state
or federal agencies for mitigation of impacts on fish, wildlife,
and habitat, or for the protection or enhancement of these
resources, the impact on endangered species as well as a
description of a alternative measures proposed by applicant to
protect fish, wildlife, habitat;
d. the following materials and information regarding any mitigation
measures or facilities, identified under (c), proposed for
implementation or construction:
(1) functional design drawnings;
(2) a description of proposed operation and maintenance proce-
dures for any proposed measures or facilities;
( 3) an implementation, construction, and operation schedule for
any proposed measures or facilities;
Chignik Lagoon, Chignik -2-
(4) an estimate of the costs of construction, operation, and
maintenance of any proposed facilities or implementation of
any measures; ·
{5) a statement of the sources and amount of financing for
mitigation measures or facilities; and
(6} a map or drawing showing, by the use of shading, cross-
hatching, or other symbols, the identity and location of any
proposed measures or facilities.
7. Land use impact and ownership status;
8. Terrestrial impact;
9. Recreation resource value; and
10. Visual impact.
)
/ }
l
I
BRISTOL BAY NATIVE ASSO~IATION
P.O. BOX 189
DILLINGHAM, ALASKA 99576 \
PHONE (907) 842-5257-842-5258 I\
AAO'riO ~LOPE TECHNI~l SERVICES INC.
,I
AP~ 191982
April 15 , 1982 _.,.._,.,-· '··, ... ,~ .. /_;;· . · . , J \
. // ; .. _81=1~--<-· \\-'
...:·· ··-, __ MQJ>f""{s .. Turner, P.E. 1''-:;:.:_/:.'=--·------~--~.·/:.:.::·-·~ -~1\\.
,.. lr· S T h S . ( . --. ' r . • M ~ • ec e rv 1 ce , t . ·-._,. ....... -<_ ---..: 1
~~~h:;:~;:r~f'ts a 9950 ... ~-::_:-,_· ... ·,~···· _l \1 11:~
/.,....._.....-... "-" ..... ""' --~
Dear Mr. Turn /r'..... / ·-... , ·· I . .,. \ . -·
. -·
...
.. .. ,
I have recei v~"<\ a cop~ o j a 1 etter sent to you b~'.> RTTtJia~~ ·-pf
Choggiung Limit~ rega~~ pg the Chignik hydro study •. I:Jg~:\'f~Sh
~~~ t~~ best of ·~ck, a~ concur with his succinct conment.-.r::-~.F5f~.--:.:.~~' .: -;.;..;;:~;~'-.:-~~:---:.·
. -~ ...,~ •• _.;:" .~~~.--... ~ ,,., ... .,. ...... ,7"1 •• n, \ \ '._ ........... ..,...,.,..,..~ ... _, _ .. ~.~:~~~Jj.~·-.~~-.•; .. ~ -~~~;0~:c~:::d··~~~ .~i~c o~-;~"~i~fQ'Y:rtr&tJon that may be of } -·~""'" -~-.•
interest to-you. AS the~ 't.~ page incfi.~ate~-,-~it was P~.~~ ___ : .... -~
for the BLM/OCS Of{ice as Jrt of its le~~ing p~'o.gr~-"" ·· ... , -.. -~
Additionalty·; under a cont\-act with the A\·~S'Ita ne·pa.;tnfent of
Community & Regional Affairs, Environmental Services Ltd. will be-
preparing community profiles fo-1""'·-the..Ch.igniks. You may \'(~nt to
contact them f.ar addHional infonnation: ·"' · ·.'
. . . . . .. ... ..-.-r.·-#~ ... ...,.:'·'"
_1f,· ... : •• .. ~::.r· _ .•. ~.
John Sonnen
Environmental Services Ltd.
835 W. 9th Avenue" ..... ~. . ..... :.·-··-· .-/
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
I look forwayd ... to the r8-$.Ul ts of your study. _.,··. ·o,. ..
Sincerely, ..,. ,~·--C;t f~s
Greg Peters, Director
Coastal Management Program
GP/mn
cc: . ~ ...
........................ , .. ·
. /'
John Sonnen
..
''
...... "\ ... .,., ......... ...
Mike Black
State of.Alaska
Department of Cor11munity & Regional
Division of Community Planning
Affairs
Environmental Services Ltd.
835 W. 9th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
225 Cordova, Building B
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
~J
~J
J
.. J
)
~
I
r-1
l I~
I
J
J
J
J
J·
~~
I;
.I
. I,
·1'-
Draft Final Technical Report . Contract No AA851-CT0-33 -. .
.t
ALASKA OCS SOCIOECONOMIC STUDIES PROGRAM
NORTH ALEUTIAN SHELF BASIN
SOCIOCULTURAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Prepared by
James T. Payne
Stephen R. Braund
James T. Payne and Associates
Prepared for
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFFICE
May 1981
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
j
I
i
I
(
{
1
Chignik Sub Region
CHIGNIK
Introduction
The Chignik Sub-region (called the Alaska Peninsula Sub~Region by BBNA) is
the farthest sub-region from Dillingham. Though a portion of the rliamna
Lake Sub-region touches the Gulf of Alaska, all five communities within the
Chignik Sub-Region are either on or adjacent to it. One resident wondere9
why they were in the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, since so much of their
economic and social interaction was with Kodiak.
The five communities and their 1980 preliminary population figures for
this sub-region are: Chignik • 179, Chignik Lagoon -48, Chignik Lake -
138, rvanof 9ay -41, and Perryville -108 (Alaska Department of Labor,
1981). All five communities are dependent on fishing, primarily salmon,
for their income. No exact figures on ethnic breakdown for the region are
available. However, a rough estimate would be approximately 90 percent
Native and 10 percent white (U.S. Department of rnterior, 1974a, Pg. 73).
Because of these col'l1Tiun i ty' s remote,.,es s, ma i 1 and other services are often
slow ana not rel1ac~e. Besides tne remoteness, the we3ther is often
stormy, which adds to transportation and communication ~roblems.
----·
Accord1ng to one source (BB~A. n.d., P. 45), the weather was responsible
for :.he settlement of Perryville. the Perryville residents fled their
originai residence near Katmai after the 1912 volcanic eruption. While on
board a government relocation ship, the weather forced them to camp
temporari·ly near their present location. After the storm, they decided to
stay in that location.
These communities will not, in all probability, be affected by petroleum
development in Bristol Bay. There was not, however, any certainty that
this was the case without some investigation of the linkages between both
areas. This situation mandated fieldwork in at least one of the
communities. Though each of these communities is unique, they share much
in common, and it is the common aspects that needed to be explored. Chignik
was selected as a sample of this representativeness.
~oc~ticn, Community Life and Infrastructure
~s r~ote·:J above, Chisr.ik is located on the Gulf side (or "pacific" siae) of
tne !lcska Peninsula. it sits at the head of Anchorage Bay, whicn is a
~i1a~1 ::.ay off :he larger Chignik Say. Anchorage Bay is enclosed by
ex:~e~~ly steep mountains, some of which drop direct:y into the Bay. The
c:rrrru,i:y sits on a relatively flat region just above the beach. A small
:ree~ rJns througn :ne community. During flood tide, this creek backs up
a~: :reates a s~a:~:w 1 agcon near some of the ~ou~es. ~or:hwest of the
•
I ..
i
i
~
' I
j
The preliminary 1980 population for Chignik. is given as 179. Local
estimates give the population at around 130. Of this latter figure, about ·-·
10 are white and 120 are Native. According to some of the residents the
corrrnunity originally started from five sisters who all had 1a·rge famiHes.
Many of the women married men of Scandanavian descent (reflected in the
Scandanavian last names), who worked or fished at the local cannery. It
was mentioned by one resident that an influenza epidemic in the early part
of the 19th century killed a very large number of people. During and after
World War II, many people left the community and didn't return. In the
1950's, some residents moved to Kodiak so their children could attend high
schoo 1 •
Only a few of the older residents still have some command of their native
language. When they were young, many of these older people were slapped in
school for speaking their native language. This was done to encourage them
to speak English; but it also diminished use of their native language.
Added to this was the fact that some of the Scandanavian husbands
discouraged the speaking of the native language. Current language
proficiency figures (Alaska Department of Education, 1981) indicate almost
a1 1 )i the children speak English exclusibely, though there may be some
native grammer form present in their language structure .. Chignik had a
bilingual program at one time, but currently none exists.
The population of Chignik expands with an infusion of cannery workers
during the summer salmon fishing season and the winter and spring crab
fish1ng season. C3nnery sources give this increase at 150 for salmon and
50 for crab processing. The cannery attempts to get 50 percent of its -people from Alaska and 50 percent from the lower 48. Ethnically the
cannery workers are Filipinos, Eskimos from Nulato and Kaltag,· some local
residents and Euro-American college students. One reason cited for hiring
people from Alaska is that "People from lower 48 treat it like a party.
People from Alaska know what fish is all about."
There are about 45 houses in Chignik with 35 occupied. New housing is
planned for 1983. One older resident can remember that some people were
living in Barabaras (traditional underground house) when he was a child.
He noted that Chignik is now "not a poor village" and that young couples can
buy their homes outright. The largest structure in the community is the
Alaska Packers Association (APA) Cannery located and extending past the
shoreline. This cannery consists of a couple of structures including the
only dock for the community. A number of seining boats are stored next to
the cannery. There is a school in Chignik which is part of the Lake and
Peninsula School District. There does not appear to be a drop-out problem
as most of the community's children are in school except for a few who are
going to school in Kodiak. About a mile out of town is located the
airstrip. An old school house is being converted into a Village Council
building. There is also a store in the community. There used to be a
Russian Orthodox Church but it has fallen into disrepair. ~11 of the
residents used to be Russian Orthodox and there is a Russian Orthodox
Driest at Perryville.There is the Chignik Bay Chapel which is attended by
some residents.
j
\
j
"! J
i
j J 1
J
-l J I
I
t ,
.J
J
J
1 I
~
The water system is owned by A.P.A. and the residents received their water
from the canner:.y's system. Pr'ior to the early 1970's the water was shut off
in September at the end of the salmon season. Residents packed water until
May, when the water system was again turned on in preparation for the
summer season. Since the plant began crab processing in the early 1970's,
the water has been running all year. However, the pipes running from the
main line to the houses are on top of the ground. In deep winter they will
freeze and, again, the residents haul water. A few have wells.
About 95 percent have enough electricity "to run a few light bulbs.
Electricity is acquired from the cannery. A separate electrical system is
currently under construction. Outhouses used to be common and now there
are individual septic tanks.
Policing is handled by the State Troopers. There is some feeling local
police could be used, particularly during the summer or during a strike.
Fire extinguishers in the homes are the only fire protection for the
communitJ.
Tr3nspcr:at~on is through boats which are fairly regular (once a month or
so). ~he mail~ take up to 2 months according to local residents. ~jr
Sen·::::: :s ;;rcvided all year, by charter or hopping the mail plane,
depend,ng on tne weather. 7here is no satellite T.V. There is cable T.V.
prov;ae: by tr.e cannery. There is a phone in the community, but it doesn't
r~or-k. Ccntact ·o~~lth'n the community is through C.B.'s in each household.
"e c~~rery has a si~gle siae band. ~~ansportation within the community is
. ...::-
by vehicle ~~sually pick-up trucks) dr what appears to be countless "three
whe~lers."
Within the community are the Chignik Vi11age Council and Far West
Incorporated, the profit corporation. Funding is through State revenue
and PL 93638. There is the Chignik Advisory Board and the Chignik
Boatowner's ~ssociation, both of which deal with fish and game matters and
priGe settlements respectively. These two organizers represent the other
4 communities as well as Chignik. Within Chignik there are also the Local
Sch~ol Advisory Committee and the Johnson O'Malley and Indian Education
Committees. Thse organizations work well together according to local
sour-.ces.
In relation to BBNA, there is some feeling cormtunication is not all it
could !Je. "A Vista who was passing through happened to mention we were
eligible for the PL 93638 money and had been for the last five years .... We
were flabbergasted." There is some unhappiness about BBNC's selling of
Peter Pan as most people in the community are fishermen. Also, Far West (in
conjunc:ion w~th the five other Chignik area village corporations) had
invested in ! cannery near Chignik with Peter Pan's (ana hence BBNC's)
backing and support. This cannery was viewed by local residents as a means
of ~etting out from under the control and domination of the non-locally
owned resjde'lt canne""ies. As the local fishermen were stockholders in Far
~est, they would be ~orking for themselves since they would sell fish to
their ~wn cannery and also receive profits in the form of dividends. When
S2~C ~~·a :e!er ~an :o a Japanese fi,..~. the new owners wanted eitMe"" t~e
r
i
i
•
-
cannery or money (which the Village Corporations didn't have) to buy out
the Japane~ firm. Settlement is now pending in court.
Much of the local land is owned by A.P.A. ANCSA land selections have been
made but they have not been conveyed. When asked about the effect of ANCSA,
one resident said, "It has created more headaches and more paperwork we
really weren't ready for." He also noted that previouslj no one cared who
hunted on the 1 and. Now, "we watch who hunts." Land use in the area is for
the cannery, residence, and subsistence activities. Two constraints to
development are swampy areas and hills. The community itself sits on a
relatively small flat area just above the shoreline surrounded by hills.
There is not a great deal of development land in the flat region and it
would take major construction (including roads) to develop on the hills.
Physical health proqlems are handled by a village health aide and the
ca!'lnery has a nurse. A doctor from Dillingjam visits about twice a year and
a dentist about once a year. Emergencies can be handled by the Coast Guard
or, if the weather is good, by commercial chartered aircraft. In years
past, the canneries had a doctor and there is a desire to have a resident
aoctcr. One doctor wanted to set up a practice "but there was some snag."
rt was stated that there is only minor drug and alcohol a~use problems. In
the cannery alcohol is not a problem because the policy is quite simple,
"We have a rule that if you can't showup or you stay home too often, you're
out of a job."
According to local residects, ethnic relations are very good. The only -problem was a minor internal dispute among the Filipino cannery workers.
The change in ethnicity is reflected in local place-names. There is an
area in Chignik that used to be ca1led "Chinatown". It had hogs, chickens,
cows. ducks and vegetable gardens where some chinese lived. The current
varient is called "Filipino Town."
Relations between the corrrnunity and the cannery are interrelated and
reflective of the relationship between the fishermen and the cannery. In
the formative and early processing days, the cannery was "all powerful".
The canneries owned the boats, in the early days these were big drag seines
off doories with scows for packing. Food and gear was also provided by the
cannery besides wages. There were numerous fish traps and some of the big
doories lasted up to the 1930's, according t6 local residents. At the end
of World War II, power was placed in the doories and some "power boats"
entered the fishery. Most of these were still owned by the canneries but
a few fishermen were independent. Improved boats appeared consistently
tnrough the 1950's. Some of the fishermen acquired their own boats but
were backed by the canneries. In 1959, traps were outlawed and purse
seining by independent fishermen became a slow trend. From the 19i0's on,
more fishermen started buying boats without company backing. They went to
other sources •or backing, "To be clear of the canneries."
Thcu~h the fishermen were becoming independent, they were still tied to the
canneries for boat storage, machine shop priveleges, net and gear lockers,
J~~ of the docK ard ;r'c, financial loans or backing for some fishermen and
il
'\,
' ffl
'
' I
I
~
I
] I
I
• 1 ,;, ., )
•l
i I
~ I q I
~
I
I
:(! I
~I 1
' ) ,.
~ .
u
u
w
w
J
u
J
J
J
. .I
,J
. I
I
••
many other similiar connections. As the fishermen ceased being employees
of the canne.!:¥ and became ;·ndependent, -the cannery's policies began to
change. One sore point is cash buyers. These entered the Chignik fishery
in large numbers in 1976 and paid higher prices than the resident cannery.
Many of the fishermen who had fished for the resident cannery sold for
higher prices to the cash buyers. The resident cannery's attitude became
such that, if the fishermen wanted to sell to the cash buyers, they could
no longer expect free services from the resident cannery. In other words,
if the fishermen wanted to use the net lockers, the machine shop, boat
storage, etc., they would have to se 11 to that cannery or pay for the
services. Loans and backing used to be without interest; now they are with
interest. In summary, the relationship between fishermen and the
canneries has been 1 ike a very lengthy divorce. From an almost "pater-
nalistic .. employee/employer dependency situation, the relationship has
evolved towards independent businessmen negotiating with each other, and
as one person noted, "There is a price for independence."
As with the fishermen, the cannery's relationship with the community is a
similiar divorce. There used to be a company store at the cannery which
serviced the community and often worked on credit. As was indicated above,
the cannery also provides to the community electricity, water, in the past
a doctor and currently a nurse, VTR, dock useage, single stde band for
emergencies and most importantly, jobs. The cannery had and continues to
have power, amenities, facilities, and services. It was and is the largest
institution in the corrrnunity. Two factors are evolving to change the
dependency relationships. First, there is the question of "right" to these
'.,~ -1..::;1-
services. From the communities perspective, these services are variable; -they can cease on the whim of the superintendent. From.the cannery's
perspective the services are offered partially for community relations and
partially because the residents are the local labor force. The second
factor changing relations evolved from the emerging independence of the
fishermen (who are the residents) and ANCSA. A desire to become
independent and autonomous of the cannery has emerged in the community.
Th1s is quite agreeable with the cannery who desires a more businesslike
relationship with the community. "Financial relations are in the process
of change. If it isn't handled right there could be hard ·feelings. Need
communication. Want to be an integral part of the community but n~t have
them independent." The company store burned in 1976 and was not rebuilt.
One person speaking about this perhaps summed up relations between the
cannery and the community and fishermen when he said 11 There • s no more
company store."
Besides changing pol icy in respect to the community, canneries have
changed in their management. The old superintendents lived in "white
houses" and had pretty much full control and made all the decisions since
they were so far out of touch with home base. They usually wqrked their way
up from the bottom. They would arrive in mid-May and leave·the first part
of September, "and had the rest of the year to rectify their mistakes".
They worked from 7:00a.m. til 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. or longer. The newer
superintendents are more management trained and hired right out of
college. The scope of the job is changing and its now a full year-round job
w1':.'1 ~ong hours. Because of the increasing complexity, decisions are
~e ega:ec. ?lans are being r.;ade to put in a smaJl comot.iter ~:the canne,..y. ~-1) ~_-•. ~_c
~-,··
' .. _~ .. ·~~l,
J
J
J
]
l
I
J
I
' •
..
1111
..
..
There are several issues and concerns that were expressed by local
residents in,..J;elation to their community life:
• Docking Facilities: There is only one boat dock i'n the community
and it is owned by A.P.A. The residents would like to have their
own public boat harbor and dock, to service the re-sident and non-
resident fleet, which is increasing in number. Currently there are
104 purse seiners and 5 crab boats. During the winter these boats
must be run to other corrmun it ies for ·storage, which has costs in
time and increasing fuel costs. Many of the fishermen don't fish
during the winter because of nowhere to store or tie-up their
vessels. Boats can be tied up to the APA dock except during bad
weather and heavy swells, when they must be anchored in the bay and
one person must on board.
• Road System: A road connecting Chignik to Chignik Lagoon would
benefit both communities in terms of a dump and retail facilities.
People at Chignik Lake and Chignik Lagoon are often "frozen in" and
can't get down to Chignik to go crabbing. Chignik has the jobs and
the Lagoon and Lake have the people but they can't get down unless
they fly. Also, if they want to work in Chignik· it means they
wouldn't be able to go home at night. A road would alleviate this
problem.
• Water and Electricity: The residents would like to have their own
water and electrical system as the current facilities are also
owned by A.P.ri .
-131-
• Office Building: Ch~gnik needs a community office building. The ·-current facility is too small •
• Telephone: Perhaps the number one priority and most immediate need
•
is. a local communications "dish 11 in order to have an operable
phone. This is needed in order to communicate with Federal and
State agencies in order to acquire other facilities and services.
Recent negotiations with ALASCOM may result in the establishment
of a local system fairly soon.
Airline Service: There is a desire for scheduled airline services
not only to Dillingham but also to Kodiak. Much of the "Chignik's"
economic and sociocultural relationship is with Kodiak. Cur-
rently, the cheapest way to get to Kodiak is through King Salmon to
Anchorage then to Kodiak.
Economics
One long time resident noted, "In the early days if you did0't get a job
with the cannery you starved; there was no welfare or anything." Many
families would disperse to "trapping grounds" during bad economic years,
far away from the village for the winter. Cash goods were acquired through
the cannery store, often on credit. Meat was acquired through subsistence
efforts. As economics improved, the residents began to stay in the
c::~mrn ... n't/, order case lots of food (often on credit), hunt and fish locally
·r ~r:er to survive during tne winter.
-:32-
~· ·~/
~·
~;;;·
J
J
J
J
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
J
J
J
J
J
As is obvious, Chignik is economically dependent on salmon fi-shing, though
crab and shrimp appear to be potential al~ternatives. At one.time there· was ,_. • . ' ., ·+-:
a halibut fishery and there is some p.ar~icipationJna~ll il.erring
fishery. Bottomfish, octopus, sna·il and·halibut are potential fisher-ies.
There is one operating land based cannery in the area-A.P.A. at Chignik.
Columbia Wards Fisheries is across the;;Bay bat is not oper-ating;· APA
processes its fish. The Columbia Ward 1 S plant recently suffered a severe
fire. There is another new cannery at Chignik, built in 1979 which, as
noted above, is partially owned by C.C.F.A. It has never operated, needs
final construction, and is currently locked up in a legal dispute. The
A.P.A. cannery at Chignik processes salmon and crab. The salmon processing
is divided into fresh frozen and canned. A.P.A. owns the fresh frozen
processing section. The canned salmon line is owned one-third each by
A.P.A., Columbia Wards Fisheries and Chignik .Coastal Fisheries, Incor-
porated (C.C.F.I.). C.C.F_.I. is a joint corporation of five village
corporations in the Chignik Sub-Region. Catching techniques include beach
seining and purse seining. In general, local residents do the fishing and
Filipinos, Mexicans and Euro-American college students are brought in to
work in the cannery. Some Eskimos from the Nulato and Kaltag area also work
in the cannery. The number of people working in the cannery is
approximately 50 for the winter crab season and 150 for the su~er salmon
season.
Besides fishing and canning, there are a few other jobs in the community.
These include, one postal position, two jobs in a family owned store, a
phone monito~ng position, road monitors ~ontracted from the State, two
school aides, one health aide and part time'construction work. A few of the
residents trap. Species trapped include: mink, land otter, beaver, fox,
weasel, wolverine and wolf.
There appears to be a fairly positive attitude about economic development
except for off-shore dri11ing for petroleum. There is a fear that spills
or blowouts would affect the fish. Also, there is some feeling that
petroleum development would not benefit the local economy. Some concern
was expressed that petroleum development would usurp current transpor-
tation services, though this was disputed by other individuals noting that
their services were assisted in their establishment by A.P.A. needs. Local
labor loss is not seen as a concern by the cannery as more could be hired.
One resident seemed to sum up fee 1 ings about off -shore drilling by stating:
"We depend too much on natural environment for cash and subsistence. !f
there was enough economic benefits to help all the villages and we were
assured of no spills, then there would be no objections."
·A strong desire was expressed for incorporating into a second class city in
order to gain raw fish tax. Another strong interest is in building a road
to King Salmon, "Then we could get goods ourselves and not have to depend
on the canneries," but absolutely not to Anchorage, In respect to
development in general. one resident noted, "The people would like to see
the quality of their life improve, but not their way of life."
:t
' .,. •
''
Several issues and concerns were raised by local residents about the
economic situation in Chign~k: -
• Boat Harbor: There is a need for a public boat harbor and dock so
more local and year around fishing can occur.
• ocs: If petroleum drilling was safe to marine life and helped
local economy, it would be accepted.
• Development: Some of the local Native Corporations funds are
invested in a new cannery whose ownerhsip is currently disputed and
in court. Favorable settlement to the Native corporations would
mean a new market and benefits for dividends .
• Limited Entry: It was noted that the younger people want limited
entry permits but, because of cost, it is almost impossible to get
one. It isn't that easy to enter a new or another fishery without
experience and gear. There is a concern about what will happen to
the younger people's economic opportunities.
Subsistence
Chignik is very marine oriented. As such, it is not surprising that much
of their subsistence items are acquired from the sea. Those marine and
land species listed for subsistence use around the Chignik area include:
• Marine Species: S·a1mon, halibut, crab (all three species), -codfish, black bass, sculpins, herring, octopus, clam (several
species), "Piaarkies" (local word for an abalone J.ike creature -
spelling unsure), sea urchin ("sea eggs").
• Land Species: Moose, caribou, rabbit, beaver, bear.
• Birds: Ptarmigan, duck, geese .
•. Vegetation: Salmonberries, mossberries (Blac~). cranb~rries,
blueberries, "Patrushkies" (local term-spelling uncertain). It
was noted that some people are putting in gardens.
One resident noted that people are beginning to see Walrus in the area. The
elder people never remember seeing them in the area.
Rance. As would be expected, the Chignik people utilize the marine
and coastal areas of their environment quite extensively. South along the
coast, Castle Bay is used for clam, duck and geese. use continues in the
sma1 ler bays, around to and including Chignik Lagoon. The l9ng flat beach
area in tne west and northwest area of Chignik Bay is used to pick berries
and "Patrushkies" and Thompson Valley, at right angles from this beach, is
used to hunt moose and caribou. Use cant inues on up the coast to Inuya Bay.
Razor clams are acquired at Aniakchak Bay. Some individuals wi 11 cross the
Peninsula to hunt caribou at Port Heiden. Spawned out salmon and beaver
are sc~Jired a: Chigni~ Lake. 7hough the five Chignik area villages are
u
~
t-J
~
J
J
J
J
ij
J
J
J
J
relatively close together, they use different territories. There is no .
"unspoken 1~" about these differing· territories, they are simply res-
pected. An i nd i vi dua 1 can go into another afea but. in ge·nera 1; they use
their own areas.
Exchange . The residents noted that is was very important to share
subsistence items within the community. "Usually things are shared
between anybody and th.is is true of other villages. Any person who is
dependent or needy will be taken care of." Exchange between villages also
occurs. "The first fresh fish of the season we give to the Lagoon and Lake
for caribou and moose. We give them sea food."
Use Patterns. It was stated that everyone participates in subsistence
and that at least 50 percent of the meat diet is local items. During bad
years this increases to 80 percent. The species utilized will vary in that
people will adapt to caribou if moose are not present for example. When
asked what the average Chignik family would utilize, the following rough
es:imate was provided:
•
•
•
•
Salmon: freeze about 40, sa 1t 100 in kegs, dry 100 and smoke
another 100.
Moose and Caribou: at least 2 .
Ptarmigan: about 15.
Duck and Geese: 25 to 30 .
Crab: "lots", an easy 100 .
Hal1but: 20 in the 20-35 pound range.
-lJi-
• Codfish (Scandanavian influence): Salt down a 100 pound keg. -• Rabbit: 10 to 15 .
• Berries: Over 5 Gallons.
This estimate was for Chignik and it was noted that the other villages may
vary in useage with some more reliant on moose and caribou than crab.
When asked about the emotional importance of subsistence, there was a very
strong feeling about it. "Subsistence is a must. You can't do without it.
Impossible to survive without it. It's what we're used to." Because
Chignik is so far removed from metropolitan areas and has variable freight
with so much being imported in, subsistence serves as something that can be
counted on and is dependable, "If anything happens that we are cut off from
outside it's something you can rely on. We don't have stocks of food ...
One resident noted that welfare cannot replace subsistence rights.
Chignik has had high numbers on welfare during bad fishing years and the
welfare money goes for heat and light. With welfare and subsistence, it
was felt a person could survive. There was a strong feeling that though the
residents aren't as dependent on subsistence as they us~d to be, cash
supplements subsistence. As with other villages, cash if for. cash goods
and subsistence provides most of the meat and some of the vegetables.
All aspects of subsistence activities, acquisition, preparation and
presentation are passed on to the children. It is considered as part of the
cultun1 heritage. "Parents always involve kids in subsistence ac-
tivities. Same as fishir"g."
I
Ill
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
~J
_J
J
.J
J
J
f
I
1
,
i
1
:ssues and Concerns in Subsistence. iwo major threats to subsistence
·.vere voiced. First, "headhun'ters" are considered a real menace. 11 I have --
seen 4 nice big moose just bloating with only their horns gone. I have seen
an airplane spot a moose, land and shoot them which is against the law."
ihe second and more generalized threat is restrictions on subsistence
activities·caused because of the D-2 settlement.
Relations with Bristol Bay
One of the main purposes of doing fieldwork in Chignik was to discern their
interrelationship with Bristol Bay. The concern was to determine if and
how events in Bristol Bay would affect the five villages in the Chignik
area.
With modern transportation and brine systems, fish from Bristol Bay can be
processed in Chignik. Traditionally, Bristol Bay has had more salmon than
can be handled locally, and the Chigniks slightly less than could be
hand1ed loca.lly. Thus some spill over could wind up in Chignik. This means
an effect on Bristol Bay salmon will have an effect on Chignik. Equipment
and te"ders from A.P.A. canneries in Bristol Bay are shared with A.P.A. in
Chigrik.
People in the Chignik area are related to people in ma.ny of the other
Alaskan Peninsula villages. !his creates ties and there exists extensive
~raveL ;ng. visicng ana staying with relatives and viCe versa. Sub-
sistence items are snared with relatives and friends in other communities. ·-
Individuals and groups use other areas for subsistence pursuits and this
will often involve staying in another community. It must also be mentioned
that the population of the area is not large. Thus people tend to know the
residents. of other villages. Also, the various regional political
organizations and responsibilities tend to bring various representatives
of the communities together on a fairly regular basis.
In summary, there are economic and extensive subsistence and social ties
that bond the people of the Chigniks Sub-Region to Br:stol Bay. Any
impac~s to Bristol Say will have ramifications in the Chigniks Sub-Region.
Togiak Bay and Nushagak River Sub-Regions
The eight villages in these two sub-regions are located comparatively far
from the proposed petroleum development area of the North Aleutian Shelf.
Howeve~, as some of the communities are located close to the Bay itself and
all are depe~dent, to a degree, on events occurring in Bristol Bay, there
-..vas an evide~t need for their being included in the fieldwork. The
communities of Togiak, Manokotak and New Stuyahok were setected for
f~eldwork and are oresented below.
United States Department of the Interior
REPLY REFER TO:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
'1011 E. TUDOR RD.
SE
Colonel Lee R. Nunn
District Engineer
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 276-3800
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn:
This responds to your 17 November 1981 request for a list of threatened or
endangered species which may be present in the vicinity of the following
proposed small hydropower projects:
1. Chignik; including Mud Bay Lake and Indian Creek alternatives
2. Chignik Lagoon
3. (Perryville/
Based on the best information currently available to us, no proposed or
listed, threatened or endangered species, or candidate species, for which
the Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility occur in any of the three
project areas. Therefore, preparation of a biological assessment, as
identified in Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, ·is not required.
Protection of threatened and endangered marine mammals is the respon-
sibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). You may wish to
contact the NMFS to determine potential effects of the projects on those
species.
Thank you for your inquiry. If we can provide additional infor~ation,
please inform us.
APPENDIX D
POPULATION FORECAST
APPENDIX D POPULATION FORECAST
FOR CHIGNIK
This forecast is based on the Alaska Power Authority's, November
1982, "Kotzebue Coal-fired Cogeneration, District Heating and
Other Energy Alternatives Feasibility Assessmentn, assuming
annual growth to be 2. 3 percent until turn of century and 1
percent thereafter.
Year
1980
1985
1990
2000
2005
2010
2015
2035
FOR CHIGNIK LAGOON
Chignik Population
178
199
223
280
294
310
326
397
Annual gro,Y'th rate 2. 3 percent until turn of century and 1
percent thereafter.
Year Chignik Lagoon PoEulation
1980 48
1985 54
1990 60
1995 68
2000 76
2005 80
2010 84
2015 88
2020 93
2025 97
2030 102
2035 108
D - 1
APPENDIX E
ENERGY FORECAST
APPENDIX E ENERGY FORECAST
This forecast is based on the Alaska Power Authority's, November
1982, "Kotzebue Coal-fired Cogeneration, District Heating and
Other Energy Alternatives Assessment" assuming:
0 Floor area per capita is the same in Chignik.
0 Insulation standard is comparable (i.e. R-19
R-24 ceilings).
0 Electricity demand per capita will be the
Chignik.
0 Cannery is treated separately.
0 Hot water consumption is the same in Chignik.
Space Heating
Kotzebue floor area per capita:
Total Floor/ Kotzebue Sq. feet
area/ Population per capita
Year X 10 6
1985 1. 23 I
1990 1. 45 I
1995 1. 69 I
2000 1. 96 I
2002 2.09 I
Future 2.09 I
Standard for heat consumption:
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
2002
Future
Heating degree days:
2850 432
3200 = 453
3600 = 469
4000 = 490
4200 = 498
4200 = 498
Btu
hr.°F. Sq.Feet
0.385
0.38
0.375
0.37
0.365
0.365
Walls and
same in
Kotzebue 1615~ heating degree days = 387,624 heating degree
hours
Chignik
hours
10000 heating degree days = 240,000 heating degree
E - 1
s:eace heating :eer ca:eita:
Square Standard Heating Btu/ KWh/
Feet/ for Heat Degree Capita/6 Capita/
Year ca:eita Consumption Hours Year x 10 Year
1985 432 0.235 240,000 39 .. 93 = 11,700
1990 453 0 .. 380 240,000 41.32 = 12,110
1995 469 0.375 240,000 42.42 = 12,370
2000 490 0.37 240,000 43.51 = 12,750
2002 498 0.365 240,000 43 .. 62 = 12,780
Future 498 0.365 240,000 43.62 = 12,780
Hot water heating:
Btu/ Capita KWh
10 6 Capita/
Year Year x Year
1985 2.60 = 762
1990 3.61 = 1,058
1995 5.19 = 1,521
2000 7.09 = 2,077
2002 7.89 = 2,312
Future 7.89 = 2,312
It is assumed that 25 percent (25%) of the space heating demands
will be met with electrical resistance heaters in the year 1985.
This fraction is assumed to increase by 2.5 percent (2.5%) per
year and thus in the year 2015, 100 percent (100%) of the space
heating demand will be met with electrical resistance heaters.
Total electricity demand :eer ca:eita (1 ) (household electricity,
s:eace heating and hot water):
Electrical
Resistance Hot
Year Electricity Heating Water Total
1985 4,952 2,925 762 8,639
1990 6,320 4,538 1,058 11,916
1995 7,689 6,200 1,521 15,410
2000 9,335 7,969 2,077 19,381
2002 10,119 8,627 2,312 21,058
2005 10,119 9,585 2,312 22,016
2010 10,119 11,183 2,312 23,614
2015 10,119 12,780 2,312 25,211
2020 10,119 12,780 2,312 25,211
2025 10,119 12,780 2,312 25,211
2030 10,119 12,780 2,312 25,211
2035 10,119 12,780 2,312 25,211
(1) Does not include line losses.
E -2
Total residential electricity demand:
CHIGNIK CHIGNIK LAGOON
Demand Total Total
Capita Demand Demand
Year KWh/Year Population MWh/Year Population MWh/Year
1985 8,239 199 1,700 48 395
1990 11,916 223 2,700 54 643
1995 15,410 250 3,900 60 925
2000 19,381 280 5,400 68 1,318
2002 21,058 280 6,000 76 1,600
2005 22,016 286 6,500 80 1,761
2010 23,614 295 7,300 84 1,984
2015 25,211 310 8,200 88 2,219
2020 25,211 326 8,600 93 2,345
2025 25,211 342 9,100 97 2,445
2030 25,211 378 9,500 102 2,572
2035 25,211 397 10,000 108 2,723
Total electricity demand for Chignik:
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
( 1)
Residential Operating Freezer Total
HWH Cannery ( 1) Plant ( 1) MWH (1)
1,700 5,400 0 7,100
2,700 5,400 800 8,900
3,900 5,400 1,600 10,900
5,400 5,400 2,500 13,300
6,500 5,700 2,600 14,800
7,700 6,000 2,800 16,100
8,200 6,400 3,000 17,600
8,600 6,700 3,100 18,400
9,100 7,000 3,300 19,400
9,500 7,400 3,500 20,400
10,000 7,400 3,500 20,900
Coastal fisheries may not survive on salmon during the
summer months and crabs part of the winter season only o
Expanded activity, including bottoin fish, may secure the
year round operations of the canneries, and is the basis for
the assumed increase in future energy needs for the Chignik
Cannery. This is expressed through an increasing annual
load factor from o 54 in 1985 to • 73 at the turn of the
century.
In addition, the second cannery (or freeze plant) is assumed
to start operations from 1990 throughout the period in
question also due to increase in fishing activities, bottom
fish in particular.
E - 3
Monthly energy demand dis~fibution:
.cormnuni ty Demand
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1985-2000 2005-2035
% %
9
10
11
10
9
6
3
7
8
9
9
9
100
9.5
11
12
11
8
6
3
6
7
8
9
9.5
100.0
E - 4
Industrial Demand
1985-2005
%
9.25
9.25
9.25
6
2.75
9.75
16.75
9.75
2.75
6
9.25
9.25
100.00
tYj
U'l
Chignik -Energ~ Demand Forecast! HWh:
Residential
J
F
H
A
H
J
J
A
s
0
N
D
Ann
Resl.denfia:l
780
900
985
900
655
490
250
490
575
655
740
780
8,700
155
170
185
170
155
100
50
120
135
150
155
155
1,700
2015
Individual
870
870
870
560
245
920
1,600
920
245
560
870
870
9,400
1985 1995 2005
Individual Total Residential Individual Total Residential Individual Total
500 655 325 650 975 570 770 1,340
500 670 360 650 1,010 660 770 1,430
500 685 395 650 1,045 720 770 1,490
325 495 360 415 775 660 495 1,155
150 305 325 175 500 480 220 700
525 625 215 685 900 360 810 1,170
900 950 lOS 1,200 1,305 180 1,200 1,380
525 645 250 685 435 360 810 1,170
150 285 290 175 465 420 220 640
325 475 325 415 740 480 495 975 soo 655 325 650 975 540 770 1,310
500 655 325 650 975 570 770 1,340
5,400 7,100 3,600 7,000 10,600 6,000 8,300 14,300
2025 2035
Total Residential Individual Total ResideriHal Individual Total
1,650 855 950 1,805 950 1,000 1,950
1,770 990 950 1,940 1,100 1,000 2,100
1,855 1,080 950 2,030 1,200 1,000 2,200
1,460 990 625 1,615 1,100 665 1,765
900 720 300 1,020 BOO 325 1,125
1,410 540 1,000 1,540 600 1,060 1,660
1,850 270 1,700 1,970 300 1,800 2,100
1,410 540 1,000 1,546 600 1,060 1,660
820 630 300 930 700 325 1,035
1,214 720 625 1,345 BOO 665 1,465
1,610 810 950 1,760 900 1,000 1,900
1 650 855 950 1 805 950 1,000 ~ 1,950
17,600 9,000 10,300 19,300 10,000 10,900 20,900
Chignik Energy Demand, MWh. (1)
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
JAN 655 810 975 1,185 1,340 1,490 1,650 1,725 1,805 1,905 1,950
FEB 670 830 1,010 1,230 1,430 1,590 1,770 1,850 1,940 2,050 2,100
HAR 685 850 1,045 1,270 1,490 1,655 1,855 1,940 2,030 2,150 2,200
APR 495 615 775 945 1,153 1,285 1,460 1,525 1,615 1,705 1,765
MAY 305 380 500 610 700 780 900 940 1,020 1,080 1,125
JON 625 775 900 1,095 1,170 1,300 1,410 1,475 1,540 1,630 1,660
JOL 950 1,175 1,505 1,390 1,580 1,755 1,850 1,935 1,970 2,080 2,100
AUG 645 800 935 1,135 1,170 1,300 1,410 1,475 1,540 1,630 1,660
SEP 285 355 465 570 640 715 820 855 930 985 1,025
OCT 475 590 740 900 975 1,085 1,215 1,270 1,345 1,420 1,465
NOV 655 810 975 1,185 1,310 1,455 1,610 1,685 1,760 1,860 1,900
DEC 655 810 975 1,185 1,340 1,490 1,650 1,725 1,805 1, g·o5 1,950
ANN. 7,100 8,800 10,600 12,900 14,300 15,900 17,600 18,400 19,300 20,400 20,900
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon Energy Demand, ~mh. (1)
JAN 700 875 1,065 1,310 1,500 1,670 1,860 1,945 2,035 2,150 2,205
FEB 720 900 1,110 1,370 1,615 1,800 2,010 2,105 2,205 2,335 2,395
MAR 740 915 1,155 1,425 1,695 1, 89.5 2,120 2,205 2,315 2,460 2,525
APR 545 685 875 1,085 1,340 1,495 1,680 1,780 1,880 1,990 2,060
MAY 350 445 590 735 835 930 1,095 1,125 1,210 1,290 1,340
JON 655 815 960 1,180 1,270 1,415 1,540 1,615 1,685 1,785 1,820
JOL 965 1,195 1,335 1,630 1,630 1,810 1,915 2,005 2,040 2,160 2,180
AUG 680 850 1,005 1,235 1,270 1,415 1,540 1,615 1,685 1,785 1,820
SEP 325 420 545 685 770 850 980 1,015 1,100 1,170 1,225
OCT 520 650 830 1,025 1,110 1,235 1,390 1,455 1,535 1,630 1,680
NOV 700 875 1,065 1,310 1,465 1,625 1,810 1,890 1,97.5 2,095 2,145
DEC 700 875 1,065 1,310 1,500 1,670 1,860 1,945 2,035 2,150
I
2,205
ANN. 7,600 9, ~Q.Q __ 11f600 14[300 16f000 17[800 19[800 20!700 21!700 23[000 23,600
(1) With cannery
APPENDIX F
POWER STUDIES
APPENDIX F POWER STUDIES
General
The potential energy outputs of small hydropower developments on
Indian Creek and Mud Bay Creek have been assessed through the use
of a Single Reservoir Regulation Hydropower Model. This is a
well recognized means of assessing the potential energy outputs
for simple hydroelectric schemes. The model is based on records
of mean monthly flow, or, as is the case for this study, a
synthetically developed 50-year flow sequence.
Reconnaissance Phase
For the reconnaissance phase, the power studies were limited to
variations in storage capacity, whereas the installed capacity
was fixed equivalent to a maximum discharge of 1.5 times the mean
basin flow.
For Indian Creek, mean gross heads of 445, 475 and 495 feet and
for Mud Bay Creek, mean gross heads of 140, 170, and 190 feet
were studied. The results (see Section 6 of main report) show
that reservoir establishments were not feasible.
Detailed Feasibility Phase
Sizing of generating unit.
Potential and usable energy productions were computed for
installed capacities equivalent to 1. 0, 1. 5 and 2. 0 times the
mean basin runoffs. Based on a value of replaced diesel
generated electric energy of 25 cents/kHh, and estimates for
variable costs i.e. generating unit and penstock, the most
economical size for the generating unit was equivalent to a
maximum discharge somewhat higher than 1.5 times the mean basin
runoffs. For the purpose of the feasibility study 1.5 was chosen
for both Indian Creek and Mud Bay. Potential energy output is
shown in Table F.1.
Usable energy.
For the most economical units, size 1,400 kW for Indian Creek and
425 kW for Mud Bay, usable energy was computed for the following
combinations:
Indian Creek with Chignik demand
Indian Creek with Chignik and Chignik Lagoon demands,
i.e. with intertie
Indian Creek and Mud Bay with Chignik and Chignik
Lagoon demands, i.e. with intertie.
The results are shown in Tables F.2, F.3, F.4 and on Figure F.l.
F - 1
As can be seen from the tables, the hydropower potential on
Indian Creek is used fully by 2025 with Chignik demand only and
by 2010 when the projected Chignik Lagoon demand is added.
The total hydropower potential including Mud Bay is not used in
full until 20 35 i.e. at the end of the 50-year time period in
question, even with the Chignik Lagoon demand added. The
additional usable energy from Hud Bay is shown in Table F. 5 and
shows that only about 20 percent of the potential would be used
in 1985 and by the turn of the century still only about
60 percent is usable. Not only is the yield low, but it is
distributed throughout the year as is illustrated by the graphs
in Figure F.2 for selected years (1985, 1995, and 2005).
With the projected "low" demand for Chignik only, i.e. when the
currently non-operational cannery (freeze plant) and electricity
for space heating are excluded from the demand projections,
Indian Creek is only utlized to 90 percent of its potential by
2035. By that time it is capable of supplying 50 percent of the
demand compared to 75 percent the first year. Results are shown
in Table F.6 and Figure F.l.
Intertie Potential
As can be seen in Tables F.2 and F.3 an intertie between Chignik
and Chignik Lagoon results in an increased use of the Indian
Creek potential energy output of 350 m\vh in 1985, decreasing to
zero by 2025 when Chignik uses the potential from Indian Creek in
full.
However, assuming that the hydropower installation first of all
is meant to meet the community demand, transmission to Chignik
Lagoon will take place as long as the community demand in Chignik
cannot use all. In this case, the intertie potential is computed
as shown in Table F.7.
Community Demands and Hydropower Coverage
Under the assumption that hydropower first will be used to meet
the community demands Table F.8 shows the hydropower coverage and
necessary supplementary diesel electric energy for selected years
(1985, 1995, and 2005). Also shown is the hydropower in excess
of what the communities can utilize, mostly during the summer
months.
Selected Years -Nonth by Honth
Shown for selected years 1985, 1995, and 2005 are demands, usable
energy, surplus and deficit month by month for the case of Indian
Creek and intertie with Chignik and Chignik Lagoon demands.
Results are shown in Tables F.9, F.10, and F.l1 and illustrated
on Figure F.3.
F - 2
900~0t----------------------.=:;;;.-------~~
diJ'"":::::::;c;~.....--.·,··· -
400~0~---------------------------------------
3000
• •• •• • Indian Creek
w/Chignik demand
::;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:m::1::::n Indian Creek w /Chignik
demand + intertie
---Indian Creek t Mud Bay
2ooo w/Chignik demand t intertie
- -Indian Creek
w/Chignik 'Low• demand
100~0~---------------------------------------
0
10
<0
(II ...
year
Figure F.1
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Small Hydropower Feasibility Study
USABLE ENERGY
ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2000
1600
.c
;: 1000
:E
600
0
..r-Chignik t Chignik Lagoon Demand
~Hoeficit
rn ~~::::: :::~:; ::::~:eek
2005
Figure F.2
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
mall Hydropower Feasibility Stud
USABLE ENERGY
INDIAN CREEK AND MUD BAY
ALASKA DISTRICT • CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2000
1500
1000
500
0
MWh
JFMAMJJASOND
1985
Total demand
·Usable hydro generation
Industrial demand
Chignik Lagoon
Community demand
Chignik community demand
JFMAMJJASON
1995
COMMUNITY HYDRO USAGE
I Surplus
~ lntertie potential
I Deficit
MJJASO
2005
Figure F.3
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
Small Hydropower Feasibility Study
USABLE ENERGY INDIAN CREEK
COMMUNITY SURPLUS AND
DEFICIT, INTERTIE POTENTIAL
ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
~~,.
Table F.1:
Hydropower Potential
Indian Creek and Mud Bay
Maximum Unit Discharge/
~~an Basin Flow Ratio
1.0
1.5
2.0
Table F.2:
Usable Energy -Indian Creek
Chignik Demand
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Table F.3:
Demand
H\iH
7,100
8,800
10,600
12,900
14,300
15,900
17,600
18,400
19,300
20,400
20,900
POTENTIAL ENERGY
Indian Creek
Usable
HHH
4,550
5,250
6,750
6,100
6,300
6,450
6,550
6,650
6,700
6,700
6,700
5,500
6,700
7,300
Percent
Potential
68
78
86
91
94
96
98
99
100
100
100
Usable Energy -Indian Creek and Intertie
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon Demands.
Year Demand Usable Percent
t·nm N\m Potential
1985 7,600 4,900 73
1990 9,500 5,600 84
1995 11,600 6,100 91
2000 14,300 6,400 96
2005 16,000 6,600 99
2010 17,800 6,700 100
2015 19,800 6,700 100
2020 20,700 6,700 100
2025 21,700 6,700 100
2030 23,000 6,700 100
2035 23,600 6,700 100
F - 6
ouTPUT, Hvm
Hud Bay
1,900
2,400
2,600
of
Demand
of
64
60
54
47
44
41
37
36
35
33
32
Demand
64
59
53
45
41
38
34
32
31
29
28
Table F.4:
Usable Energy -Indian Creek and Intertie and Hud Bay
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon Demands
Year Demand Usable Percent of ' HHH r1.WH Potential Demand l I 1985 7,600 5,400 59 71
1990 9,500 6,300 69 66
'1 1995 11,600 7,200 79 62
2000 14,300 7,800 86 55
2005 16,000 8,200 90 51
2010 17,800 8,500 93 48 1 2015 19,800 8,700 96 44
2020 20,700 8,800 97 43
2025 21,700 8,900 98 41 l 2030 23,000 8,975 99 39
2035 23,600 9,100 100 38
Table F.5: l
Usable Energy -Mud Bay (Table F. 4 -F.3)
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon Demands J
Year Usable ~lWh Percent of Potential
1985 500 21 I 1990 700 29
1995 1,100 46
2000 1,400 58
2005 1,600 67 I 2010 1,800 75
2015 2,000 83
2020 2,100 88 I 2025 2,200 92
I 2030 2,275 95
2035 2,400 100 I Table F.6:
Usable Energy -Indian Creek I Chignik "Low" Demand
Year Demand Usable Percent of I MWH rum Potential Demand
1985 5,600 4,200 63 75
1990 6,500 4,600 69 71
1995 7,500 5,000 75 67 I 2000 8,600 5,300 79 62
2005 9,100 5,500 82 60
2010 9,700 5,700 85 59 I 2015 10,400 5,850 87 56
2020 11,000 5,950 89 54
2025 11,400 6,000 90 53 I 2030 11,800 6,050 90 51
2035 12,200 6,100 91 50
F - 7 •
Table F.7:
Intertie Potential
Hydropower Primarily Used for Community Supply
Year Transmission MWh Percent of Chignik Lagoon Demand
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Table F.B:
350
490
700
825
730
720
735
710
675
580
485
70
70
70
59
43
38
33
31
28
22
18
Community Demands
Usable Hydropower -Necessary Diesel Supplements
Year/Community
1985
Chignik
Chignik Lagoon
Sum
1995
Chignik
Chignik Lagoon
Sum
2005
Chignik
Chignik Lagoon
Sum
Demand Usable Hydro Diesel
HvJh Mvlh I:lWh
1,700 1,450 250
500 350 150
2,200 1,800 400
3,600 2,800 BOO
1,000 700 300
4,600 3,500 1,100
6,000 4,170 1,830
1,700 730 970
7,700 4,900 2,800
F - 8
Excess Hydro
Nvlh
3,100
2,600
1,700
Table F.9:
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
1985 Monthly Electric Energy Use and Supply
Demand Usable Hydro
Cornr.1.. (1) Ind. ( 2) Total
N.Vlh HWh MWh .HWh
Jan 700 120 120
Feb 720 100 100
Mar 740 50 50
Apr 540 220 230 450
May 350 200 150 350
Jun 660 130 530 660
Jul 970 60 670 730
Aug 680 160 400 560
Sep 320 180 140 320
Oct 520 200 300 500
Nov 700 200 360 560
Dec 700 200 300 500
Year 1,760 1,800 3,100 4,900
Table F.10:
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
1995 Honthly Energy Use and Supply
Jan
Feb
Har
Apr
Nay
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
(1)
( 2)
Demand Usable Hydro
Comm. ( 1) Ind. (2)
HWh MWh MWh
1,070 120
1,110 100
1,150 50
880 460 40
590 420 170
960 280 680
1,330 140 570
1,010 320 320
540 370 160
830 420 260
1,070 420 220
1,060 420 150
11,600 3,500 2,600
Comm. represents Community
Ind. represents Industrial
Total
!1\'lh
120
100
50
500
590
940
710
640
530
680
640
570
6,100
F - 9
Additional Diesel
Comm. (1) Ind. ( 2) Total
HWh HWh MHh
80 500 580
120 500 620
180 500 690
90 90
240 240
120 120
20 20
140 140
200 200
400 2,300 2,700
Additional Diesel
Comm. (1) Ind. ( 2) Total
MWh Mvlh t-IVlh
300 650 950
360 650 1,010
450 650 1,100
380 380
20 20
620 620
370 370
10 10
150 150
430 430
490 490
1,100 4,400 5,500
Table F.11:
Chignik and Chignik Lagoon
2005
Jan
Feb
Har
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
( 1)
( 2)
Monthly Electric Energy Use
Demand Usable Hydro
Comm. (1) Ind. ( 2)
r-mh MWh MWh
1,500 120
1,620 100
1,690 50
1,340 500
840 610 210
1,270 460 490
1,630 230 480
1,270 460 170
770 530 180
1,110 610 120
1,460 640
1,500 560
16,00 4,900 1,700
Conm. represents Community
Ind. represents Industrial
and Supply
Total
MHh
120
100
50
500
820
950
710
630
710
730
640
560
6,600
F -10
Additional Diesel
Comm. ( 1) Ind. (2) Total
MWh M\~h MWh
600 770 1,370
740 770 1,510
860 770 1,630
340 500 840
10 10
320 320
920 920
640 640
40 40
370 370
40 770 770
160 770 770
2,800 6,600 9,400
APPENDIX G
COST DATA
APPENDIX G
COST DATA
COST BASIS FOR ESTIMATE -GENERAL DATA FOLLOWS:
(See also 6.12 Basic Reoort)
1. FREIGHT COSTS
A. Hercules Anchorage -King Salmon
40,000#@ $11,000 8'x8'x40'
B. CASSA King Salmon -Chignik
6,000# @ $5,000 5'x5'x20'
c. CASSA King Salmon -Chignik Lagoon
6,000# @ $5,000 5 1 x5'x20'
D. Barge Seattle -Chignik
12,000,000# @ $250,000
E. Literage Chignik -Chignik Lagoon
60,000# @ $8,000
F. Literage Chignik -Mud Bay
60,000# @ $3,000
G. Helicopter Support
1. Ranger $450/Hr.
2,000# 50 Gal/Hr $1.40/Gal
2. Vertol $1,925/Hr.
10,000# 200 Gal/Hr $1 .40/Gal
H. We in Anchorage -King Salmon
100# @ $27.10
(Anchorage)
(Andhorage)
I. Penn. Air King Salmon -Chignik, Chignik Lagoon
100# @ $54.00
J. Seattle -Anchorage General Freight
LCW $ 8.00/100#
HIGH $25.00/100# AVERAGE $16.50/100#
2. COMPUTED FREIGHT RATES
A. Chignik
1. Seattle-Anchorage (Barge) $16.50/100
Anchorage -King Salmon (Hercules) $27.50/100
King Salmon -Chignik (CASSA) $54.00/100
2. Seattle -Chignik (Barge)
3. Seattle -Anchorage (Barge)
Anchorage -King Salmon (We in)
King Salmon -Chignik (CASSA)
B. Chignik Lagoon
1. Seattle-Anchorage (Barge)
$98.00/100#
$ 2.08/100#
$16.50/100
$27.10/100
$54.00/100
$97 .60/100#
$16.50/100
Anchorage-King Salmon (Hercules) $27.50/100
King Salmon -Chignik Lagoon (CASSA) $54.00/100
2. Seatle -Chignik (Barge) $ 2.08/100
Chignik -Chignik Lagoon {Literage) $13.33/100
3. Seattle -Anchorage (Barge)
Anchorage -King Salmon {Wein)
King Salmon -Chignik (CASSA)
$15.41/100#
$16.50/100
$27.10/100
$54.00/100
$97.60/100#
3.
C. f1Jd Bay
1. Seattle -Anchorage (Barge) $ 16.50/100
Anchorage-King Salmon (Hercules) $ 27.50/100
King Salmon -Chignik (CASSA) $ 54.00/100
Chignik -Mud Bay (Literage) $ 5.00/100
2. Seattle -Chignik (Barge)
Chignik -Mud Bay (Literage)
3. Seattle -Chignik (Barge)
Chignik-Mud Bay (Vertol)
$103.00/1001#
$ 2.08/100
$ 5.00/100
$ 7.08/1001#
$ 2.08/100
$ 23.00/100
$ 25.08/1001#
PERSONAL AND SUBSISTENCE COSTS
A. Air Fare $450/Round Trip
Anchorage -Chignik.
Chignik Lagoon
B. Air Fare $550/Round Trip
Anchorage -Mud Bay
c. Subsistence $ 60/Day Chignik
$ 70/Day Chignik Lagoon
$100/Day ftld Bay
COMPUTATIONS
Labor M.F. Major Population/Chignik 1.25
Major Population/Chignik Lagoon 1.27
Major Population/Mud Bay 1.34
Labor Assume
Chignik= 1.25 MF
Chignik Lagoon= 1.30 MF
fo\Jd Bay= 1.40 MF
Assume Equipment
Chignik= 1.30 MF
Chignik Lagoon= 1.35 MF
fo\Jd Bay= 1.45 MF
'
4. MULTIPLICATION FACTOR AREA OF WORK
A. Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways 1
Labor .• 35 X 1.25 1.30 1.40 l Equipment .60 X 1.30 1.35 1.45
Materials .OS X 1.0 1.0 1.0 I
Chignik I Chignik 1.27 Lagoon 1.32 fo\Jd Bay 1.41
ASSUME 1.30 1.35 1.45 I -
B. Building Structures I Labor .40 1.25 1.30 1.40
Equipment .15 1.30 1.35 1.45 I Materials .45 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.15 1.17 1.23 I
ASSUME 1.15 1.20 1.25 I
I
I
C";-4 I
c. Transmission Plant
Labor .30 1.25 1.30 1.40
Equipment .40 1.30 1.35 1.45
Materials .30 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.20 1.23 1.30
ASSUME 1.20 1.25 1.30
APPENDIX H
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDER
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GUIDELINES
I
I
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
·-------~----~
APPENDIX H ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UNDER ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GUIDELINES
The major assumptions used in the analysis to determine
feasibility according to Alaska Power Authority guidelines are
similar to those used for the analyses in Section 6.13 with the
following exceptions:
0
0
Interest or discount rate of 3 percent; and
Fuel cost escalation rate of 2.6 percent for 20 years,
0 percent thereafter.
Table H.l summarizes the results of these analyses. Under these
assumptions the Indian Creek alternative is feasible. The
intertie itself is also feasible although marginally. The Mud
Bay project is, in itself, still not feasible.
H - 1
'fable H. 1
Economic Analyses with Alaska Power Authority Guidelines
IndliY Creek Indian Creek
Dam D~m ~~fnter-
t1es
Construction Cost $10,300,000 $23,100,000
Investment Cost 10,770,000 24,150,000
(With construction
interest)
ANNUAL COSTS
Interest and Amortization $ 420,000 $ 950,000
Operation, Maintenance
and Replacement 210,000 260,000
TO'l'AL ANNUAL COST $ 630,000 $ 1,210,000
ANNUAL BENEFITS
Diesel Generation
Displacement Benefit $ 1,420,000 $ 1,710,000
Full Cost
Escalation Benefit 420,000 510,000
TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFIT $ 1,840,000 $ 2,220,000
NET ANNUAL BASIS $ 1,210,000 $ 980,000
Benefit-Cost Ratio 2.92 1. 79
Serves the Community of Chignik. ( 1)
( 2) Serves the Community of Chignik and Chignik Lagoon.
Indian Creek
and Mud Bay
D~ms<'i{inter-
t1es Intertie Mud Bay
$11,100,000 $800,000 $12,000,000
11,600,000 830,000 12,550,000
$ 460,000 $40,000 $ 490,000
260,000 50,000 30,000
$ 720,000 $90,000 $ 490,000
$ 1,510,000 $ 90,000 $ 200,000
450,000 30,000 60,000
$1,960,000 $120,000 $260,000
$1,240,000 $ 30,000 (-$260,000)
2.72 1. 33 0.50
·APPENDIX I
FWS -COORDINATION
ACT REPORT
APPENDIX I FWS -COORDINATION ACT REPORT
"To be added to FINAL,
not available for draft report"
I-1