HomeMy WebLinkAboutLoud Creek Hydro Devel Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report 2011LOUDCREEKHYDROPOWERDEVELOPMENT
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY REPORT
Prepared For: City of Akutan
Prepared By: EES CONSULTING, INC.
MCMILLEN, LLC
DRYDEN & LARUE/EPS
July 29, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1
Task Description ............................................................................................................. 3
Technical Feasibility ........................................................................................................ 4
Previous Studies .......................................................................................................... 4
Land Ownership ........................................................................................................... 4
Site Visit. ...................................................................................................................... 4
Watershed Description ................................................................................................ 8
Anadromous Fish Presence ........................................................................................ 8
Geology ....................................................................................................................... 9
Project Arrangement .................................................................................................. 10
Base Case ............................................................................................................. 1 0
Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................... 1 0
Power Transmission Options ................................................................................. 10
Hydrology and Hydraulics ............................................................................................. 11
Hydrology .................................................................................................................. 11
Background ............................................................................................................ 11
Peak Stream Flow .................................................................................................. 12
Hydraulics .................................................................................................................. 16
Flood Routing ......................................................................................................... 16
Spillway and Flood Outlet Section and Design ...................................................... 17
Freeboard .............................................................................................................. 17
Dam Embankment ................................................................................................. 17
Conceptual Design ........................................................................................................ 18
Diversion Dams ......................................................................................................... 18
Base Case ............................................................................................................. 18
Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................... 19
Dock .......................................................................................................................... 19
Access Roads ............................................................................................................ 20
Powerhouse ............................................................................................................... 20
Substation .................................................................................................................. 20
Power Transmission and Interconnection .................................................................. 20
Energy Production ......................................................................................................... 23
Base Case ................................................................................................................. 23
Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................... 25
Permitting ...................................................................................................................... 26
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................................... 26
United States Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................... 27
Alaska Department of Natural Resources .................................................................. 28
Dam Safety Program .............................................................................................. 28
Water Rights .......................................................................................................... 28
Alaska State Historic Preservation Office .................................................................. 28
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Review (Coastal Project Questionnaire) ............ 29
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation .................................................. 29
Alaska Department of Fish and Game ....................................................................... 29
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page ii
Local Government ..................................................................................................... 29
Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 30
Base Case ............................................................................................................. 30
Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................... 30
Transmission and Substation Costs ....................................................................... 31
Basis of Transmission Cost Estimates ................................................................... 32
Diesel Generator Set. ............................................................................................. 32
Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 32
Summary of Construction and Development Costs ................................................... 33
Cost of Power. ............................................................................................................... 35
Project Schedule ........................................................................................................... 38
Conclusions and Final Recommendations .................................................................... 39
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 39
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 39
References .................................................................................................................... 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Loud Creek Drainage Basin ............................................................................. 5
Figure 2. East Fork Loud Creek Proposed Dam Site ...................................................... 6
Figure 3. West Fork Loud Creek Diversion Site .............................................................. 6
Figure 4. Powerhouse Site .............................................................................................. 7
Figure 5. Typical Shoreline around Akutan Harbor ......................................................... 8
Figure 6. USGS Geology Map of Akutan Island, Alaska ................................................. 9
Figure 7. Loud Creek Stream Gage .............................................................................. 12
Figure 8. Russell Creek USGS Gage 15297610 ........................................................... 13
Figure 9. Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska ............................................................ 13
Figure 10. Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska .......................................................... 14
Figure 11. Loud Creek Calculated Flows ...................................................................... 24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Russell Creek Near Cold Bay, Alaska Peak Streamflow Statistics ................... 14
Table 2 Loud Creek Drainage Basin Area ..................................................................... 15
Table 3 East Fork Loud Creek Peak Stream Flow Statistics ......................................... 16
Table 4 Base Case Energy Production ......................................................................... 25
Table 5 Power Transmission and Substation Costs ...................................................... 31
Table 6 Project Costs .................................................................................................... 34
Table 7 Cost of Power ................................................................................................... 36
Table 8 Summary of Potential Generation Source Costs at Akutan, Alaska ................. 36
Table 9 Anticipated Power Consumption ...................................................................... 37
Table 10 Proposed Tasking Cost Estimates ................................................................. 41
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page iii
Appendix A -Drawings
Appendix B -Cost Estimates
Appendix C -Schedule
APPENDICES
Appendix D -Harbor Power Consumption Estimates
Appendix E-Project Monthly Energy Generation Table
Appendix F -Cost of Energy Calculations
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Drawing 1 -Location Map, Vicinity Map, and Drawing Index
Drawing 2 -Standard Abbreviations and Symbols
Drawing 3 -General Site Plan
Drawing 4 -Design Criteria
Drawing 5 -Site Plan -Base Case
Drawing 6 -Site Plan -Alternative 1
Drawing 7 -Typical Dam Plan and Sections
Drawing 8 -Dam Penstock Section
Drawing 9 -Roadway Details
Drawing 10-Pipeline Plan, Profile, and Details-Base Case
Drawing 11 -Pipeline Plan, Profile, and Details-Alternative 1
Drawing 12-Powerhouse Foundation Plan and Sections
Drawing 13 -Powerhouse Generator Plan and Sections
Drawing 14-Transmission Lines Route Options
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Pageiv
Executive Summary
A feasibility and analysis was completed for the Loud Creek Hydropower project to
determine the technical feasibility of producing power at Loud Creek and delivery of the
power to the City of Akutan (City). The 1990 HDR/Ott report indicated the Loud Creek
project was technically constructable using a cross bay transmission cable. The report
also concluded that the "economic viability of the project will likely improve over time , as
the City's demand for energy increases."
The current study was initiated because the City's power demand has increased since
the 1990 study. The power demand is expected to further increase with the
development of the new Akutan Harbor (Harbor) and other expansion activities. Early in
the current study efforts, the City determined that the cross bay transmission cable
presents an extremely high risk of failure requiring additional study efforts for a
transmission line routing. A total of 6 transmission routing options were evaluated.
Conceptual power generation arrangements were developed for the Loud Creek
hydropower development. The Base Case alternative consisted of a single diversion
dam located on the East Fork of the Loud Creek. Alternative 1 included a second
diversion dam on the West Fork of Loud Creek increasing the overall design flow and
annual power production.
The Loud Creek power could be delivered at or below the current cost of power using
diesel generation. The Loud Creek power cost would be significantly higher than Trident
Seafoods ' (Trident) existing self generation cost. It is likely that Trident would generate
their own power rather than buy more expensive power from the Loud Creek project.
Without the sale of power to Trident and/or the new Harbor, power delivered from Loud
Creek to the City would exceed demand for the foreseeable future, particularly if the
Town Creek hydropower system becomes fully operational.
The combination of Alternative 1, power generation , and Option 4a, transmission , was
the recommended alternative . The power generation facilities consist of new diversion
dams on the East and West Forks of Loud Creek, a new 18 inch diameter penstock
delivering up to 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) to a new powerhouse near the mouth of
Loud Creek, a dock , and a primitive access road from the dock to the diversion dam.
The powerhouse is a single 350 kilowatt (kW) Pelton Wheel turbine capable of
generating up to 1,548 ,100 kilowatt hours (kWh) annually . The power will be delivered
from the Loud Creek powerhouse to the new Harbor facilities via a buried submarine
cable located in the intertidal zone. The estimated total project cost is $7,727,400 with a
cost of power of $0 .43/KWh. The recommended alternative is considered a "standalone"
arrangement delivering power to only the new Harbor.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 1
Based on the results of the feasibility study, it is recommended that the conceptual
business and operations plan required under AEA Phase II milestones should be
completed along with a business case analysis that addresses the cost of diesel, power
purchase agreements, projected revenues, and the non-monetary benefits of the
project.
A project schedule was developed, which indicates that operation could be achieved
within approximately 3 years from initiation of the final engineering design effort. The
permitting process would be the critical path schedule item. A key issue for the project is
obtaining permits to allow construction to start in the summer of 2013. It is believed that
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would issue an order declaring that
it does not have jurisdiction. This would mean that the permits required for construction
would be from the State and other federal entities. Note that water rights for the project
need to be procured immediately to preserve the schedule.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page2
Task Description
EES Consulting, Inc (EES) and McMillen, LLC (McMillen) were retained by the City to
conduct a preliminary feasibility assessment on the Loud Creek Hydropower
Development to determine the preferred hydroelectric system configuration and
transmission routing. This assessment included the recommended sizing of a
hydroelectric system, including projected annual energy generation and fuel
displacement for the project. Other elements of the assessment discussed in this report
include:
a. Technical feasibility of the project.
b. Conceptual design of the project, to include location of system components,
penstock and transmission alignments, and sizing/type of piping, turbines,
generators, and all necessary components related to system construction .
c . Conceptual design summary including recommended construction methods,
construction access, and design practices.
d. Power systems integration including turbines, generators, switchgears, controls,
and transmission lines.
e. Issues related to permitting and permit processing.
f. All other information, conclusions and recommendations relative to the design,
construction, operation and maintenance of the selected system configuration.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page3
Technical Feasibility
Previous Studies
In June 1990, HDRIOTT Engineering and Dryden & LaRue (HDRIOTT) published a
hydroelectric feasibility study report for both the Loud Creek and North Creek projects.
The Loud Creek Project was examined in detail and was deemed technically
constructible. However, it was not deemed financially economic for the City to construct
alone at that time. The report concluded that the economic viability of the project would
likely improve over time as the City's demand for energy increases. It was also noted in
the report that the project may become economically feasible if Trident (located in
Akutan) purchased excess power or became a co-developer of the project.
The 1990 report proposed a configuration that would include two diversions on Loud
Creek. The main diversion would be at elevation (EI.) 560 feet (ft) above mean sea
level (amsl) on the East Fork of Loud Creek (East Fork) and a secondary diversion
would be located on the West Fork of Loud Creek (West Fork) at El. 175 ft amsl. Figure
1 depicts the locations of the East and West Fork drainage basins. With this
configuration , there would be two penstocks that each feed into a separate turbine -
generator set. The main turbine-generator set would have a rating of 330 kilowatts (kW)
and the secondary would have a rating of 60 kW. Both of the turbine-generator sets
would be housed in a small powerhouse to be constructed above maximum tidewater
on the rock bluff. A 4,500-foot long underwater transmission cable was planned from
the powerhouse to the City along with a buried intertie cable that would lead to the
Trident Seafood facility. The 1990 report estimated the cost for the Loud Creek
Hydropower Development at $1 .7 million dollars.
Land Ownership
The Loud Creek drainage is owned by the City as acquired under 14(c)3 of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act. The Akutan Native Corporation owns the land from Loud
Creek to the Trident facility and Harbor. The tidelands from Loud Creek to the Trident
facility are owned by the State of Alaska. From the Trident facility to Akutan, the land is
owned by Trident and the City.
Site Visit
The Loud Creek drainage basin is located directly across the bay from the City (Figure
1 ). EES and McMillen conducted a site visit to the Loud Creek drainage basin on
October 25, 2009. At the time of the site visit, there was snowpack in the upper
altitudes of the basin .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page4
The team was able to identify the HDRIOTT proposed site of the dam on the East Fork
at approximately El. 500 ft amsl (Figure 2). The 1990 West Fork diversion dam site was
examined but was deemed not a preferred location for a diversion dam. A more
suitable diversion dam location was observed during the site visit at approximately El.
500 ft amsl. A photograph of this location is presented in Figure 3. The penstock routes
from both diversion dams down to the powerhouse site appear to be relatively
straightforward to construct. The powerhouse site would be located near the mouth of
the creek, well above high tide on a rock bluff as illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 1. Loud Creek Drainage Basin
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report PageS
Figure 2. East Fork Loud Creek Proposed Dam Site
Figure 3. West Fork Loud Creek Diversion Site
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasi bility Report Page6
Figure 4. Powerhouse Site
The team toured the bay investigating an underwater cable route along the shoreline.
The shoreline underwater cable route was investigated because concern had been
expressed about an underwater cable running straight across the bay to the City and
the potential for boats anchoring within the bay snagging the cable. Figure 5 presents a
typical photograph of the shoreline .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 7
Figure 5. Typical Shoreline around Akutan Harbor
Watershed Description
The Loud Creek watershed (drainage basin) totals approximately 1.0 square mile (sq
mi) and is comprised of an East and West Fork . The East Fork drainage basin above
El. 500ft asml (above proposed diversion dam) is approximately 0.59 sq mi, while the
West Fork basin above El. 500 ft (above proposed diversion dam) is approximately 0.19
sq mi in size. The drainage basin below the El. 500 ft asml diversion dams is 0.22 sq
mi. The Loud Creek basin varies from El. 0 ft amsl at the outlet to approximately El.
1 ,800 ft amsl at the top of the East Fork drainage basin. The drainage basin slopes
range from approximately 10% (near stream) to approximately 70% (mountain slopes).
The watershed land cover is characterized by native tundra vegetation and exposed
rock outcroppings, with no forested, developed, or glaciated areas in the watershed.
Anadromous Fish Presence
Based on observations made during the October 2009 site visit, anadromous fish were
not observed in Loud Creek. Furthermore , the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
has not identified Loud Creek as an anadromous stream. However, not all the streams
in the Akutan region have been mapped, and subsequently, the absence of information
in the fish catalog does not necessarily indicate that anadromous species are not
present. It is likely that the regulatory agencies will require fish studies to confirm the
lack of anadromous fish within the Loud Creek drainage.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 8
Geology
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has not completed a Soil Survey
for the Loud Creek drainage basin . The geologic soils located within the Loud Creek
project boundaries as mapped by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) are
shown in the highlighted area of Figure 6. Geologic soils include colluviums (Qcu),
tephra (Qtu ), and volcanic rock (QTv). Colluvium is a loose deposit of rock debris
accumulated through the action of rainwash or gravity and is located toward the base of
the Loud Creek drainage slope. Tephra soils include volcanic deposits of shattered
rock fragments, ranging in size from fine dust and ash to particles greater than 32 mm in
diameter. Volcanic rock is extrusive igneous rock solidified near or on the soil surface.
These soils are similar to those found at the Town Creek dam site which has
experienced seepage through the foundation and abutment interface. Careful
consideration of these soils and possible transverse faults through the site will have to
be considered as part of a geotechnical investigation required for the dam site as part of
the final design effort .
• Volcanic Rocks, Undifferentiated D Colluvium , Undifferentiated
0 Tephra
Figure 6. USGS Geology Map of Akutan Island, Alaska
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page9
Project Arrangement
The 1990 HDRIOTT report recommended a project arrangement that included two
diversions and two turbine-generator sets. In this arrangement, the West Fork would
consist of a small diversion (at El. 175 ft amsl) and separate penstock leading to the
powerhouse with a small unit rated at 60 kW. The main diversion would be located on
the East Fork (at El. 560ft amsl) with a penstock leading down to the powerhouse fitted
with a 300 kW impulse turbine set. This arrangement requires more switchgear and
complex controls for reliable operation. Additionally, this arrangement would be more
expensive to construct, operate, and maintain than a project with a single turbine-
generator set. In our opinion, this type of arrangement is not cost effective as it
significantly increases the cost of the project for a very small incremental gain in power
production.
EES and McMillen identified two potential alternatives for the construction of a
hydropower facility on Loud Creek. These alternatives are based on the 1990
HDR/OTT report and the 2009 site visit and are briefly described below. A more detailed
description of each hydropower alternative along with potential power transmission
options are presented in the Conceptual Design section of this report.
Base Case
EES and McMillen first developed a simple project arrangement (herein referred to as
the Base Case) with a single diversion dam on the East Fork and a penstock with an
inner diameter (ID) of 16 inches (in) extending approximately one mile to a small
powerhouse located just above the outlet of Loud Creek.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 consists of the Base Case scenario and a dam on the West Fork. A
diversion dam would also be constructed on the West Fork at approximately El. 500 ft
amsl. The cost to construct a diversion structure and penstock (16 in) to intersect with
the East Fork penstock will be considered in addition to the dam and penstock from the
East Fork. The combined penstock inside diameter would shift to 18 in after the
intersection. This alternative would allow for more water to be captured from the basin
and still allow for a single turbine-generator set at the powerhouse.
Power Transmission Options
The hydropower arrangement alternatives, Base Case and Alternative 1, were coupled
with a range of power transmission options. These options were developed to determine
the optimum routing and cost associated with delivering the power generated at the
Loud Creek plant to the potential users. The identified options include both submarine
and land based routes to the City and new Harbor facilities.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 10
Hydrology and Hydraulics
Hydrology
Background
In 1986, the Alaska Power Authority contracted with the Water Resources Section of the
Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) to collect and
summarize stream flow for both North Creek and Loud Creek . Data was only collected
from June 1986 to October 1988.
The 1990 HDR!Ott report reviewed the DGGS data and noted the following:
• Loud Creek had a gage installed at the mouth and developed a record from
June 3, 1986 through August 14, 1987.
• A gage was added to record stream flows in the East Fork for the periods of
September 11, 1986 to November 27, 1986; February 24, 1987 to August 14,
1987; and September 10, 1987 to July 30, 1988.
• The East Fork data was deemed unreliable because it did not achieve a run-off
ratio (cubic feet per second [cfs] per square mile} similar to either Loud Creek
(at the mouth) or North Creek.
• Peak flows occur from June through August and in December and January.
Low flows occur from February through April. It was not known what proportion
of the winter flow may originate from the upper versus the lower portion of the
basin .
As a part of the current effort, additional stream flow data is being obtained for Loud
Creek at the mouth to help verify the characteristics of the drainage basin. A gaging
station was installed on February 18, 2010 and is being maintained on Loud Creek to
determine hydrologic flows (see Figure 7). Typically, data collected over a long period of
time ( 1 0 years) is required to properly characterize stream flows from a given drainage
basin. Due to time constraints, one year of stream flow data collection will be sufficient
for the hydrology analysis of this project. Data collected from this stream gage will be
used during subsequent design phases of the project. This data will be collected in
June 2011, compiled , and submitted under a separate cover. Data collection will
continue for a complete year to determine daily and month ly flows.
No other gaged streams of a comparable size in the Aleutian Islands have been
located. The data from Loud Creek will be used to develop a correlation with other
gaged streams to better understand the stream flow characteristics.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 11
Figure 7. Loud Creek Stream Gage
Peak Stream Flow
For purposes of designing a small dam, long-term average daily stream flows are
needed to determine the peak flow characteristics of the basin. In addition, basin
characteristics such as soil type, basin slope, and representative channel shape are
needed for the development of an inflow hydrograph. Since this data has not been
collected for Loud Creek, the design analysis will focus on determining the peak stream
flow statistics based on reg ional regression equations. The results will be compared to
a local reference site for suitability.
The USGS maintains gage sites at a number of streams in Alaska and the data is
available on their web site. The Russell Creek gage (30.9 square mile drainage area)
near Cold Bay, Alaska is in a very similar climate as Loud Creek and is the closest
available stream gage station to Loud Creek providing reliable data. Cold Bay is about
150 miles east of Akutan in the Aleutians East Borough. Figure 8 illustrates the long-
term record for flows in Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska. This gage record exists
in two continuous parts; from October 1981 to October 1986 and from October 1995 to
October 2009 .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 12
USGS 15297610 RUSSELL C NR COLD BAY AK
~~---------------------------------------, 149118
u 38118
I)
" 2888 I.
l ]1889
u
~
1
&
1
~ Cl 188 ,.
~
~ ~~------~----------~----------------~84 1982 198!1 1988 1991 1994 1997 2888 2883 2886 2889
-Daily nean disc'-lle
-Period of apprOIIed data
• Flou at station affected by ice
-Period of provisional data
Figure 8. Russell Creek USGS Gage 15297610
Figure 9. Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska
(looking downstream from gage station)
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 13
Figure 10. Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska
(looking upstream from gage station}
The peak stream flow record for the Russell Creek gage was analyzed using the USGS
PKFQWin software program (http://water.usgs.gov/software/PeakFQ/). The software
determines peak stream flow statistics based on Bulletin 178 guidelines. Table 1
summarizes the peak stream flow results.
Table 1
Russell Creek Near Cold Bay, Alaska Peak Streamflow Statistics
AnnuaiExceedance Recurrence Bulletin 17B 95-Percent Unit
Probability Interval Estimate Confidence Limits Discharge
(Years) (cfs) Lower Upper (cfs/sq mi)
50% 2 2,601 2,217 3,033 84
20% 5 3,723 3,183 4,585 120
10% 10 4,600 3,849 5,944 149
4% 25 5,876 4,741 8,261 190
2% 50 6,956 5,452 10,350 225
1% 100 8,156 6,210 12,810 264
0.5% 200 9,493 7,023 15,730 307
0.2% 500 11,500 8,196 20,410 372
The unit discharge for the 50% and 1% exceedance probabilities are 84 cfs and 264 cfs
per square mile, respectively.
Peak stream flow statistics for the ungaged Loud Creek basin are calculated below
using the regression equations developed by the USGS. Regression equations were
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 14
developed for seven separate regions statewide. The Loud Creek drainage basin ~sin
Region 1 , where the peak stream flow statistics are calculated based on the equattons
listed below.
2-YR:
5-YR:
10-YR:
25-YR:
50-YR:
100-YR:
200-YR:
500-YR:
where:
o2 = o.oo 4119 Ao.8361 (ST+1ro.3590p o.911o (J+32 )1 .635
0 5 = o.oo 9024 Ao .8322 (ST +1 )-0 .3670 p o.8128 (J+32)1 .64o
0 10 = o.o 1450 Ao .83o6 (ST +1 )-0.3691 p o.7655 (J+32 )1 .622
o25 = 0.02522 Ao.8292 (ST +1 )-0 .3697 p o.7165 (J+32 )1 .588
o50 = 0.03711 Ao.8286 (ST +1 ro .3693 p o.6847 (J+32 )1 .559
o100 = 0.05364 Ao.8281 (ST +1 ro.3683 p o.6556 (J+32 )1 .527 o200 = 0 .07658 Ao .8276 (ST+1l-o.3669p o.6284 (J+32 )1 .495
o500 = 0.1209 Ao.8272 (ST +1 r6.364s p o.5948 (J+32 )1 .449
A = Drainage Area (sq mi)
ST = Storage Area (%)
P =Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)
J =Mean Minimum January Temperature (deg F)
Using the USGS Unimak (A-6) quadrangle gao-referenced map, the drainage areas of
the Loud Creek basin were calculated and are shown in Table 2. These areas are
comparable to the estimates in the 1990 HDRIOTI report. The Unimak quadrangle
contour interval is 1 00 ft. The accuracy of the watershed delineation is based upon the
accuracy of the available data.
Table 2
Loud Creek Drainage Basin Area
Basin Area (sq mi)
East Fork Above 500' 0.59
West Fork Above 500' 0.19
Loud Creek below 500' 0 .22
Entire Basin 1.00
Mean annual precipitation was found to be 50 in from GIS data . For temperature
determinations, Dutch Harbor (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ak2587 ) and
Cape Sarichef (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN .pl?ak1325 ) climate data was
used. The mean minimum January temperature was determined to be 28 degrees
Fahrenheit. Since there are no ponds or lakes in the drainage bas in, the sto rage area
was determined to be 0%. ·
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 15
Table 3 summarizes the peak stream flow statistics calculated for the East Fork basin.
The Loud Creek basin produces a higher unit discharge than the Russell Creek basin.
Unit discharge values are within error tolerances for flows less than the 4% (25-YR)
exceedance probability. The predicted unit discharges for the 50% and 1% exceedance
probabilities calculated using the regional equations are 128 cfs and 395 cfs per square
mile, respectively, and are considerably larger than the unit discharges calculated from
the Russell Creek gage data. Since the unit discharge is greater in the East Fork basin,
using the computed value will provide a more conservative approach when designing
components of the dam. Therefore, the regression equation estimates shall be used
when utilizing hydraulic and/or hydrologic inputs.
Hydraulics
Based on the limited dam heights and small reservoirs and the fact that there is no
downstream life or property in peril by these dams, the Loud Creek diversion dams
would not be expected to be regulated by the State of Alaska Dam Safety Program (AS
4617.900(3)). For purposes of this study, the 2004 Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety were used to evaluate the proposed
Loud Creek dams. As outlined by FEMA, low hazard dams whose failure results in
limited or no loss of benefits or loss of life during the project life can be hydraulically
designed with an average return probability of 1% ( 1 00-YR ). Since the Loud Creek site
meets these requirements, the dam and associated structure will be designed using the
probable maximum discharge of approximately 240 cfs for the 1% exceedance event.
Flood Routing
The Loud Creek Dam will not operate for flood storage or a reduction of the inflow
hydrograph and, therefore, will be considered a run-of-river dam for routing. Since the
reservoir offers minimal storage capacity, it is assumed that the hydrograph will not be
attenuated while traveling through the reservoir.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 16
Spillway and Flood Outlet Section and Design
The diversion dams are designed with three hydraulic structures: (1) penstock intake,
(2) outlet structure, and (3) spillway. The penstock intake is normally located on the
dam abutment and consists of a headwall fitted with a trashrack and isolation gate or
valve. The penstock exits the intake structure low in the water column to provide
sufficient operating head on the penstock pipe. The isolation gate is either fully open or
closed since the hydraulic control is maintained at the powerhouse .. For small earthfill
dams, the outlet structure normally consists of a drop inlet riser structure.. As the inflow
to the reservoir increases beyond the turbine design flow, excess flow will spill over the
riser and be conveyed to the dam tailrace via an outlet pipe. A 50% recurrence
probability flow (2-yr) is a typical design flow event selected for an outlet structure,
though larger flow events can be selected. A spillway normally consists of a rock
armored or concrete lined open channel designed with a simple overflow inlet. The
FEMA guidelines for low hazard dams requires a minimum spillway design recurrence
probability flow of 50% ( 1 00-yr). The flow split between the outlet structure and spillway
as well as the design recurrence intervals will be evaluated and finalized as part of the
final design work effort. For purposes of this study, the 50% (2-yr) and 1% (100-yr)
recurrence intervals were assumed for the outlet structure and spillways, respectively.
These conceptual design parameters were used to determine approximate structure
sizes for developing preliminary cost estimates.
Freeboard
For the conceptual design study, it was assumed that the 1% return frequency flow
passes through the outlet structure and spillway while maintaining 2 ft of freeboard over
the dam crest elevation.
Dam Embankment
A geotechnical study will be required to determine the suitability of the native soil
material for design purposes. The conceptual design of the dam embankment assumed
3H:1V slopes on the upstream and downstream faces (Appendix A-Drawings 7 and 8).
These values were used to determine quantities for cost estimating purposes. A
detailed geotechnical study will be required to determine the subsurface conditions,
embankment design parameters, and seepage control mechanisms. Particular
attention will be required to the interface between the embankment dam and foundation
where specific design details will be required to control seepage.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 17
Conceptual Design
Two basic alternatives were developed for a hydropower facility on Loud Creek:
• Base Case consisting of a single diversion dam located on the East Fork, a
penstock from the dam to the powerhouse , and a new powerhouse located just
upstream from the Loud Creek outlet.
• Alternative 1 which includes the facilities described for the Base Case plus a
diversion dam on the West Fork of Loud Creek. A second penstock will convey
water from the West Fork to a connection point with the East Fork penstock.
The Base Case was developed to represent the simplest approach to generating power
with a single diversion dam, penstock , and powerhouse. Alternative 1 delivers more
water to the powerhouse increasing the overall power generation capacity. Conceptual
layouts for these alternatives are presented in Drawings 1 through 14. These drawings
were used to develop conceptual level quantity takeoffs to support preparation of cost
estimates.
For both of these alternatives, a range of transmission options were considered to
convey the power generated from the powerhouse to the power demand at the City of
Akutan and the Harbor. In general, the transmission options would be identical for each
power generation alternative. A brief discussion of the Base Case and Alternative 1
generation alternatives as well as the options for transm ission is presented in the
following paragraphs.
Diversion Dams
Base Case
For the Base Case , a small diversion dam at around El. 500 ft amsl would be
constructed on the East Fork (Drawing 5). The dam would be approximately 10ft tall in
height and constructed of locally processed soils, a penstock intake, outlet structure,
spillway, and a form of seepage cutoff wall. The seepage control system would require
careful consideration to minimize seepage through the dam abutments and foundation .
A detailed geotechnical site investigation would be required to support the dam design
work effort.(Drawing 7). The penstock intake structure would include a trashrack , which
can be hand cleaned and provisions for slu icing accumulated sediment from the
impoundment (Drawings 8 through 10). The intake structure will feed into a penstock
pipe with a buried shutoff valve , a sluice valve downstream of the dam and a shutoff
valve near the powerhouse . The penstock is designed to convey 9 cfs from the East
Fork of Loud Creek to the powerhouse. A 16 in diameter penstock provides a maximum
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Co ncept ual Desi gn and Feasibility Report Page 18
flow velocity of 6.5 fps. The outlet structure was assumed to consist of a drop inlet riser
and the spillway rock riprap protected open channel. As discussed previously, these
dam hydraulic structures are consistent with a typical small dam design approach.
The diversion dam will create a reservoir with up to 10 acre-feet of storage. The
storage in this reservoir will allow the turbine generator to provide power for
approximately 15 to 20 hours depending on the inflow rate and, as such, is not a
significant amount of storage. This generation period was determined assuming an
average flow rate of 9 cfs to the powerhouse. The time required to fill will depend on
the inflow to the reservoir. Gage data is being collected to provide a better indication of
the total flow expected from the Loud Creek basin. An estimate of the flow from the
east drainage basin will be developed to determine the minimum inflow to the East Fork
reservoir.
Alternative 1
For Alternative 1, a second diversion dam would be constructed on the West Fork also
at El. 500 ft amsl (Drawing 6) in addition to those facilities identified as part of the Base
Case alternative. The West Fork impoundment would be very small, but would serve to
divert stream flows into a pipeline that would intersect with the main penstock below the
East Fork diversion dam and prior to entering the powerhouse. The design of the West
Fork dam would be similar to the East Fork. Up to 6 cfs would be diverted from the
West Fork of Loud Creek and conveyed via a 16 in diameter penstock to the East Fork
penstock. Downstream from the intersection point, the combined penstock would be
increased to 18 in diameter to carry the combined 15 cfs flow from the East and West
Fork diversions.
Dock
A dock and landing area will be required for offloading of materials during construction
(Drawings 5 and 6). The same design approach was assumed for both the Base Case
and Alternative 1. The facility would be located near the outlet of Loud Creek and
provide efficient access to the powerhouse. The dock would consist of three
polyethylene docks (6.5 ft x 10ft), an aluminum gangway (4ft x 35ft), and two 12-inch
steel piles. This dock structure may change during the design process depending on
the type of wave action exerted along the shoreline from the bay.
The tanding area would be located adjacent to the dock to allow access for equipment
on and off of barges or boats. This landing area will consist of a gravel ramp/pad
(approximately 40ft x 50ft x 1 ft in size) and it will extend below the high tide line on the
shore. The estimated volume for this landing area is 100 cubic yards. The proposed
access road will tie into the loading dock.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 19
Access Roads
A road will be required to provide access to the dam(s) to support construction as well
as subsequent operation and maintenance activities (Drawings 5, 6 and 11) for both the
Base Case and Alternative 1. The road will be constructed from the dock area to the
powerhouse, then continue from the powerhouse up to the dam(s). Due to the steep
elevations in two portions of the road alignment, two climbing turns will be required.
These roads will be designed so that equipment may travel safely up the hill and
erosion is minimized during precipitation and snowmelt events. The road will be
constructed from a minimum of 6 in of % in minus road mix placed over the exposed
subgrade. The final design of the road cross-section will be determined incorporating
the recommendations of a geotechnical site investigation which will be required as part
of the final design work effort.
Powerhouse
A powerhouse will be built near the outlet of Loud Creek above the high tide line
(Drawings 5 and 6) for both the Base Case and Alternative 1. The powerhouse will be
approximately 30 ft by 30 ft in size and will house the turbine generator, electrical
components, maintenance vehicles, and equipment. The building and footing will be
designed to meet the applicable building code requirements.
Drawings 14 and 15 illustrate the powerhouse floor plan and equipment arrangement. A
horizontal two jet Pelton turbine with a directly connected synchronous generator
arrangement is indicated.
A backup diesel generator will be stationed at the Harbor to provide power in the event
of a powerhouse shutdown. The diesel generator will also be used for the new
hovercraft maintenance and storage area at the Harbor. This generator will be sized
with adequate capacity to support not only the hovercraft facility, but the entire harbor
area with provision for future expansion. The ability to transport and store fuel to the
Harbor site makes it an ideal location for the diesel generator. The close proximity to
the load center is also an advantage to this location.
Substation
A small pad-mounted transformer will be installed to step up the generator voltage
(480V or 600V 3-phase) to transmission voltage. The location and construction method
of this transformer will be determined during subsequent design phases of this project.
However, it is anticipated that the transformer and associated pad will be located
adjacent to the powerhouse along the access road.
Power Transmission and Interconnection
It is envisioned that the transmission line will consist of underwater cable(s) starting
from a terminal on shore near the powerhouse and extend around the southwest side of
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 20
the bay to the new Harbor facilities. These facilities are proposed at the west end of the
bay in the intertidal area (Drawing 3). The power is likely to be transmitted to the
City!Trident along a new road (direct buried) from the new Harbor facilities. The
location and construction method of the transmission line will be determined during
subsequent design phases of this project.
To transmit the power generated at the Loud Creek Hydro Plant to the City, several
electrical system components will be required. A step-up substation at Loud Creek
Hydro Plant, a transmission line to the City, and a delivery point at the City's existing
diesel power plant are required.
The step-up substation at Loud Creek will transform the voltage of the generated power
to match the City's existing distribution voltage, 12.47 kV grounded wye. This will
facilitate the connection of the transmission line to the City's distribution system without
another transformation.
Due to extreme weather on the Aleutian Chain, the 12.47 kV power transmission line
from Loud Creek to the City will be underground. Several routing options were
considered for the transmission line as described below (see Drawing 14):
• Option 1: Routing would begin at the Loud Creek Hydro Plant and run directly
across Akutan Harbor to the City power plant. A submarine power cable would
be utilized for the entire run.
• Option 2: Routing would begin at Loud Creek Hydro Plant, then enter Akutan
Harbor running underwater following the perimeter of the harbor via submarine
cable to the western side of the existing Trident facilities. Routing would then
proceed on land and run north of the existing Trident facilities and then follow the
existing foot trail east of the Trident facilities to the existing City diesel power
plant. The landward transmission line would utilize conventional underground
cable.
• Option 3: Routing would follow the same routing as Option 2. In addition to
Option 2, a small segment of the transmission line would exit the harbor for a
short section at the west end of Akutan Harbor where the proposed Harbor dock
facilities will be located. This small land section of the routing would provide
future electric service to the proposed facilities.
• Option 4: Routing would begin at Loud Creek Hydro Plant, then enter Akutan
Harbor running underwater following the perimeter of the harbor via submarine
cable to the west end of Akutan Harbor. The routing would then exit the harbor
onto the land at the proposed Harbor dock facility. The routing would then follow
the future Harbor dock service road to the City diesel power plant utilizing
conventional underground power cable.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 21
• Option 5: Routing is to provide a power feed to the existing Trident facilities from
the City's distribution system. It follows the existing foot trail from the City to the
Trident facilities and would utilize conventional underground cable.
• Option 6: Routing would be completely overland in the upland adjacent to the
high tide line along Akutan Bay. A primitive road would be constructed along the
route for installation and maintenance. The line would travel from Loud Creek to
the proposed dock facilities and then onto Akutan on the proposed road.
During the course of the feasibility study analysis, the City requested that options for
delivery of power to the new Harbor facilities as a standalone option be considered.
These options are:
• Option 4a: Routing would begin at the Loud Creek Hydro Plant, then enter
Akutan Harbor running underwater following the perimeter of the harbor via
submarine cable to the Harbor facilities located at the west end of Akutan Harbor.
• Option 6a: Routing would be completely overland in the upland area along
Akutan Bay to the Harbor facilities located on the west end of Akutan Harbor.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 22
Ene~gy Production
The estimated annual energy production was estimated for the Base Case and
Alternative 1. A brief discussion of the approach, analysis, and projected energy
production is presented in the following paragraphs.
Base Case
For purposes of estimating annual energy production from a hydroelectric project, a
long-term record of average daily stream flows is required. Unfortunately, no such
record exists for Loud Creek. The work done by the DGGS is not a long enough record
to be of use. Data being collected at Loud Creek starting on February 18, 2010 as a part
of this effort will not be available and will still be too short of a record to be of use in the
conceptual design analysis. The available data will be collected in June 2011,
compiled, and submitted under a separate cover. Data collection will continue in order
to provide a complete year of flow data to determine daily and monthly flows.
For this conceptual analysis, the Russell Creek record from October 1995 to October
2009 was utilized. By using the ratio of the drainage areas of the Russell Creek basin
(30.9 square miles) and the Loud Creek basin (above the proposed dam area of .78
square miles), a new record of daily flow was developed to be used for energy
production estimates. Figure 11 shows the daily flows for Loud Creek developed by
factoring the Russell Creek data.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 23
Loud Creek Calculated Flows
20
16
12
-t 10
8
4
2
0
J-95 J-96 D-96 D-97 D-98 D-99 D-00 D-01 D-02 D-03 D-04 D-OS D-06 D-07 D-08 D-09
Date
Figure 11. Loud Creek Calculated Flows
In order to develop a detailed power generation model, a computer model of the stream
and pipeline system was constructed using EXCEL software. A daily time-step model
was developed that projects daily energy generation using daily inflows obtained from
the daily average flow data. For each day in the model, inflow at the intake is taken
from the hydrology data. For this analysis, we have assumed that there is no minimum
flow required below the diversion dam. The stream flow is the flow available that day for
power generation . This is then capped at the maximum flow capacity of the turbine,
which is a function of the size of the turbine. Any available flow in excess of plant
capacity would be spilled into Loud Creek at the intake.
For the Base Case, a range of installed capacity was reviewed . An installed capacity of
350 kW (maximum output) appears reasonable given that it yields a plant capacity
factor of 37%, which would be considered a typical run-of-the-river plant factor.
Turbine operation is then modeled, taking into account the available flow, head losses in
the penstock at that flow, and variation in machine efficiency (both turbine and
generator) depending on percent load. Pipeline head losses are calculated at each
daily flow using a pipeline friction equation and a pipeline friction factor head loss
coefficient of 0.014, which is a typical value for steel or HOPE pipe. Daily generation is
calculated, and then generation from each day is added up to provide monthly and
annual total expected gross generation .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 24
However, this total needs to be adjusted for other expected losses. The model allows
the user to make deductions to the gross generation for the following:
• Main transformer and transmission line losses -set at 1% and 3%, respectively
• Plant outage for planned and unplanned maintenance -set at 3%
• Use of energy for station service (heat, lights, lubrication, cooling & HPU pumps,
controls) -set at 1 0 kW
The projected generation is then tabulated monthly, annually, and the plant capacity
factor is then calculated .
Table 4 presents the results of the energy production analysis for the Base Case. Based
on this analysis, the project could be expected to produce an average of 1,132,861 kWh
annually. A more detailed projected monthly generation data for the average water year
(1996) for the Base Case and Alternative 1 is included in Appendix E.
1996 37%
1997 32%
1998 41%
1999 29%
2000 39%
2001 35%
2002 40%
2 35%
2004 46%
2005 42%
37%
2007 37%
2008 30%
37
Alternative 1
For Alternative 1, an energy analysis was made for an average year (1996) to
incorporate both drainage areas above the dams (total drainage area 0.78 square
miles). Based on this computation, the installed capacity would increase to 450 kW, the
penstock inside diameter would increase to 18 in after the penstock intersectio~. The
average annual energy production would increase to 1,548,100 kWh (approximately
37% greater than the Base Case). The plant capacity factor for this installation was
estimated at 39%.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 25
Permitting
The regulatory agencies that may exert authority over the construction and operation of
the Loud Creek Hydropower Development are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The regulatory authority of each agency and the required permits and approvals for
construction are presented .
As noted below , the FERC has primary jurisdiction over construction of most
hydropower projects (in addition to other entities ). However, on some small projects in
Alaska, the FERC has agreed that certain projects are non-jurisdictional. In those
cases , the State has been the entity that approves the construction of a hydroelectric
project. For example, the Nushagak Cooperative in Dillingham , Alaska was able to
obtain a declaration of non-jurisdiction because its proposed projects would not be
connected to an inter-state grid; the project would not be located on federal lands and is
located on a non-navigable river. It is believed that Loud Creek could meet these same
conditions .
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Under the Federal Power Act, the FERC has been appointed with the authorization and
regulation of the nation 's non-federal hydropower resources . FERC issues three types
of authorizations:
• License -Issued for 30-to 50-year terms and must be renewed each term.
• 5-Megawatt (MW) Exemption -This exemption is issued in perpetuity and must
be located at the site of an existing dam or use a natural water feature without
the construction of impoundments. The applicant must own all lands and
facilities other than federal lands to be eligible.
• Conduit Exemption -This exemption is issued in perpetuity and must use the
potential of a conduit constructed primarily for non-hydropower purpose . The
applicant must own the proposed powerhouse and the lands upon which the
powerhouse will be located. A conduit exemption may not use federal lands.
The Loud Creek Hydropower Development will not qualify for the 5-MW exemption
since a new dam impoundment will be constructed. It also does not qualify for the
conduit exemption since it will be located within a natural stream system . If FERC were
to confirm that they had jurisdiction over the proposed Loud Creek Project, the City
would have to apply for a preliminary permit. It may be a candidate for licensing under
the small hydro/low impact expedited licensing process. The City would apply for a
License for the construction and operation of the project using FERC's Traditional
Licensing Process (TLP) instead of the default Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). The
TLP requires minimal steps as compared to the ILP process. Once a preliminary permit
has been received from FERC , the licensing process would begin the same as with the
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 26
ILP process; a Notice of Intent (NOI) and pre-application document (PAD) filed with
FERC along with a request to use the TLP. Once FERC approves the use of the TLP
the City wou~d procee~ under the :~P Process, with some revisions to expedite th~
process. Th1s would Involve comb1mng scoping of issues with pre-filing consultation
and working with the agencies to expedite their reviews and set their terms and
conditions early. The following summarizes the FERC application process.
1. First Stage
a. Applicant submits to FERC:
i. Notice of Intent (NOJ),
ii. Pre-Application Document (PAD),
iii. Request to use TLP, and
iv. newspaper notice;
b. FERC approves use of TLP;
c. Applicant conducts joint agency/public meeting and site visit;
d. Resource agencies and tribes provide written comments; and
e. Agencies, tribes, or applicant request dispute resolution on studies with
the FERC.
2. Second Stage
a. Applicant completes reasonable and necessary studies;
b. Applicant provides draft application and study results (National
Environmental Policy Act) to resource agencies and tribes;
c. Resource agencies and tribes comment on draft application; and
d. Applicant conducts meeting if substantive disagreements exist.
3. Third Stage
a. Applicant files final application with FERC and sends copies to agencies
and tribes.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will require an individual permit
for the construction of a new hydroelectric facility on a jurisdictional water body under
the authorization of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The City will be required to
submit a completed copy of the "Application for Department of the Army Permit" to the
USACE along with associated engineering drawings showing the design of the project
in relation to jurisdictional water bodies.
A delineation of the high tide line, ordinary high water (streams) and/or wetlands may be
required to complete the USACE application and identify the location of jurisdictional
water bodies within the boundary of the project. Also, if the project will impact a
federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat, consultation
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries' National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) will be required to address these impacts. The preparation of a Biological
Assessment may be required to supplement the USACE individual permit depending on
agency comments and review.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 27
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Dam Safety Program
The Alaska Dam Safety Program does not have jurisdiction over dams that are federally
owne? ~r ~p~rated or hydroelectric d~ms regulated by FERC. If FERC confirms they
have Junsd1ct1on over th1s hydroelectrrc project, then the Alaska Department of Natural
~esourc~s does not hav.e re.gulatory authority on this project for dam safety. If during
f1nal des1gn, the dam s1ze 1ncreases to fall within the Alaska Dam Safety Program
jurisdictional authority, coordination with the state dam safety office should be initiated.
Jurisdictional dams are considered if the dam reservoir exceeds 50 acre-ft in volume
and 10ft in height or any dam 20ft in height or greater.
Water Rights
The diversion of water from Loud Creek for use in the hydroelectric project will require
appropriate water rights. The Loud Creek drainage is owned by the City as acquired
under 14(c)3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The tidelands from Loud
Creek to the Trident facility are owned by the State of Alaska.
Based on a search, the water rights have not been acquired for the project. An
"Application for Water Right" will require completion and submittal to the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources.
Alaska State Historic Preservation Office
The Alaska Office of History and Archaeology carries out the responsibilities of the
State Historic Preservation Office. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
requires review of any project funded, licensed, permitted, or assisted by the federal
government for impacts on significant historic properties. If a project license is required
by FERC, the project will require a Section 106 review before a federal permit can be
approved. A review will be conducted by the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
to determine if cultural resources surveys have been previously done in the area. If
cultural resources are present or the potential to discover unknown sites is high, a
survey may be recommended in the Loud Creek area. This survey will be incorporated
into the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement portion of the
FERC license application.
An archeological survey was carried out for the City in August 2010. A report, "An
Archaeological Survey of the Hot Springs Valley and Akutan Harbor Energy and Rural
Developments Projects" by Buck Benson and Herbert Maschner (Idaho State
University) documented the results of the survey work performed. The survey included
the portion of Loud Creek basin, which could be affected by the development of a
hydroelectric project. Three previously recorded sites were identified (including the
remains of a 201h century whaling station. All three identified sites can be avoided during
construction and operation of the project.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 28
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Review (Coastal Project Questionnaire)
The State of Alaska uses a coordinated system for agency review and processing of all
resource-related permits required for proposed projects in or affecting coastal areas of
Alaska. This system, called "project consistency review," is based on the Alaska
Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and is designed to improve management of
Alaska's coastal land and water uses. Project proposals are reviewed to determine the
project's consistency with the standards of the ACMP and enforceable policies of
approved district coastal management programs. Participants in the State's review
process include: the applicant; State resource agencies: Alaska Departments of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), Fish and Game (DFG), and Natural Resources
(DNR); the affected local coastal district; and other interested members of the public.
The Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPO) will determine State and federal permitting
requirements as well as which State agency will coordinate the consistency review.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has implemented the Alaska
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which meets the standards of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). If the construction of the project will disturb more than one acre of
land, a Construction General Permit will be required along with the development of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulates fish and wildlife species within their
jurisdiction. Based on observations made during the October 2009 site visit,
anadromous fish were not observed in Loud Creek. Furthermore, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game has not identified Loud Creek as an anadromous fish
stream. However, not all the streams in the Akutan region have been mapped, and
subsequently, the absence of information in the fish catalog does not necessarily
indicate that anadromous species are not present. A fish study may be required to
document the presence or lack of fish in Loud Creek to comply with the Alaska DFG
permitting requirements. It has not been confirmed if Loud Creek supports fish
presence or habitat. However, if the project intends to disturb fish species or their
habitat, a Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit will be required.
Local Government
The local regulatory agency for the project is the City; however, there are no local
regulations pertaining to the construction of new dams or hydroelectric projects within
their jurisdictional limits.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 29
Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were prepared based on the conceptual design details and drawings
presented within this report for the Base Case and Alternative 1. Transmission and
substation costs were estimated for each of the transmission Options 1 through 6, as
well as the new Harbor only transmission, Options 4a and 6a. These estimates are
considered planning level conceptual cost estimates. More detailed cost estimate
breakdowns are included in Appendix B.
Base Case
Canyon Industries was contacted for a budgetary turbine-generator water-to-wire
equipment price. This package would include a turbine with direct driven synchronous
generator, exciter, turbine inlet valve, switchgear, controls and station service
equipment. The December 2009 estimated price was $500,000 which is Freight on
Board (FOB) Bellingham, WA and does not include shipping, offloading, installation, or
startup assistance.
It is expected that a pre-engineered powerhouse metal building 30-ft by 30-ft would be
adequate to house the turbine-generator, auxiliary equipment, and switchgear as well
as provide adequate room for an A TV and snowmobile . This building size would be
adequate for either the Base Case or Alternative 1.
A reinforced concrete foundation will be required for the turbine-generator equipment,
building structure (footings) and tailrace pit. The estimated cost for this component is
approximately $180,000.
The penstock will be a 16-inch ID running in an excavated 5-foot trench for
approximately one mile. The maximum static pressure is calculated to be 220 psi. The
pipe would be transported by barge to the site. Installation would require trenching,
production and placement of backfill, and restoration of the surface to prevent erosion.
The Base Case dam construction includes the primary embankment on the East Fork,
the outlet works, and associated erosion control. For the purpose of preparing cost
estimates, the dam was assumed to consist of compacted earthfill with a seepage cutoff
wall, a vertical riser, and a rock riprap open channel spillway.
Alternative 1
The water-to-wire equipment price for Alternative 1 is expected to increase to $645,000
based on the Canyon Industries estimate. This cost does not include shipping,
offloading, installation, or startup assistance.
It is assumed that the same building for the Base Case will be acceptable for Alternative
1. .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 30
A reinforced concrete foundation will be required for the turbine-generator equipment,
building structure (footings) and tailrace pit.
For Alternative 1, th e lower part of the penstock would increase from a 16 to an 18-inch
inside diameter (from the point of the intersection of the two separate penstocks from
each dam to the powerhouse). The upper part of the penstock would split and supply
water from the two dams. The length of the penstock from the West Fork Dam to the
intersection of the main penstock from the East Fork Dam is approximately 950 ft and
would be sized for 7 cfs, resulting in a calculated inside diameter of 16 in.
Both the East Fork and West Fork d ams will consist of compacted earthfill with a
seepage cutoff wall, a vertical riser, an d a rock riprap protected open channel spillway.
Transmission and Substation Costs
Transmission and substation costs w ere provided by EPS. A number of transmission
alternatives were considered as part of this study. The costs are presented in Tabl~ 5.
Additional cost breakdow ns for the transmission and s ubstation cost esti mates are
presented In Appendix B .
Table 5
Power Transmission and Substation Costs
Onshore Submarine Total
Item Descri ption Cable Cable Estimat ed Length Length
(miles) (miles) Cost
Loud Creek Step-Up Substation, 500 kVA w/ Recloser at
Loud Creek and at Akutan Power House N/A N/A $352,600
Option 1 -Loud Creek to Aku tan -Directly Crossing Harbor
-All Submarine cable N/A 0.90 $1,364,400
Option 2 -Loud Creek to Akutan -Following shore line to
Trident and onshore to Akutan 0.70 3.20 $5 ,022 ,0 00
Option 3 -Similar to Option 2 with on shore portion at
proposed dock facilities 0.90 3 .10 $4,994,800
Option 4 -Loud Creek to Aku tan -Submarine from Loud
Creek to proposed d ock facilit ies then onshore URD
following pro_Qosed road to Akutan Power House 2.80 1.70 $4 ,226,100
Option 4a -Loud Creek to Harbor-Submari ne from Loud
Creek to new Harbor -1.70 $2 ,750,200
Option 5 -Akutan Power House to Existing Trident
Facilities 0.50 0.00 $268,200
Option 6 -Loud Creek to Akutan -Overland URD from
Loud Creek to proposed dock facilities then on shore URD
following proposed road to Akutan Power House 4.80 -$4,086 ,700
Option 6a -Loud Creek to Harbor-Overland URD from
Loud Creek to~oposed dock facilities 2.00 0.00 $1 ,915,000 ... Notes: 1) Opt1ons 4a and 6a were developed to Illustrate a power supply_ to the _new ~arbor _fac1ht1~s
should this supply option be exerci sed. Option 4a provides a submanne rout1ng while Opt1on 6a IS
an overland route.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 31
Basis of Transmission Cost Estimates
Loud Creek Hydro Plant Substation
• Install 500 KVA 480/12.5 kV step-up transformer at Loud Creek Powerhouse
• Utilize 3-phase recloser at Loud Creek and at Akutan powerhouse for cable
termination and line protection.
• Provide oil containment for transformer
• Assume 25ft by 25ft area for transformer, recloser, and ground grid
• Control and interface of hydro to diesel plant not in estimate
12.5 KV Sub-Transmission line
• 12.47 KV line construction
• Delivery to the existing City diesel power plant via new recloser placed to
intercept an existing main feeder at City power plant.
• #2 Cu 15 kV Power Cable, -1800 KVA ultimate power line capacity
• Sectionalizing enclosures included at 900 ft intervals on land cable installations
General
• 20% contingency included on all project costs.
• No Right-of-Way or Permits are included in estimate
• Construction Equipment is assumed to be shipped to Akutan. The rental or use
of this construction equipment has been included in the cost estimates.
Diesel Generator Set
The new Harbor facility would require a power supply in case the hydroelectric project
has an outage or its output is insufficient to fully power the Harbor facility (assuming the
new Harbor is not interconnected to the City generating plant). The cost for this diesel
generator set is not included in the hydroelectric project cost estimate. A diesel
generator set of 300 kW installed capacity would cost on the order of $500,000
including fuel tanks.
Evaluation
The 6 basic transmission options represent feasible routings for delivering power
generated at the Loud Creek Hydro Plant to the City. Option 1, Loud Creek to Akutan
using a submarine cable, is the shortest distance from the proposed powerhouse to the
City, as well as the lowest cost. The submarine routing presents significant risk due to
the potential for ships anchors damaging the submarine cable, as well as interrupting
power service from Loud Creek. For this reason, Option 1 was eliminated from further
consideration.
Options 2 and 3 have the highest cost and consist of a combination of submarine
routings and land based route from the Trident facilities to the City. Though feasible
these options have a higher cost and more challenging routing than proposed with
Options 4 and 6.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 32
The primary difference between Options 4 and 6 is that the first leg of the transmission
line from the Loud Creek powerhouse to the new Harbor facilities is submarine with
Option 4 and overland with Option 6. The second leg of the transmission line would
follow the proposed road from the new Harbor to the Akutan powerhouse. Considering
the challenging access and protected nature of the shoreline along the south shore of
the Akutan Bay, Option 4 was selected as the recommended transmission option.
Option 4a was developed at the City's request to identify the cost associated with
delivering power to the new Harbor facilities only.
Option 4 and 4a were carried forward to determine the cost of power for the Base Case
and Alternative 1 power generation arrangements.
Summary of Construction and Development Costs
Table 6 presents the estimated project costs for the power generation Base Case and
Alternative 1 arrangements. Each power generation alternative was coupled with the
recommended transmissions Option 4 as outlined in the previous section. The Harbor
only transmission, Option 4a, was provided for consideration as requested by the City.
The cost estimate included engineering and permitting costs set at 8% of the
construction costs. It is assumed that construction management of the project will be
performed by the City with some engineering assistance during start-up. Construction
cost estimates (dams, penstock, and the transmission system etc.) include a 30%
contingency. See Appendix B for more detailed information on the cost estimates.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 33
Table 6
Project Costs
Task Base Case Alternative 1
Option 4 1 ! Option 4a ~1 Option 4 Option 4a:.!
Turbine -Generator Equipment $1,040,000 $1,040,000 $1,300,000 $1 ,300,000
Dam Construction $320,000 $320,000 $640,000 $640,000
Penstock(s) $700,000 $700,000 $950,000 $950,000
Powerhouse Foundations $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000
Powerhouse Building $162,000 $162,000 $162,000 $162,000
Misc. Powerhouse Equipment $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000
Roads/ Dock $310,000 $310,000 $380,000 $380,000
Substation $353,000 $353,000 $353,000 $353,000
Transmission $4 ,226,000 $2,750,000 $4,226,000 $2,750,000
Trident or Harbor
Interconnection $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Freight 1_$50,000/barge) $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000
Construction Management I
Startup $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Subtotal $7,691,000 $6,215,000 $8,631,000 $7,155,000
Engineering and Permitting (8%) $615,280 $497,200 $690,480 $572,000
Total $8,306,280 $6,712,200 $9 321,480 $7,724,400
Notes: 1) Transm1ss1on Opt1on 4 cons1sts of submanne cable (mtert1dal bunal) around the penmeter of Akutan Bay
to the new Harbor facilities, then exit to follow the future Harbor dock service road to the City diesel power
plant utilizing conventional underground power cable.
2) Transmission Option 4a consists of submarine cable (intertidal burial) around the perimeter of Akutan Bay
to the new Harbor facilities. This is a Harbor only transmission line.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 34
Cost of Power
Overall, the cost of power could vary depending on the operations and maintenance
(O&M) cost and the project cost. Presently energy generated at the Town Creek plant
(100% diesel generation), as reported in the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) forms , is
produced for approximately 0.66 $/kWh. Cost of energy to residents , due to PCE , is
presently 0.32 $/kWh. It should be noted that PCE is an issue to be considered, as PCE
for hydroelectric generation would not be available. At other projects , the State has
agreed to phase PCE out over time to minimize the impact.
O&M costs include personnel, management, insurance, debt service (if applicable),
contracted maintenance, replacement of spares, etc. The cost of O&M could range
widely depending on financing and the other costs listed above . For the purposes of this
report , it has been assumed that O&M costs will be approximately $100 ,000 per year
including labor, equipment, equipment, parts , and overhead.
The cost of power was estimated for the Base Case and Alternative 1 power generation
arrangements . The recommended transmission Option 4, as well as the Harbor only
transmission Option 4a, were coupled with the power generation alternatives to provide
a total system cost comparison. Table 7 presents a summary of the cost of power for
these power generation and transmission combinations, see Appendix · F for
calculations. As shown on Table 7, Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative delivering
power at the lowest cost considering both transmission Options 4 and 4a. Cost of
power, assuming no subsidies or grants, is still less than energy produced by diesel at
the Town Creek plant. Of course, the cost of production by diesel generation is
expected to climb in the long term , whereas cost of power produced by a hydroelectric
facility will not significantly increase over time. Once the debt from the hydropower
facility is retired , the cost of power would dramatically decrease .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 35
Table 7
Cost of Power
Base Case Alternative 1
Description Option 4 11 Ootion 4a'' Option 4 11 Option 4a'1
Capital Cost $8,306,280 $6 ,712 ,200 $9,321,480 $7,727,400
FinancinQ 100% 100% 100% 100%
Debt $8,306,280 $6,712,200 $9,321,480 $7,727,400
Term (years) 30 30 30 30
Interest Rate 6% 6% 6% 6%
Annual P&l ($603,442) ($487 ,641} ($677 ,195) ($561 ,387}
Annual O&M ($100,000) ($100 ,000) ($100 ,000) ($100,000}
Annual EnerQY Production (kWh) 1,132,861 1,132,861 1,548,100 1,548,100
Annual Cost of Power $/kWh) -0.62 -0.52 -0.50 -0.43
Notes. 1) TransmiSSIOn Opt1on 4 cons1sts of submanne cable (mtert1dal bunal) around the pen meter of Akutan Bay
to the new Harbor facilities, then exit to follow the future Harbor dock service road to the City diesel power
plant utilizing conventional underground power cable.
2) Transmission Option 4a consists of submarine cable (intertidal burial) around the perimeter of Akutan Bay
to the new Harbor facilities . This is a Harbor only transmission option.
The cost of power generated by the Loud Creek Hydropower system was compared to
the cost of other power generated on Akutan. As illustrated in Table 8 Trident's
generation facilities would be expected to generate power at a significantly lower cost
than the Loud Creek hydropower facility. This would suggest that Trident would be
more likely to generate their own power rather than buy more expensive power from the
Loud Creek project.
A significant issue associated with the development of the Loud Creek Hydropower
Development has been that it can generate more energy than Akutan has historically
used. As noted above, the project could generate between 1,132,861 and 1,548,100
kWh annually depending on the configuration. The City is presently selling less than
500,000 kWh annually. The new Harbor area is anticipated to consume the power levels
as shown in Table 9.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 36
Restaurants
WWTF
Total
Reference: Information Insights. 2010. Akutan Geothermal Development
Project Geothermal Energy Demand & Stakeholder Assessment. January, 2010.
The anticipated amount of power consumption identified in Table 9 exceeds the level of
power produced in both the Base Case and Alternative 1. However, there are several
other energy projects proposed ·for Akutan that may provide the harbor area with
energy.
The Loud Creek hydropower project could deliver power to the City at, or below, the
City's current cost of power using diesel generation. The Loud Creek project cost of
power would be expected to be more cost effective when considering expected diesel
cost increases.
As shown on Table 8 , the Trident self-generation cost is significantly less than the Loud
Cree k hydropower project. It is believed that Trident would be more likely to generate its
own power rather than buy more expensive power from the Loud Creek project.
Without the sale of power to Trident and/or utilization of Loud Creek power at the new
Harbor, power delivered to the City from Loud Creek would likely exceed the demand
for the foreseeable future, particularly if the Town Creek hydropower system becomes
fully operational.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 37
Project Schedule
A project construction schedule has been developed to illustrate the earliest date the
project could be complete and producing energy. There are many factors involved in
construction of a hydroelectric project. Of primary concern is obtaining the necessary
permits and approvals for the construction work. Based on observations made during
the October 2009 site visit, anadromous fish were not observed in Loud Creek.
Furthermore, the Alaska DFG has not identified Loud Creek as an anadromous fish
stream. However, not all the streams in the Akutan region have been mapped, and
subsequently, the absence of information in the fish catalog does not necessarily
indicate that anadromous species are not present. It is likely that the regulatory
agencies will require fish studies to support the reported lack of anadromous fish in
Loud Creek .
For this schedule, it has been assumed that permits for construction could be obtained
within 12 months . It has been assumed that a FERC licensing process will not be
required and the required permits can be readily obtained from other State of Alaska
and Federal agencies. The overall permitting effort could range from 12 months to 18
months in duration depending on the final configuration of the Loud Creek hydropower
development.
Some project components involve a long lead time to produce, including the turbine-
generator equipment and the submarine cable for the project. For these components,
the date the equipment is ordered is on the critical path for project completion. It is
possible to order the turbine-generator equipment fairly early as soon as the Owner is
comfortable with obtaining permits for the construction of the project.
Construction work in the Aleutian Islands, is normally performed during summer and
early fall. The work execution would have to be sequenced to complete the access
road, dam, penstock , and powerhouse building construction during the summer and fall
months. Work within the powerhouse could continue through the winter months
including final electrical, piping, controls, and finish work.
The project schedule is presented in Appendix C. The schedule indicates that the
project could be operational within approximately 3 years following notice to proceed.
The environmental and permitting schedule would set the critical path on the overall
project timeline.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 38
Conclusions and Final Recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the technical analysis and findings of this study, the Loud Creek hydropower
project is determined to be feasible. Alternative 1 is the recommended alternative
consisting of new diversion dams on the East and West Forks of Loud Creek, a design
flow of approximately 15 cfs delivered to a new powerhouse via an 18 inch diameter
penstock, new powerhouse with a single 350 KW Pelton Wheel turbine, loading dock,
and primitive access road to the diversion dams. Option 4 was the recommended
transmission routing consisting of a submarine cable buried with an intertidal zone from
the Loud Creek powerhouse to the new Harbor facilities. At this point, the transmission
line will exit the harbor and continue landward following the future Harbor dock access
road to the existing Akutan diesel power generation facilities .
The recommended Alternative 1 coupled with transmission Option 4 has an estimated
project cost of $9 ,321,480 and a cost of power of $.50 per kWh . Alternative 1 is
anticipated to generate a total of 1 ,548 , 100 kWh annually . Considering a transmission
Option 4a which delivers power to only the new Harbor facil ities combined with
Alternative 1 power generation arrangement has an estimated project cost of
$7,724,400 and a cost of power for $0.43 per kWh . The reduced length and cost of the
transmission line results in an approximate project cost savings of $1,597,000 and
$0.07 per kWh cost of power reduction .
The Loud Creek power could be del ivered at or below the current cost of power using
diesel generation. The Loud Creek power cost would be significantly higher than
Trident's existing self generation cost. It is likely that Trident would generate its own
power rather than buy more expensive power from the Loud Creek project. Wit hout the
sale of power to Trident and/or utilization of Loud Creek power at the new Harbor,
power delivered from Loud Creek directly to the village would exceed demand for the
foreseeable future , particularly if the Town Creek hydropower system becomes fully
operational.
Recommendations
As a result of the study analysis , the City requested that the study team evaluate a
"standalone" alternative for the new Harbor. The combination of Alternative 1 power
generation and Option 4a power transmission from the Loud Creek powerhouse to the
new Harbor represents the standalone alternative . The estimated $0.43 per kWh would
be significantly lower than a diesel power generation alternative at the Harbor. As a
result, the standalone combination of Alternative 1 power generation coupled with
Option 4a power transmission to the Harbor only is the recommended alternative .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
C onceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 39
The following work elements are recommended as the project moves to the next phase:
1) The conceptual business and operations plan required under AEA Phase II
milestones should be completed along with a business case analysis that
addresses the cost of diesel, power purchase agreements, projected revenues,
and the non-monetary benefits of the project. The following work elements are
sequential and would be dependent on completing the business plan.
2) More comprehensive evaluation to define the permits that will be required as well
as any required environmental studies in support of those permits. It is
recommended that a declaration from FERC of non-jurisdiction be obtained as
soon as possible because the FERC licensing process takes a very long time
(typically years). It is also recommended that initial agency contact be made as
soon as possible to better define permit requirements, time line and any study
requirements.
3) Additional engineering work will be required to define requirements to coordinate
the operation of Loud Creek hydropower development with the Town Creek
project if the projects are interconnected. Specifically this will include analyzing
the power requirements of the City and the power production potential of the
Loud Creek and Town Creek projects.
4) Water rights need to be obtained for the project
5) A geotechnical investigation needs to be performed along the proposed road,
pipeline, and dam to determine the quantity of fill material and final costs for the
buried pipeline, dam foundation and construction methods, and overall
geotechnical design recommendations
6) A topographic survey of the project area needs to be completed for the
subsequent design phases of the project.
7) An analysis of the proposed energy projects on Akutan should be performed to
identify the amount of energy that could be potentially produced. As part of this
analysis, potential users should be contacted to help determine future energy
requirements for the Harbor, Trident, and the City.
8) Coordination with Trident should be performed regarding their desire to purchase
excess energy generated from, the project (if interconnection is desired).
The following tabulates the recommended tasking identified above with a cost estimate
for the next project phase.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 40
Table 10
Proposed Tasking Cost Estimates
Task Cost Estimate
Permitting Assistance $100,000
Town Creek/Loud Creek
Engineering Coordination (if needed) $10,000
Water and Land Rights To Be Determined
Geotechnical lnvestiQation $30,000
Topographic Survey ln-ProQress
Akutan Energy Project Analysis $30,000
Coordination with Trident $5,000
Note that significant engineering work will be req~ired to advance the design of the
project to the point that all permits can be obtained and construction contracts can be
awarded. The permitting assistance cost identified above is part of the estimated
engineering/permitting costs included in the cost estimate shown in Table 10.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 41
References
Carrick, Stan and Ireland, Roy, Summary of Streamflow Data for the Akutan Area,
Unimak A-6 Quadrangle, Alaska, October 1989.
Dam Safety and Construction Unit, Water Resources Section, Division of Mining, Land,
and Water; Alaska Department of Natural Resources, June 2005, "Guidelines for
Corporation with the Alaska Dam Safety Program", July 2005.
FEMA, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Selecting and Accommodating Inflow
Design Floods for Dams, April 2004.
Glisten Associates, Akutan Airport Marine Access Study, prepared for HDR Alaska Inc,
July 2005.
HDRIOTT Engineering, Inc, Akutan Hydroelectric Feasibility Study, Final Report,
prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, June 1990.
Information Insights, Akutan Geothermal Development Project, Geothermal Energy
Demand & Stakeholder Assessment, prepared for City of Akutan, January 2010.
USAGE, "Hydrogeology of Proposed Harbor Site at Head of Akutan Bay", Akutan
Island, Alaska, August 2001.
USBR, Design of Small Dams, Revised Edition 1977.
USGS, Geology of Akutan Island, Alaska, 1998.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Technical Paper No. 47, Probable Maximum
Precipitation and Rainfall-Frequency Data for Alaska.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 42
APPENDIX A
DRAWINGS
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
N
~
~
"'
_..v-~ UNALASKA ~ •• d
.. C!& ~-
R
' L_AKUTAN
LOCATION MAP
NTS
6/1/11 I 1o4M I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
3/30/10 I DA I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
2/26/10 I DA I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DATE I BY I DESCRIPTION
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
N
~
ANCHORAGE
DWG
NO. ,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 ,,
12
13
14
DRAW ING INDEX
OESCRIPTlON
LOCATlON loW', VIC1NfTY loW', AND DRAWING INDEX
STANDARD ABBREVIATlONS AND SYMBOLS
GENERAL SITE PLAN
DESIGN CRITERIA
SITE PLAN -BASE CASE
SITE PLAN -ALTERNATM 1
TYPICAL DAM PLAN AND SECTlONS
DAIA PENSTOCK SECTlON
ROADWAY DETAILS
PIPEUNE PLAN, PROFILE, AND DETAILS -BASE CASE
PIPEUNE PLAN, PROFILE, AND DETAILS -ALTERNATM 1
POWERHOUSE FOUNDATlON PLAN AIND SECTIONS
POWERHOUSE GENERATOR PLAN AND SECTlON
TRANSMISSION UNE ROUTlNG OPTIONS
------
WARNING
1/2
If THIS Bolli DOES NOT
MEASURE r· THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCH..E.
VICINITY MAP
NTS
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOR£UI4E OR. sum: 100
BOISE. 1D 83702
omc£: 208.342.4214
fAX: 208.342.4215
CITY or AKUTAN, ALASKA I""'"~" o. '""'' I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELO PMENT DRAWN R. WOOD
LOCATION MAP, VICINITY MAP,
AND DRAWING INDEX
CHECKED 1.4. IAdiiLLEN
ISSUED CAllE 6 /1 /11
DRAWING
1
SCALE : AS NOTED
"' 1/0
AMP
ABBREV
AC
ACI
ADDL
AISC
AUG
Al.M
ALT
ALUM
ANG
APPRO X
AIRCH
AS
ASO
ASSY
AUTO
AUX
AVG
B/W
BKR
BL
BLDG
BM
BOF
BOP
BOT
BRG
BRGP
BS
BTU
c
CA
CAJR
CAV
ccw
CF
CFS
CHD
CHEM
CIP
CJ
CL
cw
CUR
CMP
CMU
CNTL
co
COL
CONC
CONN
CONST
CONT
CON TO
COORD
CP
CPVC
CSK
CTR
CTRL
cu
CULV
cv
cw
CY
0
DBL
DEG
DEG F
DEt.IO
DIA
DIAG
DIM
DIY
DL
DUP
DWG(S)
E
EA
EF
EGL
EJ
EL
EMBD
ENGR
EOP
EQUIP
EOUIV
ES
AND EW EACH WAY
OPEN-CLOSE EXC EXCAVATION
EXT EXTERIOR, EXTERNAL, EXTENSION
AMPERE
ABBREVIATION FAB FABRICATE
ASPHALT CONCRETE FB FLAT BAR
AMERICAN CONCRETE INTERNATIONAL FDN FOUNDATION
ADDmONAL FF FINISHED FLOOR
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL FG FINISHED GRADE
CONSTRUCTION FIG FIGURE
AUGNMENT FLG FlANGE, FLANGED
ALARM FLR FLOOR
ALTERNATE FOC FACE OF CONCRETE
ALUMINUM FOW FACE OF WALL
ANGLE FPS FEET PER SECOND
APPROXIMATE FPT FEt.IALE PIPE THREAD
AIRCHITECTURE FT FOOT/Fffi
AIR SUPPLY FTG FOOTING, FITTING
ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN FW FIELD WELD
ASSEt.IBLY
AUTOt.IATIC G GAS
AUXIUAIRY GA GAGE (t.4ETAL THICKNESS)
AVERAGE GA GAGE, GAUGE
GAL GALLON
BACK OF WALL GALV GALVANIZED
BREAIKER GPM GALLONS PER t.IINUTE
BASELINE GR GRADE
BUIUDING G\11. GRAVEL
BENCHt.IARK, BEAM
BOTTOM OF FOOTING HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
BOTTOM/BEGINNING OF PIPE HEX HEXAGONAL
BOTTOM HGL HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE
BEAIRING HP HORSEPOWER
BEAIRING PLATE HSS HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SHAPE
BOTH SIDES HTR HEATER
BRinSH THERMAL UNIT HVAC HEATING, VENTILATION, & AIR
CONDmONING
CONDUIT HWL HIGH WATER LEVEL
COMPRESSED AIR HYD HYDRANT
COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM
CONnNUOUS ACTING AIR VALVE
HZ HERn (CYCLES PER SECOND)
COUNTER CLOCKWISE I&C INSTRUt.4ENTAnDN AND CONTROL
CUBIC FEET {FOOT) IBC INTERNATIONAL BUIUDING CODE
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ID INSIDE (OR INTERNAL) DIAMETER
CHORD IE INVERT ELEVATION
CHEMICAL IF INSIDE FACE
CAST IN PLACE INCL INCLUDE, INCLUDING
CONSTRUCTION JOINT INSTR INSTRUMENTATION
CENTERLINE, CLASS, CLOSE INV INVERT
CONnROL JOINT IRR IRRIGATION
CLEAIR ISO ISOMETRIC
CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
CONCRETE t.IASONRY UNIT JB JUNCTION BOX (J-BOX)
CONTROL JCT JUNcnON
CLEAJN OUT, CONCRETE OPENING JF JOINT FILLER
COLUMN JT JOINT
CONCRETE
CONNECTION KIP KIP {1000 POUNDS) CONSTRUCTION KO KNOCK OUT CONnNUOUS KV KILOVOLTS
CONnNUED KW KILOWATTS (REAL POWER) COORDINATE KWH KILOWATT HOUR CONnROL POINT
CHLORINATED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
COUNTERSINK LB POUND CENTER LF LINEAIR FOOT CONTROL LL LIVE LOAD CUBIC LLH LONG LEG HORIZONTAL CULVERT LLV LONG LEG VERTICAL VALVE, CONnROL LONG LONGITUDINAL CLOCKWlSE LT LEFT CUBIC YAIRD LTD LIMITED
LTG LIGHTING DRAIN LV LOUVER DIDUBLE LWL LOW WATER LEVEL DEGREE
DEGREE FAIHRENHEIT t.4A MIWAt.IPERES DEMOLITION t.IAINT t.IAINTENANCE DIAMETER t.4AN t.IANUAL DIAGONAL, DIAGRAM t.IAS t.IASONRY DIMENSION t.4AX t.4AXIMUt.4 DMSION MECH MECHANICAL DEAD LOAD MCC MOTOR CONTROL CENTER DUPLICATE MED MEDIUM
DRAWING(S) t.IFR t.IANUFACTURER
MH t.IANHOLE
EAST, ELECTRICAL (DWG DISCIPLINE) Ml MILE
EACH MIN MINIMUM
EACH FACE MISC MISCELLANEOUS
ENERGY GRADE LINE MJ MECHANICAL JOINT
EXPANSION JOINT MOD MODIFY
ELBOW, ELEVATION MON t.IONUMENT
EMBEDDED t.IPT t.IALE PIPE THREAD
ENGINEER MSL MEAN SEA LEVEL
END OF PIPE mV MILLIVOLTS
EQUIPMENT
EQUIVALENT
EACH SIDE, EQUAL SPACE
--------------
DRAWINGS
DESIGN DRAWINGS
.-=-J--;;::_:_1--"C_ON_C_EP_T_U_AL_DESIGN DRAWINGS
DESCRIPTION
--
--
N
N/A
NC
NEG
NO
No.
NOM
NPS
NPSH
NPT
NRS
NTS
O&M
oc
OD
OF
OF
OPNG
OPT
ORIG
OUT
OVHG
OWSJ oz
p
PA
PAIR
PC
PCC
PCF
PCT
PED
PEN
PERF
PERM
PERP
PH
PI
PL
PLC
PN
PNL
PREFAB
PRELIM
PREP
PRES
PRV
PSF
PSI
PSIA
PSIG
PT
PVC
PVIAT
0
OTY
R
RCP
RCP
REINF
REM
REQD
RET
REV
ROW
RPM
RS
RT
s
SAN
SCH
SCHEM
so
SEC
SECT
SF
SHT
SLID
SN
soc
SPA
SPEC
so
ss
STA
STD
STIR
STL
STLG
STOR
SUSP
sw
SWPPP
SY
ABBREVIATIONS
NORTH, NEUTRAL SYM SYMBOL
NOT APPLICABLE SYMM SYt.IMETRICAL
NORt.4AI..L Y CLOSED SYS SYSTEM
NEGATIVE
N0Rt.4AI..LY OPEN T&B TOP AND BOTTOt.l
NUMBER TBM TEMPCRARY BENCHt.IARK
NOMINAL TDH TOTAL DYNAMIC HEAD
NOMINAL PIPE SIZE TEMP TEMPCRARY
NET POSmVE SUCTION HEAD TK TANK
NATIONAL PIPE THREAD n.rTR THERMOMETER
NON-RISING STEt.4 TO OPNG TOP OF OPENING
NOT TO SCALE TOB
TOC
OPERAOONS AND t.IAINTENANCE TOCMU
ON CENTER TOCOL
OUTSIDE DIAMETER TOO
OUTSIDE FACE TOF
OVERFLOW TOC
OPENING TOL
OPnONAL TOM
ORIGINAL TOP
OUTUET TOPO
OVERHANG TOS
OPEN WEBBED STEEL JOISTS TOW
OUNCE TP
TYP
PUMP
ACTUATOR, PNEUt.IATIC UBC
PAIRALLEL UFC
PCINT OF CURVE, PRECAST UG
PCRnLAND CEMENT CONCRETE UHt.IW
POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT
PERCENT ULT
PEDESTAL UNO
PENETRATION UPC
PERFORATED UPS
PERt.IANENT
PERPENDICULAR UTIL
PHASE
PCINT OF INTERSECTION v
PLATE, PROPERTY LINE VA
PROGRAt.lt.IABLE LOCIC VAC
CONTROLLER
PNEUWATIC VAR
PANEL vc
PREFABRICATED VDC
PRELIMINARY VEL
PREPAIRE VERT
PRESSURE VFD
VALVE, PRESSURE RELIEF OR VOL
REDUCING VPC
PCUNDS PER SQUAIRE FOOT VP1
POUNDS PER SQUAIRE INCH VPT
POUNDS PER SQUAIRE INCH VSD
ABSOLUTE
POUNDS PER SQUAIRE INCH GAUGE w
POINT, PCINT OF TANGENCY w;
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE W/0 PAVEMENT WLD
ws RATE OF FLOW WT QUANnTY WWF
RADIUS XMFR RECEPTICLE XSEC PIPE, REINFORCED CONCRETE
REINFORCE/REJNFORCED YD
REMOVE
REQUIRED
RETAINING
REVISION
RIGHT OF WAY
REVOLUTIONS PER MINUTE
RISING STEM
RIGHT
SOUTH
SANITAIRY
SCHEDULE
SCHEt.IATIC
DRAIN STORt.l
SECONDAJRY, SECONDS
SECTION
SQUAJRE FOOT /FEET
SHEET
SLOTTED
SNOW LOAD
SLAB ON GRADE
SPACING
SPECIFICATION
SOUARE
STAINLESS STEEL
STATION, STAIR
STANDARD
STIRRUP
STEJEL
STOPLOG
STORAGE
SUSPENDED
WATER, SERVICE
STORt.IWATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLAN
SQUARE YAIRD
WARNING
1/2
IF THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 ~ THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCAL£.
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF CONCRETE
TOP OF CMU
TOP OF COLUt.IN
TOP OF DUCT
TOP OF FOOTING
TOP OF GRATING
TOLERANCE
TOP OF t.IASONRY
TOP OF PLATE/PIPE
TOPOGRAPHIC
TOP OF SLAB/STEEL
TOP OF WALL
TELEPHONE PCLE
TYPICAL
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
UNIFORM FIRE CODE
UNDERGROUND
ULTA HIGH MOLECULAR
WEIGHT
ULTit.IATE
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
UNINTERRUPTED PCWER
SUPPLY
UTILITY
VALVE, VAULT, VENT, VOLT(S)
VOLT AMPERE
VACUUM, VOLTS ALTERNATING
CURRENT
VARIES, VAJRIABLE
VERnCAL CURVE
VOLTS DIRECT CURRENT
VELOCITY
VERn CAL
VARIABLE FREOUENCY DRIVE
VOLUME
VERTICAL POINT OF CURVATURE
VERnCAL PCINT OF INTERSECTION
VERTICAL POINT OF TANGENCY
VAIRIABLE SPEED DRIVE
WEST, WIRE, WASTE
WITH
WITHOUT
WELDED
WATER SURFACE, WATER SUPPLY
WEIGHT, WATERnGHT
WELDED WIRE FABRIC
TRANSFORMER
CROSS SECTION
YARD
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOREJUNE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, ID 83702
OFTlCEo 208.342.4214
FAXo 208.342.4216
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SCOPE OF WORKo THESE DRAWINGS WERE DEVELOPED AS
PART OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ALTERNATIVES TO
DELIVER POWER SUPPLY TO THE CITY OF AKUTAN FROt.4
LOUD CREEK THE INFORMATION PRESENTED WITHIN
THESE DRAWINGS IS CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL AND
INTENDED FOR GENERAL PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
2. THESE ABBREVIATIONS APPLY TO THE ENTIRE SET OF
CONTRACT DRAWINGS.
3. LISTING OF ABBREVIATIONS DOES NOT lt.IPLY ALL
ABBREVIATIONS AIRE USED IN THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS.
4. ABBREVIATIONS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET INCLUDE VARIATIONS
OF THE WORD. FOR EXAMPLE, "MOD" t.IAY MEAN MODIFY OR
MODIFICATION, "INC" MAY t.4EAN INCLUDED OR INCLUDING;
"REINF" MAY t.4EAN EITHER REINFORCE OR REINFORCING.
5. SCREENING OR SHADING OF WORK IS USED TO INDICATE
EXISTING COMPONENTS OR TO DE-EMPHASIZE PROPOSED
lt.IPROVEMENTS TO HIGHLIGHT SELECTED TRADE WORK. REFER
TO CONTEXT OF EACH SHEET FOR USAGE.
SHEET SYMBOLS
PLAN
PLAN NORTH
ARROW INDICATEs~N DIRECTION OF
SCALEo 1 /2" ~ 1' -a"
SECTION IDENTIFICATION
(1) SECTION CUT ON DRAWlNG C102.
L A
2 ~Cf~~~N
ERE ~~~~~NG I~DRAWlN
(2) ON DRAWlNG C103 THIS SECTION IS IDENTIFIED ASo
SECTION
LETTER
N
1'-0"
DRAWlNG WlHERE
DETAIL OCCURS•
DETAIL IDENTIFICATION
(1) DETAIL CALL-OUT ON DRAWING C102o DETAIL
NUt.4BER
/-----
1 I
I I
I I , _____ /
~
1
C102
DRAWlNG WlHERE
DETAIL IS SHDWlN
(2) ON DRAWlNG Cl OJ THIS SECTION IS IDENTIFIED A So
DETAIL
DETAIL NUt.4BER
SCALL 1/2"~ 1'-0"
DRAWlNG WlHERE
DETAIL OCCURS'
'NOTL IF PLAN AND SECTION (OR CETAIL CALL-OUT AND
DETAIL) ARE SHOWN ON SAt.4E DRAWING. DRAWlNG NUt.4BER
IS REPLACED BY A LINE.
STANDARD DETAIL IDENTIFICATION
(1) DETAIL CALL-OUT ON PLAN OR 'iECTIONo
f STANDARD
DETAIL j NUMBER
(2) ON DETAIL DRAWlNGS, IDENTIFIED ASo
~ STANOARD
DETAIL DETAIL NUt.4BER
-=.;=...;..;..;;.;=--------M1 01
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DESIGNED D.AXNESS
DRAWING
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R. GUERRERO 2
STANDARD ABBRE~AnONS AND SYMBOLS CHECKED 1.4. McMILLQ!
ISSUED DATE WL!.1 SCALEo NONE
/)
1
4o0
-+-~ ~=-==-----
Ll.L> 6/1/1':: I ;MM I• CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWic-.NG:-cS:-_ ___ _ f-4' 13/30j10 DA .CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAW . .,.IN._G-:S._ ___ _
2/26/10, DA I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DATE i 8YT . --. ·----DESCRIPTION
FUTURE AKUTAN
HARBOR
100
200
300
400
soo_
6oo
:>oo
Boo
1000lJOo
'<oo
'Joo
''oo
'Joo '<oo
''oo
'ooo
Joo
Baa
<l'oo
7oo
60()
4o0 ··-Soo
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION
LINE ROUTE
SEE NOTE 4
LANDING AREA
\ ~~ EXISTING TOWN
CREEK DAIA
I
I __ \. 1000
o,'§" > CITY OF-~~~AN """ rr i~~IN2REEK \ I I POWER PLANT TOWN CREEK I ---
~•~m~''\
HIGH
---_ .....,'-.. /TIDE LINE
'<:"'\
Boo
C>
C> ., "' ' ~~~
':i
!
) "' ~ ,oo
f
200 /
,oo /-
/
I
I
I
-/
/
/
/
I
/
/
/ NQIES;
1. TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROIA UNIIAAK QUADRANGUE W/>S USED FOR THE
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY. SITE SPECIFIC TOPOGRAPHIC DATA W/>S NOT
DEVELOPED FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY.
2 LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPIAENT SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE
CITY OF AKUTAN.
3 THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY IDENTIFIED AND EVALUATED TWO
ALTERNATIVES FOR HYDROPOWER DEVELOPIAENT AT LOUD CREEK. THESE
ALTERNATIVES ARE IUUSTRATED ON THE FOUOWING DRAWINGS:
-8/>SE CI>SE: DWG 4, S
-ALTERNATIVE I: DWG 4, 6
4. SEVERAL OPTIONS WERE EVALUATED FOR A POWER TRANSIAISSION LINE FROIA
THE LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPIAENT SITE TO THE LOAD DEIAAND
SITES INCLUDING CITY OF AKUTAN, TRIDENT, AND THE FIUTURE AKUTAN
HARBOR FACILmES. VARIOUS ROLmNG OPllONS AND CONSTRUCTION IAETHODS
ARE PRESENTED WITHIN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT. THE GENERAL
ROUTE AROUND THE WEST END OF AKUTAN HARBOR WAS THE PRIIAARY
TRANSIAISSION ROUTING CONSIDERED.
"'-r-, --100
/ "'-
\ __ .\--
. '
'PROPOSED WEST
FORK DAM SITE
"'
/ c:~::~T
1 \ FORK DAM SITE
I . I
I I I '
'1-<f> "' ..,o
WEST FORK LOUD~
CREEK WATERSHED
I I ~EAST FORK LOUD CREEK \I ~ \ WATERSHED BOUNDARY
I ) I \ TOTAL AREA 0.59 SO Ml
I I 'i ,
I EAST FORK : t I BOUNDARY 0.19 SO Ml
l
~oo-·
[f:JO
700
WARNING
1/2
IF THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1M THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE
. \ I LOUD CREEK I \ ',
.l-\ / ;t. . -~-11·
I I ) I I
I I • I
I ·~ I I
I . I
\ I I
\ I
\ / I
\ J
\ !\\
\ I
\ I
'ooo
', I I
I I
i.\ I
a c )
"' ii?
'\ ,...l
'\_j I ..-"' ' ,,, __
\-, ..,..""' ------,
It ----( .. -.---
SITE PLAN
SCALE: I "= 1000'
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHORELINE OR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, 10 83702
OFFICE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
N
~
.
\
9ao
"'" ~
•.P"
1""
-o""
1000"'
.,ao
"' \
"'-'-
......... --
CI1Y OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DESIGNED D. AXNESS
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R. WOOD
CHECKED M. Me MILL EN
GENERAL SITE PLAN
ISSUED DATE 6/1/11 _ISCALE:
DRAWING
3
AS NOTED
WORK ITEMS:
SCOPE OF WORK:
THESE DRAWINGS WERE DEVELOPED AS PART OF A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY FOR
ALTERNATIVES TO DELIVER POWER SUPPLY TO THE CITY OF AKUTAN FROM LOUD CREEK, THE
INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THE DRAWINGS IS CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL AND IS INTENDED FOR
GENERAL ILLUSTRATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED
BASED ON EXISTING AVAILABLE DATA. Sf!E SPECIFIC STUDIES TO OBTAIN GEOTECHNICAL AND
TOPOGRAPHICAL DATA WERE NOT OBTAINED FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY, BUT WILL BE
REQUIRED IF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE IS ADVANCED TO FINAL DESIGN.
SITE ACCESS:
1, CONSTRUCT A CONSTRUCTION ACCESS DOCK.
2. CONSTRUCT A CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAD ALONG THE PIPELINE PATH TO THE DAM SITE.
J, STABILIZE THE ROAD,
4, PROVDE SECURITY FENCING AND SIGNAGE
POWERHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
1. CLIEAR AND GRUB THE POWERHOUSE SITE
2. EXCAVATE POWERHOUSE SITE TO BEDROCK
3 ANCHOR FOUNDATION SLAB TO BEDROCK
4, CONSTRUCT SLAB
5, DELIVER AND INSTALL THE POWERHOUSE BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT
6, CONNECT TO PENSTOCK PIPELINE
7 CONNECT TO POWER TRANSMISSION TRANSFORMER
8, STARTUP AND TESTING
PENSTOCK PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
1. DELIVER HOPE PIPE, VALVES AND AIPPURTENANCES
2. WELD HOPE PIPE TOGETHER
3. PROCESS OR HAUL-IN BACKFILL MATERIAL
4, CONSTRUCT THRUSTBLOCK AT POWERHOUSE
5, EXCAVATE TRENCH AND INSTAILL PIPELINE
6. MOUND BACKFILL OVER PIPE
DAM CONSTRUCTION
1, PROVIDE WATER CONTROL AT DAIM SITE
2. CLEAR AND GRUB VEGETATION AND DISPOSE OF PROPERLY
3. DELIVER SEEPAGE BAIRRIER MATERIALS
4. EXCAVATE SOIL TO BEDROCK (EST. LESS THAIN 1O-FT DEEP)
5. CONSTRUCT SEEPAGE BAIRRIER AND FOUNDATION PREPARATION
6, CONSTRUCT PENSTOCK INTAKE AND OUTLET STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS
7. CONSTRUCT DAt.A
8. CONSTRUCT OUTLET AND PENSTOCK INTAKE STRUCTIURES
9. CONSTRUCT SPILLWAY
10. INSTALL MONITORING AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT
PROJECT DESIGN NOTES:
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
1. GEOLOGY OF THE WATERSHED IS DESCRIBED AS: COLLUVIUM, TEPHRA, AND VOLCANIC ROCK
2. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION IS RECOMMENDED BEFORE FINAL DESIGN
3. VEGETATION IN THE WATERSHED IS: NATIVE TUNDRA
4. AIPPROXIMATE SLOPES IN THE WATERSHED AIRE: 10% 70%
5, AVERAGE MINIMUM DAILY TEMPERATURE IS: 2oF
6. AVERAGE MAXIMUM DAILY TEMPERATURE IS: 54'F
HYDROLOGY (REGIONAL REGRESSION EQUATIONS)
1 c 50% RECURRENCE PROBABILITY FLOW: 77 CFS
2, 1l'.: RECURRENCE PROBABILITY FLOW: 240 CFS
3. STREAM GAGE DATA IS RECOMMENDED BEFORE FINAL DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
1. OUTLET STRUCTURE CAPACITY 80 CFS
2. PREUMINAIRY SPILLWAY CAIPACITY: 712 CFS
3, PENSTOCK INTAKE CAIPACITY: EAST FORK = 9
WEST FORK = 6
EMBANKMENT DESIGN
1. COMPACTED EARTHFILL DAM WITH A SEEPAGE CONTROL SYSTEM, COMPACTION IS EXPECTED TO BE 95% OF
MAXIMUM STANDARD DENSITY (STANDARD PROCTOR) AS DEFINED BY THE ASTM STANDARD 698-07E-STANDAR0
TEST METHODS FOR LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL USING STANDAIRD EFFORT.
2. EMBANKMENT DEPTH IS 10% LARGER THAN DESIGN DEPTH TO ACCOUNT FOR EXPECTED SETTLEMENT
3. SEEPAGE PROTECTION PROVIDED BY A DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM AND PROTECTED DRAIN OUTLET
4, COLD WEATHER CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE INCLUDED IN FINAL DESIGN.
SPILLWAY AND OUTLET DESIGN
1, OUTLET IS A DROP INLET PIPE OUTLET. THE OUTLET IS DESIGNED TO CONVEY WATER IN THE ANNULAR SPACE
BETWEEN THE OUTLET RISER PIPE AND A LARGER PIPE FUNCTIONING AS A DEBRIS AND ICE RACK THE
VELOCITY OF THE WATER IN THE ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO PIPES WILL BE UMITED TO TWO-FEET
PER SECOND AT THE 50% RECURRENCE PROBABILITY DESIGN FLOW. THE DROP INLET RISER PIPE WILL BE
CONSTRUCTED OF TWO VERTICAL CONCENTRIC PIPES WITH CONCRETE CAST BETWEEN THEM. THE OUTER .. TRASH
RACK" PIPE WILL BE CORRUGATED 14-GAUGE ALUMINIZED STEEL PIPE,
2. THE SPILLWAY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN UNDISTURBED EARTH ADJACENT TO THE COMPACTED FILL OF THE
DAM, THE SPILLWAY WILL BE PROTECTED WITH RIPRAP OVER A GEOTEXTILE TO PREVENT PIPING FAILURE,
PENSTOCK DESIGN
THE PENSTOCK/PIPELINE WILL BE DESIGNED TO CONVEY 3,5 CFS IN A 16-INCH HOPE
RESULTING VELOCmES ARE AIPPROXIMATELY FEET PER SECOND (FPS) FOR THE EAST FORK
WEST FORK, 8.5 FPs FOR 18"' COMBINED.
2. MOUND BACKFILL OVER PIPE IF NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT COVER
3. INSTALL PENSTOCK APPURTENANCES
4. PRESSURE TEST
5. CONNECT TO POWERHOUSE
6. STARTUP AND TESTING
----
---~1
THE
4.3 FPS FOR
DRAINAGE AREA 380
AVERAGE STREAM 10%
1-t<FO!JI.'.-NC:'Y
Qi
PHYSICAL DATA
PRINCIPAL
~ sm: so crs
SURFACE AIREA POND = 5 AC
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF WATER 8 FT
AUXILIARY
~
1%
240 CFS
EFFECTIVE FILL HT 1 0 FT (LOW POINT ON CENTERLINE
TO AUXILIARY SPILLWAY)
CREST = 1 AC FT
SETTLED FILL =
WARNING
0 1/2 1
--I If THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 ~ 1HEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE
OUTLET 495, SPILLWAY = 496,
MCMILLEN, LLC
1<101 SHOR£UNE OR.
SUITE 100
BOlS£. 10 837()2
orne£; 206.342.4214
F.t.X: 206.342.4216
I DRAWING CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DESIGNED D. AXNESS
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
DRAWN R. WOOD I 4
CHECKED M, McMILLEN
DESIGN CRITERIA I
ISSUED DATE 6/1/11 ___ 'SCALE' AS NOTED
Sq,
WEST FORK LOUD\
CREEK WATERSHED
BOUNDARY . .--· --·· -·
-.--
. ' ~" ~PROPOSE07
LANDING AREA
POWER TRANSMISSION
A~~iA~0AZIJ\~ "
HARBOR FACIL111ES,
SEE DRAWING 3
CLIMBING TURN
I
I
PROPOSED
DOCK LANDING
STRUCTURE
\
\
\
\
~
~~
..._ -" "
\_AKUTAN BAY\
"'-rHIGH
'' I TIDE LINE
" " " ----" " " " " ..._ -------------------
PROPOSED
ACCESS ROAD
(6' WIDE)
/
o:· u·
1 cl
.-
(
~I kf· (J'
§I
Q·
~~I
~·
t;l
if· I
I
/ \
\
\
\
/
I
\
\
::>. 9
'~~ \ ~~
'
\ \ ~g_-~
\ ' I
V. PROPOSED /16"¢
PENSTOCK /PIPE
. I
'\ I ~~ . PROPOSED . I SPILLWAY
I i : ~. I ;.
\. . ... · .. v.:::._:_·-----------~. \ .//'~· \ ----.."
. • . i PROPOSED EAST FORK LOUD CREEK
PROPOSED ~:.. ··... . .·\ 1 EAST FORK "-,. r WATERSHED BOUNDARY
PENSTOCK ·. 1 7 DAM SITE Y TOTAL AREA 0.59 SO Ml
~ ; "
/
I
/
/
/
/ \
\
\
N
;~~;1~~~ ~
" '\
\
\
\
)
NlliES.:
1. THE RESERVOIR AREA IS ES11MATED AT APPROXIMATI:LY 1 ACRES WITH
A STORAGE VOLUME OF UESS THAN 10 ACRE FT. THE DAM HEIGHT IS
UESS THAN 10 FEET. THE RESERVOIR WILL BE OPTI~IZED IN SIZE
DURING FINAL ENGINEERING WITH NEW SITE SPECiflC TOPOGRAPHIC
MAPPING.
2. TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM UNIMAK OUAORANGLE WAS USED FOR THE
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY. SITE SPECIFIC TOPOGRAPHIC DATA WAS
NOT DEVELOPED FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY.
3 THE EAST FORK DAM LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE. THE ORIENTATION.
HEIGHT, AND APPURTANCES LOCATION WOULD BE OPTIMIZED DURING
ANAL ENGINEERING BASED ON SITE SPECIAC GEOTECHNICAL AND
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING .
4. PENSTOCK ROUTING IS APPROXII.IATE BASED ON AVAILABUE
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING. THE ILLUSTRATED ROUTING WAS DEVELOPED TO
DETERMINE PENSTOCK LENGTH. MATERIAL OUANnTE$, AND OVERALL
CONSTRUCTION APPROACH AS WELL AS AVAILABLE OPERATING HEAD FOR
THE POWERHOUSE.
5. SEE DRAWlNG 4 FOR A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA
FOR THE DAM. PENSTOCK. POWERHOUSE. AND LOADING OOCK
rACIUTIES.
6. THE NEW ROAD WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PENSTOCK AND DAM OR
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. THE ROUTING SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE
BASED ON THE AVAILABLE TOPOCRAPHIC MAPPING. ACCESS ROAD IS
SIZED FOR ATV VEHICLES.
-----..._ -------
WARNING
DRAWING
MCMILLEN, LLC
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA I~··~ ' AA~ I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R. WOOD
o 1/Z 1
-_, I 5
IF THtS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1-THEN DRAWlHG
IS NOr TO SCALE
H01 SHORElJNE OR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, ID I!J702
omce 208.342.4214
FAX1 208.342.4216
SITE PLAN
BASE CASE
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED OATE 6/1/11 J SCALE' AS NOTED
/a
"'o
---
sao
WEST FORK lOUD~
CREEK WATERSfiEO .
BOUNDARY .----.--
---
POWER TRANSMISSION
LINE TO CITY OF
AKUTAN AND NEW
HARBOR FACIUTIES,
SEE DRAWING 3
CLIM81NG TURN
~I iJP. v;
§.
I
I
,/
PROPOSED
POWERHOUSE TAILRACE
\
\
\
\
.~
~~ o·
1 ol
\
::>,
'3
~I
:;i:
I
-..........
' '
·\~I
. 18"~ PENSTOCK %PIPE INTERSECTION.
SEE NOTE 8
, I ..
/ \ ·~. PROPOsEo,:\s·, r PENSTOCK 1 PIPE
\__AKUTAN BAY\
"-.. rHIGH
" " I TIDE UNE
' ' '
-500
--',,,
........ __
------........... -.... _____ _
~
1. THE RESERVOIR AREA IS ESTihdATED AT APPROXIhdATELY 1 ACRES W!Tii
A STORAGE VOLUME OF LESS THAN 10 ACRE FEET. THE DAhd HEIGHT IS
LESS THAN 10 FT. THE RESERVOIR WILl BE OPTIMIZED IN SIZE DURING
FINAL ENGINEERING WITH NEW SITE SPECIF1C TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING
2. TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM UNihdAK QUADRANGLE WAS USED FOR THE
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY. SITE SPECIF1C TOPOGRAPHIC DATA WAS
NOT DEVELOPED FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY.
3. TfiE EAST AND WEST FORK DAM LOCATIONS ARE Afi'ROXIMATE. THE
ORIENTATION, fiEIGHT, AND APPURTANCES LOCATION WOULD BE
OPTIMIZED DURING f1NAL ENGINEERING BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC
GEOTECHNICAL AND TOPOCRAPfiiCAL MAPPING.
4. PENSTOCK ROUTING IS APPROXIMATE BASED ON AVAILAeU:
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING. THE ILLUSTRATED ROUTING WAS DEVELOPED TO
DETERMINE PENSTOCK LENGTH. hdATERIAL OUAINTITIES, AND OVERALL
CONSTRUCTION APPROACH AS WEll. AS AVAILABLE OPERATING HEAD FOR
THE POWERHOUSE
5. SEE DRAWING 4 FOR A SUIAMARY OF THE GENERAL 0£SIGN CRITERIA
FOR THE DAhd, PENSTOCK. POWERHOUSE, AND LOADING DOCK
FACrt.mES.
ALTERNATIVE 1 CONSISTS OF THE FACILITIES PROPOSED FOR THE BASE
CASE PLUS A NEW DIVERSION DAM AND PENSTOCK LOCATED ON THE
WEST FORK OF LOUD CREEK ALTERNATIVE 1 WAS DEVELOPED TO
PROV10E ADDITIONAL FLOW TO THE POWERHOUSE TO INCREASE THE
OVERALL ANNUAL GENERATION.
7. TfiE NEW ROAD WJU. PROV1DE ACCESS TO THE PENSTOCK AND DAM OR
OPERATION AND hdAINTENANCE. TfiE ROUTING SHOW!i IS APPROXIhdATE
BASED ON THE AVAILABLE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING. ACCESS ROAD IS
SIZED FOR ATV VEHICLES.
8. 16"o PENSTOCK FROM WEST FORK DIVERSION OAhd WILL TIE INTO THE
EAST FORK PENSTOCK. FULL ISOLATION VALVES WJLL BE PROV1DED
----..........
.......... _
-----
0·
""~/
SPILLWAY··}l·.. .. &'. "::/ t; (<;,
1
\ 1 ~I PROPOSED SPILLWAY
·~ /-~' , " .. ·rg.c.;~
pafSTOCK PIPE ilil
"' cc:. < 4 ' y>\EB'f5
OUTLET / -·y 1 PR0~0~5~K
STRUCTURE ( '\ 7 ~~~ SITE
\
\
\
WARNING
1/2
!F THIS 8A.R DOES NOT
M(ASURE 1" THEN DRAWING
fS NOT TO SCALE.
/
/
/
I
~\ ~------------
.:.~ • \ 1 PROPOSED " EAST FORK LOUO CREEK
~·,' .. \ v~' --"""
/
~ .. ~"·.. \ l EAST FORK " r WATERSfiED BOUNDARY . ' ' I DAhd SITE '-I TOTAL AREA 0.59 so Ml
J "
/ \_PROPOS~
OUTILET
STRUCTURE
\
\
\
" '\
N
\
\
\
)
SITE PLAN ~ SCALE: 1"= 200'
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DESIGNED D AXNESS
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOREUNE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE. ID 113702
OfFlCE: 208.3-42.4214
FAX: 208.3-42.4216
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
SITE PLAN
ALTERNATIVE
DRAWN R. WOOD
CfiECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE §.LUJj
DRAWING
6
SCALE: AS NOTED
PENSTOCK
INTAKE
VAlVE VAULT
_j
EXISTING
SLOPE
DRAIN TO
CREEK
;:: II
I
L
TYPICAL DIVERSION DAM CONCEPT PLAN
SCALE: NTS
OUTLEI
STRUCTURE
RISER
EL=495
DIRECTION
OF FlOW
3
WARNING
L...!(l 1
IF THIS SAR DOES HOT
MEASURE 1 ~ THEN DRAWING
IS HOT TO SCALE
CONTOUR
UNES, TYP
APPROACH CHANNEl
GRADE 5%
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
12'
LEVEL SECTION
CREST
El=496' OUT LEI
GRADE 10%
~
1. POND CREST ElEVATION IS ASSUMED TO BE 500-FT ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
(BASED ON THE UNIMAJ< A-6 GEOREFERENCEO PDF USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP).
2. ELEVATIONS AND LENGTHS SHOWN ON THESE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLANS ARE
BASED UPON THE ASSUMED OAt.d CREST ELEVATION or 500-FT.
3. FJELD OBSERVATIONS OCCURRED DURING A OCTOBER 24, 2009 fiElD VISIT. THE
GROUND SURFACE WAS COVERED WITH 12 TO 18 INCHES or SNOW.
4. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (A GROUND BASED SURVEY OR A GROUND TRUTHED
UOAR SURVEY) WILL BE COLLECTIED PRIOR TO fiNAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THE DAM, PIPEUNE AND HYDROPOWER PLANT AND POWERHOUSE
5. THE PLANS MUST BE UPDATED AND VERifiED AFTER THE DATA IS COLLECTED.
THE DRAINAGE AREA AND POOL AREA MUST BE SURVEYED IN ADDmON TO THE
AREAS WHERE CONSTRUCTION WILl OCCUR. THESE AREAS 00 NOT NEED THE
PRECISION OF SURVEY INFORMATION COLLECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE DAM,
PIPELINE. ROAD AND POWERHOUSE. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT
IN THE DESIGN AND MODERATION or THE RESERVOIR AND POWERHOUSE.
PROFILE ON CENTERLINE OF SPILLWAY
TOP or DAM
EL=500'
SPILLWAY
SEEPAGE BARRIER
(SHEEIPILE OR
GROUT)
---"'
CUTOFF TRENCH/
If.
I
SCAlE: NTS
DRAINAGE
DIAPHRAGM
/
/ _J,
~ 1
I s· I I •
SECTION ~ OF OUTLET STRUCTURE
SCALE: NTS
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 5;«JA£1JN£ DR.
SUITE tOO
BOISE. ID 83702
OfFICE: 208.342.421<
F!ll<' 200.342.4216
~,;,
~ ~l ~n
fA\ v
EXISTING]
GROUND LINE
~ PIPE OUTLE1
El 489.4
CllY OF AKUTAN, AlASKA I'~"" 0. "~" I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R. WOOD
DAM CHECKED M. McMILLEN
TYPICAL PLAN AND SECTIONS
CHANNEL
ISSUED DATE 6/1/11 !SCALE'
DRAWING
7
AS NOTED
JZ NORIIAL OPERATING
POOL EL 495±
WARNING
t-,..!(2 i
lF nits BAR DOES NOT
WE'ASURE 1• THEN DRAWING
IS NOf TO $CAL£
-
16"~ PENSTOCK
SECTION ALONG ~ OF PENSTOCK
SCALE. NTS
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOREUNE OR.
SUITI:100
BOIS£. 10 83702
OFFICE; 208.342.4214
FAX: 206.342.421&
fA\
'27
INSTALL NEW
RESILIENT
_ _ WEDGE VALVE
VALVE VAULT
• PENSTOCK TO
~-POWERHOUSE
SLUICE PIPE
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA I~"~ 0. ~-"' I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R WOOD
DAM
PENSTOCK SECTION
CHECKED M. McMILlEN
ISSUED OATE~_1 _I SCALE:
DRAWING
8
AS NOTED
EXISTING
GROUNDLINE
--. --. UIIO[R REVEGETATE CUT
>1:..,_ --. --. Jo_... SiD[ !---SLOPES , <, e. --. ...__ Scop,
"'-· "~c~c ...__ ...__ ~
S( 0!>, ...__ ...__ -jQC4"', "'-..
< ~-'?lid~~~"' h ~ • 'Sl;g*d.,.J:r..Jry.:54--\ ""J-t--_)~ ,..--.. """'f'-'
6" OF 'Y." MINUS
ROAD MIX
/
IMPORTED GRAVEL
OR APPROVED
CUT MATERIAL
'
t I 'l 'Y
'.1\l y ",~._,,
,.,·~·
'\_l,
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS ----------------···------
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
'~<.-,
--------TREAD WIDTH
ACCESS ROAD CROSS-SECTIONS EIXD
SCALE: NTS 5 6
6'-0" TREAD
I OUTSLOPE 3jl I
~·
~ ~
I'
ACCESS ROAD CLEARING
SCALE: NTS
' ~ ' I
' '
t
WARNING
0 1/2
IF THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 R THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE
-----~ ---------
I ::;:, I-,;:_-.;_·-~ ::::.' 1 CONCEf'TUAL DESIGN_ DRAWINGS
DESCRfPTION
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOREUNE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, 10 83702
OFFICE; 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
\
ELEVATION
I
z 0 0
F I
u io
w
If)
I
If)
If) z
0
"' "' u 0
I
~ --------~
PLAN
SCALE: NTS
~ ~\
'\ 0"'~
CLIMBING TURN
SCALE: (NTS)
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
ROADWAY DETAILS
f2V2\
~
I
"·/>"
SEE ACCESS ROAD CROSS
SECTIONS DETAIL. SPREAD CUT
MATERIAL IN A THIN LAYER OVER
EXISTING VEGETATION.
SECTION fA\
\::._)
I DRAWING
DESIGNED D. AXNES~
DRAWN R. WOOD I 9
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1/11 'SCALE: AS NOTED
~~ " "
""'
/. "o" ·. ~
\~
"' \'6
#
·'?l \~ .~ 8
,oO //'
/
.-. .-/
PROPOSED
EAST FORK
DAM SITE
PROPOSED_/ \ -------~----ACCESS ROAD
(6' WIDE) a ----........______ . ""' .. no~--!2 EAST FORK LOUD CREEl(\~---ov lOU:!-C ·-c"' --------" \ "~"-
.Ao -n -EPS_.'Il --,.., ---·~ -..._
-PENSTOCK PIPE
300
soa
a <;;
sao
/~~:o:A~E~~~D
BOUNDARY
700
EAST FORK LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK PLAN
SCALE· 1"• 150'
PROPOSED
POWERHOUSE
TAILRACE
I
I
I
" / A
I
I
I
I ~HIGH I TIDE LINE
I
/
/
//;//
/
PROPOSED
DOCK LANDING
STRUCTURE
BAY\
POWER TRANSMISSION
LINE TO CITY OF
AKUTAN AND NEW
HARBOR FACILITIES
~ _i29_
~
~
~
122._
!.QQ__
16"~ PENSTOCK PIPE
(BURIED W/ AT LEAST
3-FT OF GROUND COVER)
EXISTING
GROUND
POWER LINE
~
~
_2QQ
___222.
____lQQ
L ____ l_ ________________________ _j __________________________ j_ ________________________ ~~----------------------~~~----------------------~~~~~------------------~-----0 _o____ 40+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00 35+00
EAST FORK LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK PROFILE
SCALE 1"~ 150'
WARNING
0 1/2 1
~I
MCMILLEN, LLC
CllY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA I 05'"'" "· ~'~" I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R. WOOD
lF THIS eAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 ~ THEN ORAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE
1401 SHOREUNE OR. sum: 100
BOISE. 10 8J702
Off1CE: 208.342.4214
fAX: 208.342.4216 PLAN,
PIPELINE
AND DETAILS
BASE CASE
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE_H_l/11 ISCAL£:
DRAWING
10
AS NOTED
~l:
~<:§:>
/EAST FORK LOUD
· _; CREEK WATERSHED
/
soo
PROPOSED
WEST FORK
DAM SITE
"
0 \
" " "
----r-----~--1_
. · -'"": ~ST ~I( lOUD CI££K ··-
sao
~
" " " '\
\\
\\
<: \~
"'?,
\<?.
\
\ g
"'
1a·~ -.
PENSTOCK PIPE ··-\ .. -.. --.1..-. -u:-s:._fOR~\.0\J~ CR£.::!.-..
300
~ 'Y
EAST FORK AND WEST FORK LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK PLAN
SCALE: 1 "= 150"
,oo
/
/
/
/
/
/
POWER T
/ /.
/.
UNE TO :r-~SMISSION
lf
~UTAN AND ~:w
"-. "-. PROPOSED RBOR FACILITIES
, "-. LANDING AREA
PROPOSED
DOCK LANDING
\_
STRUCTURE
AKUTAN BAY~
/
/
/
r---~--------------------------,--------------------------r--------------------------r--------------------------r--------------------------r---------------,~ ~
18"0 PENSTOCK PIPE/
(SURIED W/ AT LEAST
3-FT OF GROUND COVER)
20+00 25+00 30+00
EAST FORK LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK PROFILE
SCALE. 1'"= 150"
WARNING
0 1/2 l ...,..... I
If' THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 ~ THEN ORAWlNG
IS NOT TO SCAlE
MCMILLEN, LLC
14<11 SHOREUNE OR.
SU1TE100
BOISE. ID 83702
OffiCE; 206.342.~214
FAX: 206.342.4216
35+00
POWERHOUSE
POWER LINE
.2QQ 2QQ_
~ ~
16"~ PENSTOCK PIPE
(SURIED W/ AT LEAST
3-FT OF GROUND COVER) .222. ~
..29Q ~
..1Q2. 122_
10+00 15+00
WEST FORK LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK PROFILE
SCALE: 1""= 150"
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA I ~••~ ' AAm; I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R, WOOD
PIPELINE
PLAN, PROFILE, AND DETAILS
ALTERNATIVE 1
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE --UlL!J
-··-·-·_j
20+00
DRAWING
11
SCALE: AS NOTED
.I . 0 0
I I
~ g
~
\.:J
AC/DC PANELS
BATTERIES
PRE -ENGINEERED
METAL BUILDING WALL
I
I
l_j
I
I
I
t
SWITCH GEAR AND
CONTROL PANEL
-------------
SLOPE SLAB TO
FlOOR DRAIN,
TYP
'"}
MAN DOOR
~24" CONCRETE~
SLAB '\_
+
L~ -~ I
____ j
FOUNDATION PLAN
SCALEo 3/8"= 1'-o·
f1V1\
'Q70._J
WARNING
0 1/2 1
~I
IF THIS ~ OOES HOT
MEASURE 1" THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SOLE
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOAruNE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, 10 83702
Of'flCE; 20!1.342.4214
Fill(: 208.342.4216
f 1 1 TURBINE ~ 13 GENERATOR
TURBINE PIT
TAILRACE CHANNEL
9 ·-
0
I
"'
,fi T.O.F.
"!'
I 2·-o· I
T.O. SLAB
1 /2" PRE MOLDED EXP.
JT. TYP.
EXTERIOR CONCREIE WALL FOOTING ED
SCALE: 3/4" = 1' o" -
T.O. SLAB
b
I
"'
1/2" PREMOLDED EXP.
JIT. TYP.
CONC SLAB
SEE PLAN
s U
OSLAB
LJ I
' .
' \~"'"\
''i'
TAILRACE CHANNEL~
"'
~T.O.F. ~---
~
I 2·-o· I
EXTERIOR CONCREI SCALE J/4" -,f()F E WALL FOOTING ED
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA I'~''"" o. ·--~· I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R. WOOD
POWERHOUSE
FOUNDATION PLAN AND SECTIONS
CHECKED lA. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE ----2L!L.l1
DRAWING
12
SCALE: AS NOTED
!:;
0:
"' I
350 KW, 3/480/60
SYNCHRONOUS
GENERATOR
0 0
CANYON PEL TON TURBINE
NEEDLE VALVE PIT
TURBINE INLET
CENTERUNE
I
'<>
I .....
I
t ~
14'-4" REF
TURBINE GENERATOR PLAN GD
SCALE; 3/4" -1' 0" 12
6'-9"
WARNING
0 1/2
"""""' I
IF THiS BAA DOES NOT
WEASURE 1 ~ THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOREUNE OR.
SUITE 100
BOISE. 10 83702
OFFlCE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
r-
1
'<>
b
I
"'
:?I
:,.,
I
"'
"' I :..
a
CANYON PELTON
TURBIN£ OR EQUAL
SHAFT CENTERLINE
TAILRACE WATER LEVEL
. .
--.--;-;r--;;--.:-:----.....-------:~_____j ..
~ .. "
SECTION EB SCAt£ 3/+" 1' o" ~
"· ..
NEEDLE VAL \IE PIT
~-TIJRBINE INLET j_ CENTERLINE
FLOOR LEVEL
"' I
"'
.
"' I
•N
DRAWING
CllY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA I oc'"'" o. "'m I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ~" , •ooo ! 13
POWERHOUSE
GENERATOR PLAN AND SECTION
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1/11 __ ISCALE: AS NOTED
J rss·> s2 tJOU w __ , 165"5 Loon· w -----..J. I6 S''SO.Cttj (t' W
I.
lbS'-'·13 .000' W 16S'''•I8 .t'tt'tt)' lb5°44.00u' W 165°43.000' w WGS84 16.5°42.000' W ..-..J..-----. --.I....
ZI 7 ~"Y·rr ~~., ~ ~ --7;-----·llr .J,,..f~-~~-~~ --'~··· ---n--~-r-·--~ ,~. ~7trJ_,._ ~)n, ~ .. ---~--T'"Jr~~;?,.' -~------., -_1 .~.f •. /'~, , c" )( il ,.J './'~ 1,1 ~~::··_::),Y ~-"";·;.::·-._ ',' '<-,,-"', -l'f/f;Jm -~~~,-. }' • . ·,· ' I· I ,I' r
§ ; ','{<lJ ' l>:(~T ' -·~ ~ . ~. _.~. . . -~~'"-r ~--\··' . II (J~ .I . _lit~· '"-~--~-A~?r ' . \_·,:1 .. I '-.--·~-= , ,.,._ , j .l. .. -.::"""""".-.....,.__:..; ,-~,~ ~--.1 c... -· --•-....., -:-1 . -~--,_-_ l\.__,·.-I
~ ~ y -~ /i · r ·" i' r= r
l1l . ' I-§-"'-' II' ~ "1: ! p
2
b
0
0
2
a
9 ...,
•:::0
~
U1
TNF·
6/1/11
3/30/10
1'..S•'52.000' W
MM I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
J )Ill. ..... -J,, ' .... -~, \ . ~ ... -
165"51.000' w 16S0 S0 ,00l1' W
···.~~) ;I )
. . '"· '-, ~·~-_ . r .· ., _ _ ,_,.:;-:. --=-~~~~.]\ >~,/ i?(if:i J" 0.~ f I I·' 'IF ' t( I l I· . , ~ .• I · t. --L-~-J ''"' -. .. .ft --... ....
165"49.001)' w
WARNING
~
IF 1HrS BAR DOES NOT
lltASIJRE 1" ll£N ORAWIIG
IS NOT TO SCAlL
_......,....
165'148 .000' w
e.o
~·
165"4 ,01)0' w l6!"46.000' w
OJ 1.0 milo• -.......... --+-.................. __ .....,. ..J
00 OJ 1.11 I.Hm
M'l' ~,.otod ""th TOI't )te @):l003 Notvn-..J Oongnrhv. (www n~II<I~"S"''~f' r.a'nllt"f")
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE OPTIONS
MCMILLEN, LL C
1401 SHOREI.JNE OR.
SUflE 100
BOISE. 10 83702
OFFICE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
rl
165°45.000' w 165"44.000' w
TRANSMISSION UNE ROUJF opTIONS·
OPTION 1 -INSTALl. CABL£ DIRECTLY ACROSS AKUTAN HARBOR FROM LOUD
CREEK TO THE DIESEL POYIER HOUSE IN THE CITY or AKUTAN (APPROXIMATELY
0.9 MILES UNDERWA JFR).
OPTION 2 -INSTALl. CABLE INSIDE PERIMEJFR or AKUTAN HARBOR FRot.l LOUD
CREEK TO THE YIEST SIDE or TRIDENT fACIUDES. THE ROUJF CROSSES NORTH
Of TRIDENT THEN fOLl.OWS TRAIL FROM EAST SIDE Of TRIDEN T TO THE DIESEL
POWER HOUSE IN THE CITY or AKUTAN (APPROXIMATELY 3.2 MILES UNDERWAJFR
AND 0. 7 MILES UNDERGROUND).
OPTION 3 -SAME ROUJF AS OPTION 2, EXCEPT THE CABLE IS BROUGHT
ASHORE AND ROUJFD AROUND THE PROPOSED HARBOR DOCK fACILITIES ON THE
YIEST END or AKUTAN HARBOR (APPROXIMATELY 3.1 MILES UNDERWATER AND
0.9 MILES UNDERGROUND). SECDONAUZING EQUIPMENT WILl. BE UTILIZED TO
PROVIDE POYIER fOR THE PROPOSED f ACILIDES.
OPTION 4 -INSTALl. CABLE INSIDE PERIMEJFR or AKUTAN HARBOR FROM LOUD
CREEK TO THE LOCA DON or PROPOSED HARBOR DOCKING f AC1LIDES ON YIEST
END Of AKUTAN HARBOR , THEN UNDERGROUND ALONG PROPOSED ROAD FROM
THE PROPOSED DOCKING fAC1LIDES TO THE CITY or AKUTAN (APPROXIMATELY
1. 7 MILES UNDERWA JFR AND 2.8 MILES UNDERGROUND). SECDONAUZING
EQUIPMENT 'Mll. BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDE POWER fOR THE PROPOSED FACILITIES.
OPTOIN 4A -ROUTING WOULD BEGIN AT THE LOUD CREEK HYDRO PLANT, THEN
ENJFR AKUTAN HARBOR RUNNING UNDERWA JFR FOLl.OWING THE PER1MEJFR Of
THE HARBOR VIA SUBMARINE CABLE TO THE HARBOR fACILITIES LOCAJFD AT
THE WEST END or AKUTAN HARBOR. (OVERALL LENGTH IS APPROXIMATELY 1.70
MILES).
OPTION 5 -INSTALl. CABL£ FROM AKUTAN TO TRIDENT FAC1LIDES fOR DE
(APPROXIMAJFL'I' 0.5 MILES UNDERGROUND).
OPTION 6 -INSTALL CABLE UNDERGROUND (ROADLESS) fROII LOUD CREEK TO
THE LOCA DON Of PROPOSED HARBOR DOCKING F ACI LI DES ON YIEST END Of
AKU TAN HARBOR, THEN UNDERGROUND ALONG PROPOSED ROAD FROM THE
PROPOSED DOCKING fACILITIES TO THE CITY or AKUTAN (APPROXIMATELY 2.0
MILES ROADLESS UNDERGROUND AND 2.8 MILES UNDERGROUND ). SECDONAUZING
EQUIPMENT 'Mll. BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDE POWER fOR THE PROPOSED fACILITIES.
OPTION 6A -ROUTING WOULD BE COMPLETELY OVERLAND IN THE UPLAND AREA
TO THE HARBOR FACILITIES LOCAJFD ON THE YIEST END Of THE AKUTAN
HARBOR. (OVERALl. LENGTH IS APPROXIMATELY 2.0 MILES).
165°43.000' w WGSB4 H:>5°42 .000' w
DRAWING CiTY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA I ~ ' """" I LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT DRAWN R. WOOD 14
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTING OPTIONS
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
li
0\
I~
2
0
~
I.D 0
~
l1l
2/26/10 DA I CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS ISSUED DATE 6 /1 /1 1 SCALE: AS NOTED R DATE BY DESCRIPTION
til
m~
><<( -:E c-zl-
wtll
a,.W
a.. I-
<(til
0
0
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 1 Loud Creek to Akutan -Directly Crossing Harbor utilizing submarine cable only
Assembly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50%
Rock Trench 50%
Professional Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/plow
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pickup
Skidsteer
4 wheeler
wire equip undgrd
1 Crews of 4 men
Room Board
Qty
0
4752
0
0
600
600
Qty
1
0
1
2
1
2
0
4
Material
Weight Cost FRT diff Cost Hours
250 $2,000 $113 $2,113 24
-- -$50 1.08
2 $5 $1 $6 0.015
1 $5 $0 $5 0.015
0 $0 $0 $0 0.09
0 $0 $0 $0 0.27
Onshore construction duration 4 men 12hr-#of days
Unit CosUunit
0.9 (mi) $4,000.00 $3,600
0.9 (mi) $4,000.00 $3,600
Professional Services Subtotal $7,200
RenUmo Ext Rent Fuel Total
$10,000 $1,667 $960 $2,627
$3,500 $0 $0 $0
$3,500 $583 $640 $1,223
$1,800 $600 $1,280 $1,880
$4,000 $667 $640 $1,307
$1,000 $333 $320 $653
$2,500 $0 $0 $0
Total $7,690
#days Per Day Total
5 $200 $4,000
Subtotal 12 l $11,690
Ext Hours
0
0
0
54
162
216
4.5
Distance=
Labor Rate=
Labor
Cost
$3,960
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
20% Contingency
Subtotal 11 l
$ per mile
4,752 ft or 0.9 mile
$165 per mh
Lab & Mat
Cost
$6,073
$228
$8
$8
$15
$45
Subtotal
$1,127,246
$225,449
$1,352,696
$1,502,995
Extended
Total
$0
$1,084,406
$0
$0
$8,910
$26,730
$1,120,046
Total 11 l+(2l $1,364,386
June 8, 2011
$1,244,496 $/mile
City Of Akutan-loud Creek Hydro
Option 2 loud Creek to Akutan • Following the shoreline to Trident and onshore to Akutan
Material
Assembly Q!y Weight Cost FRT diff Cost Hours
Section Cans w/ Elbows 6 250 $2,000 $113 $2,113 24
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive) 16896 ---$50 1.08
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable 11088 1 $5 $0 $5 0.015
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings 7392 1 $4 $0 $4 0.015
Trench/Plow 50% 1848 0 $0 $0 $0 0.09
Rock Trench 50% 1848 0 $0 $0 $0 0.27
4 men 12hr-#of days
Professional Services Unit Cost/unit
Engineering 3.9 (mi) $4,000.00 $15,600
Construction Mgt. 3.9 (mi) $4,000.00 $15,600
Professional Services Subtotal $31,200
Equipment Q!y Rentlmo Ext Rent Fuel Total
04 cat w/plow 1 $10,000 $7,667 $4,416 $12,083
Boom Truck 0 $3,500 $0 $0 $0
Backhoe 1 $3,500 $2,683 $2,944 $5,627
Pickup 1 $1,800 $1,380 $2,944 $4,324
Skid steer 1 $4,000 $3,067 $2,944 $6,011
4 wheeler 2 $1,000 $1,533 $1,472 $3,005
wire equip undgrd 1 $2,500 $1,917 $0 $1,917
Total $32,967
1 Crews of 4 men #days Per Day Total
Room Board 4 23 $200 $18,400
Subtotal 12> $51,367
Ext Hours
144
166
111
166
499
1086
22.635
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
20% Contingency
Subtotal (1)
$ per mile
Total !1)+(2)
Distance==
Labor Rate ==
Lab & Mat
Cost
$2,113
$228
$8
$6
$15
$45
Subtotal
$4,142,185
$828,437
$4,970,622
$1,274,518
$5,021,988
June 8, 2011
16,896 Ft or 3.2 mile Submarine
3,696 Ft or . 7 mile URD
$165 per mh
Extended
Total
$12,675
$3,855,667
$85,378
$47,494
$27,443
$82,328
$4,110,985
$18,008 $/mile
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 3 Loud Creek to Akutan -Same as Option 2 with onshore portion at proposed dock facilities
Assembly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50%
Rock Trench 50%
Professional Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/plow
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pickup
Skidsteer
4 wheeler
wire equip undgrd
Barge
1 Crews of 4 men
Room Board
Qh!
9
16368
14256
9504
2376
2376
Qh!
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
Weight
250
1
0
0
Cost FRT diff
$2,000 $113
$5 $0
$4 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
Unit Cost/unit
4.0 (mi) $4,000.00
4.0 (mi) $4,000.00
Professional Services Subtotal
Rentlmo Ext Rent Fuel
$10,000 $10,000 $5,760
$3,500 $0 $0
$3,500 $3,500 $3,840
$1,800 $1,800 $3,840
$4,000 $4,000 $3,840
$1,000 $2,000 $1,920
$2,500 $2,500 $0
10,000 $10,000
Total
#days Per Day: Total
30 $200 $24,000
Subtotal <2> $77,000
Material
Cost
$2,113
$50
$5
$4
$0
$0
Hours
24
1.08
0.015
0.015
0.09
0.27
4 men 12hr-#of days
$16,000
$16,000
$32,000
Total
$15,760
$0
$7,340
$5,640
$7,840
$3,920
$2,500
$10,000
$53,000
Ext Hours
216
214
143
214
642
1428
29.745
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
20% Contingency
Subtotal <1>
$ per mile
Total <1>+<2>
Distance=
Labor Rate=
Lab & Mat
Cost
$2,113
$228
$8
$6
$15
$45
Subtotal
$4,098,159
$819,632
$4,917,791
$1,229,448
$4,994,791
June 8, 2011
16,368 Ft or 3.1 mile Submarine
4,752 Ft or 0.9 mile URD
$165 per mh
Extended
Total
$19,013
$3,735,178
$109,771
$61,063
$35,284
$105,851
$4,066,159
$17,224 $/mile
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 4 Loud Creek to Akutan -Submarine from Loud creek to proposed dock facilities then
onshore URD following purposed road to Akutan Power House
Material
Assembly Q1t Weight Cost FRT diff Cost Hours
Section Cans w/ Elbows 17 250 $2,000 $112.50 $2,112.50 24
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive) 8976 ---$50.00 1.08
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable 44352 1 $5 $0.23 $5.23 0.015
4" HDPE Conduit w/ fittings 29568 1 $4 $0.45 $3.95 0.015
Trench/Plow 50% 7392 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.09
Rock Trench 50% 7392 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.27
4 men 12hr-#of days
Professional Services Unit Cost/unit
Engineering 4.5 (mi) $4,000.00 $18,000
Construction Mgt. 4.5 (mi) $4,000.00 $18,000
Professional Services Subtotal $36,000
Equipment Qty Rentlmo Ext Rent Fuel Total
D4 cat w/plow 1 $10,000 $29,333 $16,896 $46,229
Boom Truck 0 $3,500 $0 $0 $0
Backhoe 1 $3,500 $10,267 $11,264 $21,531
Pickup 1 $1,800 $5,280 $11,264 $16,544
Skidsteer 1 $4,000 $11,733 $11,264 $22,997
4 wheeler 4 $1,000 $11,733 $11,264 $22,997
wire equip undgrd 1 $2,500 $7,333 $0 $7,333
Total $137,632
1 Crew of 4 men #days Per Day Total
Room Board 4 88 $200 $70,400
Subtotal 121 $208,032
June 8, 2011
Distance 8,976 Ft or 1. 7 mile Submarine
14,784 Ft or 2.8 mile URD
Labor Rate= $165 per mh
Labor Lab & Mat Extended
Ext Hours Cost Cost Total
408 $0 $2,112.50 $35,913
-$178 $228.20 $2,048,323
665 $2 $7.70 $341,510
444 $2 $6.43 $189,974
665 $15 $14.85 $109,771
1996 $45 $44.55 $329,314
4178 Subtotal $3,054,805
87.04 $9,183 $/mile
Subtotal $3,090,805
30% Contingency $927,242
Subtotal 111 $4,018,047
$ per mile $892,899
Total (1)+(21 $4,226,079
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 4a Loud Creek to Akutan -Loud Creek to Harbor -Submarine from Loud Creek to Harbor
Assembly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50%
Rock Trench 50%
Professional Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/plow
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pickup
Skidsteer
4 wheeler
wire equip undgrd
1 Crew of 4 men
Room Board
Qty
2
8976
1800
1200
300
300
~
1
0
1
1
1
4
1
4
Weight Cost FRT diff
250 $2,000 $112.50
---
1 $5 $0.23
1 $4 $0.45
0 $0 $0.00
0 $0 $0.00
Unit Cost/unit
1.8 (mi) $4,000.00
1.8 (mi) $4,000.00
Professional Services Subtotal
Rent/mo Ext Rent Fuel
$10,000 $1,667 $960
$3,500 $0 $0
$3,500 $583 $640
$1,800 $300 $640
$4,000 $667 $640
$1,000 $667 $640
$2,500 $417 $0
Total
#days Per Day Total
5 $200 $4,000
Subtotal 121 $11,820
Material
Cost
$2,112.50
$50.00
$5.23
$3.95
$0.00
$0.00
Hours
24
1.08
0.015
0.015
0.09
0.27
4 men 12hr-#of days
$7,255
$7,255
$14,509
Total
$2,627
$0
$1,223
$940
$1,307
$1,307
$417
$7,820
Ext Hours
48
27
18
27
81
201
4.1875
Distance=
Labor Rate=
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
30% Contingency
Subtotal 111
$ per mile
Total 111 ... 121
June 8, 2011
8,976 Ft or 1. 7 mile Submarine
600Ft URD
$165 per mh
Lab & Mat Extended
Cost Total
$2,112.50 $4,225
$228.20 $2,048,323
$7.70 $13,860
$6.43 $7,710
$14.85 $4,455
$44.55 $13,365
Subtotal $2,091,938
$12,463 $/mile
$2,106,447
$631,934
$2,738,381
$1,509,885
$2,750,201
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 5-Akutan Power House to Existing Trident Facitlities
Assembly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50%
Rock Trench 50%
Professional Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/plow
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pickup
Skidsteer
4 wheeler
wire equip undgrd
1 Crews of 4 men
Room Board
Q!y
6
0
7920
5280
1320
1320
Q!y
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
4
Weight Cost FRT diff
250 $2,000 $113
1 $5 $0
1 $4 $0
0 $0 $0
0 $0 $0
Unit Cost/unit
0.5 (mi) $4,000.00
0.5 (mi) $4,000.00
Professional Services Subtotal
Rent/mo Ext Rent Fuel
$10,000 $6,000 $3,456
$3,500 $0 $0
$3,500 $2,100 $2,304
$1,800 $1,080 $2,304
$4,000 $2,400 $2,304
$1,000 $1,200 $1,152
$2,500 $1,500 $0
Total
#days Per Day Total
18 $200 $14,400
Subtotal <2l $40,200
Material
Cost
$2,113
$50
$5
$4
$0
$0
Hours
24
1.08
0.015
0.015
0.09
0.27
4 men 12hr • # of days
$2,000
$2,000
$4,000
Total
$9,456
$0
$4,404
$3,384
$4,704
$2,352
$1,500
$25,800
Ext Hours
144
119
79
119
356
817
17.025
Distance=
Labor Rate=
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
20% Contingency
Subtotal 111
$ per mile
Total <11+121
June 8, 2011
0 Ft or 0 mile Submarine
2,640 Ft or .5 mile URD
$165 per mh
Lab & Mat Extended
Cost Total
$2,113 $12,675
$228 $0
$8 $60,984
$6 $33,924
$15 $19,602
$45 $58,806
Subtotal $185,991
$70 $/mile
$189,991
$37,998
$227,989
$455,978
$268,189
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 6 Loud Creek to Akutan -Overland URD from Loud Creek to proposed dock facilities then
onshore URD following proposed road to Akutan Power House
Material
Assembly ~ Weight FRT diff Cost Hours
Section Cans w/ Elbows 25 250 $2,000 $112.50 $2,112.50 24
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
Inclusive) 0 - - -$50.00 1.08
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable 76032 1 $5 $0.23 $5.23 0.015
4" HDPE Conduit w/ fittings 50688 1 $4 $0.45 $3.95 0.015
Trench/Plow 50%-Road 7392 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.09
Rock Trench 50%-Road 7392 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.27
Establish level path for equip 10560 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.5
Rock Trench no road 10560 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.27
4 men 12hr-#of days
Professional Services Unit Cost/unit
Engineering 4.8 (mi) $4,000.00 $19,200
Construction Mat. 4.8 (mi) $4,000.00 $19,200
Professional Services Subtotal $38,400
Equipment ~ Rent/mo Ext Rent Fuel Total
04 cat w/plow 2 $10,000 $92,333 $53,184 $145,517 #of crew=
Boom Truck 0 $3,500 $0 $0 $0
Backhoe 2 $3,500 $32,317 $0 $32,317
Pickup 1 $1,800 $8,310 $0 $8,310
Skid steer 1 $4,000 $18,467 $0 $18,467
4 wheeler 4 $1,000 $18,467 $0 $18,467
wire equip undgrd 1 $2,500 $11,542 $0 $11,542
Trencher 1 $25,000 $115,417 $0 $115,417
Airtrack 2 $5,000 $46,167 $0 $46,167
Total $234,619
1 Crew of 4 men #days Per Day Total
Room Board 4 277 $200 $221,600
Subtotal 121 $456,219
June 8, 2011
Distance= 10,560 Ft or 2.0 mile Roadless
14,784 Ft or 2.8 mile URD in Road
Labor Rate= $165 per mh
Labor Lab & Mat Extended
Ext Hours Cost Cost Total
600 $0 $2,112.50 $52,813
$178 $228.20 $0
1140 $2 $7.70 $585,446
760 $2 $6.43 $325,670
665 $15 $14.85 $109,771
1996 $45 $44.55 $329,314
5280 $83 $82.50 $871,200
2851 $68 $67.50 $712,800
13293 Subtotal $2,987,014
276.94 $10,762 $/mile
Subtotal $3,025,414
2 20% Contingency $605,083
Subtotal <11 $3,630,497
$ per mile $756,354
Total 111+121 $4,086,716
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 6A Loud Creek to Harbor· Overland (primitive road included) fromLoud Creek to proposed
dock facilities
Material
Assembly Q!y Weight Cost FRT diff Cost Hours
Section Cans w/ Elbows 12 250 $2,000 $112.50 $2,112.50 10
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
Inclusive) 0 ---$50.00 0
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable 31600 1 $5 $0.23 $5.23 0.015
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings 21000 1 $4 $0.45 $3.95 0.015
Trench/Plow 50%-Road 5500 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.09
Rock Trench 50%-Road 5500 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.27
Establish level path for equip 5000 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.5
Rock Trench-no road 5000 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.27
4 men 12hr-#of days
Professional Services Unit Cost/unit
Engineering 2.0 (mi) $4,000.00 $8,000
Construction Mgt. 2.0 (mi) $4,000.00 $8,000
Professional Services Subtotal $16,000
Equipment Q!y RenVmo Ext Rent Fuel Total
04 cat w/plow 2 $10,000 $47,000 $27,072 $74,072 #of crew=
Boom Truck 0 $3,500 $0 $0 $0
Backhoe 2 $3,500 $16,450 $0 $16,450
Pickup 1 $1,800 $4,230 $0 $4,230
Skidsteer 1 $4,000 $9,400 $0 $9,400
4 wheeler 4 $1,000 $9,400 $0 $9,400
wire equip undgrd 1 $2,500 $5,875 $0 $5,875
Trencher 1 $25,000 $58,750 $0 $58,750
Airtrack 2 $5,000 $23,500 $0 $23,500
Total $119,427
1 Crew of 4 men #days Per Day Total
Room Board 141 $200 $0
Subtotal 121 $119,427
June 8, 2011
Distance= 10,560 ft or 2.0 mile Roadless
Labor Rate= $165 per mh
Labor Lab & Mat Extended
Ext Hours Cost Cost Total
120 $0 $2,112.50 $25,350
$0 $50.00 $0
474 $2 $7.70 $243,320
315 $2 $6.43 $134,925
495 $15 $14.85 $81,675
1485 $45 $44.55 $245,025
2500 $83 $82.50 $412,500
1350 $68 $67.50 $337,500
6739 Subtotal $1,480,295
140.3958 $140 $/Mile
Subtotal $1,496,295
20% Contingency $299,259
Subtotal 111 $1,795,554
2 $ per mile $897,777
Total 111 +(21 $1,914,981
LOUD CREEK HYDRO PROJECT
ID 0 IT ask Name I Duration I Start 12011 12012 12013 12014 12015
3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 110 111 112 1 1 I 2 I 3 L 4 1 5 _L 6 I 7 I 8 1 9 110 111 112 1 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 110 111 112 I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 110 111 112 1 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 1 9 1 10 111 112 I 1 L 2 _L
1 E3 Conceptual Study Odays Mon 10/31/11 : +f0/31
2 FERC jurisdiction declaration 6 mons Mon 1 0/31/11
3 Define Permitting Requirements 1 mon Mon 4/16/12 :
:
4 State of Alaska Grant Process 3 mons Mon 5/14/12
5 E3 l a/3 :
State of Alaska funding Odays Fri 8/3/12
6 Preliminary engineering 90 days Mon 8/6/12
i
7 8 Survey 2 mons Mon 8 /6/12 .-L--
8 E3 Geotechnical 2 mons Mon 12/10/12 ~~
r--""""""
9 Permitting
: " 12 mons Mon 12/10/12 ~~ 10 Permits issued 0 days Fri 11/8/13 :
11 Final Design 2 mons Mon 11/11/13 ~
~
12 Submarine cable bathymetric surv 2 mons Mon 11 /11/13 .,:::! ---,.....--
13 Order turbine/generator Odays Fri 11 /8/13 ~~ill
:
14 Order submarine cable 0 days Fri 1/3/14 1/3
15 Bid construction work 2mons Mon 1/6/14 FL 16 Contractor awarded site work 10 edays Fri 2/28/14
17 Contractor purchase materials anc 2mons Tue 3/11/14 : -
18 Mobilize for site construction 1 mon Tue 5/6/14
19 Turbine/generator equip delivery 12 mons Mon 11 /11/13 :
20 Deliver submarine cable 6mons Mon 1/6/14 ~ 21 Site construction work 5mons Mon 6/23/14 ~1V5 22 Turbine/generator install 1 mon Mon 11/10/14 :
23 Project online Odays Fri 12/5/14
Project: Loud Creek Hydro Project De Task Progress Summary External Tasks ' Deadline ,[1,.
Date: Wed 6/8/11 Split Milestone • Project Summary External Milestone Ill I 111111111111
Page 1
APPENDIX D
HARBOR POWER CONSUMPTION
ESTIMATES
McMillen, LLC
Summary
Power Consumer
Harbor
Harbor Residences
Hovercraft Faciiity
Resorts (2)
Commercia! Buildings (2)
Restaurants (2)
WWTF
Total
Power (kWh/year)
1,150,000
60,000
11,000
150,000
150,000
250,000
132,000
1,903,000
Project: City of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Description: Anticipated Power Consumption Summary
Prepared by: ___________________ _
Date: 12/10/10
Checked: DSA
JobNo.:----1
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Description: Harbor Residences
Date: 12/10/10
Checked: DSA -----1 Prepared by: ___________ _ Job No.: ___ ---j
Assumptions:
1. Akutan, AK residential power useage is similar to other Alaska residences.
2. Residential power use in Alaska follows the same trends as the rest of the United States.
3. Peak use of power is 5 kW per home.
4. Average daily demand is the average annual demand distributed across 24 hours per day.
5. Conversion Factor-1 Btu= 0.000 293 071 083 33 kilowatt hour
References:
Power Requirements
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/historicaldata/historical data80 02.html
http://www.akenergyauthoritv.org/Geothermai/AkutanGeothermaiEnergyDemandandStakeholderAssessment2010.pdf
Census Information
http://guickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/02000.html
Predicted
Year Million BTU/yr Kw H/yr (Power Eq) Kw H/yr
1987 1 30.5 8900 8800
1990
1993
1997
2001
2005
2010
2032
4
7
11
15
19
24
46
32.3
34
35
36
Increase in power use predicted from 2005 to 2032
In 2005 residential Alaska electrical power use was:
US Census
US Census
Year Households
2000 221,600
2009 283,879
Average increase per year
New Households 6,920
256,199
9500
10000
10300
10600
Households in 2005
Power use per household
2005
2032
8041
8491 KwH
9700
10000
10300
10500
10700
10800
11300
106%
2.06E+09 KwH
Compare to Akutan Geothermal Energy Demands Assessment 2010
Report estimated that Akutan spends approximately $157,000 annually on household heating. Each household spent
$3,000 annually on heating. Number of households is approximately 52. The City's electric usage is approximately
560,000 kw hrs annually. Each household uses approximately 11,0000 kw hrs. annually.
Assume
Individual
average demand
Assume
Annual Use
Average Use
12,000 KwH/yr
1.37 Kw
5 households
60,000 Kw Hrs/yr
7 Kw
McMillen, LLC
Assumptions:
Project: City of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Description: Harbor Facility
Prepared by: ·
1. Conversion Factor -1 Btu = 0.000 293 071 083 33 kilowatt hour
2. Electrical power generated with diesel generators varies from 13 to 14.5 KwH per gallon of diesel.
References: Power Requirements
http:Uwww.akenergyauthority.org/Geothermai/AkutanGeotherlma1EnergyDemandandStakeholderAssessment2010.pdf
Date: 12/10/10
Checked: DSA
Job No.: ------1
The Akutan Geothermal Energy Demands Assessment 2010 predicted the need for approximateley 80,000 gallons of diesel power use annually
for the harbor facility.
Electrical Demands of Harbor
Average Daily Use
Oil Use
gal/yr
79,377
gal/day
220
Electrical Use Electrical Use @
@ 13 KwH/gal 14.5 KwH/gal
Kw H/yr Kw H/yr
1,030,000 1,150,000
Kw H/day Kw H/day
2,800 3,200
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydropower Development Date: 12/10/10
Description: Hovercraft Fa cility Checked: DSA -----f
Prepared by: _____________ _ Job No.: -----1
Assumptions:
1. Conversion Factor-1 Btu= 0.000 293 071 083 33 kilowatt hour
2. Electrical power generated with diesel generators varies from 13 to 14.5 KwH per gallon of diesel. Use .
References: Power Requirements
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Geothermai/AkutanGeothermaiEnergyDemandandStakeholderAssessment2010.pdf
The Akutan Geothermal Energy Demands Assessment 2010 predicted the need for approximateley 80,000 gallons of diesel power use
annually for the harbor facility.
Electrical Electrical Use
Use@ 13 @ 14.5
Oil Use KwH/gal KwH/gal
gal/yr Kw H/yr KwH/yr
Electrical Demands of Harbor 730 9,000 11,000
gal/day KwH/day KwH/day
Average Da ily Use 2 25 30
APPENDIX E
Project Monthly Energy Generation Table
Loud Creek
Summary of Monthly Estimated Energy Production for Average Water Year
APPENDIX F
COS T OF ENERGY CALCULATIONS
Project: Loud Creek Hydropower
Description: Cost of Power Calculations
By: Mort McMillen
Purpose: Determine the cost of power for the proposed loud Creek Hydropower Facility.
Reference: Main body of report
(1) Table 6 -Project Costs
(2) Table 7-Cost of Power
Table 6 presents a summary of the estimated project costs for the base case and alternative 1
for options 4 and 4a. Transmission option 4 consists of a submarine cable (intertidal burial)
around the perimeter of Akutan Bay to the new harbor facilities, then exit to follow the future
harbor dock service road to the city diesel power plant utilizing conventional underground power
cable. Transmission option 4a consists of a submarine cable, (Intertidal) around the perimeter of
Akutan Bay to the new Harbor facilities. This is a Harbor only transmission cost. The total
project costs presented within Table 96 will be used for the cost element of the cost of power.
The values presented in Table 6 are calculated as follows:
1. Capital Cost
Obtained from Table 6-Project Costs. These costs represent the total project cost
association with the base case and alternative 1, options 4 and 4a transmission options.
2. Financing
It was assumed that 1 00% financing would be required for the project. This assumption
requires financing costs be incorporated into the cost of power analysis.
3. Debt
With 1 00% financing, the debt required will match the capital cost. This debt value will be
used to calculate the cost of financing.
4. Term
The loan period was assumed at 30 years to finance the project.
5. Interest Rate
An interest rate of 6% was assumed for the loan. This value will be used to calculate the
annual principal and in t erest cost association with servicing the loan.
6. Annual Principal and Interest (P&I)
The annual P&l cost is determined from the following equation:
P&l = P (A) (1+At
(1 + ,t)N -1
With P&l = Principal and Interest ($)
P = Original principal (debt)
,t =Interest Rate (6%)
N = Loan Period (30 years)
Therefore calculating for the base alternative and alternative 1, the following P & 1 values
can be determined.
Base Case. Option 4:
P & I = (8,306.280) (0.06) (1.06)30
(1.06)30 -1 = $603,442
Base Case. Option 4a:
P & I = (6.712.200) (0.06) (1.06)30
(1.06)30 -1 = $677,195
Alternative 1. Option 4a:
P & I= (7.727.400) (0.06) (1.06)30
(1.06)30 -1 = $561,387
7. Annual O&M
The annual O&M based on experience with other similar sized projects was estimated at
$100,000/ year.
8. Annual Energy Production
As outlined in the energy production section of the report, the estimated annual energy
production was:
Base case= 1,132,861 Assuming a plant factor of 37%
Alternative 1 = 1 ,548, 100 Assuming a plant factor of 39%
Reference Table 4-Base case energy production of the report.
9. Annual Cost of Power($/ KWh)
Using the values calculated in items 1 through 8, the annual cost of power can be
calculated as follows:
Annual cost of Power = [Annual P&l + Annual O&MJ
Annual Energy Production
Therefore, for the base case and alternative 1 considering transmission options 4 and
4a:
Base Case
Option 4 =
Base Case
Option 4a =
Alternative 1
Option 4 =
Alternative 1
Option 4a =
[603.442 + 100.0001 = $0.621 kwh
1 '132,861
[487.641 + 100.0001 = $0.52/ kwh
1,132,861
[677 ,195 + 100.0001 = $0.50/ kwh
1,548,100
[561 ,387 + 100.0001 = $0.43/ kwh
1 ,548,100
These values were estimated using a spreadsheet model. Rounding through the excel
spreadsheet may result in slight variations in the final values due to rounding within the
excel spreadsheet.
Summary
The calculated values for annual cost of power are presented in Table 7 .
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
DescrtptJon: Loud Creek Hydropower Deve lopment
Prepared by:..:D;:::SA;:_. _________ _
Construction Cost Summary -Base Case
Task Cost
Turbine-Generator Equipment $ 1,040,000
Dam Construction $ 320,000
Penstock(s) $ 700,000
Powerhouse Foundations $ 180,000
Powerhouse Building $ 162 ,000
Misc. Powerhouse Equipment $ 30,000
Roads/Dock $ 310,000
Substation $ 353,000
Transmission $ 4,226,000 Option #4
Trident or Harbor Interconnection $ 270,000
Freight ($50,000/barge) $ 50 ,000
Construction management/Startup $ 50,000 Assume most CM by RMNCity of Ackutan
Subtotal $ 7 ,691,000
Engineering and Permitting @ 8% $ 615,280
Total $ 8,306,280
Does not include standby generator set (to be located at Harbor)
Date: 6/8/11
Cbeckecl:
Job No.:----t
McMillen, LLC
Construction Cost Summary -Alternative 1
Task Cost
Turbine-Generator Equipment $ 1,300,000
Dam Construction $ 640,000
Penstock (s) $ 950,000
Powerhouse Foundations $ 180,000
Powerhouse Building $ 162,000
Misc. Powerhouse Equipment $ 20,000
Roads/Dock $ 380 ,000
Substation $ 353,000
Transmission $ 4,226 ,000
Trident Interconnection $ 270,000
Freight ($50,000/barge) $ 100,000.00
Construction management/startup $ 50,000.00
Subtotal $ 8 ,631,000
Engineering and Permitting @8% $ 690,480
Total $ 9,321,480
Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:..::D;.:SA~------------
Option #4
Assumes most CM by RMA/City of Akutan
Does not include standby generator set (to be located at Harbor)
Date: 6/8/11
Checked:
Job No.: -----t
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
Description: LDud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:..:D:::S::;.:A ______________ _
Powerhouse Foundation Cost Estimate -Base Case and Alternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
General Reamts
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 EA $ -$ -
Concrete
Foundation 57 CY $ 400.00 $ 22,820.00 $ 500.00 $ 28,524.00
$ 22,820.00 $ 28,524.00
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
EQUIPMENT
UNIT TOTAL
$ 25,000.00
400 $ 22 ,819 .56
$ 47,819.56
Subtotal
ContinaenCVT30%)
Akutan Factor (30%)
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: --------4
Job No.: ------4
SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL
$ -
$ -
$ 99,163.56
$ 29,749.07
$ 29,749.07
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 19,832.71
Total $ 178,494.40
McMillen, LLC
EES CONSULTING
Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:..=D..:..;PJ=------------
Powerhouse Superstructure Cost Estimate • Base Case and Alternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Specialties
PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDING 900 SF $ 10.00 $9,000.00 $ 90 .00 $81,000 .00
$9,000 .00 $81,000.00
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
Assume general contractor will provide equipment required for erection of building (forklift)
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: -----1
Job No.: ____ --1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
$ . $ -
Subtotal $ 90,000.00
Contingency (30%) $ 27,000.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 27,000.00
Profrt and Overhead (20%) $ 18,000.00
Total $162,000.00
McMillen, LLC
EES CONSULTING
Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Cree k Hydropower Development
Prepared by:.:D;.:.P:..J -------------
Powerhouse Turbine Generator Equipment Cost Estimate • Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mechanical/Electrical
E uioment oackaoe HR $ 180.00 $ -$ -
Installation 200 HR $ 75.00 $ 15,000.00 LS $5,000.00
Commissionino 40 HR $ 75.00 $ 3,000.00 $ -
Shipping 1 LS $50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
$ 68 000.00 $5,000.00
LaborCos $ 75 per hour
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: ______ _.
Job No.: ______ -1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
LS $500,000 .00
$ 1,800.00
$ 700 .00
$502.500.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 575,500.00
Contingency (30%) $ 172,650.00
Akutan Factor (30%1 $ 172,650.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 115,100.00
Total $ 1,035,900.00
For Summary Table Use $1,040,000.00
McMillen, LLC
EES CONSULTING
Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:..:D;.:.P.:..J -------------
Powerhouse Turbine Generator Equipment Cost Estimate -Ba Alt 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mechanical/Electrical
Ec uipment packaQe HR $ 180.00 $ -$ -
Installation 200 HR $ 75.00 $ 15,000.00 LS $5,000.00
CommissioninQ 40 HR $ 75.00 $ 3,000.00 $ -
Shipping 1 LS $50,000 .00 $ 50,000.00
$ 68 000.00 $5000.00
LaborCos $ 75 per hour
Date: 6/8/11
Checked=-------1
Job No.: --------1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
LS $645,000 .00
$ 1,800.00
$ 700.00
$647 500.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 720,500.00
ContiJ'lgency (30%) $ 216,150.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 216,150.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 144,100.00
Total $ 1,296,900.00
For Summary Table Use $1 ,300,000.00
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
EES CONSULTING Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:.=D:.:..PJ:..,_ _________ _
Powerhouse Superstructure and accessorv Equipment Cost Estimate -Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mechanical/Electrical
HVAC 16 HR $ 75 .00 $ 1,200.00 $ -
LIGHTING/RECEPTICALS 24 LS $ 75 .00 $ 1,800.00 $ -
DRAINAGE 8 LS $ 75 .00 $ 600.00 $ -
$1,200.00 $ -
LaborCos $ 75 per hour
Date: 6/8/11
Checked :
Job No.:-------f
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
LS $10,000.00
$ 3,800 .00
$ 700 .00
$14,500.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 15,700.00
Contingency (30%) $ 4,710.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 4,710.00
Profit and Overhead (21 $ 3,140.00
Total $ 28,260.00
For Summary Table Use $30,000.00
McMillen, LLC
EES CONSULTING
Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:..;;D.;..PJ'------------
Powerhouse Superstructure and accessory Equipment Cost Estimate -Alternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mechanical/Electrical
HVAC 16 HR $ 75.00 $ 1,200.00 $ -
LIGHTING/RECEPTICALS 24 LS $ 75.00 $ 1,800 .00 $ -
DRAINAGE 8 LS $ 75.00 $ 600.00 $ -
$ 1,200.00 $ -
LaborCos $ 75 per hour
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: ---------4 Job No.: -------1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
LS $ 8 ,000.00
$ 1,800 .00
$ 700 .00
$10,500.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 11,700.00
Contingency (30%) $ 3,510.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 3,510.00
Profit and Overhead (21 $ 2,340.00
Total $ 21,060.00
For Summary Table Use $20 ,000 .00
McMillen, LLC Prafect: gty of Akutan
Desalptlon: loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:..:::D::::SA;:,_ ___________ _
Road Construction Cost Estimate • Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mobilization
Access
ATV access road cuVfill 120 HRS $ . $ -
re-veQetation 0.50 AC $ 20,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 43,068 $ 21,534 .00
gravel 500 CY $ -$ 40 $ 20,000 .00
geotextile 2200 SY $ 2 $ 4 ,400.00 $ 2 $ 4400.00
polyethylene dock (6 .5' x 1 O'l 3 EA $ -$ 2,160 $ 6,480 .00
aluminum ganmvav (4' x 35') 1 EA $ -$ 5,500 $ 5,500.00
piles 2 EA $ 2,000 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 .00
gravel unloading ramp/pad (40'x50'x1') 100 CY $ -$ 40 $ 4,000.00
$ 18 400.00 $ 63,914.00
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
$
$
$
$
$
$
Date: 6/8/11
Checked=------1
Job No.: _____ -1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ 36,000.00
250 $ 30,000 .00 $ -
$ -$ .
15 $ 7,500 .00 $ -
$ -$ .
500 $ 1,500 .00 $ -
500 $ 500 .00 $ -
5,000 $ 10,000.00 $ -
10 $ 1,000.00 $ -
$ 86,500.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 168,814.00
Contingency (30%) $ 50 644.20
Akutan Factor_(30%) $ 50644.20
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 33,762.80
Total $ 303,865.20
NOTES : For Summary Table Use $310,000 .00
COSiSfOr Tacoma {98402), to be shipped on barge to Akutan {Pacific Alaska Freightways)
EZ Docks 36D-352-3084
Gravel Lory Gregory {Unalaska Roads Oept) says that all gravel for Akutan comes from Unalaska.
Bill Shaishnikoff (907) 581-1409-intends to be the lowest bidder when it comes time to bid . $34/cy for 1"; $35/cy for 314"minus, delivered on the barge.
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
Descrlptlon: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
PrePIIrecl by:..=D.;::;SA..:....... ____________ _
Road Construction Cost Estimate ·Alternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mobilization
Access
A TV access road cut/fill 160 HRS $ . $ .
re-vegetation 0.67 AC $ 20,000 $ 13,300.00 $ 43,068 $ 28,640 .00
gravel 670 CY $ . $ 40 $ 26 ,800 .00
geotextile 3000 SY $ 2 $ 6,000.00 $ 2 $ 6,000.00
polyethylene dock (6 .5' x 1 0') 3 EA $ . $ 2,160 $ 6,480.00
aluminum gangway (4 ' x 35') 1 EA $ . $ 5,500 $ 5,500 .00
piles 2 EA $ 2,000 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,000 $ 2,000.00
gravel unloading ramp/pad (40'x50'x1 ') 100 CY $ . $ 40 $ 4,000.00
$ 23,300.00 $ 79,420.00
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
NOTES :
Costs for Tacoma (98402), to be shipped on barge to Akutan (Pacific Alaska Freightways)
EZ Docks 360-352-3084
Gravel Lory Gregory (Unalaska Roads Dept) says that all gravel for Akutan comes from Unalaska.
UNIT
$ 250
$ 15
$ 500
$ 500
$5,000
$ 10
EQUIPMENT
TOTAL
$ 44 ,000 .00
$ 40.000.00
$ .
$ 10,050.00
$ .
$ 1,500.00
$ 500.00
$ 10 ,000 .00
$ 1,000.00
$ 107,050.00
Subtotal
Contingency {30%1
Date: 6/8/11
C~k~=----------~
Job No.:----------~
SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL
$ .
$ .
$ .
$ .
$ .
$ .
$ .
$ .
$ .
$ 209,770.00
$ 62,931.00
Akutan Factor {30%1 $ 62,931.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 41,954.00
Total $ 377,586.00
For Summary Table Use $380,000.00
Bill Shaishnikoff (907) 581-1409 ·intends to be the lowest bidder when it comes time to bid. $34/cy for 1"; $35/cy for 3/4"minus, delivered on the barge.
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan Date: 6/8/11
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:..;:;DSA;::.;;. ____________ _
Checked: _____ -!
Job No.: ------f
Dam Construction Cost Estimate -Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
General Reqmts
Mobilization/Demobilization $ -$ -$ -$ -
Included in Foundation and Road Mobilization
Site Development
Dewatering 30 DAYS $ 150 $ 4,500 $ -$ 1,000 $ 30,000 $ -
Excavation and Compaction, Pond
(1000 cy) 120 HRS $ 75 $ 9,000 $ -$ 300 $ 36,000 $ -
Bentonite 22.4 TONS $ 150 $ 3,360 $ 250 $ 5,600
Erosion and Sediment Control 500 LF $ 2 $ 1,000 $ 5 $ 2,500 $ 2 $ 1,000 $ -
Rock Riprap (spillway+ pipe) 100 CY $ 18 $ 1,800 $ 70 $ 7,000 $ 100 $ 10,000 $ -
Concrete
Foundation for drop inlet works 10 CY $ 1,500 $ 15 ,000 $ 500 $ 5,000 $ 5C•O $ 5,000 $ -
Metals
CMP sleeve riser (inlet) 10 LF $ 60 $ 600 $ 100 $ 1,000 $ 50 $ 500 $ -
Wood/Plastic
Fiberglass grating walkw~_ 40 LF $ 75 $ 3,000 $ 100 $ 4,000 $ 50 $ 2,000 $ -
Pipe support 40 EA $ 75 $ 3,000 $ 100 $ 4,000 $ 50 $ 2,000
8'x3' fiberglass trash rack 3 EA $ 75 $ 225 $ 1,200 $ 3,600 $ -$ -
48" HOPE riser (inlet) 20 FT $ 75 $ 1,500 $ 102 $ 2,040 $ 100 $ 2,000 $ -
low Level Outlet-18" 100 FT $ 60 $ 6,000 $ 25 $ 2,500
$ 48,985 $ 37,240 $ 88,500 $ -
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour Subtotal $ 174,725.00
Conting_ency (30%) $ 52,417.50
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 52,417.50
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 34,945.00
Total $ 314,505.00
McMillen, LLC
Dam Construction Cost Estimate • Alternative 1
Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropowe r Development
Prepared by:.:D;:;SA:..:....------------
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
General Reqmts
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 EA $ . $ -
Included in Foundation and Road Mobilization
Site Development
Dewaterino 60 DAYS $ 150.00 $ 9,000.00 $ -
Excavation, Pond (1500 cy) 240 HRS $ 75.00 $ 18,000.00 $ -
Erosion and Sediment Control 1000 lF $ 2.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 5.00 $ 5,000 .00
Rock Riprap (spillway +_pip_ej 200 CY $ 1800 $ 3 ,600.00 $ 70 .00 $ 14,000.00
Concrete
Foundation for drop inlet works 20 CY $ 1,000.00 $ 20,000 .00 $ 500 .00 $ 10,000.00
Metals
CMP sleeve riser (inlet) 20 lF $ 60 .00 $ 1,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,000.00
Wood/Plastic
Fiberolass orating walkway 80 lF $ 75.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 8,000.00
Pipe support 80 EA $ 40.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 8,000.00
Vinyl sheet pile 2000 SF $ 1.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10.00 $ 20,000.00
8'x3' fiberglass trash rack 6 EA $ . $1,200.00 $ 7 200.00
48" HOPE riserjinlet) 20 FT $ 50.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 102.00 $ 2,040.00
low level -18" 100 FT $ 60.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 2,500.00
0 $ -
0 $ -
$ 72,000.00 $ 78,740.00
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
For Summary Table Use $640,000.00
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: ------1
Job No.: _____ _,
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
1,000 $ 60,000.00 $ -
300 $ 72,000.00 $ -
2 $ 2,000.00 $ -
100 $ 20 ,000 .00 $ -
500 $ 10,000.00 $ -
50 $ 1,000.00 $ -
50 4000 $ -
50 4000
10 20000
$ -$ -
100 $ 2,000.00 $ -
50 $ 5,000.00
$ -$ -
$ -$ -
$ 200,000.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 350,740.00
Contingency (30%) $ 105,222.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 105,222.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 70,148.00
Total $ 631,332.00
McMillen, LLC Project: Oty of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:..::D;.;::SA;.;.... ___________ _
Penstock Construction Cost Estimate • Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT
General Reamts
Mobilization/Demobilization
Included in Foundation and Road Mobilization
Site DevelciDment
Dewatering 7 DAYS
Erosion and Sediment Control 4000 LF
Concrete
Thrust blocks 4 EA
Ploe
16" SDR 7 .3 HOPE 2500 ft
18" SDR 7.3 HOPE
24" SDR 7.3 HOPE
Pipe Transport
NOTES:
HOPE installation price: http://www.hdpe.comlfusionlfusion_cost_guideline.shtml
HDPE pricing from United Pipe, Tacoma
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
UNIT
$ 100
$ 1
$ 1,000
$ 20
$ 20
$ 20
TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
$ 700 $ -
$ 4,000 $ 3 $ 12 ,000
$ 4,000 $ 500 $ 2,000
$ 50,000 $ 35 $ 86,500
$ -$ 44 $ -
$ . $ 93 $ .
$ 50,000
$ -
$ 58,700 $ 150,500
EQUIPMENT
UNIT TOTAL
$ -
$500 $ 3 ,500
$ 2 $ 8,000
$500 $ 2,000
$ 65 $ 162,500
$ 65 $ .
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 176,000
Subtotal
Contingency {30%)
Akutan Factor {30%)
Date: 6/8/11
Checked=------1
Job No.: _____ _,
SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ .
$ .
$ .
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 385,200.00
$ 115,560.00
$ 115,560.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 77,040.00
Total $ 693,360.00
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:.:D;::SA~-------------
Penstock Construction Cost Estimate -Alternative #1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT
General Reqmts
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 EA
Site Development
Dewatering 7 DAYS
Erosion and Sediment Control 4000 LF
Concrete
Thrust blocks 14 EA
PiPe
16" SDR 17 HOPE 950 ft
18" SDR 7.3 HOPE 2500
Pipe Transport
NOTES:
HOPE installation price: http:ltwww.hdpe.com/fusionlfusion_cost_guideline.shtml
HOPE pricing from United Pipe, Tacoma
Labor Costs $ 75 perhour
$
$
$
$
$
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
100.00 $ 700.00 $ -
1.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3.00 $ 12,000.00
1,000 .00 $ 14,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 7 ,000.00
$ -$ -
20.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 19.47 $ 18,497.00
20.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 43.79 $109,4 75.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 87,700.00 $196,972.00
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: _____ _,
Job No.: ------1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
500 $ 3,500.00 $ -
2 $ 8,000.00 $ -
500 $ 7,000 .00 $ -
$ -$ -
65 $ 61,750 .00 $ -
65 $ 162,500.00 $ -
$ -$ -
$ 242,750.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 527,422.00
Continaencv 130%) $ 158,226.60
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 158,226.60
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 105,484.40
Total $ 949,359.60