HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility Study for Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project 1982y
Volume C
DRAFf REPORT
Feasibility Study for
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Submitted by
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
In Association with
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DRYDEN & LARUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA --~-~-.:::--::-::::~::;;--;;;;---·
MARCH 1982
Volume C
DRAFT REPORT
Feasibility Study for
R E ( .: I .: D
Mftt. (~ l~8iw~
~IAWA'6Jal'M tzt\J~ijfl})
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Submitted by
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
In Association with
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFOR NIA
DRYDEN & LARUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
MARCH 1982
~.....---ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ___.
Section
FOREWORD
OLD HARBOR
CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
General
Area Description
Power Planning
Description of Recommended
Hydroelectric Project
Base Case Plan
Economic Analysis
Environmental and Social Impacts
Conclusions and Recommendations
I I. INTRODUCTION
UI.
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
STUDY
A.
B.
c.
D.
General
Purpose
Project Area Description
Authority
Scope of Study
Study Participants
Report Format
Acknowledgments
METHODOLOGY
General
Pre-Reconnaissance
Field Study Phase
Office Study Phase
Phase
Nhi-427-9524-tc ii
Page
v
I-1
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-4
I-5
I-6
II-1
Il-l
II-2
II-3
II-4
II-7
II-3
II-8
III-1
III-1
III-1
III-2
IV.
'' v •
BASIC DATA
A. General
B. Hydrology
c. Geology and Geotechnics
D. Surveys and Mapping
E. Land Status
F. Previous Reports
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A.
B.
c.
General
Alternative Projects
Description and Evaluation
VI. RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
General
Recommended ProJect DescriptioL
Turbine-Generator Selection
Field Constructibility
ProJect Energy Production
Project Operation Scheme and Controls
VII. PROJECT ENERGY PLANNING
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
General
Projection Considerations
Energy Demana Projections
Base Case Plan
Recommended Project Plan
VIII. PROJECT COSTS
A.
B.
c.
D.
General
Cost Estimating Basis
Base Case Plan
ftecommended Project Costs
NBI-427-9524-tc iii
IV-1
lV-1
IV-3
IV-6
IV-7
IV-b
V-1
V-1
V-2
VI-1
VI-1
VI-4
VI-10
'II-12
VI-13
VII-1
VII-1
VI£-4
V II-8
VII-9
VIII-1
VIII-1
VI II -2
VII l-2
IX. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A.
B.
c.
0.
E.
General
Project Analysis Parameters
Base Case Economic Analysis
Reco~nended Hydroelectric Project
Economic Analysis
Economic Comparison of Projects
X. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS
A.
B.
c.
General
Environmental Effects
Socioeconomic Effects
XI. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
A. General
B. Project Licenses, Permits and
Institutional Considerations
c. Project Development Schedule
XII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conclusions
B. Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
Project Drawings
Hydrology
Geology and Geotechnics
Detailed Cost Estimate
Environmental Report
Letters and Minutes
NBI-427-9524-tc iv
IX-1
IX-l
IX-3
IX-5
IX-7
X-1
X-2
X-5
XI-1
XI-1
XI-3
XII-1
XII-1
FOREWORD
This volume, Volume C, presents the findings and
recommendations of a study intended to fully assess the
economic, technical, environmental, and social viability of a
hydropower project for the village of Old Harbor. Volumes b, D
and E present feasibility studies for hydropower projects for
the villages of King Cove and Larsen Bay and a reconnaissance
study for Togiak, respectively. Volume A is a summary repon:
incorporating the findings, conclusions, and recommendations or
the other four volumes.
NBI-419-9524-FO v
A. GENERAL
SECTION I
SUMMARY
Several prior studies of alternative means of supplying Old
Harbor with electrical energy had recommended a hydroelectric
project as the best source. As a direct result of these prior
studies and recommendations, the Alaska Power Authority
authorized a feasibility study to investigate in detail the
hydropower potential in the vicinity of Old Harbor.
This report summarizes the activities conducted for the
feasibility study. These activities included projections of
energy needs, formulation of a hydroelectric project and an
alternative base case to meet the electrical energy needs of
Old Harbor, detailed analyses of economic feasibility, and
preparation of an environmental assessment of the effects of
the project.
The results of the study indicate that a 340 kilowatt (kW)
hydroelectric project can be constructed at Old Harbor, that
the project is considerably more economical than the base case
alternative, and that the environmental effects of the project
are minor.
The total cost of the proposed Old Harbor hydroelectric
project is $3,082,300 in January 1982 dollars. The project
could be implemented and on-line by January 1, 1985, if a
decision to proceed with the project is made by December
1982. During an average water year, the proposed project would
be capable of supplying more than 85 percent of the electrical
needs and about 11 percent of the space heating needs in the
project area. The equivalent savings in diesel fuel in the
year 2001 would be about '::J7 ,000 gallons for direct electrical
demand and 19,000 gallons for space heating.
NBI-419-9524-I I-1
B. AREA DESCRIPTION
Old Harbor is a small village located on the southeast
coast of Kodiak Island, 50 miles southwest of the city of
Kodiak. The selected hydroelectric development site for Old
Harbor is located on Midway Creek across Midway Bay from the
village.
C. POWER PLANNING
Power planning for the Old Harbor Project was conducted
using standards set forth by the Alaska Power Autnority.
Previously recommended potential hydroelectric sites were
investigated and the project area was surveyed to evaluate
potential new sites. After detailed study, a project was
selected and then compared with a base case plan. The base
case plan consisted of a continuation of the present diesel
generation system, enlarged as necessary to meet future growth.
Present energy demands for Old Harbor for direct electrical
uses and space heating were estimated and future uses in these
same categories were projected. The projections were based on
forecasts of increases in the number of customers and increased
usage rates. Population growth and employment, legislation and
other political influences, life style changes, and other
factors can influence future energy demands but they were not
explicitly treated.
The period of economic evaluation used was 53 years, which
starts in January 1982 and extends for the 60-year life of the
hydroelectric project after the estimated on-line date of
January 1985. The energy demands for Old Harbor were increased
for 20 years starting in January 1982 and extending to January
2001. The demands were then held level over the remainder of
the economic evaluation period.
NBI-419-9524-I I-2
For the proposed hydroelectric projectJ it was assumed that
the first priority of use for the energy produced would be for
the direct electrical needs of Old Harbor, and any remaining
energy would be used for space heating.
D. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Hydroelectric power plants transform the energy of falling
water (head) into electrical energy. Generally, a hydroelec-
tric power project consists of a dam to produce the head or to
divert stream flows so that they can be passed through a
turbine-generator system to produce electric power. In the
case of the recommended Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, a low
weir will act as a dam to divert water from Midway Creek
through an inlet structure. and into a penstock (conveyance
pipe). The penstock will be 24 inches in diameter and will
earry the water about 2200 feet to the powerhouse, where it
will be passed through the turbine-generator system to produce
electric energy.
The powerhouse will have the capacity to produce 340 kW of
electrical power. A transmission line will be constructed to
transmit the power generated at the plant to Old Harbor.
Access to the powerhouse facilities will be provided by
building a new road from Midway Bay to the facilities and by
building a dock at the bay. The dock will be reached by boat
j:rom Old Harbor. The transmission line will be constructed
from the powerhouse across the upper end of Midway Bay to Old
Harbor. The general plan and features of the proposed project
are presented on Plates I through VI of Appendix A.
Photographs of the project area appear in Exhibits VI-1 through
VI-4 at the end of Section VI and in the Environmental ReportJ
Appendix E.
NBI-419-9524-I I-3
Under the recommended plan, energy generated by the hydro-
electric plant will have to be supplemented by diesel genera-
tion. The entire existing diesel capacity will be required as
standby and backup power. The hydroelectric generation will be
adequate to meet the direct electrical needs of Old Harbor
during most of the year; however, during periods from the end
of November to the first of April it wi 11 be necessary to
supplement the hydroelectric generation with diesel power.
In all, during an average water year the proposed hydro-
electric project will be capable over the project life of
supplying an average of more than 90 percent of the electrical
needs of Old Har bar and approximately 15 percent of the space
heating requirements.
Average annual energy production from the hydroelectric
plant will be 1.31 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) and the average
annual plant factor will be about 44 percent, which means that
the plant is expected to generate about 44 percent of tne
energy that it could produce if the turbine-generator unit was
operated continuously at full capacity.
E. BASE CASE PLAN
The base case plan formulated to meet the projected energy
demands of Old Harbor assumed that the existing diesel system
would continue to be used as the sole source of electric
power. Because there are no significant heating loads near the
plant, it was assumed that the system would not incorporate
waste heat recovery that would be used for space heating. The
existing diesel plant's capacity was judged to be adequate to
meet peak demands on the Old Harbor system throughout the
period of study.
NBI-419-9524-1 I-4
F. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The economic analysis was based on the Alaska Power
Authority criteria that compare the net present worth of the
base case costs to the net present worth of the proposed nydro-
electric project costs using specified real price escalation
and discount rates. Net present worth is the present value of
the costs that would be incurred over a comparable economic
evaluation period of 53 years for both projects.
The present worth of the total costs of the base case plan
is $8,183,000 (rounded).
For the proposed hydroelectric project, the present worth
of the costs, not considering space heating credits, is
$6,397,361. Whe~ this figure is reduced by the. space heating
credit of $1,239,000, the final net present worth of the
hydroelectric project costs is $5,158,361. A comparison of
these net present costs with the base case net present costs
indicates that the recommended hydroelectric project is consid-
erably more economical than the alternative base case.
An additional measure of project feasi bi li ty is the bene-
fit/ cost (B/C) ratio. The B/C ratio is the present worth of
the project benefits divided by the net present worth of the
project costs. For this project, the calculated B/C ratio is
1. 44 when the hydroelectric energy used only for the direct
electrical needs of Old Harbor is considered and 1.74 when the
nydroelectric energy used for space heating is also included.
These B/C ratios indicate that the proposed hydroelectric
project is highly feasible.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS
The study results indicate that the adverse environmental
effects of the project will be minor due to the limited scope
~BI-419-9524-I I-o
of project activities, the limited nature of the fishery
resources in Midway Creek, and the availability of measures to
mitigate the potential effects from the construction ana
operation of the facilities. Implementation of the project
should bring some socioeconomic benefits to Old Harbor. The
local payroll will be expanded during construction and some
employment should be provided for local residents both for
construction and maintenance of the facilities. The project
should also bring a dependable and cheaper supply of electric
power to the local residents.
H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The studies conducted for this report indicate that the
proposed 340 kW hydroelectric project is feasible and that the
energy demands of Old Harbor are sufficient to utilize the
hydroelectric plant's planned capacity. The proposed project
is a more economic means of meeting the area's future electric
needs than the base case diesel alternative. Environmental
effects of the proposed project are minor.
In view of these findings, it is recommended that actions
be initiated to implement the project.
NBI-419-9524-I I-6
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
A. GENERAL
Old Harbor is a small village located on the southeast
coast of Kodiak Island 50 miles southwest of the city of
Kodiak. The village currently relies upon a city-owned diesel
generation plant for its electrical energy.
Diesel systems for electrical generation have several seri-
ous drawbacks, especially in remote locations--availability and
cost of diesel fuel, expected shortages and increased expense
of fuel in the future, potential mai~tenance problems, and the
cost and availability of parts or even whole systems.
The installation of hydroelectric generating capacity would
potentially alleviate the major problems inherent in the diesel
systems and provide dependable generating capacity over a long
time span.
This section describes the purpose and scope of the study,
the physical and economic characteristics of the project area,
and the organizational makeup of the participants in the study.
13. PURPOSE
The primary purposes of this feasibility study were to
prepare a recommendation on the best configuration for develop-
ing a dependable source of hydroelectric energy supply for Old
Harbor and to determine the engineering, environmental, and
economic feasibility of the project.
NBI-419-9524-II II-1
The recommended hydroelectric project was compared with a
base case plan, defined as a continuation of the present diesel
generating units, supplemented with additional future units as
necessary to accommodate growth. Earlier studies had deter-
mined that these two alternatives were the most promising
sources of electrical energy for Old Harbor. However, during
the course of this study the Alaska Power Authority requested
that a wind power case also be evaluated based primarily on a
study by another consultant that was to become available in
January 1982. At the time this draft report was completed in
mid-February, this information was still pending. A supplement
to this draft report wi 11 be incorporated in to the final re-
port.
C. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
Old Harbor is a community with a year-round population of
about 350 located on an alluvial plain by Sitkalidak Strait on
the southern coast of Kodiak Island. Tbe surrounding mountains
rise to a height of 1940 feet, and the village itself is lo-
cated in the transition zone between high brush vegetation and
alpine tundra. The local sea coast is marked by deep, narrow
scoured straits and fjords and steep, rocky sea bluffs.
Old Harbor is only accessible by air and water. There are
no roads connecting the town with the other villages on Kodiak
Island. Old Harbor is served by two flights daily, Monday
through Friday, by Kodiak Western Airlines. Charter companies
are also available for flights to and from Kodiak, and docking
facilities are available in the harbor.
Many of Old Harbor's residents are commercial fishermen.
More than 30 fishing boats stay in Old Harbor year-round and up
to 100 are present during fishing season. The principal catch
is salmon, but halibut, crab, and herring are also caught in
quantity. Average income per household is $7,242 and the cost
NBI-419-9524-II II-2
of living is extremely high. Consequently, 42 percent of the
households are estimated to live below the federal poverty
level. Most of the residents depend on subsistence activities
for certain foods such as duck, seal, deer, rabbit, bear, and
berries.
The proposed hydroelectric project site is on Midway Creek,
which flows into Midway Bay from the northeast about two miles
north of Old Harbor. The stream flows through a steep canyon
and disgorges on the plain from the nearby mountains. The
stream is about 20 feet wide at the water surface at the diver-
sion site. The left abutment is visible bedrock. The right
abutment consists of glacial drift. Soils along the coastal
plain are shallow, and poorly drained soils and high water
tables are common. The general plan and drawings of Appendix A
show the location and features of the proposed project.
The climate of Kodiak Island is dominated by a strong
marine influence. The area is characterized by moderately
heavy precipitation and cool temperatures. High clouds and fog
occur frequently but the area has little or no freezing
weather. The humidity is generally high and temperature varia-
tion is small. The mean maximum temperature varies from 240F
co 60oF. Average rainfall is 60 inches per year. Winds of 50
1:o 75 knots are frequent, with 120 mph winds estimated for a
100-year storm. Icing is an important climatological feature.
D. AUTHORITY
The Alaska Power Authority (APA) has authorized studies to
prepare the "Detailed Feasibility Analyses of Hydroelectric
Projects at King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor and Togiak."
This particular report, Volume C, summarizes the studies con-
ducted for Old Harbor. APA is an agency of the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, State of Alaska.
NBI-419-9524-II II-3
E. SCOPE OF STUDY
In general the scope of the study consists of an analysis
of the the costs and benefits of a hydroelectric project, a
comparison of these costs and benefits with those for the base
case plan for the vi 11 age, and an environmental assessment of
the effects of the project. To accomplish these goals, the
following activities were necessary.
1. Data Accumulation
Data collected included existing flow records, topographi-
cal mapping, present and future demands for power, applicable
laws and regulations, existing reports, and other applicable
information that was available.
2. Site Reconnaissance
The purposes of the site reconnaissance were to supplement
and verify the data gathered, to collect topographical, hydro-
logical, environmental, and geotechnical data, and to determine
the accessibility of the site. The conceptual design of pro-
ject features was established in the field.
3. Site Surveys
A topographic survey was conducted at the site of the
diversion, penstock, powerhouse, and transmission line in suf-
ficient detail for use in final design.
4. Hydrology
Hydrologic data were developed from the limited available
data. A sui table method was established to prepare a stream-
flow table, a flow duration curve, and the seasonal distribu-
tion of the flow duration curve. Diversion and flooding
problems were also considered.
NBI-419-9524-II II-4
5. Geotechnical Investigations
Geotechnical investigations were conducted to determine
material sources, slope stabilities, and load-bearing charac-
teristics of the foundations for all structures in the project.
6. Base Case Plan
A base case plan was analyzed that assumed a continuation
of the existing diesel generation system and least-cost addi-
tions for future generators. Included in this analysis was an
assessment of current energy usage and a forecast for the life
of the project. The cost of continuing the use of the base
case plan provided a basis for determining the value of power
at the site.
7. Power Studies
Several different types of turbines and a range of instal-
led capacities were evaluated to determine the optimal confi-
guration.
8. Environmental Overview
The environmental investigation was conducted to identify
any environmental constraints that might prohibit project
development.
9. Design
A layout of the project was designed and sizes and capaci-
ties of water-carrying, structural, and control components were
determined. All features of the project were designed in suf-
ficient detail for use in preparing a cost estimate.
NBI-419-9524-II II-5
10. Cost Estimates
Cost estimates, including direct and indirect costs, were
prepared using a present cost base escalated to the anticipated
time of construction.
11. Economic Analysis
The project was analyzed using the economic criteria of the
Alaska Power Authority. The general methodology employed was
to compute the present net worth of the costs of the proposed
hydroelectric project over a 50-year project life and to com-
pare this value to the present net worth of the costs of the
base case plan over the same 50-year project life.
12. Environmental Assessment
A detailed environmental analysis was conducted based upon
the final design and layout of the project.
13. Conclusions ana Recommendations
The report presents findings
project and recommends a future course of action to
followed.
14. Public Meetings
Public meetings were conducted in Old Harbor at the begin-
ning of the project studies to obtain comments from local citi-
zens. Another public meeting will be held in Old Harbor after
the Alaska Power Authority has reviewed the preliminary
report. The purpose of the meeting wi 11 again be to sol ic i. t
public inputs.
NBI-419-9524-II II-6
15. Report
A draft report was submitted to the APA in February 1982,
and the final report incorporating all comments will be submit-
ted on April 1, 1982.
F. STUDY PARTICIPANTS
DOWL Engineers, of Anchorage, Alaska, was the primary con-
tractor for the study. DOWL was assisted by two subcon-
tractors--Tudor Engineering Company of San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, and Dryden & LaRue of Anchorage, Alaska. The primary
role played by each of the participants is covered below.
1. DOWL Engineers
DOWL Engineers, an Alaskan partnership, performed the pro-
ject management function and provided the primary contact with
the Alaska Power Authority. DOWL collected basic data, parti-
cipated in the hydrology studies, and had the prime responsi-
bility for the local coordination activities, geology and geo-
technics, and the environmental, ground survey, stream gaging,
and wind velocity aspects of the investigation.
2. Tudor Engineering Company
Tudor, as principal subcontractor, supplied all hydro-
electric expertise for the project. They directed data
eollection and conceptual design of facilities; assisted with
public meetings; assisted and provided direction in evaluating
the base case plan and power values, formulating cost esti-
mates, and making the financial and economic evaluation; ana
furnished advice on the aspects of the environmental problems
that are unique to hydroelectric projects. Tudor prepared the
initial draft of the project report.
NBI-419-9524-II II-7
3. Dryden & LaRue (D&L)
The partners in D&L are electrical engineers registereu in
Alaska. Much of the electrical work was accomplished in close
cooperation with this firm. Transmission lines ana backup
diesel generation facilities were involved as well as questions
related to reliability and integrated operation of the proposed
system with existing village systems. D&L and Tudor estab-
lished the value of power and the present and projected power
demands. D&L provided the feasibility designs and cost
estimates for the transmission lines and appurtenant electric
features.
G. REPORT FORMAT
Pages, tables, figures, and exhibits in this report are
numbered within the secti-ons in which they appear. Within
sections, the tables, figures, and exhibits are placed at tne
end of the text. References noted in the text are 1 is ted in
the Bibliography.
H. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation ot the many federal, state, and local agen-
cies and local residents contacted during the course of the
study is gratefully acknowledged. This list includes, but is
not limited to, the Alaska Power Administration, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Trans-
portation, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the U.~.
Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The assistance of the RocKford
Corporation and the Locher Construction Company, a subsidiary
of Anglo Energy Company, is also acknowledged. Individuals who
were especially helpful include Don Baxter of APA, Roger ~mith
of ADF&G, and Sven Haakanson and Walter Erickson of vld Harbor.
NBI-419-9524-II II-8
SECTION II I
STUDY METHODOLOGY
A. GENERAL
This section describes the general methodologies employed
and steps taken to complete the project studies and analyses.
In general, the study proceeded in three phases--pre-
reconnaissance, field studies, and office studies. Each
project phase is described briefly below and the results are
covered in detail in the following sections of the report and
the appendices.
B. PRE-RECONNAISSANCE PHASE
This phase consisted of initial data collection and
analyses, obtaining access permits, coordination with resource
agencies, and evaluation of the existing material and reports.
~ brief 24-hour visit spanning two days was made to Old Harbor
by the project team to hold the initial public meeting to
inform the residents of project investigation activities. The
initial field evaluation of available alternative hydroelectric
sites was also made along with preliminary environmental
~~valuations of all sites. Office studies of alternative sites
and environmental conditions had preceded the initial field
IVOrk. The project team on this initial visit consisted of
individuals with geologic, geotechnical,
hydrological, environmental, and electrical
~ndividuals participated in evaluating the
conducting the field investigations.
C. FIELD STUDY PH~SE
hydroelectric,
expertise. All
alternatives and
The field studies were conducted several weeks after
initial pre-reconnaissance activities, mobilization, and field
NBI-427-9524-III III-1
planning were completed. Detailed site investigations spanning
several days were made by the hydroelectric engineers to define
the location of the project features. They were aidea in this
work by the geology and geotechnic team, which also made a
detailed investigation of geology and soil conditions following
final selection of the feature locations. Field environmental
and hydrologic investigations were also conducted in parallel
as the field conceptual design work was completed.
The field survey team immediately followed the hydro-
electric and geotechnical teams to the field to conduct
detailed surveys. A stream gage was also established by the
hydrology group.
Data were gathered from Old Harbor regarding the present
and planned generating conditions of the city s~stem.
D. OFFICE STUDY PHASE
The final and most extensive phase of the study was the
office study phase where all data gathered trom the field and
all accumulated data and information were analyzed and addi-
tional investigations were conducted to complete the project
activities.
Separate reports were produced for the hydrology, geology
and geotechnical, and environmental activities. They are
included with this report as Appendices B, C and E, respec-
tively. The environmental appendix also includes information
on permitting requirements, social impacts, and land status.
Project energy planning studies were conducted to define
the year-by-year electrical and heating demands of Old Harbor.
To meet the requirements, various
were analyzed to determine the optimal
NBI-427-9524-III I II-2
installed capacities
project size and the
conceptual design of the hydroelectric project. These tasks
were completed with the aid of the maps prepared from the field
activities. Detailed cost estimates were then prepared based
on the final size of 340 kW and the completed project layouts.
The economic analysis was then conducted to complete the
project analysis activities, and this draft report was
prepared.
Following a preliminary review of the report by the Alaska
Power Authority, an additional meeting will be held in Old
Harbor to solicit public comments. This draft will be
circulated to all concerned state and federal agencies. After
receipt and consideration of comments, the final report will be
compiled.
NBI-427-9524-111 II1-3
SECTION IV
BASIC DATA
A. GENERAL
This section describes in general the basic data used in
the preparation of the Old Harbor report. Included are hydrol-
ogic, geologic and geotechnical data, surveys and mapping, land
ownership status, and previous reports.
B. HYDROLOGY
The primary thrust of the hydrologic studies for the Old
Harbor Hydroelectric Project concerned the development of a
flow duration curve, an annual hydrograph, and a flood fre-
quency curve for Midway Creek. A complete report of the steps
taken to achieve those items is covered in the hydrology report
included with this report as Appendix B.
No streamflow data were available for Midway Creek except
for a few sporadic point discharge measurements made in connec-
tion with this study. An automatic stream stage recorder has
now been installed. The general methodology employed to
develop the Midway Creek flow duration and hydrograph was to
:f.irst develop an estimated value for the Midway Creek mean
annual flow. Dimensionless flow duration curves and hydro-
graphs were then developed from the records of a long-term
stream gaging station, Myrtle Creek on Kodiak Island. Applying
the Midway Creek mean annual flow to the dimensionless curves
then yielded a specific flow duration and hydrograph for Midway
Creek.
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-1
1. Mean Annual Flow
The mean annual flow was developed using three different
estimating techniques--the modified rational formula, regional
analysis, and the channel geomorphology method. The three
methods yielded similar values and the Midway Creek mean annual
flow was taken as 10.5 cfs.
2. Flow Duration Curve
The closest gaged stream with an adequate length of record
is Myrtle Creek on Kodiak Island (No. 15297200), 40 miles north
of Old Harbor. A comparison of dimensionless curves from three
basins on Kodiak Island showed considerable similarity. On
this basis, the Myrtle Creek curve developed from 17 years of
daily record was adopted as the type of curve for small,
mountainous maritime basins in southwest and south-central
Alaska. The Midway Creek flow duration curve presented as
Figure IV-1 is based on Myrtle Creek scaled to the ratio of its
respective mean annual flows.
3. Annual Hydrograph
Based on the same data and reasoning that went into deter-
mining the mean annual flow and the flow duration curve, an
annual hydrograph was developed based on monthly flows at
Midway Creek. The resulting annual hydrograph is presented in
Figure IV-2.
4. Flood Frequency Curve
Estimates of flood discharges are based entirely on
regional analyses. Regression equations obtained through
regional analyses were first applied to the gaged stream to
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-2
test their applicability. The basin and climatological
characteristics of the ungaged Midway Creek were then entered
to obtain the following flood frequency values.
QlO = 250 cfs
Q25 = 300 cfs
Q50 = 340 cfs
Qtoo= 400 cfs
These data are plotted on a frequency curve and presented as
Figure IV-3.
5. Potential River Ice Problems
A brief evaluation of potential icing at the diversion weir
and penstock intake point indicates that potential problems may
result from sheet ice and frazil ice formation. Since few data
are available, an in-depth study of the extent of the problems
and measures to avoid or mitigate them will be necessary during
the design phase of this project.
C. GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICS
The purpose of the geologic and geotechnical studies con-
ducted for this report was to assess the geologic hazards,
establish appropriate design criteria, explore material borrow
sites, and provide background information for environmental
studies. A complete Geology and Geotechnics Report covering
these i terns in detail is included as Appendix C. A summary of
the report is included below.
1. Site Topography
Old Harbor is located in the south-central portion of
K.odiak Island, Alaska, along the shores of Si tkalidak Strait.
Si tkalidak Strait is a major feature that opens up to the
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-3
Pacific Ocean at both ends. Old Harbor is situated near
Sitkalidak Passage, a narrow arm of the Strait separating
Kodiak Island from the smaller SitkalidaK Island.
Sitkalidak Strait and many of its tributary bays were once
filled with ice. As the glaciers retreated and the sea level
rose, these former glacial valleys filled with water. They can
be classified as fjords. Because multiple glacial advances
have brought ice to tnis entire area, the hills are generally
smooth and rounded, hanging valleys are common, and valleys
tend to have a parabolic cross section. Elevations in the
immediate area range to approximately 2000 feet.
The proposed stream diversion site is on a creek that is a
tributary to Midway Bay and has been named Midway Creek for the
purposes of this report. Midway Bay is a small bay that is
part of Sitkalidak Strait near Old Harbor and Sitkalidak
Passage.
2. Regional Geology
Ocean trenches are viewed in geologic theory as sites of
large-scale underthrusting of oceanic crustal materials. The
sediments that fill these trenches are scraped from the down-
going plate and accreted to the overlying plate as this under-
thrusting continues. Southwestern Alaska has a long history of
being a zone of accretion for deep-sea deposits.
The Kodiak Formation that constitutes the bedrock underly-
ing the Old Harbor site has been interpreted as a deep-sea
trench deposit of Late Cretaceous Age that has been accreted to
the continent.
Glaciation on Kodiak Island has probably extended from
Miocene time to the present. The glacial deposits at Old
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-4
Harbor date from Late Pleistocene time. Both till and glacial
outwash deposits are present.
3. Site Geology
The Kodiak formation that constitutes the bedrock underly-
ing the Old Harbor site has been interpreted as a deep-sea
trench deposit of Late Cretaceous Age that has been accreted to
the continent. These rocks, for the most part, are marine
turbidites and range from well-li thified siltstones to fine-
grained sandstones. Both till and glacial outwash deposits are
present.
Midway Creek flows in a narrow gorge through rocks of tne
Kodiak Formation, glacial deposits, and colluvium onto an
alluvial fan composed of sandy gravel. The bedrocK consists of
well-lithified, competent siltstones and very fine sandstones.
The proposed east dam abutment is situated in rocks of the
Kodiak Formation. The rock is jointed but appears to be compe-
tent. Some loose rock must be removed. No major blocks
susceptible to sliding were observed.
The proposed west abutment is in boulders of granitic rock
brought in by glacial activity. The boulders range in size up
to 10 feet and can serve as abutment material. There may be a
slope stability
ooulders.
problem caused by erosion around the
The route of the road follows an alluvial fan for about
3000 feet, then climbs to a bench in the topography and follows
the bench for 1500 feet. Only clearing of vegetation would be
necessary for a truck trail on the fan. To reach the bench,
extensive cut and fill would be necessary for approximately 75
yards. The terrace is composed of colluvium and boulder
till. On the bench, grading would be required, then about 18
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-5
inches of fill should be placed using material brought in from
the fan.
4. Construction Materials
Gravel is available from the alluvial fan. Less than six
inches of overburden will need to be stripped to reach that
usable gravel. Boulders of competent, relatively unweatnered
granitic rocks are available from the glacial deposits. Tnese
rocks are suitable for virtually all types of construction
uses.
5. Seismic Hazards
The proposed dam site at Old Harbor is in a seismically
active area. Strong ground motion is the principal seismic
hazard. Recommended design criteria should be based upon a 50-
year life of the structure and a base acceleration of 40 to 50
percent of the acceleration due to gravity. Surface faulting
or major ground failure is not expected at the dam site.
D. SURVEY AND MAPPING
A detailed ground survey based on the project configuration
marked in the field by hydroelectric engineers was made of tne
Midway Creek site between November 2 and 6, 1981. The survey
and the drawings produced from it included ground control,
penstock traverse (1 inch = 100 feet norizontal, 10 feet
vertical) and cross sections, and topographic mapping (1 inch =
20 feet, 2-foot contour interval) and cross sections in the
vicinity of the diversion dam and the powerhouse sites.
Elevation datum was assumed.
Prior high altitude stereo aerial photography of the area
was available. This was used to produce a general topography
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-6
map (1 inch = 700 feet, 20-foot contour interval, assumed
control) of the Midway Creek drainage basin.
Old Harbor and the project site are located on the USGS
Kodiak A-4 and A-5 15 minute Quadrangle Maps ( 1:63,360; 100-
foot contour interval, 1952). Mapping of the recent North
Village development was obtained from the Old Harbor Community
Map.
E. LAND STATUS
A map showing the land status in Old Harbor and the project
area is presented in Figure IV-4. The diversion weir, penstock
and powerhouse locations of the proposed hydroelectric project
are entirely within lands of interim conveyance to Koniag,
Incorporated, as provi~ed for in the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of December 1971 (ANCSA), Public Law 92-203.
This interim conveyance includes both surface and subsurface
estates. Interim conveyance is used in this case to convey
unsurveyed lands. Patent will follow interim conveyance once
the lands are identified by survey.
The proposed construction of a barge landing in Midway Bay
near the mouth of Big Creek and the road construction from the
landing to the powerhouse are also located on lands with an
interim conveyance classification to Koniag, Incorporated. The
r;ransmission route from the powerhouse across Big Creek delta
to the townsite of Old Harbor, U.S.S. 4793, is also similarly
elassified. The patent on the townsite was issued to the
Bureau of Land Management Townsite Trustee. The Trustee has
deeded occupied parcels to the residents and some vacant sub-
dividea lots to the city of Old Harbor. Other subdivided
property remains with the Trustee. A permit would be required
for the transmission line and it could be issued by the u.s.
Department of Interior after an affirmative resolution by the
c:ity council. The extent of the impacts and the easements
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-7
required on these lands are dependent upon the final transmis-
sion route within U.S.S. 4793.
All of the interim-conveyed lands identified above are also
part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge as classified and
withdrawn by Public Land Orders 1634, 5183, and 5184. All
lands that were part of a National Wildlife Refuge before the
passage of ANCSA and have since been selected and conveyed to a
Native corporation will remain subject to the laws and regula-
tions governing the use and development of such refuges.
F. PREVIOUS REPORTS
Studies of potential power projects for the Old Harbor area
are described below.
1. "Water-Resources Reconnaissance of the Old Harbor
Area, Kodiak Island, Alaska," by John B. Weeks, 1970. Prepared
in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
The purpose of this report was to find a water supply
source for Old Harbor village. At the time, 1970, the economy
was dependent on the summer salmon fishing season. During the
winter, most of the villagers had no employment even though the
area was in the heart of the shrimp-fishing grounds. The
shrimp were processed in the city of Kodiak, where a high-
quality adequate water supply was available.
Two potential streams were identified as possible sources
of water supply, one of which was Ohiouzuk Creek. The stuay
focused on the amount and quality of the water that would be
available.
2. "Hydroelectric Power Potential for Larsen Bay and Old
Harbor, Kodiak Island, Alaska--Appraisal Evaluation, May 1978 1 "
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-8
by United States Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administra-
tion.
This report presents rough appraisals of potential hydro-
electric projects to serve the villages of Larsen Bay and Old
Harbor on Kodiak Island.
The potential hydroelectric generation plan consists of
diverting water from an unnamed stream located about three
miles northwest of Old Harbor and dropping it through a pen-
stock into a power plant utilizing a net head of 340 feet. The
installed capacity would be 600 kW at a cost of $3.4 mill ion.
Such a plant would generate an average 1.8 million kWh of
usable energy annually. The cost per kW would be $5,700 and the
unit cost would be 16 cents per kWh.
The study concluded that the project at Old Harbor has
potential only as a run-of-stream plant. The plant cannot meet
power demands during the winter or during dry periods in the
summer. It would have to be operated in conjunction with a
diesel plant, and the value of the hydro would be based on the
fuel oil saved. The approximate value of diesel-generated
power using $1.00 per gallon oil at 11 kWh per gallon is 9.1
cents per kWh. With a demand of 2 million kWh/year, the cost
' of hydro power would be 16 cents per kWh. With a larger
demand, it would be 11 cents per kWh. The Old Harbor project
ls, therefore, of doubtful feasibility according to this study.
3. "Report of Geologic Investigation--Old Harbor, Larsen
Bay and Port Lions--Kodiak Island, Alaska," 1978, by Robert M.
Retherford.
At the request of the Alaska Power Administration, this
geologic study was. made of the hydropower site proposed in the
Alaska Power Administration report listed as report number 2
above.
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-9
The report covered general geology of the Old Harbor area
and site geology for the powerhouse, penstock route and dam
site. It also made recommendations for future geologic explor-
ations.
4. "Small Hydroelectric Inventory and Villages Served by
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative," prepared for United
States Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, by
AVEC Engineers, December 1979.
The report identified two potential sites. Site 1 was
evaluated and considered to be infeasible at that time. Site ~
was still under investigation. Site 1 was the same site
studied in the May 1978 APA report, located three miles north-
west of Old Harbor. The plan was based on a 600 kW power plant
producing 1.8 million kWh of usable energy annually.
Site 2 uti 1 ized a site six miles north of Old Harbor. If
the results of the appraisal were favorable, it was proposed to
carry out feasibility studies. The site is located in the
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.
5. "Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small
Hydropower Projects--Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak
Island, Alaska," by Department of the Army, Alaska District,
Corps of Engineers. Prepared under con tract by Ebasco Ser-
vices, Incorporated, July ·1980 draft--October 1980 final.
The purpose of this study was to provide a reconnaissance-
grade report outlining the potential for hydro power develop-
ment at each of 36 isolated communi ties stretched over 1500
miles in the Aleutian Islands, the Alaska Peninsula, and Kodiak
Island.
At Old Harbor, three potential power sites were analyzed.
Site 1 is located on an unnamed stream eight miles north of Old
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-10
Harbor. Site 2 is located on an unnamed stream four miles
north-northeast of Old Harbor. Site 3 is located on an unnamed
stream three and one-half miles northeast of Old Harbor.
The report presents a listing of the existing energy
source, demographic characteristics, economic characteristics,
land ownership, and environmental concerns.
Conclusions reached were shown in the following table:
Site
No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
Installed
Capacity
2280
680
340
2280
680
340
Plant
Factor
Percent
67
67
67
42
42
42
Total
Project
Cost
$6,685,000
2,896,000
2' 356", 000
6,685,000
2,896,000
2,356,000
Annual
Cost
kWh
0.151
0.076
0.075
0.154
0.154
0.094
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
1.38
2.69
2.73
1. 33
2.44
2.25
6. "Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and
!\.1 terna ti ves for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor,
Ouzinkie and Sand Point, 11 prepared for Alaska Power Authority
by CH2M HILL, May 1981.
The purpose of the study was to identify and assess the
present and future power needs of each community and to assess
the power project alternatives available to each community. It
served as a basis for recommending more aetailed data collec-
tion activities, resource assessments, or detailed feasibility
studies of one or more specific power project alternatives.
The study reported that Alaska Village Electric Coopera-
·:ive, Inc. (AVEC), records show that 274,000 kWh was generated
1n 1979, with a peak demand of 105 kW. The load factor was 30
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-11
percent. During the next 20 years, a 70 percent increase in
generation requirements is projected.
The AVEC Generation system consists o-r two 155 kW, 1, 800-
rpm Caterpillar SR4 units. Although the system is only three
years old, outages are common.
Ohiouzuk Creek was selected as the preferred hydro power
project because it would create few significant environmental
impacts, is close to the community, and is approximately equal
in cost to the other hydroelectric power projects. The project
would have an installed capacity of 296 kW and produce an
average annual energy amounting to 1,280,000 kWh, assuming a 50
percent plant factor. Total cost of the project would be
$2,340,000, or a unit cost of $7,905 per kW.
7. "Summary-Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements
and Alternatives for Old Harbor,'' prepared for Alaska Power
Authority by CH2M HILL, July 1981.
This study presents the results of the study listed as No.
6 evaluating energy requirements and alternative electricity
sources for the community of Old Harbor. The recommended
project was the Obiouzuk Creek project describea unaer report
number 6.
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-12
l
56 I
48
I
I
40 \
I
32
24 \ I I
.~ I I I I I
16 i\ I
I ~ I
I \
-a
U) -0 -
I " MEAN ANNUAL FLOW 10.5 cfs
l "-J. I I l I
I I" I ! I
l ~ I I I ! I
~
0
...J 0 IJ..
0
I
1 ...............
I I I
l I I I ~
20 40 80 100 60
PERCENT { 0/o) OF TIME FLOW EXCEEDED
MIDWAY CREEK FIGURE
FLOW DURATION CURVE N-1
-en -u -
35 ,....---.,..---~-,--.---.,.-_ .... ·-.·.·.·.·.·.-r·.·.· ---rl--rl---rl---rl---rl-1
llflllf)tf\.,..-ESTIMATEO RANGE OF AVERAGE 1
~fft<>~ MONTHLY FLOWS 7 OUT OF 10 I :r: i!ii YEIARS I I
30~~~~~~~-4~~~~r-~--~r-~----r-~----
111llllillllllil!i~!!lli
•••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••. •· rt ••··•··••·••·:•:.•••••! 1,
•••••••••••••••••• :.,.,.
0~--~--~--~--~~~--~~----~~----~~--~
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
MIDWAY CREEK
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS FIGURE
Bl-2
EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 I 0.5 0 .1
'.~-~--0 '''7:· >"'' ,, .:-:n-::om'<, v::x~ i' ,:_co ''t c\:' j . :';::: _: ';.i'''"·'
i "··---··:±::· f·-·-··+·-·-·· ---...... -. i ........ ,:::::;::.:: ~ : .. : ... ;.::~ .. -::-::: ~;==,.-:-..... =r-· .
1·.. '-·-+··-.. :.. I " ....... : ..... , ......... j ..... 1.::__ . ·--,;..;•
J .....
........ '
' t ·-····-. r·--
--· ,__ --1-· .•. , .... f •.
' '
~-~--i ···+--l~~~~·-+·~--~~~-+7~~~~~-+~~"-~-.. ··-~1---·-~--f ··-';,_ --t .. ·--+c ---+~-r -~~~~~~~4 ; ' ' ;c
AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS
MIDWAY CREEK FIGURE
PEAK FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE 1:2:-3
/
5
I D A K
r K A L.
PROJECT PLAN
-----.
SHEEP ISLAND
\ ~
\
\
\
\
~
...r
/
0 2.
4
I.L 4 1i MILES
Z •NATIVE CORPORATION INTERIM CONVEYED OR PATENTED--~ {INTERIM CONVEYANCE IS USED FOR CONVEYED
UNSURVEYED LANDS PATENT WILL FOLLOW I. C. ONCE
THE LANDS ARE IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY)
I ---~ATIVE CORPORATION SELECTION
n UNENCUMBERED U.S. F. AND W. S. LANDS
L _ _J
m:Jm PRIVATE LANDS {GENERAL AREA)
STATE OWNED
D ~ITY AND TRUSTEE LANDS
ON DECEMBER 6, 1980, OLD HARBOR NATIVE CORPORATION
A {VILLAGE CORPORATION) MERGED WITH THE REGIONAL
CORPORATION, KONIAG INC THE MERGED CORPORATION
OWNS THE SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE RIGHTS TO THE
LAND THAT WAS CONVEYED TO THE VILLAGE CORPORATION.
0
OLD HARBOR HAS A FEDERAL TOWNSITE, USS 4793,
WITH PATENT ISSUED TO THE BLM TOWNSITE TRUSTEE
THE TRUSTEE HAS DEEDED OCCUPIED PARCELS TO
RESIDENTS AND SOME VACANT SUB-DIVIDED LOTS TO THE
CITY. OTHER SUB-DIVIDED PROPERTY REMAINS WITH THE
TRUSTEE. A PERMIT TO CROSS TRUSTEE LAND MAY BE
ISSUED BY THE U.S. DEPT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT AFTER AN AFFIRMATIVE RESOLUTION BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
LAND STATUS MAP
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FR ANQSCO, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE -4
SECTION V
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. GENERAL
The original request for proposals for this project
specified a site on Ohiouzuk Creek, as recommended by previous
studies, to be assessed for hydroelectric feasibility. How-
ever, during this initial phase of the work, the Alaska Power
Authority also requested that other alternative sites in the
general vicinity of Old Harbor be evaluated at a reconnaissance
level to confirm, prior to more detailed study, that Ohiouzuk
Creek was actually the optimal site for development. This
section summarizes the alternatives considered during this
phase of the work and presents the reasoning that led to the
conclusion that development of the recommended Ohiouzuk Creek
project was not practical and that the best available alterna-
tive was a site on Midway Creek, four miles northeast of Old
Harbor.
B. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS
Locating a physically and economically viable hydroelectric
power project in the vicinity of Old Harbor presents certain
difficulties. Adequate head is readily available in two
streams near the town, but geologic conditions and small
drainage areas make the sites undesirable. Larger high-head
basins with fewer geologic drawbacks can be found farther north
and east, but transmission and access costs are high.
Four sites in addition to the Ohiouzuk site were consid-
ered. All five sites had been proposed in prior studies. Map
and office studies eliminated three sites and two sites were
subject to detailed ground reconnaissance before the Midway
NBI-389-9524-V V-1
Creek site was selected. Table V-1 lists all the sites consid-
ered and their characteristics, and the site locations are
shown on Figure V-1.
For comparison, the power output estimates from Table V-1
are based on the average annual flow developed in this study,
which corresponds to the 30 percent flow duration or availabil-
ity and on gross head less penstock losses. The values there-
fore may differ from installed capacities suggested in the
prior reports. Transmission lines are assumed to terminate at
the existing diesel power plant located 0.6 mile northeast of
the old town.
C. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
Preliminary evaluation of the sites was made on the basis
of prior reports and map and stereo air photo interpretation.
Final evaluation and the selection of the Midway Creek site
(Site 2) as the best alternative was made by the field team
while they were in Old Harbor. The selection was based on
information similar to the data in Table V -1. tie ad, flow, and
penstock length were measured in the field at both Sites 1 and
2 before a selection was made. Primary consideration was given
to the ability of the alternative projects to meet Old Harbor's
projected power needs versus the relative constructibility and
cost of the required structures. Geotechnical problems, relia-
bility of the water supply, length of the penstock and the
access road and the transmission line, and environmental
ef fee ts were major considerations. The following discussions
highlight that evaluation.
Site 1 was described in the request for proposals for this
feasibility study and was recommended in the CH2M HILL recon-
naissance study (1981). The site is located on Ohiouzuk Creek,
which enters the Sitkalidak Strait one mile south of the edge
of town. Direct, easy access along a narrow coastal terrace
NBI-389-9524-V V-2
a.nd good bead potential made this site initially very attrac-
tive. Tbe Obiouzuk canyon bad not been visited during previous
reconnaissance activities for tbe prior studies.
Detailed reconnaissance over tbe length of tbe proposed
project revealed major geotechnical problems. Tbe 50-to 150-
foot-deep canyon is cut through weathered siltstones at slopes
of 1: 1 wi tb occasional vertical eli ffs. Numerous landslides,
particularly in tbe upper reach, extend into tbe narrow stream-
bed. Tbis upper reach (Site 1a) was considered unconstructible
at acceptable costs by all members of tbe field team. A lower
diversion dam site (Site lb) would provide a di ff icul t but
constructible penstock route at tbe cost of losing 40 percent
of the available hydraulic head. An additional disadvantage of
tbe Obiouzuk site is its very small drainage area and the
attendant reduction of flow reliability.
Site 2 is located on tbe opposite side of Old Harbor near
the bead of Midway Bay. Tbe site is mentioned in both the
Ebasco ( 1980) and CH2M HILL ( 1981) reports as Unnamed Creek
Site 3. In cant rast to Obiouzuk, tbe penstock can easily be
constructed on a series of open terraces tbat lead directly to
the power plant location. Tbe diversion dam site also provides
tbe option of constructing a moderate-sized detention reservoir
at some future date, if one is needed. Wi tb the exception of
tbe transmission and access length, tbe Midway Creek site
appears to be the most efficient and constructible site found
among the four associated feasibility studies. Access would be
from the sea (three miles from the village boat harbor), thus
eliminating the expense of a 150-foot bridge across the tidal
mouth of Big Creek and a road along the transmission line
route. This site was selected for detailed feasibility
analysis.
Site 3 is located two to three miles northwest of the
landing strip. It was originally proposed by the Alaska Power
NBI-389-9524-V V-3
Administration as Plan 1 (1978). It derives its water supply
from a transbasin diversion eastward from two high mountain
basins that drain westward into Barling Bay. In order to
intercept both streams, the penstock must be placed in a deep
cut through the divide or a pair of conduits must extend a
considerably greater distance up each stream. The report
concluded that the cut would have to be at least 50 feet deep
and that it would result in excessive construction costs.
Site 4 was proposed by Ebasco (1980). The site is located
in the upper Big Creek basin, seven miles north of the town.
From the power standpoint, this excellent site is capable of
supplying eight times Old Harbor's projected demand. It should
be reconsidered in the future should Old Harbor's power demand
increase greatly beyond present expectations. However, under
present power projections, it is improbable that the cost of
the long access road and transmission line could be economi-
cally justified.
Site 5, also considered in the Ebasco report, is located
two miles northwest of the Midway Creek site on the same
escarpment. It has the classic hydropower configuration of a
lake outflow descending a steep face. A comparison of water
supply potential, construction difficulty, and distance from
Old Harbor made it less attractive than Midway Creek.
NBI-389-9524-V V-4
Drainage
Area
No. Steam (sq mi)
la Ohiouzuk Creek 1.7
1b Ohiouzuk Creek 1.8
2 Midway Creek 2.2
3 Barling Bay Tributary 4.6
4 Big Creek, upper 5.4
5 Big Creek Tributary 0.4
NBI-389-9524-V-1
TABLE V-1
ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS
OLD HARBOR AREA
Average Gross Penstock
Flow Head Length
(cfs) (ft) (ft)
8.1 250 3900
8.6 155 3000
10.5 295 2200
26.0 340 5200
54.0 410 4500
2.4 820 2400
Transmission Power
Line Remarks
(mi) (kW)
0.9 125 Difficult
site
0.9 80
3.0 340 Selected
1.6 490 Trans-
basin
6.2 1400
3.3 130
OLD HARBOR FIGURE
AL TERNAT!VE PROJECTS :ll:-1
SECTION VI
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
.\. GENERAL
Hydroelectric power plants transform tbe energy of falling
water (head) into electrical energy. In general, a hydro-
electric power project consists of a dam to produce the head or
to divert stream flows; an intake and penstock or flume to
:onvey the water to the hydraulic turbine; the turbine itself,
which is coupled to a generator to produce electrical energy;
accessory electrical equipment; and a transmission system to
transmit the energy to a distribution system or user.
This section describes these features as they are specifi-
cally adapted for the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project and the
methodologies used in selecting the type of turbine and
generator, the size and number of units and the configuration
of the penstock and power plant. Field constructibility,
project energy production, and project operations are also
discussed.
B. RECOMMENDED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In general, the features of the recommended project consist
of diversion facilities that include a low weir and an inlet
structure that will be located on Midway Creek, which enters
Midway Bay three miles northeast of the airstrip and two miles
from the North Village development. The diversion weir will
divert water into a 24-inch-diameter penstock at a narrow point
in Midway Creek. The penstock will descend 2200 feet to a
powerhouse with installed capacity of 340 kW. From the
powerhouse a transmission line will extend about three miles to
the village of Old Harbor. Access to the powerhouse and other
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-1
facilities will be provided by builaing a road about one-half
mile in length to Midway Bay and a dock so that necessary
support for operations and maintenance can be furnished by boat
from Old Harbor. This alternative was chosen to avoid building
a three-or four-mile road directly to Old Harbor. Such a road
would have to incorporate an expensive bridge crossing in the
area where Big Creek and Midway Creek enter Midway Bay. These
features are presented on Plates II through VI in Appendix A
and are described more specifically below. Exhibits VI-1
through VI-4 show photographs of the project area and the
proposed locations of project features.
The diversion weir will consist of a prefabricated steel
module that wi 11 be bolted to a concrete apron. The attitude
of the upstream face of the gate will be about 45 degrees from
vertical and the gate wi 11 be fit ted with back supports. The
steel weir module will be connected by a pin at the base and
the upper section will be supported by steel struts. A neo-
prene flap will provide the necessary water tightness at the
connection of the weir diaphram to the apron. A prefabricated
steel inlet structure will be located at the left of the weir.
The 24-inch-diameter penstock will be about 2200 feet in
length and will consist of both steel and fiberglass sections
constructed along the left bank of the creek from the diversion
weir to the powerhouse. The penstock will consist of buried
fiberglass pipe whenever possible to eliminate the need for
anchor blocks. Steel pipe will be used where rock foundation
material is encountered or where other reasons dictate above-
ground installation. Typical penstock access road sections are
shown on Plate III of Appendix A.
The power plant at the terminus of the penstock will have
an installed capacity of 340 kW and it will utilize an impulse-
type turbine and a synchronous-type generator.
NBI-389-9524-Vl VI-2
The operating head will be 273 feet, with a design dis-
charge of 19.4 cubic feet per second (cfs). The 340 kW rating
ls based on assuming a nominal turbine efficiency of 83
percent. It is possible that a turbine manufacturer may guar-
;:Lntee a higher turbine efficiency; if so, this wi 11 increase
the turbine-generator rating proportionally. With reasonable
turbine efficiency the turbine-generator will perform satisfac-
torily on turbine discharges as low as 10 percent of rating.
Turbine discharges as high as 48 cfs will not cause a problem
·Jr create excessive maintenance costs for the turbine-generator
llni t. (A detailed explanation of the turbine-generator selec-
tion process is included in the following subsection.)
The turbine-generator and all other equipment except the
power transformer will be placed indoors at the powerhouse
site. The turbine, speed increaser, flywheel, and generator
will be shipped preinstalled on fabricated skids and no field
assembly or alignment of those components will be necessary.
The powerhouse construction will utilize a reinforced-
concrete floor slab and a prefabricated metal building about 30
feet by 34 feet to house the equipment. Permanent lifting
facilities will not be provided; however, an oversized equip-
ment door will permit portable lifting facilities to be used if
they are required for a major overhaul. Since equipment of the
type being used is very rugged, the normal annual overhaul
functions should not require the lifting of heavy equipment
sections.
The three-phase power transformer will be mounted on a pad
and placed outdoors adjacent to the powerhouse structure. A
chain link fence with a barbed guard at the top will encompass
the transformer and form the switchyard enclosure. The
generator breaker will be inside the powerhouse.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-3
The transmission line from the powerhouse switchyard to the
village of Old Harbor will utilize a transmission voltage of
12.47 kV. The configuration of the line will be single pole
with singlw cross arms. Poles will be located at 350-foot
intervals with the lines running along the centers of the cross
arms. A sketch showing the detailed configuration is included
in Appendix A as Plate VI.
C. TURBINE-GENERATOR SELECTION
In the selection process, the type of turbine and type
of generator were first
tives and the installed
incremental cost/benefit
selected from the available al terna-
capaci ty was then determined by an
economic analysis. This selection
process is described below.
1. Description of Available Turbines
Conventional turbine equipment that is commercially avail-
able is classified either as impulse or reaction turbine
equipment.
An impulse turbine is one having one or more free jets
discharging into an aerated space and impinging on the buckets
of the runner. The jet size increases as the head on the tur-
bine decreases. For low-head applications the cost of the
impulse turbines is generally not competitive with the reaction
type. The impulse turbine can, however, be operated
economically on heads as low as 150 feet.
For the 273-foot operating head of this development, there
are two sui table types of impulse turbines, Pel ton and Turgo.
In the Pelton type the jet impinges the runner near its
extremity and in the plane of the runner. In the Turgo type
the jet impinges the runner from the side about mid-runner.
For the same hydraulic conditions, the Turgo type will operate
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-4
at about twice the speed of the Pel ton type. There is very
little difference between the two types in either efficiency or
methods of control.
A Francis turbine is one having a runner with a large
:1umber of fixed blades attached to a crown (top) and a band
(bottom). The dimensional configuration of the runner is
designed to suit the head conditions of the application.
Designs are commercially available to suit head conditions
ranging from 15 to 1500 feet. In general the Francis turbine
is not competitive with the propeller type below a head of
about 60 feet.
A propeller turbine is one having a runner resembling a
propeller with a small number of blades, usually four, five or
six, to which water is supplied in an axial direction. The
blades are attached to the hub of the runner. The blade angle
is adjusted to suit the head conditions of the application.
Runners are available in either fixed-blade or adjustable-blade
designs. The suitable head range of propeller turbines is from
15 to 110 feet. The 273-foot head of the Old Harbor Project is
beyond the head range of the propeller turbine. Accordingly,
this type of turbine was not included in the study.
In addition to the impulse and reaction turbine, a proprie-
tary design called the Ossberger turbine is available for head
ranges from 15 to 500 feet. The runner design is classified as
a cross flow that derives energy from both impulse and reaction
turbine principles. Water is forced through a rectangular
cross section and guide vane system and then through the hori-
zontal runner blades. This flow pattern has the unique advan-
tage of working out refuse such as grass and leaves and melting
snow and ice that may be forced between the blades of the
runner as the water enters. Any quantity of water from 16
percent to 100 percent of the design flow is usable with
optimum efficiency.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-5
2. Description of Available Generators
Generators can be of the synchronous or induction type.
Induction generators are often considered more practical for
the smaller turbine-generator installations because they cost
less and require less maintenance. They require no excitation
and need only a squirrel-cage rotor that uses no wire windings
or brushes. Furthermore, they do not run at exact synchronous
speed and complex equipment is not needed to bring them on
line. They cannot be used to establish frequency, however, and
must be connected to a system with synchronous generators
because they take their excitation from system current. The
generators produce electric energy with a high degree of
efficiency.
Synchronous generators are usually three-phase star or Y-
connected machines with one end of each winding connected
together in common and the other ends used as line terminals.
The alternating-current synchronous
delivers its induced alternating
generator, or alternator,
current directly to the
external circuit. It is used where transmission is to be sent
over long lines. The alternating current can be transformed to
the desired transmission voltage.
For this development the synchronous generator is used
because it is necessary to establish frequency.
3. Selection of Turbine Type
As previously discussed, the 273 feet of head available for
the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is suitable for operating
either a reaction turbine (Francis) or impulse turbine (Pelton
or Turgo). For the size of this unit, the costs of equipment
delivered at the job site are about equal. Installation costs
are generally lower for the impulse types since few imbedded
parts are necessary.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-6
Any change in the rate of penstock flow will set up a
pressure wave that increases the penstock pressure when the
flow rate is decreased and lowers the penstock pressure when
the flow rate is increased. Destructive pressure risks, known
~s water hammer, are possible if the flow is suddenly
stopped. This water problem can be limited by building a surge
<:!hamber near the power plant, by installing a bypass valve
(known as a pressure-relief valve) at the power plant, or by a
combination of both methods.
The penstock gradient is fairly uniform from the penstock
intake to the power plant. A surge chamber, to be effective,
would have to be near the power plant and more than 200 feet
high--not a very practical solution. A bypass valve would have
to be capable of discharging the same amount of water as the
turbine and in addition would have to be able to dissipate the
same hydraulic power as the turbine. A valve of this type can
be constructed for a modest cost, 10 percent of the turbine
cost.
On a Francis turbine, the penstock flow is controlled by
the opening and closing of the turbine wicket gates. An
electrical load rejection will cause the wicket gates to close
as fast as is permitted by the turbine governor. Too slow a
closing allows the turbine-generator speed to rise to destruc-
tive velocities. Too fast a closing results in high penstock
water hammer pressures. The use of a turbine bypass valve and
proper governor setting can hold the rise in both the speed and
water hammer pressure within reasonable limits. A sudden
decrease in electrical load initiates signals from the turbine
governor that cause the bypass valve to open enough to maintain
a near-constant penstock flow. The bypass valve then slowly
closes under controlled conditions and the rise in water hammer
pressure is negligible.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-7
Impulse turbines are equipped with a jet deflector. The
jet deflector intercepts and deflects a portion of the jet or,
in the case of a load rejection, the entire jet away from the
runner. Under this condition, the rate of flow in the penstock
is constant until the needle valve closes, under control of the
governor, at a rate slow enough to keep the water hammer pres-
sure from materially increasing the penstock pressure.
The guide vanes of an Ossberger turbine serve the same
function as the wicket gates in the Francis turbine. Both
turbines have hydraulically similar relationships to the pen-
stock. The previous discussion for the Francis turbine is
applicable to the Ossberger turbine.
Using a Francis (reaction) turbine on this development
would require the use of a bypass valve. The bypass valve and
its controls increase the overall power plant costs more than
installing an impulse turbine. On this basis, the impulse
turbine was selected.
4. Selection of Number of Units
Every turbine is most efficient within a range of flows,
with decreasing efficiency occurring beyond this range.
Consequently, more power can usually be generated if two or
more small turbines are selected rather than one large unit.
For example, two turbines, each rated at 50 percent of design
flow, will produce more energy
turbine rated at 100 percent of
turbines will generally cost 30
the single turbine. The extra
the two units must therefore
using two units.
over the flow range than one
design flow. However, the two
percent to 70 percent more than
value of the energy produced by
make up for the extra cost of
In the specific case of Old Harbor, the impulse unit to be
usea is very efficient over the anticipated range of flows; the
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-8
relatively small extra energy that would result from the use of
two units would not justify the extra expense. A single unit
was therefore indicated.
5. Selection of Size of Unit
The selection of turbine-generator size is primarily a
:natter of economics. The larger the turbine size, the larger
the flow that can be accommodated and the more energy that can
be generated; however, the cost is higher. Comparisons were
therefore made of the incremental costs and benefits associated
with increments in size. As long as the incremental benefits
exceeded the incremental costs, it was economically justified
to install the larger capacity.
Five turbine sizes in all were investigated for the Old
Harbor Project. The sizing was based on turbine-generator
capacities based on flows corresponding to the 35 percent to 15
percent range of exceedance values on the Midway Creek flow
duration curve, Figure IV-1. A value of 273 feet of hydraulic
head (gross head minus losses) was used in all cases.
The average annual energy production for each size was
calculated using the Midway Creek flow duration curve. For a
given hydraulic head, the area under such a curve within the
generation limits of the particular size and type of turbine
under analysis represents the available energy. The result of
the analysis is presented in Table VI-1.
As shown, the range of flows investigated is from 9.7 cfs
(at 35 percent exceedance) to 19.4 cfs (at 15 percent
exceedance) with installed capacities of 175 kW to 340 kW and
corresponding average annual energy values of 0.97 million kWh
to 1.31 million kWh.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-9
The incremental benefits for the sizes analyzed were com-
puted using the differences between the 50-year present worth
of the energy for each additional increment and the data and
assumptions presented in Section VII, Project Energy Planning,
and Section IX, Economic Analysis. The incremental costs were
based on the differential costs of the installed unit.
The results of the analysis are presented in Table Vl-2.
The incremental benefits far exceeded the incremental costs for
all size increases up to and including the largest size
reviewed, 340 kW at the 15 percent exceedance point, which
indicates that this is the optimal size studied. Judgment was
the deciding factor not to size the unit for flows in excess of
the 15 percent exceedance value. Increasing the turbine dis-
charge somewhat beyond this point would probably be economical
but it would decrease the energy available on the low-flow
portion of the flow duration curve and would not materially
increase the annual energy generation. The recommended 340 kW
selection would make available all the energy represented by
the flow duration curve between the 15 and 87 percent time
exceeded.
D. FIELD CONSTRUCTIBILITY
For the recommended project, various prefabrication opera-
tions and field procedures would be utilized that would mini-
mize field construction time and also minimize the use of
highly specialized construction skills.
The diversion weir module and the inlet structure wculd be
shop-fabricated welded-steel structures with shop-applied
protective coatings. After fabrication in Anchorage or
Seattle, they would be shipped wholly assembled to the field.
The field installation of these structures would consist of
simply bolting the weir and inlet structure into place on the
concrete apron.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-10
The 24-inch-diameter penstock would consist of either steel
or fiberglass, depending on the geologic and topographic condi-
tions encountered. The penstock would be steel where rock was
encountered and where the penstock would be elevated. All
other sections would utilize fiberglass pipe.
The steel portions would be placed above ground with steel
collars resting on either concrete pads or prefabricated
steel. The steel collars would be shop-welded to the pipe
during the fabricating process. The pipe sections would be
connected with flexible bolted couplings and no field welded
connections would be required.
The fiberglass sections of the penstock would be buried to
eliminate the need for anchor blocks at vertical and horizontal
bends. Bell and spigot joints with rubber gaskets would be
utilized to permit rapid field installation and the use of
relatively unskilled labor.
The powerhouse would consist of a prefabricated metal
building erected on a concrete base slab. A standardized unit
approximately 30 feet by 34 feet would be utilized. Field
assembly of the building would be rapid and unskilled labor
could be utilized. The turbine-generator, the speed increaser,
and the flywheel will be shipped skid mounted, fully assembled
and interconnected to the field. The en tire assembly will be
bolted in place on the powerhouse slab, the penstock will be
connected, the electrical wiring will be finished, and the
installation will be completed.
In summary, the maximum use of prefabricated and preas-
sembled components is envisioned. The use of concrete in
general and formed concrete in particular has been minimized
and all major features can be constructed expeditiously using
relatively unskilled labor.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-11
E. PROJECT ENERGY PRODUCTION
As mentioned in subsection C-5 above and as shown in Table
VI-2, the average annual energy production for the recommended
340 kW installation at Old Harbor is 1.31 million kWh. This
value was derived using the flow duration curve rather than the
average monthly hydrograph since the data used in deriving the
flow duration curve were daily values rather than monthly
averages as shown on the hydrograph. However, the hydrograph
values have been used to compute the available peak power
generation that could be expected per month. Where the hydro-
graph values exceeded the maximum turbine design flow t the
turbine flow was used for the calculation. The "available peak
power" values were then used on a monthly percentage basis to
distribute the average annual energy value of 1.31 million kWh
to monthly energy values. The results of these compilations
are presented on Table VI-3. The monthly power and energy
production values are shown on Figure VI-1. These monthly
hydroelectric energy values will be used in Section VII,
Project Energy Planning, to meet the projected present and
future energy demands of Old Harbor.
The plant factor, the ratio of energy that could be pro-
duced by the turbine-generator if continuously operated at its
rating to the annual energy actually produced, is 44 percent
for Old Harbor.
F. PROJECT OPERATION SCHEME AND CONTROLS
1. Turbine-Generator
Controls for the turbine-generator unit will load the unit
in response to the connected system demand. A turbine governor
will control the turbine needle valve setting that controls the
turbine discharge and thus matches the turbine-generator
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-12
nlectrical output with the connected system load. A small
decrease in the system load will cause the governor to actuate
·:;he jet deflector and a quantity of water will be deflected
:·:rom the runner to maintain a constant runner speed. If the
.ower load continues, the turbine governor will cause the
needle valve to move to a position where the turbine discharge
Ls of the correct value and the jet deflector will move out of
the jet stream to allow the full jet to impinge on the
runner. As long as the connected load does not exceed the
~apacity of the turbine-generator, the electrical frequency can
~e held within approximately plus or minus one-tenth of a
::ycle.
The turbine-generator is being operated on an isolated
system; that is it is not electrically connected into a grid
with other operating generating units. Any overload in the
unit will gradually decrease the unit's speed and result in a
corresponding lowering of both line voltage and frequency.
Minor overloading, probably up to about ten percent, can be
tolerated. But an excessive overload can, if continued, cause
protective devices to trip the unit.
It is feasible to have a hydraulic turbine-generator unit
operate in parallel with diesel generating units now being used
on the city's electrical system. The hydraulic turbine can be
operated as a base load unit and regulate the system
frequency. By proper setting of the diesel unit governors, the
diesel units can be brought on line and operated during unusual
system demands.
The turbine-genera tor will be manually started. A manual
start implies that operating personnel are present during
startup. The operating personnel should physically check the
unit. This check will include opening the turbine shut-off
valve (if closed) and seeing that water is against the needle
valve and all supporting systems are operable. Operating
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-13
personnel wi 11 then actuate a single control switch and the
turbine-generator will automati.cally start up. When the unit
reaches synchronous speed, it automatically goes on line. The
provision of enough sophisticated equipment and controls to
allow the unit to be started up from a remote location is not
proposed.
Protective devices on the equipment will be capable of
shutting the generating unit down automatically, which would
require a manual startup.
the equipment will sense
The automatic protective devices on
the internal temperature of the
generator, most bearing temperatures, and critical oil
levels. High temperatures and low oil levels can trip the
turbine-generator off the line. An alarm will be given before
any control device shuts down the generating unit.
A pressure sensor will be installed at the penstock intake
to function in concert with the turbine governor to protect the
turbine during periods when there is not sufficient water to
meet the turbine discharge requirements. One of two control
sequences will be followed to protect the equipment:
1. The lowering water level at the intake will bring the
governor control into a mode where it will match the
available water quantity with the turbine discharge.
If this reduced turbine discharge will not permit the
turbine-generator to produce sufficient power to meet
the load demand, then the turbine-generator wi 11 be
operating in an overloaded condition as discussed
above.
2. If the water level falls to a level where the penstock
will not be running full, then the control will take
the turbine-generator off the line.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-14
In both cases an alarm will be given prior to shutdown.
Routine
schedule.
maintenance will be performed on a weekly
The power generated by the turbine-generator need
not be reduced during this maintenance period. The maintenance
will include routine checks to verify that (1) all equipment is
operating in a normal condition, (2) none of the equipment is
being operated at a temperature above normal limits, (3) all
lubrication requirements are being met, and ( 4) no discontin-
uity exists in electrical wiring, relays, or controls.
Overhaul maintenance will be performed on an annual basis
and it will be scheduled during the minimum average river flow,
usually in March. The turbine-generator will have to be
removed from the line and electrical power required by the City
System will be provided by the existing diesel generating
units. This annual maintenance period will not normally exceed
a week. This type of maintenance will include the following
items:
1. Areas of wear on the turbine-generator unit will be
reviewed and corrective measures will be initiated in
cases where wear beyond the allowable limits set by
the manufacturer has occurred.
2. Electrical insulation checks will be made.
3. Relubrication will be required under
facturer's recommendations.
the manu-
4. Verification will be made that all relays and controls
are properly set.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-15
2. Diversion Facilities
The design of the steel diversion weir provides a hinge at
the base of the weir at the connection with the concrete
apron. This design allows for periodic lowering of the weir to
remove accumulated sediment. The frequency of such a main-
tenance procedure would depend on the rate of sediment deposi-
tion and the interference of the deposits with the diverted
flows. If cleaning is necessary at all, the frequency is not
expected to be more than once a year.
NBI-389-9524-VI Vl-16
Perc,ent Times
TABLE VI-1
TURBINE-GENERATOR SIZING
OLD HARBOR
Turbine Unit Penstock
Exceedance Discharge Head Size I. D.
(Percent) (cfs) (feet)_ (kW) (Inches)
15 19.4 273 340 24
20 15.4 273 270 22
25 13.2 269 225 20
30 11.4 274 200 20
35 9.7 279 175 20
NBl-389-9524-VI-1
Annual
Energy
Generated
(million
kWh)
1. 31
1.20
1.12
1.06
0.97
Plant
Rating
(kW)
175
200
225
270
340
TABLE VI-2
PLANT SIZE AND INCREMENTAL COST AND BENEFIT
OLD HARBOR
Incremental Jan. 1, 1982
Material Net Benefit Incremental
Cost with Heating Benefit
-----------dollars in thousands----------
5,496
2.5 191
5,687
2.4 149
5,836
27.2 149
5,985
31.9 228
6,213
Incremental
B/C Ratio
76.4
62.1
5.5
7.1
NBI-389-9524-VI-2
Average
Month Flow
(cfs) ---
Jan 6.4
Feb 5.5
Ma::· 3.9
Ap:i~ 8.0
May 22.1
JU'J.e 19.3
July 7.7
Aug 8.6
Sept 14.8
Oct 13.7
Nov 10.3
DEC 6.1
TABLE VI-3
AVERAGE MONTHLY PEAK POWER OUTPUT AND
ENERGY GENERATION -340 kW UNIT
OLD HARBOR
Flow
Utilized
for Available
Energy Head Design Peak Monthly
Generation Loss Head Power Energy
(thousand
(cfs) (feet) (feet) (kW) (kWh)
6.4 1. 70 287 118 67.8
5.5 1.25 287 101 58.2
3.9 0.63 288 72 41.2
8.0 2.65 286 147 84.7
19.4 15.58 273 340 205.5
18.3 15.42 273 338 204.4
7.7 2.45 286 141 81.5
8.6 3.06 285 157 91.1
14.8 9.07 279 265 150.8
13.7 2.27 281 247 145.1
10.3 4.39 284 188 109.2
6.1 1.54 287 112 64.6
Total 1310.1
Nbl-389-9524-VI-3
Percent
of
Total
Annual
Energy
5.2
4.4
3.1
6.5
15.7
15.6
6.2
7.0
12.0
11.1
8.3
4.9
100.0
200
150
100
-I 0
0 50 0 .. -
lC
.t:.
~
,11£ -> C) cr
I.IJ z
I.IJ 0
J F M A
MONTH
MONTHLY
ENERGY PRODUCTION
.,AVERAGE AI'IINUAL ENERGY
1,310,100 kWh
I
400
300
200
I
J J
ENERGY
100
-:l
.Jtt: -
Q:
I.IJ :a
0
A s 0 N 0
Q. 0
J F M A M
MONTH
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
MONTHLY HYDROELECTRJC ENERGY AND POWER GENERATION
J
MONTHLY
PEAK GENERATION
J
INSTALLED
CAPACITY 34 0 kW
A s 0
POWER
N I.J
FIGURE
JZI-1
MIDWAY CREEK
OLD HARBOR SOUTH VILLAGE AND ROAD TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED NORTH
VILLAGE. THE MIDWAY CREEK SITE IS IN THE UPPER RIGHT .
EXHIRIT VT-1
DIVERSION WEIR POWERHOUSE
PANORAMAS OF PROJECT SITE, LOOKING SOUTHEAST,
DIVERSION WEIR
EXHIBIT Vl-2
DIVERSION WEIR SITE, LOOKING DOWNSTREAM.
POWERHOUSE SITE (FAR BANK) AND STREAM GAGING STATION
EXHIBIT VI-3
OLD HARBOR
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE TO OLD HARROR
AERIAL VIEW OF MIDWAY CREEK
POWER SITE
DIVERSION WEIR
POWERHOUSE
EXHIBIT VT-'t
SECTION VII
PROJECT ENERGY PLANNING
A. GENERAL
This section presents the projected energy usage for Old
Harbor over the study period and two alternative means of
meeting these projected demands--the base case plan and the
recommended hydroelectric project. The potential future demand
for power and energy at Old Harbor was estimated during this
study in order to establish the electrical requirements that
the alternatives could meet. This information was used to size
both alternatives and was also used for the overall economic
analysis of the project, which is presented in Section IX.
B. PROJECTION CONSIDERATIONS
The future demand for power and energy at Old Harbor is a
function of a number of variables that are difficult to
forecast and quantify. These factors include the appliance
saturation rate; the effects of cultural factors and tradi-
tional life styles on energy consumption; the rate of
modernization of the Native life style; the amount of
employment in the fish processing industry; the natural
variability of the fishery; the amount of new housing built in
the area; and numerous political factors such as the 1981
legislation relating to energy projects and programs of tne
APA. The installation of the much cheaper hydroelectric
alternative will almost certainly alter the pattern of energy
and power demand; therefore the forecast presented here is
probably conservative.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-1
1. Appliance Saturation Rate
The number and type of appliances owned by each househola,
as well as the extent to which these appliances are used, may
have a significant effect on the amount of power used in the
village. A definite relationship between appliances within a
household ana electrical use characteristics is difficult to
establish. The actual use of energy is more dependent on the
number of people within a given residence--their age, habits,
and financial condition. For example, one could predict the
annual use of a refrigerator or freezer because this is almost
independent of activity and habits. Electric lights, small
appliances, and television are
Water heaters, washers, dryers,
primarily subject to the number
very
and
and
susceptible to habits.
dish washers vary in use
age of the users. For
example, hot water use among families with small children or
babies is very high. One method of measuring potential future
growth and use of appliances is through a concept known as the
appliance saturation rate. The estimated present percentages
of homes having various types of appliances in Anchorage, the
Kenai-Cook Inlet area, and Old Harbor are presented in Table
VII-1. This information for Old Harbor is very approximate and
was obtained through several interviews with village residents.
The residents of Old Harbor report that the Department of
Housing and Urban Development intends to build 15 new homes in
the village. Since these new homes will be built with the
knowledge that the cost of power is going to be reduced, it is
very likely that they will include a greater number of
appliances than the existing housing.
The purpose of presenting the Anchorage and Kenai-Cook
Inlet data in Table VII-1 is to provide a comparison with
largely urbanized areas that have much greater unit consumption
of electrical energy. Appliance saturation rates (and sizes of
appliances) for rural Alaskan villages such as Old Harbor can
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-2
be expected to increase in the future. While they may never
equal the urban rates of electrical usage, Old Harbor appliance
saturation rates indicate that ample room for growth does
exist.
The base year 1980 rate per residential customer was about
2300 kWh, as discussed subsequently. This apparently reflects
a v·ery low electric appliance use. This use was assumed to
increase to approximately 4, 150 kWh by the year 2001. The
Ebasco (1980) regional inventory assumed that households would
increase energy consumption to 6000 kWh per year by the year
1995, exclusive of electric space heating. The new policies
permitting opportunities for reductions in price, discussed in
the next section, indicate that this projected 4150 kWh annual
residential use rate is on the conservative side.
2. The Influence of Price on the Demand for Power
The 1981 legislation relating to the projects and programs
of the APA will reduce the cost of power to this village by
more than one-half. This decrease in power cost can be
expected to be accompanied by an increase in use.
Data from the Alaska Power Administration have been
developed to show the 1980 individual customer use of elec-
tricity versus cost for all towns, cities, and villages for
which information was available in Alaska. This information is
summarized in tabular form in Table VI I-2 and graphically in
Figure VII-1. While the data on Figure VII-1 are somewhat
scattered, the trend is evident that low power costs result in
higher usage and high power costs result in lower usage. In
economic terminology, this relationship of price to quantity
consumed is referred to as "elasticity" of demand.
As indicated by Figure VII-2, unit energy costs of less
than 100 mills per kilowatt-hour are generally accompanied by
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-3
high use rates, in excess of 7000 kilowatt-hours per customer
per year. As the unit price of power increases, the per
customer use tends to decrease, with the 48 Arctic Northwest
Villages having energy costs in excess of 400 mills per
kilowatt-hour and annual per customer demands of about 2000
kilowatt-hours. The two different utilities listed for
Fairbanks provide an even clearer example of the elasticity of
the demand for electrical energy; in this case where the cost
of energy was 75 .1 mills/kWh the annual demand was 10,519 kWh
per customer and where the cost of energy was 122.2 mills/kWh
the demand was 5501 kWh per customer.
The general conclusion is that in the higher ranges of
price there is significant elasticity in demand.
costs result in higher energy usage and this
Lower energy
can also be
expected to occur in Old Harbor with the advent of lower
prices. The actual amount of higher usage, however, is very
difficult to quantify. For purposes of this study no attempt
has therefore been made to predict the higher usage other than
to incorporate a moderate increase in per customer use of
energy in projections covered below.
probably on the low side.
C. ENERGY DEMAND PROJECTIONS
These project ions are
For the economic evaluation, a period of 50 years after the
proposed date for the hydroelectric project to come on-line was
considered. As requested by APA, the period of study was
started in January 1982. The demand for power was assumed to
increase for 20 years from the beginning of the period of study
and was then held at a constant value for the remainder of the
period of evaluation. The planning period is the 20-year
period during which increases in the demand for energy were
recognized, from January 1982 to December 2001. The economic
evaluation period extends past the planning period to 2034, 50
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-4
......
years after the on-line date for the hydroelectric
alternative.
The overall energy demand for Old Harbor for purposes of
•:tnergy planning has been broken into two primary categories--
direct electrical demand, which includes residential, small
·~ommercial, and school; and space heating demand. Projections
for both of these categories and the combined requirements are
presented below. No large commercial users such as a cannery
exist in Old Harbor.
1. Direct Electrical Demand
The general approach followed in estimating direct elec-
trical demand was to break down the direct city system demand
into general types of customers normally identified by
utilities in projecting electrical use in small villages.
These include residential, small commercial, and school
customers. Residential use represents the largest proportion
of usage, and for Old Harbor it amounted to about 45 percent of
the total electrical demand. The present and projected demands
for power and energy at Old Harbor were taken from the Alaska
Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) Power Requirements Study.
Projections beyond 1980 were not directly tied to estimated
growth in population. Because of significant changes occurring
in the number of residential customers as a result of
additional housing units provided through public programs, it
was found that residential demand was more closely correlated
to the number of housing units than to population growth. This
was substantiated by AVEC records of similar communities.
Growth in demand from 1980 to 19~5 was heavily influenced by
current plans regarding new housing, furnished by government
agencies, with an assumed growth rate of 7. 8 percent for that
period. Between 1985 and 1990 the growth rate was assumed to
be four percent; the annual growth rate was assumed to be three
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-5
percent from 1990 to 2000 and 2.5 percent thereafter. The CH2M
HILL study (1981) for Old Harbor assumed a population growth
rate of one percent annually but it also recognized the faster
growth in housing units. To recognize this differential, CH2M
HILL projected an annual increase in electrical demand of 15
percent annually for the city for 1980 and 1981 and two percent
from 1981 to 2000.
Peak demands were calculated by applying typical load
factors for each type of consumer group. Load factor data were
derived from AVEC historical data as well as data from other
typical utilities. Historically, the load factor tends to
improve as the load increases. This improvement is explained
by added street lighting, refrigeration, and other loads that
tend to diversify the power demand. Projected total annual
demands over the planning period to 2001 are shown in Table
VII-3.
No data were available on the monthly energy demands for
Old Harbor. The only source of data found during the course of
tne study for monthly demands for small rural villages such as
Old Harbor was the 1979 AVEC records for Togiak. Using these
data, the monthly percentages of the total annual energy demand
were computed. These values are presented in Table VII-4 and
they were used in Tables VII-8A to VII-80 to compute the
projected monthly energy demands from 1980 to 2001. While the
total amount of energy will vary considerably, it was assumed
that the monthly use pattern would be fairly similar for rural
villages throughout the state; the Togiak values were therefore
assumed to be applicable to Old Harbor. At any rate, any error
resulting from this assumption is expected to be small.
2. Space Heating Demand
The fuel oil rate of use for Old Harbor for 1980 was
obtained from the CH2M HILL report ( 1981) on energy
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-6
a.l ternati ves. This report also gave estimated values for 1990
and 2000. These values were then used with interpolated and
extrapolated values for 1985 and 2001 to compute the annual
heating requirements for Old Harbor in terms of equivalent
kilowatt-hours of electrical energy. These values are
presented in Table VII-5. Note that the total potential demand
was far greater than the expected output of the hydroelectric
project and thus it did not constitute a constraint on the
economic analysis.
The monthly heating demands over the study period were
computed using the number of heating degree days per month from
the Old Harbor Community Profile and applying the calculated
monthly percentages to the annual heat demand values from Table
VI I-5. The resulting projected monthly heating demands for
1980 to 2001 are presented in Table VII-6.
Because of the daily variation of heating demand, the
actual amount of usable waste heat may vary from the total
amount computed from monthly values; however, for ease of
computation, the variations between the totals and the actual
usable amounts were not considered. The estimates of space
heating demand as presented herein are conservative.
3. Total Energy Demands
The projected annual energy values for direct electrical
and heating demands are presented in Table VII-7. The pro-
jected monthly energy demands for these same categories are
presented in Tables VII-8A to VII-8D. Also shown in the tables
are the total electrical demand and the total combined demand
(direct electrical and heating demand).
The annual energy projections from Table VI I-7 are pre-
sented in graphical form in Figure VI I-2, which is a plot of
the energy demands for each year of the study period. Also
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-7
shown is the annual hydroelectric energy production for the
sizes studied (280 kW to 575 kW). Figure VII-2 presents two
separate graphs of the same information--overall data and
detailed data. The overall data graph illustrates that a very
large proportion of the combined energy demand is heating
demand. The detail data graph presents in more detail the
relative values of the various demands and available generation
values.
The monthly energy projections from Tables VII-8A to VII-~D
are presented in Figure VII-3, again as overall data graphs ana
detailed data graphs. These graphs show the relationship on a
monthly basis between the energy demands and the hydroelectric
energy available over tne study perioa. The graphs illusrrate
the general periods where the hydroelectric energy would have
to be supplemented by diesel generation to meet the village
needs and when excess energy would be available for space
heating. As shown, during an average water year the
hydroelectric plant would be sufficient to meet more rhan 90
percent of the village direct electrical needs.
D. BASE CASE PLAN
The base case plan to meet the projected energy demands
presented above was developed assuming that the existing diesel
system would continue to be used as the sole source of electric
power. The possibility of modifying the existing system to
include waste heat recovery was considered; however, since
there are no significant heating loads near the plant, waste
heat recovery was determined to be impractical.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-8
The existing diesel plant includes two 155 kW units (155 kW
firm capacity) .J.) This firm capacity should be adequate to
meet projected demands through the year 1990; however, the
capacity will not be adequate by the year 2000. Therefore, it
was assumed that the plant capacity would be increased by
150 kW in ten years, increasing the firm capacity to 305 kW.
The entire plant would be replaced in the year 2001, and every
20 years thereafter for the entire period of economic
evaluation. The 155 kW units would be replaced with 200 kW
units, which would increase the firm capacity to 350 kW.
This study assumes that existing fuel-storage facilities
will be adequate over the 1 ife of the project. Old Harbor
receives fuel shipments four times a year, and long-term
storage facilities are not a critical factor.
The diesel generation system at Old Harbor currently con-
sumes about 47,000 gallons of fuel oil per year; this rate can
be expected to increase over the next 20 years to more than
96,000 gallons per year.
E. RECOMMENDED PROJECT PLAN
The recommended project plan for Old Harbor would consist
of a 340 kW hydroelectric power plant supplemented by diesel
generation. The hydroelectric power plant would become
functional in late 1984. An on-line date of January 1, 1985,
was assumed for this study. The annual average energy
generation is shown on Figure VII-2.
The entire existing diesel capacity ( 155 kW of firm capa-
city being expanded to 305 kW in ten years) would be required
J.J In figuring firm capacity, the largest unit is omitted.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-9
as standby and backup power. The hydroelectric generation
would be adequate to meet the direct electrical demand during
most of the year; however, during periods between the end of
November and the first of April it would be necessary to sup-
plement the hydroelectric generation with diesel in order to
meet the direct electrical demand. The full capacity of diesel
generation required to meet the direct electrical demand would
still be necessary for emergency use. Since the diesel engines
would not operate as much under this plan as they would under
the base case plan, it was assumed that they would not need to
be replaced for at least 30 years.
The average annual energy production for the hydroelectric
power plant would be 1.310 million kWh, compared to a projected
direct electrical demand for electricity of 0.518 million kWh
in 1985 and 0. 847 mi 11 ion kWh for the year 2000. The average
annual plant factor would be about 44 percent. Diesel genera-
tion would be required to meet the direct electrical demand for
a small part of the time due to the lack of coincidence between
electrical demand and hydroelectric generation. Hydroelectric
energy not needed to meet the direct electrical demand would be
used for space heating.
Using the above criteria, the amount of hydroelectric
energy that is available over the study period to meet the
direct electrical demands and the heating demands were computed
on a monthly basis. The results are presented in Tables VII-9A
through VII-90. The resulting net values of hydroelectric
energy used for the direct electrical and heating demands will
be used in Section IX, Economic Analysis.
Note that the "energy accounting" described above and pre-
sented in Tables VII-9A through 9D assumes that 100 percent
usage can be made of the hydroelectric energy available. This
usage level may not be wholly attainable in practice because of
the unavailability or breakdown of end-use equipment and dis-
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-10
......
tribution lines. Also, a system making use of all of the ex-
cess hydroelectric energy for heat would not be 100 percent
efficient. However, any error resulting from the assumption oi
a 100 percent usage rate would likely be small and would be
counterbalanced because both the projected demand and the
hydroelectric energy output estimates are conservative.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-11
TABLE VII-1
ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE SATURATION RATES
OLD HARBOR
Consumption Kenai-
per House-Cook Old
~.iance Household 1/ Anchorage l/ Inlet l/ Harbor 2 1
(kWh) ------percentage of total households-----
Lights 1,000 100 100
Small Appliances 1,010 100 100
Refrigerator 1,250 100 100
Freezer 1,350 42 56
Water Heater 3,475 100 94
Television 400 156 100+
Video Tape
Recorder ~ ~ ~
Washer 70 50 85
(Water) (1 '050)
Dryer 1,000 71 76
Dishwasher 230 50 31
(Water) (700)
JJ Values are for 1978 from "Electric Power Consumption for
the Rail belt: A Projection of Requirements, 11 Technical
Appendices, Institute of Social and Economic Resources, May
23' 1980.
~ The percentage of residences having the listed appliances
is based on estimates from several Old Harbor residents
usage rate data are not available nor is the mode split
between electrical and other sources of energy known.
~ Not available.
NBISF-419-9524-VII-1
100
100
99
100
90
100
50
90
50
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
2 8.
29.
1./
TABLE VII-2
UNIT COST AND ENERGY DEMANnli
ALASKA
Cost
Location (mills/kWh)
5 Villages (Southeast) 298.7
Haines 144.3 Juneau~/ 45.7
Juneatdf 92.2
Ketchikan 58.4
Metlakatla 31.5
Petersburg 123.5
Sitka 49.8
Skagway 133.9
Wrangell 156.3
Yakutat 152.7 Anchorag4~ 37.5
AnchoragSf; 33.6
Anchorag~ 45.8
Glenallen, Valdez 131.5
Homer 35.9
Kodiak 149.3
Seward 54.0 Fairbankst~ 122.2
Fairbanks.=-: 75.1
Fort Yukon 245.3
Tanana 269.9
48 Villages (Arctic
Northwest) 422. 1
Barrow 129.8
Kotzebue 199.7
Bethel 177.4
Dillingham 151.9
McGrath 233.5
Naknek 174.5
Data obtained from "Alaska Electric Power
1980," Sixth Edition, August 1981, United
of Energy, Alaska Power Administration.
table on page 40, "Energy Sales, Revenue,
were used to develop this table.
Demand
(kWh/Customer)
3,996
5,680
7,775
7,775
8,528
17,981
6,355
8,483
5, 879
4,689
7,170
9,124
11' 982
14,800
5,890
12,644
5,871
6,694
5,501
10,519
1,669
5,992
2, 044
4, 395
5,290
4, 590
5,000
1, 735
5,524
Statistics, 1960-
States Department
Values from the
Customers--1980,"
~/ Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks are served by more than one
utility. Each listing is for a separate utility.
NBISF-419-9524-VII-2
TABLE VII-3
PROJECTED ANNUAL ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Year
1980
1985
1990
2000
2001
Type of !.; ~umber of 1/2 /
Consumer
Residential
Small Commercial
Public & School
Total System
Residential
Small Commercial
Public & School
Total System
Residential
Small Commercial
Public & School
Total System
Total System
Total System
Customers
71
4
7
82
90
4
7
101
95
5
8
108
110
112
---------------
JJ A'ilEC Power Requirements Study
Annual
Energy }j
Demand
(kWh)
164,000
19,000
172 1 000
355,000
290,000
28,000
200 1 000
518,000
338,400
41,600
250 1 000
630,000
847,000
870,700
Annual Energy
Demand Growth 1./
Rate
(%)
7.8
4.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
Peak
Load Demand
Factor (kW)
• 44 93
.50 118
• 50 144
. 50 193
.50 199
1/ The Community Profile indicates that there are 93 residences in Old Harbor. The figure of
7:, residential customers is taken from the AVEC Power Requirements Study; this indicates
tbat in some cases more than one house is on one meter.
NB !SF -389-9524-VI I-3
TABLE VI I -4
MONTHLY LOAD CHARACTER IST IcsJJ
Monthly Percentage \ionthly
Demand Monthly of Annual Percentage of
Month (kW) (kWh) Peak Demand Annual Demand
January 165 y 56,361 100.0 9.4
February 151 50,610 91.5 8.4
March 127 74,446 77.0 12.4
April 1::39 52,501 84.2 8.7
May 127 50,055 77.0 8.3
June 115 21,040 69.7 3.5
July 131 3 5' 188 79.4 5.8
August 144 44,893 87. 3 7.5
September 137 55,513 83.0 9.2
October 163 47,758 98. 8 7.9
November 163 52,465 98.8 8.7
December 163 61,648 98. 8 10.2
Based on 1979 AVEC data for Togiak. _!_/
y This value was changed from 192 kW to 165 kW because it
seemed abnormally high compared to other years. This gives
a 41.7 percent annual load factor.
NBISF-419-9524-VII-4
TABLE VI I-5
ANNUAL HEATING DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Year 1980 1985 1990 2000 2001 --
Annual Fuel Oil (BBL. )1:./ 1, 910 2, 268 2,625 3, 200 3,258
Annual Requiremen~
( 1000 kWh) 2,973 3,530 4,086 4,981 5,071
1./ The 1980, 1990, and 2000 values were taken from the CH2M HILL
report (1981). Other values were extrapolated.
-
2;' Based on 55 Gal/BBL, 138,000 BTU/Gal, 70% efficiency, and
3413 BTU /kWh.
NBI-419-9524-VII-5
Heating
Month
Degre~/
Days -
January 845
February 1067
March 860
April 635
May 595
June 370
July 200
August 240
September 370
October 650
November 800
December 1200
TABLE VI I -6
MONTHLY HEATING DEMANDsl./
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
of Annual
Heating
De~ree Days 1980 1985
-----------1000
10. 80 321.2 375.9
13.62 405.1 47 4.1
1 o. 98 326.5 382.2
8. 11 241.2 282.3
7.60 226.0 264. 6
4.72 140.4 164.3
2.56 76. 1 89. 1
3.06 91.0 106.5
4.72 140.4 164. 3
8. 30 246.8 288.9
10.21 303.6 355.4
15. 32 455.6 533.3
1990 2000 2001
kWh------===---------
441.4 538. 1 549.9
556.6 678.5 693.4
448.8 547.0 559.0
331.5 404.0 412. 8
310.6 378.6 386.9
192.9 235.2 240.3
104.6 127.5 130.3
12 5. 1 152.4 155.7
192. 9 235.2 240.3
339.2 413.5 422.6
417.3 508.7 519.8
626.1 763.2 779.9
~/ Based on the number of heating degree days indicated in the
Old Harbor Community Profile multiplied by the Annual Heating
Demands from Table VII-6.
~ From the Old Harbor Community Profile.
NBI-419-9524-VII-6
TABLE VII-7
ANNUAL ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Direct Total
Electrical Heating Combined
Demand .JJ Demand Demand
--------------------1000 kWh-------------------------
1B80 355 2,973 3,328
Hl85 518 3,530 4,048
Hl90 630 4,086 4,716
2000 847 4,981 5,828
2001 871 5,071 5,942
2034 871 5,071 5,942
1} From Table VII-3.
NBI-419-9524-VII-7
TABLE VII-8A
1980 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
of Annual Direct
Direct Electrical Heat
Month Demand Demand 1/ Demand 2/
-------1000 kWh --- ----
January 9.4 33.5 321.2
February 8.4 29.9 405.1
March 12.4 44.1 326.5
April 8.7 31.0 241.2
May 8.3 29.5 226.0
June 3.5 12.5 140.4
July 5.8 20.6 76.1
August 7.5 26.7 91.0
September 9.2 32.8 140.4
October 7.9 28.1 246.8
November 8.7 31.0 303.6
December 10.2 36.3 455.6
Based on Annual Direct Demand of 355,000 kWh from Table
VII-3.
From Table VII-7.
NBI-419-9524-7-8A
Total
Demand
---
354.7
435.0
370.6
272.2
255.5
152.9
96.7
117.7
17 3. 2
274.9
334.6
491.9
TABLE VII-8B
1985 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
of Annual Direct
Direct Electrical Heat Total
Month Demand Demand 1./ Demand y Demand
--- --1,000 kWh --------
Ja.nuary 9.4 48.7 375.9
February 8.4 43.5 474.1
Mc.rch 12.4 64.2 382.2
April 8.7 45.1 282.3
May 8.3 43.0 264.6
June 3.5 18.1 164.3
July 5.8 30.0 89.1
August 7.5 38.9 106.5
SHptember 9.2 47.7 164.3
Oetober 7.9 40.9 288.9
November 8.7 45.1 355.4
D~,~cember 10.2 52.8 533.3
l/ Based on Annual Direct Demand of 578,000 kWh from Table
VII-3.
-2_/ From Table VII-7.
NBI-419-9524-7-8B
---
424.6
517.6
446.4
327.4
307.6
182.4
119.1
145.4
212.0
329.8
400.5
586.1
TABLE VII-8C
1990 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
of Annual Direct
Direct Electrical Heat Total
Month Demand Demand 1f Demand ~/ Demand
-------------------1000 kWh ----------------------
January 9.4 59.2 441.4
February 8.4 52.9 556.6
March 12.4 78.1 448.8
April 8.7 54.8 331.5
May 8.3 52.3 310.6
June 3.5 2 2. 1 192.9
July 5.8 36.5 104.6
August 7.5 47.3 12 5. 1
September 9.2 58.0 192.9
October 7.9 49.8 339.2
November 8.7 54.8 417.3
December 10.2 64.3 626.1
l/ Based on Annual Direct Demand of 630,000 kWh from Table
VII-3.
1_1 From Table VII-7.
NBI-419-9524-7-8C
500.6
609.5
526.9
386.3
362.9
215.0
141. 1
172.4
250.9
389.0
472. 1
690.4
TABLE VII-8D
2001 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
of Annual Direct
Direct Elect rica} Heat Total
Month Demand Demand 1.. Demand y Demand -·--- --- ---1000 kWh ------------
January 9.4 81.8 549.9 631.7
February 8.4 73.1 693.4 766.5
March 12.4 107.9 559.0 666.9
April 8.7 75.8 412.8 488.6
May 8.3 72.3 453.2 525.5
Jtcne 3.5 30.4 240.3 270.7
July 5.8 50.5 130.3 180.8
August 7.5 65.3 155.7 221.0
September 9.2 80.1 240.3 320.4
Oetober 7.9 68.8 422.6 491.4
November 8.7 75.8 519.8 595.6
Df~cember 10.2 88.8 779.9 868.7
1} Based on Annual Direct Demand of 847,000 kWh from Table
VII-3.
From Table VII-7.
NBI-419-9524-7-8D
Direct_!_/
Electrical
Demand
TARLE VII-9A
1980 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGF
OLD HARBOR
Hydro~/ Direct Use Remaining
Energy J.!ydro _.Ene rg¥_ H~dro Energ~
-----·-----.--------------------------1000 kWh-------------
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Totals
33.5
29.9
44.1
31.0
29.5
12.5
20.6
26.7
32.8
28. l
31.0
36.3
356.0
From Table VII-8A.
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Ilea t;..!_/ Hydro Used
Demand F
------------
321.2 0
405.1 0
326.5 0
241.2 0
226.0 0
140.4 0
76.1 0
91.0 0
140.4 0
246.8 0
303.6 0
455.6 0
2,973 0
1
'!:_/ The! proposed hydroelectric pro,iect wilt not f':O on-1 ine until late 1984 or early 1985.
For purposes of the projections 1 an on line date of January 1985 has been assumed.
NBISF-419-9524-7-9A
Di rec.J./
Electrical
Month Demand
TABLE VII-9B
1985 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
OLD HARBOR
Hydra'!:../ Direct Use Remaining
Energy Hy:dro Energy: Hy:dro Energy
Heat-!-/ Hydro Used
Demand For Heat
-------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------
.Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Totals
48.7
43.5
64.2
45.1
43.0
18. 1
30.0
38.9
47.7
40.9
45.1
52.8
518.0
1 From Table VII-8R
~/ See Section VI
NRTSF-419-9524-7-9B
67.8 48.7
58.2 43.5
41.2 41.2
84.7 45.1
205.5 43.0
204.4 18.1
81.5 30.0
91. 1 38.9
156.8 47.7
145.1 40.9
109.2 45.1
64.6 52.8
1310.1 495.0
19. 1 375.9 19.1
14.7 474.1 14.7
0 382.2 0
39.6 282.3 39.6
162.5 264.6 162.5
186.3 164.3 164.3
51.5 89.1 51.5
52.2 106.5 52.5
109.1 164.3 109. 1
104.2 288.9 104.2
64.1 355.4 64.1
11.8 533.3 11.8
815.1 3530.0 815.1
Directl/
Elect rica]
Month Demand
TABLE VII-9C
1990 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
OLD HARBOR
HydroY Direct Use Remaining
Energy Hydro Energl'_ H~dro Energy
Heat..!_/
Demand
----------------~-------------------1000 kWh-----------------------
Jan 59.2
Feb 52.9
Mar 78.1
Apr 54.8
May 52.3
June 22.1
July 36.5
Aug 47.3
Sep 58.0
Oct 49.8
Nov 54.8
Dec 64.3
Totals 630.0
1
~I
From Table VII-8C
See ction V
67.8 59.2 8.6 441.4
58.2 52.9 5.3 556.6
41.2 41.2 0 448.8
84.7 54.8 29.9 331.5
205.5 52.3 153.2 310.6
204.4 22.1 182.3 192.9
81.5 36.5 45.0 104.6
91. 1 47.3 43.8 125.1
156.8 58.0 98.8 192.9
145. 1 49.8 95.3 339.2
109.2 54.8 54.4 417.3
64.6 64.3 0.3 G26.1
1310.1 593.2 716.9 4086.0
Hydro Used
For Heat
----------
8.6
5.3
0
29.9
153.2
182.3
45.0
43.8
98.8
95.3
54.4
0.3
716.9
Direct.!./
Elect rica 1
Month Demand
TABLE VII-9D
2001 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
OLD HARBOR
Hydro'!) Direct Use Remaininp;
Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy
Heat.Y Hydro Used
Demand For Heat
------------------------------------1000 kWh-----------------------------------
Jan 81.8
Feb 73.1
Mar 108.0
Apr 75.8
May 72.3
June 30.5
July 50.5
Aug 65.3
Sep 80.1
Oct 68.8
Nov 75.8
Dec 88.8
'fotals 870.7
1
:Y
From Table VII-8D
See Section V
NBISF-419-9524-7-9D
67.8
58.2
41.2
84.7
205.5
204.4
81.5
91.1
156.8
145.1
109.2
64.6
1310.1
'
67.8 0 549.7 67.8
58.2 0 693.4 58.2
41.2 0 614.0 41.2
75.8 8.9 412.8 75.8
72.3 133.2 386.9 72.3
30.5 173.9 240.3 30.5
50.5 31.0 130.3 50.5
65.3 25.8 155.7 65.3
80.1 76.7 240.3 80.1
68.8 76.3 422.6 68.8
75.8 33.4 519.8 75.8
64.6 0 779.9 64.6
749.7 560.4 5071 560.4
20
\\\\\\\\\\\\\,
-,o
a:
L&J -~
......
0
0
0 .. -
)(
s:.
~ 5 ..¥ -
0 z <t
~
L&J
0
..J
<t
:J z z <t () 300 400 0 100 200
UNIT COST (MILLS I kWh)
COST AND DEMAND FIGURE
ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN ALASKA Jm-1
2.0 -····
1.5
----~--
I. 0 ~ ~' ----------------------~--------------------~--
-0
0
0 ...
:TOTAL ELECTRICAL DEMAND
~·---
l( NOT INCLUDING HEATING
t DEMAND) _ _ _ _ _ j
,.--------:..t..
/ /OIESEL ENERGY REQUIRED TO . -
MEET ENERGY DEMAND (NOT
0 o0.5; ~ . . HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY USED. . .
TO MEET ENERGY DEMAND (NOT
.. INCLUDING H.E.ATING DEMANOJ !NSTALLE
CAPACITY: 340 kW) --
c.: l
-
-
~ 0 E--~---__________________ __..._
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
YEAR
DETAIL DATA
I 0.0 •·--···········-·······
-0
0
0 ...
0
0
0 ... -
)(
s::::.
~
.X -
>-(!) a:
UJ z
LIJ
·--------
----------·------------------~ ···-----· -----
t-----------------~. ---·---·-···--------··-----------------·-------~-----·---· ------·------------·
I E~~~~=-=-----~~~~-~~~~~~-~~~Q _ _, _____ _
!
l
5.0-
I
r
!
~--
1 ! t
0 L .•••
1980
YEAR
1990
ANNUAL HYDRO ENERGY GENERATION' 340 kW¥
_ . .... _ _ .. . .. . . _ .! 7 5 _kW=
_______ [)IRECT_EL~GTRICAL DEMAND -----=----
(NOT INCLUDING HEATING DEMAND
2000 2010 2020 2030
OVERALL DATA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECTED ANNUAL ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
FIGURE m-2
-0
0
0 ..
> ~
L&J z
L&J
220-
200
180
160
DIRECT ELECTRICAL
140 (NOT INCLUDING
HEATING ~MAND)
120
100
""' 80
20
0
J
REQUIRED DIESEL
GENERATION
F M A
MONTH
HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
AVAILABLE TO MEET
HEATING DEMAND
HYDROELECTRIC
POTENTIAL
J J AS 0 N D
DETAIL DATA
-
1000 ---
900·
f\
. -~ \
8oo ---~~ ~ //'"\~TOTAL COMBINED DEMAND ./
700 '\ I \ I ,,
~ \ I I
6oo \ /"' \ I I \
\ \ I If\. \j ' \ 200 I" I I I \
soo \ /', \ '..j I 1 1
\1 \ \ 19JO\ I // I
4oo \\ \ II I
\' \ I /
0 300
0
\.1985_~ \ I I / ---~\ II
\\\ / 1/ 0 .. ~ \ I // TOTAL
JC ---=-' / / ELECTRICAL
.c: 200 HYDROELECTRIC -' / '/_ DEMAND) ~ POTENTIAL _, /
~ / 2001)1:
> 100_ /""""', -:.;:~ -
C) ---"' ~........ -....... ...,.,. ...,.,. ..,..
0::: -_.....---'-.,.,. --L&J ----......... -~ ,_ "!'!!""".-.::::.---::tiJj.-....... -:;..-=:::.--z ~-1985_/
L&J 0
J F M AM J J AS 0 N 0
MONTH
OVERALL DATA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECTED MONTHLY ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
FIGURE
lll[-3
SECTION VI II
PROJECT COSTS
A. GENERAL
The basic assumptions and methodology used to analyze the
total project cost of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project and
a summarized cost estimate are presented in this section. A
more detailed breakdown of the cost estimate methodology is
contained in Appendix D, Detailed Cost Estimate. The appendix
contains the backup data, including the project construction
schedule and manpower projection.
B. COST ESTIMATING BASIS
Several alternative methods of preparing cost estimates
were considered. The heavy construction estimating method was
determined to be more realistic in this case because of the
nature and location of the project.
The approach taken to prepare the construction cost
estimate was to determine the cost of the required permanent
materials and equipment, construction equipment, and labor.
Due to the location of the project site, it was determined that
all material and equipment would be transported by barge. For
the purposes of this estimate, the material prices at Seattle,
Washington, were determined. Shipping costs by barge from
Seattle to Old Harbor were used. Material prices were based on
estimating quotes by various manufacturers; commercial barge
transportation companies, based at Seattle, provided shipping
rate quotations for the appropriate commodity classifications.
The skilled labor force was assumed to be brought in by the
contractor. Current wages, based on union scale, including
NBI-419-9524-VIII VI Il-l
benefits and premium rates for overtime were used. The con-
struction personnel will be housed in a construction camp set
up specifically for this project. Commercial firms that pro-
vide these services in Alaska were contacted for quotes on the
cost of this service. The costs used are based on a cost per
person-day. They are January 1982 prices that include setup
and demobilization.
Alaskan contractors were contacted for construction equip-
ment costs, which are current costs based on ownership, opera-
tion, and maintenance. This estimate also assumes that the
equipment will be barged in from Seattle.
As support to the project, commercial air charter firms
provided current costs for various sized airplanes suitable for
transporting personnel and supplies.
A construction schedule was prepared to allocate manpower,
material, and equipment costs to each major construction cate-
gory. Allowances were made for associated miscellaneous
activities required for completion of each item. The direct
construction cost was determined from the various costs men-
tioned above. Along with the various backup information, these
costs are presented in the Summary of Costs, Table D-6 of
Appendix D.
C. BASE CASE PLAN
Detailed costs were not estimated for the base case plan
because that degree of refinement was not necessary. Costs of
major items are presented in Section IX, Economic Analysis.
D. RECOMMENDED PROJECT COSTS
A rigorous method of cost estimating, known as the heavy-
construction estimating method, was employed to define all
NBI-419-9524-VIII VIII-2
project tasks and then determine the time, materials, quanti-
ties, equipment, and skilled personnel required for each
task. Using up-to-date Alaskan data for skilled craft wages,
equipment ownership and use rates, and material and machinery
costs FOB Seattle, the major direct costs for the project --
project mobilization and transportation of materials, equipment
and labor, permanent material, and construction camp costs --
were determined.
The remote nature of the site will require that construc-
tion materials and equipment be barged from Seattle at the
outset and be returned to Seattle by the same means after
proj.ect completion. Barge costs are based on weight and type
of commodity. Personnel and supplies will be transported by
air.
It was assumed that the crew will be housed in a catered
construction camp for the duration of the project. Camp costs
were based on a fixed unit cost per man-day of accommodation.
The camp will be large enough to accommodate necessary fluctua-
tions in the size of the work force.
Subcontracted items included in the estimate are for con-
struction of the transmission line, moving the turbine/
generator assembly into place in the powerhouse, and erection
of the prefabricated powerhouse superstructure. A 15 percent
contingency factor was applied to direct construction costs,
including the subcontractors, except for the transmission line
subcontract, which includes a 10 percent contingency. A 10
percent markup by the prime contractor for handling and over-
head was applied to the transmission line subcontract and was
applied to all construction costs except the transmission line
subcontract. The prime contractor's profit was assumed to be
15 percent. Engineers' fees for surveying, right-of-way, geo-
logy, design, and construction management were included. The
NBI-419-9524-VIII VIII-3
legal and administrative costs borne by APA were set at three
percent of the direct plus indirect costs.
Total capital cost of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project
is estimated to be $3,082,300 at January 1982 prices. Prices
for the major components of the construction work and the in-
direct costs are presented in Table VIII-1.
NBI-419-9524-VIII VIII-4
Item
Mobilization and Demob.
Diversion Dam
Steel Structures
Concrete
Reinforcement
Intake
Offtake Structure
Sediment Structure
Concrete
Reinforcement
Penstock
Steel 24 inch dia.
TABLE VI II-1
OLD HARBOR
CONSTRUCTION COST
Quantity Unit
LS
1,120 LB
10 CY
1,133 LB
3,500 LB
8,000 LB
9 CY
1,035 LB
1,000 LF
Fiberglass 24 inch dia. 1,200 LF
Concrete Pads 8 CY
Excavation 1,050 CY
Backfill 945 CY
Powerhouse
Prefab Building LS
Turbine and Generator LS
Auxiliary Systems LS
Concrete 98 CY
Reinforcing Steel 11,105 LB
Access Road
Excavation, Common 8,400 CY
Backfill 987 CY
Culvert 100 LF
Excavation, Rock 7,500 CY
Construct Dock LS
NBI-419-9524-8-1
Unit
Price Amount
($) ($)
$275,230
3.58 4,010
1254 12,540
1. 73 1,950
$ 18,500
3.58 12,540
3.58 28,620
1251 11,260
1. 73 1,780
$ 54,200
98 98,180
93 111,190
1449 11,590
17 18,110
9 8,690
$247,760
46,560
352,270
116 '330
1254 122,840
1. 73 19,160
~657,160
17 146,450
23 22,750
64 6,420
29 218,430
$349,050
$18,430
Transmission Line
(Subcontract)
Contingencies -15%
TABLE VIII-1
(Concluded)
(Excluding Subcontract Portion)
of Transmission Line)
Contract Cost
Engineering
Right-of-Way and Geology
Design
Construction Management
Owner's Legal and Administrative
TOTAL PROJECT COST
* January 1982.
NBI-419-9524-8-1
Amount
$ 632,500
262,180
$2,642,500
$ 50,000
175,000
125,000
89,800
$3,082,300 *
SECTION IX
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A. GENERAL
The economic parameters and methodology used to analyze the
economic feasibility of the Old Harbor Power Project and the
results of the analysis are presented in this section. The
methodology and criteria used for this analysis are in
accordance with the standards set forth by APA. The present
worth of the total costs of the base case as developed in
Section VII is compared to the present worth of the total costs
of the proposed hydroelectric project in order to determine the
more advantageous scheme for development. Based on this
analysis, the proposed hydroelectric project is the more
favorable alternative and it appears to be feasible.
B. PROJECT ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
The assumptions that form the basis for this analysis are
founded to as great an extent as possible on the APA standard
criteria. Wherever necessary, additional assumptions were
based on the best available information and on experience.
The data previously developed in Section VII, Project
Energy Planning, and Section VIII, Project Costs, are used
extensively in this analysis.
The planning period and the economic evaluation period both
begin with January 1982. The hydroelectric project is assumed
to be on-line by January 1985, and the analysis extends 50
years beyond this time. Thus the last year of the analysis is
2034 and the length of the evaluation period is 53 years. The
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-1
planning period for meeting future demands assumes a leveling
of growth in 20 years, and it includes the year 2001.
For purposes of this analysis, a no-inflation environment
was assumed. The values of diesel fuel and l ubr ica t ing oil
were escalated at 2.6 percent annually to account for the
escalation of oil prices at a rate greater than inflation. The
values were escalated for the duration of the planning period,
with the last escalation occurring in the year 2001. The costs
were held constant at the 2001 value for the remainder of the
period of economic evaluation through 2034.
The interest rate for all amortization and sinking funds
was assumed to be three percent. This and the above assump-
tions are in accordance with the APA criteria. Annual cash
flows were discounted to January 1982 at three percent
interest.
The discount rate for
assumed to be three percent.
to January 1982.
the present worth analysis was
All annual costs were discounted
The economic life of the hydroelectric project was assumed
to be 50 years. The economic project life for diesels was
assumed to be 20 years for the base case and 30 years for the
hydroelectric alternative; the diesels were given a longer life
for the hydroelectric alternative because they would operate
significantly less than they would for the base case.
Operation and maintenance costs were assigned to the year
during which they would occur.
Capital costs were assigned to the year in which they would
occur. They were assumed to be equal to the total investment
cost because the construction periods for all items included in
the analysis were less than one year. Thus no interest during
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-2
construction was included. The first amortization payment was
shown in the year following the capital cost.
Amortization costs, operation and maintenance costs, and
benefits were assumed to occur at the end of the year and were
shown in the year that they actually occurred.
Replacement costs were handled by the use of a sinking
fund. Replacement sinking funds were assumed to occur in
perpetuity.
All costs that were common to both plans, such as local
distribution costs, were excluded.
Waste heat recovery is not practical at this site due to a
lack of significant heating loads in the proximity of the
powerhouse. The benefit for space heating for the hydro-
electric alternative was treated separately and applied as a
reduction in cost
C. BASE CASE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The base case plan was analyzed to determine the present
worth of the total cost of the base case plan over the entire
period of analysis. The cost of the base case plan would be
the sum of the costs of replacing and expanding the existing
diesel generation system, insurance, operation and maintenance,
lubrication oil, and fuel oil. These costs were all assigned
to the year of their occurrence, and the total annual cost of
the existing system was calculated for each year of the period
of economic evaluation. These annual costs were then
discounted at three percent interest to January 1982. They
were then summed to find the total present worth of the base
case alternative.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-3
The costs of replacing and expanding the existing diesel
plant consist of adding an additional 150 kW unit to the plant
in 10 years, at a cost of $200,000, and replacing the remainder
of the plant in 20 years, at a cost of $600,000. The plant
would be replaced every 20 years thereafter at a cost of
$800,000. The existing 155 kW engines would be replaced with
200 kW engines at the 20-year replacement. The replacement
cost was assumed as $500,000 for the first ten years; $700,000
for years 11 through 20; and $800,000 thereafter.
The cost of insuring the power plant was assumed to be
$0.83 per $100 of replacement value. This rate represents
current insurance rates for Alaska. The existing plant was
assumed to have a replacement value of $500,000 and it was
treated as a sunk cost in both cases. If it were desired to
develop average unit costs representative of total costs in
earlier years, an assumption with regard to expenditures needed
to meet other fixed charges on the existing plant would need to
be made.
The costs of operation and maintenance reflect experience
and they were assumed to be the sum of the maintenance cost,
calculated as $17 per megawatt-hour of energy produced, and the
cost of an operator, which was taken as $60,000 per year.
The total cost of lubrication oil was calculated from the
unit cost of lubrication oil and the amount of lubrication oil
required. The lubrication oil rate of use was assumed to be
0.60 gallons per megawatt-hour and the cost of lubrication oil
was assumed to be $3.95 per gallon for January 1982. The cost
of lubrication oil was also escalated at 2.6 percent for the
duration of the planning period to be consistent with treatment
of all petroleum products.
The total cost of fuel oil was calculated from the cost per
gallon of fuel oil and the anticipated rate of fuel oil con-
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-4
sumption. The average energy value of fuel oil was taken as
138,000 Btu/ gallon and the average overall efficiency of the
diesel generators was assumed to be 22 percent; using these
criteria, one gallon of oil will produce 9.0 kilowatt-hours of
electricity. The fuel oil cost for Old Harbor was established
at $1.70 per gallon for January 1982 and escalated according to
the previously mentioned criteria for real price changes.
The annual costs over the project economic study period of
the base case diesel generation for operations and maintenance,
lubrication oil, and fuel oil are presented in Tables IX-1, IX-
2 and IX-3, respectively, and combined in Table IX-4 to show
the annual cost for the base case for each year of economic
evaluation.
The annual base case diesel generation costs and present
worth of these costs are presented in Table IX-5. As shown,
the total January 1982 present worth of the costs of the base
case would be $8,183,433.
D. RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The recommended hydroelectric project plan was analyzed to
determine the present worth of the total cost of the recom-
mended project over the period of economic evaluation. The
cost of the recommended project would include the costs of
building, replacing, operating and maintaining the new hydro-
electric development and the costs associated with replacing
and expanding the existing diesel system, insurance, operation
and maintenance, lubrication oil, and fuel oil for the diesel
system. It would be necessary to maintain sufficient diesel
capacity to meet projected power demands in the event of an
outage of the hydroelectric plant. This has been previously
discussed in Section VII and it is illustrated in Table IX-9.
The diesel capacity would also be required at times when the
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-5
demand on the system is greater than can be met by the
hydroelectric generation.
The cost of the diesel supplement to hydroelectric genera-
tion was calculated in the same manner as for the base case,
with the following differences: the diesels supplied only the
demand that could not be met by the hydroelectric plant; the
plant would be replaced after 30 years instead of 20 years; and
only one-half of the operator's salary would be assigned to the
cost of the diesel, the other half being assigned to the hydro-
electric project.
The annual costs over the project economic study period of
the supplemental diesel system for the recommended hydro-
electric project for operation and maintenance, lubrication oil
and fuel oil are presented in Tables IX-6, IX-7, IX-8, respec-
tively. Those costs are combined in Table IX-9 to present the
annual cost for the supplemental diesel generation for each
year of the economic evaluation.
The capital cost of $3,082,300 for the hydroelectric power
plant was amortized at three percent over a period of 50 years
from the on-line date of the power project. The cost of the
operation and maintenance was taken as 1.5 percent of the
direct construction cost plus contingencies; this is based on
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation practice.
Two replacement costs were considered for the hydroelectric
power plant: the cost of replacing the turbine runner after 25
years of operation, and the cost of replacing the transmission
line that would tie the plant to the village distribution
system every 30 years. The cost of replacing the runner was
estimated as $55,000, and the cost of replacing the lines was
estimated as $632,500. Sinking funds were established to meet
these costs.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-6
The annual costs of the hydroelectric portion of the
recommended hydroelectric project are presented in Table IX-10.
This table includes the amortization, operation and main-
tenance, and replacement costs. These costs are then combined
with the annual costs for the supplemental diesel system from
Table IX-9 and presented as the combined diesel and hydro-
electric costs in Table IX-11.
The proposed hydroelectric power plant would also generate
power in excess of the village's direct demand during certain
times of the year. The hydroelectric energy that would be
available in excess of the village's direct electrical demand
could be used to replace generation at the cannery. Any excess
hydroelectric energy could be used for space heating in the
village. The distribution of hydroelectric generation is
addressed in Chapter VII.
The space heating energy available from hydroelectric
generation would be equivalent to one gallon of oil for every
29 kilowatt-hours of available electricity. The values used
are from Tables Vll-9A to VII-9D. The cost of installing
electric space heaters was estimated at $40 for a 500-watt
heater, installed.
The annual savings for the hydroelectric energy used for
space heating are presented in Table IX-12. This table
indicates the annual hydroelectric energy available for the
heat demand, the equivalent amount and cost of the fuel oil
displaced, annual cost of the electric space heating, and the
resulting net annual savings.
The present worth of the recommended hydroelectric project
cost is presented in the Table IX-13 summary as $6,397,361.
This table also shows that the present worth of the savings in
fuel from the hydroelectric energy used to meet space heating
demand would be $1,239,000.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-7
E. ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF PROJECTS
The economic comparison of the base case plan and the
recommended hydroelectric project can be analyzed in two
different ways. The first is a comparison of the present worth
costs of each plan and the second is a comparison of the recom-
mended hydroelectric costs only with net avoided costs (bene-
fits) measured as the costs of the diesel alternative adjusted
for the diesel costs associated with the hydroelectric proj-
ect. This is similar to the conventional B/C ratio, which
identifies only the water project investment on the cost side
of the equation and compares these costs to the net beneficial
effects.
1. Comparison of Present Worth Costs
This method of comparison is the one specified by the
Alaska Power Authority. The comparison is summarized in Table
IX-14. As shown, the present worth of the base case costs is
$8,183,433.
The gross present worth of the recommended hydroelectric
project before credit for supplying electricity for space
heating is $6,397, 361. Subtracting the present worth of the
savings in space heating and cannery credits of $1,239,000 then
yields a net present worth of the recommended hydroelectric
project of $5,158,361.
2. Comparison of Net Avoided Costs (Benefits)
and Hydroelectric Project Costs
The conventional benefit/cost ratio normally compares the
water project costs only with the most likely thermal alterna-
tive. The values are adjusted so that the outputs are compar-
able. Nonhydroelectric project costs associated with the
hydroelectric plant, for example standby diesel costs, would
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-8
represent a reduction in avoided costs, or benefits, attribut-
able to the hydroelectric project.
Derivation of benefit/cost ratios to reflect the various
levels of demand, including savings in space heating, are
summarized on Table IX-15. The benefit/cost ratio for the
recommended hydroelectric project is 1.44 when the direct
electrical needs only are considered and 1. 74 when the space
heating benefits are also included.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-9
TABLE IX-1
BASE CASE
DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002-
2034
Annual Energy 1./
Production
(1000 kWh)
420.8
453.2
485.6
518.0
540.4
562.8
585.2
607 0 6
630.0
651.7
673.4
695.1
716.8
738.5
760.2
781.9
803.6
825.3
847.0
870.7
870.7
ll From Table VII-3.
Maintenance ~I
($)
7' 153
7,704
8,255
8,810
9,200
9, 570
9,950
1 o, 330
10,710
11' 080
11,450
11' 820
12,180
12' 550
12,920
13' 290
13,660
14,030
14,400
14,800
14,800
~I $17 per megawatt-hour.
~I Salary for one operator
NBI-389-9524-IX-1
Operation ~I
($)
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
60,000
60' 000
Annual
Cost
($)
67,150
6 7' 700
68,250
68,800
69,200
69,570
69,950
70,330
70' 710
71 '0 80
71,450
71,820
72' 180
72,550
72' 920
73,290
73' 660
74,030
74' 400
74,800
74' 800
TABLE IX-2
BASE CASE
DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual JJ
Lubrication ~/ Energy Lubrication
Production Oil Oil Cost
Year (1000 kWh) (gallons) US/gallon) --
1982 420.8 252 3.95
1983 453.2 272 4.05
1984 485.6 291 4.16
1985 518.0 311 4.27
1986 540.4 324 4. 38
1987 562.8 338 4.49
1988 585.2 351 4.61
1989 607.6 365 4.73
1990 630.0 378 4.85
1991 651. 7 391 4. 98
1992 673.4 404 5.11
1993 695. 1 417 5.24
1994 716.8 430 5.37
1995 738.5 443 5.51
1996 760.2 456 5.66
1997 781.9 469 5.81
1998 803.6 482 5.96
1999 825.3 495 6. 11
2000 847.0 510 6.27
2001 870.7 522 6.43
2002-
2034
1
~I
870.7 522
From Table VII-3.
0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour.
NBI-389-9524-IX-2
6.43
Luhr ication
Oil Cost
($)
1,000
1,100
1,210
1,330
1, 420
1' 520
1' 620
1' 720
1, 830
1' 950
2, 060
2' 180
2,310
2, 440
2, 580
2,725
2,870
3,025
3' 190
3,360
3' 360
TABLE IX-3
BASE CASE
DIESEL FUEL OIL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual 1.!
Energy Equivalent 1) Fuel Fuel
Production Oil Oil Cost Oil Cost
Year (1000 kWh) (gallons) ($/~allon) ($)
1982 420.8 46,750 1. 70 79,475
1983 453.2 50,350 1. 74 87,610
1984 485.6 53,950 1. 79 96,570
1985 518.0 57,550 1.84 105,890
1986 540.4 60,040 1.88 112,870 ·-1987 562.8 62,530 1.93 120,680
1988 585.2 65,020 1.98 128,730
1989 607.6 67,500 2.03 137,030
1990 630.0 60,990 2.09 146,285
... 1991 651.7 72,400 2.14 154,940
1992 673.4 74,810 2.20 164,590
1993 695.1 77,220 2.25 173,760
1994 716.8 79,640 2.31 183,960
1995 738.5 82,050 2.37 194,250
1996 760.2 84,460 2.44 206,080
1997 781.9 86,870 2.50 217,170
·-1998 803.6 89,280 2.56 228,560
1999 825.3 91,690 2.63 241,150
2000 847.0 94,100 2.70 254,080
2001 870.7 96,730 2.77 267,950
2002-·-2034 870.7 96,730 2.77 267,950
1.! From Table VII-3.
1./ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-hour.
NBI-389-9524-IX-3
TARLE IK-4
BASE CASE
OI ESEL COSTS
OLD flARROR
Operation
Firm Schedule of Replacement
Insurance .. !./
and Lubrication Fuel
Capacity Investments Amortization Maintenance Oil Oil Cost
Year ~->-($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
1982 155 4, 150 67,150 1,000 79,475
1983 155 4,150 67' 700 1' 100 87,610
1984 155 4,150 68,250 1, 210 96. 570
1985 155 4,150 68,800 1,330 105,890
1986 155 4,150 69,200 1' 420 112, 870
1987 155 4,150 69,570 1,520 120,680
1988 155 4,150 69,950 1, 620 128,730
1989 155 4,150 70,330 1,720 137,030
1990 155
2oo:oooY
4, 150 70,710 1' 830 146,285
1991 155 4,150 71,080 1,950 154,940
1992 305 13,400 5,810 71' 450 2,060 164,590
1993 305 13,400 5,810 71' 820 2,180 173,760
1994 305 13,400 5,810 72' 180 2,310 183' 960
1995 305 13,400 5,810 72,550 2,440 194,250
1996 305 13,400 5,810 73,920 2,580 206,080
1997 305 l3' 400 5,810 73,290 2,725 217,170
1998 305 13,400 5,810 73' 660 2,870 228,560
1999 305 13' 400 5,810 74,030 3,025 241,150
2000 305 13,400 5,810 74,400 3,190 254,080
2001 350 600,000..;!__/ 13,400 5,810 74,800 3,360 267,950
2002-11 350
80o,ooo .. Y 53,770 6, 640 74,800 3,360 267,950
2012-21 350 40,330 6,640 74,800 3,360 267,950
2022-34 350 53,770 6,640 74' 800 3,360 267' 950
1 I
2/
3/
41
Replaeement value is $500,000 throug-h 1991; $700,000 throujl;h ?.001; and $800,000 thereafter.
Adct 150 kW unit.
Replace existing 150 kW units with 200 kW units.
¥Rep] n?'<'~ ent; ~~ ,rlapt i ·!i\ 20?1
Annual Diesel
Cost
151,775
160,560
170, 180
180,170
187. 640
195,920
204' 450
213,230
222,980
232,120
257,310
266,970
277' 660
288,450
301,790
312,395
324' 300
337,415
350,880
365,320
406,520
393,080
406,520
TABLE IX-5
BASE CASE PLAN
SUMMARY
OLD HARBOR
Annuall/ AnnualY
Present.:?/ Energy Diesel
Demand Cost Worth
Year (1 000 kWh) ($) ($)
1982 420.8 151,775 147' 354
1983 453.2 160,560 151,343
1984 485.6 170,180 155,739
1985 518.0 180,170 160,079
1986 540.4 187,640 161,860
1987 562. 8 195,920 164,080
1988 585.2 204,450 166,237
1989 607.6 213,230 168,326
1990 630.0 222,980 170,896
1991 651.7 232,120 172,719
1992 673.4 257,310 185,886
1993 695.1 266,970 187,247
1994 716.8 277,660 189,073
""~ 1995 738.5 288,450 190,699
1996 760.2 301,790 193,708
1997 781.9 312,395 194' 674
1998 803.6 324,300 196,207
1999 825.3 337,415 198' 196
2000 847.0 350,880 200,102
2001 870.7 365,320 202,269
2002-11 870.7 406' 520 1,919,980
2012-21 870.7 393,080 1,381,413
2022-34 870.7 406,520 1,325,345
TOTAL 8,183,433
ll Table VII-3
~I Table IX-4
~I January 1982
NBI-389-9524-IX-5
TABLE IX-6
RECOMMENDED H YDROELECT IC PROJECT
DIESEL OPERATION AND ~AINTENANCE COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual JJ
Energy Maintenanc~ Operatior2/
Annual
Production Cost
Year (1000 kWh) ($) ($) ($)
1982 420.8 7,154 30,000 3 7' 154
1983 453.2 7,704 30,000 37' 704
1984 485.6 8,255 30,000 38,255
1985 23.0 391 30,000 30,391
1986 25.8 439 3 0' 000 30,439
1987 28.5 485 30,000 30,485
1988 31.3 532 30,000 30, 532
1989 34. 0 578 30,000 30,578
1990 36.8 626 3 0' 000 30,626
1991 44.2 751 30,000 30' 751
1992 51.5 876 3 0' 000 30,876
1993 58.9 1,001 30,000 31' 001
1994 66.3 1' 127 30,000 31,127
1995 73.6 1' 251 30,000 31,251
1996 81.0 1, 377 30,000 31' 377
1997 88.4 1,503 30,000 31,S03
1998 95.8 1, 629 30,000 31' 629
1999 103. 1 1' 753 30,000 31' 753
2000 110.5 1, 879 30,000 31' 879
2001 121. 0 2,057 30,000 32,057
2002-
2034 121. 0 2,057 30,000 32,057
lJ From Table VII-9. Difference between direct electrical
demand and hydro used for direct demand.
~I $17 per megawatt-hour.
~I One-half of operator's salary.
NBI-389-9524-IX-6
,_,
·-
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002-
2034
TABLE IX-7
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual 1.1
Energy Lubrication y Lubrication
Production Oil Oil Cost
(1000 kWh) (gallons) ($/gallon)
420.8 252 3.95
453.2 272 4.05
485.6 291 4.16
23.0 14 4.27
25.8 15 4.38
28.5 17 4.49
31.3 19 4.61
34.0 20 4.73
36.8 22 4.85
44.2 27 4.98
57.5 31 5.11
58.9 35 5.24
66.3 40 5.37
73.6 44 5.51
81.0 49 5.66
88.4 53 5.81
95.8 57 5.96
103.1 62 6.11
110.5 66 6.27
121.0 73 6.43
121.0 73 6.43
Lubrication
Oil Cost
($)
997
1,101
1,212
59
68
77
87
96
107
132
158
185
214
243
275
308
343
378
416
467
467
1} From Table VII-9. Difference between direct electrical
demand and hydropower used for direct demand.
y 0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour
NBI-389-9524-IX-7
TABLE IX-8
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC P~OJECT
DIESEL FUEL OIL COST
Annual 1/
Energy-
Production
Year (1000 kWh)
1982 420.8
1983 453.2
1984 485.6
1985 23.0
1986 25.8
1987 28.5
1998 31.3
1989 34.0
1990 36.8
1991 44.2
1992 51.5
1993 58.9
1994 66.3
1995 73.6
1996 81.0
1997 88.4
1998 95.8
1999 103. 1
2000 110.5
2001 121.0
2002-
2034 121.0
OLD HARBOR
Equivalent 2/
Oil -
(gallons)
46,756
50,356
539,56
2,556
2,867
3' 167
3,478
3,778
4,089
4,911
4,722
6,544
7,367
8,178
9,000
9,822
10,644
11 '456
12,278
13,444
13,444
Fuel Oil
Cost
($/gallon)
1. 70
1. 74
1. 79
1.84
1.88
1.93
1.98
2.03
2.09
2.14
2.20
2.45
2.31
2.37
2.44
2.50
2.56
2.63
2.70
2.77
2.77
Fuel Oil
Cost
($)
79,476
87,610
96,571
4,702
5,389
6,111
6,885
7,668
8,545
10,509
12,588
14,724
17,015
19,379
21,958
24,553
27,247
30,125
33,147
37,237
37,~37
lJ From Table VII-3; difference between direct electrical
demand and hydropower used for direct demand.
2/ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-hour.
NBI-389-9524-IX-8
TABLE lX-9
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DIESEL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Operation
Firm Schedule of Annual Insurance~/ and Lubrication Fuel Annual Diesel
Capacity Investment Cost Maintenance Oil Oil Cost
Year (kW) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) J.!L ($)
1982 155 4,150 37' 154 997 79,476 121,777
1983 155 4,150 37,704 1, 101 87,610 130,565
1984 155 4,150 38,255 1, 212 00,571 140, 188
1985 155 4,150 30,391 59 4,702 39,302
1986 155 4,150 30,439 68 5,389 40,046
1987 155 4,150 30,485 77 6,111 40,823
1988 155 4,150 30,532 87 6,885 41' 654
1989 155 4,150 30,578 96 7,668 42,492
1990 155
$200,000!/
4,150 30,626 107 8, 545 43,428
1991 155 4,150 30,751 132 10,509 45,542
1992 305 13,440 5,810 30,876 158 12,588 62.872
1993 305 13,440 5,810 31' 001 185 14,724 65,160
1994 305 13,440 5,810 31,127 214 17,015 67,606
1995 305 13,440 5,810 31,251 243 19,379 70,123
1996 305 13,440 5,810 31,377 275 21, 958 72,860
1997 305 13,440 5,810 31,503 308 24,553 75,614
1998 305 13,440 5,810 31,629 343 27,247 78,469
1999 305 13,440 5,810 31' 753 378 30, 125 81,506
2000 305 13,440 5,810 31,879 416 33,147 84,692
2001 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2002 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2003 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2004 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2005 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37' 237 89,011
2006 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2007 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2008 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2009 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2010 305
800,oor&'
13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2011 305 13,440 5,810 32,057 467 37,237 89,011
2012-34 350 40,800 6, 640 32,057 467 37,237 117.201
1/ Add 150 kW unit. 2/ Replace entire plant. F.xpand capacity to 350 kW. II Replacement value $500,000 through 1991; $700,000 through 2011; and $800,000 thereafter.
NBI-389-9524-IX-9
TABLE IX-10
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Operation Replacement 2:._/ Replacement
Capital and Schedule of Sinking
Costs Amortiza tionl./ Maintenance Investment H'und
Year ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
1982 0 0
1983 0 0
1984 3,082,300 0 0
1985 119, 901 39,638 14,790
1986 119, 901 39, 638 14,790
1987 119,901 39,638 14,790
1988 119,901 39,638 14,790
1989 119, 901 39,638 14,790
1990 119,901 39,638 14,790
1991 119,901 39,638 14,790
1992 119, 901 39,638 14, 790
1993 119,901 39, 638 14,790
1994 119,901 39,638 14,790
1995 119,901 39,638 14,790
1996 119,901 39,638 14,790
1997 119,901 39,638 14,790
1998 119,901 39,638 14,790
1999 119,901 39,638 14,790
2000 119,901 39,638 14,790
2001 119, 901 39,638 14,790
2002 119, 901 39,638 14,790
2003 119,901 39,638 14,790
2004 119,901 39,638 14, 790
2005 119, 901 39,638 14,790
2006 119,901 39,638 14,790
2007 119,901 39,638 14,790
2008 119,901 39,638 14,790
2009 119,901 39,638 55,000 14,790
2010 119, 901 39,638 14,790
2011 119,901 39,638 14,790
2012-
2034 119, 901 39,638 632,500 14,790
l/ 50 years at three percent.
2:._/ R 1 ep ace turbine runner in 2009; replace transmission lines in 2014.
NBI-389-9524-IX-10
Annual
Hydrc,1,.
Cost
($)
c
(
0
174, 32~
174,32~
174, 32~
174,329
17 4, 32(
174' 32~
174,329
174' 32~·
174,32~
174,328
174, 329,...
174' 32~
174,32~
174' 329
174, 32~"
174,32~
174,329
174' 32~"
17 4, 32~
174,32S
174,329
174' 32~""-
174, 32t
174,329
174,32~
174,32f
174,328
174,32
TABLE IX-11
RECOMM~NDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJEC'l'
SUMMARY
OLD HARBOR
Annuall/
Annuali./ AnnuallY Total
-----G2?eration Mix-----/ Hydro Diesel Annual
Demand Hydr~ Diesel~ Cost Cost Cost
~ (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) ($) ($) ($)
1982 420.8 0 420.8 174,329 121,777 121,777
1983 453.2 0 453.2 174,329 130,565 130,565
1984 485.6 0 485.6 174,329 140,188 140,188
1985 518.0 495.0 23.0 174,329 39,302 213,631
1986 540.4 574.6 25.8 174,329 40,046 214,375
1987 562.8 534.3 28.5 174,329 40,823 215,152
1988 585.2 553.9 31.3 174,329 41,654 215,983
1989 607.6 573.6 34.0 174,329 42,492 216,821
1990 630.0 593,2 36.8 174,329 43,428 217' 757
1991 651.7 607.5 44.2 174,3?.9 45,542 219,871
1992 673.4 621.9 57.5 174,329 62,872 237,201
1993 695.1 636.2 58.9 174,329 65,160 239,489
1994 716.8 650.5 66.3 174,329 67' 606 241 '935
1995 738.5 664.9 73.6 174,329 70,123 244,452
1996 760.2 679.2 81.0 174,329 72,860 247,189
1997 781.9 693.5 88.4 174,329 75,614 249,943
1998 803.6 701.8 95.8 174,329 78,469 252,789
1999 825.3 122.2 103. 1 174,329 81,506 255,835
2000 847.0 736.5 110.5 174' 329 84.692 259,021
2001 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2002 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 891011 263,340
2003 870.7 149.1 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2004 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2005 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2006 870.7 749.7 121.0 174' 329 89,011 263,340
2007 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2008 870,7 749.7 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2009 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2010 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2011 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 89,011 263,340
2012-34 870.7 749.7 121.0 174,329 117' 201 291,530
1 I Table VII -9. 2/ Table VI I-9. 3/ Table VII-9. 4/ Table IX-10. §j Table IX-9.
NBI-389-9524-IX-11
TABLE IX-12
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SPACE HEATING CREDIT
OLD HARBOR
Energy_!_/
Oil_y Oil Unit Schedule ofl.J Amortization.~./ Net Annual
Equivalent Cost Credit Investment Savings
Year (100 kWh) (gal) ($/gal) ($) ($) ($) ($)
1982 0 0 1. 70 0 0
1983 0 0 1. 74 0 0
1984 0 0 1. 79 0 7,500 0
1985 815.1 28,107 1.84 51,717 290 51,427
1986 795.5 27,431 1.88 51,570 290 51,280
1987 775.8 26,752 1.93 51,631 290 51,340
1988 756.2 26,076 1.98 51,630 290 51,340
1989 736.5 25,397 2.03 51,555 290 51,265
1990 716.9 24,721 2.09 51,666 290 51,376
1991 702.6 24,228 2.14 51,847 290 51,560
1992 688.2 23,731 2.20 52,208 290 51,920
1993 673.9 23,238 2.25 52,285 290 52,000
1994 659.6 22,745 2.31 52,541 290 52,250
1995 645.2 22,248 2.37 52,728 290 52,440
1996 630.9 21,755 2.44 53,083 290 52,790
1997 616.6 21,262 2.50 53,155 290 52,870
1998 602.3 20,769 2.56 53,169 290 52,880
1999 587.9 20,272 2.63 53,316 290 53,000
2000 573.6 19,779 2.70 53,404 290 53,100
2001-
2034 560.4 19,324 2.77 53,528 290 53,240
1/
2/
3!
4!
From Table VII-9; difference between
demand.
total hydro generation and hydro used for direct
29 kilowatt-hours per gallon.
Electric space heaters.
50 years at 3 percent.
NBI-419-9524-IX-12
--
,_,
TABLE IX-13
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC
Pro.iectll
Cost
Year ($)
1982 121,777
:1.983 130,565
1984 140,188
t985 213,631
1986 214,375
1987 215,983
:L988 215,983
t989 216,821
1990 217,757
1991 219,871
l992 237,201
1993 239,489
1994 241,935
1995 244,452
1996 247,189
1997 249,943
1998 252,789
1999 255,835
2000 259,021
2001-11 263,340
2012-34 291,530
Totals
1/
2!
3/
Table IX-11.
Table IX-12.
January 1982.
NBI-419-9524-IX-13
SUMMARY
OLD HARBOR
Present
Worth
Pro,i ec t
Cost
($)
118,230
123,070
128,292
189,808
184,922
180' 186
175,614
171' 160
166,893
163,605
171,359
167,973
164,746
161,612
158,661
155,756
152,947
150,276
147,716
1,389,551
4,422,377
6,397,361
PROJECT
Space.V
Presen21
Worth
Heating Heatin!l
Credit Credit
($) ($)
0 0
0 0
0 0
51,427 45,690
51' 280 44,234
51,340 43,000
51' 340 41,740
51' 265 40,470
51' 376 39,375
51,560 38,360
51,920 37,500
52,000 36,470
52,250 35,580
52,440 34,670
52,790 33,880
52,870 32' 940
52,880 32,000
53,000 31,150
53,100 30,290
53,240
53,240
1,239,000
A. BASE CASE
TABLE IX-14
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
OLD HARBOR
NET PRESENT WORTH COSTS~/
B. RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
GROSS PRESENT WORTH COSTS
LESS SPACE HEATING CREDIT
NET PRESENT WORTH COSTS
1! No heat recovery at Old Harbor.
NBI-419-9524-IX-14
$8,183,433
6,397,361
1,239,000
5,158,361
TABLE IX-15
COMPARISON OF HYDROELECTRIC COSTS AND BENEFITS
OLD HARBOR
EYDROELECTRIC PROJECT COSTS
Capital Costsll
Present Worth of Annual O&M ~
Present Worth Annual Replacement Costs ~/
Total Present Worth
NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH HYDRO PROJECT
Present Worth of Diesel Base Case
Adjusted for Diesel Costs Associated
with Base Case Including Hydro
(Hydro plus Diesel Case, Less
Present Worth of Hydro Costs Only)
Net Present Worth Benefits Related to
Hydro Project Costs Only
Net Benefits Adjusted for
Savings for Space Heating
BENEFIT/COST RATIOS
· B/C for Hydro Only
B/C Including Space Heating Savin~s
1982 present worth
$ 2,820,921
933,392
348,274
$ 4,102,287
$ 8,183,433
2,295,074
$ 5,888,359
$ 7,127,359
1. 44
1. 74
1/
2/ Capitalized 50 Years (1985-2034) at three percent interest
based on 1982 present worth
NBI-409-9522-IX-15
SECTION X
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
An environmental study of the Old Harbor Hydroelectric
Project vicinity was conducted to survey the resources in the
area, evaluate potential effects of the project, and formulate
1neasures to avoid or ameliorate adverse effects. Field
investigations were made, relevant literature was reviewed, and
representatives of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were consul ted along with
local residents and a local big-game guide.
The study results indicate that the adverse environmental
effects of the project will be minor due to the limited scope
of project activities, the limited nature of the fishery
resources in Midway Creek, and the availability of measures to
mitigate the potential effects from the construction and opera-
tion of the facilities. Implementation of the project should
bring some socioeconomic benefits to Old Harbor. The local
payroll will be expanded during construction and some employ-
ment should be provided for local residents both for construc-
tion and maintenance of the facilities. The project should
bring cheaper electric power to the local residents and a
dependable supply. Old Harbor residents are used to influxes
of workers, but precautions should still be taken to ensure
that the imported project work force does not disrupt the
traditional life style of the community.
The areas considered in the study included fisheries, wild-
life, vegetation, archaeological and historic sites, visual
resources, recreation, air quality, and socioeconomic
impacts. Land status, hydrology, and geology are addressed . in
NBI-419-9524-X X-1
Section IV, Basic Data. The detailed report on the environmen-
tal studies conducted is contained in Appendix E and a summary
of the study is presented in this section.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Fisheries
The Alaska Fisheries Atlas published by the Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game (ADF&G) indicates that Dolly Varden char
are the only fish present in Midway Creek. Local residents
indicated that a few pink salmon usually ascend the stream a
short distance. However, the lower port ion of the stream is
normally dry in the winter, so if spawning does occur not many
eggs are likely to survive the winter. No fishing occurs in
Midway Creek.
Seven Dolly Varden and one rainbow trout were caught in
minnow traps in the lower part of Midway Creek during the field
survey. No pink salmon were observed.
that Midway Creek is a stream with
resources.
All evidence indicates
very limited fishery
Dewatering or reducing flows in Midway Creek between the
weir and the powerhouse may prevent fish from using this
reach. Construction activities will also increase erosion and
sedimentation temporarily. Proper construction practices
should be observed even though the fishery resources are
limited. The design of the diversion weir will allow it to be
collapsed temporarily should it prove to be necessary to flush
out the spawning gravels below the weir.
2. Wildlife
Information on wildlife in the Old Harbor area was obtained
primarily through correspondence with ADF&G and conversations
NBI-419-9524-X X-2
with the local big game guide, Larry Matfay. Big Creek, the
stream to which Midway Creek is tributary, is used heavily by
bears throughout the year. Denning probably occurs in the
upper reaches of Midway Creek too, and bears feed along the
slopes of the Midway Creek watershed in the spring. The lower
elevations of Midway Creek are good deer wintering areas. And
mountain goats have extended their range into the higher eleva-
tions of the Big Creek drainage.
Big Creek has a good beaver population as well as land
otter in the tidally influenced area. The bird population
includes eagles, sharp-shinned hawks, duck, goldeneyes, harle-
quins, buffleheads, scoters, eiders and oldsquaws. Mammals and
birds of the Kodiak Archipelago are listed in Appendix E. No
endangered species occur on Kodiak Island, according to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, although the Peales peregrine
falcon, a nonendangered subspecies, does nest on the island.
The annual harvest of deer by Old Harbor residents probably
does not exceed 150. Red fox, beaver, and land otters are also
trapped by a few local residents, and the Big Creek area is
commonly used for duck hunting.
Project construction will result in permanent habitat loss
at the diversion weir, the powerhouse site, and the access road
to the site of the weir. This loss should be minor because of
the limited size of the project.
Operation of heavy equipment and other construction
activities will create considerable noise that will disturb
wildlife and cause some species to abandon their normally used
areas at least temporarily. However, all construction activity
should be completed in six months or less.
NBI-419-9524-X X-3
During project operation, alterations in the flow regime
between the diversion weir and the powerhouse may force water-
dependent animals such as the water ouzel to relocate.
3. Vegetation
The stream delta is covered with cottonwood, with an alder,
devils club and elderberry understory. Near saltwater and
along the sides of the delta, the cottonwood community grades
into a grass meadow. Along the stream valley, extensive alder,
elderberry and salmonberry thickets intermix with a grass
meadow containing cow parsnip, f ireweed and goa tsbeard. In
higher elevations, the meadow community appears to dominate.
4. Archaeologic and Historic Sites
An archaeological site has been located on the delta of
Midway Creek, but the extent of the site is unknown. The
Division of Parks may recommend that an archaeological survey
be done in the project area before construction begins.
5. Visual Resources
The transmission line is expected to be the only project
feature to have a visual impact.
6. Recreation
Little recreational use is currently made of the Midway
Creek drainage. The present plan is to gain access to the
project facilities by building a dock on Midway Bay rather than
by building a road to the town of Old Harbor. Thus the proJeCt
should have little effect on recreation, although the short
access road from the dock to the project facilities will
increase the use of surrounding areas.
NBI-419-9524-X X-4
7. Air Quality
During project construction, exhaust fumes from diesel
equipment and dust generated by construction activity may
diminish air quality. However, the project is more than one
mile from the North Village portion of Old Harbor; winds are
common in the area and should rapidly disperse any air
pollutants.
Electrical power for Old Harbor is currently provided with
diesel generators.
hydropower should
pollutants.
Replacement of diesel-generated power by
lower the discharge of hydrocarbon
C. SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS
No major socioeconomic impacts are anticipated during the
construction period for the proposed hydropower facility. The
Old Harbor population normally increases by as many as 60
people during the commercial fishing season, so locals are
accustomed to influxes of people. The construction force and
support personnel are not expected to exceed 21 and they will
average 16. If accommodations are not available locally, as is
likely, trailers can be brought in and a work camp can be set
up. In the year of construction, mobilization would probably
begin about April 1, with actual work beginning about April
15. The project should be completed by September 31 of the
same year. Working hours would be 10 hours a day, six or seven
days a week until the project is completed. Thus the workers
will have little time for recreation.
Skilled craft labor will be required on the project work
force and the policy should be to hire local people if they
have appropi ate skills. Old Harbor residents may well resent
imported labor unless they are given first consideration for
jobs. However, construction will occur during the summer
NBI-419-9524-X X-5
months, so many residents are likely to be busy with commercial
fishing and not be available for hire.
Even though Old Harbor residents are used to seasonal
influxes of workers, the manager of the project construe t ion
team will have to take precautions to ensure that the imported
workers do not disrupt the traditional life style of the
community. Some foresight
accommodate the imported
achieving this objective.
in
work
setting
force
up a trailer camp
should be helpful
to
in
If the project is implemented, the hydroelectric power
should provide a cheaper electric supply to the local resi-
dents. The Old Harbor community will also benefit from the
enlarged payroll during construction and from the employment of
some local workers both for construction and maintenance
activities.
NBI-419-9524-X X-6
SECTION XI
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
A. GENERAL
This chapter presents comments regarding the various
licenses, permits, and institutional considerations that will
be encountered during the implementation phase of the Old
Harbor project. A project development schedule is also
presented and discussed.
B. PROJECT LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The following permits may be required for construction of
the Midway Creek facility:
1. Under the authority of Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) must authorize the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable
waters, which includes adjacent wetlands, by all
individuals, organizations,
and federal, state and local
commercial enterprises,
agencies. A COE Section
404 Permit will therefore be required for the
diversion weir on Delta Creek.
2. A Water Quality Certificate from the State of Alaska,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), is
also required for any activity that may result in a
discharge into the navigable waters of Alaska.
Application for the certificate is made by submitting
to DEC a letter requesting the certificate, accom-
panied by a copy of the permit application being
submitted to the Corps of Engineers.
NBI-419-9524-XI XI-1
3. All public or private entities (except federal
agencies) proposing to canst ruct or operate a hydro-
electric power project must have a license trom the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) it the
proposed site is located on a navigable stream, or on
U.S. lands, or if the project affects a lJ.S. govern-
ment dam or interstate commerce.
4. A Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam is required from
the Forest, Land and Water Management Division of the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources for the con-
struction, enlargement, alteration or repair of any
dam in the State of Alaska that is ten feet or more in
height or stores 50 acre-feet or more of water.
5. A Water Rights Permit is required from the Director of
the Division of Forest, Land and Water Management,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, for any person
who desires to appropriate waters of the State of
Alaska. However, this does not secure rign ts to tne
water. When the permit holder has commenced to use
the appropriated water, he should notify the director,
wno will issue a Certificate of Appropriation that
secures the holder's rights to the water.
6. The proposed project area is located within the
coastal zone. Under the Alaska Coastal Management Act
of 1977, a determination of consistency wi tr1 Alaska
Coastal Management Standards must be obtained from the
Division of Policy Development and Planning in the
off ice of the governor. This determination would be
made during the COE 404 Permit review.
7. Any party wishing to use land or facilities of any
National Wildlife Refuge for purposes other than those
NBI-419-9524-XI XI-2
designated by the manager-in-charge and published in
the Federal Register must obtain a Special Use Permit
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This permit
may authorize such activities as rights-of-way;
easements for pipelines, roads, utilities, structures,
and research projects; and entry for geologic recon-
naissance or similar projects, filming and so forth.
Note that all
Wildlife Refuge
Native Claims
lands that were part of
before the passage of
Settlement Act and have
a National
the Alaska
since been
selected and conveyed to a Native corporation will
remain under the rules and regulations of the refuge.
C. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
A proposed project development schedule starting at the
':ime the initial draft is submitted is presented in Figure
XI-1.
The schedule is based on the assumption that two separate
eontracts would be awarded for the project construction. The
first would be for fabrication and delivery of the turbine-
generator equipment to the Port of Seattle and later
installation and the second would be for civil work
construction and installation in cooperation
manufacturer of the turbine-generator equipment.
with the
The controlling activities on the proposed schedule are the
turbine-generator procurement and the construction period.
1. Turbine-Generator Procurement
According to manufacturers' estimates, approximate! y
one year
fabrication
NBI-419-9524-XI
is
(and
necessary for turbine-generator
delivery to the Port of Seattle)
XI-3
starting from the time of contract award. In addi-
t ion, prior to the award a two-month period must be
allowed for aovertising, bid preparation, and bid
evaluation. This in turn would be preceded by a
three-month period to prepare specifications.
2. Construction Period
The field construction period woula require two to
three summer months of on-site activities, preceded by
one to two months of shipping and mobilization time.
Other critical tasks such as preparation of the civil plans
and specifications, award of the civil contract, procurement of
the necessary permits and license, and coordination of project-
related activities with other affected agencies would be
accomplished during the turbine-generator procurement phase;
thus they are not directly controlling activities.
As shown, the project construction would be completed about
October 1, 1984. Following three months of commissioning and
debugging time, the project would come on-line about January 1,
1985.
NBI-419-9524-XI Xl-4
Activity
1. State of Alaska Decision
2. Secure Necessary Permits, Licenses
3. Turbine/Generator Contract
a. Prepare Turbine/Generator Spec.
b. Advertise & ~valuate Bids
c. Fabricate Turbine/Generator
d. Deliver Turbine/Generator to Seattle
4. Civil Contract
a. Prepare Civil Plans & Specs.
b. Advertise & Evaluate Bids
5. Construction Activities
a. Mobilization Period
b. Barge Shipment
c. Site Mobilization
d. Slte Construction
6. Power Plant Commissioning,
Debugging Period
7, Plant On-Line
NBI-410-9521-PDS
FIGURE Xl-1
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCIIEDULE
-~--~------··~---··--·-·
1982 1983 ------"-----,--
J F N A M J J A s 0 N D J F M A M J J A
--
----~-----------------, __ -
~-·--·~
1984 ---... ----· s 0 N D J F M A M J J A s 0 N D
•
-..._ --
--, ____ -------~----'
SECTION XII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the studies completed for this report, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The energy demands of Old Harbor are sufficient to
utilize the energy
hydroelectric project.
produced by the proposed
2. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project at the recommended
capacity of 340 kW is a feasible project.
3. The proposed project is a more economic means of
meeting the future electric needs of Old Harbor than
the base case, or diesel, alternative.
4. The environmental effects of the proposed project are
minor and will have no major temporary or long-term
impacts.
B. RECOMMENDATION
In view of the conclusions enumerated above, it is
recommended that actions be initiated to implement the
project. Implementation can be accomplished along the general
lines indicated in Section XI, Project Implementation.
NBI-427-9524-XII XII-1
BIBLIOGRAPflY
OLD HAH.BOR
Alaska Department ot Fish & Game. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas,
Volumes I and II, 1978.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Alaska's Wildlife and
~abitat, Volumes I and II, 1973.
Burk, C.A. Geology of the Alaska Peninsula -Island Arc and
Continental Margin: Geological Society of America Memoir 99,
1965.
CH2M HILL. Reconnaissance Study of Energy kequirements
& Alternatives for Akhiok•King Cove•Larsen Bay•Old
Harbor•Ouzinkie•Sand Point. For Alaska Power Authority, June
1981.
Department of Commerce. ESSA -Environmental Data Service,
Climatological Data Summary, Alaska.
Ebasco Services, Inc., Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance
Study for Small Hydropower Projects: Aleutian Islands, Alaska
Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Vols. 1 and 2, October 1~80.
Ott Water Engineers. Water Resources Atlas for USDA Forest
Service Region X, Juneau, Alaska. April 1979.
Pewe, T.L. Quaternary Geology of Alaska: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 835, 1975.
U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration.
"Hydroelectric Power Potential for Larsen Bay and Old Harbor,
Kodiak Island, Alaska." May 1978.
NBI-419-9524-B
U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration. "::>mall
Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative," December 1979.
U.S. Geological Survey. 11 Flood Characteristics of Alaskan
Streams," Water Resources Investigation 78-129, R. D. Lamke.
1979.
U.S. Geological Survey. "The Hydraulic Geometry of Some
Alaskan Streams South of the Yukon River (Open File Report),"
William E. Emmett, July 1972.
U.S. Geological Survey. "Water-Resources Data for Alaska Water
Year 1963 through Water Year 1980-1981."
U.S. Geological Survey. "Water Resources of Alaska (Open File
Report)"; A. J. Feulner, J. M. Childers, V. W. Norman; 1971.
U.S. Geological Survey. 11 Water Resources of the Kodiak-
Shilikof Subregion, South-Central Alaska," Atlas HA-612, S. H.
Jones, et al., 1978.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Valdez Flood Investigation
Technical Report. February 1981.
NBI-419-9524-B
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DRAWINGS
PLATE I
PLATE II
PLATE III
PLATE IV
PLATE V
PLATE VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PLAN
INLET STRUCTURE AND ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
PENSTOCK --PLAN, PROFILE, AND DETAILS
DIVERSION FACILITIES --PLAN, ELEVATION,
AND SECTIONS
POWERHOUSE --PLANS AND SECTIONS
TYPICAL CROSSARM CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLY
NBI-427-9524-TC
./
I
;F-'
1. ~-
o_u)
\ ..
OLD
EXISTING RCA8 A\JL
T RAi\SMISSION 'LINE
)
-----~
~ ~-~
SHEEP ISLAND
--~
\ 0>
\
\
\
\
\._
·DOCK
/
/
./
/
/
/
\
\
/
/
/
I i ]_ I I j__ 1l.. MILES 0 4 2 4 4 2
~--~
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
/
STATE OF ALASKA
#
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
GENERAL PLAN
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
PLATE I
1-
UJ
UJ
"-z
362
350
~~
~
UJ
ul 342
···----...
···-----···
PLAN
SCALE I" • 4'
INLET STRUCTURE
(GATES NOT SHOWN)
ELEVATION
SCALE o I" • 4'
PENSTOCK
MIDWAY CREEK
0
0
+I
<D
-..
LEL 356 0
PREFABRICATED STEEL WEIR
SECTION A
SCALE 1" • 2'-0
SYMM ABOUT i--.J GATE MODULE
~GATE NEOPRENE SEAL~ r STEEL FACE PLATE \
CROSS BRACE---------
SECTION 8
SCALE' 1" • 1'-0
SYMM ABOUT i
GATE L 2 5 < 2 CONNECTION SUPPORT
' MAIN BRACE W 6 x g-------. ~
+' 1-
t-l CROSS BRACE ST 2.5xJ ++
1-
~ i
:n:
PIN SUPPORT lull I
3'-0
I I I
2'-o
SECTION C
SCALE' 1" • 1'-0
INLET STRUCTURE WALL
6"
•
'
'
+
+
+
16
~ ..
~ INLET STRUCTURE WALL
.
'
.. Y
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
SCALE: I" • 1'-0 OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
10
SCALE: I" 2'-o
20
SCALE: I" ; 4'
12 -
24
DIVERSION FACILITIES
PLAN, ELEVATION AND SECTIONS
OOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL I FORMA
PLATE ll
"' ::J
f-
<(
0
w
f-
"'
f-
w
w
"-
z
0
>= <( > w
--' w
/DIVERSION FACILITIES
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
100...,
80 i
60
40j
20
EL 352
y
u
Lt
z 0
0 0
'" + oc 0
w > <( _,f-
OIUl
TYPE I (ON TALUS)
-DIVERSION FACILITIES
I
STATIO~ 'FEET
NOTE ACTUAL ROADW MAINTAIN A GRAA; ALIGNMENT WILL E LESS THAN 10%
PENSTOCK /ACCESS ROAD
PLAN
SCALE I"~ 100'
PENSTOCK/ACCES< " ROAD TYPES
!
---1--TY p E li -1---
T
10
PENSTOCK I ACCESS
12
ROAD
POWERHOUSE
21+80 --
20
~
13 ~ 14 15
PROFILE OF SCALE "-, PENSTOCK /ACCESS ,-100 HORIZ __ R.=Oc::A..,D,
-40' VERT
TYPE Ill
16
0
L.
ACCESS
MIDWAY :~AD TO y DOCK I~ MILE I
~TRANSM TO OLD ~SSION LINE _ ARBOR
---1 :::
340
320
300
280
120
(RING GIRDER
\ g~5~E~ER
.
12 __ _r--~~ 20 24
SCALE 1"~4 , -__r--,
_ ____r----c_ 3-~0 ~ 120 160
SCALE 1"~40'
_______r----,__ 500 600 ~~ 300 400
SCALE I"~ 100' _ ____r-----,
-
--24'~ STEEL PIPE
--((RING GIRDER
~,,,~NATURAL GROUND ITAL
.., ', SELECT ROADBED FILL US)
BACKFILLED
TRENCH
A
-12'-
(TALUS)
FIBERGLASS PIPE
--3" SAND BEDDING
1'-o" EACH SIDE
(TYP)
TYPE II -LEVEL GROUND
12' SELECT ROADBEr .-ILL
' ~
BACKFILLED TRENCH
24" ~+=='--3" -FIBERGLASS PIPE
~-_j SAND BEDDING
I
O.D + 2'-o"
ITYP)
TYPE ill-SIDEHILL (SOIL)
I ACCESS ROAD
SCALE: 1"•4'
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER ANCHORAGE AAUTHORITY • LASKA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PENSTOCK-P LAN , PROFILE, AND DETAILS
TUDOR E SAN FR:~~~~i;lNG COMPANY 'CALIFORNIA
~~~~ ENGINEERS
ORAGE' ALASKA
PLATE
GENERAL PLAN
SCALE, 1", 20'
TURBINE SPEED INCREASER . .-FLYWHEEL
,_ _j.lo
PROFILE-SECTION A
SCALE .1.", 1'-0
16
./-GENERATOR
EQUIPMENT
MOUNTING SKID
FENCE
/ FENCE
ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR
24" ¢ PENSTOCK
BEARING LUBRICATION SET
TURBINE SHUTOFF VALVE
PENSTOCK DRAIN
PRESSURE
·TURBINE
PROFILE SECTION B
SCALE 1."~1'-0
16
0
0
4
20
SCALE
8
·l ___
POWERHOUSE PLAN
SCALE .!' ~ 1'-0
· .!', 1'-o
16
60
~-L
16
24 ---,
SCALE• 1", 20'
PERSONNEL DOOR
-EQUIPMENT MOUNTING SKID
-GENERATOR
ENTRANCE DOOR
FLYWHEEL
. --SPEED INCREASER
GOVERNOR
TURBINE
ORIGINAL GROUND _,_-
TAILRACE SECTION C
SCALE ·I"~ 4'
8
_j
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POWERHOUSE-PLANS AND SECTIONS
TUDOR ENGINEERING CQMR\NY
SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORN!A
PLATE I[
:
0
-"'
U)
I
0
f'()
ITEM NO.
0 3
b I
c: 3
d 5
f 2
9 I
ek
3' .. a"
___ a
b
Position of Guy
when req1 d 1
d:7tt~,
I 1 I ""'-bs
I II f I
' • I r"~
•
J
Neutrol
-~-~~~, -~---~-
1
I
l
I I
I I
' I I
lf;l ~-~
ek-d/1 ~~ ""-•• t~J
lt.J
Specify CIA for
offset neutral assembly
MATERIAL ITEM NQ
Insulator, pin type eu 2
Pin, pole top, 20" i 2
Bolt, machine, ~a" a req d length j J
Washer, 2 ~4" r2Y4" • ~.6. 1 ~tS hole bs I
Pin,crossorm,stetl,5t8" x I03t4 • ee I
Crossarm, 3''2" x 4 '12" a 8'-0" i 3
Locknuts
MATERIAL
Broce, wood, 28"
Bolt, carriage, 3,8" a 4 }2'
Screw, log, '12" x 4" ( Cl on!t_)
Bolt single upset insuloted(CI only}
Brocket_._offset...t.insuloted (CIA only)
Screw, 109. 1/2"• 4" ( C lA only)
7.2112.5 KV., 3-PHASE CROSSARM CONSTRUCTION
SINGLE PRIMARY SUPPORT AT o• )"0__5• ANGiE
Jon I, 1962 Ct,CIA
PLATE '2I
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX B
HYDROLOGY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. GENERAL
B. AREA DESCRIPTION
c. DATA UTILIZED
D. PROJECT STREAMFLOWS
E. DIVERSION WEIR FLOOD FREQUENCY
F. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL RIVER ICE
PROBLEMS
NBI-427-9524-TC
PAGE
1
1
4
5
11
14
A. GENERAL
The following report provides the estimates, the method-
ology, and the background data on stream flows near the village
of Old Harbor, located on the Kodiak Island in soutn-central
Alaska. Also included is a generalized write-up of potential
ice problems in the vicinity of Old Harbor and elsewhere.
Since the streamflows dictate the amount of energy that can
be produced by a particular dam and power plant configuration,
their accuracy critically affects the feasibility of the proj-
ect. Although hydrologic information from the immediate
vicinity of the project is very limited, information from other
areas of Kodiak Island permit acceptable estimates to be made
for the proposed Midway Creek power site. However, these
estimates should be compared with the actual streamflows now
being recorded at the site.
This report describes the general characteristics of the
Old Harbor region and the basin that feeds Midway Creek. The
data used in the hydrologic analysis and streamflow and flood
frequency data from Midway Creek are also presented. A list of
references that are cited in the text is presented at the end
of this appendix.
B. AREA DESCRIPTION
1. Regional Setting
Old Harbor is located on the southeast coast of Kodiak
Island, 50 miles southwest of the City of Kodiak and 35 miles
southeast of Larsen Bay, the site of another hydro feasibility
study that was conducted at the same time as the Old Harbor
study. Old Harbor shares with other regions of south Alaska
the comparatively mild maritime climate controlled by the Japan
Current that sweeps through the Gulf of Alaska. This current
produces cool summers, mild winters, and moderate to heavy
NBI-389-9524-B* 1
precipitation well distributed throughout the year. Most of
the precipitation occurs when moist air from the ocean
precipitates as rain or snow as it is uplifted along the 2000-
to 4000-foot-high mountain range that extends southwest through
the length of the island. The primary crest of the mount a in
range is only eight miles inland from Old Harbor. Strong,
continuous winds blow from the south as eastward-moving
Aleutian lows pass through this region from December through
March.
Mean annual precipitation ranges from 40 inches in
sheltered coastal locations to an estimated 1~0 inches on some
mountain crests (Ott Water Engineers, 1979). The mean annual
temperature of 410F at Kodiak ranges from a normal aaily mini-
mum of 25oF in December and January to a normal daily maximum
of 6ooF in August according to data from the Department of
Commerce's Environmental Data Service. Mean annual runoff is
typically eight cfs per square mile ( 109 inches) along the
windward portion of the island. The mean annual low month
produces only about one cfs per square mile of runoff (USGS,
1971).
2. Basin Description
The preferred hydropower development site for Old Harbor is
located on a creek that enters Midway Bay four miles northeast
of the airstrip and two miles from the newer North Village
development of Old Harbor. This previously unnamed creek
enters Midway Bay near the mouth of Big Creek; thus the name
"Midway Creek" was adopted for use in this stuay. At the site
o! the proposed diversion dam, Midway Creek emerges from a
hanging valley at 400 feet MSL and descends the glacial scarp
of the wide Big Creek Valley steeply to a large, flat alluvial
fan that the creek has built into Midway Bay. The 2.2-square-
mile drainage basin above the diversion weir extends two miles
NBI-389-9524-B* 2
to the northeast in a narrow valley flanked by 1200-to 2200-
foot-high ridges. Vegetation is primarily grasses and
alders. The stream gradient immediately upstream of the dam
site is comparatively flat and it provides little potential for
additional head gain by extending the penstock. This flatland
could possibly be aaapted as an efficient storage site should a
moderate-sized dam replace the proposed diversion weir. There
are no lakes or glaciers in the basin.
For 2200 feet below the weir, the stream descends steeply
in an open valley through rapids and low falls constructed of
large cobbles and boulders. At the 50-foot level adjacent to
the proposed powerhouse, the stream enters a broad, flat
alluvial fan and travels about one-half mile to its mouth. The
fan is well forested and constructed of highly permeable silts,
sands, and gravel. Surface flows infiltrate the fan alluviums
and they have been observed to disappear completely for short
reaches during periods of low flow.
A limited amount of weather information for Old Harbor has
been collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce 1 s Weather
Service from 1968 to 1971. The precipitation records are
complete only for the years 1969 and 1970; partial precipita-
tion records exist for 1968 and 1971. The reported precipita-
tion total of 26.60 inches for the year 1969 is only about half
of the total prec ipi ta tion that fell in 1970 (58. 01 inches).
The 1970 total is close to the long-term average precipitation
of 56.71 inches for the city of Kodiak. A comparison of
concurrent monthly precipitation at Old Harbor and Kodiak
provides no direct correlation between the two areas of the
island. The Kodiak precipitation totals for 1969 and 1970 are
69.71 and 55.06 inches respectively. Table B-1 lists monthly
precipitation values at Kodiak and Old Harbor.
The windward side of the orographic barriers with eleva-
tions exceeding 2000 feet should receive more precipitation
NBI-389-9524-B* 3
than the coastal areas. The relationship between mean annual
precipitation and orographic barrier elevation was analyzed to
improve the precipitation estimate for Midway creek. This
analysis utilized sea-level precipitation records from exposed
sites at the city of Kodiak and measured runoff from five
nearby mountain basins subject to orographic precipitation.
This analysis provided a value of 90 inches for the Midway
Creek basin. This value was further reduced by 10 inches to
compensate for the partial sheltering effect of Sitkalidak
Island. Hence, the selected mean annual precipitation for
Midway Creek was 80 inches.
C. DATA UTILIZED
Limited hydrology data exist in the Old Harbor area. A
total of ten miscellaneous streamflow measurements were made by
the USGS on four streams located north and west of Old Harbor
during 1970, 1978, and 1979 (USGS, 1970, and USGS, 1981). Flow
measurements were maoe for this study on Midway Creek at the
powerhouse site on October 21, November 2, and December 28,
1981, and a stream stage recorder was installed on December
28. Measurements and stage records were also made on Ohiouzuk
Creek in October before that power site was abandoned in favor
of Midway Creek.
USGS streamflow records from numerous gages on Kodiak
Island were used to establish flow and orographic precipitation
characteristics similar to those of Midway creek. Much of the
data is summarized in the USGS Hydrologic Atlas for the Kodiak-
Shilikof subregion (USGS, 1978). The 1963 to 1980 daily flow
records of the Myrtle Creek gage (No. 15297200), located nine
miles south of Kodiak, were also used extensively (U~li~,
1981). The short-term precipitation record from Old Harbor and
long-term record from Kodiak were used indirectly.
NBI-389-9524-B* 4
A report by Ebasco (1980) presented flow duration curves,
regional estimating methods, and initial estimates of basin
yield. The CH2M HILL report (1981) depended principally on the
previously mentioned USGS statewide report (1971).
D. PROJECT STREAMFLOWS
Midway Creek at the site of the proposed diversion should
be a perennial stream. The flow regime is seasonal, with
higher flows occurring in May and June from spring snowmelt and
in September and October from rainfall.
A comparison of precipitation records from Old Harbor and
Kodiak (Table B-1) indicates that the relative time distribu-
tion of precipitation is similar at both stations. Old Harbor
has a somewhat lower proportion of its annual precipitation
during the summer.
1. Mean Annual Flow
No streamflow data on Midway Creek exist except for a few
sporadic point discharge measurements made during this stuay.
As part of this study, a stream gaging station has been
installed at the proposed powerhouse site.
The paucity of data presently available dictated that the
following estimating techniques be used to determine stream-
flows within the region of interest:
• modified rational formula
• regional analysis
• channel geomorphology
Each one of these methods will be applied to the study area to
determine values for mean annual flow.
NBI-389-9524-B* 5
a. Modified Rational Formula
Application of the modified rational formula is
explained in detail in the Ebasco report (1980). Only the
salient features of the method are provided below. The method
requires that a gaged stream within the study area having
similar weather patterns and groundcover to the ungaged stream
be selected. A proportion is then set up, so that
=
Ag Aug
where Qg and Qug refer respectively to gaged and ungaged
streamflow in cubic feet per second and A is the drainage area.
Factors to adjust precipitation and elevation data are incor-
porated into this equation as follows:
= (P) + (D.H)E
Aug Ag
P is the precipitation adjustment factor between the two water-
sheds, t.H refers to elevation differential, and E is the
elevation adjustment factor.
In applying this procedure, Ebasco previously had
paired the gaged stream Myrtle Creek near Kodiak with Midway
Creek on the basis of the period of record and of basin and
climatological simi 1 ari ty. Mean discharge records of Myrtle
Creek area were analyzed in conjunction with long-term weather
records at Kodiak to determine whether the observed values are
"normal" or due to runoff from wet or dry series of years. A
flow adjustment factor was derived by taking the ratio of the
average annual rainfalls during the 16-year gaging record to
that of long-term average rainfall during the period of weather
records. The resulting factor of 0.86 was applied to the
NBI-389-9524-B* 6
shorter term measured flow of 46 cfs. This analysis yields an
adjusted mean annual runoff of 39.4 cfs or a unit runoff of 8.3
cfs per square mile (Qg/Ag in above equation) for Myrtle
Creek. These values are lower than reported by Ebasco. They
used a flow adjustment factor of 0.95.
The precipitation adjustment factor (P) accounts for
the precipitation difference between the area of gaged and
ungaged stream. It is a ratio of long-term average precipita-
tion between tne two basins. The precipitation adjustment
factor between Midway and Myrtle Creek basins is similarly
based on estimates of mean annual basin precipitations. The
values used are 80 inches of precipitation for Midway Creek and
140 inches of precipitation for Myrtle Creek. This results in
a precipitation adjustment factor of 0.57 between the two
basins. The elevation adjustment factor is omitted.
Standard planimeter procedures were used to calculate
the drainage of 2.20 square miles that contributes runoff to
the damsi te. Using the modified rational formula, the mean
annual flow for Midway Creek is estimated to be 10.5 cfs.
b. Regional Analysis
The regional method described by Ott Engineers (1979)
was first applied to the gaged stream Myrtle Creek to test its
applicability. The maritime climate in the Old Harbor area is
similar to that of the Chugach National Forest for which the
method was developed; therefore, the regional method should
provide reasonable estimates.
This method yielded a mean annual flow of 43 cfs with
90 percent confidence limits of 35 and 52 cfs. This predicted
value is within seven percent of tne measured flow of 46 cfs.
The same method applied to the Midway Creek site with a mean
NBI-389-9524-B* 7
annual precipitation of 80 inches gives a flow of 10.2 cfs.
The 90 percent confidence limits are 9 and 12 cfs.
c. Channel Morphology
Channel geomorphology can be used to estimate both the
mean annual flow and the mean annual flood by measuring channel
dimensions that have been shaped by these streamf lows. The
method is considered to give reliable estimates for some parts
of the Oni ted States where estimating relations have already
been defined.
William Emmett (USGS, 1972) applied this method to
bankfull stream geometry along the Trans-Alaska pipeline
corridor with reasonable success. His data included four large
streams in the Copper River basin that were potentially
applicable to Kodiak Island.
As part of the consultant's field work for the concur-
reo t feasibility studies, four small streams on liod iak Is land
were measured near stream gages. The combined data covered a
range of 19 to 37,000 cfs mean annual flow and banKfull widths
of 27 to 750 feet. Regression analysis of the data established
a consistent relationship between gaged mean annual flows and
the bankfull width of the channels within their vegetated
floodplains. The resulting equation was
Qma = .0083 w2.253 where
coefficient of correlation = .995, and
standard error of estimate= .12 log units (+32%, -24%).
The average width of Midway Creek as measured in the
field was 24 feet, which correlates with a mean annual flow of
approximately 10.7 cfs with a standard error range of ~ to 14
cfs.
NBI-389-9524-B* 8
d. Estimated Flow
A mean annual flow of 10.5 cfs for the Midway Creek
site is considered to be the best estimate based on available
information and the confidence interval of the various esti-
mates. The very close agreement of the three estimating
methods lends considerable confidence to the value.
The flow of 10.5 cfs is equivalent to 4. ~ cfs per
square mile. The 4.8 cfs may be compared with the (1980)
Ebasco estimate of 9.6 cfs (131 inches) on Midway Creek and
CH2M HILL estimate of 8. 0 cfs ( 109 inches) on Ohiouzuk Creek.
These other estimates appear to overestimate the available
precipitation in this somewhat sheltered location. The 10.5
cfs value is also consistent with three current meter discharge
measurements made at the site.
Date
October 21, 1981
November 2, 1981
December 28, 1981
Flow
31.0
8.6
11.5
The October 21 measurement followed two days of heavy
rain.
B. Flow Duration
The flow duration curve for a potential hydroelectric site
is the initial tool in sizing the turbine and estimating annual
energy production. Where no continuous record is available at
the site, the information must be transferred from gaged sites
on the basis of their hydrogeological characteristics.
NBI-389-9524-B* 9
The flow duration curve can be viewed as the time dis-
tribution of flows about the mean annual flow; thus a dimen-
sionless flow duration curve (the ratio uf the flow to the mean
annual flow versus the percentage of time the flow is exceeded)
can be developed for any gaged basin and directly compared wittl
any other dimensionless curve. Within certain hydrogeologic
regions, these curves often have remarkable similarity,
particularly within the 15 to 80 percent exceedance interval.
Thus regional curves can be developed. Curves from small,
steep basins with bedrock near the surface and little ground-
water contribution are typically steeper than those from larger
basins that include swamps or lakes and a good aquifer. The
Midway Creek basin belongs to the former group. A comparison
of dimensionless curves from three basins on Kodiak Island 25
to 40 miles distant and one from Amchika Island 1200 miles to
the southwest showed considerable similarity. On this bas is
the Myrtle Creek curve developed from 17 years of daily record
was adopted as the type of curve to use for small, mountainous
maritime basins in southwest and south-central Alaska. The
Midway Creek flow duration curve presented in Figure B-1 is
based on Myrtle Creek with the flows scaled to the ratio of
their respective mean annual flows in c (10.5/46).
3. Annual Hydrograph
Based on the same data and reasoning that went into
determining the mean annual flow and the flow duration curve,
an annual hydrograph was developed based on monthly flows at
Myrtle Creek.
The Midway Creek annual hydrograph presented in Figure B-2
and Table B-2 was based primarily on the mean and standard
deviations of the logs of the mean monthly flows recorded at
Myrtle Creek during the 17 years of record. The data were
scaled to the Midway Creek site by the ratio of mean annual
flows. The range of monthly means shown in grey corresponds to
NBI-389-9524-B* 10
roughly seven out of ten years. Thus the average monthly flow
should lie below the indicated range at least one year in ten
and above the indicated flow range at least one year in ten.
E. DIVERSION WEIR FLOOD FREQUENCY
Estimates of the magnitude and frequency of floods at
remote sites such as the Midway Creek site must depend
primarily on regional studies. These studies relate the
calculated flood frequency of measured peak flows at gaging
stations to their drainage basin characteristics such as area
and precipitation by means of multiple regression analysis.
The reasonableness of these estimates can be checked at the
remote site by utilizing bank full channel geometry and high-
water debris marks in the floodplain. This type of site evi-
dence is used to make rough estimates of the mean annual flood
and the five-to ten-year flood.
Flood discharge at the site was estimated on the basis of
three previous regional hydrology reports: USGS ( 1979), Ott
Engineers ~979), and Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
The USGS report employs the log-Pearson Type I II distri-
bution to determine flood magnitude and frequency relations on
the basis of data collected at 260 stations throughout
Alaska. The details of the analysis are provided in the
report.
The Ott Engineers report was developed for the Chugach and
Tongass National Forests on the Gulf of Alaska. The Chugach
National Forest includes the east end of Kodiak Island and the
prediction equations developed are considered applicable to the
Old Harbor area.
The Woodward-Clyde Consultants report ( 1981) was written
for the City of Valdez and covers much of the same area of
NBI-389-9524-B* 11
south-central Alaska as the Chugach National Forest equations
developed by Ott Engineers.
The three sets of flood predict ion equations were applied
to botn the Midway Creek site and Myrtle Creek, the latter
providing an approximate test for this region.
BASIN PARAMETERS
Site Area Precip. Temperature Percent of Area
(sq. mi.) (in.) (Jan. mean min.) lake store. -forest
Midway Cr. 2.20 80 240F 0 0
Myrtle Cr. 4.74 140 24oF 0 0
PREDICTED FLOOD FREQUENCY AT MIDWAY CREEK
Method Peak Discharge for Recurrence Interval
(years) 2 10 25 50 100
USGS (cfs) 370 540 560 670 740
(Standard error, %) 50 45 48 42
Ott (cfs) 140 250 300 340 400
Woodward-Clyde (cfs) -250 330 380
PREDICTED FLOOD FREQUENCY AT MYRTLE CREEK
Method Peak Discharge for Recurrence Interval
(years) 2 10 25 50 100
USGS (cfs) 930 1400 1510 1810 2000
Ott (cfs) 665 1110 1300 1480 1670
Woodward-Clyde (cfs) 1130 1470 1620
Based on Lamke's analysis of 14 years of measured flood
peaks on Myrtle Creek, the 2-year and 10-year floods are 765
and 1020 cfs respectively. The maximum flood in that period,
NBI-389-9524-B* 12
1, 110 cfs on September 14, 1969, has approximately a 10-year
average recurrence interval.
The mean annual precipitation used at Myrtle Creek is
derived from the isohyetal map produced by Ott Engineers. It
accounts for significant
elevation and it is similar
for Midway Creek. The
increases in precipitation with
to the basin precipitation derived
USGS method produces much higher
estimates with this precipitation value. However, if the mean
annual precipitation of 80 inches derived from the earlier
isohyetal map actually used by Lamke is substituted, the
estimated 10-year flood is 1040 cfs. This appears to be a case
where each method must be confined to the data on which the
original regression analyses were based. With this limitation
on precipitation estimates, there is good agreement among the
three methods.
Estimates of the two-year flood were also made based on
field measurement of the bank full channel area and the channel
geometry work of Emmett (USGS, 1972). Channel areas of 49 and
118 square feet correlated with two-year floods of 180 and 530
cfs at Midway Creek and Myrtle Creek respectively.
The adopted flood frequency curve at the Midway Creek site
based on the Ott Engineers equations is presented in Figure
B-3. The 90 percent confidence limits adapted from the Ott
Engineers analysis are also shown. The lines indicate that the
true flood frequency would lie within these limits with a 90
percent level of confidence. The channel geometry analysis
further increases the confidence in the adapted flood
frequency.
NBI-389-9524-B* 13
It should be recognized that in this environment the
greatest depth and extent of flooding may not be due to peak
discharges. Ice sheet and ice jam flooding are common. Uuring
the normal winter freeze-thaw cycles, many layers of ice may
accumulate and create temporary ponds that may release suddenly
to inundate and jam the diversion weir.
F. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL RIVER ICE PROBLEMS
1. Formations of River Ice
The occurrence and condition of the ice on rivers and
reservoirs may require protection of water intake points from
blockage. Several types of ice can form in natural rivers.
One is called "sheet ice" and it occurs mostly on stagnant
bodies of water and slowly flowing streams. This ice usually
originates with plate or border ice and gradually propagates
across the water surface until a continuous sheet is produced.
Another type of river ice is called "frazil ice."
by nucleation of slightly supercooled turbulent
forms of frazi 1 ice are distinguished: active
It is formed
water. Two
and passive
forms. Passive frazil ice is not considered as detrimental as
active, which sticks to any solid object at or below freezing
temperature in the river. If the active frazi 1 ice adheres to
the river bottom, it may contribute to the formation of anchor
ice. One other form of river icing refers to a mass of surface
ice formed by successive freezing of sheets of water that seep
from a river. A river icing (to which the term auf eis is
commonly restricted) is more particularly the mass of ice
superimposed on the existing river ice cover.
2. Estimates of Ice Thickness
The thickness a natural ice sheet can attain depenas upon
the cooling potential of the atmosphere. In winter this is
often expressed in freezing degree days, and the thickness
NBI-389-9524-B* 14
reached at any time is expressed in terms of the square root of
the degree days. Although several relationships have been
developed to estimate ice thickness as a function of the
cooling potential of the atmosphere, Stefan's simple equation
( 1889) is presented here to provide rough estimates of ice
thickness. The Stefan equation in its original idealized form
does not include the effects snow cover, wind, surface
roughness, and other physical parameters.
expression of Stefan's formula
The following
incorporates a coefficient a that presumably accounts for local
effects such as snow cover and snow conditions. Values of a.
are given in the following tabulation. FI is the freezing
index and refers to the number of degree days below freezing
for one year. Freezing degree days or freezing index values
are obtained from NOAA climatological records.
For the four small hydropower locations studied for this
contract of which the Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project is a
part, the following values of a. and FI have been chosen and the
resulting river ice thicknesses are indicated.
Site a. FI (°F-day) H (inches) ---
Togiak 0.65 2225 30
King Cove 0.40 1400 15
Old Harbor 0.40 1500 16
Larsen Bay 0.40 1400 15
Estimates of river ice thickness are provided to aid the
design of proper hydraulic structures and protect them from ice
problems such as ice jams, icing, and improper placement of the
intake. Note that these ice thicknesses are theoretical values
NBI-389-9524-B* 15
and do not include the effects of wind, flowing water, and
currents and snow cover.
3. Frazi 1 Ice
More severe problems could potentially be experienced from
frazil ice formation at the water intake point. Since very
little is known about frazil ice formation, evolution, and
subsequent disposition, rational design methods to avoid
frazil-ice problems are lacking.
Frazil ice formation has been observed at Midway Creek, Old
Harbor, and Humpy Creek dam site in Larsen Bay. Particularly,
Humpy Creek dam site appears to produce considerable frazil ice
under natural flow conditions. Delta Creek dam site at King
Cove may also experience similar ice problems. The Togiak
Quigmy River project site has been observed to have floating
ice blocks and ice jams that develop at naturally constricted
channel locations. During the installation of a stream gage in
December 1981, release of water from an ice-jammed reservoir
upstream caused the stage to rise approximately three feet.
Considerable quantities of floating ice blocks have oeen
observed following the rise in stage.
While little data are presently available, it is clear that
the potential ice problem cited above must be considered in
depth during the design phase of project implementation. These
in-depth considerations should include an evaluation of condi-
tions that cause ice problems, the extent of the problems to be
encountered, and potential measures to alleviate or mitigate
the problems.
NBI-389-9524-B* 16
TABLE B-1
AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
(inches)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Old Harbor
1968 N.A. N.A. . 55 5. 1 f) N.A . N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 7.20 1. 64
1969 1.48 2.82 0.88 1. 11 0.93 1. 61 T T 1.67 6.87 0.86 8.37 26.60
1970 2.25 18.81 3.86 2.74 3. 15 4.23 3.09 2.35 10.37 1. 35 3.23 2.58 58.01
1971 1.48 5. 24 3.74 5.02 6.46 8.28 N.A N. A. N. A. N. A. N.A. N. A.
Kodiak
1968 1. 97 9.61 3.32 4.42 1. 97 2.07 7.60 3.68 5. 85 4.04 7.34 2.99 54.86
1969 .24 4. 13 3. 89 5. 46 3.30 7. 56 2.00 3.25 9.35 12.36 5.96 12. 19 69.71
1970 3.26 8.39 5. 96 1. 43 3.10 2.94 4.04 7.44 6.39 4.48 2.25 4.75 55.06
1971 6.74 8.82 4.28 4.31 11.89 8.50 7.96 4.86 6.59 4.70 4.52 2.30 75.47
Long term 5.01 4.89 3.85 3.61 4.35 4. 12 3.54 4.30 6. 11 6.29 5. 41 5.03 56.71
TABLE B-2
E:ST IMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS AND DEVIATIONS
(c fs)
MIDWAY CREEK
Jan Feb Mar AJ2r Ma~ ,Jun Jul Aug Se12 Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average 13.7 10.3 6. 1 6.4 5.5 3.9 8.0 22. 1 19.3 7.7 8.6 14.8 10.5
High 22.7 18.4 15.9 19.6 18.2 11.9 16.7 31.2 34. 1 16.5 19.6 25.0
Low 8.3 5.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.1 3.7 15.6 10.8 3.7 3.7 8.8
NBI-389-9524-B-1
56
48
40
32
24 \
~
\
~ 16
~ MEAN ~~NNUAL FLOW 10.5 cfs
- 8 • ....
0 -~
' I' ' ..............
9
u.. 0 0 20 40 60
I
PERCENT ( 0/o} OF TIME FLOW EXCEEDED
MIDWAY CREEK
FLOW DURATION CURVE
.......
-~
80 100
FIGURE
B-1
-.. -u -
ESTIMATED RANGE OF AVERAGE
MONTHLY FLOWS 7 OUT OF 10
YEARS I t I I
I
O JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
-----------------------------------------------------------------MIDWAY CREEK
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS FIGURE,
8-~ ..
EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
-... ,
~ __:_·; ·~~~ --f -:-:~:J::::r-~·--:-r,-. -.. +-+-'-t~
......., " + J • t ' · • ~ · j · · I ~ , --
10 5 2 I 0.5 0.1
UJ 200 L90~~,CONF)DgN.CJ;_lftT~~:::t::=t:~~-i-t~~~-~--L.l~-.:.~-L_:_.. __ .
~ [ ESt.i+Eo1 Flcl:nk~ · ~Y----~ I _ : . . · 1 : 1. l . · 1 : ~ ~:1:~ r l .
Q 100 :__ __ __.:.~ 1 : -I
2 5 10 20 50 100 1000
AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS
MIDWAY CREEK FIGURE
PEAK FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE 8-3
OLD HARBOR APPENDIX B
References
CH2M HILL, Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements
& Alternatives for Akhiok•King Cove•Larsen Bay•Old
Harhor•Ouzinkie•Sand Point. For Alaska Power Authority, June,
1981.
Department of Commerce. ESSA -Environmental Data Service,
Climatological Data Summary, Alaska.
Ebasco Services, Inc •. Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance
Study for Small Hydropower Projects: Aleutian Islands, Alaska
Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Vols. 1 and 2, October 1980.
Grey, B.J. and D.K. MacKay, "Aufeis (overflow ice) in Rivers",
Canadian Hydrology Symposium Proceedings: 79, Glaciology
Division, Water Resources Branch, Inland Waters Directorate,
Environment Canada, 1979.
Michel, B., "Winter Regime of Rivers and Lakes", CRREL
Monograph III-BIA, CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire, 1971.
Osterkamp, T. and Gosink, J.P., 'Letter written to Dept. of
Commerce and Economic Development', January, 1~82.
Ott Water Engineers. Water Resources Atlas for USDA Forest
Service Region X, Juneau, Alaska. April 1979.
Rhoads, E.M., "Ice Crossings", The Northern Engineer, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp. 19-24, 1974.
NBI-389-9524-BR
Stefan, J. "Uber Die Theorien Des Eisbildung in Polarmere",
Wien Sitzunsber, Adad. Wiss., Ser. A, Vol. 42, Pt. 2, pp. ~65-
983' 1889.
U.S. Geological Survey. "The Hydraulic Geometry of Some
Alaskan Streams South of the Yukon River (Open File Report),"
William E. Emmett, July 1972.
U.S. Geological Survey. "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan
Streams,11 Water Resources Investigation 78-129, R. D. Lamke.
1979.
U.S. Geological Survey, "Water-Resources Data for Alaska Water
Year 1978 through Water Year 1980." 1981.
U.S. Geological Survey. "Water Resources of Alaska (Open File
Report);" A. J. Feulner, J. M. Childers, V. W. Norman; 1971.
U.S. Geological Survey, "Water ftesources of the Kodiak-Shilikof
Subregion, South-Central Alaska,11 Atlas HA-612, S. H. Jones,
et al. , 1978.
U.S. Geological Survey. "Water-Resources Reconnaissance of tt1e
Old Harbor Area, Kodiak Island, Alaska," John B. Weeks, 1970.
Wahanik, R.J., "Influence of Ice Formations in the Design of
Intakes", Applied Techniques in Cold Environments, Vol. 1, pp.
582-597. 1978.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Valdez Flood Investigation
Technical Report. February 1981.
Yould, P.E., and T. Osterkamp, "Cold Region Considerations
Relative to Development of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project",
Applied Techniques in Cold Environments, Vol. 2, pp. d87-895,
1978.
NBI-389-9524-BR
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX C
GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICS
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.
TOPOGRAPHY •••
REGIONAL GEOLOGY .•..
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY.
1.
2.
3 •
4.
Diversion Site Geology.
Construction Materials.
Road/Penstock/Powerhouse Location.
Ohiouzuk Creek •.•..•..••..••.••..••.
SEISMIC HAZARDS ••••. . ............................. .
l-1-ECHANICAL ANALYSIS. . ............................. .
REFERENCES CITED .•••••..•••••.••.•••••.•••.•••.••.•
i
1
2
3
6
6
7
7
9
10
13
15
Fi re
1
2
3
4
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Geologic Time Scale •.........•.............•..
Reconnaissance Geologic Nap .................. .
Road Location Map •......•............•........
S e ism i c Risk ~Ia p • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • .•
Gradation-Alluvial Fan ...................•..
ii
5
8
ll
14
APPENDIX C Geology and Geotechnics for the Proposed Old Harbor
Hydropower Project
A. INTRODUCTION
In siting a hydropower development, it is important to
understand the regional as well as the site-specific geology and
geotechnics. Regional inforrnat ion is necessary to: ( 1) assess
the geologic hazards, (2) assure that appropriate design criteria
are utilized, ( 3) discover construction material borrow sites,
(4) provide background information for environmental studies.
This report discusses regional geology and seisrnici ty and the
specific darn site, penstock/road routes, and the powerhouse loca-
tion. Because of subtantial geologic hazards at the original
site on Ohiouzuk Creek, the project site was moved to Midway
Creek. An explanation of the geologic problems at Ohiouzuk Creek
is included in this report. In accordance with the Scope of Work
for this project, the information is intended for use at the de-
tailed feasibility study stage.
Geologic and geotechnical field studies were conducted
September 18, October 19-22, and November 5, 1981, by Dr. R.L.
Burk, Project Geologist and Team Coordinator, and J. Finley,
Project Geotechnical Engineer.
-1-
B. TOPOGRAPHY
Old Harbor is located in the south-central portion of Kodiak
Island, Alaska, along the shores of Sitkalidak Strait.
Sitkalidak Strait is a major feature which opens up to the
Pacific Ocean at both ends. Old Harbor is situated near
Sitkalidak Passage, a narrow arm of the Strait separating Kodiak
Island from the smaller Sitkalidak Island.
Sitkalidak Strait and many of its tributary bays were once
filled with ice. As the glaciers retreated and the sea level
rose, these former glacial valleys filled with water; they are
now classified as fjords. Because multiple glacial advances have
brought ice to this entire area, the hills are generally smooth
and rounded, hanging valleys are common, and valleys tend to have
a parabolic cross section. Elevations in the immediate project
area range to approximately 2000 feet.
The proposed stream diversion site is on a creek which is a
tributary to Midway Bay and has been named Midway Creek for the
purposes of this report. Midway Bay is a small bay which is part
of Sitkalidak Strait near Old Harbor and Sitkalidak Passage.
-2-
C. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Plate-tectonic theory provides the basic ideas necessary to
synthesize and understand the geology of continental margins and
plate boundaries. Ocean trenches are viewed as sites of large-
scale underthrusting of oceanic crustal materials. The sediments
that fill these trenches are scraped from the downgoing plate and
accreted to the overlying plate as this underthrusting con-
tinues. Southwestern Alaska has a long history of being a zone
of accretion for deep-sea deposits.
The Kodiak Formation which constitutes the bedrock under-
lying the Old Harbor site has been interpreted as a deep-sea
trench deposit of Late Cretaceous age (see Figure 1) which has
been accreted to the continent (Connelly, 1978). These rocks are
for the most part marine turbidites and range from well-lithified
siltstones to fine sandstones.
Glaciation on Kodiak Island has probably extended from
Miocene time (Pewe, 1974) to the present. The glacial deposits
at Old Harbor date from Late Pleistocene time (Coulter, eta!.,
1965). Both till and glacial outwash deposits are present (see
Geologic Map, Figure 2).
-3-
GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE
Subdivisions of Geologic Time Radiometric Ages
(mil lions of years
Eras Periods Epochs before the present)
(Recent)
Quaternary Pleistocene
1 • 8
(.) Pliocene -6 0
N Miocene 0 z 22 LLI
(.) Tertiary 0 I I gocene
36
Eocene
58
Paleocene
63
(.) Cretaceous -0 14 5 ----
N Jurassic 0
V'J 210 LLI
::£ Triassic
2 55
Permian
28 0
Pennsylvanian
320
(.) Mississippian -
0 360 ---
N Devonian 0
LLI
....J 41 5
< Si lurlan IL
465
Ordovician
52 0
Cambrian
58 0
PRECAMBRIAN
(No worldwide subdivisions)
Birth of Planet Earth 4,650
Figure 1. Geologic Time Scale
-4-
EXPLANATION I
Ou Quaternary deposits, undivided glacial
'deposits, colluvium, stream deposits
DOWL
Alluvial fan deposits
Kodiak Formation-turbidites,
siltstones fine sandstones
ENGINEERS
Reconnaissance Geologic Map
Midway Creek FIGURE 2
D. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
1. Diversion Site Geology
Midway Creek flows in a narrow gorge through rocks of
the Kodiak Formation, glacial deposits, and colluvium onto an
alluvial fan composed of sandy gravel (see Geologic Map,
Figure 2). The bedrock in this area consists of very well lithi-
fied, competent siltstones and very fine sandstones characteris-
tic of Late Cretaceous turbidite deposits in this part of
Alaska.
The proposed east diversion weir abutment is situated
in rocks of the Kodiak Formation. The rock is jointed but
appears competent for the intended use. Minor amounts of loose
rock will need to be removed however, no major blocks where
sliding is imminent were observed.
The proposed west abutment is
rock which have been brought in by
boulders in this area are large (up to
in boulders of granitic
glacial activity. The
10 feet) and will easily
serve as darn abutment material. However, there may be a problem
with water flowing around the boulders and decreasing slope
stability. A silt or other impervious curtain is recommended
along the west side of the "reservoir" area. Excavations at the
proposed site may show that such a curtain is unnecessary; how-
ever, it should be included in the initial cost estimates.
Possibly some of the boulders may actually represent
subcrop. The lack of contact zone alteration makes that seem
less likely, although not impossible. Boulders of the same
-6-
composition occur as erractics higher up on the slopes above the
creek, so at least some of these granitic boulders have undergone
glacial transport.
Permafrost is not present in this area. No springs or
unusual groundwater conditions were observed during the field
work.
2. Construction Materials
Gravel is available from the alluvial fan (see
Mechanical Analysis Section Figure 5). Less than six inches of
overburden will need to be stripped off to reach usable gravel.
Boulders of competent, relatively unweathered granitic
rocks are available from the glacial deposits. These rocks are
suitable for virtually all types of construction uses.
3. Road se Locations
There is some possibility that the State Department
Transportation and Public Facilities may build an airport on the
alluvial fan below the diversion site. If so, this agency would
provide access from Old Harbor to the airport. vlhile direct
access to town would be advantageous, it is not considered
necessary and it does not significantly affect the economics of
road building for this project.
Boats can easily be beached on the alluvial fan (see
Road Location Map, Figure 3) and a road can be built up the fan.
-7-
DOWL
ENGINEERS
o'
IIIII
ROAD LOCATION MAP
MIDWAY CREEK
FIGURE 3
Due to the highly permeable nature of the gravel, only clearing
of vegetation would be necessary for a truck trail on the fan.
Above the fan the proposed road ~ould climb onto a bench in the
topography and proceed to the dam site on this bench. To get up
on this terrace, extensive cutting and filling would be necessary
for approximately 75 yards. The terrace is composed of colluvium
and boulder till. On top of the bench a preliminary cut would
need to be made in the topography; then 18 inches of fill ma-
terial would need to be brought in from the fan. Approximately
3,000 feet of road would be on the fan and approximately 1,500
feet of road would be on the terrace.
The powerhouse would be built on the fan and the sand
and gravel substrate has excellent bearing capacity for this
use. No special geotechnical problems are anticipated at this
site.
4. Ohiouzuk Creek
The original site for the detailed feas ibi 1 i ty study
was Ohiouzuk Creek. On the basis of a preliminary reconnaissance
visit and more detailed work, this site was rejected because of
geologic hazards. Numerous slide areas were present surrounding
the proposed dam site, penstock alignment, and road. Incompetent
rock, springs and the high rainfall levels in this area are con-
tributing factors to hillslope failure. The slopes in most cases
could not be cut back without bringing down large portions of the
hillsides. The geologic conditions in this area are similar in a
number of respects to the major slide area near the town of
Kodiak. Bedrock outcrops are very sparse because of natural
sliding in the Ohiouzuk Creek basin. Any construction activities
would accelerate this slide activity.
-9-
E. SEISMIC HAZARDS
Southwestern Alaska is part of an intense seismic zone which
circumscribes the Pacific Ocean. l-1ost of the more than 150,000
earthquakes that occur worldwide each year occur in this Circum-
Pacific belt and in a somewhat smaller belt which extends through
southern Asia and the Mediterranean.
Past earthquake damage in the study area has been princi-
pally manifested in five separate forms which can act indepen-
dently or in combination.
0
0
Surface faulting major and minor faults are
present in the Old Harbor area; however, the rock
at the proposed dam sites does appear to have been
subject to fault slip.
Strong ground motion over a 50-year design
period, the maximum rock acceleration is expected
(probability of exceedance = 10%} to be between 40
and 50%g (see Figure 4). This figure was prepared
using actual earthquake epicenter and magnitude
data for Alaska.
o Ground failure -minor landslides have occurred in
0
this area in the past;
that would affect the
expected.
however, no major slides
integrity of a dam are
Seiches these are long-period oscillations of
enclosed water bodies. Because no reservoir is
proposed, no destructive seiches are expected.
-10-
DOWL
ENGINEERS SEISMIC RISK MAP -Peak Rack Acceleration FIGURE 4
o Tsunami -seismic sea waves could affect coastal
areas, including the town of Old Harbor but not
the dam site.
-12-
F. MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
-13-
@Alaska Testlab 4040 "8" Slreel Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone (9071 2711-1551 Sheet _ _!_ of 1
w. o. No._ DJ-34 io-·
Date JL4lftZ _____ _
Technician !;i,_.N.._ ____ _
Textural Class __ Sandy Grav:.aL .... Client _ .Alaska_ .Powe.r Authority
... ..
IC
w z ...
....
"' w u
" "' ..
Frost Class __ _
Plastic Propert.ies _____ _
Date Reeeived ___ .lj.4/82
_ Unified Class __ _GW___ ·-__ Project .A __ Haffir.o_ ____ ..
Sample Number .. 4131
Location .... Midway .. creek.
Sample Taken By .... ..clien.t. ____ _
·~···~ ---· Figure 5 .. --
··-Alluvial
10 ----gradation -------
fan
G. REFERENCES CITED
Connelly, W. 1978, Uyak Complex, Kodiak Islands, Alaska: A
Cretaceous subduction complex: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 89, p. 755-769.
Caul ter, H. W. and the Alaska Glacial Map committee, 1962, !iap
showing the extent of glaciations in Alaska: u.s. Geologi-
cal Survey Map I-415.
Pewe, T.L., 1975, Quaternary Geology of Alaska: u.s. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 835, 145 p.
-15-
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
.FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX D
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
A. GENERAL 1
B. METHODOLOGY 2
c. MOBILIZATION AND SUPPORT COSTS 3
D. UNIT PRICES 4
NBI-427-9524-TC
APPENDIX D
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
A. GENERAL
This appendix presents the method, backup data, and assump-
tions used to estimate the cost of the recommended hydroelec-
tric project. Following the presentation of the methodology
are tables showing a breakdown of major cost i terns such as
mobilization, labor and transportation.
At the outset of the cost estimating procedure for the Old
Harbor Power Project, it was determined that the unit-cost
estimating method for material placement and other construction
activities would not provide sufficient accuracy and confi-
dence.
Development of construction cost estimates with this method
uses unit prices developed from estimates and bid tabulations
on similar projects under similar conditions, in terms of geo-
graphic location, weather, accessibility and other factors that
may affect the cost. When available unit prices are not simi-
lar in these respects, they must be adjusted to reflect the
actual cost of the canst ruction i terns under the speci fie con-
ditions. For this project, it was felt that the available data
base of unit prices was not sui table. Typically, unit prices
on remote Alaskan construction projects vary widely and seem to
depend heavily on a contractor's approach in scheduling crews,
transportation, shipping, and work schedules.
NBI-427-9524-AD 1
The cost estimate herein was prepared by using the heavy-
canst ruction estimating method and January 1982 costs. This
method treats the project as a separate entity. The construc-
tion cost computations are based on the use of construction
equipment units, labor rates, labor productivity, working con-
ditions, work schedule and sequence, subcontract prices, perma-
nent material and equipment prices, and special constraints and
requirements.
B. METHODOLOGY
The preliminary design and layout of facilities was used to
establish estimated quantities of permanent and consumable
materials and other measurable items of work such as excavation
and embankment quanti ties. A construction schedule was pre-
pared for each major item of work, based on assumed production
rates normally attainable under similar conditions. Considera-
tion was given to the remote location, 60-hour work week, and
short construction season. Construction equipment of appropri-
ate size and type for each operation was selected with a view
toward minimizing the number of pieces of equipment and using
each piece to its optimum capacity.
The manpower from the standpoint of crafts and the numbers
of persons; hours of equipment operation; quantities of consum-
able supplies and spare parts; subcontracted work; and the
required permanent materials and equipment were estimated for
each work i tern. The applicable rates and prices were applied
to produce direct costs of labor, equipment, and materials.
It was assumed that all skilled construction personnel will
be brought to the site by the contractors since it is not known
whether local labor will be available. Table D-1 lists the
skilled personnel that will work on the project, and tabulates
the number of man-weeks required for each craft. Also indi-
cated is the weekly wage for each craft. The wages are based
NBI-427-9524-AD 2
on union scale, including benefits, current as of January
1982. A work week (man-week) consisting of six ten-hour days
is assumed. If the contractor chooses to increase the number
of working hours per man-week, the weekly wage will increase,
but the overall labor cost will not, since the duration of the
construction period will decrease accordingly.
Also included in the work force are subcontracted person-
nel. A heavy equipment moving crew will transport the
turbine/generator assembly from the barge unloading site to the
project site and install it in the final position. An erection
crew will assemble and install the prefabricated metal power-
house building on the concrete foundation.
The transmission line subcontract labor force is not
included in Table D-1 and is excluded from the labor cost;
however, the required camp cost to support this crew of eight
is shown.
A detailed breakdown of the transmission line subcontract
is presented in Table D-8. The subcontract amount is based on
January 1982 costs for power lines connecting the potential
hydroelectric site to existing village power plants. Loads and
distances can easily be handled with distribution voltages
( 12.47 kV). Therefore, popular REA-type assemblies and con-
ductors were assumed. A typical crossarm construction assembly
is shown on Plate VI, Appendix A.
Equipment costs presented in Table D-2 are based on an
hourly ownership rental for 21 weeks plus an hourly use rate
for the actual hours used. The rates used are from actual
costs of operating, owning, and maintaining equipment. They
include fuel costs at Alaskan rates. Material costs are
current costs for the items delivered to Seattle, Washington,
at a barge departure point. They are shown in Table D-3.
NBI-427-9524-AD 3
C. MOBILIZATION AND SUPPORT COSTS
Due to the remote location of the site, essentially all of
the equipment, vehicles, and supplies required to construct the
project will be transported to and from the site by barge.
Barges can operate from several points, including Seattle and
Anchorage. The actual departure point would depend on the
contractor's particular situation. This cost estimate is based
on a barge departing Seattle in late April or early May, using
material prices FOB Seattle and barge rates from Seattle to Old
Harbor (see Table D-4.) Barge time to the project site is
approximately two weeks. Table D-4 summarizes barge shipping
costs both to and from Old Harbor.
The construction workers and supervisory personnel will be
housed in a construction camp set up specifically for this
project. Table D-5 shows the overall cost, based on a unit
cost per person-day assuming that each person-week of labor
will require support for one person for seven days. The cost
includes mobilization and demobilization of the camp and all
other supportive costs.
Air transportation support costs are shown in Table D-5.
These costs cover the trips that would be required for a pro-
ject of this nature and an anticipated personnel turnover rate
of about 20 percent.
Table D-6 is a summary of all direct costs associated with
the construction of the Old Harbor project. A contingency of
15 percent and a markup of 15 percent for contracor overhead
and profit are included. The cost of the transmission line is
based on a subcontract cost that includes a contingency. As
indica ted, it is marked up by 10 percent to cover the prime
contractor's indirect expenses associated with scheduling and
responsible supervision. Engineering and owner's legal and
NBI-427-9524-AD 4
administrative costs are added to produce a total project
cost.
D. UNIT PRICES
Figure D-1 is a construction schedule for the Old Harbor
Power Project. Based on a detailed analysis of the construc-
tion activities and the information presented in Tables D-1
through D-5, all of the direct costs were assigned to an appro-
priate category that represents a major i tern of work. Unit
prices were calculated and these are presented in Table
D-7. They take into account the assumptions previously used
for production rates, support equipment, and supervisory
effort. Page 2 of Table D-7 details the content of the various
cost headings and item descriptions.
Finally, a detailed breakdown of unit prices, quanti ties,
and total cost is presented in Table VIII-1. These are based
on the average unit costs for major categories presented in
Table D-7 and modified to take into account the quanti ties,
scheduling, and locations of the specific items of work within
the project area. Therefore some unit prices may vary for the
same item used on different phases of the work.
Note that the cost estimate prepared for this project was
not based on the unit-cost method. The unit prices presented
in this report are intended for use in presenting the general
relationship and magnitude of the major construction items for
this particular project. They should not be used out of con-
text because they may not accurately represent the cost of
performing similar work at other sites or under different cir-
cumstances.
NBI-427-9524-AD 5
TABLE D-1
OLD HARBOR
LABOR BASED ON 60 HR. WEEK
Labor Cost/
(Man Weeks) Week Total Cost
General Superintendent 17 $1,986 $33,762
Superintendent (Crew A) 6 1,758 10,548
Operators (Crew A) 18 1,730 31,140
Oilers 10 1,575 15,750
Mechanics 10 1,730 17' 300
Laborers (Crew A) 29 1,571 45,559
Driller/Powderman 2 1,730 3,460
Superintendent (Crew B) 10 1,986 19,860
Electrician 5 1,850 9,250
Ironworkers 4 1,840 7,360
Carpenters 8 1,637 13' 096.
Apprentice Carpenter 8 1,571 12,568
Operators (Crew B) 13 1,730 22,490
Millwrights 3 1,800 5,400
Finishers 4 1,571 6,284
Welders, Fitters 2 1,897 3,794
Laborers (Crew B) 32 1,571 50,272
Manufacturer's Rep 3 10,000
Line Crew (8) 64 Subcontract
K.D. Bldg. Crew (3) 3 Subcontract 10,000
Heavy Equipment Moving Crew 3 Subcontract 25,000
TOTALS 254 Man-Weeks $349,450
NBI-419-9524-D-1
TABLE D-2
OLD HARBOH.
EQUIPMENT COST
Ownership Total Hourly Total
Expense Operating Operating Operating Cost This
(23 wks) Hours Cost Cost Project
CAT-D8K $67,600 310 $103.22 :l;32,000 $ 99,600
Front End Loader 966D 18,800 250 30.06 7,515 26,300
Flatbed Truck 4,100 250 14.57 3,640 7,700
Dump Truck (10 yd) 8,350 250 16.87 4,220 12,600
Service/Fuel Truck 10,850 310 17.20 5,330 16,200
Airtrack/Compressor 25,350 100 27.00 2,700 28,050
Pickup Truck (2 ea) 3,250 ea 310 ea 12.69 ea 3,930 ea 14,400
Backhoe -CAT 225 24,900 310 20.37 6,320 31,200
Welder 1,100 70 5.51 390 1,500
Generator 510 620 .94 580 1,100
Generator Spare 510 80 .94 80 600
Hand Compactors (5 ea) 1,800 ea 180 ea 1.00 ea 180 ea 9,900
Cone. Mixer Trailer 2,000 70 2.50 180 2,200
Small Mixer (3 ea) 250 ea 30 ea 1.00 ea 30 ea 300
Screening Plant 9,300 220 23.75 5,230 14,500
3" \'Vater Pumps (3 ea) 500 ea 310 ea 1.00 ea 310 2,400
Fuel Tank, Bladder 5,000 5,000
Cutting Torch, Set 300 300
Misc. Equipment 2,000 2,000
Pole Setting Truck Costs contained in transmission subcontract Line Truck
Office Trailer 3,000 620 1. 68 1,040 4,040
TOTAL :$279,900
NBI-419-9524-D-2
TABLE D-3
OLD HARBOR
MATERIAL FOB SEATTLE
Item Quantity Unit
Unit
Price Amount
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Cement Type I
Reinforcing Steel
Fiberglass Pipe -24"
Steel Pipe -24"
24" Dresser Couplings
Welded Ring Girder
Prefabricated Steel Units
Steel Dam Modules
Offtake Structure
Sediment Basin
8. Turbine Generator Assy.
Includes Switchgear
9. Electrical & Mechanical
Accessory Equipment
and Materials
10. Culvert Materials -100'
11. Blasting Powder
15. Steel Building Kit
16. Forming Materials
17. Misc. Structural Steel
MATERIALS FOB SEATTLE DOCK
NBI-419-9524-D-3
1,250
14,375
1,200
1,000
25
50
1,120
3,500
8,000
1
1
1,560
7,500
1
1
1,000
Bags
Lbs
Ft
Ft
Ea
Ea
Lbs
Lbs
Lbs
$ 4.73
0.35
40
40
200
70
1.50
1. 50
1.50
$5,920
5,030
48,000
40,000
5,000
3,500
1,680
5,250
12,000
Ea 220,000
Lot 61,500 61,500
Lbs 1.00 1,560
Lbs 1.00 7,500
Ea 25,000 25,000
Lot 5,250 5,250
Lbs 0.30 300
$447,500
Haul
Class
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
I
J
TABLE D-4
OLD HARBOR
BARGE SHIPPING COST
Seattle To Old Harbor
Weight
Commodity (Typical) (lb)
Structural Steel 31,741
Palletized Cement 117,500
Lumber 5,000
Poles 69' 300
KD Metal Bldg 15,000
Steel Pipe, Cuvert 61 '000
Misc. Wire, Hardware, etc. 50,780
Fiberglass Pipe 21' 120
Large Equipment, Machinery 390,500
Trailer 12,000
TOTAL
($/cwt)
8.24
6.93
8.00
8.00
12.50
8.24
24.32
16.48
12.00
25.00
Old Harbor to Seattle (Return)
Large Equipment, Machinery
Office Trailer
TOTAL
333,000
12,000
12.00
25.00
NBI-419-9524-D-4
Cost
(S)
2,620
8,150
400
5,550
1,880
5030
12,350
3,480
46,900
3,000
$133,400
40,000
3,000
$ 43,000
ESTIMATE OF CAMP COSTS
254 Man-Weeks
TABLE D-5
OLD HARBOR
Each week the men are supported for seven days
254 x 7 or 1778 days @ $135 per day
CAMP COSTS TOTAL
ESTIMATE OF AIR TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Bring in crew and small tools -assume 6 men per
flight and 24 men with a Beech King Air.
4 Trips Anchorage to Old Harbor and back
@6 hrs/round trip
4 Trips @ $2500
Approximately 1500 lbs of freight via Reeve
Aleutian and Air Taxi twice a week
3000 lbs @ $0.75/lb or $2250 per week
13 Weeks @ $2250
40 One Way Trips during construction for per-
sonnel changes & supervisor visits
40 Trips @ $282
Misc. Supply Trips
4 Trips Queen Air Cargo
Remove crews at job close
AIR TRANSPORTATION TOTAL
NBI-419-9524-D-5
$240,000
$10,000
29,250
11 '280
10,000
10,000
$71,000
Material FOB Seattle
Labor
TABLE D-6
OLD HARBOR
SUMMARY SHEET
Transportation -Barge to Site
Transportation -Barge to Seattle
Transportation -Air
Camp Costs -Catered
Equipment Cost
Prime Contractor 15% Profit
Contingency 15%
Transmission Line -Electrical
Labor & Materials Subcontract
Prime Contractor 10% Markup
Surveying, Right of Way & Geology
Engineering Design
Construction Management
Owner's Legal & Admin. Costs 3%
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
NBI-419-9524-D-6
s 447,500
349,450
89,000
43,000
71' 000
240,000
279!900
1,519,850
228!000
1,747,850
262,180
575,000
57,500
2,642,500
50,000
175,000
125,000
350,000
89,800
$3,082,300
TABLE D-7
OLD HARBOO
DEVELOPMENT OF AVERAGE UNIT PRICES FOO MAJOO ITEMS OF WORK
1/ Material Labor Equipment Contractor Total Unit
Item-Cost Cost Cost Profit (15%) Amount Quantity Unit Price
2/
1. Mobil/Demob. $166,710-$49,620 $23,000 35,900 $275,230 LS $
2. Penstock -Steel 53,390 23,560 8,420 12,810 98,180 1,000 LF 98
3. Penstock -Fiberglass 49,740 27,210 43,050 18,000 138,000 1,200 LF 138
4. Rock Excavation 9,330 70,110 110,500 28,490 218,430 7,500 CY 29
5. Road Exc., Com. 0 46,700 80,650 19,100 146,450 8,400 CY 17
6. Culvert Pipe 1, 710 2,450 1,420 840 6,420 100 LF 64
7. Gravel Fill-Road 0 11,700 8,080 2,970 22,750 987 CY 23
8. Concrete 25,992 117,000 14,600 23,640 181,230 125 CY 1,450
9. Transmission Line 3/ 11 '250 60,480 0 10,760 82,490 LS
10. Prefab Steel Bldg 26,236 12,835 1,420 6,070 46,560 LS
11. Turbine & Generator 285,380 115,000 7,000 61 '110 468,490 LS
12. Prefab Steel Structures 19,980 14,500 4,800 5,890 45' 170 12,620 LB 3.58
13. Dock Constr. 1,000 5,040 9,990 2,410 18,430 lS
TOTAL $228,000 $1,747,850 4/
1/ These items are described on page 2 of this table. 7/ Includes Barge and Air Support Costs only. 3! Includes costs over and above subcontract amount only. 4/ Amount corresponds with second subtotal on Table D-6.
NBI-419-9524-D-7
ITEM
1. Mobilization/Demob
2. Penstock, Steel
3. Penstock, Fiberglass
4. Rock Excavation
5. Road Exc., Common
6. Culverts
7. Gravel, Road
8. Concrete
9. Transmission Line
10. Prefab Steel Bldg.
11. Turbine & Generator
12. Prefab Steel Structures
13. Dock Construction
COLUMNS
Material Cost
Labor Cost
Equipment Cost
NBI-419-9524-0-7
TABLE D-7
(Cont'd)
Includes general superv1s1on, barge and air support costs, staging equipment,
miscellaneous standby equipment, etc.
Installed, including couplings, ring girders, excavation & backfill (unclassified).
Installed, including bedding, excavation & backfill (unclassified).
All, including road, penstock route and structural.
Unclassified road excavation.
Installed.
Road fill, borrow, including haul.
All, including equipment, material, cement, forming, miscellaneous structural
excavation (unclassified) & reinforcing steel.
Installed -Subcontract plus shipping and camp costs.
Installed.
Installed, including mechanical, electrical, and startup.
Installed, including structural excavation for diversion dam.
Installed.
Material cost FOB Seattle plus shipping.
Salary at 60 Hrs/week plus subsistence costs.
Ownership rental plus use rental, based on six months.
TABLE D-8
OLD HARBOR
BREAKDOWN OF TRANSMISSION LINE SUBCONTRACT
ITEM
Poles
Crossarms, insulators & guys
Wire
Subtotal, Overhead
Transformers, Pads and
Sectionalizing Equip.
Subtotal
Contingency: 25% Labor
10% Materials
Subtotal
Equipment Mobilization
Misc. crew transportation
and supervision
Total
SAY
Material
Cost
$25,200
18,765
20,698
64,663
39,800
104,463
Labor1/
Cost-
$107,100
64,549
110,880
282 '529
22,100
304,629
Total
Cost
.$132,300
83,314
131,578
347,192
61,900
409,092
76' 157
10,446
$495,695
50,000
28,800
$574,495
$575,000
Based on 75 $/man hour and 425 $/crew hour for a 5 man
crew, including: 1 backhoe, 1 line truck with digger, 1
crew cab pickup, and wire stringing equipment.
NBI-419-9524-D-8
FIGURE D-1
OLD HARBOR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Activity Week
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Barge Travel
2. Mobl llzatlon/Demobl llzatlon
a. Set Up Camp/Demobilize
b. Stage Material
3. Road Construction & Penstock Route
4. Penstock Construction
a. Underground
b. Steel
c. Testing
5. Powerhouse
a. Concrete Work
b. Set Turbine-Generator
c. Erect Building
d. Mechanical & Electrical
e. Startup
6. Diversion Site
a. Concrete Work
b. Set Prefab Steel
7. Cleanup
8. Transmission Line
9. Dock Construction
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
o.
P.
Q.
R.
s.
T.
u.
v.
w.
x.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
SCOPE OF WORK
HYDROLOGY
FISHERIES
. . .
. ..... .
. ..
. .
CURRENT UTILIZATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES . ..
PHYSICAL STREAM DESCRIPTION . . . . ..
FISHERY IMPACTS
FISHERY MITIGATION
WILDLIFE
. ...
• ••• ....
CURRENT UTILIZATION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES
ENDANGERED SPECIES
WILDLIFE IMPACTS
WILDLIFE MITIGATION
VEGETATION
. . . . . . .
ARCHAEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC SITES
POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTS
IMPACT ON RECREATIONAL VALUES . ....... . AIR QUALITY
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
LAND STATUS
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES CITED
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
. . . . . . . . . ..
i
. ..
. ...... .
. .... . ....
. ...... .
. ....
. .....
. .. . ....
. .....
. ..
Page
1
1
2
4
6
7
7
9
10
11
12
12
21
22
22
22
23
23
23
25
26
28
28
29
Figure
1
Tables
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Project Location Map
LIST OF TABLES
Water Quality Data, 1981
2 Species and Number of Fish Caught
4
in Mid way Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Terrestrial Mammals of the Kodiak
Island Archipelago •.••••...............•...... 13
4 Birds of the Kodiak Island Archipelago 14
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs
1 Proposed Dam Site, Downstream View .....••.•... 3
2 Proposed Dam Site, Upstream View ......•.•...•. 3
3 Upstream View of Midway Creek Alluvial Fan 8
4 Subst~ate on Midway Creek Alluvial Fan ........ 8
ii
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A small diversion weir is proposed at an elevation of 400
feet (MSL) on an unnamed stream (hereafter referred to as Mid-
way Creek) for a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project with a
power output of 340 kilowatts. Water would be diverted into a
penstock, leading to the powerhouse located on the alluvial
fan. A transmission line would lead from the powerhouse across
the Big Creek delta to Old Harbor. A barge landing would be
built on the beach, and a road would be constructed on the
alluvial fan to the powerhouse.
B. SCOPE OF WORK
As contracted with the Alaska Power Authority, environ-
mental studies were to include an initial two-day reconnais-
sance visit, followed by a three-to four-day trip for more
detailed studies. Literature review and discussion with local
residents and agency members were to be combined with field
studies to obtain information on fish and wildlife resources in
the area, and effects of the project on these resources.
Hydrology, land status, archaeologic and/or historic
sites, and permitting requirements were to be briefly dis-
cussed, as well as impacts on recreational values, air quality,
socioeconomics and scenic viewpoints.
The reconnaissance visit occurred on September 19, 19 81,
and a more detailed site investigation occurred November 5-6,
1981. Midway Creek was walked from the mouth to above the dam
site and minnow traps were selectively placed throughout its
length. Numbers and locations of wildlife and wildlife signs
were noted. Local residents were contacted through a community
meeting on September 19, 1981, and through discussions with
-1-
individuals during both visits. Downstream and upstream views
of the proposed dam site are presented in Photos 1 and 2.
The Alaska Power Authority held an informational meeting
to discuss four potential hydropower sites, including Old Har-
bor, with interested federal, state and local organizations in
Anchorage on October 21, 1981. Additional contacts were made
by DOWL with state and federal agencies on an individual basis
during September, October and November.
C. HYDROLOGY
Midway Creek is three miles northeast of Old Harbor and it
has a drainage area of 2.2 square miles at the dam site. It is
a short creek (3.7 miles long} with a steep gradient
( 0.1 ft/ft). It has developed an alluvial flood plain near
the mouth of Big Creek where it discharges into Midway Bay.
The streambed material consists of silt, sand and gravel with-
in the floodplain with large cobbles and boulders upstream in
the steep portions of the creek. Mean annual flow is esti-
mated at 10.5 cfs. The low flows are in the dry months (April,
March, and July}. High flows occur in September and October
and are caused by rainfall runoff. Additional information on
hydrology is given in Appendix B.
Water quality information for Midway Creek is given in
Table 1, and locations are shown in Figure 1.
-2-
Proposed dam site, downstream view
Proposed dam site, upstream view
TABLE 1
WATER QUALITY DATA, 1981
Temp. D.O. Conductivity
Date Location (OC) _@__ (mg/1) (Micromhos/cm)
11/5 Staff Gage 0.1 6.7 14.4 53
11/5 Dam Site 0.3 5.9 14.2 55
D. FISHERIES
Alaska's Fisheries Atlas, Volumes I and II (ADF&G, 1978),
shows Dolly Varden char as the only fish present in Midway
Creek. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) aerial sur-
veys have not shown any salmon in this stream (Manthey, 1981)
and it is not classified as an anadromous stream (ADF&G, 1968).
Local residents indicated that a few pink salmon usually ascend
the stream a short distance. However, the lower portion of the
stream is normally dry in the winter, so if spawning does
occur, it is unlikely that many eggs survive the winter.
Dolly Varden char and rainbow trout were caught in minnow
traps in the lower portion of the stream (Table 2).
Pink salmon generally spawn intertidally or in the
lower reaches of short coastal streams. Medium sized gravel
(0.6 to 0.3 inch) is preferred, with an optimum streamflow
velocity of 0.1 feet per second or greater (ADF&G, 1978). No
pink salmon were observed in Midway Creek, but they probably
spawn intertidally and in the lower reaches of the river. Pink
salmon migrate to saltwater immediately upon emergence.
-4-
EXPLANATION
.,...Propoaed Dam Site
-Stream Reach Dlvlalona
$ Water Quality
Sampling Site
Sitkatidak Strait
Sitk alidak Island
SCALE I' 63 360
I
I 2 0 I MILES ----
I~ PROJECT LOCATION MAP I FIGURE 1 I
200
100
3
10
TABLE 2
SPECIES AND NUMBER OF FISH CAUGHT IN ~UDWAY CREEK
November 5-6, 1981
Trap Location Juveniles Causht
yards below proposed powerhouse No Fish
yards below proposed powerhouse 6 Dolly Varden
1 Rainbow
yards above stream gauge 1 Dolly Varden
yards above stream gauge No Fish
Rainbow trout are reported to spawn in moderately
swift, clear water, usually in fine gravel (0.3 to 0.16 inch)
on a riffle above a pool. Juvenile rainbow trout are found
along stream margins or protected lakeshores.
Dolly Varden char spawn in medium to large gravel
(1.3 to 0.3 inches) in a fairly strong current, usually near
the center of the stream in at least a foot of water ( ADF&G,
1978). Juvenile Dolly Vardens
remaining on the stream bottom
and logs or undercut banks.
are relatively inactive, often
in pools or eddies under rocks
Dolly Varden occur in both
anadromous and nonanadromous populations. Anadromous juveniles
spend three to four years in their natal stream before entering
saltwater.
E. CURRENT UTILIZATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES
No sport fishing occurs in Midway Creek, but locals prob-
ably do harvest salmon from Big Creek for subsistence use.
-6-
F. PHYSICAL STREAM DESCRIPTION
Midway Creek is short (3.7 miles), it has a steep gradient
(0.1 ft./ft.), and it enters saltwater to form an alluvial fan
one-half mile in length. Near the dam site, the stream ap-
peared to flow through a series of cascades with deep pools in
between.
Below the dam section, the gradient is steep and pools are
absent until just above the alluvial fan. The substrate in
this section was almost entirely large boulders, with some cob-
ble and pebble gravel in the lower portion. Photos 3 and 4
show the Midway Creek Alluvial fan and substrate.
The stream delta has a low gradient (two percent), with
small cobble and pebble gravel substrate. Local residents
stated that this section of the stream is normally dry during
the winter. Midway Creek was dry for about three-quarters of
the length of the alluvial fan at the time of the November
visit.
G. FISHERY IMPACTS
Construction activity may temporarily increase erosion and
sedimentation in Midway Creek. Major impacts from sedimenta-
tion can include decreased vigor or death of incubating sal-
monid eggs by interfering with or preventing respiration, loss
of spawning gravel, and physical disturbance to both adult
anadromous fish and resident species. Proper construction
techniques and timing should minimize this impact.
The portion of r1idway Creek between the diversion weir and
the powerhouse may be dewa tered during low flows, and a major
reduction in flow will occur during plant operations. This may
seasonally restrict Dolly Varden from utilizing this stream
-7-
Upstream view of Midway Creek alluvial fan.
Sub s tra te on Midway Cr ee k alluvial f a n.
section. However, several small tributaries JO~n Midway Creek
in this section, and may partially offset the effects of flow
diversion at the dam site. Impacts to pink salmon are consid-
ered negligible since this section does not appear to have
suitable spawning habitat.
H. FISHERY MITIGATION
The following measures should be followed to reduce ero-
sion and sedimentation of area streams:
Construction should be done during a single sum-
mer. This will reduce the opportunity for ero-
sion of exposed soil.
Instream work should be scheduled during low
flow periods to reduce the amount of streambed
disturbance.
To avoid the introduction of suspended solids by
road traffic, the access road should cross as
few tributary streams as possible, and culverts
should not discharge directly into streams.
Streams should be crossed with small log bridges
or culverts, whichever would provide the best
protection to streamside vegetation. If the
unimproved road can be designed with minimum use
of gravel and not expose large areas of soil to
erosion, impacts will be greatly minimized.
A vegetated buffer zone should be left between
all access roads and the streambank.
-9-
All areas disturbed during construction activ-
ities should be stabilized to reduce erosion.
Any organic soils excavated during construction
should be stockpiled and spread over disturbed
sites to encourage revegetation.
Waste petroleum and wastewater should be dis-
posed of in an environmentally sound manner and
a plan for safe storage, use, and clean-up of
oil and gas used in project construction and
operation will be prepared following state and
federal oil spill contingency plans (40 CFR
112.38, December 11, 1973).
I. WILDLIFE
Unless otherwise noted, all information specific to the
Old Harbor area was obtained through correspondence and a meet-
ing with Roger Smith, ADF&G, Area Management Biologist for the
Game Division in Kodiak and through a meeting with Larry
Matfay, the big game guide for the Old Harbor area. Big Creek,
the larger stream which Midway Creek joins at the mouth, is
heavily used by bears throughout the year. Denning is known to
occur in the higher areas (above 50 0 feet) to the west and
north of Old Harbor, including the Big Creek drainage, and it
probably occurs in the upper reaches of Midway Creek as well.
In spring, bears commonly feed below 500 feet along the south-
facing slopes paralleling Big Creek including the portion which
extends to Bush Point.
The lower elevations of Big Creek and Midway Creek are
also good deer wintering areas.
to Uyak Bay in 1952 and 1953
Mountain goats were introduced
(Burris et al., 1973) and they
-10-
have since extended their range southwesterly to include the
higher portions of the Big Creek drainage.
Big Creek has a good beaver population. Land otter util-
ize the tidally influenced area but do not seem to use the
upper reaches as extensively. Bald eagles are resident in the
Big Creek area. U.S. Fish and Wild life Service records show
one eagle nest on Midway Creek delta (Zwiefelhofer, 1981).
Two additional eagle nests were located on the t.fidway Creek
delta during DOWL field studies and a sharp-shinned hawk was
observed flying across Midway Creek.
Waterfowl nesting occurs in the Big Creek drainage in
association with the numerous beaver ponds and wetlands. This
drainage is also used by migrant and wintering waterfowl. Big
Creek is good winter habitat for diving ducks, with goldeneyes,
harlequins and buffleheads utilizing the river, and scoters,
eiders, and oldsquaws in the offshore areas.
Species lists of mammals and birds of the Kodiak Island
Archipelago are given in Tables 3 and 4.
J. CURRENT UTILIZATION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Most of deer hunting by local residents occurs on Sitkali-
dak Island, Barling Bay, or north of Old Harbor on Kodiak
Island. The annual harvest by Old Harbor residents probably
does not exceed 150 deer (Smith, 1981).
Red fox, beaver, and river otters are trapped by a few
local residents. Only 12 river otters were reported harvested
in 1981 from the Old Harbor area. No harvest figures are kept
by ADF&G on red fox, but probably no more than 25 to 50 animals
are taken annually in the Old Harbor area. Little trapping
occurs for beaver as prices are low at present. The above
-11-
figures are taken from correspondence of October 20, 1981, with
Roger Smith. The Big Creek area is commonly used by local
residents for waterfowl hunting.
K. ENDANGERED SPECIES
No endangered species or subspecies occur on Kodiak Island
(Money, 1981). Peales peregrine falcon, the nonendangered sub-
species, does nest on Kodiak Is land. Both endangered sub-
species of peregrine falcons have been reported to winter on
Kodiak Island, but this has not been verified. Peregrine
falcons were trapped and observed by U.S. Fish and Wild! ife
Service biologists during the winter of 1980-81, but they were
all the nonendangered subspecies (Amaral, 1982).
L. WILDLIFE IMPACTS
Permanent wildlife habitat loss will result primarily from
borrow sites and the construction of roads and fac i 1 i ties at
the dam site. Temporary habitat alterations. will occur at
equipment staging areas and access roads needed for installing
the transmission line. The volume of habitat permanently
altered will be minimal. The principal species affected will
be aquatic mammals.
Wildlife disturbance will result during construction from
the operation of equipment and the presence of humans. This
could result in the temporary displacement of species such as
deer, mountain goats and raptors. Brown bears could be af-
fected if improper handling of garbage or the presence of con-
struction workers results in conflicts between bears and
humans. Increased wildlife harvests may result from the pres-
ence of construction personnel.
-12-
TABLE 3
TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS OF THE KODIAK ISLAND ARCHIPELAGO
SPECIES
Little Brown Bat
Tundra Vole
Red Fox
Brown Bear
Short-tailed Weasel
River Otter
Snowshoe Hare
Arctic Ground Squirrel
Norway Rat
House Mouse
Northern Red Squirrel*
Marten*
Beaver
l1uskrat
Roosevelt Elk*
Sitka Black-tailed Deer
Mountain Goat
Dall Sheep
INDIGENOUS
INTRODUCED
* Introduced to Afognak Island
-13-
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Myotis luncifugus
Microtus oeconomus
Vulpes vulpes
Ursus arctos
r-tustela erminea
Lutra canadensis
Lepus americanus
Citellus parryi
Rattus norvegicus
Mus musculus
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Martes americana
Castor canadensis
Ondatra zibethicus
Cervus canadensis
Odocoileus hemionus
Oreamnos americanus
Ovis dalli
TABLE 4
BIRDS OF THE KODIAK ISLAND ARCHIPELAGO
A -Abundant
C -Common
U -Uncommon
R -Rare
+ -Casual
* -Nesting
SPECIES
Common Loon
Yellow-billed Loon
Arctic Loon
Red-throated Loon
Red-necked Grebe
Horned Grebe
Short-tailed Albatross
Black-footed Albatross
Laysan Albatross
Northern Fulmar
Pink-footed Shearwater
Flesh-footed Shearwater
New Zealand Shearwater
Sooty Shearwater
Short-tailed Shearwater
Manx Shearwater
Scaled Petrel
Fort-tailed Storm-petrel
Leach's Storm-petrel
Double-crested Cormorant
Pelagic Cormorant
Red-faced Cormorant
Great Blue Heron
S-Spring, March-May
S -Summer, June-August
F -Fall, September-November
W-Winter, December-February
SCIENTIFIC NAME s s
Gavia immer u u
Gavia adamsii R ---
Gavia arctic a u
Gavia stellata u u
Podiceps grise~ena u +
Podice_es auritus u
Diomede a albatrus + +
Diomede a nigripes c c
Diomedea immutabilis u u
Fulmaris ~lacialis c c
Puffinus creato_eus +
Puffin us carneipes + +
Puffin us bulleri + +
Puffin us grise us A A
Puffin us tenuirostris A A
Puffin us puffin us +
Pterodroma inex_eectata u u
Oceanodroma furcata c c
Oceanodroma leucorhoa u u
Phalacrocorax auritus u u
Phalacrocorax _eelagicus c c
Phalacrocorax urile c c
Ardea herodias + +
-14-
F w
u u
R u
u u
u u
u u
u u
c
u
c c
A u
A u
u
c c
u
u c
c c
c u
+ +
SPECIES
Whistling Swan
Canada Goose
Brant
Emperor Goose
White-fronted Goose
Snow Goose
Mallard
Spotbill Duck
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
European Wigeon
American Wigeon
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Tufted Duck
Common Goldeneye
Barrow's Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Oldsquaw
Harlequin Duck
Steller's Eider
Common Eider
King Eider
Spectacled Eider
White-winged Scoter
TABLE 4
Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Olor columbianus
Brant a canadensis
Branta bernicla
Philacte canagica
Anser albifrons ---
Chen caerulescens
Anas platyrhynchos
~ poecilorhyncha
An as strepera
An as acuta
An as crecca
An as discors
An as clypeata
Anas penelope
Anas americana
Aythya valisineria
Aythxa americana
Aythya collar is
AJ::thxa rnarila
Aythya affinis
AJ::thya americana
Bacephala clangula
Bucephala islandica
Bucephala albeola
Clangula hyernalis
Histrionicus histrionicus
Polysticta stelleri
Sornarteria rnollissirna
Sornateria spectabilis
Sornateria fischeri
Melanitta deglandi
-15-
s s F w
c c c R
u u +
A + + +
c u c
u u
+
A A A A
+
u u u u
A c c u
c c c u
R
c R R +
u R R
c c c u
+ + +
+ + +
R R R
A c A A
R R R
+ +
c u c c
c u c c
c + c c
A + A A
A c A A
c + u c
u u u u
c R u c
+
A u A A
SPECIES
Surf Seater
Black Seater
Hooded Merganser
Smew
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Goshawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Golden Eagle
Bald Eagle
Steller's Sea Eagle
Marsh Hawk
Osprey
Gyrfalcon
Peregrine Falcon
Merlin
American Kestrel
Willow Ptarmigan
Rock Ptarmigan
Sandhill Crane
Black Oystercatcher
Semi-palma ted Plover
Killdeer
American Golden Plover
Black-bellied Plover
Hudsonian Godwit
Bar-tailed Godwit
Marbled Godwit
Whimbrel
Bristle-thighed Curlew
TABLE 4
Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Melanitta perspicillata
Melanitta nigra
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus albellus
Mergus merganser
Mer~us serrator
Accipiter gentilis
Accipiter striatus
Buteo lagopus
Aquila chrysaetos
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Haliaeetus 12elagicus
Circus cyaneus
Pandion haliaetus
Falco rusticolus
Falco ---pereginus
Falco columbarius
Falco ---sparverius
Lag opus lagopus
Lag opus mutus
Grus canadensis
Haematopus bachmani
Charadrius semipalmatus
Charadrius vociferus
Pluvialis dominic a
Pluvialis squatarola
Limos a haemastica
Limos a lapponica
Limos a fedoa
Numenius J2haeopus
Numenius tahitiensis
-16-
s s F w
c R c c
A [J A A
+ + R R
+
c c c ,..,
'--
c c c c
c ,.., c c '--
u u u u
u c u +
u u u u
c c c c
+
u R u R
+ +
R R R
c u c c
R R u R
+ +
c c c c
c c c c
+
c c c c
A A [J
+
c u c
c u u
+
R +
R
u R
+ +
SPECIES
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Solitary Sandpiper
Spotted Sandpiper
Wandering Tattler
Ruddy Turnstone
Black Turnstone
Northern Phalarope
Red Phalarope
Common Snipe
Short-billed Dowitcher
Long-billed Dowitcher
surfbird
Red Knot
Sanderling
Semi-palrnated Sandpiper
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Baird's Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper
Rock Sandpiper
Dunlin
Stilt Sandpiper
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
Ruff
Pomarine Jaeger
Parasitic Jaeger
Long-tailed Jaeger
South Polar Skua
Glaucous Gull
TABLE 4
Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa flavipes
Tringa solitaria
Actitis macularia
Heteroscelus incanus
Arenaria interpres
Arenaria melanocephala
Phalaropus lobatus
Phalaropus fulicarius
Gallinago gallinago
Limnodromus griseus
Limnodromus scolopaceus
Aphriza virgata
Calidris canutus
Calidris alba
Calidris pusilla
Calidris mauri
Calidris minutilla
Calidris bairdii
Calidris melanotos
Calidris acuminata
Calidris ptilocnemis
Calidris alpina
Micropalama hirnantopus
Tryngites subruficollis
Philomachus pugnax
Stercorarius pomarinus
Stercorarius parasiticus
Stercorarius longicaudus
Catharacta maccormicki
Larus hyperboreus
-17-
s
c
+
R
c
R
c
c
u
c
c
+
c
+
R
R
A
R
c
c
c
c
u
R
s
c
c
+
u
c
R
c
c
u
c
c
+
u
+
R
A
A
u
u
u
R
+
+
c
c
u
+
+
F
c
c
R
u
R
u
c
u
c
u
R
u
R
u
R
R
c
c
c
u
+
+
c
c
u
R
w
u
R
u
R
+
c
u
R
SPECIES
Glaucous-winged Gull
Slaty-backed Gull
Herring Gull
Thayer's Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Mew Gull
Bonaparte's Gull
Black-legged Kittiwake
Red-legged Kittiwake
Sabine's Gull
Arctic Tern
Aleutian Tern
Common Murre
Thick-billed Murre
Pigeon Guillemot
Marbled Murrelet
Kittlitz's Murrelet
Ancient Murrelet
Cassin's Auklet
Parakeet Auklet
Crested Auklet
Least Auklet
Rhinoceros Auklet
Horned Puffin
Tufted Puffin
Morning Dove
Snowy Owl
Hawk Owl
Short-eared Owl
Boreal Owl
Belted Kingfisher
TABLE 4
Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Larus glaucescens
Larus schistisagus
Larus argentatus
~ thayeri
Larus delawarensis
Larus canus
Larus philadelphia
Rissa tridactyla
Rissa brevirostris
Xema sabini
Sterna paradisaea
Sterna aleutica
Uria aalge
Uria lomvia
Cepphus columba
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Brachyramphus brevirostris
Synthliboramphus antiguus
Ptychoramphus aleuticus
Cyclorrhynchus psittacula
Aethia cristatella
Aethia pusilla
Cerorhinca monoccrata
Fratercula corniculata
Lunda cirrhata
Zenaida macrovra
Nyctea scandia
Surnia ulula
flammeus
Aegolius funereus
Megaceryle alcyon
-18-
s
A
+
R
R
+
c
u
A
+
u
c
u
c
R
c
c
R
u
u
R
+
+
R
c
A
u
u
c
c
s
A
R
c
u
A
+
u
c
u
c
R
c
c
R
u
u
R
+
+
R
c
A
+
u
u
c
c
F
A
R
R
A
u
A
+
R
A
R
c
c
R
R
u
R
c
+
R
c
A
+
+
u
u
c
c
w
A
+
R
R
A
u
+
A
R
c
c
R
R
A
+
R
R
R
+
u
R
c
c
SPECIES
Common Flicker
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Hairy Woodpecker
TABLE 4
Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Colaptes auratus
Sphyrapicus varius
Picoides villosus
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Northern Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus
Eastern Kingbird
Horned Lark
Violet-green Swallow
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Black-billed Magpie
Common Raven
Northwestern Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Dipper
Winter Wren
American Robin
Varied Thrush
He:r:mit Thrush
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Water Pipit
Bohemian Waxwing
Northern Shrike
Starling
Orange-crowned Warbler
Tyrannus tyrannus
Eremophila alpestris
Tachycineta thalassina
Iridoprocne bicolor
Riparia riparia
Hirundo rustica
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Pica pica
Corvus corax
Corvus caurinus
Parus atricapillus
Sitta canadensis
Certhia familiaris
Cinclus mexicanus
Tr29lodytes troglodytes
Turdus migratorius
Ixoreus naevius
Catharus guttatus
Catharus minimus
Regulus satrapa
Regulus canendula
Anthus spinoletta
Bombycilla garrulus
Lanius excubitor
Sturnus vulgaris
Vermivora celata
-19-
s
c
u
c
c
u
c
c
c
c
u
c
c
c
R
c
A
R
A
c
c
+
c
s
+
c
u
+
c
c
A
R
+
c
c
c
c
u
c
c
c
R
c
A
c
A
+
c
c
c
F
+
+
c
u
+
R
R
u
c
c
c
c
u
c
c
c
R
c
c
A
+
c
R
c
+
R
w
+
+
c
u
c
c
c
c
u
c
c
c
R
u
A
+
+
R
c
+
SPECIES
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Wilson's Warbler
Red-winged Blackbird
Rusty Blackbird
Brambling
Pine Grosbeak
Gray-crowned Rosy Finch
Hoary Redpoll
Common Redpoll
Pine Siskin
Red Crossbill
White-winged Crossbill
Savannah Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco
Tree Sparrow
Harris' Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Golden-crowned Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lapland Longspur
Snow Bunting
McKay's Bunting
TABLE 4
Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica striata
Wilsonia pusilla
Agelaius phoeniceus
Euphagus corolinus
Fringilla montifringilla
Pinicola enucleator
Leucosticte tephrocotis
Carduelis hornemanni
Carduelis flammea
Carduelis pinus
Loxia curvirostra
Loxia leucoptera
Passerculus sandwhichensis
~ hyemalis
Spizella arborea
Zonotrichia querula
Zonotrichia levcophrys
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Zonotrichia albicollis
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza albicollis
Melospiza melodia
Calcarius lapponicus
Plectrophenax nivalis
Plectrophenax hyperboreus
-20-
s
R
R
u
R
c
u
+
c
c
R
c
A
R
u
+
R
A
A
c
A
c
s
c
u
+
A
c
u
c
c
R
c
A
+
+
A
A
c
A
c
F
R
R
u
+
R
+
c
u
c
c
R
c
A
u
u
+
R
c
+
c
+
c
c
c
w
R
c
0
c
c
R
c
+
u
u
+
R
R
R
+
c
+
c
+
If a barge landing and road to the powerhouse are used for
access, project operation should have little impact on wild-
life. Some minor mortality to birds may result from collisions
with the transmission line, and water dependent animals such as
the dipper may be forced to relocate due to the periodic de-
watering of some stream sections. Local residents may use the
road as a vantage point for deer hunting, and thus increase the
harvest in the Big Creek/Midway Creek drainages. The potential
increased harvest is expected to be small due to the short
length of the road and the traditional use of other areas for
hunting.
M. WILDLIFE MITIGATION
The proposed project is on such a small scale that most
impacts such as disturbance of wildlife during construction
will be minor and short term. To further minimize impacts, the
following guidelines should be followed:
No feeding of wildlife should occur and all
refuse should be placed in metal containers with
heavy lids and be removed regularly from the
construction sites.
If problems >'lith bears or other wildlife do
arise, the appropriate Alaska Department of Fish
& Game officials should be contacted and the
handling of the problem should follow their
recommendations.
Hunting or fishing in the project area should
not be permitted by the contractor or construc-
tion workers during construction.
-21-
A 330-foot construction buf r zone should be
established around active eagle nests. Restric-
tions may include prohibiting helicopters and
fixed-wing aircraft from coming within a 1,000-
foot radius of the airspace surrounding those
nests.
N. VEGETATION
The alluvial fan is dominated by cottonwood, with an asso-
ciated understory of alder, devilsclub, and elderberry. Near
saltwater and along the sides of the fan, the cottonwood com-
muni ty grades into a grass meadow. Along the stream valley,
extensive alder, elderberry and salmonberry thickets intermix
with a grass meadow containing cowparsnip, fireweed and goats-
beard. In higher elevations, the meadow community appears to
dominate.
0. ARCHAEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC SITES
An archaeologic site has been identified on the delta of
Midway Creek, but the extent of the site is unknown (Dilli-
plane, 19 81). The Division of Parks may recommend that an
archaeological survey be done in this area before project con-
struction begins.
P. POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTS
The transmission line will be the only aspect of the
project which could be visible from the village. Very little
of the project will be visible from boats passing through
Sitkalidak Strait. The powerhouse and diversion weir will be
screened from view by vegetation, but the transmission li:-te and
lower road may be visible from saltwater.
-22-
Q. IMPACT ON RECREATIONAL VALUES
Project construction should have little effect on recrea-
tional values. Little recreational use is currently made of
the Midway Creek drainage. Local residents may use three-
wheeled vehicles on the road to the powerhouse, but since the
vehicles will have to be brought in by boat and the road is so
short, little use is expected. Hunters may use the road as a
vantage point to spot game.
R. AIR QUALITY
During project construction, exhaust fumes from diesel
equipment and dust generated by construction activity may af-
fect air quality. Dispersion of air pollutants is expected to
be adequate to prevent any significant effects to air quality
in the area.
Electrical power for Old Harbor is currently provided by
diesel generators. Particulate emissions from the combustion
of diesel fuel have a high proportion of particles with a very
small size fraction. These smaller particles penetrate deeper
into the lungs and are therefore more hazardous to health than
emissions from the combustion of other hydrocarbon products.
Replacement of the diesel generating facilities by hydro-
electric power should lower the discharge of hydrocarbon pollu-
tants.
S. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
No major socioeconomic impacts are anticipated during the
construction period for the proposed hydropower facility. The
Old Harbor population normally increases by as many as 60 peo-
ple during the commercial fishing season, so locals are accus-
tomed to influxes of people. The construction force and sup-
-23-
port personnel are not expected to exceed 21 people, and they
will average 16. If accommodations are not available locally,
as is likely, trailers will be brought in and a work camp will
set up. Mobilization would probably begin about April 1, with
actual work beginning about April 15. The project should be
completed by September 31st of the same year. Working hours
would be 10 hours a day, six or seven days a week until project
completion.
Skilled craft labor will be required. Although local hire
will be considered, the local residents will not be hired un-
less they have appropriate skills. Old Harbor residents may
resent this. However, construction will occur during the sum-
mer months, so many residents are likely to be busy with com-
mercial fishing and not be available for hire.
The potential does exist for alcohol-related problems be-
tween villagers and construction personnel. Although Old Har-
bor is not dry, there are no liquor outlets in town. Exper-
ience has shown that alcohol is generally present in construc-
tion camps. In toxic a ted workers could create problems for
locals, and the reverse is also true. The proximity of alcohol
may also lead to the purchase or barter (particularly for local
products) of alcohol from construction workers by local resi-
dents.
The availability of hydropower may provide economic bene-
fits to the village and individual families. Cheaper electric
bills should benefit the householders. Residents may elect to
switch from oil heat to electric heat, which will require a
large, initial cash output for conversion. Maintenance of the
power generation equipment will provide periodic employment for
a skilled resident.
-24-
T. LAND STATUS
The diversion weir, penstock and powerhouse locations of
the proposed hydroelectric project are entirely within lands of
interim conveyance to Koniag, Incorporated, as provided for in
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 1971
(ANCSA), Public Law 92-203. This interim conveyance includes
both surface and subsurface estates. Interim conveyance is
used in this case to convey unsurveyed lands. Patent wi 11
follow interim conveyance once the lands are identified by
survey.
The proposed construction site of a barge landing in Mid-
way Bay near the mouth of Big Creek and the road construction
site from the landing to the powerhouse are also located on
lands with an interim conveyance classification to Koniag,
Incorporated. The transmission route from the powerhouse
across Big Creek delta to the townsite of Old Harbor, u.s.s.
4793, is also similarly classified.
Old Harbor has a federal townsite, u.s.s. 4793, with the
patent issued to the Bureau of Land Management Townsite Trust-
ee. The Trustee has deeded occupied parcels to the resident
and some vacant subdivided lots to the City of Old Harbor.
Other subdivided property remains with the Trustee. A permit
would be required for the transmission line and may be issued
by the u.s. Department of Interior after an affirmative resolu-
tion by the city council. The extent of the impacts and the
easements required on these lands is dependent upon the final
transmission route within u.s.s. 4793.
All of the interim conveyed lands identified above are
also oart of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge as classified ..
and withdrawn by Public Land Orders 1634, 5183 and 5184. All
lands that were part of a National Wildlife Refuge before the
-25-
passage of ANCSA and have since been selected and conveyed to a
Native corporation will remain subject to the laws and regula-
tions governing use and development of such refuges.
U. PERrHTTING REQUIREr1ENTS
The following permits will be required for construction of
the Old Harbor facility:
Under the authority of Section 404 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) must
authorize the discharge of dredged or fill mate-
rials into navigable waters, which includes
adjacent wetlands, by all individuals, organi-
zations, commercial enterprises, and federal,
state and local agencies. A COE Section 404
Permit will therefore be required for the diver-
sion weir on Midway Creek.
A Water Quality Certificate from the State of
Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), is also required for any activity which
may result in a discharge into the navigable
waters of Alaska. Application for the certifi-
cate is made by submitting to DEC a letter re-
questing a certificate, accompanied by a copy of
the permit application being submitted to the
Corps of Engineers.
All public or private entities (except Federal
agencies) proposing to construct or operate a
hydroelectric power project must have a license
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) if the proposed site is located on a nav-
-26-
igable stream, or on u.s. lands, or if the pro-
ject affects a u.s. government dam or interstate
commerce.
A Permit to Construct or r-todify a Dam is re-
quired from the Forest, Land, and Water Manage-
ment Division of the Alaska Department of Nat-
ural Resources for the construction, enlarge-
ment, alteration or repair of any dam in the
State of Alaska that is ten feet or more in
height or stores 50 acre-feet or more of water.
A Water Rights Permit is required from the
Director of the Division of Forest, Land and
Water Management, Alaska Department of Natural
Resources for any person who desires to appro-
priate waters of the State of Alaska. However,
this does not secure rights to the water. When
the permit holder has commenced to use the
appropriate water, he should notify the direc-
tor, who will issue a Certificate of Appropria-
tion which secures the holders' rights to the
water.
The proposed project area is located within the
coastal zone. Under the Alaska Coastal Manage-
ment Act of 1977, a determination of consistency
with Alaska Coastal Management Standards must be
obtained from the Division of Policy Development
and Planning in the Office of the Governor.
This determination would be made during the COE
404 Permit review.
Any party wishing to use land or facilities of
any National Wildlife Refuge for purposes other
-27-
than those designated by the manager-in-charge
and published in the Federal Register must ob-
tain a Special Use Permit from the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. This permit may authorize
such activities as rights-of-way; easements for
pipelines, roads, utilities, structures, re-
search projects; entry for geologic reconnais-
sance or similar projects, filming and so forth.
Note that all lands that were part of a National
Wildlife Refuge before the passage of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, and have since
been selected and conveyed to a Native corpora-
tion will remain under the rules and regulations
of the refuge.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Although full-scale environmental field studies were not
undertaken, due to the small scale of the project and the lack
of major fishery or wildlife resources in the affected area,
these studies were considered sufficient to assess potential
impacts to the area. Therefore, unless substantial additional
concerns are expressed by local residents or regulatory agen-
cies, no additional environmental studies are considered
necessary.
~~. REFERENCES CITED
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1978. Alaska's Fisheries
Atlas, Volumes I and II.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1968, revised 1975. Cata-
logue of Waters Important for Spawning and Migration of
Anadromous Fishes.
-28-
Burris, 0. E., and D. E. McKnight. 1973. Game Transplants in
Alaska, ADF&G Game Technical Bulletin No. 4.
X. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Amaral, Michael. Wildlife Biologist, U.s. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Endangered Species. 1982.
Dilliplane, Ty. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Divi-
sion of Parks. 1981.
Manthey, Ken. Fisheries Biologist, Commercial Fish Division,
Kodiak, Alaska. 1981.
~1a tfay, Larry. Old Harbor Big Game Guide. 19 81.
Money, Dennis. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered
Species. 1981.
Smith, Roger. Game Biologist, Game Division, ADF&G, Kodiak,
Alaska. 1981.
Zwiefelhofer, Denny. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge. 1981.
-29-
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX F
LETTERS AND MINUTES
•
Minutes of the public hearings held in connection with the
Old Harbor Project will be presented in the final draft of this
report along with copies of relevant letters from agencies and
other interested parties.
NBI-419-9524-F