HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility Study for Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project; Volume C Final Report 1982r~
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Volume C
FINAL REPORT
Feasibility Study for
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Submitted by
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
In Association with
PROPERTY OF:
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA
DRYDEN & LARUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
AUGUST 1982
..____ __ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ __,
VIL-C
002
Main
c. 2
HIGHSMITH 42·225
ISSUED TO
60
~
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
...
...
. .
...
...
Volume C
FINAL 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
AUGUST 1982
~....--_ALASiu'" POWER AUTHORITY __ ___J
OLD HARBOR
CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD iv
'rt
I. SUMMARY
A. General I-1
B. Area Description I-2
c. Power Planning I-2
D. Description of Recommended
·~ Hydroelectric Project I-3
E. Base Case Plan I-4
"" F. Economic Analysis I-5
G. Environmental and Social Impacts I-6
H. Conclusions and Recommendations I-6
II. INTRODUCTION
A. General II-1
B. Purpose II-1
c. Project Area Description II-2
.... D • Authority II-3
E. Scope of Study II-3
F. Study Participants II-7
G. Report Format II-8
H. Acknowledgments II-8
I I I. STUDY METHODOLOGY
A. General III-1
B. Pre-Reconnaissance Phase III-1 ,.,,. c. Field Study Phase III-1
D. Office Study Phase III-2
....
NBI-427-9524-tc i
IV. BASIC DATA
v.
VI.
VII.
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
General
Hydrology
Geology and Geotechnics
Survey and Mapping
Land Status
Previous Reports
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A.
B.
c.
General
Alternative Projects
Description and Evaluation
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
A. General
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
Recommended Project Description
Turbine-Generator Selection
Field Constructibility
Project Energy Production
Project Operation Scheme and Controls
PROJECT ENERGY PLANNING
A. General
B.
c.
D.
E.
Projection Considerations
Energy Demand Projections
Base Case Plan (Includes Wind Generation)
Recommended Project Plan
VIII. PROJECT COSTS
A.
B.
c.
D.
General
Cost Estimating Basis
Base Case Plan
Recommended Project Costs
NBI-427-9524-tc ii
IV-1
IV-1
IV-3
IV-6
IV-7
IV-8
V-1
V-1
V-2
VI-1
VI-1
VI-4
VI-10
VI-12
VI-12
VII-1
VII-1
VII-5
VII-9
VII-14
VIII-1
VIII-1
VIII-2
VIII-2
,
•
' i..
•
•
. '
..
....
IX. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
A. General
B. Project Analysis Parameters
C. Base Case Economic Analysis
D. Recommended Hydroelectric Project
Economic Analysis
E.
F.
Economic Comparison of Projects
Unit Costs and Project Timing
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. Project Drawings
B. Hydrology
C. Geology and Geotechnics
D. Detailed Cost Estimate
E.
F.
G •
Environmental Report
Letters and Minutes
Space Heating Installation and Cost
NBI-427-9524-tc iii
IX-1
IX-1
IX-3
IX-7
IX-10
IX-11
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 report
incorporating the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the other four volumes.
NBI-419-9524-FO iv
,
•
A. GENERAL
SECTION I
SUMMARY
Several prior studies of alternative means of supplying Old
Harbor with electrical energy recommended a hydroelectric
project as the best alternative. 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 plan and
an alternative base case plan 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 proposed hydroelectric 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 estimated total construction 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 more than
83,000 gallons for direct electrical demand and more than
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 Authority.
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. Wind generation was also considered as part of the
base case. Wind generation was found to be a viable means
supplemental generation.
Present energy demands for Old Harbor for direct electrical
uses and space heating were estimated and future uses in these
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 were not
explicitly treated.
The period of economic evaluation used was 53 years,
beginning in January 1982 and extending for the 50-year life of
the hydroelectric project beyond the estimated on-line date of
January 1985. The energy demands for Old Harbor were increased
for 20 years starting in January 1982 and through December
NBI-419-9524-I I-2
II
...
2001. The demands were then held level over the remainder of
the economic evaluation period.
For the proposed hydroelectric project, it was assumed that
the first priority of use for the energy produced would be for
the direct electrical needs of Old Harbor, and remaining energy
would be used for space heating to as great an extent as
possible .
D. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Hydroelectric power plants transform the energy of falling
water into electrical energy. Generally, a hydroelectric 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 carry the water about
2200 feet to the powerhouse, where it wi 11 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
from 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 Report,
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 November
of the year; however, during periods from the end
to the first of April it will 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 Harbor 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 the
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, since
it would not be economical to relocate the plant nearer a
heating load. 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-I I-4
' ..
I
•
....
...
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 hydro-
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. All costs
other than the cost of the hydroelectric project and diesel
supplement were considered as adjustments to the base case
cost.
The present worth of the total costs of the base case plan
is $8,182,800. If this cost is reduced by the wind energy
credit of $330,400, the net present worth is $7,852,400.
Adding the space heating credit at $1,234,600 results in a
final net present worth of $9,087,000.
For the proposed hydroelectric project, the present worth
of the costs is $6,4 75,000. A comparison of this net present
cost with the base case net present costs indicates that the
recommended hydroelectric project is considerably more
economical than the alternative base case.
An additional measure of project feasibility 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
1.264 when the hydroelectric energy used only for the direct
electrical needs of Old Harbor is compared to the base case
only and 1.213 when the wind energy credit is included.
Inclusion of the space heating credit results in a final B/C
ratio of 1.403. These B/C ratios indicate that the proposed
hydroelectric project is highly feasible.
NBI-419-9524-I I-5
The unit costs for each year of operation for both the base
case and the hydroelectric alternative were calculated and
compared in order to determine the optimum timing for project
development. This analys indicates that the project is
viable for immediate development.
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
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
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
[
I
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 an AVEC owned and
city operated 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 maintenance 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.
B. 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 that consisted of the present di generating
units supplemented by wind generation that would be augmented
with additional units as necessary to accommodate growth.
Earlier studies had determined that these alternatives were the
most promising sources of electrical energy for Old Harbor.
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. The 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
Is land. Old Harbor served by two flights d ai 1 y, 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
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.
NBI-419-9524-II II-2
,..
-
•
"
·~
....
....
. '
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-
sian 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 24°F
to 60°F. Average rainfall is 60 inches per year. Winds of 50
to 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,
This particular report,
ducted for Old Harbor.
Department of Commerce
Alaska.
E. SCOPE OF STUDY
Larsen Bay, 01 d Harbor and Togiak."
Volume C, summarizes the studies con-
APA is a public corporation of the
and Economic Development, State of
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
NBI-419-9524-II II-3
case plan for the village,
the effects of the project.
and an environmental assessment of
To accomplish these goals, the
following activities were necessary.
1. Data Accumulation
Data collected included existing flow records,
cal mapping, present and future demands for
laws and regulations, existing reports, and
information that was available.
2. Site Reconnaissance
power,
other
topographi-
applicable
applicable
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. A stream gage was installed
near the project site to obtain additional streamflow data.
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, supplemented by wind
generation, and least-cost additions 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. Data regarding the
energy potential and cost of wind generation at Old Harbor were
provided by another contractor to APA .
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 and Recommendations
The report presents findings on the feasibility of the a
project and recommends a future course of action to be
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 was held in Old Harbor to present
the findings and conclusions of the study and to solicit public
comments. All letters and comments received from federal and
state agencies were answered by APA with changes incorporated ioi
in the text of the final report as required. A copy of the
comments and replys is contained in Appendix F. •
•
NBI-419-9524-II II-6
....
15. Report
A draft report was submit ted to the APA in February 1982,
and the final report incorporating all comments was submitted
in August 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
collection 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; and
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 registered in r~
Alaska. Much of the electrical work was accomplished in close
cooperation with this firm. Transmission lines and 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.
estimates
features.
D&L provided the feasibility designs and cost
for the transmission lines and appurtenant electric
G. REPORT FORMAT
Pages, tables, figures, and exhibits in this report are
numbered within the sections in which they appear. Within ._
sections, the tables, figures, and exhibits are placed at the
end of the text. References noted in the text are lis ted in
the Bibliography.
H. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation of 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.S.
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 Old Harbor. ~
•
NBI-419-9524-11 II-8
•
.. .,
SECTION III
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.
A 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
evaluations of all sites. Office studies of alternative sites
and environmental conditions had preceded the initial field
work. The project team on this initial visit consisted of
individuals with geologic, geotechnical, hydroelectric,
hydrological, environmental, and electrical expertise. All
individuals participated in evaluating the alternatives and
conducting the field investigations.
C. FIELD STUDY PHASE
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 aided 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 system.
D. OFFICE STUDY PHASE
The final and most extensive phase of the study was the
office study phase where all data gathered from 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
were analyzed to
NBI-427-9524-III
requirements, various
determine the optimal
III-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 a draft report was prepared.
Following a preliminary review of the report by the Alaska
Power Authority, an additional meeting was held in Old Harbor
to solicit public comments. The draft was circulated to all
concerned state and federal agencies. After receipt and
consideration of comments, the final report was compiled.
Appendix F contains a copy of all the comments received and the
replys prepared by APA and the contractor .
NBI-427-9524-III III-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
first 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. These results have correlated closely with streamflow
measurements obtained to date from the stream gage installed
near the project site.
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.
Figure IV-2.
The resulting annual hydrograph is presented in
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
t' •
[
ft'
•
••
....
. '
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
Qloo= 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 items 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
Kodiak Island, Alaska, along the shores of Si tkalidak Strait.
Si tkal idak 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 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 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-
I
·•
•
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
Miocene time to the present. The glacial deposits at Old
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-4
from
•
•
-
..
... ,
-
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-lithified siltstones to fine-
grained sandstones. Both till and glacial outwash deposits are
present.
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. 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 problem caused by erosion around the
boulders.
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 unweathered
granitic rocks are available from the glacial deposits. These
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 the
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
I
•
•
•
... ,
...
. .
....
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 provided for in the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of December 1971 (ANCSA), Public Law 92-203.
This interim conveyance includes only the surface estate.
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 of a barge landing in Midway Bay
near the mouth of Big Creek and the road construction and
borrow area 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. 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 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 it could be issued by
the U.S. Department of Interior after an affirmative resolution
by the city council. The extent of the impacts and the
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-7
easements required on these lands are dependent upon the final
transmission route within U.S.S. 4793.
All of the interim-conveyed lands identified above are also
part of the Kodiak National Wild 1 i fe Refuge as c 1 ass if ied 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 01 d 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 study
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,"
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-8
. '
I
•
•
II
...
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 million.
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
is, 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 2 I
was still under investigation. Site 1 was the same site
studied in the May 1978 APA report, located three miles north-I
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 utilized 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, 11 by Department of the Army, Alaska District,
Corps of Engineers. Prepared under contract 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 communities 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
.i.
I
I
I
·\If·
'
....
.. ;
...
...
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
Hatio
1. 38
2.69
2.73
1. 33
2.44
2.25
6. "Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and
Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor,
Ouzinkie and Sand Point," 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 detailed 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-
tive, Inc. (AVEC), records show that 274,000 kWh was generated
in 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 of two 155 kW, 1,800-
rpm Ca terpi 11 ar 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
and Alternatives for 01 d Harbor," prepared for
Authority by CH2M HILL, July 1981.
Requirements
Alaska Power
This study presents the results of the study listed as No.
6 evaluating
sources for
project was
number 6.
energy requirements and alternative electricity
the community of Old Harbor. The recommended
the Ohiouzuk Creek project described unaer report
NBI-389-9524-IV IV-12
..
'
•
I
I
1
•
•
"'
111'11
"" ....
..,
,.,,.
.,
....
""11
.....
""" ...
....
..
56
48
40
32
24
16
- 8 rn -0 -31
\
~
\
i
!
" ~ MEAN ANNUAL FLOW 10.5 cfs
" '"" ~ --........ .......
9
LL.
0 0 2 0 40 60
j
eo
PERCENT { 0/o} OF TIME FLOW EXCEEDED
~
100
----------------------------------------------------------------.... MIDWAY CREEK
FLOW DURATION CURVE FIGURE
N-1
en -u -
ESTIMATED RANGE OF AVERAGE ,
MONTHLY FLOWS 7 OUT OF 10
YEARS I
•
•
I
I
I
1
1
l
1
O JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1
MONTH '
--------------------------------~1-MIDWAY CREEK FIGURE
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS TIL-~
EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY
90 80 70 60 50 40 :30 20
. -
-
(I') -() -t ' ' . ' ~--.. ~ .. ; i
w 200; 90°/o CONFJDE;NCE INTERVAL.::::-:~ .::::::::::::l.._j__
(!) ! i !" l . ·j· . ' a:: ! i . . l ' I. l
<t ; j .... :
::t: ESTIMATED FLOOD FREQUENCY~--~ I 0 0 ~----~------! l ; I
2
AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS
MIDWAY CREEK
PEAK FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE
5
10 5 2 I 0.5 0.1
10 20 50 100 1000
FIGURE
:m:-3
...
.. '
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
drainage
near the town, but geologic conditions and small
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. Head, 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
effects were major considerations.
highlight that evaluation.
line, and environmental
The following discussions
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
• j
'
' •
' r
I
I
1
•
•
1
., '
' '
....
...
and good head potential made this site initially very attrac-
tive. The Ohiouzuk canyon had not been visited during previous
reconnaissance activities for the prior studies.
Detailed reconnaissance over the length of the proposed
project revealed major geotechnical problems. The 50-to 150-
foot-deep canyon is cut through weathered siltstones at slopes
of 1:1 with occasional vertical cliffs. Numerous landslides,
particularly in the upper reach, extend into the narrow stream-
bed. This upper reach (Site 1a) was considered unconstructible
at acceptable costs by all members of the field team. A lower
diversion dam site (Site 1 b) would provide a d iff icul t but
constructible penstock route at the cost of losing 40 percent
of the available hydraulic head. An additional disadvantage of
the Ohiouzuk site is its very small drainage area and the
attendant reduction of flow reliability.
Site 2 is located on the opposite side of Old Harbor near
the head of Midway Bay. The site is mentioned in both the
Ebasco (1980) and CH2M HILL (1981) reports as Unnamed Creek
Site 3. In contrast to Ohiouzuk, the penstock can easily be
constructed on a series of open terraces that lead directly to
the power plant location. The diversion dam site may also
provide the option of constructing a moderate-sized detention
reservoir at some future date, if one is needed. The storage
provided could materially augment the normal low flows, thus
providing more useable energy as well as greater flexibility
and reliability to the system. With the exception of the
transmission and access length, the 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.
NBI-389-9524-V V-3
Site 3 is located two to three miles northwest of the
landing strip. It was originally proposed by the Alaska Power
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
' r
r
r
r
'
I
[
I
1
•
f •
1
1
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
• r ., . -.
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 Jz::-1
I
...
...
....
..
...
SECTION VI
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
A. GENERAL
Hydroelectric power plants transform the 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
convey 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 building 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 will 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 will be fit ted with back supports. The
steel weir module will be connected by a pin at the base and
the upper sect ion 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-VI Vl-2
r
'
. '
I
[
-
' •
•
"''
...
...
...
.. .
.. .
The operating head will be 273 feet, with a design dis-
charge of 19.4 cubic feet per second (cfs). The 340 kW rating
is based on assuming a nominal turbine efficiency of 83
percent. It is possible that a turbine manufacturer may guar-
antee a higher turbine efficiency; if so, this wi 11 increase
the turbine-genera tor 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
or create excessive maintenance costs for the turbine-generator
unit. (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 genera tor
wi 11 be shipped prei nstalled 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 selected from the available alterna-
tives and the installed capacity was then determined by an
incremental cost/benefit 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
•
[
(
....
Ill''
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
number 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.
Induct ion genera tors are of ten considered more practical for
the smaller turbine-genera tor 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
I
I
l
"'"
"
~" i
.....
...
••
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
as water hammer, are possible if the flow is suddenly
stopped. This water problem can be limited by building a surge
chamber 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 opening and closing
electrical load rejection
the penstock flow is controlled by
of the turbine wicket gates. An
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 bold 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,
the in the case of a load rejection, the entire jet away from
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
with decreasing
is most efficient within a range of
efficiency occurring beyond this
flows,
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 over the flow range than one
turbine rated at 100 percent of design flow. However, the two
turbines will generally cost 30 percent to 70 percent more than
the single turbine. The extra value of the energy produced by
the two units must therefore make up for the extra cost of
using two units.
In the specific case of Old Harbor, the impulse unit to be
used 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
matter of economics. The larger the turbine size, the larger
the flow that can be accommodated and the more energy that can
be genera ted; 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 VI-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 rna ter iall y
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. This is graphically illustrated in Figure VI -2, at
the end of this section.
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 would 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 st rue tures would consist of
simply bolting the weir and inlet structure into place on the
concrete apron.
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-10
•
•
'
.,.,
I
•
" .
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 eleva ted. 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 uti 1 ized. 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 entire 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, 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
•
1
.. ,
...
...
electrical output with the connected system load. A small
decrease in the system load will cause the governor to actuate
the jet deflector and a quantity of water will be deflected
from the runner to maintain a constant runner speed. If the
lower load continues, the turbine governor will cause the
needle valve to move to a position where the turbine discharge
is 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.
capacity
be held
cycle.
As long as the connected load does not exceed the
of the turbine-generator, the electrical frequency can
within approximately plus or minus one-tenth of a
The turbine-generator is being operated on an isolated
system; that is it is not electrically connected into a grid
units . Any overload in the with other operating generating
unit wi 11 gradually decrease the
corresponding lowering of both
unit's speed and result in a
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 cost of this integrated system was
included in the economic analysis.
The turbine-generator 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
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-13
valve and all supporting systems are operable. Operating
personnel will then actuate a single control switch and the
turbine-genera tor will automatically 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
generator, most bearing
levels. High temperatures
The automatic protective devices on
the internal temperature of the
temper at u res , and c r i t i cal o i l
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 auanti ty 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 will 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. Based on the flow
duration curve for Midway Creek, it is expected that
NBI-389-9524-VI VI-14
•
•
[
•
•
...
about 13 percent of the time water levels will be too
low for the turbine to run efficiently.
In both cases an alarm will be given prior to shutdown.
Routine maintenance will be performed on a weekly
schedule. The power genera ted by the turbine-genera tor 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-genera tor 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 the manu-
facturer's recommendations.
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 VI-16
I
•
TABLE VI-1
TURBINE-GENERATOR SIZING
OLD HARBOR
Annual
Percent Times Turbine Unit Penstock Energy
Exceedance Discharge Head Size I. D. Generated
(million
!/1:;t
(Percent) (cfs) (feet) (kW) kWh)
Ill"'~
15 19.4 273 340 24 1.31 .. ,~
20 15.4 273 270 22 1.20
... ,
25 13.2 269 225 20 1.12 ••
30 11.4 274 200 20 1.06 ....
,.., 35 9.7 279 175 20 0.97
....
...
NBI-389-9524-VI-1
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
"
r
r
r
•
..
I
I
I
,~
" 1
li
'""'
"''
"
••
.....
Average
Month Flow
(cfs)
Jan 6.4
Feb 5.5
Mar 3.9
Apr 8.0
May 22.1
June 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 68
5.5 1. 25 287 101 58
3.9 0.63 288 72 41
8.0 2.65 286 147 85
19.4 15.58 273 340 206
19.3 15.42 273 338 204
7.7 2.45 286 141 81
8.6 3.06 285 157 91
14.8 9.07 279 265 157
13.7 2.27 281 247 145
10.3 4.39 284 188 109
6.1 1. 54 287 112 65
Total 1310
NBI-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
56 ~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--+---+-~
40~--~--~--~--~--~--+---~--+---+-~
32r-~~--~--~--~--~--+---~--~--+-~
16
- 8 • ..
u -~
9 ~ 0
0
AREA UNDER CURVE REPRESENTS
VERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY GENERATED,
~~f--+1.31 MILLION kW·h
20 40
MINIMUM TURBINE
{87°/o EXCEEDANCE}
60 80 100
PERCENT { 0/o) Of TIME FLOW EXCEEDED
OPERATING RANGE OF TURBINE FIGURE
~-2
MIDWAY CREEK
OLD HARBOR SOUTH VILLAGE AND ROAD TO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED NORTH
VILLAGE, THE MIDWAY CREEK SITE IS IN THE UPPER RIGHT.
EXHIRIT VI-1
I
I
I
I
DIVERSION WEIR SITE, LOOKING DOWNSTREAM.
POWERHOUSE SITE (FAR BANK) AND STREAM GAGING STATION
EXHIBIT VI-3
I
OLD HARBOR
I
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE TO OLD HARROR
AERIAL VIEW OF MIDWAY CREEK
POWER SITE
DIVERSION WEIR
POWERHOUSE
EXHIBIT VT-4
....
....
""' ...
• J
SECTION VII
PROJECT ENERGY PLANNING
A. GENERAL
This section of this report presents the projected energy
usage for Old Harbor over the study period and two alternative
means of meeting this projected demand: the base case plan and
the recommended hydroelectric project plan. The potential
future demand for power and energy at Old Harbor was estimated
during this study in order to establish the electrical require-
ments that the alternatives could meet.
used to size both alternatives and was
This information 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 t radi-
tional life styles on energy consumption; the rate of moderni-
zation 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 relat-
ing to energy projects and programs of the APA. The installa-
tion of the much cheaper hydroelectric alternative will almost
certainly alter the pattern of energy and power demand; there-
fore 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 household,
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 and
electrical use characteristics for a given household is
difficult to establish. The actual use of energy is dependent
on the number of people within a given residence, as well as
their age, habits, and financial condition. For example, one
could predict the annual energy use of a refrigerator or
freezer because this is almost independent of activity and
habits. The amount of energy used for electric lights, small
appliances, and television is very susceptible to habits.
Energy demand due to water heaters, washers, dryers, and
dishwashers varies primarily subject to the number and age of
the users. For example, hot water use among fami 1 ies 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 appliance
saturation rate represents the total number and type of
appliances that are acquired by a household. This rate is a
function of numerous economic factors. 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 VI I-1. This information for Old Harbor is
very approximate and was obtained through several interviews
with village residents.
The Kodiak Island Housing Authority has requested funds
from HUD to construct 17 new homes in the village. Although
the exact timing of this construction is not known, it is very
likely that new housing will be constructed in the future at
Old Harbor. The future price of electricity will be much less
than the current price of electricity because the Alaska Power
Authority intends to enact a new program that will subsidize
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-2
r
I
I
r
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
l
..
the cost of power. Since these new homes would be built with
the knowledge that the cost of power is going to be reduced, it
is very likely that, if bui 1 t, they would 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 than Old Harbor. Appliance saturation
rates (and sizes of appliances) for rural Alaskan villages such
as Old Harbor can be expected to increase in the future.
The base year 1980 rate of annual electrical demand per
residential customer was about 2300 kWh, as discussed
subsequently. This apparently reflects a very low electric
appliance use. This use was assumed to increase to
approximately 4,400 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 beating. The CH2M HILL study
( 1981) predicted a total annual energy consumption of 459,000
kWh per year for 2000, exclusive of space heating; however,
this report only recognized one percent annual population
growth. Wi tb this projected population growth, the average
annual residential demand for electrical energy would be about
4,600 kWh by the year 2001. The new policies permitting
opportunities for reductions in
following paragraphs, indicate tba t
price, discussed in the
this projected 4, 400 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 may result in some reduction the cost of power to
this village. This decrease in power cost can be expected to
be accompanied by an increase in use.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-3
Data from the Alaska Power Administration have been
developed to show the 1980 individual per customer use of elec-
tricity versus cost for all towns, cities, and vi 11 ages 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 VI I-1, unit energy costs of less
than 100 mills per kilowatt -hour are generally accompanied by
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 AVEC Villages
having energy costs in excess of 400 mills per ki 1 owa t t -hour
and annual per customer demands of about 2000 kilowatt-hours.
The two different uti 1 it ies 1 is ted 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 tba t in the higher ranges of
price there is significant elasticity in demand. Lower energy
costs appear to result in higher energy usage, and power and
energy demand can be expected to increase at Old Harbor wi tb
the advent of lower prices. The actual amount of higher usage,
however, is very d iff icul t to quantify. For purposes of this
study no attempt bas been made to predict the higher usage
other than to incorporate a moderate increase
use of energy in the projections outlined
projections are probably on the low side.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-4
in per customer
below. These
r r
r
r
I
' l
1
I
1
" •
1
l
I
1
....
....
...
...
...
C. ENERGY DEMAND PROJECTIONS
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 through December 2001. The
economic evaluation period extends past the planning period to
2034, 50 years after the on-line date for the hydroelectric
alternative.
The overall energy demand for Old Harbor for purposes of
energy planning has been broken into two primary categories:
direct electrical energy demand, which includes residential,
small commercial, and school; and space heating energy
demand. Projections for both of these categories, and for the
combined energy 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 est ima ti ng 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 amounts 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.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-5
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 is 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 1985 may be heavily influenced by
current plans regarding new housing, furnished by government
agencies, with an assumed growth rate of 7. 8 percent for that
period. This growth rate is probably conservative. Although
the exact timing and financing of additional housing at this
site is uncertain, some form of new housing wi 11 probably be
bui 1 t at Old Harbor in the next few years. Between 1985 and
1990 the growth rate was assumed to be four percent; the annual
growth rate was assumed to be three percent from 1990 to 2000
and 2.5 percent for 2001. The growth rate was assumed to zero
after 2001. The CH2M HILL study (1981) for Old Harbor assumed
a population growth rate of one percent annually, but it also
recognized faster growth in housing units. To account for 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 using 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
uti 1 it ies. 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.
summary of annual demands is shown in Table VII-10.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-6
A
' j
•
I
I
1
' 1
•. '!I
,..
...
••
~~,;j
No data were available on the monthly energy demands for
Old Harbor. The only source of data found during the course of
the 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 VI I-8A through VI I-80 to compute the
projected monthly energy demands from 1980 to 2001. While the
total amount of energy demand will vary considerably for
different villages, 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 appli-
cable to Old Harbor. At any rate, any error resulting from
this assumption is expected to be small.
2. Space Heating Demand
The fuel oil
obtained from the
rate of use for Old Harbor
CH2M HILL report ( 1981) on
for 1980 was
energy alter-
natives. This report also gave estimated values of fuel oil
use 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.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-7
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 beating 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-80. Also shown in the tables
are the total electrical demand and the total combined demand
(direct electrical and beating demand).
The annual energy projections from Table VI I-7 are pre-
sented in graphical form in Figure VII-2, which is a plot of
the energy demands for each year of the study period. Also
shown is the annual hydroelectric energy production for the
sizes studied ( 280 kW to 575 kW). Figure VI I-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 detai 1 data graph presents in more detai 1 the
relative values of the various demands and available generation
values.
The monthly energy projections from Tables VII-8A to VII-80
are presented in Figure VII-3, again as overall data graphs and
detailed data graphs. These graphs show the relationship on a
monthly basis between the energy demands and the hydroelectric
energy available over the study period. The graphs illustrate
the general periods where the hydroelectric energy would have
to be supplemented by diesel generation in order to meet the
village needs and when excess energy would be available for
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-8
•
"
•
r
I
I
' I
1
I
1
·~
....
....
. '
...
space heating. As shown, during an average water year the
hydroelectric plant would be sufficient to meet more than 90
percent of the village direct electrical needs.
D. BASE CASE PLAN
The base case plan as presented in the draft feasibility
report consisted of a continuation of the existing diesel
system. This plan was modified to include wind generation.
The base case original plan is presented below, and is followed
by the wind generation plan.
1. Original 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. Use of waste
heat more than 2000 feet from the powerhouse is not
practical. The economic value of recoverable waste heat at
this site would not warrant relocation of the powerhouse nearer
to a potential heating load. Relocation of the plant would be
very
fuel
expensive because it would also involve relocation of the
storage facilities and distribution facilities .
firm
meet
The existing diesel plant includes two 155 kW units (155 kW
capacity) .l/ This firm capacity should be adequate to
projected demands through the year 1990; however, the
capacity will not be adequate by the year 2000. Therefore, it
1f In figuring firm capacity, the largest unit is omitted.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-9
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
wi 11 be adequate over
that existin12: fuel-storage
the life of the project.
facilities
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.
2. Wind Generation Plan
The possibility of supplementing the existing diesel system
with wind generation was investigated as part of the base case
analysis. Wind energy is an emerging technology, but has, to
date, proved to be economically feasible only under certain
conditions. At the direction of the Alaska Power Authority,
all wind data and wind system costs were obtained from a report
entitled "Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan," Detailed
Feasibility Analysis, Interim Feasibility Assessment Report,
1982, by Stone and Webster. Unpublished data and information
developed by Stone and Webster in conjunction with this report
were also utilized.
The investment cost associated with wind generation is very
high, and the cost of other energy sources must be greater than
at least 15 cents per kWh to justify the investment. Standard
equipment uses induction 12:enerators, and system stability
becomes a problem if more than about 20 percent of the total
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-10
•
•
I
I
I
1
l
I
l
'
...
.. '
.,
••
. '
system power is from wind. For some limited applications, such
as remote cabins and communications installations, direct
current generators and banks of storage batteries may be
practical. Some configurations that use excess wind energy for
space heating show good overall economics.
The only proven wind generators currently available have
capacities of 10 kW or less. However, units of up to 100 kW
are currently becoming commercially available and are expected
to be dependable. The application of this equipment is,
however, subject to some limiting restrictions.
In order to be efficient the wind turbine must operate at
low wind speeds and yet be rugged enough to withstand high
gusting and wind. The gear boxes, towers, and blades must
operate almost continuously under these adverse conditions. At
this time few manufacturers are able to demonstrate the
required reliability under Alaska Conditions.
The electrical interface to the utility system is also
fairly complex with some reliability problems. The simplest
and most reliable systems use indue t ion genera tors, but these
units introduce another limiting factor, stability problems.
The wind varies widely in available energy. This variation
can be over seconds, days or months. Energy must be stored to
bridge the periods of low wind. There are many ideas about
possible storage mediums including compressed
hydrogen generation, pumped hydro storage,
thermal.
air, batteries,
flywheels, and
All of these methods have a reasonable theoretical basis
but are not commercially mature. The efficiency, availability,
reliability and operational requirements of these schemes are
many years from application to present electric power systems .
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-11
Storage of heat using water or eutechtic salts is a good
system if the energy is to be used ultimately for space heat.
Under rapidly varying wind conditions the energy output of
the unit varies widely.
stable, the other
Since the utility system load is quite
variations. The
frequency stability
generation must absorb
induction
problem,
genera tors also
si nee they do not
these wide
introduce a
operate at a
"synchronous" speed, deriving their excitation from the power
system.
These conditions limit the amount of wind driven induction
generation to about 20% at any given moment. This is a very
rough number and will vary with the inherent stability of the
existing system, but will probably never exceed 30%.
Synchronous machines
load are prohibitively
reliable systems.
which could carry much more of the
expensive and not well developed,
Since storage is a major problem, the electrical energy
generally is genera ted and consumed in the same instant. At
periods of high wind the loads may be low, while at times of
high load there may be low wind conditions. This coincidence
factor greatly limits the final percentage of energy which can
be generated with wind equipment.
To an electric utility the wind generation represents only
a savings in fuel and some slight reduction in engine
maintenance. A full-sized diesel plant must be maintained
because the wind source may not be available during the system
peak.
This benefit is often overestimated by individual consumers
who have their own wind systems because they save the full
billing rate for the electrical power. Actually, they are not
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-12
' J
!
r
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
' '
••
.. ,.
....
••
paying for the standby generation, utility equipment
personnel available to them when the wind doesn't blow.
are being subsidized by their neighbors.
and
They
For this analysis we have used cost estimates and methods
of analysis as presented in "Wind Energy Analysis", a part of
the "Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan", as prepared by Stone and
Webster for the Alaska Power Authority during 1982. We have
also used notes and design calculations provided by Stone and
Webster.
The communi ties we have studied fall outside of the wind
class map provided. We have assumed Class 5 winds for all
communities.
square meter.
This provides an average energy of 390 Watts per
For this study, two types of wind machines were
considered. Both types are mounted on 60 foot towers and use
induction generators. One unit has seven-foot-diameter blades
and a maximum output of 10 kW, and the other has 20-foot-
diameter blades, with a maximum output of 25 kW. A maximum
power penetration of 20 percent was assumed; this means that at
any given moment, not more than 20 percent of the total system
load can be met by wind driven generators. Significant data on
the machines investigated are presented as Table VII-11.
For this study, it was assumed that two ten kilowatt wind
generators would be installed at Old Harbor during 1982, and
that these plants would be operational during 1983 and would
require replacement every 15 years. A third unit would be
brought on line during 1988 and would increase the total
installed capacity to 30 kW; a fourth unit would be added in
1997, increasing the capacity to 40 kW. The usable wind
generation is pre sen ted as Table VI I-12. Inspect ion of Table
VII-12 shows that the amount of usable wind generation has been
assumed to be constant as long as the installed capacity
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-13
remains the same. The amount of usable wind generation would
probably actually increase slightly with time; however, this
increase would probably be minor, and the accuracy of the
energy use and economic analyses would not be enhanced by this
refinement. The estimates presented here are probably high.
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
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.
Waste heat recovery was not considered
because there are no significant heating
plant. Waste heat recovery for this
as part of this plan
loads near the power
plan would not be
economical even if a heating load did exist near the plant
because the diesels would only operate about four percent of
the time in 1985 and about 14 percent of the time in 2001.
This limited amount of available heat would not justify the
expense of waste heat recovery equipment.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-14
•
!
!
•
•
I
l
'f
'
l •
...
.. ,
.. '
••
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. Appendix G describes the space heating
installation and costs for Old Harbor.
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-9D. 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 available hydroelectric energy. This
usage level may not be wholly attainable in practice because of
the unavailability or breakdown of end-use equipment and dis-
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 of
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.
An annual summary of energy demand, generation, and usage
is presented as Table VII-10. The values from this table were
used for the economic analysis presented in Chapter IX.
NBISF-419-9524-VII VII-15
, '
...
.. ,
""
.. " ..
...
~·
~ '
...
. '
. '
"'
TABLE VII-1
ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE SATURATION RATES
OLD HARBOR
Annual Energy
Consumption Kenai-
per House-
Anchorage .1../
Cook Old ~/ Appliance Household l/ Inlet .1../ Harbor
(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 ~ 1_/ 1_/
Washer 70 50 85
(Water) (1,050)
Dryer 1,000 71 76
Dishwasher 230 50 31
(Water) (700)
.1./ Values are for 1978 from "Electric Power Consumption for
the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements," 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.
1_/ 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.
28.
29.
1
2
TABLE VII-2
UNIT COST AND ENERGY DEMANo!J
ALASKA
Cost Demand
Location (mills/kWh) (kWh/Customer)
5 Villages (Southeast) 298.7 3,996
Haines 144.3 5,680
Juneau2/ 45.7 7,775
June a~ 92.2 7,775
Ketchikan 58.4 8,528
Metlakatla 31.5 17,981
Petersburg 123.5 6,355
Sitka 49.8 8,483
Skagway 133.9 5,879
Wrangell 156.3 4,689
Yakutat 152.7 7' 170
Anchoragd/ 37.5 9' 124
Anchorage2/ 33.6 11,982 Anchorag~ 45.8 14,800
Glenallen, Valdez 131.5 5,890
Homer 35.9 12,644
Kodiak 149.3 5,871
Seward 54.0 6,694
Fairbanks2/ 122.2 5,501 Fairbank~ 75.1 10,519
Fort Yukon 245.3 1,669
Tanana 269.9 5,992
48 Villages (AVEC) 422.1 2,044
Barrow 129.8 4,395
Kotzebue 199.7 5,290
Bethel 177.4 4,590
Dillingham 151.9 5,000
McGrath 233.5 1,735
Naknek 174.5 5,524
Data obtained from "Alaska Electric Power Statistics, 1960-
1980," Sixth Edition, August 1981, United States Department
of Energy, Alaska Power Admin is t rat ion. Values from the
table on page 40, "Energy Sales, Revenue, Customers--1980,"
were used to develop this table.
Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks are served by more than one
utility. Each listing is for a separate utility.
NBISF-419-9524-VII-2
r
I
r
r
•
r
1
l
•
1
1
1
r''l
""
-
.. "
..
. '
" .
• l
TABLE VII-3
PROJECTED ANNUAL ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Annual Peak
Energy lJ 11 Power
Type of 1..; Number of 1 12 / Demand Demand
Year Consumer Customers 1000 kWh (kW)
1980 Residential 71 164
Small Commercial 4 19
Public & School 7 172
Total System 82 355 93
1985 Residential 90 290
Small Commercial 4 28
Public & School 7 200
Total System 101 518 118
1990 Residential 95 338
Small Commercial 5 41
Public & School 8 250
Total System 108 630 144
2000 Total System 110 847 193
2001 Total System 112 871 199
lJ AVEC Power Requirements Study
~ The Community Profile indicates that there are 93 resi-
dences in Old Harbor. The figure of 71 residential custom-
ers is taken from the AVEC Power Requirements Study; this
indicates that in some cases more than one house is on one
meter.
1J See discussion of increase in demand on pages VII-4 through
VII-6. For annualized demand, see Table VII-10.
NBISF-389-9524-VII-3
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Totals
TABLE VII-4
MONTHLY LOAD CHARACTERISTicsl/
Monthly
Power
Demand
(kW)
165 2:.1
151
127
139
127
115
131
144
137
163
163
163
Monthly Per-
centage of
Annual Peak 31 Power Deman(j.!::..
100.0
91.5
77.0
84.2
77.0
69.7
79.4
87.3
83.0
98.8
98.8
98.8
Monthly
Energy
Demand
(kWh)
56,400
50,600
74,400
52,500
50' 100
21,000
35,200
44,900
55,500
47,800
52,500
61,600
602,500
~/ Based on 1979 AVEC data for Togiak.
Monthly
Percentage
of Annual
Energy Demand~/
9.4
8.4
12.4
8.7
8.3
3.5
5.8
7.5
9.2
7.9
8.7
10.2
100.00
~/ 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.
~/ Percentages calculated from demand.
NBISF-419-9524-VII-4
r
r
r
(
I
I
I
l
'
.. ,
...
"
... ,
..
...
. .
TABLE VII-5
ANNUAL HEATING DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Year 1980 1985 1990 2000 2001
Annual Fuel Oil (BBL. )1} 1 '910 2,270 2,630 3,200 3,260
Annual Requiremen~
(1000 kWh) 2,970 3,530 4,090 4,980 5,070
~/ The 1980, 1990, and 2000 values were taken from the CH2M HILL
report (1981). Other values were interpolated or extrapolated.
Values rounded to nearest 10 barrels.
~/ Based on 55 Gal/BBL, 138,000 BTU/Gal, 70% efficiency, and
3413 BTU/kWh.
NBI-419-9524-VII-5
TABLE VII-6
MONTHLY HEATING DEMANDs..!./
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
Heating of Annual
Degree Heating
Month Days~ Degree Days 1980 1985 1990 2000 2001
--===--------1000 kWh-----------------
January 850 10.8 321 381 442 538 548
February 1070 13.6 404· 480 556 677 689
March 860 11.0 327 388 450 548 558
April 640 8.2 243 290 335 408 416
May 600 7.6 226 268 311 379 385
June 370 4.7 140 166 192 234 238
July 200 2.5 74 88 102 125 127
August 240 3.1 92 110 127 154 157
September 370 4.7 140 166 192 234 238
October 650 8.3 246 293 340 413 421
November 800 10.2 303 360 417 508 517
December 1200 15.3 454 540 626 762 776 --
Totals 7850 100.0 2970. 3530• 4090· 4980. 5070·
l./ Based on the number of heating degree days indicated in the
Old Harbor Community Profile multiplied by the Annual Heating
Demands from Table VII-5.
~ From the Old Harbor Community Profile.
NBI-419-9524-VII-6
•
' "
"
•
""'
• ..
[
"' ...
,
II.,,
r -
I
I
' ....
•
•
.,
....
.. 4
Year
TABLE VII-7
ANNUAL ENERGY DEMAND
Direct
Electrical
Demand l/
OLD HARBOR
Heating
Demand JJ
Total
Combined
Demand
--------------------1000 kWh-------------------------
1980 355
1985 518
1990 630
2000 847
2001 871
2034 871
1 From Table VII-3.
JJ From Table VI I-5
NBI-419-9524-VII-7
2,970 3,325
3,530 4,048
4,090 4,720
4,980 5,827
5,070 5,941
5,070 5,941
TABLE VII-SA
1980 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Totals
Percentage lJ
of Annual
Direct
Demand
9.4
8.4
12.4
8.7
8.3
3.5
5.8
7.5
9.2
7.9
8.7
10.2
100.0
See Table VII-4.
OLD HARBOJ:l
Direct
Electrical
Demand J:j
33
30
44
31
29
12
21
27
33
28
31
36
355
Heat
Demand ;}_/
1000 kWh
321
404
327
243
226
140
74
92
140
246
303
454
2970
Total
Demand
354
434
371
274
255
152
95
119
173
274
334
490
3325
1/
2/ Based on Annual Direct Demand of 355,000 kWh from Table
VII-3.
From Table VII-6.
NBI-419-9524-7-SA
' •
•
;'*"
[ ..
L.
"'
"""'
,.
....,
"" •
l
Of
•
~
•
~'
' 1
I.
.. ,.
11"11
.....
...
• <
.. ~
TABLE VII-8B
1985 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
of Annual Direct
Direct
JJ ElectricJl Heat Total
Month Demand Demand ~ Demand 1./ Demand
- - -- ---1,000 kWh ---- - --
January 9.4 49 381 430
February 8.4 43 480 523
March 12.4 64 388 452
April 8.7 45 290 335
May 8.3 43 268 311
June 3.5 18 166 184
July 5.8 30 88 118
August 7.5 39 110 149
September 9.2 48 166 214
October 7.9 41 293 334
November 8.7 45 360 405
December 10.2 53 540 593
Totals 100.0 518 3530 4048
~/ See Table VII-4.
~/ Based on Annual Direct Demand of 518 MWh from Table VII-3.
~/ From Table VII-6.
,.3 I -419-9524-7 -8B
TABLE VII-8C
1990 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
of Annual Direct
Direct Electrical Heat Total
Month Demand JJ Demand :Y Demand :E._/ Demand
-------1000 kWh ----- - -
January 9.4 59 442 501
February 8.4 53 556 609
March 12.4 78 450 528
April 8.7 55 335 390
May 8.3 52 311 363
June 3.5 22 192 214
July 5.8 37 102 139
August 7.5 47 127 174
September 9.2 58 192 250
October 7.9 50 340 390
November 8.7 55 417 472
December 10.2 64 626 690
Totals 100.0 630 4090 4720
See Table VII-4. 1/
J:../
y
Based on Annual Direct Demand of 630 MWh from Table VII-3.
From Table VII-6.
NBI-ll9-9524-7-8C
• 4
' r
r
• ...
r
...
I
I
I
I
.,
•
' I
" .
,. '
"'"'
II' I
.. ,
.. ~
"' .
P•
.. 4
1"'!1 -
••
TABLE VII-8D
2001 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND
OLD HARBOR
Percentage
of Annual Direct
Direct Electrical Heat Total
Month Demand 1 Demand _g_ Demand 1./ Demand
-------1000 kWh -- -
--- -
January 9.4 82 548 630
February 8.4 73 689 762
March 12.4 108 558 666
April 8.7 76 416 492
May 8.3 72 385 457
June 3.5 30 238 268
July 5.8 51 127 178
August 7.5 65 157 222
September 9.2 80 238 318
October 7.9 69 421 490
November 8.7 76 517 593
December 10.2 89 776 865
Totals 100.0 871 5070 5941
~/ See Table VII-4.
_g_/ Based on Annual Direct Demand of 871 MWh from Table VII-3.
21 From Table VII-6.
NBI-419-9524-7-8D
TABLE VII-9A
1980 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
OLD HARBOR
Direct-!!
Electrical Hydro.Y Direct use.Y Remaining Heat..!_/ Hydro Used
Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat
---------------------------------------1000 kWh----------------------------------
,Jan 33 0 0 0 321 0
Feb 30 0 0 0 404 0
Mar 44 0 0 0 327 0
Apr 31 0 0 0 243 0
May 29 0 0 0 226 0
June 12 0 0 0 140 0
,July 21 0 0 0 74 0
Aug 27 0 0 0 92 0
Sep 33 0 0 0 140 0
Oct 28 0 0 0 246 0
Nov 31 0 0 0 303 0
Dec 36 0 0 0 454 0
Totals 355 0 0 0 2,970 0
1/
JJ
3/
From Table VII-8A.
The proposed hydroelectric project will not go on-line until late 1984 or early 1985.
For purposes of the projections, an on-line date of January 1985 has been assumed.
Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by
diesel generation.
, ' , ' .. ·• l J
TABLE VII-9B
1985 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
OLD HARBOR
Directl..!
Electrical Hydrdi Direct Us~ Remaining Heatl..! Hydro Used
Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat
-------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------
Jan 49 68 49 19 381 19
Feb 43 58 43 15 480 15
Mar 64 41 41 0 388 0
Apr 45 85 45 40 290 40
May 43 206 43 163 268 163
June 18 204 18 186 166 166
,July 30 81 30 51 88 51
Aug 39 91 39 52 110 52
Sep 48 157 48 109 166 109
Oct 41 145 41 104 293 104
Nov 45 109 45 64 360 64
Dec 53 65 53 12 540 12
Totals 518 1310 495 815 3530 795
1.1 From Table VII-8B.
2 From Table VI-3.
3 Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by
diesel generation.
NBISF-419-9524-7-98
TABLE VII-9C
1990 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
OLD HARBOR
Directll
Heatll Electrical Hydrc2J Direct Use.~./ Remaining Hydro Used
Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energ¥: Demand For Heat
-------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------
Jan 59 68 59 9 442 9
Feb 53 58 53 5 556 5
Mar 78 41 41 0 450 0
Apr 55 85 55 30 335 30
May 52 206 52 154 311 154
June 22 204 22 182 192 182
July 37 81 37 44 102 44
Aug 47 91 47 44 127 44
Sep 58 157 58 99 192 99
Oct 50 145 50 95 340 95
Nov 55 109 55 54 417 54
Dec 64 65 64 1 626 1
Totals 630 1310 593 717 4090 717
1/ From Table VII-8C.
Jj From Table VI-3.
3/ Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by
diesel generation.
NBISF-419-9524-7-9C
...,.... ..-.... ~ • ,1! p 'J .... ~ ,., , , 1 •. ,. -" • 1
Directl!
Electrical
Month Demand
t " ..
TABLE VII-9D
2001 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE
OLD HARBOR
HydroY Direct Us~ Remaining
Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy
Heatl! Hydro Used
Demand For Heat
------------------------------------1000 kWh-----------------------------------
Jan 82 68 68 0 548 0
Feb 73 58 58 0 689 0
Mar 108 41 41 0 558 0
Apr 76 85 76 9 416 9
May 72 206 72 134 385 134
June 30 204 30 174 238 174
July 51 81 51 30 127 30
Aug 65 91 65 26 157 26
Sep 80 157 80 77 238 77
Oct 69 145 69 76 421 76
Nov 76 109 76 33 517 33
Dec 89 65 65 0 776 0
Totals 871 1310 751 559 5070 559
1 From Table VII-8D.
y From Table VI-3.
3 Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by
diesel generation.
NBISF-419-9524-7-9D
TABLE VII-10
ENERGY DEMAND, GENERATION, AND USAGE
ANNUAL SUMMARY
OLD HARBOR
Total Demand Met Required Supplemental
Demand by Hydro Diesel Generation
YEAR (1000 kWh) 1} (1000 kWh) y (1000 kWh) 1.1
1980 355 0 355
1981 388 0 388
1982 420 0 420
1983 453 0 453
1984 485 0 485
1985 518 495 23
1986 540 515 25
1987 563 534 29
1988 585 554 31
1989 608 573 35
1990 630 593 37
1991 652 607 45
1992 673 622 51
1993 695 636 59
1994 717 650 67
1995 739 665 74
1996 760 679 81
1997 782 694 88
1998 804 708 96
1999 825 722 103
2000 847 737 110
2001-
2034 871 751 120
1J From Table VI I-3. In termed ia te values not shown on VI I-3
obtained through interpolation.
l:J From Tables VI I-9A through VI I-9D. Intermediate values not
shown on those tables obtianed through interpolation.
1J Difference between total demand and demand met by hydro.
NBISF-427-9524-7-10
•
' •
..
' &
l
•
•
1
L
•
...
...
...
....
...
TABLE VII-11
WIND ENERGY EQUIPMENT DATA
OLD HARBOR
10 kW
Machine
Tower Height (ft)
Efficiency (%)
Mean Power Output (kW) 1f
Availability (%) ~
Annual Usable Energy Generation (kWh) 1J
Capital Cost ($)
60
20
3.75
90
27,900
34,000
l.! Mean Power Output = (Watts/Meters 2 ) X
(0.7854) X (Diameter2) X
(efficiency) I 1000
25 kW
Machine
60
20
7.66
90
60,400
50,000
J:! The availability is the
operate and is limited
repair .
time that the unit can actually
by breakdowns, maintenance, and
1! Energy = Mean Power Output X Availability •
NBISF-427-9524-7-11
TABLE VII-12
WIND ENERGY USAGE
OLD HARBOR
Peak System Installed Wind Usable Wind
Demand Capacity Generation
YEAR (kW) 1! (kW) 1:.1 (MWh) .Y
1982 103 0 56
1983 108 20 56
1984 113 20 56
1985 118 20 56
1986 123 20 56
1987 128 20 56
1988 134 30 84
1989 139 30 84
1990 144 30 84
1991 149 30 84
1992 154 30 84
1993 159 30 84
1994 164 30 84
1995 169 30 84
1996 173 30 84
1997 178 40 112
1998 183 40 112
1999 188 40 112
2000 193 40 112
2001-
2034 199 40 112
1/
2/
3/
From Table VII-3.
interpolation.
Intermediate values obtained by
10 kW generators. The maximum penetration of asynchronous
wind generators into the system is 20%; therefore, not more
than 20% of the total peak demand can be met by wind at any
time.
From Stone and Webster Report.
NBISF-427-9524-7-12
' ""'" r
r
r
" ..
"
"'"'
""" ..
"' &
I
I
!If
•
1 •
....
....
....
..
20
-,o
0::
LLI
~
' 0
0
0 ... -
)(
s:.
!C
~ -
0 z
<(
:E
LLI
0
...J
<(
::> z z
5
<(
0 o 100
UNIT COST (MILLS I kWh)
48 AVEC
VILLAGES
200 300 400
i ---------------------------------------------------------COST AND DEMAND FIGURE
ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN ALASKA ll[-1
.. ,
....
....
SECTION VIII
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 VIII-1
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
r
I
I
r
r
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
...
...
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
project 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 1 s profit was assumed to be
15 percent. Engineers 1 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 $3,082,300 at January 1982 prices. Prices
for the major components of the construction work and the in-
direct costs are presented in Table VIII-1.
NBI-419-9524-VIII VIII-4
r
I
r
r
I
•
I
I
I
[
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
1"1
.. ,
....
...
-.iii
".
...
...
..
. '
Item
Mobilization and Demo b.
Diversion Dam
Steel Structures
Concrete
Reinforcement
Intake
Offtake Structure
Sediment Structure
Concrete
Reinforcement
Penstock
Steel 24 inch dia.
TABLE VIII-1
OLD HARBOR
CONSTRUCTION COST
Quantity Unit
LS
1,120 LB
10 CY
1,133 LB
3,500 LB
8,000 LB
9 CY
1,035 LB
1,000 LF
Fiberglass 24 inch dia. 1,200 LF
Concrete Pads 8 CY
Excavation 1,050 CY
Backfill 945 CY
Powerhouse
Prefab Building LS
Turbine and Generator LS
Auxiliary Systems LS
Concrete 98 CY
Reinforcing Steel 11,105 LB
Access Road
Excavation, Common 8,400 CY
Backfill 987 CY
Culvert 100 LF
Excavation, Rock 7,500 CY
Construct Dock LS
NBI-419-9524-8-1
Unit
Price Amount
($) ($)
$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 19z160
$657,160
17 146,450
23 22,750
64 6,420
29 218,430
$394,050
$18,430
TABLE VIII-1
(Concluded)
Transmission Line
(Subcontract)
Contingencies -15%
(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
$ 714,990
262,180
~2,642,500
$ 50,000
175,000
125,000
89,800
$3,082,300 *
!
!
' ..
•
•
I
I
I
I
l
' 1
I
I
I
l
..,,
. '
...
...
. '
...
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 analy-
sis, 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. 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 costs of diesel fuel and lubricating 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 esc ala ted for the duration of the planning period, with
the last escalation occurring in the year 2001. The costs were
r
' !
r
held constant at the 2001 value for the remainder of the period ~
of economic evaluation.
The interest rate for all amortization and sinking funds u.
was assumed to be three percent. This and the above assump-
tions are in accordance with the APA criteria.
The discount rate for the present worth analysis was
assumed to be three percent. All annual costs were discounted
to January 1982.
The economic life of the hydroelectric project was assumed
to be 50 years. The economic project 1 i fe 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 byd roelectric al terna ti ve 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. No interest during
construction was included. The first amortization payment was
shown in the year following the capital cost.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-2
I
I
I
I
•
•
l
I
1
...
... ,
....
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. It would not be practical to relocate the plant
nearer to a heat load because the small heat loads and small
amount of heat available would not justify the cost. This is
discussed on page VII-9. The benefit for space heating for the
hydroelectric alternative was treated separately and applied as
a cost to the base case plan. The wind energy benefits were
applied as a credit to the base case plan.
C. BASE CASE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The base case plan presented in the draft feasibility
report
system
consisted
and the
of a continuation of the existing
installation of supplemental waste
diesel
heat
recovery. This plan was modified to include wind generation.
The base case original plan is presented below, and is followed
by the wind generation plan.
1. Original Plan
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
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-3
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 discounted at
three percent interest to January 1982. They were then summed
to find the total present worth of the base case alternative.
The plant must be expanded as required to provide firm
capacity sufficient to meet peak power demands on the system.
Firm capacity is calculated omitting the largest unit. The
existing installation consists of two 155 kW units, yielding a
firm capacity of 155 kW. This should be adequate to meet peak
power demands through 1990, when the projected peak power
demand would be 144 kW. In 1991, a 150 kW unit would be added
to the installation, increasing the firm capacity to 305 kW.
This would provide sufficient firm capacity to meet peak power
demands on the system throughout the planning period. The peak
demand for 2001 is projected to be 199 kW. The existing units
will wear out in about 20 years; these units would be replaced
with 200 kW units, resulting in an eventual firm capacity of
350 kW. The 150 kW unit would eventually be retired, and the
final plant configuration would have 200 kW firm capacity.
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.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-4
•
!
r
•
-
I
I
I
I
1
' •
...
....
,..
...
.. '
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 represen ta ti ve 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 formulated.
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 in order to be consistent with
the 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-
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
economic
annual
study
NBI-389-9524-IX
diesel
period
generation costs
for the base case
IX-5
over the project
for operation and
maintenance, lubrication oil, fuel oil, and replacement are
presented in Tables IX-1, IX-2, IX-3, and IX-4, respectively,
and are combined in Table IX-5 to show the annual cost for the
case case for each year of economic evaluation.
The annual base case diesel generation costs and the
present worth of these costs are presented in Table IX-6. As
shown, the total January 1982 present worth of the costs of the
base case would be $8,182,800.
2. Wind Generation Plan
The possibility of installing wind-powered
part of the base case was also considered.
generation is disc us sed in detail in Sect ion
installed capacities and energy generation.
genera tors as
Wind powered
VII, including
The benefits attributable to wind generation would be a
reduction in the amount of fuel consumed by the diesel genera-
tors, and a slight decrease in the lubrication and maintenance
costs associated with the diesel generation. These costs are
summarized in Tables IX-1A, IX-2A and IX-3A which are included
behind Table IX-19. These tables are combined in Table IX-4A.
The costs of installing, replacing, and maintaining the diesels
would not be affected by the addition of wind generation
because the full standby diesel capacity would always be
required, the diesels would not have enough reduction in opera-
tion to increase their useful lives, and the operator would
receive the same salary regardless of how often the diesels
operate.
The cost of 10 kW wind turbines and generators was assumed
to be $34,000 each, installed. The operation and maintenance
cost for the wind turbines was assumed as five percent of the
capital cost. The wind turbines were assumed to have a useful
life of 15 years. A summary of costs associated with this
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-6
•
r
J
r
I
[
I
I
' I
I
""
installation is presented as Table IX-5A. (This data is from
the 1982 Stone and Webster report -See Section VII).
The credits for reduct ion in diesel generation were then
adjusted by the cost of wind generation to yield the annual
credit attainable from wind generation. This credit was
discounted to January 1982 at three percent interest. The
present worth of the wind generation credit is $330,400. This
present worth is summarized in Table IX-6A.
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, and operating and maintaining the new
hydroelectric 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 suffic-
ient 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-13. The diesel capacity would also be required at
times when the 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 he 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.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-7
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 oi 1 are presented in Tab 1 es IX-7, IX-8, and IX-9,
respectively. Those costs are combined in Table IX-11 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 annual 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. The annual operation and
maintenance cost would be $39,600.
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 sys-
tem every 30 years. The 30-year economic life for the trans-
mission lines is based on experience with similar projects in
Alaska. 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.
The schedule of replacement costs is presented as Table IX-11.
The annual costs of the hydroelectric portion of the recom-
mended hydroelectric project are presented in Table IX-12. This
table includes the amortization, operation and maintenance, and
replacement costs. These costs are then combined with the
annual costs for the supplemental diesel system from Table IX-
10 and presented as the combined diesel and hydroelectric costs
in Table IX-13.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-8
r
I
' r
•
•
' '
•
1
'
"
...
... ,
..
The proposed hydroelectric power plant would also generate
power in excess of the village's direct demand during certain
times of the year. Any excess hydroelectric energy could be
used for space heating in the village. This electricity could
also be used by boats that dock in the harbor and request power
from the city. 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
28.3 kilowatt-hours of available electricity. This conversion
factor is based on the assumption that a gallon of fuel oil
yields 138,000 BTU's and that fuel oil used for heating is 70
percent efficient. The energy values used are from Tables
VII-9A through VII-90 .
The use of electricity for space heating would be con-
trolled automatically in order to take advantage of as much
excess electricity as possible. The system design and cost
estimate are included as Appendix G •
The annual savings for the hydroelectric energy used for
space heating are presented in Table IX-14. This table indi-
cates the annual hydroelectric energy available for the heat
demand, the equivalent amount and cost of the fuel oil dis-
placed, 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-15 summary as $6,475,000.
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 $1,234,600.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-9
E. ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF PROJECTS
The base case plan and the recommended hydroelectric proj-
ect plan can be compared on the basis of the present worth of
the total cost of each plan. Both plans were formula ted to
satisfy the same energy demand and the plan having the lower
present worth of costs would be the more advantageous plan for
development.
In addition to the cost of diesel generation and the cost
of the hydroelectric project, economic benefits are available
from wind generation and from use of excess hydroelectric power
for space heating. The actual plans as presented herein
consider the wind generation as part of the base case plan, and
the space heating credit as part of the recommended hydro-
electric project. For purposes of determining the relative
economic merit of the projects, with emphasis on the hydro-
electric project, the costs associated with the hydroelectric
project can be considered as costs and the costs of the present
system, that would be avoided by installation of the hydro-
electric project, can be considered to be benefits. The credit
available from wind generation was considered as a reduction in
the cost of the base case and the space heating credit was
considered to be an increase in the cost of the base case.
•
r
r
r
•
!"
A summary of the present worth of the costs and benefits •
outlined above is presented as Table IX-16. The benefits
associated with the project are the cost of the base case,
minus the credit from wind generation, plus the space heating
credit. The cost associated with the project is the cost of
the recommended hydroelectric project, including the cost of
supplemental diesel generation. The overall benefit for the
project is $9,087,000 and the overall cost is $6,475,000.
Benefit/cost ratios for the project are presented as Table
IX-17. The benefit/cost ratio, considering only the base case
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-10
1
1
1
".
. '
.. '
..
""
diesel costs as a benefit, is 1.264. If the benefit is adjusted
by the wind generation credit, the benefit/cost ratio is 1.213.
If the benefit is adjusted for the wind energy credit and the
space heating credit, the benefit/cost ratio is 1.403 .
F. UNIT COSTS AND PROJECT TIMING
As requested by the Alaska Power Authority, the unit energy
cost of the base case and recommended hydroelectric project
plans were calculated on an annual basis. These values are
presented in Tables IX-18 and IX-19, and are shown graphically
on Figure IX-I.
The optimum timing for project development would occur when
the unit costs of the existing generation system exceeds the
unit cost of the proposed hydroelectric power project. Because
actual costs are important for this comparison, the wind
generation credit is shown as an adjustment to the base case
cost and the space heating credit is shown as an adjustment to
the recommended hydroelectric project cost. The annual unit
costs for the two schemes are shown with and without the
adjustments for these credits.
Inspection of Figure IX-1 reveals a number of
discontinuities. These discontinuities are due to large
changes in the net annual cash flow of each configuration that
are caused by capital expenses or increases in generating
capacity.
of energy
A discontinuity showing an increase in the unit cost
indicates that the annual cost of a capital
expenditure exceeds the annual value of the increase in
generation, if any, resulting from that cost. This type of
discontinuity normally accompanies a major investment, such as
installation of a hydroelectric facility or expansion of diesel
plant capacity; this type of discontinuity would also accompany
expenses associated with the power system that do not result in
increased generation, such as construction of fuel storage
facilities.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-11
Downward discontinuities on Figure IX-1 indicate
expenditures that result from an annual increase in generation
having greater value than the annual cost of the increase.
This situation results from the ins tall at ion of conservation
methods, such as waste heat recovery.
The general downward sloping trend of the unit cost of the
various levels of the hydroelectric project are the result of a
gradual increase, over time, of the amount of hydroelectric
energy that can be used. These 1 ines indicate an advantage
associated with hydroelectric projects; although the initial
cost of a project of this nature is high, the variable annual
costs are low.
The general upward trend of the base case unit annual cost
is the result of the increase in total demand for electricity
and the increase in the cost of oil. For the base case plan,
increasing demand must be met primarily by diesel generation,
giving this plan a high variable annual cost.
The annual unit costs shown for 1982 and 1983 at Old Harbor
are the same for all alternatives. The cost of the base case
jumps downward at the start of 1984, when, the wind generators
come on line. The discontinuity of the hydroelectric case at
the start of 1985 corresponds with the on-1 ine date for the
hydroelectric project. The discontinuity of all alternatives
at the end of 1996 is due to an increase in diesel capacity.
The diesel capacity would be replaced and expanded for the base
case in 2001; this same replacement would not be necessary
until 2011 for the hydroelectric case.
As shown on Figure IX-I, the base case cost currently
exceeds the recommended hydroelectric project cost after
adjustment for space heating credit. The cost of the base case
will exceed the cost of the hydroelectric project only by 1990.
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-12
'
' ..
I
[
•
' l
...
• •
..
The. recommended hydroelectric project is viable for immediate
development •
NBI-389-9524-IX IX-13
.. '
r 1t
r,
"'"
.. ~
·~
...
"' '
TABLE IX-1
BASE CASE
DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual Energy lf
Maintenance ~/ Operation 1._/
Annual
Production Cost
Year (1000 kWh) ($) ($) ($)
1982 420 7' 100 60,000 67,100
1983 453 7,700 60,000 67,700
1984 485 8,200 60,000 68,200
1985 518 8,800 60,000 68,800
1986 540 9,200 60,000 69,200
1987 563 9,600 60,000 69,600
1988 585 9,900 60,000 69,900
1989 608 10,300 60,000 70,300
1990 630 10,700 60,000 70,700
1991 652 11,100 60,000 71,100
1992 673 11,400 60,000 71,400
1993 695 11 '800 60,000 71,800
1994 717 12,200 60,000 72,200
1995 739 12,600 60,000 72,600
1996 760 12,900 60,000 72,900
1997 782 13,300 60,000 73,300
1998 804 13,700 60,000 73,700
1999 825 14,000 60,000 74,000
2000 847 14,400 60,000 74,400
2001 871 14,800 60,000 74,800
2002-
2034 871 14,800 60,000 74,800
1J From Table VII-10.
~/ $17 per megawatt-hour. Values rounded to nearest $100.
~/ Salary for one operator.
NBI-389-9524-IX-1
,.
TABLE IX-2 •
BASE CASE
DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS " OLD HARBOR
Annual ..!./ •
Lubrication];_/ Lubrication 1._/ Lubrication±/ Energy
Production Oil Oil Cost Oil Cost "" Year (1000 kWh) (gallons) ($/gallon) ($)
1982 420 252 3.95 1,000
1983 453 272 4. 05 1' 100 ""
1984 485 291 4.16 1,200
1985 518 311 4.27 1,300 ft"'
1986 540 324 4.38 1,400
1987 563 338 4.49 1,500
1988 585 351 4.61 1,600 I
1989 608 365 4.73 1,700
1990 630 378 4.85 1,800 I 1991 652 391 4.98 1,900
1992 673 404 5.11 2' 100 "' 1993 695 417 5.24 2,200 &.
1994 717 430 5.37 2,300 I""
1995 739 443 5.51 2,400 ....
1996 760 456 5.66 2,600
1997 782 469 5.81 2,700
·~ 1998 804 482 5.96 2,900
1999 825 495 6. 11 3,000
2000 847 508 6.27 3,200 ""
2001 871 523 6.43 3,400
2002--2034 871 523 6. 43 3,400
~' •
1
1..1 From Table VII-10.
]:./ 0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour. 1 ]_/ Escalate at 2.6% annually.
.i/ Values rounded to nearest $100. ' NBI-389-9524-IX-2 'f
l •
"'"
.<,
""
"''.:
_,
4"''!!
,.. '
...
.. '
TABLE IX-3
BASE CASE
DIESEL FUEL OIL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual 1J
Energy Equivalent 1_/ Fuel Fuel
Production Oil Oil Cost :Y Oil Cost!/
Year (1000 kWh) (gallons) ($/gallon) ($)
1982 420 46,700 1. 70 79,400
1983 453 50,300 1. 74 87,500
1984 485 53,900 1. 79 96,500
1985 518 57,500 1.84 105,800
1986 540 60,000 1.88 112,800
1987 563 62,500 1.93 120,600
1988 585 65,000 1.98 128,700
1989 608 67,500 2.03 137,000
1990 630 70,000 2.09 146,300
1991 652 72,400 2.14 154,900
1992 673 74,800 2.20 164,600
1993 695 77,200 2.25 173,700
1994 717 79,700 2.31 184' 100
1995 739 82,100 2.37 194,600
1996 760 84,400 2.44 205,900
1997 782 86,900 2.50 217,300
1998 804 89,300 2.56 228,600
1999 825 91,700 2. 63 241,200
2000 847 94,100 2.70 254,100
2001 871 96,800 2.77 268,100
2002-
2034 871 96,800 2.77 268,100
~/ From Table VII-10.
1_/ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-hour (9.0 kWh/Gallon). Based
on 138,000 Btu/gallon and 22% efficiency. Nearest 100
gallons.
~/ Escalated at 2.6% annually.
~ Values rounded to nearest $100.
NBI-389-9524-IX-3
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
:?cl02
2003
?004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Firm
ty
15 51:.1
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
305
3501!
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
lncrease.Y
Capacity
Investment Amortizat
( $) ( $)
200,000
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
TABLE IX-4
BASE CASE
DIESEL SCHEDULE OF !~VESTMENTS
OLD HARBOR
Increase1./
Capacity
Investment
( $)
600,000
Replace .. !/
Plant
Amortization§! Investment
( $)
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,330 800,000
Amortization..:!! !!J
53,800
53,800
53,800
53 800
800
,BOO
53,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
Two existing 155 kW units. The largest unit is omitted for calculating firm capacity.
Add 150 kW unit. Total capacity 460 kW. Add unit in order to get required firm capacity.
..
•
Total Annual.
Replacement
Cost
( $)
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
13,400
53,700
53,700
53,700
53,700
53,700
53,700
53,700
53,700
53,700
53,700
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
40,300
53,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
53 800
800
,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
53,800
•
I
I
I
Rep! ace 155 kW units with 200 kW units. Total capacity 550 kW. Ten year old 150 kW unit to serve al·
standby.
Replace entire plant. Total plant replacement not required prior to 2021.
The amount of debt service unpaid in 2034 is equal to tbe salvage value of the equipment.
Values rounded to nearest $100.
-427-9524-IX-4
I
•
,. . TABLE IX-5
BASE CASE
DIESEL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Firm.!/ Schedule of Replacement Insuranc~ Capacity Investments Amortization.§/
Year (kW) --($) ($) ($)
1982 155 4,100
1983 155 4,100
1984 155 4,100
1985 155 4,100
1986 155 4,100
1987 155 4,100
19!:18 155 4,100
1989 155 4,100
1990 155
2oo:ooo.Y
4,100
1991 155 4,100
1992 305 13,400 5,800
1993 305 13,400 5,800
1994 305 13,400 5,800
1995 305 13,400 5,800
1996 305 13,400 5,800
1997 305 13,400 5,800
1998 305 13,400 5,800
1999 305 13,400 5,800
2000 305
6oo:ooa.:t/
13,400 5,800
2001 350 13,400 5,800
2002-11 350
80o,ooa.V
53,700 6,600
2012-21 350 40,300 6,600
2022-34 350 53,800 6,600
1/
2/
"'S!
4/
5/
Largest unit is omitted in calculating firm capacity.
Add 155 kW unit.
Replace existing 150 kW units with 200 kW units.
Replace entire plant in 2021.
From Table IX-4.
Operatiool!
and
Maintenance
($)
67,100
67,700
68,200
68,800
69,200
69,600
69,900
70,300
70,700
71 ,100
71,400
71,800
72,200
72,600
72,900
73,300
73,700
74,000
74,400
74,800
74,800
74,800
74,800
4 • .. ..
Lubrication!!/
Oil
($)
1,000
1,100
1' 200
1,300
1 '400
1,500
1,600
1, 700
1,800
1,900
2,100
2,200
2,300
2,400
2,600
2,700
2,900
3,000
3,200
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
FueL~/ Annual Diesel
Oil Cost Cost
($) ($)
79,400 151,600
87,500 160,400
96,500 170,000
105,800 180,000
112,800 187,500
120,600 195,800
128,700 204,300
137,000 213,100
146,300 222,900
154,900 232,000
164,600 257,300
173,700 266,900
184,100 277,800
194,600 288,800
205,900 300,600
217,300 312,500
228,600 324,400
241,200 337,400
254,100 350,900
268,100 365,500
268,100 406,600
268,100 393.200
268,100 406,700
I/ Replacement value is $500,000 through 1991; $700,000 through 2001; and $800,000 thereafter.
$0.83 per $100 replacement value.
Insurance cost is
7/
8!
~I
From Table IX-1.
From Table IX-2.
From Table IX-3.
NHI-389-9524 lX-5
TOTAL
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Annual_!)
Energy
Demand
(1000 kWh)
420
453
485
518
540
563
585
608
630
652
673
695
717
739
760
782
804
825
847
2001 871
2002-1ti/ 871
2012-21..!/ 871
2022-34!/ 871
~/ Table VII-10.
J:../ Table IX-5
TABLE IX-6
BASE CASE PLAN
SUMMARY
OLD HARBOR
Annual-~/
Diesel
Cost
($)
151,600
160,400
170,000
180,000
187,500
195,800
204,300
213,100
222,900
232,000
257,300
266,900
277,800
288,800
300,600
312,500
324,400
337,400
350,900
365,500
406,600
393,200
406,700
Present~./ 2_/
Worth
($)
147,200
151,200
155,600
159,900
161,700
164,000
166,100
168,200
170,800
172,600
185,900
187,200
189,200
190,900
193,000
194,800
196,300
198,200
200,100
202,400
1,920,500
1,381,900
1,325,100
8,182,800
~/ January 1982. Discounted at 3%. Values rounded to nearest
$100. Present worth factors accurate to four decimal places.
±I See Table IX-4 for schedule of replacement costs.
5/ Values rounded to nearest $100.
NBI-389-9524-IX-6
' il.
I
r
r
r
..
I
I
I
' •
~ "
,..
.. ~
....
~· ....
'""
...
., .
TABLE IX-7
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTIC PROJECT
DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual .l/ Energy
Maintenance..Y Operation.lf
Annual
Production Cost
Year (1000 kWh) ($) ($) ($)
1982 420 7' 100 60,000 67' 100
1983 453 7,700 60,000 67,700
1984 485 8,200 60,000 68,200
1985 23 400 30,000 30,400
1986 25 400 30,000 30,400
1987 29 500 30,000 30,500
1988 31 500 30,000 30,500
1989 35 600 30,000 30,600
1990 37 600 30,000 30,600
1991 45 800 30,000 30,800
1992 51 900 30,000 30,900
1993 59 1,000 30,000 31,000
1994 67 1,100 30,000 31,100
1995 74 1,300 30,000 31,300
1996 81 1,400 30,000 31,400
1997 88 1,500 30,000 31' 500
1998 96 1,600 30,000 31,600
1999 103 1,800 30,000 31,800
2000 110 1,900 30,000 31 '900
2001 120 2,000 30,000 32,000
2002-
2034 120 2,000 30,000 32,000
~~ From Table VII-10.
~I $17 per megawatt-hour. Values rounded to nearest $100.
~I One-half of operator's salaries is for the hydroelectric
project after the plant begins operation in 1985.
NBI-389-9524-IX-7
TABLE IX-8
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual .JJ Energy Lubrication 2/ -Production Oil
Year (1000 kWh) (gallons)
1982 420 252
1983 453 272
1984 485 291
1985 23 14
1986 25 15
1987 29 17
1988 31 19
1989 35 21
1990 37 22
1991 45 27
1992 51 31
1993 59 35
1994 67 40
1995 74 44
1996 81 49
1997 88 53
1998 96 58
1999 103 62
2000 110 66
2001 120 72
2002-
2034 120 72
~/ From Table VII-10.
11 0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour.
~/ Escalated at 2.6% annually.
JV Values rounded to nearest $100.
NBI-389-9524-IX-8
Lubrica t iordl
Oil Cost
($/gallon)
3.95
4.05
4.16
4.27
4.38
4.49
4.61
4.73
4.85
4.98
5.11
5.24
5.37
5.51
5.66
5.81
5.96
6. 11
6.27
6.43
6. 43
Lubrication.:!/
Oil Cost
($)
1,000
1' 100
1,200
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
500
500
' i ...
•
•
,,.,
......
...
I ..
I.
.,
"' .. ..
••
•
•
' ' •
'"
...
"''
....
"'~
....
....
4o,J!
TABLE IX-9
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DIESEL FUEL OIL COST
OLD HARBOR
Annual 1/
Equivalent J:../ Fuel Oil :Y Fuel Oil~/ Energy
Production Oil Cost Cost
Year (1000 kWh) (gallons) ($/gallon) ($)
1982 420 46,700 1. 70 79,400
1983 453 50,300 1. 74 87,500
1984 485 53,900 1. 79 96,500
1985 23 2,600 1.84 4,800
1986 25 2,800 1.88 5,300
1987 29 3,200 1.93 6,200
1998 31 3,400 1.98 6,700
1989 35 3,900 2.03 7,900
1990 37 4,100 2.09 8,600
1991 45 5,000 2.14 10,700
1992 51 5,700 2.20 12,500
1993 59 6,600 2.25 14,900
1994 67 7,400 2.31 17,100
1995 74 8,200 2.37 19,400
1996 81 9,000 2.44 22,000
1997 88 9,800 2.50 24,500
1998 96 10,700 2.56 27,400
1999 103 11 '400 2.63 30,000
2000 110 12,200 2.70 32,900
2001 120 13,300 2.77 36,800
2002-
2034 120 13,300 2.77 36,800
l/ From Table VII-10.
J:../ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-hour (9.0 kWh/Gallon). Rounded to
nearest $100.
~/ Escalated at 2.6 percent annually.
~/ Values rounded to nearest $100.
NBI-389-9524-IX-9
TABLE IX-10
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DIESEL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Operation~./
Firm Schedule of Annual Insurance~/ and Lubrica5~on FueS/ Annual Diesel
Capacity Investment Cost Maintenance Oi~ Oi~ Cost
Year (kW) ( $) ($) ($) ( $) ($) ..w_ ($)
1982 155 4,100 67' 100 1,000 79,400 151,600
1983 155 4' 100 67,700 1,100 87,500 160,400
1984 155 4,100 68,200 1,200 96,500 170,000
1985 155 4' 100 30,400 100 4,800 39,400
1986 155 4,100 30,400 lOO 5,300 39,900
1987 155 4' 100 30,500 100 6,200 40,700
1988 155 4,100 30,500 100 6,700 41' 400
1989 155 4' 100 30,600 100 7,900 42,700
1990 155 $2oo,o~uY 4,100 30,600 100 8,600 43,400
1991 155 4' 100 30,800 100 10,700 45,700
1992 305 13,400 5,800 30,900 200 12,500 62,800
1993 305 13,400 5,800 31,000 200 14,900 65,300
1994 305 13,400 5,800 31,100 200 17,100 67,600
1995 305 13,400 5,800 31,300 200 19,400 70,100
1996 305 13,400 5,800 31,400 300 22,000 72,900
1997 305 13,400 5,800 31,500 300 24,500 75,500
1998 305 13,400 5,800 31,600 300 27,400 78,500
1999 305 13,400 5,800 31,800 400 30,000 81' 400
2000 305 13,400 5,800 31,900 400 32,900 84,400
2001 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2002 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2003 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2004 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2005 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2006 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2007 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2008 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2009 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2010 305 800,0~~ 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2011 305 13,400 5,800 32,000 500 36,800 88,500
2012-34 350 40,800 6,600 32,000 500 36,800 116,700
1/ Add 150 kW unit. Amortize for 20 years at 3%. 2/ Replace entire plant. Expand capacity to 350 kW. Amortize for 30 years at 3% in perpetuity. ""'XI Replacement value $500,000 through 1991; $700,000 through 2011; and $800,000 thereafter. 4./ From Table IX-7. rs; From Table IX-8.
""_§_! From Table IX-9.
NBI-389-9524-IX-11
• ...... .. .... •.. ;,. .. , # 1 ........ . .... , , ... ........ • 1 • • ~ •
TABLE IX-11
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
REPLACEMENT COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Replace Replace
Replace Replace Transmission Transmission Total
Runner Runner Lines Lines Annual
Schedule of Sinking Schedule of Sinking Replacement
Investment Fund Investment Fund Cost
Year ( $) ($) ($) ($) ($)
'" 1982 0 0 0
1983 0 0 0 .. , 1984 0 0 0
1985 1,500 13,300 14,800
• J 1986 1,500 13,300 14,800
1987 1,500 13,300 14,800 .., 1988 1,500 13,300 14,800
-" 1989 1,500 13,300 14,800
1990 1,500 13,300 14,800
""'' 1991 1,500 13,300 14,800
1992 1,500 13,300 14,800 .... 1993 1,500 13,300 14,800
1994 1,500 13,300 14,800
""" 1995 1,500 13,300 14,800
..... 1996 1,500 13,300 14,800
1997 1,500 13,300 14,800 .. , 1998 1,500 13,300 14,800
1999 1,500 13,300 14,800
cd 2000 1,500 13,300 14,800
2001 1,500 13,300 14,800
2002 1,500 13,300 14,800
-~ 2003 1,500 13,300 14,800
2004 1,500 13,300 14,800
2005 1,500 13,300 14,800
2006 1 '500 13,300 14,800 ... 2007 1,500 13,300 14,800
2008 1,500 13,300 14,800
2009 55,000 1,500 13,300 14,800
2010 1,500 13,300 14,800
2011 1,500 13,300 14,800
2012 1,500 13,300 14,800
2013 1,500 13,300 14,800
2014 1,500 632,500 13,300 14,800
2015-
2034 1,500 13,300 14,800
NBI-427-9524-IX-10
TABLE IX-12
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Capital.!/
Costs Amortizatio~/
Operation
and
Maintenancs.Y
($)
Replacement.!/
Schedule of
Investment
Year ($) ($) ($)
1982 0
1983 0
1984 3,082,300 0
1985 119,900 39,600
1986 119,900 39,600
1987 119,900 39,600
1988 119,900 39,600
1989 119,900 39,600
1990 119,900 39,600
1991 119,900 39,600
1992 119,900 39,600
1993 119,900 39,600
1994 119,900 39,600
1995 119,900 39,600
1996 119,900 39,600
1997 119,900 39,600
1998 119,900 39,600
1999 119,900 39,600
2000 119,900 39,600
2001 119,900 39,600
2002 119,900 39,600
2003 119,900 39,600
2004 119,900 39,600
2005 119,900 39,600
2006 119,900 39,600
2007 119,900 39,600
2008 119,900 39,600
2009 119,900 39,600 55,000
2010 119,900 39,600
2011 119,900 39,600
2012-
2034 119,900 39,600 632,500
From Table VIII-1.
50 years at three percent.
r
r
Replacemen~/Annua~1[
Sinking Hydro
Fund Cost
($) ($) '
0
0
0
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
14,800
" 0 or
0.
174,300"
174,300
174,300.,.
174,300"
174,300
174,300 !"'"
174,300
17 4' 300 ..
i~!:~gg ..
174,300 iii..,
174,300
17 4 '300 tr
174,300a.
174,300
174,300 l!'
174,300
174,300 ~
174,300
174,300•
174,300"'
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300 ....
174,300
174,300
174,300
1/
2!
~I
4/
b/
6/
1.5 percent of direct construction cost
Replace turbine runner in 2009; replace
From Table IX-10.
plus contingencies.
transmission lines in 2014. ' Values rounded to nearest $100.
NBI-389-9524-IX-12 1
TABLE IX-13
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SUMMARY
OLD HARBOR
AnnuaJl/
Annua11/
Demand
-----Gl?eration Mix-----
Hydro..::.c Diese t.Y
Year (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh)
1982 .420 0 420
1983 453 0 453
1984 485 0 485
1985 518 495 23
1986 540 515 25
1987 563 534 29
1988 585 554 31
1989 608 573 35
1990 630 593 37
1991 652 607 45
1992 673 622 51
1993 695 636 59
1994 717 650 67
1995 739 665 74
1996 760 679 81
1997 782 694 88
1998 804 708 96
1999 825 722 103
2000 847 737 110
2001 871 751 120
2002 871 751 120
2003 871 751 120
2004 871 751 120
2005 871 751 120
2006 871 751 120
2007 871 751 120
2008 871 751 120
2009 871 751 120
2010 871 751 120
2011 871 751 120
2012-34 871 751 120
1/
2/
3/
J./
From Table VII-10.
Difference between annual demand and hydro.
Table IX-12.
Table IX-11
NBI-389-9524-IX-13
Hydro
Cost
($)
-0-
-0-
-0-
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
174,300
' ..
AnnuaL!/
Diesel
Cost
($)
151,600
160,400
170,000
39,400
39,900
40,900
41,400
42,700
43,400
45,700
62,800
65,300
67,600
70,100
72,900
75,500
78,500
81 '400
84,400
88,500
88,500
88,500
88,500
88,500
88,500
88,500
88,500
88,500
88,500
88,500
116,700
J
Total
Annual
Cost
($)
151,600
160,400
170,000
213,700
214,200
215,200
215,700
217,000
217,700
220,000
237,100
239,600
241,900
244,400
247,200
249,800
252,800
255,700
258,700
262,800
262,800
262,800
262,800
262,800
262,800
262,800
262,800
262,800
262,800
262,800
291' 000
I
TABLE IX-14
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SPACE HEATING CREDIT
OLD HARBOR
Energy.!!
OilY Oil Unit
Credi t1J Schedule ofif
Amortizatior2/1J
Net Annual
Equivalent Cost Investment Savings
Year (1000 kWh) (gal) ($/gal) ($) ( $) ($) ($)
1982 0 0 1. 70 0 0
1983 0 0 1. 74 0 0
1984 0 0 1. 79 0 40,000 0
1985 795 28,100 1.84 51,700 1,600 50,100
1986 779 27,500 1.88 51,700 1,600 50,100
1987 764 27,000 1.93 52,100 1,600 50,500
1988 748 26,400 1.98 52,300 1,600 50,700
1989 733 25,900 2.03 52,600 1,600 51,000
1990 717 25,300 2.09 52,900 1,600 51,300
1991 703 24,800 2.14 53,100 1,600 51,500
1992 688 24,300 2.20 53,500 1,600 51,900
1993 674 23,800 2.25 53,600 1,600 52,000
1994 660 23,300 2.31 53,800 1,600 52,200
1995 645 22,800 2.37 54,000 1,600 52,400
1996 631 22,300 2.44 54,400 1,600 52,800
1997 616 21,800 2.50 54,500 1,600 52,900
1998 602 21,300 2.56 54,500 1,600 52,900
1999 588 20,800 2.63 54,700 1,600 53,100
2000 573 20,200 2.70 54,500 1,600 52,900
2001-
2034 559 19,800 2.77 54,800 1' 600 53,200
~II From Table VII-9A through VII-90. Intermediate values by interpolation.
28.3 kilowatt-hours per gallon. This is based on 138,000 Btu's per gallon, 3413 Btu's/kWh,
and 70% efficiency.
3/ Values rounded to nearest $100. ~~ See Appendix G for design and cost estimate.
50 years at 3 percent.
NBI-419-9524-IX-14
• •
)II'''
.,
...
....
... ,
.. z
t&-.;t
"""
...
TABLE IX-15
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SUMMARY
OLD HARBOR
Present1/ Spac~ Pr esen t:J:.../
Project;_!_/
Worth Worth
Project Heating Heating
Cost Cost Credit Credit
Year ($) ($) ($) ($)
1982 151,600 147,200 0 0
1983 160,400 151,200 0 0
1984 170,000 155,600 0 0
1985 213,700 189,900 50,100 44,500
1986 214,200 184,800 50,100 43,200
1987 215,200 180,200 50,500 42,300
1988 215,700 175,400 50,700 41 '200
1989 217,000 171,300 51,000 40,300
1990 217,700 166,800 51,300 39,300
1991 220,000 163,700 51,500 38,300
1992 237,100 171,300 51' 900 37,500
1993 239,600 168,100 52,000 36,500
1994 241 '900 164,700 52,200 35,500
1995 244,400 161,600 52,400 34,600
1996 247,200 158,700 52,800 33,900
1997 249,800 155,700 52,900 33,000
1998 252,800 152,900 52,900 32,000
1999 255,700 150,200 53,100 31,200
2000 258,700 147,500 52,900 30,200
2001-11 262,800 1,386,700 53,200 280,700
2012-34 291,000 1,971,500 53,200 360,400
Totals 6,475,000 1,234,600
Table IX-13. 1/
2/ Discounted to January 1982 at 3%. Values rounded to
nearest $100. Present worth factors accurate to four
decimal places.
Table IX-14.
NBI-419-9524-IX-15
A.
B.
1
2
3/
4/
TABLE IX-16
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
OLD HARBOR
BASE CASE (Benefits)
PRESENT WORTH COSTsl/
WIND ENERGY CREDITY
SUBTOTAL
SPACE HEATING CREDI'r.3 /
TOTAL BENEFIT.±/
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC
PRESENT WORTH COST~/
TOTAL COSTS
From Table IX-6.
From Table IX-6A.
From Table IX-15.
PROJECT (costs)
No waste heat recovery at Old Harbor.
NBI-419-9524-IX-16
$8,182,800
330,400
$7,852,400
$1,234,600
$9,087,000
$6,475,000
$6,475,000
p
.... ..
(
r
t.,,
1
1
•
•
.. ,
......
....
·~ '
. '
TABLE IX-17
BENEFIT/COST RATIOslJ
OLD HARBOR
A. Present Worth of Base Case Costs Only
B/C = 8,182,800 _ 1 264 6,475,000 -.
B. Present Worth of Base Case Adjusted for Wind Energy
Credit
B/C = 7,852,400 =
6,475,000 1. 213
C. Present Worth of Base Case Adjusted for Wind Energy
Credit and Space Heating Credit
B/C = 9,087,000 =
6,475,000 1.403
lJ See Table IX-16 for present worth summary.
NBI-427-9524-IX-17
II
:i.i.
r
TABLE IX-18
ANNUAL UNIT COSTS r BASE CASE
OLD HARBOR
Base r Energy JJ Case Unit Wind Unit
Annu~J Ener~~ Generat~~n Annu~J Ener~~
Year Production Cost...:::. Cost::. Credit.::!. Cost..:::. Cost..:::.
(1000 kWh) ( $) (Mills/kWh) ( $) ($) (Mills/kWh) r 1982 420 151,600 361 0 151,600 361
1983 453 160,400 354 2,800 157,600 348
1984 485 170,000 351 3,100 166,900 344 ! 1985 518 180,000 347 3,400 176,600 341
1986 540 187,500 347 3,700 183,800 340
1987 563 195,800 348 4,100 191,700 340 ,..
1988 585 204,300 349 6,400 197,900 338
1989 608 213,100 350 6,900 206,200 339 ..
1990 630 222,900 354 7,400 215,500 342
1991 652 232,000 356 7,900 224,100 344 "'
1992 673 257,300 382 8,600 248,700 370 ..
1993 695 266,900 384 9,000 257,900 371
1994 717 277,800 387 9,600 268,200 374
"" 1995 739 288,800 391 10,100 278,700 377 l. 1996 760 300,600 396 10,800 289,800 381
1997 782 312,500 400 15,100 297,400 380 I 1998 804 324,400 403 15,800 308,600 384
1999 825 337,400 409 16,700 320,700 389
2000 847 350,900 414 17,600 333,300 394
2001 871 365,500 420 18,400 347,100 399 I 2002-1& 871 406,600 467 18,400 388,200 446 2012-21~j 871 393,200 451 18,400 374,800 430
2022-3~ 871 406,700 467 18,400 388,300 446 tr
•
~
&
1
l
1../ From Table VII-10.
J:../ From Table IX-6. I ~ Unit cost for base case only.
4/ From Table IX-6A. I 2._/ Base Case Annual cost minus Wind Generation Credit.
6/ See Table IX-4 for replacement schedule. I NBI-427-9524-IX-19
'
f· .. • •
TABLE IX-19
ANNUAL UNIT COSTS
RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
OLD HARBOR
Energy .. !/ Hydro Project.Y Unit Energy..!V Space Heatin~/
Production
Year (1000 kWh)
1982 420
1983 453
1984 485
1985 518
1986 540
1987 563
1988 585
1989 608
1990 630
1991 652
1992 673
1993 695
1994 717
1995 739
1996 760
1997 782
1998 804
1999 825
2000 847
2001 871
2002 871
2003 871
2004 871
2005 871
2006 871
2007 871
2008 871
2009 871
2010 871
2011 871
2012-34 871
See Table VII-10.
Table IX-13.
Hydro Project only.
From Table IX-14.
Cost Cost
($) (Mills/kWh)
151,600 361
160,400 354
170,000 351
213,700 413
214' 100 397
215,200 382
215,700 369
217,000 357
217,700 346
220,000 337
237,100 352
239,600 345
241,900 337
244,400 331
247,200 325
249,800 319
252,800 314
255,700 310
258,700 305
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
262,800 302
291,000 334
1/
2/
3!
"!i/
Jj Hydro Project minus Space Heating Credit.
NBI-427-9524-IX-20
Credit
($)
0
0
0
50, 100
50,100
50,500
50,700
51,000
51,300
51,500
51,900
52,000
52,200
52,400
52,800
52,900
52,900
53,100
52,900
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
53,200
Unit Energy~/
Annual Cos~/ Cost
($) (Mills/kWh)
151,600 361
160,400 354
170,000 351
163,600 316
164,000 304
164,700 293
165,000"· 282
166,000 273
166,400 264
168,500 258
185,200 275
187,600 270
189,700 265
192,000 260
194,400 256
196,900 252
199,900 249
202,600 246
205,800 243
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
209,600 241
237,800 273
' "'
TABLE IX-1A ! BASE CASE
WIND ENERGY CREDIT ! DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual Energy 1../ r
Maintenance ~/ Operation 1../ Annual
Production Cost • Year (1000 kWh) ($) ($) ($)
1982
1983 56 1' 000 0 1 '000 •
1984 56 1,000 0 1,000
1985 56 1,000 0 1,000 •
1986 56 1,000 0 1,000 " 1987 56 1,000 0 1, 000 r 1988 84 1,400 0 1,400
1989 84 1' 400 0 1,400
1990 84 1,400 0 1,400 I
1991 84 1, 400 0 1, 400
1992 84 1,400 0 1,400 I 1993 84 1,400 0 1,400
1994 84 1,400 0 1,400 " 1995 84 1' 400 0 1,400 ,.,
1996 84 1,400 0 1,400
"' 1997 112 1,900 0 1,900 ..
1998 112 1,900 0 1 '900
1999 112 1,900 0 1,900 I 2000 112 1,900 0 1,900
2001 112 1,900 0 1,900 l 2002-
2034 112 1,900 0 1 '900
I
I
J:.j Fro~ Table VII-12. I l_/ $17 per megawatt-hour. $100. Values rounded to nearest
11 Salary for operator included in base case costs. I
NBI-427-9524-IX-1A
'
...
....
••
" ...
, .. ,
.,.
...
~ .
. '
TABLE IX-2A
BASE CASE
WIND ENERGY CREDIT
DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual 1./
Lubrication 1.._/ Energy
Production Oil
Year (1000 kWh) (~allons)
1982
1983 56 34
1984 56 34
1985 56 34
1986 56 34
1987 56 34
1988 84 50
1989 84 50
1990 84 50
1991 84 50
1992 84 50
1993 84 50
1994 84 50
1995 84 50
1996 84 50
1997 112 67
1998 112 67
1999 112 67
2000 112 67
2001 112 67
2002-
2034 112 67
~/ From Table VII-12.
~I 0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour.
~/ Escalated at 2.6% annually.
~/ Values rounded to nearest $100.
NBI-427-9524-IX-2A
Lubrication~/
Oil Cost
($/gallon)
4.05
4.16
4.27
4.38
4.49
4.61
4.73
4.85
4.98
5.11
5.24
5.37
5.51
5.66
5.81
5.96
6.11
6.27
6. 43
6. 43
Lubricationi/
Oil Cost
($)
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
400
400
400
TABLE IX-3A
BASE CASE
WIND ENERGY CREDIT
DIESEL FUEL OIL COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Annual lJ
Energy Equivalent y Fuel Fuel
Production Oil Oil Cost 1/ Oil Cost±/
Year (1000 kWh) (gallons) ($/gallon) ($)
1982
1983 56 6,200 1. 74 10,800
1984 56 6,200 1. 79 11,100
1985 56 6,200 1.84 11,400
1986 56 6,200 1.88 11 '700
1987 56 6,200 1.93 12,000
1988 84 9,300 1.98 18,400
1989 84 9,300 2.03 18,900
1990 84 9,300 2.09 19,400
1991 84 9,300 2.14 19,900
1992 84 9,300 2.20 20,500
1993 84 9,300 2. 25 20,900
1994 84 9,300 2.31 21 '500
1995 84 9,300 2. 37 22,000
1996 84 9,300 2.44 22,700
1997 112 12,400 2.50 31,000
1998 112 12,400 2.56 31 '700
1999 112 12,400 2.63 32,600
2000 112 12,400 2.70 33,500
2001 112 12,400 2.77 34,300
2002-
2034 112 12,400 2.77 34,300
~/ From Table VII-12.
~/ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-hour (9.0 kWh/Gallon). Based
on 138,000 Btu/gallon and 22% efficiency. Nearest 100
gallons.
~/ Escalated at 2.6% annually.
i/ Values rounded to nearest $100.
NBI-427-9524-IX-3A
' J.
r
r
r
I
' J
I
I
[
I
.,.
•
'l • ,
' 1
' 1
.,..
"'i
... ,
....
....
.....
....
.. ~
••
... ;ii
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002-
2034
.l; From
:f../ From
]_I From
.i! From
TABLE IX-4A
BASE CASE
WIND GENERATION CREDIT
OLD HARBOR
SUMMARY
Operation
Installed/ and Lubricajion
Capacity.!. Maintenance.lf OiJ2
(kW) ($) ($)
20 1, 000 100
20 1,000 100
20 1,000 100
20 1,000 100
20 1, 000 200
30 1,400 200
30 1, 400 200
30 1,400 200
30 1, 400 200
30 1,400 300
30 1, 400 300
30 1,400 300
30 1, 400 300
30 1,400 300
40 1,900 400
40 1,900 400
40 1,900 400
40 1,900 400
40 1,900 400
40 1, 900 400
Table XII-12.
Table IX-1A.
Table IX-2A.
Table IX-3A.
NBI-427-9524-IX-4A
Fuel/ Total
Oi~ Credit
($) ($)
10,800 11' 900
11,100 12,200
11,400 12,500
11 '700 12,800
12,000 13,200
18,400 20,000
18,900 20,500
19,400 21,000
19,9001 21,500
20,500 22,200
20,900 22,600
21 '500 23,200
22,000 23,700
22 '700 24,400
31,000 33,300
31 '700 34,000
32,600 34,900
33,500 35,800
34,300 36,600
34,300 36,600
Year
Insta~leq 1 Capac1ty-
{kW)
1982 0
1983 20
1984 20
1985 20
1986 20
1987 20
1988 30
1989 30
1990 30
1991 30
1992 30
1993 30
1994 30
1995 30
1996 30
1997 40
1998 40
1999 40
2000 40
2001 40
2002 40
2003-
2034 40
TABLE IX-5A
BASE CASE
WIND GENERATION COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Schedule o~
Investmentd Amortization.~/
($) ($)
68,000
$ 5,700
5,700
5,700
5,700
34,000 5,700
8,500
8,500
8,500
8,500
8,500
8,500
8,500
8,500
34,000 8,500
68,000 11,400
11 '400
11,400
11,440
11,400
34,000 11 '400
11,400
~/ From Table VII-12.
Operation a~9
Maintenance-;;;.;
($)
$ 3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
5' 100
5,100
5' 100
5,100
5' 100
5,100
5' 100
5,100
5,100
6,800
6,800
6,800
6,800
6,800
6,800
6,800
~/ Replace equipment every 15 years. Build first plant in
1982 and bring on line in 1983. Expand capacity in 1987
and 1996.
$
~/ 15 years at 3%, in perpetuity, rounded to the nearest $100.
if 5% of capital cost. Rounded to nearest $100.
NBI-427-9524-IX-5A
"
r
r
r
Annual .,
Cost
($) "
lP
9' 100
9' 100
9,100"'~
9' 100 .
9' 100
13 '600 •
13,600
13,600
13,600 '1!1!1"1'
13,600 • 13,600
13,600 I 13,600
13' 600
18,200 T 18,200 ..
18,200
18,200 ""
18,200 •• 18,200 ,.
18,200.
'
•
1
l
'
....
TABLE IX-6A
BASE CASE
WIND ENERGY CREDIT
OLD HARBOR
PRESENT WORTH
Installe~/ Annua~ Annu~} Net Annual Pres en!;
Year Capacity-Credi t,::::..l Cost;.:;:.; Credit Worti:J,.:!.
(kW) ($) ($) ($) ($)
1982
1983 20 11,900 9' 100 2,800 2,600 ... 1984 20 12,200 9,100 3' 100 2,800
1985 20 12,500 9,100 3,400 3,000
1986 20 12,800 9,100 3,700 3,200 ..... 1987 20 13,200 9,100 4,100 3,400
1988 30 20,000 13,600 6,400 5,200
1989 30 20,500 13,600 6,900 5,400
·~ 1990 30 21,000 13,600 7,400 5,700
1991 30 21,500 13,600 7,900 5,900
1992 30 2 2 '200 13,600 8,600 6,200 .. 1993 30 22,600 13,600 9,000 6,300
·f.."" 1994 30 23,200 13,600 9,600 6,500
1995 30 23,700 13,600 10,100 6,700
1996 30 24,400 13,600 10,800 6,900
1997 40 33,300 18,200 15,100 9,400
1998 40 34,000 18,200 15,800 9,600
1999 40 34,900 18,200 16,700 9,800
2000 40 35,800 18,200 17,600 10,000 ...
2001 40 36,600 18,200 18,400 10,200
2002-
2034 40 36,600 18,200 18,400 211,600 ...
TOTAL $330,400
.. '
]J From Table VII-12.
~I From Table IX-4A.
1._/ From Table IX-5A.
.±1 Discounted at 3% to January 1982. Present worth factors
accurate to four decimal places.
NBI-427-9524-IX-6A
------.------.-----,---·---:
-.s:::.
3:
.::ttl!
......
C/)
...J
...J
~ 2 0 0 ·----··-·····--······-··-·t-· ·························· -
0 ...... • __ _
1980
YEAR
; .
l
1990 2000
SEE SECTION IX-F FOR EXPLANATION OF GRAPH
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECTED UNIT ENERGY COSTS
2010
FIGURE
.,..
..
...
...
,..
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
measures 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 portion 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.
Six Dolly Varden and one silver salmon were caught in
minnow traps in the lower part of Midway Creek during the field
survey and two traps placed above the proposed powerhouse
location yielded one Dolly Varden. No pink salmon were
observed. All evidence indicates that Midway Creek is a stream
with very limited fishery resources.
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. No significant effect
on water quantity or quality is anticipated downstream from the
powerhouse outflow.
NBI-419-9524-X X-2
•
r
r
r
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
••
.. ~ .
•
..
2. Wildlife
Information on wildlife in the Old Harbor area was obtained
primarily through correspondence with ADF&G and conversations
with the local big game guide, Larry Ma tfay. 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, seaters, 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
Our ing project operation, alterations in the flow
between the diversion weir and the powerhouse may force
dependent animals such as the water ouzel to relocate.
3. Vegetation
regime
water-
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 cot ton wood community grades
into a grass meadow. Along the stream valley, extensive alder,
elderberry and salmonberry thickets intermix with a grass
meadow containing cow parsnip, fireweed and goatsbeard. In
•
•
' l.i ..
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 has recommended that an archaeological survey
be done in the project area before construction begins, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also requested a survey.
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
•
l
I
" .
.. '
...
". . '
.. .
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 genera tors. Replacement of diesel-genera ted power by
hydropower should lower the discharge of hydrocarbon
pollutants •
C. SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS
No ma,ior 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 canst ruction 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
15 •
same
days
will
about April 1, with actual work beginning about April
The project should be completed by September 30 of the
year. Working hours would be 10 hours a day, six or seven
a week until the project is completed. Thus the workers
have little time for recreation.
Skilled craft labor will be required on the project work
force and the pol icy will be to hire local people if they
have appropia te skills. 01 d Harbor residents may well resent
imported labor unless they are given first consideration for
NBI-419-9524-X X-5
jobs. However, the Kodiak Area Native Association bas
expressed a willingness to provide training to local residents
so that they will be qualified to work on this project.
Even though Old Harbor residents are used to seasonal
influxes of workers, the manager of the project construction
team will have to take precautions to ensure that the imported
workers do not disrupt the traditional life style of the
community. Some foresight in setting up a trailer camp to
accommodate the imported work force should be helpful in
achieving this objective.
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
r
r
r
•
,..,
•
' ' i
..
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 in to the navigable waters of Alaska.
Application for the certificate is made by submitting
to DEC a letter requesting the
panied by a copy of tne permit
certificate,
application
submitted to the Corps of Engineers.
NBI-419-9524-XI XI-1
accom-
being
3.
4.
All public or private entities (except Federal
agencies) proposing to construct or operate a hydro-
el ec tr ic power project must have a 1 icense from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) if the
proposed site is located on a navigable stream, or on
U.S. lands, or if the project affects a U.S. govern-
ment dam or interstate commerce. For the 01 d Harbor
project, a minor license may be required. The
question of whether or not this project is jurisdic-
tional by the FERC is currently being studied.
Under authority of AS 16.05.840, the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game can require, if the Commissioner
feels it necessary, that every dam or other
obstruction built by any person across a stream
frequented by salmon or other fish be provided with a
durable and efficient fishway and a device for
efficient passage of fish. A Habitat Protection
Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840.
5. 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. Since
the weir is less than 10 feet and has minimal storage,
this permit is not likely to be required.
6. 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. I-Towever, this does not secure rights to the
water. When the permit holder has commenced to use
NBI-419-9524-XI XI-2
r
•
•
IL
....
...
..
...
.. '
7.
8.
the appropriated water, he should notify the director,
who will issue a Certificate of Appropriation that
secures the holder's rights to the water.
The proposed project area is located within the
coastal zone. Under the Alaska Coastal Management 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
off ice of the f.!Overnor. 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 than those
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
Wildlife
all lands that were part of
Refuge before the passage of
Claims Settlement Act and have Native
a National
the Alaska
since been
selected and conveyed to a Native corporation wi 11
remain under the rules and regulations of the refuge.
C. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
A proposed project development schedule starting at the
time the initial draft is submitted is presented in Figure
XI-1.
The schedule is based on the assumption that two separate
contracts would be awarded for the project canst rue tion. The
NBI-419-9524-XI XI-3
first would be for fabrication and delivery of the turbine-
generator equipment to the Port of Seattle and later installa-
tion and the second would be for ci vi 1 work canst rue t ion and
installation in cooperation with the manufacturer of the
turbine-generator equipment.
The controlling activities on the proposed schedule are the
turbine-generator procurement and the construction period.
1. Turbine-Generator Procurement
According to manufacturers'
is necessary
estimates, approximately
one year for turbine-generator
fabrication (and delivery to the Port of Seattle)
starting from the time of contract award. In addi-
tion, prior to the award
allowed for advertising,
a two-month period must be
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 would require two
three summer months of on-site activities, preceded
one to two months of shipping and mobilization time.
to
by
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 XI-4
p
•
._
.....
'7 .,
•
Activity
1. State of Alaska Decision
2. Secure Necessary Permits, Licenses
3. Turbine/Generator Contract
a. Prepare Turbine/Generator Spec.
b. Advertise & Evaluate Bids
c. Fabricate Turbine/Generator
d. Deliver Turbine/Generator to Seattle
4 • Ci v il Con t r ac t
a. Prepare Civil Plans & Specs.
b. Advertise & Evaluate Bids
5. Construction Activities
a. Mobilization Period
b. Barge Shipment
c. Site Mobilization
d. Site Construction
6. Power Plant Commissioning,
Debugging Period
7. Plant On-Line
Nl:H-41 0-9521-PDS
.. ..
FIGURE X 1-1
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
1982 1983 1984
r~
J F M A M J J A s 0 N D J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A "' J J A s 0 N D
-...
•
-
•
-~--~· ~---~~·-~ L~-~ . L--~---~--_J
"' '
' .
'"
...
. '
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
recommended by the consultant that actions
the project. Implementation can
above, it is
be initiated to
be accomplished implement
along the general lines indicated in Section XI, Project
Implementation.
NBI-427-9524-XII XII-1
....
BIBLIOGRAPrlY
OLD HAH.BOR
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Alaska's Fisheries Atlas,
Volumes I and II, 1978.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Alaska's Wildlife and
Habitat, 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 Hequirements
& 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 188U.
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. "Small
Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative," December 1979.
U.S. Geological Survey. "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. "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 CONSTRUCT! ON ASSEMBLY
NBI-427-9524-TC
#
PROJECT PLAN /
0 I
4 I~ MILES
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
OOWL ENGlNEER$
AHCHORAGE , Al ASOCA
GENERAL PLAN
TUDOR E1181Nt:lRING COIII'ANY
SAN FRAIICISCO,CAUFOIINIA
PLAN
SCALE' I" • 4'
ELEVATION
SCALE' I" • 4'
M/OWA'r CREEK
=
+I
<D -.,.
LEL 356.0
PREFABRICATED STEEL WEIR
BACK BRACE-W 6x9
NEOPRENE SEAL I 2 REQUIRED PER 10' SECTION)
CONCRETE APRON
SECTION A
SCALE' I" • 2'-0
SYMM ABOUT li.~
INLET STRUCTURE WALL
CROSS BRACE_______..
3'-o
SECTION B
SCALE' t" • t'-0
SYMM ABOUT li.
~tr
GATE L 2.5 x 2 CONNECTION SUPPORT ~ INLET STRUCTURE WALL
8
-.--
' ' , ' MAIN BRACE W 6 x 9---..._
.
~ ' .
+. ,___
•
-+ .... i CROSS BRACE ST 2.5 x 5) + +
I -
"' +
:
+
-'--t:n:
PIN SUPPORT JUIII
16
,Lf
3'-0
ijl
2'-o
SECTION C
SCALE: I" • 1'-0
SCALE t" • 2'-0
SCALE: t" • 4'
SCALE' t" • t'-0
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
DIVERSION FACILITIES
PLAN, EL£VATION AND SECTIONS
OOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNA
PLATEn
0 00
....
"' "' "-
z
0
i
"' ...,)
"'
DIVERSION FACILITIES
STATION , FEET
NOTE · ACTUAL ROADWAY ALIGNMENT WILL
MAINTAIN A GRADE LESS THAN 10%
PLAN
SCALE ' I '= 100'
PENSTOCK I ACCESS ROAD TYPES
PROFILE OF PENSTOCK /ACCESS ROAD
SCALE ' I"= 100' HORIZ .
I '• 40'VERT . SCALE ' 1"•4'
0 40 eo 120 160
SCALE d"•40'
300 400
SCALE : I"• 100'
SECTION A
24
240
600
BACKFILLED
TR ENCH
TYPE I-SIDEHILL (TALUS)
--+....-lf---24"f FI BERGLAS S PIPE
1:±~::::1-~-3" SAND BEDDING
1'-o" EACH SIDE
(TYP)
TYPE H -LEVEL GROUND
24"f FI BE RGL ASS PIPE
~¥d---3" SAND BEDDING
f----l----1
QD.~z·-o·
(TYP)
TYPE m-SIQEHILL (SOIL)
TYPICAL PENSTOCK I ACCESS ROAD SECTIONS
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE,ALASKA
OLD HARBOR HY DROELECTRIC PROJECT
PENSTOCK-PLAN ,PROFILE,AND DETAILS
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE , ALASKA
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
PLATE
r ..:' ~· STIFFENERS o 1~0 cc
1----"~ __ ;""PENSTOCK
I
~--tt.
I I
-" _j
3x3xr (TO MATCH FABRICATED WIER
NOT SHOWN)
a•-o"
SECTION A
l.e
TRASH RACK
1'-6" PIPE STUD
FABRICATED wl INLET
STRUCTURE
I
-!<--
\I
r---;=1--ot-. -.I
PENSTOCK
(GATE NOT SHOWN)
·~·~ . .~t'· ....
PRE· FABRICATED INLET STRUCTURE
SCALE • I' • 20'
SECTION B
SECTION C
"o -' CIO
SLU ICE GATE
I' 3x3x ~BRACE
SLUICEWAY
(GATE NOT SHOWN)
~· .
(1), ALL PLATES~ ~ MLD STEEL (A~70)
(2 l ALL EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SURFACES
OF DIVERSION WEIR, HEADWORKS,AND SEDIMENT
BASIN STRUCTURES TO BE SAND BLASTED AND
ZINC SPRAYED. .
FINAL COAT TO BE ZINC COMAIITIBLE PAINT.
STATION
SERV I CE
II £.
SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR
kV·A, PF• 0 .9 RPM
3 f/1, GENERATOR
TO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
3
TRANSFORMER
12,470/480 v
GENERATOR BREAKER
3
ELECTRIC ONE-LINE DIAGRAM
N T S
0 20 40 60 80
SCALE • I' •20'
REVENUE METER
100 120
VOLT AGE
REGULATOR
SYNCHRON IZ ING
STATE OF AL AS KA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
OLD HARBOR HYDROE L ECTRIC PROJECT
OOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE , ALASKA
INLET STRUCT URE
AND
ONE -LINE DI AGRAM
TUDOR EHGINEEMIG ~y
SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFOIIIU
PLAT E J:sl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SLOPE I . " .· . ..s,
TAILRACE
I
I
I
I
GENERAL PLAN
SCALE' I"• 20'
TURBINE SPEED INCREASER
I
PROFILE-SECTION A
SCALE 2_" I'· 0
16
FLYWHEEL
~GENERATOR
EQUIPMENT
MOUNTING SKID
TURBINE SHUTOFF
VALVE
ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR-
24"-PENSTOCK
BEARING LUBRICATION SET·
TURBINE SHUTOFF VALVE
PENSTOCK DRAIN -······--·--·--I
PRESSURE SET·-----
/ •. TURBINE
PROFILE-SECTION B
scALE:~~~ 11 -0
16
POWERHOUSE PLAN
SCALE , Ji' 1'· 0
16
SCALE, I"• 20'
PERSONNEL DOOR
EQUIPMENT MOUNTING SKID
_ -·~···ENTRANCE DOOR
FLYWHEEL
B
GS~VER~OR ____ _j
TURBINE
·ORIGINAL GROUND LINE
----'--
DRAINAGE Dl TCH
TAILRACE-SECTION C
SCALE' 1"•4'
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE,ALASKA
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POWERHOUSE-PLANS AND SECTIONS
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
TUDOR ENGINEERING COM~NY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNlA
PLATE 1z:
4" 3 • .. e·· 3'-e* ..
___ a
ek-c-d
~
~--
1: ~g 0
~· J Position of Guy .. t\1 when req1 d I Neutral d:;;At~"-------.1 ·-'T
I I 1 1 bs I ... I I' I I I
I I ....
I I I f"'~ I I I I
J,, • 1-r-~ rt~ lt-1
ek-d/1 £ j ""-•• = w ... I t J
0 Specify CIA for I'()
offset neutral assembly
...
ITEM NO. MATERIAL ITE~ NQ MATERIAL
0 3 Insulator, pin type cu 2 Broce, wood, 2B"
b I Pin, pole top, 20" i 2 Bolt, carrioge,3ta" a 4}2'
e 3 Bolt, machine, ~a" 1 req d length i I Screw, log, '12" a 4" ( Cl only)
d 5 Washer, 2 ~4" • 2Y4" ~ ~16. 1 ~1S hole bs I Bolt single upset, insuloted(CI only)
f 2 Pin, crossarm, stui,Ste" 1 10 ~" ee I ~rocke!.t_ offset-'-insulated ( Cl A only)
g I Crossarm, 3''2" I 4 ·~2" I. a·-0 j ! Screw, log. l/2"x4" ( C lA only}
ek Locknuts
7.2112.5 KV., 3-PHASE CROSSARM CONSTRUCTION
SINGLE PRIMARY SUPPORI_ AI_J:l• .IO 5• ANGl£
Jon I, 1962 Cl, CIA
PLATE 1ZI
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX B
HYDROLOGY
...
...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE --
A. GENERAL 1
r• B. AREA DESCRIPTION 1
~ ·7 c. DATA UTILIZED 4
D. PROJECT STREAMFLOWS 5
E. DIVERSION WEIR FLOOD FREQUENCY 11
F. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL RIVER ICE
PROBLEMS 14
. '
.. '
NBI-427-9524-TC
...
..
...
A. GENERAL
The following report provides the estimates, the method-
ologyJ and the background data on stream flows near the village
of Old Harbor, located on the Kodiak Island in south-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 mountain
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, 197~). The mean annual
temperature of 410F at Kodiak ranges from a normal daily mini-
mum of 25oF in December and January to a normal daily maximum
of 600F in August according to data from the Department of
Commerce's Environmental Data Service. Mean annual runoff is
typically eight cfs
windward port ion of
produces only about
1971).
per square mile ( 109 inches) along the
the island. The mean annual low month
one cfs per square mile of runoff (USGS,
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 study. At the site
of 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
' ..i ..
' •
' l
"
1
l
I
I
l
" '
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 flat land
could possibly be aoapted 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'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 precipitation 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 made 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 (USGS,
1981). The short-term precipitation record from Old Harbor and
long-term record from Kodiak were used indirectly.
NBI-389-9524-B* 4
'
'
"
l
I
1
1
I
, .
.. .
" .
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 stat ions. 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 study.
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
explained in detail in the Ebasco report (1980).
formula is
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) + (8H)E
Aug Ag
P is the precipitation adjustment factor between the two water-
sheds, bH 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 similarity. 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
'
' ' •
!
I
·~·
1
I
I
•
, .
..
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
Creek. These values are lower than reported by Ebasco.
used a flow adjustment factor of 0.95.
Myrtle
They
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 the 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 cont ri bu tes 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 streamflows. The
method is considered to give reliable estimates for some parts
of the United 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-
rent feasibility studies, four small streams on Kodiak Island
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 H to 14
cfs.
NBI-389-9524-B* 8
'
r
•
•
l
1
1
I
•
~ '
..
.. "
.. <
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 4.8 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 Oh iouzuk 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 Flow
October 21, 1981 31.0
November 2, 1981 8.6
December 28, 1981 11.5
The October 21 measurement followed two days of heavy
rain •
Preliminary winter streamflow data recently collected
on Midway Creek appear to indicate that the measured flows
utilized for energy generation are consistent with the
estimates in this report. This conclusion is based on limited
periodic discharge measurements which will be used to develop
rating curves for this creek as part of the
effort. Continuous streamflow data are being
stream-gaging
collected and
will be made available as soon as the field study is
NBI-389-9524-B* 9
completed. The range of estimated winter flows (December
through April) utilized for energy generation and the observed
flows are as follows:
Estimated flow range: 3.9 to 8.0 cfs
Observed flow range: 4.9 to 10 cfs
It should be noted that the range of observed flows
' r
•
'
may change slightly as stream stage records are analyzed on the ~
basis of completed rating curves.
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.
The flow duration curve can be viewed as the time dis-
II''
tribution of flows about the mean annual flow; thus a dimen-(
sionless flow duration curve (the ratio of 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 with
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 basis
the Myrtle Creek curve developed from 17 years of daily record
NBI-389-9524-B* 10
•
1
I
' •
l •
•
••
...
.,, '
...
.,.
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 cfs (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
scaled
Creek during the 17 years of record. The data were
to the Midway Creek site by the ratio of mean annual
The range of monthly means shown in grey corresponds to
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.
flows.
roughly
E. DIVERSION WEIR FLOOD FREQUENCY
Estimates
remote sites
of the
such as
magnitude and
the Midway
frequency
Creek site
of floods at
primarily
calculated
on regional studies. These studies
must depend
relate the
flood frequency of measured peak flows at gaging
stat ions 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.
NBI-389-9524-B* 11
Flood discharge at the te was estimated on the basis of
three previous regional hydrology reports: USGS ( 1979), Ott
Engineers (1979), and Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
The USGS report employs the log-Pearson Type I I I distri-
bution to determine flood magnitude and frequency relations on
the bas 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
south-central Alaska as the Chugach National Forest equations
developed by Ott Engineers.
The three sets of flood prediction equations were applied
to both the Midway Creek site and Myrtle Creek, the latter
providing an approximate test for this region.
NBI-389-9524-B* 12
' ,,
H
~ ..
' '
•
, •
...
.. ,
. ~
BASIN PARAMETERS
Site Area Precip.
(sq. mi.) (in.)
Midway Cr. 2.20
Myrtle Cr. 4.74
80
140
PREDICTED FLOOD
Method Peak
(years) 2 -USGS (cfs) 370
(Standard error, %) 50
Ott (cfs) 140
Woodward-Clyde (cfs) -
PREDICTED FLOOD
Method Peak
(years) 2 -USGS (cfs) 930
Ott (cfs) 665
Woodward-Clyde (cfs)
Temperature Percent of Area
(Jan. mean min.) lake store. -forest
FREQUENCY
Discharge
10 -540
45
250
250
FREQUENCY
Discharge
10
1400
1110
1130
0
0
AT MIDWAY CREEK
for Recurrence
25 50 -
560 670
48 42
300 340
330
AT MYRTLE CREEK
for Recurrence
25 50
1510 1810
1300 1480
1470
0
0
Interval
100
740
400
380
Interval
100
2000
1670
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,
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 increases in precipitation with
elevation and it is similar to the basin precipitation derived
NBI-389-9524-B* 13
for Midway Creek. The 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 1 imi ts with a 90
percent level of confidence. The channel geometry analysis
further increases the confidence in the adapted flood
frequency.
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. During
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.
NBI-389-9524-B* 14
'
•
•
1
1
1
•
...
-.. '
F. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL RIVER ICE PROBLEMS
1. Format ions 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 nat ural 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." It is formed
by nucleation of slightly supercooled turbulent water. Two
forms of frazil ice are distinguished: active 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 aufeis 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 depends upon
the cooling potential of the atmosphere. In winter this is
often expressed in freezing degree days, and the thickness
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
NBI-389-9524-B* 15
roughness, and other physical parameters.
expression of Stefan's formula
H=ar-FT
The following
incorporates a coefficient a that presumably accounts for local
effects such as snow cover and snow conditions. Values of a
in the following tabulation. F I is the freezing are given
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.
Si:te 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
and do not include the effects of wind, flowing water, and
currents and snow cover.
3. Frazil Ice
'
•
" •
•
More severe problems could potentially be experienced from 1
frazil ice formation at the water intake point. Since very
NBI-389-9524-B* 16
..
".
..
..
.. ,
little is known about frazil ice
subsequent disposition, rational
frazil-ice problems are lacking.
formation, evolution, and
design methods to avoid
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 been
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. About 18 percent of the project energy would be
produced during the coldest winter months from December through
March. If a portion of this energy were lost because of ice
problems, the economic feasbility of the project might be
affected. Mitigation measures would be implemented, of course,
to control the problem, but the chance remains that some energy
might be lost. As mentioned, this will be studied in detail
during the design phase of the project.
NBI-389-9524-B* 17
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 5.15 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
ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS AND DEVIATIONS
(cfs)
MIDWAY CREEK
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average 6.4 5.5 3.9 8.0 22.1 19.3 7.7 8.6 14.8 13.7 10.3 6.1 10.5
High 19.6 18.2 11.9 16.7 31.2 34.1 16.5 19.6 25.0 22.7 18.4 15.9
Low 2.0 1.7 1.1 3.7 15.6 10.8 3.7 3.7 8.8 8.3 5.7 2.3
NBI-389-9524-B-1
""
, '
, '
" .
..
56
48
40
32
\
24 \
~
\
1\.
16
' MEAN ~~NNUAL FLOW 10.5 cfs
- 8 ., .....
0 -~
9
"'-0 0 20
' "' ' ...............
40 60
PERCENT { 0/o) OF TIME FLOW EXCEEDED
MIDWAY CREEK
FLOW DURATION CURVE
"""-
-~
80 100
FIGURE
8-1
-
., -u -
ESTIMATED RANGE OF AVERAGE
MONTHLY FLOWS 7 OUT OF 10
YEARS
O JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
• = ·=·= I
•
•
•
·-.I.
MIDWAY CREEK
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS
FIGUREf"
8-2.'
I
EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 I 0.5 0 .1
In -(.)
: 200 ~ .... ~~m~i~~ittm~~8§Eet=lLh~o==~4±i.WL~-~
(.!) a:
<(
J: u en
0 100~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2
AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS
MIDWAY CREEK
PEAK FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE
5 10 20 5o 100 1000
FIGURE
. 8-3
. '
. '
..
..
OLD HARBOR APPENDIX B
References
CH2M HILL, Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements
& 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 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, 1982.
Ott Water Engineers. Water Resources Atlas for USDA Forest
Service Region X, Juneau, Alaska. April 1979.
Rhoads, E.M., "Ice Crossings", The Northern Eng;ineer, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp. 19-24, 1974.
NBI-389-9524-BR
Stefan, J. "Uber Die Theorien Des Eisbilaung in Polarmere",
Wien Sitzunsber, Adad. Wiss., Ser. A, Vol. 42, Pt. 2, pp. 965-
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," 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 Resources of the Kodiak-Shilikof
Subregion, South-Central Alaska," Atlas HA-612, S. H. Jones,
et al., 1978.
U.S. Geological Survey. "Water-Resources Reconnaissance of the
Old Harbor Area, Kodiak Island, Alaska,n 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. 887-895,
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 •••..•.••.••••.•••.•.•.•••••.•••••••
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS .•.•...•.•••.•.•...••.•...•.....
REFERENCES CITED •.. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
i
1
2
3
6
6
7
7
9
10
13
15
Fi re
1
2
3
4
5
LIST OF FIGORES
Geologic Time Scale .•..•.••............••.••••
Reconnaissance Geologic Map .•••..••..•.•••••.•
Road Location Map ••••.•••.•.•••.•...••••••••••
Seismic R Map .•.....•.••...•..•.•••••..•••.
Gradation-Alluvial Fan ..•••••.•.•.•..•••••••
ii
4
5
8
11
14
..
'i •
·r
' • •
,. .
,. .
.. .
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 information 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 seismicity and the
specific dam 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.
Si tkalidak Strait and many of its tributary bays were once
filled with ice. As the glaciers ret rea ted 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-
' I
r
•
..
" •
1
' •
•
"'
.. '
" '
.,,
. '
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
rJJiocene time ( Pewe, 197 4) to the present. The glacial deposits
at Old Harbor date from Late Pleistocene time (Coulter, et al.,
196 5). Both till and glacial outwash deposits are present (see
Geologic Map, Figure 2).
-3-
"
GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE
Subdivisions of Geologic Time Radiometric Ages
(millions of years
Eras Periods Epochs before the present)
(Recent)
Quaternary Pleistocene
1 • 8
u Pliocene
-6 0
N Miocene 0 z 22 lJJ u Tertiary Of I gocene
36
Eocene
58
Paleocene
63 ,
u Cretaceous -145 0
N Jurassic 0
(/') 210 LLJ
::E Triassic
255
Permian
280
Pennsylvanian
320
u Mississippian -0 360
N Devonian 0
LLJ 4 1 5 ...J
< Silurian ll.
465
Ordovician
520
Cambrian
. 580
PRECAMBRIAN
(No worldwide subdivisions)
Birth of Planet Earth 4,650
Figure 1. Geologic Time Scale
-4-' 1
EXPLANATION
Qu Quaternary deposits, undivided glacial
deposits, colluvi um, stream deposits
Alluvial fan deposits o' 1000'
Kodiak Format ion -turbidites, .... .........,.llj_,_-t.llj........-tii!I .......... IM~I
siltstone fine sandstones
DOWL
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 abututent 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 in boulders of granitic
rock which have been brought in by glacial activity. The
boulders in this area are large (up to 10 feet) and will easily
serve as dam 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
subcrop. The lack of contact zone alteration makes
less likely, although not impossible. Boulders of
-6-
represent
that seem
the same
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 f ld ~'
work.
2. Construction Materials
Gravel is available from the alluvial fan (see
r1echanical Analysis Section Figure 5). Less than six inches of
overburden will need to 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/Penstock/Powerhouse Locations
There is some possibility that the State Department of
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. While 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-
' 1
•
., ,..,,
. ,'}
,,. '
..........
\ ~··..,·-··-......... ~.,"'-~ • .r-A.....v .J()/)
\.../~ >..,; ~----•
\ // iO~ ~BARGE LANDING j.. ../
\ ,.
1000'
Iii
DOWL -LOCATION
ROAD AY CREEK MIDW ENGINEERS 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 would 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 rna-,.,.
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
I'
site. t
4. Ohiouzuk Creek
The original site for the detailed feasibility 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-
1 •
1
' , •
..
E. SEISMIC HAZARDS
Southwestern Alaska is part of an intense seismic zone which
circumscribes the Pacific Ocean. Most 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 independ-
ently 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 not appear to have
been subject to fault slip. There is no evidence
of active faulting along the road, penstock, or
transmission line route .
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.
0 Ground failure -minor landslides have occurred in
this area in the past; however, no
that would affect the integrity of
stock, powerhouse, access road and
line are expected.
-10-
major slides
a dam, pen-
transmission
DOWL
ENGINEERS SEISMIC RISK MAP -Peak Rock Acceleration FIGURE 4
. , ' •
0
...
"' .
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 "B" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone {907) 278-1551 Sheet 1 of 1
>00
TPxtural Class ____ Sandy_ Grav.el
Frost Class
Plasllc Properties __
Date RPct•ived
Unified Class -~-Gl& ····-·----~
•
W.o. No. Ql:3_.i7JL_
Date-~_/ 4/1!2 __ ...
Technician S .N.
Client._ Alaska .. Power Authority
Project .. _.4 __ Hydr:o __
Sample Number 4131
Location _Midway . .Creek
Sample Taken By __.Client_ __
" •
... ..
"
l_OQ -·
91
71
54
42
4 23
10 10
20 4
40 2. 5
1.5
=:. 200
,.. t~.9~_f,1M 1.3
Figure 5.
Alluvial fan
gradation
,.
..
...
...
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.
Coulter, H.W. and the Alaska Glacial Map Committee, 1962, Map
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
••
.... ..1
...
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 construction i terns under the specific con-
ditions. For this project, it was felt that the available data
base of unit prices was not suitable. 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-
construction 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 construe t ion 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
indicated, 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
r r
!
r
•
•
' •
•
'
,..
...
"'
...
....
...
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 quantities,
scheduling, and locations of the specific i terns 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
CAT-D8K
Front End Loader 966D
Flatbed Truck
Dump Truck (10 yd)
Service/Fuel Truck
Airtrack/Compressor
Pickup Truck (2 ea)
Backhoe -CAT 225
Welder
Generator
Generator Spare
Hand Compactors (5 ea)
Cone. Mixer Trailer
Small Mixer (3 ea)
Screening Plant
3" Water Pumps (3 ea)
Fuel Tank, Bladder
Cutting Torch, Set
Misc. Equipment
Pole Setting Truck
Line Truck
Office Trailer
NBI-419-9524-D-2
TABLE D-2
OLD HARBOR
Ulf'MENT COST
Ownership Total Hourly
Expense Operating Operating
(23 wks) Hours Cost
$67,600 310 $103.22
18,800 250 30.06
4' 100 250 14.57
8,350 250 16.87
10,850 310 17.20
25,350 100 27.00
3,250 ea 310 ea 12.69
24,900 310 20.37
1,100 70 5.51
510 620 .94
510 80 .94
1,800 ea 180 ea 1. 00
2,000 70 2.50
250 ea 30 ea 1. 00
9,300 220 23.75
500 ea 310 ea 1.00
5,000
300
2,000
Operating
Cost
$32,000
7,515
3,640
4,220
5,330
2,700
ea 3,930
6,320
390
580
80
ea 180
180
ea 30
5,230
ea 310
Total
Cost This
$
ea
ea
ea
Project
99,600
26,300
7,700
12,600
16,200
28,050
14,400
31,200
1,500
1,100
600
9,900
2,200
300
14,500
2,400
5,000
300
2,000
•
•
..
•
l
Costs contained in transmission subcontract
3,000 620 1.68 1,040 4,040
TOTAL $279,900 '
' •
•• ,.,
,.,
"''1
~"'
"'"
....
...
..
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
15 .
16.
17.
TABLE D-3
OLD HARBOR
MATERIAL FOB SEATTLE
Item Quantity Unit
Cement Type I 1,250 Bags
Reinforcing Steel 14,375 Lbs
Fiberglass Pipe -24" 1,200 Ft
Steel Pipe -24" 1,000 Ft
24" Dresser Couplings 25 Ea
Welded Ring Girder 50 Ea
Prefabricated Steel Units
Steel Dam Modules 1,120 Lbs
Offtake Structure 3,500 Lbs
Sediment Basin 8,000 Lbs
Turbine Generator Assy.
Includes Switchgear 1 Ea
Electrical & Mechanical
Accessory Equipment
and Materials 1 Lot
Culvert Materials -100' 1,560 Lbs
Blasting Powder 7,500 Lbs
Steel Building Kit 1 Ea
Forming Materials 1 Lot
Misc. &tructural Steel 1,000 Lbs
MATERIALS FOB SEATTLE DOCK
NBI-419-9524-D-3
Unit
Price Amount
$ 4.73 $5,920
0.35 5,030
40 48,000
40 40,000
200 5,000
70 3,500
1. 50 1,680
1. 50 5,250
1. 50 12,000
220,000
61,500 61,500
1.00 1,560
1.00 7,500
25,000 25,000
5,250 5,250
0.30 300
$447,500
Haul
Class
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
I
J
TABLE D-4
OLD HARBOR
BARGE SHIPPING COST
Seattle To Old Harbor
Weight
Commodity (Typical) Clb)
Structural Steel 31,741
Palletized Cement 117,500
Lumber 5,000
Poles 69,300
KD Metal Bldg 15,000
Steel Pipe, Cuvert 61,000
Misc. Wire, Hardware, etc. 50,780
Fiberglass Pipe 21,120
Large Equipment, Machinery 390,500
Trailer 12,000
TOTAL
Old Harbor to Seattle (Return)
Large Equipment, Machinery
Office Trailer
TOTAL
333,000
12,000
NBI-419-9524-D-4
($/cwt)
8.24
6.93
8.00
8.00
12.50
8.24
24.32
16.48
12.00
25.00
12.00
25.00
Cost
($)
2,620
8,150
400
5,550
1,880
5,030
12,350
3,480
46,900
3,000
$89,360
40,000
3,000
$ 43,000
r
•
•
1
1
•
...
••
.....
".
•
....
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
$ 447,500
349,450
89,000
43,000
71,000
240,000
279!900
1,519,850
228z000
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
,
r
'{I
,. . ' ' r ' TABLE D-7
OLD HARBOR
" ,, /
DEVELOPMENT OF AVERAGE UNIT PRICES FOR MAJOR ITEMS (F WORK
1/ Material Labor Equipment Total
Item-Cost Cost Cost Amount Quantity
2/
1. Mobil/Demob. $166 '710-$49,620 $23,000 35,900 $275,230
2. Penstock -Stee 1 53,390 23,560 8,420 12,810 98,180 1,000
3. Penstock -Fiberglass 49,740 27,210 43,050 18,000 138,000 1,200
4. Rock Excavation 9,330 70,110 110,500 28,490 218,430 7,500
5. Road Exc., Com. 0 46,700 80,650 19,100 146,450 8,400
6. Culvert Pipe 1,710 2,450 1,420 840 6,420 100
7. Gravel Fill-Road 0 11 '700 8,080 2,970 22,750 987
8. Concrete 25,992 117,000 14,600 23,640 181,230 125
9. Transmission Line 3/ 11,250 60,480 0 10,760 82,490
10. Prefab Steel Bldg 26,236 12,835 1,420 6,070 46,560
11. Turbine & Generator 285,380 115,000 7,000 61,110 468,490
12. Prefab Steel Structures 19,980 14,500 4,800 5,890 45,170 12,620
13. Dock Constr. 1,000 5,040 9,990 2,410 18,430
TOTAL $228,000 $1 ' 7 4 7 '850 !!..!
1/ These items are described on page 2 of this table. 2/ 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
Unit
Unit Price
LS $
LF 98
LF 138
CY 29
CY 17
LF 64
CY 23
CY 1,450
LS
LS
LS
LB 3.58
LS
I
ITEM
1. t1Jbil i z at i on/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-D-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, including placement as fill where used.
Insta 11 ed.
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.
Insta 11 ed.
Material cost FOB Seattle plus shipping.
Salary at 60 Hrs/week plus subsistence costs.
Ownership rental plus use rental, based on six months.
..
..
TABLE 0-8
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
1 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-419-9524-0-8
Activity
1. Barge Travel
2. Mobi ilzatlon/Demobi 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 Bul ldlng
d. Mechanical & Electrical
e. Startup
6. Diversion Site
a. Concrete Work
b. Set Pretab Steel
7. Cleanup
B. Transmission Line
9. Dock Construction
.. -
FIGURE D-1
OLD HARBOR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Week
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
r .. ..
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 ~lORK
HYDROLOGY
FISHERIES
CURRENT UTILIZATION OF FISHERY
PHYSICAL STRE&~ DESCRIPTION
FISHERY IMPACTS
FISHERY MITIGATION
WILDLIFE
CURRENT UTILIZATION OF WILDLIFE
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
RESOURCES
RESOURCES
Page
1
1
2
4
6
7
7
9
10
11
12
12
21
23
23
23
23
24
24
25
27
29
30
30
Figure
1
Tables
1
2
3
4
LIST OF FIGURES
Project Location Map 5
LIST OF TABLES
Water Quality Data, 1981 4
Species and Number of Fish Caught
in Mid way Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Terrestrial Mammals of the Kodiak
Island Archipelago .•...•.••••••••••••.•••••••• 13
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 Hid way Creek Alluvial Fan 8
4 Substrate on Midway Creek Alluvial Fan . . . . . . . . 8
ii
,, i\
r
'
r
•
' ' '
•
r'
.. ' ..
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
bui 1 t 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.
meeting on
Local residents were contacted through a community
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 estimated
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.
v~ater quality information for Midway Creek is given in
Table 1, and locations are shown in Figure 1. No changes in
water quality are anticipated due to operation and maintenance
of this project.
-2-
•
•
-'
1
'
I"'!
r•
... . ,
.. .
TABLE 1
WATER QUALITY DATA, 1981
Temp. D.O. Conductivity
Date Location ~OC) ~ (m~/1) (Mic romhos I em)
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 sh 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.
stream is normally dry in
However, the lower portion of the
the winter, so if spawning does
occur, it is unlikely that many eggs survive the winter.
Dolly Varden char and 1 coho salmon 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
.,_..Proposed Dam Site
-Stream Reach Divisions
$ Water Quality
Sampling Slh
Sitkalidak Strait
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Sitkarldak Island
SCALE I: 63 360
I
I 2 0 I !\IlLES -----
FIGURE 1
.. "' ,
~
" ,
~·
" "'-
,..
... ,.
...
, .
..
,..
...,.
r
l~
~~
L
~-
....
" ..
p
•
' ' ' '
" .
" "
200
100
3
10
TABLE 2
SPECIES AND NUMBER OF FISH CAUGHT IN rumvAY CREEK
November 5-6, 1981
TraE Location Juveniles Caught
yards below proposed powerhouse No Fish
yards below proposed powerhouse 6 Dolly Varden
1 coho salmon
yards above proposed powerhouse 1 Dolly Varden
yards above proposed powerhouse No Fish
Silver salmon generally spawn at the head of riffles
in shallow, swift-flowing river tributaries. Optimum stream-
flow velocity during spawning is 3.4 feet per second. Spawning
in Midway Creek probably occurs infrequently, due to straying
from Big Creek. It is also conceivable that no spawning occurs
and juveniles stray in from Big Creek.
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,
19 78). Juvenile Dolly Vardens are relatively inactive, often
remaining on the stream bottom in pools or eddies under rocks
and logs or undercut banks. 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. Midway Creek is not navigable, and there is no estab-
lished use as public waters.
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 phys al disturbance to both adult
anadromous fish and resident species. Proper construction
techniques and timing should minimize this impact.
The portion of Midway Creek between the diversion weir and
the powerhouse may dewatered 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-
r r
•
•
'f
' 1
l
' •
Upstream view of Midway Creek alluvial fan.
Substrate on Midway Creek alluvial fan.
"'
...
. '
v '
...
section. However, several small tributaries join 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-
I.
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).
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 500 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. Mountain goats were introduced
to Ugak Bay in 1952 and 1953 (Burris et ~·, 1973) and they
-10-
I
I
I
r
r
l
I
I
I
1
.. '
f
..
...
...
II. •
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 Wildlife Service records show
one eagle nest on Midway Creek delta (Zwiefelhofer, 1981).
Two additional eagle nests were located on the rHdway 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 seaters,
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 Sflli th. 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 Island. 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 Wildlife
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 f ac il i ties at
the dam site. Temporary habitat alterations will occur at
equipment staging areas, camp sites 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-
I I
r
I
r
'
lf
' I
I
I
I
l
,.,
...
....
••
...
, .
...
.. '
...
..
.. J
* ..
.. '
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
Muskrat
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
t1ustela 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
I
I
TABLE 4 r
BIRDS OF THE KODIAK ISLAND ARCHIPELAGO r
A -Abundant s -Spring, March-May r c -Common s -Summer, June-August
u -Uncommon F -Fall, September-November
R -Rare w-Winter, December-February r
+ -Casual
* -Nesting
"' &
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME s s F w
Common Loon Gavia immer u u u u ' ~
Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii R R u
Arctic Loon Gavia arctic a u u u ' Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata u u u u " Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena u + u u l Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus u u u
Short-tailed Albatross Diomedea albatrus + + ..,,
Black-footed Albatross Diomede a nigripes c c c ,.,
Laysan Albatross Diomedea immutabilis u u u
Northern Fulmar Fulmaris 9:lacialis c c c c ... Pink-footed Shearwater Puffin us creato.eus +
Flesh-footed Shearwater Puffin us carneipes + + ,,
New Zealand Shearwater Puffin us bulleri + + ..
Sooty Shearwater Puffin us griseus A A A u " Short-tailed Shearwater Puffin us tenuirostris A A A u ' Manx Shearwater Puffin us puffin us +
Scaled Petrel Pterodroma inexpectata u u u 1
Fort-tailed Storm-petrel Oceanodroma furcata c c c c
Leach's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa u u u I Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus u u u c
Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus c c c c I Red-faced Cormorant Phalacrocorax urile c c c u ---
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias + + + +
I
-14-1
r • ...
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 Seater
TABLE 4
Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Olor columbianus
Branta canadensis
Branta bernicla
Philacte canagica
Anser albifrons
Chen caerulescens
An as platyrhynchos
An as poecilorhyncha
An as strepera
An as acuta
An as crecca
An as discors
An as clypeata
An as penelope
An as americana
Aythya valisineria
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya rnarila
Aythya affinis
Aythya americana
Bacephala clangula
Bucephala islandica
Bucephala albeola
Clangula hyernalis
Histrionicus histrionicus
Polysticta stelleri
Sornarteria mol lis sima
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
I
I
TABLE 4 ' Continued
r
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME s s F w
Surf Scoter Melanitta c R c c !
Black Scoter Melanitta A u A A
Hooded Merganser Lophod:t:tes cucullatus + + R R ' Smew Mergus albellus + J.
Common Merganser Mergus merganser c c c c "' Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator c c c c ..
Goshawk Accipiter c c c c • Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter u u u u "-'•
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus u c u +
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos u u u u " .L
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus c c c c
Steller's Sea Eagle Haliaeetus pelagicus + \If
Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus u R u R .&.
Osprey Pandion haliaetus + + "'I'
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus R R R ...
Peregrine Falcon Falco pereginus c u c c
"' Merlin Falco columbarius R R u R • American Kestrel Falco sparverius + +
Willow Ptarmigan Lag opus lag opus c c c c "'
Rock Ptarmigan Lag opus mutus c c c c ...
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis + .,
Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani c c c c ' Semi-palmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus A A u
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus + l
American Golden Plover Pluvial is dominica c u c
Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola c u u I Hudsonian Godwit Limos a haemastica +
Bar-tailed Godwit Limos a lapponica R + 1 Marbled Godwit Limos a fedoa R
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus u R I Bristle-thighed Curlew Numenius tahitiensis + +
-16-1
..
. '
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
Surf bird
Red Knot
Sanderling
Semi-palmated 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 himantopus
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
r r
TABLE 4 ' Continued
r
SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME s s F w
Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens A A A A I
Slaty-backed Gull Larus + +
Herring Gull Larus R R R R ' l
Thayer' s Gull Larus thayeri R R R
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis + ""
Mew Gull Larus can us c c A A d.. ---
Bonaparte's Gull Larus .f2hiladel.J2hia u u u r
Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla A A A u "
Red-legged Kittiwake Rissa brevirostris + + + +
Sabine's Gull Xema sabini u u u I
Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea c c R
Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica u u I Common Murre Uria aalge c c A A
Thick-billed Murre Uri a lomvia R R R R ,..
Pigeon Guillemot Ce.e.ehus columba c c c c ..
Marbled Murrelet Brachyram.ehus marmoratus c c c c
"" Kittlitz's Murrelet Brach;:r:ramphus brevirostris R R R R ..
Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiguus u u R R
Cassin's Auk let Ptychoramphus aleuticus u w u u
.....
Parakeet Auk let Cyclorrhynchus .esittacula R R R
Crested Auklet Aethia cristatella + + c A
Least Auklet Aethia pusilla + + + + •
Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monoccrata R R R R l Horned Puffin Fratercula corniculata c c c R
Tufted Puffin Lunda cirrhata A A A R
Morning Dove Zenaida macrovra + + I
Snowy Owl Nyctea scandia + +
Hawk Owl Surnia ulula u u u u 1 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus u u u R
Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus c c c c I Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon c c c c
-18-'
SPECIES
Common Flicker
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
•• Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Northern Three-toed Woodpecker , .
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
Hermit Thrush
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Water Pipit
Bohemian Waxwing
Northern Shrike
Starling
Orange-crowned Warbler
TABLE 4
Continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Colaptes auratus
SJ2hyrapicus varius
Picoides villosus
Pi co ides pubescens
Picoides tridactylus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Eremophila alpestris
Tachycineta thalassina
Iridoprocne bicolor
Riparia riparia
Hirundo rustic a
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Pica pica
Corvus cor ax
Corvus caurinus
Parus atricapillus
Sitta canadensis
Certhia familiar is
Cinclus mexicanus
Troglodytes troglodytes
Turdus migratorius
Ixoreus naevi us
Catharus guttatus
Catharus minimus
Regulus satrapa
Regulus canendula
An thus spinoletta
Bombycilla garrulus
Lanius excubitor
Sturnus vulgaris
Vermivora celata
-19-
s s F w
+
+ +
+ +
c c c c
u u u u
+
+
c c R
c c R
u A u
R
+
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
u u u u
c c c c
c c c c
c c c c
R R R R
c c c u
A A c
R c
A A A A
+ + +
c c c +
R R
c c c c
+ + +
c c R
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 rnontifringilla
Pinicola enucleator
Leucosticte tephrocotis
Carduelis hornernanni
Carduelis flarnmea
Carduelis pinus
Loxia curvirostra
Loxia leucoptera
Passerculus sandwhichensis
Junco hyernalis
Spizella arborea
Zonotrichia querula
Zonotrichia levcophrys
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Zonotrichia albicollis
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza albicollis
Melospiza rnelodia
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
u
c
c
R
c
+
u
u
+
R
R
R
+
c
+
c
+
r r
r
•
l
.. '
r'
. '
.. '
. '
.. '
.. '
•
.. '
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:
If an on-site construction camp is required, all
structures and equipment should be removed upon
completion of construction, the ground should be
graded to its original contours and revegetated
with natural vegetation.
The material site should be operated in accord-
ance with OSHA and the applicable Mine Safety
and Health Administration standards. 'V1hen
gravel extraction is completed, the side slopes
should be returned to a long term stable condi-
tion (3:1 or greater) and revegetated with
natural vegetation. Care should be taken to
insure proper drainage at all times .
-21-
No feeding of wildlife should occur. All refuse
should be placed in metal containers with heavy
lids, incinerated on
and the nonburnable
existing landfill.
site on a regular basis,
remains removed to an
If problems with 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.
Use of the project road by any vehicles other
than maintenance vehicles should be prohibited.
A minimum 330-foot buffer of no construction
activity should be established around active
eagle nests, and where possible a seperation of
500 feet should be maintained. In addition, the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game strongly
discourages siting of construction camps, mate-
rial sites, and other high activity areas within
one-quarter mile of an active eagle nest. Re-
strictions may include prohibiting fixed-wing
aircraft from coming within a 5 00 feet radius,
and helicopters from coming within a 1, 500 feet
radius, of the airspace surrounding active
nests.
The transmission line should be designed to
minimize large raptor electrocution.
-22-
I
' '
'
1
'
•
f'•
" '
...
.. '
..
•
..
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-
munity 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, and two other· sites have been located in the
nearby area (Dill iplane, 19 81). The Division of Parks has
recommended that an archaeological survey be done in this area
before project construction begins. The u.s. Fish and Wildlife
Service also requires an archaeologic survey of the project
area.
P. PO~ENTIAL 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
S i tkal idak Strait. The powerhouse and diversion weir will be
screened from view by vegetation, but the transmission line and
lower road may be visible from saltwater.
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-
-23-
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-
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
-24-
r ' .ii.
' r
I
' l
r.
If',
.,.
.. "
...
"•
""'
...
••
....
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 imported labor. However, the Kodiak Area Native Asso-
ciation has expressed a willingness to train local residents so
they will be hired for this project.
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. Intoxicated 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.
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
-25-
(ANCSA), Public Law 92-203. This interim conveyance includes
only the surface estate. 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 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 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 use and development of such refuges.
-26-
r
'
r
•
•
....
I
I
I
,.
" '
, .
" .
" .
...
..
.. '
..
U. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
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 ad-
jacent wetlands, by all individuals, organiza-
tions, commercial enterprises, and federal,
state and local agencies. A COE Section 404
Permit will therefore be required for the diver-
sion weir on r-Hdway 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-
igable stream, or on U.S. lands, or if the pro-
ject affects a u.s. government dam or interstate
commerce.
-27-
Under authority of AS16.05.840, the Alaska De-
partment of Fish and Game can require, if the
Commissioner feels it necessary, that every dam
or other obstruction built by any person across
a stream frequented by salmon or other fish be
provided with a durable and efficient fishway
and a device for efficient passage of sh. A
Habitat Protection Permit constitues approval
under AS16.05.840.
A Permit to Construct or Modify a Darn 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.
Since the weir is less than 10 feet high and has
minimal storage, this permit is not likely to be
required.
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. vfuen
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-
-28-
r r
" .u
r
' ill.
1
I
I
•
. '
... ,
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
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.
-29-
w. REFERENCES CITED
Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
~tlas, Volumes I and II.
197 8. Alaska's Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 1968, revised 1975. Cata-
logue of Waters Important for Spawning and Migration of
Anadromous Fishes.
Burris, 0. E., and D. E. McKnight. 1973. Game Transplants in
~laska, 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.
Matfay, Larry. Old Harbor Big Game Guide. 1981.
Money, Dennis.
Species.
u.s.
1981.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered
Smith, Roger. Game Biologist, Game Division, ADF&G, Kodiak,
~laska. 19 81.
Zwiefelhofer, Denny. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak
National Wildlife Refuge. 1981.
-30-
•
•
•
•
' ' I
Proposed dam site, downstream view
Proposed dam site, upstream view
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX F
LETTERS AND MINUTES
,,
..
" '
• •
,. .
.. c
..
Public Meeting Questions and Answers
A public meeting was held on March 29, 1982 in the community
of Old Harbor to discuss the results of this study. The
following questions were asked and answers given during the
meeting.
1 •
2.
Will there be icing problems at the dam site?
Yes, although there are a number of design measures
which can be taken to mitigate or eliminate these
problems. Selection of the appropriate measures would
be done durin~ final design.
Will there by icing problems at the dock area?
Yes, some, however with proper design the dock should
be usable virtually all year •
3. Will AVEC still be involved?
This has yet to be determined.
4. Will the cost of the power be the same for all
villages?
This has yet to be determined.
5. Is there sufficient streamflow for power?
Streamflow monitoring is continuing, however, it seems
clear that flows are high enough most of the year.
Diesel will be needed during short periods when flows
are very low and for backup.
6. Will an access road be built from the village to the
powerhouse?
No.
7. Who would provide baseboard heaters?
They are built into the cost estimate in this study.
I r
' r
•
1
1
•
,,
.. '
.. '
".,
" 7
g
1
'"
l 1
rz
1 )
l !../
IS
l ""
l/ ,,
Jq
:l,G)
Zl
,2.2.
2.:3
2..'4
t.5""
~I:-
21
1-ff ,...,
r;,e;
J/
1~
-!1.3
0/d ~,.J_,~
/1/4 #~h/
4~--et z:~ /9~2. I'
T.~ lt..e.tl'r ~.4
r ,'/fy e {A( c; () /l
~b~41f,be•l!-L/0
R~ ~rr'-'ti~rue.n.
L.oue.rr-Je. H~Konson ·
';(~.-v '71 ~
·~,~
1J.tt:b e. Lv ; ,.; cJI v 4--
[)4.Uid, 4 1 tJovrda,V
on~ ct~ ~· 1~~
~~
Q,~ ~~0-
~;ri~J· ~~ ~~~l~
~:fu ..
/7o~fi~
~ ~~~~, ~
tJ..t.Lv ~ ·p~~
~f~
,"' ~
!
:at:! •. ~~~ 9MIIlitM:U .. w:wc caa.~we
--------------------------------------
\ H f"ll .. ll
JAYS. HAMMOND, &OYERNOR
-131 E. STREET
SECOND FLOOR ~ ANCIIORAr.;E, ALAS.o;A 99501
(9011114·2533
SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 0
PO. BOX 615
KODIAK. A LASKA 99615
19011 486 J3SO
P.O. BOX t207
March 26, 1982 0 SOLDOTNA. ALASKA 99669
Mr. Don Baxter
Project Manager
Alaska Power Authority
334 Y. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
RECEIVED
APR-11982
Al}..SAA POWER AUTHORITY
0
0
19071 2t:i2·S21 0
P.O. BOX t709
VALDEZ. ALASKA
(907/ 8354698
P.O. BOX t064
WASILLA, ALASKA
1/JOll 316-5038
RE: Larsen Bay. Old Harbor, King Cove, and Togiak Hydro Studies.
Dear Mr. Baxter:
•
Having had the opportunity to review the hydro feasibility studies for
these projects, we find no apparent major or permanent environmental impacts
related to these improvements with the exception of the Togiak project.
With the implementation of the recommended environmental procedures speci-
fied in the former three hydro studies, the projects should be able to
substantially comply with all necessary environmental requirements.
As regards Togiak, our concerns relate to measures necessary to mitigate
anticipated changes in water quality, including temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and pH. In relation to recommended environmental procedures out-
lined in the report, we advise that in-stream flow investigations address
the relative impacts of likely changes in water quality and potential
mitigation measures. We would be happy to discuss these observations with
you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
~#:77~-
Bob Hartin
Regional Supervisor
BM/vh/ccs
99686
99681
r
r
•
• i
•
~·
,.
•
' ' •
•
...
' .
,.
. '
...
.. . ,
. '
••
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
~1r. Bob ~1artin
Regional Supervisor
State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
437 E Street
Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
July 28, 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276·0001
Subject: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at
King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay; Draft Reconnaissance
Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak.
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for your March 26, 1982, letter to Mr. Don Baxter of my
staff regarding the above referenced reports. We appreciate your
participation and timely input in reviewing the draft reports and are
pleased to hear that you find no apparent major or permanent
environmental impacts related to the projects, with the exception of
Togiak .
The project at Togiak appears to be marginally feasible from an
economic standpoint and the likelihood of proceeding with additional
studies is questionable. However, if the project is carried forward,
appropriate mitigation measures will be taken to preserve Quigmy River
water quality. An instream flow study program would become an integral
part of any additional study programs .
Thank you again for your consideration and timely input. Should
you have further questions regarding these projects, please contact
myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff.
Cv.~
Eric P. Yould '-\
Executive Director
..
1!. r---,----~....;..os-~-~-~~-~~-~:-o-x-~-7~---~-~-ia-k-.~:-~...:....~....:~...:....~...:....9~....:...· 1-5 ....:_ A....:...PhS-=-o-=:-=?=-9 ~=-7.:..:: ~..:.a-=-!-=-~ ?-=-7...:..~=-5 --f'
'
~1arch 31, 1932 RECEIVt::O r
I'.?R-2 1982 P
Eric P. You 1 d
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska
99501
Re: Larsen Bay and Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Studies
Ora ft Report
Dear r~r. Yould:
The Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) has revie\<Jed the referenced draft
reports and is prepared to provide comment concerning the information con-
tained therein.
In regards to the Larsen Bay Report, KANA \'lishes to· make the follm·!ing comments:
Page II-3 -second paragraph -Please add that the Larsen Bay
Tribal Council has applied for funds from the U.S. Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to develop a fish smokery by utilizing
some of the buildings and equipment from the large salmon can-
nery. The Council is \<Jaiting for fina-l. approval from HUD.
Page VII -3, third paragraph: Please add that the Kodiak Island
Housing Authority (KIHA) is currently preparing an application
for funds from HUD to construct thirteen (13) single-family
housing units in Larsen Bay. This information may change the rate
assessment made in the report on the increase of energy consumption.
Page VII-9, third paragraph: ~1ention should be made of the city•s
attempt to receive a Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Grant from the De-
partment of Co~munity and Regional Affairs. The first application
was denied, hm·1ever, the Depar·t:r.ent requested some in-derth information
regarding the application to reconsider it at the next grant review.
Basically, the city wishes to purchase four 10,000 gallon fuel tanks
from the cannery and connect the:~ ':lith the city•s SO,OOO gallon tCtnk.
If granted, the final development of the facility 'dill allm·1 90,000
gallons of diesel fuel capacity and one (1) fuel delivery vehicle for
Larsen Uuy.
...
...
I
Yfl '!
' ' • . ·-.... ----.
,.
I .
....
....
Page IX-8, fourth and fifth paragraphs: Please note that the KIHA
will be informed of the project's availability of electricity to
provide space heating. The plans for the new housing units could
incorporate a combination of electrical and fuel heating appliances.
Appendix E, page 24, third paragraph: Kl\NA \'till do everything in its
pO'iler to provide training to local people in order for the selected
contractor to hire. KANA strongly urges the APA to provide the quali-
fications necessary to construct the project, encourage contractors
to hire locally, and to oversee that minimum social impacts occur.
KANA feels that the APA has the responsibility to insure total involve-
ment of the local community that is affected by project developr1ent.
In final comments to the project for Larsen Bay, it should be pointed out to
your Review Board that the B/C ratio is somewhat misleading based on the
assumption of the comparable costs betv1een hydroelectric and a hypotheticalcen-
tralized diesel pm·tered electrical distribution system. KANA does question the
. pay-back method to be used if the project is approved. Even though that method
has not been resolved, the recent eaonomic condition prevailing in Larsen Say
may put the corri!Tlunity in jeopardy from v1hatever pay-back scheme is condoned by
the State. KAriA urges tne Revie\v Board to keep that in mind.
J.)ne more thing concerning Larsen Bay is the question of APJ,'s n=sponsibility to
develop a local utility. to handle the project's services. the KIHJ\ is also the
regional electrical authority and could act as the utility if the Larsen Bay
community could not develop one. Please keep this in mind as \'lel1.
The follO\·ting comments relate to Old Harbor's Feasibility Study:
Page II-1, first paragra~h: Correction. The ~ower plant is owned
by AVEC and the city operates it through contract. KANA is dismayed
that this information because Dowl Engineering had collected the correct
information during their development of Old Harbor's Community Profile
which DOWL had contracted with the State. This unnecessary error is a
derogatory example of Oov1l's experience and reputation as a rural oriented
consultant firm.
Page VII-2, second paragraph: The KIHA has submitted a request for funds to
construct seventeen (17) single far.1ily units in Old Harbor. HUD is the
grant agency but the KIHA actually does the de vel o;:llnent.
Page IX-7, second paragraph: Another example of Dm-1l's demonstrative inability
to keep things correct. What cannery-there is none,will electrical
demand be used to replace industrial generation?
Page X-5, last pJragraph: KNIA maintains the same posture on development
of skills for local p~oplc and encouragement of local hire as explained
in the larsen 8ay cor.:mcnts. KJ\NA docs not shJrc the <~ssumption that many
residents ure likely to be busy \vith corr.mercial fishing. The fisherir.s
economy is such that a project development such us the hydroelectric 110uld
draw interest from the local labor force to ta~ part in,
". I
•
. .
letter
t-1arch 31, 1982
Page 3
: ..... '1,,~ •.:~~ : '::>•;\' •: ,"':·. j .:: ~ ' .:, f ' ... ;.. -· '', ,, :.. • ,-:-;~ ', 'I ' • •
. • • .• ">. . . .• ·_ ' .. !' i . ~~ : .. : -~ . .
, ~ ....
' . . .
•. * ••
•I
1 ,.. t·•'"
~ ~" I" • ~ .: ·. , • •.
! . •. "' ·.·· . _ .. . ~ . . .
'
A,O ll •• : ~ ~ 01 •• ,·~~ • * \ J ...
. ' ..... : . . . ' .. . '
" ··_.: : ~ -~
. ·. ·.·· .. \ ... · . . ~ ·.• .. , -~: . . . ." .. ' .· #. : • . . . . '•,' . ...4.. .
.. . * .... ,#
..
' . ' '
J • •
~ ... '' . . .. .. . ... ~ . '·
•• ~ • • .. : 1 • .... ' ... •. ~.~.!: .. ~··.· : . .~.· .. . . . ' : ·~ '. '·. ; . · .. · ..... > .. , . ....
The same consideration Appendix E-24. second and third paragraphs:
given in the Larsen 6ay comments apply here. ,• .,
The B/C ratio is mare appropriately applied far Old Harbor than Larsen Bay. The
question stil1 remains on project pay back and if the community can afford it.
Overall, both reports are very ·good and have supplied KANA with vital information
regarding energy use and demand for those villages. r~NA is very concerned about the
total economic picture of the ~r9jec~s ~~q -~mp.1or.es .. t{hose considerations be adopted
by APA. :" ,. ' ~ ' · .,1 • , _ .• , ~ . :
' ~ --~<\:~.:... .. .f .. "';.. ·• ·. :· .... :; ; ...... " \ ; •. ,. " ! .. '
# • ' ... • •
ii.
Thank you for allowing
.i
" ... : ... ,...
. ~ •' • • !
'••o;
·.,
•,.
-. .
·: · .. "· :
..
' ....
·,
:. . . ·.
\ .:,
' ·'' . "·-· • " • .• • t •
, .:' .,
. . : .,~ ~r .
,. .. ~ . "
·-:' _.·· -... : ...
.... .. ·
. ..
; '
TP:sl·
' ..
cc: Frank Carlson, Mayor, Larsen Bay
Frank R. Peterson, President, Larsen Bay Tribal Council
Sven Haakanson, Mayor, Old Harbor
. Walter Erickson, President, 01 d Harbor Tri ba 1 Council
t1ar1in Knight, Executive Director, KIHA '. .
,·. .. . ' )
' .. " ,.. ...
• I .
.,
... · .. '
.,_
.
. _, l
I .••
·~ 4& ,_.,.... ___________ '"'·--· ... ----·----·-------------' I~
,. .
....
,...
...
...
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Ms. lone M. Norton
President
Kodiak Area Native Association
P.O. Box 172
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
July 28, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276·0001
SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at
Larsen Bay and Old Harbor.
Dear Ms. Norton:
The following letter addresses issues or answers questions
contained in Mr. Tom Peterson's letter of March 13, 1982, regarding the
draft reports referenced above. We appreciate you and your staffs 1
participation and timely input in reviewing the reports. Our
responses to your comments relating to the projects are included below.
Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project:
Page II -3
The text has been modified to incorporate this change. It has
also been brought to our attention that the cannery has been
purchased by an outside entity and is in the process of being
reopened.
Page VII-3
The text has been modified to incorporate this change. The
application for funding does not affect our consumption estimates.
Page VII -9
The text has been modified to incorporate this change.
Page IX-8
The text has been modified to incorporate this change.
Appendix E, page 24
If a decision is made to proceed with construction of the
Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project, attempts will be made by the
Power Authority to provide local information on the
qualifications necessary for construction and operation and
maintenance of the facility, to encourage local hire, and to see
that social impacts are minimized.
Your final comments regarding the economic analysis, method of
pay-back , and selection of a local utility to operate the project
are noted.
Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project:
Page II-1
We have made the necessary correction.
Page VII-2
The text has been modified to incorporate this change.
Page IX-7
The text has been changed to more fully explain the cannery
issue. Cannery boats frequently dock at Old Harbor and maintain
operations for many weeks. These boats usually request power from
the city, according to Mayor Haakanson.
Page X-5; Appendix E, page 24
We fully support local hire and we did not simply assume that
many residents would be busy fishing. This information came to
light in a public meeting with the community and during interviews
with the Tribal Council President. Our comments regarding Appendix
E, page 24, of the .Larsen Bay Report apply here as well.
Again, your comments are noted on the economic analysis and on
the ability of the community to pay back any loans used for project
development.
Thank you again for your comments and timely input. Should you
have further questions regarding these projects, please contact myself
or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff.
C? .. ___u
Eric P. Yould '-\
Executive Director
cc: Frank Carlson, Mayor, Larsen Bay
Frank R. Peterson, President, Larsen Bay Tribal Council
Sven Haakanson, Mayor, Old Harbor
Walter Erickson, President, Old Harbor Tribal Council
Marlin Knight, Executive Director, KIHA
r
r
r
r
•
•
1
' '
r
,.
...
DEPAI!.T!tllE:\,...-OF NATI.JIL\L RESOURCES
March 31, 1982
File No. 1130-13
Laurel A. Bennett
DOWL Engineers
4040 B Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
DIVISION OF PARKS
I
f JAY$. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR
ftl WAREHOUSE DR .. SUITE 210
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501
fi'HONE: 214-4676
Subject: Old Harbor Road, diversion \~eir on Midway Creek, Transmission
Line, and possible barge landing site.
We have revie~ved the subject proposal and would like to offer the
following comments:
STATE HISTORIC ?RESERVATION OFFICER
Our review indicates that significant cultural resources may be im-
pacted. The ter=ain in question may well contain currently unknown
prehistoric sit2s. Specifically, MlRS site No's. KOD-088, 089, and 090
are located in :he nearby area and the proposed project will impact
similar terrain. Therefore, per 36 CFR 800, we recommend that a pre-
construction ccltural resource survey be conducted. If there are any
questions, please contact Doug Gibson of r ~s-off~ce~
STATE PARK PL&\:HNG
No probable or significant impact on existing, proposed or potential
state park or c:her public recreation values, although outdoor rec-
reation opportu:::ities should be increased if possible as a result of new
road access.
LAND & WATER CO~;SERVATION FUND GRANT PROGRAM
No comment.
CD/blh
\1'\..111 LH
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
~~s. Judy Marquez
Director
State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks
619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210
Anchorage, AK 99501
July 28, 1982
Phone: (907) 277 · 7641
(907) 276-0001
SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at
King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay; Draft Reconnaissance Report
of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak.
Dear Ms. Marquez:
Thank you for your letters of April 12, March 30 and March 31,
1982, to Ms. Laurel Bennett of DOWL Engineers regarding the above
referenced feasibility and reconnaissance reports. We appreciate your
participation and timely input in reviewing the draft reports.
In response to the concerns voiced in your letters,
preconstruction cultural resource surveys would be accomplished prior to
the initiation of construction activity on any of the projects. Any
work associated with the seeping and implementation of such surveys
would be fully coordinated with your office. Furthermore, the project
at Togiak does not appear to be attractive at this point in time due to
economics, and it is doubtful that it will be carried forward into
developmental stages.
Should you have further questions regarding these studies, please
contact myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff.
Sincere 1 y,
~~l\Jl
Executive Director
r
r
•
4 ..
1
' '
..
"'
' '
...
...
.. '
"
~-:r. Don B.::-:.:der 1
Alnsko Pmver Authority
334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor
Der>..r 1-ir. BSJ;:tcr:
'I'he Old H2rbor City Cm~ncil nnd r.1::n:.,-1:1
Co:r.rr.unity requested that I uritc :rou the OJ
of our top !r:o.st prio::-ities for c tim:.
:·Ic hope you c:Te abl~ to complete
possible so ~-;e em be rco:.dy to becin co:-::::
funds c~c avail3ble. I can \·.Titc you 3 boo:: on v ·..:; ;
due to the hi~h costs of
all the statistics on that.
He CClil onl;;r ask that you convey our rcc_uc;,c,;,:; .~;:
ple<>.sc give the::: your utmost consic~·::rt'tion •
We have worked on this Topic for P good
yecrs and feel it shouldn't be set ::;;l:Le •
·-::l!:.c
Please feel free to cont~ct Ge for ~ny ~ss t~.cc
by letter or telephone at 2S6-2204.
. c• • 1]1 .. .>: l;' . ·-
Sincerely,
REliclvt:lJ.
ft.! ... ASK.A PO'.':ER AUTP.ORITY
•
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ' Phone: (907) 277-7641 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
(907) 276-0001 "'
The Honorable Sven Haakanson
Mayor
Old Harbor City Council
Old Harbor, Alaska 99643
August 3, 1982
Subject: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mayor Haakanson:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 1982 to Mr. Don Baxter of my
staff regarding the above referenced project. The Power Authority is
well aware of the rapidly escalating costs of electric energy in rural
Alaska and of the benefits to the City of Old Harbor if the
hydroelectric project is developed. We will be making a decision on
whether or not to proceed with final design of the Old Harbor Project in
the near future. We will notify you of the results of that decision
once it is made.
Thank you for your interest in the Old Harbor Project. Should you
have any questions regarding the project, please contact myself or
Mr. Baxter.
Sincerely,
c; -?. ~ J.Q
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
..
•
IL
•
1
' '
.. '
!!'"
"''
...
...
rv1 Ef\~ORANDU M
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ro Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Pmver Authority
State of Alaska
DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOP~iErH
DAH April 12, 1982
Fll~-NO
TELEPHONE NO 276-1653
suoJEcT DNR comments
The Department of Natural Resources has no comments on the draft
feasibility reports listed below.
Draft feasibility study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project
Draft feasibility study for Old Harbor· Hydroelectric Project
Draft feas~bility study for Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project
Draft feasibility study for Togiak Hydroelectric Project
. .--,...~.............,~....,.......r-. _,,....,_, ______ ,_, -·~w·w ~aaa
RECEIVED
_r ~12 1 1982
'ALASKA PCWEl1 AUTHORITY
KODIAI{ ISLAl'JD BOROUGH
April 12. 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska
99501
Telephones 486-5736 • 486-5737 -Box 1246
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
REta:.Jvt:o
I'.?R 1 '5 1982
ALASKA POWER AUn!ORilY
RE: Feasibility Studies of Hydroelectric Projects in Old
Harbor and Larsen Bay
Dear Mr. Yould:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft feasibility
studies of hydroelectric projects in Old Harbor and Larsen
Bay.
The reports appear to be comprehensive and well-prepared. I
have two general cormnents to make regarding these studies.
First, I expect the findings of these studies to be directly
incorporated into the "electrification" study the APA is spon-
soring in the Kodiak Island Borough. Secondly, I hope that
the APA Board of Directors acts on these projects by promoting
hydroelectric development in both Old Harbor and Larsen Bay.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely,
~~
Linda Freed
CZH Coordinator
Community Development
Department
cc. Frank Carlson, Mayor Larsen Bay
Sven llaakanson, l>L:lyor Old Harbor
LF/jd11
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
I
I
I
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
••
...
...
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE-ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Ms. Linda Freed
-CZM Coordinator
Community Development Department
Kodiak Island Borough
Box 1246
Kodiak, AK 99615
July 28, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
. (907) 276-0001
SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at
Old Harbor and Larsen Bay.
Dear Ms. Freed:
Thank you for your April 12th letter regarding the above referenced
reports. We appreciate your participation and timely input in reviewing
the draft reports .
The findings of these reports will be incorporated into the
"electrification" study we are sponsoring for the Kodiak Island Borough .
Remy Williams of my staff will be managing that particular study.
Furthermore, we also share your interest in wanting to bring these
projects forward and hope that they receive a favorable response from
our board of directors.
Thank you again for your consideration and timely input. Should
you have further questions regarding these projects, please contact
myself or tk. Don Baxter of my staff .
c;•r~lyy \ \ ~
Eric P. Yould \
Executive Director
cc: Frank Carlson, Mayor Larsen Bay
Sven Haakanson, Mayor Old Harbor
I
I
I
DIVISION OF FOREST. LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT
April 12,
Eric P You1d
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. You1d,
I JAr .t HAMMOND, GOYCRNOA
I
555 Cordova Street
Pouch 7-005
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
P110NE: (907)276-2653
1982
RE~l:IVt:.u
l ?R ! 3 138'2
A review has been made of Volumes A, B, C, D and E
regarding the Feasibility Studies for the King Cove
Hydroelectric Project, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project,
Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project and the Reconnaissance
Study for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project.
As mentioned, for each project the Division of Land and
Water Management has the responsibility for issuing both a
permit to construct or modify a dam and a water rights
permit. Comments follow that appear to apply to all four
projects.
a. Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam
Prior to issuing the permit, this office must be assured
that the dam will not create a public safety hazard. A
certification to this effect after the state of the art
techniques that analyze the design and construction as well
as the proposed operation and maintenance schedules of the
dam will be acceptable. If the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) involved in licensing the project, dam
safety certifications by them will be accepted. For dams
not reviewed by FERC, we will review work done by the
applicant such that this office may certify to the dam's
safety. As the projects develop, please send to this
office, dam safety certifications by the FERC, or the
appropriate documents allowing such to be made.
b. Water Rights Permit
According to AS 46.15.080, a water rights permit shall
be issued if it is found that:
1. The proposed appropriation will not unduly affect
the rights of a prior appropriator. From a review of
our files on April 8, it appears that no water rights
exist in the areas to be impacted.
2. The proposed means of diversion or construction are
adequate.
r
r
r
r
r
•
I
I
II
f
I
I
II . !
II
I
' I :
"'
,. .
,..
...
3. The proposed appropriation is in the public
interest. TO evaluate this, among the items to be
considered are changes in the following as a result of
the proposed water appropriation:
(a) economic activity,
(b) fish and game resources,
(c) public recreational opportunities,
(d) public health,
(e) loss of alternate uses of water that might be
made within a reaso~able time,
(f) harm to persons,
(g) access to navigable or public waters.
To process the water rights application, the above items
must be addressed for each project stage, including
construction, reservoir filling and operation. If negative
impacts are noted, mitigation strategies and the associated
costs should also be discussed.
The feasibility study discusses some of the above items.
Some statements, however, have limited, if any, supporting
evidence and are therefore considered inadequate for the
adjudication of a water rights application.
It is understood that it is not the intent of this
feasibility study to present detailed information as
described above. However, please be informed that this
information is necessary to adjudicate the application to
construct or modify a darn and the application for water
rights according to our legal responsibilities.
Sincerely,
J. w. Sedwick, Director
~ by: Paul J nk
Civil Engineer
Water Management Section
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Jack W. Sedwick
Director
State of Alaska
Dept. of Natural Resources
Division of Forest, Land and Water
Management
555 Cordova Street
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage, AK 99501
July 28, 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276·0001
SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects
at King Cove, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor; Draft Reconnaissance
Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak.
Dear Mr. Sedwick:
Thank you for your letter of April 12th regarding the above
referenced reports. The following letter addresses issues and answers
questions contained in your letter. We appreciate the participation and
timely input of you and your staff in reviewing the draft reports.
Our responses to your comments are included below:
a. Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam
For King Cove, Old Harbor and Larsen Bay, plans will
be submitted during the design phase of these projects,
however, we understand that a permit will not be
required because the proposed dams are less than 10 feet
in height. The dam proposed for the Togiak site is
greater than 10 feet in height, but the project does
not appear to be economically attractive. It is therefore
doubtful that the project would ever be developed.
b. Water Rights Permit
Except for the Quigmy River near Togiak, there are no
established navigable uses for any of the streams or rivers
under consideration. The text has been modified to reflect
this comment.
In a meeting with Paul Janke, some concern was expressed about
m1n1mum flows. This issue is addressed in our letters to the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), copies of which are attached.
I
I
r
r
r
•
..
..
I
I
I
'
~-·
,..
...
...
..
.. '
..
Hr. ~ack W. Sedwick
July 28, 1982
Page 2
Discussions of impacts during operations and maintenance, water
quality issues, and loss of alternative uses have been incorporated into
the final report text. Furthermore, ADEC concerns regarding fish and
game resources have also been addressed in the final report text and in
the attached letters to USFWS.
Thank you again for your consideration and timely input. The
Power Authority looks forward to a successful working relationship with
the Department of Natural Resources in bringing these projects forward.
Should you have further questions, please contact myself or
~1r. Don Baxter of my staff.
~s:-~J)
Executive Director
Attachments as noted
UEI11 .\Ul"Ut·::vr OF FISII .-\ ,., (~·\ :na-:
April 14, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
OFFICE Olfrf~qt{~~'Y;I{f!
SAN FRANCISCO
lWR_ MBH_
RNJ-N RR-
PEP_ en OJC
C'") -new_--ocR
0 -GVG-e..;: JWM_
:.ICB-0:: WFA_
RWM_ 0... OIC
<::t -m_ HMB_
BC-RWE_
t\Mlil-REI_
cro_ GAL._
Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Gentlemen:
JAYS. HAM MONO, GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 3·2000
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802
PHONE: 465-4100
A E G E IV t.: D.
Pou>en ~ llitlf'~trr /.IJ.Sif....a. ;,~;;n • .J•· -:1
Re: Feasibility Studies for King Cove Hydroelectric Project, Old Harbor
Hydroelectric Project, larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project and
Reconnaissance Study for Togiak Hydroelectric Project
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the subject documents
and generally concurs with the contents. There are, however, s~veral
informational needs and statutory requirements that need to be addressed.
These are outlined within the enclosed specific comments.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~
Ronald 0. Skoog
Commissioner
cc: C. Yanagawa
R. logan
li
I I
!
II
r
' i
' !fi •
li
I
l
II
&! I
t•l .l
""
..
...
...
..
Volume B -Feasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project -Draft Report
SECTION X -ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Fisheries
Page X-2, para. 3
Alaska Statute 16.05.840 requires that, if the Commissioner feels it
necessary, dams be fitted with fishways and devices for passage of fish.
This may necessitate a minimum flow release thrqugh the stream reach below
the diversion weir .
SECTION XI -PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONS
B. PROJECT LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Page XI-1, general comment
Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to
AS 16.05.840 as follows:
"Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it
necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a
stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person
with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passag~ for
downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a
practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the
commissioner approves, for which plans and specifica-
tions shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The
fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a
sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it.
(Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)."
A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840.
SECTION XII -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. RECOHI4ENDATION
Page XII-1, general comments
We recommend that a determination of a minimum flow requirement to pass fish
between the weir and powerhouse be made. Knowledge of this figure and its
impact on power production will aid in making the determination of necessity
to provide fish passage relative to AS 16.05.840.
APPENDIX E -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
D. FISHERIES
Page 8, para. 1 & 2, page 9, para. 1
I
' r
r
' u.
l
I
I
I
'
...
r•
••
"f ....
We question the accuracy of some of the statements regarding substrate sizes
and other optimum spawning conditions, including those obtained from the
ADF&G 1978, Fisheries Atlas. Some work has already been conducted and other
is ongoing regarding development of species suitability curves for several
river systems in Alaska. While it should be recognized that-curves
developed for species in one system cannot be directly applied to those in
another, they may be used in making qualified generalizations .
G. FISHERIES IMPACTS
Page 13, para. 3
Any habitat improvement accrued by retention of sediments will be negated by
loss or absence of flow.
H. FISHERY MITIGATION
Page 14 & 15, general comments
The fisheries mitigation section fails to address measures other than
reduction of sedimentation. Other impacts such as loss of habitat in
dewatered streams reaches and impediment to fish migration must also be
addressed.
M. WILDLIFE MITIGATION
Page 24, para. 7
The 330 foot buffer cited here is a USFS reconmendation for minimum
separation for falling of trees. In instances where there is flexibility to
locate camps, material sites, etc. at a distance greater than 330 feet, we
recommend it be done. In addition, we suggest a minimum separation of 500
feet and strongly discourage siting within one-quarter mile.
With respect to aircraft separation, we recommend 1500 feet separation
for helicopters and 500 feet for fixed wing craft.
Pages 24, general comments
The wildlife mitigation section fails to address mitigation measures related
to restoration of material sites, abandoned camp sites and utilization of
transmission lines designed to minimize large raptor electrocution.
U. PERMITTING REQUIRH1ENTS
Pages 28-29, general comments
Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to
AS 16.05.840 as follows:
11 Sec. 16.05.840. Fish\vay required. If the commissioner considers it
necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a
stream frequented by sal~on or other fish shall be provided by that person
with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for
downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a
I
r
r
r
' i
'
•
' I
I
I
,.
.. ,
.,.
...
. '
• j
. '
practical and effective manner in the place, fonn and capacity the
commissioner approves, for which plans and specifica-
tions shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The
fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a
sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it.
{Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)."
A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840 .
V. RECOMHENOATIONS
Page 31, general comments
We recommend that a determination of a minimum flow requirement to pass fish
between the weir and powerhouse be made. Knowledge of this figure and its
impact on power production will and in making the determination of necessity
to provide fish passage.
Volume C-Feasibility Study for Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project -Draft Report·
SECTION X -ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Page X-2, 1. Fisheries
· Was any effort expended towards sampling for fish between the powerhouse and
diversion weir site and above to ascertain use by fish? If not (as can be
concluded from the report), there is no way to predict the consequences of
habitat lost through dewatering or the impact of impeding fish migrations.
Page X-2, 2. Wildlife
Bear confrontations are likely to be the most serious wildlife consequence
of the project. Confrontations \'JOuld be most likely from August through
October when bear are feeding on salmon in Big Creek. If construction were
executed other than in this time period, likelihood of this problem would be
considerably reduced. Precautions with disposal of garbage and other food
scraps (lunches, etc.) during construction will also reduce the potential
for bear problems.
Owing to the large number of bald eagles in the area, transmission line
designs which minimize large raptor electrocution must be e~ployed.
SECTION XI PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
B. PROJECT LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Page XI-1, general comment
Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to
AS 16.05.840 as follows:
I
r
r
r
•
,...
..
'If
' l
l
I
'
"'
,.,
.. '
" . ...
...
"Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it
necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a
stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person
with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for
downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be-maintained in a
practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the
commissioner approves, for which plans and specifi-
cations shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The
fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a
sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it.
(Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)."
A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840.
SECTION XII -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. REC0!-1MENDATIONS
Page XII-1, general comments
We recommend that it be determined whether fish utilize that portion of the
stream that will be dewatered below the weir for either residence or as a
migration route. If it is used for either or both, a fishway and/or minimum
release may be required.
APPENDIX E -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
D. FISHERIES
Page 4-6 general comments
I
' r
r
We question the accuracy of some of the statements regarding substrate sizes ~
6,
and other optimum spawning conditions, including those obtained from the • AOF&G 1978, Fisheries Atlas. Some work has already been conducted and other ~
is ongoing regarding development of species suitability curves for several
river systems in Alaska. While it should be recognized that curves
developed for species in one system cannot be directly applied to those in
another, they may be used in making qualified generalizations.
H. FISHERY MITIGATION
Page 9 & 10, general comments
The fisheries mitigation section fails to address measures other than
reduction of sedimentation. Other impacts such as loss of habitat in
dewatered streams reaches and impediments to fish migration must also be
addressed.
M. WILDLIFE MITIGATION
Page 22, para. 1
The 330 foot buffer cited here is a USFS recommendation for minimum
I
I
separation for falling of trees. In instances where there is flexibility to '
•
..
• >
. '
.. '
locate camps, material site, etc. at a distance ~eater than 330 feet, we
recommend it be done. In addition, we suggest a minimum separation of 500
feet and strongly discourage siting within one-quarter mile.
With respect to aircraft separation, we recommend 1500 feet separation
for helicopters and 500 feet for fixed wing craft.
Pages 21 & 22, general comments
The wildlife mitigation section fails to address mitigation measures related
to restoration of material sites, abandoned camp sites and utilization of
transmission lines designed to minimize large raptor electrocution .
U. PER~IITTING REQUIREMENTS
Pages 26-28, general comment
Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to
AS 16.05.840 as follows:
11 Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it
necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a
stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person
with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for
downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a
practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the
commissioner approves, for which plans and specifi-
cations shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The
fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a
sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through
{Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)."
A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840.
V. RECOMMENDATiONS
Page 28, general comments
We recommend that it be determined whether fish utilize that portion of the
stream that will be dewatered below the weir for either residence or as a
migration route. If it is used for either or both a fishway and/or minimum
release may be required.
VolumeD-Feasibility Study for Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project-Draft Report
SECTION X -ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Fisheries
r
r
•
•
-
-
•
•
••
" .
.. '
..
Page X-3, para. 3
Alaska Statute 16.05.840 requires that, if the Commissioner feels it
necessary, dams be fitted with fishways and devices for passage of fish.
This may necessitate a minimum flow release through the stream reach below
the diversion weir.
Dolly Varden are identified as being trout. They are chars.
SECTION XI -PROJECT U1PLEHENTATION
B. PROJECT LICEt\SES, PERNITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Page XI-1, general comment
Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to
AS 16.05.840 as follows:
"Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it
necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a
stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person
with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for
downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a
practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the
commissioner approves, for which plans and specifica-
tions shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The.
fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a
sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it.
(Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)."
A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840.
SECTION XI I -CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. RECOMMENDATION
Page XII-1, general comments
r
•
•
We recommend that a determination of a minimum flow requirement to pass fish ~
between the weir and powerhouse be made. Knowledge of this figure and its
impact on power production will aid in making the deterMination of necessity
I
to provide fish passage relative to AS 16.05.840.
APPENDIX E -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
D. FISHERIES
Page 5, general comments
An assessment of the fisheries resources present between the weir and
powerhouse should be made to determine the necessity of maintaining a
minimum flow and the advisability of constructing fish passage structures.
Page 6, para. 1-3
•
•
•
"'
...
...
.,. '
...
'" '
We question the accuracy of some of the statements regarding substrate sizes
and other optimum spawning conditions, including those obtained from the
ADF&G 1978, Fisheries Atlas. Some work has already been conducted and other
is ongoing regarding development of species suitability curves for several
river systems in Alaska. While it should be recognized that-curves
developed for species in one system cannot be directly applied to those in
another, they may be used in making qualified generalizations.
G. FISHERIES IMPACTS
Page 7, general comments
The presence of the weir and lack of flow will impede fish passage
throughout the affected reach.
H. FISHERY MITIGATION
Page 9 & 10, general comments
The fisheries mitigation section fails to address measures other than
reduction of sedimentation. Other impacts such as loss of habitat in
dewatered stream reaches and impediment to fish migration must also be
addressed.
M. WILDLIFE MITIGATION
Page 22, para. 7
r
The 330 foot buffer cited here is a USFS recommendation for minimum r
separation for falling of trees. In instances where there is flexibility tor
locate camps, material sites, etc. at a distance greater than 330 feet, we
recommend it be done. In addition, we suggest a minimum separation of 500 ' feet and strongly discourage siting within one-quarter mile.· •
With respect to aircraft separation we recommend 1500 feet separation P
for helicopters and 500 feet for fixed wing craft.
Pages 24, general comments
The wildlife mitigation section fails to address mitigation measures related"
to restoration of material sites, abandoned camp sites and utilization of
transmission lines designed to minimize large raptor electrocution.
U. PERMITTING REQU I REt-1ENTS
Pages 26-29, general comments
Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to
AS 16.05.840 as follows:
11 Sec. 16.05.840. Fish\<~ay required. If the commissioner considers it
necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a
stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person •
" with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficien~ passage for •
downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a
' "' i
.. practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the
commissioner approves, for which plans and specifica-
tions shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The
fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a
sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it.
(Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)."
A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840.
V. RECor"r~ENDATI ONS
Page 31, general comments
We recommend that a determination of a minimum flow requirement to pass fish
between the weir and powerhouse be made. Knowledge of this figure and its
impact on power production will aid in making the determination of necessity
to provide fish passage relative to AS 16.05.840.
Volume E
Reconnaissance Study for Togiak Hydroelectric Project -Draft Report
SECTION VI -ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
Page VI-5, 5. Fish Ladder
In addition to provisions to pass fish upstream consideration must be given
to a means of providing passage of dovmstream migrants (fry, smolts and
resident fish) without incurring significant mortalities. In many
•
• instances, fish are unable to survive passage through turbines. In response ,.
to this problem, a number of devices such as traveling screens and baffled ~
intakes have been developed.
SECTION X -ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
Page X-1, para. 2
With respect to recommendations for additional study, the upstream effects
of the impoundment on salmon and resident spawning and rearing habitat need
to be addressed. We also assume that downstream impacts to all salmon and
resident species will be addressed.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Page X-3, para. 1
Dolly Varden are referred to as trout, they are char.
Page X-4, para. 1
...
...
. '
...
Although it is generally known that chum salmon spawning is heaviest in the
lower one-half of the Quigmy River, distribution of all salmon species
should be verified in subsequent studies. This is an important factor when
determining requirements for minimum flows. In addition, it is recognized
that chum salmon typically spawn in areas of groundwater upweiling. If this
can be verified in the Quigmy River, it may have great significance
respective to flow release for fisheries .
SECTION XI -PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
B. DEFINITIVE PROJECT REPORT
Page Xl-3, 5. Hydrology
Statement is made that estimates are based on data from areas 75 to 150 feet
distant. Perhaps the distance is actually 75 to 150 miles .
D. PROJECT LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Page Xl-6, 3. ADF&G Permits
Statement is made that a Habitat Protection Permit is required for
Delta Creek. Should this refer to Quigmy River instead?
Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to
I
AS 16.05.840 as follows:
11 Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it
r
r
necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a •
stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person
with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for
downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be-maintained in a ~
practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the ~
commissioner approves, for which plans and specifi-~
cations shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The
fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a
sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it.
(Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959).11
A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840.
APPENDIX E -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
0.1. Spawning
Page 11, para. 2
Optimum stream velocity for coho salmon is cited as being 3-4 cubic feet per
.c,. .. second (cfs). This is a discharge quantity rather than one of velocity.
Page 12, para. 1
Dolly Varden are properly referred to as char rather than trout. •
•
,.,
.. "
...
.. '
Page 11 & 12, general comments
We question the accuracy of some of the statements regarding substrate sizes
and other optimum spawning condition, including those obtained from the
ADF&G 1978 Fisheries Atlas. Some work has already been conducted and other
is ongoing regarding development of species suitability curves for several
systems in Alaska. While it should be recognized that curves developed for
a species in one system cannot be directly applied to those in another, they
may be used in making qualified generalizations .
I. FISHERIES IMPACTS
Page 21, para. 3
There may be streambed morphology changes associated with the project due to
attenuation of some flood events and lack of material recruitment from
reaches above the dam.
J. FISHERY MITIGATION
Page 22, para. 2
Is the inference here that improving the road as little as possible will
reduce the erosion potential? If so, we believe this to be an erroneous
conclusion. A maintained gravel surface of adequate dimensions will produce
far fewer fines than an unimproved surface.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE-ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Ronald Skoog
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 3-2000
Juneau, AK 99802
July 28, 1982
Phone: (907) 277 · 7641
(907) 276·0001
Subject: Feasibility Studies for King Cove Hydroelectric project,
Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Larsen Bay Hydroelectric
Project and Reconnaissance Study for Togiak Hydroelectric
Project
Dear Commissioner Skoog:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 14, 1982 and the
subsequent meeting of April 28, 1982 discussing AOF&G's concerns about
the above referenced projects. Note that this meeting included several
representatives from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as well as our
consultant, DOWL Engineers. We appreciate the constructive nature of
the comments and the time members of your staff spent in review and
discussion of these projects.
GENERAL COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO KING COVE, OLD HARBOR AND LARSEN BAY ARE:
The Habitat Protection Permit required by Section 16.05.840,
Fishway required, has been included in the list of permit
requirements. (Volume B, XI-2 and page 29, Appendix E; Volume C,
XI-2 and page 27, Appendix E; VolumeD, XI-2 and page 27, Appendix
E).
The ADF&G 1978, Fisheries Atlas was and is used at this time by
DOWL biologists as a basic reference for fisheries spawning
conditions. References provided by your staff and others relative
to on-going work in the development of species suitability curves
will be utilized for any future work at the project sites and
certainly in future projects to augment the basic information
currently available in the Fisheries Atlas for making qualified
generalizations for each river system.
o ADF&G's recommendations concerning minimum separation from active
bald eagle nests have been incorporated into the text (Volume B,
Appendix E, page 24; Volume C, Appendix E, page 22; and Volume D,
Appendix E, page 22).
o Restoration of material sites and abandoned camp sites has been
addressed in the final report (Volume B, Appendix E, pages 16 and
24; Volume C, Appendix E, page 21; Volume D, Appendix E, page ).
I
I
I
I
r
r
•
' I
I
I
I
r•
.. '
. '
Commissioner Ronald Skoog
July 28, 1982
Page 2
o Utilization of transmission lines designed to minimize large raptor
electrocution has been included as a mitigation me~sure (Volume B,
Appendix E, page 24; Volume C, Appendix E, page 22; Volume D,
Appendix E, page 22).
COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO KING COVE:
Page XII-1; Appendix E, p. 14, 15, & 31
Delta Creek
Mean annual flow is 24 cfs for a dr~inage area of 3.63 square miles
resulting in a unit runoff of 6.6 cfs/mi . Drainage area between the
proposed dam site and powerhouse is 0.4 square miles. Sizing for
turbine generator is set at the 15 percent exceedance point which
corresponds to a flow of 44 cfs in the flow duration curve for
Delta Creek. This is the maximum turbine design flow. Any flows in
excess of design flow will be routed through the diversion weir spillway
and will flow into the stream channel below the dam. Flows less than
the maximum design flow will be completely diverted into the penstock.
This may result in short reaches of Delta Creek devoid of any observable
streamflow just below the dam although the tributaries and the
groundwater seepage from the valley slopes will maintain some estimated
minimum flows (less than 2 cfs) in most of that stream channel between
the dam site and the powerhouse. A flow duration curve is provided to
indicate the percent of time that streamflow in excess of maximum
turbine design flow (44 cfs) will be let go through an unregulated
spillway. See comments on Appendix E, page 13, below, for additional
discussion .
Appendix E, page 13, para. 3. Habitat improvement accrued by
retention of sediments: DOWL feels that sufficient flow from
groundwater and small tributaries will allow maintenance of resident
populations and that the decreased velocity and sediment load will
improve the available habitat. Additional field work to be performed by
DOWL Engineers in 1982 will address the actual utilization of the upper
portions of the system and minimal flow requirements between the weir
and powerhouse locations, as well as potential hatitat loss.
During our meeting of April 28, 1982 two concerns were stressed by
ADF&G: (1) provision of sufficient flows between the diversion weir and
the powerhouse to maintain the existing Dolly Varden population
(addressed previously in this letter) and (2) insurance of some
transport of sediment from above the diversion weir back into the stream
channel below the weir to provide for recruitment of spawning gravels.
DOWL feels that this would be possible but would require considerable
investigation to assume compliance with DEC wa·ter quality standards .
Commissioner Ronald Skoog
July 28, 1982
Page 3
COr1MENTS SPECIFIC TO OLD HARBOR:
Page X-2, I & XII-1. Fisheries: Location of trap sites. Two
traps were set above the proposed powerhouse location. The report has
been corrected to reflect this effort (Appendix E, page 6).
Page X-2, 2. Wildlife: bear confrontations. Assuming no
unexpected delays, it should be possible to avoid construction for most
if not all of the time when bear concentrations will be present.
Precautions will be taken with the handling of garbage to avoid
attracting bears (Appendix E, page 21).
Appendix E, pages 9, 10, & 28.
The drainage area for Midway Creek above the proposed diversion
weir is 2.2 square mile~. Mean annual flow for this drainage are~ is
estimated to be 10.5 ft /sec resulting in a unit runoff of 4.8 ft /sec/mi 2.
The drainage area for that reach of the creek between the diversion weir
and powerhouse is computed to be 0.08 square miles. From this small
drainage basin, the creek could drain on an annual basis some 0.4 ft 3/sec
of water.
Sources of streamflow below the proposed diversion site will
include:
o a significant tributary draining a small area to the east and
discharging 200-300 feet downstream of the proposed diversion weir.
o ground-water seepage from the valley slopes into the creek.
o seepage from the diversion weir.
o runoff from the valley slopes during snowmelt and rainstorm events.
!he turbine generator is sized for a maximum design flow of
19 ft /sec and any surplus will spill over the diversion weir during
periods of high flows.
It is conceivable that short reaches of Midway Creek just below the
diversion weir may be devoid of surface flow certain periods during the
year, (e.g. late winter low-flow periods). However, the streambed will
most likely remain saturated even during low flow periods and may
contain shallow ground water flow in the coarse bed materials. Some
loss of habitat for resident Dolly Varden could occur during these
periods.
I
I
I
I
r
r
•
1
I
I
I
I
I
...
•
..
.. ,
oL.
.. "
Commissioner Ronald Skoog
July 28, 1982
Page 4
COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO LARSEN BAY:
Page X-3, para. 3. Dolly Varden: corrected.
Page 5, Appendix E. Fisheries resources above the powerhouse. The
minnow trap set above the existing dam and proposed powerhouse captured
one Dolly Varden. Additional trapping may be done in the future in
connection with on-going hydrologic studies .
As discussed in our meeting of April 28, 1982, consideration will
be given to removal of the old dam as a possible mitigation for the
current project impacts.
Page XII-1, Recommendation, Page VII-1, Appendix E, page 7,9, 10,
and 31.
The drainage area for Humpy Creek above the proposed diversion weir
is 6.28 square miles. ~ean annual flow for this drainage area is 3 estimated to be 13.0 ft /sec resulting in a unit runoff of 2.1 ft /sec .
The drainage area for that reach of the creek between the diversion weir
and powerhouse is computed to be 0.09 squ~re miles. The creek within
this reach could potentially drain 0.2 ft /sec on a mean annual basis
although this estimate is considered conservative due to the excess
streamflows which must be spilled over the diversion weir during periods
of high flows .
Sources of streamflow for that reach of the creek between the
diversion weir and powerhouse include:
o Considerable ground-water seepage from the narrow valley slopes.
o Several rivulets and overland flow channels on the left valley
banks.
o Runoff from the valley slopes during snowmelt and rainstorm events.
o Seepage from the diversion weir.
Th3 turbine generator is sized for a maxim~m design flow of
23.8 ft /sec. Streamflows in excess of 23.8 ft /sec will spill over the
diversion weir during periods of high surface flows.
It is conceivable that short reaches of Humpy Creek below the
diversion weir may go dry during periods of minimum flow-late winter and
early spring. However, the streambed itself is expected to remain
saturated throughout the year. Some loss of habitat for resident
Dolly Varden could occur during these periods.
Commissioner Ronald Skoog
July , 1982
Page 5
COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO TOGIAK:
Please note that the work at Togiak was intended to be only at the
reconnaissance level. It was previously indicated that additional
studies would be required including a detailed analysis of potential
impacts and possible mitigation but that these studies would only occur
if the project were to be taken into a more detailed feasibility study.
Resource agencies would be invited to participate in seeping these
additional studies if this were to occur. Due to the apparent marginal
economic feasibility of this project, we feel that any discussion of
additional studies at this time is certainly premature. In fact, some
consideration is being given to a location on the Kurtluk River.
Page VI-5, para 5. Fish ladder. OOWL's recommendation has been
altered to more clearly state this need (Appendix E, page 46).
Page X-1, para 2. No discussion on additional studies.
Page X-3, para 1. Corrected.
Page X-4, para 1. No discussion.
Page XI-3, para 5. Hydrology corrected.
Page X I -6, para 3. ADF&G Permits corrected.
Appendix E, page 11. Corrected.
Appendix E, page 12. Corrected.
Appendix E, page 11 and 12, general comments. See discussion under
comments on King Cove, Old Harbor and Larsen Bay.
Appendix E, page 21, para 3. True. The potential changes have been
mentioned. Should this project be funded, additional studies and
discussion would occur.
Page 22, para 2. That statement was deleted.
Pages 22, 36, and 37, general comments. Note the opening statement
to this section.
Thank you again for your timely response and yo'ur agencies
comments. We look forward to a successful working relationship with the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game in bringing the King Cove, Old Harbor
and Larsen Bay Projects forward.
cc: C. Yanagawa, ADF&G
R. Logan, AOF&G
Sincerely\) ~
. ~'' ~ Er1c P. Yould
Executive Director
I
I
I
r
r
r
1
I
I
I
I
I
......
Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau. AlaskiJ 99802
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Nr. Yould:
RECEIVt;O
t.?R 1 9 1982
April 15, 1982
These are our notes on the studies for King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay,
and Togiak hydro projects. We found the studies to be very complete and
well done. They certainly rank among the best we have recently reviewed.
We agree with the conclusion and recommendations that actions be
initiated to implement projects at King Cove, Old Harbor, and Larsen Bay.
A 11 of the projects except La"rsen Bay are based on synthesized hydro 1 ogy
which should be carefully reviewed bef01·e a construction commitment is
made. Even Larsen Bay data is very minimal with one year record. As th2
studies acknowledge, significant local micro climates exist throughout
the region, especially on Kodiak Island.
we question whether or not energy could be sold for electric heat at the
same price as electric energy for other purposes, especially when
compared to the present and projected costs of oil.
We also question the space heating efficiency rates used from heating
oil. The reports are using 70 percent efficiency. From our experience
and other recent reports, 60 percent may be a more realistic figure for
planning purposes.
For Larsen Bay, will the high growth rate occur even with new HUD houses
in light of the cannery being closed? A couple small items--pas;e IV
the 22kWh/ga1. should be 11 kWh/gal. and on line 5, page IV-9 of the
Draft Report--"rlay, 1978" should be "January, 1980 11
•
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely, / ~~/LL..
~Robert J. Cross Tv ... Admini strutor
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Robert J. Cross
Administrator
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99802
July 28, 1982
SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports of Hydroelectric Projects
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
at King Cove, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor; Draft Reconnaissance
Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak.
Dear Mr. Cross:
I
I
r
r
r
Thank you for your letter of April 15th regarding the above
referenced reports. The following letter addresses issues and answers ~
questions contained in your letter. We appreciate the participation and ~
timely input of you and your staff in reviewing the draft reports.
Our responses to your comments are included below:
Paragraph III
Although we feel fairly comfortable with the synthesized hydrology
which resulted in close correlations utilizing three independent methods,
there is no substitute for actual field measurements over an extended period
of time. A stream gaging program has been initiated, and will continue
indefinitely on streams recommended for weir construction. Each project
will be re-evaluated based upon updated hydrology resulting from stream
gage recordings prior to making any construction commitment. Such a
commitment could occur as earlly as spring, 1983, at which time over one
full year of stream gage data would be available.
Paragraph IV
In this type of analysis, the dollars relate only to the value of
the oil that is displaced, and not to the projected sales price of the energy.
Paragraph V
Since this analysis relates to the value of displaced oil, using 70%
as a heating efficiency is a more conservative assumption than using
60~6. 70% assumes that 1 ess oil is used and hence a 1 ower quantity of
oil would be displaced by hydropower.
I
I
I
l
'
' -~
.. ;
Paragraph VI
Demand forecasts are difficult to make, however, we believe that we
have made a reasonable estimate. See text for the other suggested
changes.
Thank you again for your comments and timely input. Should
you have further questions regarding these projects, please contact
myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff.
c;•r~ly,_
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
United States Departn1ent of the Interior
11\: REPLY REFER TO
HA?.S
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attn: Don Baxter
Dear ~1r. Yould:
FISH Ai"D \\'!LDLlll: Sl:R\'ICL
lUll E TLDOR RD.
ANCHORAGF, ALASKA 9':J503
[90iJ T6-3SOO
l5 APR lS82
RECEIVED
.r r')R 2 2 1982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Re: Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility Study
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F1lS) has reviewed the above referenced
draft report submitted by DO'rlL Engineers. It is our intent in the following
co~~ents and recommendations to: l) provide information which will enable
you to avoid or minimize fish and wildlife losses associated with the
project; 2) identify information needs which are necessar..r for objective
project planning and decision-making; and 3) identify those concerns which,
if adequately addressed, would make the project acceptable to us, and
determine our response to anticipated Federal permits and/or licenses
associated with this project.
General comments:
In general, we find the conclusion of project feasibility based almost
entirely on economic and engineering information.
We feel the credibility of this conclusion could be greatly enhanced by
comprehensively addressing the following issues:
l)
2)
3)
Significantly expanding your data base regarding fish and wildlife
use (populations) and habitat.
The identification and incorporation of appropriate mitigation
measures (clearly developed from the data base in #1).
Diversifying the types and scope of alternative electrical power
production systems.
Specific comments follO>ol':
Section I, p. 5 --The $5.1 million net project cost includes no additional
costs for terrestrial habitat studies and/or mitigative
measures.
I
I
r
r
r
'
fl..,,
' '
l
I
I
I
'
· Sect~on I, p. 6 --Additional studies to quantify the ro~d and trans~ission
corridor's impact on small furbearers, large mammal, and
birds will be needed.
Section II, p.S --While the fish and wildlife studies to date have not
identified any "environmental constraints which might
prohibit project development," they were not quanti-
tative enough for regulatory agencies to use as a basis
for mitigation and replacement measures.
Section X, p. 2 --Spawning gravels below the weir should be mapped and use
by one or more fish species should be confirmed.
Additional fisheries studies and mitigation measures based
on those studies will be needed.
Section X, p. 3 --Habitat maps for bear, deer, beaver, other furbearers, and
raptors should be generated. The area and values of each
should then be ascertained and used as a basis for
mitigation/replacement.
Section X, p. 4 --Assessment of impacts only mentions construction
disturbances. With a dock, road, and transmission
right-of-way offering easy access to wildlife habitats for
the life of the project, disturbance of vegetation and
sensitive animal species by three-wheelers, additional
hunting and trapping, and general habitat alteration
associated with increased human use will occur. The
decrease in value of surrounding habitats (particularly
for sensitive species) should be addressed, quantified,
and mitigated. Technical assistance from resource
agencies will be needed for this analysis; the FWS's
Habitat Evaluation Procedures or some comparable
methodology should be used.
Section XII, p. 1 We cannot yet agree with the conclusion that the pro ct
will have no major temporary or long term impacts.
Additional data to determine present and projected
terrestrial habitat values are needed. If losses in value
occur, a mitigation plan will need to be devised.
Summary comments:
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation policy, the fish and
wildlife in the Old Harbor vicinity fall into Resource Category 3, which
means habitats are of high to medium value to the species there, and habitats
are abundant. The corresponding mitigation planning goal for Resource
Category 3 is no net loss of habitat value, while minimizing the loss of
in-kind habitat value. Our future actions regarding various Federal permit
· and-license applications will be to ensure that fish and wildlife resources
in the project area are adequately described, that all significant impacts to
those resources are identified, and that all adverse impacts are mitigated to
reach our goal of no net loss.
We look forward to continuing working with the Alaska Power Authority and
providing technical assistance in the planning stages of this project. Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the report.
sr;cerely. ~~J~I)rr. hl)
~~Regional Director
cc: Fi.JS-ROES, WAES
ADF&G, 1-.~fFS, ADEC, OCM, Juneau
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage
r
r
r
r
'
&.
' I
I
I
'
"'
.. "
..
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Keith Schreiner
Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
July 30, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
Subject: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at
King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay; Draft Reconnaissance
Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak.
Dear Mr. Schreiner:
This letter has been prepared in response to Mr. Gerald Reid 1 S
letters of April 14 and April 15, 1982, regarding the above referenced
projects. We appreciate your timely input and your staff•s
participation in several agency meetings relating to these projects.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
At our request, DOWL Engineers (DOWL) has carefully reviewed the
letters and has responded to your comments, many of which were quite
constructive. However, the general comments and closing paragraphs of
the letters appear to be in a format and of a nature that sets a
generalized U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy for all
hydroelectric projects, does not take into account the presence of
existing data or local knowledge that is site specific, and assumes that
all hydroelectric projects cause or have the potential to cause similar
losses in fish and wildlife resources, habitat or both. It should also
be noted that personal contact was made with refuge personnel and staff
members of your Ecological Services several times over the course of the
studies and that in addition to these contacts, two formal agency
meetings were held to consider the implications of the projects. The
draft reports were not prepared without the input of knowledgeable field
personnel from both USFWS and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G). Additionally, the nature and size of the projects must be
considered in any such evaluation, as well as consideration of the site
specific determinants.
Further, DOWL met on April 28, 1982, with representatives from your
office and ADF&G to discuss the project on a site specific basis. In
part, the specific comments provided below reflect the results of that
meeting.
Keith Schreiner
July 28, 1982
Page 2
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
King Cove:
Section I, Page 5. Based on other comments provided below, the possible
cost of additional studies and mitigation measures is considered minor.
The space heating credit is taken only for the dollar value of the
heating oil being displaced. Deductions from this credit were taken as
you have indicated they should have been.
Section 1, page 6. Several additional field trips are planned to
confirm the comment noted under Appendix E, page 5.
Section IV, page 1. The hydrological data you noted is currently being
collected. Preliminary winter streamflow data collected on Delta Creek
appear to indicate that the measured flows utilized for energy
generation are consistent with the estimates in the hydropower
feasibility report. This conclusion is based on limited periodic
discharge measurements, which will be used to develop rating curves for
this creek as part of a one-year long stream gaging effort. Continuous
streamflow data are being collected and will be made available as soon
as the field study is completed. The range of estimated winter flows
(December through April) utilized for energy generation and the observed
flows are as follows:
Estimated flow range: 8.8 to 14.5 cfs
Observed flow range: 16 to 20 cfs
It should be noted that that range of observed flows may change slightly
as stream stage records are analyzed on the basis of completed rating
curves. Spillage and projected discharges will be a function of final
design.
Section VI, page 12. This will be accomplished following the collection
of the one year of actual discharge data.
Section VI, ~age 16. Schedules for cleaning and alternative methods of ·
disposal wil be considered during final design and in determining
operational procedures. The expected decrease in turbidity and sediment
loads will in general enhance downstream conditions.
Section VII, Sage 4. The demand analysis presented has been
standardizedy APA for comparison of all hydroelectric projects and is
thought to be realistic. The Power Authority's purview does not extend
to denying rural Alaskans an improvement in their standard of living
through the availability of reliable, stable-priced power.
Appendix E, pa1e 5. Surveys of Delta Creek have been taken on a yearly
basis for the ast 21 years by experienced ADF&G observers. Surveys are
flown close to the normal time of peak spawning, so as to obtain maximum
escapement counts.
' !
r
r
'
•
1
I
' ' '
. '
"'
Keith Schreiner
July 28, 1982
Page 3
The fisheries resources and upward extent of salmon spawning in
Delta Creek were discussed with Arnie Shawl, the ADF&G fisheries
biologist in Cold Bay, on three occasions and with several long time
local residents. All were in agreement that pink salmon in the project
area spawn in a tributary below the airport, and that chum salmon rarely
reach the airport area, and have never been seen above it. No other
species of salmon have been observed in or above the airport area.
Little local information was available on silver salmon but ADF&G
biologists did not believe that the run was very large or that spawning
occurred very far above the extent of tidal influence. With the close
proximity of the stream to the airport and the amount of recreational
activity occurring at or near the airport, it seems unlikely that
silvers would be present in any numbers (especially in a stream near a
community of commercial fishermen), with the local residents not being
aware of it.
Appendix E, page 8. Field investigations will be conducted in 1982 to
confirm the upper limits of chum, pink, and coho spawning, as noted
above (Comment on Section I, page 5).
Appendix E, page 14. The studies suggested appear to be unnecessary
based on site specific knowledge of the potential for losses due to this
project. If a significant number of coho salmon were to be found above
the project site, then appropriate mitigation measures would be included
in the final design.
Through interviews and discussions with local residents, local city
administrators, ADF&G biologists, staff members from Ecological Services
and the input from several site visits, existing knowledge of wildlife
and fisheries resources in the project area was incorporated into the
report.
With the exception of the confirmation of the upper limits of
spawning and the completion of the collection of the hydrological data
previously discussed, no additional environmental studies for this site
are contemplated.
Old Harbor:
Section I, page 5. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project does not appear
to warrant additional terrestrial habitat studies and/or mitigative
measures that could not be accomplished within the estimated project
cost.
Section I, ~age 6. The road is one half mile long and will be built
primarily t rough a sparse meadow community (with very little topsoil on
mostly alluvial deposits). The transmission line is 3 miles long and
crosses Big Creek. This crossing does present the potential for
collision by waterfowl that utilize the area. Appendix E, Sections I
through M, of the Feasibility Study, discussed wildlife utilization
impacts and mitigation in an adequate level for this study.
Keith Schreiner
July 28, 1982
Page 4
Section II, page 5. During the recent meeting with ADF&G and USF&WS
personnel, it was generally agreed that consideration of mitigative and
replacement measures were premature for the Old Harbor Project and that
the fish and wildlife studies to date are sufficient for the present
level of project evaluation.
Section X, page 2. Good spawning gravel occurs only on the alluvial
fan. The remainder of the stream is steep and rocky. Above the weir,
the gradient flattens out and the gravel is potentially good for
spawning. However, it is doubtful many fish, particularly pink salmon,
would make it to this portion of the stream.
Section X, pages 3 & 4; Section XII, page 1. The small size and limited
potential impacts of this project do not warrant the extensive studies
outlined.
Enclosed with this letter is a reply to specific questions raised
in a memorandum dated Aprtl 16, 1982 from the acting Refuge Manager,
Kodiak NWR, to the staff of the Western Alaska Ecological Services,
which provides further site specific information.
Through interviews and discussions with local residents, ADF&G
biologists, Kodiak NWR personnel, staff members from Ecological Services
and the input from numerous site visits, existing knowledge of wildlife
in the project area was incorporated into the report. This level of
information appears sufficient for project evaluation at this time.
Larsen Bay:
Section I, paae 5. The Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project does not appear
to warrant ad itional environmental studies and/or mitigative measures
that could not be accomplished within the estimated project cost.
Section X, ~a~e 1. Due to the location of the existing cannery dam and
the marginaabitat existing between the proposed diversion weir and
the dam, it appears that fish passage structures would not be required.
Section X, page 3. The typographical error concerning Dolly Varden Char
has been corrected.
As noted above, fish habitat above the existing cannery site dam is
marginal with a bedrock and boulder substrate, no pools, and very little
quiet water. At this time, the possible upper limit for pink salmon
spawning is the face of the cannery dam. However, as can be seen from
the photo provided on Page 8 of Appendix E, conditions for about
100 yards below the dam are marginal for spawning.
The drainage area for Humpy Creek above the proposed diversion weir
is 6.28 square miles. ~ean annual flow for this drainage area is
estima~ed to b2 13.0 ft /sec, resulting in a unit runoff of some
2.1 ft /sec/mi . The drainage area for that reach of the creek between
r • •
' ti
r
' l
'
..
•
1
I
'
•
Keith Schreiner July 28, 1982 Page 5
the diversion weir and powerhouse is computed to b3 0.09 mi 2• The creek
within this reach could potentially release 0.2 ft /sec on a mean annual
basis; although, this estimate is conservative due to excess
streamflows, which must be spilled over the diversion weir during periods
of high flow.
Sources of streamflow for the reach of creek between the diversion
weir and powerhouse include:
Ground-water seepage from the narrow valley slopes.
Several rivulets and overland flow channels on the left valley
banks.
Runoff from the valley slopes during snowmelt and rainstorm events.
Seepage from the diversion weir itself.
Al~o, the turbine generator is sized for a maxim~m design flow of
23.8 ft /sec. Stream flows in excess of this 23.8 ft /sec will spill
over the diversion weir. This situation would obviously only occur
during periods of high surface flows. Ultimately, spillage and
projected discharges will be a function of final design.
It is conceivable that short reaches of Humpy Creek below the
diversion weir may go dry during periods of minimum flow-late winter and
early spring. However, the streambed itself is expected to remain
saturated throughout the year.
Section X, ~age 4. The extent of wildlife habitat and its present use
are outline in Appendix E, pages 10 through 20. With the project area
being located in such close proximity to Larsen Bay itself, it would not
have much additional impact relative to fish and wildlife resources,
other than that which has already occurred.
Enclosed with this letter is a reply to specific questions raised
in a memorandum dated April 16, 1982 from the acting Refuge Manager,
Kodiak NWR, to the staff of the Western Alaska Ecological Services,
which provides further site specific information.
Through interviews and discussions with local residents, ADF&G
biologists, Kodiak NWR personnel, staff members from Ecological
Services, and the input from numerous site visits, existing knowledge of
wildlife in the project area was incorporated into the report. This
level of information appears sufficient for project evaluation at this
time.
Keith Schreiner
July 28, 1982
Page 6
Togiak:
Section 1, page 1. Mitigation measures such as a fish passage are
included in this cost. If this project were to receive additional
funding, further work would need to be accomplished in order to scope
both impacts and possible mitigation measures.
Section VI, page 5. A recommendation for additional studies on
techniques to insure safe passage of outmigration smolt was included in
the draft report in Appendix E, page 46. This recommendation has been
clarified to show the potential need for changes in design.
Section X, page 1 & 2. It should be pointed out that Togiak was
intended to be only a reconnaissance study. It was understood that
additional studies would be required should this project be funded. At
that time, resource agencies would be invited to participate in seeping
these additional studies. Due to the marginal feasibility of this
project, we feel that any discussion of additional studies at this time
is premature.
Section X, page 3. This change has been incorporated into the text.
Section XI, page 3. A one year program to collect stream discharge data
is presently being conducted.
Apeendix E, page 21. The potential for changes in stream morphology was
po1nted out on this page. Due to the preliminary nature of this study,
a detailed analysis of potential impacts was not necessary at this
stage. Future or continued studies of this project would discuss these
potential changes in more detail.
Appendix E, pa1e 22. Mitigation measures will be discussed in more
detail in any uture studies of this potential project.
Because of the uncertain project status in regard to the Togiak
Reconnaissance Study and because some consideration is being given to a
different location on a different river, no further environmental
activities are contemplated for Quigmy River.
r
' ....
r
r
•
I
I
' ' 1
. ,
.. ,
Keith Schreiner
July ?.8, 1982
Page 7
Thank you again for your consideration and timely input. The
Power Authority looks forward to a successful working relationship with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in bringing this project forward.
Enclosures:
C?.
Eric P. Yould "-\
Executive Director
USFWS memo of April 16, 1982
APA reply of July 28 to the above memo
cc: FWS-ROES, WAES
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, OCM, Juneau
ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage
'·
OATE·
HCPLY TO
A'TINOF·
SUBJECT:
TO
P.pril 16, 1982
Acting Refuge Manager, Kodiak !'::'YlF:
Feasibility St~die for Larsen
~estern Alaska Ecological Services
ATTN: Mary Lynn Nation
UNITED STATES GOVERW.1ENT r
memorandum
r and Old Har~or Hydro l':rojects
RECEIVED
I
IDSKA POWEH AUTHORITY
The .::ulluwing (..v,runem • ., ....,n subje.:;t studies are provided for your review
and use in co~menting on the proposals:
1. General Comments-Applicable to both Larsen Bay and Old Harbor
projects:
A. The most significiant error in both doc~~ents is the state~ent
that Koniag,Inc. has been conveyed both surface and subsurface
estate to lands selected from within the Refuge. Both pro-
posed projects lie primarily on lands for which the surface
estate only has been interim conveyed to Koniag, Inc. The
subsurface estate on these areas remains with the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
did not permit any subsurface selection of Refuge lands. Errors
in this regard appear in the written land status sections and
on the land status maps.
B. Under Wildlife Mitigation sections for both sections -Both
proposed transmission lines must be raptor-proofed in approved
fashion. Bald eagles are common in both areas.
C. Neither of the studies consider any alternative except
power. This is not acceptable. Diesel generation and •.,•ind
generation should both be considered and evaluated thoroughly-
not just on a dollar cost(benefit ratio.
D. Although both studies mention it, neither deals very well with
possible frazil ice problems. This is a very real pro~lem in
Kodiak and could severely restrict hydropower generation.
E. Both projects present potential problems with use of off-road
vehicles in sensitive wildlife habitat. Use of any but main-
tenance vehicles should be specifically prohibited. Off-road
vehicle use is prohibited on Refuge lands, including those
conveyed under ANCSA. Licensing these projects should not modify
this regulation. These studies say these uses should be dis-
couraged. They should be specifically prohibited.
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
'trt ~.l.ll(} l'l;;.IJ .. :'41-.~•3'1 ~)/'<'I
OPTiONAL FORM NO 10
GSArPMR•AlCF'R 101-116
~0 I 0·112
r
'
I
•
' I
' f •
I
,.
..
Western .\laska Ecological Services
r~!J:r-il lG, 1982
?J:j~ T'vv'O
F. A no-road alternative should be considered for both projects.
A major cost in both projects is road construction.
G. Both reconnaissance studies were conducted much too late in
the season to evaluate any in-stream fisheries concerns. Studies
of the sort described cannot be used as a basis for evaluation
of potential damage to pink salmon. I realize neither stream
is considered a major salmon stream, but evaluations during the
pink salmon runs (June-July) should be made.
H. Under fishery impacts, it is stated that proper construction
tech:1igues and timing can minimize fishery impacts. This is
true, but on both of these projects timing of construction activ-
ity will be impractical due to the short time window for the
construction.
I. Under the wildlife mitigation section for both projects, it should
be required that all refuse be incinerated on site, then remrwe;:!
from the area-this is ~ritical to reduce bear problems.
J. Arcbeologic surveys of all former Refuge lands to be disturbed
by project features are mandatory .
2. Specific Comments:
A. Larsen Bay Hydro Project
Section II A. -Potential maintenance problems, costs, and avail-
ability of parts will likely be worse with hydropower than diesel
systems, not the reverse as stated here.
E. Land Status -See general com.-nent A. above.
Figure IV-4 -Same as above -Land Status.
Section v-Alternatives -See our general comment C. above.
Section VII E. -Installation of a large diesel generation plant
in 1982 ensures the development of demand for cheaper power,
i.e., hydro. Diesel plant should be installed concurrently with
hydro project.
Section X-2 Wildlife -page x-5 para. 3 -The potential abuse
discussed here must be more than just discourage; it must be
prevented. Before FWS can issue a permit to construct, we must
have assurances that vehicle access into the upper ridges will
not be aided or provided by this project. Such access must be
physically impossible; not just prohibited or discouraged. This
is an extremely critical issue.
Western Alaska Ecological Services
l> . .t-'nl 16, 1982
;'•age T:1ree
Sectio~ X-4 -See general corr~ent J. above.
Section X-6 Recreation -Again, access by 3-wheelers and other
ORV's must be prevented, not just discouraged.
Section XI-B.S -Should note that subsurface estate remains
with U. S.
Appendix E -Environmental Report:
D. Fisheries -Studies should be done in June ~o properly
evaluate pink salmon use in this stream.
M. Wildlife Mitigation-para 2 -Refuse should be incinerated
on site then removed from the area as soon as possible.
Another mitigation factor should be added to ensure raptor-
proo£ lines and poles.
S. Socioeconomic Impacts -Y..'hy is a d~stribution syster.. not
inrl u.-1PiP
T. Land Status -Subsurface estate with U. S. as stated above.
B. Old Harbor Hydro Project
-Land status errors as described above.
-From a wildlife, fisheries and the Refuges standpoint, alter-
native site no. 1, Ohiouzuk Creek, would be a much more acceptable
project. Reasons for selecting site no. 2 given here are not
very definitive and should be clarified. Site number l woul~
be our preference. Cost differences may not be sufficient to
affect wildlife concerns on this project.
-Our previous comments on vehicle use apply to this project
as well.
Section B-1 Fisheries -Studies should be done in June, July
to evaluate pink salmon use.
Section B-4 -An archeologic reconnaissance would be required
by FWS.
'
r
r
' '
lti
'l !
., .
. '
~~e s te :rn l>l a sko.
r.pril 16, 1962
l:'3.9t Four
l Services
Apendix D:
D. Fisheries -Surveys must be donG June, July a<:, ;'re•.•io·;sly
stated.
I. Wildlife -Mountain goats were introduced to Ug.::.J.-. Bay, nGt
Uyak .
Again, ORV's must be restricted.
M. Mitigation -Refuse incinerated on site and raptor-proof
transmission line.
0. Archeologic survey of entire project is required by FWS.
T. Subsurface estate remains in U. S. Government.
In S\.lr.'Jnary, both project reports appear extremely well done and ve::y
The few relatively minor (for the most part) changes suggested here sh.:.1uld
l.Je co:'lsidered .
Approval by FWS of either project should be withheld until FwS Refuge and
WAES personnel have completed an on-the-ground assessment of the proJect
.:.~reas. I suggest we try to accomplish same this summer in June o1· .Tuly.
It should be possible to complete such an assessment in one or t"''o d-.qs
p:n project.
Thank you for the opportunity to co~~ent.
MTV/jb
cc: Larry Calvert, O~S
---·----
ALASKA POWER AlJTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Ms. Mary Lynn Nation
Western Alaska Ecological Services
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
605 West 4th Avenue, Room G-81
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Ms. Nation:
July 28, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276·0001
This letter is in response to the April 16, 1982 memorandum to your
office from the Acting Refuge Manager, Kodiak NWR. The comments
contained in that memorandum were constructive in nature and we
appreciate this opportunity to provide you with additional information
and/or a response.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
lA. An indepth search for land status information has affirmed, in
part, the statement made by Mike Vivian in regard to the subsurface
estate within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. PLO 1634,
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, excluded an area one mile square
surrounding the village of Larsen Bay and it was not until
PL 92-203, and later PLO 5183 and 5184, that the entire township of
T. 30 S., R. 29 W., S.M. was included within the Kodiak National
Wildlife Refuge.
Subsurface estate has consequently been conveyed to Koniag, Inc.
within the NWR boundary, as it exists today.
I
r
r
r
r
r
"
•
~t· •
lvlary Nation
July 28, 1982
Page 2
The following is a BLM listing as of May
subsurface interim conveyances and patents in
the above mentioned township:
Serial Convexance Section Alig. Parts
CP 52780090 31
CP 52780090 31
CP 52780090 31
1C 02000118 31
1C 02000118 31
CP 52780090 31 NENESE
CP 52780090 31 SWNESE
1C 02000118 31 S2SE
lC 02000118 32
CP 52780090 32
CP 52780090 32
CP 52780090 32
CP 52780090 32
CP 52780090 32
lC 02000118 32
lC 02000118 32
CP 52780090 32 SW
1C 02000118 32
1C 02000118 32 SENW
11, 1982, of
Sections 31 and 32 of
Lot Acres
12 11.370
13 7.580
14 8.361
15 10.000
16 5.000
10.000
10.000
30.000
3 2.000
10 3.930
9 8.530
11 8.090
10.000
20.000
8 10.940
7 1.000
95.000
2.370
30.000
As a further note, the Secretary of the Interior may withdraw and
convey lands out of the National Wildlife Refuge System to the
appropriate Native Corporation for title. This applies to existing
cemetery sites and historical places, which may be conveyed to a
Native group that does not qualify as a Native village. Title to
the surface estate in not more than 23,040 acres surrounding the
Native groups' locality may occur, with the subsurface estate being
conveyed to the appropriate Regional Corporation. Furthermore,
lands may be conveyed to an individual Native, however, the surface
estate may not exceed 160 acres and must be occupied by the Native
as a primary place of residence on August 31, 1971. The subsurface
estate would again be conveyed to the appropriate Regional
Corporation. This is pursuant to Section 14(h) of Pl 92-203.
The land status text and land status map for Larsen Bay has been
changed to reflect the corrected land status based on this
information.
The land status text and land status map for Old Harbor has been
changed to reflect your comment.
lB. This stipulation has been incorporated into the mitigation section.
Mary Nation
. .July (8, 1?82
Page 3
1C. A previous study by CH2M Hill entitled "Reconnaissance Study of
Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Akhiok, King Cove, Larsen
Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Sand Point" June, 1981, looked at a
number of alternatives for the communities of Larsen Bay and Old
Harbor, and hydropower was judged to be the most feasible. Also,
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers had previously suggested
hydropower alternatives for these communities. The current study
focuses on the recommendations of these previous studies. The
final report will contain an analysis of a wind power generation
alternative for the communities.
10. The report states that frazil ice is a potential problem, but that
there are a number of workable solutions that will not seriously
affect the benefit/cost ratios for each of the projects. After
careful review, if found to be necessary, one or more of the
solutions suggested in the report will be incorporated during final
design.
IE. Use of off-the-road vehicles beyond the terminus of the maintenance
road is not possible due to steep cliffs. Vehicles would be
prohibited except for maintenance purposes. This comment has been
incorporated into the text.
1F. Because of requirements generated by dam construction and
subsequent maintenance operations, a road is required.
1G. Neither the Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project nor the Old Harbor
Hydroelectric Project appear to warrant additional environmental
studies. At Larsen Bay, the powerhouse discharge will be at the
existing cannery dam, which presently blocks further upstream
migration. At Old Harbor, suitable spawning habitat is subject to
loss of flow during winter cold periods, so that survival of
incubating eggs is not likely. In addition, Ken Manthey, ADF&G
biologist in Kodiak, has indicated that he has flown over Midway
Creek several times while doing aerial escapement counts on other
streams in the area, and that he has never seen any salmon in
Midway Creek.
1H. Under the present schedule, construction would begin in June and it
is possible that instream work could be completed before July 1,
when returning adults may be present. In addition, this is only a
general schedule subject to revision, and there is still room for
some flexibility.
1I. This has been incorporated into the mitigation section.
lJ. An archaeologic survey will be completed prior to project
construction.
r
' r
!
•
' ·~
......
T
'
..
,..
..
Mary Nation
July 28, 1982
Page 4
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
A. Larsen Bay Project.
Section II A.
E.
Costs are greater and parts more difficult to obtain for hydropower
systems; however, the probability of needing such maintenance for
hydropower systems is substantially lower than for a diesel
generation plant.
Land Status. See lA.
Figure IV-4. See lA.
Section V. See lC.
Section VI I E.
Concurrent installation of hydro and diesel power will be
considered.
Section X-2.
Vehicle access into the upper ridges will not be aided by the
project.
Section X-4.
An archaeologic survey will be done prior to initiation of
construction.
Section X-6 Recreation. Agreed.
Section XI-8.8. See General Comment lA.
Appendix E:
D. See General Comment lG.
M. Agreed; these comments have been incorporated into the mitigation
plan.
S. A distribution system is a very common installation. There would
be no major socioeconomic impacts other than the minor
inconvenience caused during construction of the system.
T. Note General Comment lA.
i·1c..ry Nation
July 28, 1982
Page 5
B. Old Harbor Project.
The land status comments have been incorporated.
Midway Creek is preferable to Ohiouzuk Creek from both a geotechnical
and hydrological perspective. Furthermore, the Midway Creek site
satisfies the needs of the community. This is clearly indicated in
Section V, Pages 1 through 4, of the report.
Vehicle Usage, See General Comment lE.
Section B-1, See General Comment 1G.
Section B-4, See Genera 1 Comment 1J.
Appendix 0:
0. '
I.
M.
0.
T.
See General Comment IG.
This typographical error has been corrected. Also, see Section
X-2.
This has been incorporated into the mitigation section.
An archaeologic survey will be done prior to the initiation of
project construction.
See General Comment 1A.
Thank you again for the constructive comments. We certainly
appreciate your timely input and look forward to a successful working
relationship with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in bringing this
project forward.
Executive Director
cc: Larry Calvert, OMS
•
•
•
,.
'
,.
.. '
. .
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Alaska Regional Office
540 W. Fifth Avenue
ll'f ll..f.PLY JUtfEJI. TO: Anchorage, Alaska 99501
~'f4. •. ·--
L7615(ARO-P)
~~. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
19 APR 1982
We have reviewed the March, 1982, Draft Feasibility Recon-
naissance Studies for hydroelectric projects at King Cove,
Old Harbor, Larsen Bay and Togiak and have the following
comments:
We have no objection to further planning for the proposed
projects if the following concern is given consideration.
It is not clear whether the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) has been consulted about the proposed pro-
jects; we suggest further planning documents give evidence
of coordination with the SHPO.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment .
Regional Director
Alaska Region
u&; PC4ctG. ae we QW4 . A4P<P._ •• c.se .. --• ..
ALASKA POWER AIJTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. John E. Cook
Regional Director, Alaska Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Alaska Regional Office
540 W. Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
July 28, 1982
SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports of Hydroelectric Projects
Phone: (907} 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
at King Cove, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor; Draft Reconnaissance
Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak.
Dear Mr. Cook:
Thank you for your letter of April 19th regarding the above
referenced reports. We appreciate your participation and timely input
in reviewing the draft reports.
In response to the question raised in your letter, the
State Historic Preservation Office was contacted and has commented on
the proposed projects. Copies of all relevant correspondence will be
included in the final feasibility reports.
Should you have further questions regarding these studies, please
contact myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff.
EPY:jls
{:;.,S?. \ \ JJ_
Eric P. Yould \
Executive Director
"
•
•
•
...
...
•
OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
APPENDIX G
SPACE HEATING INSTALLATION
AND COST
I!'.
..
APPENDIX G
UTILIZATION OF EXCESS ELECTRICAL ENERGY
FOR SPACE HEAT
During much of the year the hydro unit can provide all of
the electrical needs for the community. In addition there will
be times when the hydroelectric energy production is in excess
of these direct electrical needs. This excess electrical
energy could well displace substantial amounts of fuel oil
currently used for space heating.
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
In order to utilize this excess energy the following system
parameters must be met:
1. The system must use only hydro generated power which is in
excess of electrical demands. It must be deactivated
whenever diesel generators are on the line inasmuch as this
indicates that the hydroelectric energy production is less
than the village demand.
2. The system must use as much of the excess as possible .
3. The system must not overload the hydro unit electrically or
mechanically.
4. It must not force the hydro to draw more water than the
stream can provide.
5. It must have remote capability to control the loads,
adjusting the heating loads to the available energy.
NBISF-427-9524-AG 1
6. It must be compatible with existing heating systems.
7. It must be reliable because service is not readily
available.
IMPLEMENTATION
A very simple method would be to install a separate meter
at each user, connect heaters and limiting thermostats, and
then switch them off and on manually. This approach would work
reasonably well at times of very high water flow, but would
require a good deal of effort from the operator at periods of
marginal flow. In all probability this would lead to greatly
reduced use of the resource.
A more automatic system
is envisioned as follows:
probably justified. This system
The main control would be a control computer programmed in
control basic language and capable of storing its programming
in a non-volatile media, eliminating battery backup. Interface
systems would allow the unit to interpret a water level signal
from the dam, drive a keyboard and monitor, interpret dry
contact closures, and run a line driver capable of
communicating with the remote heating loads.
Operation
At the user end would be a control which would respond to
the computer command to turn on heaters.
could take several forms as described below.
The user equipment
1. The control would sense that only the hydro unit is on the
line by checking the diesel unit circuit breakers.
2. The water level behind the dam would be checked to see that
NBISF-427-9524-AG 2
!
I
I
I
r
...
•
l
I
I
' 1
....
,
.. '
•
excess water was available and going over the spillway.
3. The hydro is checked to see that it has excess generation
capacity.
4. The control begins sending signals to turn on heaters at
the user locations rechecking items 1, 2, and 3 after each
increment. This is a slow process, perhaps over 10
minutes.
5. If the water level drops or the generator approaches full
load, the controller reduces the heating load.
happen quickly.
This can
This same control computer could also be used to limit the
hydro water flow by regulating the governor setting and to
start the diesels if more generation was required. It could
control up to 64 remote units in its basic form •
COST ESTIMATE
The design of this system is quite preliminary and highly
dependent on final hydro design and nature of heating systems
to be served. The system designs for small and large users are
shown as Figures G-1 and G-2.
It is assumed that the first priority heat loads would be
the schools and other public buildings. This tends to spread
the benefits evenly among the tax payers and are more cost
effective to connect.
Major components are estimated as follows:
Dam Water Level Sensors,
Cable, and Transducers
NBISF-427-9524-AG 3
This item is part of
hydro estimate.
Control Computer and Inter-
face Installed
Electric Heating Equipment,
Boilers or Baseboard Heat
Control Signal Wiring to
Connect Computer to Users
Software Development and
Field Installation
User Controls, kWh Meters,
Cost for Entire System
$10,000
Installed cost -
$40 per kW
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
Assumes $15,000
spread over three
projects
$12,000
The cost estimate for the Old Harbor system is summarized
on Table G-1.
NBISF-427-9524-AG 4
I
I
I
I
I
r
•
•
I
I
I
'
.,.
..
1f
..
..
..
..
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
TABLE G-1
SPACE HEATING INSTALLATION COSTS
OLD HARBOR
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price
Control Computer 1 LS $10,000
and Interface
Electric Heating 200 KW 40
Equipment
Control Signal Wiring 1 LS 5,000
Software Development 1 LS 5,000
and Installation
User Controls and 1 LS 12,000
Meters
TOTAL
NBISF-427-9524-G-1
Amount
$10,000
8,000
5,000
5,000
12,000
$40,000
,. .
, '
.. ,
.. ,
..
• .....
SPACE HEAT
kWh METER
THERMOSTAT
TELEPHONE
INTERFACE
WITH CONTROL
COMPUTER
DIGITAL
RECORDER
RESISTANCE HEATERS
USER'S REGULAR
kWh METER
{BASEBOARD OR IN HYDRONIC LINES)
THE HYDRONIC SYSTEM OPERATES IN A NORMAL FASHION
EXCEPT THAT ALL RETURN WATER FLOWS THROUGH THE ELECTRIC BOILER.
HEAT ADDED BY THE ELECTRIC BOILER REDUCES THE FUEL REQUIRED BY
THE OIL FIRED BOILER. NO CONTROL INTERFACE IS REQUIRED .
SCHEMATIC OF HEATING SYSTEM
INDIVIDUAL HOME OR SMALL BUILDING
FIGURE
G-1
SPACE HEAT ~ONTROL Q USER'S REGULAR
kWh METER COMPUTER kWh METER
r----DIGITAL RECORDER AND RELAYS
t--""-+'4 ""'+------. ........... ...,
MULTIPLE
CONTACTORS
I
I
I
I
I THERMOSTAT
ELECTRIC BOILER
OIL FIRED
BOILER
CIRCULATING
PUMP
WITH MULTIPLE ELEMENTS
~---------~11 111111~--------------
THIS CONTROL SYSTEM IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING HEATING
SYSTEM. IF THIS SYSTEM DOES NOT KEEP THE BUILDING WARM, THE
EXISTING SYSTEM WILL HEAT ONLY AS REQUIRED. THIS IS COMPATIBLE
WITH WOOD STOVES, OIL BURNERS, OR FULLY CONTROLLED FURNACES.
SCHEMATIC OF HEATING SYSTEM
LARGE BUILDINGS
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[
•
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I