HomeMy WebLinkAboutChignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Feasibility Study 1995CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY STUDY
,
FINAL REPORT
polarconsult alaska, inc.
energy systems • engineering design • environmental services
1503 West 33rd Avenue, Suite 310, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3661
JUNE 26, 1995
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FINAL REPORT
prepared for the
CHIGNIK LAGOON TRIBAL COUNCIL
CHIGNIK LAGOON, AK
prepared by
POLARCONSULT ALASKA
POLARCO.\Sl'L T ALASKA, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
I. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. l
2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2
3. CHIGNIK LAGOON ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 2
4. HYDROLOGY AND POWER ................................................................................................................. 3
4 .I PRECIPIT A TJON AND STREAMFLOW ............................................................................................................ 3
4.2 AMOU.\T OF POWER GENERATED .............................................................................................................. .4
4.3 EXCESS ENERGY ......................................................................................................................................... 5
5. TYPICAL FEATURES ............................................................................................................................. 6
5.1 !NTAKE ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 DE-SANDING AND SCREENS ....................................................................................................................... 6
5.3 PENSTOCK .................................................................................................................................................. 7
5.4 POWERHOUSE ............................................................................................................................................. 7
5.5 TURBINE ..................................................................................................................................................... ?
5.6 GENERATOR ............................................................................................................................................... 8
5.7 GOVERNOR ................................................................................................................................................. &
5.8 SWITCH GEAR ............................................................................................................................................. 9
5.9 TRANSr..fJSSfON ........................................................................................................................................... 9
6. COSTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
6.1 DIESEL ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
6.1.1 Fuel Cost ............................................................................................................................................ 9
6.!.2 Equipment and Labor Cosl .............................................................................................................. /0
6.1. 3 Fuel Required .................................................................................................................................. ! 0
6.2 HYDRO ...................................................................................................................................................... I 0
6.2.1 Equipment and Labor Cos£ .............................................................................................................. 10
6.2.2 Construction. .................................................................................................................................... 11
6.2.3 Force Account .................................................................................................................................. 12
6.2.4 Title 36 ............................................................................................................................................. 13
7. ECONOMICS .......................................................................................................................................... l3
8. ENVIRON!\otENT AL ............................................................................................................................... 14
8.1 FISH R.£QUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................ I4
8.2 FERC ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
9. PERMITS .................................... .-.-......................................................................................................... 15
9.1 PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED AS FOLLOWS: ............................................................................................... I5
10. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... ._ ......................................................... 15
11. RECOMMENDA TIONS ....................................................................................................................... 16
JUNE 26. 1995
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
APPENDIX A -HYDRO COST
LIST OF APPENDICES
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
APPENDIX B-ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND YEARLY DATA
APPENDIX C-SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D -FIELD REPORT
APPENDIX E-PHOTOS SHOWING PIPING LAYOUT AND INTAKE LOCATION
APPENDIX F -DRAWINGS
APPENDIX G-FIELD TRIP TWO AND STREAM GAUGE DATA
JUNE 26, 1995
polarconault alaska,. Inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue • Suite 310
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 258-2420 FAX (907) 258·2419
TO
WE ARE SENDING t': D Attached [1 Under separate cover via ________ the following Items:
D Shop drawings 0 Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications
0 Copy of letter 0 Change order
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
l -C k._ f1""£~.-"-. { ~~ 00"1. {t, '1 c.l.u<J IJ f...&>r .J:.v'\ L L st"vdl 1vAL2L{1o .-~"'"aJ ).(k~~"'L--~ I 0~~{fJ seL-D-~ c.o~i:-.....c~J c,le,oLJ f
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
0 For approval
. ~For your use
~As requested
0 Approved as submitted
0 Approved as noted
0 Returned for corrections
0 Resubmit ___ copies for approval
0 Submit ___ copies for distribution
0 Return ___ corrected prints
0 For review and comment 0 -----------------------
0 FOR BIDS DUE _________ 19__ 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
_____ SIGNEDo f/f:,t A/111/y_ ____ _
11 enciOIJUNU ara nor as noted. kindly notify us ar once. /
1-
BUDGET INFORMATION-Non-Construction Programs
SICTION A-IUDGU SUMMARY
Grlnt Protflm C.t•lot of feeler II lltlmlted Unoblltlttcl funds Ntw Of llevlstd lud,.l
funnlon · Domestic Aulttln<t
Of Anivitr '
Number , .. , .. Non·ftclerll , ..... Non-ftdtrll Total
,.~ (bJ ld (d) (t>) Cit 191
lc..b \ O") • '\'if, s "-ta.ooo s -o-' ' s
'· ~~+it. JQ(\Ll.
J. ~.;lC...~
].
4.
10TAU I L.t;).. oob ' -o---' ' ' 5.
SECTION I-IUOGIY CAYIGOiliU
OAAHJ PIIOOAAM. fUHCJION 011 ACIIVIfV Tot1l • Obft'd Clast Clttgotlet (II (2J ut (4) (St
•• Personnel s I .lor> ' I ' I
b. frln,. ltnefltt I Qnl:)
c. Trlvtl
' I 'BCD
d. lqulpmtnl 10()
•• Supl'fi*t . JOO
I. ConlrldUII E'6.()(t)
•· ConUrudloa -0-
h. Other ~D . --
I. Total Dlrtd Cbl••• (lum of ftl • 6h) 4~. ()Ci)
J. lndirtd Chlr,.s
•• TOTALS l•um oU11nd 61) ' L\a \ow I ' I I
---
Authorized for local Reproduction Ptf'v.nl....t hy OUR Guculllf A·IOl
Contract between Village of Chignik Lagoon & Polarconsult Alaska lnc.For
Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
NATIVE VILLAGE OF CIDGNIK LAGOON
P.O. BOX 57
CHIGNIK LAGOON, AK 99565
TEL (907) 840-2281
FAX( 907) 840-2217
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
This contractual agreement executed between the Native Village of Chignik Lagoon
Village Council, (hereinafter called the "COUNCIL) and Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
(hereinafter called the CONTRACTOR):
WINTNESSETH THAT
\VHEREAS, the COUNCIL has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of
Energy under title XXIV the Indian Energy Resources Programs to administer grant
funds of $42,000 to be used to prepare a study to determine if a small hydro can feasibly
be used to provide power to the community.
WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR has submitted an accepted proposal provided as
attachment "A". for the sum of$38,000 to conduct the study in accordance with the same
grant conditions required of the COUNCIL.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the parties in consideration of the
following obligations to be undertaken by each party, that:
ARTICLE 1
The COUNCIL hereby agrees and promises:
A .. To reimburse the CONTRACTOR for the performance of the Scope of Work
submitted by the CONTRACTOR in attachment A in accordance with the Payment
Schedule in Attachment B.
ARTICLE 11
THE CONTRACTOR hereby agrees and promises:
1
Contract between Village of Chignik Lagoon & Polarconsult Alaska Inc.For
Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
A. To use and expend grant funds for conducting the Hydroelectric Feasibility
Study in accordance with the proposal in attachment A and in accordance with the DOE
requirements.
B. The study will be completed no latter then July 31, 1995.
C. The completed study will become the property of the COUNCIL.
ARTICLE 111
A. This agreement including Attachments A and B contains the entire agreement
of the parties. It can be changed only by written agreement signed by both parties.
B. The obligations, responsibilities, and interest contained in this agreement shall
not be assigned by either party.
C. This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent or termination for cause.
In the event of termination, labor and material expenditures of the CONTRACTOR shall
be paid.
D. Unreconcilable disagreements shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance
with Alaska State Statute. The parties shall agree on an arbitrator and arbitration shall
take place in Anchorage
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on the date(s)
shown below.
Village of Chignik Lagoon Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.
~~ By: ________ _
Title: ________ _ President
Date: ________ _
2
Contract between Village of Chignik Lagoon & Polarconsult Alaska Inc.For
Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
Scope of Work
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK
The Community of Chignik Lagoon would like to know whether Packers Creek can be
used as an economical power supply for the community. The Chignik Lagoon Village,
COUNCIL, with assistance from Polarconsult Alaska Inc. made an application for a grant
to the US Department of Energy under Title XXVI, Indian Energy Resource
Development Program, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This grant was
approved. Within this grant is a sum for a consultant to perfonn the engineering and
anal)1ic work for the COUNCIL.
The following will be the scope of work that will be accomplished by CONTRACTOR,
under this Contract.
Local Data Acquisition.
• A stream gauge will be installed near where the water will be extracted
from Packers Creek for a potential hydro electric plant.
• A rating curve, using hydrologic methods, and stream measurement
will be developed for the site.
• The stream gauge will be installed early this winter depending on
weather and the date of contract award.
• The stream gauge will be read in late spring after breakup.
• The sections for the diversion will be surveyed.
• The elevation between the intake and the tailrace will be detennined.
• Aerial photos of the area if available and useful will be obtained.
Analysis
• Based on topographic and orographic analysis and data from other
streams with longer hydrologic records, a hydrologic model will be
made of the stream.
• This model will be used to size the turbine and generator and calculate
potential power output of the hydro.
• The output from the model will be compared to that of diesel
generation to arrive at a cost difference.
• A cost analysis will be made for an optimum sized plant.
• The costs of the savings in diesel generation will be compared to the
capital and operational costs of the hydro.
Report
• All of the above data will be incorporated into a report with a summary and
conclusions and recommendations.
3
Contract between Village of Chignik Lagoon & Polarconsult Alaska lnc.For
Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
• A list of required permits will be provided
• Discussion of environmental effects will be made based on contacts with
involved agencies.
• A schedule will be provided.
Schedule
• The schedule for this project should run into July of 1995 with the bulk of
the work being done in the winter of 1995. If the schedule given by DOE
can not be extended to this period, the work will be done earlier with
stream gauge input scheduled for after the contract period.
CONTRACTOR will make a stream gauge reader available which will
allow a local person to download the gauge and send the reader back to the
CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR will at no charge enter the
readings into a computer and compute up dated information based on
actual stream flows. This information and its consequences will be
provided to the COUNCIL. If the resource is viable the gauge will be left
for a period necessary to adequately describe the resource.
Submittals to DOE
To assure promptness and backup if the COUNCIL is not available, the CONTRACTOR,
will on request, aid Laura Stepanoff or the designee in filling out the forms.
CONTRACTOR will provide to the COUNCIL the various progress reports that are
required under the Federal Reporting Checklist.
4
Contract between Village of Chignik Lagoon & Polarconsult Alaska Inc.For
Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
------------------------------------------------rs~====--
Payment:
ATTACHMENTB
PAYMENT
After accomplishment of the field trip, the installation of the stream gauge and the
collection of topographic data, a lump sum of $12,000 will be paid to the
CONTRACTOR.
After delivery of a draft of the report is submitted for COUNCIL, comment a lump sum
of $22,000 will be paid to the Contractor.
After completion of the report and the delivery of 10 copies the balance of $4,000 will be
paid for the total sum of$38,000.
After receipt of billings for the above work, the COUNCIL, will promptly bill DOE. And
on receipt will promptly make payment to the CONTRACTOR.
5
DO£ F 4600 (3-65) U.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
NOTICE OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARD
Under ~he author~cy of Public Law 102-486 and subject to legislation, regulations and policies applicable to (cite legislative
program titlel:
ROJECT TITLE
TITLE XXVI: INDIAN ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS
3. RECIPIENT
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1992
2. INSTRUMENT TYPE
(Xl GRANT
4. INSTRUMENT NO.
OE-FG51-94R020503
6. BUOOET PERIOD
( ) COOPE.RATIV£ AGREEMENT
5 . AMENDMENT NO.
M001
7. PROJECT PERIOD
Native Village of Chignik Lagoon
Chignik Lagoon Village Council
P.O. Box 57
From: 10/01/94 thru: 01/31/95 From: 10/01/94 thru: 01/31/95
(907)940-2281
Chignik Lagoon AK 99565
8. RECIPIENT PROJECT DIRECTOR
10. TYPE OF AWARD
( ) NEW
(X) REVISION
CONTINUATION ( ) RENEWAL
SUPPLEMENT
Laura Stepa:~of! (907)840-2281
12. ADMINISTERED FOR OOE BY
Carol A. Curtis (206 J 553-2166
9. RECIPIENT BUSINESS OFFICER
:.aura Stepanoff
11. DOE PROJECT OrFICER
Richard E. ~~:nam
l3.
U.S. DEPARTMENT Or ENERGY
800 FIFTn A~~UE, SUITE 3950
SEATTLE, WA 98104
RECIPIENT TYPE
STATE GOV': {X) INDIAN TRIBAL GOV'T
LOCAL GOV'T ( l INSTITUTION OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
14. ACCOUNTING~ APPROPRIATIONS DATA
(907) 840-2281
(206)553-2165
HOSPITAL
OTHER NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
800 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3950
SEATTLE, WA 98104
( J FOR PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
( lC ( )'p )SP
a. Appropriation Symbol b. B &. R Number c. FT/AFP/OC d. CFA Number
UOGETING Ab~ FUNDING INFORMATION
a. CURRENT BUDGET PERIOD INFORMATION
(1) OOE Funds Obligated this Action
.>
$
b. CUMULATIVE DOE OBLIGATIONS
0.00 (l) This Budget Period
INDIVIDUAL
OTHER (Specify)
15. EMPLOYER I.O. NUMBER/SSN
.920106417
$ 42,000.00
(2) OOE Funds Authorized for Carry over
(3) Funds Previously Obligated
$ 0.00 !Total of lines a. (1) and a. (3) J
in this Budget Period
(4) DOE Share of Total Approved Budget
{5) Recipient Share of Total Approved Budget
{6) Total Approved Budget
l 7. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT $ N/A
$
$
$
$
(This is the current estimated cost of the'project.
42,000.00 (2) Prior Budget Periods
42,000.00
0.00 (3) Project Period to Date
42,000.00 [Total of lines b. (l) and b. (2) J
It is no~ a promise to award nor an authorization to expend funds in this amount.)
18. AWARD/AGREEMENT TERMS ANp CONDITIONS
This award/agreement conSists of this form plus the following:
$ 0.00
$ 42,000.00
a. Special terms and conditions (if grant) or schedule, general provisions, special provisions (if cooperative agreement)
l9.
b. Applicable program r~lations (specify): N/A
c. DOE Assistance Regulations, 10 CFR Part 600,
d. Application/proposal dated 05/19/94, IX) as
REMARKS
as amended.
submitted
\
( ) with changes as negotiated.
\
This amendment finalizes the provisional grant issued under amendment AOOO and removes all restrict~ns·,f,
and reporting requirements are attached.
20. EVIDENCE OF RECIPIENT ACCEPTANCE 21. AWARDED BY
Official)
{Name)
President
(Title)
!Date) {Signature)
qulie A. Riel\
(Name)
Contracting Officer
(Title)
Revised conditions
J.t/t Jq.p
t l
<Date)
:v
Number
Appendix A
Appendix B
-or-
-or-
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
·.
CONTENT OF AWARD
Subject
General Terms & Conditions {Refer to Amendment AOOO}
Intellectual Property Provisions for Grants
to State and Local Governments
_$_ for demonstration or research and development); or,
__ non-research and development.
to a Domestic Nonprofit Organization, University or other
Institution of Higher Education in the United States;
__ with Profit-Making Organizations and Individuals -Small
Business
Special Terms and Conditions {As Revised}
Financial Assistance Budget Information {Refer to Amendment AOOO}
.)
Statement. of Work, Objectives and Milestones
Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist, DOE F 4600.2
\
·,_
.. 1 ,
\.
\
·'
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDRO PROPOSAL
rippa!GLX t..
DE-FG51-94R020503, HOOl
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INc.
SECTION C -TECHNICAL REVIEW
1. OVERVIEW OF PROJECT
l..LPROBLEM
The community of Chignik Lagoon is the only native village in the Bristol Bay region
that has no central electricity generation. The Chignik Lagoon council, clinic, store,
Alascom, and village residents all rely on their own generator in their own individual
sheds.
The Chignik Lagoon village council has computed that 100,000 gallons of fuel for
homes is purchased each year by individual residents from private suppliers and is
transported at extreme personal and environmental risk on the.ir fishing vessels to the
village every year. An additional 20,000 gallons is purchased by the village council
for the village clinic, store, council buildings, and Alascom offices. Residents of the
village currently buy fuel at Chignik Bay for $1.35 per gallon. The community faces
increased fuel prices because of new regulations as to storage and the requirement for
$150,000,000 worth of insurance for marine delivery. The Chignik Lagoon village
council has been notified that the bulk fuel storage system in Chignik Lagoon is old and
is in a state of non-compliance with coast guard regulations.
The lack of a centralized power system puts a strain on the community. Everyone has
to supply and maintain their individual power systems.
• Some families cannot stay jn the village during the winters because they do not
have the generator or the money to pay for fuel.
• When the power at the clinic goes out they have to move the medicine to the health
aid's homes and that is dangerous.
• In the last few years in Chignik lagoon there have been five fires that were caused
by faulty electrical systems in residents homes and in their generator sheds.
• The Chignik Lagoon residents have applied for HUD housing for the last two ,Y._ears
and have not received them because they have no central power system.
• The Chignik Lagoon airfield has no runway lights, . so when ;here is a medical
emergency the clinic has to put our small skiff lights and use truck lights so a plane
can lan4. in the village at night. ·
The economic growth of the community relies on central power. A .power )ystem
project is Chignik Lagoon's number one priority. H~ving central power will solve_ a
lot of the community's problems now and in the future.
llSOLUTION ..
A design for a central power distribution system with diesel generators His already
been submitted to the village by polarconsult. Chignik Lagoon plans on building this
sy·stem so that they will have an electrical distribution system anJ central generation
Page 4 of 15
•. 1'. ~\' \ .• r· ·t u,',;,
1
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDRO PROPOSAL POLA.RCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
plant. However, they are interested in the possibility of a hydro resource so that they
can reduce their power generation costs even more. Because Chignik Lagoon is about
to build a central power generation system, now is the perfect time to incorporate
results from a hydro feasibility study into their plans to build the central power system.
However, with the fmancing of the construction of their power system they have no
chance of being able to afford a hydro feasibility study. Their interest in hydro power
should not be precluded because they cannot afford to investigate it.
Having &ubmined a design for a diesel and electrical distribution system in April 1994
for Chignik Lagoon, Polarconsult is familiar with the needs of the community. Based
on the resource and our review of the conditions at this community we show that it is
likely the hydro will prove cost effective and save the community money. Also, a
feasibility study perfonned by Polarconsult for a hydro project at this time would fit
seamlessly with the design we performed.
The community is fortunate as it has a potential hydro resource that can replace to a
large extent the requirement for diesel fuel and reduce the drain on the community.
This resource is located on Packers Creek that runs through the community. Please see
Figure 1 for the location. This hydro resource has a drainage area of 1.2 square miles
and will produce approximately 11.5 cubic feet of water per second, cfs. At 300 feet
of net head as shown on the figure the plant can produce 200 kW as compared to the
communities current need of approximately 220 kW.
Polarconsult Alaska, Inc., who is writing this proposal for the community, has its own
small hydro plant in operatid'n in Alaska. See pictures in the appendix. This plant was
built for less than $2,000 per kW and is selling power at a profit for 4 cents per kWh.
The following describes the activities that we will be performing for this project.
1. 2.1 Qf!AJ.VllFYING THE RESOURCE
At the most likely diversion point (see Figure 1), a digital stream gauge will be
installed. The stream gauge will allow will allow us to determine the stream' s--eutput.
Assuming that the grant will be made this year, the gauge will go in immediately this
summer to get the critical dry period occurring late in the SUllllil,er and also the winter
low·flows. To extend the record, a hydrological analysis will be done to synthesize
flow periods beyond the gauging period. To extend the record, a hydr_?logica:l analysis
will be p~rformed to synthesize flow periods beyond the gauging period. Myrlle ~reek
will be the likely candidate as it has the longest and most complete hydrological 'record.
This longer record will be used to select key components and determine the size of-the
projects features. In turn, this information will be used to develop accur~e -~ost and
power output estimates to develop the system economics.
1. 2. 2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
-.
J '
A site visit will be conducted this summer. Using special surveyilJt5 tools the diversion
site will be located and the lay out of the pipeline route determined. This will facilitate a' determination the conduit's approxi.@.ate length and profile. The slopes, geology.
Page 5 of 15
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDRO PROPOSAL POLARCONSULT Au.SKA, Ixc.
environmental aspects of the site will be explored during this visit and will be included
in the report. If aerial photography is available, a topographic map will be
commissioned to establish the basis for the layouts and to serve to provide quantities.
An important aspect of the field trip will be to determine the needs and desires of the
local people.
1. 2. 3 SCOP/NG ANALYSIS
A scoping analysis will be made to determine the most economical plant. The analysis
will consist of location of the diversion, sizing the pipeline, detennining where its lay
out and size, and type of the turbine-generators to be used. This type of analysis was
performed by Polarconsult for Tenakee Springs hydroelectric plant and for the 450 kW
Larson Bay project that is operating.
During the scoping analysis all economical types of alternatives are looked at. For
example, at Tenakee Springs the Corps of Engineers has arrived at a 250 kW power
plant that cost almost $5,000,000 for Tenakee Springs. It involved extensive road
building, and blasting into rock. Tenakee had no equipment to do this and they were
opposed to doing that amount of environmental impact. Polarconsult produced a design
by downsizing the project and using a flume constructed mostly of local materials by
local labor. As a result, appropriate sized plant was designed at a cost of less than
$700,000. The environmental impact is minimal. This type of analysis is proposed for
the Chignik Lagoon project.
1.2.4 PREliMINARY DESIGN
A preliminary design will be performed for the selected project which will include the
more costly major features of the project allowing for accurate cost estimation. Design
considerations which are important outside of the engineering include logistics, worker
characteristics, weather, and availability of equipment. All are important influences on
costs and the ability of the community to keep the plant in top operating condition.
The plant will be of the .run-of-river type and as such will have no dam or sf~rage
capacity. An impulse turbine will likely be the economical best choice and will feature
a stainless. steel Pelton wheel., These types of turbines historically are extremely
reliable, are constructed in the United States, and are generally less costly than similar
alternatives,. The turbine will likely power a 3 phase AC generator at 480 volts. This
voltage will be stepped up using a pad mounted transformer which will distri~ute the
communities electricity at the local voltage. The pipe line will be about 5,000 fe~t long
and the upper portion will likely be constructed ~f 12 or 14 irich high dens_ity
polyethylene, HDPE. Other materials such as PVC:. or steel may be used ~ th1 highe~
pressure sections of the line. ' ·
The plant will be connected to Old Harbor with about a 113 mile of 3 pha~r 7.2112.4
kV power lines which will likely be underground cable. A trail will be constructed to
the power plant and along the piReli~e to the diversion. l ·.
Page 6 of 15
~~. ,, !7-~
,.
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDRO PROPOSAL POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
One unique feature that is used in remote generation plants is a "Load Governor."
This device controls the frequency by adding or subtracting electrical load to the plant.
The plant uses all of the water that is available up to the limits of the machinery's
capacity. The excess energy is shunted, using solid state switching equipment
controlled by small simple computer, to resistance heat. A special feature is this load
governor can be anywhere on the system. Therefore, whenever there is excess
electricity it is used to heat water, warm the schools and public buildings. The devices
that are used are highly reliable and Polarconsult has specified them for a number of
private and community installations throughout Alaska.
1.2.5 Cosr ESTIMATE
A cost estimate is a very important aspect of the study. With an optimized preliminary
design, the associated material and equipment costs may be determined. The
community, if it wants to construct the project with force account, will have its local
labor, equipment, and overhead rates included into the cost estimate to calculate the
cost of construction. To this cost will be added design, technical support during
construction, community overhead, and the cost of acquiring the necessary State and
federal permits.
1.2.6 ECONOMICS
An economic analysis is derived from the cost estimates earlier described and the
current cost of generation. 'The economics will discuss the sensitivity of the estimate as
it relates to fuel prices, future technology, interest rates, and cost over runs. The
economic analysis will· provide the basis to determine if construction of the
hydroelectric facility is a sound investment for the community. The economics for this
plant have never been done previously and, as a result, they will provide the
community with the knowledge to allow them to evaluate their resource today and if
necessary into the future. Polarconsult's plant in Palmer, Alaska is selling power at a
profit for 4 cents per kWh. It is likely the costs will be somewhat higher '1n the
community but if the system proves feasible will be well under that for diesel
generation.
1. 2. 7 PERMITS \
Several regulatory permits will be necessary to proceed with the project. In many
cases working in the stream, although minor with Polarconsult's designs, will likely
require the Corps of Engineers 404 permit. In Alaska, a permit from ~e )Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission will not be needed since we are not connecte~ to ~n
interstate power grid and because the plant is not on a navigable streams. Pepmts will
be required from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, (DNR) and fi1om Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, (ADEC) to appropriate the water. In
addition this plant is in the coas~J zone, so a Coastal Zone Consist~ncy Permit will be
ne.eded.
· .. :.::~:-,
""·· \ P'
: ~-. I· s·,\ .. Page 7 of 15
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDRO PROPOSAL POLARCONSULT ALASKA. INc.
1.2. 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusion and recommendations section of the report will summarize the results
of the analysis. This will enable those in the community that do not have the time or
inclination to understand the entire report. to get a brief but useful overview of what
the results are. In the recommendations section the fmdings of the _report will be
commented on and the steps necessary to proceed will be outlined. These steps will be
accompanied by schedules and suggestions as to how to acquire the necessary capital to
construct the system if the project is determined to be economically viable .
I· ,,, ..
• • 1 '
Page 8 of 15
f) /11 .. r;)·!
DATE: \., C J o( I I " I (_/
r
NUMBER OF PAGES -:7'....:.~-=~""--) ___ , <INCLUDING COVER SHEET> •
COMMENTS:
' \ '~ '/\ .
! '
.i) )_ l\r0l ', ) J' I \ (\. c: P' . c
' " IJ~(~t'\.--L \
P.QBat'57
CHGNIK LAGOON ALASKA 99565
Ph! # ~ 84o-P216} !91% # 84o-2217
r· ....
OE F 4600.2
)P-92)
!places EIA-459A
I 0Uur ~AN Oltul.u
Identification Number:
U.S. Department of Energy
FEDERAL ASSISI'ANCE REPORTING CHECKLIST
2. Program/Project Title
E-FG51-94R020503 Indian Energy Resource Program
3. Recipient:
-lative Village of Chignik Lagoon
~. Reporting Requirements:
1 ROGRAMIPROJECT MANAGEMENT REPORTING
Frequency No. of Copies
] DOE F 4600.3, "Federal Assistance Mile.rtone Plan"
] DOE F 4600.3A, "Milestone Log"
t] DOE F 4600.4, "Federal Assistance Budget Information•
]DOE F 4600.5, "Federal A.uistance Management Summary Report"
I DOE F 4600.6, "Federal Assistance Program/Project Statua Report"
I SF-269 or SF-269A, "Financial Status Report•
ECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORTING
] DOE F 1430.22, Notice of Ene111y RD&D Project
] Technical Progreu Report
] Topical Report
l Final Technical Report
<.E~UENCY CODES AND DUE DATES:
• As Neccuary; within 5 calendar days after evenu.
Final; 90 calendar days after the performance of the effort enda.
• Quarterly; within 30 days after end of calendar qttarter or portion thereof.
·One lime after project startl; within 30 days after award.
• Required with proposals or the application or with aipificant planning changes.
·Yearly; 30 days after the end of program year. (FL!II.nCial Status Repot1.190 days),
• SemiiDllWilly; within 30 days after end of program fiscal half year.
Spec1al ln.strucuona:
md all reports to:
U.S. Department of Energy
Seattle Regional Support Office
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3950
Seattle, WA 98104
X
Q,F
Q,F
\
\
j
~
' .
1 '
Pre ared by:~·(Signature and Date) 7. Reviewed by: (Signature and Date)
-tt4 ... ~~.
ar Putnam, Project Manager ,, ,
'\
: . <Dl}J~){2R;d
1 ~A. Rief, "t::ontracting Officer
'\
··~
Addressees
See below
See below
See below
i
.
..
/
FEDERAL ASSISfANCE REPORTING CHECKLIST
PURPOSE
This form serves to identify plans and reports selected by the U.S. Depal'tment of Energy (DOE) as reporting
requirements for the Federal Assistance Program/Project. .
INSTRUCTIONS
Item 1-
Item 2-
Item 3-
Item 4-
Enter the programlproject identification number as it appears in the official award.
Enter the programlproject description as it appears in the official award.
Enter the name of the recipient.
Check spaces to indicate plans and reports selected. For each report checked, indicate frequency of delivery in column
provided using one of the frequency of delivery codes as shown, as well as the number of copies requested and to whom
they should be sent.
DOE F 4600.3, "Federal Assistance Milestone Plan" -presents, with the accompanying DOE F 4600.3A, "Milestone
Log, • a schedule of the planned activity.
DOE F 4600.4, "Federal Assistance Budget Information• -presents the planned costs.
DOE F 4600.5, "Federal Assistance Management Summary Report" -registers planned progress and costs to actual
progress and costs in a capsulized format
DOE F 4600.6, "Federal Assistance Program/Project Status Report" -periodically reports project status, explains
variances and problems, and discusses any other areas of concern or achievements.
SF-269 or SF-269A, "Fmancial Status Report, • presents the status of funds committed to the project.
DOE F 1430.22, Notice of Energy t{n&D Project-provides information on unclassified DOE RD&D Project for
dissemination to the scientific, technical, and industrial communities and to the public. Also provides information to the
Smithsonian Information Exchange and to the DOE Technical Information Center.
Technical Progress Report -periodically reports progress and/or results of DOE supported RD&D and scientific projects
covering a ~ecific reporting period.
Topical Report -presents the technical results of work performed on a specific phase of a project.
Fmal Technical Report-presents a technical accounting of the total work performed on a project.
Frequency Codes -. Each code represents a :specific reporting frequency such as Quarterly). These time periods are suggested
in the program announcement and negotiated at the time of award.
Item 5-Identify any :special reporting requirements or instructions not identified in Item 4. ((.Ise 'iuiditio~heets as necessary)
i ..
Item 6-Signature of person preparing the checklist and the date prepared. Preparation is by pe:rson responsible for program
solicitation.
) . .),
Item 7-Signature of the person reviewing the checklist and date reviewed. ·'
•• 1 '
· ..
,r
•• , .
.,
'
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, 1:--JC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
1. FINDINGS
A hydroelectric power plant constructed at Packers Creek is technically and economically
feasible as long as the construction costs are kept within reasonable limits. The
recommended plant will use a low height diversion, a de-sanding structure, 2,300 feet of
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, 2,200 feet of Polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe,
and a 200 kW impulse turbine. The system will be constructed mostly with local labor.
The general layout of the system as well as details of the intake and powerhouse are
shown in the drawings in Appendix F.
The following is a summary of the conclusions that were dravm from the feasibility
analysis.
• The cost to construct the plant will be $572,925.
• The highest feasible capacity of the plant will be approximately 200 kW.
• The plant will generate an average of 1,170,217 kWh per year.
• The hydro energy will need to be augmented by 84,711 kWh of diesel energy
during low water periods (approximately January through April).
• A FERC license will not be needed to build the recommended project.
Basic characteristics of the recommended plant are provided below:
JUNE 26, 1995
General Data:
Installed Capacity
Number of Units
Type of Turbine
Basin Area
Average Annual Energy Produced
City's Annual Power Needs
Estimated Annual Usable Energy
Design Flow
Gross Head
Net Head at Full Flow
Penstock Diameter
Penstock Length
Diversion Structure Height
Economic Data (0 to 30 yrs):
Project Construction Cost
Average Annual Project Cost
Annual Fuel Displaced
Average Savings per year
Total Savings, present worth
Excess Energy, present worth
200kW
Impulse
1.14 square mi
1,170,217 kWh
650,000kWh
565,289 kWh
8 cfs
390 feet
357 feet
16 & 14 inches
4,500 feet
4 feet
$572,925
$95,326
43,484 gallons
$35,508
$804,710
$1,194,825
PAGE I
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
2. INTRODUCTION
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
fEASIBILITY REPORT
This report provides an analysis of the feasibility of hydroelectric power production from
Packers Creek at Chignik Lagoon, Alaska. Authorization for this study was given by the
Chignik Lagoon village counciL Funding was provided by the Department of Energy.
Chignik Lagoon is located on the Alaska Peninsula (See Figure 1 in Appendix F) within
the Lake & Peninsula Borough with a population of about 88 people during the winter
months and increasing during the summer.
Currently, Chignik Lagoon is without a central power generating and distribution system.
Each individual in the community is responsible for providing their own power. This is
likely to change in the near future as the community recently received a design for a
diesel power plant and distribution system.
This study is based on the economic and practical comparison of the costs and benefits of
constructing a hydroelectric plant in addition to building the diesel plant. It is assumed in
this study that the costs for building the diesel plant are as estimated in the Electrical
Distribution and Generation Feasibility and Design report dated April 12, 1994.
The scope of this study includes the installation of a recorder to monitor stream flow near
the location of the proposed intake structure, a preliminary layout of the pipeline based on
surveyed elevation information and visual inspection of terrain, an analysis of
streamflows with estimations for optimum turbine size, a cost estimate for design and
construction, and an economic evaluation of the benefits of constructing the hydroplant.
The initial site visit, performed on January 19, 1995 is detailed in the field trip report, a
copy of which is in Appendix E. A second field trip was conducted on June 8, 1995 to
download data from the stream gauge and to get another stage discharge reading. This
information is included in Appendix G.
3. CHIGNIK LAGOON ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS
Generally the amount of electricity used in a community is a function of population, cost
of electricity, cost of alternative energy and earnings of the population. Currently,
Chignik Lagoon does not have a central power generating system. Each user has their
own generator and must supply their own fuel.
In order to assess the feasibility of the hydro plant, an assumption needs to be made
regarding the city's power usage. This is a significant factor that determines the
economic feasibility of installing a hydroelectric plant because the viability of the hydro
plant is directly related to how much diesel fuel it can displace.
The City's needs were estimated by using known power usage from a similar sized
community in a similar location. This was done in the previous electrical design report.
Given a population of 88 people during the winter, the average power needs amount to 74
kW. During the summer, the population increases but the assumed use of electricity
remains constant. This is a conservative assumption that favors the diesel option but
without knowing the actual power usage it is better to error on the conservative side.
JUNE 26, 199 5 PAGE2
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
A daily demand curve was also generated to show the daily fluctuations in power needs.
This fluctuation was taken into account for the amount of diesel makeup needed to
substitute hydro power. Using the daily multiplier, the peak power usage is 113 kW. The
following is the daily fluctuation curve that was used for Chignik Lagoon.
% of Average Power Demand
1.60 ··r-------------------------~
1.40·
1.20.
1.00
0.40
0.20 ..
0.00 ·~-------------~----------+------1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Hour
4. HYDROLOGY AND POWER
4.1 PRECIPITATION AND STREAMFLOW
One of the critical factors for a hydroelectric power plant is the availability of water.
Packers Creek is a stream without records. There are several methods of obtaining and/
or estimating stream flow information when there isn't a recorded history for the stream.
But any estimate should be checked with actual stream gauging. A stream gauge was
recently installed by Polarconsult. This gauge will remain in place for approximately one
year.
Initially, the streamflows in Packers Creek were estimated without the benefit of stream
gauging. This was accomplished using rainfall records for the Alaska Peninsula and
streamflow data from Russell Creek and two creeks near Sand Point. The streamflows
used consisted of approximately 8 months of data from two streams in Sand Point and
several years of data from Russell Creek all scaled by basin size.
The streamflow data has been adjusted to more accurately match the recorded
measurements using the gauging information from January 19 through June 8.
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE3
POLARCONSlJL T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Rainfall records from Sand Point and Cold Bay indicated a mean yearly rainfall of 35.8
inches and 36 inches respectively. This is consistent with the streamflows in the above
mentioned creeks. The streamflows observed in Packers Creek suggest a rainfall of about
100 inches. It could be that this year has an unusually high amount of snow which is
skewing the streamflow data. However, a hydropower feasibility report for Chignik done
in July of 1984 by the US Army Corps of Engineers gives a mean rainfall of 1 07.9 inches
over a 12 year period (Appendix G).
For estimating purposes, the streamflows used in this study correlate with approximately
100 inches of rainfall. The following chart shows the yearly streamflows -actual and
estimated.
Chignik Lagoon Streamflows (est.)
30.0
25.0
-20.0 ~
C,j -~
Q 15.0 = e = <1.1
!o.. -10.0 '..1'1
5.0
0.0 +---~~--+---+----+----1------l---+---t----4
11130 1/14 2/28 4114 5129 7/13 8/27 10/11 11125 119
Date
4.2 AMOUNT OF POWER GENERATED
The amount of power generated is dependent on the pressure and flow of the water along
with the efficiency of the turbine, generator, and electrical equipment. This analysis is
based on a water to wire efficiency of 0.77. The energy available in the water is
converted to electrical energy units and multiplied by this efficiency.
Based on the streamflow information, the cumulative power output of the plant can be
estimated. This represents the amount of time that the plant will produce power at a
given output level. The following cumulative distribution of hydro output shows how
much of the time the power is less than or equal to the city's needs. As the chart shows,
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE4
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRlC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
approximately 80% of the time the hydro can provide all of the City's needs on average.
Where the hydro output is less than the City's demand (about 20% of the time on
average), diesel makeup will be needed to provide the City with all of the power it needs.
Chignik Lagoon Cumalitive Hydro Power Output (est.)
200
180
160
,--._
140 ~ .::a::
'-' 120 . .... = Q.. .... 100 = 0
0
I. 80
'0 :>. 60 :c
40
20
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% I 00%
Percent of Values
4.3 EXCESS ENERGY
Energy in excess of the community's traditional needs will be produced by the hydro
plant. This energy can be wasted but it also can be used. An inexpensive computer
equipped module can be used which will determine by the frequency whether there is
surplus energy. If there is an increase in frequency above sixty hertz, a relay is closed that
sends the excess to an electric heater. Such a heater can be used to heat hot water for the
school, community center, and provide heat to the buildings as well. It can also be used
for greenhouses and adsorption refrigeration. The equivalent amount of fuel displaced by
the excess hydro power will be dependent on water flows and the ways in which the
excess power is used by Chignik Lagoon. It is estimated that the equivalent of 43,105
gallons of oil is available on average each year if all of the energy is usable. A realistic
assumption is that one quarter of the energy can be put to useful purpose.
This study ignores the value of the excess power when determining the feasibility of the
hydroplant. This is somewhat conservative but appropriate because excess power is
essentially "free" when using a hydroplant. When there is excess power, the community
will likely find a use for it but may also lower electrical rates at the same time so that the
net income from power sales remains the same.
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGES
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
5. TYPICAL FEATURES
5.1 ll't!AKE
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
The intake for this project is a small diversion structure that simply raises the water high
enough to allow it to enter the piping that will carry the water to the desander. Figures 3
and 4 in Appendix F are drawings of the proposed intake. The intake has to be built
strong enough to withstand spring floods and ice buildup. It also has to be deep enough
in the ground to prevent the flow of water under the intake so that as much water as
possible enters the intake pipe.
It is proposed to use a reinforced concrete structure with removable stop logs for an
intake. The removable stop logs will enable the water to flush out accumulated rocks and
allow bypassing of the intake pipe for servicing of the desander. Stop logs also serve to
control the maximum height that the water must be at for operation. Installing more stop
logs raises the height of the water over the intake pipe.
On the downstream side of the diversion structure is a concrete pad that dissipates the
energy of excess water falling over the stop log portion of the structure (spillway).
Without this concrete pad the force of the water falling in the stream would eventually
erode away the stream and undermine the concrete.
Before the intake, there will be a trash rack that consists of steel bars spaced closely
enough together (about one pipe diameter) to prevent very large objects from entering the
intake pipe and blocking it.
5.2 DE-SM1JING AND SCREENS
The desander is one of the most important components for the operation of the turbine.
Without it, sand and rocks can flow down the pipe and into the turbine causing excessive
wear and shortened project life. It is very important that the de-sander be built and
maintained properly.
The desander has a primary settling area for removal of gravel and other large material.
In this portion is a flush gate that can be opened and closed manually or automatically.
When the flush gate opens, the water flows through the primary settling area rapidly,
thereby washing out accumulated gravel. When the gate is closed, water flows upward
towards the screen. The water passes up through the screen which catches leaves. The
water then continues up until it reaches the operating height in the desander and flows
over the separating wall in the secondary settling basin.
When the gate in the initial settling portion of the desander opens, water briefly flows
down through the screen. This water removes the buildup of leaves and other floatables
and carries it on out through the gate as the primary settler drains.
The secondary settling basin is much larger than the primary basin. This causes the water
to flow slowly through the basin. When the flow of water is slow, the sand and grit in the
water are able to settle to the bottom. The water then flows through a backup screen and
into the penstock. The backup screen is used in case the first screen fails.
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE6
-
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
5.3 PENSTOCK
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
The water conveyance system, or penstock, is one of the single most expense parts of a
project such as this.
A combination of pipes \Vill be used to convey the water to the turbine. High density
polyethylene, HDPE, pipe weighs about 11 pounds per foot. A single forty foot section
weighs about 440 pounds. The fusion machine for such a pipe weighs about 3,000
pounds.
Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC , pipe also will be used. It comes in 20 foot lengths and has a
bell and spigot joint. The weight would range from 32 to 40 pounds per foot depending
on the wall thickness selected. PVC pipe is less expensive and the material is stronger
than HDPE. However, when cold it is brittle and if shot with a bullet it will crack.
PVC pipe will have to be hauled in sections and connected together in the field. Rubber
"0" ringed joint pipe, if used, will need to be restrained so the joints cannot pull apart.
5.4 POWERHOUSE
The powerhouse will house the turbine, generator, load governor and switch gear. A
transformer will be located outside the powerhouse. The powerhouse will be located so
the generator floor is above flood stage. The base of the powerhouse will be concrete.
The walls and roof will be wood framing with T1-ll on the exterior and greenboard on
the interior.
5.5 TURBINE
The turbine for this plant will be an
impulse turbine. The turbine
consists of one or more nozzles that
shoot water at buckets positioned
around the wheel. The water hits
the buckets causing the wheel to
spin which is connected to the
generator. The figure at left shows
the configuration of the buckets on
an impulse turbine. The water
stream is directed to the center of
the bucket where the flow divides.
This impulse wheel is connected
directly to a generator.
The nozzles that directs the water at
the buckets has needles inside that can be extended or retracted to control the amount of
water that hits the turbi-ne . These needles open and shut relatively slowly to prevent a
1 Provided by Kvaemer Hydro Power, Inc.
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE7
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
water hammer effect. Between the nozzle and the turbine buckets is a movable deflector
plate. This plate can be placed between the buckets and the nozzle to instantly prevent
water from hitting the turbine. This plate prevents the turbine and generator from
overspeeding when the needles can't close fast enough because of a sudden drop in power
output (breaker tripping for instance).
5.6 GENERATOR
The proposed generator will produce a minimum of 200 kW at a 0.9 power factor.
Electrically, it will be a three phase, 480 volt unit. It will have static excitation and will
use a Basler or equivalent voltage regulator.
The generator for the turbine will come from the U.S., and will operate at 1,200 rpm. It
will have ball bearings. The turbine may or may not be mounted on the generator shaft.
5. 7 GOVERNOR
The generator rpm must be controlled to produce sixty cycles. In earlier hydroplants the
speed of the turbine was controlled with a governor that controlled the amount of water
the machine received, which in tum controlled the speed. There is another way to control
the speed of the machine, and that is to add and subtract electrical loads so the output
remains at 60 cycles. This can now be done electronically by a device called a "load
governor". There are a number of load governors operating in Alaska, such as at Burnett
Inlet on Alaska Aquaculture's project, Larsen Bay, Ouzinkie, Rainbow Creek, and more.
An electronic load governor can be located anywhere on the three phase electrical
distribution system. It takes power in excess of that being used and shunts it to resistance
heaters. Resistance heater can be hot water heaters, hydronic heating systems, and
electric air heaters that are located wherever heat is required. Loads are prioritized by the
load governor. As an example, the governor can be programmed to supply excess
electricity first to the school heating system, secondly to the school hot water, and then to
the greenhouse or the city hall.
For a run of the river plant that has no storage, the amount of water that can be used at
any moment cannot exceed the amount in the stream. If there is more water in the stream
than the plant could use then that water is wasted energy. A stream fluctuates as does the
demand for electricity. A 200 kW machine will rarely be used near peak capacity at
Chignik Lagoon. Much of the time there will be excess water that can be used to operate
the hydroplant at an output above the community's needs. The surplus electricity can
produce heat that has value as it can be used to displace fuel and its associated costs.
This provides added value to the plant and also is environmentally superior to burning
carbon based fuels.
In addition to the load governor there is an electronic head level controller that opens or
shuts the turbine needles based on the quantity of water available at the beginning of the
penstock. It does this by reading the water pressure (depth) which in tum is converted to
an electrical signal that is provided to a computer which directs the operation of a
hydraulic pump that drives a cylinder controlling the flow of water to the turbine. If
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGES
POLARCO~SUL T ALASKA, INC. CH!G~IK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
water is being used at a rate greater than its supply then the needles will close, if the rate
is less than the supply the needles will open until they reach their limits of opening.
5.8 SWITCH GEAR
The switch gear will consist of several elements. One item will be the circuit breaker that
will protect the plant if there is over-current. The electronic equipment can also be used
to perform relaying to shut the plant off if there is over or under voltage or frequency. In
addition, transducers can be provided, as was done at Larsen Bay, so it is possible to
monitor the status of the plant from town. In a small plant such as this, the switch gear
and the electronic controls for a load governor can be incorporated within a single
enclosure thus saving space and costs.
5.9 TRANSMISSION
Different power line designs are possible. The most desirable one, considering aesthetics
and damages, is buried cable. A second design would be bare overhead wire.
For this study, it is assumed that the transmission line will be buried line. It will be
enclosed in conduit and buried beneath the road to the powerhouse.
6. COSTS
The value ofhydropower is based on the alternative means of providing the same service.
The only feasible alternative to hydro at Chignik Lagoon is diesel generation.
Another significant difference between the 'diesel only' and the 'hydro and diesel'
options is the amount of maintenance that has to be done to equipment. The estimate for
the diesel cost and the assumptions about diesel are outlined in more detail below.
6.1 DIESEL
6.1.1 FUEL CoST
Fuel is the single most expensive component of generating power with diesel generating
units. It is estimated that total plant expenditures are approximately $130,834. For a fuel
cost of $1.25 per gallon, $62,500 dollars will be used to purchase the 50,000 gallons
consumed. This represents almost half of the yearly cost of operating the diesel electric
plant and distribution system.
The future cost of diesel fuel is uncertain because of the current international situation.
There is no physical shortage of oil in the world nor will there be for some time. A
conservative estimate of fuel costs for this analysis is that they will increase at 1.0% for
the next 5 years and at 0.0% thereafter. Sources for such analysis include the "World
Energy Outlook", dated 1990, produced by the Chevron Corporation. The sensitivity
analysis in Appendix C shows the value of the hydro plant for different fuel price increase
scenarios.
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE9
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC.
6.1.2 EQUIPMENT AND LABOR COST
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
The Electrical Distribution and Generation Feasibility and Design report done for
Chignik Lagoon in April 1994 outlines the costs for installing a centralized power
system. The costs that were used in that document have also been used for this analysis.
When considering the hydro plant the amount of time the diesel is used as a backup is a
large factor in determining the economic advantage of the hydro. For instance, because
the diesels won't be running nearly as much when there is a hydro, the village can invest
in lower cost 1800 rpm machines instead of the higher cost 1200 rpm machines. The
1200 rpm machine is estimated to last about 30,000 hours before overhaul. The 1800 rpm
machines should last about 18,000 hours. This analysis assumes that when building the
hydro the diesel generators will be 1800 rpm engines instead of the 1200 rpm machines
specified in the design. The cost for the power distribution system will not change.
Analysis shows that using 1200 rpm engines with the hydroplant decreases the net
present value by about $35,000 which is equivalent to about $1,840 per year.
The maintenance costs for a diesel engine are also directly related to the hours of use. It
is assumed in the electrical distribution report that the maintenance costs for the diesel
plant would be $30,000 per year. This includes the overhaul costs which is why they are
listed as $0 in the Economic Assumptions table in Appendix A. When using a hydro, the
diesel is used only about 20% percent of what it would be without the hydro. Therefore,
the parts costs are assumed to decrease by that same amount. However, salaries for
workers will generally remain constant so this portion of the maintenance costs are not
lowered.
6.1.3 FUEL REQUIRED
There will be times when there is not sufficient water to supply the demand or when the
plant is down for maintenance reasons. During these times generation will be done by the
diesel plant. As a result, an average of 6,516 gallons of diesel fuel will need to be
purchased each year. This can vary as water flows vary for different years. Some years
may not require any makeup fuel at all while others years will require more than the
average.
6.2 HYDRO
6.2.1 EQUIPMENT AND LABOR COST
The hydro plant has a very high initial equipment cost. Given a high interest rate, this
can make the project unattainable for a project that has a marginal economic advantage.
This analysis assumes that the hydroplant can be funded by a loan with an interest of
3.5% above inflation. The State's revolving loan fund has money with interest of 0%.
Any loan with interest below inflation plus 3.5% will increase the benefits. Other interest
rates are used in the sensitivity analysis in Appendix C.
Once the plant is built no further equipment purchases need to be made. The hydroplant
is designed to last 50 years.
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGEIO
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Although a diesel electric power plant takes considerably more maintenance than a
hydroelectric plant, the hydro is not maintenance free. This is especially true during the
first year of operation when problems are most likely to occur.
Modem low cost electronic equipment can be installed to monitor the operation of a
small hydroplant. For example there is an inexpensive device that connects to the
telephone system that will call designated people if the temperature is too high or too low,
or there is too much noise. This device also has contacts where a fire detector or other
off/on devices may be connected. One can also call and listen to the sound level at the
plant which is useful for periodic monitoring. The cost for this device is about $400. In
addition, transducers can be installed in the switch gear that will enable the operator to
determine what is happening electrically. This type of system was installed at Larsen
Bay. It may also be possible to install a pair of the new video phones which will provide
an inexpensive way of looking at the power house, intake, or other plant features. Since
the operator will be living in town and the weather is not always conducive to inspecting
the plant, these remote devices will be able to avoid field inspections that will save
considerable time and effort. After the operator gains experience operating the plant, less
observation will be needed. For example, the operator may find from experience that
after a heavy rain the screens require cleaning, so the operator will not bother
investigating the screens on a daily basis if the rains have been moderate. This means
that the amount of time spent at the plant will decrease with time.
6.2.2 CONSTRUCTION
Project costs are one of the most important derivatives of an analysis such as this. Their
accuracy, along with the demand, estimate of future alternative power generation costs,
costs of money, and quantity of production are the important values that provide the
information to make sound economic judgments.
It is important to assign values to each of these items that will result in a conservative
realistic result. Too many contingencies have a multiplying effect and can result in
unrealistically high costs. Many construction and operations costs can be predicted in a
manner that will be conservative. These include demand, alternative power generation
costs, and costs of money. The quantity of production is dependent on water flow and is
not as easily predicted.
Project costs have received extra attention in the analysis. The extra attention has
included more detail than is typical in a study of this type in the sizing of equipment. In
addition, costs were analyzed on an item by item basis instead of a unit basis, such as
dollars per square foot. This attention to detail increases the estimate's accuracy but it
takes more time and as a result is more costly for the consultant.
Project costs are composed of two major elements. One element is material costs. These
costs, if based on accurate quantities, can be fairly accurate. The second element is labor
cost. This is the variable cost, and is hard to estimate accurately. As an example, heavy
rain can reduce productivity to as low as 36% of dry conditions. However, if the work is
mostly done during the months of June, July, and August and the weather is not unusually
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE 11
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
wet, productivity can be good. Labor costs are based on an estimate of the time to do the
work, assuming a crew and supervision such as was used on the McRobert's Creek project
that Polarconsult constructed.
Wages are based on information garnered from the City of Chignik Lagoon, force account
work in other communities, and our construction of McRobert's Creek Hydro. For wages
the following assumptions are made.
2 Skilled laborers @ $15.00 per hour
2 laborers @ $12.50 per hour
@ $17.50 per hour
@ $14.50 per hour
@ $15.00 per hour
Fringes estimated as follows:
Workers Compensation 8.5%
Alaska Unemployment 3.1%
Employer Social Security 7.65%
Total 19.25%
Average rate per hour calculated is $17.88. Twenty dollars per hour is used in the
estimates.
This is more than rates paid on McRobert's Creek which averaged $10 per hour plus
fringes.
The project cost estimate is arranged to present the costs of material and labor in a
detailed format so the City will be able to review costs and provide any bias or input to
the figures based on local knowledge.
Itemized material costs are not as variable as their costs are fixed by quotation.
Frequently quoted prices can be bettered when an order is placed. As a general rule, these
quotations are rounded to higher values.
Freight costs are based on a single barge hauling in the majority of the material during
one trip from Seattle. Because of scheduling, the turbine and generator are assumed to
be shipped separately.
6.2.3 FORCE ACCOUNT
Force account is the only practical and cost effective way to construct a project such as
this. Wage rates for Title 36, Little Davis Bacon, are high enough to make the project
uneconomical. Force account optimizes the situation for local employment and avoids all
of the added costs that contracting brings. Some of the added costs for contracting are the
cost to bid, bonding costs, tighter plans and specifications resulting in more expensive
engineering, better record keeping, greater overhead, and more detailed inspections.
Additionally, higher worker's compensation insurance rates and higher wages are
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE12
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
required, since Little Davis Bacon rules are less flexible as they require overtime pay for
working more than 8 hours per day. There is also greater contractor risk and added legal
fees, resulting in increased costs and bids.
The major problem with community force account is management. In the best interests of
the project, the manager generally should not be from the community. Tough personnel
decisions are required during the execution of the project If the project is brought in
under budget then money can be returned to the workers as a bonus or to the rate payer.
Management in force account can strike the balance between sensitivity for local feelings
and needs, and the absolute need to complete the project on or under budget.
To build a quality plant with low cost, the philosophy of construction must be different
for small hydro plants as compared to large ones. More of the decisions on routing and
layout must be made in the field during construction. The project must be compatible
with the terrain and not be required to move more rock and earth than is absolutely
necessary, or pour added concrete to match lines drawn on paper as is done on larger
scale projects. This requires a flexible mind and the ability to innovate in order to solve
problems on the spot.
6.2.4 TITLE 36
Title 36 is enforced when a contractor or subcontractor performs work on public
construction in Alaska. Title 36 requires that contractors be paid the prevailing wage in
the locality. This prevailing wage is set by the Labor Department's Labor Standards and
Safety Division. For Chignik Lagoon the wage plus the fringes will average near 30
dollars per hour. The overall cost increase for wages alone would exceed $40,000.
Additionally, contractors have other costs that will further raise this amount.
7. ECONOMICS
The economics of the system are outlined below. A synopsis of the assumptions and
results is presented below. The sensitivity analysis in the appendix gives results for
different economic assumptions. Loan period and analysis period is for 30 years. The
initial cost of the plant is $572,925.
Other assumptions are that current labor costs will remain constant. Although it is likely
these costs can be reduced after the debugging period, this is a conservative approach that
will retain the needed skills within the community.
All of the monetary values in this analysis have been adjusted to present value using the
discount rate. This means that inflation is not taken into account. This gives clearer
resolution of variations in the dollar quantities.
An explanation of some of the selected values follows:
• Interest rates: A system was selected that does not use standard interest rates
which include assumed factors for inflation. Everything is reduced to the
opportunity cost of interest which traditionally has been near 3.5%. This
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE13
POLARCONSULT ALASKA. INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRJC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
results in costs that are in today's dollars throughout the analysis period. This
helps in achieving a more accurate understanding of the project costs.
• Power demand: A conservative figure is 0.0% growth. More growth favors
the hydro over the diesel.
• Loan Period: The loan period is typical for a small hydroplant and again is
conservative as compared to 50 year periods used for governmental projects.
In addition there are other economic values for the project that have not been quantified.
Some of these values are as follows:
• Retaining money within the community. When oil is purchased most of the
money leaves the community and goes to the transporters, refiners, producers,
and resource owners. The labor will result in employment for people in the
community. Income from their wages will add new money to the community.
The savings from lower costs for electricity will conserve dollars within the
community for other uses.
• People will receive training in construction by doing the work. This training
is valuable as it makes for salable skills, and fosters independence.
• Freedom from rate shock created by increasing oil prices is obtained. Should
there be large excursions in oil prices then the communities electric costs will
not be significantly affected.
In addition to benefits there are also potential negative aspects of the project which
follow:
• The primary risk is from cost overruns during construction.
• The second risk is that a flood or mechanical events will result in reduced
revenues. This risk can persist until the causes of the problems are corrected.
• Another disadvantage is that a project such as this could be conceived as
increasing stress within the community because of the requirement to
complete it on time and on budget. Further, if the community is divided on
the project there is always a possibility of increased political disagreements
between the anti's and the progressives.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL
8.1 FISH REQUIREMENTS
The hydro plant would discharge water upstream of any potential spawning grounds.
Because of the significant number of flow contributions downstream of the intake, it is
expected that there won't be any impact to fish in Packers Creek.
8.2 FERC
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction over most of the
hydro in the US. FERC's jurisdiction is when a hydroplant is on Federal land, is involved
with Interstate Commerce, is on a Navigable River, or uses water from a Federal dam or
Project.
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE14
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
The proposed project is not on Federal land, it is on Chignik Lagoon land. The project
does not send power beyond State boundaries therefore, it is not involved in interstate
commerce. Packers Creek is clearly not navigable where the project is located, and there
is no federal dam or project on the river. As a result the commission can be petitioned for
a waiver from FERC licensing. The petition, when granted, will save time and money
and makes the project much easier to permit as the Federal agencies will not have
jurisdiction.
9. PERMITS
9.1 PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED AS FOLLOWS:
1. A water use permit will be required from the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). DNR will ask for comments by the Alaska State Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) in the review of these permits. It is unlikely but ADF&G may ask for
special conditions, such as minimum stream flows.
2. Alaska Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review Compliance.
3. DEC Clean Water Certification (401) which is done in conjunction with DNR1S
review. This permit is required only if a Federal permit is needed. A typical
Federal permit which will require a (401) is a (404) permit for action involving a
wetland or fill in a stream. Without fill, a (404) permit will not be needed,
therefore, a ( 401) permit will not be required either.
4. FERC confirmation of no jurisdiction.
With the possible exception of dealing with ADF&G, none of these permits will be
difficult or expensive to acquire. DNR is behind in permit processing so their permit will
take the most time, the agency cannot say how long, but perhaps 6 months.
10. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyses in this report, the conclusion is that a hydro plant is superior to the
current diesel generation under almost all reasonable scenarios.
Hydro is superior to diesel generation in a conventional economic sense as the base
project yields a present value of $804,710 for the difference between hydro and the diesel
alternative.
In addition to being superior economically, the plant will be superior in an environmental
sense as it will not discharge carbon dioxide nor nitrous oxides into the atmosphere. The
new design of the plant in addition to reducing costs, fits into the terrain and requires the
very minimum of earthwork. The generation facility is outside the community and will
considerably reduce air and noise pollution in Chignik Lagoon, or anywhere for that
matter.
There are a number of indications that the US, in an attempt to reduce payments to
foreign interests, will create an increase in the costs of diesel fuel. With the hydroplant
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGElS
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
the use of diesel generation is reduced to about 20% of its current use so changes in the
cost of diesel fuel will have no appreciable impact on the cost of power.
The hydroplant will provide employment for the community for much of one year. The
community, instead of sending money out to pay for oil, will capture the labor portion of
the project. This will have multiplier effects throughout the community, and should
increase prosperity. The diesel plant will not provide these benefits.
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
There are a number of advantages that can accrue to the people of Chignik Lagoon if a
hydroplant is constructed. If these advantages are to be acquired it is recommended that
the following steps be undertaken.
• Ascertain whether the people believe it is in their best interest to build the
plant. If pursuing the project is favorable, then the following additional steps
be taken.
• Get a grant from the Legislature to design and construct a portion of the plant.
King Cove has a grant which funds a large amount of their hydro plant's cost.
The Railbelt has been granted money for Bradley Lake. The 4 dam pool has
received great amounts of largess from the state. It would seem that equity
should result in equal consideration for Chignik Lagoon. Governor Knowles
likes to keep money within Alaska and philosophically supports the concept of
the plant.
• Money can be borrowed from the revolving power loan fund at low interest
from Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Farmers Home
Administration, Municipal Bond Bank or other sources.
• Only consider doing the work with force account, i.e. City employees. Be very
careful with management of the project. Non-innovative construction people
who are accustomed to high cost state government projects can ruin a small
project like this. Paraphrasing Shumaker, think small. Give the project
manager absolute authority to fire people who are not performing. There is no
money for feather bedding.
• Plan to and execute methods of taking advantage of the excess energy that is
available to reduce costs, decrease pollution, and improve the quality of life in
the community.
JUNE 26, 1995 PAGE16
.....
POLARCONSLL T ALASKA, INC. CHlGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRJC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
APPENDIX A -HYDRO COST
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIX A
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
ITEM MATERIAL LABOR Sl!BTOTAL SHIPPING TOTAL
ASIBILITY REPORT
Cost Labor Labor Labor And
Quantity Unit Per Unit Rate Hours Material Cost Volume Wt Shipping
'rl!RBINE 1 ea $ 45,000 $ 20 48 $ 45,960 1,000 $ 150 $ 46,110
GENERATOR I ea $ 27,400 $ 20 48 $ 28,360 1,500 $ 225 $ 28,585
PIPE $ -
Pipe I (16") 2300 ft $ 10.00 $ 20 460 $ 32,200 3,271 24,150 $ 24,533 $ 56,733
Pipe 2 (14") 2200 ft $ 16.00 $ 20 220 $ 39,600 $ -$ 39,600
Trenching 4500 ft $ 5.00 $ 20 680 $ 36,100 $ -$ 36,100
Fusion Rental 7 wks $ 250 $ 1,750 480 4,000 $ 3,600 $ 5,350
WIRING TO INTAKE $ -
Conduit 4500 ft $ 0.60 $ 20 150 $ 5,700 300 1,350 $ 2,250 $ 7,950
Control Wire 4500 ft $ 0.30 $ 20 150 $ 4,350 900 $ 135 $ 4,485
Power Wire 4500 ft $ 0.60 $ 20 150 $ 5,700 900 $ 135 $ 5,835
INTAKE BOX $ -
Material 5200 lump $ 1.00 $ 20 448 $ 14,160 267 $ 2,003 $ 16,163
DIVERSION $ -
Concrete 8.89 cuyd $ 600 $ 20 576 $ 16,853 36,000 $ 5,400 $ 22,253
CONTROL EQUIPMENT $ -
Transformer l ea $ 6,000 $ 20 20 $ 6,400 3,000 $ 450 $ 6,850
Load Governor l ea $ 12,000 $ 45 20 $ 12,900 16 $ 120 $ 13,020
Switch Gear l ea $ 7,000 $ 45 80 $ 10,600 128 $ 960 $ 11,560
Station Power I ea $ 850 $ 20 15 $ 1,150 192 $ 1,440 $ 2,590
POWER WIRE $ -$ -$ -
Wire 13500 ft $ 1.40 $ 20 113 $ 21,150 10,800 $ 1,620 $ 22,770
Trenching 4500 ft $ 3.33 $ 20 113 $ 17,235 $ -$ 17,235
BUILDING
Size, Width 20ft $ -$ -$ -
Length 20ft $ -$ -$ -
Height I 0 ft $ -$ -$ -
Slab Thickness 10 in $ -$ -$ -
Slab Volume 12.35 cu yd $ 15.00 $ 20 120 $ 2,585 50,000 $ 7,500 $ 10,085
Wall Area 800 sq ft $ 3.50 $ 20 100 $ 4,800 8,000 $ 1,200 $ 6,000
Roof 400 sq ft $ 5.00 $ 20 100 $ 4,000 6,000 $ 900 $ 4,900
Valve I ea $ 1,500 $ 20 10 $ 1,700 $ -$ 1,700
Piping 1 ea $ 2,500 $ 45 60 $ 5,200 $ -$ 5,200
ROAD 5500 lin ft $ 6.00 $ 20 275 $ 38,500 $ -$ 38,500
Sub Total $ 409,574
Administrative 10% $ 40,957
Field Inspection $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Engineering 10% $ 40,957
Contingency 15% $ 61,436
TOTAL $572,925
6/26/95 APPENDIX A
POL-\RCO~SCLT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRlC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
APPENDIX B-ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND YEARLY DATA
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIX B
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC.
CHIGNIK LAGOON ECONOMICS
Discount Rate(%)
Power demand gro·wth (%)
Fuel cost increase in lst X years(%)
X years
Fuel cost increase thereafter
Length of study (yrs)
Price of Fuel ($/gal)
diesel efficiency (kWh/gal)
Price per kWh ($/kWh)
DIESEL
Yearly Maintenance cost
Overhaul cost
Overhaul frequency (kwh)
Replacement cost
Replacement frequency (yrs)
payback period for replacement (yrs)
Debt payment for diesel purchase
power system payback period (yrs)
power system cost (grid)
power system payments
Diesel parts cost per kwh
HYDRO
Initial hydro cost (loan amount)
Hydro loan payback time (yrs)
Hydro loan interest rate(%)
Hydro yearly payments
HydroO&M
Diesel replacement cost when using hydro
Debt payment for diesel purchase
Diesel Overhaul Cost
Diesel Overhaul Frequency (kWh)
Diesel O&M with hydro
Diesel Replacement Freq with Hydro (yrs)
RESULTS
Net present cost of hydro
Net present cost without hydro
Net present value of excess power
Total savings, present value
6/26/95
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
3.5%
0.0%
l.O%
5
0.0%
30
$1.25
13.0
$0.096
$30,000
$0
2,220,000
$90,000
10
10
10,822
30
506,000
$27,512
$0.000
$572,925
30
3.5%
($31,151)
$10,000
$50,000
$3,518
$0
1,332,000
$15,000
20
$2,033,719
$2,838,430
$1,194,825
$804,710
APPENDIXB
I
I
I I
l_
~~~
I )
I I
I
I
\
r
I I
I
POLARCONSULT ALASKA INC
Year Average
Flow
cfs
1995 9 03
1996 9 03
1997 9 03
1998 9 03
1999 9 03
2000 9 03
2001 9 03
2002 9 03
2003 9 03
2004 9 03
2005 9 03
2006 9 03
2007 9 03
2008 9 03
2009 9 03
2010 9 03
2011 9 03
2012 9 03
2013 9 03
2014 9 03
2015 9 03
2016 9 03
2017 9 03
2018 9 03
2019 9 03
2020 9 03
2021 9 03
2022 9 03
2023 9 03
2024 9 03
2025 9 03
6/26/95
Ctty Hydro
Needs Output
1 000 kWh 1,000 kWh
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 I170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1I70
650 II70
650 1170
650 II70
650 1170
650 1I70
650 II70
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
650 I170
650 1170
650 1170
650 1170
Yearly Summary
HYDRO
Hydro Hydro Total Hydro Dtesel Fuel
Debt Mamtenance Cost Makeup Cost
thousands thousands thousands 1 000 kWh
$31 2 $10 0 $412 85 $1 250
$11 2 $10 0 $412 85 $1 263
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 275
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1288
$31 2 $10 0 $412 85 $1 300
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $4I 2 85 $I 1I3
$31 2 $IO 0 $41 2 85 $1 311
$31 2 $10 0 $4I 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 313
$3I 2 $10 0 $4I2 85 ~1 3I3
$31 2 $10 0 $4I 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $4I 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $I 313
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $IO 0 $412 85 $1 313
$3I 2 $10 0 $412 85 ~1 3I3
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $IO 0 $412 85 $1 313
$312 $10 0 $412 85 $1 3I3
$31 2 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 313
$312 $10 0 $412 85 $1 313
$312 $10 0 $41 2 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $412 85 $1 313
$312 $10 0 $412 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $412 85 $1313
$312 $10 0 $412 85 $1 313
$31 2 $10 0 $412 85 $1 313
-
$31 2 $10 0 $412 85 $1 313
~--
I
Total Dtesel Total Present Excess Power
Cost Cost Value Present Value
thousands thousands thousands thousands
$54 2 $95 3 $95 3 $53 9
$54 3 $95 4 $92 2 $52 6
$54 3 $95 5 $89 2 $51 4 I
$54 4 $95 6 $86 5 $50 2
$54 5 $95 7 $83 9 $49 2
$54 6 $95 7 $81 5 $48 1
$54 6 $95 7 $79 I $46 8
$54 6 $95 7 $76 9 $45 4
$54 6 $95 7 $74 8 $44 2
$54 6 $95 7 $72 8 $43 0
$54 6 $95 7 $70 9 $419
$54 6 $95 7 $69 I $40 8
$54 6 $95 7 $67 4 $39 8
$54 6 $95 7 $65 8 $38 9
$54 6 $95 7 $64 3 $38 0
$54 6 $95 7 $62 8 $37 1 I
$54 6 $95 7 $61 4 $36 3
$54 6 $95 7 $60 0 $35 5
$54 6 $95 7 $58 7 $34 7 I
$54 6 S95 7 $57 5 $34 0 I
$54 6 $95 7 $56 3 $...,..,...., _,_, _, I
$54 6 $95 7 $55 2 $32 6 I
I
$54 6 $95 7 $54 1 $32 0
$54 6 $95 7 $53 0 $31 3
$54 6 $95 7 $52 0 $30 7
$54 6 $95 7 $51 I $30 2
$54 6 $95 7 $50 1 $29 6
$54 6 $95 7 $49 2 $29 I
$54 6 $95 7 $48 4 $28 6 I
$54 6 $95 7 $47 5 $28 1
I $54 6 $95 7 $46 7 $27 6 I
Dtesel
Usage
I 000 kWh
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FE-\SIBILITY REPORT
NO HYDRO
Total Dtesel Present
Cost Value
thousands thousands
$1308 $130 8
$131 5 $127 0
$132 I $123 4
$132 7 $120 1
$133 3 SI17 0
$134 0 $114 0
$134 0 SilO 7
$134 0 $107 6
$134 0 $104 7
$134 0 SIOI 9
$134 0 $99 2
$134 0 $96 7
$1340 $94 3
$134 0 $92 1
$I34 0 $89 9
$134 0 $87 8
$134 0 $85 9
$134 0 $84 0
$134 0 $82 2
$134 0 $80 5
$1340 $78 8
$134 0 $77 2
$1340 $75 7
$134 0 $74 2
$134 0 $72 8
$134 0 $71 4
$134 0 $70 1
$134 0 $68 9
$134 0 $67 7
$134 0 $66 5 I
$134 0 $65 3
APPENDIXB
POLARCOf'SUL T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRJC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
APPENDIX C -SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIXC
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
The sensittvtty analysis gives an indication as to what are the most critical factors
affecting the economic viability of the hydroplant project. This analysis focuses on the
primary factors that determine the cost and feasibility of the project. These are:
• Project construction costs.
• Hydroplant loan interest rate.
• Chignik Lagoon's electrical demand.
• Estimate of future diesel fuel costs.
• Quantity of hydro production based on variations in water flow.
The following charts and tables show the effect of each one of these variables on the
economics. Only the stated variable is changed at one time while all the other variables
are as those listed in Appendix B, Economic Assumptions.
Hydro Cost and Net Savings
<II $900,000 = ~ ;;.. $850,000 1 ......
$800,000 j = <II
"' <II J.. c..
"' $750,000 ~
"' l:lil = $700,000 ·;;:
~ r.n -$650,000
<II z -$600,000 T = ~ c.
0 $550,000 J..
'0 ;....
::r: $500,000
$500,000 $550,000 $600,000 $650,000 $700,000 $750,000 $800,000
Hydroplant Cost
As can be seen from the chart, the project would still be economically feasible for a
considerable increase in the estimated construction cost. This only applies at the interest
used for the loan in the base case. As the next graph shows, the loan interest rate has a
significant affect on the feasibility of this project.
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIXC
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Hydroplant Loan Interest Rate and Net Savings
$1,200,000
Q,j = -;
> $1,000,000 -= Q,j
"' Qj
I.. $800,000 .. Q..
~
"' ~
"' $600,000 l:ltl
.5 ...
~
rJ"j $400,000 -= Cl:l c. $200,000 0
I..
"C >. =
0% I% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%
Hydroplant Loan Interest Rate
The City's power demand needs will affect the profitability of the hydroplant also. As
the following graph illustrates, increases in the City's demand cause a significant increase
in the net present value difference between the hydro and non hydro power generation.
Similarly, decreases in the City's power needs will reduce the economic feasibility of the
hydro project.
When combined with estimations for water flow the city's needs become even more
important. For instance, using the current estimate for water flow there are a large
number of days during the summer where the flow is less than 8 cfs and thus power
output is less than 200 kW. If the population increase in the summer is such that the city
uses over 150 kW daily, the hydroplant will have to be supplemented with diesel energy a
significant amount of time.
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIX(
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Power Demand Growth and Net Savings
Cl.l
$1,450,000
..: = > $1,250,000 -= Cl.l
"' Cl.l ... $!,050,000 Q.,
= "" = "' $850,000 l ~ = ·;: = IJJ $650,000 -= = Q.
$450,000 = ...
"Cl ..... ::c
$250,000
-3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%
City's Power Demand Growth Rate
Fuel price increase's, or even decreases, play a major part in the feasibility of the project.
The following chart shows the sensitivity of the project to fuel prices. Of concern would
be a decrease in the price of fuel. This is not a likely scenario, however.
Fuel Increases and Net Savings
Cl.l
$1,400,000
= -;
> $1,200,000 -= Q;l
"' Q;l ... $1,000,000 Q.,
=
"' =
"" $800,000 ~ = ·;: = $600,000 IJJ -= = Q. $400,000 = ...
"Cl ..... ::c $200,000
-2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3%
Fuel Increase Rate
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIXC
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
One of the biggest factors in determining the output of the hydroplant, and thus it's
profitability, is the amount of water available in the stream. As was mentioned in the
report, there aren't any stream flow records for Packer's Creek. Micro climates can be
very significant around mountains and inlets. For this reason, further stream gauging
should be done along with input from the community as to rainfall, snowfall, and general
streamflow conditions in the creek over the years.
The following graph illustrates the affect of streamflow on the feasibility of the project.
As the flow decreases, the value of the project decreases rapidly because the flow rate is
reaching the lower portions of the turbine efficiency curve. As the flow increases, there is
a point of diminishing returns as the community cannot put to use the increase in the
amount of power.
Water Flow and Net Savings
$900,000 ~
$850,000 i
$800,000 +
$750,000
$700,000
$650,000
$600,000
$550,000
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140%
Percent of Average Water Flow
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIXC
POL\RCONSL'L T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOO:-..' HYDROELECTRIC
FEASII3ILITY REPORT
APPENDIX D -FIELD REPORT
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIXD
JANUARY 30, 1995
CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASffiiLITY STUDY
FIELD TRIP REPORT
prepared for the
NATIVE VILLAGE OF CIDGNIK LAGOON
P.O. Box 57
CHIGNIK LAGOONt ALASKA 99565
prepared by
POLARCONSULT ALASKA
polarconsult alaska, inc.
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • ENERGY CONSULTANTS
··"" ....
Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Feasibility Field Trip Report
Polarconsult engineers Dan Hertrich and Dempsey Thieman traveled to Chignik Lagoon
January 19, 1995 to obtain streamflow and geographic information on Packers Creek and
surrounding area. At the time of the trip, there was approximately 2 feet of snow, which
made traveling with survey and stream monitoring equipment difficult. The average
temperature was 25 degrees. Overall, the area was determined to be favorable for a
hydroelectric powerplant.
On January 20, a stream gage was installed, and depth and velocity data were recorded at
approximately 470', near the potential stream diversion, (see photos page 4). The stream
gage samples the water depth every 15 minutes, every two hours the data is averaged and
stored in memory. The stream gage will record data for over three years before the
batteries need to be replaced and data downloaded. The average stream depth was six
inches. The average stream width was eight feet. The stream bed is eight feet wide and
2.5 feet deep, with a 30 foot wide flood plain. The stream was flowing at approximately
2.8 cubic feet per second. Elevations of potential diversion and turbine sites were
determined using EDM surveying equipment, (see page 9).
Due to the canyon geography, it was concluded that the pipeline should be located on the
north side of the creek. This will eliminate numerous gully crossings and result in a
shorter pipeline, reducing cost and headloss. The pipeline would generally follow the
contour of the land until the lower third of the pipeline, where it would lose most of its
elevation. The vegetation of the area consists of small alder trees and bushes, very dense
in some places, with tall grass. Examination of the cut stream bank shows the soil consists
of mostly glacial till and should allow ready burial of the pipeline.
The stream diversion should be located at approximately 51 0' above sea level in order to
climb out of the incised stream bed with enough elevation to reach a small saddle while
maintaining minimum slope, (see photos page 3, 4). The large gully near the top of the
pipe run (see photo on page 5) can be crossed by burying the pipeline a few feet deeper
than usual in order to avoid potential erosion problems. The pipeline could divert the
significant flow of water flowing in this large gully as well, increasing the hydro output,
which is especially important during the winter season. The pipeline would then follow a
small ridge on the side of the mountain, a few hundred feet from the creek, (see photo on
page 5, 6). As the ridge drops away from the mountain, the pipeline would maintain
minimum slope and cross one more small gully. The pipeline would then turn down the
mountain to the turbine, located near the stream bed. The turbine should be located at
approximately 11 0' above sea level, as the creek bed levels out below this elevation. This
would provide 400' of gross head for electrical production. The pipeline will be
approximately 3,800 feet long. The pipeline material can be high density polyethylene in
the upper portion and steel in the lower, higher pressure portion of the pipeline. A small
1503 WEST 33RD AVENUE • SUITE 310 • ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503
PHONE (907) 258-2420 • TELEFAX (907) 258-2419 1
polarconsult
, road would be cut to allow access to the powerhouse. A buried powerline in the road
would connect the powerhouse to the village distribution lines.
'-
The terrain, geography, soil type and stream flow are all very favorable conditions for a
hydroelectric powerplant which could provide electricity to the village of Chignik Lagoon.
2
POL \RU >'\;SLL T ALASKA !~C. C!!JG:,:JK LM100~ HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBJLIH REPORT
APPEI"'DIX E-PHOTOS SHOWING PIPING LAYOUT AND INTAKE
LOCATION
JUNE 26. !995 APPENDIXE
POI..\RCONSLJI.I AI.\Sht\, INC. CIIIGNih LAGOON HYDORELECTRIC
FIELD TRJP REPORT
.--~ ::::,.;T r--1 T: (;'""
It-Jit:'K F
\\ J$-rr~11w qf\ 6-t:-LJirC
\
\
\ \\
\
POLARCONSlJLT ALASKA. INC.
Tf?> 1'."'' {7-,:;r,H .. f::
1N5Tf1LLr770N
Clfl<iNII\. LACiOON IIYDOIUJ.ItTIUC
FIElD TRIP REPORT
I
, I
< I
I
l 1
< I
I
I I
I I I
ll
II
I
I I r,
I
l ' I
I~ I
Ju?'-IE 26, 1995
CII!G"'JK LMiOU\ HYDROELECTRIC
FL\SIBILITY REPORT
APPENDIX F-DRAWINGS
APPENDIXF
FAIRBANKS e
VICINITY MAP
0 500 2500 5000
SCALE IN FEET
DATE 4/5/9 NO DATE REVISIONS
DESIGNED _____M! 1----+----+-------------~
OAA~ ~R ~-+--4-------------~
~E~D---~ ~-+--4-------------~
SCALE 1 oaJ500
FILE Oi.H1 l---+---+----------------1
" -<-
(;
" ~ c,
GREEN
POINT
'v
+
po~all"consult
~
0
0
c,
'\>'-
adaska, 111'1lC
ENGINEERS o SURVEYORS~ ENERGY CONSULTANTS
1503 WEST 33RD AVE SUITE 310
ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99503
PHONE (907) 258-2420
FAX (907) 258-2419
0::10::
'
PROJECT MAP
DRAWING
PROJECT VICINITY
AND
SITE PLAN
Q
e
e
0
I
PROJECT PETAIL
PROJECT
CHIGNIK LAGOON
HYDROPOWER PROJECT
Ch1gn1k La-.goon, Alaska
FIGURE
1
Of4
DATE 45 NO
DESIGNED _____Ro!!!
DRA\Itj pJR
CHECKED __ EA
SCALE Jill.., -o
FILE CIUi2
22 -{)
-:::-,., I
<:/ I ~~~====~~====~
DATE
~~)I -,--------~
'Z.>} I
~l
C-
I
RETURN TO CREEK
------4._
SW I TCHGEAR ROOF OVERHANG
ePWERPLANT PLAN
SCALE 1/4 =1 -{)
8-8
TYPICAL PIPELINE SEGTION AT SLOPE
SCALE 1/4 =1 -{)
REVISIONS poi&Y"'COnSB .• dt
ENGINEERS Q SURVEYORS e
1503 WEST 33RD AVE SUITE 310
ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99503
edaska. gnc.
ENERGY CONSULTANTS
PHONE (907) 258-2420
FAX (907) 258-2419
I I
I
I
PQWERPLANT EL£YAIIQN
SCALE 1/4 =1 -{)
I
?0WEBP6ANI E1EYAT!QN
DRAWING
POWERHOUSE
PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
'I l
SCALE 1/4 •1 -{)
PROJECT
CHIGNIK LAGOON
HYDROPOWER PROJECT
Ch1gn1k Lagoon, Alaska
FIGURE
2
MAIN TRASH RACK
WITH PLANKED TOP
v
SECONDARY TRASH RACK
TO POWERPLANT
\\
\\ ;:.
\\\1 ~ GRAVEL RETURN
-" V TO STREAI.I ,_:;,
-> \\
y \\
-~ I
,_. ..!..> ,,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EXISTINGBAAKSL~E
DATE 4/S/8 NO DATE REVISIONS
DESIGNED _____Q,lli t--t--+----------------1
D~ ~R t--t--+----------------1
~E~-----~ ~-+--+--------------~
SCALE 1/1 B m1 -o
FILE caH3 \--t--+----------------1
EXISTING BANK SLOPE
po~al!"'consuat alaska. Hi'"DC.
ENGINEERS a SURVEYORS o ENERGY CONSULTANTS
1503 WEST 33RD AVE SUITE 310
ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99503
PHONE (907) 258-2420
FAX (907) 258-2419
DRAWING
DIVERSION STRUCTURE
JiiRJb\(_[_Lgll~
PLAN
\--'-'
PROJECT
CHIGNIK LAGOON
HYDORPOWER PROJECT
Ch1gn1k Lagoon, Alaska
FIGURE
3
OF4
0 ELEVATION AT DIVERSION STRUCTURE
SCAlE 1/8 =1 ~
4 DATE REVISIOOS
DESIGNED __M
DRAWN DJR
CHEO<ED ___ EA
SCALE 1~ m1 -Q
fiLE CHLH4
Pll'aiNE TO POI£RHOUSE
TO PDYI£RPLANT SELECT IIAQ(F ILL
poCarconsuDt a.~e.skap mnc
ENGINEERS o SURVEYORS o ENERGY CONSULTANTS
15D3 WEST 33RD AVE SUITE 31D PHONE (907) 258-2420
ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99503 FAX (907) 258-2419
DRAWING
HEAVY GRAVEL
SECTION AT OPENING IN DIVERSION STRUCTURE
SCALE 1/B a1 ~ 1
PRIMARY TRASH RACK
ELEVATION AT INTAKE STRUCTURE PRIMARY TRASHRACK
SCALE 1/8 -1 ~
I
1\
I
-I PROJECT
CONCRETE WALL BEYOND
CONCRETE WALL
TO
SECONDARY
TRASHRACK
DIVERSION WALL
CHIGNIK LAGOON
DETAILS HYDROPOWER PROJECT
Ch1gn1k Lagoon, Alaska
FIGURE
4
Of 4
POLARCONSUL T ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBIUlY REPORT
APPENDIX G -FIELD TRIP Two, STREAM GAUGE AND
RAINFALL DATA
JUNE 26, 1995 APPENDIXG
potarconsult alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue • Suite 310
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 258·2420 Fax (907) 258·2419
SHEET NO. _________ _
CAI..CULATEO BY 1.2 Lio tiM tft.J
CHECKED BY---------
SCAI..E
OF _____________ __
DATE 01 /z-, /qs= I ;
DATE ______ _
-··--· ... ···----···---··---.... -.......... ,,. ____________ ,.,_~ ....... -----····~······-"'••'"'~"'"'·'-· ··-······""""~-·-······'"···-···"'''' .......... ~ ..... ,._,_, _________ .,.,.,
~ .
.. .I 't'PIC.I!I-~.o.ss S.e::t:.."rJ01..1 __ ....... .
lrl. 1' l4l. Cs:R ... :.S.c ... Csle:-.e:K .. ...... ..... . .. .................... ..
...................................... . .... ..::X,lt-S ; .... masT.L...~ ..... a.L..ALlJ4. 1.. ... 7.':.1.J..L .... !.tt/.J'TH. ................. __ ,_ ...... -........ -.......... _ .. _. __ ........................................ _ .......................................................................... .
.... -................................ . ....... SOH1.£ .. ..L..AI!.Itil!i: ... 'ZOJJ.Lll~ ................................ __ , ... _.~ ................... __ ...................... -........................ ..
potarconsult· alaska, inc.
1503 West 33rd Avenue • Suite 310
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503
(907) 258·2420 Fax (907) 258·2419
SHEETNO.----------OF--------
CAI..CIJLATEDBY 7;?. "'i'Ht&JM«<al DATE Qllz-,Jr5=
CHECKEDBY----------DATE _______ _
... -............................. ___ ~----"----····-·-······----~--······-···--···--·--........ ,,,. ______ ~·-···············--·-----.. ------------···-............... -~-----···-··------· .. --··-········
-·-········-"''""" __________________ ,., ________ ~···-··--·-····-----·-·,..--.. ---·-------------·-·---.. ·----·-···--·-·--·····-··-···-·fi--••··--··-----·····---·--······-
........... -·-··········----·--···-Cg:oS.!l .. =:(;s::..xLo, .. r .. oF1?At:J<s::t5 .0:!.~~--------··---·-········
········· ... -·······-··-· ·---IJ.'L .... .5:r:g en ~ ... ¢11t1.fr£. _____ ····-··-·--··--·-····-······-·············-··········--·-. ··---··--·-········---·--·-
...... ···-·············-···········-··-····--···W.J--12111--···· ··-----/uct:J!!!rte&11'1ft;······---·············-·······-································· .. -·····
.................... ;,T.A ...... VEL. ....... _ .. 72Errll ......... !fi.!:~:JD14 _____ JF_u-;/d_~(VEU:JCJ;'t:'()C'OE?"'Il)(kJLr>~ .
.................. 0. . .. 0 .... o.: .......... S: ............ ___ Q_....... . .............. .
... ... ··-······-----····-1............. .~l ....... -··-······-·5:.: ... --. ____ ./. ·········· ···-·-·------.1).15: ... ······-·· ······-·· ·--·-·····•··· ····-······· .
·······--............... -.Z ... LL... . ....... d~ .... ······--··-·····-L···-·---·---·--·-·-1). fZ. ··-··---................................... .
·········-······-·-·--··--$ .. -· ........ / •. 5.:".. . ........ :Z ...................... -... 1 ...... --------·····-.l.J)S:. ·----···-·---········-···-·····-········· -·-··············-···-···························-·-
······· ··--·········-········· ___ f._. ........... .ll o.. . ...... :! .. , ..... ····-·-·-·-··--1----·-·-···-·········-··-·-·a.·"· .. ···-··-··--· -····-· ......... ·······················-·--··-·-
······-···-······--·-··-·········~ ............ _J.z .......... ---·-····-······"'·-'-····-·---·········-1---···-······-··········-----····-··a.f:z . ···-···········-·---·-·--······-··--·-····-············-····························-·······
····-··-·--···-·---'-···· ........ .3 ........ ______ ......3 ...... ________ .L ............ __________ ...CJ.._{}tj ________________________ ................... _ .................. --··········
-············----·-..:Z..·············-·· ... 3 ....... ······---·--·3·········--·-··----L-····-······-·····-···-··--·-·..a .. o!l .................... --.·-····-·-·--·---····--··········-··-·-·--···--··-·········-··· -···············-·····-·····-·----·······
_ ..... ....;.... ___________ s_ .................. a .. __________________ Q ................ ----·····..JI-S.. ............ -···---, o · ······-·------·-----··----·-·-·····-···-······--·--·--·-············ .. ························-----·--·-········-···-····--··
-··--·----·--------·--·-··········-~-EUJW. ... a.F:. .. ..CI!.IEE.I( ... ==-:o..2~.f!22 ...... CES--·-·-·--·-··········,--·-···--·------:-·--········-··-·····-·--···----·····-------·----·
·····-····-······-··············--·····-·-·---·---········----·-·--····-···········----·-·-···-·-···--··--·-··-·········--·-··-···--·---···-·········----
·--·····-·------~-··--·· .. ---··-----··---.. ""·-·····-·-···········--····--.-····-··-·--.. ·"•ff--~~·-···········----· .. ··~··,·-···--....._ ___________ ,,,.~·-···---··-·------------......... -····-····-······--·-------~····--··---···-·········-·----~-----
. . . .
-···~---><><••----·••••••->"<-~<''' ... ' •o << <•·•~···<•-•<••••-•<•<<<><<><<<•<•>~><<<<<<_>,,,-,. .. ~,,Roo••••->••<<<•-•<»>OOOO<_> .. >o .. <»--••••n.--·<-->,_ .. ____ ,,,,,,, .. ,_,_,,,,,,,.;._,,_~,----"-' .. -"''''"_ .. ____ , __ .... ,.._,. ___ ~--·•-••-•••••o•o~0-•"""""'-'"'~"-"'"-'"0 __ ., _______ •
-............. ________ .......... _ ................ ---~--.. -·-······· ... ··--········---~---·········· ...... --~----·-.. -.--·-·---·······-····--···-· ... ····-----... --~--.. ·~·-··--· .. ·~·· .. ··--·· ... ---·-····-·--.. ~---.. -----~·····-----···--.... -............. -·-·---·-· .... -.......... ~_, ........... , ... _____ .,_, __ .., ___ _
Chignik lagoon Survey Data
--------------~-
Shot Distance Vert. Angie Vert. Dlsl HI Elev. Des~!lpUon
ft. deg min sec deg rad ft. ---ft:
91 ---51 -------gf.g ·Tao3oas --=12:7343 -------------
FS 394.46 0 4.8 0.0 To Sea level (approx. mean high tide)
434.28
-----era -1.58825 -----
BS 90 53 42 -7.57923 7.9 To Tribal Office
FS 1496.42 95 44 42 ---95.9 1.872898 ~52]22 0.4 To Tribal Office --------Jo.oiio1 152:9 FS 509.54 86 32 30 86.6 1.511746 To Top of Town
BS 60.61 94 19 18 94.4 l----:t.647009 -4.61478 122.8 To Incinerator
FS 1394.05 91 58 0 92.0 1.605121 -47.8411 118.2 To Incinerator
BS 14.22 85 33 48 85.7 1.495456 1.070322 166.0 ToKno-11 --------~_13332 --167.1 FS 1447 98 6 24 98.2 -205.551 To Knoll
BS 1015.91 83 29 18 83.5 1.457932 _!14.~!~ 372.7 To Ridge
FS 540.41 88 14 24 88.3 1.541126 16.03193 487.1 To Ridge ----·-2.171577 ~------------
BS 68.08 124 24 8 124.4 -38.4847 4.8 471.0 To Stream Gage
------------
PT 198.326 105 16 36 105.4 1.838995 -52.5554 4.8 108.7 To §!~~~ bed ~ear ~noll, most likely powerho ---------------------------
PT 719.62 94 48 6 94.8 1.654863 -60.4248 4.8 87.7 To Stream bed near incinerator
----
POLARCONSULT ALASKA, INC. CHIGNIK LAGOON HYDROELECTRIC
FEASIBILITY REPORT
Chignik Lagoon Stream Gauge Data
Date 1/19/95
STA Vel Depth Width Flow
ft/sec ft ft cfs
0 0 0 0.5 0.0
1 0.3 0.5 1 0.2
2 0.7 0.6 1 0.4
3 1.5 0.7 1 1.1
4 1 0.6 1 0.6
5 0.7 0.6 1 0.4
6 0.3 0.3 1 0.1
7 0.3 0.3 1 0.1
8 0 0 0.5 0.0
Total Flow 2.82
Date 6/8/95
STA Vel Depth Width Flow
ft/sec ft ft cfs
0 0 0 0.5 0.0
1 0.9 0.6 1 0.5
2 3.5 1.4 1 4.9
3 4.5 1.4 1 6.3
4 5.7 1 5.7
5 7 1.8 1 12.6
6 2.9 1.2 1 3.5
7 2.8 1.2 1 3.4
8 1.8 1 1 1.8
9 1.6 0.8 1 1.3
10 1.6 0.5 1 0.8
11 1.1 0.6 1 0.7
12 0.8 0.5 1 0.4
13 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.1
Total Flow 41.94
6/26/95 APPENDIXG
CHIGNIK, ALASKA
DRAFT SMALL HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY
REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
. STATEMENT · JULY 1984
m
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Alaska District
TABLE A-1 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARY
STATION: Chignik LATITUDE: 560 18' LONGITUDE: 1580 24' ELEVATION: 30
MONTI! POR JAN FEB MAn APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR
TEMPERATUJ<E (Of)
Means
Oai 1y Max. 12 32.4 31.2 33.1 38.9 45.9 54.2 59.6 60.6 50.3 45.1 39. 1 34.4 43.7
Daily Min. 12 22.0 19.6 20.5 26.6 33.8 40.4 44.9 45.8 41.0 34. 1 27. 1 23.7 29.7
Moutllly 12 26.9 2 s. 1 26.8 32.6 39.4 44.3 52.3 52.8 411,4 39.4 33.5 29.0 37.2
Extremes
I< ec. IJi gh 13 48 47 50 51 69 72 76 72 75 63 57 55 76
Year 19613 1971+ 1974 1930 196fl 1974+ 1971 1%9· 1930 19fi7 1970 1970 1971
flee. low 13 -12 -9 -10 !J l !i 30 33 33 ?7 14 4 2 -12
Year 1971 1974 1975 1971+ 1973 1930 1930 1928 1976+ 1976+ 1930 1975+ 1971
PJH.C I P ITAT ION (in inches}
Nean 12 10.52 11.21 6.36 4.50 11.44 8.44 4.86 5.98 12.75 10.99 12.03 8.87 107.9
Greatest/d 11 7. 15 s. no 3.49 2.90 7.33 3.60 3.68 7. 15 7. 12 6,52 4 .ll2 4.40 57.33
Year 1930 1927 1928 1970 1930 191i9 1929 1927 1927 1930 197A 1927 1930
Greatest/RIO 11 29.89 22.49 16.26 7.48 35. 71 27.25 11.61 18.09 311.34 20.13 27.99 1 run 34.34
Year 1930 1928 1974 1968 1930 1969 1971 1927 1929 1930 1929 192fl 1929
Snow, Ice Pellets
)> Mean 11 8.9 16.0 8.3 6.0 1.1 0 0 0 0 3.8 4.6 9. 1 57.fl I
N lir~at es t/mo 11 27.2 31.0 18.0 10.2 5.3 0 0 0 T 1?.0 12.0 25.5 31.0
Year 1931 1969 1969 1972 1971 ---1972 19?7 1930 1930 1 ()()9
Greatest/d 10 9. 1 12.0 0.0 8.0 5.3 0 0 0 T 10.0 14. 1 9.0 l" . l
Year 1975 1929 1969 1928 1971 ---1972 1927 1975 1930 1975
lligh Depth 11 23 34 47 57 59 0 0 0 0 10 7 16 59
Year 1Y72+ 1!J73 l !J72 1 !J 73 1973 ----1927 1972-1928 1973
WINO
Ave. speed (mph) * * * * * NOT AVAILABLE * * * * * * Uin:>ct ion 5 SE Nl4 NW NI-l SE SE Sl4 sw w NW Nl4 ~~ NW
MEAN NU~HlER Of DAY
Precipitation .10 inches or more
7 6 9 B 6 7 5 4 5 9 11 lO 9 89
Temperature
Max iiiiUIII
7U0+ 12 0 0 0 0 0 * l 1 * 0 0 0 2
)20-12 lO lO 11 3 .. 0 0 0 0 l 5 12 52
Minimum
320-12 24 23 25 22 10 l 0 0 2 12 21 24 1ti4
QO-' 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 -A * 0 * 0 (i
POR Period of Record * less than one half
+Also on eat'lier dates, months, or years T Trace, an amount too small to measure