Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment; Appendix D, E & F 1982
Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment Kasigluk, ‘ Atmautluak Nunapitchuk BETHEL APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F Prepared By HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY DECEMBER 1982 DRAFT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY APPENDIX D pa Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX D HYDROPOWER RESOURCES Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company December 1982 Chapter or Eiz TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Objective and Scope of Study Background and Previous Studies Acknowledgements ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS FOR HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION Introduction Identification of Potential Hydroelectric Sites Review of Previous Studies Map Studies First Site Screening Second Site Screening Third Site Screening Conceptual Project Layouts Comparative Analyses Site Selection THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE ALTERNATIVE Location and Access Project Setting Alternative Plans of Development General Description Project Arrangement Project Functional Design Hydrologic Aspects Geology of Foundations and Construction Materials Power and Energy Potential Basic Assumptions Input Data II-1 TI-1 II-1 II-2 II-3 II-4 II-7 II-8 II-9 II-12 III-1 III-1 III-1 III-2 III-4 III-4 III-5 IrI-5 III-6 III-7 III-7 III-7 Chapter Iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Descr Implementation and Construction Schedule Proje Space POTENTIAL iption of Project Facilities Reservoir Dam and Spillway Intake Water Conductor Surge Control Facilities Powerstation Access Switchyard and Transmission ct Costs Construction Cost Operation and Maintenance Costs Heat Alternative ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Summary Chikuminuk Lake Allen Trans Terrestrial Impacts Aquatic Impacts River Water Quality Downstream Flow Variation Downstream Temperatures Fish Passage mission Lines Impact on Birds Visual Impacts Other Impacts Land Use Conflicts Poten and Propo Wood - Tikchik State Park Refuge Lands Native Lands tial for Avoidance, Mitigation Enhancement Unavoidable Impacts Mitigation Enhancement sed Environmental Studies and Monitoring Programs REFERENCES EXHIBITS -ii- Page III-8 III-8 III-9 III-10 III-1l III-11 III-12 III-13 III-13 III-14 IITI-15 III-15 III-17 III-17 Iv-1 Iv-1 Iv-2 Iv-2 Iv-5 Iv-6 Iv-6 Iv-6 Iv-7 Iv-8 Iv-8 Iv-8 Iv-9 Iv-10 Iv-10 Iv-10 Iv-11 Iv-12 Iv-12 Iv-12 Iv-12 Iv-13 Iv-13 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) APPENDIX D-1 Hydrology Investigations APPENDIX D-2 Geology of Hydroelectric Sites APPENDIX D-3 Environmental Resources -iii- Table No. II-1 II-2 II-3 III-1 III-2 III-3 III-4 LIST OF TABLES Title Preliminary Project Sizing PMF and Diversion Flood Estimates Bethel Region Monthly Peak and Energy Demand (Year 2002) Average Monthly Streamflow, Allen River Chikuminuk Lake, Energy Generating Capability Estimated Construction Cost of the Chikuminuk Lake Project Estimated Construction Cost of the Chikuminuk Lake Project, Space Heat Alternative -iv- Page II-5 II-6 II-10 III-6 III-8 IITI-16 III-18 im Exhibit No. 1 10 dal: 12 13 14 LS 16 Li 18 Lo LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Location Map, Potential Hydroelectric Sites Installed Capacity Versus Construction Cost Third Site Screening, Project Data Conceptual Project Plan, Chikuminuk Lake Conceptual Project Plan, Kisaralik River Lower Falls Conceptual Project Plan, Kisaralik River Golden Gate Falls Conceptual Project Plan, Kisaralik River Upper Falls Conceptual Project Plan, Kipchuk River Conceptual Project Plan, Upnuk Lake Chikuminuk Lake, Energy Generation Versus Construction Cost and Reservoir Elevation Kisaralik River Lower Falls, Energy Generation Versus Construction Cost and Reservoir Elevation Kisaralik River Golden Gate Falls, Energy Generation Versus Construction Cost and Reservoir Elevation Kisaralik River Upper Falls, Energy Generation Versus Construction Cost and Reservoir Elevation Kipchuk River, Energy Generation Versus Construction Cost and Reservoir Elevation Upnuk Lake, Energy Generation Versus Construction Cost and Reservoir Elevation Annual Economic Cost of Average Energy Annual Economic Cost of Firm Energy Relative Resource Values and Costs of Mitigation Location Map, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Exhibit No. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) Title Conceptual Project Plan, Chikuminuk Lake Significant Data, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Reservoir Area - Volume Curve, Chikuminuk Lake Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, Site Plan and Sections Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, General Profile and Sections Monthly Sequences of Flow, Allen River at Chikuminuk Lake Outlet Proposed Transmission Line Route Chikuminuk Lake Project Implementation Schedule Detailed Construction Cost Estimate, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Significant Data, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project, Space Heat Alternative Site Plan and Sections, Space Heat Alternative, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project General Profile and Sections, Space Heat Alternative, Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Factors Which May Influence Avian Collision Rates with Overhead Wires -vi- Chapter I INTRODUCTION The objectives of the study were to select a hydroelectric project and develop a project plan conceptually designed and ; suited to the environment, market area energy needs, local engi- neering aspects, and at a level of confidence equal to the other alternative energy supply plans being considered for the Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment. The scope of this study included the following items: 1. Perform data collection and analyses required to develop conceptual designs, determine plant costs, and identify any major environmental obstacles. 2. Determine the plan of development for the selected hydroelectric project. 3. Determine with reasonable certainty the cost of the project. 4. Determine the environmental impacts of the project along with mitigating measures that could be taken to offset adverse impact. Background and Previous Studies There have been numerous water resource and hydroelectric resources investigations in Alaska since World War II. The Bureau of Reclamation conducted the first state-wide reconnais- sance of potential hydroelectric sites in 1948. A separate series of regional water resources investigations was made by ‘the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers in the late 1950's. During the period from 1962 to 1967, the Bureau of Reclamation prepared a comprehensive inventory of state-wide hydroelectric resources which has subsequently been updated by the Alaska Power Adminis-— tration. : : Since 1975, reports specific to the Bethel region have utilized previous inventories to further evaluate the region's hydroelectric potential. The hydropower resources study effort utilized these previous inventories and investigations to iden- tify potential hydroelectric sites within the study region. Studies performed by others were reviewed to assure that all available information on possible hydroelectric sites in the Bethel region was known to the planning team. The review pro- vided an understanding of what had been done and formed a base from which the studies proceeded. The following studies were included in the review: 1. A Regional Electric Power System for the Lower Kuskok- wim. Vicinity, A Preliminary Feasibility Assessment prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, by Robert W. Retherford Associates, July 1975. Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages served by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, United States Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, December 1979. Small-scale Hydropower Reconnaissance Study, Southwest Alaska, Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska, R.W. Beck and Associ- ates, April 1981. Reconnaissance Study of the Kisaralik River Hydroelec- tric Power Potential and Alternate Electric Energy Resources in the Bethel Area, prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, by Robert W. Retherford Associates, March 1980. Application for Preliminary Permit, Kisaralik Hydro- electric Project, prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, by Robert W. Retherford Associates, April 1980. Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Interim Feasibility Assessment, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, July 1982. Acknowledgements We acknowledge and appreciate the valuable assistance and advice offered by staffs of the following agencies: Alaska Power Authority Harding Lawson Associates Arctic Environmental Information and and Data Center I-2 Chapter II ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS FOR HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION Introduction Three successive screenings were conducted to select the preferred hydroelectric site. The first screening was performed by utilizing available maps and published information. Two sites were identified from previous studies and ten sites were located on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. Seven sites were retained on the basis of broad-scale engineering criteria. The second screening was conducted by evaluating the seven retained sites based on estimated construction cost developed by means of parametric cost curves. In the third or final screening, conceptual project plans were made for each of the seven sites and the sites were evaluated based on environmental, geologic and cost estimates based on quantity takeoffs. The preferred site was selected as having lower construction and economic costs and less environmental constraints on project development. A review of previous studies was conducted to: identify potential hydroelectric sites investigated by others. In addition, map studies were conducted to locate potential sites within the Kilbuck, Kuskowim and Wood River Mountains. Review of Previous Studies Several studies, with varying levels of detail, have been performed to identify the hydroelectric potential in and near the Bethel study area. The 1975 Alaska Power Administration report includes recommendations to proceed with studies for potential small- hydro sites near the villages surrounding Bethel and consider studies for the development of the Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) Hydroelectric Project. Two small-hydro studies were initiated and completed during the following six years. The 1979 APA/AVEC studies did not II-1 identify any hydroelectric projects near the villages within the study region. The 1982 Corps of Engineers small-hydro inventory of southwestern Alaska identified 14 sites near communities that met the criteria established for the study; however, none of the potential hydroelectric projects were located in the Yukon- Kuskowim Delta area. These studies concluded that feasible development of small-hydro in the delta area is severely limited by the gentle gradients of the streams and rivers of the area. Hence, future studies focused on development of hydroelectric power projects that were capable of meeting the power and energy requirements on a regional as opposed to a local level. The 1980 reconnaissance level studies on the Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) Hydroelectric Project identified a development that would comprise a 300-foot high rockfill dam and spillway near Lower Falls on the Kisaralik River and an underground powerstation with 2-15 MW units. The estimated average annual energy generation was 186,900 MWh. In April 1980 an application for a FERC preliminary permit for this project was submitted. The July 1982 report on-the Bristol Bay regional power studies identified the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project. This development would comprise a 100-foot high rockfill dam and spillway on the Allen River downstream of Chikuminuk Lake and a powerstation with 2-8 MW units. The estimated average annual energy generation was 76,100 MWh. The review of the previous studies yielded valuable background information and identified the Kisaralik and Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric sites. The current studies included an independent assessment of the Bethel region to identify additional hydroelectric sites based on USGS map studies. Map Studies The map studies encompassed an area located within the Kilbuck, Kuskokwim and Wood River mountains. The boundaries of the study area were approximately Township 11 north through Township 4 south and Range 55 through 66 west of the Seward Meridian. The sites were identified and investigated using USGS quadrangle maps of the 1:250,000 and 1:63,360 series. The following broad scale engineering criteria were used as a guide for site identification. 1. Sufficient topographic relief to develop a minimum head of 50 feet. II-2 2. Drainage area adequate to serve the range of installa- tions considered. Ten sites were identified by the map studies. These sites and the two sites previously identified by others are shown on Exhibit 1. Each site was identified by the name of the river or lake on which the proposed project would be constructed. First Site Screening The twelve sites were compared on the basis of the follow- ing items: 1. Average annual streamflow available for hydroelectric generation 2. Head available to develop power 3. Size of dams and dikes 4. Reservoir storage volume Average annual streamflow was estimated by transposing average annual streamflow of the Nuyakuk River near Dillingham gage to each site using a transposition ratio which related drainage area and average annual precipitation. This procedure is discussed in Appendix D-1 to this Appendix. Table II-1 shows the drainage area and average annual streamflow at each site. The Energy Use and Demand studies indicated that the pro- jected power requirements for the study area will range between 7 and 15 MW. For the first screening the sites were initially sized for 10 MW using the basic equation for hydroelectric power. kw = —HQe gross head in feet design flow in cfs efficiency (assumed to be 0.82) where H Q e The design flow was estimated by multiplying 1.5 times the average annual streamflow. The multiplier was based on the fact that, in five months of the year, average monthly runoff is equal to or greater than the average annual flow. The gross head was computed and the normal reservoir elevation and corres- ponding dam heights were estimated from the quadrangle maps. Table II-1 summarizes the project sizing at each site. II-3 At each site a cross section at the chosen dam axis was developed and the volume of rockfill material was computed for a range of dam heights. In addition, reservoir area~volume curves were developed for each site. These relationships were utilized to identify the sites where topographic factors were favorable — regarding construction cost of the reservoirs and power and energy regulation considerations. The unit price for dam rockfill material was estimated at $25 per cubic yard. Hence, the construction cost of the dams was a major cost component of the total construction cost and judged to be a good indicator of site viability. Table II-1 shows a comparison of dam volume required to develop 10 MW at each of the sites. The Salmon River, Tuluksak River, Izavicnick River and Fog River sites were rejected based on a comparison of the dam height versus dam volume relationship. The Milk Creek upper site was retained in favor of the lower site because the reser- voir storage volume at the lower site was 65 percent less than the storage volume at the upper site. The seven remaining sites retained for further study were Chikuminuk Lake, the three Kisaralik River sites, Kipchuk River, Upnuk Lake and the Milk Creek upper site. Second Site Screening For each of the seven remaining sites additional hydrologic investigations were performed and USGS topographic maps were reviewed for desirable locations of a) dams and dikes for reservoirs, b) spillways, c) powerstations, and d) water conductors. Physical characteristics and construction cost estimates for the potential projects were developed. Average annual streamflow estimated by transposing average annual streamflow of the Nuyakuk River near Dillingham gage were presented in Table II-1. The preliminary estimate of the PMF for each site was based on Creager's formula. The diversion flood estimates were based on multiple-regression analyses. Table II-2 shows the PMF and diversion flood values computed for the seven remaining sites. The PMF and diversion flood studies are discussed in more detail in Appendix D-1l. II-4 Table II-1 PRELIMINARY PROJECT SIZING Average Annual Drainage Stream- Gross Project Name Ara flow Head (sq mi) (cfs) (feet) Chikuminuk Lake 348 1,550 62 Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) 500 1,945 49 Kisaralik River (Golden Gate Falls) 550 2,105 46 Kisaralik River (Upper Falls) 271 1,120 86 Kipchuk River 224 935 103 Upnuk Lake 105 470 204 Milk Creek (Upper Site) 100 440 218 Milk Creek (Lower Site) 113 495 194 Salmon River 230 770 125° Tulksak River 144 440 218 Izavicknik River 231 1,035 93 Fog River 92 250 384 Normal Reservoir Eleva~ tion (feet) 598 849 756 1,041 1,058 802 1,168 964 975 738 383 984 Dam Volume (1000 cy) 400 300 230 450 650 100 2,200 1,600 3,800 16,600 8,500 21,200 The physical characteristics of each potential project were developed from USGS quadrangle maps (1:63,360 series) and cross sections at the damsites. At each site three dam heights rang- ing from 30 feet to 300 feet were investigated and approximate powerstation elevations were obtained from the topography. Plant discharge and installed capacity were computed by using II-5 Table II-2 PMF AND DIVERSION FLOOD ESTIMATES Diversion PMF Peak Peak Site Flow Flow (cfs) (cfs) Chikuminuk Lake 287,000 11,800 Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) 341,000 19,500 Kisaralik River (Golden Gate Falls) 356,000 21,000 Kisaralik River (Upper Falls) 254,000 11,600 > Kipchuk River 230,000 8,800 Upnuk Lake 154,000 3,500 Milk Creek (Upper Site) 150,000 6,000 maximum gross head, average annual streamflow, and a plant effi- ciency of 82 percent. Water conductor diameters were determined by maintaining hydraulic head losses in the range of five per- cent of the gross head. The spillways were sized to pass the PMF peaks discussed previously. Transmission line routes were sketched on USGS maps and line length and cost were estimated. All lines were assumed to be 138 kV. The construction costs were estimated using parametric cost curves for the major structures (i.e. dams, powerstations, water conductors, and spillways). Diversion costs were assumed to be 12 percent of the sum of dam and spillway costs for the various sites. Cost for miscellaneous items such as intakes, surge tanks, access, reservoir clearing, and control structures were included as being 15 percent.of the sum of dam, spillway, water conductor, power plant, and diversion costs. The parametric cost data utilized reflects cost experience in Alaska, remoteness of the sites, and considerations related to weather and access. Parametric cost evaluation methods ex- clude major cost items associated with geology. The construc-— II-6 ™ tion costs, at the December 1982 price level, provide for civil, electrical, and mechanical facilities and include a 40 percent contingency for errors and omissions and for engineering and owner's administration. The costs do not include allowances for interest during construction and escalation. The construction costs for a range of installed capacity at each site are pre- sented graphically on Exhibit 2. A review of Exhibit 2 indicates that the Chikuminuk Lake and Upnuk Lake sites are the most favorable from a construction cost standpoint. The costs of the Kipchuk site, the three Kisaralik sites, and Milk Creek site are generally similar throughout the range of installed capacities considered, with the exception of the Milk Creek site when it is developed beyond an installed capacity of about 12 MW. Based on the results of the second screening it was con-. cluded that a definitive ranking of the sites from most to least favorable could not be made without further environmental, geo- logic and engineering investigations. Third Site Screening The sites retained were reconnoitered in the field by a hydroelectric engineer, geologist and environmental scientist. As a result of the field reconnaissance, the Milk Creek site was dropped due to extensive faulting in the reservoir and creek area. Conceptual project layouts were made for each of the remaining six sites based on required hydroelectric facilities, geologic features and geotechnical considerations. For each site average monthly streamflows were developed by transposition of Nuyakuk River monthly streamflow data. Computer studies were performed using Bethel peak demand and energy requirements to determine generating capabilities for selected reservoir levels for each site. : Cost estimates were prepared using estimated quantities and unit prices based on preliminary labor, material, and construc-— tion equipment costs. The results of the cost estimates and generating capability studies were utilized to develop construc-— tion cost versus energy generation and reservoir elevation curves. II-7 The details of the third screening are discussed in the following sections. The site geology descriptions for the retained sites are included in Appendix D-2. The environmental aspects of the sites are included in Appendix D-3. Conceptual Project Layouts The conceptual project layouts for the six remaining sites were developed by the following methods. 1) 2) 3) 5) 6) 7) The location, height and length of the dams were reviewed and refined, if necessary, based on the field reconnaissance. Diversion schemes were developed and tunnels were sized to discharge the peak inflows discussed previously. A range of maximum reservoir elevations were selected from the area-volume curves and corresponding dam volumes were computed. Plant generating capacity was based on the capability to supply dependable capacity of nine megawatts at the minimum head. Plant efficiency was based on typical performance curves for horizontal Francis units. The diameter of the water conductor was based on plant discharge and the maintenance of tunnel hydraulic losses in the range of 3 percent of the gross head. The probable maximum flood (PMF) was estimated for each site as described previously. Using the ratio of reservoir area to drainage area, and engineering judgement, the spillway design floods were computed as a percentage of the PMF and the spillways were sized accordingly. Airstrips and access roads were located on USGS maps. Airstrips were assumed to be 5,000 feet in length. The access road length from the airstrip to the plant site was determined from the maps. Minimum embankment thickness for airstrips and roads was assumed to be four feet. II-8 8) Transmission line routes were sketched on USGS maps_ to determine transmission line lengths for the various sites. All lines were assumed to be 138 kV. Exhibit 3 presents basic project data as to location and major dimensions of hydroelectric facilities. Each of the sites is depicted by an Exhibit (4 through 9) presenting a conceptual plan. Comparative Analyses The selection of the most favorable site for the develop- ment of a hydroelectric project was based on the following con- siderations; (1) construction cost estimates, (2) generating capability, and, (3) environmental aspects. Power and Energy Operation Studies. Preliminary reservoir operation studies were performed to determine the generating capability of each of the alternative projects. For each alter- native the computer simulations utilized synthesized monthly streamflow, reservoir area~volume curves, assumed plant performance curves, and forecasted monthly electric load demands. The synthesized monthly streamflow was estimated by transposing monthly Nuyakuk River streamflow data to each site using the transposition ratio discussed previously. The most likely monthly electric peak and energy demands for the Bethel region in the year 2002 are presented in Table II-3. . For each of the alternatives firm and average monthly ener- gy production, for a range of reservoir elevations and a depend- able capacity of nine megawatts, were estimated with the reser- voir operation computer program. Plant capability beyond nine megawatts was not considered in the analysis. Construction Cost Estimates. The conceptual layouts were used as a basis for preliminary quantity take-offs. Cost esti- mates for the range of reservoir elevations determined in the operation studies were prepared using estimated quantities and preliminary unit prices based on labor, materials and construc- tion equipment costs. The costs, at the December 1982 price level, provide for civil, electrical, and mechanical facilities II-9 Table II-3 BETHEL REGION MONTHLY PEAK AND ENERGY DEMAND (Year 2002) Month Peak Demand Monthly Energy (kw) (MWh) January 8,360 3,940 February 7,920 3,550 March 7,480 3,314 April 6,600 2,964 May 6,160 2,925 June 6,160 2,808 July 6,160 2,925 August 6,600 3,040 September 6,600 2,964 October 7,040 . 3,315 November : 7,920 3,315 December 8,800 3,940 Annual 8,800 39,000 and include a 40 percent allowance for errors and omissions and for engineering and owner's administration. The construction cost estimates, in conjunction with the firm and average energy generation estimates, were used to develop reservoir elevation versus construction cost and energy generation curves. Exhibits 10 through 15 present these relationships for the six alternative sites. Economic Cost of Energy. The economic costs were calcu- lated utilizing estimated annual costs and the average and firm energy estimates. The annual costs of developing and maintaining the projects were based on the investment costs and annual operating costs. Annual cost was computed based on a 3.5 percent discount rate over the 50 year life of the project. Operation and maintenance costs were estimated as a function of total capital cost. II-10 The total annual cost is the sum of the annual cost and annual operation and maintenance costs. The economic cost of average and firm energy was computed by dividing the total annual cost by the average and firm energy estimates for the developments. The estimated annual economic cost of the average and firm energy for the sites are shown graphically on Exhibits 16 and 17. Exhibit 16 indicates that, as the average annual energy generation from the projects approaches the 2002 most likely energy demand, the Kisaralik River Upper Falls, Golden Gate Falls, and Upnuk Lake economic cost curves exhibit large incre- mental increases in economic cost for small increments in aver- age annual generation. The trend is primarily due to the in- creased costs of providing adequate reservoir storage for energy generation. The Upnuk Lake site generating capability is limit- ed by instream flow constraints and topographic factors. The Chikuminuk Lake, Kisaralik River Lower Falls, and Kipchuk River economic cost curves are still trending down. The firm energy generation comparison, Exhibit 17, indi- cates that the Kisaralik River Upper Falls, Golden Gate Falls, and Kipchuk River economic cost curves are trending upward as the firm energy generation from the projects approaches the 2002 most likely energy demand. The firm energy generating capa- bility of the Upnuk Lake site exhibits a very high economic cost in comparison to the above sites because of the limitations discussed previously. The Chikuminuk Lake and Kisaralik River Lower Falls economic cost curves exhibit decreasing economic costs for incremental increases in firm energy generation. The comparison indicates that the Chikuminuk Lake project is the most favorable from an economic cost of energy standpoint for both average and firm energy generation. This is primarily due to the large storage available for small incremental costs. In addition, for both Chikuminuk Lake and Kisaralik Lower Falls, the relationships indicate that developments with even greater energy storage capability appear economically attractive. Environmental Comparison. The environmental comparison is SS SS 5 ; based on site-specific characterizations of the resources at each site. The resources selected for study at the sites were assigned a relative value. The relative resource values are as follows: II-11 Relative Value of 1 - low sensitivity _ Relative Value of 2 - moderate sensitivity Relative Value of 3 - high sensitivity ~ 1 | The selected species, species groups and resources assigned values are those which generate high national, and/or intrastate iQ interest, and would most likely require some form of mitigation j to lessen effects of project development. The resource values : are tabulated on Exhibit 18. \ Development of any one of the sites would have little effect on resident terrestrial forms. Project areas are dominated by an ericaceous heath. This vegetation community type prevails throughout thousands of square miles of the Kuskokwim and Kilbuck Mountains and adjacent areas. Further, none of the sites marked for study encompassed important m4 seasonal ranges, and none coincided with major migration routes. ' Consequently, loss of habitats due to project structures, support facilities, and reservoir impoundments would have little direct effect on terrestrial forms. Several of the study sites do have high-value commercial and sport fisheries. Upnuk Lake and Kipchuk River have the \ highest values, followed closely by those of the Kisaralik River. Development of any one of these sites would likely : require a fairly complex and costly mitigation program. co Resource comparison of the sites indicates that the Milk Creek and Chikuminuk Lake sites would have the least potential ~ for environmental impact followed by the three Kisaralik River sites. ‘The Kipchuk River and Upnuk Lake sites would have the most potential for environmental impact. Site Selection Based on the results of the field reconnaissance and. subse- quent engineering studies, the conceptual designs of the alternative projects were refined. Construction costs were developed and generation capability was determined. An overview and site-specific characterization of the environmental resources at each potential hydroelectric site, was conducted. These comparative analyses have resulted in designation of the Chikuminuk Lake site for further study. II-12 -- Chapter III THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE ALTERNATIVE Location and Access The Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 24, TIN, R55W of the Seward Meridian, as shown on Exhibit 19. The project would utilize the flow and head available on the Allen River near the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake. All of the proposed project structures and other required con- struction such as roads and an airstrip would be located within the Wood-Tikchik State Park. Chikuminuk Lake is an east-west trending lake, having an elevation of 598 feet above mean sea level. At this elevation, the lake has a surface area of about 25,600 acres. Water dis- charges from the lake into the Allen River. The Allen River flows in a south-southeast direction about 11 miles and discharges into Lake Chauekuktuli. Several sets of rapids exist near the Chikuminuk Lake outlet, evidence to the fact that the river level drops about 85 feet within a mile from the lake. Chikuminuk Lake is only accessible by helicopter, float plane and small boat from neighboring watersheds. Since the site is inaccessible by roads or navigable waters, project con- struction and subsequent operation would require the construc- tion of an airfield to accommodate large payload airplanes. The airfield would be located adjacent to the hydroelectric facili- ties and would consist of a single 150-foot wide, 5,000-foot long runway. Project Setting The Chikuminuk Lake area is characterized by steep moun- tains and wide valleys with rolling hills. Average maximum elevation of the east-northeast trending range is 5,000 feet, while the elevation of Chikuminuk Lake is 598 feet. The soils are generally poorly drained and can be expected to be underlain with discontinuous masses of permafrost. A typical ericaceous heath dominates the vegetation of the area. The overstory is composed chiefly of dwarf blueberry supplemented with spirea and labrador tea. The understory is composed chiefly of crowberry, which in places is broken by reindeer moss and scattered low-bush cranberry and dwarf sedges. III-1 The project area provides refuge for beaver, moose, black bear, brown bear, otter, mink and ground squirrels, while wol- verine, fox, wolf and caribou are frequent visitors. Chikuminuk -, Lake is a typical northern oligotrophic lake. It has a rela- tively high average depth and a small proportion of shallow water area which is confined to a narrow shelf around the shore- line. The shoreline consists mostly of gravel and cobble that probably serve as spawning beds for lake trout, Arctic grayling, and Dolly Varden. The rapids in the Allen River near the Chikuminuk Lake outlet preclude migration of anadramous fish into the lake. However, salmon commonly spawn in the Allen River delta at Lake Chauekuktuli. Sockeye are the most abundant species, but pinks, kings, and probably coho also utilize the -- area. The climate of the Chikuminuk Lake area can be classified as transitional between maritime and continental. The prevail- u ing storm winds are out of the southeast. The average annual precipitation over the basin is about 40 inches and mean annual snowfall is about 80 inches. The mean annual temperature is about 29°F and the temperatures normally range from a low of -5°F in January to a high of 65°F in July. Alternative Plans of Development Two alternative dam sites were investigated for the Chikuminuk Lake project. The conceptual project plans are shown on Exhibits 4 and 20. At the present level of evaluation, ac- cess, proximity to construction materials, competency of founda- tions, and reservoir water-retaining capability comparisons were used to select the preferred arrangement. The upstream site (Exhibit 20) was selected, as described below. The dam bedrock conditions at both sites are nearly identi- cal. Both locations are in tight, steep-walled gorge sections. From the standpoint of distance to fill materials, the upstream site has an advantage with moraine deposits only about a 1,000 feet away. Foundation conditions beneath the spillway for a rockfill dam at the downstream site are questionable. The major ques-— tions relate to the nature of materials in the ridge beneath the spillway and, particularly, the depth to sound bedrock. Initial reconnaissance indicated slump deposits on both the upstream and downstream sides of this ridge. Field mapping was unable to locate evidence of bedrock in the northern half of the proposed spillway, while bedrock outcrops were noted in adjacent slopes. It is considered possible that former streamflow from the dry III-2 valley on the opposite side of the Allen River or the upper reaches of the Allen River, may have cut a valley through the ridge which was later filled with morainal or alluvial deposits. An alternative hypothesis is that weaker, relatively erodible rock underlies the area at shallow depth beneath a cover of glacial moraine deposits. A preliminary seismic refraction profile, 240 feet long, was obtained beneath the spillway ridge. Seismic velocities obtained from this survey are inconclusive, in that such velocities could represent compact saturated glacial fill or some of the weaker sedimentary rocks. The spillway for a rockfill dam at the upstream site would be in an area of thin (10-20 feet) morainal cover overlying massive bedrock. Spillway discharge would be to the dry valley, which, as an underfit stream, appears to have sufficient capacity to recieve design flood spills and dampen the effect of surging into the Allen River. Little erosion of the spillway proper would be expected. However, alluvium in the valley would be subject to erosion. The general water-retaining capabilities of the reservoirs would be similar. However, the indicated unfavorable foundation conditions of the spillway ridge at the downstream site would probably require special grouting and/or cutoff facilities. Concentrated short-path seepage could occur through the zone of weak rock or glacial-alluvial fill. Access for the upstream site diversion tunnel would be simple from the intermorainal area, while the downstream site diversion tunnel scheme would involve the construction of spur roadways to the portal area. From a diversion standpoint, the upstream site has the advantage of good access to the portal and abundant fill material close at hand from the morainal deposits for a cofferdam. Both schemes involve excavations for the power tunnel and powerhouse in the left abutment. The power tunnel: for the down- stream layout would be shorter, yet the longer tunnel for the upstream layout could be worked from two headings, which could have an effect on the work schedule. Tunneling conditions at both sites would be favorable. Rock cover conditions for an underground powerhouse at both sites appears to be marginal. From the standpoint of access, proximity to embankment construction materials, competency of the spillway foundation and reservoir water-retaining capability, the upstream Chikuminuk site was selected for further investigation. III-3 General Description Project Arrangement A listing of pertinent project data is shown on Exhibit 21, and Exhibit 22 shows the Chikuminuk Lake area and volume versus elevation relationships. The general plan and profile and sections of project features are shown on Exhibits 23 and 24, respectively. The project would consist of the following principal ele- ments: 1. 2. A rollcrete gravity dam across the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake. An uncontrolled spillway in the center of the dam with a design discharge of 5,000 cfs. The normal maximum reservoir level established by the spillway crest would be El. 610. A power intake structure with trashracks at each open- ing and bulkhead gates for closure. A 14-foot diameter power tunnel, 2580 feet long, connecting the intake to the powerhouse. Upstream of the powerhouse a wye branch will be provided to dis- tribute the flow to two generating units. Surge control facilities to relieve the water hammer effects of powerhouse discharge changes.. A powerhouse containing two horizontal Francis tur- bines and generators, rated at 4.75 MW each and elec- trical switchgear. An adjacent structure will contain the transformers and pull-off structures for the switchyard which would be located north of the power- station. Other facilities include the following: a.) A permanent airstrip and access road. b.) A 138 kV transmission line, about 130 miles in length, connecting the project with the load center at Bethel. c.) A new substation in Bethel which would have the necessary facilities to divide the III-4 incoming circuit from the hydroelectric project into the outgoing circuits. Project Functional Design The Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric project would regulate the outflow of Chikuminuk Lake for the production of power and energy. The project would have an installed capacity of 9.5 MW at a rated net head of 85 feet and a dependable capacity of 9 MW at a minimum net head of 80 feet. The project was sized to meet the monthly energy requirements through the year 2002 on a firm basis or produce 39 GWh annually, with secondary energy occurring in all months. The average annual energy production would be about 60 GWh. Francis turbines are favorable for accommodating load changes and the relatively long tunnel with surge facilities would allow response tc changing load peaks. Additional study of governor timing, hydraulic transients, and unit characteris-— tics to meet the diurnal system load demands must be made in the next phase of study for the project. Hydrologic Aspects The hydrology studies are discussed in Appendix D-1. Analyses were made to estimate the probable maximum flood (PMF), and the diversion flood of a 25-year return period. The results are summarized below: 284,000 cfs 233,320 acre-ft 119 14,000 cfs PMF Peak Inflow PMF Volume Creager "C" 25-year diversion flood The monthly streamflows for the Allen River for the period of record 1954 to 1981 were synthesized by regression techniques. Table III-1 shows the average monthly streamflows for the period of record and Exhibit 25 contains the monthly synthetic sequences of Allen River flow. A sensitivity analysis of sediment inflow was made and the sediment inflow was judged to have an insignificant impact on the project because of the large storage volume of Chikuminuk Lake. III-5 Table III-1 AVERAGE MONTHLY STREAMFLOWS ALLEN RIVER Month Streamflow TO (cfs) January 267 February 938 March 3,746 April : 3,499 - May : 2,196 June 1,903 . July 1,740 ( August 1,120 LL September 644 October 448 - November 348 \ December : 286 Mean Annual 1,432 Geology of Foundations and Construction Materials The Chikuminuk Lake site geology is described in Appendix D-2; a brief summary: follows. Chikuminuk Lake occupies a glacially-enlarged valley sys- tem, bound on the southeast margin by a series of recessional moraines. The moraines have been breached to a bedrock spill- point at the Allen River outlet of the lake. The exposed bedrock rock units are very hard, siliceous carbonates, sandstones, shales and conglomeratic sandstones of ( the Cretaceous Gemuk group. Bed thickness ranges up to 10-15 feet, and the outcropping rock has a massive appearance. Thin- bedded (one-two inch thick) units, primarily in the shales, are exposed locally. The surface soils at the Chikuminuk site are glacial in origin and include ground moraines, lateral and recessional end moraines, and outwash (alluvial) deposits. ~—— ILI-6 The evaluation of regional seismicity involved a review of —, data maintained on computer file by NOAA (National Oceanographic | and Atmospheric Administration). The largest nearby event was - rated at 5.1 Magnitude and occurred within the range of 15-20 miles from the site. These data suggest that an acceleration \ value of 0.1g be used for preliminary design purposes. Power and Energy Potential Reservoir operation studies were performed to determine the power and energy that could be produced by the Chikuminuk Lake project. The operation studies were performed for a range of reservoir levels utilizing the most likely monthly electric load demands for the Bethel region in the year 2002, presented in Table II-3. The peak power demand includes an allowance of 10 percent for station service losses, transmission losses, and i! other contingencies. The energy demand includes an 8 percent allowance. vt Basic Assumptions Basic assumptions employed in the operation studies are: 1. The reservoir is full at the start of the operation studies. Ls 2. The maximum normal reservoir water surface is the elevation of the top of the spillway crest. 3. Annual energy generation requirements based on the monthly forecasted demand. 7 Input Data The input data for the operation studies are: i 1. Area and volume versus elevation curves (Exhibit 22). -) 2. Monthly streamflows for the period 1954-1981 (Exhibit _ | 25). . : ( ’ . . 3. A range of maximum reservoir operating levels between , El. 598 and El. 620 with maximum drawdown to El. 598. 5. Monthly peak load and energy demand patterns. Based on these studies the Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric project meets the Bethel region 2002 monthly energy demands on a firm basis when developed to a normal reservoir elevation of 610 feet above mean sea level. Monthly firm, secondary and average III-7 energy production for the project at El. 610 are shown on Table III-2. Secondary energy occurs in all months. Table III-2 CHIKUMINUK LAKE ENERGY GENERATING CAPABILITY Month Firm Energy Secondary Energy Average Energy (MWh) (Mwh) (MWh) Jan. 3,940 732 4,672 Feb. 3,550 467 4,017 Mar. 3,314 534 3,848 Apr. 2,964 203 3,167 May. 2,925 104 3,029 Jun. ° 2,808 2,199 5,007 © Jul. 2,925 3,567 6,492 Aug. 3,040 3,543 6,583 Sept. 2,964 3,468 6,432 Oct. 3,315 2,170 6,485 Nov. 3,315 2,033 5,348 Dec. 3,940 855 4,795 Totals 39,000 20,875 59,875 Description of Project Facilities Reservoir The reservoir created by the dam would raise the present normal elevation of Chikuminuk Lake 12 feet. reservoir would be El. power and energy operation studies. vation would be El. 60 for power generation. volume versus elevation curves. The normal maximum 610. This elevation was derived from the The minimum reservoir ele- 0. Reservoir operation between El. 610 and El. 600 would provide a usuable storge of 230,000 acre-feet Exhibit 22 shows the reservoir area and Chikuminuk Lake is located in a discontinuous permafrost the moraine formations may contain frozen zones. Changes in the natural lake level could alter the ther- mal regime of the moraine deposits and cause settlement or zone. Therefore, affect permeability. A preliminary seepage analysis of the left abutment was performed based on vertical and horizontal flow nets developed from observed bedrock elevations and an estimated permeability constant determined from a moraine soil sample. The results indicated that seepage losses could be on the order of 50 to 100 cfs over a reservoir elevation range of 620 to 660. III-8 Based on these results, a slurry wall cut-off was included in the conceptual designs for normal reservoir elevations greater than El. 620. Further investigation will be required to assess the pres- ence of permafrost and the water-retaining capability of the morainal ridges which form natural embankments across the end of Chikuminuk Lake. Dam and Spillway A rollcrete gravity dam containing an ungated overflow spillway would be constructed on the Allen River about 600 feet downstream of the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake as shown as Exhibit 23. Sectional views of the structure are shown on the same Exhibit. The maximum height of the dam would be about 45 feet above deepest excavation and the entire foundation of the dam would be excavated to sound rock. A grout curtain would be constructed under the dam to reduce potential seepage through the rock foundation. The uncontrolled spillway would be located in the center portion of the dam and would have a crest elevation of 610 and crest length of 50 feet. Flood routing studies were performed using the PMF inflow hydrograph (see Appendix D-2). The peak spillway discharge was 5,000 cfs and the maximum surcharge ele- vation was 618. Allowing four feet of freeboard, the dam crest was fixed at El. 622. The selection of the type of dam was based on the availa- bility of construction materials, site geology, climatic condi- tions, and construction cost. The construction materials available at the site include sand, gravel and aggregate from the moraine and downstream alluvium deposits. Random rockfill and rip rap could be developed from required spillway excava- tion. Thin clay beds occur but significant deposits were not apparent. The dam foundation and abutment rock may contain open joints due to stress relief and near-surface ice-wedging. How- ever, it is expected that acceptable foundation rock can be reached with limited excavation. Therefore, the foundation rock was judged adequate to support the loads of either a concrete gravity or rockfill dam. The climatic conditions are such that the mean annual temp- erature is below freezing and maximum ice build-up during the winter season is expected to be three to five feet. III-9 A conventional rockfill dam with central impervious or semi-impervious core was eliminated due to a lack of significant clay deposits in the study area. Rockfill dam alternatives with upstream membranes constructed of 1) asphalt, 2) reinforced con- crete, and 3) synthetic or high density polyethylene were con- sidered. The rockfill dam with an asphaltic upstream membrane was eliminated due to the high cost associated with mobilizing the required construction plant, and the membrane's expected poor performance under repeated cycles of freezing and thawing. A rockfill dam with a reinforced concrete upstream face was eliminated because firm foundation support in upper portions of the left abutment are lacking due to the expected depth of over- burden. The upstream synthetic membrane was eliminated because it becomes brittle under subfreezing temperatures and the mem- brane's low surface friction creates construction problems dur- ing bedding and. riprap placement. A rockfill dam with a central synthetic membrane was found to be feasible, since most of the upstream shell material would be above freezing temperature. Most of the lower two-thirds of the downstream shell would be below the freezing point, whereas, the upper one third would be subjected to fluctuating temperature above and below the freez- ing point. Two types of concrete dams were considered; 1) concrete gravity and, 2) roller compacted concrete (RCC). The estimated construction cost for both types of concrete structures were compared for a range of dam heights and the RCC structure exhibited a significant reduction in project cost. The cost advantage is associated with precast upstream and downstream facing reducing form work and labor requirements, and rapid con- struction since the mixture handles like damp gravel fill and is compacted in one-foot layers with rolling equipment. The RCC structure was selected from the dam type comparison studies. However, the RCC structure does not exhibit a signifi- cant cost advantage over a rockfill dam with a central synthetic membrane. Further site-specific investigations of the founda- tions and construction materials will be required to select the final dam design. Intake The intake structure, shown on Exhibit 24, would be located upstream of the dam on the left bank of the Allen River. This location is sufficient to provide adequate water approach conditions for the intake. The excavation slopes would require support and erosion protection. The intake entrance would be furnished with trashracks and would be flared to provide gradual velocity transition to the III-10 14- foot diameter power tunnel. The velocity through the trash- racks at rated flow would be about 1.5 feet per second on the gross area and the corresponding velocity in the power tunnel about 10 feet per second. The intake would be set below minimum reservoir level to maintain adequate submergence and limit the potential for formation of frazil ice on the trashracks. Heated trashrack guides would be provided to ensure winter operation of the trashracks and an air bubbler system would be installed to inhibit sheet ice formation at the intake entrance. An ice boom would be provided at the Allen River outlet to restrict the movement of ice, at break-up, into the intake approach area. Bulkhead gates would be placed in the trashrack slots to allow the structure to be dewatered. The trashracks and bulk- head gates would be operated with the equipment provided in the intake house. Water Conductor The water conductor consists of a tunnel and two branches. A profile along the centerline of the water conductor is shown on Exhibit 24. The overall length of the water conductor would be 2,580 feet from the intake to the powerstation. The diameter was selected to maintain tunnel hydraulic losses in the range of three percent of gross head. The 14-foot diameter concrete lined tunnel would be about 2,480 feet long. The tunnel would branch upstream of powerstation into two 8-foot diameter con- crete and steel-lined tunnel sections. Each of the branches would be about 100 feet long and would connect to the turbine inlet valve. Diversion of Allen River flows during construction of the dam would be accomplished through the intake, power tunnel and a 400-foot long, 16-foot diameter, unlined extension of the power tunnel. The diversion tunnel outlet would be downstream of the powerstation on the left bank of the Allen River. Subsequent to dam construction, the tunnel would be plugged downstream of the wye branch. Routing studies for the diversion flood, with a 25- year return period and peak inflow of 14,000 cfs, were performed. The peak tunnel discharge was 1,800 cfs and the maximum lake surcharge elevation was El. 601. A cofferdam upstream of the intake with a crest elevation at El. 603 would divert flows through the tunnel. Surge Control Facilities The length of the tunnel and flow are such that facilities to relieve surges and water hammer created by discharge changes would be required. The most critical situations are: (1) III-11 starting units, bringing them to synchronous speed, and syn- chronizing them into the electrical system, (2) controlling speed rise of the units if the entire station would be tripped off the line, and (3) restarting after a tripout. The surge chamber and the riser, shown on Exhibit 24, would be excavated in rock and overburden and concrete lined. The surge facilities would be located 2,350 feet downstream of the intake. The maximum water surface elevation in the chamber with instantaneous load rejection (two units operating at full gate) and the minimum water surface elevation in the chamber (with one unit operating and instantaneous load acceptance of the second unit) were calculated with assumed unit characteristic curves. In future studies, more information will be available and the subject of surge control will be analyzed in more detail. Powerstation The powerstation, shown on Exhibit 24, would be located on the left bank of the Allen River. The powerstation would be a surface structure of reinforced concrete construction with an insulated roof supported by a steel truss system. It would occupy a plan area of about 130 by 60 feet. The rock excavation slopes would require support. The powerstation would contain two unit bays, an erection bay, and shop facilities. Personnel and equipment access would be provided at the east end of the powerstation. The two turbine-generator units would each consist of a horizontal Francis turbine with a maximum output of 6,900 hp at 90 ft of net head and a speed of 300 rpm. The generators would be directly connected to the turbines and would each be rated at 5,100 kVA, 0.90 pf, 60 HZ, three-phase. They would be totally enclosed, self-ventilated, and be complete with bearings and accessory equipment. The main transformer would be of the oil- filled, self-cooled type, and located outdoors adjacent to the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be provided with a bridge crane of 30 ton capacity to handle the heaviest lift anticipated. The crane will be used to unload and erect equipment during construction and to facilitate maintenance. III-12 Access Chikuminuk Lake is only accessible by helicopter, float plane, and small boat from neighboring watersheds. Since the site is inaccessible by roads or navigable waters, project con- struction and subsequent operation would require the construc- tion of an airfield to accommodate large load-carrying air- planes. Heavy equipment and construction camp will be airlifted to the site during the first winter season of the construction period by building an ice runway on Chikuminuk Lake. Mobiliza- tion of the heavy equipment will allow construction of the per- manent runway in first summer season. The permanent airfield would be located adjacent to the hydroelectric facilities and would consist of a single 150-foot wide 5,000-foot long runway. Access from the airstrip to the powerstation switchyard, dam, and intake will require the construction of about two miles of gravel roads. The roads would be constructed on fill to preserve the natural surface mat of vegetation and organic materials. Careful attention would be given to drainage and the potential for erosion. Switchyard and Transmission The generators would be connected to two power transformers with pull-off structures located adjacent to the powerhouse. The switchyard would be located north of the powerstation. The switchyard equipment would consist of an oil circuit breaker, disconnecting switches, and instrument transformers. A single circuit 138 kV transmission line would connect the project with the load center at Bethel. The transmission line routing, shown on Exhibit 26, would follow the south shoreline of Chikuminuk Lake to the Milk Creek Valley. From there, the line would cross the Wood River Moun- tains south of Kisaralik Lake and follow the Gold Creek and Kisaralik River drainages to Drum Lake. From there, the routing trends northwest, across Crooked Creek and Greenstone Ridge into the Kasigluk River drainage. The route leaves the foothills of the Kilbuck Mountains about 12 miles east of Three Step Mountain and trends northwest to Kwethluk. At Kwethluk the route trends north to Akiachak, crossing the Kuskokwim River at Kiktak Island. From Akiachak the route trends southwest to Bethel along the west bank of the Kuskokwim River to a receiving substation at or near the existing Bethel Utilities Corporation generation plant. The recieving III-13 substation would be provided with the necessary equipment to step-down the transmission voltage to the 34.5 kv distribution system. The basic transmission line parameters selected are as follows: Type: I-type lattice guyed structure Voltage: 138 kv, 3 6 Conductor: 795 kcMil, ACSR Shield Wire: None Span Length: 1,000 feet The structure type, shown on Exhibit 26, was selected consider- ing the existence of permafrost, lack of access roads, limited or no accommodations for construction crews, and marshy and mountainous terrains. The guyed lattice I-type structure is best suited for this type of environment because of minimal foundation work and its light weight. For a 138 kV I-type structure, the weight is estimated to be 2,500 lbs. Because of its relative light weight, this structure can be assembled at a marshalling yard together with attached guys and insulators and airlifted to the site by a helicopter where it can be quickly placed and guyed. Guyed structures have an excellent performance record in climates with severe freeze-thaw cycles and in marshy and mountainous areas. Conductor stringing would be done using pulling-tensioning methods for fast production. Delivery of stringing equipment and conductors to the site would be by helicopter. The I-type structure and construction methods considered would preclude the need for construction roads and limit the width of the line corridor. Implementation and Construction Schedule Exhibit 27 is the projected overall implementation schedule for the Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric project from start of feasibility studies to completion of the project. The total elapsed time would be approximately six and one-half years, assuming no lapse between phases. Four years are estimated to be required for feasibility studies, preparation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application, the evaluation by FERC, other State and local applications and approvals, detailed engineering design, and required specifica- tion of major equipment. The construction of the project is estimated to require two and one-half years. ITI-14 The labor force required for project construction would live on site. The living quarters during both years of con- struction would be established in areas which would minimize ‘impact on the surrounding area. All refuse and human wastes would be removed from the site and disposed. A system of trenches and settling ponds would be provided around major construction zones and stockpile areas to intercept natural runoff and waste from construction processes which may contain sediments. Such sediments will be combined with the stockpile overburden and distributed over areas disturbed by construction to encourage revegetation. The products of construction such as excavated materials would be incorporated into the permanent project features to the maximum extent possible. Project Costs Construction Cost The construction cost of the project is estimated to be $127,000,000. The construction cost, at the December 1, 1982 price level, includes direct costs, an allowance for contingen- cies, and engineering and owner's overhead. Table III-3 summarizes estimated costs for the construction of the project. The detailed costs are given on Exhibit 28. The estimated direct costs of civil items include construc- tion materials, equipment, transportation, and labor, and were based on quantity estimates obtained from the project layouts. For each work item a construction method was assumed. The quantity of labor, equipment, and material required to perform the work was then determined. Total civil costs were calculated by adding the indirect costs and profit to the direct civil costs. Where applicable, unit prices were computed by dividing the total costs by esti- mated quantities of work to be done. _ Indirect costs are the contractor's costs that are not directly chargeable to specific work items, such as camp and commissary, field office expenses, shop and warehouse construc— tion and operation, management, supervisory and engineering salaries, taxes, insurance, bonds, and home office overhead. III-15 Table III-3 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE PROJECT (December 1, 1982 price level) FERC Acct. No. Item Amount “($1,000) 330 Land and Land Rights 3,500 331 Powerplant Structures and Improvements 3,373 332 Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways 17,721 333 Water Wheels, Turbines and Generators 5,750 334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 520 335 Miscellaneous Powerplant Equipment 859 336 Roads, Railroads and Bridges 375 352 Transmission Plant Structures and Improvements 682 353 Station Equipment 2,025 354 Towers and Fixtures 30,290 263 Camp and Commissary 21,750 Subtotal, Direct Cost 86,845 Contingencies (25% of Subtotal Direct Cost) 21,715 Total Direct Cost 108,560 Engineering and Owner's Overhead 18,440 (17% of Direct Cost) oo Total Construction Costl/ 127,000 1/ Total construction cost excludes escalation and interest during construction. III-16 Electrical and mechanical equipment costs were estimated on the basis of known costs of similar equipment, adjusted for type, rating, remote location, and special operating charac- teristics. The above civil direct costs, and electrical and mechanical equipment costs were added to obtain the subtotal of direct cost. A contingency allowance of 25 percent of subtotal direct cost is then added to obtain total direct cost. An allowance of 17 percent to cover engineering and owner's administration is then added to total direct cost to obtain total construction cost. Interest during construction is not included. Operation and Maintenance Costs The estimated annual operation, maintenance, and replace- ment costs, at the December 1, 1982, price level, for the Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project would be $420,000. The costs are based on data published by the Federal Energy Regula- tory Commission, experience, and adjustments for the remote_ location of the plant. These costs include insurance, supplies, administration, on-site supervision, hydraulic and electric expenses, maintenance of the 138 kV transmission line, electric plant and other miscellaneous equipment, and an annual payment to a sinking fund for major repairs. Space Heat Alternative A study was performed to evaluate the suitability of the Chikuminuk Lake project to provide a portion of the space heat- ing demand. Project layouts and costs were made for a develop- ment that approaches the topographic limits of the site. The project would have an rated capacity of 24 MW at a rated net head of 126 feet. The project would produce 113.5 GWh on a firm basis and the average annual energy production would be 120 GWh. A listing of pertinent project data is shown on Exhibit 30 and the general plan and profile and sections of project fea- tures are shown on Exhibits 30 and 31. Table III-4 summarizes estimated costs for the construction of the project. The estimated annual operation and maintenance and replacement costs would be $685,000. III-17 FERC Acct. No. 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354 263 Table III-4 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE PROJECT SPACE HEAT ALTERNATIVE (December 1, 1982 price level) Item Land and Land Rights Powerplant Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways Water Wheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Miscellaneous Powerplant Equipment Roads, Railroads and Bridges Transmission Plant Structures and Improvements Station Equipment Towers and Fixtures Camp and Commissary Subtotal, Direct Cost Contingencies (25% of Subtotal Direct Cost) Total Direct Cost Engineering and Owner's Overhead (17% of Direct Cost) Total Construction Costl/ Total construction cost excludes escalation and interest during construction. III-18 Amount ($1,000) 7,500 4,895 -, 31,687 Ms 10,500 ri 750 1,344 315 967 3,350 30,290 24,400 115,998 28,992 144,990 24,610 169,600 Chapter IV POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A detailed description of the existing environment at Chikuminuk Lake is contained in Appendix D-3. The following discussion pertains’ to the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of a hydroelectric project at Chikuminuk Lake. Summary An initial reconnaissance study of the Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric project suggests.that there is potential for the following environmental impacts- e Visual impacts from the dam, powerhouse, airstrip, transmission line and reservoir drawdown. e Inundation of some lakeshore and feeder stream habitat and loss of some local wildlife. e Loss of some fishery habitat and reduced populations . in Chikuminuk: Lake. e Temporary minor decline in water quality of the lake * and downstream waters. ° Some mortality to birds from transmission line collisons. e Conflict with existing land use values for the state park. There will be concern for the downstream fisheries, especially the sockeye salmon population that spawns in the Allen River delta area at Lake Chauekuktuki. ‘However, with appropriate precautions, the downstream effects from the project would be minimized. There is some potential for enchancement of downstream fisheries. Although project impacts are not serious enough to limit development of the project, the fact that Chikuminuk Lake lies within the Wood-Tikchik State Park dimin- ishes. the acceptability of the project somewhat because develop- ment stands in contradistinction to the basic land use policies of conservation and recreation within state parks. Iv-1 Chikuminuk Lake Terrestrial Impacts Inundation. A 9.5 MW project would raise the lake by about 12 feet and inundate about 3,800 acres of land and a 24 MW proj- ect would raise the existing lake elevation by about 62 feet and inundate about 8,700 acres of land. Many parts of Chikuminuk Lake are bordered by relatively steep terrain. Habitat loss in these areas, both in terms of quantity and quality would be minimal, however the lake is fed by a number of low lying streams (e.g. Milk Creek). In these streams riparian habitat in lowland valleys would be lost to inundation. Field observations show that these lowland areas provide refuge for beaver, moose, black bear, brown bear, otter, mink, and ground squirrels. They also provide useful habitat for such transients as wolverine, fox, wolf, and, to a lesser extent, caribou. Additionally there are a number of low lying islands in the lake that would be inundated and one of the is- lands supports a rookery of glaucous-winged gulls. None of these species, nor the vegetative communities (up- land tundra, lowland tundra, willow, alder and cottonwood), are particularly rare in this region of Alaska. Riparian habitat makes up only a small percentage of the vegetation. Increasing the lake elevation would inundate a relatively small amount of vegetation and cause only local loss in abundance and frequency to the biota. Beaver and moose are probably the most sensitive species to inundation because they rely heavily on lowland habi- tats. Displacement of beaver, however, may be beneficial to some fishery habitats because beaver activity is extensive in the area around the lake and has restricted the flow regimes of some streams. Thus, on a regional scale, inundation would not produce significant impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem taken as a whole, but there will be local impacts due to loss of low- land habitat. Additional studies of shoreline habitats, topo- graphy, and biotic distribution. patterns will be needed to more accurately assess the potential biotic losses from inundation. Downstream of the project, there should be no major effects on terrestrial habitats other than those lost to construction at the dam site. The habitat along the Allen River is not ex- pected to change. Studies would be needed to assess potential impacts to riparian vegetation on the Allen River, but impacts are expected to be minor. There are no man-made structures in the area that would be affected by the project. Archaeological reconnaissance in 1980 has revealed some artifacts at five sites around Chikuminuk Iv-2 Lake. If warranted, a thorough field reconnaissance by a quali- fied archaeologist would be needed to assess the significance of these sites and to verify that no other historically important sites exist in areas to be affected by project development. Drawdown. Lake elevations in Chikuminuk would vary season- ally as a result of filling and emptying cycles. Onshore. anchor ice would subside with drawdown and accelerate erosive forces in the drawdown area and help uproot and dislodge inundated terres- trial vegetation. This would affect both aquatic and terres- trial environments. Shoreline degradation would affect terres- trial wildlife, especially those species that frequent the ter- restrial-aquatic interface such as beaver, otter, mink, and moose. Terrestrial impacts would be quite localized in the Chikuminuk Lake basin however and these species and their habi- tats common to this area are also quite abundant in other parts of the region. Construction. Construction and operation of the proposed project requires development of an airstrip capable of handling c-130 transport planes. No access roads would be built to the area and all construction personnel, equipment and materials would be airlifted to the site. Construction of an airstrip would increase the potential for public access to Chikuminuk Lake and adjacent areas. Currently the area is accessible only by float plane or helicopter and small boats from adjacent lakes. Access would be far more limited by construction of an airstrip than if an access road was developed from a coastal _city such as Dillingham. Increased public access could be considered as recreational enhancement but, if realized, would mean increased pressure on the local fish and wildlife resources. Poaching is also a pos- sibility and could interfere with conservation goals of the Wood-Tikchik State Park. Additionally, during the construction period, construction crews can be expected to take local fish and game, however, this would be a short-term impact. Construction activity which removes surface vegetation, on the slopes above Chikuminuk Lake or the Allen River would be a source of potential erosion and sediment. Highly saturated soils of the area would present special problems regarding ero- sion and landslides (see Appendix B, Chapter 2). Special pre- cautions would be needed to control erosion and prevent runoff and sediments from entering the aquatic ecosystem. Waste piles, borrow areas, and disturbed sites would impact areas around the dam site. These would need to be reclaimed via revegetation or other methods as appropriate and dictated by state law. Iv-3 The two major hazards from petroleum products would be fire and leaks or spills. Fire could threaten the well being of personnel and terrestrial habitat. Leaks or spills would be most serious if they entered the aquatic ecosystem. As would be required, all. petroleum products, especially large caches of diesel and jet fuels, would require containment areas. Any local contamination from petroleum products would be cleaned up to facilitate reclamation and revegetation of the construction and staging areas. Use of heavy diesel equipment, aircraft, motor vehicles and operation of a construction camp would introduce a variety of air pollutants locally in relatively low concentrations. Air pollutants are not expected to present any serious, or lasting, environmental impacts. Although there would not be any lasting impacts, some local visual impacts in the form of smoke, plumes or haze may be expected in calm weather during the construction period. If construction occurs during colder months, ice fogs are possible. It will be difficult to avoid these occasional minor visual impacts. Impacts from noise are expected to be local, relatively minor, and will have no long lasting effects on the environment. Noise from construction activities can be expected to drive away most of the wildlife that might otherwise occupy or utilize the construction areas. Blasting, if utilized, could be detrimental to species attempting to nest or raise young. Field reconnais- sance indicates that raptors do not nest near the proposed dam site; however, big game species including moose and bear were seen in the area. Raptors may nest along the transmission cor- ridor. Prior to construction activities, the transmission line corridor should be scouted for potential nest and den sites. Any critical sites should be avoided by appropriate timing of construction or rerouting of the corridor. Sanitary waste and trash from the construction camp could introduce both visual and biotic impacts to the area. Addition- ally, the camp and staging areas would destroy some habitat over and above that needed for the dam and facilities. State laws require that upon completion of construction, the staging areas and camps be returned to as natural a state as possible. The design plans would include measures for erosion control, con- tainment and removal of all wastes during and after construc-— tion, and a general reclamation program. Visual Impacts. A hydroelectric project would create three permanent visual impacts: 1) the facilities and structures at the lake (dam, powerhouse, roads, airfield, etc.); 2) the transmission line and substations between the project site and delivery point at Bethel, and 3) exposure of the shoreline from Iv-4 drawdown during low water periods. Additionally there would be the temporary visual and aesthetic impacts from construction activities, equipment, and facilities. Impacts from the dam and project facilities would be local only. Impacts from permanent facilities can be minimized to the extent that they can be placed out of view or made to blend in with their surroundings. The transmission line would traverse 130 miles to Bethel. Appropriate routing of the transmission line would help diminish the visibility of the 60 foot high, 138 kV tranmission line towers. The towers exceed the height of the tundra vegetation. The visual impacts from reservoir drawdown would be in proportion to the time, duration, and extent of low water periods. Small daily fluctuation in the reservoir level would produce only minor visual impacts. The seasonal minimum draw- down would occur in winter. At this time, ice covers the lake and deep snow covers the ground; recreational visitation would be at its lowest level. Anchor ice would scour the shoreline in winter and would affect the final visual aspects and biotic conditions of both terrestrial and aquatic shoreline habitats. Aquatic Impacts Chikuminuk Lake appears to be a typical northern oligo- trophic lake. It is relatively deep with a small proportion of shallow water areas confined to a narrow shelf around the shore- line. The shoreline consists mostly of gravel and cobble that probably serve as important spawning beds for lake trout and Dolly Varden. A few feeder streams to Chikuminuk Lake also appear suitable as spawning and rearing habitat for Dolly Varden and Arctic grayling. The actual location and abundance of spawning and rearing areas for all three species would be deter- mined through more detailed studies (see Proposed Studies, below). Increasing the depth of the lake will put existing spawning habitat in deeper water. Lake fish will utilize newly created shallows, however, the shallows would be quite different from existing habitat until natural processes of erosion and sedimentation recreate gravel and cobble bottom habitats on the new shoreline. Based on the assumption that newly created shallows would be suitable for fish habitat, drawdown of the lake could create further impacts by dewatering the shallows and subsidence of anchor ice in winter. Impacts to fisheries would occur to the extent that shallows are utilized for spawning and rearing areas. Iv-5 Accelerated scouring and erosion could provide.a long range advantage to fish populations by more rapidly recreating suit- able spawning areas (cobble and gravel). However, it would have short-term disadvantages because it would impact those fish whose eggs incubate over winter in the drawdown area. Summer and fall spawners such as Dolly Varden and lake trout would be most vulnerable because lake levels would be highest during spawning time. Eggs laid in the drawdown area would be lost to anchor ice in winter or by desiccation. Lake trout may avoid some drawdown effects because they can spawn in deep water. Selection would favor deep water spawners. Allen River Water Quality Introduction of sediment to the Allen River could affect water quality and downstream fisheries. Construction of the cofferdam is slated for March-April when incubating eggs willbe ready to hatch downstream. Because fill would be placed in the river, this would be a potentially critical phase. The borrow materials are not expected to contain large amounts of fine sediments nor any potential contaminants; however, testing of the borrow may be required before it can be dumped in the river. Construction of the diversion tunnel may also introduce sediment into the Allen River. Tunnel spoil might provide a suitable source material for construction of the dam or other aspects of the project. It may also be possible to utilize the material for artifical spawning areas in Chikuminuk Lake or the Allen River. : Downstream Flow Variation Hydrologic studies show that there is considerable seasonal variation in the natural flow of the Allen River. The average annual flow of about 1400 cfs reaches average summer flows of between 2000-4000 cfs and average winter flows of 300-600 cfs. The hydroelectric project would smooth these seasonal extremes. Mean monthly flows will.closely approach the mean annual flow with minor seasonal variation based on power demand. The resulting increased winter flows may enhance survival of overwintering eggs by preventing low flows and freezeups. The projects, however, would introduce (estimated) diurnal flow an, of between 800-1600 cfs (9.5 MW) or 1300 and 2600 cfs (24 MW). IV-6 ma 1 oo) a Salmon spawn in abundance in the lower Allen River delta at Chauekuktuli Lake from June-September. Sockeye are the most abundant species but pinks, chinook, and probably coho also utilize the area. Dolly Varden also probably spawn there in the fall and Arctic grayling in the spring. Planned project minimal flows are above the annual minimums and appear sufficient to permit spawning to continue unabated. A primary concern would be that diurnal variations in flows do not dewater any critical habitat or change the behavior of fish. If daily fluctuations are too extreme, they could strand fish or eggs in dewatered side channels. The majority of the fish appear to be near the downstream end of the river; however, suitable habitat probably exists throughout much of the river. The potential for impact would depend on dampening affects of distance on flow fluctua- tions and actual habitat use. More detailed studies are needed to determine the change in wetted stream areas and where fish spawning and rearing habitats occur in the Allen River. These studies would establish flow regime criteria. Downstream Temperatures Wintertime temperatures in the Allen River are probably near 0°C throughout most of its length. Water entering from Chikuminuk is probably only slightly warmer, although it could be as warm as 3-4°C. The project would draw water from greater depths than normally flow into the Allen River, hence warmer than normal temperatures could be discharged downstream. Should such warmer water reach incubating fish eggs in the lower river, it could accelerate their normal development time and lead to increased mortality due to premature hatch. Whether this will occur depends on: 1) the temperature regime of flow from the lake into the river; 2) where the incubating eggs are actually laid; and 3) whether the process of heat loss in the river can overcome the potential increase in temperature. Given the extremely cold ambient air temperatures, it appears likely that if there is an increase in temperature from a deep water intake, the river will rapidly recool the water to its normal ambient level of near 0°C, probably within a short distance of the powerstation tailrace. It also appears likely that the upper reaches of the Allen River (near the dam) are not heavily used for spawning. It thus seems likely that tempera-— ture would pose no wintertime threat to downstream fisheries. Summertime conditions in subpolar lakes have surface tem- peratures above 4°C for only short a period of time. Addition- ally, temperature gradients, if present, are poorly developed and usually near the surface (Hutchinson, 1957:437). Data col- lected in August 1982 show only a very short gradient in IV-7 Chikuminuk Lake. Water entering the Allen River was quite cold (near 5°C) and remained cold for most of its length. Thus, diversion of 4°C water in summertime from a water intake will not likely affect downstream temperatures or fisheries. Oxygen levels are expected to be quite high in both summer and winter flows because cold waters usually have relatively high dissolved oxygen levels. If future detailed studies show any unexpected characteristics in thermal or 09 properties, it may be necessary to consider multilevel intakes to better con- trol downstream water quality for a 24 MW project. It would not be possible to employ multilevel intakes in a 9.5 MW project be- cause it will already be drawing from as shallow a depth as is technically possible. Fish Passage Upstream migration of fish into Chikuminuk Lake is blocked by several sets of natural rapids below the dam site. As a result, salmon currently are absent from Chikuminuk Lake. Out- migration from Chikuminuk Lake through the Allen River, if it occurs, is restricted to the endemic species now in the lake which include Dolly Varden, grayling and lake trout. Fishery studies would be needed to establish whether sub- stantial numbers of fish congregate near, or move into, the Allen River from Chikuminuk Lake, however, it is unlikely that any large numbers of fish will be entrained into the power tun- nel because of the relatively low intake velocities planned. If salmon were to be artifically introduced to Chikuminuk Lake, then special design considerations might be needed to enable downstream passage. Alternatively, coho salmon could be intro- duced as a land locked fishery (see Potential for Enhancement). Transmission Lines Impact on Birds Tall structures would be a collision hazard for birds fly- ing through an area. This includes transmission line towers, guy wires and conductors. A large variety of factors are in- volved in understanding how and why birds collide with trans- mission lines (See Exhibit 32). Species with the following characteristics are more vulnerable to collison: large body size; low maneuverability; low altitude flight patterns; and flight during low visibility. Waterfowl and raptors that occur in the Bethel and Chikuminuk areas have several of these characteristics. The Bethel area has extensive waterfowl nesting areas and migratory Iv-8 corridors. Summer ground fogs are common and could increase mortality from collisions if a transmission line system is con- structed. As evidence for this prediction, more than 100 dead ptarmigan were collected last spring under a short existing stretch of intertie near Bethel (Reiswig, pers, common., U.S. F.W.S.). King (1982) and Strickland (1982) have communicated similar cases of bird mortality along the same stretch of in- tertie. Additionally, certain parts of the Kilbuck Mountains serve as nesting areas for several species of raptors including golden eagles. Here the 138 kV transmission line that would link the Chikuminuk Lake project with Bethel may pose both a collision and electrocution hazard. An important issue is how much additional mortality is likely to occur from the transmission line. Experts suggest that, taken as a whole, avian mortality from transmission lines is very small and probably inconsequential in terms of mainten- ance of populations of most species (Avery and However, 1978). There are exceptions, however. Kroodsma (1978) reported that about 10% of all known reported deaths in bald eagles (lower 48 states) came from transmission line impacts. In the case of raptors, the loss of even a few breeding pairs of relatively rare species (e.g. falcons, eagles, etc.) could have important biological consequences. Furthermore, the Bethel area repre- sents an unusual concentration of sensitive nesting bird spe- cies. There is the additional likelihood of public concerns over those species which have a high national prominence. The water- fowl of this region represent a primary source of recruitment for the entire North American continent. They also provide an important source of food for the local subsistence economy. In the event that a centralized energy supply plan is selected, one that utilizes an extensive intertie and transmission system, it will be necessary to carry out more detailed field studies on the distribution, abundance, and flight patterns of some of these species. With proper design and routing, it may be possi- ble to minimize mortality from transmission lines and thereby prevent significant impacts to area bird populations. Visual Impacts The transmission lines would consist of a 138 kV line that would traverse approximately 130 miles from Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel. The towers would be approximately 60 feet in height and would be spaced at five per mile. The route to Bethel would traverse parts of the Wood-Tikchik State Park cross the Kilbuck Mountains and the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Iv-9 In rough terrain, it would be possible to minimize visual impacts (and potential for collison) of the 138 kv line by appropriate routing along cliff faces and away from direct lines of sight. This would not be possible in most of the region because of the flat terrain and low tundra vegetation. The Wood-Tikchik State Park will probably be the most sensitive area because of its natural aesthetic qualities and recreational purposes. Certain areas in the Kilbuck Mountains, including the Kisaralik and other drainages as well as parts of the Yukon Delta Refuge that are used for recreational and other land use purposes, would also be sensitive areas. Other Impacts Transmission lines pose two other hazards, one environmen- tal and one safety. To the extent that the lines are used as visual navigation aids, they may invite greater access to now remote areas. Although no access roads are planned, off the road vehicles and aircraft could use them to navigate in remote areas. The transmission lines could also pose an aircraft colli- sion hazard. Most small aircraft pilots navigate by visual means at moderate to low altitudes and poor visibility is a common phenomenon in the region. Land Use Conflicts Wood-Tikchik State Park The proposed Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric site is located within the boundaries of the 1.4 million acre Wood-Tikchik State Park. The park, located approximately 300 miles southwest of Anchorage, is bounded on the west by precipitous slopes of the Ahklun and Kilbuck Mountains, on the east and north by the Nushagak lowlands, and on the south by Lake Nunavaugaluk. Most of the park is remote wilderness; few areas exhibit the presence of man. The park is remote, and access is gained only through char- ter air services and shallow draft boats. No visitor statistics are kept for the park, but are estimated at 20,000 visitor-days per annum (Div. of Parks, 1974). Visitation of Chikuminuk Lake is probably only in the magnitude of hundreds of visitor-days per year. Human use rates would likely remain low as long as there is no development of a surface transportation system in the area. Iv-10 The park was established by legislative fiat on June 29, 1978 expressly to "... protect the area's fish and wildlife breeding and support systems and to preserve the continued use of the area for subsistence and to preserve the continued use of the area for subsistence and recreational activities..." and ",.. to protect the area's recreational and scenic resources..." (AS 41.20.460).° While nothing in the enabling legislation, Alaska Administrative Codes, or statutes expressly prohibits hydroelectric development on park lands, development is in con- tradistinction to the normal role envisioned by the legislature for such reservations. State parks are defined as "... areas with special recreational, scenic, cultural, historical, wilder- ness, or similar values..." that are "...to be managed primarily for the public use and enjoyment of these values". (AS 38.04.070). The decision of whether or not a proposed development is compatible with park management rests with the Director of State Parks. The director has broad discretionary powers and may permit development to take place if he determines that: 1. ecology of state park lands will not be irreparably damaged or imperiled; 2. state park lands are protected from pollution; 3. public use values of the state park are maintained and protected; and 4. public safety, health, and welfare will not be damaged or imperiled". (11AAC 18.010). Note that the terminology of these directives provides the director freedom of action and he may permit a given development to proceed provided that, in his judgment, the development does not materially detract from the attributes of the park. Development proposals are likely to come under close public scrutiny. The eventual decision of whether or not to proceed with the Chikuminuk hydroelectric project would rest with public preceptions of land use values and decisions. These in turn will be influenced by the various costs and benefits of differ- ent energy supply plans for the region, from an economic and environmental point of view. Refuge Lands The project will impinge upon the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge because the transmission corridor will cross it. As in the state park lands, there will be potential conflicts in land use values, especially in conservation areas. Iv-11 Native Lands The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) has allo- cated substantial tracts of land in the Bethel region for selec— tion by native village and regional corporations. Those tracts of entitlement lands that have been selected by the native cor- porations will be unavailable for development of a transmission lien and would be avoided unless formal agreement for such use is obtained. Because these lands have been selected primarily for their cultural and economic values, including subsistence use of resources, development which may affect their intrinsic value would meet with resistance. Since the transmission line may impact waterfowl populations in the Delta, it may have nega- tive connotations for subsistence users. Potential for Avoidance, Mitigation and Enhancement Unavoidable Impacts The following environmental impacts will be unavoidable consequences of hydropower development at Chikuminuk Lake: ° Some decrease in the lake fish populations of trout, char, and grayling. ° Loss of some terrestrial habitat and wildlife from inundation. ° Shoreline degradation and loss of shallow aquatic habitats from inundation and drawdown cycles. ° Visual impacts from various aspects of the project including the dam and facilities, drawdown area, and transmission lines. ° Some increased bird mortality from the transmission line, especially around the Bethel lowlands. Mitigation It may be possible to minimize the degree of impact for some of these consequences. For example, fisheries may be en- hanced by vegetation clearing, creation of artificial spawning areas or stocking programs in this or other systems. Transmis— sion line impacts may be minimized by appropriate routing and design. Terrestrial habitat losses could be mitigated partly by reclamation, and partly by land exchange agreements to increase state park boundaries in other areas. Iv-12 It will be possible and important to avoid impacts to down- stream fisheries, water quality, and habitat during construc- tion, by standard preventative measures, and during operation, by establishing daily flow fluctuations. Of particular concern will be the sockeye salmon fishery at the Allen River beach at Lake Chauekuktuli. Initial studies suggest that minimum flows needed for power would be sufficient to maintain downstream habitat quality and may potentially improve survivorship of incubating eggs by incrementing normally low winter flows. Enhancement Chikuminuk Lake probably has the biological potential to support a sockeye salmon fishery; however, the feasibility of such a project, especially under the planned hydropower operat- ing regime, must be viewed from both economic and environmental perspectives. Fish passage facilities would be required at the dam and possibly at a set of rapids downstream of the dam. Additionally, a fish hatchery program might also be needed to stock the lake. Hatcheries and fish passage facilities require large economic investments. Possibly the addition of a land locked. coho salmon fishery could be made without as large an economic outlay. From an environmental perspective, the drawdown regime would probably diminish the potential for success of a saimon fishery in the lake, and juvenile sockeye might affect, or be affected by, the existing lake fisheries because of increased competition for food. An important question that would need analysis would be whether a successful introduction of salmon into Chikuminuk Lake would provide a favorable benefit cost ratio and make a significant contribution to the salmon fishery in Bristol Bay. Proposed Environmental Studies and Monitoring Programs Observations and impressions regarding the environmental acceptability of a hydroelectric project development suggest that, although there are no fatal flaws, there will be impacts to visual, aquatic, and terrestrial aspects of the environment. If economic considerations warrant further investigation on the feasibility of the project, a number of environmental studies should be initiated. The following represents a synopsis of programs and issues that should be addressed in more detail: e Fishery Studies: To establish existing population sizes and spawning habits in Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River, and the potential for fishery mitigation and enhancement. Iv-13 Water Quality Monitoring Studies: To insure mainten- ance of existing water quality during and after con- struction, especially in the Allen River. Hydrologic Modeling Studies: To establish downstream affects from alteration of flow regimes in the Allen River. Migratory Bird Studies: To establish the potential for mortality from transmission lines, particularly near Bethel but also in the highlands. Vegetation and Wildlife Studies: To establish the need for vegetation clearing in the inundation zone and to develop a revegetation plan for disturbed areas. Recreational Studies: To minimize visual and aesthet- ic impacts, maximize the recreational potential of the project, and assist in the reclamation plan. Archaeological Survey: To establish the location of any historically important sites near the project. Iv-14 REFERENCES Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, 1974. "Comprehensive Master Plan for the Proposed Wood-Tikchik State Park, Anchorage", Alaska, 55 pp. Avery, M.L. and K.D. Hoover, 1978. "Impacts of Transmis- sion Lines of Birds in Flight." Proc. Workshop, Oak Ridge, Tenn. Biol. Ser. Program. FWS/OBS-78/48, Govt. Print. “Office. Hutchinson, G.E., 1957, A Treatise on Limnology. Vol. I, Wiley & Sons, N.Y. King, J.G. (1982, Interview with AEIDC), May 12, 1982, Juneau, Ak. Kroodsma, R.L., 1978. "Evaluation of a proposed transmis- sion lines impacts on waterfowl and eagles." In, Avery and Hoover, Impacts of Transmission Lines on Birds in Flight. Proc. Workshop. Oak Ridge, Tenn. Biol. Serv. Pgm. FWS/OBS-78/48, Govt. Print. Office. Lee, J.M. Jr., 1978. "Effects of a transmission line on Bird flight: Studies of Bonneville Power Administration Lines." In, Avery and Hoover, Impacts of Transmission Lines on Birds in Flight. Proc. Workshop. Oak Ridge, Tenn. Biol. Serv. Pgm. FWS/OBS-78/48, Govt. Print. Office. Reiswig, B. 1982. Telephone convservation with AEIDC, June 10, 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bethel, Ak. Strickland, C. 1982. Interview with AEIDC, March 10, 1982. Bethel, Ak. EXHIBIT 1 euages: TULUKSAK RIVER f ate Se 1S - VICINITY MAP s 4 ae if A we a , ee ee SALMON RIVER ~ F ‘he Ree 3 @ KiPcHUK RiveR -- —" af, ane: Cee iT § S is re ie aaa Sas \ KISARALIK RIVER@~ / ~} “ES ; , d (GOLDEN GATE FALLS) © —% eo eae fk oa pe es KISARALIK RIVER (LOWER FALLS) aa a ; A \ \ ? ee Ny y. pe ee OO \ i UPPED L \ a => ae a ~KISARALIK RIVER (UPPER FALLS) | Upeuk bles eae ee : Kee, : isaratil Lake | Stal = NOTE: i : : . ree UPNUK LAK ~~ galt ) : Z Base mapping prepared by the MILK CREEK (LOWER SITE) = Arctic Environmental Information \ ed. SS % and Data Center, University of Alaska. 0 20 40 Lee ee] SCALE IN MILES pe (1:1,000,000) ‘Lake ~ . a5 IZAVICKNIK Ma tee ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ‘ sz ‘ i pace Aa BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT LOCATION MAP POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC SITES HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 2 o So = ae ! i 3 5 z ° 3 c = a” 2 9 o 10 15 20 INSTALLED CAPACITY IN MW ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: Price level December 1982, construction cost excludes escalation and interest during construction. INSTALLED CAPACITY VS. CONSTRUCTION COST HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 3 U.S.G.S Drainage Dam Crest Maximum Dam Normal Maximum Total Tunnel Diameter Spillway Capacit Quadrangle Area Elevation Height Reservoir Fluctuation Diversion High Head Low Head PMF Peak Desiqn Flood Project Name (1:63,360) (Sq. mi.) (Ft.) (Ft.) Elevation (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (cfs) (cfs) TAYLOR 620 115 598 0 11.0 13.0 115,000 Chikuminuk Lake MOUNTAINS 348 640 135 620 12 19.0 10.5 12.5 287,000 100,000 A-B 660 155 640 22 10.0 12.0 100,000 870 100 R50 28 16.5 15.5 341,000 920 150 900 32 . 11.5 12.5 341,000 330,000 Kisaralik River 970 200 950 38 10.0 11.0 280,000 (Lower Falls) 795 115 775 28 . 14.5 320,000 Kisaralik River 870 190 850 45 . 12.0 356,000 280,000 (Golden Gate Falls) 920 240 900 50 . 11.0 265,000 1070 135 1050 40 14.0 254,000 1120 185 1100 46 . 12.0 254,000 Kisaralik River BETHEL 1170 235 1150 50 . 11.0 254,000 254,000 (Upper Falls) B-3 1070 140 1050 40 14.5 195,000 Kipchuk River BETHEL 1120 185 1100 46 12.0 230,000 165,000 D-1 1170 240 1150 50 11.0 140,000 815 40 800 15 - 49,000 TAYLOR 835 60 820 35 - 154,000 46,000 Upnuk Lake MOUNTAINS 850 75 835 50 - 43,000 B-8 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT THIRD SITE SCREENING PROJECT DATA HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY > POWER TUNNEL | / DIVERSION TUNNEL 70° ROCKFILL DAM SCALE 0 400 800 FEET ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY bow | ae BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT THIRD SITE SCREENING CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN \ Base map topography enlarged from Cc E 4 USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series. HIKUMINUK LAK NOTE: HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 _ SCALE 0 400 800 FEET ba) a) 1" = 800" NOTE: Base map topography enlarged from USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series. ACCESS TUNNEL POWERSTATION POWER TUNNEL ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT THIRD SITE SCREENING CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN KISARALIK RIVER LOWER FALLS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 SCALE 0 400 a 1” = 800° NOTE: Base map topography enlarged from USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series VICINITY MAP TAILRACE TUNNEL UNDERGROUND POWERSTATION POWER TUNNEL 4 DIVERSION TUNNEL ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT THIRD SITE SCREENING CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN KISARALIK RIVER GOLDEN GATE FALLS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Br “~ ibe 36" Airstrip 22° i \ A VICINITY MAP 430° 4280 ‘200 ACCESS ROAD t 1160 i 4100 DIKE ROCKFILL DAM BRIDGE \- TAILRACE TUNNEL * ™ NO NNN ACCESS TUNNEL UNDERGROUND [- KK (/} foie wun, DIVERSION TUNNEL ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT SCALE 0 400 =. 800 FEET THIRD SITE SCREENING Lowi } 1" = g00" CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN | KISARALIK RIVER UPPER FALLS f NOTE: i Base map topography enlarged from HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY i USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series. D aber 1982 L * ! VICINITY MAP UNDERGROUND POWERSTATION Se —S ROCKFILL DAM ACCESS TUNNEL TAILRACE TUNNEL re ~ tS ge Se Pal. DIVERSION TUNNEL 1300 ROCKFILL DAI 1200 — a oe ACCESS { ROAD SPILLWAY SCALE 0 400 800 FEET ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ceed 1" = 800° BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: THIRD SITE SCREENING Basemap topogra; I from Z USGS eaes | moves 168.300 series. CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN KIPCHUK RIVER HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 POWERSTATION <—aaaip=-— — NOTE: Base map topography enlarged from USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series a eee \ | OF) SCALE 0 1200 FEET eee DIVERSION AND LOW LEVEL OUTLET WORKS WL MAuNNLL Ry VICINITY MAP ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT THIRD SITE SCREENING CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN UPNUK LAKE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 po RESERVOIR ELEVATION RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 602 604 606 608 EXHIBIT. 10 | 610 612 COST t CONSTRUCTION AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY — MWH/YR — x 1000 596 598 600 118.0 118.5 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 602 604 606 608 119.0 610 cost 7 CONSTRUCT! FIRM ENERGY — MWH/YR x 1000 - NOTE: 1180 © 1185 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION Price level December 1982, construction cost excludes escalation and interest during: construction. 119.0 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT THIRD SITE SCREENING CHIKUMINUK LAKE ENERGY GENERATION VS. CONSTRUCTION COST AND RESERVOIR ELEVATION HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY EXHIBIT 11 RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 900 920 960 CONSTRUCTION COST t ~ , RESERVOIR ELEVATION 1 150 160 170 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY — MWH/YR x 1000 RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 900 oo re. x c z= = = = | > o c w 2 wi = = uw 150 160 170 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: THIRD SITE SCREENING Price level December 1982, construction cost KISARALIK RIVER LOWER FALLS excludes escalation and interest during construction. ENERGY GENERATION VS. CONSTRUCTION COST AND RESERVOIR ELEVATION HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 770 =780 40 cost a 800 CONSTRUCTION eq EXHIBIT 12 RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 820 840 870 a VOIR ELEVATION | | | i | AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY — MWH x 1000 170 190 210 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET RESERVOIR ELEVATION g x z 1 > o c wi 2 wi J < 2 2 z < = & re NOTE: Price level December 1982, construction cost excludes escalation and interest during construction. 170 190 210 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT THIRD SITE SCREENING KISARALIK RIVER GOLDEN GATE FALLS ENERGY GENERATION VS. CONSTRUCTION COST AND RESERVOIR ELEVATION HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY — MWH x 1000 3 x = = 2 | > oO x wi 2 w a < > 2 2 < = = we RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 1050 1070 1090 1110 NSTRUCTION —_—_ EXHIBIT 13 ST Eb =} a Zz 160 180 200 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 1070 1080 1110 a 1150 1160 aT “_ NSTRUCTION a TN TT =a =" RESERVOIR | ELEVATION 160 180 200 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: Price level December 1982, construction cost excludes escalation and interest during construction. THIRD SITE SCREENING KISARALIK RIVER UPPER FALLS ENERGY GENERATION VS. CONSTRUCTION COST AND RESERVOIR ELEVATION HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET EXHIBIT 14 1070 1090 = 8 CONSTRUCTION COST & RESERVOIR ELEVATION AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY — MWH x 1000 160 180 200 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 1070 1090 er | CONSTRUCTION RESERVOIR cost ero ELEVATION wi y we 8 x = f > @ w ai = cS a 160 180 200 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: THIRD SITE SCREENING Price level December 1982, construction cost KIPCHUK RIVER excludes escalation and interest during construction. ENERGY GENERATION VS. CONSTRUCTION COST AND RESERVOIR ELEVATION HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY — MWH x 1000 g x é ' > °o c wi 2 wi a < 2 2 @ = = zc NOTE: RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 810 820 830 CON$TRUCT! cost RESERVOIR ov 180 185 190 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION RESERVOIR ELEVATION — FEET 810 820 830 185 190 CONSTRUCTION COST — $ MILLION EXHIBIT 15 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT THIRD SITE SCREENING Price level December 1982, construction cost excludes escalation and interest during construction. UPNUK LAKE ENERGY GENERATION VS. CONSTRUCTION COST AND RESERVOIR ELEVATION HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 16 | | | | ARALIK RIVER — LDEN GATE FALLS) ECONOMIC COST — CENTS / KWH 30 32 a 36 38 REGIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT SUPPLIED — MWh x 10? ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ANNUAL ECONOMIC COST OF AVERAGE ENERGY HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY .December 1982 EXHIBIT 17 KISARALIK RIVER (UPPER FALLS | | | | | | | ! i | — KIPCHUK RIVER > T ne | IVER — FALLS) ECONOMIC COST — CENTS / KWH 26 REGIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT SUPPLIED MWh x 103 | KISARALIK RIVER FALLS) x = =x a ze 2 w 3 1 a 3 2 = 3 2 8 w CHIKUMINUK an BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ANNUAL ECONOMIC COST OF FIRM ENERGY HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 34 36 38 40 REGIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENT SUPPLIED — MWh x 102 Moose Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) Kisaralik River (Golden Gate Falls) Kisaralik River (Upper Falls) Kipchuk River Upnuk Lake Milk Creek Brown Bear Caribou Raptors Pink Salmon Chum Salmon Red Salmon Coho Salmon Rainbow Trout Other Sport Fish_ EXHIBIT 18 Relative Cost of Recreation Aesthetics Mitigation ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT RELATIVE RESOURCE VALUES AND COSTS OF MITIGATION HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 WwW > ~CHIKUMINUK QD EXHIBIT 19 ! FAIRBANKS \ e PROJECT LOCATION ANCHORAGE Ro He i\ v2 OS: POWER TUNN Sy = _ POWERSTA “ EL QS in eA TION? a = Sar . 5 5 SCALE IN MILES (1:63,360) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT LOCATION MAP CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 \ TUNNEL pe UNDERGROUND POWERSTATION } fs SURGE CHAMBER aot XN TAILRACE TUNNEL VICINITY MAP ¢ € DIVERSION TUNNEL SS ROCKFILL DAM SCALE 0 400 800 FEET ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY bo) 1" = 800° BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: Basemap topography enlarged from USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series. CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN CHIKUMINUK LAKE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 21 Page 1 of 2 SIGNIFICANT DATA CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT RESERVOIR Water Surface Elevation, ft. msl Maximum Surcharge Water Surface 618 Maximum Water Surface 610 Minimum Water Surface 600 Tailwater Elevation, ft. msl B15 Surface Area at Normal Max. El., acres 27,900 Estimated Useable Storage, acre-feet 230,000 Type of Regulation Seasonal Seepage Control Cutoff Wall None HYDROLOGY Drainage Area, sq. mi. 348 Average Annual Runoff, cfs/mi? 4.11 Stream flow, Average Annual, cfs 1432 DAM Type Roll-crete Maximum Height, ft. above deepest excavation 45 Crest Elevation, ft. msl 622 Crest length, ft. 235 Dam Volume, cy 5,225 Outlet Facilities One 3-ft dia- meter steel pipe with con- trol valves SPILLWAY Type Ungated con- crete overflow Crest Elevation ft. msl 610 Crest Width, ft. 50 Design Discharge, cfs 5,000 Exhibit 21 Page 2 of 2 - SIGNIFICANT DATA ii CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATER CONDUCTOR Type and size 14-f£t diameter, tunnel, reduc-— ing to two 8-ft diameter, tun- nels Length, ft. 2480' @ 14 ft diameter 200' @ 8-ft i diameter iy ~ DIVERSION WORKS Type and size 16-ft diameter unlined tunnel i} Length, ft. 400 va Design Discharge, cfs 1,800 POWERSTATION Number of Units , 2 Turbine Type Standardized horizontal Francis Maximum Gross Head, ft 95 Rated Net Head, ft 91 Operating Speed, rpm 300 Generator Rating, kVA 5,100 TRANSMISSION LINES Type 138 kV, 3 phase line Length, mi 130 POWER AND ENERGY Installed Capacity, kW 9,500 Firm Annual Energy Generation, MWh 39,000 EXHIBIT 22 AREA— THOUSAND ACRES 25 20 15 Ke w w ue z 2 = < > w J td w o < uu c 2 a « w e < = LAKE W.S. El. 598 2 2.5 VOLUME — MILLION ACRES ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT RESERVOIR AREA VOLUME CURVE CHIKUMINUK LAKE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 23 £El 622 6207 Max. Res. El. 682 Re 1.610 i ‘Spillway and stilling basin Cu) ore Se ake guide wall z Flow. oe in. . EL 6 2 Min. Res. El. oof. Concrete | 4 4" precast panels Elevation -Feer (el river bottom $90 eae DAM - OVERFLOW AND STILLING BASIN SECTION Scele 2 fe Feet 1st" $0'-0" EL $97.0 138 kV transmission line to Bethel, 750. ts Max. Res. E. $62 Oe Ge Rollerate dam 5 a crest E/.622 } ae Normal Res. E6102 Po %o, Me, w/50' spillway ee oe = & section crest /\: £1. 6/0. : Min. Res. El. 600 2 s 14'9 Power tunnel \\i Ne t airstrip : Flow Dee Y Tuan ee 700 : SN 4" precast panels Switchyard S \S Turnout erea 5 eee emer : 33) DAM NON OVERFLOW SECTION Scale 0 10 Feet epi Access roads “Diversion tunnel Normal T.W &1, 515. Scale O #00 800 Feet easy 1"*400' Except as noted BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SITE PLAN AND SECTIONS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Ybre 295d re * s ~ = Sarje crarcer 700 8 ‘ ee ee Surge crams oo 3 z eee ae ower house § 2 18 6 Fawer tgnne 600 5 = ce Max TW. Er $18 < é Normal TW E/ 51 a = r [oy > [oo : : - - - - + 1 * 400 o 200 400 600 800 1000 4200 1400 1400 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 PROFILE ALONG € POWER TUNNEL Scale 0 100 Feet Lcedennad 72100 Surge chamber house Top of surge chamber £620 oe &« a, - End of stee!-£. SA £80" dha Be Sete cH) Assumed rock line ined tunnel Qa slee/ penstock ae eo (ae ye) NUON typ) fateke housa Te S SS SEP 20 fon bridge crane Assumed rack ine i \ ws @ : Min. WS EL $80~ § saber £EL SIS Sy yy yp yj = access rose | 3 eee et. £20) 2 Roll up & eguiment door Parsonne! Oratt tube SECTION THRU SURGE CHAMBER weck E1 $80 ipa tubs|Lom is Generator, switchgear gata slot and control cubicles (tye) SECTION THRU POWER INTAKE POWERHOUSE PLAN $ Unit Tat Generator {Turbine ta Ler © fake -off structures 41 509 re [£4 turbine EF 511 Buikhead gate and Penis j | (Gan stoomey, gs trashrack siot (typ) Original | fo OO Sheed Prussiwith - Transition section, ground line built yo rooting : Scale 0 20 #0 Feet ‘ ‘¢ 840" dia Butterfly valve Se EL 5603 ps Steal penstock 7 Lae - Except a3 neoved Got cel $43 Orer tube gate hoist Rock anchors. — (typ) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT GENERAL PROFILE AND SECTIONS E1520 7 Max. TW EL S18 eked cNormal T.W EL 5/§ & 6-0" dia f steel pansteck \ rar? tube gate slot &-8 (Turbine and Generator not snonn) HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 MONTHLY SEQUENCES OF FLOW EXHIBIT 25 ALLEN RIVER AT CHIKUMINUK LAKE OUTLET (CFs) Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 278 200 173 861 2552 462 383 357 713 2927 200 173 200 698 4211 200 200 278 1094 3266 450 383 370 844 5056 278 173 200 728 3423 319 212 42 1167 4203 541 357 278 1378 4014 305 252 252 924 3938 672 630 331 764 3567 161 120 121 283 4129 252 278 436 684 4796 278 252 226 360 2693 454 358 313 442 2793 216 200 200 867 2727 252 226 226 906 5946 323 278 252 977 3804 234 216 206 788 3541 308 225 208 487 3040 370 282 234 768 3599 240 226 228 925 2943 306 269 266 823 3470 186 92 70 505 2717 $29 364 258 592 4720 377 331 333 2804 3741 445 326 438 1651 4709 535 487 487 1603 5124 580 518 487 1666 4654 348 286 267 938 3746 Mean annual streamflow - 1,432 cfs ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT MONTHLY SEQUENCES OF FLOW ALLEN RIVER AT CHIKUMINUK LAKE OUTLET HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 26 VICINITY MAP PROPOSED ROUTE, OF 138kV LINE ——~ . CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 20 SCALE IN MILES (1:1,000,000) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 27 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 ; — J] FIMIAIM|3|J|A|S|OIN|D] J] FIMIAIM J J/A|S|O|N|D} J] F J] J|A|S|O|N|D]J | FIM|A|MI J] J/A}S|OIN|D] J] FIM/Aim J] J lal s|OIN|D| J] FIM|AIM| J|J/AlslolNipj | F s}ulalslolnlol s|elwalslslalslonio BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN STUDY | DETAILED FEASIBILITY STUDY L { acl FERC LICENSE APPLICATION FERC REVIEW LICENSE GRANTED pnd Tenet ENGINEERING | | I. | LE CONSTRUCTION 4 pid dt bt tt + | pee saan MOBILIZATION Te(alelel 1: ACCESS ROAD AND RUNWAY ry ry rt TH THT rt CONSTRUCTION ROAD AND HOUSING | bie T TT POWER INTAKE AND TUNNEL 4 Ht Es ‘toe ee pot pete POWERHOUSE | | +414 pele I DIVERSION AND CARE OF WATER na DAM AND SPILLWAY = aes EQUIPMENT SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION START — UP UNITS ON LINE LEGEND: > DRAFT DOCUMENT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN ha» FINAL DOCUMENT FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CHIKUMINUK LAKE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 ESTIMATE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Chikuminuk Lake HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY EXHIBIT 28 Project_ Hydroelectric Project. Date_ December, 1982 Page__1 of _7 Pages Structure_Project Works Estimated by. Checked by. _ — ITEM Quantity Unit Price Amount 330 | Land and Land Rights __3 {500 {000 331 | Powerplant Structures and Improvements 3 1373 1000 332 | Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways 17 {721 [000 333 | Waterwheels, Turbines, and Generators 5 750 00 334 | Accessory Electrical Equipment 20 335 | Miscellaneous Powerplant Equipment 336 | Roads, Railroads, and Bridges 352 | Transmission Plant Structures and Imp: ts 353 | Station Equipment 2 bas | 354 | Towers and Fixtures 30.2 63 and_ Commis 21 0. Subtotal Direct Cost 86 B45 P00 Contingencies (25% of Subtotal Direct Cpst) 21 715 00 Total Direct Cost 108 660 000 Engineering & Owner's Overhead (17% of Direct Cost) 18 440 (000 Total Construction Cost 127 (00 000 1/| Total Construction Cost excludes escalati and interest during construction. ESTIMATE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY EXHIBIT 28 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Chikuminuk Lake Project__Hydroelectric Project Date December, 1982 Page___2 of __7 Pages Structure__ Project Works Estimated by________Checked by. Powerplant Structures and Improvements Care of Water Common Substructure Concrete (Incl. Forms) Reinforcement Steel Superstructure Concrete (Incl. Forms) Reinforcement Steel 332 | Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways al. Reservoir ol Headwater Water Level Recorders «12 Tailwater Water Level Recorders EXHIBI T 28 ESTIMATE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Chikuminuk Lake Project__Hydroelectric Project __ Date__December, 1982 __Page___3__of___7__Pages Structure Project Works Estimated by Checked by. a ITEM Quantity Unit Price Amount 332 |Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways (Continued) ce ata se Rollicrete sak Cofferdam 5,750 16.00 eae Care of Water Ls iii «23 Excavation i, 2 te 1232 Rock oO ND S| | ~ Ie IS S 5 I i fn SSS 24 Foundation Preparation 5,600 sf 2.50 325) Grout Curtain 3,947 sf 19.00 Slurry Wall sf Dam Rollcrete 3,665 cy 4 95.50 B50 000 Precast Panels (Upstream Face) 6,445 sf 9 h26 bao | Extruded D/S Face 500 cy 46.00 | 73 boo | Stilling Basin HAW Rock Excavation 6,158 cy 9.00 7 hoo | Concrete 854.4 cy 570.00 487 b00 | Spillway aI Concrete Guide Walls 49.1 cy 570.00 | 28 boo | Concrete Ogee and Slab 159.7 0.00 | 91 boo | 3 Spillway (Included _in Rollcrete Dam) _ tt + NG ESTIMATE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY Chikuminuk Lake CHICAGO, ILLINOIS EXHIBIT 28 Project Hydroelectric Project Date December, 1982 Page__4 oh! Pages Structure_ Project Works Estimated by Checked by. — ITEM Qvantity Unit Price Amount 32 | Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways (Continued «4 Intake Structure -41 Excavation | 4 Common 5,000 cy | 3.80 19] 01 4 Rock 25,263 cy 19.00 4 4 Backfill 1,850 cy 11.35 2 42 Foundation Preparation 5,283 sf 2.65 14] 0 43 Concrete (Incl. Forms) 4,430 cy 570. 44 Reinforcement Steel 374,783 lbs 1.1 -45 Ice Boom Ls -46 Prefabricated Metal Building 3,000 sf -47 Structural Steel Crane Supports Inc]. Crane Rails Ls -48 HVAC and Plumbing and Architectural Treatment LS _| -49 Intake Gates and Appurtenances | -49 Bulkhead Gates Ls -492) Bulkhead Guides Is | 130} 000 249 Trashracks LS 145} 000 4 Storage S1 s ite 73} 000 Trashrake a 170} 000 a Bubbler System LS za 94] 000 Gate Guide Heating System LS 81} 000 5 Diversion Tunnel L Tunnel Excavation 2,813 cy 310.00 | 872} 000 Tunnel Concrete (Incl. Forms) ng 658.7 cy 630.00 415} 000 Portal Excavation-Rock 789 cy | 19.00 15} 000 Concrete (Incl. Forms) — cy 570.00 91} 000; Reinforcement Steel 19,130 lbs 1 1.15 22] 000 | on r ou i EXHIBIT 28 ESTIMATE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Chikuminuk Lake Project___Hydroelectric Project Date_December, 1982 Page__5 of _7 Pages Project Works Structure Estimated by_______-_ Checked by. Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways (Contin Power Tunnel Excavation Tunnel--High-Head Penstock 420.00 Concrete (Incl. Forms) on Tunnel--High-Head 4,137 810.00 Panitack | __260_cy _|696.00 46,966 lbs cal 250.00 4 |438 uo S| eo far] IS So lo 15 Bl] EBB! ER] | S NS fm loo eu IS So oS FE B| EBEE| | Reinforcement Steel 143,478 dS Slurry Trench [saat fets.00 + fan Tailwater Channel aT 2 Conerete Plug | ar ey | 460.00 4.71% 1ig0,00.1 00 15.8 CY 0.00 - ata Unveil ncn eet al == Low Level Outlet vaya i a i Steel Pipe - 3' Dia. Be | si | | EL BBBE | | aA Turbine, Governor, Intake Valve, and Generator--Transportation and Installatio ; EXHIBIT 28 ESTIMATE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Chikuminuk Lake Project__ Hydroelectric Project Date_ December, 1982 Page__© of__7 Pages Structure_ Project Works Estimated by Checked by a ITEM Quantity Unit Price Amount 334 | Accessory Electrical Equipment el D-C Switchgear and Batteries; Station Service Transformer; Wire, Cable, and Grounding Systems; Lighting and LS ae eee | Miscellaneous Powerplant Byuipment | 335] Miscellaneous Powerplant Equipment Intake Bridge Crane Powerstation Bridge Crane Ls Draft Tube Gate Hoist Ls Miscellaneous Equipment LS ol S Subtotal Item 335 RK IN lo |S S SS S iS |S S iS |So Roads, Railroads, and Bridges Steel Bridge and River Crossing is |a/8| Bie] LETT Ww — © a ao N o}]o o};}o o|o 2 ET ESTIMATE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY BRBRGLT “26 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Chikuminuk Lake Project Hydroelectric Project Date__December, 1982 Page__7 of_7 Pages Structure Project Works Estimated by________s Checked by. a ITEM Quantity Unit Price Amount 353 | Station Equipment wk Switchgear, Transformer and Tie-line | (Switchyard) Ls 1} 150} 00! = Receiving Substation Ls 875} 00 Subtotal Item 353 2| 025} 001 354} Towers and Fixtures ol: Transmission Line, Towers, and Hardware) including right-of-way LS 30} 290) 00! 63 | Camp and Conmissary =i Mobilization and Demobilization 7 ta | fa -2 Airlifting 14} 000} 000) Subtotal Item 63 21) 7501 00 | T ~ SIGNIFICANT DATA CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SPACE HEAT ALTERNATIVE RESERVOIR Water Surface Elevation, ft. msl Maximum Surcharge Water Surface Maximum Water Surface Minimum Water Surface Tailwater Elevation, ft. msl a Surface Area at Normal Max. El., acres Estimated Useable Storage, acre-feet Type of Regulation Seepage Control Cutoff Wall - HYDROLOGY - Drainage Area, sq. mi. Average Annual Runoff, cfs/mi2 Stream flow, Average Annual, cfs DAM Type Maximum Height, ft. above deepest excavation Crest Elevation, ft. msl- Crest lenath, ft. Dam Volume, cy Outlet Facilities EXHIBIT 29 Page 1 of 3 666 660 640 515 34,250 625,000 Seasonal 4000 ft slurry cut- off wall with aver- age depth of 40 feet 348 4.11 1432 Rockfill with imper- vious flex- ible mem- brane 86 676 590 142,940 One 3-ft dia- meter steel pipe with con- trol valves EXHIBIT 29 Page 2 of 3 SIGNIFICANT DATA CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SPACE HEAT ALTERNATIVE SPILLWAY Type Ungated con- crete overflow Crest Elevation ft. msl 660 Crest Width, ft. 50 Design Discharge, cfs 2900 WATER CONDUCTOR Type and size 18-ft diameter, concrete lined tunnel, reduc- ing to three 9 ft diameter tunnels Length, ft. 2250' @ 18 ft diameter 450' @9 ft diameter DIVERSION WORKS Type and size 20-ft diameter unlined tunnel Length, ft. 400 Design Discharge, cfs 1800 POWERSTATION Number of Units 2 Turbine Type Standarized : horizontal Francis Maximum Gross Head 145 Rated Net Head, ft 133 Operating Speed 300 Generator Rating, kVA 10,000 EXHIBIT 29 Page 3 of 3 SIGNIFICANT DATA CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SPACE HEAT ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINES Type 138 kv, 3 phase line Length, mi 130 POWER AND ENERGY Installed Capacity, kW 24,500 Firm Annual Energy Generation, MWh 113,500 EXHIBIT 30 3'- 0" riprap and 2'-0" bedding Max. Res, El. 666 i) Normal Res. E/. 660 > SS Flow. 20’-0" Crest El. 676 5'- 0° sand and gravel insulation layer Min. Res. E640 -} SS SS Y Impervious flexible membrane ‘Fine tilters Coarse filters C Rolled me oncrete membrane anchor Grout curtain A-A TYPICAL DAM SECTION Scale o 20 Feet uti Slurry trench ee re cutoff wall } 3 7504 Spillway ogee crest E/ 660 Channel excavation / 7004 ‘Normal Res. Y j is f 660 ee / 650- y 600- Elevation -Feet T 500 8-8 SECTION THRU SPILLWAY CHANNEL < Scale o 100 Feet /38KV Spilina : : Perera transmission crest if line to Bethel £1,660 PS SS \ 2, ys \ * __ (Max. Res. El. 666 £ é \ = ‘S. “ a SB S . ‘ “ . ; Normal Res. Pa t airstrip 41.660 oo, z 3" dia. low level A utlet pipe RockFill dani Spillway Swith yalve crest Flin 6 we eee : channel bottom - Switchyard- . aes Elevation - Feet Sy, . Paes / Access road: 15'-0" 60 4 ey che Yr Turnout area i Nerd! Tm Diversion tunnel ; SPILLWAY OGEE SECTION Scale o 5 Feet * tpl Sca/e 0 400 800 Feet 0 ~ 550. Powerhouse (3 Units) os /"=400° Except as noted BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SITE PLAN AND SECTIONS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT Max. Res. Et 666 mat Ras. E1660 Dripre proena ire f Min. Res. E/.640 | ! 8 Po ntah mer intan oR y Surge chamber 3 Elevation - Feet a TW EL 518 \ Normal T.W.EL SIS 18' ¢@ Power tunne/ f 3 T 2 E T 00 1600 4800 PROFILE ALONG € POWER TUNNEL Scale 9 100 Feet Lotoodont - +2 OQ End of steer XK ; *(typ) ~ £90" ta steed One pensteck ZN \ eenstock (typ) SS, oN 2 Surge chamber \ SON house —~ Original ground line. “Top of surge _ Bulkhead gate im stored position ; Sed erica oe PREOSMEOOLE! BOL Intake house Max. Res. £1. 666~ 5 Mormal Res. £f 660—~ * = Trashrack storage s/at——4 Min, Res. El 640 Gate and treshrach s/ot-—| i 60-0 dia ies or I (canes rock Hine te oa Elevation - Feet Min W.S. Ef. 590 ~ | Generator, switchgear &f. $20 > ¥ |& and contro cubicles (tye) 5 ; ‘ 4 Ee Rock trap / ; Transition section ‘ i POWERHOUSE PLAN SECTION THRU POWER INTAKE Generator [Turbine Floor El $00 ~ £90 vis (& turbme EF. 502 stee/ penstock”) Flow Butterfly valve’ Bulxnead gate and trasnrack slot (typ) Bees eh b fake of? ese races rock tine Scale 20 40 Fear Vrs fr) rigindl 1 20" ground lune prateed truss with built wa coat eng Except as noted bl 564 Ef 566 £ power tunnel end mrake t ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Draft tube gate nest ee BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN Nye, : es eget WEL RE FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Normal TW El $15 #3 He sterjornstoce 4 | ee CHIKUMINUK LAKE cb tortie Ef 562 Flow - HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT GENERAL PROFILE AND SECTIONS al, 486 Graft t be gate tict HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 General Category _ Biological Environmental Transmission line 17 After Lee 1978. Species Age Health Migration Sex Flight intensity Altitude of flights Size of flocks Time of flights Weather Habitat Human activity Geographical location Tower type Voltage Conductor charac. No. of lines Overhead groundwire Line length Age of line Aircraft warning light EXHIBIT 32 Supsected High Collision Risk Situations Nocturnal fliers or those with awkward flight characteristics Immature birds with limited flight experience Sick or injured birds Migrants as opposed to residents birds Birds involved in nuptial displays Large numbers of birds crossing the right-of-way during all times of day Altitudes equal to or lower than the uppermost wires Large flocks with small spacing between birds Nocturnal flights and diurnal flights during inclement weather Fog, snow, rain, sleet, or high winds Attractive bird habitat on and surrounding the right-of-way Hunting and other human activities which startle or distract birds Lines lcoated perpendicular to a narrow, low-altitude flyway Guyed structures or tall towers near river crossings Lower voltage lines with reduced electric field and corona effects Small diameter, single conductor/phase configurations Double-circuit lines with wire at different heights Multiple wires small in diameter compared with conductors A long line through a high use area A newly constructed line before birds can habituate Nonflashing lights on towers in established flyways ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FACTORS WHICH MAY INFLUENCE AVIAN COLLISION RATES WITH OVERHEAD WIRES HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX D-1 HYDROLOGY INVESTIGATIONS Prepared for the Alaska Power. Authority by Harza Engineering Company December 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page r CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROLOGY I-1 Introduction I-1 Scope of the Study I-1 Setting I-1 Climate I-1 Streamflow I-2 Diversion Flood I-3 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) I-3 Unit Hydrographs I-3 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) 1-4 Infiltration I-5 Probable Maximum Flood I-5 Reservoir Sedimentation I-6 ce HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE II-1 HYDROELECTRIC SITES Introduction II-1 Streamflow II-1 Design Floods II-2 Probable Maximum Flood II-2 Diversion Flood II-3 REFERENCES EXHIBITS LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title I-1 Unit Hydrograph Parameters I-2 Alaskan Unit Sediment Yield Values II-1 Average Annual Streamflow Estimates II-2 Alaskan PMF Studies II-3 PMF and Diversion Flood Estimates ~ii- Page I-4 I-7 II-2 II-3 II-4 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Title 1 Chikuminuk Lake Drainage Area Map 2 Monthly Sequences of Flow, Allen River at Chikuminuk Lake Outlet 3 Unit Hydrographs, Chikuminuk Lake Sub-basins 4 PMP Depth - Duration, Sub-basins 1, 2 and Lake Area 5 PMP Depth Duration, Sub-basin 3 6 Critically Arranged Distribution of Probable Maximum Precipitation, Sub-basins 1, 2 and Lake Area 7 Critically Arranged Distribution of Probable Maximum Precipitation, Sub-basin 3 8 PMF Inflow Hydrograph, Chikuminuk Lake Site -iii- Chapter I CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROLOGY Introduction Scope of the Study The purpose of the hydrologic investigations was to derive the site-specific probable maximum flood (PMF) hydrograph and estimate the diversion flood, mean annual and monthly streamflows, and reservoir sedimentation for the Chikuminuk Lake site. Setting The Chikuminuk damsite is located at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake on the Allen River (Lat. 60°09' Long. 158°44'). The 348 square mile drainage basin was divided into four sub- basins for the purpose of these investigations (See Exhibit 1): Chikuminuk Lake, about 40 square miles, north of the lake, about 89 square miles (Sub-basin 1), south of the lake, about 69 square miles (Sub-basin 2), and upstream of the lake, about 150 square miles (Sub-basin 3). o0ooo°o The sub-basins north and south of the lake consist of steep mountains covered with moss, lichens and other typical tundra vegetation. The soils are generally poorly drained and underlain with discontinuous masses of permafrost (1, 2)1/. A thick layer of organic peat covers these soils. The upstream sub-basin consists of steep mountains and wide valleys with rolling hills. The soils and vegetative cover conditions are similar to the sub-basins north and south of the lake. The Chikuminuk glacier exists on the south-eastern portion of the sub-basin; and Hart and Cascade Lakes lie within the sub-basin. Neither the glacier nor the lakes was considered to affect the hydrology of the sub-basin. Climate The climate of the Chikuminuk Lake area can be classified as transitional, between maritime and continental, as described in Appendix B. The prevailing storm winds are out of the 1/ Numbers in parenthesis refer to references at end of text. I-1 southeast. The average annual precipitation over the basin is 39.7 inches (3). Streamflow The average annual and average monthly streamflows at the Chikuminuk site were determined by transposing data from a nearby gage using a regression analysis of concurrent monthly i flow records. The derived monthly. sequences of flow at the 1 damsite are given on Exhibit 2. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station "Nuyakuk River near Dillingham" (No. 15302000, Drainage Area = 1,490 square miles, period of record 1954 to present) exists at the outlet of Tikchik Lake (Exhibit 1). A discontinued USGS gage "Allen River near Dillingham" (period of record June 1963 to September 1966) existed at the outlet of Chikuminuk_Lake, within a few thousand feet of the Chikuminuk dam site.L The average monthly flows for the period of July 1963 to September 1966 (39 months) of both gages were plotted on a rectilinear plot. The Nuyakuk River gage flows were plotted on the x-axis, the Allen River gage flows on the y-axis. The following relationship was determined by linear - regression: ‘ Allen River Flow (cfs) = (0.2625) x Nuyakuk River Flow (cfs) - 168 The coefficient of correlation was 0.956. This relationship was applied to the monthly flows at the Nuyakuk River gage for the 28-year period of record. The resulting estimated mean Allen River flow, or Chikuminuk site streamflow, was 1,432 cfs. Another method of transposition of streamflows. from the Nuyakuk gage to the Chikuminuk site was also considered. A. transposition ratio based on drainage area and average annual precipitation ratios was determined. This method gave a mean annual streamflow of 1550 cfs. However, some uncertainty exists in average annual precipitation values in this area. There are no precipitation stations in the mountainous area in which Chikuminuk Lake is located. Therefore, the estimate based on the regression analysis was adopted. 1/ The USGS reported a drainage area of 278 mi2 at the gage; the value determined for these studies was 348 mi2. I-2 1 Diversion Flood To determine the magnitude of the flood to be diverted during construction, a return period of 25 years was assumed. A 25-year flood peak flow for the Chikuminuk site was then computed using two independent methods; the greater of the two values was used. The first method involved multiple-regression analyses relating peak flood flows with a given frequency to physical and climatic characteristics of the basin (4). The second method involved applying a log-Pearson Type III flood frequency analysis to the 28 years of data at the Nuyakuk River gage. The 25-year flood from this analysis was transposed to the Chikuminuk site using the drainage area ratio raised to the 0.5 power. The multiple-regression analysis yield a peak discharge of 11,800 cfs. The transposed log-Pearson analysis resulted in a peak flow of 14,100 cfs. Therefore, the peak flood to be passed for diversion during construction is estimated to be 14,000 cfs. Probable Maximum Flood Unit Hydrographs Unit hydrographs were computed for three sub-basins (Exhibit 3). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) dimensionless curvilinear method, as outlined in Design of Small Dams (5), was used. Table I-1 lists the unit hydrograph parameters which were computed for each sub-basin. The time of concentration, tg, for each sub-basin was computed using Kirpich's formula: — [ sansa | 0.385 ic H where t, = time of concentration in hours, L = the stream course length in miles, and H = the elevation difference from outlet to divide in feet. Table I-l UNIT HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS Sub- Sub- Sub- Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Drainage area, DA (mi2) 89.0 68.8 149.8 Streamcourse length, L (mi) 7.3 7.0 32.5 Elevation difference from outlet to divide, H (ft) 2,900 2,050 4,200 Time of concentration, te (hr) 1.2 1.3 5.8 Unit hydrograph unit duration, D (hr) © 0.5 0.5 0.5 Time to peak, tp (hr) - 0.97 1.03 3.73 Peak discharge, Qp (cfs) 44,400 32,300 19,400 The unit hydrograph unit duration, D, normally should be less than t,/4. For sub-basin 1, D = 1.2/4 = 0.3 hr. However, since the minimum practical D value recommended by the SCS (5) is 0.5 hrs, D = 0.5 hrs was used. The time to peak, tpr and peak discharge, Qp, were computed using: 1/2 D + (0.6) to tp (484)DA/tp Qp tp and Qp are then multiplied by the SCS dimensionless unit hydrograph ordinates t/t, and Q/Qp (5), respectively, to obtain the sub-basin unit hydrographs (Exhibit 3). Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). The U.S. Weather Bureau "Technical Paper No. 47" (TP 47) was used to determine the PMP (6). TP 47 gives values of PMP's for durations of up to 24 hours. The 6-hour and 24-hour point PMP values for the Chikuminuk basin are 9.0 and 14.0 inches, respectively. A storm duration of 24 hours was used because of the relatively large basin size. The PMP was centered over sub-basins 1, 2, and the lake area to give a more critical runoff hydrograph. The areal reduction factors for the point PMP were taken from TP 47. The depth-duration curves for sub-basins 1, 2, and the lake area are shown on Exhibit 4, and for sub-basin 3 on Exhibit 5. The two depth-duration curves were tabulated in 0.5 hour increments (unit duration of the unit hydrographs). These increments were ranked and rearranged into a critical pattern (7). The critically arranged PMP's for sub-basins 1, 2 and the lake area are shown on Exhibit 6, and for sub-basin 3 on Exhibit Te Infiltration The rainfall excess was determined by subtracting the infiltration rate from the critically arranged incremental PMP. Based upon soil descriptions by AEIDC (1) and a phone conversation with the SCS in Anchorage (8), Hydrologic Soil Group C was assigned. Infiltration rates ranging from 0.08 to 0.15 inches/hour are recommended for Group C soils. The discontinuous masses of permafrost underlying the basin tend to limit infiltration. Therefore, a value of 0.08 inches/hour was used. Probable Maximum Flood The PMF was determined by summing: - the three hydrographs resulting from applying the PMP excess to the unit hydrographs for each sub-basin, - the lake runoff (precipitation on the lake), and, - an assumed baseflow. The unit hydrograph ordinates were multiplied by the rainfall excess increments to obtain the direct runoff hydrographs. The lake runoff was computed by the following: Incremental _ Incremental PMP) x (Lake Area Lake Runoff PMP Time Increment The baseflow was assumed to be the maximum historic flow observed at the damsite. This flow was derived by transposing the maximum daily flow at the Nuyakuk gage using the drainage area ratio. This somewhat conservative approach was used because antecedent and subsequent storms were not considered in the analysis. I-5 The maximum recorded daily flow at the Nuyakuk gage was 32,100 cfs on July 2-3, 1977. Baseflow was then: -2 . Baseflow = 348 mim, 32,100 cfs = 9800 cfs 1140 mi2 Baseflow and lake runoff were added to the three sub-basin hydrographs to obtain the PMF hydrograph (Exhibit 8). This resulted in a peak flow of 284,000 cfs (Creager "C" = 119) and a volume of 233,320 acre-feet. Reservoir Sedimentation An estimate of sediment deposition was not made because the available data was extremely limited. Table I-2 shows the. data gathered in attempting to estimate the unit sediment yield. This data indicates a maximum sediment yield of about 1.3 acre- feet per square mile per year. However, this value. is representative of a drainage basin with a number. of glaciers which contribute large quantities of sediment. The drainage basin upstream of the Chikuminuk site has a glacier which is quite small compared to the total size of the basin. Therefore, the sediment yield of the Chikuminuk basin would be expected to be much lower. In addition, Chikuminuk Lake is believed to have a rather large natural lake volume, all of which would serve as sediment storage. The surface area, as mentioned earlier, is about 40 square miles. The mean depth is not known, but AEIDC personnel have determined that the maximum depth is greater than 180 feet. Based on this, it was concluded that even the transposed sediment yield rates in Table I-2 would have minimal effect on the project. I-6 Table I-2 ALASKAN UNIT SEDIMENT YIELD VALUES Unit Sediment Yield Sediment Transposed to Location and Source Yield Chikuminuk sitel/ (ac= Fe ni27¥e) USGS "Nushagak River at - Data too limited; no Ekwok" suspended ye estimate made - data (DA=9,850 mi2)2 Susitna River at Watana 0.93 1.32 Damsite (DA=5,180 mi2) (Reference 9) Terror Lake, Kodiak Island 0.068 0.049 (DA=23.7 mi“) (Reference 10) Chow, summary of cont. US - 1.01 observed sed. production rates for DA's between 100 and 1,000 mi2 (Reference 11) Using ratio of contributing drainage areas raised to the -0.125 power. Contributing drainage area at Chikuminuk site is 308 mi2 (total area minus lake area). 14 sediment samples in three year period (1979-1981); Chikuminuk site is within this basin. I-7 Chapter IT HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES Introduction Three screenings were conducted to select the preferred hydrologic site. Hydrologic investigations were performed to develop streamflow estimates, probable maximum floods and diversion floods at each site. : Streamflow Synthesized average annual and monthly streamflow were estimated by transposing the average annual and monthly streamflows of the Nuyakuk River near Dillingham gage to each site using the following relationship: Transposition Ratio = Drainage Area of the Basin Drainage Area of Nuyakuk River Gage Basin x Average Annual Precip. over the Basin Average Annual Precip. over Nuyakuk Gage Basin The average annual precipitation values for the sites were derived from an isohyetal map published by the Arctic Environ- mental Information and Data Center (AEIDC), University of Alaska, December 1977. As a check, the precipitation values were estimated over the drainage areas of three existing USGS gages (years of record: 2, 7, and 27 years) in the Kilbuck Mountains using the AEIDC map. When compared to the runoffs at the gages, the ratios, or runoff coefficients, ranged from 154% to 205%. The runoff records are generally rated good except for the winter months. Contacts were made with personnel of the USGS, National Weather Service (NWS), and other agencies responsible for hydrologic data collection in this region to assess the accuracy of this data. The use of the map was judged acceptable because the error in the ratio of two precipitation values will be insignificant. Table II-1 shows the drainage area, precipitation, transposition ratio and average annual streamflow at each site. Average monthly streamflow was then estimated by applying the transposition ratio for a site to the average monthly Nayakuk gage data. II-1 Table II-1l AVERAGE ANNUAL STREAMFLOW ESTIMATES Average Average Annual Trans- Annual Drainage Precipi- position Stream- Site Area tation Ratio flow (sq. mi) inches) (cfs) Nayakuk River Gage 1,490 36.5 - 6,113 Chikuminuk Lake 348 39.7 0.254 1,550 Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) 500 34.6 0.318 1,945 Kisaralik River (Upper Falls) 271 36.8 0.183 1,120 Kipchuk River 224 37.1 0.153 935 Upnuk Lake 105 40.0 0.077 470 Milk Creek (Upper Site) 100 39.6 0.072 440 Milk Creek (Lower Site) 113 39.2 0.081 495 Salmon River 230 29.8 0.126 770 Tulksak River 144 27.0 0.072 440 Izavicknik River 231 39.8 0.169 1,035 Fog River 92 24.0 0.041 250 Design Floods An initial screening of the twelve sites (Table II-1) Design flood analyses were then performed for these remaining sites. reduced the number of sites to six. Probable Maximum Flood The preliminary estimate of the PMF for each site remaining after the first screening was based on Creager's formula (12). Table II-2 shows the Creager's "C" values computed for the II-2 Kisaralik, Tazimina, and Terror Lake sites. The Kisaralik and Terror Lake studies were made by R.W. Retherford Associates and the Tazimina studies were performed by Dames and Moore. Table II-2 ALASKAN PMF STUDIES J PMF Drainage PMF Creager Site Study By Area Peak "ce" (sq. mi) (cfs) Kisaralik R.W. Retherford r. Assoc. 500 480,000 163 al Tazimina Dames and ~ Moore 327 225,000 106 \ | Terror Lake R.W. Retherford Assoc. 15.1 41,000 106 The Tazimina site is in the Bristol Bay region and the Terror Lake site is on Kodiak Island, about 170 miles southwest of Bristol Bay. The Kisaralik PMF study was a reconnaissance level study and study assumptions and procedures were judged to be conservative. The Tazimina and Terror Lake studies each used a conventional hydrometeorological approach generally followed in feasibility level studies. The Creager "C" values for the latter studies were considered to be representative of the Bristol Bay area, However, after reviewing the physical characteristics of these watersheds and comparing them to the ; Bethel region sites, the value of Creager "C" utilized for the - study sites was expected to be somewhat higher. Therefore, a ~ Creager C-value of 120 was judged to be reasonable to derive preliminary PMF's. The resulting estimates are shown in Table II-3. | Diversion Flood The preliminary diversion floods were based on a 25 year ~ return period and a multiple - regression analyses that relates ty kpeak flood flow with a given frequency to physical and climatic : characteristics of each basin (4). The estimates of diversion floods are shown in Table II-3. II-3 Table II-3 PMF AND DIVERSION FLOOD ESTIMATES Site Chikuminuk Lake Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) Kisaralik River (Golden Gate Falls) Kisaralik River (Upper Falls) Kipchuk River Upnuk Lake Drainage Creager Area "c" (sq.mi-) 348 120 500 120 550 120 271 120 224 120 105 120 II-4 PMF Peak Inflow (cfs) 287,000 341,000 356,000 254,000 230,000 154,000 Diversion Flood Peak (cfs) 11,800 19,500 21,000 11,600 8,800 3,500 10. Elis 12. REFERENCES "Preliminary Summary of Environmental Knowledge of the Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment Project", Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) for Harza Engineering Company, Anchorage, Alaska, April 26, 1982. “Water Resources Data for Alaska", USGS, Anchorage, Alaska, 1977. “Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)", AEIDC, University of Alaska, December 1977. "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams", USGS in co- operation with Alaska Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Transportation, Water Resources Investiga- tions 78-129, Anchorage, Alaska, 1979. Design of Small Dams, Second Edition, U.S. Bureau of Recla- mation, Washington, D.Cs,; Lol Te U.S. Weather Bureau, "Technical Paper No. 47, Probable Maximum Precipitation and Rainfall - Frequency Data for Alaska, for Areas to 400 Square Miles, Durations to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years," prepared by John F. Miller, Washington, D.C., 1963. Frederick, Ralph H., “Interstorm Relations in Pacific Northwest," ASCE Journal of the Hydraulics Division, vol. 104, No. HY12, December 1978. Phone conversation with Mr. Louis Fletcher, Soil Conserva- tion Service, Anchorage, Alaska, September 23, 1982. "Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Reservoir Sedimentation,” prepared by R&M Consultants, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska for Acres American Inc., Buffalo, New York, January 1982. "Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, Kodiak Island, Alaska, Definite Project Report," Robert W. Retherford Associates, Anchorage, Alaska, International Engineering Company, Inc., San Francisco, California, December 1978. Chow, V.T. (ed.), Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw- Hill, New York, 1964. “Hydroelectric Handbook," by W.P. Creager and J.D. Justin, Second Edition, J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1950. SCALE 0 1 2 3 4 SMILES EXHIBIT 1 i cN (a Tie iy ine a Chauekuktul; \/— ee Ww OPS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CHIKUMINUK LAKE DRAINAGE AREA MAP HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 MONTHLY SEQUENCES OF FLOW EXHIBIT 2 ALLEN RIVER AT CHIKUMINUK LAKE OUTLET (CFS) Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 383 278 200 173 861 620 462 383 357 713 305 200 173 200 698 305 200 200 278 1094 645 450 383 370 844 436 278 Li 200 728 500 319 212 42 1167 666 541 357 278 1378 330 305 252 252 924 646 672 630 a31 764 199 161 120 121 283 357 252 278 436 684 357 278 252 226 360 603 454 358 313 442 245 216 200 200 867 327 252 226 226 906 432 323 278 252 977 285 234 216 206 755 433 308 225 208 487 522 370 282 234 768 313 240 226 228 925 375 306 269 266 823 301 186 92 70 505 676 529 364 258 592 444 377 331 333 2804 707 445 326 438 1651 572 535 487 487 1603 555 580 518 487 1666 448 348 286 267 938 Mean annual streamflow - 1,432 cfs BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT MONTHLY SEQUENCES OF FLOW ALLEN RIVER AT CHIKUMINUK LAKE OUTLET HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 3 Peak discharge = 44,400 cfs 8k 8 es DISCHARGE, cfs x 1000 = a = o 8 & 8 = a = So ° 8 = x $ ui o ec <= = 2 a a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 #17 18 «#19 TIME, HOURS Peak Discharge = 19, 400 cfs a 8 = °o oa DISCHARGE, cfs x 1000 o 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 #15 16 #17 #18 #19 TIME, HOURS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT UNIT HYDROGRAPHS CHIKUMINUK LAKE SUB — BASINS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 4 DEPTH, INCHES 8.0 e's 12 oS eM 6 SW: Se Re et 2 DURATION, HOURS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT PMP DEPTH-DURATION SUB-BASINS 1,2 AND LAKE AREA HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 5 DEPTH, INCHES Se OD 1s AE we SE BO? Se Ta ee UM DURATION, HOURS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT PMP DEPTH-DURATION SUB-BASIN 3 HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 6 December 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CRITICALLY ARRANGED DISTRIBUTION OF PROBABLE BASINS 1, 2, AND LAKE AREA HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION SUB TIME, HOURS fea ee ie ee Se Ril Pe Bg ee see ae eee er Le ee ea Bei ee es aa aaa I aie a ee ta Be ee ss eae a eeliieeediiall 2 © o o YNOH 41VH 43d HON! ‘NOILVLIdIOSYd IWLNAW3YONI < x o o EXHIBIT 7 December 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CRITICALLY ARRANGED DISTRIBUTION OF PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION SUB — BASIN 3 HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY HOURS w = = < s YNOH 41WH Y3d HONI ‘NOILWLIdIO3Yd TWLNIW3AYONI EXHIBIT 8 PMP DURATION 24 HOURS| — 284,000 nN o o a 3 = w: o ° 3S So = x $ ui o c < x oO 2 a ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN TIME, HOURS FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT PMF INFLOW HYDROGRAPH CHIKUMINUK LAKE SITE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX D-2 GEOLOGY OF HYDROELECTRIC SITES Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company and Harding Lawson Associates December 1982 Chapter I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHIKUMINUK LAKE SITE GEOLOGY Introduction Regional Geologic Setting Site Geology General Site Conditions Bedrock/Structure Soils Seismicity Chikuminuk Lake Site Comparison Dam Axes Spillways Reservoirs Diversion Tunnel and Cofferdam Power Tunnels/Underground Powerhouse Conclusions Engineering Geology Rock Tunneling and Underground Excavati on Dam Foundation Reservoir Upstream Cofferdam Airstrip GEOLOGY OF ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES Kisaralik River Kisaralik River Lower Falls Golden Gate Falls Kisaralik River - Upper Falls Kipchuk River Upnuk Lake Milk Creek II-1 II-3 II-4 II-6 II-8 II-9 Exhibit No. 1 10 LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Conceptual Project Plan, Chikuminuk Lake Downstream Site Conceptual Project Plan, Chikuminuk Lake Upstream Site Chikuminuk Lake Site Geology Regional Seismicity Kisaralik River Lower Falls Site Geology Kisaralik River Golden Gate Falls Site Geology Kisaralik River Upper Falls Site Geology Kipchuk River Site Geology Upnuk Lake Site Geology Milk Creek Site Geology Chapter I CHIKUMINUK LAKE SITE GEOLOGY Introduction Two site visits were conducted in August, 1982. During the first site visit, attention was focused on a potential dam axis and left-bank spillway approximately 2800 linear feet south of the Chikuminuk outlet (See Exhibit 1). During the second site visit, the downstream site was reviewed more critically and a second potential site (See Exhibit 2) was also investigated. Comparative studies were made of both sites. Investigations included photogeologic interpretation of 1:60,000 scale infra-red site photography, three calendar days in the field reviewing and evaluating the site geology, and performing a refraction geophysical survey (240 lineal feet) in the spillway area of the downstream site. The evaluations contained in this appendix are therefore preliminary, limited to surface expressions of the site geology. Confirming subsurface data must be obtained at a future date. Regional Geologic Setting . The hydroelectric sites for the Bethel Project lie on the flanks of the Kuskokwim/Kilbuck/Wood River Mountain Range of the west-central interior, 550 miles west-southwest of Anchorage. Average maximum elevation of the rugged, east-northeast trending Range is 5000 feet, and relief across the range is 4000 to 4500 feet. The lowlands to the east are part of the Nushagak River system and the western lowlands, extending to Bethel and beyond, are part of the extensive Yukon/Kuskokwim River Delta. Bedrock units in the region are primarily folded and fault-— ed clastic sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous age. Minor occur- rence of Tertiary age igneous and volcanic rock units, and pre- cambrian to Devonian age metamorphic rock units also comprise the bedrock. The dominant structural trends of N10° - 20°E are parallel to the linear mountain trends. The most recent major faulting, accounting for the uplift of the mountain system, is ascribed to the Late Cretaceous and Terrtiary. Primary bounding faults for the uplift appear to be the Togiak Fault, a steeply dipping upthrust, marking the western front of the range. Middle Paleozoic rocks are raised to the surface along this western fault system coincident with the Golden Gate site. Late Tertiary and Cenozoic periods have largely involved erosion of the high-standing mountain trends and filling of the I-1 adjacent lowlands. Limited volcanic extrusive and intrusive activity also is ascribed to the Tertiary. The current landscape in the region is dominated by glacial landforms including, pitted ground moraines, recessional moraines, outwash plains and steepwalled bedrock valleys. Site Geology General Site Conditions Lake Chikuminuk occupies a glacially-enlarged valley system bound on the southeast margin by a series of recessional moraines. The moraines have been breached to a bedrock spillpoint at the very southern outlet of the lake. From this point, the Allen River has carved an "S"-shaped, steep-walled canyon 60-80 feet deep through hard, metasedimentary rocks of the Cretaceous Gemuk Group. The river flows out of the 1/2 mile long canyon to gently sloping outwash terraces lying downstream of the reces- sional moraines. Exhibit 3 illustrates the surface geology of the Chikuminuk Lake project area. Bedrock/ Structure Outcrops at the Chikuminuk site are limited primarily to the lower 60 to 70-foot sidewalls of the inner canyon. Heavy alder growth, brush, and tundra further reduce the outcrop area to approximately 10 percent or less. The exposed rock units are very hard, siliceous carbonates, sandstones, shales and conglo- meratic sandstones. Bed thickness ranges up to 15 feet, and the outcropping rock has a massive appearence. Thin-bedded (one-two inch thick) units, primarily in shales, are exposed locally. No dominant joint sets were observed in the site area, rather, the massive, brittle rock appears to have been fractured randomly. The network of closely spaced, hairline fractures at 1-2 inches spacing, is healed tightly with silica to provide the massive outcrops. Discordant dips and strikes in the rock outcrops downstream of the lake outlet suggest local tight folding and/or faulting. Two shear zones in the promontory downstream site are suggested by a deeply-cut swale and a 5 to 8 foot-wide zone of closely fractured rock, respectively. There is no indication of displacement of the overlying glacial deposits in the damsite area. Soils The surface soils at the Chikuminuk site are glacial in origin and include ground moraines, lateral and recessional end I-2 -moraines, and outwash (alluvial) deposits. Exposures are quite limited, however, a recent land slump in the moraine at the lake outlet (designated as the Lake Moraine) has exposed 40-50 feet of unsorted to poorly sorted gravelly sands, and sandy gravel with minor cobble to boulder sizes. Boulders range to 2 feet in maximum diameter; most of the exposed sand is coarse and angular; and there are only minor interbeds of low-plasticity silty clay, about 4-6 inches thick. The Lake Moraine appears to be approximately 100 feet thick and extends approximately one mile across the southeast arm of Chikuminuk Lake. The two recessional moraines downstream of the Lake Moraine are estimated to be 50 feet or less in thickness near the site. In the immediate upstream site area, morainal cover on the west (right) bank of the Allen River is thin, perhaps 20 feet or less within a horizontal distance of 400 feet from the river. Broad, alluvial, sand and gravel terraces extend below the rapids downstream of the downstream site. The deposits are dominantly gravels and sands although, minor, one to two foot thick lenses of clay have been reported in the river banks near the mid-channel island about 0.75 mile downstream of the rapids. Significant clay deposits are not apparent in the area. Thin clay beds do occur however, and future exploration, especially in the intermorainal swales, may confirm glacio- lacustrine clay deposits that could be used in construction. The moraine deposits should provide an adequate source of sand, gravel and random fill for embankments and possibly aggre- gate. Processing will be necessary. Testing will be required to identify the. occurrence of alkali-reactive aggregate. The downstream alluvium will be available for construction mater- ials. No large boulder deposits have been identified to date. Large riprap could be developed from required spillway excavation. Seismicity The initial evaluation of regional seismicity involved a review of data maintained on computer file by NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), Boulder Colorado. A search was conducted for all reported and/or instrument- recorded events with assigned epicenters within 200 miles of the site. Approximately 1300 events are on file for this area, dating back to the year 1786. The vast majority of the events are concentrated 160 miles to the southeast along the Aleutian Range (See Exhibit 4). 1-3 The largest nearby event was rated at 5.1 Magnitude and occurred within the range of 15-20 miles from the site. This instrument recorded event occurred September 7, 1976. These data suggest that a value of 0.1g be used for preliminary design purposes. Chikuminuk Lake Site Comparison Two alternative dam sites were investigated for the Chikuminuk Lake project. Dam Axes At the current level of evaluation, bedrock conditions at both sites are considered to be nearly identical. Both loca- tions are in tight, steep-walled gorge sections and details of stratigraphy, faulting and fracture condition remain to be determined. : From the standpoint of distance to fill materials, the upstream site has a distinct advantage with the Lake Moraine only 1000 feet away. Spillways Foundation conditions beneath the spillway at the down- stream site are questionable. The major questions relate to the nature of materials in the ridge beneath the spillway and parti- cularly, the depth to solid bedrock. Initial reconnaissance indicated slump deposits on both the upstream and downstream sides of the ridge. Present mapping was unable to locate evidence of bedrock in the northern half of the proposed spill- way, while bedrock outcrops were noted in adjacent slopes. It is considered possible that former streamflow from the "Dry" Valley (See Exhibit 3), or the upper reaches of the Allen River, may have cut_a valley through the ridge which was later filled with morainal or alluvial deposits. An alternative hypothesis is that weaker, relatively erodible rock underlies the area at shallow depth beneath a cover of glacial moraine deposits. During the current study, a preliminary refraction seismic profile, 240 feet long, was obtained beneath the spillway ridge. Seismic velocities obtained from this survey are inconclusive, in that such velocities could represent compact saturated gla- cial fill or some of the weaker sedimentary rocks. The spillway. at the upstream site would be in an area of thin (10-20 feet) morinal cover overlying massive bedrock. Discharge would be to the "Dry" Valley, which, as an underlift stream, appears to have sufficient capacity to receive large I-4 spills and dampen the effect of surging into the Allen River. Little erosion of the spillway proper would be expected. However, alluvium in the valley would be subject to erosion. Reservoirs The general water-retaining capabilities of the reservoir would be similar for each site. However, the indicated unfavor- able foundation conditions of the spillway ridge at the down-. stream site would probably require special grouting and/or cut- off facilities. Concentrated short-path seepage could occur through the zone of weak rock or glacial-alluvial fill. Diversion Tunnel and Cofferdam Access. for the upstream site diversion tunnel would be simple from the intermorainal area, while the downstream site diversion scheme would involve the construction of spur roadways to the portal area. From a diversion standpoint, the upstream site has the advantage of good access to the river and abundant fill material close at hand from the morainal deposits to construct an embank- ment. The downstream diversion would involved building a diver- sion dam from the southwest side of the "Dry" Valley to the northwesterly trending bedrock spur currently between the plann- ed dam and spillway. The "Dry" Valley contains a stream flowing about 100-200 cfs (August 1982 estimate) which will require diversion, hence the location 500+ feet downstream from the diversion tunnel itself. Access for machinery to the lower reaches of the "Dry" Valley would require an extensive cut or fill ramp from the northwest head of the Valley, and turning space to off load materials would be very limited. Power Tunnels/Underground Powerhouse Both schemes involve excavations for the power tunnel and powerhouse in the left abutment. The power tunnel for the downstream site would be shorter, yet the longer tunnel at the upstream site could be worked from two headings, which could have an effect on the work schedule. Tunneling conditions at both sites would be favorable. Rock cover conditions for an underground powerhouse at both sites appears to be marginal. Conclusions From the standpoint of access, proximity to embankment construction materials, competancy of the spillway foundation I-5 and reservoir water-retaining capability, the upstream Chikuminuk site is recommended for further investigations. Engineering Geology Rock Tunneling and Underground Excavation In general terms, the hard, siliceous, sedimentary rock sequence should provide favorable tunneling conditions. Stan- dard steel set support for 30-40 feet at tunnel portals, and moderate rock bolting and/or local gunite work should be suffic- ient for temporary support prior to lining. At this time insuf- ficient rock cover for an underground powerhouse is indicated. Subject to an exploration program designed to evaluate an under- ground powerhouse, it is recommended that a surface powerhouse be used for preliminary conceptual design and layouts. Dam Foundation The dam site is in a steep-walled (4V:1H), flat-bottomed canyon. Locally scoured and cobble-filled bedrock pockets may be encountered in the river channel but, in general, little alluvium is expected. Abutment rock may contain open joints due to stress relief and near-surface ice-wedging. Approximately 10-15 feet of rock may have to be removed to reach acceptable foundation rock. Detailed planning estimates of grouting requirements will require drillhole permeability testing. Based upon present information, it is expected that the foundation rock will be completely adequate to support the loads of either a gravity or rockfill dam. Reservoir The proposed reservoir will require further investigation. Most significant is the need to assess the water-retaining cap- ability of the morainal ridges which form natural embankments across the southeast arm of the lake. The moraines are essen- tially soil embankments laid down on the pre-existing valley floor. . For the purpose of conceptual design it is recommended that a slurry wall be constructed to reduce seepage in the left abutment moraine for reservoirs above El. 620. I-6 Upstream Cofferdam Construction will require that diversion cofferdams be placed in moving water with bedrock at, or very near, the bottom surface. Successful diversion probably will require large rock and large volumes of readily accessible, randomly sized fill, all to be placed during minimum flow season. Airstrip The airstrip would be on the outwash plan downstream of the site. The site is apparently well-drained alluvium, with a surface slope of 1-2° to the southeast. Accurate elevation control may indicate the need for large fill volumes to bring the runway to an acceptable 1-2% runway grade. A balanced cut and fill section should be investigated. As an alternative for further investigation, it is suggest- ed that the scoured bedrock surface in section 15, about 2 miles north west of the Lake outlet be reviewed. A constructed fill at this site, to essentially infill bedrock lows, may be a less costly option for a land-based runway. Chapter II GEOLOGY OF ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES Kisaralik River - Lower Falls The Lower Falls site is located (SW 1/4, S17, T4N, R62W) on the Kisarlik River in a narrow gorge about 64 miles east-— southeast of the City of Bethel and 30 river miles downstream of the outlet of Kisaralik Lake. The Lower Falls site geology is shown on Exhibit 5. The river has carved a deep, steep-walled valley which has a thin veneer of colluvium and glacial till. Hard, cherty meta- sediments and meta-volcanics of the Cretaceous Gemuk Formation are partially exposed at the site. : Bedrock units at the site consist of Cretaceous age meta- sedimentary and meta-volcanic rocks of the Gemuk. Formation. Strike and dip values of bed attitudes were difficult to obtain owing to the massive nature of the units and limited rock expo- sures. Several readings were taken, but no well defined pattern was determined. The rocks in outcrop are hard, very durable, dense and siliceous, and all appear to be inclined at 45° or more to the horizontal. Three prominent joint sets (striking N45°W, N-S and E-W) cross the site at spacings of 1-2 feet. The joints appear to be tight in outcrop, and there is no evidence of crushing or weath- ered zones associated with the joint sets. The deeply incised "S"-shaped stream pattern in the site area gives no indication of either joint or plan fault control. The site area appears to be largely devoid of soils in sufficent volume for use as construction material. -The steep sidewalls of the canyon are veneered with colluvium. Local gravel/sand bars that occur in the stream channel, and crude, point bar deposits developed locally, lack sufficient volume for use as construction material. A survey of the area 1 to 2 miles downstream of.the site revealed a general scarcity of alluvial material. Terraces on the Kisaralik and tributary streams are generally cut on rock with little to no appreciable thickness of alluvial cover. The tundra and vegetation cover may be concealing useable deposits, but none are immediately obvious. The Lower Falls site is in a region of west central Alaska which is subject to relatively minor earthquake hazard. A com- II-l’ puter file search for epicenters within approximaely 200 miles of the site is summarized on Exhibit 4. The epicenter indicated 15-20 miles southeast of the Lower Falls site is believed to be a duplicate report (NOAA, 1982) of the 5.1 M event for September 7, 1976 shown southeast of the Chikuminuk Lake site. Present information indicates that the rock encountered in tunnel excavations will be blocky, competent material which can be excavated with only moderate support requirements. The long axis of an underground powerhouse could be oriented approximate- ly N20°E. Pattern rockbolts and shotcrete would be required in the powerhouse excavation. Ten to 15 feet of weathered surface rock and overburden may have to be removed to reach an acceptable rock foundation. Normal dental treatment/slush grout procedures and a convention- al grout curtain should be expected. Drainage of the abutments may also be required to assure stability under high reservoir head, but no unusally expensive facilties can be predicted at this time. The surface spillway would: involve a large rock cut. The principal adverse effects of rock structure on the stability of the curving leftside spillway cut will be created by bedding and, in the downstream portion, the N-S striking east dipping’ -joint.set. The other two joint sets dip steeply (70°-80°) and should not adversely affect the stability of properly designed rock cuts. Detailed design would call for benching, appropriate rock support systems, and careful study of the slope above any major cut will also be required to determine the potential for creep of soils and talus. Road access to the site can best be gained along the right bank from the downstream. This would involve one or two large culvert- and fill-sections, minor rock trimming, and heavy stone shoulders extending the roadway into the edge of the stream flow. Left bank access is not recommended since it would in- volve extensive undercutting of the steep valley walls. Access to the left abutment for construction of the left bank diversion tunnel most probably would involve building a tempora- ry bridge crossing about 2000 feet downstream from the axis. A construction camp can be accommodated conveniently in the downstream terrace area. No unusual foundation problems are envisioned in developing a landing strip on the right bank to integrate with the access road system. II-2 Kisaralik River - Golden Gate Falls The Golden Gate Falls dam site is located (NW 1/4, S28, T5N, R62W) on the Kisaralik River about 58 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel and 35 river miles downstream of the outlet of Kisaralik Lake. The Golden Gate Falls site geology is shown on Exhibit 6. ‘ The dam site is characterized by low-grade metamorphism consisting of interbedded green graywacke and siltstone, with lesser amounts of pebble grit and conglomerate. The graywacke is typically very hard and strong, and is closely to moderately fractured. Dominant bedding orientation range from N40-50° and dips 51°-67° NW. A minor bedding orientation at the location of the proposed foundation has a strike of N10°W and a vertical dip. Major feature orientations are N40°E, 55°NW along bedding planes and N84°E, 62°NW. Most fractures are either closed or quartz-filled and can usually be traced across the Kisaralik River. : : Greenstone Ridge trends directly southwest of the left abutment and is a massively bedded green amphibole and chlorite schist sequence interbedded with metachert. The ridge is bounded on the west by the Golden Gate Fault, a large reverse fault that dips steeply to the southeast and upthrown on the southeast side. Overlying the bedrock on the lower reaches of each abutment is 10-15 feet of colluvial ‘soils. Colluvium thins. upslope where, in many places, it is on the order of six feet or less. On the right abutment a notch in the bedrock. at the approximate crest elevation for a 200-foot high concrete dam could encounter 20-40 feet of weathered rock and soils. This appears to be an old relict channel. The construction of a rockfill dam at the site would require impervious fill material which is not available in the site area. A Concrete gravity dam could be located here and keyed into the strong, competent bedrock. Foundation treatment would be low to moderate. Alluvial sand and gravels suitable for fill could potentially be mined from the active floodplain upstream. The terraces of the Kisaralik River are cut on bed- rock and probably would not yield the necessary aggregate quan- tities required. Potential riprap sources are available down- stream in.the Kuskokwim group, which could yield blocks 4 to 5 tons each. Construction of a spillway could be done on the left abutment and would require cutting back the slope uphill. Maxi- II-3 mum allowable angles for cut slopes in the graywacke and silt- stone would be on the order of 1H:4V. The graywacke and siltstone in the abutments are suitable for the construction of underground openings, and the gently sloping surface area north of the right abutment appears to be suitable for location of a surface powerstation. The stand-up time for underground openings should be excellent. Construction camp and facilities could be located behind the hill on the right abutment. Permafrost is probably present in the glacial outwash soils mantling the area. Therefore, structures will have to be constructed above grade to avoid thawing of the permafrost. Kisaralik River - Upper Falis The Upper Falls dam site is located (SW 1/4, S7, T3N, R61W) on the Kisaralik River about 70 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel and 20 river miles downstream of the outlet of Kisaralik Lake. The Upper Falls site geology is shown on_ Exhibit 7. Upper Falls consists of two separate vertical drops. Graywackes and siltstones of Late Cretaceous Age (Hoare et al., 1959) outcrop in both abutments at the site. The graywacke weathers to a dark brown color, is hard, strong, and occurs in massive outcrops up to 70 feet thick. Individual beds from 1 to 6 feet thick were observed in the massive outcrops. The graywacke strikes N 30° E an dips 52° SE (upstream). The graywacke beds outcropping in the abutments can be traced continuously across the creek and form the upstream and down- stream falls where they cross the river channel. , The graywacke outcrops at the dam site are separated by a siltstone bed approximately 100 feet thick. The siltstones are dark gray to black, moderately hard, moderately strong and part readily along bedding planes 1/4 to 1/2 inch in thickness. Graywacke interbeds up to 8 inches thick were observed in the siltstones on the right abutment. The siltstones are less resistant to weathering than the graywackes and form the rapids between the upstream and downstream falls. No predominant joint set was observed in either the gray- wackes or the siltstones. The graywackes parted along bedding planes to form large irregularly shaped blocks up to 2 feet across. The siltstones tended to part along their bedding planes to form thin flat plates up to 1 inch across. II-4 The site appears to be suitable for construction of either a rock fill or concrete gravity dam. Excavation 5 to 10 feet deep would be required to expose unweathered rock in both abut— ments. The upstream and downstream toes of the dam should be founded on the massive graywacke outcrops that form the falls. Foundation treatment to prevent seepage through both the abut- ments and beneath the toe of the dam should be minimal at this site. Based on the rock exposed in the left abutment, it is concluded that bedrock is probably continuous beneath the flat broad bench topping the left abutment and occurs within 10 to 15 feet of the surface. Due to erosion by the Kisaralik River, the bedrock surface beneath the bench will be irregular and the depressions in the bedrock surface will be filled with alluvial gravels. Alluvial gravels were exposed in the active flood plain of the Kisaralik River immediately upstream of the proposed dam site. However, boulder and cobble size material observed in this area could pose problems for cellular cofferdam construc-— tion. With the exception of impervious fill, construction materi- als for a rockfill dam are available in the project area. The graywackes (Map symbol Kg) are hard, strong and would be suita- ble for use as rock fill and rip rap. It may be possible to develop a quarry uphill from the dam site on the right abutment in the vicinity of the graywacke outcrops. It should be possi- ble to produce rip rap stone up to four to five tons in weight through controlled quarry blasting. The siltstones will proba- bly not produce material acceptable for use as either rip rap or armour stone. Alluvial gravels could be mined from either the active flood plain or terraces of the Kisaralik River. Based on the terrace length of 3000 feet and a width of 800 feet, it is estimated 1 million cubic yards of gravel would be available within 15 feet of the surface. Sporadic permafrost may be present in the terrace gravels. The siltstones and graywackes exposed in the right abutment appear to be suitable for the construction of underground open- ings. Openings with a length to span ratio greater than 2 should be oriented with the long axis northwest-southeast. This will result in placing the bedding planes in the slates and graywackes parallel to the span of the opening. Permafrost may be present in the right abutment and seepage along bedding planes in the siltstones could be a problem. Rock bolting and II-5 other support measures will probably be required in the silt- stones. The bench topping the left abutment is 900 feet wide at the dam site and lies at an elevation of 1020 feet. Local differ- ences in topography across the bench are on the order of 5 to 10 feet. This area could be utilized for construction facilities. Kipchuk River The dam site is located (NW 1/4, S19, T8N, R56W) on the Kipchuk River 90 miles east of the City of Bethel. The Kipchuk River site geology is shown on Exhibit 8. Two potential dam site locations were visited on the Kipchuk River. At both locations, Tertiary volcanic tuffs are overlain by basalts of Tertiary age (Hoare, et al., 1959). The tuffs and basalts outcrop and are well exposed in the right abutment. The left abutment is composed mainly of colluvial and slump deposits derived from the weathering of the basalts and tuffs. The slump deposits are composed primarily of wet to saturated plastic silts containing basaltic rubble. Occasional highly fractured basalt outcrops in the left abutment generally at elevations greater than 1100 feet. An isolated outcrop of volcanic tuff was found in the left abutment at the waterline at elevation 910 feet. No tuff outcrops were found in the left abutment above elevation 910 feet. This suggests the left abut- ment is downfaulted relative to the right abutment. The construction of a rockfill dam at either location would require extensive excavations in the left abutment. Estimated minimum excavation depth in the left abutment at Location 1 would be on the order of 20 to 30 feet. Sporadic permafrost is probably present in the colluvium along the left abutment. If encountered, ripping and/or light blasting may be required to excavate the permafrost. At both locations the right abutment would be founded in the volcanic tuff. Although it was not possible to visit the tuff outcrops on the right abutment, at Location 1 they were standing vertically and appeared well indurated. The contact between the tuffs and the overlying basalts occur at an elevation of 1200 feet in this area ~- well above the considered reservoir elevations. The contact between the tuffs and basalts strikes approximately N 30° £ and dips 16° to the NW. Poorly developed columnar joining was observed in the basalts. No evidence of major jointing was observed in the underlying tuffs. II-6 The tuffs in the right abutments at Location 2 appear to be more heavily weathered than those at Location 1. However, a fairly continuous cover of basaltic talus obscures the tuff in this area. It is estimated that a minimum of 10 to 15 feet of the weathered tuff would have to be excavated to expose sound rock in the right abutment at Location 2. The tuffs underlying the river bottom at both locations will probably support the loads imposed by a rockfill dam. However, extensive foundation treatment will probably be required to prevent seepage beneath the toe of the dam. The tuffs in the river bottom appear to be overlain by a relatively thin veneer of cobble and boulder size material that would pre- clude construction of a cellular cofferdam. Construction materials for a rockfill dam appear to be available within the project area. The plastic silts (Map Symbol Qc and Qs) may be suitable for use as impervious core material. Processing to remove the basaltic rubble would be required. The basalts (Map Symbol Tvb) are hard, strong and would be suitable for use as rockfill and rip rap. Based on the degree of fracturing and weathering observed in the basalt out- crops in the left abutment, it should be possible to produce rip rap stone up to 2 to 3 tons through controlled quarry blasting. Quarry spalls could be used as rock fill. The tuffs probably will not produce material acceptable for use as rip rap. Alluvial gravels could be mined from either the active flood plain or terraces of the Kipchuk River upstream of the line shown on Exhibit 8. Based on a floodplain width of 300 feet and a length of 5000 feet, an estimated 500,000 cubic years of gravel could be available within 10 feet of the surface. Permafrost probably does not exist within the active flood plain but may be encountered in the terraces. Construction of a spillway on rock in the left abutment at Location 1 would require removing a minimum of 20 to 30 feet of colluvial material. A large rotational slump was observed in the spillway area at the location shown on Exhibit 8. This slump is approximately 400 feet wide and extends 300 feet into the left abutment. The crest of the slump scarp lies at elevation 1030 feet. The slumps. are probably caused by the thawing of permfrost (ice) in the thaw unstable colluvial soils. A spillway could be founded on the tuff exposed in the right abutment at Location 1. Construction of a spillway on rock in the left abutment at Location 2 would require excavating a minimum of 10 to 20 feet of colluvial material. A spillway founded on the tuff exposed in the right abutment at Location 2 would require cutting back II-7 the slopes uphill of the spillway. Maximum allowable angles for cut slopes in the basalts and tuffs will be on the order of 1H:4V. Allowable slope angles for the colluvial material will vary depending on the moisture content and the presence of permafrost. Natural slopes in the right abutment soils were observed to vary from a maximum of 40° in the colluvial material to near horizontal in the slump areas. The tuff exposed in the right abutment is a preferred loca- tion for the construction of underground openings. Underground openings constructed in the tuff will probably require extensive rock bolting and/or grouting. Creep would be a problem espe- cially in large openings such as for the powerhouse. Diversion, tailrace, and penstock tunnels will probably have to be lined. Construction camp and plant facilities could be located on the bench uphill from the left abutment at an elevation of 1150 feet. The bench is approximately 400 feet wide at this point and runs sub-parallel to the Kipchuk River for approximately 2000 feet. Permafrost is probably present in the colluvial soils mantling the bench. Therefore, structures such as construction camp and shop buildings would be constructed above grade. Upnuk Lake The Upnuk Lake dam site is located (SW 1/4, S36, T3N, R55W) on the outlet creek of Upnuk Lake about two miles downstream from the outlet. The site is about 110 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel. The outlet creek is an unnamed tributary to the Tikchik River. The Upnuk Lake site geology is shown on Exhibit 9. No bedrock was observed at either the dam site or along the penstock alignment. The entire project area appears to be overlain by glacial drift (Map Symbol Qd). The glacial drift is composed of poorly sorted sand and gravel and contains cobble and boulder size material. Based on the thickness of drift exposed in the outlet creek and its tributaries, and the distance to the mountains west of the project area, estimated depth to bedrock could be in excess of 100 feet at the dam site. Sporadic permafrost is probably present within the glacial drift in the divide between Upnuk and Chikiminuk Lakes, as well as in the colluvium (Map Symbol Qc) mantling of the upland areas. Many small slumps were observed along the banks of the outlet creek and its tributaries. These slumps could be the result of thawing of the permafrost within the glacial drift and solifluction. Permafrost is probably not present along the II-8 shores of Upnuk and Chikuminuk Lakes due to their warming effect. Milk Creek The Milk Creek dam site is located (MW 1/4 S21, TIN, R58W) on Milk Creek, a tributary to Chikuminuk Lake, about nine miles upstream from the mouth creek. The site is about 95 miles east- southeast of the City of Bethel. The Milk Creek site geology is shown on Exhibit 10. An area suitable for airstrip construction lies 4 miles northeast of the project area. Variations in local topography in this area could require large fills along the runway alignment. The aircraft approaches from the southwest to this alignment are poor. Access road construction from the airstrip to the camp site would be difficult due to the number of side hill cuts, thick fills and bridges required. Construction of the access roads would require steep side hill cuts which would probably have to be supported with retain- ing structures. The rock exposed on the left abutment belongs to the Gemuk Group (Map Symbol Keg) - an interbedded sequence of thin bedded shales and massively bedded graywackes standing at natural slopes of 1H:4V and steeper. The shales appear to be very weak and soft. The graywacke tends to be resistant to weathering and is hard and strong. The shales and graywackes strike N60-85°W, and dip 75° to 90°SW. The left abutment is composed primarily of shale; seepage zones are evident at the shale/graywacke contacts. Large scale rock slope failures are present above the left abutment immediately upstream of the proposed dam site at elevations greater than 1200 feet. No rock outcrops were observed on the right abutment. The right abutment is composed of unconsolidated glacial outwash material estimated to be anywhere from 50 to 200 feet thick which appears to thin downstream. The outwash is composed of sands and gravels with numerous cobbles and boulders. Slump deposits or landslide scars in the glacial outwash deposits are evident near the porposed dam alignment and along the downstream area. The crest of the right abutment is flat and has poorly developed drainage indicating that permafrost may be present. The Milk Creek Dam site is located along the strike of the Milk Creek Fault, which can be traced for approximately 25 miles in this area. The right abutment appears to be downthrown rela- tive to the left abutment. Some evidence of strike slip move- ment was observed in the lateral offset in a graywacke bed in II-9 the left abutment. Most of the streams draining into the pro- posed reservoir area appear to be fault controlled. As a result of poor access conditions, extensive faulting in the dam and reservoir area, and weak abutments, the Milk Creek site was not considered for further study. II-10 ws! = POWER TUNNEL ale DIVERSION TUNNEL NOTE: Base map topography enlarged from USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series. ROCKFILL DAM ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN CHIKUMINUK LAKE DOWNSTREAM SITE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 2 wha \ 3 ¢ é CS oe POWER TUNNEL ACCESS ROAD | ACCESS TUNNEL / 7 UNDERGROUND A POWERSTATION em : \ es SURGE CHAMBER - * TAILRACE TUNNEL wi SCALE 0 400 800 FEET ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 1” = 800" BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: Basemap topography enlarged from CONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLAN USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series. CHIKUMINUK LAKE UPSTREAM SITE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 3 LEGEND Recessionai Moraine Ground Moraine and /or slope wash Outwash Aliuvium Bedrock (Gemuk Formation) ator < 5ft. from ground surface Strike and dip of strata Shear zone Recent land slump Zone of weak rock or channel fill Preliminary refraction line shown CHIKUMINUK LAKE ye Ce BY ae : yf PS between X—X SITE No. 2 SCALE 0 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT “DRY” VALLEY SITE No. 1 CHIKUMINUK LAKE SITE GEOLOGY HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 4 res'w 162m 61'w «16O"W SSH S@'W IST ISB" D Bethel LOWER FALLS o x ( x + ( LAKE CHIKUMINUK ° x ies Sept. 7, 1976 d BRISTOL BAY svn tes’m ie4'w 163" 162"WI6I"W 160" 1S9"M 158" 15s‘ NGSDC/ED1S/NOAR BOULDER, COLORADO 1276 EARTHQUAKES PLOTTED x 3.99 45.99 82/08/25. 14.28.38. + See MAGNI TUDE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT REGIONAL SEISMICITY HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Go ~” et LEGEND: Slope wash and talus, vegetated Bedrock, Gemuk Formation, very hard, fine grained meta volcanics/meta sedimentary rock, exposed at surface 10’-15° Sand/Gravel Bench Koo BSI RRR PRK SCALE 0 X Strike and dip of bedding ZE Strike and dip of joint zone 200 400 FEET SS 1""=400' Harding Lawson Associates Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists EXHIBIT 5 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT KISARALIK RIVER LOWER FALLS SITE GEOLOGY HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY ARARARARKAIRA TS 7, GOLDEN GATE FAULT EXHIBIT 6 LER YEAH. (Location off Map) RG . QAINAINAIRAIRAIS AIR ey et V LRARATRAY ~V~ SN poe, Se NG es Ne Wie ee Nie New Wee SAC NON RNG NO NIONRON RONAN WLI NAINA IS IN AIAN AINA ~ SENS LEA AN AS 4\-U150. A. Neca Net NS $1100 Na ~ ~V~ LOCATION OF POTENTIAL RELIEF CHANNEL LEGEND: ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT KKS Kuskokwim Group interbedded ae z . graywauke, siltstone,pebble of KISARALIK RIVER grit and conglomerate GOLDEN GATE FALLS Harding Lawson Associates SITE GEOLOGY SCALE 0 400 800 FEET Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists t s l 1 J HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY T= 800" December 1982 EXHIBIT 7 > POTENTIAL BORROW A A UPSTREAM OF THIS /) oo a SCALE 0 400 800 FEET Lia Colluvium: chiefly frost derived rubble intermixed 7 ee. with windbiown silts NOTE: . Base jh UY fr Ears Graywackes of the Kuskokwim Group Gace Gade eee: seites: ««: Siltstones of the Kuskokwim Group BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT A __ Strike and dip measured in field 50 KISARALIK RIVER UPPER FALLS SITE GEOLOGY Harding Lawson Associates Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 al HIGHLY. FRACTURED BASAL OUTCROPS ABOVE ELEVATION 1100’ \\\ = ee oon deposits reworked ee Volcanic Tuffs- Heavily weathered tuffs ™ containing basalt inclusions Tvb Vesicular Basalt - Black basalt that weathers dark brown Colluvium plastic silts containing frost derived basaltic rubble SCALE 0 400 800 FEET Strike and dip estimated in field 1" = 800" 5 FAULT NOTE: U, Upthrown side Base map topography enlarged from D, Downthrown side USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT KIPCHUK RIVER SITE GEOLOGY Harding Lawson Associates Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 UPNUK LAKE — EXHIBIT 9 We Spe LEGEND: , Inferred Contract cmon Qd Glacial Drift — Poorly sorted sand, gravel and boulders Qc Colluvium — Frost derived rubbie locally includes reworked Qd Keg Gemuk Group — undifferentiated fine grained siliciceous rocks = _ Harding Lawson Associates lz. tngmeers, Geolog:sts si & Geophysicists ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT UPNUK LAKE SITE GEOLOGY HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 10 S Slump Deposits -Colluvial and glacial outwash Ss deposits reworked by downslope movement Glacial Drift- Unsorted and poorly sorted sand, gravel, and boulders: Smajl areas of outwash, colluvium and alluvium included with unit Gemuk Group - Undifferented chiefly massive to thin— bedded, fine—grained, silliceous rocks, some volcanics, siltstone, and limestone and varicolored argillitic shale Fault (U, Upthrown side: D, Downthrown side) U__.9.... Solid where clearly interpreted: D Queried where inferred, dashed where approximately SCALE 0 400 800 FEET located Liat “70 Strike and dip estimated in the field 1” = 800° Ss Slump ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT NOTE: Base map topography enlarged from USGS Quadrangle sheets 1:63,360 series. MILK CREEK SITE GEOLOGY Harding Lawson Associates Engineers, Geologists & Geophysicists HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment : APPENDIX D-3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Prepared for Alaska Power Authority by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center December 1982 Chapter II TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE EXISTING CHIKUMINUK LAKE REGION , General Description Aquatic Resources Water Quality Invertebrates Fisheries Terrestrial Resources Vegetation Communities Birds Mammals Archeological and Historical Resources ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES Kisaralik River - Lower Falls Kisaralik River - Golden Gate Falls Kisaralik River - Upper Falls Kipchuk River Upnuk Lake Milk Creek REFERENCES II-1 II-1 I1I-2 II-3 IrI-4 II-5 II-6 Table No. I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-14 I-15 LIST OF TABLES Title Water Quality Analysis of Tikchik Lakes, 1964. Water Quality Analysis (Surface) of Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River, 1982. Vertical Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles for Chikuminuk Lake, August 26, 1982. Identification and Enumeration of Zooplankton Collected by AEIDC from Chikuminuk Lake, August 1982. Identification and Enumeration of Benthic Organisms Collected by AEIDC from the Chikuminuk Project Area, August 1982. Fish Found in the Bristol Bay Area. Commercial Salmon Catch by Species, (in 1,000's of Fish), Bristol Bay, 1961- 1981. : Commercial Salmon Catch by District (1,000's of Fish). Sockeye Salmon Catch and Escapement (1,000's of Fish) Bristol Bay, 1981. Bristol Bay Salmon Catch by District and Species (1,000's of Fish) 1981. Minnow Trap.and Dip Net Catches from Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River by AEIDC, August 1982. - Major Plant Species Indentified at the Chikuminuk Lake Area. Relative Amounts of Breeding Habitats for Selected Species Groups in the Study Area. Mammals and Habitat Use Mammals that Probably Occur in the Chikuminuk Lake Area. -ii- Page I-4 I-5 I-6 I-7 Exhibit No. 1 10 11 12 LS) 14 15 LIST OF EXHIBITS Tite Location of Water Quality Stations in Nushagak Bay and Drainages. Water Quality Analyses for Streams in the Project Area. Allen River Mean Monthly Streamflow at USGS Gage -- October, 1964 through September, 1965. Surface Water Temperature (°C) and Water Quality Samping Locations, Chikuminuk Lake, August 1982. Surface Water Temperature (°C) Water Quality, and Benthos Samping Locations, Allen River, August 1982. Bristol Bay Area and Fishery Management Districts. Aerial Estimates of Spawning Chinook Salmon made during Run Peak, Nushagak District, 1964-1975. Aerial Estimates of Spawning Sockeye Salmon Made During Run Peak, Tikchik Lakes System, 1960-1975. Salmon Spawning Chronology, Bristol Bay Area. Percentage Composition of Fish, Tikchik Lakes, 1964. Minnow Trap Locations and Adult Fish Observations, Chikuminuk Lake, August 1982. Minnow Trap, Dipnetting Locations, and Adult Fish Observations, Allen River, August 1982. Vegetation of Chikuminuk Lake Area. ‘Species which Probably Inhabit or Migrate through the Chikuminuk Lake Study Area. Location of Birds Observed by AEIDC during the Summer of 1982 in the Chikuminuk Lake Study Area. -iii- Exhibit No. 16 17 LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Probable Breeding Areas of Cliff-Nesting Raptors in the Chikuminuk Lake Basin Archeological Sites in the Chikuminuk Lake Study Area. -iv- Chapter I ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE EXISTING CHIKUMINUK LAKE REGION General Description Chikuminuk Lake is one of six nearly parallel Tikchik lakes located in the Wood-Tikchik State Park approximately eight miles north of Dillingham (Exhibit 1). The Tikchik Lakes are located in the the Bristol Bay Re- gion. This region consists of a large coastal plain bordered on the west by the Kilbuck and Ahklun mountains, on the north by the Taylor Mountains and Nushagak-Big River Hills, and on the east by the Aleutian Range. It contains many large, deep lakes including Iliamna Lake, the largest in Alaska. The major water- sheds include the Togiak, Nushagak, Nuyakuk, Wood, Igushik, Kvichak, Alagnak, Naknek, Egegik, and Ugashik rivers. These are extremely valuable since they provide spawning grounds for sal- mon as well as water transport, navigation, and harbor sites. About 1.5 percent of Alaska's population resides in the Bristol Bay area, primarily in the moderate-sized communities of Dillingham, King Salmon, and Naknek (1). Because of the area's remoteness, residents depend on charter and scheduled commercial air service, boats, and snow machines for transporta- tion. Much of the subsistence economy and all commercial fish- eries are based on aquatic resources. The Bristol Bay region experiences considerable climatic variation. The larger interior portion experiences moderate summers and cold winters. Toward the coast, temperatures are slightly moderated by marine waters, and annual precipitation is higher, as are surface winds. Precipitation ranging from 20 to 160 inches per year, along with glacial and snowmelt and the large storage capacity of the numerous lakes, provides ample surface water for the area. The mean_annual runoff in the region varies from less than 2 cfs/mi2 in the central lowlands to more than 4 cfs/mi2 in the mountains (2). 7 Numbers in parenthesis refer to references at end of text. Aquatic Resources Water Quality State water-quality standards, which provide for the pro- tection of identified uses of Alaska's waters, fall under the auspices of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation through Alaska Statutes Title 46, Chapter 3. All water bodies in the project area are classified by the State of Alaska as Class C, "Water used for growth and propagation of fish, shell- fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife including waterfowl and furbearers." Water quality in the area is good, iron content is general- ly low, and. the water requires little if any treatment for domestic use. Streams of the area are of the calcium bicarbo- nate type and are of acceptable quality for nearly all general uses. The dissolved solids content of streams in the area is low, ranging from about 25 to 75.mg/1 [Selkregg et al. 1876] (2). The larger streams of the eastern side of the region carry heavy sediment loads in their headwaters, but large lakes in the region act as settling basins. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has collected and analyzed water samples from surface waters of Alaska since 1949. Exhibit 1 shows the location and period of record for water-quality data collected from Nushagak Bay drainages. Exhibit 2 provides a summary of the physical- chemical characteristics of these waters collected by USGS in previous years. Groundwater is readily available throughout the lake sys- tems. The water has low mineral content and ranges from soft to moderately hard, with a neutral or slightly alkaline pH (3). The lakes are generally ice-free from early June to late Octo- ber. Chikuminuk is a 16-mile-long lake that originates in the Wood River-Kuskokwim Mountains and drains into Lake Chauekuktuli from the north via the Allen River and then into Nuyakuk and Tikchik lakes (Exhibit 1). The flow rate at the Tikchik Lake outlet (Nuyakuk River) averages about 4.4 million acre-feet per year (3). The Allen River has a drainage area of 278 mi2, USGS operated a stream gage on the Allen River from June 1963 to September 1966. Exhibit 3 gives average monthly discharge values for this location. Monthly streamflow records are for the period gaged between October 1964 to September 1965. The streamflow pattern exhibited by the Allen River is typical of lake systems of the area, which generally have high flows during the period June to October and low flows during winter (November to May). I-2 A limited limnological survey by the Fisheries Research Institute of the University of Washington (FRI) was conducted in 1964 in the Tikchik Lake sytem. Table I-l includes the water chemistry data obtained from Tikchik lakes by FRI (4). To aug- ment this information, AEIDC obtained physical and chemical data on Chikuminuk Lake, and Allen River, during the summer of 1982 (Table I-2). Water-quality measurements were obtained with a YSI Model 33 salinity/conductivity/temperature meter, YSI Model 51B oxygen meter, portable field pH meter, pocket thermometer (-35° to 50° C), and a Hach DR-EL/2 field water-quality test kit. Exhibits 4 and 5 show water surface temperatures measured throughout Chikuminuk Lake and Allen River drainage as well as water-quality sampling locations. These results are fragmentary but, used in conjunction with the limited FRI and USGS data, indicate that most streams of the Tikchik lakes system exhibit similiar chemical characteristics. Variations resulting from the geology and vegetation of the drainage basin and morphometry of the streams are small. Table I-3 illustrates the vertical temperature and dis- solved oxygen profiles for Chikuminuk Lake in August 1982. Lakes are broadly classified into two types: eutrophic (rich in nutrients) and oligotrophic (poor in nutrients) (5). The Wood- Tikchik lakes are typically oligotrophic and ice covered for approximately six months. These lakes generally form a thermo- cline and become thermally stratified during August. In the Wood River lakes, a thermocline occurred during August to September of 1959 to a mean depth of 15 m [D.E. Rogers 1968] (6). In August 1982 Chikuminuk Lake gave evidence of only hav- ing a marginal thermocline to a depth of 15 m (Table I-3). The Nushagak Bay drainages are similar in morphology, hydrology, limnology, geography, and climate (7). Chikuminuk Lake, a large, clear, and deep oligotrophic lake, has a narrow littoral zone of uniform gravel/cobble substrates throughout its entire perimeter. Chikuminuk Lake does not support salmon because of an access blockage, and therefore its nutrient level would probably be lower than those lakes receiving nutrients from decomposed carcasses of a large salmon population. I-3 p-1I Table I-1 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS OF TIKCHIK LAKES, 1964 pH Alkalinity Secchi Depth Chlorophyll A C Assimilated (mg/m>) C3) ED (mg/m) Range 7.2-7.3 22.13~28.90 10.5-17.0 0.54-1.07 29.6-41.2 Mean 7.28 24.39 14.3 0.68 35.0 Source: (4) Table I-2 WATER QUALITY. ANALYSIS (SURFACE) OF CHIKUMINUK LAKE AND ALLEN RIVER, 1982 Water Body Date Temperature pH Conductivity Alkalinity Hardness Secchi Depth Cc) (microhome7em) (mg/1 CaC03) ng/I CaCd3) Gn) Chikuminuk Lake August 26 8.0 7.2 50 30 . 30 16 Allen River August 25 6.5 | 7.5 30 30 30 - Source: (4) Table I-3 VERTICAL TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILES FOR CHIKUMINUK LAKE, AUGUST 26, 1982 Depth Temperature Dissolved Oxygen (m) (mg/1) CC) Surface 8.0 12.0 1 6.5 12.0 2 6.0 12.0 3 6.0 12.0 4 6.0 12.5 5 5.5 13.0 10 5.0 13.0 15 4.5 13.0 20 4.5 13.0 25 4.5 13.0 30 4.5 13.0 35 4.5 11.0 40 4.5 9.0 50 4.5 6.0 60l/ 4.5 5.0 1/ Section sampled was deeper than 60 m--length of instrument cable. Invertebrates Macroinvertebrates are major consumers in the aquatic eco- system. They consist mainly of insect larva, dwelling in or on substratum of lakes or flowing water, that feed on detritus, other insects, bacteria, plankton, and larval fish. This group constitutes an important level in the aquatic food chain and provides the primary source of food for most fish and other aquatic vertebrates. Data is scarce concerning aquatic invertebrate populations of the Tikchik Lakes system. Qualitative sampling by Rogers (6) indicated larval and pupal midge flies (Chironomids) predomi- nated the littoral zone of Wood River lakes. The littoral zone, upper Tikchik Lakes, is less extensive than that of the Wood River lakes; otherwise it is similar. Vertical plankton tows in Lake Nerka of the Wood River lakes sytems by FRI in 1957 and 1958 indicated that cyclopoid copepods were dominant zooplank- ters (6). Comparative samples of zooplankton in Lake Aleknagik of the Wood River lakes and the Tikchik lakes by FRI in 1962 showed standing crops of the Tikchik lakes to be distinctly lower (4). AEIDC gathered site-specific data on macro-invertebrate and zooplankton distribution and relative abundance from Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River during August 1982. Exhibits 4 and .5 show sampling locations. Zooplankton samples in Chikuminuk Lake were collected by making duplicate vertical tows from a 25 m depth to the surface using a No. 10 Nitex net 30 cm in diameter and 1m long. Straining cloth for the No. 10 Nitex net had an aperture of 153 microns. Plankton preserved in 70 percent alco- hol were later identified and counted on a Sedgewick Rafter counting cell. Table I-4 lists zooplankton types and their density. A cyclopoid copepod dominated the zooplankton of Chikuminuk Lake. This agrees with FRI data derived from the Wood lakes system in the 1960's. A more intensive survey would be necessary to determine if the zooplankton populations are sufficient to support a large pelagic fish population. Table I-4 IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF ZOOPLANKTON COLLECTED BY AEIDC FROM CHIKUMINUK LAKE, AUGUST 1982 Taxa . Organisms/m3 Encopepoda (copepods) Cyclopoida 2,873 Nauplii : 68 Rotatoria (rotifers) Kellicottia 34 A 12-in Surber sampler was used to collect stream benthos. Bottom samples were washed in a screen bucket with 30 meshes per inch. Organisms preserved in 70 percent alcohol were.later identified to the lowest possible taxon then enumerated. ‘Table I-5 shows the results. The most abundant organisms found were midges, stone flies, mayflies, and caddis flies. Samples col- lected during this survey showed a paucity of aquatic organisms and little diversity, a common situation in cold-water streams of Alaska (8). This could result from instability of gravel substrates and extensive. bottom ice, which together could be a limiting factor for fish rearing. More extensive sampling would be needed to substantiate this. Table I-5 IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS COLLECTED BY AEIDC FROM THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE PROJECT AREA, AUGUST 1982 Allen Chikuminuk LOCATION: River Lake Tributary Organisms/m Taxa NUMBER OF SAMPLES: 3 1 Diptera Chironomidae (midges) 29 226 Simulliidae (black flies) 22 Heleidae (biting midges) 22 Tipulidae (crane flies) 11 Cecidomyiidae (gall midge) 4 Syrphidae (flower flies) 4 Ephemeroptera (mayflies) 79 194 Plecoptera (stone flies) 22 108 Trichoptera (caddis flies) 7h 118 Oligochaeta (aquatic worms) 43 22 Gastropoda (snails) 11 Hymenoptera (wasps) 4 Fisheries The Bristol Bay area, as defined by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1), includes all coastal waters and inland drain- ages east of a line from Cape Menshikof to Cape Newenham (Exhib- it 6). The major watersheds in the area important to salmon production are the Togiak, Nushagak, Nuyakuk, Wood, Igushik, Kvichak, Alagnak, Naknek, Egegik, and Ugashik rivers. More sockeye salmon are produced in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska than in any other region of the world. It also supports substantial commercial fishing from other salmon species and herring. For management purposes, ADF&G has divided the Bristol Bay area into five fishing districts which are located near the mouths of the major rivers (Exhibit 6). These are the Ugashik, Egegik, Naknek-Kvichak, Nushagak, and Togiak districts. The fishing districts are confined, as near as practical, around I-7 river mouths in order to minimize interception of salmon destined for adjacent systems. The Allen River drainage is located in the Nushagak dis- trict which supports a number of valuable fish species that support major commercial, subsistence, and sport fisheries. These fisheries constitute the economic mainstay of the region which contains 24 freshwater species (Table I-6). In addition to the five species of Pacific salmon, other important species include rainbow trout, Dolly Varden/Arctic char, Arctic grayling, lake trout, northern pike, burbot, and several species of whitefish. Generalized life histories for the more common fish species are in Appendix B. FISH FOUND Common Name Arctic lamprey Chinook (king) salmon Sockeye (red) salmon Coho (silver) salmon Chum (dog) salmon Pink (humpback) salmon Rainbow trout Lake trout Arctic char Dolly Varden Round whitefish’ Pygmy whitefish Least cisco Bering cisco Humpback whitefish Arctic grayling Boreal (rainbow) smelt Pond smelt Northern pike Blackfish Longnose sucker Burbot Threespine stickleback Ninespine stickleback Slimy sculpin Source: (9) Table I-6 IN THE BRISTOL BAY AREA Scientific Name Lampetra japonica (Martens) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum) Oncorhynchus nerka (Walbaum) Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum) Oncorhynchus keta (Walbaum) | Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (Walbaum) Salmo gairdneri Richardson Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum) Salvelinus alpinus (Linnaeus) © Salvelinus malma (Walbaum) Prosopium cylindraceum (Pallas) Prosopium coulteri (Eigenmann & Eigenmann ) Coregonus sardinella Valenciennes Coregonus laurettae Bean Coregonus pidschian (Gmelin) Thymallus arcticus (Pallas) Osmerus mordax (Mitchill) Hypomesus olidus (Pallas) Esox Lucius Linnaeus Dallis pectoralis Bean Catostomus catostomus (Forester) Lota lota (Linnaeus) Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus Pungitius pungitius (Linnaeus) Cottus cognatus Richardson . I-8 Commercial Fishery. Commercial salmon fisheries began in Nushagak Bay in 1884. Gill nets and traps were originally used in the fishery, but traps were banned in 1940. Commercial sal- mon fisheries presently utilize only set and drift gill nets (1). All five species of Pacific salmon are fished commercially in Bristol Bay. The sockeye salmon of this world renowned fish- ery usually comprise more than 90 percent of the region's total commercial catch. Historically, this area accounts for approximately 22 percent of the statewide salmon harvest and 63 percent of the statewide sockeye harvest, which is 31 percent of the world sockeye harvest (1). The 1981 total salmon harvest of 27.7 million was second in size to the record 1980 harvest of 28.2 million and accounted for 25 percent of the statewide catch. All-time catch records of 239,000 chinook salmon and 25.7 million sockeye salmon were recorded in 1981 (11). Table I-7 shows historical commercial catch statistics by species for Bristol Bay. Table I-7 COMMERCIAL SALMON CATCH BY SPECIES, BRISTOL BAY, (IN 1,000's OF FISH), 1961-1981 Period Sockeye Chinook Chum Coho Pink! Total 1961-702 9, 313 105 517 42 1,470 10,714 1971-802 8,508 103 905 104 1,981 10,611 1961-803 8,911 104 eel %S 1,726 10,662 1975 4,899 30 325 46 er 5,301 1976 5,619 96 1,329 Zt 1,037 8,108 1977 4,878 131 1,598 107 5 6,718 1978 9,928 192 1,158 94 5,153 16,525 1979 21,429 213 907 294 4 22,847 1980 23,674 96 1,405 g35 2,650 28,160 1981 257-713 239 1,475 313 7 27,748 1. Includes only even-numbered years 2. 10-year average 3. 20-year average Source: (11) Commercial fishing for chinook salmon commences in early June. The Nushagak district normally produces more than 75 percent of the Bristol Bay catch of this species (11). The chinook run generally peaks during late June, then efforts shift to sockeye. The sockeye salmon run generally peaks around July I-9 4 and ends about mid-July. Chum and sockeye salmon runs are nearly identically timed, although chum season generally lasts a week longer. Pink salmon run during even years in Bristol bay with most fishing occurring in the Nushagak district. Pink salmon commences in mid-July and usually ends by mid-August. The coho salmon fishery extends from mid-July through August. Table I-8 shows commercial salmon catch statistics by district and species. The economy of Bristol Bay depends almost entirely on the commercial salmon fishery. The 1981 salmon harvest was worth nearly $136 million to the fishermen. Sockeye accounted for $125 million, or 92 percent, of this figure. The herring fish- ery contributed an additional $4 million (11). For management purposes ADF&G places the Tikchik Lakes system, including the Allen River, in the Nushagak District (Exhibit 6). Table I-8 shows the commercial catch of salmon by species in the Nushagak district, which normally produces more than 75 percent of the Bristol Bay chinook salmon catch (11). This district is also the leading producer of chum, coho, and pink salmon as well as being one of the largest and most valuable sockeye salmon fisheries in Alaska. The 2l-year (1961 through 1981) average annual harvest of sockeye for the Nushagak district is 2.107 million fish with a current value of more than ' $37 million (7). : : Because of the area's large size, varying weather condi- tions, and and high operating expense, it has been difficult for ADF&G to obtain accurate salmon escapement data. Extensive aerial surveys were conducted for peak chinook salmon spawning grounds estimates in the Nushagak district from 1964 thru 1975 (Exhibit 7). Similar sockeye salmon aerial estimates were made in the Tikchik Lakes from 1960-66 and 1974-75 (Exhibit 8). Since 1975, sonar, counting towers, and weirs have been used extensively to monitor salmon escapements. For 1981, sockeye salmon escapements were determined principally by counting towers and weirs on the 11 major spawning rivers (Table I-9). I-10 TI-1 Table I-8 COMMERCIAL SALMON CATCH BY DISTRICT (1000'S OF FISH) District _ _Period Sockeye Chinook Chum Coho Pinkl Total2 Naknek-Kvichak 1960-693 5,625 9.9 115 2.8 91 5,844 1970-754 5,963 6.6 126 0.3 198 6,294 1981 10,949 10 346 1 -— 11,306 Egegik 1960-693 1,448 2.6 26 2.7 -- 1,479 1970-754 981 1.8 29 2.8 -- 1,015 1981 4,481 6 87 31 -- 4,605 Ugashik 1960-693 391 2.7 22 2.9 -- 419 1970-754 233 0.7 ll 3.3 -- 248 1981 1,950 4 33 27 -— 2,014 Nushagak 1960-693 990 76 287 25 1,342 2,720 1970-754 851 60 350 13 300 1,574 1981 7,713 195 773 225 -- 8,906 Togiak 1960-693 159 11 126 10 6 312 - 1970-754 172 21 153 19 9 374 1981 621 24 236 30 -- 911 1. Includes only even-numbered .years 2. Due to rounding, the totals may not equal the sum of the catches. 3. 10-year average 4. 5-year average Source: (11) Table I-9 SOCKEYE SALMON CATCH AND ESCAPEMENT (1,000'S OF FISH), BRISTOL BAY, 1981 ‘ District and River System Catch Escapement Total Run Naknek-Kvichak Kvichak River 5,206 1,754 6,960 Branch River 237 82 319 Naknek River 5,506 1,796 7,302 Egegik 4,481 3,632 5,176 Ugashik 1,950 695 3,277 Nushagak Wood River 3,132 1,233 4,365 Igushik River 1,832 591 2,423 Nuyakuk River 2,304 834 3,138 Nushagak-Mulchatna River 410 177 587 Snake River 35 15 50 Togiak 621 366 987 TOTAL 25,713 8,870 34,584 Source: (11) Exhibit 9 outlines the general timing of Bristol Bay area salmon runs by species as determined by ADF&G (10). Although there are local variations, the phenology of migration of adult fish into fresh water and of actual spawning is well known, but that of emergence of fry from stream gravel and their outmigra- tion to sea is still uncertain. Subsistence Fishery. Residents of the Bristol Bay area take large numbers of salmon, as well as whitefish, northern pike, Arctic grayling, rainbow trout, lake trout, Dolly Varden/Arctic char, herring, and smelt, for subsistence uses. Most subsistence fishing is conducted in the Toziak, Nushagak, and Lake Iliamna-Lake Clark drainages. Salmon for subsistence uses are taken with set gill nets near townsites or at established fish camps. These fish camps are most abundant in the Nushagak and Togiak drainages (10). Most of the fish are dried or smoked. Records are not kept for the freshwater species utilized for subsistence. The bulk of these are smelt and whitefish that are taken in lower numbers than are salmon. Many sea-run char are also taken in the Togiak River. Most of I-12 these are taken with set gill nets and are dried or smoked similarly to salmon. Subsistence fishing effort in Bristol Bay has remained relatively constant ever since harvest records were first reported in 1963. Annual subsistence catches for all salmon species normally range between 100,000 to 200,000 fish (11). Table I-10 shows preliminary subsistence salmon catch by district and species for 1981. The Nushagak district sustained more than half the total subsistence harvest for that year. Table I-10 BRISTOL BAY SALMON CATCH BY DISTRICT AND SPECIES (1,000'S OF FISH), 19811 - Permits District Issued Sockeye Chinook Chum Pink Coho Total Naknek-Kvichak 649 55 1 +2 + 1 57 Egegik / 4 + + 0 0 0 + Ugashik 12 + + 0 0 0 + Nushagak 391 44 12 1l 2 9 78 Togiak : 52 2 + 1 + 2 6 TOTALS 1,108 101 120 «141 Il IIs lin 1. Preliminary 2. Less than 1,000 3. Due to rounding, the totals may not equal the sum of the districts' catches. Source: (11) The 1980 subsistence harvest of more than 213,000 salmon approaches the maximum number needed by the present human popu- lation (1, 11). Despite the size of the run, the subsistence catch barely fluctuates, suggesting that subsistence use is primarily a function of need rather than fish availability. Sport Fishery. Bristol Bay contains some of the best recreational fishing waters in the state (12). Most recreation- al angling is by out-of-region fishermen, often guided, in quest of trophy rainbow trout. Typically, sport fishing waters in Bristol Bay are reached through the combined use of aircraft and poat transportation. As of 1976, 32 commercial sport fishing lodges. reportedly operated throughout Bristol Bay, offering boats, float planes, accommodations, and guiding services (10). I-13 Private aircraft owners and air-taxi operators transport many anglers into the area. Fly-in river float trips using inflata- ble rafts are becoming popular as a means of reaching otherwise inaccessible waters. Although visiting fisherman have fished for rainbow trout since the 1800's the current sport fishery had its beginnings during World War II when the King Salmon Air Force Base was constructed (10). At that time, fishing camps were established along the Naknek and Kvichak rivers to accommodate military personnel and visitors. With rapidly growing interest in the large rainbow trout fishery of Bristol Bay, ADF&G developed the trophy fish concept, and in 1968 the Kvichak drainage was designated by the Alaska Board of Fish and Game as a "trophy fish area." This was in recognition of the quality angling opportunities offered by its large resident rainbows (13). Presently the Kvichak drainage (except Lake Clark and its tribu- taries above Six-Mile Lake) is designated by ADF&G as a "wild trout area". The quality of the native rainbow trout population in the “wild trout area" is maintained by restrictive fishing regulations and by prohibiting the introduction of artificial stocking of non-native trout species (14). Other major sport fisheries in the area include a chinook salmon fishery during June and July in the Naknek, Kvichak, and Mulchatna drainages; a trophy grayling fishery at Ugashik; and a Dolly Varden/Arctic char fishery in the Wood River system. Area-Specific Fishery Resources. Chikuminuk Lake drains from the north via the Allen River into Lake Chauekuktuli and thence into Nuyakuk and Tikchik lakes which drain into Nushagak Bay near Dillingham via the Nuyakuk and Nushagak rivers. His- torical fisheries data for this area is fragmentary and limited mostly to the Tikchik Lakes system. Sockeye salmon aerial estimates were made in the Tikchik Lake system from 1960 through 66 and in 1974 and 1975 (Exhibit 8). FRI conducted a survey of the Tikchik Lakes in 1964 to determine the relative abundance and distribution of fish (Exhibit 10). Samples were obtained by beach seining and gill netting. Stomach contents were analyzed. The 16 species caught in the Tikchik Lakes, with the exception of lake trout and least cisco, also occur in the Wood River lakes; however, the relative abundance of various fish species caught in the gill nets were markedly different in the two lake systems (4). The Arctic char constituted more than 80 percent of fish caught in gill nets in the Wood River lakes, with round whitefish next in abundance at about 10 percent. Lake trout were widespread in the Tikchik lakes, and Arctic char never ranked higher than third in abun- I-14 eS c dance in any one catch. Sockeye, salmon fry, stickleback and sculpins dominated the FRI beach seine catches from the Wood River system. The mean number of sockeye fry represented the species most frequently caught and showed the greatest varia- bility between catches. Sticklebacks were abundant in the lit- toral zone, and sculpins occurred more frequently in beach seine hauls (4). From mid-August to. mid-October 1967, ADF&G sampled fish. in the Tikchik Lake area by angling in the narrows between Nuyakuk . and Tikchik lakes. Arctic grayling, lake trout, and Arctic char were taken (15). Northern pike were found in Nuyakuk Lake, and rainbow trout in the Nuyakuk River. : : In July 1980 ADF&G float-surveyed the Tikchik River from Upnuk Lake to Tikchik Lake, a distance of approximately forty- eight river miles. They sampled fish principally by angling and electroshocking and found nine fish species including Arctic grayling, burbot, Dolly Varden/Arctic char, northern pike, round whitefish, sculpin, chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon (12). AEIDC conducted fisheries investigations in August 1982 to update and expand existing information on salmonids and their habitats in the Tikchik Lakes system and the Allen River. The Allen River and Chikuminuk Lake were sampled by minnow traps, dip nets, angling and visual observations to ascertain species present and to help identify habitat used. Table I-11 and Exhibits 11 and 12 show fish sampling locations and results of the survey. Dolly Varden, Arctic char and sculpins were the only fish minnow trapped. Several hundred sockeye and pink salmon were observed in the lower mile of the Allen River, as were two chinook salmon carcasses. Several thousand sockeye were also observed in the Allen Beach area. Dolly Varden/Arctic char, Arctic grayling, lake trout, and sculpins were numerous at the mouth of Allen River. Arctic: grayling were also observed below both the upper and lower gorges of the Allen River. Lake trout, Dolly Varden/ Arctic char, Arctic grayling, and sculpins were observed in Chikuminuk Lake or its tributaries. In addition to fish species found during the 1982 survey, round whitefish, burbot, and sticklebacks may also occur since FRI, in 1964, found them in the Tikchik Lakes below Chikuminuk Lake. The Allen River supports populations of sockeye, pink, chinook, and possibly coho salmon that contribute to the Bristol Bay. commercial and subsistence fishery. At the lake outlet, the river provides excellent sport fishing prospects for Arctic grayling, lake trout, and Dolly Varden/Arctic.char. Sport fish- ing effort is light because of the area's remoteness; however, I-15 Table I-11 MINNOW TRAP AND DIP NET CATCHES FROM CHIKUMINUK LAKE AND ALLEN RIVER BY AEIDC, AUGUST 1982 Number of Fish Map Codes!/ Allen River Sites Dolly Varden/Artic Char Sculpin Dipnet DINAN ARWHr Dipnet 9 10 11 Chikuminuk Lake Sites 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FOOOOOCOCOCOOCOOOW)O OrFOCOOCOCOFOFOOFSO OODOOWOCONKFRFOODN OrFPOOFRFFKFNOFHFOOFRUO 1/ Locations are shown in Exhibits 11 & 12 I-16 some use occurs mostly by patrons of two nearby lodges. Tikchik Narrows Lodge is on the north shore of Tikchik Lake, and the royal Coachman Lodge is along the Nuyakuk River. Transportation to the area is almost exclusively by aircraft. Chikuminuk Lake offers good fishing for lake trout and Dolly Varden/Arctic char and provide excellent wilderness camping and other outdoor related experiences for the few recreationists who visit this area each year. Terrestrial Resources Vegetation Communities Chikuminuk Lake lies in the foothills of the Kilbuck Moun-— tains of southwest Alaska and is at the western edge of conifer growth in Alaska. This area represents a regional ecotone between forest and tundra. Species diversity does not appear to be high, but the species that do occur grow under a wide range of environmental conditions. AEIDC identified five major vegetation association types at Chikuminuk Lake.. The general distribution of these types is shown in Exhibit 13. Descriptions of these vegetation types follow and include a cross-reference to the classification scheme of Viereck, Dyrness, and Batten (16). This information is presented in parentheses immediately following the type name. Botanical names can be: found in Table I-12. White Spruce Woodland. This type is dominated by widely spaced white spruce having a crown cover of less than 25 per- cent. The understory is chiefly comprised of dwarf Arctic birch, bog blueberry, and some willow rooted in a mat of sphag-— num moss and cranberry. White spruce woodland is found along the Allen River, beginning about two miles below the mouth of Chikuminuk Lake. Two .small groves of white spruce also occur along the northeast arm of the lake. Although white-spruce woodland is rare in the Chikuminuk Lake drainage proper, it is more abundant in adjacent areas and could influence the pres- ence, distribution, and movement patterns of vertebrates in the study area. Balsam Poplar. This association consists of balsam poplar trees ranging from 20 to 50 feet in height. It is a rare rela- tive to other associations in the Chikuminuk Lake basin. Balsam poplar is found along streams and rivers, together with willow communities. The understory usually consists of willows and sedges. Willow Scrub. Willow thickets, primarily felt-leaf willow, reach heights ranging from 3 to 20 feet with an average height I-17 Table I-12 MAJOR PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED AT THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE AREA Common Name Alder, Sitka Angelica Aspen, quaking Azalea, alpine Beachfern, northern Bearberry, alpine Birch, dwarf arctic Birch, Kenai Birch, paper Blueberry, bog Bluegrass, arctic Blue joint Buckbean Burnet, American Bur reed Cinquefoil, shrubby Cloudberry Cranberry Cranberry, bog Cranberry, highbush Creeping Jenny Crowberry Elder, Pacific red Fireweed Hellebore, false Horsetail Juniper, common mountain Labrador tea Lovage, beach Mountain ash, Greene Mountain heath, Aleutain Parsnip, cow Pond lily, yellow Pondweed Poplar, balsam Rosemary, bog Sedge Sedge, russet Sedge, water Sphagnum moss Spirea, Alaska Spruce, white Sundew, round leaf Sweetgale Twistedstalk Wild flag Willow Willow, felt leaf Woodfern, mountain Sources: (17, 18, 19, 20) Scientific Name Alnus crispa subsp. sinuata Angelica genuflexa Populus tremuloides Louiseleuria procumbens Thelypteris phegopteris Arctostaphylos alpina Betula nana Betula Kenaica Betula papyrifera Vaccinium uliginosum Poa arctica Clamagrostis canadensis Menyanthes trifoliata Sanguishorha stipulata Sparganium Potentilla fruticosa rubus chamaemorus Vaccinium vitis—idaea Oxycoccus microcarpus Vilburnum edule Lycopodium complanatum Empetrum nigrum Sambucus racemosa Epilobium angustifolium Veratrum viride subsp. Eschscholtzii Equisetum spp. Juniperus communis Ledum palustre Ligusticum scoticum Sorbus scopulina Phyllodoce aleutica Heracieum lanatum Nuphar polysepalum Potamogeton spp. Populus balsamifera Endromeda polifolia Carex spp. —™ Carex saxatilis subs. laxa Carex aquatilis hagnum spp. jpirea beauverdiana Picea glauca Drosera rotundifolia Myrica gale Streptopus amplexifolius Iris setosa Salix spp. Salix alaxensis Dryopteris dilalata a of about ten feet. The understory is sparse, consisting primar- ily of russet sedges, with occasional grasses and fireweed. On well-drained sites, the understory often includes dwarf Arctic birch, shrubby cinquefoil, and highbush cranberry. . Willow scrub at Chikuminuk Lake is found along drainages, around lakes and pounds, on inlet deltas, and in association with beaver impound- ments. . . Alder Scrub. Dense alder thickets growing to about ten - feet in height characterize this association. The understory is usually sparse and may include fireweed, mountain woodfern, and bluejoint grass. Interspersed with these thickets are small meadows of bluejoint, Alaska spirea, highbush cranberry, and mountain woodfern. This complex is found on slopes at ele- vations less than two thousand feet. Shrub and Lichen Tundra. This type is composed of two main components-~—the shrub tundra and the lichen-dominated tundra. Of the two, the shrub tundra is more common and dominated by dwarf Arctic birch and crowberry with bog blueberry, Alaska spirea, cloudberry, cranberry, and scattered sedges and willows. Tundra is found throughout the study area, primarily on slopes and at high elevations. Lichen-dominated tundra consists primarily of lichens of the genera Cladina, Cladonia, and Stereocaulon. Vascular plants such as alpine bearberry, cran- berry, and crowberry are often prominent also. Lichen-dominated tundra is found on exposed ridges, at very high: elevations, and in other harsh environments. Birds Remote and seldom visited by man, the Chikuminuk area has not been systematically surveyed by ornithologists, and little is known of its avifauna. Several factors indicate the avifauna is probably diverse but that few species occur in high numbers. The major factor is the location of the area. Chikuminuk Lake and environs are part of the broad transition zone, or ecotone, separating treeless tundra from spruce woodland in this area of Alaska (21, 22, 23). In transition-zones avifauna are generally characterized by a high diversity of forms. Often, however, few species become abundant in transition-zone communities, since species-specific habitats are usually widely scattered. This appears to be the case at Chikuminuk Lake. Ornithological investigations conducted in similar transition zones elsewhere in the Bristol Bay region have a relatively complex avifauna (24, 25, 26, 27, 28). With the exception of those species capa- ble of exploiting multiple habitats, however, individual popula-. tions are seldom large (24, 25, 26, 27). I-19 AEIDC compiled a list of "probable" bird species for the study area avifauna (Exhibit 14) based on a search of the liter- ature on birds of the Bristol Bay region. Few avian species were observed by AEIDC during reconnaissance surveys (Exhibit 15) because the primary objective of terrestrial bird investiga- tions was to describe and delineate avian habitats. Bird obser- vations were incidential to this task. A discussion of avian habitats and their relationship to prominent species and species groups follow. Loons. Loon numbers are thought to correlate with the number of ponds and lakes in the area; the greater the number of ponds and lakes, the greater the number of loons (King, pers. comm.). Since ponds and lakes are not numerous in the project study area, loons probably are scarce. Chikuminuk Lake probably provides the bulk of loon breeding habitat in the study area. In the absence of alternate sites, most nests are probably con- structed directly on the lake shore. Shore nests are often subject to heavy predation, and they may be minor importance to maintenance of loon populations in a given area (29). Evidence of the destructive effects of storm waves around the margins of Chikumink Lake was noted also. This factor may limit opportuni- ties for successful loon breeding. : Four species of loons are present in this area of Alaska (Exhibit 14). Arctic and common loons are the species most frequently reported (27, 30, 28). Only two loons were observed by AEIDC. A common loon was seen in a beaver pond near Milk Creek's outlet, and an Arctic loon on the Allen River (Exhibit 15). Waterfowl. The study area contains few of the small lakes and ponds that constitute whistling swan breeding habitat (King, pers. comm.), and swan densitites are probably low. AEIDC flushed a single pair of nonbreeding adults from a small tundra pond between Chikuminuk and Upnuk lakes in July of 1982 (Exhibit 15). These were the only swans seen during the surveys. Absence of further sightings is probably significant, since swans are highly conspicuous and difficult to overlook. For similar reasons, the study area affords little breeding habitat for puddle ducks, such as mallards, gadwalls, and green- winged teal. The only puddle ducks noted during 1982 was a flock of about thirty mallards on Chikuminuk Lake. Because of scarcity of breeding habitat, most puddle ducks using the area are probably migrants or molting adults. Such use is probably low, considering the area's distance from flyways and breeding habitats. Some diving ducks, such as scaup and scoter, may nest along the shoreline of Chikuminuk and several tributary lakes. Breeding habitats appear limited, however, and no evidence was I-20 noted of breeding by this group. Hundreds of white-winged : scoters were rafted on Chikuminuk Lake in July, 1982. Their presence in large rafts indicated that they were nonbreeders that may have been molting. The study area contains considerable stream habitat favored by such species as mergansers and harlequins--probably the only ducks to breed with regularity in the study area. Young-of-the- year harlequins were present along the entire length of the Allen River in August 1982 and were the sole duck-breeding records made by AEIDC in the Chikuminuk Lake area. Raptors. Precipitous south- and southeast-facing slopes that are favored breeding habitat for northern cliff-nesting species, such as golden eagles and gyrfalcons, do occur around Chikuminuk Lake (Exhibit 16). AEIDC found no evidence of breed- ing by any raptors. The amount of habitat present suggests that nesting may occur to a limited extent. A rough-legged hawk was the only cliff-nesting raptor seen by AEIDC; however, the limited number of bird observations must be considered in light of the limited field study and lateness of the survey effort. Breeding habitats for ground-nesting and tree-nesting spec- ies, such as merlins, bald eagles, and goshawks, are also abun- dant in the study area, especially at lower elevations adjacent to the lake and the Allen River; however, again few individuals of this latter group were seen by AEIDC (Exhibit 15). They are probably relatively common in the area, given the amount of breeding habitat available and the presence of suitable prey items. A major pass through the Kuskokwim Mountains leads to the head of Chikuminuk Lake. Gabrielson and Lincoln (30) described use of such passes by migrating raptors and passerines in Alaska. Although AEIDC investigations did not take place during peak migration periods, such use may develop, and more raptor species may occur in greater numbers than has been indicated (Exhibit 14). Grouse and Ptarmigan. Spruce grouse reportedly occur throughout this portion of Alaska (31); however, AEIDC encountered none. Their numbers within the study area probably are limited by scarcity of coniferous forest habitat. AEIDC found willow ptarmigan and their sign in all riparian willow thickets visited, suggesting that they are widely distributed throughout the area. Rock ptarmigan also occur in this area of Alaska (28, 31). Although AEIDC saw no evidence of their presence, suitable alpine and subalpine vegetation associations are widespread. The species probably occurs in the study area. I-21 Shorebirds and Gulls. AEIDC field crews recorded few shorebirds, but suitable breeding habitats are common so shorebirds are probably common also. Tundra breeding habitats are suitable for western sandpipers, spotted sandpipers, greater and lesser yellowlegs, and common snipe (24, 25, 27). Grumman Ecosystems Corp. (28) thought spotted and western sandpipers and semi-palmated plovers were the most common shorebirds in the area. AEIDC found three species of gulls in the study area. Glaucus-winged gulls were common on Chikuminuk Lake, where a small colony of about fifty individuals was discovered on a small heath-dominated islet in the lake. This was the only instance noted of breeding by gulls, but other similar islets occur in Chikuminuk Lake which may also be used by gulls for breeding. A single Sabine's gull and a single herring gull were seen along the Allen River. Neither species is common to this area of Alaska. Owls. AEIDC saw no owls, though several instances were noted of owl (probably short-eared owl) predation on ground squirrels. Short-eared owls, a burrow-nesting species, commonly inhabit tundra associations in this area of Alaska (30). Other owls may occur in the study area, but their numbers are probably low since most are forest species and forest communities are rare. Woodpeckers and Allies. Four species of woodpecker may occur in the study area (Exhibit 14). Numbers, however, are probably very low, considering the scarcity of forest communi- ties around Chikuminuk Lake. Passerines. Although AEIDC saw only nine species of pass- erines during surveys (Exhibit 15), their diversity is probably high, considering the varied habitat types found here. With few exceptions, however, individual habitats are neither expansive nor contiguous, limiting their potential productivity. Thus, it ’ appears likely that few species are abundant. Chief exceptions are likely limited to certain thrushes, warblers, sparrows, and swallows (Exhibit 14). The first three groups are comprised of species which often breed in high density in riparian willow thickets in southwestern Alaska (24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 27, 28, 30, Peterson, pers. comm.). Such riparian willow communities are common in the Chikuminuk Lake area. Swallows are abundant throughout all ecologic formations in Alaska, and several species occur in the study area. Endangered Birds. Currently, two species of Alaska birds are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered: the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum I-22 and F.p. tundrius) and the Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis). Based on available records, it appears that peregrine falcons were never numerous in the lands to the east of the Kuskokwim Mountains including Chikuminuk Lake (30, 35). The possibility exists that some peregrines might migrate through the pass at the head of Chikuminuk Lake, since they are relatively common along the middle reaches of the Kuskokwim River and because two forms in question are not coastal migrants. Suitable breeding cliffs also occur within the Chikuminuk Lake drainage basin and might possibly be used as peregrine nest sites. Recent sightings of the Eskimo curlew are rare, and many people believe the species to be extinct. Historic breeding grounds apparently were limited to the arctic coastal plains of Canada and Alaska. The principal migration corridors are unknown, but the species used to be common in coastal regions of western Alaska during spring and fall (30). Given its coastal orientation, it appears highly unlikely that the species occurs at Chikuminuk Lake or surrounding environs. Summary. Many species of birds occur in the study area, but in low numbers (Exhibit 14). The principal factors limiting most populations here appear to be related to habitat availabil- ity (Table I-13). The Chikuminuk Lake area comprises a portion of a broad ecotone dividing spruce woodland from treeless tundra. Such areas are usually not conducive to the maintenance of large populations of any species. Significance of Resource. Little information currently exists on the study area's bird resource; hence, conclusions must be tentative. Regardless of its size the resource has some intrinsic value in that it contributes to the attributes of the Wood-Tikchik State Park. To some extent, the resource may also have some national value in that many of its species are migra- tory. However, these species with the highest values such as waterfowl and endangered species occur in low density. Mammals Table I-14 lists mammal species likely to occur in this region. It has been compiled from listings in the 1971 Resource Inventory of the Wood River-Tikchik Area (28) and Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat (36, 31). Resource studies that preceded land acquisition and planning for the state park and field observations made by AEIDC during August 22-27, 1982 have provided general information on the region's fauna. Other information on mammals is presented in ADF&G's Wildlife of Table I-13 RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF BREEDING HABITATS FOR SELECTED SPECIES GROUPS IN THE STUDY AREA Loons Ducks, geese, and swans Raptors Grouse Ptarmigan Shorebirds and gulls Owls Woodpeckers Passerines WEFWNHNH WHE 1: Breeding habitats are scarce and widely separate in space. 2: Breeding habitats are limited to particular ecologic formations or riparian willow thickets. 3: Breeding habitats are common throughout all ‘ecologic formations and ecotones. Alaska and in ADF&G wildlife survey reports (36, 31). Some species, such as red squirrel and marten, are probably not present at the lake because suitable habitat is lacking, and such species as tundra hare and Arctic fox are absent or rare because of range limits. Species and habitats that occur around Chikuminuk Lake are listed in Table I-15. The eastern part of the Chikuminuk Lake basin is hilly upland, whereas the western three-fourths of the lake is border- ed by precipitous mountain slopes extending to elevations of four or five thousand feet. The mountain escarpment includes extensive cliffs and exposed rock, as well as small alpine gla- ciers. To the south, the Allen River outlet of Chikuminuk Lake drops immediately into a boreal forest association dominated by spruce and birch interspersed with extensive muskeg. To the northeast, similar forested lowlands border the Tikchik River. The nuclei of animal activity around the lake are the eight or more alluvial/talus tributary stream deltas. The largest of these deltas are the four on the western end of the lake, including the Milk Creek delta. These are cut by extensive stream distributaries and are characterized by vigorous thickets I-24 Se<-1 Species Snowshore hare Arctic ground squirrel Small rodents Porcupine Wolf Red fox Black bear Brown bear Marten Ermine Mink Otter Wolverine Lynx Moose Caribou White-Spruce Wood land (Allen River Valley) x ~ 6S Mm Kl lM OU OM OM ~~ «6 Me Table I-14 MAMMALS AND HABITAT USE Alder Scrub * ~ «~ MR Willow Scrub Stream Deltas x ~~ Mh hm MUM OM Tundra Mountain Passes (Below 1000' Elevation) x eK Ke UKMUMK UK Streams Lake Shore Table I-15 Z MAMMALS THAT PROBABLY OCCUR IN THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE AREA Arctic shrew Masked shrew Dusky shrew Little brown bat Snowshoe hare Arctic hare Alaska marmot Arctic ground squirrel Red squirrel Northern flying squirrel Beaver Deer mouse Northern red-backed vole Meadow vole Tundra vole Muskrat Collared lemming Northern bog lemming Brown lemming Meadow jumping mouse Porcupine Coyote Gray wolf Arctic fox Red fox Black bear Brown bear Marten Ermine Least weasel Mink River otter Wolverine Lynx Moose Barren ground caribou Sorex arcticus Sorex cinereus Sorex obscurus Myotis lucifugus Lepus americanus Lepus arcticus Marmota caligata Spermophiius parryii = Tamilasciurus hudsonicus ————— Glaucomys sabrinus Castor canadensis Peromyscus maniculatus Clethrionomys rutilus a - Microtus pennsylvanicus Microtus oeconomus Ondatra ziebethicus Dicrostonyx torquatus Synaptomys borealis Lemmus sibiricus Yapus hudsonicus Erethizon dorsatum Canis latrans Canis lupus Alopex lagopus Vulpes vulpes Ursus americanus Ursus arctos Martes americana Mustela erminea Mustela nivalis Mustela vison Lutra canadensis Gulo guio.—r«=—«s=s»™ Felix lynx Alces alces Rangifer tarandus of willow approaching tree-size. They include about 4 square miles of this lowland riparian habitat, much of it at elevations within 50 feet of the lake elevation. The tributaries at the east end of the lake are smaller and have more restricted deltas. Several mountain passes around the drainage are important as seasonal habitat and as seasonal movement routes for larger mammals. These include: (1) the Allen River and three other low passes that lead from Chikuminuk Lake into the forested lowland of Chauekuktuli Lake; (2) the Milk Creek pass, a natural travel route into the Kilbuck Mountain-Kuskokwim country; and (3) low foothills to the northeast of Chikuminuk Lake that lead to the Tikchik River area. Trails used by the larger mammals . were noted at several locations around the lake running parallel to the lake shore. These were prominent along the southern and western shores. The region averages about one hundred inches of snowfall annually--similar to that of Anchorage. Such heavy snowfall probably influences the winter behavior of many animals, such as moose, restricting their range and possibly even causing them to seek other ranges. The Chikuminuk Lake basin shows little sign of use by snowshoe hares, probably because of lack of habitat. The remains of one hare were noted on the north shore of the lake. AEIDC note minor use of browse plants at two other locations. ‘The Allen River valley includes better habitat--a combination of dense cover and hardwoods with adequate food sources--and probably supports more snowshoe hares. The tundra hare is unlikely to occur in the Chikuminuk Lake area. The Arctic squirrel is present at low to medium densities throughout the vegetated and relatively dry habitats within the Chikuminuk drainage. Highest: abundance is in scrub and lichen tundra containing some rock outcrops. All such habitats show evidence of brown bear foraging for these animals. The red squirrel inhabits white-spruce woodland only below Chikuminuk Lake in the Allen River valley. Although the flying squirrel is reported in this part of Alaska, AEIDC found no evidence of its presence. If present, the suitable habitat would be in the white-spruce woodland of the Allen River valley. . Porcupine sign was evident at all stream deltas visited as well as along the shoreline of Lake Chauekuktuli west of Allen River. This rodent, typically a forest dweller, ranges far from forested areas into some willow scrub of western Alaska. This is evident around Chikuminuk Lake where a few animals occur at many locations along the shoreline. The forests of the Allen River valley probably support higher densities of porcupines. AEIDC found mink sign along the Allen River and occasional- ly at tributary stream deltas around Chikuminuk Lake. Highest populations are probably in the Allen River valley where there are areas of good habitat. River otters range throughout Chikuminuk Lake and the Allen River. Otter tracks were observed at tributary stream deltas on the north and west sides of Chikuminuk Lake. Three otters (probably a family group) were observed in a small bay of the lake. The wolverine probably ranges at low densities throughout all habitats of the Chikuminuk Lake-Allen River area. Tracks occurred around the western end of Chikuminuk Lake (at the heads of both north and southwestern bays) and on the Milk Creek delta. One wolverine was seen in white-spruce woodland near the Allen River outlet. No weasels or marten were seen. Ermine, are probably pres- ent throughout much of the area wherever its principal prey, small rodents, are sufficiently abundant. The marten, if pres- ent, is probably confined to the to rested portion of the Allen River valley. , The wolf is a faunal member in this region and probably ranges throughout the Chikuminuk Lake region. Suitable prey species are not particularly abundant so wolves are probably few in number. AEIDC found tracks of a single wolf at two locations along the north shore of the northeast arm of Chikuminuk Lake. AEIDC found sign, judged to be of red fox, at three widely distributed locations: the mouth of the Allen River, a 1,000- foot hill about two miles east of the east end of Chikuminuk Lake, and the delta area of the northwest arm of the lake. The apparently low red fox population probably results from low prey abundance. They seem to range widely in the area, however. The Arctic fox is probably absent or rare at Chikuminuk Lake because its principal range lies closer to the coast. Beaver occur throughout the Chikuminuk Lake drainage where there is adequate water, willow forage, and material for dams and lodges. Their presence was noted at outlets of all tribu- tary streams as well as along the streams wherever conditions were suitable. A number of active lodges were noted on the shoreline of Chikuminuk Lake. The Allen River valley supports numerous active beaver colonies. Although two trappers are reported to have worked this area during the winter of 1981-82, the beaver population presently appears to be excessive for available habitat. Black bear range over much of the area and sign was noted at most locations where ground observations were made. The animal favors timbered sites and areas of open brush cover. Black bears are most numerous in the timbered valley of the Allen River where five individual bears were seen. Bear sign was evident at nearly all of the tributary stream deltas where willow thickets provided cover. The Milk Creek delta, in parti- cular, seems to be a favored habitat. Black bears travel over the numerous trails that parallel the lake shore, and they are probably resident in the Chikuminuk-Allen River drainage. They probably den in heavy cover at low elevations. Brown bears also range throughout the area, tending to use more of the open tundra and alpine areas than do black bears. During July, AEIDC noted two single brown bears between Chikumi- nuk and Upnuk Lakes. Another singleton was observed in August on a slope above Chikuminuk Lake about one mile west of its outlet. This species is diligent in foraging for ground squir- rels and is responsible for most excavations of ground squirrel burrows that may be seen throughout the drainage. . The population of the brown bear is lower than that of black bears. The species ranged more widely, however, and utilized more of the habitat bordering the lake than did black bears. Denning habitats preferred by brown bears are steeper slopes near the upper limit of the alder scrub zone. Such habitat is abundant on slopes bordering Chikuminuk Lake. Brown bear populations are reported to be high east of the study area along the Tikchik River where they are attracted to spawning salmon areas (37). Moose range throughout the Chikuminuk Lake-Allen River drainage in the willow scrub and balsam popular forest types. AEIDC noted 17 individual moose during the period August 22-27, 1982. Of these, eight were in the forested portion of the Allen River valley; and nine were near Chikuminuk Lake--at the outlet, I-29 on the northeast peninsula, in three delta areas at the west end of the lake, along Milk Creek, and in a pass south of the lake. Moose use the larger tributary deltas as summer range and may be able to winter there in some years. There is, however, only minor evidence of winter browsing on willows. They are more likely to winter in the Allen River valley, above the north shore of Lake Chauekuktuli, and along the Tikchik River to the east. The pass to the south is good summer and fall moose range and also serves as a travel route between two lakes. Some travel around Chikuminuk Lake is evident on trail sections that parallel the shore. In summary, the Chikuminuk Lake region supports a low seasonal population of moose in willow scrub habitats. The Allen River valley provides some medium-quality, year-round range. Although the Chikuminuk area is remote from settlement, the moose population apparently is subject to considerable pressure from hunters who fly to the lake, reportedly from Bethel and Aniak. Caribou ranged principally in the foothills bordering the eastern part of Chikuminuk Lake in August of 1982 and probably during other seasons of the year as well. Fresh as well as old trails were abundant throughout these eastern foothills and on the large hilly peninsula at the western end of the lake. Two adult bulls were noted about 1.5 miles northeast of Chikuminuk ‘Lake. AEIDC found no caribou sign in the mountains along the western three-fourths of the lake. Although the Milk Creek val- ley appears to be a likely travel route for interchange between Kisaralik-Kilbuck caribou and those ranging east of Chikuminuk Lake, AEIDC found no evidence of.recent or past use of this valley by caribou. The eastern borders of Chikuminuk Lake are important range for small numbers of caribou, probably in summer. These caribou do not depend on tributary stream deltas or other lakeshore habitats, as do some species of mammals. There is also no indi- cation that they use Milk Creek pass or the passes to the south of the lake. These caribou are probably loosely associated with the Mulchatna herd that ranges to the east. Considering the remoteness of Chikuminuk Lake, it is unlikely that this group sustains any significant hunting pressure. Summary. The prominent mammals of the Chikuminuk Lake- Allen River drainage are moose, caribou, black bear, brown bear, beaver, ground squirrel, porcupine, river otter, and wolverine. Inconspicuous mammals that may be numerous in some habitats are small rodents, red fox, wolf, ermine, and mink. I-30 Some mammals depend partly or entirely on lakeshore habi- tats that extend as high as 50 feet above the lake and would be affected to some degree by a raise in lake level of that magni- tude. Species whose major populations would be affected include the following: Moose . Otter Black Bear Beaver Snowshoe hare Mink Archeological and Historical Resources Little is known about the prehistory and history of the Chikuminuk Lake area. It is believed to have been first occupied by a culture similar to groups living farther inland and to the north and which were probably based on caribou hunting. Recent evidence dates this occupation within the range of 9,000 to 4,500 years ago (38). Virtually nothing is known about the next several millennia until the late prehistoric period (200 to 400 years ago) when Yup'ik from the Bering Sea coast moved inland to inhabit the Nushagak drainage. Known as the Kiatagmiut, they shifted from sea mammal hunting to salmon Fishing and land mammal hunting. Their population in the vicinity of the Nushagak River and the Tikchik and Wood River lakes has been estimated to have been 400 to 500 (39). Although there is no evidence of occupation in the immediate vicinity of Chikuminuk Lake, they are believed to have used the area for subsistence activities (38). Settlement patterns remained relatively stable until 1918, when a major influenza epidemic swept the region, decimating the Yup'ik population. People did not resettle the area until the late 1920's. Several traditional commmunities were never reestablished. Villages continue to be located primarily along major rivers, and the pattern of intermittent human use of intervening lands without permanent settlements has persisted. Archeological investigations have been limited in the Chikuminuk Lake study area. James W. VanStone conducted a survey in 1964 during which one site was identified on Lake Chauekuktuli just west of the mouth of the Allen River. The Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (AHRS) describes this site (TAY- 004), containing three small house depressions with tunnels facing the lake, as a possible winter village of the Nushagak River .Eskimo. Five archeological sites were identified during another major survey undertaken by Robert E. Ackerman in 1980 as part of ° a four-year study (38). One surface location was found between I-31 Chikuminuk and Upnuk lakes at the head of the northeast arm of Chikuminuk Lake. Test excavations yielded several pieces of pottery and worked stone. Four additional sites were found near ‘the outlet of the lake, three of which were surface scatters of lithic material. The fourth site was located on a terrace above the present lake level and contained projectile points and microblade cores. These artifacts were similar to those of the Kagati Lake complex described by Ackerman (40), which existed between 9,000 and 4,500 years ago. Approximate locations of these sites are shown in Exhibit 17. I-32 Chapter II ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES Kisaralik River - Lower Falls The Lower Falls dam site is located (SW 1/4, S17, TAN, R62W) on the Kisaralik River in a narrow gorge about 64 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel and. 30 river miles down- stream of the outlet of Kisaralik Lake. The vegetation at the Lower Falls on the Kisaralik River consists of three major types. Along the river’ is a riparian willow belt and beyond, alder patches extend upslope to as high as 1,500 ft. Interspersed between the alders, and occurring also above them, is a low birchericaceous shrub dominated by dwarf birch and Labrador tea. Commercially significant numbers of salmon migrate past this site enroute to upstream spawning areas. King and coho salmon dominate numerically with a few red salmon also being present. Other fish of interest in this river section include rainbow trout, Arctic char, and Arctic grayling. Little sal- monid spawning habitat is present at this site. Relatively few birds were observed at or near the proposed site. Principal forms observed were golden and white crowned sparrows, arctic warblers, tree, cliff, and bank swallows, gyr- falcons, and golden eagles. Golden-crowned sparrows and cliff swallows are the most conspicuous of the passerines. An active golden eagle nest situated approximately one mile downstream of the site and an active gyrfalcon nest situated 2 to 3 miles downstream, indicated that suitable nesting habitat for these species occurs within the gorge area. A small number of moose seasonally utilize this area for feeding purposes. Light evidence of browsing on riparian wil- lows indicated that the area is of marginal utility to moose maintenance in the area as a whole. Few tracks or scats were seen, reinforcing the belief that few moose inhabit the area. A number of caribou occur in this area although little suitable forage occurs at the site and most use is probably related to travel. Relative to areas further downstream, few brown bear occur at this site. Few tracks, scats, or other noted evidence of II-1 their presence indicated that the site is of minor importance to bears in the region as a whole. The proposed project area functions as a migration corridor for several salmonid species; principally king and coho salmon, Arctic char, and Arctic grayling. The gorge provides high qual- ity nesting habitat for both golden eagles and gyrfalcons. The proposed impoundment area would inundate significant amounts of riparian vegetation, imposing further constraints on moose and bears. Kisaralik River - Golden Gate Falls The Golden Gate Falls dam site is located on (NW 1/4, S28, T5N,-R62W) on the Kisaralik River about 58 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel and 35 river miles downstream of the out- let of Kisaralik Lake. Vegetation at the Golden Gate Falls is slightly more complex than at the Lower Falls. Again, there is a belt of riparian willow. Beyond the willows are alder thickets. On the north-facing slope these thickets extend to approximately 900 ft. Above that elevation the vegetation is dominated by low birch and ericaceous shrub tundra (primarily dwarf birch and Labrador tea). A small bench extending along the opposite shore supports a stand of cottonwood trees. Beyond this, stands of white spruce are interspersed with alder and birch. Commercially significant numbers of king and coho salmon migrate through this area enroute to spawning habitats further upstream. Small numbers of red salmon also utilize the area for this purpose along with Arctic char and Arctic grayling. Few birds were noted at the dam site. Notable exceptions were limited largely to cliff swallows and cliff-nesting raptorial species. Active golden eagle and gyrfalcon nests are within one to three miles of the site. Small numbers of moose feed within the propsed inundation area during the more temperate times of the year. Brown bears are also present in low numbers during summer. The proposed project area is utilized by migrating salmon. King and Coho salmon, Arctic char, and Arctic grayling species predominate. Cliffs adjacent to the proposed project area pro- vide high quality nesting habitat for cliff-nesting raptors; golden eagles and gyrfalcons are the most common raptors at this site. Inundation of the limited riparian habitats upstream of the proposed dam would affect moose numbers in the upper reaches of the Kisaralik considering the scarcity of winter feeding II-2 (| habitat in the area. Some bears could be diverted from tradi- tional travel routes by the proposed project. Kisaralik River - Upper Falls The Upper Falls dam site is located on the (SW 1/4, S7, T3N, R61 W) on the Kisaralik River about 70 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel and 20 river miles downstream of the out- let of Kisaralik Lake. The north facing slope supports an alpine vegetative form consisting of lichen, crowberry, and sedge species; the composition changes along the sloping bench to include willow clumps, increasing amounts of dwarf birch and diapensia, and a forb complex. The gradient increases to form breaks and swales. Ground squirrel activity is prevalent along slope and ridge lines of the ravines. Willow communities appear as fingerlike projections covering lower parts of the swales. Deeper formed ravines contain proportionately more dwarf birch and willow. Outwash areas (ravine mouth), support deltoid-shaped cottonwood stands having an average 12 cm DBH and canopy height of 10 m. Such stands are ringed by willow (tall variety) conti- guous with a closed willow community of intermediate height. A narrow band of willow shrubbery thus extends along the south axis of the bench. Passerine activity was noted to be more prominent within, and along the peripheral part of cottonwood stands. Species observed included golden-crown sparrow, red- poll, and yellow warbler. Browse species were fairly evenly hedged, indicating moderate to heavy use; however, lack of leader growth suggested a rather low forage yield typifying alpine elevations or the lateness of spring. Paucity of pellets suggest low use of the area by moose. The bench has a lush band of grass (Calamagrostis) paralleling the moist low area of the bench. Sedge covered tussocks form the major relief feature--these diminish in height toward either edge of the bench. Ground squirrel activity diminishes toward the center part of the bench probably because of extremely wet or bog condition. The first terrace, largest of the three, sup- ports ground squirrel, but their density appears to be consider- ably less than noted along the bottom part of the mountain slope. Judging from the number of used burrows, ground squirrel density is roughly about one per 10-square meters, while the lower terraced areas are used to a lesser extent. The vegeta- tion comprised of sedge, lichen, heather, dwarf birch, and low- growing willow, the latter showing evidence of browsing by moose. The same level.of moose browsing noted on the bench is evidenced along the river bottom. Tall willow occurs along II-3 river's edge. The upper bowl has a backwash formed in an old stream channel which is potential beaver habitat. Old beaver cuttings were noted below the dam site. An old raptor nest was noted on the rocky outcropping of the north abutment. Old bear scat was noted on the north side of the river and an intradrainage bear trail extending along south side of the bowl and the crest of the intermediate terrace appears to be used infrequently. The upper part of the drainage obviously receives only light use by bear, moose, and caribou. Impact on large mammals would be insignificant. Primary use of this area by large mammals is virtually one of access between drainages. The absence of permanent trails suggest that use of the plateau for interdrainage travel to be quite low or randomized, rather than a traditionally used migration corridor. The most signifi- cant impact would be on fisheries associated with Gold Creek, Kisaralik Lake, and the North Fork. The magnitude of spawning in these tributary systems is unknown, but presumably far less significant than in major lower tributaries (Quicksilver, Swift, Quartz, etc.). On a1to10 scale, impact can be rated at about 3 compared to 7 for lower falls, and 8 for the Golden Gate areas. This is predicated on the potential loss to the system's fishery. Kipchuk River The Upnuk Lake dam site is located (NW 1/4, S19, TSN, R56W) on the outlet creek of Upnuk Lake about two miles downstream from the outlet. The site is about 110 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel. The outlet creek is tributary to the Tikchik River. The visit was made when the river was thought to be reced- ing fast at this stage. A steep gradient is present resulting in a moderate to high water velocity. The river was turbulent with moderate silt load. Composition of the fishery resource is unknown. Skeletal remains of three king or chum salmon were found along the west shoreline. These salmon were probably captured or retrieved by a large carnivore. The system appears to support other salmonids including Arctic char and rainbow; whitefish and burbot are also expected. The vegetation is typical of a subalpine zone. Dispensia, heather, lichen, and dwarf birch are predominating. Range use by moose and caribou observed to be low. Moose pellets were found in only two instances. Moose are probably not dependent upon the area for winter range and are likely to move through the canyon to better feeding areas. Willow on adjacent slopes indicate low browsing activity. Similarly, bear travel through TI-4 the canyon to principal activity areas. There are no habitat units in the proposed reservoir area. Considerable ground squirrel activity occurs above 1,100 ft elevation. No shrubbery is present except along river fringes. Harlequin duck, golden eagle, water ouzel were noted. Potential nest sites for raptors were observed several miles downriver. Other mammals ranging in the general area include marten, beaver, otter, weasel, wolverine, and wolf. In general, tributary systems above the dam site appear to be good to excellent for salmon spawning and, for this reason, project consequence could be equivalent or greater than in the upper Kisaralik area. The project's effect on terrestrial resources would be essentially the same. Upnuk Lake The Upnuk Lake dam site is located (SW 1/4, S36, T3N, R55W) on the outlet creek of Upnuk Lake about two miles downstream from the outlet. The site is about 110 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel. The outlet creek is tributary to the Tikchik River. Dwarf arctic birch-crowberry/dwarf blueberry-crowberry complex covers an estimated 50 percent of the impoundment area. Closed willow communities are largely riparian, being restricted to the river valley and its contributory drainages. This community covers an estimated 40 percent of the impoundment area. A willow-alder community type was not in evidence at this site. Relatively few stands of alder were found in the project area. All were small and limited mainly to north-facing river banks above the flood-plain. A closed crowberry mat is under- story to this association. This community type covers an esti- mated 1 to 3 percent of the impoundment area. Bog type is identical to that found at the Chikuminuk site. It covers an estimated 5 to 7 percent of the impoundment area. The vertebrate fauna of the Upnuk site is identical to that of the Chikuminuk site except for the addition of salmon. This exception appears significant from the standpoint of project advancement. The outlet stream of Upnuk Lake is a major salmon nursery stream. Both red (sockeye) and coho (silver) salmon spawn in its waters. Actual escapements to the system are poorly I1I-5 defined, but upward of 100,000 red salmon have been counted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game at the outlet stream's confluence with the Tikchik River. Milk Creek The Milk Creek dam site is located (NW 1/4, S21, TIN, R58W) on Milk Creek, a tributary to Chikuminuk Lake, about nine miles upstream from the mouth of the creek. The site is about 95 miles east-southeast of the City of Bethel. A type of ericaceous heath dominates the vegetation of the impoundment area. The overstory is comprised chiefly of dwarf arctic birch supplemented with occasional stands of spirea and labrador tea. Overstory height seldom exceeds one foot and the overstory is semi-closed. The understory is comprised chiefly of crowberry which forms a nearly contiguous mat. The crowberry mat is broken in places by reindeer moss which is homogenously distributed throughout the understory and scattered low-bush cranberry and dwarf sedges. This community covers an estimated 70 percent of the impoundment area. Isolated stands of dwarf willow reaching to three feet in height occur throughout the area. Such stands are densely stocked and the canopy is closed. The understory is relatively simple due.to the dense overstory and is limited mainly to wide- ly scattered ferns, blue violets, and burnet. This community covers an estimated 20 percent of the impoundment area. Mixed stands of willow and alder occur immediately upstream of the proposed dam site. This community is limited chiefly to oversteepened slopes adjacent to Milk Creek. The understory of this type is superficially identical to that of the closed willow communities. The overstory canopy is closed and averages six feet in height. This community covers an estimated 1 to 3 percent of the impoundment area. Pure stands of alder to six feet in height dominate over- steepened slopes at the proposed dam site. Such stands reach from stream level upslope through at least 200 feet in elevation above the water. Within the impoundment area, this community is broken only in slide areas and by natural rock outcrops. The understory is comprised of widely scattered clumps of bluejoint grass and lady fern. I estimate that this community covers approximately 3 to 4 percent of the impoundment area. II-6 Pure stands of cottongrass occur in all bog areas. This community covers approximately 3 percent of the impoundment area. No fish or fish remains were observed in either Milk Creek, Cascade Lake, or the Cascade Lake outlet stream. One loon was observed repeatedly living in Cascade Lake, however, implying the presence of some form(s) of fish. Project area water bodies appear to have little importance to either commercial or sportfish populations in this area of Alaska. Cascade Lake, its outlet stream, and Milk Creek from its confluence with the outlet stream are glacially turbid, limiting their potential as fish habitat. Further, stream gradient here is relatively steep and numerous rapids occur throughout the stream's length. While it appears that none of the rapids individually constitute a blockage to fish passage, in aggregate they probably constitute a formidable barrier to migrating fish. Relatively few birds were observed within the proposed project area. The most common species was the golden-crowned sparrow which is ubiquitous in all tall willow and alder associations at this site. Territorial displays were common indicating that the area is utilized for breeding. Two other species of passerines were observed on habitats within the project area. Small numbers of lapland longspurs breed in the dwarf arctic birch/crowberry association. Several yellow warblers were observed in willow thickets. Lack of sighting of more passerine types or numbers was not unexpected considering the altitude of the site, and considering the area is experiencing a cooler than normal year. One willow ptarmigan was seen and another heard in willow thickets immediately upstream of the proposed dam. Lack of sightings is probably significant since our course of travel lead repeatedly through willow associations. Suitable habitat for willow ptarmigan is abundant and the low numbers observed are probably attributable to the late snow melt. No raptors were observed within Milk Creek drainages although some undoubtedly occur. Likely candidates for inclu- sion in this area's avifauna include golden eagles, roughlegged hawks, and gyrfalcons. Cliff faces suitable for nesting raptors appear limited, however, and numbers are probably low. No evidence of moose activity was noted within the drain- age. The complete absence of tracks, scat, or evidence of II-7 either past or present browsing on the willow implies that the area is of marginal value to moose. Three separate tracks representing at least two adult ani- mals were observed. An examination of the tracks indicates that they were laid down no more than one week prior to the site inspection. No evidence of widespread usage of the drainage area by caribou was found. The absence of well-defined trails indicates that the area is not now, and perhaps never was, utilized as a migration corridor for caribou crossing the Kilbuck Mountains. Evidence of the presence of bears was limited solely to widely scattered excavations of ground squirrel dens. All exca- vations examined were at least one year old. The complete absence of tracks, scat, or recent excavations implies that use of the area by bears is occasional during warm weather months. The area appears to have some potential as denning habitat, however. Arctic ground squirrels, an important seasonal food item of bears, are ubiquitous throughout the dwarf arctic birch/ crowberry community type. Favored burrow sites appear to be in sheltered lees behind crests of ridges, swales, and hummocks. Estimated densities within the impoundment area range from a high of 10 animals per 100 square yards down to one per 100 square yards. Stocking at the dam site is estimated to be in the range of two to three per 100 square yards. Several beaver lodges were observed from the air along Milk Creek above its confluence with Cascade Lake. No individuals were observed at these sites. Several beaver lodges and individual beaver were also observed downstream from the pro- posed dam site within one mile of Milk Creek's mouth. Assuming that all lodges observed were active, there are probably at least 50 individuals resident in Milk Creek drainages. The proposed project area does not appear particularly important for the maintenance of any species. Most of the area marked for inundation is covered with a type of ericaceous heath common in subalpine locations in this portion of Alaska. The proposed impoundment would inundate much less than 1 percent of the total of this type present within the drainage. No evidence of use of the area by migratory fish or moose was noted. Few bears utilized the area; most use is apparently seasonal and irregular. There is no evidence that the area functions as a migration corridor for caribou. ITI-8 10. ll. References Alaska Department of Fish and Games, "Alaska's Fisheries Atlas", 2 vols., 1978a. Selkregg, L.L., "Alaska Regional Profiles, Vol. 3, Southeast Region", Arctric Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, Report for Alaska Office of the Governor, 1976. Alaska Division of Parks, "Proposed Wood-Tikchik State Park", Anchorage, Alaska, 1977. Burgner, R.L., et al., "Comparative Productivity of the Tikchik Lake System", Unpublished Draft Annual Report, 1964. Ruttner, F., "Fundamentals of Limnology", 3rd edition, University of Toronto Press, 1971. Rogers, D.E., "A Comparison of the Food of Sockeye Salmon Fry and Threespine Sticklebacks in the Wood River Lakes", in Burgner, R.L., ed., "Further Studies of Alaska Sockeye Salmon," Publications in Fisheries, New Series, Vol. 3, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, 1968. Van Alen, B.W., "Use of Scale Patterns to Identify the Origins of Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhyrchus nerka) in the Fishery of Nushagak Bay, Alaska", Information Leaflet No. 202, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1982. Hynes, H.B.N., "The Ecology of Running Waters", Liverpool University Press, 1970. Alt, K.T., “Inventory and Cataloging of Sport Fish and Sport Fish Waters of Western Alaska", Sport Fish Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Vol. 18, Inventory and Cataloging Western Alaska Waters, Study G-I-P, 1977. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, "A Fish and Wildlife Resource Inventory of the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands and Bristol Bay Areas, Vol. II-Fisheries for Alaska Coastal Management Program", 1977. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, "Preliminary Review of the Bristol Bay Salmon Fisher, 1981", Anchorage, Alaska, 1981. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. References (cont'd) Gwartney, L.A., and B. Russell, "Inventory and Cataloging of Sport Fish and Sport Fish Waters of the Bristol Bay Area", in Sport Fish Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration and Anadromous Fish Studies, Vol. 22, Inventory and Cataloging, Study G-I-E, 1981. Russell, R., “Rainbow Trout Studies, Lower Talarik Creek- Kvichak", Sport Fish Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Vol. 18, Study G-II-E, 1977. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, "Alaska's Fisheries Atlas", 2 Vols., 1978b. Paddock, D. "Inventory and Cataloging of the Sport Fish and Sport Fish Waters in the Bristol Bay and Lower Kuskokwim Drainages", Sport Fish Div., Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration, Vol. 9, Project F-5-R-9, 1968. ‘ Viereck, L.A., et al., "Revision of Preliminary Classification System for Vegetation of Alaska", Unpublished, 1982. Hulten, E., "Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories", Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1968. Viereck, L.A., and E.L. Little, “Alaska Trees and Shrubs", Agriculture Handbook No. 410, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., 1972. Scott, T.G., and C.H. Wasser, "Checklist of North American Plants for Wildlife Biologists", The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.c., 1980. Welsh, S.L., "Anderson's Flora of Alaska and Adjacent Parts of Canada", Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah, 1974. © Nelson, E.W., "Report Upon Natural History Collections Made in Alaska Between the Years 1877 and 1881", Arctic Series No. 3, U.S. Army Signal Service, Washington, D.C., 1887. Dice, L.R., "The Biotic Provinces of North America", University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1943. R-2 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. References (cont'd) Shelford, V.E., "The Relative Merits of the Life Zone and Biome Concepts", Wilson Bulletin, Vol. 57, 1945. Hurley, J.B., “Birds Observed in the Bristol Bay Region, Alaska", Murrelet, Vol. 12, 1931. Hurley, J.B., "Birds Observed in the Bristol Bay Region, Alaska", Murrelet, Vol. 13, 1932. Gabrielson, I.N., "Some Alaska Notes", Auk, Vol. 61, 1944. Williamson, F.S.L., and L.J. Peyton, "Faunal Relationships of Birds in the Iliamna Lake Area, Alaska", Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, No. 5, 1962. Grumman Ecosystems Corporation, "A Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Recreational Potential of the Wood River- Tikchik Lake Area of Alaska", Anchorage, Alaska, n.d. Petersen, M.R., "Nesting Ecology of Arctic Loons", Wilson Bulletin, Vol. 91, 1979. Gabrielson, I.N., and F.C. Lincoln, "The Birds of Alaska", The Wildlife Management Institute, The Telegraph Press, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1959. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, "Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat", Vol. 2, 1978c. Weir, D.N., "Bird Notes from the Western Kilbuck Mountains and Nearby Islands, Southwestern Alaska", Unpublished manuscript, Cregdhu Lodge, Newtonmore, Inverness Shire, Scotland, 1973. Holmes, R.T., and C.P. Black, "Ecological Distribution of Birds in the Kolomak River-Askinuk Mountain Region, Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska", Condor, Vol. 75, 1973. Williamson, F.S.L., "Ecological Distribution of Birds in the Napaskiak Area of the Kuskokwim River Delta, Alaska", Condor, Vol. 59, 1957. Cade, T.J., "Ecology of Peregrine and Gyrfalcon Populations in Alaska", University of California Publications in Zoology, Vol. 63, 1960. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. References (cont'd) LeResche, R.E., and R.A. Hinman, eds., "Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat", Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, ‘Alaska, 1973. Hinman, R.A., "Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, Part I, Black Bears and Brown Bears", Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, Vol. XII, 1981. Ackerman, R.E., "The Archeology of the Central Kuskokwim Region", Washington State University, Final Research Report to the National Geographic Society, 1982. VanStone, J.W., "Eskimos of the Nushagak River", University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, 1967. Ackerman, R.E., "Southwestern Alaska Archeological Survey Kagati Lake, Kisaralik-Kwethluk Rivers", Washington State University, Final Research Report to the National Geographic Society, 1980. Still, P.J., "Index of Streamflow and Water-Quality Records to September 30, 1978, Southwest Alaska", Open-File Report 80-551, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska, 1980. United States Geological Survey, "Quantity and Quality of Surface Waters of Alaska, 1960", Water-Supply Paper 1720, United States Geological Survey, 1962. United States Geological Survey, "Water Resources Data for Alaska, 1970", 1971. United States Geological Survey, "Water Resources Data for Alaska, 1971", 1972. United States Geological Survey, “Water Resources Data for Alaska, Part I, Surface Water Records", 1965. Bellrose, F.C., "Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America", 2nd Edition, The Wildlife Management Institute, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1978. Cade, T.J., "The Falcons of the World", Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1982. Mindell, D.P., and R.A. Dotson, "Distribution and Abundance of Nesting Raptors in Southwestern Alaska", in W.N. Ladd 49, 50. 51. 52. References (cont'd) and T.S. Schempf, eds., "Raptor Management and Biology in Alaska and Western Canada", Symposium Proceedings, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, 1982. Kortright, F.H., "The Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America", The Wildlife Management Institute and The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1967. Terres, J.K., "The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds", Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York, 1980. . Osgood, W.H., "A Biological Reconnaissance of the base of the Alaska Peninsula", North American Fauna No. 24, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1904. Kessel, B., and D.D. Gibson, "Status and Distribution of Alaska Birds", Studies in Avian Biology No. 1, Cooper Ornithological Society, Lawrence, Kansas, 1978. Personal Communications King, J.G. 1982. Interview, March 19, 1982. Flyway _ biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK. : Mindell, D. 1982. Interviews, 1982. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, AK. Petersen, M.R. 1982. Interview, September 10, 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. rm = . Station Name Period of Record ye Grant Lake re Nuyakuk Ri 195457, 67, 70 2 os Nushagak River tributary 1970 Chemical < Temperature £—J Blological Etat — Sediment Nushagak River 1970 Nushagak River 1956 Wood River 1958-60, 67,71 Moody Creek 1971 Silver Salmon Creek 1971 Portage Creek 1071 COVOHMAEN= ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT LOCATION OF WATER QUALITY STATIONS IN NUSHAGAK BAY AND DRAINAGES Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Water Source Grant Lake Outlet Nuyakuk River Nushagak River Nushagak River Tributary Nashaguk River at Portage Creek Moody Creek Wood River Siver Salmon Creek Source: (3, 4, 5) Date April 20, 1960 May 26, 1970 July 7, 1970 August 20, 1970 September 27, 1970 April 7, 1970 April 7, 1970 January 13, 1971 July 7, 1971 January 13, 1971 September 17, 1971 WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR STREAMS IN THE PROJECT AREA Silica as S10, Iron (Mg/l as Fe Calcium (Mg/l as Ca ium as Mg Sodium (Mg/1 as Na) Potasium iMg/1 as K) Bicarbonate (Mg/1 as HCO, Sulfate 50, Chloride g/l as U) Ty 6.5 2 ° a an > 0.2 » w o N v Ss a ° - peee ¢ 2.04 pene e484 ut ’ e278 texte pene - UbAL O * ofoo°o 1.8 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.8 Fluoride Mg/1 as F) © esses oo - RNHO O Hw - 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 Nitrate Mg/1 as NO, Dissolved Solids o e efor co CWNOD Oo o ° 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.4 31 36 36 38 37 44 50 40 35 33 31 7 Mg Noncarbonate Hardness Hardness as 17 28 27 29 30 22 22 25 21 22 18 (ng ific Conductance ‘/om) (mic oO Mean oO 65 62 64 65 62 63 61 50 53 43 5 SN sn ON an NREUD O 7.6 6.9 7.5 6.8 t Units) (Pla ununed ° 10 rature rc ” e o1runn 3.0 6.0 2 LISIHX3 Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska EXHIBIT 3 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ALLEN RIVER MEAN MONTHLY STREAMFLOW AT USGS GAGE STATION — OCTOBER 1964 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1965 HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Rock island Water Quality Zoopiankton Sampling Station - } Guill isiand BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT SURFACE WATER TEMPERATURE ’C) AND WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS Prepared by Arctic Environmental CHIKUMINUK LAKE, AUG. 1982 Information and Data Center, University of Alaska HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 abe ea ~ x AS SS aS a een eee Nat TR 7 \ \. \ Nias yY ‘ S “ S S Pr Ome SS Wn as wy, oe /. "8 wy ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT WATER QUALITY, AND BENTHOS i 2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS, ALLEN RIVER »)) YG a AUG. 1982 mg WM ind HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Prepared by Arctic Environmental information and Data Center, University of Alaska BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 “yo tatty AERIAL ESTIMATES OF SPAWNING CHINOOK SALMON MADE DURING RUN PEAK, NUSHAGAK DISTRICT, 1964-1975 Date Stream : 1964 1965 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972" 1973 1974 1975 Wood River Streams 70 50 20 20 Igushik River , 100 100 40 40 100 70 Snake River : 60 150 60 110 130 1o Weary River 1 1 230 60 50 40 Nushagak River 3,600 5,200 2,470 160 1,210 5,270 4,370 Muklung River 1,000 570 350 750 520 590 280 150 1,010 660 Iowithla River 100 200 850 580 700 390 170 860 1,040 Kokwok River 130 90, 110 80 60 270 Klutuk River 50 130 160 300 Nuyakuk River 430 70 240 70 140 750 540 Tikchik River 50 Klutispaw Creek 140 310 90 320 280 380 440 670 King Salmon River 700 850 1,000 670 1,060 900 1,470 2,000 2,900 Chichitnok River 400 : 160 100 100 110 350 710 Total 350 6,200 2,460 910 2,880 11,240 11,560 1. Aerial coverage not complete Source: (10) £ LIGIHX3 AERIAL ESTIMATES OF SPAWNING SOCKEYE SALMON MADE System Nuyakuk River Tikchik Lake Creek AY Creek B Creek C Tikchik River Tikchik River Cow Creek Koneruk Creek Nuyakuk Lake Northshore Beaches Southshore Beaches Portage Arm Mirror Bay Rapids Lake Chauekuktyli Creek No. 1 Allen River Beach Allen River Northshore Beaches Southshore Beaches Lake System Tota Total Population DURING RUN PEAK, TIKCHIK LAKES SYSTEM, 1960-1975 Year 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1974 1975 160 100 400 3,100 2,000 800 600 5,000 800 360 2,400 1,200 5,400 5,650 1,400 620 10,000 2,000 10,000 2,600 2,500 4,600 50 50 10 30 200 100 200 12,000 10,000 1,840 50,000 2,750 13,200 28,600 3,800 61,600 1,800 10,000 2,600 13,100 12,000 820 1,070 420 320 6,600 4,510 1,370 810 29,080 100 970 600 300 7,100 13,320 2,680 290 2,810 200 1,100 1,180 230 120 1,970 900 730 230 650 2,300 19,600 2,150 260 11,980 300 50 1,750 1,500 600 750 1,200 5,100 20,000 150 10 30 100 50 100 10 17,500 10,500 8,400 21,000 20,500 4,500 18,400 20,000 46,000 250 500 390 200 250 320 650 - 150 1,000 4,760 800 670 2,900 6,400 4,640 1,870 2,220 3,290 1,100 500 170 240 900 310 110 60 380 45,580 27,380 15,890 92,410 51,480 95,190 72,360 39,110 216,530 45,500 79,788 37,890 166,608 103,224 203,070 161,010 154,614 669,918 1. ADFs&G stream designation 2. Total population estimate based on tower counts Source: (10) 8 LIGIHXS EXHIBIT 9 SALMON SPAWNING CHRONOLOGY, BRISTOL BAY AREA Species Chinook salmon Adults Enter fresh water Actual spawning Juveniles Emergence Outmigration Sockeye salmon Adults Enter fresh water Actual spawning Juveniles Emergence Outmigration Coho salmon Adults Enter fresh water Actual spawning Juveniles Emergence Outmigration Pink salmon Adults Enter fresh water Actual spawning Juveniles Emergence Outmigration Chum salmon Adults Enter fresh water Actual spawning Juveniles Emergence Outmigration 1. Estimated Source: (10) Date May 20 to mid-July July 25 to August 10 Apri} to June! June Mid-June to mid-August Late July to late September Mid-March to mid-May Late May to mid-July Mid-July to mid-September Late August to September Apri} to June June Mid-July to mid-August Mid- to late August April to May" Early June Mid-June thru mid-August July 25 to August 15 April to May" Early June Species Sockeye Salmon Fry Threespine Stickleback Ninespine Stickleback Slimy Sculpin Arctic Char (age 0) Arctic Char (adults) Lake Trout Round Whitefish Humpback Whitefish Pygmy Whitefish Least Cisco Arctic Grayling Rainbow Trout Northern Pike Burbot Arctic Lamprey Total Number of Fish Source: (4) PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF FISH, TIKCHIK LAKES, 1964 Gill. Net Tikchik Nuyakuk Chauekuktuli 2.2 8.1 5.9 40.3 42.9 53.4 0.7 19.2 33.9 52.2 28.3 6.8 2.2 0.5 0.5 2.2 0.5 134.0 198.0 118.0 Beach Seine Lake Trout Stomachs Tikchik Nuyakuk Chauekuktuli Tikchik Nuyakuk Chauekuktuli 40.0 54.4 87.8 6.0 1.7 2.8 54.1 27.42 6.3 51.5 15.5 2.8 2.4 5.9 0.5 22.3 3.4 0.5 10.3 3.6 8.7 67.2 59.7 0.7 1.6 1.7 - 1.3 0.2 1.0 6.9 34.7 0.2 + ss 0.1 1.9 3.4 8,706.0 4,013.0 10,540.0 103.0 58.0 72.0 OL LIGIHX3 Rock Island Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska & - Minnow trap sites Species Observed LT - Lake trout AG - Arctic grayling DV - Dolly Varden/Arctic char mai) ie aE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT MINNOW TRAP LOCATIONS AND ADULT FISH OBSERVATIONS CHIKUMINUK LAKE, AUG. 1982 HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 . <p TT EXHIBIT 12 O: Minnow trap sites Species Observed - Sockeye salmon §& - Pink salmon KS_ - Chinook salmon AG - Arctic grayling DV - Dolly Varden/Arctic char LT - Lake trout r Wy (Sa lv AXE ir y q /y 4 fp Igy” (O 37058 ” A Cf Uppe C2 G Wa = =~ hi ‘ iinet! \e AE 1876@, 5 eS y 250. K oo! Q fo 3 ASS ‘m7 2789 ‘A Ss j < 3) \ 2005 3 7, As 22, Q 7 spr oo Dp. go 7500 Oe ( @ 1 A830: ss Cyr o Ca Mi) 2 SA ORY <Q. 14 SOAS >\ NG S = \ > Ly ~S > Ne). SHES 28 2 Se ar Vo RS om y S00 % Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT MINNOW TRAP, DIPNETTING LOCATIONS, AND ADULT FISH OBSERVATIONS ALLEN RIVER, AUG. 1982 HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Ae : | ae A}, = ‘ ; s : Was oe EXHIBIT 13 pi en x ere Ye 7 = 2 Pay Fi , SS " Alder scrub m Scrub and lichen tundra 4 bs VA aN] Aa. Saal) T i \ ae ee 1m TTT Study area boundary ' 2 3 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY — BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN CHAUVEKUKTUL/ , . ( FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT Lom VEGETATION OF THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE AREA Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 ss a en SPECIES WHICH PROBABLY INHABIT OR MIGRATE THROUGH THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE STUDY AREA Common Loon Arctic Loon Red-throated Loon Yellow-billed Loon Whistling Swan Mallard Gadwall Green-winged Teal American Widgeon Shoveler Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup Common Goldeneye Barrows Goldeneye Buffelhead Harlequin Duck White-winged Scoter Surf Scoter ‘Common Scoter Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Goshawk Sharp-shinned Hawk Marsh Hawk Rough-legged Hawk Golden Eagle Bald Eagle Osprey Peregrine Falcon Merlin Sparrow Hawk: Spruce Grouse Willow Ptarmigan Rock Ptarmigan Semipalmated Plover Golden Plover Species Gavia immer G. arctica stellata G. adamsii Olor columbianus Anas platyrhynchos A. strepera A.. carolinensis A. americana A. clypeata Aythya marila A. affinis Bucephala clangula B. islandica B. albeola Histrionicus histrionicus Melanitta deglandi M. perspicillata M. nigra Mergus merganser M. serrator Accipiter gentilis A. striatus Circus cyaneus Buteo legopus Aquila chysaetos ‘ Haliaeetus leucocephalus Pandion haliaetus Falco paragrinus F. colunbarius F. sparverius Canachites Canadensis Lagopus lagopus L. mutus Charadrius semipalmatus Pluvialis dominica a no 4 uM o a pala Go) Bo Scjpes od od n Od) v4 o sola Q “dol ed g HO} YO o Polos . QO) AN S 3 > 3 dul 59 a es|ae mq Ad hc R xXx X U XX x R XX x Ca XX x U x U XX x R XX x R x R x R x Ca XX Ca XX FC x xX R x x R x x FC FC R R x Ca* * a XX XX PAawmNcwawaacacacacw Cutbanks, and Block Fields Cliffs, XX XX Breeding Habitats! y o = a ° vO 9 O-d oS ao “oS a g On = = “dd ca A aQ Ao 2 2 2 u O° Mu Wy as ug S a pn o n an MW Q SE = el YW ns a u Al s} jo 88 = a a Re XX x x x XX x XX x XX XX XX XX x XX xX XX xX XX Tall Shrub Thicket Coniferous Forest »v oO o Ww oO ty Q 3 Q 3 0 ce oO eo a) Mixed Deciduous- Coniferous Forest XX XX XX XX XX XX py JO | abeg vl LIGIHX3 SPECIES WHICH PROBABLY INHABIT OR MIGRATE THROUGH THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE STUDY AREA (cont.) Hairy Woodpecker Black-backed Three-toed Woodpecker Northern Three-toed Woodpecker Say's Phoebe Alder Flycatcher Western Flycatcher Traill's Flycatcher Olive-sided flycatcher Horned Lark Barn Swallow Cliff Swallow Bank Swallow Tree Swallow Violet-green Swallow Grey Jay Black-billed Magpie Common Raven Black-capped Chickadee Boreal Chickadee Winter wren Dipper Robin Varied Thrush Hermit Thrush Swainsons' Thrush Grey~-cheeked Thrush Arctic Warbler Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet Water Pipit Yellow Wagtail Bohemian Waxwing Northern Shrike Orange-crowned Warbler Yellow Warbler Species P. villosus P, arcticus PB. tridactylus Bayornis saya Empidonax alnorum E. difficilis E. traillii Nuttallornis borealis Eremophila alpestris Hirundo rustica Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Riparia riparia Iridoprocne bicolor Tachycineta thalassina Perisoreus canadensis Pica pica -Corvus corax Parus atricapillus P. hudsonicus Troglodytes troglodytes Cinclus mexicanus Turdus migratorius Ixoreas naevius Catharus guttatus ustulatus C. minimus Phylloscopus borealis Regulus satrapa R. calendula Anthus spinolettus Motacilla flava Bombycilla garrulus Lanius excubitor Vermivora celata Dendroica petechia HOQRARBNGONDADDAAGA AR ws nw Abundance” aQ aawaacacawwnna Lacustrine Waters Breeding Habitats! 2 n = o MW au 9 Vv “so o nya ga ® o] so oo = s|ea Qed Al od pe Q dd} ad 3 2 3 vp ro Om ° YW Modo of oo} US ovo -~o © Y cs] os aed v Ol An YAO = HH > 4 u Oo) 390 AD aad o gs)as| As v = OS) fa Un = a XX x x x XX XX XX x x x x XX Dwarf Shrub Mat xX XX XX Low Shrub Thicket Medium Shrub Thicket XX XX Tall Shrub Thicket XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Coniferous Forest XX XX XX XX Deciduous Forest xox OM *s * v a o u o a 3 ° a a w 4 S 3 9 Mixed Deciduous- x * x v 40 Z abeg vl LIGIHX4 SPECIES WHICH PROBABLY INHABIT OR MIGRATE THROUGH THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE STUDY AREA (cont.) Black-bellied Plover Whimbrel Western Sandpiper Semipalmated Sandpiper Dunlin Spotted Sandpiper Wandering Tattler Surfbird Black Turnstone Ruddy Turnstone Greater Yellowlegs Solitary Sandpiper Lesser Yellowlegs Long-billed Dowitcher Common Snipe Least Sandpiper Bar-tailed Godwit Hudsonian Godwit Northern Phalarope Parasitic Jaeger Glaucus Gull Glaucus-winged Gull Herring Gull Mew Gull Sabine's Gull Bonapart's Gull Arctic Tern Snowy Owl Great Horned Owl Great Gray Owl Hawk Owl Short-eared Owl Boreal Owl Belted Kingfisher Common Flicker Downy Woodpecker Species P. squatarola Numenius phaeopus Calidris mauri c. pusilla c. alpina Actitis maculara Heteroscelus incanum Aphriza virgata Arenaria melanocephala Arenaria meflanocephata A. interpres Tringa melanoleuca tT. solitaria T. flavipes Limnodromus scolopaceus Capella gallinago Calidris minutiila Limosa lapponica L. haemastica Lobipes lobatus Stercorarius parasiticus Larus hyperboreus L., glaucescens L. argentatus L. canus Xema sabini . Larus philadelphia Sterna paradisaea Nyctea scandiaca Bubo virginianus Strix nebulosa Surnia ulula Asio flammeus Regolius funereus Megaceryle alcyon Colaptes auratus Picoides pubescens Abundance” a *O aQ maaowaG a SGSOCHDMDCDIANGCAADACHDADACHADWAHANDIDA Tacustrine Waters and Shorelines XX XX XX Fluviatile Waters and Shorelines XX XX Cliffs, Cutbanks, and Block Fields XX Breeding Habitats? Wet Meadow XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Dwarf Shrub Meadow XX XX XX v a x“ » vo o e O-d x“ n ao BS oO o g OR od w = od ss o iQ & ty Q ao o u Aa a & as Dp 3 Sc Bu q ° un 4 = W GE n o w us 4 uy ad a A © 20 al gS = on i] oO a Az a C x x x x XX XX x XX XX XX XX XX XX XX xX Deciduous Forest xx MR MM Mixed Deciduous- Coniferous Forest b 40 © abeg vl LIGIHX3 SPECIES WHICH PROBABLY INHABIT OR MIGRATE THROUGH THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE STUDY AREA (cont.) Breeding Habitats? w o 2 x a a . 6 vo 4 4 an g O-d ® 0 4U % 2 “25 pol po gd ® i OH gig3] 38 | 2 ga A] Pal Sm a a BB So go) Sa| Sx} Bl f° El of o cA] a (3) oO < a 5M s Ho} HO so a} uv u g esl os ued » GE S QM) dn wa = wy uw as g 3 > 4 4 4 “A 3 oul Su cdo © % 3D . a eelacl ds go) = og Species Aol uo Ud = a A= Townsend's Warbler D. townsendi R Myrtle Warbler D. coronata c Blackpoll Warbler D. striata c Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis c XX XX Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas R XX Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Cc XX XX Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus U XX Pine Grosebeak Pinicola enucleator Ca Grey-crowned Rosy Finch Leucos: te tephrocotis R XX Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea c XX Hoary Redpoll Cc. hornemanni R XX Pine Siskin c. pinus R White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera R Slate-colored Junco dunco hyemalis U Savana Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis c XX x Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea c XX XX White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichea leucophrys c XX XX Golden-crowned Sparrow %Z. atricapilla c XX Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca U xX XX Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii FC x x XX Song Sparrow M. melodia R XX x Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus c XX c Common FC Fairly Common U Uncommon R = Rare Ca Casual : * Occurs only as migrant XX Primary breeding habitat x Secondary breeding habitat (1) Habitat types follow Kessell (55) (2) = Abundance categories follow Kessel and Gibson (14) Sources: (24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52) Tall Shrub Thicket XX XX XX ~~ Coniferous Forest SS “sO XX XX XX XX wv n o u [e} fa a 3 ° 3 . oa o v a x x Mixed Deciduous- Coniferous Forest OSX ~~ bd xx MMM * y 40 p abeg m x = 7 4 = > LOCATION OF BIRDS OBSERVED BY AEIDC DURING THE SUMMER OF 1982 IN THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE STUDY AREA Species Common Loon Gavia immer Arctic Loon Gavia arctica Whistling Swan Olar columbianus Mallard Anus platyrhynchos Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Scater Melanitta sp. Red-Breasted Merganser Magus serrator Rough-Legged Hawk . Buteo lagopus Golden Eagle Aquila ckrysaetos Bald Eagle Haliseetry leucocephalus Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneus Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Yellowlegs Tringa sp. Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala Common Snipe Gallinago galiinago Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Glaucus-Winged Gull Larus glaucescens Lakes and Ponds x ~ mM Lake Shores Allen River Dam Site Riparian Willow Alder Tundra Thickets Thickets Forest Xx x ».4 x x g oO xX _ ° 2 N GL LISIHX3S LOCATION OF BIRDS OBSERVED BY AEIDC DURING THE SUMMER OF 1982 IN THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE STUDY AREA (cont.) Species Herring Gull Larus argentatus Sabines Gull Xema sabini Olive-sided Flycatcher Nuttallornis borealis Common Raven Corvus corax Water Pipit Anthus spinaletta Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Rusty Blackbird Euphagus cardinus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Golden-Crowned Sparron Zonotrichia atricapilla Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Lakes Riparian and Lake Allen Dam Willow Alder Ponds Shores River Site Tundra Thickets Thickets Forest x x x x x x xX x x X xX x xX x x xX x xX x Xx o 8 nN ° = Ny GL LISIHXS Probable breeding area South-facing precipitous slopes are common in the study area, providing ample habitat for cliff-nesting Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT PROBABLE BREEDING AREAS OF CLIFF — NESTING RAPTORS IN THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE BASIN HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 CHIKUMINUK LAKE LAKE “CHAUEKUAKTULI © EXHIBIT 17 aA Ackerman survey sites @ AHRS site oP Pe ey ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE STUDY AREA Prepared by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 APPENDIX E Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX E ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company December 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION I-1 It REGIONAL INTERTIE II-1 . Intertie Routes II-1 Types of Structures II-1 River Crossings II-2 Village Line Termination and Transformer II-2 Cost Estimates II-3 III FORMULATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS : Formulation of Energy Supply Plans III-1 Base Case Supply Plan III-3 “y Existing Facilities III-3 | Future Needs III-12 ~ Costs for Base Case Plan III-12 Optimized Base Case Supply Plan III-16 ! Wind Generation . III-16 Waste Heat Recovery III-17 Intertie IlI-17 Coal Direct Combustion : III-17 Costs for Optimized Base Case III-17 Thermal Supply Plans III-20 Construction Costs III-20 Fuel Costs III-21 Operation and Maintenance Costs III-21 Hydroelectric Energy Supply Plans III-22 Construction Costs III-32 Fuel Costs III-24 Operation and Maintenance Costs_ IIlI-24 Fuel Cell Plans ILI-26 Construction Costs III-26 Fuel Costs III-28 Operation and Maintenance Costs III-28 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Chapter Page IV EVALUATION OF ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS Iv-1 Technical Evaluation Iv-1 Electricity Generation Iv-1 Space and Water Heating Iv-2 Transmission Lines IvV-3 Economic Evaluation Iv-5 Criteria for Economic Comparison Iv-5 Economic Comparison Iv-5 Sensitivity Analysis Iv-10 Environmental Evaluation Iv-13 Water Quality Iv-13 Air Quality Iv-14 Aquatic Habitat Iv-14 Terrestrial Habitat Iv-15 Mammals Iv-16 Birds Iv-16 Vegetation Iv-16 Endangered Species IV-17 Subsistence Iv-17 Conservation, Recreation, and Iv-18 Aesthetics Archaeological Sites Iv-18 Sociocultural Values Iv-18 Human Health and Safety Iv-19 Public Acceptance Evaluation Iv-19 Diesel Base Case Iv-20 Coal-Fired Generation with Iv-20 District Heating Hydroelectric Generation Iv-21 Fuel Cell Generation Iv-21 Coal-Fired Space Heating Iv-21 Transmission Lines Iv-22 Table No. II-1 III-1 III-2 III-3 III-4 IlI-5 III-6 IlI-7 IIlI-8 IlI-9 III-10 III-11 III-12 III-13 III-14 III-15 III-16 III-17 III-18 IrI-19 LIST OF TABLES Title Transformer List List of Selected Supply Plans Akiachak Electrical Generating Capacity Akiak Electrical Generating Capacity Akolmiut Electrical Generating Capacity Atmautluak Electrical Generating Capacity Bethel Electrical Generating Capacity Eek Electrical Generating Capacity Kwethluk Electrical Generating Capacity Napakiak Electrical Generating Capacity Napaskiak Electrical Generating Capacity Oscarville Electrical Generating Capacity Tuluksak Electrical Generating Capacity Tuntutuliak Electrical Generating Capacity Timing, Capacity, and Cost of New Diesel Generating Facilities for Base Case Diesel Fuel Costs Diesel Operation and Maintenance Costs Wind Energy Costs Timing, Capacity, and Cost of New Diesel Generating Facilities for Optimized Base Case Estimated Construction Costs of Waste Heat Recovery -iii- III-3 III-4 III-5 III-6 III-7 III-7 III-8 III-9 Itt=9 III-10 IIt-11 III-12 III-13 III-14 III-15 III-16 III-18 III-18 Table No. III-20 III-21 III-22 III-23 III-24 Iv-1 Iv-2 IvV-3 Iv-4 LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Title Coal Plant Construction Cost Expenditure Schedules Estimated Construction Cost of the Chikuminuk Lake Project Hydroelectric Construction Cost Expenditure Schedules Estimated Construction Costs of Fuel Cell Plants Fuel Celi Capital Expenditures Present Worth of Supply Plans to Meet the Electric and Heating Energy Demand Present Worth Analysis of Intertie Present Worth of Supply Plans to Meet the Electric Energy Demand Sensitivity Analysis, Present Worth of Supply Plans -iv- Page ITI-21 III-23 III-24 III-27 III-28 IV-7 L! , Exhibit No. ri 1 10 4 11 12 LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Intertie: Transmission System Intertie Transmission Data Typical A-Frame Structure Diesel Waste Heat Recovered in Year 2002 Estimated Construction Cost of Coal Supply Plans Summary of Economic Parameters and Equipment Lifetimes : Present Worth of Supply Plans to Meet Electric and Heating Energy Demand -Present Worth Computation of Electric Energy Demand of Base Case for Bethel Present Worth Computation of Heating Demand of Base Case for Bethel Present Worth of Benefits and Costs for Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Systems (Most-likely Scenario) Villages Intertied to Bethel for each Supply Plan Relative Environmental Impact Evaluation Chapter I INTRODUCTION Alternative energy supply plans were developed to meet the energy needs of Bethel and twelve surrounding communities in the Bethel region. These plans include several which are a continu- ation of the present use of diesel units for energy supply, either maintaining isolated units in the communities or inter- connecting the communities to a central diesel generating sta- tion in Bethel. The other plans consider central sources of generation, either thermal or hydro, which supply the region from a central supply point in Bethel. An overall review of the estimated construction costs, presented in Appendix C and D, was performed by Jacobs Associ- ates, a construction consulting firm. The purpose of this review was to establish the reasonableness and comparability of the various cost estimates. These revised cost estimates were used for the formulation and evaluation of the supply plans. A regional intertie transmission system is common to many of the plans. This system is described in the following chap- ter. Chapter III discusses how the plans were formulated and describe the plans individually. Finally, an evaluation of the plans is presented. Also as part of the supply plan evaluation, subregional plans are developed and evaluated. Chapter II REGIONAL INTERTIE A regional subtransmission intertie between Bethel and the other twelve communities is an element common to supply plans with a centralized source of generation in Bethel. A detailed description of the potential subtransmission system is presented in Appendix E-1 to this Appendix. Intertie Routes The regional transmission system could potentially intertie all the villages in the study area. A map showing the routes of the system is presented as Exhibit 1. A description of the selection of the system is given in Appendix E-1. Exhibit 2 shows the length of each route segment and the number of river crossings involved in each. A voltage level of 34.5 kV was selected for the system. The construction of a 34.5 kV subtransmission system in the Bethel area must overcome the unique conditions imposed by the environment. The problems encountered. in the area which must be taken into account in the design of the line are: Frost heaving (permafrost) Ice and wind loading Access roads Muskeg bogs Difficulty of construction OA BWNH Types of Structures Two types of structures were considered for application in the Bethel area: 1. A-frame structures 2. Conventional wood pole structures. The experience with A-frame construction-in Alaska consists of two projects, one in Bethel and the other in the Kobuk re- gion. Information on these projects is given in- Appendix E-1.. . The A-frame construction can have some significant-advan- * tages over the conventional wood pole designs. The advantages include, simplicity of construction, no foundation below grade, and potential use of local construction materials. The performance of existing A-frame structures indicates that a detailed design study should be made to arrive at a set II-1 of standard structures. However, such a study is beyond the scope of the present report. The structure configuration shown on Exhibit 3 was used for the present analysis. : Although the terminology "conventional wood pole" is used, it is recognized that this type of structure would not be suit- able because of frost heaving. To overcome this problem, it would be necessary to attach the woodpoles to steel piles. The steel piles would be installed through the permafrost active zone to provide a reliable support for the wood pole. The in- stallation of steel piles in permafrost is a difficult problem to be overcome in this type of construction. The steel piles could be driven where fine-grained soils occur, but could en- counter difficulty in areas where the permafrost consists of coarse-grained soils. A drilled pile installation may be more economical, depending on soil conditions along the alignment. In general, surficial soils in the area are expected to consist predominantly of fine-grained soils, which may result in driven piles being feasible. Any type of pile installation would like- ly result in costs exceeding those of the A-frame construction. River Crossings The proposed subtransmission system involves a 34.5 kv crossing of the Kuskokwim River, in addition to several cros- sings of smaller rivers and sloughs. The 34.5 kV crossing of the Kuskokwim could be made with overhead spans on steel structures. A submarine crossing has also been suggested. The 34.5 kV crossings of smaller rivers and sloughs are proposed to be made with overhead spans on wood- pole structures. The cost estimates used in this prefeasibility analysis are based on crossing the Kuskokwim River between Kwethluk and Akia- chak. The submarine crossing was also considered, because it would not interfere with birds or aircraft, and because a great- er number of river crossing locations can be considered. How- ever, the submarines cable may be vulnerable to damage from ice, river barges, currents and anchors. It is therefore recommended that, in the feasibility stage, a 34.5 kV submarine crossing be analyzed with due consideration of foundation conditions, soils, river action, and potential ice problems. Table II-1 lists the transformers that would be installed in each village. Pole mounted transformers are proposed. The transformers could be single-phase units mounted in three-phase clusters in each village. The maps of the existing village II-2 distribution systems are given in the individual village reports (Appendix G). These maps also show the. possible locations for the line termination and transformers in each village. Table II-1 TRANSFORMER LIST Installed 3-Phase Year 2002 Community Transformers Most Likely Load kw KVA at 853) Akiachak 3 x 75 KVA 185 218 Akiak 3 x 45 95 112 Atmautluak 3 x 45 95 112 Bethel 2 x 3750 6,380 7,506 Eek 4x 45 140 165 Kasigluk 3 x 75 200 235 Kwethluk 3 x 75 160 188 Napakiak 3 x 75 190 - 224 Napaskiak 4 x 45 125 “147 Nunapitchuk 2x 75 125 147 Oscarville 2 x 25 35 41 Tuluksak 3 x 45 115 135 Tuntutuliak 4x 25 90 106 Cost Estimates For this prefeasibility analysis, an estimated cost of $100,000 per mile has been used for the 34.5 kV subtransmission lines. As noted, both the A-frame and wood pole on steel piles have been considered for this application. Since both methods of construction are possible in the Bethel area, it is recom- mended that the feasibility study for the project include an in- depth analysis of the two alternatives, to evaluate the relative merits of each. The cost estimate of $100,000 per mile is based on the A- frame type construction and presumes the following characteris- tics: 15 structures per mile 4/0 ACSR conductor Class 3 poles, 40 feet long 3 strain structures per mile oo000 Costs for river crossings are estimated at $80,000 per crossing. Transformer costs were estimated based on the capa- I1-3 city of the transformers required in each village. Terminations were assumed to cost $11,000 each. The total cost for the transmission lines to each village, including the line termination and transformers, are given on Exhibit 2. II-4 Chapter III FORMULATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS Formulation of Energy Supply Plans Based on the evaluation of various energy technologies presented in Appendix C and Appendix D, the following techno- logies were selected as the best alternatives to supply the electricity and space and water heating demand of the Bethel region: Diesel Generation Direct Combustion (Fuel Oil) Direct Combustion (Coal) Coal-Fired Generation Hydropower Generation Fuel Cells The requirements of the study are to analyze hypothetical supply plans consisting of, at least, a Base Case which repre- sents the continuation of present practices of reliance on oil- fired electrical generation and heating, and a minimum of two alternatives. All possible combinations of the selected energy technologies were evaluated to minimize energy costs for the market area, and adverse environmental and socioeconomic im- pacts. Regional and sub-regional plans were analyzed. Table III-l presents the supply plans that were selected for detailed evaluation, with a brief description of the mode of electricity generation and heat supply. All supply plans, except the Base Case, include coal direct combustion to meet the heating demand that cannot be supplied by waste heat recovery, district heat, or electric heat. This was done for consistency between the supply plans, and because coal was found to be the cheapest alternative commercially available. In the economic evaluation section of the next chapter, the sensitivity analysis presents the results of using fuel oil to meet the heating demand. A description of each plan is presented in the following sections. III-1- Table III-1 LIST OF SELECTED SUPPLY PLANS 4 No. Title Description I Base Case Diesel generation & fuel oil direct combustion II Optimized Base Case Optimized diesel and wind generation & coal direct Pm combustion 3 IIt Thermal Alternatives IIIA Coal and diesel generation & coal direct combustion IIIB Coal and diesel generation & waste heat recovery & coal direct combustion IIIc Coal generation & coal direct combustion IIID Coal generation & waste heat recovery heat & coal direct combustion IIIE Coal generation & district heat & coal direct combustion IV Hydroelectric Alternatives IVA Hydroelectric generation & coal direct combustion IVB Hydroelectric generation & , electric heat & coal direct combustion Vv Fuel Cell Alternatives VA Fuel cell generation & coal direct combustion VB Fuel cell generation & waste heat recovery & coal direct combustion III-2 I. Base Case Supply Plan Existing Facilities The Base Case Plan represents a continuation of the present practices of diesel generation of electricity. A description of the existing generating facilities for each village and the city of Bethel is presented in the following paragraphs. The Base Case Plan also assumes the continued use of fuel oil for resi- dential and non-residential heating needs. Akiachak. There are a total of ten operating generators (Table III-2), with a total capacity of 1170 kW, in the village. The village generators alone (785 kW) are capable of generating enough power for the village and both the Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) and the BIA schools. Both schools, however, maintain their own generators. The schools are not integrated with the village generating system because the village distributes two-phase power and the schools require three-phase power. Table III-2 AKIAKCHAK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner/ Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacit Voltage Substation a Akiachak, Ltd. Primary 275 208/120V (3) 100KVA Akiachak, Ltd. Primary 275 Akiachak, Ltd. Primary +35 Akiachak, Ltd. Primary 100 BIA Primary 100 BIA Primary 50 BIA Primary 60 LKSD Primary 75 LKSD Primary 7 LKSD Primary 25) Total Capacity 1,170 kw The village distribution system distributes two-phase power in either direction from the power plant. In order to integrate the schools, the village system would have to add an additional neutral wire and convert an existing wire from neutral to a phase conductor. The structures are in place to do this, but a conductor and hardware would have to be installed. ItI-3 Generators are in good to excellent condition and the di- stribution system is practically new, except for one residential area in the east end of town. : Akiak. Akiak currently has a central three-phase power system with two generators (Table III-3). The total capacity of the generators is 535 kW. The generators are old, but operable. The powerhouse is located on the north side of town. The new LKSD school has two new standby 125 kW generators and the old school has an old single-phase 35 kW generator. The distribution system is in good condition, but has to be expanded to include two newly completed buildings at the airport and the planned twenty AVCP housing units. Akiak has two fuel storage tanks of approximately 35,000 gallons capacity each at the Fuel Depot. One of the tanks is for gasoline and one for fuel oil. In addition, the village has one fuel tank of approximately 35,000 gallons capacity at the powerhouse. The LKSD high school has a tank farm with eight tanks and the older BIA school has three smaller tanks. These tanks are not hooked up as of June 1982, but are completed and ready for hook up. Table III-3 AKIAK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner/ Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation (kw) Kukarmuit Corp. Primary 125 240V 50 KVA Kukarmuit Corp. Primary 125 100 KVA LKSD Standby 125 LKSD Standby 125 Old School Standby 35 Total Capacity 535 kW Akolmiut. All the power for the three sections of Akolmiut (Nunapitchuk, Kasigluk, and Akula Heights) is generated in single phase by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant in Nunapitchuk. There are three generators in good condition, but they can only generate at 60% of their rating due to single-phase operation. Standby systems are maintained by LKSD and BIA in Nunapitchuk and Kasigluk. IlI-4 Distribution is via a surface utilidor system that is four on years old. It has functioned well in Nunapitchuk, but has had iy some problems in Kaligluk. United Utilities has recently in- stalled telphone poles which can be converted to overhead power / distribution. Akula Heights had an overhead system installed Ls this year. : AVEC's intertie between Nunapitchuk, Kasigluk, and Akula 1 Heights consists of a single (#2) 15KV concentric neutral cable } laid on the ground. During break up, ice tears out the river crossing portions. There are plans to replace this line with an overhead line using refrigerated piling systems in the fall _ -of 1982. : ; Table III-4 {| wt AKOLMIUT ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY | Owner/ Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation i (kW) | | Nunapitchuk: _ AVEC Primary 400 120/240V 15KVA-100KVA AVEC Primary 300 ! AVEC Primary 175 wt LKSD Standby 75 BIA Standby 35 ca : BIA Standby 40 Kasigluk: a LKSD Standby 55 if BIA Standby 35 i BIA Standby 55 Total Capacity 1,175 kw AVEC's fuel storage capacity includes 12 tanks, with an estimated capacity of 7,000 - 10,000 gallons each, located in Nunapitchuk. In addition, the village has a storage capacity of approximately 70,000 gallons of fuel oil. Kasigluk has fuel oil — storage of 25,000 gallons capacity, with 9,000 gallons of gaso- line storage. ; Atmautluak. A new generation and distribution system is ) i being installed by the village. Two old, rebuilt generators Li (Allis-Chalmers, 100 kW) were purchased by the village and have been installed in the powerhouse. The sophisticated paralleling aa switchgear has been replaced with manual switchgear because no one in the village has had enough training to operate the so- III-5 phisticated equipment. In addition to the two rebuilt Allis- Chalmers units, one new 230 kW Kohler (Cummins) generator has been ordered. All generators will be generating 3 phase 480V (Table III-5). New wires and poles are being installed, as well as street lights. Table III-5 ATMAUTLUAK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner / Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation (kW) Atmautluak, Ltd. Ordered 230 208/120V (3) 10OKVA Atmautluak, Ltd. Ordered 100 Atmautluak, Ltd. Ordered 100 LKSD Primary 125 LKSD Primary 125 (6) Shared households Primary 22.8 (2) " Primary 7.4 (5) " Standby 18 Total Capacity 783.2 kW Bethel. Electricity in Bethel is produced and sold by a regulated privately-owned power company, Bethel Utilities Corpo- ration (BUC). Bethel Utilities has been continually upgrading their distribution system. Both inside and outside plant are in excellent condition. : The generation system is composed of four 2,100 kW (each) ElectroMotive (EM) generators which are in excellent condition (Table III-6). Three-phase power is generated at 2400/4160V. A distribution circuit east toward Bethel's downtown is 2400/ 4160v. The distribution circuit for the airport is stepped up to 7200V. Experience on the Napakiak intertie connected at the far west end of town has indicated the need for voltage regula- tion during peak demand periods. III-6 Li. Table III-6 BETHEL ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner/ - Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation . (kW) BUC Primary 2,100 2400/4160V BUC Primary 2,100 Completely upgraded BUC Primary 2,100 BUC . Primary 2,100 LKSD Standby 125 LKSD Standby 125 LKSD Standby 75 BIA . Standby . 250 BIA Standby 250 BIA Standby 250 P.H.S. Hospital Standby 565 P.H.S. Hospital Standby 565 P.H.S. Hospital Standby 565 Total Capacity 11,170 kW Eek. Eek is another village served by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). AVEC maintains and operates three generators having a total capacity of 300 kW. Maximum demand for electricity has been 90 kW. AVEC supplies the electrical needs of the LKSD school and the BIA school. All the electri- city generated is single phase (Table III-7). The generators are down-rated to 60 percent of rated capacity. Table III-7 EEK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner/ Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation (kw) AVEC Primary 160 120/208v (7200V) AVEC Primary 90 AVEC Primary “50 LKSD Standby 75 Total Capacity 375 kW III-7 The distribution system is a surface utilidor which is in good condition. Kwethluk. Kwethluk has two non-paralleling generators that generate power for the village. There are a total of eight generators in the village, including stand-by generators main- tained by the LKSD and the BIA’ schools. The village generators are well maintained and are two to three years old (Table III- 8). The distribution system is in good condition and less than five years old. Table III-8 KWETHLUK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner / Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation (kw) Kwethluk, Inc. Primary 250 125/216 (3) 1O0OKVA Kwethluk, Inc. Primary 250 BIA Standby 100 BIA Standby 50 LKSD Standby 125 Total Capacity 775 kW Kwethluk has a village tank farm with three tanks for gaso- line with a total capacity of 22,750 gallons, and six fuel oil tanks with a total capacity of 40,650 gallons. Napakiak. WNapakiak maintains 300 kW total stand-by gene- rator capacity (Table III-9) from two 150 kW Cat generators. The total village electrical requirements are supplied by a Single Wire Ground Return line (SWGR) from Bethel. Power is distributed in single phase at 240/480 volts and the system is in serious need of replacement. . III-8 _ Table III-9 NAPAKIAK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner/ Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation (kw) Bethel Utilities Primary - Corp. - BIA Standby 150 BIA Standby | 150 Total Standby Capacity . 300 kw. The distribution system in Napakiak is reported to be in the final phases of being upgraded. New poles have already been Set. However, no plans were available to describe the new sys- tem. Napakiak has had problems with voltage regulation and faults in the underground portion of the intertie from Bethel. Napaskiak. Napaskiak currently has two generators with 105 kW and 155 kW capacity, respectively (Table III-10). Both were installed in 1976. The 155 kW is not currently in working order and the village is operating on just the 105 kW generator. Table III-10 NAPASKIAK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner/ Operating . Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation (kW) Napaskiak, Inc. Primary 155 - 240/480V (3) 50KVA Napaskiak, Inc. Primary - 105 120/240Y BIA Standby. 35 120/240V BIA Standby 35 LKSD Standby 75 Total Capacity 405 kw The distribution is via a sub-standard 120/240 volt single phase overhead system. It is fed from a 4160V, three-phase feeder from the power house. Both schools and the north end of town are on individual 120/240V feeder lines attached to the generator side transformer lugs. This system is being replaced III-9 with a new distribution system. Thus far, poles have been set but the conductors have not been strung. Oscarville. The village generation system has two gene- rators (Table III-11). Neither is currently operable. The village has been waiting for a Bethel intertie for three years. A right-of-way problem has prevented the intertie from being installed. In the meantime, the village generator system has not been repaired or operated. The LKSD school has been operat- ing their own generator, which serves the school facility and the maintenance man's house. The distribution system is 120/240V and is adequate, consi- dering the small size of this village. Two or three more poles need to be set to serve the four residences on the south end of town. The school generator currently utilizes waste heat reco- very. Table III-11 OSCARVILLE ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner/ Operating Switchgear Operator — Status Capacity Voltage Substation (kW) Oscarville Corp. -not running- (100) 120/240 None Oscarville Corp. -not running- ( 30) BIA “Primary . 35 | 120/240 BIA Primary 30 120/240 Tuluksak. Three separate generating systems exist; one for the village and two others for the two school systems (Table III-12). III-10 an) Table III-12 TULUKSAK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner/ Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation (kW) Tulkisarmute, Inc. Primary 55 120/240v (3) 75KVA Tulkisarmute, Inc. Primary 100 LKSD Primary 75 LKSD Primary 75 LKSD Primary 25 BIA Primary 75 BIA Primary _50 Total Capacity 455 kw Village corporation fuel storage capacity is in excess of 25,000 gallons. LKSD and BIA have independent fuel storage facilities. Tuntutuliak. There is no electrical distribution system in Tuntutuliak. In 1982 they received a legislative grant for a generation and distribution system which is in the process of being installed. However, no drawings are available. The new system will include three new generators (Table III-13), new wires and poles. This system will be three phase. Both the BIA school and the LKSD school have expressed an interest in hooking up. The new utility will be operated by the village and re- places a system that included generators and hooking into the school generators. III-11 Table III-13 TUNTUTULIAK ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY Owner / Operating Switchgear Operator Status Capacity Voltage Substation kW Tuntutuliak Under Constr. 125 (3) 50KVA Tuntutuliak Under Constr. 125 Tuntutuliak Under Constr. .- 75 BIA Primary 35 BIA Primary 40 LKSD Primary 75 LKSD Primary 75 LKSD Primary 25 Future Needs Under the Base Case, each community, except Bethel and Napakiak which are intertied, remains isolated and needs to have the diesel generating capacity to meet its own electric peak and energy demand. This plan assumes a 100 percent reserve capacity for all the surrounding villages, and about 50 percent for Bethel. Costs for the Base Case Plan Construction Costs. Table III-14 summarizes the construc- tion schedule and costs for new diesel units installed in the communities. Each new diesel unit would be installed within a few months before its capacity is required. III-12 Table III-14 vy TIMING, CAPACITY, AND Cost OF NEW DIESEL GENERATING FACILITIES FOR BASE CASE Year Capacity Cost (kw) ($x1000) a Akiachak 1989 400 210 Akiak 1983 200 150 Akolmiut 1989 700 300 Atmautluak 1999 200 150 Bethel 1995 10,000 8,000 Eek 1989 300 180 Kwethluk 1989 300 © 180 Napakiak | 1999 200 150 Napaskiak 1989 300 180 | Oscarville 1983 . 200 150 Tuluksak 1989 300 180 Tuntutuliak 1999 200 150 Fuel Costs. For Bethel, the fuel cost was computed based on a diesel cost of $1.40 per gallon, and an energy generation of 13 kWh per gallon. For the villages, the fuel cost was com- puted based on a cost of diesel varying between $1.60 and $1.90 per gallon, and an average energy generation of 10 kWh per gal- lon. Table III-15 summarizes the diesel fuel cost for each com- munity. The heating fuel cost for fuel oil direct combustion is \ based on an average of $1.40 per gallon in Bethel and an average of $1.80 in the villages. An efficiency of 70 percent was as- 7, sumed. III-13 Table III-15 DIESEL FUEL COSTS Diesel Cost Efficiency Fuel Cost ($/gallon) (kWh/gallon) ($7kwh) Akiachak 1.90 10 0.19 Akiak 1.90 10 0.19 Akolmiut 1.60 10 0.16 Atmautluak 1.60 10 0.16 Bethel 1.40 13 0.11 Eek 1.90 10 0.19 Kwethluk 1.90 10 0.19 Napakiak®?/ -- -~ -- Napaskiak 1.70 10 0.17 Oscarville 1.70 10 0.17 Tuluksak 1.90 10 0.19 Tuntutuliak 1.90 10 0.19 a/ Purchases power from Bethel. Operation and Maintenance Costs. The generation and main- tenance costs were determined based on the number of personnel required for operation and maintenance of the units; the costs : of overhauls, repairs, and replacements; and facility mainte- nance. These costs are presented in Table III-16. No O&M costs are assumed for the fuel oil heating systems. III-14 Table III-16 DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Maintenance Operation Total Unit Costs Costs Cost Cost b (S7yr) ($7yr) S7yr) = ($7kwh)2/ Akiachak 26,300 25,500 51,800 0.079 Akiak 10,700 25,000 35,700 0.105 Akolmiut 37,800 28,000 65,800 0.060 Atmautluak 10,700 25,000 35,500 0.112 Bethel 484,000 489,000 973,000 0.032 Eek 21,400 26,500 47,900 0.098 Kwethluk 26,100 26,000 52,100 0.104 Napakiak®?/ -- -- -- -- Napaskiak 18,200 25,500 43,700 0.109 Oscarville 8,800 13,500 22,300 0.186 Tuluksak 17,600 26,500 44,100 0.119 Tuntutuliak 10,700 25,000 35,700 0.128 a/ Purchases power from BUC. b/ Average cost based on year 2002 generation. III-15 II. Optimized Base Case Supply Plan The optimized base case will utilize the base case condi- l tions, with an evaluation of wind generation, waste heat reco- very, intertie, and coal direct combustion for heating demand. Sub-regional interties will also be evaluated to determine their feasibility. Wind Generation The wind potential is described in Appendix C-3. The cost estimate was increased by 50 percent to include land and right- of-way, intertie, engineering fees, and licenses. The annual operation and maintenance costs were kept at 5 percent of the total construction cost. Table III-]7 summarizes the total wind energy cost for various sites and under two scenarios: a 25-kW unit, and a 250-kW unit as presented in Appendix C-3. - Table III-17 WIND ENERGY COST Unit Annual Annual Annual Energy Capa- Construc- O& M Capital Total Wind Poten- Energy city tion Cost Cost Cost Cost Class tial Cost (kW) (3) ($) (sy ts) (kwh) (§7kWwh) 25 75,000 6,500 3,750 10,250 6 50,000 0.20 . 5 40,000 0.26 4 307,000 0.34 250 610,000 53,000 30,000 83,500 6 255,000 0.33 5 205,000 0.41 4 160,000 0.52 1/7 Based on a 15-year life and 3.5% discount rate. Only the small wind unit (25 kW) in areas with Wind Class 6 is competitive with diesel generation. The villages of Eek and Tuntutuliak are within that area. Based on the assumption that 30 percent is a reasonable limit for wind integration into an existing system, a 25-kW wind unit was assumed to come on line in 1986 in both villages. In Eek, because of its larger load, the 25-kW unit would be replaced by two 25-kW units in year 2001. III-16 Waste Heat Recovery The various waste heat recovery systems are described in Appendix C. For the villages in the Bethel area, it was esti- mated that only the jacket water system would be feasible to be installed, and that the heat would be used to supplement an existing system so that no auxiliary heaters were required at the generating plant. Exhibit. 4 summarizes the potential heat recovery in each village. Intertie In addition to the existing intertie between Bethel and Napakiak, regional and sub-regional intertie systems were ana- lyzed. The interties are described in Chapter II of this Ap- pendix. It was assumed that the villages could be, at the ear- liest, intertied by 1986. In the regional intertie system, Be- thel would be the generating center. Two sub-regional intertie systems were analyzed. The first one includes the villages of Akiak, Akiachak, and Kwethluk. The other sub-region includes the villages of Atmautluak, Kasigluk, and Nunapitchuk. The generat ing centers would be Akiachak and Nunapitchuk. In the other villages, a reserve capacity equal to the peak demand would be kept to provide electric energy during intertie shut- down which was assumed to occur 5 percent of the time. Coal Direct Combustion A detailed assessment of coal for space heating is pre- sented in Chapter IV of Appendix C-1l. For consistency between all supply plans, it was assumed that the conversion to coal direct combustion would be in 1988, the same year as the coal- fired plant would come on line. For the purpose of the economic comparisons, it was also assumed that all existing and future residential and non-residential systems would be converted to coal. The total estimated cost for converting all systems is estimated to be about $10,000,000. In addition to this initial cost for conversion, a capital replacement factor of 3 percent allows for provision for a sinking fund for the entire system every 20 years. In the case of the non-residential systems, an additional annual cost of 7 percent of the capital cost is used to estimate the cost for operating and maintaining the system. Costs for Optimized Base Case Construction Costs. The diesel construction costs are pre- sented in Table III-18. “III-17 Table III-18 TIMING, CAPACITY, AND COST OF NEW DIESEL GENERATING FACILITIES FOR OPTIMIZED BASE CASE Year Capacity Cost - (kw) ($x1000) Akiachak 1999 200 105 Akiak 1993 100 75 Akolmiut 1999 350 150 Atmautluak 2009 100 75 Bethel 1995 10,000 8,000 Eek 1999 150 90 Kwethluk 1999 200 105 Napakiak 2009 200 105 Napaskiak 1999 150 90 Oscarville 1993 100 75 Tuluksak 1999 150 90 Tuntutuliak 2009 100 75 The construction cost of the 25-kW wind unit used in the evalua- tion is $75,000. The capital costs of the waste heat recovery systems are presented in Table III-19. The construction costs of the intertie are presented on Exhibit 6. The cost of the conversion to coal direct combustion is estimated at $7,000,000 for Bethel and $3,000,000 for the villages. Table III-19 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF WASTE HEAT RECOVERY Estimated Community Cost Akiachak $146,800 Akiak 68, 200 Akolmiut 218,800 Atmautluak 124,500 Eek 133,500 Kwethluk 118,500 Napaskiak 115,800 Oscarville 64,300 Tuluksak 99,000 Tuntutuliak 108,000 Fuel Costs. The diesel fuel costs are the same as the costs presented in Table III-15. The fuel cost for coal direct III-18 combustion is based on an average cost of $140 per ton delivered in Bethel and $175 per ton for the villages. This cost is based on $10,000 Btu per pound of coal. An efficiency of 70 percent was assumed. Operation and Maintenance Costs. The diesel O&M costs, used for the main generating units in Bethel, Akiachak, and Akolmiut, are the same as the unit costs shown in Table III-16. For the reserve generating units in the other villages, which are used 5 percent of the time, a unit cost of $0.10 per kWh was used. The annual O&M cost for the 25-kW wind unit is $3,750. No additional. O&M costs were included for the waste heat reco- very. systems. The intertie O&M costs were estimated at 0.6 per- cent of the total construction costs. The annual O&M costs for the coal direct combustion are estimated at $560,000 for Bethel and $186,000 for the villages. III-19 --III. Thermal Supply Plans The various thermal activities are described in Chapter VI of Appendix C. Several options were considered. A 4-MW and a 10-MW coal-fired steamplant were found the most attractive. Supply Plan IIIA would consist of a 4-MW base load plant supplemented by diesel generators to meet the peak demand. The - heating demand in Bethel and the villages would be met by coal direct. combustion as described in the optimized Base Case. Supply Plan IIIB would consist of the same 4-MW base load plant with waste heat recovery that would supply about 25 per- cent of the heating demand in Bethel. The remaining heating demand would be met by coal direct combustion. Supply Plan IIIC would consist of a 10-MW plant that would generate the total electric energy demand. The heating demand would be met by coal direct combustion. Supply Plan IIID would consist of a 10-MW plant with waste heat recovery that would supply 62 percent of the heating demand in Bethel. The remaining demand would be met by coal direct combustion. Supply Plan IIIE would also consist of a 10-MW plant with a supplemental boiler to supply about 80 percent of the total heating demand of Bethel. The remaining heating demand would be met by coal direct combustion. A 90 percent availability was estimated for each coal-fired plant. During the outages, diesel generators in Bethel would meet the electric energy demand. In addition, in each village, a diesel reserve capacity equal to at least 100 percent of the peak demand would be kept in service to provide electric energy during intertie shutdown which was assumed to occur 5 percent of the time. Construction Costs The construction cost of each supply plan is presented in Exhibit 5. Each plan was estimated to come on line in 1988. The construction cost expenditures schedule of each plan is presented in Table III-20. No interest during construction was included. II1I-20 Table III-20 COAL PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST EXPENDITURE SCHEDULES ($ x 1000) Thermal Supply Plan Year IIIA IIIB IIIC IIID IIIE 1983 800 1,700 1,700 4,000 5,400 1984 2,400 5,000 5,200 11,800 16,200 1985 4,000 8,400 8,600 19,800 27,000 1986 5,500 11,800 12,000 27,600 37,900 1987 3,072 6 ,800 6,909 15,667 21,757 Total 15,772 33,700 34,409 78,867 108,257 The construction schedule and costs of new generating die- sel units are the same as in the optimized Base Case, except for Bethel, where the existing units would be replaced by 6,500 kW in 2005. The construction cost is estimated at $7,000,000 for Bethel and $3,000,000 for the villages. With the waste heat recovery or district heat systems, these costs are adjusted to reflect the remaining percentage of heating demand that would be met by coal direct combustion. Fuel Costs The fuel costs of each supply plan are presented in Exhib- it 8. The diesel fuel costs vary from village to village and are presented in Table III-15. The fuel cost for coal direct combustion is based on an average cost of $140 per ton delivered in Bethel and $175 per ton for the villages. These costs are based on a heat rate of 10,000 Btu per pound. An efficiency of 70 percent was assumed. Operation and Maintenance Costs The O&M cost of each supply plan are presented in Exhib- it 8. Before 1988, when the coal plant would come on line, the diesel O&M costs are the same as the costs of the Base Case which are presented in Table III-16. After 1988, an O&M cost of $0.035 per kWh is used for the reserve diesel units in Bethel, and $0.10 per kWh is used for the village units. The annual O&M costs for coal direct combustion are based on $560,000 in Bethel and $186,000 in the villages for 100 percent conversion. III-21 IV. Hydroelectric Energy Supply Plan The hydroelectric energy supply plan represents the combi- nation of hydroelectric energy generation and coal direct com- bustion for space heating. Two scenarios were formulated for the supply plan comparison. The Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric project would regulate the outflow of Chikuminuk Lake for the production of power and energy. The alternative development for electric requirements would have a capacity of 9.5 MW at a rated net head of 83 feet and a dependable capacity of 9 MW at a minimum net head of 80 feet. The project was sized to meet the monthly firm electric energy requirements of the Bethel region through the year 2002, producing 39 GWh. The average annual energy production would be about 60 GWh. That average surplus of energy would meet about 6 percent of the total heating requirements of the Bethel region. The second scenario was formulated for a development that approaches the topographic limits of the site. The project would have an installed capacity of 24 MW. The project would produce 113.5 GWh on a firm basis and the average annual energy production would be 120 GWh. This development would meet about 24 percent of the heating requirements of the Bethel region. A 95 percent availability was estimated for each project. During the outages, diesel generators in Bethel would meet the electric energy demand. In addition, in each village, a diesel reserve capacity equal to at least 100 percent of the peak de- mand would be kept in service to provide electric energy during intertie shutdown which was assumed to occur 5 percent of the time. In Supply Plan IVA, the Chikuminuk Lake 9.5 MW development was combined with coal direct combustion for space heat to supply the total electric and space heating requirements of the region. In supply plan IVB, the Chikuminuk Lake electric and space heat alternative with a 24 MW installed capacity was combined with coal direct combustion for supply of the remaining 75 percent of the space heating requirements. Construction Costs The construction costs of Supply Plans IVA and IVB are sum- marized in Table III-21. III-22 Table III-21 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE CHIKUMINUK LAKE PROJECT Construction Costs $1000 Item IVA IVB Land and Land Rights 3,500 7,500 Powerplant Structures and Improvements 5,808 8,524 Reservoirs, Dams and Waterways 21,930 36,890 Water Wheels, Turbines and Generators 5,750 10,500 Accessory Electrical Equipment 520 750 Miscellaneous Powerplant Equipment 860 1,344 Roads, Railroads and Bridges 375 375 Transmission Plant Structures and Improve- ments 682 ' 967 Station Equipment 2,025 3,350 Towers and Fixtures — 30,290 30,290 Camp and Commissary 21,475 27,685 Subtotal, Direct Cost : 93,215 128,175 Contingencies (25% of Subtotal Direct Cost) 23,304 32,044 Total Direct Cost . : 116,519 160,219 ' Engineering and Owner's Overhead (17% of Direct Cost) 19,808 27,237 Total Construction Costl 136,327 187,456 1/ - fotal construction cost excludes escalation and interest during construction. The projected overall implementation schedule for the hydroelectric projects from start of feasibility studies to completion of the project would be approximately six and one- half years, assuming no lapse between phases. Four years are estimated to be required for feasibility studies, preparation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license applica- tion, the evaluation by FERC, other State and local applications and approvals, detailed engineering design, and required speci- fication of major equipment. The construction of the projects is estimated to require two and one-half years. The on-line date would be January 1990. The construction cost expenditure schedules are shown in Table III-22. No interest during con- struction was included. | ‘III-23 Table III-22 HYDROELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COST EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE i Year IVA : IVB ($x1000) ($x1000) 1983 500 500 1984 . 1,000 1,000 1985 1,000 1,030 1986 3,000 ; 3,850 7 1987 33,600 45,750 ' 1988 55,800 72,830 1989 41,427 62,496 ~ -, Total 126,500 187,456 ~ The construction schedule and costs of new generating die- mt sel units are the same as in the optimized Base Case, except for ud Bethel where the existing units would be replaced by 6,500 kW in 2005. For Supply Plan IVA, the cost of the total conversion to coal direct combustion is estimated at $10,000,000 for the total region. The construction cost to add electric space heaters and auxilliary equipment is estimated at $1,000,000. For Supply Plan IVB, the coal conversion cost is estimated at $7,500,000, and the construction cost to convert to electric space heaters is estimated at $3,000,000. Fuel Costs The diesel fuel costs vary from village to village and are - presented in Table III-15. The fuel cost for coal direct com- i bustion is based on an average cost of $140 per ton delivered to Bethel and $175 per ton for the villages. These costs are based on a heat rate of 10,000 Btu per pound. An efficiency of t 70 percent was assumed. : ‘Operation and Maintenance Costs ‘ The estimated annual operation, maintenance, and replace- ment costs are estimated at $0.012 per kWh for Supply Plan IVA a and $0.006 per kWh for Supply Plan IVB. The costs are based on t data published by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, . ‘ experience and adjustments for the remote location of the plant. These costs include insurance, supplies, administration, on-site supervision, hydraulic and electric expenses, maintenance of the transmission line, electric plant and other miscellaneous equip- ment, and an annual payment to a sinking fund for major repairs. 9 III-24 r Before 1990 when the hydroelectric plant would come on line, the diesel O&M costs are the same as the costs presented in Table III-16. After 1990 , an O&M cost of $0.035 per kWh is used for the reserve diesel units in Bethel, and $0.10 per kWh for the village units. The annual O&M costs for coal direct combustion are based on $560,000 in Bethel and. $186,000 in the villages for 100 percent conversion. : III-25 V. Fuel Cell Supply Plans Two alternative fuel’ cell plans were formulated. Both plans include a centralized 9 MW fuel cell electric generation plant located in Bethel, at the same site proposed for the coal- fired steam plant (see Appendix C). The difference between the alternatives is that one plant is designed for waste-heat recovery, which could provide an estimated 12 percent of the total heating demand of Bethel. In both plans, space heating is met primarily by direct combustion of coal, as described in the optimization of the Base Case. An 85 percent availability was used for the fuel cell plants. During the outages, the diesel generators, in Bethel, would meet the electric energy demand. In addition, in each village, a diesel reserve capacity, equal to the peak demand would be kept to provide electric energy during intertie shut- down which was assumed to occur 5 percent of the time. Construction Costs Table III-23 summarizes the construction cost estimates for the two fuel cell plans. The construction costs presented in Chapter VI of Appendix C were adjusted to include a 25 percent contingency and a 15 percent engineering and owner's overhead. Also, transport to Bethel and substation costs were added. III-26 Table III-23 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF FUEL CELL PLANTS ($1,000) Cost Fuel Cell with Fuel Cell without Item Waste-Heat Recovery Waste-Heat Recovery Mobilization/ Demobilization 700 ’ 700 Packaged Plant (F.0O.B. Seattle) 11,700 11,700 Transportation (Seattle-Bethel) 200 200 Waste-Heat Equipment 3,000 0 Structural 1,200 1,200 Substation 750 750 Fuel Storage : and Off-Loading 2,744 2,744 Subtotal Direct Cost 20,294 17,294 Contingencies (25% of : Subtotal Direct Cost) 5,073 4,323 Total Direct Cost : 25,367 21,617 Engineering & Owner's Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) 3,805 : 3,243 Total Construction CostL/ 29,172 24,860 i/ Total Construction Cost excludes escalation and interest during construction. For the other supply plans, the capital expenditures were spread over the 1983-1987 period. However, due to uncertainty in the timing of fuel cell technology development, fuel cell plan is expected to come on line, at the earliest, in 1990. As a result, the construction costs were spread over the 1986-1989 III-27 period, as shown in Table III-24. No interest during construc- tion was included. Table III-24 FUEL CELL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ($1,000) Fuel Cell with Fuel Cell without Year Waste-Heat Recovery Waste-Heat Recovery 1986 1,500 1,250 1987 7,300 6,200 1988 11,700 10,000 1989 8,672 7,410 29,172 24,860 The construction schedule and costs of new generating die- sel units are the same as in the optimized Base Case, except for Bethel where the existing units would be replaced by 6,500 kW in 2005. The construction cost of the conversion to coal direct combustion is estimated at $7,000,000 for Bethel and $3,000,000 for the villages. With the waste heat recovery in Bethel, the construction cost of the remaining conversion to coal direct combustion is estimated at $6,500,000. Fuel Costs Both fuel cell plan alternatives would use propane as the fuel. The cost of this fuel was estimated at $0.96 per gallon. At an assumed heat rate of 8,300 Btu per gallon, the fuel cost is $0.086 per kilowatt-hour. The diesel fuel costs vary from village to village and are presented in Table III-15. The fuel cost for coal direct com- bustion is based on an average cost of $140 per ton delivered in Bethel, and $175 per ton for the villages. Operation and Maintenance Costs A fuel cell plant will require major refurbishing about every five years. A capital replacement factor of 5 percent allows for provision for a sinking fund. The associated cost would be $750,000 annually for the 20-year life of the plant. In addition, annual operation is expected to cost $150,000 per year. This cost includes administration, on-site supervision, and maintenance of the facilities. III-28 Before 1990 when the fuel cell plan is expected ’to come on line, the diesel O&M costs are the same as in the costs of the Base Case which are presented in Table III-16. After 1990, an O&M cost of $0.035 per kWh is used for the reserve diesel units in Bethel, and $0.10 per kWh is used for the village units. The annual O&M costs for coal direct conversion are based on $560,000 in Bethel and $186,000 in the villages for 100 percent conversion. , II1I-29 Chapter IV EVALUATION OF ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS The energy supply plans described in the previous chapter were evaluated based on technical, economic, environmental, and public acceptance criteria. The evaluations for all of these categories are described below. Technical Evaluation In accordance with Power Authority guidelines, the techni- cal evaluation considered the safety, reliability, commercial availability, and constructibility factors for each plan com- ponent. These evaluations are descrbed below for the major components. Further details for the non-hydropower components are provided in Appendix C. Electricity Generation The existing diesel generators in the region are safe and, when properly maintained, highly reliable. The storage and handling of the fuel present the biggest safety problems. The diesel plant in Bethel was destroyed by fire in December 1975. Diesel-generated power is now in use throughout the Bethel region, and is a well-known, proven technology. Since most small-scale diesel generators are purchased as package units, no particular constructibility problems are encountered. Pre- fabricated metal structures are commonly used to house diesel generators throughout the region. Coal-fired steam turbine plants have no adverse safety problems. In the handling of the coal, care must be taken to avoid conditions that might lead to spontaneous combustion. As with any technology using mechanical and electrical equipment, proper maintenance and operation are essential. It is possible to vary the output from a steam plant to follow load fluctua- tions, but such a cycling operation is inefficient. Hence, efficiency of steam plant generation is best when using the plant to supply base load power, with other sources for peaking power. Coal-fired steam turbines are commercially available now. As with diesel generation, no particular constructibility problems exist. Fuel cells continue to be developed and improved, but experience data on their performance in commercial applications is quite limited. A 4.8 MW demonstration plant was constructed in Manhattan by Consolidated Edison in 1980. While the instal- lation shows promise, technical problems have delayed plant Iv-1 operation. Hence, lack of experience with commercial fuel cell plants precludes any detailed technical evaluation at this time. However, no serious safety, reliability, or constructibility problems are anticipated. This study has elected to consider fuel cells commercially available at some time within the 20- year planning period (on-line by 1990). The major safety consideration associated with a hydroelec- tric project is the potential dam failure and resulting down- stream hazard to life and property. Proper design of the proj- ect structures against seismic and hydrologic risk is essential. In cold regions, ice problems can reduce the reliability, but proper design will minimize these problems. Hydroelectric proj- ects have historically proven to be very reliable. Hydroelec- tric projects are used for both base load and peaking power generation. They have been commercially available for decades. The remoteness of the site and associated access difficulties will affect constructibility, but hydropower projects are rou- tinely constructed in many remote locations throughout the world. Wind generators can have safety problems associated with ice build-up and shedding, and blade breakage. However, such occurrences are rare and would not preclude use of wind genera- tors in urban regions. Two wind generators are now operating in Bethel. Reliability of wind generators is still uncertain. Because of remote site locations, maintenance access is some- times difficult and expensive. Icing of blades can inhibit the generator's reliability. Wind generators are available now in ‘small -.sizes, less than 50 kW capacity. larger sizes have limit~ ed availability, and are correspondingly more expensive. No particular constructibility problems exist. Space and Water Heating The majority of space and water heating in the Bethel region is currently provided by direct combustion of fuel oil. Residences use individual stoves, with furnaces used in larger commercial buildings. The storage and handling of the fuel are the primary safety problems. The technology is well-known and reliable, with no special availability or constructibility prob- lems. Direct combustion of coal for space heating is well-known throughout the world, but has had limited application in recent years. No particular safety problems exist, except that combus- tion must be done properly, with good ventilation, to inhibit carbon monoxide production. Combustion of coal can not be done in existing oil-fired or woodburning stoves. This is because the coal combustion causes higher flue temperatures, requiring Iv-2 extra stack insulation. Coal-burning stoves are available, with no particular constructibility problems. Reliability is a direct function of the stove operator, as coal stoves must be manually stoked. Self-stoking coal furnaces are available for commercial applications. Appendix C-1 provides more information on the use of coal for heating in the region. District heating is technically feasible for use in the city of Bethel. Coupled with a thermal electric generation plant, up to 80 percent of Bethel's spacing heating needs could be met (See Appendix C). No safety problems exist, providing the system is designed and installed properly. The technology is available, and is presently being used at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. Reliability and constructibility are good, on the same order as that of the associated thermal plant. Waste heat recovery is technically feasible in Bethel and the villages. No safety problems exist for properly designed and constructed systems. The technology is available, with no particular constructibility problems. The reliability is the same as the associated thermal generation plant. Electric resistance space heating is technically feasible for residential and commercial applications. No safety problems exist, so long as flammable materials are not placed in direct contact with the heating elements. Also, care must be taken to avoid overloading the electrical supply circuit. The technology is available and easily installed. Reliability is as good as the source of electricity. Transmission Lines Electrical transmission facilities are key components of centralized, regional supply plans. Distribution systems within Bethel and the villages are common to all plans. Transmission interties between Bethel and certain villages are included in the hydroelectric, thermal, and fuel cell plans. A high- voltage, bulk transmission line is a key element of the hydro- power plans. Distribution systems are now operating in nearly all of the study area communities. The systems must be properly installed and maintained to ensure their safety and reliability. Con- structibility and reliability problems are associated with the installation of wooden pole supports in the active permafrost zone. Icing and wind loads on the lines can also interrupt service. If a system is allowed to deteriorate, a potential electrocution hazard exists. Loops and other system redundan- cies are often used to maintain service during periods of line failure. Iv-3 Intertie transmission facilities are subject to the same safety, reliability, and constructibility problems as distribu- tion systems. Two intertie support structures were considered for technical evaluation. The existing intertie between Bethel and Napakiak uses a Single-Wire Ground Return (SWGR) system, supported by A-Frame structures with no embedment. Longitudinal stability of the A-Frame is provided by the line tension. Dead- end supports are also provided every ten structures. While the SWGR concept does not meet the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), the A-Frame structures with three overhead wires may be appropriate. Alternatively, conventional wood poles, embedded in the active permafrost zone, are now used for the distribution sys- tems in Bethel and some villages. While these supports are subject to "frost-jacking" problems, there is experience in the region in dealing effectively with the problems. At the present level of study, both the A-Frame and imbedded wood pole structures are believed to be technically feasible. Both have safety, constructibility, and reliability problems. This study has used as A-Frame structure supporting three 34.5 kv wires for estimating intertie costs (see Appendix E-1). However, in future studies a detailed comparison of the A-Frame and imbedded wood pole structures must be made to assess the appropriate design. A 130-mile 138 kV bulk transmission line is the crucial link between the Chikuminuk Lake hydropower alternative and the Bethel study area. The remote location and cold region condi- tions make construction and maintenance of the line difficult and expensive. However, such construction is technically feasi- ble, with many transmission systems of this type in operation throughout the world. The line will be supported on steel lat-— tice towers over 50 feet above the ground, so no safety problems are anticipated. No loops or redundancies are incorporated in the design of this line. Hence, proper maintenance is essential to ensure the system reliability. Construction of the 138 kV line can be accomplished without building roads. Equipment could be flown out to staging areas, and the towers and lines constructed, by helicopter. It is important to note that construction of the line with- out using roads is probably more expensive than conventional construction. The cost estimates presented in this study are based on constructing the line without roads. To provide residential and commerical electrical service, the 138 kv (138,000 volt) supply must be stepped down to 110 volt service. This is done through a series of substation Iv-4 ~~ transformers. These transformers have been incorporated in the conceptual designs and cost estimates for all plans. No parti- cular availability, safety, or constructibility problems exist. Transformer reliability is as good as, or better than, the other transmission components. Economic Evaluation Criteria for Economic Comparison The economic parameters and assumptions used in the evalua- tion are based on the Power Authority guidelines (Economic Para- meters for the 1983 Fiscal Year). The economic anaysis is done for the period starting in 1982 and ending in 2039, the last year of the 50-year economic life of the hydro project which would come online in 1990. Since inflation is assumed to be zero, all costs are in terms of 1982 dollars with the exception of petroleum fuels and coal which are escalated at a rate of 2.5 and 2.0 percent respectively, over the next twenty years. After year 2002, real escalation rates and load growths are assumed to be zero. A discount rate of 3.5 percent is used to calculate the present worth of costs occurring in different years on an equivalent basis. A summary of the economic parameters and equipment lifetimes is presented on Exhibit 6. The present worth calculations were done, according to the Power Authority evaluation procedure (July 1982). The costs are busbar costs and do not include cost allowances for distribu- tion, adminstration, taxes, etc. The present worth of consumer costs would be signficantly higher than the present worth of busbar costs developed in this evaluation. However, since these additional costs are the same for all alternatives, the relative ranking of the alternatives would not be affected. Economic Comparison Using the unit costs and timing of capacity additions pre- sented in the previous chapter, the present worth of each supply plan was computed. First, a comparison is made between the various plans to meet both electric and space and water heating energy demand. Then, a comparison is made between the various alternatives that meet, only, the electric energy demand. Electric and Heating Energy Demand. Table IV-1 summarizes the present worth of each regional supply plan. The present worth of each plan for the thirteen communities is presented in Exhibit 7. As an example of our present worth computation, Exhibit 8 presents the present worth of the electric energy demand of the Base Case for Bethel. For each community and supply plan, a similar computation was done. Exhibit 9 presents Iv-5 the present worth computation of the fuel oil required to meet the heating energy demand in Bethel. A similar computation was done for each village. For the coal direct combustion, fuel oil was used until 1987, then coal was used. Iv-6 ‘Plan No. II. IIt IIIA IIIB IIIc IIID IIIE Iv IVA IVB VA Table Iv-1 PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS TO MEET ELECTRIC AND HEATING ENERGY DEMAND Description Total Base Case Diesel generation and fuel oil direct Combustion Optimized Base Case Optimized diesel and wind generation & coal. direct combustion Thermal Plans Coal (4 MW) and diesel generation & coal direct combustion Coal (4 MW) and diesel generation & waste heat recovery & coal direct combustion . Coal (10 MW) generation & coal direct - combustion Coal (10 MW) generation & waste heat recovery and coal direct combustion Coal (10 MW) generation & district heat & coal direct combustion Hydropower Plans Hydropower (9.5 MW) generation & electric heat & coal direct combustion Hydropower (24 MW) generation & electric heat & coal direct combustion Fuel Cell Plans Fuel cell (9 MW) generation & coal direct combustion Fuel cell (9 MW) generation & waste heat recovery & coal direct combustion Iv-7 ($x10®) 758 603 613 576 636 588 627 577 563 608 582 Ranking 11 10 NN The present worth of a Base Case using diesel for electric generation and fuel oil for heating demand was first computed to serve as a reference. Then, optimization studies of the. Base Case were performed which included wind generation, waste heat recovery, coal direct combustion, and intertie for each village. As described in Chapter III, wind was found to be only fea- sible for the villages of Eek and Tuntutuliak. A present worth analysis of costs and benefits was performed for the waste heat recovery systems in each village. The results, presented in Exhibit 10, show that the waste heat recovery is not economical- ly feasible for any village when it is compared to a coal direct heating combustion alternative. When compared to a fuel oil heating alternative, the waste heat recovery is only marginally feasible for the villages of Akiachak, Akiak, and Akolmiut. As a result, the waste heat recovery systems were not included. The present worth of coal direct combustion to meet the total heating demand was computed. Assuming that, by 1988, the total heating demand would be provided by coal, the present worth of the coal alternative is a third lower than a continua- tion of fuel oil consumption. For each village or sub-region, a comparison was made between the present worth of the electric energy demand of the Base Case and each supply plan to decide whether or not it is economically feasible to intertie the village to Bethel or to a sub-regional center. The present worth of each village includes the incremental cost of the central generation to serve that vil- lage. An incremental cost of $1,500 per kW was used for the thermal supply plans; $3,000 per kW for the hydroelectric supply plans; and $1,000 per kW for the fuel cell plans. Table IV-2 summarizes the present worth analysis using diesel generation for two sub-regions: Akiachak-Akiak-Kwethluk, and Atmautluak- Kasigluk-Nunapitchuk. First, the present worth of the Base Case was computed without intertie, then the sub-regional present worth was computed using Akiachak and Nunapitchuk as the gener- ating centers. Finally, the "regional" present worth was com- puted using Bethel as the generating center. The lowest present worth for sub-region 1 is the regional intertie to Bethel. For sub-region 2, it is not economically feasible to intertie both villages with Bethel, or to intertie Atmautluak with Kasigluk and Nunapitchuk. Exhibit 11 summarizes the interties with Bethel for each supply plan. Iv-8 Table Iv-2 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS OF INTERTIE ($x1,000) Base Case Sub-Regional Regional No Intertie Intertie Intertie Sub-region 1 13,912 14,540 13,645 (Akiachak-Akiak-Kweth1uk) Sub-region 2 11,011 11,516 13,921 (Atmaut luak-Kasigluk- ‘Nunapitchuk) The optimized Base Case includes wind generation in Eek and Tuntutuliak, intertie to the villages of Akiachak, Akiak, Kweth- luk, and Napakiak, and coal direct combustion for heating demand. The optimized Base Case has a present worth 20 percent smaller than the Base Case. The other supply plans also include coal direct combustion to meet the heat demand which cannot be provided by waste heat recovery, district heat, or electric heat. The present worth of the thermal alternatives with waste heat recovery are less than the present worths of the same thermal alternatives without waste heat recovery. The 4-MW pase-load coal-fired plant with diesel generators used for peak- ing demand (Plan III B) has the least present worth of the thermal plans. The present worth of Plan III B is about 4.5 percent smaller than the present worth of the optimized Base Case. The hydropower supply plan (Plan IV B) with full development of the Chikuminuk Lake Project has the smallest present worth. All the villages except Eek, Tuntutuliak, and Tuluksak would be intertied. The present worth of plan IVB is about 7 percent smaller than the present worth of the optimized Base Case. The fuel cell alternative with waste heat recovery has a present worth smaller than the 10-MW coal-fired plant with waste heat recovery, but greater than the 4-MW coal-fired plant. The present worth of plan VB is about 3.5 percent smaller than the present worth of the optimized Base Case. Electric Energy Demand. Table IV-3 summarizes the regional present worth of each supply plan. An heating credit equivalent to the savings in coal direct combustion cost was included in the supply plans which have waste heat recovery, district heat, Iv-9 or electric heat. The hydroelectric supply plan with full development of the Chikuminuk Lake project has the lowest present worth, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.27. The 4-MW coal-fired plant with waste heat recovery and diesel generation for peaking demand has the second lowest present worth, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.17. The smaller hydroelectric development has about the same ratio. The thermal and fuel cell plans which do not include waste heat recovery or district heat have present worths greater than the Base Case. Table IV-3 PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS TO MEET ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMAND Plan Benefit-Cost No. Description Total Ratio ($x106) I Base Case Diesel generation 192 1.00 II Optimized Base Case Optimized diesel and wind generation 191 1.05 III Thermal Plans IIIA Coal and diesel generation 201 0.96 IIIB Coal and diesel generation 164 1.17 IIIc Coal generation 224 _ 0.86 IIID Coal generation 175 1.10 ILIIE Coal generation 215 0.89 IV Hydropower Plans IVA Hydropower generation 165 1.16 IVB Hydropower generation 151 1.27 Vv Fuel Cell Plans VA Fuel cell generation 196 0.98 VB Fuel cell generation 170 1.13 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was first performed to analyze the impacts of the low and high projections of energy demand. Similar supply plans were evaluated: Iv-10 I. A continuation of present practices; II. An optimization of the Base Case with intertie, wind generation, and coal direct combustion; III. An 8-MW coal-fired plant for the low projections, and a 12-MW plant for the high projection; Iv. A 7-MW hydroelectric plant for the low projections, an 11-MW for the high projections, and a 24-MW which would meet both the electric energy demand and part of the heating demand; and Vv. A 7-MW and an 11-MW fuel cell powerplant. The regional present worth of each supply plan is presented in Table IV-4. Under the high scenario, the ranking does not change. The full development of the Chikuminuk Project has the least cost. The present worth of this plan is about 26 percent smaller than the Base Case, and 6 percent smaller than the opti- mized Base Case. Under the low scenario, the 4-MW coal-fired supply plan (Plan IIIB) has the least cost. The present worth of this plan is about 3 percent smaller than the present worth of the optimized Base Case. The fuel cell supply plan becomes second, and the full development of the Chikuminuk Project is now third. The present worth of the optimized Base Case is only 2.7 percent greater than the best alternative (Plan IIIB). The timing and rate of conversion from fuel oil to coal or electric heat to meet the heating demand would directly affect the value of all supply plans, except the Base Case. For the purpose of the economic analysis, we assumed a 100 percent con- version in 1988 to coal direct combustion, waste heat recovery, or district heat. We also assumed that all surplus of hydro- electric energy would be used for heating purposes. But, actually, the conversion would be more progressive. Asa result, the present worth of all supply plans, except the Base Case, would increase reducing the difference with the Base Case. If such a conversion does not occur, and if fuel oil is kept for heating purposes, then, the hydroelectric plan IVA is the only alternative with a present worth smaller than the present worth of the Base Case. The present worth of such a plan would be equal to $749,000,000, or about 99 percent of the Base Case. Also, if the conversion to waste heat recovery, district heat, and/or electric heat does occur but the conversion from fuel oil to coal direct combustion does not occur, then the coal supply plan IIID has the least cost. The present worth of such a plan would be $665,000,000. The second best alternative would be the full development of the Chikuminuk Lake project with a present worth of $681,000,900. Conservation was included in all demand projections. Addi- tional conservation measures, as described in Appendix C-4, would reduce the energy demand by another 20 to 30 percent. The present worth of all supply plans would be reduced by the same percentage, without changing the ranking. Iv-11 Plan No. II IIIA IIIB @[-ALI IIIc IITID IIIE IVA IVB VA Low Scenario Present Worth Ranking x10 620 11 496 4 504 8 483 1 523 10 497 5 515 9 497 5 489 3 502 7 485 2 Table IvV-4 Most Likely Scenario Present Worth Ranking $x10 —_— 758 11 603 6 613 8 576 2 636 10 588 5 627 9 577 3 563 1 608 7 582 4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS High Scenario Present Worth Rank TSxINey 906 11 718 6 727 8 676 2 759 10 695 5 735 9 678 3 673 L 726 7 693 4 ing Environmental Evaluation Exhibit 12 summarizes the relative degree of environmental impact, cost, or risk that may occur with each of the technol- ogies associated with the selected energy supply plans. Trans- mission lines have been included in the evaluation since they are a required component of any regional or subregional energy plan. The transmission impacts should be considered in addition to centralized supply plan impacts. Because the hydropower project is remotely located, transmission line impacts would be somewhat greater than for other supply: plans. The following conclusions were drawn from the environmental analyses: 1. There appear to be no environmental impacts that would definitely preclude development of the supply plans investigated. 2. The base case supply (diesel) plan has the lowest relative environmental impact. 3. Transmission lines pose a variety of potential envi- ronmental problems which diminish the desirability of any centralized supply plan. 4. Coal and hydropower both pose a variety of environ- mental problems but of contrastingly different na- tures. 5. Fuel cells appear to.pose relatively few environmental problems if disposal of byproduct waste is done prop- erly. 6. Hydropower and transmission lines pose several un- avoidable impacts. However, the severity and accept- ability of the impacts are yet to be determined and will require more detailed studies to assess. In order to better understand how Exhibit 12 was derived, the following descriptive summaries of potential impact on each resource, are provided. Water Quality Diesel. Fuel may leak or spill during transport, handling or storage. Such spills have occurred recently in the region. The extent of the impact is related to the frequency and volume of spills. Iv-13 Coal. Acid runoff can be a problem when coal is exposed to surface weathering and runoff of toxic elements could pollute surface and groundwaters. The ash by-product would require appropriate disposal to prevent degradation of local waters. Acid-rain is a remote possibility, and may introduce impurities into local waters. Hydropower. Inundation of Chikuminuk lake shoreline vege- tation and lake level variations may cause a temporary decline in water quality. Downstream water quality considerations relate primarily to project construction activities. With prop- er construction techniques, water quality impacts will be mini- mal. . Fuel Cells. Like diesel, propane may leak during trans- port, handling or storage. However, when propane is exposed to atmospheric pressure it becomes a gas and dissipates. There- fore, water quality impacts are negligible. Transmission Lines. The construction of transmission line river and stream crossings has the potential for minor and temporary water quality impacts on the streams. With proper construction techniques, these impacts should be avoidable. Air Quality Diesel. Diesel combustion will release small amounts of pollutants similar to automobile exhaust, however, lead would not be present. Air quality impacts would be minimal. Coal. Coal-fired generation can affect air quality. How- ever, existing technology, in the form of emission controls, can remove potential emissions, including particulates. There is a potential for the formation of ice fog at stacks and cooling towers. Inversion-induced air pollution is unlikely (see Chap- ter III). Hydropower. No air quality impacts. Fuel Cells. Small amounts of pollutants would result from the use of propane fuel, however, impacts would be minimal. Transmission Lines. No air quality impacts. Aquatic Habitat . Diesel. Impact from spills could be serious, if large quantities enter local waters. Iv-14 Coal. Acid runoff and release of other by-product wastes could impact the Kuskokwim River. Control measures should mini- mize the problem, but some minor impacts can be expected. Hydropower. The proposed hydroelectric alternatives would increase the elevation of Chikuminuk Lake. Increasing the lake elevation will place existing spawning habitat in deeper water. Lake fish would utilized the newly created shallows, however, the shallows would be quite different from the existing habitat until natural processes of erosion recreate gravel and cobble bottom habitats. Variations in lake level would create further impacts by dewatering the shallows during spawning time. Selec- tion would favor deep water spawners. Fuel Cells. By-product waste from this system must be contained and disposed of locally. Impacts are probably avoida- ble and not serious. Transmission Lines. Contruction near streams could intro- duce sediments or pollutants and affect fisheries. Impacts would be temporary and mostly avoidable with proper construction techniques. Terrestrial Habitat Diesel. No loss of terrestrial habitat. Coal. Coal plant (3.5 acres) storage piles (10 acres) and landfill disposal areas (10 acres) will occupy land in the Bethel area. Habitat quality is probably of minimal value for wildlife purposes. Runoff containment measures will be needed. Hydropower. In addition to minor habitat lost to facili- ty siting, raising the lake level will inundate between 4000 (9,5 MW) and 9500 acres (24 MW) of wilderness habitat. Much of the habitat around Chikuminuk Lake is valuable to game mammals including moose, bear, and other species. Because the project is in a conservation area and involves some irretrievable loss of habitat, mitigation may only be possible via a land exchange agreement. On a regional basis, the total habitat lost is rela- tively small. Fuel Cells. Will require a small landfill disposal site for by-product waste disposal. Impact is expected to be minor and mostly avoidable. Transmission Lines. Habitat will be modified or lost along the right-of-way. Impacts would generally be minor and avoida- ble. Openings in vegetation often increase habitat and animal diversity, and can be beneficial. Iv-15 Mammals Diesel. No impacts. Coal. No likely impacts. Hydropower. Considerable changes in local fauna around Chikuminuk Lake due to loss of habitat are anticipated (see above). Most species will adjust home ranges, but some declines in local populations can be expected. Fuel Cells. No impacts. Transmission Lines. Construction may disturb big game. Right-of-way may increase access and hunting/trapping pressure. Birds Diesel. No impacts. Coal. No impacts, but see Transmission Lines impacts. Hydropower. It could affect a few aquatic species of birds such as gulls and other species which nest or feed around the perimeter of the lake. Construction may also disrupt raptors if, they are nesting near the project. See also Transmission Lines impacts. Fuel Cells. No impacts, but see Transmission Lines impacts. Transmission Lines. A definite collision hazard for migratory waterfowl exists. Also, a possible electrocution hazard for large raptors exists. This is a sensitive conservation issue requiring further study. River crossings of the Kuskokwim could be vulnerable sites for collisions with migratory waterfowl. Some mitigation is possible but would likely be difficult and expensive. Vegetation Diesel. No impacts. Coal. Loss of minor amounts of habitat for storage, dis- posal, and plant sites is anticipated. Hydropower. Loss of some valuable riparian and other ter- restrial habitat around Chikuminuk Lake, and possibly along the Allen River, is expected. No critical habitat or species would be affected. Iv-16 Fuel Cells. There would be a minor habitat loss for the waste disposal area. Transmission Lines. Transmission line construction impacts are temporary, and will recover after construction. Endangered Species Diesel. No impacts. Coal. No impacts. Hydropower. The peregrine falcon is the only listed spe- cies that is likely to occur in the vicinity of Chikuminuk Lake. Present use of the area by peregrines is probably very low to non-existent. None have been sited. Fuel Cells. No impacts. Transmission Lines. Peregrines have been reported, but only rarely, in some areas of the Kilbuck Mountains. Likely areas are cliff habitats along major drainages. The transmis-— sion route should avoid any area of known or suspected occur- rence to avoid possible impacts. Subsistence Diesel. This is the current mode of energy supply. No impacts over and above those that already exist are expected. Coal. No impacts. Hydropower. Minor impacts to the salmon fishery in the Allen River are possible, but may be avoidable. This fishery represents but a small fraction of the Bristol Bay fishery, part of which is exploited for subsistence use. See also Transmis- sion Line impacts. Fuel Cells. No impact on subsistence. Transmission Lines. Several areas of impact are possible: (1) loss of waterfowl on the Delta due to transmission line collisions; (2) impacts to water quality and fisheries during construction are possible but avoidable; (3) rights-of-way may © influence access and land use by trappers, hunters, and fisher- man. It will likely be used as navigation aid and, hence, a primitive trail may develop. Iv-17 Conservation, Recreation and Aesthetics Diesel. No impacts. Coal. Coal storage areas and waste disposal sites would have visual impact. Emissions could create smoke plumes from emission stacks and black snow. Ice fogs are possible from cooling towers in winter, depending on plant design and opera- tion. Hydropower. Fluctuating lake levels will create visual impacts during reservoir drawdown. Facilities and dam will diminish natural setting of Wood-Tikchik State Park. Fuel Cells. No visual impacts are anticipated, except on waste disposal area; then only very minor effects. Transmission Lines. Visual impact is expected due to low vegetation and height of support towers. Transmission lines are contrary to aesthetic values of state park and conservation values of refuge lands. Some mitigation is possible in routing, but generally transmission lines will not be concealable. Archaeological Sites Diesel. No impacts to historically important sites. Coal. No impacts to historically important sites. Hydropower. Five historically important sites have been identified in the Chikuminuk Lake basin. A more complete arche- ological survey will be needed, but impacts should be mostly minor and avoidable. Fuel Cells. No impacts to historically important sites. Transmission Lines. All impacts should be avoidable with appropriate archeological surveys and routing. Sociocultural Values Diesel. No impacts over and above changes that have alrea- dy resulted from intrusion of technology into the native cul- ture. Coal. Adjustments to the use and operation of coal space heating will be required if conversion is made. Changes in the storage and distribution of fuel, disposal of ash, and cleaning and stoking of stoves will be required. See also Transmission Lines impacts. Iv-18 Hydropower. No impacts are expected directly from hydro- power, but see Transmission Lines impacts. Fuel Cells. No impacts. Transmission Lines. These could affect subsistence (see Subsistence above) by affecting Delta resources (birds, fish, etc.) and land use patterns, including access to resource areas. Increased access may be considered beneficial to subsistence users but is sometimes considered negative because of fear of overexploitation of natural resources. Human Health and Safety Diesel. Minor risks from fuel storage, fire hazard, and air pollution emissions exist. The Bethel powerplant burned down in late 1977. Coal. Minor impacts to air quality are possible, especial- ly from home heating stoves. Toxic waste products from combus- tion should be disposed of at an approved site to prevent aqua- tic contamination. Coal dust could be a minor problem. Hydropower. No impacts expected. Fuel Cells. Minor risks are associated with wastes and chemicals that require appropriate disposal. Transmission Lines. Electrocution hazards should be avoid- able. Collision hazards for small aircraft are possible, espe- cially in remote areas and during inclement weather. Mitigation is possible. Public: Acceptance Evaluation In addition to technical, economic, and environmental con- siderations, the energy supply plan alternatives were evaluated from the viewpoint of public acceptance. As presently under- stood in the Bethel region, the public preferences are tied directly to environmental concerns and potential impacts on subsistence. These and other factors were considered in the evaluation of the following supply plan aspects: 1) Diesel combustion for electric generation and heating (base case); , 2) Coal-fired steam turbines for electric generation, with district heating in Bethel; Iv-19 3) Hydroelectric generation; 4) Fuel cell electric generation; 5) Coal-fired space heating; and 6) Transmission lines. Diesel Base Case At first glance, it seems apparent that the existing system of diesel-fired electric generation and space heating is public- ly acceptable, simply by virtue of the fact that it is in place. However, the existing system is not without problems. In the last year, several spills of diesel oil occurred during barging and tank-filling operations. While the direct impact was envi- ronmental-related, the public was duly alarmed at the frequency of these spills. The infrastructure of the present system is also of public concern. Because of their strong independent attitudes, some villages (such as Nunapitchuk and Tuntutuliak) either already have, or are planning to, install their own bulk oil storage facilities. Two aspects of the existing systems are positive. The public is familiar with the technology; people tend to more readily accept "known evils" over "unknown evils". Also, home furnaces fired by fuel oil are relatively clean-burning and do not require much attention (i.e., no stoking). Coal-Fired Generation with District Heating This type system is proposed as an alternative for the region. The electricity would serve the entire region, with district heating providing up to 80% of the space heating needs in the City of Bethel. Both technologies have been used for a number of years in the U.S. and throughout the world. A similar system now operates in Fairbanks, providing electricity and space heating to the University of Alaska. Two considerations of this type of system are air quality aspects and aesthetics. In northern climates, fuel combustion with particulate emissions (such as coal burning) can sometimes produce “ice fog", which is a nuisance and safety hazard for aircraft and vehicles. Also, if particulate emissions are not adequately controlled, fallout can result in "black snow", which is not aesthetically pleasing. Iv-20. Hydroelectric Generation As mentioned previously, any negative public perceptions of this supply plan option would likely stem from environmental impact. Major concerns might relate to impacts on fishery re- sources, and improved access to subsistence resources due to a transmission right-of-way. The unique aspect of hydro develop- ment is its remote location in areas which have no permanent visible signs of human presence. Other supply plans would have their facilities within the existing zones of development in Bethel and the villages. Fuel Cell Electric Generation The Bethel area residents know very little about this emer- ging technology. Hence, they cannot be expected to have an informed opinion at this time. However, likely reaction to certain features of fuel cell plants can be anticipated. The storage and handling of propane fuel is a potential environmen- tal hazard. The fuel will likely be brought in bulk by barge, and off-loaded to pressurized tanks in liquid form. Since no combustion is involved, emissions from the fuel cell plant are not expected to be a problem. One drawback of fuel cell plants is that a byproduct waste is produced during major overhaul, which must be stored and disposed of properly. Coal-Fired Space Heating Three aspects of public concern for this supply mode would likely be related to air quality, aesthetics, and convenience. Combustion of coal in a central power generation plant is con- trolled, and is subject to state and federal regulation on emis- sions. No such controls presently exist for household and other small-scale combustion for space heating. Hence, the potential emissions per ton of coal burned are likely to be higher. How- ever, the amount of coal projected to be burned for space heat-— ing is such that no air quality standards violations are expect-— ed. However, particulate fallout and "black snow" could occur. Appendix C-1 discusses the air quality aspects of coal in more detail. From the standpoint of convenience, the existing oil-fired furnaces are set up for essentially unattended operation. The operator need only keep the fuel tank filled. Coal furnaces require more attention. Even self-stoking types must be cleaned, and the ash disposed of properly. The relative incon- venience of coal-fired versus oil-fired furnaces must. be offset by a significant cost savings in order to make the extra effort worthwhile to the consumer. Iv-21 Transmission Lines Two distinct systems of transmission lines are being consi- dered. As a common element of many plans, subtransmission in- “terties between many of the villages and Bethel are proposed. These lines would be on wooden supports about 35 feet high. A major, long-distance, "bulk" transmission line is one aspect of the proposed hydroelectric alternative. This line would be supported by I-shaped steel lattice towers about 60 feet high. This larger line may meet with some adverse public reaction. The proposed transmission line will be routed mostly over currently impassable land. The vegetation clearing for the transmission line row, provides a means for winter travel by snow machine, greatly increasing human access for hunting and recreation. This situation can be perceived as a positive impact for subsistence and recreation users but may also be perceived as negative impact by conservationist and those who fear the potential for overexploitation of natural resources. For the subtransmission interties, a different situation. is perceived. Overland travel between Bethel and surrounding com- munities is now done primarily by snow machine in winter. The terrain is flat, with essentially no vegetation other than. scrub. Hence, the proposed interties would do little to enhance access between villages, except as a navigation device. It should be emphasized that this evaluation is based on the limited information available to date. It is highly recom- mended that an ongoing program be developed, in conjunction with delivery of this draft report to the Bethel area residents, to further assess the preferences and concerns of the region. Only then can the "best" plan of future energy supply for the region be determined. ‘ Iv-22 EXHIBIT 1 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT INTERTIE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1962 Exhibit 2 INTERTIE TRANSMISSION DATA Number Point of of River Estimated Load Center Interconnection Length Crossings Total Cost (miles) ($y Akiachak Bethel 15.62 1 2,205,000 Akiak Akiachak 7.15 0 1,006,000 Akolmiut Atmautluak Jct. 9.05 1 1,407,000 Atmautluak Bethel 26.06 : 3 3,750,000 Eek Napaskiak 47.14 2 6,496,000 Kweth1luk Akiachak 7.58 3 1,306,000 Napakiak Bethel 9.35 1 1,371,000 Napaskiak KwethlLuk 14.05 2 2,084,000 Oscarville Bethel 4.65 0 649,000 Tuluksak Kwethluk 28.84 4 4,261,000 Tuntululiak Tuntutuliak Jct. 32.10 1 4,440,000 EXHIBIT 3 1-0" 5” DIA. POST INSULATOR 10’ x 4" x 4" x 1/4" ANGLE IRON 4.75" DIA. WOOD POLE 10” DIA. a ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT TYPICAL A— FRAME STRUCTURE P.E. COMPANY HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Exhibit 4 | i DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERED IN YEAR 2002 ~ Average Average Annual Power Over Energy Over Heat, Recovery : village Heating Season Heating Season!/ “Energy a, — (kW) (M Btu/Hr) ——(M Btu) _ - Akiachak 89 280 1,411 o Akiak 43 135 / 680 U Akolmiut 138 435 2,192 Atmautluak 40 . 126 — 635 - Bethel 3,846 5,649 28,471 ‘| Eek 61 192 968 ran Kwethluk 63 198 998 I Napakiak 63 198 998 Napaskiak 50 158 796 Oscarville 15 / aT 237 Tuluksak 46 - 145 . 731 Tuntutuliak 35 110 554 1/ During heating season of 5040 hr/yr. (Supply Plan III-A: Mobilization & Demobilization Civil, Structural & Buildings Mechanical Exhibit 5 Page 1 of 9 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLAN Item Emissions Control Piping Electrical Instrumentation Subtotals Profit 10% Subtotals (Direct Cost) Contingencies (15% of Direct Cost) Total Direct Cost Engineering & Owner's 4 MW Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) Total Construction Cost Straight Condensing Plant) Owner Furnished ($1000) 4,474 250 236 237 $5,197 $5,197 Contractor Furnished ($1000) 500 916 3,396 170 344 479 312 $6,117 612 $6,729 Amount ($1000) 500 916 7,870 420 344 715 549 $11,314 612 $11,926 1,789 $13,715 2,057 $15,772 Page 2 of 9 Exhibit 5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLAN (Supply Plan III-B: 4 MW Coal-Fired Plant) Owner Contractor Item Furnished Furnished Amount “TSI000) #j— (S§I000) $1000) Mobilization & Demobilization 500 500 Civil, Structural & Buildings 976 976 Mechanical 6,297 5,033 11,330 Emissions Control 350 238 588 Piping 395 395 Electrical 236 479 715 Instrumentation 35 298 613 Subtotals $7,198 $7,919 $15,117 Profit 10% 792 792 Subtotals (Direct Cost) $7,198 $8,711 $15,909 Contingencies (15% of Direct Cost) 2,386 Total Direct Cost $18,295 Engineering & Owner's Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) 2,744 Total Construction Cost $21,039 Page 3 of 9 Exhibit 5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLAN (Supply Plan III-B: Waste Heat Recovery) Owner Contractor Item Furnished Furnished Amount “($I000) — ($1000) {$1000) Mobilization & Demobilization 300 300 Excavation and Backfill 121 121 Piping, Valves, Fittings & Pumps 2,148 2,148 Building Connections Residential 2,675 2,675 Building Connections Commercial 3,210 3,210 Freight 250 250 Subtotals $ 8,704 Profit 10% 879 Subtotals (Direct Cost) $ 9,754 Contingencies (15% of Direct Cost) 1,436 Total Direct Cost $11,010 Engineering & Owner's Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) 1,651 Total Construction Cost $12,661 Exhibit 5 Page 4 of 9 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLAN (Supply Plan III-c: Item Mobilization & Demobilization Civil, Structural & Buildings Mechanical Emissions Control Piping Electrical Instrumentation Subtotals Profit 10% Subtotals (Direct Cost) Contingencies (15% of Direct Cost) Total Direct Cost Engineering & Owner's Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) Total Construction Cost 10 MW Condensing Plant) Owner Furnished ($1000) 8,645 1,100 502 315 $10,562 $10,562 Contractor Furnished ~TS1000)_ 700 1,539 9,283 780 759 692 298 $14,051 1,405 $15,456 Amount ($1000) 700 1,539 17,928 1,880 759 1,194 613 $24,613 1,405 $26,018 3,903 $29,921 4,488 $34,409 Exhibit 5 Page 5 of 9 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLAN (Supply Plan III-D: Item Mobilization & Demobilization Civil, Structural & Buildings Mechanical Emissions Control Piping Electrical Instrumentation Subtotals Profit 10% Subtotals (Direct Cost) Contingencies (15% of Direct Cost) Total Direct Cost Engineering & Owner's Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) Total Construction Cost 10 MW Coal-Fired Plant) Owner Furnished ($1000) 12,234 1,550 502 315 $14,601 $14,601 Contractor Furnished ($1000) 700 1,658 12,010 1,060 759 692 298 $17,177 1,717 $18,894 Amount ($1000) 700 1,658 24,244 2,610 759 1,194 613 $31,778 1,717 $33,495 5,024 $38,519 5,778 $44,297 Exhibit 5 Page 6 of 9 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLAN (Supply Plan III-D: Item Mobilization & Demobilization Excavation and Backfill Piping, Valves, Fittings & Pumps Building Connections Residential Building Connections Commercial Freight Subtotals Profit 10% Subtotals (Direct Cost) Contingencies (15% of Direct Cost) Total Direct Cost Engineering & Owner's Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) Total Construction Cost Waste Heat Recovery) Owner Furnished ($1000) Contractor Furnished ($1000) 500 380 6,202 7,319 8,783 580 Amount ($1000) 500 380 6,202 7,319 8,783 580 $23,764 " 2,376 $26,140 3,921 $30,061 4,509 $34,570 Exhibit 5 Page 7 of 9 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLAN (Supply Plan III-E: Item Mobilization & Demobilization Civil, Structural & Buildings Mechanical Emissions Control Piping Electrical Instrumentation Subtotals Profit 10% Subtotals (Direct Cost) Contingencies (15% of Direct Cost) Total Direct Cost Engineering & Owner's Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) Total Construction Cost 10 MW Coal-Fired Plant) Owner Furnished (§1I000) 15,000 2,300 502 380 $18,182 $18,182 Contractor Furnished ~TSI000) — 700 1,807 15,113 1,270 1,000 737 370 $20,997 2,100 $23,097 Amount ($I000) 700 1,807 30,113 3,570 1,000 1,239 750 $39,179 2,100 $41,279 6,192 $47,471 7,121 $54,592 Page 8 of 9 Exhibit 5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLAN (Supply Plan III-E: District Heat) Owner Contractor Item Furnished Furnished Amount “T$I000y — ($1000) ($1000) Mobilization & Demobilization 700 700 Excavation and Backfill 627 627 Piping, Valves, Fittings & Pumps 9,480 9,480 Building Connections Residential 11,446 11,446 Building Connections Commercial | 13,736 13,736 Freight 900 900 Subtotals $36,889 Profit 10% 3,689 Subtotals (Direct Cost) $40,578 Contingencies (15% of Direct Cost) 6,087 Total Direct Cost $46,665 Engineering & Owner's Overhead (15% of Direct Cost) 7,000 Total Construction Cost $53,665 Page 9 of 9 Exhibit 5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF COAL SUPPLY PLANS (Summary ) Annual Plant Total Oper. and Annual Capital District Heat Capital Maintenance Fuel Supply Plan No. Cost Capital Cost Cost CostL costsL/ ($X1000) ($x1000) ($x1000) III-A 15,722 0 15,772 792 2,572 III-B 21,039 12,661 33,700 R32 3,247 III-c 34,409 0 34,409 1,284 3,882 III-D 44,297 34,570 78,867 1,374 6,141 III-E 54,592 53,665 108,257 1,484 8,195 17 Based on 2002 energy demand. Exhibit 6 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC PARAMETERS AND EQUIPMENT LIFETIMES Economic Parameters Base Year: 1982 Planning Period: 1982-2002 Economic Analysis Period: 1982-2039 Inflation Rate: 0 percent Real Discount Rate: 3.5 percent Real Petroleum Fuel Escalation Rate: 2.5 percent Real Coal Escalation Rate: 2.0 percent Equipment Lifetimes Years Diesel Generators (Primary) 20 Diesel Generators (Standby) 30 Waste Heat Recovery 10 Wind Generators 15 Hydroelectric Plant 50 Steam Turbines 20 Fuel Cells 20 Transmission Lines (Village Intertie) 30 Transmission Lines (Bulk) 40 Exhibit 7 PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS TO MEET ELECTRIC AND HEATING ENERGY DEMAND ($ x 106) Supply Plan a ea ELL, A EEE Lhe 1 III D EEL E IVA Iv B VA VB Akiachak1/ 20.5 1635 16%7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 14:7 <14.7)! 1662 16.2 Akiakl/ Jad. 652 642 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.3 5.3 6.1 6.1 Atmaut1luak2/ 11.0 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 10.8 10.8 8.6 8.6 Bethel 599.1 478.6 488.1 451.8 511.8 462.9 502.2 461.5 447.6 484.9 458.7 Eek 15. 560110p) b 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11v6"=. dee -- 17.8 11.8 Kasigluk 21.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 14.4 14.4 16.6 16.6 Kwethluk2/ 16.78 12c% 168 12.8 12.9 12.9 12.9 1d 21 | | 1421) | 256) | | 2k Napakiak 1237°410.0.. Dose 1082 10.2 10.2 10.2 8.2 8.2 9.8 9.8 Napaskiak Lie: (940 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.7 9.0 9.0 Nunapitchuk2/ 14.3. 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 12-0 11.0 8.9 8.9 10.6 10.6 Oscarville 3.5 259 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 Tuluksak 11.8 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 Tuntutuliak 12231) | [9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 Total 757.8 602.6 612.6 576.3 636.4 587.5 626.8 576.8 562.9 607.8 581.6 1/, 2/ Should be considered as a group. EXHIBIT 8 Page 1 of 3 PRESENT WORTH COMPUTATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMANDS OF BASE CASE FOR BETHEL "FOR BETHEL VILLAGE On —IEAK iste 1285 1294 1262 1986 Age] _ 1968 1969 1990 _ _ 4991 1992 ELECTRICITY DEMAND PEAK DEMAND (Kw) d2iv, 42ee. 4234. Wea. W256. 4270. 4ued, 4570. 4720. 4870. S020. ENERGY DEMAND (MwH) 2UZ9V, 2U35U_ 20410, 2U470, 20550_ 20590, 21312, 22034, 22756, 23476, 24200, — COMPONENT No.1: EXISTING DIESEL GENERATION ADVED CAPACLIY « #) o. o. REPLACED CAPACLI+ (kw) Oy De INSTALLED CAPACITY (Kw) e4u0, e4ou. _-- ENERGY GENEKAILON (Minit) 219136 22106, 221]2,_ 222574 CAPITAL COST o. o. o. 0. 0 & ™ Cust . 7016 707. 710. 712. FUEL CusT 2475. 2009, 2704, 264d. ———_BENEF LIS. On Qa Qa Ye SALVAGE VALUE O. o. ve o. SUBTOTAL All be S341s 3474, 35530 - COMPONENT No.2: NEW DIESEL GENERATION ADDED CAPACITY (KW) 0. 0. o. o. oO. 0. REPLACED CaPAacily (km) O. Oe On Yo Be De INSTALLED CAPACITY (nm) 0. o. oO. o. o. o. ———ENERGY GENERATION (mati) Da Ma On De be On CAPITAL CUST o. 0. 0. o. o. oO. ——0_4_u_cosi__ De he De on ie Sha FUEL CUST o. 0. o. o. 0. ve = BENEFITS De De 2. De Ma De SALVAGE VALUE o. o. oO. v. o. o. : SuBIUTAL— 0. fe 0. the De Da Ro _His. De De. De Summary _(1OTALs) TOTAL CusT 31/6, $246, 3321. 5397, 3474, 3553. 3752. 3957. 4169, 4368, 4615, —____pISCuunTéu cust _._________3069, 4042, 2996, 2900, 2925. 2691, _2949, _3009, _3059, _3111, _3iol, _ CUMULATIVE PRESENT WORTH 30609, 6101. 9047. 12056. 14462. 17672. 20b21, 23626. 26684. 29995, 33157. —E£0K HETHEL __wlilaGe ( NO. S) YEAR 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 —ELECIRICITY DEMAND _ ———PEAK_DEMADD (ini) Disb. S292, S42H, 5564, S70, _SHib. 5972, 6108, 6244, 6380, 6380, ENERGY DEMAND (MAH) 24652, 25504, 26156, 26605. 2740uU, 26112, 28764, 29416, 30068, 30720, 30720, COMPONENT No.1: EXISTING DIESEL GENERATION AUUED CAPALLTY. (Kad aeerenr - Oe We ol Ri onttecall ano OG i... = REPLACED CAPACITY (nad ve ve Ue ve heme oem ———LwS Laity Capacity (sw) b4u0, Hayy, Hdvd, Ya Ya o. - ENEKGY GENEKATIUN (Matt) 20640, 2/544, 20240, ve. Ue Ue AE CS a ee tee i oe oo - O & m CusT 659. bol. gua, ve. v. sc —— ——FueL cos1_ " A9(He 4184, 4399, Sass ses ene ae, Ya Qe Va iin BENEFIIS ve o. v. 0. vo. ve. vw. t a. 0. ———SALMAGE ML Ue a De te Yn Me. Ha Qa He —He On SUBTUTAL 4657, 5U00, = 9303, 0. v. 0. o. v. 0. COMPONENT No.2: NEW DIESEL GENERATION ————-ADDED CAPACITY (nm)- cma Yan O. 1v00d, = De Ma ie Da Vn Qa REPLACED CAPACITY (Kw) o. oO. 0. o. o. ve Oo. O. o. v o. ENERGY GENERATION (Mm) O. Oe 0, 26955, 29657, 3usel. 31065, 31769, $2473, 33176, 33176, ——— CAP LIAL COST On Va _ 8000, Qa Va Va =e aadeat 9a Oe ey O & m CusT ve o. vo. 920. 949. 972. 994, 1017, 1039, 1062, 1062, ~ Furl cost ae Va Yo__4i7. 4047, 5086. $354, 5592. 5059. 0155. 6155, BENEFLIS oO. Oo. Oo. oO. o. ve o. a. oO, o. ———-SALWAGE_VALUE De Da On —Oa Da. Ma —La Ya So... a SUBTOTAL v. 0. 8000, 5545, S740. 0329, 6606, 6698, 7197, 7197. “SUMMARY CTOTALS) ~ ———-I0TAL_cost________ 4857, uno. 135us. 9943, 9790, 0054. 6329. _bb0H. 0898, 7197, 7197. OISCUUNTED Cust 3eul. S259. bells. 3309, 5345. 3370. S407, 3437. 3467. 3495, 3376, ———-CUMULALLVE PRESENT wORTH ___ 36358, 39597, 47815. Sil2s, S446, 57642, 61249, 64646, 66153, 71047, 75024, EXHIBIT 8 Page 2 of 3 PRESENT WORTH COMPUTATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMANDS OF BASE CASE FOR BETHEL BETHEL VILLAGE ( NO. 5) YEAR 2008 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 20135 2014 ELECTRICITY DEMAND PEAK DEMAND (KW) 6380. 6360, 6380. 0380. 380, 0380. 6360, 0360. 6360. 6380, 0300, ENERGY DEMAND (mm) ._____ 3720, 30720, 30720, 30720. 30724, 30720, 30720. 3072, 30720, 30720, 30720, — COMPONENT No.1: EXISTING DIESEL GENERATION ADDED CAPACITY (KW) 0. o. o. o. v. o. 0. oO. 0. o. —__HEPLACED CaPaCiTy (x) Qn Me Oe 0 Qe De te On INSTALLED CAPACITY (KW) 0. ve. o. o. v. o. 0. o. ENERGY GENERATION (Matt) te Me Me 0. o we oa Oe CAPITAL COST Ue o. o. oO. v. o. o. 0. rele RR Boren On Loe De te he De De De FUEL COST o. v. o. 0. ve ve v. Ue -BENEFIIS. De Qa Qa Qe Resa Da De SALVAGE VALUE o. ve o. v. ov. a. v. O. ——_——SuBTuTar On fees ERs | ee eeeteeeewe Ma De — COMPONENT No.2: NEW DIESEL GENERATION ADDED CAPACITY (KW) o. 0. o. o. o. O. v. v. 0. 0. 0. co RACED CARE UE Thai ee ib gee eee ge INSTALLED CAPACITY (Kw) 1v0v0. tvdv0. 10000, 10000, 1y0Vd, 10000, OVX, 10000, 10000, 10000, 1000U, ENERGY GENERATION (Mei) _$s1/8. 3351/6, 33178. 34178. 33178, 33178. 35176. 35176. 3317H 34176 33176. CAPLIAL COST 0. uO. uv. Oo. O. Ue Ue O. ve Ue u. O 4 m COST 102, 1vb2, 10p2, IWo2, 162, lWbe, 1062, 1062, 102, 1062, 1062, FUEL CuST ©155. 6155. 6155. 6155. 6155, 0155. 6155. 0155. 6155. 6155. 0155. BEnEFI1S_ De Va De Qe @. BES Qe eee lie Ve Oe SALVAGE VALUE 0. 0. v. o. 0. o. o o. 0. o. SusTuTAL 11970 T19],. 21970 97: 1197. __ 71970 7197, 7197s 1197s 1197, 1197 Summary (101A S) TOTAL CUsT T1972 TAYTS—OTRGDTS «=o TRGTS «=—oTAGT. «=—oTRGTe «= oTNDTe «=—OTB9T «=—oTA9T. «=—oTRQT. «= -TA9T. ——_—_DISCOUNTED COST SOR e See 3045, 2942 4S, 1 4Te ~~ 209%, 2504, 2477, 2394, 2313, CUMULATIVE PRESENT WORTH 78266, 81458, 64463, B742o, 90269, F95U15, 95604, 94235. 100711, 103104, 105417, —EOR HETHEL VILLAGE ( NO. 5) YEAR 2015 2016 2ui7 2018 2019 2ue0 201 2022 2023 = 20e4 2025 —ELECIRICITY DEMAND ———-PEAK_DEMAND (Kn) : $380, 6560, 6340, o360, O550, Hsh0, 6560, SGV. 360, 6350, 6380, ENERGY DEMAND (MWH) 3u720. 30/20, 3u720, 30720. 30720. 30720, 30720, 30720, 30720. 30720, 3u720, COMPONENT No.1: EXISTING DIESEL GENERATION i ADDED CAPACITY (xn) De Oe De Qa Da Qe Da Ye Da De Oo. REPLACED CAPACITY (kw) o. o. o. o. v. 0. 0. o. O. 0. o. ———_1MSLALLED CAPACITY (km) Mea De De Da De vn a Da Da = —Da ENERGY GENERATION (MmH) O. 0. o. o. Ue v. o. 0. o. 0. o. —_—CAPLIAL cust Qa Oe Qe Qa Qe Ya. Qa Qe Da Da De 0 & M CUsT 0. vu. o. o. v. o. v. o. o. v. 0. FUEL CuST De Va Qn Oa Qe Ya Ye Qe Qa Qe Da BENEFIIS o. o. o. O. v. 0. 0. o. 0. v. v. ———SALWAGE VALUE De Va ta Qa Ya Ya We Ya a ee SUBTUTAL 0. 0. o. o. 0. O. 0. v. 0. ve o. COMPONENT No.2: NEW DIESEL GENERATION ——— ADDED CAPACIIY (km) Oe Ye Qe Os Qe Ds Ds _ De 0. Va REPLACED CAPACITY (Kw) 0. 100v0, o. 0. o. 0. o. v. 0. 0. o. ENERGY GENEKATION (omni) 33176. 35178, 35178, 33178. 335178. 35178, 35176, 33176. 33178. 33178, 33176. COP EE ies supe ge a PS Oe eg ee Oa Oe eg a ee 0 & Cust 1062. lvoe. 1ve2. ivod, 1062, ved. 1062, 1062, 1062. 1062. 1062. FUEL COST 0155. 01556 01552. 01552 0155401550 _ 01320 _ 6135. _ 61352 0139. 6135. __ BENEFITS v. o. o. O. o. o. vu v. oO. o. o. SALVAGE VALUE o. vo. o. es vo. v v. o, ve. o. v. SUBTOTAL 1S197. - T1Y7~-TAYTS —TA9T~ 7297, TAT «= TAGT. «= T1974 A972 = TA9T2 7976 SUMMARY (IUIALS) : i Lae LLL TL TLL 7 i ——$_—{OTAL- C981. S192 J 187 0 F099 0.9192 0. 2.1 98 oT VT T1975 SPOR eee eee eee OLSCuUNTED Cust 4716. 2159, e086, = 01S. 1947, «= BBA. = 1818. 1756, «= 1647, = 104, 1584, ———CUMULALIVE PRESENT nUKIH tdi s5. Uieedu. Iiwshu, Iipsyo, Lingus, i2ueed, 122042, 12579H, 125495, 127155. 12H719, EXHIBIT 8 Page 3 of 3 PRESENT WORTH COMPUTATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMANDS OF BASE CASE FOR BETHEL FOR BETHEL VILLAGE ( NO. 5) YEAR ——202b 2u2l 2u2h _2u29 _2us0 2051 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 ELECTRICITY DEMAND PEAK DEMAND (Kw) 6360, 6500. 6380. 6380. 6580, 6380, 6360, 6380, 6380, 6380, 6380, ENERGY DEMAND (mi) gem, 30720. 30720. 4u720. 30/2u. su72u. 30720, 30720. 307204 30720, 30720, — COMPONENT No.1: EXISTING DIESEL GENERATION ADDED CAPACITY (km) o. 0. v. Ue 0. 0. o. o. 0. o. 0. REPLACED CAPACITY (kin) On Qe oe ae Qo Qe De De Qe Qe 22. INSTALLED CAPACITY (nw) 0. o. oO. 0. O. O. o. o. 0. 0. o. ENERGY GENERATION (matt) On De = Ya Oa De De On Da Qa. ee CAPITAL COST o. o. o. o. Oo. o. oO. 0. ve o. o. Ob m £081 cacao A. Mn a Mn Me De. Qe a Ss FUEL CUST 0. v. 0. o. 0. v. 0. o. o. o. o. i EMEP TIS Qe Ya We oo" Ma Qn De Oe Da Da Sa SALVAGE VALUE o. 0. 0. o. v. Oe o. 0. o. . 0. ————SubIurat Da Me De Da Le Qa De Do Qe = De — COMPONENT No.2: NEW DIESEL GENERATION ADDED CAPACITY (Kw) o. ve o. o. o. 0. 0. oO. 0. 0. Ree ACE CAPAC ty tau) ee ere ee -o. a te . 10000, INSTALLED CAPACITY (Kw) 10000. 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, —-——-ENERGY GENERATIUN (MH) _____ 33178, 34176, 35176, 34176, 35176, 33176, 33176, 33176, 35176, $5176, 33178, CAPITAL CUST 0. O. O. o. 0. ve O. v. OU. 8000, v. ———0_b__tust i ee, ed, ee, dvbe, AObe, ioe, 1062, 1062, 1062, 1062, 1062, FUEL COST 0155. 6155. 6155. 6155. 6155. 6155. 6135. 6155. 6155. 6155, 06135. ——_—-BENEF 113_ naw Qe Qe Va a Va Wa Ya Ya Da a. SALVAGE VALUE 0. 0. 0. vu. Oo. o. Oo. o. eo. o ee pang aut zn9tpagt2 ae? 71972 73922 21972 7u9? asi072 197. —SumMany (1Otars) TOTAL COST 7197, TA97,-TA9T. «= TA9TS «= TA9T2 «=o TA9Te «=o TADT2 «= ADTs «= 7197~ «35197, = T4970 ———DI1SCuuaTed cust ASSi. 1479, _1429, _1380, 1334, _1269. 1245, 1203, 1162, 2374. 1065, CUMULATIVE PRESEWT WORTH 130249, 131728. 135157, 134557, 135871. 137159. 136405, 139608, 140770. 143141, 144226, hits carafe 13 a —EOR BETHEL WIitaGt { Ni. 5) YEAR 2u37 2038 2us9 v 0 0 0 ° ° 0 0 ELECTRICITY DEMAND ———PEAK_DEMAND (Kn) bSiUe oSdi, bSHU, Ma a De Da De — Da Da ENERGY DEMAND (MnH) 3u7e0. 3u7ev. Su720. ve O. ve v. ve 0. o. o. ~~ COMPONENT No.1: EXISTING DIESEL GENERATION ———... ADDED CAPACITY (xn) Rane De —— Qa Da On De REPLACED CAPACITY (KW) : vu. o. 0. ve 0. o. o. ————S Lalit caraciiy (xi) Me. he Da Mn Ma Da Da ENERGY GENEKATION (MWH) v. ve 0. o. o. oO. o. ———CAPI LAL Cost We. tea Ye Ve. Va Qa De 0 & & CusT vu. v. o. ve Ue o. o. ee a ae a Va De Qe Oe BENEFITS 0. o. v. 0. 0. SALVAGE VALUE 0. o. o. v. ve SUBTUTAL ue oO. o. 0. ve COMPONENT No.2: NEW DIESEL GENERATION ——— ADDED CAPACITY (xu) On a See ieee Qe. ____ Oe Da Oo. REPLACED CAPACITY (Kw) 0. v. o. o. o. 0. v. o. o. o. ———NSLALLED CAPACITY (4m) tuouu, 10000, 1uove, On a Da De Qa __Wa De Da ENERGY GENERATLON (MAH) 35176. 35178, 35178. o. O. o. 0. 0. 0. 0. o. sonnei Tate tee ta a a ee. Mn Wa Ya Qa Qa We Ma Da Q, oO & Mm CUsT 1002, 100e, 1062, o. 0. O. 0. o. o. o. o. a ee eee eee gees Qn Da ee Da De Bal BENEFITS 0. Oe o. o. o. o. o. o. 0. o. ——— SAL WAGE VALUE De Me bi, rm fe de Me Da Da Q, SUBTUTAL 7197. 71976 797. O. o. 0. o. o. o. 0. “SUMMARY (TOTALS) a LOTAL Cust TY a TA91a 197». We Qe SoBe Da Qa De . OISCUUNTED Cust 1046, = 1015. 108, v. o. o. Ue ve 0. o. 0. ———CUMULALIVE PHESENT ORTH __ 4452/4, 146287, 146596, dhe De Ma uo” Ga _Wa De — Exhibit 9 PRESENT WORTH COMPUTATION OF HEATING DEMAND | FOR BETHEL OF BASE CASE i) Heating Fuel Oil Total Cumulative 7 Year Demand Unit Cost Cost Present Worth (Btuxl0?) ($/Btuxl0®) ($x103) ($x103) Lh 1982. 1,021 10.14 10,353 10,005 i 1983 1,016 10.39 10,556 19,856 7 1984 1,010 10.65 10,756 29,558 | 1985 1,004 10.92 10,954 39,115 | 1986 999 11.19 11,179 48,524 iz 1987 993 11.47 11,390 57,789 ! - 1988 1,023 11.76 12,030 67,245 ~ 1989. 1,053 12.05 12,689 76,881 7 1990 1,083 12.35 13,375 86,695 . 1991 1,113 12.66 14,090 96,684 | 1992 1,143 12.98 14,836 106,846 1993 1,171 13.30 15,574 117,154 1994 1,199 13.64 16,354 127,615 || 1995 1,228 13.98 17,167 138,217 7 1996 1,256 14.33 17,998 148,959 i| 1997 1,284 14.69 18,862 159,837 | 1998 1,312 15.05 19,746 170,840 S 1999 1,340 15.43 20,676 181,975 (| 2000 1,368 15.81 21,628 193,230 ~ 2001 1,397 16.21 22,645 204,609 [ 2002 1,425 16.62. 23,683 216,109 2003-2039 1,425/yr 16.62 23,683/yr 452,670 Exhibit 10 PRESENT WORTH OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEMS (Most-Likely Scenario) Present Potential Heat Present Worth of Benefits Worth of Community Recovery Coal Fuel Oil Capital Costs (Btu x 10°) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) 1985 2002 Akiachak 780 1411 318 422 385 Akiak 390 680 90 207 179 Akolmiut 1315 2192 512 682 , 574 Atmautluak 415 635 154 206 327 Eek 635 968 235 314 350 Kwetwluk 565 998 227 302 311 Napaskiak 485 796 187 249 304 Oscarville 145 237 56 74 169 Tuluksak 440 731, 171 228 260 Tuntutuliak 310 554 126 167 283 - (74 Akiachak Akiak Atmautluak Eek Kasigluk Kwethluk Napakiak Napaskiak Nunapitchuk Oscarville Tuluksak Tuntutuliak VILLAGES INTERTIED TO BETHEL FOR EACH SUPPLY PLAN Supply Plans Exhibit 11 It IIIA III B III c III D III E IVA Iv B VA VB x x x x x x x x x x x x x. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Exhibit 12 RELATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION Fuel Transmission Resource/ Issue Diesel Coal Hydro Cells Lines Water Quality 1 3 2 1 0 Air Quality 1 3 0 2 0 Aquatic Habitats 1 2 3 1 1 Terrestrial Habitats 0 2 4 1 2 Mammals 0 0 2 0 1 Birds 0 0 1 0 4 Fish 1 1 3 07 1 Vegetation 0 2 2 i 1 Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 1 Subsistence 1 0 1 0 4 Conservation/Recrea- tion/Aesthetics 0 2 4 0 4 Archeological Sites 0 0 1 0 0 Sociocultural Values 0 3 0 0 3 Human Health/Safety 1 2 _0 1 _2 TOTALS 6 20 23 87 24 Scale (0 to 5) can be interpreted as follows: Low environmental cost or risk, minor impacts, mostly Low to moderate environmental cost or risk, some minor Moderate to high environmental cost or risk, moderate High environmental costs or risks, major impacts, 0 = Little or no impact l= avoidable 2= impacts expected 3 = impacts, mitigation possible 4= some mitigation possible 5 = Unacceptable environmental impacts; would violate existing laws or involve litigation. Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX E-1 SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM Prepared for Harza Engineering Company and the Alaska Power Authority by P.E. Company Anchorage, Alaska December 1982 Co: TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I SUBTRANSMISSION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN H i » Introduction Design Criteria Conditions in Bethel Area Causes of System Failures Bethel Climatic Data Design of Subtransmission System Bethel-Napakiak Line Kobuk-Shungnak Line Pied et ed es NOUN Re II INTERTIE ROUTE SELECTION II-1 Right-of-Way Selection Criteria II-1 Terrain Considerations II-1 River Crossings TI-1 Allotment Considerations II-2 Other Considerations II~2 Selection of Rights-of-Way II-3 Bethel-Akiachak-1 II-3 Bethel-Napakiak Jct.-2 II-3 Bethel-Oscarville-3 II-4 Napakiak Jct.-Napakiak-4 IrI-4 Eek Jct.-Napaskiak-5 II-4 Kwethluk-Napaskiak-6 . Ir-4 Kwethluk-Kwethluk Jct.-7 I1-4 Kwethluk Jct.-River Crossing- Akiakiak-8 TI-5 Akiachak-Akiak-9 II-5 Kwethluk Jct.-Tuluksak Jct.-10 II-5 Tuluksak Jct.-Tuluksak-11l1 II-6 Napakiak Jct.-Tuntutuliak Jct.-12 II-6 Tuntutuliak Jct.-Atmautluak Jct.-13 II-6 Atmautluak Jct.-Atmautluak-14 II-6 Atmautluak Jct.-Akolmiut Jct.-15 II-7 Akolmiut Jct.-Akolmiut AVEC Tie Line-16 II-7 Tuntutuliak Jct.-Tuntutuliak-17 II-7 Eek Jct.—-Eek-18 II-7 IIt costs . IlI-1 Materials III-1 Labor III-1 Transportation and Freight III-2 Transportation of Personnel III-3 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Chapter Page Equipmental Rental III-4 Camp Costs III-4 Other Costs III-4 Cost of Subtransmission Line III-4 River Crossings III-5 -ii- LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title III-1 Estimated Construction Cost of 34.5 kv Subtransmission Line, per Mile i LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Title i 1 Typical A-Frame Structure 2 Intertie Transmission System 7 3 Transmission Line Route Segments uy 4 Estimated Material Cost per 3-Phase Flexible A~Frame Tangential Structure -iii- Page III-5 l Chapter I SUBTRANSMISSION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Introduction Four major considerations should be inherent in the overall design of a subtransmission line: economy, reliability, safety, and public acceptance. The economic aspect of a subtransmission system is con- cerned with both the economics of construction and the cost of operation. A concern which may not be quite so apparent, how- ever, is the life-cycle cost of the system. The line should be designed to be useful over its full economic life and not built solely on present consumer demands. The design phase of a transmission line should also consider the future consumer demand on the entire system. The second aspect, reliability, is very critical. The transmission line is worthless to the owner and to the consumer if it is not reliable - if power is not available to the consumer on demand. Every effort must be made to ensure the transmission line fulfills its function of providing power to consumers. Safety, of course, is an overall consideration. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) was designed to ensure power is provided to consumers at no risk to the consumer or any innocent bystander. Transmission lines must be built according to requirements specified in the NESC. . An obscure, but nonetheless important consideration in transmission lines, is public acceptance. The general public must feel comfortable with the manner in which power is provided to consumers. In recent years, more attention is being focused: on environmental considerations during the construction. phase of transmission lines. Design. Criteria In order to choose the most efficient subtransmission line design, it is necessary to consider some of the variables that will affect the performance. Conditions in Bethel Area Geography. Bethel is on the northwest bank of the Kuskok- wim River in southwest Alaska, approximately 400 miles west of I-1 Anchorage. The community is in the southeastern part of the vast delta formed by the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, which empty into the Bering Sea. The surface of the delta has a low relief; the nearest land having substantial relief is the Kilbuck Mountains. Numerous channels and tributaries of the Kuskokwim River meander over much of the delta east and northeast of Bethel. To the west, the land is slightly higher and the gently rolling surface is dotted with numerous ponds and small lakes. During the spring "breakup", the Bethel area is subject to annual flooding. The village does not become inundated, but the floodwaters usually crest over the river banks in a few places. The airport south of the river is flooded nearly every year. Climate. The climate of the Bethel area is more maritime than continental. The expanse of flat land extending about 100 miles west and southwest to the Bering Sea permits maritime weather to move uninterrupted towards Bethel. Wind velocities exceeding 70 miles per hour are not uncommon during storms. The average annual temperature is approximately 30 degrees F. The average low temperature for the coldest month, January, is 6 degrees. July, the warmest month, has an average of 55 degrees. Annual precipitation averages 19 inches, with August being the ‘wettest month. Snowfall averages 60 inches per year. Geology. Sedimentary material of unknown thickness under- lies the Bethel area. Clay, silt, sand, and some gravel have been encountered in all wells drilled in the area. The material encountered in the wells generally becomes progressively coarser with increased depth. Permafrost. The Bethel area is near the southern boundary of the zone Of permanently frozen ground (permafrost). Bethel and almost the entire area west of the river are underlain by permafrost which extends 377 ft. below the surface. The land is covered by tundra and almost devoid of trees. East of the river on a few low spots along the west side, the area seems to be essentially free of permafrost to a depth of at least 197 ft. Willows and small shrubs are predominate in the area. The river has been gradually eroding the bank along the outer edge of the meander loop where Bethel is located. Residents report the river has cut about 40 feet into the village in the past 20 years. Causes of System Failures Meteorological liabilities must be examined when proposing a line route. Three major problems are wind, ice, and winds with ice. Foundation failures, and failure due to flooding and river ice loading are also of significance. I-2 Wind. Wind moves in a horizontal plane, but contains vertical components as well. In choosing the strongest wind speed for which a structure is to be designed, the time interval over which the wind is measured must be specified. The impact of a severe gust may impose a greater load on a rigid structure already strained by a strong, steady wind than it would when the general wind is lighter. In addition to the duration of a strong wind, its vertical and horizontal extent must be consid- ered. Measurements of wind force have long been considered in transmission line design and provisions are made in most design codes. Provisions for wind power effects are frequently made only within the safety factor allowance on wind loads since the factors are not well understood. The most common wind causing transmission line failure is associated with tornados, having a wind velocity range of 40-72 miles/hour. Damage is usually quite localized. Separation of circuits on different rights-of-way where possible helps to minimize the system impact of failure in a given locality. Provisions of longitudinal tower strength sufficient to with- stand the loads caused by the failure of another tower, will also limit the progression of damage. Ice. The major icing problems for transmission systems are caused by either rime or glaze. Usually, wet snow will turn into a form of glaze or rime and should be considered as an icing problem. Rime (discrete ice crystals) are formed by rapidly freezing, supercooled water drops as they hit an exposed object. Glaze is a clear, smooth coating of ice usually con- taining air pockets. It is formed by the freezing of a film of supercooled water deposited on a structure by rain, drizzle or fog. The total amount of ice deposited on a structure is depen- dent upon wind speed. Since wind speed increases with height above ground, larger amounts of ice will occur on taller towers and the conductors mounted on taller towers. The total deposit of ice along the conductor is dependent upon the ability of the conductor to twist. Ice will build in a circular deposit on conductors that are free to rotate. Conductors which are stable get ice formations in a pennant shape extending into the wind. Wind and ice occurring simultaneously must be considered as a distinct liability to a transmission line. The probability of this happening can be computed by statistical means, and design precautions can be applied. A condition caused by glaze ice which is potentially damag- ing to transmission lines is conductor galloping. This motion causes insulator breakage and tower damage as well as circuit I-3 interruptions due to contacts between wires. Ice formations can impose severe weight loads upon transmission lines causing such failures as broken conductors and collapsed towers. Most wind and ice failure can be avoided with proper evalu- ation of hazards during line design. It is frequently necessary to collect data at carefully selected locations along a proposed route to establish a reliable design basis. Data should in- clude: Maximum wind speeds and associated directions Maximum wind speed return periods Type and magnitude of icing Maximum simultaneous ice and wind Ice and wind return periods 00000 Foundation Failures. "“Adfreeze", or “frost jacking" action, creates an uplift force which acts on tower members embedded in frozen fine-grained soil of high moisture content. The uplift force can be sufficient to shear off light diagonals embedded in the soil and to cause failure at the attachment of a stub angle to either a grillage or rock anchor. Solutions suggested for frost action problems include using packfill that does not retain moisture and improvement of drain- age to reduce ground moisture. A common practice is to wrap pole butts with "Visqueen" plastic sheeting in an effort to reduce frost adhesion to them. Guy anchors grouted in rock may pull out when installation occurs during sub-zero weather. Even though grout is heated during installation, air temperature causes adherence failure. Anchors should be installed during warmer weather to avoid this problem. Failure of earth anchors occurs when clay backfill does not consolidate. Proper foundation design requires the following: ° Adequate soil information including knowledge of the effects of moisture on shear strength of various soils. ° Expected foundation loading and the effect of founda- tion movement on the structure. ° Knowledge of the relative costs and how various foun- dation types can be expected to perform in the soil and location installed. Good design as well as proper construction and adequate inspec- tion are vital to ensure satisfactory foundations. I-4 Failure Due to Floods and River Ice. Water swirling around unprotected footings can carry away the backfill. If unchecked, the water will undermine and destroy tower footings. Protective measures include pile footings, fenders and rock revetments. A tower base may also be surrounded with a steel piling cell filled with rock. River ice presents a critical problem in severe climates. Where towers must be located in flood plains, use of pile sup- ported concrete footings is recommended. The footings should extend above the level of the highest known flood. Bethel Climatic Data Climate data used in the design of the subtransmission system are given below: Wind: 70+ MPH Avg. Annual Temp: 30°F Avg. Low Temp: -3°F Avg. High Temp: 60°F Annual Precipitation/Yr: 19 inches Snowfall/yYr: 60 inches Soil: -Sedimentary (clay, silt & sand) -Permafrost Warmest Month: July Coldest Month: January Design of Subtransmission System The design of the subtransmission system was based on the foregoing criteria and on experience with similar systems. A voltage level of 34.5 kV was selected for the systems. This voltage was selected initially based on experience as being approximately the voltage which would result from a detailed study. Load flow studies made of the system at this voltage level then confirmed that it could adequately serve the load centers without excessive losses or voltage drop. I-5 In considering the type of system to be used, consideration was given to a Single Wire Ground Return (SWGR) system. Con- ceptually and theoretically, a SWGR system is ideal for electri-. fication projects in rural Alaska. According to Robert Retherford in "Alaska Business" magazine, April, 1982, "The SWGR system cost less than two-thirds the amount it would cost to build a comparable, three-wire system, which uses wire as the return conductor,. . ." There are problems inherent in a SWGR line, however. The first is the fact that the SWGR line does not meet the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) require- ments. Other problems are: with only one phase to a particular rural community, a total lack of power in the community is experienced when power is interrupted in the line; intermediate customers cannot tap off the line and; it is difficult to balance the load at the central power generating station with a large single phase tap. The difference between a SWGR distribution system and a conventional distribution system is significant. A conventional system requires two conductors, one bringing the current from the source to the user and one returning the current from the user back to the source. The SWGR system does not return current from the user to the source. Instead, the earth is used as a ground return path by using round grids. There are presently only two SWGR systems operating in the State of Alaska. Both were funded by the State Legislature to test the concepts of a SWGR line in rural Alaska. One line is located between Kobuk and Shungnak in northwest Alaska; the second is located between Bethel and Napakiak. Each system uses the basic A-frame concept for the line structures (Exhibit 1). The problems related to SWGR systems and the particular problems inherent in electrification projects in rural Alaska require further study to identify the optimum design and construction methods for power distribution systems. Bethel - Napakiak Line Since the cost of building a subtransmission line is a primary consideration in electrification projects in rural Alaskan communities, the SWGR concept, especially coupled with A-frame structures, has the advantage of being less expensive to build than a conventional line. The Bethel - Napakiak project is well documented in "Single Wire Ground Return Transmission System Phase II Report" prepared for the State of Alaska, Department of Energy & Power Development by Robert W. Retherford Associates, February, 1982. I-6 Kobuk - Shungnak Line Again, cost was a major consideration in construction of this subtransmission line. Local materials and local labor were used to construct the power line. The Kobuk line was more experimental in nature than the Napakiak line. The Kobuk line was constructed in'continuous permafrost, causing some variations in design; and a variation of.the A-frame structure was tested. In addition, local spruce trees were used. The Kobuk system design included two important factors lacking in the Bethel-Napakiak system: 1) Two wires instead of one were used; the two wires ensured that the City of Kobuk would be serviced with electricity even if the ground return portion of the line failed. Applications of a SWGR concept in the continuous permafrost were uncertain. 2) Intermediate customers will be able to tie into the transmission line in Kobuk, which is not true of the Napakiak line. The A-frame structure was modified to an X-shape to allow a simple balanced configuration for the second wire while main- taining the required flexibility of the structure. This X-frame is not recommended in future transmission systems in rural Alaska. During a 90 mph+ high wind, a section of X-frames toppled. The support at the intersection weakened the integrity of the pole enough to cause several to break upon impact with the ground. Because the SWGR system does not meet the NESC require- ments, this system was not selected for use in the Bethel Region. However, the flexible A-frame with no foundation appears to be an ideal structure for power line construction in the Bethel region. A synthesis of the structures used in two SWGR demonstration projects would be optimal, thereby using the experience gained on both projects. By using the A-frame of the Napakiak line adapted to 2 and 3 phase systems, the structure could be used economically and efficiently throughout the region. The structure could be manufactured and erected with local materials and labor. Because no holes are dug, no heavy equipment is used and no roads are built. The A-frame structure causes no adverse effects to the environment. Adapting the structure to 2 and 3 phase systems allows the distribution system to meet NESC requirements (See schematic illustration on Exhibit 1). Chapter II INTERTIE ROUTE SELECTION Right-of-Way Selection Criteria Terrain Considerations The Bethel study area is characterized by relatively flat to rolling terrain which is pockmarked by large and small water bodies and dissected by the Kuskokwim and Johnson Rivers. A major consideration in the selection of the proposed electrical interties was to minimize the number of lake, pond, and river crossings, while at at the same time selecting the shortest and straightest routes. The connection of all the villages with electrical inter- ties consider two major factors: (1) the difficulty of crossing the Kuskokwim River and (2) the desire to avoid any conflict with native allotments that are scattered throughout the entire area. These and other consideration are discussed below. River Crossings The Kuskokwim River, which must be crossed at least once, has several natural and man-caused limitations that must be considered in selecting a suitable crossing: l. Within the study area, the river is between 600 feet and several miles wide. An overhead crossing would have to occur at one of its narrower areas. 2 The river has the ability to erode its banks and change course very rapidly. At Napakiak, the bank has eroded approximately 800 feet in the last 5 years. 3. During spring break-up, there is a tremendous amount of ice build up and flooding which would require that structure locations on the river banks be carefully selected and reinforced to avoid possible damage. 4. Barges that service the communities along the river are sometimes piled as high as 40 feet, requiring exceptionally tall structures on either side of the river. 5. Underwater crossings are undesirable due to problems associated with the meandering nature of the river, II-1 constantly shifting sand bars, ice build up problems, and barge and boat anchors. Due to the limiting factors above and observations in the field, it is apparent that the best possible location for an overhead river crossing of the Kuskokwim would be at Akiachak. The river is approximately 600 feet wide at this location, the river bank fairly stable according to locals and there are minimum ice build up problems. Allotment Considerations Native allotments pose a second limiting factor in selecting the intertie rights-of-way due to delays, additional cost, and uncertainty of the Bureau of Indian Affairs review, which is required by law and can easily take in excess of two years. Hence, the intertie rights-of-way have been selected to avoid all native allotments. However, some alternatives that would be shorter or otherwise preferable, although crossing allotments, have been indicated. Allotments noted on the right-of-way maps prepared have been located from the best available information. However, it should be noted and emphasized that the allotment locations frequently vary in the field. Other Considerations In addition to the above considerations, the rights-of-way were located in areas that would be as accessible as possible to facilitate construction and maintenance. The right-of-way location approaching and entering the village was selected to avoid any conflicts with airstrips or float plane areas while at the same time allowing a convenient hook up with the existing distribution system. Proposed substations and/or ground grids are located in areas as close as possible to the existing village power supply. Ideally, these facilities were located to minimize any impacts on any allotments or existing uses of the land while at the same time being situated on fairly level dry ground. Prior to any final determination of suitable ground grid locations, ground resistivity tests would have to be conducted. Proposed right-of-way entry near each village and locations of other proposed facilities are discussed and shown in detail on the exhibits in the community reports of Appendix G. II-2 Public participation was also used in the selection pro- cess. During the week of June 7, 1982, all the villages within the study area were visited and the proposed right-of-way and river crossings were reviewed by air. At each village, council members and local residents were consulted concerning the proposed location of the right-of-way and river crossings.. Maps showing the proposed rights-of-way and comment sheets were posted and left at each village. Sever- al of the right-of-way segments were adjusted and, in one instance, a new alternative was added. The data and information gathered during this reconnais- sance trip have been incorporated into the right-of-way design and is reflected in rights-of-way designated. Selection of Rights-of-Way Rights-of-way were selected based on the above criteria through the use of aerial photography. Recent (1980) high alti- tude infrared aerial photography for the study area was obtained and interpreted. These photographs were particularly valuable in identifying flooded areas, vegetation types, recent man-made features, and changes in the numerous rivers in the area. The proposed right-of-way interties are shown on Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 shows interties between villages that are geographi- cally close to each other and represent logical sub-areas where interties between smaller groups of villages could be explored. The interties between the villages and intertie junctions have been identified and numbered. In the following. section, discus- sion of each segment includes mileage, river crossings, cost information and reasons for the designated alignment. Exhibit 3 presents a summary of the intertie. Bethel - Akiachak-1 This 15.62 mile section of right-of-way would tie into an existing single phase line owned by Bethel Utilities Corpora- tion. The proposed route avoids all native allotments and numerous ponds and lakes between the two villages and crosses Gweek Slough at one of its narrowest sections (approx. 635 feet wide) As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way passes through land selected by the Bethel Native Corporation and Akiachak Village Corporation. Bethel - Napakiak Jct.-2 This 2.3 mile section of right-of-way is presently estab- lished and occupied by a Single Wire Ground Return line serving II-3 Napakiak from Bethel. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is located on land selected by the Bethel Native Corporation. Bethel - Oscarville-3 This 4.65 mile section of right-of-way is presently esta- plished and currently being negotiated with land owners, under a state contract supervised by the Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corpo- ration, this segment of right-of-way is located on lands select- ed by the Bethel Native Corporation and the Oscarville Village Corporation. Napakiak Jct. - Napakiak-4 This 7.05 mile section of right-of-way is presently estab- lished and occupied by a single wire ground return line serving Napakiak from Bethel. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is located on land selected by Bethel Native Corporation and Napakiak Village Corporation. Eek Jct. - Napaskiak-5 This 4.3 mile section of right-of-way was selected to avoid conflicts’ with native allotments and the airstrip at Napaskiak. The alignment parallels an existing winter trail that will allow easier access to the right-of-way for construction and mainte- nance of a powerline. As depicted on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is located on lands selected by Napakiak Village Corporation, Oscarville Village Corporation, and Napaskiak Village Corporation. Kwethluk - Napaskiak-6 This 14.05 mile section of right-of-way from Kwethluk to Napaskiak was routed to avoid the numerous native allotments in the area and take advantage of the existing road access from an abandoned air strip to the south of Bethel. The two slough crossings selected should present no problems as they are both under 400 feet in width. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is located on land selected by the Kwethluk Village Corporation, the Bethel Native Corporation, and the Napaskiak Village Corporation. Kwethluk - Kwethluk Jct.-7 This 3.14 mile section of right-of-way was selected to avoid the numerous native allotments that are present in the II-4 area. The right-of-way require two river crossings, both of which are under 650 feet in distance and suitable for aerial crossings. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is located primarily on lands selected by Kwethluk Village Corporation. A small portion of route near Kwethluk Jct. is located on land selected by Akiachak Village Corporation. Kwethluk Jct. - River Crossing - Akiachak-8 This 4.44 mile section of right-of-way was selected to avoid the numerous lakes and flooded areas between the two villages and was routed across Kiktak Island at a point on the Kuskokwim River considered suitable for an aerial crossing. The right-of-way is also the shortest possible route between the two points and avoids conflicts with the Akiachak airstrip and float plane traffic that serves the village. The Kuskokwim River aerial crossing appears very feasible at this location as the distance is not prohibitive, river banks are relatively stable, and the local residents indicate that spring ice jams are usual- ly not a problem. The river crossing will have to accommodate barge traffic some of which are piled as high as 40 feet. Unfortunately, in order to accomplish the above, three native allotments would have to be crossed. In the event this is undesirable or not possible, an alternative route is presented as the next segment. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way passes through lands selected by both of these villages. Akiachak - Akiak-9 This 7.15 mile section of right-of-way was selected as the shortest route between the two villages and avoids conflicts with the village airstrips and numerous water bodies enroute. Unfortunately, the route passes through three native allotments and a longer alternative, avoiding these allotments, is present- ed as the next segment. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way passes through lands selected by Akiachak Village Corporation and Akiak Village Corporation. Kwethluk Jct. - Tuluksak Jct.-10 This 13.68 mile section of right-of-way avoids potential conflicts with the numerous native allotments scattered through- out the area. The only undesirable feature of this segment is the 950 foot crossing of Kuskokwim Slough and the smaller cross- ings of the Kasigluk River, Kisaralik River and Reindeer Slough. Should an intertie from Akiak to Tuluksak Junction across the II-5 Kuskokwim River prove feasible, it would be preferable to this longer route. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this right-of-way passes through land selected by Akiak Village Corporation, Kwethluk Village Corporation and a very small por- tion by Akiachak Village Corporation. Tuluksak Jct. - Tuluksak-11 This 15.16 mile section of right-of-way avoids native allotments and, where possible, the numerous ponds and lakes enroute. The two crossings of Mishevik Slough do not appear to present any problems. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this right-of-way passes through land selected by Tuluksak Village Corporation and Akiak Village Corporation. Napakiak Jct. - Tuntutuliak Jct.-12 This 11.15 mile section of right-of-way was routed to avoid potential conflicts with native allotments as well as allow for manageable river crossings across the Kongeruk River (approx 320') and the Johnson River (approx -790'). The Johnson River crossing will have to allow a minimum of 40 feet clearance for barge traffic. The Napakiak Junction allows access to Bethel from this point on an existing right-of-way. As shown on maps > prepared by the Calista Corporation, this segment of right-—of- way is located on land selected by Napakiak Village Corporation and the Bethel Native Corporation. Tuntultuliak Jct. - Atmautluak Jct.-13 This 7.38 mile section of right-of-way was selected to avoid potential conflicts with. native allotments and the numerous lakes and water bodies that cover the area. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right- of-way is within land selected by the Napakiak Village Corpora- tion and the Nunapitchuk Village Corporation. Atmautluak Jct. - Atmautluak-14 This 5.23 mile section of right-of-way crosses the Johnson River and hopscotches from island to island across the shallow water that surrounds the village. Due to this water, span lengths will have to be variable. The Johnson River crossing (approx 530') will have to accommodate barges piled up to 40' in height. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is within lands selected by Atmautluak Village Corporation and Nunapitchuk Village Corporation. II-6 -4 Atmautluak Jct. - Akolmiut Jct.-15 This 5.3 mile section or right-of-way was selected to avoid the numerous native allotments along the Johnson River to the east and numerous lakes and ponds in the area. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is located within an area selected by Nunapitchuk Village Corpora- tion. Akolmiut Jct. - Akolmiut AVEC Tie Line-16 This 3.77 mile right-of-way was selected to avoid native allotments that cover the area and connects with AVEC's intertie line between Akolmiut, Kasigluk and Nunapitchuk. The route will require a river crossing of approximately 600 feet across the Johnson River. This crossing will have to accommodate barges piled as high as 40 feet. This particular location is a poor choice, however, due to the low, wet nature of the northern shore of the river. During a meeting with the Nunapitchuk Village Council, the local leaders advised against crossing the river at this location due to frequent flooding conditions in this area. The council and members of the village preferred a right-of-way that would connect with AVEC's proposed intertie line at Akula Heights. This proposed route would be consider- ably shorter and utilize AVEC's proposed underwater crossing of the Johnson River. but would require crossing three native allot-— ments. The proposal is discussed in the next route segment. As -shown on maps prepared by Calista Village Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is. located within lands selected by Nunapitchuk Village Corporation and Kasigluk Village Corpora- tion. Tuntutuliak Jct. - Tuntutuliak-17 This 32.1 mile section of right-of-way was selected to avoid potential conflicts with native allotments and the numerous lakes and ponds that dot the area. In addition, the route allows a manageable aerial crossing of the Kialik River (approx 530'). As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corpora- tion, this segment of right-of-way is located on land selected by Napakiak Village Corporation and Tuntutuliak Village Corpora- tion. Eek Jct. - Eek-18 This 42.84 mile section of right-of-way was selected to avoid potential conflicts with native allotments and situated between the Kuskokwim River to the west and an area covered with large and small lakes to the east. Two river crossings across the Eenayarak River and the Fek River are necessary to access II-7 Eek from the north. The right-of-way selected crosses these rivers at locations that are narrow and suitable for an aerial crossing. In addition, the northernmost 6.8 miles of the route takes advantage of an existing winter trail. As shown on maps prepared by Calista Corporation, this segment of right-of-way is located on lands that have been selected by the Eek Village Corporation, and the Napakiak Village Corporation. Part of this right-of-way is on unselected land. II-8 Chapter III costs Standard procedure for cost estimates involves breaking the job into all its components, called units, and then applying a labor and material cost to each unit. Then the sum of the units is taken together with other costs, such as transportation and freight, with a percentage for overhead and profit added in. Conventional power lines (i.e. R.E.A. specifications) have a standardized system of unit costs. Since the flexible A-frame structure being recommended by this report has never been built, except for the two SWGR lines, a somewhat more general approach is being taken toward estimating its cost. Materials Since the majority of these lines will comprise tangential structures, spaced at 15 per mile, a reasonably reliable estimate could be based on all tangential structures plus a factor for deadends. Terminations and river crossings over about 900 feet have to be handled individually. An estimate of material costs is given in Exhibit 4. Labor Previous cost experience on the two SWGR lines built at Bethel-Napakiak and Kobuk-Shungnak used a high percentage of unskilled local labor. Under Alaska State law, a local govern- ment body, such as a village, is exempt from Davis-Bacon wage laws and other contractor laws. However, if the proposed village interties are funded and built, it is not very likely the normal electrical contractors and Davis-Bacon regulations will be set aside. It is assumed that all work would be done by a licensed and bonded outside electrical contractor employing only certified linemen paid "“Davis-Bacon" scale wages. In 1982, the prevailing “Davis-Bacon" wage rate for a lineman was: III-1 Straight time basic wage $25.15 Fringe Benefits (1) 5.45 Employer Costs (2) 8.66 $39.26 (1) Fringe benefits include standard union benefits e.g. pension, health and welfare, training, etc. (2) Employer costs are FICA, ESC, workman's comp, other insurances, etc. Rural Alaskan construction projects are normally worked a minimum of 6 ten hour days per week. This overtime has an addi- tional impact on the cost. A composite rate can be formulated as follows: 40 S.T. hours @ 39.26 = $1,570.40 20 0.T. hours @ 58.89 = 1,177.80 . $2,748.20 2748.20/60 = $45.80/hour Based on experience: with the Bethel-Napakiak SWGR project and the above data: Extension Structure Assembly , 4 hrs. each 4 Structure Delivery . 2 hrs. each 2 Structure Erection 12 hrs. each 12 Conductor Installation 20 hrs./M 39.4 57.4 Cost per structure would average 57.4 x 45.80 = $2,630. Transportation and Freight Transportation and freight into the Bethel region involve both barge and air. There are no roads, except that when the rivers are frozen they are often used as roads. Typical rates for the 1982 season are: Barge: Seattle to Bethel, Foss, $8.83/100 lbs(C)., earliest sailing May 10, last sailing, August 30. III~-2 Barge: United Transportation, Bethel to Eek - $4.03/C, Bethel to Tuluksak - $3.78/C, Bethel to Kasigluk - $3.78/C. Air Commercial: Wein, Anchorage to Bethel - $31.20/C, Anchorage to Eek - $52.30/C, Anchorage to Tuluksak - $52.30/C, Anchorage to Kasigulk - $52.30/C. A.I.A., 5,000 lbs., Anchorage to Bethel - $25.71/C, Anchorage to Bethel - 130% oversize, $33.42/C. Air Charter: A.I.A. Hercules 44,000 lbs nominal, Anchorage to Bethel - $12,540 (or 28.50/C, offloading not included). The minimum barge rate for material offloaded at the near- est village would total $12.85/C. Cost per structure would be $12.85 X 21.3 = $273.70. Air freight runs about four times the cost of barge freight. Actual costs would run somewhere in between, since not all material would be barge-shipped and the contractor would have to charge interest on barge-shipped material costs for upwards of three months, since the contractor would not be reimbursed until material was on site. For purposes of this estimate, costs are developed as follows: Assuming the poles and conductors are shipped by barge $12.85 x 19.2 = $246.72. Interest of 2% per month is included at $734.70 x .06 = $44.08. And the remainder of the freight is shipped by air commercially or $52.3 x 2.1 = $109.83. The cost of freight per structure would then total $400.63. Transportation of Personnel Wien Air Alaska fares: Anchorage - Bethel RT $292.00 Bethel - Eek RT 58.00 Bethel - Tuluksak 62.00 Bethel - Kasigluk 48.00 Estimated air fare at 6 RT per 7 mile transmission line segment is $354 x 6 + 7 = $303/mile. III-3 Equipment Rental Various methods of construction could be used to erect a flexible "A" frame power line. For instance, the Kobuk project used 2 snowmachines, 1 small cat and a 40 ft. sled, 1 gas fired rotary hammer and 4 chain saw winches. The Bethel-Napakiak line used a helcopter. Typical rental rates include: Snow machine (Alpine) $45/day Rotary hammer : $25/day Chain saw winch $25/day Helicopter (1000 1b) $260/hr. Helicopter (4000 1b) $1000/hr. For purposes of this analysis, $625/day and 1/2 day per structure have been selected as typical parameters. These are in line with the Bethel-Napakiak estimates which used a helicopter at $450/hour. For a helicopter to be economical, every hour it works should save about 20 manhours. Camp Costs Room and board is estimated at 5 man-days per structure at $56 per day or $280 per structure, or $4200 per mile. Other Costs Mobilization includes all the costs of organizing men, material, tools, and equipment to the job site. Indirect costs include job site telephone, etc. These costs were estimated at approximately $1100 per mile. Contractors overhead and profit is estimated at 25% of all the above costs. A contingency allowance of 15 percent, a right-of-way allowance of 10 percent, and engineering and owner's overhead at 17 percent was added to all the above costs including contractor's overhead and profit. Cost of Subtransmission Line The cost per mile is summarized in Table III-l. Ili-4 Table III-1l ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF 34.5 kV SUBTRANSMISSION LINE, PER MILE Material $1150 x 15 Labor 2630 x 15 Freight 400 x 15 Travel 300 x 15 Equipment Rental Room & Board Mob & Demob Sub-Total Construction Overhead & Profit (25%) Sub-Total Contingency (15%) Right-of-way (10%) Engineering (17%) Total Construction Costl/ $ 17,250 39,450 6,000 4,500 2,500 4,200 1,100 $ 75,000 18,750 $ 93,750 14,000 9,350 15,900 $133,000 1/ Total construction cost excludes excalation and interest during construction. River Crossings The longest river crossing under consideration is 1,050 feet across the Kuskokwim River. The clearance limit is 40 feet above water level. From the manufacturer's table of sag data presented in the conceptual design section, under heavily loaded conditions, the expected sag in the transmission line is at least 40 feet. With allowance for location at a point 15 feet above mean high water level and a 10 foot pole setting depth, the required poles will be at least 75 feet long. Any pole longer than 40 feet has a penalty charge of $120 per foot. III-5 To get a 75 foot, class 3 pole to Bethel would cost: 1. Pole (FOB Seattle) $ 1,000 2. Barge cost, 3060 lb. @ 8.83 270 3. 35 foot overage @ $150/ft. 5,250 $ 6,520 4. Helicopter time for pole to move from Bethel to site: 2 Hr. @ $1,000 $ 2,000 Total river crossing costs would exceed: Material: (4) 75' poles $34,080 (4) 40' poles 1,000 6000' 16M Alumoweld 1,572 Misc. cross arms, etc. 2,000 $38,652 Labor: Dig and set 8 poles, string and tension conductors, 500 man-hours @ 45.80 $22,900 Other Costs: Estimated @ 303% 18,018 TOTAL $80,018 Estimated total river crossing costs: $80,000 These river crossing expenses apply to navigable river crossings only, i.e. the Kuskokwim at Akiak, Akiachak, and Napaskiak. Crossing the Johnson River involves a much shorter span length and would cost less. Other river crossings under about 900 feet in length use standard structures with no significant cost impact. III-6 EXHIBIT 1 1-0" 5” DIA. POST INSULATOR 10’ x 4" x 4” x 1/4” ANGLE IRON 4.75" DIA. 10” DIA. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT TYPICAL ‘A— FRAME STRUCTURE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 | EXHIBIT 2 Page 1 of 4 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT INTERTIE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY ] 5A AAT NL A TE Te TH itd EXHIBIT 2 Page 2 of 4 4 * eae Pages™ ‘NAPAKIAK * oe = aia 7 Nea Ne, we oe {* OSCARVILLE @: eT cee et [oa ‘ EEK JUNCTION ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT INTERTIE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM P.E. COMPANY APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET RLECTRICAL BNCINEERS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY 0.0. Box 47343 ancherege, Masha EXHIBIT 2 Page 3 of 4 fs t > tabi M.TULUKSAK JUNCTION“ allie Yo ERAS? hs < KWETHLUK JUNCTION eae rye A he ba x jp KWETHLUK = Sets 200 INTERTIE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY EXHIBIT 2 Page 4 of 4 oe en Se . aS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT 400 ” INTERTIE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE SEGMENTS Route Segements 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. TT. 18. Bethel - Akiachak Bethel - Napakiak Jct. (existing SWGR) Bethel - Oscarville Napakiak Jct. - Napakiak (existing SWGR) Eek Jct. - Napaskiak Kwethluk - Napaskiak Kwethluk - Kwethluk Jct. . Kwethluk Jct. - River Crossing - Akiachak Akiachak - Akiak Kwethluk Jct. - Tuluksak Jct. Tuluksak Jct. - Tuluksak Napakiak Jct. - Tuntutuliak Jct. Tuntutuliak Jct. - Atmautluak Jct. Atmautluak Jct. - Atmautluak Atmauluak Jct. - Akolmiut Jct. Akolmiut Jct. - Akolmiut AVEC Tie Line Tuntutuliak Jct. - Tuntutuliak Eek Jct. - Eek Mileage 15.62 2.3 4.65 7.05 4.3 14.05 15.16 11.15 7.38 5.23 5.3 3.7 32.1 42.84 EXHIBIT 3 River Crossings 635+' Gweek Slough None None 110+' Napakiak Slough None 350+' Tupuknuk Slough 370+' Napakiak Slough 250+' Kwethluk Slough 792+' Kuskokwim River 1050+' Kuskokwim River None Numerous small cross- ings of Kasigluk River, Kisaralik River, & Reindeer Slough 480+' Mishevik Slough 270+' Mishevik Slough 790+' Johnson River 320+' Kongeruk River None 530+' Johnson River None 600+' Johnson River 530+' Kialik River 635+' Eek River 620+' Eenayarak River Several Small Creeks EXHIBIT 4 ESTIMATED MATERIAL COSTS 3-PHASE FLEXIBLE A-FRAME TANGENTIAL STRUCTURE Estimated Estimated Description Weight, lbsUnit Pricel/ Cost Weight, lbs 2 Predrilled, treated poles 700 $ 932/ $166 1400 2000 Alumoweld 16M 262/M 288/m3/ 571 520 1 Pole top saddle 60 125/ea4/ 125 60 assembly 2 Post top insulator- horizontal 30 54/ea5/ 108 60 1 Post top insulator- vertical 25 33/ea5/ 33 25 3 Clamps a 6/ea5/ 18 3 Lot Misc. hardware, bolts, etc. 6 164/ 16 6 2 Rebar anchors 10 4/ea4/ 8 20 3 Dampers 12 35/ea4/ 105 36 Total $1,150 2,130 1/ ‘Unit prices are F.O.B. Seattle or Anchorage. 2/ Cascade, Seattle quotation for 200 penetrated, predrilled, gained, 35 ft., class 6 poles delivered F.0.B. Seattle dock. 40 ft., class 6 poles were $120.80/ea, 885 lbs. 3/ Copperweld Bimattalics, manufacturers list prices 50,000+ foot quantity, F.O.B. Reno, Nevada. 4/ ‘Engineers estimate. 5/ A.B. Chance, list prices C903-1402, $32.10; C903-1602, $53.00; C903-9510, $6.00. APPENDIX F Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX F PUBLIC AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company and AEIDC, University of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska December 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION I-1 EI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION II-1 Informational Activities II-1 Public Meetings and Presentations II-1 Radio/Television Programs II-2 Printed Material II-3 Study Team Input II-3 Future Activities II-4 Tit. AGENCY COORDINATION III-1 Responsible Agencies III-1 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge III-2 Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River Study III-6 Other Agency Contacts III-8 IV. KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS Iv-1 Subsistence Iv-1 Land Rights Iv-1 Environmental Quality Iv-2 Community Independence Iv-2 Table No. II-1 II-2 Exhibit No. LIST OF TABLES Title Public Meetings, April 1982 Radio/TV Presentations LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Listing of Significant Agency Special Use Permit Page II-2 II-3 Correspendence Chapter I INTRODUCTION An active public and agency participation program has been an integral part of the Bethel Area Power Plan study. The pri- mary objective of the program is to ensure that the study con- clusions are consistent with the preferences and policies of the local residents and responsible public agencies. The program has been led jointly by Harza Engineering Company for public participation, and the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC), University of Alaska for agency coordination. Nunam Kitlutsisti of Bethel and the Calista Corporation have played strong roles in both efforts. CHAPTER II PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public participation program for the Bethel Area Power Plan study was designed to achieve three specific goals. They are: 1. Get information out to the public; 2. Receive feedback on the information; and 3. Use the feedback in the plan selection process. The program was initiated during the course of this feasibility assessment and is expected to continue during and after submit- tal of the draft and final reports to the APA. The program to date has placed primary emphasis on the first goal, with efforts well underway on the second and third goals. Informational Activities To reach as many people as possible, a variety of media was used to disseminate information. These media include public meetings and presentations, radio/television programs, and printed progress reports and newsletters. These methods were met with varying degrees of success, with radio/television pro- grams the most effective. Printed matter was more effective in Bethel than the villages. Public meetings were poorly attended, but some good, immediate feedback was received. Public Meetings and Presentations In April of 1982, a series of public meetings were held in Bethel and three villages. Table II-1l lists the dates, loca- tions and approximate attendance of the meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to inform the residents of the region that the study was being conducted. A 15-page book- let was prepared for distrubution at the meetings. The booklet explained the scope, organization, and purpose of the study. It also encouraged questions about, and active participation in, the study process. All questions and comments aired at the meetings were re- corded for consideration during the study. Primary concerns were related to impacts on subsistence hunting and fishing, and interconnection of villages to each other and to Bethel. II-1 Table II-1 PUBLIC MEETINGS April, 1982 Approximate Date Location Attendance April 13, 1982 Tuntutuliak 30 April 14, 1982 (afternoon) Bethel less than 10 April 14, 1982 (evening) Bethel less than 10 April 15, 1982 Nunapitchuk 40 April 16, 1982 Akiak 25 April 17, 1982 Napakiak 15 Radio/Television Programs The radio and television broadcasting in Bethel is through station KYUK. In addition to the local programming, residents of the region have cablevision, and receive the statewide news nightly from Anchorage. Both radio and TV are quite popular throughout the region. The local radio/TV station was used to spread information and solicit feedback on the study. Study team members appeared on the hour-long radio talk show, "Yuk-to-Yuk" (Yupik for "“Person-to-Person") on various occasions during the course of the study. Also, a study team, member gave a five-minute television interview which aired on the local evening news program. Table II-2 summarizes these activities. Nunam Kitlutsisti have used radio announcements on a con- tinuing basis to provide updated information about the study to area residents. Specifically, all field activities conducted by the study team were preceeded by a radio announcement of the timing, extent, and purpose of the activities. This was done in response to a concern that field surveys in areas of signifi- cance to local subsistence activity might unduly alarm the res- idents. Printed Material ' When the study began, monthly progress reports to the pub- lic and agenices were planned. After distribution of the April, 1982 progress report (about 75 copies to public and agency groups), the original schedule and format was abandoned. In- stead, a progress newsletter was developed and over 1500 copies were distributed throughout the region. Because of the inten- II-2 Table II-2 RADIO/TV PRESENTATIONS! Study Team Member Date Topic Bruno Trouille, March 1982 Energy use and demand Harza Bill Hanley, April 1982 Energy use and demand Darbyshire Paul Ford, May 1982 Study update Harza Marvin Feldman, August 1982 Coal resources Dames & Moore Nick Pansic, August 1982 Study update Harza 1/ In addition, Nunam Kitlutsisti made a number of radio announcements throughout the study regarding field activities and soliciting feedback from the public. sive subsistence fishing activity in the summer months, the newsletter was published in early October. The 12-page, tab- loid-style document contained a variety of articles on the study, ranging from a discussion of the existing situation to a presentation of the various energy supply options being con- sidered. A significant followup effort, including meetings with village councils, was made by Nunam Kitlutsisti to solicit as much feedback on the newsletter as possible within a short time frame. Study Team Input Public input was sought primarily from regional leaders (both official and unofficial), and persons knowledgeable about the region by virtue of personal experience. Members of the study team had considerable involvement in this effort. Nunam Kitlutsisti and the Calista Corporation maintain close contacts with the Bethel region's leaders. Extensive use of these resources was made to help ensure that the alternative plans being considered were the best ones for the region. Other study team members, particularly from Darbyshire and Associates and AEIDC, contributed their considerable personal experience in the Bethel region. Their knowledge of local thinking and pre- ference was also an important input to the process. II-3 It is important to note that, while leaders and other know- ledgeable persons can provide a good indication of the people's preference, direct input from the individual residents is essen- tial to make the correct decisions for the region. Future Activities Ongoing and future activities are planned to get as much public input into the final Draft Feasibility Report as possi- ble. The intent is to go into the villages after Russian Christmas (January 8), with the engineer's best alternatives, to let the people decide which energy study plan they prefer. As a result of the work to date, several key issues and concerns of of the Bethel region were identified. These issues, and their impact on the study process, are described in Chapter IV. Early in 1983, the best regional, subregional, and inter- regional plans for the Bethel area will be presented to the general public. The plans will be explained in a summary report or newsletter with widespread distribution. An Alaska Power Authority representative will attempt to travel to all thirteen communities in the study area to interview residents and receive their questions and comments. The Power Authority will seek a concensus in the region to evaluate which plan(s) are acceptable to the residents. II-4 CHAPTER III AGENCY COORDINATION In Alaska, many state and Federal public agencies have been charged with preserving the balance between economic and re- source development and environmental conservation. In an at- tempt to meet the future energy needs of the Bethel region, decisions must be made which will impact this balance in some way. To ensure that the responsible agencies are involved in this process, an ongoing program of coordination between the study team and these agencies has been maintained. Exhibit 1 provides a listing of significant correspondance between agencies and the study team. Responsible Agencies At the inception of the present study in February 1982, an appraisal was made of agency coordination needs. The apprasial determined that: 1. Much of the project area lies within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2. the Kisaralik River, a potential source of hydroelec- tric power, has been designated for study by the National Park Service for possible classification as a National Wild and Scenic River, 3. portions of the project area lie within the Bristol Bay Cooperative Region and also within an area in- cluded in an oil and gas leasing program, and 4. the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has per- mitting authority for activities affecting anadromous fish streams, and issues permits for collecting fish specimens for scientific purposes. The findings led to designation of a Project Agency Coordi- nator whose principal responsibility was to be a liaison between responsible government agencies and the study team and to pro- vide assistance in obtaining necessary permits. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received the most emphasis because of a concern that field activity restrictions along the refuge portions of the Kisaralik River might be impos- III-1 ed. Peregrine falcons, an endangered species, reportedly occurred in the river's corridor. Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge Lying in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 500 miles west of Anchorage, the original 2.8 million acre Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1960 to preserve vital water- fowl habitat of the far north. As the largest of the primary waterbird units in the National Refuge System, it provided nesting ground for ducks, geese, swans, cranes, and shorebirds that migrate from there to all of the nation's flyways. Passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in December 1980 expanded the refuge to combine the existing delta refuge with the Hazen Bay and Nunivak Island Refuges, plus 13.4 million acres of public land. Congress renamed this unit as the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and refuge lands in aggregate now total 19,624,458 acres. The Refuge portion of the Bethel study area encompasses three potential hydropower sites on the Kisaralik River as well as the area along the lower part of the Kuskokwim proposed as a transmission line right-of-way and the transmission intertie between villages. Although these potential hydroelectric sites were eventually eliminated from further consideration, site visits by study team members were required as part of the study process. Documents relating to proposed field activities were provided by the study team to the Refuge Manager in Bethel. Concurrently, a formal request was made for a Special Use Permit to authorize the implementation of these field activities. On March 10, study team members met with the Refuge Manager and associates in Bethel to discuss permitting procedures. Of mutual concern was the potential adverse effects on environmen- tal resources through the proposed use of helicopter support, temporary camp facilities, and geotechnical surveys. The vulnerablility of nesting raptors to disturbance by proposed field operations was of paramount importance. The refuge authorities also requested that: 1. access to privately-owned land be authorized by ap propriate organizations, 2. proposed field activities be consistent with the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program, and 3. field study operations be conducted in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. III-2 Due to the sensitivity of the endangered species issue, as well as the permitting urgencey, an informational meeting was held March 15 with the USFWS at their Regional office in Anchorage. Representatives of the Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation (NWF) were invited, since they and one other organization (the Audubon Society) were on record before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as opposed to issu- ance of a preliminary permit to the Alaska Power Authority for the original Kisaralik Project (FERC #3175), because of the area's national refuge status and potential for wilderness clas- sification. The meeting was attended by four USFWS personnel, a Sierra Club representative, an NWF representative, a study team representative, and the Project Agency Coordinator. A major point of discussion concerned USFWS recommendations for restricting study activities to reduce disturbances to pere- grine falcons. The USFWS Endangered Species Coordinator out- lined two options: either formal Section 7 consultation be initiated with the USFWS Director, or rigid permit stipulation should be incorporated to ensure falcon protection. The latter option was deemed preferable in that formal consultation would unduly delay field activities. The Endangered Species Coordina- tor suggested that the stipulations would: 1. require a ground level. survey to be conducted by qua- lified experts to delineate potential nest site loca- tions and presence of peregrine falcons, 2. require project aircraft to be operated above 1,500 ft altitude from nest level terrain within one mile hori- zontal distance of suspected nest sites, ay prohibit all human activity within one mile of nest sites except that rivercraft may pass through protect-— ed zones, and 4. require that exceptions to the above could only be granted with written approval by the Regional Di- rector's representative. A third meeting was held on April 7 in the USFWS Regional Office to finalize stipulations for the peregrine falcon survey and correct minor omissions in the original permit application. As a result of this meeting, the following procedures were out-— lined: Ty deliniate all potential peregrine habitat along the Kisaralik River, and III-3 2. conduct an intensive ground level survey to identify . peregrine and other raptor use areas likely to be _ affected by proposed geotechnical and environmental studies. Specifically, this approach was to entail an aerial survey of the Kisaralik drainage, using a helicopter operated at or above 1,500 ft altitude to locate and map cliffs, rocky crags, riverine bluffs, outcrops, and escarpments, that could be used for falcon eyries. Based on this information, an intensive ground level survey of identified habitats was planned to con- firm the presence of peregrines and existing nest site loca- tions. Refuge authorities would be advised accordingly so that restrictive measures could be formulated. Another issue of concern was the requirement that an individual experienced in surveying peregrine falcons, and with credentials acceptable to the Regional Director, take part in the ground level survey. In response the Program Manager stated that this capability existed with the study team members already assigned to the study. In a memorandum dated April 26 from the Refuge Manager documentation of an April 21 telephone conversation stated that the approach to the peregrine falcon issue was.mutually accept- able. The Refuge Manager emphasized that all raptor nests identified in the survey would be protected by "use restrictions" and he asked that a refuge staff member accompany the ground survey team. A letter dated May 7, from the counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, to the Refuge Manager recommended the use of fixed wing aircraft rather than a helicopter, that the regu- lar field studies be delayed until the termination of raptor nesting, and that an “expert” raptor ornothologist with "“recogn- ized experience and credentials" be part of the ground level Survey crew. : On May 12 the Refuge Manager issued Special Use Permit 1/D-08-82 (Exhibit 2) to Harza Engineering Company for the stat- ed purpose of conducting environmental and geophysical activi- ties on specifically defined refuge lands within the Kisaralik River drainage. In compliance with the terms of the Special Use Permit, a helicopter survey of potential peregrine and other raptor habi- tats was accomplished during the period of May 12-14. Appro- ximately 37 habitat units of varying size were identified and IIlI-4 recorded as follows: 27 along the Kisaralik River, 8 along Quicksilver Creek, and one each along Gold Creek and the North Fork tributary. ADF&G Biologists and a Refuge staff person intermittentily participated in this survey. Upon its comple- tion, AEIDC staff members met with the Refuge Manager on May 14 at the Bethel office to appriase him of the survey results. After the habitat surveys, Harza engaged the services of a raptor expert to ensure data reliability during the ground level survey. The credentials of the individual selected were approved by the Refuge Manager. The ground-level survey crew systematically examined each potential habitat unit during June 16-21, 1982. This resulted in the discovery of five gyrfalcon and two golden eagle active nest sites, as well as a site occupied by a lone gyrfalcon. The absence of peregrine falcons was attributed to a limited prey base (e.g., shorebirds), and, therefore, habitat potential was judged to be quite low for this species. They survey results were documented in trip reports and field observation maps, which were transmitted to the Refuge Manager. With the completed ground survey and the establishment of protective zones around raptor nest sites, the study team at- tempted to initiate a combined geotechnical and biological sur- vey of three potential hydroelectric sites on the refuge portion of the Kisaralik River. These sites were identified at Golden Gate Falls, Lower Falls and Upper Falls. The field crew, composed of a geologist, a planning engineer, and a biologist, intended to use a helicopter as a means of access to each of the three areas during the period June 29-July 2. Based on the presence of raptor nests proximal to the Golden Gate and Lower Falls areas, the Refuge Manager prohibited helicopter access until the nesting season terminated in August. The field crew offered to walk into the two restricted areas from a distant helicopter dropoff location to minimize distur- bance. However, this was rejected based on permit condition Number 11 as quoted: "Upon establishment of the protective zones, no activity will be permitted within one mile of nest sites except river craft may float through the protective zone provided noise is kept to a minimum and no attempt is made to stop or land the craft." As a result of the Refuge Manager's position, only the Upper Falls site was surveyed and work was delayed at the other two sites until mid-August. III-5 The last communique with the USFWS was a telephone call made July 6 to inform the Refuge Manager of field survey results and to reconfirm the schedule for performing aquatic surveys using a raft for access during the latter part of July. Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to preserve and protect certain selected rivers of the Nation that possess outstanding and remarkable natural, historic, cultural, and other values. The Act established initial components of the system and set forth procedures to determine the suitability of including additional rivers in the National preservation system. Numerous amendments to the Act and designations by the Secretary of the Interior since the 1968 enactment have resulted in 61 components being added to the system and an additional 88 rivers being proposed to be studied for possible designation as a wild and scenic river. One such river, the Kisaralik, has been pro- posed for study with enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River study was initiated in June 1981 with the formation of a study team with agency and Native organization representatives. The National Park Service was designated by Congress to direct the study. A field recon- naissance of the Kisaralik River corridor was made in August 1981. Public meetings were held early in 1982, and a draft environmental impact statement was released for review during the summer of 1982. The study team has maintained close cooperation with the U.S. National Park Service. This coopera-~ tive effort served the dual purpose of keeping each other informed of study processes pertaining to both Wild and Scenic River classification and the hydropower potential of the Kisaralik River. The study team's role was largely that of serving ina review and advisory capacity. Specifically, this involved a review of documents and the transmittal of environmental resource and geotechnical information for use by the National ‘ene in preparing a draft environmental impact statement EIS). The Project Agency Coordinator participated in two meet- ings. A public informational meeting was held on February 22, 1982 in the National Park Service office in Anchorage. It was attended by 14 people with no preferences for specific alterna- tives expressed. Questions generated by the attendees focused III-6 on state participation in the study and its attitude toward formal designation, the continued use of the area's resources by various user groups and the status of the hydropower feasibility assessment study. The Project Agency Coordinator provided input on the proposed environmental and geotechnical aspects of the Kisaralik hydropower alternative of the Bethel Area Power Plan study. A Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River Study Team meeting was held April 7, 1982, at the USFWS Regional Office for the purpose of selecting a preferred alternative. Representatives from the Bethel study team, the Alaska Power Authority, and the Project Agency Coordinator attended. The team meeting moderator presented the results of a public opinion survey. In sum, 31 responses to 350 question- aires revealed that 45 percent of the respondees favored Alter- native 2 designation of eligible segments of the river, which would preclude hydroelectric development. The Alaska Power Authority favored the no action alternative. The National Park Service Director for the Alaska Region conferred with State of Alaska representatives regarding the inclusion of the upper part of the river as a state-administered component of the National System under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. However, the state declined to take any such action. The draft EIS is expected to be released for public review early in 1983. Following a 90-day period for public and agency comment, the Secretary of the Interior will transmit his recommendations to congress. The Bethel study team's advisory role consisted of provid- ing the National Park Service information on environmental re- sources to be added, if appropriate, to its environmental stu- dies of the Kisaralik region. An AEIDC interim report charac- terizing the regional climate, geomorphology, and aquatic and terrestrial resources was transmitted to the National Park Service on May 11, 1982. This report summarized existing information either reported in the literature or unpublished materials and file reports maintained by resource management agencies. Original information and data, resulting primarily from AEIDC field studies, were delivered July 12 for possible incor- poration in the draft EIS. IIlI-7 Other Agency Contacts A meeting with public agency representatives was held in the Power Authority office on April 20, 1982. The purpose of the meeting was to inform interested agencies of the planned study program. Another such meeting is scheduled for November 1982. Other agency contacts included written communications with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The primary purose of these contacts was to comply with permit requirements. A letter dated February 23 from AEIDC to the Commissioner of ADF&G accompanied an application for a permit to collect fish and aquatic invertebrates for investigative purposes. The geographic area of interest for sampling was the Kisaralik River and drainage basin. This allowed the collection of current information on seasonal habitat use by species and the quality of respective habitats. The permit, Number 82-84, was issued on March 15, 1982. By letter dated July 29, 1982, a request was made to amend the collecting permit for authorization to take scientific specimens from the Chikuminuk Lake environs. A new permit, Number 82-100, issued August 2, authorized the conduct of activity in the Kisaralik drainage, Chikuminuk Lake, and the Allen River outflow from Chikuminuk Lake. A report of specimens collected will be submitted to the Commissioner on or before December 31, 1982. The study team requested and received an Incompatible Use Permit (Number 6700-82-2) from the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, for site visits to Chikuminuk and Upnuk Lakes on July 8. These sites are located within the boundaries of Wood-Tikchik State Park. A summary of findings was transmitted August 4, 1982 to the Parks Director. The DNR State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in a letter dated April 6, 1982, expressed concern that the Division of Parks had not been consulted regarding cultural resource stipulations (36 CFR 800). The letter referenced the procedures set forth in the Scope of Services document appended to contract BAPP-2. By letter dated April 28 the Alaska Power Authority advised the SHPO that AEIDC would be in contact for consultation purposes and that the study plan had indeed addressed this aspect of 36 CFR 800. AEIDC, by letter dated June 23, provided the SHPO with a status report on this aspect of the study, © III-8 including the arrangments previously made to access information on file with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The study team wrote a memorandum outlining the Bethel study for use by the Alaska Power Authority in support of a pre- liminary permit application before FERC for the Kisaralik (Lower Falls) project. The study team prepared a draft memorandum to the Executive Director of the Lower Yukon/Kuskokwim Aquacultural Association addressing comments and concerns for the mitigation for fishery resources and sociocultural impacts of hydroelectric development on the Kisaralik River. Contact was made with the Bristol Bay Cooperative Manage- ment Office through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with procedures set forth by the USFWS prior to issu- ance of the Special Use Permit. III-9 CHAPTER IV KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS As a result of this active public and agency participation program, several key issues and concerns of the Bethel region have been identified. These are: 1. Subsistence hunting and fishing; 2. Roads and right-of-ways on privately-owned lands; 3. Environmental quality; and 4. Community identity and independence. This is not meant to be a complete, all inclusive listing. It simply represents the major issues identified by the study team to date. Each item is the tip of a iceberg, with many complex and related issues underneath. Subsistence Subsistence can be defined as obtaining food, fiber, and shelter from the surrounding environment (i.e. "living off the land"). Residents of the Bethel region depend on subsistence activities for a number of reasons. It is a traditional method of provision passed down through the generations. Under current economic conditions, it offers savings over the purchase of costly foodstuffs. Perhaps equally as important, subsistence provides a fruitful form of recreation. It is clear that any energy supply plan which would seri- ously impact subsistence activities would be wholly unacceptable to the Bethel region. Land Rights Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 allocated vast areas of land to native ownership. Regional and village corpo- rations were established to administer and utilize these lands. Since the majority of Alaska land is owned by the state and federal government, private land is a precious commodity. Siting of project facilities, particularly electrical transmission lines, must give full consideration to land owner- ship. Iv-1 Environmental Quality The Bethel region's concern for environmental quality stems, in a large part, from the residents' subsistence life- style. In addition, the region is located within the Yukon Delta: National Wildlife Refuge. This designated Refuge is the summer breeding ground for major waterfowl populations of national signficance. The Kisaralik River corridor is under study for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. If the. river is determined to have outstanding scenic resource values, it will. be designated to remain "forever wild". This would preclude any form of develop- ment (particularly hydroelectric) within two miles on either side of the river. Community Independence Within the study area (Bethel and the 12 villages within a 50-mile radius), the city of Bethel is the acknowledged regional center. With its deep water port facilities, nearly all goods and services are transported to the surrounding villages through Bethel. : While the village residents are keenly aware of this inherent dependence on Bethel, they are protective of whatever degree of independence their. village can maintain from other communities. This philosophy has great impact on such project features as transmission interties and roads. Many communities are opposed to roads, because it might increase access and traf- fic to the-community. Increased access would break down the independence that is now afforded by inaccessibility. The Bethel study team-has given full consideration to these identified concerns throughout the study process. As a result, the best alternative for the region can be put forward with confidence that the true needs of the region are being served. Iv-2 Date 23 26 ll 12 15 Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 LISTING OF From David M. Hickok, AEIDC Paul S. Ford, Harza Ty L. Dilliplane, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Nelda Warkentin, Alaska Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs John Massey, Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Aquaculture Assoc. (LYKAA) Jack Mosby, Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River Study Team Eric Yould, APA SIGNIFICANT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE To Ronald O. Dept. Skoog, Alaska of Fish and Game Charles W. Strickland, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR) Eric Yould, APA Eric Yould, APA Eric Yould, APA Don Baxter, APA Robert E. Cackowski, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC) Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 3 Subject Permit Application Request for Special Use Permit Work Plan Work Plan Work Plan Meeting and Public Comments Work Plan Date 13 25 30 Apr May May Jun Jun 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE From Robert A. Mohn, APA Paul S. Ford, Harza Paul S. Ford, Harza Paul S. Ford, Harza Clifton Eames, National Wildlife David M. Hickok, AEIDC Federation Maureen Brown, Lower Kuskokwim School District Sandy Rabinowitch, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources To John Massey, LYKAA Charles W. Strickland, YDNWR Dennis L. Morey, USFWS Barry Reiswig, YDNWR Barry Reiswig, YDNWR Clifton Eames, National Wildlife Federation Bruno J. Trouille, Harza Paul S. Ford, Harza Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 3 Subject Response to 11 Mar 82 letter Scope of Field Studies Falcon Survey Acceptance of Special Use Permit Conditions Special Use Permit Falcon Survey Data Transmitted State Park Permit 29 29 LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Date From Jul 82 William J. Wilson, AEIDC Aug 82 Paul S. Ford, Harza Aug 82 Paul S. Ford, Harza Aug 82 Paul S. Ford, Harza Sep 82 Judith A. Marquez, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources TO Louis Banderola, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Sharon Barton, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Judith A. Dept. Marquez, Alaska of Natural Resources Jack Mosby, National Park Service Paul S. Ford, Harza Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 3 Subject Amendment to Fish Collecting Permit Summary of Field Findings Request for State Park Permit Review Comments of Kisaralik Wild and Scenic River Draft EIS Granting of State Park Permit (ex post facto) EXHIBIT 2 (OER tee Sheet 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OF Tie US. Fish and Wildlife Service Permit numberjSta. No. to be credited YD-08-82 Contract number ns Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge} sid SPECIAL USE PERMIT Permittee (Name and address) Date May 12, 1982 Period of use (inclusive) From May 12, 19 g2 Harza Engineering Company To September 10, 19 82 203 W. 15th Ave., Suite 204 —Anchorage, AK 99501 Purpose (Specify in detail privilege requested, or units of products involved) To conduct environmental and geophysical activities on that portion of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge delineated in the Special Conditions. Description (Specify unit numbers; metes and bounds; or other recognizable designations) N/A ake Se, 7 z . Amount of fee $ fer etn: eee Be If not a fixed fee payment, specify rate and unit of charge:__ (-] Full payment CO Partial payment-Balance of payments to be made as follows: Record of Payments N/A Special Conditions S/"[82 fr2ceived Pores Pecherap Cop ies te APA - Deon Baxter Harza - Chicago V. Tammeriv: SEE ATTACHED: This permit is issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and accepted by the undersigned, subject to the terms, covenants, obligations, and reservations, expressed or implied therein, and to the conditions and require- ments appearing on the reverse side. fer Jo SL Vi~« MAIL. J eS ntewrs Issujagp0 fficer 15}. ature and title) Ll Xt Acting Refuge Manager GHZ EXHIBIT 2 Sheet 2 of 7 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1, Payments. All payments shall be made on or before the due date to the local representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by a postal money order or check made payable to the U.S. Fish ard Wildlife Service. 2. Use limitations. The permittee's use of the described premises’ is limited to the purposes herein specified; does not unless provided for in this permit allow him to restrict other authorized entry on to his area; and permits the Service to carry on whatever activities are necessary for (1) protection and maintenance of the premises and adjacent lands administered by the Service and (2) the management of wildlife and fish using the premises and other Service lands. 3. Damages. The United States shall not be responsible for any loss or damage to property including but not limited to growing crops, animals, and machinery; or injury to.the permittee, -or his relatives, ar” of the officers, agents, employees, or any others who are on the premises from instructions or by the sufferance of the permittee or his associates; or for damages or interference caused by wildlife or employees or representatives of the Government carrying out their official responsibilities. The permittee agrees to save the United States or any of its agencies harmless from any and all claims for damages or losses that may arise or be incident ro the flooding of the premises resulting from any associated Government river and harbor, flood control, reclamation, or Tennessee Valley Authority activity. 4. Operating Rules and Laws. The permittee shall keep the premises in a neat and orderly condition at all times, and shall comply with all municipal, county, and State laws applicable to his operations under the permit as well as all Federal laws, rules, and regulations governing National Wildlife Refuges and the area described in this permit. He shall comply with all instructions applicable to this permit issued by the refuge officer in charge. He shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent the escape of fires and to suppress fires and shall render all reasonable assistance in the suppression of refuge fires. 5. Responsibility of Permittee. The permittee, by operating on the premises, shall be considered to have accepted these premises with all the facilities, fixtures, or improvements in their existing condition as of the date of this permit. At the end of the period specified or upon earlier termination, he shall give up the premises in as good order and condition as when received except for reasonable wear, tear, or damage occurring without fault or negligence. The permittee will fully repay the Service for any and all damage directly or indirectly resulting from negligence or failure on his part, or the _part of anyone of his. associates, to use reasonable care. 6. Revocation Policy. This permit may be revoked by the Regional Director of the Service without notice for noncompliance with the terms hereof or for violation of general and/or specific laws or * regulations governing National Wildlife Refuges or for nonuse. It is at all times subject to discretionary revocation by the Director of the Service. Upon such revocation the Service, by and through any authorized representative, may take possession of the said premises for its own and sole use, or may enter and possess the premises as the agent of the permittee and for his account. 7. Compliance. Failure of the Service to insist upon a strict compliance with any of this permit's terms, conditions, and requirements shall not constitute a waiver or be considered as a giving up of the Service's right to thereafter enforce any of the permit’s terms, conditions, or requirements. 8. Termination Policy. At the termination of this permit, the permittee shall immediately give up possession to the Service representative, reserving, however, the rights specified in paragraph 9. If he fails to do so, he will pay the Government, as liquidated damages, an amount double the rate specified in this permit for the entire time he withholds possession. Upon yielding possession, the permittee will still be allowed to reenter as needed to remove his property as stated in paragraph 9. The acceptance of any fee for liquidated damages or any other act of administration relating to the continued tenancy is not to be considered as an affirmance of the permittee’s action nor shall it operate as a waiver of the Government's right to terminate or cancel the permit for the breach -of any specified condition or requirement. . 9. Removal of Permittee’s Property. Upon the expiration or termination of this permit, if all rental charges and/or damage claims - due tothe Government have been paid, the permittee may, within a reasonable period as stated in the permit or as determined by the refuge officer in charge but not to exceed 60 days, remove all structures, machinery, and/or other equipment, etc., from the premises for which he is responsible. Within this period he must also remove any other of his property including his acknowledged share of products or crops grown, cut, harvested, stored, or stacked on the premises by him. Upon failure to remove any of the above items within the aforesaid period, they shall become the property of the United States. 10. Transfer of Privileges. This permit is not transferable, and no privileges herein mentioned may be sublet or made available to any person or interest not mentioned in this permit. No interest hereunder may accrue through lien or be transferred to a third party without the approval of the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the permit shall not be used for speculative purposes. 11. Conditions of Permit not Fulfilled. If the permittee fails to fulfill any of the conditions and requirements set forth herein, all money paid under this permit shall be retained by the Government to be used to satisfy as much of the permittee’s obligations as possible. 12. Officials Barred from Participating. No Member of Congress or Resident Commissioner shall participate in any part of this contract or to any benefit that may arise from it, but this provision shall not pertain to this contract if made with a corporation for its general benefit. 13. Nondiscrimination in Employment. The permittee agrees to be bound by the equal opportunity clause of Executive Order 11246, which is attached hereto and made a part of this permit. 14. In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (PL 93-579), please be advised that: (1.) Your participation is voluntary; however, failure to answer all questions fully may delay processing of your application or result in denial of a permit. (2.) Information will be used as a criteria for the selection of special use permits and for identification of personnel having special use permits on National Wildlife Refuges. (8.) This information is collected under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d), and Title 50, Parts 29 and $2, of the Code of Federal Regulations. (4.) In the event there is indicated a violation of a statute, regulation, rule, order, or license, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, the requested information may be transferred to the appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign agency charged with investigating or prosecuting such violations. (5.) In the event of litigation involving the records or the subject matter of the records, the requested information may be transferred to the U.S. Department of Justice. 6. EXHIBIT 2 Sheet 3 of 7 SPECIAL CONDITIONS - BETHEL AREA ENERGY STUDY For the purposes of this permit, the defined study area will be: a. The Kisaralik River corridor which is defined as all refuge lands within the Kisaralik River drainage. b. No other portions of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge will be considered a study area for the purposes of this permit. The permittee will provide lands status information of the study area which will allow for the completion of the study without intrusion on Native selected lands. This permit is not applicable on any Native selected lands within the study area. The permittee will conduct an initial helicopter overflight to locate all potential peregrine falcon nesting habitat. This flight will be conducted at no less than 1500 ft. altitude (AGL). The AGL elevation will be defined as the highest elevation of potential nesting habitat within one horizontal mile of the helicopter. No helicopter landing will be allowed until the initial survey to delineate falcon habitat is completed and protection zones are established. Upon the completion of the initial survey, the following landing areas may be used, except in restricted zones of the river corridor. Restricted areas are defined as all delineated falcon habitat and protection zones or former eyrie sites as shown on attached map. These zones will be protected with a 1500 ft above nest level and one mile radius horizontal buffer. See attached map for established protection zones. a. A series of 3 landings may be conducted in the river drainage between the confluence of the Kasigluk River with the Kisaralik and the confluence of Clear Creek with the Kisaralik. Landing will be restricted to no more than 20 minutes ground time. b. A landing at Drum Lake. A ground survey of the river corridor to delineate falcon eyries and all other raptor nest sites must be completed between the dates June 1 and July 15. One employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service will accompany the ground survey crew. Upon completion of the survey, protective zones will be established around all raptor nest sites within a 1500 ft. (above nest level) vertical and one 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 155 16. 17. 18. 19. EXHIBIT 2 Sheet 4 of 7 mile horizontal protective spacing. These zones will be marked on suitable inch to the mile or greater scale maps of the area with one copy provided to the Refuge Manager. The initial survey to delineate falcon and other raptor nest sites will be conducted by at least one observer experienced in surveying peregrine falcons and with credentials acceptable to the Refuge Manager. If a multi-disciplinary ground survey is conducted with one aspect of the study concerned with delineating of falcon habitat, the falcon survey shall have preference over all other aspects and investigations being conducted. Any changes is stipulations concerning the survey and protection of peregrine falcons or their habitat must be approved by the Regional Director. With the exception of the May helicopter overflight and specified landings no other activities may be initiated until the completion of the ground survey and establishment of protective zones. Upon establishment of the protective zones, no activity will be permitted within one mile of nest sites except river craft may float through the protective zone provided noise is kept to a minimum and no attempt is made to stop or land the craft. No geophysical activities will be allowed in the study area without the prior express written permission of the Refuge Manager as to the number, location and type of activity conducted. The Refuge Manager reserves the right to disallow or suspend any geophysical activities if in his opinion these activities may in any way impact raptors, other wildlife or fisheries, and scenic values of the river corridor. No blasting may be conducted within two miles of any peregrine falcon or other raptor eyrie site. No vegetative clearing or soil movement will be allowed in the river corridor. All equipment and garbage must be returned to Bethel by the conclusion of study field work. No cutting of any live vegetation will be allowed during the establishment or operation of temporary camp facilities. Service personnel will be transported to and from field camps and work sites by the permittee on a space-available basis. A detailed report of all findings with appropriate maps will be provided to the Refuge Manager upon completion of the study. Se. 5, UNITED STATES <a DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ” GEOLOGICAL SURVEY a Ey is SASF ERT AR = L SlCr ne srg7eaom.n,S/ \ 260 ANA cogs A ee )) A. ESA « aa Ni IL a fo --~ 2a (IMCS f; . AN ah LAS AL ag Soe 3 4, a TSsNq\t - = 2.370000 FLET \ oo) SSS Proseerion Zone, Fal sks 4, T4M, ROW FEET (ZONE 7) 160 2 Sheet 5 of 7 cm e7Re EXHIBIT 2 leon ne a hi 6 of a Orne | 2.300 000 FEET j (zone 7 2/