Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
APPLICATION - Full Application - REF Round 15 City of Chignik Final
City of Chignik Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Chignik, AK Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Application Contents •SECTION 1: Applicant Information ............................................................................... 1 •SECTION 2: Project Summary ...................................................................................... 3 •SECTION 3: Project Management, Development, and Operation ............................... 7 •SECTION 4: Qualifications and Experience ............................................................... 14 •SECTION 5: Technical Feasibility ............................................................................... 17 •SECTION 6: Economic Feasibility and Benefits ........................................................ 32 •SECTION 7: Sustainability .......................................................................................... 35 •SECTION 8: Project Readiness ................................................................................... 36 •SECTION 9: Local Support and Opposition ............................................................... 37 •SECTION 10: Compliance with Other Awards ........................................................... 38 •SECTION 11: List of Supporting Documentation for Prior Phases .......................... 39 •SECTION 12: List of Additional Documentation for Consideration ......................... 39 •SECTION 13: Authorized Signers Form ..................................................................... 41 •SECTION 14: Additional Documentation and Certification ...................................... 42 Appendix A: Supporting Documentation for Prior Phases ................................. 43 Final Feasibility Study Report ................................................................. 44 Preliminary Engineering Report ............................................................ 128 New Dam Water Supply Estimate ......................................................... 156 Hydroelectric and Water Supply Project Combined Estimate .... ............167 Appendix B: Resolutions and Letters of Support ............................................. 181 City of Chignik Resolution 22-13: REF Funding Request ...................... 182 ANTHC Letter of Support...................................................................... 184 ANTHC DEHE Leadership Letter of Support ........................................ 186 Lake and Peninsula Borough Resolution 22-17: Match Funding ........... 187 Lake and Peninsula Borough Resolution 22-08: CIP List ...................... 188 Chignik Bay Tribal Council Letter of Support ........................................ 192 Appendix C: Additional Documents ................................................................... 193 Indian Health Service SDS Funding Documentation ............................. 194 Indian Health Service Tier 2 and 3 Project Funding Letter .................... 195 Fuel Cost Justification Documentation .................................................. 201 AEA Economic Model ........................................................................... 205 Attachment I ................................................... Submitted Separately with Application Resumes of Key Personnel ........... Submitted Separately with Application Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION Please specify the legal grantee that will own, operate, and maintain the project upon completion. Name (Name of utility, IPP, local government, or other government entity) City of Chignik Tax ID #92-0094970 Date of last financial statement audit: N/A Mailing Address: Physical Address: P.O. Box 110 101 Woody Road Chignik, Alaska 99564 Chignik, Alaska 99564 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907-749-2280 907-749-2230 chignikcityclerk@gmail.com 1.1 Applicant Point of Contact / Grants Coordinator Name: Robert Carpenter Title: Mayor Mailing Address: P.O. Box 110 Chignik, Alaska 99564 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907-749-2280 907-749-2230 chignikcityclerk@gmail.com 1.1.1 Applicant Signatory Authority Contact Information Name: Robert Carpenter Title: Mayor Mailing Address: P.O. Box 110 Chignik, Alaska 99564 Telephone: Fax: Email: 907-749-4003 907-749-2230 robertcarpenterchignik@msn.com 1.1.2 Applicant Alternate Points of Contact Name Telephone: Fax: Email: Dannica Anderson 907-749-2280 907-749-2230 chignikassistant@gmail.com AEA - 23046 Page 1 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System 1.2 Applicant Minimum Requirements Please check as appropriate. If applicants do not meet the minimum requirements, the application will be rejected. 1.2.1 Applicant Type ☐An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05 CPCN #______, or ☐An independent power producer in accordance with 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1) CPCN #______, or ☒A local government, or ☐A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities) Additional minimum requirements ☒1.2.2 Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for the project by the applicant’s board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If the applicant is a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing authority is necessary. (Indicate yes by checking the box) ☒1.2.3 As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant agreement (Section 3 of the RFA). (Indicate yes by checking the box) ☒1.2.4 If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the award as identified in the Standard Grant Agreement template at https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Grants-Loans/Renewable-Energy- Fund/2022-REF-Application (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the application.) (Indicate yes by checking the box) ☒1.2.5 We intend to own and operate any project that may be constructed with grant funds for the benefit of the general public. If no please describe the nature of the project and who will be the primary beneficiaries. (Indicate yes by checking the box) AEA - 23046 Page 2 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 Project Title Provide a 4 to 7 word title for your project. Type in the space below. Chignik Hydroelectric Power System 2.2 Project Location 2.2.1 Location of Project – Latitude and longitude (preferred), street address, or community name. Latitude and longitude coordinates may be obtained from Google Maps by finding you project’s location on the map and then right clicking with the mouse and selecting “What is here? The coordinates will be displayed in the Google search window above the map in a format as follows: 61.195676.-149.898663. If you would like assistance obtaining this information, please contact AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771- 3081. Latitude 56.279722° Longitude -158.413889° Chignik Bay, Alaska AEA - 23046 Page 3 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System 2.2.2 Community benefiting – Name(s) of the community or communities that will be the beneficiaries of the project. Chignik, Alaska 2.3 Project Type Please check as appropriate. 2.3.1 Renewable Resource Type ☐Wind ☐Biomass or Biofuels (excluding heat-only) ☒Hydro, Including Run of River ☐Hydrokinetic ☐Geothermal, Excluding Heat Pumps ☐Transmission of Renewable Energy ☐Solar Photovoltaic ☐Storage of Renewable ☐Other (Describe)☐Small Natural Gas 2.3.2 Proposed Grant Funded Phase(s) for this Request (Check all that apply) Pre-Construction Construction ☐Reconnaissance ☒Final Design and Permitting ☐Feasibility and Conceptual Design ☐Construction AEA - 23046 Page 4 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System 2.4 Project Description Provide a brief, one-paragraph description of the proposed project. The City of Chignik's water source is Indian Lake which is impounded by a timber buttress dam. Water flows from the dam through a 7,260 ft transmission line to the community water treatment plant. Flow from Indian lake has also historically powered a now decommissioned 60 kW hydroelectric turbine in a local cannery, the FERC permit for which is now owned by the city. The dam and portions of the water transmission lines are over 70 years old, near failure, and in urgent need of replacement. As of the date of this application, the Alaska Area Office of the Indian Health Service (AAIHS) has committed to funding the renovation of the aging dam and water transmission lines to meet this need. The AAIHS has approved $7,230,830 of funding ($639,987 for engineering and $6,590,843 for construction). This approval is being reviewed by the national-level IHS and is expected to be available in 2023. The water transmission and dam replacement project will be referred to as the "dam renovation" for the remainder of this application. In this application, the City of Chignik seeks funding to complete the final design and permitting phase (Phase III) of a hydroelectric power generation system concurrent with the design of the dam renovation. Because the dam renovation is expected to be funded in 2023, the confluence of 2023 IHS funding and the timing of this application represents a unique opportunity to design the hydroelectric system at the same time as the dam renovation. Concurrency is important because the design and construction of the hydroelectric system will be significantly more expensive should Phase III be completed separately. The concurrent design will achieve cost savings through economies of scale and ensure that electric-power generation is considered in the water source project's sizing, location, and layout. Therefore, funding must be approved specifically during the current round of the REF. The hydroelectric power generation system or "hydroelectric system" as it will be referred to for the remainder of the application, will consist of a penstock, a new powerhouse with a Turgo turbine, a tailrace, electrical transmission infrastructure to the existing diesel powerplant, and the associated control upgrades; it will be housed inside the renovated dam. Phase III of the hydroelectric system project will utilize a 2014 feasibility study performed by the consulting firm Hatch Ltd. and a 2018 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) performed by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (both documents are included in Appendix A). The 2014 feasibility study found that the proposed hydroelectric system could meet approximately 94.7% of the city's electrical load, saving approximately 50,441 gallons of diesel annually. 2.5 Scope of Work Provide a short narrative for the scope of work detailing the tasks to be performed under this funding request. This should include work paid for by grant funds and matching funds or performed as in-kind match. The scope of work under this request will pick up where the REF Round 1 funded feasibility study (Hatch, 2014) left off. It will include survey and geotechnical investigation, which will then inform final design of the proposed hydroelectric facility. The hydroelectric system project parameters are based on the 2014 feasibility study, and subsequent 2018 PER, with minor modifications to account for current electrical loads. The proposed hydroelectric system will include a 250-385 kW Turgo style turbine housed in a new powerhouse, an approximately 7,280’ long, 24” penstock, tailrace, transmission lines, and associated upgrades at the existing diesel powerplant. The City of Chignik already holds a FERC license for the decommissioned 60 kW hydroelectric turbine. The current license can be amended to accommodate the new facility allowing significant reduction to the anticipated permitting timeline. Project personnel will manage the permitting required for the project to move into the construction phase. The following is a list of tasks that is anticipated for project completion: AEA - 23046 Page 5 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Geotechnical Investigation and survey: The proposed project will require geotechnical work, LIDAR survey, and topographic survey for the proposed powerhouse and penstock route. Geotech and survey efforts will be contracted out to a qualified contractor utilizing appropriate bidding procedure. If this application is funded, it will enable the additional survey and geotechnical investigation required for completion of hydroelectric system design to be performed under the same contract as the dam renovation design. The survey and geotechnical tasks required for the powerhouse and penstock are marginal additional costs on top of the mobilization of crews and equipment for the dam renovation project performing both tasks under a single contract will result in cost savings. Stream Gauging: Per the 2014 feasibility study, the existing stream gauging is sufficient to support the proposed project. However, the study also recommends continued stream gauging through the design and permitting phase. This will be performed concurrent with the geotechnical work. Design: The funding from this award will allow the hydroelectric system design effort to occur concurrent to the dam renovation design to ensure a cohesive approach. If performed concurrently, the cost for the hydroelectric system design will be significantly reduced. Final design will produce construction ready plans and specifications for the hydroelectric system including the intertie to the existing community power plant and electric distribution system. The hydroelectric system design work will be contracted out to a qualified firm with relevant project experience. Permitting: The project would include amending the existing FERC license, as well as securing all required permits, including but not limited to: ADF&G, ADNR, SHPO, Fire Marshal, and local permits. There will be significant overlap in permitting requirements between the hydroelectric project and dam renovation, which a higher burden expected to fall on the dam renovation. The exact delineations of permitting scope will be determined during project scoping. Project Management: The project manager will be responsible for coordinating with and reporting to the funding agency, working as the liaison between stakeholders and the community, managing the project budget, and coordinating with the design and permitting team. 2.6 Previous REF Applications for the Project See Section 1.15 of the RFA for the maximum per project cumulative grant award amount Round Submitted Title of application Application #, if known Did you receive a grant? Y/N Amount of REF grant awarded ($) 1 Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility Study 40 Y 207,500 7 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting 1018 N N/A 8 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting 1166 N N/A 9 Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project 1247 N N/A 13 Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project 13008 N N/A •REF Round 1 provided the funding for the 2014 feasibility study that was previously referred to in this application. The design for a combined dam renovation and the hydroelectric system was recommended for funding under rounds 7, 8, and 9 of the REF; however, funding was AEA - 23046 Page 6 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System not allocated by the state. These previous applications included the cost of the dam renovation design and construction under the REF project. Under this Round 15 application, IHS funding will cover the cost of the dam renovation design. Therefore, this application represents the first application where dam renovation is funded separately. AEA’s concurrent funding of the hydroelectric system phase III - final design and permitting project proposed within this application will leverage the IHS funding and lower hydroelectric system design costs. This opportunity to lower costs makes it critical that the project is funded during this round of the REF. The IHS funds will provide for the completion of the dam renovation regardless of the success of this application. SECTION 3 – Project Management, Development, and Operation 3.1 Schedule and Milestones Please fill out the schedule below (or attach a similar sheet) for the work covered by this funding request. Be sure to identify key tasks and decision points, including go/no go decisions, in your project along with estimated start and end dates for each of the milestones and tasks. Please clearly identify the beginning and ending of all phases (I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction) of your proposed project. See the RFA, Sections 2.3-2.6 for the recommended milestones for each phase. Add additional rows as needed. Task # Milestones Tasks Start Date End Date Deliverables 1 Project Setup, Scoping, and Contract Services Solicitation Accounting setup, project agreements, scoping meetings, contracting 6/23 8/23 Cooperative project agreement between ANTHC and City of Chignik, internal project billing codes setup, final scoping documentation, and data acquisition/design contracts in place 2 Data Acquisition Geotechnical assessment, survey, stream gauging. 8/23 1/26 Geotechnical reports, survey basemaps, and stream gauging reports 3 65% Design, and Design Review Engineering Design, distributions of plans for comments, design review meetings 3/24 11/24 Engineering design documents, documented comment responses and resolutions 4 95% Design, Design Review, and Cost Estimate Engineering Design, distributions of plans for comments, design review meetings, obtain cost estimate 2/25 7/25 Engineering design documents, documented comment responses and resolutions, construction cost estimate 5 Heat and power sales agreements Create contracts for heat sales if excess power is used for secondary heat loads, and work with city to develop a plan 9/25 2/26 Heat sales agreement for all heat users (if applicable), and documented plan for how fuel savings will be incorporated into future rate structures. AEA - 23046 Page 7 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System for rate structures and power sales 6 100% Design, Final Site Control, and Cost Estimate Engineering Design, site control, and send plans for final estimate 9/25 1/26 Construction documents, site control documentation, construction cost estimate 7 Final Economic Analysis Revise economic analysis based on final costs 1/26 2/26 Revised project economics in AEA format. 8 Permitting, and environmental assessment, and site control Obtain all required permits, and perform environmental review 1/25 4/26 Permits from ADNR, ADF&G, etc., environmental review documentation, site control documentation 9 Project Travel ANTHC travel throughout design and permitting for community outreach and presentations To be performed throughout project Trip report for each trip 10 Project Management Manage budget, project reporting and communication, facilitate and manage contracted services To be performed throughout project Monthly progress and budget reports 11 Community Outreach Additional community outreach and stakeholder engagement to be performed by Lake and LPB To be performed throughout project N/A 12 Project Closeout Perform project closeout in accordance with AEA procedures 4/26 5/26 Final report, all other AEA required closeout documents 3.2 Budget 3.2.1 Funding Sources Indicate the funding sources for the phase(s) of the project applied for in this funding request. Grant funds requested in this application $802,394 Cash match to be provideda $23,368 In-kind match to be provideda $20,399 Energy efficiency match providedb $0 Total costs for project phase(s) covered in application (sum of above) $846,161 Describe your financial commitment to the project and the source(s) of match. Indicate whether these matching funds are secured or pending future approvals. Describe the impact, if any, that the timing of additional funds would have on the ability to proceed with the grant. This application requests funding for the Final Design and Permitting of the hydroelectric system, which has an anticipated cost of $846,161. This funding will leverage $639,987 for the design of the AEA - 23046 Page 8 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System dam renovation and $6,590,843 for the dam renovation construction provided by IHS. If awarded, the REF funding would ensure that the hydroelectric system and the dam renovation can be designed concurrently under the same contract. Construction funding for the hydroelectric project will be secured separately from this application. The allocation of $639,987 for the dam renovation design has been approved under the IHS Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) by the Alaska Area Office and is expected to be available for expenditure in 2023. Documentation of this status is provided in Appendix C. The $639,987 is made up of $389,337, which IHS has allotted for the Tier 1 projects, and an additional $250,000 of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding. This additional $250,000 is not included in the SDS documentation but is included in the $33 million that IHS has allotted to Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects (reflected within May 31, 2022, IHS letter included in Appendix C). While the dam renovation funding is not offered as a match in this application, dam renovation design funding is expected to cover the majority of the geotechnical and survey costs that would otherwise fall on the hydroelectric system project, and the dam renovation construction funding will cover infrastructure shared between the two projects, such as access roads. The leveraged funding will be dispersed late in 2023, with the dam renovation design scheduled to start in March 2024. Although design work on the hydroelectric system will follow the dam design schedule, survey and permitting efforts can begin as soon as REF funding is awarded. A variety of grant and loan funding sources will be pursued for the subsequent construction phase of the project; ANTHC's Rural Energy Program has previously received funding from 16 different Federal, State, regional, and philanthropic sources and can support the City of Chignik to apply for those that are applicable, such as DOE Office of Indian Energy funding or USDA Rural Development funding. Other funding sources, such as funding from the Denali Commission, Community Development Block Grant opportunities, and private foundation funders – all of whom ANTHC has significant experience working with to meet community funding needs- will be approached on an as-needed basis for additional funding support. The City of Chignik is highly invested in and committed to the project. The City has previously secured funding for partial development of the access trail to the dam site in order to enable construction and improve access for operations and maintenance. Additionally, the City is committed to operating and maintaining the dam while working to secure additional funding for the eventual construction of the hydroelectric system. The Lake and Peninsula Borough fully supports the project and will contribute $13,932 in-kind in the form of the Borough Manager's time supporting community engagement and outreach, as well as through contracted support from qualified consultants for grant writing capacity, technical oversight, and project management. The Lake and Peninsula Borough has also offered a $23,368 cash match. Both the in-kind and cash match is documented in Resolution #22-17 in Appendix B. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium will be contracted by the City of Chignik to directly administer and manage the final design and permitting for the project. ANTHC intends to provide $6,467 of in-kind project management time to demonstrate its commitment to the success of this project. This match is documented by the ANTHC Letter of Support in Appendix B. a Attach documentation for proof (see Section 1.18 of the Request for Applications) b See Section 8.2 of this application and Section 1.18 of the RFA for requirements for Energy Efficiency Match. 3.2.2 Cost Overruns Describe the plan to cover potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding. AEA - 23046 Page 9 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System ANTHC will make every effort to keep the project within the budget. In previous instances, when project overruns have occurred on projects, ANTHC has successfully sought out and utilized other funding opportunities to cover any cost overruns. ANTHC will work with the City of Chignik to identify additional funding sources on an as-needed basis to ensure the hydroelectric system design is completed ANTHC personnel have extensive experience identifying and acquiring supplemental funding in order to complete projects, including the Grants Planning and Development Department, which specifically works to achieve these ends. 3.2.3 Total Project Costs Indicate the anticipated total cost by phase of the project (including all funding sources). Use actual costs for completed phases. Indicate if the costs were actual or estimated. Reconnaissance [Actual/Estimated] $0 Feasibility and Conceptual Design [Actual/Estimated] $207,500 Final Design and Permitting [Actual/Estimated] $846,161 Construction [Actual/Estimated] $5,630,683 Total Project Costs (sum of above) Estimated $6,684,344 Metering/Tracking Equipment [not included in project cost] Estimated $15,000 3.2.4 Funding Subsequent Phases If subsequent phases are required beyond the phases being applied for in this application, describe the anticipated sources of funding and the likelihood of receipt of those funds. •State and/or federal grants •Loans, bonds, or other financing options •Additional incentives (i.e. tax credits) •Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) The subsequent construction phase of the hydroelectric system project has an estimated direct cost of $5.6M. A number of funding sources will be pursued, and a combination of grant and loan funding will be considered from a variety of sources. ANTHC’s Rural Energy Program has received funding from 16 different Federal, State, regional, and philanthropic sources and can support the City of Chignik to apply for those that are applicable. Funding sources that are being considered to carry out the construction and commissioning phases of the project include the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy, the Energy Improvements in Rural and Remote Areas grant available under the bipartisan infrastructure law, and funding from the USDA Rural Development program, among others. ANTHC has been successful in supporting communities such as Chignik in securing funding for addressing high energy costs in recent years, having secured 62 different grants for projects that are currently active in partnership with rural communities. As previously mentioned, funding for the design and construction of the dam renovation has been approved by the Alaska Area Office of the Indian Health Service, and it is expected to be approved by the national office in 2023. In the event that additional construction funding is not found in time for the hydroelectric system to be constructed concurrently with the dam renovation, then the IHS funding will be used to construct a valved penstock stub out so the hydroelectric system can be connected when adequate construction funding is secured. This approach would not require the reservoir to be drained when the hydroelectric project is constructed. It should be noted that this is only possible if the hydroelectric project is designed concurrently with the dam renovation. Otherwise, AEA - 23046 Page 10 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System a penstock will have to be retrofitted to the dam after the fact, which would require draining the water reservoir and would add significant cost and complexity. 3.2.3 Budget Forms Applications MUST include a separate worksheet for each project phase that was identified in Section 2.3.2 of this application — I. Reconnaissance, II. Feasibility and Conceptual Design, III. Final Design and Permitting, and IV. Construction. Please use the tables provided below to detail your proposed project’s total budget. Be sure to use one table for each phase of your project, and delete any unnecessary tables. The milestones and tasks should match those listed in 3.1 above. If you have any question regarding how to prepare these tables or if you need assistance preparing the application please feel free to contact AEA’s Grants Coordinator by email at grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771-3081. Phase 3 — Final Design and Permitting Milestone or Task Anticipated Completion Date RE- Fund Grant Funds Grantee Matching Funds Source of Matching Funds: Cash/In- kind/Federal Grants/Other State Grants/Other TOTALS Task #1 – Project Setup, Scoping, and Contract Service Solicitation August 2023 $1,500 $0 N/A $1,500 Task #2 – Data Acquisition January 2026 $74,587 $0 N/A $74,587 Task #3 – 65% Design, and Design Review January 2025 $392,637 $17,466 $15,000 cash match from LPB for design contract, and $2,466 in-kind from LPB for design review $410,103 Task #4 – 95% Design, Design Review, and Cost Estimate September 2025 $202,505 $8,466 $6,000 cash match from LPB for design contract, and $2,466 in-kind from LPB for design review $210,971 Task #5 – Heat Sales and Power Sales Agreements January 2026 $1,500 $0 N/A $1,500 Task #6 – 100% Design, Site Control, and Cost Estimate January 2026 $41,632 $2,368 Cash from LPB $44,000 Task #7 – Final Economic Analysis February 2026 $2000 $0 N/A $2000 Task #8 - Permitting and Environmental Assessment April 2026 $17,000 $3,000 In-kind from LPB $20,000 Task #9 - Project Travel April 2026 $8,700 $0 N/A $8,700 AEA - 23046 Page 11 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Task #10 - Project Management May 2026 $58,833 $6,467 N/A $65,300 Task #11 – Community outreach and engagement May 2026 $0 $6,000 In-kind from LPB $6,000 Task #12 – Project Closeout May 2026 $1,500 $0 N/A $1,500 TOTALS $802,394 $43,767 $846,161 Budget Categories: Direct Labor & Benefits $78,401 $20,399 $98,800 Travel & Per Diem $8,700 $0 $8,700 Equipment $ $0 $0 Materials & Supplies $ $0 $0 Contractual Services $715,293 $23,368 $738,661 Construction Services $0 $0 $0 Other $0 $0 $0 TOTALS $802,394 $43,767 $846,161 3.2.4 Cost Justification Indicate the source(s) of the cost estimates used for the project budget, including costs for future phases not included in this application. In June 2022, Estimations Inc. performed two cost estimates: The first was a cost estimate for the design and construction of the dam renovation project. The estimate encompasses demolition of the existing non-functional dam, geotechnical work for the reservoir, dam, and access road, land and LIDAR survey, the design and construction of the replacement dam, construction of an access road to that new facility, and water supply piping. The second was an estimate for the design and construction of the hydroelectric system in combination with the dam renovation project. This combined estimate includes all of the costs included in the first estimate in addition to the design and construction cost of the hydroelectric system. Both cost estimates are included for reference in Appendix A. The design cost for the combined dam renovation and the hydroelectric system is projected to be $1,178,886, while the design cost for only the dam renovation is projected to be $639,987. The cost for the project proposed in this application, which isolates the costs for the hydroelectric system from the dam renovation project, is based on the difference between these two cost estimates, with some additional modifications detailed in this section. The difference in design cost between the two projects is $538,598, which is the baseline design cost for the hydroelectric system. The Estimations Inc. cost estimate assumed design in 2022, so this cost is escalated to future price inflation, and a 5% contingency is added for a design cost of $620,074. The Estimations Inc. cost estimates assume that geotechnical work will cost the same for the combined project as it will for the dam renovation-only project; while we agree there will be cost AEA - 23046 Page 12 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System savings when combining projects, an additional $74,587 to account for the additional geotechnical and survey scope involved is added to the design cost. Additional costs are added for permitting, travel, project management, and outreach to arrive at a total Phase 3 cost of $846,161. The amounts for individual tasks are given in Phase 3 – Final Design and Permitting budget table above. The management and contracting fees for the design and permitting of the hydroelectric system are integral to the Estimations Inc. cost estimate and are subtracted from the remaining capital cost for the subsequent phase of that project. 3.3 Project Communications 3.3.1 Project Progress Reporting Describe how you plan to monitor the progress of the project and keep AEA informed of the status. Who will be responsible for tracking the progress? What tools and methods will be used to track progress? The City of Chignik will enter into a Cooperative Project Agreement (CPA) with ANTHC within the first quarter of the project period. As detailed in Resolution 22-13 (attached in Appendix B), the City of Chignik authorizes Consortium personnel to provide project and grant management services for the proposed hydroelectric system design and permitting project. ANTHC’s Grants Management and Compliance Department, overseen by the Grants and Other Restricted Revenue Manager, is staffed to provide comprehensive grant administration assistance to ANTHC projects, including those the organization is contracted to manage. The department manages an approximate total of $250 million in grant-funded projects on an annual basis. ANTHC’s current portfolio includes grants from a variety of federal and state government agencies, as well as a number of nonprofit organizations and foundations within and outside Alaska. Grant Specialists with ANTHC’s Grants Management and Compliance Department work to coordinate grant reporting activities with project managers, communicate with external funding agencies to ensure goals and objectives are met, and ensure grant reports, as well as closeout data, are submitted one time. ANTHC’s project managers, supervisory personnel, and accounting staff manage grant-funded projects according to the grantor’s specific requirements. ANTHC’s Grant Specialists use the Microsoft Office suite of software to monitor grant activities and reporting requirements, working closely with project managers and finance staff to continuously review and improve departmental operations. ANTHC prepares quarterly reports on all of the capital projects it currently manages. This same methodology of reporting will be utilized for this project should grant funds be awarded to the City of Chignik. ANTHC will work with the City of Chignik to provide monthly financial and narrative reports as required by AEA. Financial reports with detailed expense information for labor, materials, travel, and indirect utilization for the project will be provided. Narrative reporting will discuss the status of the project and any challenges that arise in carrying out the scope of work as described in this application. ANTHC Energy Department’s Project Manager, Elan Edgerly, will serve as the project manager responsible for tracking the progress of this project using ANTHC’s budget and project tracking software tools (Cognito, INFOR, etc.) Written monthly progress reports will be provided to the AEA project manager as required by the terms and conditions of the grant. Meetings will be conducted by ANTHC, the City of Chignik, AEA, and other project stakeholders as needed to discuss the status of the project on an ongoing basis. AEA - 23046 Page 13 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System 3.3.2 Financial Reporting Describe the controls that will be utilized to ensure that only costs that are reasonable, ordinary and necessary will be allocated to this project. Also discuss the controls in place that will ensure that no expenses for overhead, or any other unallowable costs will be requested for reimbursement from the REF Grant Program. The City of Chignik will enter into a Cooperative Project Agreement (CPA) with ANTHC to provide comprehensive project and financial management for the proposed project. The following information illustrates the organizational capacity and financial controls that are in place to ensure grant funds are managed efficiently: ANTHC is a large organization with over 3,018 employees and an annual operating budget of $736.6 million. The Consortium’s Chief Financial Officer has the overall responsibility for the fiscal and administrative oversight of grant awards. All funds awarded to the City of Chignik and contracted to ANTHC will be maintained and accounted for separately and distinctly from other sources of revenue/funding. Internal ANTHC controls are in place to ensure that federal and state funds are used solely for authorized purposes, including multiple levels of approval ensuring award funds are managed properly. To this purpose, ANTHC maintains Grants Management and Compliance teams to ensure it is compliant with all federal, state, and private funding as well as the Uniform Administrative Requirements Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for federal awards (2 CFR Part 200). ANTHC performs in-house financial management and has sufficient internal controls in place to establish proper segregation of time and duties necessary to consistently report costs to funding agencies. These controls likewise prevent incurring obligations in excess of the total funds available for the grant. ANTHC meets all funder’s requirements and assigns a unique accounting – cost center number to each award received. ANTHC also has an annual independent audit completed. The ANTHC Procurement and Contracting Department work with program managers to ensure appropriate scopes of work, performance measures, and compliance requirements are incorporated into all organizational contracts. This is completed through a computerized contracts procurement and management software. The Finance Department oversees the implementation and maintenance of internal monetary and accounting controls, follows corporate accounting policies, provides compliance monitoring and enforcement of financial requirements, and performs mandated record retention for the Consortium. ANTHC will provide records and accounting records available to state and federal auditors on request. Project finance information will be kept in ANTHC Infor, a job cost accounting software that accounts for expenditures by phase code and cost types. Procurement Contracting and Finance staff are the primary users of the system, with information available to project teams on an ongoing basis. SECTION 4 – QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 4.1 Project Team AEA - 23046 Page 14 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Include resumes for known key personnel and contractors, including all functions below, as an attachment to your application. In the electronic submittal, please submit resumes as separate PDFs if the applicant would like those excluded from the web posting of this application. 4.1.1 Project Manager Indicate who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include contact information. If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to solicit project management support. If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section. Elan Edgerly, PE, CEM, Project Manager II emedgerly@anthc.org, 907-654-9043 4.1.2 Project Accountant Indicate who will be performing the accounting of this project for the grantee. If the applicant does not have a project accountant indicate how you intend to solicit financial accounting support. Elliott Lin, Accountant II, will be responsible for the accounting. elin@anthc.org Office: 907-729-3619 4.1.3 Expertise and Resources Describe the project team including the applicant, partners, and contractors. For each member of the project team, indicate: •the milestones/tasks in 3.1 they will be responsible for; •the knowledge, skills, and experience that will be used to successfully deliver the tasks; •how time and other resource conflicts will be managed to successfully complete the task. If contractors have not been selected to complete the work, provide reviewers with sufficient detail to understand the applicant’s capacity to successfully select contractors and manage complex contracts. The ANTHC Rural Energy Program has worked in partnership with rural communities, Tribes, Tribal organizations, funding agencies, and other intra-organizational departments over the past 12 years to identify, develop, and implement more than 230 renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that have already saved communities over $30 million to-date in energy costs, with more than $4.7 million in savings continuing to accrue annually. ANTHC’s Division of Environmental Health and Engineering (DEHE) has a full-service engineering group at its disposal for this project, either designing the system internally or reviewing design documents if the project is subcontracted. Our programs are focused on the planning, design, construction, and operation of public health infrastructure throughout the state of Alaska. Professional engineers at DEHE are involved in all aspects of a project, from planning to design to force account construction. Additionally, ANTHC maintains a list of term contractors which undergo a competitive procurement process that meets or exceeds all federal agency requirements. Key personnel for each department include the following: Dustin Madden, C.E.M. AEA - 23046 Page 15 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Rural Energy Program Manager, ANTHC Dustin oversees ANTHC’s Rural Energy Program, which will be responsible for the overall development, reporting, and project management activities of the proposed Chignik Hydro Project. He manages a team of seven staff with a portfolio of approximately $25 million in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. He has an extensive background in energy and economic analysis, program evaluation, and energy modeling, all focused on Alaska. Dustin will be involved in providing support throughout all phases of the project. Elan Edgerly, P.E., C.E.M. Project Manager, ANTHC Elan is a licensed mechanical engineer and project manager at ANTHC. He is responsible for project development, renewable energy system assessment, and the management of design and construction projects. He has experience with design and project inspection throughout Alaska. In addition to a mechanical engineering degree, Elan has a Master of Civil Engineering with an emphasis on water resources and is the primary author of a paper entitled “Measuring the Hydraulic Effect of Hydrokinetic Energy Extraction in the Tanana River, Alaska,” which was published in the Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy. He will be responsible for the management of the design project and will perform a design review. James Anderson Powerplant Operator, Vice-Mayor, City of Chignik James has been the power plant operator in Chignik Bay since 2014. He has a strong diesel and automotive background, which he uses to effectively operate and maintain the existing powerplant. While working at the power plant, he has consistently monitored system parameters to identify issues in their early stages and has proactively worked to fix issues before they become too large. James will be the primary operator in charge of the hydroelectric system. Will Fraser, P.E. Lead Mechanical Engineer, ANTHC Will is a seasoned mechanical engineer with 29 years of experience in the field. He has spent the majority of his career with ANTHC, designing water and sewer infrastructure along with energy projects, in addition to managing the Engineering Department. Will will perform design reviews during the project. Joe Hess, P.E. Civil Engineer, ANTHC Joe has been with ANTHC for 15 years and is currently the lead civil engineer. He has extensive “field-to-finish” experience and a strong background in drafting and design, specifically with water and wastewater systems, roads, dams, and light commercial structures. Joe has experience through all phases of the dam and hydroelectric facility projects, including development, design, permitting, and construction. He will provide a design review during the contracted design phase. Dave Reed, P.E. Electrical Engineer, ANTHC Dave is ANTHC’s lead electrical engineer and has over 25 years of design experience and nine years of electrical system operations experience. His design experience includes controls, electrical power, and alternative energy systems throughout rural Alaska. Dave will provide a design review of this project. Richard Wooten, P.M.P., CDT, CPSM AEA - 23046 Page 16 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Manager - Contract Delivery Team, ANTHC Richard is the manager of the Contract Delivery Team at ANTHC and will be assisting in procurement for the design component of the project. He has been writing, managing, and executing complex contracts and selecting contractors for over eight years. Cy Two Elk, P.M.P. Sanitation Project Manager II, ANTHC Cy has been with ANTHC for almost five years and will be managing the concurrent dam renovation. He has over 25 years of construction experience which informs his practical and effective approach to project management. Cy will be the main point of contact for coordination between the dam and hydroelectric portions of this project. Charissa Williar, PE, MPH Sanitation Facilities Program Manager, ANTHC Charissa is the Program Manager of ANTHC’s Sanitation Facilities department, where she oversees 18 project managers in the delivery of a $360 million portfolio of design and construction services to Alaska Native villages. She is the engineer who approved and signed the 2018 PER, which recommends a combined water source and hydroelectric project in Chignik (the PER is attached in Appendix A). She will be available for consultation during design in order to ensure that her institutional knowledge is used to inform the direction of the project. Gavin Dixon Owner, Cumbre Consulting L.L.C. Gavin is an independent contractor working in the Lake and Peninsula Borough. He has over ten years of experience developing, funding, and managing infrastructure projects in rural Alaska. Through his contract with the Lake and Peninsula Borough, Gavin will help support this project by performing community engagement and outreach, and design review. He will also support future efforts to procure funding for the future construction of the hydroelectric project. 4.2 Local Workforce Describe how the project will use local labor or train a local labor workforce. During investigation and design, the community will be engaged and solicited for input and comment. Additionally, operators from the community will be sent to hydroelectric-specific operator training prior to the construction phase of the hydroelectric system. The Lake and Peninsula Borough has offered $13,932 of in-kind in the form of their review and support of community engagement and outreach necessary to the project. SECTION 5 – TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY 5.1 Resource Availability 5.1.1 Assessment of Proposed Energy Resource Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available, including average resource availability on an annual basis. For pre-construction applications, describe the resource to the extent known. For design and permitting or construction projects, please provide feasibility documents, design documents, and permitting documents (if applicable) as attachments to this application (See Section 11). Likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project. AEA - 23046 Page 17 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System See the “Resource Assessment” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. The proposed intake site at the outlet of Indian Lake has a watershed 2.9 square miles, and is delineated by steep ridges on the east, south, and west sides. Monitoring of pipeline flows and gaging of stream flows at the dam, pool, and bridge sites in Indian Creek were performed in compliance with FERC requirements. Data compiled in a stream monitoring report, (Hatch, 2013 Monitoring Report) has been filed with FERC under permit P-620; it reports daily average stream flows, flow duration exceedance tables, and predicted maximum flood flows for Indian Creek at the dam and bridge sites. The 2014 Hatch feasibility study summarizes this report’s findings in Tables 3-2 to 3-5 on pages 11-12 of the study. Based on historical stream gauging, the feasibility study produced a flow duration curve for dam spill, shown below. The highest average monthly flows occur during June and July due to snowmelt. Flows are generally lower in late winter and spring, corresponding to lower temperatures. Because this system has a reservoir, the flow rate to the turbine is not directly tied to instantaneous river flow, as the reservoir can provide a buffer. Despite the buffer, it is planned that the hydroelectric system will be offline for 2-3 weeks in winter, and 2-3 weeks in spring in order to avoid depleting the reservoir. The figure below (pulled from the 2014 feasibility study) shows anticipated loads and correlating flow rates and reservoir levels. AEA - 23046 Page 18 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System The 2014 feasibility also addresses future availability of the resource, citing a University of Alaska Fairbanks project entitled Scenario Network for Alaska + Arctic Planning (SNAP) which makes climate predictions for communities in its study area. It predicts warmer weather and increased precipitation for Chignik. Both factors will likely result in an increased availability of the hydro resource. The figure from the SNAP study is reproduced below (UAF, 2014). 5.1.2 Alternatives to Proposed Energy Resource Describe the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available for the market to be served by your project. Pros of Hydro: Due to the timing of the dam renovation, installing a hydroelectric system is the best way to leverage existing funding to maximize cost savings. The timing of this application is ideal for ensuring that the dam renovation and hydroelectric system are designed concurrently and that electrical generation is an integral consideration of the dam renovation project's design. The alternative is to design them separately, which will lead to overlapping scopes and issues with retrofitting a hydroelectric system to an existing dam design. Combining the construction of the dam renovation and hydroelectric AEA - 23046 Page 19 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System system will drastically reduce the overall cost of the system due to the high costs of mobilization and demobilization in rural Alaska. Water is a readily available resource in Chignik and will likely remain plentiful for the life of this project (see Hatch, 2014). There is an adequate resource to cover nearly all of the community's load, with the exception of brief periods during winter and spring. Unlike other renewable energy sources, hydro is not intermittent. Because there is storage in the form of the dam, hydropower production is reliable, predictable, and controllable. Additionally, because there aren't large ramp rates involved in hydropower generation, battery storage to smooth out generation is not required. This will reduce project costs compared to other renewable energy sources. Power plant operators can plan and control when the hydro turbines are offline during low flow periods, giving them plenty of time to get diesel generation up and running. This will also simplify integration at the existing diesel power plant in comparison to more intermittent energy sources because extremely high-speed communication is less critical, and no battery integration is required. A hydroelectric system also has the capability to offset more diesel production than any other renewable source. Even an oversized wind farm cannot be expected to generate during times with low wind. Solar is likewise unreliable due to Chignik's maritime climate and wouldn't offset almost any fuel during winter. Finally, hydropower is a proven technology in rural Alaska and has a longer expected useful life than other options. Cons of Hydro: The main con of hydropower is the high capital cost of the associated dam. However, in this case, the dam is required for the community's water source and is funded to be replaced regardless of whether or not the hydroelectric portion of the project is completed in tandem. Leveraging the funding for the planned dam renovation will reduce overall project costs and allow for expeditious design and construction of the hydroelectric system. As shown by previous fish monitoring efforts, average pink salmon returns are approximately 2,500 fish per year. While dams can have potential negative impacts on fish habitat, in this case, because there is an existing dam and the project is going to increase flow to salmon streams, it will actually benefit fish habitat. Flow that was previously routed through the decommissioned 60 kW hydroelectric turbine and then wasted into the ocean will be rerouted to the new turbine and returned to the Indian Creek above the primary fish habitat. This will result in enhanced salmon habitat as compared to the current arrangement. Alternatives: Due to limited sunlight during winter and a cloudy maritime climate, a solar array will not have the same potential to offset diesel generation, especially and fall and winter. A wind study was performed at nearby Mud Hill (located 2-1/2 miles from Chignik) in 2006 and found that, while there was a useful wind regime, the turbulence intensity was too high to recommend the installation of a turbine. Both solar and wind system would likely require the addition of a battery energy storage system, which would increase cost and control complexity. 5.1.3 Permits Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address outstanding permit issues. See the “Environmental and Permitting Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. •List of applicable permits AEA - 23046 Page 20 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System •Anticipated permitting timeline •Identify and describe potential barriers including potential permit timing issues, public opposition that may result in difficulty obtaining permits, and other permitting barriers Applicable Permits: FERC Licensing, Consultation, and Permitting – Chignik currently holds FERC license, P-620, which has a term of 30 years, and expires in February 2036. The approach for this project would be to seek capacity related amendment to the existing FERC permit. Estimated timeline estimated at 52 weeks ADF&G – Additional study and permitting efforts will provide as much characterization of aquatic habitat and species as possible including river survey data and photos. Estimated timeline: 10 weeks ADNR – Application recommended to be submitted as soon as possible. Estimated timeline: 72 weeks. Temporary water use permits can be established for up to 5 year increments. SHPO – Programmatic Agreement with FERC & SHPO developed and signed in 2005 as part of relicensing effort included a requirement to develop a Historic Properties Management Plan put in place, the City of Chignik has developed a draft of this document which has also been reviewed as of April 2012. The City was unable to go further with the process in the earlier stages of the project. This phase would enable the submission and approval of the SHPO for the project. Fire Marshall – Prior to the construction phase, a State of Alaska Division of Fire and Life Safety plan review is anticipated to be required for the new powerhouse. Estimated timeline: 6 weeks. Local Permits – The Lake and Peninsula Borough is closely involved in the project and will review and issue all relevant local permits necessary to conduct the project. If it is identified that additional permits are needed during the final stages of the design and permitting process, ANTHC will work with the City of Chignik and pertinent stakeholders to ensure all necessary permits are obtained prior to initiating the construction phase of the project. Note: There is expected to be significant overlap between the permitting efforts on the hydroelectric system and dam renovation projects; exact delineation of permitting scope will be finalized during the final design phase. 5.2 Project Site Describe the availability of the site and its suitability for the proposed energy system. Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues. See the “Site control” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. The project site needs to undergo geotechnical investigations, surveying, and engineering, such as LIDAR mapping, to determine soil suitability prior to the final siting of the proposed powerhouse. The final selection of the powerhouse site will be based on FERC licensing, permitting, detailed topographic (LIDAR) ground surveying, and geotechnical investigations (drilling or machine-dug test pits). The City of Chignik owns surface rights to all property identified in the feasibility study for the proposed site. Completing the recommended mapping will inform the need for further easements. The feasibility study identifies all property associated with the proposed project in detail, attributing ownership of the surface estate for the parcel. The City of Chignik holds title to all lands outlined in AEA - 23046 Page 21 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System the proposed project subject to a restrictive easement for access to the Indian Creek Quarry. Components of the proposed project, an access road, and overhead power transmission lines are not considered actions that unreasonably interfere with the ingress and egress to the Indian Creek Quarry. In 2013, the City of Chignik improved access to the site by pioneering a trail with a tracked excavator from the quarry to the dam. It is anticipated that site control for the proposed electrical transmission line will be established using existing easements and rights of way. Final site control will occur during the design phase. 5.3 Project Technical & Environmental Risk 5.3.1 Technical Risk Describe potential technical risks and how you would address them. •Which tasks are expected to be most challenging? •How will the project team reduce the risk of these tasks? •What internal controls will be put in place to limit and deal with technical risks? See the “Common Planning Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. Potential risks not identified in the feasibility study will be outlined in detail during this final phase of design and permitting. As noted in the study, LIDAR mapping of the reservoir and project corridor will be necessary to further inform potential risks associated with the project. Stream gauging and geotechnical investigations will inform risk when evaluating various site conditions for the project and can inform siting, dam sizing, and foundation recommendations. Topographic surveys will delineate project property boundaries and inform future easements. Unknown site conditions for the location of the powerhouse may involve some technical risk , which will be addressed by determining the final site through FERC licensing, permitting, detailed topographic (LIDAR) ground surveying, and geotechnical investigations (drilling or machine-dug tests pits). 5.3.2 Environmental Risk Explain whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so which project team members will be involved and how the issues will be addressed. See the “Environmental and Permitting Risks” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. •Threatened or endangered species •Habitat issues •Wetlands and other protected areas •Archaeological and historical resources •Land development constraints •Telecommunications interference •Aviation considerations •Visual, aesthetics impacts •Identify and describe other potential barriers ANTHC will consider all potential environmental concerns associated with this project as identified by the feasibility study, recommendations from AEA, associated agencies for permitting purposes, etc. ANTHC is very experienced in utilizing the Indian Health Service environmental review procedures for conducting environmental analyses of all health and sanitation facility projects in all stages of development, as outlined in the IHS environmental review manual issued in January 2007. ANTHC is also familiar with and has conducted environmental reviews from a variety of other agencies, including the USDA, Denali Commission, and HUD. AEA - 23046 Page 22 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Threatened or Endangered Species: A listing of all endangered or threatened plant and animal species for Alaska was obtained through the USFWS. None of the species identified in the area list of endangered or threatened animal or plant species have critical habitats near the project. It was concluded that the project is not likely to impact endangered or threatened species. Habitat Issues: In the resource agency meeting, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game identified that the project would need additional studies to inform permitting and should provide as much characterization of the aquatic habitat and species as possible, which was recommended to include river survey data and photos. The feasibility indicated no fish occurring in Indian Lake or immediately below the lake in Indian Creek. The climate change-driven changes in hydrology are not expected to significantly impact aquatic productivity. Wetlands and other Protected Areas: No wetlands or protected areas were identified by the feasibility study. Archeological and Historical Resources: An archeological and cultural resource assessment will be conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities. All water rights associated with the dam are included in the study and are currently certified by the City of Chignik. The City is also the owner of the FERC license for the project. Land Development Constraints: The proposed project requires title or easement to the surface estate. Research conducted during the feasibility study concluded that all property associated with the proposed site is owned by the City of Chignik, subject to a restrictive easement for access to the Indian Creek Quarry. Ingress and egress to the Indian Creek Quarry are not anticipated to interfere. The proposed reservoir may occupy a portion of the un-surveyed section 24, wherein the surface estate is owned by Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation. The plan to mitigate the issue involves topographic surveying in this phase of the project to determine whether a future easement is required. Telecommunications Interference: No interference with telecommunications or telecommunication infrastructure is anticipated. Aviation Considerations: LIDAR and other remote sensing topographic surveys work to map the reservoir and the location of property boundaries for lands occupied by the project. This is especially true of the Indian Creek area from the mouth to the upper end of the proposed reservoir. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts: Visual and aesthetic impacts were not evaluated in the feasibility study; however, it should be noted that after the recent completion of the Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Project, the community has cited air quality improvement and noise pollution reduction as two beneficial results that the community has observed since the new system was installed. There are no anticipated aesthetic concerns incurred by this project. 5.4 Technical Feasibility of Proposed Energy System AEA - 23046 Page 23 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System In this section you will describe and give details of the existing and proposed systems. The information for existing system will be used as the baseline the proposal is compared to and also used to make sure that proposed system can be integrated. Only complete sections applicable to your proposal. If your proposal only generates electricity, you can remove the sections for thermal (heat) generation. 5.4.1 Basic Operation of Existing Energy System Describe the basic operation of the existing energy system including: description of control system; spinning reserve needs and variability in generation (any high loads brought on quickly); and current voltage, frequency, and outage issues across system. See the “Understanding the Existing System” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. The City of Chignik currently utilizes diesel electric generation for 100% of its electrical needs. Chignik Electric, owned by the City of Chignik operates the local power utility. The existing system consists of three diesel generators: -#1: John Deere 6090, 1 year old, 230 kW. -#2: John Deere 6090, 13 years old, 230 kW -#3: John Deere 4045, 13 years old, 117 kW According to the 2021 PCE report, their generating efficiency is 11.21 kWh/gallon. The power plant currently uses 2008 Woodward GCP-30 electric generator controls for automatic switching, and has a functioning SCADA system. The power plant is scheduled for controls upgrades during 2022- 2023, when they will install modern Woodward easYgen (or similar) controls which are capable of automatic switch and integration of renewables. However, because the exact future configuration is unknown, the cost estimates budgets for additional control upgrades if required. The plant generally runs their smallest generator up to a load of 105 kW, and switches to a larger generator in order to maintain a minimum spinning reserve of 10%. Their minimum reported load is approximately 43 kW, and the peak in the last year is 285 kW. They use their current generator controls for automatic switching for load following. There is currently no heat recovery system. Historically there has been a system serving the school, but power plant has since moved and is now too far away from potential end user beneficiaries to make heat recovery financially viable. 5.4.2.1 Existing Power Generation Units Include for each unit include: resource/fuel, make/model, design capacity (kW), minimum operational load (kW), RPM, electronic/mechanical fuel injection, make/model of genset controllers, hours on genset Unit 1: John Deere Model 6090HF485, 9.0 L, 230 kW, min load: 105 kW, 1800 rpm, electronic fuel injection, 41,706 hours on generator, the engine is ~1 year old but exact hours is unknown. Unit 2: John Deere Model 6090HF485, 9.0 L, 230 kW, min load: 105 kW, 1800 rpm, electronic fuel injection, 40,987 hours on generator and engine. 5.4.2 Existing Energy Generation Infrastructure and Production In the following tables, only fill in areas below applicable to your project. You can remove extra tables. If you have the data below in other formats, you can attach them to the application (see Section 11). AEA - 23046 Page 24 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Unit 3: John Deere Model 4045HF485, 4.4 L, 117 kW, min load: 43 kW, electronic fuel injection, 41,005 hours on generator and engine. Note: All generators are currently controlled by Woodward GCP-30 generator controllers, which will be upgraded to Woodward easYgen controllers in 2023. 5.4.2.2 Existing Distribution System Describe the basic elements of the distribution system. Include the capacity of the step-up transformer at the powerhouse, the distribution voltage(s) across the community, any transmission voltages, and other elements that will be affected by the proposed project. The power plant is centrally located and the city operates to two distribution circuits: The west side serves the school, city building, and some residences, while the east side serves mostly residents and the airport. There is three phase distribution throughout the community, which will not be affected by the project. An overview of community distribution is given below. Primary generation is at 480 V, which is stepped up to 7200 V at the plant transformer for distribution. The west side distribution system was replaced in 2008-2009 and is generally in good condition. The east side distribution system has known issues including power poles in poor condition, and overloaded transformers. Chignik is actively working with Bristol Engineering and are planning to commission a Preliminary Engineering Report detailing the required distribution upgrades on the east side. Despite any distribution issues, in 2021 the utility reported only 5.3% line loss. Is there operational heat recovery? (Y/N) If yes estimated annual displaced heating fuel (gallons) No, the heat recovery that previously served the school and city shop was disconnected when the powerplant was moved in 2008. The location of the power plant no longer allows cost effective heat recovery. AEA - 23046 Page 25 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System 5.4.2.3 Existing Thermal Generation Units (if applicable to your project) Generation unit Resource/ Fuel type Design capacity (MMBtu/hr) Make Model Average annual efficiency Year Installed Hours N/A 5.4.2.5 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Existing System) Use most recent year. Replace the section (Type 1), (Type 2), and (Type 3) with generation sources Month Generatio n (Diesel) (kWh) Gener ation (Type 2) (kWh) Generati on (Type 3) (kWh) Fuel Consumption (Diesel- Gallons) Fuel Consumption [Other] Peak Load Minimum Load January 44,374 5,357 131 ** February 49,448 5,634 182 ** March 45,133 5,236 165 ** April 46,353 3,758 138 ** May 57,433 4,485 203 ** June 83,824 7,319 215 ** July 85,218 5,265 285 ** August 65,386 5,407 230 ** September 43,300 3,616 179 ** October 43,300 7,737 198 ** November 53,230 3,954 198 ** December 48,796 4,881 268 ** Total 665,785* 62,649 N/A *Generation total does not exactly match 2021 PCE report due to different reporting period. **Minimum loads not available by month. Per the power plant operator, the lowest reported load is 43 kW. 5.4.2.6 Annual Heating Fuel Consumption (Existing System) Use most recent year. Include only if your project affects the recovered heat off the diesel genset or will include electric heat loads. Only include heat loads affected by the project. 5.4.2.4 O&M and replacement costs for existing units Power Generation Thermal Generation i. Annual O&M cost for labor $45,760 N/A ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $36,146 N/A iii. Replacement schedule and cost for existing units Major overhaul at 20,000-30,000 hours at a cost of $21,000. Genset replacement at 100,000 hours at a cost of $145,000 including install. N/A AEA - 23046 Page 26 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Month Diesel (Gallons) Electricity Propane (Gallons) Coal (Tons) Wood (Cords, green tons, dry tons) Other January N/A February March April May June July August September October November December Total 5.4.3 Future Trends Describe the anticipated energy demand in the community, or whatever will be affected by the project, over the life of the project. Explain how the forecast was developed and provide year by year forecasts. As appropriate, include expected changes to energy demand, peak load, seasonal variations, etc. that will affect the project. The 2014 feasibility study identified a medium load growth scenario of 1% annually. This is slightly higher than the projected population growth in a 2020 report from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workplace Development which projects it at between 0.3 and 0.6% annually. However, because this project will lead to lower energy costs, and the cost of fuel is projected to increase, this will present an excellent opportunity to increase the electrification of heat, especially in the form of residential heat pumps. The Lake and Peninsula Borough and the City of Chignik have also been actively working in cooperation to implement upgrades and additions to the current marina infrastructure. Both entities recently undertook a joint venture to construct a multi-community dock facility and are additionally planning for a future boat lift which will enable the City to construct a boat haul-out facility. The City is currently working on adding on-shore freezing capacity for bait sales to fishermen and community ice storage. They are also considering the development of on-shore ice-making to support the fishing industry. Efforts are underway to bring a fish processing plant within the community back online. Both of these projects would increase future loads during summer when the highest flows are available. It is likely that the lower electrical costs resulting from this project will attract processors and other businesses to Chignik. During design, potential future loads will be considered when performing the final sizing of the turbine. When these factors are considered, a 1% load growth rate is justified and likely even conservative. 5.4.4 Proposed System Design Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system: •A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location •The total proposed capacity and a description of how the capacity was determined AEA - 23046 Page 27 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System •Integration plan, including upgrades needed to existing system(s) to integrate renewable energy system: Include a description of the controls, storage, secondary loads, distribution upgrades that will be included in the project •Civil infrastructure that will be completed as part of the project—buildings, roads, etc. •Include what backup and/or supplemental system will be in place See the “Proposed System Design” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. The hydroelectric system will include an intake located at the renovated dam site with a 24” penstock routed 7280 ft to the powerhouse located near river mile 0.4. The tailrace will deposit water back into Indian Creek near river mile 0.5 to maximize the additional benefit to salmon habitat. The powerhouse will house a Turgo turbine unit with twin jets, connected to a generator operating at 900 rpm. The 2014 study proposes a 385 kW turbine. Recent loads were considered and showed an approximately peak load of 285 kW during the summer. It is expected that the turbine will be sized to meet realistic peak summer loads with the excess used for discounted heat during winter when electrical loads are generally lower. The exact sizing will be determined during design, likely falling between 250 and 385 kW . Care will be taken to identify secondary loads and to avoid oversizing the system. The turbine and controls will be specified as a package from the manufacturer. A pump turbine was considered as a lower cost option, however a Turgo turbine can operate more efficiently over the expected flow range so it was selected. The project will require a step up transformer at the new hydroelectric powerhouse, approximately 1,600 ft of new transmission lines, and a step down transformer at the diesel plant. The power plant has automatic switch gear, installed in 2008, and is slated for additional switch gear upgrades in 2023. The new switch gear will be Woodward easYgen, which is AEA’s current standard for modern automatic switch gear, and is capable of renewable integration increase. This will the ease of integration substantially. However, it is still likely that some minor power plant upgrades will be required and will be fully detailed during final design; an associated cost for integration is included the cost estimate. Additionally, because the power plant is heated by jacket heat from the generators, electric unit heaters will be added to provide heat when generators are not running. Hydroelectric power generation will be monitored by a wattnode, or similar for tracking and reporting. Dam and access will require extending the existing road approximately 9,170 ft. This work falls under the dam project and is expected to be funded by that effort. It is recognized that a turbine that is sized to meet the majority of a community’s load will result in times of excess generation capacity, which can be used for beneficial electrification. At this point in the project, it is anticipated that excess electricity will be used to provide heat to the school and city garage, both of which lost their heat recovery systems when the power plant moved in 2008. This benefits the whole community while keeping the installation simple compared to several smaller distributed heaters. It will only requires two BTU meters for monitoring. There is adequate space in both facilities for the addition of electric heat in the form of a dispatch-able electric boiler in the school, and electric unit heaters in the city garage. This option will be fully detailed during design, and is not included in the current economic analysis. 5.4.4.1 Proposed Power Generation Units AEA - 23046 Page 28 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Unit # Resource/ Fuel type Design capacity (kW) Make Model Expected capacity factor Expected life (years) Expected Availability 1 Hydro 250-385 TBD TBD TBD 50 TBD 5.4.4.2 Proposed Thermal Generation Units (if applicable) Generation unit Resource/ Fuel type Design capacity (MMBtu/hr) Make Model Expected Average annual efficiency Expected life N/A 5.4.5 Basic Operation of Proposed Energy System •To the best extent possible, describe how the proposed energy system will operate: When will the system operate, how will the system integrate with the existing system, how will the control systems be used, etc. •When and how will the backup system(s) be expected to be used See the “Proposed System Design” section of the appropriate Best Practice Checklist for additional guidance. The hydroelectric system will be size to meet the majority of the community’s load and will operate as the primary electrical generation facility for Chignik Bay. Because there is a reservoir and flow is not directly tied to instantaneous stream flow, it is controllable, and operators will be able to plan for periods where the diesel generators will need to be run. This will only occur when reservoir levels become too low to supply the needed flow, which will occur infrequently. During normal operation, the hydroelectric turbine will be the primary power source, with the diesel generators supplementing as required. Control will be through automatic switchgear; the power plant is slated for an upgrade the Woodward easYgen controls during 2023, which will allow for relatively easy integration. For planned hydro downtime, the diesels will be brought online as the primary generation source. Because the hydroelectric system will displace nearly all diesel generation, it is expected that the labor associated with diesel generation will be redirected to supporting the hydroelectric system. The primary operator of this system will be the current power plant operator, James Anderson, whose resume is attached in Attachment 1. 5.4.3.1 Expected Capacity Factor The turbine is expected to meet the majority of the community’s load. Capacity factor will depend on final turbine sizing and secondary loads. AEA - 23046 Page 29 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System 5.4.5.2 Annual Electricity Production and Fuel Consumption (Proposed System) Month Generation (Hydro) (kWh) Generation (Diesel) (kWh) Generation (Type 3) (kWh) Fuel Consumption (Diesel- Gallons) Fuel Consumption [Other] Secondary load (kWh) Storage (kWh) January 44,374 0 0 TBD February 37,686 11,762 1,071 TBD March 45,133 0 0 TBD April 34,591 11,762 1,071 TBD May 45,671 11,762 1,071 TBD June 83,824 0 0 TBD July 85,218 0 0 TBD August 65,386 0 0 TBD September 43,300 0 0 TBD October 43,300 0 0 TBD November 53,230 0 0 TBD December 48,796 0 0 TBD Total 630,508 35,287 3,213 TBD 5.4.5.3 Annual Heating Fuel Consumption (Proposed System) Month Diesel (Gallons) Electricity Propane (Gallons) Coal (Tons) Wood (Cords, green tons, dry tons) Other January N/A* February March April May June July August September October November December Total *Note: Although it is likely that excess power will be provided as heat to offset fuel at the city garage and school, this will require further analysis during design, and the financial benefit is not included in this analysis. The school uses approximately 20,000 of heating fuel per year, which if offset would equate to over $100,000 in annual savings. 5.4.6 Proposed System Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs O&M costs can be estimated in two ways for the standard application. Most proposed renewable energy projects will fall under Option 1 because the new resource will not allow for diesel generation to be turned off. Some projects may allow for diesel generation to be turned off for periods of time; these projects should choose Option 2 for estimating O&M. AEA - 23046 Page 30 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Option 1: Diesel generation ON For projects that do not result in shutting down diesel generation there is assumed to be no impact on the base case O&M. Please indicate the estimated annual O&M cost associated with the proposed renewable project. N/A Option 2: Diesel generation OFF For projects that will result in shutting down diesel generation please estimate: 1.Annual non-fuel savings of shutting off diesel generation 2.Estimated hours that diesel generation will be off per year. 3. Annual O&M costs associated with the proposed renewable project. 1.$73,715 2. Hours diesel OFF/year: 7,884 3.$ 63,412 5.4.7 Fuel Costs Estimate annual cost for all applicable fuel(s) needed to run the proposed system (Year 1 of operation) Diesel (Gallons) Electricity Propane (Gallons) Coal (Tons) Wood Other Unit cost ($) 5.03* Annual Units 3,213 Total Annual cost ($) $16,161.39 * Fuel cost is based on anticipated prices from a Bulk Fuel Loan application, attached in Appendix C. 5.5 Performance and O&M Reporting For construction projects only 5.5.1 Metering Equipment Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications. It is anticipated that metering equipment will be integrated into the new hydroelectric powerhouse systems in the form of common SCADA systems found in other powerhouses in Alaska. This cost will be rolled into the project construction cost. In order to have a separate, publically available data source, ANTHC also will install a separate remote monitoring system. LoraWAN architecture will be installed with watt node output on the hydropower generator and will report data to the open source and publically available www.anthc.bmon.org website, which houses all active remote monitoring projects that ANTHC has built. A watt node is roughly $5,000 purchased and installed, which is part of the budget scope. AEA can access the website to see real-time monitoring and track historical performance with custom AEA - 23046 Page 31 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System reports features. Wattnodes will also be installed on secondary loads, including electric unit heaters or boilers, in order to track energy used. The electrical data will be converted to an equivalent amount of fuel to track fuel offset. 5.5.2 O&M reporting Please provide a short narrative about the methods that will be used to gather and store reliable operations and maintenance data, including costs, to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications Detailed O&M reporting plans will be developed during the final stages of the design phase and through the construction phase. The reporting plans will incorporate the data, frequency, and duration required by AEA in order to be in compliance with 3 AAC 107.685. SECTION 6 – ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS 6.1 Economic Feasibility 6.1.1 Economic Benefit Annual Lifetime Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power Generation (gallons) 50,441 3,251,564 Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat (gallons) To be determined To be determined Total Fuel displaced (gallons) 50,441* 3,251,564* *Note: Although it is likely that excess power will be provided as heat to offset additional fuel at the city garage and school, this will require further analysis during design, and the financial benefit is not included in this analysis. Anticipated Diesel Fuel Displaced for Power Generation ($) 264,018 9,347,608 Anticipated Fuel Displaced for Heat ($) TBD TBD Anticipated Power Generation O&M Cost Savings 73,686 1,735,050 Anticipated Thermal Generation O&M Cost Savings TBD TBD Total Other costs savings (taxes, insurance, etc.) N/A N/A Total Fuel, O&M, and Other Cost Savings 337,705 11,082,658 6.1.2 Economic Benefit Explain the economic benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings and other economic benefits, and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. Note that additional revenue sources (such as tax credits or green tags) to pay for operations and/or financing, will not be included as economic benefits of the project. Where appropriate, describe the anticipated energy cost in the community, or whatever will be affected by the project, over the life of the project. Explain how the forecast was developed and provide year-by-year forecasts AEA - 23046 Page 32 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System The economic model used by AEA is available at https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We- Do/Grants-Loans/Renewable-Energy-Fund/2022-REF-Application. This economic model may be used by applicants but is not required. The final benefit/cost ratio used will be derived from the AEA model to ensure a level playing field for all applicants. If used, please submit the model with the application. Potential annual fuel displacement (gallons and dollars) over the lifetime of the evaluated renewable energy project is 3,251,546 gallons, saving over $22.3M during the projected lifetime, with a Net Present Value of $9.3 M. The savings will be to the city-owned and operated power utility and will be reflected in lower rates to power consumers in the community. The most recent cost for fuel in Chignik is $5.03/gallon which is from an October 2022 application for a bulk fuel loan from the State of Alaska. Documentation is included in Appendix C. City reliance on diesel fuel and the unpredictable nature of fuel prices are other motivators for the community and borough to establish alternative and sustainable energy sources. The proposed project will stabilize energy generation and costs and provide long-term economic benefits to the City of Chignik. Additionally, this project will drastically reduce the runtimes of the community’s diesel generators, will reduce the associated maintenance cost, and the frequency of major overhauls and replacements. In fact, based on the anticipated time the system will be able to run with diesel power off, it is estimated that the addition of hydropower will extend the amount of time between major overhauls by a factor of ten. Over the long term, the residents of Chignik will see a reduction in electrical rates. Currently, the residential rate in Chignik is $0.42/kWh, $0.23/kWh, which is directly from fuel expenses. With the drastic reduction in fuel costs as the result of this project, it is likely that the residential rate will be reduced substantially. 6.1.3 Economic Risks Discuss potential issues that could make the project uneconomic to operate and how the project team will address the issues. Factors may include: •Low prices for diesel and/or heating oil •Other projects developed in community •Reductions in expected energy demand: Is there a risk of an insufficient market for energy produced over the life of the project. •Deferred and/or inadequate facility maintenance •Other factors There are two primary economic risks to this project: 1)A future significant decrease in fuel prices: This would reduce project economics, however according to National Institute of Standards and Technology projections, decreasing fuel costs over the long term, is unlikely. 2) Inadequate maintenance: This would reduce the project life, however the City of Chignik is invested in the long term success of this project, and has committed operators who will ensure that the system operates for the full design life. 6.1.4 Public Benefit for Projects with Direct Private Sector Sales For projects that include direct sales of power to private sector businesses (sawmills, cruise ships, mines, etc.), please provide a brief description of the direct and indirect public benefits derived from AEA - 23046 Page 33 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System the project as well as the private sector benefits and complete the table below. See Section 1.6 in the Request for Applications for more information. In the immediate term, the majority of the power will be sold to public entities, community members, and small local businesses. An estimated 12% of the power sales is to the private Trident processing plant, which is reflected below and in the economic analysis attached in Appendix C. Renewable energy resource availability (kWh per month) Varies by month, total of 630,508 kWh annually. Estimated direct sales to private sector businesses (kWh) Varies by month, total of 75,661 kWh annually Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use at private sector businesses ($) $31,682 annually Estimated sales for use by the Alaskan public (kWh) 554,847 kWh annually Revenue for displacing diesel generation for use by the Alaskan public ($) $232,336 annual 6.2 Other Public Benefit Describe the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project. For the purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. For example, decreased greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this category. Some examples of other public benefits include: •The project will result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails, pipes, power lines, etc.) that can be used for other purposes •The project will result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel, etc.) •The project will solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food security, etc.) •The project will generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of the state •The project will promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the community This project (once entirely constructed) will ensure a reliable source of electricity for the community. The proposed project will be combined with planned renovations to the community’s drinking water source. The lower cost of energy in the community will also reduce the cost of delivering basic drinking water and sanitation services to the community, which will, in turn, improve the community’s capacity to address public health issues and build resiliency for basic infrastructure needs. Lower future power costs have the potential to attract fish processors and other commercial entities to the area, stimulating the local economy and providing jobs in the community. Because this project will result in lower rates for electricity over the long term, and fuel costs are expected to increase, this will create an excellent opportunity for residents of the community to switch to heat pumps for heating their homes. This will not only add revenue for the city utility, but it will also reduce fuel usage for Chignik residents, keeping even more money in the community. AEA - 23046 Page 34 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System SECTION 7 – SUSTAINABILITY Describe your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable throughout its economic life. At a minimum for construction projects, a business and operations plan should be attached and the applicant should describe how it will be implemented. See Section 11. 7.1.1 Operation and Maintenance Demonstrate the capacity to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project for its expected life •Provide examples of success with similar or related long-term operations •Describe the key personnel that will be available for operating and maintaining the infrastructure. •Describe the training plan for existing and future employees to become proficient at operating and maintaining the proposed system. •Describe the systems that will be used to track necessary supplies •Describe the system will be used to ensure that scheduled maintenance is performed The hydroelectric system will be owned and operated by the City of Chignik, the employees of which are dedicated to the long-term success of this project. Operators will be sent to a hydroelectric- specific training course prior to the construction phase to ensure they have the requisite knowledge base to effectively operate the system. ANTHC has coordinated with instructors at AVTEC, who would be willing to offer a hydroelectric power plant course, provided they had sufficient students enrolling. This will be coordinated further if funding is awarded. It is recognized that the operation of a hydroelectric system of the proposed scale will require dedicated operators who are willing to learn and will likely have costs, not all of which can be anticipated. In order to mitigate that risk, a portion of the revenue from power sales will fund operation and maintenance. Additionally, a separate portion of the revenue will go towards a fund that is intended for unforeseen major maintenance. The City of Chignik will leverage the processes and systems that we already have in place to help us track required supplies and to ensure that regular maintenance happens on a regular schedule to prolong the life of this investment. 7.1.2 Financial Sustainability •Describe the process used (or propose to use) to account for operational and capital costs. •Describe how rates are determined (or will be determined). What process is required to set rates? •Describe how you ensure that revenue is collected. •If you will not be selling energy, explain how you will ensure that the completed project will be financially sustainable for its useful life. The City of Chignik is the owner of the local utility, Chignik Electric. The local electric utility supplies power to the local school, local health clinic, and approximately 60 homes. The current electric rate for residential customers and community facilities is $.42/kWh. Rates will remain at the current price until the system is in operation for several months to establish an evaluation period that can inform a sound adjustment based on overall energy savings. AEA - 23046 Page 35 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System After a new rate is established, a percentage of the estimated $274,293 in annual fuel savings will be placed in an O&M account for replacements and repairs to the system over time, as well as any additional training for operators. 7.1.2.1 Revenue Sources Briefly explain what if any effect your project will have on electrical rates in the proposed benefit area over the life of the project. If there is expected to be multiple rates for electricity, such as a separate rate for intermittent heat, explain what the rates will be and how they will be determined Collect sufficient revenue to cover operational and capital costs •What is the expected cost-based rate (as consistent with RFA requirements) •If you expect to have multiple rate classes, such as excess electricity for heat, explain what those rates are expected to be and how those rates account for the costs of delivering the energy (see AEA’s white paper on excess electricity for heat). •Annual customer revenue sufficient to cover costs •Additional incentives (i.e. tax credits) •Additional revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or programs that might be available) The primary revenue from this system will be from the sales of electricity. As discussed in the previous section, the exact rate is yet to be determined, and further analysis will occur during the design phase. Additional revenue is anticipated to be generated through selling excess electricity as heat. It is anticipated that excess electricity sold for heat will be sold at 60% of the equivalent fuel cost. ANTHC will develop a heat sales agreement to be signed by end-users of electrical heating. The current electric rate for residential customers and community facilities is $.42/kWh. Rates will remain at the current price until the system is in operation for several months to establish an evaluation period that can inform a sound adjustment based on overall energy savings. During the final stages of design, various rate scenarios will be developed for consideration. 7.1.2.2 Power Purchase/Sale The power purchase/sale information should include the following: •Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) •Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range (consistent with the Section 3.16 of the RFA) Identify the potential power buyer(s)/customer(s) and anticipated power purchase/sales price range. Indicate the proposed rate of return from the grant-funded project. Include letters of support or power purchase agreement from identified customers. In addition to the existing customer base, the Lake and Peninsula Borough and the City of Chignik will begin to identify other power recipients for power sales. This potentially includes floating processors, a new boat lift, and boat storage area. These will be considered further during design. Because these loads are currently unknown, they are not included in the economic analysis. SECTION 8 – PROJECT READINESS 8.1 Project Preparation Describe what you have done to prepare for this award and how quickly you intend to proceed with work once your grant is approved. Specifically address your progress towards or readiness to begin, at a minimum, the following: AEA - 23046 Page 36 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System •The phase(s) that must be completed prior to beginning the phase(s) proposed in this application •The phase(s) proposed in this application •Obtaining all necessary permits •Securing land access and use for the project •Procuring all necessary equipment and materials Refer to the RFA and/or the pre-requisite checklists for the required activities and deliverables for each project phase. Please describe below and attach any required documentation. In 2014, Hatch Ltd. Completed a feasibility study considering several options for the direction of the City’s water and power supply. The study indicated that the proposed hydroelectric system is the lowest-cost option for electric generation for Chignik and has a positive benefit-to-cost ratio under the expected range of scenarios. The study recommends that the design and permitting of the hydroelectric system be pursued as the next step in project development. The project anticipates the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) licensing to be completed through the application of an amendment to the current FERC permit licensed to the City of Chignik for the existing dam site. Permits will be obtained during this phase from FERC, ADNR, and ADF&G, and an SHPO will be finalized and submitted. In 2018, ANTHC produced a PER, which corroborated the findings of the feasibility study and likewise recommended the replacement of the failing dam with a combined water and energy project, as proposed here. The City of Chignik holds the existing FERC license for the previously decommissioned 60kW hydroelectric turbine, which will ease the permitting process for the proposed hydroelectric system. The City was issued the FERC license on September 6, 2012, as a transfer order between the local corporation and the City. The City also holds rights to the proposed project site. There are data acquisition tasks that need to be performed. It is expected that these tasks will begin before design and have some overlap in the timeline with the design phase. Predesign tasks can be contracted immediately upon receiving grant funding. Funding for the dam renovation design is expected to be awarded in early 2023. Upon the receipt of the dam renovation design money, the package (dam renovation design and hydroelectric system design) will be bid out as a single design contract, with an anticipated start date of March 2024. 8.2 Demand- or Supply-Side Efficiency Upgrades If you have invested in energy efficiency projects that will have a positive impact on the proposed project, and have chosen to not include them in the economic analysis, applicants should provide as much documentation as possible including: 1.Explain how it will improve the success of the RE project 2.Energy efficiency pre and post audit reports, or other appropriate analysis, 3.Invoices for work completed, 4.Photos of the work performed, and/or 5.Any other available verification such as scopes of work, technical drawings, and payroll for work completed internally. N/A SECTION 9 – LOCAL SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION Describe local support and opposition, known or anticipated, for the project. Include letters, resolutions, or other documentation of local support from the community that would benefit from AEA - 23046 Page 37 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System this project. Provide letters of support, memorandum of understandings, cooperative agreements between the applicant, the utility, local government and project partners. The documentation of support must be dated within one year of the RFA date of October 4, 2022. Please note that letters of support from legislators will not count toward this criterion. Letters of support and resolutions pertaining to this project have been included in Appendix B and are identified in Section 12 of this application. The community has advocated for this project from inception until it has reached its current point and has been supportive of this effort for many years. The city has historically made an effort in past REF funding cycles to obtain funding for the project, which has successfully assisted in funding the development of the project to its current phase. The entire community is in favor of the city’s pursuit of funding for the hydroelectric system project. This has been a priority for the community, predating 1986, when city resolutions were established for the development of a hydropower project. The City of Chignik owns the electric utility, Chignik Electric, which is also very supportive of the project. The city is committed to working with ANTHC to complete this project, as shown in Resolution 22-13. Lake and Peninsula Borough have enthusiastically backed the project. In fact, the Borough identified the hydroelectric project as their second most important long-term capital project in Resolution 22- 08. They have also committed an in-kind and cash match towards the project, as documented in Resolution 22-17. The Chignik Bay Tribal council is likewise in support of this project and has identified this project as a means to lower electrical costs and better provide public health services to their tribal constituency. Their letter of support is attached. ANTHC is also in support of this project as it is tied directly to the community’s drinking water source. Letters of support from the ANTHC president and from DEHE leadership are attached in Appendix B. Additionally, ANTHC has identified and prioritizes alternative energy and energy efficiency as a valid method to increase the affordability of water and sanitation services and increase access to the health benefits of clean water and sanitary sewer in rural Alaskan communities. SECTION 10 – COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AWARDS Identify other grants that may have been previously awarded to the Applicant by AEA for this or any other project. Describe the degree you have been able to meet the requirements of previous grants including project deadlines, reporting, and information requests. The City of Chignik was awarded $207,500 from the legislature during the first round of the Renewable Energy Fund Program. These funds were used to complete the feasibility study on the Chignik Hydroelectric Power System on Indian Lake. The final feasibility study report was completed in September 2014 by Hatch Ltd. In addition to the City of Chignik, ANTHC has provided project and grant management services for 26 grants from the AEA REF. The Rural Energy Program team has managed the installation of heat recovery systems for the communities of Emmonak, Russian Mission, and Chevak through the Renewable Energy Fund program, in addition to many other projects. Currently, ANTHC is managing a wind-to-heat project in Kotzebue and active heat recovery projects in both Koyuk and Shungnak. They are also in the process of finalizing heat recovery projects in Togiak and Shishmaref. ANTHC has been successful in these projects through the various divisions and controls that it has in place to successfully manage grant-funded projects. ANTHC is structured in a way that allows for AEA - 23046 Page 38 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System maximum oversight in project management and fiscal reporting. DEHE leadership has extensive experience coordinating grant-funded projects in rural Alaska communities and will be responsible for managing project tasks to completion, utilizing the various organizational divisions, controls, personnel, and processes it has established for these functions. In addition to the staff identified in Section 4, ANTHC’s DEHE has the benefit of drawing from the expertise of over twenty engineers presently licensed in the State of Alaska across multiple disciplines, as well as several certified Project Management Professionals (PMP). ANTHC’s DEHE also has multiple Certified Energy Managers (CEM) on staff. The Grants Management and Compliance department is staffed to ensure that financial management and grant reporting are completed accurately and on time for all restricted sources of funding received, which includes funds received through contracting with entities that ANTHC partners with to complete grant-funded projects. SECTION 11 – LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PRIOR PHASES In the space below, please provide a list of additional documents attached to support completion of prior phases. Appendix A – Supporting Documentation for Prior Phases 1.Final Feasibility Study Report developed by Hatch Engineering in September 2014. 2.Preliminary Engineering Report developed by ANTHC in July 2018. 3.Estimations Inc. New Dam Water Supply Estimate 4.Estimations Inc. Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Project Estimate SECTION 12 – LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION In the space below, please provide a list of additional information submitted for consideration. Appendix B: Resolutions and Letters of Support 1.City of Chignik Resolution 22-13: REF Funding Request 2.ANTHC Letter of Support 3.ANTHC DEHE Leadership Letter of Support 4.Lake and Peninsula Borough Resolution 22-17: Match Funding 5.Lake and Peninsula Borough Resolution 22-08: Capital Improvement Project Priority list 6.Chignik Bay Tribal Council Letter of Support Appendix C: Additional Documents 1.Indian Health Service SDS Funding Documentation 2.Indian Health Service Tier 2 and 3 Project funding letter 3.Fuel Costs Justificaiton Documentation 4.AEA Economic Model - Excluding private Sales 5.AEA Economic Model - Including Private Sales Attachment I - Resumes of Key Personnel (Submitted separately with Application) 1.Dustin Madden, C.E.M. AEA - 23046 Page 39 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System 2.Elan Edgerly, P.E., C.E.M. 3.James Anderson 4.Will Fraser, P.E. 5.Joe Hess, P.E. 6.Dave Reed, P.E. 7.Rich Wooten, P.M.P., CDT, CPSM 8.Elliott Lin 9.Cy Two Elk, P.M.P. 10.Charissa Williar, P.E., MPH 11.Gavin Dixon AEA - 23046 Page 40 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System I SECTION 13 -AUTHORIZED SIGNERS FORM Community/Grantee Name: I Authorized Grant Signer(s): Printed Name Title rQ�,\ Q,__��'-:'.__, �\o.JQc-I Term Q<Q\..\ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Signature C2.CJ�.\ u.'Mn� \ I authorize the above person(s) to sign Grant Documents: Must be authorized b the hi hest rankin or anization/communit /munici al official Printed Name Title I Grantee Contact Information: Mailing Address: Phone Number: Fax Number: Email Address: Federal Tax ID #: Term Signature f->o-;:l/0 Cht�iK,A-K qq0�Lf CfD7-,L/9-?-1--�o qu7-71..-fct-'J 3ao (.Y'lt'0Mr'� Clf-Lj Cl&rk& qrrtu/,lO/Pf q;_ _ DOq� q10 Please submit an updated form whenever there is a change to the above information. AEA - 23046 Page 41 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System SECTION 14 -ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A.Contact information and resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, Project Accountant(s), key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1, 3.4 and 3.6. Applicants are asked to provide resumes submitted with applications in separate electronic documents if the individuals do not want their resumes posted to the project web site. B.Letters or resolutions demonstrating local support per application form Section 9. C.For projects involving heat: Most recent invoice demonstrating the cost of heating fuel for the building(s) impacted by the project. D.Governing Body Resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management per RFA Section 1.4 that: •Commits the organization to provide the matching resources for project at the match amounts indicated in the application. •Authorizes the individual who signs the application has the authority to commit the organization to the obligations under the grant. •Provides as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application. •Certifies the applicant is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. E.An electronic version of the entire application on CD or other electronic media, per RFA Section 1.7. F.CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations and that they can indeed commit the entity to these obligations. Print Name 0doe,\ c�--� -\'-C'.� Signature ��u. Title ·�,j'"''-' e:,-;;:- Date \ \-\S -00 AEA - 23046 Page 42 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System Appendix A AEA - 23046 Page 43 of 210 Chi ik Hd l ti P j t Feasibility Study Chignik Hydroelectric Project September 2014 Prepared for: CE2 Engineer s, Inc. AEA - 23046 Page 44 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page i © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Project Report September 2014 CE2 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Distribution Brian Aklin, CE2 Feasibility Study Final Report AEA - 23046 Page 45 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page i © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table of Contents 1.Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.Alternative Project Arrangements ...................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant ................................................................................ 2 2.3 Reconstructed Existing Project ..................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 Timber Frame Dam ............................................................................................................. 3 2.3.2 Wood Stave and Steel Pipeline .......................................................................................... 3 2.3.3 Turbine ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.4 Proposed New Project .................................................................................................................. 4 2.4.1 Selected Arrangement ........................................................................................................ 4 2.4.2 Environmental Measures .................................................................................................... 5 3.Existing Environment ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Community Overview .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Population ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Location ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.3 History ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................ 8 3.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 10 3.4.1 Indian Creek Watershed ................................................................................................... 10 3.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gaging ............................................................................................ 11 3.4.3 Peak Flood ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.5 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 12 3.6 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 13 3.7 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.8 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................................................. 15 3.9 Endangered or Threatened Plant and Animal Species .............................................................. 15 3.10 Geology ....................................................................................................................................... 16 3.11 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 16 3.12 Site Control ................................................................................................................................. 16 3.13 Recreational Use ........................................................................................................................ 17 3.14 Socioeconomic ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.15 Historical and Archaeological Resources ................................................................................... 18 3.15.1 Historical Resources ......................................................................................................... 18 3.16 Regulatory ................................................................................................................................... 18 3.16.1 FERC License ................................................................................................................... 18 3.16.2 State Historic Preservation Office ..................................................................................... 19 3.16.3 Water Rights ..................................................................................................................... 19 4.Technical Considerations .................................................................................................................. 21 4.1 General Effects of Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 21 4.2 Selected Project Arrangement .................................................................................................... 21 AEA - 23046 Page 46 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page ii © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.2.1 Reservoir ........................................................................................................................... 21 4.2.2 Dam, Spillway, and Intake ................................................................................................ 22 4.2.3 Pipeline ............................................................................................................................. 23 4.2.4 Powerhouse ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.2.5 Turbine and Generator ...................................................................................................... 24 4.2.6 Domestic and Process Raw Water Supply ....................................................................... 25 4.3 Hydrology Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 25 4.3.1 Stream Gaging Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 25 4.3.2 Hydrology Data used for modeling .................................................................................... 27 4.4 Energy Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 27 4.4.1 Diesel Electric Generation ................................................................................................ 27 4.4.2 Diesel Electric Analysis and Modeling .............................................................................. 29 4.4.3 Hydroelectric Generation .................................................................................................. 30 4.4.4 Heating Demand ............................................................................................................... 30 4.4.5 Electric Demand Modeling and Forecasting ..................................................................... 30 4.4.6 Heating Energy ................................................................................................................. 32 4.5 Water Use ................................................................................................................................... 33 4.5.1 Potable Water ................................................................................................................... 33 4.5.2 Fish Processing ................................................................................................................. 33 4.6 Operational Modeling .................................................................................................................. 33 4.6.1 Reservoir Elevation ........................................................................................................... 35 4.6.2 Project Capacity ................................................................................................................ 36 4.7 Proposed Project Scheme Summary .......................................................................................... 38 5.Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and Schedule .................................................................. 39 5.1 No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant .............................................................................. 39 5.2 Reconstructed Existing Project ................................................................................................... 39 5.3 Proposed New Project ................................................................................................................ 39 5.4 Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 42 6.Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 43 6.1 Annual Costs: No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant ...................................................... 43 6.1.1 Fuel Cost ........................................................................................................................... 43 6.1.2 Diesel Operation and Maintenance Cost .......................................................................... 43 6.2 Annual Costs, Proposed New Project......................................................................................... 44 6.2.1 Time Value ........................................................................................................................ 44 6.2.2 Construction Cost Variance .............................................................................................. 44 6.2.3 Hydro Operation and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................... 44 6.3 Economic Evaluation Method ..................................................................................................... 45 6.4 Economic Results – Proposed New Project ............................................................................... 46 6.4.1 Reconstructed Existing Project Economic Results ........................................................... 47 6.4.2 Environmental Measures Economic Analysis ................................................................... 48 7.Proposed New Project – Environmental / Regulatory Analysis .................................................... 49 7.1.1 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................ 49 7.1.2 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 50 7.1.3 Historical and Archaeological Resources ......................................................................... 51 7.2 Regulatory Analysis .................................................................................................................... 51 7.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................................ 51 AEA - 23046 Page 47 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page iii © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.3.1 City of Chignik Council Meeting, February 20, 2013 ........................................................ 52 7.3.2 Resource Agency Meeting ................................................................................................ 52 7.3.3 Federal Agency Meeting ................................................................................................... 52 7.3.4 Alaska Energy Authority Review ....................................................................................... 52 8.Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 54 8.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 54 8.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 54 9.References .......................................................................................................................................... 56 List of Tables Table 2-1 - Development Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 2 Table 2-2 - Summary: Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects ............................................... 5 Table 3-1 - Local Climate Data ..................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3-2 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Dam Site ............................................................ 11 Table 3-3 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Bridge Site ......................................................... 11 Table 3-4 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2008-2013), Dam Site .................................................. 12 Table 3-5 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2011-2013), Bridge Site ............................................... 12 Table 3-6 - Endangered or Threatened Species......................................................................................... 16 Table 3-7 - Land Ownership........................................................................................................................ 17 Table 4-1 - Indian Lake Modeled Reservoir Areas and Storage Volumes ................................................. 22 Table 4-2 - Dam Conceptual Quantities with Varying Reservoir (Spillway Crest) Elevations .................... 23 Table 4-3 - Pipeline Diameter Selection for Various Project Capacities ..................................................... 23 Table 4-4 - Table of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy ..................................................... 28 Table 4-5 – Summary: Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects ............................................. 38 Table 5-1 - Reconstructed Existing Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost by Category ... 39 Table 5-2 - Proposed New Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost ..................................... 40 Table 5-3 - Proposed New Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost by Category ................ 41 Table 6-1 - Diesel O&M Costs .................................................................................................................... 44 Table 6-2 - Economic Results: Proposed New Project (385 kW) ............................................................... 47 AEA - 23046 Page 48 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page iv © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. List of Figures Figure 3-1 - Average Monthly Temperature for Chignik ............................................................................... 9 Figure 3-2 - Average Monthly Precipitation for Chignik ................................................................................ 9 Figure 3-3 - Indian Creek Approximate Spawning Pink Salmon Count ...................................................... 14 Figure 3-4 - Indian Creek Fish Species Periodicity Chart ........................................................................... 15 Figure 3-5 - ADNR Water Rights Land Case Detail, Water Rights Information .......................................... 20 Figure 4-1 - Dam Spill Flow Duration Curve, Oct 2008 to Oct 2013 ........................................................... 26 Figure 4-2 - Indian Creek Annual Dam Spill Unit Flow Compared with USGS Russel Creek .................... 26 Figure 4-3 - 2010 Indian Creek Annual Hydrograph (at dam) .................................................................... 27 Figure 4-4 - Chart of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy .................................................... 28 Figure 4-5 - FY2013 Electric Generation by Customer Class, kWh ........................................................... 29 Figure 4-6 - FY2013 Electric Payments by Customer Class ...................................................................... 29 Figure 4-7 - Chignik 15 Minute Power Energy Logger, 2013 Measured Demand Data ............................. 31 Figure 4-8 - Synthesized Annual Demand for Chignik ................................................................................ 32 Figure 4-9 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Flow Model ........................................................... 34 Figure 4-10 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Power Model ....................................................... 35 Figure 4-11 - Hydroelectric Generation for Reservoir Elevations 445' and 450' ......................................... 36 Figure 4-12 - Hydroelectric Generation for Project Capacities of 315 kW to 470 kW' ................................ 37 Figure 5-1 - Project Development Schedule ............................................................................................... 42 Figure 7-1 - Existing and Proposed Spill Flow at Dam, 2013 Water Year .................................................. 49 Figure 7-2 - Existing and Proposed Flow at Powerhouse – Bridge Site Flow Data, 2013 Water Year ...... 50 Appendices Appendix A – Exhibit 1, Existing Hydroelectric Project Map Appendix B – October 16, 2013 Resource Agency Meeting Minutes Appendix C – Proposed New Project, Construction Cost Estimate Appendix D – Proposed New Project, Economic Analysis Results Appendix E – Proposed New Project, Conceptual Design Figures Figure 1, Project Location Map Sheet Index Map Figure 2, Penstock, Road, and Transmission Alignments Figure 3, Reservoir Bathymetry and Rim Topography Figure 4, Dam Site Plan and Section Figure 5, Powerhouse Site Plan Figure 6, Powerhouse General Arrangement - Plan AEA - 23046 Page 49 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page v © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Disclaimer and Limitations of Use This report was prepared by Hatch Associates Consultants Inc. (“Hatch”), together with certain other third party consultants (the “Third Party Consultants”), for the sole and exclusive benefit of CE2 (the “Owner”) for the purpose of supporting the Owner in its efforts to determine the hydroelectric feasibility in Chignik Bay (the “Project”). This report is meant to be read as a whole, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The report includes information provided by the Third Party Consultants and by certain other parties. Hatch has not verified such information and disclaims any responsibility or liability in connection with such information. This report contains the expression of the professional opinion of Hatch, based upon information available at the time of preparation. The quality of the information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the reasonable standard of care governing our services and as set out in this report, as well as the circumstances and constraints under which this report was prepared. However, this report is a pre-feasibility study and, accordingly, all estimates and projections contained herein are based on limited and incomplete data, and Hatch therefore disclaims any liability arising in whole or in part from the review, use or reliance upon this report. While the work, results, estimates and projections herein may be considered to be generally indicative of the nature and quality of the Project, they are by nature preliminary only and are not definitive. As such, Hatch makes no warranty or representation, and disclaims the same to the Owner or any other party in respect of the report, particularly with regard to any investment decision made on the basis of the Report, and use of the Report by the Owner and third parties shall be at their own and sole risk. AEA - 23046 Page 50 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page vi © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Acronyms TERM MEANING ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AEA Alaska Energy Authority Avg Average BTU British Thermal Unit cfs Cubic feet per second cyd Cubic yards Dia Diameter DIP Ductile Iron Pipe ea Each FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gal Gallon gpd Gallons per day GPS Global Positioning System gpm Gallons per minute HDPE High density polyethylene ID Inside diameter K Thousand kVA Kilo Volt-Amps kW Kilo Watt (1000 Watts) kWh Kilo Watt-hours lb Pound mgd Million gallons per day M Million mi Mile mmBTU 1 million BTU's mo Month NCDC National Climatic Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ O&M Operation and Maintenance OD Outside Diameter PCE Power Cost Equalization program, State of Alaska psf Pounds per square foot REF Renewable Energy Fund RTK GPS Real Time Kinematic Global Positioning System SDR Sidewall Diameter Ratio ORV Off road vehicle sq ft Square feet sq mi Square miles sq yd Square yard USBR United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation USGS United States Geological Survey AEA - 23046 Page 51 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 1 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 1. Introduction The City of Chignik (City) has been awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) program to study the engineering and economics of restoring the antiquated hydroelectric generating system for the purpose of benefitting the residents of the City and the State of Alaska by offsetting the cost of diesel generated electricity. Funding was contingent upon a MOU with Trident Seafoods, the owner of NorQuest Seafoods Inc, (NorQuest) to transfer the FERC license for the existing hydro from NorQuest to the City. In 2012 NorQuest transferred the license for the Chignik Bay Hydroelectric (existing project), which consists of an aging dam and pipeline that powers a 60 kW turbine. The project’s primary purpose, located as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 1, has been to supply potable water for the community and provide base load generation to the former NorQuest facility during the winter months. The City desires to increase the project capacity and connect it to the city’s electrical grid while improving reliability, maintaining potable water service, and reducing maintenance costs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) evaluated the potential hydroelectric resources in Chignik and other isolated communities throughout Alaska in 1976. A Final Draft Feasibility Report for Chignik was completed by the USACE in March 1983 (USACE, 1983). The report analyzed reconstructing the existing hydroelectric project using a higher dam, larger pipeline, and a powerhouse located at the base of the bluff bordering the existing Chignik wetland. The capacity of the project investigated was 1.4 MW at a design head of 430 ft and a hydraulic capacity of 43.8 cfs with a predicted average annual generation of 6.7 GWh. This was based on a synthetic stream flow record generated using records of precipitation and flow from Myrtle Creek near Kodiak and Spruce Creek near Seward. The selected project size was intended to produce the maximum annual energy and serve the loads of both Chignik Bay and Chignik Lagoon. With a minimum flow 15.9 cfs the project would be offline during the winter and spring. The project envisioned by the USACE is too large to be economical and is not feasible under current environmental standards and regulations due to the impacts on the Indian Creek anadromous fish population. The City’s study of the engineering and economics of restoring the antiquated hydropower system and the findings thereof are presented in this report. The findings show a significant benefit with the proposed hydroelectric development as follows: Lowest cost alternative for electric energy generation. Replaces high maintenance and failing infrastructure. Improved water supply availability and reliability. Promotes economic growth and local employment. Potential improvement in aquatic resource habitat. AEA - 23046 Page 52 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 2 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 2. Alternative Project Arrangements 2.1 Alternatives Considered The options considered for hydroelectric development are shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 - Development Alternatives Development Scheme Analysis No Action Alternative. The no action alternative includes meeting electrical demand using only diesel electric generators. Base case against which all other alternatives are evaluated. Reconstructed Existing Project. This alternative includes replacing the dam, pipeline, and turbine and generator sized for the existing permitted flow of 2.7 cfs. This 70 kW alternative is marginally economical due to the high cost and low energy output. Proposed New Project. This alternative includes replacing the dam, pipeline, and relocating the power generation to Indian Creek while increasing the capacity. With an approximate capacity of 385 kW as studied herein, this option is shown to be economically superior and has been selected as the preferred project arrangement. 2.2 No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant The City of Chignik has a certificate of public convenience and necessity for providing electrical generation and distribution service in the City of Chignik. The city operates under certificate 297 issued by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) in 1983. The existing electric generation plant consists of two 230 kW and one 117 kW John Deere diesel electric generators installed in 2009. The powerhouse is located near the Trident processing facility. 2.3 Reconstructed Existing Project The Chignik Project, FERC No. 620 is a small hydroelectric project that primarily conveys raw water from Indian Lake to the community of Chignik as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The project consists of a timber frame dam at the outlet of Indian Lake (also referred to as Upper Lake) creating a reservoir with a surface area of approximately 21 acres. The dam includes a wood plank spillway and there is an additional overflow channel spillway cut out of rock next to the dam. A wood stave and steel pipeline about 7200 ft long transports 2.7 cfs (nominal) of water to a 60 kW (nominal) turbine located in the former NorQuest processing plant for water pressure regulation and power production. The gross head for the project is around 431 feet, or 190 psi, but the maximum desired operating pressure for the interconnected piping in the community is around 100 psi. When the turbine needles are fully AEA - 23046 Page 53 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 3 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. open there is enough frictional loss through the pipeline to maintain the desired pressure of 100 psi. The project infrastructure is deteriorated and in need of immediate maintenance and repairs. 2.3.1 Timber Frame Dam The Chignik Dam is a timber buttress dam constructed sometime in 1947 and is located at approximately 56° 17' north and 158° 25' west. The dam is approximately 80' long with a primary spillway width of approximately 26' and a secondary (rock cut) spillway width of 20'. It has a height from the toe to the crest of approximately 14.4' and is constructed from 8x10 timbers forming 45-degree triangular supports with face planks running horizontal on the upstream face. Structural connections are accomplished primarily through bearing and friction. Some steel connectors are used on the bracing and face members to hold the members together when not loaded. Steel connectors have been used at the base of the spillway columns as part of past repairs. Also as part of past repairs, 4x8 treated members have been joined onto the existing timbers. The existing dam includes no device to introduce instream flows into the river. Therefore, flows only enter the river at the dam when it is spilling. In the winter, when reservoir levels drop, there is typically no spill for extended periods of time and, thus, little to no flow in the river below the dam site. This is evident in the monthly median stream flows reported in section 3.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gaging. The most recent dam inspection report filed with FERC shows that the dam is in very poor condition and is in need of replacement. The general condition of the dam is quite deteriorated due to rotting main members, almost complete loss of spillway planking allowing water to spill onto and through the framework, loss of the walkway over the spillway, damage to dam face planks, failing of support structure for the valve operator platform, and malfunctioning outlet controls and screens. The structure has been reinforced with additional framing members and steel connectors over the past two decades. The timber dam has continued to deteriorate and is in such poor condition that a complete replacement is the most practical course of action. 2.3.2 Wood Stave and Steel Pipeline The pipeline consists of 12" diameter wood stave and 10" and 8" diameter steel pipe totaling about 7200 ft long for transporting approximately 2.7 cfs (nominal) of water for both power production and source water for the community drinking water system. Wood stave pipe joints are push on while the steel pipe utilizes Victaulic groove lock bands. Almost all of the penstock is located above ground. The pipeline is also in poor condition with leaks and breaks being a regular occurrence. Not including the boardwalk across the lower wetland, there are five trestles that support the penstock. All of the trestles are constructed of untreated wood and, similar to the dam, show extensive rotting and are slowly failing. AEA - 23046 Page 54 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 4 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. During the winter the leaking water will turn to ice and bond to the trestle and pipeline. The increased weight of the ice can cause a structural collapse of the trestle and subsequent pipeline separation. Based on the condition of the pipeline and prevalence of pipe separation/failures in the past it can be expected that leaks and complete service interruption due to pipeline failure/separation will continue to be a problem, particularly in the winter. The most appropriate repair method is to replace the wood stave pipeline with HDPE pipe. 2.3.3 Turbine Power generated from the turbine is utilized by the processing facility and powers maintenance loads such as lights and resistance heating operating either in standalone mode or manually synchronized. Because of the age of the system and pipeline characteristics power output is typically around 35 kW with a peak output of about 40 kW. The turbine has two jet forming nozzles with one being a fixed opening and the other consisting of a manually operated needle valve. The needle valve is operated manually depending on load and is usually fully open. Thus, the typical operational scenario is that water flow through the turbine is almost always equal to the maximum hydraulic capacity of the turbine and pipeline regardless of the power output produced by the generator. The automatic turbine deflector controls the speed of the wheel and generator to match the load and prevent over/under speed. The continuous flow through the turbine reduces the pressure in the raw water piping system and prevents freezing in the winter. If the reservoir is completely drained because of low flows in Indian Creek the manually operated bypass is closed to reduce water use. With the needle in the full open position the factors influencing flow through the turbine include the reservoir elevation, the amount of water withdrawn before the turbine, debris on the trash rack, intake gate position, and pipeline condition. Water withdrawal includes potable use, manual bypass flows into the tailrace receiving water, and leaks in the pipeline. A flow meter was installed on the pipeline in the NorQuest facility with a data logger installed in 2012. Historic readings of the flow meter were consistently about 2.67 cfs. Flows have dropped to about 2.10 cfs as of the end of May, 2013. Access to the project is along the pipeline alignment but an ORV trail exists that has been used by tracked vehicles to access the dam in the past. Recently the City of Chignik has improved access by pioneering a trail from the quarry to the existing ORV trail and in October 2013 reached the dam with a tracked excavator. 2.4 Proposed New Project 2.4.1 Selected Arrangement The new project alternative arrangement as proposed herein would consist of modification and reconstruction of the existing hydro project to include a new dam and pipeline, a new turbine with significantly increased capacity, and a powerhouse relocated to the approximate upper limit of spawning habitat on Indian Creek. The general arrangement of this proposed project is shown in Appendix E, Figure 2. AEA - 23046 Page 55 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 5 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The proposed project includes a 16' wide construction trail beginning from the edge of the existing quarry and extending to the powerhouse and dam site. A new 25' high rock fill dam is to replace the existing wooden dam at the outlet of Indian Lake. The new dam requires widening of the existing bedrock lined spillway located west of the dam. Water will be conveyed through 7,280' of 24" diameter buried HDPE pipe. A 26' x 26' metal building is proposed to house the Turgo impulse turbine and 900 rpm 480 V generator. The proposed building includes a vehicular sized work area and overhead crane. A tailrace will convey water back to Indian Creek at the upper limit of anadromous rearing habitat. Further detail for each for these features is provided in Section 4 and photographs and general details are shown in Appendix E, Figures 3 through 6. The proposed project significantly increases the resource utilization resulting in substantial benefits from reduced diesel electric generation while enhancing water supply delivery and reducing long term electric generation maintenance as shown in Table 2-2, which summarizes the major features of the Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects. Table 2-2 - Summary: Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects Item Existing Proposed Nominal Capacity (kW) 70 385 Static head (ft) 430 380 Design head (ft) 400 340 Hydraulic capacity (cfs) 2.7 18 Reservoir Normal Water Surface (ft) 440 445 Reservoir Area (acres) 21 24 Reservoir Useable Storage Volume (acre-feet) 89 204 Nominal penstock diameter (in) 12,10 & 8 24 Penstock length (ft) 7,280 7,280 Transmission length (ft) 0 1,600 New access road & trail lengths (ft) 0 9,170 Annual energy potential (MWh) 470 2,140 Existing demand (diesel generated) (MWh) 950 950 Annual displaced diesel energy (MWh) 470 900 Annual reduction in diesel fuel use (gal) 33,400 63,500 2.4.2 Environmental Measures The replacement project locates the powerhouse at an elevation higher than optimum for power production and includes a significantly longer tailrace than required in order to convey the tail water to the upper limit of anadromous fish habitat. The optimum powerhouse elevation would be about 15' lower. Therefore, the proposed powerhouse elevation results in a 4% decrease in potential power output for a given flow rate. AEA - 23046 Page 56 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 6 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The existing project diverts 2.7 cfs out of Indian Creek. Locating the powerhouse above the upper limit of anadromous fish habitat will eliminate the need for permanent diversion of water out of Indian Creek. The resulting improvement in fish habitat below the powerhouse is seen as a significant positive environmental measure. Additionally, the increase in flow available for the powerhouse will in turn significantly increase the amount of renewable energy generated. AEA - 23046 Page 57 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 7 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 3. Existing Environment 3.1 Community Overview 3.1.1 Population The population in Chignik is approximately 91 according to the State of Alaska Community Profile although the current year round population is less. Population has been declining in Chignik due to a lack of economic opportunity and the high cost of living. There are no longer enough residents to support a school which was closed in 2013. Population fluctuates seasonally with residents leaving the community in the fall after the end of the fishing season and returning in late spring. Land based processing and fishery support historically brought in additional transient residents during the summer fishing season until processing operations were moved offshore in 2009 due to a fire that destroyed the only operational fish processing facility in 2008. 3.1.2 Location The City of Chignik Bay is located on Anchorage Bay on the south shore of the Alaska Peninsula. It lies approximately 450 miles southwest of Alaska’s largest city, Anchorage and 180 miles south southwest of King Salmon. Chignik is located in the Aleutian Islands Recording District, Section 7, T045S, R058W, Seward Meridian. Chignik Bay is accessible by small planes and boats and has state ferry service. 3.1.3 History A Village called “Kalwak” was originally located here, but was destroyed during the Russian fur boom in the late 1700s. Chignik, meaning “big wind”, was established in the late 1800s as a fishing village and cannery. A four-masted sailing ship called the “Star of Alaska” transported workers and supplies between Chignik and San Francisco. Chinese crews from San Francisco traveled to Chignik in the early spring to make tin cans for the cannery. Japanese workers followed in mid June to begin processing. Chignik became an incorporated city in 1983. Currently, two of the historical canneries are still in operation. The federally recognized tribe for the community is the Chignik Bay Tribal Council. The community is presently a mixture of non-natives and Alutiiq. 3.2 Climate The village of Chignik is located on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula. The village is primarily protected from severe southern Pacific storms by a ridge of mountains rising to 3,000 feet. The high frequency of cyclonic storms crossing the Northern Pacific and the Bering Sea are the predominant weather factors. These storms account for the frequent high winds and the frequent occurrence of fog and low visibility1. The climate of Chignik is maritime, due to the nearness of extensive open ocean areas. Temperature extremes, both seasonal and diurnal, are generally confined to fairly narrow limits, with differences between maximum and minimum temperatures for all individual 1 Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries (CIS) AEA - 23046 Page 58 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 8 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. months averaging less than 15° Fahrenheit. Temperatures below 0° Fahrenheit are unusual. However, they do occur in occasional years when the Bering Sea freezes and allows the influx of cold continental air. Precipitation of more than one hundredths of an inch occurs about 170 days per year. The greatest observed precipitation rate is 7.3 inches per 24 hours. The greatest recorded monthly snowfall was 31 inches in February of 19312. The nearest communities with recommended snow loads for design are Cold Bay and Kodiak3. Respective ground snow loads are 25 and 30 psf which is considered low based on past experience, especially in the vicinity of the dam. Recommended roof snow loads should be at least 40 psf for the powerhouse. Structures at the dam should be designed for higher snow loads. Seasonal periods are poorly defined at Chignik due to the moderating effects of the nearby ocean areas. The beginning of spring is late; vegetation begins to grow in late May. August is regarded as midsummer and autumn arrives early in October. The greatest frequency of fog occurs from mid-July to mid-September. Table 3-1 includes a summary temperature and precipitation data. Table 3-1 - Local Climate Data Temperature and Precipitation Data Mean Min January Temperature 18 deg F4 Mean Annual Precipitation (2001-2006)200 inches5 Average Monthly Temperatures Deg F5 1 30.4 2 30.9 3 28.1 4 35.0 5 41.9 6 48.4 7 52.7 8 54.2 9 49.7 10 42.9 11 34.3 12 32.0 Average 40.0 3.3 Climate Change Climate change, a phenomenon that has occurred in the past and is predicted to occur in the future, can result in significant departure from the underlying assumptions and data used to prepare this study. A scenario planning process for Alaska was created by University of 2 USACE, 1983 3 ASCE 7 2010 4 USGS WRI Report 93-4179. Mean min in January for Sand Point is 28.6 which is 100 miles southwest of Chignik (NCDC). 5 Chignik Bay METAR, Station PAJC (Iowa 2014). AEA - 23046 Page 59 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 9 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Alaska researchers to understand the current and future trajectories of climate and other variables helps to develop credible projections across Alaska and the Arctic. The charts below, obtained from the Scenarios Network for Alaska & Arctic Planning (SNAP), indicate the projected temperature and precipitation changes resulting from climate change for Chignik (UAF, 2014) as summarized below in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Figure 3-1 - Average Monthly Temperature for Chignik Figure 3-2 - Average Monthly Precipitation for Chignik The potential impacts of climate change are considered in terms of a vulnerability assessment. The vulnerability assessment is used to determine the degree to which specific resources of interest are susceptible to the effects of climate change. Project and related environmental resources identified as being vulnerable to climate change conditions are the following: AEA - 23046 Page 60 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 10 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 1. Hydrology and energy generation Climate driven hydrology changes generally should result in increased runoff due to the increased precipitation although the increase in temperature is likely to lead to additional evapotranspiration thus offsetting the gains. It is expected that the net result will be a slight increase, on average, in storm frequency with possible increases in peak discharges, a slight decrease in summer base flow discharges between storms, an increase in precipitation versus snow events, and an increase in base flow in the winter. 2. Hydrology and aquatic resources The climate change driven changes in hydrology are not expected to have a significant impact in aquatic productivity. Fish in Indian Creek are prevalent under existing conditions that exhibit normally high variability in daily and seasonal stream flows in Indian Creek. 3.4 Hydrology 3.4.1 Indian Creek Watershed The Indian Creek watershed is located immediately south of the City of Chignik, with the mouth of Indian Creek being located at Anchorage Bay at the north end of town. Appendix E, Figure 1 is a map of the Indian Creek watershed and shows its relation to Chignik. The watershed encompasses a total area of approximately 4 mi2, while the proposed intake site at the outlet of Indian Lake has a watershed area of approximately 2.9 mi2. The intake watershed boundary is delineated by steep ridges on the east, south and west sides. These ridges range in elevation from approximately 2,400 ft to 3,200 ft. The ridgelines are generally steep, with slopes in excess of 50 degrees to near vertical. Indian Lake, located at RM 2.4, is situated in the valley between these ridges and has a normal pool elevation of approximately 440 ft, which is set by the existing timber buttress dam built in 1947. The lower watershed, downstream of the intake area, has more gently sloping terrain than the upper watershed, with elevations ranging from sea level to approximately 1,500 ft. Indian creek is approximately 4 miles long and drains in a generally north-northwest direction from an elevation of 1200 ft to sea level. The valley in which the creek is situated is approximately 1.5 miles wide crest to crest along the upper two thirds of the creek and the upper watershed basin is sparsely vegetated and consists predominantly of bedrock and talus slopes. During the winter months precipitation generally falls as snow at the higher elevations of the intake watershed. As the temperature increases in the summer months, this snowpack begins to melt and the snowmelt runoff generates the highest average monthly flows for Indian Creek. The months of June and July have the highest sustained flows due to snow melt. During the late winter and spring flows are at the lowest, primarily in relation to the ambient temperature, with occasional spikes due to brief warm spells with liquid precipitation. AEA - 23046 Page 61 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 11 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 3.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gaging As part of the FERC requirements, monitoring of pipeline flows and gaging of stream flows at the dam, pool, and bridge sites in Indian Creek has been performed. Details of past stream flow monitoring efforts are found in numerous monitoring reports filed with FERC which are available through the e-library for project P-620. Flow monitoring began in April of 2003 but results over the years have been sporadic because of equipment failures, limited site accessibility, and the general remoteness and harsh conditions at the site. The final monitoring report (Hatch, 2013 Monitoring Report) presents the most recent data collected, analyses performed, and reports the revised daily average stream flows for Indian Creek at the dam and bridge sites for all years. The data is summarized in Tables 3-2 thru 3-5. Table 3-2 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Dam Site Month 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 10 11 26 45 0 10 2 9 11 17 7 0 4 3 8 9 18 0 0 0 4 8 24 2 0 0 0 5 20 25 75 32 10 29 6 28 81 103 87 122 7 26 64 68 77 59 8 40 45 45 25 9 163 11 62 18 36 24 10 46 5 32 43 18 42 9 47 11 21 15 22 9 13 13 2 12 12 7 40 85 10 24 0 Table 3-3 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Bridge Site Month 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 8 63 3 15 2 9 39 7 8 3 5 32 2 5 4 8 10 57 0 6 5 20 118 72 35 6 32 141 161 7 25 105 68 62 8 18 45 40 30 9 19 29 19 33 29 10 51 35 14 10 81 11 22 45 11 6 12 12 26 25 6 AEA - 23046 Page 62 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 12 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 3-4 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2008-2013), Dam Site Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 564 65 111 366 601 706 881 1728 598 1933 226 2243 10% 65 22 26 11 131 174 127 123 78 70 30 134 20% 39 18 15 7 92 145 87 69 58 48 23 66 30% 26 15 7 2 77 125 77 55 45 38 19 39 40% 19 13 1 0 61 110 71 45 36 30 15 30 50% 12 8 0 0 47 98 66 39 29 25 12 24 60% 6 4 0 0 32 88 63 34 25 21 9 15 70% 3 0 0 0 21 79 58 30 20 16 8 9 80% 0 0 0 0 8 72 53 26 17 8 5 5 90% 0 0 0 0 5 64 44 21 12 4 1 0 100% 0 0 0 0 0 48 21 8 5 0 0 0 Table 3-5 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2011-2013), Bridge Site Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 171 277 390 37 405 589 400 812 555 627 265 395 10% 46 82 11 19 203 347 134 144 84 117 27 51 20% 18 26 6 14 114 247 81 72 53 56 20 36 30% 12 13 5 10 77 204 73 51 42 38 14 26 40% 9 10 4 6 46 179 68 41 33 22 11 20 50% 6 8 4 5 32 157 64 35 26 14 8 13 60% 4 6 3 5 26 134 59 32 22 11 6 9 70% 4 5 2 5 17 123 55 28 19 9 5 6 80% 3 5 2 4 13 113 51 25 17 8 5 4 90% 2 4 1 0 10 101 36 19 14 6 4 4 100% 1 0 0 0 9 83 20 15 11 4 3 3 3.4.3 Peak Flood For concept design purposes the 500 year recurrence flood determined in accordance with USGS procedures for ungaged streams in Alaska is used. Inputs for the determination include: Basin Area 2.94 sq mi ST, % area of lakes and ponds 1.9% P, mean annual Precip 200 in J, mean min Jan temp 18 deg F The resulting estimated flood flow is approximately 2,000 cfs. 3.5 Water Quality Little data exists on the water quality of Indian Creek. However, use of Indian Creek's water for domestic supply indicates that the water is of good quality. The Corps in their 1984 draft environmental impact statement (EIS), state that the village of Chignik built the project's dam in 1947 to provide a reservoir for the cannery and the village residents and that the water (in AEA - 23046 Page 63 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 13 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 1984) was untreated but of good quality. Visual observations suggest that the water of Indian Creek is normally of high clarity and low turbidity. 3.6 Vegetation Vegetative cover consists of dense alder with occasional patches of grasses, berries, and wetlands in the lower elevations. Based on aerial imagery vegetative cover becomes sparser beginning at about elevation 1,000 feet and is mostly absent above 1,500 feet and on steep slopes. 3.7 Aquatic Resources Aquatic and hydrologic resources are a critical concern in Chignik because fish harvesting and processing is the main economy and livelihood for the region. Although the Chignik River hosts the bulk of salmon producing habitat, Indian Creek contributes to some of the harvest, particularly for pink salmon species. Fish do not occur in Indian Lake or immediately below the lake in Indian Creek. The existing dam and priority flow through the pipeline have been in existence since at least 1947 without any significant change in operation throughout that time. Thus, the existing project is an integral component of the existing environment. Monitoring of stream flows and fish presence in Indian Creek has been performed since 2006 as part of the FERC license requirements in order to better understand the existing hydrologic and aquatic environment. Fish are predominantly found in the lower 0.5 mile of Indian Creek where stream flow is much more persistent. The lower reach contrasts significantly with flows in the creek immediately below the dam. Here flows are completely absent for months at a time eliminating the upper drainage as a contributor to habitat. The monitoring results show that the predominant species in Indian Creek are pink salmon. In 2003, locals to the Chignik area reported that the spawning pink salmon population in Indian Creek was estimated to be 2,500 individuals and that their presence was observed up to river mile (RM) 0.5. Using the results of the FERC required fish monitoring, the average usage of Indian Creek spawning habitat over the last 5 years has been 2,000 salmon-days per year. Figure 3-3 includes the approximate salmon-day usage of Indian Creek during the 2006-2013 period. Derivation of this estimate is presented in the Draft Project Operations Report (Hatch, 2014). The chart indicates that there has been a downward shift in numbers since 2007. AEA - 23046 Page 64 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 14 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 3-3 - Indian Creek Approximate Spawning Pink Salmon Count Other species of fish are also present in Indian Creek. During fish surveys conducted in October 2003, 55 coho salmon, 99 sockeye salmon, and 222 Dolly Varden were observed. Coho salmon were observed up to RM 0.59, while sockeye salmon were observed as far as RM 0.73. The report also noted the occasional steelhead and chum salmon were found in past years. Figure 3-4 lists the salmonid species that have been identified in Indian Creek and their associated spawning and egg incubation seasons. AEA - 23046 Page 65 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 15 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 3-4 - Indian Creek Fish Species Periodicity Chart 3.8 Terrestrial Resources Furbearers and small game animals in the Chignik region include moderate numbers of red foxes, porcupines, lemmings, tundra voles, arctic ground squirrels, weasels, mink, wolverine, and tundra hares. Beaver, muskrat, land otters, snowshoe hares, hoary marmots, and a small number of wolves also inhabit the region. The area supports a small but stable habitat for moose and caribou. Brown bear are common throughout the region. About 250 species of birds occur around Chignik, predominately marine and passerine species. 3.9 Endangered or Threatened Plant and Animal Species Listings and occurrences of endangered or threatened plant and animal species for Alaska was obtained from the USFWS6. Species that are potentially impacted by the project are listed in the Table 3-6. None of the species have critical habitat near the project and it is concluded the project is not likely to impact endangered or threatened species. 6 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK&s8fid=112761032 792&s8fid=112762573902 AEA - 23046 Page 66 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 16 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 3-6 - Endangered or Threatened Species Status Species Critical Habitat E Albatross, short-tailed Entire (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) None E Curlew, Eskimo Entire (Numenius borealis) None T Eider, spectacled Entire (Somateria fischeri) Not near Project T Eider, Steller's AK breeding pop. (Polysticta stelleri) Not near Project E Fern, Aleutian shield (Polystichum aleuticum) None 3.10 Geology The regional geology in the Project area is described in the 1983 USACE report. Local geology at the dam site is described as hard, massive, unyielding hornfels sandstone (Quartzite) and siltstone with a thin residual soil cover. The sedimentary rock has been thermally metamorphosed with the original structural bedding preserved. The depth of the soil cover appears to average 6" to 2' although rock depressions and valleys are filled with 10' or more of soil. A talus slope exists on the west side of Indian Lake with sand and elongated material up to about 24". This material is expected to serve as the main fill for the rockfill dam in its native form and as a drain material although screening may be necessary. The river valley and village area consist of quaternary deposits which are primarily recent alluvium from Indian Creek, clay of fluvial and lacustrine origin, and marine tidal flat and sand spit deposits. Bituminous and lignite coal deposits lie on the west shore of Chignik Bay but these deposits are not currently mined. Current quarrying activities are taking place on the south side of Indian Creek just north of the active bridge. Active quarrying is occurring in a southwest direction and reached the plateau of the bluff nearly connecting to the existing cat trail used to access the dam and penstock. 3.11 Land Use Generalized lands uses in the project area are listed below: Subsistence - Hunting Subsistence - Fishing Subsistence - Gathering Hydroelectric generation using 2.7 cfs water right granted to City of Chignik Domestic water supply Subsurface rock extraction at quarry site Material Disposal Recreation - motorized ATV, hiking, sightseeing, and swimming 3.12 Site Control The proposed project would occupy the lands described in Table 3-7. AEA - 23046 Page 67 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 17 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 3-7 - Land Ownership Parcel Section Township Range Surface Estate Tract 4A 12 45 S 59 W City of Chignik Far West Addition #1 12, 7, 18 45 S 58-59 W City of Chignik Tract 14 13 45 S 59 W City of Chignik Tract 15 18 45 S 58 W City of Chignik Tract 16 19 45 S 58 W City of Chignik The proposed project requires title or easement to the surface estate. Research of plats and deeds indicates that the City of Chignik holds title to all the lands identified above subject to a restrictive easement for access to the Indian Creek Quarry granted to Far West on Tract 4A. This easement states: “An easement for ingress and egress with respect to the Indian Creek Quarry, situate in tract 4A... This easement shall continue during the entire life of the Indian Creek Quarry and Grantee shall take no action which may unreasonably interfere with the uses and purposes reserved herein.” The components of the proposed project, an access road and overhead power transmission line, are not considered actions that unreasonably interfere with the ingress and egress to the Indian Creek Quarry. The proposed reservoir may also occupy a portion of the unsurveyed section 24 wherein the surface estate is owned by the Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation. Boundary line referenced topographic surveying will determine whether a future easement is required. 3.13 Recreational Use Recreational use of the project area includes hiking and sight seeing, swimming in the reservoir (Indian Lake), hunting, and fishing. Access is most often by foot although some motorized access and recreation has occurred using small four wheelers. Motorized access to the reservoir is likely to increase with the construction of the access trail through the quarry site. 3.14 Socioeconomic Fishing is the mainstay of the economy of Chignik since the early 1900's. Fish processing has occurred almost continuously since then until most recently with the move to offshore processing following the fire at the Trident plant. Beginning around the second week in June residents prepare to fish for red salmon and successive runs of pink, dog (chum), and silver salmon. Fish are taken in purse seiners and delivered to the local processor, floating processor, or tendered to Kodiak. Chignik is the major fishing community in the area, with boats, crews and families from several villages and elsewhere congregating here during the salmon season. Chignik has a long history of fish harvesting and processing. Two processing plants are located in the community although both are presently not operational. The Trident facility, located at the north end of Chignik, was the most recently used processing plant until a fire destroyed it. The former NorQuest facility, also the location for the hydro turbine, was decommissioned several years ago after the purchase by Trident. The facility has been AEA - 23046 Page 68 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 18 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. significantly damaged by a roof collapse due to high snow loads. Processing is currently handled by a floating processor. A significant factor affecting the socioeconomic well being in Chignik, like most rural Alaska communities, is the high cost of energy. The high cost of energy has significantly impacted the community with a decline in fishing vessels and local disposable income resulting in a declining population. Coupled with the decline in the local fishing industry, the community has lost a significant number of permanent residents and has seen the closure of the school in recent years. The loss of population and industry is resulting in a general decline of local infrastructure as the community is unable to keep pace with the financing and maintenance needs. 3.15 Historical and Archaeological Resources 3.15.1 Historical Resources The cannery was begun on the Chignik site in 1910 by the Columbia River Packers Association, and the oldest building dates to that era. During the global economic disruptions of the 1930s the Alaska Packers Association leased the plant and eventually bought the facility and operated it until a sale in 1979. The plant was operated under various companies until processing moved across the bay shortly after NorQuest was purchased by Trident Seafoods in 2004. The plant continues to provide processing support for Trident. Chignik’s Norquest facility is probably the oldest continuously used fish processing plant in Alaska. The facility’s dam (completed 1948) and pipeline (1949) are also part of the historic landscape. As part of the FERC license, the hydropower project is subject to provisions of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act because the water system dates to 1947-49 and belongs to the old Alaska Packers Association cannery that dates older still. An inventory and evaluation was completed by Charles M. Mobley & Associates in 2004 (Mobley 2004). The report concludes that the historic property is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is defined in the regulations implementing the Section 106 review process as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The APE for the proposed water system and hydroelectric rehabilitation is limited to the dam, waterline, turbine unit, and existing access road. The dam and most of the wood-stave portion of the pipeline are contributing historic resources that require further consultation with SHPO and FERC as the project approval process moves forward. 3.16 Regulatory 3.16.1 FERC License The Chignik hydroelectric project is currently operating under the fourth FERC license, P-620, which has a term of 30 years and expires on February 1, 2036. The original FERC license was issued in 1925. AEA - 23046 Page 69 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 19 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Licensing Timeline: Previous FERC Licenses: - 1925, 1941, 1979 Current FERC License: - License Application – October 2, 2003 - Final Environmental Assessment – March 30, 2005 - License issued – February 8, 2006 (30 years) - Monitoring plans submitted – October 3, 2006 - FERC approval of monitoring plans – August 22, 2007 - Monitoring plans modification 1 – March 18, 2011 - Monitoring plans modification 2 – October 24, 2011 - License expires – February 1, 2036 3.16.2 State Historic Preservation Office A Programmatic Agreement (PA) with FERC and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was developed and signed in 2005 as part of the relicensing effort. The PA called for completion of an accompanying Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP). A HPMP has not been completed although a draft was prepared in 2009 and apparently reviewed in April of 2012 by the SHPO with comments on the draft plan provided to the Licensee. 3.16.3 Water Rights The water rights associated with the dam are certificated to the City of Chignik and are filed with the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). The state identifies the location of water withdrawal in section 13 township 045S range 058S, of the Seward Meridian. Water rights for processing, formerly owned by NorQuest, have been transferred to the City of Chignik as part of the FERC license transfer. All water rights associated with the dam and included in Figure 3-5 are currently certificated to the City of Chignik. AEA - 23046 Page 70 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 20 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 3-5 - ADNR Water Rights Land Case Detail, Water Rights Information AEA - 23046 Page 71 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 21 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4. Technical Considerations 4.1 General Effects of Proposed Action The proposed hydro project will provide significant benefits to the City of Chignik and the State of Alaska by lowering the cost of electric energy production over the long term and reducing the State's payments for diesel fuel from the PCE program over the long term. The proposed hydro project will also result in significant secondary benefits by diverting payments from burning of diesel fuel into local renewable infrastructure with an indefinite useful life. The investment in local renewable generation will stimulate economic growth in the community which in turn will benefit the State and other entities in the region and represents a significant increase in sustainability. Historic access to the dam site and pipeline has been limited to walking and helicopter use for major maintenance. Recently the City has created an access trail to the project area as part of the development of the quarry near the mouth of Indian Creek. The proposed project will continue trail and access improvements reducing long term maintenance and also improving recreational access to Indian Lake. The replacement project will perpetually introduce an additional 2.7 cfs of water to the rearing habitat of Indian Creek by abandoning the existing hydroelectric project that completely diverts water out of the basin and discharges into the tidal zone of the ocean. As a result, it is possible that the proposed hydro project could improve the anadromous habitat in the lower reaches of Indian Creek which could result in improved salmon egg and fry survivability leading to increased commercial salmon harvests and spawning returns. By replacing the dam and pipeline, and increasing the reservoir storage capacity, the project improves the raw water supply availability and reliability of delivery to the City potable water system. The project will also eliminate the burning of 63,500 gallons of diesel fuel annually, based on current electric demand and has the potential to displace 184,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually. Over the project's minimum expected life of 50 years, this equates to potentially reducing fuel consumption by nearly 10 million gallons. 4.2 Selected Project Arrangement 4.2.1 Reservoir Without adequate survey and geotechnical information the analysis of dam height must be accomplished using the best information available on topography. A combination of visual observations and various topographic survey products has been combined to analyze the cost and benefits of various dam heights. The topography and synthesized bathymetric surface is shown in Appendix E, Figure 3. Reservoir surface areas and storage volumes are shown in the Table 4-1. AEA - 23046 Page 72 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 22 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 4-1 - Indian Lake Modeled Reservoir Areas and Storage Volumes Reservoir Elevation (ft) Area (acres) Volume (acre-ft) 430 2.9 3 435 7.4 28 440 19.5 89 445 24.2 204 450 26.7 331 455 29.5 472 460 32.6 627 465 36.0 798 470 40.3 988 If LIDAR or other remote sensing survey work is undertaken in the future, it is recommended that the reservoir is drained to verify the volume estimates in this report. 4.2.2 Dam, Spillway, and Intake The remote location and the locally available rock sources suggest a rock fill dam will be the most economical structure. A separate spillway cut through rock is required to prevent overtopping and subsequent erosion of the rock fill dam. The location for the proposed dam is confined by the existing dam, local topography, and the area required for the spillway. The existing wooden dam leaks significantly and is situated in the apparent ideal location for the new dam. The cost estimate anticipates the need for a coffer dam and demolition of the existing dam. A rock fill dam with an assumed 8" thick impervious central concrete face with a single outlet tunnel and upstream and downstream slopes of 1.5:1 was selected for the concept design in this report. The conceptual design of the dam is not intended to be definitive and some deviation in location, elevation, and concept are expected during the design phase after collection of topographical and geotechnical data. Final concept determination shall be made in the design phase. The upstream face must be capable of withstanding forces from waves and ice that moves up and down frequently with reservoir changes, forces from wind driven ice, and freezing and thawing effects. Investigations should, to the extent practical, define the locations of competent bedrock that will serve as the foundation for the dam, the structural competency, potential for leakage, fracture evaluation, sealing recommendations, and approximately define the bedrock extent east of the dam site. It is noted that reports from investigations in 1984 state that the rock cut spillway had eroded down and widened since its original construction. The feasibility effort has focused primarily on selecting the desired dam height for storage purposes and for estimating construction costs. Conceptual dam designs for reservoir elevations ranging up to 465' combined with a relocated spillway to the east were analyzed to determine quantities and construction costs. The analysis showed that enlarging the existing spillway and limiting the dam footprint to the main channel was the most economical configuration. Table 4-2 shows final estimated dam quantities based on reservoir elevation. AEA - 23046 Page 73 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 23 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 4-2 - Dam Conceptual Quantities with Varying Reservoir (Spillway Crest) Elevations Dam Fill Elevation, ft Normal Reservoir Elevation, ft Dam Volume (cyd) Concrete Water Barrier Area, sq ft Spillway Excavation Volume, cyd 445 440 1,800 2,200 3,900 450 445 3,000 3,400 3,360 455 450 4,600 4,600 2,942 The proposed intake and outlet works for the concept follows conventional design consisting of a trash rack, shut off gate, conveyance tunnel, air inlet, a transition, and a rupture control valve. The shutoff gate or valve is recommended to allow for dewatering of the penstock. The use of a penstock over-velocity valve or similar device is also recommended as a safety measure to prevent uncontrolled water release from the reservoir in the event of a penstock failure. An air inlet vent immediately downstream of the shutoff gate or valve is required to prevent penstock collapse in the event of a sudden blockage or valve closure at the dam during project operation. With a rock filled dam the proposed spillway must pass all flows in excess of the project capacity to prevent overtopping of the dam. The conceptual design of the spillway is based on an estimated peak flood using the USGS procedure for a 500 year return event. Additional infrastructure recommended for the dam includes water level monitoring (required), camera, weather instrumentation, a small storage shed, and a communications and low power line. The timing of construction is expected to be limited due to consistent high flows occurring in the summer snow melt and adverse conditions in winter with snow, frozen ground, and limited daylight. Potential problems associated with the fall construction include major rainfall events. 4.2.3 Pipeline For conceptual design and capacity analysis the nominal pipeline size was varied along with the material and shipping cost to determine the most feasible project capacity. The pipeline thickness is based on a preliminary design profile using HDPE pipe. Table 4-3 summarizes the various pipeline concept designs analyzed. The numbers were adopted for comparison purposes and it is expected that actual project capacity and pipeline size will be determined during the design phase. Table 4-3 - Pipeline Diameter Selection for Various Project Capacities Nominal Pipeline Diameter, inches Hydraulic Capacity (cfs) Nominal Capacity (kW) Annual Energy Potential (MWh) 22 15 315 1,860 24 18 385 2,140 26 22 470 2.480 A temporary water supply service from the dam to Lower Indian Lake is included in the hydroelectric cost estimate as a temporary means of water supply during construction. An alternate solution is to use Lower Indian Lake or it's tributary or restore functioning of the existing water wells and incur pumping costs. The temporary service pipeline is required due to the construction of the access road over the existing penstock alignment and removal of AEA - 23046 Page 74 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 24 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. the existing dam. The conceptual estimate includes 4" temporary water line from the reservoir connecting to a permanent insulated 4" water line near Lower Indian Lake. 4.2.4 Powerhouse The location for proposed powerhouse represents one of the more significant differences between the proposed hydroelectric project and the existing one. The location was chosen to mitigate the impacts of existing diversion of water associated with the powerhouse site located near tidewater. Alternate locations include the base of the hill at the sharp bend in Indian Creek (referred to as the pool site) and anywhere in the valley from the mouth of the Lower Indian Lake Outlet creek (located at river mile 0.4 of Indian Creek) up to an elevation of approximately 70 feet. Final selection of the powerhouse site to be based on the results of FERC licensing, permitting, detailed topographic (LIDAR) ground surveying, and geotechnical investigations (drilling or machine dug test pits). Early concepts situated the powerhouse at a sharp bend in the creek referred to as the pool site. Indian Creek flows out of a confined valley and into a rock wall where flows have scoured the creek bed against the wall. Opposite the wall is small gravel bar that formed on the inside of the creek bend. This gravel bar abuts against a steep slope that is presumed to have shallow overburden over bedrock that would serve as the powerhouse foundation. Due to cost, geotechnical, and erosion concerns the proposed powerhouse location has been moved downstream although the proposed tailrace discharge point, at the pool site, remains unchanged. The site chosen for the powerhouse is located on a small mound located at the mouth of a small valley that drains Lower Indian Lake. This site appears to be less susceptible to flood related erosion by Indian Creek, has a larger area, and results in less transmission line, access road, and steel penstock construction at the expense of additional tailrace construction. The net effect of the above being an overall lower project cost. 4.2.5 Turbine and Generator With reservoir storage the minimum turbine output is not constrained by the instantaneous flow in Indian Creek as a run of river project would be. Minimum demand averages 50 kW. The proposed turbine type consists of a single Turgo unit configured with twin jets and directly connected to the generator operating at 900 rpm. This configuration will provide efficient power production through the expected operating range. An advantage of a single unit is that the entire rotational mass will be spinning at all times which improves the ability of the unit to follow demand fluctuations. For the demand data collected the maximum load increase was approximately 40kW in 15 minutes. Pelton type units could also be utilized in either a single 5 jet vertical axis machine or two horizontal axis, twin jet machines with or without speed increasers. The cost for these configurations is $100k-$200k more than the Turgo unit depending on the desired efficiency. AEA - 23046 Page 75 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 25 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. A combined hydroelectric and generator efficiency of 75% is used for operational modeling. Capacities in excess of about 400 kW may require multiple turbine installations to operate efficiently in the winter at low loads. 4.2.6 Domestic and Process Raw Water Supply The proposed concept includes the cost for a community water supply originating from the main penstock in the vicinity of Lower Indian Lake. Penstock service disruptions are not expected to occur as part of regular maintenance so a separate dedicated water supply line from the dam should not be necessary although the temporary water service for construction could be utilized as a permanent supply line originating from the dam. The new water supply is presumed to be routed from a take off point on the proposed penstock near Lower Indian Lake to the existing water treatment plant following the same route as the existing penstock. The cost estimate assumes this line portion of the water supply line will require insulation with an aluminum jacket because it will be installed above grade. Conceptual water supply requirement is 0.25 cfs which includes 0.05 cfs for domestic water use (certificated amount is 0.03 cfs) and 20,000 gpd (0.2 cfs) used for processing. To account for increased domestic use during cold periods when residents leave taps open to prevent freezing the project modeling assumes a domestic demand of 0.1 cfs when Indian Creek flow drops below 3 cfs. Timing of demand for process water is May 1st through September 30th. 4.3 Hydrology Analysis 4.3.1 Stream Gaging Data Analysis Figure 4-1 shows the flow duration curve for the dam spill. AEA - 23046 Page 76 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 26 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-1 - Dam Spill Flow Duration Curve, Oct 2008 to Oct 2013 Calendar years with a complete record of dam spill from stream gaging in the reservoir are 2009, 2010, and 2012. There is also a complete record of dam spill and bridge site flows for water-year 2013. The mean unit annual flow (mean flow divided by drainage area) of the dam spill is compared with the USGS Russel Creek flow data in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-2 - Indian Creek Annual Dam Spill Unit Flow Compared with USGS Russel Creek Year 2010, 2012, and 2013 annual mean flows are nearly identical with 2010 considered typical. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Dam Spill Flow, cfsPercent Time Flow Exceeded 22 13 12 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Annual Mean Unit Flow, cfs/mi sqYear Russel Creek Annual Mean Unit Flow (cfs/sq mi) Indian Lake Dam Spill Annual Mean Unit Flow (cfs/sq mi) AEA - 23046 Page 77 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 27 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.3.2 Hydrology Data used for modeling Unless indicated otherwise, the modeling uses the 2010 calendar flow data from the dam as shown in Figure 4-3 for the analysis. Also for modeling purposes, the spill over the reservoir (outflow) is equated to the reservoir inflow. Figure 4-3 - 2010 Indian Creek Annual Hydrograph (at dam) 4.4 Energy Analysis 4.4.1 Diesel Electric Generation Historic demand for Chignik, comprised of the entire community except processing facilities, totalled about 55,000 kWh (75 kW average) per month. In 2010, Chignik Electric began providing power for Trident's fish processing onshore support operations. Fish processing activities occur in late May and continue until September 1st which coincides with the peak runoff times from Indian Creek. This base load demand is expected to continue indefinitely. The available diesel generation data for the City of Chignik was obtained from Power Cost Equalization (PCE) reports. The reports provide monthly totalized generation in kWh. The PCE data is shown in Table 4-4 and Figure 4-4. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1/1 1/31 3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Indain Lake Dam Spill ,cfsDate AEA - 23046 Page 78 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 28 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 4-4 - Table of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy Month 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January 51,170 46,530 65,481 63,263 76,656 February 49,665 47,820 56,574 62,099 59,633 March 55,083 43,950 52,545 52,133 62,342 April 44,520 41,280 56,571 58,615 60,552 May 42,660 50,310 77,971 90,978 108,886 June 54,540 46,470 121,755 119,722 139,332 July 52,230 43,770 67,004 126,236 112,051 111,768 August 55,083 45,510 62,073 107,200 106,321 112,570 September 48,690 43,560 78,142 79,817 78,478 88,521 October 44,247 39,450 54,342 51,495 46,001 51,771 November 56,287 42,540 54,441 61,703 53,679 61,708 December 47,257 36,420 59,203 61,074 57,991 55,583 Totals 303,794 548,888 276,360 375,205 918,422 901,331 989,322 Figure 4-4 - Chart of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy The percentage of generation for each customer class is obtained from State of Alaska power cost equalization reports and is shown in Figure 4-5 for FY2013. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 123456789101112Monthly Total Diesel Generation, kWhMonth 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (PEL) 2010‐2013 Average AEA - 23046 Page 79 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 29 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-5 - FY2013 Electric Generation by Customer Class, kWh 4.4.1.1 State of Alaska Power Cost Equalization The State of Alaska funded a portion of the cost of diesel electric generation in Chignik through the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program. For FY2013, the payments to the City of Chignik electric utility (Chignik Electric) for each customer class is shown in Figure 4-6. Figure 4-6 - FY2013 Electric Payments by Customer Class 4.4.2 Diesel Electric Analysis and Modeling A diesel efficiency curve was developed based on data provided the Alaska Energy Authority. The efficiency curve provides the fuel consumption based on the percentage of peak generator capacity. This is incorporated into the feasibility model along with a minimum loading for a generator of 20% when operating in conjunction with the hydro. Residential Generation 22% Community Facility Generation 9%Commercial Generation 57% Station Service 3%Line loss 9% State of Alaska, PCE 18% Commercial 36% Residential 36% Community 9% AEA - 23046 Page 80 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 30 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.4.3 Hydroelectric Generation The existing hydroelectric project, now owned by the City, produces about 35 kW almost all year. This energy does not contribute to the City's generation because it has not been connected to the distribution system. It is also reported that for the past several years the project has not been providing power to the NorQuest facility either and that the turbine is idle with water energy wasted through the deflector system. It is assumed in the feasibility modeling that the existing hydroelectric turbine will remain disconnected from the City system. The water flowing through the existing hydroelectric turbine is modeled as being available at the dam for future hydroelectric energy production. 4.4.4 Heating Demand Heating demand in Chignik is met using diesel fired heating units. The AEA 2010 Energy Pathway Report estimated that the amount of diesel fuel required for heating is 55,056 gallons annually (AEA, 2010). The school historically utilized waste heat from the old diesel plant but the current location of the diesel powerhouse is much further away and not connected with the now closed school. 4.4.5 Electric Demand Modeling and Forecasting For the purposes of improving the resolution of electric demand data from monthly to 15 minute intervals and for projecting future loads, a Power Energy Logger (PEL 103) was installed at the Chignik Bay diesel generation plant. The meter was installed and began recording data on March 29, 2013 at 15:45; the initial data collection period ended on June 19 at 13:30 when the logger was stopped to perform a download of the saved data. The data is recorded in 15 minute intervals and saved to an SD card in the logger. The recorded data can be seen in Figure 4-7 along with the calculated daily average load. AEA - 23046 Page 81 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 31 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-7 - Chignik 15 Minute Power Energy Logger, 2013 Measured Demand Data The measured data was used in conjunction with the PCE data from 2010–2012 to create a synthesized one year set of demand data at Chignik Bay. The data from 2010-2012 was averaged monthly over the past three years, and divided into “high” and “low” demand months, with “high” months coinciding with the demands from the fish processing plant. The measured PEL data was also reduced to a high and a low demand month set of data. Correction factors were determined for each month based on the historical average demand vs. the measured demand for 2013. To create a synthesized year of data the monthly correction factors were applied to either the “high” or “low” data sets and the adjusted data combined to create one year of 15 min data. The correction factors were not applied to the data for the period of March 29 through June 19, 2013 where measured data was available; this data remains true as obtained from the Power Energy Logger. Figure 4-8 shows the full year of combined measured and synthesized data; both 15 min and daily average data are shown. The average monthly demand is also shown for the average PCE reported demand over the past three years. AEA - 23046 Page 82 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 32 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-8 - Synthesized Annual Demand for Chignik The modeling of both the diesel only option and the proposed hydro utilizes the average hourly demand data shown in the graph above. Load growth is not apparent in PCE data. To a certain extent, it is likely the high cost of diesel generated electric energy for commercial customers is a factor in the lack of growth. Although not exhibited in the past, load growth over the planning horizon resulting from the fixed and/or low price electric energy from hydro generation is a possibility that is considered using low, medium, and high growth rates of 0%, 1%, and 2% for electric demand. 4.4.6 Heating Energy The total annual fuel consumption for heating is assumed to represent the total community equivalent heat demand in Btu's with the distribution throughout the year determined by the daily heating degree day (HDD) demand obtained from the National Climate Data Center. The maximum amount of heat displaced by excess electric or diesel waste heat is assumed to be 50% of the HDD demand. The benefit of heat utilization from the diesel plant is also included in the modeling. Waste heat available from diesel electric generation is calculated as 25% of the electric demand. The diesel waste heat energy is also included when a diesel is required to supplement hydro 0 50 100 150 200 250 1/1 1/31 3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Demand (kW)Date Synthetic Hourly Average Demand (kW) PEL Hourly Average Demand (kW) Average Monthly PCE Demand (kW) AEA - 23046 Page 83 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 33 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. energy. Under this scenario heating benefit from the hydro could be negative when the diesel is able to provide more heat energy than the hydro. Where heating is considered an additional net present capital cost of $250,000 is added to the hydro cost to pay for the addition of a dispatchable remote electric boiler system. No infrastructure costs are added for heat utilization from the diesel power plant. 4.5 Water Use 4.5.1 Potable Water Power generation from the hydroelectric project is a secondary use of the dam and pipeline. The primary use has been the supply of fresh water for potable use and fish processing operations. The City of Chignik is the certificated water utility and supplies potable water by withdrawal of pressurized raw water from the existing hydro penstock near the north end of the boardwalk crossing the wetland area. Treated water is stored in the tank located at about elevation 190 ft. A system of wells has been used as a backup supply when the existing penstock is offline although it has not been operated for several years and it is unknown if the well pumps have enough pressure to overcome the height of the new water tank. The City of Chignik domestic water rights are 19.8 acre-ft per year (0.03 cfs). It has been reported by the City that domestic water use rises significantly during very cold periods to prevent freezing of water lines. 4.5.2 Fish Processing The former NorQuest facility water rights for processing were 911.5 acre-feet per year (1.26 cfs) and an additional 10.8 acre-feet for domestic use. This is representative of historical water needs associated with fish processing. Modern processing methods no longer require such a large volume of fresh water. Trident requested up to 10,000 gpd (0.015 cfs) of potable water for future processing needs at the former NorQuest facility. Process water for the Trident facility was obtained from wells with a permitted use of 73.65 acre-feet per year (0.1 cfs). The wells reportedly had water quality problems and the Trident facility is now connected to the City potable water system. Modern day fresh water demand for fish processing is estimated to be 0.1 cfs for each facility. 4.6 Operational Modeling The following summarizes the modeling assumptions and methods that make up the operational model for the combined diesel hydro system. A one hour interval step model is utilized to simulate the operation of the combined diesel and hydro electric generation for a modeled year. A 20 kW minimum reserve is required to be instantly available to meet rapid demand changes that may occur. If the hydro does not have the water supply or capacity AEA - 23046 Page 84 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 34 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. available then it is assumed that a diesel is running at minimum loading with the hydro being curtailed. The operational model only allows for excess energy production for displacement of heat energy when there is spill occurring at the dam. The operational model is used to evaluate the existing electric generation system combined with the proposed hydroelectric system. The following chart shows the results of the hydroelectric operational model with the hydrologic chart and the modified flows based on reservoir regulation and demand requirements. Figures 4-9 and 4-10 present the results of the operational modeling with respect to reservoir and system power operation respectively. Figure 4-9 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Flow Model 430 435 440 445 450 455 460 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 ‐Jan 1 ‐Feb 1‐Mar 1 ‐Apr 1‐May 1‐Jun 1‐Jul 1 ‐Aug 1‐Sep 1‐Oct 1‐Nov 1 ‐Dec Reservoir Elevation, ftFlow, cfsDay Proposed Flow (Spill) at Dam, cfs Flow Utilized for Power Generation (Project Flow), cfs Existing Flow (Spill) at Dam, cfs Reservoir Elevation, ft AEA - 23046 Page 85 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 35 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-10 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Power Model 4.6.1 Reservoir Elevation Figure 4-11 shows the results of the reservoir modeling for two reservoir elevations and the proposed project capacity of 340 kW. In the chart, the hydroelectric generation is shown as a function of the selected reservoir elevation and the annual electric system load in MWh. The chart shows the minor difference in hydroelectric generation between reservoir elevations. 420 425 430 435 440 445 450 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/1 5/31 6/30 7/30 8/29 9/28 10/28 11/27 12/27 Reservoir Elevation, ftPower, kWDate Hydro Generation Diesel Generation Electric Demand Reservoir Level AEA - 23046 Page 86 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 36 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-11 - Hydroelectric Generation for Reservoir Elevations 445' and 450' 4.6.2 Project Capacity The selection of the pipeline size and the subsequent project capacity was made after modeling the project using a range of values. Figure 4-12 shows the results of the capacity modeling for two configurations. In the chart, the annual hydroelectric generation is shown as a function of the selected project capacity and the annual electric system load in MWh. 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000Annual Hydroelectric Generation, MWhSystem Load, MWh Useable Hydroelectric Generation, Reservoir Elevation 445' Useable Hydroelectric Generation, Reservoir Elevation 450' AEA - 23046 Page 87 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 37 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-12 - Hydroelectric Generation for Project Capacities of 315 kW to 470 kW' In the chart above it is apparent that demand must increase to twice current levels before increased project capacity provides increased benefits. 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000Annual Hydroelectric Generation, MWhSystem Load, MWh Useable Hydroelectric Generation, 315 kW Project Capacity Useable Hydroelectric Generation, 470 kW Project Capacity Useable Hydroelectric Generation, 385 kW Project Capacity AEA - 23046 Page 88 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 38 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.7 Proposed Project Scheme Summary Table 4-5 summarizes the details of the reconstructed existing and proposed project arrangements. It is expected that the final capacity determination of the general arrangement of the proposed project will be made during the preliminary design and permitting phase. Table 4-5 – Summary: Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects Item Existing Proposed Nominal Capacity (kW) 70 385 Static head (ft) 430 380 Design head (ft) 400 340 Hydraulic capacity (cfs) 2.7 18 Reservoir Normal Water Surface (ft) 440 445 Reservoir Area (acres) 21 24 Reservoir Useable Storage Volume (acre-feet) 89 204 Nominal penstock diameter (in) 12,10 & 8 24 Penstock length (ft) 7,280 7,280 Transmission length (ft) 0 1,600 New access road & trail lengths (ft) 0 9,170 Annual energy potential (MWh) 470 2,140 Existing demand (diesel generated) (MWh) 950 950 Annual displaced diesel energy (MWh) 470 900 Annual reduction in diesel fuel use (gal) 33,400 63,500 AEA - 23046 Page 89 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 39 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 5. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and Schedule 5.1 No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant No construction cost is associated with the No Action Alternative. As the base alternative, however, operation (fuel) and maintenance costs will continue. These costs are discussed as included in Sections 6 and 7 that follow. 5.2 Reconstructed Existing Project The cost estimate for reconstruction of the existing project is based on the proposed alternative estimate and includes a replacement dam, 12" diameter pipeline, an access trail, and a new turbine and generator. The results are summarized in the table below. Table 5-1 provides a categorical summary of the Total Construction Cost of a reconstructed existing project as itemized above. Table 5-1 - Reconstructed Existing Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost by Category Category Cost Labor $916,000 Equip $556,000 Material $1,150,000 Shipping $559,000 Indirect $910,000 Development $912,000 Total $5,003,000 5.3 Proposed New Project Table 5-2 includes a summary of the opinion of probable cost for the construction of the proposed project. A detailed construction cost estimate is included in Appendix C. AEA - 23046 Page 90 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 40 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 5-2 - Proposed New Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Item Labor Hours Material Cost Item Cost Contractor Directs Construction Support 2,263 $469,000 Mobilization $548,000 Access Trail 822 $317,000 $390,000 Powerhouse 1,906 $120,000 $302,000 Dam and Intake 4,462 $336,000 $736,000 Dam Site Construction Acccess 40 $1,000 $5,000 Domestic Water Supply 355 $85,000 $116,000 Demo Existing Dam 160 $14,000 Coffer Dam/Construction Diversion 155 $16,000 $30,000 Foundation and Outlet Conveyance 1,320 $108,000 $224,000 Concrete Face 1,346 $72,000 $198,000 Rockfill Placement 525 $6,000 $53,000 Spillway 374 $8,000 $40,000 Power, Controls, and Communication 186 $39,000 $55,000 Pipeline 1,998 $432,000 $612,000 Turbine and Generator 450 $735,000 $779,000 Tailrace 98 $42,000 $51,000 Transmission 582 $53,000 $104,000 Equipment $692,000 SUBTOTAL, Contractor Direct Costs 12,581 $4,683,000 Contractor Indirects Weather Delay 4% $189,000 Overall Contingency 25% $1,171,,000 Contractor Profit 12% $562,000 Bonding 2% $94,000 SUBTOTAL, Contractor Indirects $6,698,000 Development Costs FERC, aquatic, and gaging work $160,000 Geotech Investigation $175,000 Surveying and Engineering $370,000 Historic Properties $75,000 Inspection and Testing $175,000 Owner Admin $175,000 SUBTOTAL, Development Costs $1,130,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $7,828,000 Table 5-3 provides a categorical summary of the Total Construction Cost of the proposed project as itemized above. AEA - 23046 Page 91 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 41 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 5-3 - Proposed New Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost by Category Category Cost Labor $1,193,000 Equip $692,000 Material $2,035,000 Shipping $762,000 Indirect $2,015,000 Development $1,130,000 Total $7,830,000 The cost estimate presumes that the work force will consist of an average of 6 crew members and a supervisor. Two of the crew are expected to be local hire which reduces the housing and travel costs. The cost for construction equipment mobilization to and from Chignik is based on a chartered vessel traveling to and from Anchorage. Materials are assumed to be shipped separately from Seattle and are priced on a container basis. Additional mobilization during construction includes chartered round trip air service from Anchorage occurring every 2 weeks during construction. Construction cost for the trail is based on overburden removal followed by hauled in base course using two articulated trucks. Volumes are calculated using a trail width of 16' and an average fill depth of 2'. Material is assumed to be sourced from the local quarry at a cost of $25 per cubic yard. Material for the dam fill is obtained from the lower portions of the spillway excavation. The upper portion of the spillway excavation is expected to be used for the coffer dam construction. The cost assumes that a fusion machine will be onsite. The cost of the pipe is estimated based on the total weight and the number of shipping containers required. The labor and equipment for the pipeline are fixed costs. The cost estimate uses a weather delay contingency of 10% that applies to the labor and equipment cost. An overall contingency of 25% is applied to all direct construction costs. The net overall contingency is approximately 30% which is appropriate at this stage of project development and given the potential for unfavourable geotechnical conditions that can impact the dam construction. AEA - 23046 Page 92 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 42 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 5.4 Schedule The proposed schedule shown in Figure 5-1 is used in the economic analysis and assumes that development begins with funding approved in July 2015. On that basis, construction Figure 5-1 - Project Development Schedule AEA - 23046 Page 93 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 43 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 6. Economic Analysis Evaluation of the Proposed New Project alternative is made by comparing the net present cost and benefits with the base case of diesel electric generation. 6.1 Annual Costs: No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant 6.1.1 Fuel Cost The net present cost for the base case of diesel generation is primarily fuel dependent. An average (medium) fuel price case is used for the analysis although other fuel cases, termed low and high, are also presented. The fuel price is determined using the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) fuel price projections for 2013-2035 (ISER, 2013) adjusted using a random sampling of the most recent reporting of fuel prices in 15 communities obtained from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska's (RCA) Power Cost Equalization (PCE) filings. The ISER projected average medium fuel price for 2013 for all Alaska communities is $4.43/gal. The sampling of 15 communities showed an average fuel price of $4.51/gal and an average decrease from ISER projected 2013 pricing of $0.18/gal. Thus, the estimated current average fuel price for all Alaska communities for January 2014 is calculated to be $4.25/gal. The ISER medium fuel price growth rate is then used to determine the projected fuel price for the next 50 years. The current average, or medium, price for fuel in a typical rural Alaska community is approximately $4.25 per gallon. The same fuel price is used for economic evaluation of displaced electric and heating loads. The low and high fuel price projection use the same starting value, the current fuel price, but use different rates of escalation which are derived from the ISER report. Fuel price escalation rates above inflation for the low, medium, and high fuel cases are 0.4%, 1.50%, and 2.08%. 6.1.2 Diesel Operation and Maintenance Cost Diesel O&M costs are determined from City of Chignik electric utility rate filings. In Table 6-1, costs for materials for the past two years are averaged and then used to determine the hourly O&M cost for diesel operation. Labor costs are not included. AEA - 23046 Page 94 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 44 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 6-1 - Diesel O&M Costs Diesel O&M Cost 2012 filters $9,181 generator repairs $21,999 Total $31,180 2011 filters $12,722 generator repairs $11,183 Total $23,095 Average $27,543 Cost per run hour $3.14 6.2 Annual Costs, Proposed New Project 6.2.1 Time Value The net present cost for hydro generation primarily is dependent on the cost of the project due to a grant funded scenario assumed in this report. Costs are accounted for in the year they occur and then discounted using a time value discount rate of 3% for future investments (discount rate). 2014 real dollar values and term of 50 years are used for the economic evaluation. This allows for constant pricing in today's dollars and eliminates the need to inflate costs. However, the fuel price is subject to a growth rate because it is expected to outpace the average inflation. 6.2.2 Construction Cost Variance Whereas the base case of diesel generation includes a probable cost range from low to high fuel cost, the hydroelectric economic analysis also includes a probable cost range from a low to high scenario. Factors of -10% and +10% are applied to the overall development cost estimate. 6.2.3 Hydro Operation and Maintenance Costs Hydro O&M consists primarily of labor costs and an amount each year for a repair and replacement fund. Labor costs were not included in the diesel O&M. It is expected that, because the hydro will displace nearly all diesel generation, the labor associated with the diesel generation will be redirected to the hydro without any changes. Labor is excluded from the operational model and the funding for hydro repairs is limited to parts estimated to be 0.25% of the construction cost. It is likely that permit compliance monitoring will be required by resource agencies for 5 years following commissioning. The monitoring is presumed to be similar to current requirements which includes stream gaging and fish spawning surveys. The first 5 years of hydro O&M is estimated to cost 0.75% of the construction cost to account for the estimated monitoring work. AEA - 23046 Page 95 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 45 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 6.3 Economic Evaluation Method The parameters reported in the results table are the total of annual costs and benefits calculated over the planning horizon and adjusted for year of occurrence using the discount rate. Conclusions are shown in two ways: the net present cost of generation and the benefit/cost ratio. The two methods present two different viewpoints on project benefits. 1. The Net Present Cost of Generation (NPC) presents the results from the viewpoint of a consumer to illustrate which of the projects, including the no hydro alternative of diesel only, provides the lowest cost of power. 2. The Benefit/Cost Ratio (B/C) presents the results from the viewpoint of an investor and illustrates whether the benefits of the proposed development are greater than the cost (i.e., B/C >1). Additional detail on the economic parameters reported include: Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric. The net present cost of electric generation using diesel is the sum of the diesel fuel costs, inflated as indicated, and the generation related O&M fixed costs over the planning horizon with costs discounted based on the year of occurrence. This is the base case from which the benefits of the hydro option are determined. Costs not associated with generation, such as distribution system maintenance and administrative services, are not included in the generation costs. Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric. The net present cost of electric generation with the addition of the hydro. Where the hydro is unable to meet demand the necessary diesel generation expense and O&M expense is included in the annual cost. This includes the cost of generating power from the present year on which is entirely diesel only generation until the hydro is commissioned. The cost to construct the hydro, via loan financing, and the O&M cost of the hydro are also included. The financing of the construction cost via a loan is presented because the Net Present Cost using grant funding is slightly less. When the NPC of hydro generation is less than diesel electric generation the proposed project is superior. Present Value of Hydro Development Cost. Used for B/C calculation, the present value of the of the hydro development cost is the cost component in the B/C Ratio. This is the sum of the costs, over the planning horizon, to develop the hydro discounted by the year the costs occur. Only costs to construct the project are included. Under the financed option, the discounted sum of deflated loan payments is the present value of hydro development cost. Present Value of Hydro Benefits. Used for B/C calculation, the present value of the annual cost savings from the hydro is the benefits component in the B/C Ratio. This is the sum of the benefits, over the planning horizon, to develop the hydro discounted by the year the benefits occur. The benefits of the project are defined as the cost of generation using diesel only minus the cost of hydro generation for each year. The cost of hydro generation includes the fixed O&M cost of the hydro and the cost of diesel fuel and O&M from required diesel generation needed to meet demand. Costs to generate power from present day through hydro development are included (benefits are zero until project is commissioned). AEA - 23046 Page 96 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 46 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. B/C Ratio. This is the present value of the hydro benefits divided by the present value of the hydro development cost. When greater than 1.0 the proposed project is superior. Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits. Including heating in the analysis is a measure of the potential benefits for using excess energy to offset diesel fuel used to meet heat demand. In accordance with the assumptions for heat production and utilization, the benefits from hydro heating are defined as the heating value of the hydroelectric generation minus the value from diesel only electric generation heat value. Where positive, the hydro generation has more potential heat utilization than diesel electric only generation. Where the value is negative the hydro project has less potential heat utilization than diesel electric only generation. 6.4 Economic Results – Proposed New Project Table 6-2 shows results for a number of economic parameters. The results are shown for varying load growth rates along with the variable diesel fuel cost and hydro construction cost. For simplicity, the hydro construction cost variability is expected to coincide with the diesel cost variability. Thus the table of results reports the low diesel fuel case combined with the low hydro construction cost case and so on. Detailed results of the economic analysis are included in Appendix D for the electric generation parameters using the 2% demand growth and medium fuel and hydro cost scenario. AEA - 23046 Page 97 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 47 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 6-2 - Economic Results: Proposed New Project (385 kW) Load Growth Case Avg B/C Hydro Construction Cost and Fuel Cost Scenario 0% 1% 2% Low Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $8,710,000 $10,490,000 $12,820,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $8,520,000 $9,000,000 $9,820,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $6,280,000 $6,280,000 $6,280,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $6,470,000 $7,770,000 $9,280,000 B/C Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.3 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $840,000 $660,000 $390,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.3 Medium Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $10,780,000 $13,310,000 $16,640,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $9,360,000 $10,030,000 $11,200,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $6,980,000 $6,980,000 $6,980,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $8,400,000 $10,260,000 $12,420,000 B/C Ratio 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.5 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $1,090,000 $840,000 $430,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.5 High Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $12,130,000 $15,170,000 $19,190,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $10,150,000 $10,950,000 $12,370,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $7,680,000 $7,680,000 $7,680,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $9,660,000 $11,910,000 $14,500,000 B/C Ratio 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.5 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $1,260,000 $950,000 $450,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.6 Average of Electric B/C Ratios 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4 Average of Electric + Heating B/C Ratios 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.5 The proposed project has the lowest cost of generation and is beneficial under all scenarios. For the probable cost cases and if electric demand remains unchanged the B/C is positive at 1.2. While the demand has been constant in the past this is not expected to be the case in the future. Under increasing demand scenarios the benefit of the hydro's additional capacity at a fixed cost is readily apparent with the B/C ratio rising significantly. The overall average B/C ratio of hydroelectric generation is 1.4 for all scenarios. 6.4.1 Reconstructed Existing Project Economic Results For reconstructing the existing project, the analysis concludes the project is not recommended due to lower B/C ratios as expected for the 70 kW project with much less energy generation. AEA - 23046 Page 98 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 48 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 6.4.2 Environmental Measures Economic Analysis The replacement project locates the powerhouse at an elevation higher than desired. It is estimated that the ideal powerhouse elevation is about 15' lower which translates to a 4% decrease in power output for a given flow rate. The economic modelling shows that the NPV of lifetime benefits from the hydro project are subsequently reduced by about $135,000 under the high demand growth scenario. The significantly longer tailrace than required in order to convey the tail water to the upper limit of anadromous fish habitat represents an additional cost of approximately $75,000. AEA - 23046 Page 99 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 49 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Spill Flow at Dam, cfsMonth/Day of Year Proposed Spill at Dam, Demand Limited Proposed Spill at Dam, Maximum Output Existing Spill at Dam 7. Proposed New Project – Environmental / Regulatory Analysis The only resources with potential for significant impacts from the proposed project are socioeconomic and fishery resources. 7.1.1 Aquatic Resources The proposed project's alteration of flows at the dam site is very limited. There will be a marginal increase in the duration and frequency of an already regularly occurring condition of having no spill at the dam. From a qualitative perspective it is expected that the marginal change in duration is not significant with respect to aquatic resources. The alteration of flows at the powerhouse is a slightly more significant. The replacement project will result in the addition of 2.7 cfs of water into the rearing habitat of Indian Creek by abandoning the existing hydroelectric project which completely diverts water out of the basin and discharges into the tidal zone of the ocean. The proposed project diverts a significantly regulated flow back to the most habitable reach of Indian Creek. The hydrological impacts from the proposed action are shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 using the median daily average hydrology from the 2013 water year where both dam spill and bridge site flows were recorded. The hydrological impacts are shown for partial project output coinciding with the synthesized demand and full project output. Load growth decreases duration of flow additions at the powerhouse but does not have a discernable effect on the spill flow regime at the dam. Figure 7-1 - Existing and Proposed Spill Flow at Dam, 2013 Water Year AEA - 23046 Page 100 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 50 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Flow at Powerhouse, cfsMonth/Day of Year Proposed Flow at Bridge Site Existing Flow at Bridge Site The 2013 water year flows recorded at the bridge site gauge are shown with the addition of the project's tailrace flows in the chart below. The flows recorded at the bridge site are presumed to equal the flows at the powerhouse. The addition of approximately 2.45 cfs (2.7 cfs less assumed potable water flows) of flow from the existing project is apparent in the chart. 7.1.2 Socioeconomic Resources The main factors influencing the socioeconomic environment in Chignik include salmon harvesting and the cost of energy. The proposed project will result in reduced cost of energy in the long term. Additional benefits result from diverting money from the burning of diesel fuel to investing in local infrastructure. Construction costs that remain in the community include approximately $330k for local hire labor, an estimated $100k for housing, and $270k in quarry sales. Additionally, the construction of the hydro would invest in the Alaska economy with approximately $160k for a marine charter, $42k for air service, and over $600k for equipment. Figure 7-2 - Existing and Proposed Flow at Powerhouse – Bridge Site Flow Data, 2013 Water Year AEA - 23046 Page 101 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 51 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.1.3 Historical and Archaeological Resources The Programmatic Agreement (PA) with FERC and SHPO, developed and signed in 2005 as part of the relicensing effort, called for an accompanying Historic Properties Management Plan. The wood timber dam is one of a number of historic properties (significant cultural resources) associated with the cannery and within the project area that will be affected by the proposed project. With the proposed removal and replacement of the existing historic wood timber dam the proposed development in this study will have an impact on historic properties. It is also likely that the no action plan would result in similar, if not worse, impacts to the historic dam and properties. Continued use of the slowly deteriorating dam is likely to result in the eventual failure without the possible benefits associated with a planned and permitted replacement effort. 7.2 Regulatory Analysis The FERC guidelines for an amendment to a license for a constructed project of two types, “Capacity Related” and “Non-Capacity-Related” (FERC, 2001). The criteria for a capacity- related amendment is a project modification for which additional capacity was not previously authorized which would: increase the project’s actual or proposed total installed capacity; result in an increase in the project’s maximum hydraulic capacity by 15 percent or more; and result in an increase in the installed nameplate capacity of 2 MW or more. Classification as a non-capacity amendment requires that two out of the three above criteria are do not apply. As a capacity-related amendment for a project less that 1,500 kW, the content thereof must include a revised initial statement and Exhibits E, F, and G prepared in accordance with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.61. This report has been prepared to serve as the basis for an initial draft of a modified Exhibit E. The dam design will be subject to review by both FERC and the State of Alaska Dam Safety. Once constructed, monitoring for dam safety may be required by FERC or the State of Alaska. A qualified cultural resource specialist will need to assess the currently-proposed project, what has previously been done with respect to Section 106 and historic properties, and what may need to be done for this new undertaking. 7.3 Consultation During the process of preparing this feasibility study meetings were held with interested parties to review the initial concept designs and solicit comments. The following summarizes meetings scope and minutes. AEA - 23046 Page 102 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 52 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.3.1 City of Chignik Council Meeting, February 20, 2013 The draft concept with powerhouse situated at, or near, the upper limit of anadromous rearing habitat was preferred by the community. Comments received included the following: The community is interested in a possible hatchery in Chignik in the future. The community desired a higher dam to support improved water supply and winter hydroelectric power production. Trident is expected to move forward with construction of a new cannery facility and resume local fish processing as opposed to the offshore processing for locally caught fish. 7.3.2 Resource Agency Meeting The draft concept along with a power point presentation providing a preliminary project assessment was sent to resource agencies along with an invitation to attend a joint meeting to review and comment on the proposed project. The meeting invite was sent on September 30, 2013 with the meeting held on October 16, 2013. The meeting minutes are attached in the Appendices. The major items of discussion, centered primarily on aquatic resources, are summarized below. The proposed project was described to include a dam raise, capacity increase, and powerhouse relocation that would be expected to improve flows in the anadromous reach while eliminating the need for diesel generated electricity. DNR recommended a new water right application would be required and should be submitted early because there is currently a 2-3 year backlog. A temporary water use permit can be issued for up to 5 years however. ADF&G indicated additional study and permitting efforts should provide as much characterization of aquatic habitat and species as possible including river survey data and photos. A coordinated agency site visit while pinks are spawning is desired with the developer chartering air transportation. The generally agreed upon permitting approach recommended is a capacity related amendment through FERC. 7.3.3 Federal Agency Meeting Federal agencies could not attend the October 16, 2013 because of the government shutdown. A second agency meeting scheduled for December 11, 2013 was held at the USFWS office. USFWS and other federal agency staff requested that the feasibility study include consideration of the effects of climate change on the project. 7.3.4 Alaska Energy Authority Review An interim Preliminary Findings Feasibility Report dated September 23, 2013 was prepared and submitted with an application for grant funding to the Alaska Energy Authority. The interim report recommended a reservoir elevation of 450', a 24" pipeline, and a hydraulic AEA - 23046 Page 103 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 53 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. capacity of 20 cfs. The expected direct construction cost was $7.5 million with a total development cost of $8.875 million. The anticipated B/C Ratio was 1.0. As part of the grant review process the AEA provided comments on the report and project in general. These comments are summarized below. Provide support for the recommendation of a proposed rock fill dam with information on the size and volume of material. Provide the basis for the development cost that appeared high for a small project. Provide the basis for the suggested project size of 477 kW hydro with an annual energy potential of 2,600,000 kWh whereas Chignik’s annual demand is approximately 950,000 kWh and provide any potential use/value for the excess energy. Provide better assessment of project costs, impacts to residents and anadromous fish, and the overall economy of the project. Subsequently, a draft of this feasibility study was issued May 2, 2014 (date on report shown as May 2, 2013). The recommended project was revised to 340 kW although a 420 kW project was found to have about the same B/C ratio. The AEA generally concurred with the findings of the draft report. AEA - 23046 Page 104 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 54 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8. Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 Conclusion Based on the stream gaging effort, it is apparent that the hydroelectric resource is very limited when temperatures drop below freezing for extended periods of time. Flows normally drop to less than 3 cfs through the late winter to early spring. The reservoir storage is sufficient to meet current demand for up to about a month. The height of the dam, and the amount of reservoir storage, should be constructed at the highest elevation considered practical and economical which is approximately 450' (445' spill elevation) or slightly higher. The analysis also shows that the proposed project capacity will provide the same benefits as a larger capacity project up to demand levels about twice current demand. If the electric demand is expected to grow significantly, particularly if a large summer only consumer such as a new processing plant increases demand, then a larger project capacity, or provision for future expansion, should be considered. Final project capacity will be determined during the design and permitting phase. The results of the analysis show that the proposed hydro project is the lowest cost option for electric generation in Chignik and has a positive benefit to cost ratio under the expected range of scenarios analyzed. Overall, the analysis concludes with a finding of no significant adverse impacts and a finding of significant beneficial impacts. 8.2 Recommendations Given the significant benefits of the proposed action it is recommended that the owner, responsible agencies, and other interested parties pursue the development without delay. Specific recommendations include: Pursue funding for the design and permitting of the proposed project and begin work as soon as possible. LIDAR or other remote sensing topographic survey work should be collected when the reservoir is drained. LIDAR and other survey data shall be located relative to property boundary locations for the lands occupied by the project. High resolution data is required along the project corridor. The area of coverage shall include Indian Creek from the mouth to above the upper end of the proposed reservoir. Investigate and report on quality of talus slope material for use as rock fill, drain material, and bedding material. Verify soil depths and bedrock quality at the dam site. Investigate soil depths and conditions along access road and pipeline routes and report on recommended fill depths and identify potential material source areas. Investigate soil depths and bedrock conditions at the powerhouse site. An archaeological and cultural resource assessment may be required prior to ground disturbing activities. AEA - 23046 Page 105 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 55 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Consult with a qualified cultural resource specialist to assess the proposed project, what has previously been done with respect to Section 106 and historic properties, and the requirements, if any, for the proposed action. The turbine should be designed for the highest flow capacity practical with reasonably high efficiency in the low flow range around 5-6 cfs. If significantly increased demand is expected the proposed project capacity should be revaluated. Although the existing stream gaging data is sufficient to support the existing demand and proposed project capacity, continued data collection through design and permitting is advised. If significantly increased demand is anticipated then continued collection of stream gaging data is recommended. AEA - 23046 Page 106 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 56 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 9. References AEA PCE, Alaska Energy Authority, Power Cost Equalization program, http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programspce.html. AEA, Alaska Energy Pathway, 2010, ftp://ftp.aidea.org/AlaskaEnergyPathway/2010EnergyPathway8-12Press.pdf FERC, Hydroelectric Project Handbook for Filings Other Than Licenses and Exemptions, April 2001 Hatch, 2013 Monitoring Report, Final Draft, March 17, 2014, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13485977 Hatch, 2014. Chignik Hydroelectric Project P-620, FERC Compliance, Draft Project Operations Report, August 7, 2014, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13610616 Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa 2014), IEM :: Download ASOS/AWOS/METAR Data, September, 2014, http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/download.phtml?network=AK_ASOS ISER, 2013. Fuel Price Projections, Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013-2035, report. Retrieved 02 10, 2014, from University of Anchorage (UAA) Institute of Social and Economic Research: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/2013_06- Fuel_price_projection_2013final_06302013.pdf Mobley and Associates, Chignik's Norquest Cannery - A Cultural Resource Inventory & Evaluation, 2004, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10478372. National Climate Data Center, Monthly Heating Degree Days, CHIGNIK, ALASKA. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Indian Creek Fish Spawning and Stream Monitoring Annual Report, 2011, Final Report, Review #1. June 12, 2012. UAF, Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, University of Alaska. 2014. Community Charts. Retrieved January 2013 from http://www.snap.uaf.edu/charts.php. USACE, Department of the Army Alaska District Corps of Engineers, Small Hydropower Potential from Indian and Mud Bay Lake Creeks Final Draft Feasibility Report, March 1983. AEA - 23046 Page 107 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix A Exhibit 1 Existing Hydroelectric Project Map AEA - 23046 Page 108 of 210 155400015550001556000155700015580001559000833000 834000 835000 836000 837000 838000 839000 840000 841000 833000 834000 835000 836000 837000 838000 839000 840000 841000PROJECTSITE MAPEXISTINGDAMINTAKEPENSTOCKPOWERHOUSE& PIPELINEGAUGINGPK 1000 450 500500350 10005507 0 0 50150100200500600350250200RM 0.0RM 0.5RM 1.0RM 1.5RM 2.0SEC. 12SEC. 13SEC. 7SEC. 18T. 45 S, R. 59 WT. 45 S, R. 58 WPK PK PK PK PK PKPKPKPKPK1 INCH1 INCH0.50.250.25H340309-G1-MAPALASKA VICINITY MAPANCHORAGEFAIRBANKSJUNEAUCHIGNIK LOCATION MAPSCALE: 1 IN = 1 MIEXISTING PROJECT SITE MAPSCALE: 1"=1000'LEGEND .CHIGNIK BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTFERC Project Number P-620PROJECT OWNER AND FERC LICENSEECity of Chignik, PO Box 110, Chignik, AK 99564RCA Certificate of Public Convenience and NecessityNo. 297PROJECT ENGINEERHatch Associates Consultants Inc.1225 E International Airport Rd, Suite 110Anchorage, AK 99518PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe project is an existing FERC licensed hydro locatedon Indian Creek in Chignik Bay, AK. The existinginfrastructure consists of a wood timber framed dam, a10" to 12" wood and steel pipeline, and a licensedoutput of 60 kW going to the Trident fish processingplant.PROJECT LOCATIONThe project is located in the community of Chignik Bay,AK, a native Alaskan village on the south side of theAlaska Peninsula located in the Lake and PeninsulaBorough. Lands affected by the project are withinsections 7 and 18 of T45S R58W and sections 12 and13 of T45S, R59W in the Seward Meridian.EXISTING PROJECT DETAILS Capacity40 kW Static Head420' Design Head260' Hydraulic Capacity2.7 cfs Nominal Pipeline diameter 10-12" Pipeline length7,200' Transmission Length NA Annual Energy Potential314,000 kWh(estimated capacity factor of 90%) Annual Useable Energy 0 kWh (Not connected to city grid)MAPPING INFORMATIONMap Projection shown is the State Plane CoordinateSystem, Alaska Zone 6, NAD 83, US Survey FeetExisting Dam location is:Easting, Northing, Elevation = 1556431, 832961, 440'Latitude, Longitude =1 : River mile = 2.42Reservoir Surface Area = 21 acresExisting Powerhouse location is:Easting, Northing, Elevation = 1558392, 838224, 20'Latitude, Longitude = 1 : SOURCE / RECEIVING WATER INFORMATIONSource Water Name: Indian Creek (AWC#71-10-10130)Source Watershed Area 2.94 sq milesReceiving Water Name Chignik SloughLocations of rearing and presence for Pink Salmon andDolly Varden in Indian Creek based on 1983 ADF&Gnomination. Upper limit of rearing located at river mile0.55 (watershed area = 3.99 sq miles) and upper limitof presence at river mile 1.0 (watershed area = 3.80 sqmiles).DATA SOURCES1. Survey by Licensee in 2005 of pipeline using RTKGPS adjusted to monument "Base".2. Survey by Licensee in 2003 Indian Creek using atheodolite, no control.3. DCRA: This map was prepared by the Lake andPeninsula Borough (LPB) in cooperation with theAlaska Department of Commerce, Community, andEconomic Development (Commerce) using fundingfrom the Initiative for Accelerated InfrastructureDevelopment (IAID). The IAID is supported bygrants from the Denali Commission, USDA RuralDevelopment, Alaska Department of Transportationand Public Facilities, and Commerce. The AlaskaNative Tribal Health Consortium provided sanitationfacility records. The LPB contracted with GlobalPositioning Services Incorporated in June of 2002to prepare the map. The original DCRA AutoCADdrawing has been revised as appropriate.4. USGS 63k quad map Chignik B-2 Enhanced DigitalRaster Graphic (DRGE) copyright BeartoothMapping, Inc. - 1999.5. Space shuttle radar topography mission (SRTM) 1arc second resolution elevation data.6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game anadromousnomination, 1983.ROAD (UNIMPROVED)PENSTOCK AND TRESTLEPKCONTOURSRIVER INTERMITTENTRIVER AND CHANNELWATER BODIESBASIN BOUNDARIESBUILDINGSCOASTWETLANDSKODIAKTRAILAEA - 23046Page 109 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix B October 16, 2013 Resource Agency Meeting Minutes AEA - 23046 Page 110 of 210 If you disagree with any information contained herein, please advise immediately. , Rev. A Page 1 © Hatch 2013 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Minutes of Meeting H340309 11/8/2013 CE2 Chignik Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Distribution Those present + Brian Aklin, CE2 Resource Agency Invitees Resource Agency Meeting Meeting Date: 10/16/2013 10:00 am Location: Hatch office, Anchorage, AK and via teleconference Present: At Hatch Anchorage Office: Daniel Hertrich, Hatch Monte Miller, ADF&G Jim Ferguson, Hatch Audrey Alstrom, AEA Bradley Dunker, ADF&G Via teleconference: Langley Sears, Hatch Marcelle Lynde, Hatch Henry Brooks, ADNR Melissa Hill, ADNR Shina Duvall, ASHPO Robert Carpenter, City of Chignik Adam Anderson, City of Chignik Alexander Kline, City of Chignik Purpose: Gather comments and recommendations as part of the feasibility assessment for the proposed modification and reconstruction of the Chignik Hydroelectric Project. 1. Introduction Daniel Hertrich of Hatch, on behalf of the City of Chignik, held a resource agency meeting to gather comments and recommendations as part of the feasibility assessment of the modification and reconstruction of the Chignik Hydroelectric Project, FERC no. P-620. The meeting agenda included an introduction to the existing Chignik Hydroelectric Project and an overview of the proposed project, followed by general discussion of resource issues, primarily aquatic. A presentation was prepared and distributed to the meeting invitees. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain comments on the potential effects of the proposed project on aquatic and other resources, and to gather preliminary recommendations for the design and permitting of the proposed project, including additional data collection. Invitations were sent via email to the following recipients after Jim Ferguson made inquiries with agencies about availability. Federal agencies could not attend because of the US government shutdown. AEA - 23046 Page 111 of 210 , Rev. A Page 2 © Hatch 2013 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. List of Resource Agency Invitees: Bittner, Judith E Bradley Dunker Donn Tracy Drew Harrington Duvall, Shina A Eric Rothwell Frances Mann Henry C Brooks Jeff Conaway Kim Sager Lori Verbrugge Matt Schellekens Melissa E Hill Monte Miller Phil Brna Susan Walker Audrey Alstrom Joseph Klein 2. Summary Daniel Hertrich reviewed the attached description of the proposed project with the main distinguishing features being a dam raise, a significant increase in project capacity, and relocation of the powerhouse resulting in a reduced bypassed reach in Indian Creek thus improving the instream flows in the anadromous reach while nearly eliminating the need for diesel generated electric energy. DNR (Henry Brooks) stated that while it is possible that the increase in the amount of water required for the new hydro project could be handled as an amendment to the existing water right, it is more likely that it will require a new application. There is a considerable backlog of applications (2-3 years), so he recommends filing the application as soon as possible. Should it become necessary, a temporary water use permit (TWUP) could be issued for the increased water withdrawal. The TWUP would be good for five years, and would take around 90 days to issue. Initial study/permitting should provide as much characterization of aquatic habitat and species as possible. Monte Miller and Brian Dunker (ADF&G) both asked for more detailed maps of the existing and proposed projects. In particular, they would like to see detail on the known extent of anadromous habitat, and more details on the powerhouse location. They are also interested in seeing the existing cross-section information, the photos taken at the cross- sections, and stream gradient information. Dan stated that a LIDAR survey of the project area will be done and that Indian River would be included in the survey coverage; Monte and Brian stated that such a survey would be very useful. Brian expressed a strong interest in a site visit, and suggested that it be done while pinks are spawning, and that minnow traps be brought to look for juveniles and Dolly Varden. He asked to be notified as far in advance as possible. He also noted that minnow trapping will require a fish collection permit (see above). A coordinated site visit with the developer chartering air transportation is desired. Agencies have limited budgets and would probably not be able to make such a visit otherwise. A site visit is highly recommended to see the project area, observe and trap fish, and to better characterize aquatic issues, including instream flows. Brian said that Todd Anderson, with ADF&G Commercial Fisheries Division in Kodiak, would be a very good contact and source of information on the area, the stream, and fish presence. The path for permitting and licensing still needs to be determined. As an existing FERC project, the presumed approach at this time is a capacity related amendment or a new AEA - 23046 Page 112 of 210 , Rev. A Page 3 © Hatch 2013 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. license. The project could possibly be non-jurisdictional, if approved by FERC, but such an approach significantly reduces required involvement of several agencies. The City of Chignik will contact FERC to discuss the feasibility of constructing the project via a capacity-related amendment. With outstanding FERC license compliance work, a capacity related amendment appears to be best approach, both from the City’s and the agencies’ perspective, at this time. Daniel Hertrich DJH: Attachment(s)/Enclosure 131016 Draft Chignik Hydro Agency PP.pdf AEA - 23046 Page 113 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C Proposed New Project Construction Cost Estimate AEA - 23046 Page 114 of 210 Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyEstimated Construction CostBase Labor Rate / hour 85 (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime)Super and specialist 105engineer 150Work week 60 hoursOn Site Duration 25 weeksRilFlC475$/ lRetail Fuel Cost4.75$/galCrew size 6Nominal Pipe Size 24 inlbs HDPE 221,385lbs Steel 0Crew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostCttiStLaborEquipmentMaterialMobilizationTotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostConstruction SupportProcurement, Submittals 2 1 wks 120 $105 $12,600$12,600SWPP 1 1 wks 60 $105 $6,300$6,300Survey 2 3 wks 360 $150 $54,000$54,000Planning 1 2 wks 120 $105 $12,600$12,600Office Support 0.5 25 wks 741 $105 $77,837$77,837Asbuilt and closeout 1 2 wks 120 $105 $12,600$12,600Mechanic 0.5 5.5 mos 741 $105 $77,837$77,837$$$housing865 Man Days$200 $172,971 $172,971Contractor passenger travel60 trips$700 $42,000 $42,000MobilizationEquipment transportMarine charter, RT to/from Chignik2 ea$80,000 $160,000 $160,000Materials ShippingPipe21 cont$6,000 $126,000 $126,000Building4 cont$6,000 $24,000 $24,000Concrete18 cont$6,000 $108,000 $108,000Dam, piping, vaults, misc5 cont$6,000 $30,000 $30,000Power Poles1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Wire and Electrical1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Turbine and Generator2 cont$6,000 $12,000 $12,000Tailrace4 cont$6,000 $24,000 $24,000Transformer, Switchgear1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Airfreight Support During Construction 13 ea$3,500 $45,500 $45,500gppg,,,Access Trail9173ftclearing and overburden removal 5.1 acres 51 $85 $4,296$4,296Minor culverts 10 80 $85 $6,800 ea $1,200 $12,000 $18,800Large culverts 4 96 $85 $8,160 ea $6,000 $24,000 $32,160Gravel Fill 10872 431 $85 $36,651 cyd $25 $271,793 $308,443fuel 1927gal $4.75 $9,153 $9,153Super 1 164 $105 $17,265$17,265September, 2014Page 1AEA - 23046Page 115 of 210 Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyCrew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostLabor Equipment MaterialMobilizationTotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostPowerhouseclearing1170 0.03 man hr32 $85 $2,740sq ft$2,740excavation, disposal, and fill347 0.05 man hr17 $85 $1,473cyd$1,473Powerhouse Plan Area780 sq ftPremix concrete71 15.2 cyd1081 $94 $101,169cyd$590 $41,900$143,069Metal building shell 780sq ft $30 $23,400 $23,400architectural 780sq ft $5 $3,900 $3,900electrical, mechanical 780sq ft $10 $7,800 $7,800doors 780sq ft $10 $7,800 $7,800foreman 1 0.2 crew hr 155 $105 $16,292$16,292Labor 3 0.6 man hr 465 $85 $39,565$39,565Specialty 1 0.2 man hr 155 $105 $16,292$16,292crane 1 60 man hr 60$85$5,100ea$35,000$35,000$40,100$$,$,$,$,Dam and IntakeDam Site Construction AcccessVolume500cydLabor3 0.06 man hr30 $85 $2,550$2,550Super1 0.02 crew hr10 $105 $1,050$1,050Fuel270gal$4.75 $1,283$1,283Domestic Water Supply4"HPDE500'coiledpipeSDR214300ft$3 5$15 050$15 0504 HPDE 500 coiled pipe, SDR 214300ft$3.5$15,050$15,050Labor3 0.012 man hr155 $85 $13,158$13,1584" insulated HDPE pipe, SDR 112000ft$35.0 $70,000$70,000Labor3 0.075 man hr150 $85 $12,750$12,750Super1 0 crew hr50 $105 $5,250$5,250Demo Existing DamLabor3 40 man hr120 $85 $10,200$10,200Super1 40 crew hr40 $105 $4,200$4,200cofferdam/constructiondiversioncoffer dam/construction diversionSpillway Overburden Excavation 500 0.03 man hr 15 $85 $1,275 cyd $1,275Coffer Dam ‐ Place Earth/Rock 1000cyd42" Culvert 140ft $75 $10,500 $10,500Liner 8000sq ft $0.60 $4,800 $4,800Labor 3 man hr 81 $85 $6,913$6,913Removal Labor 3 man hr 20 $85 $1,700$1,700Super 1 crew hr 39 $105 $4,072$4,072Fl120l$4 75$570$570Fuel120gal$4.75$570$570Foundation and Outlet ConveyanceGrout holes 20 60 $85 $5,100$5,100Grouting 20 160 $85 $13,600 cyd $500 $10,000 $23,600Anchors 10 30 $85 $2,550 ea $100 $1,000 $3,550Concrete Footing28338 $85 $28,711cyd$600 $16,889$45,600Precast 4'x4' vaults100400 $85 $34,000lf$610 $60,960$94,960Shutoff Gate/Valve132 $85 $2,720ea$5,500 $5,500$8,220Air Vent140 $85 $3,400ea$3,500 $3,500$6,900Trash Rack148 $85 $4,080ea$3,000 $3,000$7,080Flow Control/Rupture Valve124 $85 $2,040ea$7,500 $7,500$9,540Super189 $105 $19,806$19,806September, 2014Page 2AEA - 23046Page 116 of 210 Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyCrew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostLabor Equipment MaterialMobilizationTotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostConcrete FaceArea3400sq ftThickness8inConcrete84 15.5 cyd1305 $94 $122,821cyd$859 $72,081$194,902haul load size12000lbsround trip time 1.9hrhaul labor 1 41 man hr 41 $85 $3,474 hrs $3,474fuel 327gal $4.75 $1,553 $1,553Mix and placecyd $250 $20,988 $20,988laborer 3 5.5 man hr 462 $85 $39,247$39,247foreman 1 1.8 crew hr 154 $128 $19,623$19,623Rebar 12870lbs $2.00 $25,740 $25,740haul labor 1 6.3 man hr 6$85$533hrs$533$$$laborer3 0.02 man hr257 $85 $21,879$21,879foreman1 0.007 crew hr86 $128 $10,940$10,940Reusable Forms3400sq ft$7.00 $23,800$23,800laborer3 0.075 man hr255 $85 $21,675$21,675foreman1 0.025 crew hr85 $105 $8,925$8,925Rockfill PlacementMain Zone 3000 0.038 man hr 450 $85 $38,250 cyd $38,250Super75$105$7 875$7 875Super75$105$7,875$7,875Fuel1350gal$4.75 $6,413$6,413SpillwayRock Excavation3360 0.05 man hr168 $85 $14,280cyd$14,280Weir Wall10 15 man hr153 $85 $12,986cyd$12,986Super53 $105 $5,614$5,614Fuel1604gal$4.75 $7,618$7,618Power, Controls, and Communicationcontrols116manhr16$85$1 360ea$7 500$7 500$8 860controls116man hr16$85$1,360ea$7,500$7,500$8,860equipment/storage shed 1 48 man hr 48 $85 $4,080 ea $10,000 $10,000 $14,080power line, communications7320 0.02 man hr122 $85 $10,370ft$3.00 $21,960$32,330Pipeline7320ftHDPE 7280 971 $85 $82,507 ft $53 $387,423 $469,930Steel 40 80 $85 $6,800 ft $150 $6,000 $12,800flange kits 10 80 $85 $6,800 ea $1,200 $12,000 $18,800drains/air reliefs 20 80 $85 $6,800 ea $250 $5,000 $11,800h/hbl k12288$85$24 480$1 200$14 400$38 880anchors/thrust blocks12288$85$24,480ea$1,200$14,400$38,880Super250 $105 $26,227$26,227Specialty250 $105 $26,227$26,227fuel1498.6667gal$4.75 $7,119$7,119September, 2014Page 3AEA - 23046Page 117 of 210 Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyCrew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostLabor Equipment MaterialMobilizationTotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostTurbine and GeneratorTurbine and Generator 1ea $560,000 $560,000 $560,000Controls Integration 1ea $75,000 $75,000 $75,000switchgear 1ea $50,000 $50,000 $50,000transformer 1ea $50,000 $50,000 $50,000Labor1 180 hrs180 $85 $15,300$15,300Super0.5 180 hrs90 $105 $9,450$9,450specialty1 180 hrs180 $105 $18,900$18,900Tailraceturbine bypass 1 40 $85 $3,400 ea $7,500 $7,500 $10,90036" tailrace culvert 580ft $60 $34,800 $34,800Super 1 0.02 wks 11.6 $105 $1,218$1,218Labor 4 0.08 hrs 46.4$85$3,944$3,944$$,$,Transmissionoverhead transmission line 0.30mipoles, foundations, and hardware 11 24 264 $85 $22,440 ea $3,500 $38,500 $60,940wire 4800 0.048 230.4 $85 $19,584 ft $3.00 $14,400 $33,984Super 1 88 $105 $9,240$9,240EquipmentFusion machine 1 3 mo $20,000 $60,000$60,0004"fusionmachine13mo$3 500$10 500$10 5004 fusion machine13mo$3,500$10,500$10,5004 wheelers 2 1 ea $9,000 $18,000$18,0001/3 yard mixer2 6.4 mo$1,000 $12,760$12,760mix truck1 6.4 mo$5,500 $35,090$35,090small generator2 1 ea$2,000 $4,000$4,000large generator1 1 ea$7,500 $7,500$7,500large loader1 6.4 mo$10,000 $63,800$63,800small loader1 6.4 mo$5,500 $35,090$35,090Excavator264mo$12 000$153 121$153 121Excavator26.4mo$12,000$153,121$153,121Articulated Truck 2 6.4 mo $15,000 $191,401$191,401rock hammer 1 6.4 mo $2,500 $15,950$15,950flatbed truck 2 6.4 mo $800 $10,208$10,208dozer 1 6.4 mo $4,000 $25,520$25,520air compressor 1 6.4 mo $800 $5,104$5,104air track drill 1 6.4 mo $3,000 $19,140$19,140miscellaneous tools 1 1 ea $25,000 $25,000$25,000SUBTOTALCDiC12 641$1 193 128$692 185$2 035 010$762 471$4 682 794SUBTOTAL, Contractor Direct Costs12,641$1,193,128$692,185$2,035,010$762,471$4,682,794Contractor IndirectsWeather delay10% (% of Labor and Equip)$188,531overall contingency25%$1,170,699contractor profit12%$561,935bonding2.0%$93,656SUBTOTAL, Construction Contract$6,697,615FERC license amendment1.3%$85,000geotech investigation3.7%$250,000engineering5.5%$370,000historic properties1.1%$75,000inspection and testing2.6%$175,000owner admin2.6%$175,000TOTAL PROJECT$7,827,615September, 2014Page 4AEA - 23046Page 118 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix D Proposed New Project Economic Analysis Results AEA - 23046 Page 119 of 210 Economic Analysis ResultsChignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudySUM 50$37,970,000 $1,380,000 $39,340,000 $7,830,000 $1,210,000$7,600,000 $1,500,000 $16,930,000 $22,410,000 $30,240,000NPV 50$15,930,000 $710,000 $16,640,000 $6,980,000 $690,000$3,410,000 $810,000 $11,200,000 $5,430,000 $12,420,000Year Fuel Price Demand, kWhDiesel Fuel Used, gal Diesel Fuel Cost Diesel O&MTotal Diesel Cost Hydro Cost Hydro O&MHydroelectric Generation, kWhHydro Diesel Fuel Used, galHydro Diesel Fuel CostHydro Diesel O&MTotal Hydro Diesel Cost Total Savings Project Benefits2014425952 75668 374$290 588$27 543$318 131$0$27 543068 374$290 588$27 543$318 131$0$0Economic Analysis, 2% load growthHydro plus DieselBase Diesel CostSeptember 2014Page 120144.25952,75668,374$290,588$27,543$318,131$0$27,543068,374$290,588$27,543$318,131$0$020154.31 971,811 69,733 $300,811 $27,543 $328,353 $390,000 $27,5430 69,733 $300,811 $27,543 $718,353‐$390,000$020164.38 991,247 71,120 $311,394 $27,543 $338,936 $390,000 $27,5430 71,120 $311,394 $27,543 $728,936‐$390,000$020174.44 1,011,072 72,534 $322,350 $27,543 $349,892 $6,872,615 $27,5430 72,534 $322,350 $27,543 $7,222,507‐$6,872,615$020184.51 1,031,294 73,976 $333,692 $27,543 $361,235 $175,000 $58,707 956,004 5,417 $24,434 $58,707 $258,141 $103,094 $278,09420194.58 1,051,920 75,448 $345,434 $27,543 $372,977$58,707 971,738 5,769 $26,414 $61,612 $88,026 $284,951 $284,95120204.65 1,072,958 76,949 $357,590 $27,543 $385,133$58,707 987,787 6,129 $28,481 $61,732 $90,212 $294,920 $294,92020214.72 1,094,417 78,479 $370,175 $27,543 $397,717$58,707 1,004,156 6,495 $30,637 $61,854 $92,492 $305,226 $305,22620224.79 1,116,306 80,041 $383,203 $27,543 $410,746$58,707 1,020,854 6,869 $32,888 $61,979 $94,866 $315,879 $315,87920234861 138 63281 634$396 691$27 543$424 233$19 5691 037 8857 251$35 235$22 968$58 203$366 030$366 03020234.86 1,138,632 81,634 $396,691 $27,543 $424,233$19,569 1,037,885 7,251 $35,235 $22,968 $58,203 $366,030 $366,03020244.93 1,161,404 83,258 $410,654 $27,543 $438,196$19,569 1,055,256 7,640 $37,682 $23,098 $60,780 $377,416 $377,41620255.01 1,184,632 84,915 $425,109 $27,543 $452,652$19,569 1,072,976 8,037 $40,235 $23,231 $63,465 $389,187 $389,18720265.08 1,208,325 86,642 $440,259 $27,543 $467,801$19,569 1,090,506 8,480 $43,089 $23,341 $66,430 $401,371 $401,37120275.16 1,232,492 88,416 $456,015 $27,543 $483,558$19,569 1,108,186 8,946 $46,139 $23,445 $69,584 $413,973 $413,97320285.23 1,257,141 90,226 $472,331 $27,543 $499,873$19,569 1,126,219 9,421 $49,319 $23,551 $72,871 $427,003 $427,00320295.31 1,282,284 92,072 $489,226 $27,543 $516,768$19,569 1,144,613 9,906 $52,635 $23,660 $76,295 $440,473 $440,47320305.39 1,307,930 93,956 $506,720 $27,543 $534,263$19,569 1,163,375 10,400 $56,092 $23,770 $79,862 $454,401 $454,40120315.47 1,334,088 95,876 $524,836 $27,543 $552,378$19,569 1,182,512 10,905 $59,694 $23,883 $83,577 $468,801 $468,801,,,$,$,$,$,,,,$,$,$,$,$,20325.56 1,360,770 97,836 $543,594 $27,543 $571,136$19,569 1,202,032 11,419 $63,448 $23,997 $87,446 $483,691 $483,69120335.64 1,387,986 99,834 $563,018 $27,543 $590,560$19,569 1,221,942 11,944 $67,360 $24,114 $91,474 $499,086 $499,08620345.72 1,415,745 101,872 $583,131 $27,543 $610,674$19,569 1,242,251 12,479 $71,434 $24,234 $95,668 $515,006 $515,00620355.81 1,444,060 103,917 $603,758 $27,543 $631,300$19,569 1,262,294 13,061 $75,886 $24,356 $100,242 $531,058 $531,05820365.90 1,472,941 105,971 $624,927 $27,543 $652,469$19,569 1,282,123 13,688 $80,718 $24,481 $105,198 $547,271 $547,27120375.99 1,502,400 108,066 $646,841 $27,543 $674,383$19,569 1,302,349 14,326 $85,752 $24,608 $110,360 $564,023 $564,02320386.08 1,532,448 110,203 $669,527 $27,543 $697,069$19,569 1,322,979 14,978 $90,997 $24,737 $115,735 $581,334 $581,33420396.17 1,563,097 112,383 $693,011 $27,543 $720,553$19,569 1,344,022 15,643 $96,461 $24,870 $121,330 $599,223 $599,22320406261 594 359114 606$717 322$27 543$744 864$19 5691 365 48616 321$102 151$25 005$127 155$617 709$617 70920406.261,594,359114,606$717,322$27,543$744,864$19,5691,365,48616,321$102,151$25,005$127,155$617,709$617,70920416.35 1,626,246 116,874 $742,489 $27,543 $770,031$19,569 1,387,380 17,012 $108,076 $25,142 $133,218 $636,813 $636,81320426.45 1,658,771 119,187 $768,541 $27,543 $796,084$19,569 1,409,711 17,717 $114,245 $25,283 $139,528 $656,556 $656,55620436.54 1,691,947 121,546 $795,512 $27,543 $823,054$19,569 1,432,488 18,437 $120,667 $25,426 $146,093 $676,961 $676,96120446.64 1,725,786 123,953 $823,432 $27,543 $850,974$19,569 1,455,722 19,171 $127,352 $25,572 $152,924 $698,050 $698,05020456.74 1,760,301 126,408 $852,335 $27,543 $879,877$19,569 1,479,420 19,919 $134,309 $25,721 $160,030 $719,847 $719,84720466.84 1,795,507 128,912 $882,255 $27,543 $909,798$19,569 1,503,592 20,682 $141,548 $25,873 $167,421 $742,377 $742,37720476.95 1,831,418 131,466 $913,230 $27,543 $940,772$19,569 1,528,247 21,461 $149,081 $26,028 $175,109 $765,664 $765,66420487.05 1,868,046 134,070 $945,295 $27,543 $972,838$19,569 1,553,395 22,255 $156,917 $26,186 $183,103 $789,735 $789,735$$$$$$$$$20497.16 1,905,407 136,728 $978,490 $27,543 $1,006,033$19,569 1,579,047 23,066 $165,069 $26,347 $191,416 $814,616 $814,61620507.26 1,943,515 138,977 $1,009,504 $27,543 $1,037,046$19,569 1,595,100 24,403 $177,259 $26,833 $204,092 $832,954 $832,95420517.37 1,982,385 141,269 $1,041,549 $27,543 $1,069,092$19,569 1,611,447 25,768 $189,986 $27,330 $217,315 $851,776 $851,77620527.48 2,022,033 143,608 $1,074,672 $27,543 $1,102,215$19,569 1,628,120 27,161 $203,258 $27,836 $231,095 $871,120 $871,12020537.60 2,062,474 145,993 $1,108,910 $27,543 $1,136,452$19,569 1,645,126 28,582 $217,098 $28,353 $245,451 $891,001 $891,00120547.71 2,103,723 148,426 $1,144,300 $27,543 $1,171,843$19,569 1,662,473 30,031 $231,526 $28,880 $260,406 $911,437 $911,43720557.83 2,145,798 150,907 $1,180,884 $27,543 $1,208,427$19,569 1,680,166 31,509 $246,566 $29,417 $275,983 $932,444 $932,44420567.94 2,188,714 153,439 $1,218,702 $27,543 $1,246,245$19,569 1,698,214 33,017 $262,239 $29,965 $292,204 $954,041 $954,04120578.06 2,232,488 156,021$1,257,797$27,543$1,285,340$19,569 1,716,622 34,554$278,569$30,525$309,094$976,246$976,24620578.062,232,488156,021$1,257,797$27,543$1,285,340$19,5691,716,62234,554$278,569$30,525$309,094$976,246$976,24620588.18 2,277,138 158,654 $1,298,213 $27,543 $1,325,756$19,569 1,735,399 36,123 $295,583 $31,095 $326,678 $999,078 $999,07820598.31 2,322,680 161,340 $1,339,996 $27,543 $1,367,539$19,569 1,754,551 37,723 $313,304 $31,677 $344,981 $1,022,558 $1,022,55820608.43 2,369,134 164,080 $1,383,193 $27,543 $1,410,736$19,569 1,774,086 39,355 $331,761 $32,270 $364,031 $1,046,705 $1,046,70520618.56 2,416,517 166,875 $1,427,854 $27,543 $1,455,396$19,569 1,794,012 41,019 $350,980 $32,876 $383,855 $1,071,541 $1,071,54120628.68 2,464,847 169,725 $1,474,029 $27,543 $1,501,571$19,569 1,814,336 42,717 $370,990 $33,493 $404,483 $1,097,088 $1,097,08820638.82 2,514,144 172,633 $1,521,770 $27,543 $1,549,312$19,569 1,835,067 44,449 $391,820 $34,123 $425,943 $1,123,369 $1,123,369September 2014Page 1AEA - 23046Page 120 of 210 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix E Proposed New Project Conceptual Design Figures Figure 1, Project Location Map Sheet Index Map Figure 2, Penstock, Road, and Transmission Alignments Figure 3, Reservoir Bathymetry and Rim Topography Figure 4, Dam Site Plan and Section Figure 5, Powerhouse Site Plan Figure 6, Powerhouse General Arrangement - Plan AEA - 23046 Page 121 of 210 SEC. 12 SEC. 13 SEC. 24 SEC. 25 SEC. 7 SEC. 18 SEC. 19 SEC. 30 SEC. 8 SEC. 17 T. 45 S, R. 59 W T. 45 S, R. 58 W SEC. 20 RM 0 . 0 RM 0.5 RM 1.0RM 1.5 R M 2 . 0 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 CITY WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROPOSED ACCESS TRAIL AND PENSTOCK PROPOSED DAM PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE RAW WATER SUPPLY LINE FIGURE 5 RW RWOE 1 INCH 1 INCH0.50.25 0.25 TITLE PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE INDEX PROJECT GENERAL ARRANGMENT RESERVOIR BATHYMETRY AND RIM TOPOGRAPHY DAM SITE PLAN, ELEVATION, AND SECTION POWERHOUSE VICINITY SITE PLAN POWERHOUSE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - PLAN FIGURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 CHIGNIK HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed project is replacement of an existing FERC licensed hydro located on Indian Creek in Chignik Bay, AK. The Proposed project consists of a 25' high rock fill dam, 24" HDPE and steel pipeline, producing 425 kW. The existing infrastructure consists of a wood timber framed dam, a 10" to 12" wood and steel pipeline, and a licensed output of 60 kW located in the NorQuest fish processing plant. PROJECT LOCATION Lands affected by the project are within sections 7 and 18 of T45S R58W and sections 12 and 13 of T45S, R59W in the Seward Meridian. PROPOSED PROJECT DETAILS Nominal capacity 385 kW Static head 380 ft Design head 340 ft Hydraulic capacity 18 cfs Reservoir Area 24 acres Reservoir Useable Storage Volume 204 acre-ft Nominal penstock diameter 24 in Penstock length 7,280 ft Transmission length 1,600 ft New access road & trail lengths 9,170 ft Annual energy potential 2,140 MWh Existing demand (diesel generated) 950 MWh Annual displaced diesel energy 900 MWh Annual reduction in diesel fuel use 63,500 gal SOURCE WATER INFORMATION Water Body Name: Indian Creek (AWC #71-10-10130) Watershed Area at Intake2.94 sq miles Locations of rearing and presence for Pink Salmon and Dolly Varden in Indian Creek based on 1983 ADF&G nomination. Upper limit of rearing located at river mile 0.55 (watershed area = 3.99 sq miles) and upper limit of presence at river mile 1.0 (watershed area = 3.80 sq miles). MAPPING INFORMATION USGS Quad Chignik B-2 Projection State Plane Coordinate System, Alaska Zone 6, NAD 83, US Survey Feet DATA SOURCES 1. Survey by Licensee in 2005 of pipeline using RTK GPS adjusted to monument "Base". 2. Survey by Licensee in 2003 Indian Creek using a theodolite, no control. 3. DCRA: This map was prepared by the Lake and Peninsula Borough (LPB) in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (Commerce) using funding from the Initiative for Accelerated Infrastructure Development (IAID). The IAID is supported by grants from the Denali Commission, USDA Rural Development, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and Commerce. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium provided sanitation facility records. The LPB contracted with Global Positioning Services Incorporated in June of 2002 to prepare the map. The original DCRA AutoCAD drawing has been revised as appropriate. 4. USGS 63k quad map Chignik B-2 Enhanced Digital Raster Graphic (DRGE) copyright Beartooth Mapping, Inc. - 1999. 5. Space shuttle radar topography mission (SRTM) 1 arc second resolution elevation data. 6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game anadromous nomination, 1983. AEA - 23046 Page 122 of 210 1555000155600015570001558000835000 836000 837000 838000 839000 840000 1000 450 5005009 0 0 350 10005507 0 0 501501002005006003502502005010050501001502 0 0 50100 150 501001502002002001 0 0 1505060 501 0 0 1 5 0 RM 0.0RM 0.1RM 0.2 R M 0 . 3RM 0.4RM 0.5R M 0 . 6RM 0 . 7RM 0 .8 RM 0.9 RM 1.0 RM 1.1RM 1.2RM 1.3RM 1.4RM 1.5RM 1.6RM 1.7 RM 1.8RM 1.9 RM 2.0RM 2.1 RM 2.2RM 2.3RM 2.3RWRWRWRWRWRWOEO E O E OEPK PK+T PK+T PK+T PK+T PK+T PK+T PK+T P K + T PK+TPK PKTWPK+T PK+T PK PK T45S R59W SEC 12 T45S R58W SEC 7 T45S R59W SEC 13 T45S R58W SEC 18 FARWEST ADD NO. 1 FARWEST ADD NO. 1 TRACT 5UNSUBD SEC 7 TRACT 4ATRACT 14 UNSUBD SEC 18TRACT 15 TRACT 14 TRACT 13 TRACT 4AFARWEST ADD NO. 1 TRACT 4A FARWEST ADD NO. 1 1 INCH 1 INCH0.50.25 0.25 AEA - 23046 Page 123 of 210 10004505350 T. 45 S, R. 59 W T. 45 S, R. 58 W TRACT 15 TRACT 16 UNSUBDIVIDED SEC 24 PKPKPK+TPK+TPK+TAEA - 23046 Page 124 of 210 SPILL EL 445'FLOOD EL 450'LOW LEVEL EL 430'1 INCH1 INCH0.50.250.25AEA - 23046Page 125 of 210 501006070809011050607080403020102030102020205 0 30406070801009011015012013014020016017018019021022023050406070100150501001502002002001001505060 5010015020060708090110120130140160170180190RM 0.0RM 0.1RM 0 .2RM 0.3RM 0.4RM 0.5RM 0.6OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEPK PK PK PKPK PK TWTWTWTWPROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINEPROPOSEDPENSTOCK ANDTRAILPROPOSED POWERHOUSEPROPOSED TAILRACEPROPOSED TAILRACE DISCHARGE TO INDIAN CREEKLOCATION OF POOL SITE GAGING STATIONLOCATION OF BRIDGESITE GAGINGSTATIONAPPROXIMATE EXTENT OF QUARRY, CONTOURS ARE OUTDATED IN QUARRY AREABEGIN ACCESS TRAIL CONSTRUCTIONAPPROXIMATE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CONNECTION POINTCOMMUNITY WATER TANK, ELEV 190.2LOWER INDIAN LAKE OUTLETCULVERT1 INCH1 INCH0.50.250.25AEA - 23046Page 126 of 210 26'26'CRANE RAIL900 RPM, 500 KVA,480/3/60 SYNCHRONOUSGENERATORCLASS 150 BALL VALVERESTRAINED COUPLINGNEEDLE NOZZLECANYONCUSTOM TURGOTURBINESWITCHGEARTURBINE PIT AND TAILRACE WITH ACCESS HATCHTAILRACE CULVERTPENSTOCK10'1 INCH1 INCH0.50.250.25AEA - 23046Page 127 of 210 AEA - 23046 Page 128 of 210 Final PER Chignik Bay Source and Transmission July 2018 ii CONTENTS TABLE OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... IV TABLE OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. IV TABLE OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... IV ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... IV REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 PROJECT PLANNING ................................................................................................................................. 2 A) LOCATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 B) ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PRESENT ........................................................................................................... 2 C) POPULATION TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................ 3 D) COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 EXISTING FACILITIES............................................................................................................................... 4 A) LOCATION MAP ................................................................................................................................................. 4 B) HISTORY............................................................................................................................................................ 4 i. Source and Transmission Line ..................................................................................................................... 4 ii. Wells ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 C) CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES ................................................................................................................. 8 D) FINANCIAL STATUS OF EXISTING FACILITIES .................................................................................................. 10 E) WATER/ENERGY/WASTE AUDITS .................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 NEED FOR PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 10 A) HEALTH, SANITATION, AND SECURITY ............................................................................................................ 10 B) AGING INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................ 10 C) REASONABLE GROWTH ................................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................................................................. 11 4.1 NO ACTION ................................................................................................................................................. 11 A) DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 11 B) DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................ 12 i. Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................................................. 12 ii. Water Security ............................................................................................................................................ 12 C) MAP ................................................................................................................................................................ 12 D) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 12 E) LAND REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 F) POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS .......................................................................................................... 12 G) SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................ 12 i. Water and Energy Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 12 ii. Green Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 12 iii. Other .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 H) COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................................................ 13 4.2 REPLACE DAM AND TRANSMISSION LINE (FOR DRINKING WATER ONLY) ........................ 14 AEA - 23046 Page 129 of 210 Final PER Chignik Bay Source and Transmission July 2018 iii A) DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 14 B) DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................ 15 i. Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................................................. 15 ii. Water Security ............................................................................................................................................ 15 C) MAP ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 D) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 15 E) LAND REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 15 F) POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS .......................................................................................................... 15 G) SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................ 15 i. Water and Energy Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 15 ii. Green Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 16 iii. Other .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 H) COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................................................ 16 4.3 COMBINE DAM AND TRANSMISSION LINE REPLACEMENT WITH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................. 16 A) DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 16 B) DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................ 17 i. Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................................................. 17 ii. Security ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 C) MAP ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 D) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 17 E) LAND REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 18 F) POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS .......................................................................................................... 18 G) SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................ 19 i. Water and Energy Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 19 ii. Green Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 19 iii. Other .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 H) COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................................................ 19 5.0 SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................................... 19 A) LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 20 B) NON-MONETARY FACTORS .............................................................................................................................. 21 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................................................... 21 A) PRELIMINARY PROJECT DESIGN ...................................................................................................................... 22 B) PROJECT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................................ 22 C) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 22 D) SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................ 22 E) TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................................................... 22 F) ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET ........................................................................................................................ 22 i. Income ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 ii. Annual O&M Costs .................................................................................................................................... 23 iii. Debt Repayments ........................................................................................................................................ 23 iv. Reserves ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 23 AEA - 23046 Page 130 of 210 Final PER Chignik Bay Source and Transmission July 2018 iv TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A Vicinity Maps and Site Plans Appendix B NEPA Environmental Review and NHPA Cultural Resources Review Appendix C HITS Housing Data Appendix D Alternative Source Documentation Appendix E Cost Estimates Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch) TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1. CHIGNIK BAY VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2-1. WATER SOURCE SITE PLAN (ADAPTED FROM ANTHC PLAN SET CKB-17-006) ........................................ 5 FIGURE 2-2. COMMUNITY SITE PLAN (ADAPTED FROM ANTHC PLAN SET CKB-17-006) ............................................. 6 FIGURE 2-3. SYSTEM SCHEMATIC (ADAPTED FROM ANTHC PLAN SET CKB-17-006)................................................... 7 FIGURE 2-4. BRACING (LEFT) AND DECAY (RIGHT) ON INDIAN CREEK DAM (PHOTOS BY CHRIS CLARK) ...................... 8 FIGURE 2-5. RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN LEAKS (PHOTOS BY CHRIS CLARK) .................................................... 9 FIGURE 3-1. STEEP DESCENT OF TRANSMISSION MAIN INTO CHIGNIK BAY (PHOTO BY CHRIS CLARK) ....................... 11 FIGURE 4-1. EXISTING DAM AND TRANSMISSION LINE SITE PLAN (ADAPTED FROM HATCH REPORT, PK – PENSTOCK) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 4-2. SITE PLAN, HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FROM FIGURE 1 IN APPENDIX F) ................................................. 18 TABLE OF TABLES TABLE 1-1: TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE 1-2: HISTORICAL POPULATION DATA ................................................................................................................. 3 TABLE 1-3: POPULATION PROJECTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 TABLE 4-1: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE – NO ACTION ............................................................. 14 TABLE 4-2: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE – REPLACE DAM AND TRANSMISSION LINE ............... 16 TABLE 4-3: CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES – HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT .............. 19 TABLE 5-1: LIFE-CYCLE COST COMPARISON ............................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 5-2: SCOPE-COST COMPARISON OF DAM ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 21 ABBREVIATIONS % percent ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium cfs cubic feet per second City City of Chignik Bay CDBG Community Development Block Grant CKB Chignik Bay DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development E1 Existing Homes AEA - 23046 Page 131 of 210 Final PER Chignik Bay Source and Transmission July 2018 v FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FY fiscal year H1 HUD homes HDPE high density polyethylene HITS Home Inventory Tracking System HUD Housing and Urban Development IHS Indian Health Service kW kilowatt MCLs Maximum contaminant levels MWh Megawatt-hours NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act O&M operation and maintenance PCE power cost equalization PER Preliminary Engineering Report WST water storage tank WTP water treatment plant REFERENCES Hatch. Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study. September 2014. Nana/Dowl Engineers. Technical Memorandum Water and Sewer Improvements. September 2000. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Chignik Bay Water and Sewer Master Plan Update. May 2007. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Chignik Bay WTP Upgrades Preliminary Engineering Report. March 2016. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Chignik Bay Acknowledgement of Project Completion & Final Report. February 2010. Golder Associates. Final Report on Hydrogeological Assessment of Water Wells and Susceptibility to Saltwater Intrusion. July 2003. AEA - 23046 Page 132 of 210 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chignik Bay’s raw water source dam and sections of the transmission line have been in service for over 70 years and are failing. This Preliminary Engineering Report evaluates alternatives to address the water source infrastructure deficiencies. The alternatives considered were, “No action” Replacing the dam and sections of the transmission line as required for drinking water service Combining the dam and transmission line replacement with a hydroelectric project The recommended alternative is to pursue a combined sanitation system and hydroelectric project with a total estimated capital cost of $7,440,000. AEA - 23046 Page 133 of 210 INTRODUCTION The objective of this Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) is to assess the need, evaluate alternatives, and recommend a preferred project to address raw water source and raw water transmission line deficiencies in Chignik Bay, Alaska. 1.0 PROJECT PLANNING a)Location Chignik Bay is located within Anchorage Bay on the southern shoreline of the Alaska Peninsula (see Figure 1-1). It lies 450 miles southwest of Anchorage and 260 miles southwest of Kodiak. Additional maps and site plans are available in Appendix A Vicinity Maps and Site Plans. Chignik Bay is accessible by air and sea but is not connected to a road system. The Alaska Marine Highway System serves the community with bi-monthly sailings from Kodiak between May and October. Monthly or bi-monthly cargo vessels from Seattle deliver freight. There is a state-owned gravel runway maintained by the City of Chignik Bay. Regular flights from King Salmon and Anchorage are available. Table 1-1: summarizes transportation infrastructure supporting Chignik Bay. Figure 1-1. Chignik Bay Vicinity Map Table 1-1: Transportation Summary Harbor Yes State Ferry Yes Cargo Barge Yes Road Connection No Airport Yes Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) b) Environmental Resources Present Fishing is an important industry for the community of Chignik Bay. Several species of migratory birds are present in the area. There are wetlands and floodplains inside the city limits. An AEA - 23046 Page 134 of 210 environmental review of the recommended alternative is provided in Appendix B NEPA Environmental Review and NHPA Cultural Resources Review. c) Population Trends According to a 2017 Indian Health Service (IHS) Home Inventory Tracking System (HITS) report, Chignik Bay has 20 existing homes (E1) and 10 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) homes (H1). See Appendix C HITS Housing Data for a map of the homes and tabulated descriptions. The 2010 United States Census found that there were 105 housing units in the community with 41 occupied and 64 vacant housing units. Historical population data is provided in Table 1-2. Table 1-2: Historical Population Data Year Population 1940 224 1950 253 1960 99 1970 83 1980 178 1990 188 2000 79 2010 91 2016 961 Source: Alaska DCCED The population has fluctuated widely since 1940, likely due to the variability associated with the fishing industry. A 50-year planning period is used for this project, which will provide infrastructure with at least a 50-year useful life. An annual growth percentage2 of 0.2% yields the following 50-year population estimate: Table 1-3: Population Projection Year Population 2018 96 2068 106 d) Community Engagement The community is actively pursuing funding for a hydroelectric dam and has succeeded in securing a grant to improve access to the site. As part of the PER planning process, the ANTHC design team completed a site visit and attended meetings with community leaders and operators. During the draft PER review phase, the community reviewed the alternatives, analysis, and the proposed preferred alternative. 1 2016 State of Alaska Department of Labor estimate 2 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s population projections for the Lake and Peninsula Borough (Alaska Population Projections – 2012 to 2042; Table 10). http://laborstats.alaska.gov/trends/jun14art1.pdf. For the Lake and Peninsula Borough area the growth rate between 2012 and 2042 is anticipated to be + 0.2%. AEA - 23046 Page 135 of 210 2.0 EXISTING FACILITIES a) Location Map A community site plans and a system schematic are provided in Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, and Figure 2-3. b) History i. Source and Transmission Line Chignik Bay’s raw water source is Indian Lake, an approximately 21-acre, pristine reservoir impounded by a timber buttress dam. The dam is 80 feet long and 14.4 feet from toe to crest. Source water flows by gravity through a 7,260-foot transmission line to a surface water treatment plant (WTP) and into a 400,000-gallon potable water storage tank (WST). Water then flows by gravity from the WST to the water distribution system. The Indian Lake dam and a wood-stave water transmission line were constructed in 1947 by the Columbia River Packers Association (now NorQuest) to support cannery operations. In addition to serving as the town water source, flow from Indian Lake powered a 60 kW turbine at the cannery. The turbine is not currently in service. Portions of the original wood-stave transmission line were replaced with steel pipe in the mid- 1980s. The dam, transmission line, and water rights are currently owned by the City. ii. Wells Two wells (Well #1 and Well #2), installed in 1986, are considered to be back-up sources by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The wells are not in currently in use and are likely vulnerable to salt water intrusion if used extensively. Groundwater is not a viable primary source for Chignik Bay. In 2003, after an extensive exploration effort and capital expenditures of approximately $300,0003, the project engineer determined that “…the wells were either of insufficient quantity, poor quality, or deemed susceptible to either salt water intrusion or groundwater contamination.” The rationale for the determination is summarized in a master plan update accepted by a resolution of the Chignik Bay city council. Although several wells had high short-term yields, the long-term aquifer recharge was low. Many test wells were dry, and some yielded brackish water. A hydrogeological study performed by Golder and Associates characterized the local aquifer as vulnerable to saltwater intrusion, and estimated that sustainable yields were one quarter of the short-term test flows. The report stated that developing a groundwater source would require an extensive well field or engineered structures to augment groundwater recharge. Water quality was also a concern. At least one well exceeded primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of arsenic and several wells exceeded secondary MCLs for iron or aluminum levels. Additional treatment would be required to resolve these quality issues. The community perceives groundwater as inferior to their pristine surface water source. 3 ANTHC Project Cost Records, AN 00-P68. AEA - 23046 Page 136 of 210 Figure 2-1. Water Source Site Plan (Adapted from ANTHC plan set CKB-17-006) AEA - 23046 Page 137 of 210 Figure 2-2. Community Site Plan (Adapted from ANTHC plan set CKB-17-006) AEA - 23046 Page 138 of 210 Figure 2-3. System Schematic (Adapted from ANTHC plan set CKB-17-006) AEA - 23046 Page 139 of 210 c) Condition of Existing Facilities Dam The existing dam at the mouth of Indian Lake is a timber buttress structure. It is approximately 80 feet long, with a 26-foot wide primary spillway and a 20-foot wide secondary rock-cut spillway. Height from the toe to the crest is approximately 14.4 feet. “The most recent dam inspection report filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shows that the dam is in very poor condition and is in need of replacement. The general condition of the dam is quite deteriorated due to rotting main members, almost complete loss of spillway planking allowing water to spill onto and through the framework, loss of the walkway over the spillway, damage to dam face planks, failing of support structure for the valve operator platform, and malfunctioning outlet controls and screens. The structure has been reinforced with additional framing members and steel connectors over the past two decades. The timber dam has continued to deteriorate and is in such poor condition that a complete replacement is the most practical course of action.” -Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study, Hatch (see Appendix F) Decay and the bracing required by FERC inspectors4 are shown in Figure 2-4. Figure 2-4. Bracing (left) and Decay (right) on Indian Creek Dam (Photos by Chris Clark) Water Transmission Main The raw water transmission line between the Indian Lake dam and the WTP consists of both wood-stave and steel piping. Sections of wood and steel pipe alternate on the line. The steepest section of pipe, accessible only by ladder, is all steel pipe. Most of the piping is above-grade but some portions are buried. There are eight elevated wood trestle crossings along the alignment that 4 FERC records for the Indian Lake Dam (P 620) can be accessed online at the e-Library (https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp) AEA - 23046 Page 140 of 210 bridge creeks, drainages, and other terrain features, including a wetland estuary area near the WTP. Except for the boardwalk near the WTP, the trestles are constructed of untreated wood. A summary of the raw-water transmission line sections follows: 3,800 linear feet of 12-inch wood stave pipe (installed 1947) 1,160 linear feet of 12-inch steel pipe (installed mid-1980’s) 2,300 linear feet of 10-inch steel pipe (installed mid-1980’s) In general, the wood-stave sections of the transmission line are in poor condition and leaking (see Figure 2-5). Over 23 leaks were identified along the water transmission pipeline during a site visit in May 2017. The leaks located along the trestle supports are accelerating damage to the pipeline in those areas. During winter, leaking water freezes on the trestles, which then settle or deform under the additional weight of ice. The settlement then causes the pipes to de-couple or crack, resulting in major leaks that shut down the drinking water system. Both the piping and trestles are damaged at these locations. The steep, rocky terrain and icing issues along the pipeline alignment make repairs challenging and dangerous. Understandably, the system operators do not like the existing configuration. The steel pipeline sections appear to be in good condition (not leaking and minor surface corrosion). Buried sections of steel could not be evaluated. The 10-inch steel pipe along the steepest portion of the alignment, directly uphill from the estuary, is anchored to the rock face with bolts and cables. No exterior pipe coating or cathodic protection was observed along the pipeline. Steel pipelines under normal conditions can have expected service lifetime of over 100 years. Figure 2-5. Raw Water Transmission Main Leaks (Photos by Chris Clark) AEA - 23046 Page 141 of 210 d) Financial Status of Existing Facilities The financial status of the water and sewer facilities is reflected in the fiscal year (FY) 2018 annual budget presented to the State of Alaska in June 2017. Although the FY 2017 water and sewer utility budget was projected at $67,000, actual expenditures were approximately $63,000. Water and sewer revenues are from a utility service charge, and both are billed at a flat monthly rate of $37.50 per user ($75.00 for water and sewer). FY 2017 revenues were $63,306 and FY 2016 revenues were $57,350. e)Water/Energy/Waste Audits The Village Energy Efficiency Program completed efficiency retrofits to eight community buildings in 2012 using grant funding. An analysis of community energy use and demand was performed as part of a hydroelectric feasibility study. Hatch prepared a feasibility study of hydroelectric power generation at Indian Lake, which is available in Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch) of this report. No recent water or waste audits have been completed. 3.0 NEED FOR PROJECT a)Health, Sanitation, and Security The dam and portions of the water transmission line are failing and require replacement. Complete failure would disrupt the community’s primary water supply. The back-up well sources are considered “emergency sources,” and are not adequate to support sustained community needs. While some recent repairs have been made to the dam’s wood truss framing, the overall structure is highly deteriorated and at imminent risk of failure. Sections of the transmission line are in poor condition and cannot be safely accessed for repairs in the winter (see Figure 3-1). b) Aging Infrastructure The dam is over 70 years old and extremely deteriorated. The wood-stave sections of the transmission line are over 70 years old and failing. c)Reasonable Growth The capacity of the current infrastructure is adequate for the design population. AEA - 23046 Page 142 of 210 Figure 3-1. Steep Descent of Transmission Main into Chignik Bay (Photo by Chris Clark) 4.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This PER evaluated viable alternatives to address deficiencies with Chignik Bay’s water source infrastructure. Using wells as a primary community water source was investigated. However, based on the results of previous studies and investigations, wells are not considered a viable long-term water source for Chignik Bay. Three alternatives were considered, 1) No action 2) Replacing the dam and transmission line to the minimum requirements needed for a drinking water source 3) Combining dam and transmission line replacement with a hydroelectric project. In addition to the criteria dictated by the interagency template, alternatives were evaluated on their ability to provide water of adequate quality and quantity from a dependable and sustainable source. Design criteria also included the system data summarized in Figure G-003 in Appendix A. 4.1 NO ACTION a) Description The “no action” alternative is presented as a baseline for comparison. The existing dam and raw water transmission line would remain in their present condition. Pros Cons No capital costs Risk of catastrophic failure, jeopardizing the community’s supply of potable water Safety concerns for performing repairs on sections of piping located on the steeper slopes AEA - 23046 Page 143 of 210 Continued high O&M costs b) Design Criteria i. Quality and Quantity No change is proposed to the source quality or quantity under this alternative. The existing raw water source provides an adequate quantity of water. Furthermore, the Indian Lake source is considered pristine and has minimal treatment requirements. ii. Water Security The aging dam and transmission line are failing and currently jeopardize the community’s water security. c) Map See Figure 4-1. Additional maps are available in Appendix A. d) Environmental Impacts While a dam failure would likely cause erosion in upper Indian Creek, no impacts to sensitive habitats or species are anticipated. e) Land Requirements No land is required under this alternative. f) Potential Construction Problems This alternative would not include any new construction. g) Sustainability Considerations i. Water and Energy Efficiency The current water source configuration provides gravity-flow from the source, through the treatment system, and into the distribution system. A gravity flow source eliminates the need for pumps. A portion of the water flowing through the existing raw water transmission line is discharged to waste during the colder winter months to prevent freezing. There is adequate water recharge and storage capacity in Indian Lake to support waste flows without jeopardizing the water supply. ii. Green Infrastructure No impact on stormwater is anticipated under this alternative. iii. Other This alternative is not sustainable from a water security perspective. In addition, transmission line leaks and the resulting ice formations accelerate deterioration and make winter maintenance dangerous and untenable. More repairs will likely be required as the pipeline continues to deteriorate. Under this alternative, water system operational complexity is anticipated to increase proportionally to the efforts required to keep the system operational. AEA - 23046 Page 144 of 210 Figure 4-1. Existing Dam and Transmission Line Site Plan (Adapted from Hatch Report, PK – Penstock) h) Cost Estimates No capital costs are incurred by this alternative. However, a dam failure and emergency water-source project are the potentially expensive risks of taking no action. AEA - 23046 Page 145 of 210 The current O&M expenditures, as well as the projected O&M budget, including WTP upgrades, are provided in the table below. Subsequent operations and maintenance estimates for the other alternatives are compared to the predicted expenditures presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate – No Action Line Item Water and Sewer Actual Expenditures Predicted Expenditures After WTP Upgrades* Payroll $29,796 $41,116 Insurance $2,034 $3,034 Travel $1,628 $1,628 Equipment Rental $1,050 $1,050 Equipment Purchase $1,430 $1,430 Equipment Maintenance $2,000 $2,000 Training $1,090 $1,090 Freight $700 $700 Parts $3,125 $3,125 Supplies** $4,335 $7,835 Postage $12 $12 Water Tests $3,694 $3,694 Mayors Fund $75 $75 Electricity $11,283 $11,783 Fuel $1,340 $1,340 Fees and Penalties $2,610 $2,610 Total: $66,202 $82,522 *Upgrades to be completed in summer 2018 **Polymer costs are included as well as an annual equivalent of the costs associated with repairing the transmission line and dam 4.2 REPLACE DAM AND TRANSMISSION LINE (FOR DRINKING WATER ONLY) a) Description This alternative includes replacing the dam and sections of the transmission line with facilities designed for the sole purpose of providing drinking water. The scope of the alternative includes, 3,800 feet of 8-inch SDR 11 high density polypropylene (HDPE) raw water transmission line to replace wood transmission line 14.4-foot high by 80-foot long, 1:1.5 rock-fill dam with a concrete face and a 45-foot wide concrete spillway The wood sections of the transmission line would be replaced. The new dam would replace the old dam at the same location. AEA - 23046 Page 146 of 210 Pros Cons Provides a secure water source Eliminates transmission line leaks Provides safer access for maintenance Lowers O&M costs High capital cost No hydropower benefit b) Design Criteria i. Quality and Quantity Neither the dam height nor the transmission capacity would not be altered under this alternative. The existing raw water source provides an adequate quantity of water. Furthermore, the Indian Lake source is considered pristine, and has minimal treatment requirements. ii. Water Security The new infrastructure provided under this alternative would significantly improve water security. The new infrastructure would have a minimum expected service life of 50 years. c) Map See Figure 4-1, additional maps are available in Appendix A. d) Environmental Impacts This alternative is not anticipated to impact environmental resources. Construction would be scheduled to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife. e) Land Requirements New easements or permissions will be required for the Far West Addition No. 1 parcel, as well as ingress and egress for the Indian Creek Quarry through Tract 4A parcels. The City of Chignik Bay holds title to the parcels required for the proposed project. Rock for the dam would be obtained near the dam site located on city property. The dam and transmission line are subject to the National Historic Preservation Act. Design and construction activities would be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office. f) Potential Construction Problems Potential construction problems for this alternative include a lack of geotechnical investigation, unreliable flights due to extreme weather conditions, flow control at the lake to protect the site from flooding, and constraints related to environmental concerns (see Appendix B for details). Fall protection equipment will most likely be required to install the transmission line section on the steep descent near town. The dam operates under a FERC license that expires on February 1, 2036. The planning, design, and construction would be coordinated with FERC regulators. g) Sustainability Considerations i. Water and Energy Efficiency This alternative would continue to provide a gravity-flow water source for the existing pressurized water treatment system. Gravity flow is energy efficient, eliminating the need AEA - 23046 Page 147 of 210 for pumps. A portion of the flows in the raw water transmission line would go to waste during the colder winter months to prevent freezing. There is adequate water recharge and storage capacity in Indian Lake to support waste flows without jeopardizing the water supply. ii.Green Infrastructure No impact on stormwater is anticipated under this alternative. iii.Other This alternative provides long-term drinking water security. The proposed infrastructure improvement would improve overall operability of the water system by reducing the current level of emergency repairs and providing better access for maintenance. h) Cost Estimates The engineer’s opinion of probable capital cost is $5 million. See Appendix E for a detailed cost estimate. The estimated annual O&M expenses for this alternative are in the table below. Table 4-2: Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate – Replace Dam and Transmission Line Line Item Base O&M Alternative 2 Estimate Payroll $41,116 $41,116 Insurance $3,034 $3,034 Travel $1,628 $1,628 Equipment Rental $1,050 $1,050 Equipment Purchase $1,430 $1,430 Equipment Maintenance $2,000 $2,250 Training $1,090 $1,090 Freight $700 $700 Parts $3,125 $3,195 Supplies $7,835 $5,235 Postage $12 $12 Water Tests $3,694 $3,694 Mayors Fund $75 $75 Electricity $11,783 $11,783 Fuel $1,340 $1,905 Fees and Penalties $2,610 $2,610 Total: $82,522 $80,807 Note: Base O&M costs assume WTP upgrade 4.3 COMBINE DAM AND TRANSMISSION LINE REPLACEMENT WITH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT a)Description This alternative would combine sanitation funding for the dam and transmission line with energy- project funding for a hydroelectric power plant. The proposed project is described in the Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Feasibility Study, prepared by Hatch in 2014. This alternative includes construction of four principle elements: AEA - 23046 Page 148 of 210 Access road to the existing dam site – the access road is funded by a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and planned for construction in 2018 25-foot high rock-fill dam 26-foot by 26-foot powerhouse for an impulse turbine Approximately 7,300 feet of 24-inch HDPE penstock from new dam to the powerhouse and approximately 1,800 feet of insulated 6-inch HDPE raw water main to the existing WTP The hydroelectric plant would produce 900 megawatt-hours (MWh) of the 950 MWh annual energy demand, which is currently served by a diesel generator. Pros Cons Provides a secure water source High capital cost Eliminates transmission leaks and provides safe access for maintenance Net positive benefit due to fuel savings Funding is leveraged to address multiple community priorities b) Design Criteria i.Quality and Quantity The existing raw water source provides an adequate quantity of water. Furthermore, the Indian Lake source is considered pristine, and has minimal treatment requirements. The dam would be 25 feet high under this alternative in order to increase storage and electrical generation potential, providing 204 acre-feet of storage. See Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch) for additional design information. ii.Security The new infrastructure provided under this alternative would significantly improve water security. The new infrastructure would have a minimum expected service life of 50 years. c)Map See Figure 4-2, additional maps and figures are available in Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch). d) Environmental Impacts This alternative will benefit the environment by reducing annual diesel use by 63,500 gallons. Emissions will be reduced for both electrical generation and the transport of fuel to the community. The facility design includes provisions to protect fish and wildlife habitat. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. See Appendix F for additional information. AEA - 23046 Page 149 of 210 e)Land Requirements New easements or permissions will be required for the Far West Addition No. 1 parcel, as well as ingress and egress for the Indian Creek Quarry through Tract 4A parcels. The City of Chignik Bay holds title to the parcels required for the proposed project. Rock for the dam would be obtained near the dam site located on city property. The dam and transmission line are subject to the National Historic Preservation Act, design and construction activities would be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office. See Appendix F for additional information. Figure 4-2. Site Plan, Hydroelectric Project (from Figure 1 in Appendix F) f)Potential Construction Problems Potential construction problems for this alternative include a lack of geotechnical assessment, flow control at the lake to protect the site from flooding, unreliable flights due to extreme weather conditions, and constraints related to environmental concerns (see Appendix B for details). Fall protection equipment will most likely be required to install the transmission line section on the steep descent near town. AEA - 23046 Page 150 of 210 The dam operates under a FERC license that expires on February 1, 2036. The planning, design, and construction would be coordinated with FERC and state dam regulators. See Appendix F for additional information. g) Sustainability Considerations i. Water and Energy Efficiency This alternative provides long-term water security through low-cost water supply, treatment, and distribution, as well as a low cost source of electricity. The hatch report estimates that operating the hydroelectric dam will save 10 million gallons of diesel fuel over the life of the project. See Appendix F for additional information. The penstock itself would be protected from freezing by the high flows used for electrical generation. This alternative would install several hundred feet of insulated transmission line between the penstock and the existing WTP. The insulated transmission line would eliminate the need to waste water to prevent the line from freezing. ii. Green Infrastructure No impact on stormwater is anticipated under this alternative. iii. Other Water system operational complexity would not change under this alternative. For comparison’s sake, operational complexity of the power generation infrastructure are not considered. The proposed infrastructure improvement would improve overall operability of the water system by reducing the current level of emergency repairs and improving access for maintenance. h) Cost Estimates The total capital cost for this alternative is $7,440,000. O&M costs are not strictly comparable to other alternatives in this report since they include energy infrastructure maintenance. The Hatch report estimates for capital cost and O&M costs for this alternative are summarized in the table below. For purposes of comparison, this report assumes the water utility would cover a percentage of the estimated O&M costs proportional to its water use. Hatch estimates average flows to the water utility would be 0.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) out of the total 18 cfs. Converting to hydroelectric provides cost savings under various load growth and fuel cost scenarios due to the high cost of diesel electricity. Water infrastructure cost savings were not considered in the feasibility study. See Appendix F for additional information. Table 4-3: Capital and Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimates – Hydroelectric Project Item Estimate (by Hatch) Estimated Cost Borne by Water Utility Water Utility O&M Capital Cost $7,438,000 - - O&M (First 5 years, 0.75% of Capital) $55,785 $775 $81,582 O&M (After 5 years, 0.25% of Capital) $18,595 $258 $81,065 Note: Water utility O&M includes base rate that assumes WTP upgrade 5.0 SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE The alternatives were evaluated based on cost, as well as non-monetary concerns. That analysis is provided in the following sections, AEA - 23046 Page 151 of 210 a) Life Cycle Analysis A life cycle present worth cost analysis over a 50-year period of the alternatives presented in this report is summarized in Table 5-1. Detailed capital and operation cost estimates for Alternatives 1 and 2 can be found in Appendix E. Detailed capital and operation cost estimates for Alternative 3 can be found in Appendix F. The life cycle cost analysis is based on the criteria below, Table 5-1: Life-Cycle Cost Comparison Input Present Cost Alternatives Capital Cost Annual O&M cost Lifetime O&M Total Cost No Action $0 $82,522 $3,471,300 $3,471,300 Replace Dam and Transmission Line $5,000,000 $80,807 $3,399,200 $8,399,200 Hydroelectric Project $7,438,000 $81,065 +$517 (for 5 years) $3,410,000 $10,850,700 Notes: 1. Salvage value is assumed to be $0 for all scenarios. 2. All capital costs presented in 2019 dollars. 3. All costs rounded to the nearest 100. 4. The life-cycle cost analysis does not include costs or revenues from the electrical utility. The hydroelectric project is the lowest cost option for electrical generation according to a cost- benefit analysis under a range of growth and fuel cost scenarios provided in Table 6-2, Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch). 5. See 6. 7. Appendix E Cost Estimates for a complete cost estimate and life-cycle cost assumptions and calculations. Input Conversion Factors Interest Rates: 0.7% (50 years), 0.3% (5 years) (Appendix C, OMB circular A-94) 𝑀𝑀𝐶=𝐶+𝑈𝑆𝑀𝑈 (𝑀&𝑀)−𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑈 (𝑆) 𝑈𝑙�ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑟𝑙 𝑆𝑒𝑟�ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑀𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑟 𝑈𝑙𝑟𝑟�; 𝑀&𝑀 (𝑈𝑆𝑀𝑈 𝑀&𝑀) =𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑙𝑟𝑟 𝑥 ((1 +�ℎ)𝑛−1) (�ℎ(1 +�ℎ)𝑛) 𝑆�ℎ𝑙𝑒𝑙𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑙𝑒𝑙𝑟 𝑀𝑟𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑟 𝑈𝑙𝑟𝑟�; 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑒 (𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑈 𝑆) =𝐹𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑒 𝑈𝑎𝑙𝑟𝑒 / (1 +�ℎ)𝑛 AEA - 23046 Page 152 of 210 The difference in capital cost between the two dam alternatives is driven by the scope. A table breaking out the capital costs of the two alternatives is presented below. Materials and labor were totaled for each scope item. General conditions such as equipment rental, design, and office support were considered as a separate item. More detailed cost estimates are available in Appendix E Cost Estimates and Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch). Table 5-2: Scope-Cost Comparison of Dam Alternatives Item Drinking Water Only Hydroelectric and Drinking Water Dimensions Estimated Cost (by ANTHC) Dimensions Estimated Cost (by Hatch) Scope Items Dam 14 feet high $266,879 25 feet high $736,000 Pipeline/Penstock 8” HDPE $147,099 24” HDPE/6” Arctic Pipe $612,000 Powerhouse, Turbine and Generator, Tailrace, Electrical Transmission $- $1,236,000 Subtotal $413,978 $2,584,000 Other Capital Costs Mobilization $514,967 $548,000 General Conditions, Construction Support, Equipment Rental, Design, Insurance, etc. $3,982,275 $4,306,000 Total $4,911,219 $7,438,000 b) Non-monetary Factors Non-monetary considerations strongly favor the combined sanitation and hydroelectric project alternative. The hydroelectric project can provide multiple benefits to the community, including a secure source of drinking water, environmental benefits, economic stimulus, and the opportunity to serve multiple community needs with one piece of infrastructure. Electricity generation is the most significant consumer of diesel in the community. Converting to hydroelectric power would reduce diesel use by an estimated 63,500 gallons annually. This reduction would reduce local air pollution and fuel spill risk, while saving approximately 1.42 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions annually (equivalent to annual emissions from 140 cars or sequestration by 760 acres of forest). Savings in electrical generation can be passed on to commercial users to stimulate economic growth in the community. Lower state subsidies would be required for residential users. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT The recommended project is the combined sanitation and hydroelectric project alternative. AEA - 23046 Page 153 of 210 a) Preliminary Project Design A detailed description of the project design and methodology is available in Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch). b) Project Schedule The proposed schedule provided in the feasibility study is summarized below. See Figure 5-1 in Appendix F for more detail. 18.5 months Engineering and Permitting LIDAR Survey Stream Gauge Geotechnical Investigation FERC Licensing Consultation and Permitting Design Construction Contract Bidding 16 months Construction Planning Turbine Procurement Mobilization Transmission Powerhouse Pipeline Dam Demobilization Turbine and Generator Commissioning and Closeout c) Permit Requirements An environmental and regulatory analysis is provided in Section 7 (page 49) of Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch). d) Sustainability Considerations Detailed sustainability considerations are discussed in section 4.3g) Sustainability Considerations. e) Total Project Cost Estimate The total capital cost of the project is estimated at $7,440,000. An itemized project cost estimate is provided in Section 5 (page 39) of Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch). f) Annual Operating Budget The operating budget enacted by the council of the City of Chignik Bay for FY 2018 is $1,142,149.50. i. Income Income sources include utility service fees for the water system (monthly user fees are $37.50) and electrical utilities. Electricity comes from a combination of user fees and contributions from the State of Alaska Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program AEA - 23046 Page 154 of 210 ($0.17/kWh paid by users, $0.26/kWh PCE). Income from electrical generation is budgeted at $250,052.50 for FY18. ii. Annual O&M Costs An economic analysis of the operations and maintenance costs is provided in Section 6 (page 43) of Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch) O&M costs are estimated at 0.75% of the capital cost for the first five years of operation, and 0.25% after five years. The majority of O&M costs will be borne by the electrical utility. iii. Debt Repayments Debt service is included in the cost-benefit analysis of the hydroelectric project provided in Appendix F Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study (Hatch). iv. Reserves Debt Service Reserve: This project will most likely be funded by a mix of loans and grants. Consultation on feasible funding sources must be performed before detailed estimates of debt service reserve can be prepared. Short-Lived Asset Reserve: With respect to the water system facilities, no short-lived assets are included in the project (the dam and transmission line are considered long-term assets). Cataloging the reserves required for short-lived assets associated with the hydropower plant is outside the scope of this PER. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended course of action is to pursue the combined sanitation and hydroelectric project alternative. AEA - 23046 Page 155 of 210 Prepared for: HDL Engineering Consultants 1225 E. International Airport Road, Suite 235 3335 Arctic Boulevard, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907.561.0790 907.564.2120 Preliminary Design Level Construction Cost Estimate June 30, 2022 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Chignik, Alaska AEA - 23046 Page 156 of 210 Notes on the Estimate ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Basis of Estimate Project:ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Estimate Date:June 30, 2022 Prepared By:Patrick Neubert Company: Estimations, Inc Address:1225 E. Int'l Airport Road, Suite 235 City, State, Zip:Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Phone:907.561.0730 Email: patrick@estimations.com SCOPE OF WORK DOCUMENTS Study narratives and email correspondence SOURCE OF COST DATA: Estimations' Internal Cost Database Vendor Quote Labor based on ANTHC Provided Internal Rates, 2020 ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS: Summer 2023 Construction Design Bid Build Procurement Time On Site 4 MTHS Demolish the existing dam & build a new dam with access to the site. Provide raw water transmission to the Chignik water treatment facility. AEA - 23046 Page 157 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Summary Page 1 of 1 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Estimated Description Material Labor Hours Equipment Cost 0 OWNER COSTS $998,699 $491,442 4,778.40 $0 $1,490,141 20 OWNER DEVELOPMENT $989,987 $0 - $0 $989,987 30 PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS $8,712 $491,442 4,778.40 $0 $500,154 G SITEWORK $1,904,892 $804,925 6,737.20 $126,657 $2,836,474 G10 SITE PREPARATION $0 $54,312 460.00 $21,000 $75,312 G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $806,662 $457,205 3,872.60 $77,157 $1,341,024 G30 LIQUID AND GAS SITE UTILITIES $1,023,230 $293,408 2,404.60 $28,500 $1,345,138 G50 SITE COMMUNICATIONS $75,000 $0 - $0 $75,000 Z GENERAL $669,433 $392,569 3,672.10 $228,800 $3,563,400 Z10 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS $669,433 $392,569 3,672.10 $228,800 $1,290,802 Z70 TAXES, PERMITS, INSURANCE AND BONDS $0 $0 - $0 $153,576 Z90 FEES $0 $0 - $0 $642,128 Z90 CONTINGENCIES $0 $0 - $0 $1,476,894 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $3,573,024 $1,688,936 $15,188 $355,457 $7,890,015 AEA - 23046 Page 158 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Estimate Page 1 of 8 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Line Labor No. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost 1 20 OWNER DEVELOPMENT 2 3 2010 Site Acquisition 4 Not Included 5 6 2020 Permits 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 7 8 2030 Professional Services 9 Design Costs 10% Of Construction Costs 1 LS $639,987.37 $639,987 $639,987 $639,987 10 Geotech Investigation / Report 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 11 12 2050 Other Activities 13 Archeological Investigation/Report 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 14 15 Subtotal: 20 OWNER DEVELOPMENT $989,987 $989,987 16 17 18 30 PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS 19 20 3010 Project Delivery 21 Construction Admin 5% Of Construction 1 LS 3,352.123 3,352.1 $319,991 $319,991 $319,991 22 Construction Manager 1/3 FTE 4 MO 104.000 416.0 $46,546 $11,637 $46,546 23 Survey 1 LS 714.286 714.3 $91,916 $91,916 $91,916 24 ANTHC Scheduling 20 HRS 1.000 20.0 $1,863 $93 $1,863 25 ANTHC Travel 12 TRIPS $500.00 $6,000 8.000 96.0 $9,164 $1,264 $15,164 26 ANTHC Per Diem 24 MDAY $113.00 $2,712 $113 $2,712 27 28 Project Closeout 1 LS 180.000 180.0 $21,962 $21,962 $21,962 29 30 Subtotal: 30 PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS $8,712 4,778.4 $491,442 $500,154 31 Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost AEA - 23046 Page 159 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Estimate Page 2 of 8 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Line Labor No. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost 32 33 G10 SITE PREPARATION 34 35 G1010 Site Clearing 36 Clear & Grub 2.5 ACRE 120.000 300.0 $35,421 $7,800.00 $15,000 $20,168 $50,421 37 38 G1020 Site Elements Demolition 39 Demolish Existing Dam 1 LS 160.000 160.0 $18,891 $7,800.00 $6,000 $24,891 $24,891 40 41 Subtotal: G10 SITE PREPARATION 460.0 $54,312 $21,000 $75,312 42 43 44 G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS 45 46 G2010 Roadways 47 Construct New 16' Wide Access Road 4,000 LF 48 Geotextile 10,667 SY $1.95 $20,800 0.006 64.0 $7,556 $0.26 $2,133 $3 $30,489 49 Culverts 5 EA $900.00 $4,500 0.250 1.3 $124 $925 $4,624 50 Gravel Fill 4,741 CY $52.00 $246,519 0.086 407.7 $48,137 $5.20 $18,963 $66 $313,619 51 52 G2060 Site Development 53 Dam Construction 54 Install/Remove Construction Bypass Culvert 250 LF $65.00 $16,250 0.429 107.3 $12,669 $13.00 $2,500 $126 $31,419 55 Excavate Spillway 2,963 CY 0.057 168.9 $19,942 $3.90 $8,889 $10 $28,831 56 Dam Rockfill / Import 4,410 CY $52.00 $229,320 0.100 441.0 $52,068 $6.50 $22,050 $69 $303,438 57 58 Precast Box Culvert 100 LF 59 4'x4' Precast Concrete Box Culvert 100 LF $520.00 $52,000 1.000 100.0 $11,807 $65.00 $5,000 $688 $68,807 60 Trash Rack 1 EA $6,500.00 $6,500 8.000 8.0 $945 $325.00 $250 $7,695 $7,695 61 Air Inlet Pipe 80 LF $19.50 $1,560 0.114 9.1 $1,074 $33 $2,634 AEA - 23046 Page 160 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Estimate Page 3 of 8 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Line Labor No. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost 62 63 Precast Box Vault 1 EA 64 6'x6' Precast Concrete Valve Vault 16 LF $650.00 $10,400 8.000 128.0 $15,113 $97.50 $1,200 $1,670 $26,713 65 66 Dam Face Foundation - Strip 36 In x 18 In 150 LF 67 Forms 450 SF $3.90 $1,755 0.120 54.0 $6,376 $18 $8,131 68 Re-steel 3,938 LBS $1.17 $4,607 0.010 39.4 $4,652 $2 $9,259 69 Concrete 26 CY $585.00 $15,356 2.500 65.6 $7,745 $65.00 $1,313 $930 $24,414 70 Add for Using Fork and bucket 26 CY 3.000 78.8 $9,304 $354 $9,304 71 72 Impermeable Concrete Dam Face 8"3,699 SF 73 Resteel 13,561 LBS $1.17 $15,867 0.010 135.6 $16,010 $2 $31,877 74 Concrete 100 CY $585.00 $58,765 4.000 401.8 $47,440 $65.00 $5,023 $1,107 $111,228 75 Add for Using Fork and Bucket 100 CY 3.000 301.4 $35,586 $354 $35,586 76 Finish 3,699 SF 0.021 77.7 $9,174 $2 $9,174 77 Control Joints - Water Stop 370 LF $9.10 $3,366 0.086 31.8 $3,755 $19 $7,121 78 79 Spillway Wall Foundation - Strip 72 In x 24 In 45 LF 80 Forms 180 SF $3.90 $702 0.120 21.6 $2,550 $18 $3,252 81 Re-steel 3,150 LBS $1.17 $3,686 0.010 31.5 $3,719 $2 $7,405 82 Concrete 21 CY $585.00 $12,285 2.000 42.0 $4,959 $65.00 $1,050 $871 $18,294 83 Add for Using Fork and Bucket 21 CY 3.000 63.0 $7,438 $354 $7,438 84 85 Spillway Wall 24 In x 60 In 45 LF 86 Forms 450 SF $3.90 $1,755 0.120 54.0 $6,376 $18 $8,131 87 Re-steel 2,625 LBS $1.17 $3,071 0.010 26.3 $3,105 $2 $6,176 88 Concrete 18 CY $585.00 $10,238 2.000 35.0 $4,132 $65.00 $875 $871 $15,245 89 Add for Using Fork and Bucket 18 CY 3.000 52.5 $6,199 $354 $6,199 90 91 AEA - 23046 Page 161 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Estimate Page 4 of 8 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Line Labor No. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost 92 93 Spillway Channel Deck - 6" SOG 6,000 SF 94 Resteel 12,222 LBS $1.17 $14,300 0.010 122.2 $14,428 $2 $28,728 95 Concrete 122 CY $585.00 $71,500 2.000 244.4 $28,856 $65.00 $6,111 $871 $106,467 96 Add for Using Fork and Bucket 122 CY 3.000 366.7 $43,296 $354 $43,296 97 Finish 6,000 SF 0.021 126.0 $14,877 $2 $14,877 98 Control Joints 600 LF $0.65 $390 0.040 24.0 $2,834 $5 $3,224 99 100 G2080 Landscaping 101 Hydroseeding 3,000 SY $0.39 $1,170 0.014 42.0 $4,959 $0.78 $1,800 $3 $7,929 102 103 104 105 106 Subtotal: G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $806,662 3,872.6 $457,205 $77,157 $1,341,024 107 108 109 G30 LIQUID AND GAS SITE UTILITIES 110 111 G3010 Water Utilities 112 Raw Water Supply Line, 8" Arctic Pipe 3,800 LF $156.00 $592,800 0.200 760.0 $92,070 $180 $684,870 113 AP 8x15 Pipe Joint Kit @ 20' oc 190 EA $455.00 $86,450 $455 $86,450 114 Anchors & Cabling @ 20' oc 190 EA $1,040.00 $197,600 4.000 760.0 $92,070 $195.00 $28,500 $1,675 $318,170 115 Heat Trace 3,800 LF $15.60 $59,280 0.017 64.6 $7,991 $18 $67,271 116 Power to Heat Trace Controllers 3,800 LF $19.50 $74,100 0.200 760.0 $94,008 $44 $168,108 117 Valving Allowance 1 LS $13,000.00 $13,000 60.000 60.0 $7,269 $20,269 $20,269 118 119 120 121 Subtotal: G30 LIQUID AND GAS SITE UTILITIES $1,023,230 2,404.6 $293,408 $28,500 $1,345,138 122 AEA - 23046 Page 162 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Estimate Page 5 of 8 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Line Labor No. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost 123 124 G50 SITE COMMUNICATIONS 125 126 G5010 Site Communications Systems 127 SCADA Allowance 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 128 129 130 Subtotal: G50 SITE COMMUNICATIONS $75,000 $75,000 131 132 133 Z10 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 134 135 Z1020 Administrative Requirements 136 Supervisor, 60 Hour/Week 17 WEEKS 60.000 1,020.0 $188,200 $11,071 $188,200 137 Project Expeditor, 50 Hour/Week 17 WEEKS 50.000 850.0 $72,624 $4,272 $72,624 138 Time Keeper/Cost Control, 30 Hour/Week 17 WEEKS 30.000 510.0 $25,245 $1,485 $25,245 139 140 Z1040 Quality Requirements 141 Quality Control 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 142 SWPPP Allowance 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 143 144 Z1050 Temporary Facilities and Controls 145 Subsistence 146 Room and Board 972 MDAY $113.00 $109,783 $113 $109,783 147 148 Travel 149 Air Fare - Anchorage - Site 57 EA $500.00 $28,500 $500 $28,500 150 Early Construction 4 151 Survey 8 152 Crew/Super 39 153 Inspections 6 AEA - 23046 Page 163 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Estimate Page 6 of 8 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Line Labor No. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost 154 155 Small Tools & Consumables 156 Consumables 1 LS $900.00 $900 $900 $900 157 Small Tools 1 LS $15,780.00 $15,780 $15,780 $15,780 158 159 Mobilization 160 Mobilization - Equipment 175 TONS $500.00 $87,500 $500 $87,500 161 ATV & Trailer 1,000 LBS 162 Skid Steer 5,000 LBS 163 Dozer 30,000 LBS 164 Dump Truck 78,000 LBS 165 Excavator 50,000 LBS 166 Loader 45,000 LBS 167 Compactor Roller 30,000 LBS 168 Concrete Truck 65,000 LBS 169 Flatbed 10,000 LBS 170 Water Truck 25,000 LBS 171 Misc 10,000 LBS 172 173 Demobilization - Equipment 175 TONS $500.00 $87,500 $500 $87,500 174 Material Freight - Seattle To Job Site 59 TONS $800.00 $47,200 $800 $47,200 175 Handling Labor 59 TONS 4.286 252.9 $21,608 $366 $21,608 176 177 Air Freight Anchorage - Job Site - Incidental 3,000 LBS $2.50 $7,500 $3 $7,500 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 AEA - 23046 Page 164 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Estimate Page 7 of 8 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Line Labor No. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost 185 186 Equipment 187 Overhead Equipment - Not Picked Up In Direct Costs 188 Equipment Standby and Travel Time 4 MTHS $55,500.00 $222,000 $55,500 $222,000 189 Skid Steer 1 EA 190 Dozer 1 EA 191 Dump Truck 3 EA 192 Excavator 1 EA 193 Loader 1 EA 194 Compactor 1 EA 195 Concrete Truck 1 EA 196 Water Truck 1 EA 197 Flatbed 1 EA 198 Generator 1 EA 199 Fuel 23,697 Gal $7.00 $165,880 $7 $165,880 200 Maintenance Labor 4 MTHS 259.800 1,039.2 $84,892 $21,223 $84,892 201 202 Temporary Facilities 4 MTHS 203 Project Office Trailer 4 MTHS $1,500.00 $6,000 $1,500 $6,000 204 Office Equipment/Supplies 4 MTHS $500.00 $2,000 $500 $2,000 205 Communications 4 MTHS $1,000.00 $4,000 $1,000 $4,000 206 Project Tool Sheds 4 MTHS $200.00 $800 $200 $800 207 Project Safety Equipment 1 LS $7,890.00 $7,890 $7,890 $7,890 208 209 G5010 Site Communications Systems 210 Record Documents 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 211 Operations and Maintenance Manuals 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 212 Operation Training Allowance 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 213 214 Subtotal: Z10 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS $669,433 3,672.1 $392,569 $228,800 $1,290,802 215 AEA - 23046 Page 165 of 210 ANTHC Chignik New Dam Water Supply Estimate R3.xlsx / 6/30/22 / 3:38 PM Estimate Page 8 of 8 ANTHC Chignik Bay Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Level ANTHC Proj. AN-16-U90 Construction Cost Estimate Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations June 30, 2022 Line Labor No. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost 216 217 Z70 TAXES, PERMITS, INSURANCE AND BONDS 218 219 Insurance 3.0%$123,818 220 Bond 0.7%$29,758 221 222 223 224 225 Subtotal: Z70 TAXES, PERMITS, INSURANCE AND BONDS $153,576 226 227 228 Z90 FEES 229 230 Contractor Fee 15.0%$642,128 231 232 233 234 235 Subtotal: Z90 FEES $642,128 236 237 238 Z90 CONTINGENCIES 239 240 Z9050 Construction Contingencies 241 Estimating Contingency 15.0%$738,447 242 Project Contingency 15.0%$738,447 243 244 245 246 247 Subtotal: Z90 CONTINGENCIES $1,476,894 248 AEA - 23046 Page 166 of 210 Prepared for:HDL Engineering Consultants1225 E. International Airport Road, Suite 205 3335 Arctic Blvd, Suite 100Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Anchorage, AK 99503907.561.0790Preliminary Design Cost EstimateMay 25, 2022ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectANTHC AN-##-###Chignik, AlaskaAEA - 23046Page 167 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Cost Estimate ANTHC AN-##-### Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by Estimations May 25, 2022 Basis of EstimateProject: ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectEstimate Date:May 25, 2022Prepared By:Patrick NeubertCompany: Estimations, Inc Address:1225 E. Int'l Airport Road, Suite 205City, State, Zip:Anchorage, Alaska 99518Phone:907.561.0755email: patrick@estimations.comSCOPE OF WORKDOCUMENTSStudy narratives and email correspondanceSOURCE OF COST DATA:Estimations Internal cost databaseVendor QuoteLabor based on ANTHC Provided Internal Rates, 2020ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS:Summer 2023 ConstructionDesign Bid Build ProcurementTime on Site7 MTHSDemolish the existing hydroelectric system and install a modern system with access to the dam site. Provide raw water transmission to the Chignik water treatment facility.Notes on the EstimateAEA - 23046Page 168 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply Project Preliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022EstimatedDescription Material Labor Hours Equipment Cost0 OWNER COSTS$2,345,297 $970,854 9,708.00 $14,551 $2,342,342 20 OWNER DEVELOPMENT $1,528,886 $0 -$0 $1,528,886 30 PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS $13,068 $800,388 7,961.10 $0 $813,456D SERVICES$616,335 $26,399 300.00 $9,000 $651,734 D50 ELECTRICAL $616,335 $26,399 300.00 $9,000 $651,734F SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION$187,008 $144,067 1,446.90 $5,551 $336,626 F10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $187,008 $144,067 1,446.90 $5,551 $336,626G SITEWORK$3,068,037 $1,093,825 9,223.10 $172,190 $4,334,052 G10 SITE PREPARATION $0 $54,312 460.00 $21,000 $75,312G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS$806,662 $457,205 3,872.60 $77,157 $1,341,024 G30 LIQUID AND GAS SITE UTILITIES $1,853,735 $538,991 4,540.30 $70,403 $2,463,129 G40 ELECTRICAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS $257,640 $43,317 350.20 $3,630 $304,587G50 SITE COMMUNICATIONS$150,000 $0 -$0 $150,000Z GENERAL$1,339,054 $827,695 8,058.70 $344,900 $6,466,446 Z10 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS $1,339,054 $827,695 8,058.70 $344,900 $2,511,649 Z70 TAXES, PERMITS, INSURANCE AND BONDS $0 $0 -$0 $267,254Z90 FEES $0$0-$0 $1,117,437 Z90 CONTINGENCIES $0 $0 -$0 $2,570,106 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $6,752,388 $2,892,374 $26,990 $531,641 $14,131,200 ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMSummary Page 3 of 14AEA - 23046Page 169 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost120 OWNER DEVELOPMENT232010 Site Acquisition4 Not Included562020 Permits1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 782030 Professional Services9 Design Costs 10% of Construction Costs1 LS $1,178,886 $1,178,886 $1,178,886 $1,178,886 10 Geotech Investigation / Report 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 11122050 Other Activities13 Archeological Investigation/Report 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 141516Subtotal: 20 OWNER DEVELOPMENT$1,528,886 $1,528,886 17181930 PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS20213010 Project Delivery22 Construction Admin 5% of Construction1 LS 6,174.763 6,174.8 $589,445 $589,445 $589,445 23 Construction Manager 1/3 FTE 7 MO 104.000 728.0 $81,456 $11,637 $81,456 24 Survey 1 LS 714.286 714.3 $91,916 $91,916 $91,916 25 ANTHC Scheduling 20 HRS 1.000 20.0 $1,863 $93 $1,863 26 ANTHC Travel 18 TRIPS $500.00 $9,000 8.000 144.0 $13,746 $1,264 $22,746 27 ANTHC Per Diem 36 MDAY $113.00 $4,068 $113 $4,068 2829 Project Closeout 1 LS 180.000 180.0 $21,962 $21,962 $21,962 303132Subtotal: 30 PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS$13,0687,961.1 $800,388$813,456 333435 Material Costs Labor HoursEquipment Costs Total CostANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 4 of 14AEA - 23046Page 170 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost36D50 ELECTRICAL3738D5010 Facility Power Generation39Hydroelectric Package40 355 kW Hydroelectric Generation Equipment Package Installed1 LS $581,935.00 $581,935 $581,935 $581,935 41 Startup, Commissioning & Training 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 42 Freight 1 LS $14,400.00 $14,400 $14,400 $14,400 4344 Installation Support 15 DAYS45 Time 150 HRS46 Foreman 150 HRS 1.000 150.0 $20,286 $13.00 $1,500 $145 $21,786 47 Local Labor 150 HRS 1.000 150.0 $6,113 $41 $6,113 48 Equipment 150 HRS$50.00 $7,500 $50 $7,500 495051Subtotal: D50 ELECTRICAL$616,335300.0 $26,399$9,000$651,734525354F10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION5556F1020 Special Structures5758Powerhouse 26' x 26' 676 SF59Excavation & Fill60 Excavation Under Slab, 2 Ft58 CY0.071 4.1 $484 $5.20 $230 $12 $714 61 Foundation Excavation166 CY0.100 16.6 $1,960 $7.80 $998 $18 $2,958 62 Haul Exc To Waste224 CY$6.50 $1,456 0.057 12.8 $1,511 $4.68 $806 $17 $3,773 63 NFS Fill - Underslab, 2 Ft58 CY$52.00 $2,994 0.091 5.2 $614 $5.93 $263 $67 $3,871 64 Backfill Foundations166 CY$58.50 $9,734 0.137 22.8 $2,692 $8.89 $1,138 $82 $13,564 6566Foundation67Footings - Strip 24 In x 12 In104 LF68 Forms208 SF$3.00 $624 0.120 25.0 $2,408 $15 $3,032 69 Re-steel358 LBS$0.90 $322 0.010 3.6 $347 $2 $669 70 Concrete8 CY $450.00 $3,640 2.000 16.2 $1,561 $50.00 $404 $693 $5,605 71 Add for Using Fork and bucket8 CY3.000 24.3 $2,341 $289 $2,341 ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 5 of 14AEA - 23046Page 171 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost7273Foundation Walls 8 In x 3.5 Ft 104 LF74 Forms 728 SF $4.00 $2,912 0.120 87.4 $8,419 $16 $11,331 75 Re-steel 637 LBS $0.90 $573 0.010 6.4 $617 $2 $1,190 76 Concrete 9 CY $450.00 $4,247 2.000 18.9 $1,821 $50.00 $472 $693 $6,540 77 Add for Using Fork and bucket 9 CY 3.000 28.3 $2,726 $289 $2,726 78 Anchor Bolts 52 EA $6.00 $312 0.100 5.2 $501 $16 $813 7980Slab On Grade 6" 676 SF81 Resteel 473 LBS $0.90 $426 0.010 4.7 $453 $2 $879 82 Concrete 13 CY $450.00 $5,915 2.450 32.2 $3,102 $50.00 $657 $736 $9,674 83 Add for Using Fork and bucket 13 CY 3.000 39.4 $3,795 $289 $3,795 84 Finish - Subcontract 676 SF $2.00 $1,352 $2 $1,352 85 Floor Grating 100 SF $30.00 $3,000 0.286 28.6 $2,755 $58 $5,755 8687Housekeeping Pad 18"200 SF88 Resteel140 LBS$0.90 $126 0.010 1.4 $135 $2 $261 89 Concrete12 CY $450.00 $5,250 2.450 28.6 $2,755 $50.00 $583 $736 $8,588 90 Add for Using Fork and bucket12 CY3.000 35.0 $3,372 $289 $3,372 91 Finish - Subcontract200 SF$2.00 $400 $2 $400 9293Building Steel Structure94 Structural Steel Framing 10,816 LBS $3.50 $37,856 0.036 389.4 $37,511 $7 $75,367 95 Crane Rail & Hoist 1 EA $8,000.00 $8,000 40.000 40.0 $3,853 $11,853 $11,853 96 6" Wall & Roof SIP 2,132 SF $25.00 $53,300 0.143 304.9 $29,371 $39 $82,671 97 Metal Roof & Soffit Panel 1,092 SF $20.00 $21,840 0.086 93.9 $8,964 $28 $30,804 98 Facia & Drip Edge 120 LF $25.00 $3,000 0.143 17.2 $1,642 $39 $4,642 99 O/H Door & Opener 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 16.000 16.0 $1,527 $6,527 $6,527 100 Door & Hardware 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500 12.000 12.0 $1,146 $2,646 $2,646 101102Mechanical103 Electric Unit Heaters 2 EA $2,340.00 $4,680 6.000 12.0 $1,484 $3,082 $6,164 104105106107108ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 6 of 14AEA - 23046Page 172 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost109Electrical110Service111Panel112100A, 240V, 1P, 3W Meter/Main1 EA $1,950.00 $1,950 16.000 16.0 $1,979 $3,929 $3,929 113Feeds1141-1/4"C, (4)#215 LF $24.90 $374 0.188 2.8 $346 $48 $720 115 Grounding116 Ground Rod 3/4" x 10' 2 EA $162.50 $325 1.000 2.0 $247 $286 $572 117 1#4 Ground 50 LF $1.87 $94 0.010 0.5 $62 $3 $156 118 Exothermic Connection 2 EA $10.40 $21 0.250 0.5 $62 $42 $83 119120Power Circuits121Heater Connections2 EA $65.00 $130 2.000 4.0 $495 $313 $625 122Lights10 EA $325.00 $3,250 2.000 20.0 $2,474 $572 $5,724 123Interior Receptacle6 EA $26.00 $156 1.000 6.0 $742 $150 $898 124J-Boxes16 EA $13.00 $208 0.314 5.0 $618 $52 $826 125Wiring: 1/2"C, (2)#12, (1)#12500 LF $3.90 $1,950 0.114 57.0 $7,051 $18 $9,001 126Switches2 EA $45.50 $91 0.500 1.0 $124 $108 $215 127128129130Subtotal: F10 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION$187,0081,446.9 $144,067$5,551$336,626131132133G10 SITE PREPARATION134135G1070 Site Earthwork136137G1010 Site Clearing138 Clearing and Grubbing2.5 ACRE120.000 300.0 $35,421 $7,800.00 $15,000 $20,168 $50,421 139140G1020 Site Elements Demolition141 Demolish Existing Dam1 LS160.000 160.0 $18,891 $7,800.00 $6,000 $24,891 $24,891 142143144Subtotal: G10 SITE PREPARATION460.0 $54,312 $21,000 $75,312 145ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 7 of 14AEA - 23046Page 173 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost146147G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS148149G2010 Roadways150 Construct New 16' Wide Access Road 4,000 LF151 Geotextile10,667 SY$1.95 $20,800 0.006 64.0 $7,556 $0.26 $2,133 $3 $30,489 152 Culverts5 EA $900.00 $4,500 0.250 1.3 $124 $925 $4,624 153 Gravel Fill4,741 CY$52.00 $246,519 0.086 407.7 $48,137 $5.20 $18,963 $66 $313,619 154155G2060 Site Development156Dam Construction157 Install/Remove Construction Bypass Culvert250 LF$65.00 $16,250 0.429 107.3 $12,669 $13.00 $2,500 $126 $31,419 158 Excavate Spillway2,963 CY0.057 168.9 $19,942 $3.90 $8,889 $10 $28,831 159 Dam Rockfill / Import4,410 CY$52.00 $229,320 0.100 441.0 $52,068 $6.50 $22,050 $69 $303,438 160161Precast Box Culvert100 LF162 4'x4' Precast Concrete Box Culvert 100 LF $520.00 $52,000 1.000 100.0 $11,807 $65.00 $5,000 $688 $68,807 163 Trash Rack1 EA $6,500.00 $6,500 8.000 8.0 $945 $325.00 $250 $7,695 $7,695 164 Air Inlet Pipe80 LF$19.50 $1,560 0.114 9.1 $1,074 $33 $2,634 165166Precast Box Vault1 EA167 6'x6' Precast Concrete Valve Vault16 LF $650.00 $10,400 8.000 128.0 $15,113 $97.50 $1,200 $1,670 $26,713 168169Dam Face Foundation - Strip 36 In x 18 In150 LF170 Forms450 SF$3.90 $1,755 0.120 54.0 $6,376 $18 $8,131 171 Re-steel3,938 LBS$1.17 $4,607 0.010 39.4 $4,652 $2 $9,259 172 Concrete26 CY $585.00 $15,356 2.500 65.6 $7,745 $65.00 $1,313 $930 $24,414 173 Add for Using Fork and bucket26 CY3.000 78.8 $9,304 $354 $9,304 174175Impermeable Concrete Dam Face 8" 3,699 SF176 Resteel 13,561 LBS $1.17 $15,867 0.010 135.6 $16,010 $2 $31,877 177 Concrete 100 CY $585.00 $58,765 4.000 401.8 $47,440 $65.00 $5,023 $1,107 $111,228 178 Add for Using Fork and bucket 100 CY 3.000 301.4 $35,586 $354 $35,586 179 Finish 3,699 SF 0.021 77.7 $9,174 $2 $9,174 180 Control Joints - Water Stop 370 LF $9.10 $3,366 0.086 31.8 $3,755 $19 $7,121 ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 8 of 14AEA - 23046Page 174 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost181182Spillway Wall Foundation - Strip 72 In x 24 In45 LF183 Forms 180 SF $3.90 $702 0.120 21.6 $2,550 $18 $3,252 184 Re-steel 3,150 LBS $1.17 $3,686 0.010 31.5 $3,719 $2 $7,405 185 Concrete 21 CY $585.00 $12,285 2.000 42.0 $4,959 $65.00 $1,050 $871 $18,294 186 Add for Using Fork and bucket 21 CY 3.000 63.0 $7,438 $354 $7,438 187188Spillway Wall 24 In x 60 In45 LF189 Forms450 SF$3.90 $1,755 0.120 54.0 $6,376 $18 $8,131 190 Re-steel2,625 LBS$1.17 $3,071 0.010 26.3 $3,105 $2 $6,176 191 Concrete18 CY $585.00 $10,238 2.000 35.0 $4,132 $65.00 $875 $871 $15,245 192 Add for Using Fork and bucket18 CY3.000 52.5 $6,199 $354 $6,199 193194Spillway Channel Deck - 6" SOG 6,000 SF195 Resteel12,222 LBS$1.17 $14,300 0.010 122.2 $14,428 $2 $28,728 196 Concrete122 CY $585.00 $71,500 2.000 244.4 $28,856 $65.00 $6,111 $871 $106,467 197 Add for Using Fork and bucket122 CY3.000 366.7 $43,296 $354 $43,296 198 Finish6,000 SF0.021 126.0 $14,877 $2 $14,877 199 Control Joints600 LF$0.65 $390 0.040 24.0 $2,834 $5 $3,224 200201G2080 Landscaping202 Hydroseeding3,000 SY$0.39 $1,170 0.014 42.0 $4,959 $0.78 $1,800 $3 $7,929 203204205Subtotal: G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS$806,6623,872.6 $457,205$77,157$1,341,024206207208G30 LIQUID AND GAS SITE UTILITIES209210G3010 Water Utilities211 Raw Water Supply Line, 6" Arctic Pipe 1,800 LF $143.00 $257,400 0.200 360.0 $43,612 $167 $301,012 212 AP 6x15 Pipe Joint Kit @ 20' oc90 EA $455.00 $40,950 $455 $40,950 213 Anchors & Cabling @ 20' oc90 EA $1,040.00 $93,600 4.000 360.0 $43,612 $195.00 $13,500 $1,675 $150,712 214 Heat Trace1,800 LF$15.60 $28,080 0.017 30.6 $3,785 $18 $31,865 215 Power to Heat Trace Controllers 1,800 LF$19.50 $35,100 0.200 360.0 $44,530 $44 $79,630 216ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 9 of 14AEA - 23046Page 175 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost217G3050 Site Energy Distribution218Penstock219 24" Drain Bypass Valve 2 EA $12,480.00 $24,960 20.000 40.0 $4,846 $325.00 $500 $15,153 $30,306 220 Penstock Rupture Valve 1 EA $26,000.00 $26,000 20.000 20.0 $2,423 $325.00 $250 $28,673 $28,673 221 Vacuum Release Valve 1 EA $13,000.00 $13,000 20.000 20.0 $2,423 $195.00 $150 $15,573 $15,573 222 24" HDPE Wye 1 EA $1,170.00 $1,170 20.000 20.0 $2,423 $195.00 $150 $3,743 $3,743 223 24" HDPE Penstock Pipeline 200psi 7,280 LF $162.50 $1,183,000 0.371 2,700.9 $327,202 $6.50 $36,400 $212 $1,546,602 224 Anchors & Cabling @ 20' oc 392 EA $200.00 $78,300 1.000 391.5 $37,373 $35.00 $13,703 $330 $129,376 225 Precast Thrust Blocks 20 EA $2,000.00 $40,000 4.000 80.0 $7,706 $150.00 $3,000 $2,535 $50,706 226227Tailrace228 24" CPP Tailrace 550 LF $58.50 $32,175 0.286 157.3 $19,056 $6.50 $2,750 $98 $53,981 229230231Subtotal: G30 LIQUID AND GAS SITE UTILITIES$1,853,7354,540.3 $538,991$70,403$2,463,129232233234G40 ELECTRICAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS235236G4010 Site Electric Distribution Systems237Transmission Line1,600 LF238 Electrical Poles & Hardware8 EA $3,900.00 $31,200 16.000 128.0 $15,833 $195.00 $1,200 $6,029 $48,233 239 Riser Hardware2 EA $650.00 $1,300 6.000 12.0 $1,484 $1,392 $2,784 240 Disconnect CB w/ NEMA 4 Box2 EA $3,120.00 $6,240 8.000 16.0 $1,979 $4,110 $8,219 241 Ground Rod w/ 4/0 Cable2 EA $195.00 $390 2.000 4.0 $495 $443 $885 242 Transformer 480 / 4160V2 EA $26,520.00 $53,040 60.000 120.0 $14,843 $650.00 $1,000 $34,442 $68,883 243 Transformer Connectors 3M Cold Shrink6 EA $1,560.00 $9,360 1.000 6.0 $742 $6.50 $30 $1,689 $10,132 244 Concrete Pad2 EA $1,300.00 $2,600 6.000 12.0 $1,484 $325.00 $500 $2,292 $4,584 245 Wire: (3)#8 ACSR1,800 LF$1.95 $3,510 0.029 52.2 $6,457 $0.65 $900 $6 $10,867 246247 Allowance For Integration Into Existing Electrical System1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 248249250Subtotal: G40 ELECTRICAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS$257,640350.2 $43,317$3,630$304,587251ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 10 of 14AEA - 23046Page 176 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost252253G50 SITE COMMUNICATIONS254255G5010 Site Communications Systems256257 SCADA Allowance1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 258259260Subtotal: G50 SITE COMMUNICATIONS$150,000 $150,000 261262263Z10 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS264265Z1020 Administrative Requirements266 Supervisor, 60 Hour/Week 30 WEEKS 60.000 1,800.0 $332,118 $11,071 $332,118 267 Project Expeditor, 50 Hour/Week 30 WEEKS 50.000 1,500.0 $128,160 $4,272 $128,160 268 Time Keeper/Cost Control, 30 Hour/Week30 WEEKS 30.000 900.0 $44,550 $1,485 $44,550 269270Z1040 Quality Requirements271 Quality Control 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 272 SWPPP Allowance 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 273274275Z1050 Temporary Facilities and Controls276Subsistence 277 Room and Board 1,613 MDAY $113.00 $182,265 $113 $182,265 278279Travel 280 Air Fare - Anchorage - Site 64 EA $1,500.00 $96,000 $1,500 $96,000 281 Early Construction 4 282 Survey 8 283 Crew/Super 46 284 Inspections 6 285286287ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 11 of 14AEA - 23046Page 177 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost288Small Tools & Consumables 289 Consumables1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500$1,500 $1,500290 Small Tools 1 LS $28,260.00 $28,260 $28,260 $28,260 291292Mobilization 293 Mobilization - Equipment175 TONS $500.00 $87,500 $500 $87,500 294 ATV & Trailer1,000 LBS295 Skid Steer5,000 LBS296 Dozer30,000 LBS297 Dump Truck78,000 LBS298 Excavator50,000 LBS299 Loader45,000 LBS300 Compactor Roller30,000 LBS301 Concrete Truck65,000 LBS302 Flatbed10,000 LBS303 Water Truck25,000 LBS304 Misc10,000 LBS305 Demobilization - Equipment175 TONS $500.00 $87,500 $500 $87,500 306307 Material Freight - Seattle to Job Site 476 TONS $800.00 $380,800 $800 $380,800 308 Handling Labor476 TONS4.286 2,040.1 $174,306 $366 $174,306 309310 Air Freight Anchorage - Job Site - Incidental3,000 LBS$2.50 $7,500 $3 $7,500 311312313314315316317318319320321322323ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 12 of 14AEA - 23046Page 178 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost324Equipment325 Overhead Equipment - Not picked up in direct costs326 Equipment Standby and Travel time 6 MTHS $55,500.00 $333,000 $55,500 $333,000 327 Skid Steer 1 EA328 Dozer 1 EA329 Dump Truck 3 EA330 Excavator 1 EA331 Loader 1 EA332 Compactor 1 EA333 Concrete Truck 1 EA334 Water Truck 1 EA335 Flatbed 1 EA336 Generator 1 EA337 Fuel 35,443 Gal $7.00 $248,099 $7 $248,099 338 Maintenance Labor 7 MTHS 259.800 1,818.6 $148,561 $21,223 $148,561 339340Temporary Facilities7 MTHS341 Project Office Trailer 7 MTHS $1,500.00 $10,500 $1,500 $10,500 342 Office Equipment/Supplies 7 MTHS $500.00 $3,500 $500 $3,500 343 Communications 7 MTHS $1,000.00 $7,000 $1,000 $7,000 344 Project Tool Sheds 7 MTHS $200.00 $1,400 $200 $1,400 345 Project Safety Equipment 1 LS $14,130.00 $14,130 $14,130 $14,130 346347G5010 Site Communications Systems348 Record Documents 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 349 Operations and Maintenance Manuals 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 350 Operation Training Allowance 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 351352353Subtotal: Z10 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS$1,339,0548,058.7 $827,695$344,900$2,511,649 354355356357358359360ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 13 of 14AEA - 23046Page 179 of 210 ANTHC Chignik Bay Combined Hydroelectric & Water Supply ProjectPreliminary Design Cost EstimateANTHC AN-##-###Prepared for HDL Engineering Consultants by EstimationsMay 25, 2022LineLaborNo. Description Qty UNITS Unit Total Units Totals Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Material Costs Labor Hours Equipment Costs Total Cost361Z70 TAXES, PERMITS, INSURANCE AND BONDS362363Insurance3.0%$215,470 364Bond0.7%$51,785 365366367Subtotal: Z70 TAXES, PERMITS, INSURANCE AND BONDS$267,254 368369370Z90 FEES 371Contractor Fee15.0%$1,117,437 372373374Subtotal: Z90 FEES $1,117,437 375376377Z90 CONTINGENCIES378Z9050 Construction Contingencies379 Estimating Contingency 15.0%$1,285,053 380 Project Contingency 15.0%$1,285,053 381382Subtotal: Z90 CONTINGENCIES$2,570,106 383ANTHC Chignik Combined Hydroelectric and Water Supply Estimate R2.xlsx / 5/25/2022 / 4:31 PMEstimate Page 14 of 14AEA - 23046Page 180 of 210 Appendix B Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System AEA 23046 Page 181 of 211 AEA - 23046 Page 181 of 210 City of Chignik PO Box 110 Chignik. :\K 9956-t Phone (90"'') 749-2280 Fax /907) "'-t9-2300 cityotlice!cpchignik org RESOLUTION 22-13 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING FUNDING FROM THE ALASKA ENER GY AUTHORITY'S RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND, ROUND 15 ANNOUNCEMENT TO FUND THE FINAL DESIGN OF COMMUNITY HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES AND COMMITMENT WHEREAS, The City of Chignik is established as a municipal government and primary operator of the community facilities which stand to benefit from the proposed project; WHEREAS, The City of Chignik is the primary operator of the hydroelectric and diesel power plants that will benefit from facility enhancements and reduced operating costs resulting from the proposed project; and WHEREAS, The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) is a statewide tribal health consortium; and WHEREAS, The Chignik City Council authorizes ANTHC to work with the City Council to develop, implement, and manage the project for which the City is seeking funding from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA); and WHEREAS, These facilities are managed by the City of Chignik to provide power, water, and sanitation services to and for the benefit of Tribal members and residents of the City of Chignik; and WHEREAS, The City of Chignik recognizes that this project will benefit the community and all residents there within by improving access to affordable energy, clean water, sanitation, and other services necessary for maintaining the health and well-being of the whole community; and WHEREAS, The Alaska Energy Authority, Renewable Energy Fund is soliciting Round 15 applications to support projects that will reduce the cost of energy and improve community energy efficiency; and Page 1 of Z Resolution 22-13 AEA - 23046 Page 182 of 210 AEA - 23046 Page 183 of 210 November 18, 2022 Alaska Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund 813 W Northern Lights Blvd RE: Letter of Support from the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) for City of Chignik’s Application to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund (REF), Round 15 grant opportunity To Whom It May Concern, Please accept this Letter of Support from the ANTHC for the City of Chignik’s application for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund (REF), Round 15 grant opportunity. If awarded, the funds will be used to complete the final design, and requisite permitting for a hydroelectric project to reduce Chignik’s dependency on diesel fuel for electrical generation. As part of the ANTHC’s Division of Environmental Health and Engineering (DEHE), the Rural Energy Program works with communities to make public health services more affordable through diverse energy projects. Energy costs in rural Alaskan communities often poses challenges to local governments responsible for maintaining public infrastructure. This project will directly benefit community facilities throughout the City of Chignik, resulting in an overall reduction in the community’s energy costs. These costs specifically impact the Alaska Native and American Indian people ANTHC serves who reside in Chignik and other rural communities like it. Therefore, this application’s proposed work substantially aligned with ANTHC’s vision that “Alaska Native people are the healthiest people in the world.” ANTHC and the City of Chignik have supported and partnered together in pursuit of this vision several times throughout the community and ANTHC’s history. If the City of Chignik is awarded funding under this proposal, ANTHC’s Rural Energy Program is committed to providing comprehensive project management services to the community through a Cooperative Project Agreement &3$ , to be created in cooperation with the City of Chignik upon notification that their application has been recommended for funding by AEA. The ANTHC Rural Energy Program has worked diligently with the City of Chignik to assist in the development of this application and anticipates working closely with the community to achieve the project objectives outlined by the application. ,QDGGLWLRQWRGHYHORSLQJWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHG &3$$17+& V5XUDO(QHUJ\3URJUDPZLOODOVRSURYLGHRIWKH3URMHFW0DQDJHU(ODQ (GJHUO\ VWLPHDVDQLQNLQGPDWFKVKRXOGWKLV5()5RXQGDSSOLFDWLRQLVDZDUGHG AEA - 23046 Page 184 of 210 November 18, 2022 Letter of Support Page 2 of 2 On behalf of ANTHC, I fully support this application and urge the Alaska Energy Authority to recommend the City of Chignik’s proposal be funded in full. Sincerely, Valerie Nurr'araaluk Davidson President/CEO AEA - 23046 Page 185 of 210 April 28, 2022 City of Chignik PO Box 110 Chignik, AK 99548 Dear City of Chignik: Please accept this letter of support for the Chignik Bay Hydroelectric Dam and Water Source Project for consideration under a FY2023 congressionally directed spending request. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) has been working with the City of Chignik, Chignik Bay Tribal Council, and the Lake and Peninsula Borough to design and replace the existing dam and raw water transmission line that provides the community a clean source of drinking water. The ANTHC’s most recent preliminary engineering report (July of 2018) recommends resolving the community’s water source deficiencies and leaks by combining a water source project with a hydroelectric project. A combined project would simultaneously provide disaster risk avoidance, create an opportunity for renewable energy, and ensure water security, giving the community the unique chance to solve multiple problems at once. The ANTHC has entered the water portions of the project into the Indian Health Service’s (IHS) Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) (Project #AK14365-1103) as an eligible project and received confirmation of financial support. However, since the IHS SDS is used to document water and sanitation needs, the total cost of the combined project cannot be not fully considered and the hydroelectric aspects of the project remain unsupported. ANTHC Rural Energy staff have provided continued support to the community in their consistent applications for energy funding for the hydroelectric aspects of this combined project. At a time when funds and resources are stretched thin, the Chignik Bay community and ANTHC strongly believe that pursuing either the water or hydroelectric portions of this combined project separately would be inefficient. Simultaneously funding engineering design and permitting for the combined water source and hydroelectric project will expedite development and significantly advance this critical project. The deliverables of the design and permitting process will also help inform the search for construction funding. Additionally, the continued pursuit of a combined project enables federal funding agencies to responsibly collaborate and ensure funding is used efficiently. The ANTHC will continue to work with the City of Chignik, Chignik Bay Tribal Council, and the Lake and Peninsula Borough on this endeavor and supports the City’s efforts to obtain design and permitting funding for this combined project. Sincerely, David Beveridge, Senior Director Division of Environmental Health and Engineering Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium AEA - 23046 Page 186 of 210 LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH RESOLUTION 22‐17 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AUTHORIZING MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHIGNIK APPLICATION TO THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND WHEREAS, the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly is the duly elected governing body for the Lake and Peninsula Bourgh; and WHEREAS, the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly is committed to providing for and promoting necessary and important capital improvements that will support economic development, job creation, basic public services, and a high quality of life; and WHEREAS, the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly identified development of the Chignik Hydroelectric and Water Source project as one of three high priority Capital Improvement Projects in the Borough for 2022; and WHEREAS, the City of Chignik is an applicant for a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Renewable Energy Fund (REF); and WHEREAS, the City of Chignik is working with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to complete this project and apply for the AEA REF; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Borough Assembly commits a cash match of $23,368 to support the AEA REF grant application to complete design of the project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly commits $13,932 of in-kind matching contributions for staff and contracted consultants of the Lake and Peninsula Borough to provide design review and stakeholder engagement to support the AEA REF grant application to complete design of the project. PASSED AND APPROVED by a duly constituted quorum of the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly on this 28th day of November 2022. IN WITNESS THERETO: ATTEST: _____________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Glen Alsworth Sr., Mayor Kate Conley, Borough Clerk AEA - 23046 Page 187 of 210 Resolution 22‐08 page 1 of 1 January 18, 2022 LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH RESOLUTION 22-08 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING A BOROUGH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (C.I.P.) LIST FOR 2022 WHEREAS, the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly is committed to providing for and promoting necessary and important capital improvements that will support economic development, job creation, basic public services, and a high quality of life; and WHEREAS, it is in the Borough’s best interest to annually compile a list of C.I.P. priorities; and WHEREAS, the C.I.P. Priority List is provided to the general public, state and federal officials, and other agencies and interested parties that share an interest in help the Borough achieve its development goals; and WHEREAS, the Priority List is an important tool, along with the Operating Budget, the Comprehensive Economic Development Plan and the Economic Development Strategy, in providing the Borough with a road map for reaching its development goals. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly hereby establishes and adopts a Borough C.I.P. Priority List for 2022, a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly directs the Borough Manager to use this list for all the purposes described herein to achieve the Borough’s development goals. PASSED AND APPROVED by a duly constituted quorum of the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly on this 18th day of January 2022. IN WITNESS THERETO: ATTEST: Glen Alsworth Sr., Mayor Kate Conley, Borough Clerk AEA - 23046 Page 188 of 210 Lake and Peninsula Borough CIP List 2020-2021 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LIST 2021‐2022 BOROUGH‐WIDE CAPITAL PROJECTS: 1.Iliamna Dock/Breakwater 2.Borough Maps/GIS 3.Chignik Hydro City of Chignik Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Community Building 1.Airport Improvement 2.Completion of Dam Access Trail 2.Hydro‐dam 3.Dockside Warehouse 3.Harbor Completion Chignik Lagoon Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Emergency Shelter 1.Road to Landfill 2.Water Distribution Upgrade 2.Clinic/Garage/Hanger/Apartment 3.Grader 3.Alternate Energy 4.Rock Screening Truck Chignik Lake‐ No response City of Egegik Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Airport Lighting and Improvements 1.Repair Water Plant 2.Tank Farm Repair 3.New City Shop Igiugig Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Float Plane Access Road 1.Water Line Extension 2.Runway Related: Extension, Land Acquisition, Lighting & Resurfacing 2.Sewage Lagoon Upgrade 3.Washeteria Upgrade 3.Kaskanak Road: The Cook Inlet to Bristol Bay 4.Clinic Energy and Water Upgrade 4.Telecom Infrastructure Upgrade 5.Sand Storage Building 5.Tug/Barge Iliamna Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Street Lighting – All Bus Stops 1.Housing EXHIBIT A - page 1 AEA - 23046 Page 189 of 210 Lake and Peninsula Borough CIP List 2020-2021 2.Street Lighting – All Major Facilities 2.Dock‐ Break Water 3.Heavy Equipment‐ Dump Truck, Excavator 4.Senior Living Facility Kokhanok Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Capacity Building 1.Land Planning 2.Electrical Upgrades 2.Roads and Infrastructure Renovations 3.Backhaul Project 3.Multi‐Purpose Facility Levelock Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Water Truck 1.Dock 2.Boat Launch 2.Airport Extension 3.Fuel Delivery Truck 3.Levelock Rec. Park Newhalen Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Support Landfill Burn Bin‐fencing 1.Land Planning/Housing 2.Appropriate Land for Old Cars 2.Road Extension/Safety Trails 3.Subsistence Harvest Building 3.Newhalen Dock 4.Support Community Playground/Park 4.Assistant Living Home/Apartments 5.Support PCE 5.Garage to Store City Equipment/Office Space 6.Support Letter with Newhalen Tribal for Trooper and VPSO for Newhalen Nondalton‐ No response Pedro Bay Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Former School Acquisition 1.Knutson Creek Hydro Construction 2.New Landfill Development 2.Former School Acquisition 3.Fire Fighting Equipment 3.Boat Landing Dock Perryville Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Garbage Pick‐up Vehicle 1.Public Dock Feasibility Design Study 2.Dust Control Vehicle (for road use)2.Community Swimming Pool EXHIBIT A - page 2 AEA - 23046 Page 190 of 210 Lake and Peninsula Borough CIP List 2020-2021 Pilot Point Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.New Bulkhead 1.Snow Blower for Roads 2.Sustainable Energy 2.Line Distribution 3.Airport Extension 3.Bulkhead and Road Repair 4.Equipment Building 4.Water Wells 5.Backup Generators 6.Battery Pack 7.Trained Fire Department Port Alsworth Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Roads & Trails 1.Solid Waste Ash‐fill/Incinerator 2.Building Improvements 2.Public Airport 3.Incinerator 3.Marina Port Heiden Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Paid Fuel System 1.Power Distribution 2.Equipment 2.Safe Boat Harbor 3.Hub Center 3.Safe Drinking Water Ugashik Short Term Priorities Long Term Priorities 1.Bulk Fuel Tank Farm 1.Lengthen Airport Runway 2.Barge Landing 2.Housing 3.Removal of “Win‐Ray”3.Upgrade Village Energy Systems 4.Equipment Storage Building 4.Road Construction to Wide Bay EXHIBIT A - page 3 AEA - 23046 Page 191 of 210 CHIGNIK BAY TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. Box 50 November 17, 2022 Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Chignik, AK 99564 cbaytc@aol.com Re: Letter of Support for City of Chignik's Application to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund (REF), Round 15 grant opportunity To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express the Chignik Bay Tribal Council's support for the City of Chignik' s application to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund (REF), Round 15 grant opportunity. If awarded, the funds will be used to complete the final design, and requisite permitting for a hydroelectric project to reduce Chignik's dependency on diesel fuel for electrical generation. Our council understands that the proposed project will lead to substantial energy savings for our community. The Chignik Bay Tribal Council represents the health and economic interests of all Alaska Native people living in our community the high cost of energy in our region has been an ongoing challenge for our people, and our council welcomes the City of Chignik and ANTHC' s efforts to address this issue. If awarded funding, these expense reductions would equip our community with more resources to maintain and expand local utilities and public health services. Under this proposal, the City of Chignik will work cooperatively with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)'s Rural Energy Program, which has extensive experience designing and implementing diverse energy projects in Alaska's remote communities. These systems help reduce costs for local government organizations, which can free up resources to perform repairs, maintenance, and perform other public services that benefit community members and improve community sustainability. On behalf of the Chignik Bay Tribal Council, I am very pleased to offer this letter expressing the Chignik Bay Tribe's support for this project. ��Roderick Carlson, President 192 of 211AEA - 23046AEA - 23046 Page 192 of 210 Appendix C Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Chignik Hydroelectric Power System AEA 23046 Page 193 of 211 AEA - 23046 Page 193 of 210 From:Uhlig, Cody W To:Edgerly, Elan M Subject:SDS screenshots Date:Thursday, November 17, 2022 5:08:01 PM Attachments:image007.png image008.png image009.png image010.png AEA - 23046 Page 194 of 210 Dear Tribal Leader: On behalf of the Indian Health Service (IHS), I am writing to announce allocation decisions for $700 million appropriated to the IHS in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 2021, Pub. L. No 117-58, Title VI, 135 Stat. 1411 (Nov. 11, 2021) (IIJA). The IIJA appropriates $700 million in each fiscal year (FY) from FY 2022 through FY 2026, for a total of $3.5 billion for the IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC) program. These resources are available until expended. These funds are one-time, non-recurring, and can only be used for the purposes specified in the statute. The statute provides up to 3 percent of these funds ($21 million) for “salaries, expenses, and administration” each fiscal year. These funds are only available to support federal costs. It also requires that one-half of one percent of these funds ($3.5 million) be transferred to the United States (U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General “for oversight of funding provided in the IIJA.” The statute also directs the IHS to use up to $2.2 billion for “projects that exceed the economical unit cost,” also referred to as “economically infeasible” projects. Economically infeasible projects are those that exceed the per unit cost established for each IHS Area, and three different regions within the Alaska Area IHS. While there was not a statutory barrier to funding economically infeasible projects before the IIJA was enacted, the IHS had not been able to fund these projects due to limited annual appropriations. The IHS tracks proposed projects to address sanitation needs through the Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS). The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) requires the IHS to update the SDS annually to account for changes to projects on the list that receive funding, refine cost estimates, and identify any new needs. As of December 31, 2021, there were 1,513 projects, totaling $3.4 billion in eligible costs, and $735 million in ineligible costs. Of the 1,513 total projects, 945 are considered economically feasible and 568 are considered economically infeasible. The IHS completed its last annual update of the SDS on December 31, 2021, which is the most up to date complete data set available on projects and costs. A breakout of projects and costs by IHS Area as of December 31, 2021, is enclosed. Ineligible costs are costs associated with serving commercial, industrial, or agricultural establishments, including nursing homes, health clinics, schools, hospitals, hospital quarters, and non-American Indian or non-Alaska Native (non-AI/AN) homes. The Indian Sanitation Facilities Act and the IHCIA prevent the IHS from using its appropriations for these costs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Indian Health Service Rockville MD 20857 MAY 31 2022 AEA - 23046 Page 195 of 210 However, the IHS regularly partners with Tribes and other Federal agencies to identify alternative resources to successfully support these ineligible costs. Tribal Consultation The IHS initiated Tribal Consultation on November 22, 2021, and provided a virtual learning session on IIJA funding on December 9, 2021, during the monthly Tribal Leader and Urban Indian Organization Leader conference call. The IHS conducted virtual Tribal Consultations on the IIJA on December 14, 2021; December 22, 2021; and January 5, 2022. The IHS accepted written comments through January 21, 2022. This letter only addresses decisions regarding the IIJA. Funding allocation decisions related to American Rescue Plan Act funds, and input received on potential funding increases considered by Congress that were also included as part of this Tribal Consultation will be addressed under separate cover. In general, commenters recommended that the IHS: Use the data in the SDS to allocate funds, and follow the direction of the IIJA by providing support for economically infeasible projects; Prioritize the allocation of resources, so that the majority of the funds can be used to immediately construct projects; Provide sufficient funding for planning and design activities to get projects ready to fund, and weigh these resources toward projects that address higher-level deficiencies; Coordinate with Tribes and other Federal agencies, like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a plan to address ineligible costs and discuss how to maximize community benefit of the projects; Create a plan to address the full need for Sanitation Facilities Construction projects in Tribal communities, and remove any unnecessary limitations that were previously used to allocate limited funding; and Continue to seek annual, ongoing funding to address the full scope of SFC needs, including requesting any additional administrative costs necessary to implement IIJA funds. Based on review and consideration of input received through Tribal Consultation, the IHS decided to use current SDS data and the Agency’s existing funding mechanisms to allocate these resources. This includes IHS direct service projects funded through Federal Acquisition Regulations contracts or Tribal procurement, and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act construction contracts (25 C.F.R. 900 Subpart J, 42 C.F.R. 137 Subpart N). AEA - 23046 Page 196 of 210 Additionally, the IHS will continue to update the SDS on an annual basis, and will not limit IIJA funding to projects included on the SDS before a certain date. These allocation decisions align with recommendations from Tribal Leaders to prioritize funding for projects that have completed the planning phase and can be immediately placed into the design and construction phase, and to provide sufficient funding for planning and design activities to get projects ready to fund. The following table and narrative describe Agency decisions regarding allocation of funds received through the IIJA. FY 2022 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Funding (dollars in millions) Activity FY 2022 IIJA Tier 1 Projects Construction Costs 581.2 Tier 1 Design & Construction Document Creation 59.8 Tier 2 and Tier 3 Planning, Design, & Construction Document Creation 33.0 Special and Emergency Projects 1.5 subtotal, Projects 675.5 Federal Salaries, Expenses, and Administration (3.0%) 21.0 HHS Office of Inspector General (0.5%) 3.5 Total 700.0 Note: The IIJA provides $700 million per FY, from FY 2022 through FY 2026, totaling $3.5 billion. Tier 1 Project Design, Construction Document Creation, and Construction The IHS will allocate approximately $581 million in FY 2022 IIJA funding for Tier 1 project construction costs. A Tier 1 project is considered ready to fund because planning is complete. However, design and construction contract document creation activities are not yet complete for current Tier 1 projects. These steps must be finalized before a construction contract can be initiated through Federal or Tribal procurement methods. When combined with FY 2022 annual appropriations, the IHS will fully fund construction costs for 475 Tier 1 projects. A table displaying Tier 1 projects and funding allocation amounts by Area is enclosed. These Tier 1 projects span Deficiency Levels 2 – 5. Deficiency Levels are assigned in accordance with the IHCIA for every proposed project in the SDS. A summary of the deficiency levels is enclosed. There are $118 million in ineligible costs associated with these Tier 1 projects. The IHS works closely with other Federal agencies, Tribes, and other project participants to identify funding for AEA - 23046 Page 197 of 210 the portions of projects that serve non-AI/AN homes, businesses, and public institutions. For example, the IHS partners with the EPA, USDA Rural Development, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, the National Tribal Water Center, the Rural Water Association, the Rural Community Assistance Partnership, the Denali Commission, the State of Alaska, and Tribal Consortia to secure resources for ineligible costs. The IHS also participates in the EPA-led Infrastructure Task Force, along with other Federal partners, which serves as a forum to discuss funding for ineligible costs associated with SFC projects. The IHS will continue to work with our Tribal and Federal partners to identify resources to fund these ineligible costs. This allocation also includes 79 economically infeasible Tier 1 projects, totaling $232.5 million in eligible costs. Design activities and construction contract document creation activities have not been completed for current Tier 1 projects. These steps must be finalized before a construction contract can be initiated through Federal or Tribal procurement methods. The IHS is allocating approximately $60 million in FY 2022 IIJA funding to support contracts with Architecture & Engineering Firms to complete these activities for Tier 1 projects. Planning, Design, and Construction Document Creation for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Projects The IHS will allocate approximately $33 million in FY 2022 IIJA funding for the planning, design, and construction contract document creation for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. The IHS will also use FY 2022 annual appropriations to support additional planning, design, and construction document creation activities for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. The SDS currently includes 661 Tier 2 projects, totaling approximately $2.2 billion, and 361 Tier 3 projects, totaling approximately $505 million. Tier 2 projects are projects that have a level of engineering assessment completed, such that the deficiency is understood and a recommended solution has been analyzed and scoped; these projects have a cost estimate and design parameters that are accurate within plus or minus 25 percent. Tier 3 projects are projects with cost estimates and design parameters that do not have a specific accuracy target, but are based on the best information available at the time of submission. These projects demonstrate that an eligible deficiency has been identified, but the IHS Area may not have determined a recommended solution. Consistent with current Agency practice, each IHS Area’s Office of Environmental Health and Engineering will have flexibility to allocate planning funds to either Tier 2 projects or Tier 3 projects depending on the unique circumstances associated with those projects. For example, if a Tier 3 project could move forward faster because Tier 2 projects have limitations that will take more time to resolve (i.e., right-of-way and/or archeological issues, additional planning is AEA - 23046 Page 198 of 210 Page 5 – Tribal Leader needed, or there is no funding commitment to cover ineligible costs), an IHS Area might choose to allocate planning funding to the Tier 3 project. Special and Emergency Projects The IHS will allocate $500,000 for special projects and $1 million for emergency projects from FY 2022 IIJA funding. Throughout the Tribal Consultation comment period, Tribal Leaders recommended that the IHS increase funding for special and emergency projects, in light of the significant new funding for the SFC. The IHS agrees with the recommendations as reflected by this allocation decision. Special project funds are used to pay for research studies, training, or other needs related to the SFC. Emergency project funds are provided to address water supply and waste disposal emergencies caused by natural disasters or other unanticipated situations that require immediate attention to minimize or eliminate real and potential threats to public health. Salaries, Expenses, and Administration The IHS will allocate $21 million for salaries, expenses, and administration. These funds are available for SFC project support activities that are typically funded through the Facilities and Environmental Health Support annual appropriation. However, these funds are limited to Federal activities only, due to the following provision in the IIJA: Provided further, That no funds available to the Indian Health Service for salaries, expenses, administration, and oversight shall be available for contracts, grants, compacts, or cooperative agreements under the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act as amended: The IHS is aware of the limitations this language poses for Tribes that choose to manage their SFC projects directly and will continue to work with Tribes to identify potential solutions. The IHS expects to use the salaries, expenses, and administration resources provided in the IIJA for additional staff required to support the implementation of SFC projects, systems improvements, stakeholder engagement, recruitment activities, and other related needs. The IHS will use these funds to hire the additional engineers, field technicians, inspectors, Geographic Information System analysts, and other critical positions that are necessary to support the planning, design, and construction of SFC projects. The IHS will also use these funds to hire additional contract specialists, human resources specialists, and other necessary support positions to successfully recruit for the above mentioned positions, and to manage the significant influx of construction contracting needs resulting from the IIJA. The IHS plans to leverage the use of multiple strategies and available authorities to ensure timely and efficient IIJA-related recruitment and hiring. AEA - 23046 Page 199 of 210 I sincerely value your input regarding allocation of IIJA funding to make historic investments in SFC projects that will result in significant improvements to the SFC infrastructure in American Indian and Alaska Native communities across the country. We will begin the distribution of these funds as soon as possible. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Fowler Acting Director Enclosures: Sanitation Deficiency Levels Sanitation Deficiency System Projects as of December 31, 2021 FY 2022 Tier 1 Project Counts and Associated Total Costs Funded AEA - 23046 Page 200 of 210 AEA - 23046 Page 201 of 210 AEA - 23046 Page 202 of 210 AEA - 23046 Page 203 of 210 AEA - 23046 Page 204 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Model Project Description Comments: (Please assign comment ID and hyperlink next to applicable column/row) Community <--Input ID Nearest Fuel Community <--Input 1 Region <--Input RE Technology <--Input 2 Project ID <--Input Applicant Name <--Input 3 Project Title <--Input 4 Results NPV Benefits $8,418,929.75 <--Calculation 5 NPV Capital Costs $6,118,560 <--Calculation B/C Ratio 1.38 <--Calculation 6 NPV Net Benefit $2,300,370 <--Calculation Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year 715,344 <--Calculation Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 35,767,206 <--Calculation Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 57,228 <--Calculation Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 2,861,376 <--Calculation Displaced Natural Gas MCF per year - <--Calculation Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime MCF - <--Calculation Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 583 <--Calculation Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 29,157 <--Calculation Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $6,548,844$ <--Calculation Project Start year 2026 <--Input Project Life years 50 <--Input Displaced Electric kWh per year 554,847 <--Input Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year <--Input Renewable Generation O&M (Electric) $ per year 65,488 <--Input Renewable Generation O&M (Heat) $ per year <--Input Diesels OFF time Hours per year 7,884 <--Input Electric Capacity kW 300 <--Input Electric Capacity Factor %21%<--Calculation Heating Capacity Btu/hr <--Input Heating Capacity Factor %#DIV/0!<--Calculation Total Other Public Benefit 2021$ (Total over the life of the project)0 <--Calculation Base System Size of impacted engines (select from list)$/hr Diesel Generator O&M 151-360kW 9.35$ REFERENCE: '999-Calc' Applicant's Diesel Generator Efficiency kWh per gallon 11.21 <--Input Total current annual diesel generation kWh/gallon 665,795 12.50 <--Calculation 456789101112131415161718192021222324 Annual Cost Savings Units 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year 846,161$ 2,851,342$ 2,851,342$ CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 240,534$ 245,204$ 249,968$ 254,828$ 259,785$ 264,842$ 270,000$ 275,262$ 280,630$ 286,106$ 291,692$ 297,391$ 303,203$ 309,133$ 315,182$ 321,352$ 327,646$ CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 240,534$ 245,204$ 249,968$ 254,828$ 259,785$ 264,842$ 270,000$ 275,262$ 280,630$ 286,106$ 291,692$ 297,391$ 303,203$ 309,133$ 315,182$ 321,352$ 327,646$ CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year -$ (846,161)$ (2,851,342)$ (2,851,342)$ 240,534$ 245,204$ 249,968$ 254,828$ 259,785$ 264,842$ 270,000$ 275,262$ 280,630$ 286,106$ 291,692$ 297,391$ 303,203$ 309,133$ 315,182$ 321,352$ 327,646$ Electric Units 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year - - - - 554,847 560,396 565,999 571,659 577,376 583,150 588,981 594,871 600,820 606,828 612,896 619,025 625,216 631,468 637,782 644,160 650,602 Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric) $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year - - - - 554,847 560,396 565,999 571,659 577,376 583,150 588,981 594,871 600,820 606,828 612,896 619,025 625,216 631,468 637,782 644,160 650,602 REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon 5.03$ 5.08$ 5.13$ 5.18$ 5.23$ 5.29$ 5.34$ 5.39$ 5.45$ 5.50$ 5.56$ 5.61$ 5.67$ 5.72$ 5.78$ 5.84$ 5.90$ 5.96$ 6.02$ 6.08$ 6.14$ Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year - - - - 44,388 44,832 45,280 45,733 46,190 46,652 47,119 47,590 48,066 48,546 49,032 49,522 50,017 50,517 51,023 51,533 52,048 CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 232,336$ 237,006$ 241,770$ 246,629$ 251,587$ 256,644$ 261,802$ 267,064$ 272,432$ 277,908$ 283,494$ 289,192$ 295,005$ 300,935$ 306,984$ 313,154$ 319,448$ CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 306,023$ 310,693$ 315,456$ 320,316$ 325,273$ 330,330$ 335,489$ 340,751$ 346,119$ 351,595$ 357,181$ 362,879$ 368,692$ 374,621$ 380,670$ 386,840$ 393,135$ Heating Units 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ REFERENCE: Cell D35 Renewable Heat O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Entered Value Renewable Heat Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Heat)green tons/kWh/etc. Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CALCULATION Proposed Generation Cost (Heat)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ REFERENCE: Cell D33 Displaced Fossil Fuel Use gallons per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Entered Value Displaced Fossil Fuel Price $ per gallon Entered Value Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year Entered Value Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CALCULATION Base Heating Displaced Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Base Proposed Base Proposed Diesel Generation Efficiency Any excess power sold as heat is not included as a financial benefit and in not reflected in the turbine capacity factor. Hydro (Reservoir)Load is escalated at 1% per year per the 2014 feasibility study 123456 City of Chignik Fuel cost has been manually updated to $5.03/gallon for 2022, and escalated per AEA's model. An invoice showing that cost is attached in the appendices. Chignik Bay Hydro Displaced Electric is cell D32 has been edited to remove any electricity sold to the private Trident plant. It only shows electricity displaced for the public benefit. If private sales are included the system will displace 630,508 kWh annually. Capital construction cost is spread over 2 years NOTICE: By default, this sheet is locked. If you need to unlock the sheet go to 'Review' in ribbon bar, select 'Unprotect Sheet', then input passcode: REFRound15 Chignik Bay Chignik Rural PUBLIC BENEFITS. Before using this new feature, please read the accompanying notes in the Instructions tab Description AEA - 23046 Page 205 of 210 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 334,067$ 340,617$ 347,299$ 354,115$ 361,068$ 368,160$ 375,396$ 382,776$ 390,305$ 397,986$ 405,821$ 413,813$ 421,966$ 430,282$ 438,766$ 447,421$ 456,249$ 465,255$ 474,442$ 483,813$ 493,373$ 503,125$ 513,073$ 523,221$ 533,573$ 544,133$ 554,905$ 565,894$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 334,067$ 340,617$ 347,299$ 354,115$ 361,068$ 368,160$ 375,396$ 382,776$ 390,305$ 397,986$ 405,821$ 413,813$ 421,966$ 430,282$ 438,766$ 447,421$ 456,249$ 465,255$ 474,442$ 483,813$ 493,373$ 503,125$ 513,073$ 523,221$ 533,573$ 544,133$ 554,905$ 565,894$ 334,067$ 340,617$ 347,299$ 354,115$ 361,068$ 368,160$ 375,396$ 382,776$ 390,305$ 397,986$ 405,821$ 413,813$ 421,966$ 430,282$ 438,766$ 447,421$ 456,249$ 465,255$ 474,442$ 483,813$ 493,373$ 503,125$ 513,073$ 523,221$ 533,573$ 544,133$ 554,905$ 565,894$ 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 657,108 663,679 670,316 677,019 683,789 690,627 697,533 704,509 711,554 718,669 725,856 733,114 740,446 747,850 755,328 762,882 770,511 778,216 785,998 793,858 801,796 809,814 817,913 826,092 834,353 842,696 851,123 859,634 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 657,108 663,679 670,316 677,019 683,789 690,627 697,533 704,509 711,554 718,669 725,856 733,114 740,446 747,850 755,328 762,882 770,511 778,216 785,998 793,858 801,796 809,814 817,913 826,092 834,353 842,696 851,123 859,634 6.20$ 6.26$ 6.32$ 6.39$ 6.45$ 6.52$ 6.58$ 6.65$ 6.71$ 6.78$ 6.85$ 6.92$ 6.99$ 7.05$ 7.13$ 7.20$ 7.27$ 7.34$ 7.41$ 7.49$ 7.56$ 7.64$ 7.72$ 7.79$ 7.87$ 7.95$ 8.03$ 8.11$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 52,569 53,094 53,625 54,162 54,703 55,250 55,803 56,361 56,924 57,494 58,068 58,649 59,236 59,828 60,426 61,031 61,641 62,257 62,880 63,509 64,144 64,785 65,433 66,087 66,748 67,416 68,090 68,771 325,869$ 332,419$ 339,101$ 345,917$ 352,870$ 359,962$ 367,198$ 374,578$ 382,107$ 389,788$ 397,622$ 405,615$ 413,768$ 422,084$ 430,568$ 439,223$ 448,051$ 457,057$ 466,244$ 475,615$ 485,175$ 494,927$ 504,875$ 515,023$ 525,375$ 535,935$ 546,707$ 557,696$ 399,556$ 406,106$ 412,787$ 419,603$ 426,556$ 433,649$ 440,884$ 448,265$ 455,794$ 463,474$ 471,309$ 479,301$ 487,454$ 495,771$ 504,255$ 512,909$ 521,737$ 530,743$ 539,930$ 549,302$ 558,861$ 568,613$ 578,562$ 588,710$ 599,061$ 609,622$ 620,394$ 631,383$ 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ AEA - 23046 Page 206 of 210 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 PV $6,118,560 577,104$ 588,539$ 600,204$ 612,103$ 624,242$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $8,418,930 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 577,104$ 588,539$ 600,204$ 612,103$ 624,242$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $8,418,930 577,104$ 588,539$ 600,204$ 612,103$ 624,242$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $2,300,370 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 PV 868,231 876,913 885,682 894,539 903,484 - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,542,016 $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,542,016 868,231 876,913 885,682 894,539 903,484 - - - - - - - - 8.19$ 8.27$ 8.36$ 8.44$ 8.52$ 8.61$ 8.69$ 8.78$ 3.31$ 3.31$ 3.31$ 3.31$ 3.31$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,735,050 69,458 70,153 70,855 71,563 72,279 - - - - - - - - 2,861,376 568,906$ 580,341$ 592,006$ 603,905$ 616,043$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $8,225,895 642,592$ 654,027$ 665,692$ 677,591$ 689,730$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $9,960,945 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 PV -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $0 $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 AEA - 23046 Page 207 of 210 Renewable Energy Fund Economic Benefit-Cost Analysis Model Project Description Comments: (Please assign comment ID and hyperlink next to applicable column/row) Community <--Input ID Nearest Fuel Community <--Input 1 Region <--Input RE Technology <--Input 2 Project ID <--Input Applicant Name <--Input 3 Project Title <--Input 4 Results NPV Benefits $9,540,642.75 <--Calculation 5 NPV Capital Costs $6,118,560 <--Calculation B/C Ratio 1.56 <--Calculation 6 NPV Net Benefit $3,422,083 <--Calculation Performance Unit Value Displaced Electricity kWh per year 812,891 <--Calculation Displaced Electricity total lifetime kWh 40,644,552 <--Calculation Displaced Petroleum Fuel gallons per year 65,031 <--Calculation Displaced Petroleum Fuel total lifetime gallons 3,251,564 <--Calculation Displaced Natural Gas MCF per year - <--Calculation Displaced Natural Gas total lifetime MCF - <--Calculation Avoided CO2 tonnes per year 663 <--Calculation Avoided CO2 total lifetime tonnes 33,133 <--Calculation Proposed System Unit Value Capital Costs $6,548,844$ <--Calculation Project Start year 2026 <--Input Project Life years 50 <--Input Displaced Electric kWh per year 630,508 <--Input Displaced Heat gallons displaced per year <--Input Renewable Generation O&M (Electric) $ per year 65,488 <--Input Renewable Generation O&M (Heat) $ per year <--Input Diesels OFF time Hours per year 7,884 <--Input Electric Capacity kW 300 <--Input Electric Capacity Factor %24%<--Calculation Heating Capacity Btu/hr <--Input Heating Capacity Factor %#DIV/0!<--Calculation Total Other Public Benefit 2021$ (Total over the life of the project)0 <--Calculation Base System Size of impacted engines (select from list)$/hr Diesel Generator O&M 151-360kW 9.35$ REFERENCE: '999-Calc' Applicant's Diesel Generator Efficiency kWh per gallon 11.21 <--Input Total current annual diesel generation kWh/gallon 665,795 12.50 <--Calculation 456789101112131415161718192021222324 Annual Cost Savings Units 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 Entered Value Project Capital Cost $ per year 846,161$ 2,851,342$ 2,851,342$ CALCULATION Electric Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 272,216$ 277,523$ 282,937$ 288,459$ 294,092$ 299,839$ 305,701$ 311,680$ 317,780$ 324,003$ 330,351$ 336,826$ 343,431$ 350,169$ 357,043$ 364,055$ 371,208$ CALCULATION Heating Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Entered Value Other Public Benefits $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CALCULATION Total Cost Savings $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 272,216$ 277,523$ 282,937$ 288,459$ 294,092$ 299,839$ 305,701$ 311,680$ 317,780$ 324,003$ 330,351$ 336,826$ 343,431$ 350,169$ 357,043$ 364,055$ 371,208$ CALCULATION Net Benefit $ per year -$ (846,161)$ (2,851,342)$ (2,851,342)$ 272,216$ 277,523$ 282,937$ 288,459$ 294,092$ 299,839$ 305,701$ 311,680$ 317,780$ 324,003$ 330,351$ 336,826$ 343,431$ 350,169$ 357,043$ 364,055$ 371,208$ Electric Units 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 Enter Value if generation changes Renewable Generation kWh per year - - - - 630,508 636,813 643,181 649,613 656,109 662,670 669,297 675,990 682,750 689,577 696,473 703,438 710,472 717,577 724,753 732,000 739,320 Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s) (Electric) $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ REFERENCE: Cell D34 Renewable O&M (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ Entered Value Renewable Electric Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Biomass)green tons Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost $ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Proposed Generation Cost (Electric)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ REFERENCE: Cell D32 Displaced Fossil Fuel Generation kWh per year - - - - 630,508 636,813 643,181 649,613 656,109 662,670 669,297 675,990 682,750 689,577 696,473 703,438 710,472 717,577 724,753 732,000 739,320 REFERENCE: Worksheet 'Diesel Fuel Prices'Displaced Fuel Price $ per gallon 5.03$ 5.08$ 5.13$ 5.18$ 5.23$ 5.29$ 5.34$ 5.39$ 5.45$ 5.50$ 5.56$ 5.61$ 5.67$ 5.72$ 5.78$ 5.84$ 5.90$ 5.96$ 6.02$ 6.08$ 6.14$ Enter Value if Diesels are OFF Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CALCULATION Displaced O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Use gallons per year - - - - 50,441 50,945 51,454 51,969 52,489 53,014 53,544 54,079 54,620 55,166 55,718 56,275 56,838 57,406 57,980 58,560 59,146 CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 264,018$ 269,325$ 274,739$ 280,261$ 285,894$ 291,640$ 297,502$ 303,482$ 309,582$ 315,805$ 322,153$ 328,628$ 335,233$ 341,971$ 348,845$ 355,857$ 363,010$ CALCULATION Base Generation Displaced Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ 337,705$ 343,012$ 348,425$ 353,947$ 359,581$ 365,327$ 371,189$ 377,169$ 383,269$ 389,491$ 395,839$ 402,314$ 408,920$ 415,658$ 422,532$ 429,543$ 436,696$ Heating Units 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 Entered Value Renewable scheduled replacement(s)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ REFERENCE: Cell D35 Renewable Heat O&M $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Entered Value Renewable Heat Other costs $ per year Entered Value Renewable Fuel Use Quantity (Heat)green tons/kWh/etc. Entered Value Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per unit CALCULATION Total Renewable Fuel Cost (Heat)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CALCULATION Proposed Generation Cost (Heat)$ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ REFERENCE: Cell D33 Displaced Fossil Fuel Use gallons per year - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Entered Value Displaced Fossil Fuel Price $ per gallon Entered Value Displaced Scheduled component replacement(s) $ per year Entered Value Displaced O&M $ per year CALCULATION Displaced Fuel Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CALCULATION Base Heating Displaced Cost $ per year -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Base Proposed Base Proposed Diesel Generation Efficiency Any excess power sold as heat is not included as a financial benefit and in not reflected in the turbine capacity factor. Hydro (Reservoir)Load is escalated at 1% per year per the 2014 feasibility study 123456 City of Chignik Fuel cost has been manually updated to $5.03/gallon for 2022, and escalated per AEA's model. An invoice showing that cost is attached in the appendices. Chignik Bay Hydro Displaced Electric is cell D32 includes sales to private Trident plant. Capital construction cost is spread over 2 years NOTICE: By default, this sheet is locked. If you need to unlock the sheet go to 'Review' in ribbon bar, select 'Unprotect Sheet', then input passcode: REFRound15 Chignik Bay Chignik Rural PUBLIC BENEFITS. Before using this new feature, please read the accompanying notes in the Instructions tab Description AEA - 23046 Page 208 of 210 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 378,504$ 385,947$ 393,540$ 401,285$ 409,186$ 417,246$ 425,468$ 433,855$ 442,411$ 451,139$ 460,042$ 469,124$ 478,388$ 487,839$ 497,480$ 507,315$ 517,347$ 527,581$ 538,020$ 548,670$ 559,533$ 570,615$ 581,920$ 593,451$ 605,215$ 617,215$ 629,456$ 641,944$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 378,504$ 385,947$ 393,540$ 401,285$ 409,186$ 417,246$ 425,468$ 433,855$ 442,411$ 451,139$ 460,042$ 469,124$ 478,388$ 487,839$ 497,480$ 507,315$ 517,347$ 527,581$ 538,020$ 548,670$ 559,533$ 570,615$ 581,920$ 593,451$ 605,215$ 617,215$ 629,456$ 641,944$ 378,504$ 385,947$ 393,540$ 401,285$ 409,186$ 417,246$ 425,468$ 433,855$ 442,411$ 451,139$ 460,042$ 469,124$ 478,388$ 487,839$ 497,480$ 507,315$ 517,347$ 527,581$ 538,020$ 548,670$ 559,533$ 570,615$ 581,920$ 593,451$ 605,215$ 617,215$ 629,456$ 641,944$ 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 746,713 754,181 761,722 769,340 777,033 784,803 792,651 800,578 808,584 816,669 824,836 833,085 841,415 849,830 858,328 866,911 875,580 884,336 893,179 902,111 911,132 920,244 929,446 938,740 948,128 957,609 967,185 976,857 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 746,713 754,181 761,722 769,340 777,033 784,803 792,651 800,578 808,584 816,669 824,836 833,085 841,415 849,830 858,328 866,911 875,580 884,336 893,179 902,111 911,132 920,244 929,446 938,740 948,128 957,609 967,185 976,857 6.20$ 6.26$ 6.32$ 6.39$ 6.45$ 6.52$ 6.58$ 6.65$ 6.71$ 6.78$ 6.85$ 6.92$ 6.99$ 7.05$ 7.13$ 7.20$ 7.27$ 7.34$ 7.41$ 7.49$ 7.56$ 7.64$ 7.72$ 7.79$ 7.87$ 7.95$ 8.03$ 8.11$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 59,737 60,334 60,938 61,547 62,163 62,784 63,412 64,046 64,687 65,334 65,987 66,647 67,313 67,986 68,666 69,353 70,046 70,747 71,454 72,169 72,891 73,619 74,356 75,099 75,850 76,609 77,375 78,149 370,306$ 377,749$ 385,342$ 393,087$ 400,988$ 409,048$ 417,270$ 425,657$ 434,213$ 442,941$ 451,844$ 460,926$ 470,190$ 479,641$ 489,282$ 499,117$ 509,149$ 519,383$ 529,822$ 540,472$ 551,335$ 562,417$ 573,722$ 585,253$ 597,017$ 609,017$ 621,258$ 633,746$ 443,993$ 451,436$ 459,028$ 466,774$ 474,675$ 482,735$ 490,957$ 499,344$ 507,899$ 516,627$ 525,530$ 534,612$ 543,877$ 553,328$ 562,968$ 572,803$ 582,835$ 593,069$ 603,509$ 614,158$ 625,022$ 636,104$ 647,408$ 658,940$ 670,704$ 682,704$ 694,945$ 707,432$ 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ AEA - 23046 Page 209 of 210 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 PV $6,118,560 654,682$ 667,676$ 680,932$ 694,454$ 708,247$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $9,540,643 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 654,682$ 667,676$ 680,932$ 694,454$ 708,247$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $9,540,643 654,682$ 667,676$ 680,932$ 694,454$ 708,247$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $3,422,083 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 PV 986,626 996,492 1,006,457 1,016,521 1,026,687 - - - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,542,016 $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ 65,488$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,542,016 986,626 996,492 1,006,457 1,016,521 1,026,687 - - - - - - - - 8.19$ 8.27$ 8.36$ 8.44$ 8.52$ 8.61$ 8.69$ 8.78$ 3.31$ 3.31$ 3.31$ 3.31$ 3.31$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ 73,686$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $1,735,050 78,930 79,719 80,517 81,322 82,135 - - - - - - - - 3,251,564 646,484$ 659,478$ 672,734$ 686,256$ 700,049$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $9,347,608 720,170$ 733,165$ 746,420$ 759,942$ 773,736$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $11,082,658 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 PV -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $0 $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $0 AEA - 23046 Page 210 of 210