Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study - Draft (1) CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 1 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Project Report 5/2/2013 CE2 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Distribution Brian Aklin, CE2 Feasibility Study Draft Report 1. Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................. 6  2. Introduction and Summary .................................................................................................................. 7  3. Study Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 7  4. Previous Studies................................................................................................................................... 7  5. Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................................................... 8  6. Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................... 9  6.1 Recommended General Arrangement .......................................................................................... 9  6.2 Environmental Measures .............................................................................................................. 9  7. Existing Environmental ...................................................................................................................... 10  7.1 Community Overview .................................................................................................................. 10  7.1.1 Population ......................................................................................................................... 10  7.1.2 Location ............................................................................................................................. 10  7.1.3 History ............................................................................................................................... 10  7.2 Climate ........................................................................................................................................ 10  7.3 Climate Change .......................................................................................................................... 11  7.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 13  7.4.1 Indian Creek Watershed ................................................................................................... 13  7.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gauging .......................................................................................... 13  7.4.3 Peak Flood ........................................................................................................................ 15  7.5 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 15  7.6 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 15  7.7 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 15  7.8 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................................................. 17  7.9 Endangered or Threatened Plant and Animal Species .............................................................. 18  7.10 Geology ....................................................................................................................................... 18  7.11 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 18  CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 2 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.12 Site Control ................................................................................................................................. 19  7.13 Recreational Use ........................................................................................................................ 19  7.14 Socioeconomic ............................................................................................................................ 19  7.15 Historical and Archaeological Resources ................................................................................... 20  7.15.1 Historical resources........................................................................................................... 20  7.16 Existing Hydroelectric Project ..................................................................................................... 21  7.16.1 Timber Frame Dam ........................................................................................................... 21  7.16.2 Wood Stave and Steel Pipeline ........................................................................................ 22  7.16.3 Turbine .............................................................................................................................. 22  7.17 Diesel Electric Plant .................................................................................................................... 23  7.18 Energy Demand .......................................................................................................................... 23  7.18.1 Diesel Electric Generation ................................................................................................ 23  7.18.2 Hydroelectric Generation .................................................................................................. 25  7.18.3 Heating Demand ............................................................................................................... 25  7.19 Potable Water System ................................................................................................................ 25  7.20 Fish Processing Water Use ........................................................................................................ 26  7.21 Regulatory ................................................................................................................................... 26  7.21.1 FERC License ................................................................................................................... 26  7.21.2 State Historic Preservation Office ..................................................................................... 26  7.21.3 Water Rights ..................................................................................................................... 27  8. Developmental Analysis .................................................................................................................... 28  8.1 General Effects of Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 28  8.2 Conceptual Analysis ................................................................................................................... 29  8.2.1 Reservoir ........................................................................................................................... 29  8.2.2 Dam, Spillway, and Intake ................................................................................................ 29  8.2.3 Pipeline ............................................................................................................................. 31  8.2.4 Powerhouse ...................................................................................................................... 32  8.2.5 Turbine and Generator ...................................................................................................... 32  8.2.6 Domestic and Process Raw Water Supply ....................................................................... 33  8.3 Hydrology Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 34  8.3.1 Stream Gauging Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 34  8.3.2 Hydrology Data used for modeling .................................................................................... 35  8.4 Energy Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 36  8.4.1 Diesel Electric Analysis and Modeling .............................................................................. 36  8.4.2 Electric Demand Modeling and Forecasting ..................................................................... 36  8.4.3 Heating Energy ................................................................................................................. 38  8.4.4 Operational Modeling ........................................................................................................ 38  8.4.5 Reservoir Elevation ........................................................................................................... 40  8.4.6 Project Capacity ................................................................................................................ 41  8.4.7 Proposed Project Scheme Summary ................................................................................ 42  8.4.8 Reconstruct Existing Project Summary............................................................................. 42  8.5 Cost Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 43  8.5.1 Proposed Project Construction Cost ................................................................................. 43  8.5.2 Reconstruction of Existing Project .................................................................................... 44  8.5.3 Operation and Maintenance .............................................................................................. 45  8.6 Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 45  CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 3 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.7 Economic Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 46  8.7.1 Diesel Fuel Price ............................................................................................................... 46  8.7.2 Time Value ........................................................................................................................ 47  8.7.3 Construction Cost Variance .............................................................................................. 47  8.7.4 Economic Evaluation Method ........................................................................................... 47  8.7.5 Proposed Project Economic Results ................................................................................. 49  8.7.6 Project Capacity Economic Comparison........................................................................... 51  8.7.7 Reservoir Elevation Comparison ...................................................................................... 51  8.7.8 Reconstruct Existing Project Economic Results ............................................................... 51  8.7.9 Environmental Measures Economic Analysis ................................................................... 51  8.8 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................................. 52  8.8.1 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................ 52  8.8.2 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 54  8.8.3 Historical and Archaeological Resources ......................................................................... 55  8.9 Regulatory Analysis .................................................................................................................... 55  8.10 Consultation ................................................................................................................................ 55  8.10.1 City of Chignik Council Meeting, February 20, 2013 ........................................................ 55  8.10.2 Resource Agency Meeting ................................................................................................ 56  8.10.3 Federal Agency Meeting ................................................................................................... 56  8.10.4 Alaska Energy Authority Review ....................................................................................... 56  8.10.5 Draft Feasibility Study Review .......................................................................................... 57  9. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 57  9.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 57  9.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 58  10. References .......................................................................................................................................... 59  11. End of Report ...................................................................................................................................... 59  CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 4 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table of Tables Table 1 - Development Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 8  Table 2 - Proposed Hydroelectric Scheme Summary ................................................................................... 9  Table 3 - Local Climate Data....................................................................................................................... 11  Table 4 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Dam Site ............................................................... 14  Table 5 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Bridge Site ............................................................ 14  Table 6 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2008-2013), Dam Site ..................................................... 14  Table 7 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2011-2013), Bridge Site .................................................. 15  Table 8 - Endangered or Threatened Species ............................................................................................ 18  Table 9 - Land Ownership ........................................................................................................................... 19  Table 10 - Table of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy ...................................................... 23  Table 11 - Indian Lake Modeled Reservoir Areas and Storage Volumes ................................................... 29  Table 12 - Dam Conceptual Quantities with Varying Reservoir Elevations ................................................ 30  Table 13 - Pipeline Diameter Selection for Various Project Capacities ...................................................... 31  Table 15 - Proposed Hydroelectric Project, Scheme Summary ................................................................. 42  Table 16 - Reconstruct Existing Hydroelectric Project, Scheme Summary ................................................ 42  Table 17 - Proposed Project Construction Cost Estimate Summary .......................................................... 43  Table 18 - Existing Project Reconstruction Cost Estimate ......................................................................... 44  Table 19 - Diesel O&M Costs...................................................................................................................... 45  Table 20 - Proposed 340 kW Project Economic Results ............................................................................ 49  Table 21 - Alternate 420 kW Project Economic Results ............................................................................. 51  Table of Figures Figure 1 - Average Monthly Temperature for Chignik ................................................................................. 12  Figure 2 - Average Monthly Precipitation for Chignik ................................................................................. 12  Figure 3 - Indian Creek Approximate Spawning Salmon Count ................................................................. 16  Figure 4 - Indian Creek Fish Species Periodicity Chart .............................................................................. 17  Figure 5 - Chart of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy ....................................................... 24  Figure 6 - FY2013 Electric Generation by Customer Class, kWh ............................................................... 24  Figure 7 - FY2013 Electric Payments by Customer Class .......................................................................... 25  Figure 8 - ADNR Water Rights Land Case Detail, Water Rights Information ............................................. 27  Figure 9 - Dam Spill Flow Duration Curve, Oct 2008 to Oct 2013 .............................................................. 34  Figure 10 - Indian Creek Annual Dam Spill Unit Flow Compared with USGS Russel Creek ..................... 34  Figure 11 - 2010 Indian Creek Annual Hydrograph (at dam) ...................................................................... 35  Figure 13 - Chignik 15 Minute Power Energy Logger, 2013 Measured Demand Data .............................. 36  Figure 14 - Synthesized Annual Demand for Chignik ................................................................................. 37  Figure 15 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Flow Model............................................................. 39  Figure 16 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Power Model .......................................................... 39  Figure 17 - Energy Production for Reservoir Elevations 445' and 450' ...................................................... 40  Figure 18 - Energy Production for Project Capacities of 340 kW and 420 kW' .......................................... 41  Figure 19 - Project Development Schedule ................................................................................................ 46  Figure 20 - Electric Generation Cost, 2014 dollars, Capital Bonding Scenario, $/kWh .............................. 50  Figure 21 - Existing and Proposed Spill Flow at Dam, 2013 Water Year ................................................... 53  Figure 22 - Existing and Proposed Flow at Powerhouse Using Bridge Site Flow Data, 2013 Water Year 54  CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 5 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendices Appendix - Exhibit 1, Existing Hydroelectric Project Map Appendix - October 16, 2013 Resource Agency Meeting Minutes Appendix - Construction Cost Estimate Appendix - 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 6 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 1. 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 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 7 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 2. Introduction and Summary The City of Chignik received a Round 1 REF grant from the State of Alaska in 2009 to perform a feasibility study, conceptual design and cost estimate for a replacement hydroelectric plant. Funding was contingent upon an MOU with Trident Seafoods (NorQuest owner) to transfer the FERC license for the existing hydro from NorQuest to the City. In 2012 NorQuest Seafoods Inc. (wholly owned by Trident Seafoods) 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 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 of Chignik (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 City of Chignik has studied the engineering and economics of restoring the antiquated hydropower system with the findings presented in this report. The findings show a significant benefit with the proposed hydroelectric development.  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. The project will 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. 3. Study Purpose The City of Chignik 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 Chignik and the State of Alaska by offsetting the cost of diesel generated electricity. 4. Previous Studies 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). CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 8 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. 5. Alternatives Considered The base case for assessing the hydroelectric generation option is diesel only generation. Options for hydroelectric development include: Table 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. Reconstruct 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 replacing the existing infrastructure. This alternative is not economical due to the high cost and low energy output. Proposed Action. This alternative includes replacing the dam, pipeline, and relocating the power generation to Indian Creek while increasing the capacity. This 340 kW alternative is economically superior and is the proposed project option in this report. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 9 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 6. Proposed Action 6.1 Recommended General Arrangement The proposed action consists 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 upper limit of spawning habitat on Indian Creek. The general arrangement of this proposed project is shown in Figure 2. 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. The following table summarizes the proposed project configuration. Table 2 - Proposed Hydroelectric Scheme Summary Nominal Capacity 340 kW Static head 380 ft Design head 340 ft Hydraulic capacity 16 cfs Reservoir Area 24 acres Reservoir Useable Storage Volume 204 acre-ft Nominal penstock diameter 22 in Penstock length 7,280 ft Transmission length 1,600 ft New access road & trail lengths 9,170 ft Annual energy potential 1,960 MWh Existing demand (diesel generated) 950 MWh Annual displaced diesel energy 900 MWh Annual reduction in diesel fuel use 63,500 gal 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 5,150' of 22" diameter buried HDPE SDR 26 pipe and 2,140' of coated steel pipe with Victaulic couplings for a total penstock length of 7,280'. 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. 6.2 Environmental Measures The replacement project locates the powerhouse at an elevation higher than desired and includes a significantly longer tailrace than required in order to convey the tail water to the upper limit of anadromous fish habitat. 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 10 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Constructing the proposed alternative over reconstruction of the existing project, which diverts 2.7 cfs out of Indian Creek, is also seen as a significant positive environmental measure in that the permanent diversion of water out of Indian Creek will discontinue which is expected to improve fish habitat. Additionally, the proposed alternative will significantly increase the amount of renewable energy generated. 7. Existing Environmental 7.1 Community Overview 7.1.1 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. 7.1.2 Location The City of Chignik 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. 7.1.3 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. 7.2 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 11 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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 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 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 - Local Climate Data Mean Annual Temperature Mean Min January Temperature 18 deg F4 Mean Annual Precipitation 100 inches4 Heating Degree Days (65 °F base) 9963 7.3 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 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). 1 Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries (CIS) 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). CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 12 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 1 - Average Monthly Temperature for Chignik Figure 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: 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 13 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. 7.4 Hydrology 7.4.1 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. Figure 1 in the Appendix 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. 7.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gauging As part of the FERC requirements, monitoring of pipeline flows and gauging of stream flows at the dam, pool, and bridge sites in Indian Creek has been performed. Details of past stream CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 14 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. Table 4 - 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 5 - 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 Table 6 - 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 15 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 7 - 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 7.4.3 Peak Flood For concept design purposes the 500 year recurrence flood determined in accordance with USGS procedures for ungauged 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 100 in   J, mean min Jan temp 18 deg F  The resulting estimated flood flow is approximately 1300 cfs. 7.5 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 1984) was untreated but of good quality. Visual observations suggest that the water of Indian Creek is normally of high clarity and low turbidity. 7.6 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. 7.7 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 16 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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 number of spawning pink salmon over the past 5 years has been 2,000 per year. There has been a downward shift in numbers since 2007 as shown in the approximate salmon count chart below. Figure 3 - Indian Creek Approximate Spawning 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. 5,600 3,400 2,700 1,300 2,400 1,000 2,600 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Salmon CountYear CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 17 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. Table 4 list the salmonid species that have been identified in Indian Creek and their associated spawning and egg incubation seasons. Figure 4 - Indian Creek Fish Species Periodicity Chart 7.8 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 18 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.9 Endangered or Threatened Plant and Animal Species Listings and occurrences of endangered or threatened plant and animal species for Alaska was obtained from the USFWS5. Species that are potentially impacted by the project are listed in the table below. 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. Table 8 - 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 7.10 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 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 satisfactory 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. 7.11 Land Use Generalized lands uses in the project area are listed below:  Subsistence - Hunting  Subsistence - Fishing 5 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK&s8fid=112761032 792&s8fid=112762573902 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 19 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents.  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 7.12 Site Control The proposed project would occupy the lands described in the following table. Table 9 - 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. 7.13 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. 7.14 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 20 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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 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. 7.15 Historical and Archaeological Resources 7.15.1 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 21 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. 7.16 Existing Hydroelectric Project Chignik Project, FERC No. 620 is a small hydroelectric project that primarily conveys raw water from Indian Lake to the community of Chignik. 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 open there is enough frictional loss through the pipeline to maintain the desired pressure of 100 psi. An overview map for the existing Chignik 60 kW Hydro project is shown in Exhibit 1 in the Appendices. The project infrastructure is deteriorated and in need of immediate maintenance and repairs. 7.16.1 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 sistered 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 at the dam site. This is evident in the monthly median stream flows reported in section 7.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gauging. 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 22 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. 7.16.2 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. 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. 7.16.3 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 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 23 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. 7.17 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. 7.18 Energy Demand 7.18.1 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 occurs 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 the table and figure below. Table 10 - Table of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy Month Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 51,170 46,530 65,481 63,263 76,656 2 49,665 47,820 56,574 62,099 59,633 3 55,083 43,950 52,545 52,133 62,342 4 44,520 41,280 56,571 58,615 60,552 5 42,660 50,310 77,971 90,978 108,886 6 54,540 46,470 121,755 119,722 139,332 7 52,230 43,770 67,004 126,236 112,051 111,768 8 55,083 45,510 62,073 107,200 106,321 112,570 9 48,690 43,560 78,142 79,817 78,478 88,521 10 44,247 39,450 54,342 51,495 46,001 51,771 11 56,287 42,540 54,441 61,703 53,679 61,708 12 47,257 36,420 59,203 61,074 57,991 55,583 Total 303,794 548,888 276,360 375,205 918,422 901,331 989,322 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 24 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 5 - 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 the following chart for FY2013. Figure 6 - FY2013 Electric Generation by Customer Class, kWh 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 Residential Generation 22% Community Facility Generation 9%Commercial Generation 57% Station Service 3%Line loss 9% CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 25 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.18.1.1 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 the chart below. Figure 7 - FY2013 Electric Payments by Customer Class 7.18.2 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. 7.18.3 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. 7.19 Potable Water System 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. State of Alaska, PCE 18% Commercial 36% Residential 36% Community 9% CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 26 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The City of Chignik is the certificated water utility and supplies potable water from withdrawal of pressurized raw water from the supply pipeline (also hydro penstock) near the north end of the boardwalk crossing the wetland area. The 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 water pipeline 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. 7.20 Fish Processing Water Use 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. 7.21 Regulatory 7.21.1 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. Existing project timeline:  Previous licenses: 1925, 1941, 1979  License Application: October 2, 2003  Final Environmental Assessment: March 30, 2005  FERC License: February 8, 2006 (30 years)  Study plans submitted: October 3, 2006  FERC approval of study plans: August 22, 2007  Study plans modification 1: March 18, 2011  Study plans modification 2: October 24, 2011  Current FERC License expires: February 1, 2036 7.21.2 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). CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 27 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. 7.21.3 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 are currently certificated to the City of Chignik. Figure 8 - ADNR Water Rights Land Case Detail, Water Rights Information CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 28 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8. Developmental Analysis 8.1 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. It is likely 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 29 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.2 Conceptual Analysis 8.2.1 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 Figure 3 in the Appendices. Reservoir surface areas and storage volumes are shown in the table below. Table 11 - Indian Lake Modeled Reservoir Areas and Storage Volumes Indian Lake Reservoir Elevation (ft) Area (acres) Reservoir 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. 8.2.2 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 conventionally configured rock fill dam with an assumed 10" thick impervious central concrete core and a single outlet tunnel, gate shaft, and upstream and downstream slopes of 2:1 was selected for the concept design in this report. As a concept design this serves to produce a conservative cost estimate. 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 with particular focus on whether to utilize a central concrete core water barrier and rip rap face versus an upstream face lined with steel that serves as both a water barrier and face protector taking into consideration longevity and future maintenance. The upstream face must be capable of CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 30 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. withstanding forces from ice that moves up and down frequently with reservoir changes, forces from wind driven ice, and freezing and thawing effects. Rip rap, steel, and concrete could be utilized for face protection with rip rap presumed to be locally available. 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 water surface elevations ranging from the existing elevation of 440' up to 465' were analyzed with varying quantities and construction costs. The following table shows the dam quantities based on reservoir elevation. Table 12 - Dam Conceptual Quantities with Varying Reservoir Elevations Dam Elevation Max Reservoir Elevation Dam Volume (cyd) Concrete Water Barrier Area, sq ft Spillway Excavation Volume, cyd 445 440 1,850 1510 3900 450 445 3,200 2350 3360 455 450 5,700 3435 2942 460 455 10,400 4755 2644 465 460 17,200 470 465 28,533 The proposed intake and outlet works for the concept follows conventional design consisting of a trash rack, conveyance tunnel to a vertical gate shaft, a transition, air inlet, and conveyance penstock with a rupture control valve. The design allows for maintenance of the trash rack and shutoff gate. A shutoff gate or valve is recommended to allow for dewatering of the penstock. This could be located, as proposed, at the dam face or at the downstream embankment. The use of a penstock rupture 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 31 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. 8.2.3 Pipeline Early in this study, the penstock route was proposed to traverse the ridge just west of Lower Indian Lake and proceed more or less straight to the powerhouse location at the pool site. This would have required significantly less steel pipe because of the lower pressure through most of the route. However, access to this area is difficult due to the topography. An access road would not be feasible and construction by hand techniques, small portable machinery, and helicopter would be required. The route was subsequently revised to follow the existing pipeline, diverting around the east side of the Lower Indian Lake, and then following the access trail to the new power house location. This option requires more total pipeline length along with a higher proportion of higher cost steel pipe but is likely to provide the lowest overall construction and lifetime maintenance cost. 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 following tables 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 13 - Pipeline Diameter Selection for Various Project Capacities Nominal Pipeline Diameter, inches Hydraulic Capacity (cfs) Headloss (ft, % of static) Velocity (fps) Nominal Capacity (kW) 18 10 44' (12%) 6.3 210 20 12.5 40' (11%) 6.4 260 22 16 40' (11%) 6.8 340 24 20 39' (10%) 7.1 420 26 24.5 39' (10%) 7.4 520 28 30 39' (10%) 7.8 640 30 36 39' (10%) 8.2 760 The pipeline thickness is based on a preliminary design profile with the HDPE pipe entirely SDR 26 and the steel pipe sized in a SDR of 120 and 1/4". 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 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 32 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.2.4 Powerhouse The location for proposed powerhouse represents one of the most 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 for an overall lower project cost. The pool site generally defines the upper limit of spawning pink salmon habitat although salmon have been observed above this location. The feasibility modeling determined that the annual energy potential and subsequent project benefits are marginally impacted by the proposed mitigative powerhouse and tailrace discharge location. 8.2.5 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 33 © 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. 8.2.6 Domestic and Process Raw Water Supply Proposed concept includes the cost for a community water supply 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. 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 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 34 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.3 Hydrology Analysis 8.3.1 Stream Gauging Data Analysis The graph below shows the flow duration curve for the dam spill. Figure 9 - Dam Spill Flow Duration Curve, Oct 2008 to Oct 2013 Calendar years with a complete record of dam spill from stream gauging in the reservoir are 2009, 2010, and 2012. There is also a complete record of dam spill and bridge site flows for water 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 the chart below. Figure 10 - Indian Creek Annual Dam Spill Unit Flow Compared with USGS Russel Creek 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) CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 35 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. There is a slight correspondence with the high unit flow occurring in 2009. Year 2010, 2012, and 2013 annual mean flows are nearly identical with 2010 considered typical. 8.3.2 Hydrology Data used for modeling Unless indicated otherwise, the modeling uses the 2010 calendar flow data from the dam for the analysis. Also for modeling purposes, the spill over the reservoir (outflow) is equated to the reservoir inflow. Figure 11 - 2010 Indian Creek Annual Hydrograph (at dam) 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 36 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.4 Energy Analysis 8.4.1 Diesel Electric Analysis and Modeling A diesel efficiency curve was developed based on data provided the Alaska Energy Authority (shown in the chart below). 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. 8.4.2 Electric Demand Modeling and Forecasting For the purposes of improving the resolution of current load demand 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 the plot below along with the calculated daily average load. Figure 12 - 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 37 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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 15min 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. The plot below 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. Figure 13 - 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 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) CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 38 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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. 8.4.3 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 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. 8.4.4 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 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 described above 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 in relation to the available water supply and the modified flows based on reservoir regulation and demand requirements. Another chart demonstrating the operational model is follows with the total energy demand and the proportion of generation provided by hydro and diesel. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 39 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 14 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Flow Model Figure 15 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Power Model 430 435 440 445 450 455 460 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 Reservoir Elevation, ftFlow, cfsDate Proposed Flow (Spill) at Dam, cfs Flow Utilized for Power Generation (Project Flow), cfs Existing Flow (Spill) at Dam, cfs Reservoir Elevation, ft 420 425 430 435 440 445 450 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 Reservoir LevelPower, kWDay Hydro Generation Diesel Generation Electric  Demand Reservoir  Level CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 40 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.4.5 Reservoir Elevation The chart below 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 while modeling increasing annual demand. Figure 16 - Energy Production for Reservoir Elevations 445' and 450' In the chart above it is noted that the increasing demand improves annual potential energy generation slightly by drawing down the reservoir more often. The chart also shows the minor difference in hydroelectric generation between reservoir elevations. The same modeling was applied to the range of reservoir elevations considered. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 500 1,500 2,500 3,500Annual Hydroelectric Generation, MWhAnnual Demand, MWh Useable  Hydroelectric  Generation, Reservoir  Elevation 445' Potential Hydroelectric  Generation, Reservoir  Elevation  445' Useable  Hydroelectric  Generation, Reservoir  Elevation 450' Potential Hydroelectric  Generation, Reservoir  Elevation  450' CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 41 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.4.6 Project Capacity Similarly, the selection of the pipeline size and the subsequent project capacity was made after modeling the project using a range of values. The chart below shows the results of the capacity modeling for two configurations. In the chart, the hydroelectric generation is shown while modeling increasing annual demand. Figure 17 - Energy Production for Project Capacities of 340 kW and 420 kW' In the chart above it is apparent that demand must increase to twice current levels before increased project capacity provides increased benefits. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000Annual Hydroelectric Generation, MWhAnnual Demand, MWh Useable  Hydroelectric  Generation, 340 kW Project Capacity Potential Hydroelectric  Generation, 340 kW Project Capacity Useable  Hydroelectric  Generation, 420 kW Project Capacity Potential Hydroelectric  Generation, 420 kW Project Capacity CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 42 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.4.7 Proposed Project Scheme Summary The table below summarizes the proposed project scheme. It is expected that the final capacity determination will be made during the preliminary design and permitting phase. Also, the project could be designed to allow for a significant capacity increase at a later date. Table 14 - Proposed Hydroelectric Project, Scheme Summary Nominal Capacity 340 kW Static head 380 ft Design head 340 ft Hydraulic capacity 16 cfs Reservoir Area 24 acres Nominal penstock diameter 22 in Penstock length 7,280 ft Transmission length 1,600 ft New access road & trail lengths 9,170 ft Annual energy potential 1,960 MWh Existing demand (diesel generated) 950 MWh Annual displaced diesel energy 900 MWh Annual reduction in diesel fuel use 63,500 gal 8.4.8 Reconstruct Existing Project Summary Rebuilding the existing project, utilizing 2.7 cfs with a replacement dam with a spill elevation of 445' and a new 70 kW turbine and generator, would have the following characteristics. Table 15 - Reconstruct Existing Hydroelectric Project, Scheme Summary Capacity 70 kW Static head 430 ft Design head 400 ft Hydraulic capacity 2.7 cfs Nominal penstock diameter 12 in Penstock length 7,280 ft Annual energy potential 470 MWh Existing demand (diesel generated) 950 MWh Annual displaced diesel energy 470 MWh Annual reduction in diesel fuel use 33,400 gal CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 43 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.5 Cost Analysis 8.5.1 Proposed Project Construction Cost The table below is a summary of the opinion of probable cost for the construction of the proposed project. A detailed construction cost estimate is included in the Appendices. Table 16 - Proposed Project Construction Cost Estimate Summary Item Labor Hours Material Cost Item Cost Construction Support 2,219 $459,000 Mobilization $538,000 Access Trail 822 $317,000 $390,000 Powerhouse 1,702 $108,000 $272,000 Dam and Intake 4,439 $331,000 $728,000 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 1,233 $107,000 $216,000 Concrete Cutoff Wall 1,104 $58,000 $162,000 Rockfill Placement 857 $16,000 $92,000 Spillway 350 $7,000 $38,000 Power, Controls, and Communication 186 $39,000 $55,000 Pipeline 1,921 $537,000 $710,000 Turbine and Generator 450 $695,000 $739,000 Tailrace 98 $42,000 $51,000 Transmission 582 $53,000 $104,000 Equipment $663,000 SUBTOTAL, Contractor Direct Costs 12,233 $4,653,000 Contractor Indirects $1,298,000 Weather Delay (% of Labor and Equip) $182,000 Overall Contingency $465,000 Contractor Profit $558,000 Bonding $93,000 SUBTOTAL, Construction Contract $5,952,000 Development Costs $1,264,000 Construction Finance Interest $134,000 FERC License Amendment $85,000 Geotech Investigation $250,000 Engineering $370,000 Historic Properties $75,000 Inspection and Testing $175,000 Owner Admin $175,000 TOTAL PROJECT $7,216,000 Category Cost Labor $1,159,000 Equip $663,000 Material $2,083,000 Shipping $748,000 Indirect $1,299,000 Development $1,264,000 Total $7,216,000 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 44 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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 and rip rap 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 and that the steel pipeline will be joined using Victaulic couplings. 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. 8.5.2 Reconstruction of 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 17 - Existing Project Reconstruction Cost Estimate Category Cost Labor $915,573 Equipment $555,552 Material $1,150,475 Shipping $558,873 Indirect $910,426 Development $912,045 Total $5,002,943 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 45 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.5.3 Operation and Maintenance Diesel O&M costs are determined from City of Chignik electric utility rate filings. 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. Table 18 - Diesel O&M Costs Diesel O&M Cost 2012 $31,180 filters $9,181 generator repairs $21,999 2011 $23,905 filters $12,722 generator repairs $11,183 Average $27,543 Cost per run hour $3.14 Hydro O&M consists primarily of labor costs and an amount each year for a repair and replacement fund. Labor costs were are 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 gauging 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. 8.6 Schedule The proposed schedule that is used in the economic analysis assumes development begins with funding approved in July 2015. Construction would occur in 2017 with the project operational in 2018. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 46 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 18 - Project Development Schedule 8.7 Economic Analysis Evaluation of the proposed project is made by comparing the net present cost and benefits with the base case of diesel electric generation. A planning horizon of 50 years is used which is not unreasonable for this small project given the 100 year history of fish resource extraction and associated energy demand in Chignik. 8.7.1 Diesel Fuel Price 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 from 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 47 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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%. 8.7.2 Time Value The net present cost for hydro generation primarily is dependent on the cost of the project and the interest rate. Under a grant funded scenario there is no loan rate and the 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). A more typical funding scenario is a bonded or loan option where the total construction cost is funded using borrowed capital at bonding interest rates and a loan term of 30 years. The interest rate for borrowing is the discount rate plus the inflation rate which is assumed to be 3%. Therefore the combined bond, or loan, rate is 6% (interest rate). 2014 real dollar values are used for the economic horizon. This allows for constant pricing in today's dollars and eliminates the need to inflate costs. However, like the fuel price which is subject to a growth rate because it is expected to outpace the average inflation, loan payments from borrowing capital are fixed over time and not subject to inflation. Thus the loan payments must be deflated separately using the assumed 3% average rate of inflation. 8.7.3 Construction Cost Variance Whereas the base case of diesel generation includes a probable cost range from low to high cost, the hydroelectric economic analysis also includes a probable cost range from a low to high scenario. Factors of -10% and +20% are applied to the overall development cost estimate based on the level of confidence in the cost estimate at this stage. 8.7.4 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). CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 48 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 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). 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 49 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.7.5 Proposed Project Economic Results The table below shows detailed 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. Table 19 - Proposed 340 kW Project Economic Results Load Growth Case Avg B/C 0% 1% 2% Hydro Construction Cost and Fuel Cost Scenario Low Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $8,710,000 $10,490,000 $12,820,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $8,260,000 $8,740,000 $9,690,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $6,060,000 $6,060,000 $6,060,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $6,510,000 $7,810,000 $9,190,000 B/C Ratio 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.3 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $840,000 $650,000 $300,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.2 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 $9,070,000 $9,750,000 $11,120,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $6,730,000 $6,730,000 $6,730,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $8,440,000 $10,290,000 $12,250,000 B/C Ratio 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.5 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $1,090,000 $820,000 $300,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.6 High Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $12,130,000 $15,170,000 $19,190,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $10,510,000 $11,320,000 $12,980,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $8,080,000 $8,080,000 $8,080,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $9,700,000 $11,940,000 $14,290,000 B/C Ratio 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.5 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $1,250,000 $930,000 $290,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.5 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 1.3. 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 to as high as 1.8. The overall average B/C ratio of hydroelectric generation is 1.4 for all scenarios. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 50 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The results, shown graphically, in terms of the cost of electric generation in any given year, in 2014 real dollars, for the bonded financing scenario are shown in the chart below. Figure 19 - Electric Generation Cost, 2014 dollars, Capital Bonding Scenario, $/kWh 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 2014201620182020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050205220542056205820602062Unit Electric Generation Cost, $/kWhYear Diesel Generation  Cost Range Projected Diesel Generation  Cost High Range  Hydro Generation Cost Low Range  Hydro Generation Cost Projected Hydro Generation  Cost CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 51 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.7.6 Project Capacity Economic Comparison The economics for the next largest hydro configuration considered, a nominal 420 kW project using 20 cfs and a 24" pipeline was evaluated and found to be slightly inferior to the proposed nominal 340 kW project under all scenarios. Results for the 420 kW nominal project are shown for the medium price case in the table below. Table 20 - Alternate 420 kW Project Economic Results Load Growth Case Avg B/C 0% 1% 2% Hydro Construction Cost and Fuel Cost Scenario Medium Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $10,780,000 $13,310,000 $16,640,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $9,410,000 $10,070,000 $11,160,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $7,050,000 $7,050,000 $7,050,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $8,420,000 $10,280,000 $12,520,000 B/C Ratio 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.5 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $1,090,000 $840,000 $490,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.5 The table above shows that if demand is known to increase significantly then the larger capacity project would be recommended, particularly if the increased demand occurred in the summer. 8.7.7 Reservoir Elevation Comparison Reservoir capacities were also analyzed with results very similar to those from increased project capacity. All of the scenarios evaluated resulted in slightly inferior economics for the 450' reservoir elevation. The proposed conceptual design increases the existing dam elevation of 440' to an elevation of 445', or slightly higher, in accordance with the economically optimum storage capacity determined from project modeling. 8.7.8 Reconstruct Existing Project Economic Results The economic analysis for the option of reconstructing the existing project has B/C ratios from 1.0 for the medium price case and no load growth to 1.3 with 2% load growth. The heating benefit is significantly negative dragging B/C ratios below one as would be expected for the 70 kW project with very little excess energy. 8.7.9 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 annual benefits from the hydro project are subsequently reduced by about $1,800 with a NPV lifetime total reduced benefits of $50,000. 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 52 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.8 Environmental Analysis The only resources with potential for significant impacts from the proposed project are socioeconomic and fishery resources. 8.8.1 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 regulated flow of up to 16 cfs back to the most habitable reach of Indian Creek. The hydrological impacts from the proposed action are shown in the figures below 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 53 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 20 - Existing and Proposed Spill Flow at Dam, 2013 Water Year 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 54 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The 2013 water year flows recorded at the bridge site gauge is shown with the addition of the project's tailrace flow 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 of flow from the existing project is apparent in the chart. Figure 21 - Existing and Proposed Flow at Powerhouse Using Bridge Site Flow Data, 2013 Water Year 8.8.2 Socioeconomic Resources The main factors influencing the socioeconomic environment in Chignik include salmon harvesting and the cost of energy. The proposed project will certainly result in reduced cost of energy of the long term. The net present value of the expected savings from the proposed project is $1.8M. 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. 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 55 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.8.3 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 possible benefits associated with a planned and permitted replacement effort. 8.9 Regulatory Analysis Modification of the FERC license is generally expected to include a revised initial statement and Exhibits A, E, F, and G. This report has been prepared to serve as the basis for 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. 8.10 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. 8.10.1 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 56 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8.10.2 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. 8.10.3 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 and 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. 8.10.4 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 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 57 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents.  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. 8.10.5 Draft Feasibility Study Review This draft report is being distributed to agencies and other interested parties for review and comment. Comments on this report should be provided to: Daniel Hertrich Hatch 1225 E International Airport Rd Anchorage, AK 99518 907-561-2800 phone dhertrich@hatchusa.com 9. Conclusions and Recommendations 9.1 Conclusion Based on the analysis effort, it is apparent that the hydroelectric resource is very limited in the winter where flows normally drop to less than 3 cfs for extended periods of time, sometimes through the entire 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. Increasing the dam height is very costly as the volume of rock and concrete increases significantly. Significant height increases are costly and do not result in a significant reduction in diesel generation. 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 the Trident processing plant increases demand, then a larger project capacity would be recommended. 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. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 58 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 9.2 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.  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 increased.  Although The existing stream gauging 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 met with increased project capacity then continued collection of stream gauging data is recommended. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Draft Report 20140502 Chignik Feasibility Study, Rev. A Page 59 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 10. References Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Indian Creek Fish Spawning and Stream Monitoring Annual Report, 2011, Final Report, Review #1. June 12, 2012. 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. Mobley and Associates, Chignik's Norquest Cannery - A Cultural Resource Inventory & Evaluation, 2004, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10478372. 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. Hatch, 2013 Monitoring Report, Final Draft, March 17, 2014, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13485977 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 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 National Climate Data Center, Monthly Heating Degree Days, CHIGNIK, ALASKA. 11. End of Report Daniel Hertrich DJH: PK PKRM 0.0RM 0.5RM 1.0RM 1.5RM 2.0PK PK PK PK PK PK PK P K P K P K PKPKPKPKP K 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. , 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 , 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 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 24 weeksRetail Fuel Cost 4.75 $/galCrew size 6Nominal Pipe Size 22 inlbs HDPE 119,632lbs Steel 97,139Crew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship 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 24 wks 720 $105 $75,556$75,556Asbuilt and closeout 1 2 wks 120 $105 $12,600$12,600Mechanic 0.5 5.3 mos 720 $105 $75,556$75,556housing 840 Man Days$200 $167,903 $167,903Contractor passenger travel 60 trips$700 $42,000 $42,000MobilizationEquipment transportMarine charter, RT to/from Chignik2ea$80,000 $160,000 $160,000Materials ShippingPipe 21 cont$6,000 $126,000 $126,000Building 4 cont$6,000 $24,000 $24,000Concrete 17 cont$6,000 $102,000 $102,000Dam, piping, vaults, misc5 cont$6,000 $30,000 $30,000Power Poles 1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Wire and Electrical 1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Turbine  and Generator2 cont$6,000 $12,000 $12,000Tailrace 4 cont$6,000 $24,000 $24,000Transformer, Switchgear 1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Airfreight Support During Construction 12 ea$3,500 $42,000 $42,000Access 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$17,265Labor Equipment MaterialMobilization TotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostMay 1, 2014Page 2 Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyCrew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostLabor Equipment MaterialMobilization TotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostPowerhouseclearing 1005 0.03 man hr 28 $85 $2,353 sq ft $2,353excavation, disposal, and fill 298 0.05 man hr 15 $85 $1,266 cyd $1,266Powerhouse Plan Area 670 sq ftPremix concrete 62 15.2 cyd 940 $94 $88,039 cyd $590 $36,570 $124,609Metal building shell 670sq ft $30 $20,100 $20,100architectural 670sq ft $5 $3,350 $3,350electrical, mechanical 670sq ft $10 $6,700 $6,700doors 670sq ft $10 $6,700 $6,700foreman 1 0.2 crew hr 144 $105 $15,099$15,099Labor 3 0.6 man hr 431 $85 $36,670$36,670Specialty 1 0.2 man hr 144 $105 $15,099$15,099crane 1 60 man hr 60 $85 $5,100 ea $35,000 $35,000 $40,100Dam and IntakeDam Site Construction AcccessVolume 500cydLabor 3 0.06 man hr 30 $85 $2,550$2,550Super 1 0.02 crew hr 10 $105 $1,050$1,050Fuel 270gal $4.75 $1,283 $1,283Domestic Water Supply4" HPDE 500' coiled pipe, SDR 21 4300ft $3.5 $15,050 $15,050Labor 3 0.012 man hr 155 $85 $13,158$13,1584" insulated HDPE pipe, SDR 11 2000ft $35.0 $70,000 $70,000Labor 3 0.075 man hr 150 $85 $12,750$12,750Super 1 0 crew hr 50 $105 $5,250$5,250Demo Existing DamLabor 3 40 man hr 120 $85 $10,200$10,200Super 1 40 crew hr 40 $105 $4,200$4,200coffer dam/construction diversionSpillway Overburden Excavation 500 0.03 man hr 15 $85 $1,275 cyd $1,275Coffer Dam ‐ Place Earth/Rock1000cyd42" 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$4,072Fuel 120gal $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 Footing 28 338 $85 $28,711 cyd $600 $16,889 $45,600Precast 4'x4' vaults 75 300 $85 $25,500 lf $610 $45,720 $71,22036" Outlet Pipe 50 25 $85 $2,125 lf $286 $14,300 $16,425Shutoff Gate/Valve 1 32 $85 $2,720 ea $5,500 $5,500 $8,220Air Vent 1 40 $85 $3,400 ea $3,500 $3,500 $6,900Trash Rack 1 48 $85 $4,080 ea $3,000 $3,000 $7,080Flow Control/Rupture Valve 1 24 $85 $2,040 ea $7,500 $7,500 $9,540Super 176 $105 $18,494$18,494May 1, 2014Page 3 Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyCrew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostLabor Equipment MaterialMobilization TotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostConcrete Cutoff WallArea 2350sq ftThickness 10inConcrete 73 14.7 cyd 1069 $94 $100,828 cyd $802 $58,165 $158,993haul load size 12000lbsround trip time 1.9hrhaul labor 1 35 man hr 35 $85 $3,001 hrs $3,001fuel 282gal $4.75 $1,342 $1,342Mix and placecyd $250 $18,133 $18,133laborer 3 5.5 man hr 399 $85 $33,908$33,908foreman 1 1.8 crew hr 133 $128 $16,954$16,954Rebar 11120lbs $2.00 $22,240 $22,240haul labor 1 5.4 man hr 5 $85 $460 hrs$460laborer 3 0.02 man hr 222 $85 $18,904$18,904foreman 1 0.007 crew hr 74 $128 $9,452$9,452Reusable Forms 2350sq ft $7.00 $16,450 $16,450laborer 3 0.075 man hr 176 $85 $14,981$14,981foreman 1 0.025 crew hr 59 $105 $6,169$6,169Rockfill PlacementMain Zone 2808 0.038 man hr 421 $85 $35,806 cyd $35,806Wall Bedding Zone 261 0.20 man hr 157 $85 $13,317 cyd $25 $6,528 $19,844Haul Cost 3 42 man hr 127 $85 $10,805 hrs $10,805fuel 508gal $4.75 $2,415 $2,415Rip Rap 131 0.075 man hr 29 $85 $2,497 cyd $2,497Super 122 $105 $12,852$12,852Fuel 1543gal $4.75 $7,328 $7,328SpillwayRock Excavation 2939 0.05 man hr 147 $85 $12,490 cyd $12,490Weir Wall 10 15 man hr 153 $85 $12,986 cyd $12,986Super 50 $105 $5,245$5,245Fuel 1499gal $4.75 $7,118 $7,118Power, Controls, and Communicationcontrols 1 16 man hr 16 $85 $1,360 ea $7,500 $7,500 $8,860equipment/storage shed 1 48 man hr 48 $85 $4,080 ea $10,000 $10,000 $14,080power line, communications 7290 0.02 man hr 122 $85 $10,328 ft $3.00 $21,870 $32,198Pipeline7290ftHDPE ‐ 22" 5150 687 $85 $58,367 ft $41 $209,356 $267,723Steel ‐ 22" 2140 214 $85 $18,190 ft $91 $194,279 $212,469flange kits 8 64 $85 $5,440 ea $1,200 $9,600 $15,040drains/air reliefs 20 80 $85 $6,800 ea $250 $5,000 $11,800anchors/thrust blocks 12 288 $85 $24,480 ea $1,200 $14,400 $38,880victaulic standard couplings 54 108 $85 $9,180 ea $1,800 $97,200 $106,380Super 240 $105 $25,212$25,212Specialty 240 $105 $25,212$25,212fuel 1440.6667gal $4.75 $6,843 $6,843May 1, 2014Page 4 Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyCrew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostLabor Equipment MaterialMobilization TotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostTurbine and GeneratorTurbine and Generator1ea $520,000 $520,000 $520,000Controls Integration 1ea $75,000 $75,000 $75,000switchgear 1ea $50,000 $50,000 $50,000transformer 1ea $50,000 $50,000 $50,000Labor 1 180 hrs 180 $85 $15,300$15,300Super 0.5 180 hrs 90 $105 $9,450$9,450specialty 1 180 hrs 180 $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$3,944Transmissionoverhead 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$9,240Equipment24" fusion machine 1 3 mo $15,000 $45,000$45,0004" fusion machine 1 3 mo $3,500 $10,500$10,5004 wheelers 2 1 ea $9,000 $18,000$18,0001/3 yard mixer 2 6.2 mo $1,000 $12,438$12,438mix truck 1 6.2 mo $5,500 $34,205$34,205small generator 2 1 ea $2,000 $4,000$4,000large generator 1 1 ea $7,500 $7,500$7,500large loader 1 6.2 mo $10,000 $62,191$62,191small loader 1 6.2 mo $5,500 $34,205$34,205Excavator 2 6.2 mo $12,000 $149,260 $149,260Articulated Truck2 6.2 mo $15,000 $186,574 $186,574rock hammer1 6.2 mo $2,500 $15,548$15,548flatbed truck2 6.2 mo $800 $9,951$9,951dozer 1 6.2 mo $4,000 $24,877$24,877air compressor 1 6.2 mo $800 $4,975$4,975air track drill 1 6.2 mo $3,000 $18,657$18,657miscellaneous tools 1 1 ea $25,000 $25,000$25,000SUBTOTAL, Contractor Direct Costs 12,293 $1,159,400 $662,882 $2,082,779 $747,903 $4,652,965Contractor IndirectsWeather delay (% of Labor and Equip) 10%$182,228overall contingency10%$465,296contractor profit 12%$558,356bonding 2.0%$93,059SUBTOTAL, Construction Contract$5,951,904construction finance interest2.3%$133,918FERC license amendment1.4%$85,000geotech investigation 4.2%$250,000engineering 6.2%$370,000historic properties 1.3%$75,000inspection and testing2.9%$175,000owner admin 2.9%$175,000TOTAL PROJECT$7,215,822May 1, 2014Page 5 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 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 340 kW Static head 380 ft Design head 340 ft Hydraulic capacity 16 cfs Reservoir Area 24 acres Reservoir Useable Storage Volume 204 acre-ft Nominal penstock diameter 22 in Penstock length 7,280 ft Transmission length 1,600 ft New access road & trail lengths 9,170 ft Annual energy potential 1,960 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 Intake 2.94 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. 5507 0 0 501501002005006003502502005010050501001502 0 0 50100 150 501001502002002001 0 0 1505060 501 0 0 1 5 0 1000 450 500500350 1000RM 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 TRACT 15 TRACT 16 UNSUBDIVIDED SEC 24 10004505350 PKPKPK+TPK+TPK+T SPILL EL 445'FLOOD EL 449'LOW LEVEL EL430' 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 CREEKLOCATOIN 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 OUTLETCULVERT 26'26'CRANE RAIL900 RPM, 500 KVA,480/3/60 SYNCHRONOUSGENERATORCLASS 150 BALL VALVERESTRAINED COUPLINGNEEDLE NOZZLECANYONCUSTOM TURGOTURBINESWITCHGEARTURBINE PIT AND TAILRACE WITH ACCESS HATCHTAILRACE CULVERTPENSTOCK10'