Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChignik Hydroelec Feasibility Study final sept 2014Chi ik Hd l ti P j t Feasibility Study Chignik Hydroelectric Project September 2014 Prepared for: CE2 Engineers, Inc. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page i © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Project Report September 2014 CE2 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Distribution Brian Aklin, CE2 Feasibility Study Final Report CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page i © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1  2. Alternative Project Arrangements ...................................................................................................... 2  2.1 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................ 2  2.2 No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant ................................................................................ 2  2.3 Reconstructed Existing Project ..................................................................................................... 2  2.3.1 Timber Frame Dam ............................................................................................................. 3  2.3.2 Wood Stave and Steel Pipeline .......................................................................................... 3  2.3.3 Turbine ................................................................................................................................ 4  2.4 Proposed New Project .................................................................................................................. 4  2.4.1 Selected Arrangement ........................................................................................................ 4  2.4.2 Environmental Measures .................................................................................................... 5  3. Existing Environment ........................................................................................................................... 7  3.1 Community Overview .................................................................................................................... 7  3.1.1 Population ........................................................................................................................... 7  3.1.2 Location ............................................................................................................................... 7  3.1.3 History ................................................................................................................................. 7  3.2 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 7  3.3 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................ 8  3.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 10  3.4.1 Indian Creek Watershed ................................................................................................... 10  3.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gaging ............................................................................................ 11  3.4.3 Peak Flood ........................................................................................................................ 12  3.5 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 12  3.6 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 13  3.7 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 13  3.8 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................................................. 15  3.9 Endangered or Threatened Plant and Animal Species .............................................................. 15  3.10 Geology ....................................................................................................................................... 16  3.11 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 16  3.12 Site Control ................................................................................................................................. 16  3.13 Recreational Use ........................................................................................................................ 17  3.14 Socioeconomic ............................................................................................................................ 17  3.15 Historical and Archaeological Resources ................................................................................... 18  3.15.1 Historical Resources ......................................................................................................... 18  3.16 Regulatory ................................................................................................................................... 18  3.16.1 FERC License ................................................................................................................... 18  3.16.2 State Historic Preservation Office ..................................................................................... 19  3.16.3 Water Rights ..................................................................................................................... 19  4. Technical Considerations .................................................................................................................. 21  4.1 General Effects of Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 21  4.2 Selected Project Arrangement .................................................................................................... 21  CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page ii © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.2.1 Reservoir ........................................................................................................................... 21  4.2.2 Dam, Spillway, and Intake ................................................................................................ 22  4.2.3 Pipeline ............................................................................................................................. 23  4.2.4 Powerhouse ...................................................................................................................... 24  4.2.5 Turbine and Generator ...................................................................................................... 24  4.2.6 Domestic and Process Raw Water Supply ....................................................................... 25  4.3 Hydrology Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 25  4.3.1 Stream Gaging Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 25  4.3.2 Hydrology Data used for modeling .................................................................................... 27  4.4 Energy Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 27  4.4.1 Diesel Electric Generation ................................................................................................ 27  4.4.2 Diesel Electric Analysis and Modeling .............................................................................. 29  4.4.3 Hydroelectric Generation .................................................................................................. 30  4.4.4 Heating Demand ............................................................................................................... 30  4.4.5 Electric Demand Modeling and Forecasting ..................................................................... 30  4.4.6 Heating Energy ................................................................................................................. 32  4.5 Water Use ................................................................................................................................... 33  4.5.1 Potable Water ................................................................................................................... 33  4.5.2 Fish Processing ................................................................................................................. 33  4.6 Operational Modeling .................................................................................................................. 33  4.6.1 Reservoir Elevation ........................................................................................................... 35  4.6.2 Project Capacity ................................................................................................................ 36  4.7 Proposed Project Scheme Summary .......................................................................................... 38  5. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and Schedule .................................................................. 39  5.1 No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant .............................................................................. 39  5.2 Reconstructed Existing Project ................................................................................................... 39  5.3 Proposed New Project ................................................................................................................ 39  5.4 Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 42  6. Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 43  6.1 Annual Costs: No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant ...................................................... 43  6.1.1 Fuel Cost ........................................................................................................................... 43  6.1.2 Diesel Operation and Maintenance Cost .......................................................................... 43  6.2 Annual Costs, Proposed New Project......................................................................................... 44  6.2.1 Time Value ........................................................................................................................ 44  6.2.2 Construction Cost Variance .............................................................................................. 44  6.2.3 Hydro Operation and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................... 44  6.3 Economic Evaluation Method ..................................................................................................... 45  6.4 Economic Results – Proposed New Project ............................................................................... 46  6.4.1 Reconstructed Existing Project Economic Results ........................................................... 47  6.4.2 Environmental Measures Economic Analysis ................................................................... 48  7. Proposed New Project – Environmental / Regulatory Analysis .................................................... 49  7.1.1 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................ 49  7.1.2 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 50  7.1.3 Historical and Archaeological Resources ......................................................................... 51  7.2 Regulatory Analysis .................................................................................................................... 51  7.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................................ 51  CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page iii © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.3.1 City of Chignik Council Meeting, February 20, 2013 ........................................................ 52  7.3.2 Resource Agency Meeting ................................................................................................ 52  7.3.3 Federal Agency Meeting ................................................................................................... 52  7.3.4 Alaska Energy Authority Review ....................................................................................... 52  8. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 54  8.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 54  8.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 54  9. References .......................................................................................................................................... 56  List of Tables Table 2-1 - Development Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 2  Table 2-2 - Summary: Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects ............................................... 5  Table 3-1 - Local Climate Data ..................................................................................................................... 8  Table 3-2 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Dam Site ............................................................ 11  Table 3-3 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Bridge Site ......................................................... 11  Table 3-4 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2008-2013), Dam Site .................................................. 12  Table 3-5 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2011-2013), Bridge Site ............................................... 12  Table 3-6 - Endangered or Threatened Species......................................................................................... 16  Table 3-7 - Land Ownership........................................................................................................................ 17  Table 4-1 - Indian Lake Modeled Reservoir Areas and Storage Volumes ................................................. 22  Table 4-2 - Dam Conceptual Quantities with Varying Reservoir (Spillway Crest) Elevations .................... 23  Table 4-3 - Pipeline Diameter Selection for Various Project Capacities ..................................................... 23  Table 4-4 - Table of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy ..................................................... 28  Table 4-5 – Summary: Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects ............................................. 38  Table 5-1 - Reconstructed Existing Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost by Category ... 39  Table 5-2 - Proposed New Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost ..................................... 40  Table 5-3 - Proposed New Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost by Category ................ 41  Table 6-1 - Diesel O&M Costs .................................................................................................................... 44  Table 6-2 - Economic Results: Proposed New Project (385 kW) ............................................................... 47  CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page iv © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. List of Figures Figure 3-1 - Average Monthly Temperature for Chignik ............................................................................... 9  Figure 3-2 - Average Monthly Precipitation for Chignik ................................................................................ 9  Figure 3-3 - Indian Creek Approximate Spawning Pink Salmon Count ...................................................... 14  Figure 3-4 - Indian Creek Fish Species Periodicity Chart ........................................................................... 15  Figure 3-5 - ADNR Water Rights Land Case Detail, Water Rights Information .......................................... 20  Figure 4-1 - Dam Spill Flow Duration Curve, Oct 2008 to Oct 2013 ........................................................... 26  Figure 4-2 - Indian Creek Annual Dam Spill Unit Flow Compared with USGS Russel Creek .................... 26  Figure 4-3 - 2010 Indian Creek Annual Hydrograph (at dam) .................................................................... 27  Figure 4-4 - Chart of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy .................................................... 28  Figure 4-5 - FY2013 Electric Generation by Customer Class, kWh ........................................................... 29  Figure 4-6 - FY2013 Electric Payments by Customer Class ...................................................................... 29  Figure 4-7 - Chignik 15 Minute Power Energy Logger, 2013 Measured Demand Data ............................. 31  Figure 4-8 - Synthesized Annual Demand for Chignik ................................................................................ 32  Figure 4-9 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Flow Model ........................................................... 34  Figure 4-10 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Power Model ....................................................... 35  Figure 4-11 - Hydroelectric Generation for Reservoir Elevations 445' and 450' ......................................... 36  Figure 4-12 - Hydroelectric Generation for Project Capacities of 315 kW to 470 kW' ................................ 37  Figure 5-1 - Project Development Schedule ............................................................................................... 42  Figure 7-1 - Existing and Proposed Spill Flow at Dam, 2013 Water Year .................................................. 49  Figure 7-2 - Existing and Proposed Flow at Powerhouse – Bridge Site Flow Data, 2013 Water Year ...... 50  Appendices Appendix A – Exhibit 1, Existing Hydroelectric Project Map Appendix B – October 16, 2013 Resource Agency Meeting Minutes Appendix C – Proposed New Project, Construction Cost Estimate Appendix D – Proposed New Project, Economic Analysis Results Appendix E – Proposed New Project, Conceptual Design Figures Figure 1, Project Location Map Sheet Index Map Figure 2, Penstock, Road, and Transmission Alignments Figure 3, Reservoir Bathymetry and Rim Topography Figure 4, Dam Site Plan and Section Figure 5, Powerhouse Site Plan Figure 6, Powerhouse General Arrangement - Plan CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page v © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Disclaimer and Limitations of Use This report was prepared by Hatch Associates Consultants Inc. (“Hatch”), together with certain other third party consultants (the “Third Party Consultants”), for the sole and exclusive benefit of CE2 (the “Owner”) for the purpose of supporting the Owner in its efforts to determine the hydroelectric feasibility in Chignik Bay (the “Project”). This report is meant to be read as a whole, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The report includes information provided by the Third Party Consultants and by certain other parties. Hatch has not verified such information and disclaims any responsibility or liability in connection with such information. This report contains the expression of the professional opinion of Hatch, based upon information available at the time of preparation. The quality of the information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the reasonable standard of care governing our services and as set out in this report, as well as the circumstances and constraints under which this report was prepared. However, this report is a pre-feasibility study and, accordingly, all estimates and projections contained herein are based on limited and incomplete data, and Hatch therefore disclaims any liability arising in whole or in part from the review, use or reliance upon this report. While the work, results, estimates and projections herein may be considered to be generally indicative of the nature and quality of the Project, they are by nature preliminary only and are not definitive. As such, Hatch makes no warranty or representation, and disclaims the same to the Owner or any other party in respect of the report, particularly with regard to any investment decision made on the basis of the Report, and use of the Report by the Owner and third parties shall be at their own and sole risk. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page vi © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Acronyms TERM MEANING ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AEA Alaska Energy Authority Avg Average BTU British Thermal Unit cfs Cubic feet per second cyd Cubic yards Dia Diameter DIP Ductile Iron Pipe ea Each FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gal Gallon gpd Gallons per day GPS Global Positioning System gpm Gallons per minute HDPE High density polyethylene ID Inside diameter K Thousand kVA Kilo Volt-Amps kW Kilo Watt (1000 Watts) kWh Kilo Watt-hours lb Pound mgd Million gallons per day M Million mi Mile mmBTU 1 million BTU's mo Month NCDC National Climatic Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ O&M Operation and Maintenance OD Outside Diameter PCE Power Cost Equalization program, State of Alaska psf Pounds per square foot REF Renewable Energy Fund RTK GPS Real Time Kinematic Global Positioning System SDR Sidewall Diameter Ratio ORV Off road vehicle sq ft Square feet sq mi Square miles sq yd Square yard USBR United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation USGS United States Geological Survey CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 1 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 1. Introduction The City of Chignik (City) has been awarded a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) under the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) program to study the engineering and economics of restoring the antiquated hydroelectric generating system for the purpose of benefitting the residents of the City and the State of Alaska by offsetting the cost of diesel generated electricity. Funding was contingent upon a MOU with Trident Seafoods, the owner of NorQuest Seafoods Inc, (NorQuest) to transfer the FERC license for the existing hydro from NorQuest to the City. In 2012 NorQuest transferred the license for the Chignik Bay Hydroelectric (existing project), which consists of an aging dam and pipeline that powers a 60 kW turbine. The project’s primary purpose, located as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 1, has been to supply potable water for the community and provide base load generation to the former NorQuest facility during the winter months. The City desires to increase the project capacity and connect it to the city’s electrical grid while improving reliability, maintaining potable water service, and reducing maintenance costs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) evaluated the potential hydroelectric resources in Chignik and other isolated communities throughout Alaska in 1976. A Final Draft Feasibility Report for Chignik was completed by the USACE in March 1983 (USACE, 1983). The report analyzed reconstructing the existing hydroelectric project using a higher dam, larger pipeline, and a powerhouse located at the base of the bluff bordering the existing Chignik wetland. The capacity of the project investigated was 1.4 MW at a design head of 430 ft and a hydraulic capacity of 43.8 cfs with a predicted average annual generation of 6.7 GWh. This was based on a synthetic stream flow record generated using records of precipitation and flow from Myrtle Creek near Kodiak and Spruce Creek near Seward. The selected project size was intended to produce the maximum annual energy and serve the loads of both Chignik Bay and Chignik Lagoon. With a minimum flow 15.9 cfs the project would be offline during the winter and spring. The project envisioned by the USACE is too large to be economical and is not feasible under current environmental standards and regulations due to the impacts on the Indian Creek anadromous fish population. The City’s study of the engineering and economics of restoring the antiquated hydropower system and the findings thereof are presented in this report. The findings show a significant benefit with the proposed hydroelectric development as follows:  Lowest cost alternative for electric energy generation.  Replaces high maintenance and failing infrastructure.  Improved water supply availability and reliability.  Promotes economic growth and local employment.  Potential improvement in aquatic resource habitat. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 2 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 2. Alternative Project Arrangements 2.1 Alternatives Considered The options considered for hydroelectric development are shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 - Development Alternatives Development Scheme Analysis No Action Alternative. The no action alternative includes meeting electrical demand using only diesel electric generators. Base case against which all other alternatives are evaluated. Reconstructed Existing Project. This alternative includes replacing the dam, pipeline, and turbine and generator sized for the existing permitted flow of 2.7 cfs. This 70 kW alternative is marginally economical due to the high cost and low energy output. Proposed New Project. This alternative includes replacing the dam, pipeline, and relocating the power generation to Indian Creek while increasing the capacity. With an approximate capacity of 385 kW as studied herein, this option is shown to be economically superior and has been selected as the preferred project arrangement. 2.2 No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant The City of Chignik has a certificate of public convenience and necessity for providing electrical generation and distribution service in the City of Chignik. The city operates under certificate 297 issued by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) in 1983. The existing electric generation plant consists of two 230 kW and one 117 kW John Deere diesel electric generators installed in 2009. The powerhouse is located near the Trident processing facility. 2.3 Reconstructed Existing Project The Chignik Project, FERC No. 620 is a small hydroelectric project that primarily conveys raw water from Indian Lake to the community of Chignik as shown in Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The project consists of a timber frame dam at the outlet of Indian Lake (also referred to as Upper Lake) creating a reservoir with a surface area of approximately 21 acres. The dam includes a wood plank spillway and there is an additional overflow channel spillway cut out of rock next to the dam. A wood stave and steel pipeline about 7200 ft long transports 2.7 cfs (nominal) of water to a 60 kW (nominal) turbine located in the former NorQuest processing plant for water pressure regulation and power production. The gross head for the project is around 431 feet, or 190 psi, but the maximum desired operating pressure for the interconnected piping in the community is around 100 psi. When the turbine needles are fully CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 3 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. open there is enough frictional loss through the pipeline to maintain the desired pressure of 100 psi. The project infrastructure is deteriorated and in need of immediate maintenance and repairs. 2.3.1 Timber Frame Dam The Chignik Dam is a timber buttress dam constructed sometime in 1947 and is located at approximately 56° 17' north and 158° 25' west. The dam is approximately 80' long with a primary spillway width of approximately 26' and a secondary (rock cut) spillway width of 20'. It has a height from the toe to the crest of approximately 14.4' and is constructed from 8x10 timbers forming 45-degree triangular supports with face planks running horizontal on the upstream face. Structural connections are accomplished primarily through bearing and friction. Some steel connectors are used on the bracing and face members to hold the members together when not loaded. Steel connectors have been used at the base of the spillway columns as part of past repairs. Also as part of past repairs, 4x8 treated members have been joined onto the existing timbers. The existing dam includes no device to introduce instream flows into the river. Therefore, flows only enter the river at the dam when it is spilling. In the winter, when reservoir levels drop, there is typically no spill for extended periods of time and, thus, little to no flow in the river below the dam site. This is evident in the monthly median stream flows reported in section 3.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gaging. The most recent dam inspection report filed with FERC shows that the dam is in very poor condition and is in need of replacement. The general condition of the dam is quite deteriorated due to rotting main members, almost complete loss of spillway planking allowing water to spill onto and through the framework, loss of the walkway over the spillway, damage to dam face planks, failing of support structure for the valve operator platform, and malfunctioning outlet controls and screens. The structure has been reinforced with additional framing members and steel connectors over the past two decades. The timber dam has continued to deteriorate and is in such poor condition that a complete replacement is the most practical course of action. 2.3.2 Wood Stave and Steel Pipeline The pipeline consists of 12" diameter wood stave and 10" and 8" diameter steel pipe totaling about 7200 ft long for transporting approximately 2.7 cfs (nominal) of water for both power production and source water for the community drinking water system. Wood stave pipe joints are push on while the steel pipe utilizes Victaulic groove lock bands. Almost all of the penstock is located above ground. The pipeline is also in poor condition with leaks and breaks being a regular occurrence. Not including the boardwalk across the lower wetland, there are five trestles that support the penstock. All of the trestles are constructed of untreated wood and, similar to the dam, show extensive rotting and are slowly failing. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 4 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. During the winter the leaking water will turn to ice and bond to the trestle and pipeline. The increased weight of the ice can cause a structural collapse of the trestle and subsequent pipeline separation. Based on the condition of the pipeline and prevalence of pipe separation/failures in the past it can be expected that leaks and complete service interruption due to pipeline failure/separation will continue to be a problem, particularly in the winter. The most appropriate repair method is to replace the wood stave pipeline with HDPE pipe. 2.3.3 Turbine Power generated from the turbine is utilized by the processing facility and powers maintenance loads such as lights and resistance heating operating either in standalone mode or manually synchronized. Because of the age of the system and pipeline characteristics power output is typically around 35 kW with a peak output of about 40 kW. The turbine has two jet forming nozzles with one being a fixed opening and the other consisting of a manually operated needle valve. The needle valve is operated manually depending on load and is usually fully open. Thus, the typical operational scenario is that water flow through the turbine is almost always equal to the maximum hydraulic capacity of the turbine and pipeline regardless of the power output produced by the generator. The automatic turbine deflector controls the speed of the wheel and generator to match the load and prevent over/under speed. The continuous flow through the turbine reduces the pressure in the raw water piping system and prevents freezing in the winter. If the reservoir is completely drained because of low flows in Indian Creek the manually operated bypass is closed to reduce water use. With the needle in the full open position the factors influencing flow through the turbine include the reservoir elevation, the amount of water withdrawn before the turbine, debris on the trash rack, intake gate position, and pipeline condition. Water withdrawal includes potable use, manual bypass flows into the tailrace receiving water, and leaks in the pipeline. A flow meter was installed on the pipeline in the NorQuest facility with a data logger installed in 2012. Historic readings of the flow meter were consistently about 2.67 cfs. Flows have dropped to about 2.10 cfs as of the end of May, 2013. Access to the project is along the pipeline alignment but an ORV trail exists that has been used by tracked vehicles to access the dam in the past. Recently the City of Chignik has improved access by pioneering a trail from the quarry to the existing ORV trail and in October 2013 reached the dam with a tracked excavator. 2.4 Proposed New Project 2.4.1 Selected Arrangement The new project alternative arrangement as proposed herein would consist of modification and reconstruction of the existing hydro project to include a new dam and pipeline, a new turbine with significantly increased capacity, and a powerhouse relocated to the approximate upper limit of spawning habitat on Indian Creek. The general arrangement of this proposed project is shown in Appendix E, Figure 2. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 5 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The proposed project includes a 16' wide construction trail beginning from the edge of the existing quarry and extending to the powerhouse and dam site. A new 25' high rock fill dam is to replace the existing wooden dam at the outlet of Indian Lake. The new dam requires widening of the existing bedrock lined spillway located west of the dam. Water will be conveyed through 7,280' of 24" diameter buried HDPE pipe. A 26' x 26' metal building is proposed to house the Turgo impulse turbine and 900 rpm 480 V generator. The proposed building includes a vehicular sized work area and overhead crane. A tailrace will convey water back to Indian Creek at the upper limit of anadromous rearing habitat. Further detail for each for these features is provided in Section 4 and photographs and general details are shown in Appendix E, Figures 3 through 6. The proposed project significantly increases the resource utilization resulting in substantial benefits from reduced diesel electric generation while enhancing water supply delivery and reducing long term electric generation maintenance as shown in Table 2-2, which summarizes the major features of the Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects. Table 2-2 - Summary: Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects Item Existing Proposed Nominal Capacity (kW) 70 385 Static head (ft) 430 380 Design head (ft) 400 340 Hydraulic capacity (cfs) 2.7 18 Reservoir Normal Water Surface (ft) 440 445 Reservoir Area (acres) 21 24 Reservoir Useable Storage Volume (acre-feet) 89 204 Nominal penstock diameter (in) 12,10 & 8 24 Penstock length (ft) 7,280 7,280 Transmission length (ft) 0 1,600 New access road & trail lengths (ft) 0 9,170 Annual energy potential (MWh) 470 2,140 Existing demand (diesel generated) (MWh) 950 950 Annual displaced diesel energy (MWh) 470 900 Annual reduction in diesel fuel use (gal) 33,400 63,500 2.4.2 Environmental Measures The replacement project locates the powerhouse at an elevation higher than optimum for power production and includes a significantly longer tailrace than required in order to convey the tail water to the upper limit of anadromous fish habitat. The optimum powerhouse elevation would be about 15' lower. Therefore, the proposed powerhouse elevation results in a 4% decrease in potential power output for a given flow rate. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 6 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. The existing project diverts 2.7 cfs out of Indian Creek. Locating the powerhouse above the upper limit of anadromous fish habitat will eliminate the need for permanent diversion of water out of Indian Creek. The resulting improvement in fish habitat below the powerhouse is seen as a significant positive environmental measure. Additionally, the increase in flow available for the powerhouse will in turn significantly increase the amount of renewable energy generated. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 7 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 3. Existing Environment 3.1 Community Overview 3.1.1 Population The population in Chignik is approximately 91 according to the State of Alaska Community Profile although the current year round population is less. Population has been declining in Chignik due to a lack of economic opportunity and the high cost of living. There are no longer enough residents to support a school which was closed in 2013. Population fluctuates seasonally with residents leaving the community in the fall after the end of the fishing season and returning in late spring. Land based processing and fishery support historically brought in additional transient residents during the summer fishing season until processing operations were moved offshore in 2009 due to a fire that destroyed the only operational fish processing facility in 2008. 3.1.2 Location The City of Chignik Bay is located on Anchorage Bay on the south shore of the Alaska Peninsula. It lies approximately 450 miles southwest of Alaska’s largest city, Anchorage and 180 miles south southwest of King Salmon. Chignik is located in the Aleutian Islands Recording District, Section 7, T045S, R058W, Seward Meridian. Chignik Bay is accessible by small planes and boats and has state ferry service. 3.1.3 History A Village called “Kalwak” was originally located here, but was destroyed during the Russian fur boom in the late 1700s. Chignik, meaning “big wind”, was established in the late 1800s as a fishing village and cannery. A four-masted sailing ship called the “Star of Alaska” transported workers and supplies between Chignik and San Francisco. Chinese crews from San Francisco traveled to Chignik in the early spring to make tin cans for the cannery. Japanese workers followed in mid June to begin processing. Chignik became an incorporated city in 1983. Currently, two of the historical canneries are still in operation. The federally recognized tribe for the community is the Chignik Bay Tribal Council. The community is presently a mixture of non-natives and Alutiiq. 3.2 Climate The village of Chignik is located on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula. The village is primarily protected from severe southern Pacific storms by a ridge of mountains rising to 3,000 feet. The high frequency of cyclonic storms crossing the Northern Pacific and the Bering Sea are the predominant weather factors. These storms account for the frequent high winds and the frequent occurrence of fog and low visibility1. The climate of Chignik is maritime, due to the nearness of extensive open ocean areas. Temperature extremes, both seasonal and diurnal, are generally confined to fairly narrow limits, with differences between maximum and minimum temperatures for all individual 1 Alaska Community Database Community Information Summaries (CIS) CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 8 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. months averaging less than 15° Fahrenheit. Temperatures below 0° Fahrenheit are unusual. However, they do occur in occasional years when the Bering Sea freezes and allows the influx of cold continental air. Precipitation of more than one hundredths of an inch occurs about 170 days per year. The greatest observed precipitation rate is 7.3 inches per 24 hours. The greatest recorded monthly snowfall was 31 inches in February of 19312. The nearest communities with recommended snow loads for design are Cold Bay and Kodiak3. Respective ground snow loads are 25 and 30 psf which is considered low based on past experience, especially in the vicinity of the dam. Recommended roof snow loads should be at least 40 psf for the powerhouse. Structures at the dam should be designed for higher snow loads. Seasonal periods are poorly defined at Chignik due to the moderating effects of the nearby ocean areas. The beginning of spring is late; vegetation begins to grow in late May. August is regarded as midsummer and autumn arrives early in October. The greatest frequency of fog occurs from mid-July to mid-September. Table 3-1 includes a summary temperature and precipitation data. Table 3-1 - Local Climate Data Temperature and Precipitation Data Mean Min January Temperature 18 deg F4 Mean Annual Precipitation (2001-2006)200 inches5 Average Monthly Temperatures Deg F5 1 30.4 2 30.9 3 28.1 4 35.0 5 41.9 6 48.4 7 52.7 8 54.2 9 49.7 10 42.9 11 34.3 12 32.0 Average 40.0 3.3 Climate Change Climate change, a phenomenon that has occurred in the past and is predicted to occur in the future, can result in significant departure from the underlying assumptions and data used to prepare this study. A scenario planning process for Alaska was created by University of 2 USACE, 1983 3 ASCE 7 2010 4 USGS WRI Report 93-4179. Mean min in January for Sand Point is 28.6 which is 100 miles southwest of Chignik (NCDC). 5 Chignik Bay METAR, Station PAJC (Iowa 2014). CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 9 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Alaska researchers to understand the current and future trajectories of climate and other variables helps to develop credible projections across Alaska and the Arctic. The charts below, obtained from the Scenarios Network for Alaska & Arctic Planning (SNAP), indicate the projected temperature and precipitation changes resulting from climate change for Chignik (UAF, 2014) as summarized below in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Figure 3-1 - Average Monthly Temperature for Chignik Figure 3-2 - Average Monthly Precipitation for Chignik The potential impacts of climate change are considered in terms of a vulnerability assessment. The vulnerability assessment is used to determine the degree to which specific resources of interest are susceptible to the effects of climate change. Project and related environmental resources identified as being vulnerable to climate change conditions are the following: CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 10 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 1. Hydrology and energy generation Climate driven hydrology changes generally should result in increased runoff due to the increased precipitation although the increase in temperature is likely to lead to additional evapotranspiration thus offsetting the gains. It is expected that the net result will be a slight increase, on average, in storm frequency with possible increases in peak discharges, a slight decrease in summer base flow discharges between storms, an increase in precipitation versus snow events, and an increase in base flow in the winter. 2. Hydrology and aquatic resources The climate change driven changes in hydrology are not expected to have a significant impact in aquatic productivity. Fish in Indian Creek are prevalent under existing conditions that exhibit normally high variability in daily and seasonal stream flows in Indian Creek. 3.4 Hydrology 3.4.1 Indian Creek Watershed The Indian Creek watershed is located immediately south of the City of Chignik, with the mouth of Indian Creek being located at Anchorage Bay at the north end of town. Appendix E, Figure 1 is a map of the Indian Creek watershed and shows its relation to Chignik. The watershed encompasses a total area of approximately 4 mi2, while the proposed intake site at the outlet of Indian Lake has a watershed area of approximately 2.9 mi2. The intake watershed boundary is delineated by steep ridges on the east, south and west sides. These ridges range in elevation from approximately 2,400 ft to 3,200 ft. The ridgelines are generally steep, with slopes in excess of 50 degrees to near vertical. Indian Lake, located at RM 2.4, is situated in the valley between these ridges and has a normal pool elevation of approximately 440 ft, which is set by the existing timber buttress dam built in 1947. The lower watershed, downstream of the intake area, has more gently sloping terrain than the upper watershed, with elevations ranging from sea level to approximately 1,500 ft. Indian creek is approximately 4 miles long and drains in a generally north-northwest direction from an elevation of 1200 ft to sea level. The valley in which the creek is situated is approximately 1.5 miles wide crest to crest along the upper two thirds of the creek and the upper watershed basin is sparsely vegetated and consists predominantly of bedrock and talus slopes. During the winter months precipitation generally falls as snow at the higher elevations of the intake watershed. As the temperature increases in the summer months, this snowpack begins to melt and the snowmelt runoff generates the highest average monthly flows for Indian Creek. The months of June and July have the highest sustained flows due to snow melt. During the late winter and spring flows are at the lowest, primarily in relation to the ambient temperature, with occasional spikes due to brief warm spells with liquid precipitation. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 11 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 3.4.2 Indian Creek Stream Gaging As part of the FERC requirements, monitoring of pipeline flows and gaging of stream flows at the dam, pool, and bridge sites in Indian Creek has been performed. Details of past stream flow monitoring efforts are found in numerous monitoring reports filed with FERC which are available through the e-library for project P-620. Flow monitoring began in April of 2003 but results over the years have been sporadic because of equipment failures, limited site accessibility, and the general remoteness and harsh conditions at the site. The final monitoring report (Hatch, 2013 Monitoring Report) presents the most recent data collected, analyses performed, and reports the revised daily average stream flows for Indian Creek at the dam and bridge sites for all years. The data is summarized in Tables 3-2 thru 3-5. Table 3-2 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Dam Site Month 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 10 11 26 45 0 10 2 9 11 17 7 0 4 3 8 9 18 0 0 0 4 8 24 2 0 0 0 5 20 25 75 32 10 29 6 28 81 103 87 122 7 26 64 68 77 59 8 40 45 45 25 9 163 11 62 18 36 24 10 46 5 32 43 18 42 9 47 11 21 15 22 9 13 13 2 12 12 7 40 85 10 24 0 Table 3-3 - Median Monthly Flows for Period of Record, Bridge Site Month 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 8 63 3 15 2 9 39 7 8 3 5 32 2 5 4 8 10 57 0 6 5 20 118 72 35 6 32 141 161 7 25 105 68 62 8 18 45 40 30 9 19 29 19 33 29 10 51 35 14 10 81 11 22 45 11 6 12 12 26 25 6 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 12 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 3-4 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2008-2013), Dam Site Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 564 65 111 366 601 706 881 1728 598 1933 226 2243 10% 65 22 26 11 131 174 127 123 78 70 30 134 20% 39 18 15 7 92 145 87 69 58 48 23 66 30% 26 15 7 2 77 125 77 55 45 38 19 39 40% 19 13 1 0 61 110 71 45 36 30 15 30 50% 12 8 0 0 47 98 66 39 29 25 12 24 60% 6 4 0 0 32 88 63 34 25 21 9 15 70% 3 0 0 0 21 79 58 30 20 16 8 9 80% 0 0 0 0 8 72 53 26 17 8 5 5 90% 0 0 0 0 5 64 44 21 12 4 1 0 100% 0 0 0 0 0 48 21 8 5 0 0 0 Table 3-5 - Monthly Flow Cumulative Frequency (2011-2013), Bridge Site Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0% 171 277 390 37 405 589 400 812 555 627 265 395 10% 46 82 11 19 203 347 134 144 84 117 27 51 20% 18 26 6 14 114 247 81 72 53 56 20 36 30% 12 13 5 10 77 204 73 51 42 38 14 26 40% 9 10 4 6 46 179 68 41 33 22 11 20 50% 6 8 4 5 32 157 64 35 26 14 8 13 60% 4 6 3 5 26 134 59 32 22 11 6 9 70% 4 5 2 5 17 123 55 28 19 9 5 6 80% 3 5 2 4 13 113 51 25 17 8 5 4 90% 2 4 1 0 10 101 36 19 14 6 4 4 100% 1 0 0 0 9 83 20 15 11 4 3 3 3.4.3 Peak Flood For concept design purposes the 500 year recurrence flood determined in accordance with USGS procedures for ungaged streams in Alaska is used. Inputs for the determination include:  Basin Area 2.94 sq mi   ST, % area of lakes and ponds 1.9%    P, mean annual Precip 200 in   J, mean min Jan temp 18 deg F  The resulting estimated flood flow is approximately 2,000 cfs. 3.5 Water Quality Little data exists on the water quality of Indian Creek. However, use of Indian Creek's water for domestic supply indicates that the water is of good quality. The Corps in their 1984 draft environmental impact statement (EIS), state that the village of Chignik built the project's dam in 1947 to provide a reservoir for the cannery and the village residents and that the water (in CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 13 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 1984) was untreated but of good quality. Visual observations suggest that the water of Indian Creek is normally of high clarity and low turbidity. 3.6 Vegetation Vegetative cover consists of dense alder with occasional patches of grasses, berries, and wetlands in the lower elevations. Based on aerial imagery vegetative cover becomes sparser beginning at about elevation 1,000 feet and is mostly absent above 1,500 feet and on steep slopes. 3.7 Aquatic Resources Aquatic and hydrologic resources are a critical concern in Chignik because fish harvesting and processing is the main economy and livelihood for the region. Although the Chignik River hosts the bulk of salmon producing habitat, Indian Creek contributes to some of the harvest, particularly for pink salmon species. Fish do not occur in Indian Lake or immediately below the lake in Indian Creek. The existing dam and priority flow through the pipeline have been in existence since at least 1947 without any significant change in operation throughout that time. Thus, the existing project is an integral component of the existing environment. Monitoring of stream flows and fish presence in Indian Creek has been performed since 2006 as part of the FERC license requirements in order to better understand the existing hydrologic and aquatic environment. Fish are predominantly found in the lower 0.5 mile of Indian Creek where stream flow is much more persistent. The lower reach contrasts significantly with flows in the creek immediately below the dam. Here flows are completely absent for months at a time eliminating the upper drainage as a contributor to habitat. The monitoring results show that the predominant species in Indian Creek are pink salmon. In 2003, locals to the Chignik area reported that the spawning pink salmon population in Indian Creek was estimated to be 2,500 individuals and that their presence was observed up to river mile (RM) 0.5. Using the results of the FERC required fish monitoring, the average usage of Indian Creek spawning habitat over the last 5 years has been 2,000 salmon-days per year. Figure 3-3 includes the approximate salmon-day usage of Indian Creek during the 2006-2013 period. Derivation of this estimate is presented in the Draft Project Operations Report (Hatch, 2014). The chart indicates that there has been a downward shift in numbers since 2007. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 14 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 3-3 - Indian Creek Approximate Spawning Pink Salmon Count Other species of fish are also present in Indian Creek. During fish surveys conducted in October 2003, 55 coho salmon, 99 sockeye salmon, and 222 Dolly Varden were observed. Coho salmon were observed up to RM 0.59, while sockeye salmon were observed as far as RM 0.73. The report also noted the occasional steelhead and chum salmon were found in past years. Figure 3-4 lists the salmonid species that have been identified in Indian Creek and their associated spawning and egg incubation seasons. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 15 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 3-4 - Indian Creek Fish Species Periodicity Chart 3.8 Terrestrial Resources Furbearers and small game animals in the Chignik region include moderate numbers of red foxes, porcupines, lemmings, tundra voles, arctic ground squirrels, weasels, mink, wolverine, and tundra hares. Beaver, muskrat, land otters, snowshoe hares, hoary marmots, and a small number of wolves also inhabit the region. The area supports a small but stable habitat for moose and caribou. Brown bear are common throughout the region. About 250 species of birds occur around Chignik, predominately marine and passerine species. 3.9 Endangered or Threatened Plant and Animal Species Listings and occurrences of endangered or threatened plant and animal species for Alaska was obtained from the USFWS6. Species that are potentially impacted by the project are listed in the Table 3-6. None of the species have critical habitat near the project and it is concluded the project is not likely to impact endangered or threatened species. 6 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK&s8fid=112761032 792&s8fid=112762573902 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 16 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 3-6 - Endangered or Threatened Species Status Species Critical Habitat E Albatross, short-tailed Entire (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) None E Curlew, Eskimo Entire (Numenius borealis) None T Eider, spectacled Entire (Somateria fischeri) Not near Project T Eider, Steller's AK breeding pop. (Polysticta stelleri) Not near Project E Fern, Aleutian shield (Polystichum aleuticum) None 3.10 Geology The regional geology in the Project area is described in the 1983 USACE report. Local geology at the dam site is described as hard, massive, unyielding hornfels sandstone (Quartzite) and siltstone with a thin residual soil cover. The sedimentary rock has been thermally metamorphosed with the original structural bedding preserved. The depth of the soil cover appears to average 6" to 2' although rock depressions and valleys are filled with 10' or more of soil. A talus slope exists on the west side of Indian Lake with sand and elongated material up to about 24". This material is expected to serve as the main fill for the rockfill dam in its native form and as a drain material although screening may be necessary. The river valley and village area consist of quaternary deposits which are primarily recent alluvium from Indian Creek, clay of fluvial and lacustrine origin, and marine tidal flat and sand spit deposits. Bituminous and lignite coal deposits lie on the west shore of Chignik Bay but these deposits are not currently mined. Current quarrying activities are taking place on the south side of Indian Creek just north of the active bridge. Active quarrying is occurring in a southwest direction and reached the plateau of the bluff nearly connecting to the existing cat trail used to access the dam and penstock. 3.11 Land Use Generalized lands uses in the project area are listed below:  Subsistence - Hunting  Subsistence - Fishing  Subsistence - Gathering  Hydroelectric generation using 2.7 cfs water right granted to City of Chignik  Domestic water supply  Subsurface rock extraction at quarry site  Material Disposal  Recreation - motorized ATV, hiking, sightseeing, and swimming 3.12 Site Control The proposed project would occupy the lands described in Table 3-7. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 17 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 3-7 - Land Ownership Parcel Section Township Range Surface Estate Tract 4A 12 45 S 59 W City of Chignik Far West Addition #1 12, 7, 18 45 S 58-59 W City of Chignik Tract 14 13 45 S 59 W City of Chignik Tract 15 18 45 S 58 W City of Chignik Tract 16 19 45 S 58 W City of Chignik The proposed project requires title or easement to the surface estate. Research of plats and deeds indicates that the City of Chignik holds title to all the lands identified above subject to a restrictive easement for access to the Indian Creek Quarry granted to Far West on Tract 4A. This easement states: “An easement for ingress and egress with respect to the Indian Creek Quarry, situate in tract 4A... This easement shall continue during the entire life of the Indian Creek Quarry and Grantee shall take no action which may unreasonably interfere with the uses and purposes reserved herein.” The components of the proposed project, an access road and overhead power transmission line, are not considered actions that unreasonably interfere with the ingress and egress to the Indian Creek Quarry. The proposed reservoir may also occupy a portion of the unsurveyed section 24 wherein the surface estate is owned by the Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation. Boundary line referenced topographic surveying will determine whether a future easement is required. 3.13 Recreational Use Recreational use of the project area includes hiking and sight seeing, swimming in the reservoir (Indian Lake), hunting, and fishing. Access is most often by foot although some motorized access and recreation has occurred using small four wheelers. Motorized access to the reservoir is likely to increase with the construction of the access trail through the quarry site. 3.14 Socioeconomic Fishing is the mainstay of the economy of Chignik since the early 1900's. Fish processing has occurred almost continuously since then until most recently with the move to offshore processing following the fire at the Trident plant. Beginning around the second week in June residents prepare to fish for red salmon and successive runs of pink, dog (chum), and silver salmon. Fish are taken in purse seiners and delivered to the local processor, floating processor, or tendered to Kodiak. Chignik is the major fishing community in the area, with boats, crews and families from several villages and elsewhere congregating here during the salmon season. Chignik has a long history of fish harvesting and processing. Two processing plants are located in the community although both are presently not operational. The Trident facility, located at the north end of Chignik, was the most recently used processing plant until a fire destroyed it. The former NorQuest facility, also the location for the hydro turbine, was decommissioned several years ago after the purchase by Trident. The facility has been CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 18 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. significantly damaged by a roof collapse due to high snow loads. Processing is currently handled by a floating processor. A significant factor affecting the socioeconomic well being in Chignik, like most rural Alaska communities, is the high cost of energy. The high cost of energy has significantly impacted the community with a decline in fishing vessels and local disposable income resulting in a declining population. Coupled with the decline in the local fishing industry, the community has lost a significant number of permanent residents and has seen the closure of the school in recent years. The loss of population and industry is resulting in a general decline of local infrastructure as the community is unable to keep pace with the financing and maintenance needs. 3.15 Historical and Archaeological Resources 3.15.1 Historical Resources The cannery was begun on the Chignik site in 1910 by the Columbia River Packers Association, and the oldest building dates to that era. During the global economic disruptions of the 1930s the Alaska Packers Association leased the plant and eventually bought the facility and operated it until a sale in 1979. The plant was operated under various companies until processing moved across the bay shortly after NorQuest was purchased by Trident Seafoods in 2004. The plant continues to provide processing support for Trident. Chignik’s Norquest facility is probably the oldest continuously used fish processing plant in Alaska. The facility’s dam (completed 1948) and pipeline (1949) are also part of the historic landscape. As part of the FERC license, the hydropower project is subject to provisions of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act because the water system dates to 1947-49 and belongs to the old Alaska Packers Association cannery that dates older still. An inventory and evaluation was completed by Charles M. Mobley & Associates in 2004 (Mobley 2004). The report concludes that the historic property is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is defined in the regulations implementing the Section 106 review process as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. The APE for the proposed water system and hydroelectric rehabilitation is limited to the dam, waterline, turbine unit, and existing access road. The dam and most of the wood-stave portion of the pipeline are contributing historic resources that require further consultation with SHPO and FERC as the project approval process moves forward. 3.16 Regulatory 3.16.1 FERC License The Chignik hydroelectric project is currently operating under the fourth FERC license, P-620, which has a term of 30 years and expires on February 1, 2036. The original FERC license was issued in 1925. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 19 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Licensing Timeline:  Previous FERC Licenses: - 1925, 1941, 1979  Current FERC License: - License Application – October 2, 2003 - Final Environmental Assessment – March 30, 2005 - License issued – February 8, 2006 (30 years) - Monitoring plans submitted – October 3, 2006 - FERC approval of monitoring plans – August 22, 2007 - Monitoring plans modification 1 – March 18, 2011 - Monitoring plans modification 2 – October 24, 2011 - License expires – February 1, 2036 3.16.2 State Historic Preservation Office A Programmatic Agreement (PA) with FERC and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was developed and signed in 2005 as part of the relicensing effort. The PA called for completion of an accompanying Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP). A HPMP has not been completed although a draft was prepared in 2009 and apparently reviewed in April of 2012 by the SHPO with comments on the draft plan provided to the Licensee. 3.16.3 Water Rights The water rights associated with the dam are certificated to the City of Chignik and are filed with the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). The state identifies the location of water withdrawal in section 13 township 045S range 058S, of the Seward Meridian. Water rights for processing, formerly owned by NorQuest, have been transferred to the City of Chignik as part of the FERC license transfer. All water rights associated with the dam and included in Figure 3-5 are currently certificated to the City of Chignik. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 20 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 3-5 - ADNR Water Rights Land Case Detail, Water Rights Information CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 21 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4. Technical Considerations 4.1 General Effects of Proposed Action The proposed hydro project will provide significant benefits to the City of Chignik and the State of Alaska by lowering the cost of electric energy production over the long term and reducing the State's payments for diesel fuel from the PCE program over the long term. The proposed hydro project will also result in significant secondary benefits by diverting payments from burning of diesel fuel into local renewable infrastructure with an indefinite useful life. The investment in local renewable generation will stimulate economic growth in the community which in turn will benefit the State and other entities in the region and represents a significant increase in sustainability. Historic access to the dam site and pipeline has been limited to walking and helicopter use for major maintenance. Recently the City has created an access trail to the project area as part of the development of the quarry near the mouth of Indian Creek. The proposed project will continue trail and access improvements reducing long term maintenance and also improving recreational access to Indian Lake. The replacement project will perpetually introduce an additional 2.7 cfs of water to the rearing habitat of Indian Creek by abandoning the existing hydroelectric project that completely diverts water out of the basin and discharges into the tidal zone of the ocean. As a result, it is possible that the proposed hydro project could improve the anadromous habitat in the lower reaches of Indian Creek which could result in improved salmon egg and fry survivability leading to increased commercial salmon harvests and spawning returns. By replacing the dam and pipeline, and increasing the reservoir storage capacity, the project improves the raw water supply availability and reliability of delivery to the City potable water system. The project will also eliminate the burning of 63,500 gallons of diesel fuel annually, based on current electric demand and has the potential to displace 184,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually. Over the project's minimum expected life of 50 years, this equates to potentially reducing fuel consumption by nearly 10 million gallons. 4.2 Selected Project Arrangement 4.2.1 Reservoir Without adequate survey and geotechnical information the analysis of dam height must be accomplished using the best information available on topography. A combination of visual observations and various topographic survey products has been combined to analyze the cost and benefits of various dam heights. The topography and synthesized bathymetric surface is shown in Appendix E, Figure 3. Reservoir surface areas and storage volumes are shown in the Table 4-1. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 22 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 4-1 - Indian Lake Modeled Reservoir Areas and Storage Volumes Reservoir Elevation (ft) Area (acres) Volume (acre-ft) 430 2.9 3 435 7.4 28 440 19.5 89 445 24.2 204 450 26.7 331 455 29.5 472 460 32.6 627 465 36.0 798 470 40.3 988 If LIDAR or other remote sensing survey work is undertaken in the future, it is recommended that the reservoir is drained to verify the volume estimates in this report. 4.2.2 Dam, Spillway, and Intake The remote location and the locally available rock sources suggest a rock fill dam will be the most economical structure. A separate spillway cut through rock is required to prevent overtopping and subsequent erosion of the rock fill dam. The location for the proposed dam is confined by the existing dam, local topography, and the area required for the spillway. The existing wooden dam leaks significantly and is situated in the apparent ideal location for the new dam. The cost estimate anticipates the need for a coffer dam and demolition of the existing dam. A rock fill dam with an assumed 8" thick impervious central concrete face with a single outlet tunnel and upstream and downstream slopes of 1.5:1 was selected for the concept design in this report. The conceptual design of the dam is not intended to be definitive and some deviation in location, elevation, and concept are expected during the design phase after collection of topographical and geotechnical data. Final concept determination shall be made in the design phase. The upstream face must be capable of withstanding forces from waves and ice that moves up and down frequently with reservoir changes, forces from wind driven ice, and freezing and thawing effects. Investigations should, to the extent practical, define the locations of competent bedrock that will serve as the foundation for the dam, the structural competency, potential for leakage, fracture evaluation, sealing recommendations, and approximately define the bedrock extent east of the dam site. It is noted that reports from investigations in 1984 state that the rock cut spillway had eroded down and widened since its original construction. The feasibility effort has focused primarily on selecting the desired dam height for storage purposes and for estimating construction costs. Conceptual dam designs for reservoir elevations ranging up to 465' combined with a relocated spillway to the east were analyzed to determine quantities and construction costs. The analysis showed that enlarging the existing spillway and limiting the dam footprint to the main channel was the most economical configuration. Table 4-2 shows final estimated dam quantities based on reservoir elevation. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 23 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 4-2 - Dam Conceptual Quantities with Varying Reservoir (Spillway Crest) Elevations Dam Fill Elevation, ft Normal Reservoir Elevation, ft Dam Volume (cyd) Concrete Water Barrier Area, sq ft Spillway Excavation Volume, cyd 445 440 1,800 2,200 3,900 450 445 3,000 3,400 3,360 455 450 4,600 4,600 2,942 The proposed intake and outlet works for the concept follows conventional design consisting of a trash rack, shut off gate, conveyance tunnel, air inlet, a transition, and a rupture control valve. The shutoff gate or valve is recommended to allow for dewatering of the penstock. The use of a penstock over-velocity valve or similar device is also recommended as a safety measure to prevent uncontrolled water release from the reservoir in the event of a penstock failure. An air inlet vent immediately downstream of the shutoff gate or valve is required to prevent penstock collapse in the event of a sudden blockage or valve closure at the dam during project operation. With a rock filled dam the proposed spillway must pass all flows in excess of the project capacity to prevent overtopping of the dam. The conceptual design of the spillway is based on an estimated peak flood using the USGS procedure for a 500 year return event. Additional infrastructure recommended for the dam includes water level monitoring (required), camera, weather instrumentation, a small storage shed, and a communications and low power line. The timing of construction is expected to be limited due to consistent high flows occurring in the summer snow melt and adverse conditions in winter with snow, frozen ground, and limited daylight. Potential problems associated with the fall construction include major rainfall events. 4.2.3 Pipeline For conceptual design and capacity analysis the nominal pipeline size was varied along with the material and shipping cost to determine the most feasible project capacity. The pipeline thickness is based on a preliminary design profile using HDPE pipe. Table 4-3 summarizes the various pipeline concept designs analyzed. The numbers were adopted for comparison purposes and it is expected that actual project capacity and pipeline size will be determined during the design phase. Table 4-3 - Pipeline Diameter Selection for Various Project Capacities Nominal Pipeline Diameter, inches Hydraulic Capacity (cfs) Nominal Capacity (kW) Annual Energy Potential (MWh) 22 15 315 1,860 24 18 385 2,140 26 22 470 2.480 A temporary water supply service from the dam to Lower Indian Lake is included in the hydroelectric cost estimate as a temporary means of water supply during construction. An alternate solution is to use Lower Indian Lake or it's tributary or restore functioning of the existing water wells and incur pumping costs. The temporary service pipeline is required due to the construction of the access road over the existing penstock alignment and removal of CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 24 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. the existing dam. The conceptual estimate includes 4" temporary water line from the reservoir connecting to a permanent insulated 4" water line near Lower Indian Lake. 4.2.4 Powerhouse The location for proposed powerhouse represents one of the more significant differences between the proposed hydroelectric project and the existing one. The location was chosen to mitigate the impacts of existing diversion of water associated with the powerhouse site located near tidewater. Alternate locations include the base of the hill at the sharp bend in Indian Creek (referred to as the pool site) and anywhere in the valley from the mouth of the Lower Indian Lake Outlet creek (located at river mile 0.4 of Indian Creek) up to an elevation of approximately 70 feet. Final selection of the powerhouse site to be based on the results of FERC licensing, permitting, detailed topographic (LIDAR) ground surveying, and geotechnical investigations (drilling or machine dug test pits). Early concepts situated the powerhouse at a sharp bend in the creek referred to as the pool site. Indian Creek flows out of a confined valley and into a rock wall where flows have scoured the creek bed against the wall. Opposite the wall is small gravel bar that formed on the inside of the creek bend. This gravel bar abuts against a steep slope that is presumed to have shallow overburden over bedrock that would serve as the powerhouse foundation. Due to cost, geotechnical, and erosion concerns the proposed powerhouse location has been moved downstream although the proposed tailrace discharge point, at the pool site, remains unchanged. The site chosen for the powerhouse is located on a small mound located at the mouth of a small valley that drains Lower Indian Lake. This site appears to be less susceptible to flood related erosion by Indian Creek, has a larger area, and results in less transmission line, access road, and steel penstock construction at the expense of additional tailrace construction. The net effect of the above being an overall lower project cost. 4.2.5 Turbine and Generator With reservoir storage the minimum turbine output is not constrained by the instantaneous flow in Indian Creek as a run of river project would be. Minimum demand averages 50 kW. The proposed turbine type consists of a single Turgo unit configured with twin jets and directly connected to the generator operating at 900 rpm. This configuration will provide efficient power production through the expected operating range. An advantage of a single unit is that the entire rotational mass will be spinning at all times which improves the ability of the unit to follow demand fluctuations. For the demand data collected the maximum load increase was approximately 40kW in 15 minutes. Pelton type units could also be utilized in either a single 5 jet vertical axis machine or two horizontal axis, twin jet machines with or without speed increasers. The cost for these configurations is $100k-$200k more than the Turgo unit depending on the desired efficiency. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 25 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. A combined hydroelectric and generator efficiency of 75% is used for operational modeling. Capacities in excess of about 400 kW may require multiple turbine installations to operate efficiently in the winter at low loads. 4.2.6 Domestic and Process Raw Water Supply The proposed concept includes the cost for a community water supply originating from the main penstock in the vicinity of Lower Indian Lake. Penstock service disruptions are not expected to occur as part of regular maintenance so a separate dedicated water supply line from the dam should not be necessary although the temporary water service for construction could be utilized as a permanent supply line originating from the dam. The new water supply is presumed to be routed from a take off point on the proposed penstock near Lower Indian Lake to the existing water treatment plant following the same route as the existing penstock. The cost estimate assumes this line portion of the water supply line will require insulation with an aluminum jacket because it will be installed above grade. Conceptual water supply requirement is 0.25 cfs which includes 0.05 cfs for domestic water use (certificated amount is 0.03 cfs) and 20,000 gpd (0.2 cfs) used for processing. To account for increased domestic use during cold periods when residents leave taps open to prevent freezing the project modeling assumes a domestic demand of 0.1 cfs when Indian Creek flow drops below 3 cfs. Timing of demand for process water is May 1st through September 30th. 4.3 Hydrology Analysis 4.3.1 Stream Gaging Data Analysis Figure 4-1 shows the flow duration curve for the dam spill. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 26 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-1 - Dam Spill Flow Duration Curve, Oct 2008 to Oct 2013 Calendar years with a complete record of dam spill from stream gaging in the reservoir are 2009, 2010, and 2012. There is also a complete record of dam spill and bridge site flows for water-year 2013. The mean unit annual flow (mean flow divided by drainage area) of the dam spill is compared with the USGS Russel Creek flow data in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-2 - Indian Creek Annual Dam Spill Unit Flow Compared with USGS Russel Creek Year 2010, 2012, and 2013 annual mean flows are nearly identical with 2010 considered typical. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Dam Spill Flow, cfsPercent Time  Flow Exceeded 22 13 12 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Annual Mean Unit Flow, cfs/mi sqYear Russel Creek Annual Mean Unit Flow (cfs/sq mi) Indian Lake Dam Spill Annual Mean Unit Flow (cfs/sq mi) CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 27 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.3.2 Hydrology Data used for modeling Unless indicated otherwise, the modeling uses the 2010 calendar flow data from the dam as shown in Figure 4-3 for the analysis. Also for modeling purposes, the spill over the reservoir (outflow) is equated to the reservoir inflow. Figure 4-3 - 2010 Indian Creek Annual Hydrograph (at dam) 4.4 Energy Analysis 4.4.1 Diesel Electric Generation Historic demand for Chignik, comprised of the entire community except processing facilities, totalled about 55,000 kWh (75 kW average) per month. In 2010, Chignik Electric began providing power for Trident's fish processing onshore support operations. Fish processing activities occur in late May and continue until September 1st which coincides with the peak runoff times from Indian Creek. This base load demand is expected to continue indefinitely. The available diesel generation data for the City of Chignik was obtained from Power Cost Equalization (PCE) reports. The reports provide monthly totalized generation in kWh. The PCE data is shown in Table 4-4 and Figure 4-4. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1/1 1/31 3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Indain Lake Dam Spill ,cfsDate CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 28 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 4-4 - Table of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy Month 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 January 51,170 46,530 65,481 63,263 76,656 February 49,665 47,820 56,574 62,099 59,633 March 55,083 43,950 52,545 52,133 62,342 April 44,520 41,280 56,571 58,615 60,552 May 42,660 50,310 77,971 90,978 108,886 June 54,540 46,470 121,755 119,722 139,332 July 52,230 43,770 67,004 126,236 112,051 111,768 August 55,083 45,510 62,073 107,200 106,321 112,570 September 48,690 43,560 78,142 79,817 78,478 88,521 October 44,247 39,450 54,342 51,495 46,001 51,771 November 56,287 42,540 54,441 61,703 53,679 61,708 December 47,257 36,420 59,203 61,074 57,991 55,583 Totals 303,794 548,888 276,360 375,205 918,422 901,331 989,322 Figure 4-4 - Chart of Monthly City of Chignik Diesel Generated Energy The percentage of generation for each customer class is obtained from State of Alaska power cost equalization reports and is shown in Figure 4-5 for FY2013. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 123456789101112Monthly Total Diesel Generation, kWhMonth 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (PEL) 2010‐2013 Average CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 29 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-5 - FY2013 Electric Generation by Customer Class, kWh 4.4.1.1 State of Alaska Power Cost Equalization The State of Alaska funded a portion of the cost of diesel electric generation in Chignik through the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program. For FY2013, the payments to the City of Chignik electric utility (Chignik Electric) for each customer class is shown in Figure 4-6. Figure 4-6 - FY2013 Electric Payments by Customer Class 4.4.2 Diesel Electric Analysis and Modeling A diesel efficiency curve was developed based on data provided the Alaska Energy Authority. The efficiency curve provides the fuel consumption based on the percentage of peak generator capacity. This is incorporated into the feasibility model along with a minimum loading for a generator of 20% when operating in conjunction with the hydro. Residential Generation 22% Community Facility Generation 9%Commercial Generation 57% Station Service 3%Line loss 9% State of Alaska, PCE 18% Commercial 36% Residential 36% Community 9% CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 30 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.4.3 Hydroelectric Generation The existing hydroelectric project, now owned by the City, produces about 35 kW almost all year. This energy does not contribute to the City's generation because it has not been connected to the distribution system. It is also reported that for the past several years the project has not been providing power to the NorQuest facility either and that the turbine is idle with water energy wasted through the deflector system. It is assumed in the feasibility modeling that the existing hydroelectric turbine will remain disconnected from the City system. The water flowing through the existing hydroelectric turbine is modeled as being available at the dam for future hydroelectric energy production. 4.4.4 Heating Demand Heating demand in Chignik is met using diesel fired heating units. The AEA 2010 Energy Pathway Report estimated that the amount of diesel fuel required for heating is 55,056 gallons annually (AEA, 2010). The school historically utilized waste heat from the old diesel plant but the current location of the diesel powerhouse is much further away and not connected with the now closed school. 4.4.5 Electric Demand Modeling and Forecasting For the purposes of improving the resolution of electric demand data from monthly to 15 minute intervals and for projecting future loads, a Power Energy Logger (PEL 103) was installed at the Chignik Bay diesel generation plant. The meter was installed and began recording data on March 29, 2013 at 15:45; the initial data collection period ended on June 19 at 13:30 when the logger was stopped to perform a download of the saved data. The data is recorded in 15 minute intervals and saved to an SD card in the logger. The recorded data can be seen in Figure 4-7 along with the calculated daily average load. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 31 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-7 - Chignik 15 Minute Power Energy Logger, 2013 Measured Demand Data The measured data was used in conjunction with the PCE data from 2010–2012 to create a synthesized one year set of demand data at Chignik Bay. The data from 2010-2012 was averaged monthly over the past three years, and divided into “high” and “low” demand months, with “high” months coinciding with the demands from the fish processing plant. The measured PEL data was also reduced to a high and a low demand month set of data. Correction factors were determined for each month based on the historical average demand vs. the measured demand for 2013. To create a synthesized year of data the monthly correction factors were applied to either the “high” or “low” data sets and the adjusted data combined to create one year of 15 min data. The correction factors were not applied to the data for the period of March 29 through June 19, 2013 where measured data was available; this data remains true as obtained from the Power Energy Logger. Figure 4-8 shows the full year of combined measured and synthesized data; both 15 min and daily average data are shown. The average monthly demand is also shown for the average PCE reported demand over the past three years. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 32 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-8 - Synthesized Annual Demand for Chignik The modeling of both the diesel only option and the proposed hydro utilizes the average hourly demand data shown in the graph above. Load growth is not apparent in PCE data. To a certain extent, it is likely the high cost of diesel generated electric energy for commercial customers is a factor in the lack of growth. Although not exhibited in the past, load growth over the planning horizon resulting from the fixed and/or low price electric energy from hydro generation is a possibility that is considered using low, medium, and high growth rates of 0%, 1%, and 2% for electric demand. 4.4.6 Heating Energy The total annual fuel consumption for heating is assumed to represent the total community equivalent heat demand in Btu's with the distribution throughout the year determined by the daily heating degree day (HDD) demand obtained from the National Climate Data Center. The maximum amount of heat displaced by excess electric or diesel waste heat is assumed to be 50% of the HDD demand. The benefit of heat utilization from the diesel plant is also included in the modeling. Waste heat available from diesel electric generation is calculated as 25% of the electric demand. The diesel waste heat energy is also included when a diesel is required to supplement hydro 0 50 100 150 200 250 1/1 1/31 3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Demand (kW)Date Synthetic Hourly Average Demand (kW) PEL Hourly Average Demand (kW) Average Monthly PCE Demand (kW) CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 33 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. energy. Under this scenario heating benefit from the hydro could be negative when the diesel is able to provide more heat energy than the hydro. Where heating is considered an additional net present capital cost of $250,000 is added to the hydro cost to pay for the addition of a dispatchable remote electric boiler system. No infrastructure costs are added for heat utilization from the diesel power plant. 4.5 Water Use 4.5.1 Potable Water Power generation from the hydroelectric project is a secondary use of the dam and pipeline. The primary use has been the supply of fresh water for potable use and fish processing operations. The City of Chignik is the certificated water utility and supplies potable water by withdrawal of pressurized raw water from the existing hydro penstock near the north end of the boardwalk crossing the wetland area. Treated water is stored in the tank located at about elevation 190 ft. A system of wells has been used as a backup supply when the existing penstock is offline although it has not been operated for several years and it is unknown if the well pumps have enough pressure to overcome the height of the new water tank. The City of Chignik domestic water rights are 19.8 acre-ft per year (0.03 cfs). It has been reported by the City that domestic water use rises significantly during very cold periods to prevent freezing of water lines. 4.5.2 Fish Processing The former NorQuest facility water rights for processing were 911.5 acre-feet per year (1.26 cfs) and an additional 10.8 acre-feet for domestic use. This is representative of historical water needs associated with fish processing. Modern processing methods no longer require such a large volume of fresh water. Trident requested up to 10,000 gpd (0.015 cfs) of potable water for future processing needs at the former NorQuest facility. Process water for the Trident facility was obtained from wells with a permitted use of 73.65 acre-feet per year (0.1 cfs). The wells reportedly had water quality problems and the Trident facility is now connected to the City potable water system. Modern day fresh water demand for fish processing is estimated to be 0.1 cfs for each facility. 4.6 Operational Modeling The following summarizes the modeling assumptions and methods that make up the operational model for the combined diesel hydro system.  A one hour interval step model is utilized to simulate the operation of the combined diesel and hydro electric generation for a modeled year.  A 20 kW minimum reserve is required to be instantly available to meet rapid demand changes that may occur. If the hydro does not have the water supply or capacity CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 34 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. available then it is assumed that a diesel is running at minimum loading with the hydro being curtailed.  The operational model only allows for excess energy production for displacement of heat energy when there is spill occurring at the dam. The operational model is used to evaluate the existing electric generation system combined with the proposed hydroelectric system. The following chart shows the results of the hydroelectric operational model with the hydrologic chart and the modified flows based on reservoir regulation and demand requirements. Figures 4-9 and 4-10 present the results of the operational modeling with respect to reservoir and system power operation respectively. Figure 4-9 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Flow Model 430 435 440 445 450 455 460 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 ‐Jan 1 ‐Feb 1‐Mar 1 ‐Apr 1‐May 1‐Jun 1‐Jul 1 ‐Aug 1‐Sep 1 ‐Oct 1‐Nov 1 ‐Dec Reservoir Elevation, ftFlow, cfsDay Proposed Flow (Spill) at Dam, cfs Flow Utilized for Power Generation (Project Flow), cfs Existing Flow (Spill) at Dam, cfs Reservoir Elevation, ft CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 35 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-10 - Proposed Hydroelectric Daily Operation - Power Model 4.6.1 Reservoir Elevation Figure 4-11 shows the results of the reservoir modeling for two reservoir elevations and the proposed project capacity of 340 kW. In the chart, the hydroelectric generation is shown as a function of the selected reservoir elevation and the annual electric system load in MWh. The chart shows the minor difference in hydroelectric generation between reservoir elevations. 420 425 430 435 440 445 450 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/1 5/31 6/30 7/30 8/29 9/28 10/28 11/27 12/27 Reservoir Elevation, ftPower, kWDate Hydro Generation Diesel Generation Electric  Demand Reservoir Level CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 36 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-11 - Hydroelectric Generation for Reservoir Elevations 445' and 450' 4.6.2 Project Capacity The selection of the pipeline size and the subsequent project capacity was made after modeling the project using a range of values. Figure 4-12 shows the results of the capacity modeling for two configurations. In the chart, the annual hydroelectric generation is shown as a function of the selected project capacity and the annual electric system load in MWh. 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000Annual Hydroelectric Generation, MWhSystem  Load, MWh Useable  Hydroelectric  Generation, Reservoir  Elevation  445' Useable  Hydroelectric  Generation, Reservoir  Elevation  450' CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 37 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Figure 4-12 - Hydroelectric Generation for Project Capacities of 315 kW to 470 kW' In the chart above it is apparent that demand must increase to twice current levels before increased project capacity provides increased benefits. 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000Annual Hydroelectric Generation, MWhSystem Load, MWh Useable  Hydroelectric Generation, 315 kW Project Capacity Useable  Hydroelectric Generation, 470 kW Project Capacity Useable  Hydroelectric Generation, 385 kW Project Capacity CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 38 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 4.7 Proposed Project Scheme Summary Table 4-5 summarizes the details of the reconstructed existing and proposed project arrangements. It is expected that the final capacity determination of the general arrangement of the proposed project will be made during the preliminary design and permitting phase. Table 4-5 – Summary: Reconstructed Existing and Proposed New Projects Item Existing Proposed Nominal Capacity (kW) 70 385 Static head (ft) 430 380 Design head (ft) 400 340 Hydraulic capacity (cfs) 2.7 18 Reservoir Normal Water Surface (ft) 440 445 Reservoir Area (acres) 21 24 Reservoir Useable Storage Volume (acre-feet) 89 204 Nominal penstock diameter (in) 12,10 & 8 24 Penstock length (ft) 7,280 7,280 Transmission length (ft) 0 1,600 New access road & trail lengths (ft) 0 9,170 Annual energy potential (MWh) 470 2,140 Existing demand (diesel generated) (MWh) 950 950 Annual displaced diesel energy (MWh) 470 900 Annual reduction in diesel fuel use (gal) 33,400 63,500 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 39 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 5. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost and Schedule 5.1 No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant No construction cost is associated with the No Action Alternative. As the base alternative, however, operation (fuel) and maintenance costs will continue. These costs are discussed as included in Sections 6 and 7 that follow. 5.2 Reconstructed Existing Project The cost estimate for reconstruction of the existing project is based on the proposed alternative estimate and includes a replacement dam, 12" diameter pipeline, an access trail, and a new turbine and generator. The results are summarized in the table below. Table 5-1 provides a categorical summary of the Total Construction Cost of a reconstructed existing project as itemized above. Table 5-1 - Reconstructed Existing Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost by Category Category Cost Labor $916,000 Equip $556,000 Material $1,150,000 Shipping $559,000 Indirect $910,000 Development $912,000 Total $5,003,000 5.3 Proposed New Project Table 5-2 includes a summary of the opinion of probable cost for the construction of the proposed project. A detailed construction cost estimate is included in Appendix C. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 40 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 5-2 - Proposed New Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost Item Labor Hours Material Cost Item Cost Contractor Directs Construction Support 2,263 $469,000 Mobilization $548,000 Access Trail 822 $317,000 $390,000 Powerhouse 1,906 $120,000 $302,000 Dam and Intake 4,462 $336,000 $736,000 Dam Site Construction Acccess 40 $1,000 $5,000 Domestic Water Supply 355 $85,000 $116,000 Demo Existing Dam 160 $14,000 Coffer Dam/Construction Diversion 155 $16,000 $30,000 Foundation and Outlet Conveyance 1,320 $108,000 $224,000 Concrete Face 1,346 $72,000 $198,000 Rockfill Placement 525 $6,000 $53,000 Spillway 374 $8,000 $40,000 Power, Controls, and Communication 186 $39,000 $55,000 Pipeline 1,998 $432,000 $612,000 Turbine and Generator 450 $735,000 $779,000 Tailrace 98 $42,000 $51,000 Transmission 582 $53,000 $104,000 Equipment $692,000 SUBTOTAL, Contractor Direct Costs 12,581 $4,683,000 Contractor Indirects Weather Delay 4% $189,000 Overall Contingency 25% $1,171,,000 Contractor Profit 12% $562,000 Bonding 2% $94,000 SUBTOTAL, Contractor Indirects $6,698,000 Development Costs FERC, aquatic, and gaging work $160,000 Geotech Investigation $175,000 Surveying and Engineering $370,000 Historic Properties $75,000 Inspection and Testing $175,000 Owner Admin $175,000 SUBTOTAL, Development Costs $1,130,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $7,828,000 Table 5-3 provides a categorical summary of the Total Construction Cost of the proposed project as itemized above. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 41 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 5-3 - Proposed New Project, Opinion of Probable Total Construction Cost by Category Category Cost Labor $1,193,000 Equip $692,000 Material $2,035,000 Shipping $762,000 Indirect $2,015,000 Development $1,130,000 Total $7,830,000 The cost estimate presumes that the work force will consist of an average of 6 crew members and a supervisor. Two of the crew are expected to be local hire which reduces the housing and travel costs. The cost for construction equipment mobilization to and from Chignik is based on a chartered vessel traveling to and from Anchorage. Materials are assumed to be shipped separately from Seattle and are priced on a container basis. Additional mobilization during construction includes chartered round trip air service from Anchorage occurring every 2 weeks during construction. Construction cost for the trail is based on overburden removal followed by hauled in base course using two articulated trucks. Volumes are calculated using a trail width of 16' and an average fill depth of 2'. Material is assumed to be sourced from the local quarry at a cost of $25 per cubic yard. Material for the dam fill is obtained from the lower portions of the spillway excavation. The upper portion of the spillway excavation is expected to be used for the coffer dam construction. The cost assumes that a fusion machine will be onsite. The cost of the pipe is estimated based on the total weight and the number of shipping containers required. The labor and equipment for the pipeline are fixed costs. The cost estimate uses a weather delay contingency of 10% that applies to the labor and equipment cost. An overall contingency of 25% is applied to all direct construction costs. The net overall contingency is approximately 30% which is appropriate at this stage of project development and given the potential for unfavourable geotechnical conditions that can impact the dam construction. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 42 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 5.4 Schedule The proposed schedule shown in Figure 5-1 is used in the economic analysis and assumes that development begins with funding approved in July 2015. On that basis, construction Figure 5-1 - Project Development Schedule CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 43 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 6. Economic Analysis Evaluation of the Proposed New Project alternative is made by comparing the net present cost and benefits with the base case of diesel electric generation. 6.1 Annual Costs: No Action Alternative – Diesel Electric Plant 6.1.1 Fuel Cost The net present cost for the base case of diesel generation is primarily fuel dependent. An average (medium) fuel price case is used for the analysis although other fuel cases, termed low and high, are also presented. The fuel price is determined using the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) fuel price projections for 2013-2035 (ISER, 2013) adjusted using a random sampling of the most recent reporting of fuel prices in 15 communities obtained from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska's (RCA) Power Cost Equalization (PCE) filings. The ISER projected average medium fuel price for 2013 for all Alaska communities is $4.43/gal. The sampling of 15 communities showed an average fuel price of $4.51/gal and an average decrease from ISER projected 2013 pricing of $0.18/gal. Thus, the estimated current average fuel price for all Alaska communities for January 2014 is calculated to be $4.25/gal. The ISER medium fuel price growth rate is then used to determine the projected fuel price for the next 50 years. The current average, or medium, price for fuel in a typical rural Alaska community is approximately $4.25 per gallon. The same fuel price is used for economic evaluation of displaced electric and heating loads. The low and high fuel price projection use the same starting value, the current fuel price, but use different rates of escalation which are derived from the ISER report. Fuel price escalation rates above inflation for the low, medium, and high fuel cases are 0.4%, 1.50%, and 2.08%. 6.1.2 Diesel Operation and Maintenance Cost Diesel O&M costs are determined from City of Chignik electric utility rate filings. In Table 6-1, costs for materials for the past two years are averaged and then used to determine the hourly O&M cost for diesel operation. Labor costs are not included. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 44 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 6-1 - Diesel O&M Costs Diesel O&M Cost 2012 filters $9,181 generator repairs $21,999 Total $31,180 2011 filters $12,722 generator repairs $11,183 Total $23,095 Average $27,543 Cost per run hour $3.14 6.2 Annual Costs, Proposed New Project 6.2.1 Time Value The net present cost for hydro generation primarily is dependent on the cost of the project due to a grant funded scenario assumed in this report. Costs are accounted for in the year they occur and then discounted using a time value discount rate of 3% for future investments (discount rate). 2014 real dollar values and term of 50 years are used for the economic evaluation. This allows for constant pricing in today's dollars and eliminates the need to inflate costs. However, the fuel price is subject to a growth rate because it is expected to outpace the average inflation. 6.2.2 Construction Cost Variance Whereas the base case of diesel generation includes a probable cost range from low to high fuel cost, the hydroelectric economic analysis also includes a probable cost range from a low to high scenario. Factors of -10% and +10% are applied to the overall development cost estimate. 6.2.3 Hydro Operation and Maintenance Costs Hydro O&M consists primarily of labor costs and an amount each year for a repair and replacement fund. Labor costs were not included in the diesel O&M. It is expected that, because the hydro will displace nearly all diesel generation, the labor associated with the diesel generation will be redirected to the hydro without any changes. Labor is excluded from the operational model and the funding for hydro repairs is limited to parts estimated to be 0.25% of the construction cost. It is likely that permit compliance monitoring will be required by resource agencies for 5 years following commissioning. The monitoring is presumed to be similar to current requirements which includes stream gaging and fish spawning surveys. The first 5 years of hydro O&M is estimated to cost 0.75% of the construction cost to account for the estimated monitoring work. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 45 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 6.3 Economic Evaluation Method The parameters reported in the results table are the total of annual costs and benefits calculated over the planning horizon and adjusted for year of occurrence using the discount rate. Conclusions are shown in two ways: the net present cost of generation and the benefit/cost ratio. The two methods present two different viewpoints on project benefits. 1. The Net Present Cost of Generation (NPC) presents the results from the viewpoint of a consumer to illustrate which of the projects, including the no hydro alternative of diesel only, provides the lowest cost of power. 2. The Benefit/Cost Ratio (B/C) presents the results from the viewpoint of an investor and illustrates whether the benefits of the proposed development are greater than the cost (i.e., B/C >1). Additional detail on the economic parameters reported include: Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric. The net present cost of electric generation using diesel is the sum of the diesel fuel costs, inflated as indicated, and the generation related O&M fixed costs over the planning horizon with costs discounted based on the year of occurrence. This is the base case from which the benefits of the hydro option are determined. Costs not associated with generation, such as distribution system maintenance and administrative services, are not included in the generation costs. Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric. The net present cost of electric generation with the addition of the hydro. Where the hydro is unable to meet demand the necessary diesel generation expense and O&M expense is included in the annual cost. This includes the cost of generating power from the present year on which is entirely diesel only generation until the hydro is commissioned. The cost to construct the hydro, via loan financing, and the O&M cost of the hydro are also included. The financing of the construction cost via a loan is presented because the Net Present Cost using grant funding is slightly less. When the NPC of hydro generation is less than diesel electric generation the proposed project is superior. Present Value of Hydro Development Cost. Used for B/C calculation, the present value of the of the hydro development cost is the cost component in the B/C Ratio. This is the sum of the costs, over the planning horizon, to develop the hydro discounted by the year the costs occur. Only costs to construct the project are included. Under the financed option, the discounted sum of deflated loan payments is the present value of hydro development cost. Present Value of Hydro Benefits. Used for B/C calculation, the present value of the annual cost savings from the hydro is the benefits component in the B/C Ratio. This is the sum of the benefits, over the planning horizon, to develop the hydro discounted by the year the benefits occur. The benefits of the project are defined as the cost of generation using diesel only minus the cost of hydro generation for each year. The cost of hydro generation includes the fixed O&M cost of the hydro and the cost of diesel fuel and O&M from required diesel generation needed to meet demand. Costs to generate power from present day through hydro development are included (benefits are zero until project is commissioned). CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 46 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. B/C Ratio. This is the present value of the hydro benefits divided by the present value of the hydro development cost. When greater than 1.0 the proposed project is superior. Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits. Including heating in the analysis is a measure of the potential benefits for using excess energy to offset diesel fuel used to meet heat demand. In accordance with the assumptions for heat production and utilization, the benefits from hydro heating are defined as the heating value of the hydroelectric generation minus the value from diesel only electric generation heat value. Where positive, the hydro generation has more potential heat utilization than diesel electric only generation. Where the value is negative the hydro project has less potential heat utilization than diesel electric only generation. 6.4 Economic Results – Proposed New Project Table 6-2 shows results for a number of economic parameters. The results are shown for varying load growth rates along with the variable diesel fuel cost and hydro construction cost. For simplicity, the hydro construction cost variability is expected to coincide with the diesel cost variability. Thus the table of results reports the low diesel fuel case combined with the low hydro construction cost case and so on. Detailed results of the economic analysis are included in Appendix D for the electric generation parameters using the 2% demand growth and medium fuel and hydro cost scenario. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 47 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Table 6-2 - Economic Results: Proposed New Project (385 kW) Load Growth Case Avg B/C Hydro Construction Cost and Fuel Cost Scenario 0% 1% 2% Low Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $8,710,000 $10,490,000 $12,820,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $8,520,000 $9,000,000 $9,820,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $6,280,000 $6,280,000 $6,280,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $6,470,000 $7,770,000 $9,280,000 B/C Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.3 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $840,000 $660,000 $390,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.3 Medium Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $10,780,000 $13,310,000 $16,640,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $9,360,000 $10,030,000 $11,200,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $6,980,000 $6,980,000 $6,980,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $8,400,000 $10,260,000 $12,420,000 B/C Ratio 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.5 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $1,090,000 $840,000 $430,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.5 High Net Present Cost Generation - Diesel Electric $12,130,000 $15,170,000 $19,190,000 Net Present Cost Generation - Hydroelectric $10,150,000 $10,950,000 $12,370,000 Present Value of Hydro Development Cost $7,680,000 $7,680,000 $7,680,000 Present Value of Hydro Benefits $9,660,000 $11,910,000 $14,500,000 B/C Ratio 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.5 Present Value Hydro Heating Benefits $1,260,000 $950,000 $450,000 B/C with Heating Included 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.6 Average of Electric B/C Ratios 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4 Average of Electric + Heating B/C Ratios 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.5 The proposed project has the lowest cost of generation and is beneficial under all scenarios. For the probable cost cases and if electric demand remains unchanged the B/C is positive at 1.2. While the demand has been constant in the past this is not expected to be the case in the future. Under increasing demand scenarios the benefit of the hydro's additional capacity at a fixed cost is readily apparent with the B/C ratio rising significantly. The overall average B/C ratio of hydroelectric generation is 1.4 for all scenarios. 6.4.1 Reconstructed Existing Project Economic Results For reconstructing the existing project, the analysis concludes the project is not recommended due to lower B/C ratios as expected for the 70 kW project with much less energy generation. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 48 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 6.4.2 Environmental Measures Economic Analysis The replacement project locates the powerhouse at an elevation higher than desired. It is estimated that the ideal powerhouse elevation is about 15' lower which translates to a 4% decrease in power output for a given flow rate. The economic modelling shows that the NPV of lifetime benefits from the hydro project are subsequently reduced by about $135,000 under the high demand growth scenario. The significantly longer tailrace than required in order to convey the tail water to the upper limit of anadromous fish habitat represents an additional cost of approximately $75,000. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 49 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Spill Flow at Dam, cfsMonth/Day of Year Proposed Spill at Dam,  Demand Limited Proposed Spill at Dam,  Maximum Output Existing Spill at Dam 7. Proposed New Project – Environmental / Regulatory Analysis The only resources with potential for significant impacts from the proposed project are socioeconomic and fishery resources. 7.1.1 Aquatic Resources The proposed project's alteration of flows at the dam site is very limited. There will be a marginal increase in the duration and frequency of an already regularly occurring condition of having no spill at the dam. From a qualitative perspective it is expected that the marginal change in duration is not significant with respect to aquatic resources. The alteration of flows at the powerhouse is a slightly more significant. The replacement project will result in the addition of 2.7 cfs of water into the rearing habitat of Indian Creek by abandoning the existing hydroelectric project which completely diverts water out of the basin and discharges into the tidal zone of the ocean. The proposed project diverts a significantly regulated flow back to the most habitable reach of Indian Creek. The hydrological impacts from the proposed action are shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2 using the median daily average hydrology from the 2013 water year where both dam spill and bridge site flows were recorded. The hydrological impacts are shown for partial project output coinciding with the synthesized demand and full project output. Load growth decreases duration of flow additions at the powerhouse but does not have a discernable effect on the spill flow regime at the dam. Figure 7-1 - Existing and Proposed Spill Flow at Dam, 2013 Water Year CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 50 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1Flow at Powerhouse, cfsMonth/Day of Year Proposed Flow at Bridge  Site Existing Flow at Bridge  Site The 2013 water year flows recorded at the bridge site gauge are shown with the addition of the project's tailrace flows in the chart below. The flows recorded at the bridge site are presumed to equal the flows at the powerhouse. The addition of approximately 2.45 cfs (2.7 cfs less assumed potable water flows) of flow from the existing project is apparent in the chart. 7.1.2 Socioeconomic Resources The main factors influencing the socioeconomic environment in Chignik include salmon harvesting and the cost of energy. The proposed project will result in reduced cost of energy in the long term. Additional benefits result from diverting money from the burning of diesel fuel to investing in local infrastructure. Construction costs that remain in the community include approximately $330k for local hire labor, an estimated $100k for housing, and $270k in quarry sales. Additionally, the construction of the hydro would invest in the Alaska economy with approximately $160k for a marine charter, $42k for air service, and over $600k for equipment. Figure 7-2 - Existing and Proposed Flow at Powerhouse – Bridge Site Flow Data, 2013 Water Year CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 51 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.1.3 Historical and Archaeological Resources The Programmatic Agreement (PA) with FERC and SHPO, developed and signed in 2005 as part of the relicensing effort, called for an accompanying Historic Properties Management Plan. The wood timber dam is one of a number of historic properties (significant cultural resources) associated with the cannery and within the project area that will be affected by the proposed project. With the proposed removal and replacement of the existing historic wood timber dam the proposed development in this study will have an impact on historic properties. It is also likely that the no action plan would result in similar, if not worse, impacts to the historic dam and properties. Continued use of the slowly deteriorating dam is likely to result in the eventual failure without the possible benefits associated with a planned and permitted replacement effort. 7.2 Regulatory Analysis The FERC guidelines for an amendment to a license for a constructed project of two types, “Capacity Related” and “Non-Capacity-Related” (FERC, 2001). The criteria for a capacity- related amendment is a project modification for which additional capacity was not previously authorized which would:  increase the project’s actual or proposed total installed capacity;  result in an increase in the project’s maximum hydraulic capacity by 15 percent or more; and  result in an increase in the installed nameplate capacity of 2 MW or more. Classification as a non-capacity amendment requires that two out of the three above criteria are do not apply. As a capacity-related amendment for a project less that 1,500 kW, the content thereof must include a revised initial statement and Exhibits E, F, and G prepared in accordance with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.61. This report has been prepared to serve as the basis for an initial draft of a modified Exhibit E. The dam design will be subject to review by both FERC and the State of Alaska Dam Safety. Once constructed, monitoring for dam safety may be required by FERC or the State of Alaska. A qualified cultural resource specialist will need to assess the currently-proposed project, what has previously been done with respect to Section 106 and historic properties, and what may need to be done for this new undertaking. 7.3 Consultation During the process of preparing this feasibility study meetings were held with interested parties to review the initial concept designs and solicit comments. The following summarizes meetings scope and minutes. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 52 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 7.3.1 City of Chignik Council Meeting, February 20, 2013 The draft concept with powerhouse situated at, or near, the upper limit of anadromous rearing habitat was preferred by the community. Comments received included the following:  The community is interested in a possible hatchery in Chignik in the future.  The community desired a higher dam to support improved water supply and winter hydroelectric power production.  Trident is expected to move forward with construction of a new cannery facility and resume local fish processing as opposed to the offshore processing for locally caught fish. 7.3.2 Resource Agency Meeting The draft concept along with a power point presentation providing a preliminary project assessment was sent to resource agencies along with an invitation to attend a joint meeting to review and comment on the proposed project. The meeting invite was sent on September 30, 2013 with the meeting held on October 16, 2013. The meeting minutes are attached in the Appendices. The major items of discussion, centered primarily on aquatic resources, are summarized below.  The proposed project was described to include a dam raise, capacity increase, and powerhouse relocation that would be expected to improve flows in the anadromous reach while eliminating the need for diesel generated electricity.  DNR recommended a new water right application would be required and should be submitted early because there is currently a 2-3 year backlog. A temporary water use permit can be issued for up to 5 years however.  ADF&G indicated additional study and permitting efforts should provide as much characterization of aquatic habitat and species as possible including river survey data and photos.  A coordinated agency site visit while pinks are spawning is desired with the developer chartering air transportation.  The generally agreed upon permitting approach recommended is a capacity related amendment through FERC. 7.3.3 Federal Agency Meeting Federal agencies could not attend the October 16, 2013 because of the government shutdown. A second agency meeting scheduled for December 11, 2013 was held at the USFWS office. USFWS and other federal agency staff requested that the feasibility study include consideration of the effects of climate change on the project. 7.3.4 Alaska Energy Authority Review An interim Preliminary Findings Feasibility Report dated September 23, 2013 was prepared and submitted with an application for grant funding to the Alaska Energy Authority. The interim report recommended a reservoir elevation of 450', a 24" pipeline, and a hydraulic CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 53 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. capacity of 20 cfs. The expected direct construction cost was $7.5 million with a total development cost of $8.875 million. The anticipated B/C Ratio was 1.0. As part of the grant review process the AEA provided comments on the report and project in general. These comments are summarized below.  Provide support for the recommendation of a proposed rock fill dam with information on the size and volume of material.  Provide the basis for the development cost that appeared high for a small project.  Provide the basis for the suggested project size of 477 kW hydro with an annual energy potential of 2,600,000 kWh whereas Chignik’s annual demand is approximately 950,000 kWh and provide any potential use/value for the excess energy.  Provide better assessment of project costs, impacts to residents and anadromous fish, and the overall economy of the project. Subsequently, a draft of this feasibility study was issued May 2, 2014 (date on report shown as May 2, 2013). The recommended project was revised to 340 kW although a 420 kW project was found to have about the same B/C ratio. The AEA generally concurred with the findings of the draft report. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 54 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 8. Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 Conclusion Based on the stream gaging effort, it is apparent that the hydroelectric resource is very limited when temperatures drop below freezing for extended periods of time. Flows normally drop to less than 3 cfs through the late winter to early spring. The reservoir storage is sufficient to meet current demand for up to about a month. The height of the dam, and the amount of reservoir storage, should be constructed at the highest elevation considered practical and economical which is approximately 450' (445' spill elevation) or slightly higher. The analysis also shows that the proposed project capacity will provide the same benefits as a larger capacity project up to demand levels about twice current demand. If the electric demand is expected to grow significantly, particularly if a large summer only consumer such as a new processing plant increases demand, then a larger project capacity, or provision for future expansion, should be considered. Final project capacity will be determined during the design and permitting phase. The results of the analysis show that the proposed hydro project is the lowest cost option for electric generation in Chignik and has a positive benefit to cost ratio under the expected range of scenarios analyzed. Overall, the analysis concludes with a finding of no significant adverse impacts and a finding of significant beneficial impacts. 8.2 Recommendations Given the significant benefits of the proposed action it is recommended that the owner, responsible agencies, and other interested parties pursue the development without delay. Specific recommendations include:  Pursue funding for the design and permitting of the proposed project and begin work as soon as possible.  LIDAR or other remote sensing topographic survey work should be collected when the reservoir is drained. LIDAR and other survey data shall be located relative to property boundary locations for the lands occupied by the project. High resolution data is required along the project corridor. The area of coverage shall include Indian Creek from the mouth to above the upper end of the proposed reservoir.  Investigate and report on quality of talus slope material for use as rock fill, drain material, and bedding material. Verify soil depths and bedrock quality at the dam site. Investigate soil depths and conditions along access road and pipeline routes and report on recommended fill depths and identify potential material source areas. Investigate soil depths and bedrock conditions at the powerhouse site. An archaeological and cultural resource assessment may be required prior to ground disturbing activities. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 55 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents.  Consult with a qualified cultural resource specialist to assess the proposed project, what has previously been done with respect to Section 106 and historic properties, and the requirements, if any, for the proposed action.  The turbine should be designed for the highest flow capacity practical with reasonably high efficiency in the low flow range around 5-6 cfs.  If significantly increased demand is expected the proposed project capacity should be revaluated.  Although the existing stream gaging data is sufficient to support the existing demand and proposed project capacity, continued data collection through design and permitting is advised. If significantly increased demand is anticipated then continued collection of stream gaging data is recommended. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 Page 56 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. 9. References AEA PCE, Alaska Energy Authority, Power Cost Equalization program, http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programspce.html. AEA, Alaska Energy Pathway, 2010, ftp://ftp.aidea.org/AlaskaEnergyPathway/2010EnergyPathway8-12Press.pdf FERC, Hydroelectric Project Handbook for Filings Other Than Licenses and Exemptions, April 2001 Hatch, 2013 Monitoring Report, Final Draft, March 17, 2014, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13485977 Hatch, 2014. Chignik Hydroelectric Project P-620, FERC Compliance, Draft Project Operations Report, August 7, 2014, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13610616 Iowa State University of Science and Technology (Iowa 2014), IEM :: Download ASOS/AWOS/METAR Data, September, 2014, http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/request/download.phtml?network=AK_ASOS ISER, 2013. Fuel Price Projections, Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2013-2035, report. Retrieved 02 10, 2014, from University of Anchorage (UAA) Institute of Social and Economic Research: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/2013_06- Fuel_price_projection_2013final_06302013.pdf Mobley and Associates, Chignik's Norquest Cannery - A Cultural Resource Inventory & Evaluation, 2004, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=10478372. National Climate Data Center, Monthly Heating Degree Days, CHIGNIK, ALASKA. Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. Indian Creek Fish Spawning and Stream Monitoring Annual Report, 2011, Final Report, Review #1. June 12, 2012. UAF, Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, University of Alaska. 2014. Community Charts. Retrieved January 2013 from http://www.snap.uaf.edu/charts.php. USACE, Department of the Army Alaska District Corps of Engineers, Small Hydropower Potential from Indian and Mud Bay Lake Creeks Final Draft Feasibility Report, March 1983. CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix A Exhibit 1 Existing Hydroelectric Project Map 155400015550001556000155700015580001559000833000 834000 835000 836000 837000 838000 839000 840000 841000 833000 834000 835000 836000 837000 838000 839000 840000 841000PROJECTSITE MAPEXISTINGDAMINTAKEPENSTOCKPOWERHOUSE& PIPELINEGAUGINGPK 1000 450 500500350 10005507 0 0 50150100200500600350250200RM 0.0RM 0.5RM 1.0RM 1.5RM 2.0SEC. 12SEC. 13SEC. 7SEC. 18T. 45 S, R. 59 WT. 45 S, R. 58 WPK PK PK PK PK PKPKPKPKPK1 INCH1 INCH0.50.250.25H340309-G1-MAPALASKA VICINITY MAPANCHORAGEFAIRBANKSJUNEAUCHIGNIK LOCATION MAPSCALE: 1 IN = 1 MIEXISTING PROJECT SITE MAPSCALE: 1"=1000'LEGEND .CHIGNIK BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTFERC Project Number P-620PROJECT OWNER AND FERC LICENSEECity of Chignik, PO Box 110, Chignik, AK 99564RCA Certificate of Public Convenience and NecessityNo. 297PROJECT ENGINEERHatch Associates Consultants Inc.1225 E International Airport Rd, Suite 110Anchorage, AK 99518PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe project is an existing FERC licensed hydro locatedon Indian Creek in Chignik Bay, AK. The existinginfrastructure consists of a wood timber framed dam, a10" to 12" wood and steel pipeline, and a licensedoutput of 60 kW going to the Trident fish processingplant.PROJECT LOCATIONThe project is located in the community of Chignik Bay,AK, a native Alaskan village on the south side of theAlaska Peninsula located in the Lake and PeninsulaBorough. Lands affected by the project are withinsections 7 and 18 of T45S R58W and sections 12 and13 of T45S, R59W in the Seward Meridian.EXISTING PROJECT DETAILS Capacity40 kW Static Head420' Design Head260' Hydraulic Capacity2.7 cfs Nominal Pipeline diameter10-12" Pipeline length7,200' Transmission LengthNA Annual Energy Potential314,000 kWh(estimated capacity factor of 90%) Annual Useable Energy 0 kWh (Not connected to city grid)MAPPING INFORMATIONMap Projection shown is the State Plane CoordinateSystem, Alaska Zone 6, NAD 83, US Survey FeetExisting Dam location is:Easting, Northing, Elevation = 1556431, 832961, 440'Latitude, Longitude =1ƒ  :ƒ River mile = 2.42Reservoir Surface Area = 21 acresExisting Powerhouse location is:Easting, Northing, Elevation = 1558392, 838224, 20'Latitude, Longitude = 1ƒ :ƒ SOURCE / RECEIVING WATER INFORMATIONSource Water Name: Indian Creek (AWC#71-10-10130)Source Watershed Area2.94 sq milesReceiving Water NameChignik SloughLocations of rearing and presence for Pink Salmon andDolly Varden in Indian Creek based on 1983 ADF&Gnomination. Upper limit of rearing located at river mile0.55 (watershed area = 3.99 sq miles) and upper limitof presence at river mile 1.0 (watershed area = 3.80 sqmiles).DATA SOURCES1. Survey by Licensee in 2005 of pipeline using RTKGPS adjusted to monument "Base".2. Survey by Licensee in 2003 Indian Creek using atheodolite, no control.3. DCRA: This map was prepared by the Lake andPeninsula Borough (LPB) in cooperation with theAlaska Department of Commerce, Community, andEconomic Development (Commerce) using fundingfrom the Initiative for Accelerated InfrastructureDevelopment (IAID). The IAID is supported bygrants from the Denali Commission, USDA RuralDevelopment, Alaska Department of Transportationand Public Facilities, and Commerce. The AlaskaNative Tribal Health Consortium provided sanitationfacility records. The LPB contracted with GlobalPositioning Services Incorporated in June of 2002to prepare the map. The original DCRA AutoCADdrawing has been revised as appropriate.4. USGS 63k quad map Chignik B-2 Enhanced DigitalRaster Graphic (DRGE) copyright BeartoothMapping, Inc. - 1999.5. Space shuttle radar topography mission (SRTM) 1arc second resolution elevation data.6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game anadromousnomination, 1983.ROAD (UNIMPROVED)PENSTOCK AND TRESTLEPKCONTOURSRIVER INTERMITTENTRIVER AND CHANNELWATER BODIESBASIN BOUNDARIESBUILDINGSCOASTWETLANDSKODIAKTRAIL CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix B October 16, 2013 Resource Agency Meeting Minutes 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 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix C Proposed New Project Construction Cost Estimate Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyEstimated Construction CostBase Labor Rate / hour 85  (includes directs, indirects, allowance for overtime)Super and specialist 105engineer 150Work week 60 hoursOn Site Duration 25 weeksRilFlC475$/ lRetail Fuel Cost4.75$/galCrew size 6Nominal Pipe Size 24 inlbs HDPE 221,385lbs Steel 0Crew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostCttiStLabor Equipment MaterialMobilization TotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostConstruction SupportProcurement, Submittals 2 1 wks 120 $105 $12,600$12,600SWPP 1 1 wks 60 $105 $6,300$6,300Survey 2 3 wks 360 $150 $54,000$54,000Planning 1 2 wks 120 $105 $12,600$12,600Office Support 0.5 25 wks 741 $105 $77,837$77,837Asbuilt and closeout 1 2 wks 120 $105 $12,600$12,600Mechanic 0.5 5.5 mos 741 $105 $77,837$77,837$$$housing 865 Man Days$200 $172,971 $172,971Contractor passenger travel 60 trips$700 $42,000 $42,000MobilizationEquipment transportMarine charter, RT to/from Chignik 2 ea$80,000 $160,000 $160,000Materials ShippingPipe 21 cont$6,000 $126,000 $126,000Building 4 cont$6,000 $24,000 $24,000Concrete 18 cont$6,000 $108,000 $108,000Dam, piping, vaults, misc 5 cont$6,000 $30,000 $30,000Power Poles 1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Wire and Electrical 1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Turbine  and Generator 2 cont$6,000 $12,000 $12,000Tailrace 4 cont$6,000 $24,000 $24,000Transformer, Switchgear 1 cont$6,000 $6,000 $6,000Airfreight Support During Construction 13 ea$3,500 $45,500 $45,500gppg,,,Access Trail9173ftclearing and overburden removal 5.1 acres 51 $85 $4,296$4,296Minor culverts 10 80 $85 $6,800 ea $1,200 $12,000 $18,800Large culverts 4 96 $85 $8,160 ea $6,000 $24,000 $32,160Gravel Fill 10872 431 $85 $36,651 cyd $25 $271,793 $308,443fuel 1927gal $4.75 $9,153 $9,153Super 1 164 $105 $17,265$17,265September, 2014Page 1 Chignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudyCrew Size or # unitsLabor HoursLabor RateLabor Cost Unit Cost Equip Cost Unit Unit Cost Materials Cost Unit Cost Ship CostLabor Equipment MaterialMobilization TotalItemLabor Production and UnitItem CostPowerhouseclearing 1170 0.03 man hr 32 $85 $2,740 sq ft $2,740excavation, disposal, and fill 347 0.05 man hr 17 $85 $1,473 cyd $1,473Powerhouse Plan Area 780 sq ftPremix concrete 71 15.2 cyd 1081 $94 $101,169 cyd $590 $41,900 $143,069Metal building shell 780sq ft $30 $23,400 $23,400architectural 780sq ft $5 $3,900 $3,900electrical, mechanical 780sq ft $10 $7,800 $7,800doors 780sq ft $10 $7,800 $7,800foreman 1 0.2 crew hr 155 $105 $16,292$16,292Labor 3 0.6 man hr 465 $85 $39,565$39,565Specialty 1 0.2 man hr 155 $105 $16,292$16,292crane 1 60 man hr 60$85$5,100 ea$35,000$35,000$40,100$$,$,$,$,Dam 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"HPDE500'coiledpipeSDR214300ft$3 5$15 050$15 0504 HPDE 500 coiled pipe, SDR 214300ft$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$4,200cofferdam/constructiondiversioncoffer dam/construction diversionSpillway Overburden Excavation 500 0.03 man hr 15 $85 $1,275 cyd $1,275Coffer Dam ‐ Place Earth/Rock 1000cyd42" Culvert 140ft $75 $10,500 $10,500Liner 8000sq ft $0.60 $4,800 $4,800Labor 3 man hr 81 $85 $6,913$6,913Removal Labor 3 man hr 20 $85 $1,700$1,700Super 1 crew hr 39 $105 $4,072$4,072Fl120l$4 75$570$570Fuel120gal$4.75$570$570Foundation and Outlet ConveyanceGrout holes 20 60 $85 $5,100$5,100Grouting 20 160 $85 $13,600 cyd $500 $10,000 $23,600Anchors 10 30 $85 $2,550 ea $100 $1,000 $3,550Concrete Footing 28 338 $85 $28,711 cyd $600 $16,889 $45,600Precast 4'x4' vaults 100 400 $85 $34,000 lf $610 $60,960 $94,960Shutoff 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 189 $105 $19,806$19,806September, 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 CostConcrete FaceArea 3400sq ftThickness 8inConcrete 84 15.5 cyd 1305 $94 $122,821 cyd $859 $72,081 $194,902haul load size 12000lbsround trip time 1.9hrhaul labor 1 41 man hr 41 $85 $3,474 hrs $3,474fuel 327gal $4.75 $1,553 $1,553Mix and placecyd $250 $20,988 $20,988laborer 3 5.5 man hr 462 $85 $39,247$39,247foreman 1 1.8 crew hr 154 $128 $19,623$19,623Rebar 12870lbs $2.00 $25,740 $25,740haul labor 1 6.3 man hr 6$85$533 hrs$533$$$laborer 3 0.02 man hr 257 $85 $21,879$21,879foreman 1 0.007 crew hr 86 $128 $10,940$10,940Reusable Forms 3400sq ft $7.00 $23,800 $23,800laborer 3 0.075 man hr 255 $85 $21,675$21,675foreman 1 0.025 crew hr 85 $105 $8,925$8,925Rockfill PlacementMain Zone 3000 0.038 man hr 450 $85 $38,250 cyd $38,250Super75$105$7 875$7 875Super75$105$7,875$7,875Fuel 1350gal $4.75 $6,413 $6,413SpillwayRock Excavation 3360 0.05 man hr 168 $85 $14,280 cyd $14,280Weir Wall 10 15 man hr 153 $85 $12,986 cyd $12,986Super 53 $105 $5,614$5,614Fuel 1604gal $4.75 $7,618 $7,618Power, Controls, and Communicationcontrols116manhr16$85$1 360ea$7 500$7 500$8 860controls116man hr16$85$1,360ea$7,500$7,500$8,860equipment/storage shed 1 48 man hr 48 $85 $4,080 ea $10,000 $10,000 $14,080power line, communications 7320 0.02 man hr 122 $85 $10,370 ft $3.00 $21,960 $32,330Pipeline7320ftHDPE 7280 971 $85 $82,507 ft $53 $387,423 $469,930Steel 40 80 $85 $6,800 ft $150 $6,000 $12,800flange kits 10 80 $85 $6,800 ea $1,200 $12,000 $18,800drains/air reliefs 20 80 $85 $6,800 ea $250 $5,000 $11,800h/hbl k12288$85$24 480$1 200$14 400$38 880anchors/thrust blocks12288$85$24,480ea$1,200$14,400$38,880Super 250 $105 $26,227$26,227Specialty 250 $105 $26,227$26,227fuel 1498.6667gal $4.75 $7,119 $7,119September, 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 CostTurbine and GeneratorTurbine and Generator 1ea $560,000 $560,000 $560,000Controls Integration 1ea $75,000 $75,000 $75,000switchgear 1ea $50,000 $50,000 $50,000transformer 1ea $50,000 $50,000 $50,000Labor 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$3,944$$,$,Transmissionoverhead transmission line 0.30mipoles, foundations, and hardware 11 24 264 $85 $22,440 ea $3,500 $38,500 $60,940wire 4800 0.048 230.4 $85 $19,584 ft $3.00 $14,400 $33,984Super 1 88 $105 $9,240$9,240EquipmentFusion machine 1 3 mo $20,000 $60,000$60,0004"fusionmachine13mo$3 500$10 500$10 5004 fusion machine13mo$3,500$10,500$10,5004 wheelers 2 1 ea $9,000 $18,000$18,0001/3 yard mixer 2 6.4 mo $1,000 $12,760$12,760mix truck 1 6.4 mo $5,500 $35,090$35,090small generator 2 1 ea $2,000 $4,000$4,000large generator 1 1 ea $7,500 $7,500$7,500large loader 1 6.4 mo $10,000 $63,800$63,800small loader 1 6.4 mo $5,500 $35,090$35,090Excavator264mo$12 000$153 121$153 121Excavator26.4mo$12,000$153,121$153,121Articulated Truck 2 6.4 mo $15,000 $191,401$191,401rock hammer 1 6.4 mo $2,500 $15,950$15,950flatbed truck 2 6.4 mo $800 $10,208$10,208dozer 1 6.4 mo $4,000 $25,520$25,520air compressor 1 6.4 mo $800 $5,104$5,104air track drill 1 6.4 mo $3,000 $19,140$19,140miscellaneous tools 1 1 ea $25,000 $25,000$25,000SUBTOTALCDiC12 641$1 193 128$692 185$2 035 010$762 471$4 682 794SUBTOTAL, Contractor Direct Costs12,641$1,193,128$692,185$2,035,010$762,471$4,682,794Contractor IndirectsWeather delay 10% (% of Labor and Equip)$188,531overall contingency 25%$1,170,699contractor profit 12%$561,935bonding 2.0%$93,656SUBTOTAL, Construction Contract$6,697,615FERC license amendment 1.3%$85,000geotech investigation 3.7%$250,000engineering 5.5%$370,000historic properties 1.1%$75,000inspection and testing 2.6%$175,000owner admin 2.6%$175,000TOTAL PROJECT$7,827,615September, 2014Page 4 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix D Proposed New Project Economic Analysis Results Economic Analysis ResultsChignik Hydroelectric ProjectFeasibility StudySUM 50 $37,970,000 $1,380,000 $39,340,000 $7,830,000 $1,210,000 $7,600,000 $1,500,000 $16,930,000 $22,410,000 $30,240,000NPV 50 $15,930,000 $710,000 $16,640,000 $6,980,000 $690,000 $3,410,000 $810,000 $11,200,000 $5,430,000 $12,420,000Year Fuel Price Demand, kWhDiesel Fuel Used, gal Diesel Fuel Cost Diesel O&MTotal Diesel Cost Hydro Cost Hydro O&MHydroelectric Generation, kWhHydro Diesel Fuel Used, galHydro Diesel Fuel CostHydro Diesel O&MTotal Hydro Diesel Cost Total Savings Project Benefits2014425952 75668 374$290 588$27 543$318 131$0$27 543068 374$290 588$27 543$318 131$0$0Economic Analysis, 2% load growthHydro plus DieselBase Diesel CostSeptember 2014Page 120144.25952,75668,374$290,588$27,543$318,131$0$27,543068,374$290,588$27,543$318,131$0$02015 4.31 971,811 69,733 $300,811 $27,543 $328,353 $390,000 $27,543 0 69,733 $300,811 $27,543 $718,353‐$390,000 $02016 4.38 991,247 71,120 $311,394 $27,543 $338,936 $390,000 $27,543 0 71,120 $311,394 $27,543 $728,936‐$390,000 $02017 4.44 1,011,072 72,534 $322,350 $27,543 $349,892 $6,872,615 $27,543 0 72,534 $322,350 $27,543 $7,222,507‐$6,872,615 $02018 4.51 1,031,294 73,976 $333,692 $27,543 $361,235 $175,000 $58,707 956,004 5,417 $24,434 $58,707 $258,141 $103,094 $278,0942019 4.58 1,051,920 75,448 $345,434 $27,543 $372,977 $58,707 971,738 5,769 $26,414 $61,612 $88,026 $284,951 $284,9512020 4.65 1,072,958 76,949 $357,590 $27,543 $385,133 $58,707 987,787 6,129 $28,481 $61,732 $90,212 $294,920 $294,9202021 4.72 1,094,417 78,479 $370,175 $27,543 $397,717 $58,707 1,004,156 6,495 $30,637 $61,854 $92,492 $305,226 $305,2262022 4.79 1,116,306 80,041 $383,203 $27,543 $410,746 $58,707 1,020,854 6,869 $32,888 $61,979 $94,866 $315,879 $315,87920234861 138 63281 634$396 691$27 543$424 233$19 5691 037 8857 251$35 235$22 968$58 203$366 030$366 0302023 4.86 1,138,632 81,634 $396,691 $27,543 $424,233 $19,569 1,037,885 7,251 $35,235 $22,968 $58,203 $366,030 $366,0302024 4.93 1,161,404 83,258 $410,654 $27,543 $438,196 $19,569 1,055,256 7,640 $37,682 $23,098 $60,780 $377,416 $377,4162025 5.01 1,184,632 84,915 $425,109 $27,543 $452,652 $19,569 1,072,976 8,037 $40,235 $23,231 $63,465 $389,187 $389,1872026 5.08 1,208,325 86,642 $440,259 $27,543 $467,801 $19,569 1,090,506 8,480 $43,089 $23,341 $66,430 $401,371 $401,3712027 5.16 1,232,492 88,416 $456,015 $27,543 $483,558 $19,569 1,108,186 8,946 $46,139 $23,445 $69,584 $413,973 $413,9732028 5.23 1,257,141 90,226 $472,331 $27,543 $499,873 $19,569 1,126,219 9,421 $49,319 $23,551 $72,871 $427,003 $427,0032029 5.31 1,282,284 92,072 $489,226 $27,543 $516,768 $19,569 1,144,613 9,906 $52,635 $23,660 $76,295 $440,473 $440,4732030 5.39 1,307,930 93,956 $506,720 $27,543 $534,263 $19,569 1,163,375 10,400 $56,092 $23,770 $79,862 $454,401 $454,4012031 5.47 1,334,088 95,876 $524,836 $27,543 $552,378 $19,569 1,182,512 10,905 $59,694 $23,883 $83,577 $468,801 $468,801,,,$,$,$,$,,,,$,$,$,$,$,2032 5.56 1,360,770 97,836 $543,594 $27,543 $571,136 $19,569 1,202,032 11,419 $63,448 $23,997 $87,446 $483,691 $483,6912033 5.64 1,387,986 99,834 $563,018 $27,543 $590,560 $19,569 1,221,942 11,944 $67,360 $24,114 $91,474 $499,086 $499,0862034 5.72 1,415,745 101,872 $583,131 $27,543 $610,674 $19,569 1,242,251 12,479 $71,434 $24,234 $95,668 $515,006 $515,0062035 5.81 1,444,060 103,917 $603,758 $27,543 $631,300 $19,569 1,262,294 13,061 $75,886 $24,356 $100,242 $531,058 $531,0582036 5.90 1,472,941 105,971 $624,927 $27,543 $652,469 $19,569 1,282,123 13,688 $80,718 $24,481 $105,198 $547,271 $547,2712037 5.99 1,502,400 108,066 $646,841 $27,543 $674,383 $19,569 1,302,349 14,326 $85,752 $24,608 $110,360 $564,023 $564,0232038 6.08 1,532,448 110,203 $669,527 $27,543 $697,069 $19,569 1,322,979 14,978 $90,997 $24,737 $115,735 $581,334 $581,3342039 6.17 1,563,097 112,383 $693,011 $27,543 $720,553 $19,569 1,344,022 15,643 $96,461 $24,870 $121,330 $599,223 $599,22320406261 594 359114 606$717 322$27 543$744 864$19 5691 365 48616 321$102 151$25 005$127 155$617 709$617 70920406.261,594,359114,606$717,322$27,543$744,864$19,5691,365,48616,321$102,151$25,005$127,155$617,709$617,7092041 6.35 1,626,246 116,874 $742,489 $27,543 $770,031 $19,569 1,387,380 17,012 $108,076 $25,142 $133,218 $636,813 $636,8132042 6.45 1,658,771 119,187 $768,541 $27,543 $796,084 $19,569 1,409,711 17,717 $114,245 $25,283 $139,528 $656,556 $656,5562043 6.54 1,691,947 121,546 $795,512 $27,543 $823,054 $19,569 1,432,488 18,437 $120,667 $25,426 $146,093 $676,961 $676,9612044 6.64 1,725,786 123,953 $823,432 $27,543 $850,974 $19,569 1,455,722 19,171 $127,352 $25,572 $152,924 $698,050 $698,0502045 6.74 1,760,301 126,408 $852,335 $27,543 $879,877 $19,569 1,479,420 19,919 $134,309 $25,721 $160,030 $719,847 $719,8472046 6.84 1,795,507 128,912 $882,255 $27,543 $909,798 $19,569 1,503,592 20,682 $141,548 $25,873 $167,421 $742,377 $742,3772047 6.95 1,831,418 131,466 $913,230 $27,543 $940,772 $19,569 1,528,247 21,461 $149,081 $26,028 $175,109 $765,664 $765,6642048 7.05 1,868,046 134,070 $945,295 $27,543 $972,838 $19,569 1,553,395 22,255 $156,917 $26,186 $183,103 $789,735 $789,735$$$$$$$$$2049 7.16 1,905,407 136,728 $978,490 $27,543 $1,006,033 $19,569 1,579,047 23,066 $165,069 $26,347 $191,416 $814,616 $814,6162050 7.26 1,943,515 138,977 $1,009,504 $27,543 $1,037,046 $19,569 1,595,100 24,403 $177,259 $26,833 $204,092 $832,954 $832,9542051 7.37 1,982,385 141,269 $1,041,549 $27,543 $1,069,092 $19,569 1,611,447 25,768 $189,986 $27,330 $217,315 $851,776 $851,7762052 7.48 2,022,033 143,608 $1,074,672 $27,543 $1,102,215 $19,569 1,628,120 27,161 $203,258 $27,836 $231,095 $871,120 $871,1202053 7.60 2,062,474 145,993 $1,108,910 $27,543 $1,136,452 $19,569 1,645,126 28,582 $217,098 $28,353 $245,451 $891,001 $891,0012054 7.71 2,103,723 148,426 $1,144,300 $27,543 $1,171,843 $19,569 1,662,473 30,031 $231,526 $28,880 $260,406 $911,437 $911,4372055 7.83 2,145,798 150,907 $1,180,884 $27,543 $1,208,427 $19,569 1,680,166 31,509 $246,566 $29,417 $275,983 $932,444 $932,4442056 7.94 2,188,714 153,439 $1,218,702 $27,543 $1,246,245 $19,569 1,698,214 33,017 $262,239 $29,965 $292,204 $954,041 $954,0412057 8.06 2,232,488 156,021$1,257,797$27,543$1,285,340$19,569 1,716,622 34,554$278,569$30,525$309,094$976,246$976,24620578.062,232,488156,021$1,257,797$27,543$1,285,340$19,5691,716,62234,554$278,569$30,525$309,094$976,246$976,2462058 8.18 2,277,138 158,654 $1,298,213 $27,543 $1,325,756 $19,569 1,735,399 36,123 $295,583 $31,095 $326,678 $999,078 $999,0782059 8.31 2,322,680 161,340 $1,339,996 $27,543 $1,367,539 $19,569 1,754,551 37,723 $313,304 $31,677 $344,981 $1,022,558 $1,022,5582060 8.43 2,369,134 164,080 $1,383,193 $27,543 $1,410,736 $19,569 1,774,086 39,355 $331,761 $32,270 $364,031 $1,046,705 $1,046,7052061 8.56 2,416,517 166,875 $1,427,854 $27,543 $1,455,396 $19,569 1,794,012 41,019 $350,980 $32,876 $383,855 $1,071,541 $1,071,5412062 8.68 2,464,847 169,725 $1,474,029 $27,543 $1,501,571 $19,569 1,814,336 42,717 $370,990 $33,493 $404,483 $1,097,088 $1,097,0882063 8.82 2,514,144 172,633 $1,521,770 $27,543 $1,549,312 $19,569 1,835,067 44,449 $391,820 $34,123 $425,943 $1,123,369 $1,123,369September 2014Page 1 CE2 - Chignik Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study – Final Report September 2014 © Hatch 2014 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Appendix E Proposed New Project Conceptual Design Figures Figure 1, Project Location Map Sheet Index Map Figure 2, Penstock, Road, and Transmission Alignments Figure 3, Reservoir Bathymetry and Rim Topography Figure 4, Dam Site Plan and Section Figure 5, Powerhouse Site Plan Figure 6, Powerhouse General Arrangement - Plan SEC. 12 SEC. 13 SEC. 24 SEC. 25 SEC. 7 SEC. 18 SEC. 19 SEC. 30 SEC. 8 SEC. 17 T. 45 S, R. 59 W T. 45 S, R. 58 W SEC. 20 RM 0 . 0 RM 0.5 RM 1.0RM 1.5 R M 2 . 0 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 CITY WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROPOSED ACCESS TRAIL AND PENSTOCK PROPOSED DAM PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND POWER TRANSMISSION LINE RAW WATER SUPPLY LINE FIGURE 5 RW RWOE 1 INCH 1 INCH0.50.25 0.25 TITLE PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE INDEX PROJECT GENERAL ARRANGMENT RESERVOIR BATHYMETRY AND RIM TOPOGRAPHY DAM SITE PLAN, ELEVATION, AND SECTION POWERHOUSE VICINITY SITE PLAN POWERHOUSE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT - PLAN FIGURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 CHIGNIK HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed project is replacement of an existing FERC licensed hydro located on Indian Creek in Chignik Bay, AK. The Proposed project consists of a 25' high rock fill dam, 24" HDPE and steel pipeline, producing 425 kW. The existing infrastructure consists of a wood timber framed dam, a 10" to 12" wood and steel pipeline, and a licensed output of 60 kW located in the NorQuest fish processing plant. PROJECT LOCATION Lands affected by the project are within sections 7 and 18 of T45S R58W and sections 12 and 13 of T45S, R59W in the Seward Meridian. PROPOSED PROJECT DETAILS Nominal capacity 385 kW Static head 380 ft Design head 340 ft Hydraulic capacity 18 cfs Reservoir Area 24 acres Reservoir Useable Storage Volume 204 acre-ft Nominal penstock diameter 24 in Penstock length 7,280 ft Transmission length 1,600 ft New access road & trail lengths 9,170 ft Annual energy potential 2,140 MWh Existing demand (diesel generated)950 MWh Annual displaced diesel energy 900 MWh Annual reduction in diesel fuel use 63,500 gal SOURCE WATER INFORMATION Water Body Name: Indian Creek (AWC #71-10-10130) Watershed Area at 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. 1555000155600015570001558000835000 836000 837000 838000 839000 840000 1000 450 5005009 0 0 350 10005507 0 0 501501002005006003502502005010050501001502 0 0 50100 150 501001502002002001 0 0 1505060 501 0 0 1 5 0 RM 0.0RM 0.1RM 0.2 R M 0 . 3RM 0.4RM 0.5R M 0 . 6RM 0 . 7RM 0 .8 RM 0.9 RM 1.0 RM 1.1RM 1.2RM 1.3RM 1.4RM 1.5RM 1.6RM 1.7 RM 1.8RM 1.9 RM 2.0RM 2.1 RM 2.2RM 2.3RM 2.3RWRWRWRWRWRWOEO E O E OEPK PK+T PK+T PK+T PK+T PK+T PK+T PK+T P K + T PK+TPK PKTWPK+T PK+T PK PK T45S R59W SEC 12 T45S R58W SEC 7 T45S R59W SEC 13 T45S R58W SEC 18 FARWEST ADD NO. 1 FARWEST ADD NO. 1 TRACT 5UNSUBD SEC 7 TRACT 4ATRACT 14 UNSUBD SEC 18TRACT 15 TRACT 14 TRACT 13 TRACT 4AFARWEST ADD NO. 1 TRACT 4A FARWEST ADD NO. 1 1 INCH 1 INCH0.50.25 0.25 10004505350 T. 45 S, R. 59 W T. 45 S, R. 58 W TRACT 15 TRACT 16 UNSUBDIVIDED SEC 24 PKPKPK+TPK+TPK+T SPILL EL 445'FLOOD EL 450'LOW LEVEL EL 430'1 INCH1 INCH0.50.250.25 501006070809011050607080403020102030102020205 0 30406070801009011015012013014020016017018019021022023050406070100150501001502002002001001505060 5010015020060708090110120130140160170180190RM 0.0RM 0.1RM 0 .2RM 0.3RM 0.4RM 0.5RM 0.6OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEPK PK PK PKPK PK TWTWTWTWPROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINEPROPOSEDPENSTOCK ANDTRAILPROPOSED POWERHOUSEPROPOSED TAILRACEPROPOSED TAILRACE DISCHARGE TO INDIAN CREEKLOCATION OF POOL SITE GAGING STATIONLOCATION OF BRIDGESITE GAGINGSTATIONAPPROXIMATE EXTENT OF QUARRY, CONTOURS ARE OUTDATED IN QUARRY AREABEGIN ACCESS TRAIL CONSTRUCTIONAPPROXIMATE ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION CONNECTION POINTCOMMUNITY WATER TANK, ELEV 190.2LOWER INDIAN LAKE OUTLETCULVERT1 INCH1 INCH0.50.250.25 26'26'CRANE RAIL900 RPM, 500 KVA,480/3/60 SYNCHRONOUSGENERATORCLASS 150 BALL VALVERESTRAINED COUPLINGNEEDLE NOZZLECANYONCUSTOM TURGOTURBINESWITCHGEARTURBINE PIT AND TAILRACE WITH ACCESS HATCHTAILRACE CULVERTPENSTOCK10'1 INCH1 INCH0.50.250.25