HomeMy WebLinkAboutExcursion Inlet Hydroelectric Project Phase II Reconnaissance Study - Aug 2013 - REF Grant 7040069Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Phase II Hydropower
Reconnaissance Study
For Excursion Inlet
Prepared for:
Haines Borough
Haines, AK
Prepared by:
ENVIRON International Corporation
Seattle, WA
&
Civil Science Infrastructure, Inc.
Salt Lake City, UT
Date:
August 2013
Project Number:
30-2976A
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Contents i ENVIRON
Contents
Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Location 1
1.2 Background 1
1.2.1 Phase I Reconnaissance Study Overview 1
1.2.2 Economic Viability of Prospective Hydropower 3
1.2.2.1 Lake Dorothy 3
1.2.2.2 Falls Creek 3
1.3 Phase II Study Purpose 4
1.4 Phase II Study Scope and Approach 4
1.4.1 Resources Identification and Analysis 4
1.4.2 Land Use, Permitting, and Preliminary Environmental Needs Analysis 4
1.4.3 Preliminary Engineering Design Analysis 5
1.4.4 Cost of Energy and Market Analysis 5
1.4.5 Simple Economic Analysis 5
2 Results and Discussion 6
2.1 Resources Identification and Analysis 6
2.2 Land Use, Permitting, and Environmental Analysis 7
2.2.1 Existing Land Use and Ownership 7
2.2.2 Prospective Land Uses and Right-Of-Way Issues 7
2.2.3 Potential Permitting Requirements and FERC Jurisdictional Issues 7
2.2.4 Prospective Environmental Assessment and Analysis Needs 9
2.3 Preliminary Engineering Design and Analysis 11
2.3.1 Project Alternatives Analyzed 11
2.3.1.1 Project Inputs and Constraints 11
2.3.1.2 North Creek Project Alternatives 12
2.3.1.3 South Creek Project Alternatives 14
2.3.2 CONSTRUCTION COSTS 14
2.3.3 Operations and maintenance Costs 15
2.4 Cost of Energy and Market Analysis 16
2.4.1 Historic and recent energy data/info 16
2.4.2 Use 16
2.4.3 Cost 16
2.4.4 Emergency supply needs and cost 17
2.4.4.1 Risk of Failure 17
2.4.5 Existing Economic Benefits from Excursion Inlet 17
2.4.5.1 Tax Revenue to Haines Borough 17
2.4.5.2 Employment and Income 17
2.4.5.3 Business Opportunies 18
2.4.5.4 Employment 18
2.4.5.5 Income 18
2.4.5.6 Population Growth and Demographics 18
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Contents ii ENVIRON
2.4.5.7 Tax Implications for Borough 19
2.4.6 Forecasting energy 19
2.4.6.1 Without Project 19
2.4.6.2 With Project 20
2.5 Simple Economic Analysis 20
2.5.1 Value of diesel fuel displaced 20
2.5.2 Estimated project development cost 21
2.5.3 Simple analysis of payback period for Project 21
3 Conclusions and Recommendations 22
List of Tables
Table 1: Matrix of Prospective Environmental Assessment and Analysis Needs.
Table 2: Estimated North Creek Project Alternative Generation Facilities Construction
Costs (in $2013)
Table 3: Estimated South Creek Project Alternative Generation Facilities Construction
Costs (in $2013)
Table 4: Alternative Annual O&M Costs for North Creek and South Creek Alternatives
List of Figures
Figure 1: Exclusion Inlet Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Processes for Hydropower Licenses
List of Appendices
Appendix A: USFS Land Use and Status Maps 3/1/13
Appendix B: Land Use and Future Status Maps From the Haines Borough Comprehensive
Plan (2012)
Appendix C: Excursion Inlet State and Federal Listed Species
Appendix D: Preliminary Prospective-Project Plans and Profile Drawings
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Introduction 1 ENVIRON
1 Introduction
The Haines Borough (Borough) is evaluating the potential to construct a hydropower project in
Excursion Inlet, to provide power to Ocean Beauty’s fish processing facility and the residents of
the local community. Construction of a hydropower project is an important component of the
Borough’s efforts to address future energy needs on a regional scale. The 1979 report
prepared by CH2M Hill 1 identified North and South Excursion Inlet Creeks (North and South
Creeks) as potential hydropower project sites, with the estimated annual energy output potential
of 1,490 and 2,690 Megawatt-hours (MWh), respectively. The report also estimated that
continued growth of the cannery operations, coupled with some residential growth, could result
in a prospective need of 4,700 MWh per year by the year 2030. This need seems reasonable
based on information obtained as part of this study. Therefore, the current and projected
demands for electricity in Excursion Inlet, coupled with the rising and/or uncertain costs of diesel
at present and into the future, lends support to consideration of hydropower as a potential
source of energy for the area.
1.1 Location
Excursion Inlet is a community located in the extreme southwest region of the Borough (Figure
1). It is not an organized community but it has been home to a significant fish processing
industry for many years. In addition to the seafood industry, the community of Excursion Inlet
includes 119 parcels of land owned by 95 individual owners. Excursion Inlet is strategically
located in Icy Straits, the water body at the extreme southwest of the Haines Borough, and is
situated at 58o25’0” N and 135o26’34” W.
1.2 Background
Excursion Inlet is a remote community, with Ocean Beauty Seafood’s fish processing plant as
the primary employer and only significant fish processor in the region. During the summer, the
facility employs more than 400 people and supports a varied fleet of 127 boats that depend on
the plant for maintenance, fuel delivery, and ice. Ocean Beauty Seafood is presently operating
strictly on diesel fuel for boilers and electricity generation. The electrical power system consists
of five diesel generators: three D398s that have a peak output of 600 kilowatts (kW), one D353
(275 kW), and one 3516 (1.1 Megawatts [MW]). The minimum operating power needs are
approximately 800 kW with average operating needs at around 1.6 MW. The maximum
demand is roughly 2.1 MW. Based on current generator capacities, other than during peak
demands, the facility is not able to efficiently match power needs to its generator capacities.
Residents and small businesses provide their own power with diesel or gas-fired generators up
to 20kW.
1.2.1 Phase I Reconnaissance Study Overview
The purpose of the Phase I Reconnaissance Study was to determine if a hydropower project
could be built, without providing for fish passage. As a result, the Phase I study performed by
1 CH2MHill, 1979, Regional inventory and reconnaissance study of small hydropower sites in Southeast Alaska,
submitted to Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, 171 p.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Introduction 2 ENVIRON
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Introduction 3 ENVIRON
ENVIRON (2012)
2 consisted of a review of existing information including Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) request any unpublished data. Field visits were conducted to identify
potential anadromous fish migration barriers and to generally characterize the habitat in both
creeks. This information was used to develop a preliminary understanding of potential project
requirements to protect fish and their habitat.
Stream reaches that likely contained limits to anadromous fish passage were identified using
the results of the foot and aerial surveys in August of 2012. Further investigation by ADF&G
officially identified the exact location of anadromous fish passage barriers in November of
2012 3. Coho salmon are present up to River Mile (RM) 2.49 and potentially up to the barrier at
RM 2.62 in North Excursion Creek. In South Creek, coho salmon were documented up to RM
1.1 but could potentially occur, under suitable flow conditions, up to the barrier at RM 2.48. Only
Dolly Varden char were found to be present above RM 4.0 in North Excursion Creek and Dolly
Varden char were likely present above the anadromous fish barrier at RM 2.48 in South
Excursion Creek. As a result of the Phase I study, it was determined that the placement of a
diversion and intake structure above the anadromous limits described above would be feasible.
Further consultation with ADF&G, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), and the Corp of Engineers will be necessary to determine what
additional studies would be required under each design scenario.
1.2.2 Economic Viability of Prospective Hydropower
There are currently a number of prospective hydropower projects in southeast Alaska, many of
which have filed preliminary permits with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
are under various stages of environmental and engineering feasibility study. With the South
Fork hydropower project on Prince of Wales Island completed 8 years ago, only two new
construction projects have been completed in recent years including,
Lake Dorothy, located near Juneau, which is a 14.3 MW storage project; and
Falls Creek, located near Gustavus, which is a smaller run-of-the-river project.
The impetus for these recently completed new projects, the expansion of other existing
hydropower facilities, such as Blue Lake near Sitka, and the study of many prospective
hydropower sites throughout southeast Alaska, is primarily to off-set the cost of energy that is
largely generated through the use of diesel fuel, which results in costs that often exceeds $.60
per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for small communities throughout southeast Alaska.
1.2.2.1 Lake Dorothy
The Lake Dorothy Project began generating power in 2009 and is located on the east bank of
Taku Inlet, about 15 miles from Juneau. Water from Lake Dorothy is used by taking advantage
of the natural flow of water between Lake Dorothy, Lieuy Lake and Bart Lake– a stair-step set of
2 Environ, 2012, Fish Passage/Fish Habitat Study for the Excursion Inlet Hydro Power Reconnaissance Study; Phase
1 – Preliminary Fish Habitat Study.
3 Kern, M. 2012. ADF&G Memorandum from Matthew Kern to Jackie Timothy, 11/26/2012, Excursion Inlet Hydro Trip
Report 11/8/124Quinn, Tess. 2011. Cataloguing anadromous waters in Southeast Alaska: Juneau Road System.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Technical Report No.11-05, Douglas, Alaska. [Last accessed 07/16/12:
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/habitat/11_05.pdf]
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Introduction 4 ENVIRON
lakes feeding into Dorothy Creek. The side of Lake Dorothy was tapped 143 feet below the
lake’s surface, allowing water to flow through a large valve into an outlet pipe used to control the
amount of water released to the natural drainage from Lake Dorothy into Lieuy Lake where it
then follows the natural drainage into Bart Lake.
At Bart Lake, a 34 foot high dam was constructed to divert water into penstock that runs down to
the 14.3 MW generator that is situated within the Power House that is located near the
shoreline. The project also includes a crew quarters, a substation, and a road that extends from
the powerhouse to Bart Lake.
1.2.2.2 Falls Creek
The Falls Creek Project site is located approximately 5 miles east of Gustavus, Alaska and
about 45 miles west of Juneau on land owned by the State of Alaska. The project, completed in
2009, is a run-of-river facility, consisting generally of 3.1 miles of access road, a low gated
diversion structure at an elevation of approximately 670 feet on Falls Creek, a 9,400 feet long
penstock, a powerhouse containing a single 800 kW generating unit, a tailrace conduit for
conveying the powerhouse discharge to near the upstream limit of anadromous fish habitat, and
a 5-mile long buried transmission cable between the powerhouse and the existing diesel
powerhouse in Gustavus.
1.3 Phase II Study Purpose
The purpose of Phase II of the Reconnaissance study is to provide the Borough with a
preliminary analysis of the potential for hydropower generation associated, with North and South
Creeks, based primarily on existing information. As a result, how any prospective project could
impact and/or benefit the biological, cultural, and economic aspects of the area was also
evaluated. It is important to recognize, that this level of study cannot result in a comprehensive
plan but is more of a screening-level engineering, economic, and environmental review. As a
result, it serves to broadly identify major areas of concern, opportunities to provide project
economic and environmental benefits, and areas in which additional information may be needed
to evaluate the project.
1.4 Phase II Study Scope and Approach
The Scope of Phase II of the Reconnaissance study focused on five areas that would provide
valuable information related to potential project constraints, engineering feasibility, and
economic viability of any potential prospective hydropower project that could serve the
community of Excursion Inlet.
1.4.1 Resources Identification and Analysis
The existing mapping, topography, and hydrologic information (GIS and other data) of North and
South Excursion Inlet Creeks (North and South Creeks) were reviewed and data-gaps that need
to be filled to provide a more thorough analysis were identified.
1.4.2 Land Use, Permitting, and Preliminary Environmental Needs Analysis
A reconnaissance-level screening of the potential land use, permitting, and environmental
issues was performed. Readily available information was reviewed to establish site ownership,
potential right-of-way issues in the North and South Creeks, and present and prospective future
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Introduction 5 ENVIRON
land uses on North and South Creeks to determine if or how they may affect the hydrologic
resources, permitting, and ultimately potential energy production.
1.4.3 Preliminary Engineering Design Analysis
A site visit was made to understand site constraints and topography and refine prospective
project features, such as a diversion and intake structures, penstock, and powerhouse.
Preliminary prospective-project plans and profile drawings have been developed, along with a
preliminary cost estimate for project development and construction.
1.4.4 Cost of Energy and Market Analysis
Currently the community of Excursion Inlet is dependent on diesel fuel for power and heat. This
creates uncertainty in energy costs that was considered when evaluating the value of diesel fuel
displaced. ENVIRON interviewed Ocean Beauty to determine historic and recent energy use
and costs, as well as costs associated with emergency supplies and risk of failure. A forecast
for expected future use with and without the project was developed, based on available data
and information obtained through interviews. With stabilized energy costs, the region would be
more attractive to additional economic development, job growth, and income improvement.
ENVIRON also explored potential business arrangements for selling power to other users in
Excursion Inlet, in addition to Ocean Beauty Seafoods, and the potential for increased demand
by Ocean Beauty. This analysis included a preliminary assessment of potential economic
development and the associated employment and income opportunities, along with an initial
consideration of potential population growth induced by such economic development.
1.4.5 Simple Economic Analysis
A simple payback period was calculated based on the amount and value of diesel fuel displaced
and the estimated project development cost, in accordance with applicable Federal guidance
documents. This economic analysis included information developed in Phase I of this project.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 6 ENVIRON
2 Results and Discussion
The following results and discussion follow the scope outlined above. Included in this section
are a series of conceptual drawings for each of the alternatives considered, coupled with
preliminary estimates of capital costs required to construct the project. It is important to note
that these are all based on a reconnaissance-level study of the prospective project site and
further investigation will be required to confirm the constraints of the preferred alternatives and
associated costs. Furthermore, a lot of consideration was given to the prospective economics
of various operational scenarios for the existing fish cannery, as well as the existing and
prospective planned private development in the area.
2.1 Resources Identification and Analysis
Various sources of information were used to identify the attributable resources for a prospective
hydropower project for Excursion Inlet. As part of this analysis, certain gaps in the data were
identified, including those that would be critical to advance any hydropower project for the area.
One critical component for any hydropower project is to have a sound understanding of the
hydrology that could potentially be harnessed, the related hydraulics for specific reaches within
the system, the overall water resources available for the prospective project, and seasonal or
longer-term variations or trends therein. As part of this reconnaissance study, various
assumptions were made regarding all of the above based on a limited record of hydrologic data,
which included the values put forth in the 1979 CH2MHill report and records of active and
historic stream gaging stations around the area, but not inclusive of Excursion Inlet, obtained
from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Water Information System. The later source
was very useful when trying to understand both seasonal and longer-term variations of stream
flow for watersheds in this area of Southeast Alaska. However, both the hydrology and
hydraulics for any watershed are specific to that watershed and understanding these specific
characteristics is key to understand the best utilization and control of this resource to maximum
the potential energy output and minimize or mitigate any effects from the project to the
environment. Therefore, moving forward it is imperative that a stream gaging program be
established as soon as possible. Considerations for such a program should include whether
study will continue for just one or both of the watersheds, location and placement of each
station, with the understanding that service to each station should be regular and any record will
need to span at least two years in length before any substantive analysis (other than QA/QC)
may occur for the watershed.
Other existing records, such as USGS topographic maps and orthoimagery, were utilized in
conjunction with Google Earth Professional and AutoCAD 3D (2013) to perform many of the
calculations presented below in section 2.3, along with the resulting overview and cross-section
drawings for each of the project alternatives considered. Although the existing high-resolution
USGS orthoimagery was used at this reconnaissance phase to consider various project
alternatives, LIDAR imagery for North and/or South Creeks should be performed to further
refine any draft plan drawings for the prospective project. Other potential physical constraints
for the project, such as the geologic resources or seismic history, should be studied in greater
detail, including field investigations that were not within the scope of this reconnaissance phase
of work.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 7 ENVIRON
2.2 Land Use, Permitting, and Environmental Analysis
As part of this reconnaissance study, it is important to present a framework for the various land
use, permitting, and potential environmental constraints that will need to be considered as this
prospective hydropower project moves forward. The coordination for a development project of
this nature will require input from various stakeholders, such as business and residents of
Excursion Inlet, as well as those of the Borough, State, Federal land-trust and regulatory
agencies, and traditional interests of the local Native population. This coordination is, perhaps,
the most key factor to the successful development of any hydropower project at Excursion Inlet
and, as a result, stake-holder communication is not only a requirement of the FERC licensing
process but is also the inherent component for any successful project.
2.2.1 Existing Land Use and Ownership
Regardless of where a hydropower project is constructed (North and/or South Creek), there is a
mix of land use and property ownership that will constrict or dictate the location and alignment of
project features and associated facilities, including the placement of any diversion and intake
structures, penstock and possible road alignment, transmission line corridor, powerhouse, and
tail-race.
At present, there is a mix of privately held land, with Ocean Beauty being the largest single
owner. There are State held lands, including parcels that may soon be transferred to the
Borough for platting and potential development, and Federal-trust land (Appendices A and B).
Specific project configuration will dictate the potential impact to each tract of land and the
Creeks and Excursion Inlet. Other potential considerations for future studies should be given to
existing water rights, mining claims on either State of Federal lands, existing easements that
may only be identified through a complete title search of potentially affected parcels, and any
other Native or non-native recorded rights that may exist.
2.2.2 Prospective Land Uses and Right-Of-Way Issues
In addition to recorded ownership, easements, claims, or rights to water or land, current land-
use designations for all potentially affected lands should be studied and defined. Some present
land-use designation may preclude the construction of the proposed hydropower project and
may require changes or permitted exceptions at the Borough, State, and/or Federal level.
Moving forward with the development of the prospective project will likely require various access
and/or right-of-way agreements or even recorded easements. At the Federal level a special use
permit will likely be required at the on-set of any land-disturbing studies and be maintained
throughout construction and the operational life of any facilities built on Federal-trust lands
administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
2.2.3 Potential Permitting Requirements and FERC Jurisdictional Issues
The prospective hydropower project at Excursion Inlet would almost assuredly fall under the
jurisdiction of the FERC. Since 2005, the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) has been default
process for filing a new license application with FERC and Figure 2 below presents a flow chart
for the pre-application activity. It is important to note that there are other processes available to
the Borough, which includes the traditional licensing process (TLP) and the alternative licensing
process (ALP) both of which have been used in lieu of the ILP for a number of hydropower
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 8 ENVIRON
development sites throughout the US. Moving forward with this project strong consideration
should be given to all three processes as to which would be the most beneficial to the Borough.
Figure 2. Processes for Hydropower Licenses
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 9 ENVIRON
2.2.4 Prospective Environmental Assessment and Analysis Needs
As part of the development of any hydropower project, there are a number of potential
environmental studies, permitting requirements, and other environmental constraints that should
be considered at the on-set of any work beyond the initial reconnaissance phase and certainly
before the submittal of any preliminary FERC application. Table 1 below provides a matrix of
potential issues that should be considered, the current understanding of these potential issues,
and their individual roles within NEPA. (As part of which, State and Federal listed species are
described in Appendix C.) This analysis is certainly preliminary in nature but gives the Borough
some perspective as to the various environmental considerations that may likely be
encountered moving forward.
Table 1. Matrix of Prospective Environmental Assessment and Analysis Needs
Permitting Issue Status
(current understanding)
Prominence in NEPA
and Permitting
Processes
Confidence (about
prominence)
Threatened or
Endangered species
Likely to occur within the project area:
Stellar's eider - FT
Kittlitz's murrelet - FC
Yellow-billed loon - FC
Nortern sea otter - FT
Stellar sea lion – FT (refer to
Attachment 1 TESC listings)
Minimal.No ESA-listed
species present in area.
High.
Documentation readily
available.
Fisheries habitat Fish passage examined in Phase I.
Instream flow will change in upper
reaches of anadromous fish distribution
Moderate for fish
passage. Placing
diversion upstream of
anadromous fish habitat
and designing upstream
passage for resident
Dolly Varden is
avoidance and
mitigation.
Moderate for instream
flow. Possible
improvement in fish
habitat with reduced
flows. Uncertainty about
the amount of
anadromous habitat
affected due to siting and
official designation of
upstream limits of
anadromous fish.
High – Fish Passage
Early -established
relations with ADF&G and
their familiarity with the
site will facilitate
permitting and shape
comments on FERC
process. Fish passage
requirements well-
understood.
Moderate – Instream
Flow
Effects on salmon
resources are subject to
public and agency
scrutiny. Project may
affect habitat for some but
likely not all life stages.
Wetlands, vegetation,
and other protected
areas
NWI shows forested FW/shrub wetlands
on both mainstems.
Moderate. Short-term
construction effects
possible but likely little or
no permanent
disturbance. Possible
that project will be able to
avoid wetlands and
Moderate
Project structure siting,
construction roads, and
penstock location are
prime determinants.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 10 ENVIRON
minimize disturbance.
Water quality NPDES permit for Ocean Beauty
processing discharge into Excursion
Inlet
Low. Natural high
quality water is difficult to
affect with this Project.
BMPs can address
construction effects.
High
Water rights At least 5 water rights in the AK DNR
database, 4 on South Creek, 1 on North
Creek (Ocean Beauty)
Low. Permitted
withdrawals are
downstream of likely
zone where
powerhouses may be
sited.
High
Information on water
rights maintained by AK
DNR
Archaeological and
historical resources
Neva Lake is in the traditional lands
used by the Huna Tlingit; Tlinglit
archaeological finds have been made in
this area 2
Moderate. Project area
is heavily developed at
lower elevations,
historically as WWII
POW camp, more
recently for industrial
uses. Archaeological
sites likely but locations
are largely unknown.
Low.Expert review of
project design and
construction routes
required
Recreational use Only one sportfishing guide in the area 2; Most sport fishing for Neva sockeye
salmon is done in the intertidal area 3.
Low. Streams and
vicinity are not known as
a destination recreation
site. Limited local use
primarily for fishing,
hunting and hiking.
Stream possibly known
for back-country
whitewater boating. Lots
of other opportunities in
the surrounding area.
High.Types and
locations of recreation
generally well-advertised
Land development
constraints
700 acres along portions of North and
South Creek designated by USFS as
‘Alienated Land’5 (refer to Attachment 2
USFS map) and ‘Borough Selected’ (for
acquisition) in Haines Borough
comprehensive plan (refer to
Attachment 3).9 Borough collaborated
on USFS Land Use Designation
indicating joint agreement.
Moderate.Project is
included in the Haines
Borough Comp plan and
public survey showed
support. USFS has well-
developed LUDs and HB
Future Growth Maps in
plan follow USFS lead for
its land. Work in
‘Borough Selected’
areas may require USFS
permit depending on
status.
High.2012 Comp Plan
and USFS plans provided
detailed maps and info
Visual and aesthetics
impacts
No information specific to this topic
found
Low.Project structures
will be sited in remote
areas likely with primitive
access to the
powerhouse.
Moderate.Visitors to the
upper reaches of the
Project stream may be
able to see some Project
structures
Telecommunications
interference
Nearest cell tower owned by Dobson
Communications and located near
Gustavus, about 10 miles W of
Excursion Inlet8
Low. Project structures
are not likely to directly
interfere with cell tower
service.
Moderate.
Few telecommunications
structures are in the area
Aviation considerations Seaplane base (‘For the 12-month
period ending December 31, 2006, the
airport had 700 aircraft operations, an
average of 58 per month: 71% general
aviation and 29% air taxi’) 4
Low.No effect on
operations beyond
increase in traffic for
construction.
Low. Depends upon flight
paths into area, but lack of
other interfering structures
could leave options open
for other approaches
Cultural Subsistence and personal use fishing
for Neva sockeye salmon occurs both in
Moderate. Neva Creek is
a part of a larger
High Annual subsistence
fishery assessments have
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 11 ENVIRON
2.3 Preliminary Engineering Design and Analysis
Environ personnel along with engineers from Civil Science Infrastructure, Inc., conducted a site
visit on May 20th and 21st of 2013. The site visit included helicopter runs along both North and
South Creeks to enable the team to view existing topography, fish passage constraints, and
accessibility. The site visit also included a tour of Ocean Beauty’s facilities, to understand
current demand details and how their system is configured for current operations, as well as a
tour of the developed areas by car and on foot. The information gathered as part of the site visit
coupled with data obtained from various sources allowed the following engineering design and
analysis to be performed.
2.3.1 Project Alternatives Analyzed
After preliminary evaluation of various alternative project configurations, including dam type and
location, power conduit material and alignment, powerhouse locations and transmission line and
access road routing, the following alternatives for both the North and South Creeks were further
analyzed. This effort did not include analysis of duel alternative operations that would include
construction facilities along both creeks.
2.3.1.1 Project Inputs and Constraints
Initial flow characteristics for North Creek and South Creek were taken from the 1979 CH2MHill
study performed for these locations, where mean annual discharge for North and South Creeks
were 117 and 118 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs), respectively. (It is important to note that a
source for this information was not included with the report and there is no active gauging of
either creek.) Records from nearby USGS gaging stations were reviewed confirm that the
discharge values presented by CH2MHill were reasonable, so that monthly variations in flows
observed from various stations could be used to facilitate conceptual design for each alternative
and potential energy production. The projected annual energy demand at Ocean Beauty is
projected to be approximately 4,410 MWh and these facilities could potentially be expanded to
utilize additional power produced at this location. Haines Borough also maintains interest in
further potential development in the vicinity of North or South Creeks that could increase energy
demand.
saltwater, at the mouth of South Creek,
and in freshwater in South Creek and
Neva Creek 1 Hoonah residents
subsistence fish in Excursion Inlet and
Neva Creek 7
subsistence fishery;
Hoktaheen Bay is
reportedly where most of
the Hoonah get their
sockeye; depends upon
affects to fish habitat and
cultural reliance on area
been in place since 19856,
1.http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/pdf/fisheries/reports/02-0122003.pdf
2.http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-160/COMMUNITIES/Excursion_Inlet.pdf
3.http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/pdf/fisheries/reports/06-6012006-08.pdf
4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excursion_Inlet_Seaplane_Base
5.http://www.arcgis.com/home/search.html?q=tongass%20land&t=content
6.http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/TechPap/tp314.pdf
7.http://www.worldcat.org/title/hoonah-salmon-survey/oclc/64640481
8.http://find.mapmuse.com/details/cell-towers/224308673/dobson-cellular-systems,-inc.
9.http://www.hainesalaska.gov/planningzoning/comprehensive-plan-adopted
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 12 ENVIRON
2.3.1.2 North Creek Project Alternatives
Alternative N-H-1 a – North Creek Hanging Watershed (A)
This alternative is situated at the base of a natural lake (hanging watershed) located directly
northwest of North Creek (Appendix D, sheet number N-H-1_A), offering potential storage of
2,000 acre-feet of water with construction of a relatively small gravity dam. This alternative was
analyzed due to its high head potential for energy generation. At a higher elevation than North
Creek itself, winter breakup and ice melt may allow for peak flows to be extended later into the
spring and summer to more closely match peak energy demands at the Ocean Beauty facility.
Dam construction will be challenging due to its location. Though the road and penstock
alignment are at a flatter slope (10% grade) than alternative N-H-1b (discussed below), the
alignment will be susceptible to slides along the slope. Active natural mass wasting was evident
in the site visit performed in May, where material from the slope has recently slid into and
obstructed the existing stream bed. Snow and ice will be a concern in the hanging watershed,
particularly with dam operation and maintenance, and will require mitigation.
With active natural mass wasting, any construction-induced impacts may be challenging to
resolve. Storage in the high watershed may be more acceptable to stake holders as an impact
to the natural landscape than project alternatives located within North Creek; however, the
penstock and roadway alignment will be visible along the slope.
The roadway and buried penstock will be difficult to construct due to slope instability,
maintenance will be challenging, and mass wasting on the slope is difficult to predict and will
present significant challenges for stabilizing the penstock to prevent break up from slides.
Further analysis will be required to understand geological and geotechnical constraints at the
base of the hanging watershed for dam siting.
Although this project alternative appears to meet project demand at the Ocean Beauty facility,
the long- term stability of the natural precipitation on this smaller watershed footprint may put
power yields at risk in dry years, thus requiring backup diesel electric generation during peak
demand. Mitigation for active mass wasting will be costly and may not be possible given the
constraints of the terrain. As a result, it is our recommendation that this alternative not be
carried forward for further consideration.
Alternative N-H-1 b – North Creek Hanging Watershed (B)
This alternative is nearly identical to the previous alternative, differing only in the alignment of
the penstock (Appendix D, sheet number N-H-1_B). It appears less susceptible to mass
wasting from the south facing slope. It will require mid-range capital expenditure (as compared
to all alternatives). This alternative will operate at a higher utilization than the 4 non-storage
alternatives. As with alternative N-H-1a, this alternative may be optimized to fit most demand
curves envisioned for power delivery to Ocean Beauty. The direct penstock alignment between
the hanging watershed and North Creek allows for construction without the access road but will
require airlift support for penstock and dam installation as well as maintenance.
Construction of the penstock along the steep canyon slope (up to 60%) between the hanging
watershed and North Creek will be challenging. This alternative will require an airlift component
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 13 ENVIRON
for construction of the dam, as well as long-term logistical planning for future maintenance work.
The stability of the natural precipitation on this smaller watershed footprint may put power yields
at risk in dry years, thus requiring backup diesel electric generation during peak demand.
Storage in the high watershed may be acceptable to stake holders as a change to the natural
landscape; however, as with the previous alternative, the penstock will be more visible.
Engineering analysis will be required for stabilizing the penstock in steeper slopes. Additionally,
further analysis will be required to understand geological and geotechnical constraints at the
base of the hanging watershed for dam siting. Flow characteristics of the hanging watershed
will need to be studied to understand when releases occur and how much potential ice we will
be dealing with. As a result, it is our recommendation that this alternative be carried forward for
further analysis.
Alternative N-M-2 – North Creek Medium
The North Creek Medium alternative consists of a dam located in the lower to middle reaches of
North Creek (Appendix D, sheet number N-M-2). With a storage component, this alternative
will provide higher utilization as flows can be regulated throughout the year, and then better
matched to the specific demand at Excursion Inlet. From a constructability viewpoint, this
alternative avoids steeper terrain associated with the hanging watershed to the northwest. The
dam and the powerhouse, are both reasonably accessible from Excursion Inlet.
One of the largest impacts for this alternative is that the dam siting, based upon topographical
limitations directly conflicts with the fish barrier identified in the Phase I Report. This could
potentially be mitigated with further dam siting analysis. This alternative also has the highest
capital cost of all 7 alternatives, resulting from the size of the dam required.
While this alternative offers better flexibility in matching energy demand at the Ocean Beauty
facility, it is capital intensive, poses potential environmental concerns, and brings additional
challenges associated with sliding in the area. As a result, it is our recommendation that this
alternative not be carried forward for further consideration.
Alternative N-L-3 – North Creek Long
This alternative would consist of the construction of a diversion weir located further up-stream
from N-M-2 (Appendix D, sheet number N-L-3). This will require a longer stretch of large
diameter penstock in order to capture peak flows and will result in upper mid-range capital
expenditure compared to all alternatives.
The penstock and roadway have been shown on the left bank to reduce risk from mass wasting
off the opposite slope. While cost is somewhat higher than other options, this alternative offers
a greater peak energy output.
Further engineering analysis may be required to understand historical reaches of sliding in the
area and better quantify risk. The penstock was conceptually sized to handle peak flows while
minimizing velocities and will require optimization if further analysis is warranted. As a result, it
is our recommendation that this alternative be carried forward for further analysis.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 14 ENVIRON
2.3.1.3 South Creek Project Alternatives
Alternative S-H-1: South Creek High
This alternative would consist of the construction of a diversion weir located relatively high-up in
the South Creek system, which will require a long-stretch of large-diameter penstock in order to
capture peak flows and costs will lie in the mid-range of capital expenditure compared to all
alternatives (Appendix D, sheet number S-H-1).
While the cost is somewhat higher than other options, this alternative does offer a greater peak
energy output. Further engineering analysis may be required to understand historical reaches
of sliding in the area and better quantify risk. The penstock was conceptually-sized to handle
peak flows and will require optimization, if further analysis is conducted. It is our
recommendation that this alternative be carried forward for further analysis.
Alternative S-M-2. South Creek Medium
This alternative would consist of the construction of a diversion weir located in the middle
reaches South Creek and would require a long-stretch of large diameter penstock in order to
capture peak flows, which would result in mid-range capital expenditure compared to all
alternatives (Appendix D, sheet number S-M-2).
The estimated capital cost for this alternative is more attractive than other options and offers a
greater peak energy output. The penstock was conceptually sized to handle peak flows while
minimizing velocities and will require optimization, if further analysis is conducted. It is our
recommendation that this alternative be carried forward for further analysis.
Alternative S-L-3. South Creek Low
This alternative would consist of the construction of a diversion weir located in the lower
reaches of South Creek but above the natural fish barrier identified in the Phase I report
(Appendix D, sheet number S-L-3). It would require a shorter stretch of large-diameter penstock
in order to capture peak flows, which would result in a low-range of capital expenditure
compared to all alternatives.
This alternative is attractive due to its low estimated capital cost requirements; however, peak
energy output is lower than the other South Creek alternatives. The penstock was conceptually
sized to handle peak flows while minimizing velocities and will require optimization, if further
analysis is conducted. It is our recommendation that this alternative be carried forward for
further analysis.
2.3.2 CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction costs shown in this section are estimated for generation and transmission facilities
only (Tables 2 and 3). Costs were derived from historical cost comparisons to regional
hydroelectric power projects. Costs are separate into North Creek and South Creek
Alternatives to allow for comparison by location.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 15 ENVIRON
Table 2. Estimated North Creek Project Alternative Generation Facilities Construction
Costs (in $2013)
PROJECT
FEATURE ALT. N-H-1a ALT. N-H-1b ALT. N-M-2 ALT. N-L-3
Dam / Intake $3,681,000 $3,681,000 $48,000,000 N/A
Diversion Weir /
Intake N/A N/A N/A $360,000
Roadway /
Bridge $8,144,000 $6,800,00 $1,583,000 $4,812,000
Power Conduit $5,381,000 $1,778,000 $1,718,000 $9,194,000
Powerhouse $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Turbine
Equipment /
Controls
$2,000,010 $1,675,000 $1,139,000 $2,680,000
Switching
Equipment $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Transmission $142,000 $1,284,000 $312,005 $437,000
Contingency
(100%)$21,008,000 $16,886,000 $54,403,000 $19,134,000
Total Estimated
System Cost $42,006,010 $26,954,000 $108,805,005 $38,267,000
Table 3. Estimated South Creek Project Alternative Generation Facilities Construction
Costs (in $2013)
PROJECT FEATURE ALT. S-L-3 ALT. S-M-2 ALT. S-H-1
Dam / Intake N/A N/A N/A
Diversion Weir /
Intake $540,000 $240,000 $720,000
Roadway / Bridge $979,000 $1,708,000 $3,041,000
Power Conduit $1,303,000 $3,326,000 $7,253,000
Powerhouse $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Turbine Equipment /
Controls $2,345,000 $3,819,000 $5,561,000
Switching Equipment $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Transmission $437,000 $437,000 $437,000
Contingency (100%) $7,255,000 $11,181,000 $18,663,000
Total Estimated
System Cost $14,509,000 $22,361,000 $37,325,000
2.3.3 Operations and maintenance Costs
Operations and maintenance costs were estimated to be $0.04 (2013) per kwh for both the
North and South Creek projects (Table 4). These costs are based on current operating costs for
existing, similar sized projects located in Alaska, with similar access.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 16 ENVIRON
Table 4. Alternative Annual O&M Costs for North Creek and South Creek
Alternatives
Alternative Annual Energy
Production, kWh
O & M Cost,
$2013/kWh
Annual O&M
Costs, $2013
N-H-1a 24,980,000 $0.04 $999,200
N-H-1b 20,817,000 $0.04 $832,680
N-M-2 14,063,000 $0.04 $562,520
N-L-3 10,518,000 $0.04 $420,720
S-L-3 9,203,000 $0.04 $386,120
S-M-2 14,988,000 $0.04 $599,520
S-H-1 21,825,000 $0.04 $873,000
2.4 Cost of Energy and Market Analysis
The proposed Excursion Inlet hydropower project development assessment requires evaluating
the economics of the project and the economics of the surrounding area that may be impacted.
This analysis includes the project costs and benefits, the associated revenues to the Borough,
and the costs and benefits to the community.
2.4.1 Historic and recent energy data/info
There is no current electric production or distribution system for Excursion Inlet and, as a result,
residents and businesses have historically and continue to use diesel exclusively to generate
electricity. Everyday electrical production with diesel generators is inefficient and unreliable, as
well as inflexible, which makes it difficult to operate at full efficiency. Therefore, changing the
generation source for electricity, coupled with a distribution system, would improve energy
efficiency. Current energy use and associated costs within Excursion Inlet was estimated based
on data received from interviews with existing business operators in the area.
2.4.2 Use
The largest business operation, Ocean Beauty Seafoods, was interviewed to establish an
estimate of existing power use. Power use at the cannery is only on a seasonal basis that
includes a start-up phase, a peak processing phase, and a shutdown phase. The season lasts
from approximately June to September. The total average diesel use for the season is
approximately 205,500 gallons 4, to generate approximately 4,410 MWh.
2.4.3 Cost
The existing cost to produce energy on Excursion Inlet for the cannery is based on average
annual diesel use at the average diesel price over time. The current average annual cost to
produce the power needs of the cannery, approximately 4,410 MWh, is $960,300. (This
calculation is shown in detail in section 2.4.6.1.)
4 2011 – 2012 Ocean Beauty cannery average per David Forbush personal communication, April 1, 2013.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 17 ENVIRON
2.4.4 Emergency supply needs and cost
Existing emergency supplies are limited to available back-up diesel generators, with limited
capacity, or purchasing a new generator, the latter of which would be both expensive and
untimely.
2.4.4.1 Risk of Failure
The existing risk of failure relates primarily to the loss of one or more generators. When one
becomes unusable, the options depend on the extent of the emergency. An initial response to a
small emergency supply situation would be to stretch the needs of the generators before the
recommended servicing was performed. For larger emergency failures there could be large
repercussions. These might include business interruption, with vessels put on limits, or needing
to rent generators while the existing generators are repaired or new ones are purchased. The
back-up system provides two days to get the new equipment in place. The actual dollar cost of
these types of emergencies is unknown, but it would be significant.5
2.4.5 Existing Economic Benefits from Excursion Inlet
Several types of economic benefits are realized for the Borough, including Excursion Inlet,
primarily from the commercial fishing and seafood processing business sectors. These benefits
predominantly include tax revenues, employment, and income.
2.4.5.1 Tax Revenue to Haines Borough
There are two known existing businesses operating on Excursion Inlet. They are a fish cannery
and a fishing/hunting lodge. There are also 117 privately held land parcels, 46 of which have
existing structures. Each of these businesses and land parcels provide various tax revenues to
the Borough.
Excursion Inlet produced three types of taxes for the Borough in 2012:
Property Tax -- $122,000;
Sales tax -- approximately $50,000 to $60,000; and
Raw Fish Tax -- approximately $150,000 to $200,000.
6
Therefore it would be extremely beneficial to the Borough for the cannery operation to continue
to be successful and even expand, because this tax base accounts for about 50% of the total for
the area.
2.4.5.2 Employment and Income
Excursion Inlet is one of the largest fishing ports in the United States and in 2011, the number of
commercial crew and skippers who fished totaled 178, with 448 employed in the seafood
processing sector. As a result, in 2011 fishing income was estimated at $7.6 million, with nearly
all businesses in Haines Borough benefiting from that income, directly, indirectly or induced.
5 Personal communication with Dave Forbush, Ocean Beauty, March 7, 2013.6 Personal communication with Jila Stuart, Haines Borough, June 12, 2013.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 18 ENVIRON
Seafood processing produced $39 million in wholesale value and contributed nearly $3.8 million
in labor wages.7
The addition of the Excursion Inlet power project could provide new potential economic
development opportunities within the Excursion Inlet area. Several options are possible, though
none have been thoroughly investigated to date. Some of these potentials are presented below.
2.4.5.3 Business Opportunities
The Borough has a plan for development of Excursion Inlet in the future (parcel subdivision and
residential use) that will require a certain level of infrastructure, such as roads and electricity.
This project could help create infrastructure to create and keep businesses there. Although not
limited to the following, the primary business opportunities that could be related to power
generation development initially include the expansion of existing businesses including the
cannery and additional Fishing and Hunting Lodges, as well as expansion of existing
businesses in surrounding local community (Gustavus, Haines, Juneau, etc.), such as air taxis
and local stores delivering products. For the existing fishing lodges, the accommodations would
improve if connected to an electricity system. The potential impact from these types of business
opportunities are briefly outlined below.
2.4.5.4 Employment
The development of any of the above mentioned businesses would provide only modest
employment opportunities. The opportunity with the greatest employment would be from the
expansion of the cannery. It is likely that it would simply extend the employment of the existing
employees, with limited additional employees. However, it would provide a situation for existing
employees to make a better living.
2.4.5.5 Income
The primary jobs required for these types of businesses are included in the Farming, Fishing,
and Forestry classification. Based on data from the State of Alaska Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, the hourly wages from this category of jobs currently range between
$18 and $24.8
2.4.5.6 Population Growth and Demographics
If electricity were available to residences on Excursion Inlet, additional population growth would
likely take place. Added employment opportunities would increase the likelihood even more. It is
unclear as to the extent of the potential future growth at present; however, the Borough is
anticipating receiving additional parcels of land in Excursion Inlet from the State of Alaska in the
very near future, which they are planning on developing. The Borough municipal land
entitlement selections at Excursion Inlet include approximately 600 acres of potentially
developable property that would result in approximately 150 three-acre lots on the market and
into private hands, after allowing for wetlands, access roads, slope conditions, and other
7 United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), 2012, UFA Community Commercial Fishing and Seafood Processing Fact
Sheets – Version 2012-1, Haines Borough Alaska.8 State of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development , Research and Analysis, May 2012 Wages in
Alaska, Alaska Statewide, Available at: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/wage/.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 19 ENVIRON
unknowns.9 Further study is required to appropriately assess the future population and
demographic composition.
2.4.5.7 Tax implications for Borough
As development increases, both property and sales tax revenues will increase. As the fish
cannery expands their season, raw fish tax revenues will also increase.
2.4.6 Forecasting energy
The scenarios are assessed in the energy forecast, include:
Without Project (Current Energy Use); and
With Project, given considerations for both solely cannery expansion and new development
in Excursion Inlet, as well.
2.4.6.1 Without Project
This scenario uses existing conditions, which assumes all of Excursion Inlet will continue using
diesel fuel to produce electric power.
Supply
Under the without project scenario, diesel fueled generators are utilized to power all electric
power. The supply of both diesel (205,500 gallons) and electricity (4,410 MWh) remains the
same.
Use / Demand
Under the without project scenario, the use or demand of electric power also remains the same
as existing conditions. The use or demand of both diesel (205,500 gallons) and electricity
(4,410 MWh) remains the same.
Cost
The average current cost of using diesel to generate electricity for the use of cannery operations
includes the fuel cost plus the average annual operations and maintenance cost. The total cost
of fuel is the unit cost of diesel (assumed at $4.24 per gallon 10) multiplied by the existing diesel
use (average of 205,500 gallons annually). The average annual operations and maintenance
cost is estimated at $0.02 per kWh, which is a conservative estimate because it does not take
into account the age of the generators or the replacement needs and costs. The total average
annual cost to use diesel to generate electricity for existing cannery operations is estimated at
$960,300.
9 Personal communication with Mark Earnest, Haines Borough, July 18, 2013.10 Fay, Ginny, Alejandra Villalobos Melendez, and Sohrab Pathan, 2012, Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2012-2035,
July. ISER medium projection (Haines), average 2015 – 2020, available at:
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/publications.php?id=1518. average of 2015-2020.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 20 ENVIRON
2.4.6.2 With Project
There are two demand scenarios related to the With Project analysis. These include the
Expanded Cannery Scenario and the Added Development Scenario. There are also seven
supply scenarios; three South Creek Project configurations and four North Creek Project
configurations, all of which are presented in section 2.3. Of the seven configurations, three
present the most likely configurations as they meet both the projected annual demand and the
monthly shaped projected demand.
Supply
The supply of power for the With Project scenarios is anticipated to be between 5.7 and 8.3
MW, but no specific preferred configuration has been established, therefore several options are
being considered, which include a range of project size between 1.7 MW and 8.3 MW.
Use / Demand and associated assumptions – specific scenarios
Under the scenario with expanded cannery operations, the energy demand from the project is
9,135 MWh per year. With the additional development scenario, a range of energy use has
been estimated based on a range of potential business opportunities and an average annual
residential demand of approximately 160 MWh based on EIA’s average Alaska residential
energy use.11 The high end of the additional development scenario includes the expanded
cannery operations and assumes a 15 percent increase in demand, which includes both
increased residential and additional business energy demand, and results in an average annual
electricity demand of 10,505 MWh.
2.5 Simple Economic Analysis
While no extensive economic analysis has been completed due to the preliminary status of the
project, this report does include an initial analysis to determine the preliminary feasibility of the
project in relation to the existing power supply.
2.5.1 Value of diesel fuel displaced
One of the first economic analyses that will help assess the economic viability of the proposed
hydropower project is to assess the value of the existing fuel used that will be displaced. When
this is completed for this project, the result is approximately $873,000. This is based on the
following assumptions:
Projected average cost of diesel fuel = $4.24 / gallon
12
Current fuel use = 205,500 gallons / year 13
This analysis can be taken one step further to determine the amount of electric generation that
quantity of fuel produces to ascertain the existing power use and associated cost, and thus the
11 Energy Information Administration, 2011, Electric Sales, Revenues, and Average Price,Table5.a Residential
Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State, Alaska.
12 Fay, Ginny, Alejandra Villalobos Melendez, and Sohrab Pathan, 2012, Alaska Fuel Price Projections 2012-2035,
July. ISER medium projection (Haines), average 2015 – 2020, available at:
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/publications.php?id=1518.13 2011 – 2012 Ocean Beauty cannery average per David Forbush personal communication, April 1, 2013.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Results and Discussion 21 ENVIRON
required amount of electricity produced, and associated cost, from the proposed hydropower
project necessary to meet the existing needs.
2.5.2 Estimated project development cost
The project development costs and expected generation have been developed by Civil Science
and are discussed in detail in section 2.3. The capital costs for the proposed project range
between $15 million and $109 million, with the most likely configurations between $22 million
and $43 million. Annual O&M costs are estimated at $0.04 per kWh generated, or $370,000 to
$760,000 per year, with the most likely configurations between $600,000 and $760,000.
Discounted at a rate of 7% over the life of the assumed license (50 years), these combined
costs result in an annual cost of $1.4 million to $8.4 million, with the most likely configurations
between $2.2 million and $3.8 million.
2.5.3 Simple analysis of payback period for Project
The payback analysis is based on the project development costs presented in section 2.5.2 and
projected project revenues, which are based on projected annual power generation and
projected price of power from the project. For the purpose of this report the calculation to
determine the payback or break-even period is:
Payback Period = Cost of Project / Annual Cash Inflows
The payback period is presented here as a range since both the costs and revenues are only
estimated at this time, as are the actual power use and project size. The projected annual
power generation, and thus Project cost, varies by the Project configuration, with the most likely
Project capital costs ranging from $22 million to $43 million. The projected price of power is
estimated at $61 / MWh, based on the retail price to large commercial customers of AEL&P 14.
The annual cash inflow is based only on projected demand under each scenario, not the full
generation of each project configuration. Therefore the estimated annual cash inflow over 50
years is $270,000 for the base case scenario, $560,000 for the expanded cannery operation
scenario, and $640,000 for the additional development scenario. Since there is a range of costs,
the range of the payback period is based on the range of costs of the most likely project
configurations. This results in a payback period of 80 to 150 years for the base case scenario,
40 to 150 years for the expanded cannery operations scenario, and 34 to 66 years for the
additional development scenario. A significant aspect of this analysis is that the cost estimates
of the most likely configurations may change as the project progresses, as the sizes of each
configuration can be reduced to just meet projected demand, which will decrease project capital
costs and therefore decrease the payback period.
14 Alaska Electric Light &Power, Rate 24, Available at: http://www.aelp.com/rates/ourrates.htm.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Conclusions and Recommendations 22 ENVIRON
3 Conclusions and Recommendations
This phase II reconnaissance study was performed by ENVIRON, with support from Civil
Science, and on behalf of the Borough to consider whether a prospective hydropower project
could serve the community of Excursion Inlet. As a result of this study, there was sufficient
evidence to support the need for further investigation as to the potential for Hydropower as an
alternative to diesel for the generation of electricity for the area. It is important to note that this
is not a definitive study but, rather, a reconnaissance-level study and additional information will
be required to perform the subsequent investigations necessary to either move this project
forward or determine that at present hydropower at Excursion Inlet may not be viable. However,
at this time there is considerable support in the community for a prospective hydropower project
and certain alternatives described in section 2 appear to make enough economic sense at this
stage to merit further consideration.
Especially attractive are all alternatives described for South Creek, where capital costs are
lowest, environmental and other constraints at a minimum, and the potential for consistent
hydropower generation the greatest. However, certain alternatives studied for North Creek
merited further consideration, as well. Furthermore, it was apparent for any alternative
considered that that greatest value would come from not only the potential expansion of
operations at Ocean Beauty’s facilities but from the development of infrastructure for much of
the community at Excursion Inlet, as well.
For each of the five areas studied, described in section 1.4, ENVIRON makes the followings
specific recommendations that should be strongly considered, as study of any prospective
hydropower project at Excursion Inlet moves forward.
A stream gaging program should be established as soon as possible. Considerations for
such a program should include whether study will continue for just one or both of the
watersheds, location and placement of each station, with the understanding that service
to each station should be regular and any record will need to span at least two years in
length before any substantive analysis (other than QA/QC) may occur for the watershed.
LIDAR imagery for North and/or South Creeks should be performed to further refine any
draft plan drawings for the prospective project.
Potential physical constraints for the project, such as the geologic resources or seismic
history, should be studied in greater detail, including field investigations that were not
within the scope of this reconnaissance phase of work.
Considerations for future studies should be given to existing water rights, mining claims
on either State of Federal lands, existing easements that may only be identified through
a complete title search of potentially affected parcels, and any other Native or non-native
recorded rights that may exist.
In addition to recorded ownership, easements, claims, or rights to water or land, current
land-use designations for all potentially affected lands should be studied and defined.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Conclusions and Recommendations 23 ENVIRON
Moving forward with this project strong consideration should be given to all three FERC
licensing processes, as to which would be the most beneficial to the Borough.
The following project alternatives, described in section 2.3, should be considered for
further study:
Alternative N-H-1 b – North Creek Hanging Watershed
Alternative N-L-3 – North Creek Long
Alternative S-H-1 – South Creek High
Alternative S-M-2 – South Creek Medium
Alternative S-L-3 – South Creek Low
Cost of energy and market analysis should be considered as part of any future study,
especially as operations, development, or any other constraints change for the area.
A detailed economic analysis should be performed for any hydropower project
alternative that received additional consideration and further study.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
ENVIRON
Appendix A
USFS Land Use and Status Maps 3/1/13
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Appendix A ENVIRON
USFS Land Use and Status Maps 3/1/13
http://www.arcgis.com/home/search.html?q=tongass%20land&t=content
USFS Tongass National Forest Land Status
Green – Alienated Land
Purple – FS land
Pink - Forest Service Land with an Encumberance
USFS Tongass National Forest Land Use Designations
Cream - Semi-Remote Recreation
Grey – Non-National Forest
Brown – Old Growth Habitat
Map Service by SEAKGIS
Last Modified: March 1, 2013
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
ENVIRON
Appendix B
Land Use and Future Status Maps From the Haines Borough Comprehensive Plan
(2012)
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Appendix B ENVIRON
Land Use and Future Status maps from the Haines
Borough Comprehensive Plan (2012)
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Appendix B ENVIRON
Excursion Inlet Comprehensive Plan, pp 193 - 194
http://www.hainesalaska.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planningzoning/part_3_of_3_haines_borou
gh_2025_comprehensive_plan_final_2012_compressed.pdf
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
ENVIRON
Appendix C
Excursion Inlet State and Federal Listed Species
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Appendix D ENVIRON
Excursion Inlet - State and Federal Listed Species
(As of 2011 AK no longer maintains a list of Special Status Species; only Endangered Species
are tracked.)
BIRDS
Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis) (state and federal endangered)
No observations recorded. The Eskimo curlew is a long-distance migrant that nests in the Arctic
tundra and then flies to Eastern Canada, down the western Atlantic coast to grasslands in
southern South America. On its return flight it flies through Central America, the Midwest United
States, and northwestward Canada, returning to its breeding grounds in late May to early June
(USFWS 2013).Unlikely to occur.
Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) (state and federal endangered)
Closest observations off the coast of Chichagof Island (eBird 2013).Short-tailed albatross is
known to breed on only two remote islands in the western Pacific off Japan and Taiwan. After
breeding, the birds are found throughout the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, along the Aleutian
Islands, southeast Alaska, as well as the Pacific coasts of Canada and the United States. No
critical habitat designated (USFWS 2013). Unlikely to occur.
Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) (federal threatened)
No sightings reported (eBird 2013). Nest on coastal tundra near shallow ponds or lakes, usually
within 10 feet of the water. After breeding, they move offshore to molt. After molting, eiders
from all breeding populations migrate to the central Bering Sea south of St. Lawrence Island,
where they remain in large flocks until March or April. In the winter, the entire global population
of spectacled eiders congregates in gaps in the sea ice (called polynyas) in the Bering Sea
between St. Lawrence and St. Matthew Islands (CDFG 2013). Critical habitat was designated
for molting in Norton Sound and Ledyard Bay; for nesting on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta; and
for wintering south of St. Lawrence Island (USFWS 2013). Unlikely to occur.
Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) (federal threatened)
Few sighting mainland north of Juneau (eBird 2013). They nest in the Arctic tundra in the
spring/early summer; young hatch in late June. After breeding the birds fly to marine water
where they molt and remain flightless for about 3 weeks (USFWS 2013). In the winter, most of
the world’s Steller’s eiders are found in the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Islands. Others
winter as far west as the Commander and Kuril Islands of Russia and as far east as Kodiak
Island and Kachemak Bay in Cook Inlet, Alaska. (ADFG 2013). Five units of critical habitat have
been designated: breeding habitat on the Yukon-Kuskokwin Delta; and four units in marine
waters of southwest Alaska that are important for molting, resting, feeding, and wintering.
Approximately 2,800 square miles and 850 miles of coastline are included in critical habitat.
Only Steller’s eiders that nest in Alaska are listed as threatened (USFWS 2013).May occur.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Appendix D ENVIRON
Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) (federal candidate)
Numerous sightings within 50 km of Excursion Inlet, the closest being a 2011 sighting within 10
km near Dude Creek (eBird 2013). During the breeding season in Alaska it is often associated
with glaciated or recently glaciated landscapes in southeast and south central Alaska where it is
more common. In southeast and south central Alaska it selects a nest site on the ground, on
barren, steep-sided mountains or ledges of steep, rocky cliffs adjacent to the coastal waters
where it feeds (USFWS 2013). Likely to occur.
Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) (federal candidate)
Multiple sightings within the past year at Dude Creek, and a 2004 observation near Couverden
(Neva Lake). Yellow-billed loon wintering range includes coastal waters of southern Alaska from
the Aleutian Islands to Puget Sound. Likely to occur.
MAMMALS
Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) (federal threatened)
The northern sea otter subspecies (E. lutris kenyoni), is found in the Aleutian Islands, Southern
Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington. Within Alaska, there are 3 stocks. The Southeast
stock can be found in the coastal waters of Southeast Alaska. The Southcentral population
spans from west of Glacier Bay to the eastern edge of Cook Inlet. The Southwest population
stretches from the western edge of Cook Inlet out the Aleutian islands.
The northern sea otter subspecies (E. lutris kenyoni), is found in the Aleutian Islands, Southern
Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington. Within Alaska, there are 3 stocks. The Southeast
stock can be found in the coastal waters of Southeast Alaska. The Southcentral population
spans from west of Glacier Bay to the eastern edge of Cook Inlet. The Southwest population
stretches from the western edge of Cook Inlet out the Aleutian islands.
The northern sea otter subspecies (E. lutris kenyoni), is found in the Aleutian Islands, Southern
Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington. Within Alaska, there are 3 stocks. The Southeast
stock can be found in the coastal waters of Southeast Alaska. The Southcentral population
spans from west of Glacier Bay to the eastern edge of Cook Inlet. The Southwest population
stretches from the western edge of Cook Inlet out the Aleutian islands (ADFG 2013). May
occur.
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (federal threatened east of 1440)
Stellar sea lions inhabit over 300 haulouts that include locations east along the Aleutian chain
and into the central Bering Sea, through the Gulf of Alaska, south through southeastern Alaska,
the Canadian Pacific coast and to the Channel Islands off California. Steller sea lion females
exhibit high site fidelity, generally using the same rookeries to breed and birth their pups each
year. These sites are usually on remote islands where access by predators is limited. The
critical habitat of Steller sea lions includes a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haul-out
and rookeries with their associated terrestrial, air, and aquatic zones. It also includes three large
offshore foraging areas near Shelikof Strait, Bogoslof, and Seguam Pass (ADFG 2013). May
occur.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Appendix D ENVIRON
Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) (federal threatened)
Wood bison once ranged across northwestern Canada and were also found in a large region in
Interior and Southcentral Alaska. At present, free-ranging wood bison are found only in Canada,
but there is a captive herd of about 135 animals being held at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation
Center near Portage, Alaska, as part of Alaska’s wood bison restoration effort.
Wood bison once ranged across northwestern Canada and were also found in a large region in
Interior and Southcentral Alaska. At present, free-ranging wood bison are found only in Canada,
but there is a captive herd of about 135 animals being held at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation
Center near Portage, Alaska, as part of Alaska’s wood bison restoration effort (ADFG 2013).
Unlikely to occur.
REPTILES
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) (federal endangered)
Leatherbacks are the most wide-ranging sea turtle species. They are found throughout
temperate to tropical waters worldwide. They are capable of tolerating much colder
temperatures than other species due to counter-current exchange, high oil content, and large
body size. 19 leatherbacks have been reported in Alaska between 1960 and 2007. Prior to
1993, they were the most common sea turtle species in Alaskan waters.
Leatherback sea turtles are a highly pelagic species spending most of their time in the open
ocean. However, they are known to forage in coastal waters. Females come ashore to nest
preferring beaches backed by vegetation near deep water and rough seas.
Leatherbacks are found throughout temperate to tropical waters worldwide. Nineteen
leatherbacks have been reported in Alaska between 1960 and 2007. Prior to 1993, they were
the most common sea turtle species in Alaskan waters. Leatherback sea turtles are a highly
pelagic species spending most of their time in the open ocean. However, they are known to
forage in coastal waters. Females come ashore to nest preferring beaches backed by
vegetation near deep water and rough seas. No critical habitat designated (ADFG 2013).
Unlikely to occur.
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) (federal threatened)
Loggerhead sea turtles nest on narrow, high energy beaches with a steep slope and coarse
sand. As hatchlings, they move into the oceanic habitat where they remain until reaching 7–12
years of age. At that time, juveniles migrate to nearshore waters where they will spend the
majority of their adult lives. Though rare in Alaska, loggerhead sea turtles occasionally visit
Alaska’s Gulf Coast waters. They have been reported in Alaska only twice between 1960 and
2007 in the Gulf of AK and off of Chichagof Island (ADFG 2013).Unlikely to occur.
Olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) (federal threatened)
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Appendix D ENVIRON
The Olive Ridley sea turtle is distributed throughout tropical and subtropical regions of the
Pacific, South Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. It is predominantly pelagic, inhabiting the waters of
the open ocean, but can sometimes be foraging in coastal areas. The species moves to coastal
waters during the breeding season, and females come ashore to lay their eggs.
Olive Ridley Sea turtles have been reported in Alaska three times between 1960 and 2007
(CDFG 2013). Unlikely to occur.
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) (federal threatened)
Green sea turtles use a variety of habitats. Oceanic beaches are used for nesting. Females
need open beaches with a gentle slope and minimal disturbance. Adults use benthic foraging
areas in coastal waters. They are generally attracted to bays and lagoons with a high density of
seagrasses or algae. Hatchlings and juveniles spend their time in offshore convergence zones.
This species is distributed globally. Green sea turtles are most commonly found in tropical and
subtropical waters along the coasts of continents and islands. In the eastern North Pacific,
green sea turtles are seen from Baja California to southeast Alaska. In Alaska, there have been
15 green sea turtle sightings since 1960. The green sea turtle has been the most common
species in Alaskan waters since 1993, but most of these occurrences were dead turtles.
Green sea turtles use a variety of habitats. Oceanic beaches with a gentle slope and minimal
disturbance are used for nesting. Adults use benthic foraging areas in coastal waters. They are
generally attracted to bays and lagoons with a high density of seagrasses or algae. Hatchlings
and juveniles spend their time in offshore convergence zones. This species is distributed
globally. Green sea turtles are most commonly found in tropical and subtropical waters along
the coasts of continents and islands. In the eastern North Pacific, green sea turtles are seen
from Baja California to southeast Alaska. In southeast Alaska, there have been 15 green sea
turtle sightings since 1960. The green sea turtle has been the most common species in Alaskan
waters since 1993, but most of these occurrences were dead turtles (CDFG 2013). Unlikely to
occur.
PLANTS
Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum) (federal endangered)
The Aleutian shield fern is a small (6 inches tall) fern that grows in rock caves and moist
crevices at the base of steep rock outcrops on east to northeast-facing slopes. It was originally
discovered on Atka Island, Alaska and since been found on Adak Island, but searches on 11
other Aleutian Islands have not found the plant (USFWS 2013). Not likely to occur.
Phase II Hydropower Reconnaissance Study
Excursion Inlet
D R A F T
Appendix D ENVIRON
Appendix D
Preliminary Prospective-Project Plans and Profile Drawings
PIPELINE PROFILE
0'
500'
1000'
1500'
2000'
2500'
2480' 1000' 2000' 3000' 4000' 5000' 6000' 7000' 8000' 9000' 10000' 11000' 12000' 13000' 14000' 15000' 16000' 17000' 18000' 19000' 20000' 21000'21500'
1 0 .0 %
9 .8 %
1 1 .3 %
1 0 .5 %
9 .8 %
9 .2 %
9 .1 %4500'ELEV: 5589500'ELEV: 104913500'ELEV: 150116500'ELEV: 181618500'ELEV: 20112480'
ELEV: 116
1500'ELEV: 25621000'
ELEV: 2239 3160 CLUBHOUSE DRIVELEHI, UTAH 84043801.768.7200EXCURSION INLET, ALASKAEXCURSION INLET HYDROELECTRIC EVALUATIONNORTH CREEK HANGING WATERSHED 1-A1 7
N-H-1_A
N/A1"=2000
BC
KDC
KDC
FX 13138.00
LEGEND
30" PENSTOCK
L: 21,000' 2,242 TONS
TRANSMISSION LINE
L: 2,500'
ACCESS ROAD
W: 20' L: 21,500'
EXISTING ROAD
BRIDGE
GRAVITY DAM (SEE INSET ON N-H-1_B)
CREST: 2305' L: 556'
H: 66' VOL: 122,696 CY
STORAGE: 2,053 AC-FT
POWER PLANT & SWITCHING YARD
HEAD: 2156' FLOW: 22.4 CFS
OUTPUT: 3.0 MW
FISH INCLUSION ZONE
2.63 RIVER MILES
PIPELINE PROFILE
500'
1000'
1500'
2000'
2500'
0' 1000' 2000' 3000' 4000' 5000'
22.0%38.9%60.7%9 .3 %33.3%
6.3 %0'ELEV: 566500'ELEV: 6763000'ELEV: 12974500'ELEV: 22081500'ELEV: 7692500'ELEV: 11025000'
ELEV: 2239 3160 CLUBHOUSE DRIVELEHI, UTAH 84043801.768.7200EXCURSION INLET, ALASKAEXCURSION INLET HYDROELECTRIC EVALUATIONNORTH CREEK HANGING WATERSHED 1-B2 7
N-H-1_B
N/A1"=2000'
ALK
KDC
KDC
Fx13138.00
GRAVITY DAM
LEGEND
30" PENTSTOCK
L: 5,000' 741 TONS
TRANSMISSION LINE
L: 22,600'
ACCESS ROAD
W: 20' L: 18,000'
EXISTING ROAD
BRIDGE
GRAVITY DAM
CREST: 2305' L: 556'
H: 66' VOL: 122,696 CY
STORAGE: 2,053 AC-FT
POWER PLANT & SWITCHING YARD
HEAD: 1706' FLOW: 24.2 CFS
OUTPUT: 2.5 MW
FISH INCLUSION ZONE
2.63 RIVER MILES
PIPELINE PROFILE
0'
500'
1000'
0' 1000' 2000' 3000' 4000' 5000' 6000'
0'
ELEV: 258 3000'ELEV: 3735500'
ELEV: 416
3.8%1.7%3160 CLUBHOUSE DRIVELEHI, UTAH 84043801.768.7200EXCURSION INLET, ALASKAEXCURSION INLET HYDROELECTRIC EVALUATIONNORTH CREEK MEDIUM 23 7
N-M-2
N/A1"=2000'
BC
KDC
KDC
FX13138.00
GRAVITY DAM
LEGEND
60" PENSTOCK
L: 5,500' 716 TONS
TRANSMISSION LINE
L: 6,500'
ACCESS ROAD
W: 30' L: 7,600'
EXISTING ROAD
GRAVITY DAM
CREST: 640' OUTLET EL: 416'
L: 750' H: 240' VOL: 1,600,000 CY
STORAGE: 16,400 AC-FT
POWER PLANT & SWITCHING YARD
HEAD: 273' FLOW: 97 CFS
OUTPUT: 1.7 MW
FISH INCLUSION ZONE
2.63 RIVER MILES
PIPELINE PROFILE
0'
500'
1000'
0' 1000' 2000' 3000' 4000' 5000' 6000' 7000' 8000' 9000' 10000' 11000' 12000' 13000' 14000' 15000' 16000' 17000' 18000' 19000' 20000' 21000'21100'
3.8 %
4.5%2.6%1.1%
3.7%
0'
ELEV: 258 3000'ELEV: 3736000'ELEV: 5078000'ELEV: 56015000'ELEV: 63921100'
ELEV: 868 3160 CLUBHOUSE DRIVELEHI, UTAH 84043801.768.7200EXCURSION INLET, ALASKAEXCURSION INLET HYDROELECTRIC EVALUATIONNORTH CREEK LONG 34 7
N-L-3
N/A1"=2000
BC
KDC
KDC
FX13138.00
21000'
LEGEND
80" PENSTOCK
L: 21,100' 3,831 TONS
TRANSMISSION LINE
L: 6,500'
ACCESS ROAD
W: 30' L: 23,100'
EXISTING ROAD
DIVERSION WEIR
CREST: 873' L: 750' H: 6.75'
VOL: 300 CY
POWER PLANT & SWITCHING YARD
HEAD: 610' FLOW: 189.5 CFS
OUTPUT: 7.2 MW
FISH INCLUSION ZONE
2.63 RIVER MILES
PIPELINE PROFILE
0'
500'
1000'
1500'
0' 1000' 2000' 3000' 4000' 5000' 6000' 7000' 8000' 9000' 10000' 11000' 12000' 13000' 14000'
7 .9 %
6 .1 %
5 .0 %
6 .4%
1.0%
1.5%
5.5 %
8 .7 %
7 .1 %
0'
ELEV: 268
1000'ELEV: 3473000'ELEV: 47212000'ELEV: 9592000'ELEV: 4119000'ELEV: 80914000'
ELEV: 988
3500'ELEV: 5006000'ELEV: 7177000'ELEV: 7883160 CLUBHOUSE DRIVELEHI, UTAH 84043801.768.7200EXCURSION INLET, ALASKAEXCURSION INLET HYDROELECTRIC EVALUATIONSOUTH CREEK HIGH 15 7
S-H-1
N/A1"=1600'
BC
KDC
KDC
FX13138.00
LEGEND
80" PENSTOCK
L: 14,000' 3,022 TONS
TRANSMISSION LINE
L: 7,700'
ACCESS ROAD
W: 30' L: 14,600'
EXISTING ROAD
DIVERSION WEIR
CREST: 995' L: 167' H: 7.47'
VOL: 600 CY
POWER PLANT & SWITCHING YARD
HEAD: 720' FLOW: 183.6 CFS
OUTPUT: 8.3 MW
FISH INCLUSION ZONE
2.63 RIVER MILES
PIPELINE PROFILE
0'
500'
1000'
1500'
0' 1000' 2000' 3000' 4000' 5000' 6000' 7000' 8000'
7 .9 %
6 .1 %6 .4 %
5 .5 %
8 .7 %
1.9%
0'
ELEV: 268 1000'ELEV: 3473000'ELEV: 4722000'ELEV: 4113500'ELEV: 5006000'ELEV: 7177600'
ELEV: 748 3160 CLUBHOUSE DRIVELEHI, UTAH 84043801.768.7200EXCURSION INLET, ALASKAEXCURSION INLET HYDROELECTRIC EVALUATIONSOUTH CREEK MEDIUM 26 7
S-M-2
N/A1"=1600'
BC
KDC
KDC
FX13138.00
LEGEND
80" PENSTOCK
L: 7,600' 1,386 TONS
TRANSMISSION LINE
L: 7,700'
ACCESS ROAD
W: 30' L: 8,200'
EXISTING ROAD
DIVERSION WEIR
CREST: 756' L: 66' H: 8.63'
VOL: 200 CY
POWER PLANT & SWITCHING YARD
HEAD: 480' FLOW: 189.5 CFS
OUTPUT: 5.7 MW
FISH INCLUSION ZONE
2.48 RIVER MILES
PIPELINE PROFILE
0'
500'
1000'
1500'
0' 1000' 2000' 3000' 4000' 5000'
7 .9 %
6 .1 %
6 .4%
5 .5 %5 .0 %
0'
ELEV: 268
1000'ELEV: 3472000'ELEV: 4113000'ELEV: 4723500'ELEV: 5004100'
ELEV: 530 3160 CLUBHOUSE DRIVELEHI, UTAH 84043801.768.7200EXCURSION INLET, ALASKAEXCURSION INLET HYDROELECTRIC EVALUATIONSOUTH CREEK LOW 37 7
S-L-3
N/A1"=1600'
BC
KDC
KDC
FX13138.00
LEGEND
80" PENSTOCK
L: 4,100' 543 TONS
TRANSMISSION LINE
L: 7,700'
ACCESS ROAD
W: 30' L: 4,700'
EXISTING ROAD
DIVERSION WEIR
CREST: 538' L: 156' H: 7.79'
VOL: 450 CY
POWER PLANT & SWITCHING YARD
HEAD: 262' FLOW: 211.5 CFS
OUTPUT: 3.5 MW
FISH INCLUSION ZONE
2.48 RIVER MILES
Image source: USGS National Map Viewer tool, http://viewer.nationalmap.gov
Product: May 2006 1.0m Color Orthoimagery – Southeastern Areas, AK
Format: Geotiff Projection: NAD 83, UTM Zone 8N
Metadata:
(http://extract.cr.usgs.gov/distmeta/servlet/gov.usgs.edc.MetaBuilder?TYPE=HTML&DATASET=AK_0001
5)
USGS High Resolution State Orthoimagery
for the Southeastern Areas, Alaska
Metadata also available as
Metadata:
Identification_Information
Data_Quality_Information
Spatial_Data_Organization_Information
Spatial_Reference_Information
Entity_and_Attribute_Information
Distribution_Information
Metadata_Reference_Information
Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: U.S. Geological Survey
Publication_Date: 2011
Title:
USGS High Resolution State Orthoimagery for the Southeastern Areas, Alaska
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: remote-sensing image
Series_Information:
Series_Name: USGS State Orthoimagery
Issue_Identification: 0.1
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Sioux Falls, SD
Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey
Online_Linkage: <http://seamless.usgs.gov>
Description:
Abstract:
An orthoimage is remotely sensed image data in which displacement of features in the image
caused by terrain relief and sensor orientation have been mathematically removed.
Orthoimagery combines the image characteristics of a photograph with the geometric qualities
of a map. The design accuracy is estimated not to exceed 10-meters.
Data received at EROS were verified as: Projection: NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_08N Resolution:
1.0000 m Type: Natural Color
and resampled to align to the USNG using the USGS Seamless system. The naming convention is
based on the U.S. National Grid (USNG), taking the coordinates of the SW corner of the
orthoimage. The metadata were imported and updated for display through The National Map
Seamless Server at <http://seamless.usgs.gov> Chip-level metadata are provided in HTML and
XML format.
Purpose:
A digital orthoimage is a geometrically accurate photographic record of landscape conditions at
the time of the corresponding aerial photography. As such, High Resolution Orthoimagery is
useful for a variety of applications, such as environmental monitoring, facility
engineering/maintenance, city/county planning, property line review, etc. The digital
orthoimage can be used alone or as a raster basemap for corresponding vector line mapping.
The detailed focus of High Resolution Orthoimagery provides emergency responders critical
information in determining the best evacuation routes, alternative routes and safe access to aid.
High Resolution Orthoimagery assists law enforcement personnel in determining the best
locations to place surveillance cameras in high-traffic urban areas and popular attractions. The
data assists Federal, State and local emergency responders in planning for homeland security
efforts. This data also supports The National Map.
Supplemental_Information:
The data obtained through The National Map Seamless Server is considered to be the "best
available" data from USGS. Historical data and other data may be obtained by contacting
Customer Services, Earth Resources Observation and Science Center at 1-800-252-4547.
Information in quotation marks, initial processing steps, accuracy reports, and source
information is taken directly from the original metadata. Spatial-specific information not
available
Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Calendar_Date: 200605
Time_of_Day: unknown
Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: Irregular
Spatial_Domain:
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate:-136.3815
East_Bounding_Coordinate:-132.0305
North_Bounding_Coordinate:59.595
South_Bounding_Coordinate:55.1733
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: digital spatial data
Theme_Keyword: 1 meter orthoimage
Theme_Keyword: rectified image
Theme_Keyword: orthophoto
Theme_Keyword: natural color orthophoto
Theme_Keyword: orthoimage
Theme_Keyword: image map
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: ISO 19115 Category
Theme_Keyword: imageryBaseMapsEarthCover
Theme_Keyword: 010
Theme_Keyword: geoscientificInformation
Theme_Keyword: 008
Theme_Keyword: location
Theme_Keyword: 013
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus:
American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
Theme_Keyword: National Standards for Spatial Digital Accuracy (NSSDA)
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995, Countries, dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, and
their principal administrative divisions, Federal Information Processing Standard 10-4,):
Washington, D.C., National Institute of Standards and Technology
Place_Keyword: United States
Place_Keyword: U.S.
Place_Keyword: US
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987, Codes for the identification of the States, the District of
Columbia and the outlying areas of the United States, and associated areas (Federal Information
Processing Standard 5-2): Washington, D.C., National Institute of Standards and Technology
Place_Keyword: AK
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus:
Counties and County Equivalents of the States of the United States and the District of Columbia
(FIPS Pub 6-3)
Place_Keyword: Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan County
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: Geographic Names Information System
Place_Keyword: State of Alaska
Place_Keyword: Southeastern Areas
Access_Constraints:
Any downloading and use of these data signifies a user's agreement to comprehension and
compliance of the USGS Standard Disclaimer. Insure all portions of metadata are read and
clearly understood before using these data in order to protect both user and USGS interests.
Use_Constraints:
There is no guarantee of warranty concerning the accuracy of the data. Users should be aware
that temporal changes may have occurred since this data set was collected and that some parts
of this data may no longer represent actual surface conditions. Users should not use this data
for critical applications without a full awareness of its limitations. Acknowledgement of the
originating agencies would be appreciated in products derived from these data. Any user who
modifies the data is obligated to describe the types of modifications they perform. User
specifically agrees not to misrepresent the data, nor to imply that changes made were approved
or endorsed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Please refer to <http://www.usgs.gov/privacy.html>
for the USGS disclaimer.
Point_of_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Position: Customer Services Representative
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center
Address: 47914 252nd Street
City: Sioux Falls
State_or_Province: SD
Postal_Code: 57198-0001
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 605/594-6151
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 1-800-252-4547
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 605/594-6589
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: webmapping@usgs.gov
Hours_of_Service: 0800 - 1600 CT, M - F (-6h CST/-5h CDT GMT)
Data_Set_Credit: U.S. Geological Survey
Security_Information:
Security_Classification_System: None
Security_Classification: Unclassified
Security_Handling_Description: N/A
Native_Data_Set_Environment:
Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 3; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.3.1.3000
Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report:
Radiometry is verified by visual inspection of the digital orthophoto. Slight systematic
radiometric differences may exist between adjacent orthoimage files; these are due primarily to
differences in source image capture dates and sun angles along flight lines. These differences
can be observed in an image's general lightness or darkness when it is compared to adjacent
orthoimage file coverages. Tonal balancing may be performed over a group of images during the
mosaicking process which may serve to lighten or darken adjacent images for better color tone
matching.
Logical_Consistency_Report:
Logical consistency is implicit in the raster image data structure. Source imagery is cloud free.
Completeness_Report: N/A
Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report:
The relative accuracy is assembled by comparing rectified images generated from adjacent strips
of imagery. The absolute accuracy is assessed by measuring the ground control points in the
rectified image against the actual surveyed co-ordinate position. The testing is for overall
accuracy. This data has been produced to be fully compliant with the National Map Accuracy
Standards (NMAS) for mapping at this scale.
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy:
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Report: There is no vertical accuracy component to
orthophotography.
Lineage:
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Data received at EROS were verified as: Projection: NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_08N Resolution:
1.0000 m Type: Natural Color
and resampled to align to the USNG using the USGS Seamless system. The naming convention is
based on the U.S. National Grid (USNG), taking the coordinates of the SW corner of the
orthoimage. The naming convention is based on the U.S. National Grid (USNG), taking the
coordinates of the SW corner of the orthoimage. The metadata were imported and updated for
display through The National Map Seamless Server at <http://seamless.usgs.gov> Chip-level
metadata are provided in XML format.
Process_Date: 201103
Process_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Position: Customer Service Representative
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center
Address: 47914 252nd Street
City: Sioux Falls
State_or_Province: SD
Postal_Code: 57198-0001
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 605-594-6151
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 1-800-252-4547
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 605-594-6589
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: webmapping@usgs.gov
Hours_of_Service: 0800 - 1600 CT, M - F (-6h CST/-5h CDT GMT)
Contact_Instructions:
The USGS point of contact is for questions relating only to the data display and download from
this web site. For questions regarding data content and quality, refer to original processor.
Spatial_Data_Organization_Information:
Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Raster
Raster_Object_Information:
Raster_Object_Type: Pixel
Row_Count: 1,500
Column_Count: 1,500
Vertical_Count: 1
Spatial_Reference_Information:
Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Planar:
Grid_Coordinate_System:
Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: Universal Transverse Mercator
Universal_Transverse_Mercator:
UTM_Zone_Number: 8
Transverse_Mercator:
Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.999600
Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -135.0000
Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 0.0
False_Easting: 500000
False_Northing: 0.0
Planar_Coordinate_Information:
Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: row and column
Coordinate_Representation:
Abscissa_Resolution: 1.0000
Ordinate_Resolution: 1.000
Planar_Distance_Units: meters
Geodetic_Model:
Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983
Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80
Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.000000
Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222
Vertical_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Altitude_System_Definition:
Altitude_Datum_Name: North American Vertical Datum of 1988
Altitude_Resolution: 1.00000
Altitude_Distance_Units: meters
Altitude_Encoding_Method:
Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates
Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Overview_Description:
Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
Natural color orthoimagery is organized in three color bands or channels which represent the
red, green, and blue portions of the spectrum. Each image pixel is assigned a triplet of numeric
values, one for each color band. Numeric values range from 0 to 255. Areas where data is
incomplete due to lack of full image coverage are represented with the numeric value of 0.
Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Standards for Digital
Orthoimagery: Reston, VA
Distribution_Information:
Distributor:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Position: Customer Services Representative
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: Earth Resources Observation and Science Center
Address: 47914 252nd Street
City: Sioux Falls
State_or_Province: SD
Postal_Code: 57198-0001
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 605/594-6151
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 1-800-252-4547
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 605/594-6589
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: webmapping@usgs.gov
Contact_Instructions:
The USGS point of contact is for questions relating only to the data display and download from
this web site. For questions regarding data content and quality, refer to the original processor:
Devin Kelley, Project Director HJW Geospatial Inc. 2001 Broadway Third Floor Oakland, CA
94612
Phone: 510-834-2001 ext. 124 Fax: 510-034-2101 email: kelley@hjw.com
Resource_Description: Downloadable Data
Distribution_Liability:
Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the USGS, no
warranty expressed or implied is made by the USGS regarding the use of the data on any other
system, nor does the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. Data may have been
compiled from various outside sources. Spatial information may not meet National Map
Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated without notification. The USGS shall not
be liable for any activity involving these data, installation, fitness of the data for a particular
purpose, its use, or analyses results.
Standard_Order_Process:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: TIFF
Format_Version_Number: ArcGIS 9.3
Format_Specification: Raster
Transfer_Size: 0.001
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name: <http://seamless.usgs.gov>
Access_Instructions:
The URL <http://seamless.usgs.gov> provides a map interface that allows for data downloads
within a customer defined area of interest. Zoom tools are available that can be used to
investigate areas of interest on the map interface. The download tool allows the customer to
capture layers from the map, utilizing The National Map Seamless Server process for
downloading. A request summary page is then generated with the download layers listed. By
clicking the "download" button on the summary page, a zipped file will be generated that can be
saved on the customer's computer. The file can then be unzipped and imported into various
user software applications.
Online_Computer_and_Operating_System: Not available for dissemination
Fees: None
Turnaround: Variable
Technical_Prerequisites:
ESRI ArcGIS Suite and/or Arc/Info or other compatible software, and supporting operating
systems.
Available_Time_Period:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 2011
Ending_Date: unknown
Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20110315
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Position: Customer Services Representative
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center
Address: 47914 252nd Street
City: Sioux Falls
State_or_Province: SD
Postal_Code: 57198-0001
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 605/594-6151
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 1-800-252-4547
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 605/594-6589
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: webmapping@usgs.gov
Contact_Instructions:
The above is the contact information for the Earth Resources Observation and Science Center in
Sioux Falls, SD. This is the digital data storage and distribution center for the USGS.
Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998
Metadata_Time_Convention: local time
Metadata_Access_Constraints: None
Metadata_Use_Constraints: None
Metadata_Security_Information:
Metadata_Security_Classification_System: None
Metadata_Security_Classification: Unclassified
Metadata_Security_Handling_Description: None
Generated by mp version 2.9.6 on Thu Jan 05 12:26:18 2012