HomeMy WebLinkAboutLoud Creek Hydro Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report - July 2011 - REF Grant 2195472LOUDCREEKHYDROPOWERDEVELOPMENT
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY REPORT
Prepared For: City of Akutan
Prepared By: EES CONSUL TING, INC.
MCMILLEN, LLC
DRYDEN & LARUE/EPS
July 29, 2011
TAB L E OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1
Task Description ............................................................................................................. 3
Technical Feasibility ........................................................................................................ 4
Previous Studies .......................................................................................................... 4
Land Ownership ........................................................................................................... 4
Site Visit ....................................................................................................................... 4
Watershed Description ................................................................................................ 8
Anadromous Fish Presence ........................................................................................ 8
Geology ....................................................................................................................... 9
Project Arrangement .................................................................................................. 1 O
Base Case ............................................................................................................. 1 O
Alternat ive 1 ........................................................................................................... 1 O
Power Transmission Options ................................................................................. 1 O
Hydrology and Hydraulics ............................................................................................. 11
Hydrology .................................................................................................................. 11
Background ............................................................................................................ 11
Peak Stream Flow .................................................................................................. 12
Hydraulics .................................................................................................................. 16
Flood Routing ......................................................................................................... 16
Spillway and Flood Outlet Section and Design ...................................................... 17
Free board .............................................................................................................. 17
Dam Embankment ................................................................................................. 17
Conceptual Design ........................................................................................................ 18
Diversion Dams ......................................................................................................... 18
Base Case ............................................................................................................. 18
Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................... 19
Dock .......................................................................................................................... 19
Access Roads ............................................................................................................ 20
Powerhouse ............................................................................................................... 20
Substation .................................................................................................................. 20
Power Transmission and Interconnection .................................................................. 20
Energy Production ......................................................................................................... 23
Base Case ................................................................................................................. 23
Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................... 25
Permitting ...................................................................................................................... 26
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................................... 26
United States Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................... 27
Alaska Department of Natural Resources .................................................................. 28
Dam Safety Program .............................................................................................. 28
Water Rights .......................................................................................................... 28
Alaska State Historic Preservation Office .................................................................. 28
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Review (Coastal Project Questionnaire) ............ 29
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation .................................................. 29
Alaska Department of Fish and Game ....................................................................... 29
Loud Creek Hydropower Developm ent
C on c eptual Design and Feasibility Report Pag e ii
Local Government ..................................................................................................... 29
Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................. 30
Base Case ............................................................................................................. 30
Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................... 30
Transmission and Substation Costs ....................................................................... 31
Basis of Transmission Cost Estimates ................................................................... 32
Diesel Generator Set .............................................................................................. 32
Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 32
Summary of Construction and Development Costs ................................................... 33
Cost of Power ................................................................................................................ 35
Project Schedule ........................................................................................................... 38
Conclusions and Final Recommendations .................................................................... 39
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 39
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 39
References .................................................................................................................... 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Loud Creek Drainage Basin ............................................................................. 5
Figure 2 . East Fork Loud Creek Proposed Dam Site ...................................................... 6
Figure 3 . West Fork Loud Creek Diversion Site .............................................................. 6
Figure 4. Powerhouse Site .............................................................................................. 7
Figure 5 . Typical Shoreline around Akutan Harbor ......................................................... 8
Figure 6. USGS Geology Map of Akutan Island , Alaska ................................................. 9
Figure 7. Loud Creek Stream Gage .............................................................................. 12
Figure 8 . Russell Creek USGS Gage 15297610 ........................................................... 13
Figure 9 . Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska ............................................................ 13
Figure 10. Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska .......................................................... 14
Figure 11 . Loud Creek Calculated Flows ...................................................................... 24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Russell Creek Near Cold Bay, Alaska Peak Streamflow Statistics ................... 14
Table 2 Loud Creek Drainage Basin Area ..................................................................... 15
Table 3 East Fork Loud Creek Peak Stream Flow Statistics ......................................... 16
Table 4 Base Case Energy Production ......................................................................... 25
Table 5 Power Transmission and Substation Costs ...................................................... 31
Table 6 Project Costs .................................................................................................... 34
Table 7 Cost of Power ................................................................................................... 36
Table 8 Summary of Potential Generation Source Costs at Akutan, Alaska ................. 36
Table 9 Anticipated Power Consumption ...................................................................... 37
Table 10 Proposed Tasking Cost Estimates ................................................................ .41
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page iii
Append ix A -Drawings
Appendix B -Cost Estimates
Appendix C -Schedule
APPENDICES
Appendix D -Harbor Power Consumption Estimates
Appendix E -Project Monthly Energy Generation Table
Appendix F -Cost of Energy Calculations
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Drawing 1 -Location Map , Vicinity Map, and Drawing Index
Drawing 2 -Standard Abbreviations and Symbols
Drawing 3 -General Site Plan
Drawing 4 -Design Criteria
Drawing 5 -Site Plan -Base Case
Drawing 6 -Site Plan -Alternative 1
Drawing 7 -Typical Dam Plan and Sections
Drawing 8 -Dam Penstock Section
Drawing 9 -Roadway Details
Drawing 10 -Pipeline Plan, Profile, and Details -Base Case
Drawing 11 -Pipeline Plan, Profile , and Details -Alternative 1
Drawing 12 -Powerhouse Foundation Plan and Sections
Drawing 13 -Powerhouse Generator Plan and Sections
Drawing 14 -Transmission Lines Route Options
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page iv
Executive Summary
A feasibility and analysis was completed for the Loud Creek Hydropower project to
determine the technical feasibility of producing power at Loud Creek and delivery of the
power to the City of Akutan (City). The 1990 HOR/Ott report indicated the Loud Creek
project was technically constructable using a cross bay transmission cable. The report
also concluded that the "economic viability of the project will like ly improve over time , as
the City 's demand for energy increases."
The current study was initiated because the City's power demand has increased since
the 1990 study. The power demand is expected to further increase with the
development of the new Akutan Harbor (Harbor) and other expansion activities . Early in
the current study efforts , the City determined that the cross bay transmission cable
presents an extremely high risk of failure requiring additional study efforts for a
transmission line routing. A total of 6 transmission routing options were evaluated .
Conceptual power generation arrangements were developed for the Loud Creek
hydropower development. The Base Case alternative consisted of a single diversion
dam located on the East Fork of the Loud Creek . Alternative 1 included a second
diversion dam on the West Fork of Loud Creek increasing the overall design flow and
annual power production .
The Loud Creek power could be delivered at or below the current cost of power using
diesel generation . The Loud Creek power cost would be significantly higher than Trident
Seafoods' (Trident) existing self generation cost. It is likely that Trident would generate
their own power rather than buy more expensive power from the Loud Creek project.
Without the sale of power to Trident and/or the new Harbor, power delivered from Loud
Creek to the City would exceed demand for the foreseeable future , particularly if the
Town Creek hydropower system becomes fully operational.
The combination of Alternative 1, power generation, and Option 4a, transmission, was
the recommended alternative. The power generation facilities consist of new diversion
dams on the East and West Forks of Loud Creek, a new 18 inch diameter penstock
delivering up to 15 cubic feet per second ( cfs) to a new powerhouse near the mouth of
Loud Creek, a dock, and a primitive access road from the dock to the diversion dam .
The powerhouse is a single 350 kilowatt (kW) Pelton Wheel turbine capable of
generating up to 1,548, 100 kilowatt hours (kWh) annually. The power will be delivered
from the Loud Creek powerhouse to the new Harbor facilities via a buried submarine
cable located in the intertidal zone. The estimated total project cost is $7,727,400 with a
cost of power of $0.43/KWh . The recommended alternative is considered a "standalone"
arrangement delivering power to only the new Harbor.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 1
Based on the results of the feasibility study, it is recommended that the conceptual
business and operations plan requi red under AEA Phase II milestones should be
completed along with a business case analysis that addresses the cost of diesel, power
purchase agreements , projected revenues , and the non-monetary benefits of the
project.
A project schedule was developed , which indicates that operation could be achieved
within approximately 3 years from initiation of the final engineering design effort. The
permitting process would be the critical path schedule item . A key issue for the project is
obtaining permits to allow construction to start in the summer of 2013 . It is believed that
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would issue an order declaring that
it does not have jurisdiction. This would mean that the permits required for construction
would be from the State and other federal entities . Note that water rights for the project
need to be procured immediately to preserve the schedule.
Loud Cree k Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 2
Task Description
EES Consulting, Inc (EES) and McMillen , LLC (McMillen) were retained by the City to
conduct a preliminary feasibility assessment on the Loud Creek Hydropower
Development to determine the preferred hydroelectric system configuration and
transmission routing. This assessment included the recommended sizing of a
hydroelectric system, including projected annual energy generation and fuel
displacement for the project. Other elements of the assessment discussed in this report
include :
a . Technical feasibility of the project.
b . Conceptual design of the project, to include location of system components ,
penstock and transmission alignments , and sizing/type of piping , turbines ,
generators, and all necessary components related to system construction .
c . Conceptual design summary including recommended construction methods ,
construction access, and design practices.
d. Power systems integration including turbines , generators , switchgears, controls,
and transmission lines .
e. Issues related to permitting and permit processing .
f . All other information , conclusions and recommendations relative to the design ,
construction , operation and maintenance of the selected system configuration.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 3
Technical Feasibility
Previous Studies
In June 1990, HOR/OTT Engineering and Dryden & LaRue (HOR/OTT) published a
hydroelectric feasibility study report for both the Loud Creek and North Creek projects.
The Loud Creek Project was examined in detail and was deemed technically
constructible. However, it was not deemed financially economic for the City to construct
alone at that time. The report concluded that the economic viability of the project would
likely improve over time as the City's demand for energy increases. It was also noted in
the report that the project may become economically feasible if Trident (located in
Akutan) purchased excess power or became a co-developer of the project.
The 1990 report proposed a configuration that would include two diversions on Loud
Creek. The main diversion would be at elevation (El.) 560 feet (ft) above mean sea
level (amsl) on the East Fork of Loud Creek (East Fork) and a secondary diversion
would be located on the West Fork of Loud Creek (West Fork) at El. 175 ft amsl. Figure
1 depicts the locations of the East and West Fork drainage basins. With this
configuration, there would be two penstocks that each feed into a separate turbine-
generator set. The main turbine-generator set would have a rating of 330 kilowatts (kW)
and the secondary would have a rating of 60 kW. Both of the turbine-generator sets
would be housed in a small powerhouse to be constructed above maximum tidewater
on the rock bluff. A 4,500-foot long underwater transmission cable was planned from
the powerhouse to the City along with a buried intertie cable that would lead to the
Trident Seafood facility. The 1990 report estimated the cost for the Loud Creek
Hydropower Development at $1.7 million dollars.
Land Ownership
The Loud Creek drainage is owned by the City as acquired under 14(c)3 of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act. The Akutan Native Corporation owns the land from Loud
Creek to the Trident facility and Harbor. The tidelands from Loud Creek to the Trident
facility are owned by the State of Alaska . From the Trident facility to Akutan, the land is
owned by Trident and the City.
Site Visit
The Loud Creek drainage basin is located directly across the bay from the City (Figure
1 ). EES and McMillen conducted a site visit to the Loud Creek drainage basin on
October 25, 2009. At the time of the site visit, there was snowpack in the upper
altitudes of the basin.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 4
The team was able to identify the HOR/OTT proposed site of the dam on the East Fork
at approximately El. 500 ft amsl (Figure 2). The 1990 West Fork diversion dam site was
examined but was deemed not a preferred location for a diversion dam . A more
suitable diversion dam lo cation was observed during the site visit at approximately El.
500 ft amsl. A photograph of this location is presented in Figure 3 . The penstock routes
from both diversion dams down to the powerhouse site appear to be relatively
straightforward to construct. The powerhouse site would be located near the mouth of
the creek, well above high tide on a rock bluff as illustrated in Figure 4.
Ak arbor
East Fork Loud Ck
Figure 1. Loud Creek Drainage Basin
Loud Creek Hydropower Developm ent
Conce ptual De sign and Feasi bility Report Page 5
Figure 2 . East Fork Loud Creek Proposed Dam Site
Figure 3. West Fork Loud Creek Diversion Site
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 6
Figure 4. Powerhouse Site
The team toured the bay investigating an underwater cable route along the shoreline .
The shoreline underwater cable route was investigated because concern had been
expressed about an underwater cable running straight across the bay to the City and
the potential for boats anchoring within the bay snagging the cable. Figure 5 presents a
typical photograph of the shoreline.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Con ceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 7
Figure 5. Typical Shoreline around Akutan Harbor
Watershed Description
The Loud Creek watershed (drainage basin) totals approximately 1.0 square mile (sq
mi) and is comprised of an East and West Fork . The East Fork drainage basin above
El. 500 ft asml (above proposed diversion dam) is approximately 0 .59 sq mi, while the
West Fork basin above El. 500 ft (above proposed diversion dam) is approximately 0.19
sq mi in size. The drainage basin below the El. 500 ft asml diversion dams is 0 .22 sq
mi. The Loud Creek basin varies from El. 0 ft amsl at the outlet to approximately El.
1,800 ft amsl at the top of the East Fork drainage basin. The drainage basin slopes
range from approximately 10% (near stream) to approximately 70% (mountain slopes).
The watershed land cover is characterized by native tundra vegetation and exposed
rock outcroppings, with no forested, developed, or glaciated areas in the watershed .
Anadromous Fish Presence
Based on observations made during the October 2009 site visit, anadromous fish were
not observed in Loud Creek . Furthermore , the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
has not identified Loud Creek as an anadromous stream. However, not all the streams
in the Akutan region have been mapped , and subsequently, the absence of information
in the fish catalog does not necessarily indicate that anadromous species are not
present. It is likely that the regulatory agencies will require fish studies to confirm the
lack of anadromous fish within the Loud Creek drainage.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page8
Geology
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has not completed a Soil Survey
for the Loud Creek drainage basin . The geologic soils located within the Loud Creek
project boundaries as mapped by the Un ited States Geological Survey (USGS) are
shown in the highlighted area of Figure 6. Geologic soils include colluviums (Qcu),
tephra (Qtu), and volcanic rock (QTv). Colluvium is a loose deposit of rock debris
accumulated through the action of rainwash or gravity and is located toward the base of
the Loud Creek drainage slope. Tephra soils include volcanic deposits of shattered
rock fragments, ranging in size from fine dust and ash to particles greater than 32 mm in
diameter. Volcanic rock is extrusive igneous rock solidified near or on the soil surface.
These soils are similar to those found at the Town Creek dam site which has
experienced seepage through the foundation and abutment interface . Careful
consideration of these soils and possible transverse faults through the site will have to
be considered as part of a geotechnical investigation required for the dam site as part of
the final design effort.
• Volcan ic Rocks, Undifferenti ated D Collu vi um , Und ifferen tiated
D T e phra
Figure 6. USGS Geology Map of Akutan Island, Alaska
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 9
Project Arrangement
The 1990 HOR/OTT report recommended a project arrangement that included two
diversions and two turbine-generator sets . In this arrangement, the West Fork would
consist of a small diversion (at El. 175 ft amsl) and separate penstock leading to the
powerhouse with a small unit rated at 60 kW . The main diversion would be located on
the East Fork (at El. 560 ft amsl) with a penstock leading down to the powerhouse fitted
with a 300 kW impulse turbine set. This arrangement requires more switchgear and
complex controls for reliable operation . Additionally, this arrangement would be more
expensive to construct, operate, and maintain than a project with a single turbine-
generator set. In our opinion, this type of arrangement is not cost effective as it
significantly increases the cost of the project for a very small incremental gain in power
production .
EES and McMillen identified two potential alternatives for the construction of a
hydropower facility on Loud Creek. These alternat ives are based on the 1990
HOR/OTT report and the 2009 site visit and are briefly described below . A more detailed
description of each hydropower alternative along with potential power transmission
options are presented in the Conceptual Design section of this report.
Base Case
EES and McMillen first developed a simple project arrangement (herein referred to as
the Base Case) with a single diversion dam on the East Fork and a pen stock with an
inner diameter (ID) of 16 inches (in) extending approximately one mile to a small
powerhouse located just above the outlet of Loud Creek.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 consists of the Base Case scenario and a dam on the West Fork. A
diversion dam would also be constructed on the West Fork at approximately El. 500 ft
amsl. The cost to construct a diversion structure and penstock (16 in) to intersect with
the East Fork penstock will be considered in addition to the dam and penstock from the
East Fork . The combined penstock inside diameter would shift to 18 in after the
intersection . This alternative would allow for more water to be captured from the basin
and still allow for a single turbine-generator set at the powerhouse .
Power Transmission Options
The hydropower arrangement alternatives, Base Case and Alternative 1, were coupled
with a range of power transmission options . These options were developed to determine
the optimum routing and cost associated with delivering the power generated at the
Loud Creek plant to the potential users . The identified options include both submarine
and land based routes to the City and new Harbor facilities.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 10
Hydrology and Hyd raulics
Hydrology
Background
In 1986, the Alaska Power Authority contracted with the Water Resources Section of the
Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) to collect and
summarize stream flow for both North Creek and Loud Creek. Data was only collected
from June 1986 to October 1988.
The 1990 HOR/Ott report reviewed the DGGS data and noted the follow ing:
• Loud Creek had a gage installed at the mouth and developed a record from
June 3, 1986 through August 14 , 1987 .
• A gage was added to record stream flows in the East Fork for the periods of
September 11, 1986 to November 27, 1986; February 24, 1987 to August 14,
1987 ; and September 10, 1987 to July 30, 1988.
• The East Fork data was deemed unreliable because it did not achieve a run-off
ratio (cubic feet per second [cfs] per square mile) similar to either Loud Creek
(at the mouth) or North Creek .
• Peak flows occur from June through August and in December and January.
Low flows occur from February through Apri l. It was not known what proportion
of the winter flow may originate from the upper versus the lower portion of the
bas in .
As a part of the current effort, additional stream flow data is being obtained for Loud
Creek at the mouth to help verify the character istics of the drainage basin . A gaging
station was installed on February 18, 2010 and is being maintained on Loud Creek to
determine hydrologic flows (see Figure 7). Typically, data collected over a long period of
time (10 years) is required to properly characterize stream flows from a given drainage
basin . Due to time constraints, one year of stream flow data collection will be sufficient
for the hydrology analysis of this project. Data collected from this stream gage will be
used during subsequent design phases of the project. This data will be collected in
June 2011 , compiled , and submitted under a separate cover. Data collection will
continue for a complete year to determine daily and monthly flows .
No other gaged streams of a comparab le size in the Aleutian Islands have been
located . The data from Loud Creek will be used to develop a correlation with ot her
gaged streams to better understand the stream flow characteristics .
Lo ud Creek Hydropower Develop me nt
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Pag e 11
Figure 7. Loud Creek Stream Gage
Peak Stream Flow
For purposes of designing a small dam, long-term average daily stream flows are
needed to determine the peak flow characteristics of the basin . In addition, basin
characteristics such as soil type, basin slope, and representative channel shape are
needed for the development of an inflow hydrograph. Since this data has not been
collected for Loud Creek, the design analysis will focus on determining the peak stream
flow statistics based on regional regression equations. The results will be compared to
a local reference site for suitability .
The USGS maintains gage sites at a number of streams in Alaska and the data is
available on their web site. The Russell Creek gage (30 .9 square mile drainage area)
near Cold Bay, Alaska is in a very similar climate as Loud Creek and is the closest
available stream gage station to Loud Creek providing reliable data. Cold Bay is about
150 miles east of Akutan in the Aleutians East Borough. Figure 8 illustrates the long-
term record for flows in Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska . This gage record exists
in two continuous parts ; from October 1981 to October 1986 and from October 1995 to
October 2009 .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 12
llUSGS
USGS 15297610 RUSSELL C NR COLD BAY AK
5000 .---------------------------.
"g 4000
8 3000
" " 2000 (,.
" 0..
~ 1000
.!!
CJ
·~ J:I ~
CJ
40 ---------------------------------------~
1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
~ Daily ftean discharge
---Period of approved data
• Flow at station affected by ice
---Pe r iod of provisional data
Figure 8. Russell Creek USGS Gage 15297610
Figure 9. Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska
(looking downstream from gage station)
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 13
Figure 10. Russell Creek near Cold Bay, Alaska
(looking upstream from gage station)
The peak stream flow record for the Russell Creek gage was analyzed using the USGS
PKFQWin software program (http ://water.usgs .gov/software/PeakFQ/). The software
determines peak stream flow statistics based on Bulletin 178 guidelines . Table 1
summarizes the peak stream flow results .
Table 1
Russell Creek Near Cold Bay, Alaska Peak Streamflow Statistics
AnnualExceedance Recurrence Bulletin 178 95-Percent Unit
Probability Interval Estimate Confidence Limits Discharge
(Years) (cfs) Lower Upper (cfs/sq mi)
50% 2 2,601 2,217 3,033 84
20% 5 3,723 3,183 4,585 120
10% 10 4,600 3,849 5 ,944 149
4% 25 5,876 4,741 8 ,261 190
2% 50 6,956 5,452 10 ,350 225
1% 100 8,156 6,210 12,8 10 264
0.5% 200 9,493 7,023 15,730 307
0.2% 500 11,500 8,196 20,410 372
The unit discharge for the 50% and 1 % exceedance probabil iti es are 84 cfs and 264 cfs
per square mile , respectively.
Peak stream flow statistics for the ungaged Loud Creek basin are calculated below
using the regression equations developed by the USGS. Regression equations were
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 14
developed for s even separate regions statewide. The Loud Creek drainage basin is in
Region 1 , where the peak stream flow statistics are calculated based on the equations
listed below.
2-YR:
5-YR:
10-YR:
25-YR:
50-YR:
100-YR:
200-YR:
500-YR:
where :
a2 = o.004119 Ao .8361 (ST +1ro.359o p o.9 11 0 (J+32 )1.635
O s = o.009024 A o.8322 (ST +1 r o.3670 p 0.8128 (J+32 )1.64o
0 10 = 0 .01 450 A o.83 o6 (ST+1ro.3691 p o.7655 (J+32 )1 .622
0 25 = 0.02522 A o.8292 (ST+1ro.3697 p o.116s (J+32 )1 .588
0 50 = 0 .037 1 1 Ao .8286 (ST +1 r o.36 93 p o.6847 (J+32 )1 .559
O mo= 0 .0 5 354 A o.8281 (ST +1 ro.368 3 p o.6556 (J+32 )1 .s21
0 200 = 0.07 5 58 A o.8276 (ST +1 yo.3669 p o.62 84 (J+32 )1.4 95
O so o = 0 .1209 A o.8212 (ST +1 r 6.3646 p o.5948 (J+32 )1.449
A = Drainage Area (sq mi)
ST = Storage Area (%)
P =Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)
J =Mean Minimum January Temperature (deg F)
Using the USGS Unimak (A-6) quadrangle geo-referenced map, the drainage areas of
the Loud Cree k basin were calculated and are shown in Table 2. These areas are
comparable to the estimates in the 1990 HOR/OTT report. The Unimak quadrangle
contour interval is 100 ft. The accuracy of the watershed delineation is based upon the
accuracy of the available data .
Table 2
Loud Creek Drainage Basin Area
Basin Area (sq mi)
East Fork Above 500 ' 0 .59
West Fork Above 500' 0 .19
Loud Creek below 500 ' 0.22
Entire Basin 1.00
Mean annual precipitation was found to be 50 in from GIS data. For temperature
determinations, Dutch Harbor (http ://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN .pl?ak2587 ) and
Cape Sarichef (http://www.wrcc .dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN .pl?ak1325) climate data was
used. The mean minimum January temperature was determined to be 28 degrees
Fahrenheit. Since there are no ponds or lakes in the drainage basin , the storage area
was determined to be 0%.
Loud Creek Hydropower D evelopment
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 15
Table 3 summarizes the peak stream flow statistics calculated for the East Fork basin .
AnnualExceedance Recurrence Interval Regression Equation Unit Discharge
Probabilit Years Estimate cfs cf sis mi
50 % 2 77 128
20 % 5 117 195
10% 10 145 242
4 % 25 181 302
2% 50 209 349
1% 100 237 395
0.5% 200 267 445
0.2 % 500 306 510
The Loud Creek basin produces a higher unit discharge than the Russell Creek basin .
Unit discharge values are within error tolerances for flows less than the 4% (25-YR)
exceedance probability. The predicted unit discharges for the 50% and 1 % exceedance
probabilities calculated using the regional equations are 128 cfs and 395 cfs per square
m ile, respectively, and are considerably larger than the unit discharges calculated from
the Russell Creek gage data . S ince the unit discharge is greater in the East Fork basin,
using the computed value will provide a more conservative approach when designing
components of the dam. Therefore, the regression equation estimates shall be used
when utilizing hydraulic and/or hydrologic inputs.
Hydraulics
Based on the limited dam heights and small reservoirs and the fact that there is no
downstream life or property in peril by these dams, the Loud Creek diversion dams
would not be expected to be regu lated by the State of Alaska Dam Safety Program (AS
4617 .900(3)). For purposes of this study , the 2004 Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety were used to evaluate the proposed
Loud Creek dams . As outlined by FEMA, low hazard dams whose failure results in
limited or no loss of benefits or loss of life during the project life can be hydraulically
designed with an average return probability of 1% (100-YR). Since the Loud Creek site
meets these requirements, the dam and associated structure will be designed using the
probable maximum discharge of approximately 240 cfs for the 1 % exceedance event.
Flood Routing
The Loud Creek Dam will not operate for flood storage or a reduction of the inflow
hydrograph and, therefore , will be considered a run-of-river dam for routing . Since the
reservoi r offers minimal storage capacity, it is assumed that the hydrograph will not be
attenuated while traveling through the reservoir.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Con ceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 16
Spillway and Flood Outlet Section and Design
The divers ion dams are designed with three hydraulic structures : (1) penstock intake ,
(2) outlet structure, and (3) spillway. The penstock intake is normally located on the
dam abutment and consists of a headwall fitted with a trashrack and isolation gate or
valve . The penstock exits the intake structure low in the water column to provide
sufficient operating head on the penstock pipe . The isolation gate is either fully open or
closed since the hydraulic control is maintained at the powerhouse . . For small earthfill
dams, the outlet structure normally consists of a drop inlet riser structure .. As the inflow
to the reservoir increases beyond the turbine design flow, excess flow will spill over the
riser and be conveyed to the dam tailrace via an outlet pipe. A 50% recurrence
probability flow (2-yr) is a typical design flow event selected for an outlet structure,
though larger flow events can be selected . A spillway normally consists of a rock
armored or concrete lined open channel designed with a simple overflow inlet. The
FEMA guidelines for low hazard dams requires a minimum spillway design recurrence
probability flow of 50% (100-yr). The flow split between the outlet structure and spillway
as well as the design recurrence intervals will be evaluated and finalized as part of the
final design work effort. For purposes of this study, the 50% (2-yr) and 1 % (100-yr)
recurrence intervals were assumed for the outlet structure and spillways, respectively.
These conceptual design parameters were used to determine approximate structure
sizes for developing preliminary cost estimates.
Freeboard
For the conceptual design study, it was assumed that the 1 % return frequency flow
passes through the outlet structure and spillway while maintaining 2 ft of freeboa rd over
the dam crest elevation .
Dam Embankment
A geotechnical study will be required to determine the suitability of the native soil
material for design purposes . The conceptual design of the dam embankment assumed
3H:1V slopes on the upstream and downstream faces (Appendix A-Drawings 7 and 8).
These values were used to determine quantities for cost estimating purposes. A
detailed geotechnical study will be required to determine the subsurface conditions,
embankment design parameters, and seepage control mechanisms. Particular
attention will be required to the interface between the embankment dam and foundation
where specific design details will be required to control seepage .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 17
Conceptual Design
Two basic alternatives were developed for a hydropower facil ity on Loud Creek:
• Base Case consisting of a single diversion dam located on the East Fork , a
penstock from the dam to the powerhouse, and a new powerhouse located just
upstream from the Loud Creek outlet.
• Alternative 1 which includes the facilities described for the Base Case plus a
diversion dam on the West Fork of Loud Creek . A second penstock will convey
water from the West Fork to a connection point with the East Fork penstock .
The Base Case was developed to represent the simplest approach to generating power
with a single diversion dam, penstock, and powerhouse . Alternat ive 1 de livers more
wate r to the powe rhouse increasing the overall power generation capacity. Conceptual
layouts for these alternatives are presented in Drawings 1 through 14. These drawings
were used to develop conceptual level quantity takeoffs to support preparation of cost
estimates.
For both of these alternatives , a range of transmission options were considered to
convey the power generated from the powerhouse to the power demand at the City of
Akutan and the Harbor. In general , the transmission options would be identical for each
power generation alternative . A brief discussion of the Base Case and Alternative 1
generation alternatives as well as the options for transmission is presented in the
following paragraphs .
Diversion Dams
Base Case
For the Base Case , a small diversion dam at around El. 500 ft amsl would be
constructed on the East Fork (Drawing 5). The dam would be approximately 1 O ft tall in
height and constructed of locally processed soi ls , a penstock intake , outlet structure,
spillway, and a form of seepage cutoff wall. The seepage control system would require
careful cons ideration to minimize seepage through the dam abutments and foundation .
A deta iled geotechnical site investigation would be required to support the dam des ign
work effort.(Drawing 7). The penstock intake structure would include a trashrack , which
can be hand cleaned and provis ions for slu icing accumulated sediment from the
impoundment (Drawings 8 through 10). The intake structure will feed into a penstock
pipe with a buried shutoff valve, a sluice valve downstream of the dam and a shutoff
va lve near the powerhouse. The penstock is designed to convey 9 cfs from the East
Fork of Loud Creek to the powerhouse . A 16 in d iameter penstock provides a maximum
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
C o nceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 18
flow velocity of 6.5 fps. The outlet structure was assumed to consist of a drop inlet riser
and the spillway rock riprap protected open channel. As discussed previously, these
dam hydraulic structures are consistent with a typical small dam design approach.
The diversion dam will create a reservoir with up to 10 acre-feet of storage . The
storage in this reservoir will allow the turbine generator to provide power for
approximately 15 to 20 hours depending on the inflow rate and, as such, is not a
significant amount of storage. This generation period was determined assuming an
average flow rate of 9 cfs to the powerhouse. The time required to fill will depend on
the inflow to the reservoir. Gage data is being collected to provide a better indication of
the total flow expected from the Loud Creek basin. An estimate of the flow from the
east drainage basin will be developed to determine the minimum inflow to the East Fork
reservoir.
Alternative 1
For Alternative 1, a second diversion dam would be constructed on the West Fork also
at El. 500 ft amsl (Drawing 6) in addition to those facilities identified as part of the Base
Case alternative. The West Fork impoundment would be very small , but would serve to
divert stream flows into a pipeline that would intersect with the main penstock below the
East Fork diversion dam and prior to entering the powerhouse. The des ign of the West
Fork dam would be similar to the East Fork . Up to 6 cfs would be diverted from the
West Fork of Loud Creek and conveyed via a 16 in diameter penstock to the East Fork
penstock . Downstream from the intersection point, the combined penstock would be
increased to 18 in diameter to carry the combined 15 cfs flow from the East and West
Fork diversions.
Dock
A dock and landing area will be required for offloading of materials during construction
(Drawings 5 and 6). The same design approach was assumed for both the Base Case
and Alternative 1. The facility would be located near the outlet of Loud Creek and
provide efficient access to the powerhouse . The dock would consist of three
polyethylene docks (6.5 ft x 10 ft), an aluminum gangway (4 ft x 35 ft), and two 12-inch
steel piles. This dock structure may change during the design process depending on
the type of wave action exerted along the shoreline from the bay . ·
The landing area would be located adjacent to the dock to allow access for equipment
on and off of barges or boats . This landing area will consist of a gravel ramp/pad
(approximately 40 ft x 50 ft x 1 ft in size) and it will extend below the high tide line on the
shore. The estimated volume for this landing area is 100 cubic yards . The proposed
access road will tie into the loading dock.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 19
Access Roads
A road will be required to provide access to the dam(s) to support construction as well
as subsequent operation and maintenance activities (Drawings 5, 6 and 11) for both the
Base Case and Alternative 1. The road will be constructed from the dock area to the
powerhouse, then continue from the powerhouse up to the dam(s). Due to the steep
elevations in two portions of the road alignment, two climbing turns will be required.
These roads will be designed so that equipment may travel safely up the hill and
erosion is minimized during precipitation and snowmelt events. The road will be
constructed from a minimum of 6 in of % in minus road mix placed over the exposed
subgrade. The final design of the road cross-section will be determined incorporating
the recommendations of a geotechnical site investigation which will be required as part
of the final design work effort.
Powerhouse
A powerhouse will be built near the outlet of Loud Creek above the high tide line
(Drawings 5 and 6) for both the Base Case and Alternative 1. The powerhouse will be
approximately 30 ft by 30 ft in size and will house the turbine generator, electrical
components, maintenance vehicles, and equipment. The building and footing w i ll be
designed to meet the applicable building code requirements .
Drawings 14 and 15 illustrate the powerhouse floor plan and equipment arrangement. A
horizontal two jet Pelton turbine with a directly connected synchronous generator
arrangement is indicated.
A backup diesel generator will be stationed at the Harbor to provide power in the event
of a powerhouse shutdown. The diesel generator will also be used for the new
hovercraft maintenance and storage area at the Harbor. This generator will be sized
with adequate capacity to support not only the hovercraft facility , but the entire harbor
area with provision for future expansion . The ability to transport and store fuel to the
Harbor site makes it an ideal location for the diesel generator. The close proximity to
the load center is also an advantage to this location.
Substation
A small pad-mounted transformer will be installed to step up the generator voltage
(480V or 600V 3-phase) to transmission voltage. The location and construction method
of this transformer will be determined during subsequent design phases of this project.
However, it is anticipated that the transformer and associated pad will be located
adjacent to the powerhouse along the access road.
Power Transmission and Interconnection
It is envisioned that the transmission line will consist of underwater cable(s) starting
from a terminal on shore near the powerhouse and extend around the southwest side of
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 20
the bay to the new Harbor facilities. These facilities are proposed at the west end of the
bay in the intertidal area (Drawing 3). The power is likely to be transmitted to the
City/Trident along a new road (direct buried) from the new Harbor facilities. The
location and construction method of the transmission line will be determined during
subsequent design phases of this project.
To transmit the power generated at the Loud Creek Hydro Plant to the City, several
electrical system components will be required. A step-up substation at Loud Creek
Hydro Plant, a transmission line to the City, and a delivery point at the City's existing
diesel power plant are required.
The step-up substation at Loud Creek will transform the voltage of the generated power
to match the City's existing distribution voltage, 12.4 7 kV grounded wye. This will
facilitate the connection of the transmission line to the City's distribution system without
another transformation.
Due to extreme weather on the Aleutian Chain, the 12.47 kV power transmission line
from Loud Creek to the City will be underground. Several routing options were
considered for the transmission line as described below (see Drawing 14 ):
• Option 1: Routing would begin at the Loud Creek Hydro Plant and run directly
across Akutan Harbor to the City power plant. A submarine power cable would
be utilized for the entire run .
• Option 2 : Routing would begin at Loud Creek Hydro Plant, then enter Akutan
Harbor running underwater following the perimeter of the harbor via submarine
cable to the western side of the existing Trident facilities. Routing would then
proceed on land and run north of the existing Trident facilities and then follow the
existing foot trail east of the Trident facilities to the existing City diesel power
plant. The landward transmission line would utilize conventional underground
cable.
• Option 3 : Routing would follow the same routing as Option 2. In addition to
Option 2, a small segment of the transmission line would exit the harbor for a
short section at the west end of Akutan Harbor where the proposed Harbor dock
facilities will be located. This small land section of the routing would provide
future electric service to the proposed facilities.
• Option 4: Routing would begin at Loud Creek Hydro Plant, then enter Akutan
Harbor running underwater following the perimeter of the harbor via submarine
cable to the west end of Akutan Harbor. The routing would then exit the harbor
onto the land at the proposed Harbor dock facility. The routing would then follow
the future Harbor dock service road to the City diesel power plant utilizing
conventional underground power cable.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 21
• Option 5: Routing is to provide a power feed to the existing Trident facilities from
the City's distribution system. It follows the existing foot trail from the City to the
Trident facilities and would utilize conventional underground cable.
• Option 6: Routing would be completely overland in the upland adjacent to the
high tide line along Akutan Bay . A primitive road would be constructed along the
route for installation and maintenance . The line would travel from Loud Creek to
the proposed dock facilities and then onto Akutan on the proposed road .
During the course of the feasibility study analys is, the C ity requested that options for
delivery of power to the new Harbor facilities as a standalone option be considered.
These options are :
• Option 4a : Routing would begin at the Loud Creek Hydro Plant , then enter
Akutan Harbor running underwater following the perimeter of the harbor via
submarine cable to the Harbor facilities located at the west end of Akutan Harbor.
• Option 6a: Routing would be completely overland in the upland area along
Akutan Bay to the Harbor facilities located on the west end of Akutan Harbor.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 22
En ergy Produ ction
The estimated annual energy production was estimated for the Base Case and
Alternative 1. A brief discussion of the approach , analysis , and projected energy
production is presented in the following paragraphs .
Base Case
For purposes of estimating annual energy production from a hydroelectric project, a
long-term reco rd of average daily stream flows is required . Unfortunately, no such
record exists for Loud Creek. The work done by the DGGS is not a long enough record
to be of use . Data being collected at Loud Creek starting on February 18, 2010 as a part
of this effort will not be available and will still be too short of a record to be of use in the
conceptual design analysis. The available data will be collected in June 2011,
compiled, and submitted under a separate cover. Data collection will continue in order
to provide a complete year of flow data to determine daily and monthly flows .
For this conceptual analysis, the Russell Creek reco rd from October 1995 to October
2009 was utilized . By using the ratio of the drainage areas of the Russell Creek basin
(30.9 square miles) and the Loud Creek basin (above the proposed dam area of .78
square miles), a new record of daily flow was developed to be used for energy
production estimates . Figure 11 shows the daily flows for Lou d Creek developed by
factoring the Russell Creek data .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
C onceptual Design a nd Feasibility Re port Page 23
Loud Creek Calculated Flows
J-95 J-96 D-96 D-97 D-98 D-99 D-00 D-01 D-02 D-03 D-04 D-05 D-06 D-07 D-08 D-09
Date
Figure 11. Loud Creek Ca lculated Flows
In order to develop a detailed power generation model , a computer model of the stream
and pipeline system was constructed using EXCEL software. A daily time-step model
was developed that projects daily energy generation using daily inflows obtained from
the daily average flow data. For each day in the model, inflow at the intake is taken
from the hydrology data. For this analysis, we have assumed that there is no minimum
flow required below the diversion dam . The stream flow is the flow available that day for
power generation. This is then capped at the maximum flow capacity of the turbine,
which is a function of the size of the turbine. Any available flow in excess of plant
capacity would be spilled into Loud Creek at the intake.
For the Base Case, a range of installed capacity was reviewed. An installed capacity of
350 kW (maximum output) appears reasonable given that it yields a plant capacity
factor of 37%, which would be considered a typical run-of-the-river plant factor.
Turbine operation is then modeled , taking into account the available flow, head losses in
the penstock at that flow , and variation in machine efficiency (both turbine and
generator) depending on percent load . Pipeline head losses are calculated at each
daily flow using a pipeline friction equation and a pipeline friction factor head loss
coefficient of 0.014, which is a typical value for steel or HOPE pipe . Daily generation is
calculated , and then generation from each day is added up to provide monthly and
annual total expected gross generation.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 24
However, this total needs to be adjusted for other expected losses. The model allows
the user to make deductions to the gross generation for the following:
• Main transformer and transmission line losses -set at 1 % and 3%, respectively
• P lant outage for planned and unplanned maintenance -set at 3%
• Use of energy for station service (heat, lights , lubrication, cooling & HPU pumps,
controls) -set at 10 kW
The projected generation is then tabulated monthly, annually, and the plant capacity
factor is then calculated .
Table 4 presents the results of the energy production analysis for the Base Case. Based
on this analysis, the project could be expected to produce an average of 1, 132,861 kWh
annually . A more detailed projected monthly generation data for the average water year
(1996) for the Base Case and Alternative 1 is included in Appendix E.
1996 37 %
1997 974 ,576 32%
1998 1,244 ,561 41%
1999 903,900 29%
2000 1,197,077 39%
2001 1,065,179 35%
2002 1,217,384 40%
2003 1 ,081 ,621 35%
2004 1,414 ,624 46%
2005 1,301,905 42%
2006 1, 125,781 37 %
2007 1,140,416 37 %
2008 931 ,915 30 %
Avera e 1, 132,861 37 %
Alternative 1
For Alternative 1, an energy analysis was made for an average year (1996) to
incorporate both drainage areas above the dams (total drainage area 0.78 square
miles). Based on this computation, the installed capacity would increase to 450 kW, the
penstock inside diameter would increase to 18 in after the penstock intersection. The
average annual energy production would increase to 1,548, 100 kWh (approximately
37% greater than the Base Case). The plant capacity factor for this installation was
estimated at 39%.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 25
Permitting
The regu latory agencies that may exert authority over the construction and operation of
the Loud Creek Hydropower Development are discussed in the following paragraphs .
The regulatory authority of each agency and the required perm its and approvals for
construction are presented.
As noted below, the FERC has primary jurisdiction over construction of most
hydropower projects (in addition to other entities). However, on some small projects in
Alaska , the FERC has agreed that certain projects are non-jurisdictional. In those
cases , the State has been the entity that approves the construct ion of a hydroelectric
project. For example , the Nushagak Cooperative i n Dill ingham, Alaska was able to
obtain a declaration of non -jurisdiction because its proposed projects would not be
connected to an inter-state grid ; the project would not be lo cated on federal lands and is
located on a non-navigable river. It is believed that Loud Creek could meet these same
cond itions .
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Under the Federal Power Act, the FERC has been appointed with the authorization and
regulation of the nation 's non -federal hydropower resources . FERC issues three types
of authorizations :
• License -Issued for 30-to 50-year terms and must be renewed each term .
• 5-Megawatt (MW) Exemption -This exemption is issued in perpetuity and must
be located at the site of an existing dam or use a natural water feature without
the construction of impoundments. The applicant must own all lands and
facilities other than federal lands to be eligible .
• Conduit Exemption -This exemption is issued in perpetuity and must use the
potential of a conduit constructed primarily for non-hydropower purpose. The
applicant must own the proposed powerhouse and the lands upon which the
powerhouse will be located . A conduit exemption may not use federal lands .
The Loud Creek Hydropower Development will not qualify for the 5-MW exemption
since a new dam impoundment will be constructed . It also does not qualify for the
conduit exemption since it will be located within a natural stream system . If FERC were
to confirm that they had jurisdiction over the proposed Loud Creek Project, the C ity
would have to apply for a preliminary permit. It may be a candidate for licensing under
the small hydro/low impact expedited licensing process. The City would apply for a
License for the construction and operation of the project using FERC 's Traditional
Licensing Process (TLP) instead of the default Integrated Licens ing Process (ILP). The
TLP requires minimal steps as compared to the ILP process . Once a preliminary perm it
has been received from FERC , the licensing process would begin the same as with the
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Con ceptual Design and Feasibil ity Report Page 26
ILP process; a Notice of Intent (NOi) and pre-application document (PAD) filed with
FERC along with a request to use the TLP. Once FERC approves the use of the TLP ,
the City would proceed under the TLP Process, with some revisions to expedite the
process. This would involve combining scoping of issues with pre-filing consultation
and working with the agencies to expedite their rev iews and set their terms and
conditions early. The following summarizes the FERC application process .
1. First Stage
a. Applicant submits to FERC :
i. Notice of Intent (NOi),
ii. Pre-Application Document (PAD),
iii. Request to use TLP, and
iv. newspaper notice;
b. FERC approves use of TLP ;
c . Applicant conducts joint agency/public meeting and site visit;
d . Resource agencies and tribes provide written comments ; and
e . Agencies , tribes, or applicant request dispute resolution on stud ies with
the FERC .
2. Second Stage
a . Applicant completes reasonable and necessary studies ;
b. Applicant provides draft application and study results (National
Environmental Policy Act) to resource agencies and tribes;
c . Resource agencies and tribes comment on draft application; and
d. Applicant conducts meeting if substantive disagreements exist.
3. Third Stage
a. Applicant files final application with FERC and sends copies to agencies
and tribes.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will require an individual permit
for the construction of a new hydroelectric facility on a jurisdictional water body under
the authorization of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The City will be required to
submit a completed copy of the "Application for Department of the Army Permit" to the
USAGE along with associated engineering drawings showing the design of the project
in relation to jurisdictional water bodies .
A delineation of the high tide line, o rdinary high water (streams) and/or wetlands may be
required to complete the USAGE appl ication and identify the location of jurisdictional
water bodies within the boundary of the project. Also , if the project will impact a
federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat, consultation
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries ' National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) will be required to address these impacts . The preparation of a Biological
Assessment may be required to supplement the USAGE individual permit depend ing on
agency comments and review.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design a nd Feasibility Report Page 2 7
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Dam Safety Program
The Alaska Dam Safety Program does not have jurisdiction over dams that are federally
owned or operated or hydroelectric dams regulated by FERG. If FERG confirms they
have j urisdiction over this hydroelectric project, then the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources does not have regulatory authority on this project fo r dam safety . If during
final design, the dam si z e increases to fall within the Alaska Dam Safety Program
jurisdictional authority, coordination with the state dam safety office should be initiated .
Jurisdictional dams are considered if the dam reservoir exceeds 50 ac re-ft i n volume
and 10 ft in height or any dam 20 ft in height or greater.
Water Rights
The diversion of water from Loud Creek for use in the hydroelectric project will require
appropriate water rights . The Loud Creek drainage is owned by the City as acquired
under 14(c)3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The tidelands from Loud
Creek to the Trident facility are owned by the State of Alaska .
Based on a sea rch , the water rights have not been acquired fo r the project. An
"Application for Water Right" will require comp letion and submittal to the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources .
Alaska State Historic Preservation Office
The Alaska Office of History and Archaeology carries out the responsib ilities of the
State Historic Preservation Office . Section 106 of the National Historic Preservat ion Act
requires review of any project funded, licensed, permitted, or assisted by the federal
government for impacts on significant historic properties. If a project l icense is required
by FERG , the project will require a Section 106 review before a federal permit can be
approved . A review will be conducted by the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology
to determine if cultu ral resources surveys have been previously done in the area. If
cultural resources are present or the potential to discove r unknown sites is high, a
survey may be recommended in the Loud Creek area. This survey will be incorporated
into the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement portion of the
FERG license application.
An archeological survey was carried out for the City in August 2010 . A report, "An
Archaeological Survey of the Hot Springs Valley and Akutan Harbor Energy and Rural
Developments Projects" by Buck Benson and Herbert Maschner (Idaho State
University) documented the results of the survey work performed . The survey included
the portion of Loud Creek basin , which could be affected by the development of a
hydroelectric project. Three previously recorded sites were identified (including the
remains of a 20th century whaling station . All three identified sites can be avoided during
construction and operation of the project.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 28
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Review (Coastal Project Questionnaire)
The State of Alaska uses a coordinated system for agency review and processing of all
resource-related permits required for proposed projects in or affecting coastal areas of
Alaska . This system , called "project consistency review," is based on the Alaska
Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and is designed to improve management of
Alaska's coastal land and water uses. Project proposals are rev iewed to determine the
project's consistency with the standards of the ACMP and enforceable policies of
approved district coastal management programs . Participants in the State's review
process include: the applicant; State resource agencies: Alaska Departments of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), Fish and Game (DFG), and Natural Resources
(DNR); the affected local coastal district; and other interested members of the public.
The Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) will determine State and federal permitting
requirements as well as which State agency will coordinate the consistency review.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has implemented the Alaska
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which meets the standards of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). If the construction of the project will disturb more than one acre of
land, a Construction General Permit will be required along with the development of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulates fish and wildlife species within their
jurisdiction. Based on observations made during the October 2009 site visit,
anadromous fish were not observed in Loud Creek. Furthermore, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game has not identified Loud Creek as an anadromous fish
stream . However, not all the streams in the Akutan region have been mapped, and
subsequently, the absence of information in the fish catalog does not necessarily
indicate that anadromous species are not present. A fish study may be required to
document the presence or lack of fish in Loud Creek to comply with the Alaska DFG
permitting requirements . It has not been confirmed if Loud Creek supports fish
presence or habitat. However, if the project intends to disturb fish species or their
habitat, a Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit will be required.
Local Government
The local regulatory agency for the project is the City; however, there are no local
regulations pertaining to the construction of new dams or hydroelectric projects within
their jurisdictional limits.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 29
Cost Estima tes
Cost estimates were prepared based on the conceptual design details and drawings
presented within this report for the Base Case and Alternative 1. Transmiss ion and
substation costs were estimated for each of the transmission Options 1 through 6 , as
well as the new Harbor only transmission, Options 4a and 6a. These estimates are
considered planning level conceptual cost estimates. More detailed cost estimate
breakdowns are included in Appendix B .
Base Case
Canyon Industries was contacted for a budgetary turbine-generator water-to-wire
equipment price. This package would include a turbine with direct driven synchronous
generator, exciter, turbine inlet valve , switchgear, controls and station service
equipment. The December 2009 estimated price was $500 ,000 which is Freight on
Board (FOB) Bellingham , WA and does not include shipping, offloading, installation, or
startup assistance.
It is expected that a pre-engineered powerhouse metal building 30-ft by 30-ft would be
adequate to house the turbine-generator, auxiliary equipment, and switchgear as well
as provide adequate room for an ATV and snowmobile . This building size would be
adequate for either the Base Case or Alternative 1.
A reinforced concrete foundation will be required for the turbine-generator equipment,
building structure (footings) and tail race pit. The estimated cost for this component is
approximately $180,000 .
The penstock will be a 16-inch ID running in an excavated 5-foot trench for
approximately one mile . The maximum static pressure is calculated to be 220 psi . The
pipe would be transported by barge to the site. Installation would require trenching,
production and placement of backfill , and restoration of the surface to prevent eros ion .
The Base Case dam construction includes the primary embankment on the East Fork,
the outlet works, and associated erosion control. For the purpose of preparing cost
estimates , the dam was assumed to consist of compacted earthfill with a seepage cutoff
wall , a vertical riser, and a rock riprap open channel spillway .
Alternative 1
The water-to-wire equipment price for Alternative 1 is expected t o increase to $645 ,000
based on the Canyon Industries estimate . This cost does not include shipping ,
offloading , installation , or startup assistance.
It is assumed that the same building for the Base Case will be acceptable for Alternative
1.
Loud Cree k Hydropower Development
Con ceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 30
A reinforced concrete foundation will be required for the turbine-generator equipment ,
building structure (footings) and tailrace pit.
For Alternative 1, the lower part of the penstock would increase from a 16 to an 18-inch
inside diameter (from the point of the intersection of the two separate penstocks from
each dam to the powerhouse). The upper part of the penstock would split and supply
water from the two dams . The length of the penstock from the West Fork Dam to the
intersection of the main penstock from the East Fork Dam is approximately 950 ft and
would be sized for 7 cfs, resulting in a calculated inside diameter of 16 in.
Both the East Fork and West Fork dams will consist of compacted earthfill with a
seepage cutoff wall, a vertical riser, and a rock riprap protected open channel spillway.
Transmission and Substation Costs
Transmission and substation costs were provided by EPS . A number of transmission
alternatives were considered as part of this study . The costs are presented in Table 5.
Additional cost breakdowns for the transmission and substation cost estimates are
presented In Appendix B.
Table 5
Power Transmission and Substation Costs
Onshore Submarine Total
Item Description Cable Cable Estimated Length Length
(miles) (miles) Cost
Loud Creek Step -Up Substation, 500 kVA w/ Recloser at
Loud Creek and at Akutan Power House N/A N/A $352,600
Option 1 -Loud Creek to Akutan -Directly Crossing Harbor
-All Submarine cable N/A 0.90 $1 ,364 ,400
Option 2 -Loud Creek to Akutan -Following shoreline to
Trident and onshore to Akutan 0.70 3.20 $5,022,000
Option 3 -Similar to Option 2 with onshore portion at
proposed dock facilities 0.90 3.10 $4 ,994 ,800
Option 4 -Loud Creek to Akutan -Submarine from Loud
Creek to proposed dock facilities then onshore URD
followinQ proposed road to Akutan Power House 2.80 1.70 $4,226,100
Option 4a -Loud Creek to Harbor -Submarine from Loud
Creek to new Harbor -1.70 $2 ,750 ,200
Option 5 -Akutan Power House to Existing Trident
Facilities 0 .50 0.00 $268 ,200
Option 6 -Loud Creek to Akutan -Overland URD from
Loud Creek to proposed dock facilities then onshore URD
foll owinQ proposed road to Akutan Power House 4 .80 -$4 ,086 ,700
Option 6a -Loud Creek to Harbor -Overland URD from
Loud Creek to proposed dock facilities 2 .00 0 .00 $1 ,915,000
Notes : 1) Options 4a and 6a were developed to illustrate a power supply to the new Harbor facilities
should this supply option be exercised . Option 4a provides a submarine routing while Option 6a is
an overland route .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 31
Basis of Transmission Cost Estimates
Loud Creek Hydro Plant Substation
• Install 500 1-0/A 480/12.5 kV step-up transformer at Loud Creek Powerhouse
• Utilize 3-phase recloser at Loud Creek and at Akutan powerhouse for cable
termination and line protection.
• Provide oil containment for transformer
• Assume 25 ft by 25 ft area for transformer, recloser, and ground grid
• Control and interface of hydro to diesel plant not in estimate
12.5 KV Sub-Transmission line
• 12.47 1-01 line construction
• De livery to the existing City diesel power plant via new recloser placed to
intercept an existing main feeder at City power plant.
• #2 Cu 15 kV Power Cable, -1800 KVA ultimate power line capacity
• Sectionalizing enclosures included at 900 ft intervals on land cable installations
General
• 20% contingency included on all project costs .
• No Right-of-Way or Permits are included in estimate
• Construction Equipment is assumed to be shipped to Akutan . The rental or use
of this construction equipment has been included in the cost estimates.
D iesel Generator Set
The new Harbor facility would require a power supply in case the hydroelectric project
has an outage or its output is insufficient to fully power the Harbor facility (assuming the
new Harbor is not interconnected to the City generating plant). The cost for this diesel
generator set is not included in the hydroelectric project cost estimate . A diesel
gene rator set of 300 kW installed capacity would cost on the order of $500,000
including fuel tanks.
Evaluation
The 6 basic transmission options represent feasible routings for delivering power
generated at the Loud Creek Hydro Plant to the City . Option 1, Loud Creek to Akutan
using a submarine cable, is the shortest distance from the proposed powerhouse to the
City, as well as the lowest cost. The submarine routing presents significant risk due to
the potential for ships anchors damaging the submarine cable , as well as interrupting
power service from Loud Creek . For this reason, Option 1 was eliminated from furthe r
consideration .
Options 2 and 3 have the highest cost and consist of a comb ination of submarine
routings and land based route from the Trident facilities to the City. Though feasible
these options have a higher cost and more challenging routing than proposed with
Options 4 and 6.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 32
The primary difference between Options 4 and 6 is that the first leg of the transmission
line from the Loud Creek powerhouse to the new Harbor facilities is submarine with
Option 4 and overland with Option 6. The second leg of the transmission line would
follow the proposed road from the new Harbor to the Akutan powerhouse. Considering
the challenging access and protected nature of the shoreline along the south shore of
the Akutan Bay, Option 4 was selected as the recommended transmission option .
Option 4a was developed at the City's request to identify the cost associated with
delivering power to the new Harbor facilities only.
Option 4 and 4a were carried forward to determine the cost of power for the Base Case
and Alternative 1 power generation arrangements.
Summary of Construction and Development Costs
Table 6 presents the estimated project costs for the power generation Base Case and
Alternative 1 arrangements. Each power generation alternative was coupled with the
recommended transmissions Option 4 as outlined in the previous section. The Harbor
only transmission, Option 4a, was provided for consideration as requested by the City.
The cost estimate included engineering and permitting costs set at 8% of the
construction costs . It is assumed that construction management of the project will be
performed by the City with some engineering assistance during start-up. Construction
cost estimates (dams, penstock, and the transmission system etc.) include a 30%
contingency. See Appendix B for more detailed information on the cost estimates.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 33
Table 6
Project Costs
Task Base Case Alternative 1
Option 4 '} Option 4a"i Option 4' Option 4a"
Turbine -Generator Equipment $1,040,000 $1 ,040,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Dam Construction $320,000 $320,000 $640 ,000 $640,000
Penstock(s) $700,000 $700,000 $950,000 $950 ,000
Powerhouse Foundations $180,000 $180,000 $180 ,000 $180,000
Powerhouse Building $162,000 $162,000 $162,000 $162,000
Misc. Powerhouse Equipment $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000
Roads I Do ck $310 ,000 $310,000 $380,000 $380,000
Substation $353,000 $353,000 $353,000 $353,000
Transmission $4,226,000 $2,750,000 $4,226,000 $2,750,000
Trident or Harbor
Interconnection $270,000 $270,000 $270,000 $270,000
Freiqht ($50,000/ba rqe) $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000
Construction Management I
Startup $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Subtotal $7,691,000 $6,215,000 $8,631,000 $7 ,155,000
Engineerinq and Permittinq (8%) $615,280 $497,200 $690,480 $572,000
Total $8,306,280 $6,712,200 $9,321,480 $7,724,400
Notes: 1) Transmission Option 4 consists of submarine cable (intertidal burial) around the perimeter of Akutan Bay
to the new Harbor facilities, then exit to follow the future Harbor dock service road to the City diesel power
plant utilizing conventional underground power cable.
2) Transmission Option 4a consists of submarine cable (intertidal burial) around the perimeter of Akutan Bay
to the new Harbor facilities . This is a Harbor only transmission line .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 34
Cost of Power
Overall, the cost of power could vary depending on the operations and maintenance
(O&M) cost and the project cost. Presently energy generated at the Town Creek plant
(100% diesel generation), as reported in the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) forms, is
produced for approximately 0.66 $/kWh . Cost of energy to residents, due to PCE, is
presently 0.32 $/kWh. It should be noted that PCE is an issue to be considered, as PCE
for hydroelectric generation would not be available. At other projects, the State has
agreed to phase PCE out over time to minimize the impact.
O&M costs include pe rsonnel, management, insurance, debt service (if applicable),
contracted maintenance, replacement of spares , etc. The cost of O&M could range
widely depending on financing and the other costs listed above . For the purposes of this
report , it has been assumed that O&M costs will be approximately $100,000 per year
including labor, equipment , equipment, parts, and overhead.
The cost of power was estimated for the Base Case and Alternative 1 power generation
arrangements. The recommended transmission Option 4, as well as the Harbor only
transmission Option 4a, were coupled with the power generation alternatives to provide
a total system cost comparison . Table 7 presents a summary of the cost of power for
these power generation and transmission combinations, see Appendix F for
calculations. As shown on Table 7, Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative delivering
power at the lowest cost considering both transmission Options 4 and 4a. Cost of
power, assuming no subsidies or grants, is still less than energy produced by diesel at
the Town Creek plant. Of course, the cost of production by diesel generation is
expected to climb in the long term, whereas cost of power produced by a hydroelectric
facility will not significantly increase over time. Once the debt from the hydropower
facility is retired, the cost of power would dramatically decrease.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 35
Table 7
Cost of Power
Base Case Alternative 1
Description Ootion 4 '1 Option 4a"1 Option 4 '1 Option 4a"1
Capital Cost $8,306,280 $6,712,200 $9,321,480 $7,727,400
Financing 100% 100% 100% 100%
Debt $8,306,280 $6,712,200 $9,321,480 $7,727,400
Term (years) 30 30 30 30
Interest Rate 6% 6 % 6% 6%
Annual P&I ($603,442) ($487,641) ($677, 195) ($561 ,387)
Annual O&M ($100,000) ($100,000) ($100 ,000) ($100 ,000)
Annual Energy Production (kWh) 1, 132,861 1, 132,86 1 1,548,100 1,548,100
Annual Cost of Power $/kWh) -0.62 -0.52 -0.50 -0.43
Notes: 1) Transm 1ss1on Opti on 4 consists of submarine cable (intertidal burial) around the perimeter of Akutan Bay
to the new Harbor facil ities, then exit to follow the futu re Harbor dock service road to the City diesel power
plant utilizing conventional underground powe r cable.
2) Transmission Option 4a consists of submarine cable (intert ida l burial) around the perimeter of Akutan Bay
to the new Harbor facilities. This is a Harbor only transmission option.
The cost of power generated by the Loud Creek Hydropower system was compared to
the cost of other power generated on Akutan . As illustrated in Table 8 Trident's
generation facilities would be expected to generate power at a significantly lower cost
than the Loud Creek hydropower facility. This would suggest that Trident would be
more likely to generate their own power rather than buy more expensive power from the
Loud Creek project.
Generation Source
Diesel Generators
Akutan Geothermal Pro"ect
High Efficiency Diesel Generators (at a rate of 14.5
kWh/ al
Tridents Self Generation
Loud Creek Base Case -Transmission 0 tion 4
Loud Creek Base Case -Transmission 0 tion 4a
Loud Creek Alternative 1 -Transmission 0 tion 4
Loud Creek Alternative 1 -Transmission 0 tion 4a
Low Unit Power
Cost $/kWh
0 .20
0.65
NA
0 .50
0.21
0.62
0.52
0.50
0.43
High Unit Power
Cost $/kWh
NA
1.01
NA
0.77
0.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
A significant issue associated with the development of the Loud Creek Hydropower
Development has been that it can generate more energy than Akutan has historically
used. As noted above, the project could generate between 1, 132,861 and 1,548, 100
kWh annually depending on the configuration . The City is presently selling less than
500,000 kWh annually . The new Harbor area is anticipated to consume the power levels
as shown in Table 9.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 36
Table 9
Anticipated Power Consumption . . . Power
Consumer kWh/ ear
Harbor 1, 150,000
Harbor Residences 60,000
Hovercraft Fac ilit 11 ,000
Resorts 150,000
Commercial Buildin s 150,000
Restaurants 250,000
WWTF 132,000
Total 1,903,000
Reference: Information Insights . 2010. Akutan Geot hermal Dev elopment
Project Geothermal Energy Demand & Stakeholder Assessment. January, 2010.
The anticipated amount of power consumption identified in Table 9 exceeds the level of
power produced in both the Base Case and Alternative 1. However, there are several
other energy projects proposed for Akutan that may provide the harbor area with
energy.
The Loud Creek hydropower project could deliver power to the City at, or below, the
City's current cost of power using diesel generation. The Loud Creek project cost of
power would be expected to be more cost effective when considering expected diesel
cost increases.
As shown on Table 8 , the Trident self-generation cost is significantly less than the Loud
Creek hydropower project. It is believed that Trident would be more likely to generate its
own power rather than buy more expensive power from the Loud Creek project.
Without the sale of power to Trident and/or utilization of Loud Creek power at the new
Harbor, power delivered to the City from Loud Creek would likely exceed the demand
for the foreseeable future, particularly if the Town Creek hydropower system becomes
fully operational.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 37
Pr oject Schedule
A project co nstruction schedule has been developed to illustrate the earliest date the
project could be complete and producing energy. There are many factors involved in
construction of a hydroelectric project. Of primary concern is obtaining the necessary
permits and approvals for the construction work. Based on observations made during
the October 2009 site visit, anadromous fish were not observed in Loud Creek .
Furthermo re, the Alaska DFG has not identified Loud Creek as an anadromous fish
stream. However, not all the streams in the Akutan region have been mapped , and
subsequently, the absence of information in the fish catalog does not necessarily
indicate that anadromous species are not present. It is likely that the regulatory
agencies will require fish studies to support the reported lack of anadromous fish in
Loud C reek.
For this schedule, it has been assumed that permits for construction could be obtained
within 12 months. It has been assumed that a FERG licensing process will not be
requi red and the required permits can be readily obtained from other State of Alaska
and Federal agencies . The overall permitting effort could range from 12 months to 18
months in duration depending on t he final configuration of the Loud Creek hydropower
development.
Some project components involve a long lead time to produce , including the turbine-
generator equipment and the submarine cable for the project. For these components,
the date the equipment is o rdered is on the critical path for project completion. It is
possible to order the turbine-generator equipment fairly early as soon as the Owner is
comfortable with obtaining permits for the construction of the project.
Construction work in the Aleutian Islands , is normally performed during summer and
early fa ll. The work execution would have to be sequenced to complete the access
road, dam, penstock, and powerhouse building construction during the summer and fall
months . Work within the powerhouse could continue through the winter months
including final electrical , piping , controls, and finish work .
The project schedule is presented in Appendix C. The schedule indicates that the
project could be operational within approximately 3 years following notice to proceed.
The environmental and permitting schedule would set the critical path on the overall
project t imeline .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conc eptual Design and Feasibil ity Report Page 38
Conclu sions and Final Recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the technical analys is and findings of this study, the Loud Creek hydropower
project is determined to be feasible . Alternative 1 is the recommended altern ative
consisting of new diversion dams on the East and West Forks of Loud Creek , a design
flow of approximately 15 cfs delivered to a new powerhouse via an 18 inch diameter
penstock, new powerhouse w ith a single 350 KW Pelton Wheel turbine , loading dock,
and primitive access road to the diversion dams . Option 4 was the recommended
transmission routing consisting of a submarine cable buried with an intertida l zone from
the Loud Creek powerhouse to the new Harbor facilities . At this point , the transmission
line will exit the harbor and continue landward following the future Harbor dock access
road to the existing Akutan diesel power generation facil ities .
The recommended Alternative 1 coupled with transmission Opt ion 4 has an estimated
project cost of $9,321,480 and a cost of power of $.50 per kWh . Alternative 1 is
anticipated to generate a total of 1,548 , 100 kWh annually. Considering a transmission
Opt ion 4a which delivers power to only the new Harbor facilities combined with
A lternative 1 power generation arrangement has an estimated project cost of
$7 ,724,400 and a cost of power for $0.43 per kWh. The reduced length and cost of the
transmission line results in an approximate project cost savings of $1 ,597,000 and
$0 .07 per kWh cost of power reduction .
The Loud Creek power could be delivered at or below the current cost of power using
diesel generation . The Loud Creek power cost would be significantly higher than
Trident's existing self generation cost. It is likely that Trident would generate its own
power rather than buy more expensive power from the Loud Creek project. Without the
sale of power to Trident and/or utilization of Loud Creek power at the new Harbor,
power delivered from Loud Creek directly to the village would exceed demand for the
foreseeable future, particularly if the Town Creek hydropower system becomes fully
operational.
Recommendations
As a result of the study analysis, the City requested that the study team evaluate a
"standalone" alternative for the new Harbor. The combination of Alternative 1 power
generation and Option 4a power transmission from the Loud Creek powerhouse to the
new Harbor represents the standalone alternative. The estimated $0.43 per kWh would
be s ignificantly lower than a diesel power generation alternative at the Harbor. As a
result, the st andalone combination of Alternative 1 power generation coupled with
Option 4a power transm ission to the Harbor only is the recommended alternative .
Lo ud Cree k Hydropower Development
Co nceptual Design an d Feasibility Report Page 39
The following work elements are recommended as the project moves to the next phase :
1) The conceptual business and operations plan requ ired under AEA Phase II
milestones should be completed along with a business case analysis that
addresses the cost of diesel, power purchase agreements , projected revenues ,
and the non-monetary benefits of the project. The following work elements are
sequential and would be dependent on completing the business plan .
2) More comprehensive evaluation to define the permits that will be required as well
as any required environmental studies in support of those permits . It is
recommended that a declaration from FERC of non-jurisdiction be obtained as
soon as possible because the FERC licensing process takes a very long time
(typically years). It is also recommended that initial agency contact be made as
soon as possible to better define permit requirements , time line and any s tudy
requirements .
3) Additional engineering work will be required to define requirements to coordinate
the operation of Loud Creek hydropower development with the Town Creek
project if the projects are interconnected . Specifically this will include analyzing
the power requirements of the City and the power production potential of the
Loud Creek and Town Creek projects .
4) Water rights need to be obtained for the project
5) A geotechnical investigation needs to be performed along the proposed road ,
pipeline , and dam to determine the quantity of fill material and final costs for the
buried pipeline , dam foundation and construction methods , and overall
geotechnical design recommendat ions
6) A topographic survey of the project area needs to be completed for the
subsequent design phases of the project.
7) An analysis of the proposed energy projects on Akutan should be performed to
identify the amount of energy that could be potentially produced. As part of this
analysis, potential users should be contacted to help determine future energy
requ irements for the Harbor, Trident, and the City .
8) Coordination with Trident should be performed regarding their desire to purchase
excess energy generated from , the project (if interconnection is desired).
The following tabulates the recommended tasking identified above with a cost estimate
for the next project phase.
Loud Creek Hydropower De velopment
Con c eptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 40
Table 10
Proposed Tasking Cost Estimates
Task Cost Estimate
Permitting Assistance $100,000
Town Creek/Loud Creek
Enqineerinq Coordination (if needed) $10 ,000
Water and Land R ights To Be Determ ined
Geotechnical lnvestiqation $30,000
Topoqraphi c Survey In-Progress
Akutan Enemv Pro ject Analysis $30,000
Coordination with Trident $5 ,000
Note that significant engineering work will be requ.ired to advance the design of the
project to the point that all permits can be obta ined and construction contracts can be
awarded . The permitting assistance cost identified above is part of the estimated
engineering/permitting costs included in the cost estimate shown in Table 1 O.
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conceptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 41
References
Carrick, Stan and Ireland, Roy, Summary of Streamflow Data for the Akutan Area,
Unimak A-6 Quadrangle, Alaska, October 1989 .
Dam Safety and Construction Unit, Water Resources Section, Division of Mining , Land,
and Water; Alaska Department of Natural Resources , June 2005, "Guidelines for
Corporation with the Alaska Dam Safety Program ", July 2005 .
FEMA, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Selecting and Accommodat ing Inflow
Des ign Floods for Dams , April 2004.
Glisten Associates , Akutan Airport Marine Access Study, prepared for HOR Alaska Inc,
July 2005.
HOR/OTT Engineering , Inc, Akutan Hydroelectric Feasibility Study , Final Report,
prepared for Alaska Energy Authority, June 1990.
Information Insights, Akutan Geothermal Development Project, Geothermal Energy
Demand & Stakeholder Assessment, prepared for City of Akutan , January 2010 .
USAGE, "Hydrogeology of Proposed Harbor Site at Head of Akutan Bay", Akutan
Island, Alaska, August 2001 .
USBR, Design of Small Dams , Revised Ed it ion 1977.
USGS, Geology of Akutan Island, A laska, 1998 .
U.S . Department of Commerce, Technical Paper No. 47, Probable Maximum
Precipitation and Rainfall-Frequency Data for Alaska .
Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Conc eptual Design and Feasibility Report Page 42
APPENDIX A
DRAWINGS
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
0
I 0
tJ
UNALASKA\ .•
4
"
~~~\_
' AKUTAN
LOCATION MAP
NTS
,e-.. 6/1 /11 MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
Al\ 3/30/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
/A\ 2/26/ 10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
~ANCHORAGE
WARNING
0 1/2 1
IF TI-115 BAA DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 ~ THEN ORAW1NG
IS NOT TO SCAil.£..
VIC INITY MAP
NTS
MCMILLEN, LLC
14-01 SHORELINE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE. ID 83702
omcE: 208.J.42.4214
FAX; 208.342.4216
owe
ND.
3
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
DRAWING INDEX
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION MAP, VICIN ITY MAP. AND DRAWING IN DEX
STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
GENERAL SITE PLAN
DESIGN CRITERIA
SITE PLAN -BASE CASE
SITE PLAN -ALTERNATIVE 1
TYPICAL DAI.I PLAN ANO SECTIONS
DAM PENSTDCK SECTION
ROAf'JWAY DETAILS
PIPELINE PLAN. PROFILE, ANO DETAILS -BASE CASE
PIPELINE PLAN. PROFILE. ANO DETAILS -ALTERNATIVE 1
POWERHOUSE FOUNDATION PLAN AND SECTIONS
POWERHOUSE GENERATOR PLAN ANO SECTION
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTING OPTIONS
1-----------C-ITY __ o_F_A_K_u_T_A_N_, _A_LA_s_K_A _________ -i DESIGNED D. AXNESS
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
1--------------------------------t DRAWN R. WOOD
LOCATION MAP, VICINITY MAP,
AND DRAWING INDEX
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSU ED DATE 6/1 /11
DRAWING
1
SCALE; AS NOTED
&
1/0
AMP
ABBREV
AC
ACI
AODL
AlSC
Al.JG
ALM
ALT
ALUM
ANG
APPROX
ARCH
AS
ASD
ASS'f
AllfO
AUX
AVG
B/W
BKR
BL
BLDG
BM
BOF
BOP
BOT
BRG
BRGP
BS
BTU
c
CA
CAIR
CAV
Cr::H
CF
CFS
CHO
CHEM
CIP
CJ
CL cw
CLR
CMP
CMU
CNTL co
COL
CONC
CONN
CONST
CONT
CONTD
COORD
CP
CPVC
CSK
CTR
CTRL
cu
CULV
OJ
r::H
CY
D
OBL
DEG
DEG F
DEMO
DIA
DIAG
DIM
DIV
DL
DUP
DWG(S)
E
EA
Ef
EGL
EJ
EL
EMBD
ENGR
EOP
EOUIP
EOUl\I
ES
J6. 6/1/11
..!}, 3/30/10
IA 2/2s/10
REV DATE
AND
OPEN-CLOSE
AMPERE
ABBREVIATION
ASPHALT CONCRETr
AMERICAN CONCRETE INTERNATIONAL
AODITTONAL
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL
CONSTRUCTION
ALIGNMENT
ALARM
ALTERNATE
ALUMINUM
ANGLE
APPROXIMATE
ARCHITECTURE
AIR SUPPLY
ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN
ASSEMBLY
AUTOMATIC
AUXILIARY
AVERAGE
BACK OF WALL
BREAKER
BASELINE
BUILDING
BENCHWIRK, BEAM
BOTTOM OF FOOTING
BOTTOM/BEGINNING OF PIPE
BOTTOM
BfARING
BfARING PLATE
BOTH SIDES
BRITISH THERMAL UNfT
CONOUfT
COMPRESSED AIR
COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM
CONTINUOUS ACTING AIR VALVE
COUNTER CLOCKWISE
CUBIC Fro' (FOOT)
CUBIC Fro' PER SECOND
CHORD
CHEMICAL
CAST IN PLACE
CONSTRUCTION JOINT
CENTERLINE, CLASS, CLOSE
COllTROL JOINT
CLEAR
CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
CONCRETr MASONRY UNIT
CONTROL
CLEAN OUT, CONCRETr OPENING
COLUMN
CONCRETr
CONNECTION
CONSTRUCTION
CONTINUOUS
CONTINUED
COORDINATE
COllTROL POINT
CHLORINATED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
COUNTERSINK
CENTER
CONTROL
CUBIC
CULVERT
VALVE. CONTROL
CLOCKWISE
CUBIC YARD
ORAN
DOUBLE
DEGREE
DEGREE FAHRENHEIT
OEMOLITTON
DIAMETER
DIAGONAL. DIAGRAM
DIMENSION
DMSION
DEAD LOAO
DUPLICATE
ORAWING(S)
EAST, ELECTRICAL (OWG DISCIPLINE)
EACH
EACH FACE
ENERGY GRADE LINE
EXPANSION JOINT
ELBOW. ELEVATION
EMBED OED
ENGINEER
END OF PIPE
EQUIPMENT
EQUIVALENT
EACH SIDE, EQUAL SPACE
EW
EXC
EXT
FAS
FB
FON
FF
FG
FlG
FLG
FLR
FOC
FOW
FPS
FlPT
FT
FTG
FW
G
GA
GA
GAL
GALV
GPM
GR
GVL
HOPE
HEX
HGL
HP
HSS
HTR
HVAC
HWL
HYO
HZ
l&C
IBC
ID
IE
IF
INCL
INSTR
INV
IRR
ISO
JB
JCT
JF
JT
KIP
KO
KV
KW
KWH
LB
LF u
UH
UV
LONG
LT
LTD
LTG
LV
LWL
MA
MAINT
MAN
MAS
MAX
MECH
MCC
MED
MFR
MH
Ml
MIN
MISC
MJ
MOD
MON
MPT
MSL
mv
MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
BY DESCRIPTION
EACH WAY
EXCAVATION
EXTERIOR, EXTERNAL, EXTENSION
FABRICATE
FLAT BAR
FOUNCATION
FlN ISHEO FLOOR
FlNISHED GRADE
FlGURE
FLANGE, FLANGED
FLOOR
FACE OF CONCRm
FACE OF WAU
Fro' PER SECOND
FEMALE PIPE lHREAD
FOOT/Fro'
FOOTING, ITTTING
FlELD WELD
GAS
GAGE (METAL THICKNESS)
GAGE, GAUGE
GALLON
GALVANIZED
GALLONS PER MINUTE
GRADE
GRAVEL
HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
HEXAGONAL
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE
HORSEPOWER
HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SHAPE
HEATER
HEATING, VENT ILATION, & AIR
CONOITTONING
HIGH WATER LEVEL
HYDRANT
HERTZ (CYCLES PER SECOND)
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL
ll'ITERNATIONAL BU ILDING CODE
INSIDE (OR INTERNAL) DIAMETER
INYffiT ELEVATION
INSIDE FACE
INCLUDE, INCLUDING
INSTRUMENTATION
INVERT
IRRIGATION
ISOMETRIC
JUNCTION BOX (J-BOX)
JUNCTION
JOINT FlUER
JOINT
KIP (1000 POUNDS)
KNOCK OUT
KILOVOLTS
KILOWATTS (REAL POWER)
KILOWATT HOUR
POUND
LINEAR FOOT
LIVE LOAD
LONG LEG HORIZONTAL
LONG LEG VERTICAL
LONGITUDINAL
LEFT
LIMITED
LIGHTING
LOUVER
LOW WATER LEVEL
MIUIAMPERES
MAINTENANCE
MANUAL
MASONRY
MAXIMUM
MECHANICAL
MOTOR CONTROL CENTER
MEDIUM
MANUFACT1JRER
MANHOLE
MILE
MINIMUM
MISCELLANEOUS
MECHANICAL JOINT
MODIFY
MONUMENT
MALE PIPE THREAD
MEAN SEA LEVEL
MIUl\IOLTS
N
N/A
NC
NEG
NO
No.
NOM
NPS
NPSH
NPT
NRS
NTS
O&M
QC
OD
OF
OF
OPNG
OPT
ORIG
OUT
OVHG
OWSJ oz
p
PA
PAR
PC
PCC
PCF
PCT
PED
PEN
PERF
PERM
PERP
PH
Pl
PL
PLC
PN
PNL
PREFAB
PRELIM
PREP
PRES
PRV
PSF
PSI
PSIA
PSIG
PT
PVC
P'IMT
Q
QTY
R
RCP
RCP
REINF
REM
REQD
RET
REV
ROW
RPM
RS
RT
s
SAN
SCH
SCH EM
SID
SEC
SECT
SF
SHT
SLTD
SN soc
SPA
SPEC
so
SS
STA
STD
STIR
STL
STLG
STOR
SUSP
SW
SWPPP
SY
ABBREVIATIONS
NORTH, NMRAL
NOT APPLICABLE
NORMAUY CLOSED
NEGATIVE
NORMAUY OPEN
NUMBER
NOMINAL
NOMINAL PIPE SIZE
NET POSITTVE SUCTION HEAD
NATIONAL PIPE lHREAD
NON-RISING STEM
NOT TO SCAILE
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
ON CEl'ITER
OUTSIDE DIAMETER
OUTSIDE FACE
OVER FL Ow
OPENING
OPTIONAL
ORIGINAL
OllfLET
OVERHANG
OPEN WEBBED STEEL JOISTS
OUNCE
PIJMP
ACTUATOR, PNEUMATIC
PARAUEL
POINT OF CURVE. PRECAST
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT
PERCENT
PEDESTAL
PENETRATION
PERFORATED
PERMANENT
PERPENDICULAR
PHASE
POINT OF ltm'RSECTION
PLATE, PROPERTY LINE
PROGRAMMABLE LCJGIC
CONTROLLER
PNEUMATIC
PANEL
PREFABRICATED
PRELIMINARY
PREPAIRE
PRESSURE
VALVE. PRESSURE RELIEF OR
REDUCING
POUNDS PER SQUAIR[ FOOT
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
ABSOLUTE
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH GAUGE
POINT. POINT OF TANGENCY
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
PAVEM ENT
RATE OF FLOW
QUANTITY
RADIUS
RECEPTICLE
PIPE. REINFORCED CONCRETE
REINFORCE/REINFORCED
REMOVE
REQUIRED
RET>JNING
REVISION
RIGllT OF WAY
REVOLUTIONS PER MINllfE
RISING STEM
RIGllT
SOUTH
SANITARY
SCHEDULE
SCHEMATIC
DRAIN STORM
SECONDARY, SECONDS
SECTION
SQUARE FOOT /FEET
SHEET
SLOTTED
SNOW LOAD
SLAB ON GRADE
SPACING
SPECIFICATION
SQUARE
STAINLESS STEEL
STATION, STAIR
STANDARD
STIRRUP
STEEL
STOPLCJG
STORAGE
SUSP ENDED
WATER. SERVICE
STORMWATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION PLAN
SQUARE YARD
WARNING
SYM
SYMM
SYS
T&B
TBM
TOH
TEMP
TK
TMTR
TO OPNG
TOB
TOC
TOCMU
TOCOL
TOD
TOF
TOG
TOL
TOM
TOP
TOPO
TOS
TOW
TP
TYP
USC
UFC
UG
UHMW
ULT
UNO
UPC
UPS
UTIL
v
VA
VAC
VAR
VC
voe
VEL
VERT
VFD
VOL
VPC
VPI
VPT
I/SD
w
W/
W/O
WLD ws
WT
WWF
XMFR
XSEC
YD
0 1/2 1
---I IF THIS 84R DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 ~ THEN ORAWlNG
IS NOT TO SCALE.
SYMBOL
SYMMETRICAL
SYSTEM
TOP AND BOTTOM
TEMPORARY BENCHMARK
TOTAL DYNAMIC HEAD
TEMPORARY
TANK
lHERMOMETER
TOP OF OPENING
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF CONCRETE
TOP OF CMU
TOP OF COLUMN
TOP OF OUCT
TOP OF FOOTING
TOP OF GRATING
TOLERANCE
TOP OF MASONRY
TOP OF PLATE/PIPE
TOPCJGRAPHIC
TOP OF SLAB/STEEL
TOP OF WALL
TELEPHONE POLE
TYPICAL
UNIFORM BUILDING COOE
UNI FO RM FlRE CODE
UNDERGROUND
ULTA HIGH MOLECULAR
WEIGHT
ULTIMATE
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
UNINTERRUPTED POWER
SUPPLY
UTILITY
VALVE, VAULT, VENT, VOLT(S)
VOLT AMPERE
VACUUM, VOLTS ALTERNATING
CURRENT
VARIES, VARIABLE
VERTICAL CURVE
VOLTS DIRECT CURRENT
VELOCITY
VERTICAL
VARIABLE FREOUENCY DRl\IE
VOLUME
VERTICAL POINT OF CURVATURE
VERTICAL POINT OF INTERSECTION
VERTICAL POINT OF TANGENCY
VARIABLE SPEED DRIVE
WEST. WIRE. WASTE
WITH
WITHOUT
WELDED
WATER SURFACE, WATER SUPPLY
WEIGllT, WATERTIGllT
WELDED WIRE FABRIC
TRANSFORMER
CROSS SECTION
YARD
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHORELINE OR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, ID 83702
OFFlCE: 208.~2.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
GENERAL NOTES:
1. SCOPE OF WORK : THESE DRAWINGS WERE DEVELOPED AS
PART OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ALTERNATIVES TO
DELIVER POWER SUPPLY TO THE CITY OF AJ<UTAN FROM
LOUD CREEK. THE INFORMATION PRESENTED WITHIN
THESE DRAWINGS IS CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL AND
INTENDED FOR GENERAL PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
2. THESE ABBREVIATIONS APP LY TO THE ENTIRE SET OF
CONTRACT DRAWINGS.
3. LISTING OF ABBREVIATIONS DOES NOT IMPLY ALL
ABBREVIATIONS ARE LISED IN THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS. .
4. ABBREVIATIONS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET INCLUDE VARIATIONS
OF THE WORD. FOR EXAMPLE, •Moo• MAY MEAN MODIFY OR
MODI FlCATION: "INC" MAY MEAN INCLUD ED OR INCLUDING;
"REINF• MAY MEAN EITHER REINFORCE OR REINFORCING.
5. SCREENING OR SHADING OF WORK IS USED TO IN DICATE
EXISTING COMPONENTS OR TO DE-EMPHASIZE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS TO HIGHLIGHT SELECTED TRADE WORK. REFER
TO CONTEXT OF EACH SHEET FOR USAGE.
PLAN
SHEET SYMBOLS
PLAN NORTH
ARROW INDICATIEs~N DIRECTION OF
SCALE : 1/2"= 1'-0"
SECTION IDENTIFICATION
(1) SECTION CUT ON DRA\\1NG C102:
L ~~f~~N
-~DRAWING WHERE
SECTION IS DRAWN
(2) ON DRAWING C1Q3 lHIS SECTION IS IDENTIFIED AS:
d SECTION
LETIER C:l="CTION A ~S~C=AL~EL:Ll~/~2~._'--,.-_-0~.----f...,.~C~D::-13
\.._DRA\\1NG WHERE
DETAIL OCCURS'
DETAIL IDENTIFICATION
(1) DETAIL CAU-OIJT ON DRAWING C102: ~G~~~R
1
C102
/ -----
I I DRAWING l'IHERE
I I DETAIL IS SHOWN
I I , _____ /
(2) ON DRA\\1NG C103 lHIS SECTION IS IDENTIFlED AS:
DETAIL
NUMBER DETAIL 1
_S_C_A-LE_;_l_/_2 __ =-1-'--o~----......,~r~""'oJ:-1
\._DRAWING WHERE
DETAIL OCCURS•
'NOTE: IF PLAN AND SECTION (OR C£TAIL CALL-OUT AND
DETAIL) ARE SHOWN ON SAME DRAWING. DRAWING NUMBER
IS REPLACED BY A LINE.
STANDARD DETAIL IDENTIFICATION
(1) DETAIL CALL-OIJ T ON PLAN OR SECTION:
STANDARD
DETAIL
NUMBER
l----------c_11Y __ o_F_A_K_UT_A_N_._A_LA_s_K_A ________ --1 DES IG NED D.AXNESS
DRAWING
LO UD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ~----------------------------------! DRAWN R. GUERRERO 2
STAN DARD ABBRE~ATIONS AND SYMBOLS CHECKED M. Mci.AILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /tl SCALE: NONE
6/1 /11 MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
J/JO 10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
2/26/10 DA CONCEPTUAL OESIGN ORAWINGS
DATE BY DESCRIPTION
\ J ~
FUTURE AKUTAN
HARBOR
100
200
300
400
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION
LI NE ROUTE
SEE NOTE 4
LOCATION Of
·"'-POWERHOUSE
LANDING AREA
~
I. TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM UNIMAK OlMORANGLE WAS USED FOR TliE
CONCEPTVAL D£SICN STUDY. SllE SPECIFIC TOPOGRAPHIC DATA WAS NOT
DMLOPED FOR TliE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY.
2 . LOUD CREEK HYOROPOWER OMLOPMENT SITE IS LOCATED SOVlli Of THE
COY Of AKUTAN .
3. Tli£ CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ST\JllY IDENTFlEO ANO E.VALUATEO TWO
ALTERNATl'IES FOR HYDROPOWER OE.VEl.OPMENT AT LOUD CREEK. THESE
ALTERNATl'IES ARE IUUSIRATEO ON THE FOLLOWING DRAWINGS:
-BAS£ CASE: owe 4, s
-ALTERNATM'. 1: OWG 4, 6
4 . SE.VERAL OPTIONS WERE E.VALUATEO FOR A POWER TRANSMISSION LINE FROM
THE LOUD CREEK HYOROPOWER OE.VELOPMENT SITE TO THE LOAD DEMAND
SITES INCLUDING CITY Of AK UTAN, TRIDENT. ANO THE FUIVRE AKUTAN
HJR BOR FACILmES. VARIOUS ROUTING OPTIONS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS
AR E PRESENTED WITlilN THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT. THE GENERAL
ROUTE AROUND THE WEST ENO Of AKUTAN HARBOR WAS THE PRIMARY
TRANSMISSION ROl/nNG CONSIDERED.
----....._ .....-. HlGH
-'-.../TIDE LINE
~-:;,,~ _ __,F\
,...1oo~Oo
l ,,do---~ . '.
,:~~ J;\;;;~SE:-~ST
' """ ~RK DAM SITE ( \ ~-----VlEST FORK LOUD~·
CREEK WATERSHED . ~ BOUNDARY 0.19 SO I.ti ' .. CJ
'
700
WARNING
------,,,
PROPOSED EAST
FORK DAM SITE
I
I
I
0 1/2 w MCMILLEN, LLC
IF MS BAA OOES NOT
MEASURE 1'" THEN DRAWIN G
IS NOT TO SCAL.£.
1401 SHORELINE DR.
SUllE 100
BOISE. ID 83702
omcE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
'<: '\
"-/' -~-"-/ "-100 '\
I
'O<§l /
900
101XY'
1cP
\
-..... "-
I
........ --
/
CllY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DESIGNED D. AXNESS 1----------------------------i
~-----L_o_u_o_c_R_E_EK_H_Y_D_R_o_P_o_w_rn_o_EV_E_Lo_P_M_E_N_r ____ ---1 oRAwN R. wooD
GE NERAL SIT E PLAN
CHECKED M. McMILl EN
ISSUED DATE 6 /1 /11
DRAWING
3
SCALE: AS NOTED
WORK ITEMS:
SCOPE OF WORK :
THESE DRAWING S WERE DEVELOPED AS PART OF A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY FOR
ALTERNATIVES TO DELIVER POWER SUPPLY TO THE CITY Of AKUTAN FROM LOUD CREEK. THE
INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THE DRAWINGS IS CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL AND IS INTEN DED FOR
GENERAL ILLUSTRATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES . THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DEVELOPED
BASED ON EXISTING AVAILABLE DATA. SITE SPECIFIC STUDIES TO OBTAIN GEOTECHNICAL AND
TOPOGRAPHICAL DATA WERE NOT OBTAINED FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DES IGN STUDY, BUT WILL BE
REQUIRED If THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE IS ADVANCED TO FINAL DESICN.
SITE ACCESS:
1. CONSTRUCT A CONSTRUCTION ACCESS DOCK.
2. CONSTRUCT A CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAO ALONG THE PIPELINE PATH TO THE DAM SITE.
3. STAB ILIZE TH E ROAD .
4. PROVIDE SECURITY FENCING AND SIGNAGE
POWERHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
1. CLEAR AND GRUB THE POWERHOUSE SITE
2. EXCAVATE POWERHOUSE SITE TO BEDROCK
3. ANCHOR FOUNDATION SLAB TO BEDROCK
4 . CONSTRUCT SlAB
5. DELIVER AND INSTALL THE POWERHOUS E BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT
6. CONNECT TO PENSTOCK PIPELINE
7 . CONNECT TO POWER TRANSMISSION TRANSFORMER
8. STARTUP AND TESTING
PENSTOCK PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
1. DELIVER HOPE PIPE, VALVES AND APPURTENANCES
2. WELD HOPE PIPE TOGETHER
3. PROCESS OR flAUL -IN BACKFILL MATERIAL
4. CONSTRUCT THRUSTBLOCK AT POWERHOUSE
5. EXCAVATE TRENCH AND INSTALL PIPELINE
6. MOUND BACKFILL OVER PIPE
DAM CONSTRUCTION
1. PROVIDE WATER CONTROL AT DAM SITE
2. CLEAR AND GRUB VEGETATION AND DISPOSE OF PROPERLY
3. DELIVER SEEPAGE BARRIER MATERIALS
4. EXCAVATE SOIL TO BEDROCK (EST. LESS TflAN 10-FT DEEP)
5 . CONSTRUCT SEEPAGE BARRIER AND FOUNDATION PREPARATION
6 . CONSTRUCT PENSTOCK INTAKE AND OUTLET STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS
7. CONSTRUCT DAM
8. CONSTRUCT OUTLET AND PENSTOCK INTAKE STRUCTURES
9. CONSTRUCT SPILLWAY
10. INSTALL MONITORING ANO CONTROL EQUIPMENT
PROJECT DES IGN NOTES:
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
1. GEOLOGY OF THE WATERSHED IS DESCRIBED AS: COLLUVIUM, TEPHRA. AND VOLCANIC ROCK
2. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION IS RECOMMENDED BEFORE FINAL DESIGN
3. VEGETATION IN THE WATERSHED IS: NATIVE TUNDRA
4. APPROXIMATE SLOPES IN THE WATERSHED ARE: 10% -70%
5. AVERAGE MINIMUM DAILY TEMPERATURE JS: 26"F
6. AVERAGE MAXIM UM DAILY TEMPERATURE IS: 54'f
HYDROLOGY (REGIONAL REGRESSION EQUATIONS)
1. 50% RECURRENCE PROBABILITY FLOW: 77 CFS
2. 1 % RECURRENCE PROBABILITY FLOW: 240 CFS
3. STREAM GAGE DATA IS RECOMMENDED BEFORE FINAL DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
1. OUTLET STRUCTURE CAPACITY: 80 CFS
2. PRELIMINARY SPILLWAY CAPACITY: 712 CFS
3. PENSTOCK INTAKE CAPACITY: EAST FORK = 9 CFS
WEST FORK = 6 CFS
EMBANKMENT DES IGN
I. COMPACTED EARTHFILL DAM WITH A SEEPAGE CONTROL SYSTEM. COMPACTION IS EXPECTED TO BE 95% OF
MAXIMUM STANDARD DENSITY (STANDARD PROCTOR) AS DEFINED BY THE ASTM STANDARD 696-07E-STANDARD
TEST METHODS FOR LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL USING STANDARD EFFORT.
2. EMBANKMENT DEPTH IS 1 O~ LARGER THAN DESIGN DEPTH TO ACCOUNT FOR EXPECTED SETTLEMENT.
3. SEEPAGE PROTECTION PROVIDED BY A DRAINAGE DIAPHRAGM AND PROTECTED DRAIN OUTLET
4 . COLD WEATHER CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE INCLUDED IN FINAL DESIGN.
SPILLWAY AND OUTLET DESIGN
1. OUTLET IS A DROP INLET PIPE OUTLET. THE OUTLET IS DESIGNED TO CONVEY WATER IN THE ANNULAR SPACE
BETWEEN THE OUTLET RISER PIPE AND A LARGER PIPE FUNCTIONING AS A DEBRIS AND ICE RACK. THE
VELOCITY OF THE WATER IN THE ANN ULAR SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO PIPES WILL BE LI MITED TO TWO-FEET
PER SECOND AT THE 50% RECURRENCE PROBAB ILITY DESIGN FLOW. THE DROP INLET RISER PIPE WILL BE
CONSTRUCTED OF TWO VERTICAL CONCENTRIC PIPES WfTH CONCRETE CAST BETWEEN THEM. THE OUTER "TRASH
RACK" PIPE WILL BE CORRUGATED 14-GAUGE ALUMIN IZED STEEL PIPE.
2. THE SPILLWAY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN UNDISTURBED EARTH ADJACENT TO THE COMPACTED FILL OF THE
DAM . THE SPILLWAY WILL BE PROTECTED WfTH RI PRAP OVER A GEOTEXTILE TO PREVENT PIPING FAILURE.
PENSTOCK DES IGN
1. THE PENSTOCK/PIPELINE WILL BE DESIGNED TO CONVEY 3.5 CFS IN A 16-INCH HOPE PIPELINE. THE
RES ULTING VELOCITIES ARE APPROXIMATELY FEET PER SECOND (FPS) FOR THE EAST FORK 16"~. 4.3 FPS FOR
WEST FORK. 6 .5 FPS FOR 18 "~ COMBINED.
2. MOUND BACKFILL OVER PIPE IF NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT COVER.
3 . INSTALL PENSTOCK APPURTENANCES
4. PRESSURE TEST
5. CONNECT TO POWERHOUSE
6. STARTUP AND TESTING
A\ 6/1 /1 1 MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
Jl.. 3/30/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
&,, 2/26/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION
DRAINAGE AREA 380 AC
AVERAGE STREAM SLOPES: 10%
FREQUENCY
PEAK INFLOW Q;
PHYSICAL DATA
PRINCIPAL
.se!WIAr
50%
80 CFS
SURFACE AREA POND ~ 5 AC
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF WATER = 8 FT
AUXILIARY
~
1%
240 CFS
EFFIECTIVE FILL HT 10 FT (LOW POINT ON CENTERLINE
TO AUXILIARY SPILLWAY)
SEDIMENT STORAGE: BELOW CREST ~ 1 AC FT
ELEV: OUTLET = 4 95, SPILLWAY = 496,
SETTLED FlLL • 500
WARNING
0 1/2 1
Q I
If lHIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 • THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE.
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHORELINE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, ID 63702
OFFlCE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 206.342.4216
l----------c_1TY __ o_F_A_K_u_TA_N_._A_LA_S_K_A ________ __, DESIGNED 0. AXNESS
DRAWING
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEV ELOPMENT 1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-i DRAWN R. WOOD 4
DESIGN CR ITER IA
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /11 SCALE: AS NOTED
6/1/11
3/30/10
2/26/10
DATE
WEST FORK LOUD\ CREEK WATERSHED
BOUNDARY -·· --
MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
BY DESCRIPTION
'
\
---
-~
POWER TRANSMISSION
LINE TO CITY OF
AKUTAN ANO NEW
HARBOR FACILffiES.
SEE DRAWING 3
CLIMBING TURN
CLIMBING TURN
i:; I rtt : v;
' &: \. ~; \,\ ~~~:
~/ -.
I . . I
/'./\
( \
\
\
"-LANDING AREA
-.....:
"
I
\
WARNING
L-#2
If TiilS BAA DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 • THEN DRAWING
IS ~OT TO SCALE.
I
I
\
\
\
--........
.......
\
\§I
"" u·
I o\ \ g:
I ~I
\~\
~:
I I
\ :
I \ \ : /
I I I
\ ~PROPOSED 1 s"e r PENSTOCK IPE
I i
\ ·~-::::::===~
"-.. rHIGH
' ' I llOE LINE
'
500
PROPOSED
SPILLWAY
' ' ---.......
' ' '
·, ,."/.'~,--------
' ------------
,,,~.-?:'-- - -- - -~ \~\ , -7~ '-.., JEAST FORK LOUD CREEK
\ ~~"" ) 1 PROPOSED '-.., WATERSHED BOUNDARY ~ \.-.7"· ''-. 7 EAST FORK TOTAL AREA 0.59 SO Ml
~,., ·,.. DAM SITE
'· '
/
/
/
/
. ' PROPOSED '
OUTLET \
STRUCTU RE. \
\ \
/ \ \
) I \
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1 "= 200'
~
1. THE RESERVOIR AREA IS ESTIMATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRES WITH
A STORAGE VOLUME Of LESS THAN 1 0 ACRE FT. THE DAM HEIGHT IS
LESS THAN 10 FEET. THE RESERVOIR WILL BE OPTll.l lZEO IN SIZE
DURING FINAL ENGINEERING WITH NEW SITE SPEC IFIC TOPOGRAPH IC
MAPPING.
2. TOPOGRAPHY OBTAI NED FROM UNIMAK OUADRANGl.E WAS USED FOR THE
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUOY. SITE SPECIFIC TOPOGRAPHIC DATA WAS
NOT DEVELOPED FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY.
3 . 1HE EAST FORK DAM LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE. THE ORIENTATION,
HEIGHT, AND APPURTANCES LOCATION WOULO BE OPTIMIZEO DURING
FINAL ENGINEERI NG BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC CEOTECHNICAL AND
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING.
4 . PENSTOCK ROUTING IS APPROXIMATE BASED ON AVAILABLE
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING. 1HE ILLUSTRATED ROUTING WAS DEVELOPED TO
DETERMINE PENSTOCK LENGni , MATERIAL OUANTlllES. AND OVERALL
CONSTRUCTION APPROACH AS WELL AS AVAILABLE OPERATING HEAD FOR
1HE POWERHOUSE.
5 . SEE DRAWING 4 FOR A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA
FOR THE DAI.I, PENSTOCK, POWERHOUSE, ANO LOADING DOCK
FACILITIES.
6 . THE NEW ROAD WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PENSTOCK AND DAI.I OR
OPERATION ANO MAINTENANCE. THE ROUTING SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE
BASED ON THE AVAILABLE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING. ACCESS ROAD IS
SIZED FOR ATV VEHICLES.
------------
DRAWING Cl1Y OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DESIGNED 0 . AXNESS
1--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---t
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOREUNE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, ID 83702
OFFICE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.421 6
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT 1--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--t DRAWN R. WOOD
SITE PLAN
BASE CASE
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /11
5
SCALE: AS NOTED
-·· -
6/1/11 MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
3/30/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
2/26/1 D DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
WEST FORK LOUD\ CREEK WATERSHED
BOUNDARY ---
DATE BY DESCRIPTION
-
' '
--.-
~ ~ ~
1. THE RESERVOIR AREA IS ESTIMATED AT AP PROXIMATELY 1 ACRES WITH
'-.. LANDING AREA
A STORAGE VOLUME OF LESS THAN 10 ACRE FEET. THE OAt.t HEIGHT IS
LESS THAN I 0 FT. THE RESERVOIR WILL BE OPTIMIZED IN SIZE DURING
FINAL ENGINEERING WITH NEW SITE SPECIFIC TOPOCRAPHIC MAPPING. POWER TRANSMISSION
LINE TO CITY OF
AK UTAN ANO NEW
HARBOR FACILITIES,
SEE DRAWING 3
CLIMBING TURN
" "
PROPOSED
ACCESS ROAD
(6' WIDE)
\
\
\
WARNING
6 1/2
If lli!S BAR DOES NOT
MEAS URE 1 • THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO $CAL£.
I
I
--
PROPOSED
POWERHOUSE TAILRACE
\
\
\
\
.~
l§ I
o::·
<.)'
I ol
\
:>. 5 ·
;i
:5:
l
--" " ' rHIGH ', I TIDE LINE
' ' '
'\~I
. 18"~ PENSTOCK %PIPE INTERSECTION _,,,---soo
SEE NOTE 8 /
( , I
_/ \ :~PROPOSED 16"~
_/ ~ PENSTOCK PIPE
\ \ '~-----
PROPOSED
SP ILLWAY
--" " ........
" " ---------------
PROPOSED
PENSTOCK
INTAKE
~\ ,)Y -------------~
~-~··?~) 1 PROPOSED '-.. '-.. J~kis~~~ ~U~N~EK , 7-. . 7 EAST FORK TOTAL AREA 0.59 SO Ml
•• '· ._ DAM SITE
' '
/
I
/
/
/
/
SITE PLA N
SCALE: 1 "= 200'
PRO PO~~
OUTLET w \
STRUCTURE
\
' '\
\
\
\
\
\
)
2. TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM UNIMAK QUACRANGLE Wl>S USED FOR THE
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY. SITE SPECIFIC TOPOGRAPHIC DATA Wi>S
NOT DEVELOPED FOR THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY.
3. THE WT AND WEST FORK DAM LOCATIONS ARE APPROX IMATE. THE
ORIENTATION, HEIGHT, ANO APPURTANCES LOCATION WOULD BE
OPTIMIZED DURING FINAL ENGINEERING BASED ON SITE SPECI FIC
GEOTECHNICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPPING.
4. PENSTOCK ROUTING IS APPROXIMATE BASED ON AVAILABLE
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING. THE ILLUSTRATED ROUTING Wi>S DEVELOPED TO
DETERMINE PENSTOCK LENGTH, MATERIAL QUANTITIES, ANO OVERALL
CONSTRUCTION APPROACH AS WELL AS AVAILAB LE OPERATING HEAD FOR
THE POWERHOUSE.
5. SEE DRAWING 4 FOR A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA
FOR THE DAM. PENSTOCK, POWERHOUSE, AND LOADING DOCK
FAC ILITIES.
6. ALTERNATNE 1 CONSISTS or THE FACILITIES PROPOSED FOR THE BASE
CASE PLUS A NEW DIVERSION DAM ANO PENSTOCK LOCATED ON THE
WEST FORK OF LOUD CREEK. ALTERNATIVE 1 Wi>S DEVELOPED TO
PROVIDE ACOITIONAL FLOW TO THE POWERHOUSE TO INCRWE THE
OVERALL ANNUAL GENERATION.
7 . THE NEW ROAD WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PENSTOCK AND DAM OR
OPERATION AND MIANTENANCE. THE ROUTING SHOWN IS APPROXIMATE
BASED ON THE AVAILABLE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING. ACCESS ROAD IS
SIZED FOR ATV VEHICLES .
5 . 16"~ PENSTOCK FROM WEST FORK DIVERSION DAM WILL TIE INTO THE
WT FORK PENSTOCK. FULL ISOLATION VALVES WILL BE PROVIDED .
-----" ------
DRAWING
MCMILLEN, LLC
1-----------c_1TY __ o_F_A_K_u_TA_N_._A_LA_s_K_A ________ _, oEslGNm D. AXNESs
1401 SHORELINE DR.
SUITE too
BOISE. ID 83702
OFFJCE; 206.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
LOUD CRE EK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT !-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--; DRAWN R. WOOD
SITE PLAN
ALTERNAT IVE
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /11
6
SCALE: AS NOTEO
PEN STOCK
INTAKE
VALVE VAULT
II
PENSTOCK TO~ : :
POWERHOUSE "I I
I I
I I
u
__J
EXISTING
SLOPE
6/1/11 MM CONCEPTUAL DES IGN DRAWINGS
3/30/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DES IGN DRAWINGS
2/26/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
II
II
II
II
L
200'±
1YPICAL DI VER SION DAM CONC EPT PLAN
SCALE: NTS
OUTLET
STRUCTURE
RISER
EL-495
CONCRETE BASE
DATE BY DESCRIPTION
CONTOUR
LINES, TYP
APPROACH CHANNEL
GRADE 53
DIRECTION
Of FLOW
12'
LEVEL SECTION
CREST
ELc496'
RIPRAP
SPILLWAY
PROTECTION
OUTLET
GRADE 10%
1. POND CREST ELEVATION IS ASSUMED TO BE 500-FT ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
(BASED ON THE UNIMAK A-6 GEOREFERENCED PDF USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP).
2. ELEVATIONS AND LENGTHS SHOWN ON THESE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLANS ARE
BASED UPON THE ASSUMED DAM CREST ELEVATION OF 500 -FT.
3. FlELO OBSERVATIONS OCCURRED DURING A OCTOBER 24, 2009 FIELD VISIT . THE
GROUND SURFACE WAS COVERED WITH 12 TO 16 INCHES OF SNOW.
4 . TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (A GROUND BASED SURVEY OR A GROUND TRUTHEO
LIOAR SURVEY) WILL BE COLLECTED PRIOR TO FlNAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THE DAM, PIPELINE AND HYDROPOWER PLANT AND POWERHOUSE.
5. THE PLANS MUST BE UPDATED AND VER IFIED AFTER THE DATA IS COLLECTED.
6. THE DRAINAGE AREA AND POOL AREA MUST BE SURVEYED IN ADDITION TO THE
AREAS WHERE CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR. THESE AREAS 00 NOT NEEO THE
PRECISION Of SURVEY INFORMATION COLLECTED IN THE VICINl1Y OF THE OAM,
PIPELINE, ROAD AND POWERHOUSE. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT
IN THE DESIGN AND MODERATION Of THE RESERVOIR ANO POWERHOUSE.
PROFIL E ON CENTERLINE OF SP ILLWAY
DIRECTION
OF FLOW
13 GRADE
TOP Of DAM
EL=SOO'
SEEPAGE BARRIER
(SHEETP ILE OR
GROUT)
---------.,,,_
CUTOFF TRENCH/ ~
1 "'
'f.
I
s'
SCALE: NTS
DRAINAGE
DIAPHRAGM
/
/ _J,
_,(_ 1
I
SECTI ON ~ OF OU TLET STR UCTURE
WARNING
6 1/2
If THIS BAR DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 • THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE:.
SCALE: NTS
MCMILLEN, LL C
1.\01 SHORELINE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE. ID 83702
OFFICE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
PIPE OUTILET
EL-489.4
-----------1 -----~ w OUTLET CHANNEL
\;<· °" '\' EXISTING g ;,, GROUNOLINE
ED
1----------C-JTY __ o_F_A_K_u_r _A_N_. _A_LA_s_K_A _________ -; DES IGNED D. AXNESS
DRAWING
7
CHECKED M. McM ILLEN
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
1-----------------------------------!0RAWN R. WOOD
DAM
TYP ICAL PLAN AND SEC TIONS
ISSUED DATE 6 /1 /11 SCALE: AS NOTIEO
/CATWAf.K FOR TRASHRACK AND
AIR-VENT SCREEN ACCESS
TRASH RACK I I I I I I I I I --SZ NORMAL OPERATING
( -----_/I
...___
-POOL EL 495± ...___ VALVE VA ULT
~Y-...___
t-0...___ ----PENSTOCK ---INSTAf.L NEW-\ INTAKE ---~ --__ RESILIENT ---v ...___ --~ --_WEDGE VAf.VE
......_ . --""~ml----...___ --POWERHOUSE ...___ ~ ...___
\ :~'Iii ~ I ...___ SLUICE
ISOLATION GATE ~ _/ ~
16"~ PENSTOCK SLUICE PIPE
LOUD CREEK
-
SECTION ALONG ~ OF PENSTO CK EB SCALE: NTS
Cl1Y OF AK UTAN , ALASKA DRAWING
WARN ING DESIGNED D. AXNESS
MCMILLEN, LLC LO UD CR EE K HYDRO POWER DEVE LOPMEN T 8 0 1/2 , DRAWN R. WOOD
IMHJ'"""li' H Ol SHORELINE OR. DAM ,f\ 6 /1/11 MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS IF THIS BAR DOES "IOT SUITE 100 OFFlCE; 2oa.342.42H CHECKED M. McM ILLEN
,f:!,. 3/30/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
MEASURE \" 1l<EN DRAWING BOISE. ID 83702 F~: 208.342.4216 PEN STOCK SEC TI ON IS NOT TO SCALE.
IA\ 2/26/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS ISSUED DATE~_l _ REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION SCALE: AS NOTED
EXISTING
GROUNDLINE
6/1 /11 MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
3/30/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
2/26/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DATE BY DESCRIPTION
REVEGETATE CU T
SLOPES
TREAD WIDTH
ACCESS ROAD CROSS-SECTIONS
SCALE: NTS
6'-0" TREAD
OUTSLOPE 3%
v '
ACCESS ROAD CLEARING
SCALE: NTS
6" OF¥.," MINUS
ROAD MIX
-/
IMPORTED GRAVEL
OR APPROVEO
CUT MATERIAL
"' <·1
v ' ..
WARNING
0 1/2
!liiiiiiiil!
IF THIS BAA: DOES NOT
MEASURE 1" THEN DAAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE.
MCMILLEN, LLC
1 '401 SHORElJNE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE. ID 8J702
OFFICE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
~
\
ELEVATION
--------
~ tn
I
i:l
0
0: u
------~1 ___ -----
PLAN
SCALE: NTS
CLIMBING TURN
SCALE: (NTS)
"' "-. SEE ACCESS ROAD CROSS
, ~SECTIONS DETAIL. SPREAD CUT
/ ' ---------MATERIAL IN A THIN LAYER OVER
\_,; EXISTING VEGETATION.
SECTION CD
1----------C-ITY __ o_F_A_K_u_TA_N_,_A_LA_s_K_A ________ ---I DESIGNED D. AXNESS
DRAWING
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT l-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1 DRAWN R. WOOD 9
ROADWAY DETAILS
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /11 SCALE: AS NOTED
\
\
\
\
',
\
\
, , PROPOSED
' , ' 0 ACCESS ROAD
\ ~'t, '-----~ (6'WIDE) ... "--1 ., --~~=~'~==---;;;;;=48F======-------_J._ ' ~ I .. -··--E'Asr FOR ---o~-
','\ / __. .. ..--··-._K_l0UDCR[£1(-\ g "' "> ---\ , I , -___.,_ __ _
~~ --.. --. 0
.r.j,":>\ .. · -.. "' \ uo cR£~.--"-··-.
\
//, '. 1 6 "~ -.. _ ·-.. ·. EJ>S~fOR~'-o._.. ··-.. -.. _ ..
/. ,/ ';._ • PENSTOCK PIPE -.. ~ .. -· · ~
_//~·'\ _ .. _.. ""'
PROPO~ED . ;, .
JOO
PROPOSED
POWERHOIJSE
TAILRACE
EAST FORK I 1 .
DAM SITE I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
600
I ,.,,-EAST FORK LOUD
V CREEK WATERSHED
I BOUNDARY
I
I
"' / f-
l
I
I
I
I "'-HIGH I I TIDE LINE /
I loo
I
I
I
600
EAST FORK DAM
500
JOO
16"~ PENSTOCK PIPE
(BURIED W/ AT LEAST
J-f'T OF GROUND COVER)
EAST FORK LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK PLAN
SCALE: 1·-150'
EXISTING
GROUND
I
/
/
PROPOSED
DOCK LANDING
STRUCTURE
\_AKUTAN BAY\
POWER LINE
POWER TRANSMISSION
LINE TO CITY or
AKUTAN AND NEW
HARBOR FACILITIES
600
_o~_L __ ..__ ___________ __Ji...._ ___________ __1 _________________________ _!. ____________ ...1.......::~-..~~~~~~~~~~-~-0
l O+DO 15+00 20+00 25+DO JO+OO 35+00 40+00
EAST FORK LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK PROFILE
SCALE: 1"= 150'
WARNING CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DES IGNED D. AXNESS
6/1/11 MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
3/30/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
2/26/ 10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DATE BY DESCRIPTION
L-¥2
If THIS BAA DOES ~OT
MEASURE 1 ~ THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCA!.£.
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHOREl.INE OR.
SUllE 100
BOISE. ID 83702
orncE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.421 6
f--------------------------------1
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMEN T
1--------------------------------;DRAWN R. WOOD
PIPELINE
PLAN, PROFI L E, AND DETAILS
BASE CASE
CHECKED M. McM ILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /11
DRAWING
10
SCALE: AS NOTEO
~
500
~
lQ.Q._
3QQ_
.!..22....
_o_
·. *' \<:h.
\\
·.c: \'t ·. ("\ \~ .'Fo
\
\ cRt.t.\I. .. -.. -··-. fORl'-LO\JO .. -·-.. ---~ .. -~S.!_. .. -··--··-··-..
300
EAST FORK AND WE ST FORK LOUD CRE EK PEN STOCK PLA N
SCAU:: 1 ·-150'
18"~ PENSTOCK PIPE_/
(BURIED W/ AT LfAST
J-FT OF CROVND COVER)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
~/PROPOSED ""--v LANCING AREA
PROPOSED
DOCK LANDING
\_
STRUCTU RE
AKUTAN BAY\
POWER LINE
POWER TRANSMISSION
UNE TO CllY OF
AKUTAN ANO NEW
HARBOR FAC IUTIES
-
/
/
/
OAM
/WEST FORK /EXISTlNG
GROUNO
/ 18"o PENSTOCK PIPE
INTERSECTION (16+56)
16"o PENSTOCK PIPE
(BUR IED W/ AT LEAST
J-FT OF GROUND COVER)
.._ _ _._ ____________ _._ ____________ _._ ____________ ..._ ____________ .._ ___________ --J.__..:;:::._ __ ~~~...i.--o _o_
10+00 15+00
MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
BY DESCRIPTION
20+00 25+00 JO+OO
EAST FO RK LOUD CREEK PENSTOCK PROFILE
SCALE: 1"• 150'
WAR NING
0 1/2 w
If TlilS BAR OOE:S NOT
MWURE 1 • THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCAI.£.
MCMILLEN, LLC
H Ol SHOR EUNE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE. 10 83702
OFFICE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
35+00 5+00 10+00 15+00
WEST FOR K LOUD CR EEK PE NSTO CK PROFILE
SCAI.£: 1·-150'
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DESIGNED D. AXNESS !--------------------------------! LOU D CREEK HY DROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
!-------------------------------!DRAWN R. WOOD
PIPELINE
PLA N, PROFILE , AND DETAI LS
ALTERNAT IVE 1
CHECKED M. McMI LLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /1 1
20+00
DRAWING
11
SCAI.£: AS NOTED
~ll-
. .
0 0 I I l:l g
FTG: 2'-0"
AC/DC PANEl.S
8"TTER IES
PRE-ENGINEERED
METAL BUILDING WAU
I
I
I
I
l_j
I
I
32'-0"
ROLL -UP DOOR
MAN DOOR
~ 24" CONCRETE"'"\.
SLAS '\_
L ____ J ____ L
...L.--------L -
SWITCH GEAR AND
CONTROL PANEL
MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
BY DESCRIPTION
FOUNDATION PLAN
SCALE: J/6°= 1'-o·
WARNING
0 1/2 -IF llilS BAA DOES NOT
MEASURE 1 • UiEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SC.U:.
PENSTOCK
PRE-ENGINEERED
METAL BUILDING WALL
FTC: 2'-0"
® . -
-0 """J I
___ J
MCMILLEN, LLC
1401 SHORELINE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, ID 83702
OFACE: 208.342.4214
F/.X: 208.342.4216
TURB INE INLET
VALVE
EXTERIOR PAVING
OR FlNISH GRADE
PER CML
--
0
I ;,.
!$J T.0.F.
..
2·-0·
T.O. SLAB
:
CONC SLAB
SEE Pl.AN
T.0 . SLAB
VARIES
EXTER IOR CONCRETE WALL FOOTING ®
SCALE: 3/4" = 1·-0·
T.O. SLAB
EXTERIOR PAVING
OR FINISH GRADE
PER CML
1 /2" PREMOLDEO EXP.
JT. TYP.
0
I
--
'o
TAILRACE CHANNEL~ \'""'"'"\
I ;,.
~ -'-------~
I 2·-0 • I
l$i T.O.F . ..
:
. .
E?<TERIOR CONCRETE WALL FOOTIN G CD
SCALE: J/4" = 1·-0·
1----------c_1TY __ o_F_A_K_u_r A_N_._A_LA_s_K_A ________ --1 DESIGNED D. AXNESs
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPM ENT
!--------------------------------!DRAWN R. WOOD
POWERHOUSE
FOUNDATION PLAN AND SECTIONS
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /11
CONC SlAB
SEE PLAN
DRAWING
12
SCALE: AS NOTED
"' I
350 KW, 3/ 480/60
SYNCHRO NOUS
GENERATOR
6/1/11 MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
J/J0/10 DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWING S
2/26/1 0 DA CO NCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWI NGS
DATE BY DESCRIPTION
r
SHAFT CENTER LINE
CANYON PEL TON TURBINE
0
0
14'-4" REF
TURB INE GENERATOR PLAN @
SCALE: 3/ 4" • 1 '-o· 12
NEE DLE VALVE PIT
TURBINE INLET
CENTERLINE
"' I ..
6'-9"
WARNIN G
0 1/2 ........-MCMILLEN, LLC
IF THIS BAR 00£5 NOT
MEASURE 1 • THEN DRAWING
IS NOT TO SCALE .
1401 SHOR ELINE DR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, ID 83702
omcE: 208.342.4214
FAX: 208.342.4216
,...
I
"'
b I
"N
b
I ....
~
I
"N
0.
l ....
CANYON PEL TON
TURB INE OR EOUAL
SHAFT CENTERLINE
TAILRACE WATER LEVEL
. .
SECTION
SCALE: 3/4 " • 1·-0·
..
NEEDLE VALVE PIT
ED
TURBINE INLET
CENTERLINE
FLOOR LEVEL
O>
I
"N
..,
.I
N
1-----------c _1TY __ o_F_AK_u_r_A_N_._A_LA_s_K_A ________ --1 DEsiGNm 0 . AXNEss
DRAWING
LO UD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPM ENT
POWER HOUSE
GENERATOR PLAN AND SECTION
CH ECKED M. Mc MILLEN
ISSUED DATE 6 /1 /11
13
SCALE: AS NOTED
2
7=
0 .,;
0
0 <t
l11
2
b
0
0
gi
~
Ill
2
0
0
0
'° a
0
<t
U'I
,.
I
(
wr:r.iu
~·'I I' ,
MM CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
DA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS
BY DESCRIPTION
oi-~ ..... , __ : ..
l6~·'1'::l.ll 1 11l 1 w
WARNING
0 1/2
IWiiijl!
IF llllS BAA OOES NOT
MEASUR E l" THEN DRAWINCi
IS NOT TO SCAl.E .
155°4 3.0 00' \II W3S84 165°42 .000' W
z
0
0
0
·=" 0
o,
· Aku~n _,_B,.,1,;aL&.11il..ut _____ _,__..,
1
r-·-i Vi
, L; g,h+
IBANSMISSION LINE ROUTE OPTIONS·
OPTION 1 -INSTA LL CABLE DIRECTLY ACROSS AKUTAN flARBOR fROM LOUD
CREEK TO TflE DIESEL POWER flOUSE IN TflE CITY OF AKUTAN (APPROXIMATELY
0.9 MILES UNDERWATER).
OPTION 2 -INSTAU. CABLE INSIDE PERIMETER OF AKUTAN H ARBOR FROM LOUD
CREEK TO THE WEST SIOE OF IBIOENT FACILITIES. THE ROUTE CROSSES NORTH
Of IBIDENT TflEN FOLLOWS TRAIL FROM EAST SIDE OF TRIDENT TO TflE DIESEL
PO'A£R HOUSE IN TflE CITY Of AKUTAN (APPROXIMATELY 3.2 MILES UNDERWATER
ANO 0. 7 MILES UNDERGROUND).
# ~ 'I AKUTAN
/
~DIESEL GENERATION
POl'YUl HOUSE
OPTION 3 -SAME ROUTE AS OPTIOH 2. EXCEPT TflE CABLE IS BROUGHT
ASflORE AND ROUTED AROUND TflE PROPOSED HARBOR DOCK FACILITIES ON TflE
WEST END OF AKUTAN HARBOR (APPROXIMATELY 3.1 MILES UNOERWA TER ANO
0.9 MILES UNDERGROUND). SECTIONALIZING EQUIPMENT WILL BE UTILIZED TO
PROVIDE PO'A£R FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITIES.
OPTION 4 -INSTALL CABLE INSIDE PERIMETER OF AKUTAN flARBOR FROM LOUD
CREEK TO TflE LOCATION OF PROPOSED flARBOR DOCKING fl.CILITIES ON WEST
END Of AKUTAN flARBOR, THEN UNDERGROUND ALONG PROPOSED ROAD FROM
TflE PROPOSED DOCKING FACILITIES TO THE CITY Of AKUTAN (APPROXIMATELY
1.7 MILES UNDERWATER AND 2.6 MILES UNDERGROUND). SECTIONALIZING
EQUIPMENT WILL BE UTILIZED TD PROVIDE POWER FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITIES.
#
,/Akutan
/""----ROUTE OPTION 1
#
00 05 l (•irulos
1-.. '. ,..._ ·-~-__......,,..__,-~,""--T--~-'-T ...J
01) 0 ~ I ii l 't.n.
Mdr• ,.,~ .• 1i:d 'Nlfh Ti 11•, ''~~l(lf13 1~01"'tiaJ • ;o:"Q'tpl1)i •:W\"'Y notJnJ':Jgf:~r1,.,., 'lnftnpr.:
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE OPTIONS
MCMILLEN, LLC
14-01 SHORELINE OR.
SUITE 100
BOISE, 10 83702
OFFICE: 208.342.4 214
FAX: 208.342.4216
J I
OPTOIN 4A -ROUTING WOULD BEGIN AT TflE LOUD CREEK HYDRO PLANT. THEN
ENTER AKUTAN HARBOR RUNNING UNDERWATER FOLLOWING THE PERIMETER OF
TflE HARBOR VIA SUBMARINE CABLE TO TflE HARBOR F ACIUTIES L OCATED AT
TflE WEST END OF AKUTAN HARBOR. (OVERALL LENGTH IS APPROX IMATELY 1.70
MILES).
OPTION 5 -INSTALL CABLE FROM AKUTAN TO TRIDENT FACILITIES FOR TIE
(APPROXIMATE LY 0.5 MILES UNDERGROUND).
OPTION 6 -INSTALL CABLE UNDERGROUND (ROADLESS) FROM LOUD CREEK TO
TflE LOCATI ON OF PROPOSED flARBOR DOCKING FACILITIES ON WEST END OF
AKU TAN HARBOR, TflEN UNDERGROUND ALONG PROPOSED ROAD FROM TflE
PROPOSED DOCKING FACILI TIES TO THE CITY OF AKUTAN (APPROXIMATELY 2.0
MILES ROADLESS UNDER GROUND AND 2 .6 MILES UNDERGROUND). SECTIONALI ZING
EQUIPMENT \\Ill. BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDE POWER FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITIES.
OPTION 6A -ROUTING WOULD BE COMPLETE LY OVERLAND IN THE UPLAND AREA
TO TflE HARBOR FACILITIES LOCATED ON TflE WEST END OF TflE AKUTAN
HARBOR. (OVERALL LENGTH IS APPROXIMATELY 2.0 MILES).
v l/
-~---·----··-··----..,.-· ___ ..:._::;.__ ___ __,__,_ _________ -=;:=--=--.I.....--'
t 6.5"4S 0011 ' "'I 165 -i 4 4 _('lC11')' W 155°4 ~.000' w WG.384 1 -5°~2.000' W
CITY OF AKUTAN, ALASKA DESIGNED D. AXNESS 1-----------------------------------1
DRAWING
LOUD CREEK HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT
1---------------------------------lDRAWN R. WOOD 14
TRANSMIS SION LIN E ROUTING OPTIONS
CHECKED M. McMILLEN
z
0
0
0
"' 0
0
"' ul
ISSUED DATE 6/1 /11 SCALE: AS NOTED
APPENDIX B
COST ESTIMATES
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 1 Lo ud Creek to Akutan -Directly Crossing Harbor utilizing submarine cable only
Assembly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4" HOPE Condu it w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50 %
Rock T rench 50%
Professional Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/p low
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pickup
Skidsteer
4 wheeler
wire equip undgrd
1 Crews of 4 men
Room Board
Qty
0
4752
0
0
600
600
Q!y
1
0
1
2
1
2
0
4
Weight Cost FRT diff
250 $2,000 $113
2 $5 $1
1 $5 $0
0 $0 $0
0 $0 $0
Onshore co nstruction duration
Unit CosUunit
0.9 (mi) $4 ,000.00
0.9 (mi) $4 ,000.00
Professional Services Subtotal
RenUmo Ext Rent Fue l
$10,000 $1 ,667 $960
$3,500 $0 $0
$3,500 $583 $640
$1 ,800 $600 $1,280
$4,000 $667 $640
$1,000 $333 $320
$2,500 $0 $0
Total
#days Per Day Total
5 $200 $4 ,000
Subtotal <2 > $11,690
Material
Cost Hours
$2, 113 24
$50 1.08
$6 0.015
$5 0.015
$0 0 .09
$0 0.27
4 men 12hr -#of days
$3,600
$3,600
$7,200
Total
$2 ,627
$0
$1 ,223
$1,880
$1,307
$653
$0
$7,690
Ext Hours
0
0
0
54
162
216
4 .5
Distance =
Labor Rate =
La bor
Cost
$3,960
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
20% Contingency
Subtotal <1>
$ per mile
4 , 752 ft or 0.9 mile
$165 per mh
Lab & Mat
Cost
$6 ,073
$228
$8
$8
$15
$45
Subtotal
$1 ,1 27,246
$225,449
$1,352,696
$1,502,995
Extended
Total
$0
$1 ,084,406
$0
$0
$8,910
$26,730
$1,120 ,046
Total <1>•<2> $1,364,386
June 8 , 2011
$1,244,496 $/mile
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 2 Loud Creek to Akutan -Fo ll owing the s horeline to Trident and onshore to Akutan
Material
Assembly Q!y Weight Cost FRT diff Cost Hours
Section Cans w/ Elbows 6 250 $2,000 $113 $2 , 113 24
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive) 16896 $50 1.08
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable 11088 1 $5 $0 $5 0.015
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings 73 92 1 $4 $0 $4 0.015
Trench/Plow 50% 1848 0 $0 $0 $0 0.09
Rock Trench 50% 1848 0 $0 $0 $0 0.27
4 men 12hr -#of days
Profess i onal Services Unit Cost/unit
Engineering 3.9 (mi) $4,000.00 $15 ,600
Constru ction Mgt. 3.9 (mi) $4,000 .00 $15,600
Professiona l Services Subtotal $31 ,200
Equipment Q!y Rent/mo Ext Ren t Fuel Total
04 cat w/plow 1 $10,000 $7 ,667 $4,416 $12,083
Boom Truck 0 $3 ,500 $0 $0 $0
Backhoe 1 $3,500 $2,683 $2 ,944 $5,627
Pickup 1 $1,800 $1 ,380 $2 ,9 44 $4 ,3 24
Skidsteer 1 $4,000 $3 ,067 $2 ,944 $6,011
4 wheeler 2 $1 ,000 $1 ,533 $1,472 $3 ,005
wire equip undgrd 1 $2 ,500 $1 ,917 $0 $1,917
Total $32,967
1 Crews of 4 men #days Per Day Total
Room B oard 4 23 $200 $18,400
Subtotal 121 $51,367
Ext Hours
144
166
111
166
499
1086
22 .635
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
20% Co ntingency
Subtotal 111
$ per mile
Total <1l+<2l
Distance=
Labor Rate=
Lab & Mat
Cost
$2, 113
$228
$8
$6
$15
$45
Subtotal
$4,142,1 85
$828,437
$4,970,622
$1,274,51 8
$5,021,98 8
June 8, 2011
16 ,896 Ft or 3.2 mile Submarine
3,696 Ft or .7 mile URD
$165 per mh
Extended
Total
$12 ,675
$3 ,85 5,667
$85 ,378
$47,494
$27,443
$82 ,3 28
$4,110,985
$18,008 $/mile
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 3 Loud Creek to Akutan -Same as Op ti on 2 with onsho re portion at proposed dock facilities
Assembly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50%
Rock Trench 50%
Professional Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/plow
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pi ckup
Skid steer
4 wheeler
wire eq uip undgrd
Barge
1 Crews of 4 men
Room Board
Q!Y
9
16368
14256
9504
2376
2376
Q!Y
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
Weight Cost FRT diff
250 $2,000 $113
1 $5 $0
1 $4 $0
0 $0 $0
0 $0 $0
Unit Cost/unit
4 .0 (mi) $4,000 .00
4 .0 (mi) $4,000.00
Professional Services Subtotal
Rent/mo Ext Rent Fuel
$10,000 $10,000 $5,760
$3,500 $0 $0
$3,500 $3,500 $3,840
$1 ,800 $1,800 $3,840
$4 ,000 $4,000 $3 ,840
$1,000 $2,000 $1,920
$2,500 $2,500 $0
10,000 $10 ,000
Total
#days Per Day Total
30 $200 $24 ,000
Subtotal <2l $77,000
Material
Cost
$2 ,113
$50
$5
$4
$0
$0
Hours
24
1.08
0 .015
0 .015
0.09
0.27
4 men 12hr -#of days
$16 ,000
$16 ,000
$32,000
Total
$15 ,760
$0
$7 ,340
$5,640
$7,840
$3,920
$2 ,500
$10 ,000
$53 ,000
Ext Hours
216
214
143
214
642
1428
29.745
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
20% Contingency
Subtotal <1 l
$ per mil e
Total <1 l+<2l
June 8, 2011
Distance= 16,368 Ft or 3.1 mile Submarine
4 ,752 Ft or 0.9 mile URD
Labor Rate= $165 per mh
Lab & Mat Extended
Cost Total
$2,113 $19,013
$228 $3,735,178
$8 $109,771
$6 $61,063
$15 $35,284
$45 $105 ,851
Subtotal $4,066,159
$17,224 $/mile
$4,098,159
$819 ,6 32
$4,917,791
$1,229,448
$4,994,791
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 4 Loud Creek to Akutan -Submarine from Loud creek to proposed dock facilities then
onshore URD following purposed road to Akutan Power House
Assembly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50%
Rock Trench 50%
Professional Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/plow
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pickup
Skidsteer
4 whee ler
wire equip undgrd
1 Crew of 4 men
Room Board
Q!Y
17
8976
44352
29568
7392
7392
Qty
1
0
1
1
1
4
1
4
Weight Cost FRT diff
250 $2 ,000 $112 .50
1 $5 $0.23
1 $4 $0.45
0 $0 $0 .00
0 $0 $0 .00
Unit Cost/un it
4.5 (m i) $4,000.00
4.5 (mi) $4,000 .00
Professiona l Services Subtotal
Rent/mo Ext Rent Fuel
$10 ,000 $29,333 $16 ,896
$3,500 $0 $0
$3 ,500 $10,267 $11,264
$1 ,800 $5,280 $11 ,264
$4,000 $11,733 $11 ,264
$1 ,000 $11,733 $11 ,264
$2,500 $7,333 $0
Tota l
#days Pe r Day Total
88 $200 $70,400
Subtotal (2l $20 8,032
Material
Cost
$2,112.50
$50.00
$5.23
$3.95
$0 .00
$0.00
Hours
24
1.08
0.015
0 .015
0 .09
0 .27
4 men 12hr -#of days
$18,000
$18,000
$36 ,000
Total
$46,229
$0
$21,531
$16,544
$22 ,997
$22,997
$7,333
$137 ,632
Ext Hours
408
665
444
665
1996
4178
87 .04
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
30% Contingency
Subtotal 111
$ per mile
Total <1>+<2>
Distance=
Labor Rate=
Lab & Mat
Cost
$2 ,112.50
$228 .20
$7.70
$6.43
$14 .85
$44 .55
Subtotal
$3,090,805
$927,242
$4,018,047
$892,899
$4,226,079
June 8, 2011
8,976 Ft or 1.7 mile Submarine
14,784 Ft or 2 .8 mile URD
$165 per mh
Extended
Total
$35,913
$2 ,048,323
$341 ,510
$189 ,974
$109 ,771
$329 ,3 14
$3 ,054,805
$9,183 $/mile
City Of Akutan-Lo ud Creek Hydro
Optio n 4a Loud Creek to Akutan -L o ud Creek to Harbo r -Submarine from Loud Creek to Harbor
Ass embly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4 " HOPE Conduit w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50 %
Rock Trench 50%
Profes sional Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/plow
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pickup
Skid steer
4 wheeler
wire equip undgrd
1 Crew of 4 men
Room B oard
Qty
2
8976
1800
1200
300
300
Qty
1
0
1
1
1
4
1
4
Weight Cost FRT diff
250 $2,000 $112.50
1 $5 $0.23
1 $4 $0.45
0 $0 $0.00
0 $0 $0.00
Unit Cost/unit
1.8 (mi) $4,000.00
1.8 (mi) $4 ,000 .00
Professional Services Subtotal
Rent/mo Ext Rent Fuel
$10,000 $1,667 $960
$3,500 $0 $0
$3,500 $583 $640
$1 ,800 $300 $640
$4,0 00 $667 $640
$1,000 $667 $640
$2,500 $417 $0
Total
#days Per Day Total
5 $200 $4 ,000
Subtotal <2> $11 ,820
Material
Cost
$2,112.50
$50.00
$5 .23
$3 .95
$0 .00
$0 .00
1.08
0 .015
0.01 5
0 .0 9
0 .2 7
4 men 12hr -#of days
$7 ,255
$7 ,255
$14,509
Total
$2,627
$0
$1,223
$940
$1,307
$1,307
$417
$7,820
Ext Hours
48
27
18
27
81
201
4.1875
Distance =
Labor Rate=
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Subtotal
30% Co ntinge n c y
Subtotal <1 >
$ per mile
Total <1>•<2>
June 8, 2011
8,976 Ft or 1. 7 mile Submarine
600 Ft URD
$165 per mh
Lab & Mat Extended
Cost Total
$2,112.50 $4,225
$228 .20 $2,048 ,323
$7.70 $13,860
$6.43 $7,710
$14.85 $4,455
$44 .55 $13,365
Subtotal $2,091,938
$12,463 $/m ile
$2,10 6,447
$631,9 34
$2,738 ,3 81
$1,509,885
$2,750,201
City Of Akutan-Lo ud Creek Hydro
Option 5-Akutan P ower House t o Existing Trident Facitlities
Assembly
Section Cans w/ Elbows
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive)
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable
4 " HOPE Conduit w/ fittings
Trench/Plow 50%
Rock Trench 50%
Pro f essio nal Services
Engineering
Construction Mgt.
Equipment
04 cat w/plow
Boom Truck
Backhoe
Pickup
Skidsteer
4 wheeler
wire equip undgrd
1 Crews of 4 men
Room B o ard
Q!Y
6
0
7920
5280
1320
1320
Q!Y
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
4
Weight Cost FRT diff
250 $2 ,000 $113
$5 $0
1 $4 $0
0 $0 $0
0 $0 $0
Unit CosUunit
0 .5 (mi) $4,000.00
0 .5 (mi) $4,000 .00
Professional Services Subtotal
RenUmo Ext Rent Fuel
$10 ,000 $6,000 $3 ,456
$3 ,500 $0 $0
$3,500 $2,100 $2,304
$1,800 $1,080 $2,304
$4 ,000 $2,400 $2,304
$1,000 $1,200 $1, 152
$2,500 $1 ,500 $0
Total
#days Per Day Total
18 $200 $14,400
Subtotal <2> $40,20 0
Material
Cost
$2,113
$50
$5
$4
$0
$0
Hours
24
1.08
0 .015
0 .015
0.09
0.27
4 men 12hr -# of days
$2 ,000
$2 ,000
$4 ,000
Total
$9,456
$0
$4,404
$3,384
$4,704
$2,352
$1 ,500
$25,800
Ext Hours
144
119
79
119
356
817
17.025
Di stance=
Labor Rate=
Labor
Cost
$0
$178
$2
$2
$15
$45
Su bt o tal
20% Co ntingency
Su b t o tal (1>
$ per mile
Total (1l•(2l
June 8, 2011
0 Ft or 0 mile Submarine
2,640 Ft or .5 mile URD
$165 per mh
Lab & Mat Extended
Cost Tota l
$2 , 113 $12,675
$228 $0
$8 $60,984
$6 $33,924
$15 $19,602
$45 $58,806
Subtotal $185,991
$70 $/mile
$1 89,991
$37,998
$227,989
$455,97 8
$2 68,1 89
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 6 Loud Creek to Akutan -Overland URD from Loud Creek to proposed dock facilities then
onshore URD following proposed road to Akutan Power House
Material
Assembly Q!Y Weight Cost FRT diff Cost Hours
Section Cans w/ Elbows 25 250 $2 ,000 $112 .50 $2,112.50 24
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive) 0 $50.00 1.08
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable 76032 1 $5 $0 .23 $5 .23 0.015
4 " HOPE Conduit w/ fittings 50688 1 $4 $0.45 $3 .95 0 .015
Trench/Plow 50 %-Road 7392 0 $0 $0.00 $0 .00 0.09
Rock Trench 50 %-Road 7392 0 $0 $0 .00 $0.00 0.27
Establish level path for equip 10560 0 $0 $0 .00 $0.00 0 .5
Rock Trench -no road 10560 0 $0 $0 .00 $0 .00 0.27
4 men 12hr -#of days
Professional Services Unit Cost/unit
Engineering 4 .8 (mi) $4,000.00 $19,200
Construction Mgt. 4 .8 (mi) $4,000.00 $19,200
Professional Services Subtotal $38,400
Equipment Q!Y Rent/mo Ext Rent Fuel Total
04 cat w/plow 2 $10,000 $92,333 $53 ,184 $145,517 #of crew=
Boom Truck 0 $3,500 $0 $0 $0
Backhoe 2 $3,500 $32,317 $0 $32 ,317
Pickup 1 $1,800 $8,310 $0 $8,310
Skid steer 1 $4,000 $18,467 $0 $18,467
4 wheeler 4 $1,000 $18,467 $0 $18,467
wire equip undgrd 1 $2,500 $11,542 $0 $11,542
Trencher 1 $25,000 $115,417 $0 $115,417
Airtrack 2 $5,000 $46,167 $0 $46,167
Total $234 ,6 19
1 Crew of 4 men #days Per Day Total
Room Board 4 277 $200 $221 ,600
Subtotal <2 > $456 ,219
June 8, 2011
Distance= 10,560 Ft or 2.0 mile Roadless
14,784 Ft or 2.8 mile URD in Road
Labor Rate= $165 per mh
Labor Lab & Mat Extended
Ext Hours Cost Cost Total
600 $0 $2,112 .50 $52,813
$178 $228 .20 $0
1140 $2 $7 .70 $585,446
760 $2 $6 .43 $325,670
665 $15 $14.85 $109 ,771
1996 $45 $44.55 $329,314
5280 $83 $82.50 $871 ,200
2851 $68 $67.50 $712,800
13293 Subtotal $2,987 ,014
276 .94 $10 ,762 $/mile
Subtotal $3,025,414
2 20% Contingency $605,083
Subtotal <1> $3,630,497
$ per mile $756,354
Total (1l+(2l $4,086,716
City Of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydro
Option 6A Loud Creek to Harbor • Overland (primitive road included) fromLoud Creek to proposed
dock facilities
Material
Assembly Qty Weight Cost FRT diff Cost Hours
Section Cans w/ Elbows 12 250 $2,000 $112.50 $2,112.50 10
#2 cu 15 kV Submarine Cable
(All Inclusive) 0 $50.00 0
#2 cu 15 kV kV URD Cable 31600 1 $5 $0.23 $5 .23 0 .015
4" HOPE Conduit w/ fittings 21000 1 $4 $0.45 $3.95 0 .0 15
Trench/Plow 50%-Road 5500 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0 .09
Rock Trench 50%-Road 5500 0 $0 $0 .00 $0.00 0 .27
Establish level path for equ ip 5000 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0.5
Rock T rench -no road 5000 0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 0 .27
4 men 12hr-#of days
Professional Services Un it Cost/unit
Eng ineering 2 .0 (mi) $4,000.00 $8 ,000
Construction Mgt. 2.0 (mi) $4,000.00 $8 ,000
Professional Services Subtotal $16,000
Equipment Qty Rent/mo Ext Rent Fuel Total
04 cat w/plow 2 $10 ,000 $47,000 $27 ,072 $74,072 #of crew=
Boom Truck 0 $3,500 $0 $0 $0
Backhoe 2 $3 ,500 $16,450 $0 $16,450
Pickup 1 $1,800 $4 ,230 $0 $4,230
S kidsteer 1 $4,000 $9,400 $0 $9,400
4 wheeler 4 $1,000 $9,400 $0 $9,400
wire equip undgrd 1 $2,500 $5,875 $0 $5,875
Trencher 1 $25,000 $58 ,750 $0 $58,750
Airtrack 2 $5,000 $23,500 $0 $23,500
Total $119,427
1 Crew of 4 men #days Pe r Day Tota l
Room Board 141 $200 $0
Subtotal <2l $119,427
June 8, 2011
Distance= 10,560 ft or 2.0 mile Roadless
Labor Rate= $165 per mh
Labor Lab & Mat Extended
Ext Hours Cost Cost Total
120 $0 $2 ,112 .50 $25,350
$0 $50.00 $0
474 $2 $7.70 $243 ,320
315 $2 $6.43 $134 ,925
495 $15 $14.85 $81,675
1485 $45 $44.55 $245,025
2500 $83 $82.50 $4 12,500
1350 $68 $67.50 $337,500
6739 Subtotal $1,480 ,295
140.3958 $140 $/Mile
Subtotal $1,496,295
20% Contingency $299,259
Subtotal <1l $1,795,554
2 $ per mile $897,777
Total <1>•<2l $1,914,981
APPENDIX C
SCHEDULE
ID ,o Task Name
·-1·-·s C onceptual Study
2 FERC jurisdiction declaration
3 Define Permitting Requirements
4 State of Alaska Grant Process
5 13 State of Alaska funding
6 Preliminary engineering
7 13 Survey
8 13 Geo technical
9 Permitting
10 Permits issued
11 Final Design
12 Submarine cable bathymetric surv
13 Order turbine/generator
14 Order submarine cable
15 Bid construction work
16 Contractor awarded site work
17 Contractor purchase materials anc
---:rs-Mobilize for site construction
19· Turbine/generator equip delivery
20 Deliver submarine cable
21 Site construction work
22 Turbine/generator install
23 Project online
Project: Loud Creek Hydro Project De
Date: Wed 6/8/1 1
Task
Split
Duration
-0 days
6 mons
1 mon
3 mons
O days
90 days
2 mons
2 mons
12 mons
O days
2 mons
2 mons
O days
O days
2 mons
10 edays
2 mons
1 mon
12 mons
6 mons
5 mons
1 mon
O days
Start
. 3 '4
Mon 10/31/1 ~
I
I
Mon 10/31 /11'
Mon 4/16/12
Mon 5/14/121
I
Fri 8/3/121
Mon 8/6/12
Mon 8/6/12 ;
Moo 12/10112 1
Mon 12110/12
1 Fr i 11 /8/13
1
Mon 11 /11 /13!
i
Mon 11 /11 /13
Fri 11 /8 /13
Fri 1/3 /14j
Mon 1/6/14J
Fri 2/28/141
Tue 3/11 /14
Tue 5/6/14!
Mon 11 /11 /13
Mon 1/6/14
I
Mon 6 /23/141
I
Mon 11 /10/141
Fri 12/5/1 4 1
n _.§£
1 5 6
Progress
Milestone
1:_:;_~~.T ~T1 0
•
LOUD CREEK HYDRO PROJECT
~2011
11 I 12 : 1 : 2 u__ r4 Ts
----
Summary
Project Summary
8/3
·------ -----------------------------------------· ----
Page 1
External Tasks
EX1ernal Milestone ..
--=i Deadline
APPENDIX D
HARBOR POWER CONSUMPTION
ESTIMATES
McMillen, LLC
Summary
Power Consumer
Harbor
Harbor Residences
Hovercraft Faci lity
Resorts (2)
Co mmercial Bu ild ings (2)
Restaurants (2)
WWTF
Total
Power (kWh/year)
1,150,000
60,000
11,000
150,000
150,000
250,000
132,000
1,903,000
Proj ect: City of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydropower Development
De scr i pti on: Anticipated Power Consumption Summary
Prep ared by: ____________________ _
Date: 12/10/10
Checked: DSA
-----1
Job No.: ___ --1
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydropower Development Date: 12/10/10
Desc ription: Harbor Re sidences Checked: DSA
Prepared by: ____________ _ Job No.:
Assumptions:
1. Akutan, AK residential power useage is similar to other Alaska residences.
2. Re si dential power use in Alaska follows t he same trends as the rest of the United States.
3. Peak use of power ls 5 kW per home.
4. Average daily demand i s the average annual demand distributed across 24 hours per day.
5. Conversion Fac tor -1 Btu= 0.000 293 07108333 kilowatt hour
References :
Power Req uirements
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/historicaldata/historical data80 02.html
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Geothermal/AkutanGeothermalEnergyDemandandStakeholderAssessment2010.pdf
Census Information
http://guickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/02000.html
Year Million BTU/yr Kw H/yr
1987 1 30.5
1990 4 32.3
1993 7 34
1997 11 35
2001 15 36
2005 19
2010 24
2032 46
Increase i n power use predicted from 2005 to 2032
In 2005 res idential Alaska electrical power use was:
Year Households
US Census
US Census
2000
2009
Average increase per year
New Households
Households in 2005
Power use per household
2005
2032
221,600
283,879
6,920
256,199
8041
8491 KwH
8900
9500
10000
10300
10600
Pred icted
(Power Eq) Kw H/yr
8800
9700
10000
10300
10500
10700
10800
11300
106%
2.06E+09 KWH
Compare to Akutan Geothermal Energy Demands Assessment 2010
Report estimated that Akutan spends approximately $157,000 annually on household heating. Each household spent
$3,000 annually on heating. Number of households is approximately 52. The City's e lectric usage is approximately
560,000 kw hrs annually. Each household uses a pproximately 11,0000 kw hrs. annually.
Assume
In dividual
average demand
Assume
Annual Use
Average Use
12,000 KwH/yr
1.37 Kw
5 households
60,000 Kw Hrs/yr
7 Kw
-----t
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan-Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Description: Harbor Facility
Prepared by: _______________ _
Assumptions:
1 . Conversio n Factor -1 Btu = 0.000 293 071 083 33 kilowatt hour
2. Electrical pow er genera t ed with diesel generators varies from 13 to 14.5 KwH per gallon of diesel.
References: Power Requirements
http://www. a ke ne rgya uth ori ty. org/ Geot he rm al/Akutan Geot he rma IE ne rgyDe man d ands take holder Assess me nt2O10. pdf
Date: 12/10/10
Checked: DSA
-----1
Job No.: -----1
The Akutan Geothermal Energy Demands Assessment 2010 predicted the need for approximateley 80,000 gallons of diesel power use annually
for the harbor facil ity.
Ele ctrical Demands of Harbor
Average Daily Use
Oil Use
gal/yr
79,377
gal/day
220
Electrical Use Electrical Use@
@ 13 KwH/gal 14.S KwH/gal
Kw H/yr Kw H/yr
1,030,000 1,150,000
Kw H/day
2,800
Kw H/day
3,200
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Aku t an-Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Description : Hovercraft Fa cility
Prepared by: ______________ _
Assumptions:
1. Conversion Factor -1 Btu = 0.000 293 071 083 33 kilowatt hour
2. Electrical power generated with diese l generators varies from 13 to 14.5 KwH per gallon of diesel. Use .
References : Power Requirements
Date : 12/10/10
Checked : DSA -------
Job No.: ------4
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Geothermal /AkutanGeotherma1EnergyDemandandStakeholderAssessment2010.pdf
The Akutan Geothermal Energy Demands Assessment 2010 predicted t he need for approximateley 80,000 gallons of diesel power use
annually for the harbor facility.
Electrica l El ectrical Use
Use@ 13 @14.5
Oi l Use Kw H/gal KwH/gal
gal/yr Kw H/yr Kw H/yr
Electrical Demand s of Harbor 730 9,000 11,000
gal/day Kw H/day Kw H/day
Average Da ily Use 2 25 30
APPENDIX E
Project Monthly Energy Generation Table
Loud Creek
Summary of Monthly Estimated Energy Production for Average Water Year
Alternative
Base Case (Dam on East Fork Only)
Alt #1 (dam on both East & West Fork)
Total
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju n Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (MWh)
ElllBElllDl&llmlll!IIBllDlllDIDllD
IBIEllDDl&DllDl&IDlllDllDlmlBIBml
APPENDIX F
COST OF ENERGY CALCULATIONS
Project: Loud Creek Hydropower
Description: Cost of Power Calculations
By: Mort McMillen
Purpose: Determ ine the cost of power for the proposed Loud Creek Hydropower Facility.
Reference: Main body of report
( 1) Table 6 -Project Costs
(2) Table 7 -Cost of Power
Tabl e 6 presents a summary of the estimated project costs for the base case and alternative 1
for options 4 and 4a. Transmission option 4 cons ists of a submarine cable (intertidal burial)
around the perimeter of Akutan Bay to the new harbor facilities, then exit to follow the future
harbor dock service road to the city diesel power plant utilizing conventional underground power
cable. Transmission option 4a consists of a submarine cable, (Intertidal) around the perimeter of
Akutan Bay to the new Ha rbor facilities . This is a Harbor only transmission cost. The total
project costs presented within Table 96 will be used for the cost element of the cost of power.
The values presented in Table 6 are calculated as follows:
1. Capital Cost
Obtained from Table 6 -Project Costs. These costs represent the total project cost
association with the base case and alternative 1, options 4 and 4a transmission options.
2. Financing
It was assumed that 100% financing would be required for the project. This assumption
requires financing costs be incorporated into the cost of power analysis.
3. Debt
With 100% financing, the debt required will match the capital cost. This debt value will be
used to calculate the cost of financing .
4. Term
The loan period was assumed at 30 years to finance the project.
5. Interest Rate
An interest rate of 6% was assumed for the loan. This value will be used to calculate the
annual principal and interest cost association with servicing the loan.
6. Annual Prin cipal and Interest (P&I)
The annual P&I cost is determined from the following equation :
P&I = P (,l) (1 +,l)N
(1 + A-)N - 1
With P&I = Principal and Interest($)
P =Original principal (debt)
A-= Interest Rate (6%)
N =Loan Period (30 years)
Therefore calculating for the base alternative and alternative 1, the following P & I values
can be determined .
Base Case . Option 4 :
P & I = (8.306,280) (0 .06) (1.06)30
(1.06)30 -1 = $603,442
Base Case. Option 4a :
P & I= (6,712.200) (0.06) (1.06)30
(1 .06)30 -1 = $677, 195
Alternative 1. Option 4a :
P & I = (7 ,727.400) (0 .06) (1 .06)30
(1 .06)30 -1 = $561,387
7. Annual O&M
The annual O&M based on experience with other similar sized projects was estimated at
$100 ,000/ year.
8. Annual Energy Production
As outlined in the energy production section of the report, the estimated annual energy
production was:
Base case= 1, 132,861 Assuming a plant factor of 37%
Alternative 1 = 1,548, 100 Assuming a plant factor of 39 %
Reference Table 4 -Base case energy production of the report.
9. Annual Cost of Power($/ KWh)
Using the values calculated in items 1 through 8, the annual cost of power can be
calculated as follows:
Annual cost of Power = [Annual P&I +Annual O&Ml
Annual Energy Production
Therefore, for the base case and alternative 1 considering transmission options 4 and
4a :
Base Case
Option 4 =
Base Case
Option 4a =
Alternative 1
Option 4 =
Alternative 1
Option 4a =
[603.442 + 100,0001 = $0.62/ kwh
1, 132,861
[487,641 + 100 .0001 = $0.52/ kwh
1,132,861
[677 .195 + 100,0001 = $0.50/ kwh
1,548,100
[561 ,387 + 100,0001 = $0.43/ kwh
1,548,100
These values were estimated using a spreadsheet model. Rounding through the excel
spreadsheet may result in slight variations in the final values due to rounding within the
excel spreadsheet.
Summary
The ca lculated values for annual cost of power are presented in Table 7.
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Deve lopment
Prepared by:_D_S_A ____________ _
Construction Cost Summary -Base Case
Task Cost
Turbine-Generator Equipment $ 1,040,000
Dam Construction $ 320,000
Penstock(s) $ 700,000
Powerhouse Foundations $ 180,000
Powerhouse Building $ 162,000
Misc. Powerhouse Equipment $ 30,000
Roads/Dock $ 310,000
Substation $ 353,000
Transmission $ 4 ,226 ,000 Option #4
Trident or Harbor Interconnection $ 270,000
Freiqht ($50,000/ba rqe) $ 50,000
Construction management/Startup $ 50 ,000 Assume most CM by RMA/City of Ackutan
Subtotal $ 7,691,000
Engineering and Permitting <@ 8% $ 615,280
Total $ 8 ,306,280
Does not include standby generator set (to be located at Harbor)
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: -----i
Job No.: -----i
McMill en, LLC Project: City of Akutan
Descripti on: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Pre p ared by:_D_S_A ___________ _
Construction Cost Summary -Alternative 1
Task Cost
T urbine-Generator Equipment $ 1,300 ,000
Dam Constru ction $ 640,000
Penstock (s) $ 950,000
Powerhouse Foundations $ 180,000
Powerhouse Building $ 162,000
Misc. Powerhouse Equ ipment $ 20,000
Roads/Dock $ 380,000
Substation $ 353,000
Transmission $ 4 ,226 ,000 Option #4
T ri dent Interconnection $ 270,000
Freight ($50,000/barge) $ 100,000.00
Construct ion manaqemenUstartup $ 50,000.00 Assumes most CM by RMNCity of Akutan
Subtotal $ 8,631,000
Enqineerinq and Permittinq ~8% $ 690,480
Total $ 9,321,480
Does not include s tand by generator set (to be located at Ha rbor)
Da te: 6/8/11
Checked :
Job No.:----t
McMillen, LLC Proj ect: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by :_D_S_A ______________ _
Powerhouse Foundation Cost Estimate -Base Case and Alternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UN IT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
General Reqmts
Mobil izatio n/Demobilization 1 EA $ -$ -
Concrete
Found ation 57 CY $ 400.00 $ 22,820.00 $ 500.00 $ 28,524.00
$ 22,820.00 $ 28,524.00
Labor Costs $ 75 per hou r
EQUIPMENT
UNIT TOTAL
$ 25,000.00
400 $ 22,8 19.56
$ 47,819.56
Subtotal
Contingency (30%)
Akutan Factor (30%)
Date : 6/8/11
Checked :
Job No.:--------1
SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL
$ -
$ -
$ 99,163.56
$ 29,749.07
$ 29,749.07
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 19,832.71
Total $ 178,494.40
McMillen, LLC
EES CONSULTING
Project: City of Akutan
De scription: Loud Creek Hydropower Deve lopment
Prepared by:_D_P_J -----------
Powerhouse Superstructure Cost Estimate -Base Case and Alternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Specialties
PRE-ENGI N EERED BUI LD IN G 900 SF $ 10.00 $9,000.00 $ 90.00 $81 ,000.00
$9,000.00 $81 ,000.00
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
A ssume general contractor will provide equipment requ i red for erection of building (forklift)
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: -----JobNo.: -----
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
$ -$ -
Subtotal $ 90,000.00
Contingency (30%) $ 27,000.00
A kutan Factor (30 %) $ 27,000.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 18,000.00
Total $162,000.00
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
EES CONSULTING Description: Loud Cr eek Hydropower Development
Prepared by: _D_PJ ____________ _
Powerhouse Turbine Generator Equipment Cost Estimate -Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mechani cal/Electrical
Equ ipment pa ck age HR $ 180.00 $ -$ -
Installation 200 HR $ 75.00 $ 15,000.00 LS $ 5,000.00
Commission ing 4 0 HR $ 75.00 $ 3 ,000.00 $ -
Shi ooino 1 LS $50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
$ 68 ,000 .00 $ 5,000 .00
Labor Cos $ 75 per hour
Date: 6/8/11
Checked : -------1 Job No.: -------1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
L S $500,000.00
$ 1,800 .00
$ 700.00
$502,500 .00 $ -
Subtotal $ 575 ,500 .00
Contingency (30%) $ 172,650.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 172,650.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 115,100.00
Total $ 1,035,900.00
For S umm ary Tab le Use $1,040,000.00
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
EES CONSULTING Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Deve lopment
Prepared by:_D_PJ ____________ _
Powerhouse Turbine Generator Equipment Cost Estimate ·Ba Alt 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mechanical/Electrical
Equipment package HR $ 180.00 $ -$ -
Installation 200 HR $ 75.00 $ 15,000.00 LS $ 5,000.00
Commissioning 40 HR $ 75.00 $ 3,000 .00 $ -
Shipping 1 LS $50,000.00 $ 50,000.00
$ 68,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Labor Cos $ 75 per hour
Date: 6/8/11
Check ed :
Job No.: -------1
-------t
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
LS $645,000.00
$ 1,800 .00
$ 700.00
$647,500.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 720,500.00
Contingency (30%) $ 216,150.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 216,1 50.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 144,100.00
Total $ 1,296,900 .00
For Summary Table Use $1 ,300,000.00
McMillen, LLC Project: Ci ty of Akutan
EES CONS ULTING Description : Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:_D_PJ __________ _
Powerhouse Superstructure and accessory Equipment Cost Estimate -Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mechanical/Electrical
HVAC 16 HR $ 75.00 $ 1 ,200.00 $ -
LIGHTING/RECEPTICALS 24 LS $ 75.00 $ 1,800.00 $ -
DRAINAGE 8 LS $ 75.00 $ 600 .00 $ -
$ 1,200.00 $ -
Labor Cos $ 75 per hour
Date: 6/8/11
Checked:
Job No.: -------t
--------1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
LS $10,000.00
$ 3,800.00
$ 700.00
$14,500 .00 $ -
Subtotal $ 15,700.00
Contingency (30%) $ 4,710.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 4,710.00
Profit and Overhead (2C $ 3, 140.00
Total $ 28,260.00
For Summary Table Use $30,000.00
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
EES CONSULTING De scripti on: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:_D_PJ __________ _
Powerhouse Superstructure and accessory Equipment Cost Estimate -Alternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UN IT TOTAL
Mechanical/Electrical
HVAC 16 HR $ 75.00 $ 1,200.00 $ -
LIGHTING/RECEPTICALS 24 LS $ 75.00 $ 1,800.00 $ -
DRAINAGE 8 LS $ 75.00 $ 600.00 $ -
$1,200.00 $ -
Labor Cos $ 75 per hour
Dat e: 6/8/11
Checked:
Job No.: --------1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -
LS $ 8,000.00
$ 1,800.00
$ 700.00
$10,500.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 11,700.00
Contini:iencv (30%) $ 3,510.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 3,510.00
Profit and Overhead (21 $ 2 ,340.00
Total $ 21 ,060.00
F or Summa ry Table Use $20,000.00
McMill en, LLC Proj ect: City of Akutan
Des cri ption: loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepa red by:""D"""SA;.;.._ _____________ _
Road Construction Cost Estimate -Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UN IT TOTAL
Mobilization
Access
A TV acce ss road cuVfi ll 120 HRS $ -$ -
re-veqetatio n 0.50 AC $ 20,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 43,068 $ 21,534.00
qravel 500 CY $ $ 40 $ 20,000.00
!leotextile 2200 SY $ 2 $ 4.400.00 $ 2 $ 4.400.00
oolvethvlene dock 16.5' x 10') 3 EA $ -$ 2,160 $ 6,480.00
al uminum qanqwav 14' x 35'1 1 EA $ -$ 5,500 $ 5,500.00
oil es 2 EA $ 2,000 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,000 $ 2,000.00
qravel unloadinq ramo/oad (40'x50'x1 'l 100 CY $ -$ 40 $ 4,000.00
$ 18,400.00 $ 6 3,914.00
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
NOTES:
Costs fo r Tacoma (98402 ). to be shippe d on ba rge to Akutan (Pacific Alaska Frei ghtways)
EZ Docks 360-352-3084
Gravel Lo ry Grego ry (U nalas ka Roads Dept) says that all grave l for Akutan comes from Unalaska.
$
$
$
$
s
$
Date : 6/8/11
Checked:
Job No.,-------t
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UN IT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ 36,000.00
250 $ 30,000.00 $ -
$ -$ -
15 $ 7,500.00 $ -
$ $ -
500 $ 1,500.00 $ -
500 $ 500.00 $ -
5,000 $ 10,000.00 $ -
10 s 1,000.00 $ -
$ 86 ,500.00 $ -
Subtotal $ 168,814.00
Continqe ncv 130'/ol $ 50,644.20
Akuta n Factor (30%) $ 50 ,644.20
Profit and Ove rhead (20%) $ 33,762.80
Total $ 303,865.20
For Summary Table Use $310,000.00
Bill Shaishn ikoff (907) 581 -1409 -intends to be the lowest bidder when it comes time to bid . $34 /cy fo r 1"; $35/cy fo r 3/4"minus, de livered on the ba rge.
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan Date: 6/8/11
Description: Loud Creek Hydropow er Development
Prepared by:_D"""SA ______________ _
Checked : _____ _
Job No.: _____ _
Road Con struction Cost Estimate -Alternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL EQU IPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UN IT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Mobilization $ 44,000.00
Access
ATV access road cuVfill 160 HRS $ -$ -$ 250 $ 40,000.00 $ -
re-ve qetation 0 .67 AC $ 20,000 $ 13,300.00 $ 43,068 $ 28,640.00 $ -$ -
oravel 670 CY $ -$ 40 $ 26,800.00 $ 15 $ 10,050.00 $ -
oeotexti le 3000 SY $ 2 $ 6,000.00 $ 2 $ 6,000.00 $ -$
polvethvlene dock 16 .5' x 10') 3 EA $ -$ 2 ,160 $ 6,480.00 $ 500 $ 1,500.00 $ -
aluminum oanowav 14' x 35') 1 EA $ -$ 5,500 $ 5,500.00 $ 500 $ 500.00 $ -
piles 2 EA $ 2,000 $ 4 ,000.00 $ 1,000 $ 2,000.00 $5,000 $ 10,000.00 $ -
qravel unloadinq ramp/pad (40'x50'x1') 100 CY $ -$ 40 $ 4,000.00 $ 10 s 1,000.00 $ -
$ 23,300.00 $ 79,420.00 $ 107,050.00 $ -
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour Subtotal $ 209,no.oo
Contint:iencv (30%) $ 62,931.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 62,931 .00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 41 ,954.00
Total ~ 377,586.00
NOTES: For Summary Table Use $380,000.00
Costs for Tacoma (98402), to be shipped on barge to Akutan (Pacific Alaska Freig htways)
EZ Docks 360-352-3084
Gravel Lory Gre gory (Unalaska Roads Dept) says that all gravel for Akutan comes from Unalaska.
Bill Shaishnikoff (907) 581 -1409 -intends to be the lowest bidder when it comes time to bid. $34/cy for 1"; $35/cy for 3/4 "minus, delivere d on the barge.
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Cre ek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:_D_S_A _____________ _
Dam Construction Cost Estimate -Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
General ReQmts
Mobilization/Demobilization $ -$ -
Included in Foundation and Road Mobilization
Site Develooment
DewaterinQ 30 DAYS $ 150 $ 4,500 $ -
Excavation and Compaction, Pond
(1000 cy) 120 HRS $ 75 $ 9,000 $ -
Bentonite 22.4 TONS $ 150 $ 3,360 $ 250 $ 5,600
Erosion and Sedi ment Control 500 LF $ 2 $ 1,000 $ 5 $ 2,500
Rock Riprap (spillway+ pipe) 100 CY $ 18 $ 1,800 $ 70 $ 7,000
Concrete
Foundation for droo inlet works 10 CY $ 1,500 $ 15,000 $ 500 $ 5,000
Metals
CMP sleeve riser (inlet) 10 LF $ 60 $ 600 $ 100 $ 1,000
Wood/Plastic
Fiberglass gratino walkwav 40 LF $ 75 $ 3,000 $ 100 $ 4,000
Pipe suooort 40 EA $ 75 $ 3,000 $ 100 $ 4 ,000
8'x3' fiberglass trash rack 3 EA $ 75 $ 225 $ 1,200 $ 3,600
48" HOPE riser (inlet) 20 FT $ 75 $ 1,500 $ 102 $ 2,040
Low Level Outl et-18" 100 FT $ 60 $ 6,000 $ 25 $ 2,500
$ 48,985 $ 37,240
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: -------1
Job No.: -------t
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
1,000 $ 30,000 $ -
300 $ 36,000 $ -
2 $ 1,000 $ -
100 $ 10,000 $ -
500 $ 5.000 $ -
50 $ 500 $ -
50 $ 2,000 $ -
50 $ 2,000
$ -$ -
100 $ 2,000 $ -
$ 88,500 $ -
Subtotal $ 174,725.00
Contingency (30%) $ 52,417.50
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 52,417.50
Profit a nd Overhead (20%) $ 34,945.00
Total $ 314,505.00
McMillen , LLC Proj ect: Ci ty of Akut an Dat e: 6/8/11
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by:_D_SA ____________ _
Ch ecke d : _____ --1
Job No.: ------4
Dam Construction Cost Estim ate - A lternative 1
LABOR MATERIAL EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UN IT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
Gener al Reamts
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 EA $ -$ -$ -$ -
Included in Foundation and Road Mobilization
Site Development
Dewateri na 60 DAYS $ 150.00 $ 9,000.00 $ -1,000 $ 60 ,000.00 $ -
Excavation , Pond (1500 cy) 240 HRS $ 75.00 $ 18 ,000.00 $ -300 $ 72 ,000.00 $ -
Erosion and Sediment Control 1000 LF $ 2.00 $ 2 ,000.00 $ 5.00 $ 5,000 .00 2 $ 2,000.00 $ -
Rock Riprap (s pillway+ pipe) 200 CY $ 18.00 $ 3 ,600.00 $ 70.00 $ 14,000.00 100 $ 20 ,000.00 $ -
Concrete
Foundation for drop inlet works 20 CY $ 1,000.00 $ 20 ,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 10,000.00 500 $ 10,000.00 $ -
Metals
CMP sleeve riser (inlet) 20 LF $ 60.0 0 $ 1.200.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,000 .00 50 $ 1,000.00 $ -
Wood/Plastic
FiberQlass QratinQ wa lkway 80 LF $ 75.00 $ 6 ,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 8,000.00 50 4000 $ -
Pipe support 80 EA $ 40 .00 $ 3,200.00 $ 100.00 $ 8,000.00 50 4000
Vinvl shee t Pile 2000 SF $ 1.00 $ 2,000.00 s 10 .00 $ 20 ,000 .00 10 20000
8'x3 ' fiberalas s trash rack 6 EA $ -$1,200.00 $ 7,200.00 $ -$ -
48" HOP E riser (inlet) 20 FT $ 50 .00 $ 1,000.00 $ 102.00 $ 2,040.00 100 $ 2,000.00 $ -
Low Level -18" 100 FT $ 60 .00 $ 6 ,000.00 $ 25 .00 $ 2,500.00 50 $ 5,000.00
0 $ -$ -$ -
0 $ -$ -$ -
$ 72,000 .00 $ 78,740.00 $ 200,000.00 $ -
Labor Costs $ 75 per ho ur Subtotal $ 350 ,740.00
Contim:iencv (30 %) $ 105,222 .00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 105,222.00
Profit and Overhead (20 %) $ 70 ,148.00
For Summary Table Use $640,000.00 Total $ 631 ,332.00
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
Description: loud Creek Hydropower Deve lopment
Prepared by:_D_S_A ____________ _
Penstock Construction Cost Estimate -Base Case
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRI PTION QTY UN IT
Gener al Ream ts
Mobilization/Demobilization
Included in Foundation and Road Mobilization
Site Development
Dewaterina 7 DAYS
Erosion and Sediment Control 4000 LF
Concrete
Thrust blocks 4 EA
Pioe
16" SOR 7.3 HOPE 2500 ft
18" SOR 7.3 HOPE
24" SOR 7 .3 HOPE
Pipe Transport
NOTES:
HOPE install ation price : http://www.hdpe.com/fus ion/fusion_cost_g uideline.shtml
HOPE pricing from United Pipe, Tacoma
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
$
$
$
$
$
$
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
100 $ 700 $ -
1 $ 4,000 $ 3 $ 12,000
1,000 $ 4,000 $ 500 $ 2 ,000
20 $ 50,000 $ 35 $ 86,500
20 $ -$ 44 $ -
20 $ -$ 93 $ -
$ 50,000
$ -
$ 58,700 $ 150,500
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: _____ -t
Job No.: ------t
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
$ 500 $ 3,500 $ -
$ 2 $ 8,000 $ -
$ 500 $ 2 ,000 $ -
$ -
$ 65 $ 162,50 0 $ -
$ 65 $ -
$ -$ -
$ -$ -
$ -$ -
$ 176,000 $ -
Subtotal $ 385,200.00
Contingency (30%) $ 115,560.00
Akutan Factor (30%) $ 115,560.00
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 77,040.00
Tot al $ 693,360.00
McMillen, LLC Project: City of Akutan
Description: Loud Creek Hydropower Development
Prepared by: _D_S_A _____________ _
Penstock Construction Cost Estimate -Alternative #1
LABOR MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT
General Reqmts
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 EA
Site Development
Dewatering 7 DAYS
Erosion and Sed iment Control 4000 LF
Concrete
Thrust blocks 14 EA
Pipe
16" SDR 17 HOPE 950 ft
18" SOR 7.3 HOPE 2500
Pipe Transport
NOTES:
HOPE installation price : http://www .hdpe.com/fusion/fusion_cost_guideline.shtml
HOPE pricing from United Pipe, Tacoma
Labor Costs $ 75 per hour
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
$ 100.00 $ 700.00 $ -
$ 1.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3.00 $ 12,000 .00
$ 1,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 500 .00 $ 7,000.00
$ -$ -
$ 20.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 19.47 $ 18,497.00
$ 20.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 43.79 $109,475.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 87,700.00 $196,972.00
Date: 6/8/11
Checked: -------Job No.: -------1
EQUIPMENT SUBCONTRACTOR
UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
$ -$ -
500 $ 3,500.00 $ -
2 $ 8,000.00 $ -
500 $ 7,000.00 $ -
$ -$ -
65 $ 61,750.00 $ -
65 $ 162,500.00 $ -
$ -$ -
$ 242,750 .00 $ -
Subto t al $ 527,422.00
Contingency (30 %) $ 158,226 .60
Akuta n Factor (30%) $ 158,226.60
Profit and Overhead (20%) $ 105,484 .40
Total $ 949,359 .60