The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHaines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study Volume 1 - Report 1982HAS 014 vol. I Alaska Power Authority LIBRARY COpy HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY Volume I -Report R. W BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS June 1982 001 L...-__ ALASIiA .·()\fEll AU'l~HOIl.TY __ ....... WEST CREEK VAllEY • • P.O.80X2400 • SITKA, ALASKA 99835 FILE NO. • • , .. , R. W. BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC RH-1559-HG3-AA 3110 Mr. Robert A. Mohn Director of Engineering Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Mohn: Subject: ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS TOWER BUILDING 711-1 AVENUE AT OLIVE WAY SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101 206-622-5000 Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study HI..:. OCT 1 1 1982 AlAsKA i v. P.O. BOX 6818 ." In Knt)i;IKAN, ALASKA 99901 June 30, 1982 We herewith submit our report on the Feasiblity Study for the Haines-Skagway Region. Our principal findings and conclusions are set forth in the Summary and Conclusions of the report. Details of the site investigations, engineer- ing studies, economic evaluations and environmental studies conducted for the Project are described in the subsequent sections of the report and in Appen- dices A through C. Respectfully submitted, R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. James V. Williamson Manager Hydro-Water Resources Design Office Registered Professional Engineer in Alaska • • • ., • " CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY The technical material and data contained in this study were prepared by the following engineers: ! .~ ~.~::Ir:<---- Supervising Engineer R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. Wilson V. Binger, Jr. Principal Engineer R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. The technical material and data contained in this study were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned whose seal as professional engineer is affixed below • Donald R. Melnick Executive Engineer R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. • • • • • VOLUME I -REPORT SUMMARY GENERAL OUTLINE OF REPORT PART A -SELECTION OF GENERATION PLAN PART B -FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATIONS OF WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PART C -COMMENTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES PART D -SUMMARY OF GENERATION ALTERNATIVES VOLUME II -APPENDICES APPENDIX A -PHASE II -FEASIBILITY STUDY INTERIM REPORT APPENDIX B -GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION APPENDIX C -ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS • .. .. • • Section Number I HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION PHASE II FEASIBILITY STUDY VOLUME I -REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section and Subsection Title Letter of Transmittal Certificate of Engineer General Outline of Report Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures SUMMARY SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL STATISTICS OF RECOMMENDED GENERATION PLAN PART A: SELECTION OF GENERATION PLAN INT RODUCT ION 1 • 2. 3. 4. General Authorization Background Scope of Current Investigations II SITE DESCRIPTION 1 • 2. 3 • 4. 5. 6. Geography Topography Geology Climate Natural Environment Socioeconomic Setting Page Number 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-2 II-1 II-1 II-1 II-2 II-2 II-3 Section Number TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section and Subsection Title III REGIONAL POWER MARKET GENERATION REQUIREMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. General Haines Demand and Energy Forecast a. Residential Load b. Commercial Load c. Tourism d. Sewage Treatment Plant e. Trans-Alaska Pipeline f. Barite Mine g. Industrial Load h. Tank Farm i. Public School j. Schnabel Lumber Company k. Boat Harbor Customers 1. Streetlight Customers m. System Losses n. Peak Demand o. Monthly Distribution of Energy Use Skagway Demand and Energy a. Residential Load b. Commercial Load c. Tourism d. Shopping/Residence Complex e. Government Load f. City Requirements g. National Park Service Historic District Restoration h. The White Pass and Yukon Corporation Limited Railroad i. Electric Utility Use j. System Losses k. Peak Demand 1. Monthly Distribution of Energy Use Impact of Conversions a. Haines b. Skagway Existing Generating Facilities a. Haines b. Skagway Page Number III-1 III-2 III-2 III-2 III-3 III-3 III-4 III-4 III-4 III-4 III-4 III-5 III-6 III-6 III-6 III-6 III-6 III-7 III-7 III-B III-B III-B III-9 III-9 III-9 III-10 III-11 III-11 III-12 III-12 III-12 III-12 III-13 III-14 III-14 III-14 .. • .. • • .. ) • Section Number TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued) Section and Subsection Title IV ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF GENERATION CONSIDERED V 1 • 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. General Hydroelectric Generation Diesel Generation and Waste Heat a. Diesel-Electric Plants b. Waste Heat Recovery c. Application of Waste Heat Recovery to Haines and Skagway Wind Energy Conversion Systems a. Description of the WECS b. Application of WECS to Haines and Skagway c. Costs d. Environmental Considerations Conservation Wood Waste Generation ALTERNATIVE PLANS IDENTIFIED FOR MEETING AREA GENERATION REQUIREMENTS 1 • 2. 3. 4. General Base Case Plan West Creek Hydroelectric Plan Wood Waste Generation Plan VI EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 1 • 2. 3. General Economic Analysis a. Method of Analysis b. Annual Costs c. Costs of Alternative Plans d. Cost Comparison Environmental Evaluation a. Base Case Plan b. West Creek Hydroelectric Plan c. Wood Waste Generation Plan VII GENERATION PLAN -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 • 2. Conclusions Recommendations Page Number IV-1 IV-1 IV-2 IV-2 IV-3 IV-3 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 IV-6 IV-7 IV-7 IV-B V-1 V-1 V-2 V-2 VI-1 VI-1 VI-1 VI-2 VI-2 VI-2 VI-3 VI-3 VI-3 VI-4 VII-1 VII-2 Section Number TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section and Subsection Title PART B: FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATIONS OF WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT VIII EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. General Topography Geology Environmental Setting Land Ownership and Use IX FIELD INVESTIGATIONS X 1 • 2. 3. 4. Site Reconnaissance Land Surveys and Topographic Mapping Environmental Studies Geotechnical Investigations HYDROLOGY 1. General 2. Runoff and Annual Basin Yield a. Streamflow Records b. Precipitation and Runoff Correlations c. Estimated Basin Yield 3. Flood Studies a. Construction Diversion Flood b. Probable Maximum Flood 4. Reservoir Sedimentation XI PROJECT OPERATION STUDIES 1 • 2. 3. 4. General Project Sizing Input Data a. Reservoir Inflows b. Reservoir Characteristics c. Losses d. System Load Characteristics Power Operation Studies a. Method of Project Operation b. Operation Study Results Page Number VIII-1 VIII-1 VIII-1 VIII-2 VIII-3 IX-1 IX-1 IX-1 IX-2 X-1 X-1 X-1 X-1 X-2 X-2 X-2 X-2 X-4 XI-1 XI-1 XI-1 XI-1 XI-2 XI-2 XI-2 XI-2 XI-2 XI-3 ... • • TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) • Section Page Number Section and Subsection Title Number XII ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS • 1 • General XII-1 2. Dam and Spillway XII-1 a. General XII-1 b. Concrete-Gravity Dam XII-1 c. Concrete-Faced Rockfill Dam XII-2 d. Comparison of Dam Alternatives XII-3 e. Diversion Alternatives XII-3 3. Power Intake Alternatives XII-3 4. Power Conduit and Powerhouse Alternatives XII-4 a. General XII-4 b. Type of Power Conduit XII-4 • c • Location XII-5 d. Alternative Arrangements XII-5 e. Comparison of Alternatives XII-7 f. Refinement of Selected Alternative No. 1 XII-7 g. Powerhouse Superstructure XII-B 5. Transmission Line Alternatives XII-B a. General XII-B b. Transmission Line Corridor Alternatives XII-9 c. Alternative Transmission Line Evaluation XII-10 XIII SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT 1 • General XIII-1 2. Reservoir XIII-1 3. Dam and Spillway XIII-1 4. Power Intake XIII-2 5. Power Conduit XIII-2 6. Powerhouse XIII-3 7. Transmission System XIII-3 B. Access Roads XIII-4 9. Design and Construction Schedule XIII-4 10. Future Expansion XIII-5 Section Number TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section and Subsection Title XIV EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT OF THE SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT 1. General 2. Fisheries Resources 3. Water Quality 4. Wildlife 5. Historic and Archaeological Resources 6. Socioeconomic 7. Recreational Resources 8. Aesthetic Resources 9. Air Quality 10. Land Use XV PROJECT COSTS 1. General 2. Project Capital Costs a. Direct Construction Cost b. Contingencies c. Engineering and Owner Administration d. Total Construction Cost e. Interest During Construction f. Total Investment Cost g. Escalation Adjustment 3. Annual Costs XVI REFERENCES PART C: COMMENTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES Summary of Public Meetings Division of Parks, Department of Natural Resources APA Response of May 27, 1982 APA Response of August 2, 1982 Division of Parks Letter of September 7, 1982 Alaska Power Administration Barbara D. Kalen, Skagway Haines Light and Power U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service APA Response Skagway Resolution Page Number XIV-1 XIV-1 XIV-4 XIV-5 XIV-7 XIV-8 XIV-10 XIV-11 XIV-12 XIV-13 XV-1 XV-1 XV-1 XV-1 XV-2 XV-2 XV-2 XV-2 XV-2 XV-2 .. • .. II • Section Number TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section and Subsection Title Alaska Power & Telephone Co. APA Response National Park Service APA Response Department of Natural Resources Department of Fish and Game APA Response Skip Elliot Division of Energy and Power Development APA Response Division of Budget and Management APA Response PART D: SUMMARY OF GENERATION ALTERNATIVES Page Number • • Table Number 111-1 111-2 111-3 111-4 111-5 111-6 111-7 111-8 111-9 111-10 111-11 111-12 111-13 Vl-1 VI-2 VI-3 VI-4 VI-5 VI-6 VI-7 VI-8 VI-9 VI-10 Vl-11 VI-12 X-1 X-2 X-3 X-4 LIST OF TABLES Title Historical Energy Use -Haines Light and Power Population Projections -Haines Projection of Community Energy Use for Haines -Scenario A Projection of Community Energy Use for Haines -Scenario B Historical Energy Use -Alaska Power & Telephone Company, Skagway Population Projections -Skagway Projection of Community Energy Use for Skagway -Scenario A Projection of Community Energy Use for Skagway -Scenario B Projection of Community Energy Use for Haines -Scenario C Projection of Community Energy Use for Skagway -Scenario C Energy in kWh by Month for Haines and Skagway Peak Load Forecast Energy Requirements Forecast Economic Analysis Scenario B: Economic Analysis -Scenario B: Economic Analysis -Scenario B: Base Case-Diesel Generation West Creek Project Wood Waste Generator Case A Economic Analysis -Scenario B: Wood Waste Generator Case B Economic Analysis -Scenario A: Economic Analysis -Scenario A: Economic Analysis -Scenario A: Economic Analysis -Scenario C: Economic Analysis -Scenario C: Economic Analysis -Scenario C: Summary of Economic Analysis Base Case-Diesel Generation West Creek Project Wood Waste Generator Base Case-Diesel Generation West Creek Project Wood Waste Generator Comparison of West Creek Plan On-Line Dates West Creek Project Average Monthly Discharge in cfs at West Creek Near Skagway USGS Gaging Station No. 15056200 West Creek Project Average Monthly Discharge in cfs Adjusted to Dam Site West Creek Project Peak Flows at West Creek Gage West Creek Project Probable Maximum Precipitation and Snowmelt Xl-1 West Creek Project Summary of Basic Input Data XI-2 West Creek Project Reservoir Inflow (acre-feet) XI-3 West Creek Project Total Energy Required (MWh) XI-4 West Creek Project Total Energy Generated (MWh) XI-5 West Creek Project End-of-Month Reservoir Storage (acre-feet) XI-6 West Creek Project End of Month Reservoir Elevation (feet) XI-7 West Creek Project Discharge Through Units (cfs) XI-8 West Creek Project Spill (cfs) Table Number XII-1 West Creek Project XII-2 West Creek Project XIV-1 West Creek Project XV-1 West Creek Project XV-2 West Creek Project LIST OF TABLES (continued) Title Comparison of Power Conduit Alternatives Transmission Evaluation Summary Property Ownership in Project Vicinity Construction Cost Estimate Summary Construction Cost Estimate , • • Figure Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Location Map Load Forecast LIST OF FIGURES Title West Creek Project Flood Hydrographs West Creek Reservoir Area-Capacity Curves West Creek Project -Alternative Power Conduit Arrangements West Creek Project -Alternative Transmission Corridors West Creek Project -Alternative Transmission Corridor "A" System One-Line Diagram West Creek Project -Alternative Transmission Corridor "B" System One-Line Diagram West Creek Project -Alternative Transmission Corridor "C" System One-Line Diagram West Creek Project -Selected Dam and Power Plant Arrangement West Creek Project -Dam and Spillway Arrangement West Creek Project -Power Intake and Conduit Details West Creek Project -Powerhouse and Tailrace Channel Arrangement West Creek Project -Powerhouse Details West Creek Project -Selected Transmission Corridor West Creek Project -Regional Setting West Creek Project -Historical and Archaeological Resources West Creek Project -Land Ownership West Creek Project -Design and Construction Schedule SUMMARY In July 1981 the Alaska Power Authority (APA) authorized a detailed ~ feasibility study to determine the technical, economic, and environmental fea- sibility of a hydroelectric project on West Creek as a means of meeting the future electrical requirements of Haines and Skagway. APA' s decision was based on two previous studies of energy in the Haines-Skagway Region. The West Creek Project site is about 6 miles northwest of Skagway. West Creek flows into the Taiya River about 3 miles above its mouth. Part A of this re- port describes the load and energy forecast prepared for the two communi ties, the alternative means of meeting these forecasts, and the economic and envi- ronmental evaluations of the various means. Part B describes the results of engineering and environmental studies of the West Creek Project conducted dur- ing the latter part of 1981 and the early part of 1982. Future energy and peak load requirements for the next 20 years were evaluated taking into account local historical trends in energy consumption, population growth, economic trends, and more specific information obtained from local consumers. Three alternative growth scenarios were developed for the region analyzing each city individually. The low scenario (Scenario A) represents a conservative view of growth. The mid-range projection (Sce- nario B) is a combination of the low scenario and other probable or likely future loads identified. A third projection (Scenario C) reflects the future impact of the communities' responses to stable and low relative electric energy costs. This scenario includes increased trends in conversions of ex- isting space heating to electric and similar trends for other major energy users as well as adoption of electric space heating in all new residences and businesses. The mid-range scenario was considered most reasonable for plan- ning purposes and was adopted for this study. This scenario forecasts an average growth in electric load of 4.6% per year in Haines and 3.2% in Skagway. At present, electric energy needs in Haines are met by diesel gen- eration. In Skagway the needs are met by a combination of diesel and hydro- electric generation. Earlier studies had emphasized hydropower as the poten- tially most viable means of meeting the future requirements. The current study gave serious consideration to possible alternatives. Those identified included wind energy conversion systems (WECS) , wood waste generation, waste heat recovery from diesel generation, and conservation. Skagway is known to experience prolonged wind, and a 10-kW WECS has recently been installed in Skagway as a demonstration project. As of the writing of this report, the results of this demonstration were inconclusive. However, based on current costs and the most reasonable estimates of potential output, it was concluded that WECS would have about twice the energy cost of diesel generation. Thus, it was concluded that WECS were not an economical alternative at this time. Page 2 A 4,000-kW wood waste generation plant is currently being installed at the Schnabel Mill in Haines and will be supplying electricity to Haines under a five-year contract beginning early in 1983. Based on the terms of the contract, wood waste generation will provide power at a lower energy cost than the fuel cost of diesel generation. However, wood waste generation will not supply the needs of Skagway, nor are the costs assured after the five years covered in the contract. Despite these uncertainties, wood waste was consid- ered a strong possibility which was tested economically. Waste heat recovery and conservation both typically serve to reduce the overall energy consumption; however, they would do little to reduce elec- tric requirements in the region since they are primarily aimed at space heat- ing, and there is little or no electric space heating presently installed in Haines and Skagway. Previous studies of the Haines-Skagway Region concluded that the most economical hydroelectric project in the region would be the West Creek Project with a storage reservoir and a transmission intertie between Haines and Skagway. A detailed feasibility study was conducted and is the subject of Part B of this report. The study included investigations of geology and hy- drology, environmental studies, power studies, layouts, cost estimates, and initial optimization of project features. In order to meet the 1996 loads forecasted under the mid-range growth Scenario B, a 6,000-kW development on the West Creek site would be required. The Project would consist of a 117-foot-high concrete-faced rock- fill dam creating a 635-acre reservoir with a normal maximum level at El 705; a power intake; a power conduit consisting of 7,460 feet of unlined rock tun- nel with a surge shaft and 1,520 feet of 3-foot-diameter steel penstock; an indoor-type powerhouse containing two 3, OOO-kW turbine generators; a 1,200-foot-long tailrace channel from the powerhouse to West Creek; and a com- bination of overhead, underground and submarine transmission lines construct- ing with Haines and Skagway. The Project is estimated to have a Total Invest- ment Cost of $55,908,000 for an assumed on-line date of January 1982 (current cost level). Environmental studies showed that the Project would have limited adverse impacts. West Creek is too steep and fast flowing in the reach above the Taiya Valley to allow easy migration of fish to its upper reaches. The Project would flood 635 acres of wildlife habitat, but it is not considered critical habitat and species living in the area should be able to relocate wi thout problem. The transmission line would cross the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park and could conceiveably impact some archaeological and historical sites. Preliminary investigations do not reveal any conflicts with the proposed route, but further study is necessary. The powerhouse would be located within the boundary of the park which is prohibited by Federal law. This will require a legislative change in the boundary or authorization of the Project within the boundary before a License Application can be considered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It seems reasonable to expect that this would be possible as the Project will have limited aesthetic effect on Park setting. • Page 3 To economically compare the various generation options, three al- ternative plans were developed which could each meet the region's mid-range scenario for forecasted loads. The first, or base case plan, is basically a continuation of the current status quo with the existing diesel and hydro units meeting loads up to their capacity and new diesel generation being added when required. The second plan assumes that the West Creek Project would be built and used up to its capacity. Existing hydro units in Skagway would con- tinue in operation and the existing diesel generators would initially serve as reserves and later to meet needs beyond the capacity of the West Creek Proj- ect. The third plan assumes that the wood waste generation being installed at the Schnabel Mill would be used to meet part of the Haines load. Under this plan diesel generators would still be needed to meet part of both the Haines and Skagway loads. The three plans were economically compared by calculating the pres- ent worth life cycle cost of each plan for the mid-range load growth Sce- nario B over a 55-year analysis period using APA's prescribed procedure. Con- sistent with this procedure, fuel oil was assumed to escalate at 2.6% per year for 20 years, but all other costs were assumed free of inflation, and an in- flation-free discount rate of 3% was used. The resulting costs were: Base Case Plan West Creek Plan Wood Waste Plan $116,562,000 $ 92,031,000 $101,337,000 Thus, West Creek was determined to be the most economical alternative and the report recommends that development of this Project proceed immediately. As- suming a change in the National Park boundary can be made in a timely manner and that a FERC License is received by spring 1984, construction can be com- pleted by the middle of 1986. • HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL STATISTICS OF RECOMMENDED GENERATION PLAN: WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT BASIN HYDROLOGY Drainage area above dam (sq. mi.) Average annual runoff at dam site Average annual runoff per sq. mi. .................................... (ac-ft) ........................ . (cfsm) ............................ .. PROJECT POWER DATA Annual firm energy generated (MWh) ••••••••••••••••••••••• Installed capacity (kW) ••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Average annual gross head (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESERVOIR Normal maximum power pool elevation (ft) ••••••••••••••••. Minimum power pool elevation (ft) •••••••..••••••••••••••• Reservoir area at normal maximum pool (ac) ••••••••••••••• Active storage capacity (ac-ft) •••••••••••..••••.•••••••• DIVERSION Type -Embankment Cofferdam and Concrete Diversion Pipes Maximum cofferdam height (ft) ••••.••••••••••••••••••••••• Diversion Pipes(2): Inside diameter (ft) .................................................... .. Length (ft) ...................................................................... .. Maximum discharge (efs) ......................................................... .. DAM Type -Concrete-Faced Rockfill Crest elevation (ft) ..................................................................... .. Crest length (ft) .............................................................................. .. Maximum height above foundation (ft) ••••.•••••••••••.•••• Total volume (oy) .............................................................................. .. 37.2 208,500 7.75 23,630 6,000 660 705 660 635 18,130 22 11 765 5,500 729.5 1,000 120 254,000 Page 2 SPILLWAY Type Ungated Broad Crested Weir Control With Unlined Chute Crest length (ft) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Chute side slopes (H:V) •••••.•••••••••••.•.•.....•..••••. Crest elevation (ft) .................................... . PMF surcharge elevation (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• p~ discharge (ers) ..................................... . POWER INTAKE Type -Inclined Intake Structure With Fixed Wheel Gate and Steel Trashrack 75 0.5: 1 705 729.3 30,600 Intake invert elevation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 630 POWER CONDUIT Type -Tunnel and Steel Penstock Unlined Tunnel Section Length (ft) ........................................... . Inside diameter (ft) .................................. . Maximum velocity (fps) ................................ . Manning's "n" (no supports) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Lined Tunnel Section Length of concrete-lined (ft) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Length of steel-lined (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Inside diameter (ft) .•...............•......•........•. Maximum velocity (fps) ........................ _ ........ . Single Shaft Diameter (ft) ......................................... . Elevation of top (ft) Penstock Length (ft) ........................................... . Maximum inside diameter (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Maximum velocity (fps) ........•........................ POWERHOUSE Type -Indoor With Pre-cast Concrete Superstructure 7,300 9.5 2 0.017 160 70 7.5 3.2 9.5 740 1,520 3 21.2 Width (ft) ............................................... 40 Length (ft) ......... ct • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 57 Height (ft) .............................................. 20 Unit spacing (ft) ...............•........................ 25 Centerline generator shaft elevation (ft) •••••••••••••••• 45 Generator floor elevation (ft) •••••...••.•..••••••••••••• 42 Normal operating tailwater elevation (ft) ••••..•••••••••• 38 • .. .., TAILRACE CHANNEL Length (ft) ............................................. . Bot tom width (ft) ....................................... . Side slopes (H:V) ....................................... . POWERHOUSE EQUIPMENT 1,200 5 1.5: 1 Page 3 Number of generating units •••••••.•••••••••••••••••.••••• 2 Inlet valve diameter, two (inches) •••••••.••••••••••••••• 24 Turbines, Type -Horizontal Shaft Francis Units: Net rated head (ft) .................................... . Rated capacity, best gate (hp) (each) •••••••••••••••••. Speed (rpm) ••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••• Discharge at full-gate and rated head (cfs) ••••••.••••• Maximum gross head (ft) •••••.•••••••••.•••••••••••••••• Minimum gross head (ft) ............................... . Generators, Type -Horizontal Shaft Synchronous With Enclosed Cooling Generator rating at 0.9 pf, 60 0 C temperature rise (kVA) SWITCH YARD No. of transformers (three-phase) •••••••••••••••••••••••• Transformer voltage (kV) ••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• Transformer bank (kVA) •••..•••••....•••.••••••••.••.••••• TRANSMISSION LINE Type -Wood Pole Construction With Single Crossarm Overhead Voltage (kV) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Conduc tor size ........................................ . Switchyard to Skagway switch (mi) ••••••••••••••••••.••. Submarine Type -Oil Impregnated Paper Insulated Single Conductor, 4 cables (1 spare) Voltage (kV) •••••....•••.••••..•••...••..•.•••..•.••.•••• Conductor size .......................................... . Length (mi) .•..••.•.•..•••....•....•.•.•...••......•..... ACCESS ROAD 635 4,200 1,200 65 667 624 3,450 1 13.8-34.5 7,200 34.5 2/0 ACSR 6.2 34.5 1/0 Copper 16.6 Length (mi) ••••••••..••.•••.•..••...•..•....•....••...... 3 . 2 PART A: SELECTION OF GENERATION PLAN • • SECTION I INTRODUCTION 1 • GENERAL Initial reconnaissance studies performed for the Alaska Power Authority (APA) indicated that the West Creek Hydroelectric Project is prob- ably the most feasible means of meeting the future electric energy require- ments of the Haines-Skagway Region. The investigations summarized in this report were undertaken by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. (Beck) under the direction of APA to determine if West Creek would remain the most feasible approach when it and the other alternatives available were subjected to more detailed feasibility level investigations. If confirmed, this would then al- low APA to proceed with development of the Project pending appropriate legis- lative approval. Part A of this report titled "Selection of a Generation Plan" dis- cusses the detailed investigations of projected energy requirements of the Haines-Skagway Region; the available alternative plans for meeting these needs, including West Creek; the relative feasibility of each; and concludes with recommendations for future action. Part B titled "Feasibility Investigations of West Creek Hydroelec- tric Project" describes the detailed investigations conducted to determine the technical, economic and environmental data required in the Part A feasibility test. These more detailed studies are required because of the site specific and capital intensive nature of any hydroelectric project. Part C includes comments from reviewing agencies and other inter- ested parties. 2. AUTHORIZATION The work described in this report was authorized in a contract dated July 15, 1981 between APA and Beck. 3. BACKGROUND The energy requirements of Haines and Skagway and the means of meeting those requirements have been the subject of two recent reports. In February 1980, CH2M Hill issued a report titled "Reconnaissance Assessment of Energy Alternatives, Chilkat River Basin Region" (Reconnaissance Report)(1) which evaluates the various alternatives for supplying electric energy to Haines and Skagway. That report concludes that the Dayebas Creek Project should be developed to serve the needs of Haines and that the existing hydro projects in Skagway be expanded to meet needs in that community. 1-2 Based on that report, together with an in-house evaluation, the APA retained Beck to perform a more detailed reconnaissance of five sites in the Haines-Skagway Region to determine the site which appeared most sui table for meeting the future energy needs of the two communities. The results of this study are presented in the "Addendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region" (Addendum). (2) The study concluded that the West Creek Project with an intertie between Haines and Skagway would be the most economical means of meeting long-term energy needs in the region. 4. SCOPE OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS The investigations described in this report determine the feasibil- ity of development of the West Creek Project as a means of meeting the future energy needs of the Haines and Skagway region. Consistent with the overall approach to this study, the tasks involved in the current investigations were generally divided into two parts: those associated with selecting the recom- mended generation plan for the region (Part A) and those tasks directly asso- ciated with the detailed investigations of the West Creek site (Part B). The studies included the following tasks: PART A: SELECTION OF A GENERATION PLAN a. Electrical Load Forecast An electrical load forecast for the 20-year period 1982 through 2001 was prepared. The forecast was based on a time-series analysis of his- toric population and electrical energy use data tempered with assumptions con- cerning future economic growth. b. Alternative Means of Generation Al ternative means of generation which could meet the forecasted loads were investigated. Three plans of generation were developed, a base case plan, the West Creek hydroelectric plan, and a non-hydro alternative plan. PART B: DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS OF THE WEST CREEK SITE c. Economic Analysis The most economical means of meeting the forecasted loads was determined by comparing the base case plan, the West Creek hydroelectric plan and the non-hydro plan. d. Mapping and Surveys Topographic maps of the West Creek site were prepared from aerial photographs. Land surveys were made to provide ground control for the topo- graphic mapping and to locate drill holes, seismic lines and test pits. A " ( .. 1-3 hydrographic survey of the proposed submarine transmission line route was also made. This work was performed by Tryck, Nyman & Hayes of Anchorage under sub- contract to Beck. e. Geotechnical Investigations The geotechnical field program consisted of geologic reconnaissance and mapping, subsurface drilling, seismic refraction surveys, and sampling of potential borrow areas. Laboratory testing and analysis, evaluation of the field and laboratory data, initial evaluation of regional seismicity, and preparation of a report completed the geotechnical investigations. This work was performed by Converse Consultants, Inc. under subcontract to Beck. f. Hydrology and Power Studies Based on the 16-year streamflow record at the West Creek gage, power studies were performed to determine reservoir size. Flood studies were made to estimate the Probable Maximum Flood and to size the spillway and diversion facilities. g. Project Layouts The preliminary layout shown in the Addendum was refined based on the new topographic, geologic, and hydrologic information gathered in this phase. h. Cost Estimate and Schedule Using the refined Project layout, quantities were estimated. A construction cost estimate was made using these quantities, unit costs from similar projects, and detailed construction cost estimates for selected major cost features. The design and construction schedule was refined. i. Environmental and Socio-Institutional Studies Environmental investigations of terrestrial and aquatic resources, historical and archaeological resources, socioeconomics, aesthetics, and land use were undertaken to determine the potential impacts of the Project develop- ment. These investigations included field studies, office evaluations, and discussions with concerned agencies. Portions of this work were performed by Environaid, Inc. of Juneau under subcontract to Beck. j. Report This Feasibility Report was prepared based on the results of the above described investigations. • • SECTION II SITE DESCRIPTION 1 • GEOGRAPHY The City of Haines is located in Southeast Alaska on the Chilkoot Peninsula near the mouth of Taiya Inlet. (See Fig. 1.) Approximately 16 miles north of Haines, the City of Skagway is located at the head of Taiya Inlet at the mouth of the Skagway River. The two cities are about 80 miles north of Juneau. Roads from both cities connect with the Alaskan Highway in Canada. The White Pass and Yukon Railroad runs north from Skagway to Whitehorse, Canada. The proposed West Creek Project site is located about 6 miles northwest of Skagway. West Creek is a tributary of the Taiya River which flows into the north end of Taiya Inlet near the mouth of the Skagway River. 2. TOPOGRAPHY The Haines-Skagway Region is characterized by steep, rugged ridges divided by rivers and streams running from high glaciers and snowfields down to inlets from the ocean. The inlets are generally steep sided with depths to greater than 1,000 feet. Mountain peaks are generally at the 5000 to 6000 foot elevation. Level ground is limited to the floodplains of the rivers. The present topography of most of this region is largely the result of continental and alpine glaciation during the Pleistocene Epoch, approxi- mately 13,000 years ago. During the last glacial period, an average of 5,000 feet of glacial ice covered most of this region. The weight of the glacier significantly depressed the land. Upon retreat of the glaciers, many valleys which had been occupied by ice were inundated by the sea. Ongoing isostatic rebound has resulted in the slow emergence of several areas of land in this region above the present sea level including some marine and beach deposits in coastal areas of Haines and Skagway. Hanging valleys, elongated and deepened lakes, U-shaped valleys, and deeply scoured embayments, inlets and passages also reflect the effects of regional glaciation. Locally, a number of alpine glaciers still occupy the steep-walled valleys and higher mountain sides • 3. GEOLOGY within the plex lies zoic Era. The Haines-Skagway Region and the West Creek Dam site are located Coast Range Batholith Complex of the Pacific Coast Range. The Com- within a region which has been geologically active since the Paleo- The geologic system of this region is related to interaction of II-2 plate tectonics, collision and subduction of oceanic and continental plates. This tectonic belt has been active since at least the late Paleozoic period and the last major deformation occurred during the late Mesozoic and Tertiary periods with some minor activity continuing into the Quaternary. The region has had a complex history of sedimentation, deformation, igneous intrusion, glaciation and erosion. The bedrock which underlies the major portion of the region consists primarily of granitic crystalline intru- sive rocks, ranging in age from Tertiary to Cretaceous period in age, approxi- mately 40 to 140 million years before the present. Tectonic deformation of the regional rocks has produced two distinct structural trends, northwest- southeast and northeast-southwest. These structural trends in the form of joints and/or shear zones have produced strong lineaments which are evident as topographic lows on the ground surface and in aerial photographs. A detailed discussion of the regional geology is presented in the report titled "Phase II Geotechnical Investigation, West Creek Hydroelectric Project, Haines-Skagway Regional Studies" prepared by Converse Consultants, Inc., which is included as Appendix C of this report. 4. CLIMATE The climate in the Haines-Skagway Region is influenced by interior and maritime weather patterns and by the surrounding topographical features. Southeast Alaska is located in the maritime climatic zone which generally ex- periences considerable precipitation. Climatological records in Haines are typical of this climate with a mean annual precipitation of 61 inches and a mean annual snowfall of 133 inches. The mean annual temperature in Haines is 40 0 F with a mean daily maximum in July of about 66 0 F and a mean daily min- imum in January of 17 0 F. Skagway is located in the rainshadow of the coast- al mountains and therefore receives significantly less precipitation. Skagway has an annual precipitation of approximately 26 inches with a mean annual snowfall of around 39 inches. The mean annual temperature of Skagway is 41 0 F with a mean daily maximum in July of about 67 0 F and a mean daily min- imum in January of 18°F. Winds in the Skagway area are generally fairly strong (average speed = 13.0 mph) and are channelled to northerly and south- erly directions by the mountains surrounding Taiya Inlet. 5. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The Haines-Skagway Region is characterized by thick vegetation on the mountain slopes and in the valleys and by numerous streams. Coniferous forests dominated by Sitka spruce and western hemlock extend from the timber- line at approximately El 3000 feet down onto the valley floors. At lower ele- vations, muskegs or bog plant communities are often interspersed with the for- est. Riparian shrubs including willow and alder are found along the streams and black cottonwood stands are common in the major river valleys. In the al- pine zone above the timberline, heaths and grasses dominate. • II-3 Wildlife is abundant in this environment. Common wildlife species include mountain goat, black bear, river otter, marten, porcupine, red squir- rel, grouse, golden eagle, bald eagle, and various other species of small mam- mals and birds. Fisheries resources of the area include coho salmon, chum salmon, pink salmon, Dolly Varden char, and eulachon. All of these fish spe- cies are found in the Taiya River but only Dolly Varden char and eulachon are known in West Creek. 6. SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING The City of Skagway corporate limits encompass 431 square miles and include the West Creek Project site. Skagway had a 1980 census population of 768. Most of the employment in Skagway is associated with the White Pass Railway or summer tourism. The City with its historic Klondike Gold Rush her- i tage and ready access to White Pass and the Chilkoot Pass Trail is a major Alaska cruise ship and Alaska ferry tourist destination. The City of Haines had a 1980 census population of 993. Haines is located about 20 miles south of the West Creek Project site. The City serves as a shipping point for the interior via the Haines Highway. Haines has an economy which is typical of Southeast Alaska with employment primarily in lum- ber production, fisheries, transportation, trade and services. Tourism was a significant local industry until its decline in recent years. There are new efforts underway to reestablish this resource. .. .. • • SECTION III REGIONAL POWER MARKET GENERATION REQUIREMENTS 1. GENERAL As part of the current studies, a forecast of energy and peak de- mand was prepared for both Haines and Skagway to determine the extent of future growth in electric requirements. The methodology used in preparing the forecast included an evaluation of historical trends in energy consumption, population growth of the cities, economic trends and specific information ob- tained through conversations with local consumers. Saturation of major en- ergy-using appliances was considered in the consumption-per-customer projec- tions although specific appliances could not be analyzed individually due to a lack of available data. Potential conversions to electric space heat and building construction trends were also considered and the associated impact was evaluated in the forecast. An attempt was made to conform to the forecast format established in the CH2M Hill Reconnaissance Report.(1) The historical data were up- dated, the assumptions were reevaluated and in some cases adjusted to reflect more recent trends and developments. Three growth scenarios were developed for each city which were premised on differing economic assumptions. The low or base projections (Sce- nario A) represent the most conservative view of growth. A second set of pro- jections (Scenario B) includes loads which will probably occur, but are not as assured as those in Scenario A. Scenario B is the load forecast used for planning and for the economic analysis of the proposed plans. In each case the loads are tied to population projections which also have high and low growth assumptions behind them. A third growth scenario (Scenario C) was created which evaluates the potential impact of the communities' responses to a relatively low-cost and stable power base. This scenario assumes that the State of Alaska would set the cost of power from a new hydroelectric project at levels enough below alternative energy costs to encourage conversions to electricity for existing space heating and other major end uses as well as construction of new all- electric residences and businesses in both communities. The following descriptions provide an and methodologies used in developing Scenarios A Scenario C is described in a subsequent section. scenarios in a graphical form • explanation of assumptions and B for each community. Figure 2 shows the three III-2 2. HAINES DEMAND AND ENERGY FORECAST a. Residential Load The City of Haines grew by 45.4%, or by nearly 4% compounded annu- ally, between 1970 and 1980. However, since 1977, the City has had an 18% decrease in population. This population fluctuation during the last decade was caused by steady sawmill activity and a strong tourist industry in the early 1970's followed by a mill closure, decreasing tourism, and U.S. Army POL dock and tank farm closure in the later 1970' s. As a result, the number of residential customers and hence, total residential requirements during that time have also varied accordingly. The 1980 U.S. Census shows a population of 993 for the City of Haines and a total of 1,433 for the greater Haines area, which is the base population used for the forecast. (See Table 111-2.) Scenario A assumes that the base population increases at a rate of 1.0% per year and Scenario B at an average of 2.25% per year. The direct and indirect changes in employment were then added to this base to produce a total population projection for each growth scenario. One indirect employee was assumed per direct employee and 1.8 residents were added to the area per new employee. These multipliers were developed by CH2M Hill based on 1979 employment levels and are discussed in the Reconnaissance Report. (1) These multipliers appear reasonable for this level of analysis. This calculation produced a 1.2% average compound annual population growth rate for Scenario A and a 3.2% annual population growth rate for Scenario B. The average electricity usage per residential customer has been decreasing slightly over the past few years due to conservation in response to economic conditions and increasing electricity costs. For both scenarios it was assumed that kilowatt-hour consumption per residential customer will re- main constant at the 1981 level for the next three years implying continued conservation efforts. For the following ten years consumption is projected to increase by 1.5% per year, reflecting a rise in the standard of living, and is projected to remain constant thereafter. The leveling off assumes that resi- dences of the area will be approaching a saturation of major electricity-using appliances similar to consumption levels of other Southeast Alaska cities. Nei ther Scenario A or B assumes a significant number of conversions to elec- tric space heating nor significant trends to include electric space heating in new homes. Table III-1 shows historical loads for each customer class in Haines and Tables 111-3 and 111-4 give the results of Scenarios A and B, re- spectively. In 1981 the ratio of area population to residential customers for Scenario A was 2.36 and 2.40 for Scenario B. These ratios were kept constant for the length of the forecast. b. Commercial Load For the past few years there has been an average of 3.0 residential customers for every commercial customer in the Haines area. This relationship • III-3 was assumed to prevail for each year of the forecast for both Scenarios A and B. The electricity usage per commercial customer increased about 5.7% annually since 1971 but in more recent years has shown about half that rate of annual increase, reflecting the use of conservation measures during a time of increasing fuel and electricity prices. For each year of the forecast, it was assumed that consumption per commercial customer would increase at the rate of 2% annually. This allows for continued growth by businesses wi thin the area but also includes a conservation factor. c. Tourism Tourism was a larger industry in Haines in the early 1970' s when cruise ships made regular stops in the City than it is now. The City now relies on the Alaska State ferries, airlines and the highway to transport vis- itors. People are attracted to the area primarily for its scenic beauty, its Indian culture, its access to Glacier Bay and the eagle nesting area of the Chilkat River Valley, and its sport fishing. Beginning in 1982, Haines will be a stopping point for an Alaska Tours and Marketing 124-passenger cruise ship, which will bring additional tourist activity to the area. In an attempt to round out the tourist season through the winter months, the City now celebrates a 2-week winter carnival which includes a variety of snow sports and related activities. Plans are to expand this carnival to a 10-week celebration which would include a variety of art and cultural events as well as outdoor sports and other activities. Po- tential attractions are seminars on art and music, cross-country ski events, creation of a downhill ski area, and aqua and arena shows. The Smithsonian Institute has indicated that it intends to conduct Audubon tours during the winter season, beginning in 1983, to view the bald eagle which is prevalent in the area. A new motel, the Captain's Choice, is currently being constructed in phases. Eight units are now open and 22 more are expected to be finished by the Fall of 1982. Forty-two units in all with a total of 40,000 square feet will be constructed by 1984. There is a possibility that some of the future units may use electricity for space heating. For Scenario B, it was assumed that the winter carnival activities would attract 10 additional people in permanent jobs in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985. d. Sewage Treatment Plant The Haines sewage treatment plant ceased providing secondary treat- ment to sewage from the greater Haines area in early 1982. The Environmental Protection Agency has given the City approval to discharge sewage into tidal waters after primary treatment. Consequently, the plant's 35,000 kWh per year electric requirements are expected to decrease by 75%, beginning in 1982. In III-4 both Scenarios A and B the commercial class requirements were adjusted accord- ingly, beginning in 1982. e. Trans-Alaska Pipeline If the Trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline is constructed, the Port of Haines is also likely to be used for transportation of materials and equip- ment. The extent of trucking, labor and related facilities required is still undetermined but significant impact on the economy can be anticipated. For Scenario B, an additional 40 new workers were added in the year 1986 and 20 more in 1987 to account for pipeline activity in Haines. After 1989 it was assumed that 50% of the pipeline workers would remain in the Haines area. f. Barite Mine The Alyu Mining Corporation is planning to build a barite mine near Haines. Following a few years of test drilling, the mine's potential is still being evaluated and capital is being raised. Employment estimates vary from 30 to 50 people between 5 and 8 years from now. Thus, included in Scenario B are an additional 30 direct employment workers in 1988 and 10 more in 1989 to account for the mining, milling and transportation activity. The mining site is about 35 miles from Haines and will not be served by Haines Light and Power (HLP) • g. Industrial Load Electric requirements of the three industrial customers, the tank farm, public school and Schnabel Lumber Company, were projected individually, reflecting knowledge gained from local interviews. For Scenario B a new industrial customer with beginning annual re- quirements of 300, 000 kWh was added in 1991. This load was assumed to in- crease by 1% each year. This load could represent a new fishing-or mining- related acti vi ty, or it could be an existing small commercial load which has graduated into the large commercial class because of increasing size. h. Tank Farm The U.S. Army POL tank farm load was assumed to remain constant for the duration of the forecast in both growth scenarios as no expansion is now foreseen for that facility. i. Public School The public school electric requirements were assumed to increase by 2% in 1982 and 1983 to reflect completion and operation of the school's new swimming pool. Beyond 1983, requirements were assumed to increase by 1% each year for both scenarios. III-5 j. Schnabel Lumber Company The future timber supply of the Schnabel Lumber Company has become more secure with the signing of a contract with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in August 1979, although as much as an additional two- thirds of Schnabel's timber comes from private and U.S. Forest Service lands. The DNR contract, which allows for 10.2 million feet of saw timber to be cut per year, is in effect for 15 years, and is renewable for another ten years if a wood waste treatment plant is constructed and if, in the last 5 of those 10 years, half of the wood products goes to the local market. The Schnabel sawmill currently employs 41 people, which is a fairly stable year-round employment level. The associated logging operation employs between 15 (winter) and 30 (summer) workers. Logs are also provided by North- ern Timber Corporation which employs 9-10 people. Because the DNR contract and the good routes now available for log transportation make the future of the mill seem reasonably secure, the mill is making plans to add a planer and a dry kiln to expand the types of lumber products produced at the plant. No significant expansion in staff is antici- pated in spite of these changes. The mill experienced a nearly 6-month shutdown between October 1980 and April 1981 due to the wood products market depression. Although overall, the Northwest and Alaska wood products industry has been experiencing a signi- ficant slowdown, the mill's management feels that current markets are secure for the near future and that a drop in the prime interest rate and Asian de- mand for wood products will improve the outlook. The Alaska Renewable Resources Corporation is finanCing the build- . ing of a 4,OOO-kW wood waste-fired generating plant at the mill. The Project, which is now under construction, is scheduled for operation by summer 1983. During the year and a half construction time, a crew of 20 people (most from outside the Haines area) will be needed. When the plant is operating, a nine- person staff will be hired to run the generator in addition to the existing mill staff. For both Scenarios A and B, 15 construction workers were assumed to be added to the local labor force for plant construction beginning in 1982. A five-year contract has been signed between HLP and Schnabel which, among other things, requires Schnabel to sell up to 2,000 kW of firm capacity 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, as required, to HLP. For a more detailed discussion of wood waste generation, see Section IV. The power sold to HLP will be generated by the new wood waste generating plant beginning in early 1983. Historically, the amount of power purchased by the mill from HLP has varied widely, depending on the availability of the mill's own diesel gen- erators to produce power and on fluctuations in the wood products market. It III-6 is expected that the mill will be able to meet all of its own power needs be- ginning in 1983 when its wood-waste generator begins operation, and that back- up power would be provided by its own diesel generators during annual sched- uled maintenance and occasionally on an unscheduled basis. According to the report, "1919 Updating of the Feasibility Study and Report on Generation of Electrical Power From Wood Refuse" prepared by Nor'West Pacific Corpora- tion, (3) future annual requirements of the generator's boiler and the mill together would be 1,036,656 kWh assuming a 10-month, one-shift operation with a peak of 2,123 kW. The mill, including loads met by its own generation and purchases from HLP, comprises about 36% of the community's electricity requirements. Without the mill these requirements plus an estimated decrease of about 20% within the residential and commercial sectors could also be expected. k. Boat Harbor Customers There are currently 10 boat slips in the Haines boat marina which was built in 1918. About 45% of those are now occupied by boats year-round which use electricity for lighting and heating. The remainder are seasonal users only. The forecast projects year-round boat harbor customers to in- crease at the rate of one new customer every two years and for consumption per customer to increase by 0.5% every year of the forecast in both growth sce- narios. 1. Streetlight Customers Electricity usage for streetlighting in both scenarios was in- creased at the rate of 1% annually. m. System Losses System losses, which have averaged about 10% historically, are pro- jected to continue to be 10% for each year of the forecast in both scenarios. n. Peak Demand Based on historical annual load factors, projections of peak demand were tied to the energy forecast using a constant load factor of 60% for both scenarios. o. Monthly Distribution of Energy Use The 1919 energy use by month in Haines is shown in Table III-11. Haines has a winter peak with use during the winter months being about 35% greater than that during the summer. • III-7 3. SKAGWAY DEMAND AND ENERGY a. Residential Load The population of the City of Skagway grew by nearly 14% between 1970 and 1980, an average annual rate of 1.3%. The 1980 population according to the U.S. Census was 768; however, the peak population year during the dec- ade was 1976 when the population was estimated at 954. Since then some de- cline has been experienced in two of the City's major employers, the tourist industry and the operation of the White Pass and Yukon Railroad. Skagway's 1980 population was used as the population base for the forecast. (See Table III-6.) Scenario A holds the 1980 population constant for the next two years, reflecting recovery time from the decreased economic activity of the last few years. Beyond 1983 the base population is increased at the rate of 1% annually. For the high growth scenario, the base population is increased at the rate of 2% annually between 1981 and 1990 and by 3% annu- ally beyond. The direct and indirect changes in employment were then added to these bases to produce total population projections. For Scenario A, no discrete employment changes were added to the base population growth. For Scenario B, 30 employees were added to the base in 1986 to account for natural gas pipeline construction and 15 more in 1987. After 1989 it was assumed that 25% of the pipeline workers would remain in the Skagway area. A multiplier of .4 was used to estimate the number of indirect employees for every direct employee and a multiplier of 3 was used to calcu- late total residents per employee. These multipliers were developed by CH2M Hill and are discussed in their Reconnaissance Study( 1) and appear reason- able for this level of analysis. This produced a .9% average annual compound population growth rate for Scenario A and a 2.5% average annual compound popu- lation growth rate for Scenario B. The ratio of area population to 1980 residential customers was 2.52, which was assumed to hold constant for the duration of the forecast. The 1980 consumption per residential customer was estimated to be 5,600 kilowatt-hours. For both scenarios this usage was assumed to prevail for the following three years, after which it was increased at an annual rate of 1.5% for the next ten years, reflecting a rise in the standard of living with the purchase and use of more electricity-using appliances and is then projected to level off beyond 1994. Recent conservation efforts in the Skag- way area are obvious from the change in usage per residential customer which dropped from 7,160 kWh in 1978 to 5,770 in 1980. However, to assume that con- sumption would keep decreasing when the economy begins to grow again would be unrealistic. The assumed growth in consumption-per-customer for years 1984- 1994 would bring consumption levels more in line with other areas of Southeast Alaska. Both the high and low scenarios of the forecast assume that there will be no significant trends toward building homes with electric space heat- ing nor a significant number of conversions from other fuels to electrici ty III-8 for space heating. This analysis does not consider any potential impact of varying fuel prices upon space heating preferences among residential custo- mers. Table III-5 gives Skagway's historical load data by class of customer and Tables 111-7 and 111-8 give the Scenario A and B forecasts, respectively. b. Commercial Load In 1980 there were 3.7 residential customers for every commercial customer. This relationship was used for each year of the forecast for both scenarios. Consumption per customer has decreased slightly in recent years, primarily as a result of conservation efforts, and the 1981 average usage-per- customer was estimated to be 20,097 kilowatt-hours which was then increased at the rate of 2.0% a year to reflect both continued conservation and local eco- nomic growth. c. Tourism The tourist industry in Skagway has increased over the last couple of years following a stagnant 1978 season. Completion of the Klondike Highway has contributed to this upswing as has the addition of Westours' passenger ships between Juneau and Skagway. Ferry traffic, cruise ship traffic, the Chilkoot Trail, and the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park have been among Skagway's tourist attractions and are expected to continue experiencing increasing visitor usage. The White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad transported 43,000 passen- gers, primarily tourists, in the year 1979; 67,000 in the year 1980; and the 1981 volume was about the same as the 1980 volume. As of mid-June 1982, tour- ist activity was up somewhat from 1981 levels. With the ongoing renovation of Skagway's historic district, addition of hotel units and continued levels of ferry and cruise ship traffic, tourism is expected to be a strong part of the City's economy in the future. West ours , a tourist transportation and facilities management busi- ness for Alaska, operates Skagway's largest hotel, the Klondike Inn, with 150 rooms. Sixty-six additional units are scheduled for completion in 1983, 30 of which will have extra insulation and will be kept open year-round with oil- based heating. The remainder will be seasonal units using electric baseboards for space heating. In 1986, another 50 units are slated for completion, all of which will be seasonal and will use electricity for space heating. Westours is also planning to construct a 14,000-square-foot, one-quarter-mil- lion-dollar historical museum in Skagway. Current plans are to complete the air-conditioned, controlled-humidity structure within the next few years, but the timing will depend upon the property acquisition. Westours' long-range plans anticipate an 8% annual growth rate in their Skagway tourist activity. d. Shopping/Residence Complex Currently, there are plans to construct a small shopping complex (40,000 square feet) in Skagway which includes a 12,000-square-foot grocery, a .. III-9 covered mall with small shops, and either a motel or 12-unit townhouse living quarters. Marketing studies have been conducted which show a need for retail establishments to serve the resident population of Skagway rather than the tourists. Plans are to begin construction within the next year. For both the high and low growth scenarios, an additional 35,000 kilowatt-hours was added to the commercial load in 1983 for the new grocery and 15,000 kilowatt-hours more in 1984 to include the remainder of the complex. Electricity is not expected to be used for space heating, although some waste heat from refrigeration will be used for space heat in the grocery store. e. Government Load The base government load was projected to increase by 3.5% annually for the duration of the forecast, with the number of customers kept constant at 1 for both scenarios. Although it is expected over the years that more of the government load will fall within the commercial sector as more buildings acquired by the National Park Service for restoration are leased back to com- mercial interests, for the purpose of this forecast these loads were kept in the government class. f. City Requirements The City of Skagway has had studies conducted on the potential for producing wind power and has recently installed a Jacobs 10-kW wind power gen- erator at the sewage treatment plant. Estimated energy savings are between 20-50% of the current sewage treatment plant electricity needs. An agreement was negotiated with the Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T) which stipu- lates that the City will be compensated for any power generated in excess of . the treatment plant's needs which would be fed into the electric utility sys- tem. The City is also installing power factor controllers on its water pumps which are expected to reduce average electricity consumption by between 5 and 10%. Beginning in the year 1983 and for the duration of the forecast, the sewage treatment plant electric requirements were reduced by 25% annually to allow for the load offset by wind generation. The water pump electric re- quirements were reduced by 8% to allow for energy needs offset by the power factor controllers. For the year 1982, half of those combined savings were calculated into the forecast. g. National Park Service Historic District Restoration The National Park Service has entered into a joint enterprise with the City of Skagway and several private property owners to develop and manage the Skagway Historic District. Currently, 15 buildings have been acquired by the Park Service for restoration as part of this project. Some exterior work, III-10 rewlrlng, and foundation reinforcement has occurred over the last four years and the buildings are expected to be completed in stages over the next ten years. Most of the buildings will be leased back to the private sector for commercial development, while the others will be preserved as historical interpretative structures or will be used by the Park Service as its Headquar- ters and Visitor Center. The Railroad Depot and Administration Building is expected to be completely restored in 1983. It will contain Park Service offices and Visitor Center acti vi ties. As the remaining buildings are restored, their electric requirements will be included in the commercial class although for the purpose of this forecast the loads were kept in the government class. h. The White Pass and Yukon Corporation Limited Railroad The continued operation of the historical White Pass and Yukon Railroad has been in question over the past several years due to competition presented by tour buses and trucks traveling the recently opened Klondike International Highway between Skagway and White Horse, increasing costs re- quired to run the railroad and the loss of certain ore cargo to other trans- portation routes from the Yukon. However, recent statistics on railroad usage show that the number of passengers has been on the increase indicating contin- ued inte~est in riding the railroad despite the competition. Also, following a study completed two years ago by the Canadian Transport Commission, the Canadian Government has made funds available to assist the railroad in upgrad- ing its equipment. Recently, the railroad renegotiated its contract with a Yukon mining company, which, together with the government funding, has re- sul ted in increased revenues for the railroad. Also, the competition from trucking companies as an alternate to railroad transportation of ore is sea- sonal because the highway is closed during the winter months, and the Canadian Government has no plans to open the highway during the winter. Railroad man- agement is now optimistic that railroad operations will continue to grow at a moderate rate in the future. A possible exception to this trend would be if the Canadian Trans-Alaska gas pipeline is constructed and Skagway is used as a primary entry point for construction materials in which case more rapid growth would be expected. The railroad is a likely mode for transporting these mate- rials and an estimated 30-45 additional people would be required to operate another shift daily from 11 pm to 7 am. Scenario A excludes the potential increase in the railroad's elec- tric load due to the pipeline construction. The railroad's purchases from AP&T were held constant for the next two years, after which they were in-• creased at the rate of 1.5% per year. This assumes continued growth in both Yukon mining and tourist activity. The railroad is billed by the utility as five separate customers which was kept constant for each year of the forecast in Scenario A and was increased to seven in 1987 for Scenario B. The rail- road's own annual generation is estimated at 1,518,270 kWh with a 347-kW peak which was used for each year of the forecast under each scenario. " • • 111-11 Scenario B includes an increase in the railroad electricity con- sumption by an additional 20% for the years 1987 through 1989 due to pipeline construction. After 1989 the annual growth rate is reduced to 3% annually ap- plied to the pre-pipeline construction railroad requirements. It is still un- known whether or not the Trans-Alaska gas pipeline will be constructed. If the United States does not approve the Trans-Alaska pipeline project as it is now proposed, the Canadian Government may build its own pipeline which would be smaller in size but would still possibly rely on the White Pass and Yukon Railroad for transportation during construction. Although the future of the railroad appears reasonably secure at this point, there is always the possibility that operation may cease or de- crease at some point in the future. The overall effect on the community of a complete shutdown of the railroad would be devastating. The railroad com- prises about 35% of the community's electric requirements including the por- tion met by its own generation and its purchases from AP&T. Because such a large number of local residents are employed by the railroad, an estimated 50% to 60% decrease in both the residential and commercial class requirements could eventually be expected as well. The effects of this situation were not evaluated in either growth scenario as such a closure now appears unlikely. In the community of Skagway, recent changes have occurred which af- fect local electric requirements since the time the load forecast for this re- port was prepared in the Fall of 1981. The Canadian-owned Anvil Mine which mines lead and zinc has temporarily ceased its ore shipments via the White Pass and Yukon Railroad due to decreasing world prices of those ores. Other mines are continuing to operate, but shipments are down sufficiently that three of the six railroad crews have been temporarily laid off. Those who have been affected by the layoffs have, thus far, remained in the community but some will be expected to leave by Fall 1982 if rehiring does not occur by then. In addition, construction of the Westours museum and the community shopping complex have both been delayed due to the inability to obtain financ- ing and because the developers are now waiting to see what happens with the railroad • The forecast has not been altered to reflect these latest economic developments in Skagway, as it is too soon to know whether these are short- term business fluctuations or longer-term trends. i. Electric Utility Use Based on historical figures utility use was assumed to be 4% of sales for each year of the forecast for both growth scenarios. j. System Losses Based on historical system losses, the forecast includes a projec- tion of losses at 10% of sales annually in both growth scenarios. III-12 k. Peak Demand For both Scenarios A and B, projections of peak demand were tied to the energy forecast at an assumed constant load factor of 50%. 1. Monthly Distribution of Energy Use The 1978 energy use by month in Skagway is shown in Table III-11. In contrast to Haines, Skagway has relatively constant usage throughout the year. This is primarily due to the large summer tourist trade. 4. IMPACT OF CONVERSIONS This scenario evaluates the impact of residents and businesses within Haines and Skagway responding to the long-term availability of rela- tively low cost of electricity, assuming the State would set power costs of a new hydroelectric facility enough below alternative energy costs to encourage conversions of space heating and other major end uses to electricity. It is not expected that Haines and Skagway would necessarily capture a larger share of the total residential/commercial/industrial market of Southeast Alaska as other nearby areas also have or will soon have similar hydropower bases. The stable and relatively low rates would, however, provide the incentive for ex- isting businesses and residences to gradually convert their heating and other equipment to electricity. The rate at which conversions occur is never fast in the absence of other major conservation incentives, even where the price of electricity is a fraction of that of other fuels due to the high capital costs of equipment replacement. On the other hand, for new residences and busi- nesses this trend toward electric space heating and greater use of electricity for commercial/industrial production occurs more suddenly. The following sce- nario includes a possible response to the relatively low price of electricity, and when compared to even the high growth scenario, the difference is dramatic. The energy uses for Haines and Skagway projected under Scenario C are shown in Tables 111-9 and 111-10, respectively. a. Haines Response to subsidized and stable electric rates among residential customers was assumed to begin in 1983. A 1.5% annual conversion rate among existing residences from other fuels to electricity for space heating and other major uses was assumed for each year of the forecast. It was further assumed that 50% of all new units built between 1981 and 1985 would be basi- cally all-electric and that 100% of all residential units built after 1986 (the projected on-line date of a new hydroelectric facility) would be all- electric. This analysis assumes that an average of 3 kWh per degree day are required for each all-electric residential customer based on 8,308 degree days for the Haines area.(4) '. '" • III-13 The commercial class of customers does not currently rely on elec- tricity to meet most of its space heating needs. In this scenario the average use per commercial customer was increased from 18,681 kWh in 1981 to 40,689 kWh in 2000 or by 25% annually between 1983 and 1990 and by 50% annu- ally thereafter. This increase is based on the assumption that most new com- mercial customers would utilize electricity for space heating including the motel now under construction and that some existing commercial customers would replace their oil or wood furnaces with electric heating. Haines' three industrial customers used an estimated average of 281,000 kWh in 1981. The potential for conversion to greater use of electric- ity is limited because of the high capital investment required to replace equipment for large customers. The Scenario B requirements were increased by 15% annually between 1984 and 1991, after which they were increased by 25% to reflect the all-electric requirements of the potential new industrial customer included in the forecast. The boat harbor and street light customer requirements are the same as for Scenario B. b. Skagway Among residential customers, response to projected competitive and stable electric rates was assumed to begin in 1983. Again, a 1.5% annual con- version rate of existing residences from alternative fuels to electricity for space heating and other major uses was assumed for each year of the forecast. It was further assumed that 50% of all new units built between 1983 and 1985 would be basically all-electric and that 100% of all residential units built after 1986 (the projected on-line date of a new hydroelectric facility) would be all-electric. This analysis assumes that an average of 3 kWh per degree day are required for each all-electric residential customer based on 8,231 de- gree days for the Skagway area.(4) The commercial sector, which currently uses relatively little elec- tricity for space heating, has considerable potential for conversion to elec- tricity. In 1981 the estimated average usage per commercial customer was 20,699 kWh which for this scenario was increased to 45,111 kWh by the year 2000 or by an additional 25% annually between 1984 and 1990 and by 50% for each year beyond over Scenario B. This increase is based on the assumption that most new commercial customers would rely on electricity for space heating and that, over the years, some existing commercial customers would replace their oil or wood furnaces with electric heating. Within the government sector, where the 1981 consumption per custo- mer was 93,114 kWh, a conversion rate similar to that assumed for the commer- cial sector was used. The increases are lower than the commercial sector by 10% in each year beginning 1984 due to the small number of customers and the major capital investments required by each customer to alter their already large loads. III-14 The railroad currently provides a sizeable portion of its power needs with its own diesel generation and as a result, is probably less likely to convert to electricity in the short term. A 10% increase in the railroad load was added to Scenario B in each year beginning in 1984 to account for a minimal amount of increased electricity usage due solely to availability of • relatively low-cost power. It is possible that in the long run, the railroad would consider extensive conversion to electricity including the loads now served by its own diesel generation. The railroad did prepare a study of the feasibility of converting its entire system, including the locomotives, to electric power, but the results of the study are no longer available. The im- pact of major conversion of railroad loads was not included in this scenario. 5. EXISTING GENERATING FACILITIES a. Haines Electric loads in Haines are presently met by diesel generators owned and opera ted by HLP. HLP has seven uni ts with a total capacity of 4,320 kW. The largest unit is a Fairbanks-Morse 2, 070-kW machine which was installed in 1973. Two other machines, an 800-kW Caterpiller and a 600-kW Caterpiller were installed in the late 1960's. The other four machines which range in size from 150 kW to 300 kW date from the 1940's or early 1950's. The machines are in generally good operating condition and receive regular mainte- nance. As discussed above, starting in 1983, HLP will purchase most of its electric energy requirements from the Schnabel Lumber Company. Schnabel will generate the required electricity with a 4, OOO-kW wood waste generator which is now under construction. b. Skagway Electric loads in Skagway are presently met by a combination of hydroelectric turbine-generators and diesel generators owned and operated by AP&T. There are three Pelton turbines with capacities of 100 kW, 410 kW and 270 kW installed in the AP&T power plant. The 270-kW unit was installed new in 1981. The 100-kW and 410-kW units were reconditioned in 1981. In addi- tion, AP&T has five diesel units which supplement the hydropower. There are , two 1,250-kW Fairbanks-Morse units which were installed in the late 1970's. The other three units are older and smaller ranging in size from 250 kW to 300 kW. The total installed capacity of the system is 4,130 kW. ., HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY HISTORICAL ENERGY USE -HAINES LIGHT AND POWER ~ ....!ill. 1973 ..J.lli... --.!2l.L ....!ill.... Averaae Number of Customers Resideottal l .J.4~ •••••••••••.•• 404 407 386 437 4S4 410 Co_erclal (l) ..•.•.•......... 146 148 140 lS9 16S 149 Industrlal .....•............. 4 6 6 6 6 3 Street Ughtlna ••.•........... 1 1 1 1 1 1 Boat Harbor •.................. Total ••.................. -m --s62 533 ~ --rn; -s63 Total Enerll Use ~HWh2 Ileaidentlal ••.•............... 2,214 2,S14 2,193 2,863 3,224 2,912 eo..erclal •••••••••••••••••••• I, S70 l,S66 1,348 2,368 2,702 2,890 IDdUlltrtal •....•...•.......... 2,4S6 2,97S 4,322 S,877 S,297 l,S84 Street Llabt1aa ••••••••••••••• 14 16 94 l1S 110 129 Boat Harbor ..••.•...•......... Total ...••.............. 6,254 7,071 7,9S7 11,223 11,333 7,SlS Syatea Loaaea (HWb) ....•.......... ~ ~ S99 844 -2ll -ill Total IaquireaenU (HWh) . 6,725 7,604 8,S56 12,067 12,186 8,081 Annual Peak Iaand (kW)(2) ........ l,8S0 1,950 1,950 l,9S0 1,950 1,300 0) eo..erclal cuatoaera 1971-1977 satlasted pro rata ratl0 of 1978 actual c~rclal cuatoaera to realdentlal cuatoasra. (2) !taU_ted. (3) All flaursa annuallzed baaed on 6 .ontha of data. 1977 1978 2ill.... 42S 408 419 154 148 14S 2 2 2 1 1 1 26 29 ----s82 --m ---m; 2,S9S 2,S8S 2,S87 2,778 2,96S 2,691 1,038 SS8 812 168 164 166 146 36 6,S79 6,418 6,292 ~ --ill -..ill 7,074 6,891 6,732 1,300 1,300 1,296 -illQ... ~3S. 138 3 1 31 ---c;oa 2,4S4 2,S84 1,318 170 20 6,S46 --ill. 7,314 .. 1981P2 432 144 3 1 32 "-"6i2 2,3S8 2,691 861 ISS 14 6,079 1-3 ~ r- CD H H H I ...... 1980 1981 .. HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY POPULATION PROJECTIONS -HAINES 1982 1983 1984 1985 Low Growth Projection Base Population (1) 1,433 1,447 1,462 1,476 1,491 1,506 ................ Direct Employment change · .......... 15(5) 15 15 15 Indirect Eaployaent Change (2) ••••• 15 15 15 15 Adjusted Population (3) ----s4 ----s4 ----s4 ----s4 Total Projected Population •••• 1,433 1,447 1,516 1,530 1,545 1,560 Hi~h Growth Projection Bale Population (4) •............... 1,433 1,469 1,506 1.543 1,582 1.621 Direct Eaployment Change · .......... 15(5) 25(6) 35(6) 45(6) lDdirect Eaployaent Change ••••••••• 15 25 35 45 Adjusted Population ••••••••••• ---sz; ----go 1"26 -m Total Projected Population •••• 1,433 1,469 1,560 1,633 1,708 1,783 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Low Growth Projection B.a.le Population •••••••••••••••••••• 1,631 1,664 1,681 1,697 1,714 1,731 Direct Faployaent Quange · .......... 15 15 15 15 15 15 lDdirect Employaent Change ••••••••• 15 15 15 15 15 15 Adjusted Population ••••••••••• ----s4 ---s4 ----s4 ----s4 ---s4 ----s4 Total Projected Population •••• 1,685 1,718 1,735 1,751 1,768 1,785 Hi~h Growth Projection Rase Population •••••••••••••••••••• 1,975 2,025 2,075 2,127 2,180 2,235 Direct Faplo,.ent Quange · .......... 88 88 88 88 88 88 lDdirect Eaployaent Change ••••••••• 88 88 88 88 88 88 Adjusted Population ••••••••••• ----n6 ---m----m-----n6 ----n6 ---m- Total Projected Population •••• 2,291 2,341 2,391 "2,"4"4'3 2,496 2,551 CI) Beglnl with 1980 Cenaus figurel and ia increaaed by 1% annuslly. (2) Ass~ oue indirect employee per direct employee. (3) ABlume 1.8 relidentl per employee. (4) Begina witb 1980 Cenaus figurel and 11 increaaed by 2.5% annually. (5) 15 new conltruction workerl at Schnabel Luaber. (6) 10 new tourilt industry jobl. (7) 40 new workerl for Tranl-Alaksa pipeline tranaportation. (8) 20 new workerl for Trani-Alaska pipeline tranaportation. (9) 30 new workerl at barite aining operation. (10) 10 new workerl at barite aining operation. It 1986 1987 1988 ~ 1990 1991 1992 1,521 1,536 1,552 1,567 1,583 1,599 1,615 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 ----s4 ----s4 ----s4 ----s4 ---s4 ----s4 ----s4 1.575 1,590 1,606 1,621 1,637 1,653 1,669 1,662 1,703 1,746 1,790 1,834 1,880 1,927 85(7) 105(8) 135(9) 145(10) 88 88 88 85 105 135 145 88 88 88 --r1i6 "378 ~ -su ----n6 ----m ----m 1,968 2,081 2,232 2,312 2.150 2,196 2,243 1999 2000 1,749 1,766 15 15 15 15 ---s4 ---s4 1,803 1,820 2,291 2,348 88 88 88 88 ---m----m- 2,607 2,664 H III c" I-' (l) H H H I N HA INES-SKAGI/AY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY PIlOJECTION or COIMUNITY ENEIGY USE FOIl HAINES -SCENAIlIO A ...illL ~ --'..lli.... ..llli... ...!.lli.... ...illL ...ill!... ~ ~ ...ill.!.... ....!!!L llaiD" UBht aDd Pover Cueto_ca lIe.tdeDUal ............... 453 457 461 466 470 475 479 484 489 493 498 C<.oerc1.1 ............... 151 152 154 155 157 158 160 161 163 164 166 lDduatrial ............... 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Str.et Ullhta ............. 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 Io.t llarbor ............... 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 Tot.l ............... ---ml ----m-~ ----rn --""664 ---m ---m ----wi ----m ---rn ----ro4 EnUIl u.e \HWhl •• ddeDtia •••••• e •••••••• 2.472 2.494 2.516 2.582 2.643 2.711 2.775 2,846 2,918 2.987 3.062 C<.ouc1.1 ............... 2.852 2.929 3,028 3.109 3.213 3.299 3.409 3.499 3.615 3,710 3.831 lDduatrial ............... 880 787 791 795 798 802 806 810 814 818 822 Strut Ullht. ............. 157 158 160 161 163 165 166 168 170 171 173 Io.t \\arbor ............... 14 15 15 __ 1_5 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 Total ............... 6.375 6.383 6.510 6.662 6.832 6.993 7.172 7,339 7.533 "'T,"7"O) 7.905 HLP Sy.t_ w .... I,. ••••••••••••••• 638 638 651 666 683 699 717 734 753 770 791 5chD.bel Luaber Coapuy (Con> GaIV (*) 0 ...l.ill. ..2...QE. ..2...QE. ..2...QE. ..2...QE. 7 037 ..2...QE. ..2...QE. ..2...QE. ..2...QE. ..2...QE. Total C<.o..,1ty IIaqu1r_nt. . ...... 10.676 14,058 14.198 14.365 14.552 14:729 14.926 15,110 15.323 15.510 15,733 HLP Peak Dea.alld (I<W) ............... 1,334 1.336 1.362 1.394 1.430 1.463 1.501 1.535 1.576 1.612 1,654 ,..1< Daa&Dd of Sch ... bal (*) 0 000 .. 0 0 0 ...!.a..!.Ql ....hill. ..1.....!!l ....hill. ..1.....!!l ..1.....!!l ....hill. ....hill. ...!.t..!..!! +.ill ~:m Total C<.oun1ty Peak ilia_lid 0 0 0 000000 2.441 3.459 3.485 3,517 3.553 3,586 3,624 3.659 3.699 , 35 ...illL ~ ...!m.... ...illL .....!lli... ~ ...!22!... ~ llaiDu Ulht .Dd Powr Cueto_r, ••• lde"tial ............... 503 513 518 523 528 533 538 543 C<.oerc1.1 ." ............ 168 171 173 174 176 178 179 181 lDd uat rial ............... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Street Ullht. ........ , .... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Io.t IIarbor ............... 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 Total ••••••••••••• to. --m -rn -----m---rn ---m ~ ----nT ----m Enerll Uae (HWh) .uLleDtial .1 ..........••• 3.139 3,249 3.281 3.313 3.344 3.376 3.408 3,439 C<.oerc1.1 ............... 3.956 4.108 4.240 4.350 4.489 4.632 4,752 4,902 lDduatrl.1 ............... 826 830 834 838 842 846 851 855 Street UShti ............. 175 176 178 180 182 184 485 187 Io.t IIarbor ............... 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 Total ............... """'8,Ti4 8.381 8.551 8.699 8,876 9,057 9.516 9.403 IILP Sylt_ w .... . ................ 811 838 855 870 888 906 952 940 Schn.bel Luabar CoapaDy (OInl Ga~ (*) 0 ..2...QE. ..2...QE. ..2...QE. ..l.J..Qll. ..2...QE. ~ 7 037 ~ Total ec-.unlt,. laquir.antl •••••••• 15.962 16.256 16.443 16.606 16.801 1 .000 11: 505 1 ,380 H ID..P Pe.1< Daaand (I<W) ............... 1.698 1.754 1.790 1.821 1,858 1.895 1.992 1.968 III ,..1< Daa&Dd of Sch ... bel (0) 000 .. 0 0 0 0 ...!.t..!..!! ..1.....!!l ...!.t..!..!! -+ffi ...!.t..!..!! +.lli +.ffi --HM CT' I-' Total C<.ounlty Peak 1lIa.1Id 0 0 0" 0 0 00 3.821 3.877 3.913 3.9 3.981 .018 .115 .091 (tl (ij -Source, Stud Electrical Po ... r fro. Wood H H H I LV • w- HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEAS IB ILITY STUDY PROJECTION OF COHHUNITY ENERGY USE FOR HA INES -SCENARIO B -.illL ---.!.ill.... ~ ~ -.llli.... ~ ~ ...!.2!L ~ ....!!2.!.... ...!22L Hainee L1iht and power Cuetomere Re8idential ............... 459 480 497 524 579 612 656 680 632 646 660 Commercial ............... 153 160 166 175 193 204 219 227 211 215 220 Industrial ............... 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Street Light8 ............. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bo8t Harbor ............... 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 Tot8l ............... ----p;s ------m------c;99 ----r36 -----so9 --w; -----g[l -----w; ----asz ----"'902 -----ru- Sale8 (KWh) Reaidential ............... 2,505 2,620 2,713 2,903 3,256 3,493 3,800 3,998 3,772 3,913 4,058 Coadaercial ............... 2,871 2,968 3,048 3,109 3,213 3,299 3,409 3,499 4,687 4,872 5,086 Industrial ............... 880 787 791 794 798 802 806 810 814 1,118 1,125 Street Light8 ............. 157 158 160 161 163 165 166 168 170 171 173 Boat Harbor ............... 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 Total ............... 6,427 6,548 6,727 6,982 7,445 7,775 8,197 8,491 9,459 10,091 10,459 HLP SY8tem Losses .................. 643 655 673 698 745 778 820 849 946 1,009 1,046 Schnabel Lwaber Coapaoy (Ow Getj (*). 3,663 ~ ~ ~ 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 ~ ~ 7,037 Total c.-uolty Require •• nta,. •••••• ,. 10,733 14,240 14,437 14,717 15,227 15,590 16,054 16,377 17,442 18,137 18,542 HLP Pealr. Demaad (lr.W) ............... 1,345 1,370 1,408 1,461 1,558 1,627 1,716 1,777 1,980 2,112 2,188 Peak De.and of Schnabel (*) ......... --.!.t.!.Q2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2,123 2,123 ~ ~ ~ Total Peak _ad ................... 2,452 3,493 3,531 3,584 3,681 3,750 3,839 3,900 4,103 4,235 4,311 --.!lli.... ~ ~ 1996 --.illL ~ ...!!2L 2000 Hainea Ulht and Pover Customers Re8idential ............... 674 689 703 719 734 750 767 784 c.-erc1al ............... 225 230 234 240 245 250 256 261 Industrial ............... 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Street Light8 ............. 1 1 1 1 1 I I I Boat Harbor ............... 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 Total .,.,. ... ,. ... ,.,. ... -----m------gc;r ~ 1,002 1,023 1,044 1,068 1,090 Sale8 (MWh) Reaideot18l ............... 4,206 4,364 4,453 4,554 4,649 4,751 4,858 4,966 Coadaerc1al ............... 5,307 5,534 5,744 6,010 6,260 6,516 6,807 7,080 Industrial ............... 1,132 1,139 1,146 1,153 1,161 1,168 1,176 1,183 Street Lighta ............. 175 176 178 180 182 184 185 187 Boat Harbor ............... 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 Total ............... 10,838 11,231 11,539 11,915 12,271 12,638 13,046 13,436 HLP Sy8te. Loa8ea .................. 1,084 1,123 1,154 1,192 1,227 1,264 1,305 1,344 Schnabel Lwaber Coapany (0In> Ge~ (*). ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7,037 ~ Total Coadaunity Requirements ........ 18,959 19,391 19,730 20,144 20,535 20,939 21,388 21,817 HLP Peak Demand (lr.W) ............... 2,268 2,350 2,415 2,494 2,568 2,645 2,730 2,812 1-3 III Peak ~and of Schnabel (*) ......... ....h.!Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0" Total Coadaunlty Peak ~aad ......... 4,391 4,473 4,538 4,617 4,691 4,768 4,853 4,935 to-' ro (i) _ Source: 1979 DEatinll of the Fea8ibUitl Studl and ReErt on Generation of Electric Power Frolll Wood bfuae, MJr'Weat Pacific Corporation. H H H I ~ HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY HISTORICAL ENERGY USE - ALASKA POWER AND TELEPHONE COMPANY, 1973 1974 1975 1976 Average Number of Cuatomers ....... 317 347 359 369 Average Use Per Customer (KWh) 11.0 10.0 l2.0 l2.5 Energy Salea (KWh) ................ 3,492 3,454 4,313 4.601 Systea Losses (KWh) ............... 200 ~ ---lli Total Requirements (KWh) • 3.692 4.034 5,262 Annual Peak Demand (kW) ........... 900 900 1.100 Systea Load Factor (X) ........... 46.8 51.2 54.6 (*) Annualized based on 6 months of data. SKAGWAY 1977 1978 1979 413 422 378 12.2 l2.5 13.9 5.057 5,254 5.241 ---..l!QQ --ill 728 5,857 5,986 5.969 1,300 1,400 51.4 48.8 1980 399 l2.7 5.061 --lli 5.677 ...J..2!!.(*) 399 12.3 4.917 ---.i!1 5.330 1.296 t-3 ~ I-' CD H H H I V1 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY POPULATION PROJECTIONS -SKAGWAY 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Low Growth Projection Base Population (1) , ••••••••••••••• 768(4) 768 768 776 783 Direct Employment Change .......... 0 0 Indirect Employment Change (2) .... 0 0 Adjusted Population (3) ...... --0 --0 Total Projected Population ••• ----m ----m ----m 776 --"Ta3 HiSh Growth Projection Base Population .•................. 768 783 799 815 831 Direct Employment Change .......... 0 0 0 0 0 Indirect Employment Change ........ 0 0 0 0 0 Adjusted Population .......... --0 --0 --0 --0 --0 Projected Population ......... ----m ----r83 ~ ----ars ----a3T 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Low Growth Projection Base Population ••••••••••••••••••• 857 866 874 883 892 Direct Employment Change .......... 0 0 0 0 0 Indirect Employment Change ........ 0 0 0 0 0 Adjusted Population .......... --0 --0 --0 --0 --0 Total Population •............ ---asr ----a66 ----a74 ----a83 ----a92 HiSh Growth Projection Base Population ................... 1,023 1,054 1,085 1,118 1,152 Direct Employment Change .......... 11 11 11 11 11 Indirect Employment Change .•...... 4 4 4 4 4 Adjusted Population .•........ ---u --'45 -n --'45 --'45 Total Population ............. 1,068 1,099 1,130 1,163 1,197 (1) Begins with 1980 Census figure which is increased by 1% annuslly after 1983 for low scenario; 2% between 1981 and 1990 and 3% beyond for the high scenario. (2) Assume .4 indirect employee for every direct employee. (3) Assume 3.0 residents per employee. (4) Begins with 1980 Census figure. (5) Thirty new workers for Trans-Aiaska pipeline transportation. (6) Fifteen DeW worker. for Trans-Aiaska pipeline transportation. 1986 791 0 0 --0 ----m 848 30(5) 12 ---m ~ 1999 901 0 0 --0 ----gar 1,186 11 4 --'45 1,231 1987 1988 1989 799 807 815 0 0 0 0 0 0 --0 --0 --0 ----r99 ----ao7 ---sIS 865 882 900 45(6) 45 45 18 18 18 ---rB'9 ---rB'9 ---rB'9 1,054 1,071 1,089 2000 910 0 0 --0 ----no 1,222 11 4 -n 1,267 • ~ 1990 1991 823 832 0 ·0 0 0 --0 --0 ----an -m 918 936 11 11 4 4 --'45 --'45 ~ -gar • 1992 840 0 0 --0 ----a4O 964 11 4 ----u 1,009 1993 849 0 0 --0 ----a49 993 11 4 ----u 1,038 t-3 III C" I--' !l> H H H I 0\ .. • It.UNES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECTION OF CO~UNITY ENERGY USE FOR SKAGWAY -SCEIWlIO A ...llli ..l2!! ---'..2!! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....!!!.2. ...!!!!. ~ Ai •• 1La POwer' Teleehone euatoaera iea(deotia1 .............................. 305 307 308 311 314 317 320 323 327 330 333 ec-ercial •••• I ••••••••••••••• 82 83 83 84 85 86 86 87 88 89 90 Gover_ent .................... 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Railroad ...................... 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Total ......................................... ----m ----.02 ~ ---w----m----rr5 ----.ui" ----rn ---m ----m ~ Sal .. (HIIh) ieaideotia1 ....................................... 1,708 1,714 1,708 1,768 1,811 1,856 1,902 1,949 2,002 2,051 2,101 eo..erc1.1 .................... 1,731 1,823 1,874 1,932 1,992 2,055 2,095 2,190 2,227 2,295 2,367 GoYefount ........................................ 649 663 676 690 704 719 734 749 764 780 796 Railroad ...................... 835 835 848 860 873 886 900 913 927 941 955 Total ...................................... 4,923 5,035 5,106 5,250 5,380 5,516 5,631 5,801 5,920 6,067 6,21.9 APT OW Uae ............................. 197 201 204 210 215 221 225 232 237 243 249 APT 51at .. Lo .. U ....................... 492 504 511 525 538 552 563 580 592 607 622 White Pe .. , Yuk.oo Ii (Ow Geo.) (.) ...... ~ ~ ~ hl.!.! hl.!.! hl.!.! .!2!! hl.!.! .!2!! hl.!.! .!2!! Total c:o..unity iequ.1r_oU .. , 7,Il1 7,259 7,340 7,504 7,652 7,808 7,938 8,132 8,268 8,436 8,609 APT Pea It Doaand (ltV) ...................... 1,281 1,311 1,329 1,366 1,400 1,436 1,466 1,510 1,541 1,579 1,619 Whiu Pe .. , Yuk.oD Ii Pealt Doaoad (.) .... 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 Total Ra t 1Aa t ed eo..UIlit y Peak Dea&Dd ..... 1,628 1,658 1,676 1,713 1,747 1,783 1,813 1,857 1,8811 1,926 1,966 -11.21 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....!2!! ..1..QQQ Ai .. u powr , Ta102hoDa eultoMrl R .. ldeoUol ....................... '" .............. 337 340 344 347 350 354 358 361 ec-.ercl.1 .................... 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Governaeat .................... 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Railroad ............ , ......... 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Total .......... t,··.······ -m --m -m ---m-----m-462 46i ---m Sol .. ~HIIh) i .. ldeatiol .................... 2,158 2,210 2,236 2,255 2,275 2,301 2,327 2,346 ec-ercial • I •••••••••• t ....... 2,439 2,514 2,590 2,669 2,750 2,832 2,917 3,006 GovernaeDt •••••••••• t •••••• ••• 812 829 846 863 881 899 917 936 Railroad ........ , ............. 969 984 998 ~ 1,029 1,044 1,060 1,075 Total •••••• t •••••••••••••• 6,378 6,537 6,670 6,800 6,935 7,076 7,221 7,363 APT OW Uoe ................................ 255 261 267 272 277 283 289 295 APT SYST!II Lo .. eo ........................ 638 654 667 680 694 708 722 736 White Pa .. , Yukoo Ii (Ow (loD.) (.) ...... -t.Wo hl.!.! NH t.ffi .!2!! hl.!.! H* Total c:o..UDity "quir.eau ... 8, 90 8,971 9,12 ,271 9,425 9,586 9, 51 9,913 APT Pealt Do.-nd (ltV) ...................... 1,660 1,702 1,736 1,770 1,805 1,842 1,879 1,916 Whi U Pe.. , Yukoa Ii Pealt Do_ad (0) .... 347 147 347 347 347 347 347 347 Total bti.-ted c:o..unity Pealt llIaa"" ..... 2,007 2,049 2,083 2,TT7" 2,152 2,189 2,226 2,263 H Cil -btl.-ted I\) 0- I-' CD H H H I ""-J ~-• I' .. HAINES-SKAGWAY IlEGION FEASlS lLITY STUDY PiOJECT ION OF COHHUIH TY ENERGY USE FOR SKAGWAY -SCEIWlIO B ....!.ill.... ....!1!L ~ ~ ~ 1987 ~ ~ ~ ....!!!L ~ AI .. ka Po_r , Tel.~hon. CUlto.erl i .. 1d.ntial ..................... 310 317 323 330 387 418 425 432 382 389 400 c.-rcial ..................... 84 86 87 89 106 115 117 118 103 105 lOB GovernaeDt ..................... 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11&11 ro.d ....................... 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 Tot.l ...................... --.06 --.-rr -----.-n --m ----m-~ --m ----m --m-----soa --m Sale. (KWh) ieddent1al ..................... 1,736 1,775 1,809 1,876 2,233 2,448 2,526 2,606 2,339 2,418 2,524 ec-.erc1al ..................... 1,773 1,887 1,961 2,044 2,472 2,731 2,832 2,912 2,598 2,573 2,830 Goveruent ..................... 659 683 707 733 759 786 815 844 874 905 938 11&11 road ........................ 835 835 848 860 872 ~ ~ ~ 899 925 953 Total ...................... 5,003 5,180 5,325 5,513 6,336 7,013 7,236 7,441 6,710 6,821 7,245 APT Own u. • ............................. 200 207 213 221 253 281 289 298 268 273 290 APT Sy.t .. Lo .... ........................ 500 518 533 551 634 705 724 744 671 682 725 Whit. Pa.. , Yukon RI (Own Cen.) (.) ...... +.ill +.m +.Wo -t.¥oi +.ill ~ +.ill ~ ~ +.ill ~ Total eo..unity .. qu1re .. nt. .... , 2 , 2 ,590 ,80 , 2 9,518 , 68 10,002 9,168 9,2 5 9,779 APT p .. k llIuad (kW) ...................... 1,302 1,348 1,386 1,435 1,649 1,826 1,883 1,937 1,746 1,775 1,886 Wb1 te P... , Yukon RI PI.k llIa&ad (.) .... 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 Total IItiut..:l c.-unity Plak _ad ..... 1,649 1,695 1,733 1,782 1,996 2,173 2,230 2,284 2,093 2,122 2,233 ....ill!.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2000 Al •• k.a Power' Teleehone eulto.erl i .. idenUoi ..................... 411 424 36 448 462 475 488 503 ec-.erc1.1 ..................... 115 118 121 125 128 132 136 140 GoverlWient ..................... 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11111 rood ....................... 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Tot.l ...................... ----y;o --m ----sIT ----m ----ro4 ~ -rn -----m Sal •• (1Nh) ie.id.nt1ol ..................... 2,632 2,756 2,834 2,912 3,003 3,087 3,172 3,269 c.-erciol ..................... 3,069 3,210 3,355 3,533 3,688 3,875 4,070 4,272 GovernaeDt ..................... 971 1,006 1,042 1,079 1,117 1,157 1,197 1,241 11&11 road ....................... 981 +.m +.m ~ f.ffi ~ -HIt ~ Tot.l ...................... ....,-;m ,98 , 2 ,5 , I 9,25 ,611 9,9 9 APT Own u. • ............................. 306 319 331 344 357 370 384 400 Sy.t .. Lo •••• ............................ 765 798 827 860 891 926 961 999 Whit. Pa .. , Yukon RI (Own Cen.) (.) ...... I 519 ~ I 519 I 519 ~ I 519 #.ill ~ Total c.-unity IIaqulr_ent ••••• 10:243 10,619 10: 949 ff.ili 11,680 12: 072 12, 5 12, 7 APT PI.k De •• nd (kW) •••••••••••••••••••••• 1,992 2,078 2,153 2,237 2,320 2,409 2,501 2,600 lIhit. P... , TuIr.on RI Plak Deu.ad (.) .... 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 Totll !lt1ut..:l c.-unity Plak _ad ••••• 2,339 "'"'2,""4"25 --r;5OO """'2,'584 ""T,'66f "'T,'156 """'2,84ii "'T,'94'1 1-3 III (il -Ldut.d. 0' I-' (l) H H H I ex> it .. • • • , • IlAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIB ILllY STUDY PIlOJECTION OF COHHUNlTY ENERGY USE FOIl IlAlNES -SCENAilO C ...illL ...ill!.. .....ill!... ...ill.L ....!lli.... ...ill!..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ...ill.L lIaiau U~ht aad Power CUlto.erl J.olideatial .............. 459 480 497 524 579 612 656 680 632 646 660 c.-.. cial .............. 153 160 166 175 193 204 219 227 211 215 220 Induotriel .............. 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Street Uahta ............ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 laat Harbor .............. 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 Toul .............. -m ----m---m---m -----ao9 --m-----gj'J -w; -m ----g(j2 --m Salea (HWh) J.oaldaatial .............. 2,894 3,359 3,764 4,376 5,244 6,833 7,645 8,492 7,150 7,489 7,911 c.-arcial .............. 2,871 3,710 3,810 3,886 4,016 4,124 4,261 4,374 5,859 7,308 7,629 lDd ... trial .............. 880 787 925 928 933 937 942 947 951 1,423 1,431 8tr .. t Uahu ............ 157 158 160 161 163 165 166 168 170 171 173 laat Harbor .............. 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 Total .......... , ... 6,816 8,029 ""'8';674 9,366 10,371 12,075 13,030 13,997 14,146 16,408 Tf;"i6i HLP Syat. Lo •••• . ................ 682 803 867 937 1,037 1,208 1,303 1,400 1,415 1,641 1,716 8cbuhel Luaber !ll.peoy ~ c.u,) (.) ~ 7 037 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Total c.-... ity laq"ir_ata .. 11,161 15:869 16,578 17,340 18,445 20,320 21,370 22,434 22,598 25,086 25,914 HLP p.,ak Deaaad (ltW) .............. 1,427 1,680 1,815 1,960 2,170 2,527 2,727 2,929 2,961 3,434 3,592 PoIalt o..ud of Schubel (.) ....... +.ill ..1..t..!l! ..1..t..!l! ..1..t..!l! ....!.J..!Q ~ ....!.J..!Q ..1..t..!l! ..1..t..!l! ~ ..1..t..!l! Total p.,ak .... ad .................. 2, 52 3,803 3,938 4,083 4,293 ,650 4,850 5,052 5,084 5,55 5,715 ...ill.L ...!ill.... ...!ill.... 1996 ...lliL ...ill!... ~ 2000 Baia .. Ulht aad Power CU:.to.ere J.oaldeatial .............. 674 689 703 719 734 750 767 784 c.-.. cial .............. 225 230 234 240 245 250 256 261 lDduotriel .............. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Street Uahta ............ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 laat Harbor .............. 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 Total •••••••••••• II ----m ~ --gso 1,002 1,023 1,044 1,068 """'i";09O !!Dern Oaa ~_) lIealde.UaI .............. 8,336 8,787 9,161 9,579 9,985 10,408 10,858 11,307 c.-.. cial .............. 7,961 8,301 8,616 9,015 9,390 9,774 10,211 10,620 lDd ... trial .............. 1,440 1,449 1,458 1,466 1,476 1,485 1,495 1,504 Straet Uahta ............ 175 176 178 180 182 184 185 187 laat Harbor .............. 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 Total .............. 17,930 18,731 19,431 20,258 21,052 21,870 22,769 23,638 HLP Syat. Lo •••• ................. 1,793 1,873 1,943 2,026 2,105 2,187 2,277 2,364 Sclmabel Luaber Co. ~ c.a)(.) .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Total c.-lIDi ty lIeqllir.aata .. 26,760 27,641 28,411 29,321 30,194 31,094 32,083 33,039 HLP PoIalt Daaud (ltW) .............. 3,752 3,920 4,067 4,240 4,406 4,577 4,765 4,947 PoIalt Daoaad of Schubel (.) ........ ..1..t..!l! --bill ..1..t..!l! ..1..t..!l! ...h.ill -HM ....!.J..!Q -¥o¥a 1-3 III Total Polak Daaaod .................. 5,875 6,0 3 6,190 6,363 6,529 6, 00 6,888 ,a a 0- (,) -SO"rcel ...... 1979 00 Geoeration of Electrical Power CD Pro. H H H , ~ • • ,. • , lIAINES-SKAGWAY UGIOM FUSIBILITY STIIDY PiOJECTIOM ~ COIIIIUlHTY EMEIlGY USE I'Oi. SKAGWAY -SCEIIAIlIO C --.!2ll.. ~ ~ ~ ...!.ill.... ....!2!L ~ ~ ~ ....ill!.. ...illL Al .. k.a Po .... r • TeleEhone CuAto.era iee1dential ....................... 310 317 323 330 393 425 432 439 382 389 400 eo...rc1e! .............. 84 86 87 89 106 115 117 118 103 105 108 Q)vernaeot .............. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 iellroad ................ 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 Tote! .............................. """406 -----m --u2 -rn ---m -----rn--s6J ~ ---:m -soB --m Sel .. ~HIIh) iee1denUe! .............. 1,870 2,081 2,267 2,485 3,861 4,767 5,079 5,389 4,291 4,600 5,008 eo...rcial .............. 1,713 1,887 2,451 2,555 3,090 3,414 3,415 3,390 3,248 3,860 4,245 Q)vetlli.-eot .............. 659 683 813 843 873 904 937 971 1,224 1,267 1,313 iellroad ................. 835 835 933 946 959 ~ ~ ....!.t..!!!. 989 1 018 ~ Total .............................. ""'T,T3f 5,486 """"6";4'64 6,829 8,783 10,238 10,600 10,937 9,752 10: 745 11,614 UT llIe ........................... 205 219 259 273 351 410 424 437 390 430 465 APT Syet. Lo .... ................. 513 549 646 683 878 1,024 1,060 1,094 975 1,075 1,161 lihUe P .... Yukon U (Own Oen) (0) .....!.....ill .....!.....ill .....!.....ill .....!.....ill .....!.....ill -..l.t1!! -..l.t1!! -..l.t1!! ~ ~ -..l.t1!! 'lbtal c.-W1it1 iequ.1r.enu .. 7,374 7,773 8,888 9,304 11,531 13,191 13,603 13,987 12,636 13,769 14,7~9 UT .... 1. Dot-.nd (iLW) .............. 1,337 1.428 1.682 1,777 2,286 2,665 2,759 2,847 2,538 2,797 l,023 lIhite PI ... Yukon U Pe.k Doaand (0) 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 'lbtal In1ae ted c.-1lAl. t1 Peak o-and ""T;"6M -r;m 2,029 ""T,T24 """'2;'m J;'O'i2 3,TIi6 3,'i94 2,885 -r.m ""T,l7O ~ ...!ill... ~ ~ ....!2!L.. .....!.ill.. ~ ...1.QQQ... Al •• k.a Power" ,..laehone Cu.toaera ielldenU.1 ......................... 424 436 448 462 475 488 503 517 c.-erc1al IO .......................... 115 118 121 125 128 132 136 140 Goveroaent .............. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 iellro.d ................ 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Tote! ............... ----sIT ----m-----m -m ---m----rn--m ----m Sel .. ~IMI) iee1denU.1 ........................... 5,414 5,852 6,275 6,736 7,192 7,640 8,125 8.605 eo...rchl ............... , ... 4,604 4,815 5,033 5,300 5,532 5,813 6,105 6,408 GovetoaeDt .............. 1,359 1,408 1,459 1,511 1,564 1,620 1,675 1,737 iellroed ................ ~ 1 112 ~ ~ ....!.t.!!! ~ ~ ~ Total ............... 12, 5 n-:-m 13,912 14,726 15,504 16,325 17,194 18,078 APT Ole •••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••• 498 527 556 589 620 653 688 723 APT SYlt. Lo .... ................. 1,246 1,319 1,391 1,473 1,550 1,633 1,719 1,808 White pe .. , Yukon U (Own Oen) (0) .....!.....ill .....!.....ill ....h1!! -..l.t1!! ~ ~ ~ ~ 'lbtal c.-unit1 iequ.1r.entl .. 15,719 16,552 17,378 18,307 19,193 20,130 21,120 22,128 APT Dnand (kW) ............... , ... 3,242 3,432 3,621 3.833 4,035 4,249 4,475 4,705 White PIli • YukoD U Pe.k Dosand (0) 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 ToUI ~ti ... ted c.-unit1 Pe.k DoII&nd ""T.ill" J,779 3.968 4,180 4,382 "'T,1'96 "T,"ffi 5,052 (0) _ ~t1aat.d. H ~ ...... tTl H H H I ~ 0 ., • Jan. Feb. Haines (1979) 607 652 Skagway (1978) 409 449 'Potal 1,016 1,101 Source: Reconnaissance Assessment CI-l2M Hill, February 1980. • • HAINES-SKAGvlAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ENERGY IN MWH BY MONTE FOR HAINES AND SKP.GHAY Mar. ~ Hay June July Aug. 530 519 501 456 411 456 425 419 404 429 428 445 955 938 905 885 839 901 of Ener9Y Alternative, Chi1kat River Basin, Sep. Oct. 492 492 452 514 944 1,006 Nov. 588 430 1,018 Dec. 588 451 1,03g H H H I f-' f-' • 14,000 12,000 10,000 ~ ~ 8,000 a <t o ...J ~ <t ~ 6,000 4POO 2,000 1975 Historic peok loads HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY PEAK LOAD FORECAST TABLE III-12 ~.,., .. ~~ ~ .. ~ .. Growth scenario C \ ~ .. ., .. .," .," .," .," ~ ~~ ~ .. ., .. ~ .... .," .," .," .," .," Growth scenario B '\ ~ ... ~-.. ....:. f ~ .... ~-V ~ .. ~ ~ '/ ~ ~ .... J ~ .... ........ .... ., .. ~ ~ ....... . ..... , .. CGrowth scenario A t~ ~ Projected ... peak loads I I 1980 1985 1990 YEAR 1995 2000 • • .s:. ~ ~ z 0 ....J ....J ~ >=" C) 0:: IiJ • Z IiJ ....J ~ ~ z z ~ • 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o 1975 Historic energy HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST Growth seenorio C y ~., ~ ... ~., TABLE III-13 i ..... ..... .... ~ ... ~ /~ ~ -I' / ...... Growth scenario B I -~ ____ V ~ I( ~~ ~ .. , ..... • ••••••• •••••• ~. ~ r.. ..... ~ .... .t ~ .... "Growth s"enorio A ~ ... .... ~ ~ Projected energy requ"rements requ iremerfts I 1980 1985 I 1990 YEAR I I I 1995 2000 • • • SECTION IV ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF GENERATION CONSIDERED 1 • GENERAL There are a number of generation options available to Haines and Skagway to meet the loads forecasted above. The most probable are hydropower, diesel generation, wind power, and wood waste generation. In addition, waste heat recovery systems attached to the diesel generators could meet some of the space heating requirements. Conservation generally will have its greatest impact on space and water heating, but these are not electrical loads in Haines and Skagway. The various means of generation and conservation are dis- cussed below. 2. HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION The climate and topography of Southeast Alaska make it ideally suited for hydroelectric generation and many of the communities derive a large part of their energy from this source. As a means of generation, hydropower has a number of advantages: it uses a renewable resource; it has a high ef- ficiency (85%); it has a basically nonescalating cost; it is relatively non- polluting; and it is reliable over a long life. The major problem with hydro- power is finding a site which can be economically developed. Thus, much of the early work on any hydroproject focuses on site selection and evaluation. Hydropower sites are developed in two general patterns, as run-of- river projects or as storage projects. Run-of-river projects are ones which operate only when and to the extent that water is naturally available in the river. During times of high flow, the Project generates at its full capacity, but during times of low flow, generation is limited by the lack of water. By developing reservoir storage to regulate streamflows this problem can be rec- tified. During times of high flow water not required for generation is stored in a reservoir and then used for generation when flow in the river drops below the level required for generation. Run-of-river projects have the disadvan- tage of only being able to generate at full capacity for a part of the year, but have the advantage of being less expensive to build because they usually do not require a large dam. Storage projects, on the other hand, have a high initial cost, but this must be compared with the advantage of having year- round generating capability • In the Haines-Skagway Region, this difference is particularly im- portant because the low flow season occurs during the winter, the time when energy requirements are generally at their highest level. The potential for meeting the electric energy requirements of Haines and Skagway using hydro- electric power has been the subject of two recent reconnaissance studies per- formed under the direction of the APA. These studies identified 13 potential IV-2 sites in the region. (2) Most were run-of-river with no potential for stor- age and of a size which would only meet the needs of one of the communities. In contrast, the West Creek and Goat Lake sites could be developed as storage projects with a capacity sufficient to meet the needs of both Haines and Skag- way. Based on the work performed in the two studies, the APA concluded that the most economical hydroelectric project was probably the West Creek Project with a transmission intertie to Haines and Skagway. A second site at Goat Lake was also considered a possibility although no site inspection had been made at that time by either Beck or CH2M Hill. During the summer of 1981 a site reconnaissance of Goat Lake was made by Beck and a letter report to the APA prepared. The reconnaissance revealed certain potential geological prob- lems with the Goat Lake site and the study showed that the site would probably be less feasible than the West Creek site. These results are discussed in de- tail in the letter report dated October 14, 1982 and included as Appendix A. In addition, a small run-of-river project on Haska Creek across the Chilkat River from Haines was investigated at the request of Haines Light and Power. This site has a hydrology similar to the other run-of-river projects studied in the Reconnaissance and could generate about 3,400 MWh per year with an installed capacity of 1,300 kW. The site would be very expensive to devel- op and was not considered economical. The West Creek Project, sized to meet the 1996 Scenario B require- ments of both communities, would have an installed capacity of 6,000 kW and a firm annual energy production of 23,630 MWh. The Project would consist of a concrete-faced rockfill dam 120 feet high, a 1.6-mile-long tunnel, a 1,570-foot-long penstock, and a powerhouse with two 3,000-kW units. Power from the P roj ect would be transmit ted at 34.5 kV overland to Skagway and by submarine cable to Haines. Details of this Project are discussed in Part B of this Report. 3. DIESEL GENERATION AND WASTE HEAT a. Diesel-Electric Plants At the present time the electrical energy needs of the Haines area are met by diesel-electric generating units and those of the Skagway area in part by diesel-electric units and in part by hydroelectric power. A diesel engine is a device for converting heat energy from the combustion of fuel into mechanical energy and waste heat. Waste heat is a by- product of heat engines such as a diesel engine, because not all of the energy provided from full combustion is converted into mechanical energy. The ratio of mechanical energy produced to the total energy content of the fuel used is defined as the efficiency of the engine. Diesels with efficiencies of 35-40% rank high among thermal engines. • .. • .. IV-3 An electrical generator is directly coupled to the engine and con- verts the mechanical energy produced by the engine to electricity. Additional losses associated with the electrical generation reduce the overall efficiency of the diesel generator to approximately 30%. This implies that around 70% of the energy content of the fuel is lost due to friction or as waste heat. In typical engines, approximately 30% of the total heat generated by fuel combus- tion is absorbed by water in cooling jackets surrounding the combustion zone and approximately 30% is carried away in hot exhaust gas and radiated from ex- haust piping. Generally, about half of this waste heat or energy can be re- covered. b. Waste Heat Recovery Attempts to reduce the energy lost in the production of electrical energy have centered on increasing efficiency of the heat engine and on find- ing a use for waste heat. Unfortunately, the two are not complementary. Tra- ditionally, electric utilities have chosen to maximize power plant efficiency and degrade waste heat. However, because of the relatively low efficiencies achieved by even the most efficient diesel units, there are still substantial opportunities to recover heat loss from high efficiency diesel engines so as to make them even more efficient. Heat recovery systems generally extract heat from the engine's cooling system and/or the engine's exhaust system. Heat absorbed by the en- gine's cooling system is sent to a heat exchanger where the heat is transfer- red to water or some other fluid that is then piped to another location where it can then be used for space, water, or process heating. Whether or not such use is practicable is dependent on the location of the end user with respect to the diesel plant, the output temperature of the engine's cooling water, and the ability of the end user to use the heat. To date, the APA has installed several waste heat recovery systems in remote Alaskan communities with good results. A recent installation in the • Town of Unalaska recovers enough waste heat from a 600-kW diesel generator to heat about 45,000 square feet of public buildings and a 140,000-gallon swim- ming pool. In most Alaskan installations, the use of waste heat recovery systems will not reduce electrical energy consumption since very little elec- tricity is used for space or water heating. The recovered heat, however, can be used to displace heating oil and thus has a value equal to the value of the displaced oil. Under these circumstances a waste heat recovery system cannot be considered an electrical generating resource, but the electric utility can sell the recovered heat and credit its overall production expenses. To evalu- ate the economic feasibility of a waste heat recovery system, the cost of in- stallation must be compared with the estimated credits to be received. c. Application of Waste Heat Recovery to Haines and Skagway Initial indications are that for both cities, the existing power plants are near several potential users of recovered waste heat. Preliminary evaluations also indicate that the potential for retrofitting the principal IV-4 generators in Haines to accommodate waste heat recovery is good. Minor modi- fications to the engines as well as the installation of necessary additional equipment should provide favorable economic results. The primary generators for Skagway, however, are two older 300-rpm, 1,250-kW machines which appear to produce very little waste heat that can be recovered easily. The engine has a large surface area which allows radiation of heat and thus the jacket water temperature is only 135 0 F. These temperatures are too low to be used for space heating applications without the use of a heat pump which is not consid- ered economical at this time. Output temperatures of the cooling water sys- tems of these machines are too low to be used as a heat source without the use of heat pump extraction. Actual costs of installation and the amounts of heat recovered that could or would be used are very site specific and would require detailed anal- yses to determine accurately. To estimate the potential economic effects of waste heat recovery, however, it has been assumed that the maximum amount of waste heat easily recoverable through the cooling systems of HLP generators is recovered and is used to offset the use of heating oil. No waste heat is assumed to be recovered in Skagway. Based on the load estimates provided in Scenario B, this would result in approximately $90,000 of heating oil dis- placed annually at 1982 price levels. The cost of installing such a recovery system can only be estimated at this time based on a similar installation and is assumed to be $600,000. 4. WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) are used to convert wind en- ergy to electrical energy. This electrical energy source utilizes a renewable resource, is simple and essentially nonpolluting. Wind energy is intermittent and cannot be considered a source of firm capacity unless some sort of power storage, such as batteries, is included. Unfortunately, battery storage tech- nology is still developing and at the current time is not economical for large applications. Without storage, WECS are simply fuel savers offsetting the use of diesel fuel or retaining water in reservoirs behind hydroelectric facil- ities only when sufficient wind is available. Small WECS (SWECS) under 10 kW in size have been used to generate electricity on remote farms and homesteads in Alaska. A 2.2-kW SWECS was in- stalled at Kotzebue in 1979 and interconnected with the electric utility as a pilot project to provide data for determining the feasibility of future WECS installations as well as to supply electricity to the city. Similar study projects are underway at Nelson Lagoon, Newhalen, Unalakleet, Chevak, Sheldon Point and Skagway. (5) In the fall of 1981, the City of Skagway installed a 10-kW WECS unit at the sewage treatment plant. Power in excess of the needs of the treatment plant is fed into the electric system and purchased by AP&T. The small wind turbine business in the United States has been fair- ly successful. About 2,000 units were sold in 1981, almost a 50% increase over 1980. Many of these small machines are designed to be connected to a • .. • IV-5 utility grid, can be erected without a crane and can be dismantled quickly for maintenance. a • Description of the WECS The conventional propeller or horizontal axis WECS is currently the prototype for utility applications. The rotor diameter and blade characteris- tics are a function of the wind regime for which the system is designed. A step-up gearbox and electric generator are used to convert rotor rotation into electric power and an orientation drive turns the system about the vertical axis, locating the rotor downwind to provide stability during changes in wind direction. The cut-in velocity is a design parameter above which usable power is generated; the blades are feathered to avoid damage during extreme wind conditions. The control system also provides automatic capability for startup and shutdown, orientation turning, power regulation and mutual electric pro- tection of the transmission network and the WECS. Another design being demonstrated is that of the Darrieus or verti- cal axis WECS. With this design, each blade is attached to the top and bottom of the axis giving the machine an "egg beater" appearance. Structurally, this type of WECS has proven to be more stable than the conventional propeller WECS since most of its weight, including that of the genera tor, is very near the ground. Darrieus machines have been demonstrated throughout the U.S. and are commercially available. Successful operation for WECS in the 50-200-kW range has been achieved over the last 3 years by both horizontal and vertical axis machines. Development of large WECS 1,000 kW and larger, as undertaken by the Federal Government, has been difficult and has yet to prove the viability of larger WECS. Demonstration projects have been plagued by failures caused by break- . down of routine parts and are more subject to failures caused by minor equip- ment breakdown than the simpler, smaller machines. For example, three 2,500-kW Boeing-built MOD-25 turbines at the United States Department of Energy's Goldendale, Washington site were shut down soon after startup when valves of one unit failed because of contaminated hydraulic oil. Two of these units were restarted in October of 1981 after modification of the hydraulic and electrical systems. The third unit is expected to be reenergized in early 1982. The inclusion of individual small and intermediate WECS in utility systems has proven successful. Control systems within the WECS are capable of reducing effects on frequency and voltage characteristics of the utility's electric system. A 200-kW horizontal axis machine has demonstrated the capa- bility of self regulation in a small 600-kW utility grid in Nova Scotia per- mitting the WECS to supply the utility's entire load at certain times. How- ever, the effects of creating wind farms, where several WECS are installed at the same site, have not been determined. Possible problems could be unwanted electric resonances interfering with electricity transfer and wind turbulence created in the wake of one machine affecting other machines near it. (6) IV-6 Hopefully, the three WECS at Goldendale, Washington will provide data to an- swer these questions in the next few years because wind farms are considered to be the most economical way of installing WECS. ~ b. Application of WECS to Haines and Skagway In order to precisely predict the output of a proposed wind system certain wind characteristics need to be known. The most important information is the duration of wind speed or the percent of the total time that the wind blows at any specific speed. Other wind statistics that would be useful in determining the via- bility of WECS at a particular location are: (1) Seasonal and diurnal variability. (2) Gust amplitude. (3) Persistence -percent of time the wind blows from a particu- lar direction. (4) Variation of wind with height. (5) Horizontal variation of the wind in the area under considera- tion. Current availability of wind data for Haines and Skagway is primar- ily limited to information collected at the local airfields. Some of the in- formation has been analyzed to produce rough wind frequency distributions and average wind speed but is insufficient to accurately predict the power output of WECS. Additionally, wind characteristics can vary significantly over small distances and thus the expected output of WECS at nearby sites might vary greatly. For the purpose of analysis, the average wind speed is assumed to be 12 mph in Skagway. Based on manufacturer's literature, at this wind speed, a 100-kW WECS will produce approximately 100,000 kWh annually. The same machine could produce over twice this amount of energy if the average wind speed were 16 mph since available wind power varies as the cube of wind speed. c. Costs Many models of WECS are currently available on the market. Most WECS in the range of 10 to 200 kW, although successfully tested, must still be considered as demonstration models and the costs estimated for them now do not reflect the costs anticipated if a large commercial industry develops and the machines are mass produced. Typical capital costs of 100-200-kW WECS on the market today are around $3,000 per kW including machinery, installa tion and shipping. Transmission facilities are site specific depending primarily on the distance of the WECS from existing transmission lines. The cost per kW assoc ia ted with transmission would decline if several WECS were si tua ted to- gether. • • .. IV-1 Assuming a WECS located at a convenient tie-in point with existing transmission facilities, a 20-year economic life, 3% financing, and minimal operation and maintenance expenses, the annual cost of power from a WECS in the Skagway area with 12 mph average wind speed would be about 22¢/kWh at 1982 price levels. Locating the WECS away from existing transmission facilities would entail the construction of a transmission line thus increasing costs further. At $1.16 per gallon and at current consumption rates, the cost of diesel fuel replaced is 10¢/kWh. Thus, based on these assumptions, the cost of power produced by the WECS is over twice the benefit received from the fuel replacement. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that power costs estimated for WECS are very site specific and detailed data collection is necessary to estimate these costs completely. Additionally, the type of wind generation industry that develops over the next few years will figure greatly into eco- nomic evaluations as will escalation of fuel costs. d. Environmental Considerations There are possible safety hazards resulting from improper installa- tion, malfunctioning equipment or severe environmental conditions which could cause the windmill to collapse, throw blades or throw ice. WECS have been known to cause communication interference as a result of rotating metal blades and metal parts in the generators. This can be mitigated by using nonmetallic blades and encasing the generators in properly grounded metallic shields. Noise created by rotating blades can be mitigated by proper design to reduce vibration. To some the appearance of windmills is objectionable. Color and location could lessen this visual impact. 5. CONSERVATION There are currently two State-sponsored conservation programs available to residents of Alaska. One program, conducted by the Alaska State Department of Commerce and Economic Development Conservation Division, in- cludes up to a $300 refund for home weatherization efforts taken following an energy audit conducted by the State. The Department of Commerce's Division of Business is offering $5,000 and $10,000 low-interest home weatherization loans to residents following an energy audit (the amount is determined by State- determined payback time periods). The U.S. Department of Energy is sponsoring a program for low in- come people and other Federal aid-dependent residents who can qualify to re- ceive up to $810 of weatherization materials following a home energy inspec- tion. All of these programs are now being implemented in the Haines-Skagway area. Building code standards in the area require total insulation levels of R-20 in walls and floors and R-40 in the ceilings for new homes. Many of the older homes in these communities have far less insulation, indicating a signi- ficant potential for additional conservation. Space and water heating are the two largest end uses of energy in the residential and commercial areas; how- ever, only a small portion of such heating is now provided by electricity, so that the overall potential for conserving electricity is limited. As a re- sult, the projected load requirements under forecast Scenarios A and B would Iv-8 not be significantly reduced by home weatherization and such potential has already been included in Scenario C. Other forms of conservation include Skagway's recently installed power factor control devices on three water pumps which may reduce power re- quirements for that equipment by between 5-10%. This reduction has been in- cluded in all forecast scenarios. The use of heat pumps to reduce use of fuels in existing forced air space heating systems has also been considered as a method of reducing energy usage in Southeast Alaskan communities; however, without some form of subsidy, extensive use of heat pumps seems unlikely be- cause of the high capital costs required. Using wood as a supplement to or as a substitute for other fuels is another al terna ti ve in Haines and Skagway. About 20% of the local residents rely on wood for their primary fuel source and many homes use either fireplaces or wood stoves to supplement the use of other fuels. At a cost of about $85-$100 per cord (less if gathered by resi- dents), wood is a very viable alternative in spite of its contribution to air pollution. Passive solar design in homes and buildings is another method of offsetting water and space heating. Passive solar heating involves the col- lection and storage of heat produced by the sun, which is used to heat water or is circulated throughout the structure during times of low temperature. For load growth Scenarios A and B, it is assumed there would be no impact from the use of solar heating. Some of the Scenario C growth in electric require- ments, which includes electric space and water heating, could be offset with the increasing use of solar heat. A passive solar house has been constructed in Skagway and is reported to have good results. However, due to the high capital costs and special sun orientation requirements of solar-designed buildings, it is doubtful that a large number of solar units will be built in these communities. Other conservation measures such as limiting use of energy-using appliances, use of energy-efficient appliances and equipment and building weatherization are expected to continue to be implemented in Haines and Skag- way. The impact of these measures as well as likely conservation response to increasing electricity prices, has been included in all of the load forecast scenarios. 6. WOOD WASTE GENERATION The Schnabel Lumber Company near Haines is the only sawmill in the Haines-Skagway study area which is presently producing wood waste. The feasi- bility for use of this wood waste in the generation of electricity has been studied by Nor'West-Pacific Corporation (NWPC), and is the subject of a report dated January 1974 and updated in 1979. This report recommends proceeding with the installation of a 4, OOO-kW wood waste-fired generating plant at the mill. The project is now under construction and is scheduled to commence operation by January 1, 1983. • • , IV-9 Electrical energy for the mill is currently produced by a 2,100-kW power plant containing three diesel-generating units. Energy is purchased from HLP when the diesel plant cannot supply the entire mill load. The new 4,000-kW wood waste-fired plant will be capable of supplying the power re- quirements of the new power plant and the mill and still have capability to sell energy to HLP. The NWPC updated feasibility study indicates that the new power plant can produce 20,000,000 kWh per year based on the mill cutting 28 million board feet (mmbf) per year. Of the 20,000,000 kWh per year, ap- proximately 35% would be required at the mill and 65% would be available for sale based on the NWPC study. Schnabel and HLP have recently executed a contract whereby the mill will sell up to 2,000 kW of firm capacity 24 hours a day, 50 weeks per year, as required by HLP. The contract becomes effective on the date of commence- ment of delivery of electric power to HLP and runs for five years or until August 1, 1988, whichever occurs first. Schnabel has the right to remove its generating plant from operation for maintenance and repairs for a thirty-day period each year during the months of May through September. Under terms of the contract, Schnabel will sell power to HLP at a rate of 8 cents per kWh during the first year of production increasing 1/2 cent per kWh each year thereafter during the contract period ("Contract for Electric Service" between Schnabel and HLP). Use of the wood waste-fired generator as an alternative for meeting the energy needs of the region is possible if there is continued supply of wood waste. This depends on the availability of wood to the mill, the market for wood from the mill, and the market for wood waste. As long as the mill is processing on the order of 28 mmbf and does not have abetter market for the wood waste, the wood waste-fired generator is a viable alternative. If, how- ever, wood waste must be purchased from other mills, or if a market for wood waste develops, the cost of the fuel will increase and hence the cost of en- ergy electricity. Another added cost would occur if it were necessary to use oil to help fire the wood waste. This would be the case if the moisture con- tent of the wood waste is greater than 55%, in which case the wood should be fired with sufficient oil to dry the wood to 55% moisture content. Approxi- mately 1,000 Btu's would be required per pound of water. Based on the NWPC study, wood waste from wood processed at the mill should have a moisture con- tent of 55%. However, if the wood waste is stockpiled during a wet period or is barged in from another mill, it may have a higher moisture content and thus need oil firing. The 20,000,000 kWh annual output of the wood waste-fired power plant is adequate to meet the energy requirements of the power plant itself, the mill, and the Haines load area through 1995 based on the Scenario B load forecast. The peak load would exceed the capacity of the plant in 1990. In earlier years when the annual energy load is less than 20,000,000 kWh it would be necessary to operate the power plant at reduced efficiency in order to dis- pose of all of the wood waste produced at the mill. IV-10 Based on experience with general operation of fossil-fuel thermal uni ts, it is reasonable to expect that the wood waste-fired plant would be available a maximum of 85% of the year. Diesel generation would be required to meet the remaining 15% of the energy requirements. Although the wood waste-fired power plant can be considered an eco- nomic and feasible means of meeting Haines' requirements for the five-year term of the agreement between Schnabel and HLP, it cannot be considered a firm resource beyond that period. In addition to the questions pertaining to the supply of wood waste which are discussed above, there are questions as to the cost to the community. Under the present contract, HLP is purchasing its total energy requirements for 50 weeks each year at a price below the cost of diesel fuel. Conditions at the end of the five-year contract may be such that the energy costs will be higher than diesel fuel or that there will be much less energy available either because of increased energy usage at the mill or because of a reduced availability of wood waste. • ,. • .. .. SECTION V ALTERNATIVE PLANS IDENTIFIED FOR MEETING AREA GENERATION REQUIREMENTS 1. GENERAL From the various means of generation discussed in Section IV, three al ternati ve plans were identified for meeting the area's future generation requirements: ( 1) a base case of continued use of diesel genera tors; (2) a West Creek hydroelectric plan; and (3) a wood waste generation plan. The three plans are discussed in the following. 2. BASE CASE PLAN The base case plan is basically a continuation of the status quo. Electric loads in Haines are met entirely by diesel; in Skagway the loads are met by a combination of diesel and hydroelectric power. The base case plan assumes that the present generating facilities will continue to operate through their economic lives and then be replaced with similar units. New generation requirements will be met by the installation of new diesel genera- tion. In the base case plan 10% of the requirements of the Schnabel mill are included in the plan's loads. The remaining 90% will be met by the mill's own resources. This is consistent with the assumptions used in the West Creek Hydroelectric Plan. The plan includes a net credit for the value of a waste heat recov- ery retrofitting of the Haines diesel generators. This credit is the differ- ence between the value of the heating which can be achieved with waste heat and the amortized cost of the waste heat recovery system. For 1982, this is estimated to be an annual amount of $50,000. The credit increases from year- to-year as generation increases and as the cost of oil escalates. No credit is given for retrofitting the Skagway plant since it is considered uneconomi- cal as discussed in Section IV. No credit is applied in either of the other plans since the diesel generator in Haines would not operate on a continuous basis and hence the economic value of retrofitting for waste heat recovery would be limited. For the Scenario B loads, new diesel generators are required in 1993 and 1998. In 1993 2,070 kW are needed to replace the Haines unit of the same capacity. In 1998 the two 1,250-kW units in Skagway would have to be replaced. Reserve requirements for the two systems indicate that an addi- tional 600 kW of capacity will be required in 1998. New diesel plants are estimated to have a Total Investment Cost of $800 per kW in 1982 dollars based on actual installation of a similar unit in Alaska. The cost is based on a current cost level, that is for plants coming on-line in January 1982. The V-2 annual operating cost of the diesel alternative is estimated to be $852,000, also in 1982 dollars. Operating costs are based on operating experience in- formation which includes Alaskan experience. The existing hydro units in Skagway are assumed to have an economic life equal to the period of analysis and thus will not need to be replaced. 3. WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PLAN The West Creek hydroelectric plan assumes that a 6, OOO-kW hydro-- electric project on West Creek will come on-line in late 1986. The Project is sized to meet the 1996 energy requirements during the worst hydrologic condi- tions recorded on West Creek. However, after 1996 the Project can meet all the region's additional energy needs during the high streamflow months until such time as the loads grow beyond the capacity of the plant, about the year 2001. This is a conservative analysis in that during most years, there will be sufficient inflow even during the dry season to meet more than just the 1996 loads. The Project has a Total Investment Cost of $48,803,000 in January 1982 dollars, that is, for a project coming on-line in January 1982. The an- nual operating costs are $634,000, also in January 1982 dollars. The plan assumes that the existing hydro units in Skagway continue to operate. Based on the 1981 generation records, the upgraded hydro units in Skagway were assumed to generate 2,900 MWh per year. It also assumes that 10% of the Schnabel Mill requirements would be met by the Project with the remain- ing 90% being provided by the mill's own resources. The existing diesel units are assumed to be maintained and operated as reserve for the Project until 1996. After 1996 it is assumed that the die- sel units would meet the requirements in excess of those met by the Project. 4. WOOD WASTE GENERATION PLAN The wood waste generation plan assumes that the Haines energy re- quirements will be met by the wood waste generation plant being installed at the Schnabel Mill. Energy requirements in Skagway will continue to be met by the present combination of diesel and hydroelectric generation; the feasibil- ity of installing the submarine cable between Haines and Skagway and using some of the surplus power from the wood waste generator was considered but is not economical for the wood waste generation plan. Under this plan it is assumed that the wood waste generator could operate 85% of the time and meet all Haines requirements in addition to those of the mill up to 20,000 MWh per year. The remaining 15% will be met by die- sel generation, either at the Schnabel diesel plant or at the HLP plant. Be- cause there was some question as to the availability and cost of wood waste • .. • , .. V-3 for fuel over the entire period of analysis, a second case with an annual gen- eration of only 12,000 MWh was also studied. This level of generation corres- ponds to a production of 17 mmbf per year. Other than this sensitivity analy- sis, no analysis was made of the effect of the cost of wood waste or of the need for adding oil for firing the wood waste. The economic life of the wood waste generator is assumed to be 20 years. At that point a new wood waste generator will replace the one being presently installed. The eXisting diesel generators are assumed to continue operating for their economic life of 20 years and will then be replaced as in the base case plan. Based on information supplied by NWPC, the Total Investment Cost of the wood waste generator now being installed is $4,300,000 in January 1982 dollars. This is the actual cost for a new plant using a renovated boiler and generator. The annual operating costs are $508,800, also in January 1982 dol- lars. When the plant would have to be replaced, it was assumed that the new plant would have a Total Investment Cost of $12,500,000, since it is unlikely that another used plant would be available • " • to • SECTION VI EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 1 • GENERAL Evaluation of the three alternative plans for meeting the energy requirements of Haines and Skagway was made based on both economic and envi- ronmental criteria. The economic evaluation was made using criteria estab- lished by the APA in its Feasibility Study Regulations which allow for a com- parison of the total cost of each plan over an evaluation period from the present through the economic life of the West Creek Project. The environ- mental evaluation included a comparison of the major impacts of each plan. 2. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS a. Method of Analysis The method of analysis used for this study computed the total pres- ent worth cost of each plan over a period from the present through the 50-year economic life of the West Creek Project (1982-2036). The method assumed no inflation except that real escalation of oil fuel costs was assumed to be 2.6% per year for 20 years and then was held constant. A discount rate of 3% was assumed. Cri teria used for conducting Project economic analysis as estab- lished by the APA, were as follows: (1) Constant dollars assumed (zero inflation). (2 ) Inflation-free present worth discount rate of 3%. (3) Petroleum fuel cost escalated at 2.6% per year for 20 years and then held constant. (4) Electrical energy demand is forecasted according to Load Growth Scenarios described above and then held constant. (5) Interest During Construction is calculated using a 3% inter- est rate. (6) No financing expenses are included. (7) No debt service on existing diesel or hydroelectric genera- tion is included • VI-2 (8) Period of economic analysis is 55 years (1982 through 2036). (9) Economic life of hydroelectric plant is 50 years. (10) Economic life of diesel generation facility is 20 years. (11) Economic life of wood waste generation facility is 20 years. b. Annual Costs The annual cost for each plan is the sum of the Total Investment Cost of each part of the plan amortized at a 3% interest rate over the eco- nomic li fe of the generating unit, the operation and maintenance costs, and the fuel costs. For the base case plan a credit is also given for the value of waste heat recovered from the diesel generator. For the Scenario B loads, the annual costs are listed for each year from 1982 through 2001 in Tables VI-1, VI-2, and VI-3 for the base case plan, the West Creek hydroelec- tric plan and the wood waste generation plan respectively. Table VI-4 gives the annual costs for a wood waste generation plan with only 12,000 MWh of gen- eration available. From 2001 to 2036, the annual costs remain the same, ex- cept for the wood waste plan where a new plant must be added in 2003, and the capital costs of the alternative increase accordingly. c. Costs of Alternative Plans The total cost of each plan is the sum of the present worth of each year's cost discounted at 3% to 1982. The results for the Scenario B loads are included in Tables VI-1, VI-2, VI-3 and VI-4 for the base case plan, the West Creek plan, the 20, OOO-MWh wood waste plan (Case A) and the 12,000 MWh wood waste plan (Case B), respectively. The results for the Scenario A loads are included in Tables VI-5, VI-6 and VI-7 for the base case plan, the West Creek plan, and the 20,000 MWh wood waste plan respectively. Tables VI-B, VI-9 and VI-10 present the results for the three plans with the Scenario C loads. Table VI-11 is a summary of the total present worth costs for the three plans for each of the three scenarios. Table VI-12 presents the total present worth costs for the West Creek plan assuming the on-line date is delayed between one and eight years. d. Cost Comparison The comparison of total present worth costs of the alternative plans shows that the least expensive plan is the West Creek Project. This plan has a total cost of $92,031,000 and a 1.27 base case to alternate plan ratio. The wood waste generation plan is also less expensive than the base case plan assuming there is a free supply of wood waste which can produce 20,000 MWh of electrical energy annually. When the annual generation from wood waste decreases to 12,000 MWh, the al terna ti ve becomes more expensive than the base case. .. .. .. & • VI-3 3. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION a. Base Case Plan 4 The base case plan assumes that Skagway would continue with current use of diesel and hydro generation and Haines would continue with diesel gen- eration. Increased demand for both cities would be met with additional diesel units. Utilizing diesel generation in the base case plan could result in negative environmental impacts of noise and air pollution. The noise of die- sel combustion may be mitigated, at least in part, by facilities design and location. Emissions from diesel combustion include particulates, S02, CO, NO and hydrocarbons. Whether these emissions would cause an air quality prob- lem depends on the magnitude of the emissions, the particular air shed, and the existing air quality. The current diesel operations do not significantly affect air quality of the region. The Haines Power Plant formerly required an Air Quality Permit to Operate from the Alaska Department of Environmental Con- servation but a recent revision in regulations has made this unnecessary. Potential effects on air quality of additional diesel units would need to be addressed. Under the base case plan, the wood waste generator would probably be used to meet 90% of the requirements of the Schnabel mill. Environmental impacts of this energy source are addressed below in the discussion of the wood waste generation plan. b. West Creek Hydroelectric Plan This plan assumes that the West Creek Project would meet the major- ity of power requirements in the region. The existing hydro units in Skagway would continue to operate and the existing diesel units in Skagway and Haines would function in a reserve capacity until 1996 and then would be used to meet requirements in excess of those provided by hydroelectric generation. The wood waste generator would provide 90% of the Schnabel mill requirements. The West Creek Project would cause 635 acres of the upper West Creek Valley to be inundated with subsequent loss of terrestrial and aquatic habitat and formation of new shoreline. Losses of wildlife would be small and over the Project lifetime, wildlife populations would readjust. No signifi- cant effects on anadromous or resident fishes are expected from the Project. Potential visual impacts of the penstock, powerhouse and transmission line would be minimized by design of facilities and vegetative management to camou- flage the facilities. (See Section XIV, Effect on Environment of the Selected Project Arrangement, for a comprehensive evaluation of West Creek Project en- • vironmental impacts.) Environmental impacts of the diesels when operating would be noise and air pollution as discussed previously. However, the magnitude of poten- tial impacts would be less than with the base case plan because operation VI-4 would be reduced in the reserve capacity and no new units would be necessary to meet future demand. Similarly, generation requirements of the wood waste generator and, therefore, its negative impacts would be less than with the 1 wood waste generation plan. c. Wood Waste Generation Plan In this plan Schnabel Lumber Company's wood waste plant is assumed to meet all the mill's requirements plus the requirements of Haines. However, the wood waste plant was assumed to operate only 85% of the time, and thus diesel generation would have to meet the load 15% of the time. Skagway would continue with existing diesel and hydroelectric generation. The wood waste-fired plant would produce emissions expected to con- tain particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. The indication, however, is that the pollutants would be reduced to acceptable levels by use of a scrubbing unit. The State Department of Envi- ronmental Conservation has issued a Permit to Operate pending review of Schnabel's plans. Residual ash from the wood waste plant would be disposed of in a landfill. Leachates from the disposal are not expected to be a significant problem at the planned landfill location. The plant will burn material which otherwise would become landfill. Noise and air pollution from the diesel plants would be as ad- dressed previously. . . .. • • • HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO B BASE CASE DIESEL GENERATION Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost Cost Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000)(4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000)(7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9) ($000) (10) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1982 11,758 0 11,758 0 0 0 901 1,137 2,038 2,008 1983 12,431 0 12,431 0 0 0 845 1,233 2,078 1,988 1984 12,794 0 12,794 0 0 0 842 1,302 2,144 1,991 1985 13 ,288 0 13,288 0 0 0 839 1,387 2,226 2,007 1986 14,736 0 14,736 0 0 0 828 1,579 2,407 2,107 1987 15,875 0 15,875 0 0 0 821 1,745 2,566 2,181 1988 16,589 0 16,589 0 0 0 816 1,871 2,687 2,217 1989 17,146 0 17,146 0 0 0 812 1,984 2,796 2,240 1990 17,376 0 17,376 0 0 0 810 2,063 2,873 2,235 1991 18,199 0 18,199 0 0 0 804 2,216 3,020 2,281 1992 19,088 0 19,088 0 0 0 798 2,385 3,183 2,334 1993 19,969 0 19,969 0 0 111 792 2,560 3,463 2,465 1994 20,777 0 20,777 0 0 111 786 2,733 3,630 2,509 1995 21,446 0 21,446 0 0 111 782 2,894 3,787 2,541 1996 22,230 0 22,230 0 0 111 776 3,078 3,965 2,583 1997 22,982 0 22,982 0 0 111 771 3,265 4,147 2,623 1998 23,778 600 23,778 0 0 286 837 3,466 4,589 2,818 1999 24,636 0 24,636 0 0 286 831 3,684 4,801 2,862 2000 25,491 0 25,491 0 0 286 825 3,911 5,022 2,907 2001 26,381 0 26,381 0 0 286 819 4,153 5,258 2,955 2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative 63,485 Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 111,337 ---------- (1)-Scenario B loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. (2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. (3)- (4)- (5)- (6)-Replacement of existing and addition of new base load diesel generators. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW. (7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR less net credit for waste heat recovery. (8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (9)- (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. < .. HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO B WEST CREEK PROJECT Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel .1 Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&K Cost Cost O&K Cost Cost :' Cost Cost Year (KWh) (1) (KW) (2) (KWh) (3) ($ 00 0) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000)(8) ($000) (9) ($000) (10) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1982 11,758 0 11 ,758 0 0 0 901 1,137 2,038 2,008 1983 12,431 0 12,431 0 0 0 901 1,233 2,134 2,041 1984 12,794 0 12,794 0 0 0 901 1,302 2,203 2,046 1985 13 ,288 0 13,288 0 0 0 901 1,387 2,288 2,063 1986 14,736 0 14,736 0 0 0 901 1,579 2,480 2,171 1987 15,875 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,855 1988 16,589 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,772 1989 17,146 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,691 1990 17,376 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,613 1991 18,199 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,537 1992 19,088 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,463 1993 19,969 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,391 1994 20,777 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,321 1995 21,446 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,254 1996 22,230 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,188 1997 22,982 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,124 1998 23,778 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,062 1999 24,636 0 46 2,173 727 0 459 7 3,366 2,007 2000 25,491 0 557 2,173 727 0 459 85 3,444 1,993 2001 26,381 0 1,091 2,173 727 0 459 172 3,531 1,984 2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative 42,633 Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 88,217 ---------- (1)-Scenario B loads less 2900 KWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. (2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. (3)-Assumes 23,630 KWh annually of West Creek generation to begin in 1987 plus 40% of load requirements above 23,630 KWh. (4)-Assumed level debt service at 3% over 50 years. Total investment cost assumed to be $55,908,000 including IDC at 3%. (5)-Based on 1.3% of total investment cost. (6) - (7 8 ): Assumes $120 per KW annual expense. Approximately 50% of existing capacity is mothballed at 2% base cost in 1987. () Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/ga11on in 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (9)- (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. H 5; t-' M <: H I N • .. • • .. HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION ..... FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO B WOOD WASTE GENERATOR CASE A Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost Cost Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000)(4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000)(9) ($000) (10) ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1982 11 ,758 0 11,758 0 0 0 901 1,137 2,038 2,008 1983 12,431 0 5,710 289 509 0 901 566 2,265 2,167 1984 12,794 0 5,906 289 509 0 901 601 2,300 2,136 1985 13,288 0 6,162 289 509 0 901 643 2,342 2,112 1986 14,736 0 7,176 289 509 0 901 769 2,468 2,161 1987 15,875 0 8,007 289 509 0 901 880 2,579 2,192 1988 16,589 0 8,326 289 509 0 901 939 2,638 2,177 1989 17,146 0 8,609 289 509 0 901 996 2,695 2,159 1990 17 ,376 0 7,934 289 509 0 901 942 2,641 2,054 1991 18,199 0 8,166 289 509 0 901 995 2,694 2,034 1992 19,088 0 8,711 289 509 0 901 1,088 2,787 2,043 1993 19,969 0 9,237 289 509 111 901 1,184 2,994 2,131 1994 20,777 0 9,678 289 509 111 901 1,273 3,083 2,131 1995 21,446 0 10,059 289 509 111 901 1,358 3,168 2,126 1996 22,230 0 10,491 289 509 111 901 1,453 3,263 2,126 1997 22,982 0 10,911 289 509 111 901 1,550 3,360 2,125 1998 23,778 300 11 ,363 289 509 147 937 1,656 3,538 2,172 1999 24,636 0 11,839 289 509 147 937 1,771 3,653 2,178 2000 25,491 0 12,330 289 509 147 937 1,892 3,774 2,184 2001 26,381 0 12,848 289 509 147 937 2,023 3,905 2,194 2002 26,381 0 12,848 289 509 147 937 2,023 3,905 2,130 2003 26,381 0 12,848 840 509 147 937 2,023 4,456 2,360 2004-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 33 Years Cumulative 49,010 (1) - (2)- (3) - (4)- (5)- (6)- (7)- (8) - (9)- Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 96,110 ---------- Scenario B loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. Assumes Wood Waste Generator will supply 85% of Haines total load less mill load up to 20,000 MWh annually. Assumed level debt service at 3% over 20 years. Total capital cost assumed to be $4.3M. Plant replaced for $12.5M in 200 Preliminary estimate. No escalation. Addition of new and replacement of existing Assumes $120 per KW annual expense. Assumes Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/ga11on in base load diesel in Skagway at $800 per KW. 100% of existing capacity to be available for service. 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. • .. • • • • • ~ HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO B WOOD WASTE GENERATOR CASE B Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost Cost Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000)(5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000)(9) ($000) (10) ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- 1982 11 ,758 0 11 ,758 0 0 0 901 1,137 2,038 2,008 1983 12,431 0 6,413 289 509 0 901 636 2,335 2,234 1984 12,794 0 6,776 289 509 0 901 690 2,389 2,219 1985 13,288 0 7,270 289 509 0 901 759 2,458 2,216 1986 14,736 0 8,718 289 509 0 901 934 2,633 2,305 1987 15,875 0 9,857 289 509 0 901 1,083 2,782 2,365 1988 16,589 0 10,571 289 509 0 901 1,192 2,891 2,386 1989 17,146 0 11 ,128 289 509 0 901 1,287 2,986 2,392 1990 17,376 0 11 ,358 289 509 0 901 1,348 3,047 2,370 1991 18,199 0 12,181 289 509 0 901 1,483 3,182 2,403 1992 19,088 0 13,070 289 509 0 901 1,633 3,332 2,443 1993 19,969 0 13 ,951 289 509 III 901 1,789 3,599 2,562 1994 20,777 0 14,759 289 509 III 901 1,941 3,751 2,592 1995 21,446 0 15,428 289 509 111 901 2,082 3,892 2,611 1996 22,230 0 16,212 289 509 111 901 2,245 4,055 2,641 1997 22,982 0 16,964 289 509 III 901 2,410 4,220 2,669 1998 23,778 600 17,760 289 509 286 973 2,589 4,646 2,853 1999 24,636 0 18,618 289 509 286 973 2,784 4,841 2,886 2000 25,491 0 19,473 289 509 286 973 2,988 5,045 2,920 2001 26,381 0 20,363 289 509 286 973 3,206 5,263 2,957 2002 26,381 0 20,363 289 509 286 973 3,206 5,263 2,871 2003 26,381 0 20,363 840 509 286 973 3,206 5,814 3,079 2004-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 33 Years Cumulative 63,947 (1)- (2)- (3)- (4)- (5)- (6)- (7)- (8)- (9)- Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 119,929 ---------- Scenario B loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. Assumes Wood Waste Generator will supply 85% of Haines total load less mill load up to 12,000 MWh annually. Assumed level debt service at 3% over 20 years. Total capital cost assumed to be $4.3M. Plant replaced for $12.5M in 200 preliminary estimate. No escalation. Addition of new and replacement of existing Assumes $120 per KW annual expense. Assumes Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in base load diesel generators at $800 per KW. 100% of existing capacity to be available for service. 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. • • • .. HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO A BASE CASE -DIESEL GENERATION Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost! Cost Cost Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) (SOOO) (4) (SOOO)(5) (SOOO)(6) (SOOO) (7) (SOOO)(8) (SOOO) (9) (SOOO) (10) ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1982 11 ,610 0 11 ,610 0 0 0 901 1,122 2,023 1,993 1983 12,084 0 12,084 0 0 0 845 1,198 2,043 1,954 1984 12,305 0 12,305 0 0 0 842 1,252 2,094 1,945 1985 12,636 0 12,636 0 0 0 839 1,319 2,158 1,946 1986 12,971 0 12,971 0 0 0 828 1,389 2,217 1,941 1987 13,304 0 13 ,304 0 0 0 821 1,462 2,283 1,940 1988 13,631 0 13 ,631 0 0 0 816 1,537 2,353 1,942 1989 14 ,009 0 14,009 0 0 0 812 1,621 2,433 1,949 1990 14,358 0 14,358 0 0 0 810 1,704 2,514 1,955 1991 14,713 0 14,713 0 0 0 804 1,792 2,596 1,960 1992 15,109 0 15,109 0 0 0 798 1,888 2,686 1,969 1993 15,519 0 15,519 0 0 III 792 1,990 2,893 2,059 1994 15,994 0 15,994 0 0 111 786 2,104 3,001 2,074 1995 16,337 0 16,337 0 0 111 782 2,205 3,098 2,079 1996 16,644 0 16,644 0 0 111 776 2,305 3,192 2,079 1997 16,993 0 16,993 0 0 111 771 2,414 3,296 2,085 1998 17 ,353 0 17,353 0 0 245 766 2,529 3,540 2,174 1999 17,723 0 17,723 0 0 245 761 2,650 3,656 2,179 2000 18,060 0 18,060 0 0 245 756 2,771 3,772 2,183 2001 18,435 0 18,435 0 0 245 751 2,902 3,898 2,190 2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative 47,064 Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 87,660 ---------- (1)-Scenario A loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. (2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. (3)- (4)- (5)- (6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generators. Assumes capital cost of S800/KW. (7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR less net credit for waste heat recovery. ~~l: Assumes diesel fuel cost of Sl.16/ga11on in 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. • • • .. HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO A WEST CREEK PROJECT Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost Cost Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000)(5) ($000)(6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000)(9) ($000) (10) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1982 11 ,610 0 11 ,610 0 0 0 901 1,122 2,023 1,993 1983 12,084 0 12,084 0 0 0 901 1,198 2,099 2,008 1984 12,305 0 12,305 0 0 0 901 1,252 2,153 2,000 1985 12,636 0 12,636 0 0 0 901 1,319 2,220 2,002 1986 12,971 0 12,971 0 0 0 901 1,389 2,290 2,005 1987 13 ,304 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,855 1988 13 ,631 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,772 1989 14,009 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,691 1990 14,358 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,613 1991 14,713 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,537 1992 15,109 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,463 1993 15,519 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,391 1994 15,994 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,321 1995 16,337 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,254 1996 16,644 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,188 1997 16,993 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,124 1998 17,353 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,062 1999 17,723 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 2,002 2000 18,060 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 1,944 2001 18,435 0 0 2,173 727 0 459 0 3,359 1,887 2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative 40,556 Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 85,668 ---------- (1)-Scenario A loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. (2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. (3)-Assumes 23,630 MWh annually of West Creek generation to begin in 1987 plus 40% of load requirements above 23,630 MWh. (4)-Assumed level debt service at 3% over 50 years. Total investment cost assumed to be $55,908,000 including IDC at 3%. (5)-Based on 1.3% of total investment cost. (6)- (7 8 l-_ Assumes $120 per KW annual expense. Approximately 50% of existing capacity is mothballed at 2% base cost in 1987. ( Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/ga11on in 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (9)- (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. <:: H I 0\ .. .. • .. ~ HAINES-SKAGWAY RtGION • ~ FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO A : WOOD WASTE GENERATOR Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost Cost Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000)(7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9) ($000) (10) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1982 11 ,610 0 11 ,610 0 0 0 901 1,122 2,023 1,993 1983 12,084 0 5,518 289 509 0 901 547 2,246 2,149 1984 12,305 0 5,620 289 509 0 901 572 2,271 2,109 1985 12,636 0 5,809 289 509 0 901 606 2,305 2,078 1986 12,971 0 5,985 289 509 0 901 641 2,340 2,049 1987 13,304 0 6,168 289 509 0 901 678 2,377 2,020 1988 13 ,631 0 6,327 289 509 0 901 713 2,412 1,990 1989 14,009 0 6,549 289 509 0 901 758 2,457 1,968 1990 14 ,358 0 6,717 289 509 0 901 797 2,496 1,941 1991 14,713 0 6,913 289 509 0 901 842 2,541 1,919 1992 15,109 0 7,119 289 509 0 901 890 2,589 1,898 1993 15,519 0 7,335 289 509 0 901 940 2,639 1,878 1994 15,994 0 7,560 289 509 0 901 994 2,693 1,861 1995 16,337 0 7,744 289 509 0 901 1,045 2,744 1,841 1996 16,644 0 7,912 289 509 0 901 1,096 2,795 1,821 1997 16,993 0 8,095 289 509 0 901 1,150 2,849 1,802 1998 17,353 0 8,286 289 509 134 901 1,208 3,041 1,867 1999 17,723 0 8,482 289 509 134 901 1,268 3,101 1,849 2000 18,060 0 8,670 289 509 134 901 1,330 3,163 1,831 2001 18,435 0 8,867 289 509 134 901 1,396 3,229 1,814 2002 18,435 0 8,867 289 509 134 901 1,396 3,229 1,762 2003 18,435 0 8,867 840 509 134 901 1,396 3,780 2,002 2004-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 33 Years Cumulative 41 ,575 (1)- (2)- (3)- (4)- (5)- (6)- (7)- (8)- (9)- Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 84,017 ---------- Scenario A loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. Assumes Wood Waste Generator will supply 85% of Haines total load up to 20,000 MWh annually less mill load. Assumed level debt service at 3% over 20 years. Total capital cost assumed to be $4.3M. Plant replaced for $12.5M in 200 Preliminary estimate. No escalation. Replacement of existing base load diesel generators in Skagway at $800 per KW. Assumes $120 per KW annual expense. Assumes 100% of existing capacity to be available for service. Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gal10n in 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. • .. ... HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO C BASE CASE -DIESEL GENERATION Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost Cost Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000)(4) (SOOO) (5) (SOOO) (6) (SOOO) (7) (SOOO) (8) (SOOO) (9) (SOOO) (10) ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1982 12,338 0 12,338 0 0 0 901 1,193 2,094 2,063 1983 14,409 0 14,409 0 0 0 790 1,429 2,219 2,123 1984 16,233 0 16,233 0 0 0 778 1,652 2,430 2,257 1985 17,410 0 17,410 0 0 0 770 1,818 2,588 2,334 1986 20,743 0 20,743 0 0 0 746 2,222 2,968 2,598 1987 24,277 1,250 24,277 0 0 67 872 2,668 3,607 3,066 1988 25,740 0 25,740 0 0 67 861 2,902 3,830 3,161 1989 27,187 0 27,187 0 0 67 851 3,145 4,063 3,255 1990 26,000 0 26,000 0 0 67 860 3,086 4,013 3,121 1991 29,800 0 29,800 0 0 67 833 3,629 4,529 3,420 1992 31,440 1,250 31,440 0 0 134 971 3,929 5,034 3,691 1993 33,246 0 33,246 0 0 245 958 4,262 5,465 3,890 1994 34,960 0 34,960 0 0 245 947 4,599 5,791 4,002 1995 36,556 1,250 36,556 0 0 312 1,085 4,933 6,330 4,247 1996 38,395 0 38,395 0 0 312 1,073 5,316 6,701 4,365 1997 40,154 0 40,154 0 0 312 1,060 5,704 7,076 4,475 1998 41 ,991 1,250 41,991 0 0 512 1,147 6,121 7,780 4,777 1999 43,970 0 43,970 0 0 512 1,184 6,576 8,272 4,931 2000 45,934 0 45,934 0 0 512 1,170 7,048 8,730 5,053 2001 47,938 0 47,938 0 0 512 1,156 7,547 9,215 5,178 2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative 111,261 Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 183,268 ---------- (1)-Scenario C loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. (2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. (3)- (4)- (5) - (6)-Replacement of existing and addition of new base load diesel generators. Assumes capital cost of S800/KW. (7)-Assumes S120 per KW-YR less net credit for waste heat recovery. (8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of Sl.16/gallon in 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (9)- (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. • • • HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO C : WEST CREEK PROJECT Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost Cost Year (MWh) (l) (KW) (2) (MWh){3) ($OOO) (4) ($000){5) ($OOO) (6) ($OOO) (7) ($OOO) (8) ($OOO) (9) ($OOO) (10) ------------------------------ -------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1982 12,338 0 12,338 0 0 0 901 1,193 2,094 2,063 1983 14 ,409 0 14,409 0 0 0 901 1,429 2,330 2,229 1984 16,233 0 16,233 0 0 0 901 1,652 2,553 2,371 1985 17,410 0 17,410 0 0 0 901 1,818 2,719 2,452 1986 20,743 0 20,743 0 0 0 901 2,222 3,123 2,734 1987 24,277 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 3,203 1988 25,740 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 3,110 1989 27,187 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 3,020 1990 26,000 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 2,932 1991 29,800 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 2,846 1992 31,440 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 2,763 1993 33,246 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 2,683 1994 34,960 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 2,605 1995 36,556 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 2,529 1996 38,395 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 2,455 1997 40,154 0 0 2,481 829 0 459 0 3,769 2,384 1998 41,991 0 1,293 2,481 829 0 459 188 3,957 2,430 1999 43,970 0 2,777 2,481 829 0 459 415 4,184 2,494 2000 45,934 0 4,250 2,481 829 0 459 652 4,421 2,559 2001 47,938 0 5,753 2,481 829 0 459 906 4,675 2,627 2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative 56,446 Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 108,935 ---------- (1)-Scenario C loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. (2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. (3)-Assumes 39,800 MWh annually of West Creek generation to begin in 1987 plus 25% of load requirements above 39,800 MWh. (4)-Assumed level debt service at 3% over 50 years. Total investment cost assumed to be $63,781,000 including IDC at 3%. (5)-Based on 1.3% of total investment cost. (6)- (7)-Assumes $120 per KW annual expense. Approximately 50% of existing capacity is mothballed at 2% base cost in 1987. (8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/ga110n in 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (9)- (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. • • • • • .... HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO C : WOOD WASTE GENERATOR Total Present Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total Worth of Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual Annual Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost Cost Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000)(4) ($000) (5) ($000)(6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9) ($000) (10) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1982 12,338 0 12,338 0 0 0 901 1,193 2,094 2,063 1983 14,409 0 6,304 289 509 0 901 625 2,324 2,223 1984 16,233 0 7,525 289 509 0 901 766 2,465 2,289 1985 17,410 0 8,054 289 509 0 901 841 2,540 2,290 1986 20,743 0 10,448 289 509 0 901 1,119 2,818 2,467 1987 24,277 600 12,388 289 509 32 973 1,361 3,164 2,689 1988 25,740 0 12,959 289 509 32 973 1,461 3,264 2,693 1989 27,187 0 13,654 289 509 32 973 1,580 3,383 2,710 1990 26,000 0 12,467 289 509 32 973 1,480 3,283 2,554 1991 29,800 0 16,267 289 509 32 973 1,981 3,784 2,858 1992 31,440 600 17,907 289 509 64 1,045 2,238 4,145 3,039 1993 33,246 0 19,713 289 509 175 1,045 2,527 4,545 3,235 1994 34,960 0 21,427 289 509 175 1,045 2,818 4,836 3,342 1995 36,556 1,250 23,023 289 509 242 1,195 3,107 5,342 3,584 1996 38,395 0 24,862 289 509 242 1,195 3,443 5,678 3,699 1997 40,154 0 26,621 289 509 242 1,195 3,782 6,017 3,805 1998 41 ,991 1,250 28,458 289 509 444 1,345 4,148 6,735 4,135 1999 43,970 0 30,437 289 509 444 1,345 4,552 7,139 4,256 2000 45,934 0 32,401 289 509 444 1,345 4,972 7,559 4,375 2001 47,938 0 34,405 289 509 444 1,345 5,416 8,003 4,497 2002 47,938 0 34,405 289 509 444 1,345 5,416 8,003 4,366 2003 47,938 0 34,405 840 509 444 1,345 5,416 8,554 4,531 2004-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 33 Years Cumulative 94,083 (1)- (2)- (3)- (4)- (5)- (6) - (7)- (8)- (9)- Cumulative Present Worth of Project Annual Costs 165,783 ---------- Scenario C loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10% of Schnabel load. Includes WP&Y RR. Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems. Assumes Wood Waste Generator will supply 85% of Haines total load up to 20,000 MWh annually less mill load. Assumed level debt service at 3% over 20 years. Total capital cost assumed to be $4.3M. Plant replaced for $12.5M in 200 Preliminary estimate. No escalation. Addition of new and replacement of existing Assumes $120 per KW annual expense. Assumes Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in base load diesel at $800 per KW. 100% of existing capacity to be available for service. 1982 escalated at 2.6% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 gallons/KWh. (10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3% per year. • [ .. • HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TABLE VI-11 Total Present Worth Cost Plan Base Case •••••••••••• West Creek Wood Waste -Case A(1) Wood Waste -Case B(2) Scenario A ($1,000) 87,660 85,668 84,017 Scenario B ($1,000) 111,337 88,217 96,110 119,929 Scenario C ($1,000) 183,268 108,935 165,783 , 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 .. " HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY COMPARISON OF WEST CREEK PLAN ON-LINE DATES TABLE VI-12 Total Present Worth Cost On-Line Date Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) · ................ 85,668 88,217 108,935 · ................ 84,061 87,126 109,633 · ................ 82,804 86,438 110,138 · ................ 81,883 86,201 113,112 · ................ 81,306 86,464 116,285 r • " 1. CONCLUSIONS SECTION VII GENERATION PLAN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of these feasibility studies, the following conclusions have been reached: a. The most economical means of meeting future load and energy re- quirements in the Haines-Skagway Region is the West Creek Hydroelectric Proj- ect with a transmission intertie between Haines and Skagway. b. The wood waste generator being installed at the Schnabel Lumber Company Mill in Haines will provide economical power to Haines for the next five years, but the cost of power after that period depends on the availabil- ity and cost of wood waste. c. The West Creek Project sized to fit the forecasted 1996 loads will include a 117-foot-high concrete-faced rockfill dam, a tunnel and penstock, a powerhouse with an installed capacity of 6,000 kW, and a transmission line to Haines and Skagway. Roller compacted concrete could provide a more economical dam if current bids are born out. d. The Project has minimal adverse environmental impacts. However, the powerhouse is located within the boundary of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. A change in the boundary or in the authorizing leg- islation will be required before the Project can be licensed. e. The load forecasts included in this report be reviewed regularly with respect to changing economic conditions. Where developments and trends have diverged from those included in these forecasts, we suggest that they be updated and the forecasts changed accordingly. Care should always be taken to avoid overresponding in making forecast judgments to what could be short-term business cycle fluctuations and resulting temporary increases or decreases in growth. f. The Project could be sized to meet larger load and energy require- ments if growth in the two communities is greater than that forecasted for planning. VII-2 2. RECOMMENDATIONS Therefore, it is recommended that: a. The Alaska Power Authority proceed with development of the West Creek Project. b. Steps be taken to change the boundary of the Klondike Gold Rush 4 National Historical Park so that the powerhouse is outside the park. c. A license application be prepared and filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. d. Field investigations for design be started in the summer of 1982. f PART B: FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATIONS OF WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT • ,. .. SECTION VIII EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 1. GENERAL The proposed West Creek Project site is located about 6 miles northwest of Skagway. An all-weather dirt road about 10 miles long provides access from Skagway to the lower reaches of West Creek. From there a logging road extends 2.2 miles into the middle section of the West Creek basin. 2. TOPOGRAPHY West Creek, a 9.0-mile-long stream, originates in an arm of the Chilkoot Glacier at about the 1600-foot elevation. For a little more than a mile it passes down a steep valley surrounded by rock and upland shrub. The stream then skirts another arm of the glacier and enters a broad valley approximately 0.5 mile wide with a moderate gradient through which it flows for about 5 miles. The proposed dam site is located at the lower end of the valley at approximately River Mile (R.M.) 2.8 (measured from the confluence of West Creek with the Taiya River). The stream gradient sharply increases below the dam site as the creek passes through an upper gorge approximately 0.3 mile long. For the next mile the gradient moderates before the stream enters a steep lower gorge that extends for 0.6 mile. The remaining mile of the stream, to its confluence with the Taiya River, is a low-gradient braided channel. The Taiya River flows south through an alluvial floodplain 3/4 mile wide for about 2.5 miles to the head of the Taiya Inlet. The proposed power- house site lies at the west edge of this floodplain about 1,200 feet south of West Creek. 3. GEOLOGY The Project area is underlain by granitic crystalline rocks, pri- marily granodiorite. The rocks are part of a large multi-stage batholith known as the Coast Range Plutonic Complex. Bedrock is exposed intermittently throughout the Project area. The bedrock is generally a slightly weathered to unweathered, hard granodiorite with widely spaced fractures. Tectonic defor- mation has produced two distinct structural trends, northwest-southeast and northeast-southwest in the form of joints and/or shear zones. One of the trends appears to be related to surface lineaments identified in the field and aerial photographs. During the Pleistocene Epoch, the area was subjected to continental glaciation and since that period to alpine glaciation. The gla- ciers created U-shaped valleys and removed pre-glacial soils and incompetent rock by scouring and plucking action. In the Project area, the most signifi- cant evidence of glaciation is the overdeepening of the upper West Creek drainage, the area upstream of the proposed dam site. VIII-2 In the dam site area, rock is at or near the ground surface. A thin mantle of overburden ranging up to approximately 10 feet in thickness covers the abutment areas. Recent alluvium underlies the active stream chan-1 nel and is estimated to be about 20 feet thick. At the powerhouse site the bedrock surface slopes downward beneath the Taiya River floodplain at approximately the same slope as the valley wall. The floodplain consists of sand, gravel, and interbedded sand and sil t. Immediately to the south of West Creek is an area of overburden con- sisting of cobbles and boulders with a sand and silt matrix. The deposit ex-• tends up to about EI 300 feet and south about 600 feet. The Project site geology is discussed in detail in the report pre- pared by Converse titled "Phase II Geotechnical Investigations, West Creek Hydroelectric Project, Haines-Skagway Region Studies," which is included as Appendix B. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project area is generally coniferous forest with riparian shrub and marsh and an area of deciduous woodland near the powerhouse. The West Creek Valley is populated by black bear, mountain goat, various furbearers and several types of voles and mice. There have been occasional sightings of wol- verine and coyote. Bird species common to the valley include grouse, bald eagle and other raptors, shore birds, waterfowl, and passerines. No Feder- ally-listed endangered or threatened species reside in the Project area. West Creek has few fisheries resources. The steep gradient and high velocities in the lower and upper gorges make upstream fish passage ex- tremely difficult if not impossible. The Creek is not used for fishing by residents in Dyea or Skagway and fish sampling attempts yielded only a low density, slow growing population of Dolly Varden char in two small tributaries of the middle basin. Dolly Varden were also observed in a tributary near the mouth of the Creek. There is also the possibility that some fall chum or coho use the tributary or the lower reach of West Creek. Eulachon are known to spawn in the lower Taiya River and the lower sandy reaches of West Creek. The historic townsite of Dyea lies to the south of West Creek near the mouth of the Taiya River (Fig. 16). The Chilkoot Unit of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park is a corridor approximately one mile wide extends from the head of Taiya Inlet about 17 miles up the Taiya River to Chilkoot Pass, and encompasses approximately the lower mile of West Creek. Dyea Road which begins at the City of Skagway approximately six miles (10 miles by road) southeast of West Creek, progresses up the Taiya Valley, crosses the Taiya River, and terminates just north of West Creek. The his- toric Chilkoot Trail extended north from Dyea along the west side of the Taiya River, crossed the river below West Creek, and continued up the river to Chil- koot Pass. A modern extension of the trail connects with Dyea Road on the east side of the river. • • .. • .. VIII-3 5. LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE Most of the land at or near the Project site is government-owned. In the West Creek Valley where the reservoir is to be located, all of the land is State selected land which is in the process of transfer from Federal con- trol. Some of the State land at the reservoir site has been selected by Skag- way as part of its allotment lands. (See Fig. 18.) In the Taiya River Valley almost all of the valley floor lies with- in the boundary of Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. Land within the boundary is owned by the National Park Service, the State of Alaska, and private individuals. There are several year-round residents of Dyea. The entire Taiya Valley and West Creek Valley lie within the corpo- rate limits of the City of Skagway. Management responsibilities for govern- ment-owned lands are as follows: the Alaska Department of Natural Resources for State select lands, the National Park Service for parklands, and the City of Skagway for allotment lands. The Park Service and the Department of Natural Resources have signed a cooperative agreement concerning management policies of State select lands within the Park boundary. Most of the land remains in a natural or currently undeveloped state consisting of brush, second growth forest or higher elevation meadow land. The private land area located at the confluence of West Creek and the Taiya River has a mixture of brush and cleared pastureland. Residential buildings, barns and sheds have been constructed by the dozen or so families owning land in this area • , • a • .. SECTION IX FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 1 • SITE RECONNAISSANCE Personnel from Beck and Converse made a site reconnaissance of the West Creek Project area in July 1981. During this reconnaissance, the major Project features were located based on the initial map studies and observed field conditions. Subsequent investigations changed some of the locations and these were reviewed in a second reconnaissance in August 1981. Personnel from Beck made mission corridors in August 1981. the costs of lines in each corridor potential construction difficulties route. a reconnaissance of the alternative trans- This allowed for comparative estimates of to take into account field observations of and environmental impacts of each proposed 2. LAND SURVEYS AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING Land surveys, aerial photography, topographic mapping and fa tho- metric surveys were performed by Tryck, Nyman & Hayes and Air Photo Tech, Inc., in the summer and fall of 1981. Horizontal control was established from existing U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) monuments in the region. Vertical control was established from the USGS datum. Permanent monuments were set in the vicinity of the proposed dam axis. Aerial photographs of the entire West Creek drainage basin were taken and 1 "=400' scale topographic maps were made of the area. Topographic maps at a scale of 1 "=200' were also made of the dam site and powerhouse site. Fathometric profiling was performed at five cross-sections along the proposed submarine cable route in the Taiya In- let and at two cross-sections at the head of the Chilkoot Inlet. A total of about ten miles of fathometric survey was performed. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Beck performed field investigations addressing recreation re- sources, aesthetics, socioeconomic conditions, and land use. Under subcon- tract to Beck, Environaid, Inc. of Juneau conducted field studies of fisher- ies, wildlife, historical and archaeological resources. All investigations included field reconnaissance and interviews with knowledgeable agencies and local personnel. The studies were completed between July and early November 1981, except that water temperature monitoring by Environaid will continue for one full year until the summer of 1982. Appendix C contains a detailed report of the Environaid studies. The results of all studies are described in Sec- tion XIV, Effect on Environment of the Selected Project Arrangement. IX-2 4. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS Geotechnical investigations performed by Converse involved geologic mapping, diamond core drilling, water pressure testing, seismic refraction surveys, and materials testing. The initial site reconnaissance was conducted with Beck personnel in July 1981. Mapping and seismic refraction surveys were conducted in August, September, October and December 1981. Converse contracted with Wyman Construction Company of Ketchikan to take NX core borings at the dam site, spillway site, surge tank site and the original powerhouse site to determine the depth of overburden in these areas and to give a general indication of the quality of bedrock for structure foun- dations. This work was completed between September 23 and October 22, 1981. Converse contracted with Alaskan Enterprises of Juneau to take core borings at the alternative powerhouse site 1,200 feet south of West Creek. This work was completed December 2 through 12, 1981. A total of 12 holes with an aggregate of 1,647.3 lineal feet were drilled. Six borings, three on each abutment, were made at the dam site ranging in depth from 75.2 to 201.5 feet. One bor- ing of 100.5 feet in depth was made at the left abutment spillway site. At the surge shaft site, one boring 502.2 feet deep was made. Four borings, two at each of the alternative powerhouse sites, were made with depths ranging from 50.5 to 141.4 feet. The six drill holes in the dam abutments, the drill hole in the spillway area and the drill hole at the surge shaft were water pressure tested. Preliminary geologic mapping was performed at the dam, spillway, powerhouse and along the power conduit alignment. The geophysical surveys consisted of seismic refraction profiling to determine the depth of subsurface layers above bedrock. Of the 5,750 lin- eal feet of seismic refraction profiling, 2,450 feet was completed in the left and right abutment areas, 275 feet in the spillway area and 3,025 feet at the two alternative powerhouse sites. Potential sand and gravel borrow areas were sampled and materials tested for their suitability as fill and concrete aggregate. Detailed results of the geotechnical investigations conducted for the Project are included in the report prepared by Converse attached as Appen- dix B. 1 .. .. , .. • ... .. SECTION X HYDROLOGY 1 • GENERAL Hydrologic investigations of the West Creek Project are based on the 15 years of streamflows recorded at the West Creek gage near the mouth of the Creek. Analysis of these together with climatological records at Haines and Skagway resulted in the development of basin yield estimates, flood fre- quency and the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). 2. RUNOFF AND ANNUAL BASIN YIELD a. Streamflow Records The USGS has streamflow records for the West Creek near Skagway gaging station from May 1962 to September 1977. (7) The gage has since been discontinued. Its location was latitude 59 0 31'35", longitude 135 0 21'10" on the right bank of West Creek about 700 feet upstream from a highway bridge, 0.2 mile upstream from the mouth, and 5 miles northwest of Skagway. The drainage area at the gage was 43.2 sq. mi. Monthly flows at the gaging sta- tion are shown, as well as average monthly and annual flows in Table VIII-1 • Flows for 1962 were omitted since only partial data were recorded. The flow data indicate an average annual flow for West Creek at the gaging station of 334.9 cfs or 242,000 acre-feet. This is an average runoff of 7.75 cfs per sq. mi. or 105 inches per sq. mi. b. Precipitation and Runoff Correlations In order to derive long-term streamflow data that could be used to conduct power studies, and to estimate flood flows for spillway and diversion facility sizing, an effort was made to extend the available flow data by sta- tistical means. This involved correlating recorded West Creek flow data with other recorded flow data from nearby drainage basins as well as with long-term precipitation data in the region.(8) The resulting correlations for monthly and annual streamflow data were found to be poor. Thus, since 15 years is a reasonable length for the sizing of a project, it was decided to use the West Creek record as the best representation of the long-term average flows to be expected. The flow data indicate an average annual flow for West Creek at the dam site of 288 cfs or 208,500 acre-feet. X-2 c. Estimated Basin Yield The average monthly infloli into the West Creek storage dam reser- voir has been taken as 86% of the gaged flows at the former gage based on a ratio of the corresponding drainage areas. The drainage area at the dam site is 37.2 sq. mi. Reservoir inflow data for the years 1963 through 1977 are shown in Table X-2. 3. FLOOD STUDIES a. Construction Diversion Flood Flood frequency studies on West Creek have been conducted using the Gumbel Extreme-value Type I Distribution as well as the Log Pearson Type III method applied to the recorded momentary maximum discharges. (9) Peak flows for each year of record at the West Creek gage are shown in Table X-3. For the purpose of sizing construction diversion facilities, a peak discharge with a 10-year recurrence interval was considered to be reasonable for the 2-1/2-year construction period and for the type of construction contemplated. This resulted in a peak discharge of 5,500 cfs to be used to size construction diversion facilities. It is possible that a larger flood might occur during the construction period which could overtop the upstream cofferdam and cause temporary flooding of the work area. Should this occur, the damage to the work area and/or delay in construction is a risk that must be taken in Project development. b. Probable Maximum Flood (1) Unitgraph Development(10) Available precipitation and streamflow records were reviewed and a unitgraph was developed from USGS bi-hourly flood hydrograph data for a repre- sentative high peak at the West Creek gage. The recorded floods persisted for several days and were clearly the result of storms lasting several hours or days. The lack of concurrent hourly precipitation records at stations in the vicinity of the Project made it impossible to determine the effective duration of the precipitation necessary to specify the unit hydrograph. A synthetic unit hydrograph derived using U.S. Bureau of Reclamation methodology was found to have a significantly shorter time to peak then the unit hydrograph derived from USGS records. Given the uncertainty in the unitgraph derived from USGS records caused by the lack of concurrent precipitation records, the more con- servative synthetic unitgraph was used to derive the PMF. First, a probable value for time of concentration (Tc) was arrived at considering the high per- centage of glaciers in the West Creek drainage area. Then a simple triangular unit hydrograph was made based on time to peak (Tp), peak flow (Qp), and time base (Tb) values. A time of concentration (Tc) of 1.8 hours was used to cal- culate the values of Tp, Qp, and Tb. (10) From this a curvilinear graph was constructed from values of Qp and Tp by using ratios from a table developed by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service reflecting analyses of many uni tgraphs. • , • .. X-3 The reservoir, with normal maximum El 705, will have a surface area of about one square mile which is 2.6% of the total drainage basin area. To properly evaluate inflow from storm runoff, rain falling directly on the reservoir area was considered to have a zero time of concentration. The unitgraph developed has a precipitation duration of 30 minutes and a peak of 13,835 cfs. The unitgraph is shown in Fig. 3. (2) Probable Maximum Precipitation Review was made of available precipitation data for Haines and Skagway. It appeared reasonable that the spillway design storm would occur in the late summer or early fall. This would produce a flood with a higher peak inflow than a flood which might occur during the spring snowmelt season, al- though a spring flood would have a much longer duration and volume. On this basis the PMP design storm was assumed to occur in the fall (October) and a 24-hour duration was selected. Generalized storm isohyets have been developed by the National Weather Service which facilitates determination of the characteristics of large storms for an area. For the Project the basis used for determining the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) was the U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) Technical Paper No. 47 (TP-47). (11) For the Proj- ect area, TP-47 shows the probable maximum 24-hour point precipitation to be 22.5 inches for the month of October. Since this 22.5-inch rainfall value applies to a small drainage area (less than 10 square miles) an adjustment factor of 0.96 could be applied to reflect the larger drainage basin of the West Creek Reservoir. It was decided, however, that a small change in PMP values would be relatively insignificant considering the assumptions made to arrive at values for excess precipitation. Therefore, the value of 22.5 inches for PMP was maintained and was considered a conservative value. A depth duration curve was developed based on estimates of maximum 1-hour, 2-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, 9-hour, 12-hour, 18-hour, and 24-hour area precipitation amounts and this curve was then used to obtain 3D-minute incre- ments of precipitation. These increments were rearranged in a bell-shaped distribution to produce the 24-hour PMP • (3) Snowmelt Considering the range of temperatures that can be expected for the month of October, it was considered possible to have a snowpack condition antecedent to the PMP, at least in the higher elevations of the basin which would contribute to the runoff. The combination of an October PMP together with some snowmelt runoff was considered appropriate and reasonable in formu- lating the spillway design flood. For calculating snowmelt a normal maximum October sea level temper- ature of 68 0 F was assumed to accompany the PMP storm and this temperature was then adjusted for elevation by assuming a -3 0 F change in temperature per X-4 1000 feet of elevation change above sea level. It is generally accepted that fresh fallen snow has about a 10% density factor. Based on the resulting sat- urated air temperatures, and a conservative value of 19 inches of fallen snow during the month of October, it was estimated that about 2.0 inches of snow- mel t runoff could be expected during the PMP storm. The snowmelt runoff was assumed to correspond to the distribution of the PMP with the major amount of snowmelt occurring in the first half of the storm. For calculating the net excess precipitation, 2.76 inches was assumed to be lost by infiltration during the first 5 hours of the storm and 0.1 inch per hour thereafter for a total of 4.66 inches of losses. The net excess runoff considering precipitation, snowmelt and infiltration totalled 19.84 inches in 24 hours. The PMP, snowmelt and excess runoff values are shown in Table X-4. (4) Probable Maximum Flood The Probable Maximum Flood is the flood resulting from the occur- rence of the PMP in combination with snowmelt as described above. The PMF, based on 22.5 inches of rain and 2.0 inches of snowmelt, has a peak inflow of 59,700 cfs and a volume of 118,400 acre-feet. 4. RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION Sediment yield from West Creek was based upon suspended sediment measurements made by the USGS between the years 1963 through 1977. Using these measurements a suspended sediment rating curve was developed and used with the flow duration curve to estimate average annual suspended sediment quantities. (12) For an assumed sediment density of 70 lbs/ft3 and a bed load factor of 1.25, the annual sediment yield was estimated to be 10 acre- feet. On this basis, the sediment yield to the reservoir for a 1 DO-year period would be 1,000 acre-feet. The 100-year sediment accumulation was distributed in the reservoir based upon the Empirical Area-Reduction Method for a Type II (floodplain-foot- hill) reservoir. (10) At the dam, the 100-year sediment level was calculated to be El 640 which corresponds to a sediment depth of 7.5 feet. .. .. .. 1/ • .. • .. • .. " TABLE X-I HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEAS IBlI,ITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT MONTHLY AVERAGE DISCHARGE IN CFS AT WEST CREEK NEAR SKAGWAY USGS GAGING STATION NO. 15056200 Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Har. ~ ~ June ~ ~ ~ Annual 1963 290 197 34.4 8.03 13.6 58.4 86.1 309 473 1171 1316 920 410 1964 281 64.5 65.7 44.4 34.9 26.0 40.9 171 1004 1089 777 358 331 1965 265 92.1 16.0 17.6 17.7 14.8 53.7 207 490 983 937 654 315 1966 360 105 30.2 11.5 13.4 23.6 70.5 164 685 959 844 616 326 1967 271 62.4 1<1.5 8.73 14.8 12.7 18.6 166 878 854 1203 1286 400 1968 191 97.8 42.3 27.0 46.0 72.9 47.1 3B2 641 1041 749 582 328 1969 144 68.3 37.2 20.2 21.0 32.9 63.1 238 798 831 641 444 277 1970 307 221 103 39.0 42.7 39.7 51. 7 223 593 732 801 574 312 1971 317 192 45.6 29.4 22.1 20.6 43.9 143 664 1076 9'12 395 331 1972 115 32.2 31. 7 20.7 13.4 19.3 20.1 189 527 1179 1196 487 322 1973 194 93.8 35.7 9.03 16.9 17.4 59.0 209 462 797 961) 374 272 1974 173 39.9 18.9 9.65 14.1 8.65 20.6 183 481 840 980 862 304 1975 390 264 74.5 40.3 27.0 23.3 54.1 199 549 1163 761 930 375 1976 188 33.0 22.6 24.7 17.6 15.5 58.1 159 528 899 817 843 301 l'l77 327 237 118 78.2 95.9 58.3 107 240 669 ~ .!l!L ~ 419 Avg. 254.2 120 46.0 75.9 27.4 29.6 53.0 212.1 629.5 983.9 953.1 661. 9 334.9 "" • .. ( , " 'I'ABLE )(-2 HAINES-SKAmIAY REGION FEASIBILI'l'Y STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGE IN CFS ADJUSTED TO DAM SITE Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jar,. Feb. Mar. ~ ~ June ~ ~ Sept. Annual 1963 249 169 30 7 12 50 74 266 407 1,007 1,132 791 352 1964 242 55 57 3B 30 22 35 147 B63 937 66B 30B 2B5 1965 22B 79 14 15 15 13 46 17B 421 B45 B06 562 271 1966 310 90 26 10 12 20 61 141 5B9 B25 726 530 2BO 1967 233 54 12 7 13 11 16 143 755 734 1,035 1,106 344 196B 164 B4 36 23 40 63 41 32'01 551 B95 644 501 2B2 1969 124 59 32 17 IB 2B 54 205 6B6 715 52B 3B2 239 1970 264 190 B9 34 37 34 44 192 S10 630 6B9 494 269 1971 273 165 39 25 19 IB 3B 123 571 925 B53 340 2B5 1972 99 2B 27 IB 12 17 17 163 453 1,014 1,029 419 276 IY73 167 Bl 31 B 15 15 51 IBO 397 6B5 B31 322 234 1974 149 34 16 B 12 7 IB 157 414 722 B43 741 262 1975 335 227 64 35 23 20 47 171 472 1,000 6S4 BOO 322 1976 162 2B 19 21 15 13 50 137 454 773 703 725 259 1977 2Bl 204 101 67 B2 50 92 206 575 9B5 1,130 519 360 Avg. 219 103 40 7.2 24 25 ~6 IB2 541 B46 BIB 569 2BB TABLE X-3 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION ,. FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT .. PEAK FLOWS AT WEST CREEK GAGE Year Peak Flow Date • (crs) 1962 3,760 September 25 2,490 August 23 1963 2,850 August 8 2,500 July 18 1964 1,680 June 9 1965 1,630 August 11 1966 2,760 October 4 1,900 September 26 1967 9,800 September 15 3,200 August 9 1968 2,350 September 28 2,090 September 5 1969 3,190 August 8 .. 2,280 November 1 1970 1,660 September 27 1971 2,130 August 2 1,840 July 16 1972 2,910 August 6 2,290 August 26 1973 2,670 August 12 1974 2,480 September 13 2,430 September 25 1975 3,310 September 13 • 2,440 July 10 1976 3,000 September 27 2,390 October 1 1977 2,760 September 12 .,. 2,400 August 20 TABLE X-4 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION , FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT PROBABLE MAX IlJiUH PRECIPITATION AND SNOWMELT (Inches) Total Hours PMP Snowmelt PreciEitation Loss Excess • 0:30 0.10 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.00 1:00 0.20 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.00 1:30 0.20 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.00 2:00 0.20 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.00 2:30 0.20 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.00 3:00 0.30 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.00 3:30 0.30 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.00 4:00 0.30 0.06 0.36 0.32 0.04 4:30 0.30 0.06 0.36 0.32 0.04 5:00 0.35 0.06 0.41 0.30 0.11 5:30 0.35 0.07 0.42 0.05 0.37 6:00 0.40 0.07 0.47 0.05 0.42 6:30 0.40 0.08 0.48 0.05 0.43 7:00 0.40 0.08 0.48 0.05 0.43 7:30 0.45 0.08 0.53 0.05 0.48 8:00 0.45 0.08 0.53 0.05 0.48 8:30 0.45 0.09 0.54 o. as 0.49 9:00 0.45 0.09 0.54 0.05 0.49 .. 9:30 0.50 0.10 0.60 0.05 0.55 10:00 0.60 0.11 0.71 0.05 O.H 10:30 0.65 0.12 0.77 0.05 0.72 11:00 0.70 0.14 0.84 0.05 0.79 11:30 0.80 0.16 0.96 0.05 0.91 12:00 1.15 0.23 1.38 0.05 1.33 12:30 1. 80 0.00 1.80 0.05 1. 75 13:00 1.10 0.00 1.10 0.05 1. 05 13 :30 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.05 0.90 14: 00 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.05 0.75 14:30 0.75 0.00 0.75 O. as 0.70 15:00 0.65 0.00 0.65 0.05 0.60 15:30 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.45 " 16:00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.45 16:30 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.45 17:00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.45 17:30 0.45 0.00 0.45 o. as 0.40 18:00 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.05 0.35 18:30 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.05 0.35 • 19:00 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.05 0.35 19:30 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.05 0.25 20:00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.05 0.25 20:30 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.05 0.25 21:00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.05 0.25 21: 30 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.05 0.25 22:00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.05 0.25 22:30 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.05 0.15 23:00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.05 0.15 23:30 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.05 0.15 24:00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.05 0.15 Tot .. 1 22.5 2.00 24.50 4.66 19.84 • • SECTION XI PROJECT OPERATION STUDIES 1 • GENERAL Studies were performed to determine the reservoir size required to meet given loads and energy output utilizing a computer model to simulate monthly reservoir operation. Input data to this study include monthly reser- voir inflows, system load characteristics, reservoir data, and approximate turbine, generator, transformer and hydraulic losses. Results of the analysis are shown in Tables XI-1 through XI-B. These tables contain a summary of input data as well as output. 2. PROJECT SIZING For most hydroelectric projects, the sizes of the various features are optimized to produce a project which makes the best use of the hydrologic, topographic and geologic conditions of the site. This presupposes that there is a market for any and all power produced by the project. However, in the case of the West Creek Project, the output from the Project can be used only in Haines and Skagway. Thus, the size of the project is limited by the fore- casted loads and energy requirements rather than site conditions. The fore- cast of energy and peak load described in Section III developed three Sce- narios, A, B, and C. Scenario A was a low, base case condition. Scenario B was a mid-range forecast including the base case plus some more speculative loads. Scenario C considered the loads and energy requirements which would resul t if conversion to electricity for heating as well as other loads now served by other energy sources became common. For planning purposes, the West Creek Project was sized to meet the 1996 peak load and energy requirements forecasted in Scenario B less the por- tion of the load which would be met by the existing hydroelectric units in Skagway and 90% of the Schnabel Mill load which it was assumed would continue to be met by the mill. The resulting 1996 requirements are 23,630 MWh with a peak of 5,400 kW for a system load factor of 50%. The installed capacity was set at 6,000 kW which allows some margin should the system load factor change. As described herein, the reservoir was sized to meet the 1996 energy requirements during the driest year of record. 3. INPUT DATA a. Reservoir Inflows A summary of the streamflow data adjusted to the dam site is pre- sented in Table X-2. The streamflows developed were assumed to represent res- ervoir inflows for the purpose of this study. The reservoir inflows in acre- feet as input to the operation program are presented in Table XI-2. XI-2 b. Reservoir Characteristics Reservoir area-capacity curves as a function of elevation are pre- sented in Fig. 4. These curves were derived from photogrammetric mapping of the reservoir compiled in August 1981. c. Losses Losses in the system are of two major types, hydraulic losses in the power conduit and losses in the conversion to mechanical and electrical 'i energy. The hydraulic losses are included as a head loss and reduce the total head available for generation. The hydraulic losses are a function of the flow in the conduit. The conversion losses are included in the efficiency of the plant. The overall plant efficiency is the combination of the efficien- cies of the turbines, generators and transformers. For this study, an average plant efficiency was estimated to be 85%, based on net power head for genera- tion. Operation study results show net generation at the power plant and do not include transmission losses. d. System Load Characteristics The historical monthly load distribution for the Haines-Skagway Region is presented in Table III-11. Reservoir operation and power studies for the Project were performed based on the assumption that future system gen- erating requirements would follow this monthly load pattern. Firm generation from the Project was shaped to fit this monthly distribution so that total Project output would match system requirements. It should be recognized, how- ever, that a different mode of reservoir operation may be desired in the future, depending upon future system load requirements. 4. POWER OPERATION STUDIES a. Method of Project Operation The reservoir operation was modeled on a monthly basis using the Corps of Engineers' HEC-5 program. (13) Power plant output was calculated based on the following formula: Where: kW = Q = h = e = kW = Qhe 11.82 power plant output, kilowatts discharge through generating units, cfs net head, feet overall plant efficiency Using this equation, the model simulated a month-by-month operation following a rule curve of operation whereby water is withdrawn from storage to generate required energy each month. When the reservoir is full and there is • .. • XI-3 excess inflow available, water is spilled. This is based on the fact that there would be no load which could use excess (secondary) energy beyond what is required. If a market for the secondary energy were found, the spill could be used to generate up to the capacity of the Project. For this Project, firm energy is defined to be the 1996 required energy. The operation studies were used to size the reservoir in order to meet the required loads during all months of the driest year of record. Sec- ondary energy is defined to be energy generated in excess of the firm energy. b. Operation Study Results For the Scenario B load and energy requirements, the operation studies showed that a reservoir with a usable storage of 18,130 acre-feet would be required. This would require a reservoir with a normal maximum level of EI 705 and a minimum operating level of EI 662. The operation studies also showed that the reservoir will be drafted an average of only about 7.4 feet, or to an average reservoir elevation of 697.6. Average gross power head, based on an average reservoir elevation of 697.6 for the period of study and tailwater at El 38, is 659.6 feet. Maximum gross head is 667 feet and minimum gross head is 624 feet. These results indicate that secondary energy could be generated during the dry months when the inflows are higher than those occurring in the driest year of record. This secondary energy would only have an economic val- ue after 1996 when the load is there. In order to provide a conserva ti ve analysis, no credit has been taken for secondary energy during the dry months. The operation studies also show that during months of high flow, June-October, there is sufficient excess water to generate up to the installed capacity of the plant. This would be a total energy of 22,000 MWh as compared with the 9,381 MWh required during those months in the 1996 Scenario B fore- cast. The only limitation on use of this energy is the availability of a load which can make use of the energy. Thus, as the load grows after 1996 the energy from the Project will increase during the high flow months. Since this energy is available in all years, credit is taken as discussed in Section V. The Project as sized does not make full use of the West Creek site. Hence, two larger projects were investigated: first, a project which could meet the Scenario C load and energy requirements, and second, the larg- est project which could be developed without increasing the tunnel diameter. (See Section XII.) Sizing the Project to meet the loads and energy require- ments forecasted in Scenario C would mean a Project with an installed capacity of 9,000 kW and a reservoir with a normal maximum level of El 725 feet. The Project would have a firm energy output of 39,800 MWh. The Project will have an unlined tunnel with a 9.5 foot diameter. Assuming a maximum allowable velocity in the unlined portion of 5 fps, the Project could have an installed capacity of 17,000 kW. Using a plant factor XI-4 of 0 • 5 , the Pro j ec t could generate 74,500 MWh per year and would req ui re a reservoir with a normal maximum level of El 755. Future expansion of the Project is further discussed in Sec- tion XIII. , • • .' Month Oct (31) Nov (30 ) Dec (31) Jan (31) Feb (28) Mar (31) Apr (30) May (31) Jun (30) Jul (31) Aug (31) Sep (30 ) HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT SUMMARY OF BASIC INPUT DATA Rule Curve Elev. (ft) Stor. (ac-ft) 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 705.00 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 Annual Required Energy (GWh) = 23.6 Starting Month and Year of Data = 10/1963 Overall Efficiency = 85% Rated Head Required Generation (PCT of Annual) 8.7 8.8 9.0 8.8 9.5 8.3 8.1 7.8 7.7 7.3 7.8 8.2 Hydraulic Capacity at Maximum Head = 75 cfs Beginning Storage in Reservoir = 21,680 acre-feet Maximum Reservoir Capacity = 21,680 acre-feet Tailwater Elevation = 38.0 feet Flow Adjustment Factor (Multiplier) = 0.86 TABLE XI-1 • .. Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 1963-64 15,310 10,056 1,845 430 1964-65 14,080 3,273 3,505 2,337 1965-66 14,019 4,701 861 922 1961;-67 19,061 5,355 1,599 615 1967-68 14,327 3,213 738 492 1968-69 10,084 4,998 2,214 1,414 1969-70 7,624 3,511 1,968 1,045 1970-71 16,233 11,306 5,472 2,091 1971-72 16,786 9,818 2,398 1,537 1972-73 6,087 1,666 1,660 1,107 1973-74 10,268 4,820 1,906 492 1974-75 9,162 2,023 984 492 1975-76 20,598 13,507 3,935 2,152 1976-77 9,961 1,666 1,168 1,291 1977-78 17,278 12,139 6,210 4,120 Average 13,445 6,137 2,431 1,369 , HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WES'l' CREEK PROJECT RESERVOIR INFLOW (ACRE-FEET) Feb. Mar. ~ ~ 666 3,074 4,403 16,356 1,666 1,353 2,083 9,039 833 799 2,737 10,945 666 1,230 3,630 8,670 722 676 952 8,793 2,221 3,874 2,440 20,229 1,000 1,722 3,213 12,605 2,055 2,091 2,618 11,806 1,055 1,107 2,261 7,563 666 1,045 1,012 10,022 033 922 3,035 11,068 666 430 1,071 9,654 1,277 1,230 2,797 10,514 833 799 2,975 8,424 4,554 3,074 5,474 12,666 1,314 1,51;2 2,713 11,224 • • .June ~ ~ I 24,218 61,I1l8 69,604 51,352 57,614 41,074 25,051 51,957 49,559 35,048 50,727 44,640 44,926 45,132 63,640 32,787 55,031 39,598 40,820 43,964 32,465 30,347 38,737 42,365 33,977 56,876 52,449 26,955 62,348 1;3,271 23,623 42,119 51,096 24,635 44,394 51,834 28,086 61,488 40,213 27,015 47,530 43,226 34,215 60,565 69,481 32,204 52,027 50,301 .. ""f ~ 47,01;8 18,327 33,441 31,537 65,812 29,812 22,731 2'l,395 20,231 24,932 19,160 44,093 47,603 43,140 30,883 33,878 TABLE )(1-2 Averagf' 21,246 17,209 11;,319 16,898 20,785 17,059 14,38'l 16,210 17,172 16,731 14,112 l'i,787 19,450 15,669 21,722 17,384 r-3 6; r trl ~ H I N • HAINES-SKAGwAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK pnOJECT 'l'OTAL ENERGY REQUIRED (MWh) Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. lIiar. ~ 1963-64 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1961\-65 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1965-66 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 19 &6-6 7 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1967-68 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 196B-69 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,OBO 2,244 1,961 1,914 1969-70 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1970-71 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,OBO 2,2-14 1,961 1,914 1971-72 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1.,914 1972-73 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1973-74 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1974-75 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,OBO 2,244 1,961 1,914 1975-76 2,056 2,OBO 2,127 2,080 2,24-1 1,961 1,914 1976-77 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,OBO 2,244 1,961 1,914 1977-78 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 Average 2,056 2,OBO 2,127 2,OBO 2,244 1,961 1,914 NOTE: The above are the energy requirements for Haines and Skagway in 1996 under the Scenario B forecast. ~ 1,843 1,843 1,843 1,843 1,843 l,B43 l,B43 1, B43 1,843 1,843 1,843 1,843 1,843 1,843 1,843 1,843 • ~ TABLE XI-3 June ~ ~ ~ Total 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 l,B20 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1, B20 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 l,B20 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 l,B20 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1, B20 1,725 1,843 1,937 /.3,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 21,630 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 .. • • ~ TABLE XI-4 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGIOr. FEASIBILITY S'I'UDY WI::S'l' CREEK l'ROJEC'l' 'fOTAL BNERGY GENBRA'l'BD (rvil"/h) Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. lV~Qr • ~ ~ June ~ ~ ~ 'i'otal 1963-64 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,7;:5 1,843 1,937 23,030 1964-65 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,B43 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1965-66 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1966-67 2,056 2,080 2,1~7 2,080 2,244 1,~61 1,914 1,843 1, B20 i.,7~5 1,843 1,937 23,630 1967-68 2,056 2,000 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 196B-69 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1969-70 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1970-71 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,%1 1,914 1,8<U 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1971-72 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1972-73 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1973-74 2,056 2,OBO 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,043 1,937 23,630 1974-75 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,B20 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1975-76 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1976-77 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 I,B43 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 1977-78 2,056 2,080 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 1,843 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 Average 2,056 2,000 2,127 2,080 2,244 1,961 1,914 I,B43 1,820 1,725 1,843 1,937 23,630 • • • • "" TABLE XI-5 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY wES~.· CREEK PROJECT END-OF-MONTH RESERVOIR STORAGE (ACRE-FEET) Year Oct. Nov. Dec. .1an. ~ l'-iar. ~ ~ June ~ ~ ~ Average J 1963-64 21,680 21,68U 19,247 15,471 11,653 10,681 11,127 21,680 21,680 21,~80 21,680 21,680 18,328 1964-65 21,680 20,835 20,056 18,222 15,457 12,804 10,946 16,161 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 18,573 1965-66 21,680 21,680 10,270 14,992 11,361 8,068 6,810 13,895 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 16,956 1966-67 21,680 21,680 19,024 15,430 11,598 8,775 8,398 13,214 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 17,210 1967-68 21,680 20,727 17,229 13,468 9,685 6,257 3,150 7,<194 21,680 21,680 21,680 n,680 15,576 1968-69 21,680 21,680 19,666 16,904 14,657 14,488 12,968 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 1Q ,204 1969-70 21,680 21,030 18,740 15,606 12,141 9,819 9,072 17,828 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 17,720 1970-71 21,680 21,680 21,680 19,572 17,198 15,291 14,016 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 19,960 1971-72 21,680 21,680 19,841 17,209 13,835 10,877 9,153 12,862 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 17,821 1972-73 21,680 19,175 16,576 13,445 9,588 6,510 3,485 9,564 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 15,562 1973-74 21,680 21,680 19,316 15,594 11,<132 8,784 7,813 15,015 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 17,378 1974-75 21,680 19,571 16,296 12,573 8,739 5,076 2,049 7,780 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 15,040 1975-76 21,680 21,680 21,376 19,334 16,230 13,442 12,270 18,986 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 19,310 1976-77 21,680 19,216 16,134 13,210 9,552 6,271 5,205 9,714 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 15,642 1977-78 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,653 21,680 20,801 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,605 Average 21,680 21,045 19,009 16,179 13,0~0 10,530 9,209 15,316 21,680 21,680 21,680 21,680 17,726 Average 705.00 704.52 702.46 698.16 692.27 686.22 680.37 686.56 699.69 705.00 705.00 705.00 697.58 TABJ.E XI-7 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT DISCHARGE THROUGH UNI'rS (CFS) Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. ~ ~ June .Tuly Aug. Sep. Average 1963-64 57 60 59 58 68 56 57 52 52 48 51 56 56.17 1964-65 57 60 59 58 70 56 56 52 52 48 51 56 56.25 1965-66 57 60 59 58 71 56 57 53 53 48 51 56 56.58 1966-67 57 60 59 58 71 56 57 53 53 48 51 56 56.58 1967-68 57 60 59 59 69 57 58 54 53 48 51 56 56.75 1968-69 57 60 59 58 70 55 56 52 52 48 51 56 56.17 1969-70 57 60 59 58 70 56 57 52 52 48 51 56 56.33 1970-71 57 60 59 58 69 55 56 52 52 48 51 56 56.08 1971-72 57 60 59 58 68 56 57 53 53 48 51 56 56.33 1972-73 57 60 60 59 71 57 58 54 53 48 51 56 57.00 1973-74 57 60 59 58 70 56 57 53 53 48 51 56 56.50 1974-75 57 60 60 59 71 57 59 54 53 48 51 56 57.08 1975-76 57 60 59 58 67 55 56 52 52 48 51 56 55.92 1976-77 57 60 60 59 71 57 58 53 53 48 51 56 56.92 1977-78 57 60 59 58 69 54 55 51 52 48 51 56 55.83 Average 57 60 59.20 58.27 69.67 55.93 56.93 52.67 52.53 48 51 56 56.43 • • • .. .. " • .. '\ TABLE XI-8 HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PRO.JECT SPILL (CFS) Year Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. ~ ~ June ~ Aug. SeE' Average 1963-64 182 100 0 0 0 0 0 32 345 949 1.071 726 283.75 1964-65 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 708 879 607 242 217.58 1965-66 161 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 228 788 745 497 202.42 1966-67 243 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 384 767 665 464 212.00 1967-68 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 462 677 973 1,040 276.50 1968-69 97 14 0 0 0 0 0 125 489 837 583 435 215.00 1969-70 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 559 657 467 316 171. 33 1970-71 197 120 20 0 0 0 0 6 448 562 628 428 201. 58 1971-72 206 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 868 792 274 216.33 1972-73 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187 956 967 353 207.92 1973-74 100 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 628 770 256 165.67 1974-75 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 665 782 676 193.50 1975-76 268 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 942 593 734 254.92 1976-77 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 715 642 659 191. 75 1977-78 214 134 32 0 3 0 12 145 513 927 1,069 453 291.83 Average 151.67 44.20 3.47 o 0.2 o 0.00 20.53 371.87 788.47 756.93 503.53 220.14 • • • • • SECTION XII ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ARRANGEMENTS 1. GENERAL To arrive at the optimum Project arrangement, alternatives for the configuration and layout of the major features were identified, evaluated, and refined to arrive at a layout which is referred to herein as the "Selected Project Arrangement." During the final design phase, further optimization and refinement of this arrangement can be expected to occur. The Project and its major features were sized to meet the Sce- nario B load forecast in 1996. This resulted in an installed capacity of 6,000 kW and a reservoir capable of storing sufficient water to produce 23,630 MWh during the driest year of record. In addition future expansion to a project with a capacity to meet the larger energy requirements forecasted in Scenario C was also studied • The comparative costs used in this section are estimated on a Janu- ary 1982 bid basis and include only Direct Construction Costs. 2. DAM AND SPILLWAY a. General Two alternative types of dams were considered for the Project: a concrete-gravity and a concrete-faced rockfill, both of which could be devel- oped for the highest dams considered. The geotechnical investigations indi- cate that the dam site is suitable for construction of either of these types of structures. Impervious core embankment dams were not considered because the geotechnical investigations did not find any source of core material with- in easy haul distance of the dam site. Cost comparisons were made of the two types of dam including spillway costs but not including power conduit and powerhouse costs which are common for either type of dam and depend only on the size project selected. Initial comparisons were made for a normal maximum reservoir level of 705 feet and spillway widths of 100 feet, 150 feet, and 200 feet. The dif- ferent spillway widths affect the height of dam since the maximum water sur- face level during the PMF will be a function of the spillway width. b. Concrete-Gravity Dam The concrete-gravity dam alternative would have a vertical upstream face, a 1,000-foot-wide crest, and a downstream slope of 0.6:1. An ungated XII-2 ogee-shaped spillway would be located within the central portion of the dam crest with a chute extending to a flip bucket structure near the downstream toe of the dam. A bridge would be required over the spillway to allow access to the intake on the right abutment. The crest elevation of the dam would depend on the spillway width. For a 100-foot-wide spillway, it would be E1720; for a 150-foot-wide spillway, El 718 feet; and for a 200-foot-wide spillway, E1716 feet. The gravels deposited in the alluvial deltas upstream of the dam site would provide a ready source of high quality concrete aggre- gate. The cost estimates for the concrete gravity dam were made assuming the dam were constructed of roller compacted concrete (RCC). This is a rela- tively new method for construction of concrete dams which utilizes more effi- cient placement techniques similar to earth dams to construct concrete struc- tures. The improved efficiency promises significant construction cost econo- mies for concrete-gravity structures. Although the RCC technology is based on well established construction techniques, its use for concrete dams is quite new with only two projects having been bid to date in the United States and only a small one having been completed. The second will be constructed this summer. A third project will be bid this year. Bid costs for these jobs con- firm that RCC has great potential showing in-place unit prices well below those of conventionally-placed concrete. Another six RCC dams are under study by various organizations in the United States. Although in-house cost esti- mates for RCC were used for this cost comparison, the recent bid has a unit price which is about 70% of that used herein. Thus, if future bid prices and actual construction experience confirm the lower prices, a RCC dam would be competitive with, or less expensive than, the concrete-faced rockfill dam for the West Creek Project. Because of the clear indication of great potential cost savings, RCC should be given serious consideration during the Project design phase. c. Concrete-Faced Rockfill Dam The concrete-faced rockfill dam alternative would consist of a com- pacted rockfill or rock and gravelfill embankment with an upstream slope of 1.6:1 and a downstream slope of 1.5:1. The upstream slope would be faced with a slip-formed reinforced concrete slab with a thickness of 12 inches at the crest expanding to 18 inches at the base. The facing slab would be placed on a 10-foot-thick select gravel bedding. Unlined, open channel spillways exca- vated in rock were considered on both abutments. Material from the spillway excavation would be used to construct the embankment. After initial cost estimates, it was obvious that a spillway through the left abutment would require the excavation of considerably more rock than could be used in the dam and hence was a more expensive option. The left abutment spillway was dropped at this point and only the right abutment spillway options were considered. A preliminary spillway channel alignment through a saddle in the right abutment was developed and three dam options for spillway widths of 100 feet, 150 feet and 200 feet were priced out. • • • .. .. • • • XII-3 d. Comparison of Dam Alternatives Preliminary cost estimates of the dam alternatives described above resul ted in the following costs for the least expensive concrete-gravity and concrete-faced rockfill dams: Dam Type Concrete-Gravity •••••••.••. Concrete-Faced Rockfill e. Diversion Alternatives Comparative Direct Construction Cost $10,750,000 $ 7,700,000 Three alternative diversion schemes were studied. In the first scheme a 22-foot-high cofferdam diverts flow through a 20-foot-diameter tunnel in the right abutment. The tunnel would extend 590 feet downstream past a 15-foot-high downstream cofferdam. The tunnel was sized to handle 5,500 cfs, the 10-year flood. After construction, the tunnel would be plugged with con- crete. The second scheme was similar to the first, but with an 890-foot-long, 20-foot-diameter tunnel in the left abutment. In the third scheme flow would be passed through two 11-foot-diameter concrete pipes placed along the stream- bed from the upstream cofferdam 765 feet downstream past the downstream cof- ferdam. Each scheme was priced and the costs compared as follows: Diversion Scheme Right Abutment Tunnel Left Abutment Tunnel Concrete Pipe Conduit Comparati ve Direct Construction Cost $3,800,000 ll,900,OOO 2,500,000 The diversion tunnels for the concrete dam could be somewhat shorter, but the general cost comparison remains valid. Further, it should be noted that no cost for diversion is included and that the concrete-gravity estimates are based on a new construction meth- od. Thus, on the basis of cost, the concrete-faced rock fill dam type was cho- sen for the Project. The dam is further described in Section XIII. 3. POWER INTAKE ALTERNATIVES Four alternative power intakes were studied as follows: a. A vertical intake tower with an access bridge. XII-4 b. Similar to a. with a vertical intake structure constructed at the end of a long approach channel but with no bridge. c. A low-level intake with a downstream gate shaft. d. An intake structure inclined at a 0.25:1 slope constructed at the end of a shorter approach channel. Each alternative is technically feasible for the West Creek site. Comparative .. cost estimates were made to determine the most economical option. These esti-• mates show that the first three alternatives all have about the same cost and that the fourth alternative was about $300,000 less expensive. Hence, alter- native d. was selected. 4. POWER CONDUIT AND POWERHOUSE ALTERNATIVES a. General Selection of the power conduit type and alignment including the location of the powerhouse was made in three steps. First, the type of power conduit, either tunnel or surface penstock, was selected. Next, the alignment of the power conduit was determined. Third, the selected alignment was re- fined to develop the least expensive power conduit for that alignment. These steps are described in the following. The alternative alignments are shown in Fig. 5. b. Type of Power Conduit A comparison of the tunnel proposed in the Addendum and a surface penstock was made to determine which should be considered in developing the Project. A penstock could be most easily installed on the north side of West Creek running from an intake on the left abutment, paralleling the existing logging road through the middle basin and then down to a powerhouse on the north side of the creek. The penstock would have a total length of about 11,000 feet. A surge tank would be required at the top of the slope above the powerhouse. In order to reduce hydraulic losses a five-foot-diameter penstock was used for comparison. Based on detailed estimates for other projects, the five-foot-diameter surface penstock would cost about $1,000/foot. Thus, the direct construction cost would be $11,000,000, not including the surge tank. This cost is somewhat higher than that estimated for the tunnel. In addition, the tunnel has several advantages. The tunnel has the capability of expansion since it must be constructed at a diameter larger than that re- quired initially. In order to expand, the capacity of the penstock would re- quire installation of another penstock. Also, the tunnel will be more reli- able in that it is less vulnerable to weather and vandalism, and thus will require less maintenance. Together with the cost comparison, these factors were the basis for choosing the tunnel. The following discusses the selection of the alternative alignment for the tunnel. • .. • • XII-5 c. Location .. In the Addendum Report, the powerhouse was proposed to be located on the south slope of the mouth of West Creek about two miles downstream of • the dam, adjacent to where West Creek enters the Taiya River Valley. Initial geotechnical investigations conducted in Phase II showed that this slope is overburden about 80 feet thick, whereas near-surface bedrock had been origi- • nally assumed. Because this creates potentially difficult and expensive tun- neling and foundation problems, alternative locations for the powerhouse were • investigated. Two sites, one on the north side of West Creek and one about 1,200 feet south of the creek, were located where the powerhouse could be founded on rock. All three powerhouse locations would return flow to approxi- mately the same point on West Creek and thus would develop essentially the same head. Also, two possible developments at the original site were consid- ered in an effort to compensate for the thick overburden. The various alter- natives were compared judgmentally based on length of tunnel and quantity of excavation. d. Alternative Arrangements .. (1) • General Each alternative involved a tunnel excavated in rock generally par- alleling existing topography. The first three alternatives involve a 7 ,500-foot-Iong horizontal tunnel extending from the intake through the south ridge of the West Creek Valley to a surge shaft above the Taiya Valley. From there the power conduit would be a vertical shaft extending down to a lower horizontal tunnel leading to the appropriate powerhouse location. The fourth alternative is a similar tunnel-shaft combination on the north side of West Creek. Preliminary hydraulic transient analysis determined that there would be a need for a surge shaft in each case. In all cases the tunnel diameter was the minimum which was considered practical to construct. Thus, for ini- tial comparisons the tunnel costs can be considered proportional to length. Once the power conduit alternative was selected, the arrangement was further refined to determine the least cost conduit arrangement. (2) Alternative Alignment No.1 As described above, the power conduit for this alternative would consist of a tunnel extending approximately 7,500 feet to a surge shaft and vertical shaft. The lower tunnel would then extend another 2,700 feet to the powerhouse situated as shown in Fig. 5. At the powerhouse the tunnel would have a short steel-lined concrete-encased penstock section which, at the por- tal, would branch into two smaller diameter penstocks before entering the powerhouse • The powerhouse would be an indoor-type structure partially exca- vated into the hillside. This alternative would require a small amount of ex- cavation mainly in rock. A tailrace channel, approximately 1,200 feet in XII-6 length, would be constructed to conduct the plant discharges back into the ex- isting West Creek channel. The tailwater level would be maintained by a weir at a level sufficient to protect the turbines from cavitation. ~ Alternative Alignment No.2 Alternative Alignment No. 2 would be the same as Alternative Align- ment No. 1 for the tunnel distance between the power intake up to and includ- ing the surge shaft. From there the alignment of the lower tunnel would fol- low a more northwesterly course to a powerhouse site located close to West Creek on the south side, as shown in Fig. 5. Three powerhouse options were considered for the site. Powerhouse Option No. 1 would include a powerhouse built on a pile foundation near the south bank of West Creek. Piles would bear on solid rock and average 40 to 50 feet in length. A tailrace channel would be constructed to conduct the plant discharges to West Creek. The channel would be approxi- mately 250 feet long and the tailwater elevation would be set slightly above the level of West Creek. This option would require a 2, 600-foot rock tunnel from the verti- cal shaft with a 180-foot-long soft ground tunnel through the overburden. A 4-foot-diameter steel penstock would be used from the end of the rock tunnel to the powerhouse. The penstock would branch into two smaller diameter pen- stocks just prior to entering the powerhouse. Powerhouse Option No. 2 involved an indoor powerhouse excavated into the overburden immediately south of West Creek. This option would re- quire sufficient excavation of the overburden to provide a solid rock founda- tion. A tailrace channel, approximately 250 feet long, would be required to conduct the plant discharges into the existing West Creek channel. The tail- water level would be El 38.0. This option eliminated the need for the soft ground tunnel, but otherwise the tunnel was similar to Option No.1. Option No. 3 would require excavation in both common overburden and solid rock to construct an underground powerhouse. The location would have to be deep enough into the hillside on the south side near West Creek to allow adequate rock cover for the structure. A tailrace tunnel, approximately 250 feet long, would be excavated through rock to conduct the plant discharges into the existing West Creek channel slightly above where the creek enters the Taiya Valley. The tailwater level would be maintained at or above El 40.0. The rock tunnel to the powerhouse would be shorter than for the other options, but the tailrace tunnel would make the total tunnel length about the same. This option would also require an additional access tunnel. (4 ) Alternative Alignment No.3 This alternative started along the same alignment as Alternative Alignments 1 and 2 from the power intake up to and including the vertical shaft. From there, the tunnel would continue for about 4,000 feet passing • .. .. • • • , • • XII-7 north underneath West Creek and curving eastward to a powerhouse location on the north side of the stream. The tunnel would include a steel-lined section , under West Creek. At the powerhouse the tunnel would have a short steel-lined concrete-encased penstock section before branching at the portal and entering • the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be similar to that required for Alterna- ti ve 1. Power plant discharges would be conveyed directly back into West Creek via a 350-foot-long tailrace channel. .. (5) Alternative Alignment No.4 Al ternati ve Alignment No.4, the most northerly alignment, would consist of a tunnel extending approximately 10,800 feet along the north wall of the canyon from a power intake on the left abutment to a surge shaft. The surge shaft would connect with a lower tunnel approximately 2,500 feet long to a powerhouse at the same location as the one described for Alternative Align- ment No.3. e. Comparison of Alternatives Table XII-1 summarizes the principal statistics for the various al ternatives and options. The cost of each alternative is a function of the length of the tunnel and the quantity of excavation for the powerhouse. Hence, a comparison of the al terna ti ves on the basis of these two items de- fines the relative costs • Comparing the alternatives shows that Alternative No. 1 has the shortest tunnel as well as the smallest quantity of excavation. However, the alternative would require a long tailrace channel. Alternative No. 2 has a tunnel length only 180 feet longer than in Alternative No.1, but requires either a large quantity of excavation or a 180-foot-long soft ground tunnel. It is estimated that the cost of the tailrace would be less than the added costs of excavation or of the soft ground tunnel in Alternative No.2. Thus, Alternative No. 1 was selected as the power conduit alignment. f. Refinement of Selected Alternative No.1 The selected Power Conduit Alternative was further studied to determine the least expensive means of excavating the tunnel. Both conven- tional drill and blast excavation and machine boring were studied. The drill and blast approach would require excavating the lower tunnel in from the por- tal at the powerhouse, the vertical shaft up from the end of that tunnel, and the upper tunnel from the power intake down to the vertical shaft. Construc- tion by drill and blast would cost about $17,400,000 and take about 490 work- ing days. A second approach would be to excavate the upper tunnel using a tunnel boring machine. The shaft and lower tunnel would still be excavated using drill and blast techniques. This approach would cost about $12,000,000. Of this total, the shaft and lower tunnel would cost $3,000,000. A third approach would be to excavate the upper tunnel from the power intake past the surge shaft and straight through to daylight in the XII-B hillside above the powerhouse site with a tunnel boring machine and place a 3-foot-diameter surface penstock down the slope to the powerhouse. This approach would cost $10,600,000 and take about 240 working days to construct. Thus, based on a comparison of costs, the machine bored tunnel with the surface penstock was selected. The selected power conduit alternative is described in detail in Section XIII. g. Powerhouse Superstructure The powerhouse for the selected alternative will be an above- ground, indoor-type founded on rock. Three types of superstructures, cast-in- place concrete, prefabricated steel, and precast concrete, were compared. It was determined that the prefabricated steel and the precast concrete buildings have about the same cost and are less expensive than the cast-in-place con- crete option. The precast concrete superstructure was selected because it was considered less vulnerable to vandalism and adverse weather, and should have a longer useful life. 5. TRANSMISSION LINE ALTERNATIVES a. General The preferred transmission line alternative for the Project was selected in a multi-stepped evaluation with the following basic evaluation criteria: minimizing adverse environmental impacts, maximizing system relia- bility and minimizing cost. The evaluation was based on a literature search, detailed map study, field reconnaissance, fathometric survey, engineering studies, and comparative environmental analyses of potential impacts on aes- thetics, raptors, and archaeological and historical sites. The transmission system must provide power from the West Creek Project to both the Haines and Skagway areas. The rated capacity of the West Creek Project is 6,900 kVA. Based on forecasted loads, the Haines loads would require approximately 4,500 kVA and the Skagway loads would require approxi- mately 2,400 kVA. The existing distribution system in Haines contains four feeders out of a central diesel generating plant. The distribution system generally is at 2.4 kV except for the line to the Schnabel Mill which is presently at 7.2 kV. As discussed in Part A, the Schnabel Mill is presently constructing a wood waste generating plant. Haines will upgrade the tie line to the mill to 34.5 kV to handle the new power requirements. The West Creek Project can interconnect with the Schnabel Mill to Haines tie line. The Skagway system includes hydroelectric and diesel generation, both located in Skagway at the same plant. The distribution system is at 2.4 kV. After a review of the Skagway system, it was determined to intercon- nect the West Creek Project with the generating plant switchyard. • .. • • • •• .. ) • XII-9 b. Transmission Line Corridor Alternatives Three alternative transmission corridors were identified as shown on Fig. 6 and discussed below. The corridors were assumed to be approximately one-half mile wide to allow for subsequent adjustment of the rights-of-way depending on the type of transmission system, specific environmental consider- ations, and the final design. The alternative corridors were selected to: • Minimize transmission line length in order to reduce environ- mental impacts, construction costs, and reliability problems. • Avoid areas with high environmental and engineering sensitiv- ity including glaciers, and construction above El 4000 feet. Due to the special requirements dictated by the terrain, weather and recreation in the Haines-Skagway area, alternative types of transmission systems were evaluated in some detail. One of the major concerns was the potential adverse aesthetic impact relating to the extensive recreational uses of the area. Also of major concern were the potential engineering and relia- bility problems caused by the rugged nature of the terrain and the adverse weather conditions. The following systems were considered: overhead bare conductor, underground cable, and submarine cable. The voltage was determined by limiting the voltage drop for any total line to less than 5%. Where sub- marine cable was used, it was based on three single conductors and one spare conductor. Alternative transmission corridors and systems were selected as follows. The Alternative A transmission line would exit the West Creek Power Plant as a 34.5-kV overhead or underground transmission line easterly then southerly following existing roads approximately 1.2 miles through the Klon- dike Gold Rush National Historical Park. It would continue southerly as a 34.5-kV overhead transmission line along the east side of Taiya River flood- plain following the road from West Creek to Skagway. At a point east of the original Dyea downtown site, the corridor would leave the road and turn south- easterly across a ridge to Long Bay (Nahku Bay) where it again would intersect with the road. It would follow the road southerly along the eastern side of Long Bay to a point northwest of Skagway, approximately 2.8 miles from the park, where a switching station would be constructed to tap off a transmission line to Skagway and another transmission line to Haines. The 34.5-kV overhead transmission line to Skagway would cross a ridge in a southeasterly direction, then cross the Skagway River, and follow existing streets approximately 2.2 miles to the Skagway Power Plant Switchyard. The 34.5-kV transmission line to Haines would run southwesterly to the Taiya Inlet where it would enter the water and continue southerly as a 34.5-kV submarine transmission line. The submarine transmission line would run south along the west side of Taiya Inlet. At a point near Taiya Point, the line would turn southwesterly through Chilkoot Inlet and intersect land north of Haines just south of Tanani Point approximately 16.6 miles from the switching station. At Tanani Point the transmission line would exit the inlet and intersect with the existing Haines XII-10 to Schnabel Mill 34.5-kV overhead transmission line at a proposed Haines ter- minal switching station. See Fig. 7 for the Alternative A system one-line diagram. Alternative B transmission line from the powerhouse to the Skagway Power Swi tchyard also would cross the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park but as 12. 5-kV overhead or underground transmission line following the same corridor as Al ternati ve A for approximately 1.2 miles. The line would continue along the same corridor as Alternative A as a 12.5-kV overhead trans- mission line approximately 5.0 miles to the Skagway Power Plant Switchyard. At the Skagway Power Plant Switchyard, the voltage would be reduced to the distribution system voltage. The Alternative B 34.5-kV overhead transmission line from the Project powerhouse to Haines would exit the power plant south- erly and follows the west side of the Taiya River floodplain to the Taiya In- let. It would continue southerly on land following the western bank of the Taiya Inlet approximately 18.7 miles from the plant to the Taiya Point. At the Taiya Point the line would enter the inlet and become a 34.5-kV submarine transmission line crossing approximately 2.1 miles southwesterly through Chil- koot Inlet, intersecting land north of Haines and just south of Tanani Point. At Tanani Point the transmission line would exit the inlet and intersect with the eXisting Haines to Schnabel Mill 34. 5-kV overhead transmission line at a proposed Haines Terminal Switching Station. See Fig. 8 for the Alternative B system one-line diagram. Alternative C would use the same corridor and 12.5-kV transmission system as Alternative B from the West Creek Project to the Skagway Power Plant Swi tchyard. The Al ternati ve C 34. 5-kV overhead transmission line to Haines would exit the power plant westerly and follow the south side of the West Creek Valley. A t a point approximately three miles west of the proposed powerhouse the transmission line would turn southwesterly crossing Halutu Ridge to the Ferebee River Valley. Several miles south of Ferebee Glacier, the line would turn southeasterly and follow the Ferebee River along the west side. It would then turn southwesterly and cross the ridge south of the gla- ciers running to the southern end of Chilkoot Lake. At the outlet of Chilkoot Lake, the overhead line would avoid the Chilkoot Lake Wayside Park, turn south, and follow the existing road along the southwestern side of Lutak Inlet to the Schnabel Mill, where it would intersect with the existing Haines to Schnabel Mill 34.5-kV overhead transmission line at a proposed Haines Terminal Switching Station. c. Alternative Transmission Line Evaluation The transmission alternatives were evaluated based on the following objectives: (1) Minimize engineering construction costs. (2) Maximize transmission system reliability. (3) Minimize adverse aesthetic impacts. • .. I • • .. • " .. ,. • .. XII-11 (4) Minimize possible impact to raptors. This is only an evalua- tion consideration because the overhead lines can be designed to avoid being a hazard to raptors. (5) Minimize adverse impact to known and expected archaeological and historical sites. (6) Minimize transmission right-of-way clearing. The transmission alternatives were compared both qualitatively and quantitatively, and the preferred transmission alternative was selected as discussed below. (See Table XII-2 for a summary.) Alternative A has the least relative transmission line and system cost. Based on an evaluation of reliability factors, it also has the least chance for outages due to the reliability factors. Since Alternative A would be mostly underwater, it also has the least aesthetic impact of all the alter- natives and the least possible impact on raptors. Alternatives A and C were both seen as having no impact on archaeological and historical sites, but all three alternatives might impact sites from the historical town site of Dyea between the plant and Skagway. Again since Alternative A would be mostly sub- marine cable, it has the least number of acres required to be cleared. Alternative B has the next to highest relative cost. The reliabil- ity exposure of this alternative would be high due to the overhead line along Taiya Inlet being subject to falling trees and landslides. Alternative B has the greatest impact on aesthetics since it runs overhead the full length of the Taiya Inlet. This area receives a great deal of tourist use and is con- sidered highly desirable aesthetically. Alternative B also has greater poten- tial impact on archaeological and historical sites in the park, since it would have a greater length of line within the park. Finally, Alternative B has more right-of-way to be cleared than Alternative A, but less than Alterna- tive C. Alternative C has the highest construction costs, and has possibly the greatest maintenance costs since it runs cross-country through very rugged mountains where it would be exposed to severe weather conditions and hence would experience more reliability problems. Alternative C would not have as great an impact on aesthetics as Alternative B, but would be visible from Chilkoot Lake State Wayside, and from Lutak Inlet. It would also be exposed to raptors over its longer length. Alternative C has the same impact on archaeological and historical sites as Alternative A. This alternative has the largest number of acres required for clearing. Since Alternative A has the lowest construction costs, the fewest reliability problems, the least impact on aesthetics, raptors, and the small- est right-of-way area to be cleared, it was selected as the preferred alterna- tive. Table XII-2 summarizes the transmission line alternative comparison. See Fig. 15 for the selected transmission corridor. • Al ten ... ;:;;tive N<}. 1 (OJ.:;;) T,lO. 1. (H.evis0c') i·!n. ? (P. V. O?t.. 1) (P.T;. Opt. 3) Hl\INES-SKAGVJAY RI!GION FEASIBJT.ITY STUDY bES'l' CREEK PRo.:mCT CO~fi,f'ARISOilJ OF Po\iER CONDUI'I' ATJTERNA'J'IVES Length of 'l'unn81 10,150' 8,1;.70' T\1nnel: 1,570 Penstock PO~J8rhouse Foundation Roc!, :lO,330' H.ock Tunnel; piles 180' Soft Ground 'runnel (/.30' T'21~Stock-Rocl; ~nuni1e1 to po~\!erhouse) 10,300' Rock 10,250' Undergr:ouJ1d 11,450' Rocl~ 13,100' Rock .. • , Exc~vation for Powerhnusp ·B5 cy rock 2,300 cy cornman 2,500 cv rock 173,100 cy common 5,000 C" rocl~ AOr) cy rocl~ 2,000 cy commor) /,000 cy C:JTT11'10n • .1 ~. .. .. HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT TRANSMISSION EVALUATION SUMMARY Alt. A. I. ENGINEERING: A. Line Length (miles) . ............ 22.8 B. Transmission Line Costs ($1 ,000) • 12, 196.1 C. Total Transmission Costs ($1,000) 12,872.0 D. Total Adverse Exposure (miles) . . 34.2 E. Right-of-Way (acres) . ........... 14.9 II. ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Aesthetics (miles) .............. 2.1 B. Raptor Exposure ( miles) . ........ 1.9 C. Archaeological and Historical Exposure (miles) .............. 1.2 D. Clearing (acres) . ............... 7.5 TABLE XII-2 Alt. B Alt. C 27.0 32.9 13,057.3 15,371.9 13,408.0 15,723.0 71.9 86.3 47.5 91.6 16.6 10.0 18.0 8.9 4.7 1.2 47.5 91.6 ,. . , . ' •• • SECTION XIII SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT 1. GENERAL Following selection of the basic Project arrangement, final refine- ments were performed consistent with the feasibility level investigations . This included detailed layouts of the features, quantity take-offs, and cost estimates. This section contains a description of the major features of the selected Project arrangement. Project data for the selected arrangement are listed in the Summary of Principal Project Statistics in the Summary portion of this report. The major features of the Project are the reservoir, dam, power in- take, power condul t and surge shaft, powerhouse, si te access facili ties, and transmission system. The selected Project arrangement and related details are shown in Figs. 10 through 15 • 2. RESERVOIR The reservoir formed by the dam will provide 18,130 acre-feet of active storage above the minimum pool at El 662. At normal maximum reservoir El 705 feet, the surface area will be 635 acres. Some of the areas on both sides of West Creek are densely forested so that it will be necessary to clear about 330 acres within the area of the reservoir. The remaining area is cov- ered with low brush with a good root structure which should hold the brush in place after filling. A survey of the reservoir rim area revealed no potenti- ally unstable slopes which could result in a future hazard to Project opera- tion from landslide action • 3. DAM AND SPILLWAY The selected dam type is a concrete-faced rockfill embankment. (See Fig. 11.) The downstream face will have a slope of 1.5:1. The upstream face will have a slope of 1.6: 1. The embankment will be constructed entirely of compacted rock excavated from the spillway and intake except for a ten-foot- thick layer of processed gravel on the upstream face which will serve as a bedding for the reinforced concrete face. The concrete face will be 12 inches thick at the crest thickening to 18 inches at the toe. Foundation water bar- rier and cutoff will be achieved by a cutoff slab 2 feet thick and 12 feet wide and a grout curtain. The dam will have a crest at El 729.5, including a 3. 5-foot-high parapet wall, and an overall height of 117 feet. During the PMF, the maximum XIII-2 water level would be El 729.5. The dam will have a volume of 254,000 cy of rock and 30,500 cy of processed gravel. A 75-foot-wide unlined, open channel spillway will be excavated in the right abutment. The spillway approach channel will extend 100 feet to a low concrete weir with a crest at El 705. From the concrete weir the chute will extend 720 feet at a slope of 0.013. From that point it will extend 610 feet at steeper slopes of 0.29 and 0.36, to where it will discharge into West Creek at a point 450 feet downstream of the toe of the dam. 4. POWER INTAKE A power intake will be located on the right abutment, adjacent to the dam. (See Fig. 12.) The intake will be a 96-foot-high inclined reinforced concrete structure placed against the end of a 110-foot-long approach channel excavated in rock 10 feet wide at the base. The intake tower will extend above the maximum reservoir level so that access is possible at all times. The intake invert will be at El 630. Steel trashracks will be provided. A 12.5-foot-high by 6. 5-foot-wide fixed wheel gate will be provided for emer- \ gency closure and for inspection and maintenance of the tunnel. A single lane • roadway, extending across the dam crest from the left abutment, will provide vehicle access to the power intake for operation and maintenance of these facilities. 5. POWER CONDUIT The tunnel will be excavated using a 9.5-foot-diameter tunnel bor- ing machine. The tunnel will be left unlined except for a 50-foot length at the upstream end and a lBO-foot length at the downstream end. The upstream end will be concrete lined to a diameter of 7.5 feet. The downstream end will be concrete lined for 110 feet and concrete and steel lined for 70 feet, all to a 7.5 foot diameter. Rock bolts and steel sets will be installed at areas where the quality of the rock requires the support. The steel sets will be covered with shotcrete. At the downstream end of the tunnel, a rock trap will be constructed immediately upstream of the lined section. A 9.5-foot-diameter surge shaft extending up to El 740 will be excavated adjacent to the tunnel and connected by a short lateral section. A 1.5-foot-diameter air vent will extend from the top of the surge shaft to the ground surface. From the downstream portal a 7. 5-foot-diameter steel penstock will extend out of the tunnel about 50 feet to a 15-foot-long transition section reducing the diameter to 3 feet. A 20-foot-long roll-out section in the 7.5-foot-diameter penstock at the portal will allow access into the tunnel for maintenance when necessary. A 1,520-foot-long, 3-foot-diameter penstock will extend down the hill to the powerhouse. The penstock will be connected by couplings and supported on concrete piers on 40-foot centers. Anchor blocks will be provided where necessary. Before entering the powerhouse, the pen- stock bifurcates into two 24-inch-diameter branches. A profile of the power • • .. .' ... .. XIII-3 conduit is shown in Fig. 10. Details of the tunnel and penstock are shown in Fig. 12. 6. POWERHOUSE The powerhouse will be an indoor-type structure founded on rock located about 1,200 feet south of West Creek. (See Figs. 13 and 14.) The structure will have a cast-in-place reinforced concrete substructure and a superstructure of precast concrete panels. The roof panels will be removable to allow access by mobile crane for maintenance of equipment. This will elim- inate the need for a powerhouse crane. The powerhouse will be 40 feet wide by 57 feet long and 20 feet high. Rock under a parking area adjacent to the south wall will be drilled and blasted to subgrade but left in place in order to facilitate future expansion of the powerhouse. The powerhouse will contain two horizontal shaft 1,200-rpm Francis turbine-generator units. Each turbine will deliver 4,200 hp at a rated net head of 635 feet at best gate. The corresponding discharge through each tur- bine will be 65 cfs. Each turbine will drive a synchronous, three-phase alternating current generator rated at 3,450 kVA, at 0.9 pf, 12.47 kV and 1,200 rpm with a 60 0 C temperature rise. The plant installed capacity will be 6,000 kW. Each generator will be enclosed and will include a solid state exciter, voltage regulator, surface air collers, a C02 fire protection sys- tem and all necessary auxiliary features. A 24-inch butterfly valve will be provided upstream of each turbine to serve as a guard gate for the unit. In addition, a bypass line and valve to drain the power conduit would be provided. A tailrace channel will be con- structed to divert plant discharges back into the existing West Creek chan- nel. The channel will be a combination embankment and fill. It will have a bot tom width of 5 feet with 1.5: 1 side slopes to a height of 12 feet. The channel will be lined with a PVC membrane covered with gravel. The tailwater level will be maintained by a fixed weir to protect the turbines against cavi- tation. The plant control system will be designed for fully automatic oper- ation from a remote location to be determined later. The plant will also be controllable locally from control panels in the powerhouse. The main control panel will consist of unit, station and switchyard controls, indication and alarms. The protective relay board will consist of metering, recording meters and unit and line protective relays. Miscellaneous controls will be included as required for all accessory mechanical and electrical equipment • 7. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM The generator step-up transformer will be located in the switchyard just south of the powerhouse. The transformer will be rated 7,200 kVA, 13.8-34.5 kV, 3-phase, forced-air cooled, 60 Hz, two-winding with a 55 0 C XIII-4 temperature rise over an ambient of 40 oc. The switchyard will also include a 34. 5-kV, three-phase circuit breaker, two 34. 5-kV, three-phase, gang-oper- ated disconnect switches, current and potential transformers for metering and ~ protection, buswork, and miscellaneous structures. From the switchyard, a 34.5-kV transmission line will run approxi- mately 1.2 miles with overhead or underground construction through the park. The line will then run overhead on wood pole structures approximately 2.8 miles along the existing road to the Skagway Tap Switching Station. From the tap station a 34.5-kV transmission line will continue 2.2 miles to the Skagway Power Plant. The line will be wood pole structures typical of the existing distribution lines. The 34.5-kV transmission line to Haines will leave the tap station and enter the water north of the mouth of the Skagway River. The line will consist of four single conductor 35-kV submarine cables. Three cables are necessary for the three-phase system and the fourth will be a spare in case there are any problems with one of the other conductors. The cable will be copper with liquid dielectric impregnated paper insulation, lead sheathing, and a layer of galvanized steel armor wires. The line will run approximately 16.6 miles to just south of Tanani Point at Haines where it will leave the water and tap into the Haines-Schnabel Mill tie line at a new Haines Terminal Switching Station. 8. ACCESS ROADS Construction materials and equipment will most likely be trans- ported by sea to Skagway and off-loaded at existing facilities there. From Skagway a good all-season road runs to West Creek in the area of the power- house. Some improvement of the existing roads in Dyea may be required to pro- vide access to the actual powerhouse site. From Dyea a log bridge crosses West Creek and an old logging road extends 2.2 miles up the West Creek Val- ley. It is planned that the bridge will be reinforced or replaced and the existing road improved. From the end of the road a new access road will be constructed to the dam site. The access road will be single lane, about 16 feet in width and will be constructed to a minimum standard necessary to support transportation of the construction materials and equipment. 9. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A design and construction schedule developed for the Project is shown on Fig. 19. This schedule contemplates commercial operation of both uni ts by September 1986, which is considered to be the earliest reasonable date considering the time required for additional final design investigations, preparation and processing of the FERC License Application, design, and con- struction. .. , t • ,j tr· • XIII-5 The schedule assumes that a License Application would be filed with the FERC in September 1982 and accepted for processing by January 1983. Based on meeting with regulatory agencies, the only problem currently anticipated with FERC Licensing is that of the location of the powerhouse within the boun- dary of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. Assuming that the boundary can be changed in a timely manner, the FERC should be able to issue a License by April 1984. That would allow construction to start in the summer of 1984. In the meantime, design investigations, design, and preparation of bid documents would be underway. Construction would start with mobilization and construction of the access road to the dam in the summer of 1984. Clearing and grubbing of the dam abutments and the intake area would also start. During the first winter, the streambed would be stripped and prepared and the diversion conduits placed. Once these are in place, the upstream and downstream cofferdams would be built. During the second summer, 1985, the spillway would be excavated and the dam constructed. During the same period the contractor would excavate the intake channel, prepare the tunnel portal, and start excavating the tunnel from the upstream end. Rock excavated from the intake and spillway would be used in the dam. Rock excavated from the tunnel would be spoiled in the res- ervoir area. Upon completion of the embankment, the concrete facing would be slip formed. Also during the second summer, the penstock would be con- structed, the powerhouse civil works and tailrace channel would be completed, and the transmission line started. Closure of the diversion conduits would be done during the 1985-1986 winter and the pipes plugged with concrete. Also, the electrical! mechanical equipment would be received and installed. Filling of the reser- voir would take an estimated 40 days during the spring runoff. Startup and testing can take place as soon as the reservoir has enough water to allow safe operation. 10. FUTURE EXPANSION As discussed previously, the West Creek site is suitable hydrologi- cally and topographically for a larger project than that required for Sce- nario B loads. Thus, it was recognized that a future expansion of the Project may be desired. For this reason, consideration was given to the possibility of increasing the capacity of the Project and raising the dam. The Scenario C loads require an installed capacity of 9,000 kW and an annual generation in 1996 of 39,000 MWh which means a reservoir with a normal maximum level at El 725. This would mean raising the dam 20 feet. The crest of the spillway could be raised using a higher concrete weir in the same channel. In addition, the intake gate shaft would have to be raised, the surge shaft enlarged, and another penstock added. Another unit could be added to the powerhouse by extending the building. XIII-6 Raising the dam would require quarrying additional rock and placing it against the downstream face. Once the fill has been raised to the desired crest elevation, the parapet wall at the top of the original dam would be removed and concrete facing continued up to the new crest. The unlined tunnel can safely handle velocities up to 5 or 6 fps. Assuming a maximum velocity of 5 fps, the maximum discharge would be 350 cfs. This would permit an installed capacity of 16,000 kW. With this capacity and a plant factor of 50%, a reservoir with a maximum normal level of EL 755 would be required. Expansion of the Project to this size would require similar, but more extensive work than described above. In order to raise the reservoir normal maximum level to El 755, a new spillway would probably be required. This spillway could be built in the left abutment. Again, material excavated from the spillway would be used in the dam embankment. • .. • • .. • • SECTION XIV EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT OF THE SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT 1. GENERAL The following discussion addresses potential impacts and mitigation with respect to fisheries resources, wildlife resources, water quality, his- torical and archaeological resources, socioeconomics, recreational resources, aesthetic resources, air quality, and land use. Environmental studies found that the environmental impacts of the West Creek Project are limited in scope and not expected to significantly affect Project development. A report by the consul tant, Environaid, describing on-site environmental investigations pro- vides the basis for discussion of the fisheries, wildlife, and historical and archaeological resources and is included in Appendix C. 2. FISHERIES RESOURCES Few fisheries resources are known to occur in West Creek based on field observations, fish sampling and inteviews with local residents. Conse- quently, impacts on the fisheries resources are expected to be minimal. The following presentation describes the habitat and fisheries resources of West Creek, and discusses potential Project impacts. Above the dam site, the creek is a stream of moderate gradient, turbid waters, and predominantly boulder, cobble, and gravel substrate. There are a number of small tributaries of relatively clear water with suitable sal- monid spawning substrate. These tributaries were in the general area of the proposed reservoir and would be the most probable location of residential fish. Attempts were made to sample fish with minnow traps in three of the tributaries. However, no fish were encountered. Reports by residents at Skagway and Dyea indicate that few if any fish reside or spawn in waters near the proposed dam site. Below the dam site, the upper gorge has a steep gradient and con- tains a series of cataracts and chutes. Upstream fish passage is extremely difficult if not impossible, at least during the periods of high flow from May to November. Further downstream within the middle basin, high velocity flows persist and the substrate is predominantly boulder and cobble. Little rearing or spawning habitat occurs in the stream channel in this area. However, two small tributaries enter this section that contain good quality spawning gravel in their lower reaches. Sampling of these tributaries with minnow traps re- vealed a low density, slow growing population of Dolly Varden char that is be- lieved to be resident rather than anadromous • XIV-2 The lower gorge just below the middle basin is an extended section of rapids and falls. The sustained high velocity of this reach appears to prevent upstream passage by fish and, therefore, would block use of the creek above this point by anadromous fish. Between the lower gorge and its mouth, West Creek widens and the velocity is reduced. As the creek approaches its confluence with the Taiya River, the gradient declines and the substrate changes from boulder to cobble, gravel, and finally sand at the confluence. There is a single tributary on the north side of West Creek below the bridge that connects to a cutoff mean- der channel. Large Dolly Varden have been observed in the tributary but no other fish have been seen in this small stream or in West Creek. The possi- bility exists that a few fall chum or coho may utilize the tributary or lower West Creek. Eulachon (candlefish) are known to spawn in the lower Taiya River and are reported to spawn in the lower sandy reaches of West Creek. Sources of potential impacts on fisheries resources include inunda- tion of stream habitat by the reservoir, alterations of the West Creek flow regime due to Project operation, increased turbidity and sediments from con- struction activity, changes in stream temperature due to the reservoir, and nitrogen supersaturation from water plunging over the spillway. The reservoir would inundate approximately 2.5 miles of stream habitat in West Creek and small amounts of stream habitat in the lower reaches of three minor tributaries (Fig. 16). Because there is no evidence of fish populations in this general area, it appears that no fishery impacts would result from inundating the upper valley. The indicated lack of fish resources also eliminates any concern for turbine-related injuries or mortalities of fishes entering the power intake from the reservoir. The proposed Project would cause changes in the flow between the dam and the powerhouse. During the low flow months, December through April, there would be no flow below the dam. The lack of flows could extend into early summer as the reservoir fills. In summer and early fall, the flows would be much greater as melt-water flows fill the reservoir exceeding genera- tion requirements and result in excess water being spilled. In general, how- ever, flows would still be less than under natural conditions. (See Sec- tion XI, Power Operation Studies.) However, little impact on fisheries is expected in West Creek between the dam and the powerhouse because no fish are known to reside in or migrate through the creek above the lower gorge. The small population of resident Dolly Varden char, known to exist in the lower sections of the two tributaries of this part of West Creek, should not be sig- nificantly affected by the reduced flows. Below the powerhouse site, the major changes in the flow regime would occur during the winter and spring months. The principal demand for power is from December to April which are generally low flow months in the watershed. During this period, generation would come from reservoir storage. Thus, average daily flows below the powerhouse would increase during the winter and spring. Substantial daily variation in flow would occur because .. ., • • • • .. XIV-3 power generation would be keyed to the daily cycle of electrical load demand. This may cause flows to be less than what would occur under natural conditions for a part of the day and greater for the remainder. These effects could con- tinue into early summer while the reservoir is filled. During the naturally high flow months of summer and early fall, the average daily flows would not change and the daily variations associated with electrical load demand would be small relative to the magnitude of the total flows resulting from spill. The changes in the flow regime of lower West Creek are not expected to impact fish access to or use of the single tributary where Dolly Varden are known to occur. Flow variations in the winter and spring could affect fish spawning or rearing activities in lower West Creek; however, indications are that little if any of these activities exist with the exception of spring spawning of eulachon. Turbidity and sediments may increase in West Creek because of blasting and other construction activities. This would result in transient impacts on the stream habitat, fishes, and other aquatic organisms. Currently accepted, prudent construction practices would be implemented to minimize these effects, including proper application of bank stabilization, control of surface runoff, reclamation, and revegetation measures. No significant alterations in the water temperature regime are anticipated to result from the effects of the proposed reservoir or operation of the Project; therefore, no fisheries-related impacts would be expected. Stream temperatures are currently being monitored, and potential water temper- ature changes will be evaluated after one year's temperature record is com- pleted in the summer of 1982. Supersaturation of nitrogen in the stream waters below a dam could impact fisheries resources. This phenomenon can develop from waters plunging over a spillway into a stilling basin below a dam. Nitrogen supersaturation causes gas bubble disease in fishes and is destructive to both juvenile and adult fishes. The chute spillway planned for the Project would not cause supersaturation of nitrogen. Sport or subsistence fishing opportunities in West Creek are lim- ited by the available fish resources. No fishermen were encountered during Project studies on West Creek. Fishing for Dolly Varden in the tributary near the creek mouth and dip netting for eulachon in lower West Creek appear to present the best opportunities. No impact on sport or subsistence fishing is expected. The Taiya River supports runs of coho, chum, pink, Dolly Varden, and eulachon. Impacts of West Creek flow variations, possible turbidity increases, and possible temperature alterations on these fish resources are expected to be minimal because West Creek contributes only 30% of the total flows of the Taiya River. XIV-4 The submarine routing of the transmission cable from Skagway to Haines would have little impact on marine organisms. Minor physical disrup- tion of marine benthic and intertidal communi ties would occur when the cable is laid. Electrical and magnetic-field effects of the 34.5-kV insulated cable would be minimal and localized with little-to-no physical or behavioral ef- fects on fishes and other organisms. There may be some risk of fishing gear or anchors fouling on the transmission cable. The major mitigation concerns for fisheries are to assure no impact from nitrogen supersaturation through proper design of the spillway and to maintain the alluvial channel in West Creek below the powerhouse and gorge. The latter provision would allow fish access to the tributary on the north side of the creek below the bridge. It is unlikely, however, that the Project would adversely affect access to the tributary. A more complete assessment will be made after topographic mapping of the lower creek section is completed and Project layout has been determined. No mitigation activity would be re- quired for the Dolly Varden in the tributaries of the middle basin because the populations are not expected to be significantly affected by any changes in habitat due to alterations of West Creek flows. Two fisheries enhancement possibilities have been suggested: ( 1 ) providing a water supply source for a hatchery at the tailrace; and (2) modi- fying the tailrace to serve as a spawning channel. It is expected that imple- mentation of either enhancement measure would entail development of required fish facilities by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) or the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (NSRAA). Factors to con- sider in evaluating the potential of the hatchery or spawning channel include quality of water from the reservoir, the capacity of the Taiya River and Taiya Inlet to support an increase of outmigrants, the availability of fish stocks to be used in the facilities, and specific effects of a propagated run on ex- isting fisheries and management of the fisheries. Discussions have been ini- tiated with ADF&G and NSRAA regarding the possibility of developing a spawning channel in the tailrace. Further consultation with these agencies is expected to better assess these fisheries enhancement opportunities. 3. WATER QUALITY West Creek is a glacially-fed stream with highly turbid waters, particularly during the high flow months of summer. Water temperatures range from less than 10 0 C in the summer down to OOC in the winter. Dissolved oxygen is high because of the low temperatures and cascading passages. The clearcut area on the north side of the middle basin (Fig. 16) has been revege- tated and does not affect stream water quality. Currently, there is no known human activity or development in the watershed that has any significant impact. No significant effects on water quality would be expected from the Project. Temporary increases in suspended sediments and turbidity would occur in West Creek during construction due to erosion associated with clearing and grading of lands, spoil disposal, road use, and blasting at the dam site. .. • .. .. • XIV-5 Standard prudent construction industry practices including proper bank stabil- ization, runoff control, and revegetation of exposed soils would minimize im- pacts on water quality. ~ Subsequent to construction, the reservoir would act as a sediment trap removing larger sediments from the downstream flow. Generally, only col- loidal-sized particles would remain in suspension by the time waters passed out of the reservoir. There is, however, the potential for erosion of the ex- posed banks of the reservoir during periods of drawdown. This could have the • effect of increasing turbidity in the reservoir and downstream. .. • No major alterations of the water temperature regime would be ex- pected. The proposed reservoir could cause a slight delay in warming of the stream in the spring and cooling in the fall. An evaluation of potential Project effects on water temperature will be made at the completion of ongoing stream temperature monitoring studies during the summer of 1982. 4. WILDLIFE The major wildlife species in West Creek Valley are mammals and birds. Common mammalian species include black bear, mountain goat, various furbearers, and several species of voles and mice. The Sitka black-tailed deer, moose, and wolf are not found in the valley. A few brown bears may include portions of West Creek within their home range, and there have been occasional sitings of wolverine and coyote. Bird species include various waterfowl, grouse, and the bald eagle. Many other birds, such as other rap- tors, shore birds, and passerines, also occur in the valley. No Federally- listed endangered or threatened species reside in the Project area. The principal impacts on wildlife would result from inundation of habitat by the storage reservoir, loss of habitat on lands required for Proj- ect structures, disturbance of wildlife by construction activities, and wild- life disturbance associated with improved public access. The storage reservoir would inundate approximately 600 acres of conifer forest, riparian shrub, and sedge marsh. Most of the resident wild- life would be immediately lost. Birds and larger mammals would be dislocated to other areas. These animals could only become established on adjacent habi- tat if those areas were capable of supporting them. Indications are that black bear occupy virtually all of the valley floor and forested slopes and, therefore, have fully partitioned the habitat of the watershed among the population. Loss of habitat to the reservoir would require a readjustment of individual bear home ranges and if the remalnlng habi ta t is fully occupied, the loss of one or more bears from the watershed could occur. The side slopes of the valley support a stable mountain-goat popu- lation. The reservoir and other Project features would not be expected to affect any of their habitat and would have no direct impact on the population. XIv-6 The elimination of habitat would impact small mammals that are abundantly distributed in the area of the proposed reservoir, including deer mice, least shrews, porcupines, and red squirrels. Furbearers such as river otter, marten, least weasels, and mink may also be impacted. Some benefits to furbearers would be derived from the reservoir's new riparian habitat although these benefits would be tempered by the annual fluctuations of the reservoir surface. Birds would be only slightly impacted by reservoir inundation. The proposed reservoir area contains less than 3 acres of waterfowl habitat or approximately half of the open stillwater habitat in the valley. In addition, the reservoir would inundate only one square mile of poor quality grouse habi- tat or about one-eighth of the total grouse habitat in the watershed. Virtu- ally all of the bottomland to be inundated has some habitat value for the gen- eral avifauna. The impacts due to the inundation of bird habitats are ex- pected to be small. At maximum pool elevation, the reservoir would create 600 acres of standing water with approximately 5 miles of shoreline and associated shal- lows. It is probable that more waterfowl habitat would be created than de- stroyed, although the habitat quality would be influenced by the extent and timing of reservoir drawdowns. The reservoir would displace a small number of grouse, but the effect on the overall grouse population would be minor. Num- bers of some species of the general avifauna would be reduced and others in- creased, but no species would be eliminated. In fact, habitat may be created for new species resulting in a more diverse avifauna overall. Additional habitat losses, with fewer though similar impacts on wildlife, would develop from emplacement of Project structures. The impacts would be smaller in scale and would result from building the dam, surface pen- stock, powerhouse, access roads, and transmission line. Minimal effects would resul t from construction of the power tunnel because the overlying land sur- face would remain undisturbed. Localized disturbance to wildlife would be caused by construction activities such as blasting, road use, heavy equipment operation, and tunnel boring. Changes in wildlife distribution and behavior, such as relocation of black bear home ranges, would be expected. These changes would be temporary and subject to readjustments on completion of construction. Presently, the West Creek valley supports little recreational hunt- ing or wildlife observation activities, probably because access is limited by the steep valley walls and dense bottomland vegetation. The possibility ex- ists that road improvements associated with Project development would, by im- proving access, encourage an increase in wildlife use. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is interested in any associated increase in hunting pressure on mountain goats in the valley. The West Creek goat population appears capa- ble of sustaining a larger harvest than it has experienced in recent years. • .. • , .. • • • XIV-7 No major wildlife mitigation measures are planned because no signi- ficant detrimental effects on the populations of any wildlife species are anticipated. Planned mitigation measures include minimizing the clearing of vegetation to curtail destruction of habitat during construction; locating the access road and other Project features to minimize disruption of the travel routes of wide-ranging mammals within the narrow valley-bottom corridor near the dam site; revegetating areas denuded during the construction process; and designing the above-ground sections of the transmission line to minimize potential impact on rap tors such as the bald eagle • 5. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potential impacts on historic and archaeological resources were evaluated based on field reconnaissance, review of ethnographic literature, and interviews with local residents. The evaluation focused on locations of potential ground disturbance associated with construction of the dam and res- ervoir, power tunnel, powerhouse, and transmission line. Archaeological and historical field investigations were limited to surface inspection of study areas. No excavations or test pits were dug in compliance with agreements with the National Park Service and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Of- ficer. No cultural resources were found at the proposed dam site, within the proposed reservoir, or in the areas of expected construction activity associated with the power tunnel or powerhouse. Consequently, no impacts on historic and archaeological resources are expected relative to the development of these Project features. The transmission line could be buried throughout its route within the National Park to avoid negative aesthetic impacts. Within the National Park and along the west side of the Taiya River, the transmission line corri- dor would cross the historic Chilkoot Trail, northern portions of the Dyea community, and other areas of gold rush activity (Fig. 17). In this same gen- eral area, parts of the native Village of Dyea may have existed, though its presence was not identified during current field investigations. Evidence of the pre-gold rush native village may have been overlain by or incorporated into subsequent site developments • Although the potential exists for cultural impacts west of the Taiya River, the area has been disturbed by relatively recent activities. The short section of the corridor between the powerhouse and Dyea Road is criss- crossed with roads and tracks. It contains houses, sheds, and barbed wire fencing along with abandoned wood stoves, large kitchen appliances, motor vehicle parts, and other contemporary discarded materials. Parts of the area have been selectively logged. The State Department of Transportation and Pub- lic Facilities has cleared the roadside within the right-of-way. The trans- mission line would likely be located within this roadside clearing. The road, built in the 1940's, was cleared by pushing the vegetation and topsoil to each side. There is some disturbance beyond the roadside where excess construction XIv-8 material was deposited. Most cultural resources of the gold rush period are located away from Dyea Road, although the Chilkoot Trail crosses the road approximately 0.1 mile northwest of the Taiya River bridge. After determining the exact transmission route within the corridor on the west side of the Taiya River, additional archaeological/historical investigation would be required. Final location of this section of the trans- mission line would necessitate consulting with and obtaining approval of the Alaska State Historical Preservation Officer and the National Park Service. Four potential areas of concern were found within the transmission corridor on the east side of the Taiya River Valley: the modern Chilkoot Trail and trailhead; the wooden structures and out-buildings east of Dyea Road at Mile 8.4; the National Park Service ranger station at Mile 8.3; and the marine shell deposit at Mile 8.0 (Fig. 17). By avoiding these areas in final routing, the need for investigating these sites further may be eliminated. Similarly, in the corridor section between the Taiya River and Skagway, potential impacts would be eliminated by avoiding specific areas con- taining cultural materials. These materials include a single steel wire tele- graph/telephone line that runs over the east ridge at about Mile 6.6 and, of less significance, the shed and possible other materials at the trailhead of the Skyline Trail, the pet cemetery, and the suspension bridge remains near the Skagway River (Fig. 17). Mitigation for historical and archaeological resources usually takes two forms: avoidance of impacts by relocating Project facilities and scientific data recovery. Pending results of additional surveys in the sensi- tive areas noted above, no specific mitigation requirements are indicated at this time. The potential does exist for cultural remains to be encountered unexpectedly during construction. In that event, investigation of the find would be necessary to determine its value and whether mitigation would be nec- essary. 6. SOCIOECONOMIC The principal socioeconomic impacts would be the housing needs and payroll spending of temporary construction workers on the Ci ty of Skagway. The Project site is located within Skagway's corporate limits approximately 10 miles by road from the center of Town. It is common practice in Alaska for dam construction workers to live in "bachelor quarters" near a project site. The remote location of many construction sites, the need to import workers with special skills, transpor- tation difficulties, and union requirements to provide worker transportation between the job site and the place of worker residence all contribute to this practice. Except for workers already living in the local area, Alaska dam construction projects usually have few workers accompanied by dependents. Be- cause housing would be provided by the construction contractor at the Project • .. • .. • XIV-9 site, the average work force of 100 men would have little impact on the City of Skagway's summer housing shortage, schools, and other facilities. However, if the City of Skagway adopts land use policies that would restrict the loca- tion of temporary housing at the Project site, the impacts of temporary con- struction workers on the City's housing stock and public facilities would re- quire further investigation. The construction contractor would provide meals for workers living at the construction site. Some supplies would likely be purchased locally. Most construction equipment and materials are not available locally and would be purchased from available sources located outside Alaska and transported to the site either by sea, road, or rail. A portion of the construction workers' payroll would be spent for entertainment and personal supplies in Skagway. Another possible socioeconomic impact would be a tax loss to the City of Skagway due to the purchase of private lands for the Project. Project lands and properties would not be taxable as public assets. However, the amount of private land to be used for the Project is very small. The Project reservoir and dam site are located almost entirely on State land. A portion of the reservoir would include State lands which have been allocated to the City of Skagway for future private sale. (See Fig. 18.) Ten acres of National Park land would probably be used for the powerhouse site. Approximately 2 acres of private land would be used for the tailrace as well as approxi- mately 2 acres of State lands and 4 acres of National Park lands. The as- sessed value of the private land and Skagway allotment lands currently is estimated to equal about $75,000 (Charles Horan, December 1, 1981).(14) The value of the remainder of State lands is estimated to equal about $250, 000. In the area of the Project, the City of Skagway levies a property tax on the assessed value of private land of 19% of $4. 00 per $1, 000 assessed value or $0.76 per $1,000. Possible tax revenue losses from private lands and State allotment lands (if sold for private use) currently would equal about $60 a year. In 1981 the City did not assess personal property, indicating no off- setting tax revenue would accrue from a tax on the value of construction equipment to be located at the Project site. If the tax were collected, it would be assessed at the same rate as for property tax. The State-maintained Dyea Road will provide public access to the Project site. The road may have short periods of restricted travel when con- • struction equipment is being mobilized. Equipment could be moved during peri- ods of light traffic and would avoid periods of peak summer use of the Klon- dike Gold Rush National Historical Park. No permanent road closures or modi- fications of the State road would be required during or after Project con- struction. The Project area is not served by electric or telephone service. The site is not within the franchise service area of the local private elec- tric and telephone company. Construction would require providing electric and telephone service at the Project site. Electrical service could be provided by the construction contractor or purchased from the electric utility. XIV-10 Providing electric and telephone services to the Project offers the possibility of providing one or both of these services to local residents liv- ing in the Taiya River Valley near the Dyea Road. Since this opportunity for service occurs outside the franchise area of the electric and phone company, a mechanism for financing these improvements would need to be developed. The small population of the area may make the cost of improvements difficult to finance. The impact on future residential development in the area would also need to be considered. The National Park Service would be a major participant in any discussions on extending electrical or telephone service wi thin the park boundary. 7. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES The Chilkoot Trail Unit of the Klondike Gold Rush National Histori- cal Park is the only established recreation facility in the vicinity of the Project. This Unit totals approximately 9,100 acres and consists of a corri- dor of parkland approximately one mile wide and 17 miles long, paralleling the entire length of the Chilkoot Trail within the United States. The Unit lies principally in a north-south direction, with the south boundary extending to saltwater at Taiya Inlet and the north boundary located at Chilkoot Pass on the United States-Canadian border. Included in the Unit are the historic townsite of Dyea, the 36-campsite Dyea Campground, the Chilkoot Trail, and all related historic sites and artifacts along the trail and in the vicinity of Dyea. The modern Chilkoot Trail begins where the Dyea Road crosses the Taiya River. The trail is located on the east side of the river and traverses Chil- koot Pass to Lake Bennett, Canada. (15,16) More than 2,500 hikers traveled the trail in 1981 with almost 80% of the use occurring in the months of July and August. (17) There are several trails in the vicinity of the Project in addition to the famous Chilkoot Trail. The little-used Lost Lake Trail begins on the west side of the Taiya River Valley about .75 mile south of West Creek near Dyea. (See Fig. 16.) The trail climbs steeply for about 2 miles to Lost Lake which is nestled on the slope above the Taiya Valley. The only other trail is the Skyline and AB Mountain Trail which begins from the Dyea Road near Yaku- tania Point and extends 6 miles north to AB Mountain. Most hikers only travel the first 3 miles to a viewpoint of Skagway and Taiya Inlet. There are no recreational facilities located in the West Creek Val- ley. A logging road extends for approximately 2 miles from the Taiya Valley into the lower West Creek Valley, but not as far as the proposed dam site. An informal trail beginning at the road's end provides access to the upper val- ley. Some residents of Skagway hunt, hike, and pick berries within the middle section of West Creek Valley. Some firewood is gathered in the lower valley. The Haines-Skagway Area Land-Use Plan classifies the West Creek Valley as public recreation land. Alaska Department of Natural Resources' management policy recommends that this area be managed in a manner that per- mi ts existing recreational uses to continue and is compatible with Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park objectives. (18) .. ., .. • • .. XIV-11 During construction, access to the West Creek Valley for recreation would be limited. However, there is the possibility of providing a dam over- look to accommodate public interest in construction activities. Construction activity, traffic, and noise may affect the recreationists at Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, particularly at the Dyea Campground, and hikers along the first 2 miles of the modern Chilkoot Trail. This impact would pri- marily occur in July and August when the majority of people visit the Park. There should be no impact to tourists visiting Skagway and the Skagway River Valley nor to the cruise ship, ferry, and airplane travelers in the region. Maintenance of the road to the dam would improve access to the val- ley. The reservoir and improved access could stimulate recreation use in the Project area. In addition to the possibility of a dam overlook, other possi- ble recreation facilities include a hiking trail to Upper West Creek Valley and a boat launch ramp. Recreationists would probably be primarily Skagway residents. Visitors to the Project area would have to travel through the National Park but there should be minimal impact to existing Park uses and management objectives. (18) 8. AESTHETIC RESOURCES Most of the Taiya River Valley floodplain is included in the Klon- dike Gold Rush National Historical Park. The Dyea Road, running from Skagway through the valley, is frequently traveled by tourists and residents. The vegetation of the valley is mixed coniferous-deciduous forests (western hem- lock, mountain hemlock, Sitka spruce, alpine fir, lodgepole pine, black cot- tonwood, alder, willow, and poplar) and provides dense cover during the summer except along areas that have been cleared, such as roadways. Visitors and residents alike have a high appreCiation for scenic values. Project impacts that would affect residents and visitors to the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park would occur in the Taiya River Valley. During construction, traffic would increase, the noise of clearing, grading, blasting, and other activities would be evident, and scenic values would be diminished by construction of Project features such as the penstock, powerhouse, tailrace, and transmission line. Construction activity, though temporary, would be greatest during the months of July and August when most National Park visitation occurs • Subsequent to construction, impacts would be minimal because of mitigative measures incorporated into Project design, particularly as they apply to the penstock, powerhouse, tailrace, and transmission line. The 3-foot-diameter, 1,520-foot-long penstock is located on the west sideslope of the Taiya River Valley on State of Alaska land and in part within the National Park boundary. The 25-foot-high concrete powerhouse and 1,150-foot-long tail- race are located within the National Park. The penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace might be visible from the Lost Lake Trail, several points along the XIV-12 Chilkoot Trail, the Dyea Road, and several residences in the Taiya River Val- ley. The National Park Service and State of Alaska have a cooperative manage- ment a,reement to protect the scenic qualities of the Taiya River Val- ley. (19 Mitigation measures to protect the scenic resources will include painting the penstock and revegetating the right-of-way to blend in with the existing landscape. The transmission line could be located underground where it passes through the National Park. Most of its route between the powerhouse and Skag- way would probably parallel the Dyea Road, resulting in reduced clearing re- quirements for the right-of-way. Between the National Park and Skagway, the line would be single-pole construction supporting stand-off insulators and would be designed to minimize any adverse impacts to scenic value. Submarine routing of the transmission line between Skagway and Haines would eliminate potential aesthetic impacts along Taiya Inlet. The dam and spillway would impact the scenery in upper West Creek. However, there is currently little public use of this area and these facili- ties would not be visible from the National Park or the Taiya Valley. 9. AIR QUALITY The air quality within the Skagway City limits is excellent. Winds, often in excess of 20 mph in Skagway and the nearby river valleys, and the lack of air pollution sources prevent concentration of air contaminants. No polluting industries are located within the City of Skagway, and no sources of air pollutants exist which require a Federal or State operating permit. The nearest permitted sources of air contaminants are located in Haines. These sources are some 20 miles distant from the Project and do not affect air quality in the Skagway area. The Project is located within the Southeastern Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (SAIAQCR). The entire air quality control region is under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva- tion. For this air quality control region, the State of Alaska has determined that for all regulated air pollutants (total suspended particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, and lead) the ambient concentrations fall within all Federal and State air quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 1980). The Project study area (and the entire SAIAQCR) is designated an attainment area for all regu- lated air pollutants. (20) During the construction phase of the West Creek Hydroelectric Proj- ect, pollutants emitted to the atmosphere would be of two types: fugitive dust generated by transportation and construction activities, and gaseous emissions from internal combustion engines. The fugitive dusts would result from land clearing, road construction and maintenance, blasting, site prepara- tion, rock crushing, concrete batching, and vehicular traffic. Gaseous emis- sions would be produced from internal combustion engines and would consist of • .. XIV-13 oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbons. In general, these emissions would be temporary, lasting only during the construc- tion phase and would not significantly impact air quality. Additional pollutants would be emitted from the reservoir clearing operations and during periods of forest residue burning. These emissions would consist of particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen. These emissions would be localized and temporary, and would have no long-term air quality impacts in the study area. There may be a minor increase in local fog in the vicinity of the reservoir. However, operation of the West Creek Project would not cause or contribute to any air quality impacts in the study area. 10. LAND USE As shown in Fig. 18 and Table XIV-1, most land in the Project vicini ty is State selection land which is being transferred from the Federal Government. Some of this land has been alloted to Skagway for eventual pri- vate sale. The Federal Government also owns about 600 acres included in Klon- dike Gold Rush National Historical Park. Only about 55 acres, or 0.3%, of lands in the vicinity of the Project, are privately owned. The Department of Natural Resources, in its Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan, has classified State selection lands in the West Creek Valley for recreation use.(18) The intent of the classification is to keep the valley in an undeveloped state. However, the plan classification can be changed to meet new land use requirements. Modification of the plan will require a public hearing with legal notices. The process would probably take 6 months to 1 year. Construction of the Project would require about 10 acres of National Park land for the powerhouse site. The tailrace right-of-way from the powerhouse to West Creek would use about 8 acres of private, National Park and State land. A penstock would cross State and National Park land for a distance of about 1,400 feet on the hillside located above the powerhouse. The dam and reservoir would use about 600 acres of State land of which about ~ 100 acres is Skagway allotment land. (See Fig. 18.) Additionally, an easement or right-of-way across private land and an easement along the State highway right-of-way would be required for the transmission line. The proposed powerhouse site, tailrace, and portions of the pen- stock and transmission line would be within the boundary of the National Park. An Act of Congress would be required to allow construction of a power plant on any land which is within a National Park boundary or to relocate the park boundary. However, it is possible that permission to build the transmis- sion line within the National Park boundary can be secured administratively. XIV-14 The principal land use change associated with the Project would be the flooding of the partially-wooded upper West Creek Valley. The lower ele- vation, eastern part of the valley, has some commercial forests of spruce and hemlock. The area to be inundated by the reservoir is in the upper part of the valley where soil conditions and drainage are generally not conducive to commercial forest production. The land to be used for the powerhouse and tailrace is covered pri- marily with brush and cottonwood trees. Adjacent privately-owned bottomlands of brush and pasture would be crossed by the transmission line from the power- house to the State highway. The transmission line would then follow the State road except at a point where a hillside is crossed at the head of Nahku Bay. The State highway right-of-way crosses through lands owned by the National Park Service and Skagway State allotment funds. Except for two unoccupied cabins, no structures would be lost due to Project construction or operation. No valuable agricultural lands in the area would be impacted by the Project. No permanent garden plots or improved pasture lands in private ownership would be used for the powerhouse site or transmission line route. A local access dirt road adjacent to the proposed route for the powerhouse tailrace may lie within the Project boundaries. Road access would still be maintained. .. .. .. • .. .. .. • HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IN PROJECT VICINITY· Category Federal: Bureau of Land Management ••••••• Park Service ................... . State Selection Lands (excluding Skagway allocation lands and private claim lands): Skagway Allocation •••••••••••••• Private Ownership •••••.••••••••• Private Claim for State Land •••• Taiya Inlet ••••••••••••••.•••••• Total ........................ . Area Within Klondike National Park Boundary ....................... . Approximate Number of Acres 640 590 18,520 230 55 330 120 20,480 2,230 • See Fig. 18 for boundaries of area used in Table • Source: Planimeter estimates made from maps contained in following publications: TABLE XIV-1 Percentage of Total Area 3.1 2.9 90.4 1 • 1 0.3 1.6 0.6 -- 100.0 10.9 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan, June 1979.(18) U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park Land Acquisition Plan (Draft), April 11, 1980. (21 ) .. • • SECTION XV PROJECT COSTS 1 • GENERAL Project capital and annual costs were estimated for input to the economic analysis discussed in Section VI. Direct Construction Cost estimates for the Project were prepared for the selected arrangement based on the pre- liminary design layouts and details discussed in the previous section. The Total Investment Cost was arrived at by summing the Direct Construction Costs of each major Project component and adding Indirect Costs and Interest During Construction. The effect of escalation was considered and the Total Invest- ment Cost adjusted to reflect a project on-line date in January 1982. Annual operating costs such as operation and maintenance, owner administration, insurance, and interim replacements were estimated. 2. PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS a. Direct Construction Cost This cost includes the total of all costs directly chargeable to the actual construction of the Project, which can be considered equivalent to a contractor's bid based on a January 1982 bid price level, and reflects esti- mated inflation of costs which would occur during the 2-1/2-year construction period. This corresponds to the Project entering into service in July 1983. The Direct Construction Cost was developed based on unit prices from actual contractor's bids on similar projects, adjusted to reflect loca- tion, project size and bid price level and applied to quantities estimated for the major construction features. A contractor's estimate of the tunnel was independently made by Diversified Constructors, Inc. Mechanical and electri- cal item costs were based on preliminary quotations from equipment suppliers, catalog values and experience costing data. Detailed Direct Construction Cost estimates for the Project are shown in Table XII-2. b • Contingencies To allow for unforeseen conditions during construction and miscel- laneous items not included in the estimate, an allowance of 20% for Contingen- cies was applied to the Direct Construction Cost of major civil items and 15% to the Direct Construction Cost of the powerhouse electrical and mechanical equipment, and the transmission line. The costs of recreation facilities and mitigation were assumed to be very small and are included in the contingency allowance. XV-2 c. Engineering and Owner Administration Engineering and Owner Administr~tion costs are based on actual experience with costs for similar work. This item includes all preliminary engineering work; Project feasibility and environmental studies; field inves- tigations; applications for and processing of required permits and licenses; final design and preparation of construction contract documents; inspection of construction; and Owner Administration. An allowance of 15% of the sum of the Direct Construction Cost plus Contingencies is considered a reasonable esti- mate for this item. d. Total Construction Cost The Total Construction Cost includes the Direct Construction Cost plus Contingencies and Engineering and Owner Administration. A summary of Project costs showing all cost factors leading to the Total Construction Cost is shown in Table XII-1. The Total Construction Cost for the Project with a bid date of January 1982 is estimated to be $61,324,000. e. Interest During Construction Interest During Construction (IDC) is dependent on the interest rate at which money is available for the Project and the cash flow during con- struction. Using the inflation-free interest rate of 3% (as discussed in Sec- tion VI) and typical cash flow patterns for projects similar to the West Creek Project, IDC was calculated to be 3.6% of the Total Construction Cost. f. Total Investment Cost The Total Investment Cost (TIC) is the sum of the Total Construc- tion Cost and Interest During Construction. The TIC for the West Creek Proj- ect is $63,532,000. This TIC is for a Project bid in January 1982 and coming on-line in June 1984. g. Escalation Adjustment The cost estimates discussed above include estimates of escalation over the 2-1/2-year construction period. Thus, they represent a project com- ing on-line in June 1984. In order to compare project feasibility in the man-• ner prescribed by the APA, it was necessary to take escalation out of the estimate. This would give an "inflation-free" estimate for a project which would theoretically be built at January 1982 costs of material and labor. Escalation was estimated to be 12% of the TIC. Thus, the TIC for an "infla- tion-free" project would be $55,908,000. 3. ANNUAL COSTS The principal annual cost of any hydro project is the debt service on the capital cost. Since the financial terms for the Project are still un- certain, these costs were not computed except as part of the economic analysis discussed in Part A. (See Section VI.) • • • • • " • .. • XV-3 Annual costs for operation and maintenance, administration, insur- ance, and interim replacement of Project components were estimated based on experience on similar projects as well as FERC guidelines. The variable annual costs are estimated to be $634,000 at the January 1982 cost level • .. • • • 1 • 2. 3. 4. 5. HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Item Preparatory Work . .......................... . Dam and Reservoir ..........•................ Power Conduit ....•.......................... Powerhouse ................................. . Switchyard and Transmission Line •••••••••••• DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST (Bid 1/82, On-Line 6/84) .................. Contingencies .................................. . Subtotal ................................. . Engineering and Owner Administration •••••••••••• TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Bid 1/82, On-Line 6/84) .................. Interest During Construction ••••••••••••••••••.• TOTAL INVESTMENT COST ••••••••••••••••••••• (Bid 1/82, On-Line 6/84) Escalation During Construction •••••••••••••••••• TOTAL INVESTMENT COST ••••••••••••.•••.•••• (Inflation-free on 1/82) TABLE XV-1 Estimated Cost $ 2,786,000 11,571,000 12,348,000 5,382,000 13,273,000 $45,360,000 8,139,000 $53,499,000 7,825,000 $61 ,324,000 2,208,000 $63,532,000 7,624,000 $55,908,000 RWB 50-41 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 .. .. • ., R. W. Beck and Associate. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROJ ECT _W_e_s_t __ C_r_e_e_k_H..:.y_d_r_o_e_1_e_c_t_r_l_· c_P_r_o....;J=-· e_c_t __ FEATURE Prep ar a tory Wo r k LOCATION __ A_1_a_s_k_a ______ w. O. H_H_-_1_5_5_9_-_H_G_3_-_AA __ TYPE EST TAKE OFF ARN PRICED JAS "ALC CHKD WB APPROVED GGG DATE February 1982 .-----v Bid Price Level -Januarv 1982 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL Preparatory Work $2,786,000 Improving Existing Road 2.2 MI 150 000 330 000 West Creek Bridge LS 250 000 New Access Road 1.0 MI 875 000 87'1 nnn Mobilization LS 1,331 000 --- $2,786,000 Sheet~of~ RWB 5D~41 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 .. • R. W. Beck and Associates CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROJECT_W_e_s_t_C_r_e_e_k_H.::.,.y_d_r_o_el_e_c_t_r_l_· c_P_r_o~j_e_c_t __ F£ATURE __ D_a_rn_a_n_d_R_e_s_e_r_v_o_i_r __ LOCATION _Al~a::....s:....:k~a~ ____ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-AA TYPE EST:_P ANNIN ~ ---L TAKE OFF ARN PRICED JAS CALC CHKD WVB APPROVED GGG DATE February 1982 Bi CI prirp T,p'pl -.T;:,n11"''-'' lOR? ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL Darn and Reservoir $11 571.000 Reservoir Clearing 330 AC 4,000.00 81,320.000 1. 320 000 Diversion is 2 569 000 2.2.1 Diversion Conduits a. Select Gravel Backfill 8,000 CY 10.00 80,000 b. 11'{;1 r.oncrete "Pine 1,530 1F 1 360.00 2,081,000 2.2.2 Cofferdams a Fill 6,320 CY 5.00 32 000 b. P1Rl'>tir T,iner 6,620 SF 1. 60 11 000 ? ? "\ r.onrrptp r.,tnff r.nll::l,- ;:, C:tr11rt11'-"" 1 r.onr,-prp 100 CY 500.00 50 000 h rpmPllt 580 CWT 12.20 7 000 (' Rpinfnrrino C:rppl 10,300 1BS 1. 25 13 000 I? ? !J. ni1Tpr<::i on r.onrt,; r Pl IOC: !O M!OQQ r,....nl",-"r", 140 CY 250 00 35 000 h r.pmpnt 800 CWT 12.20 10 000 c Gravel Fill 2,710 CY 11.00 30 000 I? ? <; T",mn",-",,-,, n;H".,..,,;r.n 1S 20.000 2.2.6 Dewaterin£ and Care of Water 1S 200 000 Dam ~ 4 200 000 2.3.1 Excavation a. Common 35 780 CY 9 nn 122.000 b. Dental 200 CY 7000 14 000 ~L,905,OOO SheetLof9~ RWB 50-41 2 ? 4 .. .. • R. W. Beck and Associate. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Proj ect FEATURE Dam and Reservoir LOCATION __ A_1_a_s_k_a _____ w. o. _H_H_-_1_5_5_9_-H_G_3_-AA __ TYPE EST" PLANNING-::RJmD£XIIII{~K TAKE OFF ARN PRICED JAS CALC CHKD WVB APPROVED GGG DATE Februar~ 1982 .---- Rii! Pri~e T.f>" ·f>l .T::ln::l IT, 1 q,q? ITEt.I AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY ~IT t.lAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL Dam and Reservoir lCont. ) 2.3.2 Embankment a. Rock Placement 254,000 CY 3.75 953,000 b Pro~eSSf>i! (;r::tve1 30,500 CY 15.00 458,000 2.3.3 Concrete Face & Grouting a Grout Curtain 5,060 LF 110.00 557,000 b. Facinp-ani! P::tr::tnet Wall 3,790 CY 200.00 758,000 c Cutoff Slab 660 CY 250.00 165,000 i! Cemf'nt 25,100 CWT 12.20 306,000 e RpinfnTC'inp-Stppl 533,400 LBS 1. 25 667,000 ISnillw::lv 1$3.482.000 ,.., 4 1 FYC'::l"::lt-;nn R r.nmmnn 87 900 CY 7.50 659,000 b. Rock 245 000 CY 11.25 2,756,000 2.4.2 Soi11wav Weir a. Concrete 180 CY 200.00 36,000 b. Cement 1 010 CWT 12.20 13 .000 c. Reinforcing Steel 14 570 LBS 1. 25 18,000 1$7 346 000 SheetlofL RWB 50-41 3 3.1 • , R. W. Beck and~Associate. • CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Proj eet .FEATURE power Condll; t LOCATION _-<A:ulu::8...::S'-"k""8 _____ W.O. HH 1559 HG3-AA TYPE EST:_PLANNING-JHIl[~IX&6mII __ TAKE-OFF ABN PRICED JAS CALC. CHKD.--"WV,-,-"",B ___ APPROVED ---,OG"-"'G!.>.G'---___ DATE February 19~ R;rl Pr;('p T upl T"nl1"r 1qR? ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY LNIT IoIAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Slht"ot"::ll TOTAL Power Cononit" 512 14R 000 Intake ~ 1.757.000 3.1.1 Excavation a. Conunon 5.920 CY 9.00 47 000 b. Rock 9.820 CY 11.25 110 000 c. Trim 1. 090 CY 45.00 49,000 3.1. 2 Backfill 160 CY 10.00 2,000 3.1. 3 Rockbolts 2.680 1F 50.00 134 000 3.1.4 Structural Concrete a. Concrete 880 CY 650.00 572 000 b. Cement 4 970 CWT 12.20 61 000 c. Reinforcin2 Steel 88 210 1BS 1. 25 110 000 3.1. 5 Gate and Hoist 1S 200 000 316 Tr::u::;hrac.ks 1S 90 000 3.1. 7 Ice Prevention & Reservoir 1S 15 000 Monitorin2: J 1 8 Ac.cess to Int"::lke a Bac.kfill 540 CY 8.00 4 000 b Concrete 260 CY 240.00 62.000 (' Cpmput 1 400 CWT 12 20 17 000 d Rp;nfor(';no ~t"pel ,}'i 'i00 T.RS 1 25 32 000 e Ro"rl 3?O T.li' 130 00 42 000 3 1 q Powprl iup ~ Intake 1S 210.000 ~t.rll('tl"'''' ;>1,751,000 • .. • ~ • • " • RWB R. W. Beck and Associates SO-41 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROJECT West Cr:eek II¥dr:oe] ectd c Er:oject FEATURE Power Conduit LOCATION Alaska ~===-_____ W.O. HH-1559-HG3-AA TYPE EST' PLANNI NG ~1I&SlIHI TAKE OFF ARN PRICED .J .. A .. S_ CALC CHKD WB APPROVED GGG DATEFebruary 1982 .----- Bid Price Level -Januar 1982 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY LtlIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST subtotal TOTAL ~ Power Conduit (Cont.) 3.2 Tunnel and Surl!e Shaft $ 9,864,000 3.1.1 Excavation in DiS Portal a. Rock 3 920 CY 20.00 66 000 b. Trim 370 CY 45.00 17 000 3.2.2 Excavation -All Classes 22 240 CY 410.00 9.118 000 Tunnel ,., 2 3 Excavflr; on -Rock Tr;:m 180 CY 400.00 72 000 3.2.4 Excavation -All Classes 350 CY 400.00 140 000 Shaft 3 2 'i Srppl Sprq (mRrpr;;:tl q onlv) 1q 1RO T.RS 1 35 53 000 326 Rork Rolrq (mRrpriRlq nnlv) 21 ')40 LF 7.45 160 000 i ') 7 T,in;no a r.nnrrptf> ')10 r.v 'i')O 00 120 000 b Cpmpnt 1 300 r.WT 12 20 16 000 c Rein£nrr;no Srppl lR RnO T.RS 1 25 24 000 d Steel 7 5'~ ~l OL,O T,RS ? ')0 78 000 3 3 Penstock $ 727,000 11 1 F.xcavation R r.ommon ')00 r.v 7 50 2 000 ~ (Sock ?OO r.v ')f, 00 5 000 - i ~ ? "rppl Ppnc::r()('k "1Il lRR oon T,RS ') 50 471 000 111 nrpqqpr r.ol1nl;noq - 7 ')' V1 2 EA 10 000.00 20,000 S10 362 000 Sheel...2of...2.... RWB 50-41 3 1 .. (. .. R. W. Beck and·Associatel CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE • , ~ PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Proj ect Power Conduit FEATURE ___________ LOCATION __ Atl.oL1 Ai::I.liskllo.AtI.....-____ W.o. HH-J 559 HG3-AA TYPE EST:_PLANNING-HI;(~~ __ TAKE-OFF ARN PRICED JAS CALC. CHKD._...;..WV~B __ APPROVED GGG DATE February 1982 ~~-~--82 Bid Price Level Januar 19 ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL Pensrork (r.onr ) 334 r.onrrprp 250 CY 700.00 175 000 335 r.pmpnr 1 410 CWT 12.20 17 000 3.3.6 Reinforcin~ Steel 20 000 LBS 1. 25 ~5--,-000 337 Cl earim! 2 AC 6.000.00 12.000 i Is ?'1q noo Sheet .2...of~ RWB 50-41 4 4.1 _4·2 4.3 -- 4.4 4 "i 4 n • • " .', R. W. Beck and Associates CONSTRUCTION COST ESTI MATE PROJ ECT _W=eliSLt ---.l.....CrL.t:.e et::..k~HD-:y)'-ld.J.JrL.J.o..u;e,,-,Ju;e ..... c .... t .... r...Lj.J..;c.....J...P.L..r~QJd-· e!iO.c ... tl.....-_ FE ATURE __ --'P!:..:o:::cw~e=-:r=_.!hc!.!o~u~s~e=___ ___ LOCAT ION ----=A:.:::l=-=a=-=s::.::.ka:=...-_____ w. o. HH-1559-HG3-AA TYPE EST: _PLANNI NG~IXElIlmIIXDlfl8lGII __ TAKE-OFF Ml,S (ROE I PRICED JAS /PTcl CALC. CHKD. WB APPROVED GGG/PTC/PC DATE February 1982 -JLS WLS ----'-'--'-=---B' d P' L 1 J 1982 1 l rlce eve -anuar ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL Powerhouse $ 5.382 000 r.ivil T.1r.,.,-lrc S 7g"j 000 L~ 1 1 Powerhouse Excavation a. Common 2 520 CY 7.50 19.000 b. Rock 3 940 CY 35.00 138,000 4.1 2 Fill 3 980 CY 5.00 20 000 4.1. 3 Substructure a. Concrete 520 CY 740.00 385,000 b. Cement 2.930 CWT' 12.20 36,000 c. Reinforcing Steel 62.400 LBS 1.25 78,000 4 , 4 Sup~structure a Precast-Roof Panels 2.240 SF 21.00 47,000 b Prer::l~r W,qll 'P,qnels 4 040 SF 15.00 61. 000 C 'Precast 'Re::lm~ 40 LF 270.00 11,000 Mechanical Equipment $1,713,000 4 :> , Tl1rhine~ .Valves & GovernorE 2 EA 729 000.00 1,458,000 422 Mi~r Merhrmic,ql Eauinmenr LS 255 000 Electrical Eauipment $2,061,000 4.3.1 Generators 2 EA 581 000.00 1.162.000 4.3.2 Accessorv Electrical Eauin. LS 899 000 20 Ton Mobile r.r,qne LS $ 150 000 150,000 1 Mi~rell::lne() 10::: l,S $ 100 000 100 000 A rchi t:<=>f' 1""1,1'"" 1 LS S 60 000 60 000 - Is /f 879 000 Sheet~of!L RWB 50-41 4 4 7 • .. • .. R. W. Beck ana Associate. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PR~Ecr West Creek Hydroelectric Project . FEATURE Powerhouse LOCATION Alaska W.O. HlI-1559-HG3-AA TYPE EST:_PLANNI NG-W~~ TAKE-OFF MI,S IROE PRICEo.TAS IPTC CALC. CHKO.--,WV",-,,-,B.L...-__ APPROVED GGGIPTC IPC DATE Febrllary 1982 WLS WLS B·d 1 1982 1 Prlce Leve -January ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY lJIIlT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL Powerhouse (Cont ) Tailrace _S "icn nnn 471 Common Exr::lv::lrion 5 290 CY 9 00 48.000 4. 7 2 EmbRnkmenr 2 7<10 r.v 9 00 25 000 473 Channel Lining a. Plastic Liner 42 000 SF 1.60 67,000 b GrAvel 2 100 CY 50.00 105,000 474 r.nnrrere r.nlvprt Wing/ Ret::lining W::llls ::l rnnrrete 230 CY 9QQ,00 207 000 h r",m",nr 1 2CJ7 r.WT 12 20 In 000 r R",;nfnrr;nICT Stepl 27 fiOO T.BS 1 2 "i 35 000 S 503 000 Sheet~oL.2 ... RWB 50-41 5 ') 1 'i 2 5.3 5.4 5.5 • • • • • .' R. W. Beck and Associates CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROJ ECT __ W~e~s~t_C~r=--e~e~k~H~Yr....::d~r:...:::o:...:e:.::l:..::e~c:..::t~r-=i..:::c--.:P=-r=-o=.,J./....· e::.:c::.:t~_ FEATURE _S_W_l_' t_c_h--.:y~a_r_d_a_n_d ___ LOCATION Alaska W.O. HH-1559-HG3-AA Transmission TYPE EST:_PLANNING~lQlII~lGlII __ TAKE-OFF WI,S PRICED WI,S CALC. CHKD. WLS APPROVED _----"'-P-"'C'--:: __ DATEFebruary 1982 B'd P . I 1982 1 rlce Leve -January ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTrTY UNIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Sl1hrnr::l1 TOTAL Shlirrhv::lrn ;;, Tr::ln~mi~~inn Line LS IS11 271 oon - 5hlitc:hvarrl Is 401 nnn 5 1 1 Tr::ln~fnrmpr 1,S l':l.A nnn 'i ~ .2 Af'f'p<><>,.,rv C::T.ri rrhi ncr 1,S, 21)1 nnn Rurierl Tran~mi~~ion Line 16. " 1..." 1 ? MT /,n7 nnn nn Is 4RR onn 4R8 000 Overhead Transmission Cable 5.0 MI 203.000.00 $ 1,016,000 1,016,000 Submarine Transmission Cable 16.7 MI 648.070.00 $10,759,000 10,759,000 Substations 1$ 609.000 5.5.1 Haines Terminal LS 231,000 5.5.2 Switchine Stations LS 231,000 5.5.3 Skaewav Substation LS 147.000 I S 13 273 000 Sheet2....oL.2_ .. • , • • SECTION XVI CITED REFERENCES (1) CH2M Hill, Reconnaissance Assessment of Energy Alternatives, Chilkat Basin Region, prepared for the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority, February 1980 • (2) R. W. Beck and Associates, Addendum to Reconnaissance Report on Alterna- tives for the Haines-Skagway Region, prepared for the State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority, April 1981. (3) Nor'West Pacific Corporation, 1979 Updating of the Feasibility Study and Report on Generation of Electrical Power From Wood Refuse, prepared for the Schnabel Lumber Company, 1979. (4) United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatological Data, Alaska, 1976-1980. (5) State of Alaska, Long-Term Energy Plan, August 1981 • (6) Bonneville Power Administration, Mod-2, New Source of Windpower for the Pacific Northwest, September 1980. (7) United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Division, Water Resources Data for Alaska (formerly "Surface Water Records of Alaska"), from May 1962 through September 1977. (8) United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, The Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-4 Computer Program, Monthly Streamflow Simula- tion, February 1971. (9) Linsley, Kohler, Paulhus, Hydrology for Engineers, 2nd Edition, 1975. (10) United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams, 1974. (11) United States Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau (now National Weather Service), Technical Paper No. 47, PMP and Rainfall-Frequency Data for Alaska, 1963 • (12) Davis and Sorensen, Handbook of Applied Hydraulics, 3rd Edition, McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1969. (13) United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, The Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-5 Computer Program, Simulation of Flood and Con- servation Systems, June 1979. XVI-2 (14) Horan, Charles, City of Skagway Assessor, Letter to Skip Elliott (Skagway City Manager) on estimates of assessed property values in the West Creek Area, December 1, 1981. (15) United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Final Environmental Statement -Proposed Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Alaska and Washington, Pacific Northwest Region, National Park Ser- vice, Seattle, Washington 1974. (16) Ibid. Master Plan Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Alaska- Washington, Pacific Northwest Region, National Park Service, Seattle, Washington, October 1976. (17) Ibid. Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park Visitation Records, Skagway, Alaska, 1981. (18) State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Haines-Skagway Land Use Plan, Juneau, Alaska, June 1979. (19) United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interim Cooperative Agreement Between the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, National Park Service, Department of the Interior and the Depart- ment of Natural Resources, State of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, April 22, 1981. (20) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, State Air Quality Con- trol Plan, Volume II: Analysis of Problems, Control Actions, Juneau, Alaska. (21) United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Klondike Gold Rush National Park Land Acquisition Plan (Draft), Anchorage, Alaska, April 11, 1980. .. • • .. • • • • • • • XVI-3 GENERAL REFERENCES City of Skagway City Clerk's Office, Ordinance 79-10 (Solid Waste Ser- vices), Ordinance 80-8 (Rates and Water Service Fees), Ordinance 81-1 (Water Quality Protection System), Ordinance 81-1 (1982 Fiscal Budget), Skagway, Alaska • Clark, Roger N., Robert C. Lucas, The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska: Outdoor Recreation and Scenic Resources, USDA, Forest General Technical Report PNw-66. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon, 1978. Elliot t, Skip, Skagway City Manager, Nota ted Map Showing Land Uses of Parcels Near Proposed Project Powerhouse Site, November 1981. Engineering Manpower Services, Skagway Campground Study for the Alaska Legislative Council, Juneau, Alaska, January 1978 • Environmental Services L imi ted, Ska~Way Coastal Management and Energy Impact Program, Anchorage, Alaska, 19 o. Environmental Services Limited, City of Haines Coastal Management Plan, Anchorage, Alaska, January 1980. Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission, Alaska Resources Inven- tory, Southeast Region: Recreation and Preservation Opportunities, Anchorage, Alaska, May 1974. Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., City of Skagway, Alaska, Coastal Land Man- agement Study, Revisions, Juneau, Alaska, June 1981. Sims, Richard, Superintendent, Park. Personal communication August 26, 1981. Klondike Gold Rush National Historical with Thomas Peterson, Skagway, Alaska. State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Visi- tor Census and Expenditure Survey -Winter, 1976-1977, Juneau, Alaska, December 1977. State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Impact of Visitor Expenditures Upon Alaska's Economy for the Year 1975, Juneau, Alaska, February 1978 • State of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Visitor Census and Expenditure Survey -Summer 1977, Juneau, Alaska, March 1978. XVI-4 State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality Data for the Southeastern Alaska Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, 1975 to 1980, Juneau, Alaska, April 1981. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, Proposed Revi- sions to Air Quality Control Plan, Volume I, Juneau, Alaska, December 1977. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), personal communication between Tom Chappel (DEC) and Mark Sadler (R. W. Beck and Associates), December 1981. State of Alaska, Department of Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise, Community Profile -Skagway, Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, July 1974. State of Alaska, Department of Economic Development, Division of Economic Enterprise, Community Profile -Haines, Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, July 1973. State of Alaska, Department of Labor -Research and Analysis Section, 1950 U.S. Census Enumeration Data for Ska wa and Haines Census Areas, Juneau, Alaska, 19 o. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Alaska Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1981, Juneau, Alaska, 1981. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Alaska Trail Plan, Juneau, Alaska, 1973. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Andrew Pekovich, Dis- trict Lands Officer, Notated Map Showing Land OwnerShips in the Taiya River and West Creek Valleys, Juneau, Alaska, February 1982. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Recreation and Scenic Resources in Alaska: An Annotated Bibliography, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-50, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Ex- periment Station, Portland, Oregon, 1976. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Selected Find- ings From the Alaska Public Survey: A Summary of Responses From South- east and South-Central Alaska, U.S. Forest Service Wildland Recreation Research Station, Seattle, Washington, August 1981. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census Advance Reports -Alaska, Washington, D.C., March 1981. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Decision dated June 25, 1974 (Modified) regarding tentative approval to the State of Alaska for certain lands in the Skagway-Taiya Area, Juneau, Alaska, June 25, 1974. • • .. • • " .. XVI-5 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pub- lic Room Files -Anchorage, Alasksa, Master Title Plat for Township 27 South, Range 59 East, Copper River Meridian, July 21, 1981 • White, G. K. and W. C. Thomas, "A Method for Establishing Outdoor Recrea- tion Project Priorities in Alaska," Research Bulletin No. 40, Agricul- tural Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, August 1973. Wilson Condon, Alaska Attorney General, Memorandum to Jon Halliwell and James Souby, Coastal Policy Commission, on Comparison of Local Government Planning Powers Under Titles 29 and 46 of the Alaska Statutes, Juneau, Alaska, August 24, 1981 • \-. . ~'~ • " -IV'? • • 0° • • .. .. , \ , \ ALASKA CANADA \ Fairbanks • KEY MAP LEGEND o NOTE: Gaging station location Topography from U.S.G.S. I: 250,000 Skagway, Alaska -Canada, 1961 . DATE: 4 Miles I o I Scale R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS 4 Miles s..tlle. Wlllhington Denver. Colorado Gonetal _ T_ Buildlnl, SeaIIIe, Wash""" 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES -SKAGWAY REG:ON FEASIBILITY STUDY LOCATION MAP RS: /'PRIL i982 14,000 • 12,000 .. .. 10,000 .. ~ ~ 8,000 .. 4,000 • 2,000 ... 1975 ~ ...... ...... ' .... .. .. Growth scenorio C \ .... .... .... .... .... .... .. ~ ~~ ,," .. "~ ,," ,," .. " ,," .... ... .: Growth scenario B", ..... ~ .. ,,(;###. ... ~ .. ""-.... V ~ .. .: .: / .: .: ~ ~ .. ,,~ ~ ........ .... ,,""'-~ ....... ' ...... . ," 'CGrowth scenario A r~ .' ~ Historic Projected peak loads peak loads I I 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR PEAK LOADS AT LOAD CENTERS s:. ~ ~ Z 0 -J -J ~ >" C) 0::: W z w -J « => z z « 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o 1975 Historic energy requirements I 1980 ~ ,:t ,:t ,:t ~~ A~~~ .." .. ~ Growth scenario c~ .... .... ~ ~ .. .... .... .. ~.,#;#J ,,"" 'Jt; .. ",," .... ~ .: -~ .: ~ ~ ~~~~ .~ .... .. ~ ..... ~ ~ , .... ~ ... .... .: ' ... q Projected energy requ'rements , I . 1985 1990 YEAR .... .... .... .. .. ~ .... ~ . .. .. ~ Growth scenario B ~ / -~ , ..... ........ . ..... . . . ... "'Growth scenario A 1995 .'. 2000 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AT LOAD CENTERS DATE: R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS S.attle, Washington Denver, Colorado General otrteeS: Tower Building. Seattle, Washington 98101 ALASK A PO WE R AUTHOR I TY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY LOAD FORECAST APRIL 1982 FIG: 2 • ( • ~ • .. .. • .. , (I) W rO J ,-Z (I) _ I z~~ -u' «zO 2 Il::_rc"l 14 12 (I) 10 u.. u 0 8 0 0 ~ 6 0 ..J 4 u.. J 2 V o o 740 ~ 735 W W u.. 730 "> w 725 -.J w Il:: 720 0 > 715 Il:: W Peak . fl 13 840 10 ow ~ \ \.~-30-rninute unit \ hydrograph \ \ r\.. "'-~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 TIME, HOURS ONE-HALF HOUR UNIT HYDROGRAPH , V-Top of dam parapet wall EI. 729.5 ."., V ~ ~ V ~ V V (1)710 w /' Il:: 705 o Spillway Cre:;t EI. 705.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DISCHARGE, 1000 CFS SPILLWAY RATING CURVE 35 o (1)0 W ~" ~ z=> oz ~~I ~, -0 ~rc"l u,2 W 0:::(1) a..W ::c ~3 70 60 50 (I) lL. U 40 0 • 2 4 6 ~~ ~~~ ~'T "-Runoff losses TIME, HOURS 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Runoff excess IZO ~ .J r ~L 'J Snowmelt/ Peak linflow l 59> 70 1 0 cfs I \/ .I , vlnflow hydrograph I \ If \ NOTE: I. Elevations based on U.S.G.S. datum (mean sea level) and tied into Bench Mark "Sharp" at Yakutania Point. 0 0 30 I ~ Peak outflow 30 560 cfs ?;-V /' '" --......... ~ -Spillway ou ./ / tflow hydrograph 0 -.J u.. 20 10 o o 2 4 / / V ./ ~ ,,/ --6 8 10 12 14 TIME, HOURS ~ w 7 30 ==-,-----.-----,---,--------. w ........ ............. ............ I'-.. -......... 16 18 20 22 24 u.. 725r-~r---r---+---+---+---~~~--~--~--~~~~~ ~ 720 r---r---+---+---+_--+-----bI'~+_--+_--_+_--_+--__+--__1 -.J w 715r-~~--+-~~~~~~~~--~--~--~--~--~--~ tf 7 I 0 r-t---1---t---+-~"""f7~+---+---+_--_+__--_+_--_+--_+--__1 o ~ 705~--L---L-~~--~--~--~--~--~ __ _L--_L __ _L __ ~ W 0 (I) W 0::: 2 4 6 8 PROBABLE 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 TIME, HOURS MAXIMUM FLOOD R. W. BECK and ASSOCIA rES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Selttle. Washington Denver, Colorado Goneno. oIIices: Tower Bulldl ... Seattle, WuhinalDn 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS DATE: RS: 3 APRIL 1982 , .. ... ~ w w LL .. .. Z 0 ~ ~ W ...J W .. .. • .. SURFACE AREA, ACRES 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 8oor-----.------.~r---.------.------r-----.-----~------.------.------r---~.------.------.-----~800 ", I ~~ ,~ ~ 780~----+-----~-----r,~--~------~----+-----~-----+--~~~------~----+------r-----+----~780 "',(,r------Area /~capacltY ·'r'_. ./ 7601---------r------r-----~------~----~------r-~~-r------~-----+------~-----r------r------r-----4 160 ] ',,~~ 740 1-------/-----~ ---+_--___f--~/fL-+_''-.~-___f---__+---_+_---+_--_____+---_1__---+_---+__--____t 740 ~ / "", ~ g ~ ~" ;1--~-------+------_1__------_+_------4_------+_----~ 720 r_----l------,., 120 NV Normal maximum reservoir EI. 705 ' ""': 6 B 0 i( ........................... ~ ~:-t-----t-------t 680 Minimum reservoir EI. 662 ~ 660 I " '~~. " 660 640~-----r------r------r------r-----~------r------r------~-----+------r------r------r------+--~~ 640 ~\ \ 620L-----~--~----~-----L--~~--~---~----~--~------~----~----~------~----~ 620 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 CAPACITY, 1000 ACRE -FEET NOTES I. Area -capacity curves based on mapping of aerial photographs conducted by Tryck, Nyman and Hayes, June 1981. 2. Elevations shown are based on U.S.G.S. datum (mean sea level) and tied into Bench Mark "Sharp" at Yakutania Point. R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS 5.0111e, Washington Denver, Colorado General otIice.: T""", Buildlnll. Seattle, washina\<XI 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION FEASI BILITY STUDY WEST CREEK RESERVOIR AREA-CAPACITY CURVES • • • • • , .. //' / '/ / Intake o /.? illwayweir Existing logging road ~,:~~~~ (To be improved) :,", ~d 140 0 /800 700 600 700 BOO 900 10 00 PLAN 400' 0 400' ~"I I Scale Surge shaft -----~------------------\----- Upper tunnel \,~,'\ .. "~ \ (LOWer tunnel TYPICAL POWER CONDUIT PROFILE Not to scale 1000 Surge shaft 700 1 -J--\ Powerhouse Access road, (New construction) '. t ~, Powerhouse NOTES: ,ACCS!;!I road (New construction) . I " dccess road ----.., I <' "(Existing road) ~ '-........ --.,. I ...... , I ""-1 I To Skagway 1 9.3 miles , I. Topography is based on mapping of aerial photographs conducted by Tryck, Nyman a Hayes, June 1981. 2.Vertical control based on U.S.G.S. datum {mean sea level) and tied into Bench mark 'Sharp" at Yakutania Point. 3. Horizontal control grid based on the Alaska State Grid Coordinate System,Zone I. DATE: R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle, Washington Denver. Colorado General omces, TowerBuildinll, Seallle, Washlna\l>n 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT ALTERNATIVE POWER CONDUIT ARRANGEMENTS APRIL 1982 AS: 5 I • • a. " • NOTES: I. Topography is based on U.S.G.S. 15 minute quadrangles at a scale of I : 63,360. Skagway A-I, A-2, B-1, B-2, C-I and C-2. 2. Vertical and horizontal control based on U5.G.5., U.S.C. a G.S.and LB.c. datum (mean sea level). • o D. LEGEND Power conduit alignment Over land transmission corridor Submarine transmission corridor Existing tie line Existing power plant Proposed power plant Proposed switching station I 0 Imlle I , I I I , I , I " I Scale R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle. Washington Denver, Colorado General offices: Tower Bunding, Seattle, Washington 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS 6 DATE: APRIL 1982 APPRO~ FIG: 0 l>~ -cIT' ::0 r <D co N 0 ;u~ f'Tlz 0-- > "" "" '" 0 ~ - :!! !!l -...! LEGEND U G -Underg round OH -Overhead SUB -Submarine » Ci ITI CJ) ;:0 :: (f)Z ~ ~ -<l> ?O ~ (f):"; ~ :r l> [ ~ r --I < m ,,~ l> 0 :r 1TI1TI(f) en 31 5· "' rrtZ ~ cc z 0::1 3: --I l>rrt ;:0; 0 '" l> -I " Z IT! --I en en ~ "' (') 0;:00 , "' !!!en -c '" "" Z»;:O ~ '" ITIZITI r ;:0; 0 > Q -l> :if 0-Z :: 1(f)1TI -IGl rrt ~. 0 Q,. !:~;1i: -<:if ::0 0 en enl> m 0 > ZU;""tJ z -1-< l> ~ '" V) c V) m(f);:O C r- 06° C::o -I ~ > 0 Orrt :r z (') );Z~ -<Gl 0 5· 0 VI 0 ::0 ~ " 5: " G'>00 Z < -i -I <D <l> :0 0 --I e '" ~ -< 0 »:0 e 0 3::0 ~ 0 c-o 0 :0 ~ .. .. . .. 2.2 miles 1----1-l OH 1 r< 134.5 kV 'I J\ t --2225/2780-;;VA I ~ I 1.2 miles 2.Smiles I . s-L. 1 1 UG OH I ~-, I r---l 34.5kV I WEST CREEK I I I L ---, SKAGWAY I TAP 6360/7950 kVA SWITCHING L_ 13.8 -34.55 STATION G STATION G SERVICE 3450kVA 3450kVA , vl~ \ 34.5 -2.4kV I I I) I I--+-I L ____ ~ SKAGWAY POWER PLANT SWITCHYAR"D 16.6miles J-tAINES TERMINAL SWITCH ING STATION WEST CREEK PROJECT EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE 34.5kV X>~ -ui'il :0" r (D (» '" AJ~ ~~ > ... ... ~ - ." iP CD LEGEND UG -Underground o H -Overhead SUB -Submarine » r -I ITl :::0 en '" cnz .. ::: -<» Ii? 1ii" cn-l:E X> ~ ~ ~<1Tl :J: r "X> X> 0 or ~lTlcn fTI-(J) ~ ;;' '" x>Z ::0; (Q z -1-1 ~~ X> ;; C'> -i " Z 0:::0(") ~ '" III I '" Z»:::O -(J) -0 .. [:::0; 0 ~ .,. ITlZITl ~ >- 'cnlTl -Ix> c: z -<G1 fTI ~. <:> !:~" ~ :0 ..., (J)X> g' 0 zc;;;." X> z -1-< ~ .,. ITlcn:::O c c ~ 06 0 0:0 -I i := -<fTI :J: );zl=r; 0 z G1 f <:> .... 0 :0 '" .,. G')(")(") " z ::::j < ::00-1 '" '" -< ~ .~ »:::0 n g 0 ~~ 0' Ol 0 a. 0 0 :::0 ro: ?:J ~ ~ IT! (") ~ Q ::: Q,. » V') V') 0 ~ -I ~ ) 1.2 miles 5.0 miles UG WEST CREEK SWITCHYARD r ---, I ~ I 14140/5170kVA\ I I 13.a-34.5kVi' I L _____ ~ OH 12.5kV '~~ 18.7 miles 0) ~480V~ 0) STATION SERVICE G 3450kVA 3450kVA WEST CREEK PROJECT OH 34.5kV .. to .. r-------, I A 1 A 2225/2780 k VA I ' vl~ \ 12.5 -2.4kV I I ---L I L _____ J SKAGWAY POWER PLANT SWITCHYARD EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE HAINES TERMINAL SWITCHING STATION '" l>~ -O~ ~ r to CD I\) '" AJ~ ~~ > ... ... '" 0 ~ ." 1!i to LEGEND UG -Underground OH -Overhead SUB -Submarine l> ~ ITI CI> :::0 ll: enz :: -<l> W !' ~ en ':E l> i ~ .,~ :r r ~ ITI<ITI "TI~ l> 0 !} (f) f ;:j" "' ~lTIen fTlZ ;>; "' z ~ .,., l>fTI S '" l> :0 Z m 0:::0(') (f)(f) i ... () , "' z»:::o !:!!(f) -u ~ ~ ITIZITI r;>; ~ ~ > Q -l> c: :z :: lenlTl -tG) fTI :r 0 Q., !!" ~~A -<::e ::0 go n 0 ):-Zen"'tJ ~=< J z l> '" V) lTIen:::o c := ~ 00 0 C::O -i ~ ~ OfTI :r ~ :z ~ l>z~ -<G) 0 f '" ;;! 6 ::0 CD (j)(')(,) :0 :::j < :::00., Z '" CD -I -< ~ .~ ~ l>:::O 0 S 0 "~~ 0 il 0 Q. 0 0 :::0 <i • ro c3 G')= CD en ) WEST CREEK SWITCH- YARD 5.0miles OH 12.5kV .. . 1-2225/2780 kVA I + 12.5 -2.4 kV I I ~ I L _____ ~ SKAGWAY POWER PLANT SWITCHYARD 26.7 miles 1-----, OH ~ I 34SkV I I I 4140/5170 kVA I ''t13 .8-340 5kV i L _____ -.J EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LlNE.-- ~¢ I 0) ~480V; 0) STATION G SERVICE G ~ I ~ __ 34_o5k~j+-++--l 3450kVA 3450kVA WEST CREEK PROJECT HAINES TERMINAL SWITCHING STATION • I -G G -C 0 -400 CI > II) iii 0 maximum EI.705 Spillway weir ~ EI.705 ''\ '~, \ EI.695 /""\.J'j . i ;! Original ground 1200 1300 POWER CONDUIT PLAN 400 400 I , , \.5' Dia. air vent r-tt-t----=+-r---+===~-+-------7;-,-;--___._;___-·_;__.+--__;__;-·~--__;~--------_+9,5' Dia. surge section 0+00 10+00 Cnnr:r'Ahl lined section (parti steel lining) ____ ~~~-.------~~~~.-------~~L~------~~~~----------~~~.----------~~ 40+00 50+00 60+00 70+00 80+00 STATIONS POWER CONDUIT PROFILE Power conduit 90+00 ..' \ L6g bridge,} (Replace exist "'0. ........ ;/' ) , :, " \ ! I " , , i A~cess rQad (New construct'>~/! ~\~\ units '(\ .'. . / \\~~ \) \ l: ~'. To Skagway . \.ri, 1.:\ "'~1! 9.3miles \. NOTES: .1/ ", \. I. Topography is based on rkcf~ping of aerial photographs conducted by Tryck, Nyman a Hayes, June 1981 2. Vertical control based on U.S,G.S. datum (mean seo level) and tied into 8ench Mark .. Sharp" at Yakutania Point. 3. Horizontal control grid based on the Alaska State Grid Coordinate System, Zone I. DATE: R. W. BECK and ASSOCIA rES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle. WaShington Denver, Colorado General offices: Tower Building, Seattle, Washington 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY W EST CREEK PROJECT SELECTED DAM AND POWER PLANT . ARRANGEMENT APRIL 1982 RS: 10 • • .. -CD Power Normal maximum reservoir EI. 705 Approach channel Spillway weir EI. 705 ... 900 I .~ I 0 10 .!800 + ~A PLAN 200' 0' I I, I Scale Access road (New construction) g ., Dam crest EI. 729.5 '"~I Power tunnel , ""'-~ Spillway chute _ ~ "--.. 200' I o /2 Parapet wall Crest EI. 729.5 Normal maximum reservoir EI. 705~ ~~~~~------- Normal minimum reservoir EI. 662) 10'-Process-e-d'---g-r-a--'-ve-I,=~e------------:/ bedding ----------_______ Grout cap- '---=-"""", Grout curtain~ ~OCkfill from SPillWay:) EI.726 1.5 "JI Estimated rock surface Original ground TYPICAL TRANSVERSE DAM SECTION 50' 0 50' I , ! I I I I Scale Dam crest EI. 726 Diversion conduits Original ground Estimated rock surface Upstream cofferdam Diversion flood W.S. EI.635 \ EI.618 SECTION A-A (Dam axis profile) 100' 0 100' I II I I I I! II I I Scale Plug pipes following di version closure NOTES: I. Topography is based on mapping of aerial photographs conducted by Tryck. Nyman a Hayes. June 1981 2. Vertical control based on U.S.G.S. datum (mean sea level) and tied into Bench Mark It Sharp" at Yakutania Point. 3. Horizontal control grid based on the Alaska State Grid Coordinate System. Zone I. 10 -yr return period -\L 1 Downstream Invert cofferdam \ Original ~ound~_~_=_=_~_~_~;~;_~\~_~_~_~ __ ~_~_~_~_d_~_~_~_~_=_~ __ =_=_=_=_=_=_=_~_=_=_; __ ~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~_~~~~.!6~~L_~WSEI.605£ Estimated 2 -II' Dia. reinforced concrete pipes rock surface 0" I I 0 I I nglna (D Estimated L -----1-------DIVERSION SCHEME ground .» _ r rock surface ~i ~'~~I !I c --ffi :1 11 r fff:1:.013~ -!---r c~t- 100' 0 R. W. BECK and ASSOCIA rES 100' Scale ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS ;03) "1'1''' ./1'13 I/V, ~V(ll' 0\ ~ u; EI. Ft:t:e ct~35b' I -----,-----1---- I 600 0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 STATIONS SPILLWAY PROFILE r:I:J'\ 14+00 16+00 So.Iife. w .... ;n¢o" Columbus. Nebr.ska Denver. CoIor.do O~."do, Ro.id • Indianapolis, Indiana Phoenix, Arizona Welesley. MalHchusettt ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT DAM AND SPILLWAY ARRANGEMENT II DATE: APRIL 1982 FIG: t • • , 720 -: 680 u. c o :; 640 ~ iii 600 o o r- POWER INTAKE-PLAN 40' 0 40' I !! I I Scale Normal maximum Original ground Minimum W.S. EI. 662.0 Gate house Deck EI. 726.0 Trashrack Gate house Gate hoist Top of parapet wall EI. 729.5 rock bolts a~~::::::;(~t1u~~~Jl,",~jl~~~!~~;t~ Fixed wheel gate =-7ocW,,-~'" EI. 630.0 ____ ~ Power tunnel POWER INTAKE-PROFILE 40' 0 40' I I I I I I Scale Steel sets and additional 0-excavation "\\ as req'd. -0 CD It) c+ SC\I 1-0 -(/) Steel lining 9.5' I. D. machine bored tunnel Steel penstock with couplings Concrete pier UNLINED TUNNEL LINED TUNNEL PENSTOCK TYPICAL POWER CONDUIT SECTIONS 4' 0 I I I I I Scale 4' I o ~ 3' dia. steel penstock " II POWER TUNNEL PORTAL-PLAN 20' 0 LI !! r Scale Rollout section 20' I Original ground Estimated rock Anchor block Pier POWER TUNNEL PORTAL-PROFILE 29', 0 , Scale 20' , Anchor block Steel penstock Pier s ----''-----------''''-J::::::-.-. TYPICAL PROFILE OF PENSTOCK SECTION Not to scale o o \D \ NOTES: I. Topography is based on mapping of aerial photographs conducted by Tryck, Nyman a Hayes, June 1981. 2. Vertical control based on U.S.G.s. datum (mean sea lev ell and tied into Bench Mark .. Sharp" at Yakutania Point. DATE: R. W. BECK and ASSOCIA rES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle, Washington Denver, Colorado General offices: Tower Building, Seattle, Washington 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT POWER CONDUIT DETAILS APRIL 1982 APPRO~ FIG: 12 I " .. .......---'2.00 Switrhvnrl'll--""""" Access road------t' ---- (new construction) t-----~::-~~~7-=-=::~~~~-:;-;~./------- 1-------()y / -~// Access roadf ~ (existing road) C? ~ -------- / / / / ./ / ------.-/ ------- POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE CHANNEL-PLAN 260 60' 0 60' I , , , , , I I ~ Scale 200 Penstock <5 d -en Original ground Top of embankment 100 Powerhouse NOTES: I. Topography is based on mapping of aerial photographs conducted by Tryck, Nyman a Hayes, June 1981. 2. Vertical control based on U.S.G.S. datum (mean sea level) and tied into Bench Mark "Sharp" at Yakutania Point. 3. Horizontal control grid based on the Alaska State Grid Coordinate System, Zone I. We.t creek Original ground Tailrace channel invert, • -0.0008 channel invert '="==-~~01.~~1~~N~or;m:;;a~l:=-t=a_I;·I_w~a~_t~e~r ~E~I_.~3=-8=.:::O--=-:::-=~~=-=---=--=:=~ _=_ ::::-::-::=-~~::-==========-::-~=-::E-,;:",;::~~~--=-:::=-=--===--=-===-=-===--=~=-=-===--=--==:=-=-:::::::~~=====:::::..... LroXimate EJ. 22.0 o L-~ ______ ~ ____ ~~~~~~--____ -=~~ ____ ~ ______ ~~~ ____ ~ ____ ~~~ ____ ~ ______ ~~~ ____ ~ ____ ~~~~--~------~ 100+00 104+00 106+00 108+00 110+00 112+00 114+00 Coarse gravel I~ Typ.1.5 STATIONS POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE CHANNEL-PROFILE 60' 0 60' ~LJ" __ -J Scale El. varies --"""""'"""'- Coarse gravel 5' R.· W. BECK and ASSaCIA rES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle, Washington Denver, Colorado General offices: Tower Building, Seattle, Washington 98101 Impervious membrane --------\----- Original ground Impervious membrane ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY TAILRACE EMBANKMENT SECTION 10' 0 10' I ! ! II I ! " ! I Scale TAILRACE SECTION IN CUT 10' 0 10' ~~~" ',-:--_~I Scale DATE: WEST CREEK PROJECT POWERHOUSE AND TAILRACE CHANNEL ARRANGEMENT APRIL 1982 FIG: 13 50 45 ( 40 Pier Penstock Fuse box(typJ Exciter (typ') ___ ---J-~ Service door Switchgear / ~ Gover,r "P. Parking area) // // / / / / Man door /f/ / //(3' cable duct (Generator ~/ LEI. 44.5 Tall,ace headw«ks / / / Access road Concrete encasement- Original ground Estimated rock surface PLAN (EL. 45) TRANSVERSE SECTION I I t~,-: :: ~~=8": ji -+if"''1:11---I " ---I II I I I o I I I I I I I ~t', : I~,' I I I I Tailrace channel + ~ (\J " 0:5 -0 of -U) Precast concrete wall panels Handrail EL445 =~m'<m h,,=, -111.""2 --- ~Berm~ Removable precast roof panels Francis Turbine 4200H.P.-- Precast concrete wall panels 75 <l Unit E1.45.0 -R'Il-------lllt--J:et--+ '>,--+-15------JfJt19t"T"-"T--t-t-------Generator floor EI. 42.0/ •• ' Normal T.W. EI. 38 50 45 40 Stop log slot Top of embankment EI. 35.0 :.-'". ,~."' .'" Tailrace channel E1.23.0 70 EI.30.0 LONGITUDINAL SECTION NOTES: I. Topography is based on mapping of aerial photographs conducted by Tryck. Nyman a Hayes, June 1981. 2. Vertical control based on U.S. G. S. datum (mean sea level) and tied into Bench Mark Sharp" at Yakutania Point". DATE: 10' 0 \,''"', ,t Scale 10' I R .. W. BECK and ASSOCIA rES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle, Washington Denver, Colorado General offices: Tower Building, Seattle, Washington 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT POWERHOUSE DETAILS APRIL 1982 FIG: 14 • .. • .. .. R.o.W. TYPICAL OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION STRUCTURE NOTES: I. Topography Is based on US.G.S. 15 minute quadrangles at a scale of I' 63,360. Skagway A-I, A-2, 8-1,8-2, C-I and C-2. 2. Vertical and horizontal control based on us.GS., us.c. and G.S. and I.B.C. datum (mean sea level). ---- 6, D • LEGEND Power conduit alignment Existing transmission tie line Proposed overland transmission line Proposed submarine tronsmlsslon line Proposed switching station Proposed power plant Existing power plant I 0 Imlle I, ,,, " I ," I Scale R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS Seattle, Washington Denver, Colorado General offices, Tower Bulldl"" _eo W.shlns\On 98101 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT SELECTED TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR 15 DATE: APRIL 1982 AS: T. 26S. T. 27 S. , T. 27 S. T.28 S. .. " -'---' Head of WesfCreek W CD LO a:: RESERVOIR (Normal maximum W.S. W (1) LO 0::: EI. 705) -, ( Existing road I + / ~ Modern ----'-Chilkoot Trail ,- I I • I j r'-'-' T. 26 S. T,27 S. -----'- AS Mtn 6~ "-'\ / i Klondike Gold Rush I i--National Historical Park \ \ Skyline/ AS Mtn Trail I ' Ir' -' I' II II Ii I I TRANSMISSION LlNE/ I / / / I I / ww (1)0 LOW a::ci T. 27 S. T. 28 S. -----National Park boundary ------Trail Proposed transmission line ~ Overland .... --"IV-_ Underground .--"N'--" Submarine Clearcut area Glacier N~r~t.J730: Magnetic North Approximate Mean De~~"5'~on ~ o Scale R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES fN&INffltS AND CONSULTANTS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT REGIONAL SETTING I Mile DATE: APRIL 1982 A6: 16 T. 26 S. T. 27 S. , .. T. 27 S. T. 28 S. .. .. .. u.iw co(j) LOLO Ii Ii RESERVOIR (Normal maximumW.S. WW co(j) LOLO Ii Ii EI. 705) ............. _ ..... ~ENSTOC~:-· ~ l3~~~i·········-···/f POWERHOUSE o ! I North Dyea Native village / Modern l--~Chilkoot Trail ,- I I Historic Chilkoot Trail /Wooden structures i\'{·--t--Ranger station "-Marine shell deposit -TRANSMISSION L1NE/ Steel wire telegraph/ / telephone line / / / / / / / / / / ww (j)O LO<.D 0:::0::: AS Mtn 6 T26S. T. 27 S. Skyline/ AS Mtn Trail / / / / Suspension bridge remains WW (j)o LO<.D " . . 0:::0::: T. 27 S. T. 28 S. -~---National Park boundary ------Trail Proposed transmission line ~ Overland "'--"111--_ Underground .--"1\1'--.... Submarine Glacier J~~?h 1~/300, Magnetic 1 North APPb~~[~l~o~~ DATE: o I Mile Scale R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES £N6IN££1IS AND CONSULTANTS s..ttIe, W .... lngton ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES APRIL 1982 APl'ltO~ FI6: 17 T. 26 S. T.27 S. • • T. 27 S. T. 28S. I / . / , 0 I ;' V& I TAilRACE' I I Modern ,----'-Chilkoot Trail ,_. I ~!'! ?~:::"::~':::m. ;' / [._._i ••••••• ••••••• RESERVOIR (Normal maximumW.S. .... ;.. . / I Klondike Gold Rush ...... ~.E.NSTOC'S~ I i---National Historical Park POWER./ ••••.•••• 1 I • ::::::: I Ir"-' '.' CONDUIT . . .... ;, ;:;:;:; POWERHOUSEI I' iIi! :' ;~;> EI. 705) SOURCES: I. Alaska Dept. of Natural Re.sources, Haines-Skagway Area land Use Plan (June 1979). 2. u. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park land Acquisition Plan (Draft) (April II, 1980). 3. Kramer, Chin, and Mayo, City of Skaqway! Coastal land Management Study (June 1981). W LU 00 en LC') LC') 0:: a::: o I I /1 '::::::. i /i )( I , J I , ; I ~ I • , 'I li!llll: }!!![ -TRANSMISSION LINE •••••••• LULU enO LC')(,!) a::: a::: T. 26 S. "T. 27 S. ~ ----., T. 27 S. T. 28 S. Private land ownership :;>:U:>~V: Private land claim State lands allotment to Skagway D State lands (to be transferred from Federal government) ////// ////// BlM lands ////// 1111111111111111 National Park ownership -----National Park boundary ------Trail Proposed transmission line ~ Overland e---'V\I'-_ Underground .--'N'---e Submarine Study area boundary Glacier N~r~~11---.:::..30: Magnetic North Approximate Mean De~~5o':ion IJ o I Mile Scale It W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENeINEEIS AND CONSULTANTS 5M1t1e. Wahlngton Oen_. Colorado DATE: ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAINES" SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY WEST CREEK PROJECT lAND OWNERSHIP APRIL 1982 18 FEASIBILITY (CONTINUED) LICENSING AND PERMITTING r" \.:.,,; 72" \.!~ FERC APPLICATION PREPARATION • • :::;"0 I f--f-- FERC PROCESSING • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • OTHER PERMITS I ' ~~ ~III 1111 1111 .I~"I DESIGN AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FIELD INVESTIGATIONS •• ~I I~I ~4) I(~ DAM AND POWER PLANT I I .,~ Ir5" 4t 1\ MAJOR EQUIPMENT • .1 •• I~ f-'~ TRANSMISSION LINE I • ~ CONSTRUCTION MOBILIZATION ~. ACCESS ROADS • DIVERSION DAM AND SPILLWAY .~~ • POWER INTAKE ~ . POWER CONDUIT -TUNNEL -PENSTOCK .. ~ •• • POWERHOUSE -CIVIL • • • • .~I -MECHANICAL • • .1. • • • • • • ~I I • • • • • • -ELECTRICAL • • .~. • • • I • • .~I .1 • I I • I TRANSMISSION LINE ~II • • • • • • •• ~I •• RESERVOIR FILLING START -UP .AND TESTING .~ •• ~ --'" --. CD"-..... >,~>,Il£IO"~>v ~~~O'~~-3~guo~ c..c ..... "'->,~>,Il£IO"_>u ~~~~i~i1,~2~~ C..D"-..... >,c~tlDa._>u ~~~~~~~~~o~~ ~~~~~~~.ij)C5~~ .....,u...~o:t:~-,.....,<:«(/)OZO ~~~~~~~.i~o~~ 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 • LEGEND R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES fWlNfflS AND CONSULTANTS SuftIe, weehlngton 0.-, Colorado CD Submit application Primary effort __ aIIIooo: T_ Build ..... _. -..... 91101 ® Application accepted ......... Continuing effort ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY HAl NES -SKAGWAY REGION @ license issued FEASIBILITY STUDY @ Issue bid documents WEST CREEK PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ® Receive bids GAllo r DlAWN! l~ I~ APRIL 1982 fjG 19 PART C: COMMENTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES • • • .. • .. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Haines, Alaska ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS ON HAINES-SKAGWAY ENERGY ALTERNATIVES 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 20, 1982 The Haines public meeting on energy alternatives convened at 7:00 p.m. at the Haines City Hall. A total of nine (9) people were in attendance, including utility and city officials, Power Authority staff and consulting engineers. Mr. Melnick and Mr. Binger of R. W. Beck and Associates reviewed the history of the project studies and reported on the details contained in the feasibility report which resulted form investigations during the 1981 field season and subsequent analysis. During 1981, detailed interviews were conducted in the communities with residents, utility officials, and business interests to ascertain existing or planned activities that would affect energy demand. This information was correlated with other information obtained from agencies in Juneau and Canadian business interests that could affect energy demands in Haines and Skagway. t'ir. t',elnick and ~1r. Binger reported on the detailed evaluation of energy alternatives 'vhich included continued diesel and existing Skaglvay hydro genel'ation, diesel with 'vaste heat recovery, vJOod waste generation from the Schnabel i'lill in Haines, wind energy generation, and hydroelectric generation from West Creek near Skagway. Only woodwaste and hydro provided more economic savings than continued diesel generation. Woodwaste generation was subject to market risks and potential shutdowns. The hydroelectric alternative was not subject to such market risks but the economics were sensitive to load growth in the tvJO communities. Although the West Creek site has a 13-15 ~iW potential, the consul tants I'ecommended a 6 HW installation as being sufficient to meet the 1996 needs of Haines and Skagway. If a need developed, the project could be expanded at a later date. No significant environmental concerns were discovered that vvould preclude development of \~est Creek. West Creek itself is impassible to salmon but has a few resident Dolly Varden in the lower reaches. General discussion went over issues of land status, schedule and costs. • • • • Marty Tengs asked when the crossover point between diesel and hydro costs occurred. From the information to date, the costs are expected to crossover in 1989-1991. The earliest online date of the project would be 1987. The meeting concluded about 9:30 p.m . .. Name Archie Hinman Marty A. Tengs Sharon Resnick Da rre 11 ~1ap 1 e Thomas R. Quinlan Thomas E. Jackson Brent Petrie Wilson Binger Don Melnick HAINES PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE Apri 1 20, 1982 Ma il i ng Address P. O. Box 1, Haines, Alaska P. O. Box 148, Haines, Alaska P. O. Box 631, Haines, Alaska City Hall, Haines, Alaska P. O. Box 130, Haines, Alaska P. O. Box 402, Haines, Alaska Alaska Power Authority, Anchorage, Alaska R. W. Beck, Seattle, Washington R. W. Beck, Seattle, Washington .... ALASKA POUTElt AUTHORITY S~AGWAY PUBLIC MEETING 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 21, 1982 The Skagway public meeting on Haines-Skagway energy alternatives convened at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 21, 1982 at the Skagway City Hall. Mayor Robert Messegee introduced the study team and members of the audience. Nineteen people attended on a night when a local softball game was underway . ~lessrs. t~elnick, Binger, and Petrie gave a summary presentation as provided in Haines the night before. General discussion included the merits of an underground vs. an overhead transmission line in the Klondike Historic Park near Dyea. The consultants said cost estimates were based on an underground line from the powerhouse to the Taiya River bridge. However, several Dyea resi- dents said they would like retail electrical service at their Dyea homes. This suggests a pole line may be required for distribution and will need to be considered in discussions with the National Park Ser- vice. Land status was discussed and it was reported that the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and National Park Service were pursuing a land exchange that would make property available for the West Creek powerhouse and switchyard. A woman asked if people would be allowed to harvest firewood from the area to be cleared. Mr. Petrie replied that arrangements may be needed with the Department of Natural Resources which owned the firewood. Mr. Melnick pointed out that a contractor may be concerned with liability anci accidents if the general public \-Jere in an area vlhere tree falling \,/as unden;ay and heavy equipment was operating. At G\'een Lake near Sitka the contractor moved the wood out of the restricted area and piled it so residents could cut it up. All participants desired that any wood cleared be made available for local fuel and not be burned on-site. There was considerable discussion of wood waste and wind gen- eration. One reason the woodwaste costs are higher than hydro is due to the operations costs which are higher. At the present time, the City of Skagway is using a 10 KW wind generator to supply part of the sewage treatment plant energy needs. The system has broken down on occasion but the feasibility report assumes that 20% of the plant needs will continue to be met by wind generation. Conservation was discussed. Electrical energy conservation is most effective where electric heating is involved which is not the situation in Haines or Skag~ay. Some conservation can be achieved through load managenient but it \-,i 11 not be enough to offset the need for new gen- eration. Mr. Neitzer of Alaska Power and Telephone Company pointed out that the reports estimated 1981 hydro generation in Skagway to be lower than actual. Mr. Binger said they would factor the actual AP &T generation into the final report. A local resident cautioned that 1981 was actually a wet year in Skagway. Mr. Neitzer pointed out that the new hydro unit came on-line in July, 1981. A resident asked if we intended to look at other dam designs. Mr. Melnick recommended looking at roller compacted concrete if the Power Authority agreed examination of that option was worthwhile. The economic analysis period for the project is 50 years but hydro projects often last longer. Mr. Petrie asked Mr. Corbus how long the Salmon Creek Project in Juneau had been in operation. Mr. Corbus replied that Salmon Creek and Annex Creek (also located in Juneau) were constructed in 1914 and were on the books for $2 million and still producing electricity. The meeting adjourned about 10:45 p.m. , Name A. Gordon Ken Nalan B. Kalen Richard Sims M. Colyer Jeff Brady Ken Russo John McDermott Pat E1uwe Bob Messegee Patrick Mahoney Bob Zy1man Remy Wi 11 i ams Archie Hinman Bill Corbus (Haines Lt. & Pwr Co.) G. Glen Gage Don Corwin Mindy Bell Gary Holmes Clarisse 1·lahoney Vernon Neitzer Stan Seago SKAGvJAY PUBLIC r~EETING April 21, 1982 ATTENDANCE LIST* Mailing Address Box 375, Skagway, Alaska Box 138, Skagway, Alaska Box 317, Skagway, Alaska Box 517, Skagway, Alaska Box 245, Skagway, Alaska Box 1894, Skagway, Alaska Box 125, Skagway, Alaska Box 501, Skagway, Alaska Box 213, Skagway, Alaska Box 351, Skagway, Alaska Box 127, Skagway, Alaska 400-112th Avenue, N.E., Redmond, Washington 98004 334 W. 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska Box 1, Haines, Alaska 134 Franklin Street, Juneau, Alaska R. W. Beck, Seattle, Washington Box 88, Skagway, Alaska Box 222, Skagway, Alaska Box 124, Sk2gway, Alaska Box 127, S~a~way, Alaska Box 207, Skagway, AP&T Box 1, SkagvJay, Alaska * Note: All people did not sign in. JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR DEPARTMElft' OF 5&nJRAL RESOtJRCES DIVISION M MIIICS 619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 PHONE: 274-4676 10.J11LH April 13, 1982 Re: 1130-13 Mr. Brent Petrie, Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Brent: BECEIVEQ APR 1 5 1982 ruASKA POWER AUTHORITY Reference our conversation of this morning with regard to the archaeological investigation of the West Creek Hydroelectric project area. This letter is to serve as back-up to indicate the concerns that I mentioned with regard to that particular survey. Basically speaking, we are concerned that the individuals involved do not meet the minimum federal requirements, as per 36 CFR 66, to do archaeological survey. Of course, the federal requirements come into play since this is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project. We are also concerned that no archaeological permit was granted by either this office or by any federal agency, as far as we can ascertain, to do the survey work itself. In addition, the survey methodology is not adequate since no sub- surface testing was accomplished. The report itself concerns us as well. For example, on page 63, no mention is made of the importance of coordinating with the State Historic Preservation Officer (this under the West Creek Drainage subsection). In addition, on the same page (again concerning the West Creek Drainage SUbsection) it is apparent that an area of the power corridor was not surveyed by the team doing the fieldwork. This, then, makes even the methodology employed suspect. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no consultation was made with this office with regard to the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey and the information it contains. This is the statewide survey of historic and prehistoric sites, and it is essential for any archae- ologist contemplating fieldwork to, among other things, check this inventory to see what sites are currently known for his/her area of interest. Because of the reasons stated above, we are not able to accept the archae- ological survey report for the West Creek proposal. In order to bring the fieldwork up to acceptable standards, it will be necessary for your agency to obtain the services of a qualified archaeologist to do an adequate subsurface survey of the proposed areas of impact. Once the archaeologist is hired to do this work, we will look forward to consulting with that person to discuss adequate survey/subsurface testing methodology. .. Mr. Brent Petrie, Project Manager April D, 1982 Page 2 - We look forward to hearing from you concerning this situation, and the steps to be taken to correct it, at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Chip Dennerlein Director iplane oric Preservation Officer cc: Dr. Edwin D. Slatter Staff Archaeologist Office of Electric Power Regulation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426 TLD:clk " ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY r--------~.,.,.,._"""" ~~ 277-7641 WORK ORDER$-ISS-'-#?3-cAAP 7) 276-0001 ~ 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 • J U' pooJ' Ul 0 'IClu' '-I ,_-, "u~ Mr. Ty Dilliplane State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Parks Department of Natural Resources 619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 SUBJECT: Haines-Skagway Region Project Archaeology Study Dear Mr. Dilliplane: FILE CODE 3107'-3 ' EDIN_ We have carefully reviewed your letter of April 12, 1982 in which you outline your concerns regarding the archaeological reconnaissance portion of the Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study. We believe many of your objections may stem from a basic misunderstanding of our intended purpose for this study. As the title of the report implies, this work examines the feasibility of several electric power generation alternatives, including the West Creek Hydroelectric Project, to deternline which is the most economical means for meeting future electrical energy needs. The study showed that the West Creek Project was the most economical source of energy for the Region. As part of the study we also wanted to make certain that no major impediments to project development existed from an engineering or environmental perspective before we proceeded with the preparation of a license application for submittal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The preparation of a license application for this project is something separate from and subsequent to the feasibility study. In this regard, we often find it helpful in our planning activities to conduct reconnaissance surveys to obtain prel"iminary predictive data. This archaeology survey was designed to provide a general impression of the area's historic properties and their values, and involved small-scale field work relative to the overall size of the area under study. We recognized that this survey might not provide sufficient data to ensure identification of all historic properties in the area. We believe, however, it has identified areas with obvious or well-known historic or archaeological value as well as areas where historic properties are obviously lacking and thus makes possible a more informed and efficient intensive survey at a later time as part of the FERC license application process. We believe our consultant's study of the area was adequate for reconnaissance purposes and that their report provides a generally informed opinion about the kinds of properties that might be encountered should a decision to proceed make necessary a more intensive survey. ". Mr. Ty Dilliplane May 27, 1982 Page 2 You mention concern that the archaeology reconnaissance team used by our consultant does not meet "minimum federal requirements". After careful review of 36 CFR Part 66 and several discussions with Dr. Edwin Slatter of the FERC, we do not understand this concern. Your conclusion comes as a further surprise since Dr. Slatter reviewed the pertinent resumes and advised our consultants on September 9, 1981 that he felt the team's experience was entirely adequate for the level of work being done. In addition, Dr. Slatter advised our consultant on September 16, 1981 that he had informed you of his opinion by phone on September 11, 1981. The above concern with respect to the qualifications of the study team had been raised in response to our consultant's application for a Field Archaeology Permit. No written rejection of the permit was ever received, although you indicated orally that in your opinion the team did not meet federal requirements. This precipitated Dr. Slatter's call of September 11, 1981 in which he informed you that he found the team acceptable. Although Dr. Slatter's call was not followed by a letter, at that point we thought the matter was settled, even though the consultant never received the permit or a letter explaining why it was not granted. With regard to subsurface testing, we do not agree that the lack of such testing renders the survey methodology inadequate. As we explain above, the purpose of this study is the preliminarf identification of areas which could have historical or archaeolog;ca significance, not an exhaustive study of those areas. Furthermore, the consultant specifically stated in their letter to you dated July 30, 1981, "We do not intend to do any archaeological digging or recovering as part of this work." The point is made in your letter that the report includes no mention of the "importance of coordinating with the State Historical Preservation Officer". We are not certain why such coordination needs to be referenced in a feasibility study. We did notify you of our interest in the area through the permitting process and our consultant provided you with a copy of the draft archaeological-historical resources report in December 1981. They received no response to this draft. Further we provided your office with a draft of the full feasibility report for review and comment in April 1982. We are aware that coordination with the SHPO is required during preparation of the FERC license application and intend to consult with you during that phase of our work. We also see no cause for alarm that portions of the power corridor were not included in the archaeological reconnaissance since the length of corridor not surveyed coincides with the power tunnel which would be excavated through bedrock several hundred feet below the earth's surface. We can see no way in which surface or near surface sites will be disturbed as a result of constructing this portion of the project. • Mr. Ty Dilliplane May 27, 1982 Page 3 Now that our feasibility study has been completed, the decision has been made to prepare a draft license application for the West Creek Hydroelectric Project. You will be pleased to know that we fully intend to coordinate the preparation of pertinent portions of this application with you and your staff in your role as State Historic Preservation Officer. We anticipate that some additional field work may be required during the preparation of the application. Any work performed as part of the licensing process will, of course, be coordinated through the SHPO. Since your letter of April 13, 1982 addresses processes more than substance, we would appreciate a more substantive review of the subject report to aid us in determining those areas where detailed field surveys may be warranted. Such feedback will aid us in defining the scope of work of additional cultural and historical survey services. We look forward to receiving your reply to our requests for clarification included above so that future misunderstandings can be averted and mutual goals met in a spirit of professionalism and cooperation. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BNP:mw cc: Dr. Edwin D. Slatter Division of Environmental Analysis Federal Energy Regulatory Corrmission Washington, D.C. 20426 Wilson Binger R.W. Beck & Associates 200 Tower Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Dan Bishop Environaid 12175 Mendenahll Loop Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 John Cook Director National Park Service 540 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dan Robinson Acting Director Alaska Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Brent N. Petrie Project Manager ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ~ 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·0001 • .. .. , Mr. Ty Dilliplane State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210 Anchorage, AK 99501 August 2, 1982 RE: Haines -Skagway Feasibility Studies West Creek Project Site Dear Mr. Dilliplane: Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1982 regarding archeological surveys for the West Creek hydroelectric project. After considering the geotechnical, environmental, economic, and cultural resource issues addressed in the project, we have instructed our prime consultant, R. W. Beck and Associates, to proceed with the next phase of the project and to prepare a draft license application. To address the cultural and archaelogical resources in proper detail for this phase, R. W. Beck has proposed to engage the services of Ertech, with Gail Thompson of Ertech in charge of the research methodology. Ms. Thompson has done previous similar work in Alaska and her credentials are known to your office. R. W. Beck has instructed Ms. Thompson to coordinate directly with your office to develop an acceptable research program building upon available documentation and field visits as required. We understand that such consultation is presently underway. Please do not hesitate to contact U$ if you have any further comments or concerns on this matter. cc: W. Binger, R. W. Beck Dr. E. Slatter, FERC John Cook, NPS hr Brent N. Petrie Project Manager • • DEPlUlTMENl' OF lWBIJRAL RESOIJR~ES DIVISION OF PAllleS September 7, 1982 Re: 1130-13 (West Creek Hydro) Brent Petrie Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Petrie: JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR 619 WAREHOUSE DR., SUITE 210 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 PHONE: 274-4876 RECElVEO SEP 1 31982 A\.}.S'AA PO'l'JER AUTHORITY Thank you for your letter of August 2 regarding archaeological survey for the West Creek Hydro Project. Ertec has been on our list of qualified archaeological contractors for some time. We have been in contact on several occasions with Dr. Gail Thompson and have received a proposed research design for supplementary survey on the West Creek Project. We find the research design completely acceptable and have informed Dr. Thompson of this by phone and letter (copy enclosed). We look forward to continuing consultation with Ertec and good working rela- tionships with all parties involved. Sincerely, Judith E. Marquez By: Ty L. ('~ iplane -----toric Preservation enclosure TAS: elk .. " .. Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 iVlr. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Street, 2nd Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Hr. Yould: April 21, 1982 We have reviewed the draft Ha';nes-Skagway Region Feasibil ity Study and found it very well done and complete. We agree with the conclusions that West Creek is probably the best energy alternative to meet projected loads for the area. The wood waste steamplant at Haines looks like a reasonable short-term energy supply, but the dependence on a sizable local timber harvest reduces the long-term energy reliability. We have a few specific comments to offer. o The degree-days and annual space heating kWh seem to be interchanged on pages III 17 and 18. o The operation, maintenance and replucement costs on page XV-4 are not presented in enough aetail to fully review, however, the annual provision for replacement of the underwater cable could well amount to 50 percent of the total estimated $634,000 annual cost . o A table or graph showing future loads and resources would help illustrate how the existing and planned hydro resources would be ut il i zed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, r') U" ,f~ \_ .. \ / /,,' _, "''', • \ .J f't (' , ./.--~ i _., -~ .-,----- Robert J. Cross Adm'; ni strator DEDMAN'S PHOTO SHOP BOX 417 SKAGWAY, ALASKA 99840 April 23, 1982 Hr. Brent Petrie, Project i'lgr. Alaska Fower uthority 334 West 5th Ave, Second ~oor Anchorage, Alaska Dear :.1r. Petrie: RECEIVED P.?R 2 71982 ~ POWER AUTHORITY I would like my com~ents on the written record, in favor of continuing with the West Creek Hydro project. From the figures you showed at the hearing this week, it is definitely the cheapest way to go for ..:Jkagway-Haines power over a :?eriod of years. I think that in any case, ' .... herever possible, Hydro projects shaa~dbe developed to protect communities from the uncertainties of petroleum .supply. In addition tltl price increases, over the next 2D-30 years, who knows what the situation ~i6ht be? Thi.s particular little project seems like a very good one, as there is so little in the way of fisheries or ~ame to be displaced. I do hope, however, that .some timber can be salvaged from the area to be flooded. 3incerely yours, ~ B~/ Barbara D. Kalen , 'f • P. o. BOX -·303 ,,' HAINES, ALASKA 99827 April 26, 1982 HECEIVED :' ~~ 3 a 1982 Mr. Brent Petrie l,~,ASKA POWER AUTHORITY Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Petrie: The Haines Light and Power Co., Inc. (HLP) has carefully reviewed the draft Feasibility Study of Energy Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region. HLP is pleased with the Study and has no further suggestions to make in regard to its accuracy or comprehensiveness. HLP is of the opinion that the wood waste steam generator to be operated by the Schnabel Lumber Company will not provide a reliable source of energy for the Haines area over the long run. Therefore, HLP recommends that the Alaska Power Authority proceed with the development of the West Creek Hydroelectric Project. HLP urges the Alaska Power Authority to press forward with the resolution of the land status and water rights problems in order that the license application can be prepared and submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission . Please contact me if you have any questions. Copy to: City of Haines AH/ak Very truly yours, a~~ Archie Hinman Manager • United States Department of the Interior IN REPLY REFER TO: Mr. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authori ty 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE P. O. Box 1287 Juneau, Alaska 99802 RECEIVED. PIPR 2 81982 'AfN,KA POWER AUTHORITY April 26, 1982 Re: Energy Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region (West Creek) Draft Feasibility Report We have reviewed the subject draft feasibility report and offer the following comments. General Comments We are pleased that alternatives previously considered at Kelsall River and Nataga Creek have been removed from further consideration. Transmission lines would have been routed through important eagle habitat and created unacceptable impacts. In contrast, fish and wildlife values are relatively low at the \vest Creek. However, there is existing fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, the subject report should include more specific information to show that all reasonable measures will be taken to minimize potential impacts. Specific Comments Page IV-2, third paragraph. Hydroelectric Generation. The narrative states that a letter report on Goat Lake is incluned in Appendix B; it was not included in the subject feasibility report. Since Goat Lake was the most likely hydroelectric alternative to the West Creek project, we suggest that the analysis of this alternative be included in the main text of the final report. Page XIV-3, third paragraph, Fisheries Resources. He suggest that the last sentence of this paragraph be expanded to more accurately describe the potential impacts on Dolly Varden when West Creek is dewatered. Furthermore, during initial dewatering, this stream reach should be monitored for fish entrapment problems and if they exist, mitigative measures should be developed. Page XIV-4, second paragraph. Fisheries Resources. The first sentence should be expanded to describe anticipated flow rates with the project. We also suggest that data on the relative abundance of eulachon be collected for inclusion jn the future environmental impact statement. Runs of these species often provide food for eagles. • Page XIV-4, third paragraph. Fisheries Resources. We suggest that the accepted construction practices be described in more detail. Page XIV-4, fourth paragraph. Fisheries Resources. We suggest that this paragraph be modified to describe the anticipated changes in temperature whether significant or not. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely yours, -; t, Field Supervisor a" ./ , >c:L ""-. 2 .• ,. • Mr. Waine E. 01en Field Supervisor Division of Ecological Services Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1287 Juneau. Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. 0ien: May 24, 1892 Subject: Energy Alternatives for the Haines-Skagway Region (West Creek): Draft Feasibility Report Comments We appreciate reeeivingyour comMents of April 2&, 1982, regarding the subject feasibl1ity report. Following 11 further information regarding your specific COlllnentS: Page IV-2 third paragraph; The Goat Lake alternative was found to be less feasible than the West Creek alternative as discussed in the feasibl1ity report. A copy of the letter report describing the results of our reconnaissance of Goat Lake is enclosed for your information and will be included in the final version of the subject report as Appendix A. Page XIV-3, third paragraph; Two smell tributaries (les5 than 1 cfs each) join together to flow into West Creek between the dam site and the proposed tailrace location. These two streallS Ire located in the middle blsin of West Creek and support a very low dt!nsity population of resident 00l1y Varden char according to a survey made on August 27, 1981 by AOF&G biologists Steven T. Elliott and Mark Schwan. Th@y concluded that the stream makes an insignificant contribution to the annual production of char from West Creek (Memorandum from S. Elliott to ~. Schwan dated September 30. 1981). In view of this conclusfon, we also beHeve the impact to the West Creek char population from dewatering this portion of West Creek will be insignificant. We agree, however, that this reach of stream bears inspection during the initial dewltering to t~ to detennine if any strand1ng occurs. Page XIV-4, second paragraph; Data on proposed changes in flow regime were not included in the fisheries section IS noted in your letter. Please refer to Section XI •• Mr. Walne E. Ulen May 24, l.982 Page 2 of the same report where the information you seek will be found in Tables XI-7 and XI-8. Page XIV-4, third paragraph; Investigations of the timing and distribution of eulachon runs in the Tl1ya River and at the mouth of Vest Creek are still in progress. As indicated in our feasibil1ty report, water temperature data are still being collected from the ma1nstem Ta1ya River and West Creek. Upon conclusion of this wort, Env1ronafd will prepare I supplementary report covering eulachon runs and water temperature impacts. Information from this report will be incorporated into appropriate sections of Exhibit E of the FERe license application for the West Cruk Project. In this manner, study results will become Iva11able to 811 concerned agencies for their review and connent •. Page XIV-4 t fourth paragraph; At the feasibility stage. it il often premature to identify specific construction .alures that contracto" will employ to meet constMlction standards and contract stipulations. license articl" do specify that contract doculll!nts include eroSion control plans. soils waste disposal plans. hazardous substance control pl.ns. water quality control plans, and required site restoration programs. All such plans will be developed in coordination ~th the concerned federal and state agencies involved before the p.lans are sent to the FERC for final approval. This opportunity for agency input COIIeS after the contractor has had an opportunity to develop a let of draft plans for the particular site conditions associated with the project. We hope thi s response has answered your concerns and we look forward to continuing our coordination with your staff as the West Creek Project progresses. If you have any further questions regarding West Creek, please get in touch wfth us. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Very truly your! • (5 1/M~J ?,be JoY'') ~ ) Brant N. Petrie PnJject Manager RECEIVEC "t 0 . " . ~i 1992 ~Y.A PC'I:EH ACTNORITY CITY OF SKAGWAY, ALASKA RESOLUTION 82-9R A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT BY THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY OF A HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY ON WEST CREEK WHEREAS: The cost of diesel-generated electricity is burdensome to the consumers of the Haines- Skagway area, and j WHEREAS: A recent feasibility study of the hydroelectric potential of the Haines-Skagway Region conducted by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. has identified West Creek as the most desirable economic engery alternative for the region, and WHEREAS: The National Park Service has shown a willingness to cooperate with development of this project, and WHEREAS: The hydroelectric development of West Creek could adequately handle all projected load growths for the region through the year 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SKAGWAY, ALASKA: That the Skagway City Council supports development of a hydroelectric facility at West Creek and urges the Alaska Power Authority to actively continue geotechnical investi- gations, design, and FERC licensing procedures relevant to completion of this project. PASSED AND APPROVED April 29 , 1982. ------------~-------------------- ATTEST: ~_8 . .J~c!~) ene: Gordon; 1. ty erlC . -----I 702 WATER STREET, PORT TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON 98368 TElEPHONE (206)385·1733 AL~KA SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY SKAGWA Y POWER & LIGHT SYSTEM TOK .,OWER & LIGHT SYSTEM NATIONAL UTILITIES, INC. ALASKA CENTRAL TElEPHONE SYSTEM SKAGWAY TElEPHONE SYSTEM SOUTHERN ALASKA TElEPHONE SYSTEM AL~SKA POWER & TElEPHONE CORPORATION Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th A venue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dea r Mr. Yould: ftECIPiiD .. ,~,'( 0 5 1SS'2 ARTHUR GARRETT Chairman \lIl::ft A I !T!i!lRlT'l NANCY GARRETT BROWN 'a,·ac:.v.A PCl";!;n ~ . Vice Chairman ~' MARGUERITE GARRETT May 5, 1982 Secretory MARILOU K. RAYMOND Senior As't. Secretory RALPH J. WILSON President VERNON J. NEITZER Vice President & Chief Engineer ROBERT S. GRIMM Vice President & Treasurer GAIL BROWN HOBBS As't. Secretory & As't. Treasvrer In response to your letter of March 3, 1982, I have reviewed your draft feasibility study of Energy Alternatives for the Haines -Skagway Region and I am struck again by your proposal to ha ve the people of Skagway pay and pay dearly for the $10 million interconnection transmission line to Ha ines which could, at the very most, be a rna rginal benefit to Haines alone. Twenty-five years ago, a very prominent engineering finn looked at the possibility of a transmission line interconnection between Skagway and Ha ines and decided that it wa s not feasible. If there had been any potential outside of a limitless government financing situation, they would have told us. The Dewey Lakes System actually generated 2,915 MWh of energy in 1981, not the 1,500 MWh that you show in your report. This 2,915 MWh of hydro generation is 50% of the total of 5,824 MWh generated at Skagway in 1981 and shows that the current Skagway system has " a 5096 hydro mix and not the 1096 hydro mix that you use as a base case alternative. The large unused head in the Dewey Lakes System which can be utilized as the load grown insures a high percentage of hydro at Skagway for the foreseeable future. It would apparently be against all public policy for the people of Skagway to have to sub- sidize the power costs at Haines. The Haines load is not dependable because of the problems of a submarine transmission cable which lea ves the proposed $56 million project with no dependable load. The people of Skagway cannot be expected to foot the bill for such a project when the small scale development of the existing system will meet all foreseeable energy needs at a far less cost. The $56 million project you are proposing to serve less than 3,000 people at an investment of around $20,000 per person is apparently the result of taking the commendable concept of renewable resource development and expanding it all out of proportion on the basis of using as much of the State of Alaska's oil wealth as possible. , Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority Page Two The annual interest of $6.7 million on $56 million at 12% is over three times the total present annual amount that the people in Skagway and Haines pay for their energy needs. We can only look at these projects from the standpoint of hard economics and the people paying the cost of the power they use and we can therefore see no justification in this project that you are proposing. Sincerely, Presi RJW/ry ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY • 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 .. Mr. Ralph Wil son President Alaska Power and Telephone Company P.O. Box 222 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 July 30, 1982 Subject: Haines-Skagway Feasibility Study Oea r Mr. Wi 1 son: Thank you for taking the time to review the Haines-Skagway fea- sibility report and provide some thoughts on the study in your May 5, 1982 letter. We would l"ike to provide some comments in response to the issues you raise. In paragraph one you state IITwenty-five years ago, a very prominent engineering firm. looked at the possibility of a transmission intercon- nection between Skagway and Haines and decided that it was not feasi- ble.1I In earlier correspondence, you advised us that the Ilprominent engineering firmll is the same firm that has conducted the present feasibility study. Since 1957 the loads, costs of diesel fuel to generate electricity, and cable manufacture and installation have all undergone changes. In 1957 the cost of diesel fuel was less than 20¢ per gallon and in 1981 the price in the Haines-Skagway area was about $1.12 per gallon. Furthermore, the past twenty-five years have resulted in improvements in submarine cable manufacture and installation. These factors combined with the possible utilization of renewable generation source and the combined loads of Skagway and Haines make the submarine cable interconnection look much better today than it may have in 1957. In response to paragraph two, we were first given the new hydro generation data by Mr. Vernon Neitzer of AP&T at the April 21, 1982 public meeting on the draft report in Skagway. We are now incorporating that into the feasibility study. However, we do not believe that the new data will be a significant factor in the final conclusions of the study. While the 2915 MWh represents 50% of the 1981 AP&T generation in Skagway, it is less than 20% of the combined Haines and Skagway 1981 energy usage. Further under Scenario B this drops to 9% of the combined energy requirements by 1996. Thus, even with the new data, the hydro mix may decrease to below 10% as the load grows. In addition, the expanded Skagway hydro plant has been in operation only one year. We intend to increase the hydro generation figure for Skagway, although we would like to point out that the long term average will, in fact, be subject to the natural variation in runoff. 1981 was a wet year in Skagway and thus there is reason to think that the long term average will be less than the 2915 MWh generated in 1981. • .. Mr. Ralph Wilson July 19, 1982 Page 2 The final statement that the large unused head in the Dewey Lakes system can be used to maintain a high percentage of hydro even as the load grows is only partially correct. The Dewey Lakes system is ba- sically a run-of-river system with little storage; flow is available mainly in the summer and the energy generated can be used only to the extent that there is a demand for energy concurrently with the flow . Developing the Upper Dewey Lake project will not change this. Thus, while development of the complete Dewey Lake system would increase the hydro capacity of the Skagway system, the increase in energy production will be limited by the demand for electricity during the summer months. This restriction would probably mean that the Dewey Lake hydro system without some sort of storage for carryover into the low flow months would not meet more than 50% of the energy requirements of Skagway and a significantly smaller percentage of the combined Haines and Skagway loads. We are making adjustments in the economic analysis to include the additional hydro generation by AP&T and will also consider the gener- ation in preparing a plan of finance for the project. As far as costs go we are actively investigating two alternatives that may lower the cost of the dam. One possibility is the use of roller compacted concrete and the other is the use of waste rock from a highway project. A dam in Oregon is presently under construction using roller compacted concrete, and the highway work is still being engi- neered. The cost estimate for the rockfill dam with rock quarried at the site may be higher than with the other alternatives but does provide a greater degree of confidence for use in the economic analysis at this time . There are a variety of methods of finance available through Power Authority and these will be developed in a plan of finance will accompany our findings and recommendations on this project. of an on-line date for the project will also be discussed in the mendations. These will not be available until about three weeks release of the final feasibility report. the that Timing recom- after Based on the technical data, economic analysis and comments on the draft report, we will be recommending that state and federal govern- ments proceed to amend any land ownership patterns or land classifica- tions that my adversely affect development of any West Creek project. The land situation is quite important as it affects all of the West Creek project configurations that have been suggested. s;nCe~elY~. ~ ~Uld~ Executive Director United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: L7619(ARO-P) Mr. Brent Petrie Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite #31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Petrie: SRCErVED. MAY 1 1 1982 A11SKA POWER AUTHORITY We have reviewed the Environmental Investigation of the West Creek Hydroelectric Project by Daniel M. Bishop and Associates, and the Haines-Skagway Feasibility Study, Volume 1, Report by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. Our main concerns have to do with the cultural resources section and the section on fisheries. We appreciate the opportunity to review these documents and our comments foll ow. Fisheries On page XIV-4 of the feasibility study, it is unclear how or why no significant alterations in water temperature regime are anticipated. The text indicates an evaluation of natural preproject water temperature regime is planned but no mention is made of the possible mitigation of unnatural stream water tempera- tures through dam intake design or other methods. Perhaps you are considering this; however, it is not stated in the report. Page XIV-4 mentions the spring spawning of eulachon in lower West Creek and that the annual flow variation could affect fish spawning or rearing in lower West Creek. The report continues on to say that no impact on sports or subsis- tence fishing is expected. Presently, dip netting for eulachon in lower West Creek is a recognized sports fishing activity. Perhaps an in-stream flow study, a study of the ecological requirements of eulachon spawning, and a development of mitigating measures is needed. We do feel there should be some discussion of these concerns. Page XIV-6 suggests either a hatchery or artificial spawning channels at the tailrace, presumably for salmon. We are more concerned with the possible loss of eulachon since significant runs could be affected while salmon losses might be minimal. We are also concerned with salmon production. However, hatcheries or spawning channels might produce far more salmon than project losses. We feel discussions and concerns for the perpetuation of the euchalon runs in West Creek should be given more consideration than is presently in the report. Cultural Resources The cultural resources investigations appear to be superficial, amounting to an incomplete, limited reconnaissance, and at the most a basic evaluation of both resources values and potential impacts of the proposed project upon these values. Given the objectives and intent of the survey, the cultural resources report was found to be seriously deficient and of limited utlility for deter- mining potential project impacts on archeological and historical values in 2 areas proposed for development and in areas adjacent to the planned development. In particular, we are concerned because the National Register status of the area was virtually ignored and is an oversight that should be corrected, e.g., Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on June 30, 1976; the Skagway and White Pass District (Alaska Heritage Resources Survey Site No. SKG-013) was entered on June 13, 1962 as a National Historic Landmark; and the Dyea and the Chilkoot Trail (SKG-067) was listed on the National Register on April 14, 1975 and designated a National Historic Landmark on June 2, 1978. The resource document is also inadequate for determining the effect of the proposed project on these National Register properties; a requirement of federal law and regulation. We also have reservations about the survey design and sampling strategy, and criteria for determining site significance, the nature of survey permissions and permits reportedly obtained, and whether the survey archeologists were qualified under Department of the Interior regulations to conduct archeological investigations on federal lands. We do support one conclusion reiterated throughout the cultural resource section of the environmental investigation: additional archeological- historical surveys and evaluations are needed. Because of this fact and the nature of the reconnaissance described in the report, many areas w"ill need to be not only surveyed but reexamined as well. In summary, the cultural resources survey and report document for the West Creek Hydroelectric Project serves as a basic resource evaluation of limited utility for determining potential impacts of the proposed development upon archeological and historical resources. In light of the report deficiencies, we regard it as an unacceptable product. We therefore do not support the conclusions concerning potential project impacts upon cultural resources discussed on page XIV-10 to XIV-12 of the feasibility study. Instead, we see a likelihood that impacts (direct, indirect and secondary) could occur to cultural resources in the project areas as a result of any of the proposed developmental alternatives. We hope this critique will assist project planners in rectifying the inadequacies of the evaluation documents and the mitigation strategies proposed in the feasibility study and bring them more into line with accepted procedures and objectives for such undertakings. Our third and last concern is that serious consideration be given to placing all power lines underground where they pass through the park. 1 We look forward to working with you as the project moves forward. Sincerely, ~~0~ Regional Director Alaska Region 3 , ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Douglas G. Warnock Acting Director, Alaska Region National Park Service U. S. Department of Interior 540 West Fi fth Anchorage, Alaska 99501 July 16, 1982 Subject: Haines Skagway Region Project Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Warnock: We have reviewed your letter of May 6, 1982 (L 7619 (ARO-P) in which you outline your concerns regarding the cultural resources and fisheries sections of the Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study. Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 Your comments on the fisheries section are primarily concerned with the potential impact of the Project on the eulachon run in the Taiya River. Our environmental consultant, Environaid, has recently completed some additional field work which should answer some of your concerns. They wi 11 prepare a report di scussi ng these studi es and any concl us ions whi ch can be drawn as to the impact of the Project on eulachon spawning. This information will be included in the draft FERC license application when it is prepared. Your comments on cultural resources deal mainly with the perceived deficiencies in the archaeological studies which have been conducted to date. We think many of your objections may stem from a basic misunderstanding as to the purpose of the study. Our response to the comments from the State Historic Preservation Officer discusses this point in detail and we refer you to the attached copy of that letter. For preparation of the draft FERC application, the consultant in supplementing the project team and field work with individuals and activities that should be acceptable to the SHPO and NPS for the more detailed level of analysis. Finally, as stated in the report and in discussions with Park Service personnel, we are prepared to place'the transmission line underground where it passes through the Park, if that is considered desirable at the time of Mr. Douglas G. Warnock July 16,1982 Page 2 construction. However, during-public hearings on the project in Skagway, there was substantial interest expressed in electrical service in the Dyea area. If poles are utilized for retail distribution of electricity, then we would suggest consideration of placing the distribution and transmission lines on the same poles where possible. Sincerely, 'ic 'Po ~;>-\ ~ Executive Director Attachment: as stated , • MEMORANDUM State of Alaska TO: FROM: DEPA.RTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IJ[VISION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BRENT PETRIE Alaska Power Authority REQEIVell, DATE: FILE NO: ~ .:AY 71982 TELEPHONE NO: LEILA~:SE POWER AUTHDBJD' DNR Clearinghous~ainator SUBJECT: May 6, 1982 276-2653 DNR Comments: Draft Feasibility Study Haines/Skagway The Department of Natural Resources appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft feasibility study of Energy Alternatives for the Haines/Skagway region. Following are comments from the Division of Land and Water Management, Water Management Section. Comments from the Division of Parks were sent directly to your office. The DLWM, Water Management Section, reports that this appears to be a thorough feasibility study and agrees that this appears to be a viable project. APA is reminded that the Division of Land and Water Management is responsible for issuing both a permit to construct or modify a dam and a water rights permit. a. Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam: Prior to issuing the permit, DLWM must be assured that the dam will not create a public safety hazard. After state of the art analysis of the design and construction and the proposed operation and maintenance schedules, certification to this effect will be acceptable. If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is involved in licensing the project, their dam safety certifications will be accepted. For dams not reviewed by FERC, DLWM will review work done by the applicant so that DLWM may certify the dam's safety. As the project develops, please send DLWM dam safety certifications or other appropriate documents. b. Water Rights Permits: According to AS 46.15.080, a water rights permit shall be issued if it is found that: 1. The proposed appropriation will not unduly affect the rights of a prior appropriator. 2. The proposed means of diversion or construction are adertuate. 3. The proposed appropriation is in the public interest. To ,~valuate this, among the items to be considered are changes in the following as a result of the proposed water appropriation: (a) economic activity (b) fish and game resources, (c) public recreational opportunities, 02-001 AI Rev,1 0179) .- Brent Petrie 2 May 6, 1982 (d) public health, (e) loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time, (f) harm to persons, or (g) access to navigable or public waters. APA has filed a water right application for this project; the application has a priority date of June 4, 1981. The Alaska Power and Telephone Company has also proposed a hydroelectric project on West Creek and has filed a water right application for their project. The AP&T project has a priority date of October 10, 1980, some 7 months earlier than that by APA. DLWM is currently evaluating the merits of both projects. A final decision on award of permit will forthcoming. Depending on the decision, processing of APA's water right application may continue at that time. To do this, the items mentioned above must be addressed for each project stage, including construction, reservoir filling, and operation. If negative impacts are noted, mitigation strategies and associated costs should also be discussed. DLWM considers the report being reviewed partially adequate for water rights adjudication. Some items mentioned earlier are not discussed in enough detail and others are not discussed at all. DLWM understands that it is not the intent of this study to present detailed information as described above. However, please be advised that this information is necessary to adjudicate the application to construct or modify a dam and the application for water rights according to DLWM legal responsibilities. ... • DEPAR'DIE5T OF lW&rIJRAL RESOIJRCES DIVISION M PAIIKS May 6, 1982 Mr. Brent Petrie, Project Manager Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Petrie: JAY S. HAMMOND, Conrnor 230 South Franklin Suite #307 Juneau, Alaska 99801 PHONE: 465-4290 REOEIVED. MAY 1 01982 AL'SKA POWER AUTHORITY The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the final draft of the Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study. This Department has no serious objections to the proposed hydroelectric project on West Creek. We feel the impacts to fish and wildlife resources can be kept to a minimum with proper project planning. In discussions with R. W. Beck and Associates, we were assured that the minimum flow of 10 CFS we requested in West Creek could be maintained in the channel below the powerhouse with no trouble. We strongly recommend that the off-site housing option be employed during construction to reduced bear/people conflicts. If the on-site option is selected, careful garbage disposal and camp maintenance will be necessary to prevent attraction of bears. We do feel two additional items regarding wildlife impacts need to be addressed prior to filing the license application: 1. What long term impacts, if any, of moose habitat might occur down- stream of the project area due to flow regime changes? 2. A more detailed survey to determine if bear dens are present in the project area. We also assume that more detailed construction information would be in- cluded in the license application if it ;s eventually filed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to working with you as the project develops. Sincerely, Richard D. Reed Regional Supervisor .. .. Mr. Brent Petrie cc: R. W. Beck and Associates R. Ball, ADF&G, Yakutat R. Staska, ADF&G, Haines D. Marriott, ADF&G, Juneau RDR:kk - 2 -May 6, 1982 • • ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Richard D. Reed Regional Supervisor Habitat Division Department of Fish and Game 230 South Franklin Juneau, Alaska 99801 SUBJECT: Haines-Skagway Region Project Feasibility Study Report Dea r r~r. Reed: July 12, 1982 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 Thank you for your 1 etter of ~1ay 6 1982 commenting on the subject report. In the letter you mentioned two items which you feel should be addressed prior to filing the license application of the project. Copies of your letter went to both Haines and Skagway. As a result we received the attached response from Skip Elliott, the City Manager of Skagway and a resident of Dyea. Based upon further discussions with our environmental consultants and Mr. Eliott's letter, we do not believe that either area of concern warrants further field study. We will be prepared to elaborate on those items during preparation of a draft FERC license application. If you have any further comments, please contact us. FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Very truly yours, &~~fl(?e~ Brent N. Petrie Project Manager 'I • CITY OF SKAG WAY May 20, 1982 Mr. Brent Petrie Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Petrie: GATEWAY TO THE GOLD RUSH OF "98" P. O. BOX 415 SKAGWAY. ALASKA 99840 Kevt::l'1It:tJ I~ ~J\V ~ S 1('10') "./"'\ --. ~ .... -.', .. I have reviewed the Environmental Investigation of the West Creek Hydroelectric Project by Dan Bishop and the Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study by R.W. Beck and I found them to be quite thorough. In addition, I have reviewed the comments submitted by the National Park Service, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, and the Division of Parks regarding these studies and I would like to respond to them. As you know, I have lived in Dyea near the proposed hydroelectric project for nearly eight years. In addition, I believe that I have spent more time within the proposed reservoir area than anyone else. First, I feel that Mr. Warnock's statement that "Presently, dip netting for eulachon in lower West Creek is a recognized sports fishing activity" is completely unfounded. I have always taken a deep interest in these fish and their habits and I feel that Mr. Bishop was quite generous in presuming that they spawn in West Creek at all. At any rate. I have never known anyone to catch them there. Second, I am surprised that Mr. Reed is concerned about moose habitat in the West Creek and Taiya River drainages. Not only have I never seen any evidence of moose downstream of the project area, but I have also never heard of anyone else who has seen any evidence of moose within this area. Surely, Fish & Game is aware of this. Third, I have walked the cliffside several times in the project and reservoir areas and have found no evidence of bear dens. I sincerely doubt that any exist at the lower elevations. Fourth. regarding an archaeological survey, I can say that on the surface at least, there is little or nothing of historical significance. I have walked over virtually all of the dam and reservoir areas and have found nothing more than two huntipg campsites of relatively recent vintage. In fact, I have made two special trips in search of artifacts dating from the three mining claims staked on the c1iffsides in 1898 and have been unable to find anything. At any rate, none of these claims would be affected by the proposed hydro project. Of course, subsurface artifacts may exist, but given the poor mineralization and the lack of game within t~e West Creek valley, I sincerely doubt that anything could be found. , " • ~~ay 20,1982 Mr. Brent Petrie Page 2 I hope these comments prove helpful in your analysis of this project. I sincerely hope that the project is developed rationally and with minimal impacts and maximum regard to safety. However, I feel that spending too much time studying wildlife and archaeological impacts would be a costly, unfruitful endeavor. Si~'UJIAf- Skip Elliott City ~~anager cc: NPS F&G DNR ,- MEMORANDUM TO Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority Department of Commerce and Economic Development FROM: Bill Beardsley, Director Division of Energy and ~!dd Power Development uI!L/ Department of Commerce and Economic Development State of Alaska DATE: May FILE NO: TELEPHONE NO: SUBJECT: Comments on Haines- Skagway Feasibility Study Draft Probably there are good answers for the following concerns which I missed in my cursory review. 1. I am not convinced that a four square mile reservoir is adequate to make up for inflow deficiency, during the five months each year when discharge to penstocks (75 CFS) exceeds enflow to reservoir. 2. Given wind assumption on page IV-9 of 22¢/kwh for wind in 1982 vs. diesel at 10¢/kwh I would say wind beats the pants off diesel in any present working analysis. Either the report should not discount wind in so cavalier a fashion or the assumptions had best be changed (would that I could find a windmill that produced firm capacity and energy at 22¢/kwh in 1982). 3. In the wood scenario, forest residue is completely ignored. Assuming ~ of all local vegetation (by weight) is non commercial for species, mortality or other reasons, and that only ~ of the biomass of commercial trees is removed, the volume of forest residue to mill residue works out to a ratio of perhaps 10 to 1. Other benefits not considered were the jobs created by using a local fuel. 4. ~he report assumes that 90% of the Schnabel Mill requirements will be met by the project (page V-3) while the mills new 4000kw waste-fueled power plant will have excess capacity of 65% in a capitalized plant with no significant fuel costs (page IV-12). Something doesn't add up. 02-0011\1 Re •. ; 01791 , .. , Eric Yould Page two May 13, 1982 5. The diesel fuel cost escalator used -2.6% over inflation seems high (VI-2). 6. It is unclear if load communities have been taken demand may be overstated. diversity between into account. If the two not peak 7. I am unclear why there is such a load jump as set forth in Table III 12 and how is generation treated (externalized or included?) in 1982-1983 non utility 8. It is proposed that the facility will be on line in late 1986. Assuming FERC licensing, right-of-way acquisition, tunnel and dam, this seem like a very optimistic time frame. 9. Since population has been declining up to 1980 I am concerned about the assumption of compound annual growth rates in the early 1980's. It shouldn't be to hard to find out whether 1982 population is up from 6 to 9% over 1980 as suggested in Table 111-2. 10. Given six months of spilling it should be mentioned that additional low cost energy and some capacity would be possible in the future at relatively low increment costs. Comment: I intuitively believe hydro is feasible for Haines-Skagway and I believe this report can confirm it. I am, however, worried that unless the analysis is tightened up and assumptions made a bit more conservative, the report (as is) may do more harm than good . 1> ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 July 19, 1982 Mr. William Beardsley, Director Division of Energy and Power Development Department of Commerce and Economic Development MacKay Building, 7th Floor 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Bi 11 : Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·0001 Thank you for your May 13, 1982 comments on the Haines-Skagway feas i bi 1 i ty study. We di d not recei ve any addi tiona 1 comment s from your office and, therefore, we offer the following responses: 1. Reservoir size was carefully analyzed during feasibility study. The reservoir contains an active storage of 18,130 acre-feet and a maximum surface area of 635 area (approximately one square mile) which is sufficient to provide four months of average discharge to the power plan with no inflow. A four square mile reservoir, as you mentioned..,-n your comments, would have 2,560 surface acres which means that if the reservoir had vertical sides it would need be only 7 ft. deep to provide all the active storage needed for annual regulation of the stream flow. 2. The 22~/kWh for wind power is not for firm capacity and energy. It is for energy available when the wind blows and back up would be needed. The system would still require diesel generators which would need to operate at least 50% of the time. Thus, the 22~/kWh would be replacing the fuel cost of generating with diesel (10~/kWh). This is hardly economi ca 1 and wou 1 d not become economi ca 1 unt il di ese 1 fuel costs are greater than 22~/kWh. Based on our fuel escalation assumption of 2.6% per year and real discount rate of 3% per year, the crossover between the wind system and diesel does not occur until about 14 years into the future. 3. For purposes of the economic analysis, the assumptions used in the report are conservative; there is no cost associated with fuel for wood waste. In order to use the forest residue, a cost would have to be added for fuel to the wood waste generator. Although, some of the logs processed at the mill are hauled from state timber sales near Haines, other logs are rafted from timber sales elsewhere in Southeast Alaska. Mr. William Beardsley July 19, 1982 Page 2 4. The report assumes that the wood waste generator at Schnabel Mi 11 wi 11 meet 90% of the mi 111 s energy requi rements under all generation plans. The hydro project would meet 10% of the mill IS requirements. The 10% is to account for maintenance time, unscheduled outages, or temporary fuel shortages. 5. We have recently gone through an extensive survey to develop this yearls fuel escalation rate. Subsequent studies to be completed in 1983 will use a 2.5% escalation rate which was approved by the Alaska Power Authority Board. 6. Load diversity between the communities has been considered. 7a. The assumptions and methodology for developing the load forecast are discussed in detail in Section III. The load jump is a function of many factors which are explained in the report. 7b. Non utility generation is included in the analysis. 8. The late 1986 on-line date was optimistic, but possible. The project is now being postponed at least one year. Project timing will be discussed in our findings and recommendations which will be submitted after completion of the final report. 9. Annual estimates of population are prepared for individual communities in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. These estimates are used for federal revenue shari ng purposes and are based on a Ju1 y 1 date. The communities have until the end of December to submit their population estimates and the final figures are published in January of the following year. Thus. 1982 figures will not be available until next year. The July 1. 1981 estimated populations are 1.712 for the Haines Borough and 819 for the City of Skagway. 10. Credit for some additi ona1 energy was taken into account for the years after 1995. Before 1995. all the projected load would be met by the project and thus the surplus would have no value. However, as noted in the comment. there would be surplus power available. Mr. William Beardsley Jul y 19; 1982 Page 3 Thank you for your comments. Si ncere ly, s:-------- E ri c. P. You 1 d Executive Director 02·0018IRev. 10/761 STATE I£M"1II1"l/ll of ALASKA TO: r FROM: Brent Petrie Project Manager Alaska Power Authority G~tf' George Matz, Program Budget Analyst Division of Budget and Management Office of the Governor DATE: May 13, 1982 BECEI.veQ JUN 0 11982 AlASKA POWER AUTHORITY Draft Feasibility Study FilE NO: TELEPHONE NO: SUBJECT, The purpose of this memo is to provide prel iminary comments on the draft vers i on of the Haines -Skagway Regi on Feas i bi 1 i ty Study. Hopefully, these comments will help assure that the final copy is in close compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. However, these comments do not substi- tute for the review done by Budget and Management once it receives a final copy with a letter of findings and recommendations. The study accepts the Scena ri 0 B load forecast as bei ng the most 1 ike ly. However, this scenario assumes some conditions which are not consistent with recent trends. For instance, consumption per residential customer is assumed to increase at 1.5% per year, after no increases for the next three years, even though lithe average electricity usage per residential customer has been decreasing over the past few years". Also events which could noticeably increase energy demand are not treated in a probabilistic manner even though their occurrence i~ far from certain. For instance, Scenario B assumes that, by 1987, there will be 105 new jobs in Haines and Skagway for construction of the ANGTS project and that a portion of these new employees will continue to live in the area. By 1989, 40 new employees are assumed for a barite mine near Haines. Accounting for indirect employment and families, these two activities result in 570 new residents by 1989 which is a 26% increase over the 1980 population. It should be noted that this 26% increase is nearly identical (but not directly comparable) to the differential between the life cycle costs for the West Creek Plan ($92 million) and the Base Case Plan ($116.6 million). It appears as if the economic feasibility of the West Creek Plan is very sensitive to population projection assumptions and should be treated accordingly. It is to the study's credit that electric space heating is addressed and handled as a separate scenario. However, further explanation is needed regarding the statement (p. III-l7) "This analysis assumes that an average of 3 kwh per degree day are required for each all-electric residential customer based on 24,924 degree days for the Haines area" and a similar statement for Skagway. Does 3 kwh per degree day represent some kind of predetermi ned average? If so, how well does the condition of the Haines and Skagway housing stock correlate with this data? What is the significance of 24,924 degree days? If that refers to degree days, it is not correct. .. Srent Petrie, Project Manager ,) '-i'1ay 13, 1982 If substantial conversion to electric space heating is to be seriously consid- ered, the study needs to include a more detailed account of price elasticity and the benefit/costs of meeting thermal end-use by non-util ity sources of energy as well as conservation strategies . The feasibility study seems to underrate the viability of the existing elec- trical generation system. It appears that the Dewey Lakes hydro project, operated ~y Alaska Power and Telephone Co., actually generates more energy than it is given credit for. Also, if there are serious questions about the long term viability of the Schnabel Lumber Co. wood-waste generation system, these question should also apply to the population and load forecasts. Some alternatives, such as wind generation, were not considered because of lack of data. It should be pointed out that the purpose of the feasibility study is to proviae such aata. Although wind gen2ration is a questionable source of electric generation at this time, it may, within several years, be considered feasible from a utilities perspective. Since the justification of the West Creek Project seems dependent on the development of future demand, it is appropriate to compare t~est Creek to alternatives which are not yet feasible but may be within several years. The tables used for the economic analysis data are very gooa. Data is presented in logical progressions and assumptions are clearly stated. The only comments are 1) it is not clear why diesel operating and maintenance costs decline for Table VI-l and 2) Table VI-3, assumption 4, states that the plant is replaced in 200 (year presumably) which is apparently incomplete. Considering the importance of the wood waste alternative and the substantial cost -For plant replacement, a life cycle cost analysis at the time of retirement of the present wood waste generation plant would be very useful. In order to accurately represent costs, this analysis should discount costs from the year in which the casts are incurred r~ther than discount amortized costs. The advantage of the former methoa is appare:1t when a truncated situation exists such as the wood waste alternative. The timing exercise (Table VI-12). provides essential information for optimiz- ing state investments. It would be useful to include some explanation as to how this calculation was made and what assumptions were used. These costs should include a real escalation for capital costs, although it is not clear what the escalation factor should be. In summary, the economic f2asibility of the West Creek Project and its timing appear to be very sensitive to the assumptions used for the demand proJec- tions. Although the basis for the oemand projections is very explicit and detailed, additiunal emohasis should be given to sensitivity. One again, these comments should be considered prelimin~ry. A formal review of the feasioility study will be undertaken by Budget and Management when the feasibility study is finalized and submitted with a letter of findings and r2cornmendations. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. George Matz Program Budget Analyst Division of Budget and Management Office of the Governor G Brent N. Petrie ~ Project Manager Alaska Power Authority Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 July 14, 1982 Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study Thank you for your memorandum of May 13, 1982 commenting on the draft report of the Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study. We are aware that your comments are only preliminary and that a formal review will be performed only after the final report is submitted with a letter of findings and recommendations. However, we would like to respond to your comments with the following: 1. All three forecast scenarios attempt to incorporate recent historical trends in electricity consumption with likely future conditions which may affect customer usage. The decrease in residential electricity usage over the past few years has been attributed to conservation in response to general economic conditions, the availability of low-cost conservation programs, and increasing electricity rates. As energy audits and other conservation programs have already been implemented in both Haines and Skagway and in view of the fact that there is virtually no existing electric space heating in these communities, we felt that it would be unrealistic to assume future dramatic decreases in usage without major lifestyle changes or capital investments. However, assuming the conservation efforts already undertaken would continue, the consultants felt that holding electricity consumption per customer constant for the next few years was reasonable. Beyond the next few years, a decade of moderately increasing residential electricity consumption was included in the forecast (less than one/third of the rate of increase in the early 1970's). This increase reflects a rise in the standard of living up to a point of saturation of major electrical appliances. 2. The uncertainty associated with certain events was dealt with by developing alternative forecast scenarios. As noted, construction of the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline is still in question and a delay to 1987 has been announced by project sponsors. The consultants projected a 1987-1989 construction period prior to the project sponsors. Scenario B includes manpower estimates provided by local townspeople who have been contacted by the project sponsors regarding impacts on the communities. Assumptions were made concerning secondary ernployment and workers remaining beyond construction of the project also based on these Mr. George A. Matz July 14, 1982 Page 2 local interviews. A local investor in the barite mine near Haines was consulted regarding the development of that project and provided us with current manpower and time schedule estimates. However, in neither case was a IIprobabilistic" analysis of occurrence made. This information was necessary to determine project sizing in the event those loads actually occur. Other projects considered more speculative such as an iron mine near Klukwan and electrification of the railroad were not included in any forecast. Certainly population growth is an important "driver" behind the forecast and economic feasibility of the project, which is why an attempt to present a range of likely growth was made using three scenarios. A sensitivity analysis of population growth would not fully explain the effect which each growth scenario has on the economic analysis, as a number of other assumptions accompany the population growth rates within each scenario. For instance, in Skagway under the Scenario B forecast, not only is there additional population growth due to pipeline workers over that in Scenario A, but there is also a 20% annual increase in the railroad's electrical requirements for the duration of the pipeline construction. Economic analyses were conducted for each growth scenario and are shown in Section VI of the report. As the result of information provided during review of the draft report, the West Creek Project is the least cost alternative for Scenario B and is almost identical to the riskier wood waste alternative in Scenario A. 3. The figures "24,924" on page 111-17 of the Draft Report and "24,711" on 1II-18 refer to kWh, not degree days. Those figures have been corrected for the final report and read "8,308 11 for Haines and "8,237" for Skagway. The "24,924" and "24,711" figures were calculated by multiplying the average annual degree days, by 3 kWh, an average electricity usage rate which the consultants have found to exist throughout the country in areas where electricity is used for space heating. Although there are a number of factors which could influence this average, it has been found to exist in small towns as well as more metropolitan areas. Substantial conversion to electricity for space heating is not necessarily considered a likely result of this project. As pointed out in the report, substantial conversion to electricity for space heating, would occur only if cost of electricity were considered less costly than alternative fuels. However, the impact of significant conversion was shown in separate Scenario C, in order to complete a range of growth alternatives for these communities. A separate (outside of the report) analysis of the cost of power of West Creek and several energy alternatives was conducted and will be discussed in the Authority's Findings and Recommendations. Mr. George A. Matz July 14, 1982 Page 3 4. The draft report did under-rate the Dewey Lakes hydro project due to a lack of current information. At the public meetings in Skagway we were told that the expanded system generated 2915 MWh in 1981, its first year of operation. The 1500 MWh used in the report was the long term average of the old system which had an installed capacity of 335 kW instead of the 780 kW in the expanded system. Since there is no long term average for the new system, the 1981 generation will be used and the economic analysis modified. However, we should point out that 1981 is an atypical year in that the new units came on line in June and thus generated through only a part of the runoff season, but that 1981 was a wet year. Thus, although 1981 might serve as a reasonable representation of average generations, the generation in succeeding years needs to be included in the average as soon as possible. As mentioned in the report, there are serious questions as to the long term viability of the wood waste generator in Haines which were dealt with in the feasibility study by performing a sensitivity analysis. The question of long term viability of the wood waste generator does not necessarily mean that the population and load forecasts are affected. There could be less energy available from woodwaste because the mill is using more energy or because there is a better market for the woodwaste. In both cases the employment at the mill could be unaffected. 5. The criticism that the study did not consider wind generation is unfounded. Wind generation is discussed in some detail on pages IV-6 through IV-10. This discussion contains the best cost information we are able to obtain at this time and shows that wind generation is now about twice as expensive as the cost of diesel fuel for generation. For us to speculate that wind generation will be the most economical alternative in a few years and that Haines and Skagway should depend on it as its primary source of power is not responsible engineering, but simply a statement of faith in the feasibility of wind power. Wind generation, especially large scale wind generation is still in the experimental stage with many uncertainties. The comparisons included in the report are based on currently available technologies and their costs in today's market. If we were to assume that wind generation will experience an economic or technological breakthrough in the next few years which will lower its cost, we could with equal validity hypothesize similar breakthroughs for the other alternatives which lower their costs. This sort of speculation will not provide a meaningful planning tool and thus should be avoided. A second point which must be kept in mind when discussing wind power is that it is not a firm power source. It operates only when the wind blows. To date, it has been largely for a fuel replacement. In order to make it a firm power source, the entire Mr. George A. Matz July 14, 1982 Page 4 system must include either backup generation or an energy storage system. Thus, in order to make a valid comparison of wind generation vs. the other generation plans, we would have to include the wind generators and the backup system as a combination. As a displacement for diesel fuel a wind system cost of 22¢/Kwh is compared to lO¢/Kwh for fuel. Inclusion of backup reserve for firm • energy would increase the 22¢/Kwh figure. Skagway has a wind system installed under a state grant and although it has already failed on one occasion, the economic analysis assumes that 25% of the City of Skagway1s sewage treatment facility consumption will be served by that wind system. 6. The decline in the diesel operation and maintenance costs after 1987 in Table VI-2 is due to the mothballing of about half the existing diesel generation units once the West Creek Project comes on-line. This can be done because the West Creek will provide firm power and will require only emergency backup until 1997 when the load requirements of the two communities are forecasted to exceed the capacity of the Project. 7. The analysis of each alternative was performed as required in the APAls regulations. The period of analysis extends through the assumed economic life of the West Creek Hydroelectric Project which has the longest life. We are confident that the study is a valid representation of the costs of each alternative and see no reason to perform other analyses, which if done correctly, will give the same results. 8. The timing exercise in Table VI-12 was performed by computing the total present worth for the West Creek Plan in the same way as shown on Tables VI-2, VI-6 and VI-9, but with the on-line date changed to 1989, 1991, 1993 and 1995. The analysis assumed that the existing system of diesel and hydro generation would continue to meet the electric needs until the West Creek Project came on-line. In comparing the total present worth costs of dates it should be noted that the difference in cost between the highest and lowest costs is less than 2%. This is much less than the accuracies of the assumptions which went into the calculations. Thus, one should be careful about drawing too many conclusions from the table. Also, the analysis does not include escalation of capital costs. Including a real escalation of capital costs will change the results and make it difficult to compare them with the results of the economic analyses performed for the base case and wood waste alternatives. The Power Authority will discuss the timing of this project further in its Findings and Recommendations. PART D: SUMMARY OF GENERATION ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY OF GENERATION ALTERNATIVES DIESEL GENERATION FACILITIES I. CAPITAL COSTS A. Generation 1. Assumptions a. Economic Life of Diesel Generators: 20 years b. Installation Costs: $800/kW c. Base Year of Estimates: 1982 2. Capacity Additions and Cost Data a. Year of Additions: 1998 b. Additional Capacity: 600 kW c. Total Capacity: 8,110 kW d. Capital Cost: $480,000 (total not annual) B. Transmission and Substations 1. Assumptions a. No transmission line or facilities needed. 2. Facility Additions and Cost Data a. No additional facilities anticipated. II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST A. Generation 1. Assumptions a. Base Year for Estimates: 1982 b. Fixed Costs: $120/kW c. Variable Costs: (not part of analysis) 2. Cost Data SCENARIO B: (a) (b) (c) (d) Year Fixed Costs Variable Costs Total Costs ($000) ($000) ($000) 1982 901 901 1987 821 821 1992 798 798 1997 771 771 2001 819 819 Page 2 SCENARIO A: (a) (b) (c) (d) Year Fixed Costs Variable Costs Total Costs ($000) ($000) ($000) 1982 901 901 1981 821 821 1992 198 198 1991 111 111 2001 151 151 B. Transmission and SUbstation 1. Assumptions a. No transmission or substation facilities. 2. Cost Data a. No transmission or substation facilities. III. FUEL COSTS A. Assumptions 1 • Base Year for Estimates: 1982 2. Base Price for Fuel Oil: $1.16/gal. 3. Fuel Escalation Rate: $2.6%/yr. 4. Efficiency: 12 kWh/gal. B. Annual Cost Data SCENARIO B: (1) (2 ) (3) (4) (5) Diesel Net Fuel Oil Price of Year Generation Used Fuel Oil Fuel Cost (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($000) 1982 11,158 980 1.16 1, 131 1981 15,815 1,321 1.32 1,145 1992 19,088 1,590 1.50 2,385 1991 22,982 1,920 1.10 3,265 2001 26,381 2,141 1.94 4,153 Page 3 SCENARIO A: (1) (2 ) (3) (4) (5) Diesel Net Fuel Oil Price of Year Generation Used Fuel Oil Fuel Cost (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($000) 1982 11,610 967 1.16 1,122 1987 13,304 1,108 1.32 1,462 1992 15,109 1,259 1.50 1,888 1997 16,993 1,420 1. 70 2,414 2001 18,435 1,496 1.94 2,902 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT I. CAPITAL COSTS A. Generation 1. Assumptions a. Economic Life of Project: 50 years b. Construction Startup Date: 1984 (summer) c. Construction Completion Date: 1986 d. Interest During Construction: 3%/year e. Base Year for Estimates: 1982 2. Capacity Additions a. No additions anticipated in the form of hydroelectric power. 3. Construction Costs a. Investment Cost (Construction Cost Plus Interest During Construction) Discounted to Base Year: $55,908,000 4. Other Generation Components a. In addition to the hydroelectric project, other genera- tion components may be needed to meet demand or reserve requirements. These are not components in the form of hydroelectric power, and therefore are not listed here. B. Transmission and Substations 1. Assumptions a. 22.8 miles of transmission line categorized as follows: Description Buried Transmission Line, 34.5 kV Overhead Transmission Line, 34.5 kV Submarine Transmission Cable Component Length (Miles) 1.2 5.0 16.6 b. Three Substations and costs as follows: Description Haines Terminal Switching Stations . Skagway SUbstation . Lump Sum Cost $231,000 231,000 147,000 c. Base Year for Estimates: 1982 2. Facility Additions and Cost Data a. No facility additions are anticipated. Cost/Mile ($000) 407 203 648.07 II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS A. Generation 1. Assumptions a. Base Year for Estimates: 1982 b. Fixed Costs: $120/kW c. Variable Costs: (not part of analysis) 2. Annual Cost Data: SCENARIO B: (a) (b) Year Fixed Costs ($000) 1982 1987 1992 1997 2001 o 727 727 727 727 SCENARIO A: ( a) Year 1982 1987 1992 1997 2001 (b) Fixed Costs ($000) o 727 727 727 727 (c) Variable Costs ($000) (c) Variable Costs ($000) (d) Total Costs ($000) o 727 727 727 727 (d) Total Costs ($000) o 727 727 727 727 Page 2 3. O&M costs for other generation components not anticipated. B. Transmission and Substation 1. Assumptions (O&M on Transmission and SUbstation not included with hydro project cost listed above.) III. FUEL COSTS A. Assumptions 1. A hydroelectric project may need supplemental generation to meet peak and/or energy demand. If the supplemental genera- tion component uses fuel, fuel costs for the following are to be included: a. Fuel consumption needed to meet the difference between annual energy demand and average annual energy gener- ated from the hydroelectric project: • b. Page 3 SCENARIO B: Diesel Fuel Consumption to Year Meet Supplemental Generation (1,000 gal) 1982 980 1981 0 1992 0 1991 0 2001 89 SCENARIO A: Diesel Fuel Consumption to Year Meet Supplemental Generation (1,000 gal) 1982 961 1981 0 1992 0 1991 0 2001 0 Fuel consumption needed to meet the difference between seasonal energy demand and seasonal variations in the capacity of the hydroelectric project excluding differ- ences described in (a): None • B. Annual Cost Data 1. See A.1(a) IV. RESERVE CAPACITY NOTE: Reserve capacity is in the form of existing diesel unit generation (as shown in Table VI-3 of the report) which presently serves both Haines ~d~~wy. I. CAPITAL COSTS A. Generation 1. Assumptions WOODWASTE GENERATOR (CASE A) a. Economic Life of Project: 20 years b. Construction Startup Date: 1982 c. Construction Completion Date: 1983 d. Interest During Construction: Not Available e. Base Year for Estimate: 1982 2. Construction Costs a. Investment Cost: $4,300,000 (1982 dollars) 3. Additional Capacity a. Year of Additions: 2002 b. Capacity Addition to Replace Existing: 4,000 kW c. Capital Cost: $12,500,000 4. Other Generation Components a. See IV. B. Transmission and Substation 1. Assumptions a. Existing transmission facilities would be utilized. 2. Facility Additions and Cost Data a. Existing transmission facilities would be utilized, no additional facilities anticipated. II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS A. Generation 1. Assumptions a. Base Year for Estimates: 1982 b. Fixed Costs: $67.75/kW per year c. Variable Costs: (not part of analysis) Page 2 2. Annual Cost Data SCENARIO B: (a) (b) (c) (d) Year Fixed Costs Variable Costs Total Costs ($000 ) ($000) ($000) 1982 0 0 1987 289 289 1992 289 289 1997 289 289 2002 289 289 SCENARIO A: (a) (b) (c) (d) Year Fixed Costs Variable Costs Total Costs ($000) ($000 ) ($000) 1982 0 0 1987 289 289 1992 289 289 1997 289 289 2002 289 289 3 • O&M Costs for other generation components: • SCENARIO B: (a) (b) (c) (d) Year Fixed Costs Variable Costs Total Costs • ($000 ) ($000) ($000) 1982 901 901 1987 901 901 1992 901 901 1997 901 901 2002 937 937 SCENARIO A: ( a) (b) (c) (d) Year Fixed Costs Variable Costs Total Costs ($000) ($000) ($000) .' 1982 901 901 1987 901 901 1992 901 901 1997 901 901 2002 901 901 Page 3 III. FUEL COSTS A. Assumptions 1. Wood waste can be considered an economical fuel for meeting Haines' requirements for the five-year period of agreement between Schnabel and HLP. After that time the plant cannot be considered a firm resource beyond that point. As for prices, availability, and escalation, there are questions as to future costs for the community. B. Same as "A". C. Supplemental Costs 1. Supplemental generation fuel costs would be for diesel gener- ation: SCENARIO B: (a) (b) (c) (d) Year Fixed Costs Variable Costs Total Costs ($000) ($000) ($000) 1982 1 ,137 1 ,137 1987 880 880 1992 1,088 1,088 1997 1,550 1,550 2002 2,023 2,023 SCENARIO A: (a) (b) (c) (d) Year Fixed Costs Variable Costs Total Costs ($000) ($000) ($000) 1982 1,122 1,122 1987 678 678 1992 890 890 1997 1,150 1,150 2002 1,396 1,396 IV. RESERVE CAPACITY A. Assumptions 1. To assure firm power reserve capacity will be in the form of diesel generation as shown previously in I, II and III for this alternative. B. Annual Cost Data 1. See Sections I, II and III. , WASTE HEAT FACILITIES I. UTILIZATION A. Demand For purposes of this study, it was assumed that 100% of the poten- tial waste heat could be used. The potential customers in Haines include two hotels and other small businesses in the vicinity of the generating plant. B. Thermal Availability 1. Not Studied II. CAPITAL COSTS A. Base Year of Cost Estimate: 1982 B. Capital Costs 1. NOTE: For Haines only, Scenario B, approximately $90,000 of heating oil could be displaced annually at 1982 price levels. The cost of installing such a recovery system can only be estimated at this time based on a similar installa- tion and is assumed to be $600,000. III. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS A. No studies have been done pertaining to O&M. IV. FUEL AND COST SAVINGS A. No studies have been done on this subject other than as mentioned in Part II, Capital Costs. i • HAINES -Diesel Generators EXISTING FACILITIES (SCENARIO B) HLP - 7 units with total capacity of 4,320 kW: (1) (1) (1) (4 ) 2,070-kW machine 800-kW machine 600-kW machine Others ranging in or early 1950's. 1973 installation Late 1960's Late 1960's size from 150 kW to 300 kW date from the 1940's SKAGWAY -Combination of hydroelectric turbine-generators and diesel genera- tors owned and operated by AP&Tj total capacity is 4,130 kW: (3) Pelton turbines with 100-kW, 410-kW and 270-kW installed capacity (reconditioned in 1981) (5) Diesel units which supplement existing hydropower: (3) 1,250-kW units installed in the late 1970's (3) Older units ranging from 250 kW to 300 kW