HomeMy WebLinkAboutCathedral Falls Project, A Reconnaissance Report 1979CIIPf /JbV -~ 001
October
1979
CITHIDRIL
FILLS PRDJICT
A Reconnaissance
Report
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
LIBRARY COPY
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FROM OFFICE~ ,
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POVVER AUTHORITY
Anchorage, Alaska
By
HARZA Engineering Company
Chicago, Illinois
...
-
-
....
...
CATHEDRAL FALLS PROJECT
A Reconnaissance Report
Prepared for the
State of Alaska
Alaska Power Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
by
Harza Engineering Company
Chicago, Illinois
October, 1979
....
...
...
..
, ..
~ ENGINEERING COMPANY CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Alaska Power Authority
Suite 31
333 West 4th Avenue,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attention:
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Cathedral Falls Project
Summary Letter
October 18, 1979
We present the results of our reconnaissance study of the
Cathedral Falls Project. The study includes technical, eco-
nomic and environmental evaluations of the Project.
We recommend that a feasibility study leading to an FERC license
application be made of the Project, if financing at an interest
rate equal to or less than 5 percent can be obtained and if a
reconnaissance study of wood-fired electricity generation and
the availablility of wood fuel resources does not show that
type of project to be more attractive than the Cathedral Falls
Project.
The following paragraphs briefly describe the Project and the
studies which were made.
The Cathedral Falls Project
The Cathedral Falls Project is located at the falls, on the
creek of the same name, about 10 miles southeast of the town of
Kake on Kupreanof Island in Southeast Alaska. The Project
would have an installed capacity of 750 kW and, at full produc-
tion level, would produce about 3,680 MWh in an average year.
The Table of Significant Data at the end of this letter con-
tains pertinent data on the Project. A plan and sections of
the Project are shown on Exhibits C-2 and C-3 of the report.
The Project will consist of a dam, spillway, intake, penstock,
powerstation and transmission line. The dam will be a low
150 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 606oS
TEL. (312) 855-7000 CABLE: HARZENG CHICAGO TELEX 25-3540
...
' ...
...
'.
...
-
,""
Alaska Power Authority
October 18, 1979
Page Two
concrete gravity structure containing an uncontrolled spillway.
Maximum dam height will be about 27 feet. Water will pass
through a 6.5 foot diameter steel penstock 470 feet long. The
penstock will pass through a 9.0 foot diameter tunnel for 360
feet of its length. A powerstation will be constructed near
the base of the falls. The powerhouse will be a prefabricated
metal building containing two vertical shaft, fixed blade
propeller turbines. Each turbine will be directly coupled to a
generator rated at 375 kW. Power from the Project will be
transmitted to Kake over a 9-mile long, 12.5-kV transmission
1 ine.
Identification of the potential environmental impacts of the
Project shows that there do not appear to be any adverse
environmental impacts of a magnitude which would preclude
project development. Anadromous fish spawn below the falls,
but construction and operating procedures can be adopted to
reduce this impact.
Costs
The construction cost of the Project includes the direct cost
of civil works, contractor's overhead and profit, purchase and
installation of equipment, contingencies, engineering and
owner's administration, but excludes price escalation beyond the
date of the estimate and interest during construction. The
estimated construction cost of the Project, at September, 1979
price level is $7.1 million.
Operation and maintenance cost for the Project is estimated at
$40,000 per year at September, 1979 price level.
Economics
A comparison of benefits produced by the Project, as measured
by the cost of alternative diesel generation, with the cost of
the Project shows that the Project has a benefit-cost ratio of
about one at an interest rate of 5 percent, assuming a differ-
ential fuel cost escalation of 2 percent.
· ..
'"
...
..
...
..
...
..
' ..
..
....
....
....
Alaska Power Authority
October 18, 1979
Page Three
The average cost of energy over the 50-year life of the Pro-
ject, at September, 1979, price level, would be 20.8 cents/kWh
for the Project. This compares with 24.3 cents/kWh for the
diesel alternative.
Schedule
The Project could enter service by the beginning of 1984, if an
organization framework is developed, financial feasibility is
established, and feasibility studies are started in the fourth
quarter of 1979.
Conclusion
We find the Cathedral Falls Project to be attractive if financ-
ing can be obtained at an interest rate of 5 percent or less •
We recommend that financing alternatives be investigated as
soon as possible. Concurrently, a reconnaissance level study
should be made of the use of wood as a fuel to supply Rake.
The study should include an evaluation of both direct combustion
and biomass conversion. Also, a brief reconnaissance level study
should be made of an interconnection to Petersburg. A decision
can then be made whether to implement the Cathedral Falls
Project, based on the availability of suitable financing and
viable alternative projects •
We would be pleased to provide you any assistance you may
require in these matters.
Very truly yours,
Arthur E. Allen
Project Director
...
"II
..
..
...
...
TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT DATA
RESERVOIR
Water Surface Elevation, ft msl
Normal Maximum
Minimum
Tailwater Elevation, ft msl
Surface Area at Normal Max. El.,ac
Estimated Useable Storage, ac-ft
Type of Regulation
HYDROLOGY
DAM
Drainage Area, sq mi
Avg. Annual Runoff, cfs/mi 2
Streamflow, cfs
Maximum Monthly
Average Annual
Mi nimum Monthly
Type
Height, ft
Top Elevation, ft msl
Dam Volume, cy
SPILLWAY
Type
Crest Elevation, ft msl
Width, ft
Design Discharge, cfs
TUNNEL
Diameter, ft
Length, ft
PENSTOCK
Type
Diameter, ft
Length, ft
Shell Thickness, in
115
110
26
6.5
30
None
27.2
3.8
180
103
38.3
Conc. Gravity
27
125
13,000
Conc Ogee
115
70
8600
9
360
Steel
6.5
470
0.25
...
...
..
TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT DATA (Cont'd)
POiJERSTATION
Number of Units (Initial)
Turbine Type
Rated Net Head, ft
Generator Unit Rating, kW
Full Load Discharge, one unit, cfs
POWER AND ENERGY
Installed Capacity, kW
Firm Capacity, kW
Avg. Annual Energy Genera tion,MI.vh
Avg. Plant Factor, %
COSTS AND ECONOMICS
Construction Cost, $xl0 6
Unit Cost, $/kW inst
B/C Ratio @5% with 2% fuel escalation
Average Cost of Energy, cents/kWh
2
Propeller
84
375
62
750
120
3450
53
7.1
9470 1/
0.94=-
20.8
!! Without cold storage (1.04 with cold storage).
.11
,,'
..
.,.
.",
CATHEDRAL FALLS
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS - C
Chapter
I.
II.
Summary Letter
Table of Significant Data
Table of Contents
Foreword
Purpose and Scope
Background and Previous Studies
Authorization
Acknowledgements
Project Setting
Location and Access
Population and Economy
Electric Power System
Utilities
Existing Facilities
Power Market Forecast
Topography
Geology
Hydrology
Ecology
The Cathedral Falls Project
General Description
I ntroduc tion
Project Arrangement
Project Functional Design
Hydroelectric Power Production
Geology, Foundations and Construction
Materials
Description of Project Facilities
Dam and Spillway
Power Intake
Penstock and Power Tunnel
-i-
-i-
C-F-l
C-F-l
C-F-l
C-F-2
C-F-2
C-I-l
C-I-l
C-I-l
C-I-l
C-I-l
C-I...,l
C-I-2
C-I-3
C-I-3
C-I-3
C-I-4
C-II-l
C-II-l
C-II-l
C-II-l
C-II-2
C-II-2
C-II-2
C-II-4
C-II-4
C-II-5
C-II-5
..
...
...
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Powerplant
Switchyard and Transmission
Access Roads
Reservoir
Spoil Disposal
Envirorunental Aspects
Project Constuction
First Year
Second Year
Proj ect Costs
Cons truc t ion
Operation and Maintenance
III. Project Selection and Operation
Stream Regulation Characteristics
Type, Number and Capacity of Generating
Units
Power and Energy Production
IV. Economic Analysis
~ Methodology
V.
,"
Alternative Sources of Power
Wind and Solar
Load Management and Energy Conservation
Interconnection
Other Hydro
Wood
Diesel
Economic Criteria
Economic Comparison
Cost of Energy
Recommendations and Implementation
Recomme nda t ions
Organizational Framework and Financing
Pre-Construction Activities
Implementation Schedule
-ii-
C-II-6
C-II-7
C-II-7
C-II-8
C-II-8
C-II-8
C-II-9
C-II-9
C-II-ll
C-II-ll
C-II-ll
C-II-l3
C-III-l
C-III-l
C-III-l
C-III-3
C-IV-l
C-IV-l
C-IV-l
C-IV-l
C-IV-2
C-IV-2
C-IV-3
c-rV-5
C-IV-6
C-IV-7
C-IV-7
C-IV-8
C-V-l
C-V-l
C-V-l
C-V-2
C-V-3
,,'
,,.
..
..
'.
,oM
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-S
C-6
C-7
A
B
C
D
EXHIBITS
General Location Map
General Plan
Proj ect Sections
Detailed Cost Estimate
Project Selection
Cost of Energy
Implementation Schedule
Geology
Hydrology
Environment
References
APPENDICES
-iii-
FOREWORD (C)
Purpose and Scope of ReP9rt
This report is to document the results of a reconnaissance
level study of the Cathedral Falls Project near Kake on
Kupreanof Island in Southeast Alaska. The objective of the
study is to determine if an application for license to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) should be made. An
evaluation of energy generation alternatives for Kake was also
made.
The scope of the study includes the following work items:
I .
2.
3.
4 •
Size installation and estimate project power and
energy production in relation to system loads.
Prepare reconnaissance level analyses, preliminary
design, geologic maps and layouts of appurtenant
structures.
Identify the potential environmental impacts of the
project.
Make a preliminary assessment of the safety hazard
if any, caused or introduced by the project.
5. Estimate the construction, operation and main-
tenance costs and service life of the project.
6. Evaluate energy alternatives and prepare an economic
analysis of project.
7. Prepare a final report documenting the studies.
Background and Previous Studies
Studies of hydroelectric power development in the Kake
area have focused around the development of Gunnuk Creek,
a stream which passes through Kake, sinf7 studies completed by
the Federal Power Commision in 1947 [1]-. An inventory study
[2] prepared for the Alaska Power Authority (APA) in 1977 also
selected Gunnuk Creek as the site for power development. That
study mentioned Cathedral Falls as an alternative site for
development; however the site was deferred for development in
favor of Gunnuk Creek because the Gunnuk Creek Project was
planned for seasonal regulation, whereas the Cathedral Falls
Project would be run-of-river.
II Reference listed in Appendix D.
C-F-l
..
Field investigation of the Gunnuk Creek Project, discussed
later in this report, revealed that seasonal regulation would
not be practical. Cost comparisons showed that a run-of-river
project could be developed more economically at Cathedral
Falls. Therefore that site was selected for the present study.
Authorization
The work was carried out under a contract between the APA
and Harza Engineering Company, effective as of June 1, 1979.
Funds for the study were provided by the State of Alaska.
Acknowledgements
Harza acknowledges and appreciates the valuable assistance
and advice offered by the staffs of the following agencies:
Alaska Power Authority
Alaska Power Administration
Tlingit & Haida Regional Electrical Authority
U.S. Forest Service, Tongass National Forest
U.S. Geological Survey
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
C-F-2
Chapter C-I
PROJECT SETTING
Location and Access
The Cathedral Falls project is located at latitude 56 0
54'N and longitude 133 0 43'W, near the town of Kake on
Kupreanof Island in Southeast Alaska. See Exhibit C-l. The
Project develops the head between the top and the bottom
of a falls on Cathedral Falls Creek at a point about 0.5
miles upstream from Hamilton Bay. Hamilton Bay is an arm of
Keku Strait.
Access to the damsite and the powerstation site is gained
by all-weather logging roads.
Population ~ Economy
The Project would serve the town of Kake and the Clear
Creek Logging Company (CCLC) at nearby Portage Bay. The
majority of the inhabitants of the project area are Alaskan
Natives, predominatly Tlingit Indians. The population of the
area is about 700 and accounts for almost all the population
of Kupreanof Island.
The major commercial activities of the project area are
fishing and forestry. A cold storage plant is currently under
construction in Kake.
Electric Power System
Utilities
Kake is served by the Tlingit and Haida Regional Elec-
trical Authority (THREA), a rural electric utility with offices
in Juneau, Alaska, which serves 5 towns in Southeast Alaska.
CCLC is supplied by the Kake System.
Existing Facilities
All power in the project area is generated by small
diesel-electric units located in Kake. The power is distributed
from the powerstation and there are no transmission lines
interconnecting the town with other areas.
Table C-I-l lists the generating units serving the area.
all units are owned by THREA.
C-I-l
Table C-I-l
KAKE ELECTRIC SYSTEM EXISTING
DIESEL GENERATING FACILI'rIES
Unit No. -r-
Nameplate
Unit
Capacity, kW 1/
Total Firm-
2
3
4
500
500
300
300
!! Largest unit out of service.
Power Market Forecast
1600 1100
The forecast of future electric power needs is based on a
current forecast prepared for the utility(THREA), and on
discussions with the large private industries in the area (CCLC
and the cold storage plant). A forecast of the power and
energy generation requirements in the project area is shown on
Table C-I-2.
Table C-I-2
PCWER AND ENERGY
GENERATION REQUIREMENTS
1978 1983 1988 1993
(a ctual)
Peak Dema nd, kW
THREA 430 560 680 820
Cold Storage 370 370 530
Enersy Generation, MWh/yr
THREA 1690 2220 2670 3220
Cold Storage 1170 1170 1680
Future requirements for THREA in Kake have been estimated
by a Rural Electrification Administration (REA) team [3] in
cooperation with THREA. The current forecast, made in May
1979, is substantially lower than previous forecasts, basically
because the previous forecasts were overly optimistic and re-
cent rate increases have curtailed increases in per capita
consumption. Over the ten-year forecast period the REA pre-
dicted per capita consumption to remain constant with load
growth coming from new connections. The combined load served
by THREA is forecast to increase at 3.8 percent per year.
C-I-2
CCLC has no plans for any major increase in power consump-
tion. The cold storage plant is being built by the Kake Tribal
Corperation, the local native village corporation. The Corpo-
ration plans to install its own generating units, according to
present plans. The Cathedral Falls Project will therefore be
analyzed with and without that load.
Topography
Kupreanof Island has rolling, rugged mountainous terrain
rising to 3800 feet at Portage Mountain, near Petersburg.
Elongated hills, rising to El. 500, muskegs, and shallow lakes
characterize the project area. Cathedral Falls is about 75
. feet high with the base of the falls near tidewater at El. 24.
Hillside slopes above the falls are moderate and below the
falls are steep.
Geology
The falls was apparently developed by the headward deepen-
ing of the stream after rebound of the area following melting of
a glacier. Rock in the area of project structures is part of
the Permian-pybus and Triassic-Hamilton Island Formations
and consists of fairly hard limestone. Earthquakes are common
in the project area and the Project could be subject to severe
shaking. More information on project geology is presented in
Appendix C-A.
Hydrology
The climate of the project area is largely maritime with
occasional incursions of continental air masses. The climate
is mild and humid with much precipitation. Average annual
temperature is 40-45°F with lows ranging from slightly below
OOF in the winter to highs close to 90°F in the summer. Pre-
cipitation varies greatly with elevation and location. At Kake
mean annual precipitation is about 55 inches.
Cathedral Falls Creek has a drainage area of 27 square
miles and an average annual inflow of 103 cfs or 3.8 cfs/mi2.
June, July, and August are low flow months with average flows
below 60 cfs. High flow months are October and November, with
average flows of 160 cfs or greater.
More detailed information on project hydrology is presented
in Appendix C-B. Hydrologic information relating to project
operation is presented in Chapter C-III.
C-I-3
Ecology
Vegetation in the project area is typical of hemlock-spruce
coastal forest with considerable muskeg areas. The area has
been logged. Wildlife in the project area includes black bear,
deer, moose, and wolf as well as many of the 200 bird species
common to Southeast Alaska. Cathedral Falls Creek is catalogued
as an anadromous fish stream and reportedly supports spawning
runs of pink, churn and coho salmon.
More information on ecology is presented in Appendix C-C.
Project impacts are discussed in Chapter C-II.
C-I-4
Chapter C-II
THE CATHEDRAL FALLS PROJECT
General Description
Introduction
The Cathedral Falls Project will provide energy to meet a
part of the Kake system requirements and thereby replace some
of the energy demand that would have to be provided by diesel
generators. The falls provides an opportunity to develop a net
head of about 87 feet without the need for excessive structures.
The site does not allow for the economic development of reser-
voir storage. The plant can provide some dependable capacity
but will be primarily a source of energy when water is avail-
able. This Chapter gives a description of the Project, the
functional preliminary design of the major project elements,
the schedule for the construction of the project, and the
estimated project costs.
Project Arrangement
The Cathedral Falls Project will consist of the following
principal elements:
a. A low concrete gravity dam across the river, founded
on rock, with an uncontrolled spillway over the
highest part of the dam in the river section.
b. An intake and an emergency closure gate for the power
conduit and a temporary diversion conduit located
through the dam at one side of the spillway.
c. A power conduit 470 feet long (including 360 feet in
the tunnel and 110 feet of exposed steel penstock) to
convey water down to a powerhouse located near the
base of the present waterfall.
d. A powerhouse containing two turbines, generators and
electrical switchgear and an adjacent switchyard to
contain transformers and transmission pull-off
structures.
e. Other facilities including an access road and trans-
mission line.
C-II-l
Exhibit C-2 shows a plan of the project general arrange-
ment. Exhibit C-3 shows sections through the major structures
including the dam and spillway, the penstock and power tunnel
and the powerstation.
A summary of significant data relating to the project is
shown on the table at the end of the summary letter.
Project Functional Design
The Project will be designed to provide energy to the town
of Kake and its environs in proportion to the flow available
in the river. The plant will operate essentially as a run-of-
river plant. The proposed reservoir will provide only minimum
pondage, which can be used to regulate flows on an hourly basis
provided there are no adverse effects on anadromous fish.
Hydroelectric Power Production
The powerplant will have two generators rated at 375 kW
each, powered by fixed blade propeller turbines of 527 Hp each.
The total installed generating capacity will be 750 kW. At
full utilization the Project will produce 3680 MWh in an
average year.
Gross operating head will vary from 90 feet to 85 feet
using 5 feet of drawdown available for pondage when inflow is
less than turbine discharge capacity.
Geology, Foundations, and Construction Materials
A detailed description of the site geology is presented in
Appendix C-A.
Formations at the site are limestone, which is a relatively
soluble rock. There is some minor evidence of solution of the
limestone, such as widening of joints at the falls and pitting
of the cliff at the falls. However, no evidence of widespread
or deep solutioning of the limestone was seen. The geologic
history of the area, which is of rebound following glaciation,
suggests that solutioning would be shallow and localized. It
is not anticipated that solution would have a significant
impact on the Project, although this should be investigated
during the feasibility study.
Two geologic formations form the bedrock in the vicinity
of the Project. The Permian-Pybus Formation consists of a
series of thick beds of light grey to tan dolomitic, finely to
C-II-2
....
medium crystalline, hard limestone with irregular nodules of
limey chert or cherty limestone.
The Triassic-Hamilton Island Limestone formation outcrops
at the end of the falls and upstream where it is in fault con-
tact with the Pybus Formation. The formation consists of
thinly bedded ( 1/4" to 2"), laminated, dark grey to black,
hard argillaceous limestone; interbedded with dark grey to
black, thinly bedded chert and argillite. Upstream of the
falls, the Hamilton Island Limestone is folded into a sharp
southwesterly trending syncline.
Cathedral Falls Creek is located east of the Chatham Strait
Fault in an area that is locally inactive seismically. No
active faults have been recognized in the area. However, as
all of Southeast Alaska has been seismically active, provisions
for strong acceleration forces will be incorporated into pro-
ject design.
Although the powerplant for Cathedral Falls Creek will be
located near tidewater, the site is considered to be safe from
tsunamis. This consideration is based on the protection afford-
ed by Baranof and Kuiu Islands from tsunamis originating on the
Fairweather Fault and by Kuiu Island from tsunamis that could
originate on the Chatham Strait Fault.
Stripping for the dam should remove organic matter, soil,
and loose rock to permit examination of the bedrock surface.
Stripping is estimated to be about 2 feet in the channel and 5
feet on the abutments. Zones of weak rock should be excavated
and cleaned with a water jet and backfilled with concrete. Open
joints should also be jetted clean and slush grouted.
It is estimated that grout holes for the proposed grout
curtain should be drilled about 10 feet deep. This curtain,
which should be an exploratory type, should have holes angled
at 45° to provide a greater incidence of interception of
steeply dipping joints.
Penstock support and bend anchors should not require any
special provisions for anchoring.
The small tunnel envisioned for the penstock should gen-
erally require only nominal support, consisting of rock bolts
with wire mesh in the crown. Provis ions however, should be
made for greater support in the event fault zones are
encountered.
C-II-3
The powerplant, which will be located near the cliff
bordering the upstream or northeast side of the pool formed by
the Falls should be founded on bedrock, assumed to be at a
shallow depth below the pool surface.
Slopes behind the powerplant should be scaled of loose rock
and then stabilized with rock bolts and wire mesh. Large trees
that could be blown down and cause damage to the powerhouse
should be cut and removed.
Concrete aggregates for the dam, penstock supports and
powerhouse substructure will be obtained from a quarry along
the existing forestry road passing the project site. Potential
quarry sites can be developed within one mile of the dam site.
Description of the Project Facilities
~ and Spillway
The dam will be a concrete gravity dam with an uncontrolled
ogee crest spillway over the deeper, river section. The crest
of the spillway is set at elevation 115.0 and the top of the
dam at elevation 125.0. The dam, with a backslope of 0.7h:lv,
will have a maximum height of 27 feet in the river section.
The spillway is dimensioned to pass 70 percent, or 8600
cfs of the peak instantaneous inflow from the probable maximum
flood with the reservoir surcharged to the top of the dam.
This results in a spillway slightly narrower than the existing
river channel and confines discharge to the existing channel.
No storage effect is considered available to attenuate the peak
inflow. When passing the probable maximium flood, the top of the
dam will be surcharged by 1.5 feet of water. The dam will be
stable under this head and little damage to the abutments would
be expected.
A grout curtain will be provided along the entire length
of the concrete dam near the upstream face of the dam. The
entire foundation of the dam and spillway will be stripped to
sound rock. The dam and spillway are estimated to require
about 1500 cubic yards of concrete.
A timber buttress dam and spillway was considered as an
alternative to the structure described above. The timber dam
and spillway was found to be more costly than the selected
structure because concrete would be required for footings,
and the timber itself would have to be imported from Seattle,
Washington, the nearest location where it could be pressure
treated.
C-II-4
Power Intake
The power intake will be located at the left side of the
existing river channel, between the spillway training wall and
the south river abutments. The power intake will have two bell
mouthed entrances divided by a center pier and be provided with
guides and seal plates on the upsteam face of the dam for inter-
chang ing trashracks wi th bulk head ga tes \oJhich can be lowered
from a hoist at the top of the dam. Water passing through the
trashracks will have an average velocity of 3 fps through the
net area at the maximum expected discharge. The intake water
passages will have slots for emergency closure gates operated
from hoists at the top of the dam. Downstream of the gate
section a transition section will transform two rectangular
conduits to one circular conduit.
The intake will be set low enough to permit about a 5 foot
drawdown of the reservoir from elevation 115.0 (the spillway
crest level).
Given the character of the stream, once the reservoir is
created, it is unlikely that stones would be carried along to
the area of the intake, permitting the intake to be set fairly
low, close to the bed of the river. Siltation also does not
appear to be a problem.
Penstock and Power Tunnel
A combined exposed penstock and steel lined tunnel, with a
total length of 470 feet, will connect the intake to the power-
station. The exposed penstock would be provided with a con-
tinuous anchored concrete support sill to protect the penstock
from erosion and floatation during large spillway flood discharges.
The penstock is sized to allow for a possible future
installation of two additional units to bring the total instal-
lation to four generating units, with a corresponding discharge
of 4x62=248 cfs, and a total power output of 1,500 kW.
The tunnel will carry the power conduit down on a straight
line from the head of the falls to the escarpment behind the
the powerhouse. Economy and ease of construction normally
dictate that tunnels have a minimum diameter such that the
tunnel can be easily mucked out with rubber tired or crawler
type front end loaders. Contractor preference has demonstrated
that a tunnel which requires both steel support and a ventila-
tion conduit would then have height and width of about 9 to 10.5
C-II-5
feet. Tunnel height and width of 9 feet appears to be adequate
and are selected for this study.
A steel liner is provided through the power tunnel as a
continuation of the steel penstock. Concrete backfill will be
placed behind the steel liner through the tunnel. Fiberglass
reinforced plastic pipe was also considered for the liner but
was rejected because of its lower strength than steel and
because of the low temperature operating conditions at the site.
Between the powerhouse and the tunnel outlet portal a pen-
stock bifurcation will be provided to divide the penstock from
6.50-feet diameter to two 4.65-foot diameter pipes, one of which
would receive a hemispherical bulkhead cover, thus permitting
two additional units to be installed in the future. The other
would be bifurcated again to feed the two generating units now
proposed.
The penstock manifolds would be supported on a rock back-
fill between the tunnel portal and the powerstation and would be
encased in concrete.
The escarpment face over the tunnel outlet portal will be
cleared of possible rock spalls and be stabilized with rock
bolts and wire mesh.
Powerplant
The powerhouse will have a reinforced concrete substructure
with a prefabricated metal superstructure above the generator
room floor. Unit width would be approximately 9 feet. The
turbines would be mounted in formed pits 6 feet square above
the draft tubes.
The overall dimension of the powerplant superstructure
containing two units and an erection area will be 32 feet long
by 12 feet wide by 20 feet high.
The two turbines will be vertically set fixed blade
propeller type, available as standard inventory "package" models,
rated to produce at least 527 horsepower at a net head of 87
feet at 1200 rpm.
At the rated output and head, each turbine will discharge
62 cfs.
Inspection of the present outlet channel below the
existing falls indicates that the streambed would be unlikely to
degrade below its present level.
C-II-6
The generators and turbines will be connected by a vertical
drive shaft. The generator will be rated at 468.74 kVA, at 60° C
temperature rise, 0.8 powerfactor and 60 Hertz. Each generator
will have a continuous overload rating of IS percent.
Switchyard and Transmission
Circuit breakers will be of the air magnetic, or vacuum
interruptor type as appropriate. They will be rated to inter-
rupt the maximum expected fault current and will be used to put
the unit on-line during the normal start-up sequence and to take
the unit off line.
Station service power will be supplied at 480-V through
3-phase dry-type transformers and 480-V circuit breakers.
All protective relays and all control devices for complete
manual and automatic operation of the generating units will be
provided.
Supervisory control equipment will be provided to permit
remote control, indication, and communication of powerhouse
generating data to a remote central control room located at
Kake. This feature could be optional.
The generators will be connected to a power transformer
located in a small yard on the upstream side of the powerhouse.
The transformer will be rated at 1078 kVa. The transformer
will be connnected to the Kake substation by a single 12.S-kV
circuit about 9 miles long.
The powerhouse will be provided with a single light bridge
crane, supported on separate columns and support beams to un-
load and erect equipment during construction and to facilitate
servicing.
Accessory electrical equipment for the control and protect-
ion of the powerplant and miscellaneous mechanical equipment
will be provided in the powerhouse.
Access Hoads
An all-weather Forest Service road presently used for
logging operations passes very close to either side of the darn
site, crossing the creek about a half mile upstream of the darn
site on a steel girder bridge.
C-II-7
Access to the darn site can be easily obtained by extending
short roads to one or both sides of the proposed darn
site. Moderate gradients could be maintained.
Access to the powerstation below could be developed by
extending some secondary forestry roads, requiring new construc-
tion of 0.6 miles of road to arrive at the powerhouse.
Reservoir
The reservoir created by the uncontrolled spillway crest
level of elevation 115.0 will be about 0.7 miles long and will
create a normal ponded depth of 5 feet at the existing bridge
site.
The reservoir will be surcharged above elevation 115.0
when floods are discharging through the spillway. However the
probable maximum flood can be passed without submerging the
bottom of the bridge girders.
Clearing of the reservoir should be carried out in the
small areas between the stream bed and EI. 115 on both sides
of the stream.
Spoil Disposal
Overburden containing organic matter and decomposed rock
removed from required excavations at the damsite will be tem-
porarily stockpiled and then placed into the quarry excava-
tion in compacted layers finished off with stable slopes and
seeded.
Environmental Aspects
The potential environmental effects of the Project were
identified and recommendations made for possible mitigating
actions. Details of this study are presented in Appendix C-C.
The damming of Cathedral Falls Creek above the falls would
not affect the passage of anadromous fish since the falls serves
as a natural barrier. The construction of the Project may cause
some disruption to the stream's migratory salmonid populations
below the falls.
At the present level of study there do not appear to be
any adverse environmental impacts of the Project of a magnitude
which would prohibit its construction or greatly restrict its
operation.
C-II-8
...
Project Construction
Project construction will be carried out by separate sup-
ply and civil works contracts. A single civil works contractor
will be engaged to build the project.
The contractor will be required to construct access to the
dam site and to the powerstation site, clear and prepare stag-
ing areas near the dam site and the powerhouse site, and pro-
vide for his power requirements during construction. Actual
construction can be completed in a period of two years. The
contractor will use the first spring season to build access to
the site, occupy the site, establish his shops and working
areas especially in the tunnel portal areas and mobilize his
equipment and work force.
First Year
Before the contractor has completed his mobilization and
finished assembling his shops and maintenance facilities, he
will begin opening up his quarry for concrete aggregate and
stripping the foundation areas for the dam and powerhouse of
brush, overburden, and weathered rock.
By the time the quarry has been opened up and the founda-
tion prepared for pouring concrete, the contractor should have
his crushing and batching plants erected and be ready for
operation. Diversion would be effected in July of the first
year by building a rock and earth cofferdam upstream of the dam
and diverting the river though a 4 foot diameter, corrugated
metal pipe along the north side of the Cathedral Falls Creek
channel which would extend to the falls. The metal pipe would
be set on a concrete bedding on sound rock through the dam
foundation area such that it could be incorporated into the dam
concrete structure as construction proceeds. It would be
provided with a slide gate in a vertical set metal frame
operated with a hand wheel. A concrete head wall 8 feet high
would be provided to improve entrance conditions and provide
rigidity and an anchorage and containment for the slide gate
frame. When the dam is completed the slide gate would be
closed in the month of July, normally the lowest flow month,
the pipe extension to the falls downstream of the dam would be
removed and the pipe plugged with concrete through the dam.
After river diversion is effected, the contractor will
begin work on the dam and should also be ready to begin work on
the power tunnel and powerhouse below the falls.
C-II-9
..
..
The total concrete to be poured in the dam is 1500 cubic
yards. Assuming 20 foot wide monoliths and 5 foot high lifts,
the largest pour the contractor will have to make in a 10 hour
shift is in the order of 70 cubic yards. A 1.5 cubic yard
capacity batching and mixing plant would be ample for the
charging, mixing and unloading cycles to provide concrete as
necessary. Concrete could be transported in 1 cubic yard
buckets on flat bed or dump trucks and placed in the lifts by a
15-ton truck-mounted hydraulic crane. A construction access
road could be maintained along the upstream face of the dam for
that purpose, using approximately 6 feet of temporary fill
through the river channel section, to carry the access road
over the diversion conduit. The temporary fill would be
removed when the dam is completed. Some turbidity would be
created by the filling and removal, but the amount would be
small and the duration brief.
Excavation and support of the power tunnel should be
carried out as early as possible in the first summer. Pre-
liminary information indicates that a tunnel gradient of about
18 percent will be necessary. This slope can be negotiated by
either rubber tired or crawler mounted construction equipment.
The contractor should work up grade from the lower heading to
facilitate drainage. Working one 10 hour shift per day and
averaging 25 days per month, he should be able to complete the
tunnel in two months. Access to the downstream tunnel portal
would be gained by the powerstation access road.
Penstock assembly must begin at the end of June in the
first year so that sections to be embedded in the dam will be
available when needed and the erection of the penstock including
the portion passing through the tunnel can proceed to comple-
tion in the fall of the first year.
During the first year the transmission line will be cleared
and pole erection initiated.
It is expected that work will be significantly curtailed
through the winter months of December, January, February and
March due to snow, Im>l temperatures and limited hours of day-
1 ight.
If winter conditions are not too severe, or should the con-
tractor need to make up lost time, it would be possible to con-
tinue on the powerhouse and transmission line er~ction and
finish placing the tunnel liner during the winter season. Work
would be expected to be less productive and would not be neces-
sarily under normal conditions •
C-II-IO
Second Year
Early in the spring of the second year the contractor will
complete the erection of the powerhouse prefabricated metal
superstructure and installation of auxiliary electrical and
mechanical equipment.
He will then commence installation of the turbine, genera-
tors and power transformer. Four months are available for the
installation of this equipment.
The transmission line pole erection will be completed and
the conductors strung.
All remaining concrete pours on the dam and spillway will
be completed such that final closure of the diversion conduit
can be made in July, as previously described.
By the end of August in the second year the contractor can
begin testing the units and make the necesssary adjustments and
corrections to bring the units on line on or before the end of
November. Clean up and restoration of all construction areas
at the dam site and around the powerhouse will go on simultan-
eously with testing of the units. The contractor will remove
his equipment and materials from the site during October and
November.
The construction schedule is indicated on Exhibit C-7.
Project Costs
The construction and operation and maintenance costs of
the Project are estimated as discussed below. The costs are
estimated at September 1979 price level.
Construction Cost
The construction cost of the Project is summarized on
Table C-II-l and a detailed estimate is shown as Exhibit C-S.
The construction cost includes the direct cost of civil
works, contractor's overhead and profit, purchase and instal-
lation of equipment, contingencies, engineering, and owner's
administration, but excludes price escalation beyond September,
1979, and interest during constructio~.
Detailed estimates of quantities are calculated from the
project plans, and unit prices or lump sum costs are estimated
for each item of work.
C-II-ll
Table C-II-l
CONSTRUCTION COST OF PROJECT
(In Thousand Dollars at September 1979 Price Level)
Item
Mobilization
Land and Land Rights
Reservoir Clearing
Diversion and Care of Water
Dam, Spillway and Intake
Waterconductor
Powerhouse
Mechanical and Electric Equip.
Roads and Bridges
Transmission
Subtotal Direct Cost
Contingencies (25% +)
Total Direct Costs
Engineering and Administration (20% +)
Total Construction Cost
Cost
500
17
38
195
1,028
1,539
126
402
444
497
4,786
1,197
5,983
1,117
7,100
The items within each project feature are estimated either
as part of a general construction contract or an equipment
purchase contract. The unit costs of labor and locally avail-
able construction materials were obtained from local sources.
Construction equipment unit costs are developed from lower U.S.
hourly rates adjusted to local conditions. unit prices were
verified by checking recent bids on the Green Lake Project
located near Sitka and by experience of the Corps of Engineers
in Alaska. Unit costs for the principal items of work are
based on a construction plan designed to implement the Project
in accordance with the schedule as shown on Exhibit C-7.
The direct cost estimated for the permanent equipment
includes purchase, delivery, and installation. The major
equipment items include the turbine and governor, generator and
exciter, transformer and terminal equipment, switchgear, and
powerstation crane. The price of major equipment items are
estimated based on recent experience with similar equipment
and, when possible, on preliminary quotations from
manufacturers.
C-II-12
To allow for unforeseen construction problems, changes in
design, and errors or omissions in estimating, a contingency
allowance of 25% is added on all costs.
Based on data obtained from other hydroelectric projects,
an allowance of 20% for engineering and owner's overhead
expenses is added to the total of the preceding costs. This
consists of 17% for engineering and supervision of construction
and 3% for owner's overhead costs to be charged against project
construction.
Operation and Maintenance Cost
The Project would be equipped for remote control operation
from Kake. Routine operation and maintenance expenses are
estimated at $40,000 per year based on FERC data adjusted for
automatic operation and conditions in Alaska.
C-II-13
..
Chapter C-III
PROJECT SELECTION AND OPERATION
This chapter describes the selection of the stream regula-
tion characteristics for the Cathedral Falls Project and the
type, number, and capacity of generating units. The selection
of the Cathedral Falls Project from among other possible
sources of generation is discussed in Chapter C-IV. The
operation of the Project in relation to power system loads is
also discussed in this chapter.
Stream Regulation Characteristics
The Cathedral Falls Project will be a run-of-river hydro
plant with pondage available for hourly regulation when stream-
flow is less than turbine discharge capacity.
The area-volume curve for the Cathedral Falls reservoir is
shown on Exhibit C-5, Sheet 1 of 4. To regulate the average
annual flow in the creek a volume of about 10,000 acre feet
would be required. This volume is far beyond the capacity
available. Therefore the project will have to operate as
run-of-river. Daily pondage, however, could be provided.
The volume required for daily pondage depends on the total
installed capacity of the Project. This is discussed in the
following section.
Type, Number and Capacity
of Generating Units
As an initial trial, the total hydraulic capacity of the
Project was assumed to be equal to the average flow in the
river (103 cfs) divided by the power system capacity factor
(0.45) or 229 cfs. The head on the project was established
by assuming a reasonable height of dam which could be developed
at the site. A 35-ft high structure could pond water to El. 125
and develop an average net head of 94 feet. The total capacity
available from the Project, assuming an efficiency of 85 per-
cent would be as computed by the following formula:
kW available= 229 cfs x 94 ft x 0.85
11.8
= 1550
C-III-l
..
Assuming some overload capacity in the units, the in~
stalled capacity was set at 1500 kW, which is also the maximum
installed capacity for a minor project under current FERC
regulations.
To provide daily regulation of 1500 kW a storage volume of
about 110 ac-ft would be required. This volume could be provided
with a drawdown of 10 feet from El. 125. If one half the
capacity (750 kW) were installed the maximum reservoir level
would be at El. 120 to provide daily regulation. If no regu~
lation were required, the maximum reservoir level could be set
at El. 115. Each lowering of reservoir level would lower the
dam height and reduce project costs.
An economic comparison was made of the benefits gained
from flow regulation with the costs of providing the
regulation. Regulation is the ability of the project to
control inflow so as to meet, hourly, daily or seasonal loads
placed on the plant. To determine the benefits gained from
flow regulations, the energy from the Project, which would
replace diesel energy, was computed for the following four
cas es:
1. 1500 kW installed with regulation.
2. 1500 kW installed without regulation.
3. 750 kW installed with regulation.
4. 750 kW installed without regulation
The hydro energy which could be absorbed by the system
in each year of project operation was computed for the four
cases by comparing the output of the hydro project as obtained
from the duration curve of daily flows (see Exhibit C-5 Sheet
2 of 4) with the annual system energy requirements as obtained
from the system load-energy curve (see Exhibit C-5, Sheet 3 of
4). The first year of project operation would be 1984 and the
Project would have a life of 50 years. Exhibit C-5, Sheet 4 of
4, shows the average hydro energy produced in each year of the
project's life. In some years energy production will be less
than average and in some years more. Detailed analysis should
be made at the feasibility level to determine the ranqe of
e nercJY ou tpu t.
'l'he benef it-cos t analy s is showed tha t addi ng dai ly regu-
1ation and installing 1500 kW was only justified at interest
rates below 2 percent assuming no fuel price escalation or 4
percent assuming 2 percent differential fuel price escalation.
Therefore an installation of 750 kW was investigated and is
selected as the installed capacity of the project. No daily
C-III-2
regulation was provided; however a minimal amount (about 30
ac-ft) of storage would be available to regulate unit flow
during low flow periods.
A two unit installation was selected for the Project to
provide some reliability and to allow the units to operate at a
higher efficiency under minimum flows.
Each of the units could be of a "package-type" including a
fixed blade propeller turbine. This type of unit was selected
because of the suitable head on the Project and the low cost of
this type of unit. In the feasibility study more detailed
analysis, will be required to determine the most economical
expansion program for the Project.
Power and Energy Production
The Project would provide replacement energy in the
system. The Project would also be able to produce about
120 kW of power, 90 percent of the time. Some drawdown might
increase this amount slightly. At the time when the water
supply permits (about 25 percent of the time) the project could
produce 750 kW. This capacity could be totally absorbed in the
THREA system by 1991.
In the Project's initial year of operation it will supply
1810 MWh of energy, under average flow conditions, or about
80 percent of the system's requirements. The Project will be
totally absorbed by the system in 2016, in which year it will
produce 3680 MWh, or about 45 percent of the system energy
requirements in that year.
C-III-3
Chapter C-IV
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Methodology
An evaluation at the reconnaissance level indicates the
economic attractiveness of the Project. The costs of producing
the same power and energy as by an alternative source of
generation is taken as the benefit accruable to the Project.
The benefits and costs of the Project are compared under
various economic assumptions to determine benefit-cost (B/C)
ratios.
As an additional indication of economic attractiveness,
the annual cost of energy produced by the Project was compared
with the annual cost of generation from alternative sources
over the Project's life.
Alternative Sources of Power
The various types of projects available to serve the pro-
ject area were screened to determine the most likely alternative
source of generation. Costs were estimated for that alternative.
The following types of alternatives have been suggested:
diesel, other hydro, wood waste, wind, solar, interconnection
with other systems, and energy conservation. Of these alterna-
tives, the first three offer the most promise for the project
area and are discussed in more detail at the end of this sec-
tion. The others are not as attractive for the reasons pre-
sented in the following paragraphs.
Wind and Solar
Wind is a form of solar energy. Both the use of wind to
drive a generator directly and the use of solar energy for
heating or for conversion to electricity are not practical
alternatives for Southeast Alaska in the near and intermediate
term. A wind demonstration project sponsored by the State of
Alaska is currently underway in the Aleutians. The project is
small, will require an energy storage system to provide
continuous energy, and present economics do not justify the
installation of such units on even a small scale commerical
basis. Direct use of solar energy has found increasing
application in areas of the U.S. with abundant sunshine which
is not the case in Southeast Alaska.
C-IV-I
Load Management and Energy Conservation
Load management and energy conservation could be used to
reduce power and energy requirements to limit growth in demand.
These measures have been tried experimentally in large market
areas and have met with questionable success. In this project,
the primary function is to supply energy to replace existing
diesel generation. By applying load management and conserva-
tion measures, existing loads could probably not be signific-
cantly reduced. Any slowdown in growth rate effected by these
measures would only delay the date by which the Project would
be fully absorbed by the system and would not significantly
affect project economics.
Interconnection
The nearest large load center to the project area is
Petersburg. There is presently no surplus power available in
Petersburg, but the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project, which is
currently under study, could be utilized to meet the energy
needs of Kake. That project is presently designed to serve
Wrangell and Petesburg.
APA's consultant for the Tyee Lake Project, Robert W.
Retherford and Associates, estimated the cost of a 115-kV
transmission line for that project in a roadless area to be
$130,000 per mile. A 69-kV line would be required to supply
Kake from Petersburg. The line would include an overhead
section, 52 miles long, and two submarine cable crossings with
a combined length of one mile. Assuming that a 69-kV line would
cost 70 percent of the 115-kV line, and that a submarine cable
crossing would be twice the cost per mile of a surface line,
the Petersburg-Kake line would have a direct cost of about $4.9
million. In order to be consistent with the estimate for the
Cathedral Falls Project, contingencies (25%) and engineering
and administration (20%) are added to the $4.9 million to ob-
tain a total construction cost of about $7.4 million. This
value is for the transmission line from Petersburg to Kake and
does not include the cost of of upgrading the Wrangell-Peters-
burg circuit from th presently planned 34.5-kV to 69-kV or
115-kV which would be required to transmit power to Kake. Also
not included in the this value is the cost of additional genera-
ting capacity at the Tyee Lake Project.
The construction cost of the transmission line is about
the same as the cost of the Cathedral Falls Project. Assuming
that the operating characteristics of the Tyee Lake Project are
such that firm energy and dependable power can be provided to
C-IV-2
Kake, the interconnection would generate greater benefits than
the Cathedral Falls Project. With 2 percent differential fuel
escalation, the interconnection could generate benefits suffi-
cient to cover construction costs of $12.5, $7.8, $6.0, and $4.6
million assuming interest rates of 2,5,7, and 9 percent respec-
t ively.
Thus, interconnection might prove to be slightly better
than the Cathedral Falls Project, however, the decision should
be based on a more detailed reconnaissance-level evaluation.
The evaluation should include an estimate of all costs associat-
ed with the interconnection such as the cost of upgrading the
Wrangell-Petersburg circuit and the cost of incremental capacity
at Tyee Lake, as well as the cost of the Petersburg-Kake line
itself. Operation studies should be made of the combined
Wrangell-Petersburg-Kake system to determine the amount and
reliability of power and energy supplied to Kake.
Other Hydro
The earliest published evaluation of hydroelectric power
sites in Sotheast Alaska was completed by the Federal Power
Commission and the U.S. Forest Service in 1947 [1]. That study
identified one site, Gunnuk Creek, on Kupreanof Island. In the
mid-1960's the Alaska Power Administration made an inventory
study of hydro-electric sites in the State of Alaska. As a
result of that study one additional site, Towers Creek, was
identified on Kupreanof Island. In 1977, Robert W.
Retherford and Associates [2] completed an inventory study
which identified the Cathedral Falls site in addition to the
Gunnuk Creek site. The Towers Creek site was apparently
rejected because the river is an anadromous fish stream and is
far from Kake. Of the two sites, Gunnuk Creek and Cathedral
Falls, the Retherford study selected Gunnuk Creek because it is
closest to the load center and offers seasonal regulation.
The original scope of work for the present study called for
an investigation at the Gunnuk Creek Project.
The project concept for Gunnuk Creek as developed by
Retherford would include two dams built for storage
approximately 3 miles upstream of an existing timber buttress
darn which is being used by Kake for a municipal water supply.
That darn is about 0.5 miles from the mouth of Gunnuk Creek at
Kake (see Exhibit C-l). A 2800 foot long penstock would be
built from the existing dam to a powerstation located at
tidewater. The project would have an installed capacity of
1800 kW. The storage reservoirs would form a pool to El. 500
C-IV-3
and provide 14,500 ac-ft of storage, which would regulate a
flow of 75 cfs according to the Retherford study.
A field reconnaissance was made for that project. The
results of the reconnaissance were as follows:
a. The storage reservoir area below El. 500 has
not been cleared and about 600 acres would
have to be cleared. The cost of land purchase
and clearing would be about $8 million.
b. Field elevation measurements made by altimeter
at the storage sites showed the stream-bed
elevations to be lower than shown on the
U.S.G.S. 1:63.360 scale map.
c. Surveyed stream cross-sections at the storage
sites showed the abutments to be flatter than
might be inferred from the U.S.G.S. map.
A layout was made for the storage dams. It was found
that the dams would have a maximum height of about 80 feet on
the west fork and 110 feet on the east fork to create a
reservoir with a water surface at El. 500 as selected by
Retherford. The total volume of the dams would be about 500,000
cubic yards. The estimated cost for the rockfill for these dam
would be $14 million. Adding the required spillway, the down-
stream power dam, 2800 foot penstock and powerstation would
obviously make the project prohibitively expensive.
A run-of-river project located at the existing timber dam
would not develop the head as economically as could be devel-
oped at Cathedral Falls, even taking into account the longer
transmission distance from Cathedral Falls to Kake.
There are also several environmental factors, discussed in
Appendix C-C, which make the Gunnuk Creek site not as desire-
able as Cathedral Falls. The most significant are: (1) Water
quality in the Gunnuk Creek storage reservoir could deteriorate
over the long term, even if the inundated area were cleared,
which could affect municipal water supply and the stream's
migratory salmonid population; and (2) A powerplant located at
tidewater would reduce or eliminate streamflow in the reach of
the stream below the timber dam, which supports salmon
spawning activity.
The Cathedral Falls site was selected over the Gunnuk
Creek site for the above reasons. A brief map study was made
C-IV-4
of other potential hydro projects near the project area. The
study did not find any site more attractive than Cathedral
Falls.
Wood
A wood-waste fired plant could be used for generation in
the project area. Recent information available on a 10-MW wood-
waste plant to be constructed in Northern Michigan indicates that
the construction cost of the plant, which uses new equipment,
would be about $1500 per kilowatt at September 1979 price levels.
Adjusting the unit capacity down to 2-MW (the capacity which
could serve the project area in the next 20 years), and adjust-
ing for construction conditions in Alaska, would, conservatively,
double this cost to $3000 per kilowatt. At this capital cost,
fuel (40% moisture) would have to be available at the wood-fired
plant at a cost of less than $19 per ton and the rate of interest
could not exceed 9%, in order for the project to be more economi-
cal than diesel generation.
Another promising source of wood-fired generation, in the
500 kW unit capacity range uses a gasifier to convert solid
fuels containing carbon into a gaseous fuel by means of a
thermo-chemical reactor. The gaseous fuel would then be burned
in specially equipped conventional diesel units. Such a plant
could also use coal or peat as a fuel. Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC) is currently sponsoring a demonstration pro-
ject using biomass conversion.
The biomass conversion unit and the equipment required to
burn the gas in the existing diesel engine is estimated to cost
about $700/kW at September 1979 price levels, including con-
tingencies and engineering. This cost would apply to the equip-
ment required to supply a 500 kW unit. The unit would have to
operate on dual fuel (10% diesel oil, 90% gas) and the fuel
moisture content could not be more than 30%. At this capital
cost, waste-wood fuel (30% moisture) would have to be available
at a cost less than $58 per ton in order for the project to be
more economical than diesel generation. Those costs assumed:
existing diesel units will be used: the interest rate could
not exceed 9 percent; and there is no differential fuel escala-
tion. The capital cost of the biomass gas fired plant assumes
the use of existing diesel engines and does not include the cost
of the engine-generator set.
The cost of wood in Kake is difficult to estimate, since
there is no local wood processing facility in this town. The
Alaska Timber Corporation in Klawock sells dry wood chips for
$65 per 2400 pound unit, FOB Klawock. Adjusting this cost to
C-IV-5
an equivalent moisture content (30 to 40 percent) and heat
value, equivalent unit weight and adding transportation and
handling costs gives a cost of about $55 per ton delivered in
Kake.
In the lower 48 states, wood fuel is generally available
to wood-fired plants located in forest areas at a cost of about
$15 per ton (40% moisture). Assuming this cost to double for
Alaskan conditions, wood fuel should cost $30 per ton if it
were available in Kake. Thus, wood for power generation might
cost from $30 to $55 per ton. At this price, the wood fuel
might also be suitable for use in biomass conversion units.
The wood fuel costs presented in this analysis are to the
appraisal level. These costs are sufficiently attractive that
a reconnaissance level study should be made of the viability of
developing a wood-waste fired plant to serve Kake.
Diesel
At present, the entire load in the project area is met by
diesel oil-fired electric generating sets. This is presently
the most viable alternative source of generation in the project
area.
Recent offers received by the THREA for 400-kW diesel
electric units averaged about $235 per kilowatt, FOB Seattle,
at September 1979 price levels. Including transportation,
erection, contingencies, and engineering the cost of a unit
installed in the project area is about $600 per kilowatt.
Annual operation and maintenance cost exclusive of fuel is
estimated to be about $120,000 per year for a plant in the pro-
ject area.
At present (July 1979), diesel fuel in the project area
costs about $0.65 per gallon, delivered. This price is
expected to increase over the next several months in line with
trends in price increases experienced with gasoline. The price
of $0.65 per gallon does not reflect the recent 24 percent
incease in the reference price of Arabian light crude announced
by OPEC in July. To reflect the short term upward pressure on
the price of petroleum fuels, a price of $0.80 per gallon is
used as the base price of diesel oil in the present economic
analyses. Fuel consumption in the project area averages 8.4
kWh/gal, which gives a fuel cost of $0.095/ kWh.
C-IV-6
Economic Criteria
Certain basic criteria are established for the economic
analysis. These criteria define interest rates, fuel esca-
lation rates, project life, and period of analysis. Four inter-
est rates, 2,5,7, and 9 percent, are used in the analysis.
Differential fuel escalation rates of 0,2, and 5 percent are
assumed for diesel fuel. Differential fuel price escalation is
the rate at which fuel prices are assumed to escalate over and
above the normal inflation rate. The average physical and
economic life of the hydroelectric project is assumed to be 50
years and that of the diesel units to be 20 years. The period of
study for comparison is taken to be equal to the life of the
hydro project: 50 years.
Economic Comparison
The economic comparison of the project is made using life
cycle costing. By this method estimates of costs and benefits
are made in the year in which they occur and are then discounted
to a common date at a given interest rate. The period of
analysis is 50 years. In the analysis costs and benefits are
discounted to Jan. 1, 1980. Analysis is performed to determine
the benefit-cost ratio including and not including the cold
storage plant to see if project economics would be improved by
adding that load.
The results of the analysis for this are shown on Table
C~~.
Without Cold Storage
Fuel Escalation,
With Cold Storage
Fuel Escalation,
Table C-V-l
CATHEDRAL FALLS PROJECT
Benefit-Cost Ratios
Interest
2 5
% 0 0.99 0.68
2 1.48 0.94
5 3.34 1.81
% 0 1.07 0.75
2 1.60 1.04
5 3.54 1.98
C-IV-7
Rate%
7 9
0.54 0.44
0.71 0.56
1.25 0.89
0.60 0.49
0.79 0.62
1.38 1.01
The benefit-cost ratios given on Table C-V-l show that the
Project is economically attractive at an interest rate of 2
percent assuming no fuel escalation. For the purpose of
evaluating the Project, a fuel escalation rate of 2 percent is
recommended as being representative of future trends. At that
rate, the Project would be economically viable at an interest
rate of about 5 percent. The addition of the cold storage load
improves project economics slightly.
Cost of Energy
The cost of energy from the Project and the alternative
is calculated year by year over the life of each. The
calculations are made assuming a cost of money of 2,5,7, and
9 percent and assuming a differential fuel escalation rate of 2
percent. Normal inflation is assumed at 4 percent per year
over the life of the project. The computations are made
assuming the cold storage, would not be interconnected. The
annual cost of energy includes 'allowances for amortization,
interest, operation, maintenance, administration general expen-
ses and insurance. Taxes are not included since it is assumed
that tax exempt financing will be obtained. The cumulative
total cost of energy and the cumulative present worth of the
cost of energy are also determined. A discount rate of 8 per-
cent is used for present worth calculations.
The results are shown graphically and in tabular form on
Exhibit C-6. As can be seen from the exhibit, the cost of
energy from the Project is less than that from the alternative
after 1988.
C-IV-8
Chapter c-v
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendations
The economic analysis, presented in the previous chapter
shows that the Project is economical at interest rates of 5
percent or less, assuming differential fuel escalation of 2
percent. Recommendation for future study of the Project is
therefore contingent on financing. An organizational framework
should be developed as soon as possible to investigate financ-
ing alternatives. A feasibility study should be made of the
Project and either a Declaration of Intention or Application
for License should be filed with the FERC if acceptable
financing can be obtained.
A reconnaissance-level study should be made for use of
wood either as a fuel for direct combustion in a boiler to
drive a stearn turbine or by conversion to low-Btu gas which
can be burned in an internal combustion engine. The study should
include site specific studies for Kake and might also include a
general study of the use of wood as a fuel for electricity
generation on a regional and statewide basis. Also, a brief
reconnaissance-level study should be made of the feasibility of
interconnection with Petesburg.
Organizational Framework and Financing
THREA should be the implementing agency for the Project.
THREA is the agency charged with power generation and
distribution in Kake and most of the rural area of Southeast
Alaska. THREA also has the possibility of obtaining low in-
terest federal financing for the Project. The Alaska Power
Authority might want to serve as an advisor to THREA to provide
impetus and guidance during project implementation and to
represent the State of Alaska's interest in regional power
development.
THREA, with APA support, should make contact with the REA
to determine if the Project would qualify for low interest
financing. At the same time any possibilities the State or
THREA might have for obtaining low interest financing from
other sources should be explored.
If low interest financing is not available or if wood-
fired generation is more attractive than the Project, future
studies of the Project should be deferred. If acceptable
C-V-l
. "
..
financing is available and wood-fired generation is not
economically attractive, the Project should be implemented as
described below.
Preconstruction Activities
A feasibility study of the Project should be started as
soon as possible. The scope of the feasibility should be aimed
at satisfying the requirements for a FERC license application,
whether or not one will eventually be required. The study
should be prepared in close cooperation with state and federal
agencies •
The exact scope of the study, particularly in relation to
environmental studies, will depend on the requirements of the
agency under whose jurisdiction most of the affected resources
would fall. In this case anadromous fish would be the
resource most affected and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Games (ADFG) the responsible agency. Also the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) should be included in project planning. Contacts
should be made with ADFG and USFS at the time the scope of
work is developed and then maintained throughout the study.
The time schedule for the feasibility study will depend on
the baseline data requirements of ADFG. A feasibility study
with limited baseline data could be completed in one year. At
that time a tentative decision on project feasibility could be
made and financing and permitting arrangements could be
initiated. At the same time environmental studies could
continue to satisfy ADFG requirements. At the completion of
these studies and before award of construction and equipment
contracts, an addendum could be issued which would make a final
recommendation on project feasibility, and final financing
arrangements could be concluded.
There has been some comment on the part of the USFS and
the Kake Tribal Corporation, discussed in Appendix C-C, that
it might be desirable for the Corporation to select, under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the lands upon which the
Project would be built. The project lands are now part of
the Tongass National Forest. If the Project were located on
Corporation land, the Project would probably not require an
FERC license. A Declaration of Intention would have to be
filed with the FERC to determine if the FERC would have
jurisdiction over the Project •
The Project would be classified as minor (less than 1500
kw) under current FERC regulations. The licensing process
C-V-2
' ..
...
..
..
could be completed in about one year. The review of a Delara-
tion of Intention would take similar time. Therefore, there is
no time advantage gained by the Corporation selecting the land.
Unless there are other reasons for the selection, unknown at
present, there does not appear to be any reason for the selec-
tion to be made, except to avoid applying for a USFS Special
Use Permit. Discussions should be held with the Corporation to
see if there is an advantage for them in selecting the land and
with the USFS to see if obtaining a Special Use Permit, which
could require a USFS Environmental Impact Statement, would
increase Project implementation time. If there is no reason
for Corporation selection, an FERC application should be filed
upon completion of the feasibility study by rearranging the
material in the feasibility study into license application
forma t.
For the purpose of developing an implementation schedule
and for the other analyses contained in this report, the case
in which a FERC license application would be required is used.
Design and permits other than FERC could be completed
during the licensing period to insure that construction and
equipment supply contracts could be awarded as soon as possible
after the license is granted.
Implementation Schedule
An implementation schedule for the Project is shown on
Exhibit B-7. If organizational arrangements and the feasi-
bility study are begun in the fourth quarter of 1979, the
project could be in commercial operation by the beginning of
1984, assuming an FERC license is required •
C-V-3
'I
36
..
,J
, .. BA~., .. ,' ..··i~" ....••••• }
'1
.,
"
''I
••
~
\a
~
4
Pow~rholJ.se -....,
&-..I.LS.R.ZA ENGINEERING COMPANY AUGUST '979
~
~
I
e"9~ or
Esc8/"l'm."f
~ ....
C'fl
I
~ ....
(\I
I
Remove Rocks 1:15
In'ic3f~d fo Improve
Sp/llway(Falls) Outlet
'--· ...... f~cf Ft1ce wifh
Rock /Jolf.$ ~11"
Wir~ Mesh.
~
~
I
~/
/
"'-----Pe n~ tocl<
TU"nel enfrance
e I1C/03e.r/ in Co"cref~
/
II/eroSion {)uri"1
COI1$frucfiofl
EXHIBIT C-Z
\
"" \
~.
Recommended
W. s. EI. lIS
Normal H. W. £/. /26.5
! ~PMF
~LH. W. EI.I15 _
Nofe: For 5ecfiol1:5 8-/J ~ c-c
~t!t! Exhiblf C-,3.
Dam
SECTION A-A
PROFILE. ALONq PENSTOCK.
100
I
200 reef
I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
CATHEDRAL FALLS PROJECT
qENERAL PLAN
1
,
•
160
15"0
140
130
120
110
100
125
120
1/5
/10
IDS
100
95
Ori.l1iwl
~round
1
1
1
1
1
1
~ ,
.0
\ ...... ~ ..
.. '
' .. ,.
j." .,' ..
fl'" , .'
\
\
\ a7 ~
\ ~
p.o. T.
Cresf EI. /IS is,oil/way
SECTION OF [JAM
LOOI<IN'I UPSTREAM
!fcale 0 20 40 F .. 8t
LI ----1_il __ -.J1
£1. 110
OrtjiNlI CirouM
£1. 100
..... ; ... .
SECTION THROU(jH !SPILLWAY
Scald 0 4 B Feet 1...1 _L---,-I __ --"I
Confinuous Co"c:ret.
Em""d",,,,.,t and fSul'l"'rt
EI.
1Ir------~Il__-I"? Anchor /3l1rs
6.0' Into ROCK
.f 10.0' &C A 10"9 I'en$toc I<.
SECTION 8-8
Se./e () 4-e Foet
1...1 ~'--...JI,--_----,I
~ ENGINEERING COf,/FANV . AUGUST 1979
Tun""ISupporf.s
6 'IF 25 ~ 4.0' OC.
COnGr .. fll
/3ac: I<. Nil
'3.0'
SECTION c-c
5cal .. 0
1
4-
1
8 Feet
1
I' " Rock ~olt5
4.0' Long tI 4.0' ()C
Ala,,! T u""81
(jen~rafor {3 75 /(MI)
30" ? 8uft~rfly V..,/v~
I
POWERHOUSE TRAN5VER5E
SECTION
f
-r. rr-
8Fc~t
1
EXHIBIT C-3
5tesl Colu",,,
SUI'I'0rt for Crans
Pref'"bricat~d
fSul'e,.,fruc rur.
(12' ~50'x20' Hlfh)
Fixed 8lad .. Prop4lltJr
TurbirN (527 HI')
Possible Future
ExpanSion~
1-------
til 0 ~ ~ f-f-r-f--
f-f-t-t"-I
~ ,~-l"'Z£r"ction 84,/ z...t +-t+ 1
/ t~ 1'-.1-/ \ I \ I l--' \ 1
I
01 1 ~ I ~ ~
I
I
I
I
-L-__ L _____ _
1 1 i I IH 'iI.0' ~.O' /3.0'
31.5'
POWERHOUSE. ,.LAN VIEW
5clllt! 0 4 !J Fnd
LI _-'-----1I __ ----'J
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
CATHEDRAL FALLS PROJECT
PROJECT 5ECTIONS
AND PLAN
-M
-
-
ESTIMATE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY
CHICA.GO. ILLINOIS
EXJ1IBIT C-4
P'ojo<' Cathedr at fa lIs II rod r6 Do'. 5ee 1'17 q Po.. I of 4 Po ...
Structure Svrt1ooaC:V-J Ccnc~ am PreJ'ec, i Estimated bytfa~d'gha" Checked by ltI!Jn
hm
I
I
ITEM QuantIty Unit PrIce Amount No.
!~ 1 MOBILlztmOtV ~ 1/7 Z. LAtJD 4 lA~D 'R'Gf..ITS Doo
3 t:ES fJ2. \j 01 R. CLEAk\lJGr ~ 000
4 Dp/f.RSIOtJ 4-cA12c:. OF WATE£. i/Qs 1000
e:; ~~ ~'Tr;~AY J ItJTAkt!. / iD~~ COc
0 J l5'3<1 OOl) r 2C tJ ! CT()~" ,---'=-
'7 :po :J1EP. H 0 U SF IZ.~ ~.~ g H fc).·UH) leA L J £1 rc.:-tk":J1 ell 1 F(~UIP 4lJZ 000
q 1(011.D5 AND RKtD&ES 444 O~
10 TPlWs /--1 ISS/ ON ~9? IroJ
--
.s~ }ETDTI+L DI£E6" CDsT 4 17€lP DOC
~TI l)6,EWC! r:: ~ 2~q;. -+
i::..'::';:' ,'!'! -I Iq7 000
1-
TDTAl-VI F.F.GT ""'OcT 'I..f ') 5 ~ IDO
~
ENb(UEERI ,J(~ i ADHtU, 2D% ~ ( lit 7 Doc:
.f---
ThTf+' Cnt-..}STl2( I r:TI o~J Ct'l...ST 7 I/Oa 000 -,
-+-
I
.j
I
t -,-
I----
I----f--~
~
I
...
...
ESTIMATE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPA.NY
CHICA.GO. ILLINOIS
£':</-1/811 C-4
---
') , i
Page 2 of -4 Pages
StructurelJeia,'Ied P~im Esf _ • R. /'oil I Sft-i
Ci7c Dam PrOf Estimated by DaiJadgha V Checked by Allen
" I ~I -
Unit PrIce I No. ITEM QuaMIty Amount
~--
I M&1LI2ItT! On) J...S blo~~ I--L
I ~ ----~--,---------i
~_~+L4N-D_lil'tUDJ;.~1 (yHT:5
-iLRC::&::fYDi r , b Arc ISoc -~
__ L~'F6~e~<;p .d (.amp C; f'fe 3 Ac /000 =jJcm ..... . ..,
.3 ~r·c",dlr:i.J.J .«-+, L ' I l-e lOOO I I '000 __ .,_~_ ~ "",t:..-L. __ ::...!....,J i I \...e<' < 'A ""-, . _4 Ac J 000 4 tJ~(j ---l-L1~,;-~a d .-.;:
-=r=-'------.5 'J~"fuT3; J1 ~
----
-
~ i?E5E12iP t R CLfPF~ /J)G-5 lie 7500 51 90 -
---r--
Dl'lff~SI QtJ J CAKE
-4 of ~ATEE .. L5 (9S Ocu
----_. --
.---
~j~~ILI..\lJIl'i 41NTAk:F
_ .1,-1.-~/;;.. E~c?JlLafj'on 2Ro cy 48 13 44( --j'z. Comm on Exc?Jva"fi"n GaD CY 7 I 1 ,.so
_, __ ,3 DrilUr1~.t6to~t;nq ~Q~odatiQn 150 Lf" .3~ I~ aJo
1 + '..f ' 1-4 so Cy goo ~s 1000 '--.-i~ (O'v-:r~~~ . 7tS~ I-J"' ~oncrE Ie; s rr\)~+\J r a I 35 Cy 35"0 Il 250
,.,," ____ ·f2_~Nen t 5goocvr 14./0 81 ~
RI '+' r-~ f l7.b50 LBS LllQ .J9.. .ill !-__ _7 __ .s~t:::L~~ln~ ::;_~e ..
' __ , __ +~.br.alrL3~ 0 lei 5 '2 '2S LF s4 I, ~
1---t q fu~k 6-:a-E EyYlbed. Fa,.1! LS ~oo Q9Q
,~. , j.t. •
3000 CY IZ~ ~ _.,, __ J9._'~Xk:;)nne{ EACdV~1i on ~ L ~brO-rriJ I Ol~ Iq~
~----~-\ ----.... -~....--..-.. --,
L \ -I ---'---~'---"---
----t---.... -
I -----+-_._----_._------
L---t------------
ESTIMATE BARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS
~ ~-."'Ioct Cafhedrol Fa ! ~ ~ Hyd~() Dot. Sc p 19 7 q R ,:,ag• 3 01 ~ Pag.,
Structure Detat led lteflm. [51 (CO(1C Dan1 ) Estimated byDabadghai/checked by,iJtJn
...
-
,..,
...
....
' ..
hm
No. ITEM Unit PrIce
1--~-------------------------4----------1-----1--------6 I WATEK/";OAlfJ U c TOR
Ex c av 8 t/on _________ -1--__ -=-1..:....;0 O~G L-'---I __ ..w..= eS--l ___ I_""'-'-F ~g;~\)C
CDii c rete ISO cy ~25" '/2'31S0
I b I?einforc,'no Steel
R4() L~ 30
11425 LBS B,Eo
I--~-------------------------~-------r----·r---I·--~ 7 POWfRHou.s£
.1 Rock fxcavait'on 7(; Cy 4~
t 5 Cemen t } ISfo CvJT 14.10 Z Z.()~
__ b Kel'n+nrcin.o .:s-fee.T 20()o LBs 1,/0 2 ZOt
II 7 str()cturljfJSt~el 1000 SJ=:. 10 IOlJOO . e Pre:fabr--t'ca.ted pJdo J2'X50' =w~sr= 0Do 51= 25" J5 COc
SL)b1b+a J r/ZSI3~!: --'~~~~~----------r--------+-----r-~~~l
I--~------------------------~-------+----T---I--~ :=-~+-j -=-.-----~--.----~-------------~--~--I-+-----------~-+-------t-I~-_t-I--I
-
...
-
' ....
"
ESTIMATE BAUZA ENGINEERING COMPANY
CHIC ..... GO. ILLINOIS
ExHIEIT c-4
p'oJo<t_Cdherirai Falls ro 0-Sep /q79 Pag •• 4 of 4 .. Pogo,
StructureDefaded H:e/lrn,st(Conc Dartl) Estimated byr!o~ljdifbav Checked by i!1en
} ...,; -
hen ITEM QVCIftIIty UnftPrfce Amount No. . _1_
~ IMFC~N(cf+,LJ-E.UEC1T2IC~L. EQUIP.
,I Turbinp Governor ~
\ -.2 6ene.~'fos [xci fe,... -
)0. 2Unit.s /bOJJOc l320 DDr:. L3 Tt 'AOe, hr-n ;Qr'
,4 ) ... Usc: l:let:.r £~J uip. J ,
S' c 't' . \'" --L. ~\J1.Llc ri a e ~ r .
~ ~ ._ Lob 'Bu \~r-hhiJ t;e Cr?-)ne 7tSrD(} LCS -1 ~tal ktD2 Ooc
-,---1-----f---
q 1(oAbS ANlJ Bf?I15r;£s
:tLJ~n:2-b 2J n I!flj en'T P t"lB d Ot~ MI i74fJ.l)(j 0 'Md ~OO ---I
--",---~
/0 ~ANSMISSjDIJ Cf !AT 55200 4q~ I Sec
I'" :-X I rill., ~'" Slno{e C1rcut'f
,
J -:. I ~.' . f~ CQQ.c..( ;, ~
1= f---'J
_._,--«--.--.-~,--. .. -~.......,.~-..--.. I---
_ .. -,----. "' __ " ___ .~'_«-"U_"""""~._~_.~ _
,----,~ ,.-----,-~--
f------1----' -I---
-
-,""'.. ---.. .. ----.,.,.--~,-I --+ -
i I---
f---
----i---,-" r---
, .. ,
' ..
...
. .,
....
_.
...
....
,,.;
....
EXHIBIT C-'5
~1uH! + 30fi
:<1
,..,.
EX#Ii3lr C-5
~) ee.f 4 of' 4.
r
t--
:z ,..
r,j .
Iii ,
t1LCf ~ I 0 ,Cl
(>
I , + -
, I
I
I I
t -++-+-+--t-1--+-1c--1
++++-++-++-++--t----+t-t--t-+-++-t---
c---H-+-+++-t--t
f--t-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+
~ i i t .i l :;
CAYr~F"DRAL FALLS PROJECT
HYDRO
cnST OF ~C~EY= .020 !NFLATI0N RATE: .OIJO FuEL ESCALATIOl'< f.lA TE:; .. 020 OISCOUNT RATE= .OBO
REFERE"ICF.: DATE = J HIllARY IQ50 ALL COSTS PJ S 1000
FIXED tJ + " F'UEL EI'<ERGY COST OF CUMULATIvE PRESENT CUMULATIVE
~E::I.R COSTS COSTS COST r~TAL GEI'<ER A TED E"'ERGY TOTAL 1oo0l<TI1 p,W.
HwH C E " T S / K W 11
\91>./j 268. 273. 'S II \ • Pd5. 2'1.8 5111, 368. !loR.
, cpu:; 265. 28.3. S 51. 1872. 2'1,5 1092. 3117, 715,
lGSb 26< 2<:;<;. <.;63. l Q 32. 29. 1 1655. 328, 10 1l/ol,
\q~7 2b8. 301. s7S, 1993. <' p,. 8 2?2Q. 310, 13SLA,
lQ~~ 208. 3\'1. Sil7. 2057. 2'.5 28!6. 2'1<.1, 1648.
1'1l>.q 203. 332. 6 0 0. 2122. 28.3 3416. 278. lQ25.
19C10 2/'111. 3:15. b t 3 • 21 9 0, 28.0 4029. 263, 2188,
1 qQ I 209. 3,'1. 6 2 7, 2260. 27.7 4655. 2U9, 2IJ 37,
1'1'12 26'3. 373. b /J 1 • 2332. 27.5 5296. 236. 2073,
19'13 208. 31''1, 1,'56. 2 .. 06. 27.3 5952. 223. 2a96.
1 '19 u 2t>Fl. 403. 6 7 1 • 2!1iJ3. 27.0 ob23, 212, 3108,
tq~5 20'3. u20. h 8 8. 2527, 27.2 7 .s 11 • 201 , 3308,
1996 2"~, (;3b. 7°4. 2573 • 27.IJ bOt5. 1 <11) • 3(!QQ,
19n 268. 1I5/J, 722, 2619. 27.1, 8737. 1 d 1 • 3679,
!t)91\ 268. /J72. 7a O, 2b69. 27.7 9477. ! 7 1 • 38 ~ 1 •
\'")Qq 2 b 8'. UClt. 7 5 <1. 2714. 28,0 10~36. Ib3, ,,01" •
ZArlO 268. 510. 7 7 8. 27b/J, 28.2 1 I 0 1 !j • ISS, tJlbS.
?OOl 2n8. 531. ,qq. 21313. 28.U 11813. 1 (j 7, IJ315.
20~2 208, 552. p20, 28b~. 28.6 12633. 1 a 0 • 41 .. 55.
2n03 268. 574. RaZ, 2"116, 28.9 1347'~. 1 .5 3. lIses.
?1'I0Q 26B. SQ7. pbS, 2Q68. 29.1 1i.J3!.l\, 126, "71 a •
('00S 268, 62\ • I\i3Q, 3021. 2'1.4 1"230. 120, 4831.1.
2:)G6 265. 6 1J 6. q III • 3076. 29.7 lo1u3, 1 I <I , "9IJ9.
20n7 208, 672. Q4 0. 3132. 30.0 17083. 109. 5058.
21'108 268. 09Q, Q07. 3188. 30.3 10050. 10/J , 5101 •
20n9 268. 721. '1 9 5. 32/J6. 30.& IQO/J4. qq, ':1200.
2010 201l~ 7'56. In24. 330a, 31 ,0 200b8. qIJ. 535a.
20 It 268. 7!lb. 11'15". 336/J. 31,3 21122, 90. 5/J!llJ.
2,1 \ 2 2bo. 8: 7. 10 8 5. 3424. 31 .7 22207. 86. 5530.
n13 2oe. 8S0. I \ ! fl • 3lJ86, 32. I 23325. 82, 5611 •
2 J 11: 206, 88U, ItS.?, 35LJc;. 32.5 2/J~77, 78, 568q.
21'1S 268. <l1'1. 1,87. 3612. 32.'1 25664. 7tJ. 576/J.
2016 208. 956. 1;>2iJ. 3678 • 33.3 26888. 71 • 5835.
<'017 268. '1QU. 1;.62, 3678. 34.3 211150. b8. 5902.
2\"'1 t ~ 20S: 10';4. I~02, 3h78, 35.1J 2'11.152. 65, 5'167. ~ ~ 2 \' 1 <;i 208, 10 7'5. 13":;' 3078. 31).5 307'16, b2. 6rJ2Q.
2~?O 268. IlP. 1 ~ til:> • 3678. 37.7 32182, 59, 6088.
('Dill 2b8. l1b3. lu31. 3678. 38.9 33614, 5&. 6145. ~ ~ 2C ?2 268. I 2 \ 0 • 1 ~ 7 1\ • 3678. '10.2 350QI, 54. b199, rb
;> PI 21,11. 1<'<;8. 10;26. 307~. Iq .5 36bl1, 52, b250, "\.. t\), 2)?(J 268. 13(15. 1<;7(" 3676. 112,q 381'1/J, (j"l, b30C. ""'" ?(12~ ?bfi. ! 30 j • 1..,2<;. 1078. 44.3 39823. U1, 63a7. t\) 'i 2!')?6 208. Ill! S. 16 8 3. 3071\ • 1.:5.8 IJ150b. U5, 03'12.
20n 2b8: 1 /.j 72. 17 Ii 0, 3678. 47.3 1.132/J5. 1.13. b435. ~ C) 202"1 268. t '5 H. l,qQ, 3b18, CJ8.'1 UC,OLlU Q 1.11 • b/J77. ~ I 20?"I 26&, 15'12. IpoO, 3678. 50.b /Joq"lJ. (JO. 6516. ~ '2 (I -;.) 268. 16'56. ! '124. 3078. 52.3 1.1852'>. 38. b5S4. \J)
2031 208, \ 722. 1990, 3b78, 5<.1.1 SOt17, 36, b5'11 •
2032 268, 17'11. 20 5 "1. 36 78. 5b,O 5287b~ 35, bb2b.
2:J:q 260. 18!>2. 2\30, 3&78, 57.'1 5500b. 33, b65'1, l--tARZA
fNGINEERING COMPANY
CA1~fURAL FALLS p~OJECT
HVDRO
cnST OF MnNEv: .050 INFLATION RATE~ .040 FUEL ESCALATIO~ RATE:
REFERE~cr rATE ~ J'~UAPV }QR0
IQAlJ
1'.;; 5
. ; 9"6
\Q~7
Igo.1~
IQA'l
t~qo
I qq I
Iqq2
\qq,
\ q q 'i
1'<0"
1'10,.,
t'lel?
\~qp.
Iq'lq
?on'\
2;>!l!
2002
201'13
2,J (1 /.j
2~05
2n06
2!JCl7
20"''''
200'l
2010
2:J \ I
2012
2013
20\1.1
2015
2:lJ6
2 'J I 7
2018
20\"
2n?1)
2('21
2022
2Cl23
2 ')211
2(125
2026
2027
?n?11
2'12'l
2030
2031
2032
2033
ryx[!)
Cusr~
/J6B.
4b8,
.:Jb8.
LI. ~ r~_
l.l " ~ •
4nB.
lJ"d.
t;b8.
/,;106.
/Jon.
.. cd.
1.16i1.
1Jt>~.
/;6B.
468.
/Jbl',.
1,10 Il •
t;!>o,
llod.
,,-,,6.
""fl. 1J6B.
468,
1.160.
408.
/Jo8.
1.165.
'/Jb8.
AbB.
lI63.
lI68~
4~R:
/;bl\.
468.
4/)8,
<.168.
1;68.
Llb8.
(J6B.
468.
468.
/JoB.
408.
4b8~
468.
/168.
Lib8.
.:Jb8.
ll08.
465.
COSTS COST TnTAL
273.
283.
2'1S •
3,1 -, •
31 q.
332.
31<'5.
3SQ,
373.
36~.
4"3.
I< 2 ,J •
/131,.
L1SIJ.
ll72,
II C; I •
510.
531 •
552.
574.
5q7.
b 2 I •
6/16.
672.
69q.
727.
150.
786.
8 I 1.
850.
884.
Q 1'1.
'156.
q'lLi.
1034.
1(1115.
I 111' •
1 16.3.
121 0 •
1258.
1308.
1361.
1415.
11.172 •
1531 •
15 q 2.
16'50.
1122 •
l1Q I.
18b2.
71.11 •
751.
703.
.,75.
,H7.
flOO.
I'd:; •
R27.
I' iJ 1 •
1<56.
p, 7 1 •
1\88.
<:lOll.
.. 22.
qilO.
C/5'l.
q78.
qqq.
1('l20.
1{\42.
In65.
1(18'l.
I I \ (j •
11 40 •
1 167.
11 9 5.
1?21J.
17 5 1.1.
J2 8 5.
1,1fI.
1:\ 52.'
13 8 7.
142£1.
14 6 2.
15 0 2.
15 4 3.
1<;86.
1 h 31 •
1,,78.
11 2 6.
1776.
lp2C/.
lA1l3.
1"11.10.
I'lCiQ.
2n60.
21 2 /1.
2\90.
Z25~.
2130.
ALL COSTS I~ $ 1000
EN~RGy CUST OF
GE~ERATED ~NERGV
M.H C~NTS/KWH
I " ! 5 ,
1872.
11132.
1'1<)3.
2057.
2122.
2190.
2200.
2332.
2 1l 00.
21.1e3.
2'527.
2573 •
261C/.
2bb9.
2114.
2761.1.
2813.
2il6U.
2 'l 16.
2'h,8.
:; 0 2 I.
3076.
3132.
31138.
32'l0.
3304.
3304.
31.12U.
3486.
35l19.
3612.
3678.
3618.
3678.
3018.
3078.
3678.
3b18.
3678.
H 18.
3678.
3618.
3678.
3678.
3b 78.
3678.
3678.
3678.
3078.
40.B
4 C. I
39.5
3il.q
38.3
37.7
37.1
36.6
36.1
3'lt6
3';.1
35.1
35.1
35.2
35.2
35.3
35.1.1
35.'5
35.6
35.1
35.'l
5:'.0
3b.2
36,1.1
36.6
36.8
37.0
37.3
37.5
37.8
38.1
38.4
38.7
3q.8
1.10.8
1.12.0
1.13.1
41.1.3
1.15.6
U6.'l
1.18.3
4'l.7
51.2
52.7
'51.1.3
56.0
57.1
59.5
61.4
b3.U
CUHuLATIvE
TOTAL
141 •
14'12.
2255.
302'<,
38\6.
4616.
5<.12'1,
1.>255,
iC96.
79':J2.
5b23.
9711.
10615.
11537.
12417.
134510.
1,,41'1.
15411.
16433.
l1Ll75.
105Ul.
1 9 b30.
2071.13.
21!J83.
23050.
2421<4.
25(;68.
2b122.
2£\007.
2'1325.
30b71.
32064.
33488.
34'150.
361.152.
31QQo.
39')112.
/I 1 2 1 /I •
428'11.
1I4617.
/l63C/U.
1I8223.
5010b.
52045.
5U044.
50104.
58226.
60417.
62611:1.
65006.
DISCOUNT R.T~= .080
~f~ESE~H
... ORTH
SOil.
47<1.
Ll1<5.
" \ 13 •
394.
370.
3(;9.
328,
30 q •
2 q 1.
275.
25'1.
2iJ4.
231.
21e.
20/).
1'1 t.I •
1 e 1.1 •
11 u •
16(1.
ISb.
I!; 7 •
13Q •
132.
125.
11'1.
113.
107.
to 1.
C/b.
91 •
87.
83.
1'1.
75.
71.
08.
01.1.
01 •
58.
56.
53.
51.
'18.
1I6.
4U.
42.
1.10.
38.
H.
SOU.
~78.
!~23.
1 !' 1.1 1 •
2235.
2605.
2'l5/,j.
3252.
3591 •
3633.
41'=>7.
U"16.
I<b61.
48'11 •
510'1.
~ 315.
~'>O'l.
56'13.
5807.
6031.
b187.
633(1.
6413.
0605,
613h
b64q.
0962.
106'l.
1110,
72&&.
7358.
7iJ1I5.
7527.
7606.
7680.
7752.
781'1.
7884.
7Q1l5.
8003.
805q.
8112.
8162.
821t.
8257.
830 1.
631.13.
8383.
8421.
8'151.
ENGINEER I";" COMPANY
I
CATi-'fDRAL FALLS PROJECT
H"DRO
crST OF Mo"E"= .1170 tNFLATION RA 1[= .0'10 FIJEL ESCALATION RATE: .020 DISCOUNT RA Tf:.: .080
REFERENCF DATE = JA"LJAR'I 1<)80 ALL COSTS IN $ 1000
FpEr'l 0+'" FUEL E"ERGY COST OF CUMULA T 1 VE PRESENT CUI'IULHlvE
'IEAQ COSTS COSTS COST TnTAL GENf-RATED E f; ERG Y TOTAL WORTH p.w.
M ... H CENTS/KI'IH
IQI'(J b2b. 273. 8 9 Q. 1815. 49.5 899. b12. b12.
I Q;I S b20. 283. qOq. 1872. 48.b 1803. 573. 1185.
1986 b2b. 295. Q21. lq3?. '17.7 2729. 537. 1722.
I (HI 7 b2b. 307. 1)33. 1993. Llo.s 3601. 50'1. 222b.
IQIIIl b21>. 31Q. q U5. 2057. u5.Q 6400b. '173. 20911.
lqi'\Q 020. B2. 958. 2122. 45.1 550'1. uua. 31u2.
IQCiO b2b. 3£15. Q71. 2190. UU.3 0535. alb. 3558.
1 9Q I 626. 3C;Q. Q65. 2260. u3.b 7519. 391. 394Q.
I'1Q2 #>21:>. 373. 9 4 q. 2332. U2.B 8518. 3b7. 64317.
I QQ 3 b20. 368. 1 n 1 tl • 2 UOb. u2.1 '1532. 3u5. Ubb2.
IQ9u 02b. Ll03. In2Q. 2 Un 3. tl 1 .5 105bl. 325. U'18b.
10q<; b2b. /J20. In"o. 2527. tl1.4 lle07. 305. S?92.
IqQb 02b. /J3b. IOb2. 2<;73 • Lll • 3 12bb9. 287. 5579.
19Q7 621t. /J5u. 1 n 80. 2b19. u 1 .2 137£19, 270. 5eu9.
199B b20. 412. 10 Q A. 2009. tl I 'i 1 l U8£;7. 25'1. bl03.
IQ<1<1 020. £I <1 \ • 1 \ 1 7 • 271U. Ul.~ 15'<b£l. 2uO. 0343.
21?t"IO b2O. 510. 11 36. 2704. 41.1 17100. 22b. b 5 b 9._
2001 ('2b. 531. 11 5'T • 2813. 4 r. 1 18257. 213. b781.
2e02 020. 5132. 11 7 8. 28blJ. 'I t • 1 19U 35. 201. b982.
2(103 b2()~ 571J. 12 0 0. 2qlb. 41 .2 20e35. 189. 7171.
200!! b2b. 5"17. 12':3. 2 9b 8. Lll .2 21059. 1 7'1. 7350.
2 (1I~ 5 b2b. b21. 1;?/J7. 3021. iI \ .3 2310b. 169. 7519.
20116 620. bue. 1('72. 30 7b. 64 1 .:3 2 u 377. 159. 7b78.
2007 o2b. 072. 12 9 8. 3132. a 1 .4 251:75. 150. 7828.
2008 02b. oQq. 13 2 '5. 3188. U 1.5 27000. l U2. 7Ho.
2009 620. 727. 13 5 3. 32 U &. .. 1 .7 28352. 13u. 1l105.
20ln &20: 756. 13 8 2. 330tl. U 1.8 2 9 734. 127. 8232.
201 1 62b. 78b. 1/J12. 33b4. 112.0 31146. 120. 8352.
2012 b2b. 817. IlJtl3. 342U. U2.2 32589. 11 4 • 8ubb.
2013 02b. 850. I1J76. 31l8&. 1;2.3 3 1J 065. 108. 8S7a.
20ltl 626~ 881J. 1'5 1 0 • 35<19. £:2.5 35':)75. 102. 8b7&.
?a1S 62/). q19. l"u5. 3b12. 42.8 37120. 97. 8773.
201b b20. qS6. 15 8 2. 3b78. 43.0 36702. q2. 8804.
201'7 02b. QQ4. 16 2 0. 3078. /J/J.l 40322. 87. 8951.
20lR 620: 103a. Ib o O. 3e78. tl5.1 1J1982. 83. 9011.1. ~f1l 2019 020. 1075. 1701 • 3b78. 4b.3 1l3084. 78. 9112.
2020 b20. 111 f!.. 17 U a • 3078. tl7,tJ uSLl2R. 711. 9187.
2021 b2b. Ilb3. 1'8Q. 3b78. 48.0 11721/1. 71 • 9257. ~~ 2022 b2b. I 2 I 0 • 1/136. 3b78. 4'1.9 11'1053. b7. 93211.
2023 020: 12'5/l. lp81J. 3078. 51 .2 50937. bU. Q38/l. ~,
21'124 020. 1308. \Q3u. 3078. 52.6 S2872. bl. 91J1J9. Ol
?C?5 b2b. 136 I • 1<187. ", b 78. 511.0 5'<858. 58. 9500. ~ ........
2r· ;?b b2b. 1 q S. 2n u l. 3078. . 5S. 5 5b900. 55. 9501. '" ?r,27 62b. 1412. 2oqP.. 3078. 57.0 58997. 52. 9613. ~() 20211 020. 153\ • 2\57. 3078. 58.b 011SIJ. SO. 9b03. ~I 2n2Q o2/). ls 0 2. 2(,18. 3678. bO.3 &3372. 47. tH 1 O.
2030 02/)~ lb~6. 22 8 2. 3b78. 02.0 b56511. 1l5. 9755. \.0 ~ 2('131 020. 1722. 23'18. 3078. b3.8 b8001. il3. 97 9 8.
2032 026. 17 q I. 2/J17. 3078. b5.7 70 4 18. III • QaH.
20 'B b20. 1862. 21188. 3678. 67.7 72900. 39. 9a78, l-IARZA
ENGINEERING COMPANY
,
CATHEDRAL FALLS PROJE.CT
HYDRO
COST OF '~(1"F.:v: .0'10 I"FLATlON RATE= .0'10 FUEL ESC:'LATION RATC.: .020 DISCOUNT RATt.: ,080
>lEF"ERENCE r")ATE : JA.,UARV lQBO ALL COSTS IN :0 1000
FIXE.r' 0 ..... FuEL E"E.RGY COST OF CUMULATIvE PRESENT CUMULATIvE
YE AR COSTS COSTS C,OST TOTAL GE."'E~A'T'ED E"'ERGY TOTAL ... ORTf-i p.' \lot •
/'."H CE"TS/K ... H
!qf\/J 797. 273. 1 n 70. I 6 ! 5. 58.'1 1070. 728. 728.
1'/ II 5 7Q7. 2'3:3. 1(,80. 1872. 57.7 2150. 081 • 1140'1.
IQ"6 7 9 7. 2'1'5. In '1 2. 1'132. 50.5 32142. 037. 20 4 0.
I'H\7 H7. 307. 1 I 014 • 199 3. 55.14 1.13145. 590. 20142.
IClIlA 797. 31 ~. 1 I 1 Q • 2057. 5'1.2 51.1~d • 558. 3200.
19PQ 7'17. 332. 1 ,2 q. 2122. 53.2 6590. 523. 37 2:S.
19'10 7'17. 3115. 1 , 14 2. 21'10. 52.1 77:s2. 1490. 4211.
I Q'1, 7'17. 35Q. 11 5 6. 2200. 51 • 1 8887. '15'1. '1672.
1'1'1" 7'H. 173. 1 I 70 • 2332. 50.2 10057. '1:)0. 5102.
I'1 Q 3 797. 3t\8. I 185. 2(100. 1.1'1.2 112IJ2. '103. 5505.
IqQ~ 7 q 7. 4rl3. 1?00. 2'183. '18.3 12"'12. 378. 588u.
IqQS 7'17. '120. 1 ? 17. 2527 • IJ 8.1 13b59. 355. b23'1.
IqQb 7Q7. 1130. 1231 • 2573 • '17.'1 1'18 9 2. 333. 0572.
IQQ7 7'17. 1.151J. I? 51 • 20 1,!il. '1 1.8 1b1'13. 313. 088S.
10 '18 797. '172. l?b'1. 206'1. 'I • ') 17412. 2'1'1. 71H.
10Qq 7'17. 14 91 • 12 s e. 271'1, 147.5 18700. 270. 71.155.
2 (\(\ 0 797. 510. 1 J 07. 27t>1J-. 47.3 20007. 2bO. 771S.
2001 7 Q7. 531. 1328. 261.3. '~ '17.2 21335. 2'1". 7QS9. It_ 2002 797. 552. 11'19. 2804. '17.1 22081.1. 230. 8189.
21ln'3 7q7~ 57'1. 1 '3 7 I • 2 9 1&. '17.0 2'1055. 210. 8'10S.
<,onIJ 7 q 7. 5 Q7. 13 9 '1. 2 9 08. '17.0 251.150. 20'1. 8609.
2005 7Q7. 621. III 1 8. 3021 • '10.9 26868. 192. 8801.
2006 7Q7. 6 t.b. 11.1 '13 • 3076. '10.9 28310. 181 • 8'181.
2n r17 7'17. b72. Il.Ib9. 3132. 'Ib.q 2'nH. 170. '1152.
<'CIlA 797. 699. 11196. 3188. '10.9 31275. 1 b 1 • 9312.
201lQ 7q7. ;27. 1<;2'1. 324b. I.Ib.'1 32798. 151 • 9 11 03.
.?~IO 797. ;'5b. lc;5:S. 3301J • 147.0 311351. l1J3. 960b.
21) 1 I 7Q7. 7Rb. 1<;83. 336'1. '17 • 1 35 9 3(1. 135. 97'11.
2C 12 7Q7, 8 I 7 • 1 II IIJ • 3'12'1. 47. 1 37541\. 127. 9809.
2013 7 Q7, 850. I b 14 7. 3'18b. '17.2 3'11Q5. 120. 9<;89.
2011J 797, Si\q. 1;,81. '35 4 9. '17.'1 '10876. 11'1 • 10102.
2010; 797, Q19. 17 I 6. 3b12. '17.5 1J25q2. 107. 10210.
;>Olb '(Q7. 956. 17 5 3. 3b78. /J7.7 1.11.131.15. 102. 10312.
2017 797. 99'1. 17 9 1. 3b78. lIB,7 1.10130. 90. 101l08.
2011'1 7<l7. 1034. 1A31. 3678. '19.8 1I79b7. 91 • 101J9'1. (J)~ ;>019 7Q7. 1075. 11\72. 3678. 50.9 '198 /.0. 86. 10'385.
2020 797. 111 R. I Q 15. 3678. 52.1 51755. 82. 10&07. ~~ 2(121 797, l1b3. lqoO. 3078. 53.3 5371&. 77. 107'la. ~ ~ 20;12 7Q7. 1210. 2n07. 3078. 5'1.& 55722. 13. 10811.
2:)'? '3 7Q"t. 12S~. 2055. 3678. 55.9 57777. 70. 10887. 'i--tb 20<''1 7'17. 130" • 21°5. 3t78. 57.2 5<1883. bo. !OQ53. ....... 2025 7<:/7. 130 I • 21 5 8. to HI. 58.7 020'10. 03. 11015. e.,. "i 2:)2b 7Q7~ III , '5 • 2;112. 3&76. &0.1 b IJ 253. 59. 11075.
2027 7q7. IIH2. 22 0 9. 3078, 01.7 00521. 5&. 11131. ~ <) <'O;lA 797. 15:3 I • 23 28 • 3b78. -&3.3 b88'1'1. 5'1, 11185. ~ ?:) 29 7<:/7. l:.q2. 23 89 • 3b78. b5.0 712H. 51 • 11236. I
20~O 797. 1056. 21453. 3078. 60.7 730'11. a8. 1128'1. \..0 ~ 2e31 7'17. 1122. 2519. 3&78. &8.S 70209. /Jo. 11 Ho.
20'32 797. 1791 • 25 8 8. 3678. 70.U 787Q7. lJa, 1137a.
2/jH 797. 18b2. 26 59 • 3078. 72.3 811156. '12. 11'116, I-IARZA
ENGINHIlING COMPANY
i. t 1 t , i. l i-t l 1 , l i l i
CATf.'FDRAL ~ALL5 PROJECT
nIEStL At..HR,',ATIItE
CeST OF "O',EY;: .(120 y"FLATlnN R"H::: .0LlO FuEL ESCALATIOr-. RATE:; .02Q DlSCCUNT RA TE= .OBO
REO:ERENCE rHE = J'~UARV !'IBO ALL COSTS PI $ 1 000
f'" !XEo a ... j..~ flJ E L ENERGy COST SF CUHLJL!<lIV£ PR£SE"T CUMULH!VE
'reAR tOSTS COSTS rosr Yo'fAL GE I,!:. R A TEO EI;fRGY TOTAL "'ORTH FleW.
~"'H t:ENTS/i(",H
19"'1.1 0, 204. ~31. 1l35. 1815. 2i.l.O 1l3S. 290, 296.
1 'HIS " v. 2 \.~, ?5? , /.)1:15. \872. 2l!.8 900. 293. 58q.
i'll'/> O. 22\ , '76. IJ Q7. 1932, 25.7 1397. 2qO. 87G,
19?7 o~ 230. ~O~, 5~2, jQ93. 26.7 :'12<1. 2e7, 116b,
1<1;>'8 O. 23<:), "30. 5 6q • 2057, 27.7 2~98. 28'5. llJ 5 1 ,
Iq~<:) O. 2iJ9. <'6 ! , f) 10 • 2122. 28.7 :3 I 08. 282. 1734,
,<lQa O. 25~. ~j q5. b5IJ, 2! '10, 29.8 3761. 280, 2 (j 1 ~ ,
lQClI O. 269. 1J32, "7 a 1 • 22~O. 3 I ,0 ilIJb2, 278. 22<12,
IqCl2 O. 280. jJ 73, .,52. 2332. 32.3 5215. 277. 2509,
lqQ3 O. 2Cl \ • t; ! 7. (\JfI. 21.l0b. :53,b b022, 275. 284£1.
II"lQa O. 303. <;1>5. p.op., 241:13 • 35,0 08ClO. 27IJ. 31 17,
Iqqs O. 31S. 1'\ 0, '125, 2~27, 3b.!;> 7815, 270. 3387,
14<:b q~ 327. 1:-56 , q</~, 2'573 , 38,6 8809. 269. 365b.
IQCl7 9. 3 1l 1). 71 0, I (j b 0, 2b19. (1).5 9869. 265, 3921,
I()<;B 9. 354, '67, 11 30. 2bb9. 42,3 IOQ99. 262. 418) •
IQQCl 9. 36B, 1127, 12 0 4. 2714. 4L1,4 12203, 256. 44111.
2"1'10 Q. 3e3. IIQ3. ! ,f) 4. 27b4, 40,S 13487, 255. Llb'17.
2('1(11 q: 398. 963. 13 7 0, 2813. 48,7 14857. 252. Lllf41:1.
2no:? Q. 4 1 ~ , 11\31:1, 11J02. 28b4. 51.1 1032~. 2(JI:I. 5198,
2003 9. 4310 1122, 15 b 1 , 21:11b, 53,5 17881. 21l6. 5(j4L1.
2004 1:1: 4a8. 1;>10. 16 6 7, 21:1b8. Sb,2 1 9 <;'48. 2L13. 5b87,
200C; Q. lib/:). t'Ob. 17 B 0, 3021 • 58.1:1 21328. 241. 51:128.
:? O!16 q. 41\4, tU09, 19°3, 3076. 61, q 232 ~ I. 238, 6166,
?I)07 9. SOL:. 1 C; 21. 21")3L1. 313;>. 6 a ,9 2':1265. 236. b1l02.
20118 9. 521J. 1 ,.. 41 , 21 7a • 3188. 68,2 27IJ39, 233, 6635,
2COQ Cl. 545. 1771. 2325. 324b, 71 .6 2'076L1. 231. 6866.
201 () 9. 567, I q I I • 2lJ87. 330Ll, 75.3 32250, 229. 7095,
? 0 I t 9. 58G, 2n62, 2/,61. 33/;>4. 79,1 34911. 227. 732~.
2012 9. e 13. 2;:>25. ZA U7, 31J2a. 83,1 :37758. 225. 7546.
2013 <1~ 1'>37. 2lJ O! , 30"8, :S~8b, 87.1l 40800, 223. 77b'-l.
2'1111 q. otl3. 2<; <1 I, 3<>03. 35:J9. 92.0 IJ1l0bl:l. 221. 7<1'10.
2015 Q. 61\<1, 27'10, 3119". 3012. 91,.7 107503, 219, 8208.
2016 I 1 : 717, 3 n 18 , 37 1l 6. 3b 78, 101. A 51309. 217. elJ2b.
ZOi7 11 : 71J /:,. 31<1<1, 3955, 36 1 8, 107.5 552b41. 212. 8b38.
201~ I 1 • 77/:,. 3:; 91 • IJ 177, 3078. 113.b 5<1 4a l. 208. 88'16. 2;) 1 q 1 1 • 807. 3C;Q4, 11412. 3078. 111:1.1:1 b3853, 203, 9041:1,
2!'J 2') 1 1 • 83<:, 31110, /J6 5 9. 3678. 126.7 08':112. 199, <12'17. ~~ 20'1 1 1 ~ B72. IJn313, IJq22. :s078. 133,8 73L134. lClIJ. 911L12.
20;12 I I • 1:107, 1J2 80, 51'lQ, 3078. l L1 1.3 78632, 190, '1632. ~ ~. ~O23 1 I • 944, LI<;37 , '51J<12. 3078, ILl9.3 84121l, leb, 9P, I 7,
Z:J2!J I I ! Cl 81 • IJAnCl. 51\02, 31:78, 157,7 8 9 926. 182, 91:19<1. 'i..tl) ~ 'l2S 1 l • 1021. 5<,98, 0\30. 3b78, lbo,7 9605b. 178. ,0177. "'-;>"~ ?6 1 1 • ! 001 • 5/10 C • 6a 7 6, 3b78. 176,1 102532. 174. 103'>1. Q\ 'i 2027 1 I • 1 I () 4 , 57;?S. 61\43. 3678. 186.1 10 9 375, 170. lJ521.
2025 t I ! lilia, 6!)72. 7231 • 3678, lqb.o 110bOb. 107. IOb88. Of) 2(12Cl It. I I q I •• 0036. 7b 4 1, 3678. 207.8 12 L1 247, 103. 10850. ~, 2030 I I • 12:.J2. 61>22, 81\75. 3b78. 219.5 132322. 159. 11010.
20:;1 1 I • 12Ql, 7'32. 8<;311. 3678. 232.0 IlJoeSb, 150. 1116b. \0 0\ 2032 1 I • 13£1.3 • 7,..66, q1)20. 3&78, 21.jS.2 14 9 07b, 153. IlliG,
2~H 11 : IH7. "126. 9s33. 3678. 251f.? 159409. 1,,9. 111l611, I-IARZA
eNGINEERING COMPANY
1 , :l Ii i l • 6. i J i i. .. Ii I I .. i t.
CATHEDRAL FALLS P>lOJE.CT
oIESEL ALTEi<",ArIItE
CC'lST OF "'oNEY: .0'50 l"FLAytON FlA TE= .040 ~ UEL ESCALATIO~ RATE: .020 OISCOU~n RATE: .0110
RE~ERENCE OATE : JANUARY 1980 ALL COSTS IN $ 1000
FIXEI'l 0+ ~ FliEL ENERGY COST OF CUMULATIVE PREHNT CUMULATIVE
YE AR COSTS COSTS r05T TnTAL GENERA TEO HIE RG 'I' TOTAL WORTH p.W.
M ..... CENTS/K .. H
l'1lCIlJ a ~ 201J: ;)31. /J3C;. 1815. 2'1.0 435. 2Qo. 296.
\'160; O. 213. ,52. 4b5. 1872. 2i1.S QOO. 2<n. 58'1.
IQ~6 O. 221. ;>7b. /j97, ICl32. 25.7 1 H7. 2C10. 879.
1Q37 0, 230. ~o2. ,;32. l C1 Q3. 2b.7 192'1. 287, 11 (,b.
1'188 O. 2H. '00. .:;6'1. 2057. 27.7 24'18. 265, 1451 •
19~q O. 21.;'1, '6t. 6 10. 2122. 28.7 3t08. 2ez. 1 73i1.
19C10 O. 215'1. ,95. b 511 • 2190. 2Q.8 3761. 280. 201tl.
I CI CI 1 O. 269. 432. 7 0 1. 22bO. 31.0 4t1b2. 278. 22C12.
1'1'12 O. 260. l) 7:5. 752. 2B2. 32.3 5215. 271. 2509.
IQCl3 O. 2'1 I • "i \ 1 , pOB. 2400. 33.6 b022. 27S. 28'11J.
!9QiJ C. 303. "ib5. e613. 2t183. 35.0 0890. 2il<. 3117.
''1<15 O. 31S. /. \ 0 • '1c5. 2527. 31:>.b 1815. 270. 338'7.
lqQI:> I 2 • 327. ,.5 A • qQ7. 2573. 38.8 8812. 270. 3b51.
1:)'11 12. 3UO. 11 I). 11\03. 2b1Cl. I.jO.6 '1875. 266, H23.
19'18 12. 3'5!J. 707. 1133. 26b9. U2.5 11001'1. 2b3. (j\B'5.
IQ<lq 12. 308. 821. 12 0 7. 27L I.j. '1a.s \22\S. 25<1. 4/j1l/.l.
2000 12: 383. 8<13. 12 8 7. 27bl.j. 41:1 •• 13502. 256. u700.
20111 12. 3'18. ..3. IJ 7 3. 2813. 1.j8.8 14875. 253. tl9'53.
2002 12. 1.1 1 ij • 103'1. I/Jb,. 28bll. S 1.2 ,oHI. 250. 5202.
2003 12. 431. 1,22. IS6u. 2'1\6. 53.6 1790'5. 2t17. SUUq.
20Cu 12: IIU8. I ;:ll n. 16 70. 2<108. 50.3 1<1575. 2U4. 5693.
200'5 12. IJ61:). l~n6. 17 8 3. ~ 021 • 5'1.0 21358. 2 0 1, SCi.3o.
200b 12. UB!.!. llJo<l. 1q06. 3076. 62.0 2321:>/J. 23<1. 6172.
20117 12. SOti. 1'i21. 21l37. 3132. 65.0 25301. 2.30. 01.1013.
200/\ 12. 524. 1 /, £l \ • 2\17. 3188. 08.3 271.178. 23U. 6btl2.
21)0<1 12. StiS. 17 71. 2328. 324b. 71 .7 2~806. 2.31. to'l7!.
2 ~ I 0 12. Sb7. 1 Q II • 2LlC/0. 3301.j. 7S./j 32295, 22<1. 710.3 •
2011 12. 5a<l. 21lb2. 2b 0 4. 3361.j. '7C1.2 3 4 '15'1. 227. 732<1.
2,' 12 12: 6 t 3-2;:0;>5. 2p50. 3 U2tl. 83.2 3 7 809. 225. 7S5a,
2013 12. 637. 2LlOI. 30'51. 3U86. 87.5 £108bO. 223. 7777.
?014 12. 663-2,,<11. 32 b 6. 354C1. '12.0 ,"0121:>. 221. 79QA.
2015 12. 61\9. 27<1b. 3tlQ'7. 3012. C/6.6 47623. 219. 8217.
2016 27: 717. :3 niB. 3762. 3078. 102.3 51385. 218. 8435.
2(')17 27: 7 1J 6. 3,</</. 3</7\. 3678. 108.0 55351,. 213. 86a8.
20\8 27. 77&. 3~ql. U1C/3. 3678. 11 4 .0 S'1Su9. 208. 8851.
201<1 21. 807. .3'l<lu. 'lilCS. 3678. 120.(1 bH71. 204. '1061.
2020 27. 8H. .3 A I O. "6 7 5. 3678. 127,1 0 8 1:>52. lC1q. '1200 • ~f'rl 2021 27: 872. 41\38. 0938. 3678. 1 H.2 73590. 1<15. Q455.
20n 27. <107. 4;1110. 52 15. 3678. 1 4 1.8 788011. I'll • <l6 U5. ~~ 2023 27. qU4. UC;37. 50;08. 3678. 14Q.8 8 4 312. 18b. '1632.
2!1?11 27. 981. IIAOQ. 5R18. 3678. 158.2 ClODO. 182. 1001a. 't--tb 2);>5 27~ 1021. SnQ8. bl 4 b. 3b78. 167.1 1<6276 • 176. 10192.
2!"6 27. 1061. 5uOU. 6/J"'2. 3678. 170.5 102708. 17u. 10367. ...... ........
2·127 27. 11 04 • 572B. 6A5Q, 3678, 18b.5 10<1627. 171. 10'337. ~ ""I ?12R 21: II U ~. 6n72. '2 4 7. 3678. 197.0 11/)8711. 1&'7. 101011.
~0.?q 27. 11 q ~ • 61J3b. 76 5 7. }b78. 20'3.2 12u~31. 163. 10867. ~C) 2:. >0 21. 121.12. tlA22. B n91 • '!O78. 220.0 132022. 160. 11027. '-D~ 2031 21. 1291. 7-'32. 8'5 5 0. 3678. 232.5 lt1l!7? 156. 11183.
2·)32 27: 131<3. 7t-6b • 90lo. 3078. 2<l5.7. 150208. 153. 11330.
2033 2'7: 1397. 5,26. <lS4Q. 3&78. 2SQ.o lSQ7S7. 150. 111180. I-IARZA
ENGINEERING COMPANY
~ l II. ~ i t ,\ .. , t Ii. , , I it. • j. •
CA P''f:DFlAL FALLS P~QJECT
I'lIfS£L At,. TE: ",.A T I vI:.
erST OF ~(j"EY: .(;70 f'.;FLATlO,", RATE: .040 F lJ1: i,.. ESCALATION RATE= .020 DISCOUNT RATE· .080
l'lE"EilE"JC£ I") A TE. :: J A "I..JA i'ol V 19.;0 ALL COSTS 1"1 l 1000
FIXE(I Oi' " FL'EL ENfi<G'Y COST OF CUt-lUL4Tl\lE P;(~SENT CUMULAT!IIE
VEAR COSTS COSTS rOST TOTAL GENERATED ENERGV TOTAL ",a,PH p • .,.
104 ... ", CfcNTS/t<;",H
Iq~1J O. 20U. ;)31, u'5'5. 1131 S. 2'1.0 1435. 2<1&. 29b,
1~1I."I o • 21.;' ;)52, £leS. 1872. 2£1.8 /fOOt 293. 58q.
lql'\+> o. Z21. ~76, u9 7. 1<132. 25.7 1 ~q7. 2<10. 879.
jge'7 o. • no. 102. 532 • 1993. 2b.7 1929. 287. 11 co.
I'~ A8 O. 2H. ,30, s09. 20S7. 27.7 2U98. 285. l u Sl.
19!'1q O. 209. "'li • 610. 2122. 28.7 31 08. 282. 17]1.1,
jQ9() O. 2Sq. ,Q5. ,,5£1. 2190. 29.1'1 3701. zeo. 2011.1,
lQql o. 2&9, 1.132, 701. 2201). 31.0 "'4e2. :78. 22<12.
r9 C1 2 o. eAO. 1173. 752. 2B2. 32.! 5215. 277. 25e'1.
IQ93 0: 2<11. <;17. 11°8. 2'100. ,B.e 0('122. 275. 28/111.
1<, q IJ O. JO!. "oS. I\b8. 246!. 35.0 6890. 271.1. 3117.
19<15 O. 315. I'd (I. '125. 2527, .s6.b 7615. 270 • 3387.
19qb til! !27. ~58. <:199. 2573. 38.8 881U. 270. 36"7.
lQCl7 1 II. 3<.10. 710. 11)05. 2619. 40.6 987'1. 2be. :3<1211.
19qil 1 j,j • 351.1. 767. It 35. 2009. 42,S 1 ! (; 1 II • 203. U1B7.
1<;199 1 /l • 3611, P27. 12° Q. 27\4. 41.1.5 122i?1. 25<1. 1111'10.
2000 14. H3. $19'5. 1?8<1. 276 4 • /le.7 13512. 250. 11702.
2001 11.1 • 3'18. <:Ib3. 1,)75. 2813. 48.9 l<1bB7. 2'53, 11'155.
21j1l~ 1" • 111 II • I1'l39. lu67. 2801.1. S! .2 11l355. 2S'l. '5205.
2003 14. ill!. 1 i 22. tsob. 2916. 53.7 1 H21. 21.17. '51152.
cQlllj tt.: 4118. 1 ~ 10, 1,,72. altoS. se.3 l tt !;9!. 2ul.I. 5&ge.
20o'S 1 II: t.:bb. l'Oe, \785. ,!'l21. 59.1 21378. 21.11. 5938.
200(' 1 /,j • /,jail. I~09. 1901\. 30 7b. 62.0 23280. 239. e 1 77.
21)07 I 1,1 • S('U. 1<;21. 2039. 3132. oS.1 25:)25. 236. bllil.
20011 1 (j • 5?~. 1/,1.11. 21 7Q. 31 ~8. oB.3 27504. 2311 • obl.l7.
.?00Q 1 ;j • 51:5. 177 I. 23 3 0. 321.16. 71 .8 2<;1!lJ4. 232. cB711.
2010 I 4. 567. 1 () 1 t • 21192. 330/,j. 75.u 32325. 229. 71011.
2011 HI. seq. 2"62. ChCe. ,30IJ. 79.2 31.19<:;1. 2i!7. 7335.
('ot2 11.1 : e13. 2;125. 211.'52. 31.12/i. 83.3 378U3. 225. 7560.
20 tJ HI : o:n. 2qOl. 30S}. 3 IJ 8b. 87.e U0890. 223.' 778l.
20llJ 1 u. 6~J. 21:)91. 32 0 8. 351J9. 92.1 ..1.116ll. 221. 800u.
2(115 Il.1 • 689. 219&. 3u Q 'h 3b12. '16.9 1.170e3. 219. 8223,
1016 32. 717. 3n!8. 37°7. 3e78. 102.11 51£130. 218. 8~ U I •
201'7 32. 740. 3199. Jo7b. lb7B. 108.1 551100. 213. 8055.
2018 12. 77b. 3,91. 1.11 9 8. 3&78. I 11.1 • 1 S<lbO/j. 209. 8803, ~ 2019 32. llO7. 3<;94. I.IIJ3J. 3678. 120.S 64037. 201.1. 90b7. "l) 2020 32. 839. 3AtO. 1.16 8 0. 3078. 127.3 b8717. 199. 92b 7. x: 20(>1 32. S '12. i.I~3A. 4Q1.I3. 3678. 13u.u 73l:>bO. 195, 9llo2. fb zon 32. 907. 4?80. 5;>20. 3618. 1(11.9 7f}679. 191. '16':)3. (b ~ 2023 32. QIJ Ij. II':;!]. 5<;13. )b78. 1119.Q 811392. 187. 9839. "f... 202IJ 32: 981. /.IRO<l. S~2!. 3678. 158.3 90215. 182. 10022. ~ 2()2S 32. 1021 • 5~q8. /) 1 5 1. 3&78. Ib7.2 9036&. 17B. 10200. (b ,"i 202b 32. 1061. SaOll. &ll'H. 3678. 17e.7 1021:163. 175. 10375.
21)27 32. I Ill!.!. 572 8 • e!'\6/.1. 3678. ISb.b 109727. 171 • 105~5, ~ () 2028 32~ 1 1 48. 6i17 2. 72 5 2. 3078, lQ7.2 110979. 11:17. 10712. ~ ~Oi?q 32: 11<11,1. 01.131.1. 7b o 2. 3e78. 208.3 121.1e1.l1. lb3. 1087b • I 2:)30 32. 1?1I2. bIl22. 80 9 6. 3678. 220,1 132737 • toO. 11030;. '-0 0\ 20'1 32. 1291. 7?32. 80;'S5. 3e78. 232.b l'H2Q2. 1St.. 11192.
<?C32 32 : 13/.13. 7"eb. 9(\<11. 3076. 21l5.S I:'03lJ. 153. l!3l.1S.
2')33 32. 1197. 8i2b. Q0;51.1. lb78. 259.8 ISQb87. 150. 111.1Q5. I-tARZA
ENGINHRING COM?ANY
~"~--"-'-' -~--------
.. II. t .. " 1. " & .. • i & .. , .. Ie
C.ul-<FDRAL FALL5 P~OJECT
"IESEL AlTEk'~ATIH
COST OF ~O'JEY= :0<:;0 !NFLAT!O'J RATE: .040 FUEL ESCAlATION RATE: .020 DISCOuNT RATE: .OllO
REF"ERENCE O~TE : JH,UARy 19/10 AlL COSTS IN s 1000
FIxED O+M fUEL ENERGY COST OF CUMUlATIvE PREstNT CUMULATIVE
YEAR COSTS COSTS rOST T(1TAL GEkERATEO ENERGY TOTAL IOiORTH p.w.
~>lH CE.NTS/KI'fH
19Su O. 204. ~31. 1l35. 1815. 2'1.0 '135. 2(Hl. 29b.
19~5 O. 213. '52. /lbS. 1872. 2'1.8 qOO. 293. 5e9.
1Qllb O. 221. ~7b • iJ97. 1932. 25.7 1397. 290. ~79.
1'11\7 O. 2V'l. ~02. ,,32. 1993. 20.7 1929. 287. Ilbb.
I Q IlI-i O. 2H. 'no. C;b9. 2057. 27.7 2498. 285. lU~I.
ICJ>lQ O. 2'19. '61. ~,1 O. 2122. 28.7 3108. 21\2. 173'1.
19C;0 O. 259. ,'l5. b 5lJ • 211i0. 2'1.8 3761. 2AO. 201U.
1991 O. 2b9. iJ32. 7 0 1 • 2260. 31 ,0 U"b2. 276. 2292.
1992 o • 280. 073. 7'S2. 2332. 32.3 5215. 277. 2Sb9.
1993 o. 2C) 1. 1:;17. 1\08. 2UCb. 33,0 b022. 275. 28uu.
IQ9 .. O. Jr.3. C;hS. 1\61'. 2 0 E3. 35,0 0890. 27'1. 3111.
lQ Q5 O. 315. ~IO. Q25. ?'527. 3b .b 7815. 270. 3387.
l'1 9 b 1 b. 3il7. ,.,58. 1(101. 2573. 38.'1 8816. 271. H58.
1997 1 b. 300. 710. 10b7. 2619. '10.7 91;83. 2b7. 3925.
!Q'18 10. 354. 767. 1 t 37. 2009. 42.6 11020. 203. 11188.
I'19Q 10. 3bil. 1\27. I? 11 • 2714. OU.6 12231. 2bO. U448.
2000 16~ 31',.3 • 1193. 12 9 1. 27btJ. 46.7 13';,22. 257. a705.
20('\1 16. 3'1>\. (lo3. 1377. 2813. Uq.o 1469'1. 253. U958.
2002 16. 410. 11'13 9 • lLJo9. Z8bU. 51.3 1636'1. 250. 52011.
2003 16. U 31 • 1'22. lc:;68. 2916. 53.8 17937. 2'17. 545b.
2004 16. U41i. 1'10. 16 70 • 2 9 68. 56.U 19611. 244. 5700.
201'15 16. 466. I~Oo. 17 8 7. '021. 59.2 21398. 242. 5942.
20(\6 1 " • OAI.I. 1 /J o'l. 1 'l I 0 • 3076. 62.1 23308. 239. 6 181.
2:)(17 lb. 500. lC:;21. 2r,41. 3132. b5.2 2';,31.19. 237. 6U17.
2008 16 ! S2U. II, /J I • 2 t 8 I • 3188. 06.4 27530. 234. 6651.
200Q 10. 5lJ5. 1771 • 2332. '3246. 71.8 29862. 232. &883.
2010 16. 5117. 1 Q 11 • 2a 9 u. 3304. 75.S 32355. 229. 7113 •
2011 lb. 56Q. 2(162. 26 6 e. 336U. 79.3 35023. 227. 7340.
2012 lb. 613. 2,,,5. 211'54, 3 4 2a. 83.4 37877. 225. 7565.
201 '3 16. 637. 21101. 3(,)55. 3<':00. 87.6 '10932. 223. 7788.
2010 16. 603. 2<;91. 32 7 0. 35/J9. 92.1 44202. 221. 8009.
201'; lb. 689. 2796. 3<;01. 3612. 96.9 U7703. 219, 6229.
2016 35. 717. 3';18. 37 7 0. 3678. 102.5 514 n. 219. 84U7.
2017 3S~ 7!J6. 3199. 3q7'1. 3678. IC8.2 55U52. 214. 81,,61.
20PI 35. 776. 3HI. U 20 I. 367A. 11 0 • 2 59653. 209. 1;870.
2019 35. B07. 3594. 4!. 3 6 • 3678. 120.6 01.1089. 20U. 9074.
2020 35. 83Q. 31\10. 4683. 3678. 127.3 68772. 200, 9273 •
20?1 35: 872. ut'\38. Uq 0 6. 3678. 13u.S 73718. 195. 9ab9. lntt, 2022 35. '107. 4280. 52 2 3. 3678. l U2.0 789 4 0. 1 q 1 • 9659. ~~ 20:>3 35.1. QOIl. LJc:; 37. 50;11". 3678. 150.0 8(1(156. 187. Q8Ub.
2024 35. Q~ 1. /Jlln9. 5'12(;. 3678. 158.0 90282. lIn. 10029.
2020; 35. 1021. 5n98. 6t 5 1.1. 3678. lb7.3 'l6U36. 179, 10207. ~ni 2020 35. 1061 • SLJOLI. 6<;00. 3678. 17&.7 102936. 175. 10382.
2021 35. 11 OU. 572 8 • 6'167. 3678. 18b.7 109803. 171. 10S';2.
,
2028 35~ 11 L18. 6n 72. 7255. ]078. 1 9 7.3 117058. 167. 10719. \O"'t
2029 35. 11 qa. 6036. 766'5. 3678. 208.4 124723. 163. 10883. ~f) 2030 35. 12'12. 6A22. 80 9 '1. 3678. 220.2 132822. 1 b 0 • 11043.
2031 35. 1291. 7232. 8558. 367a • 232.7 141380. 151". 111 99. \j)~ 2032 35. 13(13. 7~66. 9(')44. 3678. 245.9 :50"24. 153. 11352.
2"33 35. 1397. 8;26. 9557, 3078. 259.8 lS 99 81. 150. 11502. l-tARZA
ENC;NEE~ING COMPANY
! ..
L
~
U
U
I
I
Year
Ite.m ((uarf~r
Preconsfrucfion Activifies
OrgDnijation) Land Selecfion dha
Alf~rni1five 5fucly
Declaration of Infenflon (If' Re~.)
F~a5ipility stll"Y
Prov/~/on~1
Fln.1 Environmenfal
F£R.C Lic.I1Ss Aff'lica fion
Preparation
Review
Ofher Permits
F/nfincin9
Oe5'9n)Confr~cf Oocllmsnf.s (Award
Con5frucfion
Mobil(Jaflon
Quarry a"d Sfripl'l"g
Oiv.r~ion
Tunl1t!1
[).m
P~n'stocl<.
PoW.rhou4.
Turh/l1tIs .nd t:; en~raft:)r ..
Tran.$mission
T.~tin~ ana Commis~ionin,
I--IAR.ZA ENGINEERING COMPANY· AUGUST 1979
1979 /~80
.3 4 I Z :3 4
-
-..
1981 1982
I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4
• •
• -
I
-----=
--
EXI-/IBIT c-7
1983
2 3 4-
• -
•
• -
.A.LA.~I<.A Pf:)WEI( AUTHORITY
CATH~D~AL FALLS PRo,",eCT
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
Appendix C-A
GEOLOGY
Regional Geology
General
Formations of Southeast Alaska vary from Lower Ordovician
volcanics (in some places deposited in marine environments)
and cherts to poorly consolidated recent glacial (fluvio-
glacial and glacio-marine) clastics. The older (Tertiary and
older) beds are often intricately folded and faulted. Folding
and faulting apparently occurred in several different episodes
in the past, and, judging from current seismic activity and
apparent differential uplift of opposite sides of the Chatham
Strait, continue in the present.
Stratigraphy
In general, the older (pre-Tertiary) sedimentary rocks are
marine as evidenced by black shales, cherts and limestone, or
their metamorphic equivalents, e.g. slates and marbles.
Volcanism, which is still present, has occurred inter-
mittently since the early Paleozoic. This is evidenced by
basalt or andesite volcanic flow rocks, or welded tuffs in
unmetamorphosed areas and by greenstones in metamorphic
sequences.
Plutonic activity has occurred during at least four geo-
periods -the Silurian, Jurassic, Lower Cretaceous and Lower
Tertiary. Plutonic rocks vary from granites to gabbros.
In places, rock sequences have been subjected to low
grade regional metamorphism which has produced schists, green-
stones, slates and marbles. Bedding is often difficult to
differentiate from foliation in many of these sequences. In
addition to the regional metamorphism, aureoles, or zones of
contact metamorphic rocks, surround many of the plutonic rocks.
Structure
Southeast Alaska is a part of the Coast Range of the west
coast that extends from California northward to the Alaskan
Peninsula. As such, it is a broad belt of interconnected ranges
that has been subjected to several episodes of folding and
faulting and plutonic intrusions.
C-A-I
...
...
...
• to
..
,""
..
...
The several episodes of folding, and faulting, and plutonic
intrusions have resulted in extremely complex geology. This
geology is additionally complicated by a system of strike-slip
faults where horizontal movement has been large enough to bring
different facies of contemporanous strata into juxtaposition.
These faults generally trend northwestward in conformity
with the structural grain of the area and often have large
vertical movements. Some are apparently active.
Seismicity
Orogenic Earthquakes. The seismic history of Southeast
Alaska, while short, shows a high level of activity. A large
amount of this appears to be related to the seismic activity of
the circum-Pacific orogenic belt (or "ring of fire"). This
belt is characterized by a deep oceanic trench (the Aleutian
Trench) a principal tectonic lin~ with epicenters of shallow
earthquakes and active or recently extinct volcanos (the
Aleutian Islands) with epicenters of earthquakes originating at
depths near 100 km. This Pacific orogenic belt is the classi-
cal concept of thrust faulting extending to substantial depths.
Earthquakes foci increase in depth as distance from the oceanic
trench increase •
Master faults, primarily strike-slip in character, account
for much of the seismic activity of Southeast Alaska. These
faults, shown on Exhibit C-A-l, occupying and bounding the
Coast Range orogenic belt, can in places be identified to pass
through the area. Major seismic activity attributed to these
faults is described below. The map of epicenters, generally
shows a correlation between faulting and seismic activity.
(a) The Fairweather-St. Elias-Chugach Fault is the
largest and most active in coastal Alaska. Activity associated
with this fault resulted in the Lituya Bay earthquake of July
la, 1959. This movement was at least 70 feet lateral and 21.5
feet vertical. Other large earthquakes, including the Prince
William Sound, Alaska, earthquake of 1964, and the Yakutat Bay
earthquake of September 10, 1899, may also have originated on
this faul t.
(b) A second major fault, the Denali-Chatham Strait
Fault passes through the Alexander Archipelago along Chatham
Strait, joining the Fairweather Fault west of Prince of Wales
Island. The northern end of this fault is considered to be
active and this activity is believed to have formed scarps along
the Alaska Range. There is no reported evidence of movement of
the fault; however, the Denali-Chatham Strait Fault is long and
C-A-2
it should not be assumed that it is inactive. Some severe
earthquakes appear to have originated on the northern part of
the fault.
Many other faults appear to be related to the Chatham
Strait -Fairweather Fault system. Within the area of Southeast
Alaska, these faults, in general, are considered to be inactive
or dead faults, in that they have not moved during the Holocene.
Earthquakes in the area often cannot be related to known
surface faults and may be presumed to be indigenous to the area.
Design for such earthquakes should be on a zonal basis. It
should be noted that seismic activity is largely concentrated
between the Chatham Strait and Fairweather Faults and along and
to the west of the Fairweather Fault. Sites significantly east
of the Chatham Fault should be expected to experience a lower
level of activity.
Volcanic Earthquakes. Several large earthquakes have
been attributed to volcanic eruptions on the Aleutian Islands.
These have resulted in tsunamis.
Tsunamis or Tidal Waves. One of the effects of earth-
quakes can be the formation of seismic sea waves or tsunamis.
Generally these are generated by submarine earthquakes; however,
earthquakes with epicenters on land can also cause tsunamis.
Within the area of Southeast Alaska, tsunamis can generally be
expected to be generated in the Aleutian Trench, along the
Fairweather Fault, or in the Japan Trench. Several have been
reported that can be attributed to movement along the Fair-
weather Fault. Potential tsunami generation could also occur
in Southeast Alaska by earthquakes on the Chatham Strait Fault;
and one reported in 1899 in Lynn Canal may have originated on
this fault.
Powerplant sites on or very near the coast could be
damaged by tsunamis.
Physiography
The overriding factor in the formation of the present
terrain of Southeast Alaska has been Wisconsinian glaciation.
Glaciers apparently originated from ice caps on the larger
islands, and then spread into the lower areas as valley and
tidewater glaciers. In some areas, local mountain glaciers
resulted in the formation of cirques and hanging valleys.
Retreat of glaciers occurred approximately 10,000 years
ago, a short period of time from a geological standpoint.
C-A-3
Removal of glacial ice loads resulted in substantial rebound of
land masses at some places (approximately 700 ft. for Douglas
Island as reckoned from present sea level). Because of the
short period of time since glaciation, drainage systems are
often poorly integrated. Streams are immature, flowing through
valleys with oversteepened sides and with steep gradients in
places, and through shallow isolated lakes and muskegs in other
places.
The rebound phenomena apparently are not present in all
islands. Furthermore, the phenomena have been complicated
by rising sea levels following melting of glacial ice and
possibly differential movement along major faults, such as the
Chatham Strait Fault.
The results of these factors with reference to project area
are that: (1) The upper parts of Cathedral Falls Creek and
Gunnuk Creek drainages are poorly integrated, apparently in part
formed by ablation moraines and in part rock drumlins; (2) Some
uplift resulting from rebound has resulted in both; and creeks
forming sharply incised valleys near their mouths. (3) Courses
of both creeks are, in places, controlled by linements in bed-
rock.
Debris Avalanches and Landslides
A major consideration of some sites and reservoirs in
valleys with oversteepened sides could be debris avalanches of
soils and of weathered and broken and glacier deposits which
could fill the reservoir and damage project facilities. The
literature of the area reports instances of destructive debris
avalanches and other mass wasteage phenomena. Many scars are
found on aerial photographs, observed from planes, or found on
the ground attesting to commonness of these phenomena. Bent
tree trunks on some slopes indicate creep movement and potential
instability.
In general, debris avalanches occur on overly steep
slopes, i.e. slopes exceeding 36°. This is slightly steeper
than the commonly accepted 33° angle of repose for talus
deposits.
Commonly the debris avalanche involves relatively thin
cohesionless soils and thin surficial layers of broken and
weathered rock. In some cases the layering of broken and
weathered rock results from stress relief joints which are
generally parallel to the surface and which appear to have been
formed as a result of relief of stress following melting of
glaciers.
C-A-4
'"
...
...
.W
,41
..
...
"
..
Triggering mechanisms can be a large increase of soil
moisture due to rain or disruption of drainage due to construc-
tion activites, logging, or other activities that remove
vegetation. Earthquakes also can trigger debris avalanches.
Rock falls from cliffs are one of the mass wasteage
phenomena. Good engineering practice will eliminate hazards
to projects from this source.
Other types of landslides of either rock or soil probably
occur in Southeast Alaska. These do not appear to be factors in
the area of these projects.
Cathedral Falls Geology
Physiography
The elongated hills, marshes, and shallow lakes in the
vicinity of Cathedral Falls are considered to be topographic
forms developed by glaciation, possibly an extensive tidewater
glacier. Cathedral Falls Creek near its outfall is a meander-
ing, subsequent stream which apparently is joint or fault con-
trolled. The falls is apparently due to headward deepening of
the stream following the rebound of the area after melting of
the glacier ice cap.
Slopes of valley sides below the falls are steep and tree
covered. At places, deposits of talus have formed. These
slopes may be unstable in places. Potentially unstable material,
however, generally is only the shallow cover of soil and broken
rock. Slides or debris avalanches should not present an
operational problem.
The stream valley above the falls has gentle slopes. These
slopes are heavily forested although some areas above the
Project have been logged.
Formations at the site are limestone, which is a relatively
soluble rock. There is some minor evidence of solution of the
limestone such as widening of joints at the falls and pitting
of the cliff at the falls. However, no evidence of widespread
or deep solution of the limestone was seen. Design stage
exploration should be made adequate to positively define the
extent of solution. The geologic history of the area, which is
of rebound following glaciation, suggests that solution, if a
factor, would be shallow and localized. It is not anticipated
that solution would have a significant impact on the Project.
C-A-5
.".
...
Seismicity
Cathedral Falls is located east of the Chatham Strait
Fault in an area that is relatively inactive seismically. No
active faults have been recognized in the area. However, as
all of Southeast Alaska has been demonstrated to be seismically
active, provisions for strong shaking should be incorporated
into designs.
While the powerplant for Cathedral Falls would be located
near tidewater, the site is considered to be safe from tsunamis.
This consideration is based upon the protection afforded by
Baranof and Kuiu Islands from tsunamis originating on the
Fairweather Fault and by Kuiu Island from tsunamis that could
originate on the Chatham Strait Fault.
Investiga tions
Geological mapping of the project area by the USGS is
reported in USGS Bulletin 1241-C, Stratigraphy of the Keku
Islets and Neighboring Parts of Kuiu and Kupreanof Islands
Southeastern Alaska, by L.J.P. Muffler (1967). The stratigra-
phic nomenclature established by this report is used in this
present report. General interpretations of geologic structure
were also reported. These interpretations were confirmed and
augmented by Harza personnel.
Harza personnel visited the site in June 1979. The results
of this visit are presented in this report.
Site Geology
Stratigraphy. Two geologic formations form the bedrock in
the vicinity of the Project. These formations as described
from the oldest to the youngest are:
Permian-Pybus Formation: This formation consists of a
series of thick beds of light grey to tan siliceous, finely to
medium crystalline, hard limestone. Irregular nodules of limey
chert or cherty limestone occur in these beds.
Triassic-Hamilton Island Limestone: This formation outcrops
at the head of the falls and upstream where it is in fault
contact with the Pybus Formation. In the project area rocks
of this formation consist of thinly bedded (1/4" to 2"),
laminated, dark grey to black, hard argillaceous limestone;
interbedded with dark grey to black, thinly bedded chert and
argillite. The results of petrographic analysis of rock samples
taken from the site is given in Exhibit C-A-2.
C-A-6
Structure. In addition to the fault boundary between the
Hamilton Island and Pybus Formations at the head of the falls,
a relatively large fault believed to trend about N 10° W passes
to the west of the site and separates both formations from the
older Permian Cannery Formation. This fault, which is generally
concealed by forest cover, passes approximately 300 feet to the
west of the falls.
Upstream of the falls, the Hamilton Island Limestone is
folded into a sharp southwesterly trending syncline. In
addition to bedding plane partings, the Hamilton Island
Limestone is intersected by a series of sheared joints trending
N-S to N 35° E and dipping vertically or 80° W.
Below the falls the Pybus Formation dips moderately to
the south. In this area, the formation is intersected by a
series of strong joints or small faults striking N 70° E and
dipping vertically. Zones of breccia paralleling these small
faults are found in this area. Rock of the formation at the
falls is also intersected by a strong joint or sheared joint
subparallel to bedding. This joint is considered to be a
stress relief joint formed as a result of removal of the load of
glacial ice from the area.
Engineering Geology
Dam, Spillway, and Penstock Intake. Stripping for the dam
should remove organic matter, soil and loose rock to permit
examination of the bedrock surface. Stripping is estimated to
be about 2 feet in the channel and 5 feet on the abutments.
A key way, grout trench about 2 feet deep and 4 feet wide should
also be excavated. Zones of weak rock should be excavated and
cleaned by jet and backfilled with concrete. Open joints
should also be jetted clean and slush grouted.
It is estimated that grout holes for the proposed grout
curtain should be drilled about 10 feet deep. This curtain,
which should be an exploratory type, should have holes angled
at 45° to provide a greater incidence of interception of
steeply dipping joints.
Penstock. Penstock supports and bend anchors should be
founded on bedrock but should not require any special provisions
for anchoring.
Penstock Tunnel. The small tunnel envisioned for the
penstock should generally require only nominal support. This
would consist of rock bolts with wire mesh in the crown.
C-A-7
..
..
..
. .,
...
Provisions, however, should be made for greater support in the
event fault zones are encountered.
Powerplant. The powerplant, which would be located near
the cliff bordering the upstream or northeast side of the pool
formed by the falls should be founded on bedrock. This is
assumed to be at a shallow depth below the pool's surface.
Slopes behind the powerplant should be scaled of loose
rock and then stabilized with rock bolts and wire mesh. Large
trees that could be blown down causing damage to the powerhouse
should be cut.
Proposed Design Exploration
Dam, Spillway, Penstock, and Intake. Exploratory drill
holes proposed for the exploration of these features is esti-
mated to total 450 feet. These should be to:
1. Define stripping depths
2 • Determine structural conditions of bedrock
3. Determine if solution of bedrock has occurred.
Penstock Tunnel. Two holes totaling 150 feet are needed
for the tunnel. One should be drilled near the tunnel portal.
A second should be drilled near the cliff to determine if open
joints are present near the cliff face.
Powerplant. One drill hole should be drilled at the pQl.V'er-
plant site to determine depth to bedrock and condition of bed-
rock. The hole would be about 30 feet deep •
C-A-8
\.
EXHllJlT C-A --I
l' \ o 811e/c 8ttlr LI/('
® GlII1l1ul( Cr'~ k
' . ....
.,
•••••• , I .. ,...
I ....
I ". . ,. .. ..
' .. ... 1 '. . ' . .... -(~ _........... -, ~ .... ~""'I"-W .,z.. .......... • . .. ..... ...,........ .
-.. -:!, '. ' . ........ , J ...... I
' .. . " '.
'-Eq~N/):
./ ~pic.~"f.' tlf tJI'f"9IM~1 "limN' of I~!rh
-----Fllult~ doff~tI wh.,~ CDnC ... tllIr ,",.".d.
NOTE,:
0"" 6flrth9v.~ of ;J.O + m~"itud. or
N .,. ,itf."$ify .rl $hown.
'.
® ("fll,tlr41 rtills Cr,,1c
~ G.rllilt1 CrIll<
@ Thly#r Crt,/r
@ Ji/llJ C rtlle
ALASKA "OW~1f A.UTHO"'TY
LOCATIONS OF FAULTS
AAlO
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
....
,,..
Exhibit C-A-2
PETROGRAPHIC INVESTIGATION OF SAMPLES FROM THE ALEXANDER
ARCHIPELAGO, S.E. ALASKA. A.F.Koster van Groos
... Cathedral Falls'l:reek, 200 feet upstream of falls
M~croscopic: dense black fine-grained rock, fine layering.
sedimentary origin.
Microscopic: fine layered very fine-grained d 9 rk brown
material with large number of small globules
of chert-like material, 0.1-0.3 mm in size
Conclusion: Thin-bedded argillite with microscopic chert
globules. The dark material is too fine to
identify. Probably Hamilton Island formation
USGS l24l-C
Cathedra'l FaIls Creek, downst ream from falls
Macroscopic: white chert with numerous small fossils,
light grey-brown, fine grained dolomite present
Microscopic: Chert, richly fossiliferous. Dolomite in rhombs,
0.5-1 nun in size
Conclusion: Chert and dolomite from the Pybus formation
USGS l24l-C
Conclusions:
All the samples from the Alexander Archipelago seem to be
rather normal. The only exception is the sample from Thayer
CreeK, at the lower downstream site.
The degree of weathering of all samples is slight.
Most fractures are healed with either chert-like deposits,
quartz, or calcite.
The degree of alteration is often substancial, e~pecially
when the original rock is of volcanic origin
..
-
-
,,,..
' ....
..
' ....
Appendix C-B
HYDROLOGY
Clima te
The climate of the project area is largely maritime with
occasional incursions of continental air masses. Therefore,
the climate is mild and humid with much precipitation.
The primary factor influencing the climate is the Aleutian
low pressure area, which is semi-permanent in the fall and
winter but tends to migrate in the spring and summer.
Tempera tures
The maritime influences cause temperatures to be mild and
uniform. The occasional incursions of continental air cause
considerably colder temperatures for short periods.
Exhibit C-B-l shows average and extreme temperature for a
climatological station in the project area.
Precipitation
The normal cyclonic wind pattern of the low pressure area,
aided by high mainland mountains to the northeast, results in
a high percentage of the winds being from the southeast
quadrant. In addition, these southeasterly winds bring rain a
far greater percentage of the time than do winds from other
quadrants. Therefore, southeastern exposure is an important
factor in the precipitation pattern, and hence runoff, of the
project area.
In latitudes south of the project area, the cyclonic
circulation results in the prevailing winds being from the
southwest. Therefore, moisture from warmer seas is carried in
a generally northward direction, passing over cooler water
thereby lowering the air temperature. This, along with cyclonic
convergence and local orographic effects, produces copious
rainfall but with large variations over short distances.
Precipitation, however, varies less from year to year, and from
season to season, than in most places.
The moderate temporal variation in rainfall is highly
favorable to hydroelectric power but the geographical variations
make the computation of power potential from ungaged basins
somewhat uncertain. This problem is discussed later under
"streamflow" .
C-B-l
..
-
-...
OIl
-
Storms tend to be general and for extended periods. In-
tense precipitation of the thunderstorm type is very rare, and
is never as intense as in warmer climates. This leads to very
much smaller flood peaks in these small basins than are found in
warmer humid areas. Flood volumes, however, can be large.
Precipitation data are shown for a climatological station
in the project area in Exhibit C-B-l .
Streamflow
Streamflow data are far more extensive in the project area
than are precipitation data. Streamflow data integrates the
conditions for the entire drainage basin about the gage. There-
fore, streamflow records generally are far more valuable than
precipitation records in estimating the water supply at the
various sites. Elevation, orientation, and location affect both
the amount and distribution of runoff. These three factors are
discussed below:
Effect of Elevation
Studies were made by the Alaska Power Administration and
its predecessor, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, of the effect
of elevation on runoff in the Alaskan panhandle. (Takatz
Creek Project, Alaska-Juneau, September 1967). The curves of
Drawing 1113-906-21 of that report, shown here as Exhibit C-B-2,
indicate that the average increase in unit runoff for the
areas studied is about 0.0045 cfs per square mile for each
additional foot of average basin elevation. The project areas
covered herein generally have much lower precipitation and
runoff per unit of drainage area than the areas studied in the
above report. The project drainage basins in general also have
higher elevations than the basins above the stream-gaging
stations. Therefore, it is considered prudent to use an
elevation adjustment two thirds as large as indicated above.
Therefore, an increase in unit runoff of 0.003 cfs per square
mile for each foot of additional average basin elevation is
adopted. An independent check of this elevation adjustment
factor was made by comparing the one year of simultaneous record
at the upper and lower gages on Mahoney Creek near Ketchikan.
The records of these stations confirmed the value of 0.003 cfs
per square mile for each foot of elevation. The confirmation
is only partial, however, because of the poor quality and short
records of the Mahoney gages.
Where the basin is small and where most of it is within the
spillover area at the upwind basin divide, the average elevation
of the upwind divide is substituted for the average basin eleva-
tion and a partially subjective factor is applied to adjust for
C-B-2
the effectiveness of the spillover. Mr. Robert Cross, Admini-
strator of the Alaska Power Administration, who is highly
experienced in Alaskan hydrology, pointed out instances where
there is a noticeable dropoff in precipitation within two miles
of the upwind divide. This phenomenon is considered in estima-
ting the adjustment factor.
Elevation not only affects the mean annual runoff but also
the seasonal distribution of the runoff. Drawing 1113-906-20
of the Takatz report shows the seasonal effect for the Baranof
Island area. This same effect was used in the project area.
The drawing is shown on Exhibit C-B-2.
Effect of Orientation
Examination of precipitation and runoff records, discussions
with meteorologists and hydrologists, and published reports all
indicate that exposure to the southeast has a significant
effect on precipitation and runoff.
The "Climatic Atlas of the Outer Continental Shelf Water
and Coastal Regions of Alaska -Volume I, Gulf of Alaska" by
the Bureau of Land Management, 1977 indicates that the predomi-
nant winds in the project area are from the southeast and that
such winds are accompanied by significant rainfall a much
greater percentage of the time than are other winds. Therefore,
presence or lack of exposure to the southeast was given careful
consideration in transposing runoff from gaging stations to
project basins.
Effect of Location
The effect of location was taken into account by selecting
as index stations gaging stations in the general vicinity of
the project.
Streamflow Records
Since these are reconnaissance level studies, published
data of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with computer analyses
by the USGS, are used to define the streamflow at the gaging
stations.
Some of the streamflow records are very short. Annual
variations in runoff, however, are very moderate in the project
area. Therefore, average runoff records of five years or longer
are used without adjustment. Records were available only for
1977 for several stations. Comparing the 1977 runoff with long
term runoff for stations having long records indicates that
1977 was fairly representative of the long term average with
C-B-3
some stations having somewhat greater than average runoff in
1977 and others somewhat less. Therefore, records for the
single year 1977 are used without adjustment but with caution.
All comparisons of runoff are made on the basis of cfs
per square mile to eliminate the variable of basin size. Runoff
based on these comparisons is subject to inaccuracies in the
published data and to uncertainty in accounting for elevation,
explosure, and location, ~s discussed earlier.
Runoff Computation
The runoff is estimated on the basis of drainage area,
basin elevation, and exposure comparisons with gaged basins.
Basin elevations also are computed for gaged basins used in
the comparisons.
Drainage areas are determined by planimetering 1:63,360
scale or 1:250,000 scale topographic maps. Basin elevations
are determined by laying out grids over the basins and
averaging the elevations of each grid over the basins and
averaging the elevations at each grid intersection. Grid
scales are selected for each basin such that they averaged
about 40 grid intersections.
There is a gaging station on Hamilton Creek, about 2 miles
to the south of the Cathedral Falls, having fairly comparable
runoff. The station has two years of record (1977 and 1978)
and is rated "poor" to "fair". This station has an average
adjusted runoff of 3.52 cfs per square mile.
Using the grid system on a 1:250,000 scale map gives an
average basin elevation of about 500 for Hamilton Creek. The
Cathedral Falls Creek basin averages about 590 in elevation.
Using 0.003 cfs/sq. mi. increase in runoff per foot of elevation
gives 0.003 (590-500) or 0.27 cfs per square mile increase for
the basin or a total of about 3.8 cfs per sq. mi For the
drainage area of 27.2 sq. mi. the average flow is 103 cfs and
the mean annual flow volume is 1236 cfs months.
The average annual flow is then distributed over the year
in accordance with the seasonal relationships shown on Exhibit
C-B-2 to arrive at average monthly flows. Average monthly
flows are shown on Table C-B-l.
Flow-Duration Computations
Computer printouts of daily flow were obtained from the
U.S. Geological Survey for Big Creek near Point Baker on Prince
C-B-4
..
...
-
-
...
....
.""
Table C-B-l
AVERAGE MONTHLY INFLOW
AT CATHEDRAL FALLS
Month InfJ.ow, cfs
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual Average
79
116
92
123
99
56
38
59
113
180
160
120
103
of Wales Island. Big Creek has a drainage area of 11.2 sq. mi.,
an average basin elevation of 500 ft. and a unit runoff of 7.8
cfs/sq. mi. The printout includes flows for the station
exceeded 95, 90, 75, 70, 50, 25 and 10 percent of the total
days in the record, irrespective of season of occurrence of
such flows.
The flow duration values for this index station then are
multiplied by the ratio of average flow at the project site
to the average flow for the index station.
The resultant flow duration curve for Cathedral Falls is
shawn on Exhibit C-5 of the main report ••
Probable Maximum Flood
The probable maximum precipitation (PMP) falling in 24
hours on an area up to 10 square miles is derived from a provi-
sional isohyetal map included with a report on probable
maximum precipitation being prepared for later publication by
the National Weather Service. Correction factors are given in
a provisional curve prepared for that report. From these
two curves, PMP quantities are derived for durations divisible
by 6 hours from 6 hours to 72 hours.
By substracting the PMP for consecutive durations, incre-
mental precipitation is derived for each 6 hours for the 3-day
storm period. These values are maximized sequentially (placing
the 12 6-hour values in the most critical sequence). The high-
C-B-5
-
est increment is placed in the 7th period, the second highest in
the 6th period, the third highest in the 8th period, the fourth
highest in the 5th period, etc.
Basin retention is taken as 0.05 inches per hour. No
initial retention is used for the basin because the PMP probably
will come in a very rainy season.
unit hydrographs are estimated by the Snyder method. Six
hour unit hydrographs are used to simplify manual computations.
Flood peaks, flood volumes and Creager's "C" values for
the peaks are given in Table C-B-2 and the PMP hydrograph is
shown on Exhibit C-B-3.
Table C-B-2
PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD SUMMARY
Drainage Area, sq. mi.
Flood Peak, cfs
Flood Volume, cfs
Creager's "C"
Other Hydrologic Factors
1.86
12,300
31,100
22
Other hydrologic factors that are briefly noted but not
studied in detail were evaporation and sediment.
Evaporation
Evaporation losses are small and alreany reflected in the
streamflow records of streams having natural storage. In the
case of new storage, evaporation will be partially or wholly
compensated because presently vegetated land areas will be
flooded.
Sediment
Sediment observations in the panhandle area of Alaska
indicate that suspended sediment will not be a significant problem
in basins not containing active glaciers. It is probable that
bed load will be more nearly normal than will suspended load.
Projects having only small pondage may experience a gradual
diminution of the pondage. For projects having active storage
it is unlikely that sediment will be a problem.
Downstream channel degradation should be allowed for in
alluvial channels, but is unlikely to be a serious problem.
C-B-6
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE 31. 2 32.1 35.0 40.8 46.0 52.1
HIGHEST TEMPERATURE 51 52 55 70 74 88
LO\'[£ST TE~fP ERA TURE 1 3 5 22 28 36
AVERAGE PRECIPITATION 5.30 5.43 3.10 3.92 2.98 1. 99
AVERAGE SNOWFALL 13.2 12.1 5.7 1.6 0 0
Harza Engineering Co., August 1979
KAKE
JUL AUG SEP OCT
54.5 55.9 50.1 43.6
76 75 73 65
39 41 31 16
2.55 4.15 4.97 7.51
0 0 0 1.2
NOV DEC ANNUAL
38.7 32.6 42.7
60 56 88
13 -4 -4
7.40 5.21 54.51
3.7 10.5 48.0
Alaska Power Authority
Cathedral Fall s
Hyd ro 1 og i c Do. ta
()
!
Exhibif C-B-2 ~ ________________ -____________ -______ -_________________________ 1
>~
llJ
-.J
ltJ
llJ
l,)
-:x: t')
~
lJl c: u...
TAKATZ CREEK PROJECT
RUNOFF -
and
PRECIPITATIOiV DISTRIBUTIOiV
I, To!Cotz L. Outlet
CIl 2 Tol(o",-,t..::.z...;:C:.:...r'~--o---<o-____________________ --!J > w
..J
ltJ 2 3. Borono' R.
<t
UJ
Ct:
<t
UJ
~
~
~ 1<
~
~
:c:
<! 4. Deer_ -,L.,--_ .. ~ _______ -u_-o
llJ '-.r -r..!
a
lI.J .....
-0:
~ -l.IJ :;;
I<X'O-
May B June
\
\-Novomb.,a April P.,lod
JulyS October V Period
,..~._8-"!.~~!i~r.E~iy~ ____ ----D------------o--__ , ~.~i!~"_C!~e.;ip~ __ _
o 110 2,'0 3 '0 4'0 5 10 6 '0 7 10 8'0
RUNOFF or PRECIPITf.TlON as P;:':RCENT of ANNUAL
NOTE:
1-5 On east~id~ ~ 6-9 on \.,~sts;de of Island.
o November-April
o May-June
C1 J u ly-Oc tob~r
L APA DrvJo ~o • . )
1113-905-20 ---~~
.,
...
,,.
,,.
,"
,,..
Appendix C-<:
ENVIRONMENT
(Gunnuk Creek and Cathedral Falls Projects)
Introduction and Summary
The Cathedral Falls Project is the project selected in the
main report. The selection of the Cathedral Falls Project over
the Gunnuk Creek Project is based on several considerations,
among which were the results of the environmental reconnaissance.
Therefore, both projects are presented in about equal level of
detail in this appendix.
The potential environmental effects of the Cathedral Falls
Project are identified and mitigating actions are recommended.
Permit requirements are analyzed and requirements presented for
additional data needs.
The principal environmental review agencies for the Project
would be the U.S. Forest Service Land Management Planning office
and/or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Habitat Protection
Service. Based on the information presently available, these
agencies do not perceive any critical environmental issues which
would preclude project development.
However, the potential for significant project impacts
appears to be greater for the Gunnuk Creek development than for
the Cathedral Falls site. Gunnuk Creek development would affect
the quality of Kake's water supply and would probably have
greater impact on downstream salmonid habitat. For these
reasons, development of the Cathedral Falls site appears to be
preferable from an environmental viewpoint at this level of
study. Additional environmental data will be required, of
course, and the projects would be subject to the federal, state,
and local environmental review and-regulatory process.
There are existing barriers to fish passage downstream of
both sites, so that fish passage facilities would not be required
at either site.
Magnitude of Potential Impacts -Cathedral Falls
Potential impacts on migratory salmonid populations due to
slight changes in streamflow, temperature, and other parameters
can probably be minimized by proper project design and operation.
Dewatering of the falls would reportedly not be opposed
by local residents. Loss of wildlife habitat and effects on
C-C-I
..
. ~.
...
.,f
visual esthetics due to access road and transmission line
construction would be minimal •
Blasting operations during construction would probably
have to be scheduled to avoid the salmon spawning season because
of the extreme sensitivity of eggs in the early stages of devel-
opment. Hourly variations in stream discharges for power pro-
duction would have to be studied and controlled so as not to
interfere with spawning.
Recommendations
The U.S. Forest Service and Alaska Department of Fish and
Game should be asked to assist in assembling the ecological
data required to determine potenti~l project effects in greater
detail. These agencies should also be kept advised of refine-
ments in project concepts and desi9n so that their input can be
included as planning proceeds.
Other agencies with major review and/or regulatory
responsibilities should also be contacted. These agencies are
listed in the body of this appen~x.
General
Site Locations and Land Ownership
Project works on Gunnuk Creek would include a power darn
located in Section 26, T56S R 72E, Copper River Meridian,
Alaska, and a relatively large upstream storage reservoir in
Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, T56S R 73E, formed by a
darn across each of two branches of the stream. The power
damsite is on land selected by the Kake Tribal Corporation and
the storage reservoir and darns would be located on Sealaska
Corporation overselection land (USFS no date). Sealaska may
choose not to exercise its option to acqrfre this tract and it
may revert to U.S. Forest Service (USFS)-management.
The Cathedral Falls Creek project would be run-of-the-
river and provide minimal forebay storage at a darn located in
Section 26, T 57S R 74E, Copper River Meridian, Alaska. The
site is located on USFS land in the Tongass National Forest, in
Value Comparison Unit (VCU) 425 of Management Area Sll (USFS
1979). VCU 425 has been assigned a Land Use Designation (LUD)
of IV in the Tongass Land Management Plan (USFS 1979). Water
and power developments, utility corridors, and permanent roads
are permitted on LUD IV lands in the Tongass (USFS 1975, 1979).
l/ Acronyms are listed on Exhibit C-C-l.
~ C-C-2
""
..
...
' ....
' ..
..
Project Areas and Natural Resources
Lakes and Streams. There are several small lakes in the
Gunnuk Creek watershed, but muskeg areas are infrequent. Stream
water quality is excellent and the creek is Kake's potable water
source. The town maintains a Z}mber buttress diversion dam,
impassable to anadromous fish,-just downstream of the proposed
power damsite. The stream has an extensive intertidal area at
its mouth (ADFG-DCF no date).
Cathedral Falls Creek drains extensive muskeq areas and has
a characteristic transparent brown color. The creek flows into
Hamilton Bay through an extensive intertidal area. Tidal influ-
ence extends nearly to the foot of Cathedral Falls, which is
immediately downstream of the proposed damsite. The falls are
impassable to anadromous fish .
Vegetation. The vegeta~}on in the Gunnuk Creek watershed
is typical of hemlock-spruce-coastal forest. The forest w~st
and south of the proposed project storage resevoir was loggeo
between 1973 and 1975 and pioneer vegetation in these areas is
now well established. There are plans to log on other tracts
west and northwest of the storage reservoir site in the next few
years. The storage reservoir area itself has not been logged and
there are no present plans to harvest timber there (USPS no date).
The vegetation in the Cathedral Falls Creek watershed is
typical of hemlock-spruce coastal forest, with considerable
areas of muskeg. Much of the lower watershed has been logged,
but only above probable reservoir level.
Wildlife Resources. Wildlife in both project areas includes
black bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, timber wolf, moose (occas-
ional), and other smaller mammals (Kadake 1979). Birds are
abundant in both areas. Bald eagles are very common along the
shoreline near the tidal flats off Gunnuk Creek near Kake. They
also frequent Cathedral Falls Creek downstream of the falls
during the salmon spauning season (Kadake 1979).
Fisheries Resources. Gunnuk Creek is catalogued as an
anadromous fish stream (No. 109-42-004) (ADFG 1975) and is
known to support spawning runs of pink and chum salmon
(ADFG-DCF no date). Steelhead trout and coho salmon are also
reported but the principal species are pink and summer chum
~/ Anadromous fish are those that spend some part of their
life in salt water and return to fresh water to spawn.
11 Scientific names of flora and fauna mentioned in the text
are listed on Exhibit C-C-2.
C-C-3
•
salmon, with pinks in greatest abunda~7e (ADFG-DCF no date,
Kadake 1979). Coho salmon escapement-is small, and fall chum
are not reported (Kadake 1979). The fish spawn from the exten-
sive intertidal zone upstream to the foot of the Kake water div-
ersion dam (ADFG-DCF no date, Kadake 1979). Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADFG) escapement data show a peak escapement
during the last 20 years of 10,000 pink salmon in 1968 (ADFG-DCF
no date). Escapement apparently declined in subsequent years
(ADFG-DCF no date) but has improved recently, with the 1978
escapement reported as "very good" (Kadake 1979). Kadake (1979)
reports that the spawning run (pinks and summer chum) usually
peaks during the first two weeks of August and terminates by
early September, and that the small steelhead run begins early
in April.
Kadake (1979) reports that students in the Kake Public
Schools have operated a small pink salmon hatchery facility at
the foot of the municipal dam for several years, and raise
200,000-300,000 pink salmon fry annually for release into
Gunnuk Creek. The town and Kake Tribal Corporation will begin
construction in 1980 of a larger hatchery facility near the
mouth of the creek. This hatchery will be operated by pro-
fessionally trained local personhel and will produce one
million juvenile salmon annually, including king salmon.
No information was obtained on resident fish in Gunnuk
Creek above the water diversion dam.
Cathedral Falls Creek is catalogued as an anadromous fish
stream (No. 109-42-009) (ADFG 1975) and is reported by Kadake
(1979) to support spawning runs of chum, pink, and coho salmon
below the falls. Summer chum is the principal species using
the stream, with the peak of the run occurring in August.
Some coho use the stream, with the spawning run taking place
mainly in September.
Kadake (1979) reports resident trout in Goose Lake
upstream of the Cathedral Falls site, but no other information
on resident fish was available.
Endangered and Threatened Species. The only fish or
wildlife species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as endangered or threatened in Alaska are four migratory bird
species: the Eskimo curlew, the American and Arctic peregrine
falcons, and the Aleutian Canada goose (USFWS 1979). These
birds would be expected to pass through the general project
area only infrequently and the project should have no effect on
them.
il Number of adults returning to spawn.
C-C-4
Potential Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Access Roads and Transmission Lines. There are numerous
logging roads in t~Gunnuk Creek project area with excellent
access to the proposed storage reservoir site. The road
leading to the Kake water diversion dam would have to be
extended approximately one-half mile to provide access to the
proposed power damsite and could be used for the transmission
line route. Extension of the road could cause some erosion and
runoff of sediment to the stream. Downstream deposition of
sediment could be harmful to fish eggs and juveniles. Proper
construction procedures would minimize erosion problems. A
small amount of wildlife habitat would be eliminated by extending
the road.
The Cathedral Falls damsite also has excellent access
by logging roads which pass within 1/4 mile of the site. Poten-
tial impacts and mitigation measures for road extension are the
same as those mentioned for the Gunnuk Creek site.
Construction of Dams and Generating Facilities. Anadromous
fish do not pass the municipal water diversion dam on Gunnuk
Creek downstream of the project area. There are no known plans
for constructing fish passage facilities at the existing
dam, presumably because introduction of salmon runs to the upper
watershed could cause deterioration in the quality of the Rake
municipal water supply, since salmon die after spawning. Any
project dams located above the existing municipal dam therefore
would not require fish passage facilities.
Construction activities in the stream could disturb
substrate material and cause resuspension and downstream
redeposition of fines, which could adversely affect fish eggs
and young in the downstream spawning areas. Bank erosion could
also occur during construction with the same result. Proper
construction procedures and scheduling could reduce these
impacts.
Blasting and other noise may cause wildlife to temporarily
abandon the construction area, but the animals should return
to most parts of the area once construction is completed.
Provisions would have to be made during dam construction
to pass adequate stream flow so that downstream aquatic habitat
is maintained, especially during the anadromous fish spawning
and rearing season. Kake would also have to be assured an
uninterrupted water supply.
Clearing of approximately 600 acres of vegetation would
probably be required in the storage reservoir area. Clearing
C-C-5
and inundation would eliminate wildlife habitat at the storage
reservoir site. Some clearing may also be required at the
power damsite downstream.
Cathedral Falls is a natural barrier to anadromous fish,
so that a hydropower installation upstream of the falls would
not require fish passage facilities. Potential impacts of
instream construction activities and bank erosion would be the
same as for Gunnuk Creek. Blasting operations at the Cathedral
Falls site would probably have to be scheduled to avoid the
salmon spawning season because of the proximity of the site to
spawning areas. Eggs in the early stage of development are
easily killed by even minor shocks (Logan 1979). Provisions
for passage of adequate flow during construction would be
necessary, especially during the salmon spawning and rearing
seasons. Some clearing of vegetation at Cathedral Falls would
probably be required but would not be extensive.
Operation. Water quality in the proposed Gunnuk Creek
storage reservoir might deteriorate over the long term, since
water temperatures would be higher in the impoundment than they
presently are in the free-flowing stream and since the reservoir
would act as a nutrient trap. Such deterioration might event-
ually affect the Kake municipal water supply, anadromous fish
spawning habitat downstream, and the water supply for the new
salmon hatchery. Assessment of the magnitude of such impacts
would require data on stream water quality and watershed
characteristics such as nutrient runoff rates.
The Gunnuk Creek project, with the power outfall structure
located just upstream of the existing municipal dam, would not
dewater any part of the stream. A previous design concept
would have placed the power outlet at tidewater and would have
reduced or eliminated streamflow in the reach of the stream
which supports salmon spawning activity.
The principal potential concerns, if the Gunnuk Creek
project were developed, would be the long-term effects on Kake's
water supply and on downstream salmonid populations. These
populations could be adversely affected by changes in discharge
regime, water temperature, dissolved oxygen and other water
quality parameters, and suspended sediment and bed load
downstream of the project. The most critical of these parameters
are discharge and water temperature, since even small variations
from natural conditions can have significant adverse effects
on anadromous fish eggs, juveniles, and adults. Adult salmon
returning to fresh water to spawn will not or cannot enter a
stream if water temperature is too high or discharge too low.
After the eggs are deposited in the gravel, adequate discharge
is required to aerate the eggs and carry away waste materials.
C-C-6
Dissolved oxygen concentrations must also be high. These
conditions must also be maintained after the eggs hatch and
before the young fish (alevins) emerge from the gravel to become
free-swimming fry. Deposition of fines over spawning bed
gravels can cause suffocation of eggs and alevins by preventing
percolation of water through the gravel. Excessive bed load
movement can cover too deeply, crush, or expose eggs and alevins,
resulting in high mortality. Juvenile fish in the free-
swimming fry stage are also highly susceptible to changes in
stream habi ta t.
Water temperature, in addition to affecting the timing of
stream entrance and spawning by adult fish, also determines
the rate of development from egg through alevin to free-
swimming fry. The rate of development is critical to the
survival of juvenile fish. In particular, pink and chum salmon
juveniles do not remain for long in the streams, but swim or are
carried downstream to brackish or salt water upon reaching the
free-swimming f~y stage after emergence from streambed gravels.
If warmer than normal water temperatures have accelerated the
intragravel stages of development, this downstream movement may
occur before sufficient numbers of food organisms are available
in the coastal feeding areas, and the young fish may suffer
high mortality from starvation. Differences from natural stream
temperatures of as little as 2 or 3°F during the egg-alevin
development period can result in significant losses (Meehan
1974). Water temperatures which are too cold can retard deve-
lopment, with similar consequences.
If water quality problems develop in the proposed Gunnuk
Creek storage reservoir, downstream dissolved oxygen concen-
trations could be reduced and carbon dioxide concentrations
might be increased, with detrimental effects on anadromous fish
populations, especially with a low level discharge structure.
The storage reservoir could also cause increased downstream
water temperatures. The magnitude of possible changes would
depend on reservoir thermal characteristics and the level of the
reservoir from which water is withdrawn. The project would
modify the natural stream discharge regime and could affect
downstream fish habitat, migration, and development of egqs and
juveniles. Further data on natural flow regimes will be
required before more detailed assessment can be made of any
project related flow changes. Project operation may have to be
adjusted to provide adequate downstream flows during the salmon
spawning and rearing seasons.
The Cathedral Falls reservoir would have minimal storage so
that effects on general water quality downstream would be ex-
pected to be minor. Downstream water temperatures and dissolved
oxygen concentrations might be slightly changed, depending on
C-C-7
•
the level of the reservoir from which water is discharged down-
stream and on water retention time in the impoundment. Tempera-
ture changes could be reduced or prevented by installation of a
multi-level intake or perhaps by a properly placed conventional
intake. The natural stream discharge regime would probably be
only slightly modified, but project operation might have to be
adjusted at times to provide adequate downstream flows for
salmon. The falls would be dewatered part of the time, but this
would not affect fish populations. According to Kadake (1979),
local residents would not object to the esthetic impact of
dewatering the falls .in connection with development of a more
economical supply of electricity.
Site Development Preference
The potential for significant project impacts appears to be
greater for the Gunnuk Creek development than for the Cathedral
Falls site. Gunnuk Creek development might affect the quality
of Kake's water supply, whereas no such constraint exists for
Cathedral Falls Creek. In addition, long-term impacts on
downstream salmonid habitat would probably be greater for Gunnuk
Creek than for Cathedral Falls. For these reasons, development
of the Cathedral Falls site appears to be preferable from an
environmental viewpoint at this level of study.
Regulatory Requirements and Reviews
Federal. If the project is located even in part on Tongass
National Forest lands, a USFS Special Use Permit must be
obtained, which in turn might require a USFS Environmental
Impact Statement. USFS would prefer to have hydroelectric
developments located entirely on private or tribal corporation
lands to avoid the necessity of processing a Special Use Permit
application, and an exchange of National Forest and tribal land
for such purposes would be looked upon favorably (Brannon 1979).
The Kake Tribal Corporation has expressed some interest in
acquiring land for a hydro site (Kadake 1979).
The project would have to be licensed by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) if federal lands are in-
volved. If the project is located entirely on tribal land, the
FERC may not have jurisdiction. Such a determination would be
made by the FERC itself, and may depend on additional factors,
such as whether the affected stream is navigable or is deemed
to affect interstate commerce. The FERC has authority to declare
a stream to be navigable or that it affects the interests of
interstate commerce (Gotschall 1977). The FERC would make its
jurisdictional decision after receiving a "Declaration of Inten-
tion" which fully describes the project, land ownership and the
stream.
C-C-8
....
,.;t
If the FERC determines that a license is required, the
project would be in the minor project category (less than 1.5
MW installed capacity), and the application for license would
have to include the following (FERC 1978):
Exhibit K. Definition of project lands and boundaries.
Exhibit L. Description of project structures and equipment.
Copies of necessary federal, State of Alaska, and local
permits, approvals, and certifications.
Applicant's Environmental Report, including:
1 • Description of project and mode of operation,
2. Description of the environmental setting,
3 •
4.
5.
Description of expected environmental impacts, and
enhancement and mitigation measures,
Description of project alternatives, including
alternative sites and sources of energy, and
Description of consultations with federal, State,
and local agencies during preparation of the
environmental report.
The information required for this report should be commensurate
with a preliminary environmental assessment to determine the
need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
Whether or not a USFS Special Use Permit and an FERC
license are required, the following federal permits must be
obtained:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) -Section 404
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) permit for
discharge of dredge and fill material into U.S. waters;
Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act permit if the stream
is determined to be navigable.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) -Section 402
F~vPCA Na tional PoIlu tant Discharge El imi nation System
(NPDES) permits for point source discharges. Construction
phase and powerhouse sump pump discharge NPDES permits will
be necessary, and depending on the outcome of a current
suit to classify hydroelectric facilities as point source
discharges, an NPDES permit for project operation could
also be required.
C-C-9
...
-
Other federal agencies which would probably review an FERC
license application and the applications for other federal
permits include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service, the Alaska Power Administration, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. The REA would also review the FERC license
application if REA funding is to be used for the project.
During the review of the FERC license application and
the applications for permits from USFS, USACE, and USEPA, any
of these federal agencies may determine that preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement is required. REA would also be
empowered to make such a determination.
State of Alaska. Permits and review concerning environ-
mental aspects of the project which would be required from
State agencies include (ADCED & ADEC 1978):
1.
2 •
3 •
4 •
Department of Environmental Conservation -Certificate
of Reasonable Assurance for Discharge into Navigable
Waters (in compliance with Section 401 of the FWPCA)i
Waste Water Disposal Permit (the Department may adopt
the NPDES permit issued by USEPA as the required State
permit) .
Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Protection Service
-Anadromous Fish Protection Permit -required of any
hydraulic project located on a catalogued anadromous
fish stream. This permit may impose stipulations on
construction timing, project design and operation
requirements, and other mitigation measures.
Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of
Land and Water Management -Water Use Permit
(authorizes darn construction and appropriation of
water).
Office of the Governor, Division of Policy Development
and Planning, Office of Coastal Management -review of
development projects in Alaska's coastal zone to insure
compliance with coastal management guidelines and
standards (AOCM & USOCZM 1979).
Coordination. To assist those who must obtain permits
from one or more federal, State of Alaska, or local agencies,
the applicant may submit a single master application to the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), who
will then circulate the application to the other appropriate
State agencies for comment and review (AOCM & USOCZM 1979).
C-C-IO
...
The State permits and review listed above are all included in
this procedure which is not mandatory but rather intended to aid
the appl icant.
In addition, the Division of Policy Development and
Planning (DPDP) of the Office of the Governor, through the A-95
Clearinghouse System, acts as lead agency in the coordination
of the review of environmental reports, Environmental Impact
Statements, federal assistance programs, and development
projects (AOCM & USOCZM 1979). Although no explicit or
procedural criteria are applied to these reviews, Alaska does
employ A-95 as a major vehicle for solicitation and coordination
of agency responses to proposed energy development activities.
Satisfaction of FERC and Other Agency Requirements
Consultation and cooperation with federal and State
natural resources agencies during project planning is required
by the FERC and is also necessary during the process of
application for permits from these agencies.
If project planning proceeds, the principal environmental
review agencies would be the USFS Land Management Planning
Office and/or the ADFG Habitat Protection Service (Brannon
1979, Reed 1979). Based on the information presently available,
these agencies do not perceive any critical environmental
issues which would preclude development of the project (Brannon
1979, Reed 1979). Additional environmental data will be
required, of course, and the project will be subject to the
federal, State, and local environmental review and regulatory
process outlined previously.
In the course of future project planning and development it
~ is recommended:
1.
2.
That USFS and ADFG be asked to assist in assembling
the ecological data required to determine in
greater detail the magnitude of potential project
effects on anadromous fish runs. The other poten-
tial impacts outlined previously should also be
discussed with these agencies.
That USFS and ADFG be kept advised of refinements
in project concepts and design and that their
input be solicited and included as planning proceeds.
C-C-ll
'CdIf
...
,;tI
...
,,..
3. That other agencies with major review and or regula-
tory responsibilities be contacted, including USACE,
USEPA, ADNR, ADEC, and DPDP. ADEC and DPDP will be
able to render assistance in the review and permitting
process through their master permit application and
Clearinghouse programs, respectively •
C-C-12
References
Alaska Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development and Alaska
Dept. of Environmental Conservation (ADCED & ADEC) 1978.
Directory of Permits, State of Alaska, March 1978. Juneau.
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (ADFG), 1975. Catalog of Waters
Important for Spawning and Migration of Anadromous Fishes,
Region 1. Juneau, 97 p.
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries
(ADFG-DCF). No date. Stream Survey Report -Gunnuk Creek -
109-42-004. Juneau.
Alaska Office of Coastal Management and U.S. Dept. of Commerce
Office of Coastal Zone Management (AOCM & USOCZM), 1979. State
of Alaska Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Juneau, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. May
3 0, 1 9 7 9 • 5 7 8 p. + rna p s •
Brannon, Ed. 1979. Group Leader for Land Management Planning
and Regional Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Forest Service,
Juneau, Alaska. Personal communication.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 1978. Short Form
Hydroelectric License. Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 176 -
Monday, September 11, 1978, pp. 40215-40219.
Gotschall, Don, 1977. Memorandum: Phone conversation with
Federal Power Commission on licensing procedures. U.S. Dept.
of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, Juneau.
Kadake, Marvin, 1979. Supervisor, Tlingit-Haida Regional
Electrical Authority, and commercial fisherman, Kake, Alaska.
Personal communication.
Logan, Richard, 1979. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Office
of the Commissioner, Habitat Protection Service, Juneau.
Personal communication.
Meehan, W.R., 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska:
3. Fish Habitats. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report
PNW-15. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Portland, Oregon, 41p.
Reed, Richard, 1979. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat
Protection Service, Regional Supervisor, Juneau. Personal
commu nica t ion.
C-C-13
...
'.
...
•
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1979. Fish and
Wildlife Service List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
50 CFR 17.11; 43 FR 58031, Dec. 11, 1978; amended by 44 FR 29478 f
May 21, 1979 •
u.S. Forest Service (USFS), 1979. Tongass Land Management
Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (Two Parts). Alaska
Region, Forest Service, u.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Juneau,
Alaska, March 1979.
u.S. Forest Service (USFS), 1975. Tongass National Forest
Guide (1975 Draft). Alaska Region, Forest Service, u.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, Juneau, Alaska, 253 p. + app.
u.s. Forest Service (USFS), No date. Logging map, Kake-Portage
off ice •
C-C-14
....
," ..
..
....
,,..
ADEC
ADFG
ADNR
DPDP
FERC
FWPCA
LUD
NPDES
REA
USACE
USEPA
USFS
USFWS
VCU
ACRONYMS
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources
Exhibit C-C-l
Division of Policy Development and Planning
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Land Use Designation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Rural Electrification Administration
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Value Comparison Unit
''''
...
SCIENTIFIC NAMES
Common Name
hemlock, mountain
hemlock, western
spruce, Sitka
bear, black
deer, Sitka black-tailed
moose
wolf
eagle, bald
curlew, Eskimo
falcon, American peregrine
falcon, Arctic peregine
goose, Aleutian Canada
salmon, chinook (king)
salmon, churn (dog)
salmon, coho (silver)
salmon, pink (humpback)
steelhead
Trees
Mammals
Birds
Fish
Exhibit C-C-2
Scientific Name
Tsuga mertensiana
Tsuga heterophylla
Picea sitchensis
Ursus americanus
Odocoileus hemionus sit-
kensis
Alces alces
Canis lupus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Numenius borealis
Falco peregrinus anatum
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Branta canadensis leuco-
pareia
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Salmo gairdneri
...
, ..
...
1 .
2. ..
3 • • -
",01
".,
Appendix C-D
REFERENCES
Federal Power Commission and the Forest Service -U.S.D.A.
"Water Power Southeast Alaska," Washington and Juneau,
1947.
Robert W. Retherford Associates, Preliminary Appraisal
Report, Hydroelectric Potential for Angoon, Craig, Hoonah,
Hydaburg, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock, Klukwan, Pelican, Yakutat,
Anchorage, 1977.
u.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Electrification
Administration, "Alaska 28 THREA ~ Power Requiremments
Study", May 1979 draft.