HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility Report Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project 1987=
Alaska ower A uthority
FE A I B I LITY R E PORT
TAZI MINA IVE
HYDRO ELE CTRIC P R JE CT
Mar ch 1987
& Stone & Webster Engineering orporatio
CD 198 7 A laska Power Auth o rity
..,...
o o
LO
~
C')
C')
FEASIBILITY REPORT
TAZIMINA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
March 1987
Prepared for:
ALASKA POWER AUTIIORITY
ARLIS
Alaska R~SOI.HCC~ Uhrary & Information Services
Ubnln BuilJing, Suite 111
321 i Providence Drive
Anchorage, AK. 99S08-4614
by
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
14007.27-H(D)-1
jK
1t/2.V
''/ .A ,
-r 3ft'
1 '-1 (,-:1-
I I "
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
1 SUMMARY 1-1
2 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND 2-1
2.2 GENERAL 2-2
2.3 PURPOSE 2-3
2.4 SCOPE OF WORK 2-3
'3 ENERGY DEMAND 3-1
3.1 INPUT AND ASSUMPTIONS 3-1
3.2 ENERGY FORECASTS 3-2
4 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS 4-1
4.1 FLOW RECORDS 4-1
4.2 METHODS 4-1
4.3 FLOW DURATION CURVES 4-2
/
5 POWER STUDY 5-1
6 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS 6-1
6.1 AVAILABLE INFORMATION 6-1
6.2 SITE GEOLOGY 6-1
6.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 6-3
7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7-1
7.1 GENERAL 7-1
7.2 INTAKE 7-1
7.3 PENSTOCK 7-2
7.4 POWERHOUSE 7-3
7.5 ACCESS ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE 7-6
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE
8 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 8-1
8.1 GENERAL 8-1
8.2 AQUATIC ECOLOGY 8-2
8.3 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 8-6
8.4 WATER USE AND QUALITY 8-7
8.5 HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 8-8
8.6 AESTHETIC RESOURCES 8-9
9 PROJECT COSTS 9-1
9.1 INPUT AND ASSUMPTIONS 9-1
9.2 RESULTS 9-1
10 ECONOMIC EVALUATION 10-1
10.1 METHOD OF ANALYS I S 10-1
10.2 INPUT AND ASSUMPTIONS 10-2
10.3 RESULTS 10-4
11 PROJECT SCHEDULE 11-1
12 CONCLUSIONS 12-1
APPENDICES
A TAZIMINA RIVER FLOW RECORDS
B SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY REPORT
C 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE -DAMES & MOORE
D RESULTS OF FISH HABITAT SURVEY, MAY 1986 -ADF&G
E ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE, MAY 1986 -DAMES &
MOORE
F ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MAY 1986
G DETAILED COST ESTIMATE -HYDRO ALTERNATIVE 1
H SAMPLE PRESENT WORTH PRINTOUT
I LIST OF PROJECT PERMITS
ii
TABLE
3.1
3.2
3.3
5.1
5.2
5.3
9.1
10.1
10.2
10.3
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE
Monthly Peak Demands
Keyes Point Load Growth Forecast
Load Growth Forecasts
Sample Hydro Capability Evaluation
Turbine -Generator Characteristics
Comparison of Hydro Versus Diesel Monthly
Generation Requirements -Years 1991 & 2005
Cost Estimates for Hydro Alternatives
Summary of Economic Analysis Parameters and Input
Diesel Replacement/Capacity Schedule -Backup
for Hydro Alternative 1
Diesel Replacement/Capacity Schedule -Base Case
iii
FIGURE
2.1
2.2
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
6.1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
LIST OF FIGURES
Location Map
Project Area Map
Load Forecasts
TITLE
Estimated Average Monthly Flows
Annual Flow Duration Curve
Flow Duration Curve -November
Flow Duration Curve -December
Flow Duration Curve -January
Flow Duration Curve -February
Flow Duration Curve -March
Flow Duration Curve -April
Flow Duration Curve -May
Geologie Map
Project Arrangement
Intake Structure
Alternative 1 -Well Scheme
Alternative 2 -Canyon Powerhouse with Access Down
Canyon Wall
Alternative 3 -Underground Powerhouse
Alternative 5 -Downstream Canyon Powerhouse with
Vertical Shaft
Index Map of Photo Mosaic Coverage (Figures 7.8-7.11)
Access Road/Transmission Line Alignment -Sheet 1
Access Road/Transmission Line Alignment -Sheet 2
Access Road/Transmission Line Alignment -Sheet 3
Access Road/Transmission Line Alignment -Sheet 4
iv
FIGURE
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
11.1
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
TITLE
Tazimina River Hydro Medium; Percent of Total
Present Worth
Diesel Base Medium; Percent of Total Present Worth
Comparison of Medium Cases (Cumulative Present Worth
vs. Year)
Variation in Load Growth
Tazimina River Hydro, Variation in Discount Rate
Tazimina River Hydro, Variation in Load Growth
Tazimina River Hydro, Variation in Fuel Escalation
Diesel Base, Variation in Discount Rate
Diesel Base, Variation in Load Growth
Diesel Base Variation in Fuel Escalation
700 kW Hydro: PWR vs. Initial Fuel Cost
1000 kW Hydro: PWR vs. Initial Fuel Cost
Project Schedule
v
SECTION 1
SUMMARY
The purpose of this feasibility study is to assess the technical, economic,
and environmental aspects of the Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project. The
proposed hydro development would provide power to the system of
Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative (INNEC) which serves three
communities of the same name in the Iliamna Lake/Lake Clark area. The
project site is at Tazimina Falls on the Tazimina River north of Iliamna
Lake. The project is a run-of-river development. The features of the
project are an intake, penstock, and powerhouse at the falls and
transmission line and access road.
Evaluation of the proposed project has included consideration of various
factors as discussed below.
Energy Demand
Load requirements are much less than the hydraulic potential of the site.
A "medium" load growth of 3 percent per year is the design basis. This
gives annual energy requirements of 1834 MWh in 1986, increasing to 3216
MWh at the end of the planning period in 2005. There is the potential for
significant increases in energy demand when development of a resort
community proceeds at Keyes Point on Lake Clark. However, the timing of
these increases is somewhat speculative. Therefore, Keyes Point is
considered only in the sensitivity case of "high" load growth.
Hydrology
Tazimina River flows peak in July and August with a monthly average
discharge of nearly 2100 cfs. Flows are significantly reduced in the low
flow season of November through May. Therefore, flow duration curves for
each of these months are developed to appropriately define hydro generation
capability on a monthly basis in the power study.
Power Study
The power study defines hydro generation capability of a given installation
to meet load requirements. This is done by evaluating ability to meet peak
demands, ability to operate at low loads, and sufficiency of river flow for
generation. Power study methodology allows consideration of appropriate
hydro generation in the economic evaluation of any hydro scheme. Economics
decide the optimum installed capacity by identifying the hydro scheme which
has the lowest total present worth cost. The· optimum installed hydro
capacity is 700 kW with two units at 350 kW each. Annual hydro generation
varies through the planning period as the load grows. Based on load growth
projections, hydro generation is 1971 MWh in the first year of operation in
1991 and levels off at 3025 MWh in 2005.
Project Features
The shoreline intake structure is approximately 250 ft upstream of the
falls on the left bank. Provisions are included for a stationary fish
screen, to be installed if necessary, to exclude adult char and grayling.
The 4 ft diameter penstock extends 270 ft from the intake structure to the
powerhouse and is buried in the left bank. It is routed along the terrace
roughly adjacent to the river. Substantial cut and fill is required
because the adjacent terraces are high relative to river water level.
The steep ruggedness of the canyon below the falls limits options for
powerhouse siting to obtain reasonable access for construction and for
normal operations. Several alternatives are considered. Civil costs for
viable powerhouse concepts are the dominate factor in defining total
capital cost of the hydro project. The preferred hydro alternative is one
which reduces civil capital costs and provides the lowest total present
worth.
The preferred scheme (Alternative 1) uses a vertical turbine/generator
arrangement. It is shown on Figure 7.3. The unit is designated as TKW by
the manufacturer. The turbine runner is at the end of a water column/
lineshaft assembly at the bottom of a drilled hole. Flow returns to the
1-2
river channel by a tailrace tunnel. This machine arrangement is similar to
a pump in a well. However, it is a turbine with adjustable wicket gates
which is needed to meet the widely varying load requirements. At full
output, the total hydraulic capacity of the two units is about 100 cfs.
The project access road is from the existing Newhalen-Nondalton road to the
project site. The road is routed north of Alexcy Lake to avoid stream
crossings and associated aquatic impacts. The transmission line is a 24 kV
system buried along an alignment immediately adjacent to the access road.
The line ties into the existing line running north to Nondalton. The
access road and the transmission line are both 6.7 miles long.
Alternatives
Alternative powerhouse arrangements and locations studied in the process of
selecting an appropriate scheme of hydro development are as follows.
Alternative 2 -Canyon powerhouse with access and penstock routing down
canyon wall.
Alternative 3 -Underground powerhouse
Alternative 4 -Canyon powerhouse with access and penstock routing in
vertical shaft
Alternative 5 -Downstream canyon powerhouse with vertical shaft
The second least costly concept (Alternative 3), is an underground
powerhouse as shown on Figure 7.5. This arrangement provides personnel
access and penstock routing in a vertical shaft. The more conventional
powerhouse layout allows the use of one 700 kW crossflow unit to meet load
requirements. Other alternatives using powerhouse arrangements within the
canyon were considered. Increased civil requirements, particularly for
additional buried penstock, result in higher project costs.
1-3
Environmental Assessment
The major factor in assessing environmental impact of the proposed hydro
project is consideration of fishery resources. Sockeye salmon spawn on the
lower Tazimina River below the falls. Sport fishing for rainbow trout is
significant below the falls. Arctic grayling and char occur throughout the
Tazimina drainage. Field investigations include a general survey of the
Tazimina River below Upper Tazimina Lake in 1981. Site-specific work
occurred in May 1982, July 1985, August 1985, and May 1986. High
velocities and hard substrates at the falls offer poor habitat. Little if
any successful spawning occurs in the canyon near the falls. With proper
mitigative measures, the powerhouse and tailrace should not have a negative
impact upon fish. Low numbers of resident grayling and char occur at the
intake site. The construction of the access road to the project site will
improve human access to the area.
pressure on resources. This is
project.
This will result in increased fishing
perhaps the greatest impact of the
An archeological survey of the project area was done in May 1986. The
project site at the falls has no archeological potential. The river
terrace above the Tazimina River has a very high archeological potential.
Two cultural remains were found during the survey along the edge of the
river terrace northeast of Alexcy Lake on the access road alignment. Prior
to or during construction, further investigation of the river terrace area
will be required. This is not expected to be a significant impact on
project feasibility.
Based on the above findings, there are no impacts from the project that
would preclude its development.
Project Costs
To estimate direct costs for hydro alternatives, quantities are developed
from layouts and site-specific unit costs are applied. The total estimated
1-4
capital cost of each hydro alternative is given below.
Alternative Description
1 Well Scheme
3 Underground PH with vertical shaft
2 Canyon PH with access down canyon wall
4 Canyon PH with vertical shaft
5 D/S Canyon PH with vertical shaft
Total Estimated
Capital Cost
($000)
7,400
7,900
8,500
8,900
10,200
Each estimate includes allowance for indeterminates at 10 percent of direct
costs. Also included are the indirect costs of engineering and design,
construction management, and interest during construction. Cost of land is
not included in the estimates.
Economic Evaluation
To analyze economic feasibility of hydro development, alternatives are
compared to the diesel base case on a total present worth cost basis. The
base case is the continuation of diesel power generation. Comparison is by
present worth ratio (PWR). Present worth ratio is obtained by dividing the
present worth of the hydro scheme into the present worth for the diesel
base case. A PWR greater than 1.0 indicates that the hydro case is more
economically attractive than the diesel base case. Conversely, a PWR of
less than 1.0 indicates that the diesel base case is more attractive than
the alternative being compared.
Hydro alternatives and their economic feasibility versus the diesel base
case are evaluated on the basis of "medium" parameters. These represent
the most likely scenarios for future load growth, diesel fuel escalation,
and discount rate. Sensitivity cases for the preferred hydro alternative
consider economic feasibility for variations in parameters to "high" and/or
"low" values.
Diesel fuel base cost is based on actual 1986 prices and is escalated
1-5
accordingly to reflect changing fuel prices through the economic study
period. The base price of fuel used in this study is $1.10 per gallon.
For the "medium" case, diesel fuel escalation is 2.8 percent per year from
1987 through 2005. This results in a fue I price in 2005 of $1. 86 per
gallon. It is assumed that fuel costs remain constant with no further
price escalation in the remaining years of the economic analysis.
Hydro Alternatives 1 and 3 were evaluated in present worth analyses to
determine the preferred scheme. These alternatives have the two lowest
capital costs. The present worth comparison using "medium" case criteria
is given below.
Diesel
Hydro Base Present
Present Worth Present Worth
Cost Worth Cost Ratio
Alternative ($000) ($000) (PWR)
No. 1 -Well Scheme with
2 TKW units @ 350 kW (700 kW) 11,181 12,510 1.12
No. 3 -Underground powerhouse
1 crossflow @ 700 kW 11,768 12,510 1.06
Alternative 1 is the preferred hydro scheme because it has the lower total
present worth cost. Furthermore, the PWR of 1.12 shows that Alternative 1
is 12 percent less costly than continuing with diesel generation.
The sensitivity of PWR for variation in parameters is considered for
Alternative 1. This includes analysis of a 1000 kW hydro development to
meet the high load growth forecast. The results indicate that the 700 kW
hydro scheme has an advantage over diesel for high load growth when the
benef it of additional hydro generation is realized. The PWR is 1. 36. For
variation in other parameters, diesel generation is less costly with PWR's
from 0.87 to 0.99. The 1,000 kW hydro development shows a slight advantage
with a PWR of 1.05. It has a substantial advantage over the diesel base
case in meeting high load growth requirements.
Results of the economic evaluation are sensitive to diesel fuel cost. The
1-6
1986 cost of fuel is relatively low compared to recent years. Using the
current fuel cost of $1.10 per gallon, the hydroelectric development has
some economic advantage over the base case. Future change in diesel fuel
prices could bring a more favorable advantage to development of the
hydroelectric project.
Project Schedule
The initial operation of the hydro project is anticipated at the beginning
of 1991. This is based on filing a FERC license application by July 1987.
Then, allowing 15 months for the FERC process, a license should be issued
by October 1988. Construction could start in May 1989.
Conclusions
The Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project is found to be technically and
environmentally feasible. It is also economically feasible based on
"medium" criteria. However. its economic feasibility is sensitive to
assumptions regarding future load growth in the area and future cost of
diesel fuel.
1-7
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
2.1 BACKGROUND
The state of Alaska in recent years has been taking steps to address energy
problems in remote regions of the state. The state has undertaken studies
to evaluate potential alternative sources of electrical energy production.
Hydroelectric power is recognized as one of the renewable energy sources
which could provide an economical option to more expensive diesel
generation, the prevalent source of electrical energy in many remote
areas.
The Bristol Bay region (see Figure 2.1) relies primarily on diesel fuel for
electricity generation. The cost of energy production has increased
rapidly in recent years, due not only to world-wide price escalation of
fuel oil, but also to regional factors. EVen though fuel oil prices have
declined in the mid-1980 's, the cost of electrical energy production in
remote areas served by small diesel generator systems is substantially
larger than that of interconnected central systems in larger population
centers of Alaska and in other parts of the United States.
In 1980, a reconnaissance study by R. W. Retherford Associates for the
Alaska Power Authority CAPA) , evaluated the feasibility of potential
hydroelectric developments in the Bristol Bay region. Projects were
identified which were considered attractive for limited areas. The
Retherford study also evaluated a regional hydro site on the Tazimina
River. Based on the Retherford recommendation, the Power Authority
retained Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) in July 1981 to
undertake the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan and Detailed Feasibility
Analysis. The purpose of this study was to assess the technical, economic,
and environmental aspects of regional alternative electric power generation
plans. A specific objective of the study was to evaluate in detail the
feasibility of a regional Tazimina Hydroelectric Project. The
results of this study are presented in the Interim Feasibility Assessment
2-1
(IFA) dated July 1982. The IFA identified the attractiveness of developing
a 16 MW Newhalen River Hydroelectric Project.
Fisheries investigations on the Newhalen River were conducted in 1982-1985
to evaluate potential impacts of hydro development. In 1985, SWEC
conducted an updated economic evaluation of selected promising alternatives
from the IFA. Updated economic parameters including current diesel fuel
prices were used to reassess economic feasibility. Based on the results of
this evaluation, the Power Authority concluded that the Newhalen Project
and other regional projects are not economical at the present time due to
declining oil prices and the relatively large capital cost of the
projects. Although a regional power grid system for a power supply system
could still be the long term answer for reliable power for the Bristol Bay
Region, current electrical loads are too low to justify the magnitude of
the required capital investment.
High diesel fuel prices are prevalent in the northeast portion of the
Bristol Bay region around Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark. Charges for river
barge transportation add to the cost of diesel fuel. The communities of
Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton are served by Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton
Electric Cooperative (INNEC). In addition, there is the potential for
significant increases in energy demand as development of a resort community
proceeds at Keyes Point on Lake Clark. The Tazimina River Hydroelectric
Project evaluated in this feasibility report is an alternative generation
source for the area served by INNEC. This subregional project was
previously identified and considered in the IFA. The 1985 economic update
indicated an apparent benefit for its development. This was further
substantiated in the Power Authority's Findings and Recommendations dated
February 1986. The present, more detailed feasibility study provides the
basis for deciding whether to proceed with further licensing activities and
engineering and design.
2.2 GENERAL
The site of the proposed project is at Tazimina Falls on the Tazimina River
north of Iliamna Lake. It is about 12 miles northeast of the community of
2-2
Iliamna and about 175 miles southwest of Anchorage. Figures 2.1 and 2.2
define the project location. The Tazimina River lies in the
Alaska-Aleutian Range physiographic province. Broad glaciated valleys lie
between rugged, snow-capped glaciated ridges. Many lakes, such as the
Tazimina Lakes upstream of the project site, occupy parts of these
glaciated valleys.
The Tazimina River has its headwaters in the Aleutian Range and flows to
the west. Lower Tazimina Lake is approximately 8 miles upstream of the
falls. Immediately below the falls a rugged, steep-walled canyon extends
for about one mile. The river runs on a steep gradient through a series of
rapids in the canyon. The river enters Sixmi1e Lake in the Newha1en River
drainage approximately 9.5 miles downstream of the falls.
Weather patterns are largely controlled by oceanic influences and therefore
the area has a relatively narrow range of seasonal temperature changes
compared to interior Alaska. Clouds, fog, and precipitation are frequent
but are moderated somewhat inland. Winters are long with moderate snow
cover.
The project is a run-of-river development. The components of the project
are an intake, penstock, powerhouse, transmission line, and access road.
These features are discussed in detail in Section 7.
2.3 PURPOSE
The purpose of the feasibility study is to assess the technical, economic,
and environmental aspects of the subregional, run-of-river Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project. A specific objective of the study is to compare the
benefits of the project with continuing dependence on diesel generation for
the area's electric power needs.
2.4 SCOPE OF WORK
The work completed for the Power Authority by SWEC during the feasibility
study is defined in the following specific tasks.
2-3
Energy Demand Analysis: Review and evaluate electrical energy requirements
of the three intertied communities (Iliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton) and
identify appropriate energy forecasts. Potential load increases from
development at Keyes Point are also considered.
Environmental Assessment: Evaluate the proposed development with respect
to aquatic, terrestrial, archeological, water use, and aesthetic factors.
Hydrologic Analysis: Evaluate available flow records to estimate Tazimina
River flows for power production.
Power Study: Evaluate hydro generation capability and determine range of
installed capacity to suit energy demand forecast.
Geotechnical Analysis: Review and evaluate available geologic information
for the area. Develop site-specific geotechnical information through
limited field work to provide input to preliminary engineering.
Preliminary Engineering:
concepts. Layouts are
comparative cost estimates.
Identify and evaluate various alternative project
developed in sufficient detail to support
Cost Estimates:
estimates.
Develop comparative feasibility-level capital cost
Economic Evaluation: Define optimum installed hydroelectric capacity by
evaluating total present worth of the preferred hydro concept and evaluate
economic feasibility of the hydro scheme versus diesel generation.
Feasibility Report: Prepare a feasibility report documenting the results
of the above tasks including methods and conclusions.
The folloWing sections of this report present the methodology and results
of the work performed in accordance with the above scope of work and our
conclusions regarding project feasibility.
2-4
\
\
(
, ,
. ,
/
I ,
'-' KEYES POINT
\PROPOSED
DEVHOPMENTI
PORT ALSWORTH
/
NEWHALEN RIVER
TAIIMINA RIVER
'. NONDAL T
! SEE FiGURE 2.2
•
IliAMNA LAKE .-.~
, .
• •
NAKNEK ....... ,
KING·"
SALMON NAKNE
LAKE
KAKHONAK
UKAKLEK LAKE
<~:J~
\
/
"".,
. r·
'" '\" . .
,,-' "
-".l·· "SKA . .... , VO" 1"\ 1"\ ,.,
, ..... ~ ,
FIGURE 2.1
LOCATION MAP
•
T AZIMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
& STONE & WEBSTER
'-"" ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FIGURE 2.2
PROJECT AREA, MAP
SECTION 3
ENERGY DEMAND
3.1 INPUT AND ASSUMPTIONS
Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative (INNEC) operating records
provide monthly generation requirements for January 1984 through February
1986 for Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton. Monthly peak demand information
is available for November 1983 through June 1985. Monthly demand
information is complete for 1984. This defines the relationship of monthly
peak to annual peak given in Table 3.1. The annual peak occurs in
December. It is assumed for all months that the minimum load is 25 percent
of the peak. Evaluation of monthly peak demands allows definition of
monthly energy requirements. This leads to definition of appropriate hydro
energy capability based on consideration of seasonally varying river flow.
The information for 1984 defines an annual load factor of 45.4 percent
which means the maximum load is 2.2 times the annual average load. This
relationship is used in this study to define peak annual load based on
energy forecasts.
INNEC energy forecasts are defined as fixed percentage annual growth based
on actual requirements in 1985 of 1,780 MWh. The medium load growth
forecast defined in Section 3.2 is approximately one-half of that
formulated by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) for the
Iliamna/Newhalen/Nondalton area during work on the Bristol Bay Regional
Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Interim Feasibility Assessment,
July 1982. The reasonableness of the ISER forecast is shown in the 1985
projection of 1,712 MWh which is close to actual generation. Therefore,
use of a 3 percent annual growth rate is conservative.
Keyes Point is a planned resort community located north of Nondalton on
Lake Clark. Initial phases of development are presently beginning. The
majority of the homes would be occupied part-time from May to October
during fishing and hunting seasons. Light commercial development including
3-1
lodges is also anticipated. Estimated energy requirements and timing of
their occurrence are somewhat speculative at this time. Therefore, Keyes
Point is considered only in the sensitivity case of "high" ,growth. The
Keyes Point forecast is defined in Table 3.2.
Other communities in the area may at some time in the future join the
existing intertied system. These include Port Alsworth, Pedro Bay, and
Kakhonak. The loads are relatively small and the timing of any intertie
work is undefined. Therefore, these three communities are not included in
load forecasts for this study.
3 . 2 ENERGY FORECASTS
Three load growth forecasts are defined for this study. "Medium" growth is
the design basis and "low" and "high" growth are sensitivity cases. In
accordance with APA guidelines, it is assumed that after the last year of
the planning period (2005) no further load growth occurs.
Load growth assumptions for INNEC are as follows;
Low growth: 1.5 percent per year
Medium growth: 3.0 percent per year
High growth: 3.0 percent per year plus Keyes Point
These three load forecasts are tabulated in Table 3.3 and graphed for
comparison in Figure 3.1. Table 3.2 shows the Keyes Point load growth
forecast.
3-2
TABLE 3.1
MONTHLY PEAK DEMANDS
RATIO OF
MONTHLY PEAK
MONTH TO ANNUAL PEAK*
January 0.74
February 0.79
March 0.70
April 0.67
May 0.63
June 0.49
July 0.55
August 0.55
September 0.86
October 0.88
November 0.97
December 1.00
*Based on INNEC records for 1984.
3-3
TABLE 3.2
KEYES POINT LOAD GROWTH FORECAST
ANNUAL
YEAR ENERGY USE , MWH*
1986 0
1987 128
1988 294
1989 552
1990 902
1991 1012
1992 1266
1993 1376
1994 1511
1995 1596
1996-2040 1681
* APA letter March 25, 1986
3-4
TABLE 3.3
LOAD GROWTH FORECASTS
YEAR Low Growth
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005-2040
(1) 1.5 percent per year
(2) 3 percent per year
(1)
1807
1834
1862
1890
1918
1947
1976
2006
2036
2066
2097
2129
2161
2193
2226
2259
2293
2328
2363
2398
ANNUAL ENERGY USE t MWH
Medium Growth
(2)
1834
1889
1946
2004
2064
2126
2190
2255
2323
2393
2465
2539
2615
2693
2774
2857
2943
3031
3122
3216
(3) 3 percent per year plus Keyes Point
3-5
High Growth
(3)
1834
2017
2240
2556
2966
3138
3456
3632
3834
3989
4146
4220
4296
4374
4455
4538
4624
4712
4803
4897
1,300
5,000
1,200
144"(~
Grr-O
:::z:: 4,500 ~\G~
3: 1,100
:!: . z
0
i= 4,000 « 1,000
a: w
Z
W 900 C!:I I-N-N (3% PER YEAR)
...I 3,500 + KEYES POINT « ::> z z 800 «
3,000 144"(~
Grr-O
O\U'" 700
I-N-N (3% PER YEAR) ",€
2,500
600
2,000 I-N-N (1.5% PER YEAR) 500
400 1,500 L..-. ______ -'--______ --i-______ ......&. ______ --'"
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
YEAR
FIGURE 3.1
LOAD FORECASTS
TAZIMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
3:
:III:!
o·
z «
:!: w
0
:III:! « w
Q.
...I « ::> z z «
o o .. • .. o
0(
SECTION 4
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
4. 1 FLOW RECORDS
Available flow records on the Tazimina River are from a USGS gage 2.1 miles
upstream of Tazimina Falls and the project site. There are 52 months of
Tazimina River flow records from June 1981 to September 1985. Of these, 41
months (May 1982 to September 1985) are coincident with flow records for
the Newhalen River. On the Newhalen River, 236 months of data are
available from July 1951 to September 1967 and May 1982 to September 1985.
Tazimina River flow records are included in Appendix A.
discharge of record is 5,560 cfs on September 30, 1985.
4 . 2 METiiODS
The maximum
Average monthly flows are used in the hydrologic analysis to define
correlations for estimating Tazimina River flows and to define flow
duration curves. This is appropriate since the short term of Tazimina
River flow records provides a limited basis for evaluation.
Previous work to analyze Tazimina River flows was done for the Interim
Feasibility Assessment CIFA) of July 1982. At that time, due to lack of
Tazimina River records, two methods using multiple regressions were defined
for estimating Tazimina River flows. This work is documented in the 1982
Interim Feasibility Assessment, Volume 4, Appendix I, Hydrologic
Evaluations -Tazimina River. For the current feasibility study, these two
methods are reviewed and evaluated using available flow data. Then a third
direct correlation is developed based on the available term of coincident
Tazimina/Newhalen record. The three methods are then compared to actual
records to determine the best method for estimating a , onger term of
Tazimina River flows.
Method 1 from 1982 relates Newhalen River flows to those on the Tazimina
River. The relationship was derived from extension of Newhalen River flows
4-1
by correlation to temperature and precipitation at Iliamna. Then by a
second correlation, Newhalen River flows were related to Tanalian River
flows and thus to the Tazimina River. The Tanalian drainage is directly
north of the Tazimina River and the drainage area is of similar size. This
method was tested by comparison to actual Tazimina River flows for the 41
coincident months.
Method 2 from 1982 relates temperature and precipitation at Port Alsworth
to Tazimina River flow. Port Alsworth is on Lake Clark near the mouth of
the Tanalian River. The relationship was derived from extension of Port
Alsworth temperature and precipitation by correlation to temperature and
precipitation at Iliamna. Then by a second correlation, Port Alsworth
temperature and precipitation was related to Tanalian River flows and thus
to the Tazimina River. This method was tested by comparison to the 52
months of existing Tazimina River records.
Method 3 of estimating Tazimina River flows was developed during the
present study effort. Based on the 41 months of coincident record, a
direct correlation was established between Newhalen River flows and
Tazimina River flows. Two relationships were defined to account for
seasonal effects during the year. One correlation relates to the "wet"
season of June through October, the other applies to the "dry" or low flow
season of November through May. By comparison to actual Tazimina River
flows, this direct correlation provides the best estimate from the three
methods.
4 . 3 FLOW DURATION CURVES
Using Method 3, the 236 average monthly flow values for the Newhalen River
are used to estimate Taz1mina River monthly flows. Average discharge
ranges from over 100 cfs in March and April to nearly 2100 cfs in July and
August. This is depicted in Figure 4.1. Annual and seasonal flow duration
curves are also developed as shown in Figure 4.2. This shows the
significant difference in flow regime in each of the two seasons. During
the high flow season, discharges exceed 1000 cfs. In the low flow season,
discharge is significantly reduced to affect hydro capability. Monthly
4-2
flow duration curves are defined for November through Mayas shown in
Figures 4.3 through 4.9. respectively. This allows proper consideration in
the power study of water shortfall for hydro generation to meet energy
requirements defined on a monthly basis.
4-3
2,500~-----------------------------------------------------------------------'~
2,000
~
()
s: 9 1,500
u..
>-...J
I
I-
Z o ~ 1,000
W
(!) « a: w
~ 500
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl
2,098
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
FIGURE 4.1
ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS
TAZIMINA RIVER, 2.1 MILES UPSTREAM
OF FALLS
o
1.0
CO
l() o
~
2,800 .....-------------------------_,
2,800
2,400
2,200
2,000
1,800
CI) t 1,800
~
...I 1,400 u..
a:: w
> -1,200 a::
',000
800
600
400
200
DURATION CURVE BASIS: AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS
EXTREMES OF RECORD AS OF SEPT 1185:
MAX IMUM • 5,580 eft
MINIMUM -14 eft
o~-~---~-~--~-~--~-~~-~--~-~ o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% TIME EQUAL OR EXCEEDED
FIGURE 4.2
80 90 100
ANNUAL FLOW DURATION CURVE
TAZIMINA RIVER, 2.1 MILES
UPSTREAM OF FALLS
N
C
C ... • ...
C
C(
V)
u. u
~.
0
...J
U.
ex: w >
ex:
900~---,~------------------------------------------~
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
10 20 30
FLOW DURA nON CURVE· NOVEMBER
T AZlMINA RIVER
FIGURE 4.3
40 50 60 70 80 90
% TIME EaUAL OR EXCEEDED
100
... ..
CI .. • ..
CI
C
v.I ... u
?:"
0
...I ...
c:: w >
c::
900~----------------------------------------------~
800
700
600
500
400
200
100
FLOW DURATION CURVE -DECEMBER
T AZIMINA RIVER
RGURE4.4
°0~---1~0----~~---3~O----4~0----5~0----6~0----~--~----~--~100
... TIME EQUAL OR EXCEEDED
..
N o ...
CD .. o
<t
en
\.a.
U
~:
0
..j
\.a.
a: w >
a:
900~------------------------------------------------'
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
FLOW DURATION CURVE -JANUARY
T AZlMlNA RIVER
FIGURE 4.5
°O~--~----~--~----~--~----~I----~--~----~---..I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
" TIME EaUAL OR EXCEeDED
900r-------------------------------------------------~
800 FLOW DURATION CURVE· FEBRUARY
TAZIMINA RIVER
FIGURE 4.6
700
600
<f.I 500 LI.
U
~.
0
....I
LI.
a:
Ij,j
:>
a: 400
300
200
100
10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100
" TIME EQUAL OR EXCEEDED
(I)
u.. u
:l: o
..J
u..
a:
!.OJ >
a:
900~------------------------------------------------~
800
FLOW DURA nON CURVE -MARCH
TAZNINA RIVER F1GURE4.7
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
°0~--~----~~--~----~40-----~~---6~0----~--~80----~OO----'~00
% TIME EQUAL OR EXCEEDED
....
N o
<II • • o <
en
110.
U
~.
0
...l
110.
c:
UJ >
'c:
900r--------------------------------------------------,
800
700
600
500
400~
300
200
100
flOW DURA1l0N CURVE -APRIL
TAZIMINA RIVER
FJGURE4.8
% TIME EQUAL OR EXCEEDED
• ...
C> ,. • • C>
0(
(1,1
1.1..
U
;:'
0
....I
1.1..
a: w >
a:
900~--------------------------------------------------,
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
00 10 20
FLOW DURAT10N CURVE -MAY
TAZlMINA RIVER
FIGURE 4.9
30 40 so 60 70
" TIME eQUAL OR exceeDeD
80 90 100
o .. o .. • • o «
SECTION 5
POWER STUDY
The purpose of the power study is to trial-size the hydroelectric
installation and to develop and evaluate a formulation to define dependable
hydro capability. Initial sizing of the hydro installation is based on
consideration of the peak and minimum demands for initial operation in 1991
and the ultimate demand as forecasted for 2005 for medium load growth. The
objective is to provide sufficient capacity toward meeting peak demands
while not sacrificing capability to operate in lower load ranges. Analysis
of various installed capacities shows that the incremental expenditure for
higher capacity turbine-generator equipment is offset by the benefit of
increased hydro generation through the years.
Once trial sizes of hydro development are identified, it is necessary to
evaluate hydro generation capability of a particular scheme. In this
study, three types of turbine equipment are considered as discussed in
Section 7.4. They are horizontal Francis, crossflow, and TKW units.
Purely on the basis of energy production, crossflow units are beneficial
because of the ability to operate over a wide range. The definition of
hydro capability is affected by deficiency to meet peak demands, deficiency
to operate at low loads, and inability to generate due to lack of river
flow. Consideration of these factors gives an accurate estimate of
dependable hydro generation. The three factors are systematically
evaluated on a monthly basis for each trial capacity. The evaluation is
based on load requirements) available river flow, installed capacity, and
turbine characteristics. The formulation for evaluating hydro capability
is shown in the sample worksheet in Table 5.1. A constant net head of 100
ft is used in this study. Variation in net head is insignificant for power
estimates at this site and is neglected.
Referring to Table 5.1, columns 2-7 and 16 analyze peak demand. Monthly
system peaks are defined on the basis of data in Table 3.1. Columns 8-15
evaluate river flow deficiency. The monthly flow duration curves for
November through May, as defined in Section 4, are used. Columns 17-22
5-1
analyze low load capability. The estimate of hydro generation, or
capability, is in Column 26. This includes an additional 2 percent
reduction for downtime of the hydro plant. For this example, the year is
1991 as defined by the peak annual load of 534 kW. For this year, the
hydro generation capability is 1,971 MWh. This calculation is just for one
year. A separate calculation is needed for the varying load of each year
of the 20-year planning period.
The hydro capability evaluation is incorporated as a subprogram into the
economic evaluation present-worth computer worksheet discussed in Section
10. This allows flexibility to provide appropriate hydro generation input
to any hydro scheme to be economically evaluated.
The sample hydro generation evaluation in Table 5.1 depends on the type of
turbine equipment considered and the corresponding equipment
characteristics of overall efficiency and operating range.
Turbine-generator characteristics used in this study are summarized in
Table 5.2. This data is derived from manufacturers' information.
The power study defines hydro generation on the basis of load demands. The
results are input to the economic evaluation. Economics decide the optimum
installed hydro capacity by identifying the hydro scheme which has the
lowest total present worth cost. The optimum installed capacity is
identified in Section 10 as two TKW units at 350 kW each. The annual hydro
generation varies through the planning period as the load grows. Hydro
generation is 1,971,000 kWH in the first year of operation in 1991 and
levels off at 3,025,000 kWH in 2005. Table 5.3 shows a monthly comparison
of river flows, hydro capability, and diesel generation requirements for
the years 1991 and 2005. Initially, the hydro installation is deficient at
minimum loads because of unit sizing. In later years as the load
increases, additional diesel generation is needed to meet peak demands.
Future diesel requirements to supplement hydro generation remain at a
reasonably low level. For medium load growth, Table 5.3 shows a maximum
future annual diesel requirement of 191 MWh which is about 6 percent of
total generation.
5-2
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 5.1
,
SAMPLE HYDRO CAPABILITY EVALUATION (YEAR 1991) ,
TAIIHHlA ~IV[R HYDROEl[CTRIC rnOJECf
pm ANNUAL LOftD (Y,WI" m "'N !lYD~ O. , IIH HEAD~ 100
INSTALlED CAPACITY (KVI= 100 UNIT 5TlE,KV J~O DVERALL me 0.79
PEAr. SYSTEH HYDRO SYSTE" HYDRO l HYDRO t ASSN" 0 AVS ASSN'O REO'O l TIME AVG t TINE DEFICIENT DIESEL SYSTEH HYDRO "I~
"ONTH RATIO rm r£AK S(U SYS PK SYS SEN HYDRO SEN HYDRO LOAO PLANT Q g AVAIL U(lQOI omcJnIT Q DH ICIENT HYDRO BEN PK SEN ~IN I SYS Pk
tw IW NWH t HWH tV rrs t crs [fS "WH "~H f.V
2 5 6 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18
___________ ~ ____ ~ ~_ ~ ____ ~_ A~ ~_ M __ ~ M_M ____ ~ ________________________ • __________________ M .. __________________ • __________________________ ~ ___________________________________________________________________________________
JAil 0.137 m 194 166.9 100.0 100.0 166.9 128.6 34.1 99.2 20 21.1 0.8 t.1 0.0 98.4 35.6
fEB 0.189 m 421 182.1 100.0 1('0.0 182.1 249.4 31. ~ 98.5 31 34.1 1.5 2.4 0.0 1~~.3 3U
HAR o.m m 312 162.8 100.0 100.0 162.8 213.0 3303 100.0 42 0.0 0.0 O.C 0.0 n.o 37.6
APR 0.611 358 358 150.1 100.0 100.0 m.1 20'U 30.7 91.1 20 15.4 7.9 9.8 0.0 8906 39.1
HAY o.m m m 149.1 100.0 100.0 149.7 205.0 30.6 100.0 m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.4 41.S
JUM 0.481 260 260 \43.4 100.0 100.0 143.4 19~.5 29.> 100.0 10<)0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.0 51.8
JUl o.m 295 m \41.7 100.0 100.0 141.1 194.1 29.0 100.0 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 41.4
AIJG o.m 295 m 156.9 100.0 100.0 156.9 7\4.9 32.1 100.0 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.8 47.4
SEP 0.855 m m 19;' .3 100.0 100.0 1n.3 nl.4 39.3 100.0 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 114.1 30.7
OCT 0.882 4/1 471 211.6 100.0 100.0 217.6 298.1 44.5 100.0 1000 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 111.7 29.1
NOV 0.914 510 520 m.7 100.0 100.0 227.7 311.9 46.6 100.0 165 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.o 26.9
DEC 1.000 534 m 234.4 100.0 100.0 m.4 321.1 48.0 100.0 81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ill. 5 2&.2
TOTAL 2\25.6 2125.6 13.> 0.0
5-3
Page 2 of 2
TABLE 5.1. co~t'd. ,
TAlIHWn RIVER HYOROllfnRIC PRO.lEe1
I liME OF nVG I 11HE CAPABIlITY W~TER PEA~ ~ROSS AClunl
IIYDRO 'liN DEFlCIEUU DHtCIEHT OEr IC IEllCY DErI CIE IJcy OEFICIEm HYDRO SEN HYDRa GfN
fM I MVH HWH r,WH HWH HWH
19 1fJ 21 n 13 14 25 26
-~~----~-----~----------~---~---~----------------~ ~--~-~--~--~--~--~ ---~ -------------_.---------
9t.2 IIU 0.8 1.1 1.1 U 158.2 155.0
95.2 121.7 6.8 6.1 2.4 0.0 113.5 170.0
89.5 116.5 10.5 8.9 0.0 0.0 153.9 ISO.B
eu 114.0 11.1 9.8 9.8 0.0 130.5 121.9
8U 112.2 n.l 11.2 0.0 0.0 138.4 135.6
16.0 JI)1.S 24.0 18.0 0.0 fI.O 125.5 t22~ If
Sl.~ 1~6. 9 18.1 14,6 0.6 0.0 m.1 12U
OI.J 106.9 IB.l IU 0.0 0,() l42.l m.s
95.3 121.1 4.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 191.9 IOU'
96.\ m.9 l.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 213.9 209.6
~8.4 m.o 1.6 \.6 0.0 0.0 216.1 m.6
~9.0 m.B 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 133.4 128.1
101.5 n.l 0.0 2010.1 1910.5
5-4
TABLE 5.2
TURBINE -GENERATOR CHARACTERISTICS
TURBINE
TYPE
Horizontal Francis
Cross flow
TKW vertical turbine
MINIMUM HYDRO CAPABILITY,
PERCENT OF
DESIGN OUTPUT
40
10
40
5-5
OVERALL UNIT
EFFICIENCY,
PERCENT
83
76
79
AvERAGE HINIHUM
TALIHINA TAZIHINA
R I liEF; F;l liEf;
SYSTEM
6ENERHTlON
TABLE ~.3
COMPARISON OF HYDRO VERSUS DIESEL MONTHLY SENERATION REQUIREMENTS
Hvdro Alternative I
YEAR= 1991 YEAR= 2005
(Initial year of hydro oDerationi (End of load growth and fuel escalatio~ 10recastsi
REQUIRED REQUIRH
HYDRO HYDRO
PROJECT PROJECT
DISCHARSE DISCHARGE
AVERAGE FOR HYDRO DIESEL SYSTEH AVERASE FOR HYDRO DIESEL
mm AIIERASE GENERATION GENERATION SENERATION SYSTEH AVERASE GENERATION SENERioiTlON
MONTH FLOw.CFS FLO~.CFS KWH LOAD,ktl LOAD,CF5 KWH KWH KIiH LOAD, kill LOAD,CFS KWH KWfi
JAN
FEB
M",R
APP
MAY
JU~
JUL
AU5
==~, ".'_!
r","'''' Ul'
NOV
" -r L!t~
TOH~L
1 2 ~ 4 5 6 7 3 4 ~ b 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
203 20 167 m 34 155 12
134 31 lB2 m 37 170 12
118 42 163 223 .. ~ ,.\.} 151 12
121 2() 15(; 205 31 128 22
3Bb 15Q 150 205 31 136 14
1530 >1000 143 196 29 123 20
2055 >1000 142 195 29 125 17
2091:, ) 100,) 157 215 32 140 17
1883 >1000 192 2b3 39 lB4 B
i36l ;. 1(1(10 21B 299 45 209 9
t.IO 265 22B 312 47 221 7
328 Bi 234 321 48 229 r .J
2126 1971 155
(1) Frof Fi~ure 4.1
(2i Fro; estimated Ta:ilina River flows, discussed in Section 4.3
(~,) Based on lediuli load forecast in Table 3.3 and lontllly Dea~ ratio in lable 3.1
(4) Based on 730 hours oer lonth
(5) Froll klri=eGH/ll.8 (e=0.79. H=100)
(6) Based on hydro capability evaluation. as in Table 5.1
(7j Svstel. ~eI1eration (3) -hydro Ql!nention (b)
253 347 52 245 B
2i6 378 5b 251 .,t
L,I
246 m ~O 207 39
'Z17 311 46 lB9 38
226 310 46 220 b
217 297 44 205 . ~ ,~
214 293 44 205 9
237 ~.,r ~ .. ~ 48 m 9
291 m 60 2B5 ~
m 451 67 322 7
345 473 71 330 15
355 486 73 338 17
3216 3025 191
SECTION 6
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
6.1 AVAILABLE INFORMATION
The general area of the Upper Tazimina River was previously investigated to
support consideration of a regional Tazimina project for the 1982 Interim
Feasibility Assessment (IFA). Shannon & Wilson performed field work from
August to October 1981. The emphasis was on potential dam sites a few
miles upstream of Tazimina Falls. Work included geologic mapping, seismic
refraction studies, test drilling, digging test pits, and topographic
surveying. The results of this work are documented in IFA Volume 3,
Appendix E, Geotechnical Studies -Tazimina River. Only three seismic
lines are in the vicinity of Tazimina Falls and these are not at specific
locations of proposed Tazimina River Project components.
Additional field work was performed in August 1985 to obtain site-specific
information at the immediate project site directly above and below the
falls. R&M Consultants, Inc. (R&M) completed seismic refraction work and
SWEC engineers were at site for reconnaissance. R&M's seismic work is
documented in their October 1985 report included herein as Appendix B.
6.2 SITE GEOLOGY
Detailed information on area geology is presented in Sections 4 and 5 of
IFA, Appendix E. Specific input at the falls site is included in Section
5.7 thereof. Based on available information, the following observations
are made.
1. The general surficial geologic conditions at Tazimina Falls and
the deep canyon gorge immediately downstream are glacial till
and/or glacio-fluvial outwash and terrace debris overlaying
bedrock. The gorge is cut into bedrock. The bedrock is
megascopically classified as tuff and/or andesite. Geologic
features are mapped on Figure 6.1.
6-1
2. Seismic refraction work by R&M correlates well with previous work
by Shannon & Wilson. Three lines run on the left bank at and
about 600 ft upstream of the falls indicate depths of
unconsolidated materials and/or highly weathered rock in the 10-40
ft range. This correlates well with Shannon & Wilson work in
nearby, but not identical, locations.
3. Bedrock seismic velocities are 12,000-14,000 fps for both
surveys. This suggests normally fractured rock below the terraces
at the general elevation of the top of the falls. This is in
contrast to the closely jointed and moderately to severely
weathered condition of outcrops in the canyon. It is inferred
from these observations that significant weathering does not
extend to depths greater than 10 to 15 feet.
4. A number of aerial photo lineaments, aligned generally
perpendicular to the course of the Tazimina River, cross the
canyon. These are particularly prevalent in the area from the
falls to about 1000 ft downstream. In some cases, these
lineaments can be identified in thick glacial outwash as well as
in bedrock and thin glacial deposits. These features probably
represent zones of very close jointing and/or shearing.
5. The canyon walls must, in general, be considered unstable. The
walls consist of rock spires and numerous scree slopes. Bent tree
trunks are observed on more vegetated portions. Therefore, high
potential exists for rockfall in outcrop areas and creep and
landslides in soil-filled gullies.
6. Potential powerhouse sites in the canyon appear to be located in
areas of shallow bedrock covered with thin, sometimes
discontinuous, deposits of alluvial cobbles a~d boulders.
7. No unusual conditions are anticipated in the area to be traversed
by the access road. Most soils appear to be silty sands and
gravels, probably of glacial outwash and/or ground moraine origin.
6-2
Localized bogs and kettle lakes are common. A high groundwater
table should be anticipated throughout the area.
6.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The steep, rugged terrain and the jointed, weathered exposed rock in the
canyon complicate the technical factors of siting the hydro project at
Tazimina Falls. The following items were considered in developing the
project alternatives defined in Section 7.
1. Surface powerhouse locations within the Tazimina River canyon
would be subject to continuous rockfall unless extensive slope
protection/stabilization is installed above the location.
2. Powerhouse locations should avoid any of the lineaments identified
on the geologic map. Blocky, fragmented, and/or squeezing ground
could be encountered in such areas. An underground powerhouse
probably requires at least roof support and possibly a full
lining. Rock bolts, mesh, and shotcrete should provide adequate
protection for access openings.
3. It is considered highly inadvisable to incorporate any scheme
which would involve a conduit located on the wall of the Tazimina
River canyon. It would be extremely difficult to adequately
anchor such a conduit and the subsequent installation would be
subject to continuous rockfall.
4. Any road built on the wall of the canyon would require extensive
cuts and slope stabilization and would probably still require
continuous maintenance due to rockfall.
5. For the alignment of the access road, the main consideration is to
avoid bogs and areas of seasonal standing water. Such areas can
be accommodated in road construction, but only with increased
cost. It is also possible that localized pockets of permafrost
might be encountered.
6-3
6. It should be possible to develop suitable gravel sources almost
anywhere in the area to be traversed by the access road. It is
likely that constraints other than geologic/geotechnical, such as
surface and subsurface estates, gravel costs, convenience, etc,
will determine the optimum gravel borrow area or areas for the
project.
6-4
STATION NORTHING
ROADHOUSE AZ 2 2140823.50
PICK 2177995.30
Til-I 2152213.09
TR-2 2154365.63
TR-3 2157508.01
TR·4 2157015.65
1/4 CORNER 2143972.90
---
AU~:AI 5ufNfVS tNt: a. RaM CONSULTANTS j INC MRMH/OEP 4/~}/86
EASTING ELEVATION
377994.17 3231.88
382273.99 22 I L 53
370888.28 701. 06
370298.29 630_ 37
372713.46 703.80
374413.42 830.75
371246.03 2570.97
/"
) ~
~
I. THIS MAP IS BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY Of
SEPTEMBER 20, 1985.
2. THE BASIS Of HORIZONTAL AN~ VERTiCAL CONTROL
IS TRILATERATION STATION ROADHOUSE AZ 2. THE
BASIS OF AZIMUTH ORIENTATION IS THE BEARING
BETWEEN ROADHOUSE AZ 2 AND TRIANGULATION
STATiON PICK_
3 THIS MAP IS A TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
BASED ON ALASKA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,
ZONE 5, NAO 27.
4. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET_
200 400 ; I
t-iORIZONTAL SCALE: lit. 200'
CONTOUR INTERVAL'S'
LEGEND
Qu undivided alluvial and glaciol deposita
00 outwash
Of 'erroce materials
Om moroinal deposits
basaUje dike
/ attitude of beddinl"
1.'"
~ aUi tude of s heor lone ~ a';ol trend and plunql 0' .moll syncline
/"" /""" pfominant lineament (air photo)
/"
/",,,,, moderate lineoment fa p)
/"
/...... min(... lineament (a p)
-'
-,;,,-,,'-' contact
"'... /'eismit refraction traverse
/ '"SL"-1962
"nt-1965
GEOLOGIC MAP
TAZIMINA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
!!~~ ~c!,:!!,":'L!~y,!!, .. ~,:,,!.9:
ANCHOAAGE, Al.ASKA
551130-T-lof
Figure 6.1
SECTION 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7.1 GENERAL
The Tazimina River project is a run-of-river development. There is no
forebay dam or structure for water storage. The components of the project
are an intake, penstock, powerhouse, transmission line, and access road.
The relative location of the intake, penstock, and powerhouse at the falls
is shown on Figure 7.1. The project features are discussed in detail in
this section of the report. This includes various alternatives considered
during the study, as defined below.
Alternative 1 -Well scheme with turbine and lineshaft assembly in a
drilled hole.
Alternative 2 -Canyon powerhouse with access and penstock routing
down canyon wall.
Alternative 3 -Underground powerhouse with access
routing in vertical shaft.
Alternative 4 -Canyon powerhouse with vertical shaft.
and pens tock
Al ternative 5 -Downstream canyon powerhouse with vertical shaft.
7.2 INTAKE
The layout of the intake and river channel features are shown on Figure
7.1. The intake structure is defined on Figure 7.2. The shoreline intake
structure is approximately 250 ft upstream of the falls on the left bank,
at a naturally occurring riffle extending toward mid-channel from the left
bank. The trashrack is submerged below minimum water level to avoid ice
problems, and it is sized for 2 ft/sec to avoid ice entrainment.
Provisions are included for a stationary fish screen, to be installed if
7-1
necessary, to exclude adult char and grayling. Velocities are limited to 2
ft/sec through the open area of the screen surface. If used, the
stationary screen would be removed in winter. Hoist equipment is provided
at the intake to handle the shutoff slide gate or the stationary screen
panels, if necessary. The slide gate is normally open, but can be closed
to isolate the penstock.
Excavation will be required in the stream bed in front of the intake to
assure adequate water flow to the intake. The excavation will be concrete
lined as indicated in Figure 7.2. A concrete sill approximately flush with
the existing bed level will extend from the right bank across the stream
for about 85 ft or one-half the channel width. This sill will avoid
degradation of the right side of the stream bed which could adversely
affect flow of water into the intake structure. A buried pipe extends
downstream from in front of the intake to sluice away sediment deposition.
7.3 PENSTOCK
The 4 ft diameter penstock extends from the intake structure to the
powerhouse and is buried in the left bank. The penstock length is 270 ft
to the powerhouse. It is routed along the terrace roughly adjacent to the
river to avoid increased burial depths at higher ground away from the
river. As discussed in Section 6, it is not advisable to route the
penstock along the canyon wall to the powerhouse because the weathered rock
makes anchoring difficult and continuing rockfall could damage the
installed pipe. The pipe is fiberglass reinforced (FRP) which is
s ignif icant ly lighter in weight than steel. This should be beneficial in
reducing costs for shipping, handling, and installation. The difference in
elevation of the intake invert versus the surface elevation on the left
bank downstream near the powerhouse area is significant. Substantial cut
and fill is required with burial depths at some portions of the alignment
exceeding 30 ft for gravity arrangement of the flow line.
The powerhouse location for Alternatives 2 and 4 is further downstream.
The penstock extends an additional 230 ft for a total length of 500 ft.
This penstock extension is costly since large cuts and fills continue.
7-2
Burial depth exceeds 40 ft for gravity flow. Raising the vertical
alignment of the penstock extension for siphon operation was considered to
reduce cut and fill quantities. About one-half of the total 500 ft
alignment can be raised approximately 18 ft. The siphon system reduces the
total capital cost estimate of the hydro scheme by about $400,000 or 5
percent. However, a siphon penstock increases operational complexity and
maintenance due to requirements for a priming system, valves and controls.
Although a siphon system may be considered in further design work on the
project, for the purposes of this study, further consideration of a siphon
penstock was dropped in favor of the operational simplicity of the gravity
system.
7.4 POWERHOUSE
The steep ruggedness of the canyon limits options for powerhouse siting to
obtain reasonable access for construction and for normal operations.
Cutting a road for access into the canyon is not an acceptable option
because extensive cuts and slope stabilization would be required. Civil
costs for viable powerhouse concepts are the dominant factor in defining
total capital cost of the hydro project. Thus, the preferred hydro
alternative is one which reduces the civil capital costs and provides the
lowest total present worth as defined in Section 10. Several powerhouse
al ternatives, identified in Section 7.1, were investigated in order to
select a preferred alternative for the feasibility study.
7.4.1 Preferred Scheme
The preferred hydro scheme (Alternative 1) uses a vertical
turbine/generator arrangement. This allows the machine to be set at the
proper elevation relative to tailwater by lowering turbine, water column,
and shaft down a drilled hole (see Figure 7.3). The shaft length from
generator down to turbine runner is about 150 ft. This is similar to a
pump in a well. The shaft with lineshaft bearings is proven pump
technology. This alternative is referred to as the "well scheme". For the
purposes of this study, we have considered TKW turbines by Byron Jackson,
although similar equipment from other manufacturers may be available. The
7-3
TKW unit is not just a pump running in reverse. It is a turbine with
adjustable wicket gates which is needed to meet the widely varying load
requirements. This vertical arrangement allows the "powerhouse" to be at
the surface on the left abutment and provides easy operational access.
Maintenance on the turbine will require piece-by-piece removal of water
column and shaft. As the assembly is pulled from the hole the turbine
equipment is removed at the top of the hole and is thus accessible within
the powerhouse.
The installation is two units for a total installed capacity of 700 kW.
The 900 rpm turbine is coupled through the lineshaft to the generator
mounted at the surface on the floor of the powerhouse. Individual
generator output is 350 kW at full gate turbine operation. At full output,
the total hydraulic capacity of the two units is about 100 cfs. The net
head is considered constant for this study at 100 ft. Load requirements
are much less than the potential energy output of the site. Energy
generation varies to meet load requirements. Estimated hydro generation is
initially 1,971 MWh in 1991 and 3,025 MWh at the end of the planning
period.
Wicket gates and turbine speed are controlled by a governor. Accessory
installation includes electrical controls and protection equipment. The
hydro plant will be operated remotely from the existing diesel station in
Newhalen. Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) equipment is
provided. A powerhouse crane is provided to handle the generators and
lineshaft assemblies. Electrical equipment includes switchgear and a 480v
-25 kV three-phase step-up transformer rated 1000 KVA.
7.4.2 Turbine Equipment
Three types of turbine units are considered for this study: horizontal
Francis, cross flow , and the TKW unit. Alternative 1 is a unique solution
for the hydro scheme using the TKW turbine-generator units. The remaining
alternatives, discussed below, have the normal powerhouse arrangement. Any
of the three types of generating equipment can be used. Crossflow units
offer the benefit of a wide operating range. The present worth analysis in
7-4
Section 10 indicates that the most beneficial installed capacity is 700
kW. This is provided by two TKW units at 350 kW each for Alternative 1.
Alternatives 2 through 5 have one crossflow unit at 700 kW.
7.4.3 Alternatives
The second least costly concept (Alternative 3), is an underground scheme
as def ined in Figure 7.5. This provides personnel access and penstock
routing in a vertical shaft. The 15 ft diameter of the shaft is the
minimum constructible size. Increased costs for the shaft excavation and
for the powerhouse are significant. This scheme allows tailrace excavation
material to be removed to the left abutment surface via the vertical
shaft. This would reduce construction activities within the confines of
the canyon.
Other alternatives with the powerhouse in the canyon were considered.
Acceptable powerhouse sites within the canyon are somewhat downstream of
the falls. The increased cost for additional buried penstock to these
sites is significant and results in higher total project costs.
Alternative 2 has a powerhouse in the canyon at the base of the rock wall
downstream of the falls. The penstock is routed down the canyon wall in a
notch excavated in the rock to remove undesirable weathered material.
Extensive rock bolting is used to stabilize the rock face. Access to the
powerhouse is by inclined elevator routed down the wall in the same notch.
This scheme is shown in Figure 7.4. There are operational drawbacks to
this arrangement. Access in and out of the canyon will be complicated by
adverse weather conditions including ice effects from spray from the
falls. Also, personnel moving within the canyon, as well as the powerhouse
structure therein, are subject to the possibility of falling weathered rock
from the canyon walls above. Furthermore, the excavation on the canyon
wall will result in increased aesthetic impact.
As a modification to the underground scheme, Alternative 4 was considered
which moved the powerhouse out into the canyon at the base of the wall, and
retained the vertical shaft for access. The resulting tunnel from the
bottom of the shaft to the powerhouse is costly. Alternative 5, a
7-5
variation of Alternative 4, sites the powerhouse 400 ft further
downstream. This alternative is shown on Figure 7.6. The buried routing
of the penstock for an additional 400 ft adds further to the total project
cost.
7.5 ACCESS ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE
The project access road is routed along the alignment shown on Figure 7.7
from the existing Newhalen-Nondalton road to the project site at the
falls. The road is 6.7 miles long with a 16 ft wide gravel surface.
Appropriate cross drainage is provided by 24 in diameter culverts. As
indicated in Section 6, it is anticipated that gravel sources in the area
are adequate for road construction. The primary intent in routing the road
is to avoid aquatic impacts at stream crossings. There are no stream
crossings in the chosen route. This is not possible for any alignments
south of Alexcy Lake.
The transmission line is a 24 kV system buried along an alignment
immediately adjacent to the access road. Its length is likewise 6.7 miles
to a point of tie-in to the existing line running north to Nondalton.
Telephone line will be buried in the trench with the transmission cable.
This telephone line will be the remote control link to the unmanned
hydroelectric plant from the operational control point at the existing
diesel station in Newhalen. The width of clearing for the access
road/transmission line corridor is approximately 60 ft. The alignment is
shown in more detail on photo mosaics in Figures 7.8-7.11.
7-6
• ... " • :: ,.,.., .' -t-,." r ......, (t)
-t -'
TAZIMINA FALLS
.. '
,."
T'-"
.J
POWERHOUSE SITE FOR
AL TERN A nVES 2 AND 4
SCALE: 1" '" 50'
o 25 50 100
PRCUECTARRANGEMENT
TAZlMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
o
t:... Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation ~ DENVER. ca.ORAOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1;
'" .,
MAX W.S. El577.7
v
MIN W.S. El573.2
V
TOP OF DECK
El579.5
APPROX RIVER BED, El570.6
TRASHRACK
E l564.8
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1I4"MESH
STATIONARY
SCREEN -
2 PANELS
@ 7'H x 12'W
/
/
!IF NECESSARY)
SLIDE GATE
./
/
/
.-.. , ~ ...... '
10' 18' ~I·.---------~~--------~·I ~I~.--------------------~~----------------~.I
A~
INTAKE CROSS-SECTION
II\! ! I! 111
o
.... 0
48" CIA PENSTOCK
12'
SECTION A-A
SCALE: 1" = 5'
o 5 10
>1
24" DIA SLUICE PIPE
DOWNSTREAM
TOWARD FAllS
INTAKE STRUCTURE
TAZlMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
co o
CIl
F:gure 7_2
Ir\ s.-tone & 'Vebster Engineering Corporatiom ~ DENV£R. ca..OAAOO
1
GOV
CONTROL
30'
GOV
467± NORMAL TWl_
I'"
18' .. I
GRATING WITH
COVER PLATE (TYp)
~----,-Ii. UNIT
18'
-----'-Ii. UNIT
PLAN -POWERHOUSE
SCALE: 1" = 10'
o 5 10 20
-5,0
CROSS-SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 10'
o 5 10 20
EL 600
----~--LADDER
L_-l
EXCAVATION LINE ~
ENCLOSING COLUMN
47"CASING
" . .,'" ";.' .
:,
"
"
CASING
GENERA TOR, 350 kW OlJTPUT
(2 UNITS FOR INSTALLED CAPACITY OF 700 kW)
48" DIA PENSTOCK
--INVERT EL 533'
LlNESHAFT
30" PENsvOCK (WATER COLUMN)
MAX DIMENSION OF
TURBINE EQPT
L1NESHAFT CROSS-SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
PENSTOCK (WATER COLUMN)
ALTERNATIVE 1
WELL SCHEME
TAZIMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Figure 7.3
_-TURBINE RUNNER, EL 457 &stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
~ DENVER, COLORADO
5'
~---~
20'
ROCK BOLTS (TYP)
SECTION A-A
NOTCH IN ROCK WALL OF CANYON
o
SCALE: 1":: 5'
5 10
FOR POWERHOUSE PLAN
SEE FIGURE 7,5
SLIDE GATE
AND OPERATOR
/ 467± NORMAL TWL
~~ ~"'_±_LO_W __ TW __ L ____________ __
. . '. ~. -. .
ELEV
MACHINE
ROOM
.~-
L]
I
L--l ,
-----------------~--,
: I
--- - - - ----t_::.:::'-=::!--INVERT El 562
48" orA PENSTOCK
CROSS SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 10'
I) 5 10 20
-UNIT £. EL 475
700kW
CROSS FLOW TURBINE
Figure 7.4
ALTERNATIVE 2
CANYON POWERHOUSE WITH
ACCESS DOWN CANYON WALL
TAZIMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY & Slone & Webslcr Engineering Corporal ion
........ DENVER. COlORADO
TAZlMINA RIVER
/
467± NOAMAL lWL
FLYWHEEL
BREAKER
PLAN· UNDERGROUND POWER PLANT
SCALE: 1" = 10'
o 5 10 20
1,000 L B ELEV
CAGED LADDER
700kW
CROSS FLOW TURBINE
SECTIONA·A
SCALE: 1":: 10'
o 5 10 20
ROCK LINE
-------
SHOTCRETE
5' 0 SLIDE GATE
AND OPERATOR
'"
I
ELEV
MACHINE
ROOM
SH,AFT HOUSE
"'
r 48" OIA PENSTOCK
-t>r'-"-'-'-_c-INVERT EL563'
SHOTCRETE
, 15· OIA SHAFT
ELEVRAILS _rr-..,....JI
LADDER
LANDING
CAGE
--iiTt-1lH--UNIT <t
~~~------~~ EL4~'
Figure 7.5
ALTERNATNE3
UNDERGROUND POWERHOUSE
TAZlMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY & Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
..... DENVER, COlO!WlO
453± NORMAL TWL
SLIDE GATE
AND OPERATOR
, '., . .'.,' . ~
FOR POWERHOUSE PLAN
SEE FIGURE 7.5
700kW
CROSS FLOWTURBINE
TUNNEL
SCALE: 1" 10'
o 5 10 20
"
ELEV
MACHINE
ROOM
SHAFT j "'" wi' "'" "","" #~~~1 HOUSE
SHOTCRETE
I
I
15' DIA SHAFT
'.
'. <
ELEV RAILS --,.,.-__.
SHOTCRETE .'
'. '. ~ i. ..
ELEVATOR
PENSTOCK
El630
i··-.J
~ EXCAVATION LINE
r..J
I 48" DIA PENSTOCK
(FOR SHAFT CROSS-SECTION,
SEE FIGURE 7.5)
LADDER
I.ANDING
CAGE
Figure 7.6
ALTERNATIVE 5
DOWNSTREAM CANYON POWERHOUSE
WITH VERTICAL SHAFT
TAZIMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
R\ Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation ~ DENVER, COlORAOO
--~~--~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12
24 '
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
~ STONE & WEBSTER
.,., ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FIGURE 7.7
INDEX MAP OF PHOTO
MOSIAC COVERAGE
(FIGURES 7.8 -7.11)
o
OJ) ., .,
o
<t
J
1 , ,
" :i
'f '
1
J
1
J
,.,-, .
FOR LOCAllON OF COVERAGE
ON THIS SHEET, SEE FIGURE 7.7
SCALE: 1" = 200'
200 400
ANCH OR A GE, ALASt< ...
STO:-;E .\' WEIISTEH
E:'-o'(;j:'-o'nWI:'-o'(; ('O I!I'OI!ATIO:-;
DENVER, COtOFUOO
I D~AWI"'Q
!\IUWBE .. ; 55 II 3 0 -M -10 of I 0
Figure 7.8
1
. ",'
:~. " .. -
1 . .-. 'f/ ~:, :. :.!~:
t · ;;~:T~: ~,;.'::. :~:~~;~:;~¢\~. <'/ ;r.r".
'~~\':?,.Y":""'·· .. ~*. -, ~"~:~.i ~'~~frJ2 :':~<;:'~!;~'-:
~~\~~~ .. "c:-" :;.... .. '~~'s' .' . _, •.•.. , .~.,;"I S<.
1
1
1
FOR LOCATION OF COVERAGE '
ON THIS SHEET, SEE FIGURE 7.7
SCALE: 1" = 200 '
, 00 200 400
ACCESS ROAD I TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENT
SHEET2
TAZIMINA RIVER HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
AN C H O R AGE , ALASt<A
5511 30 -M - 9 of 10
STO NE & Wlm STEI!
1,::W ;INEI ':H1N(; ('O JlI'O IlATION
OfN'iER , CO LO R A DO
Fig ure 7 .9
1
1
1
1
SHEET 4
FOR LOCATION OF COVERAGE
ON THIS SHEET, SEE FIGURE 7.7
SCALE: 1" = 200'
o 100 200 400
ACCESS ROAD / TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENT
SHEET 3
TAZIMINA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
~~'!~, S~ .. ~~,t;~:~ .. ~:~!._~~~;
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
DfIIAWINQ
NU ... f": 551130-M-50f 10
....... 0 FO.,&
STONy.; & WEnSTER
y.;NGINI':ERING conpOHATION
Dill ... """'0
H uw IE":
OfNYER, COLORADO
Figure 7.10
1
1
1
1
f
END OF COVERAGE
FOR LOCATION OF COVERAGE
ON THIS SHEET, SEE FIGURE 7.7
SCALE: 1" = 200'
a 100 200 400
ACCESS ROAD I TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENT
SHEET4
TAZIMINA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
",.,CHOAAGE, ALASK ...
551130· M -7of 10
~"E""'AED FOA :
STON~: &< WEOSTEIl
E:>I(; IN EEIlIN(; r.OHI'OflA TlON
DENVER, COLQRAOO
D""WItIllQ
HUW. f":
Figure 7.11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 8
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
8.1 GENERAL
The development of a small hydroelectric plant at Tazimina Falls will
involve an intake, penstock, and powerhouse immediately at the falls.
There is no forebay dam or structure for water storage. Water surface
elevations in the river will not be increased. Access to the site will be
by a new access road from the existing Newhalen-Nondalton Road. Power
generated at the plant will be transmitted to the existing
Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative (INNEC) system via a 24 kV
transmission line which will be buried beside the access road.
Meetings have been held with affected federal, state, and local agencies
and organizations to discuss concerns and potential impacts related to the
proposed project. These consultations have identified fishery resource
related impacts as the major issue concerning hydro development in the
1 area. Enhanced access to the uninhabited area of Alexcy Lake and Tazimina
Falls could alter natural resource use and affect recreational wilderness
experience. Yet, the way of life in surrounding communities should be
essentially unchanged. Existing sport and subsistence use of the area IS
fish and wildlife resources can continue. At the same time, customers of
INNEC will enjoy less expensive electrical energy production from hydro.
Thus, overall proj ect impact is expected to be minimal.
The Tazimina River drainage was previously investigated for environmental
considerations to support study of a regional Tazimina project for the 1982
Interim Feasibility Assessment (IFA). Dames &, Moore performed field work
which is documented in IFA Volume 4, Appendix G, Environmental Report.
1 Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Alaska Power Authority,
August 14, 1985.
Letter from Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game to Alaska Power Authority,
August 20, 1985.
8-1
As part of the present feasibility study, additional field work has been
performed in 1985 and 1986 to address site specific aquatic and
archeological issues. This additional field work is specifically discussed
in Sections 8.2 and 8.5, below. In general the following discussion of
project environmental issues is based on the details in the 1982 IFA as
supplemented by input from 1985/1986 field work.
If a FERC license application is prepared, this environmental assessment
will be the basis for development of Exhibit E, Environmental Report.
Exhibit E would include documentation of agency consultations in accordance
with regulatory requirements.
The scope of permit requirements for construction of the project is
indicated in Appendix I.
8.2 AQUATIC ECOLOGY
8.2.1 Fishery Resources
Four species of fish are found in the Tazimina River in the area of the
proposed hydro project. A discussion of habitat follows.
1. The Kvichak River drainage, of which the Tazimina River is
tributary, is the largest producer of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka) in the Bristol Bay Management Area. Sockeye spawning has
been documented in the Tazimina River upstream from the Newhalen
River confluence to Tazimina Falls. Sport, commercial, and
subsistence utilizations of sockeye comprise major roles in the
socioeconomic viability of Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton.
Impacts to the life cycle of the sockeye salmon and its habitat are
a most important factor in assessing hydro development.
2. Although not fished commercially, the Tazimina River population of
rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) supports guiding and sport fishing
opportunities. Access to these fish is gained by air transpor-
tation, riverboat travel from local villages, and float trips
8-2
on the Tazimina below the falls. Relatively large numbers of
rainbow trout exist in the I liamna watershed because they are not
overexploited. Although the designation of the Bristol Bay Wild
Trout zone has focused angler attention on these large resident
rainbows, area remoteness, inaccessibility, and management
considerations have limited sport harvesting. Terminal gear
restrictions, spawning fish protection, and catch and release
fishing promotions are actions instituted by the Alaska Board of
Fisheries to maintain vigorous rainbow populations. The rainbow
trout feed on all life stages of aquatic insects, small fish, and
salmon eggs. As rainbows follow spawning sockeye salmon, the
magnitude of the salmon runs may affect the juvenile rainbows
survivability and the adult rainbows winter condition. Any adverse
impact to sockeye salmon may contribute to the detriment of the
rainbow trout in the Tazimina drainage.
3. Characteristically found in clear water, Arctic grayling (Thymallus
arcticus) are common in the Tazimina River drainage. As such, they
are susceptible to man-made habitat changes such as pollution,
stream siltation, and abrupt variances in water temperature.
Additionally, their slow growth and ease of capture render these
populations susceptible to overharvesting which might occur with
increased accessibility to the area.
4. Char (Salvelinus spp.) occur throughout the Tazimina drainage, both
above and below the falls. Detailed migration and spawning
patterns have not been determined in this watershed. The economic
value of char in terms of subsistence and sport fishing is unknown.
8.2.2 Field Investigations
Dames & Moore made five field trips to the Tazimina River from late July to
mid-October in 1981 to support the regional effort for the Bristol Bay
IFA. The study area extended from the mouth of the river upstream to Upper
Tazimina Lake. This 1981 effort provided a general definition of fishery
habitat and resources in the river. Tazimina Falls is at River Mile (RM)
8-3
9.5 and the mouth of the canyon is downstream at RM 8.5.
The main 1981 study focus was from the mouth of the river to the mouth of
the canyon and was on sockeye salmon. The other study focus area in 1981
was from the vicinity of the USGS gage station to Upper Tazimina Lake and
was on resident fish. The river area from the mouth of the canyon (RM 8.5)
up to the USGS gage (RM 11.5) was not studied in any detail in 1981. Based
upon limited 1981 observations and personal communications from Pat Poe
(now with University of Alaska, Juneau), the canyon area below the fa1ls
(RM 9.5 to RM 8.5) is occupied seasona1ly by rainbow trout, grayling, and
char. In most years, relatively few adult sockeye salmon enter the canyon
area to spawn. In large escapement years, more individual sockeye adults
enter this area but this is sti1l a relatively sma1l part of the entire
run. A cascade at RM 9 is a partial barrier to upstream migration.
However, some sockeye adults have been seen all the way up to the base of
the main fa1ls (Poe, personal communications). Sockeye salmon eggs have
been seen in back eddies in the canyon during spawning, suggesting the
substrate and or density of spawners to available substrates results in
many eggs being lost. Visual observations of most of the river substrate
in the canyon indicates it is solid rock or large boulders with little
gravel. Small rainbow trout taken in the lower canyon suggest some
spawning may take place in that area. Solid rock substrate and high river
velocities in many areas of the canyon limit available fish habitat there.
In the spring of 1982 (May 22-24), Dames & Moore made a field investigation
to provide specific information about conditions immediately upstream of
the falls. Limited resident fish habitat, characterized by high velocities
and hard substrates, persisted over a distance at least 500 ft. above the
falls. Gillnet, electro-shocking, seining, and angling operations failed
to capture any fish. Some cottids were sighted. No grayling, rainbow
trout, or char were seen by foot or helicopter within the first mile above
the falls.
To supplement information on conditions at the immediate project area and
to assess low-flow habitat, Dames & Moore made field trips to the site on
July 1-7 and August 18-19, 1985. Findings are documented in their report
8-4
dated September 24, 1985 (see Appendix C). During these survey periods,
flow conditions were unusually high which frustrated efforts to sample in
the immediate vicinity of the falls. River flows ranged from 3,500 cfs to
4,100 cfs. Under the observed flow conditions, fish habitat is severely
limited within approximately 600 ft. of the top of the falls. However,
minnow trapping efforts within 300 ft. of the falls did demonstrate the
presence of cottids in both early July and late August, as well as the
presence of small char in late August.
ADF&G personnel conducted a fish habitat survey at the falls on May 14 and
15, 1986. The purpose was to assess rainbow trout spawning below the falls
and to determine the need to screen the intake above the falls. This
survey was timed to coincide with the peak period of rainbow trout spawning
in the river. Their findings are documented in a letter report to the
Power Authority dated June 25, 1986 (see Appendix D). Visual observations,
electrofishing, hook and line fishing, minnow traps, and gillnet were
used. Two char and five scu1pins were collected below the falls. Two char
were caught above the falls.
Surveys also addressed aquatic impacts of access road alignments. This was
investigated during the field trips in July/August 1985 and on May 13-16,
1986. Routes to the north and south of Alexcy Lake were evaluated. The
findings of the 1985 work are documented in Appendix C. The report for the
1986 work is in Appendix E.
8.2.3 Findings
Observations indicate that little if any successful spawning occurs in the
canyon near the falls (Appendix D). During construction and operation of
the hydro project measures will be implemented to mitigate impacts. These
will include adherence to Title 16 permit requirements and APA best
management practices for erosion and sediment control and handling fuel and
hazardous materials. Based on these considerations, the powerhouse and
tailrace should not have a negative impact upon spawning, rearing, or
migration of fish in the Tazimina River (Appendix D).
8-5
The May 1986 field work also addressed the need to screen the intake.
Information from this and other surveys indicate that low numbers of
resident grayling and char occur at the intake site (Appendix D).
Furthermore, the project design does not alter the stream in a manner that
would attract fish to the intake site. Therefore, provisions are for a
stationary screen with a mesh size of 0.25 inch to exclude fish from
entering the system. These screens will be used if required by final
agency resolution of this issue. If used, the stationary screen would be
removed in winter.
The Alexcy Lake system with its associated inlet and outlet streams is used
by sockeye salmon spawners. It constitutes the second largest drainage,
after the Tazimina River, tributary to the Newhalen River downstream of
Sixmile Lake. Access road alignments south of Alexcy Lake cross
significant tributaries feeding the lake. Field observations indicate the
presence of sockeye salmon, char, and cottids. The chosen alignment of the
road north of Alexcy Lake does not cross any streams or ponds. This avoids
any direct impact on fish habitat. The only sensitive consideration is
proximity to Alexcy Lake. This will be mitigated by control of erosion and
runoff.
The construction of the access road to the project site will improve human
access to the area. This will result in increased fishing pressure on
resources in the lower Tazimina River, Alexcy Lake area, and Tazimina Lakes
region. This is perhaps the greatest impact of the project. Access might
be controlled by gating the road.
8.3 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
The access road/transmission line corridor is the major consideration for
terrestrial impacts. The transmission line is routed immediately adjacent
to the access road in the same 6.7 mile-long corridor. Terrestrial habitat
along the road varies from open low scrub and lichen communities to a
sparse, white spruce woodland (cover 10-25 percent). Essentially, the area
is interspersed by short, stunted white spruce which appear to be dominant
8-6
but overall cover is generally less than 10 percent. This vegetation type
extends over most of well drained upland areas adjacent to the Tazimina
River and extending to the project site. The access road/transmission line
corridor will require the clearing of approximately 50 acres.
Wildlife in the project area include brown bear, moose, fox, beaver and
caribou. Wetlands and riparian areas south and east of Alexcy Lake provide
important habitat. Moose and brown bear attract many resident and
non-resident hunters. Because of relatively easy access from the
communities of Iliamna, Newhalen, Port Alsworth, and Nondalton, moose in
the area are a highly prized subsistence resource. Brown bear is
relatively common in the area.
The transmission line will be buried to avoid raptor impact. The location
of the access road avoids wildlife habitat areas south and east of Alexcy
Lake. The primary impact on wild life may be increased hunting pressure
resulting from improved access to the area if allowed by land owners.
8.4 WATER USE AND QUALITY
The project area of the Tazimina River drainage is uninhabited and no water
alteration to natural watershed characteristics has occurred. The primary
use of the Tazimina River is related to fish resources. Recreational
fishing occurs during the open water months with heaviest use on the lower
Tazimina River and lighter use of the upstream lake area. Subsistence
fishing by residents of the Sixmile Lake area also concentrates on the
lower river. The substantial run of sockeye salmon contributes to sport,
subsistence, and commercial fisheries that occur downstream and in Bristol
Bay.
The water quality in the Tazimina River is pristine, and is
characteristically clear, highly oxygenated, very soft, and low in
alkalinity. Mineralization is low and nutrient concentrations are low to
moderate. The project is not expected to have any adverse impact on water
quality except during construction when soil erosion and sedimentation is
8-7
possible. These construction related impacts will be mitigated by
management practices as discussed in Section 8.2.3. Furthermore, it is
anticipated that in-stream work at the intake area will be within
containments (dikes, cofferdams) which will mitigate sedimentation effects
and maintain local streambed stability.
River flows will not be altered except immediately at the falls.
Generating flows will be diverted through the shoreline intake above the
falls and discharged back into the canyon at the base of the falls.
Discharge over the falls could be greatly reduced during the low flow
months of January through April. At times the diversion could nearly equal
total streamflow and essentially dry up the falls.
8.5 HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Previous work relating to historical and archeological resources was
conducted in the Tazimina River-Tazimina Lakes area in 1981 in conjunction
with studies for a regional hydroelectric project. A literature search and
preliminary field reconnaissance of the area were done. The results of
these efforts are documented in the Interim Feasibility Assessment, July
1982, Appendix G -Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Environmental Report,
Section 5.0 Historic and Archeological Resources. The following
discussion summarizes the findings therein. The literature search revealed
that there are no previous ly known cultural resources in the area. A
surface survey was conducted at two previously considered powerhouse sites
on the Tazimina River in T. 3S, R. 32W, Section 26, approximately one mile
downstream from the presently proposed powerhouse location. No evidence of
cultural resources was found at either site. An aerial reconnaissance of
the shoreline around Lower Tazimina Lake was also completed. Discoveries
were limited to two recent campsites. Surface inspection of these
campsites indicated that neither appeared archeologica1ly significant.
A more site specific archeological survey of the project area was done on
May 14 and 15, 1986 by Cultural Resource Consultants. Their findings are
documented in a report dated May 21, 1986 (see Appendix F). The only
cultural remains located during the survey were a fragment of a microb1ade
8-8
core and a retouched flake. Both were found exposed on the surface along
the edge of the river terrace northeast of Alexcy Lake on the access road
alignment. The river terrace above the Tazimina, especially the section of
the terrace which separates the northeast corner of Alexcy Lake and the
river valley, has a very high archeological potential. The project site at
the falls has no archeological potential. Prior to construction, the river
terrace area will be further surveyed and tested. This is not expected to
be a significant impact on project feasibility since minor adjustments to
access road alignment should avoid any sites. It is anticipated that there
are no extremely large sites along the terrace edge.
8.6 AESTHETIC RESOURCES
Facilities at the falls would constitute an intrusion into an otherwise
undisturbed area of special scenic values. People come into the area to
observe the falls and canyon. The intake structure will be set back into
the terrace along the left bank looking downstream. The powerhouse
building will be on the left bank immediately adjacent to the falls.
Within the canyon, the tailrace outlet will be visible. These features are
of a size and jor layout which affords relatively minimal visual impact
compared to the scale of natural features at the canyon setting.
Project features will present intrusion when viewed from the air. This is
especially true of the access road. It will be visible to sports persons
flying into the area and it will degrade the wilderness experience. The
intrusion of transmission line structures is avoided by burial of the cable.
8-9
SECTION 9
PROJECT COSTS
9.1 INPUT AND ASSUMPTIONS
Quantities are developed from layouts for each hydroelectric alternative.
Site-specific unit costs were applied to estimate direct costs. The
estimates include costs for turbine-generator equipment from written
budgetary quotes from manufacturers. Each estimate includes allowance for
indeterminates (AFI) at 10 percent of direct costs. Also included are the
indirect costs of engineering and design, construction management, and
interest during construction (IDC). The construction period is assumed to
be May 1989 to December 1990 (see Section 11, Project Schedule). The
allowance for IDC is $500,000 which might not be appropriate if the work is
undertaken by the Power Authority. Mobilization/demobilization is
estimated to be $400,000. Cost of land is not included in the estimates.
9.2 RESULTS
The total estimated capital cost of each hydroelectric alternative is given
below.
Alternative
1
3
2
4
5
Description
Well Scheme
Underground PH with vertical shaft
Canyon PH with access down canyon wall
Canyon PH with vertical shaft
D/S Canyon PH with vertical shaft
Total Estimated
Capital Cost*
(SOOO)
7,400
7,900
8,500
8,900
10,200
*Includes AFI and indirects (engineering/design, construction management,
and IDC).
Civil costs are a significant majority of the direct costs for any hydro
scheme at Tazimina Falls. Major items are cut and cover of the penstock at
relatively large depth and construction of 6.7 miles of access road.
9-1
Although penstock lengths vary, these two items are common to all
al ternatives. Differences are seen in varying powerhouse locations and
arrangements. Alternative 1 has the lowest cost because drilled shafts for
the TKW units replace powerhouse construction. Furthermore, this concept
allows the "powerhouse" to be located adjacent to the falls. This
significantly reduces penstock length. Alternative 3 is $500,000 more than
the well scheme. As for Alternative 1, the powerhouse location adjacent to
the falls significantly reduces penstock length compared to Alternatives 2,
4, and 5. Alternative 3 incurs the increased expense of underground
excavation for the powerhouse and the vertical shaft. The unique cost item
for Alternative 2 is rock excavation and rock bolting on the canyon wall.
Alternative 4 has a higher total cost due to the vertical shaft and
horizontal tunnel to the powerhouse. Alternative 5 has the highest
estimated cost because of penstock costs to the furthest downstream
powerhouse site.
The breakdown of the cost estimates by FERC line items is given for
Alternatives 1 through 5 in Table 9.1. For the preferred scheme
(AI ternative 1), additional details, including quantities and unit costs,
used in developing the estimate are given in Appendix G.
9-2
TABLE 9.1
COST ESTIMATES FOR HYDRO ALTERNATIVES
fERC
ACCT DESf.;RIPTIQN ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVE 5
330 L and and Land Rights (Not included) (Not included) (Not included) (Not included) (Not included)
331 Powerplant $659 $1,450 $1,248 $1.963 $2,358
332 waterways 1,443 1.233 1,987 1,668 2,398
333 Turbines and Generators 556 412 412 412 412
334 Accessory Electrical Equipment 300 300 300 300 300
335 Hi sce 11 aneous Power Plant Equipment 115 115 115 115 115
336 Roads 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
352/353 Substation and Switching Station 50 50 50 50 50
354 Transmission 500 500 500 500 500
Mobilization and Demobilization ~ ~ ~ 400 400
5,523 5,960 6,512 6,908 8,033
Allowance for Indeterminates ~ -.MQ ~ -----.ill -----'lliZ
Direct Cost $6,100 $6,600 $7,200 $7,600 $8,900
Engineering and Design 500 500 500 500 500
Construction Management 300 300 300 300 300
Interest During Construction ( a 11 owance ) --lli ~ ~ ~ -.ill
Total Cost $7,400 $7,900 $8.500 $8,900 $10.200
1779R
SECTION 10
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
10.1 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
10.1.1 Installed Hydro Capacity
The purpose of the economic evaluation is to identify the optimum installed
hydro capacity and to analyze the economic feasibility of the chosen hydro
scheme. In order to compare the economic rating of hydro project schemes,
a consistent, systematic evaluation method is used. The present worth of
all costs and differential benefits associated with each scheme is the
basis for economic comparisons. The schemes are compared with each other
in terms of their ability to supply power at the lowest total cost by
comparing present worth. The scheme with the lowest total present worth
cost is the least costly alternative on a life-cycle basis and is the
preferred hydro installation. By evaluating different schemes of varying
unit size and number, installed hydro capacity is selected for Alternatives
1 and 3.
10.1.2 Economic Feasibility
To analyze hydro economic feasibility, the preferred hydro scheme is
compared to the diesel base case on a total present worth cost basis. The
base case is the continuation of diesel power generation. Additional
diesel capacity as required on the basis of load and energy demand forecast
is installed at intervals through the study. Comparison is by present
worth ratio (PWR). Present worth ratio is obtained by dividing the present
worth of the hydro scheme into the present worth for the diesel base case.
A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates the amount by which the diesel case
present worth cost exceeds the present worth cost of hydro. Ratios less
than 1.0 indicate the savings in diesel case present worth compared to
hydro.
Present worth ratios are affected by variations in input parameters. The
10-1
sensitivity of PWR is analyzed with respect to these variations using "low"
and/or "high" values of input parameters. The low and high values are
defined by the Power Authority for this study.
10.2 INPUT AND ASSUMPTIONS
The base year for the economic analyses is 1986 with a 55-year analysis
period. The length of the analysis period results from the assumed initial
operation of the hydro plant in 1991 which, when combined with a 50-year
hydroelectric lifetime, extends the analysis from the base year of 1986
through the year 2040.
In accordance with APA I S procedures for economic analyses, inflation is
assumed to be zero. All costs and present worths are expressed in terms of
1986 dollars. A discount rate of 3.5 percent is used to calculate the
present worth of annual costs.
The economic parameters used in all analyses to calculate present worth
costs are given in Table 10.1. This includes sensitivity values for
parameters. Also, in Table 10.1 is the definition of economic lifetimes
for equipment. It is assumed that any equipment items that reach the end
of their economic lifetimes during the period of analysis are replaced with
identical units. Thus, the initial capital cost of a given equipment item
is incurred at the completion of each lifetime cycle and reflected as
appropriate replaced capacity. Salvage values consider credit for capital
costs of equipment whose economic lifetime is not completed at the end of
the study period.
Diesel generation is part of any hydro alternative and the base case. When
considering hydro development, diesel generation is needed as backup. The
economic lifetime of reserve diesel generators is assumed to be 30 years.
For the base case, diesel is the single source of generation and the
economic lifetime is 20 years. The basis for determining the necessary
system installed capacity, whether hydro /diesel mix or all diesel, is to
meet the annual peak demand with the largest unit out of service. The
existing installed diesel capacity of the INNEC system is 990kW, consisting
10-2
of three units at 330 kW each. On the above basis, diesel capacity
requirements and timing of equipment replacements are defined for each
different load forecast for the 55-year period of the economic analysis.
This a110ws proper evaluation of capital cost expenditures for replacement
diesel equipment in the present worth analyses. Diesel replacement
schedules and installed capacity are tabulated for hydro Alternative 1 and
the base case in Tables 10.2 and 10.3, respectively.
Diesel fuel base cost is based on actual 1986 prices and is escalated
accordingly to reflect changing fuel prices through the economic study
period. The fuel price is applied to fuel usage based on diesel generation
to give annual fuel costs. The 1986 cost of purchasing bulk diesel fuel at
Naknek is $0.82 per ga11on. Transportation costs to Newhalen are about
$0.28 per gallon. The resulting base price of fuel used in this study is
$1.10 per gallon. Diesel fuel escalation, as defined by the Power
Authority, is 2.8 percent per year from 1987 through 2005. This results in
a fuel price in 2005 of $1. 86 per ga11on. It is assumed that fuel costs
remain constant with no further price escalation in the remaining years of
the economic analysis.
Other assumptions used in present worth analyses are given below.
1. Diesel fuel usage is calculated using a fuel rate of about 12
Kwh/ ga11on.
2. The installed cost of diesel equipment is $800 per kW.
3. Costs developed in this study represent bus bar costs and do not
include all costs that would comprise the true consumer cost. For
example, cost allowances are not made for administration, taxes,
depreciation, insurance, etc. The present worth of consumer costs
would be significantly higher than the present worth of bus bar
costs determined in this study. However, the inclusion of the
additional consumer costs would not affect comparison of
alternatives since the cost would be common to all cases.
10-3
10.3 RESULTS
10.3.1 Preferred Scheme
Alternatives 1 and 3 were evaluated in present worth analyses to determine
hydro installed capacity. These alternatives have the two lowest capital
costs. Alternative 1 has the unique TKW vertical turbine-generator units.
Alternative 3 represents the more conventional powerhouse arrangement of
the other alternatives. Economic evaluation shows that the total present
worth of Alternatives 1 and 3 is at a minimum in the range of 600 to 800 kW
installed capacity. Furthermore, in this range present worth costs are
insensitive to unit size variations. Present worth varies by about one
percent. Therefore, it is appropriate to use an installed hydro capacity
of 700 kW. This installed capacity is provided by two TKW units at 350 kW
each for Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 through 5 have one 700 kW cross
flow unit.
The present worth comparison of Alternatives 1 and 3 is given below. These
results are based on design basis ("medium") parameters including a
discount rate of 3.5 percent and diesel fuel escalation of 2.8 percent
between 1987 and 2005.
Hydro
Present Worth
Cost
Alternative ($000)
No. 1 -Well Scheme with
2 TKW units @ 350 kW (700 kW) 11,181
No.3 -Underground powerhouse
1 crossflow @ 700 kW 11,768
*PWR = Base Case Present Worth
Alternative Present Worth
10-4
Diesel
Base Present
Present Worth
Worth Cost Ratio*
($000) (PWR)
12,510 1.12
12,510 1.06
Alternative 1 is the preferred hydro scheme because it has the lower total
present worth cost. Furthermore, the PWR of 1.12 shows that the hydro
scheme is economically attractive in comparison to diesel generation.
Hydro Alternatives 1 and 3 are significantly different concepts, yet the
evaluated cost of Alternative 3 is about the same as for Alternative 1.
Both alternatives could be considered in more detail during project
design.
A sample computer worksheet showing the calculation of present worth for
Alternative 1 is in Appendix H. This worksheet is representative of the
detailed input and timing of costs which are the basis for present worth
analysis.
Figures 10.1 and 10.2 show the break down of total present worth cost into
the categories of capital, 0 & M, and fuel costs. These figures illustrate
the weight of capital costs in the hydro scheme. Conversely, the major
factor in the base case is diesel fuel.
Figure 10.3 shows cumulative present worth versus time for hydro and
diesel. This illustrates relative rate of expenditures through the analysis
period.
10.3.2 Sensitivity Cases
The results of sensitivity cases for Alternative 1 are given below. This
includes analysis of a 1000 kW hydro development to meet the high load
growth forecast. The installed capacity of two TKW units at 500 kW each is
defined on the basis of lowest total present worth cost.
Parameter Variation
Hydro Alternative 1
Present Worth Cost
(SOOO)
2 TKW Units at 350 kW (700 kW)
Low Load Growth (1.5%)
High Load Growth (with
Keyes Point)
10,800
13,491
10-5
Diesel Base
Present Worth Cost
(SOOO)
10,283
18,300
Present
Worth Ratio
(PWR)
0.95
1.36
Parameter Variation
Hydro Alternative 1
Present Worth Cost
($000)
2 TKW Units at 350 kW (700 kW)
Zero Fuel Escalation 10,963
High Discount Rate (4.5%) 10,154
2 TKW Units at 500 kW (1000 kW)
High Load Growth (with Keyes 13,059
Point)
Medium Load Growth Sensitivity
(3.0%) 11,866
Diesel Base
Present Worth Cost
($000)
9,498
10,085
18,300
12,510
Present
Worth Ratio
(PWR)
0.87
0.99
1.40
1.05
This shows that the 700 kW hydro scheme has an advantage over diesel for
high load growth when the benefit of additional hydro generation is
realized. For variation in other parameters, diesel generation is less
costly. The 1,000 KW hydro development shows a slight advantage with a PWR
of 1.05. It has a substantial advantage over the diesel base case in
meeting high load growth requirements. Figure 10.4 shows change in PWR
with load growth.
Figures 10.5 through 10.10 show cumulative present worth versus time for
variation in a given parameter for hydro and diesel. They illustrate how
parameters vary the growth of present worth through the analysis period to
give the total present worth costs which define PWR's.
Results of the economic evaluation are sensitive to diesel fuel cost. The
1986 cost of fuel is relatively low compared to recent years. Using the
current fuel cost of $1.10 per gallon, the hydroelectric development has
some economic advantage ,over the base case. As shown in Figures 10.11 and
10.12, future change in diesel fuel prices could bring a more favorable
advantage to development of the hydroelectric project.
10-6
TABLE 10.1
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND INPUT
1. Base year: 1986
2. Planning period, load growth:
diesel fuel escalation:
20 years, 1986-2005
20 years, 1986-2005
3. Load growth rate: 3 percent/year (Sensitivity: "low growth" at 1. 5
percent/year and "high growth" with Keyes Point)
4. Diesel fuel escalation rate:
next 19 years (Sensitivity:
o percent for 1986, 2.8 percent/year for
o percent for 20 years)
5. Economic analysis period: 55 years, 1986-2040
6. Inflation rate: 0 percent (all costs expressed in 1986 dollars)
7. Real discount rate: 3.5 percent (Sensitivity: 4.5 percent)
8. Diesel fuel base cost (1986): $1.10/gal.
9. Economic lifetimes for major equipment
Diesel generators
Primary units:
Reserve units:
Hydroelectric:
Transmission line:
20 years
30 years
50 years
30 years
10. Initial installed diesel capacity: 3 x 330 = 990 kW
11. Diesel fuel consumption: 0.0836 gal./kWh
12. Diesel installed cost: $800/kW
13. Diesel O&M cost:
Primary operation: $60,000 + $0.0175/kWh
Reserve operation: $0.0175/kWh, but not less than $20,OOO/year
14. Hydroelectric O&M cost: $60,000 + $0.015/kWh, except first year add
$75,000 for initial manned operation
15. Hydroelectric startup date: 1991
10-7
TABLE 10.2
DIESEL REPLACEMENT/CAPACITY SCHEDULE
Backup for Hydro Alternative 1
LOAD
GROWTH ADDED REPLACED INSTALLED
FORECAST* YEAR CAPACITY, kW CAPACITY, kW CAPACITY, kW
Low 1986 990
2006 -660 330 330
2036 330 330
Medium 1986 990
2006 -490 500 500
2036 500 500
High 1986 990
2006 990 990
2036 990 990
* Load growth forecasts are defined in Section 3.2.
10-8
TABLE 10.3
DIESEL REPLACEMENT/CAPACITY SCHEDULE
Base Case
LOAD
GRO\l;'TH ADDED REPLACED INSTALLED
FORECAST* YEAR CAPACITY, kW CAPACITY, kW CAPACITY, kW
Low 1986 990
2001 990 990
2021 990 990
Medium 1986 990
1999 150 1140
2001 990 1140
2019 150 1140
2021 990 1140
2039 150 1140
High 1986 990
1990 330 1320
1995 240 1560
2001 990 1560
2010 330 1560
2015 240 1560
2021 990 1560
2030 330 1560
2035 240 1560
* Load growth forecasts are defined in Section 3.2
10-9
Capital Cost (60.6%)
TAZIMINA RIV R HYDRO: MEDIUM
% OF TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
O&M Cost (27.5%)
Figure 10.1
-BAC" MEDIUM 'ESEL 0.
0, WORTH) TOT AL PRESENT 'tal Cost (6.4% 'Z OF -COPI .0
Cost (20.9%) O&M
Figure 10.2
COMPARI Of',~ OF :v1EDIUM C/\
13 -
12 -
r-, 1 1 0
0
0 10 .
0
0
0 9 ~
"-"
I 8 I-
0::: a
~ 7
I-
Z
lU 6 -
Ul
W
0:: 5 n..
w
> 4 i=
:5
::J 3 -::z
::J
0 2
o -~I--------~--------~--------~----
o 20 40 60
YEAR NUMBER (PERiOD 1986-2040)
<> DIESEL BASE X TAZIMINA HYDRO
Figure 10.3
o
l-
<:(
et::
I
l-
et:: o
3';:
!-
Z
IJJ
ttl
W
et::
0...
ROVv'TH
1.4 .----.-----.---------------.--.-.-~.---
1.3
1.2
1.1
--"-'.--_._._ .... _--_. -.----.-------
0.9
0.8 ----------------------,--_._--_. __ ._-----_.
LOW MEDIUM H!GH
LOAD GROWTH
Figure 10.4
TAZI~v1INA RIVER tlY[)r~O
VARIATION IN DrSCOUNT RATE
12 ---------.
11
""' 0 10
0
0 .
0 9 0
0
#t
'-/ 8
I
I-
0:: 7 0
3:
I-6 -z w
UJ w 5 0:: n..
w 4 > ~ ~ 3
::J
:2
::J 2 u
o ~--------~--------~---------~--------~--------~---------~
o 20 40 60
YEAR NUMBER (PERIOD 1986-2040)
HIGH DISCOUNT RATE X MEDIUM
Figure 10.5
"""' o o o
o o o
~
'-/
I
I-
[t: o
3:
I-
Z
W
(f)
W
[t:
n..
w > ~
::J
:2
::J o
T,L~ 1f\~IN.A RIVER HYDRO
VARIATION IN LOAD GROWTH
14 ,---------,-----------,----------------------
13
12
11 -
10
9
8-
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
o 4--------~----------~--------~-----~--------~--------~
o 20 40 60
YEAR NUMBER (PERIOD 1986--2040)
LOW LOAD L\ HIGH LOAD X MEDIUM LOAD
Figure 10.6
r--.
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
~
'-"
I
l-n::: a
~
I-z w
(I) w
n:::
!L
w
> i=
5
:J
~
:J
0
l-AZIMINA IVER HYDRO
VARIATION IN FUEL ESCALAT!ON
12 ----------------------------------------~----------------------
11
10
9
8
7
6 -
5
4
3 --
2
o ~--------~------------~--------~----------~--------~--------_4
o 20 40
YEAR NUMBER (PERIOD 1986-2040)
LOW FUEL ESCALATION
60
x tv1EDIUM
Figure 10.7
"......
0
0
0 -0
0
0
#}
'-/
I
I-
0:::
0
5
I-
Z w
U1
W
0::: a..
w >
i=
3
:J
L
:J
U
DI SEL B/\S
VARIATION IN DISCOUNT RATE
13
12
1 1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
o ~----------~----------~----------~----------~--------~----------~
o
<>
20
YEAR NUM
HIGH DISCOUNT RATE
40
(PERIOD 1986-2040)
60
x MEDIUM
Figure 10.8
Ul SEL BASE
VARiATION IN LOAD GROWTH
1 9
18
17
,..,.. 16 a a a 15 --a 14 a a
*" 13 '--/
I 1 2 ~-
n::: 1 1 0
S: 10
f-
Z 9 w
(Il
8 w
n:::
(L 7
w
6 > i=
S 5
::J 4 2
::J 3 u
2
o ~~--------~---------~----------~----------~-----------~---------4
o 20 40 60
YEAR NUMB (PERiOD 1986-2040)
<> LOW LOAD 6. HIGH LOAD -x MEDIUM LOAD
Figure 10.9
0-I E c' F· L B A C' E
-~ ----,--) ...
VARIATION IN FUEL ESCAl.ATlON
13
12
" 1 1 0
0
0 10 .
0
0
0 9 ~
'-./
I 8 l-
n:::
0
S 7
I-
Z w 6
(f)
w
n::: 5 [L
w > 4 -i=
:5
:::J 3 -
:2
:::J
U 2
o -+---------~----------~--------~----------.---------~~--------~
o 20 40 60
YEAR NUMBER (PERIOD 1986--2040)
<) LOW FUEL ESCALATION X MEDIUM
Figure 10.10
.... c
II)
I/)
II)
l. n.
M DIUM LOAD GROWTH C/\S
Diesel Base vs. TKW Scheme-2 @ 350 kW
1.5 ,--------------.-----
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9 ~---~------~------... ~---_r.---~---~-------~----~
80 100 120 140 160
Initial Fuel Cost (Cents/Gal)
Figure 10.11
HIGH GROW-rH CASE
Diesel vs. TKW Scheme-2 @ 500 kW
1.8
1.7
1.6 -
1.5
0 / :;::; 1.4 (]
r:t:
...c 1.3 t
0
S: .... 1.2 c
11)
Ul
11) 1.1 L n.
0.9
/
0.8
0.7 -+------....-------,,.-----.----.--.---.-----.-------r-----r-.. -----.-----,-----.-------i
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Initial Fuel Cost (Cents/Gal)
Figure 10.12
SECTION 11
PROJECT SCHEDULE
A project schedule has been formulated for the principal project activities
of licensing, design, construction, and turbine -generator equipment. It
is shown on Figure 11.1. The project on-line date is December 31, 1990.
The schedule allows 15 months for the FERC process from submittal of the
license application to issuance of the license. The construction effort
starts in May 1989. It is anticipated that work through the 1989/1990
winter season would be minimal or entirely suspended. Award of the
turbine-generator contract is scheduled to support project design in a
timely manner.
11-1
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
LICENSING
DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
TURBINE GENERATOR
EQUIPMENT
FINANCE PlAN DEVELOPMENT
I
APAISTATEREVIEW
I
DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION
I
2nd STAGE OF AGENCY CONSULTATION
I
FINALIZE LICENSE APPLICATION
I
FERC PROCESS
FERC
LICENSE
ISSUED
START CONSTRUCTION
I
~ __ -+ __ ~~-. __ ~ ______ .-CONS~U~~-. ______ ST~ARTU~~P
I
I
I BIOI I
J TIG AWARD
.tSPEC. TIG , FABRICATE, DELIVER, INSTAll TIG -----..... -------01---......;--------.
Figure 11.1
PROJECT SCHEDULE
REV. FEBRUARY 1987
PlANT
OPERATION
SECTION 12
CONCLUSIONS
This feasibility study evaluates the technical, environmental, and economic
aspects of the run-of-river Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project. The
following conclusions are derived from the work effort.
1. Annual "medium" energy requirements for INNEC are forecast at 1834 MWh
in 1986 and increasing to 3216 MWh in 2005. This excludes the
potential development at Keyes Point. Including Keyes Point, the
forecast increases to 4900 MWh in 2005.
2. Tazimina River summer flows substantially exceed the foreseeable energy
requirements of the INNEC system. Flows peak in July and August with a
monthly average discharge of nearly 2100 cfs, while project
requirements are only about 100 cfs. River flows are significantly
reduced from November through May. These months are critical for
appropriate definition of hydro generation capability.
3. The power study indicates that optimum plant capacity for the "medium ll
growth scenario is 700 kW. For "high" growth projection including
Keyes Point the plant capacity is increased to 1000 kW.
4. The Tazimina Falls site is technically suitable for several project
arrangements. However due to the steep topography and the ruggedness
of the canyon, relatively costly civil works are required to construct
the hydro project. The preferred and most economical arrangement uses
a vertical turbine/generator with lineshaft assembly in a drilled hole
on the left bank adjacent to the falls. All feasible alternatives
employ a shoreline intake approximately 250 ft upstream of the falls, a
relatively short penstock of varying length to the turbine, and a
tailrace just downstream of the falls.
5. The environmental assessment which considered aquatic,
archeological, water use, and aesthetic factors found no
12-1
terrestrial,
impacts from
the project . that would preclude its development. Although initial
consultation has occurred with State and Federal regulatory agencies,
review of this study and further consultation with appropriate agencies
will be required if a FERC license application is to be prepared.
Further archeological investigations along the access road alignment
will be required prior to or during construction.
6. The preferred project arrangement is estimated to cost $7.4 million
including allowance for indeterminates, engineering and design,
construction management, and interest during construction. Cost of
land is not included in the estimate.
7. The discounted cash flow economic analysis shows that on the basis of
total life cycle present worth costs, using the Alaska Power
Authority's 1986 economic criteria, the Tazimina River Hydroelectric
Project is about 12 percent less costly than continuing with diesel
generation for the "medium" load growth case. For the tthigh" load
growth case with Keyes Point included, the project is 36 percent less
costly than diesel. On the other hand, for "low" load growth
projections and low diesel fuel escalation, diesel generation is less
costly.
8. The economic analyses are sensitive to diesel fuel cost. The 1986 cost
of fuel is relatively low compared to recent years. Future change in
fuel prices could bring a more favorable advantage to development of
the hydro project.
In summary, the Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project is found to be
technically and environmentally feasible. It is also economically feasible
based on "medium" criteria. However, its economic feasibility is sensitive
to assumptions regarding future load growth in the area and future cost of
diesel fuel.
5349f, 5525f
APPENDIX A
TAZIMINA RIVER FLOW RECORDS
SOIJ'l'l:llES'l' AI..\SU
15299'00 TAZIHlKl lIVER ~ ROR~R
LOCA%lOM.--Lac ,,-,,'05*, lon, 1'4-34'34*, 1n S~ lec.la, T.3 S., 1.31 V., a,drololic Unit 19040002, on laft ~
at 1 .. 11 lab _c.let, 2.1 iii (3.4 Jr.a) ,.ICZ'._ of lar .. _udall. 7.5 111 <12.1 n) loat.beuC of Honc:l.alt:.oa. &rid.
14.3 iii (%3.3 ka) nor:bealt of Il1iamDa.
DIlAlKAct A.lE.A.--l%7 =1 (147 ltal),
Pt1l.IOO Of' HCOID. --Jt.Ule to Septembu 1981.
GAct,--~ater-It&le recorder, Altitude of sa.e il 610 ft (la6 m), from taporraphic -.p.
lEHAItS.--aecorda lCod.
EXTREMES rei CCl~ TtAl.--Kazimua dilchar,e, 3,260 ft'/I (92.3 aJ/I) AUS. 3, la.e belshe. 3.93 ft (1.19' a)l
minimum. during period Jun_ to September. 577 ft~/. (16.3 a'/I) Sept. 30, sa .. helcbt. 1.61 ft (0 •• 91 a), a
dilcharle of 224 ftl'l (6.34 _l/I> vee ... .ur.d on Apr. •• .
OISCRAltct, Itf CUBIC FE!:T PEl. SECOND. JllNE TO SUT!KIEI ( 198"1)
HEA1I V AJ..UES
DAY ROV O£C JAN FD MAl A1'1l HAt J1lR JIll. AUG $'a
1 30'0 2050 1%10
2 2930 2690 1240
3 2740 3180 1200
4 2'70 3190 1200
3 2400 30%0 1110
b 2290 2810 1150
7 2240 2620 1110
8 ,t224 2190 2430 1070
9 2240 2350 1040
10 2460 2.390 1020
11 2840 2.380 982
!2 3000 2460 9511
13 2980 2560 9S0
14 2820 2800 8'94
l!I 2840 3080 146
!6 3000 3020 809
17 2990 2840 781
18 2170 2880 26110 767
19 2.310 2800 2470 746
20 25%0 2690 2.330 7!53
:ll 2740 2590 2170 767
22 2860 2460 2000 739
23 12'5 2780 2380 1820 711
24 2690 2360 1700 711
25 2620 2400 1620 704
26 2S30 2400 1570 690
27 2460 2320 1530 684
.L8 2.390 2190 1300 678
29 2380 2130 1450 660
30 2800 2080 1390 642
31 1980 1350
TOTAl. 79240 71430 26962
MI.AN 2556 230.5 899
HAX 30.50 3190 1280
KIN 1980 13.50 642 erSt'! 7. S2 7.05 2.75
IH. 9.01 S.13 3.07
AC-" 157200 141700 534.40
.; "1\llt of dilch.rl_ ... .ur ... nt.
SOUTHWEST ALASItA 111
1.529,'00 '1'AZIMIIU. IttVER NUR MOI'lDALTOR
'OCATION.--Lat 59·55'05", lon, 154"34'34", in SE%NE%
-.lC s_l1 lake outl.e, 2.1 1Ili (3.4 1m) upau'e_ of
sec.18, '1'.3 5., 1.31 V., Hydrolo,ic Unit 19040002, on left bank
large ~terfa11. 7.5 mi (12.1 1m) southeaat of Nondalton, and
14.5 mi (23.3 K1Il) DOrtheaat of 111iaana.
DRAIHACE AREA.--327 til (847 laal).
WATER-DISCHARGE RECOIDS
PEItIOD Of .s,tCOILD --June 1'81 to curreat ftar.
GACE,--Watsr-stage recordar. Altitude of gage
datum 3.00 ft (0.914 .) hi&ber.
ia 610 ft (186 .), fro. topo,r.phic .. p. Prior to Oct. 1. 1981 at
REMARKS.--Recorda good ezeept those for Oct. 30 to Kar. 26, ~lch are poor.
EXTR£KES FOR P!RIOD OF IltCOao.--Kaximua di.char,e, 4,950 ft'/. (140.'1.) Sept. 17, 1982, ,.,e-height, 7.92 ft
(2.414.), minimum, 140 ft)/. (3.96.'/.) Apr. 20-22, 1982, but "1 have beao le.e durin, period of ice effect.
EXTREKES fOR CURRtHT TEAR.--K&xi1Ilua diachar!e, 4.950 ft'/a (140 .'/s) Sept. 17, ,a,e height. 7.92 ft (2.414 .1I
min~. 140 ft'/s (3.96 .'/.) Apr. 20-2 , but "1 have been lea. during period of ice effect.
DISCHARCI:. Uf CUUC·FEET nit SECOND, VATER lU.It 'OCTOB!R 1911 TO SEP'1'!KBI!:lI.(1912)
H!AK VALUU
DAY OCT NOV DU; JAN FEB HAlt APR KAY JUN JlJl. AUe SEP
1 624 880 470 260 330 200 175 180 10'90 2540 2380 1240
2 594 840 450 260 350 200 175 179 1240 2300 2200 1280
3 588 810 440 260 360 200 175 180 1390 2100 2030 1270
4 582 800 420 260 370 200 175 182 1500 1910 1860 1230
5 570 800 410 260 370 200 165 189 1710 1740 1720 1300
6 546 790 400 250 370 190 165 211 2620 1630 1600 1730
7 522 780 390 250 360 190 165 242 3160 1550 1510 2160
8 500 760 380 250 350 190 165 275 2880 1630 1440 2350
9 485 740 380 250 350 190 165 358 2720 1730 1370 2410
10 465 720 350 250 330 190 155 415 2720 1780 1320 2380
11 500 700 350 250 320 190 155 420 2790 1820 1460 2280
12 546 680 350 250 300 190 154 425 2730 1870 1540 2160
13 564 660 350 250 290 190 152 410 2580 1840 1530 2210
14 564 630 350 250 280 190 150 410 2350 1780 1490 2180
15 570 610 350 250 260 190 148 420 2150 1710 1480 2370
16 606 590 320 250 250 185 146 435 1980 1700 1460 3760
17 636 570 320 250 240 185 146 445 1860 1780 1420 4760
III 636 560 320 250 235 1115 144 460 1820 1840 1390 4800
19 618 550 320 250 235 185 141 460 1850 1800 1340 4490
20 612 540 320 250 250 185 141 460 1900 1740 1280 4080
2l 690 530 300 250 245 185 140 470 1970 1720 1230 3790
22 760 520 300 250 217 185 140 495 1980 1760 1170 3860
23 830 520 300 250 203 185 143 516 1930 1850 1120 3640
24 893 520 300 250 200 185 151 528 1920 2080 1100 3250
25 972 520 300 250 200 185 158 546 1980 2350 1070 2880
26 1020 520 280 260 200 185 162 582 2100 2760 1070 2620
27 1030 520 280 260 200 185 166 648 2230 2840 1030 2450
28 1020 520 280 260 200 177 171 739 ·2490 2760 988 2270
29 988 510 280 260 175 175 788 2840 2620 996 2210
30 950 490 280 280 175 119 837 2160 2600 1040 2190
31 900 280 310 175 948 2540 1170
TOTAL 21381 19180 10620 7930 7865 5822 4742 13853 65240 62670 43804 79600
MEAN 690 639 343 256 281 188 158 447 2175 2022 1413 2653
MAX 1030 880 470 310 370 200 179 948 3160 2840 2380 4800
H.III 465 490 280 250 200 175 140 179 1090 1550 988 1230
CFSM 2.11 1.95 1.05 .78 .86 .58 .48 1.37 6.65 6.18 4.32 8.11
Ill. 2.43 2.18 1.21 .90 .89 .66 .54 1. 58 7.42 7.13 4.98 9.06
AC-FT 42410 38040 21060 15730 15600 11550 9410 21480 129400 124300 86890 157900
WTlt YI 1982 l'O'TAL 342707 KU.IC 939 KAX 4800 KIN 140 CFSH 2.&7 tlf 31.99 AC-FT 679800
~.--No lage-hei&ht record ~. 30 to Feb. 17 and Feb. 24 to Kar. 26.
SOU'rmlEST ALl.Sr.A.
15299900 TAZIHIM UVD IUJt IOlIDAL1'01I
LOCATIOK.--Lat 59-55'05". loac 15.-39'34" (r..t.ed), ta ~ •• c.ll. T.3 S •• 1.31 V" Rydrolocic Onit 19040002.
on 1att benk at ... 11 laC. outlet. 2.1 ai ~.tr ... ot 1arce .. tarfal1. 7.5 ai .ouch.a.t of Nondalton, and
14.5 ai north.a.t of Il1ia.na.
DRAIMCZ au.--327 a1 J •
VATER-DISCHARGE IECOIDS
PEIIOD OF lECOID.-·Juna 1981 co curr.nt ,..ar.
C,\CZ.--Wat.r-.tace recorder. Altitud. ot CaC. b 610 ft. fr_ topo&raphic -.p. Prior to Oct. 1. 1981 at daema
.l..00 It l:U.pu
It!KAllES. --bcorda Cood .:z.c.pc I:b.a.. for Oct. 23 to Jan. 2. vbich are fair. and tho.. for Jan. 3 to Ka,. 30.
'Which are poor.
EXTREKES FOR PElIOD OF I!coRD.--Kas~ d1acharc •• 4,950 ft'/a Sepc. 17. 1982. CaC.-b.iCht, 7.92 ttl minimua
recorded. 124 ft l /a Apr. 1. 1983, bur: .. ,. have be.n 1 ••• durinc pariod of ic. effect.
EXTREMES FOR CURIENT YEAI.--Mas1.ua diacharce. 2,140 ft'l. Oct.l. rca •• fa11tag. p.ak occurred Sept. 17.1982;
.. ~ paak diacharg., 2.110 ft l /a Jun. 9, cac. heisht. 6.20 ftl ain1mum record.d, 124 ft'/a. ,a.e h.ighe.
2.96 fe,: Apr. I, fro. ran.. 1rI .eac.. but .. ,. bv. be.n 1... dur.1n& pariod of ica effect.
DISCHARGE. III CUI1C PUT PO SECOND, V,\TU TL\Il OCTOBEI 1982 TO SEl"TtHBtRll!!? 1
KIWt VALUES -
DAY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TOTAL
Hf.A.N
HAX
HIN
CFSK
IH.
AC-rr
ocr
2100
2030
1930
1810
1700
1580
1470
1370
1280
1190
1120
1080
1010
964
932
932
940
893
916
900
831
746
.594
.570
.570
.570
570
.564
.5.58
.5.58
5.52
32836
10.59
2100
.5.52
3.24
3.74
6.5130
IIOV
558
.570
.5.52
516
49.5
480
47.5
485
470
4.50
460
45.5
46.5
410
44.5
425
410
400
390
31.5
366
350
362
362
350
338
330
324
318
318
12764
42.5
.570
318
1.30
1.4.5
25320
Dre
310
310
300
300
290
290
280
280
270
210
260
260
250
24.5
242
232
22S
219
217
213
213
21.5
210
210
210
210
207
223
292
334
334
7924
2.56
334
201
.78
.90
15720
JAN
330
321
300
290
270
240
220
200
ISO
170
160
1.50
1.50
145
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
.5.506
178
330
140
• .54
.63
10920
I'D
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
3920
140
140
140
.43
.4.5
1780
MAIl
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
4340
140
140
140
.43
.49
8610
API
140
140
140
14.5
145
150
1.50
1.50
155
155
160
165
170
170
175
180
18.5
190
195
200
210
220
225
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
.573.5
191
290
140
.58
.65
11380
KAY
.300
320
330
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
.510
.540
570
600
630
670
710
750
790
850
900
950
1000
1050
.1150
1200
1300
13.50
1450
1520
22720
733
1520
300
2.24
2 • .58
45070
1790
1940
2.020
2070
2040
1990
1990
2040
2080
2080
2010
1920
1850
1800
1790
1800
1780
1760
1800
1850
1860
1840
1820
1870
1920
2020
1960
1960
1920
1900
57470
1916
2080
1760
5.86
6.54
114000
JUt.
1860
1870
1860
1800
1730
1670
1650
1640
1600
1540
1480
1420
1360
1370
1410
1410
1400
1370
1320
1260
1190
1130
1080
1020
988
912
948
908
879
858
8.51
41844
1350
1870
8.51
4.13
4.76
83000
CAL TR 1982 'l'OTAL 345050 K!AH 945 HAX 4800 KIM 140 CTSH 2.89 IN 39.25 AC-rT 684400
WTI YR 1983 'l'OTAL 245069 KEAB 671 HAX 2100 KIM 140 CrSK 2.05 IN 27.81 AC-FT 486100
fIO'fE. --110 .... -h.ishe r.cord Kar. 11 co Kay 30.
AOO
858
851
830
, 830
900
924
940
1080
1280
1410
1450
1430
1380
1320
1240
11.50
1090
1020
879
886
872
858
823
802
767
725
697
672
642
636
630
29872
964
14.50
630
2.95
3.40
592.50
SEP
624
612
624
648
654
648
636
618
606
594
570
.552
594
672
704
704
684
612
660
612
690
725
746
746
725
71S
718
711
746
865
20138
671
865
552
2.0.5
2.29
39940
202 SOUTHWEST ALASKA
15299900 TAZIMINA RIVER NEAR NONDALTON
LOCATION.--Lac .59'.55'OS", long 154'39'34", in SEltNElt sec.18, T.3 S., R.31 W., Hydrologic Unit 19040002, on left bank
ae outlet of small lake, 2.1 m1 upstrea~ of larle wacerfall, 7.5 ~i southeast of Nondalton, and 14.5 ai norcheast
of Ilialln ••
DRAINAGE AREA.--327 ai".
WATER-DISCHARGE RECORDS
PERIOD OF RECORD.--June 1981 to current year.
GAGE.--Water-stale recorder. Altitude of ,age i. 610 ft, frOB topographic .ap. Prior to Oct. 1, 1981 at datull
3.00 ie higher.
RL~S.--Record. good except tho •• for Jan. 2 to Har. 13, which are poor.
EXTRL"fES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.--M.xi~ diSCharge, 4,9.50 fts/s Sept. 17, 1982, lage-height, 7.92 ft; lIinimuB
recorded, 124 ft'/. Apr. 1, 1983, but •• y have been Ie •• during period of ice effece.
EXTRL~ FOa CURRENT YEAR.--Maxiau. discharge, 3,500 ft'/. Oct, 13, ,age-height. 7.12 it; .inimum recorded, 189 ft'!
Apr. 19, but .ay have been 1e •• during period of iee effect.
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WATER YEA1 OCTOBER 1983 TO SEPTEMBER 1984
MEAN VALUES
DAY . OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAl!. APR HAY JUN JUl. AUG SEP
1 1000 726 1270 300 210 210 2.55 327 893 2370 1020 1860
2 1180 711 1350 290 210 210 255 338 900 2270 1000 1660
3 1260 711 1340 260 210 210 250 334 940 2150 988 1500
4 1270 678 1310 280 210 . 250 245 327 1020 1980 980 1360
5 1260 631 1250. 270 210 330 245 321 1120 1930 964 1240
6 1310 600 1170 260 210 390 245 321 1250 1910 972 1140
7 1310 636 1090 260 210 400 240 324 1380 1920 964 1060
8 1270 876 1000 250 210 410 238 330 1540 1930 948 997
" 1350 947 909 250 210 410 228 334 1650 1920 932 941
10 1710 924 852 240 210 400 221 346 1740 1860 908 880
11 2630 886 809 240 210 380 215 358 1790 1800 971 837
12 3340 851 756 240 210 360 215 366 1790 1720 980 795
13 3490 809 712 240 210 340 211 374 1810 1630 940 788
14 3270 754 680 230 210 327 211 386 1900 1590 900 767
15 2950 714 630 230 210 300 209 398 1970 1520 865 746
16 2630 704 597 230 210 290 207 425 2050 1440 830 725
17 2350 690 564 230 210 288 203 450 2230 1370 795 704
18 2100 666 534 230 210 283 203 470 2420 1370 816 697
19 1890 624 505 220 210 275 195 490 2450 1370 864 690
20 1740 606 500 220 210 270 195 522 2370 1370 886 690
:1 1600 624 505 220 210 268 201 564 2300 1340 900 666
22 1470 618 475 220 210 265 207 612 2250 1280 1020 648
23 1360 594 450 220 210 260 203 660 2210 1250 1160 642
24 1260 547 430 220 210 255 201 710 2250 1210 1410 648
25 1140 528 410 220 210 250 195 759 2390 1180 2130 648
26 1040 522 390 210 210 250 197 802 2570 1130 3160 630
27 981 505 380 210 210 26.3 221 837 2610 1100 3370 624
28 917 557 360 210 210 265 279 858 2520 1080 3120 636
29 859 793 340 210 210 263 290 879 2440 1060 2790 666
30 816 1060 328 210 260 303 886 2420 1040 24~0 666
31 774 309 210 258 89.3 1020 2110
TOTAL 51527 21092 22205 7350 6090 9190 6783 16001 57173 48110 42113 26551
~IEAN 1662 703 716 237 210 296 226 516 1906 1552 1358 885
MAX 3490 1060 1350 300 210 410 .303 893 2610 2370 3.370 1860
MIN 774 505 309 210 210 210 195 321 893 1020 795 624
CFSM 5.08 2.15 2.19 .73 .64 .91 .69 1.58 5.8.3 4.75 4.15 2.71
IN. 5.86 2.40 2.53 .84 .69 1.05 .77 1. 82 6.50 5.47 4.79 3.02
AC-Fi 102200 41840 44040 14580 12080 18230 13450 31740 113400 95430 83530 52660
CAL YR 1983 TOTAL 286369 MEAN 785 MAX 3490 HIN 140 CFSM 2.40 IN 32.58 AC-Fi 568000
\o1TR YR 1984 TOTAL 314185 MEAN 858 HAX 3490 MIN 195 CrSM 2.62 IN 35.74 AC-Fi 623200
5 C 1..1 T.., ",' : S 'r ~ t. J $ j(..l
1~2;;~GC T~ZIM!~. ~IvE~ "!~~ ~O~:llTCh
LOCATION.--Lat S~.55 'CS", l?,..; I <"Q3~' ;1.", 1" S :~~H' s.c.l" T.3 5., ~.31 ... , H'Idf'OlO ;10 'J.,lt P';~~.J02,
bank ,t o~~~.t ~f i~311 1 W~, ~*1 ·1 ~P3tr.~~ of la r ;_ waterf3ll, 7.5 Ml !O~thiQ't of N~ncalton, 3nd
nort"f~St =4 :lllwna.
-:: l-?' II ] " :. ~ Ii : ~
-: : T. 1, ,,: ~ 1
:~;, l~ Q1J f~ J~OV~ ~.tio"31 ~#od.tic V~rtic!l :3t~m of 1C2:,
~~ C~t~~ :.:J ft ~l;~.r.
~c"' ... ;(I\:'.-"'::-.... r.iti::! ;'\':.1., e_iC""J'-;);: ';'11. :5-7, L~' 3':, j.@(: .. 7, ;ec. :; to :'cr .. l~, ':'::;:r" 27, Z~, J.Jly 1-;., ';""1-:
~u~. 1-:. =a:;r ;;)J tV gt ~=,.. ~.rl~C3 :t ne ;a;.-hil:~t rt:ord, July 1-2Q ~~o ~~;* 1-~, ~"icr ar. 'ai-,
a~: P~~l; ul·~ ~ ~ ~~.~:~, ~ :. 12 ~= ;~r* 1~, Jr::~ 13 :e~r.
:(T'c."'=~
"1:3 r •
c
7
1 c
I:
i, 1 _
1.
1 ~
< 1
,.,
~I
31
t,JI .....
l~ t;; -"
,,,,,".l A
~ .. ~ f;; 1'j 8'1
.. i~ I:" 1985
; ::.1
e 0"1
'80Z Ie \
.'60
7 -9
," B
IJvO
sse
S&q.
5'10
Sib
1j6S
470
'\ 115
.II eo
45'S
~30
: -II
~;B
:8
_ -0
: ·6
~-b
•• < , . -
, ~ . ~ .-.. :> ' ...... ~~. If
lSS
7 -
: : 5
; .
• l ~ . s-
1 ; ; '. ,
ZS0886
~.. ~:
1 .;
': ,.
1 : I
1· " , ..
~ : , ;:
':
• ~ i
. j ~
i ":.
1-
1 •
,'" :;:
,
1"'" .;
:730
'Ii:
~O;
1 ' •
.57
1 i : '0
... "; :. '. ~ .. 1
J :~~T r~: !~::~:, ~JT~~ ,~~O ::T:,~~ 1~~4 rJ
1 7 .;
,.
1 ... ~ ,.-
i· _
1,
I ' :
50~O
I ' _
.......
1 c: ~
1 0 :
1 c ;;
1 c:;'
1 : ;
: :; j
1--,
" 1 ' •
1':
1 : :
1 : :
-13:: 1; _
1 : ::
1 ~ '" . _ .
., .
6530
"l:l'~ .':'L]
1 ~ j
1 : •
1 ~ '\
I ;:
1 ' ,
1 ; :
1 ; :-
l' .
1 ' , , , '
1 ,.
~:'-17J
.., I\;1 ? :l'
_.1 :
, .:. '7
1 '0 1 ,.
C;:$""' 2.1)
C;S~ 3.:3
1 5 :
1 -,
1 ':! ; . -.: , , -
1 : C
357
, . : c
127~
1 5 ~ C
, .:..!;(
~ ~ i.:
2' .. :
1 ' •
1 • ~ j
2. C ~
3: .4l
,;::
Z 5 1 ,~
27: :
27;: ; ,7: ..
2,,; : :
? 3 1 :
22: .:
-:? ':
;"H
2? ~ ,~
~ ~ 1 •
t '):.;. f ....
.:: ~ .: !
~b ... (.
21 ::
, • ~ 1
15:12':
: 10.. '-~ • 5 ;..
! '1 41,':
J "
31 j.:
'l ":: :
: ~ : ~
t! ~ -"
: -: ': c
2 ~ ( _
: 7 : ~
2'-:::
::!.:i(
.:.? :<
.2 1 ;:
t: ~ : ~
, ~ ,""t r
1 ;:~'
, : ';1:
, ~ :iC
1;'::;
1 7 1 ~
10'(:
" 1 :':
1 ! .. : ,.23
'" ;? ~ ~ :
71 ' 1 : ~
1~~C
, I.. .., ::
1;'1,.-
, 'I;."
1 3. :
1 3 ;:
1'-<,
15; ~
1 !: :J ~
1 ; 2:
2 1 5 : : ~ ~ )
_ 1 : :
;. : :: )
: c ~ ~
c:;:. ....
2 S :: ...
2 ' , ..
" . -'-'
2 't: , ~ ~.~
1 ~.:., ::
17:; _
1 : 7 .
1 ~ 2 ~
1::. :
7. <
8. 3 ~
1'-5': .
1 ,: ~
1 ,. , ,
1 ,~
, ... ~ r:
1 , ~ :
1 " ~ :
1'::-:;_
1; .
1 : 7-
1 : : ~
1 : ..,
1 ... :"
1 ". 1 _ . , :: :..
1 , _
2" ': .
! ~ .,
-~:
;, : ~ ,
1 .;: ::-
~. 1
b.90
1 ~:;: -
APPENDIX B
SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY REPORT
4/38 1
SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY
FOR THE
TAZIMINA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Prepared For:
Stone &. Webster Engineering Corporation
Denver Operation s Center
Denver, Colorado
Prepared By:
R&.M Consultants, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
OCTOBER 1985
~&M CONSULTANTS, INC. 50.24 CORDOVA. BOX 60~7 • ANCHORAGE ALASKA 9950~ • PH 9075611733
[:NGIr\Jl-E~··;
GEOLnr,lsT~
PLr..Nr~E"ns
SLlQV£ YOr:l:~,
October 8, 1985 Rf..M No. 551130
Stone f.. Webster Engineering Corporation
Denver Operations Center
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217-5406
Attention: Mr. D.L. Newman
Re: Contract No. 14007-0014, Seismic Refraction Study, Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Dear Mr. Newman:
Rr,.M Consultants, Inc. was contracted by Stone f.. Webster Engineering
Corporation (SWEC) to perfor'm a seismic refraction study for the Tazimina
River Hydroelectric Project. The general study area is shown on Figure
1. We have recently completed the subject work and the results are
contained herein. This work was author'ized by your letter of August 16,
1935 and was conducted under the terms of Contract No. 14007-0014.
Location and General Site Conditions
The Tazimina River lies north of Illiamna Lake and flows from its
headwaters in the Aleutian Range west south westward to Six Mile Lake
and the Newhalen River (Figure 1). The variable river profile includes
two large and several small lakes, an approximately 100 foot high waterfall
a nd a gorge with rapids. The steep gradient of the waterfall portion of
the river is interpreted to have significant hydroelectric power generating
potentia I.
Wahrhafting has identified the Tazimina drainage as lying within the
Alaska-Aleutian Range physiographic province which consists of high
rugged glaciated pea ks a nd broad U -s haped valleys. The bed rock geology
of the pr'oject area is dominated by early jurassic granitic batholiths
intruding highly deformed Paleozoic and Mesozoic volcanic and sedimentary
rocks deposited in an early Mesozoic magmatic arc. Outcrops near the
project facilities investigated by this study have been mapped as volcanic
tuff and andesite (Shannon f.. Wilson, 1982).
The entire project area was repeatedly glaciated during the Pleistocene and
displays classic geomorphology including horns, arete ridges and broad
U-shaped valleys. Most of the lower side slopes and valley bottoms are
mantled with unconsolidated glacial drift including outwash, till, alluvium,
colluvium and probably a thin discontinuous blanket of loess. The
4/38
ANCHORAGE
ALASKA
FAIRBANKS
ALASKA
JUNEAU
ALASKA
SALT LAKE CITY
UTAH
Stone & Webster Engi neeri ng Corporation
October 8, 1985
Page 3
surficial materials in the area of the R&M seismic lines have been mapped
as outwash and terrace deposits (Shannon & Wilson, 1982). Sporadic to
discontinous permafrost occurs throughout the project area. Preliminary
studies related to the Tazimina River Hydroelectric project have been
conducted and/or sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska
Power Authority, U. S. Geological Su rvey, Retherford Associates, Stone &
Webster Engineering Corporation, Shannon & Wilson, Inc., and C.C.
Hawley, Inc.
Vegetation consists of white spruce and birch on the well drained soils and
black spruce in poorly drained areas. A thick organic mat covers much of
the ground surface in the low elevation portions of the project area
including the R&M seismic line locations.
Project Description
Several diffel'ent project facility configurations have been investigated in
the past. The present ar-rangement being considered is a run of-river
project which includes a gated intake structure above Tazimina Falls and a
penstock leading fl'om the intake around the falls to a powerhouse in the
canyon below the falls. Additional pI'oject facilities incl ude an access
road, switchyard, and transmission line.
Scope
As described in the Stone & Webster request for proposals and R&M's
subsequent proposal, the original scope of work identified five seismic
lines totaling approximately 1,800 feet. Pr'oject facilities to be investigated
by this work included the intake structure, penstock route, powerhouse
a rea (canyon rim), powerhouse site (bottom of canyon) and an alternate
powerhouse site. Adverse field conditions forced a modification of the
field program (ie., two seismic lines in the Tazimina River Canyon were
inaccessible due to high water). The modified program consisted of three
520 foot seismic refraction lines, located at the intake structure, penstock
route, and powerhouse area on the rim of the Tazimina River Canyon.
Stone & Webster field personnel at the site observed work, provided
technical direction, and determined the seismic line locations.
Methodology
R &M Consu Itants employed standa rd seismic refraction su rvey tech n iques as
described in "Seismic Refraction Exploration for Engineering Site
Investigations (Redpath, NTIS, 1973)" and· numerous other texts. Initial
site work consisted of laying out, clearing and topographically surveying
the three 520 foot lines. These lines are located on the southeast bluff
above the Tazimi na River canyon as shown on Figu re 2.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Octobe r 8, 1985
Page 4
The seismic refraction survey was performed on August 21, 1985 using a
Geometries Model 12lOF seismograph and a string of 12 geophones spaced
at 20 foot intervals. Geophones were set into the mineral soil beneath an
average of one foot of organic mat where possible. Charges were set one
to two feet into the soil. One half pound explosive charges were used as
the energy sou rce with one shot 20 feet from each end of the geophone
string and one at the center of each string. For each 520 foot line, six
shots were recorded allowing a more accurate interpretation. Printed
records were collected and read in the field to ensure the quality was
adequate for interpretation.
The printed records were interpreted to extract the first arrival times for
compressional waves. Plotting the arrival times against distance allowed
the determination of soil and rock velocities and time intercepts. This
data was used in computer-aided analysis to determine the thicknesses of,
depth to, and undulations in various soil and rock layers. Additionally,
the velocity data may be used to estimate rippability and blasting
cha racteristics.
Limitations
The R&M seismic refraction data has an interpreted accuracy of
approximately :!lO oo in terms of mater'lal velocity and layer depth/thickness.
Note that velocities and thicknesses probably show variation throughout
the investigated site, and that seismic refraction work has well documented
I imitations in identifyi ng s low velocity layers underlying faster layers and
thin hidden layers. Most of any error in the R&M data is probably
contributed by varying thicknesses of very slow surficial organics. Also,
note that the seismic interpretations wet'e not corroborated by test holes
located on the seismic lines.
Results
The results of the R&M seismic refraction survey are presented on Figures
3, 4, and 5 in the form of time-distance plots and smic velocity profiles
(velocity cross-sections). Each line was interpreted as a three layer
situation, with a low velocity (800 fps to 1,100 fps) surficial layer; a
middle layer with velocities ranging from 3,500 fps to 6,000 fps; and a
high velocity lower layer ra ng ing from 12,000 fps to 14,000 fps. The high
velocity layer is interpreted to be bedrock (probably the tuff and/or
andesite mapped by Shannon & Wilson). The middle layer overlying
bedrock may include glacial till of the Newhalen Stade and/or glacio-fluvial
outwash and terrace debris as mapped by Shannon & Wilson. The
thickness of the materials varies along each line with a general depth to
bedrock ranging from about 10 feet to almost 40 feet. Along R&M seismic
lines the unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock appear to be thinner
closer to the river. Details concerning depths and thickness are best
scaled from Figures 3, 4 and 5. These data appear consistent with the
previous seismic refraction work.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
October 8, 1985
Page 5
If you have any questions or desire additional information please contact
R&M at your convenience.
Very tru Iy you rs,
R&M CONSULTANTS, INC.
~L~
In Gerald Williams
Senior Geologist/Geophysicist
CHR:KSM;bje
LawrenceJ. Acomb, C.P.G.
Senior Geologist
R, 34 W R 33 \', R 32 W
"-~~
""~ :} r..J
Xe\\'baleri::,
~Tenmde I
"
1
OWN OEP
CKO KSM R&M CONSULTANTS. INC .
OATE SEPT. 1985 • NOfN.... CIkDt"OQ •• l'. _ ..... NN..... au .. v_yo_.
SCALE I: 250000
+
Triangle If _i ~"" f C',
\t'S \.1
c c
...::" --';"<>
,oli~
, --":;.
(' ~:--~;.~~"~--, -, ~
--
SITE LOCATION MAP Fe
T AZIMINA HYDRO PROJECT GRID
Prepored For: PROJ NO
Stone a Webster Engineering Corp, FIGURE
Seal Is "
°C
551130
I
U> 0
n ~
~ z r ,..,
I Vl ;.::!o Vl IT! ::r: "U VlIIT!
0 :-i s: "U
~ CD z ro
(Jl
iD
~~
:~ •
0 0
DO
02 ~Ul
~C
,~
OS
~2
=004
.111 c·
J (-~2
~O ..
Vl"U ~ -'" 0111 »-:3'0
"" 0 N .. -r-IllIII ~ Q. --z
:lE" z m ""0 »-tT'"
III o-r--J: 0 a> .. -< 0
IT! 0 »-
:3 JJ ~ .c 0
;;J 0
(II '"0 Z
a> JJ .. 0 ~ ;;J
.c c.. »-
n m '"0
0 0 ... ~ :0
" "(t CI ",
G) ;l) ;l) III
0 P c ~
;u Z
IT! 0
(Jl
N (Jl -
Oi
0
GENERAL PLAN T3S,R32W, SM
1'!:!:±1.~ ___ """"""" _____ ~
seQ 250 0 5eQ 1000
---~ /
LEGEND:
r----I
SE IS MIC TRAVERSES
ON RIM OF CANYON
BY RaM_
PREVIOUS. SE ISMIC
TRAVERSES BY nTtJIl:"t:><l
I, .----/
GATED INT AI<E
STRUCTURE ---.~
NOTE: DRAWING PROVIDED BY SW EC.
50
40
x: :30
u
OJ
U')
..
E
I-
20
10
TIME DISTANCE PLOT
NORTH SOUTH
O_~ ________ ~ __________ ' _____ ¥. __ -'--_____ -'------__ --I~ ______ -., ____ --____ , ____ --~L-r-________ .-________ r--L __
Elellalions
Approlimale
50 150
( fI)
600-l·---------------------------L -------..... -_ ..... ---------
.c.
-_/-:=...-
Q. .. o
SUBSURFACE VELOCITY PROFILE
Vp' 3,500 fp~
------
...... ~---.--,....,.---
Vp= 12,000 fps
550-NOTE I Seismic Velocilies are represenlolive, materials cnd velcellies moy vary along Ihe seclion.
450
---~---------
0
!<)
10 r() 10
0 w
'"
cr
::! .., ::>
0 ~ ED 13 '" ... fl. I.L.
l-n.
0 0 w u ..,
"" 0 .5 a:
0.. .. ..
I 0 c:
J: ·0 a: <: I-0 W
W >-~
Z J: .e .,
..J < ~ .a
Z o " "-3;
::i' ~<Il
N (; .. « 0.<:
I-o. 0
~ -0..(1)
U: Z~ -' • -,
1/1' .... Z;
~;
:.J'
J. III; Z; m u· .
~: ta! a!
If)
Q) z m 3:
~ 0 a. ::Ii: 0.. :r
w <1'1 W '" 0 !.:: U')
"' w -'
j 0 ~ " '" ... u a U a I/)
50
40
,.,
I
9 30
x
U
'" <II
I.IJ
~ 20
I-
10
NORTHWEST
0-+------
o
700 Elevotions
.:: 650
.c.
D-
ID o
600
ApprOXImate
~------~
TIME DISTANCE PLOT
100
Horizontal Distance (fl )
SUBSURFACE VELOCITY PROFILE
800 Ips
Vp~ 4,000 Ips ..1--;......------------
------------~---------Vp '12,500fps
NOTE: Seismic Velocities 0(6 representative, materials and velocities may vary along the ssction.
,;---_/
/'
./
----:;:----
0 ,..,
II)
II) 'T
0 I.IJ
'" t:r::
~ -, :::)
Cl " III !'5 0:: IL. u.. a..
ci
I-~
0 <.)
UJ C> ..., c:
0 ~
'" ex: ..
0-c:
'" C> I 0 c: :t ex: UJ
I-0
UJ >-.,
Z :t -., '"
..J
~ .Q « 0 ..
Z "-3:
::a -0
.. 0;)
~
N 0., « 0.'::
I-ID 0
L.-
a.tfl
I.H 2: -~
uji ....
2i cO
ti' J: UJ!
Z~ m u'
~~
f.&~
II!
II)
Q) z ~ 3:
::E ..: 0
0-J:
I.IJ (/) a. (/) w 0 l-' tfl
"' ~ '" ~~ <-'" -< u a I.J a V1
!'l
I o
x
40
30
·20 <.> .,
III
10
SOUTHWEST TIME DISTANCE PLOT NORTHEAST
o~--------~--------_.-----1--_.--------_.--------_.~L-----_,r_--------._------L-._--------._--------._~--
-::
0. .,
o
levation
pproximole
-~--~---
Vp' 14,000 fps
Honlontol Distance (It l
SUBSURFACE VELOCITY PROFILE
-...----:::.----
Vp' 1,000 tps
-~--
--5-/ ----Z\'
NOTE' Seismic Velocities are reprnentative, moterlals and velocities moy vory olonll the sec lion.
--~----" ------~--
0
""
'" '" '"
0 w <; '" Q ;:) ::::>
C)
ttl 5 '" "-"'-Q.
I-0.
~
(.) 0
UJ (.) .., '" 0 .'!' e: ~
<'l Il. ..
II
I 0
c
J: .,
l-e: c
Q w
UJ > ~
Z l: '"
..J « ~ .,
0.0
Z u.. .,
:::E .,,3i:
~al
N
" \\I « o.c
I-~.2
Il.IIl
tH z;
-~ .J U" 1-. Z;
4:! ~i
J:
In! z~
D~ u·
~( ~i
lO ~~
'" CD Z ~ 3i:
,..: 0
11. ::;: 0.. Z
w (f) W (I)
0 '" VI
~, .,
~ a .... «
'" « U
Q U Q til
APPENDIX C
1985 ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE -DAMES &. MOORE
FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE OF POTENTIAL
ROAD ROUTES TO THE PROPOSED TAZIMINA RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FOR
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 24, 1985
12023-023-020
Dames & Moore
Dames & Moore
.:c~~
800 Cordova, Suite 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 279·0673
Telex: 090-25227 Cable address: DAMEMORE
September 24, 1985
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
P.O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217
Attention: Mr. Donald Matchett
Dear Don:
Enclosed please find three copies of our report of the
Environmental Reconnaissance of Potential Road Routes to the Proposed
Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project. This report has been expanded
from the July 26 version to incorporate results from our late summer
field trip.
Please call if you have any questions or need any further
information.
JPH/lav
Sincerely,
DAMES & MOORE
Jonathan P.
Associate
-$;Ik-
Houghton, Ph.D.
Dames & Moore
ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE OF POTENTIAL ROAD ROUTES
TO THE PROPOSED TAZIMINA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
(REVISED SEPTEMBER 1985)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Field investigations were conducted during early July and late
August 1985 to evaluate fish habitat and resources near the diversion
and tailrace areas (at Tazimina Falls) and along several al ternati ve
road access routes to the powerhouse location for the proposed Tazimina
River Hydroelectric project. Specific objectives of this reconnaissance
were to:
o Obtain low altitude videotape coverage of al ternati ve routes
from a helicopter.
o Conduct a ground reconnaissance of potential route crossings of
streams, noting hydraulic, topographic and biological features
of each.
o Recommend and justify a biologically-preferred route from the
two primary alternatives given; suggest and justify minor
reroutes to further reduce impacts to aquatic resources.
o suggest mitigation measures to reduce aquatic impacts of access
road construction.
o Build on existing knowledge (especially under low flow con-
ditions) of fish habitat and use of areas in the immediate
vicinity of the major falls (Tazimina Falls) that would provide
the head for the proposed project •
The surveys were conducted by Dr. Jonathan Houghton, Senior Fishery
Biologist with Dames & Moore, with the assistance of biologists from the
University of washington, Fisheries Research Institute (FRI).
12023-023-1 -1-
~~
2.0 BACKGROUND
Dames & Moore
~
The Tazimina River is the major tributary of the Newhalen River
below Lake Clark. The Newhalen River is the largest river entering Lake
Iliamna and, wi thin the Kvichak system, the largest spawning tributary
for sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)--the major economic resource in
the Bristol Bay region.
portion of the stream
The Tazimina River provides a significant pro-
spawning habitat for sockeye in the Newhalen
system with spawning escapements of as many as 500,000 fish in some
years (Poe and Mathisen 1982). The fish resources of the Tazimina River
(along with other pertinent environmental characteristics of the area)
have been previously reported by Dames & Moore (1982a,b) using data from
a series of surveys conducted during the late summer and fall of 1981
and in late spring 1982. Based on this earlier work, the primary fish
usage of the area immediately above and below the falls is by resident
fish, primarily grayling (Thymallus arcticus), rainbow trout (Salmo
gairdneri), and char (Salvelinus alpinus or S. malma). Relatively few
sockeye spawners have been documented in the canyon, which extends for
about a mile below the falls. A lower falls or cascade about midway up
the canyon probably constitutes a significant barrier to upstream migra-
tions.
Access to the powerhouse just below the falls would be gained from
the newly constructed Newhalen-to-Nondal ton Road, via one of several
al terna ti ve routes eas tward across a broad rolling plane in the Alexcy
Lake area (Figure 1). The alternative routes join just south of the
mouth of the Tazimina River canyon and ascend more steeply to the east
and then to the northeast along the south rim of the canyon. None of
the road route al ternati ves considered crosses any tributaries of the
Tazimina River itself.
Next to the Tazimina River, the Alexcy Lake system with its associ-
ated inlet and outlet streams constitutes the second largest drainage
tributary to the Newhalen River downstream of Sixmile Lake. Fish usage
of the Alexcy Lake system has been documented with approximately 20 years
of sockeye salmon spawner counts by FRI (e.g., Poe and Mathisen 1982).
12023-023-1 -2-
o
•
Job No. 12023-023
.
IISel
Gigo
=~ ':!.",.' 'l'
<D I'IlvCII' Mlleo
m Accllloo RelltCil Numb.f.
8elllie In Mllell
lower Tazlmina River
Access Route Alternatives
•
Dames & Moore
Figura 1
Dames & Moore
However, these published records do not specify use of stream areas in ~
question for this project; therefore, the Alaska Power Authority author-
ized this effort to evaluate aquatic conditions along these access
routes.
3.0 METHODS
An A-Star helicopter, chartered from ERA Helicopters, Inc. of
Anchorage was used for flying the low al ti tude video taping routes and
for transportation to all other study areas during the July survey.
Video equipment was provided by the Power Authority and all tapes have
been delivered directly to them. A Jet Ranger, chartered from Trans-
Alaska Helicopters, Inc. of Anchorage provided transportation during the
August survey.
Aerial surveys of Alexcy Lake tributaries and of the Tazimina River
were conducted to document the general nature and extent of aquatic
habitats of concern as well as the distribution and abundance of
spawning sockeye salmon (late summer only). Ground surveys were con-
ducted on tributaries that would be crossed by any access al ternati ve.
These tributaries, and the Tazimina River near the falls were also
sampled by baited minnow traps and by electrofishing with a Smith-Root
Type XI battery-powered backpack electroshocker.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 VIDEO TAPING
The video tape delivered to the Power Authority contained the
following sequences:
o The lower Newhalen River near the falls below River Mile
(RM) 7.
o Scenes of outmigrant sampling at RM 7, including both the large
and the small inclined-plane traps.
o Scenes of fish sampling on tributaries to Alexcy Lake.
12023-023-1 -4-
o
Dames & Moore
The southernmost access alternative from the area of the ~~
Tazimina River canyon mouth flying southwest and then west to
the Nondalton Road (Route 1 on Figure 1).
o An al terna ti ve alignment of the westernmost portion of this
route (Route 1A) from east to west.
o The northernmost access alternative (Route 2) from the
Nondalton Road east to near the mouth of the canyon.
o An alternative alignment of the western part of the northern
route (Route 2A) from the Nondalton Road east to just past the
northern end of Alexcy Lake.
o Scenes of the Tazimina canyon, Tazimina Falls, and the area
around and immediately upstream of the falls.
Time was not available to review this tape prior to submittal to
the Power Authority and some portions were not recorded due to low
camera batteries.
4.2 FISH HABITAT ALONG ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTES
ROUTE 1
As shown on Figure 1, access Route 1 crosses two significant tribu-
taries feeding into Alexcy Lake. The southernmost of these is by far
the smaller with an estimated 0.06 to 0.12 cubic meters per second (2 to
4 cubic feet per second cfs) of flow in early July. At the crossing
location shown, the stream forks several times receiving flow from the
numerous small ponds to the east as well as from some springs in the
area. Electroshocking in the area just below these forks and springs
did not produce any salmonids but several cottids (probably Cottus
cognatus) were taken. However, the habitat appeared very suitable for
small resident salmonids with a good mixture of riffles, pools, and low-
veloci ty glides. It is likely that more exhaustive sampling would
demonstrate their presence--at least seasonally. Visual surveys in July
near the mouth of this stream revealed numerous spawned-out sockeye
12023-023-1 -5-
Dames & Moore
salmon carcasses from the fall 1984 run. Sockeye fry (29 to 35 mm) were ~~
also abundant in quiet eddies and shallows of this lower reach as demon-
strated by electrofishing. Run size cannot be estimated at this time
but is probably on the order of scores or a few hundreds of fish (cf.,
thousands) based on the limited extent of habitat available. Only about
400 meters of stream habitat above the lake are likely to be accessible
to adult sockeye. Extremely poor weather conditions during the August
sampling prevented enumeration during the spawning period, but some
adul ts were present, both in the creek and in the lake near the creek
mouth. Lake spawning of sockeye was observed along the east shore of
Alexcy Lake.
The confirmation of sockeye runs in these Alexcy Lake tributaries
(see below) will greatly heighten sensitivity of the regulatory agencies
to upstream disturbances.
In addition to sockeye salmon and cottids, small resident char (140
to 150 rom) were also taken in minnow traps near the mouth of this tribu-
tary in July. A school of about 25 large fish (e.g., 400 mm plus) was
seen from the air off the mouth of this stream. These may have been
either northern pike (Esox lucius preying on sockeye fry as they
entered the lake from the creek or an early school of adult sockeye
waiting to spawn in the creek.
The northern tributary entering Alexcy Lake is considerably larger
than the southern tributary and drains a majority of the northwest
quadrant of Roadhouse Mountain. This stream flows through a dense
willow/cottonwood thicket in contrast to the much more open vegetation
at the southern tributary. At the crossing, the gradient is moderately
high, and the stream flows in a U-shaped channel with few gravel bars.
Stream velocities were very swift (e.g., greater than 2 meters per
second); flow appeared to be near a seasonal high in early July and was
es tima ted to be on the order of 1.4 to 2.3 cubic meters per second (50
to 80 cfs). As a result, fish habitat was very poor and no fish were
taken in electroshocking of the few limited areas of lesser flow velo-
city. At lower flows or in other reaches of the stream where the gra-
dient is lower, it is likely that this stream supports salmonids and
thus, for regulatory purposes would be treated as a fish stream.
12023-023-1 -6-
Dames & Moore
As the northern tributary approaches Alexcy Lake, its gradient
drops considerably and the stream splits into several distributaries.
Like the smaller tributary to the south, this area is used for spawning
by sockeye, as evidenced by the abundance of carcasses and fry seen in
July. Because of the larger size and swollen state of this tributary
during our visits, it was not possible to estimate how far upstream
adults might spawn.
A third aquatic habitat on access Route 1 lies in the vicinity of a
pond in the northeast 1/4 of Sec. 6 (T. 4 S, R. 32 W). Smaller ponds
lying to the southeast of this pond are shown on the U.S.G.S. 15-minute
quadrangle as isolated. However, they are actually connected by a
shallow arm of the larger pond that would require bypassing. Since the
larger pond is connected by a small outlet stream to the main outlet of
Alexcy Lake, it is likely that this pond contains fish.
sampled during our surveys, however.
It was not
ROUTE 1A
A variation that would eliminate the need to cross the pond area
described in the previous paragraph (and uneven ground to the west) is
shown as Route 1A in Figure 1. This route would, however, require
crossing of the small outlet stream from the pond. Although it was not
surveyed, it can be assumed that this stream does contain fish.
ROUTE 2
The northernmost of the route alternatives considered (Route 2 on
Figure 1) does not cross any surface waters and would therefore have no
direct impacts on fish habitat. The route would pass very close to
Alexcy Lake I s northeast corner, where care would be required to avoid
the potential for runoff from disturbed areas entering the lake. A
small draw in this area may have atone time been an outlet from the
lake to the Tazimina Lake. However, at present, there is a divide in
this draw; the southern 200 m (approximately) of the draw drain south
into the lake while north of this point drains north toward a small
creek which flows to the river.
12023-023-1 -7-
ROUTE 2A
Dames & Moore
~~
An alternative to Route 2 that would reduce the distance to be
traveled is shown as Route 2A on Figure 1. The aquatic impacts of this
route would not differ greatly from those of Route 2 except that a wet
area south of the lake occupying the northeast quarter of Sec. 20
(T. 3 S, R. 32 W.) would require crossing. This could have minor
associated engineering and aquatic impacts. Neither category of impact
would present unusual problems, but both can be avoided by Route 2.
4.3 THE PREFERRED ROUTE
From the standpoint of avoiding impacts on aquatic resources, the
preferred route is clearly Route 2, which has no crossings of streams or
significant wetlands. Since 2A is shorter than 2 and would thus have
less potential for construction area runoff problems, this route would
be slightly preferable to 2 were it not for the small wetland area
described above. The maj or aquatic impact of either of these routes
(assuming use of standard practices to control erosion and runoff) would
be the aesthetic impa~t on sport anglers using either the Tazimina River
or Alexcy Lake.
Either of the Route 1 alternatives would cross the two major tribu-
taries of Alexcy Lake, both of which are known spawning streams for
sockeye salmon. While these crossings could certainly be constructed in
•
a manner that would not have a long-term effect on the system's produc-
tivity, the short-term construction impact and the potential for long-
term disturbance by humans of spawning in the lower reach of the smaller
stream would be avoided by selection of either of the northern routes.
4.4 MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Regardless of route selected, the major impact will be aesthetic.
While not typically considered an aquatic impact, we have placed aesthe-
tics in the realm of an aquatic consideration because the primary human
use of this area at present is for fishing, usually by guided parties
who fly, or fly and boat, in for a "wilderness fishing experience."
Subsistence use of the area, especially by Nondalton residents is also
12023-023-1 -8-
Dames & Moore
significant. construction and subsequent presence and use of the pro-
posed access road would severely degrade the feeling of wildness and
undisturbed natural beauty that can now be gained in the area. The road
will be a significant man-made visual feature in an area that currently
has none east of the Nondalton Road. As an additional indirect effect,
the road will encourage motor vehicle access to the Alexcy Lake area and
to much of the Tazimina valleyo This will further degrade the enjoyment
of those seeking "wilderness" and may greatly alter the way natural
resources (fish and wildlife) are utilized in the area •
. To mitigate the full extent of these impacts will not be possible;
those flying in to Alexcy Lake or the Tazimina River or lakes will know
that the road is theree However, there are certainly measures that can
be applied to make the visual impact far less severe than is the case
for the Nondalton Road. Width of the disturbed area can be kept to the
minimum actually required for construction; alignment can be adjusted to
minimize the extent of cuts and fills; to minimize the duration of maxi-
mum disturbance, disturbed areas can be reveqetated as soon as work is
complete in the area. In the Alexcy Lake area, the alignment can be
kept largely out of view of boaters on the lake by staying on the
Tazimina side of the crest of the low ridge north of the lake (assuming
Route 2 or 2A). Taller trees along the lower Tazimina River should
largely shield the road from the view of anglers on the stream (of.,
those flying in).
To exclude unofficial traffic by cars or trucks, thereby reducing
traffic, it might be possible to gate the· roade However, there likely
would be considerable local pressure to leave it open to all. Road
control will need to be resolved by the group owning and operating the
proposed facility.
The potential for direct impacts on-aquatic habitats from construc-
tion of all access alternatives would be reduced by use of the best
practicable methods to:
o Minimize the extent of surface area disturbed.
12023-023-1 -9-
-
Dames & Moore
o Control runoff from disturbed areas (e.g., by mulching, :~
reseeding, and/or use of fabrics; construction of retaining
ponds in drainage ways).
o Minimize the angle and extent of cuts and fills.
o Maintain a 100-m buffer between the route and the nearest sur-
face water wherever possible.
o Minimize construction activity in the canyon.
In addi tion, on the southern routes (1 and 1 A), care would be
required to design and construct stream crossings that conform to Alaska
Department of Fish & Game and Alaska Power Authority standards. At this·
point it would be necessary to assume that both tributaries of Alexcy
Lake are fish streams. Culvert design to allow fish passage both up and
down stream would therefore be required along with associated bed and
bank protection to prevent erosion at each installation.
4.5 TAZIMINA RIVER HABITAT
To supplement data gathered in previous surveys and provide data
for assessment of impacts in the vicinity of the proposed water diver-
sion and the project tailrace, an evaluation of fish habitat just above
and just below the falls in the Tazimina River was desired. High flows
during both field periods limited efforts in this area as the river was
nearly bank full. Access to the first mile below the falls was impos-
sible even with a helicopter. Above the falls, the waters' edge could
be approached at only two points within the first 400 m of the falls.
Viewing the river from the limited available vantage points, how-
ever, served to confirm the general concensus from our earlier (Dames &
Moore 1982a, b) studies: fish habitat within 100 to 200 m of the falls
is severely limited by high velocities and hard substrates (boulder/
bedrock) •
At the observed flows, there would be very few resident fish in
areas immediately above the falls that would be affected by the low
12023-023-1 -10-
diversion berm planned (assumed to be within 200 m
electroshocking of the two accessible streambank
Dames & Moore
of the falls). July . ...-~
areas in this reach
failed to take any fish. Three days of effort with baited minnow traps
took only three cottids (87 -100 mm) in July; one day of trapping in
August produced one char (147 mm) and one cottid (96 mm).
In contrast, similar trapping effort at the U.S.G.S. gauge at RM 12
produced 20 small char (98 -164 mm) in July and 6 (91 -155 mm) in
August. July electrofishing in this area took one char (165 mm) while
angling in each survey took several small grayling (280 -350 mm).
Clearly, the slower water in the gauge vicinity is excellent fish habi-
tat compared to that immediately above the falls.
In spring (May) of 1982 Dames & Moore biologists surveyed the area
immediately above the falls in some detail under low flow conditions
that permitted wading the entire width of the stream (Dames & Moore
1982b). Gillnet, electroshocking, and seining operations failed to cap-
ture any fish, although some cottids were seen during electrofishing (J.
Isakson, Dames & Moore, personal observation). It remains to be seen
if surveys under similar flow conditions in late summer or fall would
show similar low fish usage.
At the flow conditions encountered in these surveys, extreme tur-
bulence and high velocities would virtually eliminate use by both
anadromous and resident fish in much of the reach immediately downstream
of the falls. The mid-canyon falls or rapids at about RM 9.3 would
likely discourage upstream passage of fish.
Aerial surveys of spawning sockeye salmon in August showed that
several schools, each containing several hundred adults, were distrib-
uted in the limited slow-water eddies throughout the canyon below this
barrier. None were seen above it, although a few adults have been
reported to spawn in the reach up to the base of the main falls (P.
Poe, University of Alaska, Juneau, personal communication).
July electrofishing in slower water areas adjacent to an island
near the entrance to the canyon (RM 8.5, the closest landing site to the
12023-023-1 -11-
Dames & Moore
base of the falls) produced no fish. Five days of minnow trapping in ~
the same area in July and 2 days effort in August also took no fish. In
August, a school of about a hundred sockeye adults was holding in the
lee of the island. It is likely that with lower late summer flows these
areas may be used by fish moving up from the lower river, perhaps to
feed on eggs shed by the sockeye. Electroshocking under much lower flow
condi tions in 198', Dames & Moore (1 982a) captured young-of-the-year
rainbow trout at RM 8.8 and large adult rainbow trout were reported well
up in the canyon.
Concern has been expressed that the intake diversion berm for the
project might interrupt bedload movement of gravels essential to the
maintenance of important sockeye and rainbow spawning habitat below the
canyon. A very large gravel bank at RM 11 is the only potential source
for such gravels above the falls. There are numerous scree slopes in
the canyon and a large gravel bank at RM 8 just below the canyon that,
along with the extensive glacial deposits along the lower river are far
more important in the lower river's gravel budget than sources above the
falls. It is our opinion that the diversion berm contemplated will not
affect spawning habitat in the lower Tazimina River.
5.0 ADDITIONAL STUDIES
Summer 1985 surveys were disappointing in that flow conditions
remained unusually high, frustrating efforts to sample in the immediate
vicinity of the falls. The single char taken just above the falls (cf.,
the absence of salmonids in July 1985 and in May 1982) may be indicative
of increased use of this area later in the summer-fall season. To more
fully understand the potential impacts of the proposed project on fish
resources of the area, we recommend a follow-up, fall survey to document
the following:
o Habi tat availability in areas of concern under low flow con-
ditions.
o Fall fish usage of these areas.
o Potential fall downstream movement of fish above the falls.
12023-023-1 -12-
'--
6.0 REFERENCES Dames & Moore
~
Dames & Moore. 1982a. Bristol Bay regional power plan, preliminary
environmental report. prepared for Stone & webster Engineering
Corporation, Inc. and the Alaska Power Authority, February.
1982b. Study of fish habitat as related to potential impacts of
the Tazimina run-of-the-river hydroelectric concept. Appendix C.
In Bristol Bay regional power plan, interim feasibility assessment.
By Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Inc. for the Alaska
power Authority, July.
Poe P. H., and Mathisen. 1982. 1981 Newhalen River sockeye escapement
studies. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington.
FRI-UW-8211 • Final Report to Alaska Department of Fish & Game,
Contract No. 81-827.
12023-023-1 -13-
APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF FISH HABITAT SURVEY, MAY 1986 -ADF&G
,1 ,
.:..!. ' '
:,-1:"-'--... -.... _--....
DEP .. l\.RTMENT OF FISH .l~ND G"'\'~IE
June 25, 1986
Eric Marchegiani
Project Manager
Alaska Power Authority
P.O. Box 190869
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869
Dear Mr. Marchegiani:
Bill SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
333 RASPBERRY ROAD
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99502·2392
267-2342
Re: Results of Fish Habitat Survey, Tazimina'Falls Hydro Site.
On May 14-15, 1986, Kim Sundberg and Denby Lloyd, both Habitat
Biologists on my staff, accompanied you to Iliamna to conduct a
fish habitat survey at the proposed Tazimina Falls Hydroelectric
project site. The purpose of the survey was: (1) to ascertain
the fish habitat values at the base of falls where a powerhouse
and tailrace would be constructed, especially as this might
effect potential spawning habitat in the lower Tazimina River and
(2) to survey the fish resource and habitat above the falls in
the vicinity of the proj ect intake to determine the need for
screening to prevent fish entrainment or impingement in the
intake. The survey was timed to coincide with both ice-free low
water conditions and with the peak of rainbow trout spawning in
the lower Tazimina River. .
Study Area and Methods .
The study area was defined at the lower end by a series of low
falls approximately 400 feet downstream from Tazimina Falls and
at the upper end by a gully on the southwest bank approximately
500 feet upstream from falls (Figure 1). The study area
encompassed all pr9posed inwater construction locations for the
project. Five sampling techniques were employed in the survey:
1. Visual observations with polarized glasses on the ground and
from a helicopter of all potential fish habitat.
2. Electrofishing of all
40 percent of the study
(Smith-Root Model II-A).
wadable areas (approximately
area) using a backpack shocker
OCl
.£L
'~------'trl L
B
GENERAL PLAN
SCALE. ,'.!>CO'
PLAN -fONERI 0JSc:
SCAlE.I'_u
10 :I 0 10
} / / i/L
B-B
$CAI C,f-ID'
10
v
~'\JRBINE
;rt.-•.•
/
TAZIMINA RIVER DEVELOPMENT
LOCA I. POWER pnOJECT
BRISTOl,. P"-Y REGlOttAL PONEA PlAN
ALASKA PCMlER AUTHORITY
STOllE .. WU1STfA fllGIEUljQ CDlPOAAIIOII
.10. H001 «'INfli. COD .
-----------------------------FIGURE 1
Eric Marchegiani -3-June 25, 1986
3. Hook and line fishing using single hooks baited with salmon
eggs or Mepps spinners.
4. Minnow traps baited with salmon eggs and soaked overnight
(approximately 18 hours).
5. A variable mesh gillnet (0.5 to 2.0 inch stretched mesh) set
across the lower end of the plunge pool below the falls.
Results
1. Visual observations below falls. Approximately 6.0 observer
hours were spent in visual observations below the falls. No
fish were observed in the study area.
Visual observations above falls. Approximately 4.0 observer
hours were spent in visual observations above the falls. No
fish were observed in the study area.
2. Electrofishinq below the falls. The entire south side of
the river including the tailrace site was sampled with a
backpack shocker. The total shocking time was 520 seconds.
Because 0 flow conducti vi ty , the shocker was set at 1,000
V.D.C. at a pulse frequency of 90 Hz. At this setting, the
approximate region of galvanotaxis was one meter from the
anode •. Three sculpins (Cottus sp.) were collected below the
falls.
Electrofishing above the falls. Both sides of the river
were shocked including all wadable portions and the proposed
intake site. The total shocking time was 296 seconds. No
fish were collected by shocking above the falls.
3. Hook and line fishing below _ the falls. Approximately 4.5
angler hours of effort-were expended in fishing below the
falls. No fish were caught on hook and line.
Hook and line fishing above the falls. Approximately 3. a
angler hours of effort were expended in fishing above the
falls. No fish were caught on hook and line.
4. Minnow trappinq below falls. Seven baited minnow traps were
set within the study area below the falls. Two char
(Salvelinus sp., fork length = 121 rom, 146 mm) and two
sculpin (Cottus sp.) were caught.
5.
Minnow trapping above falls. Three baited minnow traps were
set within the study area above the falls. Two char (fork
length = 108 mIn, 89 rom) were caught.
Gillnet below falls. Approximately 60 feet of variable mesh
gillnet was set across the lower end of the plunge pool
below the falls. The net was in the river for approximately
Eric Marchegiani -4-June 25, 1986
0.5 hours. The net was fished by hauling the free end
across the river and alternately stretching it taut
perpendicular to the flow and then relaxing the free end and
allowing it to drift downstream with the current. No fish
were caught in the net.
6. Birds. Birds observed in the study area included dipper,
conunon merganser, harlequin I goldeneye (probably Barrows)
and sharp-shinned hawk. We did not observe any feeding
activity by diving ducks.
TemDerature. The water temperature below the falls on
May 15, 1986 was 39°F. The air temperature was 44°F.
Substrate. The bed and bank material below the falls
consisted primarily of cobble-sized talus, angular boulders,
bedrock shelves and small pockets of gravel and sand. The
substra te composition is substantially similar above the
falls except that the cobbles and boulders are less angular
and more water worn. Accumulations of coarse sand were
found on top of the remnant snow and ice on the banks below
the falls. This sand may be deposited by anchor ice carried
over the falls at breakup.
Discussion
The lower Tazimina River supports very valuable sockeye salmon
and rainbow trout resources. Previous studies by Poe and
Mathisen, 1982 noted that during years of large escapements,
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) can be found up to the base
of the Tazimina Falls. However Poe (pers. comm.) felt that
because of the scarcity of suitable spawning habitat in the
Tazimina Canyon, little if any successful spawning and inCUbation
could occur there. Concerns had been raised that there could be
rainbow trout spawning near the base of the falls where the
project outlet and tailrace would be constructed. Our May 14-15
survey was timed to coincide with the peak period of rainbow
trout spawning in the river. Observations of rainbow trout in
the lower Tazimina River confirmed that spawning was occurring
further downstream during the time of our survey. The failure to
collect or observe rainbow trout within the study area strongly
suggests that it was not used for spawning this year. A low
series of falls approximately 400 feet downstream of the Tazimina
Falls may discourage fish from ascending into the project area.
Moreover, our observations of substrate indicates that there is
very little sui table spawning habi ta t wi thin the study area.
These observations would support previous investigators'
speculation that little if any successful spawning occurs in the
vicini ty of the falls. If contractors closely adhere to the
terms and conditions of the Title 16 permit that will be required
for the portion of the project below the falls as well as APA's
Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control and
Eric Marchegiani -5-June 25, 1986
for Handling Fuel and Hazardous Materials, the construction and
operation of the powerhouse and tailrace should not have a
negative impact upon spawning, rearing, or migration of fish in
the Tazimina River.
The question of whether screening is necessary to prevent fish
entrainment or impingement in the proj ect intake is also an
issue. The available information indicates that low numbers of
resident grayling and char occur at the intake site. Because no
salmon can migrate above the Tazimina Falls, screening the intake
to protect anadromous fish is not an issue.
The Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP) Guideline No. 6 to
Habitat Alteration and Destruction and the draft
Coastal Management ·Program (BBCMP) Policy No. 10.4
the following:
Prevent Fish
Bristol Bay
both require
Tideland permits or leases, water appropriations, and/or
Title 16 permits for water intake pipes used to remove water
from fish bearing waters will require that the intake be
surrounded by a screened enclosure to prevent fish
entrainment and impingement. Pipes and screening will be
designed, constructed, and maintained so that the maximum
water velocity at the surface of the screen enclosure is not
greater than 0.1 foot per second. Screen mesh size will not
exceed 0.04 inch unless another size has been approved by
ADF&G. Other technology and techniques which can be
demonstrated to prevent the entrainment and impingement of
fish may also be utilized.
Deviation from this guideline requires that (1) no fish use the
intake waters, or (2) that alternate technology or techniques
provide adequate protection for fish. Information collected
during this and other surveys (Grabacki, 1982) suggests that
there is no migration of fish through or into the project area.
Some of the fish that occur in the vicinity of the intake site
are likely swept over the falls and lost from the Opper Tazimina
River system. Given that fish use of the intake site appears to
be very low, and the project design does not appear to alter the
stream in a manner that would attract fish to the intake site,
there seems to be little benefit in designing a screening system
for the intake specifically to prevent fish entrainment or
impingement. We suggest that instead you incorporate measures
into the location and design of the intake and trash screens
which would minimize the likelihood of fish entering the systa~.
Fish exclusionary screens with a mesh size of 0.25 inch would.
adequately protect the adult char and grayling that use the site.
The feasibility and cost of installing and maintaining 0.25 inch
mesh screens at the intake should be determined before the
screening issue can be finally resolved. This analysis should be
accomplished in order to determine the consistency of the project
with the BBAP and the BBCMP.
Eric Marchegiani -6-June 25, 1986
Finally, during aerial observations and video taping of the
preferred access route (Route No.3) we did not note any streams
or other flowing water that could support fish. It appears that
no Title 16 permits will be required for road crossings
associa ted with Access Route No.3. However, Alexey Lake and
Alexey Creek are in the vicinity of the road and they are
important for salmon spawning and rearing. Contractors should be
advised that any work affecting Alexey Lake and its tributary
streams, including water pumping, will require a Title 16 permit
from ADF&G.
Based upon this survey and our review of other pertinent project
information, we believe that with continued close coordination
between ADF&G and the developer, and close adherence to all
biological stipulations on Title 16 and other permits, this
project can be constructed and operated with minimal. impact to
the environment.
If you have any questions concerning this report please contact
Kim Sundberg (267-2334). Thank you for the opportunity to work
with APA on this project.
Sincerely,
Lance L. T asky
Regional Supervisor
Region IV
Habitat Division
cc: Jim Hemming, Dames & Moore
~on Matchett, Stone & Webster
Dick Russell, ADF&G, King Salmon
Hank Hosking, USFWS-WAES
Tim Hostetler, Bristol Bay CRSA
Bob Arce, Iliamna Natives, Ltd.
Brad Smith, NMFS
Eric Marchegiani -7-June 25, 1986
Literature Cited
Grabacki, S.T. 1982. Study of fish habitat as related to
potential impacts of the Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric
concept. Dames & Moore. in Volume 4, Bristol Bay Regional
Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Alaska Power
Authority Contract No. CC-08-2108. July, 1982.
Poe, P.H. and O.A. Mathisen. 1982. Tazimina River sockeye
salmon studies. Fisheries Research Institute. University
of Washington. in. Volume 4, Bristol Bay Regional Power
Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Alaska Power Authority
Contract No. CC-08-2108. July, 1982.
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE, MAY 1986 -DAMES & MOORE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE
OF AN ALTERNATE ROAD ROUTE
TO THE PROPOSED
TAZIMINA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
by
David E. Erikson
DAMES & MOORE
A reconnaissance level field survey was conducted on May 13-16, 1986, of a
proposed alternate road alignment which bypasses the lower two and a half miles
of the Tazimina access road. This alternate alignment separates from the old
route approximately 3 miles south of the proposed powerhouse site and travels
southwest to intersect with the Iliamna-Nondalton Road one mile above the
landing on the Newhalen River (Figure 1). The specific objectives of this sur-
vey were to:
o Conduct a ground survey of the new route documentjng any crossings of
streams and survey each for anadromous fish.
o Assess the overall biological features of thJs area including wetlands
and waterfowl habitat and identify sensitive areas.
o Note any obvious sources of gravel near the road route.
o Photograph the proposed location of the intake structure above the
Tazimina falls.
This survey was conducted by Dave Erikson, staff ecologist with Dames &
Moore and by Mike Yarborough, an archeologi st with Cultural Resources
Consultants. The environmental survey was done in conjuction with an archeolo-
gical survey of each route.
The old access road route from the proposed powerhouse location to the
Iliamna-Nondalton road was previously surveyed for stream crossings in the
summer of 1985 (Dames & Moore, 1985). More detailed environmental baseline stu-
dies of the Tazimina drainage were conducted in 1981 (Dames & Moore, 1982).
: .
.~ (,(:.) ;.:~L· "", :
I)
o --
FIGURE 1
STUDY AREA
2.0 METHODS
In order to document fish stream crossing and assess overall habitat con-
ditions along the proposed road routes, each route was walked by the field
party. Lakes and ponds adjacent to the road routes were surveyed wi th bi nocu-
1 ars for waterfowl acti vity and general notes and photographs were taken of
habitat features. The starting point of the ground survey was the ridge between
Alexcy Lake and Tazimina River.
A Jet Ranger helicopter, chartered from Trans Alaska Helicopters, Inc. of
Anchorage, provided transportation to the sites and was also used for low-level
aerial surveys of the road routes and to survey adjacent lakes for waterfowl.
The material site survey was conducted at the same time as the biological
survey, but the ground was still frozen so only surface deposits of gravel were
noted along the routes. Areas of exposed gravel were photographed and marked on
the map.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Upland Habitats·
Terrestrial habitat along alternate road route varies from open low shrub
and lichen comnunities dominated by narrow-leafed laborador tea (Ledum
decumben s) , crowberry (.Empetrum ni grum) dwarf bi rch (Betu 1 a .!!!!!!) and wi 11 ow
(Salix sp.) and by several species of lichen (Cetraria sp., Sterocaulon sp.,
Cladonia sp.), to a sparce, white spruce woodland (cover 10-25%). Essentially,
all of this area ;s interspersed by short, stunted white spruce which appear to
be dominant but overall cover is generally less than 10% (the minimum required
to classify it as a woodland vegetation type).
Thi s vegetation type extends over most of well drained upl and areas adja-
cent to the Tazimina River and occurs throughout most of the area traversed by
both road routes. There appears to be no significant difference in the upland
vegetation between the two routes.
3.2 Wetlands
The proposed alternate access road route passes through an area of well-
drained soils and does not intersect any significant areas of wetlands. Minor
re-alignment around some small potholes could easily avoid all wetland habitats.
This is similar terrain to the old road route which also crosses no wetlands.
Wet 1 and areas adjacent to the road route occur in conj unct i on with sma 11
ponds and lakes, some of which have little open water with mostly emergent vege-
tation. The development of the access road should have no effect on these
areas.
3.3 Fish Habitat
The proposed alternate road alignment would not cross any areas of surface
water and thus would not have any effect on fish habitats. The small lakes and
ponds along the route are isolated from other waterbodies, so would not likely
support significant fish resource which 'could be affected by road construction.
3.4 Waterfowl
All of the lakes and small ponds along the alternate road route and the
present road route were surveyed for any waterfowl· concentrations. The 1 ake
with the most activity was Alexcy Lake. Red-brested mergansers were common with
sma 11 er numbers of common mergansers observed. A few pi ntail s, ma 11 ards, and
green-winged teal were flushed from the edges of the lake.
The smaller isolated potholes and Jakes adjacent to the lower access road
and the alternate route supported only a small number of diving ducks (Barrow1s
goldeneye, red-brested mergansers), that probably nest in the area. Many of the
ponds had no waterfowl present duri ng ei ther the aeri a 1 or ground survey.
Overall waterfowl density in the area adjacent to both routes appeared to be
low.
A pair of tundra swans were located in a small pond north of the existing
access road route during aerial survey but no nesting activity was observed on
that pond. They may be usi ng anyone of the other ponds or 1 akes in the area
but no nest site was not found. It di d not appear that these ponds and 1 akes
support more than one pai r of swans. No geese were seen in any of the areas
surveyed.
3.5 Gravel Sources
The terrain along the proposed alternate appears to be part of an old gla-
cial moraine with many small ridges and depressions, a few of these depressions
support small isolated ponds. Many of these ridges have large, exposed area of
unvegetated gravel which suggests much of the parent material may be suitable
for road construction. Since the ground was still frozen, it was not determined
how far below the surface the gravel went, but there appeared to be no shortage
of gravel, especially along the alternate road route.
Typical examples of these exposed gravel deposits are given in the attached
photomosaic and locations of these sites along the alternate route are given in
Figure 2.
Site Number*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*Site numbers
TABLE 1
LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL DEPOSITS FROM
LORAN C. COORDINATES
Latitude Longitude
N 59 53 30 W 154 47 06
N 59 53 54 W 154 47 30
N 59 53 30 W 154 48 30
N 59 53 36 W 154 49 00
N 59 53 30 W 154 49 00
N 59 53 30 W 154 49 12
N 59 53 1B W 154 49 24
correspond to the map in Figure 2.
3.6 Intake Area
Two photomosai cs of the area intake structure above the fa 11 s and are
included as attachments to this report. These photos cover approximately 150 m
of the south side above the falls of the Tazimina River taken from the opposite
si de.
. \ ,:
'{.
I
I
112
I
. j
I
i
,'. ~9JW~ . 'L' ~iG FIGURE 2 ~1 LOCATION OF POTENTIAL MATERIAL SITE!
'. ALONG ALTERNATE ACCESS ROAD
4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Overall Comparison of Road Routes
After walking both the old proposed route and the alternate road alignment
it would appear there is no significant biological difference between the two
routes. Nei ther route crosses any area of surface water such as streams or
ponds and the vegetation community types are very similar between the two
routes. The area of surf ace di sturbance wou 1 d also be very compari b 1 e si nce
both routes wou'd be the same length. Although both routes do pass by lakes and
ponds., these habitats appear to have only marginal waterfowl use. A small
amount .of disturbance would be expected during construction of the road. Swans
do nest in the general area, but only one pair were observed using the ponds
adjacent to the northern route. There were no indications of any concentrated
nesting activity.
No ecologically sensitive or unique habitats were identified along either
road route which would be affected by the development of an access road from the
proposed powerhouse site to the Iliamna-Nondalton road.
5.0 REFERENCES
Dames & Moore. 1982. Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, Environmental Report.
Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage, Alaska.
Dames & Moore. 1985. Environmental Reconnaissance of Potential Road Routes to
the proposed Tazimina River Hydroelectric project. Prepared for the Alaska
Power Authority. Anchorage, Alaska.
APPENDIX F
ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MAY 1986
-
-
Archeological Survey of Two Access Road Routes
and the Proposed Sites of a Powerhouse and Penstock
for the Tazimina River Local Power Project
by
Michael R. Yarborough
Submitted to
Dames and Moore Consulting Engineers
May 21, 1986
Cultural Resource Consultants
Anchorage, Alaska
Introduction
The following report describes an archeological survey of two
possible access road routes and the proposed sites of a
powerhouse and penstock associated with the Tazimina River Local
Power Project. This work was conducted on the 14th and 15th of
May, 1986, by Michael R. Yarborough of Cultural Resource
Consultants.
Project Areas
The prefered access route to the site of the powerhouse and
penstock would run northeast from the Newhalen Road, through a
convoluted terrain of discontinuous glacial ridges, knolls and
small lakes without outlet streams, to a point just south of the
edge of the terrace above the Tazimina River (Figure 1). From
here the road swings back away from the terrace edge for
approximately four-tenths of a mile before running along the
northern edge of a ridge that separates the northeastern corner
of Alexcy Lake and the Tazimina River valley. East of Alexcy
Lake the road would again turn away from the terrace edge across
a wind-swept plateau.
All of the glacial features along the first portion of this route
are marked with extensive patches of exposed gravel. There are
also numerous barren areas along the edge of the river terrace.
Portions of the route back from the terrace edge were covered
with unbroken alpine tundra.
The first segment of the alternate route, from the existing
Newhalen Road to the southwest shore of a lake along the southern
margin of Section 17, Township 3 S, Range 32 W, would run through
an area of flat tundra dotted with white spruce. From the lake,
the route crosses a rolling terrain of discontinuous ridges,
knolls and hummocks before turning to the southeast to the edge
of the terrace above the Tazimina River. The road would then
roughly parallel the edge of the terrace for approximately
nine-tenths of a mile to where it joins the prefered route.
In the vicinity of the lake in Section 17 and to the southeast of
where the alternate road joins the prefered route there are
numerous and extensive areas of exposed gravel. Other areas of
the alternate route are covered with tundra.
The powerhouse will be located in the river canyon below the
falls, while the penstock will be above the falls in the bed of
the river. In this area, the river runs through a narrow canyon
with high, vertical, rock walls. Along the eastern edge of the
river, upstream from the falls, are a series of low terraces
rising above the rim of the canyon. Here, except for a series of
holes left by seismic testing, there are few areas of exposed
soil.
Previous Archeological Surveys
The only previous archeological work in the project area was done
in September of 1981 by Kathy Arndt. She conducted a surface
survey of two potential powerhouse sites on the Tazimina River
and an aerial reconnaissance around the perimeter of Lower
Tazimina Lak~. Two recent campsites were the only cultural
remains found during this survey. Her report (Dames and Moore
1982) contains a detailed summary of the prehistory, history, and
ethnography of the Tazimina Lake area.
Field Research
Both the prefered access route, from the Newhalen Road to
approximately the common boundary between Sections 26 and 27, and
the alternate route were inspected from the air and surveyed
on-the-ground. The proposed sites of the powerhouse and penstock
were also looked at from the air, and the terraces on the eastern
side of the river were walked for a distance of approximately 100
meters (m) upstream from the falls.
During the surface survey, the approximate routes of the access
road and the alternate, as depicted on a 116),)60 U.S.G.S. map,
were followed using landmarks and compass bearings for direction.
Areas of exposed gravels, which were numerous, were inspected for
cultural material. Except in the vicinity of the lake in Section
17, the ground in the project area was frozen just under the
cover of moss and lichens. The latitude and longitude of the two
artifacts found during the survey were determined using the
helicopter's Loran navigation system.
Field Results
The only cultural remains located during this survey were a
fragment of a microblade core and a retouched flake. Both were
found exposed on the surface along the edge of the river terrace
northeast of Alexcy Lake (Figure 1). The core fragment,
measuring 18.6 by 7.9 by 10.5 mm, is from a patch of exposed
gravel approximately 12 m back from the edge of the terrace in
the northwest corner of Section 27 (latitude 59 53'30" N,
longitude 154 46'54" W). It is made of a fine-grained, dark red
chert covered with small black spots. The fragment includes a
portion of the core's fluted face and striking platform.
Numerous hinged flake scars and some crushing on the platform
attest to the attempted removal of front-struck rejuvenation
flakes from the platform surface. Only one blade scar is present
on the face of the core. This piece is apparently from a
wedge-shaped core which fractured along several flaw lines in the
material.
Wedge-shaped microblade cores are a characteristic artifact of
the American Paleo-arctic tradition. Assemblages of this
tradition have been previously found on the Alaska Peninsula at
Ugashik Narrows, Igiugig, and Graveyard Point at the mouth of the
Kvichak River. The assemblage at Ugashik Narrows dates between
7,700 and 9,000 B.P., while that at Graveyard Point dates to
7,800 to 7,900 B.P. (Smith and Shields 1977123-24, 36). The site
at Igiugig is undated. In addition to wedge-shaped cores,
artifacts recovered from these sites have included microblades,
core rejuvenation flakes, large and small projectile points,
scrapers and bifaces.
The retouched flake was found along the edge of the terrace
approximately 250 meters to the west (latitude 59 53'36" N,
longitude 154 47'6" W) of the core fragment. It is a large, 33.1
by 43.1 by 11.6 mm, flake of fine-grained chert with bifacial
retouch along both lateral margins.
Conclusions and Recommendations
One of the recommendations from Arndt's 1981 work was that
"terraces above the present river bed" be tested, since
"prehistoric sites have been found high above present day rivers
and lakes in the Iliamna-Lake Clark region ••. " (Dames and Moore
1982,5-12). This conclusion is supported by the results of this
second survey of the project area. The river terrace above the
Tazimina, especially the section of the terrace which separates
the northeast corner of Alexcy Lake and the river valley, has a
very high archeological potential. The terrace offers a
convenient route of travel and an excellent vantage of the
Tazimina River valley. The river and Alexcy Lake are rich in
both anadromous and fresh water species of fish, and beaver and
waterfowl are found around the lake.
Other portions of the prefered and alternate routes, away from
the edge of the terrace, have a much lesser archeological
potential. The prefered route crosses numerous glacial ridges
and knobs, but, because of the convoluted nature of the terrain,
no single feature offers much of an advantage in terms of view.
Much of the alternate route--the segment southwest of the lake in
Section 17--is flat and featureless tundra. The lakes skirted by
both routes are small and have no outlet streams. Indeed,
neither route crosses any streams.
,
The sites of the penstock and powerhouse have no archeological
potential. These locations are virtually inaccessible and offer
no advantage, other than scenic, over other more accessible areas
further up-or downstream.
Based on the results of this survey, it is recommended that, once
an access route has been selected, the portion of the road that
parallels the edge of the river terrace be intensively surveyed
and tested. Barren patches within the road right-of-way should
be checked for artifacts exposed on the surface, and vegetated
areas tested for in situ cultural material. Given the number of
"blowouts" examined during this survey, it can be reasonably
predicted that there are no extremely large sites along the
terrace edge. However, the isolated core fragment and retouched
flake do suggest that there may be other small "chipping
stations It, "lookouts". or ·'hunting camps" overlooking the
Tazimina River valley.
Bibliography
Dames and Moore
1982 Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Environmental ReDort.
Submitted to the Alaska Power Authority.
Smith, George S. and Harvey M. Shields
1977 Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of the
Proposed Lake Clark National Park. Lake Clark, Lake
Telaquana, Turquoise Lake, Twin Lakes, Fishtrap Lake,
Lachbuna Lake and Snipe Lake. Anthropology and Historic
Preservation, Cooperative Parks Studies Unit, University
of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Page 7
Legend
Figure 1-Project Area Map
1. Prefered access road alignment
2. Alternate access road alignment
). Falls and site of penstock and powerhouse
4. Microblade core fragment
5. Retouched flake
6. Approximate eastern limit of access road survey
FIGURE 1
PROJECT AREA MAP
APPENDIX G
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
HYDRO ALTERNATIVE 1
A 501080 HYDRo ALTe:-RNA1i"€ i ESTIMATE }
CLIENT
APA STATION Ta;~,VV) ,'",-a.,.. !±Loire Feas'( ESTtM~~~ JO NO SHEET NO
Of ~ hi-! . _J!:t!22 7-2. 7 1
DESCRIPTION OF WORK '2. @ 350 kIN (yYl<Gd~U:Yh. L~) OUANTITIEAn.U CHECKED BY p~~ ~
'Sl.l Y\'\ (Y\ 1; \<.~ ~ Well Op-t-LOv\.... IAS~9 B:r TKW un~ts DATE
q/Bb
APPROVED V
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION QUANmlES UNIT COST MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL MAN-HOURS NO_ MArl MH/RATE
-----7 f-----------1----f-f---~
1-.330 ~ a.-1AC1 L~ R;o!.d::; I )t Jlu d.~ ! IIv 1"'-' .---// -"
,~--
~31 P.ov,r,z.:c:p~ -f-.-~~ 1'1 Q~ Q
332.. lAJ<rl:c-Y'v...n ¥ s / f---f-14 l.(3 (lOr
~-~ ____ ~btMl?~ ~ Ge.YlQ_r~::l nY'S ". ,. / 55 f,o 0'-' f-----~----f--
33Lf .i}C£'..IZSS0r"( E.lJ2..c...±r~ ~1U,I'D me.n.:6 / 30 11.1"1 o If')
/
~ -+-I-~--
335 I l~' I X III c:;o .Qlc «ltsc. Powecp __ ""IOr'YJer7.. ~~-
.~3c.. __ Eco.ds / '-~ ()Q 00 0 ~'-'-
/ ~'k/353 Su-bsn ~ fVIAI'i Stu a-c}LJPlQ S.+.n+J~DYU .t; D 00 0
35'+ .-~_s, »1.,'.s,s I ~ J / 00 0 "
'SIT ---,--/ 1-1-I--f---QQ -
JY]r:>b / h.e.»'\ob / (") ,
SiT / -I--I------'---l-f--,= F= ---
_5 SZ ~ laQ
~
ALinw£l/J/IC.2£ f1£ "J:V\r1 fhtrcrrn I n~tes (BELl-/ -l-f--511 17 l!f / f----~= '--f-f-f-
----1~L bl~ Cost ----. / '--c6 J'Q OQ 00
L -----
'"Lttd I fv..,L±C; : ~ if '--'---~-
-ErJ91 neo...ctNt9-OAAd De..s(~h---/ i-f---150 oQ ob
Co n struc...t-/o"V! mctr-na. ct €-Y"ne.rz.t. / --~() Q
J: b c... ftLlo 1A1(kn r P.
./ ~ '----I----f~ l-f----I-Ie f"l
~ f-I-
_ .. _._-1---f-
_ lorf') '-£:s .. ,-, m AT£h COST /_~-,~ -~ f-f-71j ~ 00
/ -,== --'= --------
'DENOTES CONTRACTED WOHK
ESTIMATE ... 6010.80
r':::C~UE~N;;-T --A-P-A----------------::-Sc:-:TA-=TI-=ON:-:--------.----------r=-:--:-::-----,.---,:--,:--------,.
r-~~~~~~----~~--------~-~~-~-~-------_+~-----_+-
ESTIMATE NO JO. NO SHEET NO
1'-/007· 2.. 7 2.. OF ~
DESCRIPTION OF WORK III C: I m 11--1 It: 2-@ 3 50 kIN (y'Y/r.z;d-Lu.YM.. Lead)
W<z-{I ortJ~ u.,~q B."! TkW (L1·., . .'",ts
ACCOUNT
NO.
-
DESCRIPTION OUANTlTlES UNIT COST
MArl MHiRATE
--
QUANTITIES 8Y CHECKED BY PRICEs;!'-tJ... Artv ,..1-:. ' --DATE
7/81:::>
APPROVED V
MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL MAN-HOURS
---__ f-'~ f-'-f---+-1--+-4---+---+1------
-f--l-+--+-f---+ -H--t--t-I--t--f-+-t -*-+-H ---I---4--H----,
... 501080 ESTIMATE
REVtSE.D , 2/19/86
REVISE]) qll~/Bb
f:LIENT Al'A STATION ESTIMATE NO JO NO SIlEET NO
1'1007.27 3 OF ~
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TA"l.IMINA 'L@ 350kw ( Wlediu.rYJ Lo:uLj----OUANT~ CHEC~ED BY .-PRIC'7~ ~ rr7 r.r • I ~d:s DATE APPROVED Wa.tl OptlOtv I.l$~ B:r TKw 9/8b
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION QUANTITIES UNIT COST MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL MAN·HOURS NO, MArl MH/AATE
.~
/ 332-Wcd-rl. rwo..\1 S -Pct.n stDc..k. -_. '--I-
t:=RP D~De.. -4'0" P. -~1QbE $2.50 ~~ --I----"1 c:; 10 0
fl. :-k '.;>///
~--I--1-
___ £2LC,d.. v a.tt.o'''1...> -ro c. LfI$O C{ I--~ 30/1 ---~ --I 2 q 0
F~c.o..Na±J~n -('./lVY'U")/')0/7 3S_S~c..'1 W5j( ~/ i I 4 1
Ba.ckf~U -ro..M OM tQ../oo Cf 110/( ~ JO 1D I" --'-I------I--~ ----I---
Rackfi..\l -SQ_J~.J (CoV\'\~) __ I7~'L _.11:21 ~ LI~ 17 S
&11:5 he.d t"oc-k bu{rlI~ 0 -.:lo~ _;t;~ ~ 22-Ie:; 0
J / 1--1--
I---.~
SiT ~ / ! ,: -,
, ..... .... ""
L 1-1---I--
"
-
33'2... 1N~a..Y~ -T cti ll'7UYJ~ ~
E. ~ cmJC\.;t~ -1;tLl us l'i2.,en c..u...:t:,. 1.9.0.0 ~'l tltQ/I V 17 1{'lo 010
_R!l~C(;t,~CVt.l~ t ±1A.r\t\eJ..s _..2..15 ~'i1_~ the ~I.-~ I 3 i71t; o~
Concr.U<L I tU.?M'\U L~~~ 2. QrLC:1_ tl.QQQ ~ 12 00 00 0
StntrJu"nl 1 siQ-6UL I ~11 eL ~~tbr-t IS-I-L/oo # $ ;l·Se ~ I---f-----'--l-I----~ k9 Cl :0
fQfYY'IS -~"Q..,d. ' .I~~~~~t =_
.~ .,-'
_ . ~o'(' \'Y\S -sfr'o,..t~ bt ~ R~fo'('~j) tid Y\ n~j 29,})_I?p :It--I----1---I---
F~.bex-Qla~s P~[)e.. bB /....F f2..56 ~ I---I-~ f-'--11 ~ In bh
~fe;r.iarn I / -I-1=
L.S. 17 01(,,) ....
L. .• --1---1--/ -'----
5/, / It; :4 ib o"lc
~ I~ "---I----'--
. -r--I---~-I------I----f---I---L-~ ---L.. I.-,-c-_ I---
/ I--
33 Z. wct-4y-w.tL'JS :zptCt .. t / --'---_ = .C'
_'-cc __ Ill{~LQO~~ ---~
" 501080 ESTIMATE
---'---CLIENT STATION E:STlMATE NO JO NO SHEET NO
Af'A I'1DD7·7..7 tf OF h
DESCRIPTION OF WORK I A-:C: I ty\, IV A : 2. @ 350 l<-w (~' IPoA) :ANTlAJiW
CHECKED 8Y P~~
W <l.-ll 0 r-b~rvL~ LlStM.q ~:r T K",( w.:d:s OAT< 9/Sb APPROVED
-
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION OUANTITIES UNIT COST MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL NO. MAll MH/RATE MAN-HOURS
7 -
33\ J?~BLa..v...:t l-i-I-~--~.
£ )(c.o.. '" o...--tU'>VU -CO)'V\ Y'\I\OO--_76S~_ _$IS/< :;}/
-'-'--I-J L ;iLl 5
~~c.a-v~.ob~ -t:oc...k. _7b~'j ~ljcd ~ 30 bO in
~ ~ -
--~fLU JJ)Q(Lc,y _tY?} 1-'--I--,---?Q Of' 0
IJnd ~qJYQUM.d CQc..k.. ex!'.J:l..,\/ @ head ~~~ --.JQQ c.'I $500 ~ ~ --'---~ --SO ro 0
-Rock r:fri.-II IM_Q 2. hoL~-,t; S3 .. p. _ .. __ LZ5.--f:.t A 500 V~ f--I-t--I--IG 2-50 r
--t!oV\('x-<?±e. l-:.w{)f)-r' c:.h2J1 -tlArJr ~Lo.b) :LlD c.'1 l-U:O V~ t-,_if 2c en
CO\t\.c,rQ-.... re (L~~~ cf hr.,Lp.-) 0D c.''L _f200 ~ liz CD Q-1--1--1-
R(>~,~forc.~q ?8,700 :tt:: I $ 2/1-57 L.tif> I"
----f---f--f--I--~I--,~ --.J • L1J2/ ~ 161" ---.EocVV\S -st~b± _ f--UQO sF 110 Orl " f--f-
-ForVV\s -c.u,'I"'\J~ 6i.fo Sf !lsi ~ I i'2 (.0 10
47/1 <P C1lS~ (~drL.llp-d. holes) __ t.ru> ~ t36Q ~ -~ --I-. k~ 36 0
-r.:>rouJ~o ;¢.. cas~ ~2. c.Y-.:t> 30c ~ c.,t, rit';
str~du-:.nl st~ (h.ofst ~~ ... If-miW_ li'3J-ooo :It L2.S ~ .. ~ ~ _= 0 r f------'---
_'1 ~ .vd:i I J. • t. hDA~~ L.g. ljo 00 1.----'--f--~--
Wde..r t /,A ,J, , ens " IU~J.900 #= ~ ?.}5~ ~~ iz 75 !o P ----I---I----~ l-I---IJ • ~ ! ---y~ ~rbouse.. bu&LirM J L.S. _C; ole r. 0
L·S. ~ __ If),.sC'-> TYlo-J..'.ll "'Jork qr~Q 30 oor
,J oJ ~ 1-------~ ~I; 'I"" i ..... '-' ST_ " It""
-f-~. -~ I
L 1--1--f--.-.--I--1---1-
--I-~ f-I--/ -~ ---'-----
-1-~ 1-1---~------f-~
~
.nr~'r'\Trr rrV·fTn~r,..rr) lA/no$.>
A 601080
CLIENT APA
DESCRIPTION QF WORK
ACCOUNT
NO.
ESTIMATE
STATION
TAc.1 MI"-i 11: 2 @ 350 kw (me.dt,u;'Y1 [CJ:;:J...c:/,)
We.{( 0f-b~ US~ B"J TI<W IJ.-tL;"ts
DESCRIPTION QUANTITIES UNIT COST
MArl MH/RATE
REVISE» 9/19/sC::.
JO. NO . SHEET NO ~~ NOD7·7..,7 . 5 OF c...
OUANTlTI%w CHECKED BY _. ~
~OA:~TE~q~~~le~b----~A=PPR=OV=ED~---
ESflMA1E NO
MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL MAN·HOURS
... 50l0eo ESTIMATE
~ ---"----"--~-~ ~~ -
CLIENT Am STATtON ESTIMATE NO
JO NO 14007. '2 .• 7 SHEET NO
6:, OF ~ -------~~ --~
DESCRtPTlON OF WORK T.4 'l.1 fY\ I N A .: 2 @ 350 kvJ t rnruifA.LrYl loa..d.) QUANTlTI~ CHECKED BY Pi#1h-
op-ho~\f\.:.. . • f-Wtcll tA~ J:!.::r TkW lJ.-Y\ct s DAlE ,lela APPRoveD
-ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION QUANTITIES UNIT COST MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL MAN~HOURS NO~ MArl MHIRATE
~ ~
/ 33£.... Roo...d
~--~--f-I-I--~I-
c..loflr~n 5D~ ~~ ~ ~-~-,-'--of-~ 1-l!:Q Q 10"
I--F.x.ca_~a.±~ C!VI... -CJ!>Yh '(Y\.O\I\.. 55!J~'i 1j5/ 'c~ ~I~ 00 Q
r:;U J C-OM r'Y) ott..
~-be! ~(jO ~ C-'f 4J~l! ~ .1-L i tic '2IC 00 Ie
FLIt -ctf'cweL 19 I-;;ioQ ~'l J2?L ~ -I--If~ lfo Idc d . 2tt'/ q. c.c.Jv~p~~ __ -.-JJJ2QM r~ So/ V 18.~ 00 r, _ .~ ~@tY\a.ga.. -
/
I ~ ~ H-
----,-. ~[ f-'-~ i
I--~I-'-i-I-1-1-1-1-I-! lie 00 !CO Ie
/ I
l-I-~I-~ i-I-~
/ "
/ I-I-
-I-f~-I-~
/ 1--~ -1-!~ /-~
/ I--f--
/ I ~
/ 1-1--• /
/ I-I-I-I--,-t-~
--~ I-~f-I ~ f---~-~I-I-I-I-I-I--
I-1-1-!~-I-~ l-f-L-,
-/ ~-
1-/ '--I / J
~ -
APPENDIX H
SAMPLE PRESENT WORTH PRINTOUT
-
TAZIMiNA RIVER HYDRD
D!SCDlJIHED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
FEASIBILITY STUDY
TAZ!~!NA RiVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
BRISTnL SAY RE6!DNAL POWER PLAN
AL~SKA POWER AUTHORITY
ELECTRIC! iY W1ERATIDri
Y!!ak Dema::d (un
R::nual Energy Us~ [MW~:;
t'. iESE.L EENERATI0N
Added Ca~a:ity mil
Re~licEd Capacity IkW)
Installed Capacity (k~)
Energy Ger.eration IMWhi
Diesel FUEl Escalation Rat! (1)
Di?se} Fue: Cost (Cents/oal)
Di~sel Fuel Used ISa! 000)
Capita: Cost ($000)
D,~~ Cost ($000)
FUEl Cost ($0001
De~t Service ($000)
Sa;vage Value 1$(00)
Subt:tal ($0(1(;)
i-iy'DRCE:..ECTRIC
Ad"ed Capa:i:y (kW)
installed :apacity '.WI
?er:ent cf Annual Generation (11
Energy 6eneration !MWh)
Capital C05~ ($000)
G~~ Cost ($001))
S:J b t ::ital \$000 j
iRAt~SMla5!Or-.;
Capital test ISOCO!
D~!'1 Cr:s: i$O(!l))
S.;\ {age Value ($OOOi
Suhtota} ($OO!),'
SUt:r.ARY
Total Cost ($000)
Dis:ountee Cost ($OOCI
Cu~ulative Present Worth (SOODI
CUMULATIVE DISCOUNTED VALUES
1996
1
461
1834
(I
C
990
1834
0.0
11 !)'
153
o
92
169
o
(;
261
(J
I)
(I
o
o
I)
(I
o
c
I)
I)
261
252
252
CAPITAL COST ($OOO!_~__________ 6771
O~M CCST ($OOOi________________ 3073
F~£L COST ($000)_______________ 1337
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH ($000) 11181
Case:WELL SCHE~£ -2 UNITS AT 350 kW PA6E 1 of 6
19Ei
::
474
1889
o
o
990
1889
2.8
113
158
o
93
17e
o
o
271
o
o
o
o
211
253
505
1988
3
429
1946
(I
o
990
1946
2.8
116
It.3
o
94
189
(I
o
283
c
o
o
650
o
t.50
(I
o
(I
o
c~ .. .,,).l
841
1346
Discount Rate (Ii............................ 3.5
Diesel Fuel Base Cost (Cents/Sal)............ 110
Diesel Fuel Consumptior. (Sal/kWh) •••.•.•••••• 0.0836
Loae Growth Rate {II......................... 3
Diesel D~~ Variable Cost ($/kWhl ••••••.•••••• 0.0175
Hydro D~M Variabie Cost {$/~Wh).............. 0.015
1989
4
503
2004
o
o
990
2004
2.B
119
168
o
95
199
o
o
294
o
o
o
o
3050
o
305e
o
o
o
o
3344
2914
4261
1990
5
2064
(I
C
990
20b~
2.B
122
In
(I
96
211
o
(I
3C7
(I
(I
o
o
3050
o
3050
650
o
(I
650
4007
3373
1634
1991
6
534
2126
o
o
990
155
2.B
m
\'l' ....
o
20
16
(I
o
36
70e:
700
93
1971
o
16::
165
o
10
(I
10
211
171
7a06
1992
7
550
2191)
C
990
151
2.8
129
13
I)
20
16
(I
(.
36
(I
100
93
2039
(J
91
91
(I
10
o
10
137
lOB
79!3
1993
e
Sbo
2255
o
o
990
147
2.8
133
12
o
20
16
o
o
36
o
700
93
2108
o
92
92
o
10
(;
10
13B
105
B018
1994
9
o
o
990
l·g
2.B
12
20
16
o
o
36
(l
700
94
217~
(1
93
93
10
o
10
139
102
8120
199::
10
601
2393
o
(0
990
139
2.8
141
12
16
C
I)
3,
o
W'
9~
2254
C
94
94
o
It
140
9,'
8220
TAW!iNA RIVER H'fDRD
ELECTF;~cm SEttERAT!DN
Pea): D~i!lanc (kill i
Annual Energy Use 01Wh)
DI~SE~ SENERATIDN
Added Caaa:ity (~W)
Replate~ Capacity IkWI
In;tal1ed Capacity (kW)
Energy 6ene:-ation fMWhl
Diesel Fuel Escalation Rite {!i
Dles~l Fuei Cos: (Cents/Sall
Die;el Fuel Used (Sa! 000)
Capital Cost ($OOO)
O~~ C:lst ($000
FUEl Cost ($00(;;'
Debt Service (fOGC)
Sa: vagE Val ue (!()OOi
Subtotal ($(lOOi
~dded Capa:ity (kW)
!nstal:~: Capacity (kW)
F'2r:::e;;t Df Annual Qeoerati on m
Energy Generation (I'!Wh;'
Capital tost (5000)
L!tr: Co:;t (~,O~i):'
TRAt·!EtHSE lOti
Ca~jta: Cost ($000)
D~~~ Cast ($O(!O;
Salvage ValuE ISOaC]
SiJbto:al ($(;00)
SUMMARY
iotal Cos: ($000)
DiS:Dunteti tost (1000)
CU3ula~jv; Present W~rth If (00)
1996
11
619
2465
o
o
91'0
136
2.8
1~5
1!
o
20
16
Co
36'
o
700
94
2329
(I
95
95
o
10
(I
10
141
97
8316
Cas2:WELL SCHE~E -i UNITS Ai 350 ~W
1997
12
638
2539
o
o
990
132
2.B
149
11
o
20
16
o
o
36
o
700
95
2407
91;
96
o
10
o
10
143
94
B411
199B
13
657
2615
(I
o
990
130
2.8
153
11
o
20
17
(I
o
37
o
700
95
2485
o
97
97
HI
o
10
144
92
8503
1999
14
67b
2693
o
o
990
146
2.8
157
12
o
20
19
o
o
39
o
700
95
2547
I)
9B
98
o
10
o
10
147
91
B594
2000
15
~97
2774
o
o
990
149
2.8
161
12
o
20
20
o
o
4(:
o
700
95
2625
o
99
99
o
10
(I
10
149
89
B683
2001
16
718
2857
o
o
990
155
2.B
16b
13
o
20
22
o
o
42
o
700
95
2702
o
101
101
o
10
o
10
1"')
8S
B77!
2002
17
739
2943
o
o
990
165
2.8
171
14
o
20
24
\)
o
44
o
700
94
2779
o
102
102
o
10
o
10
B7
a857
2003
18
7bl
3031
o
C
990
173
2.8
lib
14
o
20
25
45
o
700
94
2858
o
103
103
o
10
I}
10
158
85
S94~
PASt 2 of 6
2004
19
784
3122
o
o
990
182
2.8
is:
o
20
28
o
C
48
o
70::,
94
2941)
o
10
()
10
162
84
902j
2005
20
BOB
32i6
o
o
990
191
2.8
lat
16
o
20
c:',
.. N
c
94
o
10
o
10
165
S3
9110
TAW:IN~ RIVER H\'DRO
ELECTRICITY SENER~TION
?eak Demand IkWl
Annual Energy USE (HWhl
DIESEL 6E~ERATION
Added Capa:ity IkWI
Replaced Capacity Ik~)
!ns:a!led Capacity (kW)
Energy Gene!" at i an (/1l;;h I
Di!sel Fuel Escalatinn Rat~ IIi
DiEsel Fue! Cost (Cents/Gall
Dies~: Fuei Used IGal 000)
Capital Cost (SOOCI
O&M Cost !t)(iCI)
De~: Sefvite ISODOI
Si!vage Value (SOOOI
Sc~total (tOO:))
HvnRDELECTRIC
Added Capacity IkWI
Ins~alled Capacity (kW:
Pert~nt of Rnn~21 8eneration (ll
EnE!"gj G~ne!"ation I"~h!
Ca~i~a: tcst ($000~
C~~ Cost !iOO(i)
Sut'tctal t $000)
Salvage Value (SOODI
Total Cost (tOCO)
D~s:c~:tej [cst (SOOO)
Cu~u!ativ2 Present Worth ($COO)
Case: WELL SCHE!1E -~ UI~ITS AT 350 kW
2006
21
2007
')'" ....
BOS 80B
3216 32ib
-49(1 0
500 0
500 500
191 191
0.0 0.0
186 IS6
16 16
400 (I
20 20
30 30
(l C
o 0
450" 50
o
700
94
3025
{. v
105
10~
(I
10
(I
1(;
565
274
93B4
o
700
94
3C·25
o
10
(I
10
165
7i
9451
200B
23
B08
3216
o
C
500
I'll
0.0
lSb
16
o
20
30
o
(I
50
(I
700
94
3025
(l
105
105
o
10
o
10
165
75
9536
2009
24
80S
3216
o
o
500
191
0.0
186
16
o
20
30
o
o
50
o
700
94
3025
c
1e5
105
(I
10
o
10
165
72
9bOB
2010
25
BOB
3216
o
o
500
I'll
0.0
lS6
16
20
30
o
o
50
o
700
94
3025
o
1~5
105
o
10
o
10
165
70
9678
2011
26
80B
:3216
o
o
500
191
0.0
196
16
2C
30
o
o
50
o
700
94
3025
o
lOS
105
o
10
o
10
165
67
9nb
2012
27
SOB
3216
o
o
500
191
(l.0
186
16
o
20
30
o
o
50
o
700
94
3025
(i
10
(I
10
165
65
9811
2013
28
BOS
3216
I)
o
500
191
0.0
lab
16
o
20
30
o
o
50
(I
700
94
()
1C5
105
(I
10
o
10
16:
63
9B74
PASE 3 of b
2()1~
80B
3216
(1
I)
500
191
0.0
IB6
16
o
o
o
50
10e
94
30~5
o
10:
105
10
o
10
165
61
CQ't~
f , .... ~
2015
30
SOB
o
()
SOO
191
0.0
tat.
16
20
70e
9~
3025
o
10
165
:;~ _ i
T~ZIHIN~ RIVER HYDRO
ELECTF;ICm GENERATION
Feak De:.1anj Ik~l
Ann~aJ Energy Use IMWh)
DIESEL 6ENERATION
AdO!?j Capa:ity mn
Replaced Ca~acity IkWl
Installed Capacity IkWI
Energy GEneration (MWh)
Diesel F~El Escalation Rate (I)
Di esel Fue: Cost (Cents/Gall
Di ese~ FUI!: Used (6al 000:
Capita! Cost ISOOO)
01l'; CGst ($(!~O)
Fue: Cost (rOOO)
~2bt Service ItOOO)
Salvage Value (fDDDI
H\"D~QELECTRIC
2016
31
BOB
3216
o
o
500
191
(t.O
186
16
C
20
30
{)
(l
50"
Added Capa:ity (kWI 0
In5tiJIE~ Capacity IkWI 700
Per:ent o~ Annual Senerabor. (l) q4
E~.e~~y Eene:-atio:1 !MWn: 30::5
C3~i ta: C~st {;fOOl)}
O~r. tost ($000;.
Ca~: to: Co:.t ($000)
(!;M C:,~t (t (;t!O j
Sa!va;e V~lue (SOOOI
Su.btotal (SOOO)
:!j~!1ARY
Total Cost (fOOO)
[iSCDuntl~ Cost (SOODI
C:.cul ati U: Prese.lt iiorth ($00(:<)
o
105
1:15
{, '.'
10
o
10
165
57
10051
Case:WELL SCHEME -2 UNITE AT 35(' kW
2017
BOB
3216
(I
o
500
191
, 0.0
1St
16
o
20
3C-
(I
(.
50
o
700
94
3025
(\
10:
105
2018
BOS
3216
o
o
500
191
O. (:
186
16
o
20
30
(1
o
50
-0
70e
94
3025
(\
105
10~
o 0
to 10
o (t
10 1(1
165 165
55 ~ 53
10!05 10159
2019
34
80B
3216
o
o
500
191
0.0
186
16
o
20
30
o
o
50
o
700
94
3C25
10
165
51
10210
2020
Tr, .h'
Be'8
321b
(I
o
50'0
191
0.0
1St.
16
o
20
30
(I
(l
50
(I
70C
94
3025
le
(I
6bO
815
10454
2021
36
BOS
3216
o
(I
500
191
0.0
186
16
o
20
30
D
o
50
o
70C
94
3025
o
105
lOS
o
10
D
10
165
48
1 f\C"~'''' .V,H!':
2022
37
aOB
:m6
o
o
500
19:
C.O
lSb
16
o
20
30
o
(j
50
o
700
94
3025
o
105
105
o
10
o
10
165
46
10548
2023
3E
80a
3216
(I
I)
500
191
0.0
186
16
o
20
30
o
o
50
o
700
94
3025
o
105
IC5
(I
10
o
10
10593
PASE 4 o~ 6
2024
39
809
3216
(:
o
500
191
0.0
186
It
o
20
30
o
o
50
{!
70C
94
30::5
(I
10~
105
11)
o
10
165
43
10636
2C25
808
3216
o
o
191
0.0
l Q ,
vw
o
20
o
lO(
9~
o
105
o
10
(1
1(:
TAZ!!!IN~ f:IVER HYDRO
ELECj~!CljY 6ENERAiIDN
r.!!ak Denna lUI)
Anr.~al Energy Use (~Wh)
DIESEL GENERATION
Added Capacity (k~)
Replaced Capacity {kW)
Installed Capacity ikW)
Energy Generation (l1Wh)
Diesel Fuel Escalation Rate (~l
Diesel FUel Cost (Cents/Sa! I
Diesel Fuel Used (6al 000)
Capita! Cost ($000)
O~M Cust ($000)
Fuel Cos: ($00(1)
Deb~ Service ('000)
Saivige ValuE IIOOD!
HYDRDELECTR!:
Added Capacity (tWI
Instilled CaJa:~ty (kWI
Percent of Annual Senerati on m
£n£'1';y Generation !MlIlhl
~a;ita! Cost 110001
DJ.(~ Cost ($00:;)
511bto:al ($000)
Cap~ta; Co;t ($O~Q)
D~M Cos: ($000)
Salyag~ Value (50001
Subtct .. l (SOC,;))
5U!'lMAF:Y
ID~I! Cost (SOOO)
Case:WELL SCHEME -i UNIT5 AT 350 k~j
2026
~1
2027
42
Boa eos
3216 3216
o I)
o 0
500 500
I'll I'll
0.0 0.0
IB6 186
16 16
o 0
20 20
30 30
o 0
o " 50 .' 50
o
700
94
3025
(;
105
105
o
w
o
10
165
40
o
700
94
3025
o
105
lCS
165
37
202B
43
BOB
3216
o
o
500
191
0.0
186
16
20
30
o
o
50
C'
700
9~
3025
o
105
105
o
10
o
10
165
38
2029
44
B08
3216
o
o
500
I'll
0.0
186
16
o
20
3C'
o
o
50
o
700
94
3C2~
I)
105
105
o
10
o
10
165
36
2030
45
BOB
3216
I)
(>
500
191
0.0
186
16
o
20
30
o
o
50
o
700
9~
3025
(l
105
105
o
10
o
10
165
2031
46
808
3216
o
o
500
191
0.0
1Bf.
16
o
20
30
(;
o
50
o
700
94
3025
o
105
105
o
10
C'
10
165
2032
~7
B08
3216
o
o
500
!9l
0.0
186
16
o
20
30
o
()
50
o
7C'O
94
3025
o
105
105
o
o
10
165
4E
BOB
3216
o
C
500
191
0.0
18b
16
o
30
o
50
o
700
9~
3025
c
105
105
o
10
o
1(:
165
PAa~ 5 of 6
2034
49
80B
3216
o
o
500
19:
0.0
186
16
1)
20
3t
o
(I
50
o
700
94
3025
()
11"10::
105
e-
10
o
10
2035
50
3216
()
o
lQl
O.C
186
16
()
20
3G
o
7M ,
9~
3C25
105
o
10
3C
10718 10757 10795 10831 10Bbb 10900 10933 10964 10995 1!~25
..
TAZI~IN~ RIVER HYDRO Case:WELL SCHE~E -l UNITS AT 35" kW PAGE b of b
'"
2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
"I .1 • 52 53 5~ 55 ..
ELECTRICITY SEUERATION
Pea!:: Demand IkWI Rli" ~ .. B08 SOB BOS BOB
Annual Energy USE IMNh) 321b 321b 3216 321b 3216 ,. DIESEL GENERATION
Moe:! Ca~a:::ity I~W) 0 0 0 0 0
Replaced Capacity lUll 500 0 0 0 (I
., Install e:! Capa:ity (kill 500 SOO 500 50C' 500
Er.ergy Generation IHWhl 191 1 C'l .. 191 191 191
Diesel Fuel Escalation Rate (Il O. (1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diesel Fual Cl'\~+ ~~. (Cents/Gd) 18b 186 186 186 186 ,. Di 2sel Fue; Used (Sal 000) j' 16 !b 16 16 .0
Capital Cest (tOOO) 400 C-O 0 0
OH! Cost ($1)00) 20 20 20 20 20
FUc:l Cost ($01)01 30 30 30 30 30
!Jeb: Servi ce {fOOOI (I 0 0 0 0
Salv~ge Value ($i\!)OI 0 0 1) 0 200
Subt:ltal 1$0(0) 45(1-' SO "'. 50 -ISO .111
HYDROELE:TRIC
?ldded Capacity (kW) (; 0 C 0 0
Ins::allec Capacity (kIon 70e 70(1 700 700 700
f'er:.ent of linnaal Senerati on m 94 9~ 94 94 94
Ene!"g',' Sener ation (!1I:h) 3025 3C·25 3m " .. ~ 3025 3025 ..
Capital Co~t (.$(:~Oj 0 0 0 0 0
rH .... Cos: (!(II)I}I 105 105 105· 105 105 ~'Jii,
Subtctal (tOOO) 105 105 105 105 lOS -TF:ANSMI5S!DN
Capj tal Cost ($000) (; 0 0 0 0
[:&M Cost (tOe-O) 10 leI 11:' 10 10
S.alva;e ValuE' ($000; 0 0 0 0 108
Sucto:al ($000) 10 10 10 10 -98
SU~~ARY
Ictal Co~t (tOOO) 5~" ww 165 Ib5 165 -143
Di scounts.>d Cost ItCOO) 98 28 27 2b -22
Cumulative Present Wc:-th ($OON 11122 11150 11177 11202 111£1
...
,-
APPENDIX I
LIST OF PROJECT PERMITS
LIST OF PROJECT PERMITS
The following permits are recognized at this time as required for
construction of the project. This list is intended to address major
permitting requirements and may not be all-inclusive. As the project
proceeds, any additional permits or other authorizations will be identified.
AGENCY
U.S. Corps of Engineers
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
5525f
PERMIT TYPE
Material Extraction
Access Road and Construction
Land Fill
Waste Water Discharge
Potable Water
Waste Disposal
Anadramous Fish Stream
Water Rights
Hydroelectric Project License