The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBristol Bay Regional Power Plan Interim Feasibility Assessment Volume 1 - Report 1982------------------.-----.,-----~ ._------- CONTRACT No. CC -08 -2108 1,;(007 ,i O-v/.!l) )., BRIST'()L BAY REGION.At PlOWER PLi\IN DEl AILEI) FEASIBllJ"f'V i\I'tAt'~'SIS INTERI.M FEt\~51IJIL"lrrY ASSESS"1EN~r VOLU,MI: 1 -REft)()R,l' II : ! I. ::' r> I:· J" ~ ::" .: .,- .J )1.' , . , ) -"';' ,~ .. < JULY 1~~82 A Stone & Webster Enginet!ring Corpora1ion ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 September 19, 1983 To: Concerned Agencies, Public Libraries and Public Schools. Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 Enclosed is the complete four volume set of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan -Interim Feasibility Study. These reports are being distributed to allow anyone concerned with the future of the Region to see the complete report. To date, anyone interested has received the Executive Summary to this report (and an interre- gional report investigating the feasibility of one project for both the Bethel area and the Bristol Bay Region). The intent of the study was to find the least costly source of future electrical power for residents of Bristol Bay. The economic rankings of the different plans were based on long term costs as estimated in 1982, and were compared to a Base Case (the cost of continued use of diesel generation). These rankings, as well as detailed plan descriptions, technical design, geotechnical conditions of the site, land status, environmental impacts, social impacts, etc., are also covered. The complete Table of Contents is at the beginning of Volume 1. The rankings of the projects showed that the regional run-of- river Newhalen project would be the least costly in the long term; the regional Tazimina dam project was ranked second; and the subregional run-of-river Tazimina project (to serve Iliamna, Newhalen and Nondalton), with diesel and wind generation, and waste heat recovery (for the other regional communities), was ranked fifth. New long term costs, according to 1983 economic guidelines, were calculated for the Bethel-Bristol Bay Interregional Study (this investigated the feasibility of one project serving both regions and found that an interregional project was not as cost effective as separate regional projects). The new calculations, using lower oil price projections, changed the Bristol Bay project rankings. The regional Newhalen run-of-river project is still first ranked, but the subregional run-of-river Tazimina project with diesel/wind generation and waste heat recovery is now second, and the regional Tazimina dam plan is now third. If these plans were recalculated according to 1984 guide- lines, the subregional and regional Tazimina plans could return to the 1982 project rankings. As the price of oil rises in the future, the plans with heavy dependence on diesel fuel (such as the subregional plan) will be ranked lower. 151/070/D5/F2 The following tables summarize the updated rankings explained above. Under 1982 guidelines, the projects were ranked as follows: Rank Project 1. Regional-Newhalen run-of-ri ver 2. Regional-Tazimina Lake dam Net Present Worth (Long Term Costs) $189,900,000 $213,700,000 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Alternative Plan Compared to Diesel Base Case) 1.54 1.36 3. Regional Newhalen $222,200,000 1.31 large diversion canal 4. Regional-Kontrashibuna $226,800,000 1.29 Lake dam 5. Subregional-local $242,500,000 1.20 Tazimina run-of-river diesel, waste heat, and wind 20. Base Case-continued $291,700,000 1.00 diesel Under 1983 economic guidelines, the projects were ranked: Rank Project Net Present Worth (Long Term Cost) 1. Regional-Newhalen run-of-river 2. Subregional-Tazimina run-of-river, diesel, waste heat and wind 3. Regional-Tazimina Lake Dam 4. Base Case-continued diesel 151/070/D5/F2 $194,052,000 $217,739,000 $233,528,000 $258,574,000 Benefit/Cost Ratio (Alternative Plan Compared to Diesel Base Case) 1.33 1.19 1.11 1.00 The Newhalen project with the large diversion canal (formerly ranked #3) was dropped because the higher cost did not offer more protection to the fish, and the Kontrashibuna Project (formerly ranked #4), because it was within the Lake Clark National Park/Preserve. As long as there are better alternatives to serve the people of the Region, there is no need to procede further with study of these two projects. These reports are enclosed for your information; a list of those receiving full reports is also attached. Recently, a letter was sent to interested individuals and agencies saying that these reports would be available through the closest school or public library. We hope that public libraries and schools will make these documents available to the public who will be requesting to see them. Thank you for your help and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact Merlyn Paine, Project Manager. Attachments as stated. 151/070/D5/F2 Sincerely, '"B-~0~~O ~~ Eric P. Yould Executive Director BRISTOL BAY DISTRIBUTION LIST u.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Mr. John Kurtz BBCMP-EIS Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Ms. Ann Rappaport (ATTN: Ms. Ann Rappaport & Ms. Mary Lynn Nation) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite G-81 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Mr. Keith Schreiner Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 FEDERAL LISTING -MISC. Mr. David Simpson Project Manager Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan Alaska Land Use Council P.O. Box 100120 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0120 Mr. Roger Contor, Regional Director National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 540 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Dick Dworsky, Chief of Planning Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior 701 C Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Mr. Ronald Morris, Supervisor, (ATTN: Mr. Ronald Morris and Mr. Stuart Bigler) Anchorage Field Office National Marine Fishery Service 701 C Street, P.O. Box 43 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 143A/077 Revised 9/19/83 ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME The Honorable Don Collinsworth Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish & Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Mr. Dick Russell (ATTN: Mr. Dick Russell & Mr. Sellers) Alaska Department of Fish & Game Commercial Fisheries Division General Delivery King Salmon, Alaska 99613 Mr. Mike Nelson (ATTN: Mr. Mike Nelson & Mr. Bucher) Alaska Department of Fish & Game P.O. Box 199 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Mr. Lance Trasky (ATTN: Mr. Lance Trasky & Mr. Kim Sundberg) Alaska Department of Fish & Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The Honorable Jim Barnett Deputy Commissioner Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mr. Dick Mylius Land & Resources Planning Bristol Bay Cooperative Managment Plan Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Mr. Tom Hawkins, Director Land & Water Management Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch A Juneau, Alaska 99811 - 1 - Mr. Roland Shanks, Director Division of Research & Development Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 STATE LEGISLATORS Ms. Adelheid Herrmann (when in session) Alaska House of Representatives Pouch V Juneau, Alaska 99811 P.O. Box 63 (out of session) Naknek, Alaska 99633 Mr. Bob Mulcahy (when in session) Alaska State Senate Pouch V Juneau, Alaska 99811 P.O. Box 246 (out of session) Kodiak, Alaska 99615 STATE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET Mr. George Matz State of Alaska Office of Management & Budget Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA Mr. Dave Hickok, Director Arctic Environmental Information & Data Center 707 A Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Jerry Lipka, Field Coordinator University of Alaska X-CED Program P.O. Box 10206 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 Mr. O.S. Scott Goldsmith Principal Investigator University of Alaska Institute of Social & Economic Research 707 A Street, Suite 206 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 143A/on Revi sed 9/19/83 STATE -MISC. Mr. Ronald Ripple Special Assistant to the Commissioner Department of Commerce & Economic Development Pouch D Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. William Beardsley Director Division of Finance & Economics Department of Commerce & Economic Development Pouch D Juneau, Alaska 99811 Mr. Neil Johannsen, Director (ATTN: Johannsen, Dilliplane & Wiles) Alaska State Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Ms. Carolyn Guess, Chairman Alaska Public Utilities Commission 420 L Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Robert Martin, Deputy Director Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 437 E Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. Jeff Smith, Director Alaska Department of Community & Regional Affa irs Division of Community Planning 225 Cordova Street, Building B Anchorage, Alaska 99501 GROUPS/ORGANIZATIONS Mr. H. Noble Dick, President Bristol Bay Native Corporation P.O. Box 220 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 MISC. Mr. John Isakson Senior Fisheries Biologist Dames & Moore 155 N.E. 100th Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98125-0711 - 2 - Mr. Pat Poe Fisheries Research Institute University of Washington P.O. Box 8 Iliamna, Alaska 996061 ALEKNAGIK Aleknagik School Library General Delivery Aleknagik, Alaska 99555 CLARKS POINT Clarks Point -School Library General Delivery Clarks Point, Alaska 99569 DILLINGHAM Dillingham Public Library P.O. Box 191 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 EGEGIK Egegik School Library General Delivery Egegik, Alaska 99579 EKUK Available at New Stuyahok School Library EKWOK Ekwok School Library General Delivery Ekwok, Alaska 99580 IGIUGIG Mr. Minicella Igiugig School General Delivery Igiugig, Alaska 99613 ATTN: Library ILIAMNA Available at Newhalen School Library KING SALMON King Salmon L'ibrary General Delivery King Salmon, Alaska 99606 143A/on KOLIGANEK Koliganek School Library General Delivery Koliganiek, Alaska 99576 MANOKOTAK Manokotak School Library General Delivery Manokotak, Alaska 99628 NAKNEK Marion Monsen Regional Library Bristol Bay Borough P.O. Box 189 Naknek, Alaska 99633 NEWHALEN Mr. John Davis, Principal Iliamna-Newhalen High School P.O. Box 89 Newhalen, Alaska 99606 ATTN: Library LEVELOCK Levelock School Library General Delivery Levelock, Alaska 99625 NEW STUYAHOK New Stuyahok School Library General Delivery New Stuyahok, Alaska 99636 NONDALTON Nondalton School Library General Delivery Nondalton, Alaska 99640 PORTAGE CREEK Portage Creek School Library General Delivery Portage Creek, Alaska 99576 SOUTH NAKNEK Available at Naknek (Monsen Regional) Public Library - 3 - STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION DENVER OPERATIONS CENTER GREENWOOD PLAZA, DENVER, COLORADO ~ ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO p.O. BOX 5406. DENVER. COLORADO 80217 BOSTON NEW YORK CHERRY HILL, N.J DENVER CHICAGO HOUSTON PORTLAND, OREGON SAN DIEGO WA.SHINGTON, 0 C Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attn: Mr. Donald W. Baxter Project Manager Dear Mr. Baxter: INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN TELEPHONE : 303-770 -7700 W.U. T ELE X'45-4401 July 31, 1982 J. O. No. 14007.10 Letter No. SWEC/PA-82 Submitted herewith is our Interim Feasibility Assessment for the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis. This 4-volume report summarizes our work to date under Phase I of the study. A 3-volume draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report was issued for review and comment in March 1982. Several revisions have been made to the draft report as a result of your review. Also, the following important additions are included: a) Summaries of the geotechnical and fisheries studies at the Newhalen site. b) A new scenario covering local and subregional power developments. c) Comments by agencies on the draft report and responses by the Power Authority. d) A suggested Scope of Work for Phase II. Mr. Eric P. Yould July 31, 1982 Page 2 The underlying conclusion of the Interim Feasibility Assessment is that there are a number of economically attractive alternatives to continuation of the present practice of reliance on diesel systems for electrical power generation in the Bristol Bay region. Two of these alternatives, a regional run-of-river Newhalen River hydroelectric development and a scenario consisting of several subregional developments, are recommended for further study. The subregional alternative is a cost effective mix of disconnected power supply components which consists of a small run-of-river hydroelectric development on the Tazimina River along wi th wind systems, waste heat recovery systems and continued diesel generation in various other subregions. Our principal findings and conclusions are set forth in the Executive Summary of the report. Details of the energy demand forecasts, alternative evaluations, site investigations, engineering studies, economic evalua tions, and environmental studies which support the conclusions are described in detail in subsequent sections of the report and in the Appendices. It has been a pleasure working with the Alaska Power Authority on this challenging study, and we look forward to continuing the effort in Phase II. DLM/cms Enclosures Very truly yours, D. L. Matchett Project Manager CERTIFICATIONS BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT The technical material and data contained in this report and its Appendices were prepared under the supervision of the following individuals and organizations: Volume 1 -Report Appendix A -Engineering/Technical Considerations Appendix B -Energy Supply Technology Evaluation AppendiX C -Energy Demand Forecast AppendiX D -Wind Energy Analysis AppendiX E -Geotechnical Studies - Tazimina AppendiX F -Geotechnical Studies - Newhalen Appendix G -Environmental Report AppendiX H -Newhalen Smolt and Fry Studies AppendiX I -Hydrologic Evaluations ~""'''''' ~(~~o Theodore Critikos O. Scott Goldsmith Principal Investigator Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska ~.~t/ Mark A. Newell President Wind Systems Engineering, Inc. Er£ .. 0 ... tM-Id Rohn D. Abbot't Vice President S /~nnon & Wilson, Inc, cP .,-//' ~ .?:." '.({./. / ' ,f1!/(:,"'~-::!.(~'// James E. Hemmi ng r17 Project Manager Dames & Moore Manager. Alaska Operations .-t.-___ .3o.., Anand Prakash Chief Water Resources Engineer Dames & Moore _ .... OF Ai"'\' ':":\ ~ ••• • • • •• 4Cf f" \, #II' r.· * .. "k', ,~.. -:'-d t "" -,. ' ." I 1*': 49ll!' ..... ~ This study was prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned whose seal as professional engineer is affixed below. ~ •••••••••••••••••••••• ·'t-~ ~ to. ·I.i .I Mt.Jdd:I-,: ~ •••••••• ':'\ ••••••••••••• !'~ ~ . . ~. ~J ~ e. DONALD L MATCHm : !f ," ,~. .,~~ t, m.... CE·5204 •• '$;af n-~-? • e •• <'.~ ,., '\ ~() ....... :\.. '" - \\ PROFESSlOI'4S>' ---\'\.'\,""~ ~~~?bZ>l Donald L. Matchett Project Manager Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and its subcontractors wish to acknowledge the important assistance given by many individuals and organizations to the project team in undertaking the Interim Feasibility Assessment. Chapter 8 of this report documents many of the contacts made with the people of Bristol Bay and with state and federal agencies concerned with energy development. Without the information and support received from these sources, satisfactory completion of Phase I of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Study would have been much more difficult, if not impossible. Special acknowledgement is given to the following individuals for their help: Ted Angasan, Tom Hawkins, William Johnson, and Kay Larsen, Bristol Bay Native Association Representative Joe Chuckwuk and his aide, Paula Scavera David F. Bouker, Nushagak Electric Cooperative Gordon McCormick, Naknek Electric Association Trig Olsen and John Adcox, Iliamna-Newhalen Electric Cooperative Tom Arminski, Dick Russell, and Tina Cunning, State of Alaska, Department ofF ish and Game Ann Rappaport, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rick Austin, State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources Jim Clark and Don Penner, Bristol Bay Borough Paul Haertel and Mike Tollefson, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Don Anderson, JEVAD, Inc. The above list is far from complete. While it is not possible to recognize each participant individually, we wish to thank all those who attended the public meetings in the villages and the agency meetings in Anchorage. The questions, comments, and suggestions which resulted from these meetings were a great benefit to the study. GENERAL OUTLINE BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT VOLUME 1 -REPORT VOLUME 2 -APPENDICES VOLUME 3 - VOLUME 4 - APPENDIX A -ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS A.I ENERGY NEEDS A.2 HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS A.3 DIESEL POWER A.4 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY A.S ENERGY CONSERVATION A.6 WIND ENERGY A. 7 POWER TRANSMISSIOJI,T A.8 FOSSIL-FUEL ALTERNATIVES A.9 ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE A.I0 LOAD MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS APPENDIX B -ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION APPENDIX C -ENERGY DEMAND FORCAST APPENDICES APPENDIX D -WIND ENERGY ANALYSIS APPENDIX E -GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES -TAZIMINA RIVER APPENDIX F -GEOTECHNICAL STUDY -NEWHALEN RIVER APPENDICES APPENDIX G -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPENDIX H -NEWHALEN SMOLT AND FRY STUDIES APPENDIX I -HYDROLOGIC EVALUATIONS -TAZIMINA RIVER TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 -REPORT 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 1.6 1. 6.1 1.6.2 1. 6. 3 1.7 1. 7.1 1. 7.2 1. 7.3 1.8 1. 8.1 1. 8.2 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 EXECL~IVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN ENERGY DEMAND ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY PLANS Data Collection Energy Production Concepts Selected Energy Scenarios EVALUATION OF SELECTED ENERGY PLANS Technical Environmental Economic REGULATORY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Agency Communication Regulatory Reguirements Public Participation CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Recommendations INTRODUCTION ENERGY NEEDS IN BRISTOL BAY PREVIOUS STUDIES BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY STUDY PARTICIPANTS INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT ORGANIZATION ENERGY CONDITIONS AND DEMAND FORECAST INTRODUCTION Methodology of Forecasting -Electrical Energy Demands Methodology of Forecasting -Space Heating Energy Demands ENERGY FORECASTS Technical Discussions -Electrical Energy Demands Technical Discussions -Space Heating Energy Demands i PAGE 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-6 1-12 1-15 1-20 1-20 1-21 1-26 1-29 1-29 1-30 1-30 1-31 1-31 1-35 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-5 2-6 2-6 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-4 3-5 3-5 3-12 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 -REPORT 4. 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1. 6 4.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 5. 5.1 5.1.1 5.1. 2 5.1. 3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1. 6 5.1. 7 5.1.8 5.1. 9 5.1.10 5.1.11 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY PROFILE OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES SURVEYED Fossil Fuel Resources Non-Generating Resources Renewable Resources Miscellaneous Resources Nuclear Resources Advanced Technologies SELECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Supplementary Resources Primary Resources FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND DATA COLLECTION GEOTECHNICAL Introduction Regional Geologic Setting Summary of Geotechnical Field Studies, 1981 -Tazimina Summary of Geologic Conditions -Tazimina Site Summary of Geotechnical Considerations -Tazimina Site Summary of Geologic Conditions -Kukaklek Sites Summary of Geotechnical Field Studies, 1982 -Newhalen Summary of Geologic Conditions -Newhalen Site Summary of Geotechnical Considerations -Newhalen Site Summary of Geologic Conditions -Kontrashibuna Site Summary of Geologic Conditions -Chikuminuk Site HYDROLOGIC ENVIRONMENTAL Introduction Water Use and Quality Terrestrial Ecology Aquatic Ecology Air Quality SOCIOCULTURAL Historic and Archaeological Resources Socioeconomic Considerations Recreational Resources Aesthetic Resources Land Use ii PAGE 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-3 4-3 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-8 4-8 4-10 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-2 Site 5-4 5-6 5-7 5-11 Site 5-12 5-14 5-16 5-17 5 -19 5-22 5-26 5-26 5-26 5-27 5-28 5-30 5-31 5-31 5-31 5-32 5-32 5-33 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 -REPORT 6. 6.1 6.1.1 6.1. 2 6.1. 3 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 7. 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.3.5 7.3.6 7.3.7 7.3.B 7.3.9 7.3.10 7.3.11 7.3.12 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 7.4.6 ENERGY PLANS DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY SCENARIOS Introduction Assessment of Energy Resources Selection of Energy Scenarios DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ENERGY SCENARIOS Introduction Base Plan, BP-1 Diesel Generation Only Alternative "A" Alternative "B" Miscellaneous Scenario Studies EVALUATION OF SELECTED ENERGY PLANS INTRODUCTION TECHNICAL EVALUATION Introduction Safety Reliability Availabilit:y Constructibility ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Introduction Community Preferences Impact on Community Infrastructure Timing in Relation to Other Capital Projects Air Quality Water Quality Fish and Wildlife Impact Land Use Impact and Ownership Status Terrestrial Impact Recreational Resource Value Visual Impact Summary Evaluation ECONOMIC EVALUATION General Parameters and Assumptions Method of Analysis Determination of Annual Costs Results Economic Summary iii PAGE 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-3 6-15 6-19 6-19 6-19 6-20 6-21 6-36 7-1 7-1 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-2 7-5 7-7 7-10 7-10 7-10 7-1B 7-27 7-34 7-42 7-53 7-65 7-76 7-B7 7-96 7-105 7-10B 7-108 7-108 7-110 7-113 7-122 7-127 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 -REPORT 8. 8.1 8.1. 1 8.1. 2 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 8.2.5 REGULATORY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REGULATORY COORDINATION Agency Involvement Regulatory Requirements PUBLIC PARTICIPATION General Interests Communications Records of Comments and Responses Summary of Significant Events 9. 9.1 9.1.1 9.1. 2 9.1. 3 9.1.4 9.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS 10. 10.1 10.2 Introduction Energy Demand Forecast Energy Technologies Evaluation of Energy Plans RECOMMENDATIONS SCOPE OF WORK -PHASE II Introduction Objective VOLUME 2 -APPENDICES A. ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS A.1 ENERGY NEEDS A.2 HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS A.3 DIESEL POWER A.4 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY A.5 ENERGY CONSERVATION A.6 WIND ENERGY A.7 POWER TRANSMISSION A.8 FOSSIL-FUEL ALTERNATIVES A.9 ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE A.10 LOAD MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS B. ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION C. ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST iv PAGE 8-1 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-3 8-4 8-5 8-8 8-62 9-1 9-1 9-1 9-1 9-3 9-4 9-11 10-1 10-1 10-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 3 -APPENDICES D. WIND ENERGY ANALYSIS E. GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES -TAZIMINA RIVER F. GEOTECHNICAL STUDY -NEWHALEN RIVER VOLUME 4 -APPENDICES G. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT H. NEWHALE~ SMOLT AND FRY STUDIES I. HYDROLOGIC EVALUATIONS -TAZIMINA RIVER v Table 1.5-1 1.6-1 1.6-2 1.6-3 3.2-1 3.2-2 3.2-3 3.2-4 3.2-5 3.2-6 3.2-7 3.2-8 3.2-9 3.2-10 3.2-11 3.2-12 6.1-1 6.1-2 7.3-1 7.4-1 7.4-2 7.4-3 7.4-4 7.4-5 7.4-6 7.4-7 7.4-8 7.4-9 7.4-10 7.4-11 7.4-12 7.4-13 LIST OF TABLES -VOLUME 1 Title Summary of Alternative B Scenarios Summary of Economic Analysis Parameters Economic Lifetimes for Major Equipment Summary of Present Worth Costs Bristol Bay Power Plan Overall Electric Energy Demand Projections Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Electrical Energy Demand Projections by Customer Preliminary Project Forecast -Electrical Energy and Power Requirements Based on a Base Plan Scenario by ISER Projected Appliance Electricity Consumption 1980 Electricity Consumption in the Bristol Bay Commercial/Government Sector Commercial and Government/Community Buildings -1981 Growth in Use Per Customer and Number of Customers in the Commercial/Government Sector Electricity Consumption by Bristol Bay Fish Processors: 1980 Bristol Bay Seafood Processor Electricity Demand Projections Space Heating in 1980 in the Eighteen Study-Area Communities Space Heating Demand Forecast by Village by Sector Segregation of Space Heating, Hot Water, and Other Energy Needs-by Sector Potential Hydrosites in the Bristol Bay Area Potential Power Supply Systems Environmental Evaluation Summary Summary of Economic Analysis Parameters Economic Lifetimes of Major Equipment Discounted Cash Flow Analysis-Scenario B-14A- Newhalen Regional Hydroelectric Project-Power Diversion Diesel Generator and Storage Tank Capital Costs BP-1 Diesel Generator and Storage Tank Capital Costs Diesel Fuel Cost Diesel Generator Fuel Rates BP-l Diesel Fuel Usage for Selected Years Diesel Fuel Usage for Scenarios B-15, B-16, and B-17 Waste Heat Recovery Equipment Capital Costs B-19A and B-19C Waste Heat Recovery Equipment Capital Costs B-19A Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Benefit for Selected Years Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Benefit for Scenarios B-15, B-16, and B-17 Table 7.4-14 7.4-15 7.4-16 7.4-17 7.4-18 7.4-19A 7.4-19B 7.4-20 7.4-21 7.4-22 7.4-23 7.4-24 7.4-25 7.4-26 7.4-27 7.4-28 7.4-29 7.4-30 7.4-31 7.4-32 7.4-33 7.4-34 7.4-35 7.4.36 7.4-37 7.4-38 7.4-39 8.2-1 8.2-2 8.2-3 9.1-1 LIST OF TABLES -VOLUME 1 (Cont) Title Installed Capital Costs of Wind Turbines B-19D Organic Rankine Cycle Benefit Kukaklek (Kvichak Region) Hydroelectric Power Plant Kukaklek Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant Newhalen River Local Hydroelectric Power Plant Newhalen River Regional Hydroelec~ric Power Plant- Newhalen River Diversion-Power Only Newhalen River Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant- Newhalen River Diversion-Power and River Diversion Tazimina Run-of-River Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant Tazimina River (Kvichak River Region) Hydroelectric Power Plant Tazimina River Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant Tazimina Run-of-River Local Hydroelectric Power Plant Chikuminuk Lake Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant Chikuminuk Lake (Nushagak Region) Hydroelectric Power Plant Kontrashibuna Lake Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant Hydroelectric Plant Annual Sinking Fund and Operation and Maintenance Costs Electric Transmission System Installed Capital Costs Electric Substation Expansion Capital Costs for Scenarios B-15, B-16, and B-17 Scenario B-1 Purchased Power Cost Summary of Bristol Bay Regional Power Scenarios Summary of Present Worth Costs for Scenarios BP-1 B-15, B-16, B-17, and B-19 BP-1 Variations by Village -Summary of Present Worth Costs Present Worth Costs -Wind and Waste Heat Recovery Variations for Scenario B-14A Present Worth Costs for Iliamna/Newhalen/Nondalton Hydroelectric Versus Scenario BP-1 Present Worth Costs for Nushagak River Region Hydro- electric Versus Diesel Generation Village Power Supply Options for B-19E Scenario Summary of Present Worth Costs Present Worth Ratios-Regional Power Scenarios Comments and Questions from September and October Community Meetings Public/Community Meetings Chronological List of Significant Events Affecting the Study Effort Summary of Present Worth Costs Figure 1. 2-1 3.2-1 5.2-1 6.1-1 6.1-2 6.1-3 6.2-1 6.2-2 6.2-3 6.2-4 6.2-5 6.2-6 6.2-7 6.2-8 6.2-9 6.2-10 6.2-11 6.2-12 6.2-13 6.2-14 6.2-15 6.2-16 6.2-17 6.2-18 7.4-1 LIST OF FIGURES -VOLUME 1 Title Bristol Bay Region Regional Space Heating Needs Average Annual Runoff Potential Hydroelectric Sites, Bristol Bay Region Preliminary Assessment of Alternative Hydroelectric Sites Bristol Bay Region Community Grouping Base Plan Scenario BP-1 Alternative "A" Scenario A-1 Alternative "B" Scenario B-1 Alternative "B" Scenario B-2 Alternative "B" Scenario B-3 Alternative "B" Scenario B-4 Alternative "B" Scenario B-5 Alternative "B" Scenario B-6 Alternative "B" Scenario B-7 Alternative "B" Scenario B-8 Alternative "B" Scenarios B-9 and B-10 Alternative "B" Scenarios B-11 and B-12 Alternative "B" Scenario B-13 Alternative "B" Scenario B-14 Alternative "B" Scenario B-15 Alternative "B" Scenario B-16 Alternative "B" Scenario B-17 Alternative "B" Scenario B-18 Accumulated Present Worth Costs Table A.1-1 A.l-2 A.1-3 A.1-4 A.1-S A.l-6 A.l-7 A.1-8 A.2-1 A.2-2 A.2.3 A.2-4 A.2-S A.2-6 A.2-7 A.2-8 A.2-9 A.2-10 A.2-llA A.2-1lB A.2-l2 A.2-13 A.2-14 LIST OF TABLES -VOLUME 2, APPENDIX A Title Demand Forecast by R. W. Retherford, Electric Energy and Power Requirements, Low Load Growth Demand Forecast by R. W. Retherford, Electric Energy and Power Requirements, High Load Growth Bristol Bay Power Plan Overall Electric Energy Demand Projections (Megawatt Hours/Year) Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Electrical Energy Demand Projections by Customer Preliminary Project Forecast, Electrical Energy and Power Requirements Based on Base Plan Scenario by ISER Forecast Electric Energy and Power Needs, Bristol Bay Study Area-Year 2002 Space Heating Demand Forecast by Village by Sector, Bristol Bay Study Region Segregation of Space Heating Energy Needs and Hot Water & Other Energy Needs-by Sector, Bristol Bay Study Region Summary Data, Tazimina River, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project River and Generating Flows, Tazimina River, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Average Reservoir Release and Level, Tazimina River, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Monthly Energy Contribution, Tazimina River, 16 MW Regional Run-of-River Power Project River and Generating Flows, Tazimina River, Local Run-of-River Power Project Summary Data, Kontrashibuna Lake, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Summary Data, Chikuminuk Lake, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Flow Data, Chikuminuk Lake, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Summary Data, Chikuminuk Lake, Local Hydroelectric Power Project Flow Data, Chikuminuk Lake, Local Hydroelectric Power Project Summary Data, Newhalen River Diversion, Power Only, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Summary Data, Newhalen River Diversion, Power & River Diversion, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Flow Data, Newhalen River Diversion, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Summary Data, Newhalen River Diversion, Local Hydroelectric Power Project Flow Data, Newhalen River Diversion, Local Hydroelectric Power Project Table A.2-15 A.2-16 A.2-17 A.2-18 A.2-19 A.2-20 A.3-1 A.3-2 A.3-3 A.3-4 A.3-5 A.3-6 A.3-7 A.3-8 A.4-1 A.4-2 A.7-1 LIST OF TABLES -VOLUME 2, APPENDIX A (Cont) Title Summary Data, Kukaklek Lake, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Kukaklek Lake, Natural-Regulated-Generating Flows, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Kukaklek Lake, Water Surface Elevations, Regional Hydroelectric Power Project Summary Data, Kukaklek Lake, Local Hydroelectric Power Project Kukaklek Lake, Natural-Regulated-Generating Flow, Local Hydroelectric Power Project Kukaklek Lake, Water Surface Elevations, Local Hydroelectric Power Project Generator Comparisons-kWh/Gal of Oil Diesel Units to be Installed, Scenario Diesel Units to be Installed, Scenario Percent of Reserve -Scenario B-15 Diesel Units to be Installed, Scenario Percent of Reserve -Scenario B-16 Diesel Units to be Installed -Scenario Percent of Reserve -Scenario B-17 Waste Heat Rate per Kilowatt-Hour Usable and Non-usable Waste Heat BP-1 B-15 B-16 B-17 Three-phase Transmission Line Capacity -Megawatt - Miles, 5 Percent Regulation, 0.9 Power Factor Figure A.l-l A.l-2 A.l-3 A.l-4 A.l-S A.l-6 A.l-7 A.l-8 A.l-9 A.l-lO A.l-ll A.l-l2 A.l-l3 A.l-l4 A.l-lS A.l-l6 A.l-l7 A.l-l8 A.l-l9 A.l-20 A.l-2l A.l-22 A.l-23 A.l-24 A.l-2S A.2-l A.2-2 A.2-3 A.2-4 A.2-S A.2-6 A.2-7 A.2-8 A.2-9 A.2-l0 A.2-ll A.2-l2 A.2-l3 A.2-l4 A.2-lS A.2-l6 LIST OF FIGURES -VOLUME 2, APPENDIX A Title Forecasts of Energy Needs Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Dillingham. Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Naknek Group Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Clarks Point Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Egegik Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Ekuk Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Ekwok Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Igiugig Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Koliganek Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Levelock Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Manokotak Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, New Stuyahok Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Portage Creek Electricity Demand Ratio Variation, Iliamna Group Energy Demand Distribution, Nushagak Electric Co-op (Dillingham) Capacity Demand Distribution, Nushagak Electric Co-op (Dillingham) Energy Demand Distribution, Naknek Electric Association (Naknek) Capacity Demand Distribution, Naknek Electric Association (Naknek) Energy Demand Distribution, Rural Villages Capacity Demand Distribution, Rural Villages Energy Demand Distribution, Fish Process Villages Capacity Demand Distribution, Fish Process Villages Space Heating Needs Regional Space Heating Needs Average Monthly Distribution of Degree Days Tazimina River, Regional Power Project Tazimina River Development, Regional Power Project Tazimina River Development, Regional Power Project Tazimina River Development, Regional Power Project Tazimina River Development, Regional Power Project Reservoir Area Volume Curve, Tazimina Lake Tazimina River, Regional Run-of-River Project Tazimina River Flow-Duration Tazimina River, Local Run-of-River Project Tazimina River Development, Local Power Project Kontrashibuna Lake, Regional Power Project Kontrashibuna Lake Development, Regional Power Project Kontrashibuna Lake Development, Regional Power Project Kontrashibuna Lake Development, Regional Power Project Kontrashibuna Storage Reservoir Chikuminuk Lake, Regional Power Project Figure A.2-17 A.2-18 A.2-19 A.2-20 A.2-21 A.2-22 A.2-23 A.2-23A A.2-24 A.2-25 A.2-26 A.2-26A A.2-27 A.2-28 A.2-29 A.2-30 A.2-31 A.2-32 A.2-33 A.2-34 A.2-35 A.2-36 A.4-1 A.4-2 A.4-3 A.5-1 A.5-2 A.5-3 A.5-4 Exhibit A A.6-1 A.6-2 A.6-3 A.6-4 A.6-5 A.6-6 LIST OF FIGURES -VOLUME 2, APPENDIX A (Cont) Title Chikuminuk Lake Development, Regional Power Project Chikuminuk Lake Development, Regional Power Project Reservoir Area Volume Curve, Chikuminuk Lake Chikuminuk Lake, Local Power Project Chikuminuk Lake Development, Local Power Project Chikuminuk Lake Development, Local Power Project Newhalen River Canal Diversion, Regional Power Project (Only) Newhalen River Canal Diversion, Regional Power Project Newhalen River Canal Diversion, Regional Power Project (Only) Newhalen River Canal Diversion, River Diversion & Regional Power Project Newhalen River Canal Diversion, River Diversion & Regional Power Project Newhalen River Canal Diversion, River Diversion & Regional Power Project Newhalen River Canal Diversion, Regional Power Project Newhalen River Diversion, Local Power Project Newhalen River Diversion, Local Power Project Newhalen River Diversion, Local Power Project Kukaklek Lake, Regional Project Kukaklek Lake Development, Regional Power Project Kukaklek Lake Development, Regional & Local Power Projects Kukaklak Lake Development, Regional & Local Power Projects Kukaklak Lake, Local Power Project Kukaklek Lake, Local Power Project System Diagram System Diagram Typical Closed Loop Hot Water System Conservation Investment, 2 Year Life Conservation Investment, 5 Year Life Conservation Investment, 10 Year Life Conservation Investment, 20 Year Life HUD/FHA Denver Reg/Area Office Thermal Requirements Village-Located, Wind Turbine Alternative Village-Located, Wind Turbine Alternative Village-Located, Wind Turbine Alternative Grouped Villages, Wind Turbine Alternative Grouped Villages, Wind Turbine Alternative Interconnected Bristol Bay Region, Wind Turbine Alternative Figure A.7-1 A.8-1 LIST OF FIGURES -VOLUME 2, APPENDIX A (Cont) Title ------::..;;;;; Transmission Line Terrain Construction Cost Adjustment Factors Typical Plan Coal-Fired Steam Electric Generating Station - .... - - -1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ",. '>. ,. --- .... 1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 'inj £ Executive Summary is intended to provide a concise revh.w of the t·Tolk r e.rfCJrmed to date by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation end it .. s':L1contractors during Phase I of the Bristol Bay Regional Power 1-11' stu.:i.y. This phase of the study concludes with a milestone calle.:;' ib Interim Feasibility Assessment. The Executive Summary highlights thf' w·'.~' accomplished in reaching this milestone and presents major results arld conclusions. The report and its appendices which follow should be consulted for the detailed analysis which provides the basis for thL sum;nary. 1.1 INTRODUCTION Electric power cost and availability have been identified by the residents 0f the Bristol Bay region as important concerns. Fuel oil is currently t.b.a primary energy source in the Bristol Bay region, both for electrical generation and space heating. The cost of energy production. is currently high and has increased rapidly in recent years, due not only to the world"wide price escalation of fuel oil, but also to regional factors. The cost of electrical energy production in remote villages primarily served by smAll, non-central diesel electric generators is many times that of large). m0re efficient interconnected central systems in larger population cent,r~ of Alaska and in other parts of the United States. In recent years the state of Alaska has taken a number of steps to &d~re~~ the energy problems in remote regions of the state. Direct subsidies clJe in effect which substantially reduc.e the cost of electricity to consumel.'S in certain villages. In addition, the state has undertaken studies to evalu:lte potential sources of electrical energy production other than by diesel generators. Hydroelectric power generation, a renewable ene:cgy source, has been identified as a source which in the future may pru·'id.,. reliable low cost electricity for the Bristol Bay re.giun; wind 8Jlergy i aYJ.otber renewable energy source which Iliay have application. 1 i In 1980, a "Reconnaissance Study" by R. W. Retherford Associates for the Alaska Power Authority, 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 hydro site on the Tazimina River about ten miles north of Iliamna Lake and east of Nondalton Village which was believed suitable for supplying regional needs through the year 2000. Retherford stated that "development of the Tazimina potential will result in the lowest power cost for all communities in an integrated, combined system." 1. 2 BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN Based on the Retherford recommendation, the Alaska Power Authority retained Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) in July 1981 to undertake a study called the "Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan and Detailed Feasibility Analysis". The purpose of this study is to assess the technical, economic, and environmental aspects of alternative electric power generation plans for the Bristol Bay region. A specific objective of the study is to evaluate in detail the feasibility of the Tazimina Hydroelectric Project and to compare it with the current practices of diesel generation and other promising alternatives. The Regional Power Plan addresses the needs of an 18-village study area within the region. The boundaries of the study area are the previously determined economic limits of the Tazimina Project market area. The villages included in the study area are Aleknagik, Clarks Point, Dillingham, Egegik, Ekuk, Ekwok, Igiugig, Iliamna, King Salmon, Levelock, Manokotak, Naknek, Newhalen, New Stuyahok, Nondalton, Portage Creek, and South Naknek. Figure 1.2-1 shows the Bristol Bay study region. The Work Plan for the study divides the work into two phases. Phase I, called the "Interim Feasibility Assessment", and the subject of this report, identifies numerous alternatives for energy production and compares them with respect to technical feasibility, environmental impact, and cost. 1-2 • • ., .. .. .. • • .. • -.. .. - • .. .. .. .. Based on the outcome of Phase I, the Work Plan calls for the continuation of the Study with Phase II, when the most promising alternatives will be evaluated and compared in more detail and a recommendation made regarding project development. The central focus of Phase I of the Regional Power Plan is a thorough evaluation and comparison of the major energy options which are available for the Bristol Bay region. The following three hypothetical power plan cases were used as the framework for comparing various options: • Base Case, which represents the continuation of present practices of reliance on oil-fired (diesel) generation; • Alternative "A", which consists of the Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project as the required power supply; • Alternative "B", which consists of other energy sources, projects, or facilities, either alone or in combination. The primary purpose of the Phase I Report is to present information to the Power Authority and the people of the Bristol Bay region so that decisions can be made regarding the next step. The conclusions and recommendations which follow have taken into account a large body of information obtained from the residents of Bristol Bay and from State and Federal agencies interested in natural resource development and protection of the environment. However, the Phase I work should be viewed as a first s~ep in the decision-making process. The emphasis is on engineering, environmental, and economic considerations, with the objective of screening out concepts which are impractical from these standpoints. A further evaluation of the most promising energy production scenarios, including more detailed environmental investigations, and a second level of engineering and economic comparisons between promising alternatives and the Base Plan, is planned for Phase II. 1-3 1 . 3 ENERGY DEMAND Levels of current energy use and predictions of future needs in the Bristol Bay study region are being evaluated by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) of the University of Alaska. An interim report on future energy demand prepared by ISER is attached as Appendix C. The demand forecast contained in this report has been used to size and schedule the new electrical energy supply systems developed and evaluated during the Interim Feasibility Assessment. The forecast provided by ISER is based on the "Base Plan" electrical supply scenario, which is a continuation of the present practice of reliance on diesel generation. Al though the requirements for other energy needs such as space heating were predicted, it was assumed that conversion from oil to electricity would not occur at this time under the Base Plan scenario because of a lack of economic incentive. ISER concludes that based on the present price of fuel, conversion to electrical space heating would not be significant unless the cost to the consumer approached $. OS/kWh in 1982 dollars. Such low electricity costs are unlikely for the scale of development needed for the Bristol Bay region. However, conversion could be attractive at much higher energy costs as the price of fuel oil rises in response to dwindling world supplies. The growth of electrical energy demand over the study period (1982 to 2002) used in developing the alternative power plans falls between the "high" and "low" demand scenarios predicted by Retherford, approaching the "low" scenario. This is due probably to an assumption by Retherford of some conversion from oil to electricity for space heating, resulting from a low cost hydroelectric system. The current assumption of no conversion should be conservative with respect to projected growth in regional energy usage; this assumption is also believed to be suitable for the first level comparison of a number of competing energy supply systems. The following tabulation shows energy and demand values used for power plan development. The methodology for developing these values, using the ISER forecast, is explained in Appendix A.1. 1-4 • .' .. • ., .' .. • JII .. .. ... .. .' • .. Annual Energy Peak Year Requirements (MWh/yr) Demand (MW) 1982 32,400 7.9 1987 38,700 8.9 1992 47,600 11. 2 1997 58,900 12.2 2002 74,500 15.0 ISER has completed its examination of the relationship between the cost of electrical energy to the consumer and energy use. Sensitivity studies have been made to further quantify the economics of conversion to electrical energy for space a~d water heating. It is planned to address this subject in more detail during further evaluation of the most attractive alternative(s) in Phase II. 1.4 ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION An energy supply technology evaluation was undertaken to review and evaluate proven and commercially available energy technologies and to select technologies appropriate for use as elements of alternative power plans. Twenty-five potential energy supply technologies were evaluated. The evaluation considered a number of factors related to application in the Bristol Bay study region. Factors considered for each technology were commercial availability; technical and regional restraints; environmental and regulatory considerations; and construction, operation, and maintenance. The 25 technologies were grouped into the following six basic categories: • Fossil fuels • Renewable resources • Nuclear • Advanced technologies • Non-generating alternatives • Miscellaneous resources 1-5 were found in each category except Nuclear and Promising candidates Advanced technologies. and regulatory reasons. Nuclear was ruled out for a variety of technical All candidates in the Advanced technologies category (some of which were renewable resources) were either commercially unavailable or not technically viable for the remote Bristol Bay region. Nine energy supply technologies were found to be attractive for application in the Bristol Bay region. The selected systems were: Primary Sources Supplementary Sources • Diesel electric • Coal gasification (combined cycle) • Coal-, oil-, and natural gas-fired steam electric generation • Combined cycle (oil) • Hydroelectric • Wind • Energy conservation • Waste heat recovery • Organic Rankine Cycle The nine candidates receiving the "attractive" designation were used as elements of specific power plan systems for Bristol Bay. 1 . 5 DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY PLANS 1. 5.1 Data Collection The objective of the data collection program as defined by the Work Plan is to collect and compile all technical, environmental, and sociocultural data necessary to assess project feasibility and to meet any licensing or permitting requirements of FERC and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Phase I accomplished this objective with respect to data required to compare various alternatives. In addition, a much larger data base was collected as the first step in determining the feasibility of the regional Tazimina and Newhalen projects. However, additional data will be required in Phase II to fully satisfy licensing requirements of the project(s) finally proposed for development. 1-6 • .. -.. .. .. • ., • - • ... • - • • .. • The data collection program was divided into the following subtasks: • Geotechnical • Hydrologic • Environmental and Sociocultural 1.5.1.1 Geotechnical The geotechnical data collection program analyzed the Bristol Bay regional geologic setting, investigated in considerable detail geotechnical conditions at various sites previously proposed for major features of the regional Tazimina and Newhalen hydroelectric developments, and collected geotechnical data for other sites considered as promising hydroelectric alternatives. These latter sites were near Kukaklek Lake, on the Newhalen River (local project), Kontrashibuna on the Tanalian River, and the Chikuminuk Lake site. Information gathered on these sites was limited to literature searches, supplemented in some cases by helicopter overflights and ground visits. The detailed geotechnical investigations at the Tazimina and Newhalen sites were undertaken by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., and are fully reported in Appendices E and F, respectively, to this report. The Tazimina field studies were undertaken in the summer and fall of 1981 as part of the original plan to investigate that site because of the favorable Retherford recommendation. The Newhalen field studies were undertaken in the spring of 1982 in response to preliminary "findings by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation that the technical feasibility and economics of a hydroelectric development on the Newhalen River might be more favorable than Tazimina. Detailed geotechnical field studies were required to test the assumptions upon which the preliminary design of the proposed Newhalen canal diversion concept was based. The Tazimina valley, six investigations seismic lines included geologic mapping along the river across the valley at possible locations for structures, four borings to obtain profiles of soil and rock materials, 1-7 hand dug test pits, and laboratory tests. A seismic survey and a boring at the previously proposed dam site at the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake indicated depths of up to 180 feet of highly pervious sand and gravel over bedrock. An impervious cutoff about 1.2 miles long would be required in this material to provide an effective storage dam. Because of the difficulty and cost of constructing such a cutoff, this location is not recommended for further consideration. In addition, seismic surveys and a boring at the previously identified Roadhouse Dam Site indicated pervious outwash material and bedrock sloping downward into the right abutment. It would be extremely expensive, or perhaps impossible, to provide a water-tight storage reservoir at this location. Because of the disappointing results of the investigation at the above sites, a further search was initiated for a suitabJ.e location for a dam and reservoir. A location about four miles downstream of the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake was found which appears to offer the best prospects for a regulating dam site. At this location, bedrock outcrops appear in both abutment areas and seismic refraction surveying has defined the continuous bedrock surface beneath the valley. However, overburden is up to 170 feet thick, and requires a positive cutoff to rock to ensure dam stability and eliminate excessive seepage losses. Suitable locations were identified for a forebay dam, penstock, and powerhouse. The locations as presently proposed for these features are shown in Appendix A.2. For the regional Newhalen River concept, investigations included eight borings, and seven electrical resistivity profile probes to obtain profiles of soil and rock materials, installation of four observation wells for groundwater data, laboratory testing of selected soil samples from borings, and limited surface geologic observations. The geologic investigations were performed along the alignment of the proposed water conveyance canal. Seismic survey and resistivity probes indicated depths of rock varying from about from about 15 feet below the surface near the canal intake, to about 60 to 80 feet near the canal outlet area in the vicinity of the scarp. 1-8 .. .. • • .. • .. .. ., .. till, .. ., .. • .' ., .. • • .. .. • .. • • .. .. • - The depth to bedrock is a factor in the design of the canal. Although some of the canal would be excavated in rock, a large portion would be constructed in the soil strata which have been identified as clean sands and gravels. Because of the existence of these permeable materials, the canal invert and sides will be lined with roller compacted concrete as a protective measure against erosion, seepage, and freeze-thaw conditions. Excavation of the soil material is not anticipated to pose any difficulty other than that associated with control of groundwater inflows. Special provisions have to be made for groundwater control, particularly as the canal approaches its terminus near the older erosional scarp of the Newhalen River. In this vicinity, and for a distance of about 300 feet along the canal, special external drainage control systems will be needed to collect and safely handle seepage flows. Such drainage systems would preclude seepage outflow from the canal, retaining its stability. The canal concept and general arrangements considered for the regional Newhalen River project(s) are shown in Appendix A.2. Geotechnical investigations for the other technically promising hydroelectric sites at Kukaklek, Newhalen (local), Kontrashibuna, and Chikuminuk were of a very preliminary nature. However, based on the data analyzed, no major adverse geotechnical conditions were identified. 1.5.1.2 Hydrologic Reasonably accurate predictions of river flows are necessary to determine the capacity of potential hydroelectric generating sites. Available data from several sources were collected and analyzed to make such predictions. The principal sources of data for the hydroelectric sites considered were water resources atlas, gaging station data from nearby drainage areas, and in several cases, gaging stations on the river being studied. Using various techniques, depending upon data availability, storage capacities and design flows were selected for hydroelectric project development and comparison. 1-9 USGS flow data for the Kontrashibuna and Newhalen River sites provided sufficient data for preliminary hydrologic predictions. Because only limited data were available at the Chikuminuk site, analysis required a correlation with the USGS gaging data on the Nuyakuk River to develop sufficient information. Kukaklek Lake has virtually no hydrologic data available, therefore, discharge estimates were made based on adjustments of other gaging records in the area. A gaging station was installed by the USGS on the Tazimina River near the proposed regulating dam site in the summer of 1981. However, it was necessary to use simulation methods to predict long-term Tazimina River flows for use in estimating power generation potential. The predictive procedures used by Dames & Moore and the results of the simulation are presented in detail in Appendix I of this report. The current predictions of flow in the Tazimina River at the proposed hydroelectric site are about 18 percent lower on an annual basis than previous predictions by Retherford. More importantly from the standpoint of the site's generating capacity, the current predictions for November through April, the low flow season, are only about one-third of the previous estimates. This result has a very important effect on the development potential and economic attractiveness of Tazimina. In comparison with previous development concepts, considerably more storage capacity would have to be provided in order to have the regulated flows needed to produce the same electrical output in the winter months. The Newhalen River generating concept is Studies of the 16 year streamflow gage a run-of-river power project. data show that there exists sufficient flow to generate the power needs of the region through the year 2002. Because of the large drainage area involved, there is sufficient flow throughout the year to maintain channel flow condition and still satisfy generating flow needs. 1.5. 1.3 Environmental and Sociocultural The environmental data collection program was undertaken to obtain baseline data for comparing alternative plans, including transmission systems, to 1-10 .. .. • ., ., ..... .. .. It< .. •• ' .. ., .. ., perform a detailed analysis of the proposed Tazimina project, and to address on a preliminary basis the question of fish protection at the intake to the Newhalen Canal. A special effort was made to collect sociocultural information. Sociocultural data, collected on a regional basis, provided useful input for defining energy supply concepts which would be most compatible with local values. The major elements of the environmental and sociocultural data collection program were: • Water use and quality • Terrestrial ecology, including vegetation, birds, and mammals • Aquatic ecology • Historical, archeological, and recreational resources • Air quality • Population and demography • Socioeconomics • Land use • Community attitudes Special emphasis was placed on the collection of data related to the fisheries within the Tazimina River drainage; an evaluation of the sockeye salmon fishery and spawning locations below the Tazimina Falls was particularly emphasized. If a decision is made to proceed in Phase II with a detailed analysis of the Tazimina hydroelectric concept, further detailed studies, including an instream flow modeling program, will be required. Appendix G presents, in detail, the environmental and sociocultural field data collected for the region in Phase I, and in particular, for Tazimina. This baseline data and other information, obtained largely from literature searches and limited field reconnaissance, provided the basis for power plan scenario development and evaluation. Additionally, the data base collected at Tazimina is believed sufficient in detail to satisfy the environmental requirements of a FERC license application for a run-of-river concept. 1-11 The Newhalen River regional hydroelectric concept diverts on the average about 1000 cfs through a canal to the power plant. The most important environmental concern related to this concept is protection of the Newhalen River sockeye salmon escapement. Downstream migrating smolt and fry would have to be diverted from the canal intake or collected and returned to the river to ensure safe passage around the project. Studies at other water intakes indicate that such diversion can be satisfactorily accomplished. However, to properly design the diversion facilities and to predict their effectiveness on the Newhalen River, a field program was undertaken in the spring of 1982 to characterize the downstream smolt and fry migration. Appendix H presents the results of field data collected in Phase I on the Newhalen smolt and fry studies. If a decision is made to proceed in Phase II with a detailed analysis of the Newhalen regional hydroelectric concept, further detailed studies, including testing of methods for diverting and/or collecting downstream migrants, will be required. Also, studies relating to resident fish within that portion of the Newhalen River, that may be affected by the canal diversion would need to be made. 1.5.2 Energy Production Concepts The development of candidate energy plans for the Bristol Bay study region followed a systematic approach which began with the identification of a fairly large number of ideas or concepts. These concepts were then screened and reduced to a manageable number of scenarios for eventual comparison and evaluation. The details of the program to develop candidate energy plans are presented in Chapter 6 of this report. A summary follows of the methodology employed. 1. 5.2.1 Identification The basic factors used in identifying energy concepts that might be applicable to the Bristol Bay region included the following: 1-12 • • • • - • - • • • .. .. -• - • .. - -• -• .. .. -.. • • •• • Energy demand forecasts • Applicable energy supply technology • Experience in designing electrical supply systems • Community attitudes • Institutional restraints The initial step was to identify all potentially practical electrical generating concepts applicable to the Bristol Bay region. The first part of this step involved a preliminary evaluation of previously identified hydroelectric sites in Bristol Bay to identify those sites considered suitable for inclusion in the concepts. Thirty-six hydro sites were evaluated with r"espect to environmental, socioeconomic, technical, and economic feasibility. Eight of these sites were initially selected as being "promising". Comments were solicited from a wide group of state and federal agencies during the hydro site screening and selection process. Following this, 48 potential energy supply systems were identified utilizing the eight selected hydro sites and other applicable energy supply technologies discussed in Section 1.4. The 48 systems represented numerous combinations of the basic energy system components. Finally, a matrix was developed to identify reasonable applications of each supply system for either the whole Bristol Bay region or one or more subregions. The matrix revealed more than 100 concepts which were considered suitable for further evaluation. 1.5.2.2 Screening The next step required reducing the more than 100 concepts to a manageable number for further evaluation. Engineering judgement, supplemented by the subjective consideration of environmental factors, was employed to reduce the number of concepts to approximately 18. At this point a meeting was held in Anchorage on November 17, 1981 for the benefit of State and Federal agencies that had expressed interest in the screening process and identification of alternatives. At the meeting, the approach to power system alternatives evaluation was described by the project team, and the process leading to the identification of the concepts was presented. The 1-13 • basic characteristics of the concepts, called "primary scenarios" were • described. As a result of this meeting and from further evaluations of new • data, a slate of 20 primary scenarios was selected for further evaluation • and comparison with the Base Plan and Alternative Plan A scenarios. _ Conceptual engineering and economic analyses of the selected scenarios proceeded to a point where quantitative comparisons could be made. With the exception of Tazimina and Newhalen, environmental assessments were generally of a preliminary and qualitative nature. The approach taken was that it would be most cost effective to initially eliminate concepts on an engineering or economic basis. Subsequently detailed environmental analyses would be performed on the remaining most promising scenarios. However, during thfs evaluation process, the development of the King Salmon River hydroelectric potential was determined infeasible due to environmental factors. Accordingly, no cost evaluation was made of concepts which involved this site. Similarly, local opposition to development of Kukaklek Lake was voiced. Since development of this concept had proceeded further, it was decided to continue cost evaluation for comparative purposes. • • --.. • -• • II • In the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report issued in March 1982, 18 • primary scenarios were presented as being applicable to Alternative Plan - B. Subsequent to the draft report, another alternative scenario (B-19) was added which evaluated a number of subregional concepts consisting of cost effective mixes of diesel, wind, waste heat recovery and small hydro. This total of 19 Alternative B scenarios represented many more alternatives than had been expected when the study began. However, because the Power Authority, governmental agencies, and the project team all agreed that a thorough examination of alternatives should be completed before the second phase of the power plan study went forward, all 19 Alternative B scenarios are retained in the Interim Feasibility Assessment. Further, as the economic studies progressed, several variations and combinations of energy sources were studied as sub-scenarios. This resulted in adding nine more energy plans to the overall study effort, as Alternative Plan B scenarios. Considering the Base Plan, Alternative Plan A, and the primary and sub-scenarios under Alternative Plan B, a total of 30 energy plans were eventually evaluated. 1-14 • - • .. • .. • • • -.. -.. .. • .. ,0" 1.5.3 Selected Energy Scenarios The 30 energy scenarios selected for evaluation and comparison represent a variety of electrical generating systems combined in a number of ways. Basically, the energy scenarios are grouped according to the three main hypothetical cases previously described. This summary gives only an overview of the make-up of the scenarios. Reference should be made to Chapter 6 and Appendix A for detailed descriptions of the individual elements of the scenarios. Scenario BP-l, the Base Plan, assumes the continued use of diesel systems currently in place with the addition of central diesel generation systems at individual villages as required in the future, but without: any waste heat recovery units. No new transmission interties are assumed. Scenario A-I, Alternative Plan A, assumes a 16 MW development at Tazimina to meet regional needs within the study area. To supply this electrical capacity, a 65-ft rockfill storage dam would be constructed on the Tazimina River about 4 miles downstream of the outlet from Lower Tazimina Lake. The water surface in Lower Tazimina Lake would be raised about 35 ft above its present level. Main transmission lines would be run to larger population areas with feeder lines to all villages. The Alternative Plan B scenarios consider 19 other potential electrical generating systems with nine variations to some of these scenarios, for a total of 28. Several of the concepts envision a completely intertied transmission system similar to Alternative A. However, the majority of the systems are subregional. Special emphasis was given to the consideration of subregional systems because some Bristol Bay residents believe that such systems might be more compatible with regional attitudes and values. The elements of the Alternative B systems include seven potential hydro developments and several non-hydro sources. Non-hydro sources, consisting of the technologies identified in the energy supply technology evaluation, include fossil systems, diesel systems on an intertied regional and subregional basis, outside electrical energy generation brought to the 1-15 region by a transmission diesel systems. A brief Alternative B scenarios system, and supplemental wind energy for some summary of the components which make up the is provided below. The letter designation after each component name and Table 1.5-1 show how these components have been assembled into scenarios. Kukaklek-Iliamna (B-2, B-5) This is a 16 MW hydroelectric power plant located at Iliamna Lake. Regulated flows from Kukaklek Lake, the headwater reservoir, are used for generation. A transmission line grid would interconnect all study communi ties located west and south of Kukaklek Lake. Newhalen River (B-2, B-3, B-4, B-7, B-11, B-12, B-13, B-14) Three hydroelectric concepts were considered for the Newhalen River. Two are for regional power development and one is for local power needs. All are run-of-river partial diversion plans. The regional concepts use a 2.5-mile long diversion canal coupled with a 16 MW power plant installation. One of the diversion canal concepts allows for bypassing high river flows around a section of the Newhalen River which has severe rapids. The flow bypass would reduce river velocities during periods of high flow for upstream migrant fish. The other diversion canal concept allows for diverting water needed only for power generation. The local concept is a low flow diversion scheme. This uses a channel-tunnel waterway system to bypass a portion of the flow around a small section of the Newhalen River. The bypassed flow is used in generating energy in a 1.2 MW plant. Either regional project would transmission line grid. The Newhalen, and Nondalton. serve all study area communities through a local project would serve only Iliamna, 1-16 .. • .. • .. • ... .., • -• -- • .. • • ---.. ., -• • • • - • ., • .. .. ... Kukaklek Lake (B-3, B-4, B-6) This is a 7 MW capacity local hydroelectric power project using regulated flows from Kukaklek Lake. The plant would be located at the shore of a group of unnamed lakes found northwest of Kukaklek Lake. Power from this project would serve only the Kvichak River communities, not including Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton. The concept of utilizing Kukaklek Lake for providing power to the communities of Igiugig and Levelock only was not developed. Chikuminuk Lake (B-3, B-4, B-S, B-6, B-7, B-8, B-13) Two hydroelectric concepts to develop Chikuminuk Lake were considered. Both require regulation of Allen River flows, near the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake. The regional concept would dam the lake outlet, raising the present lake by some 21 feet. This requires the construction of a 100-ft high dam about one mile downstream of the lake outlet. Regulated flows would be conveyed to a power plant through a tunnel to generate 16 MW of peak capacity. The local concept would have a capacity of 8 MW and only raise the lake by 4 feet. The regional project would serve the region through a transmission line grid, except for the communities of Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton. The local project would serve only those communities located with the Nushagak River basin, including Manokotak. King Salmon (B-4, B-6, B-7) The development of the King Salmon River would require the construction of a dam across the river within the boundaries of the Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. Concepts utilizing the hydroelectric potential of the King Salmon site were not developed due to potential environmental impacts. Tazimina River (Local) (B-S, B-6, B-8, B-13, B-18, and B-19) Three hydroelectric power concepts were considered for Tazimina on a less than regional basis. A concept producing 8 MW to serve only the 1-17 communities in the Kvichak River area (B-8) would require a 30-ft high • regulating dam which would raise the Lower Tazimina Lake by 5 feet. - Two run-of-river concepts were also considered. One concept would use a 16 MW installation on a regional basis, but without a regulating dam (B-18A). The other run-of-river concept would use a small 1.2 MW installation to serve the Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton communities only (B-5, B-6, B-13A, and B-19E). Transmission line grids would be constructed, as required, by each type of development. Kontrashibuna (B-18) This hydroelectric development involves a regulating dam on the Tanalian River with an installed capacity of 16 MW. The project requires a 90-ft high dam to raise the Kontrashibuna Lake by about 65 feet. Power from the project would serve the entire study region through a transmission line grid. Scenario B-18A combines Kontrashibuna with a 16 MW run-of-river Tazimina development, while B-18B is a regional Kontrashibuna development. Outside Source, Beluga Area (B-1) This concept considers the construction of a 138 kV transmission line from the Beluga area to the study region. A transmission grid would be used to serve the communities of the study area. The generation source has not been identified. Fossil Fuel-Fired Plant at Dillingham or Naknek (B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12) Under this concept, a 16 MW fossil fuel-fired steam electric power plant would be developed at either Dillingham or Naknek, but not both. The plant would supply power to the study area through a transmission line grid. Three types of plants were considered for Scenario B-9: B-9A, a conventional coal-fired steam electric plant; B-9B, an oil-fired combined cycle plant; and B-9C, a coal gasification combined cycle plant. The 1-18 .. -.. .. .. .. • • • - • • • • • .. • --- • .. • -• • .. .. • .. • .. latter system would utilize gas turbines, a waste heat recovery boiler, and a conventional steam electric generating plant. Diesel Power (B-15, B-16, B-17) In addition to the Base Plan, the continuation of diesel power was considered in several alternative scenarios. These scenarios considered central diesel installations capable of serving all communities within the study region by using clustered central installations serving a small number of communities, or groups of communities. Diesel installed capacity varied, depending on the power needs and the scenario. Transmiss ion line grids were developed, as needed, for each specific scenario. Waste Heat, Wind, and Organic Rankine Cycle ( B-15, B-16, B-17, B-19) Waste heat recovery (B-19A, B-19C, B-19E), wind generation (B-19B, B-19C, B-19E), and the organic Rankine cycle (B-19D) were evaluated for use with the scenarios which utilize diesel generation. was considered only for the Dillingham and The organic Rankine cyc le Naknek communities. Wind generation was included in the scenarios only for specific communities or regions where wind sources are considered most reliable. Detailed information on wind energy potential is found in Appendices A.6 and D. All of the Alternative B scenarios selected for evaluation were retained throughout Phase I to better document the extensive effort given to the consideration of alternatives. As the Phase I work proceeded, several of the potential hydro sites became less attractive due to institutional or environmental concerns. However, these sites were not eliminated from the evaluation in order to present a basis for comparison with the more attractive sites. 1-19 Table 1.5-1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE B SCENARIOS Hydro Developments Scenario 6-1* 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9.<\* 6-96* 6-9C* 6-10* 6-11 6-12 6-13A 6-136 6-1 IlA* 6-146* 6-15 6-16 6-17* 6-18A* 6-186* 6-19A 6-198 6-19C B-19D B-19E Kuka k I ek- II iamna x x Newhalen River x X X X X X X X X Kuka k I ek Lake X X X *Completely intertied transmission system Chikuminuk King Lake Salmon X X X X X X X X X X X Tazimina X X X X X X Kont ra sh- ibuna X X Non-Hydro Sources Outside Source Beluga Area Fossi I-Di I I Ingham (Convential Coal) Fossi I-Di I I Ingham (Combined Cycle) Fossi I-Di I I ingham (Coal Gasification, Combined Cycle) Foss ii-Naknek Fossi I-Di II inghan Fossi I-Naknek Diesel - 4 subregions Diesel -3 subregions Diesel -AI I Connected Diesel -Local Waste Heat Diesel -Local Wind Diesel -Local Wind and Waste Heat Diesel -Local Organic Rankine Cycle Diesel -Local Waste Heat and/or Wind 1. 6 EVALUATION OF SELECTED ENERGY PLANS The energy plan scenarios described in the previous section were compared and evaluated with respect to a variety of technical, environmental, and economic indicators specified in the Alaska Power Authority requirements for feasibility studies (3AAC94. 060). Several were removed from further consideration due to environmental factors (B-4, B-6, and B-7), or because of similar economic characteristics (B-10 and B-12). The result was a slate of 25 scenarios selected for final comparison. 1.6.1 Technical Technical indicators used in the evaluation were: • Safety • Reliability • Availability • Constructability Constructibility, although not specified in the regulations, was added to further define technical differences between scenarios. In addition, each indicator was considered with repect to both energy production facilities and transmission lines. Section 7.2 presents details of the evaluation of various energy plan scenario electrical supply components with respect to technical indicators. The evaluation of indicators was qualitative, and no attempt was made to rank scenarios. However, certain energy supply components have lower ratings than others from the standpoint of technical indicators as shown on the next page. 1-20 Supply Component Diesel Hydro Wind Fossil Transmission Lower Rating Reliability Constructibility Reliability and Availability Commercial Development (coal gasification combined cycle only) Safety and Constructibility In general, all scenarios considered in the evaluation were found to be acceptable with respect to all of the above technical indicators. Those preliminary concepts which would have been technically unacceptable for Bristol Bay, or which represent a non-commercial technology, were screened out prior to selection of the final 25 scenarios. Accordingly, technical indicators are not a significant factor in comparing the selected scenarios during Phase I. Further technical comparisons of the most promising scenarios will be made in Phase II. Special attention will be given to protection against ice problems for hydroelectric projects, particularly for run-of-river plants. 1.6.2 Environmental The environmental evaluation of the selected energy plan scenarios addresses the ten evaluation indicators specified by the feasibility study requirements. These indicators are: • Community preferences • • • • • • • Impact on community infrastructure Timing in relation to other capital projects Air quality Water quality Fish and wildlife impact Land use impact and ownership status Terrestrial impact • Recreational resource value • Visual impact 1-21 • .. .. - • - • • .. -.. .. .. ., ... • .. • • • .. .. -.. .. • ---.. --• • • .. Environmental concerns most often associated with power project development by residents of the Bristol Bay region were: • Effect on commercial and sport fishing • Effect on established subsistence practices • In-migration of people resulting from project construction or subsequent industrial development • Easier access to subsistence areas as a result of project road construction Details of the environmental evaluation are presented in Section 7.3, which draws upon Appendix G, the Environmental Report. An evaluation matrix, which is provided in tabular subjectively rates each scenario with respect to form in Section 7.3, the indicators listed above. The subjective evaluation criteria used to evaluate environmental indicators were: A = Small impact B = Moderate impact, but believed acceptable with mitigation measures C = Major impact, possible resulting in a "fatal flaw" The scenarios preference due were not numerically to the difficulty in ranked according to environmental integrating the highly subjective indicators considered. However, the scenarios were grouped using the same evaluation criteria used for the indicators; scenarios were not ranked within a group. 1-22 The following tabulation shows the environmental evaluation of the • scenarios by group: GrouE A GrouE B GrouE C Scenario BP-1 Scenario A-1 Scenario B-1 Scenario B-15 Scenario B-8 Scenario B-2 Scenario B-16 Scenario B-9A Scenario B-3 Scenario B-17 Scenario B-9B Scenario B-4 Scenario B-19A Scenario B-9C Scenario B-5 Scenario B-19B Scenario B-10 Scenario B-6 Scenario B-19C Scenario B-ll Scenario B-7 Scenario B-19D Scenario B-12 Scenario B-13A Scenario B-13B Scenario B-14A Scenario B-14B Scenario B-18A Scenario B-19B Scenario B-19E Refer to Table 1.5-1 or 1.6-3 for scenario descriptions. Upon applying the above ten environmental indicators to the scenarios, the following was found: • • The Group A scenarios, involving diesel-electric generation, exhibit relatively small environmental and sociocultural impacts. The hydroelectric scenarios in Group C, which include the Kukaklek • - • - • .. • • • .. • - • • • .. • ... • ... • ... • and/or King Salmon concepts and generation from an outside source - • • (Beluga), exhibit major environmental and sociocultural impacts. Other hydroelectric concepts exhibit moderate environmental and sociocultural impacts. The coal-fired, steam electric scenarios exhibit moderate environmental and sociocultural impacts. 1-23 -.. - • • The Tazimina (A-I) and Newhalen (B-14A and B-14B) regional hydroelectric concepts, are of special environmental interest because they are also attractive from a technical and economic basis. These, unlike other Group B hydroelectric concepts, do not require the combination of smaller developments to meet the entire study region's needs. The development of the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric concept would create a storage reservoir behind a dam below the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake. The following would result from reservoir construction and operation: • The reservoir would inundate up to 4,100 acres of land around Lower Tazimina Lake • Animal habitat would be displaced by creation of the reservoir • Lake surface area would nearly double when the reservoir is full, suggesting increased carrying capacity for lake dwelling species • Water level fluctuation could adversely affect permanent establishment of shoreline habitats • Resident and anadromous fish habitat in the Tazimina River below the falls may be affected positively or negatively from changes in river flows and temperatures Other effects from project development would include: • Access to the river for sport fishermen due to the construction of an access road • Changes in nearby community infrastructure during construction For Tazimina, the major concern is that changes in stream flows downstream of the project could adversely affect sockeye salmon spawning. Because the falls are impassable to upstream fish migration, no salmon spawning occurs in the Tazimina Lakes, or the upper Tazimina River, above the falls. 1-24 • Cons iderable study regarding the nature of the aquatic habitat in the _ Tazimina River is reported in Appendix G. This information, combined with future instream flow studies, would be used to develop necessary mitigation - • plans for project design and operation. Flow control or augmentation would _ be considered for potential benefits to spawning areas. The Newhalen River regional hydroelectric concept would divert water from the Newhalen River at River Mile 7 into a canal leading to a hydroelectric plant. Diverted flow would be returned to the river at River Mile 1, just below the first set of rapids. The following changes would result from development of this facility: • • Flow reduction in the Newhalen River between the intake and discharge of the hydroelectric plant. Two concepts were evaluated: (a) flow diversions averaging about 1000 cfs for power generation only, or (b) large flow diversions for the purpose of both power generation and by-passing high Newhalen River flows to aid upstream salmon migration. Elimination of approximately 150 acres of high brush ecosystem at the location of the canal and ancillary road • Possible minor displacement of some brown and grizzly bear population • Changes in nearby community infrastructure Since no regulating dam would be constructed on the Newhalen River, natural river flows would not be changed except between the intake and discharge of the plant. The most important fisheries concern would be to avoid unacceptable hazards to migrants as they pass the plant site. Two important requirements would be to: 1) insure adequate flow over the rapids for upstream fish passage and for resident fish, and 2) avoid unacceptable hazards at the plant intake for smolt and fry during downstream migration. 1-25 • .. .. ., • - • .. • • • • • .. • • • - • ------ - The first requirement is easily accommodated by allowing sufficient flow to bypass the plant intake at all times. The second might require the installation of a fish diversion or screening system to exclude small fish from the plant intake during downstream migration. A major environmental benefit might be realized as a result of the Newhalen River development concept. It has been reported that extreme flows over the rapids in the lower Newhalen River have caused a blockage at the river's mouth to upstream fish passage, a problem which on infrequent occasions has caused extensive mortality in mature adult sockeye salmon as they move in early summer to freshwater spawning areas in the Newhalen River-Lake Clark system. The concept mentioned above which could provide controlled bypass of water around the rapids by means of the large power intake canal would reduce excessive flows over the rapids, thereby improving conditions for upstream fish migration. 1.6.3 Economic A common basis was used to compare and evaluate power supply scenarios in accordance with Power Authority guidelines. A calculation of the present worth of all costs and benefits associated with each scenario was the basis for economic comparisons. The economic parameters and assumptions used in the calculations were the same for all scenarios evaluated in this study. Thus, the scenarios can be compared with each other and ranked in terms of their ability to supply power to the Bristol Bay region at the lowest cost by comparing present worth cost; the lowest present worth represents the least costly alternative. Further details on the economic evaluation are presented in Chapter 7. The major steps involved in determining present worth values for each scenario included the following: Develop conceptual designs for all systems and equipment included in the scenario Determine the installed cost, annual operating and maintenance costs, fuel costs, etc., for all equipment 1-26 Develop the total annual cost (minus any benefits) for each year of the economic analysis period Evaluate the present worth of the annual costs Since detailed designs were not performed for this initial study phase, the cost estimates are order-of-magnitude prices (± 20 to 25 percent) which were developed from conceptual designs. The costs for major equipment items were obtained from vendors, when possible, or from published material. Additional allowances were made for freight from the factory to the jobsite. Other cost factors, including those special factors related to construction costs in Alaska, were determined with the assistance of Green Construction Company of Anchorage. Finally, allowances were made for system engineering and design, construction management and on allowance of about 15% for indeterminants. Interest during construction was also included. The economic parameters and assumptions used in calculating present worths were in conformance with Power Authority guidelines, except for the economic lifetimes of certain items of equipment. Summaries of the economic parameters and equipment lifetimes are shown in Tables 1.6-1 and 1.6-2, respectively. In the cases involving diesel generators, transmission lines, coal gasification, and waste heat recovery equipment, the economic lifetimes shown in Table 1.6-2 are greater than the values in the Power Authority's guidelines. These economic lifetime values were reviewed by the Power Authority, and were considered acceptable for use in the study. The base year for the economic analysis was 1982, with a 2l-year planning period (i. e., Bristol Bay electric demand projections for 1982 through 2002) and a 56-year analysis period. The analysis period resulted from the assumed installation of hydroelectric plants in 1988 which, when combined with a 50-year hydroelectric lifetime, extended the analysis period from the base year of 1982 through the year 2037. The costs occurring in the years following the planning period from 2003 through 2037 were assigned, as required, by the Power Authority economic 1-27 • • • • - • - • ., .. • - • .. • • • • • • • • - • -• ., • .. • - guidelines. It was assumed that no further load growth or petroleum fuel cost escalation occurred after 2002. Thus, the costs occurring in 2002 were repeated for each following year to 2037, and the present worth was calculated based on this cash flow. For those diesel systems which include waste heat recovery equipment, a benefit was assigned each year for the waste heat recovered. Calculations were performed to determine the fraction of the recoverable waste heat that could be used for space heating. A credit was applied each year for the space heating supplied, assuming that diesel was the fuel normally burned in homes for space heat. Lastly, the costs developed in this study represent busbar costs and do not include costs such as distribution within the villages, administration, taxes, insurance, depreciation, etc.. The present worth of consumer costs would be significantly higher. Table 1.6-3 is a summary of present worth costs for the Bristol Bay regional power scenarios. It is apparent that a wide variation in costs results from the several power supply options that were considered. Overall, the hydroelectric scenarios generally had lower present worth costs than other power supply technology options. The Newhalen regional power only concept (B-14A) was lowest, followed by the Tazimina regional concept (A-I) and the Newhalen regional power and river diversion concept (B-14B). The regional Kontrashibuna (B-18B) and a plan consisting of a smaller development of Tazimina combined with local diesel energy suplemented with waste heat and wind generation were the next most cost-effective options. By comparison, the Base Plan (BP-l) ranks number 20. Additional special studies were undertaken to: 1) investigate the economic benefits of supplemental wind systems and waste heat recovery for diesel scenarios; 2) determine the most economic local hydro development for specific subregions; and 3) evaluate the viability of the organic Rankine cycle for Naknek or Dillingham. In general, the addition of waste heat and wind to the diesel scenarios fifth ranking scenario B-19E. Chapter 7. results in cost savings as evidenced in the The results of these studies are reported in 1-28 TABLE 1.6-1 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PARAMETERS Base Year 1982 Planning Period Economic Analysis Period Inflation Rate 21 years, 1982 -2002 56 years,1982 -2037 0% (all costs expressed in 1982 dollars) Real Discount Rate 3% Real Petroleum Fuel Escalation Rate 2.6% Interest Rate 3% TABLE 1.6-2 ECONOMIC LIFETIMES FOR MAJOR EQUIPMENT Equipment Item Diesel Generators Electric Transmission Lines Waste Heat Recovery Equipment Wind Generators Organic Rankine Cycle Systems Hydroelectric Plants Steam Turbines Combined Cycle Plants Coal Gasification Equipment Lifetime, Years 30 30 15 15 25 50 30 30 30 TABLE 1. 6-3 SUMMARY OF PRESENT WORTH COSTS All Values in 1982 Dollars Scenario Description Present Worth, ($1,000) Ranking Base Plan (BP-1) Alternative A (A-1) Alternative B-1 Alternative B-2 Alternative B-3 Alternative B-5 Alternative B-8 Alternative B-9A Alternative B-9B Alternative B-9C Alternative B-11 Alternative B-13A Alternative B-13B Alternative B-14 Alternative B-14B Alternative B-15 Alternative B-16 Alternative B-17 Alternative B-18A Alternative B-18B Alternative B-19A Alternative B-19B Alternative B-19C Alternative B-19D Alternative B-19E Diesel Only Tazimina Regional Beluga Transmission Newhalen and Large Kukaklek Newhalen and Medium Kukaklek Tazimina Run-of-River, Medium Chikuminuk and Medium Kukaklek Medium Chikuminuk and Medium Tazimina 16 MW Coal-Fired 16 MW Oil-Fired 16 MW Coal Gasification Coal-fired at Dillingham and Newhalen Large Chikuminuk and Tazimina Run-of-River Large Chikuminuk and local Newhalen Newhalen Regional -Power Only Newhalen Regional Power and River Diversion Diesel Clusters Diesel Clusters and Transmission Diesel Regional Transmission Interconnected Tazimina Run-of-River and Kontrashibuna Kontrashibuna Diesel Local and Waste Heat Diesel Local and Wind Diesel Local -Waste Heat and Wind Diesel Local and Organic Cycle Tazimina Local, Diesel Local, Waste Heat + Wind 291,700 213,700 279,600 301,000 276,300 270,700 266,000 281,000 388,500 269,300 281,300 261,500 267,100 189,900 222,200 340,400 338,900 367,900 270,200 226,800 249,500 287,900 249,200 283,900 242,500 1. No cost evaluations were made for scenarios B-4, B-6, and B-7, which included the development of King Salmon. 2. Alternative B-10, a coal-fired plant at Naknek, has the same present worth as B-9A. 20 2 15 21 14 13 9 16 25 11 17 8 10 1 3 23 22 24 12 4 7 19 6 18 5 3. Alternative B-12, a coal-fired plant at Naknek with a subregional Newhalen hydroelectric development, has the same present worth as B-11. 1.7 REGULATORY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A program of regulatory coordination and public participation was undertaken with the following objectives: • to ensure the adequate and timely involvement of Federal, State, and local governmental agencies interested in the study • to identify regulatory requirements for the licensing of proposed power plans • to keep the public fully informed and to provide a means whereby the public can influence the work effort A chronological list of significant meetings, communications, and other events is included in Chapter 8 of this report. 1.7.1 Agency Communication With respect to the first objective, several formal meetings were held in Anchorage between August 19, 1981 and June 15, 1982, to explain work objectives and progress to interested governmental agencies. These meetings appeared to be beneficial to agency personnel in obtaining a better understanding of the proj ect; without question these meetings were beneficial to the project team. At some meetings, packets of preliminary information were handed out for review and comment. In addition to progress reporting, the project team items discussed included the approach being taken by to select alternative energy sources and sites, environmental concerns of various agencies with respect to specific plan proposals, and possible ways to cooperate and exchange information between the project and· various agencies who are interested in resource development. Interested personnel in a number of agencies were routinely sent copies of the Project fisheries related agencies Report. on the Special meetings were held with more promising hydro developments, particularly Tazimina and Newhalen concepts. Comments received from ·these communication exchanges were considered during the development and evaluation of power plan alternatives. 1-29 1.7.2 Regulatory Reguirements The range of laws and regulations considered during the Interim Feasibility Assessment was broad because of the large number of alternatives evaluated. Some of the important regulatory issues considered during Phase I included land status, land ownership, agency management responsibility within designated parks and preserves, and provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Transmission line routing, with respect to land status, was another important consideration. Because the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act would be brought into effect if a proposed project required federal licensing, much data was collected which was used to compare alternatives from the regulatory and environmental standpoint. These data also will be useful in further evaluation of licensing requirements for the most promising alternative(s) in Phase II. 1.7.3 Public Participation Public participation, particularly involving the residents of the Bristol Bay region, was recognized early by the proj ect as a key element of the study. The Power Authority and the project team have gone on record with a commitment to determine, and be guided by, local attitudes with respect to development of electrical power in the region. The inherent difficulty in any public participation program is the problem of sorting out the wide range of interests and expectations; the Bristol Bay public participation program was no exception. Several steps were taken during the Interim Feasibility Assessment to provide a chance for Bristol Bay residents to learn about the study. An initial step was a series of village meetings in September and October 1981, when practically every village in the region was visited by the Project team to explain the purpose of the power plan study and to request comments on matters of interest or concern. The many comments and suggestions received either during the meetings or sent later by mail on special forms were compiled and considered. In some cases, these comments resulted in significant changes in plan concepts. Also, community meetings 1-30 ... .. .. ., .. .. • .. • -• ., • .. • .. • - • .. • ---.. .. .. -., .. .. .. were repeated in March 1982 to present the results of the Interim Feasibility Assessment. Other steps taken to enhance communication with Bristol Bay residents- included the distribution of project reports to community leaders, radio and press releases on the study, and numerous informal meetings and discussions with local residents as project team members collected necessary field data. Although the special communications and transportation in the Bristol Bay region are less than ideal for maximum public participation, it is believed that a credible effort has been made to recognize local concerns. The fundamental community issue appears to be concern about conflict between accelerated energy resource development and the existing lifestyle in the Bristol Bay region. Most residents welcome less costly and more abundant sources of electrical power, if their current lifestyle is not adversely affected. The most commonly expressed concern relates to the effect of power projects on the fisheries, both from the commercial and subsistence standpoint. Decreases in game, increased access to remote areas, and influx of outsiders are also seen as possible harmful effects. However, attitudes differ throughout the region regarding perceived benefits and costs of more energy. These differences from a regional standpoint may represent unresolvable conflicts. However, understanding them may permit elements of the study to be tailored somewhat to local preferences. More information on the public participation program is presented in Section 8.2. 1. 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.8.1 Conclusions The general conclusion of the Interim Feasibility Assessment is that there are a number of promising alternatives to the current use of diesel electric generation in the Bristol Bay region. This conclusion is based on 1-31 -.. an analys is of the technical, environmental, and economic characteristics • of 25 power development scenarios. These scenarios utilize a variety of - commercially available power generation systems considered technically suitable for use in the Bristol Bay region during the planning period from 1982 to 2002. The economic evaluation in Section 1.6.3 (Table 1.6-3) shows a significant variation between the scenarios on a present worth basis. The four least costly alternatives are regional hydroelectric developments: 1) on the --.. - • - Newhalen River (B-14A), 2) on the Tazimina River (A-I), and 3) on the - Newhalen River (B-14B), and 4) on the Tanalian River near Kontrashibuna .. Lake (B-18A). The next alternative in order of economic preference is the .. development of subregional diesel systems, including utilization of waste _ heat recovery and wind supplemental energy, coupled with the development of a local Tazimina River hydroelectric project (B-19E). A comparison of the top five scenarios and the Base Plan by present worth ratios shows the following economic ranking: Present Worth Economic Descri]2tion Scenario No. Ratio Rank 1 Newhalen Regional -Power Only B-14A 1.54 2 Tazimina Regional A-I 1. 36 3 Newhalen Regional -Power and River Diversion B-14B 1. 31 4 Kontrashibuna Regional B-18B 1.29 5 Local Diesel, Waste Heat, wind, and Local Taziminina B-19E 1.20 20 Base Plan (Continued Diesel) BP-l 1.00 (Base) Refering again to Table 1.6-3, there are several other scenarios within a relatively close grouping which show lower costs than the Base Plan. Many of these employ disconnected subregional systems. Also, it should be noted that three scenarios in this grouping, utilizing coal in centralized power plants, are also slightly less costly than the Base Plan. 1-32 • .. • .. • .. • .. • -.. .. • - • .. --.. - • .. • - With respect to environmental considerations, the ranking is different than for economics. Continued electrical generation by diesel systems was judged to result in the least environmental effect to the Bristol Bay region. The four other most attractive alternatives on a present worth economic basis all fall within the intermediate environmental category (Group B), having moderate impacts that are believed to be acceptable with mitigation measures. In making choices between power plan candidates on the basis of the data available at the Interim Feasibility Assessment, a third. factor must be considered: the level of confidence in the information, or assumptions used in the evaluation, of individual scenarios. Although an effort was made to evaluate all scenarios on a consistent level, considerable differences exist in the quality and quantity of data available. Considering the top five candidates from the economic evaluation, the best data on which to make an evaluation is available for the Tazimina and Newhalen scenarios, due to collection of considerable detailed physical and environmental data. For Kontrashibuna, because it is a more remote site, there is a lack of specific data about its environmental setting, and there are questions concerning the compatible use between the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and the site for power generation. These factors combine to reduce the level of confidence in the assumptions used in the development of the Kontrashibuna concept. For the local diesel, waste heat, wind, and local Tazimina scenario (B-19E) the assumptions relative to the practical levels of wind and waste heat utilization may be questioned. Confidence in the diesel and hydroelectric components, however, is high. Considering the above factors, the following conclusions were reached with respect to the top five candidates: Technical - Economic - All are feasible. All present attractive Plan, the continuation practices. 1-33 cost advantages over the Base of present diesel generation Environmental -Subregional diesel power in combination with wind, waste heat, and the run-of-river Tazimina has the least impact .. .. .. - on the Bristol Bay region; the other four candidates, _ Confidence although exhibiting varying potential environmental effects, are believed to be acceptable with mitigation. Confidence is highest for the sub-regional diesel/waste- heat/wind/Local Tazimina concept, reasonably high for the Newhalen concepts, and lower for the Tazimina and Kontrashibuna regional plans. ---.. .. .. • These above conclusions lead to the following subjective order of .. candidates with respect to economic, environmental, and confidence factors: Economic Newhalen (Power Only) Tazimina (Regional) Newhalen (Power and River Diversion) Konstrashibuna (Regional) Subregional Diesel w/waste heat/ wind/Local Tazimina Environmental Subregion Diesel w/waste heat/wind/Local Tazimina Newhalen (Power and River Diversion) Newhalen (Power Only) Tazimina (Regional) Kontrashibuna (Regional) Confidence Subregion Diesel w/waste heat/wind/Local Tazimina Newhalen (Power Only) Newhalen (Power and River Diversion) Tazimina (Regional) Kontrashibuna (Regional) The intent is not to imply equal weight to the three evaluation factors or suggest that the ranking is linear from top to bottom of the list. 1-34 ... .. • • • .. .. • .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. -.. -.. .. --... Furthermore, the ranking of environmental and confidence factors is highly subjective. Thus, based on a subjective evaluation of the above lists, it is concluded that the ranking of alternatives for a completely intertied regional power plan is in the same order as shown above in the economic listing. However, since local preferences may favor subregional developments, we suggest further consideration should be given to the subregional diesel/waste heat/ wind/Local Tazimina Scenario (B-19E). With respect to regional hydroelectric power developments, it may be technically and economically feasible to develop some of these projects for higher capacity and energy. Such projects might be increased in size to provide electrical energy requirements of not only the Bristol Bay region, but adjacent areas such as Bethel and Togiak. The merits of such developments could be considered for study under the Phase II efforts, if the Power Authority so desires. 1.8.2 Recommendations Based on the stated conclusions, and in consideration of presently known factors, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation makes the following recommendations for Phase II efforts of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan: a. Continue detailed development of the Base Plan scenario to form a base for compar ison; b. Continue detailed feasibility analysis of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric power concept (B-14A); c. Undertake detailed feasibility analysis of the diesel/waste heat/wind/Local Tazimina scenario (B-19E); sub-regional d. Through a public participation program, obtain a better understanding of attitudes of the people of Bristol Bay regarding a regional power plan. 1-35 The recommendation to continue studies on the Newhalen River concept stems from the preliminary conclusion that the project is economically attractive, technically feasible, and is likely to be environmentally acceptable with proper mitigative measures. To this end, the following steps are suggested for early implementation in Phase II efforts: a. Undertake resident and anadromous fisheries studies to satisfactorily demonstrate the environmental acceptability of the B-14A concept. b. Continue geotechnical investigations and surveys at the proposed site to better define site conditions revealed by initial investigations and to obtain additional geologic data in the vicinity of the power plant. - - .. - ...' .. • • The following conclusions further support the recommendation to undertake • further evaluation of the Newhalen River regional concept in Phase II: _ a. The Newhalen regional concept appears more attractive economically than Tazimina, based on presently available data; b. The engineering and construction uncertainties relating to this project appear to be fewer because of its location and nature of the concept; • .. • .. • - c. There may be some significant mitigative fisheries benefits relating to • upstream migrants that could be implemented and made part of project .. development; and d. Because of high Newhalen River flows during the summer, there exists the potential for additional electrical energy development during that period of time coinciding with fish processing energy needs. should benefit processors within the region. This We recommend that a decision be made to evaluate the Newhalen concept and the sub-regional diesel/waste heat/wind/Local Tazimina concept in Phase II, and to perform those investigations and studies that are necessary for the Detailed Feasibility report and, as applicable, for the preparation of a FERC license application. 1-36 • - • ---- • .. -.. ~ .. Based on the above recommendations, the scope of work believed necessary for the Phase II effor~s is outlined in detail in Chapter 10 of this report. 1-37 CIJ w ::.:: < ..J ~ I o ::.:: i= I ..... "" "".r:... o "L __ "'- o o ~ ... J KOLl~~ .. • VILLAGES INCLUDED IN STUDY LOCATIONS DIESEL POW~~ ~OAJ~~E~ON 6.=HYDRO 0 &. NEWHALEN &. TAZIMINA &. KONTRASH I BUNA & CHIKUMINUK & KUKAKLEK & KING SALMON = COAL-FIRED OR OTHER (2] LINE FROM BELUGA [!] DILLINGHAM GJ NAKNEK SCALE o 10 20 30 40 MILES 50 BRISTOL BAY REGION ~ FIGURE 1.2-1----- .... ... _-, .... ',. - ..... -. ..... -... ..... 2. INTRODUCTION ..... .... "" .. .... ..... ..... - -... 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 ENERGY NEEDS IN BRISTOL BAY Energy is high among the important issues in the Bristol Bay Region today. The following quotation from a study by the Bristol Bay Native Association puts the subject in focus: "The current energy problems and needs facing Bristol Bay res idents are much different than those issues 1960's and confronting the early 1970's. region in the Diesel-generated electricity is no longer the 'key' to the future deve lopment and prosperi ty of the region. Al though electricity remains a vi tal element of the future of the region, its mode of generation must be re-evaluated and changed" (Ref 1). The residents of the Bristol Bay region have been concerned with energy problems for some time. In November 1979, a seminar was held in Dillingham entitled "Bristol Bay: Energy Policy and Planning Looking for Directions" . The major energy concern identified at the seminar was relief from the high electrical and home heating costs currently facing the village. Village representatives at the seminar felt that some type of assistance was needed to help villagers meet the increasing costs of electricity and home heating. Some of the suggestions to reduce energy costs to consumers included community diesel generators, bulk fuel storage facilities, the introduction of more energy efficient low-income housing units, education in energy conservation, and the upgrading of existing central community diesel systems. It was also recognized that the development of new energy sources could increase supplies and reduce costs. 2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES Several studies have been undertaken in recent years to identify potential new sources of energy for the region and to further evaluate specific 2-1 promising options (Ref 2, 3, 4). A "Reconnaissance Study" by R. W. Retherford Associates evaluated the feasibility of developments at Lake Elva, Grant Lake, and Tazimina Lake hydroelectric (Ref 3). The study considered the attractiveness of transmission interties between villages and the development of other new electric energy resources, including wind energy. Based on the study assumptions, the development of Lake Elva followed by Grant Lake was found to be economically attractive for the Dillingham area alone when compared with continuing diesel generation. However, Retherford found that "development of the Tazimina potential will result in the lowest power cost for all communities in an intertied, combined system". Retherford recommended a plan to develop the JIll • - 1IIIo. .. - • Tazimina site, located on the Tazimina River about ten miles north of • Iliamna Lake and east of Nondalton Village. 2.3 BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN As a result of the R. W. Retherford recommendations, the Alaska Power Authority retained Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) in July 1981 to undertake a study known as the "Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis". The purpose of the Bristol Bay Regional - Power Plan study is to assess the technical, economic, and environmental .. aspects of alternative electric power plans for the Bristol Bay region. The study has the following general objectives: • Minimizing market area energy costs • • Minimizing adverse environmental and social impacts whi"le enhancing environmental values to the extent possible Maximizing the likelihood of project financing and implementation The study area is defined as an 18-village area bordering Bristol Bay, extending inland along the Nushagak and Kvichak drainages, and including villages in the Iliamna Lake region. This study area was previously determined to be the economic limit of the Tazimina Project market area. 2-2 • - .. • ... .. • - .. The villages included in the study are Aleknagik, Clarks Point, Dillingham, Egegik, Ekuk, Ekwok, Igiugig, Iliamna, King Salmon, Koliganek, Levelock, Manokotak, Naknek, Newhalen, New Stuyahok, Nondalton, Portage Creek, and South Naknek. The scope of services of the study includes resource assessment, field surveys, and hydrologic, geotechnical, environmental, design, economic, marketing, and financing studies necessary to assess project feasibility and to meet any licensing and permitting requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other federal, state, or local agencies. A specific objective of the study is to evaluate in detail the feasibility of the previously identified Tazimina Hydroelectric Project and to compare that project with other promising alternatives. The Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis is being performed in compliance with the requirements of 3AAC 94.060. The study effort has been divided into two phases. Phase I covers the period from project initiation to an "Interim Feasibility Phase II will continue with the development of the Regional Assessment". Power based on the results and recommendations of the interim assessment. report documents and summarizes the Phase I efforts. 2 . 4 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Plan, This The approach to the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan study is set forth in the Work Plan proposed by SWEC and approved, with modifications, by the Alaska Power Authority (Ref 5). The Work Plan divides the work into the following tasks to better organize the effort and define the work products: Task 1 -Demand Forecast -Evaluate present energy use in the region and predict future requirements Task 2 Energy Supply Technology Evaluation Review and evaluate available energy technologies and select those suitable for use in the development of alternative energy plans 2-3 Task 3 Regulatory Coordination and Public Participation Identify regulatory requirements, coordinate with governmental agencies having interest in the study, and maintain communication with Bristol Bay region residents Task 4 Al ternative Power Plans Identification -Formulate alternative power plans based on demand forecasts and suitable energy supply technologies Task 5 Field Data Collection Collect geotechnical, hydrologic, environmental, and sociocultural data to use in evaluating the power plans Task 6 -Conceptual Design -Develop preliminary design concepts for the alternative power plans formulated • .. • JIll ... • .. Task 7 -Environmental and Socioeconomic Impact Assessment -Evaluate the .. power plans with respect to environmental and socioeconomic factors Task 8 -Economic Evaluation -Evaluate the cost, financing, and marketing aspects of the power plans Task 9 Base and Alternative Plan Comparison Compare alternative plans with respect to technical, environmental, factors the base and and economic Task 10 -Feasibility Report -Prepare an Interim Feasibility Assessment and a Detailed Feasibility Report documenting the results of Tasks 1 through 9 and presenting conclusions and recommendations Task 11 -FERC License Application (If Required) -Prepare a FERC license application if a hydroelectric development alternative and determined to be feasible is the most promising The Work Plan is further designed to consider the following three hypothetical power plan cases to aid in comparing alternatives: 2-4 • • - • .. .. -• • • .. ... .. • A Base Plan, which represents the continuation of present practices of reliance on oil-fired (diesel) generation • Alternative "A", which consists of the Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project as the required regional power supply • Alternative "B", which consists of other energy sources, projects, or facilities, either alone or in combination In order to provide a degree of optimization and to permit the evaluation of a greater number of alternatives, a number of "scenarios" were evaluated within Alternative B. These scenarios consider variations in type, location, and interconnection of energy production systems. 2.5 STUDY PARTICIPANTS In order to accomplish the complex requirements of the study in the most efficient manner, SWEC engaged the services of a number of reputable Alaskan firms to assist in regional data collection and specific field studies at Tazimina, technical aspects of and to the serve work. as consultants The following relative Alaskan organizations contributed to the work in the areas indicated: to certain firms or • Dames & Moore -Environmental and sociocultural data collection and analysis and hydrologic analysis • Shannon & Wilson, Inc. -Geotechnical data collection and analysis • Universitv of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research - Energy demand forecasts • Bristol Bay Native Corporation Land status and assistance in regulatory coordination and public participation • Wind Systems Engineering, Inc. -Wind energy analysis 2-5 • Green Construction Company -Assistance in construction cost estimates • Dryden & LaRue -Consultation related to electrical transmission systems 2.6 INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT The prime objective of Phase I of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, called the "Interim Feasibility Assessment", has been to make an interim assessment of the previously identified Tazimina Hydroelectric Project and to compare that project with the Base Plan and other alternatives. However, during Phase I, sincere efforts have been made to formulate .. • alternative plans that might be equal or possibly superior to Tazimina as a • regional power source. A major effort during the interim assessment has .. been to develop numerous alternative "scenarios" involving combinations of the energy supply technologies that are considered viable for the region. These scenarios have been screened, reduced in number, and compared with each other and with Tazimina to provide a basis for a recommendation on the direction to take in Phase II. Phase I completes Tasks 1, 2, and 4. In addition, Tasks 5 through 10 have been undertaken on a preliminary basis and in sufficient detail to satisfy the objectives of the Interim Feasibility Assessment. Task 3, Regulatory Coordination and Public Participation, required special effort during Phase I because of the interest the study generated among both the residents of Bristol Bay and numerous federal, state, and regional organizations concerned with resource planning and environmental protection. 2.7 REPORT ORGANIZATION • - The first section of the report (Section l, Executive Summary) summarizes • the work that lead to the Interim Feasibility Assessment presented herein. The following sections provide more detail and are intended to lead the reader logically from project initiation through data collection and several levels of evaluation, screening, and comparison. Energy production scenarios are developed, evaluated, and compared. Finally, conclusions are presented regarding the scenarios from the standpoint of technical feasibility, economics, and environmental compatibility. 2-6 • Extensive reports have been prepared by SWEC and its subcontractors for several of the tasks and are summarized in the body of this report. The complete detailed reports are included as appendicies. To the extent possible, use was made of data collected by others on the Bristol Bay region. Principal data sources are referenced at the ends of two-digit sections. Additional data, drawings, and calculations which are too voluminous to include in the report are on file in SWEC' s offices Denver or in the offices of other team members. 2-7 References for Section 2 1. Bristol Bay Native Association, "Energy and Bristol Bay", June 1980. 2. R. W. Retherford Associates, "Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential, Phase 1", prepared for the Alaska Power Administration, December 1979. 3. R. W. Retherford Associates, "Reconnaissance Study of the Lake Elva and Other Hydroelectric Potentials in the Dillingham Area", prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, February 1980. 4. R. W. Beck and Associates, "Lake Elva Project Detailed Feasibility Analysis", prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, January 1981. 5. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, "Appendix B Work Plan", Contract AS 44-83-010, submitted to the Alaska Power Authority, July 1981. 2-8 ... ",", II,,, .. ... ' MI· ... ... - .... .... .... ... .... 3. ENERGY CONDITIONS AND DEMAND FORECAST 3. ENERGY CONDITIONS AND DEMAND FORECAST 3.1 INTRODUCTION An understanding of the energy uses and energy needs of the 18 Bristol Bay study area communities is paramount in order to develop reliable forecasts of future requirements. During Phase I, data necessary for this purpose was obtained through direct visits to the communities; by direct discussions with key individuals within communities; by the compilation of data on community needs, lifestyles, problems, and concerns; by the use of historical data on the communities and the region; and by research concerning major planned energy-related activities or projects and other economic, social, environmental, demographic, and physical conditions which form strong influencial factors affecting the people of the region and their needs for energy. These data were analyzed to develop village energy profiles, addressing distinguishable features regarding energy movements, household stock, and prospects for economic and energy growth. The obj ective of this analysis was to provide a demand forecast through the year 2002 for use in formulating alternative power plans. The work required to develop this energy demand forecast was performed for the project by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) of the University of Alaska. Their study efforts were prepared and presented in two steps. Under the first step, ISER analysed data collected in a preliminary manner for use in this Phase I Interim Feasibility Assessment report. The approach and methodology used in developing the preliminary energy demand forecasts and the results of data analyses are given in greater detail in Appendix C. This analysis uses an approach and methodology that is similar to that to be used in the final evaluation of energy demands. The approach and methodology for expanding the preliminary energy demand forecast data are given in Appendix A.l. Under the second step, ISER continued with its data gathering process and analysed the data collected with a more rigorous approach. The results from this analysis 3-1 are given by ISER' s report entitled "E lectricity Demand Forecast for the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan", dated April 1982. A limited number of copies of this final report are available with the Alaska Power Authority. ... This final ISER report reflects the data and conclusions for electrical .,. power demands, as developed under the preliminary report for a Base Case scenario and, in addition: 1) the electrical power demands for two Alternative Case scenarios, 2) electric space heating considerations, 3) methodology for projecting non-space heating electricity use in the region, and, 4) other data required under contract with ISER. Since this final report is based on more detailed analyses and data, there exist certain minor variations in electrical energy and capacity values from those developed under the preliminary phase of the energy study. These variations are more applicable to the two alternative case scenarios studied. It is the intent of the study for the development of a regional power plan for Bristol Bay to utilize the data presented by ISER's final report in the Phase II effort of the study. The data would then be applied to the Base Case scenario (s) and other scenarios selected under the Phase I efforts as promising for further detailed study. The remainder of this section addresses the two major energy needs of the study region as reflected by the preliminary Phase I energy demand report, namely: • Electrical energy for appliance use • Space heating energy needs, including energy needs for hot water and some cooking 3.1.1 Methodology of Forecasting -Electrical Energy Demands ... .... • • In assessing the electrical energy needs and developing the demand _ forecasts, the eighteen communities have been grouped into similar categories; these categories were selected to reflect the pattern of electricity usage in the 1980 base year. The categories are: 3-2 -... • • Central Station Utility: Dillingham, Aleknagik, Naknek, South Naknek, King Salmon, Egegik, Manokotak, and New Stuyahok • • Seasonal-Central Station Utility: Portage Creek, Ekwok, and Koliganek (those villages which shut down in the summer) Non-Central Station Utility: Clarks Point, Ekuk, Levelock, Igiugig, Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton The non-central villages of Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton are presently involved in the installation of a central system with transmission line interties. This fact has been taken into consideration when energy plan scenarios were being developed and evaluated. Electricity demand projections made under the preliminary evaluation are consistent with the Base Plan scenario. This means that electricity energy demands are primarily dependent on diesel power generators. Also, under the base plan scenario, the energy demand projections assume that use patterns of electrical energy would not change dramatically from observed trends and, further, that the effects of state intervention to lower electricity prices will continue throughout the 20-year forecast period. A further growth-influencing assumption applied to the forecast methodology is that no electric space heating will be developed over the forecast period, principally because of the anticipated cost of electrical energy. These assumptions and criteria result in a conservative (lower) energy demand forecast. The purpose of the regional power plan study is to identify possible electrical energy plans which would result in lower electricity cost for the consumer than those presently in effect. Recognizing that the possibility exists for an increase in electricity use resulting from lower cost, sensitivity analyses will be performed on the energy demand forecast to reflect the influence of the lower anticipated cost. The results from these analyses will be used in Phase II to further compare, refine, and optimize electric energy plans selected for further detailed analysis. 3-3 However, these refinements are not considered necessary for the purpose of ~ comparing the large number of scenarios developed in Phase I. 3.1.2 Methodology of Forecasting -Space Heating Energy Demands The preliminary analysis assumes that space heating energy demand is independent of electrical energy demand. This is because space heating demands are based almost exclusively on heating by use of fuel oil. It is also recognized that wood is used to some extent for space heating and that electrical energy is used to a small extent for space heating in the residential and commercial/government sectors of the region. However, for the purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that all space heating needs will be met by fuel oil. This approach should form a complete measure of space heat demand. Survey data collected in each community were used in estimating the residential and commercial/government heating fuel oil base year consumption. No attempt was made to delineate that portion of oil consumed for either cooking or hot water heating in the residential and commercial/government sectors. "" .. .. .. • Having established a base year fuel oil need for the communities, it was _ assumed that use per residential customer would grow at an average annual rate of one percent per year. floor area, with the base This reflects an assumed increase in average remaining electricity constant. demand customer per village. The year levels of proj ected number forecasts) was used to consumption per of households square (from forecast the consumption foot the per The space heating energy demand in the commercial/government sector was derived in the same manner as that in the residential sector. Estimated base year levels of heating oil used per customer were adjusted to reflect customers involved to calculate 1980 space heat demand. Consumers' numbers in each community were allowed to grow at a rate that was assumed for the corresponding village groupings (that is, central, seasonal central, and 3-4 • • • ." - - • non-central). The consumer consumption was assumed to grow at one percent per year over the 20-year forecast period. In the industrial sector, space heat demand was based on energy-use data collected directly from the Bristol Bay region shore-based fish processors. Space heating is required mostly for bunkhouses and offices. Space heating average needs per customer were determined from available data and applied to the 13 identified base-year processors. For the industrial sector, it has been assumed that space heating consumption per customer would remain constant over the 20-year study period. The increase seen in the industrial sector results from the addition of one new process facility in Dillingham in 1982. Electric space heating was indicated by a few processors; this is because of the use of residual load from self-generated electricity, which improves the plant factor for the processor's plant. In summary, the key assumption regarding 'the estimates of space heating energy demand is that it remains non-electric in the base plan preliminary forecast. Furthermore, the analysis has implicitly assumed that additional conservation measures are not implemented by either residential, commercial/government, military, or industrial sectors. 3 . 2 ENERGY FORECASTS Summarized in this section are the results of energy demand forecast studies regarding electrical energy for appliance end-use and fuel oil energy for space heating end-use (including hot water and some cooking) as determined under the preliminary analyses by ISER and expanded for use in this iterim report. 3.2.1 Technical Discussions -Electrical Energy Demands The electrical energy demand forecast for the study region to the end of year 2002 reflects a conservative load growth scenario believed to be indicative of the continuation of present use trends, costs, and 3-5 subsidies. The resulting electrical energy demand projections for all sectors of the study region are summarized in Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2. Data from these tables has been expanded (Appendix A.1) to show needs on a per-village basis by sector. This is shown on Table 3.2-3. These energy forecast values represent net energy from the proposed plan and/or its transmission line grid. It has been assumed that a 10 percent increase should be made to allow for losses due to power plant energy .. lit- needs, transmission line grid losses, and other minor contingencies. The .. resul ting energy and power demand values used in the interim assessment study are: Year (HWh/yr) Power (kW) 1982 32,400 7.9 1987 38,700 8.9 1992 47,600 11.2 1997 58,900 12.2 2002 74,500 15.0 Key parameters, assumptions, and conditions relating to sector projections considered in the demand study are discussed below. 3.2.1.1 Residential Sector The more important factors affecting electrical energy projections for the residential sector were found to be: • • • Population growth Concentration over time of census division population in the 18-community study area Saturation of electric hookups • Village electrification • Energy prices • Household income • Saturation of electrical appliances 3-6 -.. • .... • ., .. '. • .. ... ... ... .. The preliminary projection of residential customers assumes an overall population growth rate between 1.5 and 2.0 percent per year. This is lower than the historical rate 2.4 to 2.5 percent (Appendix C, Table 3), which reflects, in part, the rapid economic growth from fisheries expansion in the latter 1970' s. Local population increases are also seen from intra-regional shifts as well as from in-migration. Developed average annual population growth rates are adjusted to reflect the decline of the average household size (Appendix C, Table 4), which is seen to be more pronounced in rural communities. Assuming that the declining trends continues, but at the reduced rate of 1.0 percent per year over the study projection period, it would appear that the average household size in the year 2002 would be 2.74 persons. In recognition of the fact that the non-central station residential sector would grow to reflect the inevitable need and implementation for central village electrification, the population growth has been adjusted in this sector by an additional growth factor of 1.023 percent. This factor was derived from the analysis of appliance saturation studies for household lights. Residential appliance saturation rates, defined as the number of residences in a particular village which own one more of a given appliance divided by the number of residences in that village, were also used in the projection forecasts. These rates, coupled with appliance energy demand characteristics and usage. the desire for addit ional future appliances, future development plans of electric energy intensive projects, and anticipated electrification potential of each village, were all evaluated to derive the annual electricity use for the average residence for each village category. An important assumption that affects primarily the annual electricity use rate of the non-central villages was that all communities will tend to get central station utility electricity within the forecast period. Further, a contingency factor of 0.25 percent was added to the calculated growth 3-7 factor in each village category. This was to account for new applicances and any potential downward bias in the methodology. An adjustment was also made to the consumption values derived from the appliance saturation analysis to account for seasonal consumption decreases at villages where a significant percentage of households are vacated during the fishing season. The resulting projections of annual electricity consumption per residence for the three village categories are given in Table 3.2-4. The data for the residential sectors given in Table 3.2-2 were developed from data on the growth of customer numbers and on the growth in average use per customer. Studies on the effects of electrical energy costs, adjusted to reflect the subsidy implied by the Power Cost Assistance program, were made to determine usage trends and mode changes. The studies show that for the central station communities, that portion of the average projected household income to be spent on electricity needs would vary from 3.9 percent in 1982 to 7.3 percent in 2002. This group of communities is the least impacted in comparison to the other two selected study groupings. The second least impacted group is that groups of communi ties categorized as seasonal non-central. For these communities, the studies show that about 8.2 percent of the projected average household income would be spent on electricity in the year 1982, while this percentage value increases to 17.9 percent in the year 2002. The third category, the non-central station communities, appear to be affected the greatest amount. The studies indicated that these communities need to spend some 27 to 28 percent of their average household income for electrical energy cost; this appears to be presently occurring in these communi ties. Forecasts for later study years are more than twice those presently realized. Because of this, it is believed that these communities would tend to switch over to central village electric generation. 3.2.1.2 Commercial/Government Sector Survey data compiled in the study were used to develop baseline estimates 3-8 .. .. -.. • .. • of the number of commercial/government customers and average electricity use per customer for the year 1980. These data are shown on Table 3.2-5. The type and number of commercial/government facilities in rural villages is shown on Table 3.2-6 for 1981. The average annual growth rates assumed to forecast growth in number of customers and in average use per customer are shown in Table 3.2-7. As shown in Table 3.2-6, most villages have a service infrastructure covering utilities, health, education, and village administration. Al though more growth in the commercial/government sector can be expected over the next 20 years, it should be noted that baseline estimates of customer numbers and energy use per customer reflect a rapid growth period from fisheries activities and public spending. Because of this, the assumptions about growth have been tempered to relate to long-term probable growth and not periodic upswings having short-term duration. Energy use per customer in this sector was assumed to grow at 2.4 percent per year for central station villages. This is based on the historical pattern of non-residential electricity consumption in several southwest Alaska utilities (Figures 6 and 7 of Appendix C). For the commercial/government growth rate in the seasonal-central station and non-central station villages, a rate equal to the residential use rate per customer for the seasonal-central villages has been applied. This is a growth rate of 2.31 percent per year. The studies show that the commercial/government sectors in these two village groups exhibit similar characteristics, despite the important variance in the method of power production. It should be noted that the non-central commercial users already have relatively large generating facilities; they are not expected to respond dramatically to electrification. In determining the number of customers for central station villages, the growth rate in the number of commercial/government customers was made equal to the residential rate growth plus a small increment which reflects the difference in growth between residential and commercial customers for the 3-9 combined Bristol Bay utilities (Appendix C, Table 16). The increment is 120 percent and was applied directly to the residential customers for central station communities. The growth rate for the number of customers for seasonal central station villages and for non-central station communities was assumed equal to the growth rate of the residential users in the respective community grouping. 3.2.1.3 Industrial Sector For the energy plan study, analysis of the industrial sector relates exclusively to the fish activities of the region. In 1980, there were 13 major shore-based processors operating in the study region; approximately 40 shore-based fish camps and fish buyers were also logged for that year. Offshore processors which serve several Alaska fisheries were not included in the study because they do not contribute to electricity demand. All 13 shore-based processors were surveyed by the ISER study team. Data on these processors and their electricity use is given in Table 3.2-8. Most processors use their own generators for peak summer months of the fishing season. Some also purchase electricity from utilities, and only one processor depends entirely on the electric utility. The electrical energy needs relating to the industrial sector are assumed to be essentially constant over the time period 1980-2001. However, there are indications that the processors with canning facilities will eventually convert to canning and freezing. This conversion would result in a more energy-intensive process, but would cause only a small increase in electricity needs for this sector over the study period. Similarly, with the exception of one additional processor that will be in operation in 1982, it is believed that energy demands for the sector will remain essentially unchanged. Projections of electrical energy needs for the major shore-based processors are shown in Table 3.2-9. The Power Cost Assistance subsidy was implicitly assumed as relatively unimportant. Therefore, electricity prices are close to the real marginal cost of oil. 3-10 • • .. .. • ... ., .. - ... .. • The average annual electricity consumption per fish camp and buy station customer of 24 MWh was based on 1980 data from ten buyers and fish camps in the study region. Actual consumption varies greatly, since operations vary in size. For the study, it has been assumed that the average annual consumption will not change over the study period. However, the number of buyers will peak in the mid-1980 IS, and retired fish camps will not be replaced (Table 21 of Appendix C). 3.2.1.4 Military Sector The Alaska Air Command (AAC) base at King Salmon is the only military installation in the study region. This base began to purchase its electricity needs from the Naknek Electric Association (NEA) during December 1981. The military base has contracted for S, 600 MWh of energy from NEA. This energy need was used for all years of the study period, since no changes are expected in the military sector. 3.2.1.5 Electric Space Heating or Increased Usage Under the present relative price structure of electricity and diesel fuel in the study region, the cost of using electricity generated by diesel fuel for residential space heating is considerably greater than that of oil furnaces. Nevertheless, the regional power plan must consider the possibility of a shift from oil to electricity for space heating, should lower cost electrical energy become available. The sensitivity of electrical energy demands to lower energy cost is to be analyzed and presented as part of the final energy demand forecast by ISER. It should be noted, however, that under the present price structure, where cost of fuel oil to the consumer varies from about $1.42/gal to about $1.69/gal, the cost of electrical energy would have to be less than $O.OS/kWh and $0. 06/kWh, respectively, to be competitive with fuel oil at 1982 prices. As the fuel costs escalate at a rate of 2.6 percent per year above inflation, the corresponding cost of oil in the year 2002 would be about $2.37/gal and $2.80/gal. At that time, electrical energy cost would 3-11 need to be less than $0. 08/kWh and $0. 10/kWh, respectively, in order to • compete with fuel oil. This simplified cost comparison does not take into consideration the investment costs, if any, needed to convert the present heating systems to electric heating. These costs would not be considered for future developments, where electric space heating installations would be a part of the building costs. 3.2.2 Technical Discussions -Space Heating Energy Demands The space heating energy needs of the region are being met predominantly by the use of fuel oil energy, and to a limited extent by the use of wood and some electric space heating. For the interim assessment, it has been assumed that all space heating, as well as some minor cooking energy needs and the energy needs for hot water, are all being met by burning fuel oil. These energy needs are shown in Table 3.2-10 for the 18 study-area communities and represent estimated values for the 1980 year. These values form "base line" values for use in projections over the study period. The space heating needs of the region have been segregated to address the residential, the Bristol commercial/governmental, Bay study region. The conservation measures are not performed. industrial, analysis and military sectors of implicitly assumes that Using the approach and methodology previously described, the space heating energy needs, given by village and sector, are summarized in Table 3.2-11 and graphically shown by Figure 3.2-1. The impressive fact concerning the forecast values of space heating needs is their magnitude: they are five times or more that of the electrical energy forecasts previously described. The great:est needs for space heating are in the commercial/government and the residential sectors. The space heat values given contain fuel oil needs for hot water heating. It is estimated that this component of the total fuel needs is about 7 t:o 12 percent in the residential sector and possibly twice that amount in the remaining sectors. These estimates are given for the appropriate sectors in Table 3.2-12. 3-12 ... • ., .. .. ., .. ... As previously stated, it appears doubtful that electric energy cost could be low enough to promote electric space heating. Meeting space heating energy needs through electrical energy, in addition to the appliance end use energy needs for the year 2002, would require a generating installation of about 74 MW capacity (Appendix A.l). The approach and methodology for responding to these energy needs, whether from electrical generation or through another energy resource, is not a part of the study, but could be addressed in Phase II of the study effort. 3-13 TABLE 3.2-1 BRISTOL BAY POWER PLAN OVERALL ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMAND PROJECTIONS (MEGAWATT HOURS/YEAR) Commercia1/ Residential Gov't Industrial Militar;t % of % of % of % of Year Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total 1980 4,459 16 9,629 34 8,248 30 5,600 20 1982 4,936 16 10,951 36 8,819 29 5,600 19 1981 6,249 11 15,083 42 8,952 25 5,600 16 1992 1,931 18 20,189 48 9,025 21 5,600 13 1991 10,060 19 28,642 54 9,098 11 5,600 10 2002 12,143 19 39,632 59 9,098 14 5,600 8 1980-2002 Overall Average Annual Rate of Growth, Percent 4.89 6.64 0.45 ° SOURCE: ISER Report, Appendix C Total 21,936 30,312 35,884 43,351 53,400 61,013 4.06 t i TABLt:: 3.2-2 BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN ELECTRICAL hNERGY DEMAND PROJECTIONS bY CUSTOMeR Number of Customers Elect. Consum~. ~er Customer (kW) Total Electricit~ Consum~tion (MW) Seasonal Non-Seasonal Non-Seasonal Non- Central Central Central Total Central Central Central Central Central Central Total Residential 1980 810 68 82 960 5,152 1,308 2,401 4,113 139 191 4,4':)9 1982 859 11 90 1,020 5,115 3,021 3,062 4,445 215 216 4,936 1981 996 81 114 1,191 5,585 3,413 3,591 5,563 216 410 6,249 1992 1,154 91 145 1,390 6,046 3,829 4,222 6,911 348 612 1,931 1991 1,338 103 184 1,625 6,501 4,214 4,965 8,106 440 914 10,060 2002 1,551 111 234 1,902 6,969 4,808 5,851 10,809 563 1,311 12,14j Commercial/Government 1980 355 19 69 443 22,413 13,092 20,322 1,918 249 1,402 9,629 1982 386 20 14 480 23,598 13,104 21,212 9,109 214 1,514 10,9':)1 1981 416 22 88 586 26,569 15,362 23,845 12,641 338 2,098 15,083 1992 581 23 106 116 29,914 11,220 25,129 11,560 396 2,833 20,189 1991 124 25 126 815 33,680 19,303 29,963 24,384 483 3,115 28,642 2002 896 21 151 1,014 31,920 21,638 33,581 33,916 584 5,012 39,632 Industriala Processors Processors Processors Can/ Fish Camps & Can/ Fish Camps & Can/ Fish Camps & Can onl~ Freeze BU:i Stations Total Can onl~ Freeze Bu~ Stations Can onl~ Freeze Bu~ Stations Total 1980 3 10 40 53 486,000 583,000 24,000 1,458 5,830 960 13,248 1982 3 11 42 56 486,000 583,000 24,000 1,458 6,413 1,008 B,819 1981 2 12 41 55 486,000 583,000 24,000 912 6,996 984 8,9':)2 1992 1 13 40 54 486,000 583,000 24,000 4B6 1,519 960 9,025 1991 0 14 39 53 0 583,000 24,000 0 8,162 936 9,098 2002 0 14 39 53 0 583,000 24,000 0 8,162 936 9,098 aDoes not correspond to village groups for residential and commercial/government. SOURCE: ISER Report, Appendix C. ;,." TABLE 3.2-3 PRELIMINARY PROJECT FORECAST ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND POWER REQUIREMENTS BASED ON BASE PLAN SCENARIO BY ISER YEAR 1982 1987 1992 Location Dillingham Energy (MWh/year) 8,740 11,550 15,800 Power(kW) 2,045 2,571 3,445 Naknek/King Salmon Energy (MWh/year) 14,700 16,370 18,650 Power (kW) 2,987 3,327 3,370 Subtotal Dillingham/Naknek Energy (MWH/year) 23,440 27,920 84,450 Power (kW)* 4,032 5,898 7,235 Clarks Point Energy (MWh/year) 620 700 775 Power (kW) 184 216 243 Egegik Energy (MWh/year) 1,300 1,400 1,500 Power (kW) 683 639 599 Ekuk Energy (MWh/year) 800 800 800 Power (kW) 913 913 767 Ekwok Energy (MWh/year) 155 210 245 Power (kW) 44 60 68 Igiugig Energy (MWh/year) 185 255 385 Power (kW) 54 74 108 Koliganek Energy (MWh/year) 245 310 390 Power (kW) 71 90 107 Levelock Energy (MWh/year) 190 245 340 Power (kW) 44 70 91 Manokotak Energy (MWh/year) 430 560 720 Power (kW) 124 162 197 New Stuyahok Energy (MWh/year) 550 720 930 Power (kW) 217 234 260 Portage Creek Energy (MWh/year) 90 120 140 Power (kW) 26 35 39 1997 2002 21,000 28,100 4,555 6,095 21,650 25,800 4,400 5,242 42,650 53,900 8,955 11,337 880 1,030 276 323 1,620 1,790 647 715 800 800 593 457 285 370 70 80 500 700 131 149 465 580 115 127 470 670 115 145 930 1,220 230 258 1,210 1,625 297 347 180 215 41 44 TABLE 3.2-3 (cont) PRELIMINARY PROJECT FORECAST ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND POWER REQUIREMENTS BASED ON BASE PLAN SCENARIO BY ISER YEAR 1982 1987 1992 Location Subtotal -10 villages Energy (MWh/year) 4,565 5,320 6,225 Power (kW)* 2,360 2,493 2,479 I Iliamna/Newhalen/Nondalton Energy (MWh/year) 1,420 1,935 2,615 Power (kW) 324 442 597 Total Energy (MWh/year) 29,425 35,175 43,290 Power (kW)* 6,716 8,833 10,311 * Noncoincident power loads. Note: System losses not included. 1997 2002 7,340 9,000 2,515 2,645 3,570 4,840 795 1,055 53,560 67,740 12,265 15,037 Year 1981 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 Average TABLE 3.2-4 PROJECTED APPLIANCE ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION (Kilowatts per Year per Customer) Central Utility Central-Seasonal 5,124 3,968 5,175 3,027 5,585 3,413 6,046 3,829 6,507 4,274 6,969 4,808 Annual Rate of Growth (percent/year) 1.48 2.31 Non-Central 2,973 3,062 3,597 4,222 4,965 5,857 3.27 TABLE 3.2-5 1980 ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN THE BRISTOL BAY COMMERCIAL/GOVERNMENT SECTOR Total Commercial/ Total Electricity Government Village Groups Consumption Customers Central Stations Dillingham Aleknagik Naknek King Salmon South Naknek Egegik Manokotak New Stuyahok All Villages Seasonal-Central Station Portage Creek Ekwok Koliganek All Villages Non-Central Station Iliamna Newhalen Nondalton Clarks Point Ekuk Levelock Igiugig All Villages Total All Villages (kwh/yr) 4,114,318 2,193,166 82,092 126,118 202,302 1,911,996 41,191 85,530 115,435 248,156 639,121 243,593 186,491 69,631 NA 125,685 131,082 1,402,215 9,628,961 SOURCE: ISER Report, Apendix C aAll school facilities counted as one customer. 194 136 9 8 8 a 355 6 5 8 19 31 9 10 6 1 8 2- 10 443 Average Electricity Use per Customer (kwh/customer/yr) 24,610 20,538 9,121 15,165 25,288 22,413 1,965 11,105 14,429 13,092 20,636 21,066 18,650 11 ,605 NA 15,111 21,416 20,032 21,681 TABLI:: 3.2-6 COMMEHCIAL AND GOVI::RNMENT/COMMUNITY BUILDlNGS -1981 Clarks New Portage So. Aleknagik Point Egegik I:;kuk Ekwok 19iugig Iliamna Koliganek LevelocK ManoKotaK ::itu;tahok Newhalen Nondalton Creek Naknek Commerical Store 0 2 (a) 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 (g) 0 Bar/restaurant 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (b) 0 0 1 Lodge 0 0 0 1 8 (j) 7 0 1 0 0 2 ( 1 =s) 0 0 Other 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 (c) 0 0 Government/Community Post Office 0 0 0 (n (e) 0 Village Council/ City Office 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 Commun i t Y tla 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( s) 0 0 Clinic 1 1 ( s) 1 0 1 0 1 (s) 1 1 Clinic/Comm. Hall 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Fire ::itatiOl1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Wiater & Sewer Utility 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Electr1c Ut1l1ty 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 (d,i) 1 (1) 0 0 Warehouse 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 Hangar 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 liirpor t Ligh ts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Church 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 (n School Bldgs 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 5 2 2 Teacher Housing 2 0 1 1 3 1 6 Ii 3 1 Gymnasium 0 0 0 0 0 HeA/ Alascom Others 1 (h)(s) (s) = Seasonal (a) One store 1s seasonal (n Hes1dence in name bu ilding (b) Mayor plans to open a coffee shop (19tl3) (8) One store is in residence (c) Mayor plans to build a laundromat (1983) (h) Corpora tion bldg -"Pool Hall" (d) Utility building under construction (1) School generator building (e) Same building as co-op store (j) Across river SOUHCI::; I::iI::H Report, Appendix C. ..... TABLE 3.2-7 GROWTH IN USE PER CUSTOMER AND NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS IN THE COMMERCIAL/GOVERNMENT SECTOR Central Station Use per Customer 2.40 Number of Customers 4.28 PERCENT PER YEAR Community Groups Seasonal-Central Station 2.31 1.54 Non-Central Station 2.31 Total Number of Processors Self-Generating Number With own Generator Average MWh Produced/Year Number Without Average MWh Year/Proc. Utility Power Number Using Average MWh Purchased/Year Number Not Using Average MWh Year/Proc. TABLE 3.2-8 ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY BRISTOL BAY FISH PROCESSORS -1980 Kvichak Fishery Nushagak Fishery 9 4 7 4 913 (2)a 572 (2)a 0 2 710 572 8 2 97 (8)a 62 (2)b 1 2 86 31 Bristol Bay Study Region 13 11 2 660 b 10 3 69 aN umbers in parentheses indicates number of processors for which data was available. bAverages are weighted for number of processors in each fishery. SOURCE: ISER Report, Appendix C. TABLE 3.2-9 BRISTOL BAY SEAFOOD PROCESSOR ELECTRICITY DEMAND PROJECTIONS Number of Customer Use Eer Customer Total E1ectricit~ ComsumEtion Canning Canning Canning Canning and/or Canning and/or Canning and/or Year On1~ Freezing On1~ Freezing On1~ Freezing Total (MWh/Processor/Year) (MWh/Year) 1980 3 10 486 583 1,458 5,830 7,288 1982 3 11 486 583 1,458 6,143 7,871 1987 2 12 486 583 972 6,996 7,968 1992 1 13 486 583 486 7,579 8,065 1997 0 14 486 583 0 8,162 8,162 2002 0 14 486 583 0 8,162 8,162 SOURCE: ISER Report, Appendix C. TABLE 3.2-10 SPACE HEATING IN 1980 IN THE EIGHTEEN STUDY AREA COMMUNITIES Dillingham Aleknagik Naknek King Salmon South Naknek Egegik Manokotak New Stuyahok All Villages Portage Creek Ekwok Koliganek All Villages Iliamna Newha1en Nondalton Clarks Point Ekuk Levelock Igiugig All Villages (1) Average Fuel Consumption Per Customera ga1,/househo1d/year) 1,080 1,164 1,289 1,100 985 1,103 1,035 1,083 930 991 1,033 1,033 1,033 1,364 1,800 2,009 1,083 1,257 Total All 18 Villages 1,118 (2 ) Number of Households 505 246 23 57 65 896 13 20 40 73 35 18 42 22 1 28 15 161 1,130 aInc1udes fuel for water heating and some cooking. SOURCE: ISER Report, Appendix C. (1) x (2) Total Residen. Heating Fuel Consumption (ga1./year) 545,400 286,344 29,647 62,700 64,025 988,116 13,455 21,660 37,200 72,315 36,155 18,594 43,386 30,008 1,800 56,252 16,245 202,440 1,262,871 Dillingham Residential Comm/Gov Industrial Total Naknek Residential Comm/Gov Military Industrial Total Clarks Point Residential Comm/Gov Industrial Total Ekuk Residential Comm/Gov Industrial Total Portage Creek Residential Comm/Gov Total Manokotak Residential Comm/Gov Total TABLE 3.2-11 SPACE HEATING DEMAND FORECAST BY VILLAGE BY SECTOR BRISTOL BAY STUDY REGION (All Values Given in MWh) YEAR 1980 1982 1987 1992 1997 15,655 17,669 22,704 27,740 32,775 42,763 51,001 71 ,596 92,191 112,786 96 100 111 122 133 58,514 68,770 94,411 120,053 145,694 8,118 9,188 11,862 14,537 17,211 29,978 35,751 50,182 64,614 79,045 13,381 13,381 13,381 13,381 13,381 5,287 5 1287 5 1287 5 1287 5 1287 56,764 63,607 80,712 97,818 114,924 858 946 1,165 1,385 1,604 356 364 383 402 422 674 674 674 674 674 1,888 1,984 2,222 2,461 2,700 51 58 75 92 109 85 85 85 ...§2 85 136 143 160 177 194 377 415 509 603 698 304 311 327 344 360 681 726 836 947 1,058 1,767 2,003 2,595 3,186 3,777 1 1827 11867 1 1 966 2 1066 21165 3,594 3,870 4,561 5,252 5,942 2002 37,810 133,381 144 171,335 19,885 93,476 13,381 5 1 287 132,029 1,824 441 674 2,939 126 ...§2 211 792 377 1,169 4,368 21265 6,633 Ekwok Residential Comm/Gov Total New Stuyahok Residential Comm/Gov Total Kolifjanek Residential Comm/Gov Total Efjefjik Residential Com/Goy Industrial Total Levelock Residential Comm/Gov Total Ifjiufjifj Residential Comm/Gov Total TABLE 3.2-11 (cant) SPACE HEATING DEMAND FORECAST BY VILLAGE BY SECTOR BRISTOL BAY STUDY REGION (All Values Given in MWh) YEAR 1980 1982 1987 1992 1997 420 681 834 987 1,139 321 328 346 363 381 941 1,009 1,180 1,350 1,520 1,820 2,062 2,666 3,271 3,875 1,230 11257 113 24 1139 1 11459 3,050 3,319 3,990 4,662 5,334 1,040 1,152 1,434 1,715 1,996 534 546 575 604 633 1,574 1,698 2,009 2,319 2,629 828 937 1,209 1,481 1,753 906 926 975 1,025 1,074 113 49 113 49 113 49 113 49 11329 3,083 3,212 3,533 3,855 4,176 1,596 1,756 2,157 2,558 2,959 650 654 689 724 759 2,236 2,410 2,846 3,282 3,718 465 513 631 750 869 432 441 465 489 512 897 954 1,096 1,239 1,381 2002 1,292 398 1,690 4,480 1 1526 6,006 2,277 662 2,939 2,025 1,124 11349 4,498 3,360 794 4,154 988 536 1,524 Newhalen Iliamna Nondalton Residential Newhalen Comm/Gov Iliamna Comm/Gov Nondalton Comm/Gov Total Area Total TABLE 3.2-11 (cant) SPACE HEATING DEMAND FORECAST BY VILLAGE BY SECTOR BRISTOL BAY STUDY REGION (All Values Given in MWh) YEAR 1980 1982 1987 1992 1997 2,755 3,038 3,746· 4,453 5,161 534 546 575 604 633 2,070 2,115 2,228 2,341 2,454 838 856 902 948 993 4,197 6,555 7,451 8,346 9,241 139,555 158,257 205,007 251,761 298,511 2002 5,868 662 2,567 1,039 10,136 345,263 Sector & Energy Need Residential Hot Water/Cooking* Space Heating Commercial/Government Hot Water/Others** Space Heating Military Hot Water/Others** Space Heating Industrial Hot Water/Others** Space Heating * Assumes 10 percent ** Assumes 20 percent TABLE 3.2-12 SEGREGATION OF SPACE HEATING, HOT-WATER, AND OTHER ENERGY NEEDS -BY SECTOR (All Values Given in MWh) YEAR 1980 1982 1987 1992 3,266 3,672 4,687 5,702 32,664 36,723 46,872 57,020 13,7982 16,164 22,094 28,024 68,962 80,821 110,468 140,116 1,248 1,250 1,250 1,252 6,242 6,246 6,255 6,266 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 11,151 11,151 11,151 11,151 of total forecast for sector. of total forecast for sector. 1997 2002 6,727 7,732 67,169 77,317 33,952 39,882 169,765 199,413 1,254 1,256 6,273 6,282 2,230 2,230 11,151 11 ,151 r-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.. 0 0 0 .... )( .J::. 3: :!! > C!l a: w z w I-w Z I- Z W ...J « > ::::> 0 w 400~----------_r----------_r----------_+----------_+----------~ 300 G\O~ :-l "'~ c:,~\)O fO'" ~O~~\.. 200 100 RESIDENTIAL K,MILITARY ~ INDUSTRIAL 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 YEAR REGIONAL SPACE HEATING NEEDS FIGURE 3.2-1 ~ ... • ... o t( .... .... "." " .. , .. ' '" .... ..... 4. ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY 4 .. ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY A variety of energy resources and technologies were evaluated to arrive at those most suitable for further study in Phase II of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. The Energy Supply Technology Evaluation, Appendix B, provided the initial screening which involved investigating the state of technology, technical restraints, constructibility, environmental impacts, operating and maintenance aspects, regional restraints, and regulatory restraints of each of the potentially viable technologies. The technologies which emerged from the initial screening as viable candidates for continued investigation were then evaluated with more emphasis toward economic aspects in this Interim Feasibility Assessment. The economic implications are addressed more fully in Section 7.4, and are mentioned only briefly here. 4. 1 PROFILE OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES SURVEr"'ED The potential resources for the Bristol Bay region were divided into six major energy categories: fossil fuel, non-generating, renewable, miscellaneous, nuclear, and advanced. Under the major categories, the energy resources were arranged in 2S technologies for individual evaluation. A brief description of the findings of the individual technology evaluations follows. These technologies are discussed in more detail in Appendix B. 4.1.1 Fossil Fuel Resources 4.1.1.1 Diesel Generation Reliable, relatively efficient diesel generator sets are commercially available, and have proven easy to install, operate, and maintain. Diesel generators can be installed to supply power to individual dwellings, villages, or the entire region using a central, multi-unit station. 4-1 4.1.1.2 Coal-, Oil-, and Natural Gas-Fired Steam Electric Generation Conventional stearn electric generating stations are a proven and reliable means of producing electrical power. Coal, oil, or natural gas are common fuels for combustion in the plant boilers. These conventional steam turbine plants are most economical when their size is maximized; a regional plant serving a major portion of the Bristol Bay area would be most viable. Coal-firing a stearn electric station's boilers in the Bristol Bay region would be more economical than firing heavy fuels such as Alaskan crude (See B.3.2.8). 4.1.1.3 Coal Gasification Coal gasification plants producing low-and medium-Btu fuels are commercially available in the sizes necessary for Bristol Bay region use. The fuel produced by a coal gasification facility could supply a variety of energy producing plants such as diesel generators, combustion turbines, conventional stearn electric generating units, or combined cycle units. 4.1. 1. 4 Combined Cycle Combined cycle is simply the combination of two thermodynamic cycles, the Brayton (simple cycle combustion turbine) and the Rankine (stearn cycle) into a fuel-efficient prime mover system. The major components of the combined cycle unit are the combustion turbine, waste heat recovery boiler, and steam turbine. The combined cycle system at full load is one of the most efficient methods of converting petroleum fuels to electrical energy. This technology is most economically applied in a central station application. 4.1.1.5 Combustion Turbine Combustion turbines can be designed to operate with a wide variety of fuels such as natural gas, petroleum distillates, residual fuel oil, propane, blast furnace gas, butane, and fuel produced by coal gasification. Combustion turbines of the size required to meet Bristol Bay region power 4-2 .. .. .. ., • ., .. .. l1li .. • .11 • .. • .. • .. • .. .. demands consume grea~er .amounts of fuel than comparably sized diesel generators. Combustion ~urbine units are usually delegated to providing peaking or stand-by power due to ~heir thermal inefficiency. 4.1.1.6 Heavy Fuels Heavy fuels such as Bunker C or crude oil were considered for diesel generation use since they are available in ~he Alaska area. However, shipping cost to the Bristol Bay area raise the cost almost to that of diesel. Also, the difficulties encountered with low temperature and the increased wear of the engines make heavy fuels unattractive for this area. Heavy fuels are discussed in more depth in Appendix A.3.2. 4.1.2 Non -Generating Resources 4.1.2.1 Energy Conservation Energy conservation has been proven to have a direct impact upon utility system load growth. Potential methods of conserving energy in the Bristol Bay region must be identified and implemented, as possible. This subject is discussed further in Appendix A.S. 4.1.2.2 Waste Heat Recovery The use of rej ected heat from diesel engines, gas turbines, or steam turbines for space heating or process uses is a commercially proven concept. In the Bristol Bay region, waste heat from generating units can be used for space heating. Waste heat recovery is discussed in more depth in Appendix A.4. 4.1.3 Renewable Resources 4.1. 3.1 Wind Energy Wind resources in portions of the Bristol Bay region are suitable for electrical power generation. Wind turbines can provide a renewable energy 4-3 source to capabilities. supplement regional and local power system generat ing Appendices A.6 and D address wind energy in greater detail. 4.1.3.2 Hydroelectric Power Hydroelectric power generation technology was established shortly after the advent of electricity. It is a very reliable, renewable resource which has a proven, successful operating history in climates similar to that of the Bristol Bay region. Proper site selection and development can minimize the environmental impact of a hydroelectric proj ect. Economy-of-scale would benefit a regional hydroelectric power station that serves a major portion of the region. 4.1.3.3 Tidal Power Harnessing tidal fluctuations for generating electricity has been demonstrated in countries other than the United States. The tidal range is suitable for power generation in certain areas of the Bris"tol Bay region. However, due to unfavorable climatological, terrestrial, technical, and economy-of-scale aspects, and the possible impacts on aquatic ecosystems, tidal power generation is not considered feasible for the Bristol Bay region. 4.1.3.4 Solar Thermal Energy Central solar power stations require large areas of reflector or collector surface to receive the quantities of insolation (radiation per unit area) necessary for utility power generation. Solar insolation, a measure of available sunlight, is insufficient in the Bristol Bay region to justify further consideration of solar thermal energy for either power generation or space heating. The lack of sunlight in the region would necessitate a .. .. •• .. .. ., .. • III! .. .. ., .. .. .. .. .. III! .. II; .. complete power generation and space heating back-up energy supply, which .. makes solar energy economically uncompetitive with other resources. .. II' .. .. ... 4-4 • 4.1.3.5 Solar Photovoltaic Electric Systems For the same reasons listed for solar thermal energy, solar photovol taic electric systems are not considered a viable Bristol Bay region power generation resource. 4.1.4 Miscellaneous Resources 4.1.4.1 Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Organic Rankine Cycle technology is not efficiem:ly used as a primary energy resource with direct combustion of fuels such as coal, oil, wood, peat, ur gas. The heat available from this direct combustion is at elevated temperatures more suitable for the conventional steam Rankine cycle system. ORC units capable of generating supplementary electricity from relatively low temperature sources, such as a diesel engine's waste heat, are commercially available. ORC units merit further consideration as a potential supplementary energy supply for Bristol Bay. 4.1.4.2 Biomass (Wood) Energy Wood is the only biomass resource of any significance to power generation in the Bristol Bay region. However, wood is too scarce to provide fuel for a central power station, and the adverse environmental impacts associated with large-scale tree harvesting as well as its detrimental effects upon subsistence living preclude the use of wood for electricity production in the region. 4.1.4.3 Energy from Waste/Refuse The economic feasibility of using refuse as fuel in a steam turbine generating unit is dependent on an adequate local supply of refuse. Such a supply does not exist in the Bristol Bay region. 4-5 4. 1. 4.4 Peat Energy The use of peat as fuel in steam turbine generating units has been successfully implemented outside the United States. The adverse effects upon subsistence living and the environmental impacts caused by large-scale peat harvesting are too severe to consider such a power plant in the Bristol Bay region. 4.1.4.5 Geothermal This technology is a proven source of energy in many regions of the Western United States. However, geothermal resource data indicate that no proven sites are in the proximity of the Bristol Bay region. Even the prospective, or unproven, geothermal resources are too distant from the region to justify a power plant of the size required. Costs associated with exploring potential geothermal resources are prohibitive. 4.1.5 Nuclear Resources 4.1.5.1 Conventional Nuclear Power The complexities associated with the design and operation of a safe, reliable nuclear power station make this technology less practical for small units. Undesirable seismic conditions, regulatory uncertainty, the need for highly trained personnel, and costs make nuclear power an unattractive energy supply option for the Bristol Bay region. 4.1.5.2 Nuclear Fusion and Breeder Reactors These technologies will not be developed for commercial power generation in the near term. Nuclear fusion and breeder reactor technologies also exhibit many of the same features which make conventional nuclear power generation impractical for the Bristol Bay region. 4-6 .. • .. .. .. .. .. • • .. .... ... 4.1.6 Advanced Technologies 4.1.6.1 Fuel Cell Fuel cells make efficient use of fuel supplies in both central and dispersed plant applications. However, the technology has not yet been commercially demonstrated, nor is it expected to be before 1985. Additionally, fuels cells are not expected to be economically competitive with more convential energy supply technologies prior to 1990. 4.1.6.2 Magnetohydrodynamics This technology is a means of producing electricity electrically conductive gases through a magnetic hydrodynamics is still in the early development stages ready for commercial power generation in the near term. 4. 1.6. 3 Wave Energy Convers ion Sys terns by expanding hot, field. Magneto- and will not be Utilizing the energy in the traveling force or rise and fall in waves has not been demonstrated as technically feasible. 4.1.6.4 Ocean Current Energy Ocean current conversion systems use the momentum of ocean currents to generate electricity. The development of this technology is in the early stages of feasibility assessment. 4.1.6.5 Salinity Gradient Energy Conversion Salinity gradients at the interface of an ocean and a fresh water river are a potential source of energy. Preliminary results of ongoing studies indicate that utilizing this energy source, which is presently in the early stages of development, would not be cost competitive with other energy supply alternatives. 4-7 4.1.6.6 Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) .... Thermal differences in ocean waters can evaporate and condense binary cycle • fluids for driving turbine-generators. Ocean thermal differences must be at least 36 0 F before this technology becomes feasible, and the ocean thermal differences off the coast of Alaska are insufficient to support an OTEC system. 4.2 SELECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Nine energy resources were identified as viable candidates for further study in the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. Of these nine alternatives, - four resources are supplementary; that is, they can only be used to supplement other means of providing the Bristol Bay region total energy .. requirements. The selected supplementary resources are (1) energy conservation, (2) waste heat recovery, (3) wind energy, and (4) organic Rankine cycle. The remaining five viable technologies are primary; that is, they can be used individually or in combination to supply the full power requirements of the Bristol Bay region. The selected primary resources are (1) diesel generation; (2) coal-, oil-, and natural gas-fired steam electric; (3) coal gasification; hydroelectric power. (4) combined cycle; and (5) 4.3 ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES A presentation of each of the nine energy technologies which were determined (as discussed in Appendix B) use in the Bristol Bay region follows. 4.3.1 Supplementary Resources 4.3.1.1 Energy Conservation potentially viable candidates for Energy conservation, as explained in Appendix A.5, should be encouraged throughout the Bristol Bay region. Consumers of electricity and (space heating) fuel oil are more apt to adopt measures with short-range economic 4-8 .. • .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .... ... benefits, such as turning. dm..rn the thermostat to decrease space heating energy consumption, than activities with long-range benefits. Additional energy conservation measures become more desirable as fossil fuel prices continue to rise. In the Bristol Bay region, the relatively high energy costS have provided consumers a strong incentive to pursue effective conservation measures. Energy conservation should be encouraged, and further efforts to promote structure weatherization or equipment efficiencies should be promoted in the area. Energy conservation is one form of electrical system load management, which is discussed in more detail in Appendix A.lO. 4.3.1.2 Waste Heat Recovery Waste heat recovery encompasses a number of methods to more efficiently produce electricity and steam, hot water, or hot air simultaneously from a given fuel source. The relatively low temperature steam, hot water, or hot air produced as a by-product of electricity generation is usually suitable for space heating or industrial process use. However, waste heat recovery is only justif:"ed when the steam, hot water, or hot air recovered can economically displace existing process and space heating resources. The most promising source of waste heat in the Bristol Bay region is that rejected by existing diesel generator facilities. Diesel engine waste heat recovery is explained in detail in Appendix A.4. 4.3.1.3 Wind Energy Wind energy is a renewable resource which is potentially suitable for use in the Bristol Bay region. Storage equipment for wind-generated electricity is too expensive for present consideration, making wind energy a supplementary resource only. Thus, wind is considered a topping system which can supply electricity directly to the power grid when the wind is blowing within the proper power generating velocity range. Wind energy is discussed in more detail in Appendices A.6, B, and D. 4-9 4.3.1.4 Organic Rankine Cycle Organic Rankine cycle (ORC) units provide a unique method of generating electricity from relatively low temperature sources such as diesel generator waste heat. As mentioned in Section 4.3.1.2, the most promising source of waste heat in the Bristol Bay region is that of the existing diesel generators. However, ORC systems cannot effectively use the diesel jacket water waste heat, as the temperature is too low; it is the exhaust system waste heat which must be used. The diesel engine exhaust waste heat is suitable for energy generation with ORC units, but care must be taken with this arrangement to ensure that condensate is not formed in the exhaust system. Due to the Alaska climate, condensa~ion is a common problem in diesel engine exhaust heat recovery systems, creating additional maintenance for both the recovery system and diesel engine. ORC uni~s are discussed in more detail in Appendices A.9 and B. 4.3.2 Primary Resources 4.3.2.1 Diesel Generation Diesel generators are currently used electrical power for the Bristol Bay to produce the majority of the region. This method of electrical - ... ... .. .... .. .. generation is ideally suited for use in remote areas without transmission - line interconnection. Diesel generators are relatively efficient, easily installed, easily operated, and simple to main~ain. The major disadvantage of the diesel units is their use of expensive diesel fuel. A goal of the United States and the State of Alaska is to reduce dependence upon petroleum fuels such as fuel oil, a goal which obviously cannot be realized with the continued reliance upon diesel generation in Alaska. However, if economics favor the continued use of fuel oil in the Bristol Bay region, the most practical method of using fuel oil to generate electricity would be the diesel generator. The use of residual or heavy oil as an alternative diesel fuel is discussed in Appendix A.3.2. Further investigation and optimization of diesel generation in the Bristol Bay region is assured in Phase II of this study, since diesel generation is 4-10 .. "". .. • .. , .. -~ the base case, BP-l, against which the other alternatives are being compared. 4.3.2.2 Coal-, Oil-, and Natural Gas-Fired Steam Electric Generation Of the three fuels considered for direct combustion in the boiler of a steam turbine plant--coal, oil, and natural gas--the most practical for Bristol Bay region use is coal. Fuel oil can be more efficiently converted to electrical energy in either a diesel generator or combined cycle unit. Crude oil from the Alaska pipeline may be purchased at Valdez for barging to the Bristol Bay region; however, the crude oil cost is almost twice that of coal (per Btu). The use of residual or heavy oil as an alternative fuel for steam electric generation is discussed in Appendix A.B.2.l. Both liquefied natural gas and propane may be purchased outside the region (liquefied natural gas from the Kenai Peninsula, and propane and liquified propane from Prince Rupert, British Columbia) and barged in, but the costs per Btu exceed that of fuel oil. Oil and natural gas exploration is in progress in the Bristol Bay region. There have not been any discoveries yet. Even the most optimistic projections do not predict development of usable resources until ten years after discovery. Coal is the lowest cost of the fossil fuels, although a coal-fired steam electric facility costs more to construct, operate, and maintain. Coal resources have been identified at the Usibelli mine near Healy, Alaska and at two separate Canadian locations. The coal would still have to be barged into the Bristol Bay region for use in the steam electric facility. The best steam electric facility to be considered for the region is coal-fired: the fuel is the lowest cost fossil fuel, the technology is well developed, conventional coal-fired steam turbine plants are currently in successful operation in Alaska, and the units have been proven to be reliable. Coal-fired steam electric plants are most economical when approached on a central plant basis. Considering this and the need for trained operating and maintenance personnel, the optimum Bristol Bay regional site for such a plant would be near either Naknek/South Naknek or Dillingham. 4-11 4.3.2.3 Coal Gas ification As mentioned earlier, the fuel produced by a coal gasification facility can be used in a variety of electrical power generation combinations. The most efficient use of this fuel would be made with the combined cycle power ... " plant. Thus, in this study, coal gasification for the purposes of generating electricity will be used in conjunction with a combined cycle generating have been unit. Both coal gasification and combined cycle technologies commercially developed on an individual basis for years. However, the combination of the two technologies in the size required to meet the Br istol Bay region's needs has not been attempted before. This introduces an element of risk into the eventual use of the integrated coal gasification combined cycle (ICGCC) in the Bristol Bay region, ~lthough for the purpose of economic evaluation, the ICGCC represents the most efficient use of the gasified coal fuel to generate electricity. In addition, the coal gasification facility would retain all of the coal barging, handling, and storage requirements associated with a coal-fired steam turbine plant. 4.3.2.4 Combined Cycle At full generating capacity, the combined cycle unit is the most efficient of the fossil fuel generating alternatives. It will be evaluated using both fuel oil and fuel from a coal gasification unit. In this section, only diesel fuel will be considered as the combustion agent in the combustion turbine or prime mover of the combined cycle assemblage. At partial loads, the thermal efficiency of the combined cycle unit drops rapidly; thermal inefficiency at reduced loads coupled with the combustion of expensive fuel oil could make the combined cycle unit unattractive. 4.3.2.5 Hydroelectric Power Hydroelectric power would provide a very attractive energy source for the Bristol Bay region. Being a renewable resource, it would have none of the problems associated with fuel handling or the environmental impacts associated with fuel burning. However, the siting of a hydroelectric facility must take into consideration one of the Bristol Bay region's most important resources, anadromous fish. 4-12 ... .,.. .... II" .. • ... .. .. ·' - 5. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .. .. .... ..... 5. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND DATA COLLECTION The objective of the field investigation and data collection program is to collect and compile technical, environmental, and sociocultural data necessary to assess project feasibility, and to meet any licensing or permitting requirements of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Phase I of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis accomplished this objective with respect to data required to compare numerous alternatives. In addition, a much larger data base was collected for the Tazimina and Newhalen Rivers hydroelectric concepts as an initial step in determining their feasibility. Additional detailed data would be required during Phase II to fully satisfy licensing requirements for either Newhalen and Tazimina if either site is selected for further evaluation; however, if an alternative hydroelectric site is proposed, the type of data collected at these repeated at the new proposed feasibility. sites during Phase I would have to be site in Phase II to fully assess its The field investigation and data collection program was divided into four areas: • Geotechnical • Hydrologic • Environmental • Sociocultural The work accomplished in these areas during Phase I is summarized in the following subsections, with detailed back-up information found in Appendices E, F, G, H, and I, respectively. Appendix G contains both environmental and sociocultural data collection and analysis. 5. 1 GEOTECHNICAL 5.1.1 Introduction This section includes a brief description of the regional geology of the 5-1 Bristol Bay region and descriptions of geologic studies, their results, and geotechnical considerations for potential hydroelectric sites. The data presented includes information available from the literature as well as that derived from field studies. 5.1.2 Regional Geologic Setting The Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan study area encompasses a lowland basin drained by the Nushagak, Kvichak, Naknek, and Egegik Rivers, and portions of the surrounding mountains. The basin is bounded on the west by the Wood River Mountains, on the north by the Nushagak Hills, and on the east by the Aleutian Range. The bedrock of the mountains on the west, north, and northeast is primarily sedimentary rocks with interbedded volcanic rocks, occasionally intruded by • ... • .. • ... • ., .. • .. • -.. ... igneous rocks of the granitic type. The sedimentary rocks are typically .. greywackes, siltstones, and shales with occasional minor limestone. Local, low-grade metamorphism is present, usually associated with the intrusive (granitic) rocks. The eastern ranges are dominated by volcanic rocks and contain volcanos which are currently active. Soils are sporadic and are almost wholly glacial in origin, typically moraines and outwash valley fill, with recently formed localized organic soils in bogs and muskeg. A localized basalt flow or flows outcrops immediately north and south of I liamna Lake. Sparse rock outcrops indicate that the basin is underlain primarily by sedimentary rocks similar to, and probably contiguous with, those of the mountains to the west and north. Unconsolidated soils of the basin are nearly all of glacial, glaciofluvial, or alluvial origin. Tills and outwash sands and gravels predominate, with some recent alluvium along streams. Much of the alluvium is reworked material of glacial origin. Clays and silts of the Bristol Bay tidal regime occur along the shores of the bay, while inland, localized deposits of silt and organic soils are present in bogs and muskeg. Permafrost occurs sporadically in all areas. 5-2 • .. • • .. .. .. .. .. --- • Only major structural trends are well known in the area, strongly dominated by southwest/northeast orientations imposed by the subduction zone between the Pacific oceanic plate and the North American continental plate. The boundary between plates is essentially defined by the Aleutian Trench. Major features, in order from the southeast to the northwest, include: • The Aleutian volcanic chain and the Bruin Bay Fault, a high-angle reverse fault -northwest side relative upward motion • The Castle Mountain Fault (locally the Lake Clark Fault), a high-angle, strike slip fault -right lateral motion • The Mulchatna Fault -relative movement is not defined • The Togiak-Tiukchik Fault, a high-angle, strike slip fault-right lateral motion These structures are all part of a major, trends eastward through Anchorage and the southward along the Alaskan coast. arcuate, tectonic belt which Mt. McKinley area and on Major glacial activity occurred throughout the area during Pleistocene time (1,800,000 to 10,000 years ago). Nearly all of the present landforms, volcanos excepted, and unconsolidated (soil) materials are a direct result of that activity. In a sense, the Pleistocene has not ended in the Wood River Mountains and on the volcanos of the Aleutian Range, where active glaciers persist. The area is seismically active, lying within the great zone of tectonic activity produced by the interaction of the Pacific and North American crustal plates. Although there is no evidence of post-Pleistocene movements on any of the major faults, these faults are either extensions or branches of faults considered to be active and which have generated earthquakes in the past. Most of the seismic activity in the area is associated with the Benioff Zone and the Aleutian Range volcanos. The 5-3 Benioff Zone is the region of differential movement between the downward-plunging Pacific crustal plate and the overriding North American crustal plate. The earthquakes produced by this zone usually occur at greater depths than those occurring on faults known by their surface traces. Volcanos rarely produce major seismic events, except very locally, since most of their energy is vented to the surface. 5.1.3 Summary of Geotechnical Field Studies, 1981 -Tazimina Site The Tazimina hydroelectric site area is located along the Tazimina River from the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake to about 1.9 miles downstream of Tazimina Falls. As presently envisioned, most of the proposed hydroelectric project facilities would be included in portions of Sections 8, 17, 18, and 19, R31W, T35, and Sections 24 and 25, R32W, T35 (Seward Meridan) . Details of all field and laboratory studies are included in Appendix E. Geologic mapping was conducted along the Tazimina River valley from the vicinity of the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake to about 9 miles downstream. Data concerning bedrock and surficial stratigraphy and structure were obtained from this work. The results are shown in Plate 2 of Appendix E. .. • .. • .. ", .' .. • • • .. • • • Sixteen seismic refraction profiles at nine separate locations were run in • the Tazimina valley, primarily to ascertain the depths to bedrock at _ various possible locations for project structures. The locations of these lines were: • • • The outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake (Line Nos. 1, and 2, and 10) The possible regulating dam site at river mile 12.9 (Line Nos. 11 and 12) The "Roadhouse" dam site near the USGS gaging station (Line Nos. 3 and 4) 5-4 JIll .. -- - • The "Forebay" dam site (Line Nos. 5 and 6) • The "Lower" dam site (Line Nos. 7 and 8) • A possible powerhouse location on the left bank of the river downstream of the canyon below Tazimina Falls (Line No.9) • At several locations along the proposed, left bank penstock route (Line Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16). These locations are shown in Plate 1 of Appendix E. Velocity profiles are included in Appendix E as Figures 3 through 8. Four borings were taken to obtain continuous profiles of the soil and rock materials and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. Water pressure tests were also conducted to obtain data pertaining to the permeability of the soil and bedrock. In addition, the borings provide data pertinent to the strength and bearing capacity of these materials. Borings were taken at: • The left bank of the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake (Hole No. B-1) • The right bank of the river at the "Roadhouse" site (Hole No. B-4) • The right bank of the river at the "Forebay" site (Hole No. B-2) • The right bank of the river at the "Lower" site (Hole No. B-3) The locations of the borings are shown in Plate 1 of Appendix E and the logs are also included in Appendix E, Figure 2. Hand-dug test pits were done to obtain bulk samples for laboratory testing of soil materials. These samples contain larger amounts of material than those obtained from borings and thus provide a more statistically representative sampling of the materials. The locations of these test pits 5-5 are shown on Plate 1 of Appendix E and the laboratory test results are also included in Appendix E. The various field and laboratory studies are interrelated and provide .. ., - internal cross-checks. \,. 5.1.4 Summary of Geologic Conditions -Tazimina Site This summary benefits from reconnaissance field investigations which have been done at the site. These include area geologic mapping, sixteen seismic refraction lines, four borings, and nine hand-dug test pits. It also incorporates data from literature research and field studies by others. A detailed description of these investigations and the results and conclusions is contained in Appendix E. - .. ., .. - The bedrock at the site area is almost wholly volcanic in origin. Welded .. tuffs predominate, varying in their degree of soundness from fair to very good. Andesites occur, becoming more common upstream of the falls of the Tazimina River. Basalt flows of limited extent and small basalt dikes are present. Occasional small intrusive bodies occur, usually of acidic compositions in the granite-quartz diorite range. Unconsolidated surficial materials along primarily of glacial outwash, with a few suggests that outwash materials comprise surficial deposits. As anticipated, the pervious. the Tazimina valley consist localized tills. Current data 95 percent or more of the outwash materials are very The lack of distinct stratification in the volcanic deposits obscures large structural features, if present. Jointing is pervasive throughout the bedrock and ranges from very close (2 in, minimum) to moderately close (3 ft, maximum) and is commonly open at and near the surface. Minor folding, on the scale of tens of feet, was identified. Nine faults or shear zones were identified in the site area; structural features. Because of none of these can be considered major the lack of distinct strata in the 5-6 .. .. • .. • ., .. .. -.,. .. JIll' .. .. volcanic. rocks at the site, displacement across the faults could not be determined. The widths of the fracture/gouge zones range from only inches up to several feet. There is no evidence to indicate any post-Pleistocene movement along any of these faults. There are suggestions that the Tazimina River valley may be, in part, a fault line valley; however, no conclusive evidence was encountered during this investigation. The bedrock surface generally rises fairly abruptly on the southeast (Roadhouse Mountain) side of the Tazimina valley, approximately paralleling the existing topography, and s lopes downward to the northwest, away from the river. On the northwest side of the Tazimina valley and southwest of approximately Section 8, the land rises in rounded hills. These hills are composed of glacial outwash materials. Northeast of approximately Section 8, the hills and low mountains bordering the Tazimina valley consist of bedrock, thinly and discontinuously mantled by soil. Glacial outwash materials occur in the lower portions of the valley in this area. The Tazimina site is about 9 miles southeast of the Castle Mountain fault at its closest approach. The fault is not known to be active. The lack of historically active faults in the immediate site vicinity precludes assigning a design earthquake to any specific structural feature. In addition, the historic record is too brief to conduct a probability (recurrence) analysis. Consequently, three hypothetical earthquakes based on events in the overall region were considered. An on-site, shallow event of a magnitude known to occur in the area produced the peak acceleration. For the 4.5 to 5.0 magnitude considered, horizontal bedrock accelerations in the range of 0.2 to O. 3g might be expected. Volcanic hazards are considered to be nil. 5.1.5 Summary of Geotechnical Considerations -Tazimina Site Detailed descriptions of possible locations for project structures are included in Appendix E. 5-7 5.1.5.1 Lower Tazimina Lake Outlet Dam Site Both seismic refraction surveying and boring results indicate maximum depths of 300-400 ft below ground surface to the top of rock along this axis. The overburden is highly pervious glacial outwash sand and gravel. In order to provide an effective storage dam at this location, an impervious cutoff, through the outwash materials, would have to be carried to bedrock. This could be carried to bedrock at both abutments, but because of the width of the Tazimina valley at this point, it would require a structure estimated to be about 1.2 miles in length. Accordingly, this location is not recommended for further consideration. 5.1.5.2 Regulating Dam Site (Mile 12.9 Site) This site is located about four miles downstream of the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake (River Mile 12.9) and appears to offer the best prospects for a regulating dam site. Bedrock outcrops in both abutment areas and seismic refraction surveying has defined a continuous bedrock surface beneath the valley. Overburden is up to 170 ft deep and consists of pervious outwash sands and gravels, requiring some type of positive cutoff scheme to ensure the stability of a dam and to prevent excessive seepage losses. A spillway in rock can probably be located in either abutment. 5.1.5.3 Roadhouse Dam Site Bedrock is present at or near the surface in the left abutment of this site. However, the bedrock surface slopes downward in the right abutment, away from any potential reservoir area, and is overlain by pervious outwash materials. Till is present at the site, and at one time provided hope for an impervious layer to which a dam cutoff could be carried. Additional geologic mapping, seismic refraction surveying, and results of a test boring indicated that the till stratum was thin and discontinuous and of no significance as an impervious barrier 0 Soils in the right abutment are very permeable. It would be difficult or impossible to define the magnitude of seepage loss of a regulating dam and reservoir at this 5-8 • .. -• • .. • -.. -., • .. ... • .. .. .. • • • .. -• .. • .... - • .. .. location. However, it can be concluded on the basis of the available data that seepage losses would be very large. 5.1.5.4 Forebay Dam Site Bedrock outcrops to about 20 ft above the Tazimina River in both abutments at this location. Although the bedrock surface rises in the left abutment, seismic refraction surveying and results of a test boring indicate that it is level or slightly downsloping in and beyond the right abutment area. Overburden is typically pervious outwash sands and gravels. This site could readily be developed to accommodate a dam to the height of the rock outcrop visible in the immediate river channel. Higher dams would be faced with the problem of an undefinable amount of seepage through the right abutment and reservoir right bank. A spillway in rock in the left abutment or an overflow spillway into the existing riverbed would be possible. 5.1.5.5 Lower Dam Site Seismic refraction surveying and results of a test boring show that the situation at this location is essentially the same as that at the Forebay site described above. 5.1.5.6 Penstock Alignment No significant difficulties due to geologic conditions are anticipated along the penstock alignment, with the possible exception of slope stability if the penstock is required to traverse the steeper portions of the canyon below Tazimina Falls. 5.1.5.7 Powerhouse Location(s) Since the location of a powerhouse is now considered to be restricted by environmental considerations to the gorge below Tazimina Falls, any location chosen will encounter similar conditions. The Tazimina River is an actively downcutting stream; the walls of the gorge are not standing in 5-9 a stable configuration. Slope protection and stabilization will be required along any road cuts and on the slopes above the powerhouse location. This may involve rock bolting, wire mesh, and scaling. Foundations should be in rock and therefore good. Consideration should be given to an underground or semi-underground location. geotechnical consideration, working space in the limited. 5.1.5.8 Construction Materials While not strictly a gorge will be quite Sand and gravel are readily available anywhere along the Tazimina valley. The material has been naturally washed and is reasonably clean in situ. Limited processing should be required, primarily screening and blending. Potential rock quarry locations occur within 1/2 to 2 miles of any of the possible sites for project facilities. The suite of andesitic rocks appear to be the most likely source for larger-dimension stone such as riprap. Fortuitously, outcrops of this type occur adjacent (1/2 mile) to all of the damsites under consideration. However, since close jointing is common in all rock in the area, an actual quarry location for this type material would be selected based on the results of a detailed joint survey. Since the tuffs vary widely in soundness over short distances, it is less likely that an efficient, large volume quarry operation could be developed in these rocks. The quantities of other rock types present are too small to provide viable quarry locations. Tills are present in large amounts in the Lake Clark-Newhalen River valley, with the deposits beginning about 1 1/2 to 2 miles downstream of Tazimina Falls. These represent a probable source of impervious fill materials. Field investigations also indicate till deposits in the Tazimina valley near the Bid Bend area, downstream of the Roadhouse damsite. The areal extent of these deposits is not presently known; definition of available quantities will require additional exploration. 5-10 WI .. .,. WI " .. • • -- ...' - • .. - ... ". 5.1.5.9 Seismic and Volcanic Considerations The location of the site in an area of known seismic activity dictates that seismic loading be considered in the design of structures. Peak bedrock accelerations in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 g (horizontal) have been suggested for the site design earthquake. In addition, the granular nature of glacial outwash deposits render them possibly susceptible to liquefaction during seismic loading. This will have to be considered for any structures founded on outwash materials. There do not appear to be serious potential rockfall or landslide problems along the walls of the Tazimina valley above Tazimina Falls or below the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake. Volcanic effects at the site are anticipated to be restricted to light ash falls. 5.1.6 Summary of Geologic Conditions -Kukaklek Sites The Kukaklek hydroelectric site area is included in a corridor trending northwest between the north-northwest shore of Kukaklek Lake and Iliamna Lake. The terminal points of the corridor are at about 155 0 30'W, 59 0 12'N and 155 0 35'W, 59 0 18'N. Field reconnaissance at these sites consisted of several overflights by fixed-wing aircraft and spot ground visits utilizing a helicopter. The area of the sites is completely covered by glacial tills, with occasional outwash deposits of sand and gravel. Al though no rock outcrops in the immediate area of the sites, scattered exposures in the near vicinity indicate that bedrock is primarily tuff and assorted volcanic (pyroclastic) rubble, including agglomerate. The depth to bedrock through the glacial overburden materials is not known, but is probably fairly variable. The Kukaklek sites are relatively removed from known faults. The closest approach of a major fault is that of the Bruin Bay fault, about 40 miles to the southeast. Preliminary attenuation estimates indicate that a Magnitude 8 event with an epicenter 40 miles from the site would produce Modified Mercalli Intensity VIII effects at the site. Historically recorded events in the region, not known to be associated with any specific geologic 5-11 structure, could occur at the site and would produce similar effects. This .. estimate should be considered only as a very general guideline; it does, however, indicate the necessity of incorporating seismic loading considerations into designs and considering liquefaction potential when founding on granular materials. Sand and gravel, from glacial outwash deposits, and material for impervious fills, from glacial till, should be readily available in the immediate area. Sources of sound rock for riprap and other uses requiring large dimension stone may not be available in the immediate area of the sites. The most promising of sources are outcrops of quartz diorite at the east end of Kukaklek Lake. No significantly adverse geotechnical conditions are presently identified at the Kukaklek Site. 5.1.7 Summary of Geotechnical Field Studies, 1982 -Newha1en Site The Newhalen hydroelectric site area includes the immediate course of Newhalen River from about 2 miles upstream of its outlet into Iliamna Lake to about 7 miles (along the river) upstream. Preliminary layouts indicate that most of the possible project facilities would lie in portion of Sections 6,7, 17, 18, and 20, R33W, T5S (Seward Meridan). The Newha1en site reconnaissance included eight borings, seven electrical resistivity profiles, installation of four observation wells, laboratory testing of selected soil samples from borings, and limited surface geologic observations. Details of all field and laboratory studies are included in Appendix F. Also included are data derived from research of available literature. The seven electrical resistivity profiles (vertical soundings) were run primarily as a rapid, inexpensive means to determine depth to top of rock and to the water table. The locations are all on or near the proposed 5-12 .. ., • • -.. • • .. • .. • .. • • • ., - • .. .. canal alignment and at approximately the following stationing: • VES-l Sta. 46 + 00 (also boring B-3) • VES-2 Sta. 90 + 00 (also boring B-2) • VES-3 Sta. 129 + 00 (also boring B-1) • VES-7 Sta. 26 + 00 (about 200 ft SW of canal) • VES-8 Sta. 67 + 00 • VES-9 Sta. 109 + 50 • VES-10 Sta. 141 + 00 Resistivity profiles at borings served as a check of the boring and as calibration for the resistivity method. Eight borings were made to establish profiles of soil materials, recover soil samples for laboratory testing, and to determine the depth to the bedrock surface and the bedrock type. The boring locations are as follows: • B-1 • B-2 • B-3 • B-4 • B-5 • B-6 • B-7 • B-8 Sta. 139 + 00 Sta. 90 + 00 Sta. 46 + 00 Sta. -2 + 50 (about 200 ft E of intake) Sta. 149 + 00 (about 300 ft SW of spillway) Sta. 103 + 00 (about 150 ft NE of canal) Sta. 98 + 00 (About 1250 ft NE of B-1, in a gully, positioned for lower collar elevation in an attempt to penetrate bedrock with a drill of limited depth capability. This was successful.) All electrical resistivity survey and boring locations are shown on Plate 1 of Appendix F. Observation wells for monitoring ground water elevations were installed in Borings B-5, 6, 7, and 8. These consist of slotted PVC screen with PVC riser pipe. 5-13 Geologic reconnaissance consisted primarily of observations of the location and volume of springs and seeps emerging from the left (NE) bank of the Newhalen River. Additional reconnaissance planned for near the close of the field work was curtailed by heavy snowfall. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples classification and mechanical (sieve) analysis. results and boring logs are shown in Appendix F. 5.1.8 Summary of Geologic Conditions -Newhalen Site consisted of visual The laboratory test .. .. • .f This summary benefits from the reconnaissance field investigations done at • the site and described above in Section 5.1.7. A detailed description of l1li; the site geologic conditions is contained in Appendix F. In the general area of the site, bedrock outcrops in the bed of the Newhalen River and discontinuously in the walls of the shallow gorge which it has cut for about 13 miles upstream from its outlet into Iliamna Lake. The rock is primarily basalt and andesite, with tuff and assorted volcanic rubble, including breccias and agglomerates. Localized orientation of (volcanic) bedding is about N80 0 E, dipping 10 0 to 25 0 SE. Overburden is primarily glacial tills with lesser amounts of glacial outwash sand and gravel. At the site, the bedrock surface slopes from an elevation of about 180 at t-he intake to about 90-110 at the beginning of the spillway (Sta. 140 + 00), a gradient of about 25 -35 ft/mile. Intermediate borings and resistivity soundings indicate that this slope is fairly uniform over that distance. From the beginning of the spillway, the rock surface drops more • .. • .. • .. ., • • - • steeply (115-190 ft/mile) to near river level, possibly in stairstep .. fashion. North of about Sta. 98 + 00, bedrock was found to be andesite .. volcanics with limited surface weathering. South of about Sta. 130 + 00, .. the bedrock is a volcanic breccia with indications of more severely and deeply weathered zones. Jointing was generally very closely to closely 5-14 ., .. spaced in both rock types with some indications of becoming more widely spaced with depth, an additional sign of increased rock integrity at fairly shallow depths below the bedrock surface. All soils appear to be of glacial or proglacial origin. Interbedded clean to slightly silt outwash sands and gravels, cobble and boulder till, and silt were encountered on the site. Densities of different strata varied widely, probably indicative of varying degrees of compaction induced by repeated glacial advances over the area. Along most of the canal alignment, the ground surface varies from about El. 180 to El. 200. At about Sta. 140 + 00 (beginning of the spillway) there is a distinct scarp from about El. 180 to El. 150, a product of earlier chann~l cutting by the Newhalen River. From about Sta. 141 + 00 to the river, the ground surface slopes fairly uniformly to the river. The general configuration of the groundwater table is indicated to be similar to that of the ground surface - a gentle slope downward from the intake to the scarp at Sta. 140 + 00, with a more abrupt gradient from the scarp to the top of bedrock adjacent to the river. The typical depth to the water table from Sta. 0 + 00 to Sta. 140 + 00 is 20-30 ft. The presence of till strata, the locations of some springs, and indications from several borings suggest that perched water tables may exist throughout the area. All observed water tables are well above the river level; this is indicative of a distant water source and probable large groundwater reservoir. High flow rates in soils are therefore possible. Only shallow (up to 4 ft) frozen soil was encountered in any of the borings. This and the absence of surficial indicators (such as polyagonal ground) suggest that there is no permafrost in the immediate site area. The closest approach to the site of a major fault (Castle Mountain fault) is about 15 miles to the northwest. Although the fault is not known to be active, the effects of a seismic event with an epicenter at this location would show little, if any, attenuation at the site. If the fault is considered to be capable of at least a Magnitude 6 event, this would 5-15 correspond to Modified Mercalli Intensity VIII effects at the site. This is only a general guideline, but indicates the necessity for seismic design and foundation liquefaction (granular soils) considerations. 5.1.9 Summary of Geotechnical Considerations -Newhalen Site The depth to bedrock is a major controlling factor in the design of the canal and spillway. From Sta. 0 + 00 to about Sta. 60 + 00, the invert of the canal is in or on bedrock. From Sta. 0 + 00 to about Sta. 30 + 00, the lower portion of a canal will be in bedrock. from 30 ft at Sta 0 + 00 to 10 ft at 30 + 00. Rock excavation depths range Those portions of the canal in rock would not require lining and side slopes could be near-vertical. In the area of the beginning of the spillway (about Sta. 140 + 00), alternative interpretations of data projected from boring B-8 and from resistivity sounding VES-10 indicate a possible buried channel cut into bedrock. This low point could be as much as 30 ft deeper than top of rock indicated by projection between borings B-5 and B-7. Borings have also indicated zones of increased weathering, possibly requiring additional excavation to reach sound rock. The groundwater table appears to be above except possibly immediately at the intake. are clean sands and gravels with probable the canal invert elevation, Since many of the soil strata significant permeability, the possibility exists for significant rates of water flow into excavations. The possibility of perched and/or confined aquifers complicates the situation. No tests were performed which would allow quantifying of flow rates at this time. Excavation schemes in soil materials should include provisions for groundwater control. Excavation of soil materials is not anticipated to pose other than that associated with control of groundwater any difficulty inflows. Side slopes will have to be designed to provide stability during construction as well as during long-term use. Canal and spillway side s lopes and inverts will require lining and drainage schemes for long-term erosion protection 5-16 .. .. .. .. .. .. • .. • .. • • • ... • - • • • .. .. .. .. .. - and stability. Rock excavation is anticipated to require blasting. Side slopes should stand successfully at very high angles except, possibly, in areas of severe weathering. The stability of natural slopes, primarily as represented by the older erosional scarp of the Newhalen River, could be disrupted by flow into the groundwater regime from seepage out of the canal or spillway. These areas occur in the vicinity of Sta. 80 + 00 and Sta. 140 + 00; the bluff along the current river channel at about Sta. situation. The effects of increased 30 + 00 may represent a similar groundwater flow could include increased erosion from springs or mass slope failure. Protection could be provided by drainage systems, canal realignment to increase seepage paths to scarps, or a combination of the two. Glacial till deposits are readily available as sources for compacted and impervious fill materials. Sand and gravel, probably reasonably clean due to natural washing, should be fairly common in the immediate vicinity of the slte. The basalts and andesites exposed along the Newhalen River should provide essentially on-site sources of riprap and dimension stone for other uses. 5.1.10 Summary of Geologic Conditions -Kontrashibuna Site The Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site area is located on the Tanalian River downstream of Kontrashibuna Lake. As currently envisioned, project facilities would include a dam at about river mile 3.8 and a tunnel to Lake Clark. Most proj ect facilities would be included in portions of Sections 2,3, 11, 12, 13, and 14, R29W, TIN (Seward Meridian). Observations concerning the Kontrashibuna site are based on helicopter overflights and literature research. To date, no ground visits have been made. Bedrock in the area consists of mixed volcanic rocks, primarily tuffs with andesites and basalts, interbedded with greyacke, shale, and some slate. 5-17 Overburden appears to consist mostly of glacial outwash sand and gravel with occasional minor till deposits. The relatively narrow valley, the Tanalian River falls in bedrock downstream of Kontrashibuna Lake, and the steep gradient of the Tanalian River all indicate moderely shallow bedrock. Topographic maps and aerial observation suggest 50 to 100 ft overburden depths. Rock abutments for possible dam sites are probably not widely separated across the valley. The Castle Mountain fault passes about 5 miles northwest of the site. A seismic event on the fault with an epicenter at 5 miles would not be attenuated at the site. Although the fault is not known to be active, for illustrative purposes a Magnitude 6 event occuring at the point of closest approach would result in Modified Mercalli VIII effects at the site. A regional event of the type not yet associated with known geologic structures occurring at the site, would produce similar effects. This is only a guideline figure, but demonstrates the need for seismic design considerations, including liquefaction of granular soils and evaluations of avalanche, landslide, and rockfall hazards. Sands and gravel should be abundant throughout the Tanalian River valley glacial outwash deposits; the material should be fairly clean due to natural washing. The amount of till present in the valley is more problematical, but it is not likely to occur in deposits of sufficient size to be useful in construction. Extensive till deposits are present on the northwest shore of Lake Clark, directly across from the mouth of the Tanalian River (2 1/2 miles) and on the southeast shore, southwest of about Chi Point (9 miles). It should be possible to develop rock quarries at or within only several miles of any possible project facility locations. Rock conditions with respect to tunneling probably range from poor to good. • • ... -.. ., • .. ... .. .. • • • • .. In the absence of detailed field studies, the geotechnical aspects of the • Kontrashibuna Site appear to be favorable. .' .. • 5-18 5.1.11 Summary of Geologic Conditions -Chikuminuk Site The Chikuminuk hydroelectric site area is located along the Allen River downstream of Chikuminuk Lake. Most project facilities would be included in an area from about 0.5 mile downstream of the lake out let to about 1.6 miles. This area includes portions of Sections 19, 24, 25, and 30, R55W, TIN (Seward Meridian). This summary is based on data examination of aerial photographs. obtained from literature research No site visits have been made to date. and Bedrock in the site area is primarily interbedded siltstone and mafic volcanics, with some sandstone and conglomerate. The sequence is generally discordant. Overburden has been mapped as till. Examination of aerial photographs shows the following: a) landforms typical of a series to receeding terminal moraines, and b) very steep valley walls along the Allen River. The valley walls are clearly not rock but are standing at angles generally in excess of that of -the angle of repose of outwash sands and gravels. This evidence also indicates that the overburden is a till. Glacial outwash sand and gravel appears to be very limited. Distinct falls and rapids in the Allen River suggest that the riverbed is bedrock. The till overburden which forms the inner valley of the Allen River should provide an adequately sound abutment material and should be moderately to highly impervious. The Togiak-Tikchik fault passes about 11 miles west of the site. As an extension of the Denali fault, this fault could be considered potentially active. The effects of an earthquake with an epicenter at this location would show essentially no attenuation at the site. In the absence of detailed studies, the lower limit of a maximum seismic event is assumed to be Magnitude 6; this corresponds to Modified Mercalli Intensity VIII at the site. This is only a rough approximation but illustrates the need for seismic design considerations. 5-19 Till materials for compacted and impervious fills appear to be in abundant supply at the site. Glacial outwash deposits, sources of sand and gravel, are scarce or absent in the vicinity of the site. The nearest probable source of granular fill and aggregate materials is along the valley of the Tikchik River, about 11.5 miles east of the site. Probable rock quarry locations are on the slopes of an unnamed mountain 1 to 2 miles south of the site. As a preliminary evaluation, the geotechnical aspects of the Chikuminuk site can be considered fair to good. The degree of permeability of the till comprising possible dam abutments would have a major influence on future evaluations. 5-20 • •• .. ., • • ., .. • .. .. - • .. References for Section 5.1 1. Beikman, Helen M., Geologic map of Alaska: State of Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Geo1. and Geophys. Surveys, 1980. 2. Beikman, Helen M., Preliminary geologic map of the southwest quadrant of Alaska: u.S. Geol. Survey Mis~-Field Studies Map MF611, 1974. 3. Coffman, Jerry Uni ted States: 101-119, 1973. L. and VonHake, National Oceanic Carl A., Earthquake history of the and Atmospheric Administration, pp. 4. Detterman, Robert L., and Reed, Bruce L., Stratigraphy, structure, and economic geology of the Iliamna Quadrangle, Alaska: u.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1368-B, 1980. 5. Karlstrom, Thor N.V., et al., Surficial geology of Alaska: u.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Geol. Inv. Map 1-357, 1964. 6. R. W. Retherford Associates, Reconnaissance study of the Lake Elva and other hydroelectric power potentials in the Dillingham area prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, 1980. 7. Seldregg, Lidia S., Alaska regional profile, southwest region: of Alaska, pp. 37-88, 130-148, (no date). Univ. 8. Shannon & Wilson, Tazimina River hydroelectric proj~ct, geotechnical studies, prepared for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1982. 9. Shannon & Wilson, Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Newha1en River, Canal Diversion Proj ect, prepared for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1982. 5-21 .. .. 5.2 HYDROLOGIC • Hydrologic data available for the Bristol Bay region is limited, consisting • of few river gaging stations with short periods of record. The evaluation .. of potential hydroelectric sites in the region requires that estimates be made of the river flow available for power generation. Where gaging station data is unavailable, estimates of river flow for the screening of potential hydroelectric sites were made by interpolating runoff rates from maps of mean annual runoff obtained from "Water Resources of Alaska" (Ref 1). For more detailed site evaluations included in the power plan scenarios, the average monthly river flows from the nearest available -.. • ., gaging station were adjusted in proportion to drainage area and used to • estimate power requirements. and energy production and estimate water storage Due to insufficient river flow records upon which to base an estimate of firm power available, the design flows for hydroelectric concepts were assumed to be the 80 percent exceedence flows. The design flow was determined for each site by reviewing the available data for the period of record and selecting the design flow as that which is exceeded with 80 percent probability, or an average of four years out of five. The determination of the storage capacity required for the Tazimina and Chikuminuk project reservoirs was made by using a mass balance of inflows and outflows for a year with the ultimate 2002 generating demands and having monthly inflows which correspond to the 80 percent exceedence flow. The storage capacity required at the Kontrashibuna Lake project was determined by constructing a mass curve of the five-year period of record and calculating the storage required to meet the year 2002 demand. Based upon the premise that the five-year period of record is typical, this .' .. .. - • .. .. • .' • .. • .. • technique also yields a storage capacity which is adequate four years out .. of five and is consistent with the other sites. The hydrologic data used in the evaluation of the various Newhalen hydroelectric concepts was based on 16 years of continuously recorded streamflow at the USGS gage "Newhalen River near Iliamna". The gage is 5-22 ., .. .. - • • located approximately 10 miles upstream from the proposed intake canal of the regional hydroelectric concept. While the gage is currently deactivated, the facility still remains in place and is readily amenable for reactivation. In fact, the Newhalen River gage was temporarily reactivated by the USGS for use and correlation during the spring smolt and fry study conducted by Dames & Moore. Flow data used in the developments of the regional and local Newhalen hydroelectric concepts can be found in Tables A.2-12 and A.2-14 of Appendix A, respectively. The hydrologic data used in the evaluation of the Kontrashibuna Lake site is recorded at the USGS gage "Tanalian River near Port Alsworth". This gage is located at the potential project location and required no adjustment. Similarly, the hydrologic data used in evaluating the Newhalen River site is recorded at USGS gage No. 153000 and was also used without adjustment. For the Chikuminuk site, the three years of data recorded at USGS gage No. 153015 at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake was correlated with 26 years of data available at USGS gage No. 153020 located on the Nuyakuk River, within the same drainage basin. From the correlated data, an extended period of hydrologic records at the Chikuminuk site was developed and the appropriate design flows were selected. The Kukaklek Lake site has no hydrologic data available and required that flows be estimated by adjustment of other gaging station records in the area. Kukaklek Lake is drained by the Alagnak River which is a tributary of the Kvichak River. The Tanalian and Newhalen Rivers are also part of the Kvichak River system, although they are separated by many miles and several major lakes. In order to have an approximation of the Kukak1ek hydrologic records of the Tanalian, Newhalen, and Lake discharges, the Kvichak Rivers were compared as shown on Figure 5.2-1 and the average Kukaklek Lake was estimated by interpolating according annual discharge of to drainage area. A similar interpolation was used to obtain monthly flows which were reduced in proportion to the flow-frequency data on the Newhalen River to obtain the design flows for the Kukaklek Lake project. Estimates of flows for the Tazimina River projects were prepared by Dames & Moore hydrologists and are contained in Appendix I. In the summer of 1981, 5-23 the USGS began collecting data on the Tazimina River at gaging station No. 152999. However, since only about a year of data is available at present, the estimates contained in Appendix I were used for evaluating the Tazimina River projects. Estimates of probable maximum floods (PMF) for use in sizing project facilities were based on a study prepared by Dames & Moore contained in Appendix I. The result is in good agreement with the earlier estimate prepared by R.W. Retherford Associates (Ref 2). The average annual flow for the 327 square mile Tazimina River drainage basin was estimated at 1,031,000 acre-ft by R. W. Retherford Associates in a previous study (Ref 2). This corresponds to an average annual runoff of 59.1 inches, or an equivalent average annual flow of 1423 cfs. A draft report prepared by the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) (Ref. 3) estimated the average annual flow from the Tazimina River to be 820 cfs. This corresponds to an annual runoff of 34.0 inches. The Dames & Moore flow estimate of 856,000 acre-ft (Appendix I) yields a runoff of 48.5 inches, or an equivalent average annual flow of 1168 cfs. By comparing these runoff estimates to the "rough" estimate of 43.5 inches, obtained by using the curve developed on Figure 5.2-1 for the region, the Retherford estimate appears quite high and should not be used in evaluating the hydroelectric potential of Tazimina. The Dames & Moore estimate, while still higher than the estimate obtained from Figure 5.2-1, is thought to be more representative of the actual runoff. The AEIDC runoff estimate appears very low; it is even lower than both the Newhalen and Kvichak River runoff values. We believe that this is contrary to known runoff-drainage area relationships. Small watersheds which are located in the upper portions of a large drainage basin generally exhibit greater runoff in comparison to the basin runoff as a whole. This relationship is discussed in detail in Appendix I. The runoff from the Tazimina River basin, based only on the area relationship given by the formula in Appendix I, is calculated to be 42.1 inches. This corresponds to an average annual flow of 1014 cfs. It should be noted that his value does not reflect an upward adjustment which could apply because the Tazimina River drainage area lies within a high precipitation regime of the Newhalen River basin. 5-24 .. • • • • • • .. .. - • .. .. ., Because of the above, it is believed that the average monthly and annual flow values developed by the Dames & Moore flow simulation model, are representative of long term conditions, and should be the preferred values for use in Tazimina power studies. It should be noted that the Dames & Moore estimate of Tazimina River flows is the result of a more thorough investigation than either of the other two flow estimates mentioned; however, it may require adjustment or revision as more actual gaging records become available. All hydrologic data used in this study, aside from river gage records directly applicable at a site, are to be considered preliminary approximations. They are suitable for relative evaluation of sites, but have not been refined sufficiently for use in a detailed investigation of any hydroelectric site which may be selected. References for Section 5.2 1. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report, 1971. 2. R. W. Retherford Associates, Reconnaissance Study of the Lake Elva and Other Hydroelectric Power Potentials in the Dillingham Area, prepared for the Alaska Power Authority, 1980. 3. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, Methodology for Estimating Preproject Stream Flows in the Tazimina River, Alaska, Draft Report, January 1982. 5-25 55 Ci) w ::J: U Z -u.. 50 u.. 0 z :::> a: -I ~ :::> z z ~ 45 w " ~ a: w > ~ 40 o 2_ RAINAGE TAZIMINA D - / KUKAKLEK DRAINAGE 3_/ " 2,000 1,000 / NEW ESTIMATES TAZIMINA RUNOFF W Retherford 1 .• R .. Dames & Moore 2 .• 3 .• AEIDC AR = 0.07367 1IN/YE HAL EN RIVER KVICHAK /RIVER 5,000 4,000 (Sa MILES) 3.0~~AINAGE AREA -AL RUNOFF AVERAGE ANNU FIGURE 5.2-1 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL 5.3.1 Introduction A program was conducted to collect pertinent environmental baseline data for a comparison of alternative plans and the preparation of environmental documents for use in this feasibility assessment. While general environmental data were analyzed for the entire Bristol Bay study region, detailed environmental studies were limited, by necessity, to selected power alternatives only. Two of the more promising power alternatives identified were regional hydroelectric power sites on the Newhalen and Tazimina Rivers. Therefore, the primary emphasis of the environmental program was directed toward evaluating potential impacts of these developments and their accompanying power distribution systems. Environmental data collection for the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis is divided into two phases. Phase I of the study program accomplished a majority of the field data collection in order to provide input to the Interim Feasibility Assessment. The remainder of the environmental field data program, to be conducted in Phase II, will concentrate on completing the environmental assessment for the alternative(s) selected for further detailed evaluation. 5.3.2 Water Use and Quality Present and historic uses of recreation, and water rights interviewed by field personnel. the Tazimina River were investigated relating to fisheries, with local residents Similar uses were investigated for other water bodies in the study region, however, without field investigations. Water quality was analyzed for the Tazimina River basin during the summer of 1981. Several locations, including the Upper Tazimina Lake out let, Lower Tazimina Lake inlet, Lower Tazimina Lake outlet, Tazimina River above the falls, Tazimina River lower section, and Sixmile Lake (Tazimina River mouth) were investigated. Parameters that were measured in the field included dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity, settleable 5-26 solids, and alkalinity. At least three separate measurements of each parameter were taken at each location. Laboratory samples were also collected and analyzed for physical, chemical, nutrient, heavy metal, pesticide, and herbicide parameters. These were composited from at least three locations at each sample site. A detailed discussion, including data and laboratory analysis, of the water quality program conducted in the Tazimina River basin is found in Appendix G, Section 3.1.3. Water quality analyses were not performed at any other potential hydroelectric power site in the region. However, published data were examined for the entire study region for both surface and groundwater quality. 5.3.3 Terrestrial Ecology 5.3.3.1 Vegetation A detailed description of the structure and floristic composition of each vegetation type, and its distribution within the Tazimina River basin, is given in Appendix G, Section 4.1.1.1. Vegetation types and general ecosystem classifications were investigated for the remainder of the study region using published data only. 5.3.3.2 Birds Observations of birds in the Tazimina River basin were recorded during the summer of 1981. However, these were made primarily on an opportunistic basis in conjunction with other field investigations. Considerable data on the birds of this region, however, were available from previous studies. A detailed discussion including a species list is found in Appendix G, Section 4.1.1.2. For the remainder of the study region, only general published habitat maps were utilized for analyses of specific sites. 5.3.3.3 Mammals Mammals of the Tazimina River basin and the Bristol Bay region are largely representative of interior boreal forest ecosystems. While a total of 15 5-27 • -.. ., • • • .' • • • • • • .. • .. • .. • .. • .. .. .. -- species were documented within the Tazimina River basin during the summer of 1981, an additional 20 species could potentially occur in small numbers, or at least occasionally inhabit the area. A detailed discussion, including species lists and habitat maps, is found in Appendix G, Section 4.1.1.3. For the remainder of the study region, a generalized habitat map was prepared from existing data and used in conjunction with published reports for the purpose of analyzing potential impacts of various energy plans. 5 . 3 . 3 . 4 Endangered Species Al though some rare and unusual plant species have been found in the Lake Clark area, these plants do not fall under the category of endangered species. Also, no species proposed for protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 were found to occur in the Tazimina River basin during the 1981 field investigations. No sightings of endangered animal species were observed during the 1981 field investigations within the potential zone of influence of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site. 5.3.4 Aquatic Ecology Fish species from the Tazimina River basin provide important commercial, sport, and subsistence value, both on-and off-site, that could be influenced by the proposed hydroelectric development. During the summer and early fall of 1981, the following investigations took place in the Tazimina River basin: 1) sockeye salmon spawning locations and numbers, 2) resident fish distribution and identification of spawning and rearing areas, 3) physical parameters affecting sockeye salmon use of the Tazimina River to lay ground work for future instream flow modeling studies, 4) physical factors affecting resident fish, and 5) a temperature monitoring program. A detailed discussion of these investigations is found in Appendix G, Section 4.1.2. 5-28 During the spring of 1982, two additional field investigations were made in the Tazimina River. In early April, temperature profiles and ice thickness .. ., were measured in the section of river below the falls. An investigation of • fisheries during the same period suggested that fish are driven out of the Tazimina River by low winter temperatures. In late May, a fisheries habitat reconnaissance survey was conducted in the Tazimina River immediately above the falls. Results indicate that the section of river 300-500 feet above the falls is of very limited fisheries habitat use. A preliminary evaluation was conducted to determine if an impoundment on the Tazimina River would affect the downstream thermal regime of the river, which could possibly affect the incubation rates of the indigenous fish population. A stratified reservoir model was used to predict the outlet temperatures from the proposed storage reservoir. The results of this model allowed a qualitative assessment of potential thermal problems affecting salmonid egg incubation. Site-specific data was limited; therefore, only a qualitative assessment was made at the time. As more information becomes available from ongoing field sampling programs, the analysis will be refined and a quantitative assessment made. .. .. -.. - .. .. • • • A spring field investigation was conducted to define the horizontal and .. vertical distribution of downstream migrating sockeye salmon smolt and fry in the vicinity of river mile (RM) 7 on the Newhalen River. Sampling was accomplished by utilizing modified fyke nets and sonar. However, acoustic sampling with sonar was limited because of higher than anticipated levels of surface and bottom reverberation. Net sampling schemes were designed to detect the vertical and horizontal distribution of sockeye salmon smolt and fry. Length, weight, and scale information was taken on both smolt and fry, while mortalities were preserved and kept for otoliths. Preliminary results of the Newhalen sampling program indicated that downstream migrating smolt favored the use of the main river channel. While the sampling program lasted 5-1/2 weeks, from early May to mid-June, the entire run of smol t was not observed. However, the spring smol t peak was observed from 19 May through 26 May. Salmon fry were observed to have 5-29 • .. .. • .. .. .. .. .. -.. -.. WI· peaked between 8 June and 10 June and also to have favored the use of the mid-channel portion of the river. Details of this study can be found in Appendix H, and description of sampling site; description and include: location of river and weather conditions; description of equipment; sampling methods; analysis of data; and results and recommendations for future studies. While no detailed field investigations were made in any other river basins within the study region, a literature search and an interview program did take place. Information, particularly relevant to commercial and sport fisheries, was collected for a large portion of the study region for the purpose of analyzing potential hydroelectric power sites. Aerial reconnaissance was also conducted at several of the potential sites. 5.3.5 Air Quality Climatologic data were collected and analyzed for both the Tazimina and Newhalen River basins, as well as for the entire study region. These data formed the basis, along with terrain analysis, for assessing potential impacts on air quality from various alternative energy developments. While no ambient air quality monitoring stations or data exist in the region, a review of proposed and existing Mandatory Class I (EPA) Areas was conducted. The assumption was made that while energy development in the region is not likely to influence any existing or proposed Class I areas, the region is considered to have pristine air quality. 5-30 5 .4 SOC IOCUL TURAL 5.4.1 Historic and Archaeological Resources An archaeological reconnaissance of the Tazimina River basin was conducted by both aerial and ground survey during the fall of 1981. Several sites on the lower Tazimina River, above and below the falls, and on Lower Tazimina Lake were investigated. The results of the survey revealed no cultural resources of obvious significance; however, the survey method was designed to detect only relatively large and readily visible cultural resources. A detailed description of the reconnaissance survey is found in Appendix G, Section 5.2. • ., .. .. • • • .. .. .. The Tazimina River basin is rarely mentioned in anthropological and .. historical literature. From the little information that is available, it appears that the types of historic and late prehistoric sites likely to be found in the Tazimina River basin will consist of temporary camp sites used for fishing, trapping, and as travelers I rest stops. Because of the lack of archaeological information on the Tazimina River basin, a detailed discussion of the types of sites that have been found in the broader Lake .. .. • Clark-Iliamna Lake region are presented in Appendix G, Section 5.1.2, and • thought to be representative of the types present in the Tazimina River basin. 5.4.2 Socioeconomic Considerations Socioeconomic considerations were evaluated for the entire Bristol Bay study region. Research was conducted during the late fall and winter of 1981-82, primarily gathered in the form of local interviews with residents of the region. Attitudes of the residents, with respect to the development of the Bristol Bay Region Power Plan, were addressed. .. .. .. .. .. • .. .. .. .. An investigation into the demography and population trends of the study .. region was also made. Factors affecting population, such as commercial fishing, recreational hunting and fishing, and government installations 5-31 .. .. .. were investigated. These are discussed in detail in Appendix G, Section 6.2. Because the commercial salmon fishing industry forms the economic base of the Bristol Bay region, residents in each of the 18 study area communities expressed concern about the effects of hydroelectric development on the region's fisheries. The major concerns of the residents in each of the sub-regions (Iliamna, Kvichak River, Kvichak-Egegik Bay, Nushagak Bay, and Nushagak River) are discussed in detail in Appendix G, Section 6.3. Generally, most Bristol Bay region residents who were interviewed did not favor a regional power plan to meet Bristol Bay region energy needs (Appendix G, Section 6.4.1). Small-scale hydroelectric systems, village power generation systems, and sub-regional systems are concepts which were continually inquired about by local residents. Local preferences for such power development are apparent because of differences in ethnic background, political differences, and varying degrees of dependence upon commercial fishing. Attitudes toward various proposed region energy plans are discussed in detail in Appendix G, Section 6.4. 5.4.3 Recreational Resources A literature search of the recreational resources of the Bristol Bay region was conducted during the summer and early fall of 1981. This was augmented by aerial reconnaissance, primarily as by-product of other field investigations. The major emphasis of this effort was on the fishing resource in the Tazimina/Newhalen River region. Data on hunting, river floating, and fishing were also collected and evaluated for other potential energy development areas within the study region. 5.4.4 Aesthetic Resources Information on landscape, including vegetation and landform, was collected during the summer and fall of 1981 using published data (maps, atlases, etc.) and reconnaissance surveys (aerial and terrestrial). Factors comprising form, line, color, and texture were used in analyzing impacts. 5-32 .. A complete discussion of aesthetic resources is found in Appendix G, .. Se(:tion 8. 5.4.5 Land Use A field investigation program was conducted in association with the socioeconomic data collection described in Section 5.4.2 to identify potential land uses and associated conflicts related to the proposed hydroelectric development of the Tazimina River basin as well as to other selected alternative energy plans. Because of the high percentage of residents in each of the study region communities relying on the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery for the majority of their yearly income, and because subsistence fishing has cultural, nutritional, and economic importance throughout the region, the majority of the residents interviewed were primarily concerned with the negative effects the various hydroelectric projects might have on salmon and other fisheries. Also, because the predominant land use in the study region is for subsistence, a related concern in some of the more isolated villages centered around potential conflicts between existing land use patterns and the possible influx of people and increased access resulting from energy development. A detailed discussion of land use concerns by subregion is found in Appendix G, Section 9.2. Land use was associated with attitudes of also the the transmission networks investigated with respect to transmission lines various alternative energy plans. The concerns and residents related to selected energy plans and were investigated and are presented in detail by sub-region in Appendix G, Section 9.3. 5-33 • .. .. ., .. • .. -.. .. .. .. .. • .. • .. .. • .. .. .. • .. • - • • • • ..... .. .. .. . ' 6. DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY PLANS 6 . ENERGY PLANS 6.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY SCENARIOS 6.1.1 Introduction The nine energy supply technologies that were found to be attractive for application in the Bristol Bay region have been considered both individually and in varying combinations for the development and selection of energy plan scenarios. The requirements of the study are to address hypothetical power plan cases that fall under the framework of the following options: • A Base Case, which represents the continuation of present practices of reliance on oil-fired (diesel) generation • Alternative "A", which consists of the Tazimina River hydroelectric project as the preferred regional power supply • Alternative "B", which consists of other energy sources, projects or facilities, either alone or in varying combinations The approach and methodology leading scenarios continuously addressed the study, which are: to three the selection of energy principal objectives of • To minimize the energy costs for the market area plan the • To minimize adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts while enhancing environmental values to the maximum extent possible • To maximize the likelihood of project financing and development The development and selection process for energy plan scenarios considered the achievement of the above objectives by the use of regional or 6-1 sub-regional energy concepts. In addition, sincere efforts were made to formulate an energy plan that would prove equal or superior to the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric power project. The objective of the Phase I study was to identify a development which efficiently and responsibly responds to the electrical energy needs of the area and its people that have been forecast through the year 2002. To this end, the energy scenario efforts had to continuously consider, address, and evaluate existing conditions, needs, and impacts in the area, as well as the desires of the residents and state and federal agencies. The screening process placed its emphasis not only on the previously described objectives and guidelines, but also on engineering, environmental, and economic considerations. Response to these guidelines required the collection of data necessary to assess project feasibility commensurate with the type or types of energy forms used in a particular energy scenario. The data collection program considered four areas: • • Geotechnical, Section 5.1 Hydrologic, Section 5.2 • Environmental, Section 5.3 • Sociocultural, Section 5.4 The extent to which data were collected in these categories is discussed in each individual section. The development of candidate energy plans for the study area began with the identification of a large number of ideas or concepts. The complexity of this task can be realized when one considers the number of energy plan combinations possible on the basis of having to address: • • • • Energy needs for some eighteen communities Nine selected energy resources Numerous transmission line combinations Community attitudes and institutional restraints The points considered in the assessment and use of the nine previously 6-2 • l1li III .. .. ... .. • • .. .. .. .. .. • au III .. '" III! .. .. • - • • • IIIi • • ... identified energy technologies are outlined in the following pages of this section. 6.1.2 Assessment of Energy Resources 6.1.2.1 Hydroelectric The most important natural resource in the Bristol Bay study region is fisheries. The rivers and streams of the region play an important role in the life cycle of this resource. Because of this, the development of hydroelectric power projects must consider and evaluate the potential impacts on fish. Hydroelectric power development is site-specific. Coupled with the economies -of-scale, hydroelectric power proj ects are favored for regional development. However, small hydroelectric developments can be appropriate and cost effective, given suitable site conditions. Reassessments of this energy source have shown that within the study region there exist the possibility for both regional and sub-regional power development. The early assessment of hydroelectric sites and their associated transmission line systems resulted in the development of detailed assessment parameters and guidance criteria. Recognition of, and continuous reference to, these parameters and criteria was beneficial during the assessment of other energy resources. The detailed assessment procedure and methodology applied to hydroelectric power developments is discussed below. Selection of Hydrosites There have been numerous water and hydroelectric resource investigations which have taken place in Alaska since World War II. Prior to that time, however, very little was known about the extent of Alaska hydroelectric resources, except those in Southeastern Alaska. The Bureau of Reclamation conducted the first state-wide reconnaissance of potential hydroelectric sites in 1948. A separate series of regional water resources 6-3 investigations was made by the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers in the late 1950 IS. During the period from 1962 to 1967, the Bureau of Reclamation .. -.. .. prepared a comprehensive inventory of state-wide hydroelectric resources • which has subsequently been updated by the Alaska Power Administration. • Alaska Power Surveys by the Federal Power Commission in 1969 and 1976 further evaluated hydroelectric resources in a state-wide inventory. Since 1976, reports specific to the Bristol Bay region have utilized previous inventories to further evaluate the region I s hydroelectric potential. The Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan study effort utilized these previous inventories and investigations to develop a list of potential • .. • .. .. - hydroelectric sites within the study region. These sites are listed, along • with pertinent specifications, in Table 6.1-1 and shown by location in - Figure 6.1-1. These sites were designated as "promising" or "sites with major restraints" based on a preliminary evaluation of technical and environmental parameters. Assessment of Selected Hydrosites Four major categories were selected as the basis for the assessment .. • • process: 1) environmental, 2) socioeconomic and institutional, 3) technical • and engineering, and 4) economic. .. :. A number of considerations were identified under each major category and a • subjective rating system, using the letters A, B, and C, was devised to assess each consideration. Each site was rated with respect to each consideration on a subjective basis. A summary rating was made for each major category and an overall .. .. • .. qualitative assessment was made for each site based upon the following ,. criteria: .. • Existence of a "fatal flaw": Eliminated from further consideration • Several serious defects (a 1 though none necessarily "fatal" by .. -themselves): Eliminated from further consideration • .. . ' 6-4 .. • A number of considerations rated in the C category: Rated overall as "not promising" • All other sites: Rated as " .." prom~s~ng • Sites assessed as "promising" were incorporated into scenarios The method of analysis employed was, foremost, a relative one. Secondly, the analysis was subj ective. It was recognized that some considerations could have been given more weight or been considered more important by different individuals and organizations. However, it was not the intent to perform a numerical analysis, but merely to assess, on a qualitative basis, the identified hydrosites. It was understood that some sites exhibited undesirable characteristics for project development or posed a severe defect. In certain cases, these negative attributes could have been considered a "fatal flaw". If a "fatal flaw" was found at any identified site, that site was no longer considered. Rejection of a site, however, was not limited to the presence of a "fatal flaw": a site could also have been rejected if it exhibited a number of severe defects or undesirable characteristics, which by themselves were not "fatal", but which in combination with each other could preclude the development of that site. Final assessment came after each site had been analyzed for each consideration. Those sites which were not rejected, either by a "fatal flaw" or because of numerous severe defects or undesirable characteristics, were included in the final assessment. The final assessment judged whether a particular site was "promising" by assessing it relative to each of the others, integrating all the considerations discussed below. Environmental Considerations Fisheries -This addresses the impact of project development on fisheries. Facility impact only was considered here. Basis for assessment were comments submitted by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 6-5 Wildlife Habitat -This addresses the impact of project development on wildlife, including migratory patterns of birds and large mammals. Facility and transmission line impacts were considered. Assessment was based upon location of summer and winter ranges of large mammals, feeding areas, and rearing areas (from published habitat maps). The greater the site disturbance, and the greater the number of ancillary facilities, the greater the impact that is expected to occur on wildlife habitat. Longer transmission lines are also expected to have a greater impact upon wildlife habitat. Terrestrial Ecology -This addresses the impact of project development on plant life. Facility and transmission line impacts were considered. Assessment was based upon types of vegetation and ecosystems found in published habitat maps. As with wildlife habitat, the greater the site disturbance, the greater the impact that is expected to occur on terrestrial ecology. Impacts upon forest and tree species were to be considered more significant than impacts upon grasses and brush. Visual Impact This addresses the aesthetic considerations of proj ect development, specifically, transmission line and structures. Facility and transmission line impacts were considered. The following factors were considered in assessing the visual impact of a site: disturbance; 2) number of ancillary facilities; 3) 1) degree of site type of facility installed; 4) inundation due to storage; 5) natural screening; 6) effect upon natural features, e. g., waterfalls; and 7) length of transmission lines. Sociocultural and Institutional Considerations Subsistence -This addresses the impact of project development on the subsistence lifestyle of the people in the study region. Facility and transmission line impacts were considered. Assessment was based primarily upon comments received from public and agency meetings and from letters received by agencies and public organizations. Land Status -This addresses the constraint to project development by designated land. Facility impact only was considered. Assessment was 6-6 .. .. .. .. .. II .. • .. .. - • ... .. ... .. WI; .. .. • -.. .. • .. --- based upon land classification maps prepared by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC). Sites located within conservation units were considered to have major institutional restraints. Community Impact -This addresses long-and short-term effects of project construction and operation to the community infrastructure and the community's preference for the development, as presently known. Facility impact only was considered. Assessment was based upon the following: 1) proximity to Bristol Bay villages; 2) attraction of villages for leisure time activities; and 3) accessibility of villages from the site. Roads and Access -This addresses the long-term impact resulting from the needs to develop roads and cleared rights-of-way for improved and continuous access to the development. (Project methodology did not consider the development of roads for transmission line construction, but considered local clearing of rights-of-way as may be required for this work.) Facility impact only was considered. Assessment was based upon the following: 1) type of access; 2) length of road; 3) usage of land; and 4) proximity to villages and other forms of access. Technical and Engineering Considerations Site Access This relates to the accessibility of the site for the construction of the facilities, and the consideration of the methods and means by which project construction equipment, material, reasonably available at the site. Project Structures and plant equipment can be made This pertains only to major structures su~h as dams J the powerhouse, the penstock, and spillways. The qualitative assessment relates to the type, size, and complexity of development. 6-7 Flow Lines This assessment relates to flow lines (water conveyance system) standpoint of size, type, and length-to-head ratio, as well as complexity of flow line development. Engineering, Development, and Constructibility from the to the This is an assessment of technical and engineering merits and considerations such as geology, topography, length of construction season, availability of local construction material, the ease of construction and the improvements believed necessary to develop the site. Power Potent ial This concerns the potential of the site to supply the power needs of the region (regional) or the power needs of geographically grouped villages (local) . Operation and Maintenance This relates to the consideration of climatological effects on plant operation and maintenance, remoteness of site to access for repairs, and difficulty of ensuring the availability of operating/maintenance personnel at project. Transmission Lines This assessment relates to the relative length of main transmission lines and feeder lines, considering the amount of power being transmitted and the area (villages) served. Relative Project Economics This considers the relative assessment of the cost for developing the major project facilities, excluding transmission. Relative Economics -Transmission This pertains to the relative assessment of the cost for developing the transmission facilities of the plan. 6-8 .. ... • .. • .... .. • .. .. .. • • .. .. .. .. ... .. ... • .. • .. • • ., ., ., Rating System The following definitions were applied in the rating system used for the the categories considered under the qualitative assessments of Environmental, Socioeconomic, and Institutional Considerations: A B C Small impact Moderate impact but believed acceptable with mitigation measures Major defect, possibly resulting in a "fatal flaw" The following definitions were applied in the rating system used for the qualitative assessment of Technical and Engineering Considerations: A B C Shows favorable characteristics and attributes Appears acceptable Exhibits characteristics and attributes which are less desirable The following were applied to the Relative Economic assessment: A B C Good Acceptable Poor The following designations apply to the overall assessment and are based on a judgment of developed considerations, as follows: P N R Promising Not Promising Rejected The preliminary assessment of alternative hydroelectric sites, using the preceeding evaluation, is shown on Figure 6.1-2. 6-9 6.1.2.2 Diesel • • The development of diesel generation represents a low impact profile. rhe • compact sizes of required installations, the flexibility available for their physical location, and the fact that this energy form has been in use, all relate to its reasonable acceptability as an energy form in the Bristol Bay region. The use of diesel fuel is currently the primary source for generation of electrical energy within the Bristol Bay study region. Continuation of this energy source complies with the requirements of a Base Plan and relates to several Alternative liB It energy plan scenarios. With respect to the Base Plan, use of diesel generation was assumed to be continued on the same basis as the present. As such, each community having central electric energy diesel-fired generating facilities would continue to expand on these facilities by the addition of new diesel units. For the communities which do not have a central diesel supply, the energy scenario would allow for the development of such a central station. It has been assumed that such an energy development would incorporate, as part of the energy plant, those diesel units co-op, or central school system. diesel plants were provided with belonging to an existing utility, REA, For all communities, the hypothetical sufficient back-up to represent 100 - • • • .. • .. • -• ... • • .. percent of forecast peak demand capacity. The scenario assumes that .. additional diesel capacity would be installed at five-year intervals, while power plant housing facilites would be designed for a ten-year expansion cycle. With respect to regional or sub-regional diesel energy scenario formulation, the energy plan development considered the utilization of central diesel energy systems, with 50 percent back-up, and a 100 percent reserve in the individual community diesel installation. Regional or sub-regional integrity was achieved by the use of transmission line systems interconnecting the applicable communities. ten-year power plant housing expansion concept regional and sub-regional diesel energy scenarios. 6-10 The five-year unit and was also utilized in the • .. • - • --- • - • - The diesel scenarios consider use of diesel fuel only. Heavy fuel (crude oil) did not prove to be a desirable energy source (Appendix A.3). 6.1.2.3 Coal-Fired Steam Electric Generation There were three primary fossil energy fuels identified in the study for possible use in energy plan scenarios for steam electric generation. They were: • Coal • Oil • Natural gas Further investigation of these fossil fuel resources and their associated costs resulted in the early elimination of oil-and natural gas-fired steam electric alternatives. These results became available prior to the complete life cycle cost analysis (Appendix A.B). As such, only coal-fired steam electric was considered for energy plan development. Coal from outside the geographic area was found in adequate quantities for regional needs. Use of this energy form is based on the assumption that only a regional or large sub-regional installation would be developed. The following factors dictated that such plant would best be located near the communities of Dillingham or Naknek: economy-of-scale; coal would need to be brought into the region from an outside source; climatological conditions of the Bristol Bay region; lack of access; and availability and retention of operating/maintenance personnel. The central plant concept requires that a network of transmission lines extend out to the communities served by the plant. Site locations were not investigated at this time. This type of energy offers some flexibility with respect to site location, which can be investigated at a later date. 6.1.2.4 Oil-Fired (Diesel) Combined Cycle The oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle process was considered as an alternative regional and large sub-regional electrical energy source. 6-11 However, only a single, centralized plant was considered for the same reasons as given for the coal-fired steam electric plant. The oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle process relates to a more efficient use of the diesel fuel, under high loading conditions, for the generating units. As for any central energy source, a system of transmission lines would be required in the scenario using this process to supply the generated electricity to the appropriate communities. While this energy source is not site-specific, it does have certain limitations. Should this energy source be found acceptable, appropriate plans would be made for detailed site investigations. 6.1.2.5 Coal Gasification (Combined Cycle) Consideration was given to the coal gasification-combined cycle process for electrical energy generation as a possible contender to other fossil fuel-fired plants. Again, for the reasons stated under the coal-fired steam electric installation, only a single regional or large sub-regional generating plant was considered. The transmission line needs similar to those anticipated for the coal-fired scenario would also apply to this scenario for servicing appropriate communities. Siting aspects and needs are similar to those of the coal-fired steam electric concept. 6.1. 2.6 Wind Wind has been considered as a supplemental energy source only. The wind energy resources of the Bristol Bay study region have been addressed in detail in Appendix D. The various assumptions and consideration for wind energy development are given in Appendix A.6. Wind energy development was only found to be applicable in areas near the communities of Naknek, Egegik, and Igiugig. These communities were selected on the basis of having a wind Power Class 4 or better (Appendix D). Large wind energy generating stations would require the development of 6-12 • -• .. .. - • -.. • • .. • • • .. • .. .. .. • .. .. .. • .. .. .. • .. • .. • .. .. .. .. - wind farms at suitable locations near these areas. A 20 percent penetration value was assumed for determining the installed wind capacity. Wind generated energy was not considered a viable alternative to meet the total energy and power needs of the region. As such, wind was only reviewed as a secondary (or supplemental) form of energy, and only in combination with the diesel fuel scenarios. The penetration value was used as follows: a. If a community suitable for wind generation was considered by itself in an energy plan scenario (no transmission interties), then the penetration value of 20 percent was applied directly to the power needs for that individual community. b. If a community suitable for wind generation is connected to other communities by transmission line interties, then the value of the power needs for the entire group was used to determine wind energy installation on the basis of 20 percent pentration. Supplemental wind energy was applied to all the diesel generation scenarios and for one of the hydroelectric power generating scenarios. Wind energy generation in conjunction with the hydroelectric power scenario was done as a test case to assess the cost benefits of wind during the years prior to the development of the hydroelectric project. 6.1.2.7 Energy Conservation The reduction of electrical energy needs through energy conservation was not considered during the Phase I interim assessment study. The electrical energy benefits resulting from appliance conservation measures will be assessed and evaluated in Phase II. It is believed that electrical energy reductions resulting from conservation measures would not be significant enough to influence present evaluation parameters and study results. 6-13 6.1.2.8 Waste Heat Recovery This supplemental energy source was applied only in conjunction with diesel energy generation. Waste heat recovery is not, in itself, an electricity generator, but an energy needs reducer. The use of waste heat recovery systems relate to cost benefits gained in fuel usage for space heating requirements. The study considered waste heat recovery in this form, and credited the heat produced by an amount reflecting the savings in heating fuel (Appendix A.4). In the B-15 scenario waste heat is considered only in the load centers of Dillingham, Naknek, New Stuyahok and Newhalen. In all cases the waste heat improves the economics of the plan. In the B-16 and B-17 scenarios waste heat recovery equipment is used in Dillingham, Naknek, and Newhalen. The waste heat recovery improves both scenarios. .' • • .i • •• III' .. Waste heat is considered in all villages in B-19A and B-19C scenarios. .. However, it does not appear economically feasible in Ekuk, Egegik, Clarks - Point or Portage Creek. Waste heat recovery systems were considered for only one of the hydroelectric power generating scenarios. Its use in the hydroelectric project was done as a test case to assess the cost benefits of waste heat recovery during the years of diesel generation prior to the development of the hydroelectric project. 6.1.2.9 Organic Rankine Cycle The treatment of this supplemental energy source was similar to that of waste heat recovery systems. The source would use waste heat for generation of electrical energy. The organic Rankine cycle, by its nature, relates to low temperature energy sources such as those commonly available from diesel generating systems. High temperature energy sources would more likely be used with an efficient steam Rankine cycle system (Appendix A.9). 6-14 • .. .. .. ., .. .. The economic merits of the organic Rankine cycle were tested for only one scenario; the installation of a system at Dillingham and Naknek. These two areas were considered the most likely candidates for an organic Rankine cycle system, primarily due to their large diesel generating capacity. If an installation at these two villages proved to be of significant economic benefit, it would then be investigated for other communities. 6.1.2.10 Transmission Line Systems It is recognized that transmission lines are not an energy producer but an energy carrier. However, transmission lines affect considerably the development and distribution of electrical energy in the study area. The use of transmission lines offers the flexibility needed to address and evaluate regional and sub-regional energy scenarios. Their use strongly affects the technical, economic, and environmental-sociocultural aspects and other assessment considerations of an energy plan scenario. The people of the study region, in general, expressed a strong interest regarding transmission lines and their associated corridors. The scenarios used in the study take this into consideration, and attempts have been made to suggest corridors and alignments that reflect the views and comments of the people. 6.1.3 Selection of Energy Scenarios 6.1.3.1 Introduction Regional and sub-regional electrical energy plan scenarios were developed using the previously identified energy resources. The scenarios numerous combinations of basic energy system components. ingredients to these energy systems and the proposed uses of energy sources are discussed below. represent The basic identified Eight villages were combined into three groups with each group considered to be a single load demand. These village groups are: 6-15 • Dillingham and Aleknagik • Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon • Iliamna, Nondalton, and Newhalen 6.1.3.2 Hydroelectric The selection of energy supply scenarios using hydroelectric power generation was based on technical restraints, relative economics, and environmental compatability. Using these criteria, the following .. ... hydroelectric sites were considered to be the most promising: Tazimina .. River, Kontrashibuna Lake/Tanalian River, Newhalen River, Chikuminuk Lake/Allen River, Kukaklek Lake, and King Salmon River. 6.1. 3 . 3 Diesel The selection of generation was energy based supply scenarios using diesel-electric primarily on village grouping transmission-interconnect concepts as described in Section 6.1.3.7. 6.1.3.4 Fossil-Fired power and .. • .. ., The selection of energy supply scenarios utilizing fossil-fired electric .. power generation was based primarily on such a facility located in either Dillingham or Naknek. 6.1.3.5 Transmission Intertie A special energy supply scenario was selected which considered bringing electric power to the Bristol Bay area from outside the region. This scenario, designed to meet regional needs only, anticipates using electric power generated at Chugach Electric's Beluga Plant on the Cook Inlet. 6-16 • .. • .. .. •• .. .. ... . ' ." 6.1.3.6 Wind, Conservation, Waste Heat, and Organic Rankine Cycle These technologies were not considered as primary energy sources during the selection of energy supply scenarios. They were, however, considered as secondary (supplemental) sources and used in combination with various diesel scenarios. 6.1.3.7 Village Grouping and Transmission-Interconnect Concepts Village grouping was believed necessary for the proper development of sub-regional, as well as regional, energy scenarios. This was accomplished by developing a five-zone geographic grouping of villages, as shown on Figure 6.1-3. These zones were: Zone A Dillingham, Aleknagik, Portage Creek, Manokotak, Clarks Zone B Zone C Zone D Zone E Point, and Ekuk New Stuyahok, Koliganek, and Ekwok Levelock and Igiugig Naknek, South Naknek, King Salmon, and Egegik Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton In addition, transmission-interconnect concepts were developed utilizing the various combinations of geographic zones, as follows: Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6 Concept 7 All villages independent with no further transmission other than presently exists Three networks: Zones A + B, Zones C + D, Zone E Four networks: Zone A, Zone B, Zones C + D, Zone E Four networks: Zones A + B, Zone C, Zone D, Zone E Two networks: Zones A + B, Zones C + D + E Two networks: Zones A + B + C + D; Zone E One network: All villages interconnected The combinations of each of the identified energy sources, transmission intertie scenarios, and transmission-interconnections are presented in Table 6.1-2. This matrix shows numerous combinations of potential power 6-17 supply systems. The matrix was reduced to a manageable number of selected scenarios on the basis of engineering judgement supplemented by the subjective consideration of the assessment parameters and guidance criteria developed during the hydroelectric power assessment process, with particular emphasis on environmental factors. This resulted in reducing the number of energy plan scenarios to about 18. Following the further evaluation of new data, and as a result of agency discussions, three additional scenarios were selected for further evaluation and comparison. The addition of these three scenarios, which are included in Table 6.1-2, resulted in a final slate of 21 energy plan concepts that are described in the following section. 6-18 .. ., • ... .. ... III • • .. III .. .. ... • ... .. • ... .. • TABLE 6.1-1 POTENTIAL HYDROSITES IN THE BRISTOL BAY AREA No. Site USGS Map Drainage Area Average Annual Average Plant Mean Effective Firm Energy Installed Capacity 1:63360 (sg miles) Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs) Head (cfs) (106KWh/:t:r) (MW) 1 Chikuminuk Lake Taylor Mtns A-8 290 850 850 100 52.6 2 X 6 2 Nuyakuk-Kulik Dillingham D-8 1,490 6,010 515 165 61 2 X 1 Lakes 3 King Salmon River Naknek B-3 110 2,200 1,935 100 122 2 X 12.5 4 Kontrashibuna Lake Lake Clark A-4 200 880 880 220 120 2 X 14 5 Lake Tazimina Iliamna D-5 320 1,li40 1,010 180 122 2 X 12.5 6 Newhalen River Iliamna D-6 3,300 9,303 155 85 8.3 2 X 1.8 1 Kukaklek-Iliamna Iliamna A-1 612 1,800 200 100 88 2 X 10 Lake 8 Kukaklek-Unnamed Iliamna A-1 612 1,800 210 140 24 2 X 3 Lakes 9 Upnuk Lake Taylor Mtns B-8 100 295 295 150 27 .5 2 X 3 10 Tikchik Lake Dillingham D-6 1,490 6,010 900 50 28.6 2 X 3.5 11 Grant Lake Dillingham D-1 31.2 92 92 215 12 1.5 12 Mikchalk-Beverly Dillingham C-8, D-8 180 600 360 50 11 2 X 1.3 Lake 13 Little Togiak Lake GOOdnews Bay C-l 60 200 200 100 89 2 X 10 14 Lake Elva Goodnews Bay C-l 10 50 50 215 8.4 1.5 15 Agulowak Dillingham B-8 350 1,200 100 25 11 1.3 16 Lake Aleknagik Dillingham B-1, B-8 1,100 li,824 4,300 12 33 2 X 4 11 Lake Nunavaugaluk Dillingham A-8 115 300 300 30 5.1 0.65 18 Nushagak River Dillingham C-4 9,850 20,000 145 10 4.1 2 X 1.1 19 Kvichak River Dillingham A-2 6,500 11,130 1,500 25 122 2 X 12.5 20 Kvichak River Dillingham A-2 6,500 11,130 9,315 20 122 2 X 12.5 21 Naknek Lake Naknek C-2 2,120 5,400 2,100 20 35 2 X 3.5 22 Becharof Lake Naknek A-3 1,200 3,000 1,400 10 8.9 2 X 1 23 Twin Lakes Lake Clark C-3 140 280 280 30 5.3 0.6 24 Koksetna River Lake Clark B-6 160 465 180 155 11.5 2 X 2 25 Lachbuna Lake Lake Clark B-3 168 495 115 1,100 122 2 X 12.5 26 Chulitna River Lake Clark A-51 1,100 2,200 2,135 90 122 2 X 12.5 21 Summit Lake Iliamna C-2, C-3 11.4 68.5 68.5 390 16.6 2 X 2 28 Meadow Lake Iliamna C-3 26.6 130 130 100 8.0 1.5 29 Kakhonak River Iliamna B-4 145 400 200 45 5.5 1.5 30 Gibralter Lake Iliamna B-5 145 500 100 150 9.5 1.0 31 Alagnak River Iliamna A-8 480 1,250 410 110 46 2 X 5 32 American Creek Mt. Katmai D-4 98.2 200 200 800 100 2 X 12 33 Idavain Lake Mt. Katmai C-6, D-6 26.6 41.5 41.5 685 11.5 2 X 2 34 Lake Grosvenor Mt. Katmai C-4 630 950 950 85 49.5 2 X 6 35 Savonoski River Mt. Katmai C-3 29·9 85 50 400 12.1 2 X 1.5 36 Lake Brooks Mt. Katmai C-6 NA NA 300 20 3.5 0.4 TABLE 6.1-2 POTENTIAL POWER SUPPLY SYSTEMS ill NO. POWER SUPPLIES ALL INDEPENDENT 1 Transmission from Beluga 2 King Salmon developed for entire region 3 Tazimina developed for entire region ~ Kukaklek developed for entire region 5 Newhalen-Local/Kukaklek-Region 6 Newhalen-Local/King Salmon-Region 1 Tazimina + Kukaklek-Region 8 King Salmon + Kukaklek + Newhalen-Local 9 Tazimina + King Salmon 10 Kukaklek + King Salmon 11 Tazimina + Konlrashibuna 12 Kukaklek + Chikuminuk + Newhalen 13 Chikuminuk + Newhalen + King Salmon + Kukaklek l~ Chikuminuk + Kukaklek + Tazimina 15 Chikuminuk + Tazimina + Kukaklek + King Salmon 16 Chikuminuk + Newhalen + King Salmon 11 Chikuminuk + Tazimina 18 Dillingham + Naknek + Upper Nushagak + Newhalen Diesel 19 Dillingham + Naknek Diesel 20 Diesel Only -Individual Villages 21 Dillingham, Naknek Diesel + Newhalen Hydro 22 Dillingham, Naknek, Upper Nushagak Diesel + Newhalen Hydro 23 Dillingham, Naknek, Upper Nushagak, Igiugig Diesel + Newhalen 2~ Dillingham, Upper Nushagak Diesel + Newhalen + Kukaklek 25 Dillingham, Upper Nushagak Diesel + Newhalen + King Salmon 26 Dillingham, Upper Nushagak Diesel + Tazimina 21 Dillingham, Upper Nushagak, Igiugig Diesel + Newhalen + King Salmon Hydro 28 Iliamna, Dillingham, Upper Nushagak, Igiugig Diesel + King Salmon Hydro 29 Iliamna, Dillingham, Upper Nushagak Diesel + Kukaklek Hydro 30 Kukaklek, Upper Nushagak, Diesel -Newhalen Local 31 King Salmon -Upper Nushagak Diesel -Newhalen Local 32 Dillingham Coal 33 Naknek Coal 3~ Dillingham Coal + Newhalen Hydro 35 Naknek Coal + Newhalen Hydro x 112 ZONES A + B, C + D, E x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X POWER SUPPLIES 113 ZONES A, B, C + D, E X X X X X X X X X I~ ZONES A + B, C, D, E X X X X X X 115 ZONES A + B, C + D + E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ,6 ZONES A + B + C + D, E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X '1 INTERCONNECTED X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TABLE 6.1-2 POTENTIAL POWER SUPPLY SYSTEMS POWER SUPPLIES 112 113 ,4 #l ZONES ZONES ZONES ALL A + B, A, B, A + B, NO. POWER SUPPLIES INDEPENDENT C + D, E C + D, E C, D, E 36 Di llingham + Naknek Coal 37 Dillingham + Naknek + Newhalen Hydro 38 Dillingham Coal + Tazimina 39 Dillingham Coal + King Salmon 40 Dillingham Coal + Kukaklek 41 Naknek Coal + Tazimina 42 Dillingham + Naknek Coal, Upper Nushagak Diesel, Newhalen Hydro X X 43 Dillingham Coal, Upper Nushagak Diesel, Tazimina 44 Dillingham Coal, Upper Nushagak Diesel, Ki ng Sa lmon , Newhalen X X 45 Dillingham Coal, Upper Nushagak Diesel, Igiugig Diesel, King Salmon, Newhalen X X X 46 Dillingham Coal, Upper Nushagak Diesel, Kukaklek, Newhalen X X 47 Chikuminuk + Newhalen 48 Newhalen 49 Diesel/Wind/Waste Heat/ORC/Local Tazimina X X X X '5 ZONES A + B, C + D + E C X X X X X X X X X X X '6 ZONES A + B + + D, E X X X X X X X X X X 17 INTERCONNECTED X X X X X X X X X X X X X X P------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,~ o ) ... J 10 ,( KOLlGAN~ .. .~. EGEGIK ~ 22 ~ PROMISING A SITES WITH MAJOR RESTRAINTS SCALE o 10 20 30 40 50 MILES POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC SITES BRISTOL BAY REGION FIGURE 6. 1-1 N • '" ~ - EtJVIRD~ME.tJTA.L ~O~6IDERATIO~~ ?OClQftOIJDMI{. -IIJ~TITLlTloIJA!. TEl~IJIGA.!. / EU61tJEERltJ6 ('DIJ"DERATION. rlElATIV~ ! .cOIJ~I"ERATIOiJ~ ElOrJOM.I'(, ~lTf DE.61l;IJATION PRDJI!.-'T T~M"'IO'" !.tt.lE06 r'rOJUT • TUIJ"M"'-!>IOIJ UIJK PROJECT I T~'M,"IOIJ LIIJ1i6 Ol/eRALL.. RE.M.,.,RK !. 'T1UIIIt-No. ~~ ~ Nl)l1UT _1.1 EVA.LLI"TIO~ 1"'--~~ ITO:=-V"UAL --.m..ot..a ... I'-~~ = ----s't..~:~ '~ I~-,~ ~t I=~ ~ ,,0,: ......., i -ACT ..... ITAT .. " I I :z ~ 4 6 ~ 7 8 ~ 10 II 12 " 14 16 '''' 17 1& 1"1 20 21 22 n u I eUIKllMllILlK -1t~IO"'AL A A A ~ A-,. {; G-et A C. A I!J " .. c; c; eo e e (, " :' ... 1& (; " ~"--J IA ,1l.KllNJIJ LlK -L.O('A!. I<. A A ,. A-& , ~ (.+ A &. A ,. ".. &. " 1& .. A (. e fI-e 8 ,. ~"'I~!frt.-... 2 t..ILlyAk,ul( -Jit£610NAl " A A 8 8+ ~ e-e. ,+ l' e. A ". " " " " .. " " G C. e. e. R .AfA~ FI1/UJfJS IMNC-J "NO _1'£1-1t5fnW.."..~ U !JLI"I"Aw( -!.D'Al & A A f'I &+ ~ e-e-e. .. & , A e I!J " (. " e /I>.. G e e-G-.. It ~Dl!ttfU/J,~s~ ~ ",,,..16 4AlN\OiJ -lte61DtJAL. " c; e. e. e. & & '" &-& & & 8 8e. EI " e • .. e c-e-c-c-ft ""-lOll fI~flUU ANb ~ ! KIAItO "AlMO/J -Lo,""!. C. A A e " e A '. ~_'fS_~_-I 9/1>.. & e. c;. c;. G &+ e. &. 15 B e, " " A 8 ., II. i 4 IC.O/J'rRMIII.lJiJA -ICE.&IONAL. A " e • 8-t:. C. t:. c;. G-c;. ~ " ", " C-• e e eo " e-c-It; '" ,:trOl'~'" ""~"SS MIM-I M __ ~_'_ I ~A. l(.oIJTU4111eLlIJA -L.o""'L. '" C. " 8 8 e. 8 8 e-&. e;. e e-8" " " • e " • .. .. 8 8 ,. I 1; UK! T~~IMI"A -1Il"'~ C. s & eo l!>-e.. t:. e;. t:. 8 8 8 8 S " " 1& " .. e I '" e-& t:. P 6.A UK!. TAZIMIIJA -LO'Al A-e .. i e A A I e 10.& 6 A A 8 ,. 8 e 8 e e eo A • e B A p I (, /oIEwllALEIJ -LOGAl e A I A , B ~ 6 A A 11.-8 A c.. A B+ /0, 8 • /0, l-/o, ,. ,,-B A P I 7 KLIKAII.!'&K. -RE610lJAl & " ! ,,+ G-~ &-G-e;. &-8 .8 8G-e " " , A 1& c-e-e. t:. N __ "'~r I " c.. .---.. ~ 7A KLlK.AK.l!1C. -L.D'AL • G-i " G-B II (, eo " A " • • e. , N _ WI/JlUn ,,.RI,G-r" I e. e. t:.+ .:;. G-G-e. 8 Be;. ... ~---e KUKAKL.&.~ -LOGAL.. G G-8 I e 8c. s A e 8+ G-G-• e 8&-1& e 1& " A Il A .+ e e ,. SA KlJIVJ\.~ -,""AL A-t:. & 8 e B A A I.-e.. " B e 8G-• • • A ,. • e I .+ -II A p ., UPNIJ K. L.AI<.£ -L.D'A-L (. A A 6 a+ ,. e;. e. G-+ A &-A 6 e+ I: , G • " " c-c-e. G R FISM~' lif'*' MIO.' ••• rnli ~-~ 10 ""K'U IK. LAK.E -!.Dt.AL. , III " B B-e e e .8 8 e;. A e. 15-(. " " " e " " , e;. 15 lit MDt 'WIiMIU IIfIIMr II 6ltANT LAKe. -Lot.A!. A B A A 10.-B e B e A G-A G-B , " A • • c-C-it-~ e N J.I1W ".,.... ~ 11 M'k(.ilA!.K. -eE"'IU.Y -~ , A A B s· B B B B A G-A &. & , & " • " c-c-I (. ~ ., R ".,.,., ~-~-... ,, __ UJMI/IIftIIrIIIaIf It LJTTLI To& IAk L.A.II& -I.DGAL & G-t:. c.. c;. • e 8 B B Go A G-B-(. (. A c. '" c; , ,-t:. JJ R _".116~-__ _~~IM. 14 LAKa ~L.V" -LoU.L , R ~ __ I&S I, A6L1I.DIIIAK ItIV'" -LoCAL. c; e A . ,A 8· III e • B 8 ,A .. t:. • (. 10. 10. A It c-e. It 5 ., " II4JIJI ,..-., ~ '" LJ.l(E. ~I(,,"IK.-UIoUL " 8 A e 8 A A A A " A t:. A & A 10. A It it I<. • A-A A R JIIUDIt __ /IfMCr 17 LAKE .alUIiAVAU6AI.LlK -LDUI. '" , (.. G-t:.. A 8 A A-G-A G-A B It A A 10. , A • ... B 8 R JIIUQ( ,.",.,., HIIfl.T' 1& altJ<M4A6/o,k "IIIU. -L.o('A!. e A ", A M e e 8 8 t:.. A .. " 8 (. (. , • I<. • A 8 G-G-N UIIIf __ ~ 11 IW"UAK IIVf.1l -RUaION.t.L (. 8 & I G-ee. t:. t:.. & t:.. c;. A .:;. B 8-• , A t-A '" , .. Go t:. R ~ ""...,-."."., 1 - iD kLlltuAK ICIvU -~U'oNAL (. e 8 t:. I!I/:. G-G-e. t:.. t:.. A Co. 8 e-e (. 10. , A ,. c-& c. G R ,...~_~WIIt:T 2,1 NA.JO,\LM. It"'e«. -LDGAL. , e.. B B J£. A A .A A " .:;. G-A Be. A '" A 1& • 10. 10. 10.-A A R ,.. fill ... /IWII:r 12 ~IlA"~F LAKE -loU!. " 8 A It It G-& 8 e-&. &. • ~ ee. e A '" • " • • .. A • R MU'Il ""lIBUa, IIUN!r " ntuJ LAI<£' -!.O'AL. , Co B & I" G-a a a-& e;. A t:.. 8-, l-I<. f) " (. (. J-t:. G-Il. ....-,..,...---...... rs ... ~ ~" 1(0".1.\11"'" 1t.IIU" LDU.L. A e e " (J+ 8 e & e e A A G 8+ " c-/o, • A " l-.-c.. G-N UIIf _______ t~ .... ~" .. &I .... UICe. -~IOIJAL .. 8 It e .. " .. e ~ & G A G-e-(, (. A , , " " , .. t:.. t:.. It ----...-.., __ UIUf'IIIN ,{, (.1IL1!.ITIIA It...,.,,, -1CU1OWAL. It G-G-c;. c;.. e 1& IJ It c;. A e • • , , (. & • (. , , t:. c:. R ----~-•.. ".-..... ,..,..,..,...." 1;1 4u..wr LAt<& -LoUoL A e It • •• G-• It .~ A A " A A-I. , (. (, A e , e-t:-t:-N ~~ ,. IAUIIOv/ t.AIC& -LoU.L (. A 15 B It t:.. e • it-a A A " AS {, e A e c-(. (. e-c:. t:. R =:::'r'Jm;T.:: «1 MlCJiollAk «NU. -l.DC.AL A A e 15 ... c:. 15 • s-A A A e A-c. • '" A (, • e e • Co. N UJtI __ """'-"""'~ fO 61.,,/IoI.1e-. LAKe -U)UL. e-li II ., 15-&. " e -.. • A A A A-• (. " It & • .. B-• .. It ...... ,.",..,~- UlW""""~ .1 Al..A&NI-K 1C1V'E1f -&..DC.AL. (. &. G-t:. G-&. & IJ 11-& G-IJ &. G+ e , • B .. (. & &+ c:. IJ It ~1WIIIItI6S""'" _ ~ "'_. _II; .tIIIoM t2. AA\U,,"'" ,Q&K-CUIGNiL (. c;. c:. c:. c:. c; It; c:: t:. • t:. A c; .-" e " .. B C e it-t:.. t:.. R ---~ ........ .. ''',.,.,AI'' &.AKa. -Lo4AL " A • It , IJ " a • • c:. • c; fk;. , , /0, .. (. It e It t:. e " _~ 1oIIUM .. 1IIlU .~ UI<£ 61tD6" ..... -LoU.I. (. 15 e a fJ-IJ " e IS e c:. • & 8G-• • '" A e • it JH 8 • It ...... ........, ... .. 4A~.uJ".1C1 !WeR -&.o'''L. • G-G-t:. c;+ &. • IS e-e c.. A c; IS-e • A e (, c. c. e-li c;. R ..... L ... __ ~ ,. LAKe .~1C4 -LDUL (. ~ A '" e II " e • • c;. t:.. c;. t:-'" .. • " I<. c; • • • t:.. • R i'M.IM ~ IIiIIN:r -~AlIIIIrR ~ i ". ~WJ4A1.£N -.IUICNL A & A 15 All , G-t:. t:. G-A c. A • A e;. B 15 A A Co. s· " Co p EY4 bU ATI PH bE4liND OVERALL.. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF AL TERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC SITES e.!ilvl~""t6~4L. 6I!I12 iQ,lOl"oNbM."-lIIiIl1.!!r.!l2.!ll&... P • """"$,"'r. A -4rA\A.u. IM"A'i N • NtYr _II'N':' BR.STOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN • -_'1& ' .. MeT IWT ML.'~\I"" AUU'TAeLE IIITII MITI6ATIOIJ lli .... ~ .. _ R • REJECTfP ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY , . _lit. PAI'&I.T _~y .... LlL'TIW6 IU 'I'ATAL I' ..... w~ :tUY!oI"&L. /. 11;1!IC.I!oIE.~!.IIJ" -StoDe • Web8ter EDcIDeedDa CorponUOD ". ~lIolO/t ,. .. VOIUoel.& """.~TEllIt.TI'" AlJD loTTe'.LIT ...... J.O.14OO7.04 Denver, Colorado •• ,.,.,,1iA1I. "'I.,," "'~f , • ~1i'1I1.1T. &IWIA&TI!""T"~ AlJp A'T1'Ir •• m~ WII.,,, AIlI! ~ D&., .... L~. 1·18-82 ~"Q!.I~~I'~ "'''&oCD ~ ... ""'L~ .... LE e· .. _~ I -FIGURE 6.1 2 } ",J r / SCALE o 10 20 30 40 50 MILES BRISTOL BA Y REGION COMMUNITY GROUPING FIGURE 6.1-3---' 6.2 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ENERGY SCENARIOS 6.2.1 Introduction The major components and concepts considered for the selected energy scenarios are discussed below. This section addresses scenarios in the Base Plan, Alternative "A", and Alternative "B". For each of the hydroelectric power projects that will be subsequently referenced, it is assumed that these site-specific power developments would be fully constructed from the onset as required to meet the energy needs forecast for the year 2002. This was done in order to better assess the economic, technical, and environmental implications that could result. Staged construction for a selected scenario will be considered in later phases of the overall study if such construction shows merit. The figures referenced throughout this section have a layout showing the letter "p" encircled. This symbol, when used by itself, designates the location of a diesel power source. When used in combination with the "triangle" or "square" symbol, it gives both the location and the type of power source, depending on the symbol designation used. 6.2.2 Base Plan, BP-1 Diesel Generation Only There is only one scenario for the Base Plan. This has been categorized as scenario BP-1, and is shown on Figure 6.2-1. The base plan scenario considers the continuation of diesel power generation in the individual communities. Generation at the communities is assumed to be by a central diesel system that is operational from the beginning of the study period (1982) . The only transmission lines are the existing lines or the lines that are now under construction. These transmission line interties are between: Dillingham and Aleknagik; Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon; and Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton. 6-19 ... In this scenario, each village has the diesel generating capacity to meet .. its own peak demand and energy needs. The scenario also considers a 100 percent backup of peak capacity. Additional diesel capacity as required on the basis of load and energy demand forecast is to be installed starting in 1982 (if required) and then at five-year intervals. Credit is taken for existing diesel capacity, provided this relates to an electric company, REA, co-op, or native school district. in the decision for additional capacity. Private generation is not included ., • lit: -.. • This scenario takes into consideration development of electrical energy .., only by use of diesel generators, as previously described. No credit is '. given to benefits resulting from existing waste heat recovery or from other secondary energy supplemental systems. 6.2.3 Alternative "A" The development of the Tazimina River as a regional energy source is the only scenario considered under this alternative. The investigation of this concept was required by the study scope. The scenario is defined as scenario A-l. The electric generating project is to be developed to meet the regional energy needs through the year 2002. The scenario, shown by Figure 6.2-2, would require the installation of 16 MW of generating capacity with a storage reservoir to regulate the flow of the Tazimina river. The storage reservoir would require the construction of a dam on the Tazimina River; this dam would raise the present lake level by some 35 ft, and would result in the total regulation of natural lake flows. Releases from the dam would be regulated as needed for power generation and downstream flow requirements. Some flow would, on the average, be by-passed through the ungated spillway. The released and spilled flow would be carried by the river to a secondary low level forebay dam. This dam would only serve to pond the flow as needed for the power intake. Excess flow would be by-passed down the falls. A buried steel penstock water conveyance system would connect the forebay dam pond and the powerhouse, located downstream. The powerhouse will contain two turbine-generator units, each having a generating capacity of 8,000 kW. 6-20 • .. ., .. • • • .. .. .. • .. -., ... .. - • .. • .' The project starting from the powerhouse is located within and upstream of the Tazimina River rocky gorge (Appendix A.2). 6.2.4 Alternative "BII 6.2.4.1 Introduction Alternative "BI! scenarios consider several other energy sources, projects, facilities, alone or in combination, including diesel energy and the Tazimina River hydoelectric project developed to a lesser than regional basis. There is a total of 19 basic energy development scenarios that have been considered under this category. Some of these also have sub-scenarios which relate to different energy forms or combinations of energy mixes. The basic scenarios involve the following energy generating resources: • Diesel electric • Coal-fired steam electric generation • Oil-fired combined cycle • Coal gasification (combined cycle) • Hydroelectric • Organic Rankine cycle • Wind • Energy conservation • Waste heat recovery The above resources were selected for consideration following a screening of some 25 technologies (Appendix B). Three scenarios (B-4, B-6, and B-7) were not completely evaluated because they included a hydroelectric development on the King Salmon River. After preliminary consideration, such a development was determined to be environmentally unacceptable. In addition, one of the scenarios studied investigates the concept of providing electrical energy to the study region from a source outside the region. 6-21 6.2.4.2 Scenario B-1 This scenario considers the introduction of a main transmission line from an electric generating source outside the study region. The source is considered to be the gas turbine generating electric power plant located near Beluga. The plant is being operated by the Chugach Electric Association, Inc. The concept considers the development of a 138 kV, three-phase transmission line from Beluga to the Iliamna area. The line would follow a seacoast route from Beluga to the North Fork of Big River, then over to Lake Clark pass, following the south side of the pass and Lake Clark. At some point near the Nondalton-Iliamna area (Figure 6.2-3), the line would enter a substation and voltage would be reduced to 115 kV. From this point, the transmission line grid would follow suggested corridors for supplying power to all of the communities in the study region (Appendix A.7). Sufficient energy and capacity would be wheeled across the transmission .. • • - • - • ., .. • .. • .. line to meet the energy forecast needs of the study region. • 6.2.4.3 Scenario B-2 This scenario considers the development of two hydroelectric power projects which in combination would meet the forecasted energy needs of the study region for the year 2002. The scenario is shown on Figure 6.2-4. The two power projects are: a. A small, two-unit power plant having a total installed capacity of 1,200 kW. The project is on the Newhalen River between river mile 2 and 5, near the community of Newhalen. This installation would be a diversion concept and would not require a dam across the Newhalen River. A small amount of water would be taken from the river at a point between river mile 4 and 5. This water would be conveyed through an open channel and a 12-ft unlined tunnel to the turbine-generating units. The units are housed in a powerhouse located on the right bank of the river near river mile 2 (Appendix A.2). Power generated from 6-22 • • • • .. • .. .. -.. - • .. .. ... ..... b. this project would only supply the communities of Newhalen, Iliamna, and Nondalton. A large, two-unit installed capacity overflow-type gated hydroelectric power installation having a total of 16,000 kW. This installation would have an structure at the outlet of Kukaklek Lake. This structure would regulate the lake discharge only as needed to re-adjust inflow storage for use in power generation. Some of the regulated flow would then be diverted from Kukaklek Lake to the generating plant at Iliamna Lake. The water conveyance system would consist of an open channel and a buried steel penstock (Appendix A.2). Power generated would be taken through a transmission line system to the remaining communities of the study region. 6.2.4.4 Scenario B-3 This scenario considers the development of three hydroelectric power projects, as shown on Figure 6.2-5. The three projects considered relate to sub-regional energy development plans for meeting the electrical energy needs of the lakes region, the Kvichak River region, and the Nushagak River region. Each of the projects have been assigned from the onset to meet the power needs of these sub-regions as forecast for the year 2002. The projects are: a. The small, 1,200 kW, two-unit hydroelectric plant at Newhalen River as described under Scenario B-2. b. A medium-sized, two-unit hydroelectric power project of 7,000 kW installed capacity. This project would divert some flow from a partially regulated Kukaklek Lake. This flow would be conveyed through an open channel and a buried penstock to the turbine units. The units are housed in a power plant which is located on the southeastern shore of an unnamed lake. This unnamed lake is about two miles northwest of Kukaklek Lake (Appendix A.2). Power generated would be taken through a transmission line system to the communities found along the Kvichak River, including Naknek, South Naknek, King Salmon, and Egegik . 6-23 c. A medium-sized, two-unit hydroelectric power project of 8,000 kW installed capacity. This project would be located near the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake. The concept would require the damming of Allen River with a dam high enough to raise the present lake level by about 4 ft. A low-level intake would take water from the lake and would convey it through a concrete-lined tunnel to the two turbine units. The units are housed in the power plant which is downstream of the dam (Appendix A.2). Power generated would be taken through a transmission line system to the communities along the Nushagak River and to Clarks Point, Ekuk, Manokotak, and Aleknagik. 6.2.4.5 Scenario B-4 This scenario, shown on Figure 6.2-6, was not evaluated. It has been retained only for continuity as it pertains to previously issued preliminary data. 6.2.4.6 Scenario B-5 This scenario considers the development of three hydroelectric power projects, as shown on Figure 6.2-7. The three projects considered relate to sub-regional energy development plans for meeting the electrical energy needs of the lakes region, the Kvichak River region, and the Nushagak River region. Each of the proj ects has been designed from the onset to meet the power needs of these sub-regions as forecast for the year 2002. The projects are: a. The medium-sized, 7,000 kW hydroelectric power project relating to the Kukaklek Lake flow diversion scheme as described for Scenario B-3. b. The medium-sized, 8,000 kW hydroelectric power project relating to the Chikuminuk Lake development as described for Scenario B-3. 6-24 .. • .. .. .. .. • • .. II' .. • IIiIIt • .. ., .. -., -... - • ---- c. A small run-of-river, two-unit, development on the Tazimina River. 1,200 kW hydroelectric power This development would generate the power demand forecast for only the communities of Newhalen, Iliamna, and Nondalton. This local project would have its powerhouse downstream of the falls and its penstock intake upstream of the falls. The intake would be placed directly in the shore line of the Tazimina River. Water would be taken directly from the river by a steel penstock system to the generating units at the power plant (Appendix A.2). 6.2.4.7 Scenario B-6 This scenario, shown on Figure 6.2-B, was not evaluated. It has been retained only for continuity as it relates to previously issued preliminary data. 6.2.4.B Scenario B-7 This scenario, shown on Figure 6.2-9, was not evaluated. It has been retained only for continuity as it relates to previously issued preliminary data. 6.2.4.9 Scenario B-B This scenario considers the development of two medium-sized hydroelectric power projects, as shown on Figure 6.2-10. The two projects each involve a semi-regional energy development. One project would meet the needs of the lake communities and the communities along the Kvichak River. The other project would respond to the electricity needs for the communities in the Nushagak River system. The plants relate to the power needs forecast for the year 2002 in their respective service areas. The projects are: a. The medium-sized, B, 000 kW hydroelectric power proj ect involving the Chikuminuk Lake development as described for Scenario B-3. 6-25 ,." b. The medium-sized, 8,000 kW hydroelectric power project relating to a .. regulating reservoir on the Tazimina River. Partial regulation of Tazimina River flows would be required to achieve the capacity and energy needed by this medium-sized plant. A regulating dam would be constructed. The dam would raise the Tazimina Lake by approximately 5 ft. Controlled releases from this regulating dam would be taken down the river and be ponded by a forebay dam. This dam would only serve for submergence of the power intake. Excess flow would be passed by the main spillway at the regulating dam and downstream, over the overflow forebay dam. A buried penstock water conveyance system would connect the forebay dam pond and the powerhouse, located downstream. The project is located within and upstream of the Tazimina River gorge (Appendix A. 2) . 6.2.4.10 Scenarios B-9 and B-I0 These scenarios consider regional electric energy generation by use of a single fossil-fired power plant. Scenario B-9 assumes the power plant is located in the Dillingham area, while Scenario B-I0 assumes the plant in the Naknek area. The plant would be designed to have 16,000 kW of installed capacity and could generate the energy needs of the region up to year 2002. Figure 6.2-11 shows the suggested concept. There are three types of energy generation that have been considered for these scenarios. These types are: a. Scenario B-9A would use a 16,000 kW installed capacity coal-fired steam generating power plant. .. .... a . .. .. • ., • • II' • .. .. .. .. -b. Scenario B-9B would use a 16,000 kW installed capacity fuel oil-fired .' combined cycle power plant. c. Scenario B-9C would use a coal gasification and combined cycle process for generating 16,000 kW of power. 6-26 •• • - • .. • For the coal-fired plants, all coal storage and coal handling facilities, including ash handling facilities and treatment processes, would be provided as part of the generating system. The coal is available from three sources; . Usibelli Mine near Healy, Alaska; B.C. International in British Columbia; or Essel Resources in British Columbia (Appendix A. 8). Similarily, oil storage facilities would be made available for the oil-fired plant. Wharfs and docks would also need to be made available for handling fuel supplies. A system of main transmission lines and feeder lines would be provided from the generating plant to the communities in the study region. 6.2.4.11 Scenarios B-1l and B-12 These scenarios consider a single, large, coal-fired steam electric energy generating plant at either Dillingham (B-ll) or Naknek (B-12), and in addition, a small hydroelectric power plant at the Newhalen River. The suggested concept is shown by Figure 6.2-12. These two plants are: a. A coal-fired steam electric power plant of about 16,000 kW installed capacity similar to that described for Scenario B-9A. This installation would also include a coal handling system, a wharf/dock, and ash handling/processing facilities. A system of main transmission and feeder lines would serve the study region communities, except for the communities in the lakes region. b. The small 1,200 kW hydroelectric power plant at the Newha1en River as described under Scenario B-2 to serve the lakes region. 6.2.4.12 Scenarios B-13A and B-13B These scenarios consider a large hydroelectric power plant which in combination with one of two small hydroelectric power plants would provide the power needs of the study region communities. These scenarios are shown on Figure 6.2-13. 6-27 The large hydroelectric plant, which is a two-unit installation having a total installed capacity of 16,000 kW, would be located near the outlet of Ghikuminuk Lake. The concept would require the damming of Allen River to a height that would raise the present lake level by about 21 ft. A low-level intake would take water from the lake and would convey it through a concrete-lined tunnel to the two turbine units. The units are housed in the power plant which is downstream of the dam (Appendix A. 2) . Power generated would be taken through a transmission line system to the communities. The Ghikuminuk Lake development would be combined with a small hydro development on either the Newhalen or Tazimina River as described in Scenarios B-13A and B-13B below. A transmission line system would be provided to bring power from the plant to the communities being served. Scenario B-13A In addition to the large hydroelectric power plant, described above, this scenario would have the small 1,200 kW run-of-river Tazimina River hydroelectric power plant. This suggested plant concept was described under Scenario B-S. This small installation would respond to the electrical energy needs of the lake communities of Newhalen-Iliamna- Nondalton. Scenario B-13B In addition to the large hydroelectric power plant described above, this scenario would have the small 1,200 kW run-of-river Newha1en River hydroelectric power plant as described under Scenario B-2. 6.2.4.13 Scenarios B-14A and B-14B These scenarios consider a large, two-unit hydroelectric power project which has a total installed capacity of 16,000 kW; the project would be 6-28 • ., III,' .. .. III, .. .. • .. • .. .. • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... regional and supply the energy needs of all the communities in the study area. These scenarios are shown on Figure 6.2-14. The power project is located on the Newhalen River. Power generated from the plant would be taken through a transmission line system to the communities in the study area. These scenarios consider the development of two possible concepts. These concepts are as described in the following paragraphs. Both of these concepts would utilize a large hydroelectric power plant, having a two-unit installation with a total capacity of 16,000 kW. The power plant would be located on the left bank of the Newhalen River, in that river section which is about 1,500 ft. wide. Both concepts would also utilize a canal to divert Newhalen River water from a point above river mile 7 to either the powerhouse or to the Newhalen River at a point downstream of river mile 2. Neither concept would require construction of a dam on the river. The concepts would differ with respect to size of the diversion canal as described below. Scenario B-14A In addition to the general features described above, this scenario would have its flow diversion canal designed to accommodate only those flows required for power generation. This would limit the canal flow capacity to about 2,100 cfs which is the maximum flow needed to generate 16 MW. Scenario B-14B This scenario, in addition to the general features described above, would have a flow diversion canal that would serve two functions: the first would be to divert water around that section of the Newhalen River which has several severe rapids, from about river mile 7 to river mile 2. Diversion of river flows would be done as needed, during high flow periods, to improve the flow conditions within the natural channel for upstream migrant fish. The second purpose of the canal is to act as and be connected to the water conveyance system of the suggested power plant. 6-29 6.2.4.14 Scenario B-15 This is a diesel scenario with four load control centers and transmission feeders to the surrounding villages. Load centers have a 100 percent reserve. Each village connected to a load center has 100 percent reserve generation to meet the peak demand if isolated from the load center. The scenario is shown by Figure 6.2-15. The Dillingham load center feeds Aleknagik, Manokotak, Clarks Point, Ekuk, and Portage Creek. One feeder goes to a substation located between Dillingham and Aleknagik. The substation feeds Aleknagik and Manokotak. The second feeder goes east to Portage Creek, then west to Clarks Point and Ekuk. The second load center is in New Stuyahok with feeders to Ekwok and Koliganek. The third load center is in Naknek with feeder lines to Egegik, South Naknek, and King Salmon, and a substation to the northeast that feeds Levelock and Igiugig. The fourth load center is Newhalen with a feeder to Iliamna and Nondalton. Waste heat recovery is used in the load center, but not in the village with reserve generation. Wind generation is considered with the Naknek load center; this system would not be completed until 1986. Variations employing waste heat recovery, wind generation, and organic Rankine cycle are investigated but are not sub-divided as in the base case. The best combination is ranked near the bottom when compared to the other options, therefore, no further division is made. While the new system is being installed, the reserve generation in some of the villages will not be 100 percent. However, the villages will be able to meet the peak demand and have some reserve. The percent of reserve above the peak demand for each village is shown in Table A.3-4 of Appendix A. 6-30 • ... .... • • -• .. • • • .. • .. • • ., .. 6.2.4.15 Scenario B-16 This diesel scenario is very similar to the B-15 scenario with the exception of a transmission line connecting the Dillingham and Naknek load centers. This transmission line provides more reliability; therefore, a reduction is made in the reserve generation to 50 percent in these two load centers. This scenario is shown by Figure 6.2-16. Variations employing waste heat recovery, wind generation, and organic Rankine cycle have been investigated but were not sub-divided as was the base case. The best combination is ranked near the bottom when compared to the other options; therefore, no further division is made. While the new system is being installed, the reserve generation in some of the villages will not be 100 percent. However, the villages will be able to meet the peak demand and have some reserve. The percent of reserve above the peak demand for each village is shown in Table A.3-6 of Appendix A. Waste heat recovery and wind generation are considered in this scenario. Waste heat is considered only in the load center. A wind penetration of 20 percent is considered for the peak demand of the system connected to the Naknek station. 6.2.4.16 Scenario B-17 In the B-17 scenario, all villages are intertied with transmission lines and diesel generation. The load centers are in Dillingham and Naknek. The load centers each have a 50 percent reserve. All other villages have 100 percent reserve generation to meet their own peak demand. All normal generation is done in the load centers. The generators in the villages are operated only during emergencies and tests. 6-31 There are three main substations. The first is between Dillingham and Aleknagik. The substation is fed from Dillingham and feeds Aleknagik and Manokotak. The second substation is on the north side of the Nushagak River opposite Portage Creek. This substation has one line that goes south to Portage Creek, then west to Clarks Point and Ekuk. The second line goes north to Ekwok, New Stuyahok, and Koliganek. The third substation is fed from Naknek and is located between Levelock and Igiugig. One line from the substation feeds Levelock and one feeds Igiugig. A third line goes north from the substation to feed Newhalen, Iliamna, and Nondalton. King Salmon, South Naknek, and Egegik are fed from the Naknek load center. Figure 6.2-17 shows scenario B-17. Variations employing waste heat recovery, wind generation and organic Rankine cycle are investigated but are not sub-divided as in the base case. The best combination is ranked near the bottom when compared to the other options; therefore, no further division is made. Waste heat is considered only in the load centers. A wind generation penetration of 20 percent is considered for the entire peak demand. It is estimated this system could be installed by 1986. Therefore, until then, some villages may not have 100 percent reserve. 6.2.4.17 Scenario B-18 This scenario considers two hydroelectric power projects to form two separate sub-scenarios, B-18A and B-18B. The end capability of these projects, either singularly or in the combination considered, would be to serve the communities on a regional basis. The scenario is shown on Figure 6.2-18. The energy plans which comprise alternative B-18 are 1) a scenario using a 16 MW run-ot-river hydroelectric project on the Tazimina River in conunction with a 16 MW project at Kontrashibuna Lake, labeled alternative B-18A; and 2) the 16 MW project at Kontrashibuna Lake with adequate storage capacity to meet the entire regional energy demand as alternative B-18B. 6-32 .. III, .. .. • • .. • ., • .. • ., - • .. Ilk ." Alternative B-18A utilizes the Tazimina run-of-river project according to the availability of river flows for generation. The 16 MW installation would normally meet the year 2002 regional energy needs for the months of May through October. During the remainder of the year, the river flows are not sufficient to meet the entire generating demand, and the Kontrashibuna project would be operated to provide the regional energy needs. The Kontrashibuna storage reservoir would provide the quantity of water necessary to generate the required power during the months November through April. The Tazimina run-of-river installation would be essentially the same as the Kontrashibuna 16 MW regional hydroelectric project except that the storage reservoir is not provided. be developed in the same The powerhouse, penstock, and forebay dam would manner as for the regional project and is described in detail in Appendix A.2. The Kontrashibuna proj ect consists of a 90 ft high darn located at the outlet of Kontrashibuna Lake with a 13 ft diameter power tunnel constructed to divert water to the powerhouse at Lake Clark. The Kontrashibuna project is described in detail in Appendix A.2. The Kontrashibuna storage reservoir capacity required to supplement the Tazimina run-of-river project for November through April is essentially the same as would be required to provide the entire annual energy demand of the region from the Kontrashibuna project alone. This occurs because the storage reservoir is necessary only to provide for generation in the low flow months. The situation of developing the Kontrashibuna project to be capable of meeting the entire regional demand while also developing the Tazimina run-of-river project is less desirable than developing Kontrashibuna by itself for regional needs. Thus, alternative B-18B is defined as the development of the Kontrashibuna project to meet the entire regional energy demand in the year 2002. Power from either or both projects would be distributed to all the study communities through a transmission line grid. 6-33 The study on these two projects, the run-of-river Tazimina and the regulatory Kontrashibuna, shows that the storage needs at Kontrashibuna for meeting fall-winter-spring loads totally dictate the size of the proj ect, and, in fact, result in a project which has the year-round capabilities of meeting the total regional electrical energy demands. As such, the 16,000 kW Tazimina run-of-river plant is not required for regional loads. 6.2.4.18 Scenarios B-19A, B-19B, B-19C, B-19D, and B-19E These are subregional scenarios which utilize the Base Plan (BP-l) concept of localized diesel generation, but differ as they employ waste heat recovery, wind, organic Rankine cycle and/or hydroelectric combinations. There is no need for long transmission lines. B-19A Diesel Generation plus Waste Heat Recovery This variation considers the benefits which may be derived by the installation of waste heat recovery systems. Such benefits are converted to cost credits on the basis of "equivalent" energy replacement needs. These credits are used to reduce the present worth cost of the scenario. The treatment of waste heat and recoverable benefits are given in greater detail in Appendix A.4 and Chapter 7 of the report. B-19B Diesel Generation Supplemented with Wind Energy Generation This variation introduces the supplementing of diesel electricity by wind generated electricity. The methodology and approach for introducing wind .. ' .. .. ... • .. .. .. • .. • .. • are discussed in greater detail in Appendix A. 6. Economic evaluations and _ present worth costs relating to wind supplements are given in Chapter 7 of the report. B-19C Diesel Generation plus Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Generation This variation combines the utilization of waste heat recovery (B-19A) and supplemental electrical generation by wind (B-19B) with the diesel generating concepts considered under the BP-l scenario. Discussions on 6-34 .. • .. -.' .. - ., methodology, approach, and economic evaluations are given in previous ly referenced sections of the report. B-19D For Dillingham and Naknek Groups Only; Diesel Generation Supplemented with Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Cogeneration This variation was selected and developed as a test case. The test was to determine whether it is more beneficial to use waste heat from electric diesel generation as a space heating equivalent cost fuel or for cogeneration of electrical energy. Dillingham and Naknek were selected since these areas offered the benefits of economy of scale due to their large electrical energy load and generation of waste heat. The ORC cogeneration review would have been extended to the smaller villages had the test results shown economic benefits in comparison to waste heat recovery. B-19E Diesel Generation plus Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Generation, and the Local Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project This predominatly diesel generation scenario looks at the selective utilization of the least present worth energy cost concept on a village by village or group of villages approach. Consideration is given to: (1) pure diesel; (2) addition of waste heat recovery, if suitable and beneficial; (3) addition of wind supplemental energy, if suitable and beneficial; and (4) substitution of diesel generation by hydroelectric power. Under this scenario variation, the villages of Newhalen, Iliamna, and Nondalton would be furnished electricity from a small run-of-river hydroelectric project on the Tazimina River. The remaining fifteen villages would be provided with electricity by diesel generation. Where applicable and appropriate, this energy would be supplemented by wind generated electricity or by diesel waste heat recovery to supplement village space heating energy needs. 6-35 6.2.5 Miscellaneous Scenario Studies During the course of the study, some miscellaneous scenarios were briefly investigated. The intent of these evaluations was to identify preferred power supply options for specific Bristol Bay areas. These miscellaneous scenarios are briefly described below. 6.2.5.1 Alternative B, Scenario B-14 An investigation was made for this scenario to determine whether it would be economical to install wind generation or waste heat recovery during the years 1982 through 1987-1988, before the hydroelectric power plant would be on line. The results of this brief study are summarized in the report Section 7.4.5. 6.2.5.2 Alternative B, Scenario B-15 A brief study was made to compare the economics hydroelectric power project (the Chikuminuk Lake serving the Nushagak River communities versus generating system for the same villages. of providing a single 8,000 kW plant) for a diesel electrical 6.2.5.3 Local Newha1en versus Local Tazimina versus Newhalen Diesel This exercise was made to compare the economics of the 1,200 kW Newhalen River or Tazimina River hydroelectric power projects against the diesel fuel central generation station at Newhalen. 6.2.5.4 Conservation Conservation is believed to be a viable and economically effective means of reducing electrical energy needs of appliance end use (Appendix A.5). 6-36 ... .. • .. • .. .. -.. - • .. .. .. .. The mode of addressing conservation and its effect on energy needs can only be determined through a detailed energy audit of the present household stock, a task that is beyond the scope of this study. The effective implementation of conservation in the present situation and for the future, however, is totally dependent on an individual's desire and willingness to participate in a conservation program and to support financial commitments which must be made. Mandatory conservation programs have been put into effect in several states. It would appear, however, that regional conservation measures currently being applied to electrical energy may have reached their ultimate peak. It was overheard during the village meetings that "more conservation of electricity would mean closing off the kitchen light. " 6-37 M·",a', .. " .... ,'. ill "7 LEGEND TRANSMISSION LINES. MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC P()V..IER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUB-STATION ® • • • ~ . . :;. ' -. . ' '--~, " , BASE PLAN SCENARIO BP-1 n " .. ? ~ lui n - -r U ~- f! it. ,. U " ~ i.- f" ... ... _11 ~ - • ~ ~ ~ i.;; 1J"II,a'"" II .. J( .,'. lot"" . "';;'~;"''';1~~~~~~'T---~--- - - - LEGEND 'R.ANSMISSION LINES: MAIN LINE ,FEEDER LINE -------- ® POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SU8-STATION • • • ~''' .. ~ , -~ \. ' ., , ALTERNATIVE "A" SCENARIO A-1 ~ FIGURE 6.2-2 " " " .. " 'di " Ii " Ij II"V, ••• GA.". wi',," LEGEND LINES: TRANSMISSION MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUB-STATION ® • • • -:"1-'· NEW STU'VAH'OK41>:1 '-1 I I c I, ' --~--: --~~i ", , ,I '--;, •• 'r ';'''''~~i 1 ! I' tJ ,,teo' "' ~-;,-" ," ',,-- •. "f I I I I ,'c_ 1, ---I t-- ., , ~':', ,.!.. ~--.... .' ',' ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-1 ~ FIGURE 6.2-3-.... " " ,.. ... r- r .. LEGEND LINES: .~. 1 L_---...,.....,.' ; - -"~j TRANSMISSION MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -----~-- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUB-STATION ® • • • r····· -I ... +-- ! ',,.' t 1~ .. , r I I I -I , I 'I' .J _ J 1-, . f--t I"" \. I .>." .L • ..:,"'. ! "., • I . -';'-. ~ ~ .. . ~; .. , -. . . -~'. - , . , ··r r· .. · ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO B-2 & FIGURE 6.2-4 " " " " lb. " f ' ,~"~ ,~ -j ~ te·· LEGEND TRANSMISSION LINES: MAIN LINE N·II,.· ... ~A •• FEEDER LINE --------- POWER SOURCE PLANT PLANT HYDROELECTRIC POWER FOSSIL FUEL POWER SUB-STATION ® .& • • , .. .f~ I'····· . i' ,~ . , . , -r I-- I ,! "r : '-t-LT-:LFT"t~T ..1··· f· ALTERNATIVE "B" SCENARIO B-3 A FIGURE 6.2-5-...... ''" , r • .. C..,-T l'" :' -i ~,I ,:i I T, I ot \ '_ of r 1 _ o '[ ~. I --\ LEGEND TRANSMISSION LINES: MAIN LINE ,.' 11'11 .• 111<11' ... ,. FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PU~NT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUB-STATIOO ® • • • ~--t \ ~ f-r .... ' r··· .. "r' •• >f' , '-'7".~ ,~ ;- . '1 '" "'j, .... , ~ ..... -" i ' ---;.~-'--I -1--·- .~.a.y~. ,. I ' ~£'{ "1-; ... , .. ' --------------------------------------------------~~~--~~ o ~;::;r ;$'/ .. \ , '1 .+ \ ~. (: Of ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-4 A FIGURE 6.2-6-....... " " ,.. r • ,. ~~'"r L' .t "" _i' ,,) , -?' LEGEND ~v1ISSI0N LINES: , I J i INE .....- ~~ICF'ORTA<lE CREEK ,I Itf--< LINE -------- iI" '.oURCE f l [ C TRIC POWER PLANT ~ lH L PUWER PLANT i .\ r I()N ® • • • t, ,-.1 i,. I ,,> ' -k-rv"LT j I' / , -.... > j,,.I'· , I .,. (" -"",:",: ....... , . --: --.-. i. 't. '-a9~ " , 1 <I f.,. • /1;1 r ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-5 ~ FIGURE 6.2-7 " " " " ~. •••• > .. { -1 t'~'" . ~.I -; " , ~ --", \ "i i - ,,-< ~ \ \ ]I-U,.' ill .. Q J. •• -• .111'''1' LEGEND r'-":,!-\NSMISSION LINES: ~v1AIN LINE ''::-EEDER LINE -------- ;\NER SOURCE i'(~)ROELECTRIC POWER PLANT , '~;SiL FUEL POWER PLANT )~j2-~)TATION ® A • • 1-. ~ .~ . -J t , .'.<~. ,--, . '.~. I , . ~-T .: • I i· 1 \ " , I I J. ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-6 A FIGURE 6.2 -8 , , j , ., j • • LEGEND TRANSMISSION LINES: MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SU8-STATION ® .& • • , , , ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-7 ~ FIGURE 6.2-9-----' " , , ''II ,lI ,.j .j ut LEGEND TRANSMISSION LINES: MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUB-STATION ® .A • • , , I I , . .-,., i 1 -, . ! -' i. 1 :~ i ,'.' -f I - I I t --------------------~~~~_,o " , ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-8 LA FIGURE 6.2-10----- o "" CO ,- o al oj "I •• j I I -r. , 0' o , T \ I, _ , \ --; ~ :.-i \ '\ \' LEGEND TRANSMISSION LINES: MAIN LINE '\ l -1--.F- FEEDfR LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUE~ ?OWER PLANT SUB-STATION ® A • • -_--'ir;P('1 r '1' ;~ r )1 -;~ i' " r "'T;r""' -,,~'. ~ , , '. / / / / / .J,., I ,~. ;---1- I ) \' I ~ -",;-j--• r'"" ~ ; •• J': ~ '~~.,:. ' iol." ~"_ ~ '.-, ;' ~-. ..... -(~-,. '\_,~~..,. --, , \ ,f (;; r h .J ; 1-.1 \ 1 ~ , , ___ """_", _ I , ___ ' '".~';:f)~ ,4" '":.1 · i i I • I • -1-' .,' •. "01~. .< -,\-.",~-~~"- '~.:;::;:';Tn ~! ' i$~ [ ... , .. ALTERNATIVE "8" SCE~ARIO 8-9, 8-10 ~----------............ ~~~---~---..a...----FIGURE 6.2-11 " U n b LEGEND TRANSMISSION LINES: MAIN LINE __ ~ --;:....... • ..L '-, I· ·+;·l~~ L-' , , , ,', . -:,,-.. FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUB-STATION ® .& • • .r;. , I I -'~ '". PI,. ./ ./ ---:( ., 1/ Y , /1'" I 1-........ -•• ,. l',~~{ :~'" . / /"\ ., , ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-11 8-12 FIGURE 6.2-12 41 , , , • .I • , .~ , _ 1 •. , i· , --.'0 j/ (J ....... ill ... " • 1OI''r LEGaJD TRANSMISSION LINES: MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE ':iY~ROEL_E'=-:RIC POWER PLANT FC)SSIL rUEL POWER P~ANT :~u 8-:; TAT ION ® • • • 1 --, ._. -•. ~ .. i··· T r···--I ··1' r,.-'.". --r:-: • t, ", ,i ~ -:.:. I --1)""'" "-:j- ~. i",·-·· ..,~--. - i .... ""Imt_ t..~. ,,'- LEVELOCK..r - --_ -i "".' ) "I; I L_~'_ " ~ .. ------------------------------~~~~~M .' , ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-13 -o N '" ""' o ID '1 " ,j , ... fl f'l LEGEND "}'-------: ""C " ... -~." '"" ~,,;-~~:,~,:,,~~~:'~,~~~:: .. -,-, LINES: TRANSMISSION MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SU8-STATI0f\J ® • • • ~ .. ~' .. ':I_ ..... ' - \ ' . . ___ r:r .. , ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-14 A L---------.m~~m...........:.;:.;...:::::~~~~~---FIGURE 6.2-14----- , , , , J ... j .. LEGEND TRANSMISSION MAIN LINE LINES: :, " ""~~',""_A»'" ",-~,.~"'''''''"''''''''~''''''-'.,~~"", ,-". FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC PONER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUB-STATION ® A • • » , , ALTERNATIVE "B" SCENARIO B-15 A L-------------------~~~~~~~~~~~~-------FIGURE 6.2-15 ------ I , , j , • • , iii .iO , ; , j , .i .. .. LEGEND LINES: TRANSMISSION MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL SUB-STATION POWER PLANT ® .. • • /.1'-, , A , ALTERNATIVE "8" SCENARIO 8-16 A L _________ --'U~~~~::...;.:~~~;;.:::.::..;;:..;.;L ____ FIGURE 6.2-16 I I 1 .I [ r • L f ~~r:"'/: ;;;"J ! 1.-'-, .. If--...,.....' ".~, '''I( " . -'i l. I • ", L~' ' .. ",' , , LEGEND LINES: TRANSMISSION MAIN LINE FEEDER LINE -------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUB-STATION ® 6-• • '-I ~ --r-; ...... ~ ,~ .. • • I '''''>r. H A " , 1"""",1. •• 'f ""'of''',. ~ ALTERNATIVE "B" SCENARIO B-17 A L--________ ~~~~___=:....:.:.:.:..~~~;;.::;:;:::.:..:...;,.,IL..._ ___ FIGURE 6.2-17-..... , j I , • , j 1 1 j " \ " II I LEGEND TRANSMISSION LINES; MA~ UNE ~----------~-----FEEDER UNE --------- POWER SOURCE HYDROELECT~!-: PCNvER PLANT FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANT SUa-STA ItQ\i ® .A • • ALTERNATIVE w8-SCENARIO 8-18 A FIGURE 6.2-18---. I11III .. .... ,." ... .... - In - ... .... - - III - 7. EVALUATION OF SELECTED ENERGY PLANS c - - 7. EVALUATION OF SELECTED ENERGY PLANS 7 . 1 INTRODUCTION The energy plan scenarios described in the previous chapter were compared and evaluated with respect to a variety of technical, environmental, and economic categories in accordance with the guidelines specified in Alaska Power Authority requirements for feasibility studies (3AAC94-060). Various combinations of alternative energy resources and the timing of these resources were evaluated to formulate plans for economic assessments. 7.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION 7.2.1 Introduction The Alaska Power Authority Feasiblity studies guidelines (3AAC94.060) stipulate that in an overall feasibility study technical assessment, the evaluation needs to address the following indicators: • Safety • Reliability • Availability Because of the fact that many of the energy plan scenarios relate to the introduction of large and/or complex energy developments, one more indicator, that of constructibility, has been added. This additional indicator will permit a further delineation of differences between plan scenarios. Many of the plan scenarios utilize one or more energy resources, singularly or in groups, to respond to individual villages, village groupings, or regional energy needs. Evaluations were made for each of the nine energy supply technologies which were found to be attractive for application in the Bristol Bay study region as discussed in Appendix B. However, because these many energy resources were used in numerous combinations, it became difficult to address and assess each resource individually as it related to 7-1 I each community. Therefore, it was decided to address the energy supply I technologies under each of the four indicators. 7.2.2 Safety No adverse safety problems have been identified for the energy technologies considered. However, the existence of some Ifsafetylf related aspects is recognized; these would be addressed during detailed design of the energy producing plans and their energy transmitting lines. For example: proper precautions must be taken relative to the transportation, handling and storage of diesel fuel; the transportation, handling and storage of coal, particularly as it relates to spontaneous combustion; the proper design of wind energy systems against ice build-up and ice shedding, and for proper access for good maintenance; the implementation of safety booms and sound alert devices for hydroelectric plants; and the proper design and implementation of safety alerting devices on transmission lines, especially over major river crossings where the rivers are used for airplane navigation. A subjective evaluation of the hydroelectric plant safety aspects relative to earthquake conditions indicates that the projects requiring large dam structures on alluvial material could exhibit a greater risk. This risk is reduced for projects having similar structures founded on favorable till foundations and further reduced for the projects which have no impounding dams. From the standpoint of minimizing the effects of earthquake loading, bedrock foundations are preferable for all structures. The lowest risk is presented by the run-of-river developments, especially those founded on bedrock. 7.2.3 Reliability The reliability of each of the energy generating and/or energy conversion technologies considered in the plan scenarios is believed to be good to excellent. The reliability of any technologies utilizing mechanical and/or electrical equipment is strongly influenced by the need for proper operation and maintenance. The more simple and rugged this mechanical 7-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III .. • til .-.. .. and/or electrical equipment is, the easier it is to service, and the lower the recurrence intervals for service required. Because hydroelectric power projects generally consist of rugged and rather simplified mechanical equipment and electrical systems, they display excellent reliability. Many hydroelectric power plants have long histories of 100 percent availability year round. Further reliability is added to the hydroelectric power developments in that a two-unit generating plant is suggested, with each unit essentially equal to the average monthly generating capacity for the year 2002. The reliability of hydroelectric power projects may be degraded, however, as a result of ice-related problems. Ice build-up in reservoirs would affect the amount of active storage needed but should not affect the plan reliability. However, sheet ice, anchor ice, and pack ice occurring in shallow rivers could result in ice jams and possible diversion of flow throughout the ice masses and away from power intakes. This situation could impede the operation of the plant and could be quite severe for small run-of-river plants, particularly in streams having low natural winter flows. The development of frazil ice under turbulent flow conditions could act to block off screened intakes. It is poss ible that ice sheets could also form within the penstock system, and protective measures would need to be applied. The ice problems associated with hydroelectric projects in cold regions would most likely be minimized for concepts which allow for the withdrawal of water from a deep reservoir through a protected penstock or tunnel water conveyance system. The run-of-river plant concepts which use deep, low velocity flow, canal systems in rivers which are known to have relatively high natural winter flows would also have the tendency to result in less severe icing problems. The reliability of diesel generators is considered good to very good for central generating systems where proper maintenance is expected to be performed. The reliability of small non-central diesel units, however, is found to be fair to poor. It is imperative that these small units be adequately maintained. The reliability of diesel energy systems is routinely improved by the addition of extra diesel units acting as back-up. The scenarios which depend on diesel generation take advantage of 7-3 this practice and provide adequate back-up. Also, other electrical energy scenarios take into consideration the installation of at least enough diesel energy in each community to meet the village needs. This practice offers adequate back-up and/or reliability and also offers the remote village minimal but adequate energy in the event of loss of a central system due to a transmission line fault. Many of the energy plan scenarios would require the construction of transmission line grids for the distribution of generated power. These transmission lines would need to be designed not only for meeting electrical loads, but also structural loads resulting from cable weight and climatological conditions (icing, wind, etc.). Properly designed transmission lines exhibit reliability factors of 97 to 98 percent. Because of these high reliability values, coupled with the availability of diesel back-up at each community, the scenarios do not employ redundant transmission line systems. However, reliability could be reduced by line length and the harsh weather and terrain features through which the line passes. In order to provide highly reliable generation by a coal-fired steam electric station, two identical units, each sized slightly larger than half of the regional peak electrical demand Were assumed. These dual units were also backed-up by emergency diesel generation capacity. Thus, a continuous electrical supply to the region would be assured. Highly trained operating and maintenance personnel are required to ensure the continued reliability of most power generating facilities. However, a coal-fired power station requires the most support personnel of any of the viable technologies in this study, with the possible exception of the coal gasification combined cycle plant. The combined cycle unit investigated consists of one unit with diesel generation as the emergency back-up. This combination would provide continuous power for the region, but the reliability of the combined cycle unit alone would be less than the coal-fired steam electric alternative. 7-4 I I I l ; I I I I -I I I I, I I I I I I I C I .. .. The integrated coal gasification combined cycle (ICGCC) unit has three coal gasification trains, each 50 percent capacity; two full-size gas scrubbers; and one combined cycle unit. As with the ,other fossil fuel-fired technologies, this system is backed up with emergency diesel generation to prevent the loss of electrical power. ICGCC units of this size have not been operated to generate electricity on a commercial basis before. The ICGCC is also dependent upon a coal source which must be barged in from either Seward, Alaska, or Vancouver, British Columbia. Of the viable fossil fuel technologies, ICGCC (alone) would be the least reliable. Problems have been experienced in Alaska with reclaiming waste heat from diesel generator exhausts. This is primarily due to the exhaust gas temperature being reduced below its dew point and moisture collecting in the engine exhaust. The diesel engine exhaust is the primary heat source for the organic Rankine cycle (aRC) generator. If the aRC is designed and installed properly to avoid the low exhaust gas temperatures, it should provide reliabilities equivalent to the diesel generators with which they must operate in parallel . One disadvantage to the use of wind generators is the lack of operating experience necessary to provide information on reliability. Since in general sites with the best wind regimes are in remote areas, access to the wind generators for scheduled maintenance or repair is dificu1t. Another problem in the Bristol Bay region would be icing on the wind turbine blades, which could cause inbalance in the generators. Because of the harsh climatic conditions and the limited transportation routes in the Bristol Bay region, it is expected that maintaining a reliable wind generator power supply would be costly. 7.2.4 Availability The technologies evaluated are believed to be immediately available, or available within the very near future, for meeting the needs of the study region communities for electrical energy. The technologies for diesel, fossil, and hydroelectric power, and for transmission lines are available now. 7-5 These resources can be developed for meeting the energy and power needs forecast under the preliminary energy demand projections for electric appliance end-use. Coal-, oil-, and natural gas-fired steam generation technology has been proven for several decades. Waste heat recovery methods have and continue to be implemented in the Bristol Bay study region and other areas of Alaska. Energy conservation is available to the extent of economic limitations. Hydroelectric power projects identified show energy capabilities for meeting either regional and/or local needs. Wind energy generation has become available in smaller installed capacities. It is recognized that this technology is progressively improving. Because of this, scenarios utilizing wind energy resources have been careful to consider low capacity units of 10 kW from 1983 on, up to 69 kW from 1984 on, and larger capacity units of up to 200 kW after 1989. Trends indicate that these higher capacity units would probably be commercially available at that time and likely proven under Alaskan conditions. The Bristol Bay region shows a strong wind resource availability with areas near Naknek/King Salmon, Egigik and Igiugig ranking as best candidate sites. As wind is a fluctuating power resource, it can not solely supply the entire Bristol Bay region energy demands with continuous availability. For a less variable wind power source. a dispersion of various size wind generators in differing wind resource zones allows for a spinning reserve. Depending on how extensively a utility becomes involved with integrating wind power into their grid, it is generally assumed that 10 to 70 percent penetration of wind energy into a total regional energy supply system is potentially available. The 20 percent penetration value is the recommended level for the Bristol Bay region. Organic Rankine cycle (ORC) units of the size necessary for use in the Bristol Bay region are commercially available. The technology associated with ORC has been known for many years in heat pumps, refrigeration systems, and similar applications. However, using an organic working fluid in a Rankine cycle application to capture the energy of waste heat and generate electricity is relatively new. Some developmental costs are still encountered in purchasing commercial ORC units. 7-6 o I I I I I , I I I I I I I , I I I ... ... Low-and medium-Btu coal gasification technologies have existed for decades and are commercially available for use in the Bristol Bay region. The most efficient use of the effluent gas is to provide fuel for a combined cycle generation unit. However, the combination of a coal gasification system with the combined cycle unit has not been demonstrated commercially in the size needed for the Bristol Bay region (16 MW). 7.2.5 Constructibility The main components of a diesel fuel-fired generating plant can usually be shipped fully assembled and ready for use. Units are typically skid-mounted and can be installed into their respective power plants with a minimum of difficulty. Hook-up, with respect to piping, controls, and other support systems, is straight-forward. Plant housings can be prefabricated, preconstructed, or even made a part of the packaged diesel unit. Difficulties with respect to the constructibility of diesel generating plants are not anticipated, even in the more remote communities. The expansion of diesel generation by additional units and fuel storage facili tes should not impose any construction problems. Oil spill holding ponds should be provided with diesel fuel storage tank installations. It is anticipated that a construction period of about one year could be required for some of the larger diesel installations. The constructibility of the hydroelectric power plants is not expected to present problems. However, most of these installations require construction of major structures (dams, canals, tunnels, powerhouses), which entails lengthy schedules and the use of several building materials not available at the job site. Hydroelectric power plant construction also requires shipment of large equipment components. Additionally, these projects need a greater number of construction personnel and longer construction time. It is anticipated that the small run-of-river hydroelectric plants would probably require a construction force that would peak at about 100 to 150 persons, while the larger plants would most likely need 150 to 300 persons. Construction periods are estimated to be about 2 to 2 1/2 years for the small run-of-river plants and about 3 to 3 1/2 years for the larger regional plants. Also, because hydroelectric projects are 7-7 Constructing the transmission lines requires special considerations. Many of the people in the study region are opposed to road construction with transmission lines; because of this, the lines should be constructed using helicopters. Earthwork construction should be done in winter to minimize ground damage. Constructing wind generators also requires road construction or use of helicopters. A site area must be cleared and fenced in for safety reasons. The small wind generators are shop fabricated and pre-assembled and therefore require minimal erection time and no heavy construction equipment such as cranes or backhoes. On the other hand, larger wind generators require piling foundations which must be installed with a pile driving rig or backhoe. As a relatively small crew can erect a wind generator unit, no expensive housing or construction office space is generally necessary. In summary, the technical evaluation of the energy technologies considered finds these energy resources to be acceptable with no adverse safety problems and good to excellent reliability. The technologies are presently available or are anticipated to be within the very near fu'ture. No difficulites are expected from the standpoint of constructibility. A subjective evaluation of the technologies with respect to the technical evaluation indicators is: Supply Component Diesel Hydroelectric Wind Fossil Transmission 7-9 Lower Rating Reliability Constructibility Reliability and availability Commercial Development (coal gasification combined cycle only) Safety and Constructibility I I ~ I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I \1 I I I C I I I S e t site-specific, there is usually a need for improving or providing new means of access to the project works. In some instances, the sites may be so remote that access is possible only by airplane or expedient measures such as snow roads. Construction material for project dams could be found locally within reasonable haul distance. In summary, the constructibility of hydroelectric power projects is believed to be more time-and labor-intensive than some of the other generating technologies considered. The major plant components of a coal-fired steam electric station can be shop-assembled outside of Alaska to minimize field assembly. In fact, an entire coal-fired steam electric plant, excluding coal handling and ash disposal, can be constructed on a barge outside the state and then brought in as one unit and mounted on a prepared foundation. An integrated coal-gasification combined cycle unit would be very similar to the conventional coal plant constuction. The major field or site work for either the ICGCC or conventional coal-fired steam electric plant is the construction of the coal handling, coal storage, and ash disposal facilties. The barge unloading facility for coal barges could be quite expensive, depending upon the amount of dredging required and the size of breakwater needed. It is anticipated that about 2 to 2 1/2 years would be required for the construction of this type of plant, with a construction force peaking at about 200 persons. The oil-fired combined cycle generating facility can be purchased as a complete packaged unit. The only site work necessary would be electrical controls, switchyard foundations, fuel tanks and supply systems, and the make-up water system. The construction requirements would be very similar to those of diesel generating units. except on a larger scale. It is anticipated that about one year would be needed to construct this plant, with a labor force peaking at about 100 persons. Organic Rankine cycle generating plants are modular, packaged units mounted on skids which can probably be arranged to share facilites with existing diesel generators with minor modifications. 7-8 7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 7.3.1 Introduction The principal objective of this task is to analyze on a preliminary basis the environmental and social impacts of the various energy scenarios. The preliminary analysis of Phase I is intended to provide a basis for comparison of alternatives. Of course, much more data is available for evaluating Tazimina and Newha1en. Detailed information is contained in Appendices G and H, respectively. Further detailed environmental assessment in Phase II, however, will be required for the alternative selected for detailed feasibility analysis. Preliminary impact assessments have been made for the energy scenarios to determine if each concept can comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Regulatory reqUirements identified in Chapter 8 have provided the basis for this evaluation. In addition, specific regional values and concerns have also been considered. In order to allow a comparative analysis of alternative power sources, the Alaska Power Authority requires (3ACC94.060(C)7B) that the following environmental indicators be used for evaluation in conducting a feasibility study: 1) community preferences, 2) impact on community infrastructure, 3) timing in relation to other capital projects, 4) air quality, 5) water quality, 6) fish and wildlife impact, 7) land use impact and ownership status, 8) terrestrial impact, 9) recreation resource value, and 10) visual impact. Each scenario has been evaluated with respect to these indicators. Section 6.2 contains descriptions of the scenarios. 7.3.2 Community Preferences The following perceptions of community preference are based primarily on information obtained during community meetings and from contacts by study team members while collecting data in the region. In some cases the information may not be entirely representative. In addition, community preferences are expected to change as more data on the plan becomes available. 7-10 I ~ ..•.. ".'. .~ 4 I I I ".' I I I I f J I I I , , I I I I I I I, .. ... 7.3.2.1 Scenario BP-1 This energy plan is generally acceptable by all communities in the study area. For the native people, it presents no threat to their subsistence lifestyle, and permits them to continue with a life of isolation. 7.3.2.2 Scenario A-I While the Tazimina River is widely recognized as a potential source of hydropower, its development may affect the salmon fishery it supports in its lower reaches. Local residents in Nondalton, Iliamna, and Newhalen are generally in support of a project being proposed as long as the salmon fishery is not harmed. Some residents of the lower Kvichak River and Upper Alaskan Peninsula region are opposed to developing the Tazimina River for hydroelectric power because of fears that the Kvichak salmon fishery will be adversely affected. 7.3.2.3 Scenario B-1 This energy plan, importation of power from the Beluga area, is acceptable by many of the residents of the region and some agencies. There is not expected to be any significant community impacts associated with development, and only minor impact from transmission line corridors. Preference is generally lower than for BP-1, however, because of the required transmission corridors . 7.3.2.4 Scenario B-2 This energy plan combines a local Newhalen hydroelectric development with a regional Kukaklek hydroelectric development. The Kukaklek development plan is not desirable by the villages of Igiugig and Levelock. Also, the plan has been questioned by the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 7-11 I The development of a local Newhalen hydroelectric project is acceptable to I most local residents of Newhalen, Nondalton, and Iliamna as long as the salmon fishery is protected. The Newhalen concept may also be acceptable to the ADFG. 7.3.2.5 Scenario B-3 This energy plan has the same preferences as expressed in Scenario B-2 (Section 7.3.2.4) for Kukaklek and Newhalen. Some of the residents of the Upper Nushagak, however, are opposed to the development of Chikuminuk as a hydroelectric site due to concerns about subsistence hunting and fishing, and outside access. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Parks does not favor the development of Chikuminuk for hydroelectric power because the site is located in the Wood-Tikchik State Park, and power development is not considered in its management plan. 7.3.2.6 Scenarios B-4, B-6 and B-7 A great amount of opposition was encountered to the proposed development of the King Salmon River hydroelectric site by both the general public, and federal and state agencies. Accordingly, these energy plans, which contain King Salmon hydro development, have been dropped from further consideration. 7.3.2.7 Scenario B-5 The development of the Kukaklek site to serve residents of the lower Kvichak River and Upper Alaskan Peninsula region is opposed by local residents of Levelock and Igiugig, and questioned by federal and state agencies, particularly the NPS. The development of the Chikuminuk site to serve residents of the Nushagak system with electric power is opposed by some residents of the Upper Nushagak River and not favored by the ADNR Division of Parks. 7-12 I I I Q I , I J ,I I I I • I J I I I , .. -... The development of the local Tazimina River site may be acceptable to the local residents if the salmon fishery is protected. 7.3.2.8 Scenario B-8 The development of the Tazimina River to serve the residents of the Kvichak River system is generally not acceptable by the USFWS and the ADFG unless it is demonstrated that no significant harm will occur to the Tazimina fishery. Similarly, the plan would be acceptable by the local residents of Nondalton, Iliamna, and Newhalen if the salmon fishery in the lower Tazimina River is preserved. Upper Alaskan Peninsula are Some residents of the lower Kvichak River and opposed to the development of the Tazimina hydroelectric power site because of fears that the Kvichak salmon fishery will be adversely affected. The development of Chikuminuk Lake/Allen River to serve the residents of the Nushagak system is opposed by some of the residents of the Upper Nushagak River because of fears relating to subsistence hunting and fishing. While the proposed development is acceptable to the ADFG, the ADNR Division of Parks is not in favor of the development because of the development's non-compatibility with the Park's management plan. 7.3.2.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-IO Scheme A The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-IO), to serve the entire study region, is generally acceptable to most residents as long as acid rain is no threat to fish and wildlife resources. This view is also held by a number of governmental agencies, particularly the ADFG. Local residents in Dillingham and Naknek, however, are skeptical about the availability of economical coal. 7-13 Scheme B The development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-lO), to serve the entire region, is expected to be generally acceptable to most residents in the region. Scheme C The development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-lO) to serve the entire study region is expected to be generally acceptable to most residents in the region. 7.3.2.10 Scenarios B-ll and B-12 These scenarios are similar to those presented in Section 7.3.2.11, with the exception of not tying the Newhalen-Iliamna-Nondalton area with the rest of the region. This plan is preferred by both Bristol Bay residents and agencies because it will keep the area north of Iliamna Lake pristine, with no man-made intrusions. The local residents in the Newhalen-Iliamna-Nondalton area are generally in favor of the local Newhalen hydroelectric plan as long as the salmon fishery is preserved. 7.3.2.11 Scenario B-l3 Scheme A The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region, excluding the Newhalen River area, is not favored by the ADNR Division of Parks, and by some of the residents of the Upper Nushagak River (Section 7.3.2.5). 7-14 • '. I I I a I I I t I J a I t I I I I I I !. I The development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river facility is generally acceptable by both local residents and agency people as long as the sockeye salmon and sport fisheries are preserved. There is, however, some opposition from local fishing lodge owners. Scheme B The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the entire region, excluding the Newhalen River area, is not favored by the ADNR -Division of Parks, and by some of the residents of the Upper Nushagak River (Section 7.3.2.5). The local residents of the Newhalen River area are generally in favor of the local Newhalen hydroelectric plan as long as the salmon fishery is preserved. 7.3.2.12 Scenario B-l4 Scheme A The development and implementation of the regional Newhalen hydroelectric site, utilizing a "power only" diversion canal, is opposed by some residents of the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region primarily because of the concept's potential effects on the salmon fishery. Local residents in Newhalen, Iliamna, and Nondalton find the concept acceptable as long as mitigative measures are taken to preserve the salmon and resident fisheries. Scheme B The development and implementation of the regional Newhalen hydroelectric site, utilizing a large canal to serve as both a power intake and diversion route for high river flows, is opposed by some residents of the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region. While this concept is designed to enhance the upstream migration of salmon during high flows, by lowering the river velocities in the area of the large rapids, a great deal 7-15 of concern has developed (public and agency) regarding the effect of the canal intake on out-migrating (downstream) salmon smolt and fry. 7.3.2.13 Senario B-15 A general agreement exists among agencies that this energy plan presents few environmental impacts. Opposition, however, is encountered by the villages of the Upper Nushagak River, who are opposed to being interconnected with one another under a diesel-electr ic scheme. Also, agencies and local residents believe that the proposed transmission corridor between South Naknek and Egegik should follow the coast if this energy plan is developed. 7.3.2.14 Scenario B-16 It is generally accepted by agencies that this energy plan exhibits few adverse environmental impacts. There is, however, opposition by residents of the Kvichak River system to being interconnected with residents of the Nushagak River System under a diesel-electric scheme. Some residents of Naknek resent being connected directly with Dillingham under a diesel energy plan. 7.3.2.15 Scenario B-17 While there is widespread acceptance of diesel as a source of power generation, some resentment, questioning, and opposition has been encountered by having villages interconnected using a diesel energy source. 7.3.2.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A The development and implementation of the regional Kontrashibuna concept is generally opposed by residents of the Village of Nondalton because of the area I S importance for subsistence hunting and fishing. the ADFG are generally accepting of development of Agencies such as this hydroelectric project. However, the land status around Kontrashibuna Lake has several 7-16 I I' I I I ., , I I t I I I '1 • I J I I J I I I unknowns: 1) In 1915, all lands within one-quarter mile of Kontrashibuna Lake and all lands within one-quarter mile of the Tanalian River, between Kontrashibuna Lake and Lake Clark, were withdrawn for the purpose of power development under Power Site Reserve No. 485 by the Federal Power Commission; 2) Kontrashibuna Lake, and its entire watershed, are presently part of a designated wilderness area within the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve; and 3) The status of native-owned, interim-conveyed, and native-selected lands is unknown at the present time. The development and implementation of the regional Tazimina run-of-river concept is generally of concern to most local as well as Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula residents and agency personnel. The primary concern centers on the effects a hydroelectric facility will have on the commercial and sport fisheries in the Tazimina River and entire Kvichak system. The concept is generally acceptable if the salmon fishery is not harmed. Scheme B The community attitudes associated with the development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region are the same as those described in Scheme A, above. 7.3.2.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A The development and implementation of the Base Plan supplemented by waste heat conversion is expected to be generally accepted by all communities in the study region, since it presents no threat to the native subsistence lifestyle. Scheme B The development and implementation of the Base Plan supplemented by wind systems at Igiugig, Naknek and Egegik is anticipated to be acceptable by all communities in the study region. 7-17 Scheme C The development and implementation of the Base Plan supplemented by waste heat conversion in each village and wind systems at Igiugig, Nanknek and Egegik is anticipated to be acceptable by all communities in the study region. Scheme D The development and implementation of the Base Plan supplemented by Organic Rankine Cycle in each village is anticipated to be acceptable by all communities in the study region. Scheme E The development and implementation of the local Tazimina River site for the Newhalen area, and continuation of the Base Plan supplemented by wind energy and heat recovery for the remaining Bristol Bay region, is expected to be acceptable to all communities, as long as the salmon fishery on the Tazimina River is protected. 7.3.3 Impact on Community Infrastructure 7 . 3 . 3 . 1 Scenario BP-l No impacts to community infrastructure are expected to occur as a result of the continuation of present diesel generation practice. 7.3.3.2 Scenario A-I While the location of the Tazimina site is approximately 15 miles from the Iliamna-Newhalen area and only about 7 miles from Nondalton, community impact is expected to be greater in the I liamna-Newhalen area because transportation and living facilities are located there. Impacts are expected to be the greatest in the areas of leisure-time activities, transportation, and schools (if construction workers are permitted to bring families). Unless special camp facilities are provided, construction 7-18 I • I I I , ,t J t I I I 1 I • I I I • It .. •• - workers will work out of Iliamna. Construction of the regional Tazimina hydroelectric storage facility is expected to take approximately three years, with a peak construction labor force anticipated at about 200 personnel. Direct long-term impacts are not anticipated, as the operation and maintenance of a hydroelectric facility require only a few personnel. 7.3.3.3 Scenario B-1 This energy plan is expected to have no detrimental impacts to the community infrastructure within the study region. 7.3.3.4 Scenario B-2 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the study region, excluding the Newhalen River area, is not expected to significantly impact the community infrastructure in any of the study region villages. The proposed Kukaklek construction site, located approximately 10 miles east of the village of Igiugig on the south shore of I liamna Lake, will consist of a barge unloading facility, an airfield capable of landing Hercules aircraft, an access road to Kukaklek Lake, and a construction camp. The construction of the Kukaklek facility is expected to take two years, with a construction labor force anticipated to peak at 150 personnel. The facility is intended to be self-sufficient and isolated from study region villages. The development and implementation of a local 0.2 MW) Newhalen River hydroelectric site is expected to affect the infrastructure of Newhalen and Iliamna in much the same way as energy Scenario A-I (Section 7.3.3.2), but to a lesser extent, since there will be fewer workers involved. The construction of the local Newhalen facility is expected to take two years to complete, with a peak construction force of 150 personnel. Any direct long-term impacts are not anticipated. 7.3.3.5 Scenario B-3 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region is not 7-19 expected to have any significant impact on community infrastructure in any village in the study region. The construction of this short penstock concept is expected to be completed in two years, and have a peak construction labor force of 125 personnel. The development and implementation of a local Newhalen River hydroelectric site is expected to affect the community infrastructure in Newhalen and Iliamna much in the same manner as energy Scenario A-I, (Section 7.3.3.2) but to a lesser extent. Any direct long-term impacts are not anticipated. The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectic site to serve the Nushagak River system is not expected to have any significant impacts upon community infrastructure in the region. Because of the site's remote location, no road will be constructed for access from existing villages. An airfield will be constructed to bring in supplies, much the same as the proposed airfield at the Kukaklek site. A 12 to 13 mile access road will connect the airfield, which will be located outside the Wood-Tikchik State Park, to the powerhouse site on the Allen River, near the Chikuminuk Lake outlet. Possible effects on community infrastructure could take place in Dillingham during the leisure time of construction workers. Any direct long-term impacts, however, are not anticipated. 7.3.3.6 Scenarios B-4, B-6, B-7 These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.6). 7.3.3.7 Scenario B-5 The development and implementation of. both the Kukaklek and Chikuminuk hydroelectric sites, because of their remoteness and isolation, are not expected to significantly impact the community infrastructure of any villages within the study region. Each site will use aircraft as the primary means of access, with the construction camps being entirely self-sufficient. The construction of the Kukaklek (long penstock) concept is expected to take two years to complete, with a peak construction labor force of 125 personnel. The construction of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric 7-20 , .. , I I I , I I I I I ~ I , ... I I I I I 1 .. .. I .. • t .-.. I ; facility is expected to take three years to complete with a peak construction labor force of 150 personnel. The development and implementation of a local (1. 2 MW) Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept is expected to have a similar impact on the community infrastructure of Newhalen and Iliamna as anticipated for energy Scenario A-I (Section 7.3.3.2), but to a much lesser extent. The construction of the local Tazimina run-of-river facility is expected to be completed in two years, with a peak construction work force of 100 personnel. A direct long-term impact is not anticipated. 7.3.3.B Scenario B-B The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River system is not expected to have a significant impact upon community infrastructure in the study region. The only potential effect would be as a result of extended leisure-time activites from contruction workers in Dillingham; however, no direct long-term impacts are expected. The development and implementation of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site to serve the Kvichak River and Upper Alaskan Peninsula region is expected to have a direct short-term effect on the community infrastructure of the villages of Newhalen and Iliamna. The village of Nondalton, while located closer to the Tazimina site, is expected to receive little or no impact, primarily due to its lack of facilities and access . Pr imary impact in Newhalen and Iliamna is expected to result from transportation and leisure-time activities. Schools are expected to be affected only if construction workers are permitted to bring families into the area. New lodges are expected to be constructed in Iliamna to house the construction labor force. The construction of the Tazimina hydroelectric facility is expected to be completed in three years, with a peak construciton labor force of 175 personnel . 7-21 7.3.3.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-10 Scheme A The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) is expected to result in both short-and long-term effects on community infrastructure in these villages. The construction of such a facility, with its appurtenant structures, is expected to involve a considerable work force which will be housed in, or near, these villages. Considerable imported skilled labor will be required. As a result, schools, commercial establishments, and housing are expected to be impacted considerably. After construction, a minimum of 20 personnel are expected to be required to maintain and operate the facility. These will be skilled workers and may have to be imported into the area, requiring additional housing, schools, and commercial facilities. Scheme B The development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region, is expected to have less effect on community infrastructure than anticipated for Scheme A, a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility. Scheme C The development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region, is expected to. have similar effects on community infrastructure as anticipated for Scheme A, a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility. 7.3.3.10 Scenarios B-11 and B-12 The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-11) or Naknek (B-12) to serve 7-22 I I I I f I I J I I I J I I I I I r if , . ' r .. the entire study region, except the Newhalen River area, is expected to have the same general effects on community infrastructure as anticipated for Scenarios B~9 and B~10 (Section 7.3.3.11). The development and implementation of a local Newhalen River hydroelectric site is expected to have similar effects upon community infrastructure as Scenar io A -1 (Sect ion 7.3 . 3 .2) , but to a somewhat lesser extent. Any direct long-term impact is not anticipated. 7.3.3.11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except the Newhalen River area, is not expected to have any significant effects on community infrastructure within the study region. It is anticipated that a construction camp will be set up near the site and that material and supplies will be flown in. The construction of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric facility (16 MW) is expected to be completed in three years, with a peak construction labor force of 175 personnel. The development and implementation of a local Tazimina run-of~river facility is expected to have some effect on the community infrastructure of the Newhalen River area. Iliamna is anticipated to receive the most impact since it is the transportation and lodging center for the area. Any long-term impacts, however, are not anticipated . Scheme B The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newha1en River area, is not expected to have any significant effects on community infrastructure within the study region. The development and implementation of a local Newhalen River hydroelectric site is expected to have similar effects upon community infrastructure as 7-23 anticipated for Scenario A-1 (Section 7.3.3.2), but to a lesser extent. Any direct long-term impact is not expected. 7 .3.3. 12 Scenario 14 Scheme A The development and implementation of the regional Newhalen hydroelectric site, utilizing a "power only" diversion canal, is expected to have impacts on the community infrastructure of Newhalen and Iliamna similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina hydroelectric concept, described in Section 7.3.3.2. The construction of this facility is expected to be completed in a somewhat shorter period of time, and require a somewhat smaller peak construction labor force, than the regional Newhalen hydroelectric concept, utilizing a large canal, described in Scheme B. Scheme B The development and implementation of the regional Newhalen hydroelectric site, utilizing a large canal which serves as both a power intake and a divers ion route for high river flows, is expected to have impacts on community infrastructure in Newhalen and Iliamna similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina hydroelectric concept, described in Section 7.3.3.2. The construction of this facility is expected to be completed in three years, having a peak construction labor force of 250 personnel. 7.3.3.13 Scenario B-15 The development and implementation of diesel generating centers at Dillingham, Naknek, New Stuyahok, and Iliamna are not expected to result in any significant impacts, short-or long-term, to the community infrastructure of those villages. The same is expected to hold true for wind systems to be constructed at Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik. 7-24 I I I I I , I I I I I I a • I I I I I I \~ 7.3.3.14 Scenario B-16 The development and implementation of a diesel generating center, either at Dillingham or Naknek, to serve the lower Kvichak and lower Nushagak River systems may possibly have some minor impact on the community infrastructure of those villages, but for a short-term, only. No direct long-term impact is expected. There may, however, be a minor impact resulting from the installation of wind systems at Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik, since skilled labor will be required for the operation and maintenance of these facilities. The development and implementation of diesel generating centers in New Stuyahok and Newhalen are not expected to result in any significant impacts to the community infrastructure of those villages. 7.3.3.15 Scenario B-17 The development and implementation of two interconnected diesel generating centers at Dillingham and Naknek, each capable of serving the entire study region needs, is expected to have only a minor impact on the community infrastructure of each of those villages. However, this impact may possibly be long-term, since skilled operators will be required to maintain the facilities. There may also be a minor impact on the community infrastructure of Igiugig and Egegik as a result of the installation of wind energy systems there. 7.3.3.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A Community impact is expected to be spread over two areas under this energy plan. While the majority of the construction will take place on the Tanalian River near Port Alsworth, there will still be considerable activity taking place on the Tazimina River. Community impacts are expected to be less at I liamna than at Port Alsworth, at least during construction. It is anticipated that a construction camp will have to be established at Port Alsworth. If construction workers are permitted to 7-25 bring families, it is likely that the school in Newhalen will be affected considerably. Otherwise, the only other significant effects will result from leisure-time activities, primarily at Iliamna. There is also the possibility that barge facilities would have to be constructed at Port Alsworth and at the terminus of the present Newhalen-Nondal ton Road. The construction of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric facility (16 MW) is expected to be completed in 3 years, with a peak construction labor force of 250 personnel. Any direct long-term impacts are not anticipated. Scheme B The impacts on community infrastructure associated with the development of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region are the same as those described in Scheme A, above. 7.3.3.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A There are not expected to be any adverse impacts or community infrastructure associated with the development and implementation of this energy plan. Scheme B There are expected to be only minor impacts on community infrastructure resul ting from the development and implementation of wind systems in the villages of Igiugig and Egegik. Impacts in the remaining villages, as a result of implementing the Base Plan, are expected to be minimal, including those for Naknek, where wind systems will also be installed. Scheme C The impacts on community infrastructure associated with the development and implementation of this energy plan are expected to be similar to those described for Scheme B, above. 7-26 • .. I I I I , I I I I I I t J I I I I I --, ----------------------------------........ --------------- I I t I 1 I t ,. .. Scheme D There are not expected to be any adverse infrastructure associated with the development individual diesel generating units, supplemented Cycle, for each village in the study region. Scheme E impacts on community and implementation of with Organic Rankine There are not expected to be any adverse impacts on community infrastructure resulting from the development and implementation of the Base Plan, supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery, for the study region (less the Newhalen area). The impact on community infrastructure associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river facility for the Newhalen area is described in Section 7.3.3.7. 7.3~4 Timing in Relation to Other Capital Projects 7.3.4.1 Scenario BP-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan appears to be only slightly dependent upon the timing of any future capital projects. Some of these projects are: 1) housing projects planned for Dillingham, Nondalton, Newhalen and Aleknagik; 2) a new fish processing plant in Dillingham; and 3) the completion of a HUD project in Clarks Point. 7.3.4.2 Scenario A-1 The development and implementation of a regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the Newhalen River area or for the study region in general. A transmiss ion line connecting Newhalen and Nondalton is assumed to have been constructed prior to development of this concept. If a road should be constructed between Newhalen and Nondalton as has been suggested, no timing conflicts are expected. 7-27 7.3.4.3 Scenario B-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. 7.3.4.4 Scenario B-2 The development and implementation of the regional Kukaklek hydroelectric site does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. The development and implementation of the local Newhalen hydroelectric site may have an effect on the timing of the proposed hous ing project for Newhalen. The comment under Scenario A-I regarding a transmission line or road between Newhalen and Nondalton applies to this scenario. 7.3.4.5 Scenario B-3 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. The development and implementation of the local Newhalen hydroelectric site may have an effect on the timing of the proposed housing project scheduled for Newhalen. The comment under Scenario A-I regarding a transmission line or road between Newhalen and Nondalton applies to this scenario. 7.3.4.6 Scenarios B-4, B-6 and B-7 These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.6). 7-28 , iii I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I t - ". • .. 7.3.4.7 Scenario B-5 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and Upper Alaskan Peninsula region does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. The development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river site may have an effect on the timing of the proposed housing projects scheduled for Newhalen and Nondalton. The comment under Scenario A-l regarding a transmission line or road between Newhalen and Nondalton applies to this scenario. 7.3.4.8 Scenario B-8 The development and implementation of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site to serve the Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region may have an effect on the timing of the proposed housing projects scheduled for Newhalen and Nondalton. The comment under Scenario A-l regarding a transmission line or road between Newhalen and Nondalton applies to this scenario. The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. 7.3.4.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-lO Scheme A The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility to serve the entire study region may possibly affect 7-29 the following proposed capital projects if located in or near Dillingham (B-9): 1) a new fish processing plant in Dillingham; 2) a new housing project for the city of Dillingham, 3) paving of the runway at the Dillingham Airport; and 4) paving of the main road into Dillingham. The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility to serve the entire study region may affect the following proposed capital projects if located in or near Naknek (B-10): 1) possible airport reconstruction at Naknek, 2) construction of an airport apron at King Salmon, and 3) a road from Naknek and King Salmon to South Naknek via a bridge over the Naknek River at Savonoski. Scheme B The development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle generating facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region, is anticipated to have similar affects on the same proposed capital projects listed in Scheme A. Scheme C The development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region, is anticipated to have similar effects on the same proposed capital projects listed in Scheme A. 7.3.4.10 Scenarios B-11 and B-12 The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-ll) or Naknek (B-12) to serve the study region, except the Newhalen River area, does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. However, the development of the energy plan may affect those capital projects listed in Section 7.3.4.9. The development and implementation of the local Newhalen hydroelectric site may have an effect upon the timing of the housing project scheduled for 7-30 I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t - Newhalen. The comment under Scenario A-I regarding a transmission line or road between Newhalen and Nondalton applies to this scenario. 7.3.4.11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. The development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river site may have an effect upon the timing of the project housing projects scheduled for Newhalen and Nondalton. The comment under Scenario A-I regarding a transmission line or road between Newhalen and Nondalton applies to this scenario. Scheme B The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. The development and implementation of the local Newhalen hydroelectric site may have an effect upon the timing of the housing project scheduled for Newhalen. The comment under Scenario A-I regarding a transmission line or road between Newhalen and Nondalton applies to this scenario. 7.3.4.12 Scenario B-14 Scheme A The development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric site, utilizing a llpower only" canal, may have an effect upon the timing of the housing project proposed for Newhalen. 7-31 Scheme B The development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric site, utilizing a large canal for both power intake and high river flow routing, may have an effect upon the timing of the housing project proposed for Newhalen. 7.3.4.13 Scenario B-15 The development and implementation of a diesel-electric generating center in Dillingham to serve the lower Nushagak River region may be affected by the timing of the following identified proposed capital projects: 1) a new fish processing plant in Dillingham, 2) housing projects for Dillingham and Aleknagik, 3) completion of the HUD project in Clarks Point, and 4) paving of the airport runway and main road in Dillingham. The development and implementation of a diesel-electric generating center in New Stuyahok to serve the upper Nushagak River region does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. The development and implementation of a diesel-electric generating center in Naknek, with supplemental wind energy systems in Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik, to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region may be affected by the timing of the following identified capital projects proposed for the region: 1) possible airport reconstruction at Naknek; 2) construction of an airport apron at King Salmon; and 3) a road from Naknek and King Salmon to south Naknek via a bridge over the Naknek River at Savonoski. 7.3.4.14 Scenario B-16 The development and implementation of two independent but interconnected diesel-electric generating centers in Dillingham and Naknek, with supplemental wind energy systems in Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik, to serve the lower Nushagak River region, lower Kvichak River, and upper Alaskan 7-32 • • I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,-, .. r lit - Peninsula region, may possibly be affected by the timing of some of the identified capital projects listed in Section 7.3.4.13. The development and implementation of a diesel-electric generating center in New Stuyahok to serve the upper Nushagak River region does not appear to be dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. 7.3.4.15 Scenario 17 The development and implementation of two independent but interconnected diesel-electric generating centers in Dillingham and Naknek, supplemented by wind energy systems in Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik, to serve the entire study region may possibly be affected by the timing of some of the identified capital projects described in Section 7.3.4.13. 7.3.4.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan appears to be only slightly dependent upon the timing of any identified capital projects proposed for the study region. Scheme B The development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region is not expected to be affected by the timing of any other capital projects proposed for the study region. 7.3.4.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan appears to be only slightly dependent upon the timing capital projects scheduled for the region. These projects are listed in Section 7.3.4.1. 7-33 Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to relate to the timing of other capital projects similar to the Base Plan described in Section 7.3.4.1. Scheme C The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to relate to the timing of other capital project similar to the Base Plan described in Section 7.3.4.1. Scheme D The development and implementation of this energy plan appears to be only s lightly dependent upon the timing of other capital projects in the region. Scheme E The development and implementation of the Base Plan, supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery, for the study region, except the Newhalen area, is not expected to be affected by the timing of other proposed capital projects scheduled for the region. However, the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric facility may have an effect upon the timing of the proposed housing projects scheduled for Newhalen and Nondalton. The comment under Scenario A-1 regarding a transmission line or road between Newhalen and Nondalton applies to this scenario. 7.3.5 Air Quality 7.3.5.1 Scenario BP-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan, which involves individual village diesel-electric generation centers, is not expected to significantly impact the air quality of the region, except in the immediate 7-34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c r .. t • .. • - area of the generation center. While individual diesel-electric generators are not of the size which would trigger a state air pollution permit requirement, some units with a generation capability in excess of 1,500 kW, may be large enough to trigger a federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit requirement for nitrogen oxide (NO) emissions. x The largest units considered in this energy plan, however, are 1,500 kW and these will be located at Dillingham and Naknek only. 7.3.5.2 Scenario A-2 The development of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site for regional power needs is expected to have some minor impacts on air quality during the during the construction phase. These impacts are expected to consist of relatively small nitrogen oxides amounts of sulfur dioxide (S02)' carbon (NO ), hydrocarbons (HC) and particulate x monoxide (CO), matter emitted from gasoline-and diesel-powered construction equipment. Fugitive dust is expected to result from the along unpaved roads. Other clearing of land and movement of than occasional temporary impacts equipment on areas adjacent to the construction site, ambient air quality outside the site boundary is not anticipated to be significantly affected by gaseous emissions from construction equipment. While fugitive dust emissions may sometimes cause a local impact, the degree of impact will depend upon day-to-day weather and the intensity of construction activity. Various control techniques will be implemented as necessary to meet state criteria, which require that reasonable precautions be taken to prevent airborne particulate matter. There is expected to be no impact on air quality from this hydroelectric facility during its operational phase . 7.3.5.3 Scenario B-1 The development and implementation of a transmission intertie from Beluga to serve the electrical energy needs of the entire study region is not expected to create any significant air quality impacts in the Bristol Bay region . 7-35 7.3.5.4 Scenario B-2 The development of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during construction as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site, described in Section 7.3.5.2. There are expected to be no significant impacts on air quality resulting from the hydroelectric facilities during their operational phase. 7.3.5.5 Scenario B-3 The development of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during construction as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site, described in Section 7.3.5.2. There are expected to be no significant impacts on air quality resulting from these hydroelectric facilities during the operational phase. 7.3.5.6 Scenarios B-4, B-6, and B-7 These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.6). 7.3.5.7 Scenario B-5 The development of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during the construction phase as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site, described in Section 7.3.5.2. There are expected to be no significant impacts on air quality resulting from these hydroelectric facilities during the operational phase. 7.3.5.8 Scenario B-8 The development of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during the construction phase as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site, described in Section 7.3.5.2. There are expected to be no significant impacts on air quality reSUlting from these hydroelectric facilities during the operational phase. 7-36 I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I ,.. ... '!IIi -• ... 7.3.5.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-IO Scheme A The development of a coal-fired steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-IO) to serve the entire study region is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during the construction phase as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.5.2. Potential air quality impacts resulting from the operation of a coal-fired facility are expected to be minimal. However, some pollution control equipment, probably in the form of wet scrubbers, will be necessary for the control of particulates and S02' Other gaseous emissions are expected to only have a minimum effect on the ambient air quality and should not require control devices. Fugitive dust from both the coal pile storage and solid waste disposal areas will also require mitigative measures. The proximity of the Mt. Katmai National Park and Preserve, as a potential mandatory Class I air quality area, is not expected to be affected by the emissions from a relatively small coal-fired steam-electric generating facility located in Naknek. No other Class I areas exist, or are potential candidates, in or near the Bristol Bay region. Scheme B The development and of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle generating facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10), to serve the entire study region, is expected to have similar impacts on air quality as anticipated in Scheme A. However, S02 stack emissions could be significantly less, but will be dependent upon the quality of the fuel oil. Fugitive dust emissions are expected to be minimal since there will be no coal storage and handling areas. Scheme C The development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-IO), to serve the entire 7-37 study region, is expected to have similar impacts on air quality as anticipated in Scheme A. However, the combustion of the low BTU gas for electric generation will result in fewer gaseous pollutants being emitted to the atmosphere under this concept. 7.3.5.10 Scenarios B-11 and B-12 The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (8-11) or Naknek (B-12) to serve the study region, except the Newhalen River area, is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during the construction phase as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.5.2. Potential air quality impacts resulting from operation of the facility are expected to be the same as those described in Section 7.3.5.9. The development of the Newhalen River hydroelectric site to serve the Newhalen River area is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during the construction phase as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.5.2. There are expected to be no significant impacts on air quality resulting from the hydroelectric facilities during the operational phase. 7.3.5.11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The development of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during the construction phase as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.5.2. There are expected to be no significant impacts on air quality resulting from these hydroelectric facilities during their operational phase. Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality as anticipated in Scheme A, above. 7-38 I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. 7.3.5.12 Scenario B-14 Scheme A The development of the Newhalen River regional hydroelectric site, utilizing a "power only" canal, is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during the construction phase as those anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.5.2. There are expected to be no significant impacts on air quality resulting from this hydroelectric facility during the operational phase. Scheme B The development of the Newhalen River regional hydroelectric site, utilizing a large canal for both power intake and high river flow routing, is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during the construction phase as those anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.5.2. There are expected to be no significant impacts on air quality resulting from this hydroelectric facility during the operational phase. 7.3.5.13 Scenario B-15 The development and implementation of this energy plan, with four diesel-electric generating centers proposed for the study region, is expected to have slightly more impact on air quality than the Base Case energy plan described in Section 7.3.5.1. However, because of the relative size of the diesel generators (generally less than 1,500 kW) and the small number required at each generating center, the impact on the ambient air quality is expected to be confined to a relatively small area near the generation center. Normal dispersion by wind should be adequate to prevent the build-up of gaseous emissions. There may be some noise effects in the immediate area of wind generating facilities located in Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik. However, these impacts are expected to be minor . 7-39 7.3.5.14 ScenarioB-16 The development and implementation of this energy plan, which proposes a diesel-electric generation scheme as described in Section 7.3.2.14, is expected to have a similar impact on air quality as anticipated for the energy plan described in Section 7.3.5.13. 7.3.5.15 Scenario B-17 The development and implementation of this energy plan, with two independent but interconnected diesel-electric generating centers serving the entire study region, is expected to have moderate but localized impacts on the ambient air quality at these centers (Dillingham and Naknek). Nitrogen oxide emissions are expected to be of primary concern, and could trigger a PSD if concentrations become high enough. Noise impacts, associated with wind generating facilities in Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik, are expected to be both localized and minor. 7.3.5.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A The development of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality during construction as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.5.2. Additional mitigative measures, however, may have to be taken to maintain visibility requirements because of Kontrashibuna's presence in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve designated wilderness area. significant impact on air quality resulting facilities during their operational phase. Scheme B There is expected to be no from these hydroelectric The development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire region is expected to have similar impacts on air 7-40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I ... - ... ,- .. " .. -.. - quality as anticipated for the regional Tazimina hydroelectric facility described in Section 7.3.5.2. 7.3.5.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality as anticipated for the Base Plan (Section 7.3.5.1). Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality as anticipated for the Base Plan (Section 7.3.5.1) for the diesel generators, and similar to Scenario B-15 (Section 7.3.5.1) for the supplemental wind energy facilities in Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik. Scheme C The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality as anticipated for Scheme B, above. Scheme D The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on air quality as anticipated for the Base Plan (Section 7.3.5.1). Scheme E The development and implementation of this energy plan (Base Plan supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery) is not expected to have any adverse effects on ambient air quality of the Newhalen area, except for some localized short-term impacts during the construction phase of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric facility. These impacts 7-41 ... are expected to result from fugitive dust from the access road to the site, gaseous emissions from construction equipment, and noise from construction equipment and resultant. activities. The the remainder of the study region, impacts on air quality are anticipated to be similar to those expected for the Base Plan described in Section 7.3.5.1. 7.3.6 Water Quality 7.3.6. I Scenario BP-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have no significant impact upon water quality, either surface or subsurface, within the study region. Mitigative measures, however, such as the lining and diking of fuel storage areas should be required in the event of leaks or spills. 7 . 3. 6 . 2 Scenar io A-1 The development of the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site requires the construction of a large rockfi11 dam for water storage purposes. While construction details have not yet been developed, it is anticipated that short-term. construction-induced erosion will be a source of potential impact to water quality, and could continue until all areas are stabilized. Erosion is generally the source of siltation, turbidity, and increased nutrients in rivers downstream of such activity. The magnitude and duration of these effects will probably vary from area to area, but are generally proportional to the amount of erosion, stream gradient, distance from the disturbance, and erosion control techniques. There exists also, the possiblity of hydrogen sulfide contamination generated by anaerobic decomposition of inundated plants. Further detail on the impacts of construction and operational activity to water quality at the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site is contained in Appendix G, Section 3.2. The following special study was initiated to analyze the effects that a 7-42 • ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ... , regional storage reservoir located on the Tazimina River above the falls would have on the temperature regime in the river below the falls . RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE STUDY The construction of a water storage reservoir on the Tazimina River is expected to have some effect on the natural temperature regime in the river downstream of the impoundment. A preliminary investigation has been temperature differences undertaken to determine the magnitude of the between releases from a reservoir and naturally occurring water temperatures. The mathematical model used in this investigation was the SWEC version of the "MIT Stratified Reservoir Model", which was originally developed by Ryan and Harleman (Ref 1). This model uses climatological data in conjunction with flow rates, inlet water temperatures, and reservoir geometry to predict the outlet water temperatures and the thermal stratification within the reservoir. Little site-specific data were available for use in this study. In the selection of data sources, efforts were made to use data which most closely represented the conditions expected to occur at the site. The use of non-site-specific data introduces a degree of uncertainty in the results of any investigation. The results presented here are intended solely to indentify the magnitude of potential temperature problems associated with a storage reservoir. As site-specific data becomes available, more refined analyses and predictions of these impacts will be made. Climatological data used in the model was based on the historical records from King Salmon, Alaska. The inlet water temperatures used were measured by the USGS on the Snake River near Dillingham during the 1975 water year. Flow rates were those reported by Dames & Moore for the Tazimina River, and by SWEC for the reservoir operation. Preliminary results indicate that during the spring and early summer months the reservoir will warm quickly and the outlet temperture will be greater than the inlet by as much as 30 C. During this time period the only discharge flow was assumed to be through the penstock . 7-43 During the mid-summer months, water will be discharged through the penstock as well as over a spillway. The reservoir .will exhibit a distinct stratification during this time, and as a result, the penstock inlet temperature will be lower than the ambient temperature while the spillway inlet temperature will be greater than ambient. The maximum 6T between the spillway flow temperature and the ambient river temperature is estimated to be about SoC. The maximum 6T between the penstock temperature and the ambient river is estimated to be about _2 o C. During the early autumn months, the stratification in the reservoir begins to break down and isothermal conditions begin to develop. As a result, the discharge temperatures for the penstock and spillway begin to approach each other until finally they coincide when isothermal conditions are reached. Discharge temperatures normally run slightly below ambient temperatures during this period until winter conditions set in. The maximum 6T expected I I I I I I I during the autumn is estimated to be about -2oC. II During the winter months when the reservoir will be ice-covered, discharge temperatures will be close to DoC. This discharge temperature will be essentially the same as the ambient river temperature. These findings represent preliminary results based on non-site-specific data and do not take into consideration heating or cooling of the discharge water as it travels downstream. When more representative data is available from on-going site studies, this analysis will be updated and the effects of heat transfer to the atmosphere as the discharge flows travel downstream will be included through the use of an instream temperature model. 7.3.6.3 Scenario B-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impact on water quality in the study region. 7-44 I I I I I I I I I I • II ... .. ... .. .. .. III .. .. - III 7 . 3 . 6 . 4 Scenario B-2 The development of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except the Newhalen River area, will require the construction of a buried penstock, approximately 9 miles long, from Kukaklek Lake northward to Iliamna Lake. The construction of this penstock will traverse Pecks Creek and several of its tributaries and is expected to affect water quality similar to that described in Section 7.3.6.2 for the Tazimina River. The construction of a flow regulating structure on the Alagnak River below the outlet of Kukaklek Lake is also expected to affect downstream water quality, but only during construction. It is expected to be less than what is anticipated at either the Tazimina or Kontrashibuna regional hydroelectric sites. The decreased flow in the Alagnak River resulting from the diversion of flow through the penstock could result in effects on water quality similar to those presented in Section 7.3.6.16. Other operational and maintenance activities are expected to have little effect on the water quality of Kukaklek Lake and Pecks Creek. The development of the Newhalen River local hydroelectric site is expected to result in some short-term impacts on water quality in the form of increased turbidity, siltation, and increased nutrients. The construction-induced erosion impacts, as well as other potential impacts on water quality during the construction phase are expected to be much less than those impacts described for the Tazimina River, for which a dam is to be constructed. Division via a tunnel in rock is expected to have only a minimal impact. No impacts on water quality are expected during the operation and maintenance phase of this hydroelectric facility. 7.3.6.5 Scenario B-3 The development of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region requires only a small regulating structure at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake, similar to that proposed at the Kukaklek Lake outlet. Construction-induced impacts on water quality are expected to be similar to those described for Tazimina. Operation impacts of this hydroelectric 7-45 facility will be similar to those described for the Tazimina run-of-river concept (Section 7.3.6.16). The development of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region requires a three-mile buried penstock from Kukaklek Lake northwestward to two unnamed lakes which are tributary to Pecks Creek. Construction is expected to cause a degradation in water quality, namely, increased siltation, turbidity, and nutrients in these lakes, which will eventually reach lower Pecks Creek. Because of the volume of water required to be diverted from Kukaklek Lake for power production and the relatively small size of these two unnamed lakes as receiving bodies, and the eventual flow into Pecks Creek, it will be necessary to create a new large lake (reservoir) to regulate outflows. Flow regulation structures are to be constructed at two strategic locations: 1) at the outlet to Pecks Creek at the northeast portion of the reservoir, and 2) at the outlet to Ole Creek at the west end of the reservoir. During the operation phase of this hydroelectric facility, increased flows can be expected in both Pecks and Ole Creeks, particularly during the late autumn. This will result in the delay in the formation of ice in the channels of these waterways. The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of the Newhalen River local hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.6.4. 7.3.6.6 Scenarios B-4, B-6 and B-7 These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.6). 7.3.6.7 Scenario B-5 The development of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the needs of the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region will require a nine-mile penstock for the purpose of diverting flow from Kukaklek Lake northward to Iliamna Lake. The construction impacts on water quality 7-46 • .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,... - - associated with this concept are similar to those described in Section 7.3.6.4. The impacts on water quality in the Alagnak River are expected to be less than those of the regional concept because of the lesser amount of flow diversion from Kukaklek Lake. The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.6.5. The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of the Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept to serve the Newhalen River area are similar to those described in Section 7.3.6.17. Additionally, a preliminary calculation was made to determine temperature rise of water flowing through a small hydroelectric generator, including intake and discharge piping. Assuming that all head losses are converted to heat) a highly conservative approach) and that this heat is added to the flowing water) the resultant maximum temperature rise in the river, downstream of the discharge would be O.02 o C. at maximum flow through the turbine. 7.3.6.B Scenario B-B The development and implementation of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site to serve the Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region will require a storage reservoir, but with only about half the effective capacity as the regional concept. The details describing the impacts on water quality to the Tazimina River from a storage concept can be found in Appendix G, Section 3.2. The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.6.5. 7-47 7.3.6.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-lO Scheme A The development of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-lO) to serve the entire study region can be expected to cause construction impacts on water quality similar to those anticipated for the development of a hydroelectric site, e.g., induced erosion (siltation, turbidity, and increased nutrients), the disposal of domestic and process water, and fuel spills or leaks. The operation and maintenance of a coal-fired facility is generally expected to have a greater potential for affecting the water quality of surrounding lakes and streams than a similar-sized hydroelectric facility, due to surface runoff from coal storage and waste disposal areas. Also, groundwater is susceptible to leaching from coal pile storage areas, coal unloading and handling areas, and solid waste (ash) disposal areas. Significantly more mitigative measures for treatment and disposal of liquid and solid wastes will be necessary to protect water resources at a coal-fired, steam-electric facility than at a hydroelectric facility. Scheme B The development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle generating facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-lO), to serve the entire study region, is expected to have similar impacts on water quality as anticipated in Scheme A, above. However, effects should be somewhat reduced since there will be no open fuel storage, such as coal piles, where runoff could contaminate both surface and groundwater. Fuel storage areas, however, are expected to require I iners and dikes in the event of a leak or spill. Scheme C The development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-lO), to serve the entire 7-48 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. 1: . • .. .. ... - study region, is expected to have similar effects on water quality as anticipated for Scheme A, above. 7.3.6.10 Scenarios B-11 and B-12 The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility are described in Section 7.3.6.9. The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of a local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility are described in Section 7.3.7.4 . 7.3.6.11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The development of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, will require a rockfill storage dam across the entire Chikuminuk Lake outlet valley. Construction impacts on water quality in the Allen River are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the semi-regional (Nushagak River region only) development of Chikuminuk (Section 7.3.6.5). The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of a local Tazimina run-of-river facility are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina run-of-river facility described in Section 7.3.6.16, but to a lesser extent. Scheme B The development of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, will require a rockfill storage dam across the entire Chikuminuk Lake outlet valley. Construction impacts on water quality in the Allen River are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the semi-regional (Nushagak River region only) development 7-49 of Chikuminuk (Section 7.3.6.5). The impacts on water quality associated implementation of a local Newhalen River described in Section 7.3.6.4. 7.3.6.12 Scenario B-14 Scheme A with the development hydroelectric facility and are The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of a regional Newhalen River hydroelectric concept, utilizing a "power only" canal, are expected to be similar to, but greater in duration than, the local Newhalen River hydroelectric concept (Section 7.3.6.4). Scheme B The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of a regional Newhalen River hydroelectric concept, utilizing a large canal for both power intake and high river flow diversion, are expected to be similar to, but greater duration than, the local Newhalen River hydroelectric concept (Section 7.3.6.4). 7.3.6.13 Scenario B-15 The development of this energy plan, with diesel-electric generating centers at four locations, is not expected to have any significant impacts on water quality. However, the implementation of this energy plan should require mitigative measures, such as impermeable liners and dikes in fuel storage areas, to prevent potential leaks and spills from contaminating surface or subsurface waters. 7.3.6.14 Scenario B-16 The impacts on water quality associated with the development and 7-50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (II ... ,... 1iIII. •• ,... .. , - III. .... -... implementation of this energy plan are identical to those described in Section 7.3.6.13. 7.3.6.15 Scenario B-17 The impacts on water quality associated with the development and implementation of this energy plan are expected to be similar to those described in Section 7.3.6.13. However, because this plan has only two diesel-electric generating centers, the possibility of a spill or leak occurring at these locations may be greater in magnitude and the resulting impact on local water quality more serious. 7.3.6.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A The development of the Kontrashibuna regional hydroelectric site can be expected to cause similar impacts on water quality during construction as anticipated for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site (Section 7.3.6.2) . However, because of the shorter downstream length of river at the Kontrashibuna dam site, approximately 4 miles (the Tazimina dam site has about 13 miles), the total impact on riverine water quality is expected to be less . The operation and maintenance of the proposed hydroelectric facility is expected to have little effect on the water quality of the Tanalian River . However, short-term degradation in the form of temperature and conductivity variations may be experienced in the river because of the wide range in potential discharge during low-flow periods. The development of the regional Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric facility is expected to have less impact on water quality during the construction phase than the Tazimina River regional storage hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.6.2, which includes the construction of a large rockfill storage dam. 7-51 The operation and maintenance of the proposed run-of-river hydroelectric facility is expected to have little effect on the water quality of the Tazimina River except that reduced streamflows in the late autumn are likely to accelerate the cooling process, causing stream temperatures in the gorge, below the falls, to decrease more rapidly and result in ice forming in the river channel earlier than normal. Scheme B The development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region is expected to have similar impacts on water quality as anticipated for the regional Tazimina hydroelectric storage concept described in Section 7.3.6.2. Additional impacts may occur IJ .. I I I I I I as a result of drilling through Tanalian Mountain; e.g., the possibility of encountering groundwater of poor quality which if improperly controlled I could contaminate local surface waters, or the leaching of drilled material into surface and subsurface waters. 7.3.6.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts upon water quality anywhere within the study region. Mitigative measures, however, will be taken and are expected to be similar to those described in 7.3.6.1. Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts upon water quality anywhere within the study region. Mitigative measures, however, will be taken and are expected to be similar to those described in Section 7.3.6.1. 7-52 I I I I I I I I I I I ... " - Scheme C The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts upon water quality anywhere within the study region. Mitigative measures, however, will be taken and are expected to be similar to those described in Section 7.3.6.1. Scheme D The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts upon water quality anywhere within the study region. Mitigative measures; however, will be taken and are expected to be similar to those described in Section 7.3.6.1. Scheme E The development and implementation of this energy plan (Base Plan supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery) to serve the study region, except the Newhalen area, is not expected to have any significant impacts upon water quality anywhere within the study region. However, mitigative measures will be taken and are expected to be similar to those described in Section 7.3.6.1. The impacts on water quality anticipated from the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric site to serve the Newhalen area are described in Section 7.3.6.2 and 7.3.6.7. 7.3.7 Fish and Wildlife Impact 7.3.7.1 Scenario BP-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impact on fish or wildlife. 7.3.7.2 Scenario A-1 The development of the Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept to serve the entire study region will result in the reduction of 4,100 acres 7-53 of natural wildlife habitat due to the creation of a storage reservoir at river mile 13.1. The construction of an access road, powerhouse, dam, and spillway will result in additional losses of wildlife habitat. There are also expected to be short-term losses of habitat for birds and mammals associated with the construction of these facilities in adjacent areas as a result of noise and human activity. Associated with the operation and maintenance of this facility is the previously mentioned loss of 4,100 acres of wildlife habitat, which is expected to affect beaver, moose, small mammals, waterfowl, and brown bear. Details discussing the impacts of development and implementation of the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility on wildlife habitat are found in Appendix G, Section 4.2.1. The development of the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric site is expected to have some impact on fish downstream of construction as a result of increased turbidity, nutrients, and siltation. These impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practical. During the operation and maintenance phase of this facility, fish in the lower Tazimina River below the proposed powerhouse could be affected because the flow regime will be altered as a result of regulating the discharges through the penstock for power production, and sa1monid incubation rates may be affected by altered thermal regimes. Fish whose habitat is that section of river between the proposed powerhouse and forebay (intake) structure are expected to receive some impact because flows will be highly variable, particularly during low-flow periods. Between the proposed forebay structure, storage dam flows will be regulated and the potential for impact on resident fish is reduced. Above the storage dam the aquatic habitat will be dramatically altered. The primary impact to fish would be the conversion of 4 miles of riverine 7-54 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... .... habitat to lake habitat. There also exists the possible contamination by hydrogen sulfide generated by the anaerobic decomposition of inundated plants. The surface of Lower Tazimina Lake would be raised approximately 35 ft, and because of water level fluctuations necessary for power generation, spawning and rearing areas near the shore could be eliminated. The Tazimina River "between the lakes II will also be inundated to elevation 690 ft (MSL) and will result in the conversion of approximately 3 miles of riverine habitat to lake habitat. Details describing changes to aquatic habitats and impact on fish are found in Appendix G, Section 4.2.2. 7.3.7.3 Scenario B-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have little or no impact on fish in the study region. The location of the main transmission line between the Newhalen River area and Levelock could, however, affect the migration patterns of the ~lulchatna caribou herd. The feeder line from South Naknek to Egegik is planned to be located along the coast (as it will be for all energy plans) to avoid the migration pattern of the Alaska Peninsula caribou herd. Except for these two areas, transmission corridor location does not appear to have a significant impact on wildlife habitat within the study region. A more serious impact, however, may occur outside the study region should the corridor be constructed through Lake Clark Pass. Because the pass is an important habitat corridor for brown bear, moose, Dal1 sheep and other fur bearers, a detailed study (impact analysis) would be necessary if this scenario was to be selected for Phase II analysis. 7.3.7.4 Scenario B-2 The development of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen river area, requires the construction of a large penstock to divert water for power generation from Kukaklek Lake northward to Iliamna Lake. Construction impacts in the area are expected 7-55 to have a significant effect on wildlife habitats in the immediate area. The area north of Kukaklek Lake is classified by biologists as prime moose habitat, with moose concentrating there year-round. Brown bear and grizzly bear are also known to concentrate along Pecks Creek and the Alagnak River, and caribou from the Mulchatna herd winter in the area near Pecks Creek; construction in such a prime wildlife area could have significant effects. Construction impacts are expected to be similar to those described in Appendix G, Section 4.2.1, for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric site. Wildlife impacts during the operation and maintenance phase of this hydroelectric facility are expected to be minimal since the penstock will be buried and the surface revegetated, and there is expected to be no significant water level fluctuation in Kukaklek Lake. Impacts on fish are expected to be minimal during the construction phase of the regional Kukaklek hydroelectric site. The primary impact expected to occur will result from construction-induced erosion in the form of siltation, turbidity, and increased nutrient concentration, particularly in Pecks Creek and the Alagnak River. Kukaklek Lake is the source of the Alagnak River and supports five species of Pacific salmon plus rainbow trout, char, whitefish, burbot, and grayling. The operation of the regional Kukaklek hydroelectric facility is not expected to significantly impact the lake's aquatic habitat and will allow free movement of fish into and out of the lake. Because of the lake's large areal extent ,the fluctuating lake level is expected to be minimal, not seriously impacting the littoral zone. However, flow diversion, while not affecting the lake, may affect the stream flows and morphology of the Alagnak River, which supports a high-density fishery in its lower reach. Another fishery impact which is not expected to be significant, however, is the diversion of stream flows across drainage boundaries (in this case, the proportion of flow from Kukaklek Lake entering Iliamna Lake is not s ignif icant when compared to the natural inflow to Iliamna Lake). The development of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site is expected to have similar impacts on wildlife and habitat as described in Section 7.3.7.2 for the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric site. Any moose and 7-56 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. II .. III - - brown and black bear along the Newhalen River are expected to be displaced during construction. Wildlife impacts resulting from the operation and maintenance of the facility are not expected to be significant, however. Impacts on fish during the construction phase of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility are generally expected to be less than those described for other hydroelectric sites where storage reservoirs are required. However, it is recognized that the Newhalen River is a critical link in the Kvichak salmon fishery, because the entire sockeye salmon population of the Lake Clark region passes through the river both in juvenile and adult stages. Because the local Newhalen River hydroelectric concept considers diversion of flow, the impact of the salmon fishery resulting from the operation and maintenance phase is expected to be minimal since mitigative measures will be taken to prevent out-migrating salmon from entering the diversion structure. 7.3.7.5 Scenario B-3 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region is expected to have some effect on fish, primarily those effects resulting from water quality degradation as described in Section 7.3.6.5. The increase of flow into Pecks and Ole Creeks, coupled with the reduction of flow in the Alagnak River, is also expected to have an effect on both resident and anadromous fish. Possibly the most significant impact of this development concept is the diversion of streamflow across drainage boundaries, since the introduction of non-indigenous pathogens and parasites might occur. The proportion of flow diverted from Kukaklek Lake to the two unnamed lakes and to Pecks and Ole Creeks is significant and may effect the homing instincts of anadromous fish. The impacts on wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Kukaklek hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.7.4. The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and 7-57 implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are expected to be similar to those anticipated at the Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.7.16. Salmon reportedly migrate only to the mouth of the Allen River, never reaching Chikuminuk Lake. Principal species of fish found in the Chikuminuk Lake include rainbow and lake trout, Artic char, grayling, whitefish, and northern pike. Moose are generally present, but few caribou inhabit the area. Brown and black bear are common along with small mammals. The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.7.4. 7.3.7.6 Scenario B-4, B-6, and B-7 These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.6). 7.3.7.7 Scenario B-5 The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are described in Section 7.3.7.4. The fishery impact on the Alagnak River is expected to be less, however, than the regional Kukaklek concept due to the smaller amount of flow to be diverted for power generation. The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.7.5. The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept are expected to be similar to the regional Tazimina run-ot-river concept described in Section 7.3.7.16. 7-58 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..-L 7.3.7.B Scenario B-B The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept to serve the Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to those anticipated at the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept. The smaller quantity of flow required for power generation, however, will result in a smaller reservoir and less associated impacts. The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.7.5. 7.3.7.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-IO Scheme A The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility located in either Dillingham (B-9) and Naknek (B-IO) to serve the entire study region is not expected to have any significant impacts on fish and wildlife. There are no important large mammal herds which utilize the areas where these facilities would be constructed and the use of air-cooled condensers are expected to preclude any impacts on fisheries that would be expected from a once-through cooling system . However, specific mitigative measures are expected to be required to prevent impacts on fisheries at the coal barge unloading facility. Scheme B The development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-IO) to serve the entire study region is expected to have similar impacts on fish and wildlife as anticipated for Scheme A, above. 7-59 Scheme C The development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region is expected to have similar impacts on fish and wildlife as anticipated for Scheme A, above. 7.3.7.10 Scenarios B-11 and B-12 The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric facility are described in Section 7.3.7.9. The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of a local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility are described in Section 7.3.7.4. 7.3.7.11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.7.2. As is the case with Lower Tazimina Lake, Chikuminuk Lake will also have to be raised for the purpose of power generation and consequently, areas critical to the spawning and rearing of resident fish will be reduced. Additionally, low-lying areas at the western end of the lake which presently provide habitat for moose and waterfowl, would be inundated. The construction of an airfield approximately 10 miles east of the lake outlet and access road connecting the airfield with the power site is expected to temporarily disturb a large area heavily used by brown and black bear and moose. The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and 7-60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ... implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina run-of-river concept described in Section 7.3.7.16, but to a lesser extent. Scheme B The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except the Newhalen River area, are described in Scheme A, above. The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.7.4. 7.3.7.12 Scenario B-14 Scheme A The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the regional Newhalen hydroelectric concept, utilizing a "power only" canal, are expected to be similar to, but of greater magnitude than, those anticipated for the local Newhalen hydroelectric concept, described in Section 7.3.7.4. The exclusion of out-migrating sockeye salmon smolt and fry is of utmost concern. A special study has been designed for Phase II which will test various fish screens and deflectors under varying flow and climatic conditions in order to protect these out-migrants . Scheme B The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric concept are expected to be similar to, but of greater magnitude than, those anticipated for the local Newhalen River hydroelectric concept described in Section 7.3.7.4. Al though a bridge over the Newhalen River and an access road on the west side will not be required, construction of a large canal will be necessary . 7-61 Special canal intake designs will be required to protect sockeye salmon smolt and fry as they pass the intake during downstream mitigation. The diversion of river flows during the winter low-flow periods is expected to have some affect on resident fish, but may also impact sockeye salmon. However, these effects cannot be fully assessed at the present time. The diversion of flow through the intake canal during high water periods may benefit the sockeye salmon fishery by lowering the velocity in the river channel to allow upstream migration during periods of high flow. It has been reported that extreme flows over the rapids in the lower Newhalen River have caused blockage at the river's mouth to upstream passage, a problem which on infrequent occasions has caused extensive mortality in mature adult sockeye salmon as they move in early summer to freshwater spawning areas in the Newhalen River-Lake Clark System. The hydro concept currently visualized would permit controlled bypass of water around the rapids by means of the plant's intake canal. This could eliminate excessive flows over the rapids, thereby improving conditions for upstream migration. 7.3.7.13 Scenario B-1S Impacts on fish associated with the development and implementation of this energy plan are not expected to be significant. However, the location of transmission lines may create potential impacts. Transmission lines located along and near the coast may pose some hazard to migrating waterfowl, while a transmission line between Levelock and Igiugig may have an effect on the migrating Mulchatna caribou herd. 7.3.7.14 Scenario B-16 The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of this energy plan are expected to be the same as those described in Section 7.3.7.13, except that a main transmission intertie is proposed between Dilligham and Naknek. This may create a greater impact on migrating waterfowl in that area. 7.3.7.15 Scenario B-17 The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and 7-62 " III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ii. iii ... ... - .implementation of this energy plan are expected to be similar to those described in Section 7.3.7.3 for the Beluga Intertie. Significant effects are expected to be associated with the transmission lines only and not the diesel-electric generation centers. 7.3.7.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of a regional hydroelectric facility at Kontrashibuna are expected to be similar to those presented in Section 7.3.7.2 for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility. While the Tanalian River supports only a small run of salmon, other species such as lake trout, Artic char, pygmy whitefish, and sculpin can expect to be affected by the project. Moose, generally present in the area, along with brown and grizzly bear, which are known to concentrate along the Tanalian River and lower Kontrashibuna Lake, are also expected to be affected by project construction. The development of the regional Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept is expected to have similar construction impacts as the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept described in Section 7.3.7.2. However, the operation and maintenance phase is expected to have only a minimal impact on wildlife habitat since there will be no inundation by a storage reservoir. The most significant impact on aquatic habitat is expected to occur in the section of river between the proposed powerhouse and forebay dam. While there will be a reduction in flow through this section of river year-round, the reduction of flow during low-flow periods may pose the most severe impact upon both resident and anadromous fish. Details describing the impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina River run-of-river hydroelectric site are found in Appendix G, Section 4.2. 7-63 Scheme B The impacts on fish and wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hyroelectric site to serve the entire study region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina hydroelectric storage concept as detailed in Scheme A, above. 7.3.7.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to create any significant impacts on fish or wildlife. Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to create any significant impacts on fish or wildlife. Scheme C The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to create any significant impacts on fish or wildlife. Scheme D The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to create any significant impacts on fish or wildlife. Scheme E The development and implementation of this energy plan (Base Plan supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery) to serve the study region, except the Newhalen area, is not expected to create any significant impacts on fish or wildlife. 7-64 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • i .. .. --- The impacts on fish and .wildlife associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric site to serve the Newhalen area are described in Section 7.3.7.16. 7.3.8 Land Use Impact and Ownership Status 7.3.8.1 Scenario BP-l The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on land use or ownership status in the study region. 7.3.8.2 Scenario A-l The development and implementation of the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility is expected to have some effect on land use and ownership status. While the subsistence usage of the Tazimina Lakes has been relatively low, both in recent and historic times, the use of the lower Tazimina River and nearby lakes has been extensive. trapping, and hunting have been the primary activities. Fishing, Essentially all the land in the Tazimina River regional hydroelectric project area is either owned by, or has been interim-conveyed to local natives. The lakes, however, are currently part of the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, and come under the Park Service jurisdiction. There appears to be some discrepancy or confusion about the status of the lands immediately surrounding the Tazimina River and lower Tazimina Lake. All lands within one-quarter mile of Lower Tazimina Lake and all lands within one-quarter mile of the Tazimina River, between Lower Tazimina Lake and Six-mile Lake, have been withdrawn for the purpose of power development. While the original withdrawal of these lands by the Federal Power Commission was included under Power Site Reserve No. 485, dated April 1, 1915, a more recent classification was approved on October 22, 1971, resulting in the issuance of Power Site Classification No. 463. However, these lands are now included in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, 7-65 under the A~aska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. Transmission corridors from the regional Tazimina River site, both main and feeder lines, are expected to pass through numerous classifications of land and also have effect on land usage. To the extent possible, transmission lines will be located on state-owned lands, avoiding native-owned lands and federal lands designated under ANILCA for conservation. Transmission lines will also be designed to be located in areas away from known and heavy subsistence hunting, trapping, and fishing areas, and avoid prime recreation hunting and fishing areas. 7.3.8.3· Scenario B-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have the same impacts on land use and ownership status within the Bristol Bay region as anticipated for the transmission corridors for the energy plans described in Section 7.3.8.16. However, significant impact is expected to occur north and east of Port Alsworth where the transmission corridor will traverse designated wilderness areas of the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. Such development is not considered acceptable according to the general management plan of this Alaska conservation unit. 7.3.8.4 Scenario B-2 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the entire region, except for the Newhalen River area, is expected to have a significant effect on land use and ownership status. Kukaklek Lake and the area around it presently lie within the preserve boundary of the Mt. Katmai National Park and Preserve. A corridor, two land sections in width, from the outlet of Kukaklek Lake northward to Iliamna Lake, has been withdrawn and is currently owned by the residents of Igiugig. The proposed development anticipates obtaining a right-of-way over this native-owned land, thus avoiding impacts to the federally-designated conservation land. As previously discussed, in Section 7.3.7.4, the area in which the hydroelectric facility will be developed is prime moose and caribou land. Therefore, subsistence hunting by local native residents could be greatly 7-66 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,. ! .. liM affected. Also, the Alagnak River and Pecks Greek are subsistence fishing streams which support not only anadromous important fish but numerous species of resident fish. Disturbance from construction activities and reduced flows during the operation phase of this hydroelectric facility could have a significant effect on subsistence fishing. Another potential impact is the effect of reduced flow on the Wild and Scenic River portion of the Alagnak River. River usage data, however, are not currently available to fully evaluate the potential impact. The transmission corridors from the Kukaklek hydroelectric site will be located using the same principle described for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility in Section 7.3.8.2. Because the Kukaklek hydroelectric facility is not designed to serve the Newhalen River area, land use and ownership will not be affected by a transmission corridor north and west of Iliamna Lake. The development and implementation of a local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility is expected to have some affect on land ownership status. While all the land in the area is owned by local native organizations, a right-of-way will be necessary for project development. The transmission line corridor may possibly utilize land previously set aside for the proposed Newhalen to Nondalton transmission intertie (Section 7.3.3.4). All the lands within one-quarter mile of the Newhalen River, between Sixmile Lake and Iliamna Lake, have been withdrawn for the purpose of power generation. This withdrawal was made by the Federal Power Commission on April 1, 1915, under Power Site Reserve No. 485. However, some of the proposed hydroelectric appurtenant facilities are expected to be located outside the reserve boundary. 7.3.8.5 Scenario B-3 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula area is expected to affect on land use and ownership status similar to that anticipated for 7-67 the regional Kukaklek hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.8.5. This concept, however, is not expected to require as much right-of-way land to be purchased from Igiugig, but will utilize what is primarily Bureau of Land Management land located south and west. The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region is expected to have major effects on land use and ownership status in the region. While most construction-related activity will be outside the park the hydroelectric power generation facility is located within the borders of the Wood-Tikchik State Park. Such a power generating facility and appurtenant structures are not considered acceptable to the overali management objective of the state park. The main transmission line corridor from the facility site to Dillingham is proposed to be located outside the State Park boundary, utilizing state-owned lands to the extent possible and avoiding native-owned lands. Subsistence hunting and fishing areas will be avoided to the extent possible; however, some impact may occur when crossing the Nuyakuk River. The impacts on land use and development and implementation described in Section 7.3.8.4. ownership status associated of the local Newhalen River 7.3.8.6 Scenarios B-4, B-6, and B-7 with the site are These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.6). 7.3.8.7 Scenario B-5 The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Kukaklek hydroelectric site described in Section 7.3.8.4. However, these impacts are expected to be considerably less since there will be no transmission line corridor 7-68 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c , .., - - required to connect the Newhalen River area with the rest of the region, and the flows in the Wild and Scenic Alagnak River would not be as greatly reduced. The impacts on land use and ownership associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.B.5. The impact on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric site is expected to be similar to that anticipated for the regional Tazimina run-of-river concept described in Section 7.3.B.16, but to a lesser extent. Impacts from the transmiss ion line corridor are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility described in Section 7.3.B.4. 7.3.B.B Scenario B-B The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site to serve the Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept described in Section 7.3.B.2. Less land surrounding Lower Tazimina Lake is expected to be affected by inundation because of the smaller energy demand requiring a smaller storage reservoir. While transmission line corridors are expected to follow the same route as the regional Tazimina concept within the Kvichak River region, there will be no line planned to connect the Nushagak River region. The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of th Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.B.5. 7-69 7.3.8.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-I0 Scheme A The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility, located in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-I0), to serve the entire study region are expected to be minimal. The facility will be constructed in or near Dillingham or Naknek and is not expected to affect any subsistence use. Approximately 15 acres of native-owned land will have to be purchased to develop the energy plan. Transmission line impacts on land use and ownership status are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage facility described in Section 7.3.8.2. Scheme B The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle facility located in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-I0) to serve the entire study region are expected to be the same as those anticipated in Scheme A, above. Scheme C The impacts on development and facility located land use and ownership status associated with the implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-I0) to serve the entire study region are expected to be the same as those anticipated in Scheme A, above. 7.3.8.10 Scenarios B-l1 and B-12 The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-ll) or Naknek (B-12) are described in 7-70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I , .. - - - -... Section 7.3.8.9. The impact on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site is described in Section 7.3.8.4. 7.3.8.11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The impacts on development and land use and ownership status implementation of the Chikuminuk associated with the hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River Area, are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region described in Section 7.3.8.5. There is, however, expected to be more impact on land use and ownership status, because the greater electric demand for the region will require raising the level of Chikuminuk Lake for power generation and increased storage. Approximately 3700 acres of land will be lost to inundation by the storage reservoir. The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept described in Section 7.3.8.16. Scheme The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hyroelectric site to serve the study region, except the Newha1en River area, are described in Scheme A, above. The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility are described in Section 7.3.8.4 . 7-71 7.3.8.12 Scenario B-14 Scheme A The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric concept, utilizing a "power only" canal, are expected to be similar to, but somewhat greater than, those anticipated by the local Newhalen River hydroelectric concept described in Section 7.3.8.4. The project concept encroaches on an Indian Allotment. Efforts have been initiated through appropriate agencies to resolve this matter. The transmission corridor is the same as for the regional Tazimina hydroelectric concept described in Section 7.3.8.2. Scheme B The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric concept, utilizing a large canal for both power intake and high river flow diversion, are expected to be similar to, but somewhat grea~er than, those anticipated by the local Newhalen River hydroelectric concept described in Section 7.3.8.4. The proj ect concept encroaches on an Indian Allotment. Efforts have been initiated through appropriate agencies to resolve this matter. The transmission corridor is the same as for the regional Tazimina hydroelectric concept described in Section 7.3.8.2. 7.3.8.13 Scenario B-15 The impact on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of four diesel-electric generating centers is expected to be minimal. However, the location of the transmiss ion line corridors may result in a significant impact. From the Dillingham center, the feeder line to Portage Creek is proposed to cross the Wood River and follow the north side of the Nushagak River, utilizing state land as much as possible and avoiding subsistence use areas. From Portage Creek to Clarks Point and 7-72 I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I Ekuk, the transmission line is proposed to be located adjacent to a winter trail, avoiding potential impact to native-owned land and subsistence use areas. Transmission from Dillingham to Manokotak is expected to follow the existing route to Aleknagik but branch off toward Manokotak, utilizing state land immediately north of the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, and enter the village by utilizing a right-of-way on native-owned land and avoiding subsistence use areas. From the New Stuyahok center, one feeder line will run southwest along the Nushagak River to Ekwok, while the other line will run north to Koliganek utilizing mostly state-owned land and avoiding subsistence use areas. From the Naknek center, the feeder line to Egegik will utilize the existing transmission line to South Naknek and continue southward along the coast, primarily on state-owned land. The transmission line to Levelock and Igiugig is proposed to utilize state-owned land to the Alagnak River, cross the Alagnak River below its \Hld and Scenic Section, and run northeast to the vicinity of the mouth of Ben Courtny Creek on the Kvichak River, utilizing primarily state-and BL~-owned land. At this point, one segment of the line will cross the Kvichak River and double back to Levelock on state-owned land, avoiding subsistence use areas. The other segment of the line will continue on to Igiugig, utilizing both state-and BLM-owned land. From the Newhalen center, transmission feeder lines will follow the route proposed by the Iliamna-Newhalen Electric Cooperative for connecting Nondalton to the system. 7.3.8.14 Scenario B-16 The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of this energy plan are expected to be the same as those described in Section 7.3.8.13. However, an additional transmission intertie is planned to connect the Dillingham and Naknek centers, and will utilize primarily BLM-owned land between the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers. 7-73 7.3.8.15 Scenario B-17 The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of this energy plan are expected to be similar to those of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham or Naknek. However, less land will be required for the construction of the facilities. 7.3.8.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A The development and implementation of the regional Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site is expected to have significant impacts on land use and ownership status. The raising of Kontrashibuna Lake behind the proposed dam on the Tanalian River for power generation is expected to affect subsistence hunting in that area by eliminating approximately 2,000 acres of woodland. Downstream of the dam, the reduced flow in the Tanalian River, the construction of a road, and the boring of a power tunnel through the southwest slope of Tanalian Mountain are all expected to have a significant effect on the subsistence hunting and fishing activities of the residents of Nondalton and Port Alsworth. Also, the entire reservoir will be located within the Lake Clark National Park wilderness area. While all lands within one-quarter mile of Kontrashibuna Lake and all lands within one-quarter mile of the Tanalian River, between Kontrashibuna Lake and Lake Clark, have been withdrawn for the purpose of power development, the present status of these lands are as designated wilderness. As such, the present management plan of the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve prohibits hydroelectric power development. The construction of a transmission corridor from Port Alsworth to the Newhalen River will traverse native-owned land, avoiding the preserve land of the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. From the Newhalen River the transmission corridors are expected to follow the same routes as anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility, and are expected to have the same impacts as described in Section 7.3.8.2. 7-74 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I The development and implementation of the regional Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric facility is expected to have similar, but somewhat smaller, impacts on land use and ownership than anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage facility because there will be no storage dam and reservoir. Scheme B The impacts on land use and ownership status associated with the development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region are described in Scheme A, above. 7.3.8.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on land use or ownership status anywhere within the study region. Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on land use or ownership status anywhere within the study region. Scheme C The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on land use or ownership status anywhere within the study region. Scheme D The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on land use or ownership status anywhere 7-75 within the study region. Scheme E The development and implementation of this energy plan (Base Plan supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery) to serve the study region, except the Newhalen area, is not expected to have any significant impacts on land use or ownership status. The development and implementation of the Tazimina run-of-river site to serve the Newhalen area is expected to impact land use and ownership status similar to the regional Tazimina storage concept (Section 7.3.8.2) except that there will be no impacts resulting from an impoundment. 7.3.9 Terrestrial Impact 7.3.9.1 Scenario BP-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan, individual diesel-electric generating centers in each transmission interconnection other than what presently expected to have any significant impact on vegetation ecology. 7.3.9.2 Scenario A-I which utilizes village and no exists, is not and terrestrial The development of the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept is expected to result in the direct loss of approximately 150 acres of vegetation due to the construction of access roads, borrow areas, powerhouse site, storage dam, and spillway. The access road from the existing Newhalen road will traverse through open mixed spruce-birch forest and open low-shrub, with some occasional riparian tall shrub communities. The road from the powerhouse to the storage dam will cross through exposed low-shrub communities with scattered spruce trees. While the losses would be permanent, these vegetation types are widespread throughout the region and do not represent unique habitat types. 7-76 J I I' I I I I I t I I I I i I I I 'I I I I ; I I r • • I The major terrestrial impact of this regional concept would be the loss of approximately 4100 acres of vegetation around Lower Tazimina Lake as a result of filling the storage reservoir. The zone of inundation and periodic drawdown is presently covered by a wide range of vegetation types. Along the south shore of Lower Tazimina Lake, black spruce woodland predominates. The same is the case along the north shore, but near the upper end of the lake a more open mixed spruce-birch forest develops. The vegetation upstream of the lake, between the two lakes, is primarily open white spruce forest and tall shrub. This area also contains the largest area of wet land habitat around the lower lake. There are also riparian habitats present, but they are generally associated with tributaries to the lower lake. The construction of transmission line rights-of-way are expected to have only a minimal impact on terrestrial ecology since trees will only be cut along the corridors and poles will be placed only during winter months. Forests will generally be avoided; however, the width of the right-of-way will only be about 50 ft. In forested areas this right-of-way is expected to be maintained by periodic cutting. A more detailed discussion of terrestrial impacts appears in Appendix G, Section 4.2.1. 7.3.9.3 Scenario B-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any greater impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology than the transmission line corridor associated with the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility. There will however, be an additional 25 miles or so of corridor to be cut between Sixmile Lake and Port Alsworth. The corridor will be located in the upland spruce-birch forest along the southeast shore of Lake Clark. Once a corridor is cut in a forest area, brush will be allowed to revegetate the cleared area, with trees expected to be cut periodically as they mature. 7-77 7.3.9.4 Scenario B-2 The development of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, is expected to have a significant impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. The major impact is expected to occur along the penstock corridor between Kukaklek Lake and Iliamna Lake. Because the penstock will be buried, approximately 60 acres (a corridor approximately 50 ft wide by 9 miles long) will have to be disturbed. The penstock will traverse through a predominantly moist tundra ecosystem, but will also encounter spruce-birch forest in the area of upper Pecks Creek, sedges and mosses in depressions, and low-growing shrubs on low, rounded hills. While the access road will utilize the penstock corridor and the land surface scheduled to be revegetated, the impact from such a disturbance may remain visible for many years. The proposed barge facility, construction camp, and powerhouse, located on Iliamna Lake, will only require a relatively small area. Because of the large surface area of Kukaklek Lake, the amount of flow diversion through the penstock is expected to result in only a minimum amount of lake fluctuation, with minimal impact on shoreline vegetation. The development of a local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility to serve the Newhalen River area is expected to have only a minimal impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. Because the location of this site is on the west side of the Newhalen River, and a bridge will have to be constructed, with an existing road from the Iliamna Airfield utilized to minimize the terrestrial impacts. The area is classified a high brush ecosystem and is dominated by low-growing shrubs and scattered white spruce and paper birch. The transmission corridors associated with this energy plan are expected to be similar to those of a regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility; however, the section between the Newhalen and Kvichak Rivers along the northern and western portion of Iliamna Lake will be eliminated. A transmission corridor from the Kukaklek site to the Kvichak River will traverse through moist tundra and bottomland spruce-birch forest. 7-78 I • • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; I .. • • .. I I I 7.3.9.5 Scenario B-3 The development of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaska Peninsula region is expected to have a significant impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. While this energy plan proposes only a 3-mile penstock to two unnamed lakes northwest of Kukaklek Lake, rather than a 9-mile penstock to Iliamna Lake for a regional concept, the area of impact is considerably larger. A new reservoir is proposed in the area of the unnamed lakes and will inundate approximately 3,800 total acres. A net loss of approximately 2,600 acres will occur since the two unnamed lakes currently occupy about 1,200 acres. This acreage, in addition to the access road from the barge facility and construction camps, consists of moist tundra and upland spruce-birch forest. The development of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region is expected to have some impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. Because of the remoteness of this site, an airfield will have to be constructed to bring in equipment and supplies. Also, because of the rugged terrain surrounding Chikuminuk Lake and its location within the Wood-Tikchik State Park, the airfield is proposed to be constructed outside the park boundary. Several hundred acres of upland spruce-birch forest will be permanently removed for construction of the airfield, construction camp, supply and storage area, and the approximately l3-mile access road connecting the airfield to the proposed facility site at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake. Since no additional water storage is required for power generation, no terrestrial impacts are expected to occur around the lake, resulting from inundation and periodic reservoir drawdown for power generation. The impacts on vegetation and terrrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility are described in Section 7.3.9.4. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the transmission line corridors of this energy plan are expected to be similar to those anticipated for Scenario B-2 described in Section 7.3.9.4. 7-79 Because the Nushagak and Kvichak River regions will not be connected in this energy plan, the main transmission line between the Kvichak and Nushagak Rivers will not be required. However, a main transmission line from the Chikuminuk facility to Dillingham is necessary. This corridor will be approximately 110 miles long and traverse through primarily lowland spruce-birch forest. A feeder line approximately 35 miles in length will connect New Stuyahok to the main transmission line in the vicinity of Lake Beverly. This corridor also will traverse primarily through lowland spruce-birch forest. As previous ly discussed, main transmission corridors will be about 50 feet in width, and will only be cut, as required, for maintenance purposes. 7.3.9.6 Scenarios B-4, B-6, and B-7 These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.6). 7.3.9.7 Scenario B-5 The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Kukaklek site described in Section 7.3.9.4. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept are expected to be considerably less than those anticipated for the regional Tazimina hydroelectric storage concept. The major difference in the two developments would be that a local Tazimina River facility would be a run-of-river concept, while the regional Tazimina River facility is a storage concept reservoir. The operation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric facility is not expected to have any significant impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology resulting from the intake structure at the forebay dam. 7-80 a I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I, I I I t t t r II 7.3.9.8 Scenario B-8 The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site to serve the Kvichak River and Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to, but not as extensive as, those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility. The reservoir storage area requires that only about 2,700 acres be inundated above the present lower Tazimina Lake level; the regional Tazimina River concept requires that approximately 4,100 acres be inundated. The transmission line corridors from the Tazimina River hydroelectric facility Within the Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected be identical to those for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility. There will, however, be no transmission line corridor connecting the Nushagak and Kvichak River systems. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.9.5. 7.3.9.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-10. Scheme A The development of a coal-fired steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region is expected to have a local impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. Construction at the site, including all appurtenant facilities associated with a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility, will require the permanent removal of approximately 15 acres of vegetation. In the areas around Dillingham and Naknek, the primary ecosystems are either wet or moist tundra. The operation of coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility is expected to have a minimal impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. However, a 7-81 detailed air emission impact study may be necessary to determine if a significant impact would result. The effects on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the construction and maintenance of transmission line corridors of this energy plan are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the development of the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage facility described in Section 7.3.9.2. Scheme B The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle facility located in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region are expected to be similar to those anticipated in Scheme A, above. Scheme C The' impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility located in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region are expected to be similar to those anticipated in Scheme A, above. ,7.3.9.10 Scenarios B-11 and B-12 The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility in either Dillingham (B-11) or Naknek (B-12) to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, are expected to be similar to those described in Section 7.3.9.9, except that there will be no transmission line corridor between Igiugig and Newhalen. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.9.4. 7-82 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t " • I I il t t -! 7.3.9.11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, with the exception of the Newhalen River area, are expected to be similar to those described in Section 7.3.9.5. Additional impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology are expected to occur when the level of Chikuminuk Lake is raised to elevation 619 ft (MSL), which is required for power generation. This will result in the loss of approximately 3,700 acres of high bush ecosystem around the lake. A transmission line corridor will be required to bring power from the Nushagak River region across to the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region. No transmission line corridor will be developed between Igiugig and Newhalen. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept are described in Section 7.3.9.7. Scheme B The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except the Newha1en River area, are described in Scheme A, above. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the local Newha1en River hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.9.4. 7-83 7.3.9.12 Scenario B-14 Scheme A The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric site, utilizing a "power only" canal, are expected to be more significant than those anticipated for the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site. While development will be confined to the east side of the Newhalen River, this concept involves a wide canal for flow diversion, which will require the removal of approximately 150 acres of high brush ecosystem. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the transmission line corridors are expected to be the same as those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric concept described in Section 7.3.9.2. Scheme B The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric site, utilizing a large canal for both power intake and high river flow diversion, are expected to be more significant than those anticipated for the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site. While development will be confined to the east side of the Newhalen River, this concept involves a wide canal for flow diversion, which will require the removal of approximately 150 acres of high brush ecosystem. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the transmission line corridors are expected to be the same as those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric concept described in Section 7.3.9.2. 7.3.9.13 Scenario B-15 The development and implementation of four diesel-electric generating centers at Dillingham, New Stuyahok, Naknek, and Newhalen is expected to 7-84 I I I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -• ; ; r .. ... --.. have no significant impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. The construction and maintenance of transmission line corridors, however, is expected to have an impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. Transmission line corridors for this energy plan are described in Section 7.3.8.13. Areas of most significant impact are expected to occur in the area of densest forest: 1) near Portage Creek in the Nushagak River valley; 2) west of Dillingham on the uplands between the Snake, Weary, and Igushik Rivers; and 3) in the lower Alagnak River valley. 7.3.9.14 Scenario B-16 The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of this energy plan are expected to be the same for those anticipated for the energy plan described in Section 7.3.9.13. However, a main transmission intertie proposed to connect Dillingham and Naknek is designed to cross the area between Portage Creek and Kvichak over tundra. 7.3.9.15 Scenario B-17 The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development of two independent diesel-electric generating centers in Dillingham and Naknek are not expected to be significant. The construction and maintenance of the transmission corridors associated with the development of this energy plan is expected to have similar impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology as anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric facility. 7.3.9.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A The development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the study region is expected to have some effects on vegetation and terrestrial ecology; these effects are expected to be similar to those anticipated for those at the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage 7-85 site described in Section 7.3.9.2. Nearly all of the vegetation in the Tanalian River valley and around Kontrashibuna Lake is upland spruce-birch forest. Approximately 2,000 acres will be lost as a result of raising the level of the lake for meeting power generation needs. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the regional Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept are described in Section 7.3.9.7. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the construction and maintenance of the transmission line corridors for this energy plan are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage facility described in Section 7.3.9.2. However, an additional 25 miles of corridor will have to be constructed between Port Alsworth and Sixmile Lake through upland spruce-birch forest. Scheme B The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with the development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region are described in Scheme A, above. 7 . 3 . 9 . 17 Scenar io B -19 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts upon vegetation and terrestrial ecology. Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts upon vegetation. and terrestrial ecology. However, there is expected to be some minor disturbance of vegetation associated with the development of supplemental wind energy facilities at 7-86 .. II I I I • .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,. 1 , .. I'" .11 Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik. This impact, however, is anticipated to be both localized and short-term. Scheme C The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts upon vegetation and terrestrial ecology. However, there is expected to be some minor disturbance of vegetation associated with the development of supplemental wind energy facilities at Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik. This impact, however, is anticipated to be both localized and short-term. Scheme D The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts upon vegetation and terrestrial ecology. Scheme E The development and implementation of this energy plan (Base Plan supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery) to serve the study region, except the Newhalen area, is not expected to have any significant impact on vegetation and terrestrial ecology. The impacts on vegetation and terrestrial ecology associated with development and implementation of the local Tazimina hydroelectric site to serve the Newhalen area are described 7.3.9.2 and 7.3.9.7. 7.3.10 Recreational Resource Value 7.3.10.1 Scenario BP-1 run-of-river in Sections The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on recreational resource value in the study region. 7-87 7.3.10.2 Scenario A-I The development and implementation of the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept is expected to have little effect on the recreational resource value of the area. The areas where the development of the hydroelectric site will be most felt are in the area of sport fisheries. The gorge section of the lower Tazimina River, which presently supports trophy-size rainbow trout and large grayling, will be affected by flows regulated during the operation of the facility. Normal high flows will be reduced and low flows augmented. Reduction in flow in the section of river above the falls will occur. The creation of a new large reservoir is expected to reduce the number of presently established rearing and spawning areas for resident fish. In the area of wildlife habitat, the only long-term effect the development is expected to have will be on the moose habitat in the wetland area between the lakes. Some beaver habitat may also be lost on some tributaries to the lower lake. Because of the lack of abundance of trophy game animals in the Tazimina basin, the recreation resource value is not expected not be significantly affected. However, access into the area will be greatly improved as a result of the development of a road into the site from the Newhalen River. A detailed discussion on recreation impacts can be found in Appendix G, Section 7. 7.3.10.3 Scenario B-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on the recreational resource value of the study region. 7.3.10.4 Scenario B-2 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, is expected to 7-88 I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I po .. • have some effect on the recreational resource value of the Alagnak River basin. Because the area to the north of Kukaklek Lake is classified as prime moose habitat and is a wintering ground for caribou, any development in that area may affect the habitat of those large mammals. Also, because of the diversion of flow from Kukaklek Lake to Iliamna Lake the down-stream habitat of the Alagnak River may be altered, thus affecting all five species of Pacific salmon and numerous resident species, which inhabit the river. While Kukaklek Lake has no formal lodges or camp sites located on its shores, the area presently lies within the Mt. Katmai National Park and Preserve, and is readily accessible by float plane. Also, in addition to the excellent hunting and fishing opportunities available, the Alagnak River, below the outlet of the Kukaklek Lake is classified as a National Wild and Scenic River, and is used for recreational float trips . The development and implementation of the Newhalen River to serve the local area is expected to have only a minor effect upon the recreational and sport fishery value of the lower river. The river is currently an important recreational angling stream, and has many hunting and fishing lodges located nearby. The lower section of river is noted for its grayling, sockeye salmon, and trophy rainbow trout. The area also serves as a staging point for recreational usage of the nearby Lake Clark region. 7.3.10.5 Scenario B-3 The impacts on the recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Kukaklek site described in Section 7.3.10.4. The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region is not expected to have any significant impacts on the recreational resource value of the Chikuminuk Lake! Allen River area. While access to the area is expected to be enhanced with the 7-89 construction of an airfield near the Tikchik River and a connecting road to the Chikuminuk Lake outlet, the value of the recreational resource is not expected to be degraded as a result. With the development of a regulating structure and powerhouse, only a small section of the Allen River will be affected by reduced flows resulting from diversion through a short penstock. The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.10.4. 7.3.10.6 Scenarios B-4, B-6, and B-7 These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.4). 7.3.10.7 Scenario B-S The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Kukaklek site described in Section 7.3.10.4. The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.10.5. The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept to serve the Newhalen River area are expected to be significantly less than those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept described in Section 7.3.10.2. The reduction of considerable wildlife and fish spawning and rearing habitat will not occur because a storage reservoir is not required. 7-90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. - , .. - - - - .. .. - - 7.3.10.B Scenario B-B The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site to serve the Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept described in Section 7.3.10.2. Because the storage requirement for power generation will be less, the proposed reservoir is not expected to affect terrestrial wildlife habitat to the extent a regional concept would. All other impacts on recreational resource value are expected to be the same as described for the regional concept. The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.10.5. 7.3.10.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-10 Scheme A The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility to serve the entire study region, located in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10), is not expected to have any significant impacts on the recreational resource value of either of those areas, or the region. Scheme B The development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle generating facility, located in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region is not expected to have any significant impacts on the recreational resource value of either of those areas, or the region . 7-91 Scheme C The development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility, located in either Dilingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10), to serve the entire study region, is not expected to have any significant impacts on the recreational resource value of either of those areas, or the region. 7.3.10.10 Scenarios B-ll and B-12 The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility at either Dillingham (B-ll) or Naknek (B-12) to serve the study region J except for the Newhalen River area, is not expected to have any significant impacts on recreational resource value. The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of a local Newhalen River hydroelectric facility are described in Section 7.3.10.4. 7.3.10.11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region. except for the Newha1en River area, is expected to have some minor effects on the recreational resource value of the Chikuminuk Lake area. Chikuminuk Lake is expected to have some of its fish spawning and rearing areas reduced because of raising the lake level for power generation. Also, some moose habitat is expected to be lost from inundation of the wetlands areas in the western portion of the lake. Access, however is expected to be enhanced by the construction of an airfield outside the Wood-Tikchik Park boundary with an approximately 13-mile connecting road along the Allen River to the Chikuminuk Lake outlet. The impacts on recreational resource value associated with development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept are described in Section 7.3.10.7 and detailed in Appendix G, Section 7. 7-92 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - -.. .. - , .. .. .. - -... Scheme B The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except the Newhalen River area, are described in Scheme A, above. The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric concept are described in Section 7.3.10.4. 7.3.10.12 Scenario B-14 Scheme A The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric concept, utilizing a "power only" canal, are expected to be greater than those anticipated for the local Newhalen River concept. The primary reason is that more flow will be diverted through the proposed canal than through the local power tunnel, resulting in reduced flows in the portion of the lower Newhalen River being bypassed. Scheme B The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric concept, utilizing a large canal for both power intake and high river flow diversion, are expected to be greater than those anticipated for the local Newhalen River concept. The primary reason is that more flow will be diverted through the proposed canal than through the local power tunnel, resulting in reduced flows in the portion of the lower Newhalen River being bypassed. , There is also the possibility, however, that the recreational fishery resource may be enhanced, particularly during high flow periods when extreme velocities have reportedly prevented upstream migration of spawning 7-93 I salmon. Resident fish species may also benifit from flow diversion at I these times. 7.3.10.13 Scenario B-1S The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impact on the recreational resource value of the study region. 7.3.10.14 Scenario B-16 The development and implementation of this enery plan is not expected to have any significant impact on the recreational resource value of the study region. 7.3.10.15 Scenario B-17 The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impact on the recreational resource value of the study region. 7.3.10.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A The development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the study region is expected to have some effect on the recreational resource value of the Kontrashibuna Lake/Tanalian River basin. The raising of Kontrashibuna Lake for water storage and power generation is expected to reduce the brown and grizzly bear habitat along the southern shore of the lake. Also, the raising of the lake is expected to reduce many resident fish spawning and rearing habitats. While there are no data on the usage of this area, there are many hunting and fishing lodges located in the region from Port Alsworth to Iliamna. The area is accessible by float plane and the lake is located in a designated wilderness area within the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. 7-94 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r .. ,. .. - - The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the regional Tazimina run-of-river concept are described in Section 7.3.10.7 and detailed in Appendix G, Section 7. Scheme B The impacts on recreational resource value implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region are described in Scheme A, above. 7.3.10.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impact on recreational resource value anywhere within the study region. Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impact on recreational resource value anywhere within the study region. Scheme C The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impact on recreational resource value anywhere within the study region. Scheme D The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impact on recreational resource value anywhere within the study region. 7-95 Scheme E The development and implementation of the Base Plan, supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery, to serve the study region, except the Newhalen area, is not expected to have any significant impact on the recreational resource value anywhere within the study region. The impacts on recreational resource value associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.10.7 and detailed in Appendix G, Section 7. 7 . 3 . 11 V isual Impact 7.3.11.1 Scenario BP-l The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant effect on the visual resource value of the study region. 7.3.11.2 Scenario A-1 The development and implementation of the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept is expected to have some effects on the visual resource value of the area. The diversion of water through the hydroelectric plant will reduce flow over the falls and affect its appearance. While the faci1ites associated with power generation, that is, the dam, penstock, powerhouse, transmission lines, and access road, constitute a significant intrusion into an otherwise undisturbed area, visual quality is expected to be most affected when viewed from the air. However, because of the visual diversity that naturally occurs in the Tazimina area, many of the visual intrusions can expect to be absorbed. Except for shoreline being exposed during periods of drawdown, the new reservoir created as a result of the storage dam will appear as a large natural lake. 7-96 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '" .. .... .. .. ,. - .... - - Detailed discussion regarding mitigation of visual impacts, including transmission lines, are found in Appendix G, Section 8.2. 7.3.11.3 Scenario B-1 The development and implementation of this energy plan is expected to have a significant impact on the visual resource value of the study region. The visual impacts associated with the transmission line corridor of this energy plan, however, are expected to be similar to those of the other regional energy plans. Anticipated impacts are discussed in detail in Appendix G, Section 8.2.2. 7.3.11. 4 Scenario B-2 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newhalen River area, is expected to have a considerable effect on the visual resource value of the Kukaklek Lake area. The feature that is expected to have the most impact is the penstock. While it is proposed to be buried, the removal of the vegetative surface may leave a scar which could be evident for many years even after revegetation. The location of the powerhouse near the shore of Iliamna Lake is expected to be screened by terrain and vegetation on three sides; however, it is expected to be visible from the lake. The intake canal and flow regulating structure are expected to be the only visual intrusions on Kukaklek Lake. The development and implementation of the Newhalen River hydroelectric site to serve the local Newhalen River area is expected to have only a minor effect on the visual quality of the area. Possibly the most significant impact would be the construction of a bridge over the Newhalen River at the first set of rapids upstream from I liamna Lake. The powerhouse will be located immediately downstream of the bridge below the rapids and will be screened from three sides. The primary visual impact will occur from the east bank. The access road is expected to affect aerial views only . 7-97 7.3.11.5 Scenario B-3 The development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region is expected to have a significant impact on the visual resource of the Kukaklek area. While this concept proposes a shorter penstock route, about three miles in length, to two unnamed lakes northwest of Kukaklek Lake, it is also proposed that a six-square-mile reservoir be created to accommodate the flow diversion. Other facilities are expected to have a similar impact on visual quality as anticipated for the regional Kukaklek concept described in Section 7.3.11.4. The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region is expected to have some impacts on the visual quality of the Allen River area. The primary visual impact is expected to occur from the construction of the airfield near the Tikchik River and the approximately 13 mile access road to the Chikuminuk Lake outlet. The construction of the regulating structure at the outlet of the lake, and the powerhouse immediately downstream of the rapids, is not expected to significantly impact the visual quality of that area. The impacts on the visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.11.4. 7.3.11.6 Scenarios B-4, 8-6, and B-7 These energy plans have been dropped from further evaluation (Section 7.3.2.6). 7.3.11.7 Scenario B-5 The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the Kukaklek hydroelectric site to serve the lower Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Kukaklek concept described in Section 7.3.11.4. 7-98 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,... L ... - - - - - The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.11.5. The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept are expected to be considerably less than those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept. The primary visual intrusions are expected to be a small regulating structure with intake, the penstock, the powerhouse, and transmission lines. of these structures is expected to occur from Tazimina River. 7.3.11.8 Scenario B-8 The major visual impact locations on the lower The development and implementation of the Tazimina River hydroelectric site to serve the Kvichak River and upper Alaskan Peninsula region is expected to have some effects on the visual quality of the Tazimina area. These effects are expected to be similar to, but not as extensive as, those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept described in Section 7.3.11.2. A detailed discussion anticipated visual impacts is found in Appendix G, Section 8.2. The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the Nushagak River region are described in Section 7.3.11.5. 7.3.11.9 Scenarios B-9 and B-IO Scheme A The development and implementation of a coal-fired, steam-electric generating facility either in Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region is expected to have a significant impact on the visual quality of those areas. Because the vegetation surrounding both Dillingham and Naknek is relatively homogeneous and the terrain relatively 7-99 I flat, the degree of landscape absorption from a 15-acre, coal-fired. II steam-electric generating facility is expected to be small. While the greatest visual impact is expected to be from the air. screening at the surface is also expected to be difficult. Scheme B The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of an oil-fired (diesel) combined cycle facility located in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for a coal-fired facility described in Scheme A. above. However. instead of coal pile areas, oil storage tanks will be constructed. Scheme C The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of a coal gasification combined cycle facility located in either Dillingham (B-9) or Naknek (B-10) to serve the entire study region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for a coal-fired facility described in Scheme A, above. 7.3.11.10 Scenarios B-11 and B-12 The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of a coal-fired. steam-electric generating facility are described in Section 7.3.11.9. The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the local Newha1en River hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.11.4. 7.3.11. 11 Scenario B-13 Scheme A The development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except for the Newha1en River area, is expected to 7-100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -.. - -.. .. - - 1M - - have some effects on the visual quality of the Chikuminuk Lake/Allen River basin. The primary visual impact is expected to be the construction of an airfield and access road, described in Section 7.3.11.5. Another visual impact is expected to occur around the shoreline of Chikuminuk Lake as the lake is drawn down for power generation from its proposed elevated level. This impact is expected to be seen most at the western end of the lake where the terrain is low and flat. The small storage dam and powerhouse are expected to be relatively well-absorbed by the surrounding terrain. Visual impact is expected to be the greatest from the air. The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept, to serve the Newhalen River area, are described in Section 7.3.11.7. Scheme B The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the Chikuminuk hydroelectric site to serve the study region, except the Newhalen River area, are described in Scheme A, above . The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the local Newhalen River hydroelectric site are described in Section 7.3.11.4. 7.3.11.12 Scenario B-14 Scheme A The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the Newhalen River hydroelectric concept, utilizing a "power only" canal, to serve the entire study region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for both the local Newhalen River concept and the regional Tazimina run-of-river concept. While there will be no bridge over the Newhalen River, with an access road and facilities on the west bank, there will, however, be a longer access road on the east side and a long canal associated with this hydroelectric concept. Visual intrusion is 7-101 expected to be primarily from the air; however, the access road which will I be elevated above the existing terrain (utilizing the material excavated from the diversion canal) will be difficult to screen from the ground. Scheme B The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the Newhalen River hydroelectric concept. utilizing a large canal for both power intake and high river flow diversion, to serve the entire study region are expected to be similar to those anticipated for both the local Newhalen River concept and the regional Tazimina run-of-river concept. While there will be no bridge over the Newhalen River, with an access road and facilities on the west bank, there will. however. be a longer access road on the east side and a long canal associated with this hydroelectric concept. Visual intrusion is expected to be primarily from the air; however. the access road which will be elevated above the existing terrain (utilizing the material excavated from the diversion canal) will be difficult to screen from the ground. 7.3.11.13 Scenario B-15 The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on the visual quality of the study region. However. as discussed in several other energy plans, transmission lines and their corridors present a visual intrusion into an otherwise natural, undisturbed landscape. Anticipated transmission line impacts are discussed in detail in Appendix G, Section 8.2.2. 7.3.11.14 Scenario B-16 The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on the visual quality of the study region. 7.3.11.15 Scenario B-l7 The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have any significant impacts on the visual quality of the Dillingham or 7-102 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - Naknek areas. The impacts on visual quality associated with the construction and maintenance of the transmission line are expected to be similar to those anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept described in Section 7.3.11.2. 7.3.11.16 Scenario B-IS Scheme A The development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the study region is expected to have similar impacts on visual quality as anticipated for the regional Tazimina River hydroelectric storage concept. Approximately 2,000 acres of upland spruce-birch forest will be lost as a result of raising the surface level of Kontrashibuna Lake for power generation. This new inundated zone will be drawn down periodically for power generation and is expected to cause an impact on the visual quality of the area from both the water surface and the air. The other associated hydroelectric facilities are expected to be better screened from the ground level than at the Tazimina River site because of the denser forest cover in this basin. The penstock will be tunneled through Tanalian Mountain, thus minimizing its visual impact. The diversion of flow through the penstock is expected to be visually evident by the reduced flows of the Tanalian River between Kontrashibuna Lake and Lake Clark. The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the regional Tazimina run-of-river hydroelectric concept, are described in Section 7.3.11.7. Scheme B The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site to serve the entire study region are described in Scheme A, above. 7-103 7.S.11.17 Scenario B-19 Scheme A The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have a significant impact on the visual resource value of the study region. Scheme B The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have a significant impact on the visual resource value of the study region, except in the areas around Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik where wind generating towers are expected to intrude on the horizon. Scheme C The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have a significant impact on the visual resource value of the study region, except in the areas around Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik where wind generating towers are expected to intrude on the horizon. Scheme D The development and implementation of this energy plan is not expected to have a significant impact on the visual resource value of the study region. Scheme E The development and implementation of this energy plan (Base Plan supplemented by wind energy and waste heat recovery) to serve the study region, except the Newhalen area, is not expected to have a significant impact on the visual resource quality. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The impacts on visual quality associated with the development and implementation of the local Tazimina run-on-river hydroelectric site are I described in Section 7.S.11.7. I 7-104 I " .. ... lilt - - .. 7.3.12 Summary Evaluation This section is intended to provide a subjective evaluation of each of the energy plans described in the previous sections. The subjective evaluation criteria used to evaluate environmental indicators were: A. = Small impact B. = Moderate impact, but believed acceptable with mitigation measures C. = Major impact, possibly resulting in a "fatal flaw" Table 7.3-1 summarizes the results of subjectively rating each energy plan with respect to each of the ten environmental indicators. From Table 7.3-1, the following was found: • The scenarios involving diesel-electric generation exhibit the least environmental impacts • The scenario involving a transmission intertie with another region • • • exhibits major institutional constraints The hydroelectric scenarios which include the King Salmon and Kukaklek sites exhibit the greatest environmental and institutional impacts The other hydroelectric scenarios exhibit only moderate environmental impacts The fossil-fuel scenarios exhibit only moderate environmental impacts The energy plans were not numerically ranked according to environmental preference due to difficulty in integrating the highly subjective indicators cons ide red . However, the energy plans were grouped, us ing the same evaluation criteria used for the indicators. Further, the energy plans were not ranked within a group. The scenarios were subjectively grouped as shown below. Descriptions of the scenarios are found in Section 6.2. 7-105 GrouE A GrouE B GrouE C Scenario BP-1 * Scenario A-1 Scenario B-1 Scenar io B -15 Scenario B-8 Scenario B-2 Scenario B-16 Scenario B-9A Scenar io B-3 Scenario B-17 Scenario B-9B Scenario B-4 Scenario B-19A Scenario B-9C Scenario B-5 Scenario B-19B Scenario B-10 Scenario B-6 Scenario B-19C Scenario B-11 Scenario B-1 Scenario B-19D Scenario B-12 Scenario B-13A Scenario B-13B * Scenario B-14A * Scenario B-14B Scenario B-18A * Scenario B-18B Scenario B-19E *Regiona1 hydroelectric developments ComEarison of the Four Regional Hydroelectric Scenarios Using the ten environmental indicators, the following subjective evaluation can be made by comparing the four regional hydroelectric scenarios (Tazimina, A-l; Newhalen, B-14A and B-14B; and Kontrashibuna. B-18B): • • • • • • Newhalen (B-14A) appears to have strongest regional preference Kontrashibuna is expected to have the least impact on community infrastructure All four regional plans appear to have no dependence upon the timing of other proposed capital projects in the region All four regional plans are expected to have short-term impacts on local air quality from construction equipment and land clearing activity Newhalen (B-14A) appears to have the least potential for affecting riverine water quality Kontrashibuna is expected to have the least effect on anadromous fisheries 1-106 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ... .. - - - --- - • Newha1en (B-14A) is expected to have the least impact on wildlife • Newha1en (B-14A) is expected to have the least impact on land use and ownership status • • • Newha1en (B-14A) is expected to have the least terrestrial impact Newha1en (B-14A) is expected to have the least impact on recreational resource value Newha1en (B-14A) is expected to have the least impact on visual quality Reference Section 7.3 1. Ryan, P.J. and D.R.F. Harleman, "Prediction of Annual Cycle of Temperature Changes in a Stratified Lake or Reservoir: Mathematical Model and User's Manual", MIT Hydrodynamics Laboratory Technical Report, No. 137, April 1971 . 7-107 I J • I r I f 1 f I I I r I f 1 I 1 f 1 lei I 1 f'l TABLE 7.3-1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SUMMARY TIMING TO COHM. COMM. OTHER AIR WATER fISH 6. LAND USE TERRES. RECREAT. VIS. SCENARIO PREf. INfRA. CAP PROJ. QUAL. QUAL. WILD. 6. OWN. ECOL. RES. VAL. QUAL. COMMENTS BP-l A A A A A A A A A A Host widely acceptable acenario A-I B B B A B C B C B C Possibility of reduced water level in spawning grsvels; loss of habitat to inundation; village acceptance based on neg. fish impact B-1 B A A A A B C B A B Project not on Bristol Bay land; maximum number of stream crossings by transmission lines; wildlife habitat impact through Lake Clark Pass; transmission corridor through designated wilderness area. B-2 C B B A B C C C C C Kukaklek Lake within Preserve area of National Park; residents of Levelock and Igiugig opposed to development B-3 C C B A B C C C C C Kukaklek within Nat'l Preserve; Chikuminuk within State Park; villages opposed to project and intertie B-4 Scenario droeeed from further consideration B-5 C B B A B C C C C C Kukaklek in Nat'l Preserve; Chikuminuk in State Park; villages opposed to development and transmission intertie B-6 Scenario droeeed from further consideration B-7 Scenario droeeed from further consideration B-8 C B B A B C C C B C Chikuminuk in State Park; village acceptance at Tazimina based upon negative fisheries impact 8-9 B C B C B B B B A C Possibility of some air quality impact with B-9B B C B B A A B B A C coal; community impact is less in a large B-9C A C B A B B B B A C villsge; villages opposed to intertie B-lO B C B C B B B B A C Possibility of some sir quality impact with coal; community impact is less in a large village; villages opposed to intertie f J f I ( J r I f I r 1 I J I I I , II II r-1 TAELE 7.3.1 (continued) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SUMMARY TIMING TO COMM. COMM. OTHER AIR WATER fISH & LAND USE TERRES. RECREAT. VIS. SCENARIO PREf. INfRA. CAP PRo]. QUAL. QUAL. WILD. & OWN ECOL. RES. VAL. QUAL. COMMENTS 8-11 8 C 8 C 8 8 8 8 A C Possibility of some air quality impact with coal; community impact is less in a large village; villages opposed to intertie; some fisheries impact with hydro project on Newhalen River 8-12 8 C 8 C 8 8 8 8 A C Possibility of some air quality impact with coal; community impact is less in a large village; villages opposed to intertie; some fisheries impact with hydro project on Newhalen River 8-lJA 8 8 8 A 8 8 C 8 8 8 Chikuminuk in State Park; transmission intertie 8-lJ8 8 8 8 A 8 8 C 8 8 8 between Dillingham and Naknek not totally accepted 8-l4A 8 C 8 A A 8 A 8 8 8 Some fisheries impact on Newhalen River; long 8-148 8 C 8 A A 8 A 8 8 C transmission lines 8-15 8 A A 8 A A A A A A Transmission intertie in Up~er Nushagak area not totally acceptable by t ose villages 8-16 8 A A 8 A A A A A A Some skepticism re: intertie acceptability between Dillingham and Naknek 8-17 8 8 8 8 A A A A A A Skepticism re: acceptability of maximum transmission intertie 8-lBA C 8 8 A 8 C C C 8 C Kontrashibuna reservoir in wilderness area 8-lB8 C 8 8 A 8 8 C 8 8 C subsistence hunting and fishing on Tanalian River 8-l9A A A A A A A A A A A Variations on Base Plan appear widely 8-198 A 8 A A A A A A A A acceptable; Tazimina site acceptability 8-l9C A 8 A A A A A A A A predicated on protection of salmon fishery 8-l9D A A A A A A A A A A 8-l9E A 8 A A A 8 8 8 8 8 EVALUATION LEGEND A :: Small impact 8 :: Moderate impact, but believed acceptable with mitigation measures C :: Major impact, possibly resulting in a "fatal flaw" -.. II -... - -... - -.. - .. - - 7.4 ECONOMIC EVALUATION 7.4.1 General As described in the previous sections, a large and varied group of power supply scenarios has been included in this study. In order to compare the technical and economic performance of these scenarios, a consistent, systematic evaluation method was used. The present worth of all costs and benefits (if any) associated with each scenario was the basis for the economic comparisons. This evaluation takes into account the differences between power supply alternatives, including capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, fuel costs, equipment lifetimes, benefits from fuel-saving measures (waste heat recovery from diesels, wind energy, etc.), and the timing of all costs and benefits. To maintain consistency in the economic comparisons, the parameters and assumptions used in the present worth calculations were the same for all scenarios. Thus, the scenarios can be compared with each other and ranked in terms of their ability to supply power to the Bristol Bay Region at the lowest total cost by comparing present worth cost. The scenario with the lowest present worth cost is the least costly alternative on a life-cycle basis and is the most desirable from an economic viewpoint. The final ranking of alternatives may vary from the economic ranking, however, when other factors (such as environmental effects) are taken into account. 7.4.2 Parameters and Assumptions The economic parameters and assumptions used in calculating present worth costs were in conformance with Power Authority guidelines (Ref 1) except for the economic lifetimes of certain items of equipment. Summaries of the economic parameters and equipment lifetimes are shown in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.4-2, respectively . In the cases involving diesel generators, transmission lines, coal gasification, and waste heat recovery equipment, the economic lifetimes shown in Table 7.4-2 are greater than the values suggested by the Power 7-108 Authority. The lifetimes were extended because the type of equipment specified and the operating conditions (100 percent diesel generator backup, for example) indicate probable lifetimes greater than those in the guidelines. These economic lifetimes were reviewed by the Power Authority and were considered acceptable for use in the study. As shown in Table 7.4-1, the base year for the economic analysis was 1982 with a 21-year planning period (i.e., Bristol Bay regional electric demand projection for 1982 through 2002) and a 56-year analysis period. The analysis period length resulted from the assumed initial operation of hydroelectric plants in 1988 which, when combined with a 50 year hydroelectric lifetime, extended the analysis period from the base year of 1982 through the year 2037. The parameters listed in Table 7.4-1 were used in the economic analysis for all scenarios. Since inflation was assumed to be zero, all costs and present worths were expressed in terms of 1982 dollars with the exception of petroleum fuels which were escalated at a rate of 2.6 percent per year. A discount rate of 3 percent was used to calculate the present worth of annual costs. In addition, an interest rate of 3 percent was used to determine the interest during construction (for one-year and longer construction periods) and to calculate the annual uniform interest and amortization payment for capital cost expenditures (assigned each year from the project's on-line date to the end of the analysis period). For the diesel generator and hydroelectric cases, a sinking fund for major periodic equipment replacement was established using the 3 percent rate. The costs occurring in the years following the planning period from 2003 through 2037 were assigned in accordance with the Power Authority economic guidelines. It was assumed that after the last year of the planning period (2002), no further load growth occurred in the Bristol Bay region, the cost of petroleum fuels remained constant with no further price escalation, and any eqUipment items that reached the end of their economic lifetimes after 2002 were replaced with identical units. Thus, all costs and benefits (if any) that occurred in 2002 were repeated for each following year through 2037. The present worth calculations were then based on the 56-year cash flow for each scenario. 7-109 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... ... -.. .. For those diesel systems which included waste heat recovery equipment, a benefit was assigned each year for the waste heat recovered. As described in Appendix A, calculations were performed to determine the fraction of the recoverable waste heat that could be used for space heating. A credit was applied each year for the space heating supplied from waste heat. It was assumed that diesel was the fuel normally burned in homes or other buildings for space heat in determining the waste heat benefit. Benefits were also applied for other fuel-saving technologies such as organic Rankine cycle systems using diesel generator waste heat or wind generators. These technologies were given credit for diesel fuel not needed to be burned due to their contribution to the electical energy generated. Lastly, the costs developed in this study represent busbar costs (per Power Authority guidelines) and do not include all costs that would comprise the true consumer cost. For example, cost allowances were not made for electricity distribution within the villages, administration, taxes, depreciation, insurance, etc. The present worth of consumer costs would be significantly higher than the present worth of busbar costs determined in this study. However. the inclusion of the additional consumer costs would not affect the relative ranking of the scenarios since the costs would be common to all cases. 7.4.3 Method of Analysis Several steps were involved in determining present worth costs for the Bristol Bay regional power scenarios. The major steps for each scenario included the following: 1. Develop conceptual deSigns for all systems and equipment included in the scenario . 2. For each equipment item, determine the installed capital cost, annual operating and maintenance cost, fuel requirements and costs, benefits (if any), equipment replacement sinking fund (used 7-110 for diesel generator and hydroelectric systems only), and the uniform annual payment for interest and amortization. 3. Develop the total annual cost (minus any benefits) for each year of the 56-year economic analysis period. 4. Calculate the present worth of the annual cost cash flow. The development of the annual cash flow and present worth cost was accomplished as described in the previous section. To facilitate the economic analysis of the Bristol Bay power scenarios, a computer program was used to perform the discounted cash flow analysis (Ref 2 and 3). A sample output listing from this program is included in Table 7.4-3. The sample case is scenario B-14A, the Newhalen regional hydroelectric concept with power diversion only. The B-14A annual cash flows for the complete economic analysis period from 1982-2037 are included in Table 7.4-3. The items shown in the annual cash flow include the following: • Peak Demand -Peak kW required per year for the Bristol Bay region • Annual Energy Use -The total MWh used annually (excluding space heat) by the region • Diesel Generator Capital Costs -The total installed costs (1982 dollars) for diesel generator units which, for scenario B-14A, are used in individual villages until the region is intertied and hydroelectric power is available in 1988 • Hydroelectric Capital Costs -The total installed cost (including interest during construction) of the Newhalen regional hydroelectric plant 7-111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • • • • • • - • • • • • Transmission Capital Costs -The total installed cost (including interest during construction) of the regional electric transmission system Amortization Cost of Diesel Generator -The uniform annual payment for interest and amortization of diesel generator capital costs Amortization Cost of Hydroelectric -The uniform annual payment for interest and amortization of hydroelectric plant capital costs Amortization Cost of Transmission -The uniform annual payment for interest and amortization of transmission capital costs Amortization Cost of Hydroelectric Replacement The uniform annual sinking fund payments for major periodic equipment replacement Diesel Overhaul Cost A one-time payment in 1982 which was assumed to bring all existing diesel generator units in the region into a near-new operating condition Diesel Sinking Fund -The uniform annual sinking fund payments for major periodic diesel generator equipment replacement and overhaul Diesel O&M Costs -The annual operating and maintenance costs (excluding fuel) for the diesel generator units Hydroelectric O&M Costs -The annual operating and maintenance costs for the hydroelectric plant Transmission O&M Costs -The annual operating and maintenance costs for the regional transmission system Diesel Cost Per Gallon -The annual cost for diesel in cents per gallon with a 2.6 percent escalation rate per year 7-112 • • • • • Diesel Fuel Used -The total gallons of diesel fuel used annually by the region (none is used in the B-14A scenario after the hydroelectric plant comes on-line in 1988) Total Diesel Fuel Cost -The total annual regional payments for diesel fuel Total Annual Cost -Summation of the annual cost categories Annual Cost Present Worth -The total annual cost discounted to January 1 of 1982 Accumulated Present Worth The year-by-year summation of the annual cost present worth values, with the total scenario present worth being equal to the accumulated present worth for the year 2037 The cash flows and computer program listings will vary with each scenario, depending on the types of energy supply technologies included. However, the same basic types of cost categories and benefits (if any) were included for each scenario. 7.4.4 Determination of Annual Costs The costs and benefits which comprise the annual cash flows described in the previous sections were based on conceptual designs and estimates of the expected performance of the power equipment. Since detailed designs were not performed for this initial study phase, the cost estimates represent order-of-magnitude prices (± 20 to 25 percent). The costs used in this study were derived from numerous sources. For example, the costs for major equipment items were obtained from vendors when possible, or from published materials. Additional allowances were made for freight from the factory to the jobsite. Other cost factors, such as labor rates, were determined with the assistance of Green Construction Company of Anchorage. The labor unit prices included an allowance for fringe benefits, insurance and taxes, small tools, travel, overtime, camp cost, etc. Lastly, added to the 7-113 I I I I I I I 'J I , I I I I I I I I I t .,... estimates were allowances for system engineering and design, construction management, and indeterminates, reSUlting in an overall multiplier in the range of 1.3 to 1.5. The following subsections provide brief descriptions of the major cost elements (capital cost. operation and maintenance, etc.) which were used to develop the annual cash flows. The costs are given (in 1982 dollars) for each of the technologies used in the Bristol Bay power supply scenarios. Details regarding the design of the systems or their operation are contained in Appendix A. 7.4.4.1 Diesel Generators Five scenarios involved diesel generators as the primary power souce: BP-1, B-15, B-16, B-17, and B-19. The remaining scenarios used diesel generators to supply power to Bristol Bay during construction periods of other central power sources (hydroelectric or fossil-fired plants, for example) and then as backup to the central plants. Appendix A contains a detailed description of the diesel power systems. The diesel generator and storage tank capital costs for BP-1, B15, B16, and B17 are shown in Table 7.4-4. A breakdown of costs by village for BP-1 is included in Table 7.4-5. The costs are shown for the years in which they were assumed to occur. Depending on the size of the unit, the diesel generators installed cost varied in range of 340 to 1000 $/kW. The storage tank costs varied widely, with as much as $475,000 per tank. An annual cost was included for the operation and maintenance of the diesel generators. The following assumptions were used in determining this cost for all scenarios: 1. Five full-time operators would be located in Dillingham and Naknek (only two operators were in Naknek for scenario B-17). 2. Two full-time operators would be located in Iliamna. 7-114 3. Two full-time operators would be located in New Stuyahok (only in the case where it served as a load center for other villages). 4. The cost for each full-time operator would be $50,000 per year. 5. Villages not serving as load centers would have a part-time caretaker cost of $5,000 per year. 6. An annual allowance for parts and supplies would be added for each village: $20,000 to $25,000 for load centers and $3,000 for others 7. A sinking fund would be established for major repairs or overhauls every 10 years. The dollar amount to be supplied by this fund was determined by taking the estimated price to overhaul all existing diesels of various sizes in a particular village (those in operation as of January 1, 1982) and dividing by the total number of diesel units in the village. 8. As new diesel units were added each five years, the annual allowance for parts and supplies would increase by $8,000 in the load centers. 9. When a central non-diesel plant comes on-line (hydroelectric or fossil-fired), the sinking fund allowance would be cut in half and a set annual amount of $5,000 per village would be allotted to maintain the diesel generators in a backup status. An additional one-time cost of $879,400 was included in 1982 to overhaul all existing diesel generators in the Bristol Bay region. This cost was determined by pricing overhauls for all known diesel generators (not including privately owned) in each village. Lastly, the 1982 cost of diesel fuel per gallon is shown for all villages in Table 7.4-6. The 1981 diesel fuel prices were obtained from several sources in Alaska and escalated to the 1982 prices shown. The weighted average 1982 diesel fuel price for the Bristol Bay region was calculated to 7-115 ~ , I I I , ". I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I " lit be $1.33 per gallon. The weighted price was obtained by taking the product of the gallons of diesel fuel used in 1982 with the 1982 diesel price per gallon for each village, summing these amounts for all villages, and then dividing by the sum of the gallons of diesel used in all villages. Using the diesel generator fuel rates in Table 7.4-7, a determination was made of the total number of gallons of diesel fuel used per year in each scenario (Tables 7.4-8 and 7.4-9) and the annual fuel cost. 7.4.4.2 Waste Heat Recovery EqUipment The use of diesel waste heat recovery equipment was evaluated for scenarios B-14A, B-15, B-16, B-17, and two BP-1 variations (B-19A and B-19C). The installed capital costs are shown in Table 7.4-10 for the years in which the sytems were assumed to have been installed (B-14A not shown in Table - see discussion below). A breakdown of these costs for each village in B-19A and B-19C is given in Table 7.4-11. The operating and maintenance costs for these systems was assumed to be 2 percent of the installed capital cost per year. For scenario B-14A, a special study was performed of the viability of waste heat recovery from the diesel generators in individual villages in the years prior to regional interconnection and startup of the Newhalen Regional Hydroelectric Plant. After plant startup in 1988, the waste heat recovery system was assumed to no longer operate since the diesel generators would be serving as backup. The BP-1 waste heat recovery capital cost occurring in 1982 ($2,085,000) was used for this study. In all scenarios, a benefit was used in each year in which a waste heat recovery system was in operation. For the energy delivered by the recovery system as space heat, the cost of the equivalent number of gallons of diesel fuel was the benefit. The waste heat benefit, in gallons, is shown in Table 7.4-12 for B-19A and in Table 7.4-13 for B-15, B-16, and B-17. Comparisons of the relative costs of systems with and without waste heat recovery are presented in Section 7.4.5 and Table 7.4-32 through 7.4-38. 7-116 7.4.4.3 Wind Generators The use of wind generators as a supplemental energy source to diesel generation (scenarios B-lS, B-16, B-17, B-19B, and B-19C) or hydroelectric power (scenario B-14A only) was evaluated in this study (Appendix A). The wind generator sizes considered, along with their installed capital costs and annual operating and maintenance costs, are shown in Table 7.4-14. The annual operation and maintenance cost was assumed to be 5 percent of the installed capital cost. The primary source of data for the wind analyses was Wind Systems Engineering, Inc. (WSE) of Anchorage. Although the WSE final report on the use of wind energy in Bristol Bay is included in Appendix D, the data in Table 7.4-14 are from the preliminary WSE report (Ref 4). The capital costs in Appendix D are higher than those used in the wind analyses for this study. Thus, the results of the wind economic analyses represent an optimistic assessment of wind energy potential. During Phase II of the study, any wind systems which show promise will be cos ted and evaluated in detail. For each scenario including wind generators, a benefit was applied each year that the wind system produced energy. The benefit was determined as the cost of the equivalent number of gallons of diesel fuel required by diesel generators to produce the electrical energy supplied by the wind generators. The energy supplied by the wind systems was obtained from the data in Appendix D. 7.4.4.4 Organic Rankine Cycle (aRC) Systems A study was performed of the use of an aRC system in scenario B-19D at Dillingham or Naknek. These locations were selected to illustrate the viability of an aRC system combined with diesel generators.· Appendix A describes the system used. For each village, a 750 kW aRC system was assumed to operate (beginning in 1985) from diesel generator waste heat. The installed capital cost for the aRC system was $2,050,000. The annual operation and maintenance cost was assumed to be SO.OlS/kWh produced by the aRC. 7-117 I I , I I I I I I I I Ii , I I i I I I .... A benefit was applied each year that the aRC produced electrical energy. The benefit was determined in exactly the same manner as for wind generators. The energy supplied by the aRC units was conservatively assumed to be 10 percent of the total electric output of the diesel generator plant. The aRC benefit, in gallons of diesel saved, is shown in Table 7.4-15 for Dillingham and Naknek . 7.4.4.5 Hydroelectric Power Plants Conceptual designs and cost estimates for twelve different hydroelectric plant concepts were developed for this study. The plant costs were based on material takeoffs and other estimates based on the conceptual designs. Detailed descriptions of the plants considered are contained in Appendix A. Tables 7.4-16 through 7.4-26 contain summaries of the hydroelectric power plant installed capital costs. The total costs were broken down according to the accounting methodology of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The following twelve plants were studied: Table 7.4-16 Table 7.4-17 Table 7.4-18 Table 7.4-19A Table 7. 4-19B Kukaklek (Kvichak Region) Hydroelectric Power Plant, two -3,500 kW units Kukaklek Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant, two - 8,000 kW units Newhalen River Local Hydroelectic Power Plant, two -600 kW units Newhalen River Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant, Newhalen River Diversion -Power Only, two -8,000 kW units Newhalen River Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant, Newhalen River Diversion Power and River Diversion, two -8,000 kW units 7-118 Table 7.4-20 Table 7.4-21 Table 7.4-22 Table 7.4-23 Table 7.4-24 Table 7.4-25 Table 7.4-26 Tazimina Run-of-River Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant, two -8,000 kW units Tazimina River (Kvichak River Region) Hydro- electric Power Plant, two -4,000 kW units Tazimina River Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant, two -8,000 kW units Tazimina Run-of-River Local Hydroelectric Power Plant, two -600 kW units Chikuminuk Lake Regional Hydroelectic Power Plant, two -8,000 kW units Chikuminuk Lake (Nushagak Region) Hydroelectric Power Plant, two -4,000 kW units Kontrashibuna Lake Regional Hydroelectric Power Plant, two -8,000 kW units These twelve plants were used either individually or in combination to form the hydroelectric scenarios for Bristol Bay (Section 6.2) . All hydroelectric power plants were assumed to be on-line in 1988, with 5 1/2 year engineering, design, and construction periods (3 percent interest during construction). For each plant, the estimated operation and maintenance costs were based on prior experience at similar sized hydroelectric plants. These costs are summarized in Table 7.4-27. An additional annual cost (also shown in Table 7.4-27) was included for the hydroelectric plants in the form of a sinking fund for major periodic equipment replacement. The sinking fund payment varied for each project. It was assumed that the fund would be set up to provide 0.1 percent of the plant construction cost (excluding transmission lines) at intervals of five 7-119 I I , I I I t I I I , I t I l , I I I t , ,; years. The minimum amount to be available from the fund each five years was $40,000 and the maximum amount was to be $80,000. 7.4.4.6 Fossil-Fuel Steam Electric Plants Coal-fired steam electric plants were included in scenarios B-9A, B-10, B-ll, and B-12. Scenarios B-ll and B-12 also included the Newhalen Local Hydroelectric Plant to supply power to Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton. Appendix A includes a description of the coal plant concept plus considerations regarding the use of other fossil fuels (oil or natural gas) for Bristol Bay steam electric power plants. For all four scenarios, a coal power plant capable of delivering a peak of 16 MW was used as the basis for the evaluations. The installed cost of this plant was determined to be $57.798,000. The plant was assumed to be on-line in 1987. The annual operating and maintenance costs for the plant were comprised of two parts: l. 2. Personnel costs for 20 people at $52,000 per year for each, and A charge dependent on the plant energy output at the rate of $O.Ol/kWh produced. The coal used in the plant performance analysis was assumed to contain 11,000 Btu/lb and 0.5 percent sulfur. The delivered coal cost was $75/ton (FOB cost was obtained from Ref 5 and delivery charges were added). In addition, the plant was designed with dry scrubbers in order to meet federal air-quality regulations. The scrubbers used lime costing $375/ton delivered (FOB cost was obtained from Ref 6 and delivery charges were added). The overall plant heat rate was 14,400 Btu/kWh produced. 7.4.4.7 Combined Cycle Power Plant A combined cycle power scenarios B-9B and B-9C. plant was evaluated for use in Bristol Bay in Scenario B-9B used diesel fuel as the energy source, while B-9C used a coal gasification plant (with the same coal 7-120 parameters and prices as described in the previous section). Descriptions of these technologies are included in Appendices A and B. For scenario B-9B, the 16 MW diesel-fuel fired combined cycle plant was determined to have an installed cost of $25,800,000. It was assumed to be on-line in 1987. The annual operating and maintenance costs were based on the following: 1. A total of 16 personnel required at an average cost of $52,000 each per year, and 2. An output-dependent charge of $0.062/kWh produced. The plant heat rate was assumed to decrease over time as the Bristol Bay load grew and the plant capacity factor improved. The heat rate was 14,250 Btu/kWh when the plant began operation in 1987 and improved to a rate of 10,300 Btu/kWh by 2002. The gallons of diesel fuel required each year were calculated accordingly. The coal gasification and combined cycle plant used in scenario B-9C had an installed capital cost of $48,032,000. It was also assumed to be operational in 1987. The total annual operation and maintenance cost was determined to be the same as that of the coal-fired steam electric power plant. In addition, the plant heat rate varied over time in the same manner as that of the diesel-fuel fired combined cycle plant, establishing the tons of coal consumed per year (at a cost of $75/ton as for the steam electric plants). Scrubbers were not required and, thus, no lime cost was incurred. 7.4.4.8 Electric Transmission Systems In all scenarios other than BP-1 and B-19, the Bristol Bay region was interconnected with electric transmission systems on the basis of either local clusters of villages or a complete intertie of all villages. These systems are described in Appendix A. In all cases, it was assumed that power transmission resulted in a 10 percent loss. 7-121 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t • .. ,. .. -• - The capital costs for the transmission systems were determined based on conceptual designs of the individual lines. Factors such as the load-carrying requirements of the line and the local terrain influenced the installed costs. The transmission system capital costs for those scenarios involving power transmission are shown in Table 7.4-28. Also included in the Table are the annual operating and maintenance costs for the systems. The annual operation and maintenance was determined based on a rate of $250 per mile of transmisson line. The systems were assumed to be operational in the same year as the central power source in each such scenario. For B-1, B-15, B-16 and, B-17, the systems were assumed to be operational in 1986. Lastly, scenarios B-15, B-16, and B-17 had the costs of substation expansion (required as the Bristol Bay load grew) spread out in five-year increments as shown in Table 7.4-29. 7.4.4.9 Purchased Power The use of purchased power for the Bristol Bay region was examined in scenario B-1. It was not possible to obtain a firm commitment from the utility in the Beluga area regarding either the availability or price of surplus capacity for transmission to Bristol Bay. Thus, the following assumptions were made for B-1: 1. 2. 3 . Sufficient power was available for export from the Beluga area to meet the needs of Bristol Bay over the entire economic analysis period. The cost of the purchased power, shown in Table 7.4-30, was taken from the Battelle Railbelt Study, Plan lA, page 7.4 (Ref 7) . 10 percent extra power was purchased to allow for transmission losses. 7.4.5 Results The results of the economic analyses are summarized in Tables 7.4-32 through 7.4-39. These tables contain present worth costs for the Bristol 7-122 Bay regional and special local power summary of the Bristol Bay regional results tables. scenarios. Table 7.4-31 contains a power scenarios for use with the Several variations of diesel generation scenarios BP-1, (denoted B-19A through B-19D), B-1S, B-16, and B-17 were evaluated to determine if combinations of alternate technologies with diesel generators resulted in lower life-cycle costs. The present worth costs for the variations which were considered are shown in Table 7.4-32. In all of these scenarios, the use of diesel waste heat recovery equipment for space heating, wind generators, a waste heat recovery and wind combination, and organic Rankine cycle systems (evaluated with BP-1 only) were less costly on a life-cycle basis than diesel generators alone. Further details of the BP-1 variations are shown in Table 7.4-33 for each individual village. Al though diesel waste heat recovery (B-19A) has a lower present worth cost compared to the BP-1 scenario, it is not cost effective in the villages of Clarks Point, Egegik, Ekuk, or Portage Creek. This results from the relatively high installation cost for a waste heat recovery system, the small size of these villages, and the mismatch of waste heat availability with space heating requirements during certain times of the year (Section 6 and Appendix A contain further details). Wind generators show economic benefit in the villages of Naknek, Igiugig, and Egegik when compared to diesel generators alone. However, a combination of diesel waste heat recovery plus wind generation is cost effective in Naknek, but not in Egegik or Igiugig (the combined capital costs outweigh the benefits in these two villages). Lastly, the organic Rankine cycle systems installed in Dillingham and Naknek were cost effective compared to diesel generation alone, but they had higher life-cycle costs than diesel generation with waste heat recovery in the two villages. An evaluation was also made for wind and diesel waste heat recovery systems in combination with a hydroelectric scenario. All hydroelectric scenarios in this study used diesel generators in each individual village (as in BP-1) to supply power from 1982 until the assumed hydroelectric plant on-line date of 1988. Scenario B-14A was chosen as a test economic case 7-123 I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I r .. t c .. iI C for installing wind (in Egegik, Igiugig, and Naknek) or diesel waste heat recovery systems (in all individual villages) during the 1982 through 1987 period. Two variations were considered: 1) wind systems installed to supply 20 percent of the peak kW demand of Egegik, Igiugig, and Naknek until 1988 and then operated for the remainder of their 15 -year economic lifetimes in conjunction with the hydroelectric plant (the wind systems were installed in the three villages in the same manner as scenario B-19B through 1988, with no further wind installations after this date), and 2) diesel waste heat recovery systems installed in all villages between 1982 and 1987, operated until the hydroelectric plant was on-line in 1988, and then not used further (since the diesel generators were converted to a back-up status in 1988). A sensitivity analysis was performed for the diesel waste heat recovery systems to determine the latest year between 1982 and 1988 that the system for scenario B-14A could be installed and still be economically competitive with the base B-14A scenario. The results of this B-14A sensitivity study are shown in Table 7.4-34. The "B-14A + wind" case is about 2 percent greater in present worth cost than B-14A alone, indicating that the hydroelectric/wind energy combination has a s lightly higher life-cycle cost than hydroelectric without wind energy. However, the "B-14A + Diesel Waste Heat Recovery" cases are competitive with B-14A alone for waste heat systems installed by 1982, 1983, or 1984 since their present worth costs are lower. The waste heat system installed by 1985 has a higher present worth cost than B-14A alone. This result indicates that a waste heat recovery system, when installed by 1985 or later and operated through 1987, does not have sufficient operating time to recover the capital cost and O&M expenses through benefits for space heating. Thus, although the present worth costs in Table 7.4-34 are very close, it is concluded that the addition of wind systems to hydroelectric scenarios would not lower the present worth costs, while the addition of diesel waste heat recovery systems to hydroelectric scenarios by the year 1984 (and operated through 1987) would result in slightly lower life-cycle costs. 7-124 Additional studies were performed to determine whether local hydroelectric or diesel generation options were more economical for the Iliamna Region and the Nushagak River villages. Table 7.4-35 displays present worth costs for the four options considered for the Iliamna Region: BP-l, B-19A, Newhalen Local Hydroelectric Plant, and Tazimina Local Hydroelectric Plant. Tazimina Local has the lowest present worth cost, followed by B-19A with a 21 percent higher cost. Thus, the Tazimina Local Hydroelectric Plant is the preferred local option for the Iliamna Region. Four options were also considered for the Nushagak River villages: central diesel generation in Dillingham and New Stuyahok (with transmission interties between all villages), BP-1, B-19A, and the Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Plant. The present worth costs are shown in Table 7.4-36. The most cost-effective option is B-19A, diesel generation with waste heat recovery in each village. The Chikuminuk Hydroelectric Plant has a 24 percent higher present worth cost. Based upon the studies performed with BP-1 variations and small, local hydroelectric plants, the lowest cost local power supply option for Bristol Bay (designated B-19E) was formulated. The local option for each village is shown in Table 7.4-37. Under the B-19E scenario, four villages have diesel generation alone, seven recovery, one village (Naknek) have has diesel diesel generation generation with waste with waste heat heat recovery and wind generation, and the Iliamna Region has the Tazimina Local Hydroelectric Plant with diesel generation as back-up. The only transmission required is between the Iliamna Region and the Tazimina Local Hydroelectric Plant site. The B-19E present worth cost is $242,500,000, which is only about 3 percent lower than scenarios B-19A or B-19C (see Table 7.4-32). Thus, the slight differences in present worth cost between scenarios B-19A, B-19C, and B-19E are well within the cost uncertainties present in this feasibility assessment. The final tabulation of present worth costs and a ranking of Bristol Bay power supply scenarios are presented in Tables 7.4-38 and 7.4-39. A wide variation in present worth costs results from the power supply options that were considered. The rankings in Tables 7.4-38 and 7.4-39 indicate the 7-125 I I I I I I I I I I I I , J I I I I I .... • • relative cost effectiveness of the scenarios, with the lowest present worth cost ranked as number one. Overall, the hydroelectric scenarios generally had lower present worth costs than other power supply tachnology options. The ranking in Table 7.4-38 shows that the Newhalen Regional Hydroelectric Plant with power diversion (scenario B-14A) was lowest in present worth cost. This scenario was followed by Tazimina Regional Hydroelectric Plant (scenario A-I), Newhalen Regional Hydroelectric Plant with power and river diversion (scenario B-14B), Kontrashibuna Regional Hydroelectric Plant (scenario B-18B), and the lowest cost BP-1 variation (scenario B-19E) . In comparison, continuation of existing diesel generation in each village (scenario BP-1) ranked as number 20 out of the 25 power supply scenarios considered. Thus, numerous scenarios, including a coal-fired central power plant concept, are less cost lyon a life-cycle basis than continuation of diesel generation under the Base Plan scenario. The regional power supply scenarios are ranked and compared by present worth ratio in Table 7.4-39. The ratios were obtained by dividing the present worth of each scenario into the BP-1 present worth of $291,700,000. The ratios greater than 1.0 indicate the amount by which the BP-1 present worth exceeds the present worth of each scenario, and the ratios less than 1.0 indicate the savings in the BP-1 present worth compared to those scenarios. Thus, BP-1 is 54% more costly than the lowest life-cyc Ie cost scenario, B -14A, indicating a significant life-cycle cost advantage for the Newhalen Regional Hydroelectric Plant with power diversion. The first four scenarios in the ranking, B-14A, A-I, B-14B, and B-18B, are within 20 percent of each other in present worth cost, which is within the cost uncertainty range for this feasibility study. These four scenarios form the preferred group of power supply options for Bristol Bay based on life-cycle costs. The second group of preferred options is comprised of variations on the base plan scenario, BP-1. This group of three scenarios is within a range of about 3% in present worth cost, indicating that they are essentially equivalent on an economic basis. The three scenarios include B-19E (lowest 7-126 cost base plan plus small hydro combination), B-19C (diesel generation + waste heat recovery + wind generation), and B-19A (diesel generation + waste heat recovery). The addition of waste heat recovery to the Base Plan diesel generation scenario results in a reduction in present worth cost of about 15 percent. However, the further addition of wind generation or a small hydroelectric plant has only a marginal improvement in present worth cost. Lastly, the accumulated present worths for five scenarios are plotted versus time in Figure 7.4-1. The five scenarios include A-I, BP-l, B-14A, B-19A, and B-19E. For the first few years, the accumulated present worth costs are essentially equal since diesel generation is the primary power source. After the hydroelectric plants are on-line in 1988, however, the curves begin to diverge, with B-14A becoming the lowest cost scenario. The accumulated present worth cost for scenario B-14A is equal to that of the other scenarios in the following years: A-I BP-1 B-19A B-19E 1988 1995 2001 2000 Thus, compared to the other scenarios, savings begin to accrue for the Bristol Bay Region with scenario B-14A after the breakeven year in accumulated present worth cost. 7.4.6 Economic Summary A common economic basis was used to compare and evaluate the varied group of power supply scenarios included in this study. A calculation of the present worth of all costs and benefits associated with each scenario was the basis for economic comparisons. The economic parameters and assumptions used in calculating present worths were in conformance with Power Authority guidelines, except for the economic lifetimes of certain items of equipment. Summaries of the 7-127 • .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... .. ; C t C t ,. W !JIll f! .. I economic parameters and equipment lifetimes are shown in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.4-2, respectively. In the cases involving diesel generators, transmission lines, coal gasification, and waste heat recovery equipment, the economic lifetimes shown in Table 7.4-1 are greater than the values in the Power Authority guidelines. These revised lifetimes were reviewed by the Power Authority and were considered acceptable for use in the study. The base year for the economic analyses was 1982, with a 21-year planning period (i.e., Bristol Bay region electric demand projections for 1982 through 2002) and a 56-year analysis period. The analysis period length resul ted from the assumed installation of hydroelectric plants in 1988 which, when combined with a 50-year hydroelectric lifetime, extended the analysis period from the base year of 1982 through the year 2037. The annual cash flows for the analysis period were developed as required by the Power Authority economic guidelines. Tables 7.4-38 and 7.4-39 contain a summary of present worth costs and present worth ratios for the Bristol Bay regional power scenarios. A wide variation in costs results from the several power supply scenarios that were considered. Overall, hydroelectric scenarios generally had lower present worth costs than other power supply technology options. The Newhalen Regional Hydroelectric Plant with power diversion (B-14A) was lowest, followed by Tazimina Regional (A-I), Newhalen Regional with power and river diversion (B-14B), and Kontrashibuna Regional (B-18B). The second group of most cost-effective options was comprised of variations of the Base Plan (BP-1) scenario, including B-19E (BP-1 lowest cost combination with Tazimina Local hydro), B-19C (BP-1 + waste heat recovery + wind generation), and B-19A (BP-1 ± waste heat recovery). In comparison, BP-1 ranks as number 20 out of the 25 scenarios considered. Additional special studies were undertaken to: 1) investigate the economic benefits of wind systems and waste heat recovery for diesel and hydroelectric scenarios, 2) determine the most economic power supply option for specific subregions of Bristol Bay, and 3) evaluate the viability of organic Rankine cycle systems using diesel waste heat for Dillingham or Naknek. The results of these studies are reported in Section 7.4.5. 7-128 References for Section 7.4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Alaska Power Authority, "Economic Analysis for AI-aska Power Authority Reconnaissance and Feasibility Studies • Standard Procedures and Sample Cost Calculation· FY 1982", 1981. Grant, Eugene L. and Ireson, W. Grant, "Principles of Engineering Economy", Fifth Edition, The Ronald Press Co., New York, 1970. Stermole, Franklin J., "Economic Evaluation and Investment Methods", Second Edition, Investment Evaluations Corp., Colorado, 1974. Decision Golden, Wind Systems Engineering, Inc., ItBristol Bay Regional Power Plan • Wind Energy Analysis," Phase 1 Prelimary Report, Prepared for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1982. Personal Communication, Mr. Brian Acton, B.C. Coal, February 16, 1982. Personal Communication, Mr. Dana Minot, Tacoma Lime Co., February 5, 1982. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, "Railbel t Electric Power Alternatives Study: Evaluation of Rai1belt Electric Energy Plans lt , Prepared for Office of the Governor, State of Alaska, February, 1982. 7-129 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. TABLE 7.4-1 i .. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PARAMETERS • BASE YEAR: 1982 • PLANNING PERIOD: 21 years, 1982-2002 • ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PERIOD: 56 years, 1982-2037 • INFLATION RATE: 0 percent (all costs expressed in 1982 dollars) • REAL DISCOUNT RATE: 3 percent • REAL PETROLEUM FUEL ESCALATION RATE: 2.6 percent • REAL INTEREST RATE: 3 percent TABLE 7.4-2 ECONOMIC LIFETIMES FOR MAJOR EQUIPMENT JIll. , Equipment Item Lifetime (Years) Diesel Generators 30 Electric Transmission Lines 30 Waste Heat Recovery Equipment 15 Wind Generators 15 Organic Rankine Cycle Systems 25 Hydroelectric Plants so Steam Turbines 30 Combined Cycle Plants 30 Coal Gasification Equipment 30 r .. """ TABLE 7.4-3 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS SCENARIO B-14A NEWI~LEN REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-POWER DIVERSION PROJECT: ALASKA POHER AUTHORITV--BRISTOL BAY STUDY CASE: BI'IA--NEIIHALEH REGIOtIAL HVDRO--DIVERSIOU fOR POHER lltI.. Y 1982 1981 198'1 1985 1986 1987 1988 PEAK DEUAUO HH 7150. 7'131. 7531. 7722. 7912. 8103. 8360. ANNUAL ENERGY USE HI~U 29'125. 30575. 31725. 32875. 3'1025. 15175. 36798. DIESEL GEtlERATOR CAPITAl COSTS $XIOOO 7159. O. O. O. O. O. O. HVDROELECTRIC CAPITAL COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. 79637. TRAUSIIISSIOH CAPITAL COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. 70698. AHORT. COST Of DIESEL GEtlERATOR $X1000 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. AIIORT. COST Of HYDROELECTRIC $X1000 O. O. O. O. O. O. 3103. AlIORT. COST Of TRAliStlISSIOH $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. 3617. AlIOIH. COST Of HYDROELECTRIC REPLACEUEHT $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. 10. DIESEL OVERHAUL COST $XIOOO 879. O. O. O. O. O. O. DIESEL SWHING fUIiD $XIOOO U. 16. U. 16. U. U. 8. DIESEL Or." COSTS $XIOOO 750. 750. 750. 750. 750. 750. 65. IIYOROELECTRIC OUI COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. 250. TRAtiStiISSION OlH COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. 106. DIESEL COST PER GAlLON CEtITS 133. 136. 1'10. 1'14. 1'17. lSI. 155. DIESEL fUEL USED GAlXIOOO 2ll68. 2565. 2660. 2757. 2852. 2950. O. TOTAL DIESEL fUEL COST $XIOOO 3282. 3500. 3724. 3960. '1203. '1461. O. TOTAL AllflUAl. COST $XIOOO 5293. lA631. '1855. 5091. 533,.. 5592. 752'1. AIlI'lUAL COST PRESENT HORTII $XIOOO 5139. 4365. '1'1'13. '1523. 11601. '1683. 6118. ACCUlIULATED. PRESEtfT HaRTH $XIOOO 5139. 950'1. 139'17. 18'170. 23071. 277511. 33872. ELI PAGE 1 1989 1990 1991 8617. 68711. 9131. 38lA2I. 'IOOll'1. 111667. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. 365. 365. 365. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3617. 3617. 3617 • 10. 10. 10. O. O. O. 8. 8. 8. 65. 65. 65. 250. 250. 250. 106. 106. 106. 159. 163. 166. O. o. O. O. o. O. 7524. 752'1. 7524. 5939. 5766. 5599. 39811. ,.5578. 51176. r I I J II I I f 1 1'1 1 J I'~ ."1 r I ('1 ( TABLE 7;4-3 (cant) DISCOUNTED CASH FI.OW ANALYSIS SCENARIO B-14A NEWHALEN REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-POWER DIVERSION PAGE 2 1992 1991 1994 1995 1996 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 PEAK DEMAND tot n88. 9735. 10062. 10'129. 10776. 11123. 11621. 12119. 12616. 13116. ANNUAL ENERGY USE HHH 43290. 453'1't. 47396. 491152. 51506. 53560. 56396. 59232. 62066. 6'19011. DIESEL GENERATOR CAPIfAL COSTS 'XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. HYDROELECTRIC CAPITAL COSTS 'XlOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. TRAliSltISSION CAPITAL COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. AIIORT. COST OF DIESEL GENERATOR 'XIOOO 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. AIWRT. COST OF HYDROELECTRIC 'XIOOO 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. AlWRT. COST OF TRANSItISSIOti 'XIOOO 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. AIWAT. COST OF HYDROELECTRIC REPLACEHEtIT $XIOOO 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. DIESEL OVERHAUL COST 'XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. DIESEL SIflI(ItIG fUtIl $XIOOO 6. 6. 6. 8. 8. 6. 6. 6. 6. 8. DIESEL OtH COSTS $XIOOO 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. HYDROELECTRIC O&H COSTS txlOOO 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. TRAtlSUISSION 0&1t COSTS $X1000 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. DIESEL COST PER GALLON CENTS 172. 176. 181. 186. 191. 195. 201. 206. 211. 217. DIESEL fUEL USED GALXIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAL DIESEL FUEL COST $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAL AtllIUAL COST $XIOOO 752't. 752'1, 75211. 752'1. 752". 752". 752". 752'1. 752'1. 752'1. AUUUAL COST PRESEtfT HaRTH 'XIOOO 5'135. 5277. 5123. 1197't. 11629. '168«). '1552. '1'120. 11291. '1166. ACCUtIULATED PRESENT HORTit 'XIOOO 56612. 61689. 670ll. 71987. 76816. 81505. 86057. 901176. 9'1767. 98933. f J 11'1 r1" r~ 1 r~·l f~l TABLE 7.4-3 (cont) DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS SCENARIO B-14A NEWHALEN REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-POWER DIVERSION 2002 200J 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 PEAK DEHAtIJ tot 13614. 136111. 136111 • 13614. 13614. 13614. 1361ft. ANNUAl ENERGY USE HUH 611110. 611110. 61140. 61140. 611110. 61140. 611110. DIESEL GENERATOR CAPITAl COSTS tXI000 O. O. O. O. o. O. O. HYDROELECTRIC CAPITAl COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. TRANslIISsION CAPITAl COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. AlIORT. COST OF DIESEL GENERATOR tXI000 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. AJIORT. COST OF HYDROELECTRIC tX1000 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. AtIORT. COST OF TRANSltIsSION $XIOOO 3611. 3611. 3611. 3611. 3611. 3611. 3611. AIIORT. COST OF HYDROELECTRIC REPLACEHENT $XIOOO 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. DIESEL OVERIiAll. COST $XIOOO O. O. o. O. O. O. O. DIESEL SINKING FUI/O $XIOOO 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. DIESEL OUt COSTS $XIOOO 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. HYDROELECTRIC OUI COSTS $XIOOO 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. TRANSttISsION O&H COSTS $XIOOO 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. DIESEL COST PER GAlLON CEUTS 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. DIESEL FUEL USED GAlXIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAL DIESEL FUEL COST $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAL AtiNUAL COST $XIOOO 15211. 15211. 1524. 15211. 15211. 1524. 1524. ANNUAL COST PRESEUT HORTH $XIOOO 40 115. 3927. 3812., 3101. 35911. 3489. 3381. ACCUIRLATED PRESENT HORTH $XIOOO 102911. 106904. 110116. 1141118. 118011. 121500. 124681. PAGE 3 2009 2010 2011 136111. 13614. 136111. 61140. 611110. 61140. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. 365. 365. 365. 3103. 3103. 3103. 3611. 3611. 3611. 10. 10. 10. O. O. O. 8. 8. 8. 65. 65. 65. 250. 250. 250. 106. 106. 106. 222. 222. 222. O. O. O. O. O. O. 1524. 152ft. 152ft. 3289. 3193. 3100. 128116. 131369. 134468. r 1 I I , J I 1 f 1 (1 (1 1>1 '" 1 '1 I 1 11 I I r 1 TABLE 7.4-3 (cont) DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS SCENARIO B-14A NEWHALEN REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-POWER DIVERSION £012 201] 2014 2015 2016 2011 PEAK DEHAJt) tot 13614. 1]614. 13614. 136141. 13614. 13614. AllNUAL EHER6Y USE HliH 67740. 61140. 67740. 677410. 67740. 67740. DIESEL 6EIIERATOR CAPITAL COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. HYDROELECTRIC CAPITAL COSTS $XIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. TRAHSIIISSlotl CAPITAl COSTS $XI000 O. O. ,0. O. O. O. AHORT. COST OF DIESEL GEHERATOR $XIOOO 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. AUORT. COST OF HYDROELECTRIC $XIOOO 3103. lI03. 1I03. 3103. 3103. lI03. AIIORT. COST OF TRAHSIIISSIOO $XIOOO 3611. 3617. 3611. 3611. 3611. 3617. AIIORT. COST Of HYDROELECTRIC REPLACEtlEHT $XI000 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. DIESEL OVERHAUL COST $XlOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. DIESEL SIIIHIUG FUUD $XIOOO 8. &. 8. 8. 8. 8. DIESEL Ol" COSTS $XI000 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. HYDROELECTRIC Olt. COSTS $XIOOO 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. TRANSIIISSIOH 0&" COSTS $XIOOO 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. DIESEL COST PER GALLOO CEHTS 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. DIESEL FUEL USED GALXIOOO O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAL DIESEL FUEL COST $XI000 O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAL ANNUAL COST $XIOOO 7524. 7524. 7524. 7524. 7524. 7524. AtlllUAL COST PRESENT HOATH $XIOOO 3010. 2922. 2837. 2154. 2674. 2596. ACCUlIULATED PRESENT HORTH $XIOOO 13147&. 140400. 143237. 145991-148665. 151261. 201& 2019 2020 13614. 136141. 13614. 61140. 61140. 67740. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. 365. 365. 365. 3103. lI03. 3103. 3617. 3611. 3617. 10. 10. 10. O. O. O. 8. 8. &. 65. 65. 65. 250. 250. 250. 106. 106. 106. 222. 222. 222. O. O. O. O. O. O. 7524. 7524. 7524. 2520. 2447. 2376. 153181-156228. 158604. PAGE 4 2021 13614. 67740. O. O. O. 365. 3103. 3611. 10. O. 8. 65. 250. 106. 222. O. O. 7524. el01. 160910. r 1 • 1 (I II fIll ,. f I "1 (1 r 1 I 1 r"' 11 TABLE 7.4-3 (cont) DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS SCENARIO B-14A NEWI~LEN REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC P~OJECT-POWER DIVERSION 2022 2021 20211 2025 2026 2021 2028 PEAK DE/WiD HH 136l'l. 13614. 13614. 13614. 13614. 1361'1. 13614. ANNUAL EI.ERGY USE • Ult 61740 • 61740. 61740. 617,.0. 61740. 61740. 61140. DIESEL GEflERATOR CAPITAL COSTS $)(1000 O. O. O. O. o. o. O. HYDROELECTRIC CAPITAL COSTS $XI000 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. TRAtiStlISSION CAPITAL COSTS $)(1000 O. O. o. O. O. O. O. A/WRT. COST OF DIESEL GENERATOR $XI000 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. 365. MWRT. COST OF HYDROELECTRIC $XI000 3103. 3103. 3103. 3103. n03. n03. n03. A.WRT. COST OF TRAUSHISSION $X~OO 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. ANORT. COST OF UYDROElECTRIC REPlACEt-IEtfT $Xl 00 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. DIESEL OVERHAUL COST $XI000 O. O. O. O. O. o. O. DIESEL SItilUNG FutlO $XIOOO 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. DIESEL 0&11 COSTS $)(1000 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. HYDROELECTRIC O&H COSTS $)(1000 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. TRArtSIIIS5IOH 0&11 COSTS $XI000 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. DIESEL COST PER GALLotl CENTS 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. DIESEL fUEL USED GALXI000 O. O. O. O. O. O. o. TOTAL DIESEL FUEL COST $XI000 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAL AtlllUAL COST $XI000 7524. 752,.. 752,.. 752,.. 7524. 7524. 7524. AtUIUAl COST PRESENT HORTH $XI000 2239. 217,.. 2111. 2049. 1990. 1932. 1875. ACCUtIUlATED PRESEUT tlORTH $XI000 163150. 165324. 167435. 169464. 171474. 173405. 175281. PAGE 5 2029 2030 2031 13614. 13614. 13614. 61740. 61140. 611l lO. O. O. O. O. O. O. o. o. O. 365. 365. 365. n03. 3103. 3103. 3617. 3617. 3617. 10. 10. 10. o. O. O. 8. 8. 8. 65. 65. 65. 250. 250. 250. 106. 106. 106. 222. 222. 222. o. o. O. O. O. O. 7524. 7524. 7524. 1821. 1768. 1716. 177102. 178669. 180566. 1"' (1 r , "I (1 f '1 f '1 I" f 1 f 1 ('1 r 1 rl I" I 1 TABLE 7.4-3 (cont) DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS SCENARIO B-14A NEWHALEN REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-POWER DIVERSION 2032 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 PEAK DEHAtIJ t<H 11614. 11614. 11614. 13614. 13614. 13614. AIiUUAL EUERGY USE HtIH 61740. 67740. 67740. 67740. 67740. 67740. DIESEL GEIiERATOR CAPITAL COSTS $XI000 O. O. O. o. o. O. HYDROELECTRIC CAPITAL COSTS $XI000 O. O. O. O. O. O. TRANSIIISSIOU CAPITAl COSTS 'XI000 O. O. O. o. O. O. AIIORT. COST Of DIESEL GEIIERATOR 'XI000 365. 165. 365. 365. 165. 365. AtIDRT. COST Of HYDROELECTRIC $XI000 1101. 1103. UOl. 3101. 1101. ]103. AlIORT. COST Of TRAIiStIISSIOlf 'XI000 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. 3617. AlIORT. COST Of HYDROELECTRIC REPLACEUEIiT $XI000 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. DIESEL OVERHAUL COST $XI000 O. O. o. o. O. O. DIESEL SIIiI<IIiG fUND $XI000 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. DIESEL 0111 COSTS $XI000 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. 65. HYDROELECTRIC Ot" COSTS $XI000 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. 250. TRAUSIIISSIOIi 0&" COSTS $)(1000 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. 106. DIESEL COST PER GALLON CEIiTS 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. DIESEL fUEL USED GALXI000 O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAL DIESEL fUEL COST $XI000 O. O. O. O. O. O. TOTAl AtlUUAL COST $XI000 7524. 7524. 7524. 7524. 7524. 7524. AtllUAl COST PRESEIiT tlORTIf $XI000 1666. 1618. 1571. 1525. 1'161. 1437. ACCUHlILATED PRESENT HORTII $XI000 182252. 183870. 18sq1l0. 186965. 18611116. 189883. r 1 I I f 1 PAGE 6 ,. .. ,. , .. .. - TABLE 7.4-4 DIESEL GENERATOR AND STORAGE TANK CAPITAL COSTS 1982 Dollars Scenario Capital Cost ($1,000) 1982 1987 1992 1997 BP-1 7,159 3,345 6,348 7,014 B-15 7,140 3,848 5,787 5,439 B-16 3,972 4,074 4,550 4,200 B-17 4,263 3,600 2,453 5,461 TABLE 7.4-5 BP-1 DIESEL GENERATOR AND STORAGE TANK CAPITAL COSTS 1982 Dollars Village Capital Cost ($1,000) 1982 1987 1992 1997 Clarks Point 405 60 158 195 Dillingham 1,718 1,747 2,783 3,405 Egegik 788 67 75 98 Ekuk 1,123 Ekwok 150 120 45 68 Igiugig 157 128 225 128 I liamna Region 308 307 651 621 Koliganek 3,115 67 68 83 Levelock 150 150 172 203 Manokotak 90 173 225 255 Naknek 1,628 390 1,657 1,748 New Stuyahok 282 98 244 165 Portage Creek 45 38 45 45 - .. .. Note: .. .. ,.. .. - TABLE 7.4-6. DIESEL FUEL COST 1982 Dollars Village Cost ($/Gal) Clarks Point 1.52 Dillingham 1.25 Egegik 1. 38 Ekuk 1. 39 Ekwok 1. 71 Igiugig 1. 79 I liamna Region 1. 79 Koliganek 1.66 Levelock 1.71 Manokotak 1.59 Naknek 1.25 New Stuyahok 1.58 Portage Creek 1.46 Weighted Bristol Bay Average 1.33 Fuel costs based on village contacts by ISER and others in the Fall of 1981. TABLE 7.4-7 DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL RATES Village Fuel Rate (Gal Diesel/kWh) Clarks Point Dillingham Egegik Ekuk Ekwok Igiugig Iliamna Region Koliganek Levelock Manokotak Naknek New Stuyahok Portage Creek 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.125 0.125 0.08 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.08 0.08 0.125 TABLE 7.4-8 BP-1 DIESEL FUEL USAGE FOR SELECTED YEARS Village Diesel Usage ~12000 Gall 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 Clarks Point 62 70 78 88 103 Dillingham 700 924 1,268 1,681 2,249 Egegik 130 140 150 162 179 Ekuk 80 80 80 80 80 Ekwok 19 26 31 36 46 Igiugig 23 32 36 63 88 I liamna Region 114 155 209 286 387 Koliganek 31 39 49 58 73 -Levelock 24 31 43 59 84 Manokotak 54 70 90 116 153 Naknek 1,176 1,310 1,492 1,732 2)064 -New Stuyahok 44 58 74 97 130 ... Portage Creek 11 15 18 23 27 TABLE 7.4-9 DIESEL FUEL USAGE FOR SCENARIOS B-15, B-16, AND B-17 -Diesel Usage ~1!000 Gall Year B-15 and B-16 B-17 -1982 2589 2589 1983 2689 2690 1984 2789 2791 1985 2889 2893 1986 2989 2994 1987 3089 3095 -1988 3233 3238 1989 3377 3381 1990 3522 3524 1991 3666 3667 1992 3810 3810 1993 3991 3991 1994 4171 4171 .. 1995 4352 4352 1996 4532 4532 1997 4713 4713 1998 4912 4963 1999 5112 5212 2000 5311 5462 2001 5511 5711 ". 2002 5710 5961 ,... - - TABLE 7.4-10 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY EQUIPMENT CAPITAL COSTS 1982 Dollars Scenario CaEita1 Cost (~lz0002 1982* 1987** 1992 1997 2002 B-19*** 2,085 57 357 2,204 57 B-15 770 183 90 970 183 . g-16 690 183 65 865 183 B-17 525 175 25 850 175 * Since this equipment has a 15-year life, the 1982 equipment is replaced in 1997. ** The 1987 equipment is replaced in 2002. *** Two BP-1 variations, B-19A and B-19C, used the capital costs shown. TABLE 7.4-11 B-19A AND B-19C WASTE HEAT RECOVERY EQUIPMENT CAPITAL COSTS 1982 Dollars Scenario CaEita1 Cost (~lz0002 1982* 1987** 1992 1997 2002 Clarks Point 148 8 156 Dillingham 275 25 175 325 25 Egegik 180 180 Ekuk 165 165 Ekwok 140 8 140 8 Igiugig 148 8 8 148 8 Iliamna Region 125 20 145 Koliganek 148 148 Levelock 148 8 8 156 8 Manokotak 148 8 8 156 8 Naknek 150 150 175 New Stuyahok 170 170 Portage Creek 140 140 * Since this equipment has a 15-year life, the 1982 equipment is replaced in 1997. ** The 1987 equipment is replaced in 2002. TABLE 7.4-12 B-19A DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERY BENEFIT FOR SELECTED YEARS Village Benefit (l z000 Gal Diesel Fuel2 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 Clarks Point 3 3 4 4 5 ... Dillingham 157 208 285 378 505 Egegik 6 7 7 8 9 Ekuk 4 4 4 4 4 Ekwok 5 6 8 9 11 Igiugig 6 8 9 15 11 Iliamna Region 28 38 51 70 22 Koliganek 8 10 12 14 18 Levelock 6 8 10 14 21 Manokotak 13 17 22 29 38 Naknek 227 253 288 335 399 New Stuyahok 11 14 18 24 32 Portage Creek 3 4 4 6 6 TABLE 7.4-13 -DIESEL WASTE HEAT RECOVERY BENEFIT FOR SCENARIOS B-15, B-16, AND B-17 ... Benefit (l z000 Gal Diesel Fuel2 Year B-15 and B-16 B-17 -1982 506 506 1983 535 526 1984 546 546 1985 566 566 .. 1986 586 586 1987 607 606 -1988 636 634 1989 665 663 1990 694 691 1991 723 719 1992 753 748 1993 788 784 1994 825 820 -1995 861 855 1996 898 891 1997 934 927 1998 975 977 1999 1015 1026 2000 1055 1076 2001 1095 1125 -2002 1136 1175 ... III III .. - - TABLE 7.4-14 INSTALLED CAPITAL COSTS OF WIND TURBINES 1982 Dollars Turbine Diameter, Capital Cost Meters (Ft) ($1,000) 7 (23) 34 10 (32) 50 17 (56) 127 25 (82) 422 TABLE 7.4-15 B-19D ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE BENEFIT Year Benefit (12000 Dillingham 1985 75 1986 79 1987 83 1988 89 1989 95 1990 102 1991 108 1992 114 1993 121 1994 129 1995 136 1996 144 1997 151 1998 162 1999 172 2000 182 2001 192 2002 203 Annual O&M ($1,000) 1.7 2.5 6.4 21.1 Gal Diesel Fuel) Naknek 113 116 118 121 125 128 131 134 139 143 147 152 156 162 168 174 180 186 -- - -.. - FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-16 KUKAKLEK (KVICHAK REGION) HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two-3,500 kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminants Interest During Construction Total Estimated Cost ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 1,390,000 31,929,000 2,700,000 925,000 403,000 2,250,000 55,000 550,000 19,324,000 2,225,000 $ 61,751,000 1,730,000 4,940,000 4,014,000 10,865,000 5,123,000 $ 88,423,000 III .. III! -... .. - - - - -- .. - FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354·9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4·17 KUKAKLEK REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two·8,000 kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines, and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminants Interest During Construction Total Estimated Cost ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 3,947,000 119,771,000 6,800,000 1,150,000 696,000 300,000 100,000 625,000 48,843,000 2,225,000 $184,457,000 1,760,000 14,757,000 11,990,000 31,945,000 15,062,000 $259,971,000 .. .. - - - -... .. .. -.. -... .. .. - -.. FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-18 NEWHALEN RIVER LOCAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two-600 kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminants Interest During Construction Total Estimated Cost ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 1,127,000 7,081,000 1,600,000 570,000 198,000 1,469,000 23,000 250,000 235,000 1,250,000 $ 13,803,000 1,250,000 2,070,000 1,656,000 2,817,000 997,000 $ 22,593,000 -- I11III FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 TABLE 7.4-19A NEWHALEN RIVER REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT NEWHALEN RIVER DIVERSION -POWER ONLY (Two-8,000 kW Units) DESCRIPTION Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminants Interest During Construction ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 5,645,000 35,484,000 8,570,000 1,150,000 576,000 387,000 100,000 625,000 51,375,000 1,800,000 $ 105,712,000 2,440,000 8,460,000 6,870,000 18,520,000 8,733,000 Total Estimated Cost $ 150,735,000 ... .... -... - ... FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 TABLE 7.4-19B NEWHALEN RIVER REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT NEWHALEN RIVER DIVERSION -POWER AND RIVER DIVERSION (Two-8,OOO kW Units) DESCRIPTION Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminants Interest During Construction ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 5,645,000 63,082,000 8,570,000 1,150,000 576,000 387,000 100,000 625,000 51,375,000 1,800,000 $ 133,310,000 2,440,000 10,664,800 8,665,200 23,262,000 10,968,000 Total Estimated Cost $ 189,310,000 ,t c ... ' r .. .-.. FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-20 TAZIMINA RUN-OF-RIVER REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two-8,OOO kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminates Interest During Construction ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 2,893,000 14,000,000 7,080,000 1,150,000 463,000 3,048,000 100,000 625,000 53,539,000 2,000,000 $ 84,898,000 1,400,000 6,792,000 5,518,000 14,791,000 6,985,000 Total Estimated Cost $ 120,384,000 ... - - - .. 1M FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-21 TAZIMINA RIVER (KVICHAK RIVER REGION) HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two-4,000 kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminates Interest During Construction Total Estimated Cost ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 2,000,000 23,500,000 4,200,000 925,000 415,000 2,675,000 55,000 550,000 32,417,000 1,000,000 $ 67,737,000 1,000,000 5,419,000 4,403,000 11,784,000 5,565,000 $ 95,908,000 • r· , ! .. - FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-22 TAZIMINA RIVER REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two-8,000 kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminates Interest During Construction ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 2,893,000 54,578,000 7,080,000 990,000 463,000 3,631,000 100,000 625,000 53,539,000 2,325,000 $ 126,224,000 2,000,000 10,098,000 8,205,000 21,979,000 10,363,000 Total Estimated Cost $ 178,869,000 -.. iii ,. I c - ,. .. FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-23 TAZIMINA RUN-OF-RIVER LOCAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (TWo-600 kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminates Interest During Construction Total Estimated Cost ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 816,000 1,795,000 1,240,000 570,000 265,000 2,675,000 23,000 250,000 463,000 1,250,000 $ 9,347,000 1,270,000 1,402,000 1,122,000 1,971,000 611,000 $ 15, 723 , 000 - fill .. c - -.. III! iii !II' f • FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-24 CHIKUMINUK LAKE REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two-8,000 kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminates Interest During Construction ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 4,579,000 53,932,000 8,570,000 1,150,000 576,000 7,168,000 100,000 625,000 63,077 ,000 1,500,000 $ 141,277 ,000 1,910,000 11 ,302,000 9,183,000 36,255,000 12,296,000 Total Estimated Cost $ 212,223,000 ,. .. - .. FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-25 CHIKUMINUK LAKE (NUSHAGAK REGION) HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two-4,000 kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant Camp, Mobilization and Demobilization Subtotal Direct Cost Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminates Interest During Construction ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 2,793,000 39,844,000 5,250,000 925,000 415,000 7,178,000 55,000 550,000 37,329,000 2,700,000 $ 97,039,000 1,860,000 7,763,000 6,308,000 16,946,000 7,990,000 Total Estimated Cost $ 137,906,000 .. .. .. .. ,... .. , .. - FERC ACCT 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 352 353 354-9 71 DESCRIPTION TABLE 7.4-26 KONTRASHIBUNA LAKE REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (Two-8,OOO kW Units) Land and Land Rights Power Plant, Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams, and Waterways Waterwheels, Turbines and Generators Accessory Electrical Equipment Misc. Power Plant Equipment Roads and Railroads Substation and Switching Station, Structures and Improvements Substation and Switching Station Equipment Transmission Plant ESTIMATED COST (1982 $ ) (Not Included) 2,729,000 62,399,000 6,000,000 1,150,000 478,000 800,000 100,000 625,000 58,593,000 Camp, Mobilization, and Demobilization 2,300,000 Subtotal Direct Cost $135,174,000 Studies Engineering Construction Management Allowance for Indeterminants Interest During Construction Total Estimated Cost 2,000,000 10,814,000 8,786,000 23,516,000 11 ,088 ,000 $191,378,000 • ... - -.. -... - -.. .. ,.. -- TABLE 7.4-27 HYDROELECTRIC PLANT ANNUAL SINKING FUND AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 1982 Dollars Hydroelectric Plant Annual O&M ($1,000) Sinking Fund Kukaklek (Kvichak) 120 8 Two-3,500 kW units Kukaklek Regional 220 15 Two-8,000 kW units Newhalen River Local 100 8 TWo-600 kW units Newhalen River Regional Two-8,000 kW units Power Diversion 250 10 Power + River Diversion 250 10 Tazimina Run-of-River 200 8 Two-8,000 kW units Tazimina River (Kvichak) 106 8 Two-4,000 kW units Tazimina River Regional 220 14 Two-8,000 kW units Tazimina River Local 100 8 Two-600 kW units Chikuminuk Lake Regional 250 15 Two-8,OOO kW units Chikuminuk Lake (Nushagak) 120 11 Two-4,000 kW units Kontrashibuna Lake Regional 250 14 Two-8,000 kW units ($1,000) .. .. p- ili - - TABLE 7.4-28 ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM INSTALLED CAPITAL COSTS Scenario A-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-5 B-8 B-9 and B-lO B-ll and B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 1982 Dollars Capital Costs* ($1,000) 68,740 112,498 62,971 73,428 74,818 92,065 39,475 46,059 81,432 66,280 34,249 41,031 64,540 75,412 Annual O&M ($1,000) 108 146 94 98 100 117 97 76 109 106 62 66 104 115 * Includes substations, but not interest during construction of the systems. * These TABLE 7.4-29 ELECTRIC SUBSTATION EXPANSION CAPITAL COSTS FOR SCENARIOS B-15, B-16, and B-17* 1982 Dollars Scenario Ca:eital Cost (~120002 1987 1992 1997 B-15 65 65 65 B-16 130 130 130 B-17 130 130 130 costs are in addition to those in Table 7.4-28. !"II J 1M '" " ... .. .. .. La " t [ '" t. -.. .... , I.. .... Source: til ,... 1111 .... III .... ... .... lit till ... -.. -ii. JIIIII .. -... TABLE 7.4-30 SCENARIO B-1 PURCHASED POWER COST Year Power Cost, ¢/kWh 1986 3.22 1987 3.22 1988 4.70 1989 4.40 1990 4.15 1991 4.70 1992 5.30 1993 5.35 1994 5.40 1995 6.05 1996 6.40 1997 6.68 1998 6.80 1999 7.00 2000 7.10 2001 7.15 2002 7.30 Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, "Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study: Evaluation of Railbelt Electric Energy Plans", Plan 1A .. a. D -;l IfI lilt .. ,. .. C " filii f ... "'" ... ,.. ... .. ! .. ... ! ... .. III .. .. ,.. ... .... ... ,.. III ,.. '-,.. ~ ... ... ... Scenario BP-1 A-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-5 B-8 B-9A B-9B B-9C B-ll B-13A B-13B B-14A B-14B B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18A B-18B B-19A B-19B B-l9C B-19D B-19E TABLE 7.4-31 SUMMARY OF BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER SCENARIOS Description Diesel generation in each village Tazimina Regional Hydro Power purchased from the Beluga area Kukaklek Regional + Newhalen Local Hydro Kukaklek + Chikuminuk + Newhalen Local Hydro Kukaklek + Chikuminuk + Tazimina Local Hydro Chikuminuk Local + Tazimina Hydro Coal-fired steam power plant Diesel-powered combined cycle plant Coal gasification/combined cycle plant Coal-fired steam power plant + Newhalen Local Hydro Chikuminuk Regional + Tazimina Local Hydro Chikuminuk Regional + Newhalen Local Hydro Newhalen Regional Hydro -power diversion Newhalen Regional Hydro -power + river diversion Four independent diesel generation load centers Four diesel generation load centers in three independent groups Two diesel generation load centers, interconnected Kontrashibuna Regional + Tazimina Run-of-River Hydro Kontrashibuna Regional Hydro BP-1 + waste heat recovery in all villages BP-l + wind generation in certain villages BP-l + waste heat recovery + wind generation BP-1 + organic Rankine cycle in certain villages BP-1 lowest cost combination + Tazimina Local Hydro TA8LE 7.4-32 SUMMARY OF PRESENT WORTH COSTS FOR SCENARIOS 8P-1, 8-15, 8-16, 8-17, and 8-19 (All Values in 1982 Dollars) 8P-1 8-19A -8P-1 + Waste Heat Recovery 8-198 -8P-1 + Wind Generation 8-19C -8P-1 + Waste Heat + Wind 8-19D -8P-1 + Organic Rankine Cycle 8-15 8-15 -With Waste Heat Recovery 8-15 -With Wind Generation 8-15 -With Waste Heat and Wind 8-16 8-16 -With Waste Heat Recovery 8-16 -With Wind Generation 8-16 -With Waste Heat and Wind 8-17 8-17 -With Waste Heat Recovery 8-17 -With Wind Generation 8-17 -With Waste Heat and Wind Scenario Present Worth ($1,000) 291,700 249,500 287,900 249,200 283,900 340,400 303,200 335,600 301,100 338,900 299,000 334,900 295,800 367,900 326,600 359,000 323,500 .. .. - - , ... -... TABLE 7.4-33 BP-1 VARIATIONS BY VILLAGE* SUMMARY OF PRESENT WORTII COSTS (All Values Expressed in Thousands of 1982 Dollars) BP-l B-19A B-19B B-19C ------ Clarks Point 6,600 6,700 Dillingham 104,700 86,400 Egegik 10,400 10,500 10,400 10,500 Ekuk 4,800 6,300 Ekwok 3,300 3,000 Igiugig 5,600 4,900 5,400 6,000 . I liamna Region 26,900 22,100 Koliganek 4,800 4,300 Levelock 5,300 4,700 Manokotak 8,700 7,200 Naknek 101,400 85,200 97,800 83,800 New Stuyahok 7,500 6,400 Portage Creek 1,700 1,800 *BP-1 = Diesel Generation B-19A = BP-1 + Waste Heat Recovery B-19B = BP-1 + Wind Generation B-19C = BP-1 + Waste Heat Recovery + Wind Generation B-19D = BP-1 + Organic Rankine Cycle B-19D 100,800 97,500 ... - -- ,... .. ... TABLE 7.4-34 PRESENT WORTH COSTS WIND AND WASTE HEAT RECOVERY VARIATIONS FOR SCENARIO B-14A NEWHALEN REGIONAL HYDROELECTRIC PLANT -POWER DIVERSION (All Values in 1982 Dollars) Scenario B-14A B-14A + Wind B-14A + Diesel Waste Heat Recovery* Recovery equip installed by 1982 Recovery equip installed by 1983 Recovery equip installed by 1984 Recovery equip installed by 1985 Present Worth ($1,000) 189,900 193,200 188,500 189,100 189,600 190,100 *In all cases, the waste heat recovery equipment was not used after the hydroelectric on-line date of January 1, 1988. TABLE 7.4-35 PRESENT WORTH COSTS FOR ILIAMNA/NEWHALEN/NONDALTON HYDROELECTRIC VERSUS SCENARIO BP-l (All Values in 1982 Dollars) Scenario BP-l -Diesel Generation B-19A -BP-l + Waste Heat Recovery Newhalen Local Hydroelectric Tazimina Local Hydroelectric Present Worth ($1,000) 26,900 22,100 23,900 18,300 i .. - - - - - TABLE 7.4-36 PRESENT WORTH OOSTS FOR NUSHAGAK RIVER REGION. HYDROELECTRIC VERSUS DIESEL GENERATION (All Values in 1982 Dollars) Scenario Present Worth ($1,000) Central Diesel Generation in Dillingham and New Stuyahok BP-1 Diesel Generation in Each Village B-19A -BP-1 + Waste Heat Recovery Chikuminuk Hydroelectric 160,000 142,100 122, 100 150,800 • Includes the following villages: Clarks Point, Dillingham, Ekuk, Ekwok, Koliganek, Manokotak, New Stuyahok, and Portage Creek. TABLE 7. ~-37 VILLAGE POWER SUPPLY OPTIONS FOR BP-19E SCENARIO Village Clarks Point Dillingham Egegik Ekuk Ekwok Igiugig Iliamna Region Koliganek Levelock Manokotak Naknek New Stuyahok Portage Creek Total .BP-' = diesel generation Power Supply· Option BP-1 B-19A BP-1 BP-1 B-19A B-19A Tazimina Local Hydro B-19A B-19A B-19A B-19C B-19A BP-1 B-19A = BP-1 with waste heat recovery B-19C = BP-1 with waste heat recovery and wind generation Present Worth, $1 ,000 6,600 86,400 10,400 4,800 3,000 4,900 18,300 4,300 4,700 7,200 83,800 6,400 1,700 242,500 TABLE 7.4-38 SUMMARY OF PRESENT WORTH COSTS All Values in 1982 Dollars Scenario* Present Worth ($1,000) Ranking BP-1 291,700 20 A-1 213,700 2 B-1 279,600 15 B-2 301,000 21 B-3 276,300 14 B-5 270,700 13 B-8 266,000 9 B-9A 281,000 16 B-9B 388,500 25 B-9C 269,300 11 B-11 281,300 17 B-13A 261,500 8 B-13B 267,100 10 B-14A 189,900 1 B-14B 222,200 3 B-15 340,400 23 -B-16 338,900 22 B-17 367,900 24 B-18A 270,200 12 B-18B 226,800 4 B-19A 249,500 7 - B-19B 287,900 19 B-19C 249,200 6 .... B-19D 283,900 18 B-l9E 242,500 5 * -See Table 7.4-31 or Section 6.2 - -.. - - - - - - - Scenario· B-14A A-I B-14B B-18B B-19E B-19C B-19A B-13A B-8 B-13B B-9C B-18A B-5 B-3 B-1 B-9A B-ll B-19D B-19B BP-l B-2 B-16 B-15 B-17 B-9B TABLE 7.4-39 PRESENT WORTH RATIOS REGIONAL POWER SCENARIOS Ranking 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 * See Table 7.4-31 or Section 6.2. ** Present Worth Ratio = Present Worth BP-l Scenario Present Worth = $291,700,000 Scenario Present Worth Present Worth Ratio·· 1.54 1.36 1.31 1.29 1.20 1.17 1.17 1.12 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.01 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.75 II -G) C :0 m ~ • ~ I ~ PRESENT WORTH COST, $1,000,000 oM o o I\) o o 19820~;q~~~~~~~IIr!-rTi-r;-Ii-rTi-r~rT-rT1 (.,) o o 1985~1~~~----------~--------------~----------~--, » o o c s:: C r-» --I m C1 1990 1 \:.\'= 19951 '" ",,~ 2000 1 HI..:fIi"~<---------t---------t '"C 20051 ______ -L~:.~ lJ-< -~~ I .~~~'<~~---~--- m:U ' Z 2010 --- ... ... ... ... --I ~ o lJ --I ~ ~~~.~~-- o 2020 : \' •• \ --o : \ (J) • -\ -I ': \ --j \ (J) 2025 .. 4 ... ... ... ... " \ I . \ :.. ." ----'\-... -' ... ... ... ... ... 2030 I as \ o,~ ~ \ ,. \ \ -'" -'" \ -'" .; \ .$10 -'" cD cD .; ,. tn" ... . 2035 : 2037 A0782068 ..., ...i ., ..I .. .. II ~ 'II .. ~ ... .., ... ., .. ..., ... .., I11III J ] l ~ " IIIIIi ., .J ., .. " wi j lflii .. .,. i .. ,... L .. i ill. .... L 8. REGULATOR Y COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .. 8. REGULATORY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8.1 REGULATORY COORDINATION 8.1.1 Agency Involvement A major objective of the study effort has been to ensure an adequate and timely involvement of the people of the region and the federal, state, and local agencies interested in the study. Since the study was initiated, when a number of agencies were sent copies of the Work Plan, progress information has continually been supplied to interested agencies and governmental organizations. Agency information meetings have been held at various intervals throughout the first phase of the study. The purpose of these meetings has been to provide information to those agencies who have direct involvement in the Bristol Bay area. Some agencies that have had a special_interest from the beginning include the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (Division of Lands and Division of Parks), and the Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan Land Use Council. These organizations, as well as many others, have been invited on a regular basis to participate in agency meetings for the purpose of expressing their concerns and ideas with the members of the study team . Items discussed at agency meetings have included the methodology used to screen various schemes and sites proposed for regional energy production, the development of alternative concepts for various sites, the screening of potential hydroelectric sites, environmental concerns of various energy development schemes, and land status and ownership regarding the development of power projects and transmission corridors. On several occasions during the first phase of the study, large packets of information were distributed to a number of agencies at various levels of government. These packets contained information on potential selected hydroelectric sites, various development concepts, and 8-1 transmission line concepts and recommended corridors. Agencies were asked to review and comment on these concepts, methodologies" and screening procedures. Several agencies did respond in considerable detail. Their comments and ideas have been incorporated, as applicable, into the 21 energy development scenarios presented in this Interim Assessment Report. In addition to the special information packets, agencies also have received Project Reports on a regular basis; these reports highlight activities which have taken place during the preceeding period and include an estimate of work to be completed in the following month. Finally, agencies were provided with the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment Report issued in March 1982. A number of agencies commented on the report. These comments and Power Authority responses are found at the end of this chapter. 8.1.2 Regulatory Requirements A second major objective of the study effort has been to identify various regulatory requirements as they may pertain to the development of various energy development plans. An effort was made to collect and compile all statutes, rules, regulations, and other requirements directly or indirectly affecting the process of investigating, and subsequently constructing, the selected energy development plan. Federal statutes having an impact upon the study effort in Phase I included the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Anadromous Fish Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Fuel Use Act, and the Clean Air Act. Most agency concern has been over hydroelectric power as an energy source and the location of potential sites for development. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, with their subsequent land classifications, have been critical to the development of energy plans. A great deal of effort has been expended identifying land ownership and land status in the Bristol Bay region as a result of ANCSA's provisions for land selection and withdrawal. In addition, as a result of the passage of the 8-2 J t I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I t t t t ANILCA, conservation units in the region such as Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Mt. Katmai National Park and Preserve, Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, and Togiak National Wildlife Refuge have extended their boundaries. Many of the potential hydroelectric sites which have been previously considered are now located within these conservation units. Also, within each unit are various designations of lands: park, preserve, wilderness, and wildlife refuge. Guidelines for uses and restrictions within each designation class have been collected and compiled. Primary state interest in the development of the regional power plan has been in the area of fisheries, especially the commercial salmon fishery, which is vital to the Bristol Bay economy. The fishery interest has been most directly related to hydroelectric power generation and potential development sites. Another area of state interest has been directed toward the Wood-Tikchik State Park and potential development which may take place, particularly hydroelectric development. As a result of the passage of ANILCA, an Alaska Land Use Council was established to conduct studies and advise federal, state, and local government and native corporations with respect to land and resource uses in Alaska. As a part of ANILCA, a Cooperative Management Plan was set up for the Bristol Bay region. The purpose of this plan is set forth in Section 1203 of the Act. It is the intent of this study effort to work closely with the Land Use Council in their preparation and implementation of a comprehensive and systematic cooperative management plan for the Bristol Bay region. 8.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8.2.1 General The basic objectives of a public participation program are twofold: to keep the public fully informed, and to provide a means whereby the public can influence the work effort. These objectives have been generally satisfied during the first phase of the study by conducting a public information program which has included media exposure, scheduled events, 8-3 public comment opportunities, and dynamic planning provisions. To date, it has been the intent of the study to not only supply the public with information regarding the study, but also to provide a means of involving the public and having them influence the course of work. For an effort such as the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, with impacts extending effectively into perpetuity, public participation is an imperative. 8.2.2 Interests While the motivations and objectives of individuals and organizations who have been involved to date on the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan are generally sincere and relatively easily understood, when considered collectively. they represent clear conflicts. It follows that it will be virtually impossible to satisfy every desire. Problems arise when interests in accelerated development of energy resources meet up with interests to preserve the quality of life in Alaska. Special interests identified during Phase I of the study effort have included the following: • Utility interests, including concerns about ability to meet energy demands, prospects for the recovery of capital expenditures. and others • Native groups, particularly those whose subsistence lifestyle may be affected by the development of a power project • Recent immigrants to the region who wish to preserve the existing lifestyle • Fisheries industries and agencies, who are concerned about the impacts on future catch. particularly of anadromous fish • Consumers of electric power in the Bristol Bay region • Marketers of alternative energy resources • Agencies charged with the maintenance and preservation of Alaskan wildlife, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 8-4 I I I ., I I I I I I 1 I I' I I I I I I I I a t ; Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Department of Natural Resources Many of these interests were expressed during the public meetings discussed in Section 8.2.3.1, below. 8.2.3 Communications Factors which combine to create unusual pressures on effective communications include the large area over which power would be distributed, the relatively non-existent transportation system, and remoteness of the area affected by the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. Therefore, the public participation program implemented has afforded reasonable involvement opportunities, even for those who have no practical means to attend meetings or make regular visits to the Alaska Power Authority's office in Anchorage. 8.2.3.1 Public Meetings Scheduled public meetings were part of the public participation program during Phase I, and were held in both urban and rural areas of the Bristol Bay region. The first series of meetings occurred in September and October of 1981 as the study was just getting underway. The second series of meetings was held in early March 1982 to report on interim results. Table 8.2-2 lists the villages and dates of public meetings. These "community" meetings became an important means by which the study team and the Power Authority could express the overall study methodology as well as present conceptual schemes for power development. An important element in each of the public/community meetings was the invitation of questions or comments regarding the study plan. As previously described, all comments. oral and written, have been compiled with the detail backup information contained in the study files. Table 8.2-1 presents a compilation of interest categories expressed as comments and questions resulting from the first series of meetings. Participants represented a broad cross-section of interest groups which included governmental 8-5 agencies, utilities, industry, native organizations, commercial businesses, and private individuals. The comments have been considered and incorporated when possible into the power plan study. The Spring 1982 public meetings offered the first opportunity to provide detailed information on the various power generation options which were being considered for the region. The spring meetings were more regional in nature, the first occurring at Dillingham during the Beaver Roundup when people from many smaller villages were gathered for festivities. Other meetings followed in Iliamna, Igiugig, Levelock, New Stuyahok, Naknek, and South Naknek. Public reaction during the spring meetings varied considerably from village to village. Clearly the most important and repeated concern related to fears regarding the effect of hydroelectric projects on the fisheries. Agency fisheries experts emphaSized the need for extensive study to determine whether the least cost Newhalen and Tazimina concepts would be environmentally acceptable. Another important underlying concern, although not always clearly stated, related to the possibility of undesirable change due to more abundant and less costly energy. Some see this as an inducement to in-migration and a threat to existing life styles. In Naknek, where electricity tends to be more reliable and less costly than in more remote villages, one meeting attendee stated that he would be willing to pay much more for power if it would keep conditions the way they are now. However, in South Naknek strong sentiments were expressed in favor of a regional plan. The public meeting in Iliamna was particularly interesting. This area has some of the higher electrical costs in the region and a central diesel generating system is being built in Newhalen with plans for an intertie to Nondalton. Also, the lake villages would experience more effects, either positive or negative, from construction of a hydroelectric project on the Tazimina or Newhalen rivers. When the question of alternatives was put to 8-6 I a I I I I I I t 1 I I I' I I I I I I I a vote at the request of an attendee, the development of a regional plan was the overwhelming choice, as opposed to continuing local development of diesel. Of the least cost alternatives, Newhalen was favored, but Tazimina had considerable support. The Kvichak River villages of Igiugig and Levelock had previously indicated strong opposition to development of Kukaklek Lake as a hydroelectric source. These villages seemed quite relieved to learn that the Kukaklek concept was no longer a serious contender. However, these villages appeared undecided about becoming involved in a regional supply system using another source, preferring to take a "wait and see" attitude. New Stayahok also did not seem enthusiastic about a regional plan, probably due to concerns about fisheries and transmission line effects. The smaller villages seemed interested in subregional plans requiring fewer transmission line connections with the rest of the region. Although the spring meetings provided considerable public comment on the power plan alternatives suggested as most attractive technically, it was not possible to determine if the response was representative. It is believed that a more comprehensive public information and response program is required to properly evaluate the diverse attitudes of the region with respect to its general interest in development of a regional power system, and more specifically identify preferences between the lower cost scenarios. Numerous other meetings were held during the Phase I effort which were not formal in nature, but did provide both information about the project and an opportunity for comment and input. Such meetings involved various native organizations, utilities, commercial businesses, and private citizens in the region. 8.2.3.2 Project Reports An integral part of the study effort has been the issuance of project reports. These reports have been designed to present to the reader information on work that has been accomplished in the study during the preceeding period, as well as a projection of work to be completed for the 8-7 following month. Included in the reports are important meetings and conferences, as well as a Project Milestone Schedule. The reports have been given wide distribution, e.g., federal, state, and local agencies, native organizations, utilities, etc., for the purpose of receiving comments as to the content and overall direction of the study. 8.2.3.3 Media Exposure The most effective means of announcing important information and events is through radio and newspapers. Throughout the first phase of the study, numerous press releases were made using both local radio and local newspapers. These were designed to announce scheduled meetings, study methodologies, and the availability of study information. 8.2.4 Records of Comments and Responses Records of all study inquiries, whether as a question presented at a public meeting or as a letter received from an agency, have been kept on file. A number of formal comments, mostly from Federal and State agencies, were received on the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment issued in March 1982. Copies of these letters and Power Authority responses. 8-8 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I .. lit .. .. fl .. .. ~ ,., ~, 1M .. II D 4 t .. 1. ". \-... .. .. '* ,. .. ,.. j .. .- 4 .. I ; I ~ II \ \ . w_ ... ~ __ . .. .. ..' U ni ted S ta tes Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IN UPLY UJ'I!UI. TO: DS01S(ARQ-DD) (X) LS815 Alaska Area Offic:e 540 West Fifth Avenue., Room 202. Anc:horage, Al;uka. 9950 L !;~I l"'iC'~'? ",. ... t·· ., ..... '\.._ Mr. Eric P. Yould Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 HOifD IAN Q \J 1 .... 1282 r. Crltikos Dear Mr. Yould: This is in response to your letter of December 16 concerning the potential development of a hydroelectric project involving Kukaklek Lake in Kat::::lai National Park and Preserve • It is our pOSition that without specific Congressional approval the Kukaklek Lake project could not be permitted '.rithin the boundaries of Ka t.."'O.ai • This j udger.:z.en t is based on t.'1e a::!endmen t to the Federal Power Ccmzission ~ct approved in 1921. That ar..~~d ment states in part, "No per.nit, license, lease or authorization for dams, conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines or other work for storage or carriage of ;'/ater or for t."e de'1elop- ment, transmission or utilization of power" wit...'1in any !'Tat'.ional Park or Monument shall be granted wit.'1cut specific authority of Congress. In addition, the National Wild and Scenic :livers Act contains very similar language ~Y'hich iY'ould pertain to the Alagnak River. Regional Director Alaska Region 8-9 Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau. Alaska 99802 Mr. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: RECEIVED t·tarch 26, 1982 We have reviewed the Interim Assessment Executive Summary for the First Phase of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Study by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. We agree with the findings and conclusions and have no specific comments to offer. 8-10 Sincerely b(~ ~'<.. -;7 ..7 Robert J. Cross Administrator I I~ I I I ,I J I I , I I ,I I t J I I I .- iiIa .... .- " flit ... r .. .. .. .. II. .- " r. .. I J ; i I i :~ i r • .. ! "' III ... .. ... lit Departmen t Of Energy Al,l!)k<l Powt!r Administration P.O. 00", 50 ..... :,. ' ...... \ I ,<I' _,. __ Jl:!1I:i.;U. ,-\Iilska 99802 r·il". Eri c Youl d Eiecutive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, 2nd Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Nr. Yould: Z6, 1932 We appreciate Eric ~1archeg;an; sending, en ;'ii!j :0 I :~:h;! Bristol Bay Regional Pm'ler Plan Detailed Feasibility .<~I:i:.l..'sis dr':dt Int;:rim Feasibility Assessment, March 1982, by Stone and ~ebster ~ngineering Corporation. Hr. :'Iarche~iani asked for cerr.:;:cnts by June 13. We agree with the Stone and Webster Engineering Cor~oration recommendations for next steps of investigation. It appears that a lot of good 'f/ork has .been done and is I'fell documEl1ted. An obvious power plan is not easy to identify ;n this regiQIl, but C1H~ pros and cons of the various possibilities are I'ieil laid out for p~opl; to con side r . One small editorial item--reference 1 on page A.1-9 should read " ..•. Administration" rather than " .... Authority.1I Retherford's original energy balance, pO\'ier projections (Table A.1-2) and potential reSOl.l?'C': inventory were presEnt=d in this report, then selected data used in ;;11e 1980 Reconna i ssance Study for the Power Authority. As Floyd Summers disCUSSE:d \'/ith ~tr. Harchegiani, (and loJe !i~enti(jned ill an earlier letter), Y/~ wOUld like to USe the anergy projec~iol1s for til~S study as a target for analySiS of the '(lind rtlanitol"ing undenlClj ~Jr!';s a~ Dillingham, Naknek, and King Salmen, by Aero Vironment, Inc. The appropriate data are ill Appendix A.I. Specifically, we propose to utilize the jear 2002 data in Ta:Jl<i: A.l-5 for Dillingham and ;idkn~~,,;:~r:~ Salmon with the monthly distributi~n of Figures A.I-IS, -16, -17, and -18. If these are not appropriate, please let us know. P~/d' ("lL Robert ,J. eros s T-' Administrater 8-11 j~,. " . ~ I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY I 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276-0001 1 Mr. Robert J. Cross Administrator U.S. Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 August 5, 1982 Subject: Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis Draft Interim Assessment Report. Dea r Mr. Cross: Thank you for the comments provided in your letters of March 26 and May 26, 1982, regarding the above referenced report. We are pleased to hear that you agree with the findings and conclusions of the Assessment. The Power Authority is awaiting a revised analysis of the alternative project plans, to be included in the final Interim Feasibility Report, and an analysis currently underway utilizing the Chikuminuk and Newhalen Project concepts to individually satisfy the interregional energy requirements of both the Bethel Area and the Bristol Bay Area, prior to making final recommendations. The error you pOinted out on page A.1~9 of Appendix A has been corrected. We have no problem with your utilizing the energy projections derived in the study as a target for analysis of your wind monitoring program, however. we recommend that you use the revised forecasts which will be included in the final Interim Feasibility Assessment Report which will be sent to you in the near future. Please bear in mind that the effects various state power cost subsidy programs could have a significant effect upon energy demand. Thank you again for your review comments and timely input. ~Ie appreCiate your continued interest in the Bristol Bay Studies. 8-12 I I I I I I I I I I J 'I I I I I ,- ", I BURR. PEASE 8c KURTZ A pROnss,_ ... CORPORATION E. L. ARNELL UU3.tgea O.A.SURR THEODORE M. PEASE. JR. L. S. KURTZ. JR. EOWARD G. aURiON CHARLES P. FLYNN RICHARD A. HELM ARDEN E. PAGE J. W. SEDWICK NELSON G. PAGE RONALD H. BUSSEY PETER J. MAASSEN RUSSELLYN S. CARRUTH JAMES A. SARAFIN RALPH E. CUERRE PAMELA L.SHORT ANN C. LISURD ROBERT A. MINTZ JOHN C. SIEMERS March 29, 1982 JAMES R.PETERSON MARK L. FIGURA 810 N STREET ANCHORAGE. AL.ASKA 99501 '907) 270 ? 4 .. 1 TELEX: ,(090) 26·405 (907) 216-6100 f~OTED APR ,,../' r '.. l:oiv':: r. Cntikos Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Bristol Bay Regional Power Plant Interim Feasibility Assessment P.o. Box 5406 Denver, Colorado 80217 Attention: Don Matchett, project Manager File No.: 642-4011 Dear Sir: Borm""t-RESHAllDfl AP;1 2. 2 1982 I am writing on behalf of the Igiugig Native Corpora- tion with regard to the public hearings which were held in Igiugig on March a, 1982. Several comments were made at the hearing which I would like to re-affirm in this letter on behalf of the corporation and to supplement prior comments which our firm previously sent to Stone and Webster. First, it is my understanding from what was stated at the hearing at Igiugig that the Lake Kukaklek power projects are no longer being considered as viable alternatives in the regional plan. As a result these alternatives will no longer be seriously studied and are essentially being scrapped at this stage. This would include scrapping both the large scale regional project for Lake Kukaklek and several al ternati ve small scale proj ects. I feel that this was a very wise decision. The local feeling in Igiugig was very strongly against any use of Lake Kukaklek as a source for a hydro-electric project. The lake is very important to the local villaqers for fishing and subsistance activities and any significant alteration to that environment would be consi- dered highly detrimental the villagers. Since the Kukaklek pro- jects are no longer being seriously considered I feel that there is no need to comment any further on this except to say that it was a wise decision to scrap those alternatives • . 8-13 '. ". , Don Matchet, Project Manager March 29, 1982 Page 2 There were several points that I would like to re- affirm which were raised at the hearing concerning possible regional projects especially the two projects which are apparently getting the greatest attention right now --Tazimina Lakes and the New Halen ri 'ler diversion proj ect. There are several general areas of concern which we would like your firm to consider very carefully in further assessments of these regional proj ects. First, there is a great deal of concern about trans- mission lines running from New Balen or Tazimina to the various villages in the southwest. ':'he lines must be designed in such away as not to interfere with migrating caribou, moose and other wild life. Further, since much of the area involves wet tundra, careful engineering will have to be used to insure that the transmission lines are carefully installed and will not collapse in the spring thaw. The construction canps will also be a problem, and some careful planning must be considered. The villagers are very much concerned that the construction workers will be allowed to have guns at the construction camps and will do some hunting in the region. I strongly urge that the possession of guns at the con- struction camps be forbidden and that the only firearms allowed be those for designated emplo:'ees to be used solely for the pro- tection of the workers from any wild life which presents a sub- stantial threat to the safety of the workers. The camp should also be isolated from the villages so that there will be as Ii t tIe impact a possible upon normal village life. I would strongly suggest that alcohol and drugs be strictly forbidden in the camps. There also is some serious concern about the effects which any proj ect in Tazimina or New Balen may have upon migrat- ing fish. The Lake Iliamna ... ater shed is an important habitat for a number of migrating fish upon which Igiugig villagers depend for subsistance. A careful study should be given to the effects which dam construction or river diversion would have upon the ability of the fish to migrate and the effects of such pro- jects on spawning grounds. I would also hope that any construc- tion projects in New Halen or Tazimina would not create an exces- 8-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I ... ! III ~ lilt JIll --.. .. ... .. .. a.; t r fill! .. t .. .. .. " II [ .-a- t t r .. !fII'1I .. -till .. . Don Matchet, Project Manager March 29, 1982 Page 3 -sive amount of barge traffic which would produce pollution on the l(vichak River or on Lake Iliamna and otherwise interfere with fish habitat and fish migration. I will hope that you give these matters careful consideration in future planning for power pro- jects in the region • Very truly yours, BURR, PEASE & KURTZ JCS/vlm p.~. !YI/f~"",,-1. __ rJOhn C. siJmers 8-15 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CoRPORATION DENVER OPERATIONS CENTER GREENWOOC PL-AZA. DENVER, COL-ORACO • ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO P.O. BOX 5408. DENVER. COLORADO 80217 eOSTON NEW YORK CHERRY HILL. N.J. OIENV!R CHICAGO HOUSTON PORTLAND. OREGON SAN OU!GO WASHINGTON, C.C. Burr, Pease & KUrtz 810 N Street TIEL£PHONE;: 303-770-7'00 W,U. TIL£X:4S"4401 April 13. 1982 J~chorage. Alaska 99501 J. O. No. 1~007.03 Attn: Mr. John C. Sieroers Dear Mr. Siemer~: INT£RIl-1 F£ASIBILI!Y ASSESSH£UT DRISlOL BAY REG IOllhl.. fOi·:E.R PLAN ALASKA POHER AUT~OnITY We received ycur letter of ~~rch 29, 1982 containing co~~ents on the village ceetings held in ISiuSiS cn ~~rch 8, 1982. Our unoerstandir.G 1s that you represent the position of the Igiu~iS l;ative Corpo~ation as being in concurrencp. ~ith the conclusions of the Interim Feasibility Assessment with respect to development of hydroelectric power projects involvir.g Lake Ku1:aklek. The conclusion at this tioe is that development of Lakc Kukaklek is not one of the ~ore promising electrical supply alternatives for the Bristol llay rebion or for small scale local cevelopment. The e'nvirorJl!ental concerns you raised were mentioned durin; the village meetings held in the Bristol Bay region during P~rch. You will find that some of the points were addressed 1n general te~s in the Interim Feasibility ~ssesz~ent report. A copy of the 3-vol~e report was sent to t1ary Ann Olyt::pic, frezic.ient of IGiugiG t;a ti ves Ltd. Environmental concerns will be further addressed 1n the next phase of tIlE: study in relation to the specific plan which is selected for detailed feasibility analysis. We appreciate your effort in bringinG these catter~ to our attention. If you should have further cOC'.:::lcnts on the Iuterim Feasibility As~essr.lentt please feel free to direct them to the Alaska Po\~er Authority or to us. DU1/sh cc: D. W. Baxter 8-16 Very truly yours, HOlBl APR 1 5 l~bL D.lIlte •• tt D. L. Hatchett Project fJ'.anaser NOrm S. IIEBNAtlO'Z f -~ • il-'II ~ ~ 19~2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WI , .. r fill United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE N40 LAKE CLA.RK :"IATIONAL PARK &lid PRESERVE 701 "C'" STREET BOX 61 ROOM £.561 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99513 April 19 s 1982 Alaska Power Authority 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorages AK 99501 Attention: Don Baxter Dear Don: Bi:C=l~IU:1 A?R20l982 ~ POWER AUTHORITf Following are our comments on the alternative energy plans as presented at the March 12 s 1982 meeting and in the Interim. Feasibility Assessment Executive Summary. We are keeping our CO'llllDellts very brief. The Newhalen scenario appears to have potential as a regional project. Engineering and enviromnental feasibility should be determined. The aquatiC concerns for salmon out migrants and unknOW'll use by resident fish must be determined through indepth studies. There are many factors to consider in this scenario, but the primary elements at this point seem to be the impact on the fishery s the feasibility of construction of the ca:a.al and the year round impact on river flow. trle feel studies should begin to determine feasibility or potential problems with this scenario. Stone and trlebster Engineering Corporation and their sub-contractor s Dames and Moore. have gathered valuable data on the 'I'azim.1na Project. The flow and temperature data collecting should continue. Alsos fisheries studies should be maintained for at least another year to maintain continuity. Rave the sub-regional and local scenario been given enough consideration? Your short response time has not allowed us the time to totally view the voluminous data gathered to answer this question to our satisfaction. Both the Kontrashibuna site and the Beluga transmission line would have a heavy impact on Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. Both the projects would fall within areas designated Wilderness by the U. S. Congress. Because of the park and wilderness status s the Kontrashibuna or Beluga transmission line through Lake Clark Pass should not be considered for future study. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Executive Summary. ~erelY: I _ V(, ... Lj~~ Paul F. RaVtel Superintendent 8-17 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY I I 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 2n·7641 (907) 276-0001 I Mr. Paul F. Haertel Superintendent U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service August 4, 1982 Lake Clark National Park and Preserve 701 C Street Box 61, Room E-561 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Haertel: We appreciate the comments in your letter of April 19, 1982, on the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. Several additional activities, which relate to your comments, are being undertaken or planned. 1. Geotechnical studies and borings were made at the Newhalen site in April to further determine engineering feasibility of the canal diversion concept. 2. A spring study of smolt and fry out-migration on the Newhalen River has been completed in order to determine what mitigation measures may be required in connection with a canal diversion. 3. Plans are being developed, subject to budget limitations, to continue Newhalen River fisheries studies, including a field test of canal intake diversion and screening systems. 4. The draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report is being revised to give further consideration to sub-regional and local scenarios. 5. Temperature and flow data collection is continuing on the Tazimina River and additional limited fisheries data has been collected above the falls. However, budget limitatiens have not permitted an extensive field program on the Tazimina or the Newhalen in 1982. 6. Investigations of energy plans to serve both the Bristol Bay Region and the Bethel Area will be conducted for the Newhalen, Chikuminuk and Kisaralik (near Bethel) hydroelectric' projects. These alternatives will be compared with centralized and decentralized approaches for each of the regions. 8-18 I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I t Paul F. Haertel August 4, 1982 Page 2 Your concerns have been noted regarding impacts on the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve from development of the Kontrashibuna site or from a Beluga transmission line. These alternatives are being reevalu- ated and are not likely to be candidates for further analysis. Additional information on the above items will be presented in the revised Interim Feasibility Assessment report scheduled for publication in early August. Again, we appreciate your comments and look forward to continued cooperation in development of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. DB/RM:js Sincerely, f\<..· ~~ ~ Ro~ert MOh~ Director of Engineering 8-19 v~v"" IJ-...... ~ ..... - I I Ilji.?! ~ J ..... ,; ~. DEP . .\RTl1ENT OF COMMERCE & ECO~Ol'tIC DEVELOP~IENT DIVIs/ON OF eNeRGY & ~R DEVELOPMeNT JIJN 1., .. 198'2. April 22, 1982 Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 JAY 5 HAMMONO 7TH FLOOR MACKA Y BLDG. 338 DENAl.I STREET ANCHORAGE.Al.ASKA 99501 PHONE: 19071 21SoOSOR .Rec:;rveti~ Subject: Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed .' Feasibility Analysis -Interim Feasibility Assessment Executive Summary -March 1982 Dear Eric: We have revie'N'ed the subject report. It appears that all reasonable options were addressed. ~';e find no obvious omissions and have no fault with the procedure used or the conclusions reached for this level of study. We believe projected cost per kilowatthour woulc be a more identifiable comparison than present worth but realiz~ that because of the preliminary nature of the assumptions, this could lead to problems. 'iVe acknowledge the busbar comparison of the costs. 'iVe are aware that diesel operation entails 0 & H costs not incurred by the other sources. We assume that proper adjustments were made so that the Base Plan (BP-l) was not unfairly assessed some costs that are not included in the other scenarios. 8-20 • .. I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I ...... / .. ">: -.. • > • ,. .. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director A'pril 22, 1982 Page Two We are most interested in the project and would appreciate being k.ept up to date. If we can help let us' k.now. Director Enclosure L.."1P : DWR: j h .', 8-21 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY I I 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276-0001 I Mr. William Beardsley Director State of Alaska August 4, 1982 Department of Commerce & Economic Development Division of Energy & Power Development 7th Floor, Mackay Building 338 Denali Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Beardsley: Thank you for your divisionis letter of April 22, 1982, commenting on the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment for the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. We offer the following response to your comments: The Power Authority's standard procedure for preliminary evaluation of alternative projects requires a present worth comparison of alternatives. A cost of power analysis can be misleading at this stage of development due to the uncertainties regarding alternative financing schemes, and possible cost reductions which may occur due to state assistance programs. Phase 2 of the study ;s expected to analyze these factors in more detail. The cost estimates did not include distribution systems within villages since these costs are common to all alternatives and not a factor in determining the relative merits of a particular alternative. Operation and maintenance costs were included in the estimates for all power sources. Information for estimating diesel operation and maintenance costs was obtained from the Naknek Electric Association and Nushagak Electric Cooperative. Operation and maintenance costs for other systems (principally wind, hydro, and transmission lines) were obtained from sources believed to be equally reliable in order to fairly compare alternatives. The cost of existing equipment for the base case analysis is treated as a sunk cost. We appreciate your interest in the project and will provide you a copy of the revised Interim Feasibility Assessment report when published in the near future. 8-22 Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I • ". .. ... ,/' i I I JAY .t HAMMOND, GOYERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 555 Cordova Street P.ouch 7-005 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA PHONE: (9071276-2653 DIVISION OF FOREST; lAND AND WATER MMlAGEMENT April 22, 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 • Dear Mr. Yould: ftlOllVI~ i"\;"~ 2 3 1982 'AlJSKA f.Qwai Alffif0BI:L1 . A review has been made of the Bristol Bay Regional Power plan, Detailed Feasibility Analysis! Draft Interim Feasibility Assessment, dated March 1982 and prepared by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). My comments follow. SWEC should be commended. It is felt that they did a fine job at preliminarily analyzing the many energy generation scenarios available to the Bristol Bay region. It appears that information presented in volume 1, Chapter 7 should provide the basis for deciding which plans shall be pursued in the Phase II study. This chapter is summarized in Tatle 7.3-1 "Environmental Evaluation Summary" and Table 7.4-30 "Summary of Present Worth Costs". The ABC type, evaluation used in Table 7.3-1 ind icates it is intended as a preliminary analysis only. Also, page 7-102 of Vol ume 1 states that II ••• the cost estimates represent order-of-magnitude prices (:I: 20 to 25 percent)." Thus, as a result of the Phase I environmental and economic analyses, it is not obvious which one generation scenario is the best for the region. Considering the uncertainty of the economic analysis! it is felt that neither alternative B-14 (Newhalen Regional) nor A-l (Tazimina Regional) can be considered economically superior over the other at this time. For this reason! it is recommended that both alternatives B-14 and A-I be studied in Phase II to refine estimates of energy costs to consumers as well as environmental and social imp'acts. Also, if time and dollar constraints allow, a similar analysis of alternative B-1 (Beluga Transmission) may be worthwhile, since it is indicated as having the least amount of environmental impacts and also ranks fourth in the economic analysis. However, since environmental impacts outside the Bristol Bay region do not appear to be considered in this analysis, this plan may have more environmental impacts than indicated. Thus, further study may not be warrar.ted . 8-23 '-. , 1 When determining details of Phase II w~rk to be done, please recall the the Division of Land and Water Management has the responsibility for issuing both a permit to construct or modify a dam and a water rights permit. a. Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam Prior to issuing the permit, this office must be assured that the dam will not create a public safety hazard. A certification tc this effect after the state of the art techniques that analyze the design and construction as well as the proposed operation and maintenance schedules of the dam will be acceptable. If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is involved in licensing the project, dam safety certifications by them will be accepted. For ~ams not reviewed by FERC, we will review work done by the applicant such that this office may certify to the dam's safety. As the project develops, please send to this office, dam safety certifications by the FERC, or the appropriate documents allowing such to be made. b. Water Rights Permit According to AS 46.15.080, a water rights permit shall be issued if it is found that: 1. The proposed appropriation will not unduly affect the rights of a prior appropriator. From a revi~w of our files on April 21, it appears that no water rights exist in the areas to be impacted by alternatives B-14 (Newhalen Regional), A-l (Tazimina Regional) and B-18B (Kontrashibuna) • 2. The proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate. 3. The proposed appropriation is in the public interest. To evaluate this, among the items to be considered are changes in the following as a result of the proposed water appropriation: (a) economic activity, (b) fish and game resources, (c) public recreational opportunities, (d) public health, 8-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ,. .. r .. .. • .-.. r .. (e) Loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time, (f) harm to persons, (g) access to navigable or public waters • To process the water rights application, the above items must be addressed for each project stage, including construction, reservoir filling and operation. If negative impacts are noted, mitigation strategies and the associated costs should also be discussed. It is understood that it is not the intent of this Phase I study to present detailed information as described above. However, please be informed that this information is necessary to adjudicate the application to construct or modify a dam and the application for water rights according to our legal responsibilities • Sincerely, J. W. Sedwick Director by: paul Janke Civil Engineer Water Management Section 8-25 I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY I Phone: (907) 277·7641 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 276-0001 I Mr. Jack W. Sedwick Director State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Forest, Land and Water ~lanagement 555 Cordova Street Pouch 7-005 Anchorag~, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Sedwick: August 4, 1982 The comments in your letter of April 22, 1982, on the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report are appreciated. As you pointed out, the current assessment is preliminary in nature, with the objective of identifying the most promising alterna- tives for further evaluation in Phase 2. We agree that the order- -of-magnitude economic comparision between the regional Tazimina and Newhalen projects does not indicate a clear choice. However, because it potentially has less environmental impact on fisheries resources and is located closer to nearby population and transportation centers, in addition to,demonstrating a minor cost savings over Tazimina based upon our most recent cost estimates, we have selected the Newhalen Project as that most worthy of detailed study, from among the regional alternatives. The Tazimina project will be further evaluated as a local run-of-river project. The Beluga Alternative (B-1) is being reevaluated in light of concerns by the National Park Service and updated cost estimates. It appears that this scenario is unlikely to be a candidate for detailed analysis. Thank you for the specific guidance on the responsibilities of your Division with respect to permits. The factors you listed would be addressed in the final analysis of the most attractive development candidate(s). We appreciate your interest in the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan and look forward to continued cooperation. RM:js Sincerely, P~. ~) .. ~~ ¥ Robert Mohn 0 Director of Engineering 8-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • .. III ,. .. ... ) ... IN REl"L Y WA~~ TQ: United States Department of the Interior IOJRJ-- FISH AND WILDLIFE 5ER VICE'" HEBNAND£Z Western Alaska Ecological Services 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 271-4575 APR 2 9 1982 Eric yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Street 27 APR 1982 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: By reviewing the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment for the Bristol Bay Regional Power plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is pleased to continue our participation in Bristol Bay power development. Our review comments are intended to assist you in planning Phase II studies and inform you of our major concerns. Due to the voluminous nature of the Assessment and abbreviated time frame for review, these comments should be considered preliminary. The Interim Assessment will be repeatedly scrutinized as additional information becomes available. We are impressed with the magnitude of this report. Within the allotted time and scope, your consultants have done an admirable job of technically evaluating the Ta:im1na power alternative, qualitatively assessing environ- mental project features, and preliminarily identifying the advantages and disadvantages associated with a broad range of energy alternatives. More- over, we have appreciated efforts to involve government agencies throughout early planning stages of this project. To enhance agency review of the Interim Assessment, the FWS organized a meeting, March 25, 1982, among involved natural resource agencies and project consultants (see attached list). Reviewing environmental aspects of the proposed Ta:imina hydroelectric project, exchanging information on agency concerns, and discussing future study needs were the meeting's purposes. Based on that meeting and the Interim Assessment, the FWS recommends that you: (1) Initiate environmental studies of the Newhalen run-of-the river hydropower concept. (2) Continue and expand on environmental studies of the Tazimina River. (3) Consider the Chikuminuk Lake hydro site not feasible because of severe environmental and legal constraints. (4) Consider the Kontrashibuna hydro site not feasible because of severe legal and environmental constraints. (5) Consider subregional and local power plans as an alternative to regional power plans to better satisfy local power desires. 8-27 Our primary concerns at this time are that you not prematurely eliminate alternatives. and with limitations to the data provided thus far. As in our earlier comments (our November 4, 1981 letters to Don Baxter, Alaska Power Authority (APA), and Ted Critikos, Stone and Webster Engineering Corp), we remain concerned that field studies were limited to the Tazimina alternative before all other po~er alternatives had been adequately evaluated. Our concern about data limitations causes us to disagree with the Executive Summary statement: The data base collected at Tazimina is believed sufficient in detail to satisfy the environmental requirements of FERC for a license application, when supplemented by the instream flow program (page 1-11). Although environmental features of the Tazimina area have been thoroughly assessed in a qualitative manner, there has been little to no quantification of fish and wildlife numbers, habitat values, or anticipated impacts. The report identifies numerous unknowns in understanding Tazimina River system hydraulics and associated fish and wildlife resources. Design. construction, and operational details for the Tazimina project, much less for any other alternative, are insufficient for determining mitigation requirements. Nor are fish and wildlife enhancement options considered. Moreover, construction, operation, and maintenance costs of alternative mitigative measures are not provided. Such quantification of impacts, development of mitigation plans. and consideration of mitigation costs are requisite to the Exhibit E which accompanies any applications for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses (44FR(229)67652-67654). Even though project details are still of a general nature, mitigation must be considered in all accounting of alter-native project costs and benefits. As an integral project cost. mitigation may affect the economic feasibility of an alternative. With cost estimate uncertainties of up to 25 p~rcent and no consideration of mitigation costs. several lower ranked alternatives may become more feasible. Further details on necessary studies and the favorability of alternative power plans follow. (1) The Newhalen run-of-river power concept has been identified as a technicnlly 4nd ~conomlcnlly proml~ln8 powor nlt~rnntlve. Wltll effective mitigation, the Newhalen alternative may have less impact on fish and wildlife resources than the Tazimina alternative. Immediate study needs include timing of fry and smolt movements and locating of fish throughout and across the river channel. By com- paring smolt counts on the Newhalen with those at Iguigig, the contribution of the Newhalen to the Kvichak fishery can be determined. The USGS gaging station on the Newhalen should now be reactivited to help determine flows when fish passage problems naturally exist. A secondary information need is to establish a short channel for testing the effectiveness of screen and baffle designs which allow fish passage yet prevent fish from entering power turbines. Because movement patterns vary with numbers of fish, fish abundance and distribution studies should be conducted from low populations expected in 1983, to high populations expected in 1985, and through resultant 1986 and"1987 smolt and fry production. 8-28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. r It (2) Flow and temperature data collections should continue on the Tazimina River; resident fish spawning habitats should also be evaluated during the coming field season. Because environmental studies of the TaziMina alternative were initiated so late in the 1981 field season, spawning habitats of resident fish were not studied. Stream flow and temperature data are limited. Unfortunately, it is too late to determine the relative importance of mainstream as compared to side charmel sockeye production for th:! s :..... T .... ·stigatf.on of sockeye spawning should be continued since last year was a low for sockeye runs. Project impacts on resident and anadromous fish spawning habitats cannot be determined without these studies. A count tower and fyke nets should be established and maintained on the Tazimina River to confirm adult escapement and fry outmigration as compared to the Newhalen and Kvichak River at Lake Iliamna. Due to the physical proximity of Newhalen and Tazimina River systems and gaging stations, it will be relatively easy to fill these data gaps for the Tazimina River. If mitigation proves ineffective, the Tazimina regional power alter- native will less significantly impact the Kvichak fishery than would the Newhalen power alternative. Until comparative fisheries data is gathered, the Tazimina alternative should not be dropped. Valuable study starts should not be interrupted. Detailed instream flow studies can be delayed until a more informed power source deciSion can be made. If the Tazimina alternative is pursued for FERC licensing, a detailed instream flow assessment of resident and anadromous fish habitat should be undertaken. Then, spawning habitats between Upper and Lower Tazimina Lakes should be assessed as should impacts of water fluctuations on invertebrate populations serving as fish food. (3) The NPS is adamantly opposed to the Kontrashibuna hydro alternative, finding it incompatable with National Park Service Wilderness lands on which it is located. OppOSition from local residents of Port Alsworth also makes Kontrashibuna an impractical alternative. (4) The State Division of parks is opposed to the Chikuminuk alternative because it is located on the Wood-Tikchik State Park. In addition, access difficulties which would result in significant impacts to terrestrial habitats make the Chlkuminuk alternative impractical. (5) During public meetings, local opinion on Bristol Ray power alter- natives has been mixed. The Stone and Webster Assessment documents numerous concerns that additional power may not be necessary and that no alternative be developed which would negatively affect the fish and wildlife resources integral to area lifestyles. At the March 25 interagency meeting. questions were raised about the source and immediacy of projected increases in power demands. We are concerned about committing to a major power development in the area without coordinating with the Bristol Bay Cooperative study mandated by tne Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487). 8-29 Area populations have not substantially increased in the last 10 or 20 years. No dramatic increases are expected for any of the three main area employers --the military, fishing industry, or govern- ment. Therefore it may be more cost-effective and less environ- mentally damaging to develop a subregional power alternative(s) for the central area villages (Dillingham, Aleknagik, Naknek, King Salmon, Egigik, Manokotak, and New Stuyahok as identified in the Stone and Webster Energy Demand Forecast) where power demands have most in~~~~Q~rl. Wind, continued diesel, energy conservation, and passive solar may be v~luable supplemental power sources and more viable alternatives for the remaining villages. Justification for more detailed studies of energy conservation and wind as supple- mental power for single villages or even individuals are found throughout the report (e.g. Appendix A, page 6-3; Appendix B, pages 3-34 and 3-5]). No locally initiated nor wide-spread support has been documented for a large regional power system (page 2-2 of main report) • The agencies have expressed strong interest in a poll or vote allowing full public participation as to whether local, subregional, or regional power sources should be developed. We recommend conducting more detailed surveys to confirm local opinions and then using survey results in power planning. We also have several specific comments on Appendix E, the Environmental Report in the Draft Assessment,as well as on the main report and other appendices. Appendix E -Environmental Report Chapter 4, Existing Resources -Although an excellent description and map of existing vegetation types is provided, there is no consideration of how that vegetation is changing succe~sionally. Nor is there a correlation of natural resource values and use patterns depicted on Plate 1 with the wildlife habitats delineated in Figures 4-2 through 4-5. Further information is necessary on how FW5' 1980 Terrestrial Habitat Evaluation Criteria Handbook -Alaska habitat parameters listed in Table 4-3 were combined and evaluated to map "optimum quality habitat." S~cr10n 4-2, Anticipnted Impacts. -Impacts to fish Rnd wildlife have not I I I I I I I I I I I I I been quantified. Values placed on wildlife habitat should be carried over to I the impact analysis. Pages 4-49 to 4-51 -The issue of disturbance and how noise and human activity will decrease adjacent habitat values, not only cause a short-term I loss of habitat, should be discussed in greater detail. Disturbance zones should be delineated and quantified. Page 4-51, paragraph 6 -With the presence of project workers during con-II struction, additional significant adverse impacts will likely include fish and wildlife population disturbance and habitat alterations from increased I and geographically changed uses, as well as greater possibility for human/bear conflicts. Conflicts with the subsistence resource base of existing area residents should also be discussed. 8-30 I -• .. ... - - .. .. -.. .. II Page 4-54 -Again, impacts to terrestrial wildlife are not quantified~ This section should address how much of the inundation area was classified as high quality moose habitat; information on numbers of moose and their seasonal uses of the inundation as compared to adjacent area; and the ability of adjacent ranges to support animals displaced from the reservoir site • Intraspecific strife could result from crowding of brown bears displaced from inundation and adjacent disturbed areas. Section 4.2.1.4, Page 4-55 -Selective clearing of trees and tall shrubs could enhance production of moose browse. Road construction along the trans- mission line should be prohibited to minimize and contain the terrestrial impacts and satisfy local views. North of King Salmon the line should follow the coast to minimize impacts on caribou. Section 4.2.2, Aquatic Habitats -Although a cursory description of the aquatic resources between the falls and lower Tazimina Lake is included in the previous section, 4.1.2, there is no parallel description of aquatic impacts in that portion of the river. Page 4-62 -Presence of the Tazimina dam will create a migration barrier isolating resident fish in either the lake or the river between the falls and the lake. This impact and mitigation, e.g. fish ladders, should be addressed • Chapter 6, Socioeconomic Considerations -Strong local reservations over development of a regional Bristol Bay power source, as documented here, provide sufficient reason to continue considering alternatives to the Tazimina and Newhalen regional power plans. The report on socioeconomic considerations also clearly documents (1) lack of local interest in a regional plan; (2) social. economic, and political factors which may make local and subregional power plans more locally desirable and environmentally practical; and (3) overwhelming resident concerns that fish and wildlife resources not he harmed to produce electric power. Conflicting views among area residents further justify a more detailed study of local opinions and evaluation of subregional and local power plans, continued diesel, no pro- vision of electricity, and wind before proceeding with regional power development plans. Main Report Page 7-114 -Order of magnitude costs (up to 25 percent) presented in Che main body of the report include no costs for fish and wildlife mitigation (e.g. fish passage structures, necessary monitoring and follow-up, etc.) Given these omissions, ranking project alternatives on the basis of their estimated economic feasibility is nearly meaningless (Table 1.6-3) . Section 9 -Conclusions We concur with the Assessment's general conclusions (1) that there are a number of promising alternatives to current diesel power generation; (2) to continue feasibility studies of the Tazimina River; and (3) to undertake further evaluation of the Newhalen River. We have described fishery study 8-31 needs associated with those latter two recommendations, as well as the need to more fully consider local preferences, project viabilities, and mitigation costs. The report acknowledges that the best data available is for the Taz1mina River alternative. Unless several alternatives are equally investigated, it will not be possible to make an informed choice. Appendix A -Engineering and Technical Considerations -Energy conservation as discussed in Appendix A.S must be an essential part of any Bristol Bay power plan. The minimal impact of structure weatherization on area fish, wildlife, and cultural resources, coupled with the economic benefits of several State programs mean conservation can satisfy a valuable portion of area energy needs. Energy savings of up to 30 percent in the residential and 15 percent in the commercial and industrial sectors are projected in this report. Page A.5-2 -As. indicated here, conservation for all electrical, not only space heating, needs should be evaluated 1n greater detail. We urge state implementation of education programs and technical assistance to overcome identified financial and informational obstacles to energy conservation. Appendix G -Hydrologic Evaluations We have consulted with the U.S. Geological Survey on the Hydrologic Evaluations. Their preliminary assessment 1s that methods used were appro- priate to the available data and time. Stone and Webster estimated stream- flows are higher that USGS measurements. Because those measurements are for only one wetter than normal year, report estimates may be somewhat high. Continued flow measurements of both Tazimina and Newhalen are necessary. The consultants, FWS, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game have previously documented the importance of Bristol Bay fish and wildlife to local economies and lifestyles, as well as to the state economy and world salmon harvest. Given those values, the instability of world oil and gas prices, incon- clusiveness of resident attitudinal surveys, lack of imminent large scale increases in area power demands, and gaps in the technical, economical, and environmental data base, it is premature and contrary to the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190) to now concentrate on only one, or even twO power alternatives. A broad range of energy resources was found promising (Appendix B, page 5-1). We look forward to working further with you in fully considering those alternatives and finalizing a power plan :or the Br1stol Ray region. Attachment cc: FWS-ROES Tom Arminski, ADF&G, Anchorage Dick Russell, ADF&G, King Salmon John Taylor, Becharof NWR Glen Elison, Alaska Peninsula NWR 8-32 Sincerely, jJ~~/k-~ Field Supervisor Dave Morris, Katmai National Park Paul Haertel, Lake Clark National Park Brad Smith, NMFS Jim Hemming, Dames & ~oore Don ~atchett, Stone & Webster I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - II - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Robert Bowker Field Supervisor United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Western Alaska Ecological Services 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Bowker: August 2, 1982 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276-0001 The Alaska Power Authority has reviewed the Fish and Wildlife Service's comments on the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment for the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan contained in your letter of April 27, 1982. We appreciate your timely input and your staff's participation in several agency meetings on this project. With respect to your five principal recommendations, we have taken the following action: 1. Fisheries studies on the Newhalen River were initiated about May 1, 1982 to obtain baseline data on the downstream migration of smolt and fry in connection with the proposed run-of-river Newhalen hydroelectric concept. 2. A spring reconnaissance study was undertaken on the Tazimina River to continue elements of the data collection program instituted in 1981. Also an aquatic habitat survey of the Tazimina River above the falls was undertaken in early May 1982, primarily to identify resident fish habitats in the section of the river that might be effected by water diversion to a hydroelectric plant. 3. The Chikuminuk hydroelectric site has been dropped from further consideration in this study. However, it is being evaluated as an interregional alternative for both the Bethel Area and Bristol Bay by the Harza Engineering Company as part of the Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment. 4. The Kontrashibuna hydroelectric site ;s not being given further consideration at this time due to a) opposition by the National Park Service and b) lower economic and environmental ratings. 5. Subregional and local power plans will be further evaluated. 8-33 United States Department of the Interior August 2, 1982 Page 2 Work undertaken with respect to the above items, with the exception of the additional work at Chikuminuk, will be reported in the final Interim Feasibility Assessment report. Results of the work at Chikuminuk will be reported as part of a separate report for the Bethel Area. . With respect to your concerns about data limitations for a quantitative environmental assessment of the Tazim;na project, we agree that further information is required to adequately assess impacts and to design mitigation measures. This would be a major future work effort, should Tazimina be selected as an alternative for further evaluation in Phase II. Mitigation costs were not specifically estimated for any of the alternatives evaluated in Phase I because in most cases plans had not been developed to a pOint where such requirements were well defined. However, an allowance for indeterminants of at least 15 percent was added to all cost estimates to account for such unknowns. Your specific suggestions for further environmental studies on the Newhalen and Tazimina Rivers are being seriously considered. However, because it potentially has less environmental impact on fisheries resources and is located closer to nearby population and transportation centers, in addition to demonstrating a minor cost savings over Tazimina based upon our most recent cost estimates, we have selected the Newhalen Project as that most worthy of detailed study, from among the regional alternatives. We have decided, therefore, to allocate most of the remaining project funds to studies on the Newhalen River during the spring downstream migration of smolt and fry. The Tazimina Project will be further evaluated as a local run-of-river project. The Power Authority is aware that local opinion in Bristol Bay has been mixed relative to power alternatives. A public participation program to further determine local preferences and concerns is being considered as a high priority task for the next phase of the program. We will be sending you a separate letter in the near future describing our public participation program. Our studies to date have been fully coordinated with the Bristol Bay Cooperative r'1anagement Plan. Appendix E -Environmental Report, focused mainly on the Tazimina Project. If that alternative should be proposed for regional development, clearly much additional analysis will be required for preparation of Exhibit E for a FERC license application and other state approvals. Your comments are appropriate to preparation of Exhibit E which would occur during the latter part of Phase II. With respect to energy conservation as discussed in Appendix A, we agree that energy conservation is an essential part of any Bristol Bay power plan. Although significant reductions in space heating energy consumption can occur through appropriate conservation measures, it is not clear to us that the present usage of electrical energy in Bristol Bay can be significantly reduced through conservation. We believe that resource conservation is, however, a more fundamental and productive goal for Bristol Bay. Resource conservation can be achieved through development of renewable energy sources. 8-34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - lit United States Department of the Interior August 2, 1982 Page 3 Tazimina River hydrologic evaluations are continuing based on 1981-1982 stream flow and meteorological data. The Newhalen gage has been reactivated and measurements at the new Tazimina gage are continuing by the USGS. An updated discussion of hydrology will be presented in the Interim Report. Further discussion may be in order regarding the intent of NEPA with respect to the appropriate time to concentrate on a limited number of alternatives. As you are no doubt well aware, 40 CFR 1500-1508 provides agency guidance on NEPA implementation. We heartily support the concept that a discussion of alternatives including the proposed action "is the heart of the environmental impact statement ll (40 CFR 1502.14). The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions. We must reach agreement on when sufficient data is available to make necessary decisions, taking into account the costs related to extended studies and indecision. We appreciate the comments of the Fish and Wildlife Service on the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment and we look forward to further cooperation in developing the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. We encourage you to direct additional comments to us as they become available and to have your staff discuss any concerns and suggestions with Don Baxter of my staff. Thank you again for your timely input. Sincerely, p\., ~~~ ~Robert r~ohn Director of Engineering Attachment cc: FWS-ROES Dave Morris, Katmai National Park Tom Arminski, ADF&G, Anchorage Paul Haertel, Lake Clark National Dick Russell, ADF&G, King Salmon Park John Taylor, Becharof NWR Brad Smith, NMFS Glen Elison, Alaska Peninsula NWR Jim Hemming, Dames & Moore Don Matchett, Stone & Webster 8-35 DEP."RT "'E~T OF FISH . .\ ~D Gr\ .lIE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Apri 1 28, 1982 JA 'f .i. HAMMOMD. GOVERMOR p.o. SOX 3-2000 JUNEA U, A~SKA 99802 PHONE: 460-4105 BECE1VEQ I I I I Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 APR.3 0 1582 I ~ POWER AImiO, Attention: Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Gentlemen: Re: Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis Draft interim Feasibility Assessment The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the subject report and submits the following comments. As a matter of policy, the Department of Fish and Game discourages the construction of dams on any of the major salmon producing drainages in Bristol Bay. This would include both the Tazimina and Newhalen River Projects. Our concern stems from the fact that dams have been the major factor in the decline of the Columbia River salmon runs and the salmon fishery in the Northwest United States. Adverse impacts from dams include; barriers to fish migrations, water temperature changes, water level fluctuations, entrainment and impingment of fry and smolt in turbines, nitrogen supersaturation, and loss of spawning and rearing areas. 8ecause the entire economy and culture of Bristol Bay is based on the production and harvest of pacific salmon, the Department believes it is imprudent to construct dams which may degrade the local socioeconomic structure. Our preference would be to either reevaluate dam sites on non-salmon producing streams in Bristol Bay or alternative energy systems including coal burning power generation, and transmission lines from other dams. The economics of the different alternatives should also be reevaluated now that the price of oil has declined and it has been predicted that its real price may stabilize at a considerably lower level than used in the existing economic evaluation. The Department of Fish and Game also recognizes the need for lower cost electrical power in the Bristol Bay Region and is willing to work with APA in evaluating the potential effects of the Tazimina and Newhalen River projects on salmon production. If pre-construction studies can conclusively demonstrate that either of these projects will not have any adverse impact, the Department will not oppose their construction. However, we will expect rigorous stUdies, field demonstrations, and conclusive results before changing our minds. 8-36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - .. .. - - Gentlemen -2-Apri 1 28, 1982 Enclosed are specific comments relating to the Interim Feasibility Assessment. If you have any questions or comments, please to not hesitate to ca 11 us. Si~luJ Richard Logan, Dlrector Habitat Division Enclosure cc: Commissioner Skoog Carl Yanagawa 8-37 1 Specific comments: Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Detailed Feasibility Analysis -Interim Feasibility Assessment 5. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 5.3.4 Aquatic Ecology Page 5-24, para. 2 Evaluation of changes in thermal regimes are required to evaluate possible influence on salmonid egg incubation rates rather than spawning habits. 6. DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY PLANS 6.1.2 Assessment of Energy Sources Page 6-9, Relative Economics Project We realize that APA has developed a specific methodology related to economic assessment of projects and that assessment does not address the possible cost of lost natural resources. We do not disagree with the methodology but believe that in cases where projects could impact a significant fishery {we estimate that the SO-year worth of the Kvichak sockeye salmon fi shery to be about 2.3 b i 11 ; on do 11 a rs } that thi s possible cost must be somehow considered. 8-38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - tilt .. til , .. - , - 2 6.2 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ENERGY SCENARIOS Page 6-20, 6.2.2 Base Plan From a fish and wildl ife conservation viewpoint, the most favorable concept is the Base Plan. If adopted, even partially, it would allow further long term studies to be directed toward hydro development offering greater reassurance that fisheries resources will not be adversely affected. In addition, falling oil prices may make this alternative more attractive. Page 6-21, 6.2.3 Alternative "All With respect to this Tazimina alternative, our concern is with the impact of regulated flows, thermal impacts, fluctuations of impoundment level and inundation of habitats. Development of Tazimina hydropower with a regulating dam wi11 be acceptable to this Department ~ if there are no adverse impacts to downstream Tazimina fisheries resources. Page 6-23, 6.2.4.2 Scenario 8-1 Transmission 1 ines described in the Beluga power scenario would go through Lake Cl ark Pass, a very important habitat corridor for brown bear, moose, Dall sheep and furbearers, and would cross important anadromous fish waters. 8-39 3 Page 6-23, 6.2.4.3 Scenario B-2 Newhalen River diversions are ~ acceptable if downstream fish migrants can be prevented from pasSing through turbines. With respect to a large project at Kukaklek, free movement of salmon, trout, grayling, char, lake trout, whitefish and burbot into and out of Kukaklek Lake must be maintained. We are also concerned that modified flow and thermal regimes and fl uctuati ng 1 ake 1 evel s not impact fi sh habitat in Kukaklek Lake and Alagnak River. In addition, provisions would have to be made to prevent fish passage through turbines. There may be othe!," problems associated with this project related to false imprinting and transference of pathogens and parasites from one system to another. Page 6-24, 6.2.4.4 Scenario B-3 Newhalen River diversions are acceptable only if downstream fish migrants can be prevented from passing through turbines. With respect to a 7000 kw Kukaklek project, our concerns are the same as those expressed for page 6-23, Scenario B-2 including additional concern over the poss i b 1 e effect on fi sheri es in Pecks Creek and 01 e Creek whi ch apparently drai n the two unnamed 1 akes menti oned ; n thi s scenario. 8-40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - III ... . ! .. ,.. i .. - 4 From a salmon fisheries perspective, the Chikuminuk Lake site does not appear to have overwhelming fisheries constraints. There are severe rapids in the Allen River that salmon cannot pass. Only small number of sockeye salmon spawn below the rapids. In some years, however, large numbers of sockeye spawn in the area where Allen River enters Lake Chauekuktul i • Regul ati on of A 11 en River flows may have some effect on spawning in this area . Page 6-25, 6.2.4.5 Scenario 8-4 With respect to 7000 kw Kukaklek hydropower, same comment as for page 6-24, Scenario 8-3. A Taziminaproject'discharge immediately below the falls would probably not have a serious impact on downstream fisheries resources. Page 6-26, 6.2.4.8 Scenario 8-8 With respect to 8000 kw Chikuminuk hydropower, same comment as for page 6-24, Scenario B-3. With respect to 8000 kw Tazimina hydropower, same comment as for page 6-21, Alternative "AII. Page 6-28, 6.2.4.10 Scenarios 8-11 and 8-12 8-41 5 With respect to 1200 kw Newhalen River hydropower, same comment as for page 65-23, Scenario B-2. Page 6-28, 6.2.4.11 Scenario 8-13 Wi th res pect to 16,000 kw Chi kumi nuk hydropower, same comment as for page 6-24, Scenario B-3. Page 6-28, Scenario 8-13A With respect to 12,000 kw run-or-river Tazimina hydropower, same co"~nt as for page 6-24, Scenario 8-4. Page 6-28, Scenario B-138 With respect to 12,000 kw run-of-river Newhalen hydropower same as for page 6-23, Scenario 8-2. Page 6-29, 6.2.4.12 Scenario B-14 With respect to 16,000 kw Newhalen hydropower, the same concerns exist as with the smaller Newhalen projects respective to prevention of fish entrainment in turbines. There is also the additional concern that less than acceptable flaws may occur in the Newhalen between the points of diversion and discharge during low water periods. This may have an adverse effect on resident and/or migrating fish. 8-42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - III .. III - - 6 Page 6-32, 6.2.4.16 Scenario B-18 With respect to a 16,000 kw run-af-river (riverdiversion through turbines without construction of large dam) Tazimina hydropower project, this project may be acceptable with respect to fisheries provided the tailrace discharge is located near the base of the falls. A 16,000 kw regulating dam project on Kontrashibuna Lake would probably have little impact on area salmon resources. Salmon are limited from ingress to the lake by a waterfall and spawning in the Tana1ian ;s light and confined to the area where it enters Lake Clark • 7. EVALUATION OF SELECTED ENERGY PLANS 7.2.3 Reliability Page 7-3, para. 1 We are also concerned with blockage of screened intakes with ice. The most obvious solution to the problem is to remove the screens which will allow fish to pass through turbines. 7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Page 7-12, 7.3.2.7 Scenario B-S 8-43 7 This scenario appears to have been omitted from the text in 6.2 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ENERGY SCENARIOS. However, Kukaklek site same comment as for page 6-23, Scenario B-2 and page 6-24, Scenario B-3. Wi th respect to Tazimi na run-of-river, same comment as for page 6-25, Scenario 8-4. With respect to Chikuminuk hydropower, same comment as for page 6-24, Scenario 8-13. Is the inclusion of local Newhalen run-of-river here an error? Other descriptions of this scenario include Tazimina run-of-river rather than a Newhalen project. Page 7-14, 7.3.2.12 Scenario 8-14 F.R.E.D. ;s not a special study group within the Alaska Department of Fish and Game but is the Fisheries Rehabilitation & Enhancement Development Division (acronym F.R.E.D.) responsible for salmonid research, and rehabilitation and enhancement of stocks. general comment As a general comment regarding wildlife associated with the sites and transmission corridors, we are concerned that construction operation, and maintenance will impact resources proporti onate ly to the magnitude of those actions and the amount of habitat disturbed, inundated. etc. 8-44 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .. .. II iii ... .. - 8 We also expect that secondary impacts rel ated to improved access may occur • 7.3.6 Water Quality Page 7-39, general comment We bel ieve that an assessment regardi ng the potential for hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) contamination is indicated for those projects with regulating dams. It was recently noted that waters impounded by the Solomon Gulch hydroproject near Valdez are contaminated with hydrogen sulfide, presumably generated by anaerobic decomposition of inundated plants. Undissociated H2S concentrations in excess of 2.0 ug/1 could constitute a long term' hazard to most fish. The undissociated concentration is, of course, dependent upon temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen concentrati on, etc. The current water quality standard for Department hatcheries and rearing facilities limits H2S to 2.0 ug/I. 7.3.7 Fish and Wildlife Impact Page 7-48,7.3.7.2 Scenario A-l Below the proposed powerhouse, salmonid incubation rates may be affected by altered thermal regimes. Same comment as for page 7-39, 7.3.6 Water Qual ity 't'lith respect to hydrogen su1fide. 8-45 9 Page 7-49, 7.3.7.4 Scenario B-2 Same comment as for page 6-23, Scenario B-2 with respect to fisheries impacts. In addition, despite its large areal extent, fluctuating lake levels could severely impact the littoral zone which is exceeding important for aquatic organisms and rearing-fish and page 7-39, Water Quality. With respect to a Newhalen diversion, a significant fishery impact will occur if efforts to prevent downstream mi grants from paSSing through turbines fail. If prevention of entrainment downstream migrants cannot be assured, this Department cannot support this project. Page 7-50. 7.3.7.5 Scenario B-~ In addition to concerns regarding across system diversion affecting homing, we are concerned that introduction of non-indigenous pathogens and parasites ;s a possibility. Page 7-51, 7.3.7.7 Scenario 8-5 With respect to Kukaklek, same comments as for page 6-23, Scenario B-2, page 7-49, Scenario 8-2, page 7-50, Scenario 8-3. Page 7-52, 7.3.7.8 Scenario 8-8 8-46 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - !IIIIII -... .. !/III .. !IIIIII III filii l1li ... ... ,. iii JIIIII l.. I!IlII ... -.. --... iIII .. --III ... III -.. -.. -.. -.. 10 For Tazimina regulating dam project, same comment as for page 7-48, Scenario A-l. Page 70-53, 7.3.7.10 Scenario B-11 and B-12 For Newhalen diversion, same comment as for page 7-49, Scenario B-2. Page 7-54, 7.3.7.13 Scenario B-13 Scheme B For Newhalen diversion, same comment as for page 7-49, Scenario B-2 Page 7-55,7.3.7.12 Scenario B-14 The statement that diversion of low winter flows will have little or no effect on salmon cannot be confirmed at this time. Downstream salmon migration may occur year long but peak during summer months. If this is the case, wi th ; nci dence of low flows to concentrate fi sh and problems with ice collection on screening devices necessitating their removal, we believe the possibility of salmon being entrained exists • Page 7-56, 7.3.7.16 Scenario B-18 Scheme A & B With respect to Kontrashibuna, same comment as for page 7-39, Water Quality. Page 7-93, 7.3.12 Summary Evaluation 8-47 11 We believe, that until it can be demonstrated that downstream migrants can be effectively prevented from being entrained in turbines, the Newhalen diversion projects should be placed in the "major impact possibly resul ting in fatal flow category. II 7.4 ECONOMIC EVALUATION Page 7-96, 7.4.1 General Same comment as for page 6-9, Relative Economic Project. 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1.4 Evaluation of EnerQY Plans Page 9-7,9.1.4.4 Hydroelectric Power We believe the Newhalen diversion projects may result in severe rather than moderate fi sheri es impacts, especi a 11y the regi ana 1 concept. 9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS I f the Power Authori ty accepts the SWEC recommenda t i on to conti nue evaluation both Tazimina and Newhalen regional concepts, we suggest the following fisheries studies be conducted: Tazimina River 8-48 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lit ... - - ... ... - 1. 12 Install and operate a salmon counting station as close to the mouth of Tazimina River as practical to determine the magnitude of annual adult sockeye escapements entering the river. This project should be operated for at least four years (1982-1985) and possibly longer. Data collected here can be compared to Kvichak River salmon counts to determine the percentage of the Kvichak escapement that returns to Tazimina River. It can also be related to aerial index surveys of Tazimina River to determine how descriptive aerial surveys are of the total Tazimina escapement. Further, it will also be useful in evaluating escapement magnitude versus spawner distribution and density by river area. 2. Continue the aerial index survey presently conducted by F.R.I. of Tazim;na River. This project should continue for at least the years 1982-1985. The data generated will be compared to Tazimina River tower counts which will give a measure of aerial survey index efficiency in describing the total Tazim;na River escapement. This relationship could then be applied to previous year1s aerial index surveys and will tighten our understanding of previous years Tazimina River sockeye spawning populations. 3. Conduct continued on-site sockeye spawning distribution studies in Tazimina River over the above four year period (1982-1985). This data will tell us whether in years of larger escapements sockeye utilize greater portions of the river, sloughs, and side channels for spawning or simply concentrate more heavily in areas preferred at lower densities. If they use additional more marginal areas it 8-49 13 wi 11 be important to document these and evaluate them agai nst proposed post project flow regimes. 4. Conduct a fry outmigration study yielding estimates of total sockeye fry produced in Tazimina River by brood year for the years 1982-1985. This information will be related back to parent spawning escapements, spawning di stributi on data t and river flow parameters and will assist in determining the optimum escapement levels for Tazimina River. 5. Conduct a study of over winter sockeye egg survival in selected areas of Ta~'imina River with emphasis on spawning. areas presently being naturally surface dewatered during low winter flows. This will tell us if these particular areas. are presently contributing to fry producti on uti 1 i zi ng sub-surface perco 1 a ti on and whether augmented wi nter flows mi ght provi de greater egg-to-fry survival in some spawning areas·. 6. Complete an instream flow analysis of Tazimina River. The flow data from such a study will be compared to data regarding sockeye spawner distribution, egg sur/ival, critical habitat for resident species, fry emergence, migration timing, etc. to provide insight into possible post project fisheries effects. 7. A year-round study of resident fish species inhabiting Tazimina River should be completed. Its goals should include: 8-50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - • !fill .. .. - - ,... - - 14 a. The "identification of resident fish spawning areas. b • Identification of the timing of resident fish spawning. c. Identify migration patterns and timing by species. d. Document fry emergence timing by species. e. 'Oocument instream rearing habitat requirements by species. Thi s data wi 11 reveal what months of the year resi dent fi sh species inhabit the river and where their important spawning and rearing areas are. It will also indicate what time periods are critical for spawning, incubation, emergence, and migration • These data can be used to evaluate proposed post project effects on resident species. 8. An aquatic invertebrate species distribution study in Tazimina River should be completed. Species present should be identified and their preferred habitat described for future use in forecasting potential post project flow impacts on important fish food organisms. If the above studies are constructed, a reasonably complete understanding of the Tazimina River fishery will be available and potential impact forecasts will be possible and based on fact instead of supposition. 8-51 15 Newha 1 en River 1. A salmon counting station should be installed in the vicinity of the upper end of the Newhalen River "rapids l •• It should be operated beginning in 1982 and continuing at least through 1985 to determine the number of adult sockeye salmon migrating up the Newhalen River. This information when compared to similar data collected annually at Igiugig on the Kvichak River will allow us to determine what percentage of the Kvi chak escapement is contri buted by the Lake Clark-Newhalen River system. It will also be used to relate Newha 1 en Ri ver sockeye fry and smo 1 t outmi grati ons back to thei r parent brood years providing information on production rates and optimum escapements. 2. A complete Newhalen River juvenile sockeye salmon downstream migration study covering at least the years 1982-1985 will have to be conducted. It should include the following elements: a. A total annual outmigration estimate of both sockeye trJ and smelt by time period for the Newhalen River. b. A study of the outmigration distribution characteristics that defi nes sockeye fry and smo 1 t mi gra ti ona 1 tendenci es across the river water col umn 1 atera l1y and throughout the water column vertically. 8-52 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • .. .. l .. 16 c. A winter sampling program as part of element "all (above) to determi ne whether sockeye fry and pre-smo 1 t juveni 1 es outmigrate down the Newhalen River during the ice forming periods of the year and if so what the magnitudes of these migrations are. These study elements regarding downstream migration of juvenile sockeye salmon are very important to the assessment of any proposed Newhalen River power projects. The data gathered wi11 indicate what time periods are critical in terms of juvenile downstream migrations and whether migrations occur during the winter months when channel screening devices might not be usable due to ice problems. We will also have information as to where in the Newhalen River water column these fish move (near shore, mid channel, etc.) and at what depths they travel. This will be helpful in the evaluation of potential intake sites, designs, and f10w strategies with the object being minimizing fish entry_ The studies will also provide total sockeye fry and smolt outmigration estimates which will be important in: a. Assessing the Lake Clark runs' contribut·;on to the Kvichak run. b. Determining characteristics of the Lake Clark cycle • c. Evaluating Lake Clark escapement requirements. 8-53 17 d. Determine economic value of the Lake Clark-Newhalen sockeye runs. e. Evaluating post project impacts on the run. f. Assessing potential mitigation scenarious. g. Determining cost-benefit ratios. h. Evaluating impacts of natural environmental fluctuations such as the occasional velocity barrier problems in Newhalen River. Additional data on resident Newhalen River fish species movements will also be gathered during the above studies. The two year old smolts produced from the large 1979 escapement to Lake Cl ark shou 1 d be outmi gra t; ng du ri ng the late spring 1982. We suspect the earliest date that a full complement of gear could be assembled to adequately monitor the total outmigration numbers over a full year would be in early 1983. We envision this program employing gear such as a full set of sonar arrays (for use in determining total outmigration estimates) fyke nets, fyke traps, incline plane traps, minnow traps, seines, and possibly electrO-fishing apparatus (for determining species distribution and winter migration occurrence). 8-54 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... 18 3. The Newhalen River flow monitoring program· should be continued indefinitely. 4. A small bankside study channel should be constructed and full array of fi sh screeni ng devi ces tested under actual flow conditions similar to what would exist in any proposed diversions. The study should include winter as well as summer testing to identify the devices that prove to be most efficient in preventing fish entry into the channel at varying flows, velocities, depths, and in spite of problems such as ice, debris, a buildup of salmon carcasses, etc. 5. A winter study of the "rapids l' area itsel f should be i. conducted duri ng the wi nter low flow peri od to determi ne what ,. ! .... .. if any resident species reside there at that time. These might be the fish most impacted by the proposed diversion during the winter months. 8-55 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Richard Logan, Director Habitat Division State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game Office of the Commissioner P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Logan: August 4, 1982 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276-0001 The Alaska Power Authority has reviewed your letter of April 28, 1982, and the attached specific comments by the Department of Fish and Game on the draft Interim Feasibility Assessment of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. We are aware of the difficulties the Department faces in establishing policies which both protect fish and game and accommodate the need to develop lower cost electrical power in the Bristol Bay Region. We also appreciate the willingness of the Depart- ment to work with the Power Authority in evaluating various power generation alternatives. Several comments follow with respect to statements made in your 1 etter: 1. We are aware of the impacts from dams on the Columbia River, and we share your concern about avoiding similar problems in major salmon producing drainages in Bristol Bay. There are, however, signifi- cant differences between hydroelectric projects on the Columbia which employ dams across the river and the concepts being evaluated for the Taz;mina and Newhalen Rivers. These differences include: a. The Tazimina development would not provide a barrier to salmon migration because of the presence of the falls directly above the powerhouse location. b. The Tazimina "run-of-river" concept has no dam and is unlikely to cause any of the adverse impacts cited. c. The Newhalen diversion concept has no dam. Exclusion of migrants from the diversion canal ;s believed to be the major fisheries concern. 8-56 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. • Richard Logan August 4, 1982 Page 2 2. We agree that it would be imprudent to construct dams or any other type of power system in Bristol Bay which would degrade the region1s socioeconomic structure. We do not believe that a judg- ment should be made on the socioeconomic effects of a specific project, including one involving a dam, prior to evaluating both its costs and benefits. Obviously cultural values and preferences of the inhabitants are important factors to be considered. 3. We believe the Interim Feasibility Assessment has considered all electrical power supply alternatives that are likely to be attrac- tive for the region. Further evaluation is planned only for those alternatives (other than the Base Plan) which appear to offer the best possibility of lower cost electricity and are environmentally acceptable. Unfortunately, we found no attractive dam sites on non-salmon producing streams, and coal-fired power plants, or transmission lines from other dams do not appear to offer the best possibilities in Bristol Bay. 4. The cost of fuel oil for diesel electric generation was based on prices recently paid for delivery to various specific villages in Bristol Bay. Because transportation costs are a significant factor, temporary declines in world oil prices do not result in proportional reductions in costs to the consumer. We intend to assess the effect of world oil price changes on Bristol Bay and revise the economic evaluation, if appropriate, in Phase II. With respect to your specific comments, we offer the following clarifications: General: 6. DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY PLANS 6.1.2. Assessment of Energy Sources Page 6-9, Relative Project Economics The Power Authority does not intend to support projects which would adversely impact significant fisheries resources and does not intend to promote such projects. Minor fisheries impacts would be offset by appropriate mitigation measures resulting in "no net fisheries losses." Therefore, an analysis of the total worth of the fishery resource is unnecessary. 7. EVALUATION OF SELECTED ENERGY PLANS 7.2.3. Reliability Page 7-3, para. 1 We are aware of the problems associated with icing of screened intakes. A critical piece of data required in evaluating this potential problem will be the timing of late fall and early spring fry and smo1t outmigrations with respect to the onset of winter icing conditions. 8-57 Richard Logan August 4, 1982 Page 3 Various Energy Plans: 1. Base Plan - A concept involving several subregional developments WTTTbeiPresented in the final Interim Feasibility Assessment report. Some subregions would essentially follow the Base Plan development scenario. 2. Scenario B-1 -The Beluga transmission line scenario is being re-evaluatea and a revised analysis will be presented. 3. Scenarios B-2, B-3, and B-14 Page 6-23, 6-24, and 6-29 -Studies are underway to define Newhalen smolt and fry migration, and methods are being evaluated to divert fish from entering the power canal. Furthermore, studies will be initiated to determine which flows would be considered minimally acceptable to sustain existing fisheries in the Phase II study program, should a decision be made to pursue this alterna- tive. The Kukaklek alternative does not appear to be economically attrac- tive and it is doubtful that any additional work will be conducted on this alternative in the future. Chikuminuk will be re-evaluated as a larger project to serve both the Bethel Area and Bristol Bay as part of another concurrent study. Your comments will be considered in future analyses of this alternative. 4. The description of Scenario 6-5 appears in Section 6.2.4.5, incor- rectly labeled as Scenario B-4. The description of Scenario B-4 was omitted. This will be corrected in the final report. The other specific comments will be considered as we update the report and as we undertake further environmental assessment of selected scenarios in the next phase of the study. Over the past few months Fish and Game personnel have participated, along with other agencies, in a number of meetings and workshops that addressed the development of a power plan for the Bristol 8ay Region. Your specific comments were discussed at a meeting in Anchorage on May 11, 1982, attended by personnel from Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Power Authority, and Stone & Webster Engineering Corpor- ation and their environmental consultants. The results of this meeting were very helpful in planning near-term environmental studies. 8-58 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. -.. .. II .. - II - Richard Logan August 4, 1982 Page 4 Your suggestions for fisheries studies in conjunction with the Tazimina and Newhalen regional concepts are, of course, well beyond what can be accommodated by current project funding. In our opinion, their scope and duration exceeds that appropriate to this preliminary feasibility level investigation. After completing an analysis of the Chikuminuk Interregional Project, we expect to have sufficient information to determine the apparent preferred alternative and proceed with more detailed fisheries studies of that alternative. There may be opportunity for cost-effective cooperation between the Department of Fish and Game in future detailed fisheries studies undertaken by the Power Authority on the preferred alternative. We would welcome the opportunity to explore such opportunities. Thank you for your extensive review. We look forward to continued cooperation in developing the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan • cc: Commissioner Skoog Carl Yanagawa ~e~elY'y. ~ Eric P. Yould ~ Executive Director 8-59 !1ay 13, 1982 File No. 1130-13 Mr. E.P. Yould Executive Director ~, Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, .~ 99501 DIVISION OF PA1fICS Subject: Draft-Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. Dear M:. Yould: • JAY S. HAMMONO, GOVERNOR 619 WAREHOUSE DR •• SUITE 210 ANCHORAGE. I4L.ASKA 99501 PHONE: 274-4616 BECEl,Veo. MAY 2 0 1982 Al.AsKA POWER AUTH0RI7Y. We. have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer the following comments: STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER We are concerned that significant cultural resources will likely be impacted by the proposed project. In order for the Alaska Power Authority to llI.eet it's responsibilities. per 36 cn 800, cultur.al re- sources conce~s llI.USt be addressed under consultation w~:h the State Historic Preservation Officer. Following the Power Authority's decision as to which alternative energy plan to study. subsequent reports should include consideration of the illI.pact of the sed projects . on cultural resources. /' '----+---:?"----:f1i':'tJ':-----<--__ Officer STATE PARK. l."I..A..'lNING No comment. LAI.'ID Ii ~JAT!R CONSERVATION i:lJND GRA.:."IT PROGRAM No comment. Sincerely, -~~~~ ~~-' ",anial Rob ins on !)R/blh 8-60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ... ,. j ... .. I MIl - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Ms. Judy Marquez Director State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Drive Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Ms. Marquez: August 2, 1982 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·0001 Thank you for the comments in Mr. Ty Dilliplane's letter of'May 13, 1982 regarding significant cultural resources in connection with the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan. Following a decision on which alterna- tive energy plan will be studied in more detail, we will consult with the State Historic Preservation office regarding project concerns. We appreciate your continued interest in the project. Sincerely, p~. Dc., )~(j ¥ Robert Mohn Director of Engineering 8-61 8.2.5 Summary of Significant EVents Table 8.2.3 is a chronological listing of upon the course of the Phase I study effort. 8-62 events which have had an impact I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J 11 TABLE 8.2-1 Comments and Questions from Selltemher and October Community ~Ieetlngs Bristol Hay Regional Power Plan ---.----------------------- VILLAGE ~ CATEGORY u 3: ~ a .8 &::: ! -rt ... ! ..101 ~ 0 u I!S ~ -rt p.. ~ til bIl till U til g ." !i ." ] .:l tJI) u ~ U) .a I!S ..!II U) till III rl 0 k ..101 u ! "rf .a tJI) .--J .. S ." ] k t .--J ~ ..-f :;! d 0 t2 ." t:'I W p.. Z Z ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Fish & Wildlife in General 1 1 4 Fish Production/Catch 1 1 Fisb Spawning Grounds 1 1 3 Flsb Species 1n Tazimina Lake 1 Impact (of Plant) on Tazimina River 2 2 Fish Ladders 1 1 Fish Cycle 1 1 Impact of Dam on Kukaklek Lake Outlet Temperature Changes 1 Kukaklek Diversion Impact of Penstock Gas Intusiol1 1 Effect of Dams on Other Rivers 3 Subsistence Fishing & lIunting 1 Long-Term Effects of Jlydro Total (". 1 ~ III ~ &::: ..101 e 0 Z cJ till ." U ..101 0 -rt .~ ';;I .--J .r. "rf .--J bII ." .--J u bII til :l 'S 'U lIS :l III t "rf P u 0 till bII rl III 0 0 U) W ...:t H H Z Z f-t 1 2 2 10 2 6 2 3 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 5 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 46 I 1 ( I f 1 I I TABLE 8.2-1 (Cant) Comments and QuestIons [rolll September and October Community tleetings UrlBtol 8ay RegIonal Power Plan VILLAGE ~ CATEGOI~Y .., CII ~ t:S III ,g tl J ..... ... ~ ~ ..!.I 0 U III ..!.I ..... III p.. '"' Q/ Il«I bIl .., III ::J g ~ III .s JJ Il«I .., ..!.I II) .e III ~ II) Il«I III ..-t 0 ... ~ u i ..... .e ClO ..... \II S III .a ... ~ ..-t ~ ..... '~ ..... 0 t2 III Q U Id p.. W Z Z ------ PROJECT DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION Hydroelectric Concepts in General Local vs. Regional Hydr.o I Hydro with Regulation I Run-oE-River Hydro 1 Back-up/Standby I 1 Dams 1 3 Diversion of Flow Penstock in General Size of Penstock 3 Cost of Penstock 1 Construction of Penstock 2 Fluctuation of Water Levels Energy Supply/Allotment 3 I 1 2 How Much Flow for Run-of-River? Generator Size Power From Tazimina 1 Effects of Ice Improvement of Local System for Tie-In I River Flows-Adequate for. Spawning 1 Present Diesel Capacity 1 Effect of 30~M on Lower. L. Tazimina 1 Electrical Demand Fluctuation 1 Other Hydro 1n Alaska 1 New System Similar to Local Power Grid I Total r 1 II ..!.I III .e tl III ..!.I tl 0 I"': tJ 00 III III u ..!.I 0 ..... H ~ ..-t .r. ..... ..-t ClO III ..-t u ClO \II ::J .a::: v III ::J \II t ..... ..... ~ tl .., 0 Il«I ClO ..-t 0 0 II) W ..:l H H Z Z f-I -----' I I I 1 1 2 2 3 1 8 I 1 I 4 1 2 1 1 7 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I 42 r 1 1'1 1'1 "I r 1 ., TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) COlDments and Questions from September and October ComlDun:lty tteetlngs Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan ------~~-'-------------'-------~------- VILLAGE CATEGORY ~ !oJ II ~ ~ !I II 0 Q .... .r:l ] ~ ~ 0 u '" ~ ...... '" Po ~ II bIl bIl !oJ II ::J fa '" !i '" 1l III bIl !oJ ~ tI) 11 ~ '" ~ tI) bIl II rl 0 .... ~ !oJ j ...... 11 tl(l rl II S '" a .... t .... ~ ...... :;f ..... 0 t2 ~ A U Po td ~ TRANSmSSlON LINES & SUBSTATIONS Transmission Lines in General 1 Line Sizing 1 1 Construction 1 Length 1 Distribution Systems 1 Right-Of-Way 2 4 1 Maintenance 1 1 1 Line Loss 1 River Crossings Feeder Lines SuBstations in General 1 Size of Substation Who Operates Substation Total f I I 1 ~ II Ji Q '" ..!oI ~ 0 z () bIl '" !oJ ..!cI 0 "M I .... .... .r:l ...... .... tl(l ~ '" .... !oJ tl(l II .;.I "d III ::J II t .... ~ P !oJ 0 bIl bIl rl 0 0 tI) lsi ..... H H Z Z H 2 2 4 1 2 5 1 1 1 8 3 7 1 2 2 2 5 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 41 f I £ "I TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) Comments and Questions [rom September alld October Community tleetings nristol 8ay RegIonal Power Plan ------------------.---------~---- VILLAGE CATEGORY .!J4 t.J IV .!J4 J .!l IV 0 j ... .c .!J4 .!J4 0 u t'II .!J4 -ri t'II "" Ei IV tJO tJO u .!l J IV ~ t'II .e .tl tJO u .!J4 Ul t'II .!J4 Ul 00 IV .-t 0 tJ .!J4 t.J ~ ~ Jl tJO .-t IV ~ a ... ~ .-t ~ ~ :;f .-t 0 e2 t'II t:l u "" w z z ALTERNATIVES Local VB. Regional Development 2 1 1 1 Criteria 1 Alternative Energy in General 1 1 2 Hydro Other Than Tazimina 1 3 Geothermal 1 3 Wind 1 Need for Alternative Power 1 1 Natural Gas 1 Coal 1 Intertie With Susitna Project 1 Total 1:'1 £ 1 '"1 .!J4 J s:J ~ .!J4 ~ 0 0 00 g u .!J4 0 -ri ~ .-t .r. .... .-t tJO t'II .-t t.J tJO IV .;: g t'II ::t IV t ~ ~ u 0 00 00 .-t 0 Ul W ..l H H Z Z 1-4 5 1 4 2 1 5 12 4 1 2 1 1 1 32 ( I (1 r I I I ["cl TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) Comments and Questions from September and October Community tfeetinr,s BrIstol Ray Regional Power Plan ---------~------.-.~----------.------------------------ VILLAGE CATI~GORY ..!<I 4.J III ..!<I ;J II 0 Jl = ... ~ ~ ..!<I ..!<I 0 U 111 ..!<I ~ ~ 111 /1.0 ~ II bO Ill! U GI ~ ;J 111 .s XA bO U ..!<I (I) JJ 111 ..!<I (I) Ill! GI r-I j ... ..!<I u A ~ JJ bO r-I II 111 .a ... ~ r-I ~ ~ :;;;! d 0 ~ ~ 0 Jd /1.0 Z ROADS & ACCESS Right-or-Way 2 " 1 Roads in General 1 1 1 Ancillary to Transmission 1 2 1 Network 1 Permafrost 1 Land Status 1 1 Total ..!<I II JJ Jl 111 .Yo ~ 0 Z U Ill! 111 U ..!<I 0 "ri B ~ r-I ~ ~ r-I !:>O .~ 111 r-I U !:>O II :;j '3 111 ;:1 GI ~ ... 1 ~ a u 0 bO bO ~ III 0 0 ttJ Jd ..... H H Z Z H 1 8 1 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 3 23 f 1 TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) Comments and Questions from Septemher and October Community t1eetJngs Bristol Ray Regional Power Plan 11 ----------------------------------- VILLAGE CATEGORY ~ .u GI ~ ~ J s:1 GI .8 J:l GI .l<I .... ... ! 11 .l<I 0 u III ~ J:l .... III Ilo ~ GI III ~ bO bO tJ GI ~ t1 0 !l III ] .:I bO ~ III Z (J tID III GI u .u \'J) ~ 0 .,.4 ! .-t .-t li III ~ \'J) tID GI .c: .... .... tID III III .-t .... g ... ~ tJ ! ..-t .fI tID .u 00 GI :::I .d "d :.1 GI III .a ... ~ .... ~ :::I GI ~ III :;! ~ d 0 .... ~ s:1 .u Q ~ ~ 0 00 tID ..-t 0 0 Cal Ilo Z \'J) Cal H H Z Z f-t COST Cost in General 1 1 Analysis of Project 1 1 2 Tazimina FacUity 1 1 Transmission 1 1 To Consumer 3 3 1 1 1 9 Return on Investment 1 1 2 State Assistance 1 I Subsidy on Petroleum Products 1 1 Surplus Diesel At Naknek 2 2 Total 2()" r 1 r 1 I"""" r""'l TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) Comments and Questions from Septemher and October Community Heetings Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan VILLAGE CATEGORY .lII '-' \II .lII ~ !t \II 0 ~ ~ .c: 0 .lII .lII 0 u lit .lII ~ ..-t lit p.. I>-. \II bO bO '-' \II ::J ~ lit !t B 0 JJ bO '-' .lII II) .lII lit .lII II) bO \II r-I 0 ~ .lII ... 0 ..-t Jl bO r-I \II 'p 111 .a ~ ~ ~ r-I ~ • ..! :;! ::! d 0 ~ ~ Q w p.. z INSTITUTIONAL & REGULATORY CONCERNS Concerns of Agency People 1 Who Will Operate System? Exclusion of Pedro Bay Centralized Power 1 Licensing 1 2 Who Would Own Plant? Who Would Sell Electricity? 2 Impounded Lands Need for Ancillary Facilities Who Initiated Study EIS Necessary Chance of Fund. Many Projects? 1 Legislation Funding Distribution 1 Total r' 1 -101 \II .e ~ lit .lII P 0 Z I.J tlO lit \II '-' .lII 0 ..-t S r-I r-I .c: • ..! r-I bfI lit 111 r-I '-' bO \II ::J .c: 'tI 111 ::J \II t ..-t ..-t ~ P '-' 0 bO bO r-I 0 0 II) Jol t-l H H Z Z H ,------ 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 F'I TABLE 8.2-1 (Cant) Comments and Questions from September and October Community tleetings HrlstoJ Day Regional Power PJan ... , .--------------------------~------------.. -----------.-.. VILLAGE CATEGORY ~ t-J CII ~ .!II .!l CII ~ c:: CII ~ ~ 0 11 ~ ~ 0 U III ~ .!t c:: ..... III p., I>-CII III .!II tl 0 bO bO U CII ::t tl lit Z U bO III CII u c:: III .fJ UI bO U III ~ III oM 0 ..... ~ r-t r-t ..... Jl .!II III ~ III bO CII ..t: "rl .-i bO III lit r-t .--t 0 ~ ~ t-J 0 ..... Jl bO t-J bO CII ::t ~ "tj lit .--t CII ~ lit .a J..o ~ ~ .--t ~ ::J CII ~ ..... "rl c:: u ..... ;! .--t 0 ~ III 0 bO bO .-1 0 0 0 u w p., w z Z III ILl H H H Z Z f-' COHHUNICATION ABOUT PROJECT Communications about Project 1 1 1 1 4 Language Problems 1 1 Notices about meetings 1 1 2 Technical Language 1 1 2 Opinions o£ Other Villages 1 1 1 3 Opinions o£ Other Agencies 1 1 2 Opinions o£ Other UtiHties 1 1 Total 15 TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) Comlllents and Questions from September and October COlnlRunity Meetings Ur lstol nay Regional Power l'ian CATEGORY PROJECT BENEFITS Energy Supply/Allotment Participation in Project Hydro Electric for Heating Manpower Requirement for Tazimina Total ! 00 ~ M M .... ~ 3 1 ~ .... 00 J III ~ 1 ~ nj u JJ 0 ~ 1 1 u tt .... 0 P. VI ..!.II ... ~ --~ d VILLAGE ..!.II III ~ III 0 tl ... ..c: ! u --~ I>-> III III =' e nj 00 U ~ Ul nj ..!.II Ul 00 III ... 0 .... 1l 00 ... ~ t M ~ 0 t2 --p. w z z 2 ~ III 1l -- ~ z 0 00 ~ 0 .... ..c: .... M 00 u 00 III =' :t III ~ .... 0 00 00 Ul W t-l H nj M .... M H c:: III M nj ..c: ~ Z 1 1 c:: 0 I" M nj "tl tl 0 Z .-1 nj \oJ 0 H 7 2 1 1 11 £1 r''I ~''''I "'~'1 TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) Comments and Questions [rom Sept(>lIIher and October Community tleetings Bristol Bay Regional I'ower Plan VILLAGE CATEGORY ~ .., ., ~ ~ ., ,g p ! ... ~ ~ ~ 0 u 111 .!II .... 111 f1t J;>-, ., bO bO .., ., ::J ~ !i 111 ] JJ bO 0 .!II l/) Jj 111 .!II l/) bO ., ..-f 0 ... .!II .., 0 .... Jl bO :;I QI ~ 111 .a ... .a ~ ..-f ~ :;J ..-f 0 ~ 111 Q U ld f1t ld Z Z STATUS OF PREVIOUS STUDU:S Previous S~udies in General 1 Retherford Study 1 Lake Elva Study 1 Grant Lake Study 2 Why Study Not 40 Years Ago 1 Total r, '1 ~ ., Jl Jj 111 .!II t1 0 Z U bO 111 ., .., ~ 0 .~ g r-I r-I .t: ..-f bO 111 111 r-I .., bO ., ~ i -a III ::J QI t .... R .., 0 bO bII rl QI 0 0 l/) ld H H H Z Z .... 2 1 2 1 2 1 8 TABLE 8.2-1 (Cont) Comments and Questions from September and October Community Meetings Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan CATEGORY STUDY APPROACH Interim Assessment Demand Forecast Adequate Time to Study Tazimina Flows When Will Study End What is Definition of Feasibility Report Total J CIO ~ ..... ;1 A I u ~ ..14 ~ 0 ..... Po tID U i .9 ] 0 a ..14 j a :;I VILLAGE ..14 II .!oil II 0 j lj -; ..14 t; .. .. ~ tID U ..14 Ul 1\1 .!oC (J) CIO j u ~ ..... tID ~ t ..... a 0 t2 Po l24 ..14 II ! ..14 U tID ~ 0 ..... .Q ..... tID U CIO .. .:l ::t II t 0 tID tID Ul JI.I o-l H I i ..... ..... H ti j l24 2 I I g u ..... 1\1 '3 0 l24 ..... 1\1 u 0 f--4 2 I 1 I .1 6 ,.. - - .. TABLE 8.2-2 PUBLIC/COMMUNITY MEETINGS Location Nondalton Dillingham Clarks Point Aleknagik Ekuk Manokotak Portage Creek New Stuyahok (including Ekwok) Koliganek Newhalen (including Iliamna and Nondalton) Igiugig Levelock Naknek (including King Salmon) South Naknek Egegik Iliamna (including Newhalen and Nondalton) Dates Fall Series Spring Series 7/22/81 9/23/81 9/24/81 9/24/81 9/24/81 9/25/81 9/25/81 9/25/81 9/26/81 10/17/81 10/19/81 10/19/81 10/19/81 10/20/81 10/20/81 3/5/82 3/9/82 3/9/82 3/9/82 3/10/82 3/10/82 3/8/82 1M -• TABLE 8.2-3 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Study Awarded SWEC meeting w/APA regarding definition of scope and agency contacts Agency information meeting at D&M office in Anchorage regarding study effort Work Plan finalized First field trip to Bristol Bay region by members of Study Team -visit with local people 7/21-23/81Meeting w/Nondalton people by APA and SWEC Meeting w/NPS -Lake Clark National Park & Preserve personnel (Port Alsworth) Meeting w/BBNA (Dillingham) by APA and SWEC Meeting w/Nushagak Electric Cooperative (Dillingham) by APA and SWEC Meeting w/Naknek Electric Association (Naknek) by APA & SWEC Special Use Permit Issued by NPS to APA for Tazimina field work Meeting w/Nondalton people by D&M regarding land use permit for field work at Tazimina Press Release-describing course of study (KDLG radio - Dillingham) Letter sent to SWEC from BBNC regarding identification of presidents of ANCSA Village Corporations Letter sent to SWEC from BBNC regarding potential Indian allotment conflicts in Tazimina area SWEC meeting w/APA regarding agency contacts Date 7 f7 /81 7/8/81 7/13/81 7/13/81 7/22/81 7/22/81 7/23/81 7/23/81 7/23/81 7/23/81 7/24/81 7/24/81 7/29/81 8/3/81 8/4/81 - .. I t TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Letters of invitation sent to agencies (federal and state) regarding agency information meeting in Anchorage Federal Register notice of land selection by Nondalton (Tazimina Lake outlet area) Telcon w/ADF&G regarding location of Kukaklek Lake in Katmai National Park and preserve Agency meeting w/Study Team in Anchorage Telcon w/ADFG regarding identification of important salmon rivers in Bristol Bay region SWEC meeting w/Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development regarding study description SWEC meeting w/ADFG regarding data availability for sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan workshop in Dillingham Letters sent to all interested agencies not invited to agency meeting 8/17 Letters sent to all villages, native groups, etc. from BBNC regarding BBRPP study efforts and announcements of village meetings Meeting w/NEC (Dillingham) on system loads, demands, etc. Meeting w/NEA (Naknek) on system loads, demands, etc. Meeting w/ADFG (King Salmon) personnel regarding potential hydroelectric sites in Bristol Bay region Meeting w/ADFG (Dillingham) personnel regarding potential hydroelectric sites in Bristol Bay region Date 8/11/81 8/12/81 8/12/81 8/19/81 8/20/81 8/20/81 8/21/81 8/26/81 8/31/81 9/1/81 9/2/81 9/2/81 9/2/81 9/2/81 , • I t r II. - TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Letters from BBNS sent to Native group leaders in Bristol Bay regarding study effort and community meeting announcements News release regarding Community meetings of 9/23 to 9/25 (Bristol Bay Times and KDLG Radio) Hunting season ends in Nushagak River region First Project Report issued Study Team Meeting (Anchorage) Agency Information Meeting -Anchorage D&M Meeting w/ADFG (King Salmon) regarding adequate field study time for Tazimina Community Meeting in Dillingham Community Meeting in Aleknagik Village Meeting in Clarks Point Village Meeting in Ekuk Telcon w/NPS regarding uses and restrictions within National Parks in Alaska Community Meeting in New Stuyahok (Ekwok included) Community Meeting in Manokotak Village Meeting in Portage Creek Village Meeting in Koliganek Hunting season ends in Kvichak River region Letter sent to all villages and native groups in Bristol Bay regarding invitations to community meetings and solicitation of comments about study USFWS letter to APA regarding hydroelectric projects in Alaska Date 9/3/81 9/3/81 9/15/81 9/16/81 9/16/81 9/17/81 9/23/81 9/23/81 9/24/81 9/24/81 9/24/81 9/24/81 9/25/81 9/25/81 9/25/81 9/26/81 9/30/81 10/2/81 10/2/81 ! .. I .. TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Telcon to D&M from USFWS regarding concern for level of treatment for alternate sites ADNR letter sent to APA regarding historic sites and state parks News release (by BBNC) of Community meetings for 10/17 to 10/21 (Bristol Bay Times) Letter sent to Alaska Land Use Council from BBNC regarding BBRPP and community meetings Letter sent to NPS (Lake Clark Nat'l Park) and other agencies regarding specific concerns on Tazimina project and invitations to community meetings Letter from APA sent to agencies regarding agency information meeting to take place on 10/21 in Anchorage Letter from APA sent to SWEC regarding distribution list for monthly Project Reports ISER meeting w/Rural CAP regarding Community Energy Profiles Letter from ADNR (Div. of Parks) sent to SWEC regarding comments and concerns on potential hydroelectric sites for the Bristol Bay region Second Project Report issued Community Meeting in Newhalen regarding progress of study effort (Iliamna and Nondalton included) Community Meeting in Igiugig regarding progress of study effort Community Meeting in Levelock regarding progress of study effort Community Meeting in Naknek regarding progress of study effort (King Salmon included) Date 10/5/81 10/7 /81 10/7 /81 10/8/81 10/9/81 10/9/81 10/12/81 10/14/81 10/15/81 10/15/81 10/17/81 10/19/81 10/19/81 10/19/81 fIIIIII I - - TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL'LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Community Meeting in South Naknek regarding progress of study ef fort Community Meeting in Egegik regarding progress of study effort Agency Information Meeting with Study team in Anchorage Telcon from ISER to DEPD regarding Power cost assistance program Letter from ADNR Division of Lands sent to SWEC regarding comment on potential hydroelectric sites in Bristol Bay region Telcon from USFWS regarding comments on potential hydroelectric sites and the Study team's approach to alternative energy plans Letter sent by SWEC to USFWS regarding alternative studies of BBRPP Notice in Federal Register regarding BBCMP intent to prepare on EIS News release by ISER in Dillingham for BBRPP study (KDLG radio) ISER meeting w/Bristol Bay planners (ADTPF) Letters from APA sent to all agencies regarding invitation to agency information meeting on 11/17 Informal Meeting in Dillingham by ISER regarding general economy and effects of changing energy demands in region Te1econ from Igiugig representative to BBNC regarding no installation of stream gage at Kukaklek Letter from ADFG sent to SWEC regarding comments on potential hydroelectric sites in Bristol Bay region Date 10/19/81 10/20/81 10/21/81 10/22/81 10/23/81 10/23/81 10/27/81 10/29/81 10/30/81 10/30/81 11/2/81 11/2/81 11/2/81 11/3/81 .. .. TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Telcon w/ ADNR and SWEC regarding status of oil and gas resources in Bristol Bay region Letter sent to SWEC from USFWS regarding comments on alternate hydroelectric sites in Bristol Bay region Letter sent to APA from USFWS regarding comments on alternate hydroelectric sites Bristol Bay region Press release to Denver Post by SWEC regarding BBRPP study contract to SWEC from APA Telcon w/ISER (University of Alaska) regarding peat resource in Bristol Bay Telcon from SWEC to Attorney regarding people of Igiugig reaction to the Kukaklek concepts Telcon w/Alaska Railroad regarding the transport coal from the Healy mines to Seward Telcon from BBNC regarding a public easement which exists at the outlet of Kukaklek Lake Third Project Report issued Study team Meeting in Anchorage Agency Information Meeting in Anchorage (w/Study Team) Written comments received by SWEC from school children in Igiugig regarding concerns about various study concepts ISER information meetings in Dillingham regarding energy use Meeting w/FRI regarding salmon and hydroelectric power in Bristol Bay region ISER information meeting in Manokotak regarding energy use Date 11/3/81 11/4/81 11/4/81 11/9/81 11/9/81 11/9/81 11/12/81 11/12/81 11/13/81 11/16/81 11/17/81 11/17/81 11/17/81 11/18/81 11/18/81 - .. ! .. - .. .. TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Informal ISER meetings in Ekuk regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in Portage Creek regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in Clarks Point regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in New Stuyahok regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in Koliganek regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in Portage Creek regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in Egegik regarding energy use Conference at BBNC regarding Tazimina exclusion from Lake Clark Preserve Distribution of tabulated comments from community meetings by SWEC to select native groups Letter to NPS from BBNC proposing a land exchange at Tazimina site Telcon w/BIA and ISER regarding native land allotment information Letter from SWEC to Attorney representing Igiugig people to explain Kukaklek concepts Scope of Service issued to FRI by D&M to provide data on salmon in Bristol Bay Informal ISER meetings in Levelock regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in King Salmon regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in Nondalton regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in Igiugig regarding energy use Submission of Kukaklek Hydroelectric Concepts to ADFG for comments Date 11/18/81 11/18/81 11/18/81 11/20/81 11/22/81 11/23/81 11/23/81 11/23/81 11/24/81 11/25/81 11/30/81 11/30/81 12/1/81 12/2/81 12/2/81 12/2/81 12/3/81 12/3/81 !I'll III r II .. - TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description NPS (Denver) notified to review potential power alternatives for Bristol Bay Informal ISER meetings in Iliamna regarding energy use Informal ISER meetings in Newhalen regarding energy use Telcon from Alaska House of Representatives to SWEC regarding economic limit of study (status of Pedro Bay) Letter to APA from ADNR (Division of Parks) regarding status of "promising" hydroelectric sites in Bristol Bay region Letter to USFWS from SWEC regarding potential hydroelectric sites in Bristol Bay region Meeting at APA office w/representatives from Igiugig Meeting at BBNC office w/representatives from Igiugig Telcon w/Bristol Bay Borough and ISER regarding seafood operators in Bristol Bay APA letter sent to NPS regarding Kukaklek concepts (solicitation of comments) Letter from Corps of Engineers regarding status Navigable Waters in Bristol Bay region Fourth Project Report issued Letter from ADFG sent to SWEC regarding NPS regulations concerning Kukak1ek Lake Meeting w/ADFG and ISER regarding the fishing industry in Bristol Bay Meeting w/BIA and ISER regarding native land allotments in Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon Meeting w/Heinz Noonan and ISER regarding the Alaska Power Cost Assistance Program Date 12/3/81 12/4/81 12/6/81 12/9/81 12/10/81 12/10/81 12/14/81 12/14/81 12/15/81 12/16/81 12/17 /81 12/18/81 12/18/81 12/22/81 12/22/81 12/22/81 - ".. * .. - -.. filii I .. -.. - TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Letter from Attorney to SWEC regarding definite requirements that should be enforced if Kukaklek is developed Meeting with ISER and APA regarding end use analysis of the electrical demand forecast Telcon w/Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development regarding commercial forests in Alaska Letter sent to APA from NPS stating a Kukaklek Project cannot be developed without an Act of Congress Telcon w/JEVAD, Inc. and BBNC regarding IC documents for surface estate (Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton, DOTPF right-of-way News article in Anchorage Daily News regarding financing of hydroelectric plants (by State) Telcon by ISER to Naknek Electric Association regarding electrical consumption by military at King Salmon Telcon by ISER to Public Affairs Office, Elmendorf AFB, regarding future of King Salmon AFB relative to energy consumption Preliminary Electric Demand Forecast for BBRPP (from ISER) Project Meeting (Denver) Te1con by ISER to Nushagak Electric Cooperative regarding monthly KWH sales to 4 fish processors Letter from ADNR to APA regarding Concerns and issues identified at public meetings of the Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan Telcon between SWEC and BBNG regarding other capital projects in the Bristol Bay region Date 1/4/82 1/4/82 1/5/82 1/5/82 1/7 /82 1/12/82 1/18/82 1/18/82 1/19/82 1/20-22/82 1/26/82 1/27/82 2/1/82 i .. .. TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Press release by APA regarding the Energy Supply Technology Evaluation Fifth Project Report issued Telcon w/BBNC and SWEC regarding the Alaska Land Use Council Five Year Plan for Bristol Bay Telcon to RurAl CAP from BBNC regarding the Residential Energy Audit Telcon w/National Research Council of Canada and SWEC regarding space heating alternatives Letter from BBNC to BBNA regarding capitol projects which would enhance the fisheries of Bristol Bay Letters sent by BBNC to Bristol Bay native organizations, villages, special interest groups and local agencies regarding public meeting to be held in Dillingham on March 5, 1982 to discuss interim assessment Letter from BBNC to Bristol Bay village representatives and various agencies regarding March village meetings Telcon to North Pole Refinery in Fairbanks by SWEC regarding cost and availability of crude oil Letter from APA to SWEC regarding future cost of power in Bristol Bay area Letters from SWEC to all its subcontractors regarding announcement of March village meetings Telcon w/Green Construction Co. and SWEC regarding length of construction time and peak construction labor force for various hydro projects Date 2/2/82 2/2/82 2/3/82 2/8/82 2/10/82 2/11/82 2/12/82 2/16-18/82 2/17/82 2/17/82 2/17/82 2/19/82 .. " .. ... - --- TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Telcon from SWEC to Green Construction Company regarding length of construction period and peak labor force estimates on various Tazimina and Newhalen hydro concepts Telcon from SWEC to Chugach Electric Association, Inc. regarding cost of power to Bristol Bay Letter from APA to SWEC regarding review of Energy Supply Technology Evaluation Letter from APA to SWEC regarding review of Hydrologic evaluations Letter from SWEC to APA regarding Phase I cost analysis Copy of Findings and Conclusions, Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program, received by SWEC from APA Paper on "Considerations of River Ice Problems for Proposed Hydropower Projects" received by SWEC from APA Sixth Project Report issued Letter from APA to various state, federal and local agencies regarding a March 12, 1982 informational meeting on Interim Feasibility Assessment Revised report: ~Preliminary Electricity Demand Forecast for the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan" received by SWEC from ISER Community meeting in Dillingham regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Letter to the Editor (Anchorage Times) regarding Bristol Bay hydro studies Community meeting in Iliamna regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Community meeting in Igiugig regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Date 2/19/82 2/22/82 2/23/82 2/24/82 2/24/82 2/24/82 2/25/82 2/26/82 2/26/82 3/1/82 3/5/82 3/8/82 3/8/82 3/9/82 , .. c TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING TIlE STUDY EFFORT Description Community meeting in Levelock regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Community meeting in New Stuyahok regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Community meeting in Naknek regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Community meeting in South Naknek regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Letter from FRED Division of ADF&F to SWEC regarding comments by biologists on Newhalen River regional hydroelectric concept Agency meeting with project team in Anchorage regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Telcon from APA to SWEC regarding new work scope for Tazimina and geotechnical work scheduled for Newhalen site Telcon from SWEC to BBNC regarding status of Indian Allotments at Newhalen Telcon from SWEC to D&M regarding spring field work at Tazimina and Newhalen sites Description of Optimum Project Timing issue sent to SWEC by APA Telcon from BBNC to State of Alaska regarding Newhalen City Charter Issuance of draft Interim Feasibility Assessment, Executive Summary Letter from APA to SWEC regarding comments on draft Interim Feasibility Assessment Executive Summary Letter from Manokotak resident to APA regarding wind power feasibility to Bristol Bay Date 3/9/82 3/9/82 3/10/82 3/10/82 3/10/82 3/12/82 3/15/82 3/15/82 3/16/82 3/17/82 3/17/82 3/19/82 3/19/82 3/21/82 -.. .. fill .... -- .. TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Issuance of draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report Letter from BBNC to APA regarding the Newhalen Hydroelectric Project subsurface permit Letter from APA to SWEC authorizing the geotechnical field program for the Newhalen site Letter from SWEC to APA enclosing Amendment No. 1 to Phase I of contract AS44~83-010 Letter from SWEC to S&W authorizing to proceed with preliminary subsurface exploration at the Newhalen site Telcon from SWEC to D&M regarding detailed fisheries studies on Newhalen River Telcon from BBNC to SWEC regarding access permission at Newhalen site for geotechnical field work Letter to the Editor (Anchorage Times) regarding Bristol Bay hydro studies Interagency meeting in Anchorage regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Letter from APA/DOE to APA regarding comments on draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report Letter from Burr, Pease & Kurtz to SWEC regarding community meeting at Igiugig on March 8 and the Interim Feasibility Assessment Telcon from SWEC to APA regarding geotechnical conditions at Newhalen and receiving authorization for preliminary design and cost estimates of constructing a canal in sand and gravel. Telcon from SWEC to S&W authorizing additional borings at Newhalen Date 3/22/82 3/22/82 3/22/82 3/23/82 3/23/82 3/23/82 3/23/82 3/23/82 3/25/82 3/26/82 3/29/82 3/31/82 4/1/82 .. .. .. .. TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Telcon between SWEC and APA, with APA authorizing S&W to perform resistivity work at Newhalen site Telcon between SWEC and APA, with APA authorizing funds for acoustical equipment for Newhalen sockeye salmon smolt and fry sampling program Letter from SWEC to APA with revisions to Amendment No. 1 of contract AS44-83-0l0 Letter from the Newhalen City Council to APA regarding the Newhalen Hydroelectric Project -Surface Estate Geotechnical Exploration permit Telcon from SWEC to BBNC regarding Newhalen land status Meeting with APA and BBCMP regarding Interim Feasibility Assessment Letter from NPS to APA regarding interim Feasibility Assessment Seventh Project Report issued Letter from DNR, Div. of Forest, Land and Water Management to APA regarding comments on draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report Memo from APA to SWEC regarding items USF&WS recommend having in feasibility studies Bristol Bay Regional Energy Demand Analysis, final report by I SER Project meeting at APA Letter from USF&WS to APA regarding draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report Date 4/2/82 4/2/82 4/6/82 4/6/82 4/8/82 4/15/82 4/19/82 4/20/82 4/22/82 4/22/82 4/23/82 4/26/82 4/27/82 .. .. TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Letter from ADF&G to APA regarding comments on draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report Letter from BBNC to BIA regarding Newha1en Hydroelectric Indian allotment conflict Letter from APA/DOE to APA regarding use of electrical energy forecast data and wind systems data in a DOE wind study BBCMP meeting at APA leading to follow-up study of transmission line corridors in Bristol Bay Letter from APA to SWEC regarding comments on draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report FAA approval for Newha1en environmental field work Newha1en fisheries study commences Letter from Alaska Peninsula Corporation to APA regarding Newha1en Hydroelectric Project surface permit for fish related studies. Interagency meeting regarding Bristol Bay fisheries and hydro studies Letter from ADNR, Division of Parks regarding comments on draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report Letter from USGS to SWEC containing recent Tazimina River low-flow discharge measurements Letter from BIA to BBNC regarding Newha1en land status Letter from APA/DOE to APA regarding comments on draft Interim Feasibility Assessment report Letter from SWEC to APA regarding Amendment No. 2 to contract CC08-2108 Letter from SWEC to APA regarding geotechnical investigation, conceptual engineering, and cost study for Newha1en Date 4/28/82 4/28/82 4/28/82 4/29/82 4/30/82 5/6/82 5/10/82 5/10/82 5/11/82 5/13/82 5/19/82 5/25/82 5/26/82 6/7 /82 6/10/82 -.. • -., .. TABLE 8.2-3 (cont) CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AFFECTING THE STUDY EFFORT Description Eighth Project Report issued Memo APA to SWEC regarding cost estimates on Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan Meeting of SWEC and APA in Anchorage regarding Newhalen fisheries study Interagency meeting with project team in Anchorage regarding Newhalen fisheries studies, and intake and fish screen technologies Meeting of SWEC, APA, and BBCMP in Anchorage regarding transmission line planning Meeting of SWEC and APA in Anchorage regarding a public opinion survey on revised Interim Assessment Date 6/11/82 6/14/82 6/14/82 6/15/82 6/16/82 6/16/82 ,. .. ".. .. - 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 CONCLUSIONS 9.1.1 Introduction The investigative efforts performed during Phase I and reported herein have resulted in the following conclusions. These conclusions are based on data and information gathered during the study, on preliminary engineering and technical investigations, and on environmental, sociocultural, and economic evaluations. The conclusions presented address each of the major portions of the study efforts and the overall objective of the study, which has been to develop and evaluate alternative energy plans for meeting the electrical energy needs of the Bristol Bay study region to the year 2002. 9.1.2 Energy Demand Forecast The electrical energy demands of the region have been forecast on a preliminary basis through the year 2002. The forecast shows that the region's electrical needs will continue to grow at an average overall rate of 4.06 percent per year. This rate reflects the total energy needs of the residential, government/commercial, industrial, and military sectors. The regional electrical energy needs have been determined as 30,372 MWh for the year 1982 and 67,073 MWh for the year 2002. These energy values are believed to be conservative in that they reflect the past and present lifestyles and growth for the region. It is believed that the forecast reflects the extent to which this growth is governed by energy price structures, industrial and commercial interests, population, and appliance end-use trends of the region. The largest and fastest energy growth is seen in the commercial/government sector. This growth is forecast at a rate of about 6.6 percent per year. This is followed by the electrical energy growth for the residential sector of about 4.9 percent per year. Very little growth (less than 0.50 percent) 9-1 is anticipated in the industrial sector, and no growth is predicted for the military sector. The resulting principally forecast responds to an electrical energy growth from electrical needs for' appliance end-use. Electrical energy needs are principally for "appliance" needs and not for space heating load requirements. This fact is primarily due to the electrical energy costs in the region. It is our judgment that this condition will continue to exist in the future. Electrical energy for space heating in the lower energy cost sections of the region would have to be available to the consumer at $0. 05/kWh or less to be competitive with I I I I I diesel fuel space heating energy, for fuel costing $1. 45/ gal. These prices I are in 1982 dollars (weighted average cost of $1.33/gal). Based on the preliminary energy demand forecast, including an allowance for losses which could occur in the energy production and distribution system, the following tabulation shows the presently anticipated energy and peak power demands for the region. Annual Energy Peak Power Year Reguirement ~MWhJ Demand (MW2 1982 32,400 7.9 1987 38,700 8.9 1992 47,600 11.2 1997 58,900 12.2 2002 74,500 15.0 The above energy and power demand predictions were used as the basis, with minor adjustments, for the engineering and cost studies for energy plan scenarios developed under Phase I of the study. The preliminary energy demand forecast study has been updated and a final report issued presenting a more detailed evaluation of future electrical and space heating needs. These data will be considered in the Phase II effort. Adjustments to the present Phase I study will be made, as necessary, in the Phase II detailed feasibility analysis report. I I I I I I I I I I I I I -.. r .. - - 9.1.3 Energy Technologies The study identified only two primary energy sources that are presently available for use within the Bristol Bay Study area. These sources would provide the electrical energy and power needs, on a firm basis, as forecast through the year 2002. The sources are hydroelectric power and the presently used diesel fuel. While several other primary energy resources were identified, for example; wood, peat, geothermal, oil, and natural gas, the study showed that: 1) full development of these resources for the purpose of meeting regional or subregional energy needs would not be compatible with the environmental and sociocultural restraints; 2) the time and monies that would need to be expended for proving the availability of these resources is not justified on the basis of meeting just the limited energy needs of the region; and 3) these resources could not be cost-effectively developed within the near future for use in the Bristol Bay study region. Wind energy has also been identified as an available and proven resource for certain areas of the study region. However, wind energy is of an intermittent nature. Cost-effective methods for storing wind energy were not found by the study for the Bristol Bay region, and wind energy was considered only as a supplementary energy source. An array of 25 energy technologies in all was considered. From this, a total of nine primary and supplementary energy technologies were selected for consideration in electrical energy plan generation, including hydroelectric power and wind power resources. The nine energy technologies were: Primary Energy • Diesel Generation • Coal-, Oil-, and Natural Gas-fired Steam Electric • Coal Gasification • Combined Cycle • Hydroelectric Power Supplementary Energy • Wind Energy • Waste Heat Recovery • Energy Conservation • Organic Rankine Cycle 9-3 The above were investigated, and if found to be promising, were used as elements of specific energy plan concepts for the Bristol Bay study region. 9.1.4 Evaluation of Energy Plans Originally, 48 schemes for power development were considered. These were reduced to 21 power development scenarios that were analyzed and evaluated on the basis of technical, environmental, and economic characteristics. Several variations of these scenaraios were also studied and are also included in this report. The evaluation took into consideration the indicators outlined by the Power Authority in its guidelines 3AAC94.060. Based on these evaluations, conclusions were reached with respect to energy type and use. These conclusions are summarized in the following paragraphs. 9.1.4.1 Diesel Generation Diesel generation is the only prime electrical generating system currently used in the Bristol Bay region. It was found technically acceptable for continued use by this study. It offers flexibility with respect to energy growth needs on a village-by-village basis, on a sub-regional basis, and on a regional basis. Diesel generating technology is commercially available and has proven to be reliable. All the diesel generating scenarios were judged to result in the least environmental impact on the study region. However, the regional diesel scenarios did not compare favorably with most hydroelectric systems on the basis of cost. The present worth costs of the diesel scenarios are given in Table 9.1-1. 9.1.4.2 Outside Transmission Line The scenario, importation of electrical energy into the study area from a power plant located at Beluga, was found to be technically acceptable with respect to safety, availability, reliability, and constructability. This alternative, however, resulted in major environmental and institutional impacts relating to the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. The economic evaluation ranked this scenario fifteenth in a group of 25. 9-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r .. r III The overall evaluation for imported power must, however, be tempered with the following considerations: the study was not able to obtain a firm commitment on the cost of power from the Beluga source. Therefore, the bus-bar cost of energy developed for the Railbelt Power Alternative Study (Battelle Report) was used in the economic evaluation of this scenario. Because of its low rating, we believe that further studies of this scenario are not warranted. 9.1.4.3 Fossil Fuel-Fired Plants Coal and oil were identified as two presently acceptable and readily available fossil fuels for use in the study region. The use of crude oil as fuel a source was found uneconomical. Natural gas has not been found in the study area. However, exploratory work for this energy source is very costly. If found, development of natural gas resources could take at least ten years. Because of the uncertainties associated with natural gas development in Bristol Bay, it was not included as an energy source in the power supply plans. The three fossil fuel-fired electrical energy generating systems investigated were: 1) a coal-fired steam electric plant, 2) an oil-fired combined cycle plant, and 3) a coal gasification combined cycle plant utilizing a gas turbine, a waste heat recovery boiler, and a conventional steam electric generating plant. The coal-fired steam electric plant and the oil-fired combined cycle plant are technically proven and commercially available. The coal gasification combined cycle plant is technically acceptable, but has not been proven commercially in the size required for the Bristol Bay study region. From an environmental standpoint, the fossil fuel plants demonstrate a moderate but acceptable impact on the environment, provided that mitigation measures are taken. The present worth economic evaluation of fossil fuel-fired plant scenarios, as shown on Table 9.1-1, places these energy plans essentially in the same catagory as the diesel fuel-fired plants, which is in the lower two-thirds of the ranking order. 9-5 9.1.4.4 Hydroelectric Power Ten hydroelectric power generating concepts were evaluated in the study. These concepts represent both regional and sub-regional energy developments; the latter used in combination with other energy forms to supply the total regional needs. Technically, all hydroelectric power projects are considered acceptable and feasible. With respect to environmental considerations, the ranking is different within the hydroelectric power groups. Although exhibiting varying potential environmental effects, it is believed that in most cases these effects are of a moderate nature and could be made acceptable with mitigation measures. The present worth economic analysis of energy plans (Table 9.1-1) shows that the four least costly alternatives are regional hydroelectric developments. These are the two Newhalen River regional concepts, the Tazimina River regional concept, and the Kontrashibuna Lake regional concept. The fifth ranking energy scenario also uses hydroelectric power development, namely, the small run-of-river Tazimina River concept. This scenario combines the hydroelectric concept with sub-regional diesel, waste-heat, and wind. 9.1.4.5 Supplementary Energy Sources The study findings show that all four suitable for inclusion in energy plan supplementary energy scenarios for the sources are Bristol Bay region. Scenario B-19 evaluates several combinations of these sources as supplements to the Base Plan (Continued Diesel). As stated above, wind energy development is possible in the Bristol Bay region. Five areas identified by the study for consideration are Naknek, King Salmon, South Naknek, Egegik, and Igiugig. These areas were selected because they constitute a wind power potential ranking of class 4 or better. Wind energy developments were found to be technically acceptable if low capacity units are used for the present, reserving higher capacity units for future development. The environmental impacts of wind will depend largely on the magnitude of wind energy systems developed and their 9-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r ., - specific location. Economic evaluations of supplementary wind energy installations show that cost benefits would be realized for selected diesel energy scenarios as a result of wind installations. Waste heat recovery systems are acceptable from all three evaluation catagories. Cost benefits from waste heat recovery, however, are only available and applicable to fossil fuel and diesel energy generating systems. Economic studies of hydroelectric energy-related scenarios showed that overall benefits would be realized if waste heat recovery systems were installed in the early planning years of the suggested development. The economic benefits resulting from waste heat recovery systems were found more favorable than those resulting from wind generation. The economic benefits of a combined waste heat and wind generation supplemental energy scenario were found to be about the same as for waste heat alone. Energy conservation, whether applicable to electrical or space heating needs, was found to be technically acceptable and environmentally desirable. From an economic standpoint, however, the cost benefits to be derived from the implementation of conservation measures are variable, and greatly depend on the attitude of the people, the present building stock of the region, the type of electrical or space heating appliances in use, and the impact of educational programs on the implementation of conservation measures. The benefits from conservation on reducing the electrical and space heating energy needs were not evaluated here, but would need to be addressed in Phase II of the study. It is believed that electrical energy reductions resulting from conservation measures would not be significant enough to influence present evaluation parameters and study results. Another form of energy conservation investigated is that of load management. The assessment of this approach found that the likelihood of success in implementing currently available load management technologies, whether for the presently existing or anticipated energy systems, was slight to none at all. In reaching conclusions or making choices between candidate energy plans on the basis of results, the level of confidence in the data and assumptions 9-7 I used for the evaluation of individual scenarios was also considered. The I best data available are those for the Newhalen and Tazimina River plans. More detailed physical and environmental data were available for these concepts, especially in comparison to other hydroelectric power sites investigated. The Kontrashibuna concept has presented some concerns about its environmental setting and its compatibility for use as a power site with the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. Similar concerns apply to energy scenarios involving the Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric concepts. 9.1.4.6 Summary Evaluation All twenty-one power plan scenarios and variations on several of the scenarios were compared on the basis of present worth costs. A summary and ranking of present worth costs for the scenarios evaluated is given in Table 9.1-1. On the basis of present worth cost, the five most promising energy plan scenarios are: 0 Scenario B-14A The Newhalen River Regional Plan (Power Only) 0 Scenario A-I The Tazimina River Regional Plan 0 Scenario B-14B The Newhalen River Regional Plan (Power & River Diversion) 0 Scenario B-18B The Kontrashibuna Lake Regional Plan 0 Scenario B-19E A small run-of-river Tazimina River plant used in conjunction with local diesel generation complemented with waste heat and wind energy Comparing these five scenarios to the Base Plan, on the basis of present worth cost ratios, the following economic ranking was developed: 9-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. .. c Present Economic Worth Cost Rank Description Scenario Ratio 1 Newhalen Regional B-14A 1.54 2 Tazimina Regional A-1 1.36 3 Newhalen Regional B-14B 1.31 4 Kontrashibuna Regional B-18B 1.29 5 Local Diesel, Waste Heat, Wind, and Local Tazimina B-l9E 1.20 20 Base Plan (Continued Diesel) BP-l 1.00 (Base) Based on the data available at the completion of the Interim Feasibility Assessment, the following order developed for the five most favorable (economic) candidates with respect to other evaluation catagories: Environmental Confidence All are feasible and reflect an equal ranking Local Diesel/Waste Heat/Wind/Local Tazimina Newhalen (River Diversion) Newhalen (Power Only) Tazimina (Regional) Kontrashibuna (Regional) Local Diesel/Waste Heat/Wind/Local Tazimina Newhalen (Power Only) Newha1en (River Diversion) Tazimina (Regional) Kontrashibuna (Regional) The ranking of environmental and confidence factors is highly subjective. Furthermore, it was not the intent to assign equal weight to these evaluation catagories or to suggest that the ranking within catagories is linear from top to bottom. Based on a subjective evaluation, it was concluded that the ranking of 9-9 alternatives for a Bristol Bay regional power plan would be the same as shown above for the economic listing. This ranking may, however, be influenced by local preferences or other factors in favor of sub-regional developments such as the local diesel/waste heat/wind and local run-of-river Tazimina plant. With respect to regional hydroelectric power developments, it may be both technically and economically desirable to consider development of these scenarios on a multi-regional basis. Thus designed, certain projects might serve not only the Bristol Bay region, but also adjacent regions such as the Bethel and Togiak areas. Under such a development, the projects would be sized to accommodate higher capacity and energy needs. The merit of such a development could be investigated in Phase II, if the Power Authority desires. In summary, the general conclusion of the Interim Feasibility Assessment is that there are a number of promising alternatives to the current use of diesel electric generation in the Bristol Bay region. 9-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - Scenario Base Plan (BP-1) Alternative A (A-I) Alternative B-1 Alternative B-2 Alternative B-3 Alternative B-5 Alternative B-8 Alternative B-9A Alternative B-9B Alternative B-9C Alternative B-11 Alternative B-13A Alternative B-13B Alternative B-14 Alternative B-14B Alternative B-15 Alternative B-16 Alternative B-17 Alternative B-18A Alternative B-18B Alternative B-19A Alternative B-19B Alternative B-19C Alternative B-19D Alternative B-19E TABLE 9.1-1 SUMMARY OF PRESENT WORTH COSTS All Values in 1982 Dollars Description Present Worth, ($1,000) Diesel Only Tazimina Regional Beluga Transmission Newhalen and Large Kukaklek Newhalen and Medium Kukaklek Tazimina Run-of-River, Medium Chikuminuk and Medium Kukaklek Medium Chikuminuk and Medium Tazimina 16 MW Coal-Fired 16 MW Oil-Fired 16 MW Coal Gasification Coal-fired at Dillingham and Newhalen Large Chikuminuk and Tazimina Run-of-River Large Chikuminuk and local Newhalen Newhalen Regional -Power Divison Newhalen Regional Power and River Diversion Diesel Clusters Diesel Clusters and Transmission Diesel Regional Transmission Interconnected Tazimina Run-of-River and Kontrashibuna Kontrashibuna Diesel Local and Waste Heat Diesel Local and Wind Diesel Local -Waste Heat and Wind Diesel Local and Organic Cycle Tazimina Local, Diesel Local, Waste Heat + Wind 291,700 213,700 279,600 301,000 276,300 270,700 266,000 281,000 388,500 269,300 281,300 261,500 267,100 189,900 222,200 340,400 338,900 367,900 270,200 226,800 249,500 287,900 249,200 283,900 242,500 Ranking 20 2 15 21 14 13 9 16 25 11 17 8 10 1 3 23 22 24 12 4 7 19 6 18 5 No cost evaluations were made for scenarios B-4, B-6, and B-7, which included the development of King Salmon. Alternative B-10, a coal-fired plant at Naknek, has the same present .worth as B-9A. Alternative B-12, a coal-fired plant at Naknek with a subregional Newhalen hydroelectric development, has the same present worth as B -11. - 9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the stated conclusions. and in consideration of presently known factors, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation makes the following recommendations for Phase II efforts of the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan: a. Continue detailed development of the Base Plan scenario to form a base for comparison; b. Continue detailed feasibility analysis of the regional Newhalen River hydroelectric power concept (B-l4A); c. Undertake detailed feasibility analysis of -the sub-regional diesel/waste heat/wind/Local Tazimina scenario (B-l9E); d. Through a public participation program, obtain a better understanding of attitudes of the people of Bristol Bay regarding a regional power plan. The recommendation to continue studies on the Newhalen River concept stems from the preliminary conclusion that the project is economically attractive, technically feasible, and is likely to be environmentally acceptable with proper mitigative measures. To this end, the following steps are suggested for early implementation in Phase II efforts: a. Undertake resident and anadromous fisheries studies to satis factorily demonstrate the environmental acceptability of the B-l4A concept. b. Continue geotechnical investigations and surveys at the proposed site to better define site conditions revealed by initial investigations and to obtain additional geologic data in the vicinity of the power plant. 9-11 I The following conclusions further support the recommendation to undertake I further evaluation of the Newhalen River regional concept in Phase II: a. The Newhalen regional concept appears more attractive economically than Tazimina, based on presently available data; b. The engineering and construction uncertainties relating to this project appear to be fewer because of its location and nature of the concept; c. There may be some significant mitigative fisheries benefits relating to upstream migrants that could be implemented and made part of proj ect development; and d. Because of high Newhalen River flows during the summer, there exists the potential for additional electrical energy development during that period of time coinciding with fish processing energy needs. This should benefit processors within the region. We recommend that a decision be made to evaluate the Newhalen concept and the sub-regional diesel/waste heat/wind/Local Tazimina concept in Phase II, and to perform those investigations and studies that are necessary for the Detailed Feasibility report and, as applicable, for the preparation of a FERC license application. Based on the above recommendations, the scope of work believed necessary for the Phase II efforts is outlined in detail in Chapter 10 of this report. 9-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... .. ,. .. ,. .. ... .. . - ,. .. - -... 10. SCOPE OF WORK PHASE II - c c .. 10. SCOPE OF WORK -PHASE II 10. 1 INTRODUCTION The Interim Feasibility Assessment Phase I efforts of the Detailed Feasibility Analysis for the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan have been identified and a regional and subregional power plan has been recommended for detail evaluation and comparison with the Base Plan. The plans to be evaluated are: • • • The Base Plan, which is the continuation of present electrical generation practices, using diesel fuel, throughout the region (BP-1). An alternative regional hydroelectric power development on the Newhalen River (B-14A) using a river diversion concept for power generation only. An alternative subregional energy plan utilizing the development of. centralized diesel generating systems, within each village or village group, supplemented by use of waste heat recovery systems, wind generating systems, and a small run-of-river hydroelectric power facility on the Tazimina River (B-19E), hereinafter called Diesel-Tazimina. 10.2 OBJECTIVES The objectives of Phase II are to perform a detailed feasibility analysis on the selected alternative energy plans, compare the results of these analyses to the Base Plan, and make appropriate recommendations for the development of the preferred plan. Accordingly, the Phase II work will: 1) establish the electrical energy demand bases through the year 2002; 2) develop and analyze the Base Plan 10-1 and Alternative Plans, and 3) perform field and engineering studies and collect data necessary for the plan optimization process, needed to respond to the technical, environmental, and economic aspects of the analyses. In addition, the Phase II effort will study the space heating energy needs of the region and develop a plan that will respond to these needs; in full consideration of appropriate energy conservation measures. Should the selected plan include a hydroelectric power development, the Phase II work will include the preparation for submittal of a license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), if the Power Authority so directs. In developing this scope of work, it has been assumed that a FERC application will be prepared. A further objective of the Phase II study will be to evaluate, in detail, the acceptability of the three primary study indicators, namely: economic; environmental; and technical. Finally, a Detailed Feasibility Report will be drafted and, upon approval, issued as directed by the Power Authority. The work to be conducted during Phase II has been divided into specific tasks to better define the scope, assign responsibility, and establish schedules and budgets. Each task is developed in terms of objective, approach, discussion of work details, schedule, and costs. The tasks reflect project development responsibility to the Bristol Bay regional needs only, and not a multi-regional energy development. The tasks for Phase II are described on the following pages. 10-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. .. ". II. .. TASK 1 -ENERGY DEMAND ANALYSIS OBJECTIVE To review and ascertain the electrical and space heating energy requirements of each village and/or groups of villages in the Bristol Bay study area for use in the development and evaluation of the selected energy plans. APPROACH The energy demand data developed by ISER and reported in its final report entitled "Electricity Demand Forecast for the Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan", dated April 1982, shall be used. These data relate to: • Electricity energy demands and projections • Space heating energy demands and projections For the electrical energy requirements, the task will consider the appropriate sensitivity scenarios developed by ISER, and utilize these scenarios in the development of electricity power values applicable to each of the selected plans. For each scenario, capacity and energy load curves will be developed, and will consider appropriate distribution losses, plant losses, and needed power reserves. These data will be used in sizing local, subregional, and/or regional generating plants and for determining transmission line requirements and characteristics . The electrical energy benefits resulting from appliance conservation measures will be identified and evaluated. Sensitivity studies will be made to further quantify the economics of conversion as it relates to electrical energy for space heating and hot water needs. Space heating energy consumption, as projected over the years, including the application of appropriate conservation measures, will be assessed. Energy resources applicable to space-heating requirements will be selected 10-3 and evaluated to determine which combination of technologies and resources best responds to the technical, environmental, and economic criteria. WORK PRODUCTS The work products of this task include: • • • • The electricity demand capacity and energy load characteristics for each of the study villages, and for the region. The space heating energy characteristics for each of the study villages, and for the region. A plan for the timing and development of alternative energy sources, including, size, type, and location. A plan for the implementation of conservation measures applicable to electrical and space heating energy needs. DISCUSSIONS Electrical energy demand forecast developed by ISER indicates that an inverse sensitivity relationship exists between electrical power needs (capacity/energy) and the cost of electrical power. Three sensitivity studies were made by ISER. The first, classified "Business as Usual", relates to the Base Plan (BP-l) energy scenario. The second, classified "Regional Diesel", relates closely to the Diesel-Tazimina (B-l9E) scenario. The third, classified "Newhalen Regional", relates to the scenario for which it is named (B-14A). For each of these sensitivity studies, capacity-energy load curves will be developed for use in sizing the power systems applicable to each of the three sensitivity scenarios. For those energy plans which relate to the use of diesel generation, studies will be made to establish the size and timing of diesel installations for meeting power needs and for reserve. For those energy 10-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .. - plans which relate to hydroelectric power generation, studies will be made to establish the merits of single or mUltiple unit installations, including the timing for installation of such units. With respect to space-heating, studies will be made to determine alternative fuel types for use in meeting this energy need. Technical, environmental, and economic parameters will be considered, as required, for the selection process. Data on identified energy resources will be reviewed to ascertain the viability of utilizing such resources in meeting the space-heating energy needs of the study area, as forecast by ISER. Present studies indicate that coal, wind, waste heat recovery, and conservation measures are energy resources most applicable to space-heating needs. Secondary electrical energy, as available from run-of-river hydroelectric power plants, will also be assessed for use in space-heating needs. Identified resources will be evaluated with respect to economic implications, applicability, environmental impact, and the flexibility by which they can readily respond to space-heating needs. Technical restraints, manufacturing technologies, constructability, operating and maintenance aspects, long-term useable availability, and replacement factors, will also be determined and utilized in space-heating scenarios for the selection of the most applicable and long-term cost effective space-heating energy needs system. Regional and regulatory restraints will be identified and addressed . Conservation studies will consider cost/benefit aspects of attempting to improve presently existing conditions, both in the electrical appliance area and with regard to space heating. Also, the implications of future conservation measures will be determined, and a plan will be developed outlining specific recommendations and suggestions. The efforts relating to this task will be performed by SWEC. 10-5 SCHEDULE The work will begin immediately upon authorization of Phase II. anticipated that this task will require about three months to complete. COST The anticipated expenditure for Task 1 is estimated at $ 49,640. 10-6 It is I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -... ",. ... ... ... TASK 2 -REGULATORY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Task 2 has been subdivided into three subtasks to better identify the wide range of activities included. Subtask 2.1 -Interagency Coordination OBJECTIVE To ensure adequate and timely involvement of Federal, State, and local government agencies interested in the study. APPROACH Federal, State, and local agencies having interest in the study will be kept continuously informed of study conditions. Contacts and interagency coordination will be the responsibility of SWEC. Communications will be established, to the extent practical, with those agency representatives that have interest in data collected during various activities. All interagency coordinations (and attempts at coordination) will be documented. DISCUSSION This subtask will consider all three energy plans but will relate primarily to the Newhalen Regional and Diesel-Tazimina energy plans. The Base Plan, which represents a continuation of present practices will require only a minimal level of effort of agency involvement. Some studies relating to space heating energy resources may require agency contacts. While several members of the study team will be involved indirectly, SWEC will serve as the coordinator for team interfaces with regulatory agencies. SCHEDULE Interagency coordination will take place, as appropriate, throughout the Phase II study period . 10-7 Subtask 2.2 -Regulatory Requirements OBJECTIVE To respond to regulatory requirements in order to satisfy licensing and compliance procedures. APPROACH Statutes, rules, regulations, and other requirements directly or indirectly affecting the investigation and construction of selected energy projects will be addressed. A regulatory plan, including a schedule, will be prepared indicating the steps which will be required for compliance. Some Federal statutes which may have an impact on the project, and which will be reviewed under this subtask include: • Federal Water Power Act of 1920 • Endangered Species Act (P. L. 93-205) • Historical Preservation Act (P. L. 89-665) • Federal Land Policy and Management Act (P. L. 94-579) • Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 706) • Coastal Zone Management Act (P. L. 93-612) • Clean Water Act of 1977 • Clean Air Act of 1977 • Fuel Use Act of 1978 • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542) • Anadromous Fish Act of 1965 • River and Harbor Act of 1899 (Section 10) Within the State of Alaska rules, numerous regulations and procedures for permits will apply. The following governmental departments and agencies may have direct responsibilities or significant interests Within the State. • • • Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service 10-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- • ". .. .. .. .. • US Geological Survey • National Park Service • • • Heritage and Conservation Service Department of Commerce: National Marine Fisheries NOAA Weather Bureau Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers) • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • • • • • Federal Communication Commission Department of Agriculture Department of Energy (FERC and Alaska Power Administration) Department of Treasury State of Alaska: Dept. of Fish and Game Dept. of Environmental Conservation Commission on Economic Development Divison of Energy and Power Production Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks Division of Forest Lands and Water Management Department of Community and Regional Affairs Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Office of the Governor Division of the Budget Division of Policy Development and Planning Department of Labor Department of Public Safety Department of Commerce and Ecomonic Development Department of Revenue University of Alaska University of Washington, Division of Fisheries (FRI) Local and Regional: City of King Salmon City of Naknek 10-9 City of Dillingham Each of the Native Villages (include Nondalton) Chogging Ltd. (Dillingham Corp.) Aleknagek Natives Ltd. Bristol Bay Borough Bristol Bay Native Association Bristol Bay Corporation Bristol Bay Health Corporation King Salmon Air Force Station Rur Al CAP (rural Alaskan Community Action Program) Local Electric Coops Additional requirements may also be imposed by municipalities and Native Organizations. These will be identified, analyzed, and plans will be drawn up for compliance as may be required for each of the three energy plan scenarios selected for study. DISCUSSION There will be a complex web of permits and procedures to be satisfied. Because time requirements tend to be lengthy (e.g., public notice and comment and public meetings and hearings) it is important that early attention be given to licensing and regulatory requirements. While much of the effort involved in completion of this subtask will contribute to the work of other subtasks, it follows that identification of appropriate laws and procedures for compliance are important first steps. Essential in this proposed approach is to identify FERC requirements as soon as possible and to initiate contacts with all concerned local, state, and federal agencies, and individuals early in the study. While several permitting processes will need to be executed, the main thrust of the efforts will most probably be the collection of data in support of a FERC license application. Of special concern is the issue of land rights, particularly as they relate to the alternative scenarios. Restrictions on access to potential hydro sites may be imposed where the land is federally owned or owned by natives. If this is the case, a Temporary Use Permit or special access 10-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. , .. - permission would likely be required. Construction and other usage may present special problems, particularly as they relate to the complex Alaska native land rights. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, assisted by the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, will take the lead responsibility for this subtask. SCHEDULE Regulatory coordination will occur, as appropriate, throughout Phase II. Subtask 2.3 -Public Participation OBJECTIVE The objectives of the public participation program are to keep the public fully informed, and to provide a means whereby the public can express its point of view and influence the results of the study effort. APPROACH The overall goal of the Public Participation Program is to facilitate two-way communication between the project and the public. The program will provide specific means for the public to become involved in and influence the course of work as it related to the three energy plans. Communication methods will include: public meetings, workshops, newsletters, news releases, and other appropriate means of communications between interested parties. Specific products may include, but not limited to: proceedings of public meetings, written comments, proposed action lists, progress reports, records of workshop meetings, responses to letters of inquiry, news releases, popular vote ballots, and visual displays. With respect to dissemination of information, it may be possible to cooperate with the information office of the Department of Natural Resources is planning for the Bristol Bay region. Public meetings will be a principle method for public participation where specific comments and concerns will be presented. Questions will almost 10-11 ceFtainly arise in determining what hierarchy of concerns is to be established. Some special interests may include: utility interests, Alaska native groups, fisheries industries, consumers of electric power, conservationists, industrial and commercial interests, employment opportunities, wildlife preservation, and alternative energy sources. With respect to employment opportunities, local residents will be hired for appropriate work, if possible. The Bristol Bay Native Association will assist SWEC regarding contacts in individual Bristol Bay villages. DISCUSSION Public participation will be integral in evaluating the Base Plan and the selected Alternatives for the Detailed Feasibility Analysis. In order to provide an effective public participation program, counsel will be obtained from the Power Authority and local organizations, including the Bristol Bay Native Association and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation. Effective public participation requires that provisions be made to permit time for review and comment at various points during study development and that legitimate concerns be incorporated into the work. Flexibility will be a key element of the plan of study to allow for accommodation of a reasonable number of changes to be introduced through the involvement of the public. Public meeting programs will be simple and informative. News releases, including radio announcements, will proceed meetings. Care will be taken not to start local work before activities are explained to local leaders and permission for access obtained, if necessary. A particular constraint to public involvement is the extensive area of the region. To accommodate the remoteness of many of the native villges and the limited transportation to them, meetings will be scheduled, as appropriate, for each study area village or groups of villages. The intent is to afford reasonable involvement opportunities for those who may have no practical means to attend meetings in the region's larger villages. 10-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. .. - ... - SCHEDULE Public participation efforts and involvements will proceed throughout Phase II. COST The anticipated expenditure for Task 2 is estimated at $156,140. budget estimate is based on the following: This ITEM 2.1 2.2 2.3 * SWEC Involvement Interagency Meetings, Coordination letters, & phone calls Regulatory Meetings, Requirements letters, & phone calls Public a) Meetings/ Participation workshops b) News letters/ announcements c) Letters/ responses to to questions d) Analysis/ documentation of concerns Location Anchorage, Dill ingham, King Salmon, Denver Anchorage and Denver Villages Villages/ Anchorage Villages Anchorage/ Denver Anchorage/ Denver Quantity 130 MH Expenses* 130 MH Expenses i : 400 MH Expenses* Total Cost $ 7,020 10,000 7,020 10,000 21,600 100,500 $156,140 Expenses include a total of $ 40, 000 for assistance by Bristol Bay Native Corporation, $ 20,000 for public opinion poles, and $ 30,000 for land status investigations . 10-13 TASK 3 -GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES OBJECTIVE To perform supplemental geotechnical studies, investigations, and field surveys, including control and topographic mapping, for the Newhalen or Tazimina run-of-river generating concepts. APPROACH Newhalen River Regional Plant (B-14A) Continue with the compilation and review of available published and unpublished literature and reports that cover the region, and project site. Review presently available geotechnical investigations data and implement further geotechnical studies as outlined below. The Phase II geotechnical investigative program for the Newhalen concept relates to three primary needs: • Collection of additional data in the vicinity of the powerhouse and tai lrace • Collection of data for the conceptual optimization of the development • Collection of data for designs commensurate with FERC licensing application needs The geotechnical program consists of the following: • • Development of detailed topographic base maps of the project area. Drilling, sampling, and logging three exploratory borings to bedrock, with depths of about 70 to 80 feet. 10-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !III • .. iii - III • • • Running about 4,500 linear feet of seismic refraction profiles with target depths of about 100 feet. Running a total of nine vertical resistivity profiles, in conjunction with the seismic refraction work. Performing geologic mapping of the project area at a reconnaissance level. Topographic mapping will include ground control (USGS) or other control datum now used in the project area. Base map(s) will be prepared at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet, with contours at five foot intervals . Area to be mapped is approximately 3-1/2 miles long by 1-1/2 miles wide. In addition, three profiles of the river bottom will be developed at each end of the canal alignment. These profiles will extend a minimum of 100 feet from the bank into the river. The three exploratory borings, totaling 240 feet, would be located in the anticipated powerhouse area. Split spoon drive samples will be taken at five-foot intervals in each boring. Where appropriate, thawed fine-grained soils will be sampled by undisturbed thin-wall tube techniques. Samples will be laboratory tested for classification and other properties. Borings will extend five to ten feet into rock. Core samples will be taken and logged. Observation wells for groundwater levels will also be installed in all borings. The seismic refraction profi1e(s) will be made using small charges of explosives. Present patterns of seismic lines are intended to cross-section the anticipated canal alignment. Resistivity surveys will be made at 500 feet intervals. These data will supplement the seismic refraction data. Following the completion of subsurface explorations and geophysical studies, the project area will be geologically mapped at a reconnaissance 10-15 level. This will include mapping 1) the nature and structure of exposed bedrock along the Newhalen River, 2) the nature of surficial soil deposits exposed in bluffs, and 3) the location of any springs or seeps which indicate the groundwater regime in the area. A report will be prepared which would summarize the geology of the area, field and geophysical explorations, subsurface conditions, laboratory testing, and a brief summary of the engineering implications of the data. Tazimina River Local Power Plant (B-19E) Geotechnical investigations relating to a run-of-river hydroelectric power project at the Tazimina River will be minimal. There already exists substantial geotechnical data from the Phase I work that will be utilized. These data will be reviewed with the run-of-river concept in mind. Additional geotechnical information, should this site be considered for the run-of-river development, would consist of: a. b. A field visit to the project area to review and better assess the areas of suggested civil structures. Development of a detailed topographic base map of the project area. c. An engineering field reconnaissance survey along the suggested access road route. The field visits to project and access road areas will be made concurrently. Topographic mapping will include ground control (USGS) or other control datum now used in the region. Base map(s) will be prepared at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet, with contour intervals of five feet. The area to be mapped is approximately three to four miles long by about one mile wide. River channel profiles will be made, as these relate to civil structures designs and to plant hydraulic operating conditions. 10-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .... • iii .... .. DISCUSSIONS The previously described geotechnical exploration efforts will be conducted by Shannon & Wilson, including surveys and topographic mapping. SWEC will have the overall responsibility for the management of these study efforts and for the engineering analysis of data compiled from these efforts. Due to the remote location and restricted access to the project sites, it is anticipated that most transportation of personnel and equipment will be by air. It is expected that the base for personnel and supplies would be at Iliamna. The geotechnical and survey services outlined above will be made only on the selected hydroelectric power sites. SCHEDULING The geotechnical investigations will start as soon as authorization for Phase II is given, and as soon as the required permits are obtained. The actual scheduling and time durations for these efforts will depend upon what season of the year the authorization is given. It is estimated that the longer Newhalen River program would take about three months. The Tazimina River run-of-river plant program would be much shorter . Cost The anticipated expenditure for Task 3 is estimated as follows: a. Newhalen River geotechnical Studies $ 187,500 b. Tazimina River geotechnical Studies $ 40,796 10-17 TASK 4 -HYDROLOGIC STUDIES OBJECTIVE To review and update streamflow simulation data for the Tazimina River, if appropriate, and to compile and evaluate for use in the technical, environmental, and economic evaluation process hydrologic data for the Newhalen River. To review) compile, and evaluate ice-related data and its influence and/or impact on project engineering and design needs. APPROACH Tazimina River The streamflow simulation data developed for the Tazimina River in Phase I will be reviewed and updated, as necessary, to consider: provisional USGS streamflow data; a drainage area adjustment; updated precipitation and temperature data; and other characteristics of the drainage basin. The upgraded flow simulation data will be used in power studies for the run-of-river plant. Ice studies of the river, relating to plant design and possible remedial measures, will also be performed. Plant energy/capacity studies will consider dry years as well as long-term flow conditions to ascertain power back-up and purchased power needs. Newhalen River Published streamflow records will be used for evaluating the use of Newha1en River diversions in meeting regional energy needs. The 16-year Newha1en River continuous streamflow record will be compared to precipitation and temperature records to determine if any correlation exists between these data, and whether the 16-year record can be characterized as a dry, average, or wet period. The results of this comparison will determine whether it would be appropriate to repeat the 16-year record as a cyclic event for the development of long period of streamflow data, or whether to utilize available long-term precipitation 10-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... - ... and temperature data for calculating simulated flows to supplement the 16-year record. Monthly and yearly flow duration curves will be developed and will be used in determining the firm and secondary power characteristics of the proposed run-of-river regional plan, as well as the possible need for purchased and back-up power. Ice Studies Natural icing phenomena, characteristic of cold regions, will be evaluated to ensure that icing problems will not interfere with the operation of the hydroelectric facility, wind facility or other proposed ice-sensitive energy sources. Conditions such as ice shelving, ice build-up, ice jamming, and the formation of frazil ice will be carefully investigated both in the field and by office studies, including literature review . Engineering technologies proven as effective in minimizing ice problems will be considered and applied where appropriate. Spillway Design Neither of the hydroelectric power projects being considered for evaluation would require a spillway. Since both concepts use run-of-river plants, the natural stream channel characteristics are not being altered by impoundment dams. Floods will be contained within the natural topographic boundaries of their respective drainage areas and river channels. Because of this, probable maximum flood flow conditions will not be determined. However, a "standard design" flood condition will be determined with results being used in the engineering considerations for sizing the plant's civil and other affected structures. DISCUSSIONS The detailed hydrologic efforts, ice studies, and standard design flood studies, will be performed for both projects. This is because the results of these studies, alone or in combination, may strongly effect the ranking of these plans from a technical, environmental, and/or economic 10-19 standpoint. affected. Also, the reliability and safety of the projects may be The above study and evaluation efforts will be performed by SWEC. SCHEDULING Since the ranking of proposed hydroelectric power projects is dependent on the results and findings of the hydrologic studies, the task will need to be started as early as possible, pending authorization for Phase II work. Specific scheduling of field related efforts may be affected to some extent by seasonal restraints (winter-summer). It is anticipated that parallel efforts can be implemented (Tazimina -Newhalen) with the study being completed in about 3 to 4 months. Cost The anticipated expenditure for Task 4 is estimated at $ 58,080. 10-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TASK 5 -ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OBJECTIVE The objective of this task is to collect pertinent environmental baseline data, analyze the environmental and social impacts, and prepare impact assessments for the preferred energy plan. The purpose of the analyses and assessments will be to: a) minimize adverse impacts and enhance environmental values; b) identify unavoidable impacts and aid in developing mitigating measures; c) develop the data needed to compare the socioeconomic and environmental aspects of the selected plans for the Detailed Feasibility Analysis; and d) provide the information necessary to prepare a FERC license application, if required. APPROACH Environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments will be undertaken by a multidisciplinary team of scientists who are experienced in planning and analysis of energy generation and transmission facilities. Dames & Moore will have primary responsibility for collection and analysis of environmental data, while the Institute for Social and Economic Research will provide SWEC consultation in the area of socioeconomic analysis and the Bristol Bay Native Corporation will assist SWEC in the area of land use. SWEC will provide overall management of the study efforts and develop environmental design review and mitigation measures. Environmental concerns will be addressed throughout the planning process as the Detailed Feasibility Analysis evolves. Environmental assessment will be directed toward issues that are significant to each of the selected energy plans. The project team will work closely with all relevant agencies in this task to facilitate an efficient and integrated approach to project development from the environmental standpoint. 10-21 Impact assessment will be undertaken for the Base Plan and the two Alternative Plans identified. Regulatory requirements identified in Task 2 will provide the basis and extent of this evaluation. In addition, specific regional values and concerns will be considered. Details of plans or facilities will be adjusted if there appears to be opportunity to further minimize impacts or enhance environmental values without excessive economic penalties. The environmental and socioeconomic data collected in Phase I will be used. Some additional data collection may be necessary for the run-of-river Tazimina concept and for the Base Plan. A supplementary data collection program with subsequent analysis will be performed for the Newhalen concept and its associated transmission line corridors. Assessment of environmental and social impacts will be prepared for each plan and will form the basis for the environmental evaluations of each plan to be presented in the Detailed Feasibility Analysis. Environmental indicators to be considered, where appropriate, will include: • Community preference • Impact on community infrastructure • Timing in relation to other capital projects • Air qual i ty • Water quality • Fish and wildlife impact • Land use impact and ownership status • Terrestrial impact • Recreation resource value • Visual impact In addition to the above, assessment and analysis under this task will address the specific requirements of a FERC license application (Exhibit E). Stone & Webster will coordinate the effort between consultants under this task and take responsibility to include in the Detailed Feasibility Analysis and FERC License Application, if required, the appropriate data, analysis, and comparisons. 10-22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~,' .. - Following data collection and analysis, and if applicable, an Environmental Report will be prepared for the preferred project. Information and analysis resulting from the environmental study program will be presented along with other relevant information. Detailed field data will be included as an appendix. The following areas will be specifically addressed during Phase II of the Detailed Feasibility Analysis. General Area Description A general description of the environment for the Tazimina and Newhalen River areas, the diesel generation centers, and wind farm areas, and their transmission corridors will be made. This description will include location and general geographic setting, along with other general information helpful in understanding the environment of these areas. Fish and Wildlife The hydroelectric project area(s) supports a diverse compliment of fish and wildlife. However, none of the mammals, birds, fish, or plants in the area are considered endangered (Murray, 1980; Taylor, 1979). Existing information pertaining to aquatic and terrestrial biology of the project area(s) will be compiled from scientific literature, unpublished data from resource agency files, and interviews with resource agency field personnel. This information will be compiled and analyzed. impacts of the project(s) will be based on Analysis of the potential the habitat mapping in combination with wildlife use data. Appropriate mitigation measures will be developed along with an analysis of relative costs and benefits. 10-23 Wildlife Surveys Project facilities for the regional Newha1en concepts and associated transmission corridors will traverse portions of the seasonal range of both the Mu1chatna and Alaska Peninsula caribou herds (Hemming, 1971) as well as prime moose habitat (ADF&G, 1973). Each of the above species are especially important for subsistence use and fine sport hunting. General habitat types based on plant communities will be mapped with the aid of aerial photographs. The exact area of coverage will be defined during initial scoping sessions with the Power Authority and resource agencies. Both ground and aerial surveys will be conducted to locate key wildlife habitat and define areas of usage, and will concentrate on the areas proposed for surface disturbance. Survey transects will be established where practical, habitats will be characterized (to supplement the habitat mapping program) and wildlife usage will be documented. Wildlife observations will emphasize large mammals, raptors, and waterfowl, although all animal observations will be recorded. Ground surveys will include observation of scats, tracks, and other signs of use and abundance. Fish Surveys Fisheries are the primary biological issue in relation to the proposed hydroelectric projects. It will be necessary to verify the occurrence and relative abundance of fish population in Newhalen River between the power intake and Iliamna Lake. In this reach, a qualitative survey of the riverine habitat will be conducted in order to characterize the general productivity. Emphasis will be on identification of high quality habitat, such as spawning and rearing areas. Salmon will continue to be visually enumerated. Sample reaches of the stream will be characterized as to spawning potential, and basic physical parameters will be noted (e.g., depth, width, flow, velocity, substrate, etc.). 10-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I c Stream habitat types, primarily characterized by variations in substrate, depth, width, and water velocity, will be mapped for the Newhalen River. A classification system employing four to six habitat types (e. g., riffles, pools, rapids, etc.) will be established. The need to provide protection for downstream sockeye salmon migrants (smolt/fry) has been identified as an important aspect. Existing information on available fish protection systems indicates that several options are available which should be highly efficient in diverting or collecting sockeye fry/smolt for preventing their passage through the power canal and turbines. However, the information is limited to species other than sockeye salmon. Discussions and correspondence with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) indicate the need for an on-site evaluation of any proposed fish protection system to determine its efficiency with sockeye salmon under ambient environmental conditions in the Newhalen River. Therefore, a scope of work has been developed and given to the Power Authority for review, which presents a study effort designed to provide critical information on the effectiveness of several fish protection systems which appear, at this time, to offer the best potential for achieving a high degree of efficiency in protecting sockeye salmon juveniles. Included in this study will be the following: • • • Construction of a test flume apparatus for modeling Collection of sockeye salmon smolt and fry for use in test flume Testing of water diversion systems in the test flume to determine sockeye salmon smolt and fry protection efficiency In major streams, such as the Newha!en, Kvichak, Naknek, Egegik, Nushagak, and Wood Rivers, to be crossed by transmiss ion corridors, aerial observations, will be conducted with emphasis on salmon and rainbow trout use in the vicinity of transmission line cross ings. will be surveyed from the ground. 10-25 Selected waterways Analysis of impacts and development of conducted for each potential impact element. mitigation measures will Emphasis will be as follows: be • • Potential effects of river flow change on fish between river mile RM-7 and RM-1 on the Newhalen River and in the vicinity of the falls on the Tazimina River Potential effects and mitigation measures relative to tailrace discharge on both the Newhalen and Tazimina Rivers • Potential effects and mitigation measures relative to transmission line stream crossings All information will be compiled and analyzed relative to potential project impacts. Emphasis will be as follows: • Potential water quality impacts on both the Newhalen and Tazimina Rivers between the intake and tailrace discharge, including possible mitigation measures • Potential fisheries impact and mitigation (information to be integrated with the results of fish studies) Hydrology and Temperature Regime As soon as possible during the field program, stream flow will be measured at selected river sites on the Newhalen River. Staff gages will be established on the Newhalen River, and will be read periodically during the field program. Thermometers will be placed on the Newhalen River near the proposed site. In most cases, thermograph locations will correspond with staff gage locations. Water Quality Existing information pertaining to water quality of the Tazimina River and the Newhalen River will be compiled from a review of both published and unpublished data as well as interviews with resource agency field personnel. 10-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r- III f!!!! L .. c c A field data collection program will be conducted in conjunction with the fisheries studies. collected: It is proposed that the following information be • Baseline water quality of Tazimina River below the intake area • Baseline water quality of Newhalen River below the intake area Baseline water quality parameters to be collected and analyzed are given in the following table. MEASURED IN FIELD pH Dissolved Oxygen Temperature Conductivity CO 2 Alkalinity BASELINE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MEASURED IN LAB Turbidity Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Total and Ortho Phosphate Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Kj ehldahl Nitrogen Hardness Chloride Sulfate 10-27 Arsenic Barium Calcium Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Mercury Potassium Magnesium Manganese Silver Sodium Nickel Lead Selenium Silicon Strontium Zinc Air Quality Power generation, vehicular traffic, and possibly home and' office heating may produce substantial concentra·tions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. An emissions inventory will identify Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) monitoring or permitting requirements. In addition, an analysis of diesel emissions will be made at the major I I I I I proposed locations. An analysis of wind generating facilities for noise and other air quality impacts will also be made. I Socioeconomics The social and economic impacts of the Alternative Plans and specifically, the proposed Newhalen River hydroelectric concept, will involve the short-term affects caused by construction of the project, notably employment generation, and the long-term affects related to the increased availability of less expensive electric power and probably minor affects of operation and maintenance of the facilities, and the affects of regional interconnection of presently isolated villages. Published literature on the economy and culture of the Bristol Bay Region will be reviewed. Other projects that may have socioeconomic impacts during the same time frame as the project, or which could cause long-term changes in the social and economic infrastructure (oil and gas leasing in federal waters of Bristol Bay is scheduled to commence in 1982, and the State of Alaska has proposed an onshore "Bristol Bay Uplands" sale for 1982) will also be reviewed. Demographic, social, and economic trends without and with the project will be discerned. In addition to the office literature review and telephone contacts in the area, field trips will be conducted to gain first-hand information and opinions from the Bristol Bay Region, native groups, residents, and business leaders on the social and economic infrastructure of the area, dangers that my occur as a result of the project, and mitigation measures that should be adopted. Key socioeconomic issues will be identified and 10-28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. • ,. .. [ - prioritized. Information on subsistence and recreational activities in the area of the project will also be collected . Preliminary analysis will involve review of the three energy plans to ascertain such factors as employment generation (timing, skills, extent of local hire, etc.), amount of local purchases of materials and services, housing of construction workers, logistics, and transportation of men and materials. Data and opinions obtained in the field will be compared with the published data base and rationalized. The key socioeconomic issues will be identified and possible mitigation measures formulated. Emphasis will be on an analysis of the following potential impacts: • The short-term employment effects of the project, including the timing, nature and amount of employment generated by construction, and the extent of local hire as well as any competition between various labor markets • Secondary employment effects in the transportation and service sectors • • • • The housing and interaction of outside construction workers with the residents of Nondalton, Newhalen, and Iliamna Any disturbance or disruption to the local residents or their culture and subsistence activities caused by construction activities or the presence of non-resident workers The long-term effects on the economy of the Bristol Bay region through the availability of less expensive electric power Interconnection of isolated communities 10-29 Historic and Archaeological Resources Preliminary field investigations suggest no known sites of archaeological or historic importance exist in the Tazimina or Newha1en areas. However, more extensive field surveys of potentially impacted zones, particularly along the Newha1en River, will be conducted to confirm or deny the above indication. A reconnaissance level survey will also be made prior to the selection of diesel and wind generating sites, and space heating fuel storage areas. I I I I I I If a site of cultural importance is discovered, an appropriate program of investigation will be initiated to determine the steps to be taken to I either preserve or clear the area for development. Recreation and Aesthetic Impacts The Bristol Bay area supports numerous hunting and fishing lodges. The area also contains the extensive Wood-Tikchik State Park, Mt. Katmai National Park and Preserve, Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, and Becharof National Wildlife Refuge. Each year, an increasing number of tourists and Alaska residents travel to the region for their recreation. The analysis will include study of recreational use patterns and visual impacts of industrial structures, roads, and powerlines. This analysis will include a description of any area within, or in the vicinity of, proposed projects, and areas crossed by transmission corridors that are included in, or have been designated for study for inclusion in: • The National Wild and Scenic River System • The National Trails System • A wilderness area designated under the Wilderness Act 10-30 I I I I I I I I I I I I t· ... c Maps and reports will be prepared, as appropriate, indicating existing conditions, existing use, constraints, and opportunities. This information will be compiled through cooperation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Planning Division. At the present time, there appears to be a demand for recreation in both the Newhalen and Tazimina areas, and the close proximity to the Lake Clark National Park assures increasing potential in the future. A majority of the Newhalen and Tazimina study sites are open, low-growing spruce forest and offers no visual screening. Present and future use patterns, natural contours, and visual horizons will be important analysis data in regard to transmission line location. Similarly, the sites for potential wind farm locations, in the Igiugig, Naknek, and Egegik areas, offer little to no visual screening. Efforts will be made to minimize this impact to the maximum extent possible. Land Use Existing land uses within, and adjacent to, the proposed project areas will be described, including those land uses which would occur if the project is constructed. The description will include the identification of wetlands, flood areas, and lands owned or subject to control by government agencies. Aerial photographs, maps, and other graphics will be used to identify the location, extent, and characteristics of these land uses. Transmission Lines The objective of transmission line environmental impact analysis will be to guide plan development, minimize adverse impacts, enhance environmental values, and aid in developing mitigation measure if impacts are unavoidable. 10-31 In general, the first step in transmission environmental analysis will be to identify present level use along technically preferred routes. Specific factors to be considered include: • • • • • • • • • • Wildlife habitat Timber and agricultural resources Recreational use Visual sensitivity Demographic trends Transportation systems Archaeological significance Hydrology Land ownership Special uses which are not compatible with transmission lines After present land use factors have been determined, analysis will be undertaken to predict the environmental effects of transmission construction, operation, and maintenance. A proposed route will be judged with respect to each evaluation factor. Certain values identified as important to residents of the region will be given special weight. Identification of these values will be an important element of the public participation program of Phase II described in Task 2. An example of such a value is Native concern about access along transmission routes to hunting and fishing grounds. DISCUSSION The environmental studies out lined above relate to all three study plans, with the greater emphasis being on the regional Newhalen hydroelectric concept. Dames & Moore will undertake the environmental data collection work from their Anchorage office, while SWEC will assist in the feasibility assessment. A project management organization and plan will be used that is based on successful experience on similar projects to ensure control of technical activities, schedule, and budget for the project. Dames & Moore 10-32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - c -.. will maintain an open line of communication with Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and the Power Authority throughout the duration of the study. Their Project Manager and Permits Coordinator will be available for frequent communications with the government and will assist in interagency meetings. The primary management goal will be to complete a comprehensive, objective environmental feasibility analysis that meets the objectives of FERC, NEPA, and the relevant regulations. The approach to managing the study will be structured to achieve this objective. Technically competent managers will provide the guidance necessary to ensure that project team members have at hand all the information' needed to accomplish their assigned evaluations. Upon receipt of authorization to proceed, the Dames & Moore Project Manager will prepare background of a detailed project plan. This the project, identify relevant plan will outline the guidelines and documents, define project responsibilities, and assign time and budget constraints in which the work must be performed. SCHEDULE Environmental studies will be ready to start as soon as Phase II work is authorized. However, because of climatological restraints, certain activities may be delayed until warmer weather. There will be literature reviews and reconnaissance surveys that can, and must, take place during the winter months. Upon commencement of field activities, all environmental baseline data will expect to be completed within one year. BUDGET The anticipated expenditures for Task 5 are estimated at $ 739,900, including the following components: • Water Use and Quality $ 24,400 • Wildlife Surveys and Terrestrial Ecology $ 103,800 • Historic and Archaeological Resources $ 13 ,400 10-33 I • Recreational and Aesthetic Resources $ 24,400 I • Socioeconomics $ 30,000 I • Land Use $ 6,000 I • Air Quality $ 5,800 I • Fisheries Studies I • Diversion Studies $ 307,300 • Resident Fisheries Studies $ 202,400 I -Habitat Characterization $ 22,400 I It is believed that the above described program will provide sufficient I information for the purpose of preparing an environmental report and/or Exhibit E for a FERC License. Not included in the above estimate for the I Phase II scope of work are the extensive fisheries studies suggested by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) if a regional hydroelectric scheme is to be cons idered on the Newhalen River. However, should it become necessary to develop a program which will respond to the suggestions of the ADF&G (see Section 8.2, letters of comment, for details), the scope of work will have to be increased considerably. Some of these specific suggestions include: 1) adult salmon upstream enumeration (4 years); 2) juvenile sockeye salmon downstream enumeration (4 years); 3) distribution characteristics of outmigrating juvenile salmon; and 4) a winter juvenile salmon studies program. The development and implementation of these specific studies would increase the budget estimate by about $3.5 to $4 million. Because of the amount of time required for such studies, and the expenses involved, it is recommended that as soon as practically possible, the Power Authority and SWEC meet with the ADF&G to determine the actual study requirements and when these studies should be conducted. 10-34 I I I I I I I I I r It .. .. TASK 6 -CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS & PLAN COMPARISONS OBJECTIVE To provide the conceptual designs for detailed comparisons of selected plans and perform detailed design on the preferred plan for the purpose of the feasibility analysis. APPROACH Phase II of this task will consist of engineering and design studies for the Base and selected Alternative Power Plans. Various combinations of structures, systems, and equipment will be considered for each plan. These studies will be performed concurrently with: 1) environmental studies; 2) economic evaluation studies and; 3) Base and Alternative Plan comparison studies. The purpose of these efforts is to allow for an assessment of findings for use by Power Authority in its decision making process. Work will concentrate on conceptual designs to establish physical concepts and arrangements of the structures, equipment, and systems required in providing the energy needs of the region. These will include, as appropriate: 1) hydorelectric power generating facilities and structures; 2) wind electric generating facilities and structures; 3) transmission facilities, including line routing, towers, foundations, substation and switchyard facilities; 4) access roads, bridges, and culverts; 5) land clearing requirement; 6) construction material borrow and spoil sites; 7) camp site location (required by future construction efforts), 8) diesel generating plants, facilities, and corresponding waste heat recovery systems; and 9) other civil/environmental-related physical arrangements. Designs, sketches, and drawings will be prepared in such detail as is necessary to ensure feasibility level details for use in quantity take-off for cost estimating, and for depicting the intent and method of the concept being presented . 10-35 A comprehensive list of economic, environmental, and technical indicators will be prepared, based on the evaluations and analysis of tasks. The selected Alternatives will be compared to the Base Plan with respect to a number of factors which fall within the three primary indicator groups. Comparisons will be quantitative to the extent possible. Such comparisons should be possible for project cost and for other engineering characteristics. Some environmental comparisons will be qualitative, reflecting the judgment of the evaluator. Public input will also be an important consideration in making qualitative comparisons. All of the factors that fall within a major indicator group (economic, environmental, or technical) will be considered as a whole, and the selected Alternative Plans will be compared to the Base Plan with respect to that indicator. This conclusion will be reached regarding the feasibility of the selected Alternative Plans as compared to continuation of existing practices in the Bristol Bay Region. DISCUSSION Data developed will be provided to the Power Authority, if required, at appropriate time periods, along with progress status reports for review and comment. The conceptual efforts will be performed by SWEC. Other group members of our project team will participate in an advisory or "data supply" capacity. It is anticipated that work products from the conceptual design efforts will need to be provided to Federal, State, and local agencies and/or group for appraisal or review and comment. An appropriate time limitation for review and comment by agencies and/or groups will be required. 10-36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,. .. - Conceptual designs will be done at different times and at a Level III effort, as required, for the Phase II study analysis which is the detailed assessment of the selected alternatives. The classification of this level is as follows: • Level III -At this level, the selected plans are to be optimized with respect to environmental, technical, and cost aspects. Detailed field investigations and data collection will be performed, as required, for use in the optimization process. At this level, detailed conceptual engineering and design will be performed, including preliminary stability analyses, power plant sizing, and optimization of the equipment and systems evolved as a result of previous conceptual efforts. Optimization would include varying the combinations of power generation concepts, power equipment, plant structures, transmission facilities, and other plan components. The technical and economic aspects relating to the transmission lines and substations for the Base and selected Alternative Plans will be developed . SWEC will coordinate with existing and planned Rural Electric Cooperative systems (REA) as well as Federal, State, and local agencies. The objectives of coordinating efforts are to ensure the direct participation of agencies, and the exchange of information of common interests. Design criteria and parameters will be established. Coordination efforts will consider: type of construction and line design; line routing and reliability; grid system interties and substation locations; and the all important'phases of construction and line maintenance. Transmission line cost, which relates to the above described consideration as well as to considerations for enVironmental/socioeconomic aspects, will be developed. The detail of conceptual designs I and resultant physical products and cost estimates, will reflect a Level III detailed assessment which is defined as: • Level III, -At this level, the selected Alternative Plan, along with its transmission line corridor and substation requirements I is to be optimized. Detailed field investigations and data 10-37 I collection, as required for use in the optimization process, will II be performed. At this level, engineering and design studies will be made to develop line profile and to refine line design, tower design, design(s) for crossings, and foundation conditions. It is unlikely that one plan will be found superior to others for all factors or indicators. Accordingly, in making comparisons, it may be necessary to assign weights to various factors to indicate importance. In addition, acceptability criteria can be established to prescribe the limits within a particular factor must lie for a plan to be considered viable. Such subjective evaluation methods must be employed with great care. SWEC will consult with the Power Authority prior to implementing such techniques. This task will provide the basis for the conclusions and recommendations of the Detailed Feasibility Analysis. SCHEDULING The Phase II Conceptual Design Task is scheduled to begin upon authorization of Phase II work. Plan comparisons shall be performed essentially in parallel with conceptual studies, and other tasks relating to economics, technical data collection, environmental data collection, and public and agency coordination. COSTS The anticipated expenditures for Task 6 are estimated at $114,820. This I I I I I I I I I I I budget is based upon the following: I a. Conceptual Optimization Efforts b. Plan Comparisons $ 76,500 $ 38,320 10-38 I I I I I ... .. ... II -. .. TASK 7 -ECONOMIC EVALUATION OBJECTIVE To establish the economic feasibility, a plan of financing, and a plan of marketing for the Base Plan and for each of the selected Alternative Plans. APPROACH General The economic feasibility, financing, and marketing evaluations will be closely coordinated with, and based upon, many other tasks performed in Phase II. Each Alternative Plan will be evaluated with respect to: 1) present worth of plan cost, as compared to the Base Plan; and 2) cost of power. Economic Studies These studies will be designed to establish the cost of each of the selected power plan concepts for the purpose of making feasibility comparisons. Economic evaluation studies will consider various assumptions which can affect the economic feasibility of each study plan, including such items as discount rate, relative price trends. the electric load growth assumptions. and the planning period. Also, the economic studies will consider project construction costs, operating-maintenance costs, administrative costs, the possible effect of the power plans on the environment, and estimates of major indirect cost and benefits. Hypothetical financing conditions for cost-of-power estimates, interest rate(s), and including debt-equity ratio, inflation rate(s), will be term of financing, addressed. Data applicable to the economic studies supplied by the Power Authority will be used in these efforts. Cost estimates will be made during the conceptual design and during the performance of other cost impacted early tasks. Concepts and drawings of optimized plant structures will be developed to that detail that will 10-39 result in an order-of-magnitude cost estimate and economic studies having an accuracy in the range of plus or minus 15 to 20 percent. Financial Studies Financial requirements and alternate modes of financing will be studied for the three power plans to determine the most feasible financial plan. Financial analysts will research the various entities in Alaska that might undertake financing for any, or all, of the viable power plans. Various forms of financing, as well as their likely cost, will be investigated. Existing entities in Alaska that might finance the project will be determined and reviewed with the Power Authority. Potential candidates will be studied to determine whether there are any impediments (legal, financial, or otherwise) to their involvement. Articles of incorporation and indentures would be researched for any restrictive convenants which might impair the financing of a project. Other forms of financing will be investigated for each project such as formation of new agencies, project financing, high-debt power supply corporation (investor-or state-owned), and conventional financing alternatives by cooperative-, municipal-, or investor-owned companies. Consideration of such important factors as revenue versus general obligation bonds, and On-versus Off-Balance Sheet treatment of debt, will playa dominant role in any such analysis. I I I I I I I I I I I I Scenarios considering no state appropriation and 100 percent debt financing, and minimum state appropriation with no return on investment I will be considered. Marketing Studies The three selected power plans will be studied to identify strategies necessary to properly market the electric power produced under each plan. The marketing strategies will address the value of electric energy relative to other substitute energy forms, existing and future regional constituencies for electric power, and the impact of alternative electric 10-40 I I I I I .. .. .. .. - -.. .. .. .. .. energy delivery systems. The goal of each strategy will be to -deliver electric power to the customer at the lowest possible cost . DISCUSSION The study task will conform to Power Authority I s feasibility regulation 3 AAC 94-06, and the guideline outlined in the Cost Calculations-FY 1983 procedures. Input, as it may relate to energy demand forecasts for the region or regional sectors, will be based on the work done by ISER. Stone & Webster Management Consultants will be responsible for the performance of the financial and marketing studies, and for the preparation of a financial and marketing plan for the most feasible alternative for developement. Considering the magnitude of the proposed undertaking, any analysis may require joint utilization of mUltiple sources of funds. Such an approach would necessarily require guarantees from involved parties such as sponsoring agencies, consumers, and government agencies. The financial institution will then be consulted as to probable terms and conditions and the cost to carry out the particular financing plan. Each selected power plan will have a specific financing plan or may have common financing plans. Those options requiring special consideration due to size or complexity, however, will be identified and their specific plan, including basic terms, conditions, and costs will be detailed in the final report . SCHEDULE The Economic Evaluation effort is scheduled for a period of about four months. During this period, the economic, financial, and marketing aspects of the power plans will be evaluated -considering direct and indirect costs, technical and environmental data, and socioeconomic data compiled at the time . 10-41 I COST I The anticipated expenditures for Task 7 is estimated at $77,688. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10-42 I III .. - - TASK 8 -FEASIBILITY REPORT OBJECTIVE To prepare a Detailed Feasibility technical, and environmental aspects relation to the Base Plan. APPROACH Report that of the two compares the Alternative economic, Plans in The results of the Interim Feasibility Assessment will be compiled and presented in summary form in the detailed feasibility report identified above. The Interim Feasibility Report documents the studies which lead to the interim assessment of the scenarios. The detailed report will describe approaches taken and methods used, outline study assumptions, summarize pertinent facts and data, and compare the selected Alternative Plans in relation to the Base Plan. Power Authority regulations (3AAC 94.060) will be followed in the preparation of this report. The Detailed Feasibility Report will document both Phase I and II of the study and will present recommendations with respect to further studies, data collection to support FERC and definitive engineering-design requirements, and future actions for licensing and/or design-construction. The Detailed Feasibility Report will be prepared and issued first as a draft for review and comment, and second in its final form. SWEC anticipates publishing a minimum of 40 copies in draft form and 100 copies of the final report. The final report will contain responses to review comments received on the rough draft . DISCUSSION Compilation and formulation of data and information for the report, as well as the preparation and publication, will be SWEC t S responsibility. Other project team groups will participate by contributing individual reports on their assigned tasks and findings. 10-43 Individual reports will be prepared on each of the major tasks, as necessary. Such reports will be of sufficient detail to allow for their use, with minor revisions to the format, for permit and FERC licensing application. As presently envisioned, the Detailed Feasibility Report will be supplemented by appendices covering power demand forecasts, al ternati ve power plan studies, engineering and technical data, and an Environmental Report. A general outline proposed for the Detailed Feasibility Report follows: Detailed Feasibility Report Outline Executive Summary Introduction Demand Forecast Electric Energy Supply Technology Alternative Power Plans Comparison of Alternatives Technical Economic Environmental and Socioeconomic The Selected Plan Technical Economic Environmental and Socioeconomic Conclusions Appendices SCHEDULING Scheduling of report initiation and completion will greatly depend on the timing and collection of needed data. This process, in turn, will 10-44 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. .. .. .. -.. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -.. -.. .. - -• - depend upon the timing (with respect to season) of authorization to proceed with the Phase II Studies. It is anticipated that about six months will be required for the preparation of the report as a continuous task effort . COST The anticipated expenditures for Task 8 are estimated at $73,500. 10-45 TASK 9 -FERC LICENSE APPLICATION OBJECTIVE To prepare a license application,as required, for one of the Alternative Plan Scenarios in accordance with current requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). APPROACH A FERC license application will be prepared if either the Newhalen Regional or the Local Tazimina River plan is determined to be feasible, and if the Power Authority so directs. Most of the data required for the application will be developed as part of the previous tasks. Certain exhibits (e. g. , Environmental Report) will be prepared as part of another task. Other exhibits will require the assembly into the required format. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation will take responsibility for assembling and publishing the information for the FERC application. SCHEDULE It is assumed that the decision to prepare a FERC application will follow acceptance of the Detailed Feasibility Report. The projected schedule is: • Decision to Proceed with a Hydroelectric Project • Submitted FERC License Application COST Two months after issue of Final Detailed Feasibility Report Three months after decision to "Proceed with a Hydroelectric Project" The anticipated expenditures for Task 9 are estimated at $63,010. This does 10-46 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • not include response to questions during the review process after acceptance of the application . 10-47 TASK 10 -GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OBJECTIVE To establish a task for which various administrative charges are controlled. APPROACH Charges relating to administrative matters will be accumulated under one single task rather than prorated to all other tasks. Administrative charges consist of time and expenses not directly identified with the engineering or technical tasks of the project. These charges include activities of the Project Manager, a portion of the time of the Project Engineer, contract administration, project reports, and accounting. SCHEDULE Throughout the duration of Phase II efforts. COST The anticipated expenditure for Task 10 is estimated at $141,480. 10-48 I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I liliiii .-.. IIIIlII .. BUDGET SUMMARY The estimated budget required for the Scope of Work in Phase II is $1,702,554. This estimate is based on the work being accomplished in 1983. Task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Title Energy Demand Analysis Regulatory Coordination and Public Participation Geotechnical Studies Hydrologic Studies Environmental Studies Conceptual Designs and Plan Comparisons Economic Evaluation Feasibility Report FERC License Application General Administrative TOTAL PHASE II BUDGET 10-49 Phase II Budget $ 49,640 $ 156,140 $ 228,296 $ 58,080 $ 739,900 $ 114,820 $ 77 ,688 $ 73,500 $ 63,010 $ 141,480 $1,702,554