HomeMy WebLinkAboutScammon Bay Small Hydropower Study and Environmental Assessment 1982seA
002 Scammon Bay, Alaska
I
Small Hydropower Interim Feasibility
Study arid Environmental Assessment
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Alaska District
-..--~
MARCH 1982
.-
SUMMARY
Scammon Bay, an isolated Eskimo village in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
region of southwestern Alaska, has been subjected to large increases in
electrical generation costs. Diesel fired electrical generation costs
have more than doubled, from 21.9 cents/kWh in 1975 to 48.3 cents/kWh in
lQ81. With the prospect of ever increasing fuel costs, village
electrical generation costs will continue to increase.
This study considered various alternatives that could either supple-
ment or replace diesel generation. Two alternatives were identified that
could have a significant impact on electrical generation, wind generation
and hydropower, neither of which could totally eliminate the use of
diesel.
Hydropower generation, the selected plan, would displace an estimated
229,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) during 1984, the first year of operation.
This is estimated to increase to 278,000 and 314,000 by 1990 and 1995,
respectively. The hydropower system would consist of a small dam,
3500-foot penstock, and a powerhouse with a 100-kilowatt (kW) turbine-
generator unit. The estimated first cost in October 19B2 dollars is
$1,483,000, with operation and maintenance estimated at $22,000 annually.
This system could produce an estimated 409,000 kWh from April through
October. Approximately 56 percent is estimated to be usable during 1984,
the first year of operation.
Wind generation appears to have good potential during the winter
months when high winds of long duration occur; however, wind potential
during the summer months appears relatively poor. The exact extent of
Scammon Bay's wind resource has never been assessed, making detailed
evaluation difficult. Even if this infonnation were available, the state-
of-the-art in wind generation is such that no units are currently
commercially available that could meet the village's need for oO-cycle
alternating current unless they utilized induction generators. These
could only meet a very small portion of the energy needs at anyone time
(approximately 15-25 percent). If a commercially viable wind system
becomes available that could function as an integral part of the Scal1l11on
Bay systeM, it appears that it could complement the hydropower system.
Wind potential is greatest during the winter \'Ihen the hydrosystem would
be shut down and least in the summer when hydropower potential is
greatest.
i
R: 8/A2
SCAMMON BAY
PERTINENT DATA SHEET
SCAMMON BAY
GENERAL DATA
Project Installed Capacity
Number of Units
Type of Turbine
Average Annual Energy
Estimated Usable Energy (1984)
Estimated Usable Energy (1990)
Dependable Capacity
Penstock length
Penstock diameter
Gross Head
Design Head
ECONOMIC DATA
Project First Cost
Project Annual Cost
Project Annual Benefit
Net Annual Benefit
Benefit-Cost Ratio
iii
100 kW
1
Impulse
409,000 kWh
229,000 kWh
278,000 kWh
o
3,500 ft.
12 in.
488 ft.
430 ft.
$1,483,000
$145,000
$170,000
$25,000
1.2 to 1
R: 8/82
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II·JTRODUCTIOt~ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
1.1 AUTHORITY •••••••..•••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••.••••••••• 1
1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY •.•..•.........•..•.•.•...••.•••••••.• 1
1.3 STUDY PARTICIPANTS ....•..•.•••.••.••.••••••....•..••••.. 2
1.4 STUDIES BY OTHERS •....••.•.....••••.••.•...••••...••••.• 2
EXISTHJG CONDITIONS ............................................... 3
2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE .....•....•.••••••••.••..••.••.•..••.•• 3
2.2 NATURAL SETTING ••••••••• It ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
2.3 ELECTRICITY USE .....••....•.......••••..••••.....•••... 10
PROBLEMS, ~EEDS, AND STUDY OBJECTIVES •....•...•..•....•...••••••• 15
3.1 POWER SLlPPL Y AND FUTURE DEHAND ......................... 15
FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES •..•••...••••••.•••.... 20
4.1 ALTERNATIVES ..•.••......•••••..••.••..••..••••...•.•.•• 20
4.2 SUHMARY OF BEST ALTERI~ATIVES (SOA) •.••.•••...•..•••.••. 28
4.3 NED PLAN •..•......•....•.....••...••......••.••••.••••. 32
4.4 EQ PLAN .•..•••...•.••••..••••.•.••.•.•...•.••.••.•••••. 32
4.5 SELECTED PLAN .•...•....••.••..•...•.•.•..•.•...•••.•••• 32
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .•....•.••...••••...••....•.•....• 33
5.1 cotJCLUSIONS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 33
5.2 RECOMMENDAT I ON •••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•• -•••• 33
TECHNICAL ANALySIS •••••.•.•.••..•.•••.••..••..••••••.••.•••••..•• 35
T.l GENERAL •..••....••.•.......••••...••.••.•.••....•..•••• 35
T.2 HyDROLOGy ••.....••..••....••.••.•••••••....•••••.•••••• 35
T.3 GEOLOGY .•.••••••.•••.•••.•••..•••••••••••.••••••••••••• 51
T.4 DAM AND SPILLWAY, AND INTAKE .•.•••••..•..•..•...••.•.•• 51
T.5 PENSTOCK .•.•••••••..••..•••..••••••••••••••.•.•••••...• 54
T.6 POWERHOUSE .•.••..••.•.••..•••••••..•.••..•••.•.....••.. 54
T.7 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ••.••••...••••••••.•.••••••••••••••• 56
T.8 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS CONSIDERED ..•...•••......•..•••.•.• 57
T.9 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES ....•........•...•....••....•••• 58
T.l0 PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ••.....•••.•...•.••••. 5R
T.ll PROJECT COST ••••....•.•.•••••••••••.••..•....••..•.•..• 61
T.12 PROJECT ECONOMICS ••.••.•..•••.•••..•••••.••....•••..••• 62
PLATES
FINDING OF NO SIillJIFICANT IMPACT .•••.•••••.•••.•.•••••• yel1ow pages
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......••...•..•.••.••.••..••..• yellow pages
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT •••••••••••••.•• Appendix A
PUBLIC VIEWS AND RESPONSES ..•.•..•.•.••...••••.•.••••...• Appendix B
iv
I NTRODUCT ION
1. 1 AUTHOR lTV
The evaluation of small scale hydroelectric systems was authorized by
a United States Senate Resolution dated 1 October 1976. That resolution
directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of
installing small prepackaged hydroelectric units in isolated communities
throughout Alaska. The full text of the resolution reads as follows:
RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors be, and is
hereby requested to review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on
Rivers and Harbors in Alaska, published as House Document Numbered
414, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session; Southeastern Alaska, published as
House Document Numbered 501, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session; Cook Inlet
and Tributaries, Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 34,
85th Congress, 1st Session; Copper River and Gulf Coast, Alaska,
published as House Document Numbered 182, 83rd Congress, 1st Session;
Tanana River Basin, Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 137,
84th Congress, 1st Session; Southwestern Alaska, published as House
Document Numbered 390, 84th Congress, 2nd Session; Northwestern
Alaska, published as House Document Numbered 99, 86th Congress, 1st
Session; Yukon and Kuskokwim River Basins, Alaska, published as House
Document Numbered 218, 88th Congress, 2nd Session; and other
pertinent reports, with a view to determining the advisability of
modifying the existing plans with particular reference to the
feasibility of installing 5 MW or less prepackaged hydroelectric
plants to service isolated communities.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This interim study was undertaken to determine if economically and
environmentally feasible alternatives exist that could meet or supplement
the future electrical energy needs of Scammon Bay. Potentially feasible
alternatives were evaluated in sufficient detail to allow expedited
implementation. This study considered only electrical energy needs since
total energy needs were evaluated in the Alaska Power Authority's (APA)
energy study, recently completed by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC).
A summary of findings for the Scammon Bay portion of the APA study is
given under Section 1.4 STUDIES BY OTHERS.
1.3 STUDY PARTICIPANTS
A multidisciplinary team composed of the following agencies assisted
the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers in preparation of this report.
-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
-U.S. Public Health Service
-U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
-Alaska Power Administration (Federal)
-Alaska Power Authority (State)
-Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative
-Northern Technical Services (NORTEC)
The cooperation of the people of Scammon Bay is also gratefully
acknowledged.
1.4 STUDIES BY OTHERS
The United States Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration,
prepared the "Small Hydroelectric Inventory Of Villages Served By Alaska
Village Electrical Cooperative" in December 1979. This study assessed
the potential for hydroelectric development at over 40 villages in
western Alaska. Scammon Bay was found to be the most likely village of
those studied to have a feasible hydropower site. This preliminary
investigation considered two potential development schemes, one with an
installed capacity of 170 kW, the other with 285 kW. These preliminary
estimates were based on an estimated average streamflow at the damsite of
9 cubic feet per second (cfs). Subsequent investigations and streamflow
measurements by the Corps of Engineers indicated an average annual
streamflOltJ of about 2.5 cfs, well below that assumed.
NORTEC prepared a report for the Alaska Power Authority entitled
Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives, Togiak,
Goodnews Bay, Scammon Bay, and Grayling, February 1981. The NORTEC study
addressed all energy needs on a reconnaissance level, including
electrical, heating, cooking, and transportation. It projected future
energy needs for electrical and heating purposes and evaluated numerous
alternatives to meet these needs. Alternatives determined worthy of
further consideration included energy conservation, direct waste heat
capture, hydropower, and possibly wind generation. The first two
alternatives, energy conservation and waste heat recovery, related
primarily to the heating load. Hydropower and wind would provide
electrical energy, with diesel providing backup in both cases. Other
alternatives considered, but determined infeasible, included Rankine
Cycle waste heat capture, fuel cells, geothermal, tidal. solar
photovoltaic, steam, and gasification.
2
-NORTEC's projected energy demand for Scammon Bay took into account
the recent addition of a 6,500-square-foot high school and the planned
1981-1982 addition of 24 housing units by U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). Above that, a conservative growth in energy
demand of 0.9 percent was used beginning in 1982. The 0.9 percent
estimated growth rate is well below the historical growth rate for
Scammon Bay, but past increases were largely due to the initial
acquisition of electrical appliances during electrification. NORTEC
assumed that increasing costs, coupled with conservation would temper
future growth; however, with the passage of the "Power Cost Assistance
Program" by the Alaska Legislature in August 1981, power costs will be
subsidized (in Scammon Bay) to a level below the 1975 consumer cost. In
addition to this change, comments by HUD on the draft report indicate
that 39, instead of 24, housing units will be constructed along with a
new 7,200-square-foot recreation center. As a result, NORTEC's forecast
must be considered low.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Scammon Bay is an Eskimo village located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
region of southwestern Alaska. The village, originally named Mariak, was
officially renamed Scammon Bay in honor of Captain Charles M. Scammon who
served as marine chief of the Western Union Telegraph Expedition in
Alaska from 1856 to 1867.
2.1.1 Population
Data from the 1980 census indicate a population of 250 at Scammon
Bay. This represents an average population increase of over 4 percent
per year since the 1970 census. However, the actual yearly growth rate
has varied considerably as can be seen below:
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Table 2.1
HISTORIC POPULATION OF SCAMMON BAY
3
Population
88
103
115
166
165
192
225
193
232
250
2.1.2 Government and Services
Scammon Bay was incorporated as a second class city in 1967. The
seven-member city council selects the town mayor and administrator. In
addition~ the city employs a clerk, secretary/treasurer, police, and
maintenance personnel. Other employment sources include the Bureau of
Indian Affairs School, the Rural Parent-Child Program, and seasonal fire
fighting for the Bureau of Land Management.
Scammon Bay's native population is represented by a five-member
traditional council, which is the official tribal governing body for the
village. The council is eligible to administer a variety of Federal
programs, including local health care, employment assistance, college
assistance, social services, etc.
2.1.3 Transportation and Communication
Scammon Bay is accessible by air, water, and winter trail. Fuel and
bulk supplies are barged to the community from June to September. The
Kun River serves approximately 60 privately owned boats, providing
transportation to fish and berry camps.
A 2,800-foot gravel airstrip north of the city enables daily sched-
uled commercial air service. Principal air carriers include Sea Airmo-
tive and Wein. Scammon Bay has approximately 1 mile of gravel road for
use by the few vehicles in town. Snowmachines, owned by nearly every
household in the community, are the major form of transportation in
winter.
The community members have access to one telephone located in the
community hall. Television is also available from the Alaska Statewide
Satellite Communications network.
2.1.4 Economy
Year-round employment in the city is available through local govern-
ment and trade. In the trade sector, employers include the airport, four
small stores, and the general store. Some residents also sell handmade
grass baskets, ivory carved jewelry, and other handicrafts.
In addition to the government, commercial fishing is the other
primary source of income for Scammon Bay. As of 1979, the Yukon District
had issued 40 gill net permits to Scammon Bay residents. Commercial
species include salmon and to a lesser extent herring. Herring are
anticipated to become a larger portion of the cash economy with the
investment by the Alaska Renewable Resource Corporation in the
construction of approximately 10 herring fishing boats at Scammon Bay.
In addition to these commercial catches, noncash landings include
whitefish, blackfish, needlefish, smelt, and tomcod.
4
Income from the aforementioned activities is supplefftented by subsis-
tence hunting and gathering, and to some extent, assistance payments. In
addition to fish. residents of the area hunt walrus. seal. geese, swans,
cranes. ducks. loons, and ptarmigan. In the fall, various types of
berries such as blueberries. cranberries, and salmonberries are har-
vested.
Table 2.2 indicates the overall employment distribution for Scammon
Bay.
Table 2.2
SCAMMON BAY 1979 EMPLOyt-'IENT BY I~STRY
Part-Time
Gill Netting 40 1/
BLM *
City
Airport
BIA School
Reta i 1
Parent-Child Program
Handicrafts *
TOTAL 40
Year-Round
11
1
92/
8
2
31
Source: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs
1/ Based on number of gill net permits only. Actual participation is
greater.
1/ The new high school has added additional employment beginning in 1980.
*Number Unknown
5
SCAMMON BAY HIGH SCHOOL
------
SCAMMON BAY FISHING FLEET
:'~
2.2 NATURAL SETTING
2.2.1 Climate
The area has a maritime influence as indicated by its relatively
moderate temperatures and precipitation. The Askinuk Mountains influence
the climate at Scammon Bay, such that the various pressure systems
approaching from the ocean or the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta have a direct
effect on the village.
The nearest climatological station is located at Cape Romanzof Air
Force Station approximately 15 air miles away. Although Cape Romanzof is
at approximately the 435-foot elevation and has a southwest exposure, it
represents the only nearby site for approximation of weather at Scammon
Bay. Cape Romanzof data, obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) records for the period 1953-1978, indicate that
average temperature ranges during summer and winter are 34° F to 49° F
and 9° F to 31° F, respectively, with recorded extremes of -26° F and 79°
F. The average monthly precipitation ranges between 0.98 and 5.00 inches
with an annual average of 25.45 inches. The maximum monthly precipita-
tion for the period of record is 10.50 inches with the maximum 24-hour
precipitation being 2.77 inches. Table 2.3 and 2.4 provide a monthly
breakdown of precipitation, temperature, snow, and wind.
2.2.2 Regional Geology
Scammon Bay is situated on the northern foot of the Askinuk Mountains
in a region almost entirely composed of the flat, low-lying deltas of the
Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, with an occasional rock hill rising several
hundred to a couple of thousand feet above the delta plain. Ground
moraines in the cirques and valleys indicate extensive glaciation, proba-
bly of Wisconsin Age. Permafrost occurs sporadically throughout the
region, but may not be evident in rock formations where the moisture
content is low.
7
TABLE 2.3
CAPE ROMANZOF
CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA 1/
PREC I P ITATION: 2/ JAN FER MAR APR ~1AY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL
AVERAGE 1.11 0.98 1.25 .97 1.28 2. 13 2.95 5.00 4.62 2.39 1.56 1. 21 25.45
MAX MONTH 4. 17 4.25 6.83 3.44 3.72 4.31 6.45 8.78 10.50 6.09 5.46 4. 14 10.50
MAX 24 HOUR 0.99 1. 15 1.20 0.90 0.74 1.88 1.95 2.77 2.09 1.34 1.97 1.30 2.77
TEMPERATURE:
AVERAGE 12.9 9.7 13.5 20.7 34.4 43.3 49.2 49.2 43.7 31. 1 22.6 12.8 28.6
MAXIMUM 49 48 46 60 63 72 79 73 63 60 43 48 79
MINIMUM -23 -26 -26 -12 3 25 31 33 23 4 -7 -23 -26
SNOW PACK: 'i/
OJ AVERAGE 7.8 11.8 15.3 18.6 12.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 O. 1 2.9 5.9
STANDARD
DEV IATION 6.8 9.7 14. 1 20.6 8.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.64 3.2 5.7
STATION INFORMATION: LATITUDE -61 0 46' LONGITUDE -166 0 03' ELEVATION -434'
1/ From Climatological Data 1953 through 1978
2/ "Rainfall in inches
3/ Snow pack (including snow and sleet) on the ground, in inches, on the first of each month.
() ()
() ()
TABLE 2.4
CAPE ROMANZOF WIND DATA
(Knots)
SUBJECT JAN FEB MAR APR t~AY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL
Prevailing
Wind, Mean
Velocity lq.2 20.2 17.0 16.9 13.8 11.8 9.fi 11.8 11.8 14.3 16.8 17.8 15.6
Direction NE NE NE NE NE NE SSW SSW NE NE NE NE NE
% Time 16.9 21.4 17. 1 15.2 18.0 12.6 14.7 13 .0 lfi.6 19.7 18.6 21.3 16.2
2.2.3 Biology
The most important wildlife resources of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in
the vicinity of Scammon Bay are the various species of birds that use the
coastal lowlands. Some of the highest density goose breeding areas in
the world are found on the outer fringes of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.
The majority of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is classified as wet
tundra, which. primarily supports low stands of sedge and cottongrass with
a few woody plants. With the lack of cover and absence of year-round
food sources, the western Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta does not support large
terrestrial mammals. Only on rare occassions have big game animals been
observed near the project vicinity.
Five species of Pacific salmon are indigenous to the Scammon Bay
vicinity, although no salmon enter the freshwater streams near the
project area. The bulk of the salmon found in the marine waters off
Scammon Bay are headed for the Yukon River drainage.
2.2.4 Anthropology and Archeology
According to the State Historic Preservation Office, no known sites
are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in
the Scammon Bay area.
2.3 ELECTRICITY USE
2.3.1 Historic Use
Prior to joining the Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC) in
1974, Scammon Bay's limited electrical needs were met with a few
individual generators and a small windmill that supplied power for two
homes. Since AVEC electrification, ~nergy demand has grown
substantially. Table 2.5 shows peak demand in kW and annual energy
generation for the years 1975 to 1980. Accurate records were not kept
during the early years, resulting in missing data.
* Unknown
Table 2.5
SCAMMON BAY: (AVEC ANNUAL PEAK AND ENERGY GENERATION)
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Peak kW
*
*
*
54
78
78
10
Ener9.l MWh
159.2
185.0
203.5
214.5
269.3
310.0
2.3.2 Non-AVEC Generation
In addition to AVEC generation, the local BIA elementary school and
the newly constructed high school maintain three standby generators
totaling 160 kW. Under normal conditions, both schools would purchase
power from AVEC. However, with the additional load of the new high
school, which opened in September 1980, the standby generators were used
almost daily to meet the increased demand. Recent upgrading of the
existing AVEC generators from 50 and 75 kW to 75 and 110 kW has rectified
this situation.
2.3.3 Users
In addition to the BIA school (three classrooms) and new high school
(6,500 sq. ft.), the community has a variety of public and residential
structures which comprise the electricity demand of Scammon Bay. Public
buildings include the community center, the traditional council building,
armory, clinic, post office, Luther Aguchak Memorial Building, and two
churches. Four stores, several warehouses, a movie theater, and the AVEC
building are also located in the city. Approximately 45 single family
dwellings are in Scammon Bay, mostly of wood-frame construction. Of
these, 15 were built in 1970 by the Alaska State Housing Authority. In
all, about 60 structures are served by AVEC. Of the 269,300 kWh gener-
ated by AVEC in 1979, 107,500 kWh were for residential consumption and
94,800 kWh went to government and school use, with the remaining used by
the utility or lost due to distribution system inefficiency. End use
data from 1975-1979 for Scammon Bay is shown below:
Table 2.6
END USE ELECTRICAL ENERGY
1975-1979 AVERAGE
Vi 11 age Residential Commerical
Scammon Bay 35% 5%
*Includes schools and other public facilities.
-Northern Technical Services 1980
2.3.4 Total Energy Use
Other*
60%
Scammon Bay is currently dependent upon fuel oil for space and water
heating and electrical generation. Propane is used in the village
primarily for cooking. Gasoline is used for snowmobiles and fishing
boats. There is limited use of driftwood and the local willow brush for
horne heating. Table 2.7 describes the end use of all energy forms
utilized in Scammon Bay during 1979. The amount of fuel oil used for
home heating, divided by the number of households, indicates a per
household consumption of 680 gallons annually. This figure is low
relative to comparable villages.
11
END
USE
ENERGY
FORM
Conversion to Elec-
tricity
Residential and
small commerical
space and water
heating
(nontransportation)
Municipal and other
public
(nontransportation)
Military
(nontransportation)
Transportation
BIA School
(nontransportation)
NOTES:
Table 2.7
ENERGY INPUT AND END USE FOR SC~~MON BAY
Numbers in parentheses () are (10 6 Btu)
01 ESE L/
#1 01 L
Gallons
31,0001
(4185.0)
34,700
(4684.5)
6,000
(810.0)
2,300
(310.5)
200
(27.0)
29,000
(3915.0)
GASOLINE/
AVGAS
Ga 11 ons
28,000
(3500.0)
PROPANE
Pounds
10,000 3
(216.7}
ELECTR I C ITV
Kilowatt Hours
67,100 2
(229.0)
107,500 4
(366.7}
15,400 4
(52.6)
900 4
(3. 1 )
78,500 4
(267.9)
Gross generation from 31,000 gallons fuel oil was 269,300 kWh for a conversion efficiency of 22.0
percent.
2 Power consumed by the utility for station service (lights, fuel pumping, etc.) and system distribution
losses.
3 Propane is used solely for cooking.
4 Net utility electrical sales in 1979 were 269,300 kWh.
Source: Northern Technical Services o 0
-
.-
2.3.5 Rate Structures
Before the Power Production Cost Assistance Program (PPCA Program)
went into effect in November 1980, electric bills were claiming an
increasing proportion of the village's cash economy. That proportion
stood at approximately 10 percent of annual cash income in 1979. The
Power Production Cost Assistance Program dropped the effective kWh cost
of electricity from 40.8¢ to 26.6¢ for late 1980 and early 1981.
On 4 August 1981, the Power Production Cost Assistance Program was
repealed by the Alaska Legislature and replaced with the Power Cost
Assistance Program (PCA Program). This new program, effective January
1982, will subsidize 95 percent of electrical energy costs (except return
on equity) greater than 12¢ and less than 45¢/kWh during its initial year.
This will drop the consumer cost of electricity at Scammon Bay to
approximately 21.3¢/kWh from the actual utility cost of 48.3¢/kWh. The
utility rates since AVEC power was introduced in Scammon Bay are
presented in Table 2.8. The single rate schedule shown is applied to all
48 AVEC villages and is designed to recoup the costs of the entire
system. Costs attributable to any single village are difficult to
ascertain.
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
2.3.6 Fuel Costs
Table 2.8
AVEC RESIDENTIAL RATE 1975-1981 (75 kWh)
Rate (¢ per kWh)
21. 9
22.8
29.0
34.2
36.7
40.8
48.3
Consumer Cost (¢ per kWh)
21. 9
22.9
29.0
34.2
36.7
26.6 (PPCA Program)
21.3 (PCA Program
after 1 Jan 82)
For electrical generation, fuel prices have been the principal source
of rising costs. The average cost of diesel fuel delivered to AVEC
villages since 1973 is shown below:
Table 2.9
AVERAGE COST OF DELIVERED FUEL TO AVEC VILLAGES 1973-81
Year
1973
1974
13
Cost ($/ga 1 )
0.35
0.52
Table 2.9 Con't
AVERAGE COST OF DELIVERED FUEL TO AVEC VILLAGES 1973-81
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982 (est.)
Cost ($/gal)
0.58
0.65
0.72
0.78
0.97
1.33
1.62
1.68
Based on data provided by NORTEC, AVEC's ScaJll110n Bay generators
produced an average of 8.7 kWh/gal from January 1979 to September 1980.
In 1981, this output reached 9.2 kWh/gallon.
As of March 1982, the fuel efficiency of the existing generators is
7 kWh/gallon because they were altered to increase peak capacity. This
fuel efficiency is expected to prevail until 1994, when the useful life
of the generators expires and they are replaced. In 1995, fuel
efficiency is expected to be 9 kWh/gallon.
R: 8/82
14
-PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
Based upon Scammon Bay's initial study request and subsequent informa-
tion gathered during four site visits, it became apparent that a plan
needed to be formulated that would reduce the cost of power to the local
residents. With the establishment of the Power Cost Assistance Program
by the State of Alaska, the basic ohjective of reducing cost to the
consumer was met, at least for the short term. However, this program is
only a subsidy, doing nothing to reduce the real cost of power
production. Therefore, the study objectives were reestablished as
follows:
1. Reduce the real cost of energy generation.
2. Maintain the existing environment.
In addition to the above study objectives, the national objectives of
National Economic Development (NED) and Environmental Quality (EQ) must
be considered. NED is obtained by increasing the level of output or
economic efficiency of the nation and the EQ objective is obtained by
preserving, maintaining, or enhancing the cultural and natural resources
of the study area.
3. 1 POWER SUPPLY AND FUTURE DEMAND
This section provides a summary of the generating capabilities of
Scru~on Bay and an estimation of the future energy needs that must be met
by any alternative.
3.1.1 Generating Facil ities
The generating capabilities of Alaska Village Electrical
Cooperative's Scammon Bay generators are shown below. Besides those
shown, a 105-kW generator is scheduled for installation during early
1982.
-75 kW, 1,800 rpm, KATO (1971), 120/240, 10,
-110 kW, 1,800 rpm, KATO (1971), 120/240, 10,
75 kW
110 kW
185 kW
In addition to AVEC's generators, the standby generating capacity of
the new high school and BIA school totals 160 kW. The high school
generator is new while the BIA units are between 10 and 15 years old.
These are shown below:
High School 1 -100 kW, Newage -Stamford, 120/240,
BIA School 1 -35 kW, Kohler 120/240,
1 -25 kW, Kohler 120/240,
1 5
10, 100 kW
10, 35 kW
10, 25 kW
160 kW
3.1.2 Generation and Transmission Efficiency
In 1979, AVECls gross generation from 31,000 gallons of fuel oil was
269,300 kWh for a conversion efficiency of 22.3 percent. Station service
and distribution losses amounted to 67,100 kWh or approximately 25 per-
cent of the gross power generated. AVECls records indicate a total
system distribution loss of 47,600 kWh or 18 percent. This is considered
typical of a single phase distribution system.
3.1.3 Future Activity And Energy Needs
It is difficult to accurately predict the future electricity ~emand
in rural villages because it is difficult to predict the economic growth
of an individual community. Economic growth depends on the development
opportunities exercised under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
the general economic development of the State and region, and the
availability of electricity to the community. In addition, each village
is a small isolated unit. A change in the habits of a few households or
the local school can have a dramatic effect on the total level or
composition of electricity demand in a community. More importantly, the
level of demand in any bush village largely depends on government
decisions made outside the control of the community. The electric needs
of AVEC villages are mainly determined by the demand generated by the
following installations:
a. State Schools
b . B I A Sc hoo 1 s
c. Public Health Services
d. Housing Authorities
e. Federal Aviation Administration
f. Satellite Communications
Recent construction activities in Scammon Bay include the previously
mentioned high school and a water supply distribution system installed by
the Public Health Service in the mid 1970 1s. Construction of 39 n.ew
single family homes is scheduled for completion by June of 1982. These
new housing structures are expected to vary from 860 to 1,100 square
feet. A combination recreation center and gymnasium is also scheduled
for construction in 1982 or 1983. This facility would be approximately
7,200 square feet.
3.1.4 Long Term Outlook
Looking beyond the 1980 1s, Scammon Bay presents potential for various
growth possibilities. Probably the largest single contributing factor to
the future outlook of Scammon Bay and other isolated Alaskan Villages is
Alaska1s oil wealth. How the State ultimately spends its oil revenues
will greatly influence the future growth of remote villages.
Any expansion in the Scammon Bay economy besides government positions
will probably be in the fishing industry. This influence has already
16
-
been felt by the previously mentioned investment in herring fishing boats
by the Alaska Renewable Resources Corporation. However, expansion in the
foreseeable future will most likely continue on a relatively small
scale.
3.1.5 Load Forecasts
Any forecasts of future energy demand for Scammon Bay are
speculative. Beyond the existing demand and the future demand of the new
housing units and recreation center, energy forecasts are extremely
uncertain. Once new construction is complete, the demand may stabilize,
at least until additional unforeseen capital improvements take place.
However, with the passage of the PCA Program, which will drop rates to
pre 1975 levels, the likelihood of the demand stabilizing substantially
appears to be remote.
The most recent energy demand forecast was developed by NORTEC for
the Alaska Power Authority prior to the PCA Program. Their forecast
included the effects of the new high school in 1980 and the 1981-1982
addition of 24 homes. Above that, a conservative growth rate of
approximately 0.9 percent was used. This is substantially less than the
actual increase over the past five years, but they assumed that the
relatively rapid electrification of individual homes that has taken place
since joining AVEC would stabilize. Future increases due to added
appliances were assumed to be offset by conservation and more efficient
appliances. This energy forecast (Figure 3.1) is now considered to be
the low growth scenario due to the decreased cost to the consumer
provided through the PCA program.
Also shown on Figure 3.1 are growth projections of 14.3 percent, 11
percent and 4.5 percent. The 14.3 percent figure represents an extrapo-
lation of the electrical growth rate between 1975 and 1980 at Scammon
Bay. The 11 percent figure corresponds to the 1970 to 1980 growth rate
at Bethel, Alaska. Neither of these are considered to be indicative of
future growth at Scammon Bay. The first figure represents a very short
period of record during the time of initial electrification at Scammon
Bay, the latter, which has a longer period of record, represents a larger
community with a broader economic base.
The R.W. Retherford Division of International Engineering Company,
Inc., completed a study of energy requirements and alternatives for 13
villages in west and northwest Alaska. Based on their energy demand
analyses, an electrical growth rate of 4.5 percent was found to be the
most reasonable for these villages, many of which are similar in size and
economy to Scammon Bay. Because of their similarity to Scammon Bay and
the previously mentioned effect of the PCA Program, the 4.5 percent
growth forecast has been adopted for this study.
Figure 3.2 shows the estimated monthly distribution of energy gener-
ation for 1984 and 1990. The percentages were based on 1979 usage
patterns. The combination of information presented in these two figures
was used to provide the basis for evaluating alternative energy plans.
17
en
0:::
~ o ::z::
()
PROJECTED
GENERATION
PROJECTION BASED
ON HISTORICAL.....;......-w
INCREASES (14.3%)
PROJECTION BASED ON BETHEL
HISTORICAL INCREASES (11%)
R. W. RETHERFORD ASSOC.
PROJECTION ADOPTED FOR
THIS STUDY (4.5%) .
NQRTEC PROJECTION PRIOR TO PCA
PROGRAM (0.9%) ADJUSTED FOR
ADDITIONAL HOUSING AND
RECREATION FACILITY
,,~:::=:=~~~-
PLANNED REC CENTER/GYM -73 MWH FOR PLANNED HUD HOUSING
FIGURE 3.1
66 MWH FOR NEW HIGH SCHOOL SCAMMO~ BAY, ALASKA
HISTORICAL 8 PROJECTED
ENERGY GENERATION
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 1982
n 78 79 10 • 82 83 84 85 86 .., • 81 90 9t 92 9394 ge
YEARS
o
-
C/) 40 a::: ::::> o
:I:
O~"~~~~"~~~+-~+-~~~~--~~~~~~~
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
esaJ 1990
o 1984
MONTH
FIGURE 3.2
SCAMMON BAY) ALASKA
ESTIMATED MONTHLY
ENERGY DEMAND
ALASKA DISTRICT" CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 1982
19
FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
4.1 ALTERNATIVES
Under section 1.4, STUDIES OF OTHERS, the work done for the Alaska
Power Authority by NORTEC was summarized. NORTEC's conclusion was that
energy conservation (insulation and weatherization), continued use of
oil, waste heat recovery, hydropower, and poss"ibly wind generation were
the best alternatives for Scammon Bay. These were the only five
alternatives that met both requirements of being technically feasible and
constructibl e in the study area. Other al ternati ves such as geothennal
or tidal power are not technically feasible at Scammon Bay due to natural
constrai nts.
4.1.1 Diesel
This alternative is effectively the existing condition. Under this
scenario, diesel generation would continue to be used to meet all
electrical requirements at Scammon Bay. With the addition of the new
105-kW generator, AVEC should have sufficient capacity to meet village
demands until the early 1990's.
Impact Assessment
The primary impact associated with this alternative is economic.
Although the PCA program will lower diesel prices to their 1975 price
levels, the cost of diesel fuel will eventually rise again as shortages
occur and demand exceeds supply. By continuing to use diesel, the
village is leaving itself exposed to possible shortages in the future if
supplies are interrupted due to physical or economic constraints.
Evaluation
Since diesel has been established as the base case by which other
alternatives are to be evaluated, it is necessary to estimate the actual
generation cost at Scammon Bay for comparison. The Alaska Village
Electrical Cooperative 1981 cost is 48.3¢/kWh. This system wide cost
includes not only fuel and operation and maintenance, but also taxes,
insurance, interest, depreciation, and administration. Of this kWh cost,
not all can be considered as a savings or a benefit if an alternative is
implemented. Only fuel and operation and maintenance costs (O&M) can be
claimed as benefits, unless an alternative can be implemented that is
reliable enough to prevent the need for acquiring additional diesel
generators to meet peak loads; then it can be credited for the firm
capacity it provides. This is called the capacity benefit.
The two parts of the energy benefit, fuel and operation and
maintenance, were detennined from infonnation provided by AVEC. AVEC's
1982 diesel cost of $1.68/gallon, coupled with Scammon Bay's generating
efficiency, which is 7 kWh/gallon, provides a fuel cost of 24.Q¢/kWh.
R: 8/82
20
This, coupled with AVEC's operation and maintenance cost of 6.85¢/kWh,
renders a cost of diesel generation of 30.85¢/kWh for 1982. When
comparing this cost to another alternative, consideration must be given
to how the fuel cost portion may change in the future. With total fuel
price increases at Scammon Bay of 212 percent, from 1974 to 1981, it is
easy to see that energy costs have far outstripped inflationary increases
over the same time period. To account for this escalation r.elative to
the general inflation rate, a fuel cost escalation rate must be
established for project evaluation.
Various fuel cost escalation rates over varying periods of time have
been used in the past to estimate future fuel costs. Most of those
proposed in the past have fallen short of what the actual escalation rate
turned out to be. According to the Bureau of Labor's statistics for
Anchorage (none are available for Scammon Bay), the inflationary increase
from 1974 to 1980 was 67 percent compared to fuel cost increases of 156
percent. Based on these data, the annual fuel cost escalation rate
(above inflation) was over 11 percent. Although there is little chance
that this high of a rate will continue, it does demonstrate the
difficulty of estimating fuel cost escalation.
For the purpose of this study, the national fuel cost escalation rate
developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the 1981 Annual
Report to Congress has been adopted. The proposed escalation rate is
shown bel 0\'/:
YEAR
1980-1984
1985-1989
1990-1995
1996-201 0
ANNUAL
ESCALATION RATE
1.9 percent
R.O percent
6.2 percent
1.4 percent
These increases would result in the following fuel costs at Scammon
Bay:
4.1.2 Conservation
Descri pti on
1985
1990
1995
2000
$1.88/gal
$2.72/gal
$3.5l/ga1
$3. 76/gal
This alternative requires the implementation of various methods that
would reduce or restrict the use of energy. Adding additional insulation,
installing storm windows, weather stripping, upgrading the distribution
system etc., are the primary methods of implementing this alternative.
Some form of load management may also be possible.
R: 8/82
21
Impact assessment
This alternative has virtually no adverse environmental impacts while
having very positive economic and social impacts. If implemented,
significant savings in heating costs could be realized by the villages.
The impact on electrical use would be slight however, because very
little~ if any, electricity is used for heating and the overall village
electrical energy use is minimal when compared to larger communities.
The cost of electricity is so high that minimizing its use has become a
way of life. Conversion of the distribution system from single phase to
three phase could reduce the 18 percent distribution loss. However,
according to AVEC, the relatively small increase in efficiency, coupled
with the small size of system, does not warrant the expense of converting
the system.
Evaluation
Energy conservation is probably the simplest method to reduce overall
energy consumption in the village. Although its implementation would
have minimal effect on electrical consumption, the benefits from reduced
heating costs would be great. Execution of this alternative should be
pursued at the earliest possible time.
Implementation Responsibility
The basic responsibility for implementing this alternative lies with
the local residents. To aid in this responsibility and to lessen the
burden, various State and Federal programs are available. The State
offers energy auditing services, conservation grants, and low interest
loans, and the Federal government offers income tax credits. These
opportunities should be pursued to the maximum extent possible by the
community.
4.1.3 Waste Heat Recovery
Description
Two forms of potential energy recovery from existing diesel
generators are possible. The first is direct waste heat recovery for
heating purposes. This is accomplished with the use of heat exchangers
which transfer waste heat from the water jacket and exhaust of the diesel
generators to another fluid that can be used for hot water or building
heating. Direct waste heat recovery requires that the generators be
close to the building or water supply being heated, otherwise heat is
lost to the atmosphere. The second form is by use of the Rankine Cycle.
This system vaporizes a fluid such as freon with the waste heat from the
diesels. The freon, which is under high pressure, is then used to drive
a turbine which will produce shaft horsepower to turn the generator for
additional electrical power.
22
Impact Assessment
The primary negative impact associated with waste heat recovery at
Scammon Bay would be the relocation of the AVEC diesel generators because
their present location is too far from any major building or water
supply. Although relocation is possible, it is doubtful that it could be
economically justified. even at current fuel costs.
Evaluation
As mentioned in the previous section, the present location of AVEC's
power plant in Scammon Bay is not suitable for direct waste heat
recovery. The high school has a 100-kW standby generator that could be
used for waste heat recovery for the school, but Alaska State law
requires that all sChools purchase their power from existing utilities if
present.
The Rankine Cycle energy recovery systems are now in the development
stage. When they do become commercially available, it will probably only
be for units above 1000 kW.
Implementation
Implementation of a waste heat recovery system would be the
responsibility of the village of Scammon Bay in conjunction with AVEC
with possible aid from the State of Alaska.
4.1.4 Wind Generation
Descr-iption
The possib-ility of developing a feasible wind system at Scammon Bay
appears relatively good. Although no wind data has ever been gathered at
Scammon Bay. it is known that high winds of long duration are common
during the winter months. If a wind system were developed it would
probably consist of a number of units in the lO-kW range.
Based upon Cape Romanzof data, mean yearly wind velocities average
15.6 mph. The wind is predominantly from the northeast during winter
months when velocities are the greatest. Although Cape Romanzof data
should not be used directly for Scammon Bay due to its higher elevation
(434 feet), the mountains in between it and Scammon Bay, and its
southwest orientation, it represents the only data source for the area.
The general trends in wind speed and duration should tend to apply to
Scammon Bay.
According to various sources, an economical wind installation is
possible when the mean wind velocity ranges between about 12 and 16 mph
depending on the size and type of unit, and the degree of sophistica-
tion. Simple systems consisting of direct current generators can operate
23
economically at lower wind speeds if the user is willing to use the
electricity strictly for d.c. lighting and resistance space or hot water
heating. At Scammon Bay, where an electrical system that uses alternating
current already exists, it would be necessary to install a wind system
that would be compatible with the existing diesel generators.
This could be done on a smaller scale with the use of a synchron'ous
inverter, which would depend on the existing utility system to control
the voltage. One problem with this system is that the total wind
generation c~pacity that could be used would be limited to a small
portion of the uti1ity 's total output. If too large of a proportion
(more than about 25 percent) was produced by the wind system, the utility
could no longer control the voltage.
A wind generation system that would be fully compatible with the
existing diesel generation system and that could operate as the prime
power source for the utility, may double or even triple the cost of the
cheaper units. No systems of this type are currently functioning in
Alaska and their ability to function in the Scammon Bay climate is
unknown.
Evaluation
To prove feasible, a wind generation system of the type needed for
total compatibility with the existing generation system would probably
need mean monthly wind velocities in excess of 15 mph. Using Cape
Romanzof data, mean velocities in excess of 15 mph occur from October
through April.
Although diesel generation could not be totally displaced by wind
generation because of the need for standby generation during periods of
calm, it appears that it could displace a significant amount of diesel
fuel, particularly in the winter months,. However, until wind data is
acquired at Scammon Bay, it is impossible to accurately assess the actual
potential or attempt to optimize a wind system design.
Implementation Responsibility
Implementation of this alternative would be the responsibility of
Scammon Bay in conjunction with AVEC, with possible aid from the State of
Alaska or the Department of Energy (DOE). According to comments provided
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on the
draft report, pre-application for six 2-kWh wind generators have been
received. However, subsequent conversations with HUD indicate that
funding is unlikely.
4.1.5 Hydroelectric
Description
This alternative consists of a rockfil1ed gabion dam with a top
elevation of 600 feet, 3,500 feet of 12-inch steel penstock, and a
10x1l-foot powerhouse containing one 100-kW impulse turbine. Based on
24
avail abl e streamflow data, the estimated annual energy output from the
system is approximately 409,000 kWh, of which 229,000 kWh (56 percent) is
estimated to be usable in 1984, the first year of operation. The other
44 percent is produced during the summer and would exceed the cOlJlllunity's
current demand. Diesel generation would be required as a supplement when
inadequate flows exist to meet demands. A detailed discussion of the
plant sizing is included under the section TECHNICAL ANALYSIS.
Impact Assessment
Adverse environmental impacts associated with this project are
relatively minor in nature. No fish utilize the small stream where the
project would be located. Minor disruption of nesting and rearing shore
birds may occur during project construction. Special care would be
necessary during project construction to confine work to nonpermafrost
areas. Social impacts would be positive over the life of the project
because a capital intensive hydropower project would tend to hold down
electricity costs in the long run, although initially they may be more
expensive, depending on the ultimate means of financing.
Evaluation
A summary of the associated costs and benefits for the hydroelectric
system are shown in Table 4.1. The analysis is based on October 1982
price levels, a discount rate of 7-7/8 percent and a 50-year project
life. The benefits are based on the direct displacement of energy that
would have to be produced by diesel fuel to meet estimated demands.
Figure 4.1 shows the relationship of available hydroelectric energy
versus estimated demand.
The benefits provided by the hydroelectric system at Scammon Bay were
determined strictly by the displacement of fuel and the savings in
operation and maintenance on the diesel generator. No credit was given
for displacement of diesel capacity since the hydropower system would not
operate during the peak demand months.
The savings in diesel fuel was computed from a 1982 cost of
$1.68/gallon, that was escalated until 2010, according to DOE's
estimate. Credit was also given to the project based on its ability to
meet the estimated 4.5 percent yearly increase in demand. Savings in
Operati on and r~ai ntenance was credi ted at the rate of 6. Sst/kWh.
R: 8/82
25
100
90
80
en 70
0::
::)
~60
I r-50-....-_
~
~40
C!) w
~30
20
10
O~J~A-N~F~E~B~M-A-R~A~P~R~M~A~Y .. JU-N~MJ-U~L~AU-G~-SE~P~OC~T~N-O~V~~DE~C~
MONTH
FC\Hd HYDROPOWER OUTPUT
~ ENERGY DEMAND
FIGURE 4.1
SCAMMON BAY, ALASKA
ESTIMATED MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND AND HYDROPOWER OUTPUT (100 k W) FOR 1984
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 1982
-
Table 4.1
Project Costs And Benefits
:<:
\'l1iitJ, /
Annual costs f\} L-b'
First Cost
Interest and Amortization (7-7/8% @ 50-yrs)
Interest During Construction
Operation and Maintenance
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Diesel Displacement Benefit
Fuel Escalation Benefit
Operation and Maintenance Benefit
Employment
Total Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Implementation Responsibility
$1,483,000
120,000
3,000
22,000
$ 145,000
$ 70,000
52,000
23,000
25,000
$ 170, 000
$ 25,000
1. 2 to 1
i~,(1tV
Various options are possible for the implementation of this
alternative. Under all scenarios it is anticipated that the local
utility would be responsible for the operation of the plant. The options
available are listed below:
1. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with Federal funding.
2. Construction by the Corps of Engineers with State or local
funding.
3. Construction by a private firm with State or local funding.
R: 8/82
27
4.2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
1 • Plan Descri~tion Without Condition Al ternati ve A Alternative B
Total diesel elec-Hydroelectric plus Wine:! plus
trical generation diesel generation diesel genera-
tion
2. Im~act Assessment
A. Economic Impacts
Total Benefits/yr. None $170,000 Insufficient
infonnation
exists to
assess the
economics of
of a system
that could
functi on wi th
N the Scal1l11on Bay
Q:) uti 1 ity. No
simil ar system
currently
exists in
Al aska.
Total Cost/yr. $145,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio N/A 1.2
Property Val ues No Change No Change No Change
Tax Revenue N/A N/A N/A
Regf ona 1 Growth No Change No Change No Change
Employment No Change There wOlJlrl be a few Same as Al ter-
short term jobs during native A
constructi on.
Business Activity No Change Temporary increase due Same as Al ter-
to construction activity. native A
Displacement Homes, etc. N/A All construction would be Same as Al ter-
() in areas devoid of housing. nati ve A ()
B. Environmental Impacts
Archeological
Water Quality
Water Quant ity
Air Pollution
Natural Resources
4.2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS CON'T
Without Condition
No Impact
No Change
No Change
No Change
Continued consump-
tion of fossil fuel
for total electrical
generation need.
A lternat i ve A
No archeological sites
have been identified
in project area.
Temporary increase
in turbidity during
construction.
Reduction at point of
village withdrawal, but
operation should not
affect village water
supply.
An increase in particulates
would occur during con-
struction, no long term
effects would occur.
Construction activities
would temporarily in-
crease the use of fossil
fuels. The project
would reduce fossil fuel
dependence.
Alternative B
Same as A lter-
native A
No Change
N/A .
Same as A lter-
native A
Same as A lter-
native A
w o
Lands
Habitat
C. Social Impacts
Noise
Displacement of People
Esthetics
Community Growth
and Cohesion
()
4.2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS CON'T
Without Condition
No Chiinge
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
A lternat i ve A
Construction to take
place within the imme-
diate vicinity of the
stream to minimize
permafrost damage.
Minor temporary dis-
turbance of certain
birds during construc-
tion.
Slight increase during
construction followed
by a decrease once
project is on-line.
No Change
No adverse visual effects
in town, minor adverse
visual effects at site.
No Change
Alternative B
Care must be
taken to avoid
permafrost
damage during
construction.
Same as A lter-
native A
Same as A lter-
native A except
wind generators
may continue to
produce noise.
No Change
Definite ad-
verse visual
effects at
town site.
No Change
w ......
()
3. Plan Evaluation
4.2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS CON'T
Without Condition
Under existing con-
ditions, Scammon Bay
residents will con-
tinue to use fossil
fuels for total
electrical genera-
tion. This will
cause increasing
electrical genera-
tion costs as well
as a dependence on
imported petroleum
products.
Alternative A
Hydroelectric generation
along with diesel fired
generators complement
one another. During
hydroelectric genera-
tion fossil fuel depen-
dence would be reduced.
Hydroelectric generation
is seasonal depending
on streamflows.
Alternative B
Assuming
favorable wind
conditions,
wind generation
is capable of
lessening
foss; 1 fuel de-
pendence parti-
cularly during
the winter
months. Lack
of wind data
make this
a lternat i ve
questionable;
however, it
appears to
warrant further
investigation
and data
gathering.
(')
4.3 tJED PLAN
Federal water resource development policy requires that the
alternative providing the greatest amount of net benefits be designated
the National Economic Development Plan (NED). For Scammon Bay, the NED
Plan is hydroelectric. It would provide net benefits of $25,000 annually.
4.4 EQ PLAN
Federal water resource development policy also requires the
designation of an Enviromental Quality Plan (EQ). This should be the
plan that makes a net positive contribution to the environmental quality
of the area. In the case of Scammon Bay, no plan has any significant
environmental impacts; however, neither does any plan make a net positive
contribution to the environment. Therefore, no EQ plan can be
designated. In this case it is necessary to establish an LED Plan (Least
Environmentally Damaging). Although the diesel system produces exhaust
and noise, it is already in existence and no additional construction
would be required, therefore it is designated as the LED Plan.
4.5 SELECTED PLAN
The Selected Plan should be the plan that is the best overall scheme
to meet national and local objectives. For Scammon Bay, the hydro-
electric system is designated as the Selected Plan. This plan is capable
of producing approximately 409,000 kWh per year on the average, of which
229,000 kWh is estimated to be usable the first year of operation.
R: 8/82
32
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis contained in this report, hydropower provides
the best alternative for electrical generation at Scammon Bay. In
addition to providing net benefits of $25,000 annually, other benefits,
which were not quantified in this study include, 1) reducing the quantity
of diesel fuel shipped to Scammon Bay (this may reduce the number of
shipments, and consequently reduce the handling problems and cost), and
2) providing a buffer to allow for late or insufficient fuel shipments
due to either physical or economic constraints. A detailed analysis of
the hydropower al ternati ve is i ncl uded under Secti on T, TECHtHCAL
ANALYSIS.
Wind power appears to hold promise, particularly in the winter months
when stronger winds of longer duration occur. Based upon the wind data
from Cape Romanzof and an assumption that the general trends hold true
for Scammon Bay, wind could prove to complement the hydropower system.
During the summer months when hydropower is at its peak, wind generation
potential is poor. During the winter, when hydropower potential is poor,
wind potential is high. However, before a more accurate determination of
exact potential can be made, a continuous recording anemometer should be
installed. The State Division of Energy and Power Development may be
able to provide assistance to Scammon Bay through their anemometer loan
program.
Weatherizing through insulation, storm windows, and weather stripping
could provide significant savings to the community in the area of home
heating. Any effect on electrical demand would be small. This option
should be pursued to the maximum extent possible by the village.
Upgrading of the distribution system does not appear to be feasible
.. at this time. However, if Scammon Bay should show unexpected growth and
fuel costs continue to escalate at a rate similar to the past few years,
the incremental reduction in distribution losses may warrant conversion
to a three phase system.
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project be authorized for
construction \'/ith such modifications that may be advisable made at discre-
tion of the Chief of Engineers. Design and Construction t4anagement would
be the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers with an estimated first
cost of $1,483,000, which is subject to cost-sharing and financing
arrangements satisfactory to the President and Congress. Authorization
of this project for Federal implementation should not preclude the
development of hydroelectr'lCnfaciJitjes at---.this-..stte.by a qualified
nonferleral interest. ;:) £7./ ;----
~ f~/t/----_
LEE R. NUNN
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
33
R: 8/82
-
,-
NPDPL-PF (31 March 1982) 1st Ind
SUBJECT: Small Hydropower Interim Feasibility Study, Scammon Bay, Alaska
DA, North Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2870,
Portland, OR 97208 27 May 1982
TO: Chief of Engineers
I concur in the conclusions and recommendations of the District Engineer.
~~~~~~~~~~~
MES W. VAN LO N SELS
riqadier General, USA
Commanding
34
T.1 GENERAL
SECTION T
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
The selected plan for hydropower development at Scammon Bay is a
run-of-the-river diversion project which has a capacity of 100 kW. The
project consists of a 50-foot-wide rockfi11ed gabion dam with its crest
at 600 feet elevation, 3,500 feet of 12-inch buried steel penstock, and a
10x11-foot powerhouse with one 100-kW rated impulse turbine unit.
This system would provide most of Scammon Bay's current energy needs
for approximately 7 months of the year. In late fall it would be
necessary to supplement it with diesel. For approximately 5 months of
the year it would be shut down due to inadequate streamflow.
The system could generate an average of approximately 409,000 kWh of
an electricity annually at an estimated first cost of $1,483,000, with
total annual benefits estimated at $170,000. A detailed description of
the design considerations and parameters follows.
T.2 HYDROLOGY
T.2.1 Basin Description
The three-quarter-square-mi1e drainage basin varies in elevation from
600 feet at the damsite to almost 1,300 feet at the highest point.
Upstream of the damsite, the basin is covered with wet, spongy tundra,
which has a tendency to retain water and release it over a period of
time.
T.2.2 Streamf10ws
The village has historically acquired its water supply from the creek
which flows from the Askinuk Mountains. In 1976, the Public Health
Service (PHS) built a community water system that treated the water with
chlorine and fluoride. Although the village utilizes a portion of the
creek for water supply, there are no records of the amount of streamflow
which has actually occurred. During July 1980, a water measurement
structure (Parshall Flume) was installed to collect data during the
upcoming year and to verify the assumed streamflow values. The flume was
installed downstream of the PHS water supply intake and consequently does
not include water diverted for domestic use. The measured flow at the
flume was correlated with the streamflow at the proposed damsite by
measuring the flow at the damsite and determining a correlation
coefficient.
R: 8/82
35
Table T.l shows the computed ,damsite discharges based on flows
measured at the flume between July 1980 and July 1981.
Table T.l
COMPUTED DAMSITE DISCHARGES
(July 1980 -August 1981)
Based on discharge measurements at the flume downstream of the dams ite.
Di scharge
Month (cfs)
1980
Jill 2.0
Aug 2.0
Sep 1.4
Oct 1.5
Nov 0.9
Dec 0.6
1981
Jan 0.6
Feb 1.1
Mar 1.2
Apr 5.0
May 10.0
Jun 6.0
Jul no available data
Aug 2.0
Based on precipitation data for Cape Romanzof, which is located
approximately 15 air miles west of Scammon Bay, it appears that the data
for streamflow at Scammon Bay reflects a period of low precipitation for
the area. Table T.2 compares average and actual temperature and average
and actual precipitation for the period in question.
36
~
-'
rn
l-
i o
-'
:.::
140
40
20
AG-FPP 1479-82
20
rn
l-
I-« :.:
0
-'
:.::
40
120
APRIL
ESTIMATED FROM MAY 1981 DATA
HYDROPOWER OUTPUT
-------------------125kW
MAY
HYDROPOWER
OUTPUT
--------------------125 kW
I~,.....-'\-~----------------100kW 100 I+--~-----------------100kW
80
60
40
2
20
JULY
60 80
40 60 80
PERCENTAGE OF TIME
HYDROPOWER
OUTPUT
100
rn
I--
I--
~
9
:.:
60
40
2
75 kW
50 kW
40
2
100 20
AUGUST
INTERPOLATED FROM JULY 1981
AND SEPTEMBER 1981 DATA
20
HYDROPOWER
OUTPUT
--------IOO,125l~,
100
75 kW
40
PERCENTAGE OF TI ME
SEPTEMBER
40
20
20
PERCENTAGE OF TIME
40 60 80
PERCENTAGE OF TIME
40 60 80
PERCENTAGE OF TIME
rn
I--
I--
<[
~
9
:.:
40
20
JUNE
INTERPOLATED FROM MAY 1981 AND JULY 1981 DATA
_______________________ 125 kW
rn
I--
~ o
-'
:.:
---------------.------100 kW
"'"-.~_-----------------75 kW
20
o
40 60 80
PERCENTAGE OF TIME
OCTOBER
40
PERCENTAGE
100
FIGURE T.I
SCAMMON BA~ ALASKA
ESTIMATED LOAD DURATION CURVES
AND HYDROPOWER OUTPUT
ALASKA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MARCH 19B2
-'-'
Month
1980
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1981
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Average
Temperature
48.2
49.2
43.7
31.1
22.6
12.8
12.9
9.7
13.5
20.7
34.4
43.3
48.2
49.2
Table T.2
CAPE ROMANZOF
MONTHLY RAINFALL AND TEMPERATURE
July 1980 -August 1981
Actual
Temperature
50.0
47.2
44.2
33.7
25.0
8.9
19.8
12.0
25. 1
27.7
42. 1
47.2
48.4
48.8
Average
Precipation
2.95
5.00
4.62
2.39
1. 56
1. 21
1.11
0.98
1. 25
0.97
1. 28
2. 13
2.95
5.00
Actual
Precipation
4.79
2.27
3.60
1. 50
0.50
0.86
1. 33
1. 70
0.72
1. 27
1. 32
2.01
1. 81
3.85
Table T.2 indicates that the average air temperature is below
freezing during the months November through April. Precipitation that
falls during this time interval will generally accumulate on the ground
as snow or ice and not enter the system for hydrologic power generation
until April or May. Instream flows during November through March are
largely due to groundwater with some periodic melting. During late
April, May, and June, the runoff is relatively high due to melting snow
and surface runoff. ~ased on the prevailing temperatures, it appears
that the primary ground water recharge will take place between May and
September.
A statistical analysis of the Cape Romanzof precipitation data for
1981 indicates lower than average precipitation. However, the measured
streamflow at Scammon Bay for the correspondin9 summer months in 1980 and
1981 was quite similar. This would indicate a stabilizing effect of the
ground water runoff for this basin.
Based on the Cape Romanzof precipitation data it appears the low
precipitation experienced during the study period will have a return
interval of approximately 15 years. During the 23 years of record the
recorded precipitation at Cape Romanzof has twice been lower than was
recorded during the summer data gathering periods.
37
Difference
from Avq
+1.84
-2.73
-0.98
-0.85
-1.06
-0.35
+0.22
+0.72
-0.53
+0.30
+0.04
-0.13
-0.75
-1. 15
The measured discharge for Scammon Bay shows an increase beginning in
February 1981. It is more typical for Alaskan streams to show an
increase in melt season discharge in April or May. This increased
discharge may be a reflection of the above average temperatures which the
area experi enced between January and June 1981. Scammon Bay di scharge
measurements should be continued to establish the typical monthly flow
regime used for design purposes.
The proposed hydropower plant at Scammon Bay would operate during the
months when the average flow is above 1 cfs. This would provide
sufficient flow for water supply at the downstream infiltration gallery.
Based on the actual correlated streamflow for 1980-1981, a 100-kWh
plant could produce the following output:
Table T.3
Potential Hydropower Output -Actual Correlated Flows (1980-1981)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Di scharge
(cfs)
0.6
1.1
1.2
5.0
10.0
6.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
0.9
0.6
Energy
MWh
-0-
24.2
29.0
72.0
74.4
72.0
46.9
46.9
32.4
35.7
-0-
-0-
Total 433.5
Due to the increased flows in February and March, which were probably
caused by the warmer weather and the lower than normal precipitation, the
recorded flows were not considered to be indicative of the average.
Therefore, some adjustment was considered necessary to obtain a more
realistic base for project evaluation.
38
~ ,I
.......,~;,,'li
Table T.4 shows the adjusted discharge and energy figures that were
used for project evaluation.
Table T.4
Potential Hydropower Output -Adjusted
Discharge Energy
Month (cfs) MWh
Jan 0.6 -0-
Feb 0.6 -0-
Mar 0.9 -0-
Apr 5.0 72.0
May 10.0 74.4
Jun 6.0 72.0
Jul 2.0 46.9
Aug 2.4 55.8
Sep 2.0 45.4
Oct 1.8 42.4
Nov 0.9 -0-
Dec 0.6 -0-
Total 408.9
The adjustments eliminated any generation from November through
March. Although some generation may be possible during these months, it
would not be considered typical. Additional adjustments were made to the
discharge and energy figures for August, September, and October. These
adjustments represent an average increase of slightly over 0.4 cfs for
the 3-month period. The adjustments were made to reflect the lower than
average precipitation recorded during this period. The actual post
project flows could be greater once intergravel flows are cut off by the
dam; however, thi sis imposs i b 1 e to quantify at thi s time.
T.2.3 Sedimentation
No sediment transport studies were done at Scammon Bay. The
discharge during the majority of the year is very clear. The only known
time when the water has any sediment entrained is during the spring
runoff. The particle size is probably fairly large and therefore drops
out of suspension quickly as the velocity decreases. Some minor
maintenance would be needed at the damsite on a yearly basis.
T.2.4 Snow And Ice Problems
During the winter months, windblown snow is deposited in the ravine
through which the stream flows. In places, the windpacked snow reaches
depths in excess of 10 feet by the end of winter.
39
A site visit during January 1981 found that the snow had a tendency
to drift from the left side to the right, looking downstream. This trend
made the left side somewhat barren while the right side had deep
windpacked snow. In the middle of the ravine there was in excess of 100
inches of snow, while on the left side there was about 36 inches. The
bank on the left side had places where the tundra was visible. Three
snow samples were taken slightly upstream of the village and another
three samples taken below the proposed damsite. The average water
content was 35 percent.
The deep snow along the stream acts as insulation allowing the stream
to flow (on a restricted basis) when other streams of similar size are
long since frozen. This same dense snow that provides insulation also is
subject to creep. Because of the creep potential and the fact that
access to the penstock would be restricted for nearly half a year due to
snow, a buried penstock is preferred to one located above ground.
Special design considerations are necessary to account for low winter
flows, frazil ice and potential penstock icing problems. These are
considered in more detail later in the report.
T.2.5 Power Potent i a 1
Table T-5 provides a summary of the average power potential of 50,
75, 100, and 125-kW units. The smallest unit would not meet peak demands
even during the first year of operation. On the other hand, the largest
unit would not function efficiently during minimum demand periods. The
possibility of installing two units was considered during earlier
studies; however the extra cost could not be justified. One unit in the
range of 100 kW was found to meet most minimum and maximum demands at
significantly lesser cost.
Table T.5
Average Capacity and Energy Production
50-kW Unit 75-kW Unit 100-kW Unit 125-kW Unit
Month kW kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW kWh
Oct 50 37,200 57 42,400 57 42,400 57 42,400
Nov ------------------------
Dec ------------------------
Jan ------------------------
Feb ------------ ------
------
Mar ------------ ------
------
Apr 50 36,000 75 54,000 100 72,000 125 90,000
May 50 37,200 75 55,800 100 74,400 125 93,000
Jun 50 36,000 75 54,000 100 72,000 125 90,000
Jul 50 37,200 63 46,900 63 46,900 63 46,900
Aug 50 37,200 75 55,800 75 55,800 75 55,800
Sep 50 36,000 63 45,400 63 45,400 63 45,500
Total 256,800 354,300 408,900 463,600
40
~
~
. -
To optimize the turbine size, the information in Table T.5 was compared
with the energy demand for the months of April through October, shown of
Figure T.l. These load duration curves were developed with the aid of
information supplied by AVEC for 1981. The actual load duration curves may
vary from year to year, but this approximation is the best available using
existing data. The estoimated usable energy is stated in tabular form in Table
T.6. Note that during the first few years the 125 kW unit actually displaces
slightly less energy than the 100-kW unit. This is due to the larger units
inability to operate efficiently at the minimum loads projected.
Table T.6
Estimated Yearly Usable Energy
Unit 1984 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010
50-kW 202,000 206,000 225,000 234,000 244,000 244,000
75-kW 226,000 234,000 272,000 302,000 329,000 329,000
100-kW 229,000 236,000 278,000 314,000 342,000 342,000
1 25-k1J 226,000 234,000 279,000 321,000 359,000 359,000
Diesel displacement benefits were claimed for the portion of the curve in
Figure T.1 that is under the average output of the respective hydropower
systems. Al though the hydropower output \'1oul d vary over the month, the
limited data precludes a more rigorous analysis.
The value of the diesel energy that was determined to be displaced by the
hydropower system was calculated in accordance with the analysis outlined in
section 4.1.1 of the main report. That is, the base 1982 diesel cost of
1.68/gallon was escalated at the presribed DOE escalation rates. These new
values, plus the operation and maintenance benefits, were then applied to the
energy that the hydropower unit would displace. These annual figures were
then present worthed to the power-on-line date using the Federal discount rate
of 7-7/8 percent over 50 years. This present worth figure was then converted
to an annual cost by applying the same discount rate over 50 years. This
represents the average annual cost of the diesel that would be displaced by
the hydropower system.
The total cost of the hydropower system was then determi ned by taki ng the
total first cost and applying 7-7/8 percent discount rate over 50 years to
determine the average annual cost on a comparable basis with the diesel being
displaced. An .additional figure of $22,000 was added to account for operation
and maintenance on the hydropower system.
The cost for the hydropower system was then compared to the cost of the
energy from the diesel system. The costs from the diesel system become
benefits if the hydropower system is installed. A summary of these costs and
benefits is shown in Table T.7.
Em~lOyment Benefits. NED employment benefits would occur due to construc-
tion 0 the Scammon Bay Hydropower Project. Based on data provided by the
Alaska Department of Labor and the eligibility criteria described on page 44
of the WRC Reference Handbook for FY 1982, the Wade Hampton census division
(in which Scammon Bay is located) does qualify as an area of IIsubstantial and
persistent ll emp10yment, as demonstrated below •
R: 8/82
41
Criteria 1 -To meet this criteria, the current calendar years' unemp10y-.~
ment must exceed 6 percent. The 1981 annual stati sti cs for Wade Hampton '....,
revealed a 10.2 percent unemployment rate. Therefore, Wade Hampton meets this
c riteri a.
Criteria 2 -To meet this criteria, the unemployment rates must exceed 150
percent of the national average for three of the last four calendar years.
Unemployment rates for Wade Hampton for the four preceding calendar years
are: 11.1% for 1978,9.0% for 1979,10.7% for 1980, and 10.2% for 1981.
Unemployment rates which are 150 percent of the national average are: 9.0%
for 1'978, 8.7% for 1979, 10.65% for 1980, and 11.25% for 1981. The actual
Wade Hampton unemployment rates exceed these in three of the last four
calendar years (1978, 1979, and 1980), therefore it is an leligib1e" area.
The Public Works Impact Program (PWIP) allows 43 percent of the amount
earned by local skilled labor and 58 percent of the amount earned by local
unskilled labor to be used in the NED employment benefit calculation. These
percentages are allowable in the case of Scammon Bay due to the existence of a
State local hire law #3610 and the hiring practices of the Regional Native
Corporati on as di rected by Federal Executi ve Order 1124, U. S. Department of
Labor. The census area population of Wage Hampton is 4,665 and had a labor
force (insured) of 1, 1?4 and an unemployment rate of 17 percent for the quarter
ending r~arch 1982. Unemployment among native groups in general is much higher,
suggesting that some of the skilled labor required by the project and some of
the unskilled lahor can come from the villages of western Alaska. It is
estimated that 60 percent of the project costs would go to labor which would be
35 percent skilled and 65 percent unskilled. Employment benefits for the
Scammon Bay project are based on the fo11 owi ng assumpti ons:
a. '1ost the skil1erl labor \l/ou1d be imported by the contractor.
b. Unski 11 ed 1 abor l'Iou1 d be transported from several western Al aska
villages to \'/ork on the Scammon Bay project.
c. The unskilled labor requirement would be supplied by area workers.
Labor analysis procedures are taken, from guidelines given in Section
713.1207 of the WRC planners manual. Project construction would take advan-
tage of the high unemployment condition experienced among native groups. With
the policy of local hire in force the higher percentages can be used for deter-
mining the amount of local earnings that can be claimed as an tJED employment
benefit. The following table shows the derivation of employment benefits for
the project.
Employment Benefits Scammon Bay
Construction Costs
Amount to Labor (60%)
42
$1,278,700
767,000
R: 8/82
. ..-
,;'
'-'
Tab 1 e T. 7 provides a breakdown of costs and benefits for the various
opt i on s.
Table T.7
Estimated Costs and Benefits
50-kW 75-kW 100-kW 125-kW
First Cost ($) 1,079,000 1,112,000 1,136,000 1,169,000
Annua 1 Cost
50 yrs. @ 7-5/8% ($) 84,400 87,000 88,800 91,500
Operation and Main-20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
tenance ($)
Total Annual Costs ($) 104,400 107,000 108,800 111,500
Annual Benefits
Fuel Displacement ($) 44,800 56,400 58,700 59,700
Fuel Escalation ($) 30,100 39,600 42,100 43,400
Operation and Main-15,500 19,500 20,300 20,600
tenance ($)
Tota 1 Annual Benefits ($) 90,400 115,500 121,100 123,700
Net Benefits ($) -14,000 + 8,500 +12,300 +12,200
Based on this analysis, the net benefits for the 100 and l25-kW units
are approximately the same, although the 100-kW unit appears to have a
slight edge. If the estimated load growth falls short or exceeds that
anticipated, or if the streamflows vary significantly from the estimates,
the optimum unit size could either increase or decrease. For the
purposes of this report, a 100-kW unit was chosen for the selected plan
because of its ability to pick up minimum loads more efficiently than the
125 KW unit and its availability as a standardized unit. Additional
streamflow information may alter this selection slightly during post
authorization design work. However, any change would only affect the
turbine-generator sizing; the intake and penstock are sized to
accommodate units between 50 and 150 kW.
T.2.6 Water Supply
The Public Health Service (PHS) intake for the village's water supply
is located a substantial distance below the proposed damsite. The PHS
recommended a minimum flow of 28 gallons per minute (GPr~ or 0.06 CFS) as
required for the water supply. This would provide approximately 200
gallons per day per capita which is in excess of the normal requirements
of an urban area. The PHS indicated that they believe the actual
utilization of the system to be between 50-70 gallons per day per
capita. This difference in system capability and actual uti.lization
would provide a margin for development within the community.
43
The drainage area between the damsite and the water supply intake is
0.5 square miles which is two-thirds the size of the tributary area to
the damsite. By correlating this lower area with the upper drainage
basin an approximation of the water available for domestic use can be
made as ~hown in Table T.8.
1.8
Water Available for Domes tic Use
Available Water Total Water
Available Water Available Water From Lower 'Available For
I~onth At Damsite Less Hydropower Basin Domestic Use
Oct 1.8 0 1.2
Nov 0.9 0.9 0.6
Dec 0.6 0.6 0.4
Jan 0.6 0.6 0.4
Feb 0.6 0.6 0.4
Mar 0.9 0.9 0.6
Apr 5.0 1.6 3.3
May 10.0 6.6 6.7
Jun 6.0 2.6 4.0
Jul 2.0 0 1.3
Aug 2.4 0 1.6
Sep 2.0 0 1.3
Based on the above analysis, adequate water would be available
year-around to supply the community's domestic needs. Due to the limited
operation of the hydropower system, i.e. April through October, the
available water during the critical months of winter is unaffected. If,
for some unforeseen reason, the water supply demand did exceed the
supply, the planned diversion works are capable of diverting up to 1.2
cfs thrdugh the dam on a controlled basis and could be used to supprement
the village's water supply if necessary. During winter shut-down due to
low flows, the diversion works would divert all flow through the dam to
supplement the village water supply and prevent ice-up of the reservoir.
A detailed explanation of the winter diversion scheme is included later
in the report.
44
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
4.9
13.3
6.6
1.3
1.6
1.3
Amount by category
Local contribution
Earned by locals
Claimed as NED benefits
Total by category
Combined Total
Skilled (35%)
$ 268,527
20%
53,705
.43
23,093
$312,335
Annual Benefit -312,335 x .0806 = $25,174
Rd = $25,000
Unsk ill ed (65%)
$ 498,693
100%
498,693
.58
289,242
Table T.7 provides a breakdown of costs and benefits for the various options.
First Cost ($)
Annual Cost
50 yrs. @ 7-5/8% ($)
Operation and Main-
tenance ($)
Interest During
Construction
Total Annual Costs ($)
Annua 1 Benefi ts
Fuel Displacement ($)
Fuel Escalation ($)
Operation and Main-
tenance ($)
Employment
Table T.7
Estimated Costs and Benefits
50-kW
1,412,000
114~000
22,000
3,000
139,000
54,000
38,000
. 17,000
24,000
75-kW
1,453,000
117,000
22,000
3,000
142,000
68,000
49,000
22,000
25,000
100-kW
1 ,483,000
120,000
22,000
3,000
145,000
70,000
52,000
23,000
25,000
1 25-kW
1 ,524,000
123,000
22,000
3,000
148,000
71,000
53,000
23,000
Total Annual Benefits ($)133,000 164,000
+22,000
170,000
+25,000
26,000
173,000
+25,000 Net Benefits ($) -6,000
Surplus Energy. During the summer, the project's capacity I'lould exceed
Scammon Bay's needs. This surplus energy is estimated to be in excess of 4,200
MWh over the life of the project. If all of this energy were used by a
facility such as a cold storage building or for hot water heating, the fuel
displacement and escalation benefits would be substantial. Although this type
of use is likely in the future, it is difficult to document definite plans for
use of surplus energy at this time.
Based on this analysis, the net benefits for the 100 and 125-kW units are
approximately the same~ If the estimated load growth falls short or exceeds
that anticipated, or if the streamflows vary significantly from the estimates,
R: 8/82
45
the optimum unit size could either increase or decrease. For the purposes of ~
this report, a 100-kW unit was chosen for the selected plan because of its ~
ability to pick up minimum loads more efficiently than the 125 KW unit and its
availability as a standardized unit. Additional streamflow infonnation may
alter this selection slightly during post authorization design work. Hm'lever,
any change would only affect the turbine-generator sizing; the intake and
penstock are sized to accommodate units between 50 and 150 kW.
T.2.6 Water Supply
The Public Health Service (PHS) intake for the village's water supply is
located a substantial distance below the proposed damsite. The PHS recommended
a minimum flow of 28 gallons per minute (GPM or 0.06 CFS) as required for the
water supply. This would provide approximately 200 gallons per day per capita
whi ch is in excess of the nonnal requi rements of an urban area. The PHS
indicated that they believe the actual utilization of the system to be between
50-70 gallons per day per capita. This difference in system capability and
actual utilization would provide a margin for development within the community.
The drainage area between the damsite and the water supply intake is 0.5
square miles which is two-thirds the size of the tributary area to the damsite.
By correlating this lower area with the upper drainage basin an approximation
of the water available for domestic use can be made as shown in Table T.8.
T.8
Water Available for Domestic Use
Available \~ater Total Water
Available Water Available Water From Lower Available For
Month At Damsite Less Hydro~ower Basin Domestic Use
Oct 1.8 0 1.2 1.2
Nov 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.5
Dec 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.0
Jan 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.0
Feb 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.0
Mar 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.5
Apr 5.0 1.6 3.3 4.9
May 10.0 6.6 6.7 13.3
Jun 6.0 2.6 4.0 6.(;
Jul 2.0 0 1.3 1.3
Aug 2.4 0 1.6 1.6
Sep 2.0 0 1.3 1.3
Based on the above analysis, adequate water would be available year-around
to supply thecommunity's domestic needs. Due to the limited operation of the
hydropower system, i.e. April through October, the available water during the
critical months of winter is unaffected. If, for some unforeseen reason, th,e
water supply demand did exceed the supply, the planned diversion works are
capable of diverting up to 1.2 cfs through the dam on a controlled basis and
could be used to supplement the village's waterSIJpp1y if necessary. During
winter shut-down due to low f1m'ls, the diversion works would divert all flow ~
through the dam to supplement the village water supply and prevent ice-up of ~
the reservoir. A detailed explanation of the winter diversion scheme is
included later in the report.
46
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE WATER SUPPLY
ABOVE SCAMMON BAY
PROPOSED SITE FOR HYDROELECTRIC INTAKE STRUCTURE
80-82
-
T.2.7 Potential Floods
An analysis of data from Moody Creek at Aleknegik (STA. 15-3029-00)
was utilized to estimate potential floods. The drainage area above the
damsite at Scammon Bay is approximately 0.75 square miles while the
drainage area at Moody Creek is 1.28 square miles. Although Moody Creek
does not have the same coastal influence that Scammon Bay does, it was
believed that Moody Creek was the b~st station in the area to use. Its
frequency curve is ill ustrated in Fi gure 5.1 The Scammon Bay di scharges
for various frequencies are illustrated below in Table T.9. These
discharges were determined by a comparison of the drainage areas between
Scammon Bay and Moody Creek.
T.2.8 Dam Safety
Table T.9
SCAMt101~ BAY DISCHARGE FREQUENCIES
Return
Internal
(yrs)
200
100
50
25
10
5
2
Di scharge
Q
(cfs)
135
104
82
65
49
39
27
The "Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams," provides
general criteria for evaluating the safety of dams. Since the actual
storage is less than 50-acre-feet and the height of the dam is less than
25 feet, the site classification would be considered "small." The
fail ure of the dam would not be expected to cause any "loss of 1 ife" or
cause any "economic loss," by flooding. These conclusions result in a
hazard potential classification of "low."
In actuality, the reservoir storage capacity is so small (approxi-
mately 1/10 acre-foot) that any dam failure would not significantly
change the downstream flow. Any adverse effects on the dam itself due to
flooding \'/ould probably be limited to siltation requiring additional
maintenance.
The blo classifications of small size and low hazard potential result in
a recommendation by the guidelines for a Spillway Design Flood (SDF) of
between a 50 to 100-year frequency. A 100-year discharge (104 cfs) was
used.
No damage would be anticipated at the powerhouse due to location
above the 100-year floodplain. However, damage to the village water
supply could be expected where it crosses the stream below the powerhouse
49
site. Two existing culverts pass the streamflow through the road
embankment that supports the water lines. These culverts are inadequate
to pass the design flow.
50
-
T.3 GEOLOGY
T.3.1 Project Site Geology
Local rock is a granodiorite intrusive of probable Tertiary Age.
Deep weathering, jOinting, exfoliation and/or frost spa11ing have
produced surface bou1 der fi e1 ds and thi n si 1 ty soi 1. Unsorted gl aci a1
overburden overlies the granodiorite bedrock in the project area. The
overburden represents ground moraine with interdispersed water-lain
deposit. The glacial overburden consists of gravel and sand containing
numerous cobbles and boulders. Composition of the gravel, cobbles, and
boulders is primarily granitic. The granodiorite bedrock and granitic
glacial overburden weathers quite rapidly due to the climate and mineral-
ogical composition. The glacial overburden varies in thickness through-
out the area due to the undulating granitic bedrock surface. In the
vicinity of the damsite at the 600-foot elevation, the overburden is
approximately 8 to 10 feet thick. Near the powerhouse site, overburden
varies between 6 and 20 feet. Overburden thicknesses were determined
using refraction seismology.
Permafrost is absent to sporadic w.ithin the immediate project areas.
The perennial spring-fed stream and the predictable thick insulation
blanket of drifted winter snow within the stream gully results in a thaw
zone beneath and adjacent to the stream. Outside of the gully, the
surrounding area is underlain by continuous permafrost.
Bank erosion is prevalent on streambank slopes between the village
and its water supply intake. This is probably due t~ summer thaw of the
active layer. The west bank of the stream, between the village and water
supply intake, has a low profile due to subdued erosion. This condition
probably causes thinner winter snow drifts to accumulate in the area,
hence more exposure to prolonged below freezing temperatures.
The powerhouse site is located in an area above the stream where
solifluction does not appear to be a problem.
T.3.2 Material Sources
The borrow area, located on the east edge of Scammon Bay, was sampled
and tested for quality of concrete aggregate. Analysis of the test
results indicated that the fine and coarse aggregates are of relatively
poor quality and will not meet Corps' standards for approval. The
exposed granodiorite outcrop near the site could possibly produce quality
aggregate, however, more testing is needed.
T.4 DAt1, SPILLWAY, AND INTAKE
T. 4.1 Descri pti on
The dam would be constructed of rockfilled gabions arranged around a
cutoff wall that extends into bedrock. This cutoff wall would be
51
constructed of sackcrete and extend approximately 9 feet below the
eXisting ground surface and about 4 feet below the gabions. Layouts of
the dam, intake, penstock and powerhouse are shown on Plates 2 through 5.
The dam would have a crest length of 50 feet and a maximum height
from bedrock of 15 feet. The height above existing ground would be
approxojmate1y 7 to 8 feet. The nonoverf10w secti on of thi s gravity
structure would have a top elevation of 600 feet. The ungated weir
overflow section would have a total length of 13.5 feet at elevation
598. Overflow from the weir would enter the existing streambed. The dam
would consist of one row of standard manufactured galvanized steel
gabions on the upstream side of the cutoff wall and two rows on the
downstream side. These would be set down into the existing streambed.
The gabions would be filled with rocks taken from the reservoir
excavation and the nearby area.
The intake structure would be a square, metal dropbox set vertically
on the right bank. A french drain system would run from the left side of
the intake to the left abutment. The french drain would consist of clean
gravel which would allow flows to enter a perforated pipe in the drain
and be carried through the dam via a metal pipe. A blind flange would be
mounted on the drain pipe inside the intake structure to allow access for
maintenance and entrance of low flows to supplement power production. A
gate valve would be mounted on the drain pipe inside the intake structure
to allow regulation of flow through the dam. A 2 X 2.5-foot trashrack
would he mounted in the side of the intake structure below the elevation
of the overflow section. A movable bulkhead would be mounted above the
trashrack intake. This would be lowered to dewater the intake or to
shutoff the intake during winter shutdown. The grating of the trashrack
would be coated with a hydrophobic fluorocarbon to reduce icing. A
USGS-style gage house would be placed on top of the intake structure to
keep it free of snow and to allow access during periods of deep snow. A
ladder would be installed inside the structure to allow access to the
valves and instrumentation that would be located inside the structure.
T.4.2 Flushing System
The oj ntake structure wou1 d not have a f1 ushi ng system because of its
small size. The reservoir bottom would be sloped away from the intake
toward the center of the small excavated reservoir to prevent rocks and
other debris from accumulating around the intake. If excessive material
does build up in the channel, the reservoir could be drawn down and the
material removed by hand or with a small tractor.
T.4.3 Hydraulic Design
The weir overflow section in the rock gabion dam is designed to pass
the 100-year flow. The overflow section is 2 feet high and 13.5 feet
long.
52
The intake structure is designed to operate year-round regardless of
flow. During the warmer months when flows are capable of exceeding the
power requirements, the water would flow through the trashrack and into
the penstock with excess flow being passed over the weir.
When the system is shut down in the winter, all flows would be
diverted through the dam via the french drain, perforated CMP and drain
pipe. This drain pipe would terminate in another french drain downstream
of the dam to prevent freezing.
During winter operations much of the intake would be covered with
snow; however, to what extent is unknown. Anchor ice could form on the
penstock, diversion pipe and valves. When the hydropower system is
shutdown, the penstock would be drained to prevent failure caused by
freezing.
T.4.4 Operation
Automatic shutoff of the system at a power output of less than 15 kW
would be designed into the turbine/generator unit. It would also be
designed into the manual operation of the plant. When streamflow drops
below 0.63 cfs, the minimum needle valve setting for the turbine, any
further drop in streamflow would result in a decrease in head. When net
head becomes low enough, power output would drop below 15 kW and the
system would shut down automatically; first the jet deflector would
divert the flow away from the turbine runner, then the needle valve would
close slowly (25 seconds). System shutdown (15 kW output) would occur
when gross head reaches about 430 feet and discharge about 0.54 cfs.
Since the turbine control mechanism has no way of knowing when the
streamflow is high or low, a manual setting of the nozzle for an output
of 0.63 cfs with a gross head of 488 feet must be built into the system
and must be activated by the operator when streamflow is in the 0.6 to
0.7 cfs range.
The same type of manual control must be built in for moderate and
high flows since regulation of inflow by load demand alone could cause
the penstock to drain unnecessarily. A fail-safe mechanism should also
be incorporated into the turbine-generator system to prevent penstock
drainage in case of operator error or negligence.
T.4.5 Dewatering of Intake Structure
The intake structure woul d be dewatered to the penstock invert by
lowering the bulkhead and releasing water through the penstock. Minor
maintenance could be done at this time and complete dewatering by pumping
or other means would allow any major maintenance work.
53
T.5 PENSTOCK
T.5.1 Description
The penstock would be buried throughout its length. It would run
within the confines of the ravine through which the stream flows. The
streambed is generally a composition of gravel, cobbles, and boulders
that varies from 6 to 20 feet in depth with some outcrops of bedrock.
The groundline along the stream bottom has an average slop~ of 13.5
percent. The penstock would cross from the right bank to the left bank
of the stream about 550 feet downstream of the dam. The vegetation' cover
in the streambed is minimal.
The' penstock would be a 12-inch inside diameter steel pipe extending
3,500 feet from the intake invert at the at 589-foot elevation 11 feet
below the top of the dam to the powerhouse at 110 feet. The project
gross head is 488 feet. A 12-inch diameter manually operated gate valve
in, the intake structure would allow the penstock to be drained during
winter low-flow conditions and during maintenance. A 1-7/8-inch diameter
air vent would extend from the penstock immediately downstream of the
gate valve up through the gatehouse to the open atmosphere. A screen
would cover the upstream end of the gate valve to insure that no small
objects are drawn into the penstock.
The penstock would be designed for a minimum working pressure of 440
psi with a minimum wall thickness of 0.188 inches. The penstock would be
completely encased in select bedding material to insure against point
loading that could develop with boulders and bedrock.
In periods of cold weather when frazil ice begins to form in the
stream, the downstream valve at the powerhouse would remain open until
the penstock was completely drained. Penstock drainage would be
accomplished by closing the upstream valve to the penstock and allowing
the \'Iater to drai n by defl ecti ng the water away from the buckets of the
impulse turbine. This was determined to be the safest and most cost
effective method to avoid penstock freezing. Insulation of the penstock
was considered, but would only delay the freeze-up for a few hours at a
significantly greater cost.
T.6 POWERHOUSE
T.6.1 Description
The lOO-kW unit would have all equipment housed in a 10xll-foot
prefabricated, insulated, weather tight, steel structure, built on a
12-inch concrete slab. The powerhouse would be located at elevation 110;
the finished floor elevation would be least 3 feet above the maximum
tailwater level. An open channel tai'lrace would be excavated below the
powerhouse.
R: 8/82
54
. ..-Ventilation would be provided by a wall mounted fan. Two fire
"~ exti ngui shers wou1 d provi de fi re protecti on to the bui 1 di ng; none wou1 d
be provided for the generator. A weather tight, roll-up door would allow
access for equipment installation. A 5-ton underhung crane would be
.-
i nsta 11 ed for equi pment hand1 i ng. A 1 ayout of the proposed powerhouse is
shown on Plate 5.
T.6.2 Turbine, Generators, and Electrical Description
The hydroelectric power generation equipment would be procured as a
package unit. It would consist of one impulse turbine, a synchronous
generator, governor system, voltage regulator, and protective and control
devices. Units of this type are readily available from industry, either
as pre-engineered standard or custom designs, covering a wide range of
heads and flows, connected loads, and operating conditions. In addition
to bei ng economical and simpl ifyi n9 install ati on, package unit
procurement reduces the number of supply contracts from three or four to
only one.
The lOO-kW turbi ne woul d be a "standardi zed" hori zontal axi s impul se
or Turgo impulse turbine with one or two adjustable nozzles. The nozzles
\-iould be actuated by servomotors controlled by the governor. Jet
deflectors would be used for diversion of water from the runner for rapid
load change, load rejection, or penstock draining. A cylinder actuated
butterfly valve in the penstock would be provided for shutoff of the
water. The unit would be specified to produce power over a range of 15
to 100 kW when operating at 430 feet net head. The expected discharge
from the turbine at maximum power is estimated to be 3.4 cfs, and 0.63
cfs at mimimum power (l5 kW). A flywheel would be provided, if
necessary, to limit speed excursions during load changes. The turbine
would drive a generator through V-Belts and a parallel shaft gearbox, or
through a direct connection to the generator. The choice of the
operating speed and power transmission system would be left to the
manufacturer. If the gearbox or V-Belt drives were used however, a 4
percent efficiency loss would be charged to the turbine in the
determination of its guaranteed performance characteristic.
The governor system would be furnished as an integral part of the
turbine-generator package unit. The governor system would be composed of
electronic speed sensitive elements (frequency transducer, controller,
and amplifier), a servo system consisting of either electric motor and
gears or hydraulic pump and electric motor, and the necessary controls.
Responding to fluctuations in power demand, the governor would actuate
the needle valve in the water supply line, control the amount of water
supplied to the turbine and regulate the speed of the unit. The governor
size and characteristics (capacity and speed regulation) would be
determined by the manufacturer, based on head, WR2, speed, and power of
the unit •
55
The synchronous generator would be provided as part of the package
unit. The generator, which should be provided with special bearing and
lubricants suitable for operation in extended low temperatures, would be
rated single phase, 60 Hz, 100 kW {125 kVA @ 0.8 pf}, 120/240 volts with
full Class F thermal capacity (Class B temperature rise) and be capable
of cont·j nuous operati on at 110 percent overload and + 5 percent of rated
voltage. The generator would be equipped with a brush1ess, full wave
rotating rectifier excitation system and a saturable transformer type
automatic voltage regulator with a response time of 200 milliseconds,
capable of regulation of one percent from no-load to full-load. The
generator would also be furnished with a control and protection equipment
group. This consists of a circuit breaker (with shunt-coil type,
under-and-over voltage relays, overcurrrent relay, stator thermal relay,
instantaneous ground relay, rec10sing relay, and lockout device), an
ammeter, watt-hour meter, watt-meter, volt-meter, frequency meters, and
indicator lights for manual synchronization. In order to prevent
moisture build-up, it may be necessary to partially energize the system
during winter shut-down.
The generator bus would be tapped beb/een the generator circuit
breaker and the step-up transformer to provide three-wire, single phase
120/240 volts to a lighting distribution panel for service station
lighting, convenience outlets, a ventilating fan, and other miscellaneous
loads.
The main power transformer would be single phase, 120/240 volt
primary, 12,470/7200 volt secondary, 15 kV class, dry type, and
ventilated. It would be floor mounted in the powerhouse.
The generator, excitation, breaker, and turbine controls would be
mounted on the governor equipment cabinet. Controls would be included to
manually synchronize the excited unit to the line. Metering would be
provided for volts, amps, vars and watts. The generators would be
provided with voltage restraint overcurrent and overvo1tage relays.
Underfrequency and overfrequency protection of customer equipment would
be provided with speed switches and some form of automatic time error
control would be considered.
T.7 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
The electrical connection to the existing distribution system would
be by 15 kV, No.2 AWG aluminum conductor on wood poles from the
\'/a11-mounted weatherhead fitting at the powerhouse to the existing 7.2 kV
primary capable in the surface-mounted duct bank. Rigid steel conduit
would be used to run the cable from the terminal pole to a pad mounted
terminal cabinet installed in the duct bank.
56
T.8 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS CONSIDERED
T. 8. 1 Dam
Various types of dams were considered, but due to remoteness, lack of
material sources, and cost they were ruled out. Alternatives considered
included concrete (good aggregate source unavailable), earthfill (access
difficulties and limited borrow material), and timber (no local source
and potential snow creep problems). The chosen alternative, rock filled
gabions is suitable for the small size of the dam. Also the availability
of suitable sized rock in the project area is good.
A sackcrete cutoff to bedrock was used for estimating purposes;
however this may be changed to a membrane cutoff during final design.
T.8.2 Penstock Alternatives
An above ground penstock was considered in addition to the
recommended buried penstock. The buried scheme was selected because it
would present less long term problems. It would be less susceptable to
vandalism, snow creep, freezing and stream activity.
The following pipe materials or combinations of pipe materials were
considered for both above and underground installation:
1. Schedule 40 steel entire length
2. 0.188 inch steel entire length
3. High density polyethylene + Schedule 40
4. High density polyethYlene + 0.188 inch steel
5. Reinforced plastic mortar pipe entire length
Underground installation of 0.188 steel penstock and reinforced
plastic mortar (RPM) pipe were found to be the least costly alterna-
tives •. The steel penstock was chosen because it presents less unknowns
regarding installation and bedding. The remoteness of the location,
potential difficulties in bedding, high working pressures and general
durability were factors considered in pipe selection.
T.8.3 Powerhouse
Due to the limited flow and high head, the only suitable turbine type
is an impulse turbine. Various sized turbines of 50, 75, 100, and 125 kW
were considered. In addition, two 50-kW units were previously considered,
but were found to be 1 ess cost effecti ve than one 1 OO-k\~ uni t. The 100-kW
unit was found to be the optimun choice based of the parameters of flow,
energy demand and cost.
R: 8/82
57
T.9 CO~STRUCTION PROCEDURES
Due to the delicate nature of the permafrost areas near the project,
speci al care \'Ioul d be necessary to assure that these areas are not
distul"'bed unnecessarily. Tracked vehicles brought in by the State of
Alaska to construct the runway in the early 1970's crossed the permafrost
above town when it was unfrozen. This disruption of the vegetative cover
reduced its insulating capabilities resulting in the melting of the
permafrost. This melting has caused additional loss of vegetation and
further melting, resulting in the erosion of gullies nearly 6 feet deep.
For construction of the hydroproject, access would be limited to the
confines of the ravines through which the stream flows. This area is
underlain by a thawbulb in the permafrost. Access over permafrost areas
may be allowed for staging materials and equipment if it were done during
winter when acceptable conditions of frozen ground and adequate snow
cover exist.
An equipment access plan would be incorporated into the contract
documents. This plan would delineate construction corridors for both
summer and winter access.
T.10 PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Once constructed the project would probably be turned over to the
local utility for operation and maintenance in conjunction with the
existing diesel generators. It would be the responsibility of the
utility for all maintenance associated with the intake works, penstock,
powerhouse and distribution system. In addition, spring startup and
winter shutdown including penstock drainage would be required.
The unit would be capable of matching the necessary load during the
time of year when flows equal or exceed the demand. During those low
flow times when energy demand exceeds the capabilities of the system, the
hydropower unit would operate in a base load mode while the diesel would
be utilized for peaking.
58
PERMAFROST EROSION DURING AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION
~ T.11 PROJECT COST
i~ ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL
MOB & PREP WORK 1 LS $300,000
LANDS & DAMAGES
Administrative Costs 1 LS $1,000
Lands 1 LS 4,000
$5,000
DAM, SILL, & RESERVIOR
Excavation 230 CY 20 $ 4,600
Sac kc rete 54 CY 600 32,400
Reinforcement 2,700 LB 1.50 4,050
Gabion 216 EA 40 8,640
Rock 144 CY 160 23,040
Backfi 11 18 CY 10 180
Drain pipe 12" II' 90 EF 25 2,250
French Drai n 30 CY 50 1,500
$76,660
INTAKE STRUCTURE
Steel Intake 1,224 LB 5.00 $ 6,120
Bulkhead Gate LS 10,000
Trashrack 100 LB 5.00 500
Transducer 1,200
Manometer 600
Gate Valves 12" II' 2 EA 7,900 15,800
Insulated Structure 1 EA 6,400
$40,620
PENSTOCK
Steel (12" II' 88,270 LB 2.70 $238,329
0.188" thick)
Concrete Anchor 30 CY 600 18,000
and Thrust Blocks
Excavation 3,000 CY 20 60,000
Backfill 3,000 CY 30 90,000
$406,329
61
ITEM DESCRIPTION
POWERHOUSE
Structure
Turbines &
Generators
Auxiliary Systems
Switchyard and
Distribution
System Connection
TAILRACE
Excavation
Riprap
SUBTOTAL
20 Percent Contingencies
CONTRACT COST
QUANTITY
LS
LS
LS
LS
45
15
Engineering and Design
Supervision and Administration
TOTAL PROJECT COST
T.12 PROJECT ECONOMICS
T.12.1 Federal Criteria
UNIT
1
1
CY
CY
lINIT PRICE
25
120
TOTAL
$ 43,000
145,000
18,000
28,000
$234,000
$1 ,125
1,800
$2,925
$1,065,534
213,166
$1,278,700
$ 102,000
102,300
$1,483,000
Under criteria established for Federal water resource projects, the
Selected Plan is feasible •. Factors influencing the feasibility have been
presented in appropriate sections of the report. The results are
presented below:
ANUUAL COSTS AND BENEFITS
Interest and Amortization (7-7/8% @ 50 yrs)
Operation and Maintenance
Interest During Construction
Total Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Fuel Displacement Benefit
Fuel Cost Escalation Benefit
Operation and Maintenance Benefit
Employment Benefit
Total Annual Benefit
Net Annual Benefit
Benefit-Cost Ratio
62
R:
$ 120,000
22,000
3,000
$ , 45, 000
$ 70,000
52,000
23,000
25,000
$ , 70, 000
$ 25,000
1 • 2 to 1
8/82
~ -,'
""" ' """
" .. .....:1(111'1": ... ",. r·;·IIP' "iii iCI{,,¥#."-!~OR¥S OF ENGINEERS
. t':f ...------------------.,....-------------
I
CAPE
ROMANZOF
BAY
. \
\
(~OUNTAINS
~
VICINITY MAP
SCALE' I" it I MILt
ASKINUK MO UN T A INS
CLARENCE RHODE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE RANGE
c J
LOCA TION MAP
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
SCAMMON BAY, ALASKA
1-.... ...... --1 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
LOCATION a VICINITY MAP
SHEET I
INV. NO. DACW85-
U. S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
()
\.)
-lWii
-< m
~
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, .ALASKA
SCAMMON BAY. ALASKA
/-",~_::------t HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
GENERAL PLAN
INV. NO. DACW85-
U. S. ARMY
~ORPS OF ENGINEERS
\
u
) \
\
I
T-~ ----.
\,
... ~\
~. ,'>~~S'"
~.~~ . --··~~:s~
DAM LOCATION -Pl...~~--=-~
a;r.;l7O.0
-GoATCHOU5E.
'~--_'.""-~
UPSTREAM eL-EVATION
; ! I · i
SCA.lE IN rEET
/
/'
_/
/
...------+_ ~L.INc> Fl..o*J(;IO
[?ETAIL ®
r I !
/'
/'
/'
SCALE I N FEET
/
/'
/'
/
/
~
/
----
ALASKA DISlRICT
CORPS 0,. DlGINDRS
ANCHORA ..... ALASKA
SCAMMON BAY, ALASKA tm __ ~"""" HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
I"m_~'"""'t DAM AND INTAKE STRUCTURE
PLAN. ELEVATION. a DETAIL
!CALEo AS SHOWN .. '" ... -
INV. NO. DACW85-
U. S. ARMY
n
u
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
HOI.J'5E-----
F'E:,*,T~ \l6l..V~
CONTItOL.
PlVEI1<;IOIJ PIPE!
VAl-Ye COI'ITlrOL...
~I(
1l'9" PiA. All< VENT----HI-----'
VAl-VE 9TlSMS ------II't--
~u::~----~II
~.5'n.O
neo..SH~ ---~-t-H
l.X>P~-----_I±f--
EI--594.0
I-------i .•. '. 1-----+------1
l-----i " -1 -
.' -e~~~~~~EE~~·o.o:::::d
<OCREOliI-J ---/
12' ; ~ .... re.
V-"/..VIO
12" ¢ ~FORATEt>--+""",~J
PIP!!
TYPICAL "'SPILLWAY "SEcTION
o 1 '1 :J 4 ~ u----____
St-.LE IN r[ ET
o
SECTION EB
J
SCALE Iii FEET
<:LA%lFIIW ---~-/
e.>o:'FIL-L-~J;%
COHPACTION
'SECTION
d f
SCALE 'N FEET
AU'.SKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA
SCAMMON BAY. ALASKA "----~ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
,-_.,...::.ptz.'"IDAM AND INTAKE STRUCTURE
SECTIONS
INV. NO. DACW85-
SCAUo AS SHOWN .... '"
RLI! NU .....
SH&T4 0.:5
U. S. ARMY
~ORPS OF ENGINEERS
o
'-
I 2 3 ! I ;
SC .... LE IN n: [T
4
!
I' TAILP.A<% DeTAl1h
TO q,UIT '?I"TE
11~O'
. of G!l!IJI!IV<10,..
100 f',Y./ IZO/Z40 VN:.,
,",0101&, l¢.i
PLAt-J 1-100 KW U~IT
r ! f i
U. S. ARMY
PO~l"WQJ, fO'<1l~ -tpo ):<; W.
HaAD -~ 1"1".
ALASKA DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEDte
ANCHORAGE. Al.A8KA
SCAMMON BAY! ALASKA
.... __ ---; HYORC£LECTRIC PROJECT
"-_ ....... '"-1 SCAMMON BAY POWERHOUSE
TRANSVERSE SECTION AND PLAN
INV. NO. DACW85·
SCALE.AS SHOWN DATE: .... ,.,-
...... 5 OF 5
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
In accordance with the National Environmental Pol icy Act of 1969, as
amended, the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, has assessed the
environmental impacts of the following action:
SMALL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SCAMMON BAY, ALASKA
Hydroelectric po~r would be developed from the stream which originates
south of Scammon Bay and flows through the village. The stream flows
from approximately elevation 800 to elevation 50 where it merges with the
main channel of the Kun River. A small reservoir (less than one-tenth of
an acre-foot of storage) would be excavated upstream of a rock-filled
gabion dam which \\()u1d be constructed with a crest elevation of 600
feet. A penstock \\()uld run 3500 feet from the intake structure of the
dam to an aboveground powerhouse with an installed capacity of 100
kilowatts located near the village's school. An open channel tailrace
approximately 50 feet in length \\()uld be excavated from the powerhouse to
the main stream channel.
The estimated flows at the damsite display a high discharge of 10 cubic
feet per second in May with a low of 0.3 cubic feet per second during
January. These flows could develop about 372,000 kilowatt-hours of
electricity annually, of which 275,000 kilowatt-hours is estimated to be
us ab 1 e.
Scammon Bay is totally dependent upon fuel oi 1 for space and water
heating and electrical generation. Increases in fuel prices have been
the principal source of the rising costs of electrical power. The
average cost of diesel fuel delivered to Scammon Bay has increased almost
four fold since 1973. Future demand and scarcity of petrochemical
products will cause continued price increases.
The Environmental Assessment indicates no significant adverse impacts
would occur dur,ing the construction or the operation and maintenance of
the proposed project. A letter of intent to prepare a Finding Of No
Si gni fi c ant Impact (FONS!) for the proposed project was dis tri buted to
the resource agencies for their review and comment. None of the agencies
indicated any objection to the preparation of a FONS!. The Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated the
magnitude of the project and the low levels of wildlife resources in the
project area eliminated the need of an environmental impact statement.
The environmental review process has indicated to me that the proposed
action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact
statement will not be prepared for the small hydroelectric project at
Scammon Bay. Alaska. Also, the proposed action does not appear to
confl ict with the approved Alaska Coastal Management Program or any other
appropriate regulation or program. The Environmental Assessment \tkIich
has addressed the proposed action is available from the District Office
upon request.
DATE
fl1 ~t?d--.-It( ///drvh 118',2. LEE R. NUNN'
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
~ NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress to conduct feasibility
studies for the development of small hydroelectric power facilities at
i so 1 ated vi 11 ages throughout Alaska. The v'l 11 age of Scammon Bay requested
that the Alaska District study the hydropower potential of a small, unnamed
spring-fed stream that runs through their village.
Scammon Bay, a member of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(AVEC), is totally dependent upon diesel generation for electric power.
Because of the escalating cost of diesel fuel and concern over its
availability, alternative power sources, such as hydroelectric power, could be
more economical and reduce the use of nonrenewable resources.
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INPUT
The following agencies, interest groups, and individuals were consulted
during the feas'ibi 1 ity study for the Scammon Bay hydroelectric project: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Alaska Power
Authority: Public Health Service; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Nothern Technical
Services (NORTEC); AVEC: Homer Hunter, Mayor of Scammon Bay; and residents of
Scammon Bay.
RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
This document was prepared under the guidelines of the National
Environmental Policy Act established by the Counsel on Environmental Quality.
The document is in full compliance with Federal and State of Alaska
regulations, with the exception of the Coastal Zone Management Act which will
be met upon completion of the final document review. Although the Scammon Bay
area does not have an approved Coastal Management Plan, this project, as
stated, is consistent with the overall Alaska Coastal Management Plan.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided a Coordination Act Report as
per the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. A copy of the
Coordination Act Report and Corps of Engineers responses is contained in
Appendix A.
ALTERNATIVES •
The Corps of Engineers is authorized to study the feasibility of
hydroelectric alternatives and, if warranted, recommend them to Congress for
construction authorization. Nonhydroelectric alternatives are also assessed;
however, the Corps of Engineers is not involved in their design or
construction.
3
Hi nd Generati on
Conti nuous \1i nd recordi ngs are avail ab1 e fron Cape Rortanzof,
approxinate1y 14 niles \'lest of Scamon Bay on the south side of the
Askinuk r10untains. \~ind direction varies, but "lind from the northeast is
the most comon. Because of the northeasterly \'Ii nds, Scallll10n Bay may
experience a higher Hind reoime than Cape Romanzof due to its geographic
location on the north side of the mountain range. Although no wind data
have been collected at the village, residents state that they experience
high Hinds for long durations, particularly during the Hinter. Before
they joined AVEC, \lind generation \"las used by tHO households. Based on
the interpretation of Cape Romanzof ''lind data, it appears that there is
sufficient wind, of both magnitude and duration, to supply Scannon Ray
\'lith a portion of their electrical energy needs during the \-/inter. The
feasibility of uind generation during the sumer is questionable because
of the lo\'1er average \lind velocities at that time.
Existing Conditions (Diesel)
Scamon Ray presently derives electrical po\'1er from diesel-fired
generation. The system provides year-round dependable power and meets
the needs of the comunity. The econonic feasihi1ity of continued diesel
use is questionable because of increasing prices and possibly declining
availability. The future costs of producing electrical pO"ler fron diesel
in rural Alaska nay become prohibitive.
Other alternative energy sources include solar, Haste heat recovery,
geothema1, coal, peat, tinber, municipal sol id \taste, and tidal. Of
these a1tenatives, geothe~a1, coal, peat, and timber are not feasible
due to the lack of these resources in the immediate area. Scanmon Ray's
location on the north side of the mountains nakes solar energy infeasible
for nost of the year. Recoverable waste heat from AVEC's diesel
generation could produce 2,090 million Btu's per year. This alternative
",ou1d require the continued use of diesel generation and the design of an
adequate transmission system. If diesel generation continues, this
alternative may be a viable ener9Y source for space heating. r1unicipa1
solid waste could produce up to 626 ni11ion Rtu's per year and provide 5
percent of the comunity' s present fuel input requi rement. Effecti ve
generation from tidal pO\'ler requires a minimum head of approximately 10
feet. Daily tides at the project area are about 6 to 7 feet. Coupled
"lith the lack of mininum head and the icing conditions of Scamon Bay,
this alternative does not appear to be feasible.
Hydroe1~ctric (Selected Alternative)
Hydroelectric pOHer ''Iou1d be developed from a spring-fed stream
1 ocated south of the to\'m of Scamon Bay. The stream f10\'/s from
approxinate1y elevation 000 to elevation 50, \/here it merges \.,ith the
nain channel of the Kun River. A sna11 reservoir would be excavated
upstream of a rock-filled gabion dan, \'Ihich \'/ou1d be constructed at
elevation fi96 (existing ground), about 3,500 feet from the town proper.
A penstock \'Iou1d run from the intake structure of the dam to an
aboveground pO\'rerhouse, \'Ihich wou1 d be located across the strean from the
village's Bureau of Indian Affairs school.
4
An open channel tail race approximately 50 feet in length ''Iould be
,_ excavated from the powerhouse to the mai n strean channel. Several
''wr alternatives for the installation of the penstock and for the type of
pipe are presented here.
A dar:l \'/i th a maximum hei ght of 9 feet Houl d be constructed froM
standard manufactured gal vani zed steel gabi ons fill ed \'1ith rocks taken
from the reservoir excavation and the stream itself. A sackcrete or
membrane cut-off \'/all extendi ng to bedrock ''1ould be constructed at the
center of the dam. Thi s cut-off ''IOU 1 d extend approximately 9 feet below
the existing ground surface; its top \'Iould be flush with the top of the
dam at elevation 600. The dan \'1ould extend about 50 feet across the
stream gully and ,,/ould include a spilh/ay with a 13.5-foot-long \'1eir, 2
feet 10\'1er than the top of the dar:l.
THO alternatives \"ere studied for the installation of the
12-inch-dianeter penstock. For both alternatives, the invert of the
penstock at the intake structure is set at elevation 589, 11 feet belo\'1
the top of dan at elevation 600. A sluice gate would be installed to
regul ate the flow through the penstock and for emergency operati on. The
penstock would run cim'lnstream at an average slope of 13.5 percent. Under
the proposed plan, the penstock \\Iould be entirely buried about 2 feet
helou the existing grade. A trench ''1ould be excavated and backfilled as
required. The penstock would be anchored and supported as required. A
steel penstock was found to be more suitable than other materials for
installation because it is more durable against natural diaster or
vandalisM. The penstock would cross the stream at a location
approximately 550 feet downstream of the dam.
The penstock would connect to a valve upstream of the turbine. The
powerhouse \'1ould be located at elevation 110 and be built on a concrete
slab. The finished floor elevation of the slab \'/ould be about 4 feet
above the mainstream "later level. Three different sites for the
pm.,erhouse were consi dered, but geol ogi cal fi ndi ngs proved that two of
the sites \'Iere not suitable due to potential flooding and unsuitable so11
conditions. The equipment \'/ould be hOlJsed in a small 10xll-foot
structure.
The project pm'fer would be transmitted through the existing local
di stri buti on system. One or tHO ,,,ooden pol es may be requi red for the
connection. No cleari ng of any vegetation \'1ould be necessary.
ENvmotJr1ENTAL SETTING
The village of Scanmon Bay is located on the Kun River, approximately
150 niles north\lest of Bethel, Alaska.
The areas to the north and east of the village are 10\'11and tundra,
\'/hich is typical of the Yukon-Kuskoh/iM Delta, \'Iith nUMerous lakes, slow
meandering streans, and little relief. To the west is ScaMMon Bay and
the Bering Sea. Inmediately south of the village are the Askinuk
t10untains, a small isolated range that is an atypical feature of the
delta.
5
B~ginning at Cape Ronanzof on the Bering Sea, the nountains generally run
east ilnd \lest, terni nati n9 approxinate1y 35 ni 1 es i n1 and. The mountai n
range averages less than 6 niles in width. Several peaks south of the
vi11aqe exceed 1,000 feet in elevation.
The lowland tundra area supports the vegetative types associated \'Iith
",et t'mdra, prinari1y a sedge and cottongrass r:1at \'lith a fe\" \1I)0dy plants
\there the terrace rai ses them above standi ng \'/ater. The Aski nuk
r10untains have t\lO distinct vegetative types. r10ist tundra, \"Ihich
extends frolil the foothill s throughout the 10\'ler portion of the range,
supports uniforn stands of cottongrass tussocks, sedges, and dwarf
shrubs. Alpine tundra, found at the higher elevations of the Askinuk
11ountians, supports lo\'l-gro\'ling nats of herbaceous and shrubby plants.
Although the nountain range is relatively steep, the vegetative r:1at
conhi ned ~"li th peYT.lafrost ho1 ds the Hater to nake the slopes noi st duri ng
the nonfrozen season.
11ilbi tats of the project area are predomi nate1y noi st tundra. The
only dry areas are rock outcrops and individual boulders. ~~i1dlife
resources are mai n1y bi rds and small rodents with only a rare vi sit of
1 arger nama1 s. Because of the 1 ack of she1 ter and year-round food
sources, the Hestern Yukon-I~uskok\lin Del ta is almost devoi rI of 1 arge
nannal s.
r1any species of birrls use the area near the project. Nesting
HaterfO\/l and shore hi rds are abundant north of the vill age in the ",et
tflndra habi tat. Thev contri bute to the Yukon-Kuskob'/in Oe1 ta IS 1. 5
nillion breeding duc'ks per year and fall migration of about 3 million
ducks. The noist and alpine tundra areas south of the village in the
Aski nllk r10untai ns support nesti ng and reari n9 habi tats for an abundance
of shore birds. Although no actual population estinates Here nade,
visual observations indicate that this is a favorable bird-use
envi ronnent. /\n acti ve rough-1 egged haHk nest \'/aS located at the top of
the nountains directly south of the village. SnottY Ot/ls and long-tailed
jaegers a1 so use the area for hunti n9 snall nanmal s and hi rose
An unnamed strean originates near the Askinuk rlountain range sUnrlit
and is fed by suhsurface f101"/ throughout its 1 ength. The stream has
penetrated the pennafrost and forr:Jed a re1 ati ve1y \"li de streaMbed
channel. The rise in streanbed elevation is very steep and the strean is
nost1y a continuous torrent of cascading \'later. In several places, the
strean has cut to bedrock, but A to 10 feet of unconsolidated material
i nterni xed \lith houl ders is present at the proposed dansi te and 15 to 20
feet of the sane naterial is present at the pO\'Ierhol.Jse site. The portion
of the strean fron its source to near the village has a very stable
strean channel, considering the steep slope and resultant high water
vel oci ty. No areas of streanbank eros; on are evi dent and the amount of
fines observerl in the streanbed appear 10v. .
Historically, the strean supported a very snall run of pink sa1non
near its nouth t~ere it enpties into the Kun niver. Several small
\/aterfa11s, and one over 6 feet, e1ininate any novenent of fish fron the
Kun niver in front of the village into the upper section of the unnamed
strean. Even if no \/aterfall s were present, the strear.1 velocity is such
that suitah1e fish hahitat is generally nonexistant ahove the village.
6
-The pink salnon run no longer exists in the strean and, accord'ing to the
Alaska Oepartment of Fish and Game, no salmon now ente~ the Kun River.
The portion of the stream from the village to the Kun River is a
meandering tidal slough. The 10l"/er end of the stream is used as a
protective nooring and beaching area for snall skiffs.
The stream is used by the village residents as their drinking \"later
source. The Public Health Service established an infiltration gallery,
hol di ng tank, and pumphouse for the \i'/ater supply system. The
infiltration gallery is located several hundred yards upstream of the
tmin and I'loul d be beb/een the dam and pO\"lerhouse si te of the proposed
project. The Publ ic Health Service has recomnended a ni ninun flow of
27.8 gallons per minute, which is equivalent to 0.06 cfs. This ,.,ould
provide approxinately 200 gallons per day per capita, Ithich is well above
the present consuMption of between 50-70 gallons per day per capita. The
holding tank stores approxinately 30,000 gallons, which is sufficient to
supply the village Hater requirements for 2 days.
There is no approved Coastal Zone r1anageMent Pl an for the Scamon Bay
area. The Alaska Coastal Policy Councils Standards of the Alaska Coastal
11anagenent Progran (6AA80. 070) establ i shes cri teri a for energy faci li ti es
within the coastal zone. The proposed hydroelectric project is
consistant \'lith the suitable site deternination outlined by the standards.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
In earlier tines, the village located at Scammon Ray \'las known by the
Eskimo nane "Hariak." The village I-las later renamed after the nearby bay
that honors Captain Charles f1. Scamon, "ho served \'lith the Hestern
Telegraph Expedition from 1856-1967. The nane Scammon Bay became
corll1only applied to the village in 1951 \'then a post office of that nane
was estabished. Other names that have been applied to this locality are
Kutnillt, rlallagniut, r1ariakmiut, and r1ariak. The name Kutmiut Has first
Mentioned by Oall in 1870 for an Eskimo village located 2.7 miles east of
the present village (Orth 1967).
The people in this area are of the Mageniut subdivision or tribe of
Yupik-speaking Eskir:lOS. The r1agemiut numbered around 400 people at the
tine of European contact (Osl1al t 1968: 8) and were essenti ally an i nl and
oriented people centered between the Yukon and Kuskokl"liM River about 20
miles south of r10untain Village (Os\'lalt 1967:6, Zagoskin 1967:210.)
The 11agemiut Here noted for their war-like behavior. This factor,
conbinerl \'lith their renote location, neant that the t1ager.!iut "/ere not
exposed to intensive European/Al"1erican contact until recent years. Few
ethnographic studies have been done on the area so it is difficult to
reconstruct aboriginal subsistence patterns. Present day villagers are
involved \lith connericial fishing for salmon and herring; it is likely
that these I"lere harvested in the past along with inland resources such as
cari bOll and HaterfO\,tl.
7
Good archeological sequences have been "/orked out for coastal areas
north of Norton Sound and south of Bristol Ray, hut fe\'l studies have been
done for the Yukon-Kuskokvin Delta area. The National Register of
Historic Places has been consulted and no eligihle properties are in or
near the project area. The State Historic Preservation Office advised
that no adverse 'inpacts "/oul d he 1 i kely to occur to cultural resources as
a resfJl t of thi s project.
Hydroelectric (Selected Alternative)
Background infor~ation and field investigations performed for the
hydroelectric alternative indicate that little fish and wildlife activity
occurs '-/ithin the influence of the project area. There are no fishery
resources in the unnaned strean uith the possible exception of the area
north of the village near the Kun River. A run-of-river project, as the
one proposed for Scannon Bay, does not include 'tater storage. All or a
portion of the existing streamflo\'l above the proposed diversion structure
\'1ould be utilized for pO\'ler generation and the '-later 'tould be returned to
the strean above the area of possi bl e fi shery acti vity without changes in
"later cheni stry, tenperature, or flO\'/. The stream het\"leen the proposed
di versi on structure and pmterhouse woul d lose sone or most of the flo\'l.
The porti on of the strean bet\'teen the pov/erhouse and di versi on structure
is above several velocity barriers and 'taterfalls that inhibit fish
migration. Because of the existing stream velocity in the area, suitable
fish habitat is generally absent. The proposed hydroelectric project
would have insignificant impacts on usable strean hahitiit and possible
fi shery resources. The pl aceJ:1ent of the di versi on structure, penstock
alinenent, and tailrace configuration ",ould cause a teJ:1porary increase in
suspended sol ids; hO\tever, thi s nay he mi nor and short temed because of
the light load of fines and other snall-grained naterial. To assure that
the dri nki ng \later standards for the vi 11 age I s 'tater supply are net,
construction of the rliversion structure and penstock nay have to occur in
stages. Close coordination ''lith the Public Health Service to detenn1ne
that acceptable drinking \-/ater can be stored and distributed would be
continuous until project cOJ:1pletion.
r1i nor di srupti on of nesti ng and reari ng of shorebi rds may occur
during project construction if the activity is rluring the summer months.
Although nesting densities are high in the ScanJ:1on Bay area, hird
utilization in the area of project influence is 10\1. I~aterfowl nesting
north of the village, shorehird activity in the noist and alpine tundra,
and pasteri ne bi rd nesti ng \'lest of the vill age are far enough reMoved and
the J:1agnitude of the proposed action is snall enough so that only minor
di srupti ons are expected duri ng constructi on. Ouri ng actual project
operation, the disruption to the hird population should be ninimal or
nonexistent.
r1aJ:1nal activity in the project area is extrenely 10\'1, possihly with
the exception of lemmings and voles. The J:1agnitude of the project ,.,ould
cause only short-tern ni nor di stlJrbances of mamnal s.
8
-Construction of the reservoir \'Iould require the excavation of
approxinately 170 cubic yards (cy) of naterial. The area of excavation
''1ould be \"Iithin the streambed. The najority of this material ,~ould be
used for the construction of the dan and an additional 30 cy of rock
r.1aterial frolil the surrounding area \"ould be necessary for the conpletion
of the structure. There is enough surface rock nateri al close to the
proposed di versi on dam so that a quarry site ,~oul d not be requi red. The
excavation of the naterial for the reservoir and the collection of
surface rock for the conpletion of the dan '-/ould occur in an area of
little biological productivity and no impacts on the biological cor.n:lUnity
or physical danage to the environment are expected.
Penstock al i nenent \loul d occur wi thi n the strean channel in an area
not underlain with permafrost. If the buried penstock alternative is
constructen, approxinately 3,950 cy of nateri al \'IOU 1 d be excavated. The
penstock t/oul d be pl aced in the excavated area and all the materi al ''1oul d
be ~ackfilled. This operation "ould cause short-tern adverse impacts to
Hater quality; hOHever, the stream should return to preproject conditions
shortly after construction.
The placement of the pO\,/erhouse is outside the lOO-year flood plain
ina sui tabl e foundati on area. Inpacts associ ated ''lith excavation for a
lOxll-foot concrete sl ah and pO'terhouse are mi ninal. Interti e with the
existing po\'Ier facilities nay require the placement of one wooden pole in
an area that has heen disturbed.
The greatest ir.lpact of project constructi on coul d be erosi on caused by
liIechanized equipnent on the steep slopes. Geological surveys indicate
that pemafrost is present on all slopes ''1ithin the project area with the
exception of the stream channel and flood plain. Removal of the thin
vegetative nat could allO\·f pemafrost to tha\'I, resulting in ground
subsi dence and subsequent creation of deep gull ies from erosi on. Danage
caused by tracked vehicles operati ng on tundra underl ai n by pemafrost
has been well documented. The construction of the diversion structure,
penstock al i nenent, and pm·terhouse facil i ti es, and the transportati on of
materials \'/Ould require the use of a small-tracked vehicle that could
avoid erosion-prone rernafrost areas.
Nornally, vehicular movelilent is not recoQmended in strear.1 channels
hecause of "later qual ity degradation and its effect on fi shery
resources. Ho\'fever, the strealil channel is of sufficient ''1idth to alloh!
the operation of a SMall-tracked vehicle with little or no instrean
novenent and sti 11 avoi d pennafrost areas. Water qual ity degradati on
\loul d he ni nor and no inpacts are expected to the possi bl e fi shery
resources at the mouth of the stream. If project construction comences
during the lIinter nonths, naterials and equipment could he ferried IIhen
the ground is snO\'/ covered \'1i thout di sturbi ng the vegetati ve nat. Pl ans
for \linter and sllmer nobilization have been fomulated and are included
in Section T.9 of the nain report.
9
W IUD ClENEr.ATIotJ
Although the Corps of Engineers has not designed any plans for the
\'lind generation alternative, the facility ",ould probably be located
tm'fard the top of the r.lOuntain range several niles south of the village.
The major impact associated with the construction of wind generation
would be erosion. In order to service the \lind pO\'fer facilities and
install the pm'/er pol es, a road \'Ioul d probably be requi red. The
constructi on of a road or even a IIjeep trai 111 over areas underl ai n \'lith
pemafrost \'foul d cause seri ous erosion. Pemafrost 1 imits the rooti ng
depths of pl ants, prevents i nfil trati on of \'fater doum'lard through
surficial materials, and so increases surface runoff. Surface \'1ater
accur:1ul ates in depressi ons where peaty nateri al s fom, creati ng a
continuously \'1et environnent conducive to marsh and tundra development.
The vegetative blanket insulates the pernafrost layer, increasing its
freezing depth. Disruption of the vegetative cover destroys the fragile
thernal balance, resulting in tha\'1, subsidence, and erosion. To
construct any type of road in the mOllntai ns behi nd Scanr.1on Bay without
causing erosion, an insulating gravel pad \'(ould he needed. Even if a
road \Ii th thi s type of i nsul ati ng factor \'Iere constructed, erosion along
the edges of the road still nay occur. The construction of \,/ind
generation facilities anY\'/here but within the village proper \'Iould
probably cause irreversible adverse environr.1ental inpacts.
10
( 1 ( )
EFFECTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN ON RESOURCES OF PRINCIPAL NATIONAL RECOGNITION
Types of Resources
Ai r qu a 1 ity
Areas of particular
concern within the
Coastal Zone.
End angered and
threatened species
critical habitat
Fish and wildlife
habitat
Floodplains
Historic and cultural
properties
Prime & unique farmland
Water quality
Wetlands
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Principal Sources of National Recognition
Clean Air Act as ammended
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Executive Order 11,988 Floodplain Management
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
as ammended
CEQ memorandum of August 1, 1980. Analysis
of Impacts on Prime or Unique Agricultural
Lands in Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act
Clean Water Act of 1977
Executive Order 11,990, Protection of Wetlands
Clean Water Act of 1977
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as ammended
Measurement of Effects
~'iO effect
.r~o effect
No effect
Temporary disruption
during construction; no
long term losses
No effect
No effect
Not present in planning area
Increase in turbidity
during construction, no
long term impacts
anticipated
No effect
Not present in planning area
Relationship to Environmental Requirements
Federal Policies
Archaeological and Historic
Preservation Act
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972
Endangered Species Act
of 1973
Estuary Protection Act
Federal Water Project
Recreation Act
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965
Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972
National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969
National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966
River and Harbors Appropriation
Action of 1899
Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act
Water Resource Planning Act
of 1966
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Flood Plain Management E.O. 11988
Protection of Wetlands E.O. 11990
Preferred Alternative
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Partial Compliance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Full Comp 1 i ance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Not Applicable
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
Not Applicable
Fu 11 Comp 1 i ance
Not Applicable
Full Compliance
Full Compliance
12
State Policies Preferred Alternative
Alaska Coastal Management Program Partial Compliance
Anadromous Fish Protection Permit Full Compliance
Required Federal Entitlements
None Required.
Note: The compliance categories used in this table were assigned based on the
following definitions:
a. Full compliance --all requirements of the policy and related
regulations have been met.
b. Partial compliance some requirements of the policy and related
regulations remain to be met.
c. Noncompliance --none of the requirements of the policy and related
regulations have been met.
13
APPENDIX A
United States Department of the Interior
IN I1Ft'1 Y IlrfHI HJ
r;.) 1 011<'1 Lct' R. Nunn
District Engineer
A 1 ;1 s b Iii s t rj c t
Corps or i'~ngin('ers
Anchoragp, ,\ Laska 99510
I'ISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 F. TUDOR RD,
ANt'l1( )RA(iI:. ALASKA 1)1)501
(IX)?) 27fdXOO
1 9 DEC i'JfD
AU;)clieri is the riml1 Coordination Act (CA) Report which was prepared in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amE'ndl'd; 1f) lISC 661 et seq.). The report provides an analysis of biological
information to be used by the Corps of Engineers (CE) in planning and
constructing it small hydroelectric project at Scammon Bay, Alaska. The
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) began participating in the project
in April 1980.
Till' n'IH)rt was pre'pared to s;1tisfy requirements specified in the Scope of
Work f"r the Small I!y(lropower, Scammon Bay project. Information provided
is h;]~,L'd on field inv:'stigation, a literature review, and coordination
with [l,·rsonnel from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the CE, the
Alaska Power I\dmini~tr;1tion. and National Marine Fisheries Service.
Should Y(lU have ailY questions, please contact our Western Alaska Ecological
Servin's office.
Sincerely, ~~".//;){~ . -/1-
,.--~ ~ --~ l .~". , 7
/,' .,. -,I
l\.<;oIRtant Area Director
l"C: A()I',S, WAI':S
}\DFf..C, NHFS, Anl~C, OeM, Juneau
III)!-'&<:, N~1FS, AI)f~C, EPA, Anchorage
--
Scammon Bay Small Hydropower
Scammon Bay, Alaska
Final
Coordination Act Report
Submitted to Alaska District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Anchorage, Alaska
Pn~par,·d by: Paul Hanna, M.L. Nation
Approved by: Robert G. Bowker, Field Supervisor
Wcst0rn Alaska Ecological Services Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anchorage, Alaska
November 1980
-.....
-.
Table of Contents
Page
TlltrC)(luct.i()n •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
Project .Description ............••........•.•.•.......•..•.•. 1
rh·sc t"; rt ion or l{esollrceR ...........•...••...•...•........... 5
Physical Inventory ••••••••••
Binlogic;l1 I.nventory •••••••
Scammon Ray Vicinity.
Project Vicinity ••
5
6
6
. ... 10
Ma.jnr Potential Tmpacts ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14
IJi sCl,ssion ...................................••.............. 15
Rc comme nda t ions .....••........••.•...•••••.•••.•.•.•••••..•• 17
IJit("rl.ltllre Ci.ted •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18
Ar>pend ices ••.•.•••••.•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19
-
-
List of Figures
Page
Flgure 1. Location ,~nd Vicinity Map ••.••••••••••••.•••••••••• 2
I,'igure 2. Project L~atures in relation to Scammon Bay ........ 3
I'Lgll n' 3. I)nPl. and upper penstock ............................... 4
Figurl> 4. Powerhouse and tailrace ... iloilo. iloilo •••••••••••••••••••• 6
Fi gil T(' 5. View of Scamnmn Bay in relation to the unnamed
stream running through the village ••••••••••••••••• ll
Figure n. Typical cross-section of the unnamed stream
n0ar the lower end of the project area ••••••••••••• ll
Figure 7. One of several velocity chutes preventing fish
from ascending the unnamed stream •••••••••••••••••• 13
Figure 8. Erosion from the thawing of permafrost in the
mountains behind Scammon Bay caused by moving
heavy equipment across the tundra ••••••••••••••••• 13
Appendix T.
List of Appendices
Sci.entific names of vegetation, birds,
Mammals, fish, and marine invertebrates
Page
appparin~~ in the text ............•......•..•...• 19
Apppn(l Lx T r. IHros ol:curring in habitats in the vicinity
of Scammon Hay, Alaska •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23
/\1'1"'11\1 ix I [I. ~';P'c'c ies of whales recorded in the Hering Sea •••• 25
-1-
INTRO!)UCT ION
The village of Scammon Bay is located in western Alaska on the Bering Sea
near the confluence of the Kun River with Scammon Bay (Figure 1). The
area is remote, lying 140 miles northwest of Bethel. Access is by air-
plClne or, seasonally, by boat or snowmachine. The village economy is
based primari1y on subsistence hunting and fishing.
Currently the village depends on diesel generators for electricity
provided by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). Costs of
diesel delivered to !WEC villages during the summer of 1979 reached $2.50
per gallon (U.S. Department of Energy, 1979). This cost of fuel plus
service has resl.lted in power costs to individuals in excess of 40¢ per
kilowatt hour with additional price increases likely.
Local interests contacted the Corps of Engineers (CE) in the spring of
1979 requesting inclusion of Scammon Bay in the CE small hydroelectric
investigation program. The purpose of this study by the CE is to in-
vestigate the potential of small hydropower (5 megawatts or less) devel-
opment for Scammon Bay to reduce the village's dependence on high-priced
fuel oil. Since the Alaska Power Administration (APA) had studies sched-
uled for Scammmon Bay as part of a hydropower inventory for the AVEC, the
CF. asked the APA to look at Scammon Bay's power potential as part of a
cooperative activity, According to the APA, Scammon Bay has the best
potenti.ql of any of the AVEC villages (U.S. Department of Energy, 1979).
On January 8, 1980, the AVEC filed a declaration of intention with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to construct and operate a hydro-
electric facility on an unnamed stream near the village of Scammon Bay.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Two hydropower project alternatives are being considered by the CEo
Basically, both plans involve a small diversion, a penstock of l2-inch
pipe, and a powerhouse capable of generating 150 kilowatts of power
(Figure 2).
An 8-foot-high dam will be constructed from steel gabions filled with
rocks from the stream Clnd reservoir excavation. The dam will extend 50
feet across the stre:lm ch:lnnel and will include a spillway with a 10-foot-
widE' weir.
A rirnp box intake structure at elevation 576 will be covered by a steel
grating trClshrack. Reservoir excavation behind the dam will be limited
to elevation 598, with 3 to 1 slopes on all sides (Figure 3).
TWt) .11ternatives for penstock installation are being examined. Alterna-
tive olle involves burying the entire penstock approximately 2 feet below
the existing grade. A trench would be excavated and backfilled over the
pipe. Alternative two involves partially burying the pipe for about 100
fpet near the dam. and supporting the remainder of the penstock on piles
.,,_ above ground, anchoring it as needed. The exposed portion of the penstock
'-" wOllld he insuLlted for thermal protection. On both alternatives, the
pens tock wi 11 cn,ss the stream approximately 550 feet below the dam.
Figure 1. ..
()
Location and vicinity map.
I
I
I
I
I
KIIII~I
PII\j[UrtJelt I
''5~ ~'C"Je'
.He.::l~
:;P:km!llt~i .• :
Scale
OQuinhagak
,,~ .. 2b Q
"·
-.../ .. ' " .. ., .
.~ I ,
3
1" 0: 40 miles.
c
\
\
I'
, \
I \
I I ,
:~ \
";
J
"
• ." i ." i
-j-
J ~, 1," ,.
Figure 2. Project features in relation to Scanunon Bay.
"~I
. -l
• I ~ •
I
" 1/
'. '-,
7
, C.atle
Hili",
I
.. ' ,
I
I
I
I , ,
I
; ,
I'
~. . j t :,l~:',
;,n., .: .
,!::., ... , "';' , ~"
, "
,I' '
j
,le.
I
I ;
,I, , ' '
--. .. ~ ...... -. :: : .: . ~ . ~ ....
-
... t,· i ..
.,'
-: ~ :-~ -.--=:-:-
-.--.----:. --.~.
j , " '--: :--:---._::-
-~:;:: :, -:+0£)--;--~r'~
-5-
Three options for the type of penstock pipe to be used are being con-
sidered: (1) st.<Indard weld steel pipe; (2) spiral weld lockseam pipe;
and 0) reinforced plastic mortar pipe.
TIle powerhouse will be built on a l2-foot by l2-foot by I-foot concrete
siah at an eh'vation of 100 feet (Figure 4). The floor of the slab will
be ahout 4 feet above the main stream level. An open channel tailrace 50
feet long will he excavated downstream from the powerhouse; discharge
will take place in a riprapped section of the stream channel approximately
50 feet below the powerhouse and 100 feet above the village. An energy
'dissipator cons1sting of additional riprap will be placed in the channel.
Project power will be transmitted through the local system. No trans-
mission line is required; however, there will be a short tie-in line from
the switchyard to the transformer. The project installed capacity will
be 150 kw and the tie-in line will be 15 kv. No permanent access roads
or maintenance facilities will be required for the project.
DESCRIPTION OF aESOURCES
Physical Inventory
The village of Scammon Bay is located in the Alaskan Bering Shelf physio-
graphic province (Wahrhaftig, 1965). The Yukon-Kuskokwim coastal lowland
section of this physiographic province is a thaw-lake dotted marsh of
which more than a third is water surface.
Nearly all the coastal areas are in lowland tundra. The lowland tundra
is a vast treeless plain, covered with intermittent stands of brush,
blind sloughs, and bogs. Uniformity of the delta is broken by an intri-
cate pattern of meandering streams and abandoned cut-offs, interconnected
sloughs, and countless lakes indicative of a low gradient and poor drainage
overlaying permafrost.
Elevations as high as 10 to 15 feet above sea level are unusual. The
Askinuk Mountains, a small isolated range, lie immediately south of
Scammon Bay and are an obvious exception to the relatively flat lowland
tundr<l of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Beginning at Cape Romanzof on the
Bering Sea, the mountains generally run east and west, terminating approxi-
mate 1)' 3') rni les inland. TIle mountains are relatively narrow, averaging
less that 6 miles wide. Several peaks s6uth of the village rise to over
1,000 feet in elevation.
Scammon Bay's climate is more maritime than continental. Winters are
eold and often windy along the coast. Summers are cool, with onshore
wincis,fog, or overcast skies causing even lower temperatures much of the
seasoll. Daily maximum summer temperatures are usually below 70° F and
of tell below 60° F. Temperatures rarely reach the extreme lows and highs
encollntl'rpd in the Interior. Annual precipitation rarely exceeds 15
inches, but because of frozen soils and the flatness of the tundra,
runoff is slow. Open water occurs from breakup in early June to
free7.c-lIp in early October. Northeasterly storms blowing off the Bering
SC;l occur ,Ill year.
, .
r .: \
J : : i I ,1 . ! ; ~
. ~ . ;
t' :{
, i
,I i; . i ' I ;
! if / i -'.':' /! \ \
; J f !;' ; ;; '\' ; , f i ','.;' I ': i \.:
J / ,;. t ;!
! !" ; \ } i ~ . :
"
.. ;:-.
iCfOG!:l~-..L r-{""'/C
I " = ~DDI
-7-
Recent CE suhsurface investigations established that the project is sited
on soils composed of unsorted sand and gravel. Excavation pits on the
stre'am banks yielded glacial drift mixed with glacial-fluvial gravels.
Approximately 25 percent of the drift contained boulders larger than 1.0
foot in diameter; the remainder of the glacial-fluvial deposits consisted
of fine to coarse gravel and cobbles with some sand.
Permafrost was net encountered in excavation pits dug at the three possible
powerhouse siter. and at the penstock site (elevation 600 feet). It was
estahlished that a permafrost thaw bulb exists beneath the spring-fed
stream; however, permafrost is present everywhere on the slopes adjacent
to the stream channel.
Biological Inventory
Scammon Bay Vicinity
Biological resources near Scammon Bay are representative of species
associated with coastal lowland tundra of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and
alpine tundra in the Askinuk Mountains. Scientific names of vegetation,
birds, mammals, fish, and marine invertebrates discussed are listed in
Appendix 1.
Vegetation in t 11e vicinity of Scammon Bay is characteristic of the coastal
lowland tundra associated with the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Viereck and
Lit tle (1972) classify this lowland vegetation type as wet tundra. Many
shallow lakes, little topographic relief, standing water, and permafrost
close to the surface are characteristics of wet tundra. Microrelief is
provided by peat ridges and polygonal features related to frost action
and ice wedges. Vegetation is primarily a sedge and cottongrass mat,
usually not formed into tussocks. A few woody plants (willow and alder)
occur on the driest sites where the microrelief raises them above the
standing water table. There are no trees.
The prf~sence of the Askinuk Mountains immediately south of Scammon Bay
adds two additional tundra vegetation types normally not associated with
the coastal lowlands of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta -moist tundra and
<11pine tundra (Viereck and Little, 1972). Moist tundra occupies the
foothills and lower elevations of the Askinuk Mountains. This vegetative
type vClries from almost continuous and uniformly developed cottongrass
tussocks with sparse growth of other sedges and dwarf shrubs to stands
where tllssocks are scarce and dwarf shrubs tend to dominate. Alpine
ttJndra occupies the higher elevations, ridges, and peaks of the Askinuk
~1()1lI1t.1ins. Much of this type consists of barren rocks and rubble inter-
sperseo with low growing mats of herbaceous and shrubby plants. Dominant
plilIlts ill this type are low mats of mountain avens which may cover entire
ridr,es and slopes along with many mat fonning herbs, such as moss campion,
black oxytrope, arctic sandwort, and several grasses and sedges.
The most important wildlife resource of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in the
vicinity of Scammon Ray is the avifauna utilizing the coastal lowlands.
-The tremendous array of lakes, streams, tidal flats, and bars interspersed
.~ with tundra and sedge flats make the delta one of North America's outstand-
ing w,lterfowl and shorebird areas. Approximately 2.8 million acres of
tlw western Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta south of Scammon Bay is administered by
----------------------------"'-~-.. --.. -.. ---.-.. -
-8-
till' FHS CIS th(· C1arp nc(' Rhode National Wildlife Refuge. Future additions
Wfll/ ttl enr.ompass the entire delta in the proposed Yukon Natiunal Wildlife
Rl' fug!'. Nt ne ty-s ix speci.es of birds (Appendix II) have been documented
on tltp r.larenc(' Rhod£' refuge and most likely represent the avifauna of
th(' project vicini.ty. However, the extent to which waterfowl, shorebird,
;/11.1 P'/;;··'I'rill(, ;;p('ci('s IItilizc habitats near Scammon Bay is not well
(',\"1111)('11 t,·ll.
Aquatic hahit;]tn of the western portion of the delta are generally less
fl'rt-ill' than more productive wetlands farther inland (Alaska Department
of 1'1:;11 and Came (ADF&G), 1973). Annual aquatic heat budgets are lower,
r('slllting in gellcrally lower productivity. However, lower fertility and
productivity arc offset somewhat by a greater number of lakes per square
tnt h' in thf' wt'st!'n~ delta. Shallow and partially drained lake basins and
narrow COClstcll. fringes of tideland similar to habitats near Scammon Bay
appear to he tile most productive.
'TIlC' Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is the largest of the western tundra waterfowl
h;dd tflts in Alaska (ADF&G, 1973). Some of the highest breeding goose
dens iUes in the world are found on the outer fringes of the delta. Most
of the black brant and emperor geese, and nearly all of the cackling
Canadn geese and white-fronted geese in North America breed on the delta
(ADF&(;, 1971). Tidal habitats on the Clarence Rhode refuge support
densities of over 200 black brant' and geese per square mile. Most of the
whistling swans in the Pacific Flyway breed on the delta also.
The ADF&G (1973) estimates an average of 1.5 million breeding ducks use
the delta which provides a fall flight of about 3 million birds. The
most common species are: greater scaup, pintail, oldsquaw, American
wigeon, green-winged teal, black scoter, and common, spectacled, and
Steller's eiders.
Shon'hirds, also common in the rq;ion, include bar-tailed godwit, semi-
palmated plover, American golden plover, common snipe, whimbrel, bristle-
thiglH'd curlew, spotted. least, semipalmated, and western sandpipers,
gn'11 tel" and lesser ye llot\1legs, dunlin, long-billed dowitcher, sandhill
cr;tne. loons, "nd grenes.
Thl' i\f)F&C (197 l1a) i nclicates that the most common raptors on the delta are
t\rl' n,)l/gh-lq~ged hClWk, gyrfalcon, and snowy owl. Sowls et. al. (1978)
lravl' <incllnlf'nt('d only one seabird colony along the shores of Scammon Bay.
At CdPl' r~()Pl<lnzof. i-I few cormorants and horned puffins nest in the cliffs.
I'ela,dc connorards ilud tufted puffins are also probably present. Glaucous,
1\1('1.', ;llld Sabine's gulls, and arctic terns are abundant on the coastal
100.,olal1d tundra; they nest as solitary pairs or in small colonies of up to
r)o p;1i rs or lIl()rC'.
l't·w big gamc' mammals occur near Scammon Bay. Although the delta is a
rich hahitilt fnr bied::;, it is not preferred habitat for most large
tl'l-n'striaJ sppcjes (ADF&G, 1973). A year-round food supply and adequate
s1t('ltl'l aT<.' Iwt ilv.1jlahle. Trees are absent on the delta aud willow and
;lIdl'rs an' sparse ne;lr the coast. According to the ADF&G (1973), moose,
hr<l\"Il/)~ri7.7. Ly hhlr. wol f. wolverine, and lynx are rarely seen on the
-9-
western portion of the delta. Harren ground caribou were present through-
out the delta in the mid-1800's. By the late 1870's, the herd had appar-
ently shifted to new ranges and essentially disappeared from the area by
18g,). Caribou have not returned to the delta since that time (ADF&G,
1973).
Small mammals present on the delta include: arctic fox, red fox, marten,
mink, river otter, short-tailed weasel, beaver, muskrat, porcupine,
snowshoe hare, arctic hare, red squirrel, and arctic ground squirrel
(ADF&G, 1978a; Jonrowe, 1979).
Beaver are abundant in the delta and are expanding into areas of the
tundra that appear to be marginal habitat (Jonrowe, 1979). Arctic fox
are presently abundant along the coastal fringe, but red fox tend to
inhabit the area about 60 to 100 miles inland from the coast (Jonrowe,
1979). High densities of muskrat, mink, and weasel generally occur in
the coastal lowlands (ADF&G, 1978a). Arctic hares occur along a 60-mile
band on the coast and are locally abundant wherever willow and alder
patches are present (Jonrowe, 1979). Populations of marten, porcupine,
snowshoe hare, ced squirrel, and arctic ground squirrel either do not
occur or occur only occasionally in the lowland tundra near the coast
(ADF&G, 1978a; Jonrmve, 1979).
Other small game species on the delta include: rock ptarmigan, willow
ptarmigan, spruce grouse, and ruffed grouse (ADF&G, 1978a; Jonrowe,
1979). Willow ptarmigan are distributed throughout the delta wherever
suitable brush patches exist. Rock ptarmigan are found near Scammon Bay
in the Askinuk Mountains. Spruce grouse and ruffed grouse are normally
not found in wet tundra habitats similiar to those near Scammon Bay.
Marine mammal abundance is not well documented for the coastal area near
Scammon Bay. According to the ADF&G (1973), polar bear, 7 species of
pinnipeds, and 16 species of whales (Appendix III) have been recorded in
the Bering Sea bordering Scammon Bay. Sea ice conditions and the result-
ing distribution of marine ~~mmals along the western coast during any
given year depend upon a variety of factors, including weather, winds,
and water currents. In some years, the sea ice pack extends south far
enough to bring polar bear; bearded, harbor, ribbon, and ringed seals;
and walrus close to the shores of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta during the
,,,inter ;lnd early spring months. No hauling grounds or rookeries for
walrus or seals have been documented by the ADF&G (1973) in or near
SC;llllfTlOl1 Bay.
ThL' occurrence of whales off the coast of the Scammon Bay area is also
depl'lldcnt upon tIl(> seasonal advance and retreat of sea ice. Beluga and
minke whales are prohably the most common whales close to shore as they
frequently feed in nearshore bays and inlets.
All five species of Pacific salmon are indigenous to the Scammon Bay
vid ni ty. Chum salmon are the mos t abundant. Chinook salmon rank second
in abundance, followed in order by coho, pink, and sockeye salmon. Pink
and sockeye salmon are present in limited numbers only. The Kun River
enters Scammon Iby approximately 0.25 miles north of the village of
-10-
~;c;]mmon Ilay. According to the ADF&G (l978b), no salmon enter the Kun
River. Till' hlllk of Ul(~ sellmon found in the marine waters off Scammon Bay
;Ire' headinr'. for the Yukon River draillage (ADF&G, 1978b).
I'aci f i_c TH [ring, ;~s well a!; several species of smelt, including capelin,
<-ln' prl'~;ent in the Scammon Bay area also. The ADF&G (l978b) indicates
tha t Pacif ic herring spawn along the flOUth shore of Scammon Bay and are
the Dilly fish species in the area utilized by commericial fishermen.
:;cvt'r;l1 shellfish species, including king crab, tanner crab, and several
species of shrimp, are present in the marine waters; however, these
shellfish resollcces are limited in ahundance and not currently exploited
(AOF&G, 1978b). The abundance of these shellfish species in the Bering
SC':J ClrC'a north of latitude 60° N is low (ADF&G, 1978b).
According to the ADF&C (1978c), the following fish species are present in
t1w Kiln Riv(~r <lnd fresh waters of the delta near Scammon Bay: northern
pike, burho t, Dolly Varden, and several species of whitefish. Residents
of coastal villages where large concentrations of salmon are not common,
sllch <l!, Scammon Bay, rely more he<lvily on the aforementioned species or
trilvel to other areas to eatch salmon.
The presence of lhreatened or endangered wildlife species near Scammon
Hay is not well documented. Eight species of whales listed as endangered
by the U. S. lJepartment of the Interior (1979) occur in the Bering Sea.
These 8 species are: sperm, bowhead, gray, sei, fin, hump-backed, right,
and hlue whales. The extent of the distribution or relative abundance of
t1wse endangered species in or close to Scammon Bay is unknown.
TIle peregrine falcon is included in the list of birds occurring on the
Clarence Rhode Uational Wildlife Refuge as an occassional migrant (Appendix
11). Three subspecies of the peregrine falcon are found in Alaska -
Allleriean, Clrcti-::, and Peale's. Both the American and arctic subspecies
are listed as endangered by the U.s. Department of the Interior (1979).
'I1w American peregrine falcon br('eds along the lower Yukon and Kuskokwim
JUvcrs. l1owever, the fla t lowland coastal areas are not preferred nesting
hahiLlt and no evidence exists that the American peregrine is found near
Scnmmon B(lY. Based on limi ted da ta, the western coast of Alaska has no
historv of h.1vi,lg supported more than widely scattered pairs of peregrines
(Fyre ct. a1., 1976). The cliffs at Cape Romanzof may offer potential
IlC~;t ing h:d)i LIt hl!t data are lacking. \o/ide separation of relatively
i imi tt'd bn'l'di ng sites along the western coast may account for apparent
sporadic nesting (Fyf!' Pt. a1., 1976).
A FllIall sprill),,-fed, unnamed stream originates in the Askinuk Mountains
tli ]-l'Ct 1 Y sOllth of Scammon Hay. This stream flows through the village and
pre'spntly serves as a SLlurce of domestic water (Figure 5). Water from a
pill!' hurieci in the stream is collected in a storage tank and then distributed
to 10c:11 residl'T1ces. The stream is very clear and biologists visually
('S t i Hid u'd it was f lowi ng less than 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) during
r LvI" i.nvestigations on July 12 and 13, 1980. The rise in streambed
(·Il'vatlollis very steep and the stream for the most part is a continuous
torrent of Cilsciidinr. water (Figure 5). Several small waterfalls, and one
,)V('r (, feet (Iiigllrc' O. eliminate any movement of fish from the Kun River
in front (If the village into the upper section of the unnamed stream.
-. " -_r.. ---
I •
Fi~lIr£' • View or SC,'1l1l110n Iby in n-lation to the unnamed
sLrC';}lll running throu)!,h llw villn)!,C'. Photo by Paul Hanna.
Figlll"e . Typi,";l1 (O"oss-section (,f til£' lInrwm('d c;tream near
till' lowI'r PIHI of the project ,1rca. Photo by Paul Hanna.
The portioJJ ld til,-' sln'am thilt flows through Scammon Bay rLlpidly loses
('\f"J;lt ion :lnd prior to f'nt('ring the Kiln River becomes a meanJering tidal
slough. The I{)wl'r pod of the str.eam is used as a protective mooring and
fH';l(:h i ng ;I n':1 rl)r silla 11 skiffs. According to one local resident, the
strcnJ1l m;l'd to Lave il pink salmon run but it has disappeared; this is
prnb:lb1y .1 H'stdt of overfishing.
Th<lt port ion of the stream from its source in the Askinuk Mountains to
tilt' vicinity of the village has a very stable stream channel in spite of
tIll' steep ,c;lope apd resultant high water velocity (Figure 7). No areas
of str":1rnbank f~rosion were evident, and the amount of fines observed in
the streambed appear to he very low.
II;lh i. tats of the project area are predominately moist tundra. Even though
th(' mOllntillns behind Scammon Ray are quite steep, the tundra is soggy and
spongy und.'r[oot. The only dry areas are rock outcrops and individual
h0\11ders sticking out of the ground. Regardless of the wet conditions
closlJ to the surface, the tight absorbent mat of sedges, mosses, lichens,
grilSSf'S, anel low ShPlhs prevents rapid overland flow of surface water.
Pl<mt species identified in the project area were: Labrador tea, crow-
berry, h!'arherry, roseroot, horsetail, shooting star, bunchberry, louse-
wort, moss c~mrion, violet, and wild celery.
lvi lell i Fe' n'SOllrces of thf.~ project arca are predominately birds and small
rodents. The variety ilnd abundance of the avian resources of the Scammon
Bay area arc impressive. Although the density of nesting birds per
square milc' is unknown, it mllst be very high. The interspersion of
mountainous terrain, coastal lowlands, and American green alder thickets
provides habitat for a great variety of birds within a very short distance
of tIl(' vi] Lrtge.
Shorehi rds were abundant in the moist tundra and alpine tundra habitats
hell ind S,.~amm()n Ba~1. Although onl y a few nests and juvenile birds were
St'I'TI, most of the adult ~.;h()rebirds displayed nesting behavior. The
shorehirds inclllded lO's of we~>tern sandpipers, least sandpipers, dun-
lins, and rock sandpipers, and a few American golden plovers. Passerine
hirds wen' scarce in the moist and alpine tundra habitats. Several
1<1;l]il11d ] OTl}',Spurs, snow buntings, and one water pipit were observed. Ten
S,IIJ,Jll ill ('ram's wert' feeding at the I,OOO-foot-level. Approximately five
Pdl"<lsi t Ie .iaegcrs were hunting the area at all times. A snowy owl was
;)1;.;0 Il\JS(:I-verl perched on a small knoll. A rough-legged hawk nest was
h1und a f tlw tOT' of the ridge behind the village at 1,100 feeto The
IJ;l\vk's IH'S t, cs tah 1i3hed on the ledge of a large rock about 12-15 feet
fro1n ground If'vel on the lee side from the prevailing winds, was 2 feet
in ciiamctl'f, shallow, and constructed mainly of sticks. The nest was
'1n;)ccuric'd, but numerous fur balls, primary feathers, and down were below
tilt' nest indicating recent use.
lmlned iil tf'l Y Wl'st of the project area at the 100-foot-level are extensive
til ickL'ts of Amprican green alder. Passerine birds were very numerous.
AI I of" the follOwing species observed were abundant and many juveniles
V'('(' pn'st'nt -lapland lOO,f;::;pHr, common redpoll, white-crowned sparrow,
y" I low \v!l)'. r d i l, 1-/i1:c ;t)n' S \vd rb Ie r, ye llow wa rb ler, savannah sparrow,
1',r;lv-clJ('l'ked tllrllsh, cHId golden-crowned sparrow.
,.-.,
-13-
Figurp . One of several velocity chul'es pl"evpnting fish from
ascending the-unnamcd stTcam. Photo hy Paul lIanna.
Figllre En)~,ion from the thawing of permafrost caused by
moving hp:lvy eqllipment across the tundra in the mountains
Iwld nd Scamillon Bay. Photo hy Paul Hanna.
-14-
~lHrsh ann pond areas ot the wet tundra habitat characteristic of the
lowlands nurth af Scammon Bay support the greatest density and variety of
birds of any habit .. t near the village. Biologists surveyed about 10,
<teres which consisted mainly of small shallow ponds separated by strips
of drier ground. Slwrebirds were the most abundant of the avian species
representC'd by lOa's of least sandpipers, 10's of western sandpipers,
black turnstones, northern phalaropes, rock sandpipers, and dun1ins, and
several long-billed dowitchers. A few waterfowl attempt to nest in the
area, but are subjected to continual hunting pressure from the village
tC'2nage hoys. Green-winged teal were the most abundant duck, with fewer
white-winged scoters, scaup, mallards, and pintai1s occurring. One pair
l)f whis tl ing swans was nesting across the Kun River from the village and
three sandhill cranes were seen flying overhead. Other birds included
10's of glaucous gulls, arctic loons, tree swallows, bank swallows, and
savannah sparrows, and lesser numbers of glaucous-winged gulls, herring
gulls, mew gulls, arctic terns, parasitic jaegers, common snipe, and
lap land longspurs.
Tllnnels, burrows, and runways made by lemmings and voles were the only
evidence of mammals present in the project area. Two species of lemmings
and two species cf voles are most likely found in moist and alpine tundra
habitats near Scammon Ray. These species are: collared lemming, brown
ler.lming, northern red-backed vole, and tundra vole.
There are no fish in the stream above the village. ~le to the stream
velocity, suitable fish habitat is generally absent. Several velocity
chutes prevent fiEh species present in the Kun River and adjacent tidal
sloughs from ascending the unnamed stream behind the village (Figure 7).
The lower porticn of the st.ream eventually loses elevation and meanders
through a narrow band of wet tundra and tidal flats before entering the
Kun River.
Ni' •. rOK PIWJI'CT I.MPACTS
Potential adverse iml1acts on fi-.'1 and wildlife resources associated with
a small. hydro project on the stream running through Scammon Bay should be
insignificant. The greatest impact of the project could be erosion
cilused by r~:echanized equipment moving on the steep slopes. Removal of
tht' thin protective vegetative layer could allow permafrost to thaw,
IL'sult.tnp, in ground subsidence and subsequent creation of deep gullies
fn-'m erosion.
A minor amount of moist tundra habitat available to nesting birds and
I'I'den 1.1 \.; J 1] be lost from excavating rock and soil for a diversion,
positioning the penstock, and installing a powerhouse. Birds nesting in
the immed ia tc pl"oximity of any of the project features will be disturbed
JlIr-Ing cDnstruction of the presence of human activity and mechanized
(~qllipment. Any short-term loss in production from these impacts would be
imperct~p tib Ie in cOJ:lparison with the total number of birds and rodents
\Jsing [:;01 st t'll1dra habitats near Scammon Bay.
There <1rp no fish in the stream above the village and none of the project
Fe;l tures :-;houi d ~1aV,~ [lny impact on the lower portion of the drainage or
tllL' Kun Ri.ver. Like\orise. there are no waterfowl nesting in the foothills
-
-J.J-
immediately behind the village. None of the-project features should have
any effect on the wet tundra of the coastal lowlands where most of the
waterfowl nesting occurs.
Due to the stpep terrain and the inherent problems associated with moving
heavy equipment on the tundra, erosion is a definite hazard. Evidence of
"cat" tracks can easily be seen on the slopes behind town very close to
the project ares. In several places near the top of the mountain, severe
erosion from the thawing of permafrost has created gullies 3 to 4 feet
deep (Figure 8). Because both penstock alternatives involve some excava-
tion, there is a possibility of thermal erosion if pockets of discontinuous
permafrost are encountered. Since the diversion, penstock, and possibly
the powerhouse could all be located above the village's domestic water
intake, any erosion could easily enter the water supply unless proper
precautions were taken.
DISCUSSION
The FWS has concluded that few adverse impacts on fish and wildlife
resources from the project are anticipated. Those that may occur are
judged to be imperceptible provided that methods to minimize erosion are
implemented.
Erosion from th~ thawing of permafrost has been identified as the major
environmental impact. Any construction requiring heavy equipment working
on the steep tundra slopes must be done to eliminate or minimize removal
of the thin vegetative cover. Figure 7 illustrates the consequences of
ignoring the impacts of heavy-tracked equipment on alpine tundra south of
Scammon Bay.
The widespread occurrence of permafrost in Alaska poses special engineering
problems in design, construction, and maintenance of all types of structures
and facilities. Permafrost limits the rooting depths of plants, prevents
infiltration of water downward through surficial materials, and so increases
surface runoff. Surface water accumulates in depressions where peaty
materials form, creating a continuously wet environment conducive to
marsh and tundra development. The vegetative mat insulates the permafrost
layer, increasi~g its freezing depth. Disruption of the vegetative cover
destroys the fragile thermal balance, resulting in thaw, subsidence, and
erosion.
According to the A=ctic Environmental Information and Data Center (1976),
there are three engineering approaches to permafrost:
1. Avoid it. In areas where permafrost is discontinuous, location
of improvemen~s can be directed to areas free of permafrost.
2. Destroy it. Where permafrost is shallow, it can be thawed by
stripping the surface of its vegetative cover. In some areas, soils
can be excavated and the area refilled with coarser materials.
3. Preserve it. Structures can be developed on gravel or artificial
pads to prevent summer thaw after vegetation is removed. It is also
----------------------------,----,---------
feasible to build structures on piles, thereby preventing thermal
heat from fl_owing into the ground and destroying the solid, perma-
frost base. Refrigeration units buried in the ground might also be
used to maJntain cold ground temperatures.
Since the (;E is seill exploring alternatives for the penstock at this
time, recommendations concerning minimizing potential impacts from erosion
are general and no! necessarily site-specific.
Construction of a diversion will require excavating material and will
probably necessitate the use of a tracked vehicle with a blade or bucket.
Excavation work in or close to the stream capable of adding sediment and
turbidity to the watercourse, such as building the diversion, must be
coordinated with the appropriate governmental agency responsible for the
Scammon Bay water supply system to insure that drinking water is not
contaminated. Pecause no access road is avai.lable for transportation of
equipment to the diversion, we recommend that the diversion be built
after the tundra i11l8 frozen in the fall. Impacts from tracked vehicles
on the thin layer of tundra vegetation are considerably less when the
ground is frozen. No diversion should be built where there is any chance
of exposing permafrost close to the surface. Continual slumping of the
streambed will occur if the permafrost melts. Where the diversion is
built, some type of protective mat should be placed over the exposed soil
to prevent erosion from rain and snowmelt and the area seeded with grass
at the beginning of the next growing season.
If the CE decides not to construct the diversion when the tundra is
frozen, access to the diversion site becomes more of a problem. In many
places, the high water stream channel (bank to bank) is wide enough to
allow a small "cat" to move up the drainage parallel to the stream avoiding
traversing the tundra or negotiating the steep banks adjacent to the
stream. Through time, the stream has cut down to bedrock, or close to
it, aml left a very stable substrate of rock and small boulders capable
of withstanding the weight of a small "cat" without damaging the stream
channel or stream banks. Although moving equipment close to a stream 1s
not normally re~ommended, in this instance it would be preferable to
constructing a "road" on the tundra.
For reasons previously stated concerning permafrost, we recommend that
the penstock be elevated and not buried. Furthermore, there appear to be
adequate room and suitable foundation support in the thaw zone along the
stream. Placement of the penstock parallel to the stream will make it
unnecessary to lay pipe and foundation supports on the tundra.
Penstock pipe arId other equipment c,gpable of being easily transported by
helicopter :,hould be flown, to the area and not moved by heavy equipment.
If it is necessary to level an area for the powerhouse, we recommend it
also be done wlH~n the tundra is frozen, and a thick protective gravel pad
be placed ever t~e exposed soil to provide insulation.
In all instances, any fuel, oil, or lubricants should be stored and
handled in such a manner so as to preclude their entering any watercourse.
-17-
Under provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), the
village of Scammon Bay has selected all lands encompassing the project
area. However, conv~yance of those lands has not yet taken place. Once
the boundaries cf the proposed Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge are
established, use of conveyed lands will still be subject to refuge rules
and regulations under Section 22(g) of the ANCSA. At this time, the FWS
does not foresee any problems associated with a small hydro project in
this area on future refuge management or administration.
RECOMMENDATIONS
" . The following recommendations are provided to minimize the potential
environmental impacts of constructing a small hydro project at Scammon
Bay:
1. that the use of tracked vehicles to construct the diversion
take place when the tundra is frozen;
2. that the movement of tracked vehicles used to construct the
diver~ion be restricted to closely paralleling the rocky stream-
bed should the diversion be built when the tundra has thawed;
3. that the CE coordinate all activities in or near the stream
with the appropriate governmental agency responsible for the
Scammon Bay water supply system;
4. that all areas of exposed soil be covered with a protective mat
material or other suitable means and seeded with grasses at the
beginning of the next growing season to prevent surface erosion;
5. that the penstock be elevated and closely parallel the existing
stream channel;
6. that renstock pipe and other equipment easily transported by
helicopter be flown to the construction site and not moved by
heavy equipment;.
7. that any leveling for the powerhouse site be done when the
tundra is frozen, and a thick gravel pad be placed over the
exposed area to provide an insulation layer; and
8. that any fuel, oil, or lubricants be stored and handled in such
a manner to insure they do not enter any watercourse.
","--"----"----'----------------------------
-1.1 t('rlltllYC' C (ted
:\I:1n ":;1 !'I'f:;:rt.;.~t.t (If Flt>h antI C:"~110. 1971. Al~ukn'~ wildlIfe and
1!lnn4n. 143 I'P. and ltuh 1 t :1l. }-:(11 ted by !I,. I.er-eRe-ho tlwi :".
S(] ~"'l~'
I' L!~; 1:.1 !',c t ,~t n",'I' rt t of rJ.!; h R nd r.am". 197 8a. .Ill .111;'.1J 's ,.,lld Uf e and
!,''It:lt. Ve']II.",' TI. (o):p11,'<.\ by I:. ~:11nkl'art. 7 /• PP. llnd 521 flllpa.
'\::,'" "ep:IT't 'I·:,t (,r {'Ish nnci (:w('. 1':,7::11>. "1(1;'\:11''; flllhC'rie6 .. nIall,
;),. 1'1 nl') • It:) r;l. "nil 357 V/"h:,',·!. C:" p.Llt·" by 1.. l'e1..,:.'1!". ;:r.1I K.
• ,I;:!I".': ;:'T:ll'!: (,·Il!.
\,,·1,:, .• ;r.
l,;f FIc!, mil' Gnrw. tr'7I'1c. Al'!:;!",l'f', fl~h!'rlca Iltlas •
('(";";Ic~ by p. ~:cl,(1l1l and 1-'.. :'o.:itdll·V. 43 pre and 269
'., .. J i! t: •
l!'(,tic l1;\·lrl,:,II""t.":l Infl'rrl~tl(1\l .'1nd r..'lttl CI~!1t~r. 1')7( •• Aio(1ka
r" j,"].' 1 1\(;[,:1('5, \'ohnw ITI. ;;()lltIJIH~f>t Pt';'!on. E:11ted by
!.ldL~ ",,'lkn':;·c',. J1,\ rp.
FvfC', ;) •• ~:. '.lef,;-.le. :to,] T. Cl'ldc. 1976. The 1<)7~ tlorth American
I"'rl':r!r"~ f;droll ;':unll:'Y. Ctll111<lhn J71dd-1.1'.turl'll1nt 90(3)2 22(l-213 •
.Ior:n),,-(·, j"l. 1~:79. Sllrv<,y-Invcntory progn~tls report. Furb\larers
:.Ind I'P":>ll :,t.;:·C. C1ill 1~· -Yll\<on-~:usb,bdll1 Deltll. 1977-78. ttl:
.\T'I'IU:ll t't'I'ort of bllrv~y-lnvr.ntory Ilctlvltl~l'I. pllrt II. Yuri;'8areT9,
\10If. ~~c·l\it·rlnl'. j,:"I111 ;~DI:'(.~. Fe(\'l lliri .in \/11dllfo I'eotoration.
'.'(11.1:-:, !'ro,1. Q-17-1G. Editl'.:! <lnJ c(lnp.l.lct! by r~. Hlnr:1ltn. /,lAo1<a
r1.'!WrtLf.'r,t pf r l:il. Clnd Gn:"c, Jl.lflC!I1U. 192 PI'.
::,,'1;]1;, II •• ~" lilitel-,. 'll\~ C. L .. ,!.b!nl:. 1")7:;. (;ltIl10), of ,\lllokan seabIrd
(:olnnJ.'r.. ,:1,,1".',1(':' l ;,c!'vicl'tl ['ro;';T .. -1. Ftl"h :In." I:lldllfc" ServIce,
l.'.~~. :'('l'drt;C1,t of thl' Ir:tu·lnr. 32 P:'. ;H:J ::'01) ri1pn lind tabl~s.
tI.!:. lil.~.lrt; Cl,t r,f ;,1'·('1'/v. 1 )70. ~':',,11 hy(irr.elcctric lnv(~'llory of
~, . ~ ..
vJ J L\!~c!1 ~('n'(:(~ by AI;,;:!:;! '.'illa~o t':10<.:t r lc l~o"";lI'riltlv~~. Al;,IR~,n
!'o· .. ·'·r .',1" !;~l,'t1":'tf.()n. ,1111'1(",11, i\[,l",',rl. 1:~'1 ;','. ',"ltll t~r"l('nrJI(:efJ.
!',·;'>.1rt:,('·q of r!'.,· Int<'Ller. 1')7'!. I t·,t nf" '::l':;,";"!Z"L';' and thl'cut.:tH,d
\;/1,:111., :'" 1,l.oIl!" ~~~~E_~~~~_:~~:~.'~ 1",(1;): ill(-'~,.)/, •
. \1 n .l:~" t l'J,.,f ~-, ,:.~ hl-· r'I"~.
"I'"C1r.O!tt f'e: J V f Ct'. u. ;:. nl"r:tr (I'.t n t ,. f /.:, I Ie ,.d ~ ,l"i.', ,\'~ ric til ttl re
"" n" h C).:\: :' I, 1 (. • :' (': i' ~ •
~',.hr!.l:ft ll~. c. lrh~). rl1VI·io,~rnphlc cJivlElnr~ of AJn~ka. Gco1of,lcal
: : (. r \' {' Y [. r' !'. i. , ! • (. r !,." ~ • I: • s. C. t' V 't l'r 1 n tIn ~~ II f f J c (: • I; tI B h 1 n ,; ton.
!i.C. :).',r.', 1,r,.
,-l.1'Pfi:DIX T. ::clf:ntlfic Ol'lrJes j.lf vCf,',etntlon, hirds, r,:t'rlr..ah, tJ.llh, and
lI'dl· Illf· J l\V'~ rt, l. TO" (~n lIP!'I(':1r .1nr, 1 n t h~ t c.'}( t.
'': 1 J J O'oJ
.~""'r('r lelln (;r(lcn ,\ 1 de. r
Cotton Gr.Jse
r:C>IHI Carr J 011
~\ln~\.: O:<ytrnpr
Aretlr Sandwort
!':O\l:H:~ In AvenM
lHbra(Ior ,"l'a
CrowhQrr,:,
Bf·tJrherry
r.., ~ E' rl'tl t
Hors"'[1l11
::hoot Inp, Star
!:unchberry
LOllt:t-vort
Violet
\H 1 d Cd f'ry
i~ IDck flrllnt
!::~r·cror GOOSl!
CnckllnE Cnnafa r~D~C
p. 1 tl!-frontcc ''';U1lti('
\'hlstllnE f,ll.:ln
Crc;.It('r SCUlIP
Plnt"l1
(; 1,1!'lI:l1H\1
A;.t'r Ie:;n \.'li:enl)
Cr,,'cn-vl n!:t~d T('.'"! 1
"i,1I:1, !ic(I(I'r
r:O::I:lon I:ldt.'T
;';1'1'(: t:\C'lcd l:l"I'r
!;tt'll('r'!l l~ld( .. r
n~r-tdlled CD~vlt
~~l' :,1 t I'll I r,lll t c.-I"! P! C\'(' r
:,, :{~r !L;;ql (:.,II't:r, p Ipv,~r
(ty:'~'nn ~'nl!H.'
I':d!';l'rd
I~r lHt 1 ('-thl,~hfd C\IT 1('\,1
~: i'() t l 1.,,1 ~:'l~ n,'" 1 pe r
Lva:1 t ~:ilnclpll't!r
~.p," I i ';1 !: ';1 t ('(1 0':1 rl(! p II' t' T'
\;'·',\.\'1'11 SHn(~pll'l..'r
i'[vI1I'"t' Y<,,·llf""!.~l'n
~)<; J 1·~ flpr.
Ti;;-;r:-.£ r 1 ~\ r a
T:: rIC' r; ~, 0 nil' n p p •
f,ll(!ne IIc)'111s
c")'t rople n 1 £ rNJc.r.ns
'11IlIl,1 r t 1!l l\ rc. t Iell
Dryns lnt~~rlfolla
U!du~ pdu!ltre
,t:L'PC t r1ll~ nl;:;rul!I
Arcto8ttlphylotl alp1na
~t:(llIr,1 r08('.1
!':t;u!l'I.ctUl'll "pp.
T1odecI1 thean f r ls1<"ar'!
Cornua c~na~en81.
Pedleulariu spp.
nob bLf loru
Anse ilea lucid'
flrantn t-f!rnlcla
Phlla;t~ cnnneicn
l~rRntl! clu'!ddf'nsiH !!!!!.~
A1"sr.r nlhlfrons
(Hor ('.,llP',:donlls -'-A'~y t hi!:' :.:: r U!l
/llhlR nCHt.l
7.Tii"fll jt7in't. 'r PI'! n 11 ~
AnilS lC(!r lr:atl.ll
~ "creCCit
~;n Tt~-;' I~r"
~nnnterld nnll19nl~a
Sn-l,H('rla fltlcht"r1
1'0 Lyn t lctllAtellC!rl
LJr~o"" Ippron lea
(htl r.1l1! r lur. serdrlll"otu8
£ tHV 1.1110 d0r.11nlea
C~pcllA gal11n8go
ll\l~ ('nlun ph"t'npua
!'n~('n Illt: 1:.1"1 tlena1.
A~tjt!R ~nC"14r1a
Ca)l" rLR 1':11 nut Uta
r.d It.rh pl1flllln
(1\11111" l!'l r·;'ur.1
';'rlnl~ :'.It'J!lnolcuc.
I l , ,
1.f'S8t!r Yo l1ovh'~!1
T:ouollo
Lon~-h1l1ed r.owltchcl"
~,lndh 111 Crilo(l
:~o\J rh-l~p, ged lID...,\;
( ;',rfll!con
!':1l0WY (h,,1
I'I~ J n~'j c Co["t"I()rRT;t
P('rncd ('uff In
'iut fe'd Puff In
cl:'ucot!s Cull
~'l:I{ Cull
:'~iih 1 JI(~' s CuJ 1
/"rrt Ie Tern
!'r)ck Ptcn:l;:.l'In
I.: 1110\1 Pt,1T:~l :'(111
;~PT\I(:f~ Cn)IU,l'
~:\ll fc'! CrOUt:\;'
t.· ;.'r ':'C;11; I'l'rl'!~r Int· !'£l.icnn
!lctlc l'cfl"'rlrH' l',l1r.r.1
r~31r'B rcrc~rln~ ¥nlcon
t<,ck ~:;llldplr{'T
tllr 1.ll\d LOI~\,t'ipur
!:!IOW Pllf:t 11::-
!,.':'ter Pipit
P;l r ... f.' 1 t. 1 c .. J {l(' .".l!T
Cl)r·.r~('tI r.'.'-!.Ijloll
\f,ltl.·-crr'\JIIl'C ~parr()\1
y '_~ 1 l,y,.' '.';~,: t;~ 11
I:ll"r:n' ;'.1rbl(!r
'I I.e 11 (.11; .. ! " r b Il' r
~':'v"ltrwh ~~I'lIrro'.l
rr;l'l-d~l.'l'l·(~d TllrtJSh
i ~·ll.·( 1,-err,I,II'-,! SI.;~rrO\l
J'.l.'1ck T',rnr.t'Oll'·
,l)rt ~','~rtl I] .:1 Ij1r'.,~,(·
( : J'( :l t l'r ';":. \1 F
'tl L: rt~
' .. ,\, I f .~-\J1l1j',hj ';(;,)t("r
'j' (' t [c 1./10\1
':1" l' ':'.,11,1(1':
1 • : ~ \ I •. I !, 'I '
,; 1.,.('('11:;-\.'[ lI:ed Gll] 1
I r t,,,: ':11 J I
F T()\m ler i z :': 1 Y :',(:11 T
1'0 I (
lif·lvcrlne
!.."IIX
1.:, .• rr<'l1 C['oulid CArlLou
/(ctlc Fo:;
F,('d l'ox
Trlne:'! flovlp~1I
Cal1rlrh Iliplna
(,1 "mod romuf!. .co lopaceu.
Gr"", cftnOI!t\tHI1.
~CI la8(\£ua
~'JJ lee) rue t leo 1 til'
?:yctcn IICl'Indlftc:l
Phal"croc0r~x £r.LftflcUO
Fru.t(~rctll" (',nrnlcnlllta
tund" elrrhftta
La rlts hyp.' rhorpu9
r.~rll~ Coiln1l!!
::P", ,1 "ill;;T
~t~rn~ pRrndlsBc4
L"'Gl~ T'!\J ttlft
Lrti(OPUS l~;"opu~
C[Jnllchlt!!~< cat1l1rlcmlls
;~ Oll>,:;'\ II r .:)f~ t 1m;
T~r~~R Bn,ltlJ~l
i'tllr.o rerl'er 1 n~ tundr lUM
"'£lleo l~t:nTrlnus Eealel
Gallrlr18 rtiin~ncnl~
C"lcarlus I11pponlcufJ
~c:tr(lplH~nllx nlvalla
Anth\18 IIplTwletta
StC!TC:I)r:lr1.uH pllrtllllticuo
(;,rduel!!> fJAD11"'oCU
};nl1ot r lchln lcu~'ophrYR
"otHc.l1le flava
~: 11 ~(ln ill 11;11;111 a
lj(~n(!r_~ rr.tcchl11
ra;.: ~:t' r(.;l! lllil Allndttlchcnals; ._--.. -
Catl .. 1TlI!1 ·-Lnl::-.t!!'I
~~1·1.;i :i.tr lCllP lll.l
I\f"I:-, r L'':'' _ ~::..L1nN~~
i"llll;ln)[)~"~ Job:!!'!!1
~'~~~I~Jln
--.-,~--A;j:·,~·, pl.:.t ·.'~.·!ri'ncl!og -----------"'-'-,--: 'e L~ ,,[ t f "'t·:· Irq·,a ---_ .. _-. --.
(::1.,.):': 'rrf If'/t
lrLl,,,Jrp(':' I'Le"lor ----, .. _--_.,--,_ .. ' .. _-
!·l;· .. ·rL:' r!"~rL' -----_ .. -.. ~.-.--L", n ~ '~ .". 1 ;," C, ':' C (' i', '1
Urnuft lln:t<>!l
Can Ls hl}".Is
~~
FeU!!, lynx
Rnnnifer tnrnnduu sr.ntl
A lopcx l:l'~()rllS
VulpclJ vulrcs
,
!
1
" , .,
r· ,
i ! I ",
~ , ,
.)
.1
.~
I If
:~l
....., I
.~
J
.. J
,i
'tll r tt'n
~,! J r1~'
J: 1 Vl' r j) t t t· r
Sh(lft-li1Ll('(~ I:ulluel (F.rrdn~)
P,r:-:IV(: r
PIITt'ITl nc
~:t;(:\::,I,(le 1:;) r~)
"n.-t.ic I:,~re
;.~ ... : :'qp! rrel
Arc tic Crotin'! ~:'l1l1 rre!
Ce·l l-'!r'.'I I..',; 1.1:
p, r (j, ,", T ,('li::.1 n '.
;"'1 1 !"'r~l I",;'_~',:C t l,'t) \!"lc
'j'\ln,~ri\ V(Jlo
1:.,\ i: 1 :,-'l'.~ •• 4 • '.-.,'\ J " ---------
I'D 1;1 r r.('.'lr
nC~lnkll Seal
";j rt)l)r ~;t'al
ld,l:hon ~N'll
;: !.T' '., (' rl r..: 11 ,
',!;d 1'\15
n~iU~,R Hhale
!~ J d'e 1'!!3lc
~'Pt' rn wI! a J C!
HoJ\.,'hcHO h'llale
Crny 1.111.l1c
~e J ~!l-'1I1 t"
FIn I!half'
ElH"p-I;B('k(~i.1 ',:tUl J e
!:ll.ht \·,1wl<:'
!', I ue 111\.11 (~
i'rn;
(!;.,rt !:.'ll~',()n
ell In();~i. ~;n 1',11,'11
:'L11: :;"lncn
"ockl'),c S~\ll~ol\
)':1(:1f11' !!l~r'Cltl":
err'l·tio
':l'r PI(' rn r lI~t~
11.1 'H;i::I h 1 :l C k f 1 ~ h
\'~I ltd 1sh
r'll r 1, fl t
r'("l) 1 y ":ln1~n
:lar tr.n "rwrlcana
l'!ur. te· 18 y 1 !'Ion
"Lut Cli cnnndenols
; '1\9 t (\ J 11 C' rnJ nOA
Cuptor CAnn~cn~J8
r~c':1 t rn z11,(' t h lcu.
r. n: l " 1 t.c n ell, r ~l\tUtl
1.(':)'16 a:"'criC':wIls
L~T'"5 II rc t L ('.tJ~
T:tt" i:, -'!r.1.L: n :1; 'It1C,~On lclJS
!~~lpf\ ~.I i.'~: r..L\rryll
~~.:~ tor(1llatu9
I.f)I\"I!>; ~; II; I r iellt!
Cldl,rl.)n,:...l.L!. rutllus
:~lcr(\t\l~' 1,(COnO:"lU8
UrSUH .. lilt J t lraus
T'r !l!rl8thm. barbatu8
I'hncll vltul1no
Phoca fltlfchta
}hoc.:1 h hi' Idts
Odobc,nus rosnarua
fJel,rhln.;lpterul lQUCt18
DnlnennptcrH acutorootratB
Physetet cnto(lotl
f\" lsl<'nn E'L~J tlcotua
l:fl('hr J cli f, f II~ rohuGtll1)
!!:ll.'lelloptPfl'l borenl,b
i',;p 1 M'nn!, t" t"n £hvn nlu!l
l!eL:1p t(.'r:t nnVaNlnG liac,
:\;lj.~ .L~.!.!!!.
f\ it! :w r. r,p t '.'!.:!. .:.~: C II h "I
::cl":ltltI.' ; "-,"
C:r}(:(~Y"~ ·.'~:t·· .. t!.: ~~('t "~ __ p---.i, __ ., ___ ._
-r!C'(lr:.Yl:cl·lII: !~lS11td\
(:l\c\.lrhvncl ,\IS ,~orburichil
Cn(:f1rhync!lur. ncrlw
r; Illp~:~ .P.t! t 1/\ 1;1 1.
~:ill lntns \,UIOOIl8
I:"ox Il!cl~'!R
!lalllH ~:torIlJJ"
COl·C!f.0ntl~l 9pp.
1.0 t II lot 11
~(.~:; l:lall'lll
!: 1111' r:r,J!,
T;m!'!er Cr.ilh
SclentH Ie ~ra"Q -------
£'111'.1 1 I tilodt,'l cnr·tsch.tlc.a
Chjunoec("t(·s spp.
,-
.........
API'r.~",n: TT.
Inl,~ occurrlnr In !1:,hltllt ... in r.h~ viclnity (of Scaamon r.l1Y. Alaska.
::TATUf,'
Co:' : "ie"' 11 Lnt' n . u n
-:~------Y til (:I'-b J 11 ('(. rJ'OI~ r r.
llrc: tIc too.... 0 n
r,:.:-tl,ro ... l\d Loedl ----1!C'n~l.·(1 Cr&.~bc -------r:"<!-!';I·C.t~t'f' Crl'·l...~ -----'7!:IbtJJIJF, ~V;III --,------C;~l:I·ll',;' C.'In,";,,' (; .• nne
'r,'I\'('('\'('r' :" c.·[".,~ .. 1 <:00(:1)
I', .L ,: d~ l' r L~] t ---.•.. -----I'i"r'l~ ("or \ :e,()!;.'
c-
u
U
II
:1
C
C
d
:1hl'f .. -fn''1tld CO()"~, A
r.('t;~l'r ~:!1(i' l:l~()b<" n
:',dJilTd 1I
r./,dlmll r
i'in t.d 1 R
t, i 'j r I (' In I I,ll (. ('ll n c ... _ .. _-
')f~rt!:,'rn ~:hn\'('l('r II
C;,liv~I;I!Hd' u
Cl'c;,~"r r';'WI' 8
Lf'~~~a'r :~C':JlJ? u
,\; ~t'[ I( ill! Gpll,:l"h!yt~ u ----!I'.ll'riol,'fl Coldl'n(!y',' " ----1~,!rfl,'!'C'Olri II
OJ('~(~lliIH 1I
!:, r 1 ,: ~i 111-;:;--r
!',ll' ll(,r' ti~7~ u
1:,I['nn rl':('r n
KJ.,.,;.~ ,Cider c
~',;) .. c. tile 1" r! " l (I ,', r ---
n
1\
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
" n
M
JI
rl
n
m
C'l
n
n
J1
m
n
n
\:'1, 1 t ,~-\ .. t n ;:',e:1 ~'r. ()' \' r _____ u r:
!c',! r f :'. (' \J t (, r II TO ._------
:1 J , .. ;i· "('(I t. r (: r1 __ , _____ .4 __ _
(-(OJ' U"I ~~t·l:·:;n~·rr ___ ,_ •. _ r
1 l" ~ -1. t' c. I d b t ( . d , , r ;' ,:"1 II n •. r 1\
If
)', r: \' t" f .. d (" ( 'n "
r ;,' 1 ", r 1 n \. -j:;31~~--'----() . ----_.
('(~':"l! i,(·:troll C
1"(0: :,(1;' " .. ,Vff'! -.. -----U ---_._--
:: I .. d-c;'p["·,! Ch 1('1 !I,"'l' U
n
n
1'C
r.
n
n
\'1
." ,\ r I Com :.dd!"l t) n -----
STATUS
C-ft n
U 11'
it n
u
c
a
?uc1dy Tunhltol\t C
~bck Tllrn;Jtnne n ----Co~~on ~nlpc c
~111r.,hr<: l -u
nrlf1t Ip-·ti~ ll:.hN' CurleW' u
!;l'ott,,~ S,lnrlplpf'r r
c.;relltcr \'cl10l/1r::tI u
Lp,q'er Y,'lln'.:lC'[',tl ____ U
t.l!U5t Siuldpiper u
tun 11" :--:~~~:--__ a l,('n~:--hTfI'e'7-i" !'oul tchpr c
:;(,,'l~td;·,E1t(~d Sallliplp£r_ u
iJ':f'tr.:rn ~;'Hld:>lpcr ____ D
r,nr-t:ll1,'(\ Corlwlt II ---~ ;ll1(k: r I llH, ________ 0
J~t"d Pto.;~lnrorH' c -----~:ort'wtl\ P",:darope ___ u
I'n: ',lI r j rH,' .1" l';:(' r 11
r~rdtlilic Jn~~er c
Lt)f',':-t.,1. 1 ('d .r,'\,':·~·r Il
~;li\I\C('ll'; i:!I1. J n
(;, oUC:tl1! :;-'.: lr~:~\'(! ld: 11 It
!krril," ~,lIl1 0
• '[,\1 ell L 1 a
n
n
n
n
n
n
m
Itl
n
n
n
n
n
n
to
n
n
til
n
D
n
n
n
n
~/.·;hln(~"; (:::11 n n
tI n ---
rl'ort-l';lTf",1 ',M 1
V jn 1(! t-i'. n''':~ .. ,:,ill i.M
Tr('C' ;'\/,1110'.,1
110 rn ::\f{\ Ito'"
u n
ll-C n
C 11
U n
c n
u
r: 1.1 f f ::;.o:111(l'.1 ___ u
n
n
n
n
:)'lV~nn:lh :;:)orn! • .' __ II
Trcn fr~rr~' n
\,1dt~-cro\.~wd ::p:I['rml u n
r.olc!en-crotmed ::p:lrrov-u n
Fox fr~rrcw - c n
f.3plnnt! l.nnt:~l'lIr a n
~:oary '~('dpoll_ u 0 wAh'r Uplt u n
C J" in ~ f c '-(.' l'" 0\,':1. 't-~ ~:nTh.lf!r u n "ct.:'\y·s nuntinr c. In
'l"'l) n'.' ;'Brh h·t" u n SnO'.1 Runtinp, c n -._------,--
.';,'un:l:; C!HTcncf' Y·:hodf! l::.ticnnl \Hldl1fe l\eflJ~:e. l~ethelt Alatlka.
c (:llr;r':'on
II -tlllC()r";' •• )n
(l ,.cent'd non 1
r
n
r.1
Tarn OT ocelrlcntal
nestlnt:
.dl'r<lnt (! .(~. non-:1··Slinr. Du~er
rcn!dcntn)
It rCRldl'nt nll 'It:.:lHn\'"l~'
-~PI'Et!!nX rlI. ~FCclcti ..,r \1hlll~R r('corcied in the flering ~ •••
;·,f·lu·'11 \l~~ d J ('
flltc:,. ',!1;r)('
;1,\ rbor \'(1 rpr..l '<t'
;:Pt.t'. J'·-1U)!)I.'(! I, t:J~](,
'·tf:.j·H.r:;,!r'~ l.'l';'!·(!" \,~l;l!('
~'I~l):.,·-~ f·.1~ t.'e! :.:~I~' I ...
,'-;d 1 ;·~;r·I,,:)l·:l·'
t .~ i r·o.,ll! ;1 1
1',(I\.'I!I'lld I'IHJl(>
ere; ',/h,de
;r-l \In.:ll,,·
'I n:'C \:h,., Ie
j'ln ';Jh;! I.'
;' l'l f .! 1 "lie
DISTRICT RESPONSES
TO
FISH AND WILDLIFE'S COORDINATION ACT REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the use of tracked vehicles to construct the diversion take
place when the tun~ra is frozen;
Response: The use of tracked vehicles will occur only when the
tundra is frozen or along the streambed where permafrost does not occur
and the erosion potential is low.
2. that the movement of tracked vehicles used to construct the
diversion be restricted to closely paralleling the rocky streambed should
the diversion be built when the tundra has thawed;
Response: Refer to number 1.
3. that the CE coordinate all activities in or near the stream with
the appropriate governmental agency responsible for the Scammon Bay water
supply system;
Response: The Alaska District will continue close coordination with
the PubllC Health Service and any instream work will be accomplished to
minimize impacts on drinking water quality.
4. that all areas of exposed soil be covered with a protective mat
material or other suitable means and seeded with grasses at the beginning
of the next growing season to prevent surface erosion;
Response: The construction should not impact the protective
vegetative mat as it is designed. If any areas are disturbed, adequate
measures to prevent erosion will be implemented.
5. that the penstock be elevated and closely parallel the existing
stream channel;
Response: The proposed penstock alignment will closely parallel the
existing streambed, however, it will be buried. The buried scheme was
selected because it would be less suscept'ib1e to vandalism, snow creep,
freezing, and stream activity. The proposed alignment is not in an area
of permafrost and erosion should not occur.
6. that penstock pipe and other equipment easily transported by
helicopter be flown to the construction site and not moved by heavy
equipment;
Response: Due to the size of the project, there will be no equipment
classified as "heavy equipment". The penstock pipe and other
construction materials will be moved either by helicopter or land vehicle
during the frozen ground period, with little materials moved up the
streambed during the summer months.
7. that any leveling for the powerhouse site be done when the tundra
is frozen, and a thick gravel pad be placed over the exposed area to
provide an insulation layer; and
Response: The area for the proposed powerhouse is not in a
permafrost area.
8. that any fuel, oil, or lubricants be stored and handled in such a
manner to insure they do not enter any watercourse.
Response: This will be included in the stipulations to the
cont ractor.
APPENDIX B
( )
l'nited State~ Department uf the Interior
ALASr~ FIELD OPERATIO~S CENTER
P.O. BOY. SSO
J.~",,;. _ Ar 991\02
D16~rict Engineer
. Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
A~ch~rage, AX 99510
DEar 51 r:
-:-ne draft interilt feasibility report and draft environmental assess-
ment for Scammon Bay, Small Hydropower Study, Alaska (ER 81/2598), was re-
viewed at the Bureau of Mines, Alaska Field Operations Center.
'The stream that will furnish power is one of sel/eral small streams
that drain the Asklnuk Mountains, a prominent east-west trending ridge of
undifferentiated granitic rocks riSing from the coastal plains. This
ridge has no potential for oil or coal deposits. It was not considered
favorab1e for gold placers and, consequently, it is not known to have been
prospected for .etallic mineral deposits eitber recently or in historic
times. If ecouoaic mineral deposits do exist, tbe relatively small devel-
opment proposed would have no adverse impact.
cc: Director, Division of Field Operations
BOK, WasbiQgton, D C
Sincerely,
()
Comment noted.
'~.;,~\.
, I, • \
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
5~AnL£ R~"IONAc OFFICE
,j i
II' ,
' .... ARCADE nAZA BUILDING. 1321 SECOND AVENUE
SEAnLE. WASO;INGTON 88101
·10r. l.
Colonel Lee R. Munn
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
Alaska District
January 4, 1982
P.o. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel Munn:
Subject: Scammon Bay
Small Hydropower Study
iCC
We have reviewed your Small Hydropower Study and Environmental
Assessment submitted with your December 2, 1981 letter.
There are some HUD funded projects in the area that are noted
in the review conducted by our Anchorage Area Office. Their
comments are attached. We concur with your finding of no
significant neqative environmental impacts and find no objec-
tion to the proposed project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Administrator
cc: John Duffy, BUD
Anchorage Area Office
AREA OFFICES
(.,.) Port ...... 0,...,.. , Se.,.Io, W .... I .... on • Anchor .... Alask.
Comment Noted. See following page.
TC
FkOY
SUDJECT:
( ')
Robert C. Scalia,
Re~iona1 Director CPD
US DlPAI?TMlST OF
HC't:~IV; A\'P UR[L~\, [l[\,[LUI'MEST
December 31, 1981
I" REPLY IlEFER TO.
I CJ. I S5
"e ... t.on Chase, Environmental Clearance Officer
Scammon Bay Small Hydropower Study & Environmental Assessment
Our office has reviewed the above-named study and ha5 had the foUm.-ing comments
to make:
w
(I) Population data used evidently derives from the 1980 Pr~l1minary Cen-
cus. The final Census shows one less person.
(2) AAO currently has plans to build 39 ne ... housing units in the village
in 1982. These are 24 new units and 15 Bartlett replacements. Only
24 units are indicated in the forecast on Page 16.
(3)
(4)
AAO also has agreed to fund a Recreational Facility/Gymnasium,
($160,000.00) in the community. This project is listed only as a cur-
rent need.
'AD agrees that this project should have no significant negative im-
pact. However, it should be noted that failure of the dam at the
proposed location could present a threat to residents down stream
particularly to proposed HUD housing sites.
Please note that AAO is currently in receipt of an Alaska Native
CDBG Pre-application for 6 -2kw wind generators proposed by AVCP.
Mevtoo Chase
Enviraa.ental Clearance Officer
PREVIOUS EDITIO" IS oa50L~TE HUO-96 (1-75)
()
1. Com~ent incorporated into Final Report.
2. Comment noted. The text and the energy demand forcast have been revised
to include the additional housing units and the recreational facility.
3. Due to the small size of the dam, its inherent stability, and the location
of the reservoir, a dam failure would not present any significant danger to
downstream people or structures, with the exception of two culverts where the
Public Health Service water supply lines cross the stream. These culverts are
often filled with rocks and as a result are not capable of paSSing high
flows. This was evidenced by erosion caused by high spring runoff that was
noted above the culverts during the Corps' field trips.
4. Comment noted. We believe that wind should be pursued to supplement
energy needs; however, we understand that funding -.y not be available for
these units.
ER 81-2598
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LANO MANAGEMENT
Alaska State Office
701 C Street, Box 13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District Engineer
P.O. Sox 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Sir:
•••• ~'I' aa'p 1'0
1790 (911)
JAN 11 1982
We have reViewed the draft copy of "Small Hydropower Study and Environmental
Statement for Scammon Bay, Alaska" (ER 81-2598) and have no commenL Please
consider this a negative reply in accordance with the Code of Federal Re-
gu1ations CFR 40 Part 1503.2 in that the document is satisfactory in regards
to 8LH jurisdictions and interests.
()
S~l~~
.. .:;~~~ Chi:t?'Ca":nin:::? Environ-
mental Coordination Staff
corrment noted.
( ')
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO,
Lee R. Nunn
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1011 E. TliDOR RD.
ANCHORAGE. ALASt.:A 99503
(907) 276-3800
11 JAN ~2
District Engineer, Alaska District
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, AK. 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn;
The U. s. nsh and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Scammon Ray Small
Hydropower Study and Environmental Aasess~ent. We have no co~ents to offer.
Thank yOu for the opportunity to revievand comment on this document.
cc: REO
DEC
OEPR
WAfS
Sincerely,
()
COIIIIIent Noted
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
III "'PLY un .. TO:
L76l9(ARo-P)
Alaska A.u Office
540 We .. 'Fifth A .. ea~ Iloom 102
ADchoraae. Alaska 99501
Colonel Lee R. Nunn. District Engineer
Department of the Army
Alaska District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Colonel NUDD:
18 JAN 1982
We have reViewed the draft Interim Feaaibi1ity Report and draft
EnVironmental Assessment for the Sc:aDIIIOn Bay Small Hydropower
Study and have the following cODments •.
Cultural resources appear not to have been appropriately considered.
Federal agencies are responsible for affirmative action to identify
properties that are on or eligible for listing on the National Register
of Hiatoric Places. The atatement in Section 2.2.4 that there are
aD known National Register--eligible aites in the project area and
the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in. the""Finding
of Ro Significant Impacta" that DO adverse impact on Rational legister-
eli a i b1e sites would be likely. are baaed on the absence of information
rather than the demonstrated absence of aites required by Federal
reautations.
Although recreation resource impacts are not addressed by the document.
there appear to be none. '
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
~"~
..-t"' ", I (
~O-..-'-"
Reaioaal Director
Alaska Region
cc:
I I(
l~~ _
baional Environmental Officer. Alaska
WASO-1l5
The Issue of agenCies not pursuing further cultural 'resources studies after
reviewing an opinion of no probable Impacts from the State HistoriC
Preservation Office was discussed and resolved at an interagency meeting held
after this particular environmental assessment was completed. The Corps
realizes It must affirmatively pursue action to Identify and assess
significant cultural properties and will perform field surveys when baCkground
studies indicate they are warranted. In this case. it was determined that a
field survey was unnecessary because major project impacts are confined to an
area within the stream banks and ground disturbance will be _Inlmal. 80th
factors Indicate a very low potential for impact to cultural resources. A
professional archeologist. who visited the project area In the summer of 1981,
performed a visual Inspection and gave the opinion that It was unlikely any
significant cultural resources would be found at that location (Martland,
personal communication).
()
Department Of Energy
"'.;,,~f,(ll r·~ .. t:'f AdmlnlSlJlItlOn
PO br .• :,0
junE~U .·~·.B 99802
Colonei lee Hunn
District Engineer
Alaska Oi strict
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage. AK 99510
Dear Colonel Nunn:
January 19. 1982
~:~ il::,;:-~cciate the opportunity to rf'vie~ the draft Small Hydropower Sturly
and Environmental Assessment for Scammon Bay transmitted by your December 2
letter.
The plan appears to be a workable one that will provide hydropower to
the CQr.1l\uni ty.
The hydro site at ScaJTll10n Bay was first examined by APA in 1979 during
our inventory study of small hydro potentials near villages served by
AVEC. During this field review it became readily apparent that innova-
tive, scaled-down, minimal-level design and construction approaches to
~ development were the only viable means for justifying s~ll hydros such
as this.
Even though the assessment indicates feasibility. it seems to us that a
simpler design philosophy would result in reduced construction costs. a
less complex installation to operate and maintain. and still provide
Scammon Bay with a project that would provide many years of benefits.
Specific items we suggest might be considered are:
Diversion Structure
1. Si~lified design of headworks and elimination of concrete cut-off and
drain system. A sheetpile upstream face (with gabions downstream).
crest overflow spillway. and slide gates on penstock .and bypass outlet
(with hand-cleared trashrack). should Significantly reduce costs.
Pipeline
2. Elevate on ti~rs or small freeze piles. with concrete thrust blocks.
Possibly use pre-or post-insulated pipe if heat balance indicates.
Possibly located on east slope to avoid snow creep.
()
1. Due to the limited amount of flow available it is necessary to provide
seepage cut-off to assure adequate water for turbine operation. This would
require that the sheetpile be impervious. Also, due to the cobbles and
boulders in the damsite area, sheetpile could not be driven. The area would
have to be excavated, sheetpile would have to be placed and the area would
have t~ be backf~lled. which would reduce cost savings.' Also, with a
sheetp~l~ face, lce pressure ma~ be a problem causing bending of the
sheetplllng a~d valve stems. Wlth no French drains or buried outlet, freezing
of the diverslon pipe could become a problem, and the length of time the plant
could be operated would probably decrease due to elimination of low flows and
greater susceptibility to ice blockage. .
2. An above ground insulated penstock was considered at Scammon Bay; however.
the cost of insulation made the above ground alternative Significantly more
expensive than the proposed plan.
2
powerp'ant
3. Prepackaged belt-driven powerplant.
Genera'
~. All construction accomplished by backhoe with loader ana vibrating or
lmpact head. Backhoe would remain for project maintenance.
~e would be glad to discuss specific ideas if you wish.
co
()
Sincerely.
/2/ {t~L/r~
Robert J. Cross
Admi n is tra tor
3. A prepaCkaged belt-driven generator is an option. See Section T.6.2.
4. A backhoe at the project would be aesirable for basin sediment removal at
the dam. minor ice breakup. and other project malntenance.
()
lo-n,LH
( )
July 9, 1980
Re: 1130-2-1
Harlan E. Moore, Chief
Engineering Div.
Corps of Engineers
Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
DIVISION OF PARKS
Subject: Scammon Bay Hydro Proposal
Dear MI'. l·loore:
JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR
619 Warehouse Dr .. Suite 210
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
274-4676
We have reviewed the subject proposal and would like to offer the following
comments:
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
No probable impacts.
we request that the project
& contact us inmediately.
STATE PARK PLANNING
No probable or significant impact on existing, proposed or potential state park
or other public recreation values.
LWCF
No cOlDlllent.
ip Dennerlein
Director
CD:mb
()
Corrrnent notell.
IIr t /lAMIIDIID. fOre .. "
IlT.'~IEXT OF ~ATljll"L IU:SCU;UCES
DlVfSlON OF" /.AM) Alii) WATER MANAGEfoIENT
J!'~ (.~ ...
p--,~~ ,,-. ..... " .. _.,
,9f,7 I 1'.1.,§.1
January 19, 1982
Lee R. Nunn. Colonel
District Engineer
Department of the ArrI1Y
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage. Alaska 99510
Dear Hr. Nlmn:
The ~ll Hydropower Study and Environmental Assessment, Scammon Bay,
Alaska has been reviewed. The following comments are offered.
1. Since it is known that high winds of long duration are common
during the winter months. this energy source Should be more seriously
considered. It would seem to nicely complement sunmer hydroelectric
generation.
2. Hydroelectric
...-o
a. No stream name or location of the proposed project is given.
b. It is reconaended that proponents of projects using water. file
and Application for a Water Right with this division. This
wfll ensure current unallocated water is available for the
project in the future.
c. It is stated that 551 of the annual energy output from the
proposed project is estimated to be usable in 1983. Based on
estimated future energy needs. when is 100% of the annual energy
output from the proposed project to be usable? This can not
be determined f~ Figure 3.1 •. since it is assumed this gives
total annual demand. whereas the proposed hydroelectric project
is for sUlllll!r generation only.
d. Page 27 gives the benefit: cost ratio as 1.16 to 1. This
is considered IIilrgina1. It would appear. therefore. that
further studies are warranted to refine the estimates of
both the benefits and costs before this can be considered
a viable project.
()
1. The Corps recommends that wind be pursued in more detail by the State or
locals. The Corps does not have authority to design or construct wind systems.
2. liydroe 1 ectri c
a. The stream does not have a name. The location is shown on Plate 1 •
b. We will advise the ultimate owner of the project to file for an
application for Water Right with your Division.
c. This figure has been revised to 56 percent in 1984 which is now the
estimated power-on-line date. Based on the estimated load growth in the
report a maximum of 84 percent of the energy could be used in 1999. This was
assumed to remain constant for the rest of the project life. This figure
could be higher if a use for the excess energy could be found. such as hot
water heating. etc. However. due to load uncertainties we prefer to remain
conservat ive.
d. Based on the information available the project is justified. We intend to
install a streamgage at the damsite to monitor year around flows to determine
if winter operation is justified. This would also eliminate the present
requirement for periodic streamflow observations taken in town and correlating
observed flows to flows at the dams1te. Any add;tional study exoenditures
beyond streamgag1ng would not be cost effective due to the small size of the
project. The chosen unit has been sized to handle the widest range of flows
and energy demand consistent with economic efficiency and feasibility.
(J
...... ......
( )
~ee ". Nunn -2-January 19, 1982
t. lhe projected power generation from tne proposed hydroelectr,c
project 15 base~ on one year of streamflow measurements that.
according to page 36. were taker. during a very atypical yea·r
for tne area. Although details of the procedure are not
eKplained, it appears ~s though this data was modified to
represent! typical year.by using nearby rainfall and temperature
data for a typical year. Since the validity of this procedure
is qaestionable. the resulting estimate of'discharg~ in this
stream during an average year must alse be questionable. or
at best, very rough. Hence, the estimates of power production
and the benefit: cost ratio must also be considered questionable,
or at best, very rough. This reinforces the statement in
item 2d above.
f. According to 11AAC 93.160 and 11 AAC 93.165, an Application
to·Construct or Modify a Dam must be submitted to this office
prior to constructing a dam that (1) has. a height from the streambed
at the downstream end of the dam to the dam crest of 10 feet
or more, or (2) stores 50 acre-feet or more of water. Since
only the dam height from bedrock to crest is given, it can
not be determined if a permi t ; s requi red.
Sincerely,
J.W. SEDWICK
Director
BY:
( )
e. .e concur that the available information is limitea and we are continUIng
our streamflo. measurements. we believe that we hdve chosen a unit that will
operate over tne expected ranges. lntergravel flow in tne 8 to 10 feet of
ove~burden at the dams~te was not ta~en Into account when estimating
aval~able flow due to.lts unknown quantity. By providing the prop~sed cutoff,
we wl11 be able to ut,llze the additional flow. The additional streamflow
data being obtained will be considered before plans and specifications are
pre;Jared.
f. The dam would be less than 10 feet from the downstream end of the dam to
the dam crest and it would impound about 1/10 acre-foot.
~~~~~ @~ ~~~~~~
.... a •• 'I1lB SOVBIIN ••
DMSIOH OF POlICY DEVELOPMENT AHO PlANNING
GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION UN"
Colonel Nunn
U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
P.O. 80x 7002
Anchorage. Alaska 99510
January 19. 1982
Subject: SCAMMON BAY SMALL HYDROPOWER STUDY EA-FONSI
Dear Mr. Nunn:
I'OIICH AW./fIII$, DI6S.1..
JUNEAU. ALASKA 9911"
I'HONE: (!J(J7/4~
The Alaska State Clearinghouse (SCH) has completed reyiew of the refer-
eced study.
~ The following comment was receiYed from the Alaska Power Authority:
N
1. ·We have reviewed the aboye referenced study which was transmitted
to us with your 'letter of December 15. 1981. We are in the process
of reviewing the project's econoaic viability and of determining
whether or not to provide funding for the Corps of Engineers to
proceed with final design of the 5-.11 hydroelectric project at
Sca~n Bay. A decision will be made on this matter during January.
1982.
·If a deciSion is made to proceed with final project design. State
funding may be forthco~ing for construction and subsequent State
ownership. operation and maintenance of the project.·
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) commented:
2. ·Scammon Bay Small Hydropower Study I Environmental Assessment:
Based on avatlable investigations it would appear that the proposed
Sca-.on Bay Hydroelectric facility will pose no significant environ-
ment~l problell. The s~reamfl~ and gradient in the Yicinity of the
proposed ~droelectric structure is suc~ that it does not provide a
habitat for fish and wtldltfe. The only impacts which may occur as
a consequence of the project relate to the COlll1lUnl ty water supply
and air qual1ty in the community. The structure as proposed is above
the Publtc Health Serylce water supply intake and any impacts' on
water quality could effect the potable water supply. although no nega-
tiYe effects are anticipated. Air quality may Improve somewhat due
to the planned reduction in diesel generation.
()
1. See Comment dated 1 February from the Alaska Power Authority.
2. Text has been expanded to Include additional potential i~acts on Sc~1
8ay's water svstea and plans to eliminate or less .. these I.,acts. Refer to
page 6 of the Enyi ronmenta 1 Assessment.
()
• Colonel Nunn -2 January 19, 1982
3. "A Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act will be required before FERC licenses and Department of the Army
Permits are issued for this project. Please contact the Department's
Southcentral Regional Office, 437 "E" Street, Suite 200, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501 for assistance with permits."
4. The SCH has no objection to this study provided State agency regulations
regarding licenses and permits are adhered to.
We would appreciate being kept advised of any further activity or studies
relating to this project.
Thank you for your cooperation with the review process.
cc: Dan Wilkerson, DEC
Robert A. Mohn, APA
Sincerely,
;)4.t~/J,;lkf
Dave Haas
State-Federal Assistance Coordinator
()
3 •. The unnamed stream at Scal1lJ1on Bay has a mean yearly flow of less than 5
cubIC feet per second and falls under the nationwide permit under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. Through coordination witn the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, when a 404 (b) permit is not required by the
Department of the Army, Water Qua Ii ty' Cert ificat ion under Section 401 of tne
Clean Water Act is also not required. The Corps of Engineers is not required
to obtain a FERC license for hydroelectric projects.
4. Conment Noted.
.....
u. s. EN V I RON MEN TAL PRO TE C TI 0 NAG ENe Y
:m:~ MIS 443
Colonel lee R. Nunn
District Engineer
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATUE, WASHINGTON 98101
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
SUBJECT: Draft Report on the Small Hydropower Study and Environmental
Assessment for Scammon Bay, Alaska
Dear Colonel Nunn:
Thank you for sending uS the above report. We have no objections to the
project and the Finding of No Significant Impacts .
~ We support the proposed close coordination with the Public Health Service
to ensure that acceptable drinking water supplies will be maintained. To
this end, as recommended in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Report, any fuel, oil, or lubricants should be stored and handled in such
a manner to ensure that they will not enter any water course.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this report. If you would like
to discuss our comments, please call Dick Thiel, of my staff. He can be
reached at (206) 442-1728 or (FTS) 399-1728.
Sincerely,
b. t.~ea~~tor
Environmental Services Division
()
Corrment noted.
()
( )
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Colonel Lee R. Hunn
U.S. A~ Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage. Alaska 99501
Dear Colonel Nunn:
May 5. 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276.()1J()1
We are presently reviewing the feasibility report for the small
hydroelectriC project at Scammon Bay. If it is determined to be the
best future source of power for the village. as I expect it will. I
intend to recommend that the Power Authority seek the necessary design
and construction funding for the project. The Alaska Power Authority is
aware of the Reagan Administration's proposal that would require up
front finanCing by the State. Our participation in the project would be
dependent on legislative appropriation.
Sincerely.
~.~ p.
Eric P. Youl
Executive 0 ctor
( )
We will continue to coordinate with you regarding possible financing
for the project.
APPENDIX C
STATEMENT RECIPIENTS
Federal Agencies
Deputy Assistant. Secretary for the Environment. U.S. Dept. of Commerce
Director. Office of Environmental Project Review. U.S. Dept. of Interior
Director. Environmental Impact Division. Office of Environmental Programs
Federal Energy Administration
Office of the Chief bf Engineers. Civil Works Programs
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
Director. Alaska Operations Office. Environmental Protection Agency
Director, Alaska Region. National Weather Service
Regional Administrator, Department of Housing and Urban Development
Commander/Director. U.S. Army CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire
Chief, Alaska Division, U.S. Army CRREL, Fairbanks, Alaska
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation
National Park Service, Anchorage
National Park Service, Juneau
Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory
Director. Western Region, NOAA
Soil Conservation Service
Study Director, Water Resources Studies, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Anchorage
Special Assistant to the Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Anchorage
Area Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Supervisor, WAES, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service
National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage
Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau
State Director, Bureau of Land Management
Director, Anchorage Field Office, National Ocean Survey
National Oceanographic Data Center, Environmental Data Service, NOAA
Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S.G.S., Waters Resources Division
Alaska Resources Library
U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
Advance Council on Historic Preservation
Honorable Ted Stevens, United States Senate
Honorable Frank Murkowski, United States Senate
Honorable Don Young. House of Representatives
State Agencies
Executive Director, Alaska Power Authority
Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development, Div. of Energy and Power
Development
Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs, Local Government Assistance Div.
Dept. of Natural Resources, Southcentral District
Director, Division of Land and Water Management
Commissioner, Dept. of Natural Resources
Director, Division of Communit.Y Planning
Commissioner. Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, Juneau
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage
Director. Division of Policy Development and Planning
Coordinator, Office of Coastal Management
State-Federal Coordinator, A-95 Clearinghouse
Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Southcentral Regional Office
Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Juneau
COITIlli5sioner, Department of COIIITlerce and Economic Development
Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Parks
Dept. of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
Honorable Jay Hammond, Governor
Alaska State Library
Alaska Historical Library
Honorable Vern Hurlbert, Alaska House of Representatives
Organizations
Executive Secretary, Alaska Conservation Society
Anchorage AuduQon Society
Trustees for Alaska
Director; Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska, FairbalJks
Leader, Cooperative Wildlife Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Library, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Library, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Z.J. Loussac Library
Director~ Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Arctic Information and Data Center
Director, Nunam Kitlutsisti
State Representative, Friends of the Earth
Alaska Native Foundation
Alaska Center for the Environment
Marilyn Sigman, The Wildlife Society
General Manager, Alaska Village Electric~l Cooperative
Local
Monroe Kaganak, Mayor of Scammon Bay