The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTogiak Hydroelectric Project Kurtluk River Alternative Projects Pre-reconnaissance Report 1982-. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. "II .. .. -.. -... - ... • - ... • .. ,. - LOUIS W RIGGS HOHtRT N IANOPAUI PAUL I POT TE R KF ITH 0 BULL DOUGLAS I MANSFIELD ORAL I rONHRS DAVID C WILLER MICHAH B HARRINGTON THEODORE H PURCELL WAL TE R FANTON ROKfRT W. MYRDAL TEVIS T THOMPSON.IR Mr. Melvin Nichols DOWL Engineers /\ i TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 149 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 TElEPHONE (415) 982-8338 TWX 372 b083 CABLE "TENGCO" 4040 "B" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Subject: Kurtluk Pre-Reconnaissance Study Dear Mel: 5t ~ RALPH A. TUDOR (1902·1'11>1) AS.IOC/A rt 0 (ON.IUL IANT SlANLH H fROID snVEN R ALTERS lACK C BIEDERMAN HUGH M BROWN DONALD I CROFT FRfD B ESTEP RICHARD W EVERETT fRITS H FE NGF R ROBERT W. GANS[ GERALD V GIBNEY ROBERTO E INIGUEZ CRANT A. LARSEN lAMES W MtvlR THOMAS I O'NEILL DONALD C ROSI RAINtR RUNGALDIER August 13, 1982 At tached you will find 15 copies of the recent ly completed pre- reconnaissance report for a potential hydroelectric project on the Kurtluk River near Togiak. The report is intended to amplify the brief information presented on this alternative site in the report entitled "Reconnaissance Study for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project" dated August 1982. The information and analyses in the report are based on existing data gathered by DOWL, Tudor, and Dryden & La Rue during the preparation of the August 1982 report and no new field work was performed for the study • Two alternative projects (K-l and K-2) were studied for t~is report. Both alternatives utilize a common dam site with differing heights on the Kurtluk River. Alternative K-l would utilize a 40-foot high dam to divert the Kurtluk flows to a different drainage basin via a 8400 foot penstock to a 340 kW power plant located near a proposed new airport. Alternative K-2 would ut ilize a 55-foot high dam with a 132 kW power plant located immediately downstream on the Kurtluk River. The costs and benefits for the alternative projects were assessed to provide a preliminary indication of their economic viability. Alternative K-1 would cost $5,810,000 and the 340 kW power plant would generate 1.63 m kWh per year. Alternative K-2 would cost $4,940,000 and the 135 kW power plant would generate 0.53 m kWh per year. For the economic analysis, the base case data for Togiak formulated for the August 1982 study was utilized. This included consideration of the base case alone, and also adjustments for waste heat recovery, wind energy credits and space heating credits . ...----------,'r.II'"-::::----, , PrG:: '(Jut:" CJC1D File Code: ~.J .. Di. 03 J, Date':,8~ ___ .~M· L -- ... TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY ... 'III .. • 'III .. - ,. .. ... 'III .. .. .... - Mr. Mel Nichols August 13, 1982 Page 2 The results of the economic analysis indicate that Alternative K-l may be potent ially feas ib Ie, but Alternat ive K-2, due to its small power output is not cost effective. The benefit/cost ratios (B/C) for Alternative K-l are swmnarized below. All B/C ratios studied for Alternat ive K-2 were less than 1.00. Case B/C 1 -Base Case Only 1.30 2 -Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery 1.18 3 -Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credits 1.13 4 -Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy Credits and Space Heating Credits 1.25 The basic purpose of the pre-reconnaissance study was to investigate whether or not it was prudent to proceed with a more detailed, and more costly, feasibility study for the site. Bas"ed upon the results of this study it is recommended that a cautious but positive approach be taken from this point. A summary of the report recommendations to implement this approach are as follows: 1. 2. 3. A preliminary evaluation of environmental problems of the implemented as soon as possible. the associated site should be The streamflow gage currently· installed at the Quigmy site should be moved to the Kurtluk site and monitoring of the flows should begin as soon as poss ib Ie. The project should be reevaluated in approximately one year when the addit ionalenvironmental and flow data are available and a more definitive· decision made at that time . .. ... .. • .. - ... ... .. . - - .. --.. .. .. ... .. -- ·/~ . TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY Mr. Mel Nichols August 13, 1982 Page 3 If you desire amplification of any parts of the report or if you have any questions, please call . GEL:813.2 Attachment Very truly yours, ruDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY ?Jv.LC. ~ Gordon E. Little Project Manager .. .. .. ... .. ... • ... - ',"" ... ... -.. " ... ... ... ... ... .. • - TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT KURTLUK RIVER ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS PRE-RECON REPORT . c A. INTRODUCTION 1. Background The draft Togiak Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study (Reconnaissance Study) concluded that the Quimby River project site was economically marginal and could not be recommended for development. During the draft review the APA decided that alternative sites, previously rejected due to its small power output, should be reviewed and that a pre-reconnaissance report be prepared utilizing available information. 2 . Location The village of Togiak is located on Bristol Bay approxi- mately 70 miles ~est of Dillingham and 400 miles southwest of Anchorage. The village itself is located on a marshy flat 10 to 30 feet above sealevel. The Kurtluk River flows across an elevated bedrock bench 4 miles west of the village. The upper part of the Kurtluk River Basin contains two potential hydro- electric projects which share a common diversion dam site . Their location is shown on Plate I. These projects were briefly described in the March 1982 draft of the Reconnaissance Study for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project as Alternative Projects No. 10 and No. 11. In the following report these projects are referred to as Alternatives K-1 and K-2, respec- tively. Project No. 11 (Alternative K-2) was designated in the Draft Report as the alternate to the selected Quimby River project . NBISF-313-9527-KA 1 f?~a i~~=,:l{f{Q .. __ --; I Fii:J C:;,::' _~t~D7· D3 I J. OJte: ~~L.a . I · . .. .. .. .. - -.. - .. .. ... - .. .. .. .. .. - 3 . Scope The following report is intended to provide a' brief . c analysis of the Kurtluk alternative projects for the purpose of judging whether one of these projects would prove to be physi- cally and economically acceptable 'under a detailed feasibility study. Methods, assumptions, and costs used in preparing this report, although more general, are consistent with those used in the previously submi tted Reconnaissance Study. Only pre- viously existing information was used. This included a topo- graphic survey and stream flow measurements of Alternative No • 11 made during the September 1981 field reconnaissance. Information on the Kurtluk projects was included in the draft report under Chapter V, Alternative Sites Considered; and Appendices: B -Hydrology, C -Geology and Geotechnical, and D -Environmental Report • B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Alternatives Studied Two alternative projects were studied for this report and are presented on Plate I at the end of this report. Both alternatives utilize a common dam site with differing heights on the Kurtluk River. Alternative K-1 would divert the Kurtluk flows to a different drainage basin via a 8400 foot penstock to a 340 kW power plant located near the proposed new ai rport. Alterntive K-2 would utilize a dam with a 132 kW power plant located immediately downstream on the Kurtluk River. The proposed dam site for both alternatives is located in the mouth of a narrow 42-foot deep canyon immediately down- stream of the confluence of the Kurtluk with a major tributary. Other than the size of the stream the site is very similar to the Quigmy River Project site in topography and geology. NBISF-313-9527-KA 2 ,- ... .. 1M ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. - .-.. .. .. .. .. , -- 2. Alternative Project K-1 This alternative would utilize a 40-foot hig~ concrete faced rockfill dam to divert the project flows out of the Kurtluk basin and over an intervening ridge to the power plant. The diversion woul d ut i 1 ize a 36 inch diameter penstock 8400 feet in length. The powerhouse would be a prefabricated metal building approximately 30 feet by 30 feet and would be located a mile beyond the proposed air strip near a large pond (100 acre surface area) that drains south into the bay. An impulse type turbine would utilize 160 feet of head and a maximum flow of 36 cfs to develop 340 kW • 3 • Alternative Project K-2 Project K-2 would be contained wi thin the Kurtluk River canyon and would obtain its head principally by constructing a concrete faced rockfill dam to a 55 foot height. This would require that dikes be extended back from the inner rim of the canyon in order to contain the reservoir. The broad west abut- ment, 50 feet above the streambed, would serve as the emergency spillway for the dam. An additional 7 feet of head for a total of 57 feet can be developed by extending the penstock 250 feet beyond the dam to a more accessable powerhouse si teo A tube type turbine would utilize a maximum design flow of 36 cfs and the 57 feet of head to develop a maximum ouput of 132 kW • 4. Site Access and Transmission Line Si te access woul d be the same for both al terna t i ves • An existing road leads from the village across a marshy area to a gravel pit and the site of a new airstrip proposed by the Alaskan Department of Transportation. An access road would follow the high ground beyond the air strip to the K-1 power- house site and then climbs approximately 160 feet along the K-1 NBISF-313-9527-KA 3 - .... .. .. .. • .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. penstock route through a broad gentle saddle to the dam site on the Kurtluk River. The power line would generally follow the same route and would be mostly above ground on single poles as for the Quigmy River site. The line would be buried-across and in the vicinity of the proposed new air strip • 5 • Hydrology The flows at the Kurtluk project sites were developed using methods similar to those utilized for the Quigmy project. The much smaller Kurtluk basin reaches only to the 1300 foot eleva- tion compared to the 2500 foot elevation for the Quigmy basin. This reduces the orographic effect of the moisture inflow and resul ting precipi ta tion. The following table cont rasts the hydrologic estimates for the two basins. Hydrologic Comparison Basin Kurtluk Drainage Area (sq. mi.) Annual Precipitation (inches) Specific Yield (cfs/sq. mi.) Average Annual Flow (cfs) Spot Flow Measurement (cfs) September 15, 1981 October 9-10, 1981 Channel Geometry Estimate (cfs) 13.1 37 1.6 21 48 17 19 Quigmy 100 50 2.2 220 301 131 270 An average annual flow of 21 cfs was adopted as the initial estimate for the Kurtluk projects. For purposes of this pre- recon report, the flow duration curve and annual hydrograph of the Kurtluk River may therefore be assumed to equal approxi- mately 10 percent of those estimated for the Quigmy project. These flows are shown on Figures 1 and 2 • NBISF-313-9527-KA 4 ... .. .. .. .. - -.. -.. .. ... ... .. ... ... ,. .. .. .. 6. Power and Energy Production \ ; / A turbine design flow of 36 cfs, equal to approximately 15 percent exceedance on the flow duration curve, was selected for both projects. Project K-1 utilizing an impulse type turbine would operate efficiently down to 10 percent of its design capacity (3.6 cfs) and to nearly 100 percent of the flow dura- tion. Project K-2 would utilize a tube type turbine which has a low flow range limi ted to about 30 percent of its design capacity (11 cfs) and would limit its operation to about 70 percent of the duration . The following table compares the two projects. Power and Energy Development Item Design Flow (cfs) Gross Head (ft) Dam Height (ft) Penstock Length (ft) Net Head (ft) Power (kW) Average Annual Energy (MkWh) C. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS K-1 Project - 36 157 40 8400 132 340 1.63 K-2 - 36 57 55 500 53 136 0.53 The costs and benefits associated with the Kurtluk Al terna t i ve Projects were assessed to provide a prel iminary indica tion of the feas ibil i ty of the proposed al terna ti ves. The results of this analysis indicate that the Kurtluk Alternative K-1 is potentially an economically viable project, NBISF-313-9527-KA 5 .. • .. ... .. .-... - -.. .. - - ... ... ... III -- but Project K-2, due to its small power output, is not cost effective. . c 1. Economic Criteria The Kurtluk Alternatives K-1 and K-2 were assessed using the criteria and methodology presented in Section IX of the Reconnaissance Study. These cri teria are based on the APA standard criteria for economic analysis. 2. Cost Estimate The cost estimates for the Kurtluk sites were based on the information prepared for. the feasibility studies for King Cove, Old Harbor and Larsen Bay and the reconnaissance study for Togiak. Quantity estimates were prepared for each alternative studied and unit prices derived from the above referenced reports were then applied. These unit prices were judgement- ally modified as necessary to suit this particular application. Detailed est ima tes are presented in Table I (AI ternati ve K-1) and Table II (Alternative K-2) included at the end of this report. Summaries of these estimates are presented below: Cost Estimate Item Project Direct Construction Contingencies Contract Cost Engineering and Administration Total Project Cost Power (kW) Cost per kW NBISF-313-9527-KA 6 Amount K-1 $4,165,000 765,000 4,930,000 880,000 $5,810,000 $ 340 17,100 K-2 $3,567,000 623,000 4,190,000 750,000 $4,940,000 $ 135 36,600 - • • 'III .. -.. -.. - • - ... .. -'. '. - .. - As the cost effectiveness of Project K-1 based on power output is twice as great as Project K-2, subsequent economic analysis was limited to Project K-1. For comparison the total project cost per kilowatt of the 432 kW Quigmy project includ- ing 11.6 miles of road was $18,900. 3. Project Energy Planning The average monthly energy generation that could be realized from the Kurtluk Alternative K-l was compared to the monthly direct electrical and space heating demands from the Togiak report in order to determine the amount of hydroelectric energy that could be used to meet these demands, and the required amount of supplemental diesel generation that would be necessary if the hydroelectric project is built. A detailed explanation of the methodology used for this energy accounting is included in Chapter VII of the Reconnaissance Report. This accounting was performed for 1985, 1990, 2000, and 2001. The resul ts of the accounting are presented below. The monthly relationships between energy demand, generation, and usage are shown graphically on Figure 3. Energy Demand, Generation, and Usage Required Supplemental Hydro Used Direct Direct Demand Diesel for Space Demand Met by Hydro Generation Heating Year (1000 kWh) ,( 1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) 1985 892 856 36 774 1990 1025 949 76 681 2000 1286 1118 168 512 2001 1314 1134 180 496 4. Benefit/Cost Analysis The annual costs associated with the hydroelectric project were estimated using the energy values presented above. These NBISF-313-9527-KA 7 - -.. ,. • .. • -,.,. -.. .. .. ... '. .. .. .. • -' oM costs include the cost of supplemental diesel generation and were developed in· a manner consistent with the methodology advanced in Chapter IX of the Togiak Report. The . ~osts were discounted to January 1982 at three percent interest. The present worth of the space heating credit associated with the Kurt luk Al terna t i ve K-1 was determined in a simi lar manner. The present worth of the base case, the waste heat recovery credit, and the wind energy credit were taken directly from the Togiak Report. The present worth of the cost of the hydro- electric project was considered as a cost • The costs of the base case, waste heat recovery credit, and wind energy credit were considered to be benefits. The space heating credit was considered to be a reduction to the benefit. This methodology is in accordance to the methodology requested by APA. A summary of present worths is presented below: Present Worth Summary Present Worth of Benefits Present Worth Base Case Only Present Worth Waste Heat Recovery Credit Subtotal Present Worth Wind Energy Credit Subtotal Present Worth Space Heating Credit Total Present Worth of Costs Present Worth Cost of Hydro Project (Includes Present Worth Cost of Supplemental Diesel) $11,027,600 999,400 $10,028,200 504,700 $ 9,523,500 1,051,800 $10,575,300 $ 8,464,500 The present worths presented above were used to determine benefit/cost ratios for the various levels of project develop- ment. The benefit/cost ratios for the project are as follows: NBISF-313-9527-KA 8 ... ... - """ .. • .... • ... .. .. ... ... • - • .. .. ... Base Case Only BIC = 11,027,600 = 8,464,500 1.30 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery BIC 10,028,200 = 8,464,500 = 1.18 . c Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credits B/C 9,523,500 = 8,464,500 = 1.13 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy, and Space Heating Credits B/C = 10,575,300 = 8,464,500 1.25 The benefi t/cost ratios presented above indicate that the project is feasible for any of the configurations considered • 5. Project Timing Tbe annual unit cost of energy was calculated for the project configurations being considered. analysis are sbown on Figure 4 . Tbe resul ts of this Tbe optimum timing for project development would occur when the unit cost of tbe existing system exceeds tbe unit cost of tbe proposed bydroelect ric project. Because actual costs are important for this comparison, the waste heat recovery and wind NBISF-313-9527-KA 9 - .. .... - - .. .. .. .. ... -- ,. .. .. ... -- energy credi ts were associated wi th the base case and con- sidered as reductions in cost, while the space heating credits were considered as a reduction in the cost of the hydroelectric . f project. A detailed explanation of the discontinuities on Figure 4 is included in Section IX-F of the Togiak Report. Inspection of Figure 4 indicates that the hydroelectric project, after adjustment for the space heating credit, would have a lower uni t cost than the base case adjusted for waste heat recovery by the time the hydroelectric project goes on- line in 1985, and that this project would have the lowest unit cost of all alternatives considered by the end of 1986. The project appears to be viable for immediate development • D. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW The principal potential impact of the Kurt1uk projects is on fisheries. Both projects require high dams which may render a fish ladder installation marginal in value. However, the isolation of spawning habitat in the upper most reaches of the Kurt1uk River may not prove to be of major significance on a regional basis. More significant is the transbasin diversion proposed for Project K-1. This would result in a major reduction in stream flow in the approximate mile and a quarter long reach that lies between the dam and the next major tributary downstream. Fishery releases and normal spills from the dam would mitigate' in part the impact on this reach. In contrast, flows below the power plant located on the Togiak flats will be significantly increased. The large pond on which the pow~rhouse is located will provide an excellent afterbay acting to smooth the diurnal and weekly fluctuations in power flows. The existing outflow channel which flows in a relatively direct route southward to Togiak Bay should handle the increased flow averaging 18 cfs or less without major problems although some scour is anticipated. NBISF-313-9527-KA 10 .. ... .. ---.. .. .". ... • .. .. -- The selection of this ponds ide powerhouse site mitigates poten- tially major flooding problems created by the original site. That site was located 800 feet to north and drained northeast- ward towards the village through a series pf sloughs~~ E. CONCLUSIONS 1. 2. 3. 4 • 5. A 340 kW hydroelectric project producing approximately 1.6 MkWh of annual energy is potentially developable on the Kurtluk River. This project would divert water from the Kurtluk River basin and return it to a different drainage basin near Togiak • The preliminary estimate of project construction cost is approximately $5,400,000. The preliminary estimate of the project benefi t cost ratio is 1.30 based on APA methodology • An alternate project that would return the power diversions to the Kurtluk a short distance below the dam is not cost effective • Potentially significant environmental impacts created by transbasin diversion of Kurtluk flows may effect the ultimate acceptability of the proposed project. F. RECOMMENDATONS 1. 2 • The Alaskan Power Authority should consider proceeding cautiously and on a long term basis with a more detailed study of the Togiak/Kurtluk River Project. Preliminary environmental evaluation of the proposed transbasin diversion should begin immediately. Early findings could have substantial effect of the direc- tion of the feasibility study. .. .. • .. .. -... - , ... ' ... ,"" .. .. ''III - 3. Continuous flow measurements of the Kurtluk River and uninterrupted daily precipitation measurements at Togiak should begin as soon as possible. "Due to the lack of other records in the region these measurements are cri tical to reliable evaluation of environmental 4. and power development problems. Due to its easier access and smaller stream, a Kurtluk stream gage could be maintained more economically than the recently installed Quimgy River gage and it is recommended that the Quigmy gage be moved to the Kurtluk site as soon as it can be practically accomplished • When additiona~ flow and environmental information is available in mid-1983, the project should be reevalu- ated and a decision made whether or not to proceed with a more detailed feasibility study. NBISF-313-9527-KA 12 ,..,' .. --\ I -.. TA~LE I JWRTLUI< ALTERNATIVE-PROJECT K-1 340 k\41 COl-'STRUCTION COSTS . c .. Item Ouantity Unit Unit Price Amount Mobilization LS 450,000 Access Road 3.2 ML 130,000 416,000 .. Dam (4(\' hi~h) Cofferdam 1,000 CY 50 50,000 ~ypass Line, 48" 300 LF 450 135,000 .. Foundation Treatment 430 SY 75 32,250 Trim (rock) 325 CY 30 9,750 Cone. Membrane & Toe 150 CY 1,200 180,000 ... Reinforcing Steel 17,000 LH 1. 73 29,410 .. Rock Fill 4,300 CY. 50 215,000 ... 651,410 .. Intake Slide Gate, 36" 1 EA 32,000 32,000 Slide Gate, 48" 1 EA 40,000 40,000 .. Trashracks 2 EA 5,000 10,000 Concrete 10 CY 1,400 14,000 - 96,000 Penstock Steel, 36" 300 LF 175 52,500 -Fiberglass, 36" 8,100 LF 120 972 ,000 Excavation 5,800 CY 17 98,600 Backfill 5,300 CY 9 47,700 .. 1,170,800 Powerhouse Prefab Building LS 47,000 Turbine & Generator LS 510,000 AuxilIary System LS 120,000 Concrete 110 CY 1,200 132,000 Reinforcing Steel 12,000 LB 1. 73 20,760 829,760 ,. SFNBI-313-9527-T-I f • •• .... .,. ,.,. ' .. J. '. f. .... •• ... .. ... .... ... • '. ' . .... .. Item Spillway Excavation Rock Concrete Reinforcing Steel Transmission Line Contingencies Contract Cost TABLE I (Concluded) KURTLUK ALTERNATIVE PROJECT K-1 340 kW CONSTRUCTION COSTS . c Quantity Unit Unit Price 4,300 30 3,400 2.7 C'{ C'{ LB MI SUBTOTAL (rounded) 30 1,200 1. 73 141,000 Engineering & Administration TOTAL PROJECT COST Amount 129,000 36,000 5.882 170,882 380,700 4,165,000 765,000 4,930,000 880,000 5,810.000 - •• TABLE II ' .. KURTLUK ALTERNATIVE PROJECT K-2 135 kW CONSTRUCTION COSTS . r •• Item Quant itt Unit Unit Price Amount '. Mobi lizat ion LS 400,000 Access Road 3.2 MI 130,000 416,000 • Dam (55' high) Cofferdam 1,000 CY 40 40,000 Bypass Line, 48" 300 LF 450 135,000 Foundation Treatment 2,200 SY 50 11 ,000 Trim (rock) 325 CY 18 5,850 Conc. Membrane & Toe 400 CY ,·1,200 480,000 Reinforcing Steel 46,000 LB 1. 73 79,580 Rock Fill 11,800 CY 40 472,000 ... .. 1,223,430 .. Intake Slide Gate, 36" 1 EA 32,000 32,000 Slide Gate, 48" 1 EA 40,000 40,000 Trashracks 2 EA 5,000 10,000 Concrete 10 CY 1,400 14,000 .. .. • 96,000 -Penstock Steel, 36" 400 LF 175 70,000 Excavation, Rock 200 CY 30 6,000 Concrete 10 1,400 14,000 ... 90,000 - Powerhouse Prefab Building LS 47,000 Turbine & Generator LS 250,000 Auxiliary Systems LS 120,000 Concrete 110 CY 1,200 132,000 Reinforcing Steel 12,000 LB 1. 73 20,760 • .. 569,760 .. • • SFNBI-313-9527-T-II ... - ... .. 'III .... • .. ... ... .. .. .. .. • .. ... - Item Spillway Excavation Rock Concrete Reinforcing Steel Transmission Line Contingencies Contract Cost TABLE II (Concluded) KURTLUK ALTERNATIVE PROJECT K-2 135 kW CONSTRUCTION COSTS Quantity Unit Unit Price 12,800 30 3,400 4.2 Cy CY LB MI 18 1,200 1. 73 119,000 SUBTOTAL (rounded) Engineering & Admin. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS SFNBI-313-9527-T-II . t Amount 230,400 36,000 5,882 272,282 499,800 3,567,000 623,000 4,190,000 750,000 4,940,000 ... 'III • .. .. .. • .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. • • . - r\ . 120 110 100 90 80 I- -70 fh ~ U - ~ 60 o ~ LL 50 40 30 20 10 I \ \ \~ ""-" MEAl ANI'iJAL FLOW 21 ds ......"""'---...- KURTLUK RIVER DAM SITE FIGURE .. - • .. .. 1M .. • • .. ... .. ... .. "Q 70 60 50 -40 en -(,) - 10 ESTIMATED RANGE OF AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS 7 OUT OF 10 YEARS I ' I ....................... Ii'·················, iii! i·· .",,·,ililili i·":i1 '. ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i o~--~--~--~--~----~--~--~--~----~--~--~--~ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH KURTLUK RIVER DAM SITE H FIGURE "" .. -.. .. .-.. til ... .- ... -... .. .. 1M ,. ill .. ill .. • .. III .. oil .. .. .. .. .. • .. .. .. a I .. -0 0 0 • -• .I: • M ->-~ W Z W '; .' 1 ~--+---+----1......,....c~. tt:YPROELECTRIC:POrENIi~L.---L_-t--_____ AT QUIGMY RIVfR SITE i . 240 r-.--t---t---,..,.---t---t----t---+----+--t------+- 21 0 ~_-+----+--f: USO !+---+----irl+-.... --~ 120 90 ' 80 ~~.....,. ---+--+---t o ~ F M A MONTH D~TAIL DATA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT o N 0 • PROJECTED MONTHLY ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE FIGURE 3 .. .. • • III ... III ... ... .. .. • ... -... • , III ., ... • ... .. .... -.. III .. ,. III .. .. -tI!I ... .-.. d • ... .. 600 500 400 - - 9 KURTLUK ALTERNATIVE WITH SPACE HEATING CREDIT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON-Ll~~E ,.., 1T) ALTERNATIVE A W!TH 11.6 M!:"'E RCAa I Y --AND NO SPACE HEATING CREDii I , I' . ~'\ X2 ALTERNATIVE A WiTH 4.6 Wi:"!: Ro~r I AND NO SPACE HEATING CRE:::: " , I . I , ' " cP EXPAND FUEL. ~, , , ' , r ~ ~ ~ STORAGE cp I " ' '~ .... ~ .~ ._ .', ~ , .0', :". ~ ® ~) ,~ ' .. €) .,.. ___ .L __ , , I , '~", , (-.: .J - - -1 - - '" "-EXPAND WIND \ ~"!II----\ -!)l' ....... ct..ir~~ -~ • ! " 4 ~ II 1;; ES:;::~~~::J~ \ I ~ ® BASE CAS~~~ \ j' ~:::~l/; - C) WITHOUT WASTE ~ WiTH 11.6 MILE ;" 0: HEAT RECOVERY ROAD AND SPACE/ / LLI OR Wif\;D CREDITS HEATiNG CREDiT ~ 200 ® BASE CASE @ ALJERNATI~iE~A) ~ WITH WASTE HEAT W!, H 4.6 M: ... ~ Z RECOVERY CREDIT ROAD AND SPACE :::l HEATING CREDiT -I 'CI :::l Z ® BASE CASE WIT H WAST E HEAT' Z CI 100 .. 1980 YEAR RECOVERY AND .~ WIND CREDITS------· 1990 ® KURTLUK ALTERATIVE WITHOUT SPACE HEATI NG CREDIT 2000 2010 TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECTED UNIT ENERGY COSTS FIGURE 4 .-------------------:---------.---~. / / 240 1&0 120 :::; .. :II z: 110 2 .. ~ ... -' 40 ... l 249 ::; I!OO EL~ I ~ .. 0 2 ~ >-... .J ItO ... bJ '~, PLAN o 1000 2000 3000 '1000 5000 &000 VE/tS1C)Ij DAM 4Q FT ~ ~&. OlAMETER PENSTOCK ~Ur ~VE)I' POWERHOUSE POND SURFACE El 38 8400' PfIOFLE AL 1. PROJECT K-I IVERSION twII !li FT HIQH • DIAMt TDI PENSTOCK PROFILE ALl. PROJECT K-2 15 n r'- I PROJECT 1(-1 TYPICAL IMPLUSE TURBINE POWERHOUSE ..!:l!!. PROJECT 1(-2 TYPICAL REACTION TURBINE POWERHOUSE J!L , . ~ECT AItEA r ~ LOCATION MAP HOT TO SCALE I TOGIAK T061AI( VICINITY MAP STATE OF ALASI(A 8 II Y ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY NDtOItAGE. ALASItA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT I(URTLUI( RiVER ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS .. .. ... * ... • III ... ... .. ... .. 'OIl .. -.. .. .. .. .. .. .-.. .. .. I .. I I -! • I .... ill .. .. .. .. , .. I .. ... .. , 1. ()~ . Mr. Melvin R. Michols Project Manager DOWL En91""" 4040 -8-Street Ancho .. a~. Alaska 99503' Dear Mel: /~ r.,~rl April 9. 1982 w. "a.e CGIIpleted our review of the ff.e .01_ feasibility study report for hydroelectric projects .t King Cove. Old HartJor. lant!ft Bay • and r@connaissanee stady of hydroelectric POtential at Togiat. In gene ... '. we weN quite pleased .ith the reports. but do have I f1UIIlN" of ca..ents to offer • General coaments relating to .11 four studies a~ as 'ollows: I. The results of the .nalysis of the base else pl.n supple.ented wfth .ind should be folded into each volume at IPproorfate locations. Results of the ecoftOll1c analysis of this .,11 .. should be 1ncof1X)'f"at@d irita tables s111111ar to those used fo," ot"er plans. -- b. PY'O\'isfOftS shauld be incorporated into project conceptual designs to offer protection .!ainst vanda11~ • c. An analysis MUSt be conducted for each one of the projects to dlttenD1"e optil!tll t1trfng IS laid out in t~ ~r8n~ recently sent to you • d. Lette" of concurrence to P1"Oceed wi th f1 nal proj ect desi~n and construction should be obtained fro. each of the resource aln8geleftt agencies re.i~"g the f@asfbi1~ty stud1es. Also. the possibility of utilizing the aband~ cannery at larsen 8ay fn place of I separate construction ea., should be addr@ssed • Significant sa.ings may be realized by using this .aeil1ty. Other COMIents we haye to offer have been annotated in red in the attached reports • 'PrOl. C;de: _ 'l9Q I File Code: _31.1:L7. D3 J. D;;ta: :-~~j---d .... • ..... • .. .. 'II! .. .. .. ... • .. 1M .. .. 'II! .. ... • II1II • ... .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. iIII .. • ... II1II ... .. • • , Mr. Melvin R~ .• chols Apr1l 8, 1982 Page 2 Please address all of our cOIInents, including those dfscussed at the April 9th lleeting. in the final report which is scheduled to be ccapleted by April 21. 1982. Sbould you have Iny questions, plelse let _ know. • FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR' DWB:sh