The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReconnaissance Study for Togiak Hydroelectric Project 1982Alaska Energy Authority LIBRARY COpy Study for sIM.:I'\. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT &a.£ .. ',",-" INEERS ''LI.,.,,,",,,,~E, ALASKA GINEERING COMPANY Ni;J:'tBANllil~LO, CALIFORNIA - - - - ... """ --.. - - ----- - Section FOREWORD TOGIAK CONTENTS I. SUMMARY II. II I. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. General Area Description Power Planning Description of Recommended Hydroelectric Project Base Case Plan Economic Analysis Environmental and Social Impacts Conclusions and Recommendations INTRODUCTION A. General B. Purpose C. Project Area Description D. Authority E. Scope of Study F. Study Participants G. Report Format H. Acknowledgments STUDY METHODOLOGY A. General B. Pre-Reconnaissance Phase C. Field Study Phase D. Office Study Phase NBI-432-9521-TC i Page iv 1-1 1-2 1-2 1-3 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-7 II-1 11-2 II-3 II-3 11-4 11-7 II-8 II-9 111-1 I II-1 II 1-1 111-2 IV. V. VI. VIr. BASIC DATA A. General B. Hydrology C. Geology and Geotechnics D. Surveys and Mapping E. Land Status F. Previous Reports G. Hydraulics ALTERNATIVE SITES CONSIDERED A. B. C. General Alternative Projects Description and Evaluation of Alternatives ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS A. General B. Conceptual Design Considerations C. D. E. F. G. H. Description of Alternative Projects Access Road Transmission Line Selection of Turbine-Generator Project Energy Production Project Operation Scheme and Controls PROJECT ENERGY PLANNING A. B. C. D. E. General Projection Considerations Energy Demand Projections Base Case Plan Hydroelectric Project Plan VIII. PROJECT COSTS A. B. C. D. General Cost Estimating Basis Base Case Plan Recommended Project Costs NBI-432-9521-TC ii IV-l IV-l IV-3 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-12 V-l V-l V-2 VI-l VI-l VI-6 VI-9 VI-10 VI-10 VI-14 VI-15 VII-l VII-l VII-4 VII-9 VII-16 VI II-l VIII-l VII 1-3 VII 1-3 • - • .. • • • -• - II .. .. .. • .. • --- -• .. • - • • .. • • -• • -.. .. - .. - - - - _. - -- ---.. - - IX. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A. General B. C. D. E. F. Project Analysis Parameters Base Case Economic Analysis Alternative Hydroelectric Project Economic Analysis Economic Comparison of Projects Unit Costs and Project Timing X. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS A. General XI. XI I. B. C. Environmental Effects Socioeconomic Effects PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION A. General B. Definitive Project Report C. Project Development Schedule D. Project Licenses, Permits and Institutional Considerations CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. B. Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A. B. C. D. E. Project Drawings Hydrology Geology and Geotechnics Detailed Cost Estimate Environmental Report F. Letters and Minutes G. Space Heating Installation and Cost NBI-432-9521-TC iii IX-l IX-l IX-3 IX-8 IX-12 IX-13 X-l X-2 X-9 XI-l XI-l XI-4 XI-6 XII-l XII-2 FOREWORD This volume, Volume E, presents the findings and recommen- dations of a study intendeo to fully assess the economic, technical, environmental, and social viability of a hydropower project for the village of Togiak. Volumes B, C and D present feasibility studies for hydropower projects for the villages of King Cove, Old Harbor, and Larsen Bay, respectively. Volume A is a summary report incorporating the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the other four volumes. NBI-425-9521-FO iv .. .. • .. -.. .. • • III • .. • • • .. .. • .. • .. -- • ... • • • .. - - - - - - ... - - --- --------.. -- SECTION I SUMMARY A. GENERAL Several prior studies of alternative means of supplying the Togiak area with electrical energy had recommended a hydroelec- tric project as the best source. As a direct result of these prior studies and recommendations, the Alaska Power Authority authorized a reconnaissance-level feasibility study to investi- gate in detail the hydropower potential in the vicinity of Togiak. This report summarizes the activities conducted for the reconnaissance study. These activities included projections of energy needs, formulation of alternative hydroelectric projects and a hypothetical base case to meet the electrical energy needs of Togiak, detailed analyses of economic feasibility, and preparation of an environmental assessment of the effects of the project. The results of the technical studies conducted ind ica te that a 432 kilowatt (kW) hydroelectric project utilizing a 38- foot-high concrete dam could be constructed on the Quigmy River to meet the elect ric demands of Togiak. However, the resul ts of the economic analyses indicate that the hydroelectric project would have only marginal feasibility. An additional project on the Kurtluk River is currently under investigation. The results of this investigtion will be presented in a subsequent report. The total cost of the proposed Togiak hydroelectric project is $7,047,200 with the 4.6-mile road option and $8,169,600 with the 11.6-mile road in January 1982 dollars. The project could NBI-432-9521-I 1-1 be implemented and on-line by January 1, 1985, if a decision to proceed with the project is made by December 1982. During an average water year, the proposed project would be capable of supplying about 99 percent of the electrical needs and about 30 percent of the space heating needs in the project area. The equivalent savings in diesel fuel in the year 2001 would be 144,000 gallons for direct electrical demand and 44,000 gallons for space heating. B. AREA DESCRIPTION Togiak is a small village located on Bristol Bay about 70 miles west of Dillingham and 400 miles southwest of Anchorage. The hydroelectric site selected for detailed study is on the Quigmy River about 12 miles west of Togiak. The smaller village of Twin Hills, four miles east of Togiak, was included in the assessment of the future power needs of the area. C. POWER PLANNING Power planning for the Togiak Project was conducted using standards set forth by the Alaska Power Authority. Previously recommended potential hydroelectric sites were investigated and the project area was surveyed to evaluate potential new si tes. After detailed study, a project was selected and then compared with a base case plan. The base case plan consisted of a cont inua t ion of the present diesel generation system, enlarged as necessary to meet future growth. The installation of waste heat recovery equipment and wind generators was also considered as part of the base case plan. Present energy demands for Togiak for direct electrical uses and space heating were estimated and future uses in these same categories were projected. The projections were based on forecasts of increases in the number of customers and increased NBI-432-9521-I 1-2 • " at .. .. ., • • .. .. • .. • ., .. • .. • -• • • • • • • • • • -• • - ,- - - - - - - - -' .. -- ... -... ... "' .. .. ..... '-... usage rates. Population growth and employment, legislation and other political influences, life style changes, and other factors can influence future energy demands but were not explicitly treated. The period of economic evaluation used was 53 years, which starts in January 1982 and extends for the 50-year life of the hydroelectric project after the estimated on-line date of January 1985. The energy demands for Togiak were increased for 20 years starting in 1982 through December 2001. The demands were then held level over the remainder of the economic eva I ua t ion per iod. As stated, the neighbor ing communi ty of Twin Hills was included in estimating future energy demands. For the proposed hydroelectric project, it was assumed that the first priority of use for the energy produced would be for the direct electrical needs of the Togiak area, and any remain- ing energy would be used for space heating. D. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Hydroelectric power plants transform the energy of falling water into electrical energy. Generally, a hydroelectric power project consists of a dam to produce the head or to divert stream flows so that they can be passed through a turbine- generator system to produce electric power. In the case of the alternative projects considered to bring hydroelectric power to Togiak, three dam conf i gura t ions and two access road opt ions were evaluated. These are descr i bed below. All three of the dams considered would divert water from the Quigmy River through an intake structure and pass the water through a tur- bine-generator system to produce electric energy. An access road would be constructed from Togiak to the project facilities and a transmission line would be constructed along the access road alignment to transmit the power generated at the plant to Togiak . NB1-432-9521-1 1-3 The general plan and features of the recommended hydroelec- tric project are presented in the plates of Appendix A. Photo- graphs of the project area are presented in Exhibits VI-1 through VI-3 of Section VI and in pages 2, 10, and 15 of Appendix E. The si te selected for investigation was a narrow canyon sui table for ei ther a concrete or rockfill dam. Since both types were apparently technically feasible, two concrete dams (38 and 28 feet high) and one rockfill dam were investigated to evaluate their economic feasibility and confirm their technical feasi bi Ii ty. Al though the Quigmy River above the proposed dam site locations might not be a major spawning area, the preliminary designs for all three dam alternatives incorporated fish ladders to allow for fish passage. An 11.6-mile road would be required to provide access from Togiak to the proposed facilities. The Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Aviation, is investigating the possibili ty of building a road along the first seven miles of the proposed access road alignment in order to reach a gravel source needed to construct an airport to serve Togiak. Two possibili ties exist for obtaining an access road for the proposed hydroelectric project: 1. 2. The entire 11.6-mile road would be built as part of the hydroelectric project. The Alaska Department of Transportation would build the first seven miles of the road and the hydroelec- tric project would build the remaining 4.6 miles. The investigations conducted during this study indicate that the most favorable combination, and indeed the only one tha t could be economically feasible, is the 38-foot-high concrete dam wi th only 4.6 mi les of the access road being funded by the project. NBI-432-9521-1 1-4 • • • --• • • .. .. • -.. • .. • • • • .. • • • • .. .. - • • • ... .. -.. - - - •• . , .. ' .". . , •• .... -- . - .. or •• ... - ... ..... --.. E. BASE CASE PLAN The base case plan formulated to meet the projected energy demands of Togiak assumed that the existing diesel system would continue to be used as the sole source of electric power. It was also assumed that the system would be modified to incorpor- ate waste heat recovery that would be used for space heating . Wind generation would also be installed as part of this plan. The existing diesel plant's capacity was judged to be adequate to meet peak demands on the Togiak syst~m throughout the period of study. The forecasted energy demands for the base case included the requirements for Twin Hills . F. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The economic analysis was based on the Alaska Power Authori ty criteria that compare the net present worth of the base case costs to the net present worth of the al terna ti ve proposed hydroelectric project costs using specified real price escalation and discount rates. Net present worth is the present value of the costs that would be incurred over a comparable economic evaluation period of 53 years for both projects . The net present worths of the base case are as follows: Base Case Only Waste Heat Credit Subtotal Wind Energy Credit Subtotal Space Heating Credit Total NBI-432-9521-I Alternatives A & C $11,027,600 999,400 10,028,200 540,700 9,487,500 2,463,000 $11,950,500 1-5 Alternative B $11,027,600 999,400 10,028,200 540,700 9,487,500 1,234,800 $10,722,300 The space heating credi t was shown as an increase in cost to the base case so that all present worths could be compared to the hydroelectric project standing alone. For the three al terna tive hydroelectric projects studied, the present worth of the costs is as follows: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C W /11. 6-Mi le Road $12,758,400 13,037,400 13,257,700 W/4.6-Mile Road $11,668,600 11,947,600 12,167,900 As can be noted from the table, the only hydroelectric alternative with a lower present worth cost than the base case is alternative A, and then only if the 4.6-mile roadway can be constructed. An additional measure of project feasibility is the bene- fit/cost (B/C) ratio. The B/C ratio is the present worth of the project benefi ts divided by the net present worth of the project costs. For the alternative studies for this project, the calculated B/C ratios were as follows: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C B/C Ratio W /11. 6-Mi le Roap 0.937 0.822 0.982 B/C Ratio W/4.6-Mile Road 1.024 0.897 0.901 These results indicate that Alternative A, the 38-foot-high concrete dam with 432 kW installed capacity, is marginally feasibile only if the Alaska Department of Transportation con- structs the first 7.0 miles of the required 11.6-mile access NB1-432-9521-1 1-6 .. .. • .. • - • .. - • .. • • • a til • .. -• .. • --• • .. • • .. • • - • • - - ---' - - - - - - --.. -- --.- •• ... , .... road. If the entire 11. 6-mile road must be constructed, the project is a break-even proposition. G. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS The study results indicate that a hydroelectric project at the Quigmy site could have potentially serious environmental impacts, but measures such as fish ladders could likely miti- gate the most serious effects. Additional studies are recom- mended to answer questions related to the downstream effects of the dam impoundment on salmon spawning; coho (silver) salmon runs; minimum water requirements for fish below the proposed dam; selection of a suitable access route; and methods to ensure safe passage of out-migrating young salmon. Additional study of fish passage facilities is also recommended. H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The studies conducted for this report indicate that a marginally feasible project consisting of a 38-foot-high concrete dam with 432 kW installed capacity could be con- structed at the Quigmy River site. The next step in project implementation, the preparation of a Definitive Project Report to optimize the project features, should be pursued only if the Alaska Department of Transportation constructs the initial 7.0 miles of the necessary 11.6-mile-Iong access road. A more detailed investigation of a much smaller hydroelec- tric site on the Kurtluk River three miles from Togiak could be pursued, but the project would meet only a small portion of the Togiak electric demands. The site is currently being investi- gated at a preliminary level and will be addressed in a subsequent letter report. NBI-432-9521-I 1-7 _f .... ...... ... ..... .. Of ... "of WI - - - .. -- SECTION II INTRODUCTION A. GENERAL Togiak is a small village located on Bristol Bay about 80 miles west of Dillingham and 400 miles southwest of Anchorage. The village currently relies upon an Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) diesel generation system for its electrical energy. The smaller adjacent village of Twin Hills, located about four miles east of Togiak, is not a part of the AVEC system. It ut il izes small ind i vidual d iesel generators for electrical energy. Due to its proximity to Togiak, Twin Hills has also been included in this assessment of hydropower potential. Throughout this report, references to Togiak therefore include Twin Hills and are not limited to the village of Togiak alone. Diesel systems for electrical generation have several serious drawbacks, especially in remote locations--availability and cost of diesel fuel, expected shortages and increased expense of fuel in the future, potential maintenance problems, and the cost and availability of parts or even whole systems. The installation of hydroelectric generating capacity would potentially alleviate the major problems inherent in the diesel systems and would provide dependable generating capacity over a long time span. This report presents the results of a reconnaissance study to assess the engineering, economic, environmental feasibility of such an installation in vicinity of Togiak . NBI-384-9521-II II-l and the This particular section of the report describes the purpose and scope of the study , the physical and economic character- istics of the project area, and the organizational makeup of the participants in the study. B. PURPOSE The primary purpose of this determine whether it is feasible and environmental viewpoints to project in the vicinity of Togiak. reconnaissance study was to from engineering, economic, construct a hydroelectric Prior studies of alternative energy sources to serve Togiak had evaluated energy conservation, waste heat recovery, hydroelectric generation, wind energy conversion, photovoltaic, gasification, solar (both active and passive), and fuel cells. These studies had indicated that hydroelectric generation was the best available alternative to diesel generation for Togiak. In particular, a potential dam site on the Quigmy River was recommended for further study. This particular study is a direct result of these recommendations. In conducting the study, several alternative hydroelectric projects were compared with a base case plan that consisted of the present diesel generating units supplemented by wind genera t ion that would be augmented wi th add it ional uni ts as necessary to accommodate growth. Waste heat would be recovered and incorporated into the system to the maximum extent possible. It is intended that the results of this study be used to decide whether or not to proceed wi th a defini ti ve project report, to optimize the project features, and to determine future funding requirements. NBI-384-9521-II 11-2 • • • • - • -• - • • • • • .. .. .. -• .. • - • -• • • • • - • .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... - - - C. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The village of Togiak is located at the head of Togiak Bay, two miles west of the Togiak River. The entire area is part of the larger Bristol Bay region of southwest Alaska and also a part of the Ahklum Mountain physiographic province. The village population (513 persons in August 1981) remains fairly stable year-round, and it is generally made up of commercial fishermen. Th ree f ish processing fac iIi ties are I oca ted near the vi llage, and commercial and subsistence f ishi ng is available right in front of the village so that residents do not have to set up summer fish camps elsewhere. The general area is located in a climatic transition zone. The primary influence is mari time; however, the arctic climate of interior Alaska also affects the region. The area is characterized by cloudy skies, mild temperatures, and moderately heavy precipitation. The proposed Togiak Hydroelectric Project would be situated on the Quigmy River approximately 11 miles west of the village of Togiak. The Quigmy River is a clear, moderately swift stream that generally meanders from north to south. The proposed d am and powerhouse site are I oca ted in a sect ion of the stream characterized by 10-to 100-foot rock walls that constrict the river into a series of 15-to 20-foot-wide gorges where the fast-flowing water reaches depths of up to 10 feet. In between these gorges, the river slows and forms gravel bars. The proposed dam site is in a 75-foot-deep gorge that is narrow at the crest of the dam and widens to a slower-moving pool and gravel bar just beyond the downstream toe of the dam. D. AUTHORITY The Alaska Power Authority (APA) has authorized studies to prepare the "Detailed Feasibili ty Analyses of Hydroelectric NBI-384-9521-II 11-3 Projects at King Cove, Larsen Bay, 01 d Harbor and Togiak." This particular report, Volume E, summarizes the studies con- ducted for Togiak. APA is a public corporation of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development, State of Alaska. E. SCOPE OF STUDY In general the scope of the study consists of an analysis at a reconnaissance level of the the costs and benefits of alternative hydroelectric projects, a comparison of these costs and benefits with those for the base case plan for the village, and an environmental assessment of the effects of the proj- ect. To accomplish these goals, the following activities were necessary. 1. Data Accumulation Data collected included existing flow records, topographi- cal mapping, present and future demands for power, applicable 1 aws and regul at ions, exist ing reports, and other appl icable information that was available. 2. Site Reconnaissance The purpose of the site reconnaissance was to supplement and verify the data gathered, to collect topographical, hydro- logical, environmental, and geotechnical data, and to determine the accessibility of the site. The conceptual design of project features was established in the field. 3. Site Surveys A topographic survey was conducted at the site of the proposed dam, powerhouse, and transmission line in sufficient detail to make reconnaissance-level design layouts. NBI-384-9521-II 11-4 .. • .. ... .. ... .. .. .-.. • - - • .. .. .. • .. • • .. • ---,. -• • - - - .... - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4. Hyd rology Hydrologic data were developed from the limited available data. A suitable method was established to prepare a stream- flow table, a flow duration curve, and a seasonal distribution of the flow duration curve. A stream gage was installed near the project site to obtain additional streamflow data. Diversion and flooding problems were also considered. 5. Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical investigations were conducted to determine mater ial sources, slope stabi lit ies, and load-bear ing charac- teristics of the foundations for all structures in the project. 6. Base Case Plan A base case plan was analyzed that assumed a continuation of the existing diesel generation system, supplemented by wind generation, and least-cost additions for future generators. Included in this analysis was an assessment of current ener~y usage and a forecast for the life of the project. The cost of continuing the use of the base case plan provided a basis for determining the value of power at the site. Data regarding the energy potential and cost of wind generation at the Togiak sites were provided by another contractor to APA. 7. Power Studies Several different types of turbines and a range of installed capaci ties were evaluated to determine the optimal configuration. NBI-384-9521-I1 11-5 8. Environmental Overview The envi ronmental i nvesti gat ion was conducted to i denti fy any environmental constraints that might prohibit project development. 9. Design Layouts of the alternative projects were made and sizes and capaci ties of water-carrying, structural, and control compon- ents were determined. All features of the al ternatives were designed in sufficient detail to allow cost estimates to be prepared. 10. Cost Estimates , Cost estimates, including direct and indirect costs, were prepared using a present cost base escalated to the anticipated time of construction. 11. Economic Analysis The project was analyzed using the economic criteria of the Alaska Power Authori ty. The general methodology employed was to compute the net present worth of the costs of the proposed hydroelectric project over a 50-year project life and to compare these costs to the net present worth of the costs of the base case plan over the same 50-year project life. 12. Environmental Assessment A detailed environmental analysis was conducted based upon the final design and layout of the project. NBI-384-9521-11 11-6 • .. .. • ----- • -• - - • - • .. - • • .. • --• • - • • iii - - - ..... - - .... - - --- - - - - 13. Conclusions and Recommendations The report presents findings of the reconnaissance study and recommends a future course of action to be followed. 14. Public Meetings Public meetings were conducted in Togiak at the beginning of the projec t stud ies to obtai n comments from local cit i- zens. Another public meeting was held in Togiak to present the findings and conclusions of the study and to solici t public comments • All letters and comments received from federal and state agencies were answered by APA with changes incorporated in the text of the final report as required. A copy of the comments and replies is contained in Appendix F. 15. Report A draft report was submitted to the APA in February 1982, and the final report incorporating all comments was submitted in August 1982. F. STUDY PARTICIPANTS DOWL Engineers, of Anchorage, Alaska, was the primary contractor for the study. DOWL was assisted by two subcon- tractors--Tudor Engineering Company of San Francisco, Cali- fornia, and Dryden & LaRue of Anchorage, Alaska. The primary role played by each of the participants is covered below. 1. DOWL Engineers DOWL Engineers, an Alaskan partnership, performed the projec t managemen t funct ion and provided the primary con tac t with the Alaska Power Authority. DOWL collected basic data, participated in the hydrology studies, and had the prime NBI-384-9521-II II-7 responsibility for the local coordination activities, geology and geotechnics, and environmental, ground survey, stream gaging, and wind velocity aspects of the investigation. 2. Tudor Engineering Company Tudor, as principal subcontractor, supplied all hydro- electric expertise for the project. They directed data collection and conceptual design of facilities; assisted with public meetings; assisted and provided direction in evaluating the base case plan and power values, formulating cost esti- mates, and making the financial and economic eval ua t ion; and furnished advice on the aspects of the environmental problems that are unique to hydroelectric projects. Tudor prepared the initial draft of the project report. 3. Dryden & LaRue (D&L) The partners in D&L are electrical engineers registered in Alaska. Much of the electrical work was accomplished in close cooperation wi th this firm. Transmission lines and backup diesel generation facilities were involved as well as questions related to reliability and integrated operation of the proposed system wi th existing village systems. D&L and Tudor estab- lished the value of power and the present and projected power demands. D&L provided the feasibility designs and cost estimates for the transmission lines and appurtenant electric features. G. REPORT FORMAT Pages, tables, figures, and exhibi ts in this report are numbered wi thi n the sec t ions in which they appear. Wi thi n sections, the tables, figures, and exhibits are placed at the end of the text. References noted in the text are listed in the Bibliography. NBI-384-9521-I1 II-8 • • • - -.. .. • .. -.. -• • -.. ,. • -.. .. • -• - • - .- - - - - - - - - - -- - - H. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The cooperation of the many federal, state, and local agen- cies and local residents contacted during the course of the study is gratefully acknowledged. This list includes, but is not limi ted to, the Alaska Power Administration, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Al aska Department of Trans- portation, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the V.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the V. S. Geological Survey, and the V.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The assistance of the Rockford Corporation and the Locher Construction Company, a subsidiary of Anglo Energy Company, is also acknowledged. Individuals who were especially helpful include Don Baxter of APA, Dan Pavey and Carl Siebe of the Alaska Department of Transportation, Wes Bucher of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Andrew Franklin of Togiak. NBI-384-9521-II II-9 .- - - - - -- - - SECTION I II STUDY METHODOLOGY A. GENERAL This section describes the general methodologies employed and steps taken to complete the project studies and analyses. In general, the study proceeded in three phases-- pre-reconnaissance, fiel d stud ies, and off ice stud ies. Each project phase is described briefly below and the resul ts are covered in detail in the following sections of the report and the appendices. B. PRE-RECONNAISSANCE PHASE This phase consisted of initial data collection and analyses, obtaining access permits, coordination with resource agencies, and evaluation of the existing material and reports. A brief 24-hour visit spanning two days was made to Togiak by the project team to hold the initial public meeting to inform the residents of project investigation activities. The initial field evaluation of available alternative hydroelectric sites was also made along with preliminary environmental evaluations of all sites. Office studies of alternative sites and environmental conditions had preceded the initial field work. The project team on this initial visit consisted of individuals wi th geologic, geotechnical, hydroelectric, hydrological, environmental, and electrical expertise. All individuals participated in evaluating the alternatives and conducting the field investigations. C. FIELD STUDY PHASE The field studies were conducted several weeks after initial pre-reconnaissance activities, mobilization, and field NBI-425-9521-III II 1-1 planning were completed. Detailed site investigations spanning several days were made by the hydroelectric engineers to define the location of the project features. They were aided in this work by the geology and geotechnic team, which also made a detailed investigation of geology and soil conditions following final selection of the feature locations. Field environmental and hydrologic investigations were also conducted in parallel as the field conceptual design work was completed. The electric field survey team and geotechnical immediately followed teams to the field the hydro- to conduct detailed surveys. hydrology group. A stream gage was also establ ished by the Data were gathered from Togiak regarding the present and planned generating conditions of the city system. D. OFFICE STUDY PHASE The final and most extensive phase of the study was the office study phase where all data gathered from the field and all accumulated data and information were analyzed and addi- tional investigations were conducted to complete the project activities. Separate reports were produced for the hydrology, geology and geotechnical, and environmental activities. They are i ncl uded wi th th is report as Append ices B, C and E, respec- tively. The environmental appendix also includes information on permitting requirements, social impacts, and land status. Project energy planning studies were conducted to define the year-by-year electrical and heating demands of Togiak. 'To meet the energy installed capaci ties were NB I-425-952l-II I requirements analyzed to II 1-2 at Togiak, various determine the optimal .. .. .. -.. ... -... • .. • .. • -• .. .. -- .. -• .. • ----- • .. .. - - - - ..... - - - -, - --- ----.. -- - - project size and the conceptual design of the hydroelectric project. These tasks were completed with the aid of the maps prepared from the field activities. Three alternatives were investigated at a reconnaissance level, two concrete dams and one rockfill dam. Three detailed cost estimates were then prepared based on final sizes ranging from 288 to 432 kW and project layouts were prepared. The economic analysis was then conducted to complete the project analysis activi ties, and a draft report was prepared. Following a preliminary review of the report by the Alaska Power Authori ty, an additional meeting was held in Togiak to solicit public comments. The draft was circulated to all concerned state and federal agencies. After receipt and consideration of comments, the final report was compiled. Appendix F contains a copy of all the comments received and the replies prepared by APA and the Contractor. NBI-425-9521-II1 II 1-3 - -- - - - ..... - - .... - ------------.. - SECTION IV BASIC DATA A. GENERAL This section describes in general the basic data used in the preparation of the Togiak report. Included are hydrologic, geologic and geotechnical data, surveys and mapping, land ownership status, and previous reports. B. HYDROLOGY The primary thrust of the hydrologic studies for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project concerned the development of a flow duration curve, an annual hydrograph, and a flood frequency curve for Quigmy River. A complete report of the steps taken to create those items is covered in the hydrology report included with this report as Appendix B • No streamflow data were available for Quigmy River except for a few sporadic point discharge measurements made in connec- tion with this study. An automatic stream stage recorder has now been installed. The general methodology employed to develop the Qu igmy Ri ver f low duration and hydrograph was to first develop an estimated value for the Quigmy River mean annual flow. Dimensionless flow duration curves and hydrographs were then developed from the records of a long-term stream gaging station, Eskimo Creek at King Salmon. Applying the Quigmy River mean annual flow to the dimensionless curves then yielded a specific flow duration and hydrograph for Quigmy River. These results have correlated closely with streamflow measurements obtained to date from the stream gage installed near the project site. NBI-384-9521-IV IV-l 1. Mean Annual Flow The mean annual flow was developed using three different estimating techniques--the modified rational formula, regional analysis, and the channel geomorphology method. The three methods yielded similar values and the Quigmy River mean annual flow was taken as 220 cfs. 2. Flow Duration Curve The closest gaged stream with an adequate length of record and characteristics similar to the Quigmy River is Eskimo Creek at King Salmon (No. 15297900), 150 miles to the east of Togiak. The Eskimo Creek flow duration curve developed from six years of daily record was adopted as the type of curve for moderate-sized open tundra basins in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska. The Quigmy River flow duration curve presented as Figure IV-1 is based primarily on Eskimo Creek scaled to the ratio of its respective mean annual flows. 3. Annual Hydrograph Based on the same data and reasoning that went into determining the mean annual flow and the flow duration curve, an annual hydrograph was developed based on monthly flows at Quigmy Rive r. The resulting annual hydrograph is presented in Figure IV-2. 4. Flood Frequency Curve Estimates of flood discharges are based entirely on regional analyses. Regression equations obtained through reg ional anal yses were first appl ied to the gaged st ream to test their applicability. The basin and climatological characteristics of the ungaged Quigmy River were then entered to obtain the following flood frequency values. NBI-384-9521-IV IV-2 • • --.. --• • • • -• • • • .. • .. • .. --.. .. .. - .. .. • ... - - - - - - - - - -----,-- - - Q10 = 4300 cfs Q25 = 5100 cfs Q50 = 6300 cfs Q100= 7700 cfs These data are plotted on a frequency curve and presented as Figure IV-3. An interim spillway design flood of 11,000 cfs, equivalent to approximately a 500-year flood, is recommended for the purpose of feasibility design sizing. 5. Potential River Ice Problems A brief evaluation of potential icing at the diversion weir and penstock intake point indicates that potential problems may resul t from sheet ice and frazil ice formation. Few data are presently available to quantify those problems and an in-depth study of the extent of the problems and an evaluation of avail abl e measures to avo id , all ev ia te, or mi t iga te the problems will be necessary during the design phase of this project. C. GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICS The purpose of the geologic and geotechnical studies con- ducted for th i s report was to assess the geol og ic hazard s, establish appropriate design criteria, explore material borrow sites, and provide background information for environmental stud ies. A compl ete Geology and Geotechn ics Report cover ing these items in detail is included as Appendix C. A summary of the report is included below. NBI-384-9521-IV IV-3 1. Site Topography Togiak is situated near the mouth of the Togiak River on a broad alluvial plain that extends down to Togiak Bay, part of the larger Bristol Bay Region of Southwest Alaska. The entire area is part of the Ahklun Mountains physiographic province. The potential dam sites on the Quigmy and Kurtluk Rivers are approximately 11 and 4 miles, respectively, west of Togiak. Between Togiak and the dam sites the entire area has been glaciated and is dominated by bedrock hills that have been sculptured by erosional and depositional glacial processes. These bedrock hills are mostly between 500 and 700 feet high and reach a maximum height of approximately 1100 feet wi thin the project area. In most areas along the Quigmy and Kurtluk Rivers, the glacial deposits are thick and the rivers have cut down through these deposits and excavated narrow slots into the bedrock. Numerous lakes and wetlands are present locally as a result of the flat topography on old outwash channels, current floodplains, and the depressions associated with stagnant ice topography. The beach area immediately near Togiak consists of succes- s i ve beach rid ges that have been accreted to the all uvial deposi ts of the Togiak River. Further to the southwest of Togiak, steep beach cliffs range in height from 15 to 200 feet. 2. Regional Geology The Togiak area is just north of one of the more acti ve mountain-building, seismic, and volcanic regions in the world. The Pacific plate of oceanic crust is being subducted beneath the North American continental crustal plate in the area of the Aleutian Trench. Associated tectonic forces have caused the NBI-384-9521-IV IV-4 • -• .. • .. -• ... .. • -• -• .. • ---• .. II .. -• -.. .. • .. --.. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - uplift of the Alaska Range and the seismic activity characteristic of this part of Alaska. Bedrock in the Togiak area consists of a folded seauence of sedimentary and volcanic rocks overlain by glacial drift, peat deposits, modern alluvium, and beach deposits. The bedrock has been assigned to the Gemuk Group. The sil tstones ran~e from very well bedded near the mouth of the Quigmy River to massive and highly silicified at the proposed Quigmy dam site. Chert is locally present and limestone has been reported in the Gemuk Group, although it was not observed in the project area. In various regions of Alaska there have been five major glacial advances during the Quaternary. The project area has been subjected to at least two of these events. Glacial drift in the proj ect area consists of abundant outwash deposits, till, and ice-contact stratified drift deposits. 3. Site Geology Gemuk Group rocks crop out at the dam site and are mantled by stream gravels in the stream bed and talus deposits on one of the side slopes. Gemuk rocks in the study area are predominantly silicified siltstones and andesitic volcaniclastic rocks. The bedrock consists of a silicified sil tstone with local concentrations of chert. The rock was fractured and subsequently bonded by quartz vein fillings approximately one to three millimeters in width. Breakage by rock blows is across the veins, suggesting excellent bonding. Silicification extends into the siltstone itself to produce a very hard, competent rock. are of no consequence. Joints and cracks are present but There is one major crack in the cliffs above the dam. The isolated block of rock should be blasted away along with any overhangs of rock. NBI-384-9521-IV IV-5 Much of the streambed adjacent to the dam site is scoured to bedrock; sediment thickness greater than three feet is not expected. A talus deposit separated from the dam site by a rock knob may extend below the water line under certain flow conditions and may require grouting or removal. Two road routes are optional. Option A is from Togiak to the dam site. It utilizes the existing road and 10.15 miles of new road, 5 miles of which would be on gravel with a minimum of cut and fill. The gravel 1 ies beneath 18 inches to 2 feet of silty gravel that would require removal. The remaining portion is on till, and hauling of gravel for fill would be necessary. Option B presumes the building of a small dock near the mouth of the Quigmy River. The road would cross 2.5 miles of till where cutting, filling, and hauling of gravel would be required. Beyond the till is good clean terrace gravels for the remaining four miles of road. 4. Construction Materials Rock sui table for riprap needs can be excavated from the tal us pile noted above or it can be blasted from the cliff walls. Seven borrow areas have been identified as potential sites to borrow sand and gravel. 5. Seismic Hazards Southwestern Alaska is part of an intense seismic zone that circumscribes the Pacific Ocean. Most of the more than 150,000 earthquakes that occur worldwide each year occur in this circum-Pacific belt and in a somewhat smaller belt that extends through southern Asia and the Mediterranean. NB I -384-9521-1 V 1V-6 • -• - III -.. -.. .. .. -• -• • • ... • -- • ... .. .. • -- • -• .. -.. • .. - --- - - - - - - - - ------------- - Major and minor faults are present in the Togiak area but the proposed dam site does not appear to be subject to fault- slip. The recommended design criteria based upon a 50-year life of structure is a base acceleration of 10 percent of the acceleration due to gravity. No major landslides are expected. Seiches or tsunamis would not affect the proposed structures. D. SURVEYS AND MAPPING During the earliest phase of the study, data collection and anal ysis, USGS topograph ic maps were used to pI an the field study and to make conceptual layouts of the project. Once the field effort had determined the best location for the facility, gaging locations were establ ished, and stream channel, flood- plain, and streamflow measurements were made at selected stations. A detailed ground survey was made of the Ouigmy River site between October 10 and 15, 1981. The survey and drawings pro- duced from them included ground control, topographic mapping (1 inch = 10 feet, 2-foot contour interval) and cross sections in the vicinity of the dam as marked in the field by the hydro- electric engineers. Addi tional channel sections were taken over a 1200-foot reach to def ine tail water and stream gage cond it ions. Elevation datum was assumed. A similar survey was made at the alternative Kurtluk River site that is located nearer to Togiak. Pr ior mapping in the area is I imi ted to 15 minute USGS quadrangles (1:63,360, 50-foot contour interval, 1954). The site and access route to Togiak are located on the Goodnews Ray NB 1-384 -9521-1 V IV-7 A-4 and A-5 Quadrangle Maps. High-altitude, false-color infrared stereo photography was also used. Previous geological surveys and reports, as well as field verification and investigation, were used to create a geologic map of the Togiak area (see Appendix C). E. LAND STATUS A map showing the land status in Togiak and the project area is presented in Figure IV-4. The proposed dam site on the Quigmy River and the three proposed borrow sites are on lands selected by Togiak Natives, Limited, as part of their entitlements under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Public Law 92-203, enacted December 18, 1971. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the management responsibility for this area as well as all other land classified Village Selected in this general area until final disposi tion is made. All USFWS and Village Selected lands in the general project area are in the Togiak National Wildlife Ref uge. The proposed dam site on the Kurtluk River and two assoc ia ted borrow si tes are on 1 and s in ter im-conveyed under ANCSA to Togiak Natives, Limited. Interim conveyance is used to convey unsurveyed lands. Patent will follow interim conveyance once the lands are identified by survey. The subsurface estate for all lands in the proposed project area conveyed to Togiak Natives, Limited, has been interim-conveyed to the reg ional nat i ve corporation, Br i stol Bay Na t i ve Co r po rat ion. Togiak has a federal townsite, U.S.S. 4905, with the patent issued to Tr ustee. residents the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Townsite The Trustee has deeded occupied parcels to the and some vacant lots to the city of Togiak. Other NBI-384-9521-IV IV-8 • • • .. --• .. • .. • • • .. • • • .. • • • .. • • .. • -.. ... -.. • -.. -• - - .,.., - - - - - - - - - - --.. .. ..... subdivided property remains wi th the Trustee. A permit would be required for the transmission line to cross Trustee land and it could be issued by the U.S. Department of Interior following an affirmative resolution by the City Council. The final transmission route and transportation corridor has not been selected at this time, but all preliminary alternatives for both are entirely within interim conveyed lands of Togiak Natives, Limited, with the exception of a small portion near the Quigmy River and four parcels classified both Village Selection and Native Allotment application. Since final disposition of the Village Selected lands and final decisions on the project conceptual plan have not been made, coordination with USFWS, Togiak Natives, Limited, Bristol Bay Corporation, and BLM is recommended so that delays in acquiring the needed permits and easements may possibly be avoided. F. PREVIOUS REPORTS Hyd roelectr ic poten tial at Tog iak has been the subj ect of four previous reports. They are listed below, in chronological order of publ ication, wi th an ind ication of their scope and major conclusions. 1. "Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative," prepared for United St a tes Departmen t of En ergy, Al aska Power Admin ist ration, by AVEC Engineers, December 1979. These studies concentrated on two small streams, two and one-hal f miles west and northwest of town, thought to have power potential. Field examination proved the drainage areas and flows were too small for a feasible project. NBI-384-9521-IV IV-9 Aerial examination identified the Kurtluk River, four miles west of town, as the best power site. The estimated power potential, based upon 10 cfs and 50 feet of head, was 30 kW, only a small part of the 1978 Togiak demand. The estimated cost ranged between $0.85 and $4.26 per kWh. 2. "Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential," prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, December 1979. This study was conducted to find (1) energy balance for 1977, (2) electric power requirements to the year 2000, (3) potential energy and electric power resources, (4) electric power resources, and (5) recommendations for developments or future studies for the Bristol Bay Area. Togiak was contained in the Bristol Bay study area. In 1977 the Togiak area was shown to have a power demand of 150 kW and an energy demand of 512,000,000 kWh. The correspond ing 2020 proj ec ted demand s were 1700 kW and 7,402,000,000 kWh. For the Togiak Bay Area the report concluded that "Potential resources that could be developed economically within the foreseeable future have not been found." 3. Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik Associates, Inc. , "Commun i ty En ergy Reconnaissance of Good news Bay, Grayl ing, Scammon Bay, and Tog iak ." A repor t to the Alaska Power Authority, February 1981. This in-depth study, conducted along Alaska Power Authority guidel ines, compared the base-case plan with several energy alternatives. The recommendations for Togiak include: NBI -384-9521-1 V IV-10 • • - -- • -... ... • .. • -• ... • .. • -• • • -.. - • .. .. .. -.. .. .. ... -• - - ... - - - - - - - - - - - .. ---- - a. g. c. Energy conservation Waste heat capture from diesel generators Hydroelectric power from Quigmy River The investigations recommended, as part of the Quigmy River assessment, that stream gaging, fish habitat and spawning potential analysis, and site analysis be undertaken, as well as an attempt to change the land use designation of Quigmy River area. 4. "Small-Scale Hydropower Reconnaissance Study, Southwest Alaska," prepared for Department of the Army, Alaska Dist r ic t, Corps of Engineers, by R. W. Beck and Associ ates, April 1981. The report summarizes the results of a reconnaissance-level study to determine the potential for meeting the energy needs of 84 communi ties in southwest Alaska by the development of small-scale hydro power projects. Two potential si tes were selected for study to serve the Togiak area. One was a small site west of Togiak at a waterfall on a tributary of the Kurtluk River. The other site was located on a tributary of the Quigmy River. The total output of the two sites combined could be used in the first year of operation. The installed capacity at the Kurtluk River Tributary site would be 50 kW at a cost of $3,258,000. This represents a cost of $65,200 per kW. The benefit/cost ratio was determined to be 0.31 to 1. The installed capaci ty at the Quigmy River tributary si te would be 80 kW at a cost of $6,157,000, or $77,000 per kW. The benefit/cost ratio was estimated to be 0.27 to 1. NBI-384-9521-IV IV-11 G. HYDRAULICS Using data obtained in the field on the river channel and floodplain characteristics, a computer model of the river was developed. The model was used to establish a tailwater rating curve for the Togiak si te (see Figure IV-5). This curve was checked against actual field measurements of depth, flow and visible water marks. A probable maximum flood of 10,000 cfs was used as the basic criterion to size the spillway and to determine the crest elevation of the dam. NB I -384-9521-1 V IV-I? • .. • ... .. -.. • .. • .. • .. • .. • • .. • ... • ... • .. .. - • .. .. .. .. • .. • - - .. - - - - ~" -..( - 'P1M_ - - - - - ------- - 1200 1100 1000 900 800 -700 fI) ~ (.) - ~ 600 0 ...J ~ 500 \ \ , 400 300 \ \ \. " ~ MEAr ANN LJAL F LOW ~20 cf~ 200 tOO ~ ....... , ~ r---..-----...... " o 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT (0'0) OF TIME FLOW EXCEEDED QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE FLOW DURATION CURVE FIGURE Br-I 700~~~--~--~--r---~--~--.---.---,---,----,--~ ESTI~ATEDI RANG~ OF LERJGE ••••••••••••••••••••• MONTHLY FLOWS 7 OUT OF 10 YEARS--.. rr~«< ~i;:::::::::::::::l:: 600~--~--+---+---4---~--~---+---4----~~~--+-~ 500~--~--+---+---~.:~:::::~:::::~::::::~:::::~--~--~--+---~I~i~l~I~--+-~ ·.iii:i .: •. ~ ..• :: .•. : ••. :.: .• :: .•. : .•.. : .. : .•. :: .•. : .• :: .... : .• :: .• : ... : ••• : •.. :.: ...•. : ..•.. : .•. : •. :.: •. : •. :.: •• :: .•. : •.. :.: •. : .• : ••. : ••..•. : ••.•.•.•. : •. : ••. :1:, 1ft.III·.·······.··.:. -400~~---4--~~~~+.+--~--4---~==~~~~+-~1 ~ j ..••••••••••••••••••••• : .. :; .... :~ .... ::.: ..... :(.: .. :~ ..... :~ .... ::.:: .. :.~:.,·:~.·, .. :~.:.:'r .. :.:~ .. ::·~:::~: .. :::~.::.:~ .. :::~.:;.:: .. :;::.:;.::,.·.:~.·.:i.:· .:.: •. :.:.: .. :.: ••.. :: ••... :: •.. :.: •.•.. : •.. : •.. ::.:.:: •• :.:.::.;.:.::.: •. : .. ~.:: •• ~.:.: .. ::.: •.. : •. : ... ::: .•• :.:.: .• : .. : .•. :.: •. :: ... :.... :.:: •. :::.,:~: •. ~.: •. ::: •. : .. : •. :;: •. ~:.: •. :~:.:~ .. : •. :::.::: •. :~:.:.,: •. :::.:~: •. ::: •. :~:.:.::: •. :~ ..• :~ ...•. :: .•. :~ .••. : •. : .. : •. : •. :~.:.::·.::.: •. : •. : .. l.:.· .. :.:: .• :~ ... ·.:.·:~: •.. :·:~ ...•. :.!,i 3 3Oo~--~--+---~1~~~I~j]4:.:~.~.~I.·~~~~·~~--~--~~~~Hr~~+s.~:--~ --II -- • ... -.. --.. .. .. .. • ... • • • .. .. .. • ... • ... .. -• .. -o -JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH - QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS FIGURE Bl-2 .. • • • --- ---- - ----- - - - -,,1 -u - EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY 90 80 70 10 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 I 0.5 0.1 -----------------,--...,..,..--.,.---,--.--.-.----.-----,:~-~-----'I----.----. ~----- ! -j---:--:-----------;-----,---,. .. --~ --j" -.--- ~--~'---------------~1-.~·~·~-+,~··--~~~-4~+-~~~~ -+-~~-+ f--~----+ --------t~----<~...,..:...j.;..:.;..-+-:--+-~~-+-~-+-'--+--'-+'--..;....~~----!..----+- . • . . ..• : :j. ~~.-~~~~~-+~~-+-~~~,~ !5,OOO------------ ~-.--.. - t-t -~~-------~-. ---~---.:.~__:__~_+_~---l--:4_~,. ~--:--~~--,---:-~_+_~~_+ ! -W 2,000 ri -------_--;.--+-_ .......... _-+_+--+-_4 __ ~----+--i___+_-....._ (.!). . , . -. --a:: f '. j .. - I ..·.1 -t ... ~ r----. -; -~---t--t--+---+l-.~ .. +--+--4 -u I . .! en I . ! i _ I o 1,000 ~. _________ ~-L ____ -L_~~~_~-L_~-L_~_-L ____ ~_~ ____ ~J-~_~ 2 !5 10 20 50 100 1000 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS -----= -QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE FIGURE PEAK FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE m-3 - '.' l / ~r,' .~~ ~>, # / \., __ ~:t;?' \ '. ,~, PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE TOG I A K BAY PROJECT PLAN EXISTING ROAD AND PROPOSED TRANSMISSION 0'----___ j------i. ___ ....,j3r-----;.4 ___ --1~ MILES F':.71 SURFACE LANDS -INTERIM CONVEYANCE OR PATENT TO VILLAGE U CORPORATION i l SUB-SURFACE LANDS-INTERIM CONVEYED TO REGIONAL NATIONAL CORPORATION (INTERIM CONVEYANCE IS USED FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF UNSURVEYED LANDS, PATENT WILL FOLLOW I. C, ONCE LAND IS IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY) , I VILLAGE CORPORATION SELECTION 1-,-----_ j ~ VILLAGE CORPORATION SELECTION AND INDIAN OR NATIVE ALLOTMENT ~ APPLICATION D INDIAN OR NATIVE ALLOTMENT APPLICATION D UNENCUMBERED U,S, F AND W, S, LANDS [J~ITY AND TRUSTEE LANDS f~ LJ PRIVATE LANDS (GENERAL AREA) o TOGIAK HAS A FEDERAL TOWNSITE, U, S. S. 4905, WITH PATENT ISSUED TO BLM TOWNSITE TRUSTEE. THE TRUSTEE HAS DEEDED OCCUPIED PARCELS TO RESIDENTS AND SOME VACANT SUB-DIVIDED LOTS TO THE CITY OTHER SUB-DIVIDED PROPERTY REMAINS WITH THE TRUSTEE, A PERMIT TO CROSS TRUSTEE LAND MAY BE ISSUED BY THE U, S, DEPT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AFTER A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE,ALASKA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT DOWL ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA LAND STATUS MAP TUDOII [_EERllle COlll'MY SAN ~RANCISCO, CAU~OIIMA FIGURE ril-5 -VI 10000 5000 3000 2000 1000 500 300 -200 (.) -ILl c.!) a:: « I U en c 100 178 180 182 184 186 188 190 TAILWATER SURFACE ELEVATION IN FEET (SITE DATUM) QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE TAILWATER RATING CURVE 192 FIGURE N-5 A. GENERAL SECTION V ALTERNATIVE SITES CONSIDERED The original request for proposals for this project specified a particular site on the Quigmy River, as recommended by t he No rthern Techn ical Serv ices/Van Gu I ik and Assoc ia tes report (1981) for detailed assessment. However, during the initial phase of the work, the Alaska Power Authority also requested that other alternative sites in the general vicinity of Togiak be evaluated on a reconnaissance level to confirm, prior to more detailed study, that the recommended Togiak site was actually t he best si te to be further invest i gated. Th is section summarizes the alternatives considered during this phase of the work and presents the reasoning that led to the conclusion that an alternative site, located 1.8 miles down- stream of the originally recommended site, was, in fact, the best available alternative for a hydroelectric power project. B. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS Due to the area's topography, locating a physically and economically viable hydroelectric power project in the vicinity of Togiak presents some major drawbacks. Basically, while there are moderate flows in many streams, the stream gradients are so flat that adequate head may be developed only at great expense with either a dam or a very long penstock. The geology of the area does, however, prov id e some good dam si tes. A total of 11 alternative projects, all in the hilly Quigmy and Kurtluk River drainages 3 to 14 miles west of Togiak, were considered prior to selecting the Quigmy River canyon site for more detailed feasibility study. The locations of the sites studied are shown in Figure V-I. NBI-384-9521-V V-I Four projects identified in previous studies were reconsid- ered along wi tb seven new projects. Of tbe 11, seven were subject to ground reconnaissance and two si tes were surveyed. Table V-1 lists all sites studied and their characteristics. Power output developed in estimates are based on the average annual flow tbis study which corresponds to tbe 30 percent flow duration or availability, and on gross bead less penstock losses. Tbe values tberefore differ from installed capacities suggested in prior reports. C. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Prior to proceeding with the field activities, extensive map studies were made and all previous reports and ,.- .... ... investigations were evaluated. ~ Final evaluation of the sites and the selection of the Quigmy Site 3 was made by tbe field team while they were in Togiak. Selection was based on information similar to the data in Table V-1 and rough cost estimates. Primary consideration was given to tbe ability of the project to meet Togiak's projected power needs versus tbe relative complexity and cost of the structures. Distance from town (at a potential cost of $250,000 per mile), reliability of the water supply, and environmental effects were major considerations. The following discussion highlights tbat evaluation. Site 1 on tbe Quigmy River was described in the Request for Proposal for this feasibility study and was originally proposed by Nortec/Van Gulik & Associates (1981) as a 60-foot-high by 1000-foot-Iong earth dam developing 55 feet of head and a minimum of 300 kW. Tbe dam axis is located in a broad alluvial valley with bedrock exposed only at tbe west abutment. A large reservoir would extend more tban three miles upstream and inundate marshlands wi tbin tbe Togiak National Wild life Refuge. Wbile the dam would provide more than sufficient NBI-384-9521-V V-2 .. ... storage and head to meet all of Togiak's future needs, it would be a large structure requiring approximately 170,000 cubic yards of fill. A large concrete-lined spillway and stilling basin would be necessary on the left or right abutment. Furthermore, suitable impervious material is not readily available and major geotechnical foundation investigations would be required. Compared to Sites 2 and 3 located less than two miles downstream, Site 1 would be excessively expensive. Site 2, located in a moderately narrow rock canyon approximately one mile downstream of Site 1, is attractive because it provides two natural spillways. However, as an embankment dam in this area would probably be constructed of quarry rock rather than earth, the quarry could be located so as to provide the spillway at little additional cost. Site 3 is located approximately 0.8 mile farther downstream (about 1. 8 mi les below Site 1). It was selected as the most promising site for more detailed feasibility study. The narrow, deep canyon, cut entirely in the bedrock that forms the site, would minimize dam volume and permit flexibility of design. Either a concrete gravity dam or an embankment of rock or earth could be const ructed. Power heads of up to 55 feet could be achieved. storage capacity While the site does not provide the power of Site 1, neither would it have the environmental impact storage is also not of inundating a large marsh area. Its requi red to meet most of Tog iak' s future power requirements. A reservoir that provides 30 feet of power head would extend up the canyon approximately one mile, and it would be contained within the Togiak corporate limits. Embankment volume for a concrete-faced rockfill dam would be only about seven percent of that required for an earth dam at Si te 1. Unlimited amounts of quarry rock are available from the abutments where the spillway would be excavated and adequate foundation conditions for either a rockfill or concrete dam are evident. The primary disadvantage of the NBI-384-9521-V V-3 site, which it shares with all other Quigmy River sites, is the long access road and transmission line to Togiak. This cost could exceed 30 percent of the total investment. Si te 4 is located four mi les downstream of Site 3 in a similar canyon near Togiak Bay. The site was considered in order to reduce access road costs by utilizing a sea route and dock near the river mouth. After initial consideration, the site was discarded on the environmental grounds of reported large salmon spawns in this lower reach of the Quigmy. Si te 5, considered by R. W. Beck (1981), is located five miles north of Site 3. The site was too remote and too small to be further considered. Sites 6 and 7 are located in the uppermost reaches of the Quigmy basin to the north of the village. They provide very attractive amounts of head by means of diverting Quigmy basin water over the low divide into the Togiak River drainage. They were eliminated on the basis of their excessively long penstocks, less reliable water supply, and remoteness. Si te 8 located on the Kurt I uk River, four mi les west of Togiak, is the original site considered in a 1979 Alaska Power Administration report. Further investigation ind ica ted that ei ther a large dam or a penstock much longer than 3500 feet would be required to develop the 50 feet of head indicated in the report. The site was dropped in favor of Site 11. Site 9, located on a tributary one mile upstream of Site 8, is too small for pr imary consideration, but in the future it may prove to be an economical supplement to the power developments proposed here. Sites 10 and 11 utilize essentially the same dam. Site 10 is a trans-basin diversion similar to sites 6 and 7. Water NBI-384-9521-V V-4 ... ... ... , must be conveyed 4000 feet across a saddle before dropping to a powerhouse located on a large pond in the flats west of Togiak. A good road now extends from the village to the gravel pit and the proposed site of a new airport is located approxi- rna tely 7000 feet east of the power plant site. Si te 10 was f inally eliminated on the basis of penstock and dam require- ments and the potential environmental impact of delivering 21 cfs into a small ephemeral drainage. Site 11, while supplying only a fraction of the power demand, is considered the best alternative to the selected Quigmy site. Head would be developed both from a dam to be located in a narrow canyon mouth and from the stream gradient through the short canyon. A detailed ground survey was made of the site. The site is obviously attractive due to its proximity to Togiak but its small size (85 kW) would allow it to supply only a fraction of the anticipated energy demands at Togiak. NBI-384-9521-V V-5 TABLE V-1 ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS Drainage Avg. Area Flow Head No. Stream (sg. mi) (cfs) (it) 1 Quigmy, middle.!/ 88 195 50 2 Quigmy, middle 89 195 30 3 Quigmy, middle 100 220 30 4 Quigmy, lower 124 250 50 5 Quigmy, t rib.~/ 8.1 18 50 6 Quigmy, upper~ 7.9 20 300 7 Quigrny, upper~/ 3.8 10 350 8 Kurtluk, lower±/ 22 35 50 9 Kurtluk, trib.2 /3 / 4.9 7 50 10 Kurtluk, upper 13.1 21 145 11 Kurtluk, upper 13.1 21 62 1/ Nortec/Van Gulik & Associates (1981). 2/ R. W. Beck (1981). TOGIAK AREA Penstock Dam Length Height (ft) (ft) 200 60 200 40 100 42 200 70 2,000 10 14,000 10 14,000 10 3,500+ 10 200 10 9,000 45 500 55 Length (it) 1,000 145 100 100 80 80 3/ Indicated dam height is from the diversion weir to the penstock. 4/ Alaska Power Administration (1978). NBI-384-9521-V-1 Trans- mission Line Power (mi) (kW) Remarks 11. 5 650 Proposed, RFP 12.0 385 12.5 440 Selected 13.5 820 13 48 10 300 10.5 150 4 75 5 23 2.8 140 4.4 85 Alternate ~/'" -, --864 _,--. . I~ ! '/ . 1 'f - ]0 .; 38 Roc~y Pt'V' '. St. .. " I ~! (C7 / ./' '17S I TOGIAK ,.'T 0 G YAK '5 ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS BAY (J ;:) l, ! C \,' NUJUlt'achB.k Lake l"~:: (- ,-~j -, FIGURE :2:-1 SECTION VI ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS A. GENERAL Hydroelectric power plants transform the energy of falling water (head) into electrical energy. In general, a hydro- electric power project consists of a dam to produce the head or to divert stream flows; an intake and conduit to convey the water to the hydraulic turbine; the turbine itself, which is coupled to a generator to produce electrical energy; accessory electrical equipment; and a transmission system to transmit the energy to a distribution system or user. This section describes these features as they are specifi- cally adapted to the alternatives studied for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project. The conceptual design considerations leading to the alternative designs investigated are also covered. Included is the rationale and methodologies used in selecting the type of turbines and generators, the sizes and number of units, and the configurations of the dams and power plants. The power and energy production for the al ternative projects and project operation and maintenance procedures are also discussed. B. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS In assessing the overall feasibility of hydropower at the selected site on the Quigmy River, several different alterna- tive configurations were studied. At this reconnaissance level of investigation the intent was to assess overall feasibility rather than attempting to optimize the project features. It was felt that if feasibility could be shown for one or more specific configurations then a "feasibili ty envelope" would SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-l have been established and the actual optimization of the various project features woul d be accomplished in the next stage of project development--a definitive project report. In choosing the alternative configurations to be studied, various considerations regarding the conceptual designs utilized were necessary. Those concerned the type of dam to be constructed, the method of project operation, the type of turbine to be utilized, the design flow, the installed capacity of the turbine-generator, and the height of the dam. 1. Type of Dam The si te selected for detailed investigation is a narrow canyon wi th competent rock on the bottom and all sides. The canyon is approximately 150 feet wide wi th the Quigmy Ri ver confined to a 20-foot-wide channel at all except flood flows. A relatively flat rocky bench approximately 30 feet wide exists on the left side of the canyon through the project site. Photographs of the various site features are included as Exhibits VI-I, VI-2 and VI-3 and a cross section of the site is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix C. The site would be suitable for either a concrete or rock- fill dam and approximately 55 feet of hydraulic head coul d be physically developed. Since both dam types were apparently technically feasible, the type of dam to be used was basically an economic decision. Since a preliminary design and detailed cost analysis would be necessary to determine the final project costs, both types were investigated at this preliminary stage. A concrete ogee dam at the site would have a central unga ted ogee spi 11 way wi th hi gher gravi ty sect ions on both sides. The geology and geotechnical investigations (see Appendix C) indicate that surface gravel deposits exist in the SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-2 ,.. ... ' area to supply the necessary aggregate for the concrete for both the dam and powerhouse. A rockfill dam is the most suitable type of fill dam for the site because no other suitable fill material exists in the area for the main embankment. Also, since no suitable imper- vious material is present, a design utilizing an impervious core is not practical. An upstream waterproof membrane of either concrete or asphalt was therefore deemed the most suit- able for the site. Since a great deal more experience exists with concrete membranes than asphalt and since the cost would be approximately the same, the concrete membrane was considered to be the most practical choice. 2. Method of Project and Reservoir Operation The project would be a run-of-the-river type of operation wi th the dam described in the previous section serving to divert the project flows and to furnish the necessary hydraulic head. Al though a small reservoi r woul d be formed behind the dam, no active reservoir storage would be utilized. The surface area of the reservoir would be approximately 40 acres for a dam with 20 feet of hydraulic head and 90 acres for a dam with 30 feet of hydraulic head. 3. Type of Turbine The turbine most suitable for the site is a tubular pro- peller turbine. The rationale for this selection from the various types of commercially available turbines is explained in the following sUbsection F. This particular type of turbine is suitable for hydraulic heads between 10 and 60 feet and it has reasonable efficiency over a range of flows of approxi- mately 105 percent to 30 percent of design flow. SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-3 4. Design Flow No flow records were available for the Quigmy Ri ver si te and the hydrology data developed for the site was based on gages and information from other areas. The confidence in this unverified information is therefore not high at this time. A gage established near the site as part of this study will allow a good check on the hydrology data generated for this study as the actual on-site information becomes available. The generated data (see Appendix B) indicated that the average annual flow is 220 cubic feet per second. It was thought best to be conservative in the design flow to be utilized for the study and therefore to stay slightly below the average flow at 200 cfs. This flow corresponds to about the 38 percent exceedance value on the flow duration curve. Since the tubular turbine can generate efficiently down to about 30 percent of design flow, or 60 cfs, this allows the lower monthly flows occurring in January, February,. and March to be fully utilized. Once the gaged flow data are available for the Quigmy River, the average annual flow estimate concei vably be revised upward to as much as 300 cfs. could This woul d permi t a 10-foot reduction in the height of the dam without reducing the power production estimated on the basis of a conservative 200 cfs design flow. 5. Installed Capacity In analyzing the power and energy demands of Togiak (see Table VI 1-3), it is apparen t that the installed capacity of a hydroelectric project suitable for this village would most likely range between 200 kW and 600 kW. The 200 kW value would be slightly less than the current demand and 600 kW would be sufficient to meet the projected 2002 demand. However, the lower capacity would be almost immediately insufficient and the higher capacity would be underutilized over virtually the SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-4 entire life of the project. The optimal capacity was therefore indicated to be 300 kW to 400 kW. The actual formula for calculating the power or the installed capacity (P) of a hydroelectric plant is: P where = Q He 11.8 P = Power in kilowatts Q = Design flow in cfs H = Hydraulic head in feet e = Turbine-generator efficiency (about 0.85 over the range of projected flows) As can be seen, (P) is directly proportional to the design flow (Q) and the hydraulic head (H), which is the difference between the water levels upstream and downstream of the dam. Wi th the design flow (Q) of 200 cfs and the approximate installed capacity (P) of 300 kW to 400 kW already determined, the required hydraulic head (H) can be calculated. For 300 kW the H would be 19.2 feet and for 400 kW H would be 27.8 feet. Rounding these H values to 20 feet and 30 feet yields installed capaci ties of 288 kW and 432 kW respect i vel y. These were therefore chosen as the design values of the hydraulic heads (H) and the installed capac i ties (P) to be further investigated. 6. Fish Ladder Although it has been tentatively determined that the Quigmy River above the proposed dam site is not a major salmon spawn- ing I oca t ion, a I imi ted run does occur. Any dam across the Quigmy would likely require a fish ladder. Therefore a pre- liminary design of such facilities has been incorporated into all the alternatives. SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-5 7. Spillway Flood As has previously been covered in Section IV, Basic Data, and Appendix B, Hydrology, the design flood for all alterna- tives is 11,000 cfs. Tbis value corresponds to a flood with a 500-year return interval. C. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS With the above design considerations in mind, three alternative hydroelectric projects were formulated. Two were concrete dams with hydraulic heads of 30 feet and 20 feet and installed capacities of 432 kW and 288 kW respectively. The third was a rockfill dam with 30 feet of hydraulic head and 432 kW of installed capacity. Tbe operating range of the turbine for each alternative is shown in Figure VI-2. The rockfill dam would require a spillway to be excavated from the rock on the right abutment. The excavated material from the spillway would be sufficient to construct a dam developing 30 feet of hydraulic head. A rockfill dam with 20 feet of hydraulic head was therefore not investigated since the same sized spillway would be required with the same resultant amount of excavated material and excavation cost regardless of the dam height. If the material were not used to construct the dam, it would be wasted. A more detailed description of the three alternative projects follows. 1. Alternative A--38-Foot Concrete Dam Al terna t i ve A woul d be a concrete dam wi th 30 feet of hydraulic head and 432 kW of installed capacity. tual layout for this alternative is shown in Appendix A. SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-6 The concep- Plate I in .' ... - j'->- ... As shown, the dam utilizes a ~ravity ogee center spillway section 38 feet high with gravity wingwalls 16 feet higher on either side. The powerhouse is placed above the river flows on the rock bench on the left abutment. The powerhouse woul d be about 35 feet by 15 feet and would utilize concrete walls extending above the expected flood level. A fabricated metal structure would be utilized above this elevation. The flows woul d be conveyed to a tubular turbine wi th a 1500-mm-diameter runner through a 60-in-diameter conduit with a trashrack and upstream isolation gate. A gate hoist would be provided on the left abutment to raise and lower the gate. The swi tchyard woul d be placed out of the canyon on the bluff above the powerhouse and left abutment. The access road woul d be placed in a sidehill cut in the left side of the canyon. A parking area would be provided adjacent to the powerhouse. A step-type fish ladder would be placed on the left abutment and would pass between the parking area and the rocky bluff. 2. Alternative B--28-Foot Concrete Dam Alternative hydraulic head ceptual 1 ayout Appendix A. B would be a concrete dam wi th 20 feet of and 288 kW of installed capaci ty. The con- for this alternative is shown in Plate II in All features of Alternative B are essentially the same as for Alternative A except that the dam height of the gravity center ogee spillway is 28 feet instead of 38 feet. Again, the gravity wingwalls on either side of the center ogee section are 16 feet higher than the ogee section. SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-7 The powerhouse would also be the same size since the same sized tubular turbine with a 1500-mm runner diameter would be utilized. The generator, however, would be 320 Kva instead of 480 Kva as in the case of Alternative A. 3. Alternative C--52-Foot Rockfill Dam Alternative C would be a concrete-faced rockfill dam with 30 feet of hydraulic head and 432 kW of installed capaci ty. The conceptual layout for this al ternative is shown in Plate III in Appendix A. As shown, the maximum section would be 52 feet high wi th 1.0 vertical to 1.4 horizontal sideslopes and a one-foot-thick concrete membrane on the upstream face. A spillway would be excavated through the right abutment to accommodate the 11,000 cfs spillway design flood. The spillway would require a 10-foot surcharge to pass the desi~n flow. The surcharge height and a residual four feet of freeboard are the reasons that the rockfill dam is 14 feet higher than the 38- foot-high concrete dam of Alternative A to develop the same 30 feet of net hydraulic head. The powerhouse would be located on the left side of this canyon, the same as for Alternatives A and B. It woul d be the same size exactly as in Alternative A, but it would be located about 30 feet farther downstream. The fish ladder, access road, and switchyard would also be located on the left abutment in the same general location as on Alternatives A and B. Since damage to the upstream concrete membrane could potentially occur over the 50-year project life, a lOW-level dewatering outlet has been provided for this alternative through the maximum section at the lowest elevation of the dam. SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-8 ... ... ... ,..' ... tw, ... ... ' Ii""~ D. ACCESS ROAD At present a road extends for about 0.8 mile southwest of Togiak along the bench. For access to the proposed dam I oca t ion, an 11. 6-mi Ie road 12 feet wide woul d be necessary from the end of the exist i ng road (mi leO. 0) to the Quigmy River site (mile 11.6). The first seven miles of the road would be on fairly flat to undulating terrain over glacial till materials. Hauling gravel for fill would be necessary. The remaining 4.6 miles woul d be on nearly level terrain over gravel materials and a minimum of cutting and filling would be required. Typical cross sections of the proposed access road are shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Appendix C. A large potential gravel borrow area at mile 7.0 along the access road has been located as part of the materials explora- tion program conducted for this study (see Appendix C, Geology and Geotechnics). As a closely related matter, it was found during the course of this study that the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Aviation, was investigating the possible construction of a new airport at Togiak and that this agency was looking for gravel sources to pave the runway. The material exploration informa- tion collected for the geotechnical report was then furnished to the Division of Aviation and a joint visit was made to the potential borrow si te by DOWL and Di vision of Aviation per- sonnel. As a result of these activities, the Division of Aviation is studying the possibility of constructing a road to the borrow si te. If th is occurs, the hydroelectr ic pro.iect would require only the construction of the remaining 4.6 miles of access road. This is a very important consideration for the project since the first seven miles of road will cost approxi- mately $1,000,000 and the entire remaining 4.6 miles will cost approximately $600,000. SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-9 E. TRANSMISSION LINE A 12.5 kV transmission line would be constructed adjacent to the access road. It woul d extend 13.6 mi les f rom the switchyard at the powerhouse to the existing diesel generating plant in Togiak. The configuration would be single pole and cross arm with three wires and poles on almost 500-foot centers. The general configuration of the line structures is presented as Plate VI in Appendix A. F. SELECTION OF TURBINE-GENERATOR It was previously mentioned in sUbsection B, Conceptual Design Considerations, that a tubular turbine was deemed best for the proposed hydraulic project. This portion of the report details the reasoning leading to that conclusion. 1. Type of Turbine Conventional turbine equipment that is commercially available is classified either as impulse or reaction turbines. An impulse turbine is one having one or more free jets discharging into an aerated space and impinging on the buckets of the runner. The jet size increases as the head on the turbine decreases. For low-head applications, the cost of the impulse turbines is generally not competitive with the reaction type. The impulse turbines can, however, be operated economically on heads as low as 150 feet. A reaction turbine is one which passes water under pressure over the fixed angular vanes of the runner, imparting rotation and torque to the generator shaft. The conf igura tion of a reaction turbine consists of a water case, a mechanism for controlling the quantity of water and distributing it equally over the runner intake, and a draft tube. SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-10 .. ' ... ... .. .. - There are two principal types of reaction turbines: Francis turbines and propeller turbines. The propeller tur- b i nes may have either fixed or ad justable bl ades and several different configurations of propeller turbines are commercially available. A Francis turbine is one having a runner wi th a large number of fixed blades attached to a crown (top) and a band (bottom). The dimensional configuration of the runner is designed to suit the head conditions of the application. Designs are commercially available to suit head conditions ranging from 15 to 1500 feet. In general the Francis turbine is not competi tive with the propeller type below a head of about 60 feet. The head range of this study is such that Francis turbines have been eliminated as an economic selection. A propeller turbine is one having a runner resembling a propeller with a small number of blades, usually four, five or six, to which water is supplied in an axial direction. The blades are attached to the hub of the runner. The blade angle is adjusted to suit the head and flow conditions of the application. Runners are available in ei ther fixed-blade or adjustable-blade designs. The suitable head range of propeller turbines is from 15 to 110 feet and they are reasonably efficient over a range of flows of 105 percent to 30 percent of desi gn flow. Th is is graphically ill ustra ted in Fi gure VI-2 included at the end of this section. This type of turbine is therefore economically suitable for this study. Propeller turbines are available for vertical, slant or hor izontal mount i ng. The vert ically mounted conf igura t ion is known simply as a conventional propeller turbine. The hori- zontally mounted and slant-mounted units have been given trade names that describe the mechanical designs such as tubular, SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-ll bulb and Straflo. These various types have certain differences both in performance, cost and civil construction costs. The tubular turbine consists of a propeller-type runner mounted in a circular water passage. Downstream of the runner, the turbine shaft passes through the wall of the draft tube at a shallow elbow and is connected to the generator. The turbine d rives the genera tor through a gearbox, by means of a long downstream shaft. The generator is thus located outside the water passages so that sealing arrangements are simple. Several manufacturers currently manufacture standardized designs for tubular turbines, wi th resul tant savings in cost and fabrication time. For a bul b turbine conf igura t ion, the water passage and turbi ne runner are simi lar to those of the tubular turbine. However, the bulb turbine differs from the tubular turbine in that the generator is integrally housed in a bulb within the turbine passageway. The generator is thus si tuated in the immersed upstream cone and is driven directly by a shaft from the turbine runner. The operating characteristics and turbine efficiency of the bulb turbine are similar to the tubular turbine. The powerhouse of the bulb turbine offers a smaller plant area but a larger depth than the tubular turbine. The bulb turbine is less accessible for maintenance than the tubular turbine. Down time for major repair would probably be greater. The Straflow type of turbine is the development of Sulzer Brothers Lt d. of Swi tzerland. The turbine character ist ics are similar to those of the bulb turbine discussed above. The mechanical arrangement differs in that the rotor of the generator is attached to the rim of the runner. The rim of the runner has a seal that uses filtered water at a higher pressure than the effective head of the turbine. The generator operates in air outside of the passageway. The design has been SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-12 .. "" .. .. ..... ... successfully operated in Europe and would appear to offer cost benefits for certain sized units. To date, no units of the size contemplated for this development have been installed in the United States. With the above cons idera t ions in mi nd, a tubul ar turbine was selected as best suited to the Quigmy River site. 2. Selection of Number of Units Every turbi ne is most eff icien t wi th in a range of flows, with decreasing efficiency occurring beyond this range. Consequent ly, more power can usually be generated if two or more small turbines are selected rather than one large unit. For example, two turbines, each rated at 50 pecent of design flow, wi 11 produce more energy over the flow range than one turbine rated at 100 percent of design flow. However, the two turbines will generally cost 30 percent to 70 percent more than the single turbine. The extra value of the energy produced by the two uni ts must therefore make up for the extra cost of using two units. In the case of the Quigmy River site for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project, the efficiency of the recommended tubular turbine unit is adequate to cover the anticipated range of flows; the relatively small extra energy that would result from the use of two units would not justify the extra expense. A single unit was therefore indicated. 3. Type of Generator Generators can be of the synchronous or induction type. Induction generators are often considered more practical for the smaller turbine-generator installations because they cost less and require less maintenance. They require no excitation and need only a squirrel-cage rotor that uses no wire windings SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-13 or brushes. Furthermore, they do not run at exact synchronous speed and complex equipment is not needed to bring them on line. They cannot be used to establish frequency, however, and must be connected to a system with synchronous generators because they take their exci tation from system current. The generators produce electric energy with a high degree of efficiency. Synchronous generators are usually three-phase star or Y- connected machines with one end of each winding connected together in common and the other ends used as line terminals. The al terna ti ng-curren t synchronous generator, or al terna tor, delivers its induced alternating current directly to the external circuit. It is used where transmission is to be sent over long lines. The alternating current can be transformed to the desired transmission voltage. For this development, the synchronous generator is used because it is necessary to establish frequency. G. PROJECT ENERGY PRODUCTION Alternatives A and C each have 432 kW of installed capacity and the average annual energy generated woul d be 2,660,200 kWh. Al terna t i ve B has 288 kW average annual energy generated monthly power and energy values of installed capacity and the would be 1,773,400 kWh. The for both the 432 kW and 288 kW installations are presented in Tables VI-1 and VI-2 respectively and are shown graphically in Figure VI-1. These values were derived using the Quigmy River flow dura- tion curve rather than the average monthly hydrograph since the data used in deriving the flow duration curve were daily values rather than monthly averages as shown on the hydrograph. However, the hydrograph values have been used to compute the available peak power generation that could be expected per SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-14 .. ... "', ... ,.. - II!' month. Where the hydrograph values exceeded the maximum turbine design flow, the turbine flow was used for the calcula- tion. The "available peak power" values were then used on a monthly percentage basis to distribute the average annual energy values to monthly energy values. The monthly hydro- electric energy values from Tables VI-l and VI-2 were used in Section VII, Project Energy Planning, to meet the projected present and future energy demands of Togiak. The plant factor, the ratio of energy that could be pro- duced by a turbine-generator if continuously operated at its rating to the annual energy actually produced, is 70.3 percent for all alternatives studied for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project. H. PROJECT OPERATION SCHEME AND CONTROLS Turbine-Generator Controls for the turbine-generator unit will load the unit in response to the connected system demand. A governor wi 11 control the adjustable blade angles of the propeller turbine and thus match the turbine-generator electrical output with the connected system load. A small increase or decrease in the system load will cause the governor to modify the blade angles and the flow through the turbine will thus change. As long as the connected load does not exceed the capacity of the turbine- generator, the electrical frequency can be held wi thin approximately plus or minus one-tenth of a cycle. The turbine-generator is being operated on an isolated system; that is, it is not electrically connected into a grid wi th other operating genera ti ng uni ts. Any overload in the unit will gradually decrease the unit's speed and result in a corresponding lowering of both line voltage and frequency. Minor overloading, probably up to about ten percent, can be SFNBI-425-952l-VI VI-l5 tolerated. But an excessive overload can, if continued, cause protective devices to trip the unit. It is feasible to have the hydraulic turbine-generator unit operate in parallel with the diesel generating units now being used on the Togiak's electrical system. The hydraulic turbine can be operated to serve as a base load unit and regulate the system frequency. By proper setting of the diesel unit governors, the diesel uni ts can be brought on 1 ine and be operated during unusual system demands. The cost of this integrated system was included in the economic analysis. The turbine-generator will be manually started. A manual start implies that operating personnel are present during startup. The operating personnel shoul d physical 1 y check the uni t. This check will include opening the turbine shut-off valve (if closed) and checking that all supporting systems are operable. Operating personnel will then actuate a single control switch and the turbine-generator will automatically start up. When the uni t reaches synchronous speed, it wi 11 automatically go on line. The provision of enough sophisti- cated equipment and controls to allow the unit to be started up from a remote location is not proposed. Protective devices on the equipment will be capable of shut ti ng the generating uni t down automat ically, wh ich would require a manual startup. The automatic protective devices on the equipment will sense the internal temperature of the generator, most bearing temperatures, and critical oil 1 evel s. Hi gh temperatures and low 0 i1 levels can trip the turbine-generator off the line. An alarm will be given before any control device shuts down the generating unit. maintenance will be performed on a weekly Routine schedule. The power generated by the turbine-generator need not be reduced during this maintenance period. The maintenance SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-16 ... ... ... .... - will include routine checks to verify that (1) all equipment is operating in a normal condition, (2) none of the equipment is bei ng operated at a temperature above normal I imi ts, (3) all lubrication requirements are being met, and (4) no discontin- uity exists in electrical wiring, relays, or controls. Overhaul maintenance will be performed on an annual basis and it will be scheduled during the minimum average river flow, usually in March. The turbine-generator will have to be removed from the line and electrical power required by the city system will be provided by the existing diesel generating units. This annual maintenance period will not normally exceed one week. This type of maintenance will include the following items: 1. Areas of wear on the turbine-generator uni t will be reviewed and corrective measures will be initiated in cases where wear beyond the allowable limits set by the manufacturer has occurred. 2. Electrical insulation checks will be made. 3. Relubrication will be required under the manu- facturer's recommendations. 4. Verification will be made that all relays and controls are properly set. SFNBI-425-9521-VI VI-17 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec TABLE VI-1 AVERAGE MONTHLY PEAK POWER OUTPUT AND ENERGY GENERATION -432 kW UNITl/ TOGIAK Flow Utilized for Available Average Energy Peak Monthly Flow Generation Power Energy (cfs) (cfs) (kW) (1000 kWh) 99.0 99.0 215 125 72.0 72.0 156 93 126.0 126.0 243 158 281.0 200.0 432 261 238.0 200.0 432 261 208.0 200.0 432 261 203.0 200.0 432 261 219.0 200.0 432 261 264.0 200.0 432 261 458.0 200.0 432 261 309.0 200.0 432 261 153.0 153.0 330 196 Total 2,660 1/ Net hydraulic head = 30 feet. NBI-425-9521-VI-1 Percent of Total Annual Energy 4.7 3.5 6.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 7.4 100.0 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec TABLE VI-2 AVERAGE MONTHLY PEAK POWER OUTPUT AND ENERGY GENERATION -288 kW UNIT~/ TOGIAK Flow Utilized for Available Average Energy Peak Monthly Flow Generation Power Energy (cfs) (cfs) (kW) (1000 kWh) 99.0 99.0 143 83.3 72.0 72.0 104 61. 1 126.0 126.0 182 106.4 281.0 200.0 288 173.8 238.0 200.0 288 173.8 208.0 200.0 288 173.8 203.0 200.0 288 173.8 219.0 200.0 288 173.8 264.0 200.0 288 173.8 458.0 200.0 288 173.8 309.0 200.0 288 173.8 153.0 153.0 220 131.2 Total 1,773.4 l/ Net hydraulic head = 20 feet. NBI-425-9521-VI-2 - Percen t of Total Annual Energy .. ' .' 4.7 3.5 6.0 9.8 -9.8 9.8 9.8 fill 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 7.4 100.0 ... ... .... -o o o - 300 r-~-·r---· ,. _."'._,,-._._~~ ....... _, .. , ~ .. ~---... ,.-,----.. .,-.... _-..... __ ._ ..... _-_._ ... _-•.. __ ..... , "-'-.' I r---' .... -,,, "-.----.-~~-.--~-" .. ---.... ,-~.-'-' "" _·'"""' ... ~_~c'" -.¥-;. .~-----, ~-."'" -_ .. -I ._0--,,"8'~""'"'''' .".~ ..,'.h_~.'_ . .," __ ~·." ... · ~-"-.-,~,."~~,, , ~.-.-...'~ ..... ~ ____ ~_ ............... _~.~_. -~'_. ______ "_,.~.~>_.'".. __ .. ____ .., .. __ .. _ ~ __ . ___ ~ __ ~,._.,_ .. __ ........ _ ... " .... -__ .~_ .. _. ___ --r-._ .. ,. ______ L-.4 i i : L_ ,,_~ __ . __ ._~ ___ ~~ ___ .. __ 'A"~·".~ ___ ·' ___ .. _. • •• _,_ .. " '~.'_ . •. ~.,__ .. _ .••• _", .. , .~._~. i .. --~~----------------------.. r·"-·---~~--'---,,~. ~"-~--~'-'~ i 100······· ., ........ _... AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY' ... _ ... - 2,660,200 leW h, 432 kW ---". __ . lNSTALLEO 'CAPACITY ALTERNATIVES A AND C -.--~ .... '.'.-.-.-~-~~~ ... -.'.-.~-" .-.. -. -" .. '" ~~ ~ .. ~~_ '''. ___ w···A ._ ••• '" .-'-''''.~'''- -, ..... .. 1_ ....... ,_,_. ___ .~. ~ ...... L.J r---"~.-."""" ... -'" ....... ----~ .. -.-.. -.---,-~~-.... -." .. ~ . .,. •.... ~~~ .",", ~.--.--,-----'.--:,,-.-.. ~ .. I MONTH ENERGY _II e • ., -- WE! M 400 300 200 r'"-'-'-''' .. ~.-.. -.... -..... --.. --~-.. ~.~----. __ ........ __ .... o_"_;~~~. __ ~ -HI 1 t--.... v--.~-~ .. -~ ... --.. -.. -___ ."0_, __ ",,, ~ . < ~ ~ ; ... _ ........ __ ._.-.--_ ... v .. _·_·_· .. _-· .. _ .. ·i .. ·---.. _. i i t ~~~ ___ .~ ___ s "'_.~~"_.........-....,_ ..•. _ ~_ ..... ~. •• _. ,_._ . .--:...-____ . ___ ........... __ ~-~-.• __ .• _.-__ ,_.---.. -.• __ ~._, _____ ""~_~_-+~ ___ ___; I I I J ! ..-... ~. -·"·TNSTALLED·-.. ·-········-.. -·~------"-~"_" __ " ... ,,_<:APACITY 432 ~ ... ____ .... _ ..... _.. __ ~ I --I ___ --MONTHly ......... _ ... PEAK .GENERATION .-'1 1 i ... ---.-----.... ".--~---.~ -... --... -,,-~-~ [ _ .. -.~--.--~----.~-----.----"'~--~ ( I !"'""-__ ~~_.".-.. ~". __ ._.'~.~ .. _ e.' ___ ._ .~ __ .~. ___ ~ ....... ___ ..•• , •. ___ . _¥.~ ___ .w· __ -.·_·· -"_' , __ "'_0 o_ ... ~.-... -.~._" __ ---",. ____ ._.C"~ __ ~~ ....... -----'1 i , o i,...... ... """'"-_ ... ___ ..,--. . ......,io;,........,_...,..._.....-...-__ ._.~~ __ . ____ J .. _ ... : ... ''"'"'''""''' ...... ,,_~'"''. __ .... ___...,, __ ~ __ • __ ...... ~ __ ...... _. _ ... _.J J F M A M J J A SON 0 MONTH POWER TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT MONTHLY HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY AND POWER GENERATION FIGURE E-I 1100 f+---+---+---+---+----+---+---I---+---i-----~ 1000 ~~--~---4---+---+--~--~--~--~--- 900 H---+---+---+---+----+---+--+--+---~-- 800 • 700 I~~~--~~--~--~--~--~--~--__ ---- ~ (,) - ~ 600 1-4~-_+---~--~-~-+--~-~--~-o ..J LL 500 i--~--~~~--~--~--~------~------- 400 200 TURBINE FLOW (38% EXCEEDANCE) I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT (%) OF TIME FLOW EXCE.EDED kW·h 6MAY INCREASE TO 300cfs WITH A CORRESPONDING 10ft REDUCTION IN THE HEIGHT OF THE DAM ONCE GAGE.D FLOW DATA ARE AVAILABLE .. ---------------------------------------------------------------- OPERATING RANGE OF TURBINE FIGURE ID.-2 TOGIAK'S QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE; AIR PHOTO LOOKING UPSTREAM. THE DAM AXIS IS ACROSS THE NARROW CHANNEL IN CENTER OF THE PHOTO. - EXHIBIT VI-1 I I I DAM SITE FROM STREAM LEVEL, LOOKING UPSTREAM. POWERHOUSE TO BE LOCATED ON ROCK LEDGE IN RIGHT CENTER. RIGHT ABUTMENT. FLAG AT LEVEL OF 30-FOOT HEAD. EXHIBIT VI-2 - LEFT ABUTMENT. PENSTOCK AND POWERHOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON ROCK LEDGE IN FOREGROUND. LEFT ABUTMENT ALONG DAM AXIS. MAN IS AT LEVEL OF 30-FOOT HEAD. EXHIBIT VI-3 - ,J - - .- -- - - - - ' .... .-- - SECTION VI I PROJECT ENERGY PLANNING A. GENERAL This section presents the projected energy usage for Togiak over the study period and al ternative means of meeting these projected demands--the base case plan and al ternative hydro- electric projects. The potential future demand for power and energy at Togiak was estimated during this study in order to establish the electrical requirements that the alternatives could meet. The alternatives to the base case included hydroelectric projects involving a rockfill dam and two different heights of concrete dams. This information was used to size the al ternatives and was also used for the overall economic analysis of the project, which is presented in Section IX. B. PROJECTION CONSIDERATIONS The fut ure function of a demand number for of power and variables energy at that are Togiak is a difficul t to forecast and quantify. These factors include the appliance saturation rate; the effects of cultural factors and tradi- tional life styles on energy consumption; the rate of moderni- zation of the Native life style; the amount of employment in t he fish processing ind ust ry; t he nat ur al var iabil i ty 0 f the fishery; the amount of new housing buil t in the area; and numerous political factors such as the 1981 legislation relat- ing to energy proj ect sand progr ams 0 f the APA. The pr ice 0 f power at Tog iak will be much cheaper in the fut ure than the current price; this will almost certainly alter the pattern of energy and power demand, and the forecast as presented here is probably conservative. NB 1-42 5-9521-V I I VII-1 1. Appliance Saturation Rate The number and type of appliances owned by each household, as well as the extent to which these appliances are used, may have a significant effect on the amount of power used in the village. A definite relationship between appliances wi thin a househol d and electr ical use character ist ics is very el usi ve. The actual use of energy is more dependent on the number of people wi thin a given residence, and their age, habits, and financial condition. For example, one could predict the annual energy use of a refrigerator or freezer because this is almost independent of activity and habits. The rate of energy use for electric lights, small appliances, and television is very susceptible to habits. Energy demand for water heaters, washers, dryers, and dishwashers varies in use primarily subject to the number and age of users. For example, hot water use among families with small children or babies is very high. One method of measuring potential future growth and use of appliances is through a concept known as the appliance satura- tion rate. The estimated present percentages of homes having various types of appliances in Anchorage, the Kenai-Cook Inlet area, and Togiak are presented in Table VII-l. This informa- tion for Togiak is very approximate and was obtained through several interviews with village residents. The number of appl iances in any given household in Togiak depends on the desire and ability to obtain the appliances, the cost of electricity, and the available room for the appliances. Togiak is a relatively large village for the Bristol Bay region and it strives to maintain strong cultural values; however, generally speaking, the older village residents are more concerned with preserving the native customs and traditions than the younger generations. It is reasonable to expect that modern electrical appliances will be assimilated into daily life to an even greater degree in the future. NBI-456-9521-VII VII-2 • --.. • --• • - • • • - • • .. .. • .. -- • -- • • -----.. - , ... , .... - .- - '- ,- - - - The purpose of presenting the Anchorage and Kenai-Cook Inlet data in Table VlI-1 is to provide a compar ison with largely urbanized areas that have much greater unit consumption of electrical energy. Appliance saturation rates (and sizes of appliances) for rural Alaskan villages such as Togiak can be expected to increase in the future. The base year 1980 rate of demand for electricity per residential customer was about 2737 kWh, as discussed subse- quently. This apparently reflects a very low electric appliance use. This use was assumed to increase to approxi- mately 4100 kWh by year 2001. The Ebasco (1980) regional inventory assumed that households would increase energy consumption to 6000 kWh per year by the year 1995, exclusive of electric space heating. The Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik Associates, Inc., report (1981), predicted the annual energy use for the year 2000 at Togiak to be about 2600 kWh per customer. This projection was based on a statistical analysis of historical use patterns in this area, and is probably extremely conservative. The new policies permitting opportuni- ties for reductions in price, discussed in the next section, indicate that this projected 4100 kWh annual residential use rate is on the conservative side. 2. The Influence of Price on the Demand for Power The 1981 legislation relating to the projects and programs of the APA may result in some reduction in the cost of power to this village. This decrease in power cost can be expected to be accompanied by an increase in use. Data from the Alaska Power Administration have been developed to show the 1980 individual customer use of electric- ity versus cost for all towns, cities, and villages for which information was available in Alaska. This information is summarized in tabular form in Table VII-2 and graphically in NBI-456-9521-VII VII-3 Figure VI 1-1. While the data on Figure VII-1 are somewhat scattered, the trend is evident that low power costs result in higher usage and high power costs resul t in lower usage. In economic terminology, this relationship of pr ice to quantity consumed is referred to as "elasticity" of demand. As ind ica ted by Figure VII-2, unit ener gy costs of less than 100 mills per kilowatt-hour are generally accompanied by high use rates, in excess of 7000 kilowatt-hours per customer per year. As the unit price of power increases, the per customer use tends to decrease, with the 48 AVEC Villages having energy costs in excess of 400 mills per kilowatt-hour and annual per customer demands of about 2000 kilowatt-hours. The two different utili ties listed for Fairbanks provide an even clearer example of the elasticity of the demand for electrical energy; in this case where the cost of energy was 75.1 mills/kWh the annual demand was 10,519 kWh per customer and where the cost of energy was 122.2 mills/kWh the demand was 5501 kWh per customer. The general conclusion is that in the higher ranges of price there is significant elasticity in demand. Lower energy costs result in higher energy usage and this can also be expected to occur in Togi ak with the advent of lower pr ices. The actual amount of higher usage, however, is very difficult to quantify. For purposes of this study no attempt has been made to pred ict the higher usage other than to incorporate a moderate increase in per customer use of energy in the projec- tions covered below. These projections are probably on the low side. C. ENERGY DEMAND PROJECTIONS For the economic evaluation, a period of 50 years after the proposed date for the hydroelectric project to come on-line was considered. As requested by APA, the period of study was NBI-456-9521-VII VII-4 - • ... • ------• • -• -• .. • .. -- • .. • .. • -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - started in January 1982. The demand for power was assumed to increase for 20 years from the beginning of the period of study and was then held at a constant value for the remainder of the period of evaluation. The planning period is the 20-year period during which increased demand for energy was recognized, from January 1982 to December 2001. The economic evaluation period extends past the planning period to 2034, 50 years after the on-line date for the hydroelectric alternative. The overall energy demand for Togiak for purposes of energy planning has been broken into two primary categories: direct electrical demand, which includes residential, small commer- cial, school, and Twin Hills; and space heating demand. Projections for both of these categories and the combined requirements are presented below. The cannery at Togiak was not considered as a project energy demand. The canning season is very short and it is unlikely that the amount of electricity from a hydroelectric project that could be used by the cannery would justify the capital cost of connecting the cannery to the village system. The cannery currently operates its own system. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that the systems would cont inue to be independent. 1. Direct Electrical Demand The general approach followed in estimating direct electrical demand was to break down the direct ci ty system demand into general types of customers normally identified by utilities in projecting electrical users in small villages. These include the number of residential, small commercial, and school customers. The electrical demand for Twin Hills was also included in the direct electrical demand for Togiak, al though Twin Hills is not currently served by the exist ing system. Note that the cost of placing an underground rural NBI-456-9521-VII VII-5 distribution (URD) cable across Togiak Bay, in order to connect Twin Hills to the Togiak system, was assumed to be a cost common to all alternatives. Therefore this cost was not included in the cost estimates and subsequent economic analyses. However, if the project were to be implemented, the cable would be necessary at an approximate cost of $300,000. The public and school demand for Togiak represents the largest proportion of the direct electrical demand. For 1980, it was about 44 percent. For this same year, residential use in Togiak accounted for 36 percent of direct electrical demand, small commercial accounted for only three percent, and Twin Hills for the remaining 17 percent. The base year of 1980 demand was taken from actual Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) data on the community of Togiak, and it provides a reasonable base. Projections beyond 1980 were not directly tied to estimated growth in popul a tion. Because of signif ican t changes that could occur in the number of residential customers as a result of additional housing units which may be provided through public programs, it was found that residential demand was more closely correlated to the number of housing units than to population growth. This was substantiated by AVEC records of similar communities. Growth in demand from 1980 through 1985 was heavily influenced by current plans regarding new housing, which may be furnished by government agencies, with an assumed annual growth rate of 4.4 percent for that period. The exact timing and financing of new horne construction in Togiak is somewhat uncertain; however, it is very likely that new housing will be built in the future. Between 1986 and 1990 the growth rate was assumed to be 2.8 percent; from 1990 through 2000 it was assumed to be 2.3 percent; and 2.0 percent for 2001. After 2001, the growth rate was assumed to be zero. NBI-456-9521-VII VII-6 .. -.. .. • • - • .. • -• -• -• .. • .. • -• • • • • - ------• - - - - - - .- .- - - -... .. .. - Peak demands were calculated by applying typical load factors for each type of consumer group. Load factor data were der i ved from AVEC histor ical data as well as data from other typical utilities. Historically, the load factor tends to improve as the load increases. This improvement is explained by added st reet 1 ighting, refr igera tion, and other loads that tend to level the power demand. Projected total annual demands over the planning period to 2001 are shown in Table VII-3. Values of intermediate demands, for years not shown, can be obtained through interpolation. The monthly energy demands for Togiak were based on 1979 AVEC records. Using these data, the monthly percentages of the total annual energy demand were computed. These values are presented in Table VII-4 and are used in Tables VII-8A to VII-8E to compute the projected monthly energy demands from 1980 to 2001. 2. Space Heating Demand The amount of fuel used for heating at Togiak for 1979 was taken from the Northern Technical Services and Van Gulick Associates report (1981). The future increase in the amount of hea ting oil used over the per iod of study was assumed to be proportional to the increase in the number of customers.~/ The annual heating requirements for Togiak are presented in Table VII-5. The monthly heating demands over the study period were computed using the number of heating degree days per month from the Togiak Community Profile ~/ and applying the calculated monthly percentages to the annual heat demand values from Table ~/ See Table VII-3. ~/ Currently being prepared by DOWL Engineers . NBI-456-9521-VII VII-7 VI 1-5. The resul t ing projected monthly heat ing demands for 19S0 to 2001 are presented in Table VII-6. 3. Total Energy Demands The projected annual energy values for direct electrical and heating demands are presented in Table VII-7. The projected monthly energy demands for these same categories are presented in Tables VII-SA through VII-SE. Also shown in the tables are the total electrical demand and the total combined demand (direct electrical plus heating demand). The VII-SE annual energy are presented projections in graphical from Tables VI I-SA through form in Figures VII-2 and VI 1-3, where the energy demands are plotted for each year of the study period for the two sizes of hydroelectric projects considered. Also shown is the annual hydroelectric energy production for the sizes studied (2SS kW and 432 kW). Figures VII-2 and VII-3 also present two separate graphs of the same information: overall data and detailed data. The overall data graph illustrates that a very large proportion of the combined energy demand is heating demand. The detail data graph presents in more detail the relative values of the various demands and available generation values. The monthly energy projections from Tables VII-SA to VII-SE for the 432 kW al ternatives are presented in Figure VII-4, again as an overall data graph and a detailed data graph. These graphs show the relationship on a monthly basis between the energy demands and the hydroelectric energy available over the study period. The graphs illustrate the general periods where the hydroelectric energy would have to be supplemented by diesel generation to meet the village needs and when excess energy would be available for space heating. As shown, during an average water year the 432 kW hydroelectric plant would be sufficient to meet 100 percent of the direct electrical needs NBI-456-9521-VII VII-S ------- • ---• -• - • .. • • • -• .. • .. • ----.. ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - . -- - and 37 percent of the space heating requirements in 1985. From 2001 to 2034, the same hydroelectric plant would be capable of supplying 98 percent of the direct electrical needs and 25 percent of the space heating requirements. D. BASE CASE PLAN The base case plan, as presented in the draft feasibili ty report, consisted of continuing the existing diesel generation scheme, and of supplementing the diesel generation with waste heat recovery. This plan was later mod i fied to include wind generation. The original plan is presented below, and is followed by the wind generation scheme. 1. Original Plan The base case plan to meet the projected energy demands presented above was developed assuming that the existing diesel system would continue to be used as the sole source of electric power. The existing system would be modified to include waste heat recovery, which would be used for space heating. The existing AVEC diesel plant includes one 160 kW unit and one 300 kW unit, with an additional 300 kW unit currently being installed (460 kW firm capaci ty) .lJ This capaci ty should be adequate to meet peak demands on the city system throughout the period of study, based on the previously stated assumptions about projected demands for power. The anticipated life of the existing installation was assumed to be 15 years. After this time it will be necessary to completely replace the units and they will have no salvage value. When the equipment is replaced in 15 years, it was assumed that the total firm capacity would be increased to 600 kW and the equipment would lJ In figuring firm capacity, the largest unit is omitted . NBI -456-9521-VII VII-9 continue to be replaced every 20 years for the entire period of economic evaluation. The existing plant has 119,000 gallons of fuel storage. It was assumed that an additional 50,000 gallons of fuel storage would be required in 20 years. In add i tion to the continuation of the exist ing diesel power supply, the base case would utilize heat recovered from the diesel generators to the maximum extent feasible. Togiak has a large school, community buildings, small businesses, and homes in close proximity to the powerhouse. This represents a market for most of the heat that could be recovered from the cooling jacket water and from the exhaust heat. The location of the heating loads was taken from the Community Profile. The fuel that the engines use represents energy injected into the system, which is about 138,000 BTUs for every gallon of fuel oil consumed. About one-third of this thermal energy is converted into electrical energy, about one-third is rejected in the form of heat from jacket water and oil cooling, and the remaining one-third is rejected, also in the form of heat, in the hot exhaust gases. The heat energy f rom the jacket and oi I cool ing water is the easiest to recover by putting in a simple heat exchanger and heating water to be used for space heating. The temperature available is about 180 to 190o F, which is quite usable for hydronic heating or air plenum radiators. The temperatures of the exhaust gases are much higher, 600 to 1000o F, but the associated heat energy is much more expensive and complicated to capture. The exhaust is forced through what looks like a standard fire tube or water tube boiler, heating the water to just below boiling or high enough to produce steam. The hot water is much easier to deal with, NBI-456-9521-VII VII-10 • -• .. • ---• - • -• -• -• .. • • • -• -• • • -• --- • - • --- - - - - " ... 'MII - - so most systems control the flows to prevent the formation of steam. The jacket water heat is almost entirely usable, while the typical recovery efficiency of the exhaust heat system is between 30 and 40 percent at full load. One real problem in waste heat utilization is that the heat available is directly dependent upon the electrical generation requirements at any particular time. The requirements for heating the buildings are, however, dependent upon the weather. There is no viable method at present to store this heat over long periods. Therefore, much available heat energy cannot be utilized simply because there is no need for it at the right time. This is called coincidence between supply and demand. For this study it was assumed that about 65 percent of the available jacket heat and 65 percent of the available exhaust heat could be utilized each year. As the generation increases over time, the heat is available more of the time and therefore somewha t greater usage could be expected. The percentage of available heat that can be used and the future growth rate of usable heat are based on experience with similar projects in Al aska, and are conserva t i ve. Accura te project ions of the amount of heat that can be recovered are difficult because of the limited amount of data available on this type of project. It was assumed that public buildings in the area would be connected initially and that this arrangement would not change substantially over time. The utilization by public buildings was assumed to increase by 1.5 percent per year. The items associated with waste heat recovery include the installation of equipment in the powerhouse and the use of radiators and insulated pipes to convey the water to and from the point of use. The equipment in the powerhouse would NBI-456-9521-VII VlI-ll include two exhaust hot water boilers, manifolded cooling water piping, fan and pump controls, and a main heat exchanger (water-water). The outside distribution piping would be 4 inch diameter insulated pipes from the powerhouse to the school and 2 inch diameter lateral lines to smaller buildings. The remaining investment would be for building conversions, radiators, and heat meters. The heat could be used up to 2000 feet from the powerhouse. The heat exchangers for waste heat recovery from the exhaust gases would have to be replaced every ten years. This is in accordance with APA cr iter ia. The remainder of the equipment in the powerhouse would need to be replaced when the diesels are replaced; interim replacements of this equipment would not be required as it is simple equipment wi th no moving parts. The jacket heat recovery equipment is essentially an extension of the diesel engine cooling system. The buried pipes and hot water radiators should last for the entire period of economic evaluation. The diesel generation system at Togiak current 1 y consumes about 88,000 gallons of fuel 0 i 1 per year; this rate can be expected to increase over the next 20 years to more than 146,000 gallons per year. The amount of heating oil that can be expected to be displaced by waste heat recovery in the year 2001 is more than 33,000 gallons. 2. Wind Generation Plan The possibility of supplementing the existing diesel system with wind generation was investigated as part of the base case analysis. At the direction of the Alaska Power Authority, all wind data and wind system costs were obtained from a report entitled "Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Interim Feasibility Assessment Report," 1~82, by NBI-456-9521-VII VII-12 -.. • -- • -• • • -• • -• -• • .. - • -• • ----------- .~ .. , .... .,.. ,,,,. .- ,.., •• -,. •• Stone and Webster. Unpublished data and information developed by Stone and Webster in conjunction with this report was also utilized. Wind energy is an emerging technology, but has, to date, proved to be economically feasible only under certain cond i t ions. The investment cost associated wi th wind generation is very high, and the cost of other energy sources must be greater than at least 15 cents per kWh to justify the investment. Standard equipment uses induction generators, and system stability becomes a problem if more than about 20 percent of the total system power is from wind. For some limited applications, such as remote cabins and communications i nstalla t ions, di rec t current generators and banks of storage batteries may be practical. Some configurations that use excess wind energy for space heating show good overall economics. The only proven wind generators currently available have capacities of 10 kW or less. However, units of up to 100 kW are currently becoming commerically available and are expected to be dependable. The application of this equipment is subject to some limiting restrictions. In order to be efficient the wind turbine must operate at low wind speeds and yet be rugged enough to withstand high gusting and wind. The gear boxes, towers, and blades must operate almost continuously under these adverse conditions. At this time few manufacturers are able to demonstrate the required reliability under Alaska Conditions. The electrical interface to the utili ty system is also fairly complex with some reliability problems. The simpliest and most reliable systems use induction generators, but these units introduce another limiting factor, stability problems. NBI-456-9521-VII VII-13 The wind varies widely in available energy. This variation can be over seconds, days or months. Energy must be stored to bridge the periods of low wind. There are many ideas about possible storage mediums including compressed air, batteries, hydrogen generation, pumped hydro storage, flywheels, and thermal. All of these methods have a reasonable theoretical basis but are not commercially mature. The efficiency, availability, reliability and operational requirements of these schemes are many years from application to present electric power systems. Storage of heat using water or eutechtic sal ts is a good system if the energy is to be used ultimately for space heat. Under rapidly varying wind conditions the energy output of the unit varies widely. Since the utility system load is quite stable, the other generation must absorb these wide variations. The induction generators also introduce a frequency stabili ty problem, since they do not operate at a "synchronous" speed, deriving their excitation from the power system. These conditions limit the amount of wind driven induction generation to about 20% at any given moment. This is a very rough number and will vary with the inherent stability of the existing system, but will probably never exceed 30%. Synchronous machines load are prohibitively reliable systems. which could carry much more of the expensive and not well developed, Since storage is a major problem, the electrical energy general I y is generated and consumed in the same i nst ant . At periods of high wind the loads may be low, while at times of NBI-456-9521-VII VII-14 • -• ---.. • .. • -• .. --• ., • .. • .. .. - • .. • .. --• --- • --- "III .... ...... ,- •• ... •• -... - high load there may be low wind cond i t ions. Th is coincidence factor greatly limits the final percentage of energy which can be generated with wind equipment. To an electric utility the wind generation represents only a savings in fuel and some slight reduction in engine maintenance. A full-sized diesel plant must be maintained because the wind source may not be available during the system peak. This benefit is often overestimated by individual consumers who have thei r own wind systems because they save the full billing rate for the electrical power. Actually, they are not paying for the standby generation, utility equipment and personnel avai lable to them when the wind doesn't blow. They are being subsidized by their neighbors. The communities we have studied fall outside of the wind class map provided. We have assumed Class 5 winds for all communities. This provides an average energy of 390 Watts per square meter. For this study, two types of wind machines were considered. Both types are mounted on 60-foot towers and use induction generators. One unit has seven-foot-diameter blades and a maximum output of 10 kW, and the other has 20-foot- diameter blades, with a maximum output of 25 kW. A maximum power penetration of 20 percent was assumed; this means that at any given moment, not more than 20 percent of the load can be met by wind driven generators. Significant data on the machines investigated are presented as Table VII-12. For this study, it was assumed that five ten kilowatt wind generators would be installed at Togiak during 1982, and that these plants would be operational during 1983 and would require NBI-456-9521-VII VII-15 replacement every 15 years. A sixth unit would be brought on line during 1992 and would increase the total installed capacity to 60 kW; a seventh unit would be added in 2000, increasing the capaci ty to 70 kW. The usable wind generation is presented as Table VII-13. Inspection of Table VII-13 shows that the amount of usable wind generation has been assumed to be constant as long as the installed capacity remains the same. The amount of usable wind generation would probably actually increase slightly with time; however, this increase would probably be minor, and the accuracy of the energy use and economic analyses would not be enhanced by this refinement. The estimates presented here are conservative. E. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PLAN The hydroelectric project plans investigated for Togiak would consist of a 432 kW or a 288 kW hydroelectric power plant suppl emented by diesel generation. The hyd roelect r ic power plant would become functional in late 1984. An on-line date of January 1, 1985, has been assumed for this study. The annual average energy generation for the two options is shown on Figures VII-2 and VII-3. The entire existing diesel capacity (460 kW firm capacity) would be required as standby and backup power. The hydroelec- tric generation would be adequate to meet the direct electrical demand during most of the year and it would also meet a portion of the common load during the peak July to October period; however, during periods between the end of November and the first of April it would be necessary to supplement the hydro- electric generation wi th diesel in order to meet the direct elect r ical demand. The full capac i ty of diesel generation required to meet the direct electrical demand would still be necessary for emergency use. Since the diesel engines would not operate as much under this plan as they would under the NBI-456-9521-VII VII-16 - • ... • --• .. • .. • .. • - • • • ... • -• .. • - • • • .. --- • .. .. - - - - - - ... --- base case plan, it was assumed that they would not need to be replaced for at least 30 years after the initial replacement in 15 years. Waste heat recovery would not be installed as part of this plan because the diesels would not operate often enough for the heat recovery to justify the cost of the necessary equipment. The average annual energy production for the hydroelectric power plant would be 2.660 million kWh for the 432 kW option or 1.773 for the 288 kW option, compared to a projected direct electrical demand for electricity of 0.892 million kWh in 1985 and 1.286 million kWh for the year 2000. The average annual plant factor would be about 70 percent. Diesel generation would be required to meet the direct electrical demand for a small part of the time due to the lack of coincidence between electrical demand and hydroelectric generation. Hydroelectric energy not needed to meet the direct electrical demand would be used for space heating. Appendix G describes space heating installation and cost for Togiak. Using the above criteria, energy that is available over the amount of hydroelectric the study period to meet the direct electrical demands and the heating demands has been computed on a monthly basis. The resul ts are presented in Tables VII-9A through VII-9E and VI 1-1 OA throu~h VI 1-1 OE for the two sizes of projects. The resulting net values of hydro- electric energy used for the direct electrical and the heating demands were used in Section IX, Economic Analysis. Note that the "energy accounting" described above and presented in Tables VII-9A through VII-9E and VII-lOA through VI 1-1 OE assumes that 100 percent usage can be made of the available hydroelectric energy. This usage level may not be wholly attainable in practice because of the unavailability or NBI-456-9521-VII VII-17 breakdown of end-use equipment and distribution lines. Also, a system making use of all of the excess hydroelectric energy for heat would not be 100 percent efficient. However, any error resulting from the assumption of a 100 percent usage rate would likely be small and would be counterbalanced because both the projected demands and the hydroelectric energy output estimates are conservative. The annualized values of energy demand, generation, and usage are presented as Tabl es VII-11 and VI 1-12. The values from these tables are used extensively for the economic analysis presented in Chapter IX. NBI-456-9521-VII VII-18 • -• • .. -.. -• -• -• • • .. • • • • • • • .. • - • .. • .. .. .. .. -• --- .. ... .- - ,- .- - .- -..:.. - '- - ',. ... .... '* - TABLE VII-1 ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE SATURATION RATES TOGIAK Consumption Kenai- per House- Anchorage l.! Cook Togiak J:.../ Appliance Household 1/ Inlet l.! (kWh) ---percentage of total households--- Lights 1,000 100 100 100 Small Appliances 1,010 100 100 100 Refrigerator 1,250 100 100 99 Freezer 1,350 42 56 100 Water Heater 3,475 100 94 68 Television 400 156 100+ 100 Video Tape Recorder 3/ 3/ ~ 76 Washer 70 50 85 68 (Water) (1,050) Dryer 1,000 71 76 68 Dishwasher 230 50 31 0 (Water) 700 1/ Values are for 1978 from "Electric Power Consumption for the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements," Technical Appendices, Institute of Social and Economic Resources, May 23, 1980. 2/ 3/ The percentage of residences having the listed appliances is based on estimates from several Togiak residents --usage rate data are not available nor is the mode split between electrical and other sources of energy known. Not available. -NBI-456-9521-7-1 - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. ]j 2/ TABLE VII-2 UNIT COST AND ENERGY DEMANo..!! ALASKA Cost Location (mills/kWh) 5 Villages (Southeast) 298.7 Haines 144.3 Juneau~/ 45.7 Juneau~/ 92.2 Ketchikan 58.4 Metlakatla 31.5 Petersburg 123.5 Sitka 49.8 Skagway 133.9 Wrangell 156.3 Yakutat 152.7 AnChOrag~~ 37.5 Anchorag~ 33.6 Anchorag~/ 45.8 Glenallen, Valdez 131. 5 Homer 35.9 Kodiak 149.3 Seward 54.0 Fairbank~~ 122.2 Fairbank~ 75.1 Fort Yukon 245.3 Tanana 269.9 48 Villages ( AVEC) 422.1 Barrow 129.8 Kotzebue 199.7 Bethel 177.4 Dillingham 151. 9 McGrath 233.5 Naknek 174.5 Data obtained from "Alaska Electric Power 1980," Sixth Edition, August 1981, United of Energy, Al aska Power Administration. table on page 40, "Energy Sales, Revenue, were used to develop this table. Demand (kWh/Customer) 3,996 5,680 7,775 7,775 8,528 17,981 6,355 8,483 5,879 4,689 7,170 9,124 11,982 14,800 5,890 12,644 5,871 6,694 5,501 10,519 1,669 5,992 2,044 4,395 5,290 4,590 5,000 1,735 5,524 Statistics, 1960- States Department Val ues from the Customers--1980," Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks are served by more than one utility. Each listing is for a separate utility. NBI-456-9521-7-2 • --- • --.. • -• .. • -• -• • • • • • --- • -• .. • • - • --- -- - - ~- ..... ~ .... .... -- - - Type TABLE VII-3 PROJECTED ANNUAL DIRECT ELECTRICAL DEMAND TOGIAK Number Annual Energy ~ of of Demand Peak Demand Year Consumer Customers (1000 kWh) (kW) 1980 1985 1990 2000 2001 1/ Residential 95 260 69 Small Commercial 5 24 7 Public and School 12 316 90 Twin Hills JJ 21 120 36 Total 133 720 202 Residential 105 337 85 Small Commercial 6 42 12 Public and School 12 364 99 Twin Hills 23 149 41 Total T46 892 237 Residential 115 413 98 Small Commercial 7 59 15 Public and School 12 382 104 Twin Hills 25 171 43 Total 159 1,025 260 Total 175 1,286 326 Total 177 1,314 333 Twin Hills is not served in the existing system but it was included for purposes of the projections. The use and demand of Twin Hills were assumed to be 20 percent of the Togiak values. For annualized demand, see Tables VlI-11 and VII-12 . NBI-456-9521-7-3 TABLE VII-4 MONTHLY LOAD CHARACTERISTICS l! TOGIAK Monthly Monthly ~ Monthly Percentage Monthly Percentage Power of Annual Energy of Annual Demand Peak Power Demand Energy Month (kW) Demand (kWh) Demand January 165 2/ 100.0 56,400 9.4 February 151 91.5 50,600 8.4 March 127 77.0 74,400 12.4 April 139 84.2 52,500 8.7 May 127 77.0 50,100 8.3 June 115 69.7 21,000 3.5 July 131 79.4 35,200 5.8 August 144 87.3 44,900 7.5 September 137 83.0 55,500 9.2 October 163 98.8 47,800 7.9 November 163 98.8 52,500 8.7 December 163 98.8 61,600 10.2 Totals 602,500 100.0 Based on 1979 AVEC data for Togiak. 1/ 2/ This value was changed from 192 kW to 165 kW because it seemed abnormally high compared to other years. This gives a 41.7 percent annual load factor. 3/ Percentages calculated from demand NBI-456-9521-7-4 --- - • .. .. • • • ... ... .. .. .. .. .. • • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -..-.. .. .. .. .. .. - ' .... - - - - - ... .. TABLE VII-5 ANNUAL HEATING DEMAND TOGIAK Year 1980 1985 1990 2000 2001 Annual Fuel Oil (Gal.) 133,000 146,000 159,000 175,000 177,000 Annual Requirementl/ (1000 kWh) 3,760 4,130 4,500 4,950 5,010 ~/ 138,000 BTU/Gal, 70% efficiency, and 3413 BTU/kWh. Values rounded to nearest 10 gallons NBI-456-9521-VII-5 TABLE VII-6 MONTHLY HEATING DEMANDs!! TOGIAK Heatin~ Percentage of Annual Degree Heating Month Days Degree Days 1980 1985 1990 2000 2001 -----------------1000 kWh----------------- January 1530 13.6 511 562 612 673 February 1300 11.5 432 475 518 569 March 1390 12.3 462 508 554 609 April 1020 9.1 342 376 410 450 May 720 6.4 241 264 288 317 June 400 3.5 132 145 158 173 July 310 2.7 101 111 121 134 August 340 3.0 113 124 135 148 September 530 4.7 177 194 211 233 October 940 8.4 316 347 378 416 November 1230 10.9 410 450 490 540 December 1560 13.9 523 574 625 688 TOTALS 11,270 100.0 3760 4130 4500 4950 1/ Based on the number of heating degree days indicated in the Togiak Community Profile multiplied by the Annual Heating Demands from Table VII-5. 2/ From the Togiak Community Profile (currently being prepared by DOWL Engineers). NBI-456-9521-VII-6 681 576 616 456 321 176 135 150 236 421 546 696 5010 .. • .. - • • • .. • .. • -• • • • .. .. - • .. • • • .. -- - TABLE VII-7 ANNUAL ENERGY DEMAND .. TOOIAK -Direct l! Total Electrical Heating ~ Combined Year Demand Demand Demand --------------------1000 kWb------------------- 1980 720 3760 4480 -1985 892 4130 5022 1990 1025 4500 5525 2000 1286 4950 6236 2001 1314 5010 6324 -2031 1314 5010 6324 - - ... 1/ From Table VII-3 . .. ~ From Table VII-6. -NBI-456-9521-VII-7 .. TABLE VII-8A 1980 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND TOGIAK Percentage l./ Direct Y of Annual Heat :Y Direct Electrical Total Month Demand Demand Demand Demand -------------------1000 kWh -------------------- January 9.4 68 511 February 8.4 60 432 March 12.4 89 462 April 8.7 63 342 May 8.3 60 241 June 3.5 25 132 July 5.8 42 101 August 7.5 54 113 September 9.2 66 177 October 7.9 57 316 November 8.7 63 410 December 10.2 73 523 Totals 100.0 720 3760 1/ From Table VII-4 Y Based on Annual Direct Demand of 720 MWh from Table VI 1-3. :Y From Table VII-6. NBI-456-9521-VII8A 579 492 551 405 301 157 143 167 243 373 473 596 4480 ., ------- • • • • .. - • -• .. • .. • .. • • .. • - • .. • - • -- ,- ~"." ..... .... ,- '"." - --- - ' ... .. - TABLE VII-8B 1985 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND TOGIAK Percentage lJ of Annual Direct JJ Hea t l.! Direct Electrical Total Month Demand Demand Demand Demand --------------------1000 kWh ---------------------- January 9.4 84 562 February 8.4 75 475 March 12.4 110 508 April 8.7 78 376 May 8.3 74 264 June 3.5 31 145 July 5.8 52 111 August 7.5 67 124 September 9.2 82 194 October 7.9 70 347 November 8.7 78 450 December 10.2 91 574 Totals 100.0 892 4130 1/ From Table VII-4 2/ Based on Annual Direct Demand of 892 MWh from Table VII-3. 3/ From Table VII-6. NBI-456-9521-VII8B 646 550 618 454 338 176 163 191 276 417 528 665 -- 5022 1/ ~/ 1./ TABLE VII -8C 1990 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND TOGIAK Percentage 1../ Direct ~ of Annual Heat 1./ Direct Electrical Total Month Demand Demand Demand Demand --------------------1000 kWh --------------------- January 9.4 96 612 708 February 8.4 86 518 604 March 12.4 127 554 681 April 8.7 89 410 499 May 8.3 85 288 373 June 3.5 36 158 194 July 5.8 60 121 181 August 7.5 77 135 212 September 9.2 94 211 305 October 7.9 81 378 459 November 8.7 89 490 579 December 10.2 105 625 730 ----- Totals 100.0 1025 4500 5525 From Table VII-4 Based on Annual Direct Demand of 1,025 MWh from Table VII-3. From Table VII-6. NBI-456-9521-VII8C - ------• .. • • • .. -.. .. .. .. • .. .. ., .. • • .. .. .. .. .. • -• .. -., •• ~"Ii'I1II ,- '.,"" ..... ... - - .. - - --- - TABLE VII-8D 2000 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND TOGIAK Percentage 1/ Direct 1:./ of Annual Heat 1./ Direct Elect r ical Total Month De!,!!and Demand Demand Demand -------------------1000 kWh ---------------------- January 9.4 121 673 794 February 8.4 108 569 677 March 12.4 159 609 768 April 8.7 112 450 562 May 8.3 107 317 424 June 3.5 45 173 218 July 5.8 75 134 209 August 7.5 96 148 244 September 9.2 118 233 351 October 7.9 102 416 518 November 8.7 112 540 652 December 10.2 131 688 819 - Totals 100.0 1286 4950 6236 From Table VII-4 1/ 2/ 1./ Based on Annual Direct Demand of 1,286 MWh from Table VII-3. From Table VII-6. NBI-456-9521-VII8D TABLE VII-8E 2001 MONTHLY ENERGY DEMAND TOGIAK Percentage ,lj Di rect 1:../ of Annual Heat ~/ Direct Electrical Total Month Demand Demand Demand Demand -----------------1000 kWh ------------------------ January 9.4 124 681 805 February 8.4 110 576 686 March 12.4 163 616 779 April 8.7 114 456 570 May 8.3 109 321 430 June 3.5 46 176 222 July 5.8 76 135 211 August 7.5 99 150 249 September 9.2 121 236 357 October 7.9 104 421 525 November 8.7 114 546 660 December 10.2 ~ 696 830 Totals 100.0 1314 5010 6324 From Table VII-4 1./ :l:./ ~/ Based on Annual Direct Demand of 1,314 MWh from Table VII-3. From Table VII-6. NBI-456-9521-VII8E -- • • • • -• .. • .. • • • .. • .. • .. • • • • .. • • • .. • • • --.. I , j I I I I t TABLE VII-9A TOGIAK ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW 1980 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE i i Di rect..!) Electrical Hydr~ Direct Us0 Remaining Heat..!../ Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Energy --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 68 60 89 63 60 25 42 54 66 57 63 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 511 0 0 432 0 0 462 0 0 342 0 0 241 0 0 132 0 0 101 0 0 113 0 0 177 0 0 316 0 0 410 0 0 523 0 Totals 720 0 0 0 3760 0 1/ 2/ From Table VII-8A The proposed hydroelectric project will not go on-line until late 1984 or early 1985. For purposes of projection, an on-line date of January 1985 has been assumed. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]J Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by diesel generation. NBISF-456-9521-7-9A TABLE VII-9B TOGIAK ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW 1985 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Direct!.! Hydra-Y UseY Heat-!! Electrical Direct Remaining Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Energy --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan 84 Feb 75 Mar 110 Apr 78 May 74 June 31 July 52 Aug 67 Sep 82 Oct 70 Nov 78 Dec 91 Totals 892 From Table VII-8B From Table VII-1 125 84 93 75 158 110 261 78 261 74 261 31 261 52 261 67 261 82 261 70 261 78 196 91 2660 892 41 562 41 0 18 475 18 0 48 508 48 0 183 376 183 0 187 264 187 0 230 145 145 85 209 111 111 98 194 124 124 70 179 194 179 0 191 347 191 0 183 450 183 0 105 574 105 0 1768 4130 1515 253 1/ 2/ 3/ Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by diesel generation. NBISF-456-9521-7-9B II I. I ••••• I •• ' I ••• II "'111'1 I. I. , •• 1 II I J I j I i j I j I I t I l I I TABLE VII-9C TOGIAK ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW 1990 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Di rectl.! Hydro.Y Us~ Hea ill Electrical Direct Remaining Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Eneq~y Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Energl --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan 96 Feb 86 Mar 127 Apr 89 May 85 June 36 July 60 Aug 77 Sep 94 Oct 81 Nov 89 Dec 105 Totals 1025 From Table VII-8C From Table VI-1 125 96 93 86 158 127 261 89 261 85 261 36 261 60 261 77 261 94 261 81 261 89 196 105 2660 1025 29 612 29 0 7 518 7 0 31 554 31 0 172 410 172 0 176 288 176 0 225 158 158 67 201 121 121 80 184 135 135 49 167 211 167 0 180 378 180 0 172 490 172 0 91 625 91 0 1635 4500 1439 196 1/ 2/ 3/ Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by diesel generation. NBISF-456-9521-7-9C TABLE VII-9D TOGIAK ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW 2000 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Direcd/ HydroY Use-Y Head/ Electrical Direct Remaining Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Ener~~ --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan 121 Feb 108 Mar 159 Apr 112 May 107 June 45 July 75 Aug 96 Sep 118 Oct 102 Nov 112 Dec 131 Totals 1286 From Table VII-8D From Table VI-1 125 121 93 93 158 158 261 112 261 107 261 45 261 75 261 96 261 118 261 102 261 112 196 131 2660 1270 4 673 4 0 0 569 0 0 0 609 0 0 149 450 149 0 154 317 154 0 216 173 173 43 186 134 134 52 165 148 148 17 143 233 143 0 159 416 159 0 149 540 149 0 65 688 65 0 1390 4950 1278 112 1/ 2/ --Sf Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by diesel generation. NBISF-456-9521-7-9D I • I I " 'I 'I I I I. I I ,. I. " I I •• •• 'I I. I • 'I I • I I j i t TABLE VII-9E TOGIAK ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW 2001 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Directl! Hydro0' Usd! Heatl! Electrical Direct Remaining Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Energy --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan 124 Feb 110 Mar 163 Apr 114 May 109 June 46 July 76 Aug 99 Sep 121 Oct 104 Nov 114 Dec 134 Totals 1314 From Table VII-8E See Section VI-1 125 124 93 93 158 158 261 114 261 109 261 46 261 76 261 99 261 121 261 104 261 114 196 134 2660 1292 1 681 1 0 0 576 0 0 0 616 0 0 147 456 147 0 152 321 152 0 215 176 176 39 185 135 135 50 162 150 150 12 140 236 140 0 157 421 157-0 147 546 147 0 62 696 62 0 1368 5010 1267 101 1/ 2/ 3/ Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by diesel generation. NBISF-456-9521-7-9E Directl/ TABLE VII-lOA TOGIAK ALTERNATIVE B INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW 1980 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Electrical Hydro~ Direct Use Remaining Hea~/ Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For, Heat Energy --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 68 60 89 63 60 25 42 54 66 57 63 73 720 From Table VII-8A o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 511 432 462 342 241 132 101 113 177 316 410 523 3760 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1/ 2/ The proposed hydroelectric project will not go on-line until late 1984 or early 1985. For purposes of projection, an on-line date of January 1985 has been assumed. NBISF-456-9521-7-10A o o o o o o o o o o o o o I • , I • I • I 'I I , • , •• ,. f. ,. " 'I I I ,. I • I I I I I I I I I , I I t I I j TABLE VII-lOB TOGIAK ALTERNATIVE B INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW 1985 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Di rectl.! Hydro:!:J Us~ Heatl.! Electrical Direct Remaining Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Energy --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan 84 Feb 75 Mar 110 Apr 78 May 74 June 31 July 52 Aug 67 Sep 82 Oct 70 Nov 78 Dec 91 Totals 892 From Table VII-8B From Table VI-2 83 83 62 62 106 106 174 78 174 74 174 31 174 52 174 67 174 82 174 70 174 78 131 91 1774 874 0 562 0 0 0 475 0 0 0 508 0 0 96 376 96 0 100 264 100 0 143 145 143 0 122 111 111 11 107 124 107 0 92 194 92 0 104 347 104 0 96 450 96 0 40 574 40 0 900 4130 889 11 1/ 2/ 3/ Energy produced by hydro project that will meet electrical demand currently met by diesel generation. NBISF-456-9521-7-10B TABLE VII-10C TOGIAK ALTERNATIVE B INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW 1990 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Directli Hydrob' Us~ Heatli Electrical Direct Remaining Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energ~ Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Energl --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan 96 Feb 86 Mar 127 Apr 89 May 85 June 36 July 60 Aug 77 Sep 94 Oct 81 Nov 89 Dec 105 Totals 1025 From Table VII-8C From Table VI-2 83 83 62 62 106 106 174 89 174 85 174 36 174 60 174 77 174 94 174 81 174 89 131 105 1774 967 0 612 0 0 0 518 0 0 0 554 0 0 85 410 85 0 89 288 89 0 138 158 138 0 114 121 114 0 97 135 97 0 80 211 80 0 93 378 93 0 85 490 85 0 26 625 26 0 807 4500 807 0 1/ 2/ 3/ Energy produced by hydro project that will meet elecrical demand currently met by diesel generation NBISF-456-9521-7-10C I I I • I I • I 'I • I 'I ,. f. ,I. ,. ,. , I 'I I • I • , • I I I I I j I • I I j I J i ( I I TABLE VII-10D TOGIAK ALTERNATIVE B INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW 2000 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Direct1! Hydr~/ UseY Hea0 Electrical Direct Remaining Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energy Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Energy --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan 121 Feb 108 Mar 159 Apr 112 May 107 June 45 July 75 Aug 96 Sep 118 Oct 102 Nov 112 Dec 131 Totals 1286 From Table VII-8D From Table VI-2 83 83 62 62 106 106 174 112 174 107 174 45 174 75 174 96 174 118 174 102 174 112 131 131 1774 1149 0 673 0 0 0 569 0 0 0 609 0 0 62 450 62 0 67 317 67 0 129 173 129 0 99 134 99 0 78 148 78 0 56 233 56 0 72 416 72 0 62 540 62 0 0 688 0 0 625 4950 625 0 1/ 2/ 3/ Energy produced by hydro project that will meet elecrical demand currently met by diesel generation. NBISF-456-9521-7-10D TABLE VII-10E TOGIAK ALTERNATIVE B INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW 2001 ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE Direct!.! Hydro.Y Usell Hea t-!.I Electrical Direct Remaining Hydro Used Unused Hydro Month Demand Energ¥: Hydro Energy Hydro Energy Demand For Heat Energy --------------------------------------------1000 kWh------------------------------------------ Jan 124 Feb 110 Mar 163 Apr 114 May 109 June 46 ,July 76 1 Aug 99 Sep 121 Oct 104 Nov 114 Dec 134 Totals 1314 From Table VII-8E From Table VI-2 83 83 62 62 106 106 174 114 174 109 174 46 174 76 174 99 174 121 174 104 174 114 131 131 1774 1165 0 681 0 0 0 576 0 0 0 616 0 0 60 456 60 0 65 321 65 0 128-176 128 0 98 135 98 0 75 150 75 0 53 236 53 0 70 421 70 0 60 546 60 0 0 696 0 0 609 5010 609 0 1/ 2/ 3/ Energy produced by hydro project that will meet elecrical demand currently met by diesel generation. NBISF-456-9521-7-10E I I I. I. I I I. I ~ I. I. ,. I. ,. I. J. ,. I. I I I I I I , I .... ..... .... ..... ... " ..... .... .11 .... •• - .... •• OIl. •• .... •• ... YEAR TABLE VII-11 ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 KW ENERGY DEMAND, GENERATION, AND USAGE ANNUAL SUMMARY TOGIAK Total ]J Demand Met ~ Required Supplement ~ Demand by Hydro Diesel Generation (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) -- 1980 720 0 720 1981 754 0 754 1982 789 0 789 1983 823 0 823 1984 858 0 858 1985 892 892 0 1986 919 919 0 1987 945 945 0 1988 972 972 0 1989 998 998 0 1990 1025 1025 0 1991 1051 1050 1 1992 1077 1074 3 1993 1103 1099 4 1994 1129 1123 6 1995 1156 1148 8 1996 1182 1172 10 1997 1208 1197 11 1998 1234 1221 13 1999 1260 1246 14 2000 1286 1270 16 2001- 2034 1314 1292 22 1/ 2/ 3/ From Table VII-3. Intermediate values not shown on VII-3 obtained through interpolation . From Tables VII-9A through VII-9E . Intermediate values not shown on those tables obtained through interpolation. Difference between total demand and demand met by hydro . NBI-456-9521-7-11 YEAR 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TABLE VII-12 ALTERNATIVE B INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 KW ENERGY DEMAND, GENERATION, AND USAGE ANNUAL SUMMARY TOGIAK Total l.I Demand Met J:j Required Supplement l! Demand by Hydro Diesel Generation (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) 720 0 720 754 0 754 789 0 789 823 0 823 858 0 858 892 874 18 919 893 26 945 911 34 972 930 42 998 948 50 1025 967 58 1051 985 66 1077 1003 74 1103 1022 81 1129 1040 89 1156 1058 98 1182 1076 106 1208 1094 114 1234 1113 121 1260 1131 129 1286 1149 137 2001- 2034 1314 1165 149 1/ 2/ 3/ From Table VII-3. Intermediate values not shown on VII-3 obtained through interpolation. From Tables VII-lOA through VII-10E. Intermediate values not shown on those tables obtained through interpolation. Difference between total demand and demand met by hydro. NBI-456-9521-7-12 • - • • • .. • .. • .. ., .. • .. • .. • .. • .. .. • • --- • .. • - • • • .. • • • • ·.iIIII1 ... ' ..... , _ .. .... .... _. "" . ..... •• -. .... ..... ... ... -. •• -.. TABLE VII-13 WIND ENERGY EQUIPMENT DATA TOGIAK 10 kW Machine Tower Height (it) 60 Efficiency (%) 20 Mean Power Output (kW) ]J 3.75 Availability (%) Y Annual Usable Energy Capital Cost ($) 1/ Mean Power Output 90 Generation (kWh) 1./ 27,900 34,000 ~ (Watts/Meters 2 ) X (0.7854) X (Diameter 2 ) X (efficiency) / 1000 25 kW Machine 60 20 7.66 90 60,400 50,000 ~/ The availability is the time that the unit can actually operate and is limited by breakdowns, maintenance, and repair. ~/ Energy ~ Mean Power Output X Availability . NBISF-456-9521-7-13 YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TABLE VII-14 WIND ENERGY USAGE TOGIAK Peak System JJ Installed Wind Demand Capacity (kW) (kW) 216 0 223 50 330 50 237 50 242 50 246 50 251 50 255 50 260 50 267 50 273 60 280 60 286 60 293 60 300 60 306 60 313 60 319 60 326 70 Y Usable Wind 11 Generation (1000 kWh) 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 195 2001- 2034 333 70 195 JJ From Table VII-3. Intermediate values obtained by interpolation. 2/ 3/ 10 kW generators. The maximum penetration of asynchronous wind generators into the system is 20%; therefore, not more than 20% of the total peak demand can be met by wind at any time. From Stone and Webster Report and Notes. NBISF-456-9521-7-14 - • - • • • .. • • .. .. .. • • • .. • .. • .. • .. • .. • .. .. .. • .. .. .. .. - • .. .... •• _I ,*1 .... ..... ..... ... " .... .... .. ... ... ... 20 15h1r~---t---t----= -10 a: lJJ ~ ....... 0 0 0 ... - )It .r; 3= ~ -o Z <X ::t IJJ o -I <X :::> Z Z 5 <X 00 100 UNIT COST (MILLS / kWh) 200 300 400 -.. ---------------------------------------------------------- .... COST AND DEMAND FIGURE II. ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN ALASKA EI- " P" '" --. " .' .' Ii", ---... ~ .. -.---"-.-""."--.... "-------_ ..... --". ANNUAL HYDRO ENERGY GENERATION: 288 kW ~. ________ ~. _______ ..-. _ .. __ . __ ' _____ • ____ ~~._. . ------,,0.._. _,____ .",_. __ I I. 5 t ,,-"" i i /---""'"'' HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY AVAILABLE TO MEET ""'''''''''" ,,,,,·----HEATINGOEMANO -__ _ DIRECT ELECTRICAL DEMAND (NOT INCLUDING HEATING DEMAND) L.~.. -_ .... ~...~ .. ~ DIESEL··ENERGY REQUIRED TO MEET I DIRECT ELECTRICAL DEMAND ( NOT t-,,------------------------_______JNCL l,I01N G. _HE AI LN G OEM A"NO. L"",,, __ , __ _ ... ----------- 1.0 r-· ......... ~ ......... ~ • ., ·~·.·~·~HYDROELE:;RIC ENERGY US~:··· ..... . !" TO MEET ENERGY DEMAND (NOT ~---<11'-----, --------4NCLUOING HEATING DEMAND,·----" i ~ INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW) i ~~ _. 1980 YEAR 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 DETAIL DATA r--"~---------""---,,--.,-----,,--.,-,,_,, '''_''_' __ -.--",-. __ "_,,," __ .<C'. "---'> __ . __ '______.___------ i I 20.0; "" o o o - 15.0' ! ~-. ~ --_ .. 10.0 ' , \----,,-- ! I ; r--"" '" -- t ~-,------ TOTAL COMBINED DEMAND", ANNUAL HYDRO ENERGY GENERAT ION: 288 kW -" ---.. -, ,,------,,' -"-----,,-,"--,, """',,"",,,,',,---"----'''---''''------·--.. -----r-----'' j ~ .... ··--.... ·..COIRECTELECTRI"CAC DEMAND (NOT INCLUDING HEATING DEMAND) ° :.-_._--------.-~-.,,--'.-~----~~--~~ 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 YEAR OVERALL DATA J TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FIGURE PROJECTED ANNUAL ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW B-2 " , ", If' p' , . " Ii .. .. :Ii -o o o .. o o o )- (!) a:: w :3 ... -... -.. --.... -.-........ '' .............. -.. -........ -.... --.... -.. . I ANNUAL ENERGY ! ENERGY GENERATION: 432 kW .. i , ~ -.. I I ~ ... i HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY AVAILABLE TO MEET -HEATiNG DEMAND .------ DIRECT ELECTRICAL DEMAND (NOT INCLUDING HEATING DEMAND) DIESEL ENERGY REQUIRED to MEET DIRECT ELECTRICAL DEMAND ( NOT INCLUDING HEATiNG DEMAND)-- HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY USED TO MEET DIRECT ELECTRICAL -.... _.' ..... -....... __ . _____ ._ .... .DEMAND. INSTALLED. .._ .. ____ .. _ .... _ ..... . CAPACITY = 432 kW -_~ --o o o ~ o o o - 20 10 • I TOTAL COMBINED DEMAND .. -.. . . -. ~ .. ,_.--,-.---.-~~. -,. ---.. ---.. ----,.---~---~--.. ANNUAL HYDRO ENERGY GENERATION: 432 kW _w /; •• __ .,_ ___ _ _ '''_ .• ""'" ••• • ....... ~n __ ....................... _ .... _. __ ._. ____ .. ___ • __ .. _._ ... _ •. _ .•• _ ~_ •.• __ •. ,,~.,_w .. ~ ___ ~ ___ • __ ""\'-__ -~. __ •• ___________ , ~. 0 .... 1. ___________ ._-_. __ ~_ •• __ • __ ~ __ ~_. ______ .---"'___._ r= (NOT INCLUDING HEATING DEMAND) o L-... ____ ... _. _*' __ "'_» ____ U __ ' ___ '''''''_><' __ ·_'''._'__ .. 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 YEAR YEAR DETAIL DATA OVERALL DATA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECTED ANNUAL ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW r &3S T 2030 FIGURE B-3 " ,.~ ,~ "" ,. ",' ... , . ,. .. < ... •• -o o o 270 240 210 180 150 120 60 30 J HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY AVAILABLE TO MEET HEATING DEMAND DIRECT ELECTRICAL DEMAND I \ . NOT INCLUDING HEATING DEMAND" I \. ~t 2001 TO /" I '\ " r 2034 7 " ~,-"" (\' / 1990-Y ~ =.If \'--\ / /",-,/ /-.... ....;' '-, \ \ I /. /,,~~ REQUIRED 'DIESEL \\\/ 1/"/ 1985~ GENERAT iOl\! \ 200 I) V // F M A \\.,ij' V J I \i A s o N o 1600 /400 /200 1000 ~TOTAL COM81NED DEMAND 2001 TO 2034 800~ ,.... ~ '-'/ ~1990 /_ ~'../" 1985 j I,.... g 600 ~---"~ . /.J'/ :. 400 '" h~OTAL .&. ,~ /.. ~ ELECTRICAL ~ HYDROELECTRIC "". ~/ DEMSIA. N. D. .. POTENTIAL ._;;.;>'~",tf_~ ____ _ ,. 200 1990 ~:.-.:;:::'/ ........... . ~ _-..-<: -~ .~_20or _----====>=; w -~ =====~~=_ .. _ .. :::;,_=-= ~ 0 . 1985· =-=--.< J F ... AM J J AS 0 N U MONTH MONTH DETAIL DATA OVERALL DATA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECTED MONTHLY ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW FIGURE E[-4 - - - .... ..... - - - - ... - ... - ... - - SECTION VIII PROJECT COSTS A. GENERAL The basic assumptions and methodology used to analyze the total projec-t cost of the three Togiak Hydroelectric Project alternatives and a summary of unit prices are presented in this section. A more detailed breakdown of the cost estimate methodology is contained in Appendix D, Detailed Cost Estimate. The appendix contains the backup data, including the project construction schedules and manpower projections for each alternative. B. COST ESTIMATING BASIS Several alternative methods of preparing cost estimates were considered in preparing this feasibility study. The heavy construction estimating method was determined to be the most real ist ic in this case because of the nature and location of the project . The three alternatives studied for the Togiak Project are Alternative A, a 38-foot concrete dam; Alternative B, a 28-foot concrete dam; and Alternative C, a rockfill dam with a spillway. Two methods of construction for the access road were studied and a summary of the possible combinations of project construction costs is presented in this section. The approach taken to prepare the construction cost esti- mate for each al terna t i ve was to determine the costs of the required permanent materials and equipment, construction equipment, and labor. Due to the location of the project site, NBI-410-9521-VIII VIII-l it was determined that all material and equipment would be transported by barge. For the purposes of this estimate, the material prices at Seattle, Washington, were determined. Shipping costs by barge from Seattle to Togiak were used. Material prices were based on estimating quotes by various manufacturers; commercial barge transportation companies, based at Seat tl e, prov ided shi pping: rate quotations for the appropriate commodity classifications. The skilled labor force was assumed to be brought in by the con tractor. benefi ts and Current wages, based on union scale, premium rates for overtime were used. including The con- struction personnel will be housed in a construction camp set up specifically for this project. Commercial firms that pro- vide these services in Alaska were contacted for Quotes on the cost 0 f this serv ice. The cost s used are based on a cost per person-day. They are January 1982 prices that include setup and demobilization. Alaskan contractors were contacted for construction equip- ment costs, which are current costs based on ownership, opera- tion, and main tenance. Th is est imate al so assumes that the equipment will be barged in from Seattle. As support to the project, commercial air charter firms provided current costs for various sized airplanes suitable for transporting personnel and supplies. A construction schedule was prepared to allocate manpower, material, and equipment costs to each major construction cate- gory. Allowances were made for associated miscellaneous activities reQuired for completion of each item. The direct construction cost was determined from the various costs mentioned above. Along with the various backuD information, NBI-410-9521-VIII VII 1-2 .. .. • - • .. • - • -• .. • • • -• .. .. • .. --.. • - • - • - • ., ---- • ., - ..... - - ~ - .- - ,.,. - .... --- these costs are presented in the Summary of Costs, Tables D-6A, D-6B, and D-6C of Appendix D . C. BASE CASE PLAN Detailed costs were not estimated for the base case plan because that degree of refinement was not necessary. Costs of major items are presented in Section IX, Economic Analysis. D. RECOMMENDED PROJECT COSTS A rigorous method of cost estimating, known as the heavy- construction estimating method, was employed to define all project tasks and then determine the time, materials, quanti- ties, equipment, and skilled personnel required for each task. Using up-to-date Alaskan data for skilled craft wages, equipment ownership and use rates, and material and machinery costs FOB Seattle, the major direct costs for the project -- project mobilization and transportation of materials, equipment and labor, permanent material, and construction camp costs -- were determined. The remote nature of the site will require that construc- tion materials and equipment be barged from Seattle at the outset and be returned to Seattle by the same means after project completion. Barge costs are based on weight and type of commodi ty. Personnel and supplies will be transported by air. It was assumed that the crew will be housed in a catered construction camp for the duration of the project. Camp costs were based on a fixed unit cost per man-day of accommodation. The camp will be large enough to accommodate necessary fluctua- tions in the size of the work force . NBI-410-9521-VIII VIII-3 Subcontracted items included in the estimate are for construction of the transmission line and moving the turbine- generator assembly into place in the powerhouse. A 15 percent contingency factor was applied to direct construction costs, incl ud ing the subcontracts, except for the transmission 1 ine subcontract which includes a 10 percent contingency. A 10 percent markup by the prime contractor for handling and over- head was applied to the transmission line subcontract. The prime contractor's profit was assumed to be 15 percent and was applied to all construction costs except the transmission line subcontract. Engineers' fees for surveying, right-of-way, geology, design, and construction management were included. The legal and administrative costs borne by APA were set at three percent of the direct plus indirect costs. Un it pr ices for the major componen ts of the construction work and the indirect costs are presented in Table VII1-1. Total capital costs of the three Togiak Hydroelectric Project alternatives are summarized in Table V111-2. NB1-410-9521-V111 VII 1-4 • • • • • -• -• • .. .. • • • ... • .. • • ... -- - • .. • ... • -.. ., • - • - ..... ,,"'" TABLE VIII-1A TOGIAK --38-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE ~'''''- CONSTRUCTION COST Unit Item Quantit~ Unit Price Amount Mobilization LS $ $ 521,010 ,... Access Road Excavation, Rock 3,000 CY 57 172,500 -Dam Cofferdams 2,500 CY 91 226,460 ~ Bypass Line -8' Dia. 200 LF 797 159,370 Foundation Treatment 300 SY 146 43,920 Concrete 2,375 CY 454 1,077,230 Reinforcing Steel 3,000 LB 1. 73 5,170 -Fish Ladder 20 CY 690 13,800 Trim (Rock Exc. ) 325 CY 57 18,690 $1,544,640 " ... Intake Trashrack 1 EA 5,750 5,750 Slide Gates 8' 2 EA 52,490 104,980 7Jd $ 110,730 .... Bypass Pumping -Discharge Line 60" 330 LF 401 132,490 Pumping 5 WK 40,988 204,940 $ 33'1,430 -Penstock 5' Dia. Line 40 LF 1,427 57,070 -Excavation, Rock 100 CY 57 5,750 -$ 62,820 Powerhouse Excavation, Rock 200 CY 55 11 ,030 .. Concrete 83 CY 690 57,270 Reinforcing Steel 9,000 LB 1. 73 15,520 Building Construction LS 55,730 .. Turbine and Generator LS 676,200 Auxiliary Systems LS 217,940 $1,033,690 -Transmission Line 13 MI 94,171 $1,224,230 SUBTOTAL $5,007,050 II1II ,,.. -NBI-410-9521-7-1A - TABLE VIII-1A (Continued) Item (SUBTOTAL) Contingencies -15% (Excluding Subcontract Portion of Transmission Line) Contract Cost Engineering Right-of-Way and Geology Design Construction Management Owner's Legal and Administrative TOTAL PROJECT COST NBI-410-9521-7-1A Amount $5,007,050 591,550 $5,598,600 $ 100,000 435,000 215,000 190,400 $6,539,000 • .. • • - • • .. • • • .. • • • .. ---.. -.. -• • .. • - • .. • .. .,. TABLE VllI-1B ,-TOGIAK --28 -FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST -Unit Item Quantit~ Unit Price Amount -Mobilization LS ~ $466,180 Access Road Excavation, Rock 3000 CY 57 $172,500 - Dam Cofferdams 2500 CY 91 226,460 ,-Bypass Line --8-Foot-Diameter 200 LF 797 159,370 Foundation Treatment 280 SY 157 43,920 Concrete 1,560 CY 595 921,780 -Reinforcing Steel 3000 LB 1. 73 5,170 Fish Ladder 20 CY 690 13,800 Trim (Rock Excavation) 325 CY 57 18 2 690 ' ... $1,389,190 Intake ..... Trashrack 1 EA 5750 5,750 Slide Gates 8 Foot 2 EA 52,490 104!980 $ 110,730 -Bypass Plumping '-Discharge Line 60 Inches 330 LF 401 132,490 Pumping 5 WK 40,988 204 2 940 .. $ 337,430 Penstock 5 Inch Diameter Line 30 LF 1571 47,120 -Excavation, Rock 100 CY 57 5!750 -$52,870 .... Powerhouse Excava tion, Rock 200 CY 55 11,030 -Concrete 83 CY 690 57,270 -Reinforcing Steel 9,000 LB 1. 73 15,520 Building Construction LS 55,730 Turbine and Generator LS 650,100 Auxiliary Systems LS 209!530 -999,180 Transmission Line 13 ~I 94,171 $1,224,230 .... Subtotal $4,752,310 -- NBI-410-9521-7-1B - Item Transmission Contingencies -15% TABLE VIII-1B (Continued) Subtotal (Excluding Subcontract Portion of Transmission Line) Contract Cost Engineering Right-of-Way and Geology Design Construction Management Owner's Legal and Administrative TOTAL PROJECT COST NBI-410-9521-7-1B Amount $4,752,310 553,290 $5,305,600 100,000 435,000 415,000 181 2 700 $6,237,300 • • • .. • - • - • -• .. .. -• • • .. • .. .. ---.. - • - • - • .. • .. --.. - ... .. TABLE VIII-1C TOGIAK ROCKFILL DAM ALTERNATIVE ... CONSTRUCTION COST -Unit Item Quantity Unit Price Amount Mobilization LS $ $514,720 .... Access Road Excavation, Rock 3,000 CY 18 53,700 Wii!JiII Dam Cofferdams 2,500 CY 40 98,930 Bypass Line, 8' Dia. 300 LF 787 236,220 Foundation Treatment 1,100 SY 64 70,220 .-Trim (Rock Exc.) 325 CY 18 5,820 Conc. Membrane and Toe Slab 280 CY 1,539 430,850 Reinforcing Steel 32,200 LB 1. 73 55,540 -Rockfill 11,550 CY 40 457,100 Steel Cribbing 75,300 LB 1. 03 77,830 $1,432,510 -Intake Slide Gate -8' Dia. 2 EA 22,580 45,160 Slide Gate W/Hoist -8' Dia. 1 EA 56,440 56,440 Slide Gate W/Hoist -5' Dia. 1 EA 45,160 45,160 Trashrack 2 EA 9,028 18,060 Concrete 10 CY 1,628 16,280 $ 181,100 .... Bypass Pumping Discharge Line 330 LF 383 126,240 Pumping 2 WK 62,531 125,060 .. $ 251,300 -Penstock 5' Dia. Line 93 LF 1,177 109,490 -Excavation, Rock 300 CY 18 5,370 Concrete 10 CY 1,628 16,280 $ 131,140 -Spillway Excavation, Rock 14,850 CY 18 265,820 .... Concrete 71 CY 1,539 109,250 -Reinforcing Steel 8,165 LB 1. 73 14,090 $ 389,160 Powerhouse -Excavation, Rock 200 CY 18 3,580 Concrete 83 CY 1,539 127,720 Reinforcing Steel 9,545 LB 1. 73 16,470 - -NBI-410-9521-7-1C - TABLE VI II-1C (continued) Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Powerhouse (Cont'd) Building Construction Turbine and Generator Auxiliary Systems Miscellaneous Fish Ladder Transmission Line Contingencies -15% (Excluding Subcontract Portion of Transmission Line) Contract Cost Engineering Right-of-Way & Geology Design Construction Management Owner's Legal and Administrative 20 13 LS LS LS CY 1,628 MI 94,171 SUBTOTAL TOTAL PROJECT COST NBI-410-9521-7-1C Amount 58,420 676,450 218,040 $1,100,770 $ 32,570 $1,224,230 $5,311,200 637,100 $5,948,300 $ 100,000 460,000 290,000 202,500 $6,950,800 • ., • -.. • • • - • -• • .. • • • .. ---- • --- • - • - • - • - • - - - ,-Project Alternative A. 38-Foot Concrete B. 28-Foot Concrete -C Rockfill Dam .... ..... - - --- - -NBI-410-9521-8-2 TABLE VIII-2 TOGIAK POWER PROJECT SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS WITH ROAD ALTERNATIVES Total Cost Site with 4.6 Mile Construction Road Cost $508,200 Dam $6,539,000 $7,047,200 Dam 6,237,300 6,745,500 6,950,800 7,459,000 Total Cost with 11.6 Mile Road $1,630 ,600 $8,169,600 7,867,900 8,581,400 - - - - - - - SECTION IX ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A. GENERAL The economic parameters and methodology used to analyze the economic feasibility of the Togiak Power Project and the resul ts of the analysis are presented in this section. The methodology and criteria used for this analysis are in accord- ance with the standards set forth by APA. The present worth of the total costs of the base case as developed in Section VII is compared to the present worth of the total costs of the pro- posed hydroelectric project in order to determine the more advantageous scheme for development. Based on the analyses, one of the hydroelectric alternatives appears to have marginal economic feasibility. B. PROJECT ANALYSIS PARAMETERS The assumptions that form the basis for this analysis are founded to as great an extent as possible on the APA standard criteria. Wherever necessary, additional assumptions were based on the best available information and on experience. The data previously developed in Section VII, Project Energy Planning, and Sect ion VI I I, Project Costs, are exten- sively utilized in this analysis. The planning period and the economic evaluation period both begin with January 1982. The hydroelectric project is assumed to be on-line by January 1985, and the analysis extends 50 years beyond this time. The last year of the analysis is 2034 and the length of the evaluation period is 53 years. The plan- NBI-410-9521-IX IX-1 ning period for meeting future demands assumes a leveling of growth in 20 years, and it includes the year 2001. For purposes of this analysis, a no-inflation environment was assumed. The values of diesel fuel and lubricating oil were escalated at 2.6 percent annually to account for the esca- lation of oil prices at a rate greater than inflation. The values were escalated for the duration of the planning period, with the last escalation occurring in the year 2001. The costs were held constant at the 2001 value for the remainder of the period of economic evaluation through 2034. The discount rate for present worth analysis was assumed to be three percent. All costs were annualized and discounted to January 1982. The interest rate for all amortization and sink- ing funds was assumed to be three percent. are in accordance with the APA criteria. These assumptions The economic life of the hydroelectric project was assumed to be 50 years. The economic project life for diesels was assumed to be 20 years for the base case and 30 years for the hydroelectric alternative; the diesels were given a longer life for the hydroelectric al ternative because they would operate significantly less than they would for the base case. Operation and maintenance costs were assigned to the year during which they would occur. Capital costs were assigned to the year in which they would occur. They were assumed to be equal to the total investment cost because the construction periods for all items included in the analysis were less than one year. Thus no interest during construction was included. The first amortization payment was shown in the year following the capital cost. NBI-410-9521-IX IX-2 • .. ., ., .. • -.. - • • • • • .. • • - • .. • - • -• -.. - • .. .. -.. -.. - - .- - - - - - - - -- Amort iza t ion costs, operation and maintenance costs, and benefits were assumed to occur at the end of the year and were shown in the year that they actually occurred. Replacement costs were handled by the use of a sinking fund. Replacement sinking funds were assumed to occur in per- petuity. All costs that were common to all plans, such as local distribution costs, were excluded. An underground rural distribution cable would be placed across Togiak Harbor to con- nect Twin Hills to the Togiak system, at a cost of about $300,000; however, since this cost would be common to all cases, it was not considered. The effects of installing waste heat recovery, and the benefi t obtainable form wind genera t ion were considered separately and were applied as a reduction in cost to the base case. The benefit for space heating use for the alternative hydroelectr ic cases also was treated separately, and was con- sidered to be a benefit. C. BASE CASE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The base case plan was originally formulated as a continua- tion of the existing diesel system supplemented by waste heat recovery. This plan was later modified to include wind genera- tion. The base case as originally formulated is presented below, and is followed by the wind energy analysis. NBI-410-9521-IX IX-3 1. Original Plan The base case plan was analyzed to determine the present worth of the total cost of the base case plan over the entire period of analysis. The cost of the base case plan would be the sum of the costs of replacing and expanding the existing diesel generation system, insurance, operation and maintenance, lubrication oil, and fuel oil. These costs were all assigned to the year of their occurrence, and the total annual cost of the existing system was calculated for each year of the period of economic evaluation. These annual costs were then discount- ed at three percent interest to January 1982. They were then summed to find the total present worth of the base case alter- native. The costs of replacing and expanding the plant were assumed to cover amortization on a new plant every 20 years, with the first replacement occurring in 15 years. The cost of replace- ment was taken as $950,000. This cost is consistent wi th the current market. The plant has a firm capcity of 460 kW (the largest unit is omitted in calculating firm capaci ty); this will be increased to 600 kW in 1996. The peak power demand for 2001 as determined in Section VII of this report is 333 kW; therefore, the firm capacity assumed for this analysis is con- servative. The cost of insuring the power $0.83 per $100 of replacement value. rent insurance rates for Alaska. assumed to have a replacement value plant was assumed to be This rate represents cur- The existing plant was of $800,000 and it was treated as a sunk cost for all cases. If it were desired to develop average unit costs representative of total costs in earlier years, an assumption wi th regard to fixed charges on the existing plant would need to be made. NBI-410-9521-IX IX-4 .. .. .. -• - • • • -• .. II • ... • • • .. - • .. • -• .. • --lit • ... .. - - - - .- - - - - - - --- - The costs of operation and maintenance reflect experience and they were assumed to be the sum of the maintenance cost, calculated as $17 per megawatt-hour of energy produced, and the cost of an operator, which was taken as $60,000 per year. The total cost of lubrication oil was calculated from the unit cost of lubrication oil and the amount of lubrication oil required. The lubrication oil rate of use was assumed to be 0.60 gallons per megawatt-hour and the cost of lubrication oil was assumed to be $3.95 per gallon for January 1982. The cost of 1 ubrica tion oil was also escalated at 2.6 percent for the duration of the planning period to be consistent with treatment of all petroleum products . The total cost of fuel oil was calculated from the cost per gallon of fuel oil and the anticipated rate of fuel oil con- sumpt ion. The average energy val ue of fuel oi 1 was taken as 138,000 Btu/gallon and the average overall efficiency of the diesel generators was assumed to be 22 percent; using these criteria, one gallon of oil will produce 9.0 kWh of electric- ity. The fuel oil cost for Togiak was established at $1.55 per gallon for January 1982 and escalated according to the pre- viously mentioned criteria for real price changes. The annual costs over the project economic study period of the base case diesel generation for operations and maintenance, lubrication oil, and fuel oil are presented in Tables IX-1, IX- 2 and IX-3, respect i vely, and combined in Table IX-4 to show the annual cost for the base case for each year of economic evaluation. After the annual cost of the base case plan was calculated, the savings possible from waste heat recovery were estimated. The total amount of heat available annually for recovery would be approximately equivalent in heat output to twice the amount of electrici ty generated annually by the plant. Waste heat NBI-410-9521-IX IX-5 recovery at Togiak would be from the cooling water jackets, the oil cooling system, and from the exhaust gases. Waste heat recovery is addressed in greater detail in Section VII of this report. The total waste heat available from the cooling water jackets and oil cooling system would be about equal to the electrical output of the generator. of the heat is recoverable. An Of this amount, almost all additional equal amount of waste heat is available from the exhaust heat; about 40 percent of this heat is recoverable. however, only Only about 60 percent of the total recoverable waste heat would have an end use in 1982 as marketable heat because of beat generated during the summer when it is not needed for such inst i tut ional users as the school. The increase in total generation and total demand over the planning period was assumed to result in an annual growth rate for the amount of usable waste heat of about 1.5 percent. The percentage of usable waste heat and the growth rate in the amount of usable waste heat are based on recent experience wi th projects of this nature in Alaska. Data for installations of this nature are scarce, and accurate pred ict ions are d ifficul t to make. The values presented here are conservative. The costs associated with waste heat recovery are the cost of installation and the costs of operation and maintenance. The installation cost includes the cost of the equipment in the powerhouse, the cost of insulated, buried pipes from the power- house to the point of use, and the cost of installing radiators at the points of use. The waste heat recovery equipment for heat recovery from the hot exhaust gases would have to be replaced every 10 years. The rest of the equipment in the powerhouse would require replacement when the diesel engines are replaced. The remainder of the equipment for waste heat recovery would not need to be replaced for the entire period of economic evaluation. The heat would be avaialble for use up to 2000 feet from the power plant. NBI-410-9521-IX IX-6 • • • • • .. • • • -• • • .. • -• .. .. .. • .. • -• • • .. • .. • .. • -• • • .... .... .... ,iOIIlI .. ~ ..... .. II .11 ..... The initial cost of the waste heat recovery system would be $325,000, and the replacement cost would be about $200,000 every time the diesel engines are replaced, plus about $120,000 for the interim replacements of the exhaust heat recovery equipment. The schedule of replacement costs for the waste heat recovery equipment is presented as Table IX-5. The opera- tion and maintenance of the system would be very minimal and probably would not exceed $1,000 per year. Using these data, the annual waste heat recovery costs are presented in Table IX-6. The annual savings realizable from waste heat recovery for each year of operation were calculated as a credit for the oil displaced by waste heat recovery. The resul t was reduced by the annual costs from Table IX-6 to yield an annual savings stream for the project, as presented in Table IX-7 . The annual base case diesel generation costs and present worth of these costs are presented in Table IX-8 along with the waste heat recovery savings and the present worth of the sav- ings. As shown, the total January 1982 present worth of the costs of the base case would be $11,027,600 and the present worth of the waste heat recovery savings would be $997,800 yielding a net present worth of the base case costs of $10,029,800 . 2. Wind Generation Plan The possibility of installing wind-powered generators as part of the base case was also considered. Wind powered generation is discussed in detail in Section VII, including installed capacities and energy generation. The benefi ts attributable to wind generation would be a reduction in the amount of fuel consumed by the diesel genera- tors, and a slight decrease in the lubrication and maintenance NBI-410-9521-IX IX-7 costs associated with the diesel generation. These costs are summarized in Tables IX-lA, IX-2A and IX-3A, which are included behind Table IX-36. These tables are combined in Table IX- 4A. The costs of install ing, replacing, and maintaining the diesels would not be affected by the addition of wind genera- tion because the full standby diesel capacity would always be required, the diesels would not have enough reduction in opera- tion to increase their useful 1 i ves, and the operator would receive the same salary regardless of how often the diesels operate. The cost of 10 kW wind turbines and generators was assumed to be $34,000 each, installed. The operation and maintenance cost for the wind turbines was assumed as five percent of the capital cost. The wind turbines were assumed to have a useful life of 15 years. A summary of costs associated with this installation is presented as Table IX-5A. The credits for reduction in diesel generation were then adjusted by the cost of wind generation to yield the annual credi t at tainable from wind generation. This credit was dis- counted to January 1982 at three percent interest. The present worth of the wind generation credit is $540,700. This present worth is summarized in Table IX-6A. D. ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ECONOMIC ANALYSES The al ternative hydroelectric project plans were analyzed to determine the present worth of the total cost of the alter- na ti ve proj ects over the period of economic eval ua tion. The cost of the projects would include the costs of building, replacing, operating and maintaining the new hydroelectric development and the costs associated with replacing and expand- ing the existing diesel system, including insurance, operation and maintenance, lubrication oil, and fuel oil for the diesel system. It would be necessary to maintain sufficient diesel NBI-410-9521-IX IX-8 .. .. .. .. .. .. • .. • .. .. .. .. .. • a • .. • .. • • .. .. .. • .. .. .. .. .. • .. .. .. .. .. ... .... .... ... ... ... .,. .... , .... •• ..... capaci ty to meet projected power demands in the event of an outage of the hydroelectric plant. This has been previously discussed in Section VII and it is illustrated in Table IX- 12. The diesel capaci ty would also be required at times when the demand on the system is greater than can be met by the hydroelectric generation. The cost of the diesel supplement to hydroelectric genera- tion was calculated in the same manner as for the base case, with the following differences: the diesels supplied only the demand that could not be met by the hydroelectric plant; the plant would be replaced every 30 years instead of 20 years after the initial replacement in 15 years; only one-half of the operator's salary would be assigned to the cost of the diesel after the plant goes on-line in 1985, the other half being assigned to the hydroelectric project; and the diesels would not operate often enough to justify waste heat recovery. A total of three al ternative hydroelectric projects were considered at Togiak: Al terna ti ve A, a concrete dam wi th an installed capacity of 432kW; Alternative B, a concrete dam with an installed capacity of 288kW; and Alternative C, a rockfill dam with an installed capacity of 432 kW. The procedures and resul ts of the economic eval ua tion are presented below for Alternative A. Alternative A appears to be the most attractive of the three potential hydroelectric proj- ects. The analysis of Alternatives Band C was similar to the analysis of Alternative A, and information regarding these two alternatives is included in the tables at the end of this section . The annual costs over the project economic study period of the supplemental diesel system for the al terna ti ve hydroelec- tric project for operation and maintenance, lubrication oil and fuel oil are presented in Tables IX-9, IX-10, IX-11, respec- NBI-410-9521-IX IX-9 tively. These costs are combined in Table IX-12 to present the annual cost for the supplemental diesel generation for each year of the economic evaluation. These costs are applicable to Al terna t i ves A & C; the diesel costs associated wi th Al terna- tive B are presented in Tables IX-17 through IX-20. These costs were all calculated using the previously stated criteria. The capital cost of $6,539,000 for the hydroelectric power plant was amortized at three percent over a period of 50 years from the on-line date of the power project. The cost of the operation and maintenance was taken as 1.5 percent of the con- tract cost; this is based on U.S. Bureau of Reclamation practice. Two replacement costs were considered for the hydroelectric power plant: the cost of replacing the turbine runner after 25 years of operation, and the cost of replacing the transmission line that would tie the plant to the village distribution system every 30 years. The economic life of transmission lines was established based on experience with similar projects in Alaska. The cost of replacing the runner was estimated as $135,000, and the cost of replacing the lines was estimated as $1,224,200. Sinking funds were established to meet these costs. The annual costs of the hydroelectric portion of the Alter- native A plan are presented in Table IX-13. This table includes the amortization, operation and maintenance, and replacement costs. These costs are then combined with the annual costs for the supplemental diesel system from Table IX- 12 and presented as the combined diesel and hydroelectric costs in Table IX-14. The similar costs for Al ternative C are pre- sented in Tables IX-15 and IX-16 and for Alternative B in Tables IX-21 and IX-22. The present worth of the annual cost of each project is presented as Table IX-23. NBI-410-9521-IX IX-10 • -.. -.. -.. .. • .. • .. .. .. • • • .. • III .. .. • -.. .. • .. • .. III .. -• • .. - ., .... .... .... ... .... .... - - - - - - - The proposed hydroelectric power plant would also generate power in excess of the village's direct demand during certain times of the year. Any excess hydroelectric energy could be used for space heating in the village. The d istr ibution of hydroelectric generation is addressed in Chapter VII . The space heating energy available from hydroelectric gen- eration would be equivalent to one gallon of oil for every 28.3 kWh of available electricity. This conversion factor is based on an average ener!!y value for fuel oil of 138,000 BTU/gallon and 70 percent efficiency. The values used for the demand for energy for space heating are from Tables VII-9A to VII-9E and VII-lOA to VlI-10E. The use of electrici ty for space heating would be con- trolled automatically in order to take advantage of as much excess electricity as possible . The system design and cost estimate are included as Appendix G. The annual savings for the hydroelectric energy used for space heating for each alternative are presented in Tables IX- 24 and IX-25. These tables indicate the annual hydroelectric energy available for the heat demand, the equivalent amount and cost of the fuel oil displaced, annual cost of the electric space heating, and the resulting net annual savings. The present worth of these savings is presented in Table IX-26. The present worth of the space heating credit would be $2,463,000 for Alternatives A and C and $1,234,800 for Alterna- tive B. The hydroelectric project would require the construction of a road regardless of which alternative is selected. The total length of the road would be 11.6 miles. The first seven miles of road could be used as access to a gravel borrow area; this gravel could be used for airport construction, and it might be possible to build part of the road in conjunction with the air- NBI-410-9521-IX IX-11 port improvements. In either case, maintenance of the road would be associated with the hydroelectric project. A summary of the road costs is presented as Table IX-27. E. ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF PROJECTS The base case plan and the alternative hydroelectric proj- ects can be compared on the basis of the present worth of costs associated with each plan. All plans were formulated to satisfy the same energy demand, and the plan having the lowest present worth of costs would be the most advantageous plan for development. In addition to costs of diesel generation and costs associated with the hydroelectric project, costs and benefits from waste heat recovery, wind energy, and space heating were also considered. For purposes of determining the relative economic merit of each hydroelectric project, the costs of each hydroelectric project, including supplemental diesel genera- tion, were considered separately from all other costs. The cost of the base case was considered to be a benefi t. The savings from waste heat recovery and wind energy were applied as reductions to this benefit. The credits for the space heat- ing were added to the benefit. A summary of present worths of benefits and costs is presented as Tables IX-28, IX-29, and IX- 30. Alternative A appears to be the most attractive project of the al terna ti ve hydroelectr ic projects. The present worth of benefits associated with this project, as shown in Table IX-28, would be $11,950,500. This compares to a present worth of costs of $11,668,600 with the cost of the 4.6 mile road includ- ed, or $12,758,400 wi th the cost of the 11. 6 mile road. The project is marginally feasibile if the first seven miles of the road are built as part of the airport reconstruction. The benefit/cost ratio for Alternative A would be 1.024 with the 4.6 mile road and 0.937 with the 11.6 mile road. Benefit/Cost NBI-410-9521-IX IX-12 -- • --- • - • .. • .. • .. • .. • .. • .. .. .. ., • .. • .. • .. .. .. .. .. • .. .. - - ratios for all three al ternatives are presented in Tables IX- 31, IX-32, and IX-33. F. UNIT COSTS AND PROJECT TIMING -As requested by APA, the unit energy cost of the base case - - - - - - - - and the Al ternative A hydroelectric project plans were calculated on an annual basis. These values are presented as Tables IX-34, IX-35, and IX-36 and are shown graphically on Figure IX-1. The optimum timing for project development would occur when the unit cost of the exist ing system exceeds the unit cost of the proposed hydroelectric project. Because actual costs are important for this comparison, the waste heat recovery and wind energy credits were associated with the base case and consider- ed to be reductions in cost, while the the space heating credits were considered as reductions in the cost of the hydro- electric project. The costs of the two schemes are shown with and without adjustments. Inspection of Figure IX-1 reveals a number of discontinu- i ties. These discontinuities are due to large changes in the net annual cash flow of each configuration that are caused by capi tal expenses or increases in generating capacity. A dis- continuity showing an increase in the unit cost of energy indicates that the annual cost of a capital expenditure exceeds the annual value of the increase in generation, if any, result- ing from that cost. This type of discontinuity normally accompanies a major investment, such as installation of a hydroelectric facility or expansion of diesel plant capacity; this type of discontinuity would also accompany expenses assoc- ia ted with the power system that do not result in increased generation, such as construction of fuel storage facilities. NBI-410-9521-IX IX-13 Downward discontinuities on Figure IX-1 indicate expendi- tures that result from an annual increase in generation having grea ter value than the annual cost of the increase. This si tua tion resul ts from the installation of conservation methods, such as waste heat recovery. The general downward sloping trend of the unit cost of the various levels of the hydroelectric project are the result of a gradual increase, over time, of the amount of hydroelectric energy that can be used. These lines ind ica te an advantage associa ted with hydroelectric projects; al though the ini tial cost of a project of this nature is high, the variable annual costs are low. The general upward trend of the base case unit annual cost is the result of the increase in total demand for electricity and the increase in the cost of oil. For the base case plan, increasing demand must be met primarily by diesel generation, giving this plan a high variable annual cost. All plans considered have the same unit cost for 1981 and 1982; the first discontinuity in Figure IX-1 occurs at the end of 1982. The hydroelectric costs jump upward due to the cost of road construction and the base case costs move downward due to installation of waste heat recovery and wind generation. The hydroelectric project costs jump upward again in 1984 with the construction of the hydroelectric project. After the hydroelectric project comes on line in 1985, the costs associated with the hydroelectric project decrease due to increased usage of hydroelectric generation while the diesel costs increase due to increased cost of diesel generation. The cost of all plans jumps upward in cost in 1996 when the exist- ing diesel system would be replaced and expanded. All of the plans reflect an addi tional increase in cost in 2001 that is caused by the construction of new fuel storage facilities. The NBI-410-952l-IX IX-14 • .. • --.. • .. • .. • .. • • • .. • .. • .. • .. • - • .. • - • .. • -• - • .. • - - - - - - .- - - .- '"'" - - - - - cost of the base case al ternative including wind generation jumps downward in 1998 when the wind generating capacity is increased. The decrease in the cost of the plans including waste heat recovery that occurs in 2005 is due to the differ- ence between the replacement schedule for the diesel engines and the economic lives assigned to the different components of the waste heat recovery system; see Table IX-5. Inspection of Figure IX-1 indicates that the project is marginal and would be viable for development only if the cost of seven mi les of the access road can be associated with the airport reconstruction. The project would become viable for development by 1995. NBI-410-9521-IX IX-15 - - - - - "'" ..... - - .- ,' ... - - - - Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-34 TABLE IX-1 BASE CASE DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS TOGIAK Annuall.! Energy Production Maintenance2/ Operation3/ (1000 kWh) ($) ($) - 789 13,400 60,000 823 14,000 60,000 858 14,600 60,000 892 15,200 60,000 919 15,600 60,000 945 16,100 60,000 972 16,500 60,000 998 17,000 60,000 1,025 17,400 60,000 1,051 17,900 60,000 1,077 18,300 60,000 1,103 18,800 60,000 1,129 19,200 60,000 1,156 19,700 60,000 1,182 20,100 60,000 1,208 20,500 60,000 1,234 21,000 60,000 1,260 21,400 60,000 1,286 21,900 60,000 1,314 22,300 60,000 1,314 22,300 60,000 1/ From Table VII-11. Cost ($) 73,400 74,000 74,600 75,200 75,600 76,100 76,500 77,000 77,400 77,900 78,300 78,800 79,200 79,700 80,100 80,500 81,000 81,400 81,900 82,300 82,300 2/ $17 per megawatt-hour. Values rounded to nearest $100. 3/ $60,000 for operator. NBI-410-9521-IX-1 Annuaill Energy Production Year (1000 kWh) 1982 789 1983 823 1984 858 1985 892 1986 919 1987 945 1988 972 1989 998 1990 1,025 1991 1,051 1992 1,077 1993 1,103 1994 1,129 1995 1,156 1996 1,182 1997 1,208 1998 1,234 1999 1,260 2000 1,286 2001 1,314 TABLE IX-2 BASE CASE DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS TOGIAK Lubricatiou.V Lubrication...Y Oil Oil Cost (gallons) ($/gallon) 473 3.95 494 4.05 515 4.16 535 4.27 551 4.38 567 4.49 583 4.61 599 4.73 615 4.85 631 4.98 646 5.11 662 5.24 677 5.37 694 5.51 709 5.66 725 5.81 740 5.96 756 6.11 772 6.27 788 6.43 2002- 2034 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 1,314 788 From Table VlI-11. 0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour. Cost escalated at 2.6% annually. Values rounded to nearest $100. NBI-410-9521-IX-2 6.43 • .. • .. ---- • Lubrication.!! .. Oil Cost ($) lilt • 1,900 • 2,000 2,100 • 2,300 2,400 • 2,500 .. 2,700 2,800 • 3,000 .. 3,100 3,300 .. 3,500 .. 3,600 3,800 .. 4,000 • 4,200 4,400 • 4,600 • 4,800 5,100 • .. 5,100 • .. • .. • .. • III • .. • - - ,til .~- - .,., ..., , .... ,.., - - --.. ' ... --.. TABLE IX-3 BASE CASE DIESEL FUEL OIL COSTS TOGIAK Annua1.ll Equivalen21 Fuel l! FueL!! Energy Production Oil Oil Cost Oil Cost Year (1000 kWh) (gallons) ($/gallon) ($) -- 1982 789 87,700 1.55 135,900 1983 823 91,400 1.59 145,300 1984 858 95,300 1.63 155,300 1985 892 99,100 1.67 165,500 1986 919 102,100 1. 72 175,600 1987 945 105,000 1. 76 184,800 1988 972 108,000 1. 81 195,500 1989 998 110,900 1.86 206,300 1990 1,025 113,900 1.90 216,400 1991 1,051 116,800 1.95 227,800 1992 1,077 119,700 2.00 239,400 1993 1,103 122,500 2.06 252,400 1994 1,129 125,400 2.11 264,600 1995 1,156 128,400 2.16 277,300 1996 1,182 131,300 2.22 291,500 1997 1,208 134,200 2.28 306,000 1998 1,234 137,100 2.34 320,800 1999 1,260 140,000 2.40 336,000 2000 1,286 142,900 2.46 351,500 2001 1,314 146,000 2.52 367,900 2002-34 1,314 146,000 2.52 367,900 From Table VII-11. 1/ 2/ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-hour. gallons. Rounded to nearest 100 3/ 4/ Cost escalated at 2.6% annually. Values rounded to nearest $100 . NBI-410-9521-IX-3 I • TABLE IX-4 BASE CASE DIESEL COSTS TOOIAK Schedule ofY Annua~ Operation!! Lubricatiot2! Fueill Firm Replacement Insuranct2! and Annual Capacity Investments Costs Maintenance Oil Oil Diesel Cost Year (kW) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ...J.!L ($) 1982 460 6,600 73,400 1,900 135,900 217,800 1983 460 6,600 74,000 2,000 145,300 227,900 1984 460 6,600 74,600 2,100 155,300 238,600 1985 460 6,600 75,200 2,300 165,500 249,600 1986 460 6,600 75,600 2,400 175,600 260,200 1987 460 6,600 76,100 2,500 184,800 270,000 1988 460 6,600 76,500 2,700 195,500 281,300 1989 460 6,600 77,000 2,800 206,300 292,700 1990 460 6,600 77,400 3,000 216,400 303,400 1991 460 6,600 77,900 3,100 227,800 315,400 1992 460 6,600 78,300 3,300 239,400 327,600 1993 460 6,600 78,800 3,500 252,400 341,300 1994 460 6,600 79,200 3,600 264,600 354,000 1995 460 6,600 79,700 3,800 277,300 367,400 1996 600 950,000 6,600 80,100 4,000 291,500 382,200 1997 600 63,800 7,900 80,500 4,200 306,000 462,400 1998 600 63,800 7,900 81,000 4,400 320,800 477,900 1999 600 63,800 7,900 81,400 4,600 336,000 493,700 2000 600 63,800 7,900 81,900 4,800 351,500 509,900 2001 600 125,000 63,800 7,900 82,300 5,100 367,900 527,000 2002-21 600 72,200 7,900 82,300 5,100 367,900 535,400 2022-34 600 63,800 7,900 82,300 5,100 367,900 527,000 ~ Replace diesel in 15 years; then replace plant every 20 years. Replace fuel tank in 2001. Includes plant replacement and fuel tank addition. The fuel tank addition was amortized over the period 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 2002-2021. The replacement value for the first 15 years is $800,000, and then tion period. Insurance cost is $0.83 per $100 replacement value. From Table IX-I. From Table IX-2. From Table IX-3. NBI-410-9521-IX-4 I I I I I I I I I • . -. , . f • , . I I $950,000 for the remainder of the evalua- , I I • • • , I • • II , I I I ... - '. - - - .- - - - - - - --- - Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006- 2034 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ TABLE IX-5 BASE CASE WASTE HEAT RECOVERY REPLACEMENT COST TOGIAK Schedu1eli SinkingY Schedul~ Sinkin~ Tota0 of of Sinking Investment Fund Investment Fund Fund ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 10,500 22,200 11,700 120,000 10,500 22,200 11,700 7,700 19,400 11,700 7,700 19,400 11,700 7,700 19,400 200 OOo.!! 11,700 7,700 19,400 , 7,400 7,700 15,100 7,400 7,700 15,100 7,400 7,700 15,100 7,400 7,700 15,100 7,400 7,700 15,100 7,400 7,700 15,100 7,400 7,700 15,100 7,400 7,700 15,100 7,400 120,000 7,700 15,100 7,400 4,500 11,900 Replace all heat recovery equipment ~n the powerhouse in 1996, 2006, and 2026, at a cost of $200,000. Timing matches plant replacement. Sinking Fund for 1983-1996 is $200,000, 3%, and 14 fund is $200,000, 3%, and 20 years, in perpetuity. Replace exhaust heat recovery equipment after Replacement included in sinking fund for all replacement each 10 years after total replacement. in 1992, 2005, and 2025. years. After 1996, 10 years (1992); equipment; interim Interim replacements First replacement is 10 years at 3%; then 13 years at 3%; then 20 years at 3% in perpetuity. This is the interim replacement; maximum time between replacements of exhaust heat recovery equipment is 10 years. All values rounded to nearest $100. NBI-410-9521-IX5 TABLE IX-6 BASE CASE WASTE HEAT RECOVERY ANNUAL COST TOGIAK Schedule of Schedule oi!:...l Operation Capital Amortization!! Replacement Sinking and Annual Investment Investment Fund Maintenance Cost Year ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) -- 1982 325,000 0 1983 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1984 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1985 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1986 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1987 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1988 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1989 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1990 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1991 12,400 22,200 1,000 35,600 1992 12,400 120,000 22,200 1,000 35,600 1993 12,400 19,400 1,000 32,800 1994 12,400 19,400 1,000 32,800 1995 12,400 19,400 1,000 32,800 1996 12,400 200,000 19,400 1,000 32,800 1997 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 1998 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 1999 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 2000 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 2001 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 2002 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 2003 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 2004 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 2005 12,400 15,100 1,000 28,500 2006-34 12,400 11,900 1,000 25,300 1/ 52 years at 3%. 2/ From Table IX-5. NBI-410-9521-IX-5 I • I I I I 'I I I I. f. •• • W " ,. • I ,. ,. I. I. I I I I I I I j I I I t I i t t t I I I i TABLE IX-7 BASE CASE WASTE HEAT RECOVERY SAVINGS TOGIAK Oill! of~ Annual~ Net Credi tY Schedule Annual Equivalent Oil Cost Investment Cost Savings Year (gals) ($ gal) ($) ($) ($) ($) 1982 1.55 0 325,000 0 0 1983 25,670 1.59 40,800 35,600 5,200 1984 26,060 1.63 42,500 35,600 6,900 1985 26,460 1.67 44,200 35,600 8,600 1986 26,850 1. 72 46,200 35,600 10,600 1987 27,260 1. 76 48,000 35,600 12,400 1988 27,660 1.81 50,100 35,600 14,500 1989 28,080 1.86 52,200 35,600 16,600 1990 28,500 1.90 54,200 35,600 18,600 1991 28,930 1.95 56,400 35,600 20,800 1992 29,360 2.00 58,700 120,000 35,600 23,100 1993 29,800 2.06 61,400 32,800 28,600 1994 30,250 2.11 63,800 32,800 31,000 1995 30,700 2.16 66,300 32,800 33,500 1996 31,160 2.22 69,200 200,000 32,800 36,400 1997 31,630 2.28 72,100 28,500 43,600 1998 32,110 2.34 75,100 28,500 46,600 1999 32,590 2.40 78,200 28,500 49,700 2000 33,080 2.46 81,400 28,500 52,900 2001 33,570 2.52 84,600 28,500 56,100 2002 33,570 2.52 84,600 28,500 56,100 2003 33,570 2.52 84,600 28,500 56,100 2004 33,570 2.52 84,600 28,500 56,100 2005 33,570 2.52 84,600 28,500 56,100 2006- 2034 33,570 2.52 84,600 25,300 59,300 1/ See text, pages IX-4 through IX-6. 2/ Values rounded to nearest $100. 3/ From Table IX-6. NBI-410-9521-IX-6 .. - TABLE IX-8 .. BASE CASE .' SUMMARY TOGIAK .. Wast e Rea ti/ - Annual Energyl! Annual Diese12/ Present3/ Recovery Present~/ • Demand Cost Worth -Savings Worth Year (1000 kWh) ($) ($) ($) ($) - 1982 789 217,800 211,500 0 0 • 1983 823 227,900 214,800 5,200 4,900 .. 1984 858 238,600 218,300 6,900 6,300 1985 892 249,600 221,800 8,600 7,600 • 1986 919 260,200 224,400 10,600 9,100 III 1987 945 270,000 226,100 12,400 10,400 1988 972 281,300 228,700 14,500 11,800 • 1989 998 292,700 231,100 16,600 13,100 • 1990 1025 303,400 232,500 18,600 14,300 1991 1051 315,400 234,700 20,800 15,500 .. 1992 1077 327,600 236,700 23,100 16,700 .. 1993 1103 341,300 239,400 28,600 20,100 1994 1129 354,000 241,100 31,000 21,100 • 1995 1155 367,400 242,900 33,500 22,100 • 1996 1182 382,200 245,300 36,400 23,400 1997 1208 462,400 288,200 43,600 27,200 • 1998 1234 477,900 289,100 46,600 28,200 .. 1999 1260 493,700 290,000 49,700 29,200 2000 1286 509,900 290,800 52,900 30,200 .. 2001 1314 527,000 291,800 56,100 31,100 .. 2002 1314 535,400 287,800 56,100 30,200 2003 1314 535,400 279,400 56,100 29,300 • 2004 1314 535,400 271,300 56,100 28,400 2005 1314 535,400 263,400 56,100 27,600 .. 2006-.. 2021 1314 535,400 3,308,100 59,300 348,200 2022-.. 2034 1314 527,000 1,718,400 59,300 193,400 .. Totals 11,027,600 999,400 .. • ... 1/ From Table VII-lt. 2/ From Table IX-4. • 3/ Discounted to January 1982 at 3% interest. Values rounded to nearest .. i/ $100. Present worth factors accurate to four decimal places. From Table IX-7. • ilia • - NBI-410-9521-IX-7 -- - - - .... - - " .. - .. Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TABLE IX-9 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS TOGIAK Annual Energy.!! Maintenanc~ Operatiord! Production (1000 kWh) ($) ($) 789 13,400 60,000 823 14,000 60,000 858 14,600 60,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 1 100 30,000 3 100 30,000 4 100 30,000 6 100 30,000 8 100 30,000 10 200 30,000 11 200 30,000 13 200 30,000 14 200 30,000 16 300 30,000 22 400 30,000 Annual Cost ($) 73,400 74,000 74,600 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,100 30,100 30,100 30,100 30,100 30,200 30,200 30,200 30,200 30,300 30,400 2002-34 22 400 30,000 30,400 1/ 2/ 3/ From Table VII-11. $17 per megawatt-hour. Values rounded to nearest $100. One-half of operator's salary after hydro plant goes on-line in 1985. NBI-410-9521-IX-8 Annua0 Energy Production Year (1000 kWh) 1982 789 1983 823 1984 858 1985 0 1986 0 1987 0 1988 0 1989 0 1990 0 1991 1 1992 3 1993 4 1994 6 1995 8 1996 10 1997 11 1998 13 1999 14 2000 16 2001 22 2002-34 22 TABLE IX-10 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS TOGIAK Lubricatiord! Lubricatio0 Oil Oil Unit Cost (gallons) ($/gallon) 473 3.95 494 4.05 515 4.16 0 4.27 0 4.38 0 4.49 0 4.61 0 4.73 0 4.85 1 4.98 2 5.11 3 5.24 4 5.37 4 5.51 5 5.66 6 5.81 7 5.96 8 6.11 9 6.27 12 6.43 12 6.43 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ From Table VlI-11. 0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour. Escalated at 2.6% annually. Values rounded to nearest $100. NBI-410-9521-IX-9 Lubricationi! Oil Cost ($) 1,900 2,000 2,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 • ... • - • -• - • ... • - • • • • ... • ... .. ... • III • • • .. • - • .. -- '. - - - - - - - - - --- .,. ------ Annua:t...!.l Energy Production Year (1000 kWh) -- 1982 789 1983 823 1984 858 1985 0 1986 0 1987 0 1998 0 1989 0 1990 0 1991 1 1992 3 1993 4 1994 6 1995 8 1996 10 1997 11 1998 13 1999 14 2000 16 2001 22 2002-34 22 TABLE IX-11 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW DIESEL FUEL OIL COSTS TOGIAK Equivalendt' Fuel Oill.l Oil Unit Cost (gallons) ($/gallon) 87,700 1. 55 91,400 1.59 95,300 1.63 0 1.67 0 1. 72 0 1. 76 0 1. 81 0 1.86 0 1.90 100 1.95 300 2.00 400 2.06 700 2.11 900 2.16 1,100 2.22 1,200 2.28 1,400 2.34 1,600 2.40 1,800 2.46 2,400 2.52 2,400 2.52 From Tables VlI-11. Fuel Oil.!l Cost ($ ) 135,900 145,300 155,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 600 800 1,500 1,900 2,400 2,700 3,300 3,800 4,400 6,000 6,000 1/ 2/ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-hour. gallons. Rounded to nearest 100 3/ 4/ Escalated at 2.6% annually. Values rounded to nearest $100. NBI-410-9521-IX-10 ! ! TABLE IX-12 DIESEL COSTS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW TOGIAK o ill Operation.!! Lubricatio~ Fuel§' Annual Firm Schedule and Capacity Investment AmortizatiorJ! Insurancdl Maintenance Oil Oil Cost Year (kW) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) .ilL ($) 1982 460 6,600 73,400 1,900 135,900 217,800 1983 460 6,600 74,000 2,000 145,300 227,900 1984 460 6,600 74,600 2,100 155,300 238,600 1985 460 6,600 30,000 0 0 36,600 1986 460 6,600 30,000 0 0 36,600 1987 460 6,600 30,000 0 0 36,600 1988 460 6,600 30,000 0 0 36,600 1989 460 6,600 30,000 0 0 36,600 1990 460 6,600 30,000 0 0 36,600 1991 460 6,600 30,100 100 200 37,000 1992 460 6,600 30,100 100 600 37,400 1993 460 6,600 30,100 100 800 37,600 1994 460 6,600 30,100 100 1,500 38,300 1995 460 6,600 30,100 100 1,900 38,700 1996 600 950,000 6,600 30,200 100 2,400 39,300 1997 600 48,500 7,900 30,200 100 2,700 89,400 1998 600 48,500 7,900 30,200 100 3,300 90,000 1999 600 48,500 7,900 30,200 100 3,800 90,500 2000 600 48,500 7,900 30,300 100 4,400 91,200 2001 600 125,000 48,500 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 92,900 2002 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2003 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2004 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2005 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2006 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2007 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2008 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2009 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2010 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2011 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2012-21 600 56,900 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 101,300 2022-34 600 48,500 7,900 30,400 100 6,000 92,900 Replace plant after 15 years, then every 30 years. Expand fuel storage facilities in 2001. 1/ 2/ ~/ 4/ 5/ ~ $950,000 plant cost amortized for 30 years at 3% in perpetuity. $125,000 fuel tank expansion amortized for 20 years at 3%. Replacement value for years 1-15 = $800,000, and then $950,000 for the remainder of the evaluation period. Insurance cost is $0.83 per $100 replacement value. Rounded to nearest $100. From Table IX-9. From Table IX-I0. From Table IX-II. NHI-410-9521-IX-11 I II • lit I • lit • • ; I II ; ; I ; ; ; 1 Ii • i • Ii I , .. ~ J .. J' 1 I I I I , I .... TABLE IX-13 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT .. ALTERNATIVE A CONCRETE DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW HYDROELECTRIC COSTS -TOGIAK Opera tion .. ~l§! Replacementil .. CapitaJ.l} M .. t nd ~chedule ~f C?~}s Amor(~~atio~Y aln enance nvestmen -, Year ($) ($) ilia' 1982 1983 ... ' 1984 6,539,000 ., 1985 254,400 1986 254,400 1987 254,400 1988 254,400 .' 1989 254,400 1990 254,400 1991 254,400 .. I 1992 254,400 1993 254,400 -, 1994 254,400 1995 254,400 .' 1996 254,400 _. 1997 254,400 1998 254,400 _I 1999 254,400 2000 254,400 ..... 2001 254,400 •• 2002 254,400 2003 254,400 •• 2004 254,400 2005 254,400 ., 2006 254,400 2007 254,400 ... ·2008 254,400 .-,2009 254,400 2010 254,400 ... 2011 254,400 2012-34 254,400 ... , ~.------------------------------ From Table VIII-1A . 50 years at 3%. 1.5% of contract cost . 0 0 0 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 135,000 84,000 89,000 84,000 1,224,200 Replacemen0Y Si~ff~gg Aeg~tl ($) ($) 0 0 0 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 29,400 367,800 1/ • ''2/ -:r/ ... 4/ • '5/ Replace runner in 2009. Replace transmission lines in 2014 . "·6/ •• Transmission line replacement fund 30 years at 3%; runner replacement fund 25 years at 3%. The two funds are superimposed. Values rounded to nearest $100 . NBI-410-9521-IX-12 .- •• TABLE IX-14 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A CONCRETE DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY ; 432 kW SUMMARY TOGIAK Annuall! Total -----Ger~ration Mix-----Annual Hyg~o Annual Di~,el Annual Demand Hydr~ Diesel 11 Cos~ Cos~ Cost Year (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) ($) ($) ($) 1982 789 0 789 0 217,800 217,800 1983 823 0 823 0 227,900 227,900 1984 858 0 858 0 238,600 238,600 1985 892 892 0 367,800 36,600 404,400 1986 919 919 0 367,800 36,600 404,400 1987 945 945 0 367,800 36,600 404,400 1988 972 972 0 367,800 36,600 404,400 1989 998 998 0 367,800 36,600 404,400 1990 1,025 1,025 0 367,800 36,600 404,400 1991 1,051 1,050 1 367,800 37,000 401,800 1992 1,077 1,074 3 367,800 37,400 405,200 1993 1,103 1,099 4 367,800 37,600 405,400 1994 1,129 1,123 6 367,800 38,300 406,100 1995 1,156 1,148 8 367,800 38,700 406,500 1996 1,182 1,172 10 367,800 39,300 407,100 1997 1,208 1,197 11 367,800 89,400 457,200 1998 1,234 1,221 13 367,800 90,000 457,800 1999 1,260 1,246 14 367,800 90,500 458,300 2000 1,286 1,270 16 367,800 91,200 459,000 2001 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 92,900 460,700 2002 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2003 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2004 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2005 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2006 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2007 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2008 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2009 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2010 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2011 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2012-21 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 101,300 469,100 2022-34 1,314 1,292 22 367,800 92,900 460,700 1/ From Tables VII-II. 2/ Difference between annual demand and hydro. 3/ From Table IX-13. i! From Table IX-12. NBI-410-9521-IX-13 !I I I I I I I , . I ••• I • I • • II i 11 i t i I i I i i t I f I J I I 1 - - Year .. 1982 1983 .. 1984 1985 1986 .. 1987 1988 1989 1990 _, 1991 1992 TABLE IX-15 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE C ROCKFILL DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW HYDROELECTRIC COSTS TOGIAK 3/6/ Replacementi/..§i Oper at ion..=.; -ana Schedule of Investment ($) Capi taill..§i C~~rs AmOrt~Jatio~..§i _M_a_i~(~~)~n_a_n_c_e 0 0 6,950,800 0 270,400 89,200 270,400 89,200 270,400 89,200 270,400 89,200 270,400 89,200 270,400 89,200 270,400 89,200 270,400 89,200 ~ 1993 270,400 89,200 ,..; 1994 270,400 1995 270,400 1996 270,400 1997 270,400 ., 1998 270,400 1999 270,400 2000 270,400 IiIIII 2001 270,400 2002 270,400 "1. 2003 270,400 2004 270,400 ., 2005 270,400 2006 270,400 .... 2007 270,400 ... 2008 270,400 2009 270,400 ... , 2010 270,400 2011 270,400 ., 2012-34 270,400 ~. ------------------------------- •• l..I 2/ From Table VIII-1C. 50 years at 3% . 1.5% of contract cost. 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 89,200 135,000 89,200 89,200 89,200 1,224,200 Repl acement.~ .. /.§j Sinking AnnuaL§! Fund Cost ($) ($) 0 0 0 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 29,400 389,000 ... 3/ 4/ ··5/ ... 6/ Replace runner in 2009. Replace transmission lines in 2004. Transmission line sinking fund, 20 years at 3%. Runner sinking fund 30 years at 3%. The two funds are superimposed . All values rounded to nearest $100 . •• -NBI-432-9521-IX-14 •• I I. I • TABLE IX-16 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE C ROCKFILL DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY SUMMARY TOGIAK Annuall.! -----Genuatlon Mlx------ Demand Hydro -DieseLY Year (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) 1982 789 0 789 1983 823 0 823 1984 858 0 858 1985 892 892 0 1986 919 919 0 1987 945 945 0 1988 972 972 0 1989 998 998 0 1990 1,025 1,025 0 1991 1,051 1,050 1 1992 1,077 1,074 3 1993 1,103 1,099 4 1994 1,129 1,123 6 1995 1,156 1,148 8 1996 1,182 1,172 10 1997 1,208 1,197 11 1998 1,234 1,221 13 1999 1,260 1,246 14 2000 1,286 1,270 16 2001 1,314 1,292 22 2002 1,314 1,292 22 2003 1,314 1,292 22 2004 1,314 1,292 22 2005 1,314 1,292 22 2006 1,314 1,292 22 2007 1,314 1,292 22 2008 1,314 1,292 22 2009 1,314 1,292 22 2010 1,314 1,292 22 2011 1,314 1,292 22 2012-21 1,314 1,292 22 2022-34 1,314 1,292 22 1/ 2/ 3/ From Table VII-II. if Difference between annual demand and hydro. From Table IX-15. From Table IX-12. NBI-432-9521-IX-15 • I' • • I • I • I • t I 432 kW Annual Hydro Cost.Y ($) 0 0 0 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 389,000 t I • • Total Annual Annual Diesel Cost.!! Cost ($) ($) 217,800 217,800 227,900 227,900 238,600 238,600 36,600 425,600 36,600 425,600 36,600 425,600 36,600 425,600 36,600 425,600 36,600 425,600 37,000 426,000 37,400 426,400 37,600 426,600 38,300 427,300 38,700 427,700 39,300 428,300 89,400 478,400 90,000 479,000 90,500 479,500 91,200 480,200 92,900 481,900 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 101,300 490,300 92,900 481,900 , I I t I • t 11 , . I I , I ... - .. .. - - - .- -'. -.. .... .. ------ ''i!IIII!JII ... - iIIi - • -- Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-34 TABLE IX-17 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B CONCRETE DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS TOGIAK Annual 1 / Energy- Production Maintenanc~ Operatiord! (1000 kWh) ($) ($) 789 13,400 60,000 823 14,000 60,000 858 14,600 60,000 18 300 30,000 26 400 30,000 34 600 30,000 42 700 30,000 50 900 30,000 58 1,000 30,000 66 1,100 30,000 74 1,300 30,000 81 1,400 30,000 89 1,500 30,000 98 1,700 30,000 106 1,800 30,000 114 1,900 30,000 121 2,100 30,000 129 2,200 30,000 137 2,300 30,000 149 2,500 30,000 149 2,500 30,000 1/ From Table VII-12. 2/ $17 per MWh . Rounded to nearest $100. Annual Cost ($) 73,400 74,000 74,600 30,300 30,400 30,600 30,700 30,900 31,000 31,100 31,300 31,400 31,500 31,700 31,800 31,900 32,100 32,200 32,300 32,500 32,500 3/ Operators salary is $60,000 per year, split cost with hydro project after 1985. NBI-432-9521-IX-16 AnnuaIl! Energy Production Year (1000 kWh) 1982 789 1983 823 1984 858 1985 18 1986 26 1987 34 1988 42 1989 50 1990 58 1991 66 1992 74 1993 81 1994 89 1995 98 1996 106 1997 114 1998 121 1999 129 2000 137 2001 149 TABLE IX-18 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B CONCRETE DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS TOGIAK Lubrication.Y Lubricatiord! Oil Oil Cost (gallons) ($/gallon) 473 3.95 494 4.05 515 4.16 11 4.27 16 4.38 20 4.49 25 4.61 30 4.73 35 4.85 40 4.98 44 5.11 49 5.24 53 5.37 59 5.51 64 5.66 68 5.81 73 5.96 77 6.11 82 6.27 89 6.43 2002-34 149 89 6.43 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ From Table VII-12. 0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour. Escalated at 2.6% annually. Rounded to nearest $100. NBI-432-9521-IX-17 -... .. -... -- - Lubrication.!! -Oil Cost ($) • 1,900 2,000 • 2,100 100 • 100 • 100 100 100 200 .. 200 -200 -300 300 -300 400 - 400 • 400 500 -500 • 600 600 .. --.. • I. • .. • .. - - .. .... .. .. - ... ' ... >I/fI .. - - -,-.. '. ' ... .. '~ .. .. - • Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1998 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TABLE IX-19 RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B Annuall! Energy Production (1000 kWh) 789 823 858 18 26 34 42 50 58 66 74 81 89 98 106 114 121 129 137 149 CONCRETE DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW DIESEL FUEL OIL COSTS TOGIAK Equivalent1J Fuel Oi0 Oil Cost (gallons) ($/gallon) 87,700 1. 55 91,400 1. 59 95,300 1.63 2,000 1.67 2,900 1. 72 3,800 1. 76 4,700 1. 81 5,600 1. 86 6,400 1.90 7,300 1.95 8,200 2.00 9,000 2.06 9,900 2.11 10,900 2.16 11,800 2.22 12,700 2.28 13,400 2.34 14,300 2.40 15,200 2.46 16,600 2.52 2002-34 149 16,600 2.52 1/ From Table VII-12. 2/ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-hour. Rounded 3/ gallons. Escalated at 2.6% annually. 4/ Rounded to nearest $100. NBI-432-9521-IX-18 Fuel OiL!! Cost ($) 135,900 145,300 155,300 3,300 5,000 6,700 8,500 10,400 12,200 14,200 16,400 18,500 20,900 23,500 26,200 29,000 31,400 34,300 37,400 41,800 41,800 to nearest 100 I TABLE IX-20 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B CONCRETE DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW DIESEL COSTS TOOIAK Schedule otlf Operationi! LUbricatioI2! FueL§! Firm Amortization-Y Insuranc~ and Annual Capacity Investment Maintenance Oil Oil Cost Year (kW) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ilL ($) 1982 460 6,600 73,400 1,900 135,900 217,800 1983 460 6,600 74,000 2,000 145,300 227,900 1984 460 6,600 74,600 2,100 155,300 238,600 19H5 460 6,600 30,300 100 3,300 40,300 1986 460 6,600 30,400 100 5,000 42,100 1987 460 6,600 30,600 100 6,700 44,000 1988 460 6,600 30,700 100 8,500 45,900 1989 460 6,600 30,900 100 10,400 48,000 1990 460 6,600 31,000 200 12,200 50,000 1991 460 6,600 31,100 200 14,200 52,100 1992 460 6,600 31,300 200 16,400 54,500 1993 460 6,600 31,400 300 18,500 56,800 1994 460 6,600 31,500 300 20,900 59,300 1995 460 6,600 31,700 300 23,500 62,100 1996 600 950,000 6,600 31,800 400 26,200 65,000 1997 600 48,500 7,900 31,900 400 29,000 117,700 1998 600 48,500 7,900 32,100 400 31,400 120,300 1999 600 48,500 7,900 32,200 500 34,300 123,400 2000 600 48,500 7,900 32,300 500 37,400 126,600 2001 600 125,000 48,500 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 131,300 2002 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2003 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2004 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2005 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2006 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2007 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2008 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2009 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2010 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2011 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2012-21 600 56,900 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 139,700 2022-34 600 48,500 7,900 32,500 600 41,800 131,323 1/ 2/ }j 4/ 5/ 6/ Replace plant after 15 years, then every 30 years. $950,000 plant cost amortized for 30 years at 3% in perpetuity. $125,000 fuel tank expansion amortized for 20 years at 3%. Replacement value for years 1-15 = $800,000, and then $950,000 for the remainder of the evaluation period. Insurance cost is $0.83 per $100 of replacement value. Rounded to nearest $100. From Table IX-17. From Table IX-18. From Table IX-19. NBI-432-952l-IX-19 I • • • I • I I I • • f • • f • • t , . • • I • , t I I .. I J I , . TABLE IX-21 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B CONCRETE DAM INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW HYDROELECTRIC COSTS Tcx:JIAK Operatio~~ Replacementi!~ Capi talLlJ . and Schedule of Replacemen0~ Sink:i,ng Annual - .~ Year C~~)s Amortit!)iOn.~/~ Ma(~nenance _I_n....;.(....;.$...;..)_t_m_e_n_t Fund Cost ($) ($) 1982 -1983 _ 1984 6,237,300 1985 -1986 1987 .. 1988 1989 1990 ... 1991 1992 -1993 1994 .." 1995 _ 1996 1997 ... 1998 1999 2000 2001 -2002 ._ 2003 2004 -2005 2006 -2007 .. 2008 2009 _ 2010 2011 .. 2012-34 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 242,600 ------------------------------- 1/ -2/ From Table VIII-lB. 50 years at 3%. 1.5% of contract cost. o o o 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 79,600 130,000 1,224,200 3/ -4/ -5/ -~ Replace runner in 2009. Replace transmission lines Sinking fund for transmission lines 30 years at 3%. runner 25 years at 3%. Both funds superimposed and Values rounded to nearest $100. - -NBI-432-9521-IX-20 - 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 29,300 in 2014. Sinking fund for perpetual. o o o 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 351,500 TABLE IX-22 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW SUMMARY TOGIAK Total AnnuaL!/ ------Gy?eration Mix------Annual Hydro.~/ Annual Diesel...~/ Annual Demand Hydro..:.. DieseL~/ Cost Cost Cost Year (looo kWh) (1000 kWh) (1000 kWh) ($) ($) ($) -- 1982 789 0 789 0 217,800 217,800 1983 823 0 823 0 227,900 227,900 1984 858 0 858 0 238,600 238,600 1985 892 874 18 351,500 40,300 391,800 1986 919 893 26 351,500 42,100 393,600 1987 945 911 34 351,500 44,000 395,500 1988 972 930 42 351,500 45,900 397,400 1989 998 948 50 351,500 48,000 399,500 1990 1,025 967 58 351,500 50,000 401,500 1991 1,051 985 66 351,500 52,100 403,600 1992 1,077 1,003 74 351,500 54,500 406,000 1993 1,103 1,022 81 351,500 56,800 408,300 1994 1,129 1,040 89 351,500 59,300 410,800 1995 1,156 1,058 98 351,500 62,100 413,600 1996 1,182 1,076 106 351,500 65,000 416,500 1997 1,208 1,094 114 351,500 117,700 469,200 1998 1,234 1,113 121 351,500 120,300 471,800 1999 1,260 1,131 129 351,500 123,400 474,900 2000 1,286 1,149 137 351,500 126,600 478,100 2001 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 131,300 482,800 2002 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2003 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2004 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2005 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2006 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2007 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2008 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2009 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2010 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2011 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2012-21 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 139,700 491,200 2022-34 1,314 1,165 149 351,500 131,300 482,800 1/ From Table VII-12. 2/ Difference between annual demand and hydro. "3/ From Table IX-21. 4/ From Table IX-20. NBI-432-9521-IX-21 , . I • •• I • • • • I I • ., f • .,. • • • I .. • • (/If. • , • , • , •• • I • • I I I I t I j I l I , ( 4 , t .. , i i i-ii ~ TABLE IX-23 ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS HYDROELECTRIC SUPPLEMENTED BY DIESEL COSTS PRESENT WORTH SUMMARY TOGIAK --A1tef?ative A--Annua~ Presen~ --Alte§?ative B--Annua~ Presen~ --Altes?ative C--Annua~ Presen~ Year Cost Worth Cost Worth Cost Worth ($) ($) (~) ($) ($) ($) 1982 217,800 211,500 217,800 211,500 217,800 211,500 1983 227,900 214,800 227,900 214,800 227,900 214,800 1984 238,600 218,400 238,600 218,400 238,600 218,400 1985 404,400 359,300 391,800 348,100 425,600 378,100 1986 404,400 348,800 393,600 339,500 425,600 367,100 1987 404,400 338,700 395,500 331,200 425,600 356,400 1988 404,400 328,800 397,400 323,100 425,600 346,100 1989 404,400 319,200 399,500 315,400 425,600 336,000 1990 404,400 309,900 401,500 307,700 425,600 326,200 1991 404,800 301,200 403,600 300,300 426,000 317,000 1992 405,200 292,700 406,000 293,300 426,400 308,000 1993 405,400 284,300 408,300 286,400 426,600 299,200 1994 406,100 276,600 410,800 279,800 427,300 291,000 1995 406,500 268,700 413,600 273,400 427,700 282,800 1996 407,100 261,300 416,500 267,400 428,300 274,900 1997 457,200 284,900 469,200 292,400 478,400 298,100 1998 457,800 277,000 471,800 285,400 479,000 289,800 1999 458,300 269,200 474,900 279,000 479,500 281,700 2000 459,000 261,800 478,100 272,700 480,200 273,900 2001 460,700 255,100 482,800 267,300 481,900 266,800 2002- 2021 469,100 3,864,300 491,200 4,046,300 490,300 4,038,900 2022- 2034 460,700 1,502,200 482,800 1,574,300 481,900 1,571,300 TOTALS 11,048,700 11,327,700 11,548,000 1/ From Table IX-14. 2/ Discounted to January 1982 at 3%. Values rounded to nearest $100. Present 3/ worth factors accurate to four decimal places. From Table IX-22. 4/ From Table IX-16. NBI-432-9521-IX-22 Energy.!.! OilY Equivalent Year (1000 kWh) (gal) -- 1982 0 0 1983 0 0 1984 0 0 1985 1,515 53,500 1986 1,500 53,000 1987 1,485 52,500 1988 1,469 51,900 1989 1,454 51,400 1990 1,439 50,800 1991 1,423 50,300 1992 1,407 49,700 1993 1,391 49,100 1994 1,375 48,600 1995 1,359 48,000 1996 1,342 47,400 1997 1,326 46,800 1998 1,310 46,300 1999 1,294 45,700 2000 1,278 45,200 2001-34 1,267 44,800 TABLE IX-24 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A AND C INSTALLED CAPACITY = 432 kW SPACE HEATING CREDIT TOGIAK Oil Uni2! Credit!! Schedule of!!.! Cost Investment ($/gal) ($) ($) 1. 55 0 1. 59 0 1.63 0 44,000 1.67 89,300 1. 72 91,200 1. 76 92,400 1. 81 93,900 1. 86 95,600 1.90 96,500 1.95 98,100 2.00 99,400 2.06 101,100 2.11 102,500 2.16 103,700 2.22 105,200 2.28 106,700 2.34 108,300 2.40 109,700 2.46 111,200 2.52 112,900 Amortizatio~ ($) 0 0 0 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 Intermediate values by interpolation. Net Annual Savings ($) 0 0 0 87,600 89,500 90,700 92,200 93,900 94,800 96,400 97,700 99,400 100,800 102,000 103,500 105,000 106,600 108,000 109,500 111,200 1/ 2/ From Tables VII-9A through VII-9E. 28.3 kilowatt-hours per gallon. Rounded to nearest 100 gallons. Escalated at 2.6% annually. Based on 138,000 Btu/ gallon and 70% eff iciency. 3/ 4/ 7!)/ 6/ Rounded to nearest $100. See Appendix G for system design and cost estimate. 50 years at 3%. NBI-432-9521-IX-23 I' " •• ,. II II I. f': tt ••• ,.,.I" It t. ,.,' ,. I l I I L , t , t l • j I I i i l t TABLE IX-25 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B INSTALLED CAPACITY = 288 kW SPACE HEATING CREDIT TOGIAK Oi11./ ~ I ~ I Energy..!.! Oil Unit~./ Credi t±I Schedule o:f~/ Net Annual Equivalent Cost Investment Amortization2.! Savings Year (1000 kWh) (gal) ($/gal) ($) ($) ($) ($) ._- 1982 0 0 1.55 0 0 0 1983 0 0 1. 59 0 0 0 1984 0 0 1.63 0 44,000 0 0 1985 889 31,400 1.67 52,400 1,700 50,700 1986 873 30,800 1. 72 53,000 1,700 51,300 1987 856 30,200 1. 76 53,200 1,700 51,500 1988 840 29,700 1.81 53,800 1,700 52,100 1989 823 29,100 1.86 54,100 1,700 52,400 1990 807 28,500 1.90 54,200 1,700 52,500 1991 789 27,800 1.95 54,200 1,700 52,500 1992 771 27,200 2.00 54,400 1,700 52,700 1993 752 26,600 2.06 54,800 1,700 53,100 1994 734 25,900 2.11 54,600 1,700 52,900 1995 716 25,300 2.16 54,600 1,700 52,900 1996 698 24,700 2.22 54,800 1,700 53,100 1997 680 24,000 2.28 54,700 1,700 53,000 1998 661 23,400 2.34 54,800 1,700 53,100 1999 643 22,700 2.40 54,500 1,700 52,800 2000 625 22,100 2.46 54,400 1,700 52,700 2001-34 609 21,500 2.52 54,200 1,700 52,500 1/ 2/ From Tables VII-lOA through VII-l0E. Intermediate values by interpolation. 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 28.3 kilowatt-hours per gallon. Based on 138,000 Btu/gallon and 70% efficiency. Rounded to nearest 100 gallons. Escalated at 2.6% annually. Rounded to nearest $100. See Appendix G for system design and cost estimate. 50 years at 3%. NBI-432-9521-IX-24 .. , , TABLE IX-26 ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS SPACE HEATING CREDITS TOGIAK Alternatives A & C Alternative B Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001-34 TOTALS AnnualY Savings ($) o o o 87,600 89,500 90,700 92,200 93,900 94,800 96,400 97,700 99,400 100,800 102,000 103,500 105,000 106,600 108,000 109,500 111,200 Present.Y Worth ($) o o o 77,800 77,200 76,000 75,000 74,100 72,700 71,700 70,600 69,700 68,600 67,400 66,400 65,400 64,500 63,400 62,400 1,340,100 2,463,000 AnnuaJ2.1 Savings ($) o o o 50,700 51,300 51,500 52,100 52,400 52,500 52,500 52,700 53,100 52,900 52,900 53,100 53,000 53,100 52,800 52,700 52,500 Present~/ Worth ($) o o o 45,000 44,300 43,100 42,400 41,400 40,200 39,100 38,100 37,200 36,000 35,000 34,100 33,000 32,100 31,000 30,100 632,700 1,234,800 1/ From Table IX-24. ~/ Discounted to January 1982 at 3% annual interest. Rounded to nearest $100. Present worth factors acurate to four decimal places. ~/ From Table IX-25. NBI-432-9521-IX-25 ... .. - • • • lit - --.. • - • -• • • ... • lit • I:: • • • .. .. - - ... - - - -- - - - -- ". "' .... ,.. -,- -- TABLE IX-27 ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ROAD COSTS TOGIAK 11.6-MILE ROAol/ Capital Amorti-1! Annual Presen~/ Cost zation Maintenance Cost Worth Year ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) 1982 1,630,600 1983-2034 62,300 5,000 67,300 1,709,700 4.6-MILE ROAD~/ Year Capital Cost ($) Amorti-l./ zation Maintenance!/ ($) ($) Annual Cost ($) Presen~/ Worth ($) 1982 1983-2034 508,200 19,400 5,000 24,400 619,900 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ :§../ Build entire road as part of the hydroelectric project. Build first seven miles of road as part of airport improve- ments. Hydroelectric project pays for maintenance of entire road. 52 years at 3%. Values rounded to nearest $100. The cost of maintenance is for the entire road for both alternatives. Discounted to January 1982 at 3%. Rounded to nearest $100. Present worth factors accurate to four decimal places. NBI-432-9521-IX-26 TABLE IX-28 PRESENT WORTH SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE A TOGIAK A. BASE CASE (Benefits) Cost of Base Case Only~/ Waste Heat Recovery Creditl! Subtotal Wind Energy Credi~ Subtotal Space Heating Credi~ Total B. ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Costs) Cost of Hydro Project Only~/ Jj 1.1 y i/ ~ Cost of 4.6 Mile Road ~ Total Cost of 11.6 Mile Roa~ Total From Table IX-8. From Table IX-6A. From Table IX-26. From Table IX-23. Includes supplemental From Table IX-27. NBI-432-9521-IX-28 $11,027,600 999,400 $10,028,200 540,700 9,487,500 2,463,000 $11,950,500 $11,048,700 619,900 11,668,600 $ 1,709,700 $12,758,400 diesel. - -- • - • ---------.. .. • .. • -.. III - -- • - .... - .- Jill -,- ..., - - "'" --,. - - A. B. 1/ JJ :Y 4/ 5/ TABLE IX-29 PRESENT WORTH SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE B TOGIAK BASE CASE (Benefits) Cost of Base Case Onlyl! Wa.ste Heat Recovery Creditl! Subtotal Wind Energy Credit!:! Subtotal Space Heating Credi0 Total ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Costs) Cost of Hydro Project Only.!! Cost of 4.6 Mile Roacei Total Cost of 11.6 Mile Roacei Total From Table IX-8. From Table IX-6A. From Table IX-26. From Table IX-23. Includes supplemental From Table IX-27. NBI-432-9521-IX-29 $11,027,600 999,400 10,028,200 540,700 9,487,500 1,234,800 10,722,300 $11 ,327,700 619,900 11 ,947,600 1,709,700 $13,037,400 diesel. TABLE IX-30 PRESENT WORTH SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE C TOGIAK A. BASE CASE (Benefits) Cost of Base Case Onlyl! Waste Heat Recovery Creditl! Subtotal Wind Energy Credi~ Subtotal Space Heating Credi~ Total B. ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Costs) Cost of Hydro Project OnlY~ 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ Cost of 4.6 Mile Roa~ Total Cost of 11.6 Mile Roa~ Total From Table IX-8. From Table IX-6A. From Table IX-26. From Table IX-23. Includes From Table IX-27. NBI-432-9521-IX-30 supplemental diesel. -.. .. - • -.. .. ... -.. $11,027,600 -999,400 10,028,200 -540,700 -9,487,500 -2,463,000 ... 11,950,500 -- $11,548,000 .. 619 z900 .... 12,167,900 -1 z 709 z 700 -$13,257,700 ... --.. ., -.. ---.. .' ---.., -- - - - - - - .", ' ... ... - .. - - - --- TABLE IX-31 BENEFIT/COST RATIOS ALTERNATIVE A TOGIAKli A. Base Case Only, 4.6 Mile Road B. 11,027,600 B/C = 11,668,600 = 0.945 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, 4.6 Mile Road B/C = i~:~~~:~gg = 0.859 C. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credit, 4.6 Mile Road B/C 9,487,500 = = 11,668,600 0.813 D. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy Credit, and Space Heating Credit, 4.6 Mile Road E. F. G. 11,950,500 B/C = 11,668,600 = 1.024 Base Case Only, 11.6 Mile Road 11,027,600 B/C = 12,758,400 = 0.864 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, 11.6 Mile Road B/C -10,028,200 Q 786 -[2,758,400 = '. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credit, 11.6 Mile Road B/C _ 9,487,500 - -12,758,400 0.744 H. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy Credit, and Space Heating Credit, 11.6 Mile Road 11,950,500 B/C = 12,758,400 = 0.937 1/ See Table IX-28 for Present Worth Summary. NBI-432-9521-IX-31 TABLE IX-32 BENEFITlcOST RATIOS ALTERNATIVE B TOGIAK 1./ A. Base Case Only, 4.6 Mile Road BIC = 11,027,600 = 0 923 11,947,600 . B. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, 4.6 Mile Road 10,028,200 Blc = 11,947,600 = 0.839 C. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credit, 4.6 Mile Road Blc -9,487,500"= 0.794 -11,947,600 D. Base Case Ad justed for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy Credit, and Space Heating Credit, 4.6 Mile Road I 10,722,300, B C = 11,947,600 = 0.897 E. Base Case Only, 11.6 Mile Road BIC = 11,027,600 = 0 46 13,037,400 .8 F. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, 11.6 Mile Road Blc = 10,028,200 ~ 0 769 13,037,400 -• G. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credit, 11.6 Mile Road Blc -9,487,500 = 0.728 -13,037,400 H. Base Case Ad justed for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy Credit, and Space Heating Credit, 11.6 Mile Road 11 Blc -10,722,300 0 2 -13,037,400 = .82 See Table IX-29 for Present Worth Summary. NBISF-456-9521-IX-32 • • • - • ----- • - • • • • • .. -- -• • • .. • .. .. - .. ., .- 81111 9[lII ..... ' .... ,- 'IIfI ..... ' .... '. --.. TABLE IX-33 BENEFIT/COST RATIOS ALTERNATIVE C TOGIAK 1/ A. Base Case Only, 4.6 Mile Road B. C. D. E. F. 11,027,600 B/C = 12,167,900 = 0.906 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, 4.6 Mile Road 10,028,200 . B/C = 12,167,900 = 0.824 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credit, 4.6 Mile Road B/C -9,487,500 0 780 -12,167,900 = • Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recover, Wind Energy Credit, and Space Heating Credit, 4.6 Mile Road B/C -11,950,500 -0 982 -12,167,900 - . Base Case Only, 11.6 Mile Road 11,027,600 B/C = 13,257,700 = 0.832 Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, 11.6 Mile Road 10,028,200 B/C = 13,257,700 = 0.756 G. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery and Wind Energy Credit, 11.6 Mile Road B/C -9,487,500 = 0.716 -13,257,700 H. Base Case Adjusted for Waste Heat Recovery, Wind Energy Credit, and Space Heating Credit, 11.6 Mile Road 1/ B/C -11,950,500-= 0.901 -13,257,700 See Table IX-30 for Present Worth Summary. NBISF-456-9521-IX-33 TABLE IX-34 ANNUAL UNIT COSTS BASE CASE TOGIAK Energ}L.!/ Base Cas~./ Waste Heat.!! Uni~/ Wind Energ~/ Annual!/ Unit Energ~/ Recovery Annua~/ Unit!./ Demand Diesel Cost Cost Savings Cost Energy Cost Credit Cost Energy Cost Year (1000 kWh) ($) (Mills/kWh) ($) ($) (Mills/kWh) ($) ($) (Mills/kWh) 1982 789 217,800 276 0 217,800 276 0 217,800 276 1983 823 227,900 277 5,200 222,700 271 4,&00 217,900 265 1984 858 238,600 278 6,900 231,700 270 5,400 226,300 264 1985 892 249,600 280 8,600 241,000 270 6,200 234,800 263 1986 919 260,200 283 10,600 249,600 272 6,900 242,700 264 1987 945 270,000 286 12,400 257,600 273 7,600 250,000 265 1988 972 281,300 289 14,500 266,800 274 8,300 258,500 266 1989 998 292,700 293 16,600 276,100 277 9,100 267,000 268 1990 1025 303,400 296 18,600 284,800 278 9,700 275,100 268 1991 1051 315,400 300 20,800 294,600 280 10,500 284,100 270 1992 1077 327,600 304 23,100 304,500 283 13,200 291,300 270 1993 1103 341,300 309 28,600 312,700 283 14,300 298,400 271 1994 1129 354,000 314 31,000 323,000 286 15,200 307,800 273 1995 1155 367,400 318 33,500 333,900 289 16,300 317,600 275 1996 1182 382,200 323 36,400 345,800 293 17,400 328,400 278 1997 1208 462,400 383 43,600 418,800 347 18,500 400,300 331 1998 1234 477,900 387 46,600 431,300 350 19,600 411,700 334 1999 1260 493,700 392 49,700 444,000 352 20,700 423,300 336 2000 1286 509,900 397 52,900 457,000 355 30,100 426,900 332 2001 1314 527,000 401 56,100 470,900 358 31,500 439,400 334 2002 1314 535,400 407 56,100 479,300 365 31,500 447,800 341 2003 1314 535,400 407 56,100 479,300 365 31,500 447,800 341 2004 1314 535,400 407 56,100 479,300 365 31,500 447,800 341 2005 1314 535,400 407 56,100 479,300 365 31,500 447,800 341 2006-2021 1314 535,400 407 59,300 476,100 362 31,500 444,600 338 2022-2034 1314 527,000 401 59,300 467,700 356 31,500 436,200 332 1/ From Table VII-ll. '"1J:/ From Table IX-4. 3/ Base case diesel costs only. 4/ 5/ From Table IX-6. Base case adjusted for waste heat recovery credit. 6/ From Table IX-6A. Y..! Base case adjusted for waste heat recovery and wind energy credits. NBISF-456-9521-IX-34 , I II I • I I I • • I • • • • , • C • • • , . • • , . fl I , ( , , , t I t j Year 19H2 19H3 19H4 1985 1986 19H7 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-2021 2022-2034 l Energyli Demand (1000 kWh) 789 823 858 892 919 945 972 998 1025 1051 1077 1103 1129 1155 1182 1208 1234 1260 1286 1314 1314 1314 From Table VII-II. From Table IX-14. From Table IX-27. Hydr03.! Project Cost ($) 217,800 227,900 238,600 404,400 404,400 404,400 404,400 404,400 404,400 404,800 405,200 405,400 406,100 406,500 407,100 457,200 457,800 458,300 459,000 460,700 469,100 460,700 i TABLE IX-35 ANNUAL UNIT COSTS ALTERNATIVE A/ll.6 MILE ROAD TOGIAK 11. 6 MileY Annual.!/ Road Cost Cost ($) ($) o 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 67,300 217,800 295,200 305,900 471,700 471,700 471,700 471,700 471,700 471,700 472,100 472,500 472,700 473,400 473,800 474,400 524,500 525,100 525,600 526,300 528,000 536,400 528,000 Unit!/ Energy Cost (Mills/kWh) 276 359 357 529 513 499 485 473 460 449 439 429 419 410 401 434 426 417 409 402 408 402 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ --5/ Hydro project including cost of 11.6 mile road. From Table IX-24. Space Heatin~i AnnuaJ.§! Credit Cost ($) ($) o o o 87,600 89,500 90,700 92,200 93,900 94,800 96,400 97,700 99,400 100,800 102,000 103,500 105,000 106,600 108,000 109,500 111,200 111,200 111,200 285,100 295,200 305,900 384,100 382,200 381,000 379,500 377,800 376,900 375,700 374,800 373,300 372,600 371,800 370,900 419,500 418,500 417,600 416,800 416,800 425,200 416,800 6/ Hydro project with 11.6 mile road, adjusted for space heating credit. NUISF-456-9521-IX-35 Unit~/ Energy Cost (Mills/kWh) 276 359 357 431 416 403 390 379 368 357 348 338 330 322 314 347 339 331 324 317 324 317 TABLE IX-36 ANNUAL UNIT COSTS ALTERNATIVE A/4.6 MILE ROAD TOGIAK Energy .. !.! HydroY 4.6 MileY AnnuaJ.!! Unit~./ Space Hea t in~/ Annual&! Uni t2-./ Demand Project Cost Road Cost Cost Energy Cost Credit Cost Energy Cost Year (1000 kWh) ($ ) ( $) ($ ) (Mills/kWh 2 ($) ($) (Mills/kWh) 1982 789 217,800 0 217,800 276 0 242,200 276 1983 823 227,900 24,400 252,300 307 0 252,300 307 1984 858 238,600 24,400 263,000 307 0 263,000 307 1985 892 404,400 24,400 428,800 481 87,600 341,200 383 1986 919 404,400 24,400 428,800 467 89,500 339,300 369 1987 945 404,400 24,400 428,800 454 90,700 338,100 358 1988 972 404,400 24,400 428,800 441 92,200 336,600 346 1989 998 404,400 24,400 428,800 430 93,900 334,900 336 1990 1025 404,400 24,400 428,800 418 94,800 334,000 326 1991 1051 404,800 24,400 429,200 408 96,400 332,800 317 1992 1077 405,200 24,400 429,600 399 97,700 331,900 308 1993 1103 405,400 24,400 429,800 390 99,400 330,400 300 1994 1129 406,100 24,400 430,500 381 100,800 329,700 292 1995 1155 406,500 24,400 430,900 373 102,000 328,900 285 1996 1182 407,100 24,400 431,500 365 103,500 328,000 277 1997 1208 457,200 24,400 481,600 399 105,000 376,600 312 1998 1234 457,800 24,400 482,200 391 106,600 375,600 304 1999 1260 458,300 24,400 482,700 383 108,000 374,700 297 2000 1286 459,000 24,400 483,400 376 109,500 373,900 291 2001 1314 460,700 24,400 485,100 369 111,200 373,900 285 2002-2021 1314 469,100 24,400 493,500 376 111,200 382,300 291 2022-2034 1314 460,700 24,400 485,100 369 111,200 373,900 285 1/ From Table VII-II. 2/ From Table 11-14. ~/ From Table 11-27. 4/ Hydro project including cost of 4.6 mile road. Tr/ 6/ From Table IX-24. Hydro project with 4.6 mile road adjusted for space heating credit. NBISF-456-9521-11-36 , , • • II , I • • , I , , • • • , « , • t I , , . I , • • , I f • • • , . .... ," ... ~-'"'; , ... ,- ,. ,..., .... , .... ,- '. ' .. ,,. ,,. - - .. -- TABLE IX-1A BASE CASE WIND ENERGY CREDIT DIESEL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS TOGIAK Annual 1 / Energy- Production MaintenanceY Operatio~ Year (1000 kWh) ($) ($) 1982 1983 140 2,400 0 1984 140 2,400 0 1985 140 2,400 0 1986 140 2,400 0 1987 140 2,400 0 1988 140 2,400 0 1989 140 2,400 0 1990 140 2,400 0 1991 140 2,400 0 1992 167 2,800 0 1993 167 2,800 0 1994 167 2,800 0 1995 167 2,800 0 1996 167 2,800 0 1997 167 2,800 0 1998 167 2,800 0 1999 167 2,800 0 2000 195 3,300 0 2001 195 3,300 0 2002-2034 195 3,300 0 1/ 2/ From Table VII-14. $17 per MWh. Rounded to nearest $100. Annual Cost ($) 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 3,300 3,300 3,300 1../ Salary for operator, included in base case costs. NBISF-456-9521-IX-1A AnnuallJ Energy Production Year (1000 kWh) 1982 1983 140 1984 140 1985 140 1986 140 1987 140 1988 140 1989 140 1990 140 1991 140 1992 167 1993 167 1994 167 1995 167 1996 167 1997 167 1998 167 1999 167 2000 195 2001 195 2002-2034 195 TABLE IX-2A BASE CASE WIND ENERGY CREDIT DIESEL LUBRICATION OIL COSTS TOGIAK Lubrication~/ Lubrication3 / Oil Oil Cost (gallons) ($/gallon) 84 4.05 84 4.16 84 4.27 84 4.38 84 4.49 84 4.61 84 4.73 84 4.85 84 4.98 100 5.11 100 5.24 100 5.37 100 5.51 100 5.66 100 5.81 100 5.96 100 6.11 117 6.27 117 6.43 117 6.43 ~/ From Tables VII-14. ~/ 0.6 gallons per megawatt-hour. 3/ Escalated at 2.6% annually. ~/ Rounded to nearest $100. NBISF-456-9521-IX-2A Lubrication4 / Oil Cost ($) 300 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 500 500 500 600 600 600 600 600 700 800 800 ---- • • • • -.. - • -• -• .. .. • • .. • --• - • ,. • • ---• .. ~~ "'. 'AJi!# .- 'oh"- .- .- iflfilll .... ,- -.... 'iIIIf -,- ... - , .. -- TABLE IX-3A BASE CASE WIND ENERGY CREDIT DIESEL FUEL OIL COSTS TOGIAK Annual.l/ Energy Equivalent ~/ Fuel 3/ Fuel 4/ Production Oil Oil Cost Oil Cost Year (1000 kWb) (gallons) ($/gallon) ($) 1982 1983 140 15,600 1.59 24,800 1984 140 15,600 1.63 25,400 1985 140 15,600 1.67 26,100 1986 140 15,600 1.72 26,800 1987 140 15,600 1. 76 27,500 1988 140 15,600 1.81 28,200 1989 140 15,600 1.86 29,000 1990 140 15,600 1.90 29,600 1991 140 15,600 1.95 30,400 1992 167 18,600 2.00 37,200 1993 167 18,600 2.06 38,300 1994 167 18,600 2.11 39,200 1995 167 18,600 2.16 40,200 1996 167 18,600 2.22 41,300 1997 167 18,600 2.28 42,400 1998 167 18,600 2.34 43,500 1999 167 18,600 2.40 44,600 2000 195 21,700 2.46 53,400 2001 195 21,700 2.52 54,700 2002-2034 195 21,700 2.52 54,700 From Tables VII-14. 1/ 2/ 111.1 gallons per megawatt-bour. Escalated at 2.6% annually. Rounded to nearest $100. Nearest 100 gallons. 1./ i/ NBISF-456-9521-IX-3A WI! .. -TABLE IX-4A BASE CASE WIND ENERGY GENERATION CREDIT • TOGIAK - SUMMARY • - Installedl/ 0reration2/ LUbr6rttiord/ FueJ..~/ Total Capacity -Ma n enan~ Oil Credit -Year (kWh) ($) ($) ($) ($) - 1982 ., 1983 50 2,400 300 24,800 27,500 -1984 50 2,400 300 25,400 28,100 1985 50 2,400 400 26,100 28,900 • 1986 50 2,400 400 26,800 29,600 1987 50 2,400 400 27,500 30,300 -1988 50 2,400 400 28,200 31,000 1989 50 2,400 400 29,000 31,800 • 1990 50 2,400 400 29,600 32,400 1991 50 2,400 400 30,400 33,200 1992 60 2,800 500 37,200 40,500 • 1993 60 2,800 500 38,300 41,600 1994 60 2,800 500 39,200 42,500 .. 1995 60 2,800 600 40,200 43,600 1996 60 2,800 600 41,300 44,700 • 1997 60 2,800 600 42,400 45,800 .. 1998 60 2,800 600 43,500 46,900 1999 60 2,800 600 44,600 48,000 -2000 70 3,300 700 53,400 57,400 2001 70 3,300 800 54,700 58,800 -2002-2034 70 3,300 800 54,700 58,800 • - • -]J From Table VII-14. y From Table IX-1A. • 3/ From Table IX-2A. -4/ From Table IX-3A. -- -.. NBISF-456-9521-IX-4A .. • - ,,", ,,'" ""' .... .- ,- .- ..... --.- - ',,", - --- Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TABLE IX-5A BASE CASE WIND ENERGY GENERATION COSTS TOGIAK Installe~/ Schedule of2/ Capacity Investment--Amortization3/ (kW) ($) ($) 170,000 34,000 170,000 Operation4/ Maintenance ($) o 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 2001 2002-2034 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 70 70 70 34,000 o 14,200 14,200 14,200 14,200 14,200 14,200 14,200 14,200 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 17,100 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 10,200 1/ 2/ ~/ From Tables VII-14. Replace machines every 15 years, build first plant in 1982 and bring on line in 1983. Expand capacity in 1991. 15 years at 3% in perpetvity, rounded to the nearest $100. ~/ 5% of capital cost. Rounded to the nearest $100. NBISF-456-9521-IX-5A Annual Cost ($) o 22,700 22,700 22,700 22,700 22,700 22,700 22,700 22,700 22,700 27,300 27,300 27,300 27,300 27,300 27,300 27,300 27,300 27,300 27,300 27,300 Installedl/ Capaci ty Year (kW) 1982 1983 50 1984 50 1985 50 1986 50 1987 50 1988 50 1989 50 1990 50 1991 50 1992 60 1993 60 1994 60 1995 60 1996 60 1997 60 1998 60 1999 60 2000 70 2001-2034 70 1/ From Table VII- 2/ From Table IX-4A. 3/ From Table IX-5A. TABLE IX-6A BASE CASE WIND ENERGY CREDIT TOGIAK Annual2/ Annual3/ CrediT Cost- ($) ($) 27,500 22,700 28,100 22,700 28,900 22,700 29,600 22,700 30,300 22,700 31,000 22,700 31,800 22,700 32,400 22,700 33,200 22,700 40,500 27,300 41,600 27,300 42,500 27,300 43,600 27,300 44,700 27,300 45,800 27,300 46,900 27,300 48,000 27,300 57,400 27,300 58,800 27,300 i/ Discounted at 3% to January 1987. Net Annual Present.,i/ Cost Worth ($) ($) 4,800 4,500 5,400 4,900 6,200 5,500 6,900 6,000 7,600 6,400 8,300 6,700 9,100 7,200 9,700 7,400 10,500 7,800 13,200 9,500 14,300 10,000 15,200 10,400 16,300 10,800 17,400 11,200 18,500 11,500 19,600 11,900 20,700 12,200 30,100 17,200 31,500 379,600 TOTAL $540,700 Rounded to nearest $100. Present worth factors accurate to 4 decimal places. NBISF-456-9521-IX-6A .. .. --- • - • -• -• -• • .. • • .. -- • -• --.. • ---• .. • - liiill" .,.., til. ,.., - - I- Cf) o <..> r (!) 0::: W Z w I- Z => ~ <l: => Z z <l: 600 500 HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON-LINE ,.., .1i) ALTERNATIVE A WITH 11.6 MILE ROAD I Y -AND NO SPACE HEATING CREDIT r , ' " I , .. , ' X,'" 2 ALTERNATIV,E,A WITH 4.6 MILE ROAD I ,AND NO SPACE HEATING CREDIT : \ " I " .. " T EXPAND FUEL '-, , ' r, STORAGE <£ I ,,' I 5 I I' "" , ___ _ 400 I " ~ ~,~~~~ ~~ ',"~"," :' ~, 2 5", (2) 2.i ',~ ' ... ~~ ___ I._~. I ~ ,'I 7 I , (4)' 3 r--l.-""-__ _ I I y' I 1(4) I " ~ - - - IJ-I ""4 EXPAND WIND • ''" CAPACITY I 4 ~~----- EXPAND DIESEL CAPACITY ® BASE CASE WITHOUT WASTE @ ALTERNATIVE A WITH 11.6 MILE HEAT RECOVERY ROAD AND SPACE OR WIND CREDITS HEATING CREDI"f 200 ® BASE CASE @) ALTERNATIVE A WITH WASTE HEAT WITH 4.6 MILE RECOVERY CREDIT ROAD AND SPACE HEATING CREDIT- (j) BASE CASE WITH WASTE HEAT RECOVERY AND WIND CREDITS 100 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR SEE SECTION IX-F FOR EXPLANATION OF GRAPH --,.,---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PRO,JECTED U!'~IT ENERGY COSTS FIGURE :IX. -I AII'I' IIW 11111 SECTION X ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS A. GENERAL An environmental study of the Togiak Hydroelectric Project vicini ty was conducted to survey the resources in the area, evaluate potential effects of the project, and formulate measures to avo id or arnel iora te adverse ef fects. Two field investigations were made, relevant literature was reviewed, and representatives of the Alaska Departments of Natural Resources and of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge were consul ted along with local residents and the Togiak Village Council. A community meeting was held with local residents on September 14, 1981, to discuss the proposed project. The study results indicate that a hydroelectric project at the Quigmy si te could have potentially serious environmental impacts, but measures such as fish ladders could likely miti- gate the most serious effects. Additional studies are recom- mended to answer questions related to the downstream effects of the dam impoundmen t on salmon spawn ing; coho (si I ver) salmon runs; minimum water requirements for fish below the proposed dam; sel ect ion of a sui table access route; and method s to ensure safe passage of out-migrating young salmon. Additional study of fish passage facilities is also recommended. If implemented, the project will provide a cheaper, depend- able source of electric power to the local residents. The project will bring an enlarged local payroll during construc- tion and emplo ymen t of some local s both for construct ion and maintenance activities. Even though Togiak is used to an influx of outsiders during the herring season, precautions NBI-384-9521-X X-l should be taken to ensure that the imported construction workers do not disrupt the traditional life style of the community. The areas considered in the study included fisheries, wildlife, vegetation, archaeological and historic sites, visual resources, recreation, air Quality, and socioeconomic effects. Land status, hydrology, and geology are addressed in Section IV, Basic Data. The detailed report on the environ- mental studies conducted is contained in Appendix E and a summary of the study is presented in this section. The investigations concentrated primarily on the Quigmy River area where the selected project is located but the Kurtluk River area was studied as well. B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Fisheries a. Qu igmy Ri ver Local residents of Togiak interviewed in September 1981 indicated that coho, pink, and chum salmon and Dolly Varden char are found in the Ouigmy Ri ver, the si te of the proposed proj ect • ADF&G escapemen t estimates for the river from 1970 to 1981 range from 2,800 to 22,000 chum salmon, the only known anadromous run of significance in the Quigmy Ri ver . Co ho and pink salmon may al so spawn in the river but avail abl e in forma tion is sketchy. Wes Bucher of ADF&G stated that physical characteristics indicated that the river would not have a strong pink salmon run but could have a good coho run. No survey information exists. During the field investigation in September 1981, about 40 adul t coho salmon were observed at the mouth of the Quigmy. During October 1981 about 175 adult coho were observed NBI-384-9521-X X-2 -... • - • .. • • --• -• • • .. • -• .. • • • -• • • -• -• - • -• -• - '"' .. .. , .. .. '" ".It' tllil 4111' liM' ' .... 1111 .... . , ... in the upper reaches and a school of 50 to 75 adult Do lly Varden char was seen in the same area. Juvenile Dolly Varden and coho salmon were collected in minnow traps throughout the Quigmy River during the October field reconnaissance. Chum salmon spawning occurs intertidally at the mouth of the Quigmy and upstream as far as Salutak Creek (about 15 miles upstream of the project site) but it is heaviest in the lower half of the river. Estimates of subsistence harvests of salmon for the entire Togiak district indicate an average annual harvest of about 6,400 salmon of all types. These are said to be minimum estimates reported by Togiak villagers. The Togiak Village Council reported that very little subsistence fishing occurs on the Quigmy River because of its remote location and the small numbers of coho present compared to other rivers in the area. Coho salmon are preferred over chum salmon, the predominant run in the Quigmy River. If the project is implemented, effects on the fisheries of the Quigmy River will result from the construction of the dam and its operation. Construction of the dam and its facilities will cause a temporary increase in erosion and sedimentation downstream. Operation of the dam may alter the seasonal temperature cycle. This change could affect the survival rate of the salmon. The dam will incorporate a fish ladder to allow salmon to pass upstream. The reservoir, however, will eliminate a small amount of spawning and rearing habitat. If an access road is constructed to Togiak from the project facilties, an increase in fish harvest from the Quigmy River will likely result. The adverse effects of the project can be minimized by confining construction activity to a single summer and u til izing prudent construct ion pract ices. In add it ion, more NBI-384-9521-X X-3 detailed studies should be conducted to assess the effects of the dam impoundment on salmon spawning and the timing and numbers of the coho salmon runs. Al though th is is a run of river project, resource agencies may request instream flow studies to determine minimum water requirements for anadromous and resident fish. Additional studies may also be required to select an access route and to evaluate methods to ensure safe passage of out-migrating smolt. No significant effects on water quality or quanti ty are expected downstream from the powerhouse outflow. b. Kurtluk River Since a number of alternatives were investigated, the Kurtluk River area was also investigated. The Alaska Fisheries Atlas indicates that chum salmon are known to spawn in the Kurtluk River and Dolly Varden and rainbow trout, whitefish, and northern pike may also be present. ADF&G chum salmon escapement estimates are 1,200 in 1977, 400 in 1978, and 200 in 1979. These are the only years surveyed. No information is available on the upstream extent of spawning. The field survey noted coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and coast-range sculpin in the river. The Togiak Village Council reported that almost no use is made of the Kurtluk River for subsistence or sport fishing. 2. Wildlife a. Quigmy River Area With the exception of the mouth, the Quigmy River has relatively poor wildlife habitat. No moose or caribou use the area, and brown bears use it only occasionally. Rabbi ts, red squirrels, and red fox occur at the river's mouth. Beaver are not considered to be common along the river but the f iel d NBI-384-9521-X X-4 -- • .. • - • • • -.. ---• -• -• -• -• • • • • .. • -• --- • • • - .. ,0 " .. 1111.' 1" ••• ' " ... ' 'itt' ... ' ... - •• survey did reveal evidence of a beaver population in the drainage area. A small number of ducks use the river mouth in the spring and fall. Detailed lists of mammals and birds to be found in the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge are presented in Appendix E. The project is located in the refuge area. The Quigmy River area is not extensively used by local residents because it is 12 miles from Togiak. Several residents who tried to boat the river were stopped by three- foot falls about one-half mile above the proposed dam si teo Fox hunting occurs throughout the entire area surrounding Togiak. Beaver trapping near the Quigmy River is concentrated in the marsh between the Quigmy and Matogak Rivers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has no record of endangered species in the project area. Wildlife effects from the project will have three existing habitat, basic origins: loss disturbances during intervention. or alteration of construction, and increased human Permanent habitat loss will result from the construction of roads and the dam and the flooding of the 53- acre reservoir site. Project features may cause some barriers to animal movements. And some mortal i ty to birds may resul t from collisions with the transmission line wires. Borrow pits will also alter habitat. Blasting and the operation create noise and disturb wildlife. species will be temporary but interrupted. of heavy equipment will The displacement of most some nesting could be The improved access due to the construction of a road from Togiak to the project facili ties will lead to increased NBI-384-9521-X X-5 wildlife harvests and the increased use of off-road vehicles will degrade add it ional habi tat. The major species affected will be brown bears, wolves, foxes, and possibly wolverines. The effects of the project on wildlife can be minimized by confining construction to a single summer and util izing prudent constuction practices. Proper waste management during construction can also prevent problems, particularly those associated with marauding bears. b. Kurtluk River Area The Kurtluk River area's wildlife similar to those for the Quigmy River area. data are very Most of the data available relate to the region. Beaver dams and other indications of animal popul at ions were observed in the f iel d survey of this area. Trapping activities reportedly occur in the upper reaches of the Kurtluk River. 3. Vegetation The Quigmy River is bordered by willows with a grass understory for most of its length. Near the mouth, individual willows attain a height of 10 feet and a diameter of approxi- mately six inches, but farther upstream the willows are only three to five feet tall with a diameter of approximately one inch. In the upper reaches of the Quigmy River, low willow thickets are intermixed with patches of tall grass. In sections wi th rock cliffs or where old river terraces are present, these willow thickets continue up draws and other protected areas. More exposed slopes are covered by moss, with grasses, low blueberry, dwarf birch, dwarf willow, and mountain cranberry interspersed throughout. On bluff tops, the same species are present, but here the woody vegetation attains a height of only NBI-384-9521-X X-6 -.... , ---- • • • - • --.. • -. ----• -• .. • - • .. • - • ---• - • .. *1 ,- ,.., ,.., ... , - two to three inches and it is so tightly interwoven it almost completely obscures the moss. Foliose lichens, such as caribou 1 ichen, are qui te common on bluff tops and in some areas are the dominant ground cover. Vegetation was quite similar along the Kurtluk River, with willows along the steambanks and dry tundra on bluff tops. Willows reached heights of 20 feet in protected spots but were normall y much shorter . At the dam site, lower areas were covered with willow, while the upper slopes of the river bluffs were thickly covered with low blueberry. 4. Archaeologic and Historic Sites The only known archaeologic or historic site in the project area is located at the mouth of the Kurtl uk River. However, additional unidentified sites are likely to exist and the Alaska Division of Parks has required an archaeologic survey of the project area before construction can begin. 5. Visual Resources The dam and powerhouse will not be visible from Togiak or from Togiak Bay. The transmission 1 ine wi 11 be vis i bl e from the town, but it will be placed where it will be screened from view wherever possi bl e. Shoul d road Option A (a road from Togiak to the dam site) be chosen, it will be visible from the village to the point where it disappears behind a low hill at the mouth of the Kurtluk Ri ver about two miles beyond the existing road. This road was formed through continual use and was never formally constructed. Road option B (from Togiak Bay to the dam site) will be visible from a portion of Togiak Bay, but will be screened from view in the town by low hills . NBI-384-9521-X X-7 6. Recreation Since the Quigmy River is 12 miles from Togiak, it does not receive extensive use by local residents. Fox hunting occurs throughout the entire region. Beaver trapping in the vicinity of the Quigmy River is concentrated in the marshy area to the southwest, between the Quigmy and the Matogak Rivers. If road Option A is chosen, it will greatly increase the area a vai lable for recreational use of snow machines, three- wheelers, and standard vehicles. Village residents indicated an interest in this route because it would increase access for berry picking, hunting, and trapping. Road Option B wi 11 not greatly affect recreational use of the area, since the road will not provide access from the village. On rare occasions villagers may bring three-wheeled vehicles by boat to use the road. 7. Air Quality During project construction, exhaust fumes from diesel equipment and dust generated by construction activity may diminish air quality. Since the proposed dam is 12 miles from Togiak, this activity should not affect local residents. Winds are common in this area and should rapidly disperse the air pollutants. Electrical power for Togiak is currently provided by diesel generators. Replacement of diesel power by hydroelectric Dower should improve air quality due to the elimination of air pollutants generated by the burning of diesel fuel. Creation of a dependable source of round-the-clock power will impove the quality of life of the residents. NBI-384-9521-X X-8 -- '. -- • --.. --• -• .. -- • -.. .. • -• ------- • -• - • - .... .... .. .., ..... •• ..... .- .... , . .., ... . .., 'e ..... C. SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS Togiak is one of the more traditional villages in the Bristol Bay area. Even so, socioeconomic effects of the project will be minimal. The construction force is not expected to exceed 26 people, and it will probably average 21. Since accommodations are not available at Togiak, trailers will be brought in (and removed when construction is completed) and a camp will be set up near the dam site. Working hours will be 10 hours a day, six or seven days a week so the imported work force will have little time for recreation. The project should be completed within one year. Work is scheduled to begin in May, with completion scheduled in the latter part of November. Al though skilled craft labor will be required, an effort should be made to hire local residents whenever possible • Otherwise, Togiak residents may resent the importation of workers. However, since construction would occur during the summer months, most local residents are likely to be busy with commercial fishing and not be available for hire . Togiak is used to receiving a large influx of outsiders during the herring season. In spite of this, the head of the project construction crew will have to take precautions to ensure that the imported workers do not disrupt the traditional life style of the Togiak community. Some foresight in setting up the trailer camp to accommodate the imported work force should be helpful in achieving this objective. If the project is implemented, the hydropower will provide cheaper electric power to the local residents. The Togiak community will also benefit from the enlarged payroll during construction and from the employment of some locals both for construction and maintenance activities. NBI-384-9521-X X-9 ' .. .. ,.. . ,,,,, iiil ,., SECTION XI PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION A. GENERAL This reconnaissance-level study has indicated that a marginally feasible project could be constructed at the recommended Quigmy River darn site. Since overall feasibility has thus been shown, the next step to implement the project, if so desired, would be the completion of a defini ti ve project report that would optimize the project features, including the type of darn, darn height, and installed capacity. This section covers the steps necessary to complete the definitive project report and presents a general schedule for the following design and construction phases. The licenses, permits, and institutional considerations necessary for project development are also discussed. B. DEFINITIVE PROJECT REPORT Much of the work accomplished on the various activities during this ini tial study can be utilized for the defini tive project report. However, some additional data would be necessary. Following is an appraisal of the information gathered during this study that is applicable to the final feasibility study and recommendations for additional data where necessary . 1. Geology and Geotechnics The Geology and Geotechnics Report included with this study as Appendix C has been based on surface investigations, shallow auger information, and hand dug test pits. A drilling and testing program will be necessary in the darn site area. Three NBI-384-9521-XI XI-l holes approximately 50 feet in depth will be required, followed by laboratory testing of the drill cores. Detailed soils mapping should be prepared in conjunction with a drilling and test pit program along the proposed road alignment. In the borrow si tes, extensive drill holes or test pits should be undertaken to determine the best areas to extract gravel. A test program should also be conducted to determine the thickness of the alluvium in the stream bed. 2. Surveying and Mapping The surveys obtained to date are probably 80 percent adequate for the defini tive project report and final design. Several additional cross sections and some additional topographic mapping, however, should be obtained. In addition, a strip topographic map should be obtained along the route of the proposed transmission line and access road. 3. Environmental Appraisal Additional studies are recommended to answer questions related to the downstream effects of the dam impoundment on salmon spawning, silver (coho) salmon runs, minimum water requirements for fish below the proposed dam, selection of a sui table access route, and methods to ensure safe passage of out-migrating young salmon. In addition, detailed investigations of the various types of fish ladder designs available as a mitigation measure would be necessary. The recommended additional environmental studies are discussed in more detail in Appendix E. 4. Energy Planning The information developed for this reconnaissance study as modified by any pertinent comments received during the review process should be adequate for the definitive project report. NBI -384-9521-XI XI-2 .. -.. -.. - • • • -• -• • • .. • .. • .. • .. • - • • • ---- • -• -• - .. , .... .... •• " ... ' .. 5. Hydrology Present estimates of power flows available at the Quigmy River site are based on limited data from areas 75 to 150 miles distant. These estimates were intent ionally conservative to compensate for the limited hydrologic knowledge of the Togiak area. Given the marginal feasibility of the Togiak Hydroelectric Project, these flow estimates should be carefully compared with available recorded streamflow measurements. A flow recorder was installed near the darn site on December 3, 1981. The timely availability of 1982 precipitation and streamflow records from long-term stations elsewhere in Bristol Bay is also required. If some degree of verification is required prior to 1983, preliminary work could begin in August. At a minimum, records of the summer snowmelt recession and low flows are required to materially increase the confidence in present flow estimates. 6. Preliminary Designs The size of all project features will be optimized. With the cost information now available and the improved hydrological data that will soon be gathered, the optimal sizes and types of project features can be determined. Wi th the large heat demand of Togiak only partially satisfied by the 432 kW installation, a larger installed capacity of up to 600 kW should be investigated in detail . 7. Cost Estimates The cost estimates will be carefully refined to minimize as many unknowns as possible. The estimates will be worked out with firms and individuals experienced in construction in Alaska. NBI-384-9521-XI XI-3 8. Final Report All findings of the study will be compiled in a definitive project report that will contain conclusions and recommendat ions on the recommended project conf igura t ion and detailed implementation measures. C. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE A proposed schedule for future project development in the form of a bar chart is included as Figure XI-1. The schedule assumes that the APA will decide to proceed with a Definitive Project Report and then to proceed wi th full project development. The schedule is also based on the assumption that three separate contracts would be awarded for the project construction. The first would be for fabrication and delivery of the turbine-generator equipment to the Port of Seattle and later installation. The second would be for construction of the project access road, and the third would be for civil work construction and installation in cooperation with the manufacturer of the turbine-generator equipment. The actual controlling activities on the proposed schedule are the turbine-generator procurement, the project access road, and the construction period for the dam power plant and transmission line. 1. Turbine-Generator Procurement Accord ing to manufacturers' est ima tes , approximately one year is necessary for turbine-generator fabrication (and delivery to the Port of Seattle) starting from the time of cont rac t award. In add it ion, prior to the award a two-month NBI-384-9521-XI XI-4 ---- • - • • • --.. • -• - ., .f • • • • • .. • • • .. • --- - - - _. - - - -- .. - period must be allowed for advertising, bid preparation, and bid evaluation. This in turn would be preceded by a three- month period to prepare specifications. 2. Access Road The access road would ideally be constructed in the summer of the year preceding dam, power plant, and transmission line construction. The economic analysis has indicated that the most desirable option for project development is the construction of a 4.6-mile access road. This assumes that the Alaska Department of Transportation has constructed the first 7.0 miles of the 11.6-mile road. If this in fact occurs, the APA should then fund the remaining 4.6 miles of access road by the same contractor. 3. Construction Period The field construction period would require two to three summer months of on-site acti vi ties, preceded by one to two months of shipping and mobilization time. Other critical tasks such as preparation of the civil plans and specifications, award of the civil contract, procurement of the necessary permits and license, and coordination of project- related activities with other affected agencies would be accompl ished during the turbine-generator procurement phase; thus they are not directly controlling activities. As shown, the project construction would be completed about October 1, 1984. Following three months of commissioning and debugging time, the project would come on-line about January 1, 1985. NBI-384-9521-XI XI-5 D. PROJECT LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The following permits may be required for construction of the Togiak Hydroelectric Project on the Quigmy River site: l. 2. 3. Under the authority of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) must authorize the discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters, which includes adjacent wetlands, by all individuals, organizations, commercial enterprises, and federal, state and local agencies. A COE Section 404 Permit will therefore be required for the diversion weir on Delta Creek. A Water Quality Certificate from the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), is also required for any activity that may resul t in a discharge into the navigable waters of Alaska. Application for the certificate is made by submitting to DEC a letter requesting the certificate, accom- panied by a copy of the permit application being submitted to the Corps of Engineers. The Alaska Department of Fish Division, under authority of and Game, Habitat AS16.05.870, the Anadromous Fish Act, requires a Habitat Protection Permit if a person or governmental agency desires to construct a hydraulic project or affect the natural flow or bed of a specified anadromous river, lake, or st ream or use equipment in such waters. A Habi tat Protection Permit will be required for the diversion weir, and for any bridging, instream or stream bank work on the Quigmy or Kurtluk rivers. NBI-384-9521-XI XI-6 • - • -.. - • • -• --.. • ... • .. • ... • • • - • • • .. • - • - • -• ... .. - - .- - - - - - .... - - - - .. . -- - 4 . 5. 6. 7. Under authority of AS 16.05.840, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game can require, if the Commissioner feels it necessary, that every dam or other obstruc- tion built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon or other f ish be provided with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage of fish. Th is statute will be addressed under the Habitat Protection Permit. All publ ic or pr iva te ent it ies (except Federal agencies) proposing to construct or operate a hydro- electric power project must have a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) if the proposed site is located on a navigable stream, or on U.S. lands, or if the project affects a U.S. govern- ment dam or interstate commerce. For the Togiak project a minor license may be required. The question of whether or not the project is jurisdictional under the FERC is currently under study. A Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam is required from the Forest, Land and Water Management Division of the Al aska Department of Natural Resources for the con- struction, enlargement, al tera t ion or repai r of any dam in the State of Alaska that is ten feet or more in height or stores 50 acre-feet or more of water. A Water Rights Permit is required from the Director of the Di vision of Forest, Land and Water Management, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, for any person who desires to appropriate waters of the State of Alaska. However, this does not secure rights to the water. When the permi t holder has commenced to use the appropriated water, he should notify the director, who wi 11 issue a Cert i fi ca te of Appropriation that secures the holder's rights to the water . NBI-384-9521-XI XI-7 8. 9. Tbe proposed project area is located within the coastal zone. Under the Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977, a determination of consistency wi th Alaska Coastal Management Standards must be obtained from the Di vision of Pol icy Development and PI anni ng in the office of the governor. This determination would be made during the COE 404 Permit review. Any party wishing to use land or facili ties of any National Wildlife Refuge for purposes other than those designa ted by tbe manager-i n-charge and publ ished in the Federal Register must obtain a Special Use Permit from the U. S. Fish and Wi I dl i fe Service. This permi t may authorize such activities as rights-of-way; easements for pipelines, roads, utilities, structures, and research projects; and entry for geologic recon- naissance or similar projects, filming and so forth. NBI-384-9521-XI XI-B • -• ... -- • ... • ---• .. • ... • ... • .. • ... • ... ... • • .. --• ---• .. -- , • j 1 Activity 1. Alaska Power Authority Review 2. Definitive Project Report 3. State of Alaska Decision 4. Secure Necessary Permits, License 5. Turbine/Generator Contract a. Prepare Turbine/Generator Spec. b. Advertise & Evaluate Bids c. Fabricate Turbine/Generator d. Deliver Turbine/Generator to Seattle 6. Access Road a. Prepare Plans and Specs b. Construct Road 7. Civil Contract a. Prepare Civil Plans & Specs. b. Advertise & Evaluate Bids 8. Construction Activities a. Mobilization Period b. Barge Sh ipmen t c. Site Mobilization d. Site Construction 9. Power Plant Commissioning, Debugging Period 10. Plant On-Line NBI-410-9521-PDS J F M t t f FIGURE XI -1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE --.~ 1982 1983 1984 A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S o N D J F M A M J J A S o N D I-- ~ -,.. • -~ -- - ~~ --- - - - -- - - - - --- - SECTION XII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the studies completed for this report, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The energy demands of Togiak are sufficient to utilize the energy produced by both a 432 kW and a 288 kW hydroelectric project. 2. A hydroelectric project utilizing a 38-foot concrete dam with 432 kW installed capacity is marginally feasible if only 4.6 miles of the access road must be funded by the project. 3. If a longer 11.6-mile road must be constructed, the present worth of the project costs for the 38-foot- high concrete dam and 432 kW installation are virtually the same as the present worth of the alternative base case plan costs. 4. A project on the Kurtluk River may be feasible. 5. A hydroelectric project at the Quigmy site could have potentially serious environmental effects, but measures such as fish ladders would likely mitigate the most serious effects. NBI-384-9521-XII XII-1 B. RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the conclusions enumerated above, consideration of the next step for project implementation--the preparation of a definitive project report--is recommended by the Consultant only if it appears that the Alaska Department of Transportation intends to construct a road to the gravel borrow site at mile 7.0 along the proposed project access road. If this next step is undertaken, additional environmental studies are also recommended to assess in more detail the possible effects of the project and to formulate appropriate mitigation measures. An additional study that could be considered would be to investigate in more detail the feasibility of constructing a much smaller installation of approximately 60 to 80 kW at the Kurtluk site. After the field reconnaissance and initial hydrology activities were completed during this present study, work on this site was not pursued since the size was so small in relation to the Togiak electrical demands. NBI-384-9521-XII XII-2 -- • .. -- • • • .. .. • -.. • • • .. • ... .. .. .. - • .. .. - • - • -.. .. ... -- .... - - - •• References BIBLIOGRAPHY TOGIAK Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Alaska's Fisheries Atlas, Volumes I and II. 1978. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat, Volumes I and II. 1973. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Bristol Bay Annual Management Report, 1980. Beck, R. W., and Associates. Small-Scale Hydropower Reconnaissance Study, Southwest Alaska. For the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, April 1981. Cady, W. M., R. E. Wallace, J. M. Hoare, and E. J. Webber. "The Central Kuskokwin Region, Alaska," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 268. 1955. Department of Army, Office of Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams, National Dam Inspection Act, PL 92-367. 1977. Department of Commerce. ESSA -Environmental Data Service, Climatological Data Summary, Alaska. Ebasco Services, Inc. Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects: Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Vols. 1 and ~, October 1980. NBI-384-9521-BR Huber, W. C., D. R. F. Harleman, and P. J. Ryan. Temperature Predictions in Stratified Reservoirs, Proc. ASCE, 98, HY4, 645- 666. 1972. Miller, J. F. "Probable Maximum Precipitation and Rainfall Frequency Data for Alaska," U.S. Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 47, 1963. Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik Associates, Inc. Community Energy Reconnaissance of Goodnews Bay, Grayling, Scammon Bay, and Togiak. A report to the Alaska Power Authority, February 1981. Ott Water Engineers. Water Resources Atlas for USDA Forest Service Region X, Juneau, Alaska, April 197~. Retherford, H. W., Associates. Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential, Phase I, for the U.S. Department of Energy, December 1979. Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Environmental Statment. U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, December 1979. U.S. Geological Survey. "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams," Water Resources Investigation 78-129, R. D. Lamke. 1979. U.S. Geological Survey. "The Hydraulic Geometry of Some Alaskan Streams South of the Yukon River (Open File Report)," William E. Emmett, July 1972. U.S. Geological Survey. "Water Resources of Alaska (Open File Report)"; A. J. Feulner, J. M. Childers, V. W. Norman; 1~71. NBI-384-9521-BR • .. .. --- • .. III .., .. .. -., .. II .. • III! .. .. • .. • • .. -.. --.. --• - • - "". .... ..... .... ., ... ..... ... . ". . .., •• 'fIIII Watson, G. H., et al. An Inventory of Wildlife Habitat of the MacKenzie Valley and the Northern Yukon. Environmental and Social Committee, Task Force on Northern Oil Development, Report No. 73-27. 1973. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Valdez Flood Investigation Technical Report. February 1981 . NBI-384-9521-BR ..... ... " ... •.. ,.: "1-... TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX A PROJECT DRAWINGS .... -.-.. - .. .. - - - - ..... - ., _. -. J.il' TABLE OF CONTENTS Plate I General Plan Plate II Alternative A--38 Foot High Concrete Gravity Dam, 432 kW Installed Capacity Plate III Alternative B--28 Foot High Concrete Gravity Dam, 288 kW Installed Capacity Plate IV Alternative C--52 Foot High Rockfill Dam, 432 kW Installed Capacity Plate V Typical Crossarm Construction Assembly Plate VI Electric One-Line Diagram r' ,< -" .. \ . PROJECT " r ',," ~~¥ .¥ / II TOGIAK BAY I I PROJECT PLAN I , I I I 'I I "J,.'" ), ~I ." /?:, o 2 3 4 5 MILES ~~--~i~~i--~I __ _ LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE BRtS TOL BAY VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE STATE OF ALASI(A ALASKA POWER AUTH~TY ANCHORAGE, ALASIIiA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT GENERAL PLAN DDWL ENGINEERS TUD<lII __ a ~y ANCHOftAGE. ALASKA SAN ~1ItMICIICO.~ PLATE I , . . , SHUT-OFF VALVE -TRANSMISSION LINE GENERAL PLAN SCALE' I"' 20' ~.// ~// -+ ,. / .. TURBINE (CONTROL PANELS POWERHOUSE PLAN NT S B j ----------__ GENERATOR ------SPEED INCREASER / STB~AhlBEQ _EL. 170 SECTION A SCALE' I"' 10' EL. 227 'V FLOOD EL. 224 GATE '2-EL."'2"'o"'8'-----________ --=::.~nI ~OUNDLEVEL~E~L.~19~2~ ____________ ~~~ SECTION B SCALE • I"' 10' o 10 20 30 40 50 60 SCALE I" z 101 o 20 40 60 80 100 120 ~----~--~S~C~A~L~E~~,"-.-2~0~'~----~~-~ -LTW .EL .178 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE,ALASKA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A 38' HIGH CONCRETE GRAVITY DAM 432 kW INSTALLED CAPACITY OOWL ENGINEERS ANCHOItAGE. ALASKA TUOOA ENGINEERIII5 COIII_y SAN fRANCISCO, CALlfOIINlA PLATE ., , . , .. " ... .. . , . \ \ .' . \ ~-,~~" . '~-( - ---:-.-~-.---.:..~. --~---- \ \ \ .' -",~ .. ' SHUT-OFF VALVE 'CDIoICRETE FLOW --- . A ~ .~. ,~ :~~--"115'.' .-' ~:;/ ~~ ... ----... -, ~ -------' \ '\ .. ~ ------------------ GENERAL PLAN SCALE' I"" 20' TURBINE CONTROL PANELS POWERHOUSE PLAN 'NT S B j __ , __ GENERATOR SPEED INCREASER ..&-FLOOD ~,~1'14~ _______ _ STREAMBED EL 170 ~"17~ ___________ __ 'V FLOOD EL. 214 GROUND LEIIE,L ~L. 187 , 0 10 20 SCALE 0 20 40 SCALE '. 4 !',' 30 I" • 60 RETAINING WALL SECTION A SCALE I"· 10' SECTION B SCALE. I"· 10' 40 ~O 10' 80 100 SPILLWAY 60 120 I"" 20' TW. EL. 178 -.:&- TW. EL. 178 STATE 01' ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE,ALASKA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B 28' HIGH CONCRETE GRAVITY DAM 288 kWINSTALLED CAPACITY OOWl ENGINEERS AIICHORAG[, ALASKA PLATE m n .. ~~---- TRANSMISSION UNE -------/----~. ~ .. ~~-;;--~~--L- INTAKE-. " \ \ LOW LEVEL\ /' RELEASE INTAKE _ SHUT-OFF VALVE B L It ---Iy U .. FLOW ---------- GENERAL PLAN SCALE, I"· 20' TURBINE, POWERHOUSE PLAN NTS (CONTROL PANELS i _ ._GENERATOR SPEED INCREASER TRASH RACK It. DAM GATE HOIST ............... ')---, /. ~ EL.2OB /;y ·----·zJ ~/' 14 /'" . I~ 1.4 / '1 .' ·.(~-LO' CONCRETE GATE-__ ~.P MEMBRANE I ~ ~ROCKFILL e LEVEL OUTLET~ '0¥~ "-------TOE SLA8 ( SECTION A SCAL E' I"· 10' It. DAM ..... 8'-0 DIA. REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ~~.----------~~--~ V FLOOD EL. 218 V RES. EL. 208 TOE SLAB o 10 20 30 40 :10 60 SCALE 1 II,. 101 '----' - 0~ __ 2~0~_~4~0~_~6JO~~~8~0~_-110~O~_~120 SCALE I"" 20' TW. EL. 178 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE,ALASKA TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ALTERNATIVE C 52' HIGH ROCK FILL DAM 432 kW INSTALLED CAPACITY OOWL ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA PLATEI2' , ... ' ... - .. .. ."" .. - - - ~,.., .... - 4" 3' -8" 3' -8 1 ' II 0 t\I = W 1 0 rt) ITEM NO. a 3 b I c :3 d 5 f 2 g I ek b ek-c-d ---~" a Position of Guy when req'd I d74-t~, I I I '" bs I I I I I I I r"~ . 1 1 I.f~ rt~ ek-d/l ~j "'-ec t~J Specify CIA for offset neutral assembly MATERIAL ITEM NO. Insulator, pin type cu 2 Pin, pole top, ZO" i 2 Bolt, machine, ;S" x req d length j I Washer 2 ~4" ,IZ Y4" ~ 3/16 , 1~16 hale bs I Pin, crossarm, steel.5/8" x 103~" ee I Crossarm. 3 '/2" x 4 1/2" x 8' -0 j 3 Locknuts MATERIAL Broce, wood, 28" Bolt, corrioge,3/S" x 4}02' Screw, log, "2"x 4" (CI only) Bolt sinQle upset, insuloted(CI only) Bracket,offset ,insulated (CIA only) Screw, log. I/Z"x4" (C IA only) 7.2112.5 KV., 3-PHASE CROS SAR M CONSTRUCTION SINGLE PRIMARY SUPPORT AT 0° TO 5° ANGLE Jon I, 1962 CI. CIA PLATE rL - - - - ... - - --,. --- l 52S) -L STATION SERVICE II ~£ SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR kV·A, PF-0.9 RPM 3 0, GENERATOR = TO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TRANSFORMER 12,470/480 V GENERATOR BREAKER ELECTRIC ONE -LINE DIAGRAM NTS REVENUE METER SYNCHRONIZING ____ r!1_ VOLTAGE REGULATOR .... I,,, .... TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEAS IBILITY STUDY APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY - TABLE OF CONTENTS -PAGE -A. GENERAL 1 -B. AREA DESCRIPTION 1 .. C . DATA UTILIZED 4 D. PROJECT STREAMFLOWS 5 ,..,. E . DIVERSION WEIR FLOOD FREQUENCY 11 .. F. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL RIVER ICE -PROBLEMS 14 ..... - -NBI-427-9524-TC - - - - - - ..... - - - - - - A. GENERAL The ology, village Alaska. fo llowi ng report provi des the est ima tes, the method- and the background d at a on the river flows near the of Togiak located on Bristol Bay in southwestern Also included is a generalized wri te-up of potential ice problems in the vicini ty of Togiak and elsewhere. Since the stream flows dictate the amount of energy that can be produced by a particular dam and power plant configuration, their accuracy cri tically affects the feasibili ty of the pro- ject. Although very little hydrologic information is available on the project area, information from other parts of the Bristol Bay region permi t acceptable estimates to be made for the Quigmy dam site. However, these estimates should be com- pared wi th the actual streamflows now being recorded at the Quigmy damsite. This report describes the general characteris- tics of the Togiak region and the basin that feeds the Quigmy River. The data used in the hydrologic analysis, and streamflow and flood frequency data from the Quigmy River are also presented. A list of references th at are cited in the text is presented at the end of this appendix. B. AREA DESCRIPTION 1. Regional Setting Togiak is miles due west located on the north shore of Bristol Bay 70 of Dillingham, 150 miles west of King Salmon, and 70 miles northeast of Cape Newenham. The region is partially isolated from the comparatively moist, warmer air of the Gulf of Alaska by the mountains of the Aleutian Range and islands located 200 miles to the south. As such, the region forms a transi tion zone between that Mari time climate and the Arctic and Continental climates further north. Bristol Bay has a moderate maritime climate characterized by cool summers, mild win ters, and moderate amoun ts of prec ipi tat ion. Most of the NBI-384-9521-B* 1 precipitation occurs when moist air from the ocean precipitates as rain or snow as it is uplifted along the mountains. Strong winds over 50 mph blow from the south as eastward-moving Aleutian lows pass through this region from December through March. Basin precipitation due to the flow of moist air from Bristol Bay is expected to exhibit orographic effects, with moderate amounts falling in the low elevations and heavy rain- fall in the mountains. There are no long-term precipi tation and temperature records for the Togi ak area. However, the weather records from Cape Newenham, King Salmon, and Dillingham stations would probably straddle the range of values expected to occur within the lower basin, with higher precipitation values expected for mountainous areas. Mean annual precipita- tion isolines prepared by the National Weather Service and USGS (1971) show an area to the east of the basin of interest that has a mean annual precipitation of 80 inches, twice the amount that falls in the coastal areas of Cape Newenham and Togiak (see Figure B-1). The area enclosed by the 80-inch isoline contains high mountains (to 5000 feet MSL) and a few small gl aciers. Therefore the mean annual prec ipi t at ion averaged over the Quigmy River basin should exceed 40 inches, probably rangi ng from 40 inches to 60 inches and averagi ng around 50 inches. It is reported in King Salmon that snowfall averages 45 inches, inches. melting. wi th a maximum depth on the ground of no more than 10 This information indicates the extent of winter snow- This is reflected on Eskimo Creek hydrograph where some daily winter flows approach mean annual flows. Based on regional mappi ng by the U. S. Geological Survey (1971), the temperatures in the vicini ty of Togiak range from January mean daily lows of 4°F to July highs of 62 0 F. Annual runoff varies from two to four cfs per square mile (27 to 54 NBI-384-9521-B* 2 • .. • .. • - • .. -.. • • • - • - • - • • II • • -• - • .. • • --.. • • • - - - - - - -,-- .. ----- inches) wi th the lower values estimated for the Quigmy River area. 2. Basin Description A potential for hydroelectric development near Togiak exists within the two adjacent river basins lying west of the town as shown on Figure B-2. The Qui gmy River basi n drai ni ng 100 square miles is of primary interest with the 13-square-mile Kurtluk River basin as an al ternate. The headwaters of both Quigmy and Kurtluk Rivers are in a mountainous area with peaks rising from 1000 to 2500 feet in elevation. The lower portion of these basins consists of the marshy flatlands of the coastal benches and it is per iod i call y dot ted wi th groups of small lakes. The entire region has been glaciated. A significant portion of the basin seems to be in the wetlands that run along the course of the river. These wet lands wi 11 probably mod i fy streamflow characteristics by providing considerable temporary storage area for runoff. Vegetation is limi ted to low brush except for a few pockets of trees in protected river valleys. The Quigmy Ri ver basin is approximately 26 miles long and fi ve to six mi les wide, and it drains to the southwest. The basin relief around Quigmy River indicates that the mid-portion of the river crossing through the wetlands has a gradient of 20 feet per mile whereas the same river attains a gradient of 37 feet per mi Ie near the proposed dam si te. Here the ri ver has several natural constrictions, wi th narrow and steep cuts in the siliceous siltstone bedrock. The proposed dam site sits on one of these natural constrictions. c. DATA UTILIZED Very Ii ttle hydrometeorological information exists in the Togiak area. Spot stream discharge and gage height measure- ments were made at the Quigmy and Kurtluk si tes on September NBI-384-9521-B* 3 14, and October 9, 1981. A stream stage recorder was installed on the Quigmy on December 3, 1981. Other than this, the nearest stream gages with past records are located near Di 11 i ngham. Si nce they measure primari ly 1 ake out flows, they are useful only in assessing long-term average flow. The Eskimo Creek gage (No. 15297900, six years of continuous record) at King Salmon, 150 mi les to the east, is the only stream gage potentially representative of the relative varia- tion in flow anticipated at the Quigmy River site. Except for a few months of partial record at Togiak, the nearest precipitation stations are located at Dillingham and Cape Newenham, both 70 mi 1 es d ist ant. However, these records over the long term are considered to be a reasonable represen- tation of the variations in sea-level precipitation at Togiak. Prior reports Northern Technical Services and Gulik Associates (1971), R. W. Beck (1981), and DOE (1979) on stream yield near Togiak have depended principally on the USGS (1971) statewide report. D. PROJECT STREAMFLOWS Both Quigmy and Kurtluk Rivers have perennial flow, as verified by local residents. The flow regime of both rivers is seasonal. Higher flows occur from April through November from spring snowmelt and subsequent rainfall that typically peaks in October. Winter flows are augmented by groundwater flow emana t i ng from the wet 1 ands and part i al mel t i ng of snow ina maritime climate as demonstrated by snowfall records from King Salmon Weather Station. A comparison of precipitation records from King Salmon and Cape Newenham (Table B-1) indicates that the time distribution of precipitation is similar at both stations. Cape Newenham has a somewhat higher portion of its annual precipi tat ion in NBI-384-9521-B* 4 ---.. • - • - • - • .. • .. • .. • • • .. • • • • .. • .. • --- • - • .. - - - - - ',," .. - .. October and November than at King Salmon. Significant amounts of precipi tation and concurrent partial snowmel ting in winter contribute to runoff. Hence, the variabili ty of streamflow within the basin is not expected to be extreme and the stream- flow regime should have characteristics simi lar to the gaged Eskimo Creek near King Salmon. The analysis of daily flows at Eskimo Creek indicates that the mean annual flow is exceeded approximately 32 percent of the time. The 90 percent exceed- ance discharge is about one-third of the mean annual flow. 1. Mean ~nnual Flow No streamflow data on Quigmy River exist except a few sporadic point discharge measurements taken by various consult- ants. As part of this study, a stream gaging station is being installed approximately 500 feet upstream of the proposed damsite. The paucity of available data dictated that the following estimating techniques be used to determine streamflows within the region of interest: • modified rational formula • • regional analysis channel geomorphology Each one of these methods was appl ied to the study area to determine values for mean annual flow. a. Modified Rational Formula Application of the modified rational formula is explained in detail in the Ebasco report (1980). Only the salient features of the method are provided below. The method requires that a gaged stream within the study area having NBI-384-9521-B* 5 similar weather patterns and groundcover to the ungaged stream be selected. A proportion is then set up, so that = where Qg and Qug streamflow in cubic area. Factors to refer respectively to feet per second and adjust precipitation incorporated into this equation as follows: = (P) + (~H)E gaged and ungaged A is the drainage and elevation are where P is precipitation adjustment factor between the two watersheds, ~H refers to the elevation differential and E is the elevation adjustment factor. Only Eskimo Creek at King Salmon is fi t to be paired with Quigmy River due to its proximity, period of record, and basin and climatological similarity (USGS, 1971). Mean discharge records of the Eskimo Creek area were analyzed in conjunction wi th long-term weather records at King Salmon to determine whether the observed values are "normal" or due to runoff from wet or dry series of years. A flow adjustment factor was derived by taking the ratio of average annual rain- falls during the six-year gaging record to the long-term average rainfall during the period of weather records. The resulting factor of 1.05 was applied to the short-term measured flow of 13.0 cfs. This analysis yields an adjusted mean annual runoff of 13.7 cfs or a unit runoff of 0.85 cfs per square mile (Qg/Ag in above equation) for Eskimo Creek. The precipi tation adjustment factor (P) accounts for the precipi tat ion difference between the area of gaged and NBI-384-9521-B* 6 ---- • - • .. -.. -- • .. • - • .. .. • ., .. .. .. • --.. • - • ------ - - - - - - - - ..... - .: .... -- -,. ungaged stream. It is a ratio of long-term average precipi ta- tion between the two basins. Long-term average precipi tation for King Salmon is given as 19.62 inches in the Department of Commerce's Climatological Data Summary. This value would represent the basin precipitation for Eskimo Creek, whereas there are no long-term records for Togiak. However, the Nat ional Weather Service and the U. S. Geological Survey have drawn mean annual precipi tation isolines for this area. Two isolines, 40 inches and 80 inches, are indicated on the map in Figure B-1. The 80-inch isoline is drawn by judgment (based on three weather stations and runoff from two streams) and corre- lation between basin glaciers north of Dillingham and similar data from precipitation and runoff from glaciers on the Alaska Range. The Quigmy River basin is outside of the 80-inch preci- pitation and does not contain any glaciers. However, the basin is mountainous and exposed to the same moist air flow as the area northwest of Dillingham. The high elevations within Quigmy River basin are expected to receive precipitation higher than 40 inches a year. Larry Mayo of USGS, Fai rbanks, has prepared these precipitation isoline maps and he contends that the basin precipi tation should be between 40 and 60 inches (personal communication, November 13, 1981). No elevation adjustment factors were applied because the dam site lies below elevation 200 feet MSL according to the rules established in the Ebasco report (1980). Standard planimeter procedures were used to calculate the drainage of 100 square miles that contributes runoff to the damsite. Gi ven the range of prec i pi tat i on adjustment the mean annual flow for Quigmy River, using the rational formula, has the following values: NBI-384-9521-B* 7 factors, modified Precipitation Inches Factor(P) 40 2.03 50 60 b. 2.53 3.04 Regional Analysis Mean Annual Flow cfs 173 215 258 The regional method described by Ott Engineers (1979) was applied first to the gaged stream Eskimo Creek to test its applicability. The climate in the Bristol Bay area is consid- ered to be composed of a series of Mari time micro-climates somewhat similar to the south-central and southeast regions of Alaska where the method was developed (Miller, 1963); there- fore, the regional method should provide reasonable estimates. This method yielded a mean annual flow of 15 cfs with 90 percent confidence limits of 12 and 17 cfs. This predicted value agrees acceptably with the measured flow of 13 cfs. The same method applied to the Quigmy River site with a mean annual precipitation of 50 inches yielded a flow of 290 cfs. The 90 percent confidence limits for 290 cfs were given as 240 and 330 cfs. This range incorporates the higher value calculated through the rational formula. c. Channel Morphology Channel geomorphology can be used to estimate both the mean annual flow and the mean annual flood by measuring channel dimensions that have been shaped by these streamflows. The method is considered to give reliable estimates for some parts of the Uni ted States where estimating relations have al ready been defined. William Emmett (USGS, 1972) applied this method to bankfull stream geometry along the Trans-Alaska pipeline NBI-384-9521-B* 8 --- • - • --- • - • • • .. • - • .. • .. • .. .. - • - • --... • ----- - - - - corridor with reasonable success. His data included four large streams in the Copper River basin that were potentially appli- cable to the Bristol Bay area. As part of the consultant's field work for the concur- rent feasibility studies, four small streams on Kodiak Island were measured near st ream gages. The combi ned dat a covered a range of 19 to 37,000 cfs mean annual flow and bankfull widths of 27 to 750 feet. Regression analysis of the data established a consistent relationship between gaged mean annual flows and the bankfull width of the channels within their vegetated floodplains. The resulting equation was Qma ~ .0083 W2 .253 where coefficient of correlation = .995 standard error of estimate = .12 log units (+32%, -24%) The width of the Quigmy River was measured in the field and from an ai r photo of the floodplain two to three miles upstream of the si teo The average width was 100 feet, which correlates wi th a mean annual flow of approximately 270 cfs with a standard error range of 200 to 360 cfs. d. Estimated Flow A mean annual flow of 220 cfs for the Quigmy River site is considered to be the best estimate based on available information and the confidence interval of the various esti- mates. This value is conservatively low; there is considerable confidence that the actual flow that is determined by the recently installed stream gage may equal or exceed 220 cfs, and possibly be as high as 300 cfs. The 220 cfs value is also consistent with two current meter discharge measurements made at the si te and concurrent NBI-384-9521-B* 9 flows at the Eskimo Creek gage. As shown in the following tab- ulation these flows bracket the estimated mean annual flows of 220 and 13 cfs respectively. Date September 15, 1981 October 9, 1981 2. Flow Duration Flow (cfs) Quigmy River 301 131 Eskimo Creek 15 10+ The flow duration curve for a potential hydroelectric site is the initial tool in sizing the turbine and estimating annual energy production. Where no continuous record is available at the site, the information must be transferred from gaged sites on the basis of their hydrogeological characteristics. The flow duration curve can be viewed as the time distribu- tion of flows about the mean annual flow; thus a dimensionless flow duration curve (the ratio of the flow to the mean annual flow versus the percentage of time the flow is exceeded) can be developed for any gaged basin and be directly compared with any other dimensionless curve. Within certain hydrogeologic regions, these curves often have remarkable similarity, particularly within the 15 to 80 percent exceedance interval. Thus regional curves can be developed. Curves from small, steep basins with bedrock near the surface and little ground- water contribution are typically steeper than those from larger basins that include swamps or lakes and a good aquifer. The Quigmy site is judged to belong to the latter group and can be represented by the Eskimo Creek type curve. The Quigmy River flow duration curve presented in Figure B-3 is based on an analysis of six years of daily flows measured at Eskimo Creek. The flows were scaled to the ratio of their respective NBI-384-9521-B* 10 - .. • .. • - • - • .. • .. • .. • .. ., lit. • .. • --- • --------.. - - - - - - - - - ... --.. - mean annual flows (220/13). The resulting curve was slightly steepened to reflect the greater variance in the concurrent discharges measured at Quigmy and its mountainous upper basin as compared to the Eskimo Creek basin. 3. Annual Hydrograph Based on the same data and reasoning that went into determining the mean annual flow and the flow duration curve, an annual hydrograph was developed based on monthly flows at Eskimo Creek. The Quigmy River annual hydrograph presented in Figure B-4 and Table B-2 was based primarily on the mean and standard deviations of the logs of the mean monthly flows recorded 'at Eskimo Creek during the six years of record. The flows were scaled to the Quigmy site by the ratio of mean annual flows. Based on the comparison of relative monthly precipitation at King Salmon and Cape Newenham, limited adjustments were made to increase the flows in October and November and to decrease the flows in February and March. The adjusted flows better reflect the anticipated runoff pattern in the western Bristol Bay area. The range of monthly means shown in gray corresponds to roughly seven out of ten years. Thus the average monthly flow should lie below the indicated range at least one year in ten and above the indicated flow range at least one year in ten. E. SPILLWAY FLOOD FREQUENCY 1. Flood Frequency Estimates of the magnitude and frequency of floods at remote sites such as the Quigmy River must depend primarily on regional studies. These studies relate the calculated flood frequency of measured peak flows at gaging stations to drainage basin characteristics such as area and precipitation by means NBI-384-9521-B* 11 of mul t iple regression analysis. The reasonableness of these estimates can be checked at the remote site by utilizing bank full channel geometry and high water debris marks in the flood plain. This type of site evidence is used to make rough esti- mates of the mean annual flood and the five-to ten-year flood. Flood discharge at the si te was estimated on the basis of th ree previous regional hydrology reports: (1) USGS (1979), Ott Water Engineers (1979), and Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1981). The USGS report employs the log-Pearson Type III distribu- tion to determine flood magni tude and frequency relations on the basis of data collected at 260 stations throughout Alaska. The details of the analysis are provided in the report. The Ott Engineers report, although developed for the Chugach and Tongass National Forests on the Gulf of Alaska, is potentially applicable to the Bristol Bay area. The Woodward-Clyde Consultants report, written for the City of Valdez, covers much of the same area of south-central Alaska as the Chugach National Forest equations developed by Ott Engineers. The three sets of flood prediction equations were applied to both the Quigmy site and Eskimo Creek, the latter providing an approximate test for this region. NBI-384-9521-B* 12 --.. -.. --- • - • -.. - • .. .. -• .. • .. • .. • .. • • • • --- • --- - - - ...... - - - - - - --.. -- BASIN PARAMETERS Site Area Precipe Temperature Percent of Area (sq.mi.) (in.) (Jan. mean min.) lake store. -forest Quigmy 100 Eskimo Cr. 16.1 50 20 o 5 PREDICTED FLOOD FREQUENCY AT QUIGMY SITE Method Peak Discharge for Recurrence (years) 2 10 25 50 USGS (cfs) 2300 4300 5100 6300 (Standard error) (77%) (79%) (59%) '(68%) Ott (cfs) 1900 4600 6350 8100 Woodward-Clyde (cfs) 3500 6200 PREDICTED FLOOD FREQUENCY AT ESKIMO CREEK 5 14 Interval 100 7700 (>80%) 10,100 7700 Method (years) Peak Discharge for Recurrence Interval 2 10 25 50 100 USGS (cfs) 130 270 330 420 540 Ott (cfs) 70 230 320 420 540 Woodward-Clyde (cfs) 120 220 280 There is reasonably good agreement among the estimates. The exception is Woodward-Clyde's Eskimo Creek values, which are extremely sensitive to even the small percentage of lake area within the basin. NBI-384-9521-B* 13 Al though the 12 years of flood crest records at Eskimo Creek are inadequate to determine reliable flood frequencies, the mean annual flood of approximately 110 cfs and the maximum observed flow of 227 cfs (June 1977) agree favorably with the related two-year and ten-year predicted values respectively. Near the Quigmy site, a bank full capacity of 1800 cfs was estimated based on a 100-foot channel width and channel geometry work of Emmett (USGS, 1972). A highwater mark surveyed in the power plant tailwater rating section below the dam site corresponded to a discharge of 3000 cfs. The regional est imates for the Qui gmy si te therefore appear to be qui te reasonable. The adopted flood frequency at the Quigmy site based on the USGS equations is presented in Figure B-5. A second curve corresponding roughly to the upper limit of the standard error of estimate of these equations is also shown for reference. The st andard error is an ind icat ion of the reI i abi 1 i ty of the prediction equations. The reference line indicates that there is roughly an 85 percent chance that the true flood frequency is less than the standard error. Verification by flood flow evidence at the si te further increases the confidence in the adopted flood frequency. 2. Spillway Design Flood The selection of the spillway design flood involves far more than estimating the flood frequency at the site. The risk (flood frequency) that the owner accepts should be carefully balanced wi th the actual hazard created by dam overtopping. Based on the Corps of Engi neers ' gui del i nes (COE, 1977), the very remote Quigmy site, with its lack of downstream develop- ment, belongs to the lowest hazard classification. In essence, f ai 1 ure of the dam is a hazard on ly to the owner's invested capi tal. Furthermore, overtopping of the concrete gravi ty or NBI-384-9521-B* 14 • - • -.. • - • - • • • .. • ... • .. • .. • .. • - • - • .. • .. • --- • - • iii - - - - - - - - - --- ... -- --... - ... rockfill dams being considered at the si te is not synonymous with failure, even though significant damage would occur with massi ve overtoppi ng. Depend i ng on the pI acement and design of the powerhouse below the dam, a major overtopping would risk an estimated 10 to 30 percent of the total project investment. As backup diesel power will be required in Togiak in any case, the liability for power disruption is limited to the fuel costs. The size of the Quigmy dam and impoundment falls in the Corps' small to intermediate classification. The Corps recommends a spillway design flood near the 100-year-recurrence flow for this size of dam. A more conservative approach would be to design for a 10 percent chance of incipient overtopping at any time wi thin the 50-year estimated useful life of the project. This corresponds to' a 500-year flood or 11,000 cfs projected on the frequency curve in Figure B-5. Massive over- topping (five feet over an 80-foot rock crest) would have a four percent chance of occurring during the project life, or a 0.08 percent chance in anyone year. The owner should decide the level of risk he wishes to assume. In the interim, a spillway design flood of 11,000 cfs is recommended for the purposes of the feasibility study. This value may be reduced by routing the flood through the reservoir surcharge storage capacity if detailed topography is available. F. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL RIVER ICE PROBLEMS 1. Formations of River Ice The occurrence and condition of the ice on rivers and reservoirs may require protection of water intake points from blockage. Several types of ice can form i n natural ri vers. One is called "sheet ice" and it occurs mostly on stagnant bodies of water and slowly flowing streams. This ice usually originates wi th plate or border ice and gradually propagates NBI-384-9521-B* 15 across the water surface until a continuous sheet is produced. Another type of river ice is called "frazil ice." by nucleation of slightly supercooled turbulent forms of frazi I ice are d ist i nguished: act i ve It is formed water. Two and passive forms. Passive frazil ice is not considered as detrimental as active, which sticks to any solid object at or below freezing temperature in the river. I f the act i ve frazi I ice adheres to the river bottom, it may contribute to the formation of anchor ice. One other form of river icing refers to a mass of surface ice formed by successive freezing of sheets of water that seep from a river. A river ici n~ (to which the term aufeis is commonly restricted) is more particularly the mass of ice superimposed on the existing river ice cover. 2. Estimates of Ice Thickness The thickness a natural ice sheet can attain depends upon the cool i ng potent i al of the atmosphere. I n wi nter th is is often expressed in freezing degree days, and the thickness reached at any time is expressed in terms of the square root of the degree days. Al though several reI at ionsh ips have been developed to estimate ice thickness as a function of the cooling potential of the atmosphere, Stefan's simple equation (1889) is presented here to provide rough estimates of ice thickness. The Stefan equation in its original idealized form does not include the effects snow cover, wind, surface rough- ness, and other physical parameters. The following expression of Stefan's formula H = a rFT incorporates a coefficient a that presumably accounts for local effects such as snow cover and snow conditions. Values of a are given index and in the followi ng tabul at ion. FI is the freezi ng refers to the number of degree days below freezing NBI-384-9521-B* 16 • ... .. III ... .. .. • .. .. .. • .. -.. .. .. .. II .. • ... ... -.. .. • .. • .. -- • - • • - .. - - .. - ... - - - - - ... ... - .. -... for one year. Freezi ng degree days or freezi ng index values are obtained from NOAA climatological records. For the four small hydropower locations studied for this contract of which the Togiak Hydroelectric Project is a part, the followi ng values of a and FI have been chosen and the resulting river ice thicknesses are indicated . Site a -- Togiak 0.65 King Cove 0.40 Old Harbor 0.40 Larsen Bay 0.40 FI (oF-day) 2225 1400 1500 1400 H (inches) 30 15 16 15 Est ima tes of river ice th ickness are provided to ai d the design of proper hydraulic structures and protect them from ice problems such as ice jams, icing, and improper placement of the intake. Note that these ice thicknesses are theoretical values and do not include the effects of wind, flowing water, and currents and snow cover. 3. Frazil Ice More severe problems could potentially be experienced from frazil ice formation at the water intake point. Since very little is known about frazil ice formation, evolution, and subsequent disposition, rational design methods to avoid frazil-ice problems are lacking. Frazil ice formation has been observed at Midway Creek, Old Harbor, and Humpy Creek darn site in Larsen Bay. Particularly, Humpy Creek darn site appears to produce considerable frazil ice under natural flow condi tions. Del ta Creek darn si te at King Cove may also experience similar ice problems. The Togiak Quigmy River project si te has been observed to have floating NBI-384-9521-B* 17 ice blocks and ice jams that develop at naturally constricted channel locations. During the installation of a stream gage in December 1981, release of water from an ice-jammed reservoir upstream caused the stage to rise approximately three feet. Considerable quantities of floating ice blocks have been observed following the rise in stage. While few data are presently available, it is clear that the potential ice problem cited above must be considered in depth during the design phase of project implementation. These in-depth considerations should include an evaluation of condi- tions that cause ice problems, the extent of the problems to be encountered, and potential measures to alleviate or mi t iga te the problems. About 22 percent of the project energy would be produced during the coldest winter months from December through March. If a portion of this energy were lost because of ice problems, the economic feasibili ty of the project might be affected. Mitigation measures would be implemented, of course, to control the problem, but the chance remains that some energy might be lost. As mentioned, this will be studied in detail if the project proceeds to the design phase. NBI-384-9521-B* 18 • - III -- • .. .. • -• '* .. .. • • • .. • .. • .. .. • .. II .. • .. -- • • I I I I I I I TABLE B-1 AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION Jan Feb Mar King Solomonl./ 1.01 .91 1.12 Cape Newenham~./ 1.78 1.24 1. 51 ESTIMATED Jan Feb Mar Average 99 72 126 High 137 87 230 Low 72 60 69 ~/1942-80 record ~/1970-81 partial record NBI-384-9521-B-1 (inches) AEr Mar Jun Jul Au~ SeQ Oct .96 1.14 1.53 2.15 3.22 2.83 2.12 1.46 1. 72 3.06 3.34 5.45 5.04 4.95 TABLE B-2 AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS AND DEVIATIONS (cfs) QUIGMY RIVER AEr Mar Jun Jul Au~ SeE Oct 281 238 208 203 219 264 458 425 510 268 287 355 400 693 186 111 160 144 135 175 302 I I j , I I Nov Dec Annual 1.41 1. 22 19.62 3.26 2.27 34.55 Nov Dec Annual 309 153 220 490 202 195 116 I j ! / I • , ••. < /. I~ H / ;' / ~.: 1--, /« / / .'/ / r I , I'.l" --------- ~ / I i .. I I I I I j .i f I I , I I • I I I ALASKA E A ,----------L-c------l ----- I Pl" 16S-I .... • IbLJ~ :">,- -a~ __ ~r ____ ... ~~~g:~ ____ ... ~====.s. ____ .r~ Figure B-1 Mean annual precipitation. \ -..- TOG1A~ QUIGMY AND KURTLUK R67W 1 "2 RIVER BASINS TOGIAK, ALASKA SCALE 1: 250000 TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY o 5 J 0 \:: I--';';;;';;';';;';"~';';;;';;';;";;;;-~----~, -----; . [:1 ============:::iF==============:3===========:=r ~_ Fig u re -B-2 • .. • .. • .. • .. .. • • - II .. II • • .. • • .. - • -• • • • -.. - • .. III .. - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -.. - 1200 1100 1000 900 800 -700 en ~ () - ~ 600 0 ...J I.&.. 500 \ \ , 400 ~ \ 300 \ " "-MEA~ ANN UAL F LOW ~20 cfs 200 100 ........... ...... ~ ~ ............... -----'" o 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT (%) OF TIME FLOW EXCEEDED -~--------------------------------------------------------fill - QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE FLOW DURATION CURVE FIGURE B-3 700~--~--~E-S-T-'~~-AT-E-o~1-R-A-NG-l~0-F-~~v-E-R-J~G-E--~--~J!-~ijt-~~~-~~~~--'---' MONTHLY FLOWS 7 OUT OF 10 YEARS--~t~}tf~~~ I j~;j~~~~~~~:~:l:l:ljl 600~--~--~--~--~--+---+---+---4----m~8----r--~ ••.•••.••.•.••.•.•••.•.••.••.•••.••.•.••.•..•••.•..•..•. : •. 500~--b---+---+---~::~:::::*::::::~:::::~:::::~--~--~--+---~~~--~--~ I .::: ..•.... :.: .•....... : •.. : .... :.:: ...... :: .... : .. ::.: •..... : •...... : ..• ~ .. : .... :: .. :: ... : ...... : •.. : ... : •... : .. ~ ..... ::: •... :::: •... : •. :: .... : .. : ... : •.. :: ...... :.:.: •... :.::: .... : .. ~ •.. : .... :~ ...... :;::.l •...... : •....... ::.: .. :: ... : ••........ ::: ... :! •.. : •........ ::: ... :! .. :::.~ ....... ::; ...... :;.:.j ....... :) •....... : •.... :: .. :J ...... ::.\ .... : .. ::~ ........ :· ........ :I.: ..... : ••........ :: If·!!!I· =3; 400~--~--+---~I~ri~I~I~~·.~~*n~I~~~--~--r .. :l .. :l .. :l-.. :l .. :l.~.:; .. :l.:::: .. :l-:::: .. :\:l:::.::.:l.-.::.:.:: .. ::.:.: .. : .. :l.:i.:+. .. :l •.. :! .. :j=.i:.:;i .. :.~.:i .. :i:.:: .. ::~i·.:.l .. :I[.:;:.i .. : .. :lm[ .. :!.:.i.! .. :; .. :.::.f~1 .. :!i .. :i .. ::::I~~.~i.:.:·:: .•. ::.:~:::.I .. :l.:!.::: .• i.:.:.:.m:.:i.:J.:J.:.::.:::.~·.::·.·.:.i.:·.::.:::.~:::l.·:i.·::~!!.:;.:::.!.:I.:·:lm·.:.::·.:I.:i:l:i.:~i.::.:;:.:I.:.:~~:.: --~ ••• ··I •• •••••• ••• ·.·! ••• !. ~ 300~--~--+---~::*;~;::·~:\:~~::::~;:::~f~~r::~.:f~~f~--~--~~~~~~~~:~:~~:~:~~:}~~<:~~ 100 \.:::.~.:1.\.:\.\.:\.\.:\.\.:\.\.:\.\.::.:.:\.\.: ::::::::::;:;';:;:::' :;:;:;::::'::;:::;:; •••••••••••••••••••• - -.l\;;··:r. - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;:H\::\\\%\\( OL-__ L-__ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ -L __ ~ __ -L __ -J ____ ~ __ L-__ ~~ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS FIGURE 8-4 • -.. .. -... .. .. - • • • -• .. • .. • .. ... • ... - • .. .. • -.. I • .. - - - - -20,000 - .tMI ,- -- - '.... i} -U 10,000 5,000 .- W 2,000 _(9 0:: <t -r o -~ o 1,000 tMI -- ---- EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 . , , . i UPPER LIMIT, ST~NOARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 2 I 0.5 0.1 .-. ----'--, .... ,-"j 1 ,. "-'1 " . '''1 .•.. --j ./' __ 1 /· .. 1 " -,.j ., . -'1 1 1 J , ESTIMATED FLOOD FREQUENCY . i , , 2 5 10 20 50 100 1000 AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS a. ........ ________ .. ____ ...... __________________ .. ________________________ .. .. - QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE PEAK FLOW FREQUENCY CURVE FIGURE 8-5 - - - - - - - - - - -.... - ------- TOGIAK APPENDIX B References Beck, R. W., and Associates. Small-Scale Hydropower Reconnaissance Study, Southwest Alaska. For the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, April 1981. Department of Army, Office of Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams, National Dam Inspection Act, PL 92-367. 1977. Department of Commerce. ESSA -Environmental Data Service, Climatological Data Summary, Alaska. Ebasco Services, Inc. Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Projects: Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Vols. 1 and 2, Octoher 1980. Grey, B. J. and D. K. MacKay, flAufeis (overflow ice) in Rivers,ll Canadian Hydrology Symposium Proceedings: 79, Glaciology DiviSion, Water Resources Branch, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada. 1979. Michel, B., "Winter Regime of Rivers and Lakes, II CRREL Monograph III-BIA, CREEL, Hanover, New Hampshire. 1971. Miller, J. F. llProbable Maximum Precipitation and Rainfall Frequency Data for Alaska," U.S. Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 47, 1963. NBI-384-9521-BR Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik Associates, Inc. "Community Energy Reconnaissance of Goodnews Bay, Grayling, Scammon Bay, and Togiak." A report to the Alaska Power Authority, February 1981. Osterkamp, T. and Gosink, J.P., 'Letter written to Dept. of Commerce and Economic Development', January, 1982. Ott Water Engineers. Water Resources Atlas for USDA Forest Service Region X, Juneau, Alaska, April 1979. Rhoads, E. M., "Ice Crossings", The Northern Engineer, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 19-24. 1974. Stefan, J. "Uber Die Theorien Des Eisbildung in Polarmere", Wien Sitzunsber, Adad. Wiss., Sere A, Vol. 42, Pt. 2, pp. 965- 983. 1889. U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, "Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages Served by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative", December 1979. u.s. Geological Survey. "Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams," Water Resources Investigation 78-129, R. D. Lamke. 1979. U.S. Geological Survey. "The Hydraulic Geometry of Some Alaskan Streams South of the Yukon River (Open File Report)," William E. Emmett, July 1972. U.S. Geological Survey. "Water Resources of Alaska (Open File Report)"; A. J. Feulner, J. M. Childers, V. W. Norman; 1971. Wahanik, R. J., "Influence of Ice Formations in the Design of Intakes", Applied Techniques in Cold Environments, Vol. 1, pp. 582-597. 1978. NBI-384-9521-BR • ... • -.. .. -... - • • • .. • - • - • -• • • • .. - • .. --- • .. • .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Yould, P. E., and T. Osterkamp, "Cold Region Considerations Relative to Development of the Susitna Hydroelectic Project", Applied Techniques in Cold Environments, Vol. 2, pp. 887-895. 1978. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Valdez Flood Investigation Technical Report. February 1981. NBI-384-9521-BR ...... - - - - .... - - - - - - - .... - - .,.,. - - TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX C GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICS - - ... - - - - .. '"," .. ,-- " ... .. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REGIONAL GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENGINEERING GEOLOGY -QUIGMY . . . . Dam Site Geology . . . . . . . . . 1. 2. 3. Construction Materials/Borrow Sites Road Location ENGINEERING GEOLOGY KURTLUl{ Dam Site Geology 1- 2. 3. Construction Materials Road Location SEISMIC HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . .... . ..... . MECHANICAL ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK REFERENCES CITED ...................................... i Page 1 2 4 9 9 11 16 22 22 22 22 23 26 34 35 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Geol 09 ic Time Seal e ............................. . 2 Reconnaissance Geolgoic Map ••••••••.••••••••••••• 3 Geologic Cross-section ••••••••••••••••••••••.•••• 4 Road Location and Borrow Site r1ap ••••••••••••••.• 5 Four-Wheel Drive Trail .••••••••••••••••.••••••.•• 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One-Lane Gravel Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One-Lane Gravel Road (Alternate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seismic Hazard Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gradation Borrow Site A -Test Pit 1 · . . . . . . . . . . . . Gradation Borrow Site A -Test pit 2 · . . . . . . . . . . . . Gradation Borrow Site B -Test Pit 3 · . . . . . . . . . . . . Gradation Borrow Site C -Test pit 4 · . . . . . . . . . . . . Gradation Borrow Site D -Test Pit 5 · . . . . . . . . . . . . Gradation Borrow Site E -Test Pit 6 · . . . . . . . . . . . . Gradation Kurtluk Area -Test Pit 7 · ............ ii -... .---... II -Page -5 .. 7 10 .. 13 .. 18 .. 19 -21 .. 24 -27 28 .. 29 - 30 • 31 .. 32 • 33 - " -., ,.. -.... • - • - • ... -- • .. - - - - - - - - - - - - --... - - - APPENDIX C Geology and Geotechnics for the Proposed Togiak Hydropower project A. INTRODUCTION In si ting a hydropower facili ty, it is important to under- stand the regional as well as the site-specific geology and geo- technics. Reg ional information is necessary in order to: (1) assess the geologic hazards; (2) assure that appropriate design criteria are utilized; (3) discover construction material borrow sites; and (4) provide background information for environmental studies. This report discusses reg ional geology and seismici ty and specific sites which may prove feasible for development. In accordance with the Scope of Work for this project, the informa- tion is intended for use at the preliminary feasibility stage. This work will be of assistance in determining whether there is a specific site which warrants a detailed feasibility study. Recommendations for further work are given in Section XI, Project Implementation. Geologic and geotechnical field studies were conducted September 14, 15, 1981, and October 6-10, 1981, by Dr. R.L. Burk, Project Geologist and Team Coordinator, and J. Finley, Project Geotechnical Engineer. Regional geologic reconnaissance mapping was done from aerial photographs (black and white and color infa- red) with spot field checking. -1- B. TOPOGRAPHY Togiak is situated near the mouth of the Togiak River on a broad alluvial plain that extends down to Togiak Bay, part of the larger Bristol Bay Region of southwest Alaska. The entire area is part of the Ahklun Mountains physiographic province. The potential dam sites on the Quigmy and Kurtluk Rivers are approxi- mately 11 and 4 miles respectively west of Togiak. Between Togiak and the dam sites, the entire area has been glaciated and is dominated by bedrock hills which have been sculptured by erosional and depositional glacial processes. These bedrock hills are mostly between 500 and 700 feet high and reach a maximum height of approximately 1100 feet within the project area. In most areas along the Quigmy and Kurtluk Rivers, the glacial deposits are thin and the rivers have cut down through these deposits and excavated narrow slots into the bedrock. Numerous lakes and wetlands are locally present as a result of the flat topography on old outwash channels, current flood- plains, and the depressions associated with stagnant ice topography. The beach area immediately near Togiak consists of succes- sive beach ridges which have been accreted to the alluvial de- posits of the Togiak River. Further to the southwest of Togiak, steep beach cliffs range in height from 15 or 20 feet to approxi- mately 200 feet. Below the high-water line, the bottom profile is very shallow. Because of the high tidal variation, large mudflat areas are exposed at low tide. Deltas and longshore bars -2- • • - • .. • ... ---• • .., • .. .. -.. -• • • .... • - • -.. - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - --- - were observed at the river mouths during fall field work; how- ever, the major part of the coastal zone was still representing summer conditions. winter storm waves excavate the materials deposited by the more gentle summer waves and the river mouth areas probably are modified during winter conditions. Above the proposed dam site, the Quigmy River has a drainage basin of 100 square miles. Above the Kurtluk site, the basin is 20 square miles. Although some meander bends are present, both streams have many relatively straight reaches. -3- C. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Togiak area is just north of one of the more active mountain-building, seismic, and volcanic regions in the world. The Pacific plate of oceanic crust is being subducted beneath the North American continental crustal plate in the area of the Aleu- tian Trench. Associated tectonic forces have caused the uplift of the Alaska Range and the seismic acti vi ty characteristic of this part of Alaska (see Seismic Hazards Section). Volcanic activity is concomitant with subduction zones. As the subducted plate descends below the opposing plate, it partially mel ts and the melted material finds its way to the earth's surface to form volcanoes. Al though the proj ect area is more stable than some of the adjacent areas, the presence of aerial photo lineaments suggests that active faul ting may be present. Judging from the bedrock outcrops, it appears that some 250 million years ago these rocks were deposited in an environment similar to the Aleutian Trench of today. The rock uni ts are considered to be Jurassic (see Figure 1) in age, given the proximity to similar rocks of middle to early Jurassic Age on Hagemeister Island (Cady, et al., 1955). Bedrock in the Togiak area consists of a folded sequence of sedimentary and volcanic rocks overlain by glacial drift, peat deposits, modern alluvium and beach deposits. The bedrock has been assigned to the Gemuk Group (Hoare and Coonrad, 1961) ori- ginally defined by Cady, et al., 1955. Gemuk rocks in the study area are predominantly silicified siltstones and andesitic vol- caniclastic rocks. The siltstones range from very well-bedded -4- .. - •• .. - • -.. - • • • .. .. .. -.. -.. • .. - • • .. • .. .. • .. • ,. GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE Subdivisions of Geologic Time Radiometric Ages .- (m I I I Ion s of years Eras Periods Epochs before the present) -(Recent) Quaternary Pleistocene 1.8 -0 Pliocene -6 0 N Miocene 0 z 22 w -0 Tertiary Oligocene 36 Eocene 58 Paleocene 63 0 Cretaceous --145 0 N Jurassic 0 CJ) 210 w ..." ::;: Triassic 255 Permian .-280 Pennsylvanian 320 0 Mississippian -360 0 ..... N Devonian 0 w 415 ...J < Silurian Q.. 465 Ordovician 520 Cambrian 580 PRECAMBRIAN -(No worldwide subdivisions) Birth of Planet Earth 4,650 -Figure 1. Geologic Time Scale. -... .. --5---.... near the mouth of the Quigmy River to massive and highly silici- fied at the proposed Quigmy dam site. Chert is locally present and limestone has been reported in the Gemuk Group although it was not observed in the project area. In glacial various regions advances during of Alaska there the Quaternary have been five (see Figure 1). major The project area has been subjected to at least two of these events (Coulter, et al., 1965). The first known glaciation during the Quaternary occurred in early to mid-Pleistocene time. The second ice advance was probably in middle to late Pleistocene time and was less extensive than the previous glaciation. Glacial drift in the project area consists of abundant out- wash deposits, till, and ice contact stratified drift deposits. Glacial topography is expressed by bedrock sculpturing, moraines, kettle and kame topography, and outwash terraces. Outwash gravels are present principally in the Quigmy drain- age down almost to the bay (see Geologic Map, Figure 2). Till deposi ts are present near the Quigmy mouth, suggesting that ice blocked the outwash stream, sending it over into what is today called the Matogak drainage. Alternately, a readvance of the ice may have destroyed evidence of the gravels near the drainage mouth; however, this hypothesis is rejected because an abandoned channel appears to exist between the two drainages. Based on the distribution of outwash deposits in the Quigmy drainage, it is apparent that both the Togiak River area and the headwaters of the Quigmy River were sources for this alluvial material. -6- • - • .. • --- • " -• .. • - • --.. • -• --,.It .. •• • •• -.. -., ·' 11 " -: .... --"--- '.. \. . 'ocr-_ --- -".,l:! .: -t:>'-'" -- TOGIAK BAY SCALE Quaternary IQa" Recent Alluvium 001 Older Alluvium Of Terrace gravels- glacial outwash • Mesozoic Silicified siltstone a volcaniclastic rocks locally covered with colluvium 8 till. EXPLANATION Floodplain a abandoned channel depOsits -Includes numerous accumulations of peat . • Active a older stabilized beach deposits -Qt -Glacial Till -locally Includes colluvium a peat deposits • Qkk -Kettle a Kame deposits • Contact dashed where location approximate. Aerial photo lineament dashed where Jacotlon approximate • I 1/2 0 2 3 4 MILES SH=H~H6~~H~~~~~========~~~~=========' CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 FEET R.L. BlJRK 1//8/ DASHED LINES REPRESENT 25 FOOT CONTOURS ~ DOWL -,ENGINEERS RECONNAISSANCE GEOLOGIC MAP-TOGIAK AREA Peat deposits mostly greater than 3 I thick. w £ FIGURE 2 - - - Till and associated kettle and kame deposits are predomin- antly found in the western portion of the project area. Locally, greater than six feet of peat has accumulated in kettles and other depressions. Alluvial gravels underlie much of the town of Togiak and the floodplain area of the Togiak River. Peat locally mantles these deposits. At the beach front southwest of Togiak, beach gravels form low beach ridges which have successively accreted along the coast as material has been supplied to longshore transport by the Togiak River, other rivers, and beach cliffs. -8- D. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY -QUIGMY RIVER 1. Darn Site Geology Gemuk Group rocks crop ou tat the darn site and are mantled by stream gravels in the stream bed and talus deposits (see Figure 3) on one of the side slopes. The bedrock consists of a relatively unweathered silicified siltstone with local con- centrations of chert. The rock was fractured and subsequently bonded by vein fillings approximately one to three mm in width. Breakage by rock hammer blows is across the veins, suggesting excellent bonding. Petrographic analysis of these rocks in thin section showed the presence of quartz and zeol i te as the vein fillings. This is a common association in hydrothermal veins and in this case probably represents low-grade metamorphic activity. The siltstone itself has been compressed into a very hard competent rock which would be expected to have a high shear strength and a high modulus of elasticity. In the area of the proposed darn, the siltstone appears massive, although some poorly defined bedding is present locally. Joints and cracks are present; however, they are not viewed as limiting for darn construction. These features are present in all bedrock materials. There is one major crack (see Figure 3) in the cliffs above the darn. While there is no immediate danger of sliding, it would be consistent with sound engineering practice to blast away this semi-isolated block of rock, if it appears it might fallon any structures. Overhangs should also be blasted away. Gravels in the stream bottom are present; however, their thickness is unknown. r·1uch of the stream bed adjacent to -9- - -- • .. .. -... - III .. .. • -.. -.. .. • • .. • -.. • ... .. -.. •• l j • f I I J I I. l' I , l til I r--------------------------------------------------------------------------. t A A' CRACK~ /[ p I \ I -~ , I SILlCI~IEI? - f---............. SILTSTONE- """'" 230 -"--, ........... -..... -.. -............ --.. -........... -- --"'\. -"" - -~---'-. I -"'-I - SILICIFIED -"\ I - 210 -, - - -SILTSTONE 'L - -L-_ ---' - --L~ TALUS, - r--~ -I - WATER LINE , ---, - 190 --L_ ~---I I - r-------\ QUIGMY R':F - --APPROXIMATE CONTACTS --\ ,,":,'--,--,--,-. ~ STREAM ( ."", " ',' ~ ,. -SEDIMENTS ___ ~ ..•. ~. ~ ..• ' '. _ (SEE TEXT) -",._'.' .. " ..... , 170 -------- ----- SCA~ 10' GEOLOGY BY: R.L.BURK 1//8/ 10' 0 FIGURE 3 DOWL GEOLOGIC CA S QUIGMY DAM SITE SECTION -8- ENGINEERS the dam site is scoured to bedrock and sediment thicknesses greater than three feet are not expected. Blocks of rock have fallen downslope from the surround- ing cliffs and filled a portion of the stream channel adjacent to a bedrock knob (see Figure 3). These blocks are up to approxi- mately five feet in length and could be left in place and grouted. This is not recommended, however, since at high stream- flow, water passes through the talus and accumulations of sedi- ment may wash out after the dam was built. Bedrock is exposed at water level (see Figure 3) at ei ther s ide of th is lense of talus. Talus may extend deeper away from the stream between the bedrock knob and the cliff; however, the depth is not expected to change more than one or two feet from the talus visible at either side of the bedrock knob at the stream bank. Discontinuous permafrost is present in this region; however, no evidence of frozen ground was observed in the immedi- ate dam site area. Because of the temperatures encountered in the Togiak area, all construction materials should be tested for frost susceptibility. Groundwater did not appear to be issuing from the bed- rock near the proposed dam abutments. No problems are expected from perched water tables or other groundwater conditions. 2. Construction Materials Rock su i table for riprap needs can be excavated from the talus pile noted above or it can be blasted from the cliff walls as part of the construction process. -11- .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. III ... lit III! ,.. .. • • .-., • • lit • .. • tit III • - - - - Sand and gravel are available from the uni ts marked Qtg, Qol, Qal, and Qb on the Geologic Map (Figure 2). Potential borrow site locations are shown on Figure 4. Gradation resul ts are given in the Mechanical Analyses Section, Figures 9 through 14. If about 20 to 30 percent s i 1 t can be tolerated for construction uses, then material marked Qt can also be utilized. This material is not recommended for road construc- tion. Figure 15 shows a typical gradation for till. a. Borrow Site A This site is northeast of the Quigmy darn site approxi- -mately one-quarter mile and it consists of a terrace four to five feet above river level. Ground cover is composed of willows and - - - ... --- tall grasses in sporadic open areas. The total area is approxi- mately five acres. Soil consists of approximately one foot of organic ma- terial overly ing one to two feet of organic s i 1 t. Th is in turn overlies approximately one foot of soil grading from gravelly silt to silty sandy gravel. At a depth of three to four feet, clean, relatively well-graded sandy gravel is present (see Mechanical Analyses Section, Figures 9 and 10). Because of the depth to gravel and the shallow water table, this potential borrow site is not recommended. b. Borrow Site B This site consists major terraces which extend of the middle south from -12- and upper of the darn site three for " .. ' " .. , I. • " ,,, ... . , . ' li -t \ BORROW SrTE B BORROW SITE A .. -'. h' .,.' \ t \ \ ,ROAD OPTtoNA BORRCM' SITE D LOCATIONS BY: J. FINLEY RL. B1JRK 1//81 ; / CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 FEET DASHED LINES REPRESHfT t5 FOOT CONTOURS /END OF EXISTING ROAD ~ DOWL ROAD LOCATION & BORROW SITE MAP -I ENGINEERS ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- w [ FIGURE 4 - - - - - - approximately one mile. Ground cover is predominantly low tundra vegetation. Below a layer of silt and organic material one to two feet thick, alluvial sands and gravels are present (see Figure 11). This site appears to be a good source of aggregate for road construct ion and for concrete aggregate, although the gravel may require more processing than Site C. These terraces are glacial outwash terraces and more time has elapsed and hence more weathering has taken place than in the younger gravels at Sites A and C. c. Borrow Site C This site consists of a stream terrace approximately 15 or 20 feet above the present Quigmy River with an area of approximately 10 acres. It extends to the river bank and is approximately one mile south of the dam site. mostly low tundra species with some tall grasses. Vegetation is The gradation shown in Figure 12 is thought to be representative of this site. This is an excellent gravel source and the quantity of material available exceeds project require- ments. Because this terrace is younger than the higher terraces, the gravel may be of better quality for concrete aggregate. The principal drawback to this site is its distance from the dam site. -14- d. Borrow Site D This site consists of an old outwash terrace which extends along an unnamed tributary to the Quigmy River (see Figure 2 Geologic Map). Ground cover is low tundra vegetation. Overburden at this si te is one and one-half to three feet thick and consists of a sandy silt with organic material. Alluvial sands and gravels (see Figure 13) are encountered below the overburden. terial. This is an excellent source of road construction ma- lts location along the proposed road alignment makes it a valuable aggregate resource. e. Borrow Site E This site is typical of deposits formed under stagnant ice cond i tions. There are layers of re la ti vely clean sand and gravel and layers of sandy gravelly silt. Some clean material is probably present in this area; however, a backhoe would be neces- sary to fully explore the poss ibili ties for road construction materials at this site. It is not known whether the gradation given in Figure 14 is representative or not. f. Borrow Site F Southwest of Togiak within one mile of the townsite is a series of beach ridges which have been used for fill material in the village. These older beach materials are gravelly sands and sandy gravels which could be used for road construction. The -15- • .. • .. -- • .. --.. • .. • .. • ., .. • ., ., .. • .. • - • -• .. ---.. -- - - - - active beach materials are also a source of aggregate material. Because of the salt content, washing would be necessary prior to use of the material in concrete. The lack of fines in the active beach materials makes them less desirable for road fill. The State Department of Transportation has looked at the _ older beach gravels as a source of runway materials and it was their understanding that villagers did not want those gravels used for runway construction (Pavey, personal communication, - - ..... - 1981). 3. Road Location Two road routes are proposed as part of this study (see Figure 4). One is from Togiak to the Quigmy dam site (Option A) and the other is from the mouth of the Quigmy River to the pro- posed dam location (Option B) • Option A utilizes the existing road extending southwest from Togiak and approximately three-quarters of a mile of beach. It would involve 11.6 miles of road construction. Of this 11.6 miles, five miles would be on gravel and a minimum of cutting and filling would be necessary. The gravel (see Geologic Map Figure 2) is beneath one and one-half to three feet of silt and silty gravel, probably representing a contribution from wind- blown silts (loes s) • The remaining portion of the route is on till and hauling of gravel for fill would be necessary. The Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is studying the possibility of building a road to Borrow Site D _ to get gravel for a proposed new airport at Togiak. --16- - I f the State bu i Ids th is borrow haul road, then an additional five miles of access road would be all that would be needed to reach the proposed Quigmy dam site. The terrain over the remaining five miles is flat to gently rolling, with one and one-half to three feet of sil t overburden on top of good clean gra vel. struct. This portion of the route is by far the easiest to con- Two levels of road construction were investigated. The first was an eight foot-wide "trail" for four-wheel-drive vehicles. No design would be provided. The only engineering input would be field guidance at the time of construction. It would be constructed by simply stripping the overburden down to competent soils. No drainage would be provided. The trail might not be passable in inclement weather and it would require a significant level of maintenance. of a four-wheel-drive trail. Figure 5 shows a cross section The second level of construction investigated is a good all-wea ther road su i table for one-lane travel. The 12-foot-wide roadbed would be constructed by removing overburden and fi 11 ing wi th gravel to a height of approximately one foot above the existing terrain. This would allow the wind to blow snow off the road. The gravel would be excavated adjacent to the roadbed and the resul t ing trenches would serve as drainage ditches. Over- burden should be hauled to low areas to prevent it from acting as a snow fence and to avoid potential erosion problems. Limited cu ts and fills would be done to improve grades and al ignmen ts. CuI verts would be placed in low areas as needed for drainage. This road would require a low level of maintenance. The cross section of the one-lane gravel road is shown on Figure 6. -17- -- • !III • ... -----• -. • • • • • .. • .. • ... • -• - • .. • --- • - • - I J lj ,j ,. II I j l I 8' ~ I-----------------l_ _ __ _ ----GRAVEL SIDE SLOPE AREAS ~E_XI_S_TI_NG_G_R_OU-N_D~~-____ t ___ ~ __ -1 ____ ----'~ __ __r_o-e-~-~~-~-~-~-iD-N---~ ENGINEERS ~ DOWL :3 OVERBURDEN Il,....!~~~------=~-=--L--=--:.=::....::..:...~ 6"'" , ", ',-" '. , . ~-. '-.-~,'. A .,-':..~'..c;,. . -~::'J>-q. A""" ,. A, '.6 C>'" -' '. .. D' , . ...' 0 --. -" 4 -", -GRAVEL " '. "', ' , .-,:' ,P : , ... :. ,:, ~ , ',~ ~ "'. ::.' -'<3 _~ , .. J:'" " " -' .... LEVEL AREAS NOT TO SCALE FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE TRAIL FIGURE 5 12' '. . . -. ~ '--' . J • J ( ,. --. : po,;'--I. ....... /:." ';,.' ... -' A .. Q .... " "...... .' .L , .--=-.. ".. ,.. ., .. " . -.... -I EXISTING GROUND o -~ ." " '-: ',' , . . ..... o· .%.'. .. • ........ " ..... .. , . . \.. ... .. ENGINEERS , DOWL SIOEHILL AREAS 12' 112 " .. ,., .. ~ " ...... I ~" ,.,... '-_--L_-'-=--_ . ~() ~RAVEL.: ,FILL", ~'''' ... '. " .. " .. -.... ' . ... ~ ... " .. -. ~ .. ." ....... , _ .,. ~ ... \t,". "'-.' .A . 6 a; • \. .... -~ ,. . ... .. '*' ~ ~ b" ~; • ~ ... , ~_ LEVEL AREAS SECTIONS USED FOR GRAVEL AREAS WHERE OVERBURDEN IS 24" OR LESS --:.. ONE-LANE GRAVEL ROAD 12"to 24' OVERBURDEN EXISTING GRAVEL GRAVEL FILL FROM EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO ROAD NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 6 I I I • I I I • I I " I' II II II •• • I I. •• II I I I I 'I " "'" . ' ... , -' ,,., .... . , .-,., ., •• .. , As an alternative in areas where the silt layer is greater than 24 inches, gravel fill could be hauled from borrow si tes and placed directly on the ground surface after organic materials had been stripped away (See Figure 7) . -20- 12' / __ A :~ ,": EXISTING GRAVEL --,' :' ~ 'p, 6 ,J? ... ,.':. .... ~ .. .. "t::' ",. .1:> ." , . , .. ~ ... ; GLACIAL TILLf SIDEHI LL AREAS EXISTING GROUND DOWL ENGINEERS 24" MIN, ..,.-/ GLACIAL TILL j ~, A..', 4, - . -,,' Q' .'. ;. : ,,' , ~ .. -." • c <l ... 0' 24" to 36' SILTY SOILS :,-': EXISTING GRAVEL :. I : ,..-,; u .. :" QI ~ ..,," .. . .... LEVEL AREAS SECTIONS USED FOR GLACIAL OR GRAVEL AREAS WHERE OVERBURDEN IS GREATER THAN 24" ONE-LANE GRAVEL ROAD STRIP ORGANICS IN FILL AREAS GRAVEL FI LL HAULED FROM BORROW AREAS NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 7 I. I • • • I I • I •• I I ,. I I I. " " ,. I. •• • I • I I. I I , .... '.:lP' -, ....... .... ..... .... , .' <III, .. , .. , E. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY -KURTLUK RIVER 1. Darn Site Geology Gemuk Group rocks crop out at the darn site and are mantled by alluvial sediments in the stream bed. The bedrock is an altered volcan iclas t ic rock wi th simi lar outcrop characteristics to the silicified siltstone at the Quigmy site. The volcanic breccia is probably andesitic in composition and is a competent rock which can be used for an abutment. There are no apparent geotechnical problems at the darn site itself . 2. Construction Materials riprap . The rock at the darn site is suitable for use as Sand and gravel are not available near this site (see Figure 2). Some arrangement would need to be made for us ing older beach deposits or to bring gravel in from near the Quigmy site. 3. Road Location Approximately three miles of new road would be needed to tie the darn si te in wi th the existing road northwest of Togiak. Some areas most of the area is of peat would need to be crossed i overlain by till (see Figure 2). however, Cutting, filling and hauling of gravel would be necessary over almost the entire length of this road. -22- • .. • • F. SEISMIC HAZARDS .. .. Southwestern Alaska is part of an intense seismic zone .. which circumscribes the Pacific Ocean. Most of the more than 150,000 earthquakes that occur worldwide each year occur in this Circum-Pacific bel t and in a somewhat smaller bel t which extends through southern Asia and the Mediterranean. Past earthquake damage in the study area has been principally manifested in five separate forms which can act independently or in combination. • • Surface faulting -major and minor faults are present in the Togiak area; however, the rock and unconsoli- dated surficial material along the road and transmis- sion line does not appear to have been subject to fault slip. Strong ground motion -over a 50-year design period, the maximum rock acceleration expected (probabili ty of exceedance = 10%) is 10%g (see Figure 8). This figure was prepared using actual earthquake epicenter and magnitude data for Alaska. • Ground failure -minor landslides have occurred in this area in the past; however, no major slides that would affect the integrity of a dam or road and transmission I ine are expected. The sites are in bedrock. • Seiches these are long-period oscillations of enclosed water bodies and that could affect the -23- • .. • .. • • .. • .. • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • • .. --.. -.. --- il II .. .. 170 '80 170 180 '50 DOWL ENGINEERS SEISMIC RISK MAP -Peak Rack Acceleration FIGURE 8 o proposed reservoir. However, because of the small reservoir size, the destructive impact would most likely be minor. Tsunami -seismic sea waves could affect coastal areas, inc luding the town of Togiak but not the dam sites. -25- .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. .. .. lilt -.. • .. • .. • .. • .. .. .. .. --- • -.. .. .. --- .... iiOj' ..... -- .... .. , .- - - G. MECHANICAL ANALYSES - - - - -26-- I i I j I i I ( I I t t @ Alaska Testlab 4040 "B" Street Anchorage, Alaska 9950] Phone (907) 278-1551 Sheet of~_ w. O. No. D13470 Date 10-14-81 Technician _ ~~ _____ _ Textural Class _Sandy_flrave.L _____________________ _ Frost Class ___ . -NES-------Unified Class --.GW _______ _ Client ______ Alaska _Power Authoxity Project _______ .1'Qg;!..;:!klIy_dropowE:!r PlastIc Properties_____ _ _________ _ Date Rect'ived _..1D.::_ll-B.L __________________ _ Sample Number 3829 _._ Location__~9r_:r.9W Site A TP-1 Sample Taken By ___ .J.i' ________ _ US STD cu,,", 0/0 SIEVE PASS ------- 0 a i~ 08 ... • .- ! J -IT t I Lr ------- -----t 3 --- 1 2 1 1/2 100 93 ... 3/4 85 x !! 76 .. 112 • ----.. 3/8 62 • c 4 40 .. 21 .. 10 c --c 20 11 0 u .. 40 4 z --w 1.2 u 100 or: 200 1.0 .. .. 0_02 MM --------- Figure 9 Borrow Site A Test pit 1 Sheet of W.O.No. D13470 ® Alaska Testlab Anchorage. Alaska 99503 Phone (907) 278-1551 4040 "8" Street Date ___ 10-14-81 Technician SN Client Alaska Power Authority ---'---- Project __ =-=-=-~=Togj.~K3Iyqropo:W~r-'---~~.=.~=-=~-=-== Textural Class .. ___ Gr~vel ____ .. ____ _________________ _ Frost Class. ____ NFS _____________ Unified Class __ .GW ____ _ Sample Number, 3830 ___ __ Location .~9.!::r()w !:i:i,tE;! A TP -2 PI ast Ie Pro perties __________ ... _ . ___________ ._____ __ __ ___ 'O __ Date Rccl'ived ~-=1J -:-8_1 ___________ _ Sample Taken By ...J:~ ______ ._ _ _______ . ___ . ~~~-----~~~~------------------------~.--------------------------------r-~ ~----__ ------_ ~ ___________________ ~S~IE~V~E~_.~~A~N~A~L~Y~S~IS~~~~~~ __ ~~ __ ~~ __ ~ ____ ~H~Y~D~RONETER ANALYSIS US STD CUM 0/0 5 II [ 0 f OPUIlItG IN INC H [~S ____ .......L __ ~N~UIoI:""..~Ee!'II~Of~ .. ~E:._'!S~H~P£~R~_"'N~C~H~U~S~ST!..!.~N'_""D.l~"~D'___::!-________ --"G~II!!'.,'.'!N.....2S~IZ~[='_" N'!" ~ ~ 8 ~! ~! ~ U 0888 § 8 §-s,.---§:-:---g-'-----1 '00 ~ t t "t j 1-r"; o! • r ~ -·0 ~ + +-tt~\ I . u' t ------·l.·~ ~0r_:_-----+-~----+-~--~-+--+-~--~--+-+----~~+-+-~--+-----~~~~~+---~--~~ ~ ~ ~ . _ _t· . 1 '_ .f·J ... _ _._ f-~== .0 f------++-+---+--+ \-t-+.-t-+--t--+----f--i----++----If-+-l-+--+-+-----JI-+++-+--+-------U-t-l-+--l-+-+---l----·------·----J-zo L1 '. V--J -:: . H-···· l-~ f-f---f--f---t} f-.-~.~ -.::== ... . -I-t -t 't---j r t j --:" ------= ~ lC f----. • t ~ ~ ... ~. +_ __ t I--r-<i>--·----H--I-·+>--+-·f~-+--+---~!Htr++--I-+-.-__ ~t--::--__ -... ~-~-so ; 60 ~~ .:; +··1\ f---f,' t. -t--t . + . ... . t "--" -- k .,+-,--. ... 1 j ... _40 11 -1 .-f---.... + '1" 'O-f--~f-'f--'--f-' .--~ -. .: --r\--'.~ +---+-. ----~--= :~~-:-~~T~,tHi~++.-.-~t-.+-~~-~+--.~f-~--.• +~-~~rf+.-1~~+.--~++ .. ~~-.-_~-4~~:~~~~~-~---~~ ! .. j t -.--. T' ... . ---t 'f_ . -.-u.o ~: .. ~-~~-~--.---~~~~-~~.~~~~--~~----~---~~~-~-·~r--~-~---H~~~-'--~--------·+~~H++-+-·--+---·--~-~ k T' ". } ~Lt-. '~ .. ' . f_. - ::' -+ t· .. + ~'_'.' .. ' t tt .1 f---- . -. _.-_f--1\ . f.-, . ... ----- -~-t__t--~_t--~~t-i_-t---~t----t_+-t__+·--~--1-~---~~-+~r--+----~~+~~-+__+--~--~70 .. l: !! ... s »-• It ... .. It C 0 0 .. z ... 0 or: ... L K i ~ f--+-~--~~_+~~_+--~_+--~~ __ ~----r= .-:: .=_. ~_-_' ~~=~_.:. __ .'." -,... f-+-=-= eo 1--' .---. " -' . --- '0 ___ .t . -'-t---.i, -r-'O-. 1-. -. I--t.-__ .....:,r,-. -, ~..t"""'+,-.. -.----".r.-+--~-.t-f----++--+1------*+-i--I-'+-~f---~f+i+·H-~--~c----I-------=~~~ t-":_:l~lII1ilL .~~ . ...1 . ,ir rT trl..Ll 's~T~-r,-~~. --~. pf--b·¥ ..,-,;4,' """",~ .. ,.~ rr~ .. ~++·-:.::--::t_--------!~tCr-t·f-~-f-~-t----.....:..---Jf---:-'...:...'O :..::..-~....:j-i L or ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ . 2 ---L..'o ........ ",-~ .. ~ ~~ . .J.. ..... '" N ~ ~ 8 ~ B ~ 0 § § .. 3" § ~'OO ....... ''If I ... ,LLI .. (TER!_____ . a 0 8 I I I I I I I I .1 • I I • • • I • , , , I .1 , I I I I I I • StEVE PASS ~----- --.--~-.-- 3 2 1 1/2 100 71 3/4 53' 1/2 36 3/8 27 4 15 10 7 20 2 40 1 100 0.6 200 0.5 0.02 MM Figure 10 Borrow Site A Test pit 2 I I , . I I • j I I I I I l ( I I t @ Alaska Testlab 4040 "8" Streel Anchorage. Alaska 99503 phone (907) 278-1551 Sheet of __ _ W. O. No. D13470 Tpxtural Class ___ ...§ra,,~JJ}' __ E)an9 ________________ _ Frost Clas5 __________ . _____ Unified Class __ S~ ____ _ Plastic Prorerties.___ ________________ ._. ___ .. _______ _ Date RecPlved _____ _ Date 10-14-81 Technician SN Client ________ E\:La..§~a. Power. _Author~ 1:Y==-_~:-- Project ____________ TQSl,.Q.](_ Hydror>.ow~r __ __ ._ SampleNumber_ 3831 Location _ ... Borrow Site B Upper Terrace_ Sample Taken By ----.J:E..______ _ ___ __________________ _ US STO CU'-4 0/0 SIEVE PASS ----- -------- 3 2 1 1/2 100 ---"- 97 3/4 88 112 83 3/8 71 4 54 10 34 20 20 40 11 100 5 -- 200 4.0 0.02 MM Figure 11 Borrow Site B Test pit 3 Sheet of W. O. No. D13470 @ Alaska Testlab 4040 "8" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone (907) 276-1551 Date ___ 10-14 -81 Technician $N _______ _ TexLUral Class __ 9angy ___ G:r:a_y~1 ___________________ _ Client________ __ _bJ.g§ka Powet"A,ut.ho_t:it.Y_ Frost Class ___ NfS _________ Unified Class _GE _______ _ Project ___________ 'l'Qgiak . EydrQPQwer _______ . Plastic Properties________________ _ _ _________ . ____ _ Sample Number _ _ 3836 ____ _ Date Received 10 11.-81.. _________________ _ Location_____ _______ . Borrow SiteC Sample Taken By ______ ..JE. ____ _ ---------------------------~------------~~-------._--, r----~~--~~ -"S~I~E~V~E __ r_--'A:".'N:'-"A:".'L"_'Y'_'S'-'I"cS~-=_=~_=:_:::____c~._____,_:__=__::_::_c__,__::_~---+_--.!.!H..!.Y=OROWETER ANALY SIS us STD CUM % ~--~-~~~NI~-I~"~IN~C~H£[~S--~-~N~~~8~E~R~~~M~E~S~H~~~R,~IN~C~H~U~S~ST~A~N~~~~~O~ __ ~-----~G~R~AI~N~S~IZ~E~IN~-M~M~~~-----L--~ S_IE_V_E ___ ~~_s_s_ ~ • 2 !! ~ 0 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~! 8 !:; Il &88 § 8 § 8 § 0 00' ~J li~J f --TI----"l'i-: ----'-=r--~---=-;~__=,::!,___T.--~--TJ'-----'_T------l .. r-----l-t--T-J. ··-r-------:1~tJ~· ----'tr-T T ---;:.. -;-r-_ -__ -.-_-_. ----,.......-r-.---T---r----.---T---~., "rr-T-r~ -~ 1--~:-+ r-.~~=-=-=. ~ 00 Jt~; F .~ -.. i~f=c -c.:.c-----~r Cc-c: _~_----=-= 20 ~ 1C ~'t:-'t: _ L __ "-t-_ ~ __ _ _ 1__ _~_--f+=-~~ ... L~--i+ 1-c=~-fh 1--~~t:.~-.-_~----= )() ~ 1 -\----~---~ t--.. --~~--t-+ t -- ., 60 40 " ~ ~ t -N--+-----1_ l-._. ~ _~' -------. =-= ... ! .• --f---j--,-----z • __ _ ... ~J~ r--:~ I "-I _, :10 ~ j: --.1"" -._ ~, ... -'--1 ~_.~.l -1-_ 1 ., -~::.: ~.o~......:....:.::.~r' -------'\; -----...... -, .-. ------;I ---;&0 " --~--4-+ -~-:'\; .. -. _ --. 1-i--Lt-}-,-~ · :: _=;-"1--x~, ~1-+----+-+--t·-1!-----#-4. -.+-,_+-+-----+--_--_-_-_-_~-tl-++--_+_-J!---•.. .J. f-+-------I-~ !---=~·----~----:---l10 =:: _ T. -~. -_~.. ----__ --l_ -_t-_---'~_ .... ~~-t-_-_+. _-._-t_-_.--_.+--++--++------*++--+._--l------.+-.-.--------l-<.~H+----I-_t----I----It---:--=--_._---I_.a ---------.. ~ ~'-. t - ----.. ------10-----+---++-+--+--~-~-+-~-_i-t--~~--~~_+--+--+1-_4-t--_*~+_+_4_--+---~~.+_~~+_-~--~~ -~-4-.... ~~ --------------=---= o :±~[p~-~-i-tJ ---III r I II l.I:_~ lc.....l...._ . ~rl 14' --!T~-~'::--t±~E-b=!~' rl1f~;..--t-!:.::..---=t-....:..---tf-tt-j-fJ---.t--::J;-____ ---_-Ill-----=-~ -.- L __ 2 8~:l~~~ 2 0....... • ....... N ~~8~8 ~ o§§a~8 § to eRAI" Sill I. MILLlMlT[~! 3 10_Q 2 91 1 112 79 67 .... 3/4 58 l< !! 51 ... 112 • ~ 3/8 46 • . ---------_. I< 4 _35 ... .. 10 23 I< c 20 10 0 u .... 40 2 OK ... 100 0.7 u II: 200 0.5 ... .. 0.02 MM -------- Figure 12 Borrow Site C Test pit 4 I I I • I I I • I • I • , I , I I I , . I I I • I I I • I • .1 I I .1 I • I I i I i I E I I l j I I I j • i ® Alaska Testlab 4040 "8" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone (907) 278-1551 Sheet of __ W. O. No. D13470 Date ____ 1 Q. -14 -13_1. Technician SN T('xtural Class.Gra'l.eLly.S~:md ___ ... _________ _ Client _____ Alask~ .. rQwer Allth()rity "= .. '~=_~ Frost Class. __ ._. __ ._ . ____ " _. __ Unified Class __ .51' _____ _ Project. _______ Togial5.HydropoW~,r Plastic Properties _______ .. __ . ___ .,._. _______ ., . ___ , __ Date Received _lQ-11-SJ. __________ . _____ _ Sample Number, 3833 .. Location B0l:':J::'0w Sl.te D -----_.-------------,-_._-Sample Taken By ~ _______ . ___ _______ . ______ .S~I':':E:_:V'-"E'---T---"':A':':N:::A'=-L y=S~I~S~:_:_=_::_:_:__=_=___=__c::_:::cc__:_:_::__=_=_:_:c_::-:-::-=__-I H Y DR 0 .. ET E R AN A L Y SIS -----l 1------,-5-=,Z·[ Of OPENIItG IN INCHES NUIoIBfll Of lUSH Pt:R INCH, US STANDARD .-+---'-'-GRAIN SIZE IN M M :!! ~ ...... N ~ ~ 0 0 0 0• 0.8_ &:NO~"O ~ "'0 ~·8"'8l1!"8 X "'8 ~ 0 I 00 T-, -~ "'TN N -n-"'.~~ ---y .. --~ • .:;2'--_.:;!!=---::a~--="'.:___; .. ___,__'; .. ;....;:.-_;..:;:~-! Q _,.Il __ --y-OCS,.-r,--,lIr'--r--rl)---,r--_~ Q : i ,~, r ! II II _ _ F~ 0 "--:~-'111-1-c~ , .. +-..j -, I ~,~. ~ f--• , r ' -i",1: . --:, '.+ _. -t-,' f-_ I---f--_ ,'tt. r-+,--_. ~_~ f-;~ 10 : • + t . r J\ .. " . ,. -. --t r . --.. --.-! 7C ~ -I It j .+ ~I'-' --+~I_-_+___l_--_'il----I---_+_-+-t__-+-·-·---t-H+_~I-+---__#__+_+__+__+_-I__--I+1H_+_l~-+_____4---------l • t , ,---r. \ I\. . --1-., '., . L.:: ti . {. i-1-f-f t ~-1"--J:::::.:-~ )() ~60~~ ~;;~"}t---~~-~+---::-~t__-~~~-'+·-·-'~·+,-·-·+~+--~·~!4-4~~-+--~·~~+H~-~~--~ 0: t-:-: :; 1 t· ~'. +1~· _+ t-_.f-_. _____ ,_4O ~~~-~-~~~~~J-'~~-+t-·-~~~-,~+~~--~--··+·~~-H---~~--~~++~--~~~t·~·4~-~-'--~-'~ ~ • I t --i'< --, : . ' :t .·r .1...--.~. t -t ., -- ... I t, ..... , -.+.... t ' ,-- u .0 ~...: t'1 -- ----, +'\1, __ +_-+---+ ___ 1-._.---1' f-+--+---ft-++--+f--·+---l-------·-+i:r-'H--+--1H'--+-----j-----·-~&O a --+-.. + .j .,. K-· -, T','} . t+ --1r ,L --'" -+ , <.... . , f! [1 t -.- a )01-_-.1+.-.~j-4--+~-+--~~--.~",-+--4-4----+:~-----~~--4--·r-~-~~--+4-----1~-t--t--+-··-'~~-"'·--·--·-~~i4'~~4-+-~--4---'-~--~~·-10 ~or·--~·+i----~1-·--~i-·~+--I__-4--t--_4--I___+~~---~"t_·~-·~-·,'-:t_~~.·_'~-~,_·_·t_-+~_i+----~++-+-+--t--'~-:---·~t~·'~+_~~~-'+_~~'--_~_--~~ --'-'-' ,. .-' '-' ". -. -, , . , . --., 1-. f--- 10 ~ ~----f----t-.. ==---. -,-. ' ~~ .. , . '= ~~ .= --. ~ '.!' ~,., . , c-- o 8-~ ;llllL_ !---J.-! ' Ifr rr 1.L.l tTl 1,!--11_."---+--'1._".J...LT~~: .... ~~.;1:-'--J--=r.JJ. .... '~~'._±_-·'-_±_--·-·-~·'-· ._-----:l,l~ . ..L.!r-~-+-I-..J--L'_--'L~_-'_-LI--_-_-'-......J- l ___ ~ 8 ~ ~:i! ~ iii 2 0 • ........ ' '-';-.'. ......... -~ ~ 8 ~ S ~ 0 § § § ~ 8 § to' . ___ -"8""R A 10. SIZE I. II.LL.M[UII! ____ _ ... x !! ... • .. • It ... .. It .. 0 0 ... z ... 0 It .. .. US STD CUM 0/0 SIEvE PASS -._---- 3 2 1 112 100 86 314 80 112 72 318 66 ~ --- 4 ,~4 10 39 20 24 40 12 100 5 200 3.8 0,02 MM Figure 13 Borrow Site D Test Pit 5 @ Alaska Testlab 4040 "8" Street Anchorage, Alaska 9950) Phone (907) 278-1551 Sheet of __ W. O. N o. _--.D_1.3A~ Date 1 0 -1 4 - 8 1 Technician SN ____ _ Textural Class _____ gravelly __ S.arul ______________ _ Client __________ Ala~.k~LPQwer __ Au.thoti:l:¥-----__ Frost Class ________ . _____ Unified Class ----.S.N=-.EM __ _ Project ________ TogiakHydropo_wer __ . ____________ . Sample Number _ .3832-_ ___ __ _ Location______ --'I'-win Lakes -...,. Borrow Site E-- Plastlc Properties--rO-=-rl:::g-r-------____________ ~ __ Date RecPlved __________________________ _ Sample Taken By _ JF _____ _ __ . ________ _ .----.---------====~_-~Sc-C'.I~E~V~E===~:~:;A;;N!::.-A~-L"-'Y~S~I-S~ -_ -----cc -~-_--=c-=-c-c----c--c:;--c------cc-.,,-_-::-:-,..-_--,:---:-..,,-_-_-_-_--l-r _-_-_-_-_-!.!.H--'-y--~D-R-O-M-E-T-ER==-A-N-AL-y-S-:I s-_-_-~~~~_==~r---., rU-.-S-S-T-O-'--CU-M-o~:to--' SllE Of OP£NIHCO III INCHES -=r= IIUN8E11 Of YUH PER INCH US STANDARD GII~III SIlt: IN M. M SIEvE __ ~~_SS_ ~ .2 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 8! C) 8 o§88 § 8 ~ 8 § 0 "'0 ~rr r r rt~ i · I . J 1---;:_ .. ----...;c_t~t~----';1~J--"":;"-'Trc..;:.....:-;-_ -T_ -_-._~-;-._-.. _-__ ---,=;c.:.-.;..;:-;~-r--;-;-·.-·E~·' 90~-:7 t -1-.·----\.~ .--------+-_----+_ -------t----f---_10 -~-. \ -or· . ~-----. - -. - - ----. ---- --~. ----- -.. --c-------- ~tf: f-r ~ .-\-:~-=~. ----~-.. ~ ------=: ~----.--.. f~_-t _ -_-=1--_----f--=-----= 20 _ ~ +1---1-1 - \ ~-~l-j--) -------= ~ I--~--+--;>----t-~-+tt _.. i \ --f-~:--L: i -+ 1-~-=-~ 1; t r-I .t.--::-::...:= so ~ -+--j. t---1 -------,-\-------~ . -t---1--:-_.t t --~ ~;~l-···~t-~.~ t~~-+~--·~\~-.~~ .. -~~+-i~-~++-:H--~++~-t--+k+~~t~-~~--~:-=~: j • ~ -t ----- ------t-+---. t -_ _ .-. _-= .. . . • -t. .-.. ... .--.. . t '------+--ffT--j i~_-~ .. --t-_ \_ _ _ =_-.·_:_l_-_-.f --~~ -__ _ 1 j _ ~ _ _ _= $0 ~ ]0 I--_+-r--_ -. ~~-_-_t-nn ~~--. ,--~ ~_-~ r---+---.--:--t.~-: +--_Lt-I --+t_-__ -fl-+f-+--+-_--+._-+-_.--_-_--41+: ++-+_+-+-+ __ =_.+=_::.._--=-_-=-_-....jao ~ _.. \ ... ____ 70 -t ~ - 20r~--+jl-:~j----·~---+~~-~--t--~·-4-~-+-~--1~--~+~-~-~-+--+4--+-r-----i4-+-+-4--~----_H~~~--~"-_+--~------~~ ... ~ ._------... --.. ~-.. -.. -- -------. _.- . ~--.. ~- ." ~ . -) r-.... ---==: 10 1 ..... l- X 7C ~ .. a >-. ., 60 ~~ I[ ... z ~ ~0 I--.. z ... U 40 • -.-.... --J ... . -f 1'-.. --------------- I 0 =---+t---4-_-j--I-~I-·--r o ~± ~[f]l!~--WJ-J!-----!~ILt!---!, a 8~~~~2 Ii: ~.~ ... N - .-- L .RAIII SIU I. MllllIUTEII! _____ _ I I I • I I I I I • I I , . I I I. I. , . • I I I I. I I I • 3 2 1 112 100 314 95 112 92 31B 85 4 66 10 42 20 24 40 15 100 7 200 5.5 0.02 MM Figure 14 Borrow Site E Test pit 6 , . I I I I I I • • I I I I I i I I I I i l j 1 @ Alaska Testlab Sheet of __ W. O. No. D13470 Anchorage. Alaska 9950] Phone (907) 278-1 SS 1 4040 "8" Slreel Date _____ J 0-11-81 Technician CJP SN Textural Class Silty Sandy Gravel Frost Class _____ ~F=J~-~~ ___ -=~: U~ified-C1~~--G~L':_--:~-=-~= Client _________ ?\laska Power Auth<:>rit.:t~-=--=--.:-=~ Project ____________ TQ9:i._.:tK_Hydrop.Qwe r __ _________ _ Plastic Properties_______ _ _ _ ____________________________ .. _ Sample Number _ 3834 _____ _ Date ReCt'ived __ ill:-_U-::-lU ________________ _ Location ___ __ _.Kurtl uk_ River Darn Site_ Sample Taken By __ gK _____________________________ _ US STO CUM 0/0 SIEVE PASS 3 2 1 112 00 94 0-314 84 x !! .. 112 72 s .. 318 69 • ., 4 61 ... .. 10 52 ., .. 20 45 0 u ... .. 40 40 .. u 100 34 ., 200 30.2 ... .. T9.3 0.02 MM igure 15 est Pit 7 - - .. - H. RECOHHENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK This report is intended for use at the preliminary feasi- bility study stage. To fully assess the viability of this project, a detailed feasibility study is necessary. For a detailed study, the following geologic and geotechnical analyses should be undertaken: Road Location -Detailed soils mapping in conjunction with a drilling and test pit program along the proposed road alignment. Borrow Sites -Extens i ve dri 11 holes and/or test pi ts to -determine the best areas for gravel extraction. .... - -- - - - - Dam Site Location -Estimate the volume and quality of rock to be removed. Determine the thickness of alluvium in the stream bed . -34- - - ... - - - ... - - - - - I. REFERENCES CITED Cady, W.M., R.E. Wallace, J.M. Hoare, and E.J. Webber, 1955, The Central Kuskokwim Reg ion, Alaska: U. S. Geolog ical Survey Professional paper 268, 132 p. Coulter, H.~v., and the Alaska Glacial Map Committee, 1962, Map showing the extent of glaciations in Alaska: U.S. Geologi- cal Survey Map 1-415. Hoare, J.M., and W.L. Coonrad, 1961, Geologic map of the Goodnews Quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Map 1-339. Personal Communication Pavey, Dan, 1981, Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. -35- ----------------------------------------- .... - .... .... - .... .... .... - .... - - TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX D DETAILED COST ESTIMATE - TABLE OF CONTENTS - Page -A. General 1 -B. Methodology 2 '--C. Mobilization and Support Costs 3 -D. Unit Prices 4 E. Access Road to Togiak 5 - ... - - - - - - - - - - ..... - - - - - - - -- - - .... APPENDIX D DETAILED COST ESTIMATE A. GENERAL The Togiak Hydroelectric Project consists of three alterna- tive construction schemes; Al ternative A, a 38-foot concrete dam; Alternative B, a 28-foot concrete dam; and Alternative C, a rockfill dam with a spillway. The access road to the project site requires an analysis of two separate construction schemes that are the same for each of the dam al ternati ves. Each al ternative was treated as a separate construction project in preparing the cost estimate. The following discussion describes the methodology and presents the backup data and assumptions used for all three alternatives. At the outset of the cost estimating procedure for the Togiak project, it was determined that the unit-cost estimating method for material placement and other construction activities would not provide sufficient accuracy and confidence. Development of construction cost estimates with this method uses uni t prices developed from estimates and bid tabulations on similar projects under similar condi tions in terms of geo- graphic location, weather, accessibility, and other factors that may affect the cost. When available uni t prices are not similar in these respects, they must be adjusted to reflect the actual cost of the construction items under the specific condi- tions. For this project, the available data base of uni t prices was not sui table. Typically, uni t prices on remote Alaskan construction projects vary widely and seem to depend heavily on a contractor's approach in scheduling crews, trans- portation, shipping, and work schedules. NBI-384-9521-D 1 The cost estimate herein was prepared by using the heavy- construction estimating method and January 1982 costs. This method treats the project as a separate entity. The construc- tion cost computations are based on the use of construction equipment units, labor rates, labor productivity, working con- ditions, work schedule and sequence, subcontract prices, permanent material and equipment prices, and special con- straints and requirements. B. METHODOLOGY The preliminary design and layout of facilities for each of the three al ternatives was used to establish estimated quantities of permanent and consumable materials and other measurable items of work such as excavation and embankment quanti ties. A construction schedule was prepared for each major item of work based on assumed production rates normally attainable under similar conditions. Consideration was given to the remote location, the 60-hour work week, and the short construction season. Construction equipment of appropriate size and type for each operation was selected with a view toward minimizing the number of pieces of equipment and maximizing the use of each piece. The manpower from the standpoint of crafts and the numbers of persons, hours of equipment operation, quantities of consum- able supplies and spare parts, subcontracted work, and permanent materials and equipment was estimated for each work item. Appropri ate rates and prices were appl ied to produce direct costs of labor, equipment, and materials. It was assumed that all skilled construction personnel will be brought to the site by the contractors since it is not known whether local labor wi 11 be avai 1 able. Tables D-1A, D-1B and D-1C list the skilled personnel that will work on the project. They also tabulate the number of man-weeks required NBI-384-9521-D 2 • .. • • - • '. • - • • -.. - • • .. • ---• .. -- • .. • -.. .. III .. .. .. - .... - - - - - - - - - for each craft and indicate the weekly wage for each craft. The wages are based on union scale, including benefits, current as of January 1982. A work week (man-week) consisting of six ten-hour days is assumed. If the contractor chooses to increase the number of working hours per man-week, the weekly wage will increase, but the overall labor cost will not because of the trade-offs involved. The overtime labor cost would increase but costs for such items as subsistence and equipment rental would decrease . Also included nel. A heavy in the work force are subcontracted person- equipment moving crew will transport the turbine-generator assembly from the barge unloading site to the project site and install it in the final position. The transmission line subcontract labor force is not included in Tables D-1A, D-1B and D-1C and it is excluded from the labor cost; however, the required camp cost to support this crew of eight is shown. A detailed breakdown of the transmis- sion line subcontract is presented in Table D-12. The subcon- tract amount is based on January 1982 costs for power lines connecting the potential hydroelectric site to existing village power pI an ts. Loads and distances can easi ly be hand led with distribution voltages (12.47 kV). Therefore, popular REA-type assembl ies and conductors were assumed. A typical cross-arm construction assembly is shown on Plate V, Appendix A. Equipment costs presented in Tables D-2A, D-2B and D-2C are based on an hourly ownership rental for 23 weeks plus an hourly use rate for the actual hours used. The rates used are from actual costs of operating, owning, and maintaining equipment. They include fuel costs at Alaskan rates. Material costs are current costs for the items delivered to Seattle, Washington, at a barge departure point. D-3B and D-3C. NBI-384-9521-D They are shown in Tables D-3A, 3 C. MOBILIZATION AND SUPPORT COSTS Due to the remote location of the site, essentially all of the equipment, vehicles, and supplies required to construct the project wi 11 be transported to and from the si te by barge. Barges can operate from several points, including Seattle and Anchorage. The actual departure poi nt would depend on the contractor's particular situation. These cost estimates are based on having a barge depart from Seattle in late April or early May and using material prices FOB Seattle and barge rates from Seattle to Togiak (see Tables D-4A, D-4B, and D-4C). Barge time to the project si te is approximately two weeks. Tables D-4A, D-4B, and D-4C summarize barge shipping costs both to and from Togiak. The construction workers and supervisory personnel will be housed in a construction camp set up specifically for the proj- ect. Tables D-5A, D-5B, and D-5C show the overall costs, based on a uni t cost per person-day assuming that each man-week of labor will require support for one person for seven days. The cost includes mobilization and demobilization of the camp and all other support costs. Air transportation support costs are shown D-5B, and D-5C. These costs cover the trips required for projects of this nature and personnel turnover rate of about 20 percent. in Tables D-5A, that would be an anticipated Tables D-6A, D-6B, and D-6C summarize all direct costs associated with the construction of the Togiak project alterna- tives. A contingency of 15 percent and a markup of 15 percent for contractor overhead and profi t are included. The cost of the transmission line is based on a subcontract cost that includes a contingency. As indicated, it is marked up by 10 percent to cover the prime contractor's indirect expenses asso- ci ated wi th schedul i ng and responsi ble supervision. NBI-384-9521-D 4 • • • - • - • • • - • - • - • .. • .. • -• .. • -.. • • • • .. • • • .. • - • - - - - .... - - .. - - - Engineering and owner's legal and administrative costs are added to produce a total project cost. D. UNIT PRICES Figures D-lA, D-lB, and D-lC are construction schedules for the Togiak project alternatives based on a detailed analysis of the construction activi ties and the information presented in Tables D-lA through D-5C. All of the direct costs were assigned to an appropriate category that represents a major i tern of work. Unit prices were calculated and these are presented in Tables D-7A, D-7B, and D-7C. They take into account the assumptions previously used for production rates, support equipment, and supervisory effort. Page 2 of Tables D- 7 A, D-7B, and D-7C detai Is the content of the various cost headings and item descriptions. Finally, a detailed breakdown of unit prices, quantities, and total cost is presented in Tables VIII-lA, VIII-lB, and VIII-lC in Section VIII of the report. These are based on the average unit costs for major categories presented on Tables D-7A, D-7B and D-7C and modified to take into account the quantities, scheduling, and location of the specific items of work within the project area. Therefore, some unit prices may vary for the same item used on different phases of the work . Note that the cost estimates prepared for these project alternatives were not based on the unit-cost method. The unit prices presented in this report are intended for use in presenting the general relationship and magnitude of the major construction i terns for this particular project. They should not be used out of context because they may not accurately represent the cost of performing similar work at other sites or under different circumstances. NBI-384-952l-D 5 E. ACCESS ROAD TO TOGIAK The access road to the Togiak Hydroelectric Project si te considered here is Option A (see Appendix C). For purposes of the cost estimate, Segment I is about seven miles long and runs from the end of the Beach Road near Togiak to proposed Borrow Site D. Segment II is about 4.6 miles long and runs from the Borrow Si te D to the 'project si te. The subsurface conditions used for development of the cost estimate are outlined in Figure 2 of AppendixC. Table D-8 of this section outlines the assumed terrain conditions, and calculation of quantities. For Segment I, it was assumed that the soil conditions are en ti rely gl aci al ti 11 and that all gravel wi 11 be hauled from Borrow Site D. Minimal excavation and embankment will be done after stripping to minimize the amount of gravel to be hauled. The gravel section assumes an average depth of two feet wi th 2: 1 slopes on the shoulders. Figures 3 and 4 of Appendix C show typical sections for the two geologic condi- tions expected to be encountered. For Segment I I, it was assumed that the route is roll ing with little sideslope over good gravel, overlain with 12 to 24 inches of silty soil. Approximately one-half of the route will have 24 inches or less of overburden and will use gravel from adjacent borrow sources. The other one-half of the route will requi re haul from Borrow Si te D or other sources if they are available. The costs of the two major stream crossing structures were taken from the Department of Transportation estimates. If a bridge is required, pre-drilled, treated timber could probably be used, or possibly a pipe arch or arches. Generally, it was assumed that construction conditions are relatively easy and will progress fairly rapidly. No haul was NBI-384-9521-D 6 • - • .. • • .. -- • - • .. • ... • .. • -• -• • -• .. • - • - • - • -• • .... - .- - - - assumed for the material produced from stripping ; it will be spread out adjacent to the road so it will not interfere with drainage. Culverts will be field located at positions where it will be necessary to provide drainage or at approximate 1000- foot intervals in sections where well defined drainage ways do not exist. An overall project cost was developed for the simultaneous construction of Segments I and II from assumed production and labor rates and equipment and material costs under Alaskan conditions. The resultant unit prices are summarized in Table 0-9. The mobilization and demobilization cost is the sum of the transportation and camp costs. The remaining costs were spread out in accordance with production rates and labor costs and adjusted to be in accordance wi th unit price information available on similar projects in the area: the Airport Project at Di 11 i ngham and the Ai rport Project at New Stuyahok. The unit prices include an allowance for contractor profit and overhead. Two construction schemes were analyzed for the access road. The first one assumes that a separate contract will be issued for the construction of the entire 11.6-mile route (Segments I and II). Table D-10 summarizes the construction costs for this scheme. It incorporates the methodology and assumptions previously outlined for the preparation of the three dam alternatives. The second construction scheme assumes that the contractor who woul d bui 1 d the access road to Borrow Si te D (Segment I) for the Togiak Airport Project would build the upper portion (Segment II) on a change order. The unit prices used here were the ones developed for the 11.6-mile project. Twenty-five percent was added for mobilization and additional contingencies anticipated for change order work. The construction costs are summarized in Table 0-11. NBI-384-9521-D 7 An annual cost 0 f $5800 ($500 per mil e per year) is used for normal road maintenance. This assumes that the necessary equipment for maintenance is available at the local community in conjuction with the existing airport maintenance program. It is anticipated that normal annual road maintenance will include: Grader/Patrol - 2 days Repair of Chuckholes, Culvert Maintenance and Miscellaneous -Materials -Labor Total Annual Cost $2,000 800 3,000 $5,800 Table VIII-2 is an overall summary of the three alternative construction projects at Togiak, each with the two road construction alternatives. NB -84-521- • • -• .. -.. - • -.. - • .. • • • .. • • --------- • -.. - "!l:.Ifi!l - - - ,.~ .- - .. - TABLE D-1A TOGIAK --38-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERATIVE LABOR BASED ON 60 HR WEEK Labor Cost/ (Man-Weeks) Week General Superintendent 29 $1,986 Superintendents 41 1,758 Operators 95 1,730 Oilers 23 1,575 Mechanics 23 1,730 Laborers 172 1,571 Driller/Powderman 4 1,730 Electrician 6 1,850 Ironworkers 14 1,840 Carpenters 13 1,637 Apprentice Carpenter 12 1,571 Millwrights 2 1,800 Welders, Fitters 6 1,897 Manufacturer's Rep 3 Line Crew (8) 120 Subcontract Heavy Equipment Moving Crew 3 Subcontract TOTALS 558 Man-Weeks NBI-410-9521-D-1A Total Cost $ 57,594 72,078 164,350 36,225 39,790 270,212 6,920 11,100 25,760 21,281 18,852 3,600 11,382 10,000 25,000 $774,144 CAT-08K (2 ea) Compaction Roller Front End Loader 9660 (2 Flatbed Truck Dump Truck (10 yd) (2 ea) Service/Fuel Truck Pickup Truck (2 ea) Backhoe -CAT 225 Welder Generator Generator Spare LoBoy/Tractor Airtrack/Compressor Crane -20 Ton Batch Plant 65,000 GPM Pump (2 ea) 13,000 GPM Pump Hand Compactors Small Mixer (2 ea) Screening Plant 3" Water Pumps (2 ea) Fuel Tank, Bladder Cutting Torch, Set Misc. Equipment Office Trailer Pole Setting Truck Line Truck NBI-410-9521-0-2A TABLE 0-2A TOGIAK --38-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT COST Ownership Total Hourly Expense Operating Operating Operating ( 23 wks) Hours Cost Cost $67,600 ea 300 ea $103.22 $31,000 ea 4,000 50 2.00 100 ea) 18,800 ea 300 30.06 9,020 ea 4,100 400 14.57 5,830 8,350 ea 300 ea 16.87 5,060 ea 10,850 400 17.20 6,880 3,250 ea 400 ea 12.69 ea 5,076 ea 24,900 50 20.37 1,020 1,100 100 5.51 550 510 1,140 .94 1,090 510 200 .94 200 14, 120 200 24.45 4,890 25,350 180 27.00 4,860 23,460 650 22.05 14,330 19,251 420 14.50 6,090 ($8,000 x 1.25 mo + $4,000 x 4.75 mo) = 29,000 ($4,500 x 1.25 mo + $2,250 x 4.75 mo) = 16,300 1,800 100 ea 1.00 100 250 ea 50 ea 1.00 ea 50 ea 9,300 350 23.75 8,310 500 ea 100 ea 1.00 ea 100 ea 5,000 300 2,000 3,000 1,140 1.68 1,915 Costs contained in transmission subcontract TOTAL Total Cost This Project $197,200 4,100 55,640 9,930 26,820 17,730 16,652 25,920 1,650 1,600 700 19,010 30,210 37,800 25,341 ea 58,000 16,300 1,900 600 17,610 1,200 5,000 300 2,000 4 2 915 $578,200 I • I I I I •• I. I I I' 'I " 'I • I ,. 'I I I , I I I •• 'I I I - -TABLE D-3A TOGIAK --38-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE -MATERIAL FOB SEATTLE ...... Unit Item Quantity Unit Price Amount - ~ 1. Cement Type I 24,780 Bags $ 4.73 $117,209 2. Reinforcing Steel 11,845 Lb 0.35 4,145 -3. Steel Pipe - 8 Ft. Dia. 195 LF 400 78,000 4. Slide Gates -8 Ft. 2 Ea 10,000 20,000 5. Slide Gates -5 Ft. w/hoist 1 Ea 20,000 20,000 ~ 6. Explosives 4,100 Lb 1.00 4,100 7. Penstock -5 Ft. Dia. 50 LF 200 10,000 -8. Misc. Building Material 1 Lot 25,000 25,000 9. Turbine Generator Assy. -Includes Switchgear LS 540,000 10. Electrical & Mechanical Accessory Equipment ~ and Materials 1 Lot 92,000 92,000 11. Fuel for Pumps 21,000 Gal 1.25 26,250 12. Pump Discharge Line 330 LF 200 66,000 13. Forming Materials 1 Lot 56,000 56,000 14. Misc. Structural Steel 10,000 Lb 0.30 3,000 .,W 15. Trashrack 1 Ea 4,000 4,000 -MATERIALS FOB SEATTLE DOCK $1,065,700 - - - - NBI-410-9521-D-3A - Haul Class A B C D F G I J I J TABLE D-4A TOGIAK --38-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE BARGE SHIPPING COST Seattle to Togiak Weight Commodity (Typical) (lb) ($/cwt) St ructural Steel 22,454 8.24 Palletized Cement 2,329,000 6.93 Lumber 60,000 8.00 Poles 128,700 8.00 Steel Pipe, Culvert 136,700 8.24 Misc. Wire, Hardware, etc. 49,185 24.32 Large Equipment, Machinery 728,300 12.00 Trailer 12,000 25.00 TOTAL Togiak to Seattle (Return) Large Equipment, Machinery Office Trailer TOTAL 700,000 12.00 12,000 25.00 NBI-410-9521-D-4A Cost ($) 1,860 161,400 4,800 10,300 11,260 11,960 87,400 3,000 $292,000 84,000 3,000 $ 87,000 • • • • • - • -... - • -• • • .. • .. • .. .. .. - • ----- • ---... - • • - - - - - - - - - TABLE D-5A TOGIAK --38-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE OF CAMP COSTS 558 Man Weeks Each week the men are supported for seven days 558 x 7 or 3906 days @ $135 per day CAMP COSTS TOTAL ESTIMATE OF AIR TRANSPORTATION COSTS Bring in crew and small tools -assume 6 men per flight and 24 men with a Beech King Air. 6 Trips Anchorage to Togiak and back @6 hrs/round trip 6 Trips @ $2500 Approximately 1500 lbs of freight via Reeve Aleutian and Air Taxi twice a week 3000 lbs @ $0.75/lb or $2250 per week 19 Weeks @ $2250 40 One Way Trips during construction for per- sonnel changes & supervisor visits 60 Trips @ $282 Misc. Supply Trips 6 Trips Queen Air Cargo Remove crews at job close AIR TRANSPORTATION TOTAL NBI-410-9521-D-5A $527,310 $15,000 42,750 16,920 15,000 15,000 $104,670 TABLE D-6A TOGIAK --38-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY SHEET Material FOB Seattle Labor Transportation -Barge to Site Transportation -Barge to Seattle Transportation -Air Camp Costs -Catered Equipment Cost Prime Contractor 15% Profit Contingency 15% Transmission Line -Electrical Labor & Materials Subcontract Prime Contractor 10% Markup Surveying, Right of Way & Geology Engineering Design Construction Management Owner's Legal & Admin. Costs 3% Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal ~ubtotal GRAND TOTAL NBI-410-9521-D-6A $1,065,700 774,144 292,000 87,000 104,670 527,310 578,200 $3,429,000 541,350 $3,943,350 $ 591,500 967,000 96,700 $5,598,600 $ 100,000 435,000 215,000 $ 750,000 190,400 $6,539,000 • .. .. .. • - • - • .. .. -• .. ... • -.. - • • .. • -• - • - • - • - I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ I TABLE D-7A TOGIAK --38-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AVERAGE UNIT PRICES FOR MAJOR ITEMS OF WORK 1/ Material Labor Equipment Contractor Total Item-Cost Cost Cost Profit (15%) Amount 2/ Mobil/Demobilization $255,840-$154,380 $ 42,830 $ 67,960 $ 521,010 Penstock 17,120 28,530 8,980 8,190 62,820 Rock Excavation 4,200 44,720 126,920 26,380 202,220 Foundation Treatment 0 27,490 10,700 5,730 43,920 Concrete 338,610 543,470 134,440 152,480 1,069,000 Cofferdams 0 90,100 106,820 29,540 226,460 Bypass Line 82,180 34,440 21,960 20,790 159,370 Pumping Cost 43,050 38,460 96,700 26,730 204,940 Pump Di scharge Line 70,620 23,850 20,740 17,280 132,490 Trashracks & Slide Gates 45,300 49,060 1,930 14,440 110,730 Turbine & Generator 640,400 133,250 3,860 116,630 894,140 Cover Powerhouse 25,800 20,340 2,320 7,270 55,730 Transmission Lin~ 26,250 113,340 20,940 160!530 TOTALS $514,350 $3,943,35o!i These items are described on page 2 of this table. Includes Barge and Air Support Costs only. Includes costs over and above subcontract amount only Amount corresponds with second subtotal on Table D-6A. NBI-410-9521-D-7A Unit Quanti t~ Unit Price LS $ 40 LF 1,567 3,525 CY 57 300 SY 146 2,478 CY 472 2,500 CY 91 200 LF 797 LS 330 LF 401 15,700 LB 7.05 LS LS LS Item 1. Mobil/Demobilization 2. Penstock 3. Rock Excavation 4. 5. 6. Foundation Treatment Concrete Cofferdams 7. Bypass Line 8. Pumping Cost 9. Pump Discharge Line 10. Trashracks & Slide Gates 11. Turbine & Generator 12. Cover Powerhouse 13. Transmission Line Columns Material Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost NBI-410-9521-D-7A TABLE D-7A (Continued) Includes general supervision, barge and ai r support costs, staging equipment, miscellaneous standby equipment, etc. Installed, including couplings. All, including structural, road and miscellaneous. All required. All, including equipment, miscellaneous structural reinforcing steel. All rockfill. material, excavation Through cofferdams, and concrete dam. concrete, forming, (unclassified) and Including operation, maintenance and installation. Installed. Installed. Installed, including mechanical, electrical, and startup. All. Installed -Subcontract plus shipping, and compo cost. Material cost FOB Seattle plus shipping. Salary at 60 Hrs/week plus sUbsistence costs. Ownership rental plus use rental, based on six months. • I I I I I .1 II II II ,. I. ,. ,. II I. II 11.1 ••• 1 f • - - - - ..... - .... - - - - - - TABLE D-1B TOGIAK 28-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE LABOR BASED ON 60 HR WEEK Labor Cost/ (Man-Weeks) Week General Superintendent 29 $1,986 Superintendent 41 1,758 Operators 85 1,730 Oilers 23 1,575 Mechanics 23 1,730 Laborers 148 1,571 Electrician 6 1,850 Ironworkers 10 1,840 Carpenters 13 1,637 Apprentice Carpenter 12 1,571 Millwrights 2 1,800 Welders, Fitters 6 1,897 Driller/Powderman 4 1,730 Manufacturer's Rep 3 Heavy Equipment Moving Crew 3 Subcontract Line Crew (8 ) 120 Subcontract TOTALS 520 Man-Weeks NBI-410-9521-D-1B Total Cost $57,594 72,078 147,050 36,225 39,790 232,508 11,100 18,400 21,281 18,852 3,600 11,382 6,920 10,000 25,000 $711,780 CAT-D8K (2 ea) Compaction Roller Front End Loader 9660 (2 Flatbed Truck Dump Truck (10 yd) (2 ea) Service/Fuel Truck Pickup Truck (2 ea) Backhoe -CAT 225 Welder Generator Generator Spare LoBoy/Tractor Airtrack/Compressor Crane -20 Ton Batch Plant 65,000 GPM Pump (2 ea) 13,000 GPM Pump Hand Compactors (10 ea) Small Mixer (2 ea) Screening Plant 3" Water Pumps (2 ea) Fuel Tank, Bladder Cutting Torch, Set Misc. Equipment Office Trailer Pole Setting Truck Line Truck NBI-410-9521-D-2-B TABLE D-2B TOGIAK --28-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT COST Ownership Total Hourly Expense Operating Operating Operating (23 wks) Hours Cost Cost $67,600 ea 300 ea $103.22 $31,000 ea 4,000 50 2.00 100 ea) 18,800 ea 300 30.06 9,020 ea 4,100 400 14.57 5,830 8,350 ea 300 ea 16.87 5,060 ea 10,850 400 17.20 6,880 3,250 ea 400 ea 12.69 ea 5,076 ea 24,900 50 20.37 1,020 1,100 100 5.51 550 510 1,140 .94 1,090 510 200 .94 200 14,120 200 24.45 4,890 25,350 180 27.00 4,860 23,460 650 22.05 14,330 19,251 420 14.50 6,090 ($8,000 x 1.25 mo + $4,000 x 4.75 mo) = 29,000 ($4,500 x 1.25 mo + $2,250 x 4.75 mo) = 16,300 1,800 100 ea 1.00 100 250 ea 50 ea 1.00 ea 50 ea 9,300 350 23.75 8,310 500 ea 100 ea 1.00 ea 100 ea 5,000 300 2,000 3,000 1,140 1.68 1,915 Costs contained in transmission subcontract TOTAL Total Cost This Project $197,200 4,100 55,640 9,930 26,820 17,730 16,652 25,920 1,650 1,600 700 19,010 30,210 37,800 25,341 ea 58,000 16,300 1,900 600 17,610 1,200 5,000 300 2,000 4 2 915 $578,200 • I I I 'I I I • I I I " ,. I I I I 'I ,. •• 'I I. I. •• I' I. ,..", ,.". ,- - ~"....,a ' ... - .. - - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 TABLE D-3B TOGIAK --28-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL FOB SEATTLE Unit Item Quanti ty Unit Price Cement Type I 16,600 Bags $ 4.73 Reinforcing Steel 11,845 Lb 0.35 Steel Pipe - 8 Ft. Dia. 195 Lf 400 Slide Gates -8 Ft. 2 Ea 10,000 Slide Gate -5 Ft. w/Hoist 1 Ea 20,000 Explosives 4,100 Lb 1. 00 Penstock -5 Ft. Dia. 40 Lf 200 Misc. Building Material 1 Lot 25,000 Turbine Generator Assy. Includes Switchgear LS NBI-4l0-952l-D-3B Amount $78,520 4,145 78,000 20,000 20,000 4,100 8,000 25,000 520,000 Item 10. Electrical & Mechanical Accessory Equipment and Materials 11. Fuel for Pumps 12. Pump Discharge Line 13. Forming Materials 14. Misc. Structural Steel 15. Trashrack TABLE D-3B (Continued) Quantity 1 21,000 330 1 10,000 1 MATERIALS FOB SEATTLE DOCK NBI-410-9521-D-3B Unit Lot Gal Lf Lot Lbs Ea Unit Price Amount $90,000 $90,000 1. 25 26,250 200 66,000 50,000 50,000 0.30 3,000 4,000 4,000 $996,860 • .. .. .. .. .. .. • .. .. -.. .. .. ... .. .. • .. • ., • .. • .. .. .. .. -.. -.. .. • - • • - - - - - - - - Haul Class A B C D F G I J I J TABLE 0-4B TOGIAK --28-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE BARGE SHIPPING COST Seattle to Togiak Commodity (Typical) Weight (lb) Str. Steel 22,545 Cement 1,561,300 Lumber 60,000 Poles 128,700 Steel Pipe 127,420 Misc. Wire, Hardward, etc. 49,186 Large Equipment, Mach. 724,300 Trailer 12,000 Total Togiak to Seattle Equipment 700,000 Trailer 12,000 Total $ Rate/ CWT 8.24 6.93 8.00 8.00 8.24 20.32 12.00 25.00 12.00 25.00 NBI-410-9521-0-4B Cost $ 1,860 108,200 4,800 10,300 10,500 11,960 86,916 3,000 $237,600 84,000 3,000 $ 87,000 TABLE D-5B TOGIAK --28-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE OF CAMP COSTS 520 Man-Weeks Each week the men are supported for seven days 520 x 7 or 3640 days @ $135 per day CAMP COSTS TOTAL ESTIMATE OF AIR TRANSPORTATION COSTS Bring in crew and small tools -assume 6 men per flight and 24 men with a Beech King Air. 6 Trips Anchorage to Togiak and back @6 hrs/round trip 6 Trips @ $2500 Approximately 1500 lbs of freight via Reeve Aleutian and Air Taxi twice a week 3000 lbs @ $0.75/lb or $2250 per week 19 Weeks @ $2250 40 One Way Trips during construction for per- sonnel changes & supervisor visits 60 Trips @ $282 Misc. Supply Trips 6 Trips Queen Air Cargo Remove crews at job close AIR TRANSPORTATION TOTAL NBI-410-9521-D-5B $491,400 $15,000 42,750 16,920 15,000 15,000 $104,670 • - • .. • .. • .. • .. • - • - • .. • • .. • -• • ., • .. ------ • .. - - - - ..... - - - - - - - - - TABLE D-6B TOGIAK --28-FT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY SHEET Material FOB Seattle Labor Transportation -Barge to Site Transportation -Barge to Seattle Transportation -Air Camp Costs -Catered Equipment Cost Prime Contractor 15% Profit Con t ingency 15% Transmission Line -Electrical Labor & Materials Subcontract Prime Contractor 10% Markup Surveying, Right of Way & Geology Engineering Design Construction Management Owner's Legal & Admin. Costs 3% Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal GRAND TOTAL NBI-410-9521-D-6B $ 996,860 711,780 237,600 87,000 104,670 491,400 578 2 200 3,207,500 . 481 2 125 3,688,600 553,290 967,000 96 2 700 5,305,600 100,000 435,000 215 2 °00 750,000 181 2 700 $6,237,300 I • I • 1/ TABLE D-7B TOGIAK --28-FTCONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AVERAGE UNIT PRICES FOR MAJOR ITEMS OF WORK Material Labor Equipment Contractor Total Item-Cost Cost Cost Profit (15'.') Amount Quantity 1. Mobil/Demob. $228,92uY $138,130 $ 38,320 $ 60,805 $466,180 2. Penstock 12,840 21,400 6,735 6,150 47,120 30 3. Rock Excavation 4,200 44,720 126,920 26,380 202,220 3,525 4. Foundation Treatment 0 27,490 10,700 5,730 43,920 280 5. Concrete 240,490 511,430 134,440 132,950 1,019,310 1,660 6. Cofferdams 0 90,100 106,820 29,540 226,460 2,500 7. Bypass Line 82,180 34,440 21,960 20,790 159,370 200 8. Pumping Cost 43,050 38,460 96,700 26,730 204,940 9. Pump Discharge Line 70,670 23,850 20,740 17,280 132,490 330 10. Trashracks & Slide Gates 45,300 49,060 1,930 14,440 110,730 15,700 11. Turbine & Generator 616,000 128,200 3,300 112,120 859,620 12. Cover Powerhouse 25,800 20,340 2,320 7,270 55,730 13. Transmission Lin~ 26,250 113,340 20,940 160,530 TOTALS $481,125 $3,688,60oY 1/ These items are described on page 2 of this table. 2/ Includes Barge and Air Support Costs only. 3/ Includes cost over and above subcontract amount only. 4/ Amount corresponds with second subtotal on Table D-6B. NBI-410-9521-D-7B I I I I I I I I I. , I I I • I , . , I I I I • I • Unit Unit Price LS $ LF 1571 CY 57 SY 157 CY 614 CY 91 LF 797 LS LF 401 LB 7.01 LS LS LS , I I I I • I • l I ITEM 1. Mobil /Demobil ization 2. Penstock 3. Rock Excavation 4. Foundation Treatment 5. Concrete 6. Cofferdams 7. Bypass Line 8. Pumping Cost 9. Pump Discharge Line 10. Trashracks 8. Slide Gates II. Turbine 8. Generator 12. Cover Powerhouse 13. Transmission Line COLUMNS Material Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost NHI-410-9521-D-7B TARLE D-7R (Continued) t Includes general supervision, barge and air support costs, staging equipment, miscellaneous standby equipment, etc. Installed, including couplings. All, including structural, road and miscellaneous. All required. All, including equipment, material, cement, forming, miscellaneous structural excavation (unclassified) and reinforcing steel. All rockfill. Through cofferdams, and concrete dam. Including operation, maintenance and installation. Installed. Installed. Installed, including mechanical, electrical, and startup. All. Installed -Subcontract plus shipping, and compo cost. Material cost FOB Seattle plus shipping. Salary at 60 Hrs/week plus subsistence costs. Ownership rental plus use rental, based on six months. TABLE D-1C TOGIAK --ROCKFILL DAM ALTERNATIVE LABOR RASED ON 60 HR WEEK General Superintendent Superintendents Operators Oilers Mechanics Laborers Driller/powderman Electrician Ironworkers Carpenters Apprentice Carpenter Millwrights Welders, Fitters Labor (Man-Weeks) 28 46 135 23 23 192 9 5 22 14 14 2 11 Cost/ Week $1,986 1,758 1,730 1,575 1,730 1,571 1,730 1,850 1,840 1,637 1,571 1,800 1,897 Total Cost $55,608 80,868 233,550 36,225 39,790 301,632 15,570 9,250 40,480 22,918 21,994 3,600 20,867 Manufacturer's Rep 3 10,000 Line Crew (8) 120 Subcontract Heavy Equipment Moving Crew 3 Subcontract 25,000 TOTALS 650 Man-Weeks $917,352 NBI-410-9521-D-1C • - • .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. - • -... .. • .. • • .. • • • .. .. .. - • -.. - • • , J I CAT-D8K (2 ea) Compaction Roller Front End Loader 966D (2 ea) Flatbed Truck Dump Truck (10 yd) (3 ea) Service/Fuel Truck Pickup Truck (3 ea) Backhoe -CAT 225 Welder Generator Generator Spare Vibratory Compactor Lo-Boy/Tractor Batch Plant Airtrack/Compressor (3 ea) Crane -20 Ton 65,000 GPM Pump 13,000 GPM Pump Hand Compactors (5 ea) Conc. Mixer Trailer Screening Plant 3" Water Pumps (3 ea) Fuel Tank, Bladder Cutting Torch, Set Misc. Equipment Office Trailer I t TABLE D-2C TOGIAK --ROCKFILL DAM ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT COST Ownership Expense (23 wks) $67,600 4,000 18,800 4,100 8,350 10,850 3,250 ea 24,900 1,100 510 510 8,000 14,120 19,251 25,350 23,460 ($8,000 x ($4,500 x 1,800 ea 2,000 9,300 500 ea 5,000 300 2,000 3,000 Total Operating Hours 400 ea 200 300 ea 500 500 ea 400 400 ea 250 100 1,100 220 400 200 300 150 ea 200 Hourly Operating Cost $103.22 2.00 30.06 14.57 16.87 17.20 12.69 ea 20.37 5.51 .94 .94 4.00 24.25 14.50 27.00 22.50 .5 mo + $4,000 x 5.5 mo) .5 mo + $2,250 x 5.5 mo) 20 ea 1.00 ea 300 2.50 100 23.75 1,000 1. 00 ea 1,320 1.68 Operating Cost $41,288 ea 400 9,018 ea 7,285 8,435 ea 6,880 5,076 ea 5,296 550 1,034 207 1,600 4,890 4,350 4,050 ea 4,410 20 ea 750 2,375 1,000 2,217 Pole Setting Truck Costs contained in transmission subcontract Line Truck SUBTOTAL *10% Increase due to duration TOTAL NBI-410-9521-D-2C Total Cost This Project $217,800 4,440 55,600 11,385 50,300 17,730 25,000 30,200 1,650 1,544 700 9,600 19,000 23,600 58,800 27,900 26,000 14,625 1,900 2,750 11,675 4,500 5,000 300 2,000 5,200 $634,200 63,400 $697,600 • - • -TABLE D-3C • TOGIAK -ROCKFILL DAM ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL FOB SEATTLE --Unit -Item Quantity Unit Price Amount -1. Cement Type I 4,160 Bags $ 4.73 $19,700 -2. Reinforcing Steel 153,000 Lb 0.35 53,655 • 3. Steel Pipe - 5 Ft. Dia. 423 FT 200 84,600 -4. Steel Pipe - 8 Ft. Dia. 300 FT 400 120,000 5. Slide Gates - 8 Ft. Dia 2 Ea 10,000 20,000 - 6. Slide Gates - 8 Ft.w/hoist 1 Ea 25,000 25,000 - 7. Slide Gates - 5 ft.w/hoist 1 Ea 20,000 20,000 • 8. Turbine Generator Assy. -Includes Switchgear LS 540,000 9. Electrical & Mechanical • Accessory Equipment -and Materials 1 Lot 92,000 92,000 10. Fuel for Pumps 8,400 GAL 1.25 7,560 - 11. Misc. Bldg. Materials 1 Lot 25,000 25,000 - 12. Forming Materials 1 Lot 20,000 20,000 -13. Misc. Structural Steel 10,000 Lb 0.30 3,000 -14. Explosives 19,000 Lb 1.00 19,000 • .. MATERIALS FOB SEATTLE DOCK $1,052,450 • ------- • - NBI-410-9521-D-3C -- - - - - - - .... Haul Class A B C D F G I J I J TABLE D-4C TOGIAK --ROCKFILL DAM ALTERNATIVE BARGE SHIPPING COST Sea ttle To Togiak Weight Commodity (Typical) Clb) Structural Steel 182,000 Palletized Cement 391,000 Lumber 25,000 Poles 128,700 Steel Pipe, Culvert 149,910 Misc. Wire, Hardware, etc. 54,300 Large Equipment, Machinery 767,700 Trailer 12,000 TOTAL Togiak to Seattle (Return) Large Equipment, Machinery 688,210 Office Trailer 12,000 TOTAL ($/cwt) 8.24 6.93 8.00 8.00 8.24 24.32 12.00 25.00 12.00 25.00 NBI-410-9521-D-4C Cost ($ ) 15,000 27,100 2,000 10,300 12,350 13,200 92,100 3 2 000 $175,000 82,600 3,000 $ 85,600 TABLE D-5C TOGIAK --ROCKFILL DAM ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE OF CAMP COSTS 685 Man-Weeks Each week the men are supported for seven days 685 x 7 or 4795 days @ $135 per day CAMP COSTS TOTAL ESTIMATE OF AIR TRANSPORTATION COSTS Bring in crew and small tools -assume 6 men per flight and 24 men with a Beech King Air. 6 Trips Anchorage to Togiak and back ~6 hrs/round trip 6 Trips @ $2500 Approximately 1500 Ibs of freight via Reeve Aleutian and Air Taxi twice a week 3000 lbs @ $0.75/1b or $2250 per week 23 Weeks @ $2250 40 One Way Trips during construction for per- sonnel changes & supervisor visits 76 Trips @ $282 Misc. Supply Trips 6 Trips Queen Air Cargo Remove crews at job close AIR TRANSPORTATION TOTAL NBI-410-9521-D-5C $647,320 $15,000 51,750 21,430 15,000 15,000 $118,180 • • - • - --.. • -• .. • - • ., • • • ., .. ., • --- • --- • - • • ... - - - - - - - .. ,,. - - TABLE D-6C TOGIAK --ROCKFILL DAM ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY SHEET Material FOB Seattle Labor Transportation -Barge to Site Transportation -Barge to Seattle Transportation -Air Camp Costs -Catered Equi pmen t Co st Prime Contractor 15% Profit Contingency 15% Transmission Line -Electrical Labor & Materials Subcontract Prime Contractor 10% Markup Surveying, ~ight-of-Way & Geology Engineering Design Construction Management Owner's Legal & Admin. Costs 3% Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal GRAND TOTAL NBI-410-9521-D-6C $1,052,450 917,350 175,000 85,600 118,180 647,320 697,600 3,693,500 554,000 4,297,500 637,100 967,000 96,700 5,948,300 100,000 445,000 255,000 800,000 202,500 $6,950,800 TABLE D-7C TOGIAK --ROCKFILL DAM ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AVERAGE UNIT PRICES FOR MAJOR ITEMS OF WORK 1/ Material Labor Equipment Contractor Total Unit Item-Cost Cost Cost Profi t (15'1) Amount Quanit~ Unit Price 1. Mobil/Demob. $271,65o'Y $128,750 $ 47,180 $ 67,140 $514,720 LS $ 2. Penstock 18,600 64,310 12,300 14,280 109,490 93 LF 1,177 3. Rock Excavation 23,620 84,430 182,640 43,600 334,290 18,675 CY 18 4. Rockfill 0 237,360 246,150 72,520 556,040 14,050 CY 40 5. Steel Cribbing 32,550 35,130 0 101,150 77,830 75,300 LB 1.03 6. Foundation Treatment 0 54,270 6,790 9,160 70,220 1,100 SY 64 7. Concrete 101,330 517,040 93,850 106,830 819,050 503 CY 1,628 8. Bypass Line 126,430 61,560 17,420 30,810 236,220 300 LF 787 9. Trashracks 8. Slide Gates 66,680 70,250 6,390 21,500 164,820 20,400 LB 8.08 10. Pumping Cost 26,800 20,870 60,580 16,310 125,060 LS 11. Pump Discharge Line 70,620 23,850 15,300 16,460 126,230 330 LF 383 12. Turbine 8. Generator 640,400 133,180 4,340 116,690 894,610 LS 13. Cover Powerhouse 25,800 20,340 4,660 7,620 58,420 LS 14. Transmission Lin~ 26,250 113,340 20 1 940 160 1 530 LS TOTALS $554,000 $4,247,50o.Y 1/ These items are described on page 2 of this table. 2/ Includes Barge and Air Support Costs only. 3/ Includes cost over and above subcontract amount only. 4/ Amount corresponds with second subtotal on Table D-6C. NBI-410-9521-D-7C .1 I • I • I I I I I • I • • • , . I • , I I • • I I • I I I • I I • I I I I l , I , 1 Item 1. Mobil/Demob. 2. Penstock, Steel 3. Rock Excavation 4. Rockfill 5. Steel Cribbing 6. Foundation Treatment 7. Concrete 8. Bypass Line 9. Trashracks & Slide 10. Pump Cost 11. Pump Discharl!:e Line 12. Turbine & Generator 13. Cover Powerhouse 14. Transmission Line Columns Material Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost NBI-410-9521-D-7C Gates I i 1 TABLE D-7C (Cont'd) I , I I i l Includes general supervision, barge and air support costs, staginl!: equipment, miscellaneous standby equipment, etc. Installed, including couplings. All, including structural, road and misc. All, including dam & cofferdams. In rockfill section. All. All, including equipment, material, cement, forming, miscellaneous structural excavation (unclassified) & reinforcing steel. All, through cofferdams and main dam. Installed. Installed, including operation and maintenance. Installed. Installed, including mechanical, electrical, and startup. All. Installed, subcontract plus shipping and camp costs. Material cost FOR Seattle plus shipping. Salary at 60 Hrs/week plus subsistence costs. Ownership rental plus use rental, based on six months. i ~ Terrain Conditions Segment I: Mile Segment I I: Mile Quantities Segment I: TABLE 0-8 TOGIAK -ROAD OPTION A 0-1.3 Flat 1.3-2.0 ~20% Sides lope 2.0-2.7 Flat (Kurtluk River) 2.7-3.5 ~20% Sides lope 3.5-6.2 Flat to Rolling 6.2-7.0 ~15% Sides lope 7.0-11.6 Flat to Rolling 1. 2. Stripping - 7 miles x 5280' x 30' wide = 25.5 Ac Cut & Fill -Section is balanced Cut & Fill 3. 4. 5. 6. 18' wide 1 1/2:1 Cut & Fill Slopes 15% Runs: 8 mi x 5280 x 34 100' CY = 1436 CY 20% Runs: 1.5 mi x 5280 48 x 100' CY = 3800 CY Gravel 7 mi 5280' 12 + 20 2' deep -x x 2 x 27 = Culverts -Assume 30 LF each 1000' (18" or 24") 7 x 5280 1000 = 37 37 x 30' = 1100 LF 1000 SF Bridge -From DOT Estimate 80' x 5' iJ Culvert -From DOT Estimate NBI-384-9521-D-1 43,800 CY - • • • .. • - • • - • - • - • .. • .. • • • - • .. • - • - • - • - • - • • - - - - - - - - - - .M ... .... - - - - TABLE 0-8 (Continued) Segment II: 2. 3. Stripping: 4.6 mi x 5280 x 30' wide = 16.7 Ac Gravel: Average section to produce traveled way ±2' above stripped surface will require ±111 CY/100' (30 sq. ft.) 4.6 mi x 5280 x 111 = 27,000 CY Assume: 1/2 (27,000) = 13,500 CY 1/2 (27,000) = 13,500 CY Culverts: Assume 30 LF each 1000' (18" or 24") 4.6 x 5280 1000 x 30 = 750 LF Onsite Haul NBI-384-9521-D-1 TABLE 0-9 TOGIAK -ROAD OPTION A CONSTRUCTION COSTS Mobilization and Demobilization Organic Stripping 42.2 Ac @ $4000/Ac Excavation and Embankment Mile 0 - 7 Mile 7 -11.6 Gravel Fill Mile o -7 Mile 7 -11.6 Culverts 18" & 24" 60" 1000 SF Bridge Contingency 20% 5250 CY 13,500 CY @ $6/CY 43,800 CY @ $ll/CY 13,500 CY @ $9/CY 1950 LF @ $50/LF 80 LF @ $300/LF Subtotal Subtotal Engineering, Surveying and Inspection 10% Total Ave = 140,600 $/mi * January 1982 costs NBI-384-9521-0-2 $190,000 168,000 112,500 481,800 121,500 97,500 24,000 40,000 $1,235,300 247,000 1,482,300 148,300 $1,630,600* • iii • • • • • ... • .. • .. • -.. -.. ... • • • .. • .. -... • • .. • l1li .. • .. - • • - - - - ... - - ... - - -' .. Materials Labor TABLE 0-10 TOGIAK ROAD -OPTION A OVERALL PROJECT COST FOR 11.6 MILES Transportation (Barge Cost) Transportation (Air Support) Camp Cost Equipment Cost Subtotal Contractor Overhead & Profit @ 20% Contingency @ 20% Total Construction Engineering/Survey & Insp. =10% Total NBI-384-9521-D-4 $ 108,700 425,000 93,000 60,000 40,000 289,000 1,015,700 203,000 244,000 $1,463,000 167,000 $1,630,000 TABLE 0-11 TOGIAK ROAD -UPPER 4.6 MILES (Change Order on Airport Contract) Organic Stripping 17 Ac @ $4,000/Ac Excavation and Embankment 13,500 CY @ $6/CY Gravel Fill (Haul) 13,500 CY @ $9/CY Culvert 18" & 24" 750LF @ $50/LF Subtotal Contingency 20% Mobilization & Demobilization 25% Total Construction Engineering, Surveying and Inspection Total Ave = 110,478 $/mi NBI-384-9521-D-3 $ 68,000 81,000 121,500 37,500 308,000 61,600 92,400 462,000 46,200 $508,200 • .. .. .. • .. • .. • • • .. -.. -----..... .. -.. -- -.. ... .. .. - "IIIIi. • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 0-12 TOGIAK BREAKDOWN OF TRANSMISSION LINE SUBCONTRACT Item Poles Crossarms, insulators, and guys Wire Materials Cost $46,800 34,775 38,438 Subtotal, Overhead 120,013 Transformers, Pads and Sectionalizing Equipment Subtotal Contingency: 25% Labor 10% Material Subtotal Equipment Mobilization Misc. Crew Transportation and Supervision Total SAY 42,800 $162,813 Laborli Cost $198,900 205,920 527,970 22,100 $550,070 Total Cost $245,700 325,933 647,983 64,900 $712,883 137,517 16,281 $866,681 50,000 50,300 $966,981 $967,000 l! Based on 75$/man-hour and 425$/crew hour for a 5-man crew, including: 1 backhoe, 1 line truck with digger, 1 crew cab pickup, and wire stringing equipment. NBI-410-9521-D-12 I I , I IIctlvlty I. Barge Travel 2. Mobllization/Denobllization a. Set Up Camp/Denobl Ilze b. Stage Material & Set Up s..tch Plant 3. Road Construction & Miscellaneous Site Iklrk 4. Cofferdam & Bypass line 5. Install Pump Dlsch8rge line & Pumps 6. Bypass Pumping 7. Dam a. Foundation Treatment b. forming, Stage I c. Concrete, Stage d. form, Stage " e. Concrete, Stage " 8. Trashracks, Gates, etc. 9. Powerhouse & Fish ladder a. Structura I Excavation b. Concrete c. Penstock, Equ Ipment d. Cover Powerhouse e. MeChanical & E lectr I ca I f. Startup 10. Cleanup II. Transmission line NBI-425-9521-FD-III I 2 4 5 6 8 9 I ( i I FIGLRE 0-111 TOGIAK--38-FOOT CONCRETE DAM IILTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTl~ SCHEDULE Week 10 II 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Activity 2 1. Barge Travel 2. Mobilization/Demobilization a. Set Up Camp/Demobllize b. Stage Material & Set Up Batch Plant 3. RolId Construction & Miscellaneous Site Work 4. Cofferdam & Bypass LI ne 5. Install Pump Discharge Line & Pumps 6. Bypass Pumping 7. Dam a. Foundation Treatment b. Forml ng, Stage I c. Concrete, Stage d. Form, Stage II e. Concrete, Stage II 8. Trashracks, Gates, etc. 9. Powerhouse & Fish Ladder a. Structura I Excavat Ion b. Concrete c. Penstock, Equ Ipment d. Cover Powerhouse e. Mechan I ca I & E lectrlca I f. Startup 10. Cleanup 11. Transmission Line NBI-425-9521-FD-IB • I I I • :I r I I • • 3 4 5 6 8 9 I J , , , I I • FIGLfiE D-IB TOGIAK--28-FOOT CONCRETE DAM ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Week 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 , . I I , . I • 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • I I • , I • I I • I , Activity 2 I. Bllrge Trllvel 2. Moblllzlltion/Demobi IlzIItlon a. Set Up Cllmp/Demobllize b. Stage Mater III I & Set Up BlItch Plllnt 3. Road Construction & Miscellaneous Site Work 4. Cof lerd"", & BYPllss LI ne 5. Instill I Pump Discharge Line & Pumps 6. Bypass Pumping 7. Dam a. Foundlltlon Trelltment b. Exc. Spillway & Pillce Rockflll c. Spillway Cone. Wing Wa II d. Toe Slab & Membrllne Concrete 8. Penstock & Bypass Headworks 9. Trashracks, Gates, etc. 10. Powerhouse & Fish Llldder a. Structura I E XCII vllt I on b. Concrete c. Set Equipment d. Cover Powerhouse e. Mechlln I CII I & Electrical I. Startup II. Cleanup 12. Transmission Line NBI-425-9521-FD-1 t I 3 4 6 8 9 10 i. F IGLRE D-IC TOGIAK--ROCKFILL ~ ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Weak 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...,. ..... .... ..... - ..... TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - - - - - .- - - .... - - A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. w . x. Y. Z. TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTIO~ SCOPE OF WORK HYDROLOGY FISHERIES 1. 2. QUIGMY RIVER Spawning .......... Rearing PHYSICAL STREAM DESCRIPTION -QfJIGMY RIVER 1. Section 1 2. Section '2 3. Section 3 4. Section 4 FISHERIES KURTLUK RIVER PHYSICAL STREAM DESCRIPTION -KURTLUK RIVER CURRENT FISHERY UTILIZATION OF IMPACTS FISHERY MITIGATION WILDLIFE . ......... . FISHERY RESOURCES CURRENT UTILIZATION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES ENDANGERED SPECIES WILDLIFE IMPACTS 1. 2. 3. Loss or Alteration of Habitat Disturbance During Construction Increased Human Presence WILDLIFE MITIGATION VEGETATION ARCHAEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC SITES POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTS IMPACT ON RECRE~TIONAL VALUES AIR QUALITY SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS LAND STATUS PER.."'1ITTING REQUIREMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES CITEO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS i . .. . . Page 1 1 3 4 9 12 12 13 13 16 16 17 17 17 20 22 23 32 33 35 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 41 43 46 47 47 Figures 1 2 3 4 Sampling Sites Stream Reaches vic ini ty ~1ap LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Land Status Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES Page 6 14 34 42 Tables 1 water Quality Data, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Photograph Churn Salmon Escapement Estimates ••••••••.••••• Species and Number of Fish Caught in the Quigmy River ••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••• Freshwater and Anadromous Fish of the Bristol Bay Region .••••••••••••••••••••••• Species and Number of Fish Caught B 10 in the Kurtluk River • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • 18 Subsistence Salmon Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Mammals of the Togiak National wildlife Refuge. 24 Checklist of Birds from Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge and Nushagak Bay ••••••••••••.• 26 Seabird Colonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Proposed Darn Site, Quigmy River ............... 2 2 11 11 15 15 2 3 4 5 6 Proposed Darn Site, Kurtluk River •••••••••••••• Gravel Bar Deposited During Low Flow Conditions. Stream Sampling, Quigmy River •••••••••••••.••• Upper Quigmy River, Section 1 ................. Aerial View of Section 2 of the Quigmy River ii • .. - • • .. .. ... • --... --.. --• • ... • --- • ... • .. -- • • .. " .. " - - - - - - .- A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Quigmy River, about 12 miles west of Togiak, has been investigated as a potential site for hydropower development. A dam with a spillway and adjacent powerhouse are envisioned, wi th a a small reservoir. A transmission I ine would be buil t from Togiak to the dam site. Access would be provided through one of two routes. Option A is a road from Togiak to the dam site. Option B includes a barge landing at the Quigmy mouth, with a road from the mouth of the river to the dam site. (These roads are considered in some detail in Appendix B, Geology. ) The Kurtluk River, about four miles from Togiak, has been considered as an alternative site for hydropower development. Preliminary project plans are similar to those proposed for the Quigmy River, with a dam, small impoundment, road from Togiak, and transmission line. The proposed dam sites on the Quigmy and Kurtluk rivers are shown in Photographs 1 and 2. B. SCOPE OF WORK As contracted with the Alaska Power Authority, environmen- tal studies were to include an initial two-day reconnaissance visit, followed by a three-to four-day trip for more detailed studies. Literature review and discussion with local residents and agency members were to be combined with field studies to obtain information on fish and wildlife resources in the area, and effects of the project on these resources. Hydrology, land status, archaeologic and historic sites, and permitting requirements were to be briefly discussed in -1- N , ~ PROPOSED DAM SITE, QUIGMY RIVER DAM SITE VICINITY, KURTLUK RIVER this preliminary assessment as well as impacts on recreational values, air quality, socioeconomics and scenic viewpoints. The reconnaissance visit occurred on September 14-15, 1981, and a more detailed site investigation occurred October 6-11. Work at the site was not possible on two of these days due to weather and mechanical problems with the hel icopter. The rivers were flown in their entirety, with minnow traps sel- ecti vely placed throughout their lengths. Hook and I ine sam- pling was unsuccessful. Numbers and locations of wildlife and wildlife sign were noted. Local residents were contacted through a community meeting on September 14, and through dis- cussions with individuals during both visits. The Alaska Power Authority held an informational meeting to discuss four potential hydropower sites, including Togiak, with interested federal, state, and local organizations in Anchorage on October 21, 1981. Additional contacts were made by DOWL with state and federal agencies on an individual basis during September, October and November. c. HYDROLOGY The Quigmy River originates in the mountains northwest of Togiak and drains an area of 100 square miles at the dam site. A considerable portion of the drainage area is in wetlands which contribute to the river base flow. No streamflow data exist. A stream gage was installed in December, and flows will be monitored for one year. Estimates of mean annual flow range from 200 to 300 cfs. Flow regime is seasonal, with high flows due to heavy rainfall in June and some snowmelt in April. The average peak runoff is expected to be 2000 cfs. Low flows in winter are augmented by runoff from partial snowmelt and groundwater from wetlands. Additional information on hydrology can be found in Appendix B. -3- water quality information for the Quigmy River is given in Table 1, and locations are shown in Figure 1. No changes in water quality are anticipated to occur in the free flowing river for any significant distance due to project construction and operation. D. FISHERIES -QUIGMY RIVER The Quigmy River is a clear, moderately swift stream mean- dering through 10-to 100-foot bluffs. Local residents of Togiak indicated that silver (coho), pink and chum salmon, and Dolly Varden char are found in the stream. Rainbow trout, grayling, whitefish and northern pike may also be present (Alaska Fisheries Atlas, ADF&G 1978a). Alaska Department of Fish & Game chum salmon escapement estimates for the Quigmy River (1970-1981) are given in Table 2. Wes Bucher, Assistant Area Biologist for ADF&G, Commercial Fisheries, in Dillingham, could not comfirm spawning of either pink or silver salmon in the Quigmy River (personal communica- tion, 1981). On the basis of the physical characteristics of the river, Bucher believes the Quigmy River would not have a strong pink salmon run, perhaps several hundred, but could have a good silver salmon run. Bucher also confirmed the presence of rainbow trout in the Quigmy River. Juvenile Dolly Varden, char and coho salmon were collected in minnow traps throughout the Quigmy River during a field reconnaissance in October 1981 (Table 3). In September, approximately 40 adult silver salmon were observed at the mouth of the Quigmy and during October approxi- mately 175 adult silvers were observed in the upper reaches of the river. A school of 50 to 75 adult Dolly Varden trout was observed in the same area as the silvers. -4- TABLE 1 WATER QUALITY DATA, 1981 Temp. D.O. Conductivity Date Location (oC) ~ (mg/l) (micromhos/ em) 10/8 Mouth of the 1.5 6.7 70.0 Quigmy River 10/10 proposed dam site, 0.75 7.0 54.0 Quigmy River 12/3 Proposed dam site, 0.0 8.7 9.6 Quigmy River 10/10 proposed dam site, 0.5 7.0 74.5 Kurtluk River -5- EXPLANATION - o Minnow Trap Location. • Minnow Trap Location And Wat.r Quality 8 'a ... pllng 8~t • .... Propo •• d Da. lit. Mtn Hagemeister Island o TOGIAK BAY SCALE I : 250000 ~=--===:JI_.:=:::5o _____ ...... 5 MILES .SAMPLING SITES I FIGURE 1 I I TABLE 2 CHUM SALMON ESCAPEMENT ESTIMATES* Year QuiSffi:t River Kurtluk River 1970 3,400 1971 6,800 1972 7,400 1973 4,400 1974 2,800 1975 3,600 1976 13,200 1977 11,600 1,200 1978 18,800 400 1979 22,000 200 1980 5,400 1981 21,600 * ADF&G aerial survey reports, 1970-1981 -7- TABLE 3 SPECIES AND NUMBER OF FISH CAUGHT IN THE QUIGMY RIVER October 8-10, 1981 DATE LOCATION* JUVENILES 10/9 Upper Intertidal 1 Coho Salmon 10/9 Below First Left Tributary 41 Dolly Varden, 2 Coho Salmon 10/9 Below Second Left Tributary 27 Dolly Varden 10/10 Dam Site 18 Dolly Varden, 4 Coho Salmon 10/9 2 Miles Above the Dam Site 31 Dolly Varden, 1 Coho Salmon 10/9 4.5 Miles Above the Dam Site 31 Dolly Varden, 1 Coho Salmon 10/10 Quigmy River "y" 61 Dolly Varden 10/10 Sulutak Creek-Quigmy River 110 Dolly Varden Junction * See also Figure 1 (location map) -8- A list of freshwater and anadromous fish of the Bristol Bay region is given in Table 4. Photographs 3 and 4 show a gravel bar and stream sampling in the Quigmy River. 1. Spawning Chum salmon frequently spawn in intertidal zones but will often ascend short rivers. Chum spawning occurs intertid- ally at the mouth of the Quigmy River up to Sulutak Creek, but it is heaviest in the lower half of the river. Peak spawning occurs in the first week of August (Bucher, personal communi- cation, 1981). The preferred substrate for spawning is fine gravel (0.3 to 0.16 inch) but chum salmon will use coarser material. Optimum stream flow velocity for spawning is in the range of 0.33 to 3.28 feet per second (fps) (ADF&G, 1978a). Sil ver salmon generally spawn at the head of riffles in shallow, swift-flowing river tributaries, but they may spawn in the main channels of large rivers. Optimum stream flow ve- loci ty during spawning is 3.4 feet per second (fps) (ADF&G, 1978a). Based on limited observations in the Quigmy River, sil ver spawning appeared to occur in the upper reaches and tributaries and probably occurred to a lesser extent throughout the river. Judging from other streams in the Togiak district, spawning is likely to begin in the second week in September and extend through mid-October (Bucher, personal communication, 1981). Pink salmon generally spawn intertidally or in the lower reaches of short coastal streams. Medium-sized gravel (0.6 to 0.3 inch) is preferred, with an optimum stream flow velocity of 0.1 fps or greater (ADF&G, 1978a). No pink salmon were ob- served in the Quigmy River, but they probably spawn intertid- ally and in the lower reaches of the river (Bucher, personal communication, 1981). -9- TABLE 4 FRESHWATER AND ANADROMOUS FISH OF THE BRISTOL BAY REGION* COMMON NAME Arctic grayling Lake trout Dolly Varden Arctic char Rainbow trout Sockeye salmon Coho salmon Chinook salmon Chum salmon Pink salmon Round Whitefish Humpback Whitefish Broad Whitefish Arctic Cisco Bering Cisco Northern Pike Burbot SCIENTIFIC NAME Thymallus arcticus Salvelinus namaycush Salvelinus malma Salvelinus alpinus Salmo gairdneri Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Prosopium cylindraceum Coregonus pidsehian Coregonus nasus Coregonus autumnalis Coregonus laurettae Esox lucius Lota Iota * Common and scientific names after McPhail and Lindsey (1970). Adapted from Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Environmental Statement. -10- o I GRAVEL BAR DEPOSITED DURING LOW FLOW CONDITIONS STREAM SAMPLING, QUIGMY RIVER Rainbow trout are reported to spawn in moderately swift, clear water usually in fine gravel (0.3 to 0.16 inch) on a riffle above a pool. Rainbows are likely to spa\m throughout the Quigmy River, but the majority spawn in the upper reaches and tributaries. Dolly Varden char spawn in medium to large gravel (1.3 to 0.3 inches) in a fairly strong current, usually near the center of the stream in at least a foot of water. Spawning probably occurs throughout the main stem of the Quigmy River, and to a lesser extent in larger tributaries. 2. Rearing Minnow trap data indicate that rearing occurs in backwaters and quiet areas throughout ·the river. When first emerged, juvenile coho salmon frequent near-shore areas with gravel substrate. Older juveniles prefer deeper pools and avoid riffle areas. They are strongly territorial and will defend their space from other juvenile cohos and salmonids. Juvenile rainbow trout are found along stream margins or protected lakeshores. ,Juvenile Dolly Varden trout are rela- tively inactive, often remaining on the stream bottom in pools or eddies under rocks and logs or undercut banks. Dolly Varden occur in both anadromous and nonanadromous populations. ~nad romous juveniles spend three to four years in their natal stream before entering saltwater. E. PHYSICAL STREAM DESCRIPTION -QUIGMY RIVER The Quigmy River generally flows from north to south except for the last three miles which flow southeasterly. It can be divided into four general sections, based on physical stream characteristics: 1) Headwaters to about one-half mile above the proposed dam site; 2) a three-mile section of river flowing through rock walls, including all proposed dam sites; -12- 3) the second left tributary shown on the map to the river mouth; and 4) the estuarine area (see Figure 2). Views of Sections 1 and 2 of the Quigmy River are presented in Photo- graphs 5 and 6 on page 15. Togiak residents occasionally distance below the proposed darn. stopped by a 3-foot high falls. 1. Section 1 take a jet boat to a short At this point they are In this section the Quigmy River flows at a moderate velocity through low willow and grass-lined banks. Numerous small side channels are present, but they are often obstructed by beaver dams. The main channel is triangular to U-shaped, with a pebble and cobble gravel bottom. Bedrock outcrops occa- sionally occur and large rocks, 12 to 24 inches, are sparsely scattered in the streambed. 2. Section 2 From the original dam site to the second left tribu- tary from the mouth, rock walls ascend to 100 feet and con- strict the Quigmy River into a series of 15-to 20-foot-wide gorges, with faster flowing water reaching depths of 10 feet. Several falls up to three feet, and one-foot standing waves are present in portions of this section. In between these gorges, the river slows and forms a gravel fan, ranging from 60 feet to 150 feet wide. The river bed varies from pebble and cobble gravel to bedrock. Just below the original darn site, the stream was 100 feet wide, with a minimum depth of 30 inches. The substrate ranged from one-half to six inches, but the predominant size was from -13- EXPLANATION -Stream Reach Divisions ...... Proposed Dam Site Mtn Hagemeister Island o TOGIAK BAY SCALE I: 250000 5 0 5 MILES CI =--==--==-________ _ 1~£4$ ......... i:::f:::fl:;·;·~::·· FIGURE 2 I STREAM REACHES I ~ I UPPER QUIGMY RIVER, SECTION 1 AERIAL VIEW OF SECTION 2 OF THE QUIGMY RIVER N i - - - - - - - - - - - - - .I/ill one to two inches. Caddis fly larvae were numerous in shal- lower waters. On September 14, 1981, the flow was measured at 301 cfs. The stream channel was "V" shaped in cross section. The banks were two to four feet high, vegetated with willow and grass, and occasionally undercut. 3. Section 3 Below this three-mile section, the bank substrate changed from rock to soil. The banks were four to eight feet high and vegetated with willow. The stream generally has a meandering channel with a width of 75 to 100 feet and maximum depths of three to five feet. The channel was primarily "V" shaped in cross section, but in straight sections resembled a nUn. The bed consisted of unsorted gravel ranging in size from sand to six-inch cobbles, but averaging one to two inches. In one section, brown filamentous algae covered the deepest por- tion, while green filamentous algae were present in a side channel. In short sections, the channel split and flowed be- tween gravel bars which were densely vegetated with willow. 4. Section 4 About one-hal f river mile from saltwater, the river makes a tight "S" turn before entering saltwater. The north- bank of the upper loop consists of a low marshy area with nu- merous small ponds. It appears to be inundated by high or storm tides. The first tributary joins the Quigmy River at this point, and it may create the nearby marsh. The southbank is covered with rye grass. The lower loop flows through un- vegetated, intertidal sandbars, and it has a mud substrate. Two cabins, reported ly used by fox hunters and winter travelers, are found in the area. One is at the river's mouth and another is approximately one mile to the northeast. -16- F. FISHERIES -KURTLUK RIVER The Kurtluk is a clear, moderately swift stream draining a marshy area about six miles southwest of Togiak (see Figure 1). The Alaska Fisheries Atlas, Volumes I and II (ADF&G, 1978a), shows that chum salmon are known to spawn in the Kurtluk River and that rainbow trout, Dolly Varden trout, grayling, whitefish and Northern pike may also be present. Alaska Department of Fish & Game chum salmon escapement estimates for the Kurtluk River are given in Table 1. It is not known how far upstream spawning occurs. Three adult silvers were seen in the river in October, and juvenile Dolly Varden trout, rainbow trout and coast range sculpin were collected in minnow traps throughout the Kurtluk River (Table 5). G. PHYSICAL STREAM DESCRIPTION -KURTLUK RIVER The Kurtluk generally flows from north to south through willow and grass-covered banks ranging from 2 to 60 feet in height. Above the dam site, numerous small tributaries enter the river, which braids and then reforms into one channel several times. The substrate is primarily cobble and pebble gravel, with two exceptions. At the dam site, the streambed consists of large boulders, with small patches of pebble gravel between the rocks. Two miles below the dam site, the substrate consists of small boulders and cobbles. In areas of low flow velocity, an algal scum covers the rocks. H. CURRENT UTILIZATION OF FISHERIES RESOURCES Subsistence salmon harvest figures for the entire Togiak district are given in Table 6. The figures are based on a small number of harvest reports and therefore represent minimum estimates of the subsistence salmon harvest by Togiak villagers ( AD F &G , 1980). -17- • .. • • • .. • .. .. -.. .. .. - • .. • -• • .. - • .. .. .. -.. .. -.. ---.. .. - ~' .- - - - - - . .., .. - TABLE 5 SPECIES AND NUMBER OF FISH CAUGHT IN THE KURTLUK RIVER October 10-11, 1981 DATE LOCATION* JUVENILES 10/11 Upper Intertidal 1 Dolly Varden 1 Coho 10/11 1.5 Miles from Mouth 12 Dolly Varden 3 Coho 1 Coastrange Sculpin 10/11 2.5 Miles from Mouth 5 Dolly Varden 9 Coho 10/11 Dam Site 1 Dolly Varden 6 Coho 10/11 1 Mile above Dam Site 10 Dolly Varden 5 Coho * See also Figure 1 (location map). -18- Number of Subsistence Year Permits 1965 36 1974 68 1975 41 1976 30 1977 41 1978 29 1979 25 1980 46 8-Year Total 316 8-Year Average 39 TABLE 6 SUBSISTENCE SALMON HARVEST Togiak District (ADF&G, 1980) HARVEST Sockeye King Chum Pink 4,600 100 1,600 100 7,400 1,200 2,000 500 4,600 800 1,600 + 2,800 500 900 100 2,100 400 800 + 900 300 700 300 800 200 300 0 3,600 900 300 300 --- 26,800 4,400 8,200 1,200 3,400 500 1,000 300 -19- Coho Total 2,200 8,600 1,800 12,900 2,800 9,800 500 4,800 1,100 4,400 500 2,700 700 2,000 1,200 6,300 10,800 51,500 1,300 6,400 • -• • • • - • .. • - • - • - • - • - • - • --------.' ------ ,..,. - - .. ... - - - - - - - According to Robert Nanalook (Togiak Village Council, per- sonal communication, 1981), very little subsistence fishing occurs on the Quigmy River due to the distance from the village and the small numbers of silvers present compared to other rivers in the area. In fact, almost no use is made of either the Quigmy or Kurtl uk Rivers. This would clearly change if road access was made available. I. FISHERY IMPACTS Construction activity may cause increased erosion, and subsequent sedimentation of spawning gravels. Major impacts from sedimentation incl ude decreased vigor or death of incu- bating salmonid eggs by interfering with or preventing respira- tion, loss of spawning gravel, and physical disturbance to both adul t anadromous fish and resident species. However, proper construction techniques and timing constraints should minimize this impact . Construction and operation of the Quigmy River dam may cause a change in water temperature in the river below the dam. The reservoir may dampen the natural seasonal temperature cycle, slightly increasing fall-winter temperatures near the powerhouse intake, and decreasing spring-summer temperatures. Should these changes occur, early fry emergence at a time when food is not available, and a resultant lower survival rate, is likely. However, the effect of this slight temperature in- crease probably would not be felt for any significant distance downstream of the outlet and the streambed in this section of the river is primarily bedrock, boulder and cobble with only about 30 percent suitable for spawning. Thermal stratification, if any at all occurs wi thin the impoundment, will be minimal because: -20- The ratio of total annual inflow to reservoir volume is more than 100, resulting in a water residence time of two to three days. The intake elevation has been raised to compen- sate for the deposition of sediment. The normal mixing of reservoir water with incom- ing river water before discharge. Based on earlier mathematical models (Huber et al., 1972), an estimate of the temperature change within the reservoir would be within a degree or so of present conditions. Water discharged from the tailrace may have a slightly lower di ssol ved oxygen (DO) content then would be normal for this section of the river. However, DO is expected to return to normal shortly after the discharge reenters the river. Scouring to bedrock is likely to occur for a short dis- tance downstream of the dam. Streambank erosion due to altered stream flow may al so occur, but such erosion would be minimal in the gravel banks. I f proper facil i ties for fish passage are not provided, migration of adult salmon will be blocked, considerably reduc- ing the available spawning and rearing habitat. The reservoir will flood some rearing habitat and may flood spawning habitat. Salmonid smolt may be injured or killed by passage through the turbines, or over the spillway. Road construction would allow increased access to the area and could lead to increased subsistence and sport fish harvest in the Quigmy River. Since chum salmon have the only known run of significance and are not a highly sought-after fish, a large -21- • -• • • • - • • - • - • - • -.. • • - • • - • - • - • - • • • • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , .... - - increase in sUbsistence harvest in the Quigmy River is not likely. Some increase in sportfishing efforts and harvest may occur during project construction due to project personnel but this will be of short duration and minor importance. J. FISHERY MITIGATION The following measures should be followed to reduce ero- sion and sedimentation of area streams: construction should be done during a single summer. This should reduce the opportunity for erosion of exposed soil. To avoid the introduction of suspended solids by road traffic, the access road should cross as few tributary streams as possible. Streams should be crossed with small log bridges or cul- verts, whichever would provide the best protec- tion to streamside vegetation. A vegetated buffer zone should be left between all access roads and the streambank. All areas disturbed during construction activ- ities should be stabilized to reduce erosion. Any organic soils excavated during construction should be stockpiled and spread over disturbed sites to encourage revegetation. Waste petroleum and wastewater should be dis- posed of in an environmentally sound manner and a plan for safe storage, use, and clean-up of oil and gas used in project construction, and -22- K. operation should be prepared following state and federal oil spill contingency plans (40 CFR 112.38, December 11, 1973). WILDLIFE A list of mammals for the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge is given in Table 7, and a list of birds found at the Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge is given in Table 8. Cape Newenham National Wildlife Refuge has been incorporated into Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, which includes the project area. The following information was obtained from a conversation with Frank Logusak, a local resident familiar with the Quigmy River. with the exception of the mouth, the area surrounding the river is relatively poor in wildlife. No moose or caribou use the area, and brown bears use it only occasionally. Rab- bits, red squirrels, and red fox occur at the river's mouth. Beaver are not common along the Quigmy River. A small number of ducks use the river mouth in the spring and fall. The following wildlife or sign was noted in the project vicinity. Ten ducks (unidentified species) were flushed from the mouth of the river, and four were flushed from the original dam site. About 25 mallards were flushed from the Quigmy River about two miles below Sulutak Creek. Several family groups of swans were seen on ponds about five miles to the east of the river during the reconnaissance trip in September. Brown bear tracks were located on a sandbar about two miles from the river mouth, and red fox tracks were observed at the original dam si te. Old beaver cuttings and a mink den were noted in a willow thicket about two miles from the river's mouth. Beaver dams and houses 'Illere scattered in ponds and streams througout the drainage, but they appeared to be particularly numerous on -23- .. • • • • .. -- • • • • • - • • II • .. • • - • • - - • -.. - • • • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 7 MAMMALS OF THE TOGIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMMON NAME Common Shrew Tundra Shrew Little Brown Bat Tundra Hare Snowshoe Hare Hoary Marmot Arctic Ground Squirrel Red Squirrel Beaver Greenland Collared Lemming Northern Bog Lemming Brown Lemming Red-backed Vole Meadow Vole Tundra Vole Muskrat Meadow Jumping Mouse Porcupine Gray Wolf Arctic Fox Red Fox Black Bear Brown/Grizzly Bear Marten Short-tailed Weasel Least Weasel Mink Wolverine River Otter Lynx -24- SCIENTIFIC NA~1E Sore x cinereus Sorex tundrensis Myotis luncifugus Lepus othus Lepus americanus Marmota caligata Citellus parryi Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Castor canadensis Dicrostonyx groenlandicus Synaptomys borealis Lemmus trimucronatus Clethrionomys rutilis Microtus pennsylvanicus Microtus oeconomus Ondatra zibethicus Zapus hudson ius Erthizon dorsaturn Canis lupis Alopex lagopus Vulpes vulpes Ursus americanus Ursus horribilis Martes americana Hustela erminea Hustela rixosa Mustela vison Gulo gulo Lutra canadensis Lynx canadensis COMMON NAME Alaska Fur Seal Steller Sea Lion Pacific Walrus Harbor Seal Ribbon Seal Ringed Seal Bearded Seal Moose Barren Ground Caribou TABLE 7 Continued SCIENTIFIC NAME Callorhinus ursinus Eumetopias jubata Odobenus rosmarus Phaca vitulina Histriophoca fasciata Posa hispida Erignathus barbatus Alces gigas Rangifer arcticus From Manville and Young, Distribution of Alaskan Mammals, BSF&W Circular 211 -25- .. • • - • • • • - • ,. .. • • -.. .. • • • -• - • - • .. • - • - • .. ... - ----- - - - - - - - ,_. - .- - - TABLE 8 CHECKLIST OF BIRDS FROM CAPE NEWENHAM NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND NUSHAGAK BAY Birds which have been observed at Cape Newenham and Nushagak Bay are listed below with keys to their abundance or status there. Abbreviations used to indicate abundance or status are: A -Abundant C -Common U -Uncommon R -Rare SPECIES Common loon Arctic loon Red-throated loon Red-necked grebe Horned grebe Double-crested cormorant Pelagic cormorant Red-faced cormorant Whistling swan Canada goose Black brant Emperor goose White-fronted goose Snow goose Mallard Gadwall Pintail Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal American wigeon N -Nesting M -Migrant P -Resident All Seasons V -Status as Nesting Species Uncertain SCIENTIFIC NAMES STATUS Gavia immer C Gavia arctica C Gavia stellata C Podiceps auri tus U PodiceEs auritus U Phalacrocorax auritus C Phalacrocorax Eelagicus U Phalacrocorax urile U Olor columbianus A Branta canadensis A Branta bernicla A Philacte canagica A Anser albifrons A Chen caerulescens A Anas platyrhynchos A Anas streEera U Anas acuta A Anas crecca C Anas discors C Anas americana C -26- N N N V V N N N N M N M M M N V N N N V • .. • - TABLE 8 • Continued .. • .. SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAMES STATUS .. Shoveler Anas clypeata U V -Greater scaup Aythya marila C N -Bufflehead Bucephala albeola U M .. Common goldeneye Bace,Ehala clangula C M Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica U M • Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis C M - Steller's eider Polysticta stelleri A M ~ King eider Somateria spectabilis A N -Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus C M • Common eider Somarteria mollissima A N .. White-winged scoter Melanitta deglandi C P Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata U V • .. Common scoter Melanitta nigra C N Common merganser Mergus merganser C V • Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator U V • Goshawk Accipiter gentilis U V III Marsh hawk Circus cyaneus A M -Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus A N Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos U • V .. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus C N Osprey Pandion haliaetus U N • Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus C N - Peregrine falcon Falco pereginus C V • Merlin Falco columbarius U V '. Sparrow hawk Falco sparverius C M • Spruce grouse Canachites canadensis P U N -Willow ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus P U N Rock ptarmigan Lagopus mutus P U N • Sandhill crane Grus canadensis A -N Semi-palmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus C N • - -27-• • - - --- .. .. - - - - - - - - SPECIES American golden plover Black-bellied plover Ruddy turns tone Black turnstone Common snipe Whimbrel Bristle-thighed curlew Wandering tattler Spotted sandpiper Terek sandpiper Solitary sandpiper Greater yellowlegs Lesser yellowlegs Surfbird Rock sandpipe r Sharp-tailed sandpiper Red knot Pectoral sandpiper Baird's sandpiper Least sandpiper Western sandpiper Dunlin Short-billed dowitcher Long-billed dowitcher Semi-palma ted sandpiper Bar-tailed godwit Sanderling Hudsonian godwit Red phalarope Northern phalarope TABLE 8 Continued SCIENTIFIC NAMES Pluvialis dominica Pluvialis squatarola Arenaria interpres Arenaria melanocephala Gallinago gallinago Numenius phaeopus Numenius tahitiensis Heteroscelus incanus Actitis macularia Xenus cinereus Tringa solitaria Tringa melanoleuca Tringa flavipes Aphriza virgata Calidris ptilocnemis Calidris acuminata Calidris canutus Calidris melanotos Calidris bairdii Calidris minutilla Calidris mauri Calidris alpina Limnodromus griseus Limnodromus scolopaceus Calidris pusilla Limosa fedoa Calidris alba Limosa haemastica Phalaropus fulicarius Phalaropus lobatus -28- STATUS C A C A A A U C C R U C U C A C U U U A A A A A U U C A U C v V V N N V M M V M V N N M N M V V V N N N M M V V M M V N SPECIES Pomarine jaeger Parasitic jaeger Long-tailed jaeger Glaucous gull Glaucous-winged gull Mew gull Bonaparte's gull Sabine's gull Black-legged kittiwake Red-legged kittiwake Arctic tern Aleutian tern Common murre Pigeon guillemot Parakeet auklet Horned puffin Tufted puffin Marbled murre let Great horned owl Snowy owl Short-eared owl Boreal owl Belted kingfisher Say's phoebe Cliff swallow Tree swallow Bank swallow Barn swallow Gray jay Black-billed magpie TABLE 8 Continued SCIENTIFIC NAMES Stercorarius pomarinus Stercorarius parasiticus Stercorarius longicaudus Larus hyperboreus Larus glaucescens Larus canus Larus philadelphia Xema sabini Rissa tridactyla Rissa brevirostris Sterna paradisaea Sterna aleutica Uria aalge Cepphus columba Cyclorrhynchus psittacula Fratercula corniculata Lunda cirrhata Brachyrarnphus marrnoratus Bubo virginianus Nyctea scandia Asio flarnrneus Aegolius funereus Megaceryle alcyon Sayornis saya Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Iridoprocne bicolor Riparia riparia Hirundo rustica Perisoreus canadensis -29- STATUS P P p P C C A A A A U A A U A A A A C C A U U U C C U C U C A C A C V N N N N N M N N M N V N N N N N V P P N V V N M N N N N N • • • - • .. .. - ---- • • • .. • - • • • - • - • - • • • • • - - - ,,.... - - - ...., - - - - - - - - - SPECIES Cornmon raven Black-capped chickadee Boreal chickadee Robin Varied thrush Hermit thrush Swainson's thrush Gray-cheeked thrush Golden-crowned kinglet Ruby-crowned kinglet Arctic warbler Yellow wagtail Water pipit Bohemian waxwing Cedar waxwing Orange-crowned warbler Yellow warbler Willow warbler Myrtle warbler Blackpoll warbler Northern waterthrush Wilson's warbler Rusty blackbird Gray-crowned rosy finch Pine grosbeak Hoary redpoll Common redpoll Red crossbill White-winged crossbill Savannah sparrow TABLE 8 Continued SCIENTIFIC NAMES Corvus corax Parus atricapillus Parus hudsonicus Turdus migrator ius Ixoreus naevius Catharus guttatus Catharus ustulatus Catharus minimus Regulus satrapa Regulus canendula Phylloscopus borealis Motacilla flava Anthus spinoletta Bombycilla garrulus Bombycilla cedrorum Vermivora celata Dendroica petechia Phylloscopus sibilatrix Dendroica coronata Dendroica striata Seiurus noveboracensis Wilsonia pus ilia Euphagus corolinus Leucosticte tephrocotis Pinicola enucleator Carduelis hornemanni Carduelis flammea Loxia curvirostra Loxia leucoptera Passerculus sandwhichensis -30- STATUS P P P P A C C A C U C C U C U C U C U C C R C C U C C C C C A U C A N N N N N N N N V V V N N M V N N V N N V N N N M V N V V N SPECIES Slate-colored junco Tree sparrow White-crowned sparrow Golden-crowned sparrow Fox sparrow Song sparrow Lapland longspur Snow bunting TABLE 8 Continued SCIENTIFIC NAMES Junco hyemalis Spizella arborea Zonotrichia levcoEhr:;r:s Zonotrichia atricapilla Passerella iliaca Melospiza melodia Calcarius lapponicus Plectrophenax nivalis STATUS U M C N C N C N C V C N C N C N Source: Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Final Environmental Statement -31- • • • -• - • .. • --- • - • - • --- • .. • -• .. • - • -- • -• • - - - - - - ,~ - - - - -- - - the Quigmy River between the upper east tributary shown on Figure 1 and Sulutak Creek. Two beaver dams and a house were observed in the upper drainage area of the Kurtluk River, and it is likely that other dams were present. Ken Taylor (ADF&G personal communication, 1981) reported that wildlife information specific to the Quigmy drainage is not available. There are no caribou and very few moose. Brown bear populations are high, and they receive very little hunting pressure. Three to four bears per year are taken between Manokotuk and the Quigmy River drainage. No black bears are present (Alaska I s Wildlife and Habitat, ADF&G, 1973). Robert Nanalook, (Togiak Village Council, personal communication, 1981) reported two bear dens on the northwest slope of Aeolus mountain. He was not aware of any other denning activity in the project vicinity. Beaver populations are high, and beaver are the major furbearer taken. Other furbearers, including wolf, wolverine and marten, are reported to be rare. This area also supports Alaska I s Wildlife and Habitat, high ptarmigan populations. Volume II (ADF&G, 1978), lists four seabird colonies within five miles of the mouth of the Quigmy (Table 9). ,~ddi tional colonies exist on Hagemeister Island, Summit Island, and the Walrus Islands (Figure 3). L. CURRENT UTILIZATION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES Since the Quigmy River is 12 miles from Togiak, it does not receive extensive use by local residents. Several resi- dents stated that they had boated the river, but were stopped about one-half mile above the proposed dam site by three-foot falls. -32- Fox hunting occurs throughout the entire area. Beaver trapping in the vicinity of the Quigmy River is concentrated in the marshy area to the southwest, between the Quigmy and the Matogak River. Trapping may also occur in the upper reaches of the Kurtluk River. Colony No. 43AA 43X 43Y 43Z TABLE 9 SEABIRD COLONIES 5 Miles from Mouth of Quigmy River Location Hill "365" N. Aeolus Mt. Aeolus Mt. Offshore Island Species Present Cormorant and Glaucous winged gull Pelagic cormorant and Black-legged Kittiwake Cormorant and Black-legged Kittiwake Glaucous-winged Gull M. ENDANGERED SPECIES There are no records of peregrine falcons or other en- dangered species in this area (D. Money, 1981, personal com- munication, USFWS). The endangered subspecies of the peregrine falcon normally nests in rock cliffs along interior rivers and it is not likely to occur within the project area. -33- • .. • - -- • --.. --- • • • --.. - - • - • --- • • • - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - EXPLANATION .... Propo •• d D ... 81t. laland TOGIAK BAY SCALE I: 250000 o VICINITY MAP Summit laland Walrus Islanda I FIGURE 3 N. WILDLIFE IMPACTS wildlife impacts will have three basic origins: 1. Loss or alteration of existing habitat; Direct disturbance during construction; Increased human presence and usage during and after construction. Loss or Alteration of Habitat Permanent habitat loss will result from construction of the dam and subsequent flooding of the reservoir. Road con- struction will al so result in the loss of wildl ife habitat. Addi tionally, in areas where there is no perceptible surface flow, near surface drainage through sloping peatlands may be impeded by the roadbed. This could cause a gradual change in the vegetative composition of the immediate area. Some minor mortality to birds may result from colli- sions with the transmission line. Wildlife may be adversely impacted by gravel quarry operations. The impact will result from removal of overburden, erosion and sil tation. Small mammals and nesting birds may suffer direct mortality but over very limited areas. Species such as bear, fox and arctic ground squirrel will be affected through loss of habitat but the overall impact should be mini- mal. 2. Disturbance During Construction Blasting and operation of heavy equipment will create considerable noise and may resul t in disturbance of wildlife. This could cause nesting failure in birds, and it may alter the -35- • -.. - • • - • • --• - • .. .. - • -.. -• .. • - • - • - • - • -.. - • - - - -- - - - - - - - distribution patterns and movements of nearby species. Dis- turbance of raptors in early April or May when they are estab- lishing territorities may lead to desertion of sites, and disturbances of very short duration during the egg-laying and incuba tion period (May to June) may lead to the loss of eggs and young (Watson et ~., 1973). Swans are also very sensitive to human disturbance. Canid and bear denning areas may be vacated. Most other species present in the QuigmY-Togiak area would vacate local areas near noise sources only temporarily. Marine mammals and seabirds may be affected by con- struction and operation of the barge site should this access route be chosen. The impact will result from increased boat traffic and the discharge of wastes which could alter movements and food supplies. 3. Increased Human Presence Ease of access to the area due to road construction could lead to increased wildlife harvest by construction work- ers and local residents. Species most likely to be impacted would be red fox, beaver and moose. Since the project vicinity is predominantly vegetated with low tundra, construction of a road from the village will in all likelihood lead to use of areas adjacent to the road by off-road vehicles. This may lead to additional habitat destruction and disturbance of wildlife. Refuse dumps or food stores created by cons truction activity may attract bears and other scavengers. Such animals qui te frequently become habituated and dangerous and must be removed or destroyed for reasons of publ ic safety. The major species affected would be brown bears, wolves, foxes and pos- sibly wolverines. -36- O. WILDLIFE MITIGATION The proposed project is on such a small scale that most impacts such as disturbance of wildlife during construction will be minor and short term. To further minimize impacts, the following guidelines should be followed: P. No feeding of wildlife should occur and all re- fuse should be placed in metal containers with heavy lids and removed regularly from the con- struction sites. If problems with bears or other wildlife do arise, the appropriate Alaska Department of Fish & Game officials should be contacted and han- dling of the problem should follow their recom- mendations. Hunting and fishing in the project area should not be permitted by the contractor or construc- tion workers during construction. VEGETATION The Quigmy River is bordered by willows with a grass understory for most of its length. Near the mouth, individual willows attain a height of 10 feet and a diameter of approxi- mately six inches, but further upstream the willows are only three to five feet tall with a diameter of approximately one inch. In the upper reaches of the Quigmy River, low willow thickets are intermixed with patches of tall grass. In sec- tions with rock cliffs or where old river terraces are present, these willow thickets continue up draws and other protected areas. -37- • -,. • -.. • ... -- • .. - • - • .. • • • - • - • ... • • -- • • • - .- --- - - - - - - - - More exposed slopes are covered by moss, with grasses, low blueberry, dwarf birch, dwarf willow, and mountain cranberry interspersed throughout. On bluff tops, the same species are present, but the woody vegetation only attains height of two to three inches, and it is so tightly interwoven it almost com- pletely obscures the moss. Foliose lichens, such as caribou lichen, are quite common on bluff tops, and in some areas are the dominant ground cover. Vegetation was quite similar along the Kurtluk River, with willow along the streambanks and dry tundra on bluff tops. Willows reached heights of 20 feet in protected spots but were normally much shorter. At the dam site, lower areas were cov- ered with willow, while the upper slopes of the river bluffs were thickly covered with low blueberry. Q. ARCHAEOLOGIC AND HISTORIC SITES The only known archaeologic or historic site in the proj- ect area is located at the mouth of the Kurtluk River where an Eskimo village was formerly located. However, additional unidentified sites are likely within the project area (Ty Dilliplane, 1981) and the Alaska Division of Parks has recom- mended an archaeologic survey of the project area before con- struction begins on either the Quigmy River or Kurtluk River dam sites. R. POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTS The dam and powerhouse will not be visible from Togiak or from Togiak Bay. The transmission line will be 'risible from the town, but it will be placed so that it will be screened from view where possible. Should road Option A (a road from Togiak to the dam site) be chosen, it will be visible from the village until it disappears behind a low hill at the mouth of -38- the Kurtl uk River, about two mile s beyond the existing road. This road was formed through continual use and was never for- mally constructed. Road option B will be visible from a por- tion of Togiak Bay, but it will be screened from town by low hills. S. IMPACT ON RECREATIONAL VALUES If road Option A is chosen, it will greatly increase the area available for recreational use of snowmachines, three- wheelers and standard vehicles. Village residents indicated an interest in this route as it would increase the accessibility of this area for berry picking, hunting, and trapping. Road Option B will not greatly affect recreational use of the area, since the road will not provide access from the vil- lage. On rare occasions villagers may bring three-wheeled vehicles via boat and use the road in this manner. T. AIR QUALITY During project equipment and dust affect air quality. construction, exhaust fumes from diesel generated by construction activity may This activity will be centered in the vicinity of the proposed dam, about 12 miles from Togiak, and should not affect local residents. Dispersion of air pollu- tants is expected to be adequate to prevent any significant effects on air quality in the area. Electrical power for Togiak is currently provided by diesel generators. Particulate emissions from the combustion of diesel fuel have a high proportion of particles with a very small size fraction. These smaller particles penetrate deeper into the lungs and are therefore more hazardous to health than emissions from the combustion of other hydrocarbon products. -39- • • .. - • • --- -.. --- • ., -- • - • - • - • - --- • - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Replacement of the diesel generating facilities should lower the discharge of hydrocarbon pollutants. U. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Togiak is one of the more traditional villages in the Bristol Bay area, but even so socioeconomic impacts will be minimal. The construction force is not expected to exceed 30 people, and it would probably average 20. Since accommodations are not available in Togiak, trailers will be brought in (and removed when construction is completed) and a camp will be set up near the dam site. working hours would be 10 hours a day, six or seven days a week. The project should be completed wi thin one year, beginning in May and finishing in the latter part of November. Since skilled craft labor will be required, local hire is possible, but not likely. Some Togiak residents may resent this. However, since construction would occur during the summer months, most local residents are likely to be busy with commercial fishing and not be available for hire. Togiak has a large influx of people during the herring season, so local residents are accustomed to large groups of strangers in the village. Exchanges between villagers and workers may be limited due to the limited free time on the part of the construction workers and the 12 to 15 miles between the camp and the village. The potential does exist for alcohol-related problems between villagers and construction personnel. Togiak is com- pletely dry. Past experiences have shown that despite rules to the contrary alcohol will be present in construction camps. Intoxicated workers could create problems for the locals. The proximi ty of alcohol may al so lead to the purchase or barter (particularly for local products) of alcohol from construction workers by local residents. -40- Hydropower may affect the cash flow within the village and for individual families. Cheaper electric bills should result in a net cash increase for the householder. Residents may elect to switch from oil heat to electric heat, which will require an initial, cash output for conversion. Maintenance on the road to the dam will provide part-time employment for vil- lage residents, and a skilled resident will be needed for periodic maintenance of the power generation equipment. v. LAND STATUS A generalized land status map of the Togiak area is shown in Figure 4. Note the two proposed dam site alternatives on the Quigmy and Kurtluk Rivers and the five proposed borrow sites. The impacts of the proposed hydroelectric project on land status is dependent on the final selection of dam, trans- portation and borrow site locations. The proposed dam site on the Quigmy River and borrow sites A, Band C are on lands selected by Togiak Natives, Ltd., as part of their entitlements under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Public Law 92-203 enacted December 18, 1971. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the management responsibility for this area as well as all other land classified village Selected in this general area until such time as final disposition is made. All USFWS and Village Selected lands in the general project area are in the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed dam site on the Kurtluk River and borrow sites D and E is on lands interim conveyed under ANCSA to Togiak Natives, Limited. Interim conveyance is used to convey unsurveyed lands. Patent will follow interim conveyance once the lands are identified by survey. The subsurface estate for all lands in the proposed project area conveyed to Togiak -41- • - • .. • • .. - • - --- • .. • - • .. • - • .. • - • .. • --- • .. • .. I I I • - .- .... - - ,- - - - - - - -- ':J -.... T 15 S. -. ~ -.t -,0: -- I -.hlO l T. i 4 S. SCALE I: 250000 5_==-_==-_=='0-_____ .....;;5 MILES EXPLANATION D USFWS Management Area a Togiak Natives Ltd. Lands @] • ..... Native Selected Landa Private Landa Within Section Propoaed Borrow Site Propoaed Dam Site GENERAL LAND STATUS MAP FIGURE 4 Natives, Ltd., has been interim conveyed to the regional Native corporation, Bristol Bay Native Corporation. Togiak has a federal townsite, U.S.S. 4905, with the patent issued to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Townsite Trustee. The Trustee has deeded occupied parcels to the resi- dents and some vacant lots to the City of Togiak. Other subdi- vided property remains with the Trustee .A permit would be required for the transmission line to cross Trustee land and it may be issued by the U. S. Department of Interior following an affirmative resolution by the city council. The final transmission route and transportation corridor have not been selected at this time, but all preliminary alter- natives for both are entirely within interim conveyed lands of Togiak Natives, Ltd., with the exception of a small portion near the Quigmy River and four parcels classified both village Selection and Native Allotment application. Since final dis- position of the Village Selected lands and final decisions on the project conceptual plan have not been made, coordination with USFWS, Togiak Natives, Ltd., Bristol Bay Native Corpora- tion and BLM is recommended so that timely delays in acquiring the needed permits and easements may possibly be avoided. W. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS The following permits will be required for construction of the Togiak hydropower facility: Under the authority of Section 404 of the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act, Amendments of 1972, the Army Corps of Engineers (CaE) must authorize the discharge of dredged or fill mate- rials into U.S. waters, by all individuals, organizations, commercial enterprises, and fed- -43- • -• -• - • • -.. • .. • • .. .. • - • - • --- • - • .. • - • • • - .... ' - - - - - " .. " - - - .- - - eral, state and local agencies. A COE Section 404 Permit will therefore be required for the Quigmy River dam and may be required for por- tions of the road • A Water Quality Certificate from the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), is also required for any activity which may result in a discharge into the navigable waters of Alaska. Application for the certifi- cate is made by submitting to DEC a letter re- questing the certificate, accompanied by a copy of the permit application being submitted to the Corps of Engineers. All public or private entities (except federal agencies) proposing to construct or operate a hydroelectric power project must have a license from the Federal 'Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) if the proposed site is located on a nav- igable stream, or on U. s. lands or if the pro- ject affects a U.S. government dam or interstate commerce. A Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam is re- quired from the Forest, Land, and Water Manage- ment Division of the Alaska Department of Nat- ural Resources for the construction, enlarge- ment, al teration, or repair of any dam in the State of Alaska that is ten feet or more in height or stores 50 acre-feet or more of water. A Water Rights Permit is required from the Director of the Division of Forest, Land and Water Management, Alaska Department of Natural -44- Resources for any person who desires to appro- priate waters of the state of Alaska. However, this does not secure rights to the water. When the permit holder has commenced to use the ap- propriated water, he should notify the director, who will issure a Certificate of Appropriations which secures the holders' rights to the water. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat Division, under authority of AS16.05.870, the Anadromous Fish Act, requires a Habitat Protec- tion Permit if a person or governmental agency desires to construct a hydraulic project or affect the natural flow or bed of a specified anadromous river, lake, or stream, or use equip- ment in such waters. A Habitat Protection Per- mit will be required for the Quigmy River dam and for any work in or proximate to other anad- romous streams (such as the ~urtluk River). Under authority of AS16.05.840, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game can require, if the Commissioner feels it necessary, that every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon or other fish be provided with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage of fish. A Habi tat Protection Permit will, therefore, be required. The proposed project area is located within the coastal zone. Under the Alaska Coastal Manage- ment Act of 1977, a determination of consistency with Alaska Coastal Management Standards must be obtained from the Division of Policy Development -45- • .. • .. • • - • - • - • • ... • • -- • -• .. III .. • --- • --- • .. - '- - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - and Planning in the Office of the Governor. This determination would be made during the COE 404 Permit review. Any party wishing to use land or facil i ties of any National Wildlife Refuge for purposes other than those designated by the manager in charge and published in the Federal Register must ob- tain a Special Use Permit from the u. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This permit may authorize such activities as rights-of-ways; easements for pipelines, roads, utilities, structures, re- search projects; entry for geologic reconnais- sance or similar projects, filming and so forth. x. RECOMMENDATIONS A fish pass should be designed and incorporated into preliminary project plans, based on the apparent need to pass both chum and silver sal- mon • The timing and number of the silver salmon runs should be determined. More detailed studies should be conducted con- cerning the possible downstream effects from the impoundment, with particular reference to spawn- ing reaches. Al though this is a run of river project, re- source agencies may request instream flow stud- ies may be necessary to determine minimum water requirements for resident and anadromous fish. -46- Addi tional studies of the access route may be required. It may be necessary to incorporate some means of safe passage for resident fish and outmigrating smolt into the project design. Y. REFERENCES CITED Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 1980, Bristol Bay Annual Man- agement Report, Appendix, Table 47. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 1978a, Alaska's Fisheries Atlas, Volumes I and II. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 1978b, Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat, Volume II. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 1973, Alaska's wildlife and Habitat, Volume I. Huber, W. C., D. R. F. Harleman, and P.J. Ryan, 1972, Tempera- ture Predictions in stratified Reservoirs, Proc. ASCE, 98, HY4, 645-666. Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, Final Environmental statement. watson, G. H., et al., 1973, An Inventory of Wildlife Habitat of the MacKenzie Valley and the Northern Yukon. Environ- mental social Committee, Task Force on Northern oil Devel- opment, Report 73-27. z. PERSONNAL COMMUNICATIONS Dilliplane, Ty. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Divi- sion of Parks. 1981. -47- • .. • .. • • - • -• .. • -• .. • • ----- • .. --• - • - • - • • • • - - - - ..... - - - .. - - .- Bucher, Wes, Fisheries Biologist, sion, Alaska Department of Alaska. 1981. Logusak, Frank, Togiak Resident. Commercial Fisheries Divi- Fish and Game, Dillingham, 1981. Money, Dennis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Spe- cies. 1981. Nanalook, Robert, Togiak Village Council. 1981. Taylor, Ken, Game Biologist, Game Division, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Dillingham. 1981. -48- ~--.----.--.-.-... -.--.. --... -----.~-.--------------------------------- TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX F LETTERS AND MINUTES " .. .- - - - - - - -... - -- Public Meeting Questions and Answers A public meeting was held on March 25, 1982 in the community of Togiak to discuss the results of this study. The following questions were asked and answers given during the meeting • 1. Where is the project site? 2. On the Quigmy River approximately 7 miles upstream from Togiak Bay. How much fuel oil will be displaced? until approximately the year 2000 all diesel fuel used for electrical energy production would be displaced. Diesel fuel would be needed for back-up generation. 3. How much will the road and powerline cost? 4. The transmission line would cost $1,224,230. If the Department of Transportation builds part of the road then the cost to the project would be approximately $500,000. If the entire road cost is assigned to this project the cost would be approximately $1,600,000. Who will the road belong to? The State of Alaska. 5. 6. What will happen to the small game in the area? It will be driven out by the water or die. However, it is important to point out that this is a run of the river project with only a very small inundated area. What about use of wind? Wind may be useful for a small amount of the power needed for Togiak. See text for an analysis. 7. Who will own the project? 8. 9. The State of Alaska. What would the environmental effects be? More road access would create greater hunting and gathering pressure on the area between Togiak and the site. A fish ladder would be provided at the dam but not all fish would be able to make it up the river. Is there any priority for the development of this project? The Alaska Power Authority has yet to make a determination of priority, however due to the low benefit/cost ratio this project is not likely to have a very high priority. • • .. • • • • - • --- • .. • -• -• - • - • .. • ----- • .. • - • • • • - - - - - - .... - 10. What would have to happen to make this project feasible? The price of fuel would have to rise significantly or the electrical demand would have to increase or construction costs would have to go down. 11. Could Togiak own the project later? It is possible. No determination has been made. 12. Has this work been shown to the legislators? Yes, they received copies of the Draft Report. .. ~-.. -~ :r 'I I: 'j ,J T09 I ~ k M Q."'+I"kC;' -Ma...t"C!.t.. LS'~ 17'5).. 2'.3<: PM • .. • .. • .. • - • - • -• .. • .. • • - • .. --.. .. • - • - • • - • • • • ---. -_._-------------------.. ... - -- .... - - - - - lAY S. HAMMOND, GOYCRNOR 431 E. STREET SECOND FLOOR KJ ANCHORAGE. ALAS~A £1950' (90l) 214·2533 SOUTHCENrRAL REGIONAL OFFICE 0 P.O. 80X 6'5 KODIAK. ALASKA 996'5 {SOl} 4863350 P.O. BOX '101 March 26, 1982 0 SOLDOTNA. ALASKA 99669 Mr. Don Baxter Project Hanager Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RECEIVED 0 APR -11982 0 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY (SOl) 251·52'0 P.O. BOX 1709 VALDEZ. ALASKA (SOl) 8354698 P.O. 80X '054 WASILLA. ALASKA {P071 376·5038 RE: Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, King Cove, and Togiak Hydro Studies. Dear Mr. Baxter: Having had the opportunity to' review the hydro feasibility studies for these projects, we find no apparent major or permanent environmental impacts related to these improvements with the exception of the Togiak proj ect. With the implementation of the recommended environmental procedures speci- fied in the former three hydro studies, the projects should be able to substantially comply with all necessary environmental requirements. As regards Togiak, our concerns relate to measures necessary to mitigate anticipated changes in water quality, including temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. In relation to recommended environmental procedures out- lined in the report, we advise that in-stream flow investigations address the relative impacts of likely changes in water quality and potential mitigation measures. We would be happy to discuss these observations with you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely • ~~foZ/' Bob Martin Region~l Supervisor BM/vh/ccs 99686 99687 i ·1 I I ! I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 ~1r. Bob ~1a rt in Regional Supervisor State of Alaska Oepartment of Environmental Conservation 437 E Street Second Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 July 28, 1982 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·0001 Subject: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay; Draft Reconnaissance Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak. Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your March 26, 1982, letter to Mr. Don Baxter of my staff regarding the above referenced reports. We appreciate your participation and timely input in reviewing the draft reports and are pleased to hear that you find no apparent major or permanent environmental impacts related to the projects, with the exception of Togiak. The project at Togiak appears to be marginally feasible from an economic standpoint and the likelihood of proceeding with additional studies is questionable. However, if the project is carried forward, appropriate mitigation measures will be taken to preserve Quigmy River water quality. An instream flow study program would become an integral part of any additional study programs. Thank you again for your consideration and timely input. Should you have further questions regarding these projects, please contact myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff. c\? --M Eric P. Yould ~ Executive Director • .. • • .. .. • - • .. • - • -• - • - • - • .. • .. • - • - • - • -.. .. .. • - - - 'W - - - - I I JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR DEPARDIE~T OF NATURAL liES01JRClES tN. WAREHOUSE OR .• SUITE 210 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 April 12, 1982 File No. 1130-13 Laurel A. Ben~ett DOWL Engineers 4040 liB" Street Anchorage, AK 99503 DIVISION OF PAttKS /'HONE: 274-4676 Subject: Togiak dam sites on Kurtluk River and Quigmy River to include road or barge landing site, transmission line. Dear }OIr. Bennett: We have reviewed the subject rroposal and yould like to offer the folloYing comments: STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Our review indicates that significant cultural resources may be im- pacted. The terrain in question may yell contain currently unknown prehistoric sites. Numerous sites are presently known to exist through- out the surrounding region. AHRS site No. GDN-205, a former Eskimo Village, is located at the mouth of the Kurtluk River. Therefore, per 36 CFR 800, and AS 41.35.070, a preconstruction culturai resources survey is recommended. . Dilliplane Historic Preservation STATE PARK PLANNING No probable or significant impact on existing, proposed or potential state park or other public recreation values, although outdoor rec- reation opportunities nlight be increased as a result of new road access. LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND GRANT PROG~~1 No conunent. Sincerely, ~~ _j~ Chip Dcnnerlcin Y-Director cn/bIh ,00JlI LIt ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Ms. Judy Marquez Director State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks 619 Warehouse Drive, Suite 210 Anchorage, AK 99501 July 28, 1982 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·0001 SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay; Draft Reconnaissance Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak. Dear Ms. Marquez: Thank you for your letters of April 12, March 30 and March 31, 1982, to Ms. Laurel Bennett of DOWL Engineers regarding the above referenced feasibility and reconnaissance reports. We appreciate your participation and timely input in reviewing the draft reports. In response to the concerns voiced in your letters, preconstruction cultural resource surveys would be accomplished prior to the initiation of construction activity on any of the projects. Any work associated with the scoping and implementation of such surveys would be fully coordinated with your office. Furthermore, the project at Togiak does not appear to be attractive at this point in time due to economics, and it is doubtful that it will be carried forward into developmental stages. Should you have further questions regarding these studies, please contact myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff. Sincerely, ~;. y~ l\Jl Executive Director • • • • • • - • .. • .. • • .. • .. -- • --., ----- • - • - • .. - - ..... - - -.... .- - ,- - - / I DlVlSJCW OF FOREST, LAND AND WATER AWlAGEMENT April 12, Eric P Yould Executive Director Alaska power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould, / JAr $. HAMMOND, GOYERNOA 555 Cordova Street Pouch 7-005 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA PHONE: (907}276-2653 1982 RE01:::IVt;u f?R ! 3 138'2 AlASKA rO'fER AUTIJI;!\iff A review has been made of Volumes A, B, C, D and E regarding the Feasibility Studies for the King Cove Hydroelectric project, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project and the Reconnaissance Study for the Togiak Hydroelectric Project. As mentioned, for each project the Division of Land and Water Management has the responsibility for issuing both a permit to construct or modify a dam and a water rights permit. Comments follo'll that appear to apply to all four projects. a. permit to Construct or Modify a Dam Prior to issuing the permit, this office must be assured that the dam will not create a public safety hazard. A certification to this effect after the state of the art techniques that analyze the design and construction as well as the proposed operation and maintenance schedules of the dam will be acceptable. If the Federal Energy Regula tory Commission (FERC) is involved in licensing the project, dam safety certifications by them will be accepted. For dams not reviewed by FERC, we will review work done by the applicant such that this office may certify to the dam's safety. As the projects develop, please send to this office, dam safety certifications by the FERC, or the appropriate documents allowing such to be made. b. Water Rights Permit According to AS 46.15.080, a water rights permit shall be issued if it is found that: 1. The proposed appropriation will not unduly affect the rights of a prior appropriator. From a review of our files on April 8, it appears that no water rights exist in the areas to be impacted. 2. The proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate. 3. The proposed appropriation is in the public interest. To evaluate this, among the items to be considered are changes in the following as a result of the proposed water appropriation: (a) economic activity, (b) fish and game resources, (c) public recreational opportunities, (d) public health, (e) loss of alternate uses.of water that might be made within a reaso~able time, (f) harm to persons, (9) access to navigable or public waters. To process the water rights application, the above items must be addressed for each project stage, including construction, reservoir filling and operation. If negative impacts are noted, mitigation strategies and the associated costs should also be discussed. The feasibility study discusses some of the above items. Some statements, however, have limited, if any, supporting evidence and are therefore considered inadequate for the adjudication of a water rights application. It is understood that it is not the intent of this feasibility study to present detailed information as described above. However, please be informed that this information is necessary to adjudicate the application to construct or mOdify a dam and the application for water rights according to our legal responsibilities. Sincerely, J. W. Sedwick, Director {-i by: Paul J nk; Civil Engineer Water Management Section • • • • • • .. -• .. .. .. • .. • .. .. • .. .. .. • .. .. - • .. - • -.. • • • .. ...... - - - - - - - - - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Jack W. Sedwick Director State of Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources Division of Forest, Land and Water Management 555 Cordova Street Pouch 7-005 Anchorage, AK 99501 July 28, 1982 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·0001 SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at King Cove, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor; Draft Reconnaissance Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak. Dear Mr. Sedwick: Thank you for your letter of April 12th regarding the above referenced reports. The following letter addresses issues and answers questions contained in your letter. We appreciate the participation and timely input of you and your staff in reviewing the draft reports. Our responses to your comments are included below: a. Permit to Construct or Modify a Dam For King Cove, Old Harbor and Larsen Bay, plans will be submitted during the design phase of these projects, however, we understand that a permit will not be required because the proposed dams are less than 10 feet in height. The dam proposed for the Togiak site is greater than 10 feet in height, but the project does not appear to be economically attractive. It is therefore doubtful that the project would ever be developed. b. Water Rights Permit Except for the QUigmy River near Togiak, there are no established navigable uses for any of the streams or rivers under consideration. The text has been modified to reflect this comment. In a meeting with Paul Janke, some concern was expressed about minimum flows. This issue is addressed in our letters to the u.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), copies of which are attached. Mr. Jack W. Sedwick July 28, 1982 Page 2 Discussions of impacts during operations and maintenance, water quality issues, and loss of alternative uses have been incorporated into the final report text. Furthermore, ADEC concerns regarding fish and game resources have also been addressed in the final report text and in the attached letters to USFWS. Thank you again for your consideration and timely input. The Power Authority looks forward to a successful working relationship with the Department of Natural Resources in bringing these projects forward. Should you have further questions, please contact myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff. Attachments as noted C~·ll~ Eric P. Yould '1 Executive Director • .. • • .. • • -• • • - • • - • • - • - • - • - • - • -• - • - • - • .. ..." - - - - - rvl E l\~ 0 R A [\J D U f\~ DEPl\lnHENT or NI\ TU R/\L RESOUHCES TO Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power I\uthority fHOM Reed It-tilhp/ DireJt~~V State of Alaska DIVISION OF RES[/\RCH AND DEVELOP~tENT DATe April 12, 1982 FILE NO TElEPHONE NO 276-1653 SUElJECT DNR comments The Department of Natural Resources has no comments on the draft feasibility reports listed below. Draft feasibility study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project Draft feasibility study for Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Draft feasibility study for Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project Draft feasibility study for Togiak Hydroelectric Project RECEIVED .' ~12 1 1982 'ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY (u-·" '". ::.-] ; i : -, I i r I ' ~:U 1)I~IJt;\nl"a:~T OS-' ... ~SJl ;\ ~n (j.\ :ll.: Apri 1 14, 1982 Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 OFFICE Of THE COMMISSIONER Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Gentlemen: JA r s. HAMMON~. GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 3-2000 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 PHONE: 465-4100 RECEIVt:.D. P.?R 1 91322 PO'"E''' ~IITlIN"IT'\( tLP.SK.t.. ;. il , .... , .~'1" . Re: Feasibility Studies for King Cove Hydroelectric Project, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project and Reconnaissance Study for Togiak Hydroelectric Project The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the subject documents and generally concurs with the contents. There are, however, several informational needs and statutory requirements that need to be addressed. These are ou t 1 i ned ~Jith in the enc 1 osed spec i fi c comments. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~ Ronald O. Skoog Commissioner cc: C. Yanagawa R. Logan • • • • • • - • • - • -• -.. -- • - • -.. - • - • - • --- • .. • • - - - - - - Volume B -Feasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project -Draft Report SECTION X -ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Fi sheries Page X-2, para. 3 Alaska Statute 16.05.840 requires that, if the Commissioner feels it necessary, dams be fitted with fishways and devices for passage of fish. This may necessitate a minimum flow release thro.ugh the stream reach below the diversion weir. SECTION XI -PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONS B. PROJECT LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Page XI-l, general comment Absent from the list of permit requirements ;s that pertaining to AS 16.05.840 as follows: "Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the commissioner approves, for which plans and specifica- • .. • • • ... • .. tions shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The .. fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it . (Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959).11 A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840. SECTION XII -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS B. REcOt1r~ENDA TI OH Page XII-l, general comments We recommend that a determination of a minimum flow requirement to pass fish between the weir and powerhouse be made. Knowledge of this figure and its impact on power production will aid in making the detel~minatiol1 of necessity to provide fish passage relative to AS 16.05.840. APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT D. FISHERIES Page 8, para. 1 & 2, page 9, para. 1 .. • .. .. .. .. • .. • - • -.. • • .. ... • -.. ... III -.. -• • - - - - - - .... - - - - We question the accuracy of some of the statements regarding substrate sizes and other optimum spawning conditions, including those obtained from the ADF&G 1978, Fisheries Atlas. Some work has already been conducted and other is ongoing regarding development of species suitability curves for several river systems in Alaska. While it should be recognized that curves developed for species in one system cannot be directly applied to those in another, they may be used in making qualified generalizations. G. FISHERIES IMPACTS Page 13, para. 3 Any habitat improvement accrued by retention of sediments will be negated by loss or absence of flow. H. FISHERY MITIGATION Page 14 & 15, general comments The fisheries mitigation section fails to address measures other than reduction of sedimentation. Other impacts such as loss of habitat in dewatered streams reaches and impediment to fish migration must also be addressed. M. WILDLIFE MITIGATION Page 24, para. 7 The 330 foot buffer cited here is a USFS recommendation for minimum separation for falling of trees. In instances where there is flexibility to locate camps, material sites, etc. at a distance greater than 330 feet, we • • • • • recommend it be done. In addition, we suggest a minimum separation of 500 • feet and strongly discourage siting within one-quarter mile. • - With respect to aircraft separation, we recommend 1500 feet separation • • for helicopters and 500 feet for fixed wing craft. .. • Pages 24, general comments • • The wildlife mitigation section fails to address mitigation measures related - to restoration of material sites, abandoned camp sites and utilization of transmission lines designed to minimize large raptor electrocution. U. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS Pages 28-29, general comments Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to AS 16.05.840 as follows: "Sec. 16.05.840. Fishv.[ay required. If the commissioner considers it necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a • • .. • • • • III • • .. .. • • - • • l1li - - - - - - .... - - - - practical and effective manner in the place. fonn and capacity the commissioner approves, for which plans and specifica- tions shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it. (Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)." A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840. V. RECOMMENDATIONS Page 31, general comments We recommend that a determination of a minimum flow requirement to pass fish between the weir and powerhouse be made. Knowledge of this figure and its impact on pOYJer prl)duction will and in making the determination of necessity to provide fish passage . Volume C -Feasibility Study for Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project -Draft Rej10rt SECTION X -ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Page X-2. 1. Fisheries • • . Was any effort expended towards sampling for fish between the powerhouse and diversion weir site and above to ascertain use by fish? If not (as can be - concluded from the report), there is no way to predict the consequences of habitat lost through dewatering or the impact of impeding fish migrations. Page X-2, 2. Wildlife .. - • • • ... Bear confrontations are likely to be the most serious wildlife consequence .. of the project. Confrontations would be most likely from August through October when bear are feeding on salmon in Big Creek. If construction were . executed other than in this time period, likelihood of this problem would be considerably reduced. Precautions with disposal of garbage and other food scraps (lunches, etc.) during construction will also reduce the potential for bear problems. Owing to the large number of bald eagles in the area, transmission line designs which minimize large raptor electrocution must be e~ployed. SECTION XI PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION B. PROJECT LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Page XI-l, general corr~ent Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to AS 16.05.840 as follows: ... ... .. • .. .. • • .. • ... .. • - • • • • • • • .. - - - - ,- - '"* - - - - "Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a practical and effective manner in the place. form and capacity the commissioner approves, for which plans and specifi- cations shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it. (Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)." A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840. SECTION XII -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS B. RECOMMENDATIONS Page XII-l, general comments We recommend that it be determined whether fish utilize that portion of the stream that will be dewatered below the weir for either residence or as a migration route. If it is used for either or both, a fishway and/or minimum release may be required. APPENDIX E -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT D. FISHERIES Page 4-6 general comments We question the accuracy of some of the statements regarding substrate sizes and other optimum spawning conditions, including those obtained from the ADF&G 1978, Fisheries Atlas. Some work has already been conducted and other is ongoing regarding development of species suitability curves for several river systems in Alaska. While it should be recognized that curves .. • .. .. .. .. - • • • .. • developed for species in one system cannot be directly applied to those in • another, they may be used in making qualified generalizations. H. FISHERY MITIGATION Page 9 & 10, general comments The fisheries mitigation section fails to address measures other than reduction of sedimentation. Other impacts such as loss of habitat in dewatered streams reaches and impediments to fish migration must also be addressed. M. WILDLIFE MITIGATION Page 22, para. 1 The 330 foot buffer cited here is a USFS recommendation for minimum • .. • .. • .. • .. .. - • • • .. .. .. .. separation for falling of trees. In instances where there is flexibility to • • • • - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - locate camps, material site, etc. at a distance 9~eater than 330 feet, we recommend it be done. In addition, we suggest a minimum separation of 500 feet and strongly discourage siting within one-quarter mile. With respect to aircraft separation, we recommend 1500 feet separation for helicopters and 500 feet for fixed wing craft. Pages 21 & 22, general comments The wildlife mitigation section fails to address mitigation measures related to restoration of material sites, abandoned camp sites and utilization of transmission lines designed to minimize large raptor electrocution. U. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS Pages 26-28, general comment Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to AS 16.05.840 as follows: "Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the commissioner approves, for which plans and specifi- cations shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The .. .. • • • fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a .. sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through (Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)." A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840. V. RECOMMENDATiONS Page 28, general comments • of-, "'. We recommend that it be determined whether fish utilize that portion of the stream that will be dewatered below the weir for either residence or as a • • • ... • • • .. • ... • .. • migration route. If it is used for either or both a fishway and/or minimum .. release may be required. Volume 0 -Feasibility Study for Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project -Draft Report SECTION X -ENVIRONt-1ENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Fi sheri es • - • • --.. -- • - • • -• III - .. - - - - - - Page X-3, para. 3 Alaska Statute 16.05.840 requires that, if the Commissioner feels it necessary, dams be fitted with fishways and devices for passage of fish. This may necessitate a minimum flow release through the stream reach below the diversion weir. Dolly Varden are identified as being trout. They are chars. SECTION XI -PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION B. PROJECT LICE~SES, PERNITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Page XI-l, general comment Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to AS 16.05.840 as follows: "Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it necessary, evel'y dam or other obstruction built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the commissioner approves, for \<Ihich plans and specifica- tions shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it. (Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)." A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840. SECTION XII -CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS B. RECOMMENDATION Page XII-l, general comments We recommend that a determination of a minimum flow requirement to pass fish between the weir and powerhouse be made. Knowledge of this figure and its impact on power production will aid in making the determination of necessity to provide fish passage relative to AS 16.05.840. APPENDIX E -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT D. FISHERIES Page 5, general comments An assessment of the fisheries resources present between the weir and pm"erhouse should be made to determine the necessity of maintaining a minimum flow and the advisability of constructing fish passage structures. Page 6, para. 1-3 • • .. • ., .. - • - • -.-.. • .. • • • -• .. • --- • .. .. • • • • • - • .. .. *"" - .... - - - .- - - G. We question the accuracy of some of the statements regarding substrate sizes and other optimum spawning conditions, including those obtained from the ADF&G 1978, Fisheries Atlas. Some work has already been conducted and other is ongoing regarding development of species suitability curves for several river systems in Alaska. While it should be recognized that curves developed for species in one system cannot be directly applied to those in another, they may be used in making qualified generalizations. FISHERIES IMPACTS Page 7, general comments The presence of the weir and lack of flow will impede fish passage throughout the affected reach. H. FISHERY MITIGATION Page 9 & 10, general comments The fisheries mitigation section fails to address measures other than reduction of sedimentation. Other impacts such as loss of habitat in dewatered stream reaches and impediment to fish migration must also be addressed. M. WILDLIFE MITIGATION Page 22, para. 7 The 330 foot buffer cited here is a USFS recommendation for minimum separation for falling of trees. In instances where there is flexibility to locate camps, material sites, etc. at a distance greater than 330 feet, we • -• ... .. .. recommend it be done. In addition, we suggest a minimum separation of 500- feet and strongly discourage siting within one-quarter mile. With respect to aircraft separation we recommend 1500 feet separation for helicopters and 500 feet for fixed wing craft. Pages 24, general comments The wildlife mitigation section fails to address mitigation measures related to restoration of material sites, abandoned camp sites and utilization of transmission lines designed to minimize large raptor electrocution. U. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS Pages 26-29, general comments Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to AS 16.05.840 as follows: "Sec. 16.05.840. Fislw/ay required. If the commissioner considers it necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a stream frequented by saimon or other fish shall be provided by that person with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficie~t passage for downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a • -.. III; • • -• • - • .. • -• .. • - • .. • • • - • • • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pr(lctical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the commissioner approves, for which plans and specifica- tions shall be approved by the department upon application to it. The fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it. (Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959)." A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840. V. REcor"r~ENDATIONS Page 31, general comments We recommend that a determination of a minimum flow requirement to pass fish between the weir and powerhouse be made. Knowledge of this figure and its impact on power production will aid in making the determination of necessity to provide fish passage relative to AS 16.05.840. Volume E Reconnaissance Study for Togiak Hydroelectric Project -Draft Report SECTION VI -ALTERNATIVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS Page VI-5, 5. Fi sh Lndder In addition to provisions to pass fish upstream consideration must be given to a means of providing passage of dO\,instream migrants (fry, smolts and resident fish) without incurring significant mortalities. In many • .. •• • • ... instances, fish are unable to survive passage through turbines. In response .. to this problem, a number of devices such as traveling screens and baffled II intakes have been developed. SECTION X -ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS A. GENERAL Page X-I, para. 2 B. With respect to recommendations for additional study, the upstream effects of the impoundment on salmon and resident spawning and rearing habitat need to be addressed. We also assume that downstream impacts to all salmon and resident species will be addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Page X-3, para. 1 Dolly Varden are referred to as trout, they are char. Puge X-4, para. 1 • • .. • .. • -• • • • • • -• ... • - • .. • - • • • • • - - - - - ... - .... - - - Although it is generally known that chum salmon spawning is heaviest in the lower one-half of the Quigmy River, distribution of all salmon species should be verified in subsequent studies. This is an important factor when determining requirements for minimum flows. In addition, it is recognized that chum salmon typically spawn in areas of groundwater upwelling. If this can be verified in the Quigmy River, it may have great significance respective to flow release for fisheries. SECTION XI -PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION B. DEFINITIVE PROJECT REPORT Page XI-3, 5. Hydrology Statement is made that estimates are based on data from areas 75 to 150 feet distant. Perhaps the distance is actually 75 to 150 miles. D. PROJECT LICENSES, PERMITS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Page XI-6, 3. ADF&G Permits Statement is made that a Habitat Protection Permit is required for Delta Creek. Should this refer to Quigmy River instead? Absent from the list of permit requirements is that pertaining to I AS 16.05.840 as follows: "Sec. 16.05.840. Fishway required. If the commissioner considers it necessary, every dam or other obstruction built by any person across a stream frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided by that person with a durable and efficient fishway and a device for efficient passage for downstream migrants. The fishway or device or both shall be maintained in a practical and effective manner in the place, form and capacity the commissioner approves, for which plans and specifi- cations shall be approved by the department upon applicaticn to it. The fishway or device shall be kept open, unobstructed, and supplied with a sufficient quantity of water to admit freely the passage of fish through it. (Par. 30 pat 1 ch 94 SLA 1959).11 A Habitat Protection Permit constitutes approval under AS 16.05.840. APPENDIX E -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 0.1. Spawning Page 11, para. 2 Optimum stream velocity for coho salmon is cited as being 3-4 cubic feet second (cfs). This is a discharge quantity rather than one of velocity. Page 12, para. 1 Dolly Varden are properly refer-red to as char rather than trout. per • .. •• • • .. • .. • .. • - • .. • --• • • • • -• -.. - • .. • .. • 'lit • • • - - ...... - - - - - - - - ..... Page 11 & 12, general comments I. We question the accuracy of some of the statements regarding substrate sizes and other optimum spawning condition, including those obtained from the ADF&G 1978 Fisheries Atlas. Some work has already been conducted and other is ongoing regarding development of species suitability curves for several systems in Alaska. While it should be recognized that curves developed for a species in one system cannot be directly applied to those in another, they may be used in making qualified generalizations. FISHERIES IMPACTS Page 21, para. 3 There may be streambed morphology changes associated with the project due to attenuation of some flood events and lack of material recruitment from reaches above the dam. J. FISHERY MITIGATION Page 22, para. 2 Is the inference here that improving the road as little as possible will reduce the erosion potential? If so, we believe this to be an erroneous conclusion. A maintained gravel surface of adequate dimensions will produce far fewer fines than an unimproved surface. • -•• • Page 22, general conments .. .. This discussion fails to address fisheries mitigation other than .. sedimentation and erosion control. There is no mention of flow maintenance, .. provision for safe passage of downstream migrants, provisions for passage of .. upstream migrants, etc. Q. WILDLIFE MITIGATION Page 36 & 37, general comments Discussion should also address mitigation measures related to restoration of disturbed areas, prohibition of vehicular access to project roads, scheduling of construction events to minimize disturbance to wildlife, etc. - • • • • • - • -• - • ---.. - • • - • -• .. '- - - - --- - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Ronald Skoog Commissioner Alaska Department of Fish & Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, AK 99802 July 28, 1982 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 Subject: Feasibility Studies for King Cove Hydroelectric project, Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project, Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project and Reconnaissance Study for Togiak Hydroelectric Proj ect Dear Commissioner Skoog: This letter is in response to your letter of April 14, 1982 and the subsequent meeting of April 28, 1982 discussing ADF&G1s concerns about the above referenced projects. Note that this meeting included several representatives from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as well as our consultant, DOWL Engineers. We appreciate the constructive nature of the comments and the time members of your staff spent in review and discussion of these projects. GENERAL COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO KING COVE, OLD HARBOR AND LARSEN BAY ARE: The Habitat Protection Permit required by Section 16.05.840, Fishway required, has been included in the list of permit requirements. (Volume B, XI-2 and page 29, Appendix E; Volume C, XI-2 and page 27, Appendix E; Volume D, XI-2 and page 27, Appendix E). The ADF&G 1978, Fisheries Atlas was and is used at this time by DOWL biologists as a basic reference for fisheries spawning conditions. References provided by your staff and others relative to on-going work in the development of species suitability curves will be utilized for any future work at the project sites and certainly in future projects to augment the basic information currently available in the Fisheries Atlas for making qualified generalizations for each river system. o ADF&G1s recommendations concerning minimum separation from active bald eagle nests have been incorporated into the text (Volume B, Appendix E, page 24; Volume C, Appendix E, page 22; and Volume D, Appendix E, page 22). o Restoration of material sites and abandoned camp sites has been addressed in the final report (Volume B, Appendix E, pages 16 and 24; Volume C, Appendix E, page 21; Volume D, Appendix E, page 22). Commissioner Ronald Skoog July 28, 1982 Page 2 o Utilization of transmission lines designed to mlnlmlze large raptor electrocution has been included as a mitigation measure (Volume B, Appendix E, page 24; Volume C, Appendix E, page 22; Volume D, Appendix E, page 22). COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO KING COVE: Page XII-I; Appendix E, p. 14, 15, & 31 Delta Creek Mean annual flow is 24 cfs for a dr~inage area of 3.63 square miles resulting in a unit runoff of 6.6 cfs/mi. Drainage area between the proposed dam site and powerhouse is 0.4 square miles. Sizing for turbine generator is set at the 15 percent exceedance point which corresponds to a flow of 44 cfs in the flow duration curve for Delta Creek. This is the maximum turbine design flow. Any flows in excess of design flow will be routed through the diversion weir spillway and will flow into the stream channel below the dam. Flows less than the maximum design flow will be completely diverted into the penstock. This may result in short reaches of Delta Creek devoid of any observable streamflow just below the dam although the tributaries and the groundwater seepage from the valley slopes will maintain some estimated minimum flows (less than 2 cfs) in most of that stream channel between the dam site and the powerhouse. A flow duration curve is provided to indicate the percent of time that streamflow in excess of maximum turbine design flow (44 cfs) will be let go through an unregulated spillway. See comments on Appendix E, page 13, below, for additional discussion. Appendix E, page 13, para. 3. Habitat improvement accrued by retention of sediments: DOWL feels that sufficient flow from groundwater and small tributaries will allow maintenance of resident populations and that the decreased velocity and sediment load will improve the available habitat. Additional field work to be performed by DOWL Engineers in 1982 will address the actual utilization of the upper portions of the system and minimal flow requirements between the weir and powerhouse locations, as well as potential hatitat loss. During our meeting of April 28, 1982 two concerns were stressed by ADF&G: (1) provision of sufficient flows between the diversion weir and the powerhouse to maintain the existing Dolly Varden population (addressed previously in this letter) and (2) insurance of some transport of sediment from above the diversion weir back into the stream channel below the weir to provide for recruitment of spawning gravels. DOWL feels that this would be possible but would require considerable investigation to assume compliance with DEC w~ter quality standards. • • • • • .. • - • • • • .. • -• • • -• -• -• ---- • - • .. .. • - - ...", - Commissioner Ronald Skoog July 28, 1982 Page 3 COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO OLD HARBOR: Page X-2, I & XII-I. Fisheries:· Location of trap sites. Two traps were set above the proposed powerhouse location. The report has been corrected to reflect this effort (Appendix E, page 6). Page X-2, 2. Wildlife: bear confrontations. Assuming no unexpected delays, it should be possible to avoid construction for most if not all of the time when bear concentrations will be present. Precautions will be taken with the handling of garbage to avoid attracting bears (Appendix E, page 21). Appendix E, pages 9, 10, & 28. The drainage area for Midway Creek above the proposed diversion weir is 2.2 square mile~. Mean annual flow for this drainage are~ is estimated to be 10.5 ft /sec resulting in a unit runoff of 4.8 ft /sec/mi 2 . The drainage area for that reach of the creek between the diversion weir and powerhouse is computed to be 0.08 square miles. From this small drainage basin, the creek could drain on an annual basis some 0.4 ft 3/sec of water. Sources of streamflow below the proposed diversion site will include: D a significant tributary draining a small area to the east and discharging 200-300 feet downstream of the proposed diversion weir. D ground-water seepage from the valley slopes into the creek. D seepage from the diversion weir. D runoff from the valley slopes during snowmelt and rainstorm events. 3he turbine generator is sized for a maximum design flow of 19 ft /sec and any surplus will spillover the diversion weir during periods of high flows. It is conceivable that short reaches of Midway Creek just below the diversion weir may be devoid of surface flow certain periods during the year, (e.g. late winter low-flow periods). However, the streambed will most likely remain saturated even during low flow periods and may contain shallow ground water flow in the coarse bed materials. Some loss of habitat for resident Dolly Varden could occur during these periods. . Commissioner Ronald Skoog July 28, 1982 Page 4 COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO LARSEN BAY: Page X-3, para. 3. Dolly Varden: corrected. Page 5, Appendix E. Fisheries resources above the powerhouse. The minnow trap set above the existing dam and proposed powerhouse captured one Dolly Varden. Additional trapping may be done in the future in connection with on-going hydrologic studies. As discussed in our meeting of April 28, 1982, consideration will be given to removal of the old dam as a possible mitigation for the current project impacts. Page XII-I, Recommendation, Page VII-I, Appendix E, page 7,9, 10, and 31. The drainage area for Humpy Creek above the proposed diversion weir is 6.28 square miles. ~ean annual flow for this drainage area is estimated to be 13.0 ft /sec resulting in a unit runoff of 2.1 ft 3/sec. The drainage area for that reach of the creek between the diversion weir and powerhouse is computed to be 0.09 squ~re miles. The creek within this reach could potentially drain 0.2 ft /sec on a mean annual basis although this estimate is considered conservative due to the excess streamf10ws which must be spilled over the diversion weir during periods of high flows. Sources of streamflow for that reach of the creek between the diversion weir and powerhouse include: o Considerable ground-water seepage from the narrow valley slopes. o Several rivulets and overland flow channels on the left valley banks. o Runoff from the valley slopes during snowmelt and rainstorm events. o Seepage from the diversion weir. Th3 turbine generator is sized for a maxim~m design flow of 23.8 ft /sec. Streamf10ws in excess of 23.8 ft /sec will spillover the diversion weir during periods of high surface flows. It is conceivable that short reaches of Humpy Creek below the diversion weir may go dry during periods of minimum flow-late winter and early spring. However, the streambed itself is expected to remain saturated throughout the year. Some loss of habitat for resident Dolly Varden could occur during these periods. • .. • .. • • • - • .. • -• - • .. • • • - • - • • -- • • .. -.. • - ..... - - .- - - - Commissioner Ronald Skoog July 28. 1982 Page 5 COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO TOGIAK: Please note that the work at Togiak was intended to be only at the reconnaissance level. It was previously indicated that additional studies would be required including a detailed analysis of potential impacts and possible mitigation but that these studies would only occur if the project were to be taken into a more detailed feasibility study. Resource agencies would be invited to participate in scoping these additional studies if this were to occur. Due to the apparent marginal economic feasibility of this project. we feel that any discussion of additional studies at this time is certainly premature. In fact. some consideration is being given to a location on the Kurtluk River. Page VI-5, para 5. Fish ladder. DOWL's recommendation has been altered to more clearly state this need (Appendix E, page 46). Page X-I. para 2. No discussion on additional studies. Page X-3, para 1. Corrected. Page X-4, para 1. No discussion. Page XI-3, para 5. Hydrology corrected. Page X I -6, para 3. ADF&G Permits corrected. Appendix E. page 11. Corrected. Appendix E, page 12. Corrected. Appendix E, page 11 and 12, general comments. See discussion under comments on King Cove. Old Harbor and Larsen Bay. Appendix E, page 21, para 3. True. The potential changes have been mentioned. Should this project be funded, additional studies and discussion would occur. Page 22, para 2. That statement was deleted. Pages 22,36, and 37, general comments. Note the opening statement to this section. Thank you again for your timely response and your agencies comments. We look forward to a successful working relationship with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in bringing the King Cove, Old Harbor and Larsen Bay Projects forward. cc: C. Yanagawa, ADF&G R. Logan. ADF&G SinCerely\) ~ . J\' ~ Enc P. Yould Executive Director "Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau. Alaska 99802 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear ~lr. Yould: RECEIVt:D t,?R 1 9 J982 ~tASKA PO'!.'E1J AUTHORITY Apri 1 15, 1982 These are our notes on the studies for King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay, and Togiak hydro projects. We found the studies to be very complete "nd well done. They certainly rank among the best we have recently reviewed. We agree with the conclusion and l'ecommendations that actions be initiated to implement projects at King Cove, Old Harbor, and Larsen Bay. All of the projects except Larsen Bay are based on synthesized hydrology which should be carefully reviewed before a construction commitment is made. Even Larsen Bay data is very minimal with one YEar n:~cord. As the studies acknowledge, significant local micro climates exist throughout the region, especially o~ Kodiak Island. We question whether or not energy could be sold for electric heat at the same price as electric energy for other purposes, especially when compared to the present and projected costs of oil. We also question the space heating efficiency rates used from heating oil. The reports are using 70 percent efficiency. From our experience and other recent reports, 60 percent may be a more realistic figure for planning purposes. For Larsen Bay, will the high growth rate occur even with new HUD houses 'in light of the cannery being closed? A couple small items--page IV-9, the 22kWh/gal. should be 11 kWh/gal. and on line 5, page IV-9 of the Draft Report--"flay, 1978" should be "January, 1980". Thanks for the opportunity to comment. ;g~/LL: ~Robert J. Cross TV -Adm i n i s t ra to r .. .. • • - • .. • - • ,. " .... - • • • - • - • • - • - • - • - • -• - - - - - - - - - - .,.,.. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Robert J. Cross Administrator Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 July 28, 1982 SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports of Hydroelectric Projects Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·0001 at King Cove, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor; Draft Reconnaissance Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak. Dear Mr. Cross: Thank you for your letter of April 15th regarding the above referenced reports. The following letter addresses issues and answers questions contained in your letter. We appreciate the participation and timely input of you and your staff in reviewing the draft reports. Our responses to your comments are included below: Paragraph III Although we feel fairly comfortable with the synthesized hydrology which resulted in close correlations utilizing three independent methods, there is no substitute for actual field measurements over an extended period of time. A stream gaging program has been initiated, and will continue indefinitely on streams recommended for weir construction. Each project will be re-evaluated based upon updated hydrology resulting from stream gage recordings prior to making any construction commitment. Such a commitment could occur as earlly as spring, 1983, at which time over one full year of stream gage data would be available. Paragraph IV In this type of analysis, the dollars relate only to the value of the oil that is displaced, and not to the projected sales price of the energy. Paragraph V Since this analysis relates to the value of displaced oil, using 70% as a heating efficiency is a more conservative assumption than using 60%. 70% assumes that less oil is used and hence a lower quantity of oil would be displaced by hydropower. Pa ragraph VI Demand forecasts are difficult to make, however, we believe that we have made a reasonable estimate. See text for the other suggested changes. Thank you again for your comments and timely input. Should you have further questions regarding these projects, please contact myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff. ~er~lY' Eric P. Yould Executive Director • .. .. .. • ., • .. • • ., .. - • - • -• - • - • -- • - • -• .. • • • - - -- IN REPLY REFER TO: WAES United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3800 Eric P. Yould RECJ:1VED 15 APR 1982 Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attn: Don Baxter f',PR 2 1 1982 ~KA POWER AUTHORITY Re: Togiak Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance study Dear Mr. Yould: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has reviewed the above referenced draft report submitted by DOWL Engineers. It is our intent in the following comments and recommendations to: 1) provide information which will enable you to avoid or minimize fish and wildlife losses associated with the project; 2) identify information needs which are necessary for objective project planning and decision-making; and 3) to identify those concerns which, if adequately addressed, would make the project acceptable to us, and determine our response to anticipated Federal permits and/or licenses associated with this project. General comments: In general, we find the conclusion of project feasibility based almost entirely on economic and engineering information. We feel the credibility of this conclusion could be greatly enhanced by comprehensively addressing the following issues: 1) 2) Significantly expanding your data base regarding fish use (populations) and habitat. The identification and incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures (clearly developed from the data base in #1). 3) Diversifying the types and scope of alternative electrical power production systems. Specific comments: Section I, page 1 --The $8.1 million net cost figure does not include costs of further fish and wildlife stadies or necessary mitigation measures. ¥Z2a:azl4W1ft!fii.ti~a, WiiUJZtUtt!i8¢ttGjJ@tti £ZJ CM¥TtlmJ4f.4 auwt4&@&t& = ~ Section VI, page 5 - Section X, page 1 -- Section X, page 2 -- Section X, page 3 -- Section XI, page 3 - Appendix E, page 21- Appendix E; page 22- Summary comments: Other fisheries mitigation measures, such as baffled intakes, adjustable blade turbines, or additional smolt emigration releases may be needed. Spawning habitat to be lost to the reservoir should be quantified. Spawning habitat for pink, coho and chum salmon should be mapped and numbers of each species surveyed. Dolly Varden are char. Flow projection should be based on at least one year's recorded discharged data. These data will also be needed to determine instream flows for maintenance of fish habitat below the dam. Substrate distributions will change below the dam. Impacts and possible spwwning habitat losses need to be addressed. Fisheries mitigation measures that should be discussed include maintenance of instantaneous flows below the dam, fish passes, baffled intakes, additional smolt emigration releases, etc. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation policy, the fish and wildlife in the Togiak vicinity fall into Resource Category 3, which means habitats are of high to medium value to the species there, and habitats are abundant. The corresponding mitigation planning goal for Resource Category 3 is no net loss of habitat value, while minimizing the loss of in-kind habitat value. Our future actions regarding various Federal permit and license applications will be to ensure that fish and wildlife resources in the project area are ade~uately described, that all significant impacts to those resources are identified, and that all adverse impacts are mitigated to reach our goal of no net loss. We look forward to continuing working with the Alaska Power Authority and providing technical assistance in the planning stages of this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report. JIi;tsbnt Regional Director cc: Fl-lS-ROES, WAES ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, OCM, Juneau ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage til • • .. -• .. • .. • .. • Ill· • .. u· • -.. .. • ... -' .- - - - -- ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. Keith Schreiner Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 July 30, 1982 Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276-0001 Subject: Draft Feasibility Reports on Hydroelectric Projects at King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay; Draft Reconnaissance Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak. Dear Mr. Schreiner: This letter has been prepared in response to Mr. Gerald Reid's letters of April 14 and April 15, 1982, regarding the above referenced projects. We appreciate your timely input and your staff's participation in several agency meetings relating to these projects. GENERAL COMMENTS: At our request, DOWL Engineers (DOWL) has carefully reviewed the letters and has responded to your comnents, many of which were quite constructive. However, the general comments and closing paragraphs of the letters appear to be in a format and of a nature that sets a generalized U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy for all hydroelectric projects, does not take into account the presence of existing data or local knowledge that is site specific, and assumes that all hydroelectric projects cause or have the potential to cause similar losses in fish and wildlife resources, habitat or both. It should also be noted that personal contact was made with refuge personnel and staff members of your Ecological Services several times over the course of the studies and that in addition to these contacts, two formal agency meetings were held to consider the implications of the projects. The draft reports were not prepared without the input of knowledgeable field personnel from both USFWS and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). Additionally, the nature and size of the projects must be considered in any such evaluation, as well as consideration of the site specific determinants. Further, DOWL met on April 28, 1982, with representatives from your office and ADF&G to discuss the project on a site specific basis. In part, the specific comments provided below reflect the results of that meeting. Keith Schreiner July 28, 1982 Page 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS: King Cove: Section I, Page 5. Based on other comments provided below, the possible cost of additional studies and mitigation measures is considered minor. The space heating credit is taken only for the dollar value of the heating oil being displaced. Deductions from this credit were taken as you have indicated they should have been. Section 1, page 6. Several additional field trips are planned to confirm the comment noted under Appendix E, page 5. Section IV, page 1. The hydrological data you noted is currently being collected. Preliminary winter streamflow data collected on Delta Creek appear to indicate that the measured flows utilized for energy generation are consistent with the estimates in the hydropower feasibility report. This conclusion is based on limited periodic discharge measurements, which will be used to develop rating curves for this creek as part of a one-year long stream gaging effort. Continuous streamflow data are being collected and will be made available as soon as the field study is completed. The range of estimated winter flows (December through April) utilized for energy generation and the observed flows are as follows: Estimated flow range: 8.8 to 14.5 cfs Observed flow range: 16 to 20 cfs It should be noted that that range of observed flows may change slightly as stream stage records are analyzed on the basis of completed rating curves. Spillage and projected discharges will be a function of final design. Section VI, page 12. This will be accomplished following the collection of the one year of actual discharge data. Section VI, rage 16. Schedules for cleaning and alternative methods of disposal wi1 be considered during final design and in determining operational procedures. The expected decrease in turbidity and sediment loads will in general enhance downstream conditions. Section VII, ~age 4. The demand analysis presented has been standardizedy APA for comparison of all hydroelectric projects and is thought to be realistic. The Power Authority's purview does not extend to denying rural Alaskans an improvement in their standard of living through the availability of reliable, stable-priced power. Appendix E, pare 5. Surveys of Delta Creek have been taken on a yearly basis for the ast 21 years by experienced ADF&G observers. Surveys are flown close to the normal time of peak spawning, so as to obtain maximum escapement counts. • • • .. • - • -- • • -- • 8: • -• - • - • ---• - • -• -• ... - - - c-.%i!JII - Keith Schreiner July 28, 1982 Page 3 The fisheries resources and upward extent of salmon spawning in Delta Creek were discussed with Arnie Shawl, the ADF&G fisheries biologist in Cold Bay, on three occasions and with several long time local residents. All were in agreement that pink salmon in the project area spawn in a tributary below the airport, and that chum salmon rarely reach the airport area, and have never been seen above it. No other species of salmon have been observed in or above the airport area. Little local information was available on silver salmon but ADF&G biologists did not believe that the run was very large or that spawning occurred very far above the extent of tidal influence. With the close proximity of the stream to the airport and the amount of recreational activity occurring at or near the airport, it seems unlikely that silvers would be present in any numbers (especially in a stream near a community of commercial fishermen), with the local residents not being aware of it. Appendix E, page 8. Field investigations will be conducted in 1982 to confirm the upper limits of chum, pink, and coho spawning, as noted above (Comment on Section I, page 5). Appendix E, page 14. The studies suggested appear to be unnecessary based on site specific knowledge of the potential for losses due to this project. If a significant number of coho salmon were to be found above the project site, then appropriate mitigation measures would be included in the final design. Through interviews and discussions with local residents, local city administrators, ADF&G biologists, staff members from Ecological Services and the input from several site visits, existing knowledge of wildlife and fisheries resources in the project area was incorporated into the report. With the exception of the confirmation of the upper limits of spawning and the completion of the collection of the hydrological data previously discussed, no additional environmental studies for this site are contemplated. Old Harbor: Section I, page 5. The Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project does not appear to warrant additional terrestrial habitat studies and/or mitigative measures that could not be accomplished within the estimated project cost. Section I, ~age 6. The road is one half mile long and will be built primarily t rough a sparse meadow community (with very little topsoil on mostly alluvial deposits). The transmission line is 3 miles long and crosses Big Creek. This crossing does present the potential for collision by waterfowl that utilize the area. Appendix E, Sections I through M, of the Feasibility Study, discussed wildlife utilization impacts and mitigation in an adequate level for this study. Keith Schrei ner July 28, 1982 Page 4 Section II, page 5. During the recent meeting with ADF&G and USF&WS personnel, it was generally agreed that consideration of mitigative and replacement measures were premature for the Old Harbor Project and that the fish and wildlife studies to date are sufficient for the present level of project evaluation. Section X, page 2. Good spawning gravel occurs only on the alluvial fan. The remainder of the stream is steep and rocky. Above the weir, the gradient flattens out and the gravel is potentially good for spawning. However, it is doubtful many fish, particularly pink salmon, would make it to this portion of the stream. Section X, pages 3 & 4; Section XII, page 1. The small size and limited potential impacts of this project do not warrant the extensive studies outlined. Enclosed with this letter is a reply to specific questions raised in a memorandum dated April 16, 1982 from the acting Refuge Manager, Kodiak NWR, to the staff of the Western Alaska Ecoloqical Services, which provides further site specific information. - Through interviews and discussions with local residents, ADF&G biologists, Kodiak NWR personnel, staff members from Ecological Services and the input from numerous site visits, existing knowledge of wildlife in the project area was incorporated into the report. This level of information appears sufficient for project evaluation at this time. Larsen Bay: Section I, paae 5. The Larsen Bay Hydroelectric Project does not appear to warrant ad itional environmental studies and/or mitigative measures that could not be accomplished within the estimated project cost. Section X, ~a~e 1. Due to the location of the existing cannery dam and the marg;naabitat existing between the proposed diversion weir and the dam, it appears that fish passage structures would not be required. Section X, page 3. The typographical error concerning Dolly Varden Char has been corrected. As noted above, fish habitat above the existing cannery site dam is marginal with a bedrock and boulder substrate, no pools, and very little quiet water. At this time, the possible upper limit for pink salmon spawning is the face of the cannery dam. However, as can be seen from the photo provided on Page 8 of Appendix E, conditions for about 100 yards below the dam are marginal for spawning. The drainage area for Humpy Creek above the proposed diversion weir is 6.28 square miles. ~ean annual flow for this drainage area is estima 3ed to b2 13.0 ft /sec, resulting in a unit runoff of some 2.1 ft /sec/mi . The drainage area for that reach of the creek between • .. • .. • -• - • • • • .. • - • - • • • - • - • - • .. • ., • - • - • - - - - - Keith Schreiner July 28, 1982 Page 5 the diversion weir and powerhouse is computed to b~ 0.09 mi 2 . The creek within this reach could potentially release 0.2 ft /sec on a mean annual basis; although, this estimate is conservative due to excess streamflows, which must be spilled over the diversion weir during periods of high flow. Sources of streamflow for the reach of creek between the diversion weir and powerhouse include: Ground-water seepage from the narrow valley slopes. Several rivulets and overland flow channels on the left valley banks. Runoff from the valley slopes during snowmelt and rainstorm events. Seepage fro~ the diversion weir itself. Al~o, the turbine generator is sized for a maxim~m design flow of 23.8 ft /sec. Stream flows in excess of this 23.8 ft /sec will spill over the diversion weir. This situation would obviously only occur during periods of high surface flows. Ultimately, spillage and projected discharges will be a function of final design. It is conceivable that short reaches of Humpy Creek below the diversion weir may go dry during periods of minimum flow-late winter and early spring. However, the streambed itself is expected to remain saturated throughout the year. Section X, page 4. The extent of wildlife habitat and its present use are outlined in Appendix E, pages 10 through 20. With the project area being located in such close proximity to Larsen Bay itself, it would not have much additional impact relative to fish and wildlife resources, other than that which has already occurred. Enclosed with this letter is a reply to specific questions raised in a memorandum dated April 16, 1982 from the acting Refuge Manager, Kodiak NWR, to the staff of the Western Alaska Ecological Services, which provides further site specific information. Through interviews and discussions with local residents, ADF&G biologists, Kodiak NWR personnel, staff members from Ecological Services, and the input from numerous site visits, existing knowledge of wildlife in the project area was incorporated into the report. This level of information appears sufficient for project evaluation at this time. Keith Schreiner July 28, 1982 Page 6 Togiak: Section 1, page 1. Mitigation measures such as a fish passage are included in this cost. If this project were to receive additional funding, further work would need to be accomplished in order to scope both impacts and possible mitigation measures. Section VI, page 5. A recommendation for additional studies on techniques to insure safe passage of outmigration smolt was included in the draft report in Appendix E, page 46. This recommendation has been clarified to show the potential need for changes in design. Section X, page 1 & 2. It should be pointed out that Togiak was intended to be only a reconnaissance study. It was understood that additional studies would be required should this project be funded. At that time, resource agencies would be invited to participate in scoping these additional studies. Due to the marginal f~asibility of this project, we feel that any discussion of additional studies at this time is premature. Section X, page 3. This change has been incorporated into the text. Section XI, page 3. A one year program to collect stream discharge data is presently being conducted. Apeendix E, page 21. The potential for changes in stream morphology was pOlnted out on this page. Due to the preliminary nature of this study, a detailed analysis of potential impacts was not necessary at this stage. Future or continued studies of this project would discuss these potential changes in more detail. Appendix E, page 22. Mitigation measures will be discussed in more detail in any future studies of this potential project. Because of the uncertain project status in regard to the Togiak Reconnaissance Study and because some consideration is being given to a different location on a different river, no further environmental activities are contemplated for Qu;gmy River. • • .. • .. • - • -.. - • • - • .. • - • .. • ... • - • --- • .. • • - • Keith Schrei ner July 28, 1982 Page 7 Thank you again for your consideration and timely input. The Power Authority looks forward to a successful working relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in bringing this project forward. Enclosures: c? Eric P. Yould ~ Executive Director USFWS memo of April 16, 1982 APA reply of July 28 to the above memo cc: FWS-ROES, WAES ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, OCM, Juneau ADF&G, NMFS, ADEC, EPA, Anchorage United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Alaska Regional Office 540 W. Fifth Avenue IN JJ£PLY RE'ER TO: Anchorage, Alaska 99501 .. _, '" " .. MAC $ 40.4 ( L76l5(ARO-P) a-ecelVEQ 19 APR 1982 /ln~ ", 1\ 2 1 1982 AlASKA POWER A,,,.,. '""" "rORITY ~tr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the March" 1982, Draft Feasibility Recon- naissance Studies for hydroelectric projects at King Cove, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay and Togiak and have the following comments: We have no objection to further planning for the proposed projects if the following concern is given consideration. It is not clear whether the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been consulted about the proposed pro- jects; we sugg~st further planning documents give evidence of coordination with the SHPO. Thank you for the opportunity to comment .. Regional Director Alaska Region Fe $ • at $ • • • -- WI -• .. ,. - • ., .. .. -.. • .. .. -.. .. • .. -.. - • - ,iNlIi . .., - . - - - - - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. John E. Cook Regional Director, Alaska Region U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Alaska Regional Office 540 W. Fifth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 July 28, 1982 SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Reports of Hydroelectric Projects Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-0001 at King Cove, Larsen Bay and Old Harbor; Draft Reconnaissance Report of a Hydroelectric Project at Togiak. Dear Mr. Cook: Thank you for your letter of April 19th regarding the above referenced reports. We appreciate your participation and timely input in reviewing the draft reports . In response to the question raised in your letter, the State Historic Preservation Office was contacted and has commented on the proposed projects. Copies of all relevant correspondence will be included in the final feasibility reports. Should you have further questions regarding these studies, please contact myself or Mr. Don Baxter of my staff. EPY:jls {:~elS? l \ JJ. Eric P. Yould '\ Executive Director TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX G SPACE HEATING INSTALLATION AND COST - - - - - - - - - APPENDIX G UTILIZATION OF EXCESS ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR SPACE HEAT During much of the year the hydro unit can provide all of the electrical needs for the community. In addition there will be times when the hydroelectric energy production is in excess of these direct electrical needs. This excess electrical energy could be used to displace substantial amounts of fuel oil. SYSTEM PARAMETERS In order to utilize this excess energy the following system parameters must be met: 1. The system must use only hydro generated power which is in excess of direct electrical demands. It must be deacti va ted whenever diesel genera tors are on the line, because this indicates that the hydroelectric energy production is less than the village demand. 2. The system must use as much of the excess as possible. 3. The system must not overload the hydro unit electrically or mechanically. 4. It must not force the hydro to draw more water than the stream can provide. 5. It must have remote capability to control the loads, adjusting the heating loads to the available energy. NBISF-456-9521-AG 1 6. It must be compatible with existing heating systems. 7. It must be reliable because service is not readily available. IMPLEMENTATION A very simple method would be to install a separate meter at each user, connect heaters and limiting thermostats, and then switch them off and on manually. This approach would work reasonably well at times of very high water flow, but would require a good deal of effort from the operator at periods of marginal flow. In all probability this would lead to greatly reduced use of the resource. A more automatic system is probably justified. This system is envisioned as follows: The main control would be a control computer programmed in control basic language and capable of storing its programming in a non-volatile media, eliminating battery backup. Interface systems would allow the unit to interpret a water level signal from the dam, drive a keyboard and monitor, interpret dry contact closures, and run a line driver capable of communicating with the remote heating loads. Operation At the user end would be a control which would respond to the computer command to turn on heaters. The user equipment could take several forms as described below. 1. The control would sense that only the hydro unit is on the line by checking the diesel unit circuit breakers. NBISF-456-9521-AG 2 • .. • .. • • • .. • .. • .. • .. • .. • - • -• - • .. • • • .. • - • • • -• • • - - - 2. The water level behind the dam would be checked to see that excess water was available and going over the spillway. 3. The hydro is checked to see that it has excess generation capacity. 4. The control begins sending signals to turn on hea ters at _ the user locations rechecking items 1, 2, and 3 after each - - - - """ , ... - - - - - 5. increment. This is a slow process, perhaps over 10 minutes. If the water level drops or the generator approaches full load, the controller reduces the heating load. This can happen quickly. This same control computer could also be used to limit the hydro water flow by regulating the governor setting and to start the diesels if more generation was required. It could control up to 64 remote units in its basic form. COST ESTIMATE The design of this system is qui te preliminary and highly dependent on final hydro design and nature of heating systems to be served. The system designs for small and large users are shown on Figures G-1 and G-2. I t is assumed that the first priority heat loads would be the schools and other public buildings. This tends to spread the benef i ts evenly among the tax payers and are more cost effective to connect. Major components are estimated as follows: Dam Water Level Sensors, Cable, and Transducers NBISF-456-9521-AG 3 This item is part of hydro estimate. Control Computer and Inter- face Installed Electric Heating Equipment, Boilers or Baseboard Heat Control Signal Wiring to Connect Computer to Users Software Development and Field Installation User Controls, kWh Meters, Cost for Entire System $10,000 Installed cost - $40 per kW $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Assumes $15,000 spread over three projects $12,000 Tbe cost estimate for the Togiak Project is summarized on Table G-l. NBISF-456-9521-AG 4 • • • -• .. .. • .. .. .. .. .. • •• • .. .. • .. .. • .. • .. ... • • • .. ... - - - jii8f - ~ .... .- - - - - - - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TABLE G-1 SPACE HEATING INSTALLATION TOGIAK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Item Quantity Unit Unit Price . Control Computer 1 LS $10,000 and Interface Electric Heating 300 KW 40 Equipment Control Signal Wiring 1 LS 5,000 Software Development 1 LS 5,000 and Installation User Controls and 1 LS 12,000 Meters TOTAL NBISF-456-9521-G-1 Amount $10,000 12,000 5,000 5,000 12,000 $44,000 .. ... - - , ... - .., .. - - - - - --... - SPACE HEAT USER'S REGULAR kWh METER TELEPHONE kWh METER INTERFACE WITH CONTROL COMPUTER DIGITAL RECORDER THERMOSTAT RESISTANCE HEATERS (BASEBOARD OR IN HYDRONIC LINES) THE HYDRO~IC SYSTEM OPERATES IN A NORMAL FASHION EXCEPT THAT ALL RETURK WATER FLOiS THROUGH THE ELECTRIC BOILER. HEAT ADDED BY THE ELECTRIC BOILER REDUCES THE FUEL REQUIRED BY THE OIL FIRED BOILER. NO CONTROL INTERFACE IS REQUIRED. SCHEMATIC OF HEATING SYSTEM INDIVIDUAL HOME OR SMALL BUILDING FIGURE G-I SPACE HEAT ~ONTROL 0 USER'S REGULAR kWh METER COMPUTER kWh METER r----DIGITAL RECORDER AND RELAYS ....................... -----... ' .... , MULTIPLE CONTACTORS CIRCULATING PUMP I I I I I THERMOSTAT ELECTRIC BOILER OIL FIRED BOILER WITH MULTIPLE ELEMENTS ~-----------~II IIIIII~------------- THIS CONTROL SYSTEM IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING HEATING SYSTEM. IF THIS SYSTEM DOES NOT KEEP THE BUILDING WARM, THE EXISTING SYSTEM WILL HEAT ONLY AS REQUIRED. THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH WOOD STOVES, OIL BURNERS, OR FULLY CONTROLLED FURNACES. • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - • .. • .. • .. • • I SCHEMATIC OF HEATING SYSTEM LARGE BUILDINGS FIGURE.