HomeMy WebLinkAboutAtka Small Hydropower Feasibility Study 1987~ f ......... ". -·4 --.
Alaska Power Authority
ATKA
Small Hydropower F~asibility
Study
APRIL 1987
,Y
Atka Population
511,---------------------------------------------------------------------------"---------------------------------------~ F
311
F
211
ACE CROUP 8-18 .19 -38 31-45 46-68 611+
I
I
I
I
g
G
C
D
~
g
• 8
i
I
I
I
I
I
ATKA
Small Hydropower Feasibility Study
April 1987
PROJECT TEAM:
Remy Wi 11 i ams
Cost Estimator
Gwen Obenni 11 er
Research Analyst
Susan G. Rogers
Program Development Analyst
Donald L. Shira, Director
Program Development
David Denig-Chakroff, Acting Manager
Rural Technical Support
1036/748/1
Robert E. LeResche
Executive Director
® 1987 AI •• k. Power Authority
I
I
I
I
a
G
D
D
D
C ,
I
I
I
I
'\
I
1
Chapter I.
Chapter II.
Chapter III.
Chapter IV.
Chapter V.
Appendix A.
1036/748/2
ATKA
Small Hydropower Feasibility Study
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
A. Background 1
B. Project History (Previous Reports) 2
Atka's Existing Electric System 4
A. EXisting System 4
B. Energy Use and load Forecast 9
Description of the Hydropower Proposal 14
A. Technical Description 14
B. Cost Estimate 21
C. Energy Production 33
Economic Analysis of Hydropower 38
A. Expected Benefit/Cost Ratio 38
Conclusion and Recommendations 45
letters and Comments on Draft 48
Feasibility Study
(i)
List of Tables
Table No.
1. Rate Structure for Andreanof Electric Corp.
2. Historic Fuel Prices
3. Fuel Use and Energy Efficiency
4. Historic Electricity Use
5. Design Alternatives for Chuniisax Creek
6. Summary of the Cost Estimate
7. Full Cost Estimate
8. Summary of Load Growth and Hydro Use
9. Example Calculation: Benefit/Cost Ratio
10. Benefit/Cost Summary of 3 Freezer Load Scenarios
List of Figures
Fi gure No.
1. Location of Atka, Alaska
2. Monthly Electricity Generation
3. Project Layout
4. Chuniisax Creek Discharge Profiles
1036/748/3 (i i)
Page
5
6
7
9
15
22
26
37
42
43
Page
1
10
16
35
j
-I
I
G
G
• I
I
G
8
,I
! II
il I,
I. , . !I
I
II
Chapter I. Introduction
A. Background. The Alaska Power Authority has been investigating
the technical and economic feasibility of a small hydroproject to
serve the Village of Atka, Alaska. Atka, a native community of 93
people, is the western-most non-military settlement on the Aleutian
chain. Atka Island lies 100 miles east of Adak and 1,100 miles
west of Anchorage. (See Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Location of Atka. Alalka
Atka
... " ~.--.
1036/455 (1)
In 1985 the village utility, Andreanof Electric Association, served
approximately 37 customers, but that number dropped to 31 in
December 1986.
The proposed 80 KW run-of-river hydroproject wou1 d use Chuni i sax
Creek, approximately one-half mile southwest of the community, to
produce most of the electricity needed by the village. The exist-
ing diesel facility would serve as back-up to the hydroproject and
would serve the village during times of low water and low power
production.
B. Project History (Previous Studies). The Power Authority began
studying energy alternatives for Atka during 1982. A Reconnais-
sance Study prepared by a consulting firm on contract to the Power
Authority recommended a hydroelectric project on Chuniisax Creek or
a waste heat addition to the existing diesel generators as econom-
ical alternatives to the existing system. In 1983, the Power
Authority began feasibility investigations for the hydroelectric
proposal; the same consultant for the reconnaissance study com-
pleted a data collection program. The program included the acqui-
sition of one year of stream-flow data; and data concerning geology
and soils, temperature, precipitation, other terrestrial environ-
mental data, fisheries information, and archaeology.
During 1984, a consultant for the Power Authority performed de-
tailed waste heat investigations for 42 communities in rural
1036/748/5 (2)
r
I
J
·1
I
I '. • I
.1
t
• I
I
I
I ,
I
I
Alaska, including Atka. Also in 1984, Power Authority staff
visited Atka to gather additional feasibility data.
This report compiles the results and information from previous
studies. It provides the conclusions of Power Authority staff
concerning the proposed small hydroplant on Chuniisax Creek.
The various reports completed for Atka are listed below.
1. Reconnaissance Study of Energy Regui rements and Alternatives
for Atka. July 1982. Prepared by Northern Technical Services
and Van Gulik and Associates for the Alaska Power Authority.
2. Feasibility Study Data Collection Program for the Proposed
Hydroelectric Project at Atka, Alaska. June 6, 1984. Pre-
pared by Northern Technical Services and Van Gulik and Associ-
ates for the Alaska Power Authority.
3. Rural Energy Construction Program 1984-1985, 42 Villages Waste
Heat Study. April 1985. Prepared by Raj Bhargava Associates
for the Alaska Power Authority.
1036/748/6 (3)
Chapter II. Atka's Existing Electric System
A. Existing System. The existing electric system was installed in
1982 by the local community under the supervision of Pacific Diesel
Company. At that time, the powerhouse was moved, new generators
were purchased, and a new underground distribution system was
installed. The distribution system was partially financed by a
$144,000 loan from the Rural Electrification Revolving loan Fund.
The local utility is Andreanof Electric Corporation, a subsidiary
of Atxam Corporation, the local Native corporation. It holds a
Certificate of Convenience and Necessity from the Alaska Public
Utilities Commission. The powerhouse is in the center of town and
contains three diesel generators: 40 KW, 75 KW, and 125 KW. The
75 and 125 KW units were purchased in 1982, while the 40 KW unit
powered the town from an old generator building prior to 1982.
A 50 KW community-built hydroproject exists on a small stream just
southwest of town. The project is not functi oni ng, however, as
repairs are needed to the dam and intake structure.
Andreanof Electric Corporation charges for electricity using a
declining block rate structure. The rate structure is outlined in
Table I. The rate structure was initiated before the advent of the
PCE program.
1036/748/7 {4}
? ' 1 )21 #'
I
I
I
I
• " ,
I
I
I
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cl
G
G
• Q
lG I
I' 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1.
Rate Structure
for Andreanof Electric Corporation
Energy . Rate 1985 1986 Consumers'
Block Charged PCE PCE Effective
(KWH/Mo) (t/KWH) Subsidy Subsidy Rate 1986
(t/KWH) (t/KWH) (t/KWH)
0-100 KWH 55 22.7 16.45 38.55
101-200 KWH 50 22.7 16.45 33.55
201-300 KWH 45 22.7 16.45 28.55
301-750 KWH 25 22.7 16.45 8.55
750+ KWH 25 0 0 25.00
The State's Power Cost Equalization program (PCE) has a significant
effect on· the rate to consumers. In Atka, the 1986 program paid
16.45t/KWH for up to 750 KWH/month per customer. Many, if not
most, of Atka's residential consumers, use between 300 and 750
KWH/month. At that consumption level, the cost to the consumer is
only 8.55t/KWH. The previous interim PCE rate caused an overpay-
ment of subsidy during 1984 and 1985. Customers are now receiving
a reduced subsidy through 1988 to repay the extra amount. This
situation has increased the cost of electricity to Andreanof's
customers and may be provoking conservation.
At the end of 1986, the utility bought diesel fuel at $1.08/ga110n.
That price has dropped over the last few years. Fuel is imported
to Atka by Atxam Corporation which owns considerable bulk fuel
1036/748/8 (5)
5 Ii .
storage on the island. The utility itself has 45,000 gallons of
fuel storage. Table 2 shows the record of recent fuel prices.
Table 2.
Historic Fuel Prices
Andreanof Electric Corporation
Year
1986-1987
1985-1986
1984-1985
1983-1984
1982-1983
1981-1982
Fuel Price
$l.08/gallon
$1.20/gallon
$l.45/gallon
$l.50/gallon
$1. 56/ga 11 on
$1.60/gallon
The fuel efficiency for the diesel system is approximately
8.4 KWH/gallon over 1985 and 1986. That efficiency is calculated
from Power Authority records obtained through the Power Cost
Equalization program. Table 3 shows the fuel use and the calcu-
lated fuel efficiency.
Table 3 shows that during 1985, the utility averaged 2,988.6 gal-
lons of fuel per month ($4,334 at $1.45/gallon, 1984-5 price) to
produce an average of 24,447 kilowatthours, or an average fuel
efficiency of 8.8 KWH/gallon. In 1986, however, the util ity used
an average of 2,396 gallons of fuel per month ($2,875 at $1.20/gal-
lon, 1986-7 price) to produce an average of 19,208 kilowatthours,
or an average fuel efficiency of 8.0 KWH/gallon.
1036/748/9 (6)
I
I
I
I
-I
• • ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I Table 3.
I Fuel Use and Fuel Efficiency
1:l
Andreanof Electric Corporation
D Monthly Fuel
Generation Used
D Month (KWH/mo) illll
I Dec 86 20,206 2,252.4 , Nov 86 15,253 2,530.9
Oct 86 16,808 2,313.9
I Sept 86 17,611 1,750.6
Aug 86 13,731 1,902.3 , July 86 11 ,382 2,302.5
I June 86 20,032 2,337.0
May 86 24,685 2,735.2
I Apr 86 23,204 2,400.5
Mar 86 21,236 2,127.5
I Feb 86 21,403 2,604.4
I Jan 86 24,939 3,494.7
I Total: 230,490 28,751.9
19,207.5 2,396.0 Average:
I
I
1036/748/10 (7)
-2 ,
I
I
Monthly Fuel I Generation Used
Month (KWH/mo) {gall
Dec 85 23,371 3,451.1 I
Nov 85 23,439 3,405.4 • Oct 85 22,220 2,931. 2 • Sept 85 21,425 2,469.6
Aug 85 27,633 3,961.8 "
July 85 22,106 3,123.8
June 85 28,297 3,092.0 • May 85 21,082 1,960.1
April 85 27,519 1,603.0 ,
March 85 24,082 3,623.0 I Feb 85 24,124 2,452.2
Jan 85 . 28,068 3,789.7 1 Total: 293,366 35,862.9
t
Average: 24,447.2 2,988.6
I Two-Year Average: 21,827.3 KWH 2,692.2 gal. 8.4 KWH/gallon
I
I
I
I
I
1036/748/12 (8)
I
I
I
I
II
C
g
iC'
e ,
I
I
I
I
II II
II II " I
I
B. Energ~ Use and Load Forecast. Tab 1 e 4 shows the hi storic
electrictty use at Atka.
Table 4.
Historic Electricity Use
KWH Sold
Load Data: 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982
Jan 24,939 28,068 25,250 16,641
Feb 21,403 24,124 27,176 18,456
Mar 21,236 24,082 28,603 16,015
Apr 23,204 27,519 30,231 12,615
May 24,685 21,082 14,624 13,287 6,337
June 20,032 28,297 20,952 8,698 7,654
July 11 ,382 22,106 21,105 10,225 7,986
Aug 13,731 27,633 29,544 12,697 8,767
Sept 17 ,611 21,425 19,289 17,139 10,609
Oct 16,808 22,220 21,537 18,999 9,560
Nov 15,253 23,439 22,294 23,674 13,192
Dec 20.206 23.371 27.780 25.160 16,528
Total: 230,490 293,366 288,385 193,606
Percent
Increase -21.4% 1.02% 48.95%
The table shows that Atka's electricity use has increased consid-
erably over the past few years. There are various reasons for the
increase. During 1982 and 1983, the U. S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development built a number of new houses in Atka. The
new houses use considerably more electricity than the ones they
replaced. In 1982, the new distribution system brought electricity
to a number of new consumers. While the number of customers
increased from 24 in May 1982 to 37 in May 1985, it decreased to 31
in December 1986. Although the total electricity consumption
increased by almost 50% between 1982 and 1985, the consumption per
customer increased by only 18%. All the HUD houses were hooked up,
1036/748/12 (9)
7 '$ t?5 $ r 51 , 1
and a 100,000 lb. freezing plant was built in 1985. Electricity
consumption has probably stabiliied, since the dramatic increase in
consumption between 1983 and 1984 has not been repeated. In fact,
energy consumption has declined 21.4% from 1985 to 1986. A partial
explanation could be a temporary reduction in peE, which is trig-
gering conservation by the consumers as a greater percentage of the
true cost of power is being felt. The village's monthly consump-
tion records from January 1983 through 1986 are in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Monthly ElectrlcftJ Generation
ANDREANOFF ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
32
Monthly EIectrtdIr ... ....atIan
30
28
......
5 28
! 24
J: ~~ 22 'VI
j: 20
e i
!~ 18
&""
0 1.
i • 14 Iil
12
10
8
Jan ~
MDnth
0 1883 + 1184 4) 1_ .. 1"
1036/748/14 (10)
I
'I
J
II
I
I f' • ,
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
1
I
I'
g
Q
e
,,", ,G
I
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Projecting future loads for the vi 11 age is difficul t. The loads
for Atka have fluctuated highly in the past years and then
decreased substantially in 1986. Alaska's Power Cost Equalization
Program substantially decreases the electricity cost to the
consumers. Table 1 shows that between 301 and 750 KWH/month (the
level of consumption for most of Atka's consumers), the electricity
price is 8.SSt/KWH. That price provides minimal incentive to
conserve within that rate block. Since the support level for the
PCE program decreased significantly in 1986, the price to consumers
has jumped dramatically. Each customer is probably using less
electricity, causing the community load to decrease.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) are considering
development of a small boat harbor at Atka. The harbor would
probably be located approximately at the mouth of Chuniisax Creek
and would 1 ikely be designed to serve both the community and the
Aleutian fishing fleet. The fishing fleet would probably not use
the harbor as a major port of call, a base for the processing or a
fuel stop. Rather, they would use it to moor during fishing
closures, for medivacs and possibly to replenish ice, water, and
other consumable items.
The harbor would afford the community the opportunity to develop
services and business for the fishing fleet. These businesses and
1036/748/14 (11 )
facilities would undoubtedly use electricity; however, the amount
of the load increase is uncertain.
At this time, the harbor is a speculative development, as the COE
feasibility study is still in draft and"DOT/PF has no firm plans
for construction. At this writing, harbor construction is not
included in DOT/PF's six year budget plan. After funding is
approved by the legislature, it could take more than a year before
construction actually occurred.
A capital project which will take place in 1988 is the construction
of a fish freezing plant. The cOlllllunity has been granted $326,000
by the federal Economic Development Authority to put up a prefab-
ricated cold storage freezer and building to process up to 400,000
pounds of fish. Construction is expected to begin in the spring of
1988. At first, the freezing plant is likely to operate a maximum
of 6 months each year, from the beginning of the halibut season
unt i 1 a barge or processor pi cks up the fi sh in earl y fall. The
season may be extended somewhat if the community succeeds in
purchasing a larger fishfng boat capable of taking black cod and
other species not presently caught. The freezing capacity of the
new plant plus the existing one will be 500,000 pounds total.
The uncertainties of the PCE program and the small boat harbor and
the fact that the freezing plant will not be built until 1988 make
it difficult to provide a reliable load forecast for Atka. If the
1036/748/15 (12)
J
I
I
'I
• • • • 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
e
Q
• I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PCE program ends or the boat harbor is not built, the long-tenn
level of electricity consumption in Atka could stabilize near the
present lowered level or somewhat higher, including the freezer
plant. If, however, the PCE program continues to be funded at its
present level, the community's load could increase even more.
For the purposes of thi s report, three load forecasts were used:
0%, 2% and 4% load growth. The 0% growth scenario simulates a
stable load; 2% growth would be strong, continuous economic devel-
opment; and 4% would be still higher. At present, Power Authority
staff use a range from 1.5 -3% for most likely growth patterns in
most of rural Alaska.
Other parameters used in analysis include:
o
o
Discount rate = 3.5%
Fuel Cost = $1.08/gal with two escalation trends:
High escalation: -3.5% for 19 years, then 0%
thereafter.
Low escalation:
thereafter.
2% for 9 years, then 0%
1036/748/16 (13)
Chapter III. Description of the Hydro-project
A. Technical Description. Chuniisax Creek is approximately 0.6
miles southwest of the village of Atka. The configuration of the
river, including its six falls is shown in Figure 3.
The falls provi de a number of opportuni ti es for design of the
hydroproject. The further downstream the powerhouse is placed, the
greater the head. From a hydroelectric design viewpoint, the
optimum powerhouse location is at the mouth of the river. Chunii-
sax Creek, however, is inhabited by anadromous fish to Falls B.
From investigations by the Power Authority and the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, it appears that the lowest powerhouse location on
the river that is both technically and environmentally feasible
wou 1 d be 300 feet downstream from Fa 11 s B. The presence of the
fish in the lower reaches of the creek make building the powerplant
nearer the ocean infeasible.
1036/748/17 (14)
,I
I
I
I
• • • I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
g
~
D
• I
G
I
I
J
I
I
I
,I
I
I
Design Alternatives
From investigations by the consulting engineer for the project and
by Power Authority staff, four design alternatives appear feasible.
They are outlined in Table 5 and displayed in Figure 3.
Table 5 •
Design Alternatives for Chuniisax Creek
Alternative No.: 1 2 3 4
Intake Location: Fall s F Fall s F Fall s D Fall s D
Penstock Length:
(feet)
1500 1800 790 950
Gross Head: 100 140 88 125
(feet)
Powerhouse Location Above Below Above Below
Fall s B Fall s B Falls B Fall s B
1036/748/18 (l5)
......
0\ -
o ,
Inundation Ar.a Alt. 1 a 2
Propo •• d Da ...
or W.'r 81t.
Alt. 1 a 2
Propo •• d W.lr 8" •
Alt.1 a 4
Alt.rnet. 1 - - - - -
AIt.rnat. 2 ............. .
Alt.rnet. I _._._.--.
AIt.rnet. 4 •••••••••
1000 ft.
I
600 ft.
I
Po •• rhou ••
Alt. 1
Figure 3. Project Layout
/
•
ATKA • . ... . -, , ..... " -.. . • •
~
• •
-'_ .... _ .... ' ............... _ ... _-
I
I
I
I
g
tl
D
"'," I'
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
After visiting the Creek, it was clear that alternative #4 was the
superior alternative. The penstock route from the intake above
fa 11 s 0 down to the powerhouse 1 ocati on 300 feet downstream from
falls B is an easy route without significant construction problems.
Topographic maps and a site visit showed this to be the easiest and
least expensive route of the different alternatives. Alternative
.#2, though it might provide more power than #4, has a more diffi-
cult penstock route. From a cost evaluation of alternatives #2 and
#4, it was clear that #4 is the more cost-effective hydroelectric
proposal.
To maximize the head, the powerhouse location should be below falls
B. Below falls B, Chuniisax Creek is contained in a steep-walled
canyon. Until the end of the canyon, 600 feet downstream, the only
feasible powerhouse location is on an old landslide deposit 300
feet downstream from the falls on the northeast bank.
The proposed design is to build a small diversion weir in the
bedrock notch above falls 0 to divert the stream into the penstock.
The penstock would probably be supported on a small trestle over a
small gully southwest of the falls. It would be routed through the
saddle directly south of the falls and continue down the hill to a
poi nt di rectly across from the proposed powerhouse location. It
would then cross the stream on another trestle to the powerhouse.
Construction of the diversion weir, the penstock, and the
1036/748/20 (17)
powerhouse are not expected to be difficult. In the opinion of
Power Authority staff, all can be accomplished with local labor.
There are few geotechnical problems with the proposed project.
Bedrock outcrops at both falls 0 and falls F. Hand dug soil pits
around falls F (dug during the data gathering program) provide
enough information that with the visual inspection provided by the
Power Authority staff, no new information is needed to determine
the project's geotechnical feasibility.
In the initial stages. of the feasibi1 ity investigations, it was
unclear whether the project would be a storage project or run-of-
river project. After visual inspection of the creek by the Power
Authority staff and studying hydrology data, it became clear that a
dam at either location would not provide enough storage to be
justified economically. Even with a dam, the project would be more
or less run-of-river. Thus, a weir is recommended.
A cost-effective small hydroelectric project requires extensive use
of local labor. Atka appears to have very capable and experienced
labor for a village its size. With an experienced and know1edge-
..
able project supervisor, there appear to be few, if any, tasks in
the proposed project beyond the capabilities of the local village
labor force.
1036/148/21 (I8)
I
,I
I
I
• , , ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o ...,
1.1
Cl
G
(J
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fisheries Impact
Chuniisax Creek is inhabited by anadromous fish to falls B. The
preferred powerhouse site is 300 feet below the falls; thus, siting
the powerhouse will require coordination with the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and with the U.S. Fish and Wildl ife
Service (USF&WS). A USF&WS biologist accompanied the Power Author-
ity on the site visit. From our investigations, it appears that
the area from the mouth of Chunii sax Creek to fall s B is useful
spawning habitat for coho and chum salmon.
This conclusion was derived from various evidence. Minnow traps
set between fall s A and B caught mostly Dolly Varden trout. The
one trap set just above falls A caught a few coho fry, however. In
the judgement of the biologist, the presence of the emerging fry
indicated that the stretch of river between the two falls must
contain some spawning habitat. In addition, it is possible that is
also contains some rearing habitat.
Siting the powerhouse 300 feet below falls B will likely affect the
spawni ng habi tat for that 300-foot stretch. It shoul d be noted
that the majority of the coho run probably spawns lower on the
creek --below falls A, and in a tributary entering the creek below
falls A. In addition, the major run of the creek is the pink
salmon run blocked by falls A. Still, siting the powerhouse where
1036/748/22 (19)
it is best suited may decrease the habitat value of 300 feet of
stream. Thus, some mitigation may be required.
There are two mitigation possibilities: a fish ladder on falls A,
and off-stream mitigation. A fish ladder on falls A would be an
inexpensive addition to the project. Unfortunately, it is diffi-
cult to detennine if the stretch above falls A is already being
used to its fullest extent. If it is, the fish ladder may not
produce added returns. It is, therefore, recommended that another
inexpensive project be found to improve salmon habitat. (For
example, a fish ladder on another nearby stream or rebedding a
culvert that may be an obstruction to fish passage.)
Site Access
Power Authority staff believe that a road to the powerhouse is
necessary for both construction and monitoring the working project.
In discussion with local residents about using boat access to the
mouth of the stream and then three-wheel ers from there to the
powerhouse, it seems that one cannot always boat on the bay. Thus,
a road or three-wheeler trail from the town to the powerhouse is
necessary. For most of the 0.6 miles to the powerhouse, road
construction will be relatively straight-forward --requiring some
small bridges or culverts (5 to 20 feet). For the first 1000 feet,
however, there are problems. This portion of the road must tra-
verse a very steep hill. Construction in that terrain will be
1036/748/23 (20)
. 7 t·· n
I
I
I
I
• I
'I
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
~
~
Q
(J
Q
C
I
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
difficult and expensive, possibly requiring equipment not now in
Atka.
Some equipment is available locally. As of 1986, the village owned
a John Deere 450 loader/backhoe and a John Deere 350 dozer/backhoe.
This equipment is probably adequate to build the weir, penstock,
and powerhouse. The latest cost estimate assumes this equipment is
also adequate to construct the access road.
B. Cost Estimate. Power Authority staff prepared a cost estimate
. for the Chuniisax Creek small hydroproject. Table 6 provides a
summary of the estimate, and Table 7 provides the full estimate of
construction costs.
1036/748/24 (21)
Table 6.
Summary of the Cost Estimate
Chuniisax Creek Small Hydroelectric Project
Material s
Hrs
Access Road $30,800 ~
Diversion Weir $10,560 720
Penstock $41,450 720
Powerhouse $150,800 840
Transmission Line $6 2360 160
Subtotal
1036/748/25
$239,970 3,080
Construction Total:
Mobilization, Demobilizat1on,
Supervision & Administration:
Mitigation:
Contingency @ 30%:
Total Cost:
Use:
(22)
Labor
Cost
$1lr,Sbo
$12,000
$11 ,520
$14,040
$3,024
$51,144
$291,114
$138,000
$ 15,000
$133,234
$577 ,348
$575,000
I
I
I
I
• I ,
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
~
~
II
o
D
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
The cost estimate assumes extensive use of local labor under the
direction of an experienced supervisor. Using local labor avoids
the high costs of union workers. The local wage rate for laborers
is assumed to be $15/hour; for equipment operators, $18/hour. The
powerhouse and transmission line will require a skilled electri-
cian, estimated at $45/hour.
Including an estimation of contingencies provides for unknown or
unexpected costs that may develop. The contingency value is se-
lected based, among other things, on the amount of data available.
For reconnaissance level studies or pre-feasibility studies such as
this one where only basic data is available, a contingency of
25-30% is appropriate. As the design or studies progress and more
data becomes available, (Le. surveys, geotechnical data, design
drawings, etc.), the contingency can be reduced. When the final
des i gn is complete, a 5 or 10% contingency wou 1 d be appropri ate.
Because only basic data is available for this project and due to
the remote location of the project, a 30% contingency was used.
The cost estimate must be used in the fashion it was intended.
Without careful construction practices, it is certainly possible
for construction costs to exceed $575,000. For exampl e, if the
project were bi d wi thout ensuri ng that the fi rms make 1 oca 1 1 abor
arrangements, the cost would almost certainly be higher than the
estimate. But there are also opportunities to construct the proj-
ect for less than the estimate.
1036/748/26 (23)
Power Authority technical staff feel that an access road is a much
needed part of the project and should be built using locally
available equipment. Since the existing path is quite steep,
regular maintenance of the powerhouse could be inhibited by lack of
an access road.
Approximately 50% of the $575,000 estimated is the actual labor and
materials price. The 50% for mobilization, demobilization, admin-
istration, supervision, and contingency provides several opportun-
ities for the creative contractor to cut costs. If another capital
project were underway in Atka and there were an opportunity to ac-
quire inexpensive mobil ization {i.e., if a barge only partially
full were already going to Atka}, the mobilization and perhaps the
demobilization costs could be cut significantly. Indeed, the dif-
ficulties of construction in the Aleutians do increase the costs,
but a creative contractor may be able to avoid some of the in-
creases. It is doubtful, however, that the actual labor and mate-
rials costs will be less than that estimated.
In summary, $575,000 is a conservative estimate of costs using
local labor for a community construction project with road access.
Without careful bidding and construction practices, the cost would
almost certainly be greater than the estimate. However, a creative
contractor with full cooperation of the community might be able to
construct the project for less than the estimate. Perhaps, the
1036/748/27 {24}
I
I
I
I
• ,
• I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
o
.!]
D
Q
o
o
8
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
project could be constructed for as little as $500,000, although
that significant a decrease is unlikely.
1036/748/28 (25)
.......
N en -
Siale 01 Alaska ~ AIBIla Po..,. AuIhDI1ty
.. PO.80.11lO8119
PROJECT NO
101 Eall Tudo< Road
Anchorage. Alalka 99511Hl869
I OWO. HO
COST ESTIMATE WORK SHEET
I SP~C. SECT ION I DATE 1l .. !Jb/8tr StlEET J O~_ ------I ESTlMA.TEO IY If WII.L.lA~.s PROJECT TIfLE A11£4 SMAU h' .Y ?.RD
QUANTITY MATERIAl LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT
!1 M ~I ~olal Mal'l & Labor ~ 20lal
No. Unils Unil Price COSI Hrs. Rale Cosl nil il"WI
S/JMMAR. .Y .-
.. -
A~e ESS /(I)AJ) :J/J t:A,b/) l~11 II') If&{) 1t>£
#
DII)E.I?-~ If)},j I»E..J~ J/)~ 17LO }&..IJIJ/) h!>!:l'"
--PeNS -rl)c, K 4J.45tJ i7UJ II. 5&.0 2..1"
bw,;. A HbU.51L J5tJ.PLYJ B4l 14Ji41J !2~
-r~ AIIlt::J4 JS "i11JA/ L IJve ~O lfLO 301.4 2._~_
til 1~,47b a bAG) .. sll44 l-t~.t~J. Jl~ 1683
}~ E flEnrEJ Pt.w (, " " OAIA I ... '/~ "'1~-fM~ II B~ . .1L.12t2
-~--.. -
I
M.L:Ihi.4 -rJI'JAI 15UJI'J I. ·1 ,
. I --.
Su..s.7 ~rJ :1 r444.1L4 r----,
1133.2...3+-1-----~/)II/TI), '(;£ lei'! _~tJ~
I w~A ~ [S"n .3+~
I ..Ji'
LlSE ~7 5.1J.P!:3.L-
Hie e~ (!,IJNS-r,tU(.. ""IIAI J&.~
Table 7. Full Coat Eatlmate (page 1 of 7)
...... o w
~ --....j
~
CO -w ......
Slate 01 Alaska
~ ~ Po ..... AuthoI1ty -.11 PO. Boa 190869
PROJECT .. 0
701 Easl Tudor Road
Anchorage. Alaal<aIl9519-Q869
[ owe; NO I SPEC SECTION
---_._-
PROJECT TITLE ATKA SH.AJ J II Y lJ,flJ
QUANTITY MATERIAL
No. Units Unil !In ..
Price COSI
/10.P. r'lj~MoR PW. !;uAJ ~IU~; :hM/ r ~"'AA
':"IiICH'"f' SI!.4 TTLJE -A Tlf/J.
J}jA IVA 1'.J11/J 1 BAAl t,
Jh~ F~IfJt:JJ'" A LL~L,)AIII tI. rll( IPAAJ ~ "JI. RJ6SJ"~JII
/Jj~ I=AREE rlJA. ELErn tJI"'Av l7iuJt VLt/N ~A/ Z-
PREPA~s:. &". • .LJ i/'1AT~ ~AA .<:' u. ,~ '.0:' A.j iT. LIJA/l l
~MJHL Tt)f)LS ( i-tJ.5 t:.-
1=.'1" .~~. '(' P~I! lI'uP
ENG~A~J:I/:~~Aht::. ('. N~ 'IAL!. '#-"'7' 14~~.L' Y"A .... 1.0.#
AnurAlJt: "~A~.A~ f8.O{)K K E'.c;:PJJ\/~ PA V.rfbt .J)~ • ~,..~
I'
,
I
COST ESTIMATE WORK SHEET
I DATE I2.J)~/A5' [ SHEET 2. or 7
I ESTIMATED BY R. t,t} ~L ~ .~A4 (
LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT
~ TOlal
Hrs. Rale COSI Mal'l & Labor % n.1
TOlal
WI
'A~~<: 'T~"" r'.//JA1 .
JAAUJ
.... .HE. lr1'" INAT ilJ' "" !JAIJ
1..1'1" IAiO> 1. ~ , ~l>
I,. .. n ... " 1S: Mt)
oJ;': IJIJO
3/M/J .
75:MO
I~ .. t:l ~.u~ £1 ~.) 15" /J~O I-----t-----
~3. /)()[) .-
I , r-0
-
I
~!---.~
.-1-------
Table 7. Full Cost Estimate (page 2 of 7)
..... o w en ......... .......
~
<XI .........
W
N
-N
<XI
State 01 Alaska ~ AIBIuI Po..,. Authority
.. P.O Bo. 1lI0II69
701 Easl Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 98!i 19-0869
PROJECT NO I OWG. NO.
c-------.
I SPEC SECTION
PROJECT TITLE !i7J{/J SMALL J-J .y f)Jf 0
QUANTITY MATERIAL
No. Units Unil !1 M
PI ice Cost
j.} t'. C, l! S. S R/'iA-n : ~ VA TJ. 1':. Itt ,~, ' MAL g, JI!
7/, ',4L L ~Nt;. 'rrJl :; ~ A
U. iJ:: nAIL Iv J. IDtt.A E.. /.).,~.
J: D 45() L MH)~~ Jt.IJ INA' 30 AQ/)/J
_i.D .. ~l) /J1'J21l.1 JI../) JJ,A ~O 32.1)0
~LA"I'~~IJ ~~IJ'Jt' 4lJ JJIt 1~ W10
PD~",""'. &UJl~~ I £A l.J IJI)O
/0.. u_~'Tt;, J 2/J LI= Ilr ~D
()PEIA-rOA's ;... EA
LA~!lL)~.A.!J. 2-1#/1
1.:ta}100
COST ESTIMATE WORK SHEET
I OATE) a/I~JAS" SHEET 3 OF 7 I ESTIMATED BY ,.f. to'LI,4,..,.,s
LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT
~ 10111 ~ Olal
HIs. Rate COSI Man & labor n'l WI
_r:/~11
~(' (J$ 7"), "" ~,...d ..... i/I::&& r j.r .n,~, ~UL1}
~-~ iuY'
I1:LO
.3!! !{"
1&0 .32L> J~-_f"7"-0
J~{) 320 J.r-4-8() 0
Itn40 JIJ"~ () ~
Table 7. Full Coat Eatlmate (page 3 of 7)
..
-o
W
0\ -......,
~
CO -w w
N
1.0
---.. ..
Slale 01 Alaska
~ AIaM. Po .... Authority
_ po. 80. 190869
. 701 Easl Tuclor Road
Anchor age, Alaska 995I1H1889
PROJECT NO lowe; NO I SPEC. SECTION
---
PROJECT TITLE A-rK'A _C;H~ .L JI.J/ f)P{)
OUANTITY MATERIAL
No. Unils Unit ~n11 Price COSI
nJ/)~pt:; I/)A/ UJA.JI f' rNrA fE .. --. .•.
AS.5IJME A 10' )h&H SHES. .,-) ~.ILE Sr~l.Jl
IAI o;-rJPEAH R6.f)
~~~8:1' P.UNI!:. r '2. -~ 1";';1/ 8$'0" z.~S"O
5\.,.111""" t:;T"¥~L )
el!._~Y .J() Is.,.~f 7-2..J/)
:r 0 4~{) A1AI'VIUJ~ ftj/') Jk 30· 2M/)
~
:1. 0 .3SD DLJZ':A S() HA 2.1} J&.~()
I=LAriC&n 7Adl'V 80 '/lA, )5-JlLJO
1'J.16t~~Yb.IP ( 3 . EA.
/ ~A".lPEJP~ ~ I£,.
,~.I1UJI)It.,.v I E~ -'5".5"D
S I..UJI'.F t;AT"~ J EA. 5"S'"IJ
'H,s,t'. "~L~ InA, M'" PUHP J IlIJT /5"00
·JIJI{t'-./)
Cl ..
COST ESTIMATE WORK SHEET
I DATE J2/J1J J(l£, I SHEET 4-OF 7
I ESTIMATED BY R. tlJJJ..L J 9M_S
LABOR TOTAL FREIGIiT
~ TOIII
,il Hrs. Rale Cost M ... , & labor ~ n'l J~lal WI
.,..~~~ '-It.,N "'I'ET,I;~
~ ~O
~t> .36
--
f----t-----.
M 24!> J!Lj-~8~{) i
8t) 4~ J~--7Z./)O
,
~----
S'tJtJ S""
--~ _£
StJO r
71D JZ/JI){)
--'--..... j/)5
Table 7. Full Cost Estimate (page 4 of 7)
..
.......,..
W o -
-,
Siale 01 Alaska ~ A ..... Po .... AufIIGrIty
.. P,Q eox 1908811
PROJECT NO
101 East Tudol Road
Anello ••• Alaska 9115llHIIl69
I owe; NO I SPEC, SECTION
PROJECT TlTU IJIKA S,..,AJ.L fly f),.() ~
QUANTITY MATERIAL
No Units Unil ,\!?~~ COSI
P£AlS -rOI'J'L -1A1-n ¥JIi! ~ F~ LJ.~ £)
PELv~ "'I"iJI"K 1~/ " \,. 1/)/)0 IF lJZ~ 12.7Sa
fPIL,-YE.7;}LLEA/E) 1
iIAlS2'.4L L lA/J, L.c lbAY
.:In ~SD L)6~.4 an HI 2.fJ l&ttJO
.lD 4Sl) IJA{OItt'HI)~ IJt:) JJjf .JO 24bO
F'l AT'.ft S b TIt #1' JI( at> 1M. I$' • 12.00
.E!.''l/IltM NAI'.»b.JJ//I ~." AJ"ln 1 I.E~ fi'p:l. S.AW~ ~~) /1. 5'~O
77tF-r ""L~ &7''1.5. J ,~~ II). tJ4{)
Ml$1'. F1TT.lAN!.! r LJ.IA ' ...... i J L£ Z.l)()o
/')PF~.4 -rbll'S .~ tf..LJ
LA JjIJ// }I: It 5. ~ LEA.
141. 45"l>
COST ESTIMATE WORK SHEET
I D,Z J I~/IJ S-SHeeT s: Of 7 1 ESTIMATED BY ~.uJILL.I;9A...tS __
LABOR TOTAL FI~EIGIiT
~ Totll
Rate COSI Mat'I & LabO. ~ Hrs.
jz..!! 12 OJ
jq
10
,---t----
.... . _.-1---...
R£> 241J ur 431.lJ --1---j-----' so i4IJtJ 15-72{)/) :-.
-1-----.-
InO I/L.4l2l.> 12.10)
---
Table 7. Full Cost Estimate (page 5 of 7)
-~--~~~~~.~-••• --
-W
t-' -
II
Slaleol Alaska
AMsIla ,."",.. AuthDdty
PO. BOM 190869
701 fall Tullo< Road
AnchOfage. Alaska 99519·0869
PAOJfer NO I OWG NO
.-.' _. ..----.... ----..
I SP~C SECTION
PAOJECl llTLE A 7 K A _C;MA, L }).Y j)~/)
QUANTITY MATERIAL
No Unils Unil !-Inti Pllce COSI
Pt>w E J{',l)N I';'!!!'
;::/JIJAlbATUM/ ('. J'JjJLPA,"~ I LS 1.Ij'OOIJ
fJU.IIIW.JG (JI.'YJJ.') I L$ ISOOt)
7i.J"A,,/~ (IIVJII'JJ.J -r.,A&b)
c:.V~.J r.; J(AJ~AlTAI I P¥6. OJI/ iJtJo
(.;"11& ~AJA~ )
,
<; "JlT".M t;#~ r'N .. ", £'1.6'.1: L ~T II'.. nAD ,
S 7"ifl.; .ui) "'TA £ .... "'~.. ... ~ I E.f. .3. ZOO
EL#r,"I"JtJl'!..AI' -r:.. · .. • ... vUMI J ~~ 1/7:.#". .A_< & ... /J
I AIIA1> JIil'. 4 <: r r."'1>I'k;.vr~.,( " EA.
n~/IE."'''''''-'' J ~.
IIi 4t;"n iAI'NJl.lJ6 80 JI~. 30 2. 4IJ()
I h 11.,. RitA ~"'It<' RO J/." 1'5 J2/)/'}
J50J!JDO
COST ESTIMATE WORK SHEET
I OArt Il/;A/aS' I SHEEr G Of
'---I eSTIMATED 8Y R. W" .. ,~."t" ... . .. ,.
LABOR TOTAL FR'EIGH!
~ 101.1
Rale Cos. In; Hrs. Mal" 8. Labor ~ n ••
)01.11
WI -
54
I/CJt)
/£,'-.
.
T_l~-.,
I -_.-..
'EM) 4~ .,.$''' 18~O
12/) 72n 15'-Jb.fl/)O
-r-.,.
'-
til/) an J 1.441) ,----
.------
la.fl> 14./)4/) ____ 2.ZS'
r
Table 7. Full Cost Estimate (page 6 of 7)
-W
N
,;
State 01 Alaska ~ AIBIIa Po,.,. Authotfty
., PO. 80. 190869
101 Ea.1 Tudor Road
Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0889
PROJECT NO I DWG NO. 1 SPEC. SECTION
PROJECT TITLE ATKA S1JALL II y/)~o
QUANTITY MATERIAL
No. Units Unit ynn
Price COSI
T/;AAlS A.4J"~J/JA/ LJN~ Pm. ' .. 1#~ UI.sE -
A5SUM~ Jiy,,IIJL/J L"'tll U,.) ~s ~A P,'L6 7j,
1k ALH/ I!A-8/1 li~vJ) 112 Ed) 4 1~-.tI a 8N) 3M!)
by S.DLU. f'.~IIJn~ r ~ E~ 2/.1.) /3tJD
ILU.IJ.A,L ~ ~ ~~' l c~. 2.fiJ{) sz..o
~e J.lAI" •• ,6 •• J loS s-{)O
J':f) 4~D aAI'lhJAIi fJ lilt ~() 24tJ
lJrr t!lI UH -r r.. AI 41J JJ~ 15 t:.tJO
np#~4.~ / ~..A..
LAAAIl11E.Jt 1... E~
E. L~~TLH'.AL _r,... .~ili:.YN~AI J I&"..4 ~.#, ~J'.u~
f
I
iD3&,l>
COST ESTIMATE WORK SHEET
I DATE /ZIJAJIfA SHEET 7 Of 7
I ESTIMATED 8'1' N.W4.L/~~
-
LABOR TOTAL FREIGHI
~ ~olal Rale COSI Man & labor ~ ~~I Hrs. n,1
IJrv.
" ~"" ~(' oS -... -~
4'" ~
5t> .3
S()/) II.)
--
I r-----
I
4A /IJ 8,4 r---
--
4A q6, J.!,'" 144n
,) II. 45' ~() .-r-------
IJ'O .3.112.4-._L...--. .2.3.
Table 7. Full Coat Eatimate (page 7 of 7) .. ---........ ~ .... -••• ---.-
j
I .. I
" ..... Ii
II IJ_·
o
~
t.J
!)
iJ
D
o
IJ
B
G
II I.
'.
I
II
II
C. Energy Production. Estimating the energy production from the
project is a crucial part of the feasibility process. Energy pro-
duction can easily be calculated from an estimate of stream flow.
. This section of the report, therefore, begins with a discussion of
streamflow in Chuniisax Creek. That discussion is followed by a
discussion of energy production and the village load.
A recording stream-gage was installed on Chuniisax Creek just up-
stream from the proposed intake location at falls D. The gaging
record extends from May through November, 1983. No information was
collected December through May, because snow prevented local resi-
dents from getting to the site, and because snow and ice over the
river prevented the gage from working.
Discharge in Chuniisax Creek is extremely erratic. Its stage re-
sponds quickly to precipitation, lack of precipitation, or tempera-
tures below freezing. According to the 1984 data collection re-
port, "minimum discharge can occur in any month that precipitation
is light. Alternatively, when temperatures remain below 32°F for
extended periods, solid precipitation can remain in storage and,
consequently, substantially decrease discharge for that period.
"Discharge data for Chuniisax Creek do show diurnal, monthly, and
seasonal variations, with discharge quickly responding to rainfall
durations and intensities .••• On several occasions, discharge was
observed to decline 50% within a 24-hour period, th~s illustrating
the low drainage basin retention time. Having determined that max-
imum and minimum discharge rates can occur within any month, the
1036/748/35 (33)
prediction of stream discharge with high confidence intervals be-
comes exceedingly difficult."
In sp i te of the short di scha rge record, the consu 1 tant used thei r
records to synthesize a number of discharge profiles including mean
monthly, and maximum and minimum instantaneous discharge. Two of
those discharge profiles are reproduced in Figure 4.
When the project is reevaluated in the future, additional stream
gage information would be appropriate to determine whether the ini-
tial data reflected an average, adverse or wet year.
1036/748/36 (34)
I
I
I
I
• • ,
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
Q
o
C
IJ
D
11.,
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 4. Chunllsax Creek Discharge Profiles
45
40 ,
I
I
35 I ,
30
, , , .. I ~ 25
w I
'" I '" <I I x 20 u
II'l I
0 I
15 , I
I
\ I
\ I 10 \ I , / " /
5
, ,/ ------MEASURED
---ESTIMATED
o DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NC1V
35
30
-:;; 25
u
~ 20 a::
<I x
U
II'l
.5 15
10
5
198211----------1983 ----------i
Mean Monthly Discharge
" --.... ,,' ........ _"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,1
------MEASURED
---ESTIMATED
Minimum Instantaneous Discharge
(35)
n
Energy production was calculated from the streamflow information
presented in Table 4. The calculations assumed the following pro-
ject parameters:
Gross Head
Net Head
Maximum Turbine Output
Minimum Turbine Output
Efficiency
125 feet
120 feet
80 KW
16 KW
65%
$
The calculated potential output of the hydroproject for the parame-
ters above and the year of streamflow record 1n the 1984 data co1-
1 ection report ; s 520,000 KWH per year. This amount is greater
than the community is presently using but close to what the
community might use if some economic development (for example, the
proposed freezing plant) were in operation.
1036/748/38 (36)
ave
1
I
I
I
I
• ,
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
C
o
~
D
C
~
fj
B
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
1986
1988
1989
1990
1995
2000
2007
As its load increases, the village can absorb more of the hydropro-
ject's output. Table 8 uses the three load forecasts outlined in
Chapter II.b., Energy Use and Load Forecast, and shows the commun-
ity load and proportion of that load that the hydroproject will
meet for selected years. The table shows that in each forecast,
the community will still require some diesel use.
Table 8.
Summary of Load Growth and Hydro Use
0\ Growth 2\ Growth 4\ Growth
Community Freezing Useable Community Freezfng Useable Communfty Freezfng Useable
Load Plant Hydro Load Plant Hydro Load Plant Hydro
(KWH/yr) (KWH/yr) (KWH/yr) (KWH/yr) (KWH/yr) (KWH/yr) (KWH/yr) (KWH/yr) (KWH/yr)
231,000 0 0 231,000 0 0 231,000 0 0
231,000 170,076 0 240,332 170,076 0 249,850 176,076 0
231,000 262,800 0 245,139 262,800 0 259,844 262,800 0
231,000 262,800 444,420 250,042 262,800 457,145 270,237 262,800 470,379
231,000 262,800 444,420 276,066 262,800 480,180 328,785 252,800 520,000
231,000 262,800 444,420 304,800 262,800 505,461 400,017 262,800 520,000
231,000 262,800 444,420 343,254 262,800 520,000 486,869 262,800 520,000
1036/148/39 (37)
Chapter IV. Economic Analysis of Hydropower
This section of the report calculates the benefits of the proposed
hydroelectric project and compares them with its costs. The result
is a benefit to cost ratio. If the ratio is greater than 1.0, the
project's benefits are greater than its costs and, the project is
considered economically feasible. If the ratio is less than 1.0,
the project is not economically feasible.
At this point in the project feasibility process, many of the
important assumptions such as cOl1ll1unity load growth, cost, fuel
prices can change. It ;s important, therefore, to see whether
changes in the assumption will change the economic conclusions
(called a sensitivity analysis). The second part of this chapter
tests some of the important assumptions to provide the sensitivity
analysis for the economic conclusions.
A. Expected Benefit/Cost Ratio. The benefits of the hydroelectric
project are the money saved by not running Andreanof's diesel
generators to produce electricity. The value of the project can be
detennined by comparing the cost of running the diesel s wi th the
cost of building and running the hydroproject. Because these costs
vary each year --the hydro requires a large up-front cost, while
the diesels require a smaller up-front cost but need expensive fuel
to operate --the costs of the two alternatives are compared by
discounting the costs to today's dollars. This analysis compares
1036/748/40 (38)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
Q
~
V
C
D
IJ .,
&
I
I
I
I
I
the various costs for both types of generation (construction costs,
fuel costs, operation and maintenance, etc.). It projects those
costs without inflation for the 30-year 1 ife of the project and
then adds up the discounted value of each year's cost for each
alternative.
Table 9 provides an example of the costs and benefits of construct-
ing the hydroproject under the 2% growth forecast for the first 5
years of analysis. (Calculations for the other forecasts are
contained in Appendix A.) The benefits come in three categories:
fuel saved (from not running the diesel system), operation and
maintenance savings, and capacity savings.
The second row of the tabl e shows the year. Rows three and four
show the conmuni ty load and the amount of the load that can be
supplied from the hydroproject. Other than construction, the only
annual cost to the hydro 1s Operation and Maintenance (0 & M). Row
four contains an estimate of the 0 & M costs of the hydroproject:
$22,000 per year. That cost is counted as negative benefit to the
project. The remainder of the spreadsheet shows the hydro's
benefits.
The most obvious benefit of the project is that it saves the cost
of displaced diesel fuel. The amount of diesel fuel saved is the
amount of hydro energy used divided by the diesel efficiency in
KWH/gallon.
1036/748/41 (39)
f\
The results of the calculation are in column six. The spreadsheet
assumes 8.4 KWH/gallon fuel efficiency. That amount is an average
efficiency for a maintained small diesel generation system. It is
possible to achieve higher efficiencies, but most diesel facilities
Atka1s size do not do so. The value of the fuel saved is contained
in column seven. It is the gallons of fuel times the cost. The
1987 fuel cost is $1.08/gallon. Standard Power Authority parame-
ters specify the two trends in fuel prices. The low trend is a 2%
increase for 1987 -1995, flat prices thereafter. The high trend
is 3.5% increase from 1987 to 2005. The operation and maintenance
savings are estimated at 1¢/KWH from Power Authority experience
with small diesel systems.
If the hydroproject exists, the diesels will be run less frequently
and will last longer. Generally, small diesel generators should
last twenty years. If they are run only as back-up to the hydro-
project, they should last thirty years. Potentially, the 80 KW
hydroproject provides the added benefit that the utility can avoid
replacing 80 KW of diesel generation. The total cost that the
community avoids spending because of the hydroproject is the total
of fuel savings, 0 & M savings, and replacement savings. This
total is IITotal Avoided Cost ll in the spreadsheet. The benefits of
the project, however, are less than the Avoided Cost. As explained
earl ier, the hydroproject will cost approximately $22,000/year to
operate. The benefits of the project are the Total Avoided Cost
less $22,000.
1036/748/42 (40)
I
I
I
I
I
• I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
D
~.c .•• '" rJ
" C1
g
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
The sum of the benefits for each of the 30 years of the project's
life, discounted to 1987 dollars, can be compared with its con-
struction cost. In this case, the discounted benefits, or
$976,306, are approximately 1.7 times the construction cost,
$575,000.
1036/748/43 (41)
ATICA E::CoNOM I C fiNAL "'S I S
o i ~c':)lJr.~ Re~e s. 5;~
Inf'laf:.ion lir':a~ ... (I. O~~ P'~riod a 1 2 3 .q c' '" '("'for 1~87 198E1 1989 1990 1991 1992
H'l'ORo -----_._------_._---_. __ .. _--_ .... _--.. -_._------_._----------------.-
Cons~r-uc~ i c.n $575.(100 Co«,muni ~y L.oad 231.000 235.620 ~16.408 507.939 512.8<42 517. a'~8
atoM $22.(100 I''(.ar U:Moabl ...... ~dro a a a .. 57.1 .. 5 "61.558 <466. oSEI
Econofnic LiFe 30 ............
Load For.cas~ 2 ~ Annual
(Lolol=O. M.d=:2. ti i gh::4 ) DIESEL
AVOIDED COST PflR~1ETERS Replaced Capaci~y(KW) a a 0 0 a 0
Fuel f:>r'ice 1.08 16allon C~pi~al coz;~ I:S) a 0 0 0 a 0
Fuel Escal.~iorl 2
(I::High.2=lolol)
Diesel EFFiciorlcy 8.<4 KWH/Gal Fueol Price $1.08 SI.10 SI.12 SI.15 $1.17 $1.19
~ Di.sel Rep laco.,ent. S700 I'KW Fueol E.cal.~ion 2~ ~~~ 2~ r.~ 2~ 2~ N
o " M SO.Ol I'Ka.i Fueol Savinta,CGels) a a 0 5<4.<422 ~.9<47 55.<489 -Fueol Seving,CS) so SO so 562.373 S6·".235 $66.159
DISCOUNTED BENEFITS S976.906 a " M Sevirlg.(S) so so so S5.079 $5.128 $5.I?EI
NET PRESENT VALUE $"01.906 T()1'AL AyoIDED COST so so so .:67.~3 S69.363 $71.337
BENEFIT/COST RATIO 1.70
H'fORO
a " M Co.t. $0 so so $22.000 S22.OOO $22.000
TOl'AL H,(DRO COST so so so $22.000 S22.OOO $22.000
BENEFITS so so so $"5.<453 S"7.363 $49.337
Table 9. Example Calculation: Benefit/Coat Ratio
-~-----~~~~~-•• -~ - -
I
I
I
I
"'" I.J
D
" 1.1
o
D
D
S
G
I
I
I
I
Table 10 summarizes the project's costs and benefits under a number
of different combinati ons of assumpti ons: three load forecasts.
two oil escalation trends and two generator efficiencies.
Table 10.
Benefit/Cost Summary
(Figures in Thousands of 1987 Dollars)
Table lOa. Full Load Freezer Plant
Low Fuel Trend
0% growth 2% growth 4% growth
Discounted Benefits 833,546 976.306 1.022.012
Construction Cost: 575.000 575.000 575,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio: 1.45 1. 70 1.78
High Fuel Trend
0% growth 2% growth 4% growth
Discounted Benefits 1,220.695 1,423.440 1.473,854
Construction Costs 575,000 575,000 575,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio: 2.12 2.48 2.56
1036/748/45 (43)
I
I
Table lOb. Half Load Freezer Plant I
Low Fuel Trend I
0% growth 2% growth 4% growth
I Discounted Benefits 529,019 692,858 871 ,130
Construction Cost 575,000 575,000 575,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.92 1.20 1.52 • High Fuel Trend
0% growth 2% growth 4% growth I
Discounted Benefits 813,148 1,050,612 1,304,744
Construction Costs 575,000 575,000 575,000 I Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.41 1.83 2.27 ,
Table 10c. Zero Load Freezer Plant I
Low Fuel Trend I
0% growth 2% growth 4% growth I Discounted Benefits 224,493 460,674 590,574
Construction Cost 575,000 575,000 575,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio .39 .80 1.03 I High Fuel Trend
0% growth 2% growth 4% growth I
Discounted Benefits 405,601 743,745 936,771
I Construction Costs 575,000 575,000 575,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio .71 1.29 1.63
I
I
(44) I
1036/748/46
I
I
I
S
o
D
o
C1
D
D
g
G
I
I
I
I
Chapter V. Conclusions and Recommendations
The anticipated addition of the freezing plant in Atka greatly
affects the feasibility of the hydroproject on Chunissax Creek.
The load from the plant effectively doubles the comnunity load
which brings the project from marginally feasible to feasible based
upon current parameters and projections. Fuel prices would need to
fall dramatically to affect the analysis, and this is not
anticipated with oil prices stabilizing at higher levels.
Fuel prices have been falling all around the Aleutians and western
Alaska. Atka is very remote and its fuel prices will undoubtedly
remain high, but it is very possible that increases in transporta-
tion efficiency will lower prices. If conditions remain as they
are, and Atka's load increases significantly, the hydroproject's
benefits will be markedly greater than its cost. But all of these
conditions are speculative --especially load growth and fuel cost.
As the load from Atka is still highly speculative, it is recom-
mended that collection of load data continue for the comnunity and
for the freezing plant when it comes on-line. In conjunction with
this data collection, staff recommends that stream gauging on
Chunissax Creek be started again for greater accuracy in determin-
ing potential available energy.
1036/748/47 (45)
If the load from the freezing plant to be constructed in 1988 does
not materialize as projected, yet the conmunity still wants to
construct the small hydroproject, lower construction costs should
be sought. If other heavy equipment were available in the
conmunity (if another capital project were scheduled), the
hydroproject should be looked at again also. It would be too soon
to schedule the hydroproject when DOT/PF does major airport mainte-
nance in 1987, but the boat harbor construction remains a possibil-
ity.
Regardless of the small hydro, the Power Authority recommends that
the' existing diesel plant be made more efficient. The generator
sets were originally installed to run in parallel, but the paral-
leling function is not operational at this time. This likely will
require work done by a service representative from Seattle or
Anchorage.
Repair of the dam itself and changes to the intake of the penstock
could rehabil itate the existing small hydro. If the generator were
changed to an induction system, the small hydro could be interfaced
with the present diesel system. (Dedication of the present
synchronous generator to serve one part of town would eliminate the
need for interfacing wi th the exi sting di stributi on system and
diesel plant.)
1036/748/48 (46)
I
I
I
,I ,
• I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
~: .. ' ..... . .II
i
I
I
o ,..,
t..J
C
C
~
o
D
C
D
I
I
I
I
I
In the sUlTlTler of 1987, the diesel plant will undergo some mo-
dification during installation of a waste heat recapture system to
heat the teachers' quarters and the cOlTlTlunity building. The Power
Authority provided the design for the waste heat installation which
will be financed by federal and state funding through the
Institutional Conservation Program. The cOlTlTlunity will provide
labor for the project and the Power Authority will inspect
installation and start-up.
In summary, Power Authority staff recolTlTlends that investigation of
a small hydroproject on Chuniisax Creek be continued through
increased conmerci a 1 development, for exampl e the freezi ng pl ant,
in the cOlTlTlunity. Data collection will indicate how substantial
the total energy demand increases are over the current level and
whether the price of fuel increases cOlTlTlensurate with the high fuel
escalation trend over the next few years. The first step of the
feasibility continuation should be stream gauging for at least a
full year to determine more accurately the resource potential.
1036/148/49 (47)
~
i
I
I
C
~ . i.J
,0
,.,
IJ
C
o
D
~
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
The fo 11 owi"g 1 etters and cOlTJrlents were received by the Alaska
Power Authority in response to the draft of this report, dated
August 1985 •
1036/748/50 (48)
I
I
I
I
o
o
o
o
o
D
~
I "
ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
Concerns and Comments
ATKA SMALL HYDRO PROJECT
PLEASE LET US KNOW OF ANY ISSUES, PROBLEMS. OR CONCERNS THAT YOU
FEEL SHOULD BE GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION IN RELATION TO THE
CHUNIISAX SMALL HYDRO PROJECT IN ATKA.
.s -II( J') J;.J v,,1 I~" I~ j~ h's)".'rJ
(J1F;4) )1T,b/4 f>J).'''Ir1-.,'; 141:r~/"/'·~'YI. Fr~'t!'~"'r
tilt,,;, )I.,/.j,,/ S'~J""'/ )'1;''''/' 1J1), ;;Tn~<, ;;:7
ftJ'" f -/F j ,,/--,-. hpj ('~ J1,..f-,
,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE NOTIFIED OF
FUTURE ACTIVITIES ON THIS PROJECT?
NAME Wt?~~E" ~ 0 B I ~
ADDRESS
j
!XI Yes D No
TELEPHONE __ ~/.;:t!!3...J.1..::.-.....:Z~Z-=3~2~}~~i'.:::;.3~'_---=2:;..;;Z~.:1","",j,---__
(""rJ,..) T ~t!)
1658/428
I
I
I
I
o
~ u
o
.".
LJ
o
C
r.·;
J.;
D
iJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
Concerns and Comments
ArKA SMALL HYDRO PROJECT
PLEASE LET US KNOW OF ANY ISSUES, PROBLEMS, OR CONCERNS THAT YOU
FEEL SHOULD BE GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION IN RELATION TO THE
CHUNIISAX SMALL HYDRO PROJECT IN ATKA.
-tlti.C,<'--<l1LLf, ~~)-<~~"-L-:tu--zv.:o(./,-r-n~
rd--t-~ dLv'--U..GrkJ ... ~A..-'L
i~~l it ~.~ ~c:d~/~cJ,~/
vtv~~. /J/~ ~~~~r~
C~~,~ ;;;Lt~ ~ -£&~ /l~
:b' ~ . 1 " a.. ~~e..a:
,') {4¢ cV/, a~, r~ ~L-dA /U~ ~V foC-Zu.-,~nt.---i~, ~ hc-~(//;r~ ~
---tt--z-U ~'--t-, Cl-'1-' ---0~~ ~
C L t.-,o,:7:b'0/ L,.. -{ ~ j' ,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE NOTIFIED OF
FUTURE ACTIVITIES ON THIS ~ROJ~CT?
. I
NAME 1
ADDRESS
1658/428
~ DNa
i
I
I
i
I
~
t.J
" LJ
rJ
".1 t.J "' .... ' .. i.J
" II
D
I
I
I
I
I
Plan 'orMUlltion Section
~r. E~wfn t. ~orrfs
Director ~f Plan"'n~
Alasta Power Authority
3~ West 5th Av~nu.
Anehorlg~. Ala~kl 9q~Ol
Delr ,..,.. Jl\trrf 5:
,4 N nv 1.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
u. So ARMY ENGINOR DISTRICT, AW\SICA
CORPS OP' ENGINaRa
P.O.Box ... NPAvN~t2j-,a (c)
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA __ -0898
, . .. -.
Our Pllnn1ng Brlnch stiff h.s reviewd y~r ~If~l sJ.fl:C4
tfydropowe .. Fels1bf1fty Study for Atkl. We ICJ"" in concept that
the propos.d .. thad of const .. uct1ng the p .. oject and the costs
desc .. ibed are relsonable fo .. SUCh I s~all ,nd "eMOte D11~t.
Atkins appelr to be ~ti'lt.d IS I grouP. ,nd the us. of I 9 ... rt
for locil const .. uctfon labo .. hl~ ~d potential '0 .. success.
Page 5, list sentence: The observatfon t~lt t~. P~we .. Cost
EQu,l1r,t1on ,Prna .... oives no inc~tive to corsfrVe is one in
which we a~ree. Its ;pplfcltion throu~out tn. St.te ~11
undermine ~tent1al lon.-term benef1tl of efter~J use reduction.
Pa~ 10: The Al.lkl Ofst .. ict's SMall Boat Harbor Technicil
Report' was coqtleted in Sept_ ... 1985. We concluded thlt I
servfc. harbor located iR NlI.n 81y would be benefic1ll to Plrt
of the Aleutian groundffshfnQ industry and could facilit.te
growth of Issocf,ted indultry It Atkl. eath of the twa pllns
evllult~ include e hlrbor nel .. the mouth of ChunfillX C .. eek •
...,.v .... the locltfon of the associlted dock ,nd onshore support
facilities is different in elCh plln_ One plan would loc.te
these facilities nelr Chun,t ... Creek and the othe .. nelr Dock
Creek on the oppolite side of Milin ft.,. In efther c.se perhlPS
100 kilowlttl of IcktttiOltll POWr would be rlClufrft, but
trlnsr.fssion fro. Chuni1ll1 Cr.ek would be .pplfceble Oftl1 to
tite fONer beclVse of the dtstlftC. fnvolved. We .111 senet yoa
our report II soon II t~ IOrth 'ac1ffc O1yisfOft I~ovel it for
dfltribatt ••
OUr study dlt.,..fnecl Ullt I hlrbor project It Atk. would
hl.e to .,. Il*'land by I "'''e.rll entit, becluse neither of
the f.alible pllnl requires brelt.aterl 0" dredgfng, t .. ad1tional
f""I11, funded 1t_. WI 1nf ... thlt one relson JO'I h'" I
Mlrg1ftilly lC~fc project is the co.t of the ICCts. route to
the It,...".,... .. ,lut. SlMwhl I ",,"'e"ll enttty ,.,t the
hlrbo .. DroJeet. shlred COltstructton Iftd fun"ing of the rOld
should be .. Ilu.ted for potentill IIYin,' Ind ec~ic benefits.
. -z-
"AitP ll: Tr'! re'er~I't~p. to ~1J$Hna foY' A p~l1"t Of ("0IRI)1,.'50"
is awkward. A 2·J/~ Pfreent conttnuous lOiG o~wth for the Rlflb~lt '''@i. ~f~ IIr~ldy hi! I la"~e canacfty ana Who~f
resfdents ,lrPldy ~IV@ lots of e1ectrfclt applfances, fs "el$Onlbl~. fofo.ever. the anllogy to ~t~a fsm1s1eadino. ~flny ~Ill, fsolated ,..,.., c~n1tf.s, tt.e ~Iye-nots,. COUld Y~ry
wrll .r~"f~c. rapfd ~ for • s~ort tfmr .'t@r befn~ -@ftergized,-fol1~ by a low ~ro.th rite.
"1 ~as'! ~~ n"re ttt,t (w!'" ca""n~s "roe (teneri I o1!ntf .10 net
constitute a ~@tafled ~~fr.t.rf~~ revf ... 01 t~fs ~roject. I'
you ",n an.v 'ur-the,. OIlP~tfo,,~, "'''11$' call ...... Sc"tt Shu!'Ml at 153-2f~. Th@ "~w Dt~trtct r."~fft~r ts Colonel Wfltur T. (j,.e~r-v. ,1,..
Sfneerel.v,
• P4r)Of'e
Engineerfng Dfw1510n
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
C
o " ... ; IJ
D
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE Of ALASKA
DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC fACILITIES
CENTRAL lEGION -PLANNING
P.O. BOX 196900
4NCHOIAGE. ALASKA 995194900
Edwin L. Morris .
Associate Executive 01rector/Planning
Alasta Power AuthoMt;y
334 W. Stb Avenue .-
Anchorage, AK 99501
Oear Mr. Morris:
October' -.,. 1985 '.' rt
-.--'2 ~i·\·'-' • -__ ._ \ r
RE: A'IXA -Hydr6Power Study
Concerning the draft Hydropower feas1btli~ study sent to me for review, I offer
the following cOllftlent: . . . .
p.18 -The DepartMent of Transportation and Publfc Facflitfes grader is
o avaflable to.the cOMNUnfty for road .. fntenance only, not for
constructfon projects.
Thank you for the opportuni ty to c~nt on thi S docullent.
-·'Sfncerely.
MDM/tsh
'. ~j. r, \. t,, __ . i.' l. \I~'
\
.. art M~o
Aleutfan/Prfbfloff.
Yuton/Kuskokwfll
Arel Planner
I ~':,J ~ -'
" : i . ~ \
, '\ \ ' . \
:r'1Ir
" ! ,~
I" ;.,...
BILL SHEFFIELD, WVER~OR
I RECEIVED BY
-ALASKA POYlEP f.'Ji!iOP.ITY DBPT. OF COMMUNITY. RBGIONAL AFFAIRS 0 POUCH 8
JUNEAU, ALASKA ~,
I-OFFICE OF THE COMMISS/~EP -4 PJo:"lloNE:(tOn
4
65-4700
~/J E. 36TH AVENUE, SUITE 400
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99508
I
C
o
~
tJ
o
C
o
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
October 31, 1985 PHONE: (gon 563·'073
Mr. Edwin L. Morris
Associate Executive Director/Planning
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Morris:
RE: DRAFT SMALL HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ATKA
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Power
Authority's Draft Small Hydropower Feasibility Study for Atka.
The comments we have provided here are based on our work with
the community over the past several years.
Community leaders reported that Table 1 on page five of the
report is somewhat confusing to a reader not familiar with how
Power Cost Equalization works. The columns could be relabeled
to show which cost is borne by Which party. The community has
expressed to the Department their concern that the cost of
electricity in Atka might be mistaken to be 2e per
kilowatt/hour.
The summary of the cost estimates also assumes a very high
contingency amount of 30 percent. It is not uncommon to see a
contingency fee of 5-10 percent, however the 30 percent does
seem unusually high and would significantly impact the
cost-benefit ratio. Some examination and explanation of this
large contingency needs to be made.
In addition,
community to
labor costs.
which could
acceptable.
cost-benefit
the labor costs do not appear to allow for the
force account the project and, thereby, lower the
The community has indicated that the lower wages
be used in a force account project wo'uld be
Those changes might also positively impact the
ratio.
Mr. Edwin L. Morris
RE: DRAFT SMALL HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ATKA
October 31, 1985
Page 2
It should also be noted that a fisherman's cooperative has
recently formed in Atka. The co-op and village council have
developed preliminary plans for a fish processing facility
which, if built, would increase electrical demand. Could the
feasibility study reflect the alternative scenarios 'of these
potential changes?
Finally,-will there be a review of this project on a periodic
basis? The cost-benefit analysis indicates that the project
will not be successful until certain consumption levels are met
or an addi tional project is constructed which would allow for
the sharing of start-up and mobilization costs. If those
factors continue to hold true, I would like to suggest that the
Alaska Power Authority and the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs make a sincere effort to keep one another
informed of factors which might make this renewable energy
project feasible. We should be able to accomplish this
coordination through regular meetings with APA which are being
included in the Memorandum of Understanding between our two
agencies.
If there is some assistance this Department might be able -:--to
provide you in regards to this study, please notify me at your
convenience. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review
this draft feasibility study.
Sincerely,
t .. ~
/Emi1 Notti
Commissioner
cc: Marty Rutherford, Director
Municipal and Regional Assistance Division
Robert Brean, Deputy Director
Division of Community Development
Julie Dirks, Secretary, Atka Village Council
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I·
.e
c
c
[j
o
C
D
S
E
I
I
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM State of Alaska
TO:
FROM:
Edwin L. Morris
Associate Executive Director
Planning
Alaska Power Authority
DATE:
FILE NO:
TELEPHONE NO:
Lance ~. Trask~
Regional Supervisor
Region IV
Habitat Division
Department of Pish and Game
SUBJECT:
October 9, 1985
267-2342
Draft Atka Small
!tydropower
Feasibility Study
I·· ..
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed
the draft Atka Small H drooower Feasibilitv Studv prepared
by the Alaska Power Authority APA) l.n August 1985. t'1e
offer the following specific and general comments.
pa1e 12, {araqraPh 2: The term • anadromous" generally
de_ines a i1e cycle of certain species of fish, but i~ not
usuallv used to describe waterbodies. Therefore we
recommend the following alternative language for the fourth
sentence: ~Chuniisax Creek, however, risJ suo~orts
anadromous fish upstream to Falls B.~
Page 16, paragraph 4: Same comment as for Page 12.
Page 17-18: ~"e concur with your analysis of options for
mitigatIng project impacts to fish resources.
We note that the recommendation of APA staff is that the
proposed Atka small hydropower project not be constructed
under present circumstances. Should APA decide to construct
the project at some time in the future, we request that you
coordinate appropriate mitigation options with ADF&G to
balance potential impacts to fish resources.
We appreciate ~~e opportunity to
feasibility study. . !f you have
contact Denby Lloyd (267-~342).
cc: Remy Williams, APA
U/!': nSL: sp
commant on the
any qu~stions,
draft
please
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
D
~
~
D
E
1;1 •
I
I
I
I
I
I
United States Departmen[ of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO:
WI£S
Mr. Remy Williams. Manager
Atk a Hydroelectrf c Projec t
Al aska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage. Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Wil11 ams:
Wcstern Alaska Ecologi~al S~rvi\:e!i
Sunshine Plaza. Suitc Zil
~ll W.~lhA\c.
Anchorage. Alask" 1)9501
Re: Draft -Atka Small Hydropower
Fe as i bil ity Study. Augus t 198 5
The U.S. Ffsh and Wfldlife Servfce (FWS) has reviewed the subject
document fn accord wfth the letter of Mr. Morris. dated 23 Septanber
1~5. We concurwfth the ffndings of the Alaska Power Authority (APA)
staff that Alternative No.4 woul d be the design of choice if/when the
project f s constructed.
The FWS recommends that the document be expanded to encompass
pennitting and mftigatfng reQufrements. The following comlTl!nts are
offered for your consideratfon:
1. The surface estate of the 1 and f nvolved is subject to Section 22(g)
of the Alaska Natfve Cl aims Settlement Act. As such ft would be
subject to the i ssu~ce of a Rfght-Of-Way pennit by the FWS. Please
see the attached letter. Field Supervisor to R. W. Huck. dated 4 March
1 983. i tan (1).
2. A Special Use Pennft (SUP) would be reQuf red from tte FWS to cover
the actual work performance and may include timing constraints and
other stipulations to minimize adverse environmentai impacts. The SUP
would also address costs of mineral materials required for
Ca'1Struction. Please see the above-referenced letter. item (2).
3. We included the FWS mitfgation pol icy in the attached letter.
Field Supervisor to Mr. Crawford. dated 21 March 1984. The APA project
assessment should propose specific mitigation to offset project related
adverse impacts. The FWS would then evaluate the adeQuacy of the
mitigatfon proposed based on the mitigatfon policy.
4. The subject doclJJlent included a Sunmary of the Cost Estimate as
Table 6 on page 19. Although a 30' Contingency is listed. no
mitigation costs were i "cluded. It would be appropriate to i nc1 ude the
estimated costs of mitigation as a line item in developing a more
thorough economi canal ysi s.
5. The site access road description states that small bridges or
cul verts woul d be required. Fish streans that woul d be impacted shoul d
be f dat tified.
6. In the opinion of the APA, the work would be accomplished with
local 1 a,or unde r an experienced and k mwledgeabl e projec t supervisor.
The document should state that the APA Best ManaJement Practices
Manual s woul d be the guidel ines used during project construction.
7. The stbject document should include a sketch and discussion of the
proposed transmission line routing. A buried line would be preferable;
anadrOnDus fish stream crossings could be timed to avoid adverse
impacts to fisheries in a::cord with Alaska Department of Fish and Gillie
Title 16 permits.
Ms. Marian Zimerman, the FWS biologist who accompanied the APA on a
site visit in June 1984, is no longer on my staff. Please contact Hank
Hosking at 27l~575 if you wish to discuss these cOllll1ents.
Ff el d Supervi so r
Enclosures
cc: Lloyd, ADF&G-Habitat, Anchorage (w/o enc)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
D
~
~
C
~
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
IN "I"~ 'I .. "." TO: WAES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Western Alaska Ecologicnl Services
60S W. 4th, Room G-81
AnchorAge, Alaska 99501
R.W. Huck, Partner
Northern Technical Services
, MAR 1981
750 W. 2nd Avenue
Suite 100
.. Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Huck:
----.--1/ I:;
This letter is in response to your inqui~ regarding penmitting requirements
for the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) proposed hydroelectric project at Atka.
Alaska. From the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the project sponsor will be
required to obtain the following penmits:
(1) A Right-of-way Permit -Although the surface estate of the land involved
in the project has been conveyed to Atxam Village Corporation by Interim
Conveyance 159, the conveyance is subject to Section 22(g) of Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). This provision stipulates that
conveyed lands remain subject to laws and regulations governing use and
development of National Wildlife Refuges. Consequently, compliance with
50 CFR 29.21, which requires that a right-of-way permit be obtained from
the Regional Director, is necessar,y. To initiate this permit
application, William Mattice should be contacted at:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Realty
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
(907) 786-3498
(2) A Special Use Permit -This penmit covers performance of the actual work.
and may include provisions regarding the purchase of sand, gravel. and
other mineral materials that may be needed for construction. The Refuge
Manlger, Fred Zefllemaker, should be contacted to obtlin thfs permft at:
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge
Aleutian Islands. Unit
Box 5251
FPO Seattle 98791
(907) 592-2406
The FWS also has responsibilities for Federally listed or proposed threatened
and endangered species. To the best of our knowledge there are no listed or
proposed threatened or endangered species under our jurisdiction in the
project area. However, if new information warrants, Section 7 consultat;on
under t.he Endangered Species Act will be requi red.
The Bald Eagle Protection Act may also be applicable. The Act generally
prohibfts the taking, possessfon, and commerce in bald eagles or thefr parts.
In addftfon the Act protects bald eagle nests. The FWS recommends that a
buffer, of at least 100 meters be maintained around bald eagle ne,sts.
..
~Besides these permits. regulationS. 'and'legislated mandates administered by
the FWS, the Service has responsibilities to review and comment upon other
Federal permit and license applications. APA has compiled a list of Federal
and State permits and permit requirements needed for the Sus1tna Hydroelectric
Project. Since most, if not all. of these permits and approvals are
applicable to the Atka project. obtaining a copy of this document. dated
February 4, 1983, may aid your process of identifying necessary permits.
Within our review of permit and license applications we will examine aspects
of project design which could impact fish, wildlife, and their habitat. At
present it appears the siting of the powerhouse near the bay, rather than the
channel of the Chuniisax Creek, will result in the dewatering of the creek
downstream from the lowest falls. In view of the estimated 11,500 pink salmon
observed spawning during September 1982 between the mouth and the first
waterfalls, along with usage by coho and chum salmon. such a design would
result in unacceptable losses of fisheroy resources. Project alternatives.
including relocating the powerhouse and penstock alignment so that instream ,
flow can be maintained downstream from the first falls, need to be studied.
We hope this information will aid you in your project planning and design.
Please feel free to contact usif we can be of further assistance.
cc: FWS-ROES
William Mattice
Fred Zeillemaker
,
lId . r L
I
Sincerely,
,//
• '" " • I J) (\.' (, ......
Field Supervisor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
~ ..
tJ
~
ft .. " 11
D
I
S
I
I
I
I
I
United States Dep~~terior
. FtSH AND WIL~Va~ U
IN Re,,-Y RI'IR TO:
WAES
Lar~ D. Crawford
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Western Alaska Ecological Service.
605 W. 4th, Room G-Sl
Anchorage, Alaska .. 99501·
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Crawford:
a 1 AUG 1984
The following is a report of our findings from our on-site visit of
Chuniisax Creek near Atka, Alaska. The trip was made by Bob Loeffler and
Remy Williams of the Alaska Power Authority and Marian.Zimmennan of the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) June 4-6, 1984, to investigate its potential for
supporting a small hydroelectric project. Design and siting of project
features were considered in relation to ffsh and wildlffe resources of the
area. .
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Sampling included minnow trapping and fyke netting of the creek and taking
basic water quality parameters of the lake to the west of Falls F. Penstock
and transmission line routings were walked and intake and powerhouse sites
were investigated, as well as construction and maintenance of access
routes. Data previously collected by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC)
were used to help develop recommendations for design and Siting of project
facilities.
Fishe~ sampling between Falls A and B using eight baited minnow traps set
overnight collected 35 Dolly Varden ranging between 53 and 165 mm in
length. One coho salmon fry of 56 mm was collected just above Falls A in
the minnow traps. A fyke net set overnight in this same reach yielded three
recently emerged Dolly Varden,· three recently emerged salmon (presumably
coho salmon), and one recently emerged unidentified sa1monid, all measuring
about 25-30 mm in length.
Between the creek mouth and Falls A nine baited minnow traps set overnight
yielded 28 Dolly Varden, 50 coho salmon, and one unidentified sculpin. The
Dolly Varden ranged between 66 and 147 mm in length. Of the coho salmon, 46
were in age class 1+ and measured between 57 and 97 mm; the other 4 were in
age class 2+ and measured between 114 and 131 mm in length. One of the
minnow traps was set at the mouth ot the small tributa~ stream flowing from
the east about half way between the creek mouth and Falls A where NORTEC
biologists collected numerous rearing coho salmon.
l
The fishery habitat.. in the. mouth reach of Chunffsax Creek was
considerably different from 'that above the Falls A. Downstream the
substrate consisted of large cobbles suitable for spawning and occasional
boulders. Undercut banks with good grass cover provided good rearing
habitat and cover. Upstream from the falls substrate consisted of
bedrock and boulders with patches of cobble and gravel which are
apparently used as spawning habitat. There were also several cascades
and higher velocity chutes in this upstream section. Falls A consisted
of a vertical drop of approximately three or four feet with no pronounced
chutes at the observed flow.
Between Falls Band D the creek has a steep gradient with bedrock and
boulder substrate •. Falls Band D are substantial drops, probably of
about 30-35 feet. Falls B marks the limit of anadromous fish use.
Upstream from Falls D the stream bottom consists primarily of gravel and
appears to be ideal for resident Dolly Varden spawning and rearing.
The lake to the west of Falls F was crystal clear, with a course sand
bottom. No aquatic vegetation occurred in the lake suggesting that
nutrients may be low. Water temperature was 10-12 0 C. Dissolved
oxygen was 11.2 ppm, or saturated. salinity was 0.0 ppm, conductivity was
87 OHM. and pH was 6.7. Caribou tracks were observed in the sand along
the lakeshore. Water quality does not appear to be a problem should an
impounctnent at Falls F Ilcapture" thi slake.
PROJECT DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
An intake structure at the head of Falls D or F appear feasible. Placing
it at Falls D would avoid eliminating some prime resident Dolly Varden
habitat and would reduce the penstock length to about half of that needed
to place a intake at Falls F. Siting the intake at Falls F would allow
the creation of a small impoundment.
Placement of the powerhouse will probably be near Falls B. There is a
suitable spot at the top of the falls. but this would result in the loss
of about 30 feet of head. Because of the steep walls immediately below
Falls 8. no powerhouse site could be found for approximately 300 feet
downstream. Another site was identified at the top of Falls A. but this
would eliminate an additional 5-600 feet of intermitent coho spawning
habitat. This site is not recommended as it would eliminate more coho
habitat for little additional head. The site 300 feet downstream appears
to be the best alternative to maximize head while retaining the maximum
amount of fisher,y habitat.
Design of the outfall from the powerhouse was discussed. A concrete
apron would apparently be possible to incorporate into the design or
releases could be directed toward some of the boulder/bedrock areas to
reduce scour.
Penstock routes were identified from an intake structure at either Falls
D or F. These would consist of relatively small diameter pipe (about
12 M?) which would be laid on the ground and should cause no obstruction
to local wildlife. Penstock routing does not appear to be a major
problem, either environmentally or engineeringly.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
C
8
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Transmission lines to the village would be roughly one mile in length and
would preferably be buried. Ways to bury the transmission lines and
minimize soil erosion were discussed. The transmission line route would
probably follow the access road to the powerhouse.
The road to the powerhouse is somewhat problematic as a steep slope
occurs between town and the creek. Erosion and slumping are
anticipated. Boat access to the mouth of the river has been discussed
but considered a problem especially in winter. Quick access is seen as
necessa~ for maintenance. Starting the road from near the fire station
on the switchback above the old town site was suggested but was more or
less dismissed without serious consideration. After seeing an aerial
photo of the area, however, it seems like it might be worth pursuing.
A question remains whether a road should be built between the powerhouse
and the intake or whether an unimproved three wheeler trail would be
adequate. A road would cause more immediate habitat losses, but it might
better confine traffic to a designated route and avoid crosscountry
travel.
FISHERIES MITIGATION
Mitigation options for unavoidable fishery losses were also considered.
Building a small ladder over Falls A looks feasible and fairly
inexpensive. Questions regarding this option are how much of the
available spawning habitat is presentlY'utilized and how much would
utilization be increased if a ladder is installed. These are questions
which cannot be readily answered using existing data. There was also
some discussion of off-site mitigation if a suitable project can be
identified.
On July 26-27, 1984, Dave Ferrell and Wayne Crayton of th~ FWS returned
to Chuniisax Creek while in Atka conducting field studies for the Corps
of Engineers' bottom fish harbor project. Three baited minnow traps set
overnight between Falls A and B caught 23 Dolly Varden ranging in length
from 53 to 140 mm in length. No salmon were collected. A habitat map
(enclosed) was also prepared in an effort to identify spawning areas.
The data collected during the combined trips suggest that there is some
spawning habitat between Falls A and B that is probably not being fully
utilized. Improved access with a fish pass facility could open the area
up to salmon spawning, particularly for coho salmon. However, given the'
fact that spawning habitat between the two falls occurs in patches and is
somewhat limited, more fishery benefits may be accrued by developing an
off-site mitigation project. Alaska Department of Fish and Game
biologists have inventoried many of the streams in the Aleutian Chain
including the island of Atka and have identified several that could
provide mitigation opportunities (Holmes, P. B. 1982. Aleutian Islands
salmon stock assessment study. Special report to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries. 82pp.). Further consideration of these is recommended so
that the best mitigation plan, providing the most fishe~ benefits for
the dollars invested, is realized. After that time we will be in a
better position to know whether laddering Falls A or incorporating one of
these off-site opportunities would yield the most benefits to project.
We appreciate the opportunity to work closely with your staff in
developing a power project which minimizes resource impacts. We
anticipate continued participation in project planning as it proceeds.
Enclosure
cc: Bob Loeffler, APA, Anchorage
Denby Lloyd, ADFG, Anchorage
Sincerely,
Field Supervisor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I