HomeMy WebLinkAboutKISARALIK RIVER AND CHIKUMINUK LAKE RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY 2011
KISARALIK RIVER AND
CHIKUMINUK LAKE
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY
HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Prepared for:
Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority
Revised Final Report
May 2011
This page left blank intentionally.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
May 2011
Disclaimer
The findings, interpretations of data, recommendations, specifications or professional opinions
presented in this report are based upon available information at the time the report was prepared.
Studies described in this report were conducted in accordance with generally accepted
professional engineering and geological practice, and in accordance with the requirements of the
Client. There is no other warranty, either expressed or implied.
The findings of this report are based on the readily available data and information obtained from
public and private sources. MWH relied on this information provided by others and did not
verify the applicability, accuracy or completeness of the data. Additional studies (at greater cost)
may or may not disclose information that may significantly modify the findings of this report.
MWH accepts no liability for completeness or accuracy of the information presented and/or
provided to us, or for any conclusions and decisions that may be made by the Client or others
regarding the subject site or project.
The cost estimates developed for the report are prepared in accordance with the cost estimate
classes defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering. MWH has no
control over costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments and procedures,
unidentified field conditions, financial and/or market conditions, or other factors likely to affect
the cost estimates contained herein, all of which are and will unavoidably remain in a state of
change, especially in light of the high volatility of the market attributable to market events
beyond the control of the parties. These estimates are a “snapshot in time” and that the reliability
of this cost estimates will inherently degrade over time. MWH cannot and does not make any
warranty, promise, guarantee, or representation, either express or implied that proposals, bids,
project construction costs, or cost of operation or maintenance will not vary substantially from
MWH’s good faith Class 5 cost estimate.
This report was prepared solely for the benefit of the Client. No other entity or person shall use
or rely upon this report or any of MWH's work product unless expressly authorized by MWH.
Any use of or reliance upon MWH's work product by any party, other than the Client, shall be
solely at the risk of such party.
This page left blank intentionally
Revised Final Report
ES-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the study described in this report is to develop, consolidate, and present a body of
information on candidate hydropower projects for serving the electrical demand in Bethel, and
surrounding communities 1 . If the Client (the Association of Village Council Presidents Regional
Housing Authority, or AVCP RHA), the grant funding agency (the Alaska Energy Authority, or
AEA), or some other development organization, such as Calista Corporation, deems one or more
of the projects worthy of further study, the next step would be to conduct a detailed feasibility
study, which would include site investigations and formulation of preliminary designs.
Candidate Sites for Hydropower Development
The study focused on the hydropower development potential using the Kisaralik River and the
Allen River draining Chikuminuk Lake. These candidates have been studied in the past, and
appear to represent the best opportunities for providing hydropower generation to meet the
electrical demand in Bethel and the surrounding communities.
The hydropower generation potential could be developed in four discrete projects: one at the
Chikuminuk Lake outlet and three on the Kisaralik River (Golden Gate Falls, Lower Falls and
Upper Falls). It is possible that the three candidate Kisaralik projects could be optimized and
consolidated into two projects, or even a single project, in further study. However, the intent was
to develop reasonable project concepts with the budget available for the work, estimate the costs,
assess environmental constraints, and provide decision-making information.
The physical development arrangement of any of the four candidate sites would involve
construction of a dam, spillway, diversion tunnel, fish handling facilities and a powerhouse. Each
of the four sites could be developed with a concrete faced rockfill dam and a spillway channel
cut through one of the dam abutments. It is anticipated that the spillway channel excavation
could provide a source of materials for the dam. It is not known if fine grained materials exist
within a reasonable haul distance, so the concrete faced rockfill type dam was adopted for this
evaluation. Diversion of the river flow during construction of the dam would be accomplished by
constructing a diversion tunnel around the dam site. The conceptual diversion tunnel
arrangement accommodates using the diversion features as part of the power waterway, avoiding
a separate tunnel, to minimize cost. A powerhouse would contain two Francis type turbines
directly connected to a generator. Each project would need facilities to handle migratory or
resident fish species.
1 The villages are Akiachak, Akiak, Eek, Kasigluk, Nunapitchuk, Quinhagak, Atmautluak, Oscarville, Napakiak,
Kwethluk, Napaskiak, Tuluksak, and Tuntutuliak. See Figure 17 in the main body of the report.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Salient characteristics for each candidate project are listed below:
Site
Average
Flow
(cfs)
Reservoir
Storage
(AF)
Dam
Height
(ft)
Chikuminuk Lake 1,353 1,691,903 128
Kisaralik - Upper Falls 1,757 23,584 118
Kisaralik - Lower Falls 1,603 84,527 173
Kisaralik - Golden Gate Falls 833 64,629 204
Energy Generation
The anticipated hydropower generation characteristics of each site, as developed for this study,
are defined below. The Kisaralik River projects have limited storage, and therefore have a
limited ability to regulate flows for delivering energy in a pattern that can be used by the regional
demand. Much of the Kisaralik energy is available during the summer when the demand is low.
Site
Rated
Head
(ft)
Generating
Capacity
(MW)
Average
Annual
Energy
Potential
(GWh)
2022
Demand
(GWh)
Usable energy
2022 condition
(GWh)
Chikuminuk Lake 91 13.4 88.7
64.9
64.9
Kisaralik - Upper Falls 149 27.7 88.5 39.7
Kisaralik - Lower Falls 122 34.1 127.1 46.9
Kisaralik - Golden Gate Falls 78 27.0 94.4 38.8
Note: Demand is as measured at the hydro station to overcome long distance transmission line
losses, assumed to be 3% greater than the local area busbar demand.
Transmission Interconnection
A major transmission line would be required for interconnecting the candidate projects with the
Bethel area systems. The line is envisioned as a 138-kV, single-circuit line supported on X-
braced H-style structures. The distances from the interconnection in the Bethel area to each site
are as given in the following table:
Site Distance (miles)
Chikuminuk Lake 118
Kisaralik - Upper Falls 70
Kisaralik - Lower Falls 62
Kisaralik - Golden Gate Falls 57
Revised Final Report
ES-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Access
The sites are remote without existing permanent access. For the Kisaralik projects, transporting
heavy materials and equipment to the sites would be done during the winter months via ice road
from Bethel. During summer months, small equipment, supplies and personnel would be ferried
in by aircraft. For Chikuminuk, a conventional road is anticipated. One or more construction
period labor camps would be required.
Long-term operation is assumed to rely on support by air. A permanent road is not planned.
Regulatory and Environmental Constraints
Development of any of the projects would require a FERC license.
The Kisaralik River projects would be located within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge
(YDNWR). Although not typically found in National Wildlife Refuges, hydroelectric projects
may be permissible in the YDNWR, as there are no explicit prohibitions in the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 or in the National Wildlife System Improvement Act
of 1997. The permissibility of hydroelectric development construction and operation would be
determined by the Secretary of the Interior on a case-by-case basis under existing law. It should
be noted that development and operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project was
determined to be permissible within Alaska’s Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, despite public
opposition; a 50-year FERC license for this project was issued in 1981. The Terror Lake Project
went into service in 1985, and provides much of the electricity to the Community of Kodiak.
The Chikuminuk Lake project would be located within a wilderness-designated area of Wood-
Tikchik State Park. The park authorization legislation would need to be amended to specifically
allow hydroelectric development at Chikuminuk Lake. This is viewed as a significant constraint.
The Kisaralik River supports anadromous fish species. This is viewed as a significant licensing
constraint. There is also significant recreational and commercial recreational use of the Kisaralik
River.
Project Development Schedule
The absolute minimum time to implement any of the four candidate hydropower projects is 10
years. The projects would require a FERC license before construction could begin; the estimated
minimum duration to acquire a FERC license for the candidate projects is five years. A two-year
period following issuance of a license is expected for final design and bidding before
construction can begin. The construction duration is estimated at three years. The above stated
durations assume favorable conditions in terms of agency review, approvals in the licensing
phase, and minimal issues during the construction phase. The actual development duration could
be longer.
Revised Final Report
ES-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Opinion of Probable Cost
The estimated cost of each project, if developed on a stand-alone basis, is as indicated in the
following table.
Site
Construction
Cost
(2010 $
million)
Total
Project Cost
(2010 $ million)
Specific Cost
(2010 $/kW)
Chikuminuk Lake 410.9 507 37,836
Kisaralik - Upper Falls 392.9 487 17,581
Kisaralik - Lower Falls 337.0 418 12,258
Kisaralik - Golden Gate Falls 316.0 392 14,519
The stated costs are at the December 2010 price level without escalation or charges for interest
during construction. The construction cost is the estimated amount for project and transmission
line construction, plus procurement of the permanent turbine and generating equipment, but
without an allowance for escalation of costs beyond 2010 during the course of the future
construction period. The “total project cost” is the construction cost plus the estimated
development costs, such as engineering, management, legal services and reserves, but again it
does not include escalation or interest charges. The specific cost is the total project cost divided
by the generating capacity of the facility.
Economic Evaluation
The net present value (NPV) of a diesel only future and alternatives with each of the candidate
hydropower projects is presented in the following table:
Power Supply Option 50-Year NPV
($ millions)
% Grant
Funding
Required
Diesel Only $909 NA
Chikuminuk Lake $1,104 22
Kisaralik - Upper Falls $1,312 47
Kisaralik - Lower Falls $1,117 28
Kisaralik - Golden Gate Falls $1,155 26
The NPV considers the AEA demand projections, AEA economic evaluation criteria and the
ability of the hydropower candidates to offset diesel generation. Of the four candidates,
Chikuminuk Lake and Kisaralik River Lower Falls are the lowest cost alternatives to a diesel-
only future. However, both of these exhibit an NPV that is somewhat greater than the diesel only
future. The NPV is highly sensitive to the projection of diesel fuel. If the cost of diesel fuel
escalates rapidly, the diesel only future could be a more expensive option. Implementation of one
Revised Final Report
ES-4 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
of the hydro options (particularly Chikuminuk) would provide isolation from unpredictable fuel
cost escalation.
Another consideration for future study if a project is advanced to a subsequent phase is to include
electric heating sales.
In the above table, the “Grant Funding Required” for the hydro options is the percentage of total
project cost would need to be borne by funding without a repayment obligation to reduce the
NPV to a level that is equivalent to the diesel only power supply option.
Conclusion
The Chikuminuk Lake project has been favored in previous studies. However, the distance from
Bethel (of the candidates considered, it is farthest from Bethel), its location within a State park,
and the significant alteration to an existing natural lake that would be required are significant
impediments. The Chikuminuk Lake project has the advantage over the Kisaralik projects in that
it can provide a relatively stable month-to-month energy delivery under a wide variety of
hydrological conditions, and does not appear to have anadromous fish use. In addition, it appears
that the Chikuminuk Lake project exhibits the lowest NPV of the possible hydropower options.
Therefore, if studies are to continue, it may be prudent to consider the Chikuminuk Lake project.
Additional study could be carried out to optimize the storage and generating capacity to best
meet the Bethel area needs. Optimization of the project layout could identify a lower cost
arrangement meeting the power and energy demands of the Bethel area.
If the Chikuminuk Lake project is developed as an initial project, this would contribute to a
potential significant reduction in the cost of a Kisaralik project as a future development. The
substantial cost reduction would result from the investment made in the transmission line which
could serve the Kisaralik projects.
Implementation of the Chikuminuk project could result in the avoidance of about 55,000 tons of
CO2 per year created by diesel-fueled generation.
If the AVCP RHA or another entity wishes to proceed with further studies to refine the
development concepts of any of the candidate projects, we recommend that future studies
continue on a Chikuminuk project. The studies should be carried out in an incremental fashion to
permit refined evaluation of economic feasibility. The activities suggested below are intended to
provide the next level of initial information for evaluating project feasibility:
• Market study, combined with a reservoir and power operation study, to determine the
optimum size of a Chikuminuk project.
• Pending a favorable outcome of the market and operation study, then:
o Surface geological reconnaissance and mapping;
o LIDAR survey and topographic map preparation;
o Installation of a hydrometeorological recording station;
Revised Final Report
ES-5 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
ES-6 May 2011
o Prepare an environmental review of the site for the purposes of supporting a
FERC Preliminary Application Document;
o Preparation of preliminary engineering concept drawings and an AACE Class 4
cost estimate.
The above information would provide a definitive basis for determining if it is justified to
proceed with significant investments in FERC licensing.
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 01-17- Kisaralik AK regional map & TL.dwg, 2/18/2011 6:49:55 PM, PDF995.pc3KISARALIK RIVER AND CHIKUMINUK LAKEREGIONAL MAPEXHIBIT ES-1 18 FEB 201140000 FT20000020000SCALENOTES:1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.2. VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.3. USGS 1:250,000 MAPS OF BETHEL, AK (1980) AND TAYLOR MOUNTAINS, AK (1954) .Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility StudyCANDIDATE PROJECT LOCATIONLEGEND:PLACESCHIKUMINUKLAKEBETHELLOCATION MAPMAPPED AREABethelCANADAALASKAUNITED STATESRUSSIAAnchorageKuskokwim RiverBearing SeaGulf of AlaskaPacific OceanDillinghamKISARALIK RIVER(LOWER FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(GOLDEN GATE FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(UPPER FALLS)NOTE:THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SKETCH FOR FEASIBILITY STUDYPURPOSES ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE, AND WILL BE UPDATED AS PROJECT DESIGN STUDIESCONTINUE. ALL CONCEPTS AND DETAILS, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS ANDELEVATIONS, DEFINED ON DRAWINGS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHERREFINEMENT DURING A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN PHASE.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1
Candidate Sites for Hydropower Development ........................................................................... 1
Energy Generation ....................................................................................................................... 2
Transmission Interconnection...................................................................................................... 2
Access .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Regulatory and Environmental Constraints ................................................................................. 3
Project Development Schedule .................................................................................................... 3
Opinion of Probable Cost ............................................................................................................ 4
Economic Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1.1 Hydrology Study ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Assess Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.3 Develop Feasible Layout ......................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.4 Schedule and Costs .................................................................................................. 1-2
1.1.5 Geotechnical Analysis ............................................................................................. 1-2
1.1.6 Land Status and Transmission Line Routing ........................................................... 1-2
1.1.7 Environmental Permitting Analysis ......................................................................... 1-3
1.1.8 Economic Feasibility Analysis ................................................................................ 1-3
1.1.9 Regional Wholesale Utility Planning and Development ......................................... 1-3
1.2 Organization of the Report ............................................................................................. 1-3
2 Previous Studies .................................................................................................................. 2-1
3 Land Use and Environmental Constraints ....................................................................... 3-1
4 Hydrological Studies and Setting ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Streamflow...................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Flood Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 4-10
4.2.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation .......................................................................... 4-10
4.2.2 Chikuminuk Lake PMF.......................................................................................... 4-11
4.2.3 Kisaralik River PMF .............................................................................................. 4-13
4.2.4 Comparison to Previous Studies ............................................................................ 4-15
5 Physical Setting .................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Location .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Regional Physiology ....................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Regional Geology ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.4 Regional Tectonics and Seismic Records ....................................................................... 5-3
6 Site Specific Geological Assessments ................................................................................. 6-1
Revised Final Report
i May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Table of Contents (continued)
Revised Final Report
ii May 2011
6.1 Chikuminuk Lake ........................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Background on Site Geology ................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Local Tectonic Conditions ....................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.3 Site Access ............................................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.4 Reservoir Water Tightness ....................................................................................... 6-4
6.1.5 Construction Materials ............................................................................................. 6-4
6.1.6 Transmission Line Alignment.................................................................................. 6-4
6.2 Upper Falls ..................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.1 Background on Site Geology ................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.2 Local Tectonic Conditions ....................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.3 Site Access ............................................................................................................... 6-6
6.2.4 Reservoir Water Tightness ....................................................................................... 6-7
6.2.5 Construction Materials ............................................................................................. 6-7
6.2.6 Transmission Line Alignment.................................................................................. 6-7
6.3 Lower Falls ..................................................................................................................... 6-8
6.3.1 Background on Site Geology ................................................................................... 6-8
6.3.2 Local Tectonic Conditions ....................................................................................... 6-9
6.3.3 Site Access ............................................................................................................... 6-9
6.3.4 Construction Materials ............................................................................................. 6-9
6.3.5 Transmission Line Alignment................................................................................ 6-10
6.4 Golden Gate Falls ......................................................................................................... 6-10
6.4.1 Background on Site Geology ................................................................................. 6-11
6.4.2 Local Tectonic Conditions ..................................................................................... 6-11
6.4.3 Site Access ............................................................................................................. 6-12
6.4.4 Construction Materials ........................................................................................... 6-13
6.4.5 Transmission Line Alignment................................................................................ 6-13
6.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6-13
6.6 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 6-14
7 Project Concepts .................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Dam and Spillway .......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Power Waterways ........................................................................................................... 7-3
7.3 Powerhouse ..................................................................................................................... 7-4
8 Transmission Line Planning ............................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Route Alignment............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Voltage Selection ............................................................................................................ 8-2
8.3 Transmission Line Compensation .................................................................................. 8-3
8.4 Structure Selection and Evaluation ................................................................................. 8-3
8.5 Road and Trail Access .................................................................................................... 8-5
8.6 Helicopter Construction .................................................................................................. 8-5
8.7 Foundations .................................................................................................................... 8-5
8.8 Conductor Selection ....................................................................................................... 8-6
8.9 Structure Erection ........................................................................................................... 8-6
8.10 Conductor and Overhead Ground Wire Stringing ....................................................... 8-6
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Table of Contents (continued)
Revised Final Report
iii May 2011
8.11 Line Losses .................................................................................................................. 8-7
8.12 Budgetary Cost Estimates ........................................................................................... 8-7
9 Fish Passage Considerations .............................................................................................. 9-1
9.1 Chikuminuk Lake / Allen River Hydroelectric Project Fish Passage ............................ 9-1
9.1.1 Upstream Passage .................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1.2 Tailrace Barrier ........................................................................................................ 9-2
9.1.3 Downstream Fish Passage........................................................................................ 9-2
9.1.4 Fish Passage Facility Operation ............................................................................... 9-3
9.2 Kisaralik River Projects .................................................................................................. 9-3
9.2.1 Upstream Passage .................................................................................................... 9-3
9.2.2 Trap and Haul Facility ............................................................................................. 9-4
9.2.3 Downstream Fish Passage........................................................................................ 9-4
9.2.4 Fish Passage Facility Operation ............................................................................... 9-5
10 Environmental and Permitting Analysis ......................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 FERC Preliminary Permitting ................................................................................... 10-1
10.3 FERC Licensing ........................................................................................................ 10-3
10.3.1 Project Management and Meetings .................................................................... 10-3
10.3.2 Early Licensing Activities .................................................................................. 10-4
10.3.3 Pre-Application Document, Schedule, and Notice of Intent .............................. 10-5
10.3.4 Scoping and Study Plan Approval ...................................................................... 10-6
10.3.5 Conduct Engineering and Environmental Studies .............................................. 10-6
10.3.6 Preliminary Licensing Proposal ........................................................................ 10-10
10.3.7 Development of the Final License Application ................................................ 10-10
10.3.8 Post-FLA Activities and Section 401 Water Quality Certification .................. 10-14
10.4 Other Permits and Approvals .................................................................................. 10-15
11 Energy Generation Estimates .......................................................................................... 11-1
12 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost .......................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Estimate Classification .............................................................................................. 12-1
12.2 Assumptions and Qualifications................................................................................ 12-2
13 Scheduling Summary ........................................................................................................ 13-1
14 Power Market and Economic Study ................................................................................ 14-1
14.1 Service Area .............................................................................................................. 14-1
14.2 Projections of Electric Load, Demand, and Generation Requirements ..................... 14-2
14.3 Fuel Price Projections and Other Economic Information ......................................... 14-5
14.4 Preliminary Economic Analysis of the Hydropower Options ................................... 14-7
14.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 14-10
15 Regional Wholesale Utility Framework for Development and Operation .................. 15-1
16 References .......................................................................................................................... 16-1
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Table of Contents (continued)
Revised Final Report
iv May 2011
16.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................. 16-1
16.2 Geology ..................................................................................................................... 16-2
17 Exhibits ............................................................................................................................... 17-1
18 Public Meeting ................................................................................................................... 18-1
List of Figures
Figure 1: Average Monthly Flow, 1954 – 1995 .......................................................................... 4-2
Figure 2: Flow Duration Curves, Monthly Data 1954 – 1995 ..................................................... 4-3
Figure 3: Chikuminuk Low, Average, High Monthly Flow (cfs) ................................................ 4-3
Figure 4: Upper Falls Low, Average, High Monthly Flow (cfs) ................................................. 4-4
Figure 5: Lower Falls Low, Average, High Monthly Flow (cfs)................................................. 4-4
Figure 6: Golden Gate Falls Low, Average, High Monthly Flow (cfs) ....................................... 4-5
Figure 7: PMF Routing for Chikuminuk Lake – 150-ft Spillway ............................................. 4-12
Figure 8: Flood Frequency for Kisaralik River at USGS Gage 15304200 ................................ 4-13
Figure 9: Transmission Line Route Map ..................................................................................... 8-2
Figure 10: Structure Types........................................................................................................... 8-4
Figure 11: Sectional Composite Pole ........................................................................................... 8-4
Figure 12: Monthly Demand Pattern ......................................................................................... 11-1
Figure 13: Chikuminuk Lake, Modeled Average Generation by Month ................................... 11-2
Figure 14: Upper Falls, Modeled Average Generation by Month ............................................. 11-3
Figure 15: Lower Falls, Modeled Average Generation by Month ............................................. 11-3
Figure 16: Golden Gate Falls, Modeled Average Generation by Month ................................... 11-4
Figure 17: Village Locations ..................................................................................................... 14-1
Figure 18: Comparative Future Production Costs of Alternatives ............................................. 14-9
List of Tables
Table 1: USGS Gaging Station Summary ................................................................................... 4-1
Table 2: Flow (cfs) at Allen River Dam Site Below Chikuminuk Lake ...................................... 4-6
Table 3: Flow (cfs) at Kisaralik River Upper Falls Dam Site...................................................... 4-7
Table 4: Flow (cfs) at Kisaralik River Lower Falls Dam Site ..................................................... 4-8
Table 5: Flow (cfs) at Kisaralik River Golden Gate Falls Dam Site ........................................... 4-9
Table 6: Chikuminuk Lake Unit Hydrograph Parameters ......................................................... 4-11
Table 7: Chikuminuk Lake PMF Routing Summary ................................................................. 4-12
Table 8: 100-Year Flood and PMF Comparison ........................................................................ 4-14
Table 9: Kisaralik River Spillway Design Floods ..................................................................... 4-15
Table 10: Approximate Distance from Potential Hydropower Sites to Mapped Fault Traces
(Miles) .................................................................................................................................... 5-3
Table 11: List of Key Seismic Events and Estimated Distance from the Potential Hydropower
Sites ........................................................................................................................................ 5-5
Table 12: Comparison of Site Parameters ................................................................................. 6-13
Table 13: Kisaralik River Projects Flood and Elevation Planning Criteria ................................. 7-2
Table 15: Hydroelectric Project ................................................................................................... 8-3
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Table of Contents (continued)
Revised Final Report
v May 2011
Table 16: Transmission Line Capacity Comparison .................................................................... 8-3
Table 17: Annual Line Loss (GWh) ............................................................................................ 8-7
Table 18: Budgetary Construction Cost, 2011 Dollars ................................................................ 8-9
Table 19: Summary of Cost Estimates ....................................................................................... 12-4
Table 20: Mid-Range Electric Load and Generation Requirements .......................................... 14-3
Table 21: High-Range Electric Load and Generation Requirements ........................................ 14-4
Table 22: Low-Range Electric Load and Generation Requirements ......................................... 14-5
Table 23: Assumptions used in Economic Evaluation .............................................................. 14-6
Table 24: Mid-Range, Economic Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................... 14-8
Table 25: High-Range, Economic Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................. 14-8
Table 26: Low-Range, Economic Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................... 14-8
List of Exhibits
1. Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Regional Map
2. Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Location Map
3. Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Drainage Basin Boundaries
4. Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Regional Geological Map
5. Chikuminuk Lake Conceptual Project Plan
6. Upper Falls Conceptual Project Plan
7. Lower Falls Conceptual Project Plan
8. Golden Gate Falls Conceptual Project Plan
9. Cost Estimates
10. Construction Schedule
This page left blank intentionally.
1-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
1 Introduction
The electrical supply in the Bethel area is heavily dependent on diesel generation. The cost of
electricity production is high, given the market price of diesel fuel and the transportation costs
associated with hauling diesel fuel to the point of use. Hydroelectric generating possibilities
located to serve Bethel area electrical demands have been identified in previous studies (see
below). Recently (in year 2010), the Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing
Authority (AVCP RHA) received grant funding from the Alaska Energy Authority to conduct
preliminary studies of candidate hydropower projects in southwest Alaska. This report
documents the results of the studies.
Harza (now known as MWH) previously conducted a preliminary study of Bethel area
hydropower possibilities in 1982. The 1982 study identified seven possible locations following
multiple screenings of 12 potential sites. The current study, as described in this report, addresses
four of the identified project sites with respect to current construction, environmental, and
geologic conditions. The evaluated project sites include one located at the outlet of Chikuminuk
Lake on the Allen River, and three sites on the Kisaralik River located at Upper Falls, Lower
Falls and Golden Gate Falls.
The candidate projects could serve the Bethel and some surrounding communities in the lower
Kuskokwim area, assuming a transmission line of approximately 57 to 118 miles in length can be
constructed. The sites have been studied considering a target a generation capacity of about 15 to
30 megawatts (MW), which appears to be consistent with the anticipated needs of the
communities, and is consistent with the water flow and hydropower capabilities of the sites.
1.1 Scope of Work
The objective of this study is to develop a body of information on each candidate project, and to
determine if there is an economically attractive option warranting further investigation. The
scope includes the tasks described below. The work under each task is discussed in subsequent
sections of this report.
1.1.1 Hydrology Study
As part of the study, available USGS flow data from the Kuskokwim region were gathered, with
a focus on the Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake area. Flow data from selected USGS gaging
stations were used to derive estimated monthly flows at each of the potential project sites. A
planning-level power study model was used to determine average annual generation and the
monthly distribution of generation for the candidate projects.
1-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
1.1.2 Assess Existing Conditions
Available studies and documentation were gathered to enable a review of existing and past
proposals for Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk projects. Two members of the MWH project
study team – a civil engineer and an engineering geologist – performed a site reconnaissance.
These tasks were the basis for the preliminary development of potential project layouts.
1.1.3 Develop Feasible Layout
Preliminary layouts were developed based on the constraints, opportunities and risks identified
during the review of previous reports and site visits, along with the review of available river
flows determined during the hydrology study. This task did not involve any feature optimization
studies or cost/economic comparisons between alternative designs; those detailed refinement
studies would need to be performed under future phases of study, if any.
1.1.4 Schedule and Costs
A generalized schedule was prepared to include licensing and permitting, design, bidding, and
the major work packages; this provided the basis for estimating the construction duration for
each of the four potential projects.
The construction costs for the major work packages were estimated using MWH’s in-house cost
database. Particular attention was given to those areas having the greatest likelihood of cost
significance and impact. Cost estimates were checked against vendor quotes for major equipment
based on the preliminary designs. The final estimate is presented as an AACE Class 5 cost
estimate.
1.1.5 Geotechnical Analysis
For this study, previous documentation was used to make a general assessment of geotechnical
risks. Observations during the site visit – along with the review of previous reports – served as
the basis for recommending future site investigations, should any of the projects move forward.
1.1.6 Land Status and Transmission Line Routing
The projects would require overland transmission lines to interconnect with the load center in
Bethel; land jurisdiction and land ownership are two important considerations that impact the
cost and feasibility of developing a site. Transmission routing and land status issues are
discussed in the study.
1-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
1.1.7 Environmental Permitting Analysis
There are several regulatory approvals and permits necessary to facilitate approval of a
hydroelectric project, which are described in this report. This study also summarizes the likely
extent of issues surrounding fisheries, fish passage, terrestrial habitat, wetlands, cultural
resources and other resource associated with the candidate project sites. Permits and approvals
are evaluated for implications on schedule and cost. More in-depth studies would need to be
performed (as a future study) if any of the projects are considered suitable for further
consideration.
1.1.8 Economic Feasibility Analysis
The economic feasibility analysis consists of assessing the cost of the future electric system
considering a diesel only future in comparison with a future containing a candidate hydropower
project.
A regional power and energy requirements forecast was used to estimate the annual generation
requirements. Based on the forecast, the net present value of the diesel only future was
developed. Similarly, the net present value of a diesel and hydro future was developed to test the
economic attractiveness of implementing candidate hydro projects.
The general objective of the economic analysis was to determine if a candidate project appeared
to have economic viability, and thus be considered for more detailed study.
1.1.9 Regional Wholesale Utility Planning and Development
The opportunity for a shared electric power resource throughout the region suggests power
supply development on a joint basis among the communities, utilities and other parties associated
with the Kuskokwim region. A variety of entities will be involved, each with a unique
perspective, including regional nonprofit organizations, tribal governments, investor-owned and
rural electric utilities, and individual villages. The study has included identification of various
options for the character of a wholesale entity, such as a joint action agency, generation and
transmission cooperative, municipal authority, or other non-profit option.
1.2 Organization of the Report
The report is organized to address the topics covered in the scope of work by subject, rather than
by candidate project. For example, the hydrology section in this report documents the work that
was done with respect to the hydrological studies for all four sites. Similarly, the description of
the regional geological setting and the specifics relevant to each candidate site are discussed in a
single section. The alternative to this approach would be to develop sections for each site
independently, and describe all factors for each of the candidate sites, but the discussion becomes
lengthy and repetitive. Organizing by subject rather than by site avoids the potential for
inconsistent site by site descriptions and facilitated the reporting and review process.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
1-4 May 2011
Therefore, the organization of the report is as follows:
Section 2 Previous Studies
Section 3 Land Use and Environmental Constraints
Section 4 Hydrological Studies and Setting
Section 5 Physical Setting
Section 6 Site Specific Geological Assessments
Section 7 Project Concepts
Section 8 Transmission Line Planning
Section 9 Fish Passage Considerations
Section 10 Environmental and Permitting Analysis
Section 11 Energy Generation Estimates
Section 12 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Section 13 Scheduling Summary
Section 14 Economic Feasibility Review
Section 15 Regional Wholesale Utility Planning and Development
Section 16 References
Section 17 Exhibits
Section 18 Public Meeting
2-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
2 Previous Studies
There have been numerous studies focusing on the potential for hydropower development in
Alaska, dating back in 1948 when the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) conducted
its first statewide reconnaissance. Specific sites near the Bethel area have been the subject of
studies since the mid-1970s. These studies include:
A Regional Electric Power System for the Lower Kuskokwim Vicinity, A Preliminary
Feasibility Assessment prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, by
Robert W. Retherford Associates, July 1975.
Small Hydroelectric Inventory of Villages served by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,
United States Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, December 1979.
Small-scale Hydropower Reconnaissance Study, Southwest Alaska, Department of the
Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska, R.W. Beck and
Associates, April 1981.
Reconnaissance Study of the Kisaralik River Hydroelectric Power Potential and
Alternate Electric Energy Resources in the Bethel Area, prepared for the Alaska Power
Authority, by Robert W. Retherford Associates, March 1980.
Application for Preliminary Permit, Kisaralik Hydroelectric Project, prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority, by Robert W. Retherford Associates, April 1980.
Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan, Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Interim Feasibility
Assessment, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, July 1982.
Bethel Area Power Plan, Feasibility Assessment, Harza Engineering Company,
December 1982.
The 1975 report included recommendations to proceed with studies for potential small-hydro
sites near the villages surrounding Bethel and consider studies for the development of the
Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) Hydroelectric Project. Two small-hydro studies were initiated and
completed during the following six years.
The 1979 Alaska Power Administration / Alaska Village Electric Cooperative studies did not
identify any hydroelectric projects near the villages within the study region.
The 1981 Corps of Engineers small-hydro inventory of southwestern Alaska identified several
potential hydropower sites, but none were located in the Yukon-Kuskowim Delta area. These
studies concluded that feasible development of small-hydro in the delta area is severely limited
by the gentle gradients of the streams and rivers of the area.
The 1980 reconnaissance level studies on the Kisaralik River (Lower Falls) Hydroelectric Project
identified a development that would comprise a 300-foot high rockfill dam and spillway near
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
2-2 May 2011
Lower Falls on the Kisaralik River and an underground power station with two 15-MW units.
The estimated average annual energy generation was 186,900 MWh. In April 1980, an
application for a FERC preliminary permit for this project was submitted.
The July 1982 report on the Bristol Bay regional power studies identified the Chikuminuk Lake
Hydroelectric Project. This development would comprise a 100-foot high rockfill dam and
spillway on the Allen River downstream of Chikuminuk Lake and a power station with two 8-
MW units. The estimated average annual energy generation was 76,100 MWh.
The December 1982 Harza report on potential sites for hydropower development in the Bethel
area consisted of three successive screenings; the first screening was performed by utilizing
available maps and published information. Two sites were identified from previous studies and
ten sites were located on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. The 12 preliminary
sites were reduced to 7 sites on the basis of broad-scale engineering criteria. The second
screening was conducted by evaluating the 7 sites based on estimated construction cost,
developed by means of parametric cost curves. In the third screening, conceptual project plans
were made for each of the 7 sites, and the sites were evaluated based on environmental, geologic
and cost estimates based on quantity takeoffs. The preferred site was selected as having lower
construction and economic costs and less environmental constraints on project development. In
this study, the preferred site was deemed to be the Chikuminuk Lake site; the estimated firm,
secondary and average energy production was 39, 21, and 60 GWh per year, respectively.
3-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
3 Land Use and Environmental Constraints
There are several regulatory approvals and permits necessary to facilitate development of a
hydroelectric project on the Kisaralik River or at Chikuminuk Lake. The governing approval
process is licensing under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations. Key
milestones2 of the FERC licensing process, which are detailed in Section 10 of this document,
include the development of a Pre-Application document (PAD), filing a notice of intent (NOI),
development and finalization of study plans in coordination with resource agencies,
implementation of environmental studies, preparation of a Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP)
or Draft License Application (DLA), preparation of a Final License Application (FLA), and
issuance of a Section 401 (Clean Water Act) Water Quality Certification. Additional State and
Federal permits would be required. These include a State fish habitat permit, a State water right,
and a Federal dredge and fill permit.
As described in Section 9, the Kisaralik River supports king, sockeye, pink, coho and chum
salmon. Other important freshwater resident species include whitefish, sheefish, Alaska
blackfish, burbot, northern pike, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and grayling. The effects of the
hydroelectric project(s) on these fish species would be mitigated by the development of fish
passage facilities (see Section 9). The Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR), in
which the Kisaralik River hydroelectric project(s) would be located, supports one of the largest
aggregations of water birds in the world. Nineteen species of raptors have been recorded on the
refuge, including golden eagles, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons. The Kisaralik River is
important for nesting raptors and supports one of the densest breeding populations of breeding
golden eagles in North America. In recent years, caribou have migrated onto the eastern portions
of the YDNWR during the fall and winter. The ancestral home of the Yup’ik Eskimo, the
YDNWR includes more than 40 Yup’ik villages whose residents continue to live a largely
subsistence lifestyle. Kisaralik River hydroelectric project development may be permissible in
the YDNWR, as there are no explicit prohibitions in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 or in the National Wildlife System Improvement Act of 1997. The
permissibility of hydroelectric project construction and operation would be determined by the
Secretary of the Interior on a case-by-case basis under existing law.
Salmon do not migrate into Chikuminuk Lake. While resident fish are not plentiful in the lake,
rainbow trout, Arctic char, grayling, and lake trout are present. The effects of the hydroelectric
project on these fish species would be mitigated by the development of fish passage facilities.
Moose, caribou, black bear, and brown bear are present in the project vicinity. Chikuminuk Lake
is within Wood-Tikchik State Park. The area proposed for hydroelectric development has been
designated as “Wilderness”, meaning that it should have no man-made conveniences, except for
the most primitive of trails, minimum trail maintenance, and signing. The extent to which
hydroelectric development could be successful at Chikuminuk Lake will depend on the nature
and types of facilities at or near the lake (or on Allen River) along with the Park’s desire to
amend its management plan. Additionally, initial research indicates that one or more private in-
holdings within the Park boundary may be impacted by a hydroelectric development. A detailed
2 Filing an application to obtain a FERC Preliminary Permit is an optional initial step, and not necessarily required,
although it is a prudent action to maintain development rights to the site while studies are in progress.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
3-2 May 2011
site control study for the entire project area (including potentially flooded areas and transmission
line routes) should be conducted if feasibility-level analyses are pursued.
4-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
4 Hydrological Studies and Setting
4.1 Streamflow
Long-term monthly flow data at the potential dam sites are necessary as the basic input data to
power studies from which the energy generation estimates are developed. U.S. Geologic Survey
(USGS) records indicate there has been one gaging station on the Kisaralik River, located near
the potential Upper Falls dam site, which existed for a period of 8 years. At the outlet of
Chikuminuk Lake, a USGS gage existed near the potential dam site on the Allen River for a
period of about 3 years. Because the minimum desirable period of flow data record for power
studies is 30 years, flow data extension was performed by correlation with other streamflow data
in the region.
The USGS has developed a collection of streamflow gaging station records that are relatively
free of regulation and diversion influences, for the purpose of studying the variation of
streamflow (Slack and Landwehr 1992). This collection of data at 1,659 qualifying gaging
stations throughout the United States is called the Hydro-Climatic Data Network (HCDN). From
among the HCDN stations, the two closest stations to the potential dam sites in the region were
selected to be used for the flow data extension. As shown in Table 1, these gaging stations were
on the Nuyakuk and Nushagak rivers. It is noted that MWH has measured the drainage area at
the Allen River gage as 348 square miles instead of the 270 square miles given by the USGS. On
a runoff per unit area basis, the 348 square mile drainage area is more appropriate for the
recorded runoff.
Table 1: USGS Gaging Station Summary
The computer program HEC-4 Monthly Streamflow Simulation was used to perform the
streamflow record extension. HEC-4 is a multiple correlation program specifically developed by
the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purpose
of fill-in and extension of monthly streamflow records (HEC 1971). The HEC-4 analysis results
in monthly flow data sets at the USGS gaging stations that have been filled-in and extended to a
common period of record. The period of record chosen for use in the power studies was the 42
calendar years, from 1954 through 1995, because a continuous flow record for this period was
available at the Nuyakuk River station.
The USGS gaging stations on the Allen River and Kisaralik River are essentially at the
Chikuminuk Lake and Upper Falls dam sites, which means the HEC-4 results can be used
without adjustment as reservoir inflows at these dam sites. After a review of available
USGS Drainage Average Flood of
Gage Gage Name Area Latitude Longitude Flow Record Available
Number (sq.mi.)(cfs) (cfs)Period of Record
15304200 Kisaralik River near Akiak 265 60
o21'10" 159
o55'00" 882 5,520 8 years: Oct. 1979 - Sept 1987
15301500 Allen River near Aleknagik 348 (1) 60
o09'00" 158
o44'00" 1,494 7,930 3+ years: July 1963 - Sept 1966
15302000 Nuyakuk River near Dillingham 1,490 59
o56'08" 158
o11'16" 6,351 32,200 47 years: 1953 - 2009, intermittent
15302500 Nushagak River at Ekwok 9,850 59
o20'57" 157
o28'23" 23,511 117,000 16 years: Oct 1977 - Sept 1993
Note: (1) The drainage area listed by the USGS is 270 sq.mi., but the MWH measured drainage area is 348 sq. mi.
4-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
topographic maps and aerial photographs, the monthly flows at the Kisaralik River Upper Falls
dam site were adjusted to the Lower Falls and Golden Gate Falls dam sites based on the ratio of
drainage areas. The drainage areas are 264 square miles at the Upper Falls dam site, 510 square
miles at the Lower Falls dam site, 559 square miles at the Golden Gate Falls dam site, and 348
square miles at the Chikuminuk Lake dam site. The resulting monthly flow data sets are provided
below (Table 2 through Table 5 and Figure 1 through Figure 6).
Figure 1: Average Monthly Flow, 1954 – 1995
4-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Figure 2: Flow Duration Curves, Monthly Data 1954 – 1995
Figure 3: Chikuminuk Low, Average, High Monthly Flow (cfs)
4-4 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Figure 4: Upper Falls Low, Average, High Monthly Flow (cfs)
Figure 5: Lower Falls Low, Average, High Monthly Flow (cfs)
4-5 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Figure 6: Golden Gate Falls Low, Average, High Monthly Flow (cfs)
4-6 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 2: Flow (cfs) at Allen River Dam Site Below Chikuminuk Lake
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1954 457 386 279 267 507 3,511 2,642 866 1,422 1,016 471 407 1,020
1955 389 355 362 293 526 4,058 3,890 2,428 2,704 1,356 546 489 1,454
1956 449 344 340 283 523 4,780 3,073 2,161 2,776 1,448 570 461 1,436
1957 434 359 304 268 540 4,261 2,861 1,393 1,649 1,678 607 393 1,231
1958 347 393 374 355 667 4,853 3,455 2,444 1,610 977 506 550 1,381
1959 478 369 290 266 467 4,309 2,969 1,648 1,393 1,528 563 464 1,231
1960 432 387 301 261 501 4,656 3,327 2,196 2,245 1,376 601 461 1,398
1961 455 388 295 270 588 4,511 3,008 1,892 1,730 1,673 595 551 1,333
1962 485 374 287 277 505 4,647 3,240 2,107 2,387 1,186 534 539 1,383
1963 482 346 327 305 531 4,446 2,966 1,492 2,239 1,071 478 571 1,272
1964 474 406 314 255 339 4,870 2,908 1,986 2,039 1,571 625 520 1,360
1965 460 400 370 348 494 4,702 3,476 2,132 4,554 1,576 569 460 1,628
1966 400 350 300 260 367 3,900 3,226 2,010 2,300 1,731 618 405 1,325
1967 399 342 308 322 509 4,071 2,883 1,629 1,282 1,514 589 677 1,214
1968 499 363 327 266 457 3,849 2,918 2,047 2,221 1,407 503 539 1,286
1969 482 390 318 265 494 4,921 3,036 2,119 2,597 1,652 621 393 1,442
1970 384 361 284 269 521 4,622 3,186 2,449 1,578 1,226 510 586 1,335
1971 491 373 311 292 533 4,377 3,184 2,478 1,629 1,661 599 458 1,370
1972 447 367 312 261 410 4,340 3,522 2,496 3,338 1,403 611 408 1,495
1973 412 348 280 283 476 4,570 3,409 2,292 1,707 1,503 555 575 1,371
1974 490 395 343 283 499 4,207 2,831 2,127 1,378 1,495 561 471 1,260
1975 446 387 375 265 505 4,371 3,314 2,079 1,281 1,358 529 489 1,287
1976 468 381 288 266 450 4,174 3,061 2,159 1,892 1,664 610 439 1,324
1977 431 397 341 276 469 4,858 4,026 2,596 2,162 1,572 545 457 1,515
1978 452 386 288 292 783 4,516 3,185 1,965 2,237 1,274 543 470 1,368
1979 433 383 329 349 978 4,759 3,039 2,256 1,610 1,670 611 389 1,404
1980 372 379 296 374 1,011 4,912 3,202 2,463 1,617 1,678 617 437 1,451
1981 453 399 299 332 616 4,819 2,833 2,100 1,351 802 477 480 1,248
1982 444 365 362 301 540 4,815 3,332 2,166 2,151 1,246 578 457 1,399
1983 444 368 298 278 577 4,854 3,126 2,070 1,530 1,405 521 424 1,327
1984 389 359 323 304 536 4,103 3,271 2,058 1,513 921 461 564 1,237
1985 486 326 292 273 510 4,524 3,262 2,433 1,647 1,624 579 511 1,377
1986 469 384 277 277 486 3,871 3,623 2,510 2,811 1,569 652 482 1,455
1987 458 388 356 293 536 4,655 3,527 2,549 1,579 1,066 543 485 1,373
1988 445 359 290 289 710 4,912 3,239 2,316 1,993 901 560 560 1,383
1989 488 376 319 285 505 4,712 3,229 2,450 2,328 1,631 633 484 1,456
1990 476 338 278 395 890 4,251 2,905 1,251 1,466 1,425 576 505 1,232
1991 480 392 392 354 901 4,658 2,906 2,026 2,106 1,769 624 458 1,425
1992 448 391 294 312 666 4,228 3,402 2,413 1,573 856 497 581 1,309
1993 493 385 315 339 1,007 4,651 2,962 1,787 1,739 1,622 572 426 1,361
1994 416 382 280 355 859 4,793 3,275 2,124 1,389 1,653 614 487 1,389
1995 466 356 298 341 1,145 4,690 3,058 1,969 2,832 1,589 589 446 1,484
Average 448 373 315 298 598 4,490 3,185 2,098 1,990 1,413 566 486 1,358
Maximum 499 406 392 395 1,145 4,921 4,026 2,596 4,554 1,769 652 677 1,628
Minimum 347 326 277 255 339 3,511 2,642 866 1,281 802 461 389 1,020
4-7 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 3: Flow (cfs) at Kisaralik River Upper Falls Dam Site
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1954 227 220 176 156 430 2,283 1,533 556 537 460 315 243 595
1955 211 198 165 193 1,244 2,618 1,876 1,036 1,035 608 214 154 799
1956 173 177 111 121 1,068 3,158 2,055 841 988 633 329 253 827
1957 200 174 154 145 429 2,492 2,017 631 574 835 934 496 758
1958 279 243 208 309 1,295 2,907 2,016 1,399 1,066 468 170 150 878
1959 183 177 151 126 581 2,541 1,777 538 649 797 621 324 707
1960 242 221 218 290 469 2,079 1,519 1,200 760 585 297 200 675
1961 188 197 155 158 504 1,482 1,374 733 746 1,097 493 273 619
1962 224 206 198 267 921 2,412 1,617 1,009 887 555 180 159 721
1963 171 192 153 197 1,155 3,075 1,954 495 884 491 159 111 754
1964 127 133 133 82 741 2,488 1,973 1,196 937 1,414 403 227 825
1965 206 180 108 150 1,043 2,869 1,806 598 961 1,497 401 252 842
1966 225 223 190 178 654 2,128 1,522 721 919 3,245 1,038 491 966
1967 291 233 162 261 1,148 2,779 1,754 733 630 833 289 234 781
1968 163 175 80 102 740 2,203 1,385 574 1,033 647 203 151 622
1969 156 171 143 147 615 2,260 1,952 800 794 2,581 2,212 803 1,057
1970 318 267 224 242 441 2,896 2,186 1,319 1,169 509 134 114 820
1971 120 134 62 85 928 3,133 2,336 1,481 1,046 1,420 679 359 986
1972 245 228 186 176 947 3,531 2,841 1,960 1,254 842 494 351 1,092
1973 303 261 207 248 854 2,522 1,873 1,045 1,004 704 231 182 788
1974 166 177 160 181 1,055 3,651 3,315 1,432 814 637 223 196 1,005
1975 204 203 120 106 497 2,461 1,516 900 745 528 242 181 643
1976 193 185 159 149 1,015 3,545 2,285 1,003 1,040 716 529 252 924
1977 234 210 181 174 834 2,908 2,258 1,761 1,416 875 517 349 980
1978 305 267 222 333 736 1,827 1,621 570 958 653 286 249 670
1979 206 201 134 149 921 2,786 1,872 935 761 2,606 2,020 713 1,113
1980 302 243 221 332 1,067 3,432 3,205 1,438 930 1,330 775 378 1,143
1981 297 274 233 322 1,918 2,869 1,980 1,082 638 463 276 171 880
1982 165 165 165 165 640 3,070 2,396 863 1,226 586 208 175 820
1983 172 170 160 163 1,115 2,625 1,509 716 435 681 303 241 693
1984 230 220 208 196 441 1,548 1,354 556 565 519 163 130 512
1985 127 125 121 125 568 2,301 2,070 1,388 971 1,026 319 240 786
1986 230 220 210 223 746 3,423 2,785 1,507 1,065 796 440 234 993
1987 220 210 200 197 1,374 3,069 2,189 1,059 755 500 220 169 850
1988 182 170 133 129 865 2,602 2,111 963 1,021 458 171 140 748
1989 166 164 151 177 861 2,475 1,698 1,312 1,752 943 448 361 878
1990 272 245 159 205 2,742 3,350 2,104 651 962 654 213 179 982
1991 189 162 137 191 892 3,452 2,704 1,090 826 3,284 720 272 1,167
1992 264 242 221 332 983 2,248 1,633 1,078 1,088 375 126 124 728
1993 139 133 145 151 514 1,000 1,117 560 1,362 2,019 1,901 437 792
1994 290 251 189 285 1,214 2,745 1,767 695 775 1,153 653 320 864
1995 249 228 130 171 817 2,442 2,133 1,031 1,252 959 425 359 852
Average 216 202 165 193 905 2,659 1,976 987 934 1,000 499 271 837
Maximum 318 274 233 333 2,742 3,651 3,315 1,960 1,752 3,284 2,212 803 1,167
Minimum 120 125 62 82 429 1,000 1,117 495 435 375 126 111 512
4-8 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 4: Flow (cfs) at Kisaralik River Lower Falls Dam Site
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1954 437 423 339 300 828 4,394 2,950 1,070 1,033 885 606 468 1,146
1955 406 381 318 371 2,394 5,038 3,610 1,994 1,992 1,170 412 296 1,537
1956 333 341 214 233 2,055 6,078 3,955 1,619 1,901 1,218 633 487 1,592
1957 385 335 296 279 826 4,796 3,882 1,214 1,105 1,607 1,798 955 1,460
1958 537 468 400 595 2,492 5,595 3,880 2,692 2,052 901 327 289 1,691
1959 352 341 291 242 1,118 4,890 3,420 1,035 1,249 1,534 1,195 624 1,360
1960 466 425 420 558 903 4,001 2,923 2,309 1,463 1,126 572 385 1,299
1961 362 379 298 304 970 2,852 2,644 1,411 1,436 2,111 949 525 1,191
1962 431 396 381 514 1,772 4,642 3,112 1,942 1,707 1,068 346 306 1,388
1963 329 370 294 379 2,223 5,918 3,761 953 1,701 945 306 214 1,451
1964 244 256 256 158 1,426 4,788 3,797 2,302 1,803 2,721 776 437 1,588
1965 396 346 208 289 2,007 5,521 3,476 1,151 1,849 2,881 772 485 1,620
1966 433 429 366 343 1,259 4,095 2,929 1,388 1,769 6,245 1,998 945 1,859
1967 560 448 312 502 2,209 5,348 3,376 1,411 1,212 1,603 556 450 1,503
1968 314 337 154 196 1,424 4,240 2,665 1,105 1,988 1,245 391 291 1,197
1969 300 329 275 283 1,184 4,349 3,757 1,540 1,528 4,967 4,257 1,545 2,034
1970 612 514 431 466 849 5,573 4,207 2,538 2,250 980 258 219 1,577
1971 231 258 119 164 1,786 6,030 4,496 2,850 2,013 2,733 1,307 691 1,898
1972 472 439 358 339 1,823 6,796 5,468 3,772 2,413 1,620 951 676 2,102
1973 583 502 398 477 1,644 4,854 3,605 2,011 1,932 1,355 445 350 1,517
1974 319 341 308 348 2,030 7,026 6,380 2,756 1,567 1,226 429 377 1,934
1975 393 391 231 204 956 4,736 2,918 1,732 1,434 1,016 466 348 1,237
1976 371 356 306 287 1,953 6,822 4,398 1,930 2,002 1,378 1,018 485 1,779
1977 450 404 348 335 1,605 5,597 4,346 3,389 2,725 1,684 995 672 1,885
1978 587 514 427 641 1,416 3,516 3,120 1,097 1,844 1,257 550 479 1,290
1979 396 387 258 287 1,772 5,362 3,603 1,799 1,465 5,015 3,888 1,372 2,141
1980 581 468 425 639 2,053 6,605 6,168 2,767 1,790 2,560 1,492 727 2,199
1981 572 527 448 620 3,691 5,521 3,811 2,082 1,228 891 531 329 1,694
1982 318 318 318 318 1,232 5,908 4,611 1,661 2,359 1,128 400 337 1,579
1983 331 327 308 314 2,146 5,052 2,904 1,378 837 1,311 583 464 1,334
1984 443 423 400 377 849 2,979 2,606 1,070 1,087 999 314 250 985
1985 244 241 233 241 1,093 4,428 3,984 2,671 1,869 1,975 614 462 1,512
1986 443 423 404 429 1,436 6,588 5,360 2,900 2,050 1,532 847 450 1,911
1987 423 404 385 379 2,644 5,906 4,213 2,038 1,453 962 423 325 1,635
1988 350 327 256 248 1,665 5,008 4,063 1,853 1,965 881 329 269 1,439
1989 319 316 291 341 1,657 4,763 3,268 2,525 3,372 1,815 862 695 1,689
1990 523 472 306 395 5,277 6,447 4,049 1,253 1,851 1,259 410 344 1,889
1991 364 312 264 368 1,717 6,643 5,204 2,098 1,590 6,320 1,386 523 2,245
1992 508 466 425 639 1,892 4,326 3,143 2,075 2,094 722 242 239 1,400
1993 268 256 279 291 989 1,925 2,150 1,078 2,621 3,886 3,659 841 1,524
1994 558 483 364 548 2,336 5,283 3,401 1,338 1,492 2,219 1,257 616 1,662
1995 479 439 250 329 1,572 4,700 4,105 1,984 2,410 1,846 818 691 1,640
Average 415 388 318 371 1,742 5,118 3,803 1,900 1,798 1,924 961 522 1,610
Maximum 612 527 448 641 5,277 7,026 6,380 3,772 3,372 6,320 4,257 1,545 2,245
Minimum 231 241 119 158 826 1,925 2,150 953 837 722 242 214 985
4-9 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 5: Flow (cfs) at Kisaralik River Golden Gate Falls Dam Site
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1954 479 464 371 329 907 4,816 3,234 1,173 1,133 970 664 513 1,256
1955 445 418 348 407 2,624 5,522 3,957 2,185 2,183 1,283 451 325 1,684
1956 365 373 234 255 2,253 6,662 4,335 1,774 2,084 1,335 694 534 1,745
1957 422 367 325 306 905 5,257 4,255 1,331 1,211 1,761 1,970 1,046 1,600
1958 589 513 439 652 2,732 6,132 4,253 2,951 2,249 987 359 316 1,853
1959 386 373 319 266 1,226 5,360 3,748 1,135 1,369 1,681 1,310 683 1,491
1960 510 466 460 612 989 4,386 3,204 2,531 1,603 1,234 627 422 1,424
1961 397 416 327 333 1,063 3,126 2,898 1,546 1,574 2,314 1,040 576 1,306
1962 473 435 418 563 1,943 5,088 3,411 2,128 1,871 1,171 380 335 1,522
1963 361 405 323 416 2,436 6,487 4,122 1,044 1,865 1,036 335 234 1,591
1964 268 281 281 173 1,563 5,248 4,162 2,523 1,977 2,983 850 479 1,741
1965 435 380 228 316 2,200 6,052 3,810 1,261 2,027 3,158 846 532 1,776
1966 475 470 401 375 1,380 4,489 3,211 1,521 1,939 6,845 2,190 1,036 2,038
1967 614 491 342 551 2,422 5,862 3,700 1,546 1,329 1,757 610 494 1,648
1968 344 369 169 215 1,561 4,647 2,922 1,211 2,179 1,365 428 319 1,312
1969 329 361 302 310 1,297 4,767 4,118 1,688 1,675 5,444 4,666 1,694 2,229
1970 671 563 473 510 930 6,109 4,611 2,782 2,466 1,074 283 240 1,729
1971 253 283 131 179 1,958 6,609 4,928 3,124 2,206 2,995 1,432 757 2,080
1972 517 481 392 371 1,998 7,448 5,993 4,134 2,645 1,776 1,042 740 2,303
1973 639 551 437 523 1,801 5,320 3,951 2,204 2,118 1,485 487 384 1,662
1974 350 373 338 382 2,225 7,702 6,993 3,021 1,717 1,344 470 413 2,120
1975 430 428 253 224 1,048 5,191 3,198 1,898 1,572 1,114 510 382 1,356
1976 407 390 335 314 2,141 7,478 4,820 2,116 2,194 1,510 1,116 532 1,950
1977 494 443 382 367 1,759 6,134 4,763 3,715 2,987 1,846 1,091 736 2,067
1978 643 563 468 702 1,553 3,854 3,419 1,202 2,021 1,377 603 525 1,414
1979 435 424 283 314 1,943 5,877 3,949 1,972 1,605 5,497 4,261 1,504 2,347
1980 637 513 466 700 2,251 7,240 6,761 3,033 1,962 2,806 1,635 797 2,410
1981 627 578 491 679 4,046 6,052 4,177 2,282 1,346 977 582 361 1,857
1982 348 348 348 348 1,350 6,476 5,054 1,820 2,586 1,236 439 369 1,730
1983 363 359 338 344 2,352 5,537 3,183 1,510 918 1,437 639 508 1,462
1984 485 464 439 413 930 3,265 2,856 1,173 1,192 1,095 344 274 1,080
1985 268 264 255 264 1,198 4,854 4,367 2,928 2,048 2,164 673 506 1,657
1986 485 464 443 470 1,574 7,221 5,875 3,179 2,247 1,679 928 494 2,095
1987 464 443 422 416 2,898 6,474 4,618 2,234 1,593 1,055 464 356 1,792
1988 384 359 281 272 1,825 5,489 4,453 2,031 2,154 966 361 295 1,577
1989 350 346 319 373 1,816 5,221 3,582 2,768 3,696 1,989 945 762 1,852
1990 574 517 335 432 5,784 7,067 4,438 1,373 2,029 1,380 449 378 2,071
1991 399 342 289 403 1,882 7,282 5,704 2,299 1,742 6,927 1,519 574 2,461
1992 557 510 466 700 2,074 4,742 3,445 2,274 2,295 791 266 262 1,535
1993 293 281 306 319 1,084 2,109 2,356 1,181 2,873 4,259 4,010 922 1,670
1994 612 529 399 601 2,561 5,790 3,727 1,466 1,635 2,432 1,377 675 1,822
1995 525 481 274 361 1,723 5,151 4,499 2,175 2,641 2,023 897 757 1,798
Average 455 426 349 406 1,910 5,609 4,168 2,082 1,970 2,109 1,053 572 1,765
Maximum 671 578 491 702 5,784 7,702 6,993 4,134 3,696 6,927 4,666 1,694 2,461
Minimum 253 264 131 173 905 2,109 2,356 1,044 918 791 266 234 1,080
4-10 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
4.2 Flood Hydrology
The objective of the flood hydrology analysis is to develop inflow design floods for use in the
preliminary design of spillways at each of the four potential dam sites. Based on the high value
of the potential hydroelectric project facilities and the potential for downstream damages, the
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) was selected as the inflow design flood. For the potential
Kisaralik River reservoirs, the PMF inflow volume is large in comparison to the reservoir flood
control storage, which means the spillway must be sized such that the PMF peak outflow is equal
to the PMF peak inflow. For the Kisaralik River, only the peak PMF inflow values at the dam
sites must be known to size the spillways. For Chikuminuk Lake, the storage volume in the lake
is so great that it will provide substantial attenuation of even the PMF, which means that the
entire PMF inflow hydrograph must be developed from the Probable Maximum Precipitation
(PMP) and routed through the reservoir for alternative spillway sizes.
At the current early stage of studies, developing the PMF by approximate means is acceptable. If
one of the hydroelectric alternatives advances to a more detailed phase of studies, the PMF
should be determined in accordance with FERC PMF guidelines (FERC 2001).
4.2.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation
The PMF inflow hydrograph is developed from the PMP. The 24-hour PMP for the Kisaralik and
Chikuminuk watersheds is obtained from Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 47 (Miller 1963),
but a 72-hour PMP is not available in this document. The more recent PMP Hydrometeorological
Reports, developed by the National Weather Service, all include a 72-hour general storm PMP.
Because the drainage basins involved are large and because inflow volume is critical to sizing
the Chikuminuk spillway, a 72-hour PMP was developed for Chikuminuk Lake. Based on
guidance provided by the National Weather Service for Southeast Alaska in
Hydrometeorological Report No. 54 (Schwartz and Miller 1983), the 72-hr/24-hr PMP depth
ratio was estimated to be 1.70. The first 24-hours of the 72-hour PMP was assumed to include
40% of the 24-hour PMP and the last 24-hours of the 72-hour PMP was assumed to include 30%
of the 24-hour PMP. Where total inflow volume is most critical, rather than the PMF peak
inflow, a flood antecedent to the PMF can be used. For the Chikuminuk Lake PMF, the storm
sequence was assumed to be, (1) a 24-hour, 100-year storm, followed by (2) 3 days with no
rainfall, followed by (3) the 72-hour PMP (FERC 2001).
Based on Technical Paper No. 47, the 24-hour, 10 square mile (point) PMP for the Chikuminuk
Lake watershed would be 14.0 inches and the 6-hour point PMP is 9.0 inches. Using the 72-
hr/24-hr ratio from above, the 72-hour point PMP would be 23.8 inches. Including areal
reduction factors, the average rainfall over the 348 square mile watershed would be 12.4 inches
for 24-hours and about 21.1 inches for 72-hours. Also from Technical Paper No. 47, the 100-
year, 24-hour point rainfall is 3.5 inches for Chikuminuk Lake and 5.5 to 5.7 inches in the
Kisaralik River watersheds.
4-11 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
4.2.2 Chikuminuk Lake PMF
The PMF inflow flood development and flood routing was performed with the HEC-1 Flood
Hydrograph Package (HEC 1998) using a unit hydrograph methodology. Lag time is the key
parameter that determines the timing of runoff from rainfall. The unit hydrograph lag time was
based on a relationship found to be representative for general storms in the Rocky Mountains
(Cudworth 198 ). tim ationship is: 9 The lag e rel
ܮ ൌ6.8ቀೌ
ௌబ.ఱ ቁ.ଷଷ
where:
Lg = lag time, in hours;
L = length of the longest watercourse from the point of concentration to the
boundary of the drainage basin, in miles;
Lca = length along L from the point of concentration to a point opposite the
centroid of the drainage basin, in miles; and
S = slope of L, in feet per mile.
The Chikuminuk Lake watershed was divided into four sub-basins, as shown on Exhibit 3, where
sub-basin 4 is the Chikuminuk Lake surface itself. The unit hydrograph parameters are presented
on Table 6 with the PMF routing results for four alternative spillway widths shown on Table 7.
Base flow of 13.1 cfs/sq mi was determined from the highest average monthly flow during
September, the likely month of the PMP.
Table 6: Chikuminuk Lake Unit Hydrograph Parameters
Sub-Basin Sub-Basin Sub-Basin Sub-Basin
1234
Drainage Area (sq.mi.) 89 68.8 149.8 40
Drainage Length L (mi.) 7.3 7 32.5 -----
Length to Centroid (mi.) 3 3 16 -----
Elev. Diff. to Divide (ft) 2,900 2,050 4,200 -----
Slope (ft/mile)397 293 129 -----
Lag (hours) 7.0 7.3 24.0 -----
Base flow (cfs)1,166 901 1,963 -----
Parameter
4-12 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 7: Chikuminuk Lake PMF Routing Summary
For a dam with a 150-ft spillway crest length, the inflow and outflow hydrographs are shown
on Figure 7. The spillway head is the reservoir level minus the crest level of the spillway.
Figure 7: PMF Routing for Chikuminuk Lake – 150-ft Spillway
It is suggested that the Chikuminuk Lake dam spillway should not have a crest length not less
than 100 feet, and a minimum of 150 feet in length would be preferable (a 200-ft-wide spillway
is indicated on the concept sketches described later in this report).
Spillway Peak Peak Peak Head on
Run Crest Length Inflow Outflow Spillway Crest
No. (feet) (cfs) (cfs) (feet)
1 50 110,000 9,830 13.9
2 100 110,000 17,000 12.6
3 150 110,000 22,600 11.6
4 200 110,000 27,300 10.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Spillway Head (feet)Flow (cfs)Hours
Inflow (cfs)
Outflow (cfs)
Spillway Head (feet)
4-13 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
4.2.3 Kisaralik River PMF
The PMF peak flows for the Kisaralik River utilized site specific information and estimates of
the relationship between the PMF and the more easily estimated 100-year flood. At USGS gage
15304200, Kisaralik River near Akiak, there are 8 years of annual peak flow data. The 100-year
flood was estimated using the log-Pearson type III (LP3) distribution fitted to the peak flow data.
For extension of the flood frequency curve, the log skew parameter is very important. The more
positive the log skew parameter is, the larger the rare floods will be, whereas a negative log skew
would result in much lower rare flood estimates. The calculated log skew at the gaging station is
-1.53, while the regional mean provided in Bulletin 17B log skew is 0.7 (Interagency Committee
on Water Data 1982). As a conservative measure due to the relatively short period of record, a
log skew coefficient of 0.7 was used for flood frequency estimates, which results in a 100-year
flood estimate of 9,600 cfs. The flood frequency plot for the gaging station is shown on Figure 8.
Figure 8: Flood Frequency for Kisaralik River at USGS Gage 15304200
For the 48 adjacent United States area, maps of the ratio of the PMP for 10 square miles to the
100-year frequency rainfall (both for 24-hour durations) have been developed. These PMP/100-
yr rainfall ratios range between 2 and 6 (Committee on Safety Criteria for Dams 1985). For the
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake watersheds, the calculated ratios are 2.5 to 4.0. From
hydrologic principles, it could be expected that the ratio of the PMF to the 100-year flood would
be of similar magnitude, which has been confirmed in detailed PMF studies. MWH has
performed detailed PMF studies in mountainous areas of western Washington at locations where
1,000
10,000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Peak Flow (cfs)Standard Normal Variable
Return Period (Years)
20010050201052 500
4-14 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
exceptionally long USGS gaging records are available (MWH 2002a, and MWH 2002b). These
long USGS gaging records provide both sufficient flood hydrograph data from which unit
hydrographs can be calibrated and verified and enough years of data such that the 100-year flood
can be determined with greater precision than normal. This data is summarized in Table 8.
Flood routing was performed for both the 100-year rainfall and the PMP for the four sub-basins
tributary to Chikuminuk Lake, with the results also summarized in Table 8. After reviewing the
data in Table 8, and considering that the ratio of the PMP/100-yr rainfall ratio is about 2.5 for the
Kisaralik River, a conservative ratio of 4.0 was selected for the PMF/100-yr peak flows. For a
100-year flood of 9,600 cfs at the Upper Falls dam site, the estimated peak PMF inflow would be
38,400 cfs.
Studies in Western Washington have shown that the PMF peak plots at roughly the 107-year
flood, as summarized in Table 8. This type of frequency estimate can be used as an approximate
check of other PMF calculations. Using the regional log skew of 0.7, this method estimates a
PMF peak flow of 34,000 cfs at the Upper Falls site.
Table 8: 100-Year Flood and PMF Comparison
The 100-year flood of 9,600 cfs was estimated for the Upper Falls dam site, which has a drainage
area essentially the same as at the USGS gaging station. The 100-year flood estimates were then
adjusted to the other two dam sites with a drainage area adjustment factor based on the ratio of
the drainages areas (A) raised to a power as follows:
Drainage area adjustment factor ൌቀభ
మ
ቁ
Based on flood-of-record for USGS gages in Southwest Alaska and a regression equation for
estimating peak flows (Lamke 1979) the exponent n was estimated to be 0.88. Using this
drainage area adjustment factor and a PMF/100-year flood ratio of 4.0 yields the spillway design
USGS Peak of Peak of 24-Hr PMP/100-yr Peak of
Site Gage Drainage 100-Year 100-Year 100-Yr 24-Hr Peak of Peak of Point 24-Hour PMF Peak 10
7-Year
Number Location Years of Area Flood Flood Point Rain PMF PMF PMP Point Rain to 100-Year Flood Reference
Record (sq.mi.) (cfs) (cfs/sq.mi.) (inches) (cfs) (cfs/sq.mi.) (inches) Ratio Flood Ratio (cfs)
1 USGS Gage - Cowlitz
River at Packwood, WA 89 287 44,700 156 8.05 147,200 513 22.67 2.82 3.29 128,000 MWH, 2002a
2 USGS Gage - Cispus
River near Randle, WA 68 321 27,200 85 7.46 86,000 268 21.28 2.85 3.16 81,000 MWH, 2002a
3 USGS Gage - Cowlitz
River near Kosmos, WA 36 1,040 105,000 101 7.68 321,800 309 21.70 2.83 3.06 362,000 MWH, 2002a
4 USGS Gage - Nisqually
River near National, WA 67 132 22,970 174 8.21 96,600 732 25.13 3.06 4.21 73,000 MWH, 2002b
5 USGS Gage - Mineral
Creek near Mineral, WA 67 75.2 13,600 181 8.05 37,900 504 22.16 2.75 2.79 33,000 MWH, 2002b
6 USGS Gage - Nuyakuk
River near Dillingham, AK 47 1,490 32,900 22 3.50 N/A N/A 14.00 4.00 N/A 54,000 This report
7 Chikuminuk - Sub-basin 1 None 89.0 10,700 120 3.50 47,500 534 14.00 4.00 4.44 N/A This report
8 Chikuminuk - Sub-basin 2 None 68.8 8,300 121 3.50 36,700 533 14.00 4.00 4.42 N/A This report
9 Chikuminuk - Sub-basin 3 None 149.8 7,700 51 3.50 36,000 240 14.00 4.00 4.68 N/A This report
10 Chikuminuk - Sub-basin 4 None 40.0 12,500 313 3.50 50,100 1,253 14.00 4.00 4.01 N/A This report
11 Chikuminuk - All sub-basins None 347.6 23,600 68 3.50 110,000 316 14.00 4.00 4.66 N/A This report
12 Kisaralik River - Upper Falls
Dam Site and USGS Gage 8 264 9,600 36 5.50 38,400 145 14.00 2.55 4.00 34,000 This report
13 Kisaralik River - Lower Falls
Dam Site None 510 17,100 34 5.70 68,400 134 14.00 2.46 4.00 N/A This report
14 Kisaralik River - Golden Gate
Falls Dam Site None 559 18,600 33 5.70 74,400 133 14.00 2.46 4.00 N/A This report
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
floods presented in Table 9. The Kisaralik River spillway design floods are the peak of the PMF
inflow flood. The estimated spillway design flood flows are appropriate for preliminary design.
If studies of hydroelectric projects at any of the potential dam sites progress to more detailed
phases, more detailed PMF studies should also be performed.
Table 9: Kisaralik River Spillway Design Floods
Drainage Spillway
Dam Site Area Design Flood
(sq.mi.) (cfs)
Upper Falls 264 38,400
Lower Falls 510 68,400
Golden Gate Falls 559
74,400
4.2.4 Comparison to Previous Studies
In the prior study for the Kisaralik River watersheds (Harza 1982), the PMF peak inflows were
given as 254,000 cfs for the Upper Falls dam site, 341,000 cfs for the Lower Falls dam site, and
356,000 cfs for the Golden Gate Falls dam site. These PMF estimates were based on Creager’s
formula (Creager and Justin 1950) and a Creager “C” value of 120. Flood estimates from the
current study are several times lower.
The original data used to develop the Creager formula was reviewed. For drainage areas similar
to the watersheds in this study, many of the maximum flood flows were from Texas, which is
subject to tropical storms and hurricanes from the Gulf of Mexico. It is noted that the 24-hr PMP
for Texas is as high as 47 inches, in comparison to 14 inches for the Kisaralik River and
Chikuminuk Lake. It is concluded that using the Creager formula with a “C” of 120 will result in
a PMF peak several times too high for the Alaskan watersheds considered in this study.
4-15 May 2011
This page left blank intentionally.
5-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
5 Physical Setting
As part of the current reconnaissance-level evaluation, MWH conducted limited geologic study
including a brief geologic reconnaissance of the four sites. Two MWH engineers conducted a
site visit to the Chikuminuk Lake by float plane on September 17, 2010. The engineers
conducted site visits to the Upper Falls, Lower Falls, and Golden Gate Falls by helicopter on
September 18, 2010.
5.1 Location
The candidate hydropower and associated transmission facilities would be located in the area
mapped on the Bethel USGS 1:250,000 scale topographic map (quadrangle map) and the far
western portion of the Taylor Mountain map. The eastern two-thirds of this area is the relatively
rugged terrain of the Kilbuck Mountains. In contrast, the far western portion is the Kuskokwim
River lowland characterized by extensive lakes, bogs and wetlands.
5.2 Regional Physiology
The four potential hydropower sites are located in the Kilbuck Mountains. The Kilbuck
Mountains, along with the Ahklun Mountains to the south, comprise the southwestern portion of
the Kuskokwim Mountain Range. Within the confines of the project areas, the Kilbuck
Mountains vary from east to west. To the east, the Kilbuck Mountains are generally steeper and
exhibit greater vertical relief. Slopes in the eastern Kilbuck Mountains are typically comprised of
exposed rock, while the valleys are generally glacially widened with relatively flat bottoms. As
they extend to the west, the Kilbuck Mountains have less relief and more gentle slopes. Rock
exposures in this area are typically confined to areas of glaciations and promontories. While
present throughout the area, recent glacial, alluvial, and colluvial deposits are more common in
the western portion of the Kilbuck Mountains (Box et. al., 1993; Dusel-Bacon et. al., 1996).
The Kuskokwim River lowland extends from the western edge of the Kilbuck Mountains to the
Bering Sea. This physiographic area is characterized by low relief marshland and bog flats with
numerous lakes, sloughs, and low-gradient, highly sinuous streams. It is estimated that
approximately 40 to 50 percent of this region is covered by water (BLM, 1985). The Kuskokwim
River and its southern tributaries have very low gradients, are slow moving, and are tidally
influenced as far north as the mouth of the Tuluksak River.
5.3 Regional Geology
The geology of southwest Alaska includes a collection of three primary rock groups: (1)
continental margin rocks associated with the northern Kuskokwim Mountains and southwestern
Alaska Range; (2) primarily Mesozoic accreted rock formations; and (3) younger sedimentary,
volcanic and plutonic rocks. These primary rock groups are commonly overlain by recent,
5-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
unconsolidated alluvial and glacial till deposits and by Quaternary extrusive deposits in localized
areas.
Within the project area, continental margin rocks are primarily comprised of Precambrian
metamorphic rocks. These rock units are believed to be some of the oldest rocks in Alaska.
Exposures of these rocks are limited to isolated locations of the Kuskokwim Mountains and in
fault contacts with accreted rock terranes.
Prior to the early 1990s the accreted rock terranes of the area had been grouped undifferentially
into the Gumek Formation as described by Hoare and Coonrad (1959). More recently these rock
units have been subdivided by genetic relations and better defined by terranes collectively known
as the Terranes of the Bristol Bay Region (Box et al., 1993; Decker et al., 1994). In the area of
the envisioned project, these terranes include the Nyack, Togiak and Goodnews Terranes.
The Nyack Terrane is mapped in the central portion of the Bethel quadrangle map and is located
furthest west of the accreted terranes in the project area. The Nyack Terrance is comprised of
Jurassic volcanic and sediment rocks of volcanic origin. Volcanic rocks of this terrane primarily
consist of andesite, basalt and dacite. Sedimentary rocks typically consist of greywacke,
siltstone, and conglomerate containing clasts of volcanic rocks. Rocks of the Nyack Terrane are
generally lightly altered and contain minerals consistent with the lower green-schist
metamorphic facies.
The Togiak Terrane extends from the south-central portion of the Bethel quadrangle map in a
northeastern direction to the northwest corner of the adjacent Taylor Mountain quadrangle map.
The Togiak Terrane is comprised of late Triassic through early Cretaceous volcanic and
volcanoclastic rocks. Near the project area, volcanic rocks consist primarily of dacite, and
volcanoclastic rocks consist of breccias and sandstones. These rock units are consistent with
weakly metamorphosed prehnite-pumpellyite or lower greenschist facies and display moderate to
severe deformation.
The Goodnews Terrane can be divided into two subterranes within the project area; the Nukluk
Subterrane and the Tikchik Subterrane. The Nukluk Subterrane is present in a localized portion
of the east-central Bethel quadrangle map. The Tikchik Subterrane is mapped surrounding
Chikuminuk Lake within the western Taylor Mountain quadrangle map and the southeastern
Bethel quadrangle map. Both the Nukluk and Tikchik Subterranes are structurally complex and
to date, are not well defined. The Nukluk Subterrane primarily consists of limestone, laminated
green or black mudstone, and basalt. The Tikchik Subterrane is described as a complex
assemblage of clastic sedimentary rocks, chert, limestone, and mafic volcanic rocks ranging in
age from Ordovician to early Cretaceous.
The accreted terranes are overlain by a series of slightly younger sedimentary rocks of the
Kuskokwim Group in many parts of southwestern Alaska. The Kuskokwim group is primarily
comprised of sandstones, graywackes, conglomerates and other sedimentary rock types that are
regionally deformed into open folds. The age of the Kuskokwim Group is believed to range from
lower to upper Cretaceous.
5-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
A group of late Cretaceous and Quaternary basalt and pyroclastic rocks intrude the older
continental, accreted terranes and the Kuskokwim Group. These more recent rocks are in
dispersed locations throughout the project area. These rock occurrences are generally not located
within the immediate area of the four potential project sites as part of this study.
Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits comprise the entire western portion of the project area and
are present locally within the Kilbuck Mountains. Within the Kuskokwim River Lowlands,
Quaternary aged deposits are primarily mapped as alluvial and silt deposits, with some glacial
outwash deposits occurring near the western edge of the Kilbuck Mountains. Within the Kilbuck
Mountains, Quaternary deposit primarily consist of glacial till, which mantels most valley
lowlands. Localized areas of recent alluvium and glacial outwash are also present in smaller
deposits within the Kilbuck Mountains. Discontinuous areas of permafrost are present within the
unconsolidated Quaternary deposits throughout the project area.
5.4 Regional Tectonics and Seismic Records
Much of the topography and structure of the region can be attributed to a series of north-
northeast and northwest trending faults. The primary north-northeast fault is considered to be
The Denali fault system. In southwest Alaska, this system includes the Togiak-Tikchik, Holitna,
Boss Creek and Hagermister Faults. A number of faults run sub-parallel to this fault system
including the Milk Creek, Karl Creek, Golden Gate, Sawpit, and Iditarod-Nixon Faults. A series
of smaller faults, including Trail Creek, Lake (or Fork) Creek, and Mount Oratia Faults, run sub-
orthogonal to the larger and more continuous north-northwest trending faults. Table 10 presents a
list of selected mapped faults and their approximate distance to the potential hydropower sites.
Table 10: Approximate Distance from Potential Hydropower Sites to Mapped Fault Traces
(Miles)
Fault Chikuminuk
Lake Site
Upper Falls
Site
Lower Falls
Site
Golden Gate
Falls Site
Aniak-Thompson 20 21 30 43
East Kulukak 48 69 78 84
Golden Gate 55 11 4 0
Goodnews 35 32 39 45
Hagemeister 45 41 48 52
Karl Creek 54 13 6 0
Kulukak 63 70 78 84
Lake Creek 40 4 11 17
Milk Creek 20 23 30 34
Mt. Oratia 16 20 25 30
Sawpit 66 24 17 12
Togiak-Tikchik
(Denali Fault
System)
14 30 36 40
Trail Creek 34 13 14 17
5-4 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Studies of faults and records of seismic events in southwest Alaska are somewhat limited in
comparison to other areas of the country. Between about 1903 and about 1969, only events large
enough to be detected from more populated areas of Alaska were noted in the historical record.
During this time only one major earthquake was noted in the project area. This earthquake was
located approximately 100 miles north of the Chikuminuk Lake site and had an estimated
magnitude of 6.9. Since this time, the number of seismographs has continued to increase and the
detection resolution of moderate and small events, having magnitudes less than about 5 have
been noted within about 100 miles of the site. However, the lack of seismic resolution is far less
than other more populated and more seismically active areas of the country. Given the lack of
seismic instrumentation, assigning seismic events to specific faults or locations can be
considered provisional at best.
Geologic studies of the project area report that segments of the Denali Fault offset
unconsolidated alluvial deposits in the Kuskokwim region suggesting recent activity (Stevens
and Craw, 2003). Reports of physical evidence indicating Quaternary activity of other area faults
are lacking; however, seismic data would suggest that some of the area faults are active. A list of
recorded seismic events greater than 4.0 and their estimated distance to the potential hydropower
sites is presented in Table 11.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
5-5 May 2011
Table 11: List of Key Seismic Events and Estimated Distance from the Potential
Hydropower Sites
Seismic Event* Chikuminuk
Lake Site
Upper Falls
Site
Lower Falls
Site
Golden Gate
Falls Site
Date Richter
Magnitude
Distance**
(Miles)
6/2/1903 6.9 97 111 113 113
2/21/1969 4.1 39 66 72 74
4/1/1970 4.1 101 48 40 35
4/8/1970 4.1 74 73 75 75
6/6/1970 4.3 82 118 123 125
6/16/1970 4.6 151 97 88 82
9/15/1970 4.1 103 81 78 75
3/8/1973 4.4 89 85 85 84
3/9/1973 4.1 81 60 59 58
4/22/1973 4.4 90 59 56 54
12/4/1978 4.1 77 23 18 15
1/30/1983 4.6 69 64 66 66
1/26/1991 4.4 140 107 102 98
5/16/1992 4.2 115 97 101 105
2/10/1994 4.4 37 48 57 63
5/27/2005 4.6 78 99 102 103
5/27/2005 4.7 78 111 116 117
6/8/2005 4.6 74 95 98 99
* Data Based on Alaska Earthquake Information Center Database queried on November
16, 2010.
** Distances are approximate.
This page left blank intentionally.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-1 May 2011
6 Site Specific Geological Assessments
6.1 Chikuminuk Lake
Chikuminuk Lake is one of a series of lakes located in the northwest portion of Wood-Tikchik
State Park, approximately 115 miles east-southeast of the community of Bethel. These lakes
consist of landlocked fjords, with the lakes situated in the bases of relatively wide glaciated
valleys. The mouth of this landlocked fjord is impeded at the southeast portion of the lake by a
recessional moraine and shallow rock. A box canyon is present at the southeast corner of the lake
that forms an outlet to the Allen River. The upper portions of the Allen River are confined to a
box canyon, which is approximately 60 to 80 feet deep. The river is deflected to the southwest by
a protruding ridgeline located approximately 2,500 feet downstream from Chikuminuk Lake. At
this point, the Allen River makes a series of sharp turns as it meanders around the ridge before
continuing southeast for approximately 11 miles, where it reaches Lake Chauekuktuli.
The proposed layout at Chikuminuk Lake is shown in Exhibit 5 of this report. Construction of a
hydropower facility at the Chikuminuk Lake is considered generally feasible from a geologic and
geotechnical standpoint; however a number of factors could have significant impacts on the
design and economics of the potential development. Some of the key factors are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
6.1.1 Background on Site Geology
The geologic assemblage of the Chikuminuk Lake site consists of Tikchik Subterrane, which is
commonly described as a mélange of accreted rocks ranging in age from Paleozoic to Mesozoic.
Locally, rock crops out in the banks of the Allen River within the box canyon. At these locations,
the rock is chiefly composed of sandstone, greywacke, radiolarian chert, and shale. The rock is
typically covered by a layer of glacial till that is variable in thickness in areas adjacent to the
canyon. Exposed rock outcrops appear massive with no apparent predominate joints or bedding
planes; however, localized areas of thinly bedded shale have been reported previously (Harza,
1982). It is expected that fresh rock, suitable for a dam foundation, could be exposed with
relatively shallow excavations. In general, preliminary assessments of the rock formations
indicate it would be suitable for support of the dam, tunnels, and structures associated with the
project.
Project areas located outside the box canyon are mantled by glacial soils including tills, outwash
and moraine deposits. These soils likely range in thickness from a few feet to the west of the
Allen River to tens of feet in the moraine deposits south east of the lake and in the upper slopes
adjacent to the Allen River downstream of the box canyon.
While no explorations were conducted nor samples were collected of the glacial soils during this
reconnaissance, they are expected to consist of dense sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders. These
materials, as well as rock excavated from the spillway and tunnel, may potentially be suitable for
embankment dam fill, concrete aggregates, and general construction fill; however, further testing
is recommended to confirm their composition and suitability for specific uses.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-2 May 2011
Potential sources of fine grained soil suitable for the construction of a low permeability dam core
were not observed at the site. Previous site evaluations identified only limited amounts of fine
grained soil at a location downstream of the project site. However, fine grained soil deposits and
low permeability till can occur in some terminal and recessional moraine deposits similar to
those located to the east of the dam site. Subsurface investigations would be required to identify
any fine grained soil or low permeability till in these deposits.
Previous site investigations have indicated that localized areas of permafrost may be present
within the glacial deposits northeast of the dam (Harza, 1982). Increasing the elevation of
Chikuminuk Lake could cause permafrost to melt. Melting of the permafrost could potentially
reduce the strength and increase the seepage characteristics of these soils, which currently form a
natural berm across the eastern extent of the lake. Further investigations of these soils would be
required to adequately assess the existence of permafrost and their potential impact on the project
as the design of the Chikuminuk Lake site progresses. 3
The flow rate of the Allen River was too large to conduct a profile of the stream bed at the time
of the site visit. Accordingly, there are no accurate assessments of channel shape, flow rate, or
water depth available at the current time. Based on observation, the stream channel at the
feasible dam locations is generally a flat-bottomed “U” shaped. Substrate material typically
consists of gravel and cobble sized material with occasional locations of sand, silt and boulder up
to several feet in diameter. Flow velocities of the Allen River near the outlet of Chikuminuk
Lake are estimated to be on the order of 5 feet per second. Based on observed site conditions, the
most appropriate locations for a stream gaging station would either be approximately 500 feet
downstream of the proposed tunnel outlet, or at the location of the former gaging station located
approximately 2,000 feet further downstream.
6.1.2 Local Tectonic Conditions
Chikuminuk Lake is transected by two mapped faults. The potential for a seismic activity on
these faults is not well understood at the present time. If active, earthquake related ground
movements could displace a large volume of water resulting in a large standing wave, or seiche.
This type of event could potentially overtop the dam, similar to the event that occurred at
Hebgen Lake Dam in 1959. A concrete dam with an ogee crest would mitigate the risk
associated with an earthquake induced seiche. Additional seismic evaluations regarding the
seismic activity of faults in the Chikuminuk Lake are recommended to further evaluate the
feasibility of a dam at this location.
The western boundary of Chikuminuk Lake is bounded by the Togiak-Tikchik segment of the
Denali Fault System, the largest strike-slip fault system in Alaska. Eastern and central segments
3 With the exception of the areas north of Nishlik Lake, it appears that permafrost only occurs in sporadic locations
with the Wood-Tikchik State Park (AKDNR, 2002). Signs of permafrost were not immediately apparent in the area
surrounding the conceptual Chikuminuk Lake Dam facilities. Currently, significant amounts of permafrost are not
anticipated near the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake or the moraine deposits located immediately to the west; however,
determining the presence and distribution of permafrost within this area should be conducted as part of a feasibility
level study if more detailed evaluations of this site are conducted.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-3 May 2011
of this fault system are known to be currently active. The most notable recent earthquake was a
7.8 magnitude event occurring along the Muldrow-Alsek segment of the fault in 2002. However,
significant earthquakes exceeding magnitude 5 along the Togiak-Tikchik segment are noticeably
absent from the recorded seismic record. There are insufficient data to determine conclusively
whether or not the Togiak-Tikchik segment is currently active.
A second unnamed reverse fault that transects the lake approximately eight miles west of the
dam site has been mapped by Box et al (1993). This fault has been omitted from the work of
others and, like the Togiak-Tikchik segment of the Denali Fault System, the time of its most
recent activity is unknown. It is likely that this unnamed fault would displace in response to
movement on the larger Togiak-Tikchik fault segment. MWH did not observe any evidence of
displacement of Quaternary deposits that would indicate the presence of an active fault in the
immediate vicinity of the potential hydropower facility.
6.1.3 Site Access
The Chikuminuk Lake site is viewed as the most difficult to access of the four sites evaluated.
Given that the site is located in a remote part of a State park, construction of access roads are
expected to be challenging to permit. In addition, site access roads would cross extensive
wetland area soft soil and rugged mountains making access road construction technically
challenging as well. Alternatively, the site could be accessed entirely by air. Both alternatives are
expected to have significant financial and scheduling impacts on the project.
Currently, mechanized access to the Chikuminuk Lake site is limited to aircraft equipped with
floats. The site is located within the Wood-Tikchik State Park, which does not allow access by
helicopter. Furthermore, there are no existing roads leading to or near the site.
In winter months, the site could potentially be accessed by ice roads along streams from the
Dillingham area. Such a route would be approximately 175 miles long and would encounter
numerous rapids and other obstacles. The feasibility of an ice road from Dillingham is uncertain.
If overland roads can be permitted within the State park, a route to the Dillingham area would
likely be on the order of 120 miles, while a route to the Bethel area would likely be
approximately 130 miles long. Access to both locations would encounter difficult construction
conditions, including mountainous terrain and very soft soil within lowland areas. This would be
especially true for an access road from the Bethel area.
Alternatively, a landing strip could be constructed on a relatively flat area located northeast of
the proposed dam site. A runway of approximately 5,000 feet in length could be constructed at
this location.
Additional investigation is needed to conclusively determine the best construction and permanent
access plan.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-4 May 2011
6.1.4 Reservoir Water Tightness
Preliminary water seepage analysis conducted by Harza, indicated that water losses through the
moraine deposits would be on the order of 50 to 100 cubic feet per second for reservoir
elevations between 620 and 660 feet. A slurry cutoff wall has been proposed to mitigate the
seepage. This cutoff would extend from the left abutment across the Allen River valley to the
northeast where it would tie into the hillside. If required, the trench could be thousands of feet in
length and would be a significant part of construction costs. Additional investigations would be
required to further evaluate the need and extent of a slurry cutoff trench at the Chikuminuk Lake
site. This item has not been included in the estimated costs and does require further investigation.
6.1.5 Construction Materials
Construction materials such as aggregate, common borrow, crushed rock, and riprap can be
obtained from sources within the immediate area of the dam site. These materials will be
required for the construction of concrete, roadways, landing strips, stream armor, and other
project facilities.
Sizable quantities of fine grained soil suitable for the construction of a low permeability
embankment dam core have not been identified near the site. Importing fine grained soil for this
purpose would likely make an embankment dam option prohibitively expensive. Further
investigation of the recessional moraine deposits northeast of the dam site is recommended to
identify potential low permeability soils if an embankment dam option is pursued for the
Chikuminuk Lake site.
6.1.6 Transmission Line Alignment
The path of the transmission line would transect rugged portions of the Kilbuck Mountains, and
extensive swamps and bogs of the Kuskokwim River lowlands. Mountainous portions of the
alignment, most notably the mountain pass crossing west of Chikuminuk Lake could potentially
be exposed to landslides and avalanche hazards. The Kuskokwim River lowland will pose
extensive constructability challenges as the lakes and bogs will make overland travel of
construction equipment impractical during non-winter months. Discontinuous areas of
permafrost may also be encountered within unconsolidated Quaternary deposits along the
alignment. A detailed evaluation of permafrost areas and how they may impact transmission line
support systems should be conducted during more detailed phases of design.
6.2 Upper Falls
The Upper Falls site is located in the Kilbuck Mountains, on the upper reaches of the Kisaralik
River. The site is located within a remote location of a United States Fish and Wildlife (USFW)
refuge, approximately 25 river miles downstream of Kisaralik Lake and 70 miles east-southeast
of the community of Bethel. The topography at the site is defined by a large glaciated valley to
the south and east, and more mountainous terrain to the north and west. Upstream of the falls, the
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-5 May 2011
river is confined to a shallow “U” shaped depression along the northern extent of the glaciated
valley. The falls mark a transition where the river begins to flow through more mountainous
terrain.
The falls are comprised of a series of two rapids formed by a differentially weathered rock
outcrop that extends across the river. Locally, the falls are bound to the southeast by a relatively
flat terrace, approximately 40 feet above the elevation of the river. The terrace extends to the
southeast for 1,200 feet, where it meets the base of a small hill. Previous evaluations have
concluded that rock is likely located within about 10 to 15 feet of the ground surface at this
location (Harza, 1982). The falls are bound to the north by a mountain with a peak elevation of
approximately 2,000 feet. The mountain slopes moderately toward the falls at an average rate of
about 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V).
The substrate of the Kisaralik River at the location of the falls consists of scoured rock, cobbles
and boulders to approximately 3 feet in diameter. The riverbed immediately upstream of the falls
is predominately comprised of sand, gravel and cobbles, with occasional boulders up to about 2
feet in diameter. Stream flow rates are estimated to be approximately 7 feet per second. Due to
high stream levels during the site visit, the profile of river at Upper Falls was not evaluated.
Relatively straight alignments of the river are present within about 1,000 feet of the falls on both
up and downstream sides. These alignments could potentially act as sites for a future gaging
station.
The proposed layout at Upper Falls is shown in Exhibit 6 of this report. A hydropower dam
facility at the Upper Falls site is viewed as being generally feasible from a geologic and
geotechnical standpoint. Some of the key factors are discussed in the following paragraphs.
6.2.1 Background on Site Geology
The geology of the Upper Falls site is mapped as the Kuskokwim Formation, which is locally
comprised of a lightly to moderately metamorphosed sequence of lower to upper Cretaceous
sedimentary rocks (Hoare and Coonrad, 1959; Box et al, 1993; Wilson et al, 2007). The
formation is gently to moderately folded regionally. A synclinal axis having a strike of
approximately north 30 degrees east is mapped approximately 1 mile east of the falls. At the
falls, the Kuskokwim Formation consists of an approximately 100-foot thick layer of shale
sandwiched between two thinner layers of greywacke. The shale layer is thinly bedded, and is
more susceptible to weathering. This is evidenced by the differential weathering of the two
Upper Falls rapids. In contrast, the greywacke is strong, hard, and thickly bedded to massive.
The bedding planes of both the shale and the greywacke dip steeply to the southeast at angles of
50 to 70 degrees. These bedding planes are consistent in both abutments and can be observed
extending across the stream bed. No prominent joint sets were observed in either the shale or the
greywacke outcrops.
Excavated greywacke resulting from the dam and tunnels is likely to be suitable for construction
purposes; however, the volume of suitable rock is expected to be limited given their relatively
thin beds and their orientation with respect to dam layout and tunnel alignments. The estimated
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-6 May 2011
100-foot thick bed of shale is relatively soft and non-durable. This rock type is not expected to be
suitable for construction purposes.
Unconsolidated Quaternary glacial till deposits are mapped over the broad valley to the south
and west of the site. The glacial till deposits are expected to be comprised of sand, cobbles,
gravel, and boulders. Local deposits of alluvium, consisting of sand, gravel and cobbles, are
present adjacent to the Kisaralik River on both upstream and downstream of the falls. Glacial and
alluvial soils are likely a suitable source for concrete aggregates and general fill purposes.
Localized areas of Quaternary igneous rocks have been mapped to the northwest of the project
site. Most notably, Box et al (1993) have mapped a small deposit of basalt approximately 3 miles
upstream of the site within left bank of the Kisaralik River. This area was not observed during
the site visits and the condition of this rock is not known. This rock could potentially be a source
for rockfill and riprap upon further investigation.
6.2.2 Local Tectonic Conditions
Based on a review of readily available data, there are no mapped faults that transect the Upper
Falls site or the envisioned reservoir. The two closest mapped faults are both approximately 10
miles from the site, which include the Lake Creek Fault (also referred to as the Fork Creek Fault)
to the east-southeast, and an unnamed fault to the west. These faults are not currently known to
be active. Further, MWH did not observe evidence of recent offset of recent deposits near the site
during the cursory site visit. However a detailed evaluation of seismic study of the area should be
conducted to confirm their inactivity during more detailed evaluations of the Upper Falls site.
6.2.3 Site Access
Similar to the other sites evaluated, construction access to the site will be challenging.
Construction access roads will be difficult to permit across national wildlife refuge lands.
Furthermore, construction of a road across the Kuskokwim Lowlands will present significant
technical challenges. If an access road cannot be constructed to the site, transport of equipment
and materials would need to be airlifted to the site. It would be potentially feasible to access the
site in winter month by utilizing ice roads, which could allow for winter time staging and reduce
the need of an overland road during summer months.
The Upper Falls site is located in a remote portion of the Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge.
Mechanized access to the site is currently limited to helicopters and float planes. Potential
landing zones for helicopters are abundant on the terrace area near the left abutment of the dam,
while landing zones on the right side of the river are limited to relatively small flat area on the
adjacent hillside above the dam. Float planes can be landed in a small lake, approximately 1.5
miles southeast of the site.
An airstrip could be constructed on a glacial till deposit located approximately 3 miles south of
the site; an airstrip in excess of 5,000 feet could be constructed at this location. This location
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-7 May 2011
could be used to airlift construction equipment and materials to the site if an overland road
cannot be established.
In winter months, the site could potentially be accessed by an ice road along the Kisaralik. An
ice road from Bethel would be approximately 115 miles long. Difficulties associated with this
route would include the rapids at Golden Gate Falls and the potential for avalanches from steep
slopes in the upper reaches of the river.
Similar to the Chikuminuk Lake site, permitting an overland construction access road through
the national wildlife refuge is expected to be difficult. If permitted, a construction road could
potentially be constructed to the Bethel area. However, construction of a road would be very
difficult due to the soft and boggy conditions within the Kuskokwim lowland areas.
6.2.4 Reservoir Water Tightness
Previous studies have assumed that rock is located within about 15 feet of the ground surface
across the length of the terrace located southwest of the dam site. Additional study would be
required to confirm this presumption. There is a significant potential that this overburden soil
could extend to much greater depths. Further, the overburden would be far more permeable than
the anticipated rock. It is likely that a cutoff wall would need to be constructed to improve the
water tightness of the reservoir at this location, adding a significant cost to the project. A
subsurface exploration program would be required to determine the depth to rock at this location.
6.2.5 Construction Materials
Course grained materials will be required for the construction of concrete, roadways, stream
armor, and other project facilities. Materials such as sand, aggregate, and common borrow can be
obtained from the alluvial and glacial till deposits adjacent to the dam site. Limited amounts of
crushed rock and riprap could be obtained from the dam and tunnel excavation conducted in the
two greywacke beds observed at the site. Additional unverified rock sources may be available
from a basalt deposit located approximately 3 miles upstream of the site. More detailed
evaluations will be required to verify that sufficient amounts of large rock for riprap can be
obtained in the vicinity of the site.
Fine grained soil, suitable for the construction of low permeability embankment dam core, have
not been identified near the site. If required, fine grained soil would likely need to be imported
from offsite sources.
6.2.6 Transmission Line Alignment
The path of the transmission line would transect extensive swamps, bogs, and discontinuous
permafrost of the Kuskokwim River Lowlands. The lowlands will pose extensive constructability
challenges, as the lakes and bogs will make overland travel of construction equipment
impractical during non-winter months. A detailed evaluation of permafrost areas, and how they
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-8 May 2011
may impact transmission line support systems, should be conducted during more detailed phases
of design.
6.3 Lower Falls
The Lower Falls site is located approximately 62 miles east-southeast of the community of
Bethel, and approximately 35 river miles downstream of Kisaralik Lake. The site is situated in a
steep sided, narrow valley, with mountains on either side extending approximately 1,200 feet
above the elevation of the river. The Kisaralik River at this location exhibits a series of large
sinuous turns as it makes its way through the Kilbuck Mountains. Valley slopes adjacent to
Lower Falls dip downward toward the river at a rate of 1.6H:1V on the left side and 2.4H:1V on
the right side. No signs of instability were observed in these slopes at the time of the site visit.
At the potential dam location, the substrate of the Kisaralik River consists primarily of gravel,
cobbles, and boulders up to 5 feet in diameter. At the deepest point of the channel, the river is
estimated to be approximately 20 feet deep. Streamflow velocity at the time of the site visit was
estimated to be on the order of 6 feet per second. A suitable location for a gaging station is
located along a relatively straight portion of the river, approximately 3,200 feet upstream of the
dam site.
The proposed layout at Lower Falls is shown in Exhibit 7 of this report. The Lower Falls site is
generally suitable for the construction of a hydropower facility from a geologic and geotechnical
standpoint. Some key factors that could impact the design and economics of a dam at this
location are discussed in the following paragraphs.
6.3.1 Background on Site Geology
The geology of the Lower Falls site is mapped as Paleozoic and Mesozoic volcanoclastic
sandstone and argillite of the Goodnews Terrane (Nukluk Subterrane). Rock outcrops observed
at the site of the dam are comprised of lightly metamorphosed argillite and chert. These rocks are
generally hard, strong, and moderately jointed to massive. Joint sets appear to be somewhat
inconsistent, with strike generally within 30 degrees of north or east that dip steeply to the east
and north, respectively. The rock can be observed outcropping in both sides of the valley,
suggesting that the overburden is relatively thin on both abutments. Based on the observations
made during the site visit, rock resulting from excavations of the dam, spillway, and tunnels
would likely be suitable for construction purposes including rock fill, riprap, and aggregate.
Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits at the site of the dam are limited to alluvium within the
stream bed, and a small bench of alluvium located immediately downstream of the dam on the
right side of the river. Additional alluvial deposits are present at a distance of approximately 2
miles either upstream or downstream of the dam site. These deposits would likely contain sand
and gravel suitable for concrete aggregate and general fill purposes.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-9 May 2011
No fine grained soil deposits suitable for use as a low permeability core were observed in the
vicinity of the Lower Falls site. This material would likely need to be imported from other
sources if an embankment dam is constructed at this location.
6.3.2 Local Tectonic Conditions
A review of readily available data indicates that there are no mapped faults at the Lower Falls
site. Faults within the local area include an unnamed fault, the Karl Creek Fault, and the Golden
Gate Fault. These faults are located between 2 to 3 miles west of the site. Each of the faults
consists of high angle reverse faults that dip in an easterly direction. The activity of these faults
is not well understood at the present time. However, a detailed evaluation of seismic activity
should be conducted to assess their most recent activity, and their potential impact on the site.
6.3.3 Site Access
Site access to the Lower Falls dam will be difficult. The most feasible methods of accessing the
site during construction will likely be by airplane or ice roads. While an overland road would be
preferable, it would be difficult to construct across the Kuskokwim lowlands. Furthermore,
overland roads are expected to be challenging to permit on refuge lands.
The Lower Falls site is located in a national wildlife refuge within a remote roadless area of the
Kilbuck Mountains. Currently, the site can only be accessed by helicopter and small boats that
can be portaged around Golden Gate Falls. It is feasible that small jet boats could reach the falls,
provided water flows through Golden Gate Falls are optimal.
A small terrace, located approximately 500 feet upstream of the dam site, currently provides an
adequate helicopter landing zone on the left bank of the Kisaralik River. Helicopter landing
zones located on the right bank of the river are sparse. However, it is possible that a landing zone
could be established on an alluvial deposit located downstream of the dam following some
clearing.
Airplane access could potentially be established within two miles downstream of the dam. A
relatively long alluvial terrace at this location could accommodate an airstrip up to
approximately 6,000 feet in length. Wider portions of this alluvial terrace could also provide
areas for construction staging.
During winter months, the site could be accessed using an ice road along the Kisaralik River.
The upper portions of this alignment would potentially be subject to avalanches, and would
likely encounter difficulties at Golden Gate Falls.
6.3.4 Construction Materials
Construction materials such as aggregate, common borrow, crushed rock, and riprap can be
obtained from sources within the immediate area of the dam site. Concrete sand and gravel can
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-10 May 2011
also be obtained from alluvial sources located approximately two miles from the site. These
materials will be required for the construction of concrete, roadways, stream armor, and other
project facilities.
Suitable sources of fine grained material have not been identified within the immediate area of
the site. This scarcity of fine grained material will likely exclude a zoned rock fill dam from
consideration at this site.
6.3.5 Transmission Line Alignment
The construction of transmission lines will be difficult due to the extensive swamps, bogs, and
discontinuous permafrost of the Kuskokwim River lowlands. It is likely that construction
equipment will not be able to access portions of the alignment, except during winter months.
Access to the Kuskokwim River lowlands is likely to be restricted to helicopters in non-winter
months.
6.4 Golden Gate Falls
The Golden Gate Falls site is located in the far western portion of the Kilbuck Mountains,
approximately 60 miles east-southeast of the Bethel area. Golden Gate Falls is made up a narrow
gorge at the northern extent of Greenstone Ridge. The base of the falls is situated at an estimated
elevation of 740 feet. The falls is bound to either side by mountains that extend upward to
approximate elevations of 850 feet to the north and 1,350 feet to the south. Upstream of the falls,
the Kisaralik River is situated in a moderately narrow valley with modest hills to the right of the
river and more prominent mountains to the left. The Kisaralik River valley becomes more broad
downstream of the falls, where an approximate 2,500-foot wide alluvial plan is located.
The Kisaralik River is approximately 50 feet wide at the site of the falls. Flow velocities are
estimated to be on the order of 10 feet per second. At the time of the site visit, river levels were
too high to view the substrate of the stream channel; however, it is assumed that the substrate
consists of scoured rock with boulders, on the order 1 to 2 feet in diameter, present along the
sides of the channel. Potential stream gaging locations are present approximately 3,500 upstream
on the falls.
The proposed layout at Golden Gate Falls is shown in Exhibit 8 of this report. From a geological
and geotechnical standpoint, the Golden Gate Falls site is considered generally feasible –
provided the nearby Golden Gate and Karl Creek Faults are not active, or the traces of these
faults can be determined to be outside the footprint of the project development. This and other
factors that could have significant impacts on the design and economics of the potential
development are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-11 May 2011
6.4.1 Background on Site Geology
The lower portions of right and left abutment are mapped as the late Cretaceous conglomerates
and other sedimentary rocks of the Kuskokwim Formation. Locally, these rocks outcrop within
the gorge, and are comprised primarily of moderately metamorphosed, clast-supported, pebble
conglomerates, siltstone and argillite. Upper portions of the right abutment are mapped shale and
siltstone of the Kuskokwim Group. The upper portions of the left abutment are mapped as late
Mesozoic metamorphosed sedimentary and intrusive rocks of the Goodnews Terrane (Nukluk
Subterrane). Rock outcrops of the Kuskokwim Formation observed at the lower elevations are
typically hard, strong and massive. Previous investigations have indicated that schist and meta-
chert can be observed at higher elevations on the left abutment, and clastic sedimentary rocks are
present on the right abutment. The previous site evaluations have indicated a highly weathered
zone of rock is present on the right abutment at elevations of 200 feet above the base of the gorge
(Harza, 1982). These observations are consistent with the descriptions of the mapped rock units.
Rock observed in both the left and right abutment is generally of good quality, with localized
fractured zones of up to about 30-feet wide that are traceable across the riverbed. Two linear
depressions were observed in the rock of the right bank, which likely act as secondary channels
of the river during flood stages. Rock excavated from dam foundation and tunnels will likely
produce aggregate suitable for construction purposes. Controlled blasting of this material could
produce large sized riprap. Additional outcrops of rock are present both upstream and
downstream of the dam site, which could be quarried for additional aggregate or riprap if needed.
Unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial deposits were observed in gravel bars and stream banks of
the Kisaralik River immediately upstream of the falls. In addition, extensive alluvial deposits are
mapped downstream of the falls (Box et al, 1993). This alluvium primarily consists of sand and
rounded gravel, with occasional cobbles to eight inches in diameter. The alluvial deposits would
like be suitable for aggregate and general fill purposes.
Similar to the other sites evaluated, there are no known fine grained soil deposits of any size near
the Golden Gate site. It is likely that fine grained soil would need to be imported to the site. This
would have a significant increase on the construction costs of an embankment dam constructed at
the site.
6.4.2 Local Tectonic Conditions
Two mapped faults are located immediately downstream of the Golden Gate Falls site (Box et al,
1993). While the locations of these faults are not well defined at this location, the Golden Gate
Fault and the Karl Creek Fault are assumed to converge at a point approximately 1,500 feet
downstream of the site. Where the faults are well defined, they display a high angle reverse
displacement. The strike of the Golden Gate Fault, the western most of the two, is approximately
10 degrees east of north. The strike of the Karl Creek fault ranges from about 30 to 35 degrees
east of north. Both faults dip in a southeastern direction.
Large scale geologic mapping indicates that the Golden Gate and Karl Creek Faults are located
very near the site. The activity and exact location of these faults are not known. No signs of
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-12 May 2011
recent fault movement were observed during the brief visit to the site; however a 4.1 magnitude
event that occurred approximately 15 miles north of the site in 1978 indicates recent activity on
nearby faults. Additional evaluations of these faults would be required to determine whether or
not either of these faults is currently active.
If either of the faults is active, it would likely have significant impacts on the constructability and
safety of the envisioned facility. A seismic event on either of these faults could potentially result
in severe ground accelerations given their close proximity to the site. Project facilities would
need to be highly reinforced, increasing the construction costs of the project. Furthermore, if one
of the faults is found to transect a portion of the site, offset along the fault could cause the
proposed development to fail.
If the faults are found to be inactive, the presence of a fault below the footprint of the dam could
have implications on the structure’s water tightness. Depending on the lateral extent of open or
unhealed apertures along the fault and the associated shear planes, an extensive grouting program
may be required to limit seepage. It is recommended that further evaluations of the site’s seismic
setting be conducted if development of the Golden Gate Falls site is considered.
6.4.3 Site Access
Access to the Golden Gate Falls site is considered the most favorable of the four sites evaluated.
However, construction access will still be very challenging. Construction access roads will be
difficult to permit across national wildlife refuge lands, and the Kuskokwim River lowlands will
present significant technical challenges. If an access road cannot be constructed to the site,
equipment and materials would need to be airlifted to the site or transported by ice roads during
the winter months.
The Golden Gate Falls site is located in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. There are no
existing roads within this portion of the refuge. Mechanized access to the site is currently limited
to helicopters and small boats. During periods of low flow, helicopters can land on gravel bars
near the left bank of the Kisaralik River. A number of relatively small landing zones are present
on the left bank of the river, downstream of the falls. Boats capable of negotiating shallow water
can reach the lower portion of the falls. Depending on the water level and stream velocities, it is
feasible that some jet boats could travel upstream of the falls.
Construction access to the site will could include airplanes and ice roads during winter months.
An airstrip could be constructed on the alluvial terraces located approximately 2.5 miles
downstream of the site. This location could potentially accommodate a 6,500-foot airstrip on a
terrace located to the south of the river. This location could also be used to for construction
staging.
It is likely that the site could be accessed by ice roads during winter months. An ice road from
the site to Bethel along the Kisaralik River would be on the order 100 miles long. This alignment
of the river is expected to be less susceptible to hazards such as avalanches in comparison to the
sites located further upstream.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-13 May 2011
Construction of an overland road is technically feasible. However, an overland road would likely
be very difficult due to the extensive lakes and bog areas that separate the site from the Bethel
area. In addition, since the area is located within a national wildlife refuge, permitting an access
road is expected to be difficult.
6.4.4 Construction Materials
Construction materials such as aggregate, common borrow, crushed rock, and riprap can be
obtained from sources located in the immediate area of the dam site. These materials will be
required for the construction of embankments, concrete, roadways, and riprap. However, large
quantities of fine grained soil, suitable for the construction of a low permeability embankment
dam core, have not been identified near the site. Importing fine grained soil for this purpose
would likely make a zoned rockfill or embankment dam option prohibitively expensive if a
suitable alternate permeability barrier cannot be identified.
6.4.5 Transmission Line Alignment
Similar to the construction of access roads, the construction of transmission lines will be difficult
due to the extensive swamps, bogs, and discontinuous permafrost of the Kuskokwim River
lowlands. It is likely that construction equipment will not be able to access portions of the
alignment except for during winter months. Access to the Kuskokwim River lowlands is likely to
be restricted to helicopters in non-winter months.
6.5 Summary
Each of the four sites evaluated is considered generally feasible for development from a
geological and geotechnical standpoint. The site share similar difficulties with respect to lack of
fine grained soils for use in a zoned rockfill dam (concepts described later consider a concrete
faced rockfill dam). However, base on this cursory review, each site exhibits favorable
conditions with respect to the other sites. For instance, the rock condition at the Lower Falls site
appears to have the most favorable conditions for a dam foundation and tunneling, while the
seismological risks appear to be lowest at the Upper Falls site. The Chikuminuk Lake site has the
most abundant access to construction materials. To provide an objective comparison between
sites with respect to geologic and geotechnical site aspects, the sites have been force ranked from
1 (most favorable) to 4 (least favorable) on the parameters of foundation conditions, seismology
and faulting, and construction materials in Table 12.
Table 12: Comparison of Site Parameters
Site Parameter
Foundation Conditions Seismology and Faulting Construction Materials
Chikuminuk Lake 2 3 1
Upper Falls 4 1 4
Lower Falls 1 2 3
Golden Gate Falls 3 4 4
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
6-14 May 2011
6.6 Recommendations
The following general recommendations are made for future geologic and geotechnical
evaluations if one or more of the sites are selected for more detailed analyses:
• Conduct a detailed seismic study of the area to determine the extent and activity of faults
located within the project area.
• Identify areas of suitable fine grain soils near the potential sites for considering a clay
core dam.
• Conduct laboratory testing on potential sand and gravel sources to determine their
suitability as concrete aggregates.
• Conduct subsurface investigations to determine the physical and strength parameters of
rock and soil at the proposed locations of dams, spillways, tunnels, powerhouses, and
ancillary project features.
• Conduct permeability tests on subsurface materials to more accurately assess the water
tightness of the formation and need for cutoff or consolidation grouting programs.
• Perform a detailed geological reconnaissance of reservoir areas, transmission line
alignments, and construction access road alignments to identify areas susceptible to
landslides or other geologic hazards.
7-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
7 Project Concepts
This section describes the project concepts developed for conceptual evaluation. The intent is to
identify a functional concept for the purposes of a establishing a preliminary cost and a
preliminary evaluation. No subsurface exploration, at-site mapping, detailed at-site
reconnaissance, nor at-site environmental characterization has been carried out. If any concept is
considered feasible for continued evaluation, it would be necessary to further define the concept
and cost estimate for a definite determination of economic feasibility and budgeting.
For relatively steep mountain streams, a concept that involves a diversion dam and a tunnel to a
downstream powerhouse is sometimes feasible. A diversion project avoids the need to construct
a relatively high dam with the associated construction and environmental costs. However, the
Kisaralik River gradient is not sufficient to accommodate such a development, and it is necessary
to construct dams to achieve the necessary head for hydropower generation. Further, the higher
flows occur in the summer, and the construction of a dams and the formation of reservoirs may
provide the ability to regulate streamflow and meet wintertime loads, when the electrical demand
is greater.
Low-head, run-of-river dams were also considered. However, a run-of-river project would not
be capable of regulating flow or matching power and energy delivery with the wintertime peaks.
Furthermore, the power and energy of low head dams is quite limited in relation to the amount of
investment required for diversion, dam and powerhouse construction. Adding hydropower
at existing low-head dams is being done in the lower 48 states, but a new low head dam for
power production is generally cost prohibitive.
The general layout concepts established for this study are presented in Exhibits 5 to 8.
7.1 Dam and Spillway
For initial planning purposes in this study, the selection of the normal operating water level of
the Kisaralik River reservoirs were selected based on the tailwater level of the identified
upstream candidate dam site. Construction of all three projects would provide for the
development of a total of 450 ft of drop from the Upper Falls reservoir level at El 1150 ft (as
assumed in this study) to the El 700 tailwater level at Golden Gate Falls. Again, this would need
to be reviewed and optimized if the project is deemed to be sufficiently attractive for future
investigations. It is possible that two of the Kisaralik candidates could be combined into one
larger development with a taller dam (for example, a taller Lower Falls dam to combine Lower
and Upper Falls). The parameters used for the conceptual plan for the Kisaralik sites are
indicated in Table 13.
7-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 13: Kisaralik River Projects Flood and Elevation Planning Criteria
Estimated Floods Elevations
Site PMF 100 yr 25 yr Normal Max
Reservoir Level
Normal Min
Reservoir Level
Approximate
Tailwater
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Chikuminuk Lake 110,000 23,600 18,000 660 615 544
Upper Falls 38,400 9,600 7,340 1150 1078 960
Lower Falls 68,400 17,100 13,100 955 897 800
Golden Gate Falls 74,400 18,600 14,200 800 766 700
Given the remote location and constraints on access (i.e. high cost for hauling in large quantities
of cement for a concrete dam), a concrete faced rockfill dam is judged to be the best solution for
the Kisaralik sites. If the projects appear to be a favorable candidates for continued study, this
selection would need to be reevaluated to determine the optimum dam type. For planning
purposes, the dam has been dimensioned with upstream and downstream slopes of 1.7H:1.0V
and a 20 ft crest with. The crest of the dam is set at 5 ft above the estimated PMF condition
maximum reservoir level. An average concrete facing thickness of 2 ft is assumed. For
foundation excavation, and average depth of 5 ft under the dam footprint is assumed. A grout
curtain extending from the upstream toe to a depth of about 70% of the reservoir water depth is
considered. The dimensioning would be optimized if the project is considered in a further study
phase.
The construction of the dam will require a substantial quantity of rockfill. For this reason, a
channel cut through the abutment of the dam would be used as a spillway, and the excavated
material would be used as the primary construction material source for the dam. The spillway
would have a simple concrete weir control section. For this study, the spillways have been
dimensioned to handle the estimated probable maximum peak inflow with a surcharge not
exceeding 15 ft.
River diversion for construction of the dam would be achieved by the construction of a diversion
tunnel and rockfill cofferdams constructed upstream and downstream of the dam construction
area. For planning purposes, diversion features were sized based on a 25-year recurrence flood
peak and an allowable surcharge of approximately 30 ft. The diversion tunnel would be
configured so it could be used as a permanent feature for supplying reservoir water to the
hydroelectric generating units. This would be accomplished as follows. First, the diversion
tunnel would be excavated, and rock support measures would be installed. It is not known if the
tunnel would need to be concrete lined, but it is assumed that the tunnel would not be lined, and
required watertightness can be achieved by grouting. A concrete plug and valve chamber with
two butterfly valves would be constructed within the diversion tunnel. Two steel pipes would be
installed within the tunnel, and would extend from the valve chamber to the downstream portal
of the tunnel.
For permanent post construction operation, discharge valves would be installed on the
downstream end of the pipe, but during construction, the ends of the pipes would be left open to
7-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
permit diverting flow around the dam construction site. Once the dam is complete and the
reservoir is ready for filling, operation of the butterfly valves will permit dewatering the pipes for
the installation of the downstream discharge valves (one pipe would be dewatered at a time,
while the other remains operational). This arrangement should permit a controlled filling of the
reservoir, and could also permit future drawdown of the reservoir if it is necessary to do so for
emergency or maintenance purposes.
A stub would be provided from one of the two pipes to permit connection to a penstock. Closure
of the discharge valves will permit pressurizing the tunnel for use in delivering water to the
penstock.
The feasibility and suitability of the arrangement described above would need to be further
investigated if the project appears to be attractive and favorable for continued consideration. For
example, the arrangement described above would create a pressurized tunnel under the dam, and
further work is necessary to determine if the site conditions could accommodate the concept. The
arrangement described above was developed for the purposes of initial evaluation, and must be
proven out with further investigations.
7.2 Power Waterways
The diversion tunnel system as described above would be used to deliver water from the
reservoir to the generating units. Use of the diversion tunnel system will require the construction
of a vertical tower style intake structure and will also require a penstock connected to one to the
two steel diversion tunnel pipes.
The intake tower would be constructed along the alignment of the diversion tunnel. The height of
the tower would be determined by the required elevation of the diversion tunnel and the crest of
the dam; the top of the tower would need to be above the maximum water level. The structure
would include intake ports below the minimum reservoir level. The intake ports would be fitted
with trashracks, with a trashrake provided. The intent would be to provide a means of clearing
the intake from the top of the intake tower. 4
Water would be conveyed through to the generating units by passing through the intake ports, the
intake tower, the diversion tunnel, then trough one of the butterfly valves and diversion discharge
pipes. The discharge pipe would be pressurized, as a valve would be installed at the downstream
end as described above. The penstock would extend from the source diversion tunnel pipe to a
bifurcation in the powerhouse area for supply of water to two units.
4 Frazil ice and debris collecting on the intake trashrack are significant concerns that will require detailed study if the
projects are to be taken to the next stage of development. To prevent frazil ice problems, some report that
development of a strong and stable ice cover during the winter period is a solution. Should a cover fail to form, frazil
ice generated in open water will probably reach the intake, potentially accumulating on trashracks and within water
passages. The intakes are located in an open area where the intake approach velocities should be low, and formation
of an ice cover should not be impeded. Intake location, configuration, performance criteria (such as maximum flow
velocity) and miscellaneous systems (such as rakes, bubblers, heaters, etc.) will need to be evaluated.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
7-4 May 2011
If it is necessary to dewater a diversion tunnel pipe and the penstock, the butterfly valve would
be operated to a closed position, and the discharge valve would be used to drain the pipe and
penstock.
7.3 Powerhouse
For the purposes of comparison, each candidate project is configured with a two-unit
powerhouse containing Francis type turbine generating units. The Francis type units provide a
conventional solution to energy recovery for the prevailing hydraulic heads and flows. Francis
units can provide an ability to follow varying discharge requirements, with reasonably good
efficiency over a range from 100% design discharge down to about 50% of the design discharge.
For Chikuminuk Lake, it is possible to adopt a horizontal shaft configuration with an elbow type
draft tube, which reduces the massive concrete embedment that would be required for a vertical
arrangement. For the Kisaralik sites, the units would probably need to be a vertical configuration
due to size.
Based on the size of units and the space required for balance of plant and equipment erection, a
powerhouse with a footprint of 80 ft by 150 ft is assumed for each site.
The ratings and key parameters for the major equipment are given in Table 14.
Table 14: Generating Capacity Parameters
Rated
Head
Station Rated
Discharge
Station Power
Output
Site (ft) (cfs) (MW)
Chikuminuk Lake 91 2,023 13.4
Upper Falls 149 2,553 27.7
Lower Falls 121.5 3,853 34.1
Golden Gate Falls 78.4 4,728 27.0
8-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
8 Transmission Line Planning
Hydropower development at the candidate sites would require construction of new overland
transmission lines connecting the projects to the load center in Bethel. One of the goals of this
study is to develop budgetary cost estimates for constructing a transmission line from Bethel, AK
to one or more of the four potential hydroelectric sites, shown in Figure 9. Specific criteria for
the actual conditions will be necessary for design; at present, typical criteria are used.
8.1 Route Alignment
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that all four potential hydroelectric sites may
ultimately be developed and connected to the transmission line. An overview of the preliminary
route alignment to serve the four potential hydroelectric sites is presented in Figure 9. The route
commences at the Bethel Substation (Point A, Elevation 28 ft). It is assumed the substation will
be located slightly south of Bethel. The route proceeds from the substation southeast across
approximately 34 miles of wetlands to Point B. At Point B the transmission line climbs out of the
wetlands and into the foothills of the Kilbuk Mountains and continues another 23 miles to
Golden Gate Falls (Point C, Elevation 800 ft) the nearest potential hydroelectric site located on
the Kisaralik River. From Point C the route proceeds 4.9 miles to Kisaralik Lower Falls (Point D,
Elevation 950 ft), and then continues 7.5 miles to Kisaralik Upper Falls (Point F, Elevation 1,140
ft) and finally 48 miles to Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric site (Point F, Elevation 670 ft). The
section of transmission line located between points A and D is situated within the Yukon Delta
Wildlife Refuge.
8-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Figure 9: Transmission Line Route Map
8.2 Voltage Selection
Two transmission voltage levels were investigated as part of the study effort. Voltage levels
considered were 69 kV and 138 kV. It was assumed that ultimately that Section A-C would carry
the peak output from all three Kisaralik River sites and possibly all four hydroelectric sites. The
installed capacity for each hydroelectric site, as previously identified in this report, is listed
in Table 15 along with the accumulated capacity. Table 16 was developed to allow selection of a
transmission voltage based on the amount of power (MW) that must be transmitted, and the
distance involved. For example, if it is necessary to transmit 120 MW across 60 miles, then 138
kV is required. If the requirement is only 50 MW, then 69 kV is satisfactory. If the Golden Gate
Falls project, located about 60 miles from Bethel, is the only project developed, then 69 kV
would be satisfactory. However, if a second hydroelectric project, say the Lower Falls project, is
developed, then it will be necessary to increase the voltage of the transmission line voltage to
138 kV to satisfactorily transmit the 61.1 MW combined output of the two sites the 60 miles to
Bethel. It is reasonable to assume that, as the power demand in the Bethel region increases, more
than one of the hydroelectric projects will be developed, and their combined output capacity will
exceed the transmission capability of a 69 kV line. Therefore, it is recommended that any
transmission line be constructed at the 138 kV voltage level. This basic analysis did not consider
stability aspects of the transmission lines or the existing community electrical systems.
8-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 15: Hydroelectric Project
Golden Gate Falls Lower Falls Upper Falls Chikuminuk Lake
Installed Capacity 27 MW 34.1 MW 27.7 MW 13.4 MW
Accumulated
Capacity 27 MW 61.1 MW 88.8 MW 102.2 MW
Accumulated
Distance 57 mi 61.9 mi 69.4 mi 117.4 mi
Table 16: Transmission Line Capacity Comparison
Line Voltage 40 Miles 60 Miles 80 Miles 100 Miles 120 Miles
138kV 140 MW 120 MW 100 MW 80MW 60MW
69KV 65 MW 50 MW 30 MW 20 MW ----
8.3 Transmission Line Compensation
For long transmission lines that are either lightly or heavily loaded, it is typically necessary to
add capacitors on heavily loaded lines and reactors on lightly loaded lines to maintain line
voltage within acceptable limits. The Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie is equipped with a static-
VAR compensation station, which combines both capacitors and reactors that are automatically
controlled to maintain acceptable voltage limits. If the proposed transmission line is not extended
past Upper Falls, it is not expected that any significant compensation would need to be installed
at the substations. If the transmission line is extended to Chikuminuk Lake, it may be necessary
to install reactive compensation in the substations to maintain acceptable voltage limits when the
line is energized but not supplying load.
8.4 Structure Selection and Evaluation
A single structure type was selected for evaluation as part of the study. This structure is the X-
braced H-frame structure, shown in Figure 10, using sectionalized composite poles. The typical
sections comprising a composite pole are shown in Figure 11. The sections are numbered to
facilitate assembly. Composite poles are typically about one-third the weight of an equivalent
wood pole, and 60 to 70% of the weight of steel poles. The budgetary construction cost
associated for this structure will also be representative of other structures, such as the X-frame
steel tower (Figure 10) or the un-braced H-frame. H-frames are simple, standard structures that
are used throughout the electric utility industry. Several utilities in Alaska use direct embedded
H-frame structures for their transmission lines.
8-4 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Figure 10: Structure Types
Figure 11: Sectional Composite Pole
To determine the number of structures required, an average distance between structures (or
average span length) is assumed based on prevalent terrain. An average span length of 1000 feet
is used in the relatively flat wetland portions of the route, while an average span length of 800
8-5 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
feet is used in mountainous terrain, where irregular ground profile limits structure placement.
Span length is a function of structure height, wind loading, ice loading, and ground profile.
Typically structure heights will be in the range of 70 to 90 feet. An extreme wind loading of 100
mph has been assumed. Extreme ice loading is assumed at one inch radial ice with a 40 mph
wind. These criteria are typical of those used in transmission line design in Alaska. It is
anticipated that some adverse climatological conditions, such as localized rime icing, may be
encountered at elevations in excess of 1000 ft. Such impacts are beyond the scope of this study.
8.5 Road and Trail Access
From reviewing topographic maps, it does not appear there are any trails that could be utilized
for constructing the transmission line. While no permanent roads will be built for maintaining the
transmission line, temporary roads will need to be built along the corridor. This could include a
primitive travel way in mountainous terrain and ice roads in the marshy wetland areas to allow
movement of construction and maintenance equipment when terrain permits.
In the marshy wetlands east of Bethel, approximately 34 miles of ice roads will need to be
constructed to access the Kibuk Mountain foothills. Typically, government agencies will require
twelve inches of frost in the ground and twelve inches of snow cover before allowing
construction activity to proceed on wetlands. In a typical winter season, construction activities
requiring ice road access probably would not commence until December and would need to end
by mid-April to prevent damage to the vegetation. It is anticipated that ice roads would be built
in December to allow construction activities to begin the first of January.
8.6 Helicopter Construction
It is anticipated that one large Skycrane type helicopter and one smaller Astar helicopter would
be used to assist with the transmission line construction. The helicopters would be used to
transport equipment, materials, structures and personnel. The use of helicopters increases
construction efficiencies and extends the construction window by allowing construction to
continue after ice roads become usable in the spring.
8.7 Foundations
H-frame structures can be direct-embedded in good native granular type soils, where the active
layer is shallow. Direct-embedment is typically the most cost-effective foundation. In poor soils,
they can be direct-embedded using gravel or rock backfill, or inserted in pipe-piles that are
driven into good soils below the marshy soil layers and backfilled with gravel or other selected
materials. Pipe-piles are typically used because of their omni-directional strength. Once the pipe-
piles are installed, the soil inside the pipe-pile is removed with an auger to the appropriate depth,
and the structure legs are placed in the pipe-piles and backfilled with gravel in much the same
manner as if the structure legs were direct-embedded. Pile-driving equipment is typically heavy
and travels slowly along the right-of-way. A typical steel pipe-pile foundation would be of
8-6 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
appropriate diameter, 40 feet in length, with a one-half inch wall thickness, driven to depth of 35
feet.
8.8 Conductor Selection
A single conductor size, 556.5 ACSR, was evaluated. 556.5 ACSR is a typical conductor size
used for 138kV transmission line and based on the distance from project sites to Bethel and
power to be transmitted, 556.5 ACSR is a reasonable conductor size to use to develop a
conceptual level budgetary cost analysis. Detailed design may determine that a different
conductor size will provide optimum performance. However, the impact of changing from 556.5
ACSR to a different conductor size will result in only a very nominal change in the overall
transmission line cost. ACSR is a type of overhead conductor that is composed of aluminum
outer strands to provide good electrical conductivity and steel inter strands to provide strength.
8.9 Structure Erection
The basic method for structure erection assumes the use of sectional poles and involves
delivering the butt section of the structure to the site location prior to, or at the time of, the
foundation completion. The butt section of the pole is inserted immediately after the foundation
is completed; the remainder of the pole is attached to the butt section at a later time. This method
is suitable for both pipe-pile and direct-embedment foundations. Final structure assembly can be
completed at a later date by the erection crew. The remaining pole sections, crossarms, and other
H-frame structure components can be delivered unassembled by vehicle, and final assembly of
the structure is accomplished on-site with the aid of a crane. Alternatively, the remaining
portions of the H-frame structure can be assembled at a marshalling area, transported and
installed with the assistance of a helicopter; this would involve lowering the upper position of the
H-frame onto the previously installed butt sections. This method increases efficiency because the
erection crew need not be dispatched until several structures are ready for final assembly. It is
not unreasonable to expect that a helicopter could deliver, at a minimum, 2-3 structures per hour,
assuming a well-organized operation. It is assumed that a combination of ground base erection
and helicopter erection will be used to construct the transmission line.
8.10 Conductor and Overhead Ground Wire Stringing
Installation of conductor and standard ground wire (OGW) or optical overhead ground wire
(OPGW), which contains a communication cable, involves installing travelers on the insulator
string, pulling in a pilot line, then pulling in, splicing and sagging the conductor and
OWG/OPGW. Later operations include tensioning and attaching the conductor to insulators, and
OGW/OPGW to their supports, and installing vibration dampers if required. In some areas along
the corridor, the conductor and overhead ground wire may be installed using a helicopter. It is
assumed both OGW and OPGW are required to adequately protect the line conductors from
lightning strikes.
8-7 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
8.11 Line Losses
An approximate calculation for annual line losses using 556.5 ACSR conductor was made for
seven development alternatives. These calculations are based on average annual hourly load
current. The results are as shown in Table 17. Line losses are a function of the conductor size and
distance. The smaller the conductor or the greater the distance the power must be transmitted, the
higher the losses. Line losses are also proportional to the square of electric current flowing
through the conductor. If the current is doubled, line losses will increase by a factor of four.
Table 17: Annual Line Loss (GWh)
Chikuminuk
Lake
Upper
Falls
Lower
Falls
Golden
Gate Falls
Golden
Gate+Lower
Golden
Gate+Lower
+Upper
All Four
Projects
0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.7 3.2 6.0
8.12 Budgetary Cost Estimates
This section presents the assumptions and summarizes the project cost estimates prepared for this
report based on the criteria presented above. Project costs are in 2011 dollars, and include all
costs required to obtain environmental permits and plan, develop, engineer, build, operate and
maintain the transmission line. Right-of-way acquisition and costs are not included 5 . Budgetary
cost estimates developed are consistent with those anticipated for a conceptual level analysis.
Cost estimates were prepared as indicated in Table 18. The transmission line was broken down
into five individual subsections as shown in Figure 9. Using the span length data, the number of
tangent, angle and deadend structures for each subsection was determined. This information was
used to calculate the number of poles, foundations, crossarms and insulators required along with
required amount of conductor and overhead ground wire and their respective corresponding
costs.
The 34 mile section from Bethel to the Kilbuk Mountains (Section A-C, Figure 9) crosses
marshy wetlands. It is assumed that two driven pile foundations, included in the Special
Foundation row in Table 18, will be required for each structure for the entire length of this
section. Once in the mountains (Section C-F) the majority of the poles will be direct buried,
however, it is assumed that 25 percent of the structures will require special foundations, such as
driven pile, drilling and blasting of holes or drilling and grouting of anchor bolts. These are also
included as additional costs in Table 18 under the row heading Special Foundations.
5 At this point, no specific right of way costs are included as a transmission cost. The overall project cost estimate
contains an allowance of about 2 percent of the construction cost for right of way acquisition. This will need further
investigation in a subsequent phase if any of the projects are advanced for further study.
Individual Projects Combined Projects
8-8 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
A separate row for Material Transportation is included in Table 18. The estimated transportation
cost for shipping materials from Seattle to Bethel by ocean barge, offloading cargo from the
ocean barge to river barges at Bethel and then transporting and offloading materials at a staging
area on the east bank of the Kuskokwim River, perhaps at Napaskiak.
It is assumed that a transmission line could be built to Golden Gate Falls, Lower Falls, and/or
Upper Falls in a single winter/spring construction season. It is assumed that an ice road must be
built between Point A and B to construct a transmission line to any of these three sites
It is assumed that two winter/spring construction seasons are needed to construct a transmission
line to the Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric site. It is assumed that an ice road must be built
between Point A and B for both construction seasons to support construction of the transmission
line.
Labor-plus-equipment costs are entered into Table 18 on a per mile basis.
To develop construction cost the transmission line has been divided into the five sections
described below:
1. Section A-B is 34 miles in length and cross the marshy wetlands between Bethel and the
foothills of the Kilbuk Mountains. It is assumed this section of line will be constructed
from an ice road using a combination of ground erection and helicopter erection.
2. Section B-C is 23 miles in length and extends between Point B and the Golden Gate
hydroelectric site (Point C). This section of line is assumed to be constructed using both
ground erection and helicopter erection and assumes an ice road has been constructed
between points A and B.
3. Section C-D is 4.9 miles in length and extends from Golden Gate site to the Lower Falls
project site. This section of line is assumed to be constructed using a combination of
ground and helicopter erection and assumes an ice road has been constructed between
points A-B.
4. Section D-E is 7.5 miles in length and extends from the Lower Falls project site to the
Upper Falls site. This section of line is assumed to be constructed using a combination of
ground and helicopter erection and assumes an ice road has been constructed between
points A-B.
5. Section E-F is 48 miles in length and extends from the Upper Falls project site to the
Chikuminuk Lake hydroelectric site. This section of line is assumed to be constructed
using a combination of ground and helicopter erection and assumes an ice road has been
constructed between points A and B.
8-9 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 18: Budgetary Construction Cost, 2011 Dollars
X‐Braced H‐Frame
795 ACSR
Design Span ft.1000 FT Sections A‐C, 800 Ft Sections C‐F
A‐BB‐CC‐DD‐EE‐FTotal
Section Attributes
Section length (miles)34 23 4.9 7.5 48 117.4
Accumulated length (miles)34 57 61.9 69.4 117.4 117.4
Tangent Str.165 110 27 37 289 628
Small Angle Str.431161
Medium Angle Str.211561
Large Angle Str.111561
Double Deadends862210
Poles, Total 375 253 69 113 662 1472
Tangent Poles 330 220 54 74 578 1256
Small Angle Poles1293318
Medium Angle Poles 6 3 3 15 18 45
Large Angle Poles 3 3 3 15 18 42
Double Deadends Poles 24 18 6 6 30 84
Materials Quantities
Conductor, 1000 ft. 565.5 382.5 81.5 124.7 798.3 1952.6
OHGW, 1000 ft. 188.5 127.5 27.2 41.6 266.1 650.9
OPGW, 1000 ft 188.5 127.5 27.2 41.6 266.1 650.9
CrossArms 369 250 66 98 644 1427
X‐Braces 342 229 57 77 596 1301
Insulators 1287 885 261 465 2274 5172
Special Foundations 375 63 17 28 166 649
Materials Costs, Total 11,415,501$ 5,721,756$ 1,464,333$ 2,328,946$ 14,132,170$ 35,062,707$
Material Cost, Poles 2,940,000$ 1,983,520$ 540,960$ 885,920$ 5,190,080$ 11,540,480$
Material Cost, Conductor 1,266,693$ 856,881$ 182,553$ 279,418$ 1,788,273$ 4,373,817$
Material Cost, OHGW 316,673$ 214,220$ 45,638$ 69,854$ 447,068$ 1,093,454$
Material Cost, OPGW 650,989$ 446,634$ 98,464$ 150,024$ 924,314$ 2,270,424$
Material Cost, CrossArms 743,904$ 504,000$ 133,056$ 197,568$ 1,298,304$ 2,876,832$
Material Cost, X‐Braces 574,560$ 384,720$ 95,760$ 129,360$ 1,001,280$ 2,185,680$
Material Cost, Insulators 432,432$ 297,360$ 87,696$ 156,240$ 764,064$ 1,737,792$
Material Cost, Misc. Hardware 84,000$ 56,672$ 15,456$ 25,312$ 148,288$ 329,728$
Special Foundations 2,437,500$ 409,500$ 110,500$ 182,000$ 1,079,000$ 4,218,500$
Material Transportation 1,968,750$ 568,250$ 154,250$ 253,250$ 1,491,500$ 4,436,000$
Labor + Equip, Total 19,995,600$ 13,518,200$ 2,908,710$ 4,416,250$ 33,665,488$ 74,504,248$
Labor + Equip Cost per Mile 552,900$ 552,900$ 552,900$ 552,900$ 657,906$
X‐Brace Labor 1,197,000$ 801,500$ 199,500$ 269,500$ 2,086,000$ 4,553,500$
Labor + Equip + Material, Total 31,411,101$ 19,239,956$ 4,373,043$ 6,745,196$ 47,797,658$ 109,566,955$
10% Engr. Admin Inspection 3,141,110$ 1,923,996$ 437,304$ 674,520$ 4,779,766$ 10,956,695$
Section Cost, Total 34,552,211$ 21,163,952$ 4,810,347$ 7,419,716$ 52,577,424$ 120,523,650$
20% Contingency 6,910,442$ 4,232,790$ 962,069$ 1,483,943$ 10,515,485$ 24,104,730$
Section Cost with Contingency, Total 41,462,654$ 25,396,742$ 5,772,416$ 8,903,659$ 63,092,909$ 144,628,380$
Cost per Mile 1,219,490$ 1,104,206$ 1,178,044$ 1,187,154$ 1,314,436$
Accumulated Total 41,462,654$ 66,859,396$ 72,631,812$ 81,535,471$ 144,628,380$
Accumulated Average Cost Per Mile 1,219,490$ 1,172,972$ 1,173,373$ 1,174,863$ 1,231,928$
5
5
4
28
45
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
8-10 May 2011
A review of the information in Table 18 establishes that cost of constructing a transmission line
using braced H-frame construction is approximately $1.17 million per mile between points A and
E, and approximately $1.3 million per mile from Point E to Point F. The cost of constructing a
similar transmission line between Bethel and Donlin Creek mine site was estimated at
approximately $750,000 in a 2004 study, but this was for a line that was built along the
Kuskokwim River and did not require the construction of an ice road. Adjusting the $750,000
from this 2004 dollar figure to 2011 dollars and adding in the cost of the ice road, a cost of
approximately $1.025 million per mile is obtained. This compares reasonably with the budgetary
estimate cost derived in this study of $1.17 million per mile. The difference of $145,000 is
mainly due to the increased cost of logistical support required to supply and construct a
transmission line that will terminate at a hydroelectric site that is located, at a minimum, of 57
miles distance from the Kuskokwim River.
The cost of constructing a transmission line using X-frame steel structures would be similar cost
to the braced H-frame line. When using X-structures, four steel piling must be driven at every
structure: two for foundations, and two for anchors. However, smaller piles can typically be
used, which offset the cost of driving the two additional piles. Transmission lines constructed
using un-braced H-frames are generally only a few percent less expensive than lines using X-
braced H-frames. This is because un-braced H-frames are not structurally as strong as a braced
H-frame, so the distance between structures must be decreased and more structures must be
installed (or a stronger, and thus heavier and more expensive, pole must be used). While
installing more structures is typically not an issue where there is relative easy access to the
transmission line corridor, it does become an issue when delivering and erecting structures with
the aid of a helicopter or transporting structure materials long distances over an ice road. The
ultimate decision of which type of structure or combination of structure types will used to
construct the transmission line will be determined one of the projects moved to the design phase.
9-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
9 Fish Passage Considerations
In accordance with the Fishway Act of the Alaska Statutes, new facilities constructed across
streams frequented by salmon or other fish shall be provided “…with a durable and efficient
fishway and a device for efficient passage for downstream migrants.” The following sections
present concepts for upstream fish passage (fishway) and downstream passage for juvenile out-
migrants as required by AS 16.05.841.
Concepts herein are developed based on limited physical and biological information. The
preference would be to incorporate means that involve limited or no human intervention or
maintenance. The intent in this section is to provide a basis for estimating an appropriate cost. If
any of the projects are advanced to a further phase of study, fish passage considerations and the
formulation of appropriate fish handling concepts will be of critical importance.
9.1 Chikuminuk Lake / Allen River Hydroelectric Project Fish Passage
This section presents potential fish passage concepts for the Allen River below Chikuminuk
Lake. Fish passage facilities would provide passage for adult fish migrating upstream from the
river into the lake and for juvenile or resident fish moving downstream past the dam.
Fish species reported at this site include primarily resident species. Presence of anadromous
species has not been documented in Chikuminuk Lake or the Allen River at the base of the dam
(ADFG, 1964).
Fish passage criteria for the design of these facilities would meet current ADFG and NOAA
Fisheries guidelines.
9.1.1 Upstream Passage
Upstream fish passage would be provided from the tailwater pool at the base of Chikuminuk
Dam at the farthest upstream point in the Allen River. This assumes that a nominal minimum
flow would be maintained in this reach. This location would collect fish in a holding pond for
loading into a fish transport truck for transport into the lake. The low level outlet would be
configured to direct flow into a small tailrace area fish ladder to promote fish attraction into a
trapping and holding facility. Based on the assumption that passage would be primarily for
resident species, the holding facility would contain only two ponds (6 ft wide, 40 ft long, 3 to 5 ft
depth) with mechanical crowders that will guide fish into a hopper. The transfer hopper would
hoist fish up to a fish transport truck allowing a water to water transfer of fish. Cold weather
operation would include a metal structure to enclose the working areas.
One, or more, fish transport trucks would be required to transport fish from the trap facility to the
lake.
9-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
9.1.2 Tailrace Barrier
A tailrace barrier would be installed approximately at the bank line at the powerhouse. At an
average approach velocity of 1 fps a wetted area of about 1,400 sf would be provided. The
barrier would consist of a bar rack constructed of either polyethylene or steel with a maximum of
1 in clear space between bars. Final spacing may be reduced based on the final target fish
species. Due to the narrow spacing required to preclude fish from passing through the rack, and
depending upon the actual physical arrangement and site conditions, debris may need to be
managed with a mechanical trash rack installed to clean the upstream side and reduce the
tailwater impact on the turbine.
9.1.3 Downstream Fish Passage
Downstream passage or out migrating juveniles or resident species would include a floating
surface collector (FSC) located near the intake to take advantage of the natural currents. A FSC
system would operate over the full fluctuation of the reservoir. The downstream passage system
includes the FSC, a fish transfer or locking system, an evaluation structure and a release structure
downstream of the adult collection system.
The FSC provides attraction flow using low head submersible pumps installed in a floating fixed
panel fish screen structure. The intent of the FSC is to provide favorable currents near the outlet
of the reservoir that will guide fish away from the intake. Guide nets are deployed in peak
seasons to isolate the intake and physically guide the fish closer to the FSC. Nets would be
lowered during cold weather. A net transition structure between the guide nets and FSC
transitions from the porous net to the FSC and allows a gradual transition of velocities into the
structure. The FSC is constructed similar to a ship dry dock with the screening equipment
enclosed within the hull. The hull size from similar installations would be about 60 ft wide by
135 ft long. For this site it is assumed that an attraction flow of 500 cfs would be provided
through two submersible low head pumps. Once inside the FSC screening structure fish are
guided to the aft end of the vessel into a higher velocity channel that serves to trap the fish and
committing them to the bypass system.
Fish collected on the FSC can be held in holding ponds or can be directly transferred into a multi
chamber fish lock that would collect fish and then lower them to near tailwater levels using
screened drains. The lock would be constructed of reinforced concrete adjacent to the intake
tower. Once at the lower level fish are released into a 36 inch diameter transport pipeline that
would be constructed through the dam within the lining of the power tunnel. On the downstream
side of the dam fish can be routed into an evaluation and holding facility for monitoring and
enumeration or directly release to the river. To avoid the possibility of entrainment into the adult
collection system the release point is assumed to be located downstream of the powerhouse.
9-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
9.1.4 Fish Passage Facility Operation
The fish passage facilities would be operated to coincide with the migration timing for target
species. The upstream passage structures would be designed for cold weather and ice in the river.
The FSC can be de-ballasted up when not in operation to minimize the draft in the lake ice. The
structure would need special design features to manage ice forces and snow.
9.2 Kisaralik River Projects
This section identifies potential upstream passage alternatives for the Kisaralik River projects.
Fish passage components would include:
• Trap and haul system for upstream adult passage
• Tailrace barrier
• Floating surface collector for downstream juvenile passage
Fish species reported in this section of the Kisaralik River include both anadromous and resident
species. Chinook (king) and coho (silver) are the primary commercial species.
Fish passage criteria for the design of these facilities would be required to meet current ADFG
and NOAA Fisheries guidelines.
9.2.1 Upstream Passage
Volitional upstream passage is not considered feasible due to the overall vertical rise and the
fluctuation in lake levels. Alternately, a trap and haul system would be constructed downstream
of the powerhouse tailrace area. This facility would include a fish collection weir that would also
serve as a tailrace barrier, trapping and holding ponds, enumeration and evaluation features and a
fish loading structure.
The tailrace fish barrier would serve as a barrier to upstream fish movement and to guide fish to
a fish ladder entrance. The barrier would be located upstream of the spillway discharge to avoid
high flow and debris limitations. Assuming a design flow of 2,100 to 4400 cfs, either a velocity
barrier or rack barrier would be possible. For the purpose of this study a rack barrier is assumed.
A design approach velocity of 1 fps would require 2100 sf to 4400 of wetted rack area or 10 ft
high and 210 to 440 ft wide. The rack is assumed vertical but can be angled to increase the
wetted area if channel depth is limited. Bar spacing would be 1 inch. Due to the narrow spacing
required to preclude fish from passing through the rack, debris will need to be managed with a
mechanical trash rack installed to clean the upstream side and reduce the tailwater impact on the
turbine. The rack would be constructed on a base slab with structural supports at about 10 ft on
center. Its alignment would be dependent on the channel width but should be angled to the
alignment of the channel to help guide fish to the ladder entrance.
9-4 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
9.2.2 Trap and Haul Facility
A fish ladder would collect fish from the barrier and elevate them into concrete holding ponds.
Depending on the management requirements at the site, fish would exit the ladder into an
evaluation station or through a sorting system. For transport of fish into the river above the dam,
only two holding ponds (8 ft wide, 100 ft long, 3 to 5 ft depth) would be provided. If the facility
is to collect hatchery stock in the future, additional ponds and holding area would likely be
required. Ponds would be equipped with mechanical crowders that will guide fish into a hopper.
The transfer hopper would hoist fish up to a fish transport truck allowing a water to water
transfer of fish. This facility is assumed to operate all year and would include a metal structure to
enclose the working areas.
A fish transport truck would be required to transport trapped fish from the trap facility to the
reservoir. After being loaded from the hopper, the truck would use a new project roadway from
the trap-and-haul facility to release the fish into the reservoir at a location sufficiently upstream
of the guide nets, or at any other location that provides convenient access and sufficient
protection of the fish.
9.2.3 Downstream Fish Passage
Downstream passage or out migrating juveniles or resident species would include a floating
surface collector (FSC) located near the intake to take advantage of the natural currents. This
type of surface collector is not a full exclusionary screen but they have been shown to provide
capture efficiencies approaching 90%. A FSC system would allow full fluctuation of the
reservoir. The downstream passage system includes the FSC, a fish hopper or locking system, an
evaluation structure and a release structure downstream of the adult collection system.
The FSC provides attraction flow using low head submersible pumps installed in a floating fixed
panel fish screen structure. The intent of the FSC is to provide favorable currents that will guide
fish away from the intake. Guide nets are deployed in peak seasons to isolate the intake and
physically guide the fish closer to the FSC. Nets would be lowered during cold weather. A net
transition structure between the guide nets and FSC transitions from the porous net to the FSC
and allows a gradual transition of velocities into the structure. The FSC is constructed similar to
a ship dry dock with the screening equipment enclosed within the hull. The hull size from similar
installations would be about 60 ft wide by 135 ft long. It is assumed that an attraction flow of
500 cfs to 1,000 cfs would be provided through four submersible low head pumps. Once inside
the FSC screening structure, fish are guided to the aft end of the vessel into a higher velocity
channel that serves to trap the fish and committing them to the bypass system.
Fish collected on the FSC can be held in holding ponds or can be directly transferred into a multi
chamber fish lock that would collect fish and then lower them to near tailwater levels using
screened drains. The lock would be constructed of reinforced concrete adjacent to the intake
tower. Once at the lower level fish are released into a 36 inch diameter transport pipeline that
would be constructed through the dam within the lining of the power tunnel. On the downstream
side of the dam fish can be routed into an evaluation and holding facility for monitoring and
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
9-5 May 2011
enumeration or directly release to the river. To avoid the possibility of entrainment into the adult
collection system the release point is assumed to be located downstream of the powerhouse.
9.2.4 Fish Passage Facility Operation
The fish passage facilities would be operated to coincide with the migration timing for target
species. The upstream passage structures would be designed for cold weather and ice in the river.
The FSC can be de-ballasted up when not in operation to minimize the draft in the lake ice. The
structure would need special design features to manage ice forces and snow.
This page left blank intentionally.
10-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
10 Environmental and Permitting Analysis
10.1 Introduction
There are several regulatory approvals and permits necessary to facilitate development of a
hydroelectric project at either the Kisaralik River or Chikuminuk Lake sites. The governing
approval process is licensing under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations.
FERC is responsible for issuing licenses to both private entities, such as corporations, and public
entities, such as states or municipalities, for the purpose of constructing, operating, and
maintaining dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other works
associated with hydroelectric projects. New, non-Federal hydroelectric projects in Alaska are
subject to FERC regulations, unless there are no Federal lands and no navigable waterways
involved.
The regulatory approval and permit processes need to be evaluated for implications on schedule
and cost, and how information needed for permits and environmental studies could potentially be
bundled together into parallel work efforts. The timing of studies and the preparation of permit
packages would need to be oriented around fieldwork seasons. However, it is generally prudent
to start permitting consultation work early to ensure that required studies can be conducted at
proper times.
10.2 FERC Preliminary Permitting
A FERC preliminary permit, issued for up to three years, does not authorize construction; rather,
it maintains priority of application for license (i.e., guaranteed first-to-file status) while the
permittee studies the site and prepares to apply for a license. The permittee must submit periodic
reports on the status of its studies. It is not necessary to obtain a preliminary permit in order to
apply for or receive a FERC license.
An application for a preliminary permit must include the following:
• Initial Statement
• Exhibit 1
• Exhibit 2
• Exhibit 3
The Initial Statement includes the applicant name, location of the proposed project, a discussion
of whether or not the applicant is claiming “municipal preference” under section 7(a) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), and the proposed term of the permit (not to exceed 36 months). If the
applicant is a municipality, it must submit copies of applicable State or local laws or a municipal
charter or, if such laws or documents are not clear, any other appropriate legal authority,
evidencing that the municipality is competent under such laws to engage in the business of
development, transmitting, utilizing, or distributing power.
10-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Exhibit 1 must contain a description of the proposed project, specifying and including, to the
extent possible: (1) The number, physical composition, dimensions, general configuration and,
where applicable, age and condition, of any dams, spillways, penstocks, powerhouses, tailraces,
or other structures, whether existing or proposed, that would be part of the project; (2) The
estimated number, surface area, storage capacity, and normal maximum surface elevation (mean
sea level) of any reservoirs, whether existing or proposed, that would be part of the project; (3)
The estimated number, length, voltage, interconnections, and, where applicable, age and
condition, of any primary transmission lines whether existing or proposed, that would be part of
the project; (4) The total estimated average annual energy production and installed capacity
(provide only one energy and capacity value), the hydraulic head for estimating capacity and
energy output, and the estimated number, rated capacity, and, where applicable, the age and
condition, of any turbines and generators, whether existing or proposed, that would be part of the
project works; (5) All lands of the United States that are enclosed within the proposed project
boundary; and (6) Any other information demonstrating in what manner the proposed project
would develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region.
Exhibit 2 is a description of studies conducted or to be conducted with respect to the proposed
project, including field studies. Exhibit 2 must supply the following information:
• Study Plan containing a description of: (i) Any studies, investigations, tests, or surveys
that are proposed to be carried out, and any that have already taken place, for the
purposes of determining the technical, economic, and financial feasibility of the proposed
project, taking into consideration its environmental impacts, and of preparing an
application for a license for the project; and (ii) The approximate locations and nature of
any new roads that would be built for the purpose of conducting the studies.
• Work Plan and Schedule containing: (i) A description, including the approximate
location, of any field study, test, or other activity that may alter or disturb lands or waters
in the vicinity of the proposed project, including floodplains and wetlands; measures that
would be taken to minimize any such disturbance; and measures that would be taken to
restore the altered or disturbed areas; and (ii) A proposed schedule (a chart or graph may
be used), the total duration of which does not exceed the proposed term of the permit,
showing the intervals at which the studies, investigations, tests, and surveys are proposed
to be completed.
• Statement of Costs and Financing, specifying and including, to the extent possible: (i)
The estimated costs of carrying out or preparing the studies, investigations, tests, surveys,
maps, plans or specifications identified under paragraph (c) of this section; and (ii) The
expected sources and extent of financing available to the applicant to carry out or prepare
the studies, investigations, tests, surveys, maps, or plans.
Exhibit 3 must include a map or series of maps, to be prepared on United States Geological
Survey topographic quadrangle sheets or similar topographic maps of a State agency, if
available. The maps must show: (1) The location of the project as a whole with reference to the
affected stream or other body of water and, if possible, to a nearby town or any permanent
monuments or objects that can be noted on the maps and recognized in the field; (2) The relative
locations and physical interrelationships of the principal project features; (3) A proposed
10-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
boundary for the project, enclosing any dam, reservoir, water conveyance facilities, powerplant,
transmission lines, and other appurtenances; (4) Areas within or in the vicinity of the proposed
project boundary which are included in or have been designated for study for inclusion in the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and (5) Areas within the project boundary that, under
the provisions of the Wilderness Act, have been designated as wilderness area, recommended for
designation as wilderness area, or designated as wilderness study area.
10.3 FERC Licensing
Successful FERC licensing requires careful upfront planning and extensive consultation. At the
outset, “the applicant’s”6 goals and objectives (drivers) for FERC licensing must be identified.
These goals and objectives may include efficiency in terms of costs and schedule, helping to
keep the licensing on track to fit the applicant’s and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) requirements. There would need to be participation by a variety of Federal, State, and
local agencies. Non-governmental entities, tribes, and the general public may also participate.
The applicant may choose to use one of three FERC licensing processes. The default process is
the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). FERC regulations allow use of the Traditional Licensing
Process (TLP) or Alternative Licensing Process (ALP) if a waiver is granted.
FERC licensing work may be divided into the following tasks:
• Project Management and Meetings
• Early Licensing Activities
• Development of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Schedule, and Notice of Intent (NOI)
• Scoping and Study Plan Approval
• Conduct Engineering and Environmental Studies
• Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP)
• Development of Final License Application (FLA)
• Post-FLA Activities and Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
These tasks are discussed in detailed below.
10.3.1 Project Management and Meetings
A FERC licensing process is dynamic and requires flexibility. An effective FERC licensing
project manager will spend time coordinating the work of various team members,
communicating regularly with FERC licensing experts, quality assurance advisors, and task
leaders to ensure that budgets and schedules are in line with estimates. As it is challenging to
anticipate all issues during the initial scoping phase, an effective project manager would need to
keep the applicant informed of tasks that may require greater or reduced effort over time. A
prime objective may be to eliminate any surprises in the budget, and to revisit study strategies as
6 The term “applicant” is used to refer to whatever entity is established or designated as the entity to acquire the
FERC license.
10-4 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
needed to keep the process on track. Coordination will help ensure that task leaders are focused
on the resolution of issues. Such an approach would save the applicant money, both in the effort
applied in the licensing services and in the form of the mitigation proposals forwarded to FERC
in the Final License Application.
The Project Manager, FERC licensing expert, and study leads typically participate in key internal
team meetings and selected meetings with the resource agencies. Much of the meeting effort can
be accomplished through teleconferences to save money. For public and/or resource agency
meetings, the applicant and/or its consultants would need to prepare agendas, handout materials,
and draft and final meeting summaries.
10.3.2 Early Licensing Activities
Early licensing activities “set the stage” for the subsequent FERC licensing effort. Activities may
include identification of licensing goals and objectives, anticipated and desired outcomes, and
any lessons-learned from relevant proceedings (such as previous FERC licensing efforts in the
vicinity). It is important that all license team members develop a collective understanding of the
applicant’s licensing goals and objectives, applicable regulations, agency and stakeholder group
positions, and specific circumstances and issues relating to the project. Other early licensing
activities may include:
• Assembling a project “library” with license materials
• Preparing written documentation of all proposed project facilities
• Assembling a GIS database
• Assembling historic and natural resources files
• Identifying and reviewing all relevant resource agency management plans
• Agreeing upon an approach to information management and document control
• Identifying a project schedule, protocols, licensing proposal, and internal evaluation
process
• Identifying staffing needs, a risk assessment, and recommendations
In developing FERC licensing goals, the applicant should consider:
• Existing policies and procedures
• Expectations related to protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures
• How the future power and energy is to be used
• Potential for developing additional capacity at the plant in the future
• Watershed management plans
• Recreation and access needs
• Importance of receiving a FERC license in a timely fashion
• Importance of maintaining establishing and/or maintaining good relationships with
resource agencies, tribes, and the public
• Security risks and concerns
• Dam safety concerns
10-5 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
The applicant would need to identify potential stakeholders and the current status of
relationships for licensing of the project. Potential stakeholders may include:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI)
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
• U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
• State Fish and Game Advisory Committees
• Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)
• ADNR State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
• City of Bethel and the surrounding villages
• Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC)
• Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP)
• Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority (AVCP RHA)
• The Nature Conservancy of Alaska
• Waterfowl Conservation Committee
• Regional Subsistence Advisory Council
• Kuskokwim Fisheries Working Group
• Orutsaramiut Native Council
• Cenaliulriit local Coastal Zone Management Council
• Possibly the communities in the Bristol Bay region (for the Chikuminuk Lake project)
10.3.3 Pre-Application Document, Schedule, and Notice of Intent
As described above, the default process for FERC licensing is the Integrated Licensing Process
(ILP). The purpose of the ILP is to provide an efficient and timely licensing process that ensures
appropriate resource protections through coordination of FERC’s processes with those of Federal
and State agencies that have authority to condition hydropower licenses. The ILP requires
submittal of a Pre-Application Document (PAD). Based on information collected during early
licensing, the PAD will include: existing project facility, location, and operating descriptions;
existing environmental information; a process plan and schedule; interest statements; and draft
study plans negotiated with stakeholders. The applicant may wish to contact a few select
resource agencies for information that would be cited and used in the PAD (a standard
questionnaire can be used to query the agencies).
Use of the Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) may be preferable to the applicant, FERC, and
other stakeholders. The ILP is best suited to controversial projects where study plans and results
are likely to be disputed, while the TLP is best suited to non-controversial projects where study
plans and results are unlikely to be disputed. The TLP typically requires less FERC input and
10-6 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
stakeholder input prior to License Application filing than does the ILP, resulting in lower costs
and fewer scheduling conflicts for applicants.
The applicant would need to notify FERC of its intent to file for a license at the time it files a
PAD. This Notice of Intent (NOI) may include a request to serve as a non-Federal representative
for Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act consultations. By obtaining
this authority, the applicant can facilitate closure on issues and consultation with USFWS and
SHPO. The NOI may also include a request to use the TLP, as opposed to the ILP. Newspaper
notices are required to accompany publication of the PAD/NOI.
10.3.4 Scoping and Study Plan Approval
Within 60 days of the NOI and filing of the PAD, FERC will issue a notice of commencement of
proceeding in the Federal Register. Assuming the ILP is used, FERC will also issue Scoping
Document 1. This would initiate the ILP’s Study Plan Approval and Scoping Process. Activities
include assisting FERC with the development of a scoping document, site visit and scoping
meeting, review of PAD comments and study requests from agencies, development of formal
study plans, and participation in a study plan meeting to finalize study plans for FERC approval.
10.3.5 Conduct Engineering and Environmental Studies
Multidisciplinary studies would be required to evaluate project effects. These required studies
may include:
• Hydrologic information development
• Engineering analyses, designs, and drawing preparation
• Water quality assessment (temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc.)
• Fish community survey and/or habitat assessment
• Fish entrainment mortality study (desktop)
• Fish stranding study
• Macroinvertebrate and/or unionid surveys
• Botanical and/or wildlife surveys, including wetlands and rare, threatened, and
endangered species
• Wildlife habitat mapping
• Archaeological and historical resource surveys
• Recreation inventory and opportunity identification
• Land management study
• Visual resource inventory and impact assessment
Based on a review of existing information for the Kisaralik and Chikuminuk Lake areas, it is
anticipated that the several biological and social resource issues will arise during licensing,
including project effects on fisheries, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreation,
cultural resources, and socioeconomics.
10-7 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
The Kisaralik River sites are within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (YDNWR).
While the Kisaralik River was evaluated for Wild and Scenic River designation, it is not included
on the National Park Service’s Nationwide Rivers Inventory.
The Kisaralik supports king, sockeye, pink, coho and chum salmon, each of which is vital to the
region’s economy. Other important freshwater resident species include several species of
whitefish, sheefish, Alaska blackfish, burbot, northern pike, Dolly Varden, rainbow trout, and
grayling. The effects of the hydroelectric projects on these fish species would be mitigated by the
development of fish passage facilities (see Section 9).
As described on USFWS website (http://yukondelta.fws.gov), the YDNWR supports one of the
largest aggregations of water birds in the world. Over one million ducks and half a million geese
breed here annually and in some summers, up to a third of the continent's northern pintails can be
found on the refuge. In addition, nearly 40,000 loons, 40,000 grebes, 100,000 swans and 30,000
cranes return to the refuge each spring to nest. Millions of shorebirds use the refuge for both
breeding and staging. In terms of both density and species diversity, the delta is the most
important shorebird nesting area in the country. The refuge hosts approximately 80 percent of the
continental breeding population of black brant and nearly all emperor geese. Cackling Canada
and Pacific greater white-fronted geese number over 175,000 and 420,000, respectively.
Principal species of ducks that occur on the refuge include northern pintail, greater scaup, and
wigeon. The formerly abundant spectacled eiders (federally threatened) have declined
precipitously over the last 25 years. Nineteen species of raptors have been recorded on the
refuge, including golden eagles, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons. The Kisaralik River is among
the most important areas on the refuge for nesting raptors, and supports one of the densest
breeding populations of breeding golden eagles in North America. Historically, caribou occurred
on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in large numbers and were the most abundant ungulate.
Numbers peaked in the 1860s and during this period, caribou ranged over much of the refuge.
Caribou subsequently disappeared from the region with the exception of small, remnant herds in
the Kilbuck and Andreafsky Mountains. In recent years, up to 40,000 animals from the
Mulchatna Caribou Herd have migrated onto the eastern portions of the refuge during the fall
and winter period. The ancestral home of the Yup’ik Eskimo, the YDNWR includes more than
40 Yup’ik villages whose residents continue to live a largely subsistence lifestyle (USFWS
Informational Brochure for the YDNWR, dated February 2003).
As is the case on most other Alaskan refuges, management activities on the YDNWR focus on
projects related to wildlife and habitat monitoring rather than on any form of habitat
manipulation. The information resulting from monitoring forms the heart of the YDNWR's
management program: an information exchange with the 25,000 residents that live in small
isolated villages within the refuge boundary. Through organized groups such as the Waterfowl
Conservation Committee, the Regional Subsistence Advisory Council, the State Fish and Game
Advisory Committees, and the Kuskokwim Fisheries Working Group, YDNWR staff and area
residents discuss concerns and address resource problems. The YDNWR provides some of the
nation's most productive subarctic goose habitat. Surveys and studies related to the productivity
of goose and other waterfowl provide much of the information used to carry out the refuge's
management activities. This work is conducted by YDNWR staff, in partnership with the
10-8 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Service's Migratory Bird Management office, the USGS Biological Resources Division, various
universities, and other partners. The work described above is conducted with the help of tools to
transport biologists and others to the far reaches of the refuge. Aircraft, boats and snowmachines
make it possible to carry out day-to-day responsibilities (see “Management” page of USFWS
website, http://yukondelta.fws.gov).
Although not typically found in National Wildlife Refuges, hydroelectric projects may be
permissible in the YDNWR, as there are no explicit prohibitions in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 or in the National Wildlife System Improvement Act of
1997. The permissibility of hydroelectric development construction and operation would be
determined by the Secretary of the Interior on a case-by-case basis under existing law. It should
be noted that development and operation of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project was
determined to be permissible within Alaska’s Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, despite public
opposition; a 50-year FERC license for this project was issued in 1981. The Terror Lake Project
went into service in 1985, and provides much of the electricity to the Community of Kodiak.
All YDNWR lands are open to all hunting consistent with State and Federal regulations. A State
of Alaska hunting license is required for all hunting activities on the refuge. Opportunities for big
game hunting are limited because of low populations, reflective of the available habitat on the
refuge for these species. Several big game guides do provide opportunities for bear, caribou, and
muskox hunting. Waterfowl hunting is allowed with appropriate State and Federal Duck Stamps
along with a State of Alaska hunting license. Subsistence fishing far exceeds sport fishing use
throughout the refuge, although all of Yukon Delta’s waters are open to fishing consistent with
State and Federal regulations. A State of Alaska fishing license is required to fish on the refuge.
Several rivers provide angling opportunities for all five North American species of Pacific
salmon, rainbow trout, grayling and other species. Aircraft, power-boats and river rafts are the
most common vehicles for accessing the refuge to fish. YDNWR lands are open to trapping of
furbearing animals consistent with State and Federal regulations. Appropriate State of Alaska
trapping licenses are required (see “Visiting the Refuge” page of USFWS website,
http://yukondelta.fws.gov).
Chikuminuk Lake lies within the Upper Tikchik Lakes unit of Wood-Tikchik State Park. The
lake is quite far up in the watershed, and this area has been designated as “Wilderness”. As
described in the 2002 “Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Plan”: “Units designated
Wilderness should have no man-made conveniences within their boundaries, except for the most
primitive of trails, minimum trail maintenance, and signing. Developments or other
improvements will be undertaken only where it has been determined that significant threats to
public safety exist or to reduce adverse impacts on the area's resources and values and after
consultation with the Park Management Council.” The Wilderness land use designation presents
a potential major issue for future hydroelectric development. The 2002 Woods-Tikchik State
Park Management Plan states: “Chikuminuk Lake has also been considered in the past for
hydroelectric development, although it has not received the legislative recognition of Lake Elva
and Grant Lake. Hydroelectric development at sites other than Lake Elva and Grant Lake is
incompatible with the special park purpose management mandated by the Legislature and
therefore already prohibited by law. The park enabling legislation must be amended to
10-9 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
specifically allow hydroelectric development at Chikuminuk Lake.” The extent to which
hydroelectric development could be successful at Chikuminuk Lake will depend on the nature
and types of facilities at or near the lake (or on Allen River) along with the Park’s desire to
amend its management plan.
The Bureau of Reclamation requested USFWS views on the effects of a proposed hydroelectric
just below Chikuminuk Lake in 1963. In its letter response to this request, dated May 1, 1964,
Mr. Harry Rietze, Regional Director, stated that, on the basis of preliminary information, it is
probable that a dam at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake would have little effect on anadromous
fish other than that caused by the dewatering of the lower sections of the Allen River which are
used for spawning by sockeye salmon. Further, Mr. Rietze stated that if the project were
authorized, detailed studies would be needed to determine the exact status of anadromous fish in
the project area, to develop measures to preserve the spawning habitat in the lower Allen River,
and to identify and mitigate other adverse environmental effects, should they occur.
There are concentrations of brown bear in the Upper Tikchik Lakes unit of the Wood-Tikchik
State Park, probably because of the area's remoteness, its freedom from disruptions, adequate
food sources, and good habitat. The Mulchatna caribou herd migrates through this management
unit. Salmon do not migrate into Chikuminuk Lake 7 . Without the salmon's significant
contribution to the lakes’ and rivers’ food chains (in the form of eggs, young rearing fish, and
carcasses), resident fish are not plentiful. Nonetheless, the area is fished for rainbow trout, Arctic
char, grayling, and lake trout. The effects of the hydroelectric projects on these fish species
would be mitigated by the development of fish passage facilities (see Section 9). The
management unit also includes the upper Allen River, which drains Chikuminuk Lake south into
Chauekuktuli Lake. The glacial waters of Milk Creek, entering Chikuminuk Lake from the
mountains to the west, impart a silty appearance to the lake's water. Vegetation is mostly open,
being composed of low-growing tundra species. Valleys and other protected areas support taller
growth, such as willow, alder and cottonwood. The main use of this unit is by hunters in the fall
who are primarily targeting moose and caribou. Because of dangerous rapids on the Allen River,
Chikuminuk Lake is very rarely used as a staging point for longer trips. Subsistence use also
occurs, although it is thought to be quite limited. Most villagers using the lakes and rivers in the
unit are from Koliganek, New Stuyahok and Ekwok. They harvest moose, caribou, trout, black
bear, brown bear, and furbearers, although these species are much more readily accessible along
the Nushagak River and on the lower Nuyakuk River. The unit offers opportunities for hiking
around the lakes because of the higher elevations and minimal brush. The upper Allen River can
be explored on foot from Chikuminuk Lake. Nonetheless, little recreation occurs in this unit
because of its remote location and the expense of air charter. There are three private parcels in
this unit. Two are located along the eastern border of the park and one at the outlet of
Chikuminuk Lake. The use of a motorized boat is prohibited on Chikuminuk Lake. This is the
only lake in the park that is non-motorized. The restriction is intended to provide park visitors
with a unique wilderness experience on a large lake in the park. This regulation does not affect
the use of aircraft to take off and land on Chikuminuk Lake (2002 “Wood-Tikchik State Park
Management Plan”).
7 Although it is believed that salmon do not migrate into the lake, future study of a hydropower project would need
to address impacts to downstream conditions with respect salmon (as well as other species).
10-10 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
10.3.6 Preliminary Licensing Proposal
Following completion of engineering and environmental studies, the applicant may file for
comment a Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP). This document describes existing and
proposed project facilities, project lands, and project waters. The PLP describes the existing and
proposed project operation and maintenance plan, which includes protection, mitigation, and
enhancement (PM&E) measures. As these PM&E measures may impose financial and
operational obligations on the applicant, they should be agreed to only if reasonable. The PLP
includes a draft environmental analysis by resource area, and maps depicting resource
conditions. Reviewers, including FERC staff, have 90 days to submit comments, including
recommendations on whether FERC should prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or
an environmental assessment (EA). Ideally, the project would qualify for an EA and result in a
FERC Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The applicant could elect to file a Draft License Application (DLA) instead of a PLP, if the ILP
is employed. The PLP is intended to save time and money relative to the DLA by requiring only
items of potential interest to stakeholders. It should be noted that the items not included in the
PLP are required for the Final License Application (FLA), and preparing them early in the
licensing process may be beneficial to the applicant.
10.3.7 Development of the Final License Application
In a parallel process to the development of the PLP, the applicant will prepare the engineering
and environmental exhibits for use in the FLA. Under FERC’s 18 CFR Part 4.41 Regulations:
the Exhibits Required for Major Unconstructed Project, the applicant must assemble the
following:
• Initial Statement
• Exhibit A (Description of the Project)
• Exhibit B (Project Operation and Resource Utilization)
• Exhibit C (Construction Schedule)
• Exhibit D (Costs and Financing)
• Exhibit E (Environmental Report)
• Exhibit F (General Design Drawings)
• Supporting Design Report (Part of Exhibit F Filing)
• Exhibit G (Map of the Project)
The Initial Statement includes the applicant name, location of the proposed project, the
statutory or regulatory requirements of the State in which the project would be located, and the
steps that the applicant will take to comply with these statutory or regulatory requirements.
Exhibit A is a description of the project. The description is to contain information on: (1) The
physical composition, dimensions, and general configuration of dams, spillways, penstocks,
powerhouses, tailraces, or other structures; (2) The normal maximum water surface area and
normal maximum water surface elevation (mean sea level), and gross storage capacity of
10-11 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
impoundments; (3) The number, type, and rated capacity of any turbines or generators; (4) The
number, length, voltage, and interconnections of primary transmission lines; (5) The description
of mechanical, electrical, and transmission equipment appurtenant to the project; and (6) a listing
of all lands of the United States (if any).
Exhibit B is a statement of project operation and resource utilization. The information is to be
provided for the operation of the reservoirs, dams, gates, emergency spillways, primary
transmission lines, and powerhouse. Information to be documented in Exhibit B includes:
• Automated and manual operational characteristics
• An estimate of the annual plant factor
• A statement of how the project will be operated during adverse, mean, and high water
years
• An estimate of the dependable capacity and average annual energy production in
kilowatt-hours
• The minimum, mean, and maximum recorded flows, in cubic feet per second, of the
facility (with a specification of any adjustment made for evaporation, leakage minimum
flow releases [including duration of releases] or other reductions in available flow)
• Monthly flow duration curves indicating the period of record and the gaging stations used
in deriving the curves; and a specification of the critical streamflow used to determine the
dependable capacity
• An area-capacity curve showing the gross storage capacity and usable storage capacity of
the impoundment, with a rule curve showing the proposed operation of the impoundment
and how the usable storage capacity is to be utilized
• The estimated minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of the powerplant in terms of
flow and efficiency (cubic feet per second at one-half, full, and best gate), and the
corresponding generator output in kilowatts
• A tailwater rating curve with a curve showing powerplant capability versus head and
specifying maximum, normal, and minimum heads
• A statement of system and regional power needs and the manner in which the power
generated at the project is to be utilized, including the amount of power to be used on-
site, if any, supported by the following data: (i) Load curves and tabular data, if
appropriate; (ii) Details of conservation and rate design programs and their historic and
projected impacts on system loads; and (iii) The amount of power to be sold and the
identity of proposed purchaser(s)
• A statement of AVCP RHA’s plans for future development of the project, or of another
existing or proposed water power project, on the affected stream or other body of water,
indicating the approximate location and estimated installed capacity of the proposed
developments.
Exhibit C is a proposed construction schedule for the project. The required information may be
supplemented with a bar chart. The construction schedule must contain: (1) The commencement
and completion dates of construction; (2) The commencement date of first commercial operation
of each major facility and generating unit; and (3) If any portion of the proposed project consists
of previously constructed, unlicensed water power structures or facilities, a chronology of
10-12 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
original completion dates of those structures or facilities specifying dates (approximate dates
must be identified as such) of: (i) Commencement and completion of construction or installation;
(ii) Commencement of first commercial operation; and (iii) Any additions or modifications other
than routine maintenance.
Exhibit D is a statement of project costs and financing. The exhibit will contain: (1) A statement
of estimated costs of any new construction, modification, or repair, including: (i) The cost of any
land or water rights necessary to the development; (ii) The total cost of all major project works;
(iii) Indirect construction costs such as costs of construction equipment, camps, and
commissaries; (iv) Interest during construction; and (v) Overhead, construction, legal expenses,
and contingencies; (2) If any portion of the proposed project consists of previously constructed,
unlicensed water power structures or facilities, a statement of the original cost of those structures
or facilities specifying for each, to the extent possible, the actual or approximate total costs
(approximate costs must be identified as such) of: (i) Any land or water rights necessary to the
existing project works; (ii) All major project works; and (iii) Any additions or modifications
other than routine maintenance; (3) If the applicant is a licensee applying for a new license, and
is not a municipality or a State, an estimate of the amount which would be payable if the project
were to be taken over pursuant to Section 16 U.S. C. 807, upon expiration of the license in effect
including: (i) Fair value; (ii) Net investment; and (iii) Severance damages; (4) A statement of the
estimated average annual cost of the total project as proposed, specifying any projected changes
in the costs (life-cycle costs) over the estimated financing or licensing period if the applicant
takes such changes into account, including: (i) Cost of capital (equity and debt); (ii) local, State,
and Federal taxes; (iii) Depreciation or amortization, (iv) Operation and maintenance expenses,
including interim replacements, insurance, administrative and general expenses, and
contingencies; and (v) The estimated capital cost and estimated annual operation and
maintenance expense of each proposed environmental measure; (5) A statement of the estimated
annual value of project power based on a showing of the contract price for sale of power or the
estimated average annual cost of obtaining an equivalent amount of power (capacity and energy)
from the lowest cost alternative source of power, specifying any projected changes in the costs
(life-cycle costs) of power from that source over the estimated financing or licensing period if
the applicant takes such changes into account; (6) A statement describing other electric energy
alternatives, such as gas, oil, coal, and nuclear-fueled powerplants and other conventional and
pumped storage hydroelectric plants; (7) A statement and evaluation of the consequences of
denial of the license application and a brief perspective of what future use would be made of the
proposed site if the proposed project were not constructed; (8) A statement specifying the
sources and extent of financing and annual revenues available to the applicant to meet the costs
identified; (9) An estimate of the cost to develop the license application; and (10) The on-peak
and off-peak values of project power, and the basis for estimating the values, for projects which
are proposed to operate in a mode other than run-of-river.
Exhibit E is the environmental report. Using materials generated for the PLP (or DLA), Exhibit
E should be prepared by staff skilled in preparing environmental analyses in a manner
understandable by FERC, to minimize the chances of later, costly additional information
requests. Exhibit E is to include:
10-13 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
• Description of river basin and tributaries, topography, climate, major land uses, and
economic activities
• Geographic and temporal scope of cumulative effects
• Identification of applicable laws (Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National
Historic Properties Act, etc.)
• Description of project facilities (from Exhibits A and B)
• Proposed action including cost estimates for construction, operation, and maintenance of
any proposed facilities or environmental measures (and possible alternatives that were
considered)
• Affected environment and environmental effects on resources including:
o Geology and soils
o Water use and quality (in parallel and consistent with requirements for the 401
water quality certification application)
o Fish and aquatic resources
o Wildlife and botanical resources
o Wetlands, riparian, and littoral habitats
o Rare, threatened, and endangered species
o Recreation resources
o Aesthetics
o Land use
o Cultural resources
o Socioeconomics
o Tribal resources
• Economic analysis (mostly derived from Exhibit B and F)
• Proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures
• Economic analysis including annualized, current, cost-based information
• Consistency with comprehensive plans
• Functional design drawings of environmental measures.
Exhibit F consists of general design drawings of the principal project works described in Exhibit
A and supporting information used as the basis of design. The Exhibit F drawings must show all
major project structures in sufficient detail to provide a full understanding of the project,
including: (i) Plans (overhead view); (ii) Elevations (front view); (iii) Profiles (side view); and
(iv) Sections.
A Supporting Design Report (SDR) is to be provided as part of Exhibit F. The SDR should
include: (i) An assessment of reservoir rim stability based on geological and subsurface
investigations, including documentation regarding investigations of soils and rock borings, and
tests associated with the structures; (ii) Copies of boring logs, geology reports and laboratory test
reports; (iii) An identification of all borrow areas and quarry sites and an estimate of required
quantities of suitable construction material; (iv) Stability and stress analyses for all major
structures and critical abutment slopes under all probable loading; and (v) The bases for
determination of seismic loading and the Spillway Design Flood, in sufficient detail to permit
independent staff evaluation.
10-14 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Exhibit G is a map of the project that is to conform to the specifications of 18 CRF 4.39. Exhibit
G depicts the project location and principal features, project boundary, impoundments, and
Federal and non-Federal land ownership.
10.3.8 Post-FLA Activities and Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Within 14 days of the FLA filing date, FERC issues a public notice of the tendering in the
Federal Register, which includes a preliminary schedule for processing of the application. FERC
staff may request additional information or documents it considers relevant for an informed
decision on the FLA. The information requested must take the form, and must be submitted
within the time FERC prescribes. Once FERC has determined that the FLA meets all filing
requirements, studies have been completed, any deficiencies have been resolved, and no
additional information is required, a notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis
(REA) is issued. The REA Notice solicits comments, protests, and interventions;
recommendations; preliminary terms and conditions; and preliminary fishway prescriptions,
including all supporting documentation. The REA Notice also will include an updated schedule
for FLA processing. Comments, protests, interventions, recommendations, and preliminary terms
and conditions or preliminary fishway prescriptions must be filed with 60 days of the REA
Notice. The applicant will then have 45 days to respond to submitted comments.
No later than 60 days following the REA Notice, the applicant must file a copy of the 401 Water
Quality Certification; a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which
the ADEC received the request for certification; or evidence of waiver of water quality
certification. The applicant may wish to file its request for certification during development of
the FLA, since the State may take up a year to process the application. The application can make
extensive use of FLA documents.
Following completion of the 401 Water Quality Certification process, FERC will prepare an EA
or EIS. As described above (PLP), the project would ideally qualify for an EA and result in a
FERC Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
FERC is required under Section 10(j) of the FPA to include in any license fish and wildlife
measures for the protection, mitigation of damages to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife
resources potentially affected by the project based on recommendations from the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the USFWS, and State fish and wildlife agencies, unless it finds the
measures to be inconsistent with the FPA or other applicable law.
In connection with its environmental review of an application for license, FERC analyzes all
recommended conditions timely filed by fish and wildlife agencies. The agency must specifically
identify and explain the recommendations and the relevant resource goals and objectives and
their evidentiary or legal basis. FERC staff may seek clarification of any recommendation from
the appropriate fish and wildlife agency. If FERC staff finds any recommendation inconsistent
with the FPA or other applicable law, the staff will make a preliminary determination, after
which the staff shall attempt to reach with the agencies a mutually acceptable resolution of any
such inconsistency.
10-15 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Any entity, affected resource agency, or Indian tribe may file comments in response to the
preliminary determination of inconsistency within the allotted time frame. A fish and wildlife
agency may request a meeting, teleconference, or other procedure to attempt to resolve any
preliminary determination of inconsistency. FERC staff will attempt to resolve the differences
with the resource agencies, giving due weight to the expertise and responsibilities of the
agencies.
FERC is ultimately responsible for ensuring that each license contains conditions that adequately
protect, mitigate for damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife resources in the project area. If
FERC decides to use its own conditions in lieu of those recommended by the agencies, then
FERC must be prepared to demonstrate that: 1) the agency recommendation is inconsistent with
the purpose of the FPA or other applicable law; and, 2) the license conditions selected by FERC
adequately protect fish and wildlife.
The final step in the licensing process is the issuance of FERC’s decision on the license, which it
makes as expeditiously as possible, consistent with its statutory responsibilities. The license
order, which contains the terms and conditions under which the project must be operated,
typically contains the following:
• Description of the project works licensed;
• Description of the project operation;
• Discussion and findings of the issues raised in the proceeding
• Term of license
• Environmental conditions;
• Engineering conditions; and
• Administrative compliance conditions.
The license becomes final 30 days after the order for a license is issued, unless requests for
rehearings and subsequent appeals are filed. Even if a request for rehearing and judicial review is
filed, the license goes into effect when issued, unless FERC orders otherwise.
After licensing, FERC administers the license through its ongoing monitoring of the licensee's
compliance with the terms and conditions of the license. The FERC Division of
Hydropower Administration and Compliance (DHAC) has the primary responsibility for this
task. FERC is empowered to monitor and investigate compliance and to issue formal orders
directing compliance with license terms and conditions. Additionally, FERC can impose
appropriate fines or revoke a license when it can be shown that the licensee violated a license or
compliance order.
10.4 Other Permits and Approvals
In addition to a FERC license and 401 Water Quality Certification, the following permits and
approvals would likely be required in order to develop a hydroelectric project at either the
Kisaralik River or Chikuminuk Lake sites. Among these are:
10-16 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
• State of Alaska Water Right
• USACE 404 Permit
• Storm Water Management and Discharge Permit (402 Clean Water Act)
• Fish Habitat Permit
• Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program Consistency Determination
A hydroelectric project would require a State of Alaska Water Right from the ADNR. A water
right is a legal right to use surface or ground water under the Alaska Water Use Act. A water
right allows a specific amount of water from a specific water source to be diverted, impounded,
or withdrawn for a specific use. When a water right is granted, it becomes appurtenant to the
land where the water is being used for as long as the water is used. To obtain a water right the
applicant will need to submit an application for water rights to the ADNR office in the area of
the water use. The fee for application processing will be determined at a pre-application meeting
with the Water Resources Section. After the application is processed, the applicant may be issued
a permit to divert the water for electric power generation. Once the applicant has established the
full amount of water to be used beneficially and has complied with all of the permit conditions, a
certificate of appropriation may be issued. This is the legal document that establishes water
rights.
The USACE issues permits under Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act (i.e., USACE 404
Permit) for the “discharge of dredged or fill” material into “waters of the United States”.
Individual Permits are issued following a full public interest review of an individual application
for a Department of the Army permit. A public notice (usually 30 days in length) is distributed to
all known interested persons. The permit decision is generally based on the outcome of a public
interest balancing process, where the benefits of the project are weighed against the detriments.
A permit will be granted unless the proposal is found to be contrary to the public interest or fails
to comply with the USEPA’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines allow the USACE
to permit only the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Processing time
usually takes 90 to 120 days, unless a public hearing is required or an EIS must be prepared. On
April 10, 2008, the USACE and the USEPA published a new rule, entitled “Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule.” The rule addresses the sequence for
mitigating impacts to aquatic resources that result from work authorized by permit under the
Corps’ Regulatory Program. All steps to avoid and/or minimize impacts to aquatic resources
must be taken before proposing compensatory mitigation to offset project impacts. The rule
establishes standards and criteria for all types of compensatory mitigation, including mitigation
banks. To offset authorized unavoidable impacts to waters of the US, permit applicants are
required to describe how they will avoid, minimize and compensate for impacts to waters of the
US.
Under the USEPA’s Construction General Permit (CGP), all developers that propose to disturb
one or more actress of land surface must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to USEPA and prepare
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under direction of the ADEC (i.e., Storm
Water Management and Discharge Permit, under 402 Clean Water Act). SWPPP
development includes the following phases: site evaluation and assessment; planning, design,
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
10-17 May 2011
and selection of best management practices; notice of intent; construction and implementation;
final stabilization and termination; and notice of termination.
Alteration of stream bank and/or shoreline areas along the Kisaralik River, Chikuminuk Lake, or
the Allen River would trigger the need to obtain a Fish Habitat Permit from the ADF&G
Habitat Division. Alaska Statute 16.05.841 (Fishway Act) requires that an individual or
government agency notify and obtain authorization from the ADF&G Habitat Division for
activities within or across a stream used by fish if it is determined that such uses or activities
could represent an impediment to the efficient passage of fish. For example, water withdrawals;
stream realignment or diversion; dams; and construction, placement, deposition, or removal of
any material or structure below ordinary high water all require approval. Alaska Statute
16.05.871 (Anadromous Fish Act) requires that an individual or government agency provide
prior notification and obtain permit approval from the ADF&G Habitat Division “to construct a
hydraulic project or use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural flow or bed” of a
specified waterbody. All activities within or across a specified anadromous waterbody and all
instream activities affecting a specified anadromous waterbody require approval, including
construction; road crossings; gravel removal; mining; water withdrawals; the use of vehicles or
equipment in the waterway; stream realignment or diversion; bank stabilization; blasting; and the
placement, excavation, deposition, or removal of any material. Application instructions and
specific requirements for fish habitat permits may be obtained from the ADF&G Division of
Habitat office in Anchorage. No application fee is required. Public notice and hearings are not
usually required.
The State of Alaska uses a multiple agency coordinated system for reviewing and processing all
resource-related permits that are required for proposed projects in or affecting coastal areas of
Alaska. This system, call “project consistency review”, is based on the federally-approved
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). Consistency Determination review is
triggered by submittal of a Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) to the ADNR Division of
Coastal and Ocean Management, which is available online. The statewide standards (11 AAC
112) and coastal district enforceable policies of the ACMP provide direction for coastal uses,
including energy facilities (see Section 230). Using the statewide standards and local enforceable
policies, the ACMP evaluates the effects a project will have on the coastal resources and uses.
Projects must be consistent with the requirements found in the standards and enforceable
policies.
This page left blank intentionally.
11-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
11 Energy Generation Estimates
Based on the preliminary design at each site (installed capacity and dam height), a planning-level
energy model was be prepared to determine average annual generation and the monthly
distribution of generation for each site. The Kisaralik River projects have limited storage, and
therefore have a limited ability to regulate flows for meeting future demand.
The energy model is based on the flow data discussed earlier in the report, which are available on
a monthly timestep for 42 years – January, 1954 through December, 1995. In addition to the flow
data, model input includes the monthly distribution of energy demand, compensation flow
(assume to be 0 cfs for this initial study), and information about the relationship between
reservoir elevation, volume, and area.
The assumed shape of the demand curve (based on previous Bethel power studies) is shown
in Figure 12. Peak monthly demand is assumed in December and January, and the month with
lowest demand is June.
Figure 12: Monthly Demand Pattern
Other basic assumptions include headloss (2%), turbine efficiency (90%), and generator
efficiency (95.5%). Based on these inputs and assumptions, the results of the energy study are
shown in the table and figures (Figure 13 to Figure 16) below.
11-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Site
Min /Rated/
Max Head
(ft)
Generating
Capacity
(MW)
Average Annual
Energy
(GWh)
Capacity
Factor
Chikuminuk Lake 59 / 91 / 114 13.4 88.6 76%
Upper Falls 96.8 / 149 / 186.2 27.7 88.5 37%
Lower Falls 79 / 121.5 / 151.9 34.1 127.1 43%
Golden Gate Falls 51 / 78.4 / 98 27.0 94.4 40%
Figure 13: Chikuminuk Lake, Modeled Average Generation by Month
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Energy by Month (GWh)90% Reliable (Annual Basis)Secondary Energy Year 2022 Projected Demand
11-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Figure 14: Upper Falls, Modeled Average Generation by Month
Figure 15: Lower Falls, Modeled Average Generation by Month
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Energy by Month (GWh)90% Reliable (Annual Basis)Secondary Energy Year 2022 Projected Demand
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Energy by Month (GWh)90% Reliable (Annual Basis)Secondary Energy Year 2020 Projected Demand
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Energy by Month (GWh)90% Reliable (Annual Basis)Secondary Energy Year 2022 Projected Demand
Figure 16: Golden Gate Falls, Modeled Average Generation by Month
11-4 May 2011
12-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
12 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
This section of the report describes estimating methodology and the estimating basis used to
arrive at the estimated capital cost of the projects, or Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
(OPCC or “estimate”). The OPCC is intended to be an indication of fair market value, based on
the current level of design, and is not necessarily a predictor of lowest bid. The following
sections outline the specific estimating methodology employed by the estimating team during the
development of the cost opinion. In addition, significant OPCC assumptions/exclusions and
qualifications are also detailed to define and document the pricing basis.
12.1 Estimate Classification
MWH classifies all cost estimating opinions in accordance with the criteria established by the
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering’s (AACE) cost estimating classification
system referred to as Standard Practice 18R-97. The AACE Cost Estimate Classification System
maps the various stages of project cost estimating together with a generic maturity and quality
matrix, which can be applied across a wide variety of industries and capital infrastructure.
The following table summarizes the typical estimating methodology employed relative to AACE
cost estimate classification:
AACE Class System Methodology
5 Spreadsheet Parametric/Stochastic
4 Spreadsheet Semi‐detailed Unit Price
3 IPE/TL Detailed Crew Analysis
2 IPE/TL Detailed Crew Analysis w/ Budget Quotes
1* IPE/TL Detailed Crew Analysis w/ Firm Quotes
* Class 1 OPCCs are reserved for actual contractor proposals that factor
in final subcontractor quotes and firm vendor materials pricing.
The following table provides some basic guidance regarding expected estimating accuracy and
contingency level recommendation relative to estimate class and input design definition:
AACE Class Design Accuracy Range Typical Contingency
5 <5% ‐35% to +50% 20% to 40%
4 <15% ‐25% to +35% 10% to 30%
3 10%‐40% ‐15% to +20% 5% to 20%
2 50%‐99% ‐10% to +15% 0% to 10%
1* 100% +/‐5% 0% to 5%
*Class 1 estimates are reserved for actual contractor proposals that rely on
finalized bidding documents and access to all pre-tender addendums.
12-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Directs costs, representing the project’s fixed physical scope, are estimated for major equipment
using a parametric approach. Quantities were developed by scaling the furnished drawings. Class
5 and 4 cost opinions typically apply all-in unit prices against the line item quantities. Indirect
costs representing the contractor’s time related variable field management expenses or general
conditions costs are factored to Class 4 and 5 OPCCs in a top-down approach as a function of
running direct costs. Estimate add-ons representing the contractor’s allowances for home office
overhead expenses, sales taxes, insurance costs, risk provision and fee are added to the cost
estimate as a function of running direct costs. Allowances are added to the OPCC to anticipate
expenses for known but undefined scope items.
Contingency is added to the cost estimate to account for unknown risks or unforeseen market
conditions. It should be noted that unprecedented market volatility has been a significant factor
in contractor pricing over the last several years. Current market conditions have shown an
aggressive approach to pricing, with contractors assuming more risk to win project work.
Consequently, while the market price may be significantly under the reported “fair valuation” of
the OPCC, owners need to be aware of the increased potential for claims and other compensation
demands that contractors may employ to offset aggressive bidding strategies.
12.2 Assumptions and Qualifications
The following generic assumptions are incorporated into the OPCC:
• Competitive bid conditions will prevail at tender (e.g. +3 bidders),
• Standard industry commercial terms will attach to all procurements,
• Stable market conditions will prevail without significant geo-political events or economic
disruptions,
• An optimized contracting strategy will be employed to efficiently sequence and
coordinate the work scope,
• No trade discounts were considered, and
• Bulk material quantities are based on manual quantity take-offs.
The following specific assumptions are incorporated into the OPCC:
• Pricing basis is Q4 2010,
• All material delivered to the projects sites will by winter ice roads 8 ,
• The diversion tunnels are sized for a 25 year flood event,
• It is assumed the rock at the sites is suitable to make concrete aggregates,
• Labor and equipment rates are Alaska rates, and
• Outside work such as the dam and concrete work will be done in the late spring through
early fall.
8 An allowance for a permanent access road is included for Chikuminuk as ice road access is probably not feasible;
allowances for airstrips are included for all sites.
12-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
The following labor assumptions are incorporated into the OPCC:
• Local wage determination: Alaska camp job rates,
• Productivity adjustment to U.S. Alaska camp job,
• Generally shift basis: 10 hrs/shift, 1 shift/day, 6 days/week, and
• Some of the work will be 10 hrs night shift, 6 days/week.
The developed estimate excludes the following:
• Non-conventional environmental mitigation measures,
• Non-conventional heritage and cultural mitigation measures,
• Removal of unforeseen underground obstructions,
• Hazardous material remediation or disposal,
• Permits beyond those normally needed for the type of project,
• Special inspections and testing, and
• Cost associated with loss of revenue or power production.
The following bidding assumptions were considered in the development of this OPCC:
• Actual bid prices may increase for fewer bidders or decrease for greater number of
bidders,
• The prime contractor will self-perform all work scope except for major equipment, such
as turbines and generators, and
• Builder’s Risk Insurance will be available to the contractor.
The following standard project risks can influence bid results:
• Special phasing constraints,
• Onerous contract terms and conditions,
• Owner reputation for processing changed conditions claims, and
• Owner reputation for prompt payment.
The following allowances are included as “Project Administration and Management”:
• Planning and licensing at 1.5% of the estimated capital cost,
• Design phase engineering at 3.0% of the of the estimated capital cost,
• Construction phase engineering at 2.0% of the of the estimated capital cost,
• Construction management at 5.0% of the of the estimated capital cost,
• Miscellaneous Owner’s “soft” costs at 2.0% of the of the estimated capital cost,
• Land acquisition, land rights and environmental mitigation at 2.0% of the estimated
capital cost, and
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
12-4 May 2011
• Scope contingency at 10% of the of the estimated civil component and 5.0% of the
estimated equipment and transmission capital cost9 .
Based on the assumptions described above, the estimated project cost is indicated in Table 19.
Additional detail is given in Exhibit 9.
Table 19: Summary of Cost Estimates
Description CHIKUMINUK KISARALIK
RIVER
KISARALIK
RIVER
KISARALIK
RIVER
LAKE UPPER
FALLS
LOWER
FALLS
GOLDEN
GATE FALLS
Direct Costs
General $9,125,500 $9,125,500 $9,125,500 $9,125,500
Site Access Roads and Winter Ice Roads $18,221,000 $10,886,000 $10,202,000 $9,686,000
Rockfill Dam $24,713,325 $62,303,875 $18,342,625 $15,459,625
Spillway $4,946,900 $5,642,800 $23,006,800 $19,689,550
Fish Passage System $35,715,000 $36,025,000 $36,350,000 $35,905,000
Waterways $24,128,450 $28,277,500 $25,549,000 $25,401,500
Powerhouse $36,864,750 $48,105,500 $47,055,500 $44,805,500
Transmission Line $141,600,000 $84,000,000 $74,400,000 $68,400,000
Total Direct Cost $295,314,925 $284,366,175 $244,031,425 $228,472,675
Indirect Cost $26,550,000 $25,560,000 $21,960,000 $20,520,000
Markups $89,000,000 $83,000,000 $71,000,000 $67,000,000
Total Construction Cost $410,864,925 $392,926,175 $336,991,425 $315,992,675
Administration and Management
Planning and Licensing $6,160,000 $5,890,000 $5,060,000 $4,740,000
Engineering $12,330,000 $11,790,000 $10,110,000 $9,480,000
Engineering During Construction $8,220,000 $7,860,000 $6,740,000 $6,320,000
Construction Oversight & Management $20,550,000 $19,650,000 $16,850,000 $15,800,000
Miscellaneous Owner's Soft Costs $8,220,000 $7,860,000 $6,740,000 $6,320,000
Land Acquisition, Rights and Mitigation $8,220,000 $7,860,000 $6,740,000 $6,320,000
Scope Contingency On Civil $24,030,000 $27,530,000 $23,010,000 $21,720,000
Scope Contingency On Equipment $8,530,000 $5,880,000 $5,350,000 $4,940,000
Interest During Construction
Owner's Construction Contingency/Mgt Reserve
Total Administration & Management $96,260,000 $94,320,000 $80,600,000 $75,640,000
TOTAL COST $507,000,000 $487,000,000 $418,000,000 $392,000,000
9 An allowance of 12.5% was applied to Chikuminuk to account for the possibility of extensive seepage control
measures referenced in Section 6.1.4.
13-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
13 Scheduling Summary
Although a detailed schedule has not been developed, it is estimated that planning, regulatory
work, design procurement, and construction can be accomplished in 10 years if the project is
pursued aggressively.
The major focus during the first five years would be licensing and design. Of this, the first 3
years is estimated for FERC licensing and related activities. This would begin with obtaining a
Preliminary Permit from FERC (1 mo), followed by developing a Pre-Application Document (3
mo), performing required environmental studies (1 yr), and preparing a Preliminary Licensing
Proposal (PLP) (6 mo). After the PLP is complete, the Final License Application will be
completed (6 mo), along with the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (2 yrs). The estimated
durations assume the involvement of a firm experienced with FERC regulations, and good
coordination with FERC legal counsel.
For the design process, preliminary engineering, including subsurface exploration and
topographic mapping, can proceed in conjunction with FERC regulatory activities. Once the
licensing activities are completed, the bulk of the design work can begin. MWH anticipates most
of the engineering design work will be done during the two years following the issuance of the
license (mid-2016 through late-2018). This work involves the design of the structures and
preparation of documents for construction services and equipment procurement. The
procurement will be done in three parts: civil/structural work, water-to-wire equipment package,
and miscellaneous works. Assumptions include the involvement of a design engineer to prepare
the design and procurement documents, and to assist in the procurement process, as well as a
full-time administrator to manage the designer, the procurement, and the overall project.
Actual construction could be carried out in approximately three years. Successful completion
within a 3-year window is based on a contractor receiving full authorization to proceed prior to
the winter, with enough time to bring in the necessary equipment and supplies to the site via ice
road. After establishing the ice road and setting up labor camps, first year activities include
constructing the diversion tunnel, completing the dam foundation preparation, and excavating the
powerhouse area. During the second year, work will include executing the cofferdam closure,
excavating the spillway, building the intake tower, and creating the powerhouse substructure. In
the third year, the dam and spillway will be completed, along with the powerhouse. Throughout
the construction period, work will be conducted to build the transmission line. Target completion
is in late 2021 as presented in Exhibit 10.
This page left blank intentionally.
14-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
14 Power Market and Economic Study
The power market study provides an overview of the electric service conditions and
characteristics of the Bethel region under study. The market study includes a forecast of
estimated energy and demand requirements of the villages that are likely candidates for
interconnection in and around Bethel, Alaska. In addition to the forecast of energy and capacity
requirements, the power market study provides expected generation requirements and an
economic evaluation of the four potential hydropower sites.
14.1 Service Area
The service area anticipated for the proposed hydroelectric facilities includes villages located in
close proximity to Bethel, Alaska in the Kuskokwim River region of Alaska. The villages are
Akiachak, Akiak, Eek, Kasigluk, Nunapitchuk, Quinhagak, Atmautluak, Oscarville, Napakiak,
Kwethluk, Napaskiak, Tuluksak, Tuntutuliak. The locations are indicated in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Village Locations
With the sole exception of a relatively modest generation contribution from wind power, all
electric power for the villages is supplied by diesel generation facilities.
14-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
The villages under consideration for the hydropower system currently have limited
interconnections. Most of the villages have relatively small loads, and meet their requirements on
a stand-alone basis. Interconnections have been developed for Bethel and the two adjoining
villages of Oscarville and Napakiak to share power supply from Bethel, and between Kasigluk
and Nunapitchuk.
14.2 Projections of Electric Load, Demand, and Generation Requirements
Estimates of the electric requirements for the villages under consideration for the hydropower
alternatives under investigation have been prepared. The load forecasts were developed from two
primary sources: the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program
reports for Bethel and the neighboring candidate villages, and the State of Alaska Department of
Labor and Workforce Development.
The forecast is based on annual energy requirements of residents averaged over recent reporting
periods from PCE records, and the Bethel Region Census Area population growth estimates
prepared by Department of Labor and reported in the December issue of Alaska Economic
Trends. The population estimates issued in late-2010 estimated the average annual growth in
population of 1.4% per year from 2009 to 2034 for the region. That population projection is used
as the basis for a mid-range, or “most likely,” projection of electric energy and capacity
requirements. Estimates for low-range (1% annual population growth rate) and high-range (2%
annual population growth rate) loads have developed using lower and higher estimates of
population growth, respectively. Projections are provided in Table 20 to Table 22.
14-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 20: Mid-Range Electric Load and Generation Requirements
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 1,673 1,696 1,977 2,090 2,240 2,272 2,402 2,574 2,958 3,400 3,907
Akiak 924 937 1,092 1,154 1,237 1,254 1,326 1,422 1,634 1,877 2,157
Eek 743 754 878 929 995 1,009 1,067 1,144 1,315 1,511 1,736
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 2,529 2,564 2,988 3,159 3,386 3,433 3,630 3,891 4,471 5,138 5,905
Quinhagak 1,833 1,858 2,165 2,289 2,454 2,488 2,631 2,820 3,241 3,724 4,279
Atmautluak 513 520 606 641 687 697 736 789 907 1,042 1,198
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 39,358 39,909 46,504 49,163 52,703 53,440 56,497 60,564 69,597 79,978 91,907
Kwethluk 1,200 1,217 1,418 1,499 1,607 1,629 1,722 1,846 2,122 2,438 2,802
Napaskiak 818 830 967 1,022 1,095 1,111 1,174 1,259 1,447 1,662 1,910
Tuluksak 571 579 675 714 765 776 820 879 1,010 1,161 1,334
Tuntutuliak 782 793 924 976 1,047 1,061 1,122 1,203 1,382 1,588 1,825
Total 50,944 51,657 60,193 63,635 68,216 69,171 73,127 78,391 90,083 103,520 118,961
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 424 430 501 530 568 576 609 653 751 862 991
Akiak 234 238 277 293 314 318 336 361 414 476 547
Eek 189 191 223 236 253 256 271 290 333 383 440
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 641 650 758 801 859 871 921 987 1,134 1,303 1,498
Quinhagak 465 471 549 581 623 631 667 715 822 945 1,086
Atmautluak 130 132 154 163 174 177 187 200 230 264 304
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 9,984 10,124 11,797 12,472 13,370 13,557 14,332 15,364 17,655 20,289 23,315
Kwethluk 304 309 360 380 408 413 437 468 538 618 711
Napaskiak 208 210 245 259 278 282 298 319 367 422 485
Tuluksak 145 147 171 181 194 197 208 223 256 294 338
Tuntutuliak 198 201 234 248 266 269 285 305 351 403 463
Total 12,923 13,104 15,270 16,143 17,305 17,547 18,551 19,886 22,852 26,261 30,178
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 1,833 1,858 2,165 2,289 2,454 2,488 2,630 2,820 3,240 3,724 4,279
Akiak 1,060 1,075 1,253 1,325 1,420 1,440 1,522 1,632 1,875 2,155 2,476
Eek 781 792 923 976 1,046 1,061 1,122 1,202 1,382 1,588 1,825
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 2,834 2,873 3,348 3,540 3,794 3,848 4,068 4,360 5,011 5,758 6,617
Quinhagak 1,947 1,975 2,301 2,432 2,607 2,644 2,795 2,996 3,443 3,957 4,547
Atmautluak 604 612 714 754 809 820 867 929 1,068 1,227 1,410
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 41,758 42,342 49,339 52,161 55,915 56,698 59,941 64,256 73,840 84,854 97,510
Kwethluk 1,418 1,438 1,676 1,772 1,899 1,926 2,036 2,182 2,508 2,882 3,312
Napaskiak 973 987 1,150 1,215 1,303 1,321 1,397 1,497 1,721 1,977 2,272
Tuluksak 718 728 848 897 961 975 1,031 1,105 1,270 1,459 1,677
Tuntutuliak 1,003 1,017 1,185 1,253 1,343 1,362 1,440 1,544 1,774 2,039 2,343
Total 54,929 55,698 64,902 68,614 73,553 74,583 78,848 84,524 97,131 111,619 128,268
Bethel Area Community Energy Requirements Forecast, MWh/yr.
Bethel Area Community Capacity Requirements Forecast, kW
Bethel Area Community Generation Requirements Forecast, Busbar MWh/yr
14-4 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 21: High-Range Electric Load and Generation Requirements
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 1,683 1,717 2,134 2,310 2,551 2,602 2,816 3,109 3,790 4,620 5,632
Akiak 929 948 1,179 1,276 1,409 1,437 1,555 1,717 2,093 2,552 3,110
Eek 748 763 948 1,027 1,133 1,156 1,251 1,382 1,684 2,053 2,503
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 2,544 2,594 3,226 3,492 3,855 3,932 4,256 4,699 5,729 6,983 8,512
Quinhagak 1,843 1,880 2,338 2,531 2,794 2,850 3,085 3,406 4,152 5,061 6,169
Atmautluak 516 526 654 708 782 798 864 953 1,162 1,417 1,727
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 39,591 40,383 50,211 54,350 60,007 61,207 66,252 73,148 89,167 108,694 132,497
Kwethluk 1,207 1,231 1,531 1,657 1,829 1,866 2,020 2,230 2,718 3,314 4,039
Napaskiak 823 839 1,044 1,130 1,247 1,272 1,377 1,520 1,853 2,259 2,754
Tuluksak 575 586 729 789 871 888 962 1,062 1,294 1,578 1,923
Tuntutuliak 786 802 997 1,079 1,192 1,216 1,316 1,453 1,771 2,159 2,631
Total 51,245 52,270 64,991 70,348 77,670 79,224 85,754 94,680 115,414 140,689 171,499
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 427 435 541 586 647 660 714 789 962 1,172 1,429
Akiak 236 240 299 324 357 364 395 436 531 647 789
Eek 190 193 241 260 288 293 317 350 427 521 635
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 645 658 818 886 978 998 1,080 1,192 1,453 1,771 2,159
Quinhagak 468 477 593 642 709 723 783 864 1,053 1,284 1,565
Atmautluak 131 134 166 180 198 202 219 242 295 359 438
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 10,043 10,244 12,737 13,787 15,222 15,527 16,807 18,556 22,620 27,573 33,612
Kwethluk 306 312 388 420 464 473 512 566 690 841 1,025
Napaskiak 209 213 265 287 316 323 349 386 470 573 699
Tuluksak 146 149 185 200 221 225 244 269 328 400 488
Tuntutuliak 199 203 253 274 302 308 334 369 449 548 668
Total 13,000 13,260 16,487 17,846 19,703 20,097 21,754 24,018 29,278 35,690 43,506
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 1,843 1,880 2,338 2,531 2,794 2,850 3,085 3,406 4,152 5,061 6,169
Akiak 1,067 1,088 1,353 1,464 1,617 1,649 1,785 1,971 2,402 2,928 3,570
Eek 786 802 997 1,079 1,191 1,215 1,315 1,452 1,770 2,158 2,630
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 2,850 2,907 3,615 3,913 4,320 4,407 4,770 5,266 6,420 7,826 9,539
Quinhagak 1,959 1,998 2,484 2,689 2,969 3,028 3,278 3,619 4,412 5,378 6,555
Atmautluak 608 620 771 834 921 939 1,017 1,122 1,368 1,668 2,033
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 42,005 42,845 53,272 57,663 63,665 64,938 70,291 77,607 94,603 115,320 140,575
Kwethluk 1,427 1,455 1,809 1,959 2,162 2,206 2,387 2,636 3,213 3,917 4,775
Napaskiak 979 998 1,241 1,344 1,484 1,513 1,638 1,808 2,205 2,687 3,276
Tuluksak 722 737 916 991 1,095 1,117 1,209 1,334 1,627 1,983 2,417
Tuntutuliak 1,009 1,029 1,280 1,385 1,530 1,560 1,689 1,865 2,273 2,771 3,378
Total 55,254 56,359 70,076 75,852 83,747 85,422 92,464 102,087 124,444 151,696 184,917
Bethel Area Community Energy Requirements Forecast, MWh/yr.
Bethel Area Community Capacity Requirements Forecast, kW
Bethel Area Community Generation Requirements Forecast, Busbar MWh/yr
14-5 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 22: Low-Range Electric Load and Generation Requirements
14.3 Fuel Price Projections and Other Economic Information
The preliminary economic evaluation included several assumptions regarding fuel prices and
other economic factors associated with power system operation in the Bethel region. The
assumptions of the economic evaluation are shown in Table 23.
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 1,666 1,683 1,878 1,954 2,054 2,074 2,158 2,269 2,506 2,768 3,058
Akiak 920 929 1,037 1,079 1,134 1,145 1,192 1,253 1,384 1,529 1,689
Eek 740 748 834 868 913 922 959 1,008 1,113 1,230 1,359
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 2,519 2,544 2,838 2,953 3,104 3,135 3,262 3,429 3,787 4,184 4,621
Quinhagak 1,825 1,844 2,057 2,140 2,250 2,272 2,364 2,485 2,745 3,032 3,349
Atmautluak 511 516 576 599 630 636 662 696 768 849 938
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 39,203 39,595 44,175 45,968 48,313 48,796 50,778 53,368 58,951 65,119 71,932
Kwethluk 1,195 1,207 1,347 1,401 1,473 1,488 1,548 1,627 1,797 1,985 2,193
Napaskiak 815 823 918 955 1,004 1,014 1,055 1,109 1,225 1,354 1,495
Tuluksak 569 575 641 667 701 708 737 775 856 945 1,044
Tuntutuliak 779 786 877 913 960 969 1,008 1,060 1,171 1,293 1,429
Total 50,743 51,250 57,178 59,500 62,535 63,160 65,725 69,077 76,304 84,287 93,106
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 423 427 476 496 521 526 548 575 636 702 776
Akiak 233 236 263 274 288 291 302 318 351 388 428
Eek 188 190 212 220 231 234 243 256 282 312 345
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 639 645 720 749 787 795 828 870 961 1,061 1,172
Quinhagak 463 468 522 543 571 576 600 630 696 769 850
Atmautluak 130 131 146 152 160 161 168 176 195 215 238
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 9,945 10,044 11,206 11,661 12,256 12,379 12,881 13,538 14,955 16,519 18,248
Kwethluk 303 306 342 355 374 377 393 413 456 504 556
Napaskiak 207 209 233 242 255 257 268 281 311 343 379
Tuluksak 144 146 163 169 178 180 187 196 217 240 265
Tuntutuliak 198 199 223 232 243 246 256 269 297 328 362
Total 12,872 13,001 14,505 15,094 15,864 16,022 16,673 17,523 19,357 21,382 23,619
Community 2010 (est.) 2011 2022 2026 2031 2032 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Akiachak 1,825 1,844 2,057 2,140 2,249 2,272 2,364 2,485 2,745 3,032 3,349
Akiak 1,056 1,067 1,190 1,238 1,302 1,315 1,368 1,438 1,588 1,754 1,938
Eek 778 786 877 913 959 969 1,008 1,059 1,170 1,293 1,428
Kasigluk/Nunapitchuk 2,822 2,851 3,180 3,310 3,478 3,513 3,656 3,842 4,244 4,688 5,179
Quinhagak 1,940 1,959 2,186 2,274 2,390 2,414 2,512 2,640 2,917 3,222 3,559
Atmautluak 602 608 678 705 741 749 779 819 905 999 1,104
Bethel/Oscarville/Napakiak 41,593 42,009 46,868 48,771 51,259 51,771 53,873 56,621 62,545 69,089 76,317
Kwethluk 1,413 1,427 1,592 1,657 1,741 1,758 1,830 1,923 2,124 2,347 2,592
Napaskiak 969 979 1,092 1,136 1,194 1,206 1,255 1,319 1,457 1,610 1,778
Tuluksak 715 722 806 839 881 890 926 974 1,075 1,188 1,312
Tuntutuliak 999 1,009 1,126 1,172 1,232 1,244 1,294 1,360 1,503 1,660 1,834
Total 54,713 55,260 61,651 64,155 67,427 68,102 70,867 74,482 82,274 90,882 100,390
Bethel Area Community Energy Requirements Forecast, MWh/yr.
Bethel Area Community Capacity Requirements Forecast, kW
Bethel Area Community Generation Requirements Forecast, Busbar MWh/yr
14-6 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
Table 23: Assumptions used in Economic Evaluation
General: Source
Discount Rate, % 3.0 AEA
Interest Rate 6.5 AEA
General Inflation 0 AEA
Diesel Efficiency, kWh/gal.13 AEA
Diesel O&M, c/kWh 0.02 AEA R4
Diesel Standby, c/kWH 0.025 Estimated
Village Non‐fuel Costs, c/kWh 5.86 PCE Report, weighted
Transmission O&M, % CapEx 1.5 AEA
Hydroelectric O&M, c/kWh 0.02 AEA
Regional Intertie, $$16,200,000 AEA
Fuel Price Forecast AEA EIA mid AEA R4 analysis, Bethel region, adj. for village variation
Supply Option:Capital Cost Life, yr.
Base Case ‐ Continued Diesel N/A Overhaul
Chikuminuk $332,268,122 50
Transmission $174,731,878 50
Kisaralik Upper Falls $382,888,840 50
Transmission $104,111,160 50
Kisaralik Lower Falls $325,715,159 50
Transmission $92,284,841 50
Kisaralik Golden Gate Falls $307,147,400 50
Transmission $84,852,600 50
4.40
4.50
4.60
4.70
4.80
4.90
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.30
202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044Diesel Fuel Prince (2010$/gal)Diesel Fuel Price Projection
14-7 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
The fuel price forecast is the most fundamental projection for comparing hydropower options to
the continued operation of diesel (or other fossil-fuel) generation. AEA prepares fuel cost
estimates for analysts evaluating potential State-funded renewable energy projects. EIA
projections and regional characteristics help characterize regional fuel costs. The result is a series
of price forecasts by location within the state that are used in comparing project economics.
For purposes of the preliminary hydropower study, a weighted average of the fuel prices for all
villages was developed using the specific fuel prices weighted by the share of generation for
each of the villages. With Bethel as the largest power supplier to the region, the weighting takes
into account the relative proportion of generation provided by Bethel and the significance of the
price of fuel to Bethel to the region, but adjusts for the share of generation provided by others.
The weighted fuel price is then considered in the economic analysis for the determination of the
diesel-only generation scenario.
Another factor of significance is the cost of interconnection to provide villages access to the
hydropower facility. The AEA has supplied documentation indicating that interconnecting the
utilities with a 34.5 kV transmission system will require 27 miles of structure and conductor, at a
cost of $600,000 per mile. This estimate has been accepted for analysis purposes, pending
additional cost estimates.
Finally, the hydropower facilities and interconnecting transmission system capital costs have
been prepared by MWH and Dryden & LaRue, and incorporated directly. For each hydropower
scenario, the development cost is amortized over 50 years. In the economic evaluation, the net
present value (NPV) of each project is calculated based on 50 years of operation, 2022 through
2071.
14.4 Preliminary Economic Analysis of the Hydropower Options
A preliminary economic evaluation of the four hydropower options has been prepared to
estimate the relative costs of providing the region’s power using either the existing or alternative
generation facilities. The evaluation model develops the annual operating cost under a series of
generation scenarios. The calculated NPVs for each alternative and growth scenario are shown
in Table 24 to Table 26.
The “Diesel Only” scenario assumes that diesel generation remains the primary power supply for
Bethel and the villages. It is assumed that capacity will be available to meet all village loads
throughout the period. A modest wind power project offsets a portion of the generation
requirements, and is assumed to be available both with and without the hydropower facilities.
The other four scenarios treat each of the individual hydroelectric sites as independent, stand-
alone projects. On an average basis, the energy available for each of the candidate hydro projects
more than meets the electric energy requirements of the villages. However, an examination of the
seasonal availability of hydropower generation shows that much of the energy generation is
available during the summer when the demand does not exist (with the exception of Chikuminuk
Lake). This constraint is considered in the economic calculations.
14-8 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
For the purposes of preliminary evaluation, there has been no consideration of displaced heating
fuel by resistance space heating or electric heat pump utilities, which may be considered for the
use of surplus energy and could improve the NPV economic indicator.
Table 24: Mid-Range, Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
Table 25: High-Range, Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
Table 26: Low-Range, Economic Evaluation of Alternatives
The results indicate, as would be expected, that the economic benefits of the hydropower
alternatives are greater with higher load growth. However, the diesel only option still has a
smaller net present value of costs over the 50-year assessment, although the difference between
diesel-only and hydropower is somewhat less in the high population growth scenario. This is due
to relatively stable costs of hydropower, varying primarily due to supplemental diesel that may
be required during peak demand periods; the diesel-only is impacted more by the high population
growth scenario because the cost rises proportionally with the additional demand, and therefore
additional fuel required.
1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50
Power Supply Option 50‐Year PV 2022 2026 2031 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Diesel Only $909,204,063 $24,657,346 $27,231,250 $30,667,335 $32,914,337 $35,299,967 $40,598,798 $46,687,989 $53,685,429
Chikuminiuk $1,103,670,047 $38,195,628 $38,325,533 $38,498,410 $39,912,022 $41,834,048 $46,203,147 $51,409,618 $57,578,362
Kisaralik ‐ Upper Falls $1,312,106,582 $44,367,642 $45,765,259 $47,675,153 $49,149,201 $50,719,726 $54,342,707 $58,756,048 $64,077,638
Kisaralik ‐ Lower Falls $1,116,965,826 $37,004,790 $38,281,791 $40,049,138 $41,521,079 $43,091,605 $46,714,586 $51,127,927 $56,449,517
Kisaralik ‐ Golden Gate Falls $1,154,747,415 $38,223,756 $39,636,652 $41,564,603 $43,038,917 $44,609,443 $48,232,424 $52,645,765 $57,967,355
Year
1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50
Power Supply Option 50‐Year PV 2022 2026 2031 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Diesel Only $1,119,615,294 $26,639,242 $30,126,675 $34,948,811 $38,636,886 $42,681,674 $52,078,020 $63,532,113 $77,494,589
Chikuminiuk $1,286,663,252 $38,376,705 $38,881,595 $41,568,982 $44,780,562 $48,434,173 $57,075,365 $67,896,702 $81,375,626
Kisaralik ‐ Upper Falls $1,484,843,984 $45,673,982 $47,672,620 $50,493,791 $53,071,906 $56,309,889 $64,145,779 $74,039,417 $86,441,437
Kisaralik ‐ Lower Falls $1,261,254,461 $38,311,130 $40,189,152 $42,867,776 $45,288,391 $47,951,186 $54,473,008 $63,052,578 $74,140,531
Kisaralik ‐ Golden Gate Falls $1,314,271,493 $39,530,096 $41,544,013 $44,383,241 $46,806,228 $49,746,749 $57,089,864 $66,490,726 $78,399,971
Year
1 5 10 15 20 30 40 50
Power Supply Option 50‐Year PV 2022 2026 2031 2036 2041 2051 2061 2071
Diesel Only $793,844,259 $23,412,090 $25,447,678 $28,094,528 $29,559,887 $31,079,221 $34,354,347 $37,972,123 $41,968,399
Chikuminiuk $1,013,753,215 $38,081,855 $38,169,470 $38,284,009 $38,404,391 $38,527,800 $40,155,011 $42,239,527 $44,725,055
Kisaralik ‐ Upper Falls $1,234,084,524 $43,546,848 $44,590,331 $45,981,388 $46,940,874 $47,941,094 $50,157,226 $52,716,009 $55,653,292
Kisaralik ‐ Lower Falls $1,039,126,630 $36,269,988 $37,106,863 $38,355,373 $39,312,753 $40,312,972 $42,529,105 $45,087,888 $48,025,170
Kisaralik ‐ Golden Gate Falls $1,076,725,357 $37,402,962 $38,461,724 $39,870,838 $40,830,591 $41,830,810 $44,046,943 $46,605,726 $49,543,008
Year
14-9 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
To provide an indication of the possible impact on electricity rates, the average production costs
of each of the option is shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Comparative Future Production Costs of Alternatives
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00 Rate in $/kWhDiesel System: Average rate ($/kWh)
Busbar Cost Non-fuel expenses, weighted
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00 Rate in $/kWhWith Chikuminuk: Average rate ($/kWh)
Busbar cost Non-fuel expenses, weighted
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00 Rate in $/kWhWith Kisaralik Upper Falls: Average rate ($/kWh)
Busbar cost Non-fuel expenses, weighted
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00 Rate in $/kWhWith Kisaralik Lower Falls: Average rate ($/kWh)
Busbar cost Non-fuel expenses, weighted
-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00 Rate in $/kWhWith Kisaralik Golden Gate Falls: Average rate
($/kWh)
Busbar cost Non-fuel expenses, weighted
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
14-10 May 2011
14.5 Conclusion
In all three demand scenarios, the diesel only future has the lowest NPV and from an economic
viewpoint, would be the preferred lowest cost choice. Of the hydro options, Chikuminuk Lake
has the lowest NPV. Chikuminuk Lake exhibits the lowest NPV because it does have the
capability of displacing most of the diesel generation, whereas the Kisaralik generation
availability profile requires a substantial diesel generation supply.
15-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
15 Regional Wholesale Utility Framework for Development and
Operation
A range of possibilities exists for the development and operation of a hydroelectric project to
serve the shared energy requirements of the region. The preliminary feasibility analysis
addresses the service area for the proposed hydroelectric facilities to include the community of
Bethel, Alaska and villages located in close proximity to Bethel in the Kuskokwim River region
of Alaska. The villages under consideration for the hydropower system currently operate under
varying utility ownership conditions and operating responsibilities.
There currently exist only limited interconnections among the utilities serving Bethel and the
villages. Consequently, for each hydroelectric alternative evaluated, a set of common facilities
are required that contribute to the energy supply that would serve to offset diesel generation at
Bethel and the nearby villages. These common facilities will include the dam or other
impoundment structure, penstock, powerhouse, and primary substation at the proposed
hydropower site, the bulk delivery 138 kV transmission line, and the secondary 34.5 kV sub-
regional interconnection system among the villages. These common facilities will therefore be a
shared resource of the communities served, with opportunities for utilization, and obligations for
financial support, shared by the communities on a basis acceptable to the recipients and of a legal
and structural nature that will support both the financial and on-going operational commitments
necessary to accomplish successful hydroelectric power supply.
A regional hydroelectric power generation and transmission facility is, of course, a significant
capital investment with a long service life. As with most renewable energy projects, the cost is
“front-loaded”, such that the majority of the cost burden over the life of the resource is
established in the financing of the construction of the facilities. The variable costs of the
resource -- operations, maintenance, renewals and replacements -- are negligible relative to the
repayment of funds required or acquired for the initial construction, unless the project is fully
grant funded. Consequently, in order to secure financing and successfully complete the
installation of the facilities and place the system in operation, assurances must be provided of
both the strength of commitment to the development of the facilities and to the efficient and
equitable year-over-year delivery of the beneficial hydroelectric energy.
Organizational Issues: In any consideration of a development and operating framework, there
are various organizational issues that relate not only to the stages of development, but to the
long-term operation and maintenance of a regionally shared energy project. These issues must
be addressed in one fashion or another to provide the broad assurances necessary to support a
large capital investment to serve multiple parties.
A detailed review of the various organizational issues to be addressed in the consideration of
regional resource development and operation has been provided in a study completed by Black
and Veatch in 2008 for the Railbelt region of Alaska, the Railbelt Electrical Grid Authority
(REGA) Study. While the REGA study focused on the formation of a new entity for the Railbelt,
the issues are relevant for any structural arrangement for the development and operation of
15-2 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
commonly held and jointly shared electric generation and transmission facilities. Figure 25 of
the REGA study at page 75 generalizes the issues into several categories:
For the purposes of the preliminary hydropower feasibility study, one is well to substitute the
term Development and Operational Framework within the box entitled Formation of New
Regional Entity since each of the factors must be addressed for effective implementation of a
regionally shared resource.
The scope of responsibility is the first, and most fundamental, category to be addressed in
characterizing a development and operational framework. Most, if not all, of the remaining
issues will be influenced and resolved by a hierarchy of activities flowing from identified
responsibilities, or the allocation of responsibilities. For example, if the framework includes the
institutional condition of ownership of the resource by a single entity, several material matters
naturally follow such as due diligence and oversight of operations, insurance, budgeting, and
accomplishing repairs and replacements. If held jointly, rather than singly, the multiple parties
jointly holding ownership will be jointly liable for those ownership responsibilities. Likewise,
governance and operational issues flow from the scope of responsibilities established within the
framework, and may vary between singular, joint or shared ownership.
For a project of the size suggested by the capital costs of the Kisaralik or Chikuminuk facilities
and transmission system, the second most important category involves tax and legal issues
associated with financing options and opportunities. For the situation faced by village utilities
organized as a combination of village or municipal operating entities, cooperatives, and investor-
owned utilities, the ability to finance the project is of paramount concern. The development and
15-3 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
operating arrangement must take into account the various conditions associated with tax-exempt
debt, government obligations, private activity bonding, and other provisions associated with
financing vehicles for both short- and long-term issuances.
The third most important category relates to issues involving tariff and contractual requirements
which encompasses the question of who pays for what portion of the regional resource cost, how
that cost is collected, the obligations of the parties relative to the operation of the beneficial
generation (e.g., backup power supply, voltage support, etc.) and the necessary contributions to
system upkeep and/or upgrades.
Dealing with the balance of categories will be influenced by the choices and direction taken in
addressing these three most critical areas of consideration.
Current Regional Power Supply Structures: A variety of legal structures are available to
participants of a regional generation and transmission facility, some of which are currently in
effect within Alaska for power supply or utility-related projects among public power entities.
These have been formed solely with the intent to develop and operate resources to be shared
among multiple utilities, and include:
• Generation and Transmission Cooperatives: Several utilities in Alaska have formed
generation and transmission cooperatives at various times to provide for common facility
ownership and operation. The Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative
had been formed initially for the joint ownership and operation of a generation facility to
serve two non-interconnected utilities. AEG&T has since included membership of both
municipal and cooperative utilities. Various levels of ownership and operating
responsibilities, and resource access have been established under the G&T framework,
including multiple classes of participation representing levels of responsibility. The G&T
framework provides an avenue for federal financial support through the Rural Utilities
Service or other financing vehicles, and accommodates a wide range of operating
arrangements and ownership liabilities based on allocations or entitlements to the
resources jointly held by agreement of the participants. A G&T is authorized to provide
wholesale power, only, with individual member utilities responsible for distribution
activities. Calista Corporation has previously established a G&T entitled Nuvista to
provide wholesale power throughout the region served by the corporation.
• State Ownership: The Alaska Intertie and the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project are
two current examples of transmission and power supply facilities owned by the State of
Alaska providing service to multiple parties. In this arrangement, the state took
responsibility for licensing, construction and administration of the facilities on the basis
of the complete or partial financial contribution of the state to the project. The Intertie
and Bradley Lake are contractually operated by the utility participants that provide
operations and maintenance funds, and share responsibilities for scheduling and
maintenance of the facilities under contract to the State. Operating procedures and
guidelines are established jointly, in some cases with veto power retained by the state on
certain matters. Rights to use of the facilities or energy available are established by
agreements among the parties. Existing or new systems provided by others that are
15-4 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
associated with the development and operation of the resource are assigned to the joint
use, with compensation. Management Committees composed of representatives of the
participating utilities share governance with the State. The power provided through a
state-owned facility is at wholesale, with distribution responsibilities retained by the
participating utilities.
• Joint Action Agency: The Four Dam Pool Power Agency is an example of a joint action
agency that was formed under state law that collectively acquired four hydroelectric
resources and transmission facilities previously owned by the State of Alaska for
wholesale power supply. The Agency included utilities operating in five unique
distribution service territories and expanded the original system with a major intra-
regional transmission interconnection. The JAA structure included governance by a
management committee composed of representatives of the participating utilities and
joint responsibility for all operating and ownership decisions. The action to expand the
capability of the resource by transmission investments was by joint interest, and the
Agency re-financed the initial acquisition with bonded indebtedness. The JAA structure
is currently in effect for the Southeast Alaska Power Agency. The JAA structure allows
for allocation of operating responsibility among participants by agreement of the
participants, with a common ownership of the facilities, joint liability for ownership
obligations, and contractual arrangements among the parties for certain operating
functions. Rights to use of the jointly held assets are subject to agreements among the
participants. A joint action agency is a public power entity, formed by and among public
utilities such as municipalities and cooperatives.
Other Potential Structures: While certain structures have been established in Alaska for the
sole purposes of developing and operating electric generation and transmission facilities for the
joint purposes of several utilities, the options are not limiting. It is conceivable that a different,
and perhaps unique, approach could be taken in the case of a Kisaralik or Chikuminuk project, or
for a combination of two projects. One factor of consideration is that Bethel is currently served
by a non-public entity. As a result certain structures such as a Joint Action Agency may be
constrained. There are a number of potential permutations, however, such as:
• State Ownership, Energy Sales to a Village Cooperative: Under this structure, the state
could license, own and operate the resource as a State asset, but the output would be sold
to a single cooperative formed by the 12 village utilities to schedule and distribute the
power. The cooperative could collectively operate the village systems as a single unit
upon interconnection. Hydroelectric power could also then could be sold directly by the
State to Bethel Utilities, and avoid issues associated with the cooperative reselling power,
while the cooperative and Bethel Utilities would jointly schedule power for the most
economic dispatch.
• State Ownership, Energy Sales to a G&T: The framework for development and operation
with a structure containing both state ownership of the facility would suggest the
responsibility for licensing, owning and operating the facility would reside with a state
agency, while a new wholesale G&T is formed for the purchase and sale of power at a
common wholesale power rate to the individual utilities and Bethel Utilities. The G&T
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
15-5 May 2011
could provide the scheduling services, and contract with the state for other operating
activities such as powerhouse operations and line maintenance.
• A Kisaralik/Chikuminuk G&T: The Nuvista G&T, or a newly formed stand-alone
generation and transmission cooperative could be responsible for licensing, financing,
owning and operating the jointly held facilities. A strong long-term power sales
agreement from the G&T to Bethel Utilities could help to secure federal financial support
through the Rural Utilities Service, or other funding sources, including grants and power
project development funds. The G&T would have the option, in this instance, of
expanding membership and developing additional regional resources to serve beyond
Bethel and adjacent villages region. The entire scope of responsibility for development
of the resource from planning and design, FERC licensing, construction and operation
would be the purview of the G&T, with governance by a board of directors representing
the participants.
• Expanded Role of an Existing Power Supply Entity: Expanding the role of Alaska
Village Electric Cooperative to provide power, either as a developer and operator of the
new hydroelectric and transmission facilities to serve those villages currently included in
the AVEC system, or a purchaser and reseller of power provided from a state-owned
facility could potentially be an option. The Bethel utility and village systems not
currently part of the AVEC system could be either restructured to be included in the
AVEC system, or be subject to power sales agreements. Currently, AVEC operates meets
the needs of the 53 cooperative member villages under a common administrative rate and
fuel costs by village, adjusted for the PCE contribution from the state. A development
structure based on an expanded role of AVEC would suggest a two-tiered pricing system
to allocate costs of the hydroelectric facility to the beneficiaries.
Implications Relative to Kisaralik/Chikuminuk Preliminary Feasibility: The broad range of
options for the development and operation of a new hydroelectric facility and transmission
system for Bethel and the nearby villages, and the level of estimated capital costs for
construction of the facilities, suggests that any further investigation of feasibility include a firm
delineation of participants and agreement on participant responsibilities in the context of sources
and access to construction funds. Once a determination is made of the most viable structure in
support of favorable financing terms and conditions, the operational matters of shared beneficial
use of the facilities, cost recovery methodologies and mechanisms, and other functional
requirements can be addressed by logical extension of the fundamental structure.
This page left blank intentionally.
16-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
16 References
16.1 Hydrology
Creager, William P., and Joel D. Justin, 1950. Hydroelectric Handbook, Second Edition, John
Wiley & Sons.
Committee on Safety Criteria for Dams, 1985. Safety of Dams, Flood and Earthquake Criteria,
Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems,
National Research Council, published by National Academy Press.
Cudworth Jr., Arthur G., 1989. Flood Hydrology Manual, A Water Resources Technical
Publication, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2001. Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects, Chapter VIII, “Determination of the Probable Maximum Flood”,
September.
Harza Engineering Company, 1982. Bethel Area Power Plan, Feasibility Assessment, prepared
for the Alaska Power Authority, December.
Hydrologic Engineering Center, 1971. HEC-4 Monthly Streamflow Synthesis, User’s Manual,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December.
Hydrologic Engineering Center, 1998. HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package, User’s Manual, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, June.
Interagency Committee on Water Data, 1982. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow
Frequency, Bulletin 17B, Hydrology Subcommittee, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior.
Lamke, R.D., 1979. Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams, Water Resources Investigations
78-129, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Miller, John F., 1963. Probable Maximum Precipitation and Rainfall-Frequency for Alaska,
Technical Paper No. 47, U.S. Weather Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.
MWH, 2002a. Mossyrock and Mayfield Dams, Probable Maximum Flood Study, prepared for
Tacoma Power, July.
MWH, 2002b. Alder and LaGrande Dams, Probable Maximum Flood Study, prepared for
Tacoma Power, December.
Schwartz, Francis K., and John F. Miller, 1983. Probable Maximum Precipitation and Snowmelt
Criteria for Southeast Alaska, Hydrometeorological Report No. 54, Office of Hydrology,
National Weather Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
16-2 May 2011
Slack, J.R., and J.M. Landwehr (1992), “Hydro-Climatic Data Network (HCDN): A U.S.
Geological Survey streamflow data set for the United States for the study of climate variations,
1874-1988”, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-129.
16.2 Geology
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (AKDNR), 2002. “Wood-Tikchik State Park
Management Plan”.
Beikman, Helen M. (Compiler), 1974. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Southwest Quadrant of
Alaska. USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF 611. 1:1,000,000.
Box, Stephen E., Moll-Stalcup, Elizabeth J., Frost, Thomas P., and Murphy, John M., 1993.
Preliminary Geologic Map of the Bethel and Southern Russian Mission Quadrangles, Southwest
Alaska. USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies MF-2226. 1:250,000.
BLM, 1985. Extract of Alaska’s Kuskokwim Region: A History.
Decker, J., Bergman, S., Blodgett, R., Box, S., Budtzen, T., Clough, J. Coonrad, C. Gilbert, W.,
Miller, M., Murphy, J., Robinson, M., Wallace, W., 1994. The Geology of North America.
Volume G-1, Chapter 9: The Geology of Southwest Alaska. The Geologic Society of America.
Dusel-Bacon, Cynthia, Doyle, Elizabeth O., and Box, Stephan E. 1996. Distribution, Facies,
Ages, and Proposed Tectonic Associations of Regionally Metamorphosed Rocks in Southwestern
Alaska and the Alaska Peninsula. USGS Professional Paper 1497-B.
Harza, 1982. Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment.
Hoare, J.M. and Coonrad, W. L., 1959. Geology of the Bethel Quadrangle, Alaska. USGS
Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations I-285. 1:250,000.
Stevens, De Anne S. P. and Craw, Patty A., 2003. Geologic Hazards in and Near the Northern
Portion of the Bristol Bay Basin. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys,
Miscellaneous Publication 132.
Wilson, F. H., Hults, C. P., Mohadjer, S. and Coonrad, W. L. (Compilers), 2007. Reconnaissance
Geologic Map for the Kuskokwim Region of Southwest Alaska (Draft). USGS 1:500,000.
17-1 May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
Revised Final Report
17 Exhibits
1. Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Regional Map
2. Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Location Map
3. Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Drainage Basin Boundaries
4. Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake Regional Geological Map
5. Chikuminuk Lake Conceptual Project Plan
6. Upper Falls Conceptual Project Plan
7. Lower Falls Conceptual Project Plan
8. Golden Gate Falls Conceptual Project Plan
9. Cost Estimates
10. Construction Schedule
This page left blank intentionally.
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 01-17- Kisaralik AK regional map & TL.dwg, 2/18/2011 6:48:21 PM, PDF995.pc3KISARALIK RIVER AND CHIKUMINUK LAKEREGIONAL MAPEXHIBIT 01 18 FEB 201140000 FT20000020000SCALENOTES:1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.2. VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.3. USGS 1:250,000 MAPS OF BETHEL, AK (1980) AND TAYLOR MOUNTAINS, AK (1954) .Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility StudyCANDIDATE PROJECT LOCATIONLEGEND:PLACESLOCATION MAPMAPPED AREABethelCANADAALASKAUNITED STATESRUSSIAAnchorageKuskokwim RiverBearing SeaGulf of AlaskaPacific OceanDillinghamCHIKUMINUKLAKEBETHELKISARALIK RIVER(LOWER FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(GOLDEN GATE FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(UPPER FALLS)NOTE:THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SKETCH FOR FEASIBILITY STUDYPURPOSES ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE, AND WILL BE UPDATED AS PROJECT DESIGN STUDIESCONTINUE. ALL CONCEPTS AND DETAILS, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS ANDELEVATIONS, DEFINED ON DRAWINGS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHERREFINEMENT DURING A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN PHASE.
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 02 - Kisaralik AK Location Map.dwg, 2/18/2011 6:46:32 PM, PDF995.pc3KISARALIK RIVER AND CHIKUMINUK LAKELOCATION MAPEXHIBIT 02 18 FEB 201120000 FT10000010000SCALENOTES:1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.2. VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.3. 100-FEET INTERVAL CONTOURS CREATED FROM USGS STDS DEMS FOR THE BETHELB3, B4, C3, C4 (AK) AND TAYLOR MOUNTAINS A7, A8, B7, B8, C7, C8 (AK) 15-MINUTE MAPS.KISARALIK RIVER(GOLDEN GATE FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(UPPER FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(LOWER FALLS)CHIKUMINUK LAKEUSGS 15304200 KISARALIK RNR AKIAK AKUSGS 15301500 ALLEN RNR ALEKNAGIK AKCANDIDATE PROJECT LOCATIONLEGEND:GAGING STATIONPLACESLOCATION MAPMAPPED AREABethelCANADAALASKAUNITED STATESRUSSIAAnchorageKuskokwim RiverBearing SeaGulf of AlaskaPacific OceanDillinghamKisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility StudyNOTE:THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SKETCH FOR FEASIBILITY STUDYPURPOSES ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE, AND WILL BE UPDATED AS PROJECT DESIGN STUDIESCONTINUE. ALL CONCEPTS AND DETAILS, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS ANDELEVATIONS, DEFINED ON DRAWINGS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHERREFINEMENT DURING A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN PHASE.
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 03 - Kisaralik Drainage Basin Boundaries.dwg, 2/18/2011 6:54:52 PM, PDF995.pc3KISARALIK RIVER AND CHIKUMINUK LAKEDRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARIESEXHIBIT 03 18 FEB 201130000 FT15000015000SCALENOTES:CANDIDATE PROJECT LOCATIONLEGEND:KISARALIK RIVER(UPPER FALLS)CHIKUMINUK LAKEGAGING STATIONPLACESUSGS 15304200 KISARALIK RNR AKIAK AKUSGS 15301500 ALLEN RNR ALEKNAGIK AKLOCATION MAPMAPPED AREABethelCANADAALASKAUNITED STATESRUSSIAAnchorageKuskokwim RiverBearing SeaGulf of AlaskaPacific OceanDillingham1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.2.VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.3. 100-FEET INTERVAL CONTOURS CREATED FROM USGS STDS DEMS FOR THE BETHEL B3, B4, C3, C4 (AK)AND TAYLOR MOUNTAINS A7, A8, B7, B8, C7, C8 (AK) 15-MINUTE MAPS.BASIN BOUNDARYSUBBASIN BOUNDARYSUBBASIN 1SUBBASIN 3SUBBASIN 2SUBBASIN 4NOTE:THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SKETCH FOR FEASIBILITY STUDYPURPOSES ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE, AND WILL BE UPDATED AS PROJECT DESIGN STUDIESCONTINUE. ALL CONCEPTS AND DETAILS, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS ANDELEVATIONS, DEFINED ON DRAWINGS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHERREFINEMENT DURING A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN PHASE.Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility StudyKISARALIK RIVER(GOLDEN GATE FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(LOWER FALLS)
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 04 - Kisaralik AK Regional Geologic Map.dwg, 2/18/2011 6:59:02 PM, PDF995.pc3KISARALIK RIVER AND CHIKUMINUK LAKEREGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPEXHIBIT 04 18 FEB 201120000 FT10000010000SCALENOTES:1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.3. VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.4. 100-FEET INTERVAL CONTOURS CREATED FROM USGS STDS DEM s FOR THE BETHEL B3,B4, C3, C4 (AK) AND TAYLOR MOUNTAINS A7, A8, B7, B8, C7, C8 (AK) 15-MINUTE MAPS.5. GEOLOGIC DATA HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BASED ON THE WORK OF WILSON ET AL,2007; DECKER ET AL, 1994; BOX ET AL, 1993; HARZA, 1982; BEIKMAN, 1974; AND HOOREAND CONRAD, 1959. ACTUAL FIELD DATA IS LIMITED TO OBSERVATIONS MADE AT THELOCATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC SITES. CONTACTS AND DATALOCATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE.KISARALIK RIVER(GOLDEN GATE FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(UPPER FALLS)KISARALIK RIVER(LOWER FALLS)CHIKUMINUK LAKELEGEND AND SYMBOLS:UNCONSOLIDATED QUATERNARY DEPOSITSKUSKOKWIM GROUPTOGIAK TERRANE - HAGEMEISTER SUBTERRANEGOODNEWS TERRANE - NUKLUK SUBTERRANEGOODNEWS TERRANE - TIKCHIK SUBTERRANEAPPROXIMATE CONTACTFAULT - ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTIONOF MOVEMENT WHERE KNOWNREVERSE FAULT - TEETH INDICATEUP-THROWN BLOCKKQHgNlTcQQQQQQQKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKNlNlNlNlHgHgHgHgHgHgHgHgTcTcTcTcTcTcKKTcQQQANIAK-THOMPSONCREEK FAULTUNNAMEDFAULTUNNAMEDFAULTUNNAMEDFAULTMILK CREEKFAULTLAKE (FORK)CREEK FAULTTRAIL CREEKFAULTKisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 05 - Chikuminuk - conceptual project plan.dwg, 2/18/2011 7:01:54 PM, PDF995.pc3CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTCONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLANEXHIBIT 05 18 FEB 2011NOTES:1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.2. VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.3. 50-FEET INTERVAL CONTOURS CREATED FROM USGS STDS DEMS FOR THE TAYLORMOUNTAINS A7, A8 (AK) 15-MINUTE MAPS.VICINITY MAPDAM SITEPOWERHOUSECONCRETE FACEDROCKFILL DAMCREST EL. 676.0FLOWDIVERSIONINTAKEINTAKE TOWER AND FLOATINGSURFACE COLLECTORSPILLWAY OGEECREST EL. 660.0;200 FT. LENGTHNORMAL MAX. RESERVOIREL. 660.0MAX. RESERVOIREL. 671.0COFFERDAMTAILRACE FISHBARRIERVALVE CHAMBERLOG BOOMGUIDE NET(SEASONAL)VALVE CHAMBERACCESS TUNNELMAINTENANCE,SWITCHYARD, AND FISHHANDLING FACILITIES YARDTWIN STEEL PIPES(INSIDE TUNNEL)PENSTOCK(IN TUNNEL)SPILLWAY CHUTE250 FT1250125SCALEDIVERSIONTUNNELNOTE:THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SKETCH FOR FEASIBILITY STUDYPURPOSES ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE, AND WILL BE UPDATED AS PROJECT DESIGN STUDIESCONTINUE. ALL CONCEPTS AND DETAILS, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS ANDELEVATIONS, DEFINED ON DRAWINGS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHERREFINEMENT DURING A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN PHASE.Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 06-07-08 - Kisaralik conceptual project plans.dwg, 2/18/2011 7:09:33 PM, PDF995.pc3KISARALIK RIVER UPPER FALLSHYDROELECTRIC PROJECTCONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLANEXHIBIT 06 18 FEB 2011CONCRETE FACEDROCKFILL DAMCREST EL. 1170.0FLOWSITE PLANRESERVOIR MAPNOTES:1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.2. VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.3. 50-FEET INTERVAL CONTOURS CREATED FROM USGS STDS DEMSFOR THE BETHEL B3, B4, C3, C4 (AK) 15-MINUTE MAPS.SPILLWAY OGEECREST EL. 1150.0;175 FT. LENGTHSPILLWAY CHUTEPOWERHOUSEDIVERSIONTUNNELNORMAL MAX. RESERVOIREL. 1150.0MAX. RESERVOIREL. 1165.0COFFERDAMVALVECHAMBERDIVERSIONINTAKEINTAKE TOWER ANDFLOATING SURFACECOLLECTORTAILRACE FISHBARRIERLOG BOOMGUIDE NET(SEASONAL)VALVE CHAMBERACCESS TUNNELMAINTENANCE,SWITCHYARD, ANDFISH HANDLINGFACILITIES YARDTWIN STEEL PIPES(INSIDE TUNNEL)PENSTOCK(IN TUNNEL)250 FT1250125SCALENOTE:THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SKETCH FOR FEASIBILITY STUDYPURPOSES ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE, AND WILL BE UPDATED AS PROJECT DESIGN STUDIESCONTINUE. ALL CONCEPTS AND DETAILS, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS ANDELEVATIONS, DEFINED ON DRAWINGS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHERREFINEMENT DURING A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN PHASE.Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 06-07-08 - Kisaralik conceptual project plans.dwg, 2/18/2011 7:07:56 PM, PDF995.pc3KISARALIK RIVER LOWER FALLSHYDROELECTRIC PROJECTCONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLANEXHIBIT 07 18 FEB 2011NOTES:CONCRETE FACEDROCKFILL DAMCREST EL. 975.0F L O W SITE PLANRESERVOIR MAPDIVERSIONTUNNELSPILLWAY OGEECREST EL. 955.0;150 FT. LENGTHSPILLWAY CHUTEPOWERHOUSENORMAL MAX. RESERVOIREL. 955.0MAX. RESERVOIREL. 970.0DIVERSION TUNNELOUTLETCOFFERDAMCREST EL. 860.0VALVE CHAMBERDIVERSIONINTAKEINTAKE TOWER ANDFLOATING SURFACECOLLECTORTAILRACE FISHBARRIERLOG BOOMGUIDE NET(SEASONAL)VALVE CHAMBERACCESS TUNNELMAINTENANCE,SWITCHYARD, ANDFISH HANDLINGFACILITIES YARDTWIN STEEL PIPES(INSIDE TUNNEL)PENSTOCK (IN TUNNEL)250 FT1250125SCALE1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.2. VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.3. 50-FEET INTERVAL CONTOURS CREATED FROM USGS STDS DEMSFOR THE BETHEL B3, B4, C3, C4 (AK) 15-MINUTE MAPS.NOTE:THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SKETCH FOR FEASIBILITY STUDYPURPOSES ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE, AND WILL BE UPDATED AS PROJECT DESIGN STUDIESCONTINUE. ALL CONCEPTS AND DETAILS, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS ANDELEVATIONS, DEFINED ON DRAWINGS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHERREFINEMENT DURING A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN PHASE.Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
C:\Land Projects 2008\Kisaralik AK\dwg\Ex 06-07-08 - Kisaralik conceptual project plans.dwg, 2/18/2011 7:09:01 PM, PDF995.pc3KISARALIK RIVER GOLDEN GATE FALLSHYDROELECTRIC PROJECTCONCEPTUAL PROJECT PLANEXHIBIT 08 18 FEB 2011FLOWSITE PLANRESERVOIR MAPNOTES:CONCRETE FACEDROCKFILL DAMCREST EL. 820.0SPILLWAY OGEECREST EL. 800.0;325 FT. LENGTHSPILLWAY CHUTENORMAL MAX. RESERVOIREL. 800.0MAX. RESERVOIREL. 815.0COFFERDAMPOWERHOUSEINTAKE TOWER ANDFLOATING SURFACECOLLECTORTAILRACE FISHBARRIERVALVE CHAMBERLOG BOOMGUIDE NET(SEASONAL)MAINTENANCE,SWITCHYARD, ANDFISH HANDLINGFACILITIES YARDTWIN STEEL PIPES(INSIDE TUNNEL)PENSTOCK(IN TUNNEL)250 FT1250125SCALEDIVERSION INTAKE1. SPATIAL REFERENCE: UTM ZONE 4, NAD83, FEET.2. VERTICAL DATUM IS NGVD.3. 50-FEET INTERVAL CONTOURS CREATED FROM USGS STDS DEMSFOR THE BETHEL B3, B4, C3, C4 (AK) 15-MINUTE MAPS.DIVERSION TUNNELTAILRACE FISHBARRIERNOTE:THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT SKETCH FOR FEASIBILITY STUDYPURPOSES ONLY. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE, AND WILL BE UPDATED AS PROJECT DESIGN STUDIESCONTINUE. ALL CONCEPTS AND DETAILS, SUCH AS DIMENSIONS ANDELEVATIONS, DEFINED ON DRAWINGS WOULD REQUIRE FURTHERREFINEMENT DURING A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN PHASE.Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk LakeReconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:507,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
Direct Costs
GENERAL $9,125,500
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $0 $0 This cost is in the indirect cost
2 Set‐Up Temporary Camp/Staging 5 MO $100,000 $500,000
3 Set‐Up Project 4 YR $50,000 $200,000
4 Maintain Project 24 MO $5,000 $120,000
5 Clear Camp, Shops, Office and Staging Aeas 28 AC $6,000 $168,000
6 Set‐Up Camp, Shops, and Office Utilities 1 LS $1,750,000 $1,750,000
7 Set‐Up Camp, Shops, Office, etc 1 LS $850,000 $850,000
8 Operate Man Camp 150,750 M‐D $30 $4,522,500
9 Resident Engineer Office 53 MO $5,000 $265,000
10 Final Site Cleanup, Seeding & Planting 1 LS $750,000 $750,000
ROADS AND AIRSTRIPS $18,221,000
Site Access Roads and Airstrip $5,430,000
1 Road from Camp to Intake Structure 0.40 Miles $225,000 $90,000
2 Road from Camp to Powerhouse Area 0.20 Miles $150,000 $30,000
3 Road from Camp to Dam and Spillway 0.40 Miles $150,000 $60,000
4 Bridge over River 1.00 LS $250,000 $250,000
5 Airstrip and Connecting Road 1.00 LS $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Winter Ice Roads $12,791,000
1 Ice Road Permits and Surveying 1.00 LS $500,000 $500,000 Overland route from Dillingham
2 First Time Clearing and Bushing Road Alignment 130.00 Miles $15,000 $1,950,000
3 Added for Mountain Terrain 40.00 Miles $15,000 $600,000
4 Road Construction 130.00 Miles $60,000 $7,800,000
5 Added for Mountain Terrain 40.00 Miles $15,000 $600,000
6 Road Maintenance 520.00 Mile‐yr $1,500 $780,000
7 Load Trucks ‐ 550 loads 550.00 Loads $250 $137,500
8 Haul 550.00 Loads $520 $286,000
9 Unload Trucks 550.00 Loads $250 $137,500
ROCKFILL DAM $24,713,325
1 Upstream Rockfill Cofferdam 30,000 CY $25.00 $750,000
2 Downstream Rockfill Cofferdam 18,000 CY $25.00 $450,000
3 Cofferdam Impervious Membrane 2,000 CY $10.00 $20,000
4 Dam Area Excavation 161,000 CY $30.00 $4,830,000
5 Dam Foundation Clean‐up 261,000 SF $2.50 $652,500
6 Dam Plinth Excavation 4,214 CY $30.00 $126,420
7 Plinth Foundation Clean‐up 23,000 SF $5.50 $126,500
8 Plinth Concrete 5,300 CY $650.00 $3,445,000
9 Drill Grout Holes 11,400 LF $20.00 $228,000
10 Dam Grouting 227 Holes $115.00 $26,105
11 Dam Rolled Rockfill 557,500 CY $12.00 $6,690,000 About half will come from the spillway excavation
12 Dam Upstream Filter 37,100 CY $20.00 $742,000
13 Upstream Concrete Facing 10,600 CY $600.00 $6,360,000
14 Road Base on Top of Dam 560 CY $30.00 $16,800
15 Dam Instrumentation 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
SPILLWAY $4,946,900
1 Spillway Area Excavation 278,150 CY $15.00 $4,172,250
2 Drill Grout Holes 2,300 LF $20.00 $46,000
3 Spillway Ogee Area Grouting 50 Holes $115.00 $5,750
4 Spillway Ogee Concrete 420 CY $600.00 $252,000
5 Spillway Ogee Concrete Wing Walls 88 CY $550.00 $48,400
6 Spillway Area Rockbolts 750 EA $350.00 $262,500
7 Spillway Area Misc Shotcrete 200 CY $800.00 $160,000
FISH PASSAGE SYSTEM $35,715,000
1 Upgrade Road to Upstream Guide Nets 0.70 LF $150,000.00 $105,000
2 Upstream Guide Nets 800.00 LF $400.00 $320,000
3 Upstream Floating Surface Collection System 1.00 LS $27,000,000.00 $27,000,000
4 Upstream Adult Release Structure 1.00 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
5 Downstream Fish Barrier 350.00 LF $400.00 $140,000
6 Downstream Adult Holding and Loading system 1.00 LS $8,000,000.00 $8,000,000
7 Juvenile Release Structure 1.00 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
8 Fish Transfer Pipe 1300.00 LF $100.00 $130,000
WATERWAYS $24,128,450
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Chikuminuk Lake Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 1
EXHIBIT 9
Page 1 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:507,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Chikuminuk Lake Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Diversion Tunnel 25 ft Dia by 1000 LF $9,199,000
1 Road to Upstream Portal 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
2 Road to Downstream Portal 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
3 Upstream Portal Area Excavation 3,500 CY $20 $70,000
4 Downstream Portal Area Excavation 2,500 CY $20 $50,000
5 Excavate Diversion Tunnel 1,000 LF $4,500 $4,500,000
6 Upstream Diversion Concrete Gate Structure 610 CY $600 $366,000
7 Upstream Diversion Gates 2 EA $155,000 $310,000
8 Line the Diversion Tunnel 5,250 CY $700 $3,675,000
9 Downstream Diversion Concrete Structure 280 CY $600 $168,000
Intake Tower $11,643,500
1 Intake Tower Area Excavation 27,500 CY $25 $687,500
2 Intake Tower Area Rockbolts 200 EA $350 $70,000
3 Intake Tower Area Backfill 12,000 CY $15 $180,000
4 Intake Tower Concrete 12,700 CY $600 $7,620,000
5 Intake Gates Operating 4 EA $323,000 $1,292,000
6 Intake Gates Bulkhead 4 EA $136,000 $544,000
7 Tie Intake Tower into Diversion Tunnel 1 LS $500,000 $500,000 Tower sits on top of diversion tunnel portal
8 Bypass Penstock & Diversion Tunnel Plug 1 LS $750,000 $750,000
Unit Penstock Tunnels to Power Tunnel $3,285,950
1 Tunnel Excavation ‐ 14 ft horseshoe 110 lf ea.1,760 CY $165 $290,400
2 Rockbolts 185 EA $350 $64,750
3 Shotcrete 40 CY $800 $32,000
4 Steel Penstock Lining 320 TN $8,400 $2,688,000 100 lf of power tunnel plus the penstocks
5 Backfill Concrete 614 CY $200 $122,800
6 High Pressure Grouting 220 LF $250 $55,000
7 Contact Grouting 220 LF $150 $33,000
POWERHOUSE $36,864,750
Structure $7,814,750
1 Powerhouse Excavation 34,000 CY $30 $1,020,000
2 Tailrace Excavation 5,000 CY $20 $100,000
3 Rockbolts 320 EA $350 $112,000
4 Shotcrete 40 CY $800 $32,000
5 Powerhouse 1th Stage Concrete 7,600 CY $600 $4,560,000
6 Powerhouse 2th Stage Concrete 500 CY $500 $250,000
7 Transformer Slab Concrete 200 CY $400 $80,000
8 Backfill around Powerhouse 250 CY $15 $3,750
9 Buy Draft Dube Gates, Guides and Hoist 2 Sets $67,500 $135,000
10 Install Draft Tube Gates, Guides and Hoist 2 Sets $11,000 $22,000
11 Lighting, Roofing, Drainage, HVAC, Arch., etc 1 LS $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Electrical and Mechanical Equipment $29,050,000
1 Turbines and Generators 2 EA $4,900,000 $9,800,000
2 Spherical Valves 2 EA $1,300,000 $2,600,000
3 Transformers 6 EA $1,500,000 $9,000,000 Water to wire package is estimated at $25.6 million
4 Mechanical Systems 1 LS $1,400,000 $1,400,000
5 Electrical Systems 1 LS $1,900,000 $1,900,000
6 Powerhouse Bridge Crane 1 LS $900,000 $900,000
7 Spare Parts 1 LS $350,000 $350,000
8 Switchyard 1 LS $3,000,000 $3,000,000
9 Testing, Startup and Commissioning Plant 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
TRANSMISSION LINE $141,600,000
1 Transmission Line 118 Miles $1,200,000 $141,600,000
Sub Total Directs: 295,314,925
Indirect Costs
Project Management 295,000,000$ 2.5%7,375,000
Safety 295,000,000$ 0.5%1,475,000
Administration, Office, Shops, etc.295,000,000$ 5.0%14,750,000
Equipment Costs 295,000,000$ 1.0%2,950,000
Sub Total Indirects: 26,550,000
Sub Total Directs + Indirects:$321,864,925
Markups
Subcontractor Markups 0.0%$0 In subcontract price
Sales Tax on Electrical and Mechanical Equip 0.0%$0 No state sales tax
State Sales Taxes on All Other Items 0.0%$0 No state sales tax
Prime Contractor OH&P on Subs 171,000,000$ 5.0%$8,550,000
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 2
EXHIBIT 9
Page 2 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:507,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Chikuminuk Lake Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Prime Contractor OH&P on Self‐Perform 125,000,000$ 15.0%$18,750,000
Contractor Insurance Program 411,000,000$ 2.5%$10,275,000 Performance/Payments Bonds, Genl Liability, & Bldr's Risk
Escalation 0.0%Excluded
Estimating Accuracy Contingency 295,000,000$ 5.0%$14,750,000
Undefined Items Contingency 295,000,000$ 12.5%$36,875,000 A larger number is used to account for seepage control
Sub Total Markups: $89,000,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs: $410,900,000
Administration & Management
Planning and Licensing 410,900,000$ 1.5%$6,160,000
Engineering 410,900,000$ 3.0%$12,330,000
Engineering During Construction 410,900,000$ 2.0%$8,220,000
Construction Oversight & Mgt 410,900,000$ 5.0%$20,550,000
Misc Owner's Soft Costs 410,900,000$ 2.0%$8,220,000
Land Acquisition, Rights and Mitigation 410,900,000$ 2.0%$8,220,000
Scope Contingency On Civil 240,250,000$ 10.0%$24,030,000 Quantity growth and scope growth on civil work
Scope Contingency On Equip and Transmission 170,650,000$ 5.0%$8,530,000 Market and scope growth
Interest During Construction 410,900,000$ 0.0%$0 Excluded
Owner's Construction Contingency/Mgt Reserve 410,900,000$ 0.0%$0 Excluded
Sub Total Project Administrative Expenses: $96,260,000
Grand Total: $507,000,000
Cost Range: $460,000,000 $630,000,000 ‐10% +25%
Total Contingency:$84,185,000 17%
OPCC Disclaimer
The client hereby acknowledges that MWH has no control over the costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments, unidentified field conditions, financial and/or commodity market conditions, or any other factors likely to affect the OPCC of this project, all of
which are and will unavoidably remain in a state of change, especially in light of high market volatility attributable to Acts of God and other market forces or events beyond the control of the parties. As such, Client recognizes that this OPCC deliverable is based on normal
market conditions, defined by stable resource supply/demand relationships, and does not account for extreme inflationary or deflationary market cycles. Client further acknowledges that this OPCC is a "snapshot in time" and that the reliability of this OPCC will degrade over
time. Client agrees that MWH cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee or representation, either express or implied that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of O&M functions will not vary significantly from MWH's good faith Class 5 OPCC.
AACE International CLASS 5 Cost Estimate ‐ Class 5 estimates are generally prepared based on very limited information, and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. As such, some companies and organizations have elected to determine that due to the inherent inaccuracies,
such estimates cannot be classified in a conventional and systemic manner. Class 5 estimates, due to the requirements of end use, may be prepared within a very limited amount of time and with little effort expended— sometimes requiring less than an hour to prepare. Often,
little more than proposed plant type, location, and capacity are known at the time of estimate preparation. (AACE International Recommended Practices and Standards).
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 3
EXHIBIT 9
Page 3 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:487,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
Direct Costs
GENERAL $9,125,500
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $0 $0 This cost is in the indirect cost
2 Set‐Up Temporary Camp/Staging 5 MO $100,000 $500,000
3 Set‐Up Project 4 YR $50,000 $200,000
4 Maintain Project 24 MO $5,000 $120,000
5 Clear Camp, Shops, Office and Staging Aeas 28 AC $6,000 $168,000
6 Set‐Up Camp, Shops, and Office Utilities 1 LS $1,750,000 $1,750,000
7 Set‐Up Camp, Shops, Office, etc 1 LS $850,000 $850,000
8 Operate Man Camp 150,750 M‐D $30 $4,522,500
9 Resident Engineer Office 53 MO $5,000 $265,000
10 Final Site Cleanup, Seeding & Planting 1 LS $750,000 $750,000
ROADS AND AIRSTRIPS $10,886,000
Site Access Roads and Airstrip $5,680,000
1 Road from Camp to Intake Structure 1.00 Miles $225,000 $225,000
2 Road from Camp to Powerhouse Area 0.20 Miles $150,000 $30,000
3 Road from Camp to Dam and Spillway 0.50 Miles $150,000 $75,000
4 Bridge over River 1.00 LS $350,000 $350,000
5 Airstrip and Connecting Road 1.00 LS $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Winter Ice Roads $5,206,000
1 Ice Road Permits and Surveying 1.00 LS $250,000 $250,000
2 First Time Clearing and Bushing Road Alignment 60.00 Miles $15,000 $900,000
3 Added for Mountain Terrain 9.00 Miles $15,000 $135,000
4 Build Ice Road ‐ 4 Winters 240.00 Miles $12,500 $3,000,000
5 Maintain Ice Road ‐ 4 Winters 240.00 Miles $1,500 $360,000
6 Load Trucks ‐ 550 loads 550.00 Loads $250 $137,500
7 Haul 550.00 Loads $520 $286,000
8 Unload Trucks 550.00 Loads $250 $137,500
ROCKFILL DAM $62,303,875
1 Upstream Rockfill Cofferdam 40,000 CY $25.00 $1,000,000
2 Downstream Rockfill Cofferdam 30,000 CY $25.00 $750,000
3 Cofferdam Impervious Membrane 3,000 CY $10.00 $30,000
4 Dam Area Excavation 190,000 CY $30.00 $5,700,000
5 Dam Foundation Clean‐up 733,300 SF $2.50 $1,833,250
6 Dam Plinth Excavation 6,900 CY $30.00 $207,000
7 Plinth Foundation Clean‐up 37,000 SF $5.50 $203,500
8 Plinth Concrete 7,500 CY $650.00 $4,875,000
9 Drill Grout Holes 8,400 LF $20.00 $168,000
10 Dam Grouting 175 Holes $115.00 $20,125
11 Dam Rolled Rockfill 2,470,000 CY $12.00 $29,640,000
12 Dam Upstream Filter 190,000 CY $20.00 $3,800,000
13 Upstream Concrete Facing 23,000 CY $600.00 $13,800,000
14 Road Base on Top of Dam 900 CY $30.00 $27,000
15 Dam Instrumentation 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
SPILLWAY $5,642,800
1 Spillway Area Excavation 320,000 CY $15.00 $4,800,000
2 Drill Grout Holes 950 LF $20.00 $19,000
3 Spillway Ogee Area Grouting 20 Holes $115.00 $2,300
4 Spillway Ogee Concrete 600 CY $600.00 $360,000
5 Spillway Ogee Concrete Wing Walls 90 CY $550.00 $49,500
6 Spillway Area Rockbolts 720 EA $350.00 $252,000
7 Spillway Area Misc Shotcrete 200 CY $800.00 $160,000
FISH PASSAGE SYSTEM $36,025,000
1 Upgrade Road to Upstream Guide Nets 0.70 LF $150,000.00 $105,000
2 Upstream Guide Nets 1600.00 LF $400.00 $640,000
3 Upstream Floating Surface Collection System 1.00 LS $27,000,000.00 $27,000,000
4 Upstream Adult Release Structure 1.00 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
5 Downstream Fish Barrier 350.00 LF $400.00 $140,000
6 Downstream Adult Holding and Loading system 1.00 LS $8,000,000.00 $8,000,000
7 Juvenile Release Structure 1.00 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
8 Fish Transfer Pipe 1200.00 LF $100.00 $120,000
WATERWAYS $28,277,500
Diversion Tunnel 25 ft Dia by 1300 LF $11,084,000
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Kisaralik River Upper Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 4
EXHIBIT 9
Page 4 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:487,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Kisaralik River Upper Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
1 Road to Upstream Portal 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
2 Road to Downstream Portal 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
3 Upstream Portal Area Excavation 3,500 CY $20 $70,000
4 Downstream Portal Area Excavation 2,500 CY $20 $50,000
5 Excavate Diversion Tunnel 1,100 LF $4,500 $4,950,000
6 Upstream Diversion Concrete Gate Structure 610 CY $600 $366,000
7 Upstream Diversion Gates 2 EA $155,000 $310,000
8 Line the Diversion Tunnel 7,300 CY $700 $5,110,000
9 Downstream Diversion Concrete Structure 280 CY $600 $168,000
Intake Tower and Bridge $5,696,000
1 Intake Tower Area Excavation 2,000 CY $20 $40,000
2 Intake Tower Concrete 3,400 CY $800 $2,720,000 The tower is 200 ft high
3 Intake Tower Bridge 300 LF $2,000 $600,000
4 Intake Gates Operating 4 EA $323,000 $1,292,000
5 Intake Gates Bulkhead 4 EA $136,000 $544,000
6 Tie Intake Tower into Diversion Tunnel 1 LS $500,000 $500,000 Tower sits on top of diversion tunnel portal
Unit Penstock Tunnels to Diversion Tunnel $11,497,500
1 Tunnel Excavation ‐ 14 ft horseshoe 150 lf ea.6,400 CY $165 $1,056,000 May be done at the end of the powerhouse shafts
2 Rockbolts 650 EA $350 $227,500
3 Shotcrete 80 CY $800 $64,000
4 Steel Penstock Lining 1,100 TN $8,400 $9,240,000
5 Backfill Concrete 2,200 CY $200 $440,000
6 High Pressure Grouting 800 LF $250 $200,000
7 Contact Grouting 800 LF $150 $120,000
8 Diverson Tunnel Plug 1 LS $150,000 $150,000
POWERHOUSE $48,105,500
Structure $14,505,500
1 Powerhouse Excavation 70,000 CY $30 $2,100,000
2 Tailrace Excavation 25,000 CY $20 $500,000
3 Rockbolts 600 EA $350 $210,000
4 Shotcrete 80 CY $800 $64,000
5 Powerhouse 1th Stage Concrete 15,000 CY $600 $9,000,000
6 Powerhouse 2th Stage Concrete 800 CY $500 $400,000
7 Transformer Slab Concrete 400 CY $400 $160,000
8 Backfill around Powerhouse 500 CY $15 $7,500
9 Buy Draft Dube Gates, Guides and Hoist 4 Sets $67,500 $270,000
10 Install Draft Tube Gates, Guides and Hoist 4 Sets $11,000 $44,000
11 Lighting, Roofing, Drainage, HVAC, Arch., etc 1 LS $1,750,000 $1,750,000
Electrical and Mechanical Equipment $33,600,000
1 Turbines and Generators 2 EA $5,600,000 $11,200,000
2 Spherical Valves 2 EA $1,600,000 $3,200,000
3 Transformers 6 EA $1,500,000 $9,000,000 Water to wire package is $26 million
4 Mechanical Systems 1 LS $1,600,000 $1,600,000
5 Electrical Systems 1 LS $2,100,000 $2,100,000
6 Powerhouse Bridge Crane 1 LS $1,500,000 $1,500,000
7 Spare Parts 1 LS $800,000 $800,000
8 Switchyard 1 LS $4,000,000 $4,000,000
9 Testing, Startup and Commissioning Plant 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
TRANSMISSION LINE $84,000,000
1 Transmission Line 70 Miles $1,200,000 $84,000,000
Sub Total Directs: 284,366,175
Indirect Costs
Project Management 284,000,000$ 2.5%7,100,000
Safety 284,000,000$ 0.5%1,420,000
Administration, Office, Shops etc.284,000,000$ 5.0%14,200,000
Equipment Costs 284,000,000$ 1.0%2,840,000
Sub Total Indirects: 25,560,000
Sub Total Directs + Indirects:$309,926,175
Markups
Subcontractor Markups 0.0%$0 In subcontract price
Sales Tax on Electrical and Mechanical Equip 0.0%$0 No state sales tax
State Sales Taxes on All Other Items 0.0%$0 No state sales tax
Prime Contractor OH&P on Subs 118,000,000$ 5.0%$5,900,000
Prime Contractor OH&P on Self‐Perform 167,000,000$ 15.0%$25,050,000
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 5
EXHIBIT 9
Page 5 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:487,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Kisaralik River Upper Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Contractor Insurance Program 392,000,000$ 2.5%$9,800,000 Performance/Payments Bonds, Genl Liability, & Bldr's Risk
Escalation 0.0%Excluded
Estimating Accuracy Contingency 284,000,000$ 5.0%$14,200,000
Undefined Items Contingency 284,000,000$ 10.0%$28,400,000
Sub Total Markups: $83,000,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs: $392,900,000
Administration & Management
Planning and Licensing 392,900,000$ 1.5%$5,890,000
Engineering 392,900,000$ 3.0%$11,790,000
Engineering During Construction 392,900,000$ 2.0%$7,860,000
Construction Oversight & Mgt 392,900,000$ 5.0%$19,650,000
Misc Owner's Soft Costs 392,900,000$ 2.0%$7,860,000
Land Acquisition, Rights and Mitigation 392,900,000$ 2.0%$7,860,000
Scope Contingency On Civil 275,300,000$ 10.0%$27,530,000 Quantity growth and scope growth on civil work
Scope Contingency On Equip and Transmission 117,600,000$ 5.0%$5,880,000 Market and scope growth
Interest During Construction 392,900,000$ 0.0%$0 Excluded
Owner's Construction Contingency/Mgt Reserve 392,900,000$ 0.0%$0 Excluded
Sub Total Project Administrative Expenses: $94,320,000
Grand Total: $487,000,000
Cost Range: $440,000,000 $610,000,000 ‐10% +25%
Total Contingency:$76,010,000 16%
OPCC Disclaimer
The client hereby acknowledges that MWH has no control over the costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments, unidentified field conditions, financial and/or commodity market conditions, or any other factors likely to affect the OPCC of this project, all of
which are and will unavoidably remain in a state of change, especially in light of high market volatility attributable to Acts of God and other market forces or events beyond the control of the parties. As such, Client recognizes that this OPCC deliverable is based on normal
market conditions, defined by stable resource supply/demand relationships, and does not account for extreme inflationary or deflationary market cycles. Client further acknowledges that this OPCC is a "snapshot in time" and that the reliability of this OPCC will degrade over
time. Client agrees that MWH cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee or representation, either express or implied that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of O&M functions will not vary significantly from MWH's good faith Class 5 OPCC.
AACE International CLASS 5 Cost Estimate ‐ Class 5 estimates are generally prepared based on very limited information, and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. As such, some companies and organizations have elected to determine that due to the inherent inaccuracies,
such estimates cannot be classified in a conventional and systemic manner. Class 5 estimates, due to the requirements of end use, may be prepared within a very limited amount of time and with little effort expended— sometimes requiring less than an hour to prepare.
Often, little more than proposed plant type, location, and capacity are known at the time of estimate preparation. (AACE International Recommended Practices and Standards).
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 6
EXHIBIT 9
Page 6 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:418,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
Direct Costs
GENERAL $9,125,500
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $0 $0 This cost is in the indirect cost
2 Set‐Up Temporary Camp/Staging 5 MO $100,000 $500,000
3 Set‐Up Project 4 YR $50,000 $200,000
4 Maintain Project 24 MO $5,000 $120,000
5 Clear Camp, Shops, Office and Staging Aeas 28 AC $6,000 $168,000
6 Set‐Up Camp, Shops, and Office Utilities 1 LS $1,750,000 $1,750,000
7 Set‐Up Camp, Shops, Office, etc 1 LS $850,000 $850,000
8 Operate Man Camp 150,750 M‐D $30 $4,522,500
9 Resident Engineer Office 53 MO $5,000 $265,000
10 Final Site Cleanup, Seeding & Planting 1 LS $750,000 $750,000
ROADS AND AIRSTRIPS $10,202,000
Site Access Roads and Airstrip $5,680,000
1 Road from Camp to Intake Structure 1.00 Miles $225,000 $225,000
2 Road from Camp to Powerhouse Area 0.20 Miles $150,000 $30,000
3 Road from Camp to Dam and Spillway 0.50 Miles $150,000 $75,000
4 Bridge over River 1.00 LS $350,000 $350,000
5 Airstrip and Connecting Road 1.00 LS $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Winter Ice Roads $4,522,000
1 Ice Road Permits and Surveying 1.00 LS $250,000 $250,000
2 First Time Clearing and Bushing Road Alignment 51.00 Miles $15,000 $765,000
3 Added for Mountain Terrain 6.00 Miles $15,000 $90,000
4 Build Ice Road ‐ 4 Winters 204.00 Miles $12,500 $2,550,000
5 Maintain Ice Road ‐ 4 Winters 204.00 Miles $1,500 $306,000
6 Load Trucks ‐ 550 loads 550.00 Loads $250 $137,500
7 Haul 550.00 Loads $520 $286,000
8 Unload Trucks 550.00 Loads $250 $137,500
ROCKFILL DAM $18,342,625
1 Upstream Rockfill Cofferdam 40,000 CY $25.00 $1,000,000
2 Downstream Rockfill Cofferdam 30,000 CY $25.00 $750,000
3 Cofferdam Impervious Membrane 3,000 CY $10.00 $30,000
4 Dam Area Excavation 66,000 CY $30.00 $1,980,000
5 Dam Foundation Clean‐up 254,000 SF $2.50 $635,000
6 Dam Plinth Excavation 3,300 CY $30.00 $99,000
7 Plinth Foundation Clean‐up 17,000 SF $5.50 $93,500
8 Plinth Concrete 3,700 CY $650.00 $2,405,000
9 Drill Grout Holes 8,400 LF $20.00 $168,000
10 Dam Grouting 175 Holes $115.00 $20,125
11 Dam Rolled Rockfill 400,000 CY $12.00 $4,800,000 From spillway excavation
12 Dam Upstream Filter 41,000 CY $20.00 $820,000
13 Upstream Concrete Facing 8,800 CY $600.00 $5,280,000
14 Road Base on Top of Dam 400 CY $30.00 $12,000
15 Dam Instrumentation 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
SPILLWAY $23,006,800
1 Spillway Area Excavation 1,440,000 CY $15.00 $21,600,000
2 Drill Grout Holes 1,000 LF $20.00 $20,000
3 Spillway Ogee Area Grouting 20 Holes $115.00 $2,300
4 Spillway Ogee Concrete 500 CY $600.00 $300,000
5 Spillway Ogee Concrete Wing Walls 90 CY $550.00 $49,500
6 Spillway Area Rockbolts 2,500 EA $350.00 $875,000
7 Spillway Area Misc Shotcrete 200 CY $800.00 $160,000
FISH PASSAGE SYSTEM $36,350,000
1 Upgrade Road to Upstream Guide Nets 1.50 LF $300,000.00 $450,000
2 Upstream Guide Nets 1600.00 LF $400.00 $640,000
3 Upstream Floating Surface Collection System 1.00 LS $27,000,000.00 $27,000,000
4 Upstream Adult Release Structure 1.00 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
5 Downstream Fish Barrier 350.00 LF $400.00 $140,000
6 Downstream Adult Holding and Loading system 1.00 LS $8,000,000.00 $8,000,000
7 Juvenile Release Structure 1.00 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
8 Fish Transfer Pipe 1000.00 LF $100.00 $100,000
WATERWAYS $25,549,000
Diversion Tunnel 25 ft Dia by 1100 LF $11,084,000
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Kisaralik River Lower Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 7
EXHIBIT 9
Page 7 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:418,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Kisaralik River Lower Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
1 Road to Upstream Portal 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
2 Road to Downstream Portal 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
3 Upstream Portal Area Excavation 3,500 CY $20 $70,000
4 Downstream Portal Area Excavation 2,500 CY $20 $50,000
5 Excavate Diversion Tunnel 1,100 LF $4,500 $4,950,000
6 Upstream Diversion Concrete Gate Structure 610 CY $600 $366,000
7 Upstream Diversion Gates 2 EA $155,000 $310,000
8 Line the Diversion Tunnel 7,300 CY $700 $5,110,000
9 Downstream Diversion Concrete Structure 280 CY $600 $168,000
Intake Tower and Bridge $5,316,000
1 Intake Tower Area Excavation 1,000 CY $20 $20,000
2 Intake Tower Concrete 2,950 CY $800 $2,360,000 The tower is 175 ft high
3 Intake Tower Bridge 300 LF $2,000 $600,000
4 Intake Gates Operating 4 EA $323,000 $1,292,000
5 Intake Gates Bulkhead 4 EA $136,000 $544,000
6 Tie Intake Tower into Diversion Tunnel 1 LS $500,000 $500,000 Shaft 50 ft down to diversion tunnel
Unit Penstock Tunnels to Diversion Tunnel $9,149,000
1 Tunnel Excavation ‐ 14 ft horseshoe 150 lf ea.4,800 CY $165 $792,000
2 Rockbolts 500 EA $350 $175,000
3 Shotcrete 80 CY $800 $64,000
4 Steel Penstock Lining 880 TN $8,400 $7,392,000
5 Backfill Concrete 1,680 CY $200 $336,000
6 High Pressure Grouting 600 LF $250 $150,000
7 Contact Grouting 600 LF $150 $90,000
8 Diverson Tunnel Plug 1 LS $150,000 $150,000
POWERHOUSE $47,055,500
Structure $14,505,500
1 Powerhouse Excavation 70,000 CY $30 $2,100,000
2 Tailrace Excavation 25,000 CY $20 $500,000
3 Rockbolts 600 EA $350 $210,000
4 Shotcrete 80 CY $800 $64,000
5 Powerhouse 1th Stage Concrete 15,000 CY $600 $9,000,000
6 Powerhouse 2th Stage Concrete 800 CY $500 $400,000
7 Transformer Slab Concrete 400 CY $400 $160,000
8 Backfill around Powerhouse 500 CY $15 $7,500
9 Buy Draft Dube Gates, Guides and Hoist 4 Sets $67,500 $270,000
10 Install Draft Tube Gates, Guides and Hoist 4 Sets $11,000 $44,000
11 Lighting, Roofing, Drainage, HVAC, Arch., etc 1 LS $1,750,000 $1,750,000
Electrical and Mechanical Equipment $32,550,000
1 Turbines and Generators 2 EA $4,450,000 $8,900,000
2 Spherical Valves 2 EA $1,800,000 $3,600,000
3 Transformers 6 EA $1,500,000 $9,000,000 Water to wire package is $27 million
4 Mechanical Systems 1 LS $1,600,000 $1,600,000
5 Electrical Systems 1 LS $2,100,000 $2,100,000
6 Powerhouse Bridge Crane 1 LS $1,750,000 $1,750,000
7 Spare Parts 1 LS $900,000 $900,000
8 Switchyard 1 LS $4,500,000 $4,500,000
9 Testing, Startup and Commissioning Plant 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
TRANSMISSION LINE $74,400,000
1 Transmission Line 62 Miles $1,200,000 $74,400,000
Sub Total Directs: 244,031,425
Indirect Costs
Project Management 244,000,000$ 2.5%6,100,000
Safety 244,000,000$ 0.5%1,220,000
Administration, Office, Shops etc.244,000,000$ 5.0%12,200,000
Equipment Costs 244,000,000$ 1.0%2,440,000
Sub Total Indirects: 21,960,000
Sub Total Directs + Indirects:$265,991,425
Markups
Subcontractor Markups 0.0%$0 In subcontract price
Sales Tax on Electrical and Mechanical Equip 0.0%$0 No state sales tax
State Sales Taxes on All Other Items 0.0%$0 No state sales tax
Prime Contractor OH&P on Subs 107,000,000$ 5.0%$5,350,000
Prime Contractor OH&P on Self‐Perform 137,000,000$ 15.0%$20,550,000
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 8
EXHIBIT 9
Page 8 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:418,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Kisaralik River Lower Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Contractor Insurance Program 337,000,000$ 2.5%$8,425,000 Performance/Payments Bonds, Genl Liability, & Bldr's Risk
Escalation 0.0%Excluded
Estimating Accuracy Contingency 244,000,000$ 5.0%$12,200,000
Undefined Items Contingency 244,000,000$ 10.0%$24,400,000
Sub Total Markups: $71,000,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs: $337,000,000
Project Administration & Management
Planning and Licensing 337,000,000$ 1.5%$5,060,000
Engineering 337,000,000$ 3.0%$10,110,000
Engineering During Construction 337,000,000$ 2.0%$6,740,000
Construction Oversight & Mgt 337,000,000$ 5.0%$16,850,000
Misc Owner's Soft Costs 337,000,000$ 2.0%$6,740,000
Land Acquisition, Rights and Mitigation 337,000,000$ 2.0%$6,740,000
Scope Contingency On Civil 230,050,000$ 10.0%$23,010,000 Quantity growth and scope growth on civil work
Scope Contingency On Equip and Transmission 106,950,000$ 5.0%$5,350,000 Market and scope growth
Interest During Construction 337,000,000$ 0.0%$0 Excluded
Owner's Construction Contingency/Mgt Reserve 337,000,000$ 0.0%$0 Excluded
Sub Total Project Administrative Expenses: $80,600,000
Grand Total: $418,000,000
Cost Range: $380,000,000 $520,000,000 ‐10% +25%
Total Contingency:$64,960,000 16%
OPCC Disclaimer
The client hereby acknowledges that MWH has no control over the costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments, unidentified field conditions, financial and/or commodity market conditions, or any other factors likely to affect the OPCC of this project, all of
which are and will unavoidably remain in a state of change, especially in light of high market volatility attributable to Acts of God and other market forces or events beyond the control of the parties. As such, Client recognizes that this OPCC deliverable is based on normal
market conditions, defined by stable resource supply/demand relationships, and does not account for extreme inflationary or deflationary market cycles. Client further acknowledges that this OPCC is a "snapshot in time" and that the reliability of this OPCC will degrade over
time. Client agrees that MWH cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee or representation, either express or implied that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of O&M functions will not vary significantly from MWH's good faith Class 5 OPCC.
AACE International CLASS 5 Cost Estimate ‐ Class 5 estimates are generally prepared based on very limited information, and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. As such, some companies and organizations have elected to determine that due to the inherent inaccuracies,
such estimates cannot be classified in a conventional and systemic manner. Class 5 estimates, due to the requirements of end use, may be prepared within a very limited amount of time and with little effort expended— sometimes requiring less than an hour to prepare.
Often, little more than proposed plant type, location, and capacity are known at the time of estimate preparation. (AACE International Recommended Practices and Standards).
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 9
EXHIBIT 9
Page 9 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:392,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
Direct Costs
GENERAL $9,125,500
1 Project Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $0 $0 This cost is in the indirect cost
2 Set‐Up Temporary Camp/Staging 5 MO $100,000 $500,000
3 Set‐Up Project 4 YR $50,000 $200,000
4 Maintain Project 24 MO $5,000 $120,000
5 Clear Camp, Shops, Office and Staging Aeas 28 AC $6,000 $168,000
6 Set‐Up Camp, Shops, and Office Utilities 1 LS $1,750,000 $1,750,000
7 Set‐Up Camp, Shops, Office, etc 1 LS $850,000 $850,000
8 Operate Man Camp 150,750 M‐D $30 $4,522,500
9 Resident Engineer Office 53 MO $5,000 $265,000
10 Final Site Cleanup, Seeding & Planting 1 LS $750,000 $750,000
ROADS AND AIRSTRIPS $9,686,000
Site Access Roads and Airstrip $5,680,000
1 Road from Camp to Intake Structure 1.00 Miles $225,000 $225,000
2 Road from Camp to Powerhouse Area 0.20 Miles $150,000 $30,000
3 Road from Camp to Dam and Spillway 0.50 Miles $150,000 $75,000
4 Bridge over River 1.00 LS $350,000 $350,000
5 Airstrip and Connecting Road 1.00 LS $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Winter Ice Roads $4,006,000
1 Ice Road Permits and Surveying 1.00 LS $250,000 $250,000
2 First Time Clearing and Bushing Road Alignment 45.00 Miles $15,000 $675,000
3 Added for Mountain Terrain ‐ Miles $15,000 $0
4 Build Ice Road ‐ 4 Winters 180.00 Miles $12,500 $2,250,000
5 Maintain Ice Road ‐ 4 Winters 180.00 Miles $1,500 $270,000
6 Load Trucks ‐ 550 loads 550.00 Loads $250 $137,500
7 Haul 550.00 Loads $520 $286,000
8 Unload Trucks 550.00 Loads $250 $137,500
ROCKFILL DAM $15,459,625
1 Upstream Rockfill Cofferdam 33,000 CY $25.00 $825,000
2 Downstream Rockfill Cofferdam 20,000 CY $25.00 $500,000
3 Cofferdam Impervious Membrane 2,500 CY $10.00 $25,000
4 Dam Area Excavation 53,000 CY $30.00 $1,590,000
5 Dam Foundation Clean‐up 204,000 SF $2.50 $510,000
6 Dam Plinth Excavation 3,100 CY $30.00 $93,000
7 Plinth Foundation Clean‐up 17,000 SF $5.50 $93,500
8 Plinth Concrete 3,700 CY $650.00 $2,405,000
9 Drill Grout Holes 8,400 LF $20.00 $168,000
10 Dam Grouting 175 Holes $115.00 $20,125
11 Dam Rolled Rockfill 385,000 CY $12.00 $4,620,000 From spillway excavation
12 Dam Upstream Filter 25,400 CY $20.00 $508,000
13 Upstream Concrete Facing 6,400 CY $600.00 $3,840,000
14 Road Base on Top of Dam 400 CY $30.00 $12,000
15 Dam Instrumentation 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
SPILLWAY $19,689,550
1 Spillway Area Excavation 1,205,000 CY $15.00 $18,075,000
2 Drill Grout Holes 2,300 LF $20.00 $46,000
3 Spillway Ogee Area Grouting 90 Holes $115.00 $10,350
4 Spillway Ogee Concrete 1,083 CY $600.00 $649,800
5 Spillway Ogee Concrete Wing Walls 88 CY $550.00 $48,400
6 Spillway Area Rockbolts 2,000 EA $350.00 $700,000
7 Spillway Area Misc Shotcrete 200 CY $800.00 $160,000
FISH PASSAGE SYSTEM $35,905,000
1 Upgrade Road to Upstream Guide Nets 0.70 LF $150,000.00 $105,000
2 Upstream Guide Nets 1200.00 LF $400.00 $480,000
3 Upstream Floating Surface Collection System 1.00 LS $27,000,000.00 $27,000,000
4 Upstream Adult Release Structure 1.00 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
5 Downstream Fish Barrier 350.00 LF $400.00 $140,000
6 Downstream Adult Holding and Loading system 1.00 LS $8,000,000.00 $8,000,000
7 Juvenile Release Structure 1.00 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
8 Fish Transfer Pipe 1600.00 LF $100.00 $160,000
WATERWAYS $25,401,500
Diversion Tunnel 25 ft Dia by 1200 LF $11,936,500
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
Kisaralik River Golden Gate Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 10
EXHIBIT 9
Page 10 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:392,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
Kisaralik River Golden Gate Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
1 Road to Upstream Portal 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
2 Road to Downstream Portal 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
3 Upstream Portal Area Excavation 3,500 CY $20 $70,000
4 Downstream Portal Area Excavation 2,500 CY $20 $50,000
5 Excavate Diversion Tunnel 1,200 LF $4,500 $5,400,000
6 Upstream Diversion Concrete Gate Structure 610 CY $600 $366,000
7 Upstream Diversion Gates 2 EA $155,000 $310,000
8 Line the Diversion Tunnel 7,875 CY $700 $5,512,500
9 Downstream Diversion Concrete Structure 280 CY $600 $168,000
Intake Tower and Bridge $4,316,000
1 Intake Tower Area Excavation 1,000 CY $20 $20,000
2 Intake Tower Concrete 1,700 CY $800 $1,360,000 The tower is 100 ft high
3 Intake Tower Bridge 300 LF $2,000 $600,000
4 Intake Gates Operating 4 EA $323,000 $1,292,000
5 Intake Gates Bulkhead 4 EA $136,000 $544,000
6 Tie Intake Tower into Diversion Tunnel 1 LS $500,000 $500,000 Shaft 50 ft down to diversion tunnel
Unit Penstock Tunnels to Diversion Tunnel $9,149,000
1 Tunnel Excavation ‐ 14 ft horseshoe 150 lf ea.4,800 CY $165 $792,000
2 Rockbolts 500 EA $350 $175,000
3 Shotcrete 80 CY $800 $64,000
4 Steel Penstock Lining 880 TN $8,400 $7,392,000
5 Backfill Concrete 1,680 CY $200 $336,000
6 High Pressure Grouting 600 LF $250 $150,000
7 Contact Grouting 600 LF $150 $90,000
8 Diverson Tunnel Plug 1 LS $150,000 $150,000
POWERHOUSE $44,805,500
Structure $14,405,500
1 Powerhouse Excavation 70,000 CY $30 $2,100,000
2 Tailrace Excavation 20,000 CY $20 $400,000
3 Rockbolts 600 EA $350 $210,000
4 Shotcrete 80 CY $800 $64,000
5 Powerhouse 1th Stage Concrete 15,000 CY $600 $9,000,000
6 Powerhouse 2th Stage Concrete 800 CY $500 $400,000
7 Transformer Slab Concrete 400 CY $400 $160,000
8 Backfill around Powerhouse 500 CY $15 $7,500
9 Buy Draft Dube Gates, Guides and Hoist 4 Sets $67,500 $270,000
10 Install Draft Tube Gates, Guides and Hoist 4 Sets $11,000 $44,000
11 Lighting, Roofing, Drainage, HVAC, Arch., etc 1 LS $1,750,000 $1,750,000
Electrical and Mechanical Equipment $30,400,000
1 Turbines and Generators 2 EA $4,400,000 $8,800,000
2 Spherical Valves 2 EA $1,500,000 $3,000,000
3 Transformers 6 EA $1,500,000 $9,000,000 Water to wire package is $26 million
4 Mechanical Systems 1 LS $1,600,000 $1,600,000
5 Electrical Systems 1 LS $2,100,000 $2,100,000
6 Powerhouse Bridge Crane 1 LS $1,500,000 $1,500,000
7 Spare Parts 1 LS $700,000 $700,000
8 Switchyard 1 LS $3,500,000 $3,500,000
9 Testing, Startup and Commissioning Plant 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
TRANSMISSION LINE $68,400,000
1 Transmission Line 57 Miles $1,200,000 $68,400,000
Sub Total Directs: 228,472,675
Indirect Costs
Project Management 228,000,000$ 2.5%5,700,000
Safety 228,000,000$ 0.5%1,140,000
Administration, Office, Shops etc.228,000,000$ 5.0%11,400,000
Equipment Costs 228,000,000$ 1.0%2,280,000
Sub Total Indirects: 20,520,000
Sub Total Directs + Indirects:$248,992,675
Markups
Subcontractor Markups 0.0%$0 In subcontract price
Sales Tax on Electrical and Mechanical Equip 0.0%$0 No state sales tax
State Sales Taxes on All Other Items 0.0%$0 No state sales tax
Prime Contractor OH&P on Subs 99,000,000$ 5.0%$4,950,000
Prime Contractor OH&P on Self‐Perform 130,000,000$ 15.0%$19,500,000
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 11
EXHIBIT 9
Page 11 of 12
MWH 3/22/2011
Grand Total Price:392,000,000$
Item
#Description Quantity UOM Unit Price Total Price Comments
RECONNAISSANCE AND PRELIMINARY HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY STUDY
KISARALIK RIVER & CHIKUMINUK LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
Kisaralik River Golden Gate Falls Site
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Currency: USD-United States-DECEMBER 2010 Dollar
Contractor Insurance Program 315,000,000$ 2.5%$7,875,000 Performance/Payments Bonds, Genl Liability, & Bldr's Risk
Escalation 0.0%Excluded
Estimating Accuracy Contingency 228,000,000$ 5.0%$11,400,000
Undefined Items Contingency 228,000,000$ 10.0%$22,800,000
Sub Total Markups: $67,000,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs: $316,000,000
Project Administration & Management
Planning and Licensing 316,000,000$ 1.5%$4,740,000
Engineering 316,000,000$ 3.0%$9,480,000
Engineering During Construction 316,000,000$ 2.0%$6,320,000
Construction Oversight & Mgt 316,000,000$ 5.0%$15,800,000
Misc Owner's Soft Costs 316,000,000$ 2.0%$6,320,000
Land Acquisition, Rights and Mitigation 316,000,000$ 2.0%$6,320,000
Scope Contingency On Civil 217,200,000$ 10.0%$21,720,000 Quantity growth and scope growth on civil work
Scope Contingency On Equip and Transmission 98,800,000$ 5.0%$4,940,000 Market and scope growth
Interest During Construction 316,000,000$ 0.0%$0 Excluded
Owner's Construction Contingency/Mgt Reserve 316,000,000$ 0.0%$0 Excluded
Sub Total Project Administrative Expenses: $75,640,000
Grand Total: $392,000,000
Cost Range: $350,000,000 $490,000,000
‐10% +25%
Total Contingency:$60,860,000 16%
OPCC Disclaimer
The client hereby acknowledges that MWH has no control over the costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding environments, unidentified field conditions, financial and/or commodity market conditions, or any other factors likely to affect the OPCC of this project, all of
which are and will unavoidably remain in a state of change, especially in light of high market volatility attributable to Acts of God and other market forces or events beyond the control of the parties. As such, Client recognizes that this OPCC deliverable is based on normal
market conditions, defined by stable resource supply/demand relationships, and does not account for extreme inflationary or deflationary market cycles. Client further acknowledges that this OPCC is a "snapshot in time" and that the reliability of this OPCC will degrade over
time. Client agrees that MWH cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee or representation, either express or implied that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of O&M functions will not vary significantly from MWH's good faith Class 5 OPCC.
AACE International CLASS 5 Cost Estimate ‐ Class 5 estimates are generally prepared based on very limited information, and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. As such, some companies and organizations have elected to determine that due to the inherent inaccuracies,
such estimates cannot be classified in a conventional and systemic manner. Class 5 estimates, due to the requirements of end use, may be prepared within a very limited amount of time and with little effort expended— sometimes requiring less than an hour to prepare.
Often, little more than proposed plant type, location, and capacity are known at the time of estimate preparation. (AACE International Recommended Practices and Standards).
Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. 3/22/2011 Page 12
EXHIBIT 9
Page 12 of 12
IDTask Name1Engineering Planning and FERC Activities2Project Management and Meetings3Acquire Preliminary Permit4Preliminary Permit Period5Early Licensing Activities6Development of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Schedule, and Notice of Intent (NOI)7Scoping and Study Plan Approval8Conduct Engineering and Environmental Studies9Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP)10Development of Final License Application (FLA)11Post-FLA Activities and Section 401 Water Quality Certification.1213Design14Preliminary Engineering15Initial Subsurface Investigations16Topographic Mapping17Preliminary Design and Equipment Specs18Equipment Procurement19Design-Level Site Investigations20Final Design and Specifications21Bidding and Award of Main Civil Contract2223Construction24Ice Road Access25Ice Road Access26Ice Road Access27Ice Road Access28Labor Camp29Diversion Tunnel30Dam Foundation Preparation (Abtmnts)31Cofferdam Closure32Complete Dam Foundation Prep (River)33Spillway Excavation / Dam Fill34Intake Tower35Complete Spillway / Dam36Powerhouse Excavation37Powerhouse Substructure38Install Embedded and Rotating Parts39Complete Powerhouse40Testing and Startup41Transmission Line42Demobilization43Commercial OperationProject Management and MeetingsAcquire Preliminary PermitPreliminary Permit PeriodEarly Licensing ActivitiesDevelopment of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Schedule, and Notice of Intent (NOI)Scoping and Study Plan ApprovalConduct Engineering and Environmental StudiesPreliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP)Development of Final License Application (FLA)Post-FLA Activities and Section 401 Water Quality Certification.Preliminary EngineeringInitial Subsurface InvestigationsTopographic MappingPreliminary Design and Equipment SpecsEquipment ProcurementDesign-Level Site InvestigationsFinal Design and SpecificationsBidding and Award of Main Civil ContractIce Road AccessIce Road AccessIce Road AccessIce Road AccessLabor CampDiversion TunnelDam Foundation Preparation (Abtmnts)Cofferdam ClosureComplete Dam Foundation Prep (River)Spillway Excavation / Dam FillIntake TowerComplete Spillway / DamPowerhouse ExcavationPowerhouse SubstructureInstall Embedded and Rotating PartsComplete PowerhouseTesting and StartupTransmission LineDemobilization9/162011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023TaskMilestoneSummaryEXHIBIT 10Project: Schedule v4Date: Tue 3/22/11
18-1 Revised Final Report
May 2011
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
18 Public Meeting
A presentation was made to the general public on March 9, 2011 to describe the preliminary
studies relating to the Kisaralik and Chikuminuk hydropower projects. The presentation was part
of an AVCP RHA workshop held from March 8 to 10, 2011.
Approximately 100 to 120 persons were in attendance.
• Ron Hoffman of AVCP RHA opened the meeting at approximately 3 pm. He introduced
the speakers, provided background on efforts to date on alternative energy, need for
solutions, intent for the meeting, and the process to be followed in making public
comments after the formal presentation by MWH.
• MWH representatives Bob Gilfilan and Patrick Hartel provided an overview and
powerpoint presentation on their findings of the “Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study”. Report findings
indicate that all four hydropower sites: three on the Kisaralik River of Golden Gate Falls,
Lower Falls, and Upper Falls, and one site on the Allen River outfall of Chikuminuk
Lake, are all feasible and have potential. The estimated useable energy 2022 potential is
38.8, 46.9, 39.7, and 64.9 GWh respectively, compared to an estimated energy demand
for the region of 64.9 GWh. All four sites have the challenge of being 57 miles (Golden
Gate Falls) to 118 miles (Chikuminuk Lake) distant from Bethel, and are located in some
type of state wilderness or federal preserve. The Chikuminuk Lake option is the most
advantageous of the sites due to a relatively stable month to month energy delivery
potential, lack of anadromous fish, and having the lowest discounted net present cost
value of all the possible hydropower siting options. Total cost estimates (design &
construction) range from $378M for Golden Gate Falls to $483M 10 for the Chikuminuk
Lake option without any grant funding of any kind to augment the financing. A map
handout, and full size maps were available at the meeting.
• Public comments and/or questions were taken from 10 individuals. There were 6 positive
comments noted in support for Chikuminuk Lake option. There were 6 negative
comments against a Kisaralik river option. There were no negative comments for a
Chikuminuk Lake option. One comment was to “stop studying stuff and do something”.
• George Guy and Christine Klein representing Nuvista Power & Electric Cooperative
gave an update and summary of next steps. This included organization intent and
members, previous 20 to 30 Calista/AVCP region studies from 1950 on, current
stakeholder collaboration, and steps being taken to find and act on alternative energy
solution(s) due to high electric and heating costs in region. Noted tasks underway and
planned:
1. Obtaining grant funding for further work;
10 Note that some information in the handouts (e.g. cost information) may not exactly match information contained
in other sections of this final report. Revisions to the costs were made to address reviewer comments following the
public meeting.
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hydropower Feasibility Study
18-2 Revised Final Report
May 2011
2. Hiring a position dedicated to these efforts at Nuvista with AEA help;
3. Begin Region-wide Comprehensive Alternative Energy Plan, to include plans and
actions of sub-region areas that may already be underway; and
4. Complete a detailed feasibility study, FERC applications, public meetings, and
preliminary design at a cost of $17.6M in a request from Alaska State Legislature for
further investigation of a Chikuminuk Lake hydropower option.
• Handouts of the powerpoint presentation and bibliography of past reports were handed
out. Public comments were received from 6 individuals and consisted of clarification
questions, general thoughts, and support. It was noted that Yukon River area also villages
in need, and the possibilities for development of natural gas was brought up.
• Numerous thank you’s and supportive comments were offered.
• Mr. Hoffman closed and adjourned the meeting for the day at approximately 5 pm.
Handouts follow this page.
-,
15th Annual AVCP Housing Authority Conference ~2011 /Ndro ''''~'J/
#IVillage ITribal Name \Name of Member ISignatlpe..JJ ...
1 1~/,~,;'~;":S(;;::.-~~;~:~';';;3f1!1iPC :M~~r;;'~Li;:;:;~,J;;r:j,:,;~,2>";;):~~)~::G01~~~~~~~~:'):i2;'>+)~::(!;e,:~7];;:;{~~
3 IAlakanuk IAlakanuk Traditional Council ~/C~",",17,/(;.I /2..,....(u -.
4 IAnchorage ICalista Corporation I u ~r"-----u 7/
5 IAtmautluak IAtmautluak Tradtional Council INelson Nicholai
Date IP.M.:
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/912011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
24 IKongiganak IKongiginak Traditional Council ]OPet(;Dtmiel SF-a.w XJ4v1:dl::J?J 'J'-,./).J:::!'"~~~
22 IKasigluk IKasigluk Traditional Council INastasia Evan"I h.AUl"j-f~Jf~
25 1~J{0,t1ik f~C;~e~t~,.,:'"1.',~-'.':IBqJ,~~~~pirezitR;;~._.~~U ~JL3t-L~~
26 IKotlik IKotlik Tribal Council IMichael Hunt Sr I 11.t::/G1 t../.JI..;?
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/912011
3/912011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/912011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/912011
3/912011
3/912011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
31912011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
~
..
'--"'
~~,N.--
f
nt1JD(}L,/<1~
1j)/~L/~~Nick Andrew Sr
Moses Littlefish
Johnny Friend
36 INewtok INewtok Traditonal Council IGeorge Tom
7 l'cnef~'f$Jc.S:/,:;)·:b':{;tJ;'tt;£;lffiPC M~Ii:t:J.;~~:;~;\;j;;)'-;)n!!f(h{t:-,;:!:A{{ITTQ~Ji,Y I{uJi)li,*.~~_/~-="{.
20 IHooper Bay INative Village ofPaimiut I I -U
6 IBethel INapaimute Traditional Council IBrook Kristovich I ~
27 IKotlik IVillage ofBillmoore Slough
23 IKipnuk IKipnuk Tradional Council IJames-Mesak f '1-vt/--1 ,W'~~,~
8 Chefornak Chefornak Traditional Council J
9 .en-evak~f;~i;;£;.!ii';;\JiJ:>;~hA;;{;IJIPcoM~k!V'.:;;:;/
29 ILower Kalskag INative Village of Lower Kalskag
32 IMekoryuk INative Village of Mekoryuk I I /1
34 INapakiak INapakiak IRA Council IWillie Kernak
35 INapaskiak INapaskiak Tribal Council IChris Larson
14 lEek lEek Traditional Council IAnnie Pete I (}l.-1 '-1,AJI lJ,-j;:
33 INapakiak·,.IIHPC M¢iP-O~~»:F·,;;:·;i>;::/'i:.:';.~?('2:;:\);·.d,g~1;·:M 9~g~,;t(:;:~;j:-;',;::':::::--~v~7:.J!TI1l~
31 IMarshall IOhogamuit Traditional Council
30 IMarshall INative Village of Marshall
28 IKwigillingok IKwigillingok IRA Council
16 IGeorgetown IGeorgetown Tribal Council I I /l
17 IGoodnews Bay INative Village of Goodnews Bay IJack Stewart JR I /"">,//)J:.-.~A
19 IHooper Bay INative Village of Hooper Bay IDavid Bunyan I ~v/1-~
18 IHamilton IHamilton Tribal Council I I ~1J-..,.~
10 Chevak Chevak Traditonal Council Pete Slats
11 Chuathbaluk Chuathbaluk Traditional Council Lucy Simeon
15 IEmmonak IChuloonawick Tradtional Council IBambi Akers I~-~
12 Crooked Creek Crooked Creek Traditional Council
13 '.IHPC Membej;:!t&~:,,;r;;T!';~;\;:,..·;wmi:#D'P;Bt(:)~!~:;';\'>~;;;i;;;i::y;;(i
Sign in Sheet
38 INightmute IUmkumiut Tribal Council IPeter Dull Sr
37 INightmute INightmute Traditional Council IAndrew George
,
15th Annual AVCP Housing Authority Conference 3l812011 ..N~-y
43 IPilot Station IPilot Station Traditional Council INicky Myers
fJ./~I
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
;::s-..&l£~a
VI-:;'~t..J L .P(,".:A I,
If)f
Jimmy Steven,Sr.1~~~~
';I Ubfu11h;CbaJjak::;.?~;\h)\~ii(J!::fjkDjL"'J~.(~~~
41 INunapitchuk INunapitchak IRA Council
44 IPitka's Point IPitka's Point Village Council IAnna L Tinker
42 Ioscarville IOscarville Traditional Council
39 Nunam Iqua Nunam Iqua Traditonal Council
40 NtrilapIfcp,*::rnPC:M~ti;:!:;~'li '
45 'Platinum IPlatinum Traditional Council
46 IRed Devil IRed Devil Traditional Council 3/9/2011
47 IRussian Mission IRussian Mission Tradtional Council 3/9/2011
59 IUpper Kalskag IUpper Kalskag Traditional Council IWilliamAlexie
58 [Upper"KalSkag ,;;i;;<!Y:IYWc.~eIIJl;eI::11 lL:o.x:eep Ste~ves'=,~(~A;Duul.......,
57 'Tununak ITununak IRA Council IGeorge B Hooper Sr 1..L:1~£J ~~)
56 I Tuntutuliak ITuntutuliak Traditional Council IRon Simon I if /__
3/9/2011
3/912011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/912011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
/
48 1Scammon Bay IScammon Bay Traditional Council IClifford Kaganak Sr I P1rM ~~
49 St.Mary's Sebastian Cowboy
50 St:~'s '?:',.~,,',''Norpert B~':~:::S0:~):~;;;'L:{v;:;:,;(};t,:~')1.-.r.'-of 0
52 Stony River Stony River Traditional Council
53 Toksook Bay Nunakauyak Traditonal Council
51 1St.Mary's IYupiit of Andreafski IDarryl Sipary I D~j/{A'c.-:-
55 I~+;;~~1:';:1;"""":'":"..:,.'";~..In:mC'"i..o-.i1.._',..-'1;1'"..~-,'c'L .•>RY'f.
'i";&-unlluL'UW1JIo;;l::;:~";;~!S;l;;'<lor;;M.tauJJql .~,"'",cUCY PRJe;"l:':1"....~.......,,~-
54 ITuluksak ITuluksak Native Community IMoses K Peter I e-;7jf~xfJA>.-
60 IAkiachak I Akiachak IRA 3/9/2011
61 IBethel lONe
62 IEmmonak IEmmonak Traditional Council
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
63 IKwethluk IKwethluk IRA
64 ILime Village ILime Village Traditonal Council ILorraine Long
65 IMountain Village IMountain Village Tradtional Council II It ~>l-..A'I __J
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
66 IQuinhagak IQuinhagak IRA IJoshuaCleveIaDd \l Il..---}~-'~
67 I Sleetmute ISleetmute I I (//J •A
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
68 1I}K';'.4-lC.I klJk~:--/l/L~t!~--[\'(;;A-~LI....'A-j,~I ~_'-~j
69 1::A1~~JC Il(.IJ-C(2LV~c!.:Jy){)I fl--m.~C4./\.llG{)r~r~~~
70 1./4kJ~I J~~~r-J?~u..~~1Cf.;.-~C--L?f7 ~')~-'1~nJ~~~~,~
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
71 r<f--f'C(\Al'~\<X.>i..ct I \'\);(CsJr--<J .I A-\e.-X \AJ-e..y-ioO\IV IIM.J.L;f f /OIJ j /.1
72 I AnlCt.,,\L I\C\-r-,\fJvtL -r-t\L~C1,\-A'1iWl(,~On-'tb'-('i YVI~}.-TG:~."V1 (~-~,fiYV\4.AI'"
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
'-/)-~
Sign in Sheet
73 I ~II "11\.""A 61 -'\k.
74 1/Nh-t(,vl-Ct/tllAer:-k..
75 )n 'i;.~\I'\.'J\J.Ci ~
76 I/J JL-IA.",1-.,_.b
77 la ,z'c ri:.....-,1/
78 I t (•
79
80
81
82
83
84
,
15th Annual AVCP Housing Authority Conference aJ812011 ,/tItd.4'1 f}~4-,~
(OW'fiv~&\..1<..::rJ1..ft-I Fa-/lLj/{"/f-MllOre..I ~1/11~(J
ATT Tt "bA-}~)COU-1'1.dzt --l/L1.~-/{lt'x ~---T~~~,~>'..AJ
-L'f'5X SiDI"I4i?,'(\l'Vf'"-;C-.I /tJte-e--C0~((/}'.'"~~l)C::::::S -c'~~
L-to\.I W~l~n~.I <t'\.~--y--L.
L ,Ii I 2.d:~A(e)f;-.;>I //Z->IA ----
u I~~l~~
C/(/
Sign in Sheet
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
3/9/2011
p.ftVl.
This page left blank intentionally.
Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority (AVCP RHA)
asked MWH to evaluate four potential hydropower sites (three on the Kisaralik River
and one at Chikuminuk Lake) for potential to serve electrical demand for the following
communities: Bethel, Akiachak, Akiak, Eek, Kasigluk, Nunapitchuk, Quinhagak, At-
mautluak, Oscarville, Napakiak, Kwethluk, Napaskiak, Tuluksak, Tuntutuliak.
Project Features at all four sites would include:
Dam Spillway
Potential Reservoir Areas Diversion Tunnel
Fish Passage Facilities Transmission Lines
Powerhouse (with 2 Francis type turbines)
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary
Hydropower Feasibility Study Overview
Project Overview
Meeting Handouts and Presentation
Page 1
Revised Final Report
May 2011
Project Result Summary
The Chikuminuk Lake site appears to be the best available site given that it has:
1) potential to meet year-round demand;
2) best long-term value;
3) fewer apparent environmental impacts.
Development of a hydropower site requires a multi-year licensing process led by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which allows for extensive stake-
holder input.
1
Kisaralik River and Chikuminuk Lake
Reconnaissance and Preliminary
Hydropower Feasibility Study
Public Meeting
9 March 2011
Introductions
• MWH Study Manager: Patrick (Pat) Hartel
• MWH Public Meeting Facilitator: Bob Gilfilian
9 March 2011 2
Project Overview
– AVCP RHA asked MWH to evaluate four potential hydropower sites
(three on the Kisaralik River and one at Chikuminuk Lake) for potential
to serve electrical demand for Bethel and surrounding communities
– MWH prepared a Draft Report of the results. A summary is to be
t d h t ll f bli i t th t ill b i l d d i thpresented here to allow for public input that will be included in the
Final Report
– Development period: 10 years minimum
9 March 2011 3
Regional Map
9 March 2011 4
Evaluation Process
– Hydrological Evaluation
• potential power generation based on available water and terrain
• flood magnitudes for construction planning and design
– Geological Evaluation
f d ti diti•foundation conditions
• construction material sources and potential hazards
– Licensing Evaluation
• land ownership and environmental impacts
– Conceptual Design Feature Layouts
– Project Cost Estimates and Cost of Electricity
– Recommendations
9 March 2011 5
Hydrological Evaluation
9 March 2011 6
Meeting Handouts and Presentation
Page 3
Revised Final Report
May 2011
2
Hydrological Evaluation
9 March 2011 7
Hydrological Evaluation
– Chikuminuk Lake
• Drainage basin analyses indicate average available flows to
generate approximately 65 GWh (initial year) of usable annual
energy, with 13 MW of generating capacity
• Large water storage area allows for potential year-round power gg pyp
production
– Kisaralik River Sites (three sites)
• Potential power generation depends on whether one or multiple
sites are developed
• Drainage basin analyses indicate average available flows to
generate approximately 40 GWh of usable annual energy at each
site, with about 30 MW of generating capacity at each site
• Smaller water storage areas limit production to summer season
when there is less demand
9 March 2011 8
Geological Evaluation
– Literature Reviews and a Site Visit indicate:
• Good potential for source materials at all four sites (cheaper for
construction)
• Some potential hazards to consider during design at all four sites
(earthquake, fault lines, etc)(q, ,)
• Need for additional investigation to validate reconnaissance
information, but no “show-stoppers” identified at this time
9 March 2011 9
Environmental / Licensing Constraints
– Hydropower projects require federal licenses that take
several years to obtain, allowing for stakeholder input.
– Licensing constraints are thought to include:
• Chikuminuk Lake
G ti it i l t d i ild di td fWd–Generation site is located in a wilderness-designated area of Wood-
Tikchik State Park and private in-holdings may also be impacted
– Fish use is not well known and will need to be documented, but initial
indications are that salmon are not present
• Kisaralik River
– Generation sites are located in Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge
– Extensive salmon use
– Extensive commercial and recreational use
– Additional study is needed on both site control (land
ownership) and environmental impact issues
9 March 2011 10
Licensing Constraint Evaluation
9 March 2011 11
FERC Licensing Process
• Development of Pre-Application Document (PAD),
Schedule, and Notice of Intent (NOI)
• Scoping and Study Plan Approval
•Conduct Engineering and Environmental Studies•Conduct Engineering and Environmental Studies
• Preliminary Licensing Proposal (PLP)
• Development of Final License Application (FLA)
• Post-FLA Activities and Section 401 Water Quality
Certification.
9 March 2011 12
Meeting Handouts and Presentation
Page 4
Revised Final Report
May 2011
3
Conceptual Design Feature Layouts
– Conceptual design layouts were developed for all four
sites to include:
• Dam (approximately 100-200 feet high)
• Potential Reservoir Areas
•Spillway•Spillway
• Diversion Tunnel
• Powerhouse (with 2 Francis type turbines)
• Fish Passage Facilities
• Transmission Line (approximately 55-120 miles)
– Layouts for Chikuminuk Lake and Kisaralik River Golden
Gate Falls are shown on the next two slides
9 March 2011 13
Conceptual Design Feature Layouts
9 March 2011 14
Conceptual Design Feature Layouts
9 March 2011 15
Conceptual Design Feature Layouts
9 March 2011 16
Project Cost Estimates
• Approximate construction cost estimates (in 2010
dollars) were developed based on the conceptual
design layouts to facilitate decision-making
•“Parametric”type estimate; not feasible to do a
9 March 2011 17
Parametric type estimate; not feasible to do a
detailed estimate at this stage
• Potential for high variability between an early stage
estimate and the actual cost of the constructed
facility.
Project Cost Estimates
9 March 2011 18
Meeting Handouts and Presentation
Page 5
Revised Final Report
May 2011
4
Project Cost Estimates
9 March 2011 19
Economic Evaluation – Input and Assumptions
9 March 2011 20
Economic Evaluation – Input and Assumptions
9 March 2011 21
Economic Evaluation
9 March 2011 22
Economic Modeling
9 March 2011 23
Economic Evaluation
9 March 2011 24
Meeting Handouts and Presentation
Page 6
Revised Final Report
May 2011
5
Economic Modeling
– Regional energy demand was modeled and comparisons
for the four hydropower projects were made with a diesel-
only future by calculating 50-year Net Present Values
(NPV) to allow for direct comparisons (2010 $ basis)
9 March 2011 25
Power Supply Option 50‐year NPV Project Cost Annual Energy
Diesel Only $909M
Kisaralik ‐Golden Gate Falls $1,128M $378M
Partially meets
demandKisaralik‐Lower Falls $1,096M $408M
Kisaralik ‐Upper Falls $1,296M $479M
Chikuminuk Lake $1,057M $483M
Fully meets
demand
through about
2040
Economic Modeling
9 March 2011 26
Recommendations
– All four hydropower projects are likely to take
approximately 10 years to license and construct
– All four projects have varying development challenges;
however Chikuminuk Lake appears to be the best
candidate for f rther st d based on best economic al ecandidate for further study based on best economic value
and less apparent environmental constraints
– If Chikuminuk Lake is pursued, next steps could include:
• Further economic and hydrological studies to confirm project
feasibility and optimize project size
• Land ownership research for site and transmission line
• Data collection for detailed environmental and engineering needs
(fish studies, stream gaging, drilling, mapping)
• License application work
9 March 2011 27
Questions / Comments?
– [INSERT SITE VISIT PICTURES]
9 March 2011 28
Meeting Handouts and Presentation
Page 7
Revised Final Report
May 2011
Meeting Handouts and Presentation
Page 8
Revised Final Report
May 2011
Meeting Handouts and Presentation
Page 9
Revised Final Report
May 2011