HomeMy WebLinkAboutPtarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project; Reconnaissance Report 2009Ptarmigan Lake
Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Prepared for:
Kenai Hydro, LLC
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
March 2009
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... I
Project Area
Previous Studies ................................................................................................................... 2
Environmental Considerations ............................................................................................. 3
Fish Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3
Wetlands ................................................................................................................................ 4
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 4
Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 5
Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources ................................................................... 7
Subsistence ........................................................................................................................... 7
Cultural and historic resources ........................................................................................... 7
Land Ownership, Mining Claims, and Water Rights ........................................................... 7
Project Arrangement Alternatives ........................................................................................ 8
Alternative 1 : Lake Tap ...................................................................................................... 8
Alternative 2: Penstock ....................................................................................................... 8
Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 9
Turbine Sizing ...................................................................................................................... 9
Energy Generation ............................................................................................................... 9
Results ................................................................................................................................. 10
Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................... I 0
Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... ! 0
Results ................................................................................................................................. 11
Results ................................................................................................................................. 11
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Economic Evaluation and Alternatives Ranking ............................................................... 12
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 12
References .......................................................................................................................... 13
Tables ................................................................................................................................ 14
Figures ................................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix A -Land Status Information ............................................................................. 28
Appendix B -Energy Calculations .................................................................................... 31
Appendix C -Cost Information ......................................................................................... 50
Appendix D -Project Photographs .................................................................................... 58
List of Tables
Table 1. Maximum counts of Chinook and Sockeye salmon adults during stream
surveys on Ptarmigan Creek* ........................................................................... 15
Table 2. Water temperature measurements at Ptarmigan Creek, 1950 to 1958 (from
AEIDC 1983, source USGS 1981) .................................................................... 16
Table 3. Manual Instantaneous Flow Measurements.* ..................................................... 16
Table 4. USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula ...................................................... 17
Table 5. USPS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula ................................................. 17
Table 6. Parameters for the two alternatives considered at Ptarmigan Lake.
Elevations of maximum headwater (HW), minimum HW, tailwater
elevation and net head (in feet) are given for each alternative. Design flow
(cfs), capacity (MW), average inflow (cfs), and active storage (acre-feet,
AF) are detailed for each project.. ..................................................................... 18
Table 7. Energy generation estimate summary for the alternatives considered.
Capacity (MW) and annual energy production (GWh) are shown for each
alternative. The modeled plant factor and seasonal benefit are also given
for each alternative. For details of energy calculations, see Appendix B. ....... 18
Table 8. Reconnaissance-level cost estimates for all alternatives. Rated capacity
(MW) and estimated project cost are presented for each alternative in
millions of dollars (for details of cost estimates, see Appendix B). Cost
estimates assumed a 0% minimum instream flow requirement (0 MIF) .......... 19
Table 9. Estimated energy cost ($/KWh), economic rank and environmental rank of
all alternatives considered (for details of cost estimates, see Appendix B).
Energy cost estimate assumed a 0% minimum instream flow requirement
(0 MIF) .............................................................................................................. 19
11
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
List of Figures
Figure 1. General location of proposed hydroelectric facilities at Ptarmigan Lake on
the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska .............................................................................. 21
Figure 2. The anadromous reach of Ptarmigan Creek. The anadromous reach is
defined as the section of stream in which anadromous fish are documented
by the A WC; Johnson and Daigneault 2008) .................................................... 22
Figure 3. Average monthly flow data at Ptarmigan Creek. Average annual flow (for
period of record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5244000) is shown as a
solid horizontal line (103 cfs) ........................................................................... 23
Figure 4. Flow duration curve for Ptarmigan Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of
the x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on the y-axis.
This curve was generated using data from the period 194 7-1958, from
USGS gauge #5244000 ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 5. Ptarmigan Creek historic discharge data from USGS gage 15244000 (1947-
1958) and HDR 2008 manual instantaneous flow measurements. Mean
discharge (heavy blue line), 10% flow exceedence (dashed aqua line), and
90% flow exceedence (pink line) are shown for historical data. HDR 2008
manual stream flow measurements are shown as black dots ............................ 24
Figure 6. Private parcels of Ptarmigan Lake area. State and Federal lands are shown
by yellow. Private properties are denoted by other colors ............................... 25
Figure 7. Water rights and mineral claims in the Ptarmigan Lake area. Federal
mining claims are shown by yellow shading. Aqua shading denotes state
mining claims .................................................................................................... 26
Figure 8. Alternative 1 for the proposed project at Ptarmigan Lake. Location of
intake at approximately elevation 755 ft, possible tunnel route, powerhouse
location and proposed access routes are shown above ...................................... 27
iii
ADF&G
AEIDC
AHRS
APA
AWC
BLM oc
cfs
em
Of
DNR
EPA
FERC
ft
G&A
GWh
HEP
m
KPB
kWh
LLC
mi
mm
MSL
MW
MWh
NWI
O&M
RVDs
US ACE
USFS
USFWS
USGS
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (University of
Alaska)
Alaska Heritage Resources Survey
Alaska Power Authority
Anadromous Waters Catalog
Bureau of Land Management
Degrees Celsius
Cubic feet per second
centimeter
Degrees Fahrenheit
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
feet
general and administrative
Gigawatt-hours
Hydroelectric Evaluation Program
inch
Kenai Peninsula Borough
kilowatt-hours
Limited liability company
mile
millimeter
Mean sea level
Megawatt
Megawatt-hours
National Wetlands Inventory
Operations & maintenance
Recreation visitor days
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
IV
Introduction
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Kenai Hydro LLC (KHL) contracted with HDR Alaska, Inc. to evaluate the feasibility of small-
scale hydroelectric projects at Crescent Lake, Ptarmigan Lake, Falls Creek, and Grant Lake near
Moose Pass, Alaska (Figure 1 ).
This reconnaissance report examines the viability of small-scale hydroelectric energy generation
at Ptarmigan Lake that would minimize environmental and other impacts. A team consisting of
engineers and environmental scientists made reconnaissance-level site visits and analyzed
existing information in order to determine if further feasibility analyses were appropriate based
on potential constructability, cost effectiveness, and potential environmental impacts.
The scope of work defined for this assignment included:
• Field reconnaissance by team members;
• Review of available project documentation and related information;
• Development of conceptual alternatives;
• Review of existing hydraulic and hydrologic parameters;
• Estimation of energy production and project costs;
• Preparation of this reconnaissance report.
This report should be considered a high-level overview intended to identify projects which
demonstrate a basic measure of feasibility and to eliminate projects that have evident fatal flaws
from an engineering and environmental perspective; this report also provides information to
enable KHL to determine economic feasibility.
Project Area
Ptarmigan Lake is located 6 miles (mi) south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska (pop.
206), approximately 25 mi north of Seward, Alaska (pop. 3,0 16), and just east of the Seward
Highway (State Route 9); this highway connects Anchorage (pop. 279,671) to Seward. The
Alaska Railroad parallels the route of the Seward Highway, and is also adjacent to the project
area. The town of Cooper Landing is located 24 mi to the northwest and is accessible via the
Sterling Highway (State Route 1) which connects to the Seward Highway approximately I 0 mi
northwest of Moose Pass.
Ptarmigan Lake (I square mi) is located at an elevation of approximately 755 feet (ft) above
mean sea level (MSL), and is approximately 200 feet deep along the center of most of its length.
The lake is approximately 3.5 mi long and less than 0.5 mi wide. Total drainage area of
Ptarmigan Lake is approximately 29.8 square mi at the lake outlet. Several glacial and clear
water tributaries feed Ptarmigan Lake and drain the mountains on either side of the lake. The
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
lake is ringed by mountains of the Kenai Mountain Range to the east, north and south, with
elevations of over 5,000 ft (USFWS 1961). A flat-bottom valley extends 3 mi from the upper
end of the lake. Resident Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) are present in Ptarmigan Lake; the
lake does not support anadromous fish (USFWS 1961; Johnson and Daigneault 2008).
Ptarmigan Creek (mean monthly flow l09 cubic feet per second [ cfs] 194 7 -1958), Ptarmigan
Lake's only outlet, runs west approximately 4.5 mi from the northwest end of Ptarmigan Lake to
drain into the east end of Kenai Lake. Kenai Lake drains to the Kenai River at its west end near
Cooper Landing. Anadromous and resident fish species are present in Ptarmigan Creek,
including salmon, trout and others {Johnson and Daigneault 2008; USFWS 1961; Figure 2).
Water was glacially turbid during early and mid summer and clear the rest of the year, with peak
flow occurring in July (USFWS 1961 ).
Previous Studies
Investigations of potential hydropower production at Ptarmigan Lake date back to the 1940s.
The USGS collected continuous stream flow data from 1947 to 1958 (USGS gage number
15244000) at the mouth of Ptarmigan Creek (see Hydrology and Water Quality below). The
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted geologic investigations for a potential hydroelectric
power site at Ptarmigan Lake in the 1950s (Piatker 1955). This study investigated suitability of
geologic formations to support potential dams, and provided data for feasibility of drilling
tunnels for potential lake taps in the area (Piatker 1955). Ptarmigan Lake was identified as a
potential project in the 1981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Hydroelectric
Power Resources Study (US ACE 1981 ).
1960, a hydropower project on Ptarmigan Lake was proposed by Chugach Electric
Association (CEA). CEA was issued a preliminary permit for this project by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC; permit no. 2262). The proposed plan of development included
diversion of flows from Ptarmigan Creek, Grant Lake and Falls Creek to a common powerhouse
located on Lower Trail Lake (USFWS 1961 ). Lake levels of both Grant and Ptarmigan Lakes
were proposed to be raised to 770 ft elevation through construction of dams. Environmental
studies were conducted by the USFWS from 1959 to 1960 at Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and
Falls Creek as a condition of this permit requiring CEA to
"cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) with the specific intent of developing a
plan which will cause the least damage to fish and wildlife resources, with the
primary consideration being given to maintenance of flows in the lower three mi
of Ptarmigan Creek and lower one half mile of Grant Creek that are adequate tor
the environmental requirements of fish life, and of designing such mitigation
measures as may be desirable and reasonable (Article 1 0)
Information was summarized in a document (USFWS 1961) in order to provide data from which
articles could be promulgated for protection of fish and wildlife in the license application should
CEA apply for a FERC license. At the time, the proposed hydropower facility at Ptarmigan Lake
competed with larger federal hydropower developments (e.g. projects at Susitna River and
Bradley Lake; USFWS 1961 ). Natural gas was discovered and developed on the Kenai
2
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Peninsula around the same time and competed with the proposed project at Ptarmigan Lake.
These other projects also had potential to provide for area power needs (USFWS 196
Proposals for development of hydropower by the Alaska Power Authority (APA, now Alaska
Energy Authority) from the Susitna River were abandoned in 1986 due to inadequate financing 1•
Bradley Lake was developed and began producing hydroelectric energy in 1991 ( 120 MW
capacityi; today, southcentral Alaskan Railbelt communities are highly dependent on natural gas
generation (AEA 2009). Our literature review has yielded no record of why the original proposal
at Ptarmigan failed to proceed, but lack of funding for development is a likely cause, as in the
case of the much larger potential project at the Susitna River.
Environmental Considerations
The following presents a general overview of potential expected environmental considerations
for a hydroelectric project at Ptarmigan Lake. This section describes fish resources, wetlands,
hydrology and water quality, recreation, subsistence, and cultural resources of the project area.
The area is managed using several specific management plans, including the Chugach National
Forest Plan (Meade 2006), Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan (DNR 1998), and
Kenai Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008). Another search for all relevant land
management plans would be required as part of FERC licensing and by other required permitting
processes.
The USFWS (1961) conducted environmental baseline studies in the project area. For the
purposes of this feasibility report, HDR Alaska did not conduct any environmental work beyond
initial reconnaissance visits and stream gaging (see Section Hydrology and Water Quality).
Fish Resources
Ptarmigan Lake and Creek support different assemblages of fish species and possess varying
quality and quantity of fish habitat. Only resident Dolly Varden have been found in Ptarmigan
Lake and its tributary streams (USFWS 1961 ), whereas anadromous fish are present in
Ptarmigan Creek (Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Ptarmigan Creek supports documented runs of
spawning anadromous fish. The following sections provide information on fish resources for
each water body.
Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawyscha), sockeye (0. nerka) and coho salmon (0. kisutch), were
listed as present in Ptarmigan Creek in the A WC; Chinook and pink salmon ( 0. gorbuscha) were
identified as spawning in the stream (Johnson and Daigneault 2008; Figure 2). The gradient of
the stream is steep, dropping 319ft in 4.5 mi. Water was glacially turbid during early and mid-
summer and clear the rest of the year, with peak flow occurring in July (USFWS 1961 ). The
lower 2.9 mi of Ptarmigan Creek is classified as anadromous in the A WC (Johnson and
Daigneault 2008). Sockeye salmon were seen within 0.5 mi of the lake outlet during an aerial
1 http://www.adn.com/264/story/286162.html
2 http://www.homerelectric.com/bradley%201ake.htm
3
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
survey (August 4, 1960), but a waterfall in the upper 0.5 mi of stream prevented upstream
migration in 1959-60 (USFWS 1961 ).
Juvenile Chinook and coho salmon, Dolly Varden and coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus) were
caught in minnow traps during periodic sampling from August 1959 to January 1961. Chinook
fry appeared to use Ptarmigan Creek as rearing habitat for much of the year, and were more
abundant than coho fry, which were also caught during summer and winter. Dolly Varden and
sculpin were caught more often in summer than winter, indicating their presence in the stream
during salmon spawning. Fishermen also caught more Dolly Varden during the summer months.
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) were also caught
by sport fishers (USFWS 1961 ).
The USFWS ( 1961) reported spawning survey data tbr Ptarmigan Creek for the period 1954 to
1959; the highest actual count of sockeye salmon was on 25 August 1954, when 1,382 sockeye
were counted (this count included an estimated 200 fish seen off the mouth of the river in Kenai
Lake). Chinook and coho were also noted in these earlier surveys (0 to 9 Chinook, 0 to 3 coho).
Spawning habitat was more favorable in the lower 3 mi of stream than in the upper 1.5 mi, which
have a steeper gradient and higher water velocity (USFWS 1961). Records from ADF&G
stream surveys conducted in most years from 1970 to 1994; maximum counts range from 0 to
31,516 sockeye in 1988 (Table I). Maximum count of Chinook was 300 fish in 1948.3
No detailed habitat descriptions or data were located in our literature review. USFWS reported
that substrate varied from medium and small rubble to large rock (USFWS 1961 ).
Wetlands
No detailed wetland information was located in our review of literature on the Ptarmigan Lake
drainage. No additional investigation of wetlands was performed for the purposes of this
feasibility report. Data regarding wetlands resources in the project area are available from the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping system; evaluation of this database was outside the
scope of this reconnaissance-level report.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The USGS installed a stream flow recording gage (#15244000) at the terminus of Ptarmigan
Creek. This gage recorded continuously for 11 years between 194 7 and 1958. The drainage area
at the gage site was 32.6 square mi. To estimate the hydrology of Ptarmigan Lake, the daily
flows of gage 15244000 were scaled by the ratio of the drainage area at the outlet to create a
simulated daily flow file. The average monthly flow and a flow duration curve representing this
data is shown in Figures 3 and 4 below.
Historical water quality data are limited to that collected by USFWS from 1959 and 1960. On
July 14 and 15, 1960, water temperature in the tributaries of Ptarmigan Lake ranged from 39 °F
3 http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/ SARR!FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm; nomination number 09-098 in
Anadromous Waters Catalog.
4
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
to 50°F. Water temp was 4 7°F at the mouth of the braided stream entering the upper end of lake
on July 16, 1960 (USFWS 1961 ).
A temperature profile of Ptarmigan Lake taken July 15, 1960 showed a smooth decline in
temperature from 58°F at the surface to 40°F at 230 ft with no thermocline. Water chemistry
data obtained July 15, 1960, from the surface of Ptarmigan Lake found the following: 0.4 ppm
C02, no C03, 31.0 ppm HC03, pH=7.4, and 5.4 ppm DG-(USFWS 1961). These values were
similar to ones found in Grant Lake, corresponding to typical water quality of low-productivity
Kenai Peninsula area water bodies (AEIDC 1983; APA 1984).
Water temperatures at the outlet of Ptarmigan Lake were measured periodically in the fall of
1959 and 1960, and in summer 1960. In September and October, temperatures ranged from 41
to 48.0°F (n=4 days). In June, July and August, temperatures at the outlet varied from 49 to
54°F (n=5 days). Temperatures in Ptarmigan Creek were measured in fall and summer, and a
limited amount of measurements were made in winter. From September to November,
temperatures ranged from 39 to 49°F (n=9 days). In June, July and August, temperatures ranged
from 48 to 54°F (n=9 days). In February, March and April, temperature was 32 to 33°F (n=3
days; USFWS 1961 ). Water temperatures were uniform from lake outlet to mouth of Ptarmigan
Creek (USFWS 196
The USGS conducted intermittent water sampling at Ptarmigan Creek from 1950 to 1958
adjacent to the campground (USGS unpublished data 1981, cited by AEIDC 1983; Table 2). In
December, January and February, water temperatures ranged from 32 to 34°F (n=4 days).
Temperatures ranged from 36 to 48°F from April through May (n=4 days). Water temperatures
during the summer months ranged from 50 to 52°F (n=4 days). During the fall months
(September through November), temperatures ranged from 41 to 47°F (n=5 days; Table 2).
HDR Alaska staff gathered instantaneous discharge data at Ptarmigan Creek on October 5 and
October 24, 2008. Stream discharge measurements were taken at a site that allowed safe fording
of the stream using standard USGS gauging protocols (Buchanan and Somers 1969). Manually
collected discharge at Ptarmigan Creek site was 83.2 cfs on October 5 to 86.3 cfs on October 24,
2008 (Table 3). Measurements from 2008 were compiled with historical discharge data from
USGS Gage 15244000 (1947-1958; Figure 5). Wetted stream width ranged from 44.4 (October
24, 2008) to 45.9 ft (October 5, 2008; Table 3).
Recreation
The Kenai Peninsula supports significant tourism from residents of the region, of Anchorage, of
Alaska and from outside of Alaska. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB
2008) includes the Ptarmigan Creek/Ptarmigan Lake as a designated recreation use area.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administers Chugach National Forest, which surrounds most of
the project area; the project area is located within the Seward Ranger District. Peak use of area
campgrounds (Table 4) coincides with salmon runs (APA 1984). Total recreational use of
Seward Ranger District campgrounds in 1981 was estimated at 442,400 recreation visitor days
(RVDs), representing 40% of l.1 million total RVDs for the entire Chugach National Forest
(APA 1984).
5
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
The project area is currently developed for recreation, with campgrounds (Table 4) and trails
(Table 5) in the project area maintained by the USFS. The Trail River campground consists of
88 campsites and is located approximately 0.6 mi north of the mouth of Ptarmigan Creek on the
north eastern shore of Kenai Lake, on the west side of the Seward Highway (Table 5).
Ptarmigan Creek Campground offers 16 campsites and is located adjacent to the creek on the
east side to the Seward Highway (Table 5). Ptarmigan Lake trail is 7.1 mi long and connects
Ptarmigan Creek campground to Ptarmigan Lake; the trail parallels the creek. This trail is used
for fishing access and to reach Ptarmigan Lake. In 1959-1960, USFWS ( 1961) estimated that a
limited amount of fishing for Dolly Varden occurs in Ptarmigan Lake. The project lies within
the Ptarmigan/Grant Lake subunit of Chugach National Forest for backcountry motorized winter
use, and receives very little use from any winter user group (motorized or non-motorized; Meade
2006). Helicopter skiing is also permitted in the Ptarmigan/Grant Lake subunit (Meade 2006).
The USFWS (l961) reported that most Ptarmigan Creek fisherman target Dolly Varden. Lesser
fisheries included Chinook salmon, rainbow trout and occasional Arctic grayling (USFWS
1961 ). Most fishing at Ptarmigan Creek in 1959-60 creel surveys took place during the last half
of August. The most commonly caught fish were Dolly Varden (6-16 inches). A few rainbow
trout were also caught (I 0-16 inches). Limited fishing for Chinook occurred at the mouth of
Ptarmigan Creek and waters of Kenai Lake immediately adjacent to the stream mouth.
Fisherman reported occasionally catching Arctic grayling, though they were not seen in surveys
(USFWS 1961 ). Current 2009 sport fishing regulations allow sport fishing on Ptarmigan Creek
June 11 May I. Ptarmigan Creek is closed to salmon fishing. Rainbow trout are limited to one
fish less than 16 inches per day, and retention of Dolly Varden is limited to one fish less than 16
inches per day.4 Current sport fishing effort is unknown, but fishing for Dolly Varden and
rainbow trout remain popular activities in the area.5 Habitat types are similar at both Grant and
Ptarmigan Lakes (USFWS 1961). Game animals present in the area are likely the same as those
present at Grant Lake and include mountain goat, black bear, brown bear, Dall sheep, and moose
(APA 1984; USFWS). USFWS (1961) also reported that furbearers present were mink, beaver,
marten, weasel, and wolverine, but that little or no trapping occurred. Small game animals
available according to USFWS (l961) were ptarmigan, spruce grouse and snowshoe hare, with
little or no hunting pressure. Current levels of trapping and small game hunting effort in the area
are unknown.
The USFS has plans for the lditarod Trail in the local area, and the location of these proposed
improvements will need to be identified in future work. More detailed information assessing
recreational use of the project and adjacent areas is needed in order to comply with requirements
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license application. Detailed user data
are available upon request from the USFS.
4 http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/regulations/southcentral/SCkenai.pdf
5 Ptarmigan Creek Campground listing at http://www.reserveamerica.com/
6
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources
Subsistence
The Ptarmigan Lake drainage is not a designated subsistence use area according to the Kenai
Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Plan (KPB 2008). Qualified residents of Cooper
Landing may harvest moose in game units 7, 15A and 15B on the Kenai Peninsula under Federal
subsistence regulations6 (the project area is located in game unit 7.) Federally-qualified
subsistence users of Cooper Landing are also allowed to take salmon through a dip net/rod-and-
reel fishery, and lake trout, Dolly Varden, and rainbow trout in the Kenai River through a rod-
and-reel fishery 7 . A more detailed analysis of subsistence uses of the project area will be
required by FERC licensing and other permitting processes.
Cultural and historic resources
Based on a preliminary investigation of Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) data at the
State Office of History and Archaeology, 65 cultural resource sites have been documented in the
general vicinity of Grant Lake, Falls Creek, and Ptarmigan Lake. Several of the sites are listed
on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Most cultural resource sites are
located along Upper and Lower Trail lakes and Trail River. A more detailed review of cultural
and historic resources of the project area will be necessary to comply with requirements of the
FERC license application process.
Land Ownership, Mining Claims, and Water Rights
HDR researched public land, private holdings, mineral claims and water rights of the Ptarmigan
Lake area using information from Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land status
maps 8 and case file abstracts9, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)10 , the State Recorder's
Office 11 and Kenai Peninsula Borough12 • Full documentation of the land research that was
completed is included in Appendix A.
Private property (37 parcels, Figure 6) is located in or near the project area; parcels are located
near the mouth of Ptarmigan Creek and Kenai Lake, and along the Seward Highway (Figure 6).
No private lands are known to overlap with project facility footprints (Figure 6). In response to
6 http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/newsrellr050208.html
7 http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/newsrel/r051107.html
8 http:/ /mapper .landrecords.info/
9 http://dnr.alaska.gov/projectsllasllasmenu.cfm
10 http://sdms.ak.blm.gov/sdmsl
11 http:// dnr.alaska.gov/ssd/recofflsearch.cfm
12 http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/assessingdeptf
7
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
correspondence with the USFS, several specific sites have been excluded from the overall project
area. The sites excluded from the Ptarmigan project area include the Ptarmigan Lake
campground and the Kenai Lake Work Center East. The proposed project does not impact either
of these sites.
One state mining claim is located north of Ptarmigan Creek (Figure 7). Four subsurface water
rights are located along Ptarmigan Creek near the downstream boundary of project area (Figure
7). Two surface water rights are located just to the south of the subsurface rights (Figure 7).
Project Arrangement Alternatives
This section of the report describes arrangement of a project for hydroelectric generation at Falls
Creek. Two project alternatives were evaluated for Ptarmigan Lake:
• Alternative I -Lake Tap
• Alternative 2 -Penstock
Both alternatives assumed that a powerhouse would be located on Ptarmigan Creek at an
elevation of approximately 550 ft. Neither alternative would feature storage, in order to avoid
potential impacts on Ptarmigan Lake from fluctuating water levels that would result from storage
and drawdown. The facility would be operated as a run-of-the-river project. In order to provide
instream flows for fish habitat, water would be released from the lake; no storage in the lake was
used in energy calculations. Three different flow regimes were used to calculate the energy
available. Each alternative considered is discussed below.
Alternative I: Lake Tap
A lake tap would divert water from Ptarmigan Lake (Figure 8). A sluiceway capable of releasing
incremental flows to Ptarmigan Creek and a spillway would be constructed at the natural outlet.
A small gate house would be constructed near the lake and an 8-foot diameter 8,000-foot-long
horseshoe shaped tunnel would convey water to the powerhouse. The powerhouse would be
located around elevation 550 feet (Figure 8) and would contain a single Francis-type turbine,
synchronous generator and associated switchgear and controls. A new 0.5-mi access route
beginning near Kenai Lake would be used to reach the powerhouse (Figure 8). This route to the
powerhouse would avoid private land adjacent to the Seward Highway in the area just south of
Ptarmigan Creek. A new 2-mi access route would connect the powerhouse and the gate house,
generally traversing the lower shoulder of Andy Simons Mountain. The gate house access route
would minimize impacts to the surrounding environment and require minimal clearing. An
overhead line would provide power transmission, following the access route from the
powerhouse to the transmission line on the Seward Highway.
Alternative 2: Penstock
In this alternative, a small outlet structure would divert water from Ptarmigan Lake with a small
outlet structure. A simple diversion structure/intake would be located at the natural outlet of
Ptarmigan Lake. A sluiceway capable of releasing incremental environmental flows to
8
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Ptarmigan Creek and a spillway would be located next to the intake. This structure would be
designed to be as non-intrusive as possible, and to blend into the surrounding environment.
Water would be conveyed to the powerhouse via a 2.5-mi, above ground steel penstock
supported on saddle supports. In determining the size of the penstock, an attempt was made to
optimize the size of the penstock and the power produced because of the low available head.
The penstock was sized at 72 inches in diameter to significantly reduce head loss and create
more power. The powerhouse and access route would be similar to the route in Alternative.
Summary of Alternatives
Table 6 summarizes the key parameters of alternatives that were evaluated. Maximum
headwater was the same for both alternatives (755 ft, natural elevation of Ptarmigan Lake).
Minimum headwater would also be 755 ft for both alternatives, since no storage or drawdown
was proposed. All alternatives would include a tailwater elevation of 550ft (powerhouse located
alongside Ptarmigan Creek). Since elevation was the same for both headwater and tailwater for
both, alternatives, net head was the same ( 190 ft) for both alternatives (Table 6).
Design flow was 220 cfs (see Turbine Sizing, below) both alternatives (Table 6). Each would
have a similar capacity of 3.4 MW (Alternative l, lake tap) and 3.0 MW (Alternative 2,
penstock). Both alternatives would use an average inflow of I 00 cfs, and neither alternative
would create storage (Table 6). The differences in available energy are due to friction losses in
the penstock alternative.
Turbine Sizing
For determining turbine size, the rated flow of the turbine was sized at approximately 15% on the
flow duration curve (Figure 4), or 220 cfs. A sensitivity analysis indicated that design flows
within I 0% of this assumption yield near identical energy generation estimates. As such, this
assumption seems appropriate for this level of study.
Other Alternatives Not Reviewed
All alternatives developed for a Ptarmigan Lake project configuration were run of the river
options; no options with additional storage in the lake or drawdown of the lake below its natural
elevation were pursued. All options developed were developed assuming that instream flow
would be required for fish in Ptarmigan Creek.
Energy Generation
The energy generation for Alternative I was estimated using HDR's proprietary software
"Hydroelectric Evaluation Program" (HEP). HEP is specifically designed to model run-of-river
operations. HEP uses tabulated daily flows, turbine and generator efficiencies, friction
coefficients and physical parameters to simulate energy production for a period of stream flow
record. Turbine and generator efficiencies are determined from tables. Output from HEP
consists of effective capacity rating of the unit(s), simulated production in MWh, percent
9
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
operating time and overall plant factor. The following were the key assumptions used in
modeling energy production:
• For the alternatives with storage, a water-to-wire efficiency was assumed at 85%. For the
generating equipment likely to be used at this project, turbine efficiencies can vary
greatly depending on the flow.
• Tailwater elevation was assumed to remain constant over all flows. In practice it would
likely vary slightly; however there is not enough data to refine this assumption.
• For daily simulations, head loss was calculated using the daily flow. For monthly
simulations, the project was assumed to operate at the best gate position, corresponding
to a head loss of7.5%.
• The effect of instream flow requirements on energy production was estimated. The
instream requirements were increased incrementally to show a range of power
production, starting at 0% (no instream flow released to the stream, all flow is used to
generate power), 33% of flow released to the stream, and 66% of flow released to the
stream.
Results
Table 7 presents estimates of reconnaissance-level energy generation for 0%, 33% and 66% of
average monthly flow for the two alternatives considered. Both alternatives would produce the
most energy with 0% flow (Alternative 1: 9.7 GWh; Alternative 2: 8.9 GWh). Energy
production estimates decreased as instream flow increased, with 3.2 GWh and 2.7 GWh
produced annually by Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, and 66% instream flow (Table 7).
Cost Estimates
An opinion of probable construction costs was derived for the project presented above. The
approach used was to develop base work units and unit prices and then apply these units and
prices consistently to the various project features.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were used in the cost estimate:
• Indirect construction costs associated with engineering, construction management,
licensing, permitting and the owner's internal costs were added to the direct construction
cost estimate as either percentages or lump sum amounts.
• Design engineering was assumed to be 10% of the total direct construction costs.
• A lump sum value of $1,000,000 was assumed to provide environmental baseline studies
in support of the FERC licensing application. As well as preparation for the FERC
licensing application.
10
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
• The Owner's General Administration and Overhead of the design and construction was
assumed to be 5% of the total direct construction costs.
• Construction management was assumed to be 5% of the total direct construction costs.
• A contingency of 30% was added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs
to reflect uncertainties of layout and design that wouldn't be resolved until later in the
development process.
• Interest accrued during a 3-year construction period was assumed to be 7% and was
added to the total of the direct and indirect construction costs.
• The estimate assumed first-year operations and maintenance (O&M) expense were
comprised of the following three expenses
o Total labor, expenses and owner's general and administrative (G&A) expenses
were estimated at $300,000/yr 13 •
o A repair and replacement fund of $50,000 was also included.
o General liability and business interruption insurance was estimated at $1.00 per
$100.00 of asset.
• Cost estimates assumed that the project would be designed for un-manned operations and
would be part of a larger organization; thereby the project would experience lower
administrative expenses. On-site O&M labor would be limited to periodic inspections
and seasonal maintenance.
Results
Table 6 presents the results of the reconnaissance level cost estimates for the two alternatives. It
should be noted that the costs in Table 6 are relative and not absolute. It is estimated that
Alternative 1 (Carter Creek) would cost $56.6 million, and that Alternative 2 (Crescent Creek)
would cost $30.1 million in 2008 dollars (Table 6; see Appendix C, Cost Information).
Results
It is estimated that Alternative l (la:ke tap) would cost $70.2 million, and that Alternative 2
(penstock) would cost $38.3 million in 2008 dollars (Table 8; see Appendix C, Cost
Information). Both of these estimates assumed no instream flow.
13 The estimated G&A expense could be reduced if several of the sites investigated are
constructed which would allow some economies to be realized between the similar
operations of the hydroelectric projects.
11
Ptarmigan Lake--Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Economic Evaluation and Alternatives Ranking
A detailed economic evaluation was not included in the scope of this work. However, in order to
provide a conceptual view of the economics, we have made some general assumptions. We have
chosen to present the results as estimated annual cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2008 dollars.
In deriving these costs, we assumed that the project could be financed through the issuance of
bonds. Our assumption was that 100% of the debt would be financed at 6% for 30 years. Using
these assumptions, the project would have a 2008 range in price of energy from $0..48/kWh to
$0.61/kWh. For this evaluation, 0% minimum instream flow (MIF) was used as base case (Table
9).
A complete analysis of cost of each of the alternatives requires not only consideration of the
financial parameters but also an integration of environmental and licensing considerations.
These latter concerns are not nearly as tangible as estimating costs and energy, so their impact on
cost is subjective at this point. Based upon past experience, we have integrated them as fairly as
possible into the ranking (Table 9).
Conclusions
While the tunnel option is the more expensive on a capital cost basis and cost per kWh basis, it is
also the most benign when considering visual impacts of the project. When selecting the
preferred option for this project, thought must be given to the tradeoff between each of the
alternatives. Ultimately, the cost for generation must be evaluated by KHL and a decision must
be made regarding the value of the power generated.
12
References
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1998. Kenai River Comprehensive
Management Plan. Rep. from Division of Land and Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation in conjunction with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and
Restoration Division, and Kenai Peninsula Borough. Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). 2009. Alaska energy -a first step toward energy
independence. A guide for Alaskan communities to utilize local energy resources.
Prepared by Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Anchorage, AK.
Alaska Power Authority (APA). 1984. Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed Feasibility
Analysis. Volume 2. Environmental Report. Rep. from Ebasco Services Incorporated,
Bellevue, Washington.
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1983 Summary of environmental
knowledge of the proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project area. Final Report
submitted to Ebasco Services, Inc., Redmond, Washington, University of Alaska,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Johnson, J. and M. Daigneault. 2008. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or
migration of anadromous fishes -Southcentral Region, Effective June 2, 2008. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 08-05, Anchorage, Alaska.
Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). 2008. Coastal management plan. Effective June 2008.
Meade, J. 2006. Draft environmental impact statement: Kenai winter access. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Chugach National Forest.
Anchorage, Alaska
Plafker, G. 1955. Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan,
and Crescent Lakes, AK. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1 031-A. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1981. National Hydroelectric Power Study, Regional
Report. Regional Report: Volume XXIII Alaska. USACE North Pacific Division,
Portland, Oregon and Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1961. Ptarmigan and Grant Lakes and Falls Creek,
Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, progress report on the fish and wildlife resources. Department
of the Interior. Juneau, Alaska.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1981. Surface water quality records, Southcentral Alaska,
1949-1974. Unpublished computer printout.
13
Ptarmigan Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Tables
Table 1. Maximum counts of Chinook and Sockeye
salmon adults during stream surveys on Ptarmigan
Creek*
Year Chinook
1970 7
1971 9
1972 0
1973 No data
1974 13
1975 0
1976 11
1977 0
1978 1
1979 25
1980 8
1981 54
1982 No data
1983 31
1984 3
1985 No data
1987 12
1988 20
1989 5
1990 3
1991 No data
1992 No data
1994 No data
(*From data on file with ADFG;
Sockeye
3,000
45
0
I ,041
558
186
505
1,513
3,529
532
5,752
4,370
7,525
9,709
18,000
26,879
13,887
31,516
34,84
3,230
4,268
3,147
1,077
http://www .sf.adfg.state.ak. us/
SARR/FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfm;
nomination number 09-098 in Anadromous Waters
Catalog).
15
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Tables
Table 2. Water temperature
measurements at Ptarmigan Creek,
1950 to 1958 (from AEIDC 1983,
source USGS 1981 ).
Date
07/10/1950
08/2211950
10/04/1950
02/2711952
05/20/1952
06/19/1952
09/16/1952
01/30/1953
04115/1953
08/06/1953
I 0/03/1957
ll/06/1957
12/ll/1957
01/22/1958
05/2111958
07/16/1958
10/20/1958
Time
21:45
17:20
22:00
20:00
19:00
6:00
17:00
12:30
10:55
10:00
9:30
9:45
18:00
Temperature
COF)
50
52
44
32
44
44
47
32
36
52
42
41
34
32
48
51
50
Table 3. Manual Instantaneous Flow Measurements.*
Date
10/5/2008
10/24/2008
Instantaneous Wetted stream
discharge (cfs) width (ft)
83.2
86.3
45.9
44.4
*Collected by HDR staff, October 2008
16
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Tables
Table 4. USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula.
Location Number of sites
Cooper Creek 26
Crescent Creek 9
Porcupine Creek 24
Primrose Creek 10
Ptarmigan Creek 16
Quartz Creek 45
Russian River 84
Tenderfoot Creek 27
Trail River 88
Table 5. USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula.
Location Length (mi)
Carter Lake 3.5
Crescent Creek 6.4
Devil' s Pass 10
Grayling Lake 1.5
Gull Rock 5.1
Hope Point 2.5
Johnson Pass 23
Lost Lake 7.5
Primrose 7.5
Ptarmigan Creek 7.1
Rainbow Lake 0.24
17
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Tables
Table 6. Parameters for the two alternatives
considered at Ptarmigan Lake. Elevations of
maximum headwater (HW), minimum HW,
tailwater elevation and net head (in feet) are given
for each alternative. Design flow (cfs), capacity
(MW), average inflow (cfs), and active storage
(acre-feet, AF) are detailed for each project.
Alternative l 2
Description Lake tap Penstock
Max. HW, ft 755 755
Min. HW, ft 755 755
Tailwater, ft 550 550
Net Head, ft 202 180
Design Flow, cfs 220 220
Capacity, MW 3.4 3.0
Avg. Inflow, cfs 100 100
Active Storage, AF 0 0
Table 7. Energy generation estimate summary for the
alternatives considered. Capacity (MW) and annual energy
production (GWh) are shown for each alternative. The
modeled plant factor and seasonal benefit are also given for
each alternative. For details of energy calculations, see
Appendix B.
Annual Energy (GWh)
Average monthly Alternative l Alternative 2
flow for instream (lake tap) (penstock)
flow
0% 9.7 8.9
33% 6.4 4.9
66% 3.2 2.6
18
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Tables
Table 8. Reconnaissance-level cost estimates for all alternatives.
Rated capacity (MW) and estimated project cost are presented for
each alternative in millions of dollars (for details of cost estimates,
see Appendix B). Cost estimates assumed a 0% minimum instream
flow requirement (0 MIF).
Alternative
1 (0 MIF)
2 (0 MIF)
Description
Lake tap
Penstock
Capacity
(MW)
3.4
3.0
Estimated project cost
$70.2M
$38.3M
Table 9. Estimated energy cost ($/KWh), economic rank and environmental
rank of all alternatives considered (for details of cost estimates, see
Appendix B). Energy cost estimate assumed a 0% minimum instream flow
requirement(O MIF).
Alternative
1 (0 MIF)
2 (0 MIF)
Energy Cost
$/kWh
$0.61
$0.48
19
Economic
rank
2
Environmental
rank
2
0
N
"~' ~>
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Figures
Kenai Hyelro Feclllty
Siting Project ----=---liD ___ ,. __ ..... ~
Figure 1. General location of proposed hydroelectric facilities at Ptarmigan Lake on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.
21
-Stream
.a.a.a.. Anadromous
Reach
Miles
0 0.5
Land Status -Alaska Railroad 0ChugachNF
0 Slate of Alaska
CJPrivate ~
Kenai Lake
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
~""'~., ~ .... (1
Figure 2. The anadromous reach of Ptarmigan Creek. The anadromous reach is defined as the section of stream in which anadromous
fish are documented by the A WC; Johnson and Daigneault 2008).
22
300
250
200 -.!!!
(.J
i'150
.S! u...
100
50
0
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Figures
Ptarmigan Creek Average Monthly Flows
103 cfs mean
annual flow
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Figure 3. Average monthly flow data at Ptarmigan Creek. Average annual flow (for period of
record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5244000) is shown as a solid horizontal line (103 cfs).
800
700
Ptarmigan Creek Flow Duration
600
-500
13 i 400
0
u::: 300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Exceedance
Figure 4. Flow duration curve for Ptarmigan Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of the x-axis,
is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on the y-axis. This curve was generated using
data from the period 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #5244000.
23
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Figures
Figure 5. Ptarmigan Creek historic discharge data from USGS gage 15244000 (1947-1958) and HDR 2008 manual instantaneous
flow measurements. Mean discharge (heavy blue line), 10% ·flow exceedence (dashed aqua line), and 90% flow exceedence (pink
line) are shown for historical data. HDR 2008 manual stream flow measurements are shown as black dots.
24
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Figures
--
1 LAND STATUS
I KPB Parcels
...,.._:a
-...~----....-
Legend
GJ .....,._,
01011---111!1-......-I.Micl
-110-~1-4 -1211-C.. .... __ ._ -131--... 0IIIr -1110 _ _, ... --c-.:ill--336 LAOdgo-.....,.. Cobra ---"""""""'"' -3110c:-.iol_,llldg -820 .,_ Sc:hool -140-a..dl -8110 -Aooulyllldg ---.. .__
& ... -
""""" -3(-4.100-) ;
:---, ...
1
~01Apl20011 --.....-.. --ICPII.--USF5
HR
Figure 6. Private parcels ofPtarmigan Lake area. State and Federal lands are shown by yellow. Private properties are denoted by
other colors.
25
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
LAND STATUS
1 Water Rights
&
Mineral Estate
l'nljecl AID 2
flllc:..k-
Kenoi 11n-11o111191.-
Legend
.. State Mining Claim
.. Federal Mining Claim
• Surface Wfll.er Right
• Subsurface Water Right
GJ Projet Area 2
~ Lake/Pond
~ lceMass
Prqect -2 (-2,600 -=->
;
L-__ ___,Miles
0 0.5
Dole: 22 ~ 2008
--~ sour..: ADNR. KPI!, GtiA
lil\
1
Figure 7. Water rights and mineral claims in the Ptarmigan Lake area. Federal mining claims are shown by yellow shading. Aqua
shading denotes state mining claims.
26
~}ill
3 R Alask a, Inc .
/V" ~
·..... (!I ~
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
KHL SITE EVALUATION
PROJECT OPTION DESCRIPTIONS
PTARMIGAN LAKE
~ IDee 2008
r=;-
Figure 8. Alternative 1 for the proposed project at Ptarmigan Lake. Location of intake at
approximately elevation 755 ft, possible tunnel route, powerhouse location and proposed access
routes are shown above.
27
= 0 ·-...... = OCI
e N -~ = """i
ri"J = ...... = ......
00.
"'0 = = ~
<
~ ...
"'0 = ~ c. c. <
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
Private Property PARCELID TAXAREA USUOE ACREAGE LEGAL
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U S SURVEY 3532
12513012 MAINTENANCE Vacant t. LOT9 -
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U S SURVEY 3532
12513013 MAINTENANCE Vacant 2 LOT 10
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U S SURVEY 3532
12513014 MAINTENANCE Vacant t. LOT 11
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U S SURVEY 3532
12513015 MAINTENANCE Vacant 2 LOT 12
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U S SURVEY 3532
12513020 MAINTENANCE Vacant 0 LOT2A
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U S SURVEY 3532
12513021 MAINTENANCE Vacant 0 LOT 4A .
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U S SURVEY 3532
12513022 MAINTENANCE Vacant 1 LOT 5A
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67 -KPB ROAD · 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U.S SURVEY 3532
12513023 MAINTENANCE Vacant 1 LOT 6A
T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential 0003532 LAWING EXTENSION U S SURVEY 3532
12513024 MAINTENANCE Vacant 1 LOT7A
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT
12513025 MAINTENANCE Vacant 43 LOT 1
67 -KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT
12513026 MAINTENANCE Vacant 22 LOT2
67 -KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT
12513030 MAINTENANCE Vacant 14 LOT6
67-KPB ROAD 850 General T 4N R 1W SEC 25 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
12513031 MAINTENANCE Institutional 25 0007398 US SURVEY 7398 LOT 2
67 -KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential T 4N R 1 E SEC 19 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT
12532104 MAINTENANCE Vacant 605 LOTS 1 THRU 4 & E1/2 & E112 W1/2
T 4N R 1E SEC 30 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW GOVT
67-KPB ROAD 1 00 Residential : LOTS 1 THRU 4 & NE1/4 NE1/4 & W1/2 NE1/4 & E1/2
12532105 MAINTENANCE Vacant 398 W1/2
67-Kt-'I::S KUAU 1100 Kes1oe nt1a1 T 4N R 1W SEC 24 I t.IIE~If)I,AN sw GOVT
12532413 MAINTENANCE Vacant 46 LOT 13 .
--
State Mining Claims
OWNER ADDRESS CllYSTATE I.ANDVAL
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $26,900
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $26,900
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $26,900
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AvE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $26,900
ALASKA STATED N R 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 $11 ,500
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $12,100
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $18,700
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $19,600
-
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $17,40(
ALASKA STATED N R 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 $175,80C
ALASKA STATED N R . 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 $123,80C
ALASKA STATED N R 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 -$100,20C
UNITED STATES BLM 222 W 7TH AVE STOP 13 ANCHORAGE, AK 99513 $136,90(
ALASKA STATED N R 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 $296,500
..
ALASKA STATED N R 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 $278,500
ALASKA STATED N R 550 W 7TH AVE STE 650 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 $133,400
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report-Appendix A -Land Status IMPVAL ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT
$0 $26,90C $0 FEDERAL
$0 $26,90C $0 FEDERAL
$0 $26,900 $C FEDERAL
$0 $26,900 $C FEDERAL
$0 $11 ,500 $0 STATE
$C $12,1 00 $0 FEDERAL
$0 $18,700 $0 FEDERAL
$0 $19,600 $0 FEDERAL
$0 $17,400 $0 FEDERAL I
$0 $175,800 $0 STATE
$0 $123,800 $0 STATE
$0 . $100,20C $0 STATE
$73,700 . . $210,600 $0 FEDERAL
$0 $296,50C $0 STATE
$0 $278,500 $0 STATE
$0 $133,400 $0 STATE
PARCEt IDTTAXAREA I USEAGEI ACREAGI[: LEGAL OWNER ADDRESS I CITYSTATE I LANDVAL IIMPVAL I ASSESSED I TAXAB ... ETPLAT
IADL 560916 40IS 4N 1E 19/ LAST SHOT THendrickson Aanes
29
I I I
I
I
I
I
Surface Water Rights
Subsurface Water Rights
PARCEL ID I TAXAREAJ USEAGETACREAGE I LEGAL
lAS 7272
IADL203436
ADL203436
IADL 213038
OWN~R
Kaiser Janis J .
Usda Forest Svc Chuaach National Forest
Usda Forest Svc Chuaach National Forest
Bair Betty H
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report -Appendix A -Land Status
ADDRESS I CITYSTATETLANDVAL IIMPVALI ASSESSED I TAXABLE I Pl:AT
30 ' ---,
r.l':l t:"'' = 0 ..... .......
~ -= c:.i -~ u
;;;.....
t)J) -ClJ = ~
= ~ .....
"'0 = ClJ
Q.;
Q.;
<
Ptarmigan Cr. 0 MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: PTARM.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 8000 96 .01 0
HEADWATER ELEV: 755
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 205
NET HEAD@ FULL LOAD: 202.3
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 3386.6@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -FRANCIS
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FES MAR
0 0 0 0 0 0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FES MAR
1948 1356.9 725.2 461.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
1949 1350.0 317.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1950 944.8 1106.3 184.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
1951 219.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1952 411.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1953 1806.1 1699.5 551.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
1954 1208.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1955 584.0 530.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1957 0.0 68.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1958 1148.6 1301.6 79.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
APR
0
APR
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
0 0 0 0 0
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
1234.5 2228.1 2361.7 2044.6 961.1 11386.6
642.3 2262.4 2418.9 2119.2 1868.6 10979.2
766.9 2020.9 2389.9 2336.7 1876.6 11626.6
556.2 1466.4 2252.5 1596.4 2336.6 8427.5
0.0 1472.9 2226.7 1688.5 865.9 6665.4
1528.5 2340.8 2418.9 2069.6 1295.1 13709.8
696.9 1976.8 2019.0 1929.2 863.4 8693.7
0.0 1484.5 2413.0 1871.2 953.6 7836.6
155.4 1495.6 2322.7 2216.3 1071.7 7261.8
697.1 2005.2 1742.0 1795.6 2246.1 8554.6
1018.1 2330.4 2349.2 2190.4 960.5 11390.7
AVERAGE 820.9 522.7 116.0 0.0 0.0
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.33
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 194
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
%LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 0.0 92.8 0.0
20 0.0 94.9 0.0
30 50.0 96.3 48.2
40 80.0 97.0 77.6
so 84.0 97.3 81.7
60 88.0 97.5 85.8
70 90.5 97.7 88.4
80 92.0 97.7 89.9
90 93.5 97.7 91.4
100 92.0 97.7 89.9
0.0 2.4
34
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
663.3 1916.7 2265.0 1987.1 1390.8 9684.8
Ptarmigan Cr. 33% MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: PTARM.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 8000 96 .01 0
HEADWATER ELEV: 755
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 205
NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 202.3
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 3386.6@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 FRANCIS
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
34 27 13 7 5 4
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
1948 865.9 655.7 397.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
1949 806.3 81.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1950 560.3 777.5 123.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1951 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1952 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1953 1417.0 1389.6 365.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
1954 839.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1955 284.9 343.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1957 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1958 941.2 890.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
APR
7
APR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix B Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
27 75 84 64 52
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
966.6 1862.7 1968.1 1348.2 193.3 8257.8
618.4 1779.0 2207.7 1559.7 1450.6 8503.4
467.3 1345.7 1746.8 1789.0 1372.5 8182.0
176.7 458.6 1530.4 642.1 1828.9 4650.0
0.0 673.8 1339.9 750.8 231.4 2996.0
1151.8 2339.1 2390.1 1438.9 524.7 11016.4
447.5 1066.3 938.6 1150.5 14.4 4456.4
0.0 715.7 2261.0 1092.2 448.2 5145.0
0.0 546.9 1565.4 1610.9 381.5 4104.6
483.7 1318.2 550.8 1011.0 1983.0 5346.7
468.2 2004.0 1697.7 1626.9 152.4 7781.2
AVERAGE 520.7 376.2 80.5 0.0 0.0
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.22
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 231
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 0.0 92.8 0.0
20 0.0 94.9 0.0
30 50.0 96.3 48.2
40 80.0 97.0 77.6
50 84.0 97.3 81.7
60 88.0 97.5 85.8
70 90.5 97.7 88.4
80 92.0 97.7 89.9
90 93.5 97.7 91.4
100 92.0 97.7 89.9
0.0 0.0
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
434.6 1282.7 1654.2 1274.6 780.1 6403.6
Ptarmigan Cr. 66% MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: PTARM.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 8000 96 .01 0
HEADWATER ELEV: 755
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 205
NET HEAD@ FULL LOAD: 202.3
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 3386.6@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -FRANCIS
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
68 54 26 14 10 8 14
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
1948 402.4 620.7 342.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1949 402.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1950 277.4 518.0 66.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1951 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1952 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1953 989.6 1040.1 41.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1954 587.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1955 129.3 226.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1957 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1958 802.3 517.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
39
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
54 150 168 128 104
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
738.4 1181.2 1140.8 537.0 0.0 4962.7
586.4 817.0 1449.9 741.7 1051.6 5049.0
145.3 627.0 565.7 991.0 804.8 3995.8
0.0 0.0 458.0 0.0 1192.8 1650.7
0.0 112.4 216.6 179.0 0.0 508.0
710.1 2172.6 1855.2 606.6 130;6 7546.1
238.0 78.8 15.6 360.8 0.0 1280.7
0.0 242.2 1613.1 399.8 163.1 2774.0
0.0 18.7 430.0 645.1 14.4 1108.2
262.3 529.3 0.0 184.9 1551.5 2528.0
173.4 1263.0 528.2 743.2 0.0 4027.7
AVERAGE 326.4 265.7 40.9 0.0 0.0
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.11
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 291
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 0.0 92.8 0.0
20 0.0 94.9 0.0
30 50.0 96.3 48.2
40 80.0 97.0 77.6
50 84.0 97.3 81.7
60 88.0 97.5 85.8
70 90.5 97.7 88.4
80 92.0 97.7 89.9
90 93.5 97.7 91.4
100 92.0 97.7 89.9
0.0 0.0
40
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
259.4 640.2 752.1 489.9 446.3 3221.0
Ptarmigan Cr. 0 MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: PTARM.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 13000 58 .011 0
HEADWATER ELEV: 755
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 205
NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 125.9
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 2107.4@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -FRANCIS
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix B-Energy Calculations
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
0 0 0 0 0 0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
1948 1118.1 480.2 343.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
1949 1117.1 297.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1950 774.9 869.0 171.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
1951 207.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1952 387.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1953 1335.9 1288.7 517.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
1954 930.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1955 509.8 431.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1957 0.0 65.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1958 799.2 1042.3 76.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
APR
0
APR
12.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.3
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix B-Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
0 0 0 0 0
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
925.0 1447.0 1500.8 1443.0 866.2 8136.2
405.7 1467.4 1505.2 1457.0 1321.5 7571.1
685.8 1403.4 1510.5 1507.3 1348.6 8270.7
516.9 1187.3 1479.0 1302.4 1458.0 6151.0
0.0 1099.8 1500.4 1294.4 762.9 5045.4
1207.7 1456.6 1505.2 1463.1 1077.1 9851.7
610.9 1414.1 1474.5 1410.6 796.7 6637.4
0.0 1064.1 1506.4 1378.8 772.4 5663.0
148.2 1188.9 1515.7 1503.8 928.6 5285.2
605.4 1409.4 1352.6 1391.5 1453.1 6277.7
916.9 1459.4 1508.3 1492.8 872.2 8179.3
AVERAGE 652.8 406.8 100.7 0.0 0.0
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.38
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 194
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 0.0 92.8 0.0
20 0.0 94.9 0.0
30 50.0 96.3 48.2
40 80.0 97.0 77.6
50 84.0 97.3 81.7
60 88.0 97.5 85.8
70 90.5 97.7 88.4
80 92.0 97.7 89.9
90 93.5 97.7 91.4
100 92.0 97.7 89.9
0.0 2.3
43
Ptarmigan Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
547.5 1327.0 1487.1 1422.3 1059.8 7006.2
Ptarmigan Cr. 33% MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: PTARM.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 13000 58 .011 0
HEADWATER ELEV: 755
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 205
NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 125.9
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 2107.4@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -FRANCIS
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
34 27 13 7 5 4
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
1948 744.6 421.9 288.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1949 686.0 77.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1950 465.2 598.2 115.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1951 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1952 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1953 1105.2 1112.6 348.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1954 643.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1955 256.6 288.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1957 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1958 649.4 732.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
27 75 84 64 52
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
775.4 1311.8 1382.8 1069.7 183.7 6178.4
389.9 1299.9 1491.0 1196.5 1028.5 6169.5
434.8 1027.3 1361.1 1370.3 1041.7 6414.0
168.3 420.0 1186.2 590.4 1410.3 3788.0
0.0 580.1 1133.6 648.6 213.3 2575.5
956.0 1457.2 1508.6 1139.0 459.9 8086.8
408.9 938.9 850.4 964.3 13.9 3820.1
0.0 589.0 1482.2 871.4 366.7 3854.3
0.0 499.3 1243.8 1274.7 355.0 3372.9
440.7 1019.4 503.7 875.9 1377.4 4217.0
431.2 1409.4 1313.4 1258.8 144.1 5938.8
AVERAGE 414.9 293.7 68.4 0.0 0.0
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.27
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 231
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
%LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 0.0 92.8 0.0
20 0.0 94.9 0.0
30 50.0 96.3 48.2
40 80.0 97.0 77.6
so 84.0 97.3 81.7
60 88.0 97.5 85.8
70 90.5 97.7 88.4
80 92.0 97.7 89.9
90 93.5 97.7 91.4
100 92.0 97.7 89.9
0.0 0.0
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix B Energy Calculations
364.1 959.3 1223.3 1023.6 599.5 4946.9
Ptarmigan Cr. 66% MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: PTARM.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 13000 58 .011 0
HEADWATER ELEV: 755
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 205
NET HEAD@ FULL LOAD: 125.9
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 2107.4@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -FRANCIS
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
68 54 26 14 10 8 14
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
1948 354.3 411.8 244.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1949 349.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1950 231.2 372.0 63.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1951 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1952 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1953 788.6 859.1 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1954 440.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1955 121.4 198.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1957 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o
1958 566.5 431.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
48
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
54 150 168 128 104
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
631.0 896.7 866.2 447.8 0.0 3852.7
390.1 662.6 1154.7 629.6 709.3 3895.7
138.0 486.2 520.4 834.2 618.3 3263.3
0.0 0.0 413.4 0.0 1060.4 1473.8
0.0 106.0 204.1 168.4 0.0 478.5
605.3 1430.0 1382.8 468.4 117.3 5690.8
225.1 75 .o 15.0 326.7 0.0 1082.3
0.0 228.5 1218.9 346.7 137.4 2251.5
0.0 17.8 367.0 569.6 13.9 968.3
247.4 426.9 0.0 146.6 1138.1 1959.0
161.5 971.7 469.0 600.0 0.0 3200.4
AVERAGE 259.3 206.7 31.6 0.0 0.0
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.14
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 291
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
%LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
----------------------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 0.0 92.8 0.0
20 0.0 94.9 0.0
30 50.0 96.3 48.2
40 80.0 97.0 77.6
50 84.0 97.3 81.7
60 88.0 97.5 85.8
70 90.5 97.7 88.4
80 92.0 97.7 89.9
90 93.5 97.7 91.4
100 92.0 97.7 89.9
0.0 0.0
49
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B -Energy Calculations
218.0 482.0 601.0 412.5 345.0 2556.0
0
tr)
= 0 ... ..... = e -~ = """" .....
~
0 u
I
u
~ ... -e = ~
~
~ <
I Item
330
331
.1
332
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.1
.2
.3
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C Cost Information
PTARMIGAN LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 1 • Lake Tap
I auanttty I Unit I Unit Cost Amount
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
. 1 Land Rights • Generation Plant 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Special use permits 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.3 SuMiying 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
POWERHOUSE $
. 1 Excavation 1900 CY $ 150 $ 285,000
.2 Concrete (ind. reinforcement) 275 CY $ 1,200 $ 330,000
.3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 150 s 375,000
.4 MI$C. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Eledrical 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25.000
. 7 Fire Protection 1 LS $ 25,000 s 25,000
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
SITE WORK $
. 1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
DAM AND SPILLWAY s
. 1 Excavation CY $ 150 s
.2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100,000 s
.3 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1.200 $
.4 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $
INTAKE $
. 1 Excavation CY $ 150 s
. 2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100,000 $
.3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.4 Control Gates/Valve wlopen~tor LS $ 150.000 $
.5 Concrete (struc1ural) CY $ 1,200 s
.6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $
. 7 Mi$C. Metals LS $ 25,000 $
.8 Siphon pipe (marl & installation) LF $ 750 $
. 9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100,000 s
SLUICEWAY $
. 1 Excavation CY $ 150 $
.2 Care of Water/Diversion LS $ 100,000 $
. 3 Sluice Gate wloperator LS $ 100,000 $
.4 Concrete ( struc1ural) CY $ 1.200 $
WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
PENSTOCK $
.a Clearing ACRE $ 25,000 $
.b Steel penstock materiel 250 LF $ 310 $ 77.500
.c Concrate (thrust blocks and supports) CY $ 1.200 $
.d Penstock installation 250 LF $ 150 $ 37,500
.e Slope stabilization Ml $ 250.000 $
.f Surge tank LS $ 100.000 $
TUNNEL
.a Excavation 8000 LF $ 2,500 $ 20,000,000
.b Tunnel Support 5000 LF $ 500 $ 2,500,000
.c Lining 2000 LF $ 1,000 $ 2.000,000
.d Gateshaft excavation 300 LF $ 2.000 $ 600.000
.e Shaft support and lining 300 LF $ 500 $ 150,000
.f Concrate (structural) 1100 CY $ 1,200 $ 1,320,000
.g Gates 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
.h Lake tap 1 LS $ 1,500,000 s 1,500,000
.I Gate house 1 LS $ 150,000 s 150.000
TAILRACE
.a Excavation 1000 CY $ 35 s 35,000
.b Support and lining 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000
51
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix C-Cost information
--·-············~·-·········-
333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 Supply 1 LS $ 1,530,000 s 1,530,000
.2 Install 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500.000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENl
.1 Switchgear 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150.000
.2 Station Service 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.3 Control Panel 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
.4 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Power to intake 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000
335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1 Cooling Water System 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.2 Powerhouse crane 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1 Highway to Powerhouse 0.8 Ml $ 500,000 $ 375,000
.2 Access to gate shaft 2.0 Ml $ 500.000 $ 1,000,000
.3 Bridge LS $ 200.000 $
.4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land rights -transmission line 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
STRUCTURESANDIMPROVEMENTS
352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1 Substation foundations 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Oil spill containment 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.3 Grounding grid 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
353 STATION EQUIPMENT
.1 Main transformer 1 LS $ 120,000 s 120,000
.2 Accessory switchgear equipment 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000
356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1 New pole line 0.5 Ml $ 750,000 s 375,000
Total Direct Construction Costs s 35,900,000
Design Engineering 10% $ 3,590,000
FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 1.795.000
Construction Management 5% $ 1,795,000
Subtotal $ 44,080,000
Contingency 30% $ 13,224,000
Interest during construction 7% $ 12.896.000
2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 70,200,000
Annual Energy, MWh 9,700
Debt Service $ 5,099,954
O&M $ 790,800
2008 Cost of Energy. $/kWh $ 0.607
52
I Item
330
331
.1
332
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.1
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information
PTARMIGAN LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Alternative 2 • Penstock
I auantlty I Unit I Unit Cost Amount
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights -Generation Plant 1 LS $ 50,000 s 50.000
.2 Special use permits 1 LS $ 50,000 s 50,000
.3 Surveying 1 LS $ 100,000 s 100.000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
POWERHOUSE s
. 1 Excavation 1900 CY $ 150 s 285,000
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 280 CY $ 1,200 s 336,000
. 3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 150 $ 375.000
.4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 s 50,000
.5 HVAC. Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS $ 50,000 s 50,000
.6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
. 7 Fire Protection 1 LS $ 25,000 s 25,000
RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
SITE WORK s
.1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 50,000 s 50.000
DAM AND SPILLWAY s
. 1 Excavation 500 CY $ 150 $ 75,000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.3 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1,200 $
.4 Concrete (mass) 400 CY $ 1,000 $ 400,000
INTAKE s
. 1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 s 56,250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000
.3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 s 50,000
.4 Control Gates/Valve wloperator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Concrete {structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 s 120,000
.6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 s
. 7 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 25,000 s 25,000
.8 Siphon pipe (mat'l & installation) 500 LF $ 750 s 375,000
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000
SLUICEWAY s
.1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45.000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.3 Sluice Gate wloperator 1 LS $ 100,000 s 100,000
.4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000
WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
PENSTOCK $
.a Clearing 30 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 750,000
.b Steel penstock material 13000 LF $ 310 $ 4,030.000
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supportS) 2300 CY $ 1.200 $ 2.780,000
.d Penstock installation 13000 LF $ 150 $ 1,950,000
.e Slope stabilion~tion 3 Ml $ 250,000 $ 625,000
.f Surge tank 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
53
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix C Cost lf!formation
.2 TUNNEL
.a Excavation LF $
.b Tunnel Support LF $
.c Lining LF $
.3 TAILRACE
.a Excavation 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.b Support and lining 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 Supply 1 LS $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000
.2 Install 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Switchgear 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.2 Station Service 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150.000
.3 Control Panel 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
.4 Conduit/wires/cables 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Power to intake 1 LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000
335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1 Cooling Water System 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25.000
.2 Powerhouse crane 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250.000
336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1 Highway to Powerhouse 0.75 Ml $ 500,000 $ 375,000
.2 Powerhouse to intake 2.50 Ml $ 500,000 $ 1,250,000
.3 Bridge 0 LS $ 200,000 $
.4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land rights -transmission line 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1 Substation foundations 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Oil spill containment 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25.000
.3 Grounding grid 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10.000
353 STATION EQUIPMENT
.1 Main transformer 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.2 Accessory switchgear equipment 1 LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000
356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1 New pole line 0.5 Ml $ 750,000 $ 375,000
Total Direct Construction Costs $ 19,200,000
Design Engineering 10% $ 1,920.000
FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 960.000
Construction Management 5% $ 960,000
Subtotal $ 24.040,000
Contingency 30% $ 7.212,000
Interest during construction 7% $ 7.034,000
2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 38,290,000
Annual Energy, MWh 7,006
Debt Service $ 2,781,727
O&M $ 590.400
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh $ 0.481
54
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C Cost Information
Dam
Type Simple concrete gravity
Crest Length 250ft
Max height 9ft
Crest width 1.5
Section length height area, sf vol, cy
A 50% 100% 54 250
B 30% 80% 37 102
c 20% 50% 17 31
383
Excavation
Width 27
Depth 2
Volume 500 cy
Box Intake
Length 30
Width 15
Height 15
Thickness, avg 1.5
Concrete volumes
Floor 25 cy
Walls 75
Total 100 cy
Excavation 375 cy
Sluiceway
Length 30
Width 10
Height 18
Thickness, avg 2
Concrete volumes
Floor 17 cy
Walls 70
87
Excavation 300 cy
55
PENSTOCK
Head
Flow
Vel, max
Dia, req
t, req
t, handling
t, min
wt,ft
area
Cost
Material
Lining
Coating
Supports
Span
Length
#
Width, 2d
Depth, .Sd
Height, .5d
Vol
Thrust Blocks
#
Width, 2d
Depth,2d
Height, 2d
Vol
Total
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C Cost Information
205ft
220 cfs
12 fps
72.0 inches
0.1777
0.2300
0.2300
162.6 lbs
18.8
$ 1.50 lb $243.87
$ 1.50 sf $ 28.27
$ 1.50 sf $ 28.27
$300.42
60ft
13000
217
12
3
3
866.66667
21.7
12
12
12
1386.6667
2253.3333
56
Ptarmigan Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information
POWERHOUSE
Powerhouse structure
Prefabricated Metal Building ($/sf)
Length
Width
Thickness
Draft tube chamber
Length
Width
Depth
Thickness, avg
Concrete Volumes
Foundation
Floor
Prefabricated Metal Building ($/sf)
57
150
50
50
2
15
15
10
4
88.9
185.2
274.0741
375000
Excavation
1900
riJ -=
00 or,
Q. = -btl
0 ...
0 -= =... ...
~
Qj ·s ,_
=...
Q
~ ."""' "0 = Qj
Q.
~
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix D -Project Photographs
Ptarmigan Lake looking from the head water toward the natural outlet
(NW).
Ptarmigan Lake looking at the natural outlet.
59
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix D -Project Photographs
Ptarmigan Lake looking at the natural outlet. Proposed intake at the natural
outlet.
Head of Ptarmigan Creek. Natural falls and constriction at diversion site.
60
Ptarmigan Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix D -Project P_hotographs
Aerial view of recreation area and powerhouse location.
61