HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrescent lake Reconnaissance Report 2009Crescent Lake
Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Prepared for:
Kenai Hydro, LLC
Pr~e~!r..~d by:
...
' -HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, AK 99503
March 2009
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... I
Project Area ................................................................................................................ 1
Previous Studies .......................................................................................................... 2
Environmental Considerations ............................................................................................. 2
Fish Resources ............................................................................................................ 2
Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 4
Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................... .4
Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 4
Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources ................................................................... 6
Subsistence .................................................................................................................. 6
Cultural and historic resources ................................................................................... 6
Land Ownership, Mining Claims, and Water Rights ........................................................... 6
Project Arrangement Alternatives ........................................................................................ 7
Alternative 1 -Run of the River-Powerhouse at 550 ft on Carter Creek ................ 7
Alternative 2-Run of the River-Powerhouse at 900ft on Crescent Creek ............ 7
Summary of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 8
Turbine Sizing ............................................................................................................. 8
Energy Generation ............................................................................................................... 9
Results ......................................................................................................................... 9
Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 9
Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 9
Results ....................................................................................................................... 10
Economic Evaluation and Alternatives Ranking ............................................................... 11
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 11
References .......................................................................................................................... 12
Tables ................................................................................................................................ 13
Figures ................................................................................................................................ 19
Appendix A -Land Status Information ............................................................................. 27
Appendix B -Energy Calculations .................................................................................... 30
Appendix C -Cost Information ........................................................................................ .43
Appendix D -Project Photographs .................................................................................... 56
List of Tables
Table 1. Manual instantaneous flow measurements.* ...................................................... 14
Table 2. USFS campgrounds on the Kenai Peninsula ...................................................... 14
Table 3. USFS-maintained trails on the Kenai Peninsula ................................................. 15
Table 4. Parameters for the two alternatives considered at Crescent 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. ................................................................................................. 16
Table 5. 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 ........ 17
Table 6. 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) .......... 17
Table 7. 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) .............................................................................................................. 18
ii
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance tcf.'r:,nrr
List of Figures
Figure I. General location of proposed hydroelectric facilities at Crescent Lake on
the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska .............................................................................. 20
Figure 2. The anadromous reach of Crescent 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) .................................................... 21
Figure 3. Average monthly flow data at Crescent Creek. Average annual flow (for
period of record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge # 15254000) is shown as a
solid horizontal line (I 03 cfs) ........................................................................... 22
Figure 4. Flow duration curve for Crescent Creek. Percent exceedence, the value of
the x-axis, is the percent of the time flow surpasses the value on they-axis.
This curve was generated using data from the period 1947-1958, from
USGS gauge #15254000 ................................................................................... 22
Figure 5. Crescent Creek historic discharge data from USGS gage #15254000 at the
Quartz Creek Road bridge from (1949 to 1966) 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 ............................................................. 23
Figure 6. Private parcels of Crescent Lake area. State and Federal lands are shown
by yellow. Private properties are denoted by other colors ............................... 24
Figure 7. Water rights and mineral claims in the Crescent Lake area. Federal mining
claims are shown by yellow shading. Aqua b shading denotes state mining
claims ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 8. Alternative 1 for the proposed project at Crescent Lake. Location of intake,
possible tunnel route, powerhouse location and proposed access routes are
shown above ...................................................................................................... 26
l11
ADF&G
AEIDC
AHRS
APA
AWC
BLM oc
cfs
em
oF
DNR
EPA
FERC
ft
G&A
GWh
HEP
Ill
KPB
kWh
LLC
mi
mm
MSL
MW
MWh
NWI
O&M
RVDs
USACE
USFS
USFWS
USGS
Crescent 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
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance
Introduction
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 Crescent 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
Crescent Lake is located 4 miles (mi) south of the community of Moose Pass, Alaska (pop. 206),
approximately 25 mi north of Seward, Alaska (pop. 3,016), 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 15 mi to the northwest and is accessible via the
Sterling Highway (State Route 1) which connects to the Seward Highway approximately 10 mi
northwest of Moose Pass.
Crescent Lake (2 square mi) is located at an elevation of approximately 1,454 feet (ft) above
mean sea level (MSL ); depth is unknown. The lake is approximately 6 mi long and 0.5 mi wide.
Total drainage area of Crescent Lake is approximately 21 square mi. The lake is curved, with
both ends extending north; mountains of the Kenai Mountain Range surround the lake, reaching
elevations of over 5,000 ft. The lake is fed by several small streams originating in the
surrounding mountains. One of these streams originates from a small glacier on the southwest
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
flank of Madsen Mountain (elevation 5,269 ft); this glacial outflow likely does not contribute
much sediment to Crescent Lake. Crescent Creek flows 6.1 mi northwest from its outlet at
through a shallow canyon to join Quartz Creek, which flows south through a wide valley and
drains into Kenai Lake. A valley extends to the north, in the vicinity of Carter Lake.
Crescent Lake supports resident Arctic grayling (DNR 1998) and does not support anadromous
fish (Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Anadromous fish species are present in the lower reach of
Crescent Creek (Johnson and Daigneault 2008; see Fish Resources below). Arctic grayling are
likely present in the upper reaches of the creek.
Carter Lake is located approximately 0.5 mi north of the northeast tip of Crescent Lake, at an
elevation of I ,486 ft. Maximum lake depth is 60 ft, with a mean depth of 30 ft; the lake has a
surface are of 48 acres and 1.8 mi of shoreline.1 Anadromous fish species are not known to
access Carter Lake (Johnson and Daigneault 2008), but the lake is stocked with rainbow trout.1
Carter Creek supports anadromous fish (Johnson and Daigneault 2008) and it is likely that the
lower reaches also support rainbow trout and Dolly Varden.
Previous Studies
The Crescent Lake Project was referenced in the 1981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study (USACE 1981 ). The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) conducted geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan,
and Crescent Lakes in the 1950s (Plafker 1955). Continuous flow data were collected by USGS
stream gages installed on Crescent Creek; one gage (# 15253000) measured flows at the head of
Crescent Creek from 1957 to 1960 and the other (# 15254000) measured flows at the Quartz
Creek Road bridge from 1949 to 1966.
Environmental Considerations
The following presents a general overview of potential expected environmental considerations
for a hydroelectric project at Crescent 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 searc.h for all relevant land
management plans would be required as part of FERC licensing and by other required permitting
processes.
For the purposes of this feasibility report, HDR Alaska did not conduct any environmental work
beyond initial reconnaissance visits and stream gaging (Section Hydrology and Water Quality).
Fish Resources
Crescent Lake and Creek support different assemblages of fish species and possess varying
quality and quantity of fish habitat. Only resident Arctic grayling are known to be present in
1 http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/lakedata/index.cfm/FA/main.lakeDetaii/LakelD/264.
2
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance H'nr•.nvr
Crescent Lake; this species was introduced into the lake during the 1950s (DNR 1998). No
information is available regarding aquatic life in the streams feeding Crescent Lake; they are
generally steep, and possibly intermittent. The following sections provide information on fish
resources for each water body.
The lower (approximately 1.6 mi) portion of Crescent Creek supports anadromous fish species
including Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), coho
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha; Johnson and Daigneault).2
Resident fish species that are likely present in the same section of stream include rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Anadromous fish cannot access
Crescent Lake because of a fish passage barrier presently in the lower portion of the stream.3 The
upper reaches of Crescent Creek and Crescent Lake support arctic grayling; this species was
introduced into Crescent Lake in the 1950s (DNR 1998).
Coho, Chinook, sockeye and pink salmon were listed as present in Crescent Creek in the A WC
(Johnson and Daigneault 2008). Crescent Creek is a relatively steep (slope = 2%) clearwater
stream, descending approximately 954 ft in 6.1 mi. Water was clear during site visits on October
5, 2008 and October 24, 2008. The lower 1.5 mi of Crescent Creek is classified as anadromous
in the A WC (Figure 2; Johnson and Daigneault 2008).
Anadromous fish species are not known to access Carter Lake (Johnson and Daigneault), but the
lake is stocked in even years with rainbow trout.4 The lake was first stocked in 1976, and 42,559
rainbow trout fingerlings have been stocked in the lake since 1998.5 Rainbow trout caught at
Carter Lake during single-day angling surveys in September of 2003 and 2005 ranged from 4.5
to 18.5 inches in length (age classes 1 to 8). Fish in 2003 had a mean length of 7.5 inches in
2003 (n=95) and a mean length of7 inches (n=163) in 2005.6
Carter Creek supports spawning sockeye salmon 7 and it is likely that the lower reaches also
support rainbow trout and Dolly Varden.
2 Southcentral region A WC maps for Seward B-8 and C-8 at
http://www .sf.adfg.state .ak. us/SA RRI A W C/index.cfm/F A/maps.selectMap!Region/SCN
3 Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream nomination #08-100,
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us!SARR/FishDistrib/Nomination/FDDNomHome.cfin
4 http://www .sf.adfg.state .ak .us/ statewide/lakedatalindex.cfm/F Nmain .lakeDetaii/LakelD/264.
5 From search for Carter Lake at http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Statewide/hatchery/index.cfm/F Nstocking.search
6 From 'fishing data' link from search for Carter Lake at
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/Statewide!hatchery/index.cfm/FA/stocking.search
7 Anadromous Waters Catalog Stream nomination #08-149,
http://www .sf.adfg.state.ak.us/SARRIF ishDistrib/Nomination!FDDNomHome.cfm
3
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance
Sockeye salmon were listed as present and spawning in Carter Creek in the A WC (Johnson and
Daigneault 2008). Stream surveys for salmon have been conducted intermittently from 1953
1980. A maximum count of250 sockeye salmon was recorded from 1967.7
Wetlands
No detailed wetland information was located in our review of literature on the Crescent 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 drainage area of the Crescent Lake basin at the outlet of the lake at 1454 ft elevation is
approximately 21 square mi. Continuous flow data were collected by USGS stream gages
installed on Crescent Creek; one gage (# 15253000) measured flows at the head of Crescent
Creek from 1957 to 1960 and the other (# 15254000) measured flows at the Quartz Creek Road
bridge from 1949 to 1966. Stream flows were gaged for all months. Data from the gage at
Quartz Creek road bridge ( # 15254000) were used to generate average monthly flow and flow
duration curve shown in Figures 3 and 4 below.
Neither water quality nor temperature data for Crescent Creek or Lake were located in our
literature review. The USGS sampled water quality on April 30, 1956; stream flow and
temperature were not collected as part of sampling8 (USGS 1981 unpublished data cited by
AEIDC 1983).
HDR Alaska gathered instantaneous stream flow data at Crescent Creek on October 5 and
October 24, 2008. Stream discharge measurements were taken near of the original site of the
USGS stream gage, upstream of the Quartz Creek road bridge at a site that allowed safe fording
of the stream. Standard USGS gaging protocols were used (Buchanan and Somers 1969). Flow
data and stream widths are shown in Table 1. Measurements from 2008 were compiled with
historical discharge data from USGS gage # 15254000 at the Quartz Creek Road bridge from
1949 to 1966. (Figure 5).
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 Crescent Lake area as a designated recreation use area.
8 pH=7.4, conductivity= 74 f.Whms/cm; other characteristics sampled included alkalinity, hardness, nitrogen,
chloride, silica, carbon dioxide, sulfate, fluoride, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, iron and dissolved solids.
4
Crescent Lake ~ Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance wnr>fl>'T
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 2) 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 1.1 million total RVDs for the entire Chugach National Forest
(APA 1984).
The project area is currently developed for recreation, with campgrounds {Table 2) and trails
(Table 3) in the project area maintained by the USFS. The Crescent Creek campground consists
of nine campsites and is located at the confluence of Crescent Creek and Quartz Creek, on the
east side of the Sterling Highway. Crescent Lake is accessible via floatplane or hiking trail.
Crescent Lake trail (6.4 mi) connects Crescent Creek campground to Crescent Lake; the trail
parallels the creek. This trail is used for fishing access and to reach Crescent Lake. Two USFS
cabins are located at Crescent Lake. The first cabin is located on the northwestern shore of
Crescent Lake near the head of Crescent Creek. The other USFS cabin, Crescent Saddle Cabin,
is located on the southeast shore of Crescent Lake (capacity of eight persons per cabin).9
Crescent Lake may also be accessed via the Carter Lake trail (3.5 mi) from the Seward Highway
near Moose Pass. The project lies within the Carter/Crescent subunit of Chugach National
Forest for backcountry motorized winter use; winter users often make the USFS cabins at
Crescent Lake their destination (Meade 2006). Helicopter skiing is not permitted in the
Carter/Crescent subunit (Meade 2006).
Recreational fishing occurs in the project area at unknown levels in Crescent Creek, Crescent
Lake, Carter Lake and Carter Creek. Popular fishing areas of Crescent Lake include the lake inlet
and outlet and along shorelines (ADFG 2007). Open fishing season in the Crescent Creek drainage,
including Crescent Lake, is July l ~May 1, and closed to all fishing May 2 June 30. Grayling
catches are limited to 2 per day/2 in possession. The area is closed to all salmon fishing. Rainbow
trout and Dolly Varden retention is limited to l per day/1 in possession, and must be less than 16" in
length.10
Carter Lake is stocked with rainbow trout during even years. Rainbow trout retention is limited
to 5 fish per day /5 in possession, only one of which may be 20" or more in length.10 Carter Lake
is accessed via a steep trail that climbs 986 ft in 2 mi.11
Game animals present in the area are likely the same as those present at nearby Grant Lake
(approximately 5 mi to the east) and include mountain goat, black bear, brown bear, Dall sheep,
and moose (APA 1984).
9 http://www.recreation.gov/
10 http://www .sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/regulations/southcentral/SCkenai .pdf
11 http://www .sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/lakedata/index.cfm/F A/main.lakeDetaii/LakelD/264.
5
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance «oru•r'
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.
Subsistence, Cultural and Historical Resources
Subsistence
The Crescent 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 regulations 12 (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 13 . 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, 12 cultural resource sites have been documented in the
general vicinity of Crescent Lake and Crescent Creek. Several of the sites are listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 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 Crescent
Lake area using information from Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land status
maps 14 and case file abstracts 15 , the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)16 , the State Recorder's
Office 17 and Kenai Peninsula Borough 18 • Full documentation of the land research that was
completed is included in Appendix A.
12 http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/newsreVr050208.html
13 http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/newsrel/r05ll07.html
14 http://mapper.landrecords.info/
15 http://dnr.alaska.gov/projects/las/lasmenu.cfm
16 http://sdms.ak.blm.gov/sdms/
17 http:// dnr .alaska.gov /ssd/recof£1search .cfin
18 http://www .borough.kenai.ak.us/assessingdept/
6
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
All of the lands on which the project facilities would be located are under either State or Federal
ownership (Figure 6). A subsurface water right exists near the proposed powerhouse location. A
surface water right owned by the USFS is located at the outlet of Crescent Lake. Several mining
claims are located in the drainage, with eight federal mining claims and six state mining claims,
all located along Crescent Creek (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 Crescent Lake:
• Alternative 1 -Powerhouse at 550 ft on Carter Creek
• Alternative 2 Run of the River Powerhouse at 900 ft on Crescent Creek
Neither alternative would feature storage, in order to avoid potential impacts on Crescent Lake
from fluctuating water levels that would result from storage and drawdown. 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 Powerhouse at 550 ft on Carter Creek
Due to extensive concerns regarding fish resources, the project is likely viable at the site only if
fish water is released out the natural outlet. Diversion water from Crescent Lake would be via a
simple intake structure located on the northeast corner of the lake (Figure 8). Water would be
conveyed to the powerhouse via a 40-inch diameter 13,000-foot-long steel penstock (Figure 8).
The powerhouse would be located around elevation 550 ft and would be a small structure that
would contain a single Pelton-type turbine, synchronous generator and associated switchgear and
controls. The powerhouse would discharge the generation water into Carter Creek. Access to
the powerhouse site would be with a new 0.25-mi route beginning near Upper Trail Lake. A
new 2.5-mi access route would connect the powerhouse and the gate house. Transmission would
be via a 0.3-mi overhead pole line following the access route. A fish passage structure would be
incorporated at the mouth of Crescent Lake to allow fish to migrate into Crescent Creek for
spawning. Key project parameters are presented in Table 4.
An instream flow release structure would be constructed at the natural outlet of Crescent Lake to
allow environmental flows back to Crescent Creek. The existing Crescent Lake trail along
Crescent Creek would be used as access for this structure (Figure 8). The structure would be
arranged to minimize visual impacts to the area, such as incorporating the structure into the
pedestrian bridge across the creek.
Alternative 2 -Run of the River-Powerhouse at 900 ft on Crescent Creek
This alternative consists of impounding water from Crescent Creek below the productive fish
habitat reach downstream of the lake. The ideal place for this impoundment is at a rock-walled
7
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
canyon just upstream from the pedestrian bridge crossing Crescent Creek. A small concrete
structure would be used to create the intake and divert the majority of the water flow. Because
of extensive concerns regarding fish resources, only a run-of-river type of project is likely viable
at the site and water would be left in the creek in the productive habitat areas and in the
anadromous reaches. Water would be conveyed to the powerhouse via a 40-inch diameter
15,000-foot-long steel penstock. The powerhouse would be located around elevation 900ft and
would be a small, reinforced structure that would contain a single Turgo-type turbine,
synchronous generator and associated switchgear and controls. Water would be discharged
upstream of the anadromous fish habitat zone. Access to the site would be with a new 0.5-mile
route originating from the existing mining road south of the creek. A new 1-mi access route
would connect the powerhouse and the intake structure. This would also branch off the existing
mining road. Upgrades to the mining road may be required. Transmission would be via a 1.5-to
2-mi overhead pole line following the mining road.
Summary of Alternatives
Table 4 summarizes the key parameters of alternatives that were evaluated. Maximum
headwater was greatest for Alternative 1 (Carter Creek) which would draw water from Crescent
Lake's natural level atl454 ft (minimum headwater would also be 1,454 ft for this option since
no storage or drawdown was proposed). Alternative 2 would have a minimum and maximum
headwater at a proposed intake at 1,350 ft alongside Crescent Creek (below the productive fish
habitat). The powerhouse and tailwater elevation would be 550 ft (along Carter Creek) for
Alternative 1, whereas it would be located at 900ft (above the anadromous reach along Crescent
Creek) in Alternative 2. Alternative 1 (783 ft) would have more net head than Alternative 2 ( 450
ft), resulting in a greater capacity (5.8 vs. 2.3 MW, respectively; Table 4).
Design flow was 100 cfs (see Turbine Sizing, below) both alternatives (Table 4). Alternative 1
would use an average inflow of 51 cfs, whereas Alternative 2 would use 100 cfs because it was
assumed that it would be using more water in the non anadromous and non productive reaches of
stream. This slightly lower flow offsets the additional energy gained by the higher head. Neither
alternative would create storage (Table 4).
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 100 cfs for Alternative 1. A sensitivity analysis indicated that
design flows within 1 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
No alternatives with additional storage in the lake or drawdown of the lake below its natural
elevation were pursued. All options developed were developed assuming that lake levels would
remain at 1,454 ft elevation.
8
Energy Generation
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Energy generation estimates for Alternative 1 and 2 were made using HDR's proprietary
software "Hydroelectric Evaluation Program" (HEP). HEP has been 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 through
a period of record. Turbine and generator efficiencies are determined from tables. HEP outputs
were: effective capacity rating of the unit(s), simulated production in megawatt-hours (MWh),
percent operating time, and overall plant factor.
The following were the key assumptions used in modeling energy production:
• Energy generation was built simulating run-of-river operations (no regulation of the
project with lake levels).
• The effect of environmental flow releases was simulated with 0, 33% and 66% of the
average monthly flows from available power flows.
Results
Table 6 presents reconnaissance-level estimates of energy generation. Estimates were made for
0%, 33% and 66% of average monthly flow for Alternative 1 (Carter Creek). For Alternative 2
(Crescent Creek), the energy was modeled using all available streamflow for power generation.
Alternative 1 would produce the most energy with 0% flow (23.4 GWh). Energy production
estimates decreased as instream flow increased, with 16.1 GWh and 8.8 GWh produced annually
by Alternatives 1 with 33% and 66% instream flow, respectively. Alternative 2 would produce
10.0 GWh annually with 0% of average monthly flow devoted to instream flow (Table 6).
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.
9
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
• 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.
• 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 19 •
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).
19 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.
10
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance wor:'"'""~'
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 ofthe 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, Alternative 1 project would have a 2008 range in price of energy from
$0.53/kWh to $0.20/kWh, depending on the minimum instream flow (MIF) allowance.
Alternative 2 would have a base cost of $0.26/kWh. For this evaluation, 0% MIF was used as
base case (Table 7).
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 7).
Conclusions
Based on the results of this reconnaissance level study, and agency and public input,
development of a project at the East end of Crescent Lake (Carter Lake side) is the most viable.
Additional study will be needed to determine if introducing a small amount of storage(+/-2 feet)
would allow the project to operate over a variable time period to optimize power generation
during times when fossil fuels are more difficult to obtain. Additionally, the topography near
Carter Lake needs to be obtained to verify excavation depths for the penstock and determine if
deep excavation will adversely impact the cost estimate for construction of this project. The
financial feasibility of the project, and the value of the power it produces, must be reviewed by
KHL.
11
References
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2007. Seward area -Kenai Peninsula -
recreational fishing series. Southcentral Region, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Sport Fish. Anchorage, Alaska.
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
Platker, G. 1955. Geologic investigations of proposed power sites at Cooper, Grant, Ptarmigan,
and Crescent Lakes, AK. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1031-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
ofthe Interior. Juneau, Alaska.
12
Tables
13
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Tables
Table 1. Manual instantaneous flow measurements.*
Date
10/5/2008
10/24/2008
Instantaneous
discharge ( cfs)
69.6
74.8
Wetted stream
width (ft)
40.5
27.4
*Collected by HDR staff, October 2008
Table 2. 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
14
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance -Tables
Table 3. 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
15
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Tables
Table 4. Parameters for the two alternatives
considered at Crescent 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 2
Description Carter Creek Crescent Creek
Max. HW, ft 1454 1350
Min. HW, ft 1454 1350
Tailwater, ft 550 900
Net Head, ft 783 450
Design Flow, cfs 100 100
Capacity, MW 5.8 2.3
Avg. Inflow, cfs 51 100
Active Storage, AF 0 0
16
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance -Tables
Table 5. 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.
Average monthly
flow for instream
flow
0%
33%
66%
Annual Energy (GWh)
Alternative 1
(Carter Creek)
23.4
16.1
8.8
Alternative 2
(Crescent Creek)
10.0
Table 6. 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
Carter
Creek
Run-of-
River
(Crescent
Creek)
Capacity
(MW)
5.8
2.3
17
Estimated project cost
$61.8 M
$34.3 M
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Tables
Table 7. Estimated energy cost ($/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).
Alternative Description
la (0% MIF) Carter Creek
lb (33% MIF) Carter Creek
lc (66% MIF) Carter Creek
2 (0% MIF) Run-of-River
(Crescent Creek)
Energy Cost
$/kWh
$0.223
$0.325
$0.551
$0.306
18
Economic
rank
3
4
2
Environmental
rank
4
2
3
Figures
19
~~
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
KeMI Hydro fecUity I -=--tiD Siting Project --
..__
~ ---Propoud I r:::J------,. __
Project Study Aru o---..... --
Figure 1. General location of proposed hydroelectric facilities at Crescent Lake on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska.
20
Kenai Lake
Proposed Project Study Area
-Stream
...&...L..IL. Anadromous
Reach
land Status
Alaska Railroad
DChugachNF
C State of Alaska
DPrivate ~
Miles 'Ef
0 0 .45 0 .9 HDRAJas&a.lnc.
December 21108
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
~
~ Cresr:ent Litke.
'"' "tt ............... './~ ---........
Figure 2. The anadromous reach of Crescent 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).
21
140
120
100 -~ 80 0 -~ 60
LL
40
20
0
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
Crescent Creek Average Monthly Flows
51 cfs mean
annual flow
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Figure 3. Average monthly flow data at Crescent Creek. Average annual flow (for period of
record 1947-1958, from USGS gauge #15254000) is shown as a solid horizontal line (103 cfs).
400
300
-~
0
-200 3:
0
LL
100
Crescent Creek Flow Duration
0 +---~----~----~--~----~----~--~----~--
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
% Exceedance
90 100
Figure 4. Flow duration curve for Crescent 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 #15254000.
22
350
325
300
275
250
-225 ~ ~ 200
Q)
e> 175 t1S
£ 150 rn
0 125
100
75
50
Crescent Creek Discharge
,
~
t '
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
--Mean
--10%Excd --•
90%Excd
Manual08
• -... ~ ... , .... ,
25 E ·:: ·: -s:f::' ......... 0 I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
,
I .... "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6' 7 \S' 6' 7 \S' ~ ,~ vo v \9 v "'~ ir "'<9 ~ ~.> ~ ,.-7 (5\ 7 (5\
Figure 5. Crescent Creek historic discharge data from USGS gage #15254000 at the Quartz Creek Road bridge from (1949 to 1966)
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.
23
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -F igures
LAND STATUS
KPB Parcels and
Wa ter Rights
......... -. a-..-. ---.....-
Legend
o ...... -.
c::J 10D--
-105_...,._.__
.,0-~1~
-120-Collin -1:10 __ _
-131--IMpCIIIy
1111 11111--....,BIIIg -----WI..odgo -....... CobOIO -3eo--__ c-a.l_,l!lofg -820---140-Ciudl ----..,Bldg ---.. .__.. &--......... - 4 (-22.2011-> ;
1
Mies
2
IWE01Apl211011
__ ...........,.
-ADNR. KP8. GINA. USFS
1-ffi
Figure 6. Private parcels of Crescent Lake area. State and Federal lands are shown by yellow. Private properties are denoted by
other colors .
24
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
LAND STATUS
1
Water Rights
. &
I Mineral Estate
ProjeaArN4
Crescent Lake
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska
Legend
(? Projet Area 4
.. Federal Mining Claim
C Mineral Closing Order
.. State Mining Claim
• Surface Water Right
• Subsurface Water Right
~ Lake/Pond
~ lceMass
Project Area 4 (-22,200 acres)
+
~---L_ ___ _jMiles
0 1 2
Date; 22 Decembef 2008
Author: HOR Engineemg
Sources: ADNR, KPB, GINA
lilt
Figure 7. Water rights and mineral claims in the Crescent Lake area. Federal mining claims are shown by yellow shading. Aqua b
shading denotes state mining claims.
25
•• 1
I
!
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Figures
KHL SITE EVALUATION
PROJECT OPTION DESCRIPnONS
CRESCENT LAKE
OPTION 1
Date
Oct 2008
Figure 8. Alternative 1 for . the proposed project at Crescent Lake. Location of intake, possible
tunnel route, powerhouse location and proposed access routes are shown above.
26
Appendix A-Land Status Information
27
Private Property
PARCEL
ID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE LEGAL OWNER
T 4N R 1W SEC 3 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
SECTIONS 3 & 6 & 10 & 11 & 14 THROUGH 17
& 19 THROUGH 21 & PORTIONS OF
SECTIONS 4 & 5 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 18 EXCLUDING
67-KPB ROAD CRESCENT LAKE & PORTION OF SECTION 22 USDA FOREST
12532212 MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 13,977 NE1/2 N1/2 SW1/4 & PORTIONS OF SECTIONS SERVICE
T 4N R 2W & 3W SEC 1 SEWARD MERIDIAN
SW ALL OF R2W & R3W EXCLUDING KENAI
LAKE & ALL OF SEC 19 & 29 THRU 31 & THE
W1/2 & W1/2 E1/2 OF SEC 32 IN R2W &
67 KPB ROAD EXCLUDING THE NE1/4 & E1/2 SE1/4 OF SEC 2 USDA FOREST
11901102 MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 32,361 & ALL OF SEC 12 & W1/2 NW1/4 & SW1/4 & SERVICE
67-KPB ROAD 890 Institutional Accssry T 5N R 2W SEC 19 29 & 30 SEWARD UNITED
11930006 MAINTENANCE Bldg 80 MERIDIAN SW 0007937 US SURVEY 7937 STATES BLM
67-KPB ROAD T 5N R 2W SEC 20 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW ALASKA
11930007 MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 40 SW1/4 SW1/4 ADL 528917 STATED N R
67-KPB ROAD T 5N R 2W SEC 30 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW ALASKA
11930008 MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 27 SE1/4 NE1/4 EXCLUDING US SURVEY 7937 STATED N R
67-KPB ROAD T 5N R 2W SEC 29 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW ALASKA
11930009 MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 32 SW1/4 NW1/4 EXCLUDING USS 7937 STATED N R
T 5N R 2W SEC 13 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD 890 Institutional Accssry SEC 13 THRU 18 & 21 THRU 28 & PORTIONS USDA FOREST
11930015 MAINTENANCE Bldg 10,080 OF SEC 19 20 &29 SERVICE
T 5N R 2W SEC 19 20 29 30 SEWARD
MERIDIAN SW SE1/4 OF SEC 19 & N1/2
SW1/4 & SE1/4 SW1/4 SEC 20 & N1/2 NW1/4 &
SE1/4 NW1/4 SEC 29 & ALL OF SEC 30
67-KPB ROAD 890 Institutional Accssry EXCLUDING GL 1 THRU 3 & E1/2 NW1/4 & ALASKA
11930019 MAINTENANCE Bldg 814 SE1/4 NE1/4 & ASLS 92-22 & ASLS 85-339 & STATED N R
67-KPB ROAD T 5N R 2W SEC 32 33 34 35 & 36 SEWARD USDA FOREST
11934001 MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 3,200 MERIDIAN SW ALL OF SEC 32 THRU 36 SERVICE
T 5N R 1W SEC 22 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
67-KPB ROAD GOVT LOTS 1 & 2 & S1/2 NW1/4 & E1/2 SW1/4 ALASKA
12531010 MAl NTENANCE 1 00 Residential Vacant 383 & SW1/4 SW1/4 & NE1/4 SE1/4 & W1/2 SE1/4 STATED N R
I 5N R 1W SEC 19 SEWARD MERIDIAN SW
SECTIONS 19 & 28 THROUGH 35 & PORTIONS
OF SECTIONS 17 & 18 & 20 & 21 & 25 & 26 & 27
67-KPB ROAD & 36 LOCATED SOUTH & EAST OF THE USDA FOREST
12531023 MAINTENANCE 100 Residential Vacant 8,668 SEWARD HWY & UPPER TRAIL LAKE SERVICE
28
ADDRESS CITYSTATE LANDVAL
ANCHORAGE, AK
3301 C ST STE 300 99503 $8,386,200
ANCHORAGE, AK
3301 C ST STE 300 99503 $78,200,400
222W7THAVE ANCHORAGE, AK
STOP 13 99513 $439,900
550W7THAVE ANCHORAGE, AK
STE650 99501 $302,400
550W7THAVE ANCHORAGE, AK
STE 650 99501 $254,400
550W7THAVE ANCHORAGE, AK
STE 650 99501 $278,600
ANCHORAGE, AK
3301 C ST STE 300 99503 $6,536,900
550W 7TH AVE ANCHORAGE, AK
STE 650 99501 $1,572,500
ANCHORAGE, AK
3301 C ST STE 300 99503 $2,418,700
550W7THAVE ANCHORAGE, AK
STE650 99501 $386,000
ANCHORAGE, AK
3301 C ST STE 300 99503 $5,200,800
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
nmmatr A -Land Status
IMPVAL ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT
$0 $8,386,200 $0 FEDERAL
$0 $78,200,400 $0 FEDERAL
$7,200 $447,100 $0 FEDERAL
$0 $302,400 $0 STATE _j
!
$0 $254,400 $0 STATE
$0 $278,600 $0 STATE
$6,600 $6,543,500 $0 FEDERAL
$11,800 $1,584,300 $0 STATE
$0 $2,418,700 $0 FEDERAL
$0 $386,000 $0 STATE
$0 $5,200,800 $0 FEDERAL
Federal Mining Claims
PARCELID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE LEGAL OWNER
AKAA 014224 S 5N 2W 29 NW I No 1 Above Crescent ELLIS JENNIE
AKAA 051141 S 5N 2W 26 NW I Crescent No 14 ELLIS JENNIE
AKAA 060572 S 5N 2W 26 NW I Crescent No. 14 Bench No.2 ELLIS EDWARD E
AKAA 060571 S 5N 2W 27 NE I CRESCENT NO. 14 -BENCH NO. 1 ELLIS EDWARD E
AKAA 085295 S 5N 2W 29 NE I CRESCENT 4 DEMAREE JOE
AKAA 085294 S 5N 2W 29 NE I CRESCENT 3 DEMAREE JOE
AKAA 085296 S 5N 2W 29 NE I CRESCENT 5 DEMAREE JOE
AKAA 054608 S 5N 2W 29 NE I #2 ABOVE CRESCENT ELLIS EDWARD E
State Mining Claims
PARCELID TAXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE LEGAL OWNER ADDRESS
ADL 643470 40 S 5N 2W 20 I HARGOOD BENCH 1 WEST Smith Ronald S
ADL 643471 40 S 5N 2W 29 I HARGOOD BENCH 2 Smith Ronald S
ADL 643472 40 S 5N 2W 29 I HARGOOD BENCH 2 Smith Ronald S
ADL643473 40 S 5N 2W 20 I HARGOOD BENCH 3 Smith Ronald S
ADL654528 40 S 5N 2W 29 I ELDORADO 54 Wisdom Beverly
ADL653693 40 S 5N 2W 291 CRESENT CK 29 Wisdom Steven
Surface Water Right
PARCELIDITAXAREAIUSEAGEIACREAGE OWNER
ADL 203467 US Forest Service
Subsurface Water Right
PARCEL 10 T AXAREA USEAGE ACREAGE OWNER
ADL 203429 US Forest Service
29
ADDRESS CITYSTATE LANDVAL
CITYSTATE LANDVAL IMPVAL
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix A -Land Status
IMPVAL ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT
ASSESSED TAXABLE PLAT
Appendix B -Energy Calculations
30
Cresent Lk 0 MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: CRESENT.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 13000 40 .011 1
HEADWATER ELEV: 1454
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 904
NET HEAD@ FULL LOAD: 783.3
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 5845.0@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -PELTON 2-JET
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
31
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
0 0 0 0 0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
1950 2727.2 2804.2 1711.1 901.6 427.4 363.3 372.1 1444.2 3665.8 3264.8 1995.2 2511.5 22188.3
1951 1524.6 825.0 521.6 450.3 329.6 242.0 555.2 2062.9 3358.3 3097.1 1884.7 3353.8 18205.4
1952 1805.9 1332.4 521.0 279.0 226.4 244.9 170.4 1018.0 3270.0 3670.3 2538.8 1961.6 17038.8
1953 3942.7 3885.5 2209.1 1168.5 1160.0 896.2 780.8 3181.3 4040.0 4174.7 3492.4 2766.4 31697.7
1954 3000.8 1385.8 800.7 405.3 407.7 318.4 463.2 2618.8 3764.1 3213.6 3054.5 1778.6 21211.6
1955 2363.1 2914.1 1098.2 854.3 537.7 460.5 329.6 1111.3 3590.0 4174.7 3615.6 2558.3 23607.3
1956 1339.0 914.8 748.1 696.2 603.6 451.4 576.1 2006.9 3785.0 4060.4 3459.6 2273.2 20914.1
1957 1269.3 1096.9 1399.5 644.0 450.1 470.1 394.3 2868.6 3874.8 2687.5 1958.7 3633.0 20746.8
1958 3201.8 3195.5 1733.4 1445.6 628.8 528.7 806.5 2743.1 4040.0 3764.8 3406.7 2814.0 28308.9
1959 2361.8 1349.9 856.5 581.1 450.1 444.6 636.0 2789.1 4040.0 4041.4 2753.8 2013.5 22317.7
1960 1716.7 1560.5 929.6 619.4 466.2 451.4 530.6 3403.6 4040.0 4121.3 3833.9 3388.1 25061.5
1961 2640.8 1787.2 1949.4 2202.2 940.1 545.3 776.8 3172.2 3911.7 4174.7 3914.1 4040.0 30054.6
1962 2997.0 1498.1 946.7 799.5 537.7 595.3 827.2 1437.3 3663.1 3823.7 2179.6 1987.6 21292.7
1963 1267.8 1507.8 1054.2 753.5 537.7 565.9 565 2 1953.2 3838.7 4109.8 2833.5 1763.0 20750.3
1964 1774.4 1014.3 854.3 748.1 556.9 498.4 1773.9 3883.6 4040.0 4173.8 3821.9 2669.0 25808.6
1965 2562.8 1557.3 1007.0 566.2 391.3 709.2 1201.4 2366.9 3996.2 4173.8 3744.4 2840.5 25117.1
1966 1902.9 856.7 748.1 696.2 537.7 565.4 1013.8 2047.3 3932.1 3456.8 3460.9 3510.7 22728.5
AVERAGE 2258.7 1734.5 1122.9 812.4 540.5 491.2 692.5 2359.3 3814.7 3775.5 3055.8 2697.8 23355.9
32
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.46
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 0
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
-----
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 80.0 92.8 74.2
20 88.0 94.9 83.6
30 89.5 96.3 86.2
40 90.2 97.0 87.5
50 89.8 97.3 87.4
60 90.4 97.5 88.2
70 90.6 97.7 88.5
80 90.5 97.7 88.4
90 90.4 97.7 88.4
100 90.2 97.7 88.1
33
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
Cresent Lk 33% MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: CRESENT.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 13000 40 .011 1
HEADWATER ELEV: 1454
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 904
NET HEAD @ FULL LOAD: 783.3
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 5845.0@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -PELTON 2-JET
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
17 14 8 6 5
APR
4 5
34
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
19 43 35 23 22
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
1950 2002.3 2324.4 1330.8 593.4 102.7 0.0 95.7 601.6 2361.1 1815.3 894.4 1742.3 13864.0
1951 677.7 85.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 218.4 1127.3 1685.8 1581.2 768.5 2530.3 8674.4
1952 989.3 641.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 228.9 1935.1 2311.4 1494.3 945.6 8546.5
1953 3685.9 3647.7 1850.5 871.3 937.1 695.3 528.7 2565.1 4040.0 4075.9 2663.8 1834.9 27396.2
1954 2298.8 713.0 405.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.0 1821.9 2241.9 1712.1 2069.4 744.5 12063.8
1955 1615.1 2450.0 695.3 546.3 287.6 188.8 0.0 314.9 2569.7 4164.5 2873.6 1622.4 17328.3
1956 468.7 142.0 318.4 405.3 379.2 176.0 308.1 1102.3 2618.9 3313.7 2537.5 1294.2 13064.4
1957 364.0 355.6 1004.9 309.3 159.0 196.5 40.8 2103.4 3040.7 1083.7 852.3 2954.4 12464.5
1958 2659.9 2776.1 1353.9 1150.9 407.7 308.1 549.0 1915.7 3635.2 2495.6 2468.7 1883.3 21604.2
1959 1584.2 678.0 453.3 222.9 159.0 170.4 402.7 2124.8 4010.3 2928.7 1733.5 1007.3 15475.1
1960 889.8 905.2 528.8 279.0 164.7 176.0 196.1 2880.4 3533.8 3135.9 3168.7 2568.3 18426.8
1961 1885.2 1142.5 1586.2 1930.7 715.6 321.0 504.3 2533.2 3291.0 3997.3 3296.2 4040.0 25243.3
1962 2421.0 831.7 546.0 497.3 287.6 405.3 576.6 482.1 2806.2 2825.2 1100.2 980.9 13760.1
1963 384.0 845.5 645.2 456.3 287.6 344.4 292.9 1123.6 2310.0 3329.2 1823.8 726.6 12569.2
1964 950.9 263.8 451.4 451.4 297.9 242.0 1540.7 3527.6 4040.0 3774.2 3003.6 1727.1 20270.6
1965 1809.0 896.9 598.8 176.5 0.0 485.9 960.7 1510.7 2954.1 3724.1 2990.5 1915.5 18022.7
1966 1094.7 102.7 318.4 405.3 287.6 331.1 768.9 1147.9 3390.7 2030.0 2716.1 3083.0 15676.5
AVERAGE 1516.5 1106.0 711.0 488.0 263.1 237.7 414.2 1594.8 2968.5 2841.1 2144.4 1858.9 16144.1
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.32
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 44
35
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 80.0 92.8 74.2
20 88.0 94.9 83.6
30 89.5 96.3 86.2
40 90.2 97.0 87.5
50 89.8 97.3 87.4
60 90.4 97.5 88.2
70 90.6 97.7 88.5
80 90.5 97.7 88.4
90 90.4 97.7 88.4
100 90.2 97.7 88.1
36
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix B Energy Calculations
Cresent Lk 66% MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: CRESENT.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 13000 40 .011 1
HEADWATER ELEV: 1454
TAILWATER ELEV: 550
GROSS HEAD: 904
NET HEAD@ FULL LOAD: 783.3
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kW): 5845.0@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -PELTON 2-JET
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
34 28 16 12 10
APR
8 10
37
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
38 86 70 46 44
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
1950 1200.4 1795.2 943.3 208.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.0 802.8 493.8 0.0 1223.3 6780.5
1951 90.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 493.0 210.1 302.9 0.0 1583.0 2679.8
1952 241.3 130.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 789.9 617.1 443.4 85.4 2307.9
1953 3148.8 3281.5 1473.5 560.8 709.7 476.5 217.8 1788.3 3949.2 3547.1 1660.8 801.3 21615.5
1954 1513.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1128.0 353.1 275.1 971.2 0.0 4241.1
1955 830.7 1920.2 218.4 176.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 1604.2 3665.2 1911.8 690.1 11036.9
1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 327.5 940.7 1882.9 1494.6 242.8 4888.4
1957 0.0 130.7 533.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1418.5 1745.9 22.4 79.6 2088.1 6018.8
1958 1977.9 2304.2 957.5 854.3 0.0 0.0 268.9 1005.0 2283.6 861.7 1420.7 861.7 12795.4
1959 806.5 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 1669.9 2819.3 1363.8 579.0 0.0 7265.5
1960 181.7 304.2 59.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2345.4 1824.4 1611.1 2226.6 1620.2 10172.9
1961 1072.6 526.1 1183.4 1649.1 463.5 0.0 251.5 1779.7 2108.2 2895.3 2376.6 3558.9 17865.0
1962 1775.2 147.3 117.1 85.2 0.0 0.0 313.2 32.0 1868.7 1343.5 81.1 240.7 6004.1
1963 0.0 264.3 176.0 0.0 0.0 31.6 0.0 691.7 316.9 1922.3 693.0 26.2 4122.0
1964 148.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1314.9 3125.0 4040.0 2790.1 2014.1 674.9 14107.0
1965 990.7 151.2 156.7 0.0 0.0 259.8 719.2 569.7 1099.3 2685.5 2008.3 893.6 9533.9
1966 358.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.4 524.7 294.3 2062.0 548.0 1823.7 2606.9 8296.9
AVERAGE 843.4 645.6 342.3 207.9 69.0 49.8 212.8 988.3 1695.2 1578.1 1163.8 1011.6 8807.7
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.17
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 184
38
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 80.0 92.8 74.2
20 88.0 94.9 83.6
30 89.5 96.3 86.2
40 90.2 97.0 87.5
50 89.8 97.3 87.4
60 90.4 97.5 88.2
70 90.6 97.7 88.5
80 90.5 97.7 88.4
90 90.4 97.7 88.4
100 90.2 97.7 88.1
39
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
Cresent Lk 0 MIF POWER GENERATION
DATA FILE USED: CRESENT.QCH
MODEL DESCRIPTION
PIPE # LENGTH DIAMETER MANNING'S n MINOR LOSSES
1 13000 40 .Oll 1
HEADWATER ELEV: 1350
TAILWATER ELEV: 900
GROSS HEAD: 450
NET HEAD@ FULL LOAD: 329.3
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (kw): 2342.8@ 1 POWER FACTOR
STATION SERVICE LOSS: 1
TRANSFORMER LOSS: 1
TRANSMISSION LOSS: 1
SCHEDULED DOWN TIME: 1
TURBINE SELECTED: 1 -TURGO-GENERAL
GENERATOR SELECTED: GE
MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
0 0 0 0 0
APR
0 0
40
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
0 0 0 0 0
SIMULATED PRODUCTION IN MEGAWATT-HOURS
YEAR OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
1950 1205.9 1212.6 783.3 403.0 186.1 91.1
1951 699.4 367.6 227.1 196.1 85.4 0.0
1952 830.1 609.0 226.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
1953 1603.4 1581.5 1001.6 532.1 530.7 400.6
1954 1314.0 637.2 353.9 176.5 177.5 0.0
1955 1050.4 1256.2 498.5 379.7 234.2 200.5
1956 613.6 411.2 328.8 304.2 262.8 196.6
1957 579.8 494.8 637.3 281.9 196.0 202.2
1958 1359.8 1363.1 797.3 666.2 274.8 230.2
1959 1066.9 619.1 380.8 253.1 196.0 190.2
1960 785.5 713.9 416.6 269.8 203.0 196.6
1961 1188.1 813.9 871.7 981.6 424.6 237.5
1962 1290.7 687.6 424.8 353.4 234.2 259.2
1963 579.5 689.8 477.2 331. 5 234.2 246.6
1964 815.0 458.5 379.7 328.8 242.5 217.0
1965 1157.5 715.3 454.2 246.7 170.4 313.3
1966 870.3 382.3 328.8 304.2 234.2 247.2
AVERAGE 1000.6 765.5 505.2 353.4 228.6 189.9
AVERAGE PLANT FACTOR: 0.49
AVG. # DAYS/YEAR SHUTDOWN DUE TO LOW WATER: 15
APR
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTAL
100.0 658.2 1521.0 1397.3 916.1 1081.7 9556.1
242.3 932.8 1426.9 1345.0 864.7 1418.1 7805.6
0.0 461.7 1374.1 1548.4 1142.6 898.1 7090.9
347.5 1349.2 1619.4 1673.3 1485.5 1233.0 13357.6
201.7 1144.0 1555.5 1395.0 1345.2 816.9 9117.3
31.7 503.4 1489.6 1673.3 1520.2 1134.4 9972.1
250.9 914.3 1547.6 1647.3 1483.6 1036.9 8997.9
124.5 1226.2 1579.8 1204.5 896.0 1511.3 8934.5
355.2 1223.2 1619.4 1571.1 1469.6 1252.9 12182.8
277.3 1166.2 1619.4 1644.1 1235.5 924.6 9573.2
231.1 1424.0 1619.4 1663.2 1587.8 1443.5 10554.3
346.7 1354.3 1585.2 1673.3 1609.4 1619.4 12705.8
367.7 657.2 1515.6 1583.3 996.6 897.2 9267.6
246.1 851.8 1576.1 1659.5 1264.1 809.9 8966.3
799.1 1602.4 1619.4 1673.2 1588.7 1196.7 10921.0
548.8 1059.0 1609.9 1673.2 1549.0 1261.3 10758.5
458.7 937.3 1589.5 1469.1 1460.0 1463.1 9744.7
290.0 1027.4 1556.9 1558.5 1318.5 1176.4 9971.0
41
THIS SIMULATION USED THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES
% LOAD TURBINE GENERATOR COMBINED
-------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10 70.1 92.8 65.0
20 79.4 94.9 75.4
30 83.7 96.3 80.6
40 84.9 97.0 82.3
50 85.9 97.3 83.5
60 86.0 97.5 83.9
70 86.0 97.7 84.0
80 86.0 97.7 84.0
90 86.0 97.7 84.1
100 86.0 97.7 84.0
42
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix B-Energy Calculations
Appendix C -Cost Information
43
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information
CRESCENT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Powerhouse on Carter Creek -0% MIF
Item I Quamlty I Unit Unit Cost Amount
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights • Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Special use permits LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.3 Surveying LS $ 100.000 $ 100,000
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1 POWERHOUSE $
.1 Excavation 1200 CY $ 150 $ 180,000
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 230 CY $ 1,200 $ 276,000
.3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 150 $ 375,000
.4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50.000
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 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
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
.1 SITE WORK $
.1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 CRESCENT CREEK OUTLET s
. 1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 s 56,250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 s 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 $
.7 Misc. Metals LS $ 25,000 s 25,000
.3 INTAKE s
.1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 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 GatesNalve wloperator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120.000
.6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1.000 $
. 7 Misc. Metals LS $ 25,000 s 25,000
.8 Siphon pipe (marl & installation) LF $ 750 s
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100.000 $
.4 SLUICEWAY $
.1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45.000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 s 100,000
.3 Sluice Gate wloperator 1 LS s 100,000 $ 100,000
.4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000
.5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK $
.a Clearing 30 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 750,000
.b Steel penstock material 13000 LF $ 280 $ 3,640,000
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 500 CY $ 1,200 $ 600,000
.d Penstock installation 13000 LF $ 150 $ 1,950,000
.e Slope stabilization 3 Ml $ 250.000 $ 625,000
.f Surge tank 0 LS $ 100,000 $
.2 CARTER lAKE EXCAVATION
.a Excavation 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000
.b Backfill 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100.000
.3 TAILRACE
.a Excavation LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.b Support and lining LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
44
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information
CRESCENT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Powerhouse on Carter Creek -0% MIF
Item I Quantity I Unit Unit Cost Amount
333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 Supply LS s 2,610,000 $ 2,610,000
.2 Install LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENl
.1 Switchgear LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.2 Station Service LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.3 Control Panel LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
.4 Conduit/wires/cables LS s 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Power to intake LS $ 75,000 $ 75.000
335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1 Cooling Water System LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.2 Powerhouse crane LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1 Highway to Powerhouse 0.25 Ml $ 500,000 $ 125,000
.2 Powerhouse to intake 2.50 Ml $ 500,000 $ 1,250,000
.3 Intake to Cresent Creek outlet 5 Ml $ 500,000 $ 2,500,000
.4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 250.000 s 250,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land rights -transmission line LS s 10,000 s 10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1 Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 s 50,000
.2 Oil spill containment LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.3 Grounding grid LS $ 10,000 s 10,000
353 STATION EQUIPMENT
.1 Main transfonner LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.2 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000
356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1 New pole line 0.3 Ml $ 750,000 $ 187,500
Total Direct Construction Costs $ 31.500.000
Design Engineering 10% $ 3,150,000
FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% s 1,575,000
Construction Management 5% s 1,575,000
Subtotal s 38,800,000
Contingency 30% $ 11,640,000
Interest during construction 7% $ 11.352,000
2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 61,800,000
Annual Energy, MWh 23,400
Debt Service $ 4,489,703
O&M $ 738,000
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh $ 0.223
45
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information
CRESCENT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Powerhouse on Carter Creek -33% MIF
Item I Quantity I Unit Unit Cost Amount
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Special use permits LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.3 Surveying LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1 POWERHOUSE $
.1 Excavation 1200 CY $ 150 $ 180,000
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 230 CY $ 1,200 $ 276,000
.3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 150 $ 375,000
.4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS s 50,000 $ 50,000
.6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 s 25,000
. 7 Fire Protection 1 LS s 25,000 s 25,000
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
.1 SITE WORK $
.1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50,000 s 50,000
.2 CRESCENT CREEK OUTLET $
. 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 $ 50.000
.4 Control Gates/Valve w/operator 1 LS s 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY s 1,200 s 120,000
.6 Concrete (mass) CY s 1,000 s
. 7 Misc. Metals LS s 25,000 s 25,000
.3 INTAKE s
.1 Excavation 375 CY s 150 $ 56,250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100.000
. 3 Trash racks 1 LS s 50,000 s 50,000
.4 Control Gates/Valve w/operator 1 LS s 150,000 s 150,000
. 5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY s 1,200 $ 120,000
.6 Concrete (mass) CY s 1,000 s
. 7 Misc. Metals LS s 25,000 s 25.000
.8 Siphon pipe (mat'l & installation) LF s 750 $
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS s 100,000 $
.4 SLUICEWAY s
.1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 s 45,000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.3 Sluice Gate w/operator 1 LS $ 100,000 s 100,000
.4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY s 1,200 $ 120,000
.5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK $
.a Clearing 30 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 750,000
.b Steel penstock material 13000 LF $ 280 $ 3,640,000
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 500 CY $ 1,200 s 600.000
.d Penstock installation 13000 LF $ 150 $ 1,950,000
.e Slope stabilization 3 Ml s 250,000 $ 625,000
.f Surge tank 0 LS $ 100,000 $
.2 CARTER LAKE EXCAVATION
.a Excavation 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000
.b BackfiH 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000
.3 TAILRACE
.a Excavation LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.b Support and lining LS s 25,000 $ 25,000
46
Crescent Lake ~Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C ~ Cost Information
CRESCENT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Powerhouse on Carter Creek • 33% MIF
Item I Quantity I Unit Unit Cost Amount
333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 Supply LS $ 2,610,000 $ 2,610,000
.2 Install LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENl
.1 Switchgear LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.2 Station Service LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.3 Control Panel LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
.4 Conduit/wires/cables LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Power to intake LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000
335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1 Cooling Water System LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.2 Powerhouse crane LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
336 ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1 Highway to Powerhouse 0.25 Ml $ 500,000 $ 125,000
.2 Powerhouse to intake 2.50 Ml $ 500,000 $ 1,250,000
.3 Intake to Cresent Creek outlet 5 Ml $ 500,000 $ 2,500,000
.4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land rights -transmission line LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1 Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Oil spill containment LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.3 Grounding grid LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
353 STATION EQUIPMENl
.1 Main transformer LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.2 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000
356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1 New pole line 0.3 Ml $ 750,000 $ 187,500
Total Dired Construction Costs $ 31,500,000
Design Engineering 10% $ 3,150,000
FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 1,575,000
Construction Management 5% $ 1,575,000
Subtotal $ 38,800,000
Contingency 30% $ 11,640,000
Interest during construction 7% $ 11,352,000
2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 61,800,000
Annual Energy, MNVh 16,100
Debt Service $ 4,489,703
O&M $ 738,000
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh $ 0.325
47
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information
CRESCENT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Powerhouse on Carter Creek-66% MIF
Item I Quantity I Unit Unit Cost Amount
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land Rights -Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Special use permits LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.3 Surveying LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1 POWERHOUSE $
. 1 Excavation 1200 CY $ 150 $ 180,000
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 230 CY $ 1,200 $ 276,000
.3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 150 $ 375,000
.4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
. 7 Fire Protection 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
.1 SITE WORK $
.1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 CRESCENT CREEK OUTLET $
.1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56,250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.4 Control GatesNalve w/operator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000
.6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $
. 7 Misc. Metals LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.3 INTAKE $
.1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56,250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
. 3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.4 Control GatesNalve w/operator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000
.6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $
. 7 Misc. Metals LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.8 Siphon pipe (mafl & installation) LF $ 750 $
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100,000 $
.4 SLUICEWAY $
. 1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45,000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.3 Sluice Gate w/operator 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000
.5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK $
.a Clearing 30 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 750,000
.b Steel penstock material 13000 LF $ 280 $ 3,640,000
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 500 CY $ 1,200 $ 600,000
.d Penstock installation 13000 LF $ 150 $ 1,950,000
.e Slope stabilization 3 Ml $ 250,000 $ 625,000
.f Surge tank 0 LS $ 100,000 $
.2 CARTER LAKE EXCAVATION
.a Excavation 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000
.b Backfill 610000 CY $ 10 $ 6,100,000
.3 TAILRACE
.a Excavation LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.b Support and lining LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
48
Crescent Lake ~Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix C Cost Information
CRESCENT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Powerhouse on Carter Creek • 66o/o MIF
Item I Quantity I Unit Unit Cost Amount
333 WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
.1 Supply LS $ 2,610.000 $ 2,610,000
.2 Install LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
.1 Switchgear LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.2 Station Service LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.3 Control Panel LS $ 250,000 s 250,000
.4 Conduit/'wireslcables LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Power to intake LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000
335 MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
.1 Cooling Water System LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.2 Powerhouse crane LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
336 ROADS. RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
.1 Highway to Powerhouse 0.25 Ml $ 500,000 s 125,000
.2 Powerhouse to intake 2.50 Ml $ 500,000 $ 1.250,000
.3 Intake to Cresent Creek outlet 5 Ml $ 500,000 $ 2.500,000
.4 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS s 250.000 $ 250,000
350 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
.1 Land rights • transmission line LS $ 10,000 $ 10.000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
352 (TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
.1 Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Oil spill containment LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
,3 Grounding grid LS $ 10.000 $ 10.000
353 STATION EQUIPMENT
.1 Main transformer LS s 100,000 $ 100,000
.2 Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000
356 OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
.1 New pole line 0.3 Ml s 250,000 s 62,500
Total Direct Construction Costs $ 31.400.000
Design Engineering 10% $ 3.140.000
FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000
ONner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 1.570,000
Construction Management 5% $ 1.570,000
Subtotal $ 38.680,000
Contingency 30% $ 11.604,000
Interest during construction 4% $ 6.279,000
2008 Estimated Project Cost $ 56,570,000
AnnuaiEnEWgy, MWh 8,800
Debt Service $ 4.109,749
O&M $ 736,800
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh s 0.551
49
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix C Cost Information
CRESCENT LAKE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Run of river • Powerhouse on Crescent Creek
~em I Quantity I Unit I Unit Cost Amount
330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
. 1 Land Rights • Generation Plant LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 Special use permits LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.3 Surveying LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1 POWERHOUSE $
. 1 Excavation 1200 CY $ 150 $ 180,000
.2 Concrete (incl. reinforcement) 226 CY $ 1,200 $ 271,200
.3 Metal Building 2500 SF $ 150 $ 375,000
.4 Misc. Metals 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.5 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.6 Grounding Grid 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
. 7 Fire Protection 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS AND WATERWAYS
.1 SITE WORK $
. 1 Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.2 DAM AND SPILLWAY $
.2 Excavation 500 CY $ 150 $ 75,000
.3 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.4 Concrete (structural) CY $ 1,200 $
.5 Concrete (mass) 400 CY $ 1.000 $ 400,000
.3 INTAKE $
. 1 Excavation 375 CY $ 150 $ 56,250
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.3 Trash racks 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
.4 Control Gates/Valve wloperator 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
.5 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000
.6 Concrete (mass) CY $ 1,000 $
.7 Misc. Metals LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.8 Siphon pipe (mat'l & installation) LF $ 750 $
.9 Siphon electrical & mechanical LS $ 100,000 $
.4 SLUICEWAY $
.1 Excavation 300 CY $ 150 $ 45,000
.2 Care of Water/Diversion 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.3 Sluice Gate w/operator 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
.4 Concrete (structural) 100 CY $ 1,200 $ 120,000
.5 WATER CONDUCTORS AND ACCESSORIES
.1 PENSTOCK $
.a Clearing 40 ACRE $ 25,000 $ 1,000,000
50
.2
333
. 1
.2
334
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
335
.1
.2
336
.1
.2
.3
350
.1
352
.1
.2
.3
353
.1
.2
356
.1
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Iriformation
.b Steel penstock material 15000 LF $ 280 $ 4,200,000
.c Concrete (thrust blocks and supports) 400 CY $ 1,200 $ 480,000
.d Penstock installation 17500 LF $ 150 $ 2.625,000
.e Slope stabilization 3 Ml $ 250,000 $ 825,000
.f Surge tank 0 LS $ 100,000 $
TAILRACE
.a Excavation LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
.b Support and lining LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
WATERWHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS
Supply 1 LS $ 1,035,000 $ 1,035,000
Install 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Switchgear LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Station Service LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Control Panel LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Conduit/wires/cables LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Power to intake LS $ 75,000 $ 75,000
MISC. POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT
Cooling Water System 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Powerhouse crane 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
ROADS, RAILROADS AND BRIDGES
Road to Powerhouse 0.50 Ml $ 500,000 $ 250,000
Powerhouse to intake 1.00 Ml $ 300,000 $ 300,000
Clearing/Drainage/Erosion Control LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
Land rights -transmission line LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
(TRANSMISSION FACILITY)
Substation foundations LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Oil spill containment LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Grounding grid LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
STATION EQUIPMENT
Main transformer LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Accessory switchgear equipment LS $ 350,000 $ 350,000
OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS & DEVICES
New pole line 1.8 Ml $ 750,000 $ 1,312,500
Total Direct Construction Costs $ 17,100,000
Design Engineering 10% $ 1,710,000
FERC and other licensing $ 1,000,000
Owner's General Administration & overhead 5% $ 855,000
Construction Management 5% $ 855,000
51
Contingency
Interest during construction
2008 Estimated Project Cost
Annual Energy, MWh
Debt Service
O&M
2008 Cost of Energy, $/kWh
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Information
Subtotal $ 21,520,000
30% $ 6,456,000
7% $ 6,296,000
$ 34,280,000
10,000
$ 2,490,405
$ 565,200
$ 0.306
52
Dam
Type
Crest Length
Max height
Crest width
Section
A
8
c
Excavation
Width
Depth
Volume
Box Intake
Length
Width
Height
Thickness, avg
Concrete volumes
Floor
Walls
Total
Excavation
Sluiceway
Length
Width
Height
Thickness, avg
Concrete volumes
Floor
Walls
Excavation
Crescent Lake-Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix C-Cost Information
Simple concrete gravity
250ft
9ft
1.5
length height area, sf vol, cy
50% 100% 54 250
30% 80% 37 102
20% 50% 17 31
383
27
2
500 cy
30
15
15
1.5
25 cy
75
100 cy
375 cy
30
10
18
2
17 cy
70
87
300 cy
53
PENSTOCK
Hood 904ft
Flow 100 cis
Vel. max 12 Ips
016, req 39.1 inches
1.req 0.4254
1. handling 0 1477
1.mifl 0.4254
wt. It 163.3 lbs
orna 10.2
Cost
~lalefiol $ 1.50 lb
Lining $ 1.50 sf
Coating $ 1.50 sf
Supports
Spon 60ft
lenglh 15000
# 250
Width. 2d 6.5163521
Dap!h .. 5d 1.62906$
Height. .5d 1.62906$
Vol 160.12896
Thrust Blocks
# 25.0
Wldtfl. 2d 6.5163521
Dap!h.2d 6.5163521
Height 2d 6.5163521
Vol 250.20634
Toto! 416.33531
$ 244.00
$ 15.35
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix C-Cost Iriformation
Trench 21 slope .. Depth Aroo Vol
length 7750 25°o 50 5400 387500
sou. 25 1450 208102
25°o 8 192 13778
Bose width 8 609380 cy
54
POWERHOUSE
Powerhouse structure
Metal Building
Length
Width
Thickness
tailrace chamber
Length
Width
Depth
Thickness, avg
Concrete Volumes
Foundation
Floor
Building Cost
Crescent Lake Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report-Appendix C --Cost Information
2500
50
50
2
15
8
6
4
40.9
185.2
226.0741
375000
55
Excavation
375000
1200
Appendix D -Project Photographs
56
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix D -Photos
Looking at Carter Lake from end of Crescent lake. Intake on this side would have to be
trenched across this bench.
Head of Crescent Creek. Hiking bridge to cabin in foreground.
27
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix D -Photos
Flat section of crescent creek assumed prime fish habitat.
Canyon and bend in upper left of picture.
28
Canyon section of creek.
Crescent Lake -Proposed Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Report -Appendix D-Photos
29